Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/

BS
234 Y

/Mb23
1) <0

"7

Moy Heck Ma god tat helm
| Cmrre bang mw Uy Nev Vesteuned leEY,

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

HAND-BOOK

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
43?

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz.D.,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
G. H. VENABLES.

WITH A PREFACE, TRANSLATION OF REFERENCES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY
NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY
HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D..,

PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH AT PHILADELPHIA, AND LATE PROFESSOR OF THE
GREEK LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, PENNSYLVANIA
OOLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA.

NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, |
10 anp 12 Dsy STREET.

1884.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.

PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

‘‘TuE Epistle to the Galatians is my epistle. I have betrothed myself
to it. It is my wife.’? These words of Luther express most forcibly
the relation of the first epistle treated in this volume to the great strug-
gles whereby Protestant Christianity came into being as the revivification
of the pure gospel taught by St. Paul. The doctrine of justification
by faith alone without works, the articulus vel stantts vel cadentis ecclesiae,
is its great theme, which is unfolded with matchless skill and defended
with intensest ardor against the various perversions so abundant in mod-
ern Christianity, that had already manifested themselves in apostolic days.
Luther’s own commentary of 1519, of which John Bunyan said: ‘I
do prefer this book of Martin Luther upon the Galatians, excepting the
Holy Bible, before all books that I have ever seen, as most fit fora
wounded conscience,’’ owes all its power to the high degree with which
Luther has caught the spirit of Paul, and applies his argument, with the
same earnestness to the relations of a later time. It should be a mat-
ter of special gratitude, that, however fierce the battle waged over some
of the other epistles of Paul, the authenticity of this epistle, which per-
tains to the very centre of our faith, is all but universally conceded, only
one writer (Bruno Baur), and that one not of very high repute, having ven-
tured to question it, and that, too, on assumptions that can be instantly
answered. The entire theory of salvation by faith and works, which
modern Pelagianism would introduce into Protestantism, is at once met
in unmistakable words, as well as, also, the suggestion that original
Christianity was legalistic until St. Paul introduced the new element of
evangelical freedom, since this epistle asserts so emphaticaliy the har-
mony between the apostles.

The epistle to the Ephesians, belonging to a later period, when the
apostle was forcibly restrained from engaging in the active prosecution
of his life work, admits us into some of the great thoughts that engaged
his meditations. While bearing the true Pauline type, and constantly
urging the same great phase of Christian doctrine, with his characteristic
ardor, in the depths into which it penetrates, and the constant connection
made between practical themes and the highest mysteries of faith, it ap-

iV PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

proaches above the other epistles of St. Paul the modes of thought and
reasoning found in St. John. Its long and involved sentences recall
the Epistle to the Romans, and remind us how inadequate the earthly
vessels to contain the abundance of divine revelation committed to
them. Its entire theme is found in ch. i. 20-23—viz., that Christ
is the centre and goal of all things to His church. From this
standpoint the development is so thorough, and extends over so vast a
compass, that in weighing the words of the epistle we are brought into
the closest contact with the most profound mysteries connected with al-
most every article of revelation. The full discussion of the more impor-
tant terms employed in this epistle would, if systematically arranged,
form almost a complete body of doctrine.

We doubt whether in any of his commentaries the peculiar excellences
of Meyer as an expositor display themselves with better effect than in
this volume. His simplicity, general clearness, thorough acquaintance
with everything pertaining to the text of the Scriptures, astonishing in-
dustry in the study, collection, and condensation of the labor of all
important writers of all ages, Janguages, and confessions on the topics
treated, characteristic candor in expressing his doubts concerning diffi-
culties that confronted him, and in even criticising and correcting his
own statements in former editions, are nowhere more apparent. However
mistaken we may at times regard his judgment, we must ever hold in
high esteem his work, as a handbook for scholars, that in its sphere is
without a rival. Traces of the rationalistic opinions with which he
started, but from which, as years of study followed, he was gradually
delivered, are to be found in his comments on these epistles. Such is,
for example, the low view which he takes of inspiration, and the conse-
quent undervaluing of the trustworthiness of the Book of Acts, leading to
avery ready solution, on his part, of seeming contradictions, by deciding
that St. Luke was, of course, incorrect. In several passages the subordi-
nation of the Son to the Father is maintained. Christological mysteries
find a too ready explanation by the introduction of conceptions circum-
scribing our Lord with local limitations, even in the hidden glory in
which He has entered. Man’s natural estate is denied to be one in
which He is actually beneath God’s anger. By birth he is not a child
of wrath, but becomes such by the development of innate principles of
evil, in opposition to the moral will inclining to what is good, wherewith
he is also endowed. This result, however, inevitably follows in every
one ‘‘ who lives long enough to be able tosin.’’ Man’s powers are only
impaired, not dead with respect to spiritual things. It would be very
unjust, however, to at once apply to our author the terms by which the
advocates of such errors are ordinarily designated in the history of doc-

PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vv

trines and heresies. They are not developed in Meyer with any consis-
tency. He seems often to recoil from the conclusions to which his
premises lead, while the entire method and line of argument pursued
show how the subtile and pervasive poison of earlier life is gradually
being expelled by the ever closer contact of the author with the great
thoughts of eternity.

The work of the American editor has been, first, to make such changes
in the Edinburgh translation as seemed to be required by the English
idiom. Not many passages were found where an emendation was
deemed necessary. A second task was to transfer to the footnotes most
of such references as were unessential to the sense contained in the text.
In this way we think that the commentary has been made much more
readable. Where references have been retained in the text, there has
generally been some reason for it. Thirdly, the great body of quotations
from foreign languages have been translated. Exceptions have occurred,
as on p. 464, Note 1, and p. 468, Note 6, where the force of the quota-
tion is found in the very words employed, or their order, rather than
in the thought conveyed. Several passages have been allowed to stand
without a translation for euphemistic reasons. Fourthly, the text of the
translation has been compared with the revised Meyer, and all changes
made by the editors noted. The original intention was toembody them
all in the notes. This, however, was soon seen to be impossible in the
compass of the twenty-eight pages allowed us. Dr. Friedrich Sieffert,
of Erlangen, who has edited the volume on Galatians, as the Sixth Edi-
tion of Meyer, Gdttingen, 1880, has so thoroughly wrought over the mate-
tial in Meyer’s own last edition, with so much scholarly independence,
and so many omissions, additions, and arguments taking exception to
Meyer, that the result may almost be regarded an entirely new commen-
tary prepared on the basis of Meyer. On the contrary, Dr. W. Schmidt,
of Leipzig, in the Fifth Edition of the Commentary on Ephesians,
Gottingen, 1878, has confined himself almost entirely to the work of
an editor, and made only a very few changes. It has been our aim,
accordingly, to include in our notes only the more important variations
from Meyer in these later editions, and to these to add such other notes,
selected and original, as we thought might serve the purposes of the stu-
dents into whose hands this volume would fall. In many of these notes
we have had in view the indication of what we belicved to be important
errors in our revered author. Fifthly, additions have been made to the
critical apparatus prefaced to each chapter, mostly from the revised
German Meyer above mentioned. These we did not deem it necessary
in all cases to indicate, the effort being simply to preserve intact all the
comments. The references to Winer’s New Testament Grammar are

vi PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

to the Seventh German Edition; and as Prof. Thayer’s American
edition indicates the paging of this edition on the margin, the references
to the Edinburgh edition in the translation we have revised were erased.

Special acknowledgments are due Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brook-
lyn, N. Y., whose acholarly attainments we have long known, and who
has exercised the same careful supervision over this volume as it passed
through the preas that he has given the other volumes of the series.

We can only regret that our portion of work had to be performed
amidst the distraction of numerous other engagements, and. without
either time or space for such thorough editing as would fulfil our ideal.
Every hour spent on it has been one of mingled pleasure and profit.

Henry E. Jacoss.
PHILADELPHIA, Oclober 15th, 1884.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

Some account of the circumstances in which this translation has been
undertaken, of the plan adopted in preparing it, and of the abbrevia-
tions used throughout, will be found prefixed to the Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, which also contains a Preface’specially written
by Dr. Meyer for the English edition of his work.

It is unnecessary: here to repeat the explanations there given except in
so far as they concern the conrse which I have followed in presenting to
the English reader Dr. Meyer’s work without subtraction or addition.
In reproducing so great a masterpiece of exegesis, I have not thought it
proper to omit any part of its discussions or of its references—however
little some of these may appear likely to be of interest or use to English
scholars—because an author such as Dr. Meyer is entitled to expect that
his work shall not be tampered with, and I have not felt myself at
liberty to assume that the judgment of others as to the expediency of any
omission would coincide with my own. Nor have I deemed it neces-
sary to append any notes of dissent from, or of warning against, the views
of Dr. Meyer, even where these are decidedly at variance with opinions
which I hold. Strong representations were made to me that it was de-
sirable to annex to certain passages notes designed to counteract their
effects ; but it is obvious that, if I had adopted this course in some
instances, I should have been held to accept or approve the author’s
views in other cases, where I had not inserted any such caveat. The
book is intended for, and can in fact only be used with advantage by,
the professional scholar. Its general exegetical excellence far outweighs
its occasional doctrinal defects; and in issuing it without note or com-
ment, 1 take for granted that the reader will use it, as he ought, with
discrimination. The English commentaries of Bishop Ellicott, Dr.
Lightfoot, and Dr. Eadie serve admirably from different points of view—
philological, historical, doctrinal—to supplement and, when necessary,
to correct it ; as does also the American edition of the Commentary
in Lange’s Bibelwerk, translated and Jargely augmented under the super-
intendence of Dr. Schaff.

The translation of the present volume has been executed with care by

Vill PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

Mr. Venables, and remains in substance his work ; but, as I have revised
it throughout and carried it through the press, it is only due to him that
I should share the responsibility of the form in which it appears. In
translating a work of this nature, the value of which mainly consists in
the precision and subtlety of its exegesis, itis essential that there should
be a close and careful reproduction of the form of the original ; but, in
looking over the sheets, I find not a few instances in which the desire to
secure this fidelity has led to an undue retention of German idiom.
This, I trust, may be less apparent in the volumes that follow.

In such a work it is difficult, even with great care, to avoid the occur-
rence of misprints, several of which have been observed by Mr. Venables
and myself in glancing over the sheets. Minor errors, such as the occa-
sional misplacing of accents, it has not been thought necessary formally
to correct. We have taken the opportunity of correcting in the transla-
tion various misprints found in the original. The commentator referred
to in the text as ‘‘ Ambrose’’ (from his work on the Pauline Epistles
being frequently printed with the works of that Father) ought to have
been designated, as in the critical notes, ‘‘ Ambrosiaster,’’ and is usually
identified with Hilary the Deacon.

I subjoin a note of the exegetical literature of the Epistle, which may
be found useful.

W. P. D.
Guiascow CoLLEGE, May, 1873.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

[Fork commentaries embracing the whole New Testament, see Preface to
the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for those which deal with
the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see Preface to the Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes only those which con-
cern the Epistle to the Galatians in particular, or in which that Epistle holds
the first place on the title-page. Works mainly of a popular or practical
character have not in general been included, since, however valuable they may
be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical
character of the present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are gen-
erally noticed by Meyer in loc. The reader will find a very valuable notice of
the Patristic commentaries given by Dr. Lightfoot, 6th ed., p. 227 sqq.]

AKERSLOOT (Theodorus), Heformed minister in Holland: de Sendbrief van
Pauilus an de Galaten, 4to, Leyd. 1695 ; translated into German by

Brussken. 4° Bremen, 1699.
AvRIVILLIvS (Olaus): Animadversiones exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in
Epistolam S. Pauli ad Galatas. 4°, Halae, 1702.

Baaae (Henry T. J.): St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, the text revised and
illustrated by a commentary. 8°, Lond. 1857.

Barrvus (Bartholomius), Professor of Theology at Greifswald : Commentarii in
» Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Gryphisw. 1613.

BauMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), Professor of Theology at Halle: Auslegung der
Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Philipp., Coloss., Philem., und

Thessal. (Mit. Beytragen von J. 8. Semler). 4°, Halle, 1767.
BetuLetvus (Matthiius): Epistola Pauli ad Galatas, paraphrasi et controversia-
rum explicatione illustrata. 8°, Halae Sax. 1617.
BorGer (Elias Annes), Professor of Greek and History at Leyden: Interpreta-
tio Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 8°, Leyd. 1807.
Boston (Thomas), minister of Ettrick : A Paraphrase upon the Epistle of Paul
to the Galatians [Works, vol. vi.]. 12°, Lond. 1853.

BreirHavpr (Joachim Justus), Professor of Theology at Halle : Observationum
ex Commentario Lutheri in Epistolam ad Galatas exercitationes 10 ;
in his ‘‘ Miscellanea.”

Brentz (Johann), Provost at Stuttgard : Explicatio Epistolae ad Galatas. 1558.

Brown (John), D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presby-
terian Church, Edinburgh : An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to
the Galatians. 8°, Edin. 1853.

BuGENHAGEN (Johann), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Adnotationes in
Epistolas ad Gal., Eph., Puilipp., Coloss., Thess., Timoth., Tit., Phi-
lem., et Hebraeos. 8°, Basil, [1525] 1527.

Caney (Sir Stafford), M.A.: The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians,
with « paraphrase and introduction. 12°, Lond. 1867.
Carpzov (Johann Benedict), Professor of Theology and Greek at Helmstadt :
Brief an die Galater tibersetzt. 8°, Helmstadt, 1794.

x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

CuanDLEr (Samuel), minister in London : A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epis-
tles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, . . . together with a
critical and practical commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to

the Thessalonians. 49 Lond. 1777.
CHEMnNTITz (Christian), Professor of Theology at Jena: Collegium theologicum
super Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Jenne, 1656.
CayTragEvs [or Kocunare] (David), Professsor of Theology at Rostock : Enar-
ratio in Epistolam ad Galatas. 8°, Francof. 1569.

Cuavpivs Taurinensis, Bishop of Turin, called also Altissiodorensis or Autissi-
odorensis : Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas [in Magn. Bibl.

Vet. Patr. ix.].
Coccesvs [or Kocu] (Johann), Professor of Theology at Leyden : Commentarius
in Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1665.

CRELL (Johann), Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli
ad Galatas ex praelectionibus J. Crellii conscriptus a Jon. Schlichting.
8°, Racov. 1628.

Eaprz (John), D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to United
Presbyterian Church, Glasgow : A Commentary on the Greek text of
the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. 8° Edin. 1869.
Exuicott (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians ; with a critical and grammatical commen-
tary, and a revised translation.

8vo, Lond. 1854. 4th edition corrected, 1867.

Esmarcg (Heinrich Peter Christian) : Brief an die Gilater tibersetzt.
8°, Flensb. 1784.

FERGUSON (James), minister of Kilwinning, Ayrshire: A brief Exposition of
the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. 8°, Lond. 1659.

Fuatr (Johann Friedrich von), Professor of Thelogy at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen
tiber den Brief an die Galater und Epheser, herausgegeben von Ch. F.
Kling. 8°, Tiibing. 1828.

FrirzscHE (Karl Friedrich August), Professor of Theology at Rostock : Com-
mentarius de nonnullis Epistolae ad Galatas locis. 3 partes. 4°, Ros-
toch. 1833-4 (and in Fritzschiorum Opuscula. ]

GRYNAEUS e ohann Jakob), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg: Analysis Epis-
tolae ad Galatas. 4° Basil. 1583.

Gwynne (G. J.) : Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.
8°, Dubl. 1863.

Haupane (James Alexander), Edinburgh : An Exposition of the Epistle to the

Galatians. 12°, Lond. 1848.
HENsLER (Christian Gotthilf), Professor of Theology at Kiel: Der Brief an die
Galater iibersetzt mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Leip. 1805.
HERMANN (Johann Gottfried Jakob), Professor of Poetry at Leipzig : De Pauli
Epistolae ad Galatas tribus primis capitibus. 8°, Lips. 1832.

H1mGEnNFELD (Adolf), Professor of Theology at Jena: Der Galaterbrief iibersetzt,
in seinen geschichtlichen Beziehungen untersucht und erklirt.
8°, Leip. 1852.
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Professor of Theology at Erlangen :
Die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht.
II. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Galater.
8°, Nérdlingen, 1863 ; 2te veranderte Auflage, 1872.
Ho.stTeEn (Carl), Teacher in Gymnasium at Rostock : Inhalt und Gedankengang
des Briefes an die Galater, 4to, Rostock 1859; also, Zum Evangelium
des Paulus und Petrus. 8°, Rostock, 1868.

JaTHo (Georg Friedrich). Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli Brief
an die Galater nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erliutert. _
8°, Hildesheim 1856.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xi

Knaovse (Friedrich August Wilhelm), Private tutor at Vienna : Der Brief an die
Galater iibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 8°, Frankf. 1788.
Kromayer (Hieronymus), Professor of Theology at Leipzig : Commentarius in

Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Lips. 1670.
Kunap (Andreas), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Disputationes in
Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Witteb. 1658.

Licnt¥root (Joseph Barber), D.D., Professor of Divinity at Cambridge: St.
Paul’s Epistle to the Galatiags. A revised text, with introduction,
notes, and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1865. 6th edition, 1880.
Locke (John), the philosopher : A Paraphrase and notes on the Epistles to Ga-
latians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians.
4°, Lond. 1733.
Lusnineton (Thomas), M.A., Rector of Burnham-Westgate, Norfolk : A Com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [said to be chiefly translated
from de fol., Lond. 1650.
LurHer (Martin): In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius (brevior), 4to,
Lips. 1519 ; ab auctore recognitus, 1523. In Epist. P. ad Gal. Com-
mentarius (major) ex praelectionibus D. M. Lutheri collectus ...a
Luthero recognitus et castigatus, 8vo, Viteb. 1535 ; jam denuo diligen-
ter recognitus, 8vo, Viteb. 1538. Often reprinted ; translated into
English in 1575, and often re-issued.
Lyser [or Lrysrr} (Polycarp), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Analysis
Epistolae ad Galatas. 4°, Witteb. 1586.

Marruias (G. W.), Co.rector of Gymnasium at Cassel : Der Galaterbrief griech-
isch und deutsch, nebst einer Erklarung seiner schwierigen Stellen.
8°, Cassel, 1865.
Matrures (Konrad Stephan), Professor of Theology at Greifswald : Erklirung
des Briefes Pauli an die Galater. 8°, Greifswald, 1833.
Maver (Ferdinand Gregorius), Professor of Greek at Vienna: Der Brief Pauli
an die Galater und der 2 Brief an die Thessalonicher tibersetzt mit
Anmerkungen. 8°, Wien, 1788.
Micnaexis (Johann David), Professor of Philosophy at Gottingen : Paraphrase
und Anmerkungen fiber die Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil.,
Col., Thessal., Tim., Tit., Philem. 4°, Bremen und Gdtting. 1750;
2te vermehrte Auflage, 1769.
Mo.upENHAWER (Johann Heinrich Daniel), pastor at Hamburg: Brief an die
Galater tibersetzt. 8°, Hamb. 1773.
Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), Professor of Theology at Leipzig:
Acroases in Epistolas Paulinas ad Galatas et Ephesios.
8°, Leip. 1795.
Mcscuius [or Mevsstin] (Wolfgang), Professor of Theology at Berne: In
Epistolas Apostoli Pauli ad Galatas et Ephesios commentarii.
fol., Basil, (1561) 1569.

Pargrvus [or WAENGLER] (David), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg: In di-
vinam S. Pauli ad Galatas Epistolam commentarius.

40, Heidelb. 1613.
Pavtus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg : Des
Apostel Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater und Rémerchristen, wort-
getreu iibersetzt mit erlauternden Zwischensi&tzen, einem Uberblick

des Lehrinhalts und Bemerkungen iiber schwere Stellen.
8°, Heidelb. 1831.
Peexims (William), minister at Cambridge : A commentarie or exposition upon
the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians . . . Continued
with a oe aera upon the sixt chapter by Rodolfe Cudworth, B. D.
Works, vol. ii. ]. 2°, Lond. 1609.
Prue (John), Fellow of New College, Oxford: Exposition and observations
upon St. Paul to the Galatians. 8°, Oxf. 1587.

Rerrumarr (Franz Xaver), R. C. Professor of Theology at Munich: Com-
mentar zum Briefe an die Galater. \ 8°, Manchen, 1865.

X11 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE,

RiccautToun (Robert), minister at Hobkirk : Notes and Observations on the

Epistle to the Galatians [ Works, iii. ]. 8°, Edin. 1771.
Ro.1iock (Robert), Principal of University of Edinburgh : Analysis logica in
Epistolam ad Galatas. 8°, Lond. 1602.
Riickert (Leopold Immanuel), Professor of Theology at Jena: Commentar
tiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater. 8°, Leip. 1833.

Sanpay (W.), Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham, The Epistle to the Gala-
tians with a Commentary. (Handy Commentary Series, edited by
C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol). 16mo.
London, Paris, and New York.
Sarprnoux (Pierre-Auguste) : Commentaire sur l'’épitre aux Galates, précédé
d‘une introduction critique. 8°, Valence, 1837.
Scuarr (Philip), D.D., Professor of Theology at New York : An Introduction
and comment on chapters i. ii. of the Epistle to the Galatians {in the
Mercersburg Review, Jan. 1861].
ScurmuumG (Johann Georg): Versuch einer Uebersetzung des Briefes an die
Galater, mit erklirenden Bemerkungen, nach Koppe. 8°, Leip. 1792.
ScHLICHTING (Jonas), Socinian minister at Racow. See Crell (Johann).
Scumip (Sebastian), Professor of Theology at Strassburg: Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Galatas. = - 49 Kiloni, 1690.
ScHMOLLER (Otto) of Urach, Wiirtemberg : Der Brief Pauli an die Galater theo-
logisch-homiletisch bearbeitet ue Lange’s Bibelwerk], 8vo, Bielefeld
1862 ; 2te Auflage 1865. [Translated by C. C. Starbuck, A.M. ; edited,
with additions, by M. B. Riddle, D.D. 8°, New York and Edin. 1870.
Scuotr (Heinrich August), Professor of Theology at Jena: Epistolae Pauli a
Thessalonicenses et Galatas. Textum Graecum recognovit et com-
mentario perpetuo illustravit H. A. Schott. 8°, Leips. 1834.
Sontirzz (Theodor Johann Abraham) : Scholia in Epistolam ad Galatas.
4°, Gerae, 1784.
SemLeR (Johann Salomon), Professor of Theology at Halle: Paraphrasis
Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 8°, Halae, 1779.
Senrpanvo (Girolamo), Cardinal : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas ;
ad nonnullas quaestiones ex textu Epistolae catholicae responsiones.
8°, Antv. 1565.
SToLBERG (Bulthasar), Professor of Greek at Wittenberg : Lectiones publicae in
Epistolam ad Galatas. 4°, Wittemb. 1667.
STRUENSEE (Adam), pastor at Altona): Erklirung des Briefes an die Galater.
4°, Flensburg, 1764.

Trana (August Leopold) : Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Exposuit, etc.
8°, Gothob. 1857.
Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., Professor of Biblical Interpretation at New
York : The Epistle to the Galatians in Greek and English, with an
analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1856.

Usrenr (Leonhard), Professor of Theology at Berne: Commentar iiber den
Brief Pauli an die Galater, nebst einer Beilage . . . und einigen Ex-
cursen. 8°, Zurich, 1833.

Vicrorius (C. Marius), teacher of rhetoric at Rome about a.p. 360 : In Epis-
tolam Pauli ad Galatas commentariorum libri duo [in Mai’s Scrip. Vet.
Nov, Coll. iii. 2).

WEBER (Michael), Professor of Theology at Halle: Der Brief an die Galater

uebersetzt, mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Leip. 1778.
Weise (Friedrich), Professor of Theology at Helmstadt : Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Galutas. 4°, Helmst. 1705.

Wessgxtus (Johannes), Professor of Theology at Leyden : Commentarius ana-
lytico-exegeticus tam litteralis quam realis in Epistolam Pauli ad
Galatas. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 17650.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Xili

Wreseixe (Karl), Professor of Theology at Géttingen : Commentar tiber den
Brief Pauli an die Galater, mit besonderer Ricksicht auf die Lehre

und Geschichte des Apostels. 8°, Gitting. 1859.
WINDISCHMANN (Friedrich), R.C. Professor of Theology at Munich: Erklarung
des Briefes an die Galater. 8°, Mainz, 1843.

Wrver (Georg Benedict), Professor of Theology at Leipzig: Pauli ad Galatas
Epistola. Latine vertit et perpetua annotatione illustravit Dr. G. B.
Winer, 8°, Lips. 1821. Editio quarta aucta et emendata, 1859.

ZacwHaBiak (Gotthilf Traugott), Professor of Theology at Kiel : Paraphrastische
Erklérung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col., und
Thess. 8°, Gétting. [1771] 1787.

PREFACE.

Since the days of Luther, who, as is well known, bestowed more es-
pecial and repeated labor on the exposition of this than of any other
book of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Galatians has always
been held in high esteem as the Gospel’s banner of freedom. To it,
and to the kindred Epistle to the Romans, we owe most directly the
springing up and development of the ideas and energies of the Reforma-
tion, which have overcome the work-righteousness of Romanism with all
the superstition and unbelief accompanying it, and which will in the fu-
ture, by virtue of their divine life once set free, overcome all fresh re-
sistance till they achieve complete victory. This may be affirmed even
of our present position towards Rome. For, if Paul by this Epistle in-
troduces us into the very arena of his victory ; if he makes us witnesses
of his not yielding, even for an hour, to the false brethren ; if he bids
us hear how he confronts even his gravely erring fellow-apustle with the
unbending standard of divinely-revealed truth ; if he breaks all the
spell of hypocrisy and error by which the foolish Galatians were bound,
and in the clear power of the Holy Spirit brilliantly vindicates what no
angel from heaven could with impunity have assailed ; how should that
doctrine, which at this moment the sorely beset old man in the chair of
the fallible Peter proposes to invest with the halo of divine sanction, —
how should the érepov evayyéA1ov from Rome, which it is now
sought to push to the extremity of the most flagrant contradictio in adjecto
—possibly issue in any other final result than an accelerated process of
self-dissolution? It is, in fact, the profoundly sad destiny which a
blinded and obdurate hierarchy must, doubtless amidst unspeakable mor-
al harm, fulfil, that it should be always digging further and further at
its own grave, till at length—and now the goal seems approaching,
when these dead are to bury their dead—with the last stroke of the spade
it shall sink into that grave, to rise no more.

The Epistle to the Galatians carries us back to that first Council of the
Church, which at its parting could present to the world the simple and
true self-witness: Soe tq ayi@ avevpatt na) nuiv. How deep
a shadow of contrast this throws not merely on the Vatican Fathers, but

xvl PREFACE,

also—we cannot conceal it—on our own Synods, when their proceed-
ings are pervaded by a zeal which, carried away by carnal aims, forfcits
the simplicity, clearness, and wisdom of the Holy Spirit! Under such
circumstances the Spirit is silent, and no longer bears His witness to the
conscience ; and instead of the blessing of synodal church-life,—so
much hoped for, and so much subjected to question,—we meet with
decrees, which are mere compromises of human minds very much opposed
to each other,—uagreements, over which such a giving the right hand of
holy fellowship as we read of in this letter (ii. 9) would be a thing im-
possible.

In issuing for the fifth time (the fourth edition having appeared in
1862) my exposition of this Epistle, so transcendently important alike
in its doctrinal and historical bearings, I need hardly say that I have
diligently endeavored to do my duty regarding it. I have sought to
improve it throughout, and to render it more complete, in accordance
with its design ; and, while doing so, I have striven after a clearness and
definiteness of expression, which should have nothing in common with
the miserable twilight-haze and intentional concealment of meaning that
characterize the selection of theological language in the present day.
If I have been pretty often under the necessity of opposing the more
recent expositors of the Epistle or of its individual sections, I need
hardly give an assurance that I, on my part, am open to, and grateful
for, any contradiction, provided only some true light is elicited thereby.
Even if that opposition should come from the energies of youth, which
cannot yet have attained their full exegetical maturity, I gladly adopt the
language of the tragedian (Aeschyl. Agam. 583 f.):

Nixdépevoe Adyorowy ov avalvouas’
"Ae yap 78a Toi¢ yépovorw ev pabeiv.
Dr. MEYER.
Hannover, 18th June, 1870.

THE

EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

INTRODUCTION.

SEC. IL.—THE GALATIANS.

e
¥

7, HE region of Galatia, or Gallograecia,' bounded by Paphlagonia,
Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, and having as its chief cities
Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, derived its name from the Gauls.*
For the Gallic tribes of the Tpoxyoi and ToAsoroféyou *—in conjunc-

tion with the Germanic‘ tribe of the Tectosages, which, accord-

ing to Strabo, was akin to them in language ‘—after invading and devastat-
ing Macedonia and Greece (Justin. xxiv. 4) about 280 B.c., and establishing
in Thrace the kingdom of Tyle,° migrated thence under the leadership of
Leonorius and Lotharius to Asia, where they received a territory from the
Bithynian king Nicomedes for their services in war. This territory they
soon enlarged by predatory expeditions ;’ although by Attalus, king of
Pergamus, who conquered them, it was restricted to the fertile region of
the Halys.*° This powerful, dreaded,’ and freedom-loving’ people were
brought into subjection to the Romans by the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso,
189 B.c. ;" but they still for a long time retained both their Celtic cantonal
constitution and their own tetrarchs,’* who subsequently bore the title of

1 See generally Strabo, xii. 5.

3 TaAdrat, which is only a later form of the
original KeAroé or KéAra:, Pausan. i. 8, 5.

8 Strabo, J.c. p. 566.

4 This serves to explain Jerome's state-
ment, based on personal experience (Prol.
in libr. secund. comment. in ep. ad Gai.), that
the popular language, which in his time
was still spoken by the Galatians along
with Greek, was almost tue same (eandem
paene) with that of the Zrertri. Now the
Trevirl were Germans (Strabo, iv. p. 194),
and * circa affectationem Germanicae orig-
inis ultro ambitiosi,’”’ ‘“‘in the endeavor to
pass for Germans, very ambitious” (Tacit.
Germ. 28). Comp. Jablonski, de Hngua
Lycaon. p. 2%. See, generally, Diefenbach,
Celica, Stuttg. 1889 f.; Rettberg, Kirchen-

1

gesch. Deutschi, 1. p. 19 ff. The two last,
without adequate grounds, call in question
the Germanic nationality of the Galatians.
See, on the other side, Wieseler, p. 524 ff.,
and in Herzog's HEncyki. XIX. p. 5%. The
conversion of the Galatians Is the begin-
ning of German Church-history.
§ Caes. B. Gall. vi. 24; Memnon in Phot.
cod. 224, p. 874.
® Polyb. iv. 45 f.
7 Liv. xxxvilL 16; Flor. il. 11; Justin. xxv.
2; Strabo, iv. p. 187, xil. p. 566.
5 Strabo, xii. p. 567; Liv. xxxvili. 16.
® Polyb. v. 53; 2 Macc. vill. 20.
10 Flor. il. 11.
11 Liv. xxxvill. 12 ff.
12 Strabo, xii. pp. 541, 567.

2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

king.’ The last of these kings, Amyntas (put to death 26 3.c.), owed it to
the favor of Antonius and Augustus that Pisidia and parts of Lycaonia* and
of Pamphylia were added to his territory. In the year 26 Galatia, as en-
larged under Amyntas, became a Roman province.‘

On account of the additional territories thus annexed to Galatia proper
under Amyntas, it has been maintained that the readers of this epistle are
not to be looked upon as the Galatians proper, but as the new Galatians,
that is, Lycaonians (especially the Christians of Derbe and Lystra) and Pisi-
dians.* But this view is decisively opposed both by the language of Acts
_ (xiv. 6, comp. with xvi. 6, xviii. 23), in which the universally current
popular mode of designation, not based on the new provincial arrange-
ments, is employed ; and also by the circumstance that Paul could not have
expressed himself (Gal. i. 2) in a more singular and indefinite way than by
rai¢ éxxAnaiaic rH¢ TaAariac, if he had not meant Galatia proper, the old Gala-
tia. Nor are any passages found in Greek authors, in which districts of
Lycaonia or Pisidia are designated, in accordance with that extension of the
limits of the province, by the name of Galatia.° .

The founder of the Galatian churches was Paul himself (Gal. i. 6-8, iv.
13 ff.) on his second missionary journey, Acts xvi. 6 (not so early as xiv. 6).
Bodily weakness (iv. 13) had compelled him to make a halt in Galatia, and
during his stay he planted Christianity there. Looking at the involuntary
character of this occasion and the unknown nature of the locality to which
his first work in the country was thus, as it were, accidentally directed, it
might appear doubtful whether in this case he followed his usual rule, as
attested in Acts, of commencing his work of conversion with the Jews ;
but we must assume that he did so,’ for.the simple reason that he would be
sure to seek the shelter and nursing, which in sickness he needed, in the
house of one of his own nation : comp. on iv. 14. Nor was there any want
of Jewish residents, possibly in considerable numbers, in Galatia (as we may
with reason infer from Joseph. Antt. xii. 8. 4, xvi. 6. 2, as well as from the
diffusion of the Jews over Asia generally ; not, however, from 1 Pet. i. 1);
although from the epistle itself it is evident® that the larger part, indeed

1Clo. p. rege Deiotaro; Vellel. il. 84;
Appian, v. p. 1185; Plut. Ané. 61.

3 Not the whole of Lycaonfa, particularly
not the south-eastern portion and Iconium.
See Rickert, Magaz. I. p. 96 ff.

* Dio Cass, xlix. 82, llfif. 26; Strabo, xil.
p. 569.

“Dio Cass. Illi. 28; Strabo, xil. p. 569.
See generally, in addition to the Commen-
taries and Introductions, Wernsdorf, dé
republ. Galatar., Norimb. 1748; Hoffmann,
Introd. theot. crit. in lect. ep. P. ad Gal. et
Cot., Lips. 1730; Schulze, de Galatis,
Francof. 1756: Mynster, Hint. in d. Brief an
@. Gal., in his ki. theol. Schr., Kopenh. 1825,
p. 49 ff.; Hermes, rerum Galaticar. speci-
men, Vratisl. 1822; Baumstark, in Pauly’s
Realencyki. TI. 604 ff. ; Riietschi, in Herzog’s

Encykl. TV. p. 687 f.; Contzen, Wanderungen
der Celten, Leip. 1861.

‘Joh. Joach. Schmidt (in Michaelis) ;
Mynster, é.c. p. 58 ff.; Niemeyer, de temp.
quo ep. ad Gal. etc., Gott. 1827; Paulus, in
the Heideld. Jahrb. 1827, p. 636 ff., and Lehr-
briefe and. Gal. u. Rom. p. 2 ff. ; Ulrich, in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, il.; Béttger, Betér.
1and 8; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt.
p. 124.

* See Ricxert, Jfagaz. I. p. 105 f.; Anger,
de ratione temp. p. 132 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol.
d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 281 f., and on Gal. p. 580 ff.

7 As also Neander, de Wette, Wieseler,
and most others assume, in opposition,
however, to Schneckenburger (Zweck d.
Aposteigesch. p. 104), Baur and Hilgenfeld.

8 See sec. 2.

INTRODUCTION. 3

the great majority, of its readers' consisted of Gentile Christians. The ar-
guments from the Old Testament (together with a partially rabbinical modc
of interpretation), which Paul nevertheless employs, were partly based on
the necessary course of the apostolic preaching which had to announce
Christ as the fulfilment of Old Testament promises, as well as on the ac-
quaintance with the Old Testament which was to be presupposed in all
Christian churches ;? partly suggested to the apostle by the special subject
itself which was in question ;? partly justified, and indeed rendered neces-
sary, by the fact that the apostle—who must, at any rate, have taken notice
of the antagonistic teachers and the means of warding off their attack—had
to do with churches which had already for a time been worked upon by
Judaists and had thus been sufficiently introduced to a knowledge of the
Old Testament. The supposition of Storr, Mynster,‘ and Credner, that
great part of the Galatian Christians had been previously proselytes of the
gate, appears thus to be unnecessary, and is destitute of proof from the epistle
itself, and indeed opposed to its expressions ; see on iv. 9. _

SEC. II.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE
EPISTLE.

Judaizing Christian teachers with Pharisaic leanings (comp. Acts xvi. 1)
—emissaries from Palestine (not unbelieving Jews ; Michaelis, Hinl.)—had
made their appearance among the Galatian churches after Paul, and with
their attacks upon his apostolic dignity (i. 1, 11, ii. 14), and their assertion
of the necessity of circumcision for Christians (v. 2, 11, 12, vi. 12 f.), which
involved as a necessary consequence the obligation of the whole law (v. 8),
had found but too ready a hearing, so that the Judaizing tendency was on
the point of getting the upper hand (i. 6, iii. 1, 3, iv. 9 ff., 21, v. 2 ff., 7).
Now the question is, whether these anti-Pauline teachers—who, however,
are not, on account of v. 12, vi. 18, to be considered either wholly or in part
as proselytes °—made their appearance before,® or not till after,” the second
visit of the apostle (Acts xvill. 23 ; see sec. 3). From i. 6, iii. 1, it is evi-
dent that Paul now for the first time has to do with the church as actually
perverted ; he is surprised and warmly indignant at what had taken place.
Nevertheless it is evident, from i. 9, v. 3, iv. 16, that he had already spoken
personally in Galatia against Judaizing perversion, and that with great carn-
estness. We must therefore assume that, when Paul was among the Gala-
tians for the second time, the danger was only threatening, but there already
existed an inclination to yield to it, and his language against it was conse-
quently of a warning and precautionary nature. It was only after the apos-
tle’s departure that the false teachers set to work with their perversions ; and

1 Not the whole, as Hilgenfeld thinks; other hand, Hilgenfeld, p. 46 f.

comp. Hofmann. * Credner, Riickert, ‘Schott, Hilgenfeld,
* Comp. on iv. 21. Reuss, Wieseler, and others.
3 See sec. 2. 7 Neander, de Wette, Hofmann, and
* L.c. p. 76. others.

® Neander, Schott, de Wette; see, on the

4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

although they did not get so far as circumcision (see on iv. 10), still they
met with so much success,'and caused so much disturbance of peace (v. 15),
that the accounts came upon him with all the surprise which he indicates in
i, 6, iii. 1.°

In accordance with this state of things which gave occasion to the letter,
it was the object of Paul to defend in it his apostolic authority, and to bring
his readers to a triumphant conviction of the freedom of the Christian from
circumcision and the Mosaic law through the justification arising from God's
grace in Christ. But we are not entitled to assume that ‘‘in the liveliness
of his zeal he represented the matter as too dangerous;”* the more espccially
as it involved the most vital question of Pauline Christianity, and ulong
with it also the whole personal function and position of the apostle, who
was divinely conscious of the truth of his gospel, and therefore must not be
judged, in relation to his opponents, according to the usual standard of
‘* party against party.” *

As regards contents, (1) the apologetico-dogmatic portion of the epistle
divides itself into two branches : (a) the defence of the apostolic standing
and dignity of Paul, ch. i. and ii., in connection with which the foundation
of Christian freedom is also set forth in ii. 15-21 ; (@) the proof that the
Christian, through God's grace in Christ, is independent of circumcision and
Mosaism, ch. iii. and iv. Next, (2) in the hortatory portion, the readers
are encouraged to hold fast to their Christian freedom, but also not to mis-
use it, ch. v. Then follow other general exhortations, ch. vi. 1-10; and
finally an energetic autograph warning against the seducers (vi. 11-16),
and the conclusion. The idea that the epistle is the reply to a Jetter of in-
formation and inquiry from the church,® is neither based on any direct evi-
dence in the epistle itself (how wholly different is the case with 1 Cor. !) nor
indirectly suggested by particular passages (not even by iv. 12); and such
an assumption is by no means necessary for understanding the course and
arguments of the epistle.

SEC. ITI.—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION—GENUINENESS.

The date of composition may be gathered from iv. 13, compared with
Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23. From eiyyeAcoduny ipiv rd mpérepov, iv. 18, it is most
distinctly evident that, when Paul wrote, he had already twice visited Ga-
latia and had preached the gospel there. The constant use of evayyeAifeodac
to denote oral preaching precludes us from taking ° 74 mpérepov as said with
relation to his present written instruction. Those, therefore, are certainly
in error who assume that the epistle was composed after the jirst visit of
the apostle, whether this first visit be placed correctly at Acts xvi. 67 or

1 To the extent, at any rate, of an observ- 4 Baur, Pausus, I. p. 282, ed. 2

ance of the Jewish feast-days and seasons 5 Hofmann.

(iv. 10). * With Grotius, and Keil, Ana. IV. 2,
* Comp. also Ewald, p. 54; Lechler, apost. _p. 70.

Zeitalt. p. 888. 7 Michaelis.

3 De Wette.

INTRODUCTION. 5

erroneously at Acts xiv. 6.2 As regards the latter, Keil has indeed asserted
that in ch. i. and ii, Paul continues his history only down to his second
journey to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30 ; that he does not mention the apostolic
conference and decree, Acts xv.;* and that in this epistle his judgment of
Mosaism is more severe than after that conference. But the journey, ii. 1,
is identical with that of Acts xv. (see the commentary); his omission to men-
tion the apostolic conference and decree * is necessarily connected with the
self-subsistent position—wholly independent of the authority of all the other
apostles, and indeed recognized by the ‘‘ pillars” themselves (ii. 9 f.)—which
Paul claimed for himself on principle in opposition to Judaizing efforts..
Therefore neither in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 1 ff., x. 28 ff.),
nor in that to the Romans (ch. xiv.), nor anywhere else, does he take any
notice of the Jerusalem decree.‘ Assured of his own apostolic indepen-
dence asa minister of Christ directly called and furnished with the revelation
of the gospel for the Gentile world in particular, he has never, in any point
of doctrine, cited in his favor the authority of other apostles or decrees of
the church ; and he was least likely to do so when, as in the present
case, the matter at stake was a question not merely affecting some point of
church-order, but concerning the deepest principles of the plan of salva-
tion. Moreover, the first three injunctions of that decree in particular
(Acts xv. 29) agree so little with the principle of full Christian liberty, con-
sistently upheld in the letters of the apostle, that we must suppose the decree
to have speedily—with his further official experience acquired after the coun-
cil—lost altogether for him its provisional obligation. It is, further, a mis-
take to apply 4 zepiyupoc, Acts xiv. 6, to Galatia, as, besides Keil, also
Koppe, Borger, Niemeyer, Mynster, Paulus, BSttger, and others, have done;
for this repiywpoc can only be the country round Lystra and Derbe, and it is
quite inadmissible to transfer the name to the Lycaonian region (see sec. 1).
Lastly, in order to prove a very early composition of the letter, soon after
the conversion of the readers, appeal has been made to ovrw rayéue, i. 6, but
without due exegetical grounds (see the commentary); and indeed the men-
tion of Barnabas in ii. 13 ought not to have been adduced, * for a personal
acquaintance of the readers with him (which they must certainly have made
before Acts xv. 89) is not at all expressed in it. If, in accordance with all
these considerations, the epistle was not written after the first visit to Gala-
tia,—a date also inconsistent with the fact that its contents presuppose a

1 Keil.

* Comp. also Ulrich, /.c.

3 Against the opinion that the unhistori-
cal character of the narrative of the apos-
tolic council and decree may be inferred
from our epistle (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller,
Hilgenfeld), see on Acts xv. 15 f. The
Ttibingen school believe that in this epistle
they have found “the Archimedean point
of their task *’ (Hilgenfeld, In the Zeléschrist
J. histor. Theot. 1855, p. 484).

* This uniform silence as to the decree in
all the epistles shows that that silence in

our epistle must not be explained either
by the presumed acquainiance of the Gala-
tians with it (Schaff, p. 182), or by the idea
that the apostle was unwilling to supply
his opponents with any weapon against him
(Ebrard).

5“ His word as Christ's apostle for the
Gentiles must be decree enough for them ””
(Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 180.
See also Wieseler, in Herzog's Zacyki, XIX.
p. 528).

® Koppe.

6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

church-life already developed, and an influence of the false teachers which
had already been some time at work—and if the first visit of the apostle is
to be placed, not at Acts xiv. 6, but at Acts xvi. 6,' followed by the second
visit confirming the churches, Acts xviii. 23, then most modern expositors,
following the earlier, are right in their conclusion that the epistle was not
composed until after Acts xviii. 23. We must reject the views, which place
the date of composition between Acts xvi. 6 and Acts xviii. 23, as maintained
by Grotius (on i. 2), Baumgarten, Semler,* Michaelis, Koppe, Storr, Borger,
Schmidt, Mynster, or which carry the epistle back to a date even before the
apostolic conference, as held by Beza, Calvin, Keil, Niemeyer, Paulus,‘ Bott-
ger,® Ulrich.

As we cannot gather from the relative expression ofrw rayéug (i. 6) how
soon after Acts xviii. 23 the epistle was composed, the year of its composi-
tion cannot be stated more precisely than (see Introd. to Acts) as about 56 or
57. Hphesus appears to be the place from which it was written ; for Paul
proceeded thither after his second labors in Galatia (Acts xix. 1). So Theo-
phylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and most modern expositors. Rickert,
however, following Hug, maintains that Paul wrote his epistle very soon
after his departure from Galatia, probably even on the journey to Ephesus ;
but, on the other hand, the passage iv. 18 indicates that after the apostle’s
departure the Judaists had perverted the churches which he had warned
and confirmed, and some measure of time must have been required for this,
although the perversion appears still so recent that there is no adequate
reason for postponing the composition of the epistle to the sojourn of the
apostle at Corinth, Acts xx. 8.’

The usual subscription, which is given by the old codd. B**, K, L, says

1It has been objected, indeed, that on
this journey Paul only confirmed the
churches, which presupposes an earlier
conversion (Acts xv. 386 ff., xvi. 5). But
Acts xvi. 6 begins a new stage in the his-
torieal narrative, and Phrygia and Galatia
are separated from those places to which
the confirming ministry referred. Nor is it
to be said that in Acts xvi. 6 Paul was with-
held by the Spirit from preaching in Gala-
tia. For the hindrance by the Spirit

affected not Galatia, but the regions along

the coast of Asia Minor. See on Acts xvi. 6.

2 So Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, de Wette,
Winer, Hemsen, Neander, Usteri, Schott,
Rickert, Anger, Credner, Guericke, Ols-
hausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, Ewald,
Bleek, Hofmann, and others.

8 On Baumg. p. 895, not in the Puraphr.
- 4 According to Paulus, the apostle wrote
to the New- Galatians (see sec. 1), whom he
converted at Acts xiv. 6 and visited for the
second time (Gal. xiv. 18) at Acts xiv. 21.

6 According to Béttger (Betfr. 8, § 1-11),
the epistle is addressed to the New- Galatians
(Lycaonians and Pisidians), and was writ-

ten in the year 51, after the first missionary
journey of the apostle. Béttger has re-
peated Kell's arguments, and has added
fresh ones, which are untenable. See their
copious refutation by Rickert, Magaz. I.
p. 112 ff.

¢ From the remarkable difference in the
positions which have been assigned to our
letter in the history of the apostle—Marcion
(in Tertull. c. Mare. 5, and in Epiph. Haer.
xliL 9), and subsequently Michaelis, Baum-
garten, Koppe, Schmidt, Keil, Mynster,
Niemeyer, Paulus, Ulrich, making it the
very first, and Schrader and Kdéhler, the
very last of the Pauline epistles,—it was
natural that the year of composition should
be fixed at the most various dates, even
apart from the differences of reckoning as
to the Pauline chronology. In consequence
of this divergence of opinion as to its his-
torical position, the e/atements aa to the place
of composition have necessarily been very
various (Troas, Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus,
Rome). ;
T Bleek conjecturally.

INTRODUCTION. i

éypdon and ‘Pdunc-; and Jerome, Theodoret, Euthalius, and the Syrian
church, as afterwards Baronius, Flacius, Salmasius, Estius, Calovius, and
others, held this opinion, which arose simply from a misunderstanding of
iv. 20, vi. 11, and especially vi. 17, and was quite unwarrantably supported
by ii. 10 (comp. with Rom. xv. 28). Nevertheless, recently Schrader’ and
Kéhler,’ the latter of whom exceeds the former in caprice, again date the
epistle from Rome.?

The genuineness is established by external testimony ‘— although the
apostolic Fathers contain no trace in any measure certain, and Justin's
writings only a probable trace, of the letter *—as well as by the completely
and vividly Pauline cast of the writer's spirit and language. It is thus
so firmly established, that, except by Bruno Bauer’s wanton ‘‘ Kritik”
(1850), it has never been, and never can be, doubted. The numerous inter-
polations which, according to Weisse,* the apostolic text has undergone,
depend entirely on a subjective criticism of the style, conducted with an

utter disregard of external critical testimony.

11. p. 216 ff.

3 Abfassungzett der epistol. Schriften, p.
1% ff.

* For the refutation of which their argu-
ments are not worthy, see Schott, Zrdrie-
rung, pp. 68 ff., 41 ff., 116 ff. ; Usteri, p. 222 ff.

4Tren. Haer. iti. 6.5, HL 7. 2, if. 16. 8 v.
21. 1; Tatian, in Jerome; Clem. Alex.
Strom. iii. p. 468, ed. Sylb.; Tertull. de prae-
ser. 6, ef al.; Canon Murat., Valentinus in
Irenaeus, Marcion.

§ Even in Polycarp, PAtl. 5, comp. Gal. vi.
7, there may be a quite accidental similar-
ity of expression. Lardner appealed to

Clem. ad Cor. i. 49; Ignat. ad Philad, 1, ad
Magnes. 8; Just. Mart. ad Graec. p. 40, ed.
Colon, and discovered in these passages
allusions to Gal. i. 4, 1. 1, v. 4, iv. 12. There
appears to be an actual allusion to this last
passage in Justin, where it runs: yiveoOe as
dyd: Gre xayw HMny ws tmeis, “ Become as I,
because I was as you."’ The probability of
this is increased by the fact that Justin soon
afterwards uses the words, €x@pa:, épas,
GhAos, dprOetas, Ovpoi, cai Ta Suora rovras,
which look like an echo of Gal. v. 20 f.

* Bettrdge sur Krit. d. Paulin. Briefe,
edited by Sulze, 1867, p. 19 ff.

8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Ilaviov éxiorodn xpos Taldaras.

A BK &, and many min., also Copt., give simply zpé¢ Taddrac, which—doubt-
less the earliest superscription—is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 3. fudv] is wanting only in min., Damasc. Aug. (once) ; while A, min.,
Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. Pel. Ambr. (once), Fulg. place it after
mwerpéc. But as in the other epistolary salutations there is no #uav after xupiov,
it was sometimes omitted, sometimes moved to the position, which it holds in
the other epistles, after sarpé¢ (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. i. 2, e al.). —
Ver. 4. tepi] Elz, has [with B, &***] brép, in opposition to ADE FGKL X&,
and many min., also Or. Theophyl. Oec. This external evidence is decisive,
although Paul has written b7ép 1. duapr. in 1 Cor. xv. 8. — Ver. 6. Xpicroi] is
wanting in F G, Boern. Tert. (twice), Cypr. (twice), Lucif. Victorin. But ac-
cording to the erroneous (although very ancient) connection of Xpiorot with
xadécaytoc, Xpiorov, since the xadeiv is God's, could not but give offence ; and
hence in 7, 43,52, Theodoret, Or., it is changed for @eov, — Ver. 10. ei éri] Elz.
Scholz have et ydp érz. But ydp is wanting in A B D* F G* 8, min., Copt.
Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers, and has been inserted for the
sake of connection. — Ver. 11. Instead of dé, B D* F G &**, 17, 213, It. Vulg.
and Fathers have yép. The latter has mechanically entered from the use of the
same word before and after (vv. 10, 12). ®*** has restored dé. — Ver. 12.
Instead of votre, A D* F G &, min , and Greek Fathers have ovdé. So Lachm.
A mechanical error of copying after the previous ojdé. — Ver. 15. 6 Oed¢] after
eidox. is wanting in B FG, 20, and many vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm.
and Schott ; deleted by Tisch. ; rejected justly also by Ewald and Wieseler.
An explanatory addition. — Ver. 17. avjAfov] B D E F G, 46, 74, Syr. p.
(in the margin), Bas., have arjAGov. So Lachm. and Schott, while Elz. Tisch.,
following AKL & Chrys. Vulg. Clar. have aviAdov. Certainly av7AGov has
the appearance of interpolation, suggested as well by the direction of the
journey (comp. dvaZaivew etc ‘Iepocod.) as by ver. 18.— Ver. 18. Instead of
Ilérpov, supported by Elz., following DF K L 8*}]A B &, min., Syr. Erp. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Syr. p. (in the margin) have Kyodv. Approved of by Griesb.,
adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Schott, Tisch. The Hebrew name, both here
and also in ii. 9, 11, 14, was supplanted by the Greek as a gloss ; hence in ii. 7,
8, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Ky¢ia¢ does not
occur. We must not assume that the reading Ky¢édv arose through several
Fathers, like Clem. Al. in Eus. i. 12, being unwilling to refer the unfavorable
account in ii. 11 ff. to the Apostle Peter (Winer), because otherwise the Hebrew
name would only have been used from ii. 11 onwards.

CHAP. L, l. 9

Contents.—After the apostolic address and salutation (vv. 1-5), Paul
immediately expresses his astonishment that his readers are so soon falling
away to a false gospel; against the preachers of which he utters his
anathema, for he seeks to please God, and not men (vv. 6-10). Next, he
assures them that his gospel is not of men, for he had not received it from
any man, but Christ had reveuled it to him (vv. 11, 12). In order to con-
firm this historically, he appeals to his pre-Christian activity in persecution
and to his Jewish zeal at that time (vv. 13, 14), and gives an exact account
of his journeys and abodes from his conversion down to his formal acknowl-
edgment on the part of the original apostles ; from which it must be evident
that he could be no disciple of the apostles (vv. 15-24).

Ver. 1. 'ArdéoroAoc ovx ar’ avOodruv obd2 dt avOpdrov, GAAG x.t.A.] Thus does
Paul, with deliberate incisiveness and careful definition, bring into promi-
nence at the very head of his epistle his (in the strictest sense) apostolic
dignity, because doubt had been thrown on it by his opponents in Galatia.
For by ov az’ avOpdruv he denies that his apostleship proceeded from men
(causa remotior, ‘‘the more remote cause”), and by ovd2 dv’ dvOp. that it came by
means of & man (causa medians, ‘‘the mediate cause”), [See Note I., p. 37.]
It was neither of human origin, nor was a man the means of conveying it.’ On
a6, comp. also Rom. xiii. 1. To disregard the diversity of meaning in the two
prepositions,® although even Usteri is inclined to this view (‘‘ Paul meant to
say that in no respect did his office depend on human authority”), is all the
more arbitrary, seeing that, while the two negatives very definitely separate
the two relations, these two relations cannot be expressed by the mere
change of number.’ This in itself would be but a feeble amplification of
the thought, and in order to be intelligible, would need to be more dis-
tinctly indicated (perhaps by the addition of 7oAAév and évoc), for otherwise
the readers would not have their attention drawn off from the difference of
the prepositions. Paul has in the second instance written not av3péruv again,
but av3pérov, because the contrast to dc’ avSpdrov is dia "Inoov Xprorov. [See
Note II., p. 37.] It was not a man, but the exalted Christ, through whom
the divine call to the apostleship came to Paul at Damascus ; abri¢ 4 dearérne
ovpavédev éixddecey otk avdpdry yproduevog trovpyd, Theodoret. And this
contrast is quite just : for Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was indeed as
such, in the state of His self-renunciation and humiliation, &évSpwroc (Rom.
v. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21), and in His human manifestation not specifically dif-
ferent from other men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4; Rom. viii. 8) ; but in His
state of exaltation, since He is as respects His whole divine-human nature
in heaven (Eph. i. 20 ff. ; Phil. ii. 9, iii. 20, 21), He is, although subor-
dinate to the Father (1 Cor. iii. 28, xi. 8, xv. 28, e¢ al.), partaker of the
divine majesty which He had before the incarnation, and possesses in His
whole person at the right hand of God divine honor and divine dominion.‘

1 Comp. Bernhardy, pp. 222, 286; Winer, any man; comp. Bengel, Semler, Morus,
p. 880. Rosenmifiller.
2 Semler, Morus, Koppe, and others. 4 Comp. generally, Usteri, Zehrdegr. p. 827 ;
? Koppe, ‘‘non hominum, ne cujusquam Weiss, Bid. Theol. p. 808.
quidem hominis,” “‘ not of men, not even of

10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

[See Note III., p. 87.]— xa? Geov rarpdéc] Following out the contrast, we
should expect xai amd Oecd tarp. But availing himself of the variety of form
in which his idea could be set forth, Paul comprehends the properly two-
fold relation under one preposition, since, in point of fact, with respect to
the modification in the import of the 6:4, no reader could doubt that here
the principle cause is conceived also as mediate. As to this usage of dé in
popular language, see on 1 Cor. 1. 9. Christ is the mediate agent of Paul's
apostleship, inasmuch as Christ was the instrument through which God
called him ; but God also, who nevertheless was the principal cause, may
be conceived of under the relation of 6:4 (comp. iv. 7 ; Lachmann), inas-
much as Christ made him His apostle, ob« dvev Geo rarpd¢, but, on the con-
trary, through the working of God, that is, through the interposition of the
divine will, which exerted its determining influence in the act of calling
(comp. 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor.i.1; Eph.i. 7 ; Col. i. 15 1 Tim.i.1; 2 Tim. i.
1.)!\— The words Geow rarpé¢ (which together have the nature of a proper
name: comp. Phil. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 28; 1 Pet. i. 2), according to the
context, cf. Rom. vi. 4, present God as the Father of Jesus Christ, not as
Father generally (de Wette ; comp. Hilgenfeld), nor as ovr Father (Paulus,
Usteri, Wieseler). [See Note IV., p. 87.] The Father is named after the
Son by way of climaz (comp. Eph. v. 5): in describing the superhuman
origin of his apostleship Paul proceeds from the Higher to the Highest [see
Note V., p. 38], without whom (see what follows), Christ could not ‘have
called him. Of course the calling by Christ is the element decisive of the
true azooroAy (Wieseler); but it would remain so, even if Paul, advancing
to the more definite agent, had named Christ after God. The supposition
of a dogmatic precaution (Theodoret, iva pA tic troAdBy wrovpydv elvac rod
marpo¢ Tov vidv, evpov mpooxeiuevoy Td did, Exfyaye Kad Geo marpéc, ‘‘In order
that no one might suppose that the Son is the subordinate of the Father,
after having used the adjacent d:4, he added xai Ocov rarpd¢ ;” comp. Chry-
sostom, Calovius, and others) would be as irrelevant and inappropriate as
Rickert’s opinion is arbitrary, that Paul at first intended merely to write
dia "I. X., and then added as an after-thought, but inexactly (therefore
without a7é), xat Geot rarpdc. — tov tyeipavroc avrov éx vexpov] For Paul was.
called to be an apostle by the Christ who had been raised up bodily from
the dead by the Father (1 Cor. xv. 8, ix. 1; Acts ix. 22, 26) ; sothat these
words involve a historical confirmation of that xai Gcov rarpé¢ in its special
relation as thoroughly assuring the full apostolic commission of Paul :* they
are not a mere designation of God as originator of the toork of redemption (de
Wette), which docs not correspond to the definite connection with aéc-
todog. According to Wieseler, the addition is intended to awaken faith
both in Jesus as the Son and in God as our reconciled Father. But apart
from the fact that the Father is here the Father of Christ, the idea of recon-
ciliation does not suggest itself at this stage ; and the whole self-description,

1 Comp. Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, &a rov @eod 2 Comp. Beyschlag in Stud. u. Krit. 1864,
Tovrov xvBepvarac , and Rom. xi. 86, &' avrov =p. 225.
7a wévra; Winer, p. 854 f.

CHAP. I., 2. 11

which is appended to IavAog, is introduced solely by his consciousness of
Sull apostolic quthority: it describes by contrast and historically what in
other epistles is expressed by the simple xAyric¢ aréorodoc. The opinion that
Paul is pointing at the reproach made against him of not having seen Christ,’
and that he here claims the pre-eminence of having been the only one
called by the eralted Jesus (Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, Estius,
and others), is inappropriate, for the simple reason that the resurrection
of Christ is mentioned in the form of a predicate of God (not of Christ).
This reason also holds good against Matthies (comp. Winer), who thinks
that the divine elevation of Christ is the point intended to be conveyed.
Chrysostom and Oecumenius found even a reference directed against the
validity of the Mosaical law, and Luther (comp. Calovius) against the trust in
one’s own righteousness. [Sce Note VI., p. 38. ]

Ver. 2. Kat of civ éuot révteg adeAgoi] adeAooi denotes nothing more than
Sedlow-Christians ; but the words ovy éuoi place the persons here intended in
special connection with the person of the apostle (comp. ii. 3; Phil. iv.
21): the fellow-Christians who are in my company. This is rightly under-
stood as referring to his travelling companions, who were respectively his
official assistants, at the time,*® just as Paul, in many other epistles, has con-
joined the name of official associates with his own (1 Cor.i. 1; 2 Cor.i. 1;
Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1). Instead of mentioning
their names,* which were perhaps known to the Galatians at least in part—
possibly from his last visit to them (Acts xviii. 23) or in some other way—
he uses the emphatic rdévrec (which, however, by no means implies any very
large number, as Erasmus and others, including Olshausen, have supposed),
indicating that these brethren collectively desired to address the very same
instructions, warnings, exhortations, etc., to the Galatians, whereby the
impressive effect of the epistle, especially as regards the apostle’s opponents,
could not but be strengthened, and therefore was certainly intended to be so
strengthened (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, and
others). At the same time, there is no need to assume that his opponents
had spread abroad the suggestion that some one in the personal circle of
the apostle did not agree with him in his teaching (Wieseler) ; actual indi-
cations of this must have been found in the epistle. Others have thought
of all the Christians in the place where he was then sojourning (Erasmus, Estius,
Grotius, Calovius, and others ; also Schott). This is quite opposed to the
analogy of all the other epistles of the N. T., not one of which is composed
in the name of a church along with that of the writer. It would, in that
case, have been more suitable that Paul should have either omitted ovy énol
(comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20), or expressed himself in such a way as to intimate,
not that the church was oiv air@, but that he was ofv aivroi¢. To refer it
(with Beza) to the office-bearers of the church, is quite arbitrary ; for the

1 Calvin, Morus, Semler, Koppe, Borger; mayr.
comp. Ellicott. * Which indeed he might have done, even
2Comp. Pareus, Hammond, Semler, Mi- if the epistle had been, as an exception,
chaelis, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Winer, written by hisown hand (but see on vi. 11);
Paulus, Riickert, Usterl, Wieseler, Relth- so that Hofmann’'s view is erroneous.

12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

readers could not recognize this in ot» éuoi without further explanation. —
rai¢ éxxAnoiac ri#¢ Tadar.] consequently a circular epistle to the several inde-
pendent churches. The relations of the churches were different in Achaia :
see on 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor.i.1. The fact that Paul adds no epithet of honor
(a8 KAnroic dyioc, ‘‘ called to be saints,” or the like) is considered by Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and by Winer, Credner, Olshausen (comp.
Rickert), Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, a sign of indignation. Comp. Grotius,
‘‘ quia coeperant ab evangelio declinare,” ‘‘ because they were beginning to
decline from the gospel.”” And justly so ; because it is in keeping with the
displeasure and chagrin which induce him afterwards to refrain from all
such favorable testimony as he elsewhere usually bears to the Christian be-
havior of his readers, and, on the contrary, to begin at once with blame
(ver. 6). In no other epistle, not even in the two earliest, 1 and 2 Thess.,
has he employed an address so abrupt, and one so unaccompanied by any
complimentary recognition ; it is not sufficient, therefore, to appeal to the
earlier and later ‘‘ usage of the apostle” (Hofmann).

Ver. 3. Geot rarpéc] refers here, according to the context, to the Chris-
tians, who through Christ have received the viodecia. See iv. 26 ff.; Rom.
viii. 15.— See, further, on Rom. i. 7.

Ver. 4. This addition prepares the readers thus early for the recognition
of their error ; for their adhesion to Judaism was indeed entirely opposed
to the aim of the atoning death of Jesus. Comp. ii. 20, iii. 18 ff. ‘‘ See
how he directs every word against self-righteousness,” Luther’s gloss. [See
Note VII., p. 88]. — row dévrog éavrdév] that is, who did not withhold (égeicaro,
Rom. viii. 82), but eurrendered Himself, namely, to be put to death.’ This
special application of the words was obvious of itself to the Christian con-
sciousness, and is placed beyond doubt by the addition epi r. dyapr. Hu.
Comp. Matt. xx. 28; Eph. v. 25; Tit. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 1 Mace. vi.
44; and Wetstein in loc. — repi rv duapr. Hu.] in respect of our sins (Rom.
viii. 8), on account of them, namely, in order to atone for them. See Rom. iii.
28 ff. ; Gal. iii. 12 ff. In essential sense epi is not different from iép,*
and the idea of satisfaction is implied, not in the signification of the prep-
osition, but in the whole nature of the case.* As to mepi and wtrép in
respect to the death of Jesus, the latter of which (never rep/) is always used
by Paul when the reference to persons is expressed, see further on 1 Cor. i.
18, xv. 8. — dnc &FéAnrat dude x.7.A.] Hnd, which that self-surrender was to
attain. The éveorae aidv is usually understood as equivalent tod aidv otro¢, é viv
aidv, ‘‘ this world, the present world.” Certainly in practical meaning éveord¢
may denote present (hence in the grammarians, 6 évecric ypdvoc, tempus
praesens), but always only with the definite reference suggested by the literal

see Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188; Schaef-
er, App. Dem. I. p. 190; Bremi, ad Dem. Ol.

1Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49, rd alza avrov
eSexev Urép juey, “ His blood He gave for

you.”? For instances from Greek authors
of é&aney cavrérv, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor.
p. 848.

21 Pet. ill. 18; Matt. xxvi. 28; Heb. x. 26,
xifl. 11; Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 17; Eur. Ak. 176,
oomp. 701; Hom. Ji, xil 248 comp. 1. 444;

p. 188, Goth.

3 Hom. JZ. 1. 444: SoiBy .. . éxardpBny péfar
trép Aavawy, ‘to offer a hecatomb to Phoe-
bus, for the benefit of the Danai,"’ dp’ iAacsé-
peoda dvaxra, ‘to appease the king.”

CHAP. I., 4. 13

signification, setting in, that is, in the course of entrance, that which has’
already begun.! Now, as this definite reference of its meaning would be
quite unsuitable to designate the aiay ovroc, because the latter is not an aeon
just begun, but one running its course from the beginning and lasting until
the apovoia ; and as elsewhere Paul always describes this present aidv as the
aidv otrog (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20 ; and frequently : comp. 6 viv aidr,
1 Tim. vi. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 10 ; Tit. ii, 12), we must explain it as the period of
time which is already in the act of setting in, the evil time which has already
begun, that is, the time tmmediately preceding the rapoveia, so that the aisr
éveoréc is the last part of the aidyv otroc. [See Note VIII., p. 38.] — This aidv
éveoréc is not only very full of sorrow through the dolores Messiae (see on
1 Cor. vii. 26), to which, however, the ethical zovypéc in our passage does
not refer ; but it is also in the highest degree immoral, inasmuch as many
fall away from the faith, and the antichristian principle develops great
power and audacity (2 Thess. ii. 3 ff. ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. ; 2 Tim. iii. 1 ff. ; 2
Pet. iii. 8; Jude 18; 1 John ii. 18 ; Matt. xxiv. 10-12). On that account
this period of time is pre-eminently 6 aidv tovy7pé¢. With his idea of the
nearness of the zapoveia, Paul conceived this period as having then already
begun (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 7), although its full development was still in re-
serve (2 Thess. ii. 8). Accordingly, the same period is here designated 6
aioy éveoréc Which in other places is called xa:pd¢ Eoyarog (1 Pet. i. 5), éovaras
quépac (Acts ii. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 1), éoyéry dpa (1 John ii. 18), and in Rab-
binic YP. or PO or DN NWR (Isa. ii, 2; Jer. xxiii. 20; Mic. iv. 1).*
Christ, says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver us out of
this wicked period, that is, to place us out of fellowship with it [see Note IX.,
p. 88], inasmuch as through His death the guilt of believers was blotted out,
and through faith, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the new moral life—the life
in the Spirit—was brought about in them (Rom. vi. 8). Christians have be-
come objects of God’s love and holy, and as such are now taken out of that
aidy sovnpéc, so that, although living in this aidvy they yet have nothing in
common with its rovypia.‘ The é£éAyrac, moreover, has the emphasis and is
accordingly prefixed. For how antagonistic to this separation, designed by
Christ, was the fellowship with the aidy rovapé¢ into which the readers had
relapsed through their devotion to the false teachers !—Observe, moreover,
that the aidv rovypse forms one idea, and therefore it was not necessary to

1 So not merely in passages such as Dem.
255. 9, 1466. 21 ; Herodian, il. 2. 8; Polyb. i.
75.2; 8 Esd. v. 47, ix. 6; 8 Macc. i. 16, but
also in Xen. Hell. ii. 1.5; Plat. Legg. ix. p.
678; Dinarch. i. 98; Polyb. {. 88. 2, 1. 60. 9,
vil. 5.4; 2 Macc. fil. 17, vi. 9; comp. Schweig-
hiuser, Lex. Polyd. p. 219; Dissen, ad Dem.
ce Cor. p. 350. So also universally in the
N. T., Rom. vifi. 88; 1 Cor. iif. 22, vil. 26; 2
Thess. ii. 2 (comp. 2 Tim. fil. 1; Heb. tx. 9).

2 Comp. Usteri, J.c. p. 848 ff.; Lticke and
Huther on 1 John ii. 18.

3 See Schoettgen, Hor. ad 2 Tim. iil. 1.

4 It is therefore self-evident how unjast is
the objection taken by Hilgenfeld to our
interpretation, that it limits the Redeemer's
death to this short period of transition.
This the apostle inno way does, but he
portrays redemption concretely, displaying
the whole importance and greatness of its
salvation by the force of strongest contrast.
This remark also applies to Wieseler’s ob-
jection. Comp. Barnabas, Zp. 10, where
the righteous man, walking in this world,
Toy Gytov aiwva éxddxera:, ‘looks forward to
the holy world.”

14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

repeat the article before rovypou (as Matthias contends).'—sxard rd SéAnua
x.t.4.] strengthens the weight of the diwe éféAyrac x.r.7.., to which it belongs.
Comp. Eph. i. 4 f. ; Col. i. 18 f. The salvation tcas zilled by God, to whom
Christ was obedient (Phil. ii. 8) ; the reference of xara 7. Jed. «.7.4. to the
whole sentence from roi dévrog onwards? is lesssimple and unnecessary. The
connection with zovypov* would only be possible, if the latter were predica-
tive, and would yield an idea entirely paradoxical. —+r. Geoi x. warp. sy. |
of God, who (through Christ) is our Father. Comp. Phil. iv. 20; 1 Thess.
i. 8, ili. 11, 18. As to the «ai, comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. i. 3 : from the
latter passage it must not be concluded that judy belongs alsoto Oeci.‘ The
more definite designation x. arp. 4uév conveys the motive of the 3éAnya, love.

Ver. 5. Tothe mention of this counsel of deliverance the piety of the apostle
annexes a doxology. Comp. 1 Tim. i. 17; Rom. ix. 5, xi. 86, xvi. 27;
Eph. iii. 21. — # déga] that is, the honor due to Him for this 3éfAnjua. We
have to supply ei7, and not écrit (Vulgate, Hofmann, Matthias), which 7s in-
serted (Rom. i. 25 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11) where there is no doxology. So in the
frequent doxologies in the apostolic Fathers, e.g. Clement, Cor. J. 20, 38,
43, 45, 50, 58.°

Ver. 6. Without prefixing, as in other epistles, even in those to the Cor-
inthians, a conciliatory preamble setting forth what was commendable in his
readers, Paul at once plunges in mediam rem. He probably wrote without
delay, immediately on receiving the accounts which arrived as to the falling
away of his readers, while his mind was still in that state of agitated feeling
which prevented him from using his customary preface of thanksgiving and
conciliation,—a painful irritation (xvpotua, 2 Cor. xi. 29), which was the
more just, that in the case of the Galatians, the very foundation and sub-
stance of his gospel threatened to fall to pieces. — davudfw] often used by
Greek orators in the sénse of surprise at something blameworthy.* In the
N.T., comp. Mark vi. 6 ; John vii. 21 ; 1 John iii. 18. — otra razéug] 80 very
quickly, so recently, may denote cither the rapid development of the apostasy
(comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22; Wisd. xiv. 28), as Chrysostom (oid?
xpévov déovrac oi aratavres tude x.t.2.), Theophylact, Koppe, Schott, de Wette,
Windischmann, Ellicott, Hofmann, Reithmayr understand it ; or its early oc-
currence (1 Cor. iv. 19; Phil. ii. 19, e¢al.), whether reckoned from the last
visit of the apostle (Bengel, Flatt, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler) or from the conver-.
sion of the readers (Usteri, Olshausen). The latter is preferable, because it
corresponds with ad rov xaAécavrog x.t.A., whereby the time of the calling is
indicated as the terminus a guo. Comp. iii. 1-3. [See Note X., p. 38 seq.] This
view is not inconsistent with the fact that the epistle was written a consider-
able time after the conversion of the readers ; for, at all events, they had
been Christians for but a few years, which the otrw rayéuc as a relative idea
still suits well enough. By their perariSeodac they showed themselves to be

1 See Kriger, § 57. 2. 3. ’ Comp. the customary evAcyntos, &c. ein, at

2 Bengel, Wieseler, probably also Hof- Rom. ix.5; Eph. 1.8. See, further, on Eph.
mann. ili. 21.

3 Matthias. *Dem. 39. 8; Sturz, Ler. Xen. II. p. 5113

4 Hofmann. - Abresch, Diluc. Thuc. p. 309.

CHAP. I., 6. 15

apéoxatpoe (Matt. xiii. 21), and this surprises the apostle. As to otrw, comp.
on iil. 3. — perariveode] peraridnut, to transpose, in the middle, to alter one’s
opinion, to become of another mind, and generally to fall away.’ It
might also be understood in a passive sense (Theodorus of Mopsuestia,
uerativ., not uerdyeode, is used : de érl dwhywv, ‘tas to the faint-hearted ;”
Beza, ‘‘verbum passivum usurpavit, ut culpam in pseudo-apostolos
derivet,” ‘‘He has employed a passive verb, in order to cast the blame
upon the false apostles”). But the use of the middle in this sense is
the common one ; so that the passive sense, and the nicety which, accord-
ing to Beza, is involved in it, must have been more definitely indicated to
the reader in order to be recognized. The present tense denotes that the
readers were still in the very act of the falling away, which began so soon
after their conversion. According to Jerome, the word itself is in-
tended to convey an allusion to the name Galatia : ‘‘ Galatia enim transla-
tionem in nostra lingua sonat,” ‘‘for in our tongue, Galatia means trans-
ferral”’ cya ; hence mi, na), carrying away). Although approved by
Bertholdt, this idea is nevertheless an empty figment, because the thing sug-
gested the cxpression, and these Hebrew words denote the perarivecda: in
the sense of evile.* But from an historical point of view, the appeals of
Grotius and Wetstein to the fickleness of the Gallic character* are not
without interest as regards the Galatians. — amd rot nadfoavrog tac év ydpere
X.|‘ The rot xadgcavrocg is not to be taken with Xpcrod, as Syr., Jerome,
Erasmus (in the version, not in the paraphrase and annotations), Luther,
Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Morus and Flatt, understand it ;
against which may be urged, not (with Matthies and Schott) the want of
the article before Xprorot (see on Rom. ix. 5 ; comp. also 1 Pet. i. 15), but
the fact that the calling into the kingdom of the Messiah is presented by
Paul (and the apostles generally) so constantly as the work of God, that we
must not deviate from this analogy in explaining the words.* Thence, also,
rob xadéc. is not to be taken as neuter, and referred to the gospel (Ewald) ;
but 4 xadécac is God, and Xporov belongs to év ydpirt, from him who has
called you through the grace of Christ. [See Note XI. p. 89.] ’Ev ydprre
Xpicrov is instrumental ; for the grace of Christ (Acts xv. 11 ; Rom. v. 15;
2 Cor. viii. 9; Tit. iii. 6: comp. also Rom. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xii. 9, xiii. 18 ;
Philem. 25), viz., the favor of Christ unmerited by sinful men, according to
which He gave up His life to atone for them (comp. ver. 4), is that by which,
i.¢e., by the preaching of which, the divine calling reaches its subjects ; comp.
Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24. So xadciv with év, 1 Cor. vii. 15 ; Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess.
iv. 7 ; to which passages the interpretation ‘‘ on the ground of grace’”* is not
suitable. Others take év for ei¢ ;’ so that by brevity of language év, indicat-

1 With eis, App. Hisp. 17; Eoclus. vi. 8; 4On awd, away from, comp. 2 Macc. vil.
with spés, Polyb. xxvi. 2.6. See Wetstein 24; and see generally, Kihner, § 622 o.
tn loc. ; Kypke, II. p. 278; Ast. ad Plat. de § See on Rom. 1. 6; and Weiss, Bidv. Theol.
Leg. p. 497; from the LXX., Schleusner, p. 387.
8.v.; and from Philo, Loesner, p. 825. * Wieseler.
2 See Gesenlus, 7hes. I. p. 285. ¥ Vulgate, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose,
*Caes. B. Gall. lil. 19, iv. 5, iL 1, ML 10. Beza, eto., also Borger and Riickert.

16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

ing the result of the direction, includes within it this also ; see Winer,
p- 888. This is unnecessarily forced, for such a constructio praegnans in Greek
and in the N. T. is undisputed only in the case of verbs of motion (as
Epxeodat, ciokvat, gurinrecv, x.t.A.).1 In point of sense, moreover, this view is
liable to the objection that the «joi always refers to the Messianic kingdom,*
and the grace of Christ is that which procures the Messianic curnpia (Rom. v.
15, e al.), and not the cwrypia itself. On the absence of the article before
x4pirt, see Winer, p. 118 f.—Observe, moreover, how the whole mode of
setting forth the apostasy makes the/readers sensible of its antagonism to
God and salvation ! Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret. — cic érepov evayy]
to a gospel of a different kind, from that, namely, which was preached to you
when God called you. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4. The contrast is based on the
previous designation of their calling as having taken place éy ydéprrs Xprorov
(not somehow by the law),—a statement clearly enough indicating the spe-
cific nature of the Pauline gospel, from which the nature of the Judaistic
teaching, although the Galatians had likewise received the latter as the
gospel for which it had been passed off, was withal so different (érepov).
Comp. ver. 8.

Ver. 7. The expression just used, cig érepov evayyéAcov, was a paradoxical
one, for in the true sense there is only one gospel : it seems to presuppose
the existence of several evayyéAca, but only serves to bring into clearer light
the misleading efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now
explains it. — 6 ov« éorev GAAo, et uh x.t.A] which érepov evayyédov, to which ye
have fallen away, is not another, not asecond gospel, alongside of that by
means of which ye were called (4/0, not évepov again), except there are certain
persons who perplex you, etc. That is, this érepov evayyédov ts not another by
the side of the former, only there are certain persons who perplex you ; so that
in this respect only can we speak of érepov evayyéAcov as if it were an é/A0.*
It must be observed that the emphasis is laid first on ovx and then on d/o ;
so that, although Paul has previously said ei¢ érepov evayyédcov, he yet guards
the oneness of the gospel, and represents that to which he applied the
words érepov evayy as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the etayy.
rou xaAoavroc ipac év xdpite Xptorov). Thus ei uy retains its general meaning
nisi, unless, without any need to assume (with Matthies) an abbreviation for
et pun GAAo éori da TovTo, Ste Tivég eiocy of rapdocovres x.t.A., ‘‘ unless there is
another, for the reason that there are some who disturb you.” ‘ The two em-

1Comp. also Hartung, wer d. Kas. p. qui,’ ctc., “ unless perchance their influence

68 f.

21 Thess. if. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Thess. il.
14; 1 Pet. v. 10; Rev. xix. 9, ¢ ai. ; also
1 Cor. i. 9, and passages such as Col. iff. 15;
1 Thess. iv. 7.

® So in substance Wieseler and Hoffmann;
comp. Matthias.

‘Fritzsche, ad Marc. vi. 3, takes ei m7
ironically, and swés in the well-known
sense, people of tmportance (see on Acts Y.
86, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 781): ‘‘ nisi
Sorle magni est facienda eorum auctoritas,

is to be highly esteemed, who,” etc. But
the article which follows renders this inter-
pretation not at all necessary (see below).
Besides, in this sense Paul uses unly the
neuter (see fi. 6, vi. 8; 1 Cor. ili. 7). Lastly,
he is fond of designating false teachers,
adversaries, etc., as ruvés, that is, guidam,
guos nominare nolo, ‘‘some whom I am
unwilling to mention.’”? (Hermann, ad
Viger. l.c.). See Cor. iv. 18; 2 Cor. iL 1;
Gal. iL 12, 1 Cor, xv. 12; 1 Tim. 1 3%

CHAP, I., 7. 1%

phatic words Zrepov and &4Ao preserve, however, their distinction in sense: 4AAo
meaning absolutely another, that is, a second likewise existing (in addition
to the one gospel); and érepov one of another kind, different.’ [See Note XII,
p. 39.] The interpretation most generally received? connects 6 ob fot.v &AA0
merely with etayyédov,* and for the most part understands ei uf adversatively,
‘* Neque tamen est ulla alia doctrina de Jesu Christo vera ; , sunt vero homines,”
‘‘nor is any other doctrine of.Jesus Christ true ; but there are men,” etc.,
Koppe. Against this interpretation may be urged, first, the fact that zrepov
previously had the chief emphasis laid on it, and is therefore quite unwar-
rantably excluded from the reference of the rclative which follows ; second-
ly, that Paul must have logically used some such expression as uy bvro¢ GAAod ;
and lastly, that ei .# never means anything else than nist, unless, not even in
passages such as il. 16 ; Matt. xii. 4 (see on this passage) ; Luke iv. 26: 1
Cor. vii. 17 ; and Rev. ix. 4, xxi. 27.4 Others, as Calvin, Grotius (not Calo-
vius), Homberg, Winer, Rickert, Olshausen, refer 6 to the whole contents of
bre otra rayfwoc. . . evayyéuov, ‘quod quidem (se. vos deficere a Christo) non
est aliud, nisi, etc., the case, viz., your departure from Christ is not otherwise
than.” * But by this interpretation the whole point of the relation, so Paul-
ine in its character, which 6 ob« gor GAAo bears to érepov, is lost ; and why
should the more special explanation of the deficere a Christo be annexed in
80 emphatic a form, and not by a simple ydp or the like ? Lastly, Schott *®
regards 6 ovx gory GA.A0 as a parenthesis, and makes ¢i uf rive x.7.A. depend on
Vavudlw «.7.A.; 80 that that, which is expressed in the words Davudfw x.7.7.,
by el uf reveg x.t.A. ‘‘limitibus circumscribatur .proferenda defectionis causa,
qua perpendenda illud Savyuatew vel minuatur cel tollatur,” ‘‘is circumscribed
by limits to set forth the cause of the defection, by weighing which the
Savudtev is cither diminished or removed.” This is incorrect, for logically
Paul must have written éSaipafov av. . . el wh tivec Foav ; and with what
arbitrary artifice 4 ot« gorcy GAA is thus set aside, and, as it were, aban-
doned, and yet the reference of the 6 to the emphatic érepov is assumed ! —
ol rapdocovres tudo] The participle with the article designates the rivéc as
those whose charactcristic was the rapdocecy of the Galatians, as persons who
dealt in this, who were occupied with it.” [See Note XIII., p. 89.] On
rapdocev, in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. here

lérvepow xac avdéuotoy, “different and dis-
similar." Plat. Conv. p. 186 B. Dem. 911. 7;
Soph. Phil. 501, O. C.1446; Xen. Anad. vi. 4.
8 (and Kriigerinioc.); Wisd. vil. 5 ; Judith
vill 20. In the N. T., comp. especially
1 Cor. xii. 8-10, xv. 40; 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts
iv. 12; also 1 Cor. xiv. 21; Rom. vil. 28; Mark
xvi. 12; Luke ix. 29. Comp. also the ex-
pression érepoy rapa m1, Stallbaum, ad Prat.
Phaed. p. 71 A., Rep. p. 887 E.

3 Peschito, Chrysostom,Oecumentus, The-
odoret, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza,
Wolf, Bengel, and many others ; also Mo-
rus, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Usterl, de Wette,
Hilgenfeld, Reithm.

2

§ So already the Marcionites, who proved
from this passage that there was no other
gospel than theirs! See Chrysostom in loc.

Comp. Hom. Od. xii. 825 f., ov8é 7s dAAos
ytyvet’ éxetr’ avéuewy, et ph Evpés re Noros re,
“no other wind then arose, save only the
east and the south,” and the passages in
Poppo, ad Thue. III. 1, p. 216.

§ Winer.

6 So also Cornelius & Lapide.

7 Comp. the very usual cicty ot Adyorres ;
also Luke xvill. 9; Col. il. 8. See generally
Winer, p. 104; Krliger. § 50. 4.3; Fritzsche,
Quaest. Luk. p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor.
p. 288,

18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

and v. 10, especially Acts xv. 24; Ecclus. xxviii. 9. — xal SéAovrs¢ peras-
tpé war] ‘‘re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe,” ‘‘ they really were
not able, yet they earnestly wished it,” Bengel ; ‘‘rolunt . . . sed non valent,”
‘*they wish, but are not capable,” Jerome. On the other hand, the rapdéc-
cev of the Galatians actually took place. — The article before rap. refers to —
BéAovrec as well.’ — peraorpépas, to pervert, that is, to alter so that it acquires
an entirely opposite nature.*— 1d eiayy. rod X.] see generally on Mark i. 1.
The genitive is here not auctoris, of the author, but, as expressing the spe-
cific characteristic of the one only gospel in contradistinction to those who
were perplexing the Galatians, objecti, the genitive of the object (concerning
Christ). This is evident from ver. 6, where év ydpert Xprorov indicates the
contents of the gospel.

Ver. 8. ’AAAd, not but, as an antithesis to ovx gory 4440 (Hofmann),
which has already been fully disposed of by ei uj x«.7.A. It is rather the
however confronting most emphatically the rivé¢ eiow ol rapdacovtes x.7.A.
‘There are some, etc. ; whoso, however, so behaves, let him be accursed !”
This curse pronounced by the apostle on his opponents is indirect, but,
because it is brought about by a conclusion a majori ad minus, all the more
emphatic. —xat éév] to be taken together, even in the case that.? — qyeic]
applies primarily and chiefly tothe apostle himself, but the oty éuol rdvte¢
adeAgoi (ver. 2) are also included. (See Note XIV., p. 39.] To embrace in
the reference the associates of the apostle in founding the Galatian churches‘
is premature, for these are only presented to the reader in the etyyeAcodueda
which follows. — dyyedog é£ ovpavov] to be taken together : an angel oipavddev
xaraBacg (Hom. Jl. xi. 184). Comp. dyyedo: év otpavo, Matt. xxii. 30. [See
Note XV., p. 89.] If Paul rejects both his own and angelic authority—con-
sequently even the supposed superhuman intervention (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 1)—
with reference to the case assumed, as accursed,° every one without exception
(comp. dori¢ dv 7, v. 10) is in the same case subject to the same curse. The
certainty, that no other gospel but that preached by the apostle to his
readers was the true one, cannot be more decisively confirmed. — zap’ 4
evryyedtc. tuiv] This &, which is not to be explained by evayyéAcov,® is simply
that which, namely, as the context shows, the contents of the gospel ;
‘“‘beyond that which we,” etc.” This may mean either practerquam,
““ besides,” ® or contra, ‘‘against.”*® For the two meanings, see Matthiae,
p. 13881 ; Winer, p. 877. In earlier times a dogmatic interest was involved
in this point : the Lutherans, in order to combat tradition, laying the stress

1 See Seidler, ad Hur. EH. 429: Fritzsche, there is judgment even to them.”

ad Matth. p. 52; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.
19.

2 Comp. LXX. 1 Sam. x. 9; Ecclus. xi. 31;
Hom. Ji. xv. 208; Dem. 1082. 1.

2See Herm. ad Viger. p. 88; Hartung,
Partikell. I. p. 140 f.

4 Hofmann.

8 Comp. Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 6, where it
is said even of the angels, éav pn mierevowcry
cis 7d alua Xprcrov, xdxeivors xplowg deriv,

“unless they believe in the blood of Christ,

¢ Schott, Flatt, Hofmann.

% Bernhardy, p. 259.

® Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, The-
ophylact, Erasmus, Beza,Calovius, Rambach,
Reithm. and others.

® So Theodoret and the older Catholics,
Grotius, and many others; also Winer,
Rickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baum-
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hof-
mann.

CHAP. I., 9. 19

on practerquam ; and the Catholics, to protect the same, on contra.’ The
contra, or more exactly, the sense of specific difference, is most suitable to the
context (see ver. 6, érepov evayyéA.). Comp. Rom. xvi. 17. [See Note XVI.,
p. 89.] — einyyetodueda ipiv] that is, ‘‘I and my companions at the
time of your conversion” (comp. zapeAdBere, ver. 9). The emphasis,
however, lies on map’.—dvé3eua torw) Let him be subject to the divine
wrath and everlasting perdition (D071), the same as xarédpa and ér:xardparoc,
iii, 18; see on Rom. ix. 8. The opposite, vi. 16. To apply it? to
the idea of excommunication subsequently expressed in the church * by the
word dvddeua, is contrary to the usage of the N. T. (Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor.
xii, 3, xvi. 22), and is besides in this passage erroneous, because even &
false-teaching angel is supposed in the protasis. Comp., on the contrary,
v. 10, Baordcet rd xpiua ; 2 Thess. i. 9. See generally the thoroughly excel-
lent discussion of Wieseler, p. 89 ff. Mark, moreover, in the use of the
preceptive rather than the mere optative form, the expression of the apos-
tolic éfovota, Let him be !

Ver. 9. Again the same curse; ‘ but now the addition of an allusion to an
earlier utterance of it increases still more its solemn earnestness. — d¢ zpoer-
pfxapev] is referred by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Luther, Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the earlier exposi-
tors, also Flatt, Winer, Matthies, Neander, to ver. 8. But in this case Paul
would have written merely w¢ eipfxayev, rddcv Aéyw, or simply mad épd, as in
Phil, iv. 4. The compound verb xpoecphxayev (v. 21 ; 2 Cor. vii. 8, xiii. 2 ;
1 Thess. iv. 6) and xat dpre point necessarily to an earlier time, in contrast to
the present. Hence the Peschito, Jerome,* Semler, Koppe, Borger, Riickert,
Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld,
Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others, rightly take it as indi-
cating the presence of the apostle among the Galatians at the time when he
uttered this curse; comp. v. 8. We must, however, look upon this
presence as the second and not the jiret visit; * for the expression in the form
of curse betrays an advanced stage of the danger, and not a merely prophylac-
tic measure. —xai dpt: waédkv Aéyw] apodosis, ‘‘s0 say I also now (at the
present moment) again ;” so that wéi» thus glances back to the time to
which the rpo applied. Riickert regards d¢ . . . Afyw together as the protasis
(comp. Ewald), in which case the proper apodosis, 80 7¢ is in fact, before
elric would beteanting. Or rather, if oc... Aéyw were the protasis, ef rig tude

. avéSena toto would be the real apodosis. But why introduce at all
such a forced departure from the separation, which presents itself so natu-
rally, and is so full of emphasis, of o¢... Aéyw into protasis and apodosis ?
The reference of mpoecpfx. to an earlier time is certain enough ; and dpm,
now, in the sense of the point of time then present, is very usual in Greek
authors" and in the N. T. — el reg tuae «.7.A.] Paul does not here, as in ver.

1 See Calovius and Estius. liberately,’’ Bengel.

* Rosenmfiller, Baumgarten-Crusius,comp. 6’ Oomp. Augustine, who leaves a choitte
also Grotius and Semler. between the two views.

* Suicer, Thes. I. p. 270. * HTofmann.

4“ Deliberate loquitur,” ‘“‘he speaks de- 7 Lobeck, ad Phkryn. p. 18 ff.

20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

8, again use éév with the subjunctive, but on account of the actual occur-
rence puts the positive «i,—thus giving to his utterance a climactic character,
as in Acts v. 88 f.'— As to evayyeAiLeada: with the aceusative,? which does
not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 268. —
mapeAdéBere}] often used of that which one gets through instruction.* It
may, however, denote either to take (actively), as in 1 Cor. xv. 1; 1 John
i. 11; Phil. iv. 9; or to receive (passively), as in ver. 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13;
1 Cor. xv. 3, etal. The latter is preferable here, as a parallel to evyyyeAcdurda
tpiv In ver. 8.

Ver. 10. Paul feels that the curse which he had just repeated twice
might strike his readers as being repulsive and stern ; and in reference
thereto he now gives an explanatory justification (yép) of the harsh language.
[See Note XVII., p. 39.] He would not have uttered that avddeua toru, if
he had been concerned at present to influence men in his favor, and not
God, etc. — dpr:] has the chief emphasis, corresponds to the dpr: in ver. 9,
and is therefore to be understood, not, as it usually is,* in the wider sense of
the period of the apostle’s Christian life generally, but’ in reference to the
present moment, as in ver. 9, just as dor: always in the N. T., corresponding
to the Greek usage of the word, expresses the narrower idea modo, nune
ipsum, but does not represent the wider sense of viv (ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 16;
Matt. xxvi. 58, e¢ al.), which is not even the case in the passages in Lobeck,
p. 20. Hence, often as viv in Paul's writings covers the whole period from
his conversion, éprc is never used in this sense, not even in 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
The latter rather singles out from the more gencral compass of the viv the
present moment specially, as in the classical combination viv dpri.® Noto,
Paul would say, just now, when he is induced to write this letter by the
Judaizing reaction against the very essence of the true and sole gospel
which he upheld,—nozw, at this critical point of time—it could not possibly
be his business to conciliate men, but God only.7—dvdpdrov} is quite
general, and is not not to be restricted either to his opponents® or other-
wise. [See Note XVIIk, p. 40.] The category, which is pointed at, is
negatived, and thus the generic av0po7. needed no article.* — mefdu] per-
guadeo, whether by words or otherwise. The word never has any other
signification ; but the more precise definition of its meaning results from the
context. Here, where that which was repulsive in the preceding curse is
to receive explanation, and the parallel is {7ré apéoxecv, and where also the
words } rév Océv must fit in with the idea of zeidu, it denotes, as often in

‘we have
The

gelium praedicactimus vobdis,"’
preached the Gospel unto you."

1see on the passage; Luke xiii. 9;
Winer, p. 277; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 190;

Stallbaum, ad Flat. Phaed. p. 98 B. Comp.
2 Cor. xil. 20, 21, ures — pyrws — 17.

3 The studied design which Bengel dis-
covers jy the alternation between vui» (ver.
8) and tas (ver. 9), ‘‘evangello aliquem
instruere convenit insultation! falsorum
doctorum," *‘ to instruct one In the Gospel
is harmonious with the insolent conduct
of the false teachers,” is groundless. For
they might say just as boastingly, ‘‘ evan-

change in the words is acoidental.

3 See Kypke, II. p. 222.

« And by Wieseler also.

®So Bengel, de Wette, Ellicott, Hofm.,
Eadle.

® Plat. Polit. p. 201 B, Men. p. 95 C.

7 Comp. Hofmann.

8 Hofmann.

®Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 619. 18;
Sauppe, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 4, 14.

CHAP. I., 10. a1

classical authors,’ to win over, to conciliate and render friendly to oneself
(Acts xii. 20, and Kypke thereon).’? Lastly, the present tense expresses, I
am occupied with it, I make tt my business.? Our explanation of reidw sub-
stantially agrees with that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Flacius, Hammond,
Grotius, Elsner, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Wolf, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe,
and others ; also Borger, Flatt, Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald (who, however, restricts
the refcrence of # rdv Gedy, which there is nothing to Jimit, to the day of
judgment), Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. The interpreta-
tions which differ from this, such as ‘‘ humana suadeo or docco, an divina,”
‘‘Do I advise or teach things human or divine ;” ‘ or ‘' suadeone secundum
homines an secundum Deum,” ‘‘Do I advise according to men or God,” thus
expressing the intention and not the contents ;° or ‘‘ suadeone vobis, ut homini-
bus credatis an ut Deo,” ‘‘DoI advise you to believe men or God,’ are
contrary to the meaning of tho word : for reiSev revé always means persua-
dere alicui, ‘‘to persuade some one,” and is not to be identified with reitew
rc (Acts xix. 8, xxviii. 28), placing the personal accusative under the point
of view of the thing. — Cytd avdpdrac dpécxery] or do I strive to be an
object of human goodwill ?— not tautological, but more general than the
preceding. The stress which lies on av9pémore makes any saving clause on the
part of expositors’ appear unsuitable. Even by his winning accommodation
(1 Cor ix. 19 ff., x. 15) Paul sought not at all to please men, but rather God.®
—et iri avdpdroie jpeckov x.t.x.] contains the negative answer to the
last question. The cmphasis is placed first on avdpdroc, and next on
Xpeoros : ‘SIf I still please men, if I were not already beyond the pos-
session of human favor, but were still well-pleasing to men, J should
not be Christ’s servant.” According to de Wette, ér: is intended to affirm
nothing more than that, if the one existed, the other could no longer
exist. But in this case ér: must logically have been placed after oix. The
truth of the proposition, ei gre «.r.4., in which av3pér. is not any more than
before to be limited to Paul’s opponents (according to Holsten, even including
the apostles at Jerusalem), rests upon the principle that no one can serve
two masters (Matt. vi. 24), and corresponds to the ovai of the Lord Himself
(Luke vi. 26), and to His own precedent (John vi. 41). But how decidedly,
even at that period of the development of his apostolic consciousness, Paul
had the full and clear conviction that he was an object, not of human good-
will, but of human hatred and calumny, is specially evident from the Epistles
to the Corinthians composed soon afterwards; comp., however, even 1 Thess.
li. 4 ff. In this he recognized a mark of the servant of God and Christ

1 Nagelsbach zur [ias. i. 100.

2Comp. especially on xeidey dedv, Pind.
O8. fi. 144; Plat. Pol. lil, p. 800 E, fil. p. 364
C; Eur. Med. 964; also the passages from
Josephus In Krebs.

* See Bernhardy, p. 3870.

¢ Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Vatablus, Goma-
rus, Cramer, Michaelis.

§ Calvin.

* Piscator, Pareus, Calixtus; so also in
substance, Holsten, 2. Evang. d. Paul. u,
Petr. p. 382 ff., and Hilgenfeld.

7 As, for example, Schott, ‘‘ de ejusmodi
cogitarl studio hominibus placendi!, quod
Deo diapliceat,” “‘ of such thought as by the
endeavor to please men would displease
God.”

® Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 4.

22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

(2 Cor. vi. 4 ff., xi. 28 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 9). The av9pdéroe apéoxecy is the result
of Cyreiv avdpdrou aptoxerv, and consequently means to please men, not to
seek to please or to live to please them, as most expositors, even Riickert,
Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius,’ quite arbitrarily assume, although
apart from the context the words might have this meaning.* — Xpicrov dovdAoc
otx av #unv] is understood by most expositors, following Chrysostom, in-
cluding Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Paulus, Schott, Rtickert, ‘‘so should I
now be no apostle, but I should have remained a Jew, Pharisee, and perse-
cutor of Christians ;” taking, therefore, Xpicroi dovAog in an historical sense.
But how feeble this idea would be, and how lacking the usual depth of the
apostle’s thought ! No; Xpicroi dovAoe is to be taken in its ethical character :*
‘* Were I still well-pleasing to men, this would exclude the character of a
servant of Christ, and I should not be such an one ; whom men misunder-
stand, hate, persecute, revile.” As to the relation, however, of our passage
to 1 Cor. x. 82, see Calovius, who justly remarks that in the latter passage
the rdvra raow apéoxwis meant secundum Deum et ad hominum aedijicationem,,
‘* according to God and for the edification of men,” and not secundum auram
et voluntatem nudam hominum, ‘‘ according to the mere favor and wish of
men.”

Vv. 11, 12.4 Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle. See Introd. sec.
2. —dé] in continuance of the discourse. The way having been prepared
for this theme in vv. 8-10, it is now formally announced for further discus-
sion.® And after the impassioned outburst in vv. 6-10, the language
becomes composed and calm. Now, therefore, for the first time, we find the
address adeAgot. [See Note XIX., p. 40.] — yrupifu d2 tiv] but (now to enter
more particularly on the subject of my letter) I make known to you. This
announcement has a certain solemnity,° which is only enhanced by the fact
that the matter must have been already known to the reader. There is no
need to modify the sense of ywwpifw, which neither here nor in 1 Cor. xv. 1
means monere vos volo or the like.’ —ré eiayyéAsov . . . bri] attraction.* —
TO evayyeAiadev tn’ éuov] which has been announced by me, among you and
among others ;° not to be limited to the conversion of the readers only. —
cata dv0pwrov] cannot indicate the mode of announcement, which would re-

1 To live to please, to render oneself pleasing,
is also Wieseler’s interpretation (comp.
also Rom. xv. 1), who consistently under-
stands the previous apéocew in the same
way. Comp. Winer and Hofmann. But
there would thus be no motive for the
change from ¢nre apéoney, ‘I seek to
please," to qpecxoy,** I pleased,’’ only, which,
according to our view, involves a very sig-
nificant progress. Paul seeks not to please,
and pleases riot.

* See on 1 Cor. x. 83; and comp. avdpwwdp-
eoxos, Eph. vi. 6.

3? Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Za-
chariae, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette,
Ewald, Wieseler, and others.

# See Hofmann’s interpretation of {. 11-iL.
14 in his Aeti. Schr. N. 7.1. p. 60 ff., ed. 2.
On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon
u. Kritik d. N. T. p. 190 ff.

8 If ydp were the correct reading (Hof-
mann), it would correspond to the immedi-
ately preceding contrast between aydparas
and Xpiorod, confirming ver. 10, but would
not introduce a justification of ver. 9, as
Hofmann, arbitrarily going back beyond
ver. 10, assumes.

¢ Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 1; 1 Cor.
xii. 8.

7 Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others.

® Winer, p. 581 f.

9 Comp. 8 «ypvcow, Ii. 2.

CHAP. L, 12. | 23

quire us to conceive ciayyeAcodév as repeated.! Necessarily belonging to ox
gor, it is the negative modal expression of the gospel itself which was
preached by Paul; specifying, however, not its origin,? which xara in it-
self never expresses,® but its gualitative relation, although this ts conditioned
by its origin (ver. 12). The gospel announced by me is not according to
men, that is, not of such quality asit would be if it were the work of men ; it is
not of the same nature as human wisdom, human efficiency, and the like.‘
Looking to the context, the view of Grotius is too narrow, ‘‘ nihil humani
affectus admixtum habet,” ‘‘He has no mingling of human feeling.” Bengel
hits the mark, ‘‘non est humani census evangelium meum, ‘‘my gospel is
not according to the estimate of men.”

Ver. 12. Proof of the statement, 1d ciayyéAiov . . . obx fort Kata dv3pwrov.
—ovd? yap éyd] for neither I, t.e., I, as little as the other apostles. On
ovd? yap, for neither, which corresponds with the positive xai yép, comp.
Bornemann* and Hartung.* The earlier expositors’ neglect both the
signification of oidé and the emphasis on éyé, which is also overlooked
‘by de Wette, ‘‘for also I have not,” etc. ; and Ewald, ‘‘I obtained it
not at all.”* Rickert, Matthies, and Schott understand otdé only as
if it were of, assuming it to be used on account of the previous nega-
tion; and see in éyé a contrast to those, qguibus ipse tradiderit evan-
gelium, ‘‘to whom he had delivered the gospel,” in which case there must
have been airéc instead of éyé. This remark also applies to Hofmann’s
view, ‘‘that he himself has not reccived what he preached through human
instruction.” Besides, the supposed reference of éy4 would be quite un-
suitable, for the apostle had not at all in view a comparison with his disei-
ples ; @ comparison with the other apostles was the point agitating his mind.
Lastly, Winer finds too much in oidé, ‘‘ nam no ego quidem,” “ for not even I.”
This is objectionable, not because, as Schott and Olshausen, following Riick-
ert, assume, oid’ ty ydp or xal yap ovd’ éyS must in that case have been writ-
ten, for in fact yép would have its perfectly regular position (vi. 18 ; Rom.
viii. 7; John v. 22, vii. 5, vili. 42, e¢ al.) ; but because ne ego quidem, ‘‘ not
even I,’”’ would imply the concession of a certain higher position for the other
apostles (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9), which would not be in harmony with the
apostle’s present train of thought, where his argument turned rather on his
equality with them (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 1). [See Note XX., p. 40.] — apa
av3pérov] from a man, who had given it to me. Not to be confounded with
an’ avdpérov.’ Here also, as in ver. 1, we have the contrast between dvdpwro¢

2 Hofmann.

* Augustine, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius,
Calovius, Wolf, and others.

8 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 3.

4 Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, 1d rovs véuous
abrovs Trois sapaBalvovoert Tras Tipwplas exer
BeAriovos 3 car’ av@pwror vomodérou Soxet por
elva:, “That the laws have punishments
for transgressors scems to me to prove their
origin from a better lawgiver than «ar’ ay-
Opwnov.”’ Eur. Med. 673, cofwrep’ 7 at’ dvbpa
cupBarcy ixy, ‘“‘tocompose words wiser

than xav’ v8pa." Soph. Aj. 747, “‘ Think not
nar avdpwrov.”’ Comp. Aj. 764; Oed. Col. 604;
Plat. Pol. 2.859D. The opposite, izép a»
Opwroy elva:, Lucian, Vi. auct. 2,

5 ad Xen. Symp. p. 20.

® Partikell. I. p. 211.

7 Also Morus, Koppe, and others.

®Comp., on the contrary, Matt. xxl. 27;
Luke xx. 8; John viii. 11.

® See on 1 Cor. xi. 28, and Hermann, ad
Soph. Et. 65,

24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

and 'Iyo. Xpiorés. —airé} viz. rd evayyédcoy 1d evayyeAcd9iv tn’ éuot. — obre
édtdd x07] As obre refers only to the ovx contained in the preceding oidé, and
dé and ré do not correspond, oire is here by no means inappropriate (as
Rickert alleges). [See Note XXI., p. 40.] For neither have I received it
Srom aman, nor learned it. TlapéAaBov denotes the receiving through com-
munication in general (comp. ver. 9), éd:dayd7v the receiving specially through
instruction duly used. — adda dc’ aroxaAby. ’I. X.] The contrast to mrapé
avipdrov ; ’Ijcov X. is therefore the genitive, not of the object (Theodoret,
Matthies, Schott, Cremer), but of the subject,’ by Jesus Christ giving to me rev-
élation. Paul alludes to the revelations* received soon after the event at
Damascus, and consequent therefore upon his calling, which enabled him to
comply with it and tocome forward as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. vv.
15, 16 ; Eph. iii. 8. The revelation referred to in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.4 cannot
be meant; because this occurred at a subsequent period, when Paul had for
a long time been preaching the gospel. Nor must we * refer it to the revela-
tions which were imparted to him generally, including those of the later
period, for here mention is made only of a revelation by which he received
and learned the gospel. — How the azoxdAvyic took place * must be left unde-
cided. It may have taken place with or without vision, in different stages,
partly even before his baptism in the three days mentioned Acts ix. 6, 9,
partly at and immediately after it, but not through instruction on the part
of Ananias. The éy éuoi in ver. 16 is consistent with either supposition.
[See Note XXII., p. 40.]

Ver. 18. Now begins the historical proof that he was indebted for his
gospel to the aroxéAvy¢ he had mentioned, and not to Auman communication
and instruction. In the first place, in vv. 13, 14, he calls to their remem-

1 See Hand, De part. rd diss. Il. p. 18; Har-
tung, Partikel. I. p. 101 f.; Buttmann,
neutlest. Gr. p. 815. Comp. on Acts xxiii. 8.

3 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 1; Rev. i. 1.

? Of which, however, the book of Acts
gives us no account; for in Acts xxil. 17,
Christ appeared to him not to reveal to him
the gospel, but forthe purposeof giving a
special instruction. Hence they are not to
be referred to the event at Damascus itself,
as, following Jerome and Theodoret, many
earlier and more recent expositors (Riick-
ert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Hofmann, Wieseler) assume. The calling
of the apostle, by which he was converted
at Damascus, is expressly distinguished in
ver. 16 from the divine droxaAvpat row vidy
év exoi, SO that this inward arocaduyis follow-
ed the calling; the calling was the fact
which laid the foundation for the aroxdAv-
ys (Comp. MOller on de Wette)—the histor-
ical preliminary to it. In identifying the
amoxdAuyes of our passage with the phenom-
enon at Damascus, it would be necessary
to assume that Paul. to whom at Damascus
the resurrection of Jesus was revealed, had

come to add to this fundamental fact of his
preaching the remaining contents of the
doctrine of salvatien, partly by means of
argument, partly by further revelation,
and partly by information derived from
others (see especially Wieseler). This idea
is, however, Inconsistent with the assurance
of our passage, which relates without re-
striction to the whole gospel preached by
the apostle, consequently to the whole of
its essential contents. The same objection
may be specially urged against the view,
with which Hofmann contents himself, that
the wonderful phenomenon at Damascus
certified to Paul’s mind the truth of the
Christian faith, which had not been un-
known to him before. Such a conception
of the matter falls far short of the idea of
the aroxdAuyis of the gospel through Christ,
especially as the apostle refers specifically
to his gospel.

4 Thomas, Cornelius & Lapide, Balduin,
and others.

6 With Koppe, Flatt, and Schott.

® According to Calovius, through the Holy
Spirit ; comp. Acts ix. 17,

CHAP. I., 14. . 25
brance his well-known conduct while a Jew ; for, as a persecutor of the
Christians and a Pharisaic zealot, he could not but be the less fitted for
human instruction in the gospel, which must, on the contrary, have come to
him in that superhuman mode. — gxotcare] emphatically prefixed, indicates
that what is contained in vv. 13, 14, is something already well known to
his readers, which therefore required only to be recalled, not to be proved.
— Thy éuijy avacrpogty rore év TQ lovdaione] my previous course of life in Juda-
ism, how I formerly behaved myself asa Jew. 'Iovdaiouds is not Judaistic
zeal and activity,’ but just simply Judaiem, as his national religious condi-
tion.*? It forms the historical contrast to the present Xprorvavioude of the
apostle.’ — avacrpog? in the sense of course of life, behavior, is found, in addi-
tion to the N. T. (Eph. iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12, e al.) and the Apocrypha
(Tob. iv. 14 ; 2 Macc. v. 8), only in later Greek, such as Polyb. iv. 82. 1.4—
mote év T¢ "Iovd.] a definition of time attached to rv éupy avacrpodfy, in which
the repetition of r#v was not necessary.*— dre xaW vrepBoAmy x.t.A.] & More
precise definition of the object of jxotcare, that I, namely, beyond measure
persecuted, etc. On xa’ trepBoasy, the sense of which bears a superlative
relation to o¢édpa, comp. Rom. vii. 18 ; 1 Cor. xii. 31 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17;
Bernhardy, p. 241. — rot Geot] added in the painful consciousness of the
wickedness and guilt of such doings. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9; 1 Tim. i. 18.
— irépSovr] is not to be understood de conatu, ‘‘as conative.’”* Paul was then
actually engaged in the work of destruction (Acts xxii. 4, comp. ix. 1, xxvi.
10, 11), and therefore it is not to be understood’ merely as rastavi, depopu-
latus sum, ‘‘I devastated, depopulated.”* Paul wished to be not a mere
devastator, not 5 mere disturber,® but a destroyer’ of the church ; and as such
he was active." Moreover, in the classic authors also zop¥eiv and répSew
are applied not only to things, but also to men,”* in the sense of bringing to
ruin and the like.

Ver. 14. Still dependent on érc.— af the mpoxérrew év tr’ Iovdaioug had
then been combined in Paul with his hostile action against Christianity, had
kept pace with uw. —'lovdaicpdc, not Jewish theology, but just as in ver. 18.
Judaism was the sphere in which he advanced further and improved more
than those of his age by growth in Jewish culture, in Jewish zeal for the
law, in Jewish activity in works, etc.’*— ovryAincdryc] one of the same age,

1 Matthies, ‘“‘ when I was still out and out
a Jow ;” comp. Schott.

2 See 2 Macc. il. 21, viil. 1, xiv. 38; 4 Maco.
iv. 26.

* Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. 8, 10, Philad. 6.

4 See Wetstein.

* Comp. Plat. Legg. iil. p. 085 D, 4 rns Tpoias
GAwors 1d Savtepov. Soph. O. FR. 1048, rov
Tupdvvov 1H be ys mada word. Phil. i. 2.
Comp. also on 1 Cor. viil. 7 and on 2 Cor. xi.
23.

* Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,
Menochius, and others.

TWith Beza, Piscator,
Usteri, and Schott.

® Hom. Od. xiv. 264, dypois wépdeoy, ef al.

Estius, Winer,

® Seo Luther's translation.

1° Nicht bloss Verstérer, sondern Zer-
storer.

1! Hom. Ji. lv. 808, woAcas cai reixe’ erdépdovy,
“‘ were laying waste cities and walls,”’ e¢ al.

13 Comp. Acts Ix. 21. s

18 See Hetndorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 340 A;
Lobeck, ad@ Soph. Aj. 1187; Jacobs, Dei.
epigr. 1. 80.

14 Grotius, Riickert.

18On xpoxérrey as intransitive (Luke if.
52; 2 Tim. il. 16, fil. 9, 18), very frequent in
Polyb., Lucian, etc., comp. Jacobs, ad
Anthol, X. p. 85; on éwr. "Iovd., comp. Lu-
clan, Herm. 68,éy rois padypact, Paras. 18,

éy tas Téxvats,

26 ; THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

occurring only here in the N. T., a word belonging to the later Greek.'
The ancient authors use #Auudryc.* — év rH yéver wou] & More precise defini-
tion of cuvyjix. ; yéver is therefore, in conformity with the context,* to be
understood in a national sense,‘ and not of the sect of the Pharisees (Paulus).*
[See Note XXIII., p. 40. ]— repiocortpuc Cyduric irdpyzuy x.T.A. ] & more detailed
statement, specifying in what way the mpotxorrov . . . yéver pov found active
expression ; ‘‘so that I,” etc. — repiocorépwco] than those zoAAoi. They, too,
were zealous for the traditions of their fathers (whether like Paul they were
Pharisees or not); but Paul was so in a more superabundant measure for his.
— TOY TaTpiKav wou wapadécewy] endeavoring with zealous interest to obey,
uphold, and assert them.* The arpixai pov rapadécerc, that is, the religious
definitions handed down to me from my fathers (in respect to doctrine,
ritual, asceticism, interpretation of Scripture, conduct of life, and the like),
are the Pharisaic traditions ;’ for Paul was dapioaioc, a Pharisee (Phil. iii.
5; Acts xxvi. 5), vid¢ dapoaiwy, ‘‘ the son of a Pharisee” (Acts xxiii. 6).°
If Paul had intended to refer to the Mosaic law, either alone® or together with
the Pharisaic traditions,’ he would have named the law either by itself or
along with the traditions (Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 8 ; 2 Macc. iv. 2) ; but by you
he limits the rarpixdc rapadécerg to the special elements resulting from his
descent, which did not apply to those who were in different circumstances
as to descent ; whereas the law applied to ail Jews." That Paul had been
zealous for the daw in general, followed as a matter of course from mpoéxorr.
év tr. "Iovdaioze ; but here he is stating the specific way in which his own
peculiar rpoxérrew év lovdaioue had displayed itself—his Pharisaic zealotry.
[See Note XXIV., p. 40.] It would have been surprising if in this connec-
tion he had omitted to mention the latter. — rarpixéc, not found elsewhere
in the N. T., means paternal."* In this case the context alone decides
whether the idea @ patribus acceptus, ‘‘ received from the fathers” (rarpora-
pédoroc, 1 Pet. i. 18) is conveyed by it, asin this passage by ov, or not.'*
The former is very frequently the case. As to the much-discussed varying
distinction between rdrpio¢, rarpixéc, and marp¢oc, comp. on Acts xxii. 3.
Ver. 15. But when t pleased, etc.'* This denotes, of course, the free placutt
of the divine decree, but is here conceived as an act in time, which is imme-

1 Diod. Sic. 1. 58? Alciphr. 1.12. See Wet- * Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, Calvin, and
stein. others.

2 Plat. Apol. p. 8 C, and frequently.

3 Comp. év rg ‘lovd.

‘For with Hellenist associates, of whom
likewise in Jerusalem there could be no
lack, he does not desire to compare him-
self.

5 Comp. Phil. ili 5; 2 Cor. xl. 26; Rom. ix.
8; Acts vil. 19.

On the genitive of the object, comp. 2
Maoc. iv. 2; Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 8; 1 Cor. xiv.
12; Tit. il. 14; Plat. Prot. p. 348 A.

7 Comp. Matt. v. 21, xv. 2; Mark vil. 3.

®So also Erasmus (Annot.), Beza, Calo-
vius, de Wette, Hofmann, and others.

10 Estius, Grotius, Calixtus, Morus, Koppe,
Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Rickert, Schott, Ols-
hausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, ‘the law ao-
cording to the strict rule of Pharisaism,”
comp. MOller.

11 Comp., as parallel, Acts xxvi. 5.

12 Comp. LXX. Gen. 1. 8; Lev. xxif. 13;
Ecclus. xlil. 10; 3 Esd. £ 5, 81; 4 Macc.
xvill. 7; Plat. Lach. p. 180 E, Soph. p. H2A;
Isocr. Evang. p. 218, 85; Diod. Sic. i. 88;
Polyb. i. 78. 1; Athen. xv. p. 667 F.

183 Ag, for instance, Polyb. xxi. 5, 7.

14 Comp. Luke xil. 8; 1 Cor. i. 21; Rom.
xv. 26; Col. i. 19; 1 Theas. fi. 8, fii. 1.

CHAP. I1., 15. : 27

diately followed by its execution, not as from eternity.'— 6 ddopicac pe éx
waAiac paytpés pov) who separated me, that is, in His counsel set me apart from
other men for a special destination, from my mother’s womb ; that is, not in the
womb ;* nor, from the time when I was in the womb ;? nor, before I was
born ;* but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my Ddirth.® ix
yeverqc, John ix. 1, has the same meaning. Comp. the Greek éx yaozpéc,
and the like. We must not assume a reference to Jer. i. 5,° for in that pas-
sage there is an essentially different definition of time (xpd rod pe rAdoa oe tv
kodig x.t.A.). We may add, that this designation of God completely corre-
sponds with Paul’s representation of his apostolic independence of men.
What it was, to which God had separated him from his birth and had called
him (at Damascus), is of course evident in itself and from i. 1 ; but it also
results from the sequel (ver. 16). It was the apostleship, which he recog-
nized as a special proof of free and undeserved divine grace ;” hence here
also he adds da rij¢ yéperog atrov.* Riickert is wrong in asserting that xaAsoac
cannot refer here to the call at Damascus, but can only denote the calling to
salvation and the apostleship in the Divine mind. In favor of this view he
adduces the aorist, which represents the xAgoig as previous to the ebddxyoev
aroxaAbwa:, and also the connection of xaAfoag with agopicag by means of xai.
Both arguments are based upon the erroneous idea that the revelation of the
gospel was coincident with the calling of the apostle. But Paul was first
called at Damascus by the miraculous appearance of Christ, which laid hold
of him ‘without any detailed instruction (Phil. iii. 12), and thereafter, through
the apocalyptic operation of God, the Son of God was revealed in him: the
xAgorg at Damascus preceded this aroxdéAvyic ;° the former called him to the
service, the latter furnished him with the contents, of the gospel. Comp.
on ver. 12. Moreover, the xAgovg is never an act in the Divine mind, but
always an historical fact (Rom. viii. 30). This also militates against Hof-
mann, who makes éx xotAlag uytpé¢ pov belong to xadécac as well—a connection
excluded by the very position of the words. And what a strange defini-
tion of the idea conveyed by xadeiv, and how completely foreign to the
N. T., is the view of Hofmann, who makes it designate ‘‘an act execut-
ed in the course of the formation of this man”! Moreover, our passage un-
doubtedly implies that by the calling and revelation here spoken of the con-
sciousness of apostleship—and that too of apostleship to the heathen—was
divinely produced in Paul, and became clear and certain. This, however,
does not exclude, but is, on the contrary, a divine preparation for, the fuller

1 Beza. xadAvya:, as Hofmann, disregarding the sym-
® Wieseler. metrically similar construction of the two
§ Hofmann, comp. Mller. participial statements, groundlessly asserts.
* Rickert. Paul knew himself to be cAnrds awdorodos 8a

®Comp. Ps. xxii. 10; Isa. xliv. 2, xlix. 1,
5; Matt. xix. 12; Acts ill. 2, xiv. 8 (in Luke
i. 15, where ér: is added, the thought is dif-
ferent).

¢ Grotius, Semler, Reithmayr, and others.

7 Rom. i. 4, xii. 8, xv. 153 1 Cor. xv. 10.

® For a7. xép. avrov belongs to caAécas
as a modal definition of it, and not to azo-

GedAjparos cov (1 Cor. 1. 1; 2 Cor. 1. 1), and
he knew that this d¢Aqua was that of the di-
vine grace, 1 Cor. xv. 10, iii. 10; Gal. ff. 9;
Rom. 1. 5, xii. 8.

® Hence also dy duol by no means dimin-
ishes the importance of the external phe-
nomenon at Damascus (as Baur and others
contend).

28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

development of this consciousness in its more definite aspects by means of
experience and the further guidance of Christ and His Spirit.

Ver. 16. ’Aroxadtya:] belongs to ebddxyoev ; but év voi is in my mind, in
my consciousness, in which the Son of God was to become manifest as the
sum and substance of knowledge (Phil. iii. 8) ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 6, év rai¢
xapdiae juav, ‘*in our hearts.”' But év is never nota dativi, ‘‘a mark of the
dative,” and all the passages adduced to that effect (such as 1 Cor. ix. 15,
xiv. 11; 1 Tim. iv. 15 ; Acts iv. 12, e al.) are to be so explained that é
shall retain its signification ;? as must also be the casein the passages used
to support the sense of the datious commodi, ‘‘ dative of advantage.”* Jerome,
Pelagius, Erasmus, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and others, interpret it through me, ‘‘ut per me, velut organum, no-
tum redderet filium suum,” ‘‘ that through me, as an organ, He might make
His Son known.”* But the revelation given to the apostle himself is a neces-
sary element in the connection (ver. 12): Paul was immediately after his
birth set apart by God, subsequently called at Damascus, and afterward pro-
vided inwardly with the revelation of the Son of God, in order that he might
be able outwardly to preach, etc. Others, again,® take it as ‘‘on me,” in my
case, Which is explained to mean either that the conversion appeared as a proof
of Christ’s power, etc.,* or that the revelation had been imparted to the
apostle as matter of fact, by means of his own experience, or, in other words,
through his own case (Rickert). But the former explanation is unsuita-
ble to the context, and the latter again depends on the erroneous identifica-
tion of the calling of the apostle at Damascus with the revelation of the
gospel which he received. — rév vid airov] This is the great foundation and
whole sum of the gospel. Comp. ver. 6 f., ii. 20. In his pre-Christian
blindness Paul had known Christ «ard odpxa, 2 Cor. v. 16. — evayyeAifwpaz]
Present tense ;*° for the fulfilment of this destination which had even then
been assigned to him by God ° was, at the time when the epistle was writ-
ten, still in course of execution." 'Thus, in opposition to his adversaries, the
continuous divine right and obligation of this apostolic action is asserted.
—évoic ESveow] among the heathen peoples." The fact that Paul always
began his work of conversion with the Jews resident among the Gentiles,

1§8ee Chrysostom, ras awoxaAUWews xarta-
Aapwovons avrov Thy Puxyy, “ His revelation
enlightening the soul.” Comp. Oecum. (eis
Tov éow avdpwroy THs yuwoews eyignsdoys),
Theophylact, Beza, and most expositors.
Calvin, Koppe, Flatt, and others, wrongly
hold that it stands for the mere dative.
Comp. Bengel.

2 Winer, p. 204.

3 See Bernhardy, p. 212.

4 Erasmus, Paraphr.

®Comp. Hilgenfeld in loc. and in his
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 164: Paul regarded his
Christian and apostolic life and working as
a revelation of Christ in Ais person. Simi-
lar is the view taken by Paul in Hilgenfeld's

Zelischr. 1863, p. 208.

* Peter Lombard, Seb. Schmidt.

7 Comp. 1 John iv. 9, edavepady 7 aydan rov
Geov ey huiy,

8 Which, according to Hofmann, is intend-
ed to designate the purpose from the stand-
point of the present Ame in which it is being
realized. This retrospective interpretation
is purely imaginary, by no means suits even
Plat Legg. p. 653 D, and in our passage is
opposed to the context (see ver. 17).

® Acts ix. 15, xxii. 15, xxvi. 17 f.

10 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 618.

11 See Acts ix. 15, xxll. 21, xxvl. 17, 18;
Eph. fii. 8; Rom. xi. 18,

CHAP. I., 16. 29

was not inconsistent with his destination as the apostle of the Gentiles ; this,
indeed, was the way of calling adopted by the Gentile apostle in accordance
with that destination (see Rom. i. 16).’— eidéuc] does not belong exclu-
sively either to the negative * or to the affirmative part of the apodosis ;? but
as the two parts themselves are inseparably associated, it belongs to the
whole sentence ot rpocavedéinyy . . . addd an7Adov eic ’ApaB., ‘* Immediately
I took not counsel with flesh and blood, nor did I make a journey to Jeru-
salem, but,” etc. He expresses that which he had done immediately after he
had received the revelation, by way of antithesis, negatively and positively ;
for it was his object most assiduously to dispel the notion that he had re-
ceived human instruction. Jerome, in order to defend the apostle against
Porphyry’s unjust reproach of presumption and fickleness, connects ci3éu¢
with evayyeAifopa: ; as recently Credner * has also done. No objection can
be taken to the emphasis of the adverb at the end of the sentence ;* but the
whole strength of the proof lies not in what Paul tas immediately to do, but in
what he had immediately done.* We must, moreover, allow evdéwe to retain
its usual strict signification, and not, with Hofmann,’ substitute the sense
of ‘‘ immediately then,” ‘‘ just at once” (‘‘ not at a subsequent time only”), as
if Paul had written 767 éx rére or the like.» Observe, too, on comparing the
book of Acts, that the purposely added ciPéuc still does not exclude a brief
ministry in Damascus previous to the journey to Arabia (Acts ix. 20), the
more especially as his main object was to show that he had gone from
Damascus to no other place than Arabia, and had not until three years later
gone to Jerusalem. To make special mention of his brief working in Da-
mascus, before his departure to Arabia, was foreign to the logical scope of
his statement. — ov rpocavedingy] I addressed no communication to flesh and
blood, namely, in order to learn the opinion of others as to this revelation
which I had received, and to obtain from them instruction, guidance, and
advice. wpé¢ conveys the notion of direction, and not, as Beza and Bengel as-
sert,* the idea praeterea, ** besides, ””® — capxi xa? aivarc] that is, to weak men, in

1 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 87.

2 Hilgenfeld, Hofmann.

® Winer.

4 FAnl, I. 1, p. 808.

5 Kahner, I. p. 6%; Bornemann, ad Xen.
Anad. it. 6. 9; Stalbaum, ad Phaedr. p. 256
E.

¢**Notatur subita habfilitas apostoli,”’
‘the sudden fitness of the apostle is de-
noted,”’ Bengel.

™ Who invents the hypothesis, that the
apostle had been reproached with having
only subsequently taken up the ground that he
did not apply to men in order to get advice
from them. Hofmann strangely appeals to
evdvs, John xiii. 82, and even to Xen. Cyr. 1.
6. 20, where the idea, ‘*‘ not at a subsequent
time only,’’ is indeed conveyed by é« wa:éiov,
“from a child,” but not at all by cvdvs in
iteelf. Even in passages such as those in

Dorvill. ad Charit. pp. 208, 826, eids, like
evddws constantly, means immediately, on the

® Comp. also Usterl and Jatho.

® So, too, Mircker in the Stud. u. Krit.
1866, p. 584, ‘no further communication.” It
is not, however, apparent to what offer avar-
(Gerda: this is conceived to refer. See
Diod. Sic. xvii. 116, rots pdvrect wpocava-
Oduevog wepi Tov onuciov, ‘* Having conferred
with the diviners concerning the sign,”
Lucian, Jup. Trag. 1, ¢uoi rpocavddov, AdBe
pe oupBovadcy sévwy, “confer with me;
make me an adviser of your tasks,” in con-
trast to the preceding xarapévas cavre
AaAcis, ‘you speak apart, by yourself,”
Nicetas, Angel. Comnen. ii. 5. Comp. C. F.
A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opuac. p. 24.
Just so wpogavadépeay, 2 Maco, xi. 86; Tob.
xii. 15; Polyb. xxxi. 19. 4, xvii. 9. 10.

30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

contrast to the experience of God's working.’ Eph. vi. 12 is also analogous.®*
As the apostle was concerned simply to show that he was not av3pwrodidaxroc,
‘‘taught of man,” it is wholly unsuitable in this connection to refer capx? x.
aiz. to himeel/,® and unsuitable, as regards half the reference, to apply it to
others and the apostle himself. He is speaking simply of the consultation
of others,* and that quite generally: ‘‘ having received this divine revelation,
I did not take weak men as my counsellors.” In the continuation of the
discourse towards its climax the apostles are specially brought into promi-
nence as membersof this category, and therefore capx? x. aiu. is not ® at once
to be referred to the apostles themselves, although they also are included
in it.

Ver. 1%. Neither went I away (from Damascus) to Jerusalem, unto those
who were apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia. So according to
Lachmann’s reading ; see the critical notes. Tove mpd uot arzoor. is written
by Paul in the consciousness of his full equality of apostolic rank (beginning
from Damascus), in which no precedence, save that of seniority, pertained to
the older apostles.’—ei¢ *ApaBiav] It is possible that some special per-
sonal reason, unknown to us, induced him to choose this particular country.
The region was heathen, containing, however, many Jews of the Diaspora
(Acts ii. 11). [See Note XXV., p. 40seq.] This journey, which is to be
looked upon not as having for its object a quiet preparation,’ but as a first,
certainly fervent experiment of extraneous ministry,’ and which was of
short duration,” is not mentioned in Acts. Perhaps not known to Luke at

1 See on Matt. xvi. 17.

2 Comp. the rabbinical OT) 173, “ flesh
and blood,” (Lightfoot, on Matt. Z.c.)

® Koppe, Ewald.

4 Winer, Matthies, Schott, oomp. Ols-
hausen.

6 Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Zachariae,
Morus, Rosenmfiller, Borger, Flatt, Baum-
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld,
Wieseler, Hofmann, Eadie, and others.

® With Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophy-

lact, Oecumentus, and others.

70On the twice-employed emphatio a#yA-
évo, comp. Rom. vill. 15; Heb. xif. 18 ff. ;
Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 187.

® Schrader, Kohler, Riickert, Schott.

® Our passage bears testimony in favor of
this view by evddws . . . dwAdov following
immediately on tva evayy. avrov év rots edve-
ow. Hence Holsten’s view (die Bedeutung
des Wortes cdpt im N. 7. p. 2%; uebder Inh. u.
Gedankeng. a. Gal. Br. p. 17 f.3; also zum
Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 269 f.), that Paul,
** purposely tearing himself away for three
years from the atmosphere of the national
spirit at Jerusalem,” had gone to Arabia,
**in order to peconctle the new reredation with
the old by medilating on the religious records
Of his people,” ia quite opposed to the con-
text. Certainly the system of the apostle’s

gospel, as it is exhibited in the Epistles to
the Galatians and Romans, must have taken
its shape gradually, and by means of a long
process of thought amidst the widening of
experience; but even in the absence of such
a developed system he might make a com-
mencement of his ministry, and might
preach the Son of God as the latter had been
directly revealed in him by divine agency.
Thiersch arbitrarily considers (Kirche in
apoetol. Zeitalt. p. 116) that he desired fo find
protection with Aretas. It isthe view also of
Acts, that Paul immediately after his con-
version followed the divine guidance, and
did not postpone his beginning to preach
till the expiration of three years. Accord-
ing to Acts, he preached immediately, even
in Damascus, ix. 20; comp. xxvi. 19 f. See,
besides, on Rom. Jnfrod. § 1.

107, Cappellus, Benson, Witsius, Eichhorn,
Hemsen, and others, also Anger, Rat. temp.
p. 122, and Laurent, hold the opinion that
Paul spent almost the whole three years
(ver. 18) in Arabia, because the Jews at
Damascus would not have tolerated his re-
maining there so long. But in our igno-
rance of the precise state of things in
Damascus, this argument is of too uncer
tain a character, especially as Acts ix. 2,
comp. with ver. 28, as S¢ éwAnp. nudpa: ixavai,

; CHAP. I., 18. 31
all, it is most probably ta be placed in the period of the ixavat #uépa:, Acts
ix. 23,—an inexact statement of the interval between the conversion and
the journey to Jerusalem, which betrays, on the part of Luke, only a vague
and inadequate knowledge of the chronology of this period. Paul mentions
the journey here, because he had to show—following the continuous thread
of the history—that, in the first period after his conversion, he had not
been anywhere where he could have received instruction from the apostles. —
radu ixtorpepal md2uv, used on the hypothesis that the locality of the call-
ing and revelation mentioned was well known to his readers, refers to the
notion of coming conveyed in irforp.®

Ver. 18. "Erecra] After that, namely, after my second sojourn in Damas-
cus—whence he escaped, as is related Acts ix. 24 f.; 2 Cor. xi. 82f. The
more precise statement of time then follows in the words era éry rpia (comp.
ii. 1), in which the terminus a quo is taken to be either his conversion’ or his
return from Arabia.‘ The former is to be preferred, as is suggested by the
context in oid? ar7Adov etc "lepoodAupa . . . peta Eryn tpla avqAdov el¢ ‘Iepoco.
Comp. also on ii. 1. — avqASov ei¢ ‘Iepoo.] This is (contrary to Jerome’s view)
the jirst journey to Jerusalem, not omitted in the Acts,® but mentioned in ix.
26. The quite untenable arguments of Kéhler® against this identity are
refuted by Anger.’ It must, however, be conceded that the account in
Acts must receive a partial correction from our passage® [see Note XXVI.,
p. 41]; @ necessity, however, which is exaggerated by Baur, Hilgenfeld,
and Zeller, and is attributed to intentional alteration of the history on the
part of the author of Acts, it being supposed that the latter was unwilling
to do the very thing which Paul in our passage wishes, namely, to bring
out his independence of the original apostles. But this consciousness of
independence is not to be exaggerated, as if Paul had felt himself “alien in
the very centre of his being” fyom Peter.° — leropjoa: Kyiv] in order to
make the personal acquaintance of Cephas ; not, therefore, in order to obtain

“when many days were fulfilled,” points
to a relatively longer working in Damas-
cus. And if Paul had labored almost
three years, or, according to Ewald, about
two years, in Arabia, and that at the very
beginning of his aportleship, we could
hardly imagine that Luke should not have
known of this ministry in Arabia, or, if he
knew of it, that he should not have men-
tioned it, for Paul never stayed so long any-
where else, except perhaps at Ephesus. It
may indeed be alleged that Luke purposely
kept silence as to the journey to Arabia,
because it would have proved the inde-
pendent action of the apostle to the Gen-
tiles (Hilgenfeld, Zeller) ; but this view sets
out from the premise that the book of Acts
is a partisan treatise, wanting in historical
honesty ; and it moreover assumes—what
without that premise is not to be assumed—
that the author was acquainted with our
epistle. If he was acquainted with it, the

intentional distortion of portions of his bis-
tory, which it is alleged he allowed him-
self to make, would be the more shameless,
and indeed foolish.

1 See on Acts ix. 10 ff.

* Comp. Acts xviii. 21; Hom. Od. viii. 301,
airis Urocrpépas, ‘having turned him back
again,” ef al. ; Eur. Ale. 1022; Bornemann,
a Cyrop. iii. 8. 60; Kflhner, ad Xen. Mem.

1.2 4,

* As bv most expositors, including Winer,
Fritzsche, Rtickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette,
Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann,
Reithmayr, Caspari.

* Marsh, Koppe, Borger.

§ Laurent.

© Abfassungezeit, p. 1f.

¥ Rat. temp. p. 124 f.

® See on Actaix. 26 f.

® Holsten.

a THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

instruction. But the position of Peter as coryphaeus' in the apostolic
circle, especially urged by the Catholics,? appears at all events from this
passage to have been then known to Paul and acknowledged by him.
‘Iotopeiv, coram cognoscere, ‘‘to know personally,” which does not occur else-
where in the N. T., is found in this sense applied to a person also in Joseph.
Bell. vi. 1. 8, obx donpog dv avip, bv éyd nar’ éxeivov lorépyoa tov wé2en0v, * being
not an unknown man, whom I in that war knew personally,” Antt. i. 11. 4,
vill. 2. 5 ; frequently also in the Olementines. It is often used by Greek
authors’ in reference to things, as rjv wéAw, thy xydpav, tv vécov x.7.A.4
Bengel, moreover, well says : ‘‘ grave verbum ut de re magna ; non dixit
idety (a8 in John xii. 21) sed lorop#oa,” ‘‘an important word for a great
subject ; he did not say idetv, but icropyoa:.”* — kai éxéuerva rpc aizéy*] rpéds,
with, conveys the direction of the intercourse implied in érép.? — puépag dexa-
névre] For the historical cause why he did not remain longer, see Acts ix. 29,
xxii. 17ff. The intention, however, which induced Paul to specify the time,
is manifest from the whole connection,—that the reader might judge for him-
self whether so short a sojourn, the object of which was to become personally
acquainted for the first time with Petcr, could have been also intended for
the further object of receiving evangelic instruction, especially when Paul
had himself been preaching the gospel already so long (for three years).
This intention is denicd by Riickert, because the period of fifteen days was
not so short but that during it Paul might have been instructed by Peter.
But Paul is giving an Aistorical account ; and in doing this the mention of a
time so short could not but be welcome to him for his purpose, without his °
wishing to give it forth as a stringent proof. This, notwithstanding what
Paul emphatically adds in ver. 19, it certainly was not, as is evident even
from the high representative repute of Peter.’ [See Note XXVII., p. 41.]
But the briefer his stay at that time, devoted to making the personal ac-
quaintance of Peter, had been, the more it told against the notion of his
having received instruction, although Paul naturally could not, and would
not, represent this time as shorter than it had really been. Riickert’s arbitrary
conjecture is therefore quite superfluous, that Paul mentions the fifteen
days on account of the false allegation of his opponents that he had been
first brought to Christianity by the apostles, or had, at any rate, spent a long
time with them and as their disciple, but that he sought ungratefully and
arrogantly either to conceal or deny these facts. According to Holsten,
Peter and James were the representatives of the érepov evayy., who in conse-
quence could not have exerted any influence on Paul’s Gentile gospel. But
this they were not at all. Sec onii. 1 ff. and on Acts xv.

1 Theodoret. ® Hofmann is of opinion that Paul desired
® See Windischmann andReithmayr. his readers to understand that he could not

* Comp. also the passages from Josephus
in Krebs, Obdss. p. 318.

4 See Wetstein and Kypke.

®§ Comp. Chrysostom.

© Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7.

7 Comp. Matt. xxvi.55; John i.1; and the
passages in Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 22.
Comp. Ellendt, Lez. Soph. I. p. 658.

have journeyed to Jerusalem in order to
ask the opinion and advice of the “ apostolic
body" there. Asif Peter and James could
not have been “apostolic body" enough!
Taking refuge in this way behind the dis-
tinction between aposties and the apostolic
body was foreign to Paul.

CHAP. I., 19. 33

Ver. 19. But another of the apostles saw I not, sare James the brother of the
Lord. Thus this James is distinguished indeed from the circle of the twelve
(1 Cor. xv. 5) to which Peter belonged, but yet is included in the number of
the apostles, namely in the wider sense (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5, xv. 7) ; which
explains the merely supplementary mention of this apostle.’ — érepov is not
qualitative here, as in ver. 6, but stands in contrast to the one who is named,
Peter. In addition to the latter hesaw not one more of the apostles, except
only that he saw the apostle in the wider sense of the term—James the
brother of the Lord (who indeed belonged to the church at Jerusalem as its
president),—a fact which conscientiously he will not leave unmentioned.—
On the point that James the brother of the Lord was not James the son of
Alphaeus, —as, following Clemens Alex., Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius,
Chrysostom, and Theodoret, most modern scholars, and among the exposi-
tors of the epistle Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jatho, Hof-
mann, Reithmayr, maintain,—but a real brother of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 85;
Mark vi. 8), the son. of Mary, called James the Just,* who, having been a
Nazarite from his birth, and having become a believer after the resurrection
of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 7; Acts i. 14), attained to very high apostolic reputa-
tion among the Jewish Christians (ii. 9), and was the most influential pres-
byter of the church at Jerusalem,* see on Acts xii. 17 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5; Huther
on Ep. of James, Introd. § 1; Laurent, Neutest. Stud. p. 175 ff.‘ By the
more precise designation, tay ddeAgdv tov xupiov, he is distinguished not only
from the elder James, the brother of John,* but also from James the son of
Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve.* The whole figment of the identity
of this James with the son of Alphaeus is a result of the unscriptural (Matt.
i, 25; Luke ii. 7) although ecclesiastically orthodox” belief (extending
beyond the birth of Christ) in the perpetual virginity of Mary.° ([See
Note XXVIII., p. 41.] We may add that the statement, that Paul at this
time saw only Peter and James at Jerusalem, is not at variance with the
inexact expression rod¢ aroaréAove, Acts ix. 27, but is an authentic historical
definition of it, of a more precise character. [See Note XXIX., p. 41.]

1 After «i x} we must supply not «l8op
merely (as Grotius, Fritzsche ad Matth.
p. 482, Winer, Bleek in Stud. wu. Krit. 1886,

p. 1059, Wieseler), but, as the context re- |

quires, «l8ov roy amdorodoy,

3 Heges. In Hus. il. 28.

2 Wieseler also justly recognizes here the
actual brother of Jesus, but holds the
James, who is named in fi. 9, 12 (and Acts
xii. 17, xv. 18, 21; 1 Cor. xv. 7 as the head
of the Jewish Christians, not to be identi-
cal with this brother of the Lord, but to be
the apostle James the son of Alphacus; af-

firming that it was the latter also who was .

called 4 dixa:os, ‘‘the just.” See, however,
on ff. 9. The Gospel of the Hebrews, in
Jerome, Vir. i#. 2, puta James the Just
among the apostles who partook of the
last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless

3

represents him as a brother of the Lord, for
it makes him to be addressed by the Risen
One as “‘ frater mi,” ‘“‘mybrother."" Wiese-
ler, indeed, understands /frater mi, ‘‘my
brother,” in a spiritual sense, as in John xx.
17, Matt. xxvill. 10. But, just because the
designation of a James as adeAdgis rob xvplov,
“the Lord’s brother’ is so solemn, this in-
terpretation appears arbitrary ; nor do we
find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus
addressed the disciples as brethren.

4 (Also, Sieffert, article James, Herzog’s
Real-Encycl., 2d ed., vol. vi.]

5 Hofmann and others.

* Comp. Victorinus, * cum autem /ratrem
dixit, apostolum negavit,” ‘“‘ but when he sald
* brother,’ he dented ‘ apostle.’ *

Form, Cone. p. 767.

® Comp. on Matt. xii. 46; 1 Cor. ix. 5.

34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Ver. 20. Not a parenthesis, but, at the conclusion of what Paul has just
related of that first sojourn of his at Jerusalem after his conversion (namely,
that he had travelled thither to make the acquaintance of Cephas, had re-
mained with him fifteen days, and had seen none of the other apostles
besides, only James the brother of the Lord), an affirmation by oath that in
this he had spoken the pure truth, The importance of the facts he had just
related for his object—to prove his apostolic independence—induccd him to
make this sacred assurance. For if Paul had ever been a disciple of the
apostles, he must have become so then, when he was with the apostles at
Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion ; but not only had he been
there with another object in view, and for so few days, but, besides Peter,
he had met with James only. The reference to all that had been said
from ver. 12,’ or at least to vv. 15-19,?is precluded by the fact that ére:vain
ver. 18 begins a fresh section of the report (comp. ver. 21, ii. 1), beyond
which there is no reason to go back. — The sentence is so constructed that &
62 ypdow tyuiv stands emphatically by itself as an anacoluthon ; and before rz,
that, we have again to supply ypdgu, But what I write to you—behold in the
sight of God I write, that I lie not ; that is, in respect to what I write to you,
I write, I assure you before the face of God,? that I lie not.‘ Schott takes
érc as since, ‘* coram Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior,” ‘‘in the sight of God
I write, since I lie not,” whereby 4 d2 yp. tu. does not appear as an anacolu-
thon. But this siguidem non mentwr, ‘ since I lie not,” would be very flat ;
whereas the anacoluthon of the prefixed relative sentence is precisely in keep-
ing with the fervency of the language.* The completely parallel protesta-
tion also, 6 Gedc. .. oldev. . . Ste ov petdouat,* is quite unfavorable to the ex-
planation of dr: as siguidem. To supply with Bengel, Paulus, and Rickert
(comp. Jerome), an éori after Geov (Sr, that), does not make the construction
easier ;7 on the contrary, it is arbitrary, and yields an unprecedented mode
of expression.

Ver. 21. After this stay of fifteen days in Jerusalem (érecra, comp. ver.
18), I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia ; and consequently was
again far enough away from the seat of the apostles !— ric Evpiac] As it is
said in Acts ix. 80 that Paul was accompanied from Jerusalem to Caesarea,
it is assumed by most modern expositors : ‘‘ Syriae eam partem dicit, cui
Phoenices nomen fuit,” ‘‘ He is speaking of that part of Syria which had the
name of Phoenicia,” Winer. This view runs entirely counter to the design
of the apostle. For here his main concern was to bring out his compara-
tively wide separation from Judaea, as it had occurred in his actual history ;
the whole context (comp. ver. 22) shows that it was so, and therefore the
reader could only understand rfc Zupiag as meaning Syria proper (with

1 Calvin, Koppe, Winer, Matthies. note thereon.
® Hofmann. 6 2Cor. xi. 81; comp. Rom. 1 9; 2 Cor.
‘min D5, so that Ihave God present 14 ae ics
? t a¢ Cc e ;
as witness. ®So also Koppe, Rickert, Usterl, Mat-

4Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 338. intes. Boho ‘Comb. Maik Se.-bl< Acts
+ Comp. Matt. x. 14; Luke xxl.6,and the 0, 9 p. Matt. iv. 24;

CHAP. I., 22. 35

Antioch as its capital). It could not in the least occur to him to think of
Phoenicia,' the more especially as alongside of rye Zvpiacg Cilicia, which
borders on Syria proper, is immediately named (comp. Acts. xv. 238, 41 ;
Plin. v. 22, xviii. 30). Anappeal is also wrongly made to Matt. iv. 24° and
Acts xxi. 8.°. The relation of our passage to Acts ix. 30 is this ; On leaving
Jerusalem, Paul desired to visit Syria and Cilicia ; he was accordingly con-
ducted by the Christians as far as the first stage, Caesarea,‘ and thence he
went on by land to Syria and Cilicia. Comp. on Acts ix. 30.—For what
object he visited Syria and Cilicia, he does not state ; but for this very
reason, and in accordance with ver. 5, it cannot be doubted that he preached
the gospel there. Tareve was certainly the central point of this ministry ;
it was at Tarsus that Barnabas sought and found him (Acts xi. 25).

Ver. 22. But I was so completely a stranger to the land of Judaea, that at
the time of my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia I was personally unknown to
the churches, etc. These statements (vv. 22-24) likewise go to prove that
Paul had not been a disciple of the apostles, which is indeed the object aimed
at in the whole of the context. Asa pupil of the apostles, he would have
remained in communication with Jerusalem ; and proceeding thence, he
would first of all have exercised his ministry in the churches of Judaea, and
have become well known tothem.® Others, inconsistently with the context,
suppose that Paul desired to refute the allegation that he had been a learner
from the churches of Judaea,* or that he himself had taught judaistically in
Judaea,’ or that he had visited Syria and Cilicia as the deputy of the churches
of Judaea.* — 14 rposdry] as regards the (my) countenance, that is, personally.

1 Which even Wieseler, though not un-
derstanding it alone to be referred to, in-
cludes,

2 Where, in the language of hyperbole, a
very large district—namely, the whole prov-
ince of Syria, of which Judaea and Sama-
ria formed portions—is meant to be desig-
nated.

3 Where likewise the Roman province is
intended, and that only loosely and indefi-
nitely with reference to the coast district.
For any ono sailing from Patara and pass-
ing in front of Cyprus to the right has the
Syrian coast before him towards the east,
and Is sailing towardsit. Thus indefinitely,
as was suggested by the popular view and
report, Luke relates, Acts xxi. 8, érAdopuey
cig Zupiay, ‘ we sailed into Syria,’ without
meaning by the «ai carjydypev eis Tvpor,
** and landed at Tyre,” that follows to make
this Lvpiav, ‘Syria,’ equivdient to Phoenicia.
For instance, a man might say, ‘‘ We sailed
towards Denmark and landed at Glfick-
stadt,’ without intending it to be inferred
that Denmark is equivalent to Holstein.

‘The Roman capital of Judaea, not
Caesarea Philippi.

® According to Hofmann, the end at
which Paul aims in ver. 2 f. is conveyed

by «ai e8éfagow «.7.A. in ver. 2%, so that vv.
22, 23 are only related to this as the prota-
sis to the apodosis. This idea is at variance
with the independent and important na-
ture of the two affirmations in vv. 2, 2%;
if Paul had intended to give them so sub-
ordinate a position as that which Hofmann
supposes, he would have done it by a
participial construction (ayvoourres 82...
movoy 5¢ axovovres, Ste «.7.A., d6falov «.7.A.),
perhaps also with the addition of caiwep, or
in some other marked way. In the form
in which the apostle has written it, his re-
port introduced by éwera in ver. 21 is com-
posed of propositions quite as independent .
as those following éwera in ver. 18, and vv.
<2, 23 cannot be intended merely to intro-
duce ver. 24. Hofmann is therefore the
more incorrect in asserting that Paul, from
ver, 21 onwards, is not continuing the
proof of his apostolic independence in con-
tradistinction to the other apostles, but is
exhibiting the harmony of his preaching with
the faith of the mother-church at Jerusalem

ana tts apoetles.

* Oecumentus, Gomarus, Olshausen.

7 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius;
comp. Ustert.

® Michaelis.

36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Comp. 1 Thess. ii, 17. — raig exxAnoiace rie "Iovd.] This is meant to refer to
the churches out of Jerusalem, consequently in the ’Iovdaia y#, John iii. 22.
For that he was known to the chruch in the capital is not only a matter of
inference from his pre-Christian activity, but is certain from that fifteen
days’ visit (ver. 18), and is attested by Acts ix. 26-30.’

Vv. 28, 24. Aé] places pévov axobovres goav in correlation to juny ayvoobpevog
r@ xpoowrp ; it is not, however, to be understood as a mere repetition of
the former dé (Hofmann), for it introduces another’ subject.* The mascu-
line refers to the persons of whom those éixxAyoia: consisted.‘ The participle
with joav, however, does not stand for the simple imperfect (Luther renders
quite incorrectly, ‘‘they had heard”), but prominence is given to the pred-
icate as the main point.* The clause expresses the sole relation in which
they were to Paul ; they were simply in a position to hear.® — dr: 6 didKwv
Huac wore x.t.A.] dre is explained most simply, not by a supposed transition
from the indirect to the direct form,’ but as the recitativoum,® the use of which
by Paul is certain not merely in quotations of Scripture, but also in other
cases (Rom. iii. 8; 2 Thess. ili. 10). Moreover, the statement thus gains
in vividness. In 6 didxwv fuac, juac applies to the Christians generally ; the
joyful information came to them from Christian lips (partly from inhabi-
tants of Jerusalem, partly perhaps directly from Syrians and Cilicians). The
present participle does not stand for the aorist (Grotius), but quite substan-
tivally : our (former) persecutor.°— ri» wicriv] never means Christian doc-
trine,** not even in Acts vi.7, where faith in Christ is conceived as the authorit;;
commanding submission (comp. on Rom. i. 5) ; it denotes the faith —rc-
garded, however, objectively." He preaches the faith (in the Son of God,
ver. 16), which formerly he destroyed. On the latter point Estius justl7
remarks, ‘‘ quia Christi fidelibus fidem extorquere persequendo nitebatur,”
‘because by his persecution he was endeavoring to wrest faith from believ-
ers,”’? —éy éuoi] does not mean propter me,” in support of whioh an appeal
was erroneously made to Eph. 1v. 1 e¢al.: forév, used with persons, is never
on account of (Winer, p. 363) ; but it means, ‘‘they praised God on me,” so .
that their praise of God was based on me as the vehicle and instrument of
the divine grace and efficacy (1 Cor. xv. 10). God made Himself known
to them by my case, and so they praised Him ; SAow yap rd war’ éué, dnoi, ri

1 Neither in Acts ix. 26-30 nor in Acts a rumor among them," Erasmus. Comp.

xxvi. 19 f. (see on these passages) is there
any such inconsistency with the passage
before us, as has been urged against the
historical character of the Acts, especially
by Hilgenfeld, Baur, and Zeller.

* Hofmann appeals to Eur. Jph. 7. 1867.
But in this, as in the other passages quoted
by Hartung, I. p. 169, the well-known repe-
tition of the same word with &é occurs.

8 Baeumlein, ,Partik. p. 97.

4See Pflugk, ad Kur. Hee. 39; Winer,
p. 586.

® See Pflugk, ad Kur. Hee. 1179.

*** Rumor apud fillos erat,’ ‘‘ there was

Vulgate: “‘tantum autem audiium habe-
bant,” ** but they only had the tidings."
™So most expositors, including Rickert
and Wieseler.
® Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfcld, Ewald,

‘Hofmann.

* See Winer, p. 831; Bremi, ad Dem. adv.
Aphobd. 17.

10 Beza, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rickert,
and others.

11 Comp. on fil. 2, 28.

12 Comp. ver. 18.

17As was generally assumed before
Winer.

NOTES. 37

xdpiroc Hv Tov Geov, ‘‘ For as to me, all, he says, was of the grace of God,”
Oecumenius.’ It was not, however, without a purpose, but with a just feel-
ing of satisfaction, that Paul added xai édégalov év éuot rdv Gedy ; for this im-
pression, which Paul then made on the churches in Judaea, stood in start-
ling contrast to the hateful proceedings against him of the Judaizers in Ga-
latia.—Mark further,? how ver. 23 rests on the legitimate assumption that
Paul preached in substance no other gospel than that which those churches
had received from Jerusalem, although they were not yet instructed in the
special peculiarities of his preaching ; as, in fact, the antagonism between
the Pauline teaching and Judaism did not become a matter of public inter-
est until later (Acts xv. 1).

Nores spy American Eprror.

I. Ver. 1. ovx an’ avOpdruv ove? 6’ avOparov,

‘sWhen Meyer asserts a distinction between a causa remotior and a causa
medians, this is not accurate, since the subject treated is not the two causes for
the one act of the call, but the authorization of the office, and the call of the
person”’ (Sieffert). ‘There are few points more characteristic of the apostle’s
style than his varied but accurate use of prepositions, especially of two or
more in the same, or immediately contiguous, clauses’’ (Ellicott).

II. Ver. 1. av@parov.

On the other hand, Eadie: ‘‘ The change to the singular forms a designed
antithesis to the following clause, while it denies the intervention of human
agency in any form and to any extent.’’ So also Sieffert. Meyer is supported
by Brenz, who, however, loses sight of the distinction in the prepositions — viz.,
Per Christum adhuc humanam vitam in terris agentem, while by the same inter-
pretation the ovx az’ avOpérwv becomes A duodecim Apostolis, “ By the twelve
apostles,”’

Til. Ver. 1. év8pwxov.

The statement requires qualification. Instead of saying: ‘‘It was not a
man,” etc., the author himself would not dissent from the better interpre-
tation of Calovius : ovx yAdc avOparog. The participation by the entire divine-
human person of divine majesty, honor, and dominion does not demand the
limitation of a subordination. As tothe chief passage quoted (1 Cor. xv. 28) the
explanation of Philippi isin point (Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. 379): ‘* That
after the attainment of its goal, the Son of God surrenders His place of pre-
eminence as the Head and Leader of humanity, and with respect to the
human race returns to His original co-ordination with the Father.”

IV. Ver. 1. Oeov zrarpos.

Eadie: ‘‘ The name is probably inclusive of all these relations.’’

Comp. John xvif. 10; Ecclus. xlvil. 6. Lex. Soph. 1. p. 598.
See generally Bernhardy, p. 210; Ellendt, 2 In opposition to Holstein and others.

38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

V. Ver. 1. Qeov rarpdc.

Here Meyer’s subordinationism again appears. The climax, however, is to
be retained. For while in the Trinity ‘‘none is before and after other ;” yet
with respect to the order of their subsistence, as declared when it is said that
one emanates or proceeds from the other, such distinction is correct. Not
then “ from the Higher to the Highest,” with respect to actual diginity, authority,
or age, but with regard to their order of working in the economy of grace.
The idea here is also : from the incarnate Son to the unincarnate Father ; from
the God-man to Him who is God and not man; from the Mediator to Him
with whom he mediates.

VI. Ver. 1. tov éyeipavrog abrov ix vexpar,
Luther based this on Rom. iv. 25.

VIL. Ver. 4.

For the grace and peace here mentioned are in direct opposition to the legal
righteousness of the Jews.

VIII. Ver. 4. aidvog rov éveoraroc.

Sieffert protests against this interpretation, and maintains that aidv is not
applicable to the period of the world preceding the Parousia, and is never so
used. As to éveorwc, as a perf. part., it may designate what, although having
entered for a longer or shorter period, still extends, with its consequences, into
the present, hence the present ; or more seldom it may mean that which an-
nounces itselfas threatening. In the latter sense, it occurs in N. T., 1 Cor. vii.
26; 2 Thess. ii. 2. The former meaning, present, it has very frequently in
profane Greek, and in the N. T. at Rom. viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. ili. 22, vii. 26 ; Heb.
ix. 9, and here. For as Rom. viii. 38 contrasts rd évasréra with ta péAAovra,
so here the aidv éveoré¢ is in manifest antithesis to aléy “uéAdwr, Eph. i. 24
(Mutt. xii. 32; Heb. vi. 3), and is therefore the same ‘as ‘what Paul elsewhere
terms 6 aidv Svroc, Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 6, 8, tii. 18; or o viv xaipéds,
Rem. viii. 38 ; or 6 alwy row Kéopou rovrov, Eph. ii. 2. ee this Alford and Eadie
concur, and to it Ellicott inclines.

IX. Ver. 4. Sxwe &&éAnrae.

Sieffert here again dissents. ‘‘As mostly in the LXX. and always in the N. T.
(Acts vii. 10, 34, xii. 11, xxiii. 27, xxvi. 17) to liberaté from a power. Asa
further end of the atoning death of Christ it designates as the final statement
our deliverance from the power whérewith the present age of the world subjects
us to its evil influences, consequently a moral operation, as in 2 Cor. v. 15;
Eph, v. 26; Tit. ii. 14. This, with essential correctness, has been the inter-
pretation of nearly all expositors since Chrysostom, although some in modern
times, entirely against the connection, think chiefly (de Wette, Meyer, Eadie)
or alone (Weiss, Bibl. Theol., § 80) of deliverance from misery, punishmént, and
danger.”’

X. Ver. 6. obrw rayéwe.

‘‘ Probably the apostle had no precise time in his reference. The unexpected-
ness of the apostasy appears to be his prominent element of rebuke ” (Eadie).

a

NOTES. 39

“In the N. T.rayéw¢ always stands without the specification of a terminus a
quo; hence, with the exception of the passage, in which, in combination with
a future idea, it includes a temporal reference to the present (1 Cor. iv. 19;
Phil. ii. 19, 24; 2 Tim. iv. 9) in an absolute sense (Luke xiv. 21, xvi. 6;
John xi. 31; 2 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22), so also here the more for the reason.
that the verb erarieore in the present designates the still progressive devel-
opment of the apostasy ’’ (Sieffert).

XI. Ver. 6. azd rod nradboarrog,

Regarding the dd roi xadéoavrog as referring to God, the remark of Brenz is
worthy of note, that to turn from God is therefore, as the argument here shows,
not necessarily to become an atheist, or to lapse into heathenism, but simply
to hold that ‘‘ to attain forgiveness of sins and salvation through faith in Christ
is not sufficient, and that they must be merited also by the works of the law.”

XI. Ver. 7. érepos.

‘Even in Matt. xi. 3, adduced by Ellicott to show that érepoc does not
always keep its distinctive meaning, it may signify not simply another indi-
vidual, but one different in position and function” (Eadie).

XII. Ver. 7. rivéc elory ol rapdocovres,

The rivé¢ is not without a strain of contempt (Paraeus, Eadie). Cf. 2 Cor. iii.
1, x. 2.

XIV. Ver. 8. fyetc.

Estius, de Wette, Olshausen, Conybeare, regard fuetc used by enallage for fyw.
Cf. 2 Cor. x. 2-16. Lightfoot, on the contrary: “St. Paul never seems to use
the plural when speaking of himself alone.’’ Luther: ‘‘I and my brethren,
Timothy, Titus, and as many as with me teach Christ purely.” Ellicott main-
tains that whether there is an enallage or not must be determined from the
context ; and that while here there is none, yet it may be found in 1 Thess,
i, 2.

XV. Ver. 8. é& otpavov.
The é& ovpavov is in distinction from a fallen angel (Olshausen, Eadie).

XVI. Ver. 8. wap’ 6 evnyyeAte dueba.

On the contrary, Lightfoot : ‘‘St. Paul is here asserting the oneness, the in-
tegrity of his gospel. It will not brook any rival. It will not suffer any foreign
admixture. The idea of ‘contrariety,’ therefore, is alien to the general bearing
of the passage, though independently of the context the preposition might well
have this meaning.’’ Alford correctly observes that the preposition really
includes both ideas.

XVII. Ver. 10.

This explanation is referred by Sieffert not to the curse twice pronounced, but
to the fact that what had been previously uttered in an indefinite and general
way, is not repeated with reference to particular persons.

40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

XVIII. Ver. 10. dpr: ydp avOpcrovc.

Sieffert seeks to reconcile both views : ‘‘ With special reference to his oppo-
nents, although expressed generally.”

XIX. Ver. 11. adeAgoi.

“Still dear to him, in spite of their begun aberration, as in iii. 15, iv. 12,
v. 13, vi. 1” (Eadie).
XX. Ver. 12. odd2 yap eyo,

Sieffert at some length argues that Meyer’s statement that the interpretation
of ode yap, as neque enim, is inconsistent with emphasis on the éy0, is incorrect.
He attaches to it a conjunctive force, and derives the antithetical idea from
v.11. That the adréc is unnecessary, as Meyer states, is sufficiently disproved by
the solitary eyd in 1 Cor. xi. 23. Ellicott’s interpretation impresses us most by
extending the subjects of the antithesis even beyond the apostles—viz., ‘I, as
little as any others, whether ypiorodidaxro: or avOpwrodidaxro:.””

XXI. Ver. 12. obre édidd On.

The otdé belongs to the whole sentence; the ofre connects its parts. See
Winer’s N. T. Grammar, § 55, 6.

XX. Ver. 12. de’ aroxadAtweuc, «7.2,

Sieffert regards the period here specified too narrow, as it may have covered
the entire time between his call at Damascus and his undertaking the work of
apostle to the Gentiles, with which he concludes this review of his life in
vv. 21-23.

XXII. Ver. 14. &y to yévee pov,
*¢ An accidental proof that he is addressing Gentile converts” (Lightfoot).

XXIV. Ver. 14. wepicoorépus CnAwriec, «.7.A.

‘‘We cannot agree with Meyer, followed by Alford, Ellicott, and others, in
saying that the adjective and pronoun limit these traditions to the sect of the
‘Pharisees, Paul being ¢gapicaioc, vldg gapioaiov. We rather think, with Wieseler,
that the reference must be as wide as the phrase év ro yéver’’ (Lightfoot).

XXV. Ver. 17. etc "ApaBiav.

The place, the object, and the length of time of the visit to Arabia are alike
uncertain. For the indefinite limits of the term Arabia, see especially Cony-
beare and Howson, Vol. I., 96 sqq. Many, among them Sieffert, locate this visit
in a region neighboring Damascus—Arabia Deserta ; others fix it in Arabia
Petraea ; still others, in Arabia Felix. As to the object, Sieffert dissents from
Meyer, on the ground, that not until ver. 21 sqq. do we find the record of the
beginning of his missionary activity, and that the ev@éwc does not limit the
edayyéAwpat, a8 Meyer intimates. Luther’s view harmonizes with that of Meyer :
‘* What else would he have done than preach Christ.” But in the absence of all
evidence to this effect in Acts, the probabilities incline to its being for a season

NOTES. 41

of quiet preparation in the desert for his great work. As Neander, however,
remarks (Planting and Training of Christian Church, E. T., p. 93): ‘Either view
equally suits the antithesis in this passage, that Paul did not go up to Jerusa-
lem in order to muke his appearance under the sanction of those who were
apostles before him.” Cf. Schaff's Hist. of Apostolic Church, p. 236; Farrar’s
Lifeand Work: of St. Paul, chap. xi. Kitto (Bible Illustrations) adopts the hypoth-
esis of a retreat from the heat hd insalubrity of Damascus during the summer
reason.

XXVI. Ver. 18. pera éry rpia.

The argument for the necessity of this partial correction presented in com-
mentary on Acts ix. 26 are insufficient. The interval of three years need not
have been three full years, but, like the three days of our Lord’s abode with
the dead, parts of three years, amounting to little more than a full year. The
argument Meyer draws from the distrust of the disciples rests partially on
the unproved hypothesis that Paul had spent the interval in Arabia in preach-
ing. He concedes that ‘‘ the distrust may in some measure be explained from a
long retirement in Arabia.” For a harmonizing of the two accounts see Excur-
sus A of the volume of the Handy Commeniary (Sanday) on Galatians.

XXVII. Ver. 18. ‘Huépac dexarévre.

‘‘ While the fifteen days were amply sufficient for the communication of par-
ticular historical details which Paul did not regard essential to his gospel, they
were actually too short for Paul, after having for three years developed inde-
pendently in his Christian convictions, to have been advised in spiritual depend-
ence by Peter” (Sieffert).

XXVIII. Ver. 20. rdv adeAgdv rod xvpiov.

It is surprising that such interpretation should be given the language of the
Form. Concord., which does contain it even by remotest implication. See
Miller's edition, p. 679, § 24; English translation (Jacobs), p. 628, § 24, Meyer
has evidently in mind the Latin translation of the Smalcald Articles, Miller,
p. 299, whose rendering, however, does not make the perpetuity of Mary's vir-
ginity confessional. On the Lord’s brethren, see the Excursus of Lightfoot.

XXIX, Ver. 20. frepov** oix eldov, x.7.A,

‘“‘The intention is to show, not asin v. 18, that he has not learned the
gospel of the apostles, but that he had not received a formal commission to
preach the gospel : as this would have had to proceed from the entire body of
apostles” (Sieffert).

42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

CHAPTER {4I.

Ver. 5. ol¢ otdé] is wanting in D* Clar.* Germ. codd. Lat. in Jerome and
Sedul., Ir. Tert. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Primas. Claudius antissidor.! Con-
demned by Seml., Griesb., Koppe, Dav. Schulz, But the omission is much too
weakly attested, and arose simply from dé in ver. 4 being understood antithet-
ically, and from the belief, induced by the remembrance of the apostle’s prin-
ciple of accommodation, that it was necessary to find here an analogue to the
circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3) ; ovdé stood in the way of this, and with
it, on account of the construction, olc was also omitted. This of¢ was wanting
at most only in manuscripts of the It. (see Reiche, p. 12), and ought not to
have been rejected by Grot., Morus, and Michael. — Ver. 8. xai éuoi] With
Lachm. and Tisch., read, according to preponderating testimony, xayof. —
Ver. 9. ’IéxwGoc xai Kngdc] DE F G, It., and several Fathers, have Ilérpo¢ xai
"Idxwioc. A transposition according to rank.* — yvév, which io wanting in Elz.

* and Tisch. (bracketed by Lachm.), is to be deleted, according to BFGHK
- L &*, min. vss. and Fathers. Inserted on account of the dé which follows, —
- Ver. 11. Here, and also in ver. 14, Kngdc and Kn¢¢ is the correct reading ac-

cording to preponderating evidence, Comp. oni. 18. The very ancient fiction
(see the exegetical note) that it is not the Apostle Peter who is here spoken of,
testifies also to the originality of the Hebrew name. — Ver. 12. }/00v] B D* F
G &, 45, 73, codd. It., read #A6ev. So Lachm.? Comp. Orig. : eA0évrog ’ IaxaBov.
An ancient clerical error after ver. 11. — Ver. 14. The position of the words xai
ovx (Lachm, and Tisch. ovy) "Iovdaixds Cyc is to be adopted, with Lachm., fol-
lowing decisive testimony. No doubt «ai ovx 'Tovdaixas is wanting in Clar.
Germ. Ambrosiast. Sedul. Agapet. ; but this evidence is much too weak to in-
duce us (with Seml. and Schott) to pronounce the words a gloss, especially as
their omission might very easily be occasioned by the similar terminations of
the two adverbs. — méc] Elz. Tisch. read ri, in opposition to decisive testimony.
— The evidence is also decisive against the omission of dé, ver. 16 (Elz.), which
was caused by eidére¢ being understood as the definition of what precedes,
with which view dé was not compatible. The omission was facilitated by the
fact of oa lesson beginning with eidérec. — Ver. 18. Instead of ovviornu read,
with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., cvviordvw. — Ver. 20. rot viovd tov Oecd]
Lachm. reads rov Ocod xai Xpicrov, according to B D* F G, It. But most prob-
ably this reading arose from the writer passing on immediately from the first
tov to the second, and thus writing rov Ocov only ; and, as the sequel did not
harmonize with this, xa. Xp:orov was afterwards added. If, as Schott thinks,
Tov Geov x. Xpiorov was written because God and Christ are mentioned in vv.
19, 20, the original rov vios rov Geov Would have been turned into rov Oeov x,

t Jerome, Sedul., Primas, have the ols, 8 Who (Praef. p. xii.) conjectures as to
but not the ovée, this reading that 7. should be read instead
2 A. omits xai Kndas. of turds,

CHAP. II., 1. 43

viov atrov. If, however, rov Orov x, Xpiorov had been the original text, there
would have been no reason whatever for altering this into rov viot 7. Oeoi.

ConTENTS.—Paul continues the historical proof of his full apostolic in-
dependence. On his second visit to Jerusalem, fourteen years after, he had
laid his gospel before those in repute, and had been, not instructed by
them, but formally acknowledged as an apostle ordained by God to the
Gentiles (vv. 1-10). And when Peter had come to Antioch, se far was
Paul from giving up his apostolic independence, that, on the contrary, he
withstood Peter openly on account of a hypocritical line of conduct, by
which Christian freedom was imperilled (vv. 11-21).

Ver. 1. On vv. 1-10, seeC. F. A, Fritzsche in Friteschior. Opuse. p. 158 ff ;
Elwert, Progr. Annott. in Gal. ii. 1-10, etc., 1852; Reiche, Comm.
Crit. p. 1 ff. On ver. 1, see Stélting, Bettrage 2. Hxeg. d. Paul. Briefe,
1869, p. 155 ff. [Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalt. I. p. 116 sqq. Baur, Paulus,
2d ed. I. p. 119 sqq. Zeiler, Apostelge. p. 216 sqq. Neander, Gesch. d.
Pflanz., 4th ed. p. 208 sqq., American translation, p. 204 sqq. Lechler,
Ap. u. Nachap. Zeitalt. I. 116 sqq. Ritschl, Altkath. k. 1857, p. 128 sqq.
Trip, Paul. nach. d. Apostelgesch. p. 75 sqq. Oecrtel, Paul. in d. Apostelg. p.
226 sqq. Ebrard, w. Krit. d. evang. Gesch. 3d ed. 1868, p. 878 sqq.
Lipsius, Apostel-convent in Schenkel’'s Bibl. Lex. 1869. Overbeck, Avpostel
geschichte, 1870, p. 216 sqq. Pficiderer, Pauliniem, 1878, p. 500 sqq.
Weizsicker, Apostelkonzil, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1878, p. 191 sqq. K.
Schmidt, Apostel-Konvent in Herzog’s Realencycl. 2d ed. 1877. Keim, Aus. d.
Urchr. 1878, p. 648qq. W. Grimm, Der Apostelkonvent in theol. Stud. u.
Krit., p. 405 sqq. Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church, 249 sqq.
Schaff's Church History, I. p. 841 sqq. Conybeare and Howson’s Life
and Epistles of St. Paul, I. 223].—érera] thereafter, namely, after my so-
journ in Syria and Cilicia ; correlative to the érecra in i. 21, and also in i.
18. "Ere:ra joins the statement to what is narrated immediately before.
Therefore not: after the journey to Jerusalem, i. 18.'— d:@ dexarecodpuy
érav] interjectis quatuordecim annis, after an interval of fourteen years.? The
length of this period quite accords with the systematic object of the apostle,
inasmuch as he had already, up to the time of this journey, labored for so
many years entirely on his own footing and independently of the original
apostles, that this very fact could not but put an end to any suspicion of
his being a disciple of these apostles.? Following Oeder‘ and Rambach,

1 Wieseler.

2Comp. Polyb. xxil. 26, 22, 8° éray spicy ;
Acts xxiv. 17.

3 As to the use of &4, which is based on
the idea that the time intervening from the
starting-point to the event in question {s
traversed when the event arrives (comp.
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856), see generally
Bernhardy, p. 23; Kriiger, § 68. 22. 3;
Winer, p. 886; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 50, and
in Fritzschior. Onuse. p. 162 f.; Herod. iv. 1,

arotnunocayras OxTa x. eixogs rea Kai Sta xpdvov

rogovrov (after so long an interval) carcévrasg
x.7.A.; Deut. Ix. 11, da reccapdxovra hepa,
“at the end of forty days and forty nights”
. « « Ebwxe xvptos éxoi tas S¥0 wAdxas ; Joseph.
Antt. iv. 8.12. Comp. the well-known &a
xpévov, Ktihner, ad Xen. Afem. il. 8. 1; 8°
auwsvos, Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1008 ;
3a paxpov, Thuc. vi. 15. 8; &° erovs, Lucian,
Paras. 15; &° jpdpey, Mark if. 1, and the
like ; also 4 Macc. xiii. 20.
4In Wolf.

44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Theile,* Paulus and Schott have understood d:é as within, ‘‘during the 14
years I have now been a Christian ;” or, as Stdlting, acceding to this ex-
planation, gives to it the more definite sense, ‘‘ during a space of time which
has lasted 14 years from my conversion, and is now, at the time I am teriting
this epistle, finished.” But against this view may be urged the grammatical
objection that d:4 is never used by Greek authors with respect to duration
of time, except when the action extends throughout the whole time,* either
continuously, as Mark xiv. 58, or at recurring intervals, as Acts i. 8.2 Even
. the passages which are appealed to, Acts v. 19, xvi. 9, xvii. 10, xxiii. 31,
admit the rendering of dia ric vuxrde as throughout the night, without devi-
ation from the common linguistic usage.‘ Moreover, how unintelligibly
Paul would have expressed himself, if, without giving the slightest inti-
mation of it, he had meant the present duration of his standing as a Chris-
tian ! Lastly, how entirely idle and objectless in itself would be such a
specification of time! For that Paul could only speak of the journeys
which he made as a Christian to Jerusalem, was self-evident ; but whether
at the time when he wrote the epistle his life as a Christian had lasted 14
years, or longer, or shorter, was a point of no importance for the main ob-
ject of the passage, and the whole statement as to the time would be with-
out any motive in harmony with the context. — From what point has Paul
reckoned the 14 years? The answer, From the ascension of Christ,* must at
once be excluded as quite opposed to the context. Usually, however, the
conversion of the apostle is taken as the terminus a quo,’ an appeal being
made to the analogy of i. 18. Thus the three years of i. 18 would be again
included in the fourteen years. But réacy and the 4:4, indicating the in-
tercal which in the meantime had elapsed, point rather to the jirst journey
to Jerusalem as the terminus a quo. The wéd points back to the jirst jour-
ney, and so did dexareoo. érav presents itself most naturally as the period in-
tervening between the first journey and this ré%». If Paul had again
written yerd, as in i. 18, we might have inferred from the intentional iden-
tity of expression the identity also of the starting-point ; but since he has
here chosen the word dé not elsewhere employed by him in this sense (after
an interval of fourteen years), the relation or this d:d to réA:v leads us to
take the first journey to Jerusalem as the starting-point of the reckoning.
This is the reckoning adopted by Jerome, Chrysostom on ver. 11, Luther, °

1 In Winer’s Neue krit. Jour. VIII. p. 178.

2 Valckenaer, ad Herod. vi. 12; Ast, ad
Plat. de Leg. p. 899.

® See Fritzachior. Opuec. lc.

«See on these passages the Commentary
on Acts. There is no cause for accusing
(with Fritzsche) Luke of an improper devi-
ation from the Greek weus loguendi. Comp,
on &a vucros, Thuc. fi. 4. 1; Xen. Anad. iv. 6.
22. On the Homeric &a viera, during the
night, see Nagelsbach on the Jliad, p. 222,
ed. 3.

5 Possibly by ef of ey Xprore eize, “from
when I am in Christ,” or in some other

way. ,
* Chronic. Euseb., Peter Lombard, Lud.
Cappellus, Paulus.

7So Olshausen, Anger, Matthies, Schott,
Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler,
Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 55,
Stélting, Eadie.

®In the Commentary of 1519 (Opp. Jena
1612, I. p. 886 B), “ Post annos 14, quibus ai
annos tres, quos supra memoravit, adjunx-
eris, jam 17 aut 18 annos eum praedicasse
invenies, antequam conferre voluerit,”
* After 14 years, and if to these you add the
three which he mentioned above, you will

CHAP. II., l. 45

Ussher, Clericus, Lightfoot, Bengel, Stroth,’ Morus, Keil, Koppe, Borger,
Hug, Mynster, Credner, Hemsen, Winer, Schrader, Rickert, Usteri, Zeller,
Reiche, Bleek, and others, as also by Hofmann, who, however, labors under
an erroneous view as to the whole aim of the section beginning with i. 21.?
— dexarecoépwv| emphatically placed before érév (differently in i. 18), in or-
der to denote the long interval.* — rédiv avéBrv eic¢ ‘Iepoc.| Paul can mean by
this no other than his second ‘* journey to Jerusalem, and he says that be-
tween his first and his renewed (7r4/cv) visit to it a period of 14 years had
elapsed, during which he had not been there. If Paul had meant a third
journey, and had kept silence as to the second, he would have furnished his
opponents, to whom he desired to prove that he was not a disciple of the
apostles, with weapons against himself ; and the suspicion of intentionally
incomplete enumeration would have rested on him justly, so far as his ad-
versaries were concerned. Indeed, even if on occasion of a second visit to
Jerusalem, here passed over, he had not come at all into close contact with
the apostles (and how highly improbable this would be in itself !), he would
have been the less likely to have omitted it, as, in this very character of a
journey which had had nothing to do with any sort of instruction by the
apostles,® it would have been of the greatest importance for his object, in
opposition to the suspicions of his opponents.* To have kept silence as to
this journey would have cut the sinews of his whole historically apologetic
demonstration, which he had entered upon in i. 18 and still continues from
i, 21 (though Hofmann thinks otherwise).’ This purely exegetical ground
is quite decisive in favor of the view that Paul here speaks of his second
journey to Jerusalem ;*° and considered by itself, therefore, our passage pre-

find that he had been preaching 17 or 18
years already before he wished to confer.”
Even with éhis reckoning, his conversion
still remains ‘‘the great event by which
Paul measures for himself all Christian
time” (Ewald); for the whole reckoning
begins at i. 18 from this event as its starting-
point.

3 In the Repert. fiir didl. u. morgenl. Lit,
IV. p. 41.

2 See on i. 22

3 Comp. Herod. 7.c.

4 Very correotly put in the Chron. Eused.,
& elwe waAcy, SnAovdrs erdpa éoriy avaBacre
avra, ‘“‘in that he says again, it is manifest
that this is another journey.”

® Comp. 1. 18.

® Wieseler’s objection that Paul, accord-
ing to our view of his historical argument,
would also have left unmentioned the jour-
ney spoken of im Acta xviii. 22, whereby
the reasoning above would fall to the
ground as nimium probans, “proving too
much,” is incorrect. For if he had shown
that up fo the apostolic council (see the sequel)
he could not have received the instruction
of the apostles, his task of proof was com-

pletely solved ; because on occasion of his
presence at that counoll he recelved formal
acknowledgment and sanction as the apos-
tle to the Gentiles. If up to that time he
had not been a disciple of the apostles, now,

‘when he had received in an official way the

fullest acknowledgment as an independent
apostle, there could no longer be any dis-
cussion as to his having at some subsequent
date procured apostolic instruction in Je-
rusalem. It would therefore have been
purely unmeaning, and even absurd, to have
continued the history of his journeys to Je-
rusalem beyond the date of the apostolic
council. But up to that date he could not
omit any journey, without rendering his
historical deduction nugatory as a proof.

7 Comp. also Bleek, Beitr. p. 88.

8 Bloch, Chronotax. p. 67f., and Schott
find év0 journeys mentioned in ver. 1: the
former obtains them from wdAw (after 14
years I made the second journey to Jerusa-
lem, undertaken with Barnabas) ; and the
latter brings them out thus: ‘intra 14 an-
nos iterata vice adscendi Hierosolymas,
cum Barnaba quidem (Act. xi. 80), posthac
(Act. xv.) assumto etlam Tito,” ‘The go-

46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

sents no difficulty at all. The difficulty only arises when we compare it
with Acts. According to the latter, the second journey (Acts xi. 80, xii. 25)
is that which Paul made with ‘Barnabas in the year 44 in order to convey
pecuniary assistance to Judaea ; hence many hold our journey as identical
with that related in Acts xi. 30, xii. 25. So Tertullian c. Mare. i. 20,
Chron. Euseb., Calvin,’ Keil (Opuse. p. 160, and in Pott's Sylloge, III. p.
68), Gabler (neutest. theol. Journ. II. 2, p. 210 ff.), Rosenmiiller, Siiskind (in
Bengel’s Archiv. I. 1, p. 157 ff.), Bertholdt, Kuinoel (ad Act. p. xxv.),
Heinrichs (ad Act. p. 59), Tychsen (on Koppe, p. 149), Niemeyer (de temp.
quo ep. ad. Gal. conser. sit, Gott. 1827), Paulus, Guericke (Beitr. p. 80 ff.),
Kiichler (de anno, quo Paul. ad sacra Chr. convers. est, Lips. 1828, p. 27 ff.),
Flatt, Fritzsche, Béttger, Stélting. So also Caspari (geograph. chronol.
Einl. in d. Leb. Jesu, 1869). But the chronology, through the 14 years,
is decisively opposed to this view. For as the year 44 a.p. or 797 tv.c. is
the established date of the journey in question,’ these 14 years with the ad-
dition of the three years (i. 18) would carry us back to the year 27 a.p. !
Among the defenders of this view, Béttger has indeed turned dexareoodpwy
into recodpwyv ; but how little he is justified in this, see below. Fritzsche,
on the other hand, has endeavored to bring out the 14 years, by supposing
the reckoning of Luke iii. 1 to begin from the year of the joint regency of
Tiberius, that is, the year 765 v.c., as, following Ussher, has been
done by Clericus, Lardner, and others,* and now also by Wieseler.‘ It is
assumed, consequently, that Christ commenced His ministry in 779, and
was crucified in 781 ; that Paul became a Christian at the beginning of 783,
and that 14 years later, in 797, the journey in question to Jerusalem took
place. But against the assumption that the 14 years are to be reckoned
from Paul's conversion, see above. Besides, the year of the conversion
cannot, for other chronological reasons, be put back beyond the year 85 a.D.,
that is, 788 u.c.* Lastly, the hypothesis, that Luke in iii. 1 did not reckon
from the actual commencement of the reign of Tiberius, is nothing but a
forced expedient based on extraneous chronological combinations, and find-
ing no support at all in the plain words of Luke himself. The opinion,

ing up to Jerusalem having been repeat-
ed within 14 years, with Barnabas in-
deed (Acts xi. 30), and afterwards Titus
also having been taken.”” Both views are
introduced into the passage inconsistently
with the text. For according to Bloch's ex-
planation, Paul must have spoken previ-
ously of a journey made with Barnabas;
and in Schott’s interpretation not only is
&d wrongly understood (see above), but it
would be necessary at least that instead of
cupmapad, xai Tirov the text should run, elra
S¢ oupumapadA. «. T. Nevertheless Lange,
apostal. Zeitalt. I. p. 99 f., has again resorted
to the evasion that wad is to be referred to
pera Bapy. and presupposes an earlier jour-
ney already made with Barnabas (Acts xi.)
1 Among the older expositors, J. T. Major

is also named as in favor of this view, whose
Annotata ad Acta Ap. Jen. 1647, 8vo, are
quoted by Gabler and Winer. But in the
second edition of Major’s Annotata, which
appeared after his death, Jena 1670, 4to,
Major (p. 410 ff.) pronounces decidedly for
the view which holds the journey men-
tioned in Gal. fl. 1 to be identical with that
in Acts xv.

2 See Introd. to Acts.

8 See on Luke iil. 1.

4In Herzog’s Encyki. XXI. p. 547 ff , and
especially in his Betir. 2. Witirdigung a.
Evang. 1889, p. 177 ff.

* See on Acts, Introd.

6 See further, in opposition to it, Anger,
ral. temp. p. 14 f., and z. Chronol. ad. Leh-
ramtes Chr. 1.

CHAP. II., 1. 4Y

therefore, that the journey Gal. ii. 1 is identical with that mentioned in
Acts xi., must be rejected ; and we must, on the other hand, assume that
in point of fact those expositors have arrived at the correct conclusion who
consider it as the same which, according to Acts xv., was undertaken by
Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic conference.’ This result is, however, to
be based in the first instance not on a comparison of the historical references
contained in Gal. ii. and Acts xv., but on dca dexarecodpur érav ; and the his-
torical references of Acts xv. afterwards serve merely as a partial, although
very material, confirmation. For the point of view, from which the journey
is brought forward in our passage, is one so special and subjective, that it
cannot present itself in the connected objectively historical narrative of Acts,
whether we take it in connection with Acts xi. or Acts xv. By the search
for points of agreement and of difference, with the view of thereby arriving
at a decision, far too much room is left for argument pro and contra, and con-
sequently for the play of subjective influences, to reach any certain result.
I. Thus in support of thg identity of the journey Gal. ii. 1 with that of
Acts xi. xii., it is argued*—(1.) That the journey follows on the sojourn in
Cilicia and Syria (i. 21, ii. 1; comp. Actsix. 80, xi. 25 ff.). But why should
not Paul, in the éecra, ii. 1, have also mentally included his first missionary
journey (to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, Acts xiii. xiv.) as
preceding, seeing that he made this journey from Antioch and after its com-
pletion again abode in Antioch for a considerable time, and seeing that his
object made it important not so much to write a special history of his labors,
as to show at what time he had first come into closer official connection with
the apostles, in order to make it plain that he had not learnt from them ?
(2.) That it is probable that Paul avon after the beginning of his labors as
the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. i. 23 ; Acts xi. 25 f. ; comp. Acts xv. 28,
ix. 80) expounded his system of teaching at Jerusalem, and laid it before the
apostles for their opinion. But this argument proves too much, since it is
evident from i. 16 that Paul commenced the exercise of his vocation as an
apostle to the Gentiles immediately after his conversion ; so that, even if
the 14 years be reckoned from the conversion, there still remains this long
period of 14 years during which Paul allowed this alleged requirement to
be unsatisfied. According to our interpretation of ii. 1, this period is in-
creased from 14 to 17 years ; but, if Paul had taught 14 years without the
approbation of the apostles, he may just as well have done so for 17 years.

1 So Irenaeus, adv. haer. iii. 18, Theodoret,
Jerome, Baronius, Cornelius & Lapide,
Pearson, and most of the older expositors,
Semler, Koppe, Stroth, Vogel (in Gabler’s
Journ. fir auaerl, theol. Idt. I. 2, p. 249 ff.),
Haselaar, Borger, Schmidt (Zin. I. p. 192
and in the Analect. III. 1), Eichhorn, Hug,
Winer, Hemsen, Feilmoser, Hermann (de P.
ep.ad Gal. tribus prim. capp., Lips. 1882),
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Anger,
Schneckenburger, Neander, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Leke-
busch, Elwert, Lechler (apost. u. nachapost.

Zeltalt. p. 804 ff.), Thiersch, Reuss, Reiche,
Ewald, Ritschl, Bleek, Ellicott, Hofmann,
Laurent, Holsten, Trip, Oertel. Lipsius,
Pfieiderer, Weizsicker, K. Schmidt, Keim,
Lightfoot, Eadie, and others. Riickert does
not come to a decision, but (in his Com-
mentary and in the ezeget. Mag. I. 1, p. 118
ff.) denies the identity of our journey with
that related in Acts xi. xii., and leaves it a
matter of doubt whether the journey men-
tioned in Acts xv. or that in xvili. 22 is the
one intended.
® See Fritzsche, /.c. p. 227.

48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

(83). That the sanction given to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles
(ii. 9) must have been consequent on the journey mentioned in Acts xi. xii.,
because otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have set them apart (Acts xiii.
2 f.) as apostles to the Gentiles. But might not the ordination of the two to
be teachers of the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 2) have taken place previously, and the
formal acknowledgment of this destination on the part of the apostles in
Jerusalem have followed at a subsequent period ? This latter view, indeed,
is supported even by the analogy of aro d2 eig ray reprouhy (Gal. ii. 9), in-
asmuch as James, Peter, and John had been already for a long time before
this apostles to the Jews, but now arranged that as their destination for-
mally in concert with Paul and Barnabas. (4.) That the stipulation respect-
ing the poor (ii. 10) was occasioned by the very fact of Paul and Barnabas
having brought pecuniary assistance (Acts xi. 80). But the care for the
poor lay from the very beginning of the church so much at its heart, and
was so much an object of apostolic interest (Acts ii. 44f., iv. 84 ff., vi. 1 f£.),
that there was certainly no need of any special occasion for expressly making
the remembrance of the poor one of the conditions in the concert, ii. 9 f.
(5.) That the apostles, according to ii. 8, had insisted on the circumcision
of Titus,—a non-emancipation from Mosaism, which might agree with the
time of Acts xi. xii., when the conversion of the Gentiles was still in its in-
fancy, but not with the later time of Acts xv. But see the note on ver. 8.
Even if we allow the erroneous idea that the apostles had required this cir-
cumcision, we should have to consider that James at a much later point
(Acts xxi. 17 ff.) required Paul to observe a completely Jewish custom, from
which it is evident how much, even at a very late date, the Jewish apostles
accommodated themselves to the Jewish Christians, and Paul also assented
to it. (6.) That in Acts xv. there is no trace of the presence of John at Jeru-
salem. But although John is not mentioned by name, he may very well
have been included in the general of améoroAn (Acts xv.). (7.) Lastly,
Fritzsche remarks, ‘‘ Paulum novem circiter annos in Cilicia commoratum
esse (v. Act. ix. 80, xi. 25; Gal. i. 18, cf. Gal. ii. 1; Act. xi. 80), quis
tandem, quum multorum ab apostolis actorum memoria aboleverit . . . prae-
fracte negare sustineat ?” etc.!’ Paul may certainly have been a long time in
Syria and Cilicia, but how long, must remain entirely undetermined after
what we have remarked on (1). Besides these arguments’® it has been urged”
that the conduct of Peter at Antioch (ii. 11 ff.) is too contradictory to the
apostolic decree of Acts xv. to permit our identifying the journey in ques-
tion with that made to the conference ; that in the whole of the epistle Paul
makes no mention at all of the authority of the conference ; and lastly, that

2“ That Paul tarried about nine years in Ci-
licla,who then would venture to persistently

dently incorrect, that it does not merit
notice. Also the special ground brought

deny since the memory of many acts had
perished fromthe memory of the apostles ?”’

® As a revelation afforded to Paul himself
must certainly be intended, the assertion
often brought forward, that car’ awocdAuyiy
in ii. 2 applies to the narrative about the
prophet Agabus (Acts xi. 28 ff.), is so evl-

forward by Bdttger, in order to confirm
the identity of the journey Gal. il. 1 with
that described in Acts xi. xil., carries with
it its own refutation. See, on the contrary,
Rickert, in the Magaz. f. Hixeg. u. Theol. des
N. 7.1. 1, p. 118 ff.

3 See especially Siskind and Keil.

CHAP. II., 1. | 49

after the conference Paul judged more mildly as to the nullity of circumci-
sion than he does in our epistle. But nothing can be built on these argu-
ments ; since (@) even if our journey were that mentioned in Acts xi. xii.,
still the reproach of inconstancy (grounded on his natural temperament)
would rest upon Peter, because he had in fact at an earlier period been
already divinely instructed and convinced of the admissibility of the Gen-
tiles to Christianity (Acts x. 8 ff., xi. 2 ff.) ; (6) in the principle of his apos-
tolic independence Paul had quite sufficient motive’ for not mentioning the
apostolic decree, especially when dealing with the Galatians ;? and lastly (c)
the severe judgment of the apostle as to the nullity of circumcision in our
letter was, in his characteristic manner, adapted altogether to the polemical
interest of the moment : for that he should pass judgment on the same sub-
ject, according to circumstances, sometimes more severely and sometimes
more mildly, accords completely with the vigorous freedom and elasticity of
his mind. Hence the passages cited forthe freer view (Acts xvi. 3; 1 Cor. ix.
20 ff.; Acts xxi. 20 ff.) cannot furnish any absolute standard. — II. To prove
the identity of our journey with that of Acts xv., appeals have been made to
the following arguments : (1) That Titus, whom Paul mentions in ii. 1, is in-
cluded in revag GAAove 2€ avrav, Acts xv. 2; (2) Thatin ver. 2, avedéuyy avroic
7 evayy. 6 knp. év roig 20v. is parallel to Acts xv. 4, 12 ; (8) That the Judaizers
mentioned in Acts xv. 5 are identical with the wape:odxrorg pevdadéAgoic, Gal.
ii. 4 ; (4) That the result of the apostolic discussions recorded in Acts xv.
quite corresponds with a1’ ovdé Tirocg . . . qvayxdody mepitunS7va, Gal. ii. 8 ;
(5) That in an historical point of view, Gal. ii. 11 agrees exactly with Acts xv.
30 ; (6) That in Acts xi. Barnabas still has precedence of Paul, which, how-
ever, is no longer the case throughout in Acts xv. (only in vv. 12, 25) 3 (7
That in our epistle Paul could not have omitted to mention the important
journey of Acts xv. But on the part of those who look upon our journey as
that related in Acts xi. xii., or even in Acts xviii. 22,* such grounds for
doubt are urged against all of these points,‘ that they cannot be used at least
for an independent and full demonstration of the identity of our journey with
that of Acts xv., but merely furnish an important partial confirmation of the
proof otherwise adduced ; to say nothing of the fact that the accounts in Gal.
ii. and Acts xv. present also points of difference, from which attempts have
been made with equal injustice to deny the whole historical parallel, and to
abandon unduly the historical truth of the 15th chapter of the Acts.°—The
result of all the discussion is as follows :—As Paul, in accordance with his own
clear words in Gal, ii.1 as well as with his whole plan and aim in the passage,
can mean no other journey whatever except the second which he made as an apostle to
Jerusalem; and as, moreover,the dad dexarecaodpwy trav forbids our think-
ang of that journey which is related in Acts xi. xii. as the second ; the journey repre-
sented by him in Gal. ii.1 as his second journey must be held to be the same as that
represented by Luke in Acts xv. as the third,—an identity which is also con-

1 Comp. Introd. § 8. Wileseler, p. 557 ff.
2 Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 149. 5 Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld,
8 Wieseler. Holsten.

* See especially, Fritzsche /.c. p. 224 ff. ;
4

50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Jirmed by the historical parallels to be found in Gal. ii. and Acts xv.! In this
way, doubtless, the account of the Epistle to the Galatians conflicts with that
of Acts ;? but, in the circumstances, it is not difficult to decide on which
side the historical truth lies, [See. Note XXX., p. 95.) The account of
Luke, as given in Acts xi. xii., that Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas
to convey the moneys collected, must be described as in part unhistorical.
Perhaps (for it is not possible definitely to prove how this partial inaccuracy |
originated) Paul went only a part of the way with Barnabas (Acts xi. 80), and
then, probably even before reaching Judaea (sec below), induced by circum-
stances unknown to us, allowed Barnabas to travel alone to Jerusalem ; and
thercafter the latter again met Paul on his way back, so that both returned
to Antioch together (Acts xii. 25), but Barnabas only visited Jerusalem in
person. Schleiermacher® assumes an error on the part of Luke as author ;
that, misled by different sources, he divided the one journey, Acts xv., into
two different journeys, Acts xi. and xv. But the total dissimilarity of the
historical connection, in which these journeys are placed by the narrative of
Acts, makes us at once reject this supposition ; as, indeed, it cannot pos-
sibly be entertained without unjustifiably giving up Luke’s competency for
authorship, and by consequence his credibility, in those portions of his book

1 Accordingly, the opinions that our pas-
sage relates to a journey still later than
that reported in Acts xv. fall to the ground
of themselves, for the journey Acts xv. can
neither be historically disputed nor can It
have been omitted by Paul. Following Jac.
‘Cappellus, Whiston, and others, Kohler
‘(Abfassungsz. p. 8) has found our journey in
Acts xviii. 22.—a view more recently de-
fended -by Wleseler, Chronologie d. ap. Zel-
talt. p. 201 ff., and Komment. p. 553 ff., also
in Herzog’s EncyXi. XTX. art. Galaterdritef ;
but Schrader transfers it to the interval
between vv. 20 and 21 of Acts xix.—to the
time of the composition of the Second Epis-
tle to the Corinthians. Against KGhler and
Schrader, see especially Schott, Zrérterung,
‘p. 22 ff.; Wurm, in the Tiibing. Zetétschr.
1888, I. p. 50 ff.; Anger, rat. temp. p. 158 ff.
According to Epiph. Haer. xxvili. 4, even
‘the journey of Acts xx!. 15-17 Ie the one in-
tended ! Against Wieseler, who is supported
by Lutterbeck, see Baur in the theol. Jahrb.
1849, p. 460 ff.; Zeller, Apos/. p. 218 f.; Hil-
genfeld, in his Zeilechr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860,
p. 144 ff.; Méller on de Wette (ed. 8), p.
85 ff. Comp. also Dfisterdieck in Reuter’s Re-
pert. Sept. 1849, p. 222; Schaff, Geach. d. chr.
K.I. p. 181 ff. [Am. Rev. Ed. I. p. 885 sqq.],
Holtzmann. in Schenkel's kirchl. Zetischr.
1860, 8, p. 55 ff.; Ebrard, and others. It is
unnecessary for us here to go further into
Wleseler's arguments from an exegetical
point of view ; for the supposition of some
later journey than Acts xv. must at all

events from Gal. il. 1 appear an evegetical
impoesidility, so long as we allow this much
at Jeast of truth to the Acts of the Apostles
—that Paul was at the apostolic council
The journey to this council cannot have
been passed over by Paul in his narrative
given in our passage ; and consequently the
journey Acts xviii. 22—which, too, he can-
not have taken in company with Barnabas
(Acts xv. 36 ff.)}—cannot have been the one
intended by him. This is completely suffi-
cient to invalidate even the latest discus-
sions of Wieseler. Reiche aptly observes
(Comsn. crit. p. 8): “* Paulus aut non affuisse
in apostolorum conventu Act. xv., aut male
causae guae consuluisse, silentio id praeter-
jens, censendus esset,’’ “ Paul would have
to be regarded eitheras not having been
present at the apostolic conference, Acts
15, or, by passing it over in allence, to have
administered his cause unsuccessfully.”’

* Hofmann (with whom Laurent agrees)
still contents himself with the superficial
current evasion, that Paul had no need to
mention the journey related in Acts xi.,
because it did not afford his opponents any
matter for suspicion. As if his opponents
were to be reckoned so innocent and guile-
less in their judgment, and as if Paul would
not have been shrewd enough to see the
use that would be made of his passing over
in silence one of the journeys made by him
to the seat of the apostles !

9 KFinl. in'’s N. T. p. 300 f.

CHAP. II., 1. 51

in which he was not an eye-witness of the facts. Credner also’ has pro-
nounced himself inclined to the hypothesis of an error on the part of Luke.
He, however, makes the apostle travel with Barnabas (Acts xi. xii.) as far
as Judaea, only not as far as the capital ; assuming that Paul remained
among the churches of the country districts, and made the acquaintance
with them presupposed ini. 22-24, Rom. xv. 19. But, on the one hand,
looking at his apostolic interest, it is not in itself probable that, having
arrived in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, he would fail, after so long an
absence, to be drawn towards the mother-seat of the church, especially
when he had come as deputy from Antioch ; on the other hand, we should
expect that, in order to preclude his opponents from any opportunity of mis-
representing him, he would have briefly mentioned this presence in Judaea
(comp. i. 22), and mentioned it in fact with the express remark that at that
time he had not entered Jerusalem itself. And, as regards the acquaintance
with,the churches in the country districts presupposed in i. 22-24, he may
have made it sufficiently during the journey to the conference. The fact
itself, that Paul during the journey recorded in Acts xi. was not at Jerusa-
lem,? remains independent of the possible modes of explaining the so far
ubhistorical account there given. — pera BapvdBa] The following cuprapad.
x. Tirov shows that Paul recognized himself as on this occasion the chief
person, which agrees with Acts xv. 2, but not with Acts xi. 25, 30, xii. 25.
—ovinapadaBov nat Titov] having taken along with us (as travelling compan-
ion) also Titus. This «ai finds its reference in perd Bapydfa, to which the civ
in ovurapad. also refers ; not among others also (Wieseler),—a meaning which
is not suggested by the text. Whether, however, at Acts xv. 2, Titus is
meant to be included in xai rivag dAAove e& abrHy, must remain an open qucs-
tion. If he is meant to be included, then our passage serves to put the state-
ment on the more exact historical footing, that Titus was not sent with the
others by the church at Antioch, but was taken by Paul on his own behoof..
The idea that he was sent on the part of the opposite party* cannot, on a
correct view of Acts l.c., be entertained at all. [See Note XXXI., p. 95.]

Note. — Tecodpwv, which Ludwig Cappellus, Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bertholdt,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, also Guericke, Rinck, Ktichler, Bohl, Matthaei
(Religionsl. d. Ap. I. p. 624), Schott (in his Isagoge, p. 196, not in his later writ-
ings), Wurm, Ulrich, and Béttger, wish to read instead of dexarescdpuy, is a
mere conjectural emendation on chronological grounds, confirmed by no author-
ity whatever, not even by the Chronic. Huseb., from the words of which it is, on
the contrary, distinctly evident that the chronographer read dexarecadpuv,‘ but

1 Fini. I. 1, p. 815. Ajwews aprdpety abrov. . . . Kai ei ph rovro

2 Which is admitted by Neander, ed. 4, p.
188, following Bleek, Betir. p. 55, and has
been turned to further account by Baur and
his school against the historical character
of the narrative of the Acts; see on Acts
xi. So.

3 Fritzsche.

4 Tp ciweiy avroy 82a 68° rey Bonet por
tous xpévous rev dwooréAwy Tos amd THs dva-

Sauer, evpedicerat 6 xpdvos ad’ od éBarticdy
kai avéBAepey, ws weptéxovocy at Ipafers, ern
&, “ By his saying after fourteen years, he
seems to me to number the times of the
aposties from the Ascension. If we do not
grant this, the time will be found to be that
from which he was baptized and looked up,
four years as comprised in Acts.”

52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

on account of the chronology, because he took the journey for that recorded in
Acts xi, xii., suggested recodpuv.' See Anger, Rat. temp. 128 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p.
160 ff. ; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 206 f. Nevertheless Reiche, in the Comm. Crit.,
has again judged it necessary to read recodpwy, specially because the few mat-
ters related of Paul in Acts x.-xv. cannot be held compatible with his having
been seventeen years an apostle, and also because so early a conversion, as
must be assumed from the reading dexarecodpwy, does not agree with Acts i.-
ix., several of the narratives of which, it is alleged, lead us to infer a longer,
perhaps a ten years’, interval between the ascension of Christ and the conver-
sion of the apostle ; as indeed the existence of churches already established in
Judaea at the time of this conversion (Gal. i. 22) points to the same conclusion,
and 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff., where the avoxd?vyc refers to the conversion, agrees with
tecodpwy, but not with dexarecodpwy inour passage. But when we consider the
great incompleteness and partial inaccuracy of the first half of Acts, the possi-
bility of explaining the establishment of the Judaean churches even in a shorter
period embracing some four years, and the groundlessness of the view that
2 Cor. xii. 2 (see on the passage) applies to the conversion of the apostle, these
arguments are too weak to make us substitute a conjecture for an unanimously
attested reading.

Ver. 2. Aé] continuing the narrative, with emphatic repetition of the same
word, as in Rom. iii. 22; 1 Cor. ii. 6 ; Phil. ii. 8, e al.? — xara aroxéAvyr]
in conformity with a revelation received. What an essential element for de-
termining the bearing of the whole narrative ! Hence avéf. dd x. av. is not
parenthetical (Matthias). But what kind of aroxdavyic it was—whether
it was imparted to the apostle by means of an ecstasy (Acts xxii. 17;
2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.), or of a nocturnal appearance (Acts xvi. 9, xviii. 19, xxiii.
11, xxvii. 23), or generally by a prophetic vision (so Ewald), or by a com-
munication from the Spirit (Acts xvi. 6, 7, xx. 22, 23), or in some other
mode—remains uncertain. According to Acts xv. 2, he was deputed by the
church of Antioch to Jerusalem ; but with this statement our xara aroxaAvpv
does not conflict :* it simply specifics a circumstance having reference to
Paul himself individually, that had occurred either before or after that reso-
lution of the church, and was probably quite unknown to Luke. Luke nar-
rates the outward cause, Paul the inward motive of the concurrent divine
suggestion, which led to this his journey ; the two accounts together give
us its historical connection completely, Comp. Acts x., in which also a rev-
elation and the messengers of Cornelius combine in determining Peter to go
to Caesarea. The state of the case would have to be conceived as similar,
even if our journey were considered identical with that related Acts xi. xil.,
in which case xara aroxdAvyy would apply not—possibly—to the prophe-
sying of Agabus, but likewise to a divine revelation imparted to Paul him-
self. Hermann,‘ as before him Schrader, and after him Dav. Schulz,* have
explained it : ‘‘ explicationis causa, i.e., ut patefieret inter ipsos, quae vera es-

1It is therefore a pure error, when rec- 4 De P. ep. ad Gal. trib. prim. capp. Lips.
odpwy is sometimes styled a varia lectio. 1832, also in his Opuec. V. p. 118 ff.

2 Klotz, ad Devar. p. %1; Baeumlein, 5 De aliquot N. T. locor. lectione et tnterpr.
Partik. p. 9%. 1888,

* As Baur and Zeller maintain.

CHAP. II., 2. 53

set Jesu doctrina,” ‘‘for the purpose of explanation, i.c., that among them
it might be made known what was the true doctrine of Jesus.”” No doubt
xaré might express this relation.’ But, on the one hand, the account of
Acts as to the occasion of our journey does not at all require any explain-
ing away of the revelation (see above); and, on the other hand, it would by
no means be necessary, a8 Hermann considers that on our interpretation it
would, that xara teva aroxéAvyv should have been written, since Paul's ob-
ject is not to indicate some sort of revelation which was not to be more pre-
cisely defined by him, but to express the qualifying circumstance that he
had gone up not of his own impulse, but at the divine command, not a¢’
éavrov, but xara aroxdAruv, conformably to revelation. Moreover, it is the
only meaning consonant with the aim of the apostle, who from the begin-
ning of the cpistle has constantly in view his apostolic dignity, that here
also, as in i. 12, 6, aroxaA. should express a divine revelation,’ as in fact the
word is constantly used inthe N. T. in this higher sense.* — aveSéunv] I laid
before them, for information and examination.‘ — airoic] that is, the Chris-
tians at Jerusalem, according to the well-known use of the pronoun for the
inhabitants of a previously named city or province.* The restriction of the
reference to the apoatles,* who are of course not excluded, is, after ei¢ 'Iepoad-
Zvpa, even still more arbitrary’ than the view which confines it to the pres-
byterium of the church.* Reuss also ® wrongly denies the consultation of the
congregation. — 1d evayy. 5 xnptoow év roig &9v.] The main doctrine of which is
that of justification by faith. Chrysostom aptly remarks, rd yupi¢ wepirouie.
The presént tense denotes the identity which was still continuing at the time
the epistle was written ;° év roic 20veor does not, however, mean among the
nations," but that it was his gospel to the Gentiles which Paul laid before the

Comp. Wesseling, ad Herod. ii, 151;
Matthiae, p. 1859; Winer, p. 376.

2 Comp. Eph. ili. &

8 Comp. I. 12.

«Comp. Acts xxv. 14; 2 Macc. fii. 9, and
Grimm thereon. Among Greek authors, in
Plutarch, Polyb., Diog. L., etc.

6 Bernhardy, p. 288; Winer, p. 587.

¢ Chrysostom,Oecumenius, Calvin, Koppe,
Schott, Olshausen, and others.

Tlf avrocs applied to the apostles, there
was no need for regarding (with Chrysostom
and others) car’ idiav 8@ rots Socove: as a MOTe
precise definition of avedépny avrois ; for if
80, Paul would have expressed himself ina
way very illogical and lable to misunder-
standing, because «ar’ isiay 84 would be
without meaning, if it was not intended to
denote some act different from the general
aveOéuyy avros. Paulmust have written sim-
ply dvedduny avrois «.7.A., avedduny 52 Trois 80x.
This remark applies also against the view
of Baur and Zeller, who, although they allow
that the language warrants our view, take
the sense to be, “I set it forth to them, dué
only to thoee of highest repute in particular.”

On the contrary, if avrots applied to the apos-
tles, the meaning, as the passage runs,
would have to be taken as Schott (comp.
Olshausen) gives it: ‘“‘doctrinam . . . apos-
tolis omnibus exposul, privatim vero (ube-
rius ac diligentius) iis, qui magni aestuman-
tur, apostolis auctoritate insignibus, Petro,
Johanni, Jacobo,” “‘I set forth the doctrine
to all, but in private more fully and assid-
uously to those who are regarded of high
repute, viz., the apostles eminent in infiu-
ence, Peter, John, James.” But how im-
probable it is in itself, that Paul should have
held such a separate conference with a
select few of the apostles, and should not
have vouchsafed an equally circumstantial
and accurate exposition of his teaching to
the whole of the apostles as such! Apart,
however, from this, the three Soxovrres ap-
pear to have been the only apostles present
in Jerusalem at that time.
® Winer, Matthies.
® In the Revue théol. 1859, p. 62 ff.
10 Comp. i. 16.
11 Usteri.

54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

mother-church of Jewish Christianity. '— car’ idiav 62 roig doxovar] 8c. avedéunv
7d evayy. & xnpbeaw év roig E9v. But apart, that is, in one or more separate
conferences, to those of repute.* Toi doxovac singles out the aestumatos from
the body of Christians at Jerusalem. This, however, is not meant to apply
to members of the church generally in good repute,* but (see on ver. 9) to
James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. The other apostles who were
still alive appear already to have ceased from personal connection with the
church at Jerusalem. Vv. 6, 7, 9 show that it is not the anti-Pauline par-
tisan adherents of those three who are referred to ;‘ and, indeed, it would
have been entirely opposed to his apostolic character to lay his gospel spe-
cially before doxovo: in this sense. Moreover, the designation of the three apos-
tles as of doxovyrec is not ‘‘an ironical sidc-glance,”* nor has it proceed-
ed from the irritation of a bitter feeling against those who had habitually
applied this expression to these apostles ;* but it is used in a purely histori-
cal sense : for an ironical designation at this point, when Paul is about to re-
late his recognition on the part of the carlier apostles, would be utterly de-
void of tact, and would not be at all consonant either with the point of view
of a colleague, which he constantly maintains in respect to the other apostles,
or with the humility with which he regards this collegiate relation (1 Cor.
xv. 8 ff.). He has, however, purposely chosen this expression (‘‘ the authori-
ties’), because the very matter at stake was his recognition. Homberg, Paulus
and Matthies wrongly assert that roi¢ doxovo: means putantibus, ‘‘ those think-
ing,” and that the sequel belongs to it, ‘‘ qui putabant, num forte in vanum
currerem,” ‘* who thought that perhaps I had run in vain.” Vv. 5, 6, 9 testi-
fy against this interpretation ; and the introduction of ¢oeiofg into the notion
of doxeiv is arbitrary, and cannot be supported by such passages as Hom. JJ.
x. 97, 101.7 Besides, it would have been inconsistent with apostolic dignity
to give such a private account to those who were suspicious. In classical
authors also ol doxotvrec, without anything added to define it, means those of
repute, who are much esteemed, nobiles.°-—But why did Paul submit his gospel
not merely to the Christians in Jerusalem generally, but also specially to the
three apostles? By both means he desired to remove every suspicion which
might anywhere exist in the minds of others,’ that he was laboring or had
labored in vain ; but how easy it is to understand that, for this purpose, he
had to address to the apostles a more thorough and comprehensive state-
ment, and to bring forward proofs, experiences, explanations, deeper

1 Comp. Rom. xi. 18. hausen.
2 On car’ diay, comp. Matt. xvii. 19: Mark 7 See, on the contrary, Hartung, Partixell.
iv. 34, ix. 28; Vaickenaer, ad Kur. Phoen. II. p. 188 f.

p. 489. It is, like the id¢g, more usual in the
classical authors (Thuc. !. 182. 2, il. 44. 2;
Xen. Mem. ill. 7. 4, Anad. v. 7. 18, vi. 2. 18;
Ast, Lex. Plat. IL p. 88), the contrast to
xoivy Or Snuogig (comp. Macc. iv. 5).

® Comp. dvdpas yyoupdvous dv Trois adeApois,
Acts xv. 2.

* Grotius.

® Schwegler, I. p. 120.

* Cameron, Rickert, Schott, comp. Ols-

® See Eur. Hec. 205, and thereon Schaefer
and Pflugk; Porphyr. de abstin. ii. 40, et ai. ;
Kypke, II. p. 274; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xiii.
56. Comp. also Clem. Cor. I. 87. Just so the
Hebrew JW}. See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 581 ;
Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 889 f. Comp. &x:xuor,
Plat. Pol. x. p. 618 A; Herod. 1.65; Blom-
fleld, Gloss. in Aesch. Pera. p. 100.

® Comp. Chrysostom.

CHAP. II., 2. 55

dialectic deductions, etc.,) which would have been unsuitable for the gen-
eral body of Christians, among whom nothing but the simple and popular
exposition was apprepriate |! Therefore Paul dealt with his colleagues raz’
idiav. But we must not draw a distinction as to matter between the public
and the private discussion, as Estius and others have done : ‘‘ publice ita
contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mo-
sis . . . privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit
ipsos quoque Judaeos ab observantia Mosaicae Legis . . . esse liberandos,”™
etc., ‘‘In public he devoted himself to the proof that the Gentiles are under
no obligation to be circumcised and observe the law of Moses ; but in the
private and secret conference held with the apostles, it was resolved that
even the Jews should be liberated from the observance of the Mosaic law.”
In this way Paul would have set forth only the half of his gospel to the
mass of the Christians there ; and yet this half-measure, otherwise so opposed
to his character, would not have satisfied the Jewish-Christian exclusiveness.
Thiersch also wrongly holds * that the subject of the private discussion was
Paul’s apostolic dignity ; it was nothing else than 70 evayyfiiov x.7.4., and
only in so far his apostolic legitimacy. The object of the private discussion
was, in Winer’s opinion: ‘‘ut non, si his videretur P. castigandus, pub-
lica expostulatione ipsius auctoritas infringeretur,” ‘‘so that if it should
seem to them (the doxovo:) that Paul ought to be reprimanded, his influ-
ence might not be broken by the public complaint.” But this also is not
in accordance with the decided character of Paul ; and if he had dreaded a
public expostulation, he would not have ventured first to set forth his gospel
publicly, because the apostles, in the event of disapproval, would not have
been able to withhold public contradiction. The view that the private dis-
cussion with the doxovc: preceded the general discussion with the church,’
runs counter to the account of our passage, which represents the course of
events as the converse. [See Note XXXII., p. 96.] — phrug cig xevdv rpéxw F
édpayov] Taken by itself, u#mwe may signify either lest possibly, ne forte, and
thus express directly the design of the avedéuny,* or whether... not possibly,
num forte,° thus indirectly interrogative. The former interpretation is decid-
edly to be rejected, because the indicative aorist éépayov does not suit it ;
for, according to the Greek use of the particles of design with the indicative
aorist or imperfect,* the ave@éuyy would not actually have taken place ; and
besides this, we should have to assume—without any ground for doing so in
the context—-that rpéyo and édpauoy are said ez aliorum judicio," ‘‘ from the

1 This was a case in which the principle
beyond doubt applied, codiay 82 Andover dy
Tos reAccors, 1 Cor. il. 6.

3 Kirche im apost. Zeitali. p. 128. Comp.
Lange, apost. Zeitalé. p. 100.

®2So Neander, p. %7 [Am. Ed., p. 124];
Lekebusch, Aposteigesch. p. 295.

* 8o, following the Vulgate and the Greek
Fathers, Erasmus, Luther, and most expos!-
tors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Rickert,
Sehott.

§ Usterl, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Wieseler.

6 See on Iv. 17.

7 Those who do not agree with this, fall
into forced interpretations, as Fritzsche,
Opuse. p. 175: “ne forte frustra efiam tum,
quum epistolam ad Galatas scriberet, apos-
toluslaboraret, aut... antetler jam labor-
avisset,"’ “lest, perhaps, it was in vain that
the apostle labored even when he wrote
the Epistle to the Galatians, or that he had
already labored previously to the journey.”

56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

judgment of others,” and that rpézo is subjunctive, although by its connec-
tion with édpayov it evidently proclaims itself indicative. Hence p4ruc must
be rendered num forte, and the reference of the num is supplied by the idea,
‘‘ for consideration, for examination,” included in aveOéuqv.1 The passage
is therefore to be explained : ‘‘ laid before them my gospel to the Gentiles,
with a view to their instituting an investigation of the question whether I am not
possibly running or have run in vain.” The apostle himself, on his own part,
was in no uncertainty about this question, for he had obtained his gospel
from revelation, and had already such rich experience to support him; that
he certainly did not fear the downfall of his previous ministry ;* hence
pate is by no means to be understood * as implying any uncertainty or
apprehension of his own (in order to see, in order to be certain, whether).
But he wanted to obtain the judgment and declaration of the church and the
apostles.4 Observe, moreover, that the apostle does not say eizue (whether
possibly); but, with the delicate tact of one who modestly and confidently
submits himself to the judgment of the church and the apostles, while hos-
tile doubts as to the salutary character of his labors are by no means unknown
to him, he writes paruc, whether... not possibly (iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5), that
is, in the positive sense, whether perhaps.” In no case has the apostle in
pirus x.t.A. expressed the intention of procuring for himself a conviction of
the correctness of his teaching. °— ci¢ xevév] in cassum, “‘in vain.”"™ Paul
conceives his running as vain, thatis, not attaining the saving result aimed at,®

1 Hartung, Partikell. 11. p. 187, 140.

2 Holsten. Against Holsten’s exaggera-
tion Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 117 f.)
has justly declared himself. The counter
remarks of Holsten, z. Ev. d. Petr. u. Paul.
p. 277, are immaterial.

* With Usteri and Hilgenfeld, also Butt-
mann, neut. Gr. p. 308, and Holsten.

4 So, correctly, Wieseler ; comp. Hofmann,
Schriftbew, Il. 2, p. 44 f., who, however,
heil. Schr. N. T. I. p. 86, supplies only
avedéuny (without rd evayy. «.7.A) after r.
Soxover, thus making pyrws «.7.A. the matter
tiself laid before them ; but this would be at
variance with the essential idea of laying
before them the gospel, of which Paul is
speaking, for he does not repeat avedéunv,
and that alone. According to Hofmann, the
state of the case would amount to this, that
Paul desired to have the answer to the
question pyres x.7.A. from the Soxovc: only,
and not also from the church, —a view
which would neither harmonize with the
position of the latter (comp. Acts xv. 22 f.),
nor would leave apparent in the text any
object for his submitting his gospel to the
church at all.

6 In uyrws «.t.r., let us conceive to our-
selves the moment when the apostle has
laid his gospel before those assembled, and
then says as it were, ‘‘Here you have my
gospel tothe Gentiles; by it you may now

judge whether Iam perhaps laboring in vain,
or—if from the present I look back upon
the past—have so labored /" The supposition
of irony (Marcker in the Sivd. u. Krit. 1866,
p. 587) is not warrantable amidst the
gravity of the whole surrounding circum-
stances,

* Winer (p. 470) Justly lays stress upon this
in opposition to Fritzsche, but is of opinion
(with de Wette) that Paul desired to obviate
the frustration involved tn pomrws «.7.A., by
inducing the assent of the apostles to his
gospel, ‘** because without this assent and
recognition the Christians who had been
converted by him would have remained
out of communion with the others’ (de
Wette). But this latter idea is unnecessa-
rily introduced; and even in the event
of non-recognition, Paul, looking to his
direct calling and the revelation he had re-
ceived, could not have regarded it as in-
volving the result of his labor being in vain.

7 See Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 828. Comp.
the passages from Josephus in Kypke:
from the LXX., Isa. Ixv. 28 e al. ; from the
N. T., 2 Cor. vi. 1, Phil. ii. 16, 1 Thess. iti. 5.
Comp. also the use of ¢is cowwdy, eis rarpov, eis
xaAéy, ‘in common, in season, in good
time,” and the like, in Bernhardy, p. 221.

® Comp. the classical arvévyta rovety, “to
perform senseless labors,’’ Plat. Rep. 486 C.

CHAP. II., 3. 57

if his gospel be not the right and true one. — rpézw] a figurative expression,
derived from the running in the stadium, for earnestly striving activity—in
this case, official activity, as in Phil. ii. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 7.1. The present
indicative transfers us into the present time of the dveféunv, from which
édpayvov then looks back into the past. A clear and vivid representation. ?

Note.—Acts xv. 4, 12 must not be adduced as proof either for or against
(Fritzsche, Wieseler, and others) the identity of our journey with that of Acts
xv. The two facts—that related in Acts xv. 4, 12, and that expressed by dve-
Géunv x.t.A. in Gal, ii. 2—are two different actions, both of which took place at
that visit of the apostle to Jerusalem, although what is stated in our passage
was foreign to the historical connection in Acts xv., and therefore is not re-
corded there. The book of Acts relates only the transactions conducive to his ob-
ject, in which Paul took part as deputy from the church of Antioch. What he did
besides in the personal interest of his apostolic validity and ministry,—name-
ly, his laying his gospel as well before the church (not to be identified with the
assembly of the council) us before the doxovyrec also separately, —forms the sub-
ject of his narrative in Gal. ii., which is related to that in the Acts, not as ex-
cluding it and thereby impugning its historical character, but as supplement-
ing it (contrary to the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). Comp. on
Acts xv. 19 f. As to the non-mention of the apostolic decree, see Introd. § 3.

Ver. 8. Observe, that Paul does not pass on to the result of his discus-
sions with the doxovo: until ver. 6, and consequently it is ver. 6 ff. which
corresponds to the xar’ idiav dé doxovor in ver. 2; so that vv. 3-5 have refer-
ence to the result of the laying his gospel to the Gentiles before the Chris-
tians in Jerusalem generally, and correspond with the first part of ver. 2
(aveGépny abroig rd evayy. 6 xnp. & tr. &0v.). — But so little had that exposition
of my gospel to the church at Jerusalem a result counteracting it and im-
plying the eic¢ xevdv rpéyw } édpapov, that, on the contrary, not even Titus, etc.
Thus 41’ ovdé* introduces a fact which—in contrast to the idea of ‘‘ running
in vain,” which had just been brought forward as the point for inquiry in
that exposition of his gospel —serves as the surest palpable proof how tri-
umphantly the Gentile gospel of the apostle (which rejected the necessity
of circumcision for the Hellenes) maintained its ground then before the
church of Jerusalem, and how very far people were from ascribing to the
apostle a running, or having run, in vain. For otherwise it would have
been absurd, if the church had not pleaded for, and accomplished, the cir-
cumcision at least of Titus.‘ ‘‘ But not even this was done, to say nothing
of its being a duty of the church to reject my gospel, which was altogether
opposed to the circumcision of Gentiles, and to decide that I cic xevov rpézyo
éépayov !” This line of argument involves a syllogism, of which a2’ ovde

1In other passages, Christian activity
in general, as 1 Cor. ix. 24 f., Gal. v. 7, Heb.
xii. 1. Comp. Rom. ix. 16.

2As to the indicative generally with
the indirect interrogative u17, whether not,
see Bernhardy, p. 307; Hermann, ad Viger.

p. 810; also Ellendt, Zex. Soph. II. p. 104.

® Comp. Luke xxiii. 15; Acts xix. 2

« The latter, as associated with the apostle
in teaching, must, in his uncircumcised Gen-
tile condition, have been specially offensive
to thoce who had Judaistic views.

58 THE EPISILE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

- + » mepitpnOyva is the minor. —°EAAqy dv] Although a Hellene, a Gentile.'
We have no further details as to his descent. — qvayxdo67) From vv. 4, 5 it
follows that, on the part of certain Christians at Jerusalem (not of the apos-
tles also, who are not referred to until ver. 6, where the kar’ idiay d2 roic dox.
is resumed), the circumcision of Titus had been urged, but had not been
complied with on the part of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, and this resistance
was respected by the church ;* hence the ov« 7vayxéo6y repitunbiva, there was
not imposed on him the necessity of submitting to be circumcised. Most expos-
itors, however, adopt the common opinion that ovdé . . . qvayxdoOy xepir.
implies that the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, which is ad-
duced by Paul as a proof of his agreement with the apostles.* This view is
decisively set aside by the sequel (see on ver. 4), apart from the fact that
here the relation to the apostles is not yet under discussion. Moreover, if
the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, there would have been
no occasion for the expression 7vayxdao@7. Certain individuals in the church,
no doubt instigated by the false brethren (ver. 4), had really come forward
with the demand that Titus must submit to be circumcised.‘ To look upon
the false brethren themselves as those who demanded the circumcision of
Titus *® does not suit ver. 4, in which they appear only as the mere remote
cause of the demand ; they kept in the background.*

Note.—An inconsistency with Acts xv., in which the argument and decision
are against the necessity of circumcision, would only emerge in ver. 3, if the
matter in question here had been the principal transactions of the council itself,
and if those who required the circumcision of Titus had been the aposiles (or
had at least included the apostles), as Fritzsche, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and
others assume. But as neither of these is the case, and as, indeed, it does not
even follow from our passage that the apostles had so much as merely advised
the cireumcision of Titus (Wieseler’s earlier opinion, which he has now rightly
abandoned), this passage cannot furnish arguments either against the identity
of the journey Gal. ii. with that of Acts xv. (Fritzsche, p. 224), or against the
historical character of Acts xv. (Baur and his followers).

Ver. 4f. The motive, why the demand of circumcision made as to Titus
was not complied with by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus (comp. eiZayeyv, ver. 5).
It was refused on account of the false brethren, to whom concession would

1 This “ although a Hellene” refers to 6 cvv
quot. Paul is conscious of the boldness, nay,
of the deflance (comp. Jerome on ver. 1,
** qusus sit’’), which was involved in bring-
ing the Hellene with him to the council at
Jerusalem, the seat of Judaism. In the
sense of my official colleague (Reiche, Wiese-
ler), the simple 6 ovp exoi is not in harmony
with the context.

2 For the qvaycdody wepirundqvar, if it had
occurred, could only have occurred through
the church—and indeed possibly even the
apostolic college (as the Tiibingen criticism
asserts)—joining in the demand made on

Titus, and adopting it as their own.

® See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy-
Jact, Oecumenius, and many others, includ-
ing Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, de
Wette, Hofmann, Sieffert.

4 Comp. the subsequent case of Timothy,
who, under different circumstances, was
circumcised by Paul himself (Acts xvi. 8).

§ Bleek, Wieseler, and others.

* Holaten wrongly reverses the relation,
when he holds that behind the false breth-
ren Paul saw the Christians of Jerusalem
and the Soxovrres.

CHAP. II., 4. 59

otherwise have been made in a way conducive to their designs against
Christian liberty.— dca 62 roig mapeodaroug pevdadéAgouc] 8c. ovK yvayxdoby
nepitunOgva.' These words, however, are not, properly speaking, to be sup-
plied ; in dia d2 r. 1. y. they receive their more precise definition, made spe-
cially prominent by dé, autem: on account, however, of the false brethren.
Though Paul might have subjoined this immediately without dé, he inserts
the dé not superfiuously,* but on account of the important bearing of the
matter on his argument. The case is similar when a more precise defini-
tion is made prominent by dé, the same word being repeated, as in ver. 2.*
On dé Bengel justly remarks, ‘‘declarat et intendit,” ‘‘he declares and
intends,” as in fact dé is often used by classical authors for giving promi-
nence to an explanatory addition in which the previous verb is of course
again understood.‘ As to the matter itself, observe how Paul under
other circumstances, where there was no dogmatic requirement of oppo-
nents brought into play, could bring himself to allow circumcision ; see
Acts xvi. 8: Consequently after ver. 3 a comma only is to be placed, not
a full stop, or even a colon.* Others* supply avéB7v, which, however,
after ver. 8, could not possibly occur to the mind of a reader.’ Rinck®
assumes an anacoluthon,—that ov elfauev was intended to follow on da
62 rove mapecodar. pevdadéAg., but that Paul had been led off by the long
parenthesis and had then added oi. Buttmann’ leaves the choice to
be made between this view and ours. But if Paul had intended to write,
on account of the false brethren we have not yielded, he would not in doing
so have represented the false brethren as those to whom he had not yielded ;
by using oi¢ he would thus have altered” the sense of what he had begun to

1 To supply merely qrayxdody weperp. with-
out olx (Koppe), 80 that nrayxacdy is to be
understood in the altered sense, ‘‘ But on
account of the false brethren, t¢ was insisted
on in this case,” Ig entirely inadmissible,
both on account of this very diversity of
sense,and also because in ver. 8 the nega-
tion is essential and indeed the chief point.

2 Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact.

* So, in substance, Theodore of Mopsu-
estia, Augustine, Cameorartus, Erasmus,
Castalio, Piscator, Bos, Calovius, Estius,
Bengel, and others: more recently, Schott,
Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette,
Ellicott, Relthmayr; also Matthies, who,
however, 80 explains the passage that we
should rather expect it to run, &a 82 ray
wapecdatuy WpevsabdAduy.

* Klotz, ad Devar. p. 850.

® Lachmann, Tischendorf.

® As Zachariae, Storr, Borger, Flatt, Her-
mann, Matthias.

¥ Olshausen takes a similar but still more
harsh and arbitrary view, that the idea in
Paul’s mind was, ‘‘I went indeed up to
Jerusalem, in order to lay my gospel before
the apostles (?) for examination ; on account

of these, however, it was really not at all
necessary ... but, on account of the false
brethren, I found myself induced to take
steps.” In the ardor of his language, Paul
had allowed himself to be diverted from the
construction he had begun; and described
instead the nature of the false teachers.

8 Lucubr. crit. p. 170 f. (so previously
Grotius, and recently Wieseler).

® Neut. Gr. p. 829 f.

10 Wieseler seeks to avold this by taking
&a 82 rovs wapac. Wevdeds. as equivalent to
cav 8¢ pevdaddAdwv xedrcuvdvtwy Tovro, * the
false brethren demanding this :” with their
demand Paul had not exhibited compliance.
But &é& means nothing else than an account
of, that is, according to the context, with
reference to them (comp. Acts xvi. 8), namely,
because they lurked In the background in
the matter, and it was inexpedient to take
account of their designs or to give them
any free scope. Also in Heb. ii. 10, vi. 7,
Jobn vi. 57, &d with the accus. is simply on
account of, and has to receive its more pre-
cise meaning from the context. In the
passages quoted by Wieseler (Xen. Cyr. v. 2.
$5, and Plut. Cam. 85), 64, according to the

60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

gay, and would simply have occasioned perplexity by the mixture of an ac-
count of and to whom. But there is no need to resort at all to an anacolu-
thon when, as here, what immediately precedes presents itself to complete
the sense. This remark holds good also against Winer, p. 529, who! as-
sumes that Paul mixed up the two thoughts : ‘‘ We did not have Titus cir-
cumcised on account of the false brethren ;” and, ‘‘I might nowise yield to
the false brethren.” Hofmann® also produces an unnecessary anacoluthic
derangement of the sentence, by supposing that a new sentence begins with
dia dé napecodcr. wevd., but that the relative definition otriveg «.r.A. does not
allow it to be completed ; that, in fact, this completion does not take place
at all, but with ver. 6 a new period is begun, attached to what immediately
precedes. Following the example of Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 8, Ambrose,
Pelagius, and Primsius (opposed by Jerome), Riickert, followed by Elwert,
supplements the passage as follows : ‘‘ But on account of the false brethren
Iwithal allowed Titus to be circumeised” (consequently meprerufOn). Accord-
ing to his view, this is the course of thought in the passage : ‘‘Even Titus
was at that time not forced to be circumcised ; there was not, and could not
be, any question of compulsion ; but because I saw that there were false
brethren, whose sole endeavor was to discover a vulnerable point in us, I
considered it advisable to give them no occasion (?), and had Titus circum-
cised. Nevertheless, to yield out of obedience to them, and to acknowledge a
necessity in respect to all Gentiles, never occurred to me for a moment,”
etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged, first, that in ver. 3 the
emphasis is laid on Tiroc and not on 7vayxdo6n, and in ver. 5 on mpd¢ Spav and
not on rj trorayy ; secondly, that the idea of ‘‘ acknowledging a necessity
in respect to all Gentile Christians” is not even hinted at by any word of
Paul ; and thirdly, the general consideration that a point so important and
so debatable as the (alleged) permission of the circumcision of Titus would
have been, would have needed, especially before the Galatians (comp. v. 2),
a very different elucidation and vindication from one so enigmatically in-
volved, in which the chief ideas could only be read between the lines. But
such a compliance itself shown towards false brethren, —not for the sake, pos-
sibly, of some zeak brethren, who are imported into the case by Elwert, nor
on account of the Jews, as in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3),—
would have been quite unprincipled and wrong. Very near to the interpre-
tation of Riickert comes that of Reiche, who places the (supposed) circum-
cision of Titus not at the time then being and at Jerusalem, but at an earlier
period, at which it took place either in Antioch or elsewhere.* But against

well-known Greek usage, is ‘‘ for the sake
of," that Is, through merit or through fault
of any one.

1 Comp. Hilgenfeld.

2 Comp. his Schriflbew. II. 2, p. 46.

3 At vero... ut rem aliam hic interpo-
nam, vv. 8-6 (nam ver. 6 oratio ad apostolos
redit), Tit! nimiram circumcisionem, quam
quis forte modo dictis ver. 2 opponat, qua-
si apostolorum aliorumve auctoritate vel

jussu fecerim, aut ipse circumcisionem le-
gisque observationem necessariam duxerim
6 f. parum mihi constans, sufficiat mon-
ulsse :— nec Titus le comes meus et adjutor,
Graecus natus, minime est coactus circumcidt
ame vel a quocunque ; propter falsos autem
Sratres, qui tum noe speculabantur, quaomodo
immunitate a lege Mos. a Christo nobis
parta uteremnr, eo consilio, uf denuo nos sub
legis servitium redigerent ... propter hos dico

CHAP, II., 4. 61

this view may be urged partly the arguments already used against Riickert,
and in addition the arbitrary procedure involved in shifting vv. 3-6 to an
earlier time ; although Tirog 6 civ éuoi, evidently referring back to ovurapa-
AaBodv xai Tirov in ver. 1, precludes our taking this event out of the course
of the narrative begun in ver. 1. Moreover, xeperui6y as supplied by
Reiche cannot be invested with the sense ‘‘ liber e¢ volens circumcisionem
suscepit,” ‘‘ freely and voluntarily received circumcision,”—a sense which,
for the very sake of the contrast, since the emphasis lies on liber et volens,
would need to be expressed (by iPeAovrayv mepteruffy or the like). Lastly,
an un-Pauline compliance’ would be the result of the sense which would
follow from the omission of ol¢ ovdé in ver. 5 (see the critical notes) : ‘‘ But
on account of the false brethren . . .. I gave way momentarily and caused
Titus to be circumcised,” to which also the sentence of purpose which fol-
lows, iva } aA#Oea x.t.A., would be utterly unsuitable ; for, according to the
point of view of our epistle, the ‘‘truth of the gospel” could only continue
with the Galatians if such a compliance did not take place. — rapecodxrove]
eubintroductos (Vulgate), brought in by the side, that is, privily and illegiti-
mately,—namely, into the association of Christian brotherhood, of which
they are not at all true members.* The word does not occur elsewhere in
ancient authors ;* but it must have been employed on several occasions, as
mapeiaaxrov is quoted by Hesychius, Photius, Suidas, and mape:odxrove by
Zonaras, being explained by aAAérpcov and aAdorpiave, ‘‘ pertaining to another
and to others.” The word has also been preserved as a name (by-name) in
Strabo, xvii. 1, p. 794, Tlapeioaxrog émtxAnBeic TroAepzaioc. The verb rapeicdyw
is very current in later authors.‘ — pevdadéAgovc] as in 2 Cor. xi. 26, persons
who were Christians indeed, but were not so according to the true nature
of Christianity—from the apostle’s standpoint, anti-Pauline, Judaizing reac-
tionaries against Christian freedom. The article points out that these peo-
ple were historically known to the readers, Acts xv. 1, 5. —olrmvec K.T.A. |

Titus ritum hune externum . . . suscepit vo-
dens, ut istis calumniandi nocendique ansa
et materies praeriplatur,” etc., ‘* But to
interpose here another subject, vv. 3-6
(for in v. 6 the argument returns to the
apostles), forsooth, the circumcision of
Titus, which some one perhaps opposes to
what has just been sald, v. 2, as though
with little consistency I did this by the in-
fluence or command of the other apvstles,
it is sufficient to have taught : Neither was
Titus, my companion and assistant, born
a Greek, in any way compelled to be cir-
cumcised either by me or by any one ; but
because of false brethren who were then
spying us out, as to how we were employ-
ing the immunity from the law of Moses,
acquired for us by Christ, that they might
anew bring us under bondage to the law—
because of these, I say, Titus voluntarily un-
derwent this rite, that the occasion and
material of calumniating and injuring wus

might be taken away from them, etc.”

1 Reiche seeks to evade this by thus ex-
plaining ver. 5: “‘guidus, quanquam pru-
dentiae fuerit, propter eos Titum circumcli-
dere, attamen ceterum, in rebus ad fidem lib-
ertatemque Christianam fere facientibus, ne
paulisper quidem cessimus iis obtemperantes,"
“‘ Although it would have been the part of
prudence to circumcise Titus because of
them, yet in matters generally pertaining to
Christian faith and liberty, we yielded by
obeying them, not even for a little." We
should thus have in ver. 5a saving clause,
the most essential point of which (‘‘ ceterum,
tn rebus,"’ etc., ** but, in things,” etc.) would
have to be mentally supplied.

® See the note after ver. 5.

® Prol. Sir. in Biel, III. p. 48, and Schleus-
ner, IV. p. 228, mpdéAoyos sapeicaxros adjAov.

* Plut. Afor. p. 828 D; Polyb. ii 7. 8, vi. 56.
12; Diod. xii. 41; 2 Pet. fl. 1. Comp. wape-
odvgav, Jude 4.

62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

quippe qui, ‘since they, ” contains the explanation as to the dangerous char-
acter of these persons, by which the dia d2 r. x. y. is justified. — raperoqa-
Gov]. The idea of being smuggled in (which is denied by Hofmann) is here
accordant with the context, and indicated purposely by the twice-repeated
mapec.* — xatacxor#oa] in order to spy out, hostilely to reconnoitre, to watch.*
— iv Exouev év Xpiotp "Igo.] & more precise definition of the preceding
jpov.* This freedom is, as may be gathered from the entire context, nothing
else than the freedom from Mosaism (Rom. x. 4) through justification by faith.*
Matthies introduces also the Christian life, but without warrant ; the spying
of the pseudo-Christians was directed to the point, whether and to what ex-
tent the Christians did not conform to the enactments of the Mosaic law.
"Ev Xpiorg implies as its basis the solemn idea of the év Xpror@ elva:.* Hence :
in Christ, as our element of life by means of faith,’ as Christians. — iva quae
xatadovAdoovory®] is the dangerous design which they had in view in their
Katacxonfjoa. ‘Hyde applies, as before, to the Christians as such, not merely
to Paul and Titus (Winer, de Wette), or to Paul and the Gentile Christians
(Baur) ; for it must be the wider category of those to whom, as the genus,
the tueic in ver. 5 belongs as the species. We must also notice diapetvy in
ver. 5, which is correlative to the Zyouev in ver. 4. The future after iva indi-
cates, that the false brethren expected their success to be certain and ene
during.’ In classical authors we find only Su, 5¢pa, and yf thus construed,
and not iva, as Brunck, ad Hur. Bacch. 1880, supposed,” but in the Hellen-
ists and Fathers iva also." Karé strengthens the idea of the simple verb : to

make us wholly slaves (of Mosaism), to enslave ua.'*

The mode in which the

apostle looks at these people does not confound the result with the inten-

1 Comp. Lucian, Asin. 15, «i Avcos wapeurdA-
Go: ; Polyb. ii. 55.3

* Comp. generally on Rom. v. 20, and see
Chrysostom on our passage.

®Comp. Josh. fil. 2, 8; 2 Sam. x. 8;1
Chron. xix. 8; Eur. Hel. 1628; Polyb. x. 2;
also xardoxoros, @ spy.

4 Comp. Eph. if. 4 e¢ al. «

® Comp. fll. 18, v. 1.

®v. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21; Eph. ili. 6, e¢ al.
Comp. Eph. 1. 7, fil. 12.

7 Comp. 2 Cor. fil. 17.

8 The Recepta, defended by Reiche, is
xatasovAwowyrar, But B** F G, 17, Dam.,
have xarasovAdowow; and A B* CD E RX,
min., carasovAdcovery (so Lachmann, Scholz,
Tischendorf). The sniddle (to which, more-
over, Lucian, Soloec. 12, assigns an un-
founded difference from the active) ts ac-
cordingly abandoned unanimously by the
best mss., and is the more readily to be
given up, because in this case the ver-
sions cannot come into consideration,
and consequently the importance of
the mss. is all the greater. The middle
being most familiar from the LXX. (Gen.
xivil, 21; Ex. 1, 14, vi. 5; Lev. xv. 46; Ezek.

xxix. 18; the active, only in Jer. xv. 14, xvii.
4; the Apocrypha has the middle only), in-
truded itself unsought. This much in oppo-
sition to Rejiche, who derives the active
from 2 Cor. xi. 20. Further, as xaradovAw-
covory has the great preponderance of testi-
mony, and was very easily liable to the al-
teration into the subjunctive usual after
iva, It is to be adopted (with Usterl, Schott,
Wieseler, Hofmann), but is not to be con-
sidered (with Fritzsche) as a corruption of
the subjunctive. The Recepta xarasovAwowr-
rat, Which K and most of the later mss.
have, shows that the change into the sub-
junctive must have been very prevalent at
an early date. Nevertheless L and one
min. have «arasovAscovra which must
have sprung from the original caradovAwcov-
Cty,

* See Matthiae, p. 1186; Klotz, ad Devar.
p. 688, Rost, ad Duncan. Lex. p. 870.

10 Klotz, ad Derar. p. 629.

11 Comp. Winer, p. 271; Buttmann, newt.
Gr. p. 22.

12 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. &); Plat. Pol. 1. p. 815
B, SovAoteGa adixws xai xarasedovAwerdat:

Thue. ili. 70. 2, and Duker én Joc.

CHAP. II., 5. 63

tion (de Wette) ; it represents the latter correctly according to the fact
(they desire to bind the Christians to the law), but in the form which it es-
sumed from the Pauline point of view.'

Ver. 5. Connection : —‘‘ On account of the false brethren, however, Titus
was not compelled to be circumcised ; to these we did not yield even for an
hour. Had we consented to the suggestion, which was made to us by Chris-
tians at Jerusalem (sec on ver. 8), at least to circumcise Titus, we should
have thereby yielded to the false brethren standing in the background, who
declared the circumcision of Gentile Christians to be necessary ; but this
did not at all take place.” * — cic] in the sense of rotroe ydp, ‘‘ for to these.”
See Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 f.; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 64 ; Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. Tl. p. 871. — xpd¢ dpav] not even for an hour, indicating a very
short duration of time. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; Philem. 15 ; John v. 85; 1
Thess. ii. 17 ; also mpi piav orgy, ‘‘in onc moment,” Wisd. xviii. 12 ; mpd
ddiyov, mpd Bpaxb, and the like. — eifauev] namely, I and Barnabas and

. Titus. — 79 trorayh] belongs not to d:auefvg (Matthias), an inverted arrange-
ment which would be without motive, but to eifauev, beside which it stands:
‘‘through the obedience claimed by the false brethren,” that is, by render-
ing to them the obedience which they desired. On the matter itself, sec Acts
xv. 1, 5. Matthies regards rg trorayg as an appositional explanation of oi¢.*
But the yielding takes place not to the obedience, but to the demand (rg
évroAg). Fritzsche correctly takes it in an ablative sense, but explains, ‘‘eo

-obsequio praestito, quod apostoli postularent,” ‘‘such obedience being af-

forded as the apostles demanded.” But in combination with ofr...
eifauev, end with iva gud¢ xaradova. preceding, it would not occur to the
reader to think of anything else than the obedience claimed by the wevdada-
go. Besides, it was not the apostles at all who demanded the circumcision
of Titus, but (see on ver. 8) Christians at Jerusalem, acting on the instiga-
tion of the pevdédeAgo:, so that these latter would have been obeyed by the

circumcision in question. Comp. the state of matters at Acts xxi. 21.

Holsten, without any indication of support in the context, interprets : ‘‘ by

the subordination to the doxotvres, which had been demanded by the false
brethren.” Lastly, Hermann (who is followed by Bretschneider), entirely in
opposition to the context, explains it, ‘‘quibus ne horae quidem spatium

Jesu obsequio segnior fui,” ‘‘than whom I was more slow in obedience to

Jesus not even for the space of an hour. — iva # aAfOera x.1.4.] Object of this

non-compliance at that time, which, although in the nature of the case it
concerned Pauline Christians generally, is represented concretely as refer-
ring to the Galatians: ‘‘in order that the truth of the gospel may abide with
you ; in order that by our conduct the principle of Christian freedom should
not be shaken, and ye should not be induced to deviate from the truth,
which forms the subject-matter of the gospel (ver. 14 ; Col. i. 5), by mixing
it up with Mosaism” (comp. érepov evayyéduov, i. 6). A purpose, therefore—
and this the readers were intended to feel—to which their present apostasy
1 Comp. vi. 12 f. (Hilgenfeld in his Zeiéechr. 1860, p. 121).

2 Paul was therefore by no means “ nearly * As to this usage, see Fritzsche, Diss, in
compelled to have Titus circumcised” 2 Cor. II. p. 186 f.

64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

entirely ran counter !— pic tude] a8 rpd¢ airdy, i. 18, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7;
here also it is not the «ith of simple rest, but expresses the relation of an
active bearing on life ; Bernhardy, p. 265. Besides, Paul might justly say
apo tuac, as the Galatians were for the most part Gentile Christians, and in
that opposition to the false brethren it was the freedom of the Gentile Chris-
tians which he sought to maintain. The tyac individualizes the readers of
the letter (iii. 26, iv. 6; Col. i. 25 ; Eph. iii. 2, and frequently). The ref~
erence to the yet unconverted Gentiles, whom the truth of the gospel had
still to reach (xpoc iuac), as suggested by Hofmann,’ is in complete opposi-
tion to the text. —dcapeivy] permaneret, ‘‘ might continue ;” denoting the abiding
continuance. The truth which they have received was not again to be lost.
Heb. i. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 4; Luke xxii. 8; and frequently in Greek authors.

Note. —As by the pevdadeAgos (vv. 4, 5) cannot be meant the Judaizers at work
among the Galatians (which is assumed by Fritzsche entirely in opposition to
the connection), but only the same persons mentioned in Acts xv. 1, 5; they
cannot be described as false brethren in relation to any one particular church (e.g.
to the church of Antioch, into which they had crept from Jerusalem, as Baur
and Reiche think), On the contrary, the general form of their antagonism, vv.
4, 5, as well as the further account in vv. 7-10, and the whole argument of the
epistle, admit only of one point of view,—that the apostle, out of the certainty
of the dA70ea tov etayyediov, styles them false brethren in relation to Christianity
generally, of which they had, as regards their Judaizing character and action
looked at from a Pauline standpoint, falsely pretended to be professors. This
does not in itself exclude the fact that they had come from Jerusalem to Anti-
och (Acts xv. 1). The inflexible opposition offered to them by the apostle in
Jerusalem doubtless contributed much to the bringing about of the apostolic
decree. Comp. Marcker, l.c. p. 539. [See Note XXXIII., p. 96.]

Ver. 6. Paul having described in vv. 3-5 the momentous result of his
relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem (atvoi¢, ver. 2), now passes on
(corresponding to the xar’ idiav dé rvi¢g doxovor, ver. 2) to his relations towards
the apostles, explaining that the same result had then followed his discus-
sions with them. — The construction is anacoluthic. For when the apostle
wrote a7d dé rav doxotvruy eivai ti, he intended subsequently to finish his
sentence with oidéy taov, ovdév édidd yOnr, ‘‘I received nothing, I was taught
nothing,” or something of that kind; but by the intervening remarks
droioi more . . . Aaudvec he was completely diverted from the plan which
he had begun, so that now the thought which floated before his mind in
aré dé tav doxotvrwy civai re is no longer brought into connection with these
words, but is annexed in the form of a ground (yép) to rpéowrov Ord arOpo-
cov ov AauBdver ; and this altered chain of thought occasions éyoi to be now
placed emphatically at the beginning. Properly speaking, therefore, we
have here a parenthesis beginning with ézoio, which, without any formal
conclusion, carries us back again by éuot ydp x«.r.A. to the main thought,
leaving the words ard d2 rév doxotytuy eivai te entirely unconnected, and

1Comp. Windischmann.

CHAP. II., 6. 65

merely pointing back by means of ol doxowvrec, as by a guide-post, to that
abandoned commencement of the sentence. For it is only in substance,
and not in form, that the parenthesis is concluded with AauPdévec. Comp.
Rom. v. 12 ff. ; Eph. ii. 1 ff. An anacoluthon is also assumed by Erasmus,
Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius & Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Koppe,
Rosenmiiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Hilgenfeld, Eadie, and others; so that—according to the usual
view (Wiescler takes the correct one)—with éuoi yap «.r.A. Paul again takes
up the thread of the discourse which had broken off with avd 62 doxotyruy
elvai rz, and merely continues it actively instead of passively (Winer, p. 529).
But this is opposed both by éuoi, which logically would not be in its proper
place at the head of the resumed sentence, and also by yép, which does not
correspond to the mere inguam, ‘‘I say” (oi, dé), after parentheses, but in
the passages concerned’ is to be taken as explaining or assigning a reason.
Hermann makes out an aposiopesis, so that quid metuerem? ‘‘ what was I to
fear ?” has to be supplied after avd. . . elvai rt.? But this is not suggested
by the context, nor is it permitted by the tranquil flow of the discourse, in
which no such emotion as warrants an aposiopesis is discoverable. Fritzsche
supplies the very same thing which in ver. 4 was to be supplied after pév-
dadéAgouc, making Paul say, ‘‘a@ viris autem (nempe), qui auctoritate talerent
(circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit],” ‘‘ but by the men who
had influence [he did not allow the necessity of circumcision to be imposed
on himself].” But however casy and natural this supplement was in ver, 4
after yerdadéAgouc, because it was suggested asa matter of course by the
words immediately preceding, in the present case it appears both harsh and
involved, as the whole body of ideas in vv. 4, 5 intervenes and hinders the
reader from going back to that supplement. And how abrupt would be
the position of the following ézoio: x.r.4. | Lastly, the (erroncous) idea,
that the apostles had demanded the circumcision of Titus, is thus violently
imported into the text. Holsten’s involved construction*—according to
which ad dé réw dox. x.r.2. is to be carried on to ver. 9 in conformity with
the notion of defdg AauBdverv azé—is shown by éyol ydp «.r.A., where the
doxovvrec already reappear, to be an impossible solution of the anacoluthon,
which even thus is not avoided. The passage is explained without suppos-
ing either supplement or anacoluthon :—1. Most simply, and without
violence to the language, by Burk,‘ making elvai tt belong to ovdév por
diagéper : ‘* That on the part of those in authority (by their recognition) I am
something (namely, as respects my outward position), I reckon of no value.”
But, in reality, Paul attached to his recognition by the original apostles the
true and great value which it necessarily had for him in confronting his
opponents ; and hence he very carefully relates it in ver. 7. This interpre-
tation therefore runs counter to the context.° 2. Just as little allowable is

1 Also Rom. xv. 27; 1 Cor. ix. 19. §z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 28 f.

2 Comp. Dav. Schulz, who believes that 4In the Stud. u. Krit. 1803. p. 734 ff.
quidnam tandem adrersus me actum est f 5 Comp. also, against it, Marcker in Stud.
‘what pray was done against mef’ issup- wu. Arid. 1866, p. 682 ff.
pressed.

5

66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

it? to connect aro dé r. dox. é. t. with the words preceding, ‘‘ but certainly
(this enduring confirmation of Christian freedom was only possible) through
the authority of the doxovvrec elvai tt.” But to the signification of azé, from
the side of, a sense would thus be arbitrarily ascribed, which is not justified
by passages such as Matt. xvi. 21, and must have been expressed by some
such explanatory addition as in Acts ii. 22. It was impossible also for
Paul—above all in this epistle—to conceive the maintenance of the truth of
his Gentile gospel as conditional on the authority of the original apostles.
Lastly, instead of the sentence which next follows asyndctically (ézoioc
x.T.A.), we should expect an emphasized antithesis (such as GAA’ dzoios x.t.A.).
3. The Greek Fathers and Castalio, Calovius, Zachariac, Bolten, Borger, and
others, interpret the passage, ‘‘ But as regards those of repute, it is one and
the same thing to me,” etc., by which, however, azé is quite in violation of
language interchanged with zepi. So also Riickert,* who at the same time
wishes to preserve for azé its due signification (‘‘on the part of any one, it
makes no difference to me ; that is, what concerns him, is quite indifferent
to me”), without authority, however, from any actual linguistic usage.
4. Following Homberg, Ewald understands it as if it stood rév dé doxot-
vrov . . . ovdév diadépw, ‘* But compared with those who, etc., however high
they once stood, J am in nothing inferior.” 5. Hofmann’ brings ard 62 rév
doxobvtuy eivai ti (ard, from the side of ) into regimen with ver. 9, and in such
@ manner that the three doxovyre¢ orvAa elvac in ver. 9 are supposed to form
the subject of the period beginning with azo «x.r.4. in ver. 6 ; but this mode
of construction is decisively condemned by its very inherent monstrosity,
with its parentheses inserted onc within another ; and besides this, the repe-
tition of oi doxovyres in ver. 6 would be entirely without aim and simply
perplexing, if the continuation of the construction as regards amd é. 7. d. ¢. 7.
were still to follow, as is supposed by Hofmann. Nevertheless, Laurent‘
has agreed with the latter, but has at the same time arbitrarily removed
from the disjointed construction éroin . . . rovvarriov as a marginal note of
the apostle,—another expedient, whereby a2Aa rovvarriov, so violently dealt
with by Hofmann, finds the connection with idévres, which it evidently has
(see below) dissevered. — On Jdoxeiv civai tr, which may mean either
reckon oneself tobe something great, or to be esteemed great by others (so here),
see Wetstein.* The same persons are meant who are referred to in ver. 2
by roi¢ doxoto:. But the addition of re elva:, and the éoio «.r.A. which
follows, betray here a certain irritation in reference to the opponents, who
would not concede to Paul an estimation equal to that given to the original
apostles, as if elvai re belonged pre-eminently to the latter. — droioi core Foav]
Now come the parenthetical remarks, on account of which Paul leaves his

1 With Marcker. Cyr. iv. 1. 4,

2Comp Olshausen, who, however, as- 2 Comp. above, against Holsten.
sumes that in using asé Paul had at first 4 neut. Stud. p. 29f.
some other phrase in his mind, but that he 6 Comp. Plat. Huthyd. p. 38 C, rav rodAAwv
afterwards inexactly followed it up with davd3pawey cai rwy cepvav dy xai Soxovvrwy Tt
ovdéy por Scaddper. In all essential points Mat- = elvac ovdev byiv wéAcr,‘ forthe many men,both
thias agrees with Rickert, as does also as wellas forthe revered and those seeming
Reithmayr, who improperly compares Xen. _to be something, you have no concern.”

CHAP. II., 6. 67

Grd 32 tiv dox. elvai re standing alone, but which he introduces, lest the
high estimation of those apostles—which in itself, according to the real
(and by him undisputed) circumstances of the case, he by no means calls in
question—should lead to the inference that he had needed instruction from
them. Comp. the subsequent éyoil ydp oi dox. ovdév rpocavé6., and the thought
already floating before the apostle’s mind in the anacoluthic amd dé rév
doxotyvrwy elvai re (see above). Wieseler affirms too generally, that ‘‘ Paul
desired to check the overvaluing of the older apostles.” The real state of
the case is this : Paul, with all decision, in order to counterbalance that
Soxeiv elvai te of those men of high standing which -he does not dispute,
throws into the scale his own independence of them. And the weight of
this counterbalancing lies precisely in éroioi more #oav, so far as the latter
belongs to ovdéy por dtagéper, and is not, as Hofmann will have it, an appen-
dage to rév doxotvtwy eivai te. — The roré, with a direct or indirect interroga-
tive, is the strengthening cungue or tandem which occurs constantly in
Greek authors,! although not elsewhere in the N. T.* Whosoever they were,
in whatsoever high repute they stood® while I was then with them, i is all
the same tome. Riickert makes droio: mean, ‘‘ whether high or low, apostles
or what else ;” holding that Paul speaks intentionally in an indefinite way
of these men in high repute, as if he did not exactly know that they were
apostles (7), in order to give the less offence in what he said. How strange
this would be ! for every reader knew whom he meant. And how unsuit-
able to his purpose ! for what Paul desires to tell, is the recognition he
received from the apostles. Many refer éroiomrore joav back to the lifetime
of Jesus, when those apostles had been His trusted disciples : some taking
woré as olim; ‘ and others, with us, as cunque.® But in the case of James (see
on ver. 9) this reference would not be even historically applicable, or it
would need at least to be applied to a different kind of relation (that of
kinship). And besides, there is nothing at all to indicate any such retro-
spective reference to that remote past ; the context points merely to the
time of Paul’s sojourn in Jerusalem. Hence also it must not, with others
still, be referred to—what was quite foreign to the apostle’s aim—the pre-
Christian condition of the apostles, in which they had been sinners,’ or
id:arat, and jishermen,® roré being likewise understood as olim. °—otdéy poe
Stagéper| matters to me nothing.” — rpdcwrov Oed¢ avOpSrov ob AauBéver] WR 3B

1 Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.

2 Comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 8; see also Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. TI. p. 615 f.

*Not: how friendly and brotherly they
were towards me (Matthias), to which
meaning ovdéy por dcadpdper 1s far from suited.

“Vulgate, Jerome, Pelagius, Luther,
Beza, and others, Including Matthies,
Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler,
Ewald.

§* Quiqui fll fuerunt, etiam si ab ipso
Jesu institut, perinde est,” ‘ Whoever they
were, even though appointed by Jesus
Himself, it is the same,’” Hermann; comp.

Winer.

* See Hilgenfeld.

7 Estilus ; comp. Augustine.

® Ambrose, Thomas, Cajetanus, Cornelius
& Lapide, and others.

® It was entirely in opposition to the con-
text. that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and
Jerome referred it to the earlier teaching of
the apostles; taking Paul to say, that
whether at an earlier date they had been
Judaizers or not was to him a matter of in-
difference.

19 See Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. p. 24; Lo-
beck, ad Phryn. p. 304.

68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

xia x pity, an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, state-
ment of the reason for ovdéy por diagéper.' DID YI, rpdawrov AauBéverr,
properly, to accept the countenance of any one (not to dismiss), is used in the
O. T. both in a good (to be inclined, or gracious, to any one, Gen. xix. 21,
Xxxii. 21, e¢ al.) and in a bad sense, implying a favor and respect which is
partial, determined by personal considerations.*? In the N. T. it is used
solely in this bad sense.* The transposed arrangement of the words lays the
chief emphasis upon mpéowrov, and then by Ged¢ avfpdérov makes us sensible of
the contrast between the manner and dignity of the divine procedure and
such partiality for human authority.* — éuo? yap ol doxotvre¢ obdev mpacarébevro]
Proof, not of his independence of the apostles gencrally, but specially for
what he had just said, rpécwrov cdg avOp. ob AauBdver, from personal experi-
ence. Hence éiuoi is emphatically placed first : ‘‘for to me, for my part—
although others may have reccived instruction from them, to me—they have
communicated nothing.” Paul's idea thercfore is, that if God had been
partial, He would not hace placed him on such parity rith the doxovcr, that to
him, etc. Rickert, wrongly anticipating, says that the prefixed éyof finds
its antithesis in ver. 11: ‘‘to me they have communicated nothing, ete. ;
but indeed, when Peter came to Antioch, J was compelled to admonish
him.” But in this case, at least ver. 11 must have begun with éy dé or 442’
éyé. According to Wieseler, Paul in oi is thinking of ‘‘to me, the former
persecutor,” an idea gratuitously introduced. In Hofmann’s view the antith-
esis is intended to be, that not to him from the others was anything sub-
mitted, but the converse.* But if this were so, Paul must have written ov
yap éuol x.r.A., just as afterwards 4424 rovvavrioy avroi x.t.A., in order to have
given at least a bare indication of this alleged antithesis. — ovdév mpocavé-
Gevro| quite as in i. 16 (comp. also Hofmann): they addressed no communica-
tions‘ to me, namely, in order to instruct and advise me,—a sense which is
here also demanded by the context ; see the sequel, and comp. i. 12. It is
usually understood : oidév mpootAnxav, obdédv didpfwoar, ‘‘ they added nothing ;
they corrected nothing” (Chrysostom), ‘‘ nihil illi praesumserunt iis adjicere,
quae prius a Christo accepta docueram inter gentes,” ‘‘they presumed to
add nothing to those things which, having formerly received of Christ, I
had taught among the Gentiles,” Beza.’? Comp. Wieseler, Mircker, and Hil-

1° Det judicium sequebatur, Paulus,”
“* Paul followed God’s judgment,” Bengel.

2 Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17, e¢ ai. ; Ecclus.
iv. 27; 3Esr. lv. 39.

$ Matt. xxli. 16; Mark xii. 14; Luke xx.
21; Jude 16. Comp. Acts x. 34: Jas. if. 9;
Rom. fi. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 26; Jas.
fi. 1.

Comp. Hom. Od. xix. 863 f., } oe wepi
Zevs avdpworwv nxdynpe Seovdda Supdy Exovta,
**surely Zeus hated thee above all men,
though thou hadst a God-fearing spirit.”

5 Comp. tvs in Chrysostom, and the Par-
aphrase of Erasmus.

é “’ Nihil contulerunt,”’ Vulgate.

7 As also Valla, Estius, Grotius, Bengel,
Koppe, Morus, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri,
Matthies, Schott, and others, Baur arbitra-
rily (I. p. 141, ed. 2) brings in the thought,
“They have brought forward nothing
against me, wherein I should have had to
acknowledge them in the right."" Ovéédy is
made to mean, nothing conclusive and con-
vincing—nothing whereby they would have
confuted him and brought him over to their
side (comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p.
463). There is not the most remote allusion
in the passage to any conflict between Paul
and the original apostles; on the contrary,
it implies the complete understanding on

- CHAP, IL, 7%. 69

genfeld : ‘‘They submitted nothing in addition to that which had been
submitted by me ; they approved the gospel, which I am preaching among
the Gentiles.” But xpé¢ expresses merely the direction, and not insuper
(see on i. 16). Should avaribyu:, however, be understood as to impose, mpéd¢
would certainly express the idea novum opus imponere (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8);
as Riickert ’ explains it, ‘‘ they imposed on me no further obligations,” the ob-
servance of the law being the point principally alluded to.* But in opposi-
tion to this view, apart from the fact that it involves a quite needless
departure from the signification of the same word in i. 16, the circumstance
is decisive, that spoocavari#yu: in the middle would necessarily mean ‘‘ susci-
pere novum opus,” ‘‘ to undertake a new work,” as Xen. Mem. l.c., and not
‘‘imponere novum opus,” ‘‘ to impose a new work,” even though the com-
parison of the apostle’s obligation to a burden (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16 f.)
should appear sufficiently justified by the legal nature of the matters im-
posed. — oidév] either the accusative of the object, or more strongly (comp.
i. 16), in no point, in no respect whatever. The idea that a revelation is
intended as the contents of zpocar. (Holsten), must be sought for in the
context : it is not conveyed by the words per se. —

Ver. 7. ’AZAa sovvavriov] to be separated merely by a comma from the
preceding, being still connected with yép. ‘‘To me they made communica-
tion of no kind whatever ; but, on the contrary, when they had seen, etc.,
the three pillar-apostles concluded with me and Barnabas the apostolic
alliance,” etc. (ver. 9). Hofmann, to force a regimen for a7d rév doxotvrev
in ver. 6, very arbitrarily tears asunder the clear and simple connection
which the words obviously present, taking 44d rotwavriov by itself and dis-
severed from what follows, and supplementing the sense by the insertion,
‘‘They have not proposed anything to me, but conversely, Ito them.”* But
this strange ellipsis is a device utterly unprecedented. ‘— idévrec] after they
had seen, namely, from the way in which I xar idiav avebéuyy rd evayy. 5
xypboow év roig évec:, ‘‘ privately communicated to them the gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles” (ver. 2). Usteri, ‘‘from the blessed result of
my preaching.” §8o also Rosenmiiller, Winer, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten,
Hofmann ; Riickert, Schott, de Wette, Wieseler, mix the two views ; and
Fritzsche includes the previous labors of the apostle among the Gentiles, ¢.g.,
in Tarsus and Antioch, among the grounds of Knowledge. But nothing
beyond what we have just given can be gathered from the context. Eras-
mus appropriately paraphrases, ‘‘ ubi communicato cum illis evangelio meo
perspexissent,” ‘‘ when they had perceived upon the communication of my

both sides, which was the result of the dis-
cussion. The conflict affected the members
of the church who were stirred up by the
WevddseAgoe and the false brethren them-
selves (vv. 3-5).

180 also Bretschneidef and Lechler,
p. 412.

2 Comp. also Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 285, -

3 Comp. on rovvarriov, 2 Cor. fl. 7, 1 Pet.
iii. 9; very frequently (also rdévarria) occur-

ring in Greek authors (Schaefer, ad Boe.
El. p. 27.

4 Certainly the aAAa rotvaryriow was, for
Hofmann at least, the most refractory part
of the sentence, which had in some sort of
way to be forcibly torn from its natural
connection with i&dévres.—a connection
justly unassailed by expositors. And he
has managed it by the device of the above-
mentioned ellipsis |

70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

gospel with them.”— dre rerior. r. evayy. T. axpof. x.7.A.] The emphasis is laid
on xabisc Tlétpo¢g ri¢ meper., a8 ver. 8 shows. They saw that my having been
divinely entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles was just such (just as
undoubted, true, direct, etc.), as was that of Peter for the Jews ; conse-
quently there could be no question of any rpocavefeiva:, and nothing could
follow but complete recognition (ver. 9). The construction ' in the sense of
neriorevtai pot Td evayy. (as F G, 19*, 46** actually read) is regular ; astothe
perfect, used of the enduring subsistence of the act.* — rij¢ axpoBvoriacg] that
is, tOv axpoBiorwr, ‘‘of the circumcised,” * the gospel which belonged to the
uncircumcised, and was to be preached to them. — xafliac Tlérpog rig meperop. |
Thus Peter appears as the representatice of the Jewish apostles, in accord-
ance with his superiority among them.‘ The destination of Peter as an
apostle to the Gentiles also® is not negatived, but a potiori fit denominatio.
— That this passage relates not to two different gospels, but to the same gospel
for two different circles of recipients, to whose peculiarities respectively the
nature and mode of preaching required special adaptation, is obvious of it-
self, and is clear from vv. 8, 9. But the passage cannot be worse misunder-
stood than it has been by Baur,* according to whom there wasa special gos-
pel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, differing
in this respect, that the one maintained the necessity of circumcision, while
the other allowed it to drop.’

Ver. 8. A parenthetic historical substantiation of the preceding remiorev-
pat Td evayy. Tig axpof., xaboc Tletp. reo mepit. : for He who has been efficacious
Jor Peter as regards the apostleship to the circumcision, has also been efficacious
Sor me as regards the Gentiles ; that is, ‘‘ for God, who has wrought effect-
ually ®in order to make Peter the apostle to the Jews, has also wrought
effectually for me, to make me an apostle to the Gentiles.” The stress lies
on évepyfoac and évfpynce : God [see Note XXXIV., p. 96] has been not in-
active, but efficacious, etc. But that in é évepyfoac Paul did not refer to Christ,*
is evident not only from passages such as 1 Cor. xii. 6, Phil. ii. 18, Col. i.
29, but also from the fact that he constantly considers his apostleship to be
the gift of God’s grace, bestowed upon him through the mediation of Christ
(i. 1, 15 ; Rom. i. 5, xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iii. 2, 7, e¢ al.). — Mérpyp
is the datious commodi, ‘‘ dative of advantage.” — eic rd sry] in reference to

1 Comp. Rom. iif. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 17.
2 See Winer, p. 255.

belonging thereto. It is not the divine
action towards the attainment of the

® Rom. fi. 26, fli. 80 ; Eph. if. 11.

4 Matt. xvi. 18; Acts ii. iil. iv. v. e¢ al.

® Acts xv. 7; 1 Pet. 1. 1.

© Theol. Jahresbericht, 1849, p. 548.

7 Comp. Holsten, who discovers the dis-
tinctive feature of the Gentile gospel in the
“* gnosis of the death of the cross,"’in spite
of 1 Cor. 1.28 f. In opposition to such a
separation, see also Ritschl, altkath. K.
p. 127 f.

® Namely, by communicating the requi-
site endowments, enlightenment, strength-
ening, and generally the whole equipment

anxooToA? (Vatablus, Schott, Fritzache) that
is meant, but the making ft for it; the
attainment was indicated in ver. 7, and is
substantiated in ver. 8 by the further divine
action which had taken place. But neither
are the resulis of the office. brought about
by God’s helpful operation, referred to
(Winer, Usterl, Baur, de Wette, Hofmann),
which would anticipate the sequel.

® Paulus, comp. Chrysostom.

10 Comp. Prov. xxix. 12 (xxxi. 12), accord-
ing to the usual reading, éevepyet yap rq avdpi
eis ayadd.

CHAP. II., 9. V1

the Gentiles. The precise sense follows from the first half of the verse,
namely, ci¢ arocroAqy tov évav. The well-known comparatio compendiaria,
‘‘compendious comparison.”’ There is therefore the less reason for assum-
ing that Paul desired to aroid the expression cic amoor. r. éOvwv.? Observe,
however, how Paul places himself on a par with Peter ; ‘‘ perfecta aucto-
ritas in praedicatione gentium,” ‘perfect authority in preaching to the
Gentiles,” Ambrosiaster.

Ver. 9. Kai yvévrec] is connected, after the parenthesis, with idévre¢ «.1.A.
in ver. 7.3 — riv ydprv ri dofciady po] is not arbitrarily to be limited either to
the apostolic office,‘ or to the success of the same ;* but is to be left quite general:
the grace which had been given me. They recognized that Paul was highly
gifted with grace, and was—by the fact that God had so distinguished bim
by means of His grace and thereby legitimized him as His apostle—fully
fitted and worthy to enter into the bond of collegiate fellowship with them.
His apostolic mission, his apostolic endowments, the blessed results of his
labor, are all included in the ydépe¢ which they recognized,—a general term
which embraces everything that presented itself in him as divinely-bestowed
grace and working on behalf of his office. — ’Idxwoc] the same as in i. 19 ;
not the brother of John (Augustine), who at that time had been long dead
(Acts xii. 2) ; also not the son of Alphacus ;° but the brother of the Lord, as is
obvious of itself after what has been remarked oni. 19.7. The mention of
his name here before the other two is not in compliance with the view of
the false teachers,* but is quite in due form, as the apostle is relating an
Official act done in Jerusalem, where James stood at the head of the church.°
There isacertain decorum in this—the tact of a respectful consideration tow-
ards the mother-church and its highly-esteemed representative, who, as
the Lord’s actual brother, sustained a more peculiar and unique relation to
Him than any of the twelve. The higher rank possessed by Peter and the
apostles proper generally as such, is surely sufficiently established by i. 18 f.
But James, just as the brother of the Lord, had already attained a cer-
tain archiepiscopal position in the Jewish- Christian mother-church, and con-
sequently for Jewish Christianity generally, agreeably to the monarchic
principle which was involved in the latter. If James had been precisely
one of the twelve, Paul would not have given him precedence over Peter ;

-for, as mouthpiece of the twelve, Peter was the first for Jerusalem also and
for the whole of the Jewish Christians." The precedence, however, finds -

18ee Kfihner, ad Xen. Mem. iil. 5.4; Wi-
ner, p. 578 ; Fritzschiorum, Opuse. p. 217 f.

2 Holsten.

3 While <8érres denotes the immediate im-
pression Of the phenomenon, yvovres repre-
sents the knowledge of reflection. A further
step in the description. Hofmann wrongly
remarks, “It signifies nothing further than
that they Aad heard of the occurrence of his
ealling.”’ But this they must have already
known years before (1. 18 f.).

‘ Piscator, Estius, and others; also Hof-

mann.

§ Morus, Koppe, Winer, Fritzsche; de
Wette, doth.

© Wieseler on 1. 19, and in the Stud. u.
Krit. 1842, p. 95 f.

7 Comp. on Acts xii. 17. See also Hilgen-
feld, p. 158 ff. ; and Ewald, Gesch. ad. Apost.
Zeit. p. 221 ff.

®§ Windischmann.

® Comp. Credner, Fini. I. 2, p. 571 ff.

10 Comp. 1. 18.
11 Ver, 7,

2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

its explanation and its justification solely in the wnigue personal relation to
Christ,—which belonged to none of the apostles. James, as the eldest of
the brethren of the Lord,’ was, as it were, his legitimate hereditary. successor
kata odpxa, ‘‘ as to the flesh,” in Israel. — of doxotyres orbAot civar] who pass (not
passed, see vv. 2, 6) as pillars, namely, of the Christian body, the continued
existence of which, so far as it was conditioned by human agency (for
Christ is the foundation), depended chiefly on them. The mctaphor’ is
current in all languages.’ Looking at the jrequent use of the figure, it can-
not be maintained that Paul here thought of the body of Christians exactly as
a temple,‘ although he certainly regarded it as oixodoug, ‘* building.”* These do-
Kovvrec oTvAoc* eivac, according to their high repute now, when the decisive final
result is brought forward, designated «with solemn precision and mentioned by
name, are the tery same who were characterized in ver. 2 as oi doxovyrec, and
in ver. 6 as doxoivreg eivai tr, a8 is evident from the uniform term oi doxowvrec
being used three times. Hofmann nevertheless understands the expression
in vv. 2 and 6 more generally, 80 that what the three doxoivres orvAo: elvac did
is supposed to be designated as that which was done for the sake of the false
brethren on the part of those standing in special repute ; but this view is based
on the misinterpretation, by which an awkward grammatical connection
with ver. 9 is forced upon the anacoluthic ad dé rév doxotyruv in ver. 6, and
at the same time—in the interest of harmonizing (with Acts xv.)—a posi-
tion in relation to the older apostles, unwarranted by the text, is invented
to explain the notice da dé rovg rapecodxr. pevdadéAd. in ver. 4.—degtag.. .
xo.veviac] On the separation of the genitive from its governing noun (in this
case, because the following clause of purpose, iva #uecic x.t.A., gives the ex-
planation of xo:vwriac), see Winer, p. 179 f.; Kiihner, § 865. 1; Fritzsche, ad
Rom. II. p. 380 f. Both words are without the article, because defcd¢ did not
require it ;’ and in xocvwriac the qualitative element is to be made prominent :
right hands of fellowship. For the giving of the right hand is the symbol of
alliance.° In opposition to the idea of an alliance being concluded, the
objection must not be made® that the act took place on the part of the
apostles only ; for, as a matter of course, Paul and Barnabas clasped the prof-
fered hands. — iva jyeic cig ra Evy x.t.A.] The verb to be supplied must be
furnished by the context, and must correspond with ei. Therefore cither

1 Matt. xill. 55; Mark vi. 8.

* Comp. 1 Tim. ill. 15; Rev. iil. 12; Clem.
Cor. T. 5.

$Pind. Ol. fi. 146, “Exrop’ €odadre Tpoias
Guaxov agrpafy Kiowa; ‘*‘ Hector, the im-
pregnable, erect pillar of Troy, he caused to
fall,’ Eur. Jph. 7. 30. 67 (Jacobs, ad Anthol.
VIT. p. 120); Hor. Od. i. 35. 18, and Mitscher-
lich in loc. Comp. Maimonides, in dfore
Nevoch. ii. 28, “ accipe a prophetis, qui sunt
columna generis humani,” ‘‘receive of the
prophets who are the column of the human
race ;” also the passages in Schoettgen,
Hor. p. 728f.; and the Fathers in Suicer,
Thes. II. p. 1045f. [Shakespeare, Henry VL,

II.1: “Brave peers of England, pillars of
the state.” Milton, Par. Lost, II. 302: “In,
his rising seemed a pillar of state.”’]

41 Cor. iil. 16; Eph. fi. 21.

61 Cor. fil. 9.

*The accentuation usual before Lach-
mann, orvAon, is incorrect. See Lipsius,
gramm. Unters. p. 48.

71 Macc. vi. 58, xi. 62, e¢ al., Kriiger,
§ 50. 2. 18.

8 Dougt. Anal. p. 128,1 Macc. vi 58, and
Grimm in oe.

* With Hofmann, who finds merely a
promise of fellowship.

19 See Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 388.

CHAP. II., 10. "3

ropevauev and sopeac,' or apostolatu fungeremur, ver. 8,° or evay-
yedcoducba.* The latter, in no way unsuitable to ei¢,4is to be preferred, because
it is suggested immediately by the protasis in ver. 7, from which, at the
same time, it is evident that the recognition was not merely that of a cuvepyée,
but really amounted to an acknowledgment of apostolic equality.* Moreover,
as regards the partition here settled, the ethnographical bearing of which
coincided on the whole with the Jocal division of territory, we must not supply
any such qualification as praecipue.* On the contrary, the agreement was,
‘‘ Ye shall be apostles to the Gentiles, and we to the Jews ;” and nothing beyond
this, except the appended clause in behalf of the poor, was thereby settled :
so that the state of things hitherto existing in respect to the ficld of labor
on both sides remained undisturbed. The modifications of this arrangement
obviously and necessarily connected with its practical working, primarily
occasioned by the existence of the Jewish d:aoropé—in accordance with
which the principle of the division of the spheres of labor could in fact be
carried out merely relatively, and without ezclusice geographical or
ethnographical limitation’—were left an open question, and not discussed.
The idea that the recognition of Paul on the part of the apostles was
merely external—simply an outward concordat—and that they themselves
would have wished to know nothing of the ministry among the Gentiles,®
is not conveyed in the text, but is, on the contrary, inconsistent with the
representation given vv. 7-9. According to this, the apostles recognized
the twofold divine call to apostleship, by which two nationally different
spheres of labor were to be provided with the one gospel ; but a mercly
external and forced agreement, without any acknowledgment or ratification
of the principles and modes of procedure which had long regulated the
action of Paul and Barnabas, would have been as little compatible with
such a recognition as with the apostolic character generally. If, however,
we take the xo:vwvia In Our passage to be true and heartfelt,® then the doubts
thrown by Baur and his followers upon the truth of the account of the
apostolic council in Acts fall in substance to the ground. How little Paul
especially considered his apostolic call to the Gentiles as excluding the con-
version of the Jews from his operations, may be gathered, even laying Acts
out of view, from passages such as 1 Cor. ix. 20, Rom. i. 16, ix. 1 ff., xi. 14.

Ver. 10. After zévoy interpreters usually supply a verb such as airowrer,
‘‘ asking,” or rapaxadovvrec, ‘‘ demanding,” which in itself would be allow-
able,’ but is nevertheless quite superfluous ; for pdvoy trav rruyav iva pvnp. ap-
pears dependent on deftdc édwxav Evol xai Bapy. xocv., 80 that it is parallel with the
preceding iva and limitsit. Comp. Matthies, Fritzsche, Hofmann. ‘‘ They
made with us a collegiate alliance, to the end that we should be apostles

1 Bengel, Fritzsche, Wieseler. ® Thierach (Kirche tm apost. Zeit. p. 129)
2 Erasmus, Schott, and many others. well remarks: ‘‘ When théy bade farewell,
® Winer, Usteri,de Wette. it was not a parting like that when Luther
4 See on 2 Cor. x. 16. in the castle at Marburg rejected the hand
® In opposition to Holsten. of Zwingli, or when Jacob Andreae at
* Bengel, Schott, and others. Montbeliard refused that of Theodore
? Comp. Lechler, p. 415. Beza.”

® Baur, Zeller. 10 Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. Wi f.

V4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

to the Gentiles; . . . only that we should not omit to remember the poor
of the mepiroz4 (not merely of the mother-church) as to support.” In that
alliance nothing further, in respect to our relation to the repitoph, Was
designed or settled. On pvnyovetecy in the sense of beneficent care, comp. Ps.
ix. 12 ; Hom. Od. xviii. 267. —yévov, which belongs to the whole clause,
and tov trwydw stand before iva on account of the emphasis laid upon them.’
The poverty of the Christians of Palestine, which was the principal motive
for this provision being added, finds its explanation in the persecutions
which they underwent, in the community of goods which they had at first,
and perhaps also in the expectation of the Parousia as near which they most
of all cherished. Moreover, the pévovx«.r.A. by no means excludes the ordi-
nances of the apostolic council, for Paul here has in view nothing but his rec-
ognition as apostle on the part of the original apostles in the private discus-
sions held with the latter. How Baur misuses pévoy x.r.A., a8 contrasted
with the supposed irreconciluble diversity subsisting in doctrine, may be seen
in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 470; Paulus, I. p. 142 ff. ed. 2; comp. also
Holsten. In the face of real antagonism of doctrine, the older apostles cer-
tainly would not have tendered Paul their hands ; and had they desired to
do so, Paul would have refused them his.* [See Note XXXV., p. 96.] —
8 xat éoroi'daca av7é Tovro wajoa] The aorist, not used instead of the pluper-
fect, relates to the time from that apostolic alliance to the composition of
the epistle. Paul, however, continues in the singular; for soon afterwards
he separated himself from Barnabas (Acts xv. 39). Those who identify our
journey with that related in Acts xi. xii. must conclude, with Fritzsche, that
Paul desired to report concerning himself, and hence only mentioned Barnabas
(and Titus) as well, where it was necessary. Nevertheless this joint-mention,
although not necessary, would have been very natural in our passage ; for
iva pynuovetwpev had just been said, and then in a single stroke of the repre-
sentation, with 4 xa? torotdaca x.7.4., is given the conclusion of the matter so
referred to. —aird rovro] is not superfluous,‘ as neither airé alone® nor roiro
alone’ is used ; it is the emphatic epexegesis of 6, hoc ipsum, ‘‘ this very thing,”
whereby Paul makes his readers feel the contrast between the Jewish Chris-
tian antagonism and his zeal of love thus shown. Studer and Usteri find in
avrd rovro the tacit antithesis, ‘‘ but nothing further which the apostles had
imposed on me.” Inappropriately, for the idea of any other matters imposed
was already excluded by the previous account. Schott proposes to take’
6 as dc’ 6,° but the assumption of this poetical use cannot be justified except
by a necessity such as is presented to us in the N. T. only at Acts xxvi. 16.

1 Comp. on Eph. fli. 18; 1 Cor. vil. 20; but so that one would preach to some,
2 Cor. fi. 4; 2 Thess. if. 7, e¢ ai. and another to others.”

* Tertullian (de praescr. 28) already gives 3 So, correctly, Estius, Winer, Usteri,
the right view: ‘Inter se disfributionem Schott.
oficit ordinaverant, non separationem evan- 4 Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Morus.
gelii, nec ut alivd alter, sed ut alils alter § Winer. p. 140.
praedicarent,”’ ‘‘ They arranged among one * See Matthiae, p. 1080; Ktihner, IT. p. 527.
another a distribution of office, not a separa- ¥ See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. LIT.
tion of the Gospel; nor so that one would 8 See on Acts xxvi. 16.
preach one thing, and another, another,

CHAP. II., 11. 715

Still more easily might avro rovro be explained’ as on that very account (2 Pet.
i. 5; Xen. Anabd. i. 9. 21). But in that case 6 would so naturally take up
what preceded, that there would be no reason why Paul should have
brought on that very account s0 prominently forward. It would rather have
the appearance of suggesting that, if it had not been for the agreement in
question, Paul would not have cared for the poor. — We have no historical
touchers for the truth of 8 xa? éorotdaca x... ; for the conveyance of the
contributions in Acts xi. took place earlier than our journey ; and the col-
lection mentioned 1 Cor. xvi., 2 Cor. viii. f., Rom. xv. 27, comp. Acts xxi.
17 f., xxiv. 17, occurred after the composition of our epistle. But who would
doubt that assurance ? Looking at the more or less fragmentary accounts in
Acts and the Pauline epistles, who knows how often Paul may have sent
pecuniary assistance to Palestine ? as indeed he may have brought the like
with him on occasion of his own journey, Acts xvili. 20-22. It has, however,
been wrongly asserted that, by means of this obligation in respect to the
poor, a connection was intended to be maintained between the Gentile
churches and the primitive church, and that at the bottom of it lay the wish
to bring over the preliminarily converted Gentiles gradually more and more to
the principles and the mode of life of the primitive church.* This is an insin-
uation derived from mere fancy. [See Note XXXVI., p. 96 seq. ]

Ver. 11. Paul now carries still further the historical proof of his apostolic
independence; ‘‘ ad summa venit argumentum,” ‘‘ the argument has come to
the height,” Bengel. For not only has he not been instructed by the apostles ;
not only has he been recognized by them, and received into alliance with
them ; but he has even asserted his apostolic authority against one of them,
and indeed against Peter. There is no ground in the text for assuming
(with Hofmann) any suspicion on the part of the apostle’s opponents, that
in Antioch he had been defiant, and in Jerusalem submissive, towards Peter.
— bre d2 7A0e Kngac x.t.A.] After the apostolic conference, Paul and Barnabas
travelled back to Antioch, Acts xv. 80. During their sojourn there (Acts
xv. 83) Peter also came thither,—a journey, which indeed is not mentioned
in Acts, but which, just because no date is given in our passage, must be
considered as having taken place soon after the matters previously related.*
—Kyn¢ac] The opinion deduced from the unfavorable tenor of this narrative,
as bearing upon Peter, by Clement of Alexandria,‘ that the person meant is

1 Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop.iv. 1.31; Matthiae, renoe at Antiooh earlier than the apostolio

p. 1041; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 204 A.

* Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 141.

8 Not so late as Acts xviii. 23, as held by
Neander, Baumgarten, Lange; and by
Wileseler, in favor of his view that the jour-
ney Gal. fil. 1 coincides with that of Acts
xviii. 22. Grotius, although he considers
the journey Gal. fi. 1 as identical with that
in Acts xv., strangely remarks: “ Videtur
significare id tempus, de quo in Act. xiii. 1,°°
“He seems to indicate the time treated in
Acts xifi.1. Also Hug and Schneckenhurger,
Zweck d. Aposteg. p. 108 ff., place the occur-

council,—a view which, according to the
chronological course of Gal. I. iL, is simply
an error; in which, however, Augustine,
ep. 19 ad Hieron., had preceded them.—
Whether, moreover, Peter then visited the
church at Antioch for the first time (Thiersch,
Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 482) must be left
undecided ; but looking at the length of
time during which this church had already
existed, it is not at all probable that it was
his first visit.
4 Ap. Hused. i. 12.

%6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

not the apostle, who certainly in this case is far from corresponding to his
destination as ‘‘ the rock ” of the church, but a certain Cephas, one of the
seventy disciples, has been already refuted by Jerome, and also by Gregory,
Hom, 18 in Ez. — xaté rpéowrov| To his face lopposed him. See Actsiii. 13 ;
often in Polybius.' The opinion of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and
several Fathers, that the contention here related was nothing more than a
contention in semblance (xara mpéowrov = secundum speciem ! ‘‘ in appear-
ances’’), is only remarkable as a matter of history.* — dr: careyvwopuévog 7v] not
‘quia reprehensibilis or reprehendendus erat,” ‘‘ because he was blameworthy or
to be blamed ;°” for the Greek participle is never used, like the Hebrew, for
the verbal adjective,‘ neither in Jude 12, Rev. xxi. 8, nor in Hom. Ji, i.
888, xiv. 196, xviii. 427 ; and what a fecble, unnecessary reason to assign
would be 6rz xareyywopuévoc 7v in this sense | Moreover, xatay:yvdexewy iva,”
so far as its significations are relevant here, does not mean reprehendere, ‘‘ to
blame,” at all, but either to accuse, which here would not go far enough, or
condemnare, ‘*tocondemn.”* Hence also it is not : guia reprehensus or accusatus
erat, ‘‘because he was blamed or accused,”” but : guia condemnatus erat,
‘because he was condemned,” whereby the notorious certainty of the offence oc-
casioned is indicated, and the stringent ground for Paul’s coming forward
against him is made evident. Peter, through his offensive behavior, had
become the object of condemnation on the part of the Christians of Antioch ;
the public judgment had turned against him ; and so Paul could not keep
silence, but was compelled to do what he certainly did with reluctance.
The passive participle has not a vis reciproca, ‘‘reciprocal force ;"* the condem-
nation of Peter was the act of the Christian publicin Antioch. The idea ‘‘ con-
victed before God” (Ewald) would have been expressed, if it had been so
meant. Ifthe condemnation is understood as having ensued through his own
mode of action,® the question as to the persons from whom the condemnation
proceeds is left unanswered. [See Note XXXVIL., p. 97.]

Ver. 12 ff. Paul now relates the particulars of the occurrence. —azé
"Lax Rov] sent by James. It belongs to éAveiv."° Why they—and, to judge from

21Comp. «ar dpdarmovs, Herod. 1. 120;
Xen. Hiero, 1, 14: Gal. ili. 1; and car’ Supa,
Eur. Rhes. 421, Bacch. 469. Not coram omnt-
bus, “‘ before all’? (Erasmus, Beza, Vata-
blus), which is not expressed until ver. 14.

2 A contest arose on this point between
Jerome and Augustine. The former char-
acterized the reprehensio in our passage as
Gispensatoria, so contrived by Peter and
Paul, in order to convince the Jewish Chris-
tians of the invalidity of the law, when they
should see that Peter had the worst of it
against Paul. Augustine, on the contrary,
asserted the correct sense, and maintained
that the Interpretation of Jerome intro-
duced untruth into the Scriptures. See
Jerome, Zp. 86-97; Augustine, Ep. 8-19.
Subsequently Jerome gave up his view
and adopted the right one. c. Peag. L 8;

Apo. adv. Rufin. fil. 1. See Mohler, gesam-
mete Schriften, I. p. 1 ff.

§ Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Corne-
lias & Lapide, Elsner, Wolf, and others;
also Koppe, Borger, Fiatt, Matthies.

4 Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 791 ; Ewald, p. 588.

5 Not to be confounded with xaray. truvds
7, asisdone by Matthias.

¢ Comp. 1 John iff. 20, 21; Ecclus. xiv. 2,
xix. 5.

7 Ambrose, Luther, Estius, and others;
also Winer, Schott, de Wette.

® Bengel, comp. Rickert, ‘“‘ because he
had an evil conscience.”

® Bengel, Lechler, p. 428 ; comp. Windisch-
mann and Hofmann.

10 Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 309 B, ax" éxeivov
épxounac: Matt. xxvi. 47 ; Mark v. 85 ; 1 Thess.
ill. 6,

CHAP, II., 12. 17

the impression made upon Peter, they were certainly men of importance,
strict in their Jewish-Christian observances—were sent to Antioch by James,
we know not, any more than why Peter journeyed thither.’ But the con-
jecture that they belonged to the pevdadeApa of ver. 4 (Winer, Schott), con-
flicts directly with the fact, that they were sent by James: for at the
apostolic conference the latter had nowise made common cause with the
wevdddeagoe ; and therefore in sending any of them to Antioch he would have
acted very unwisely, or would, with reactionary intent,’ have simply supplied
new fuel to the scarcely settled controversy. Others,? connecting the
words with ravéc, understand adherents of James,* or, as Winer (comp. Wolf)
says, ‘‘ qui Jacobi auctoritate sive jure seu secus utebantur,” ‘‘ who availed
themselves of the authority of James either justly or otherwise ;” but this
brings upon James the designation of a party-chief (some Jacobites !), which
would be neither necessarily nor wisely introduced here, even supposing
Winer’s modification to be mentally supplied. Lastly, the explanation of
Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius (following Chrysostom), that
ard ’laxéfov means nothing more than from Jerusalem, because James was
the president of the church there,° is an unauthorized setting aside of the
person, who is named expressly and not without due reason. — pera tov
eOvav tovvfobiev] he joined in meals with the Gentile Christians.* Notice the
imperfect. The Jew might not eat with Gentiles without incurring Levit-
ical defilement (Acts xi. 8) ; but Peter, who previously by special revelation
(Acts x. f.), had been instructed as to the invalidity of this separation in
Christianity, had in the apostolic conference defended Christian freedom
(Acts xv. 7 ff.), and taken part in passing the decrce that, as regards food,
the Gentile brethren should only have to abstain from meat offered to idols,
things strangled, and blood (Acts xv. 29). This decree was received and

1 The book of Acts is silent both on this
point and also as to the whole scene be-
tween Peter and Paul,—a silence indeed,
which, according to Baur and Zeller, is
supposed to be maintained intentionally,
and in consistency with the false represen-
tation of the transactions in Jerusalem.
According to Ritschl (alikath. Kirche, p.
145), they were deputed by James to bring
the relation between the Jewish and Gen-
tile Christians back to the rule of the apos-
tolic decree, as James understood it, that
is, according to Ritschl, in the sense of a
retractation of the Jewish-Christian defeo-
tion from the law, and on behalf of restor-
ing the separation between the two parties
as respected their customs of eating. This
assumed task of the rivés is neither In any
way intimated in the text, nor is therea
trace of it in Acts (comp., on the contrary,
xv. 80 ff.). Just as little can it be proved
that, as Ewald thinks, a decree had been
passed in the church at Jerusalem that the
Jewish Christian should refrain from eat-

ing in company with Gentile Christians (be-
cause he did not know whether blood or
something strangled might be among their
food), and that those rvés had come to
Antioch to make known this new decree.
Hilgenfeld also assumes that those sent by
James had some charge relating to with-
drawal from the Gentile Christians. Comp.
Holsten, 2. Foang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 857, in
whose opinion they were sent after Peter,
because his Intercourse with the Gentiles
had been notified at Jerusalem.

So de Wette, whereby, however, the
character of James is placed in a very
awkward position, which is not to be sup-
ported by Acts xxi. 18.

%As Studer, Ustert, Zeller. So also
Vémel, Br. a. d. Gal. mit deutsch. Useders. u.
krit. Anm., Frankf. 1863, p. 29.

4Comp. oi awd UAdrwvos and the like;
Schaefer, Melet. p. 26 ff. ; Bernhardy, p. 222.

® Comp. Koppe.

* Comp. on cvverGiay in this sense, Plat.
Legg. ix. p. 881 D; Luke xy. 2; 1 Cor. v. 11.

78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

accepted with joy by the church at Antioch (Acts xv. 30 f.). It would
therefore have becn all the easier for Peterin Antioch to follow his divinely
attained conviction,’ and to take part without hesitation in the more fa-
miliar intercourse of meals with the Gentile Christians there—free from any
scruple that he should defile himself by Gentile food, which no legal enact-
ments restricted except as to those three points. But to this free and cor-
rect standpoint the stricter Jewish Christians, who were still entangled in
the observances of the Levitical precepts as to purity (comp. Acts xxi.
20), had not been able to rise ; and to this class belonged the rivé¢ (ver. 12).
When, therefore, these men arrived from Jerusalem and from James, Peter
unhappily no longer continued his previous liberal-minded conduct in
Antioch, but drew back and separated himself from intercourse at meals
with the Gentile Christians, whereby he gave a practical denial to his better
conviction. How similar to his conduct in his former denial of the Lord !
Calovius, however, justly, in conformity with the temperament of Peter,
remarks, ‘‘ una haecc fuit Petri actio non habitus,” ‘‘ this was a single action
of Peter and not a habit.” — doBotpevog rove éx wepit.] By this are meant the
| Jewish Christians generally, as a class, so far as they were represented by
those rivéc, who belonged to the stricter school. Peter feared the Jewish-
Christians’ strictness, displeasure, disapprobation, etc. The explanatory
gloss of Chrysostom’ favors Peter, quite against the literal sense of the
words (Matt. x. 26, xiv. 5; Mark ix. 18; Luke xii. 5; Acts v. 26; Rom.
xiii, 8), — Observe also, on the one hand, the graphic force of the tmperfects
wxéor. and agep., and, on the other hand, the expression of his own bad prec-
edent, éavréy, which belongs not mercly to agdp., but also to irfor. (Polyb.
vii. 17. 1, xi. 15. 2, 1. 16. 10) ; he withdrew Aimself, etc., and thereby
induced his Jewish-Christian associates also to enter on a like course (ver.
13). It is not, according to the context, correct that these imperfects express
an enduring separation (Wicseler); the behavior begins when the rivi¢ azo
"Taxd8. have come ; it excites the unfavorable judgment of the church, and
Paul immediately places himself in decided opposition to Peter. The im-
perfects are therefore the usual adumbrativa, ‘‘ adumbrative ;” they place the
withdrawal and separation of Peter, as it were, before the eyes of the readers,
On the other hand, the owvzexpif. which follows is the wider action which
took place and served further to challenge Paul ; hence the aorist.

Ver. 18. And the rest of the Jewish Christians also played the hypocrite
jointly with hin—those, namely, living in Antioch, who previously, in har-
mony with the liberal standpoint which they had already attained to, had
held fellowship at meals with the Gentile Christians of the place, but now,
misled by the influential example of Peter, had likewise drawn back. This

1That the Christian fellowship in meals
included also the joint observance of the
a@gapae (which Thiersch, Hilgenfeld, and
others take to be meant), is obvious. It is
not, however, expressly denoted by cvvijc-
Ore,

2 ov rovTo GoBovmevos wy xivduvetcoy, add’ iva

BH axocrecw, ‘not apprehending that he
was incurring danger, but that they might
apostatize,"’ comp. Theophylact, #} cxavée-
AwwGevres awogKxipticwc: THs morTews, “ lest
being offended they might depart from the
faith,’ which is followed by Piscator, Gro-
tius, Estius, and others.

CHAP. II., 13. 79

was hypocrisy on their part and on Peter’s, because, although at the bottom
of their hearts convinced of Christian freedom, they, from fear of men (ver.
12), concealed the more liberal conviction of which they were conscious,
and behaved just as if they entertained the opposite view. It is true that
the apostolic council had not decided anything as to the conduct of the
Jewish Christians among Gentile Christians ; but the immorality consisted
in the inwardly untrue duplicity of their behavior, which was more than a
mere inconsistency (Baur) of reformed Judaism, conceived by Paul as being
hypocrisy (Hilgenfeld).’— xai BapvéB.] even Barnabas, who was my associate
withal in the apostleship to the Gentiles (ver. 9), and should consequently
least of all have ventured insincerely to deny the principle of Christian
freedom, to the disparagement of the Gentile Christians ! So injurious was
the effect of Peter’s example ! — cvvarfyfin] was jointly led away (led astray),
namely, from hisown standpoint.’ éore with a jinite verb, in the secondary
sentence (comp. John iii. 16), denotes the consequence simply as a fact
which has occurred.? The infinitive would make the representation subjective
(the seduction being conceived as a necessary result). — avrév] that is, abrov
xal Tov Away ‘Iovd. Itis emphatically prefixed. The dative is instrumental :
by their hypocrisy, not to their hypocrisy (Luther and others). No one can,
without wronging Paul in respect to the choice of his strongly inculpating
expression,* either call in question the fact that the conduct of Peter is here
expressly designated as hypocrisy,® or reduce it to a mere supposition ;
although Ritschl, p. 145, is of opinion that the reproach thus used does not
quite evince a clear and thorough conviction of the rightness of the non-
Jewish practice. The purposely chosen expression in our passage shows, on
the contrary, that. Peter's conviction, which was well known to Paul, agreed
with the conviction of Paul himself, although it was hypoeritically denied
by the former. Peter's tréxpiorc, according to the text, consisted in the
*Tovdaifecy, to which he had drawn back after his intercourse with the Gen-
tile Christians, not in his previous fellowship with them, which is alleged
to have been ‘‘a momentary unfaithfulness to his real conviction."* And
the censure which Paul—certainly unwillingly, and with a complete real-
izing and appreciating of the moral situation to which it has reference—
has directed against Peter expressly on the ground of hypocrisy,’ exhibits

1 The view of Holsten, z. Hv. des Paul. u.
Fetr. p. 857 ff., is similar. — On ovvumexpié.,
comp. Polyb. ifi. 92. 5, v. 49. 7; Pint. Mar.
14.17; Joseph. Bell. xv. 7. 5.

2Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17, Rom. xii. 16, and
Wetstein in loc.

3 See Tittmann, Synon. IT. p. 70; Ellendt,
Lee. Soph. Tl. p. 1012 f.; Klotz, ad Devar.
p. 772.

4 This expression is all the more strictly
to be understood as it stands, since Paul
has not anywhere else in his epistles or
speeches used either the word vwoxpiver@a,
or vroxpsrys, or (with the exception of 1 Tim.
iv. 2) twéepiors. He would be the less
likely to have omitted to weigh the gravity

of the reproach conveyed in this very word
otherwise strange to him, especially seeing
that it was used after so Jong a time and
was directed against Feter. This remark
also applies in opposition to Schneckenbur-
ger in the Stud. u. Krif. 1855, p. 564 f., and
to Mdller on de Wette.

5 Schwegler, I. p. 129.

® Baur, in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 476;
Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld.

7Not merely (comp. de Wette) on ac-
count of an easily excusable want of firm-
ness and clearness in conviction (Bisping),
or of a momentary throwing of the same
into the background under pressure of cir-
cumstances (Reithmayr). Even Erasmus ex-

80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

plainly the agreement in principle of the personal convictions of the two
apostles.’

Ver. 14. "Ore ctx dpborodovc:] spforodeiv,* not preserved elsewhere in Bib-
lical language, undoubtedly means to be straight-footed, that is, to walk
with straight feet.» Here used in a figurative sense—as words expressive of
walking are favorites with Paul in representing ethical ideas‘—equivalent
to acting rightly (with straightness), conducting oneself properly.* It is the
moral dp8dérn¢ mpdfewc,® the opposite of the moral oxoArév,’ orpeBadry,® xuddv.®
According to the leaning of Greek authors towards the direct mode of ex-
pression, the present is quite regular.’* — rpoc rhv GAH0. rov evayyéA.] mpd¢ is
understood as secundum, ‘‘ according to,”" by most expositors ;" by others in
the sense of direction towards the mark,” which would mean, ‘‘80 as to main-
tain and promote the truth of the gospel.” The former interpretation is to be
preferred, because it is the more simple and the first to suggest itself, and
it yiel@s a very suitable sense. Hence : corresponding to the truth, which is
the contents of the gospel (ver. 5). Certainly Paul never in verbs of walk-
ing expresses the rule prepositionally by zpéc, but by xavé ;“ but in this
passage mpéc x.r.A. is the epexegesis of dpfac, according to its ethical idea. —
éurpootev ravrwy] consequently, not merely between themselves, but in the
sight of the whole church, although not assembled expressly for this purpose ;*
Tove aGuapTavovtag Evariov madvrwv édeyyxe, iva xai ol Aazol o680v eywor,
1 Tim. v. 20. ‘‘Non enim utile erat errorem, qui palam noceret, in secreto
emendare,” ‘‘it was not advantageous to correct in secret an error which
injured openly,” Augustine. — ei ob ‘Iovdaiog txdépyuv x.t.A.] that is, ‘If
thou, although a born Jew, orderest thy mode of living in conformity with
that of the born Gentiles, ywpic "Iovdaixyce raparnpfoews, ‘different from the
Jewish observance’ (Chrysostom), and not with that of the born Jews—a
course of conduct, which thou hast just practically exemplified by eating in
company with Gentile Christians—how comes it to pass that thou (by the ex-
ample of the wholly opposite conduct which thou hast now adopted since
the arrival of those r:véc) urgest the born Gentiles to adopt the custom of
the born Jews ?” What a contradiction of conduct is it, thus in one breath
to live é#vixdéc and to urge the é6vy to the 'Iovdaifev | The present Ci denotes

dpOocrarecy. The dpCorotmay is not lame
(xwAever), but makes rpoxtas opbds rots woviv,
Heb. xii. 18.

erts himself to come at length to the result,
that ‘ Pauli objurgatio nihil aliud fuit quam
confirmatio parum adhuc sibi constantium,”

‘* Paul's reproof was nothing but an asser-
tion of the inconsistencies.”

1 Comp. Wiesinger, de consenau locor. Gal.
li. ef Act. xv. p. 86; Lechler, p. 426.

2 Comp. dpOoBarety, Anthol, ix. 11. 4.

3 Comp. dp0érous, Soph. Ant. 985; Nicand.
Alexiph. 419, dp0dro8es Baivoryrtes.

4 Comp. wepiwarety, orotxety «.7.A,

5 dpOowpayeiv, Aristot. Fol. 15.8 Vul-
gate, ‘‘recte amlwdarent." Hofmann, “to
stand with straight foot.’ But comp. ofvro-
Sciv, wexvwosery, to be swift-footed, that Is,
swift in running. The standing would prob-
ably have been expressed, as perhaps by

¢ Plat. Men. p. 97 B.

7 Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A.

® Ecclus. xxxvi. 25. «

® Heb. xii. 18.

10 See Kfilhner, § 846.

112 Cor. v. 10; Luke xif. 47; Bernhardy,
Pp. 265.

12 Including Winer, Rickert, de Wette,
Ewald, Wieseler.

18 Flacius, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Morus,
Hofmann.

3¢ Rom. vii. 4, xiv. 15; 1 Cor. ill. 8 ef al.

18 Thiersch.

CHAP. I1., 14. 81

that which was constant, accordant with principle, in Peter's case.! This is
laid down by Paul, with the argumentative ¢i, as certain and settled, and
that not merely by inference from his recent experience of Peter having eat-
en in company with Gentiles, but also on the ground of his knowledge
otherwise of this apostle and of his practical principles on this point, with
which the éfu:xd¢ Cv just before actually carried out by Peter was in accord-
ance. Groundlessly and erroneously Riickert labors* to extract an en-
tirely different meaning, understanding "Iovdaixic Cyc in an ideal sense (Rom.
ii. 28 f.; John i. 48), and éOxd¢ Cpe as its opposite : ‘‘ By thy present con-
duct thou showest thyself truly not as a genuine Jew, but as a Gentile
(sinner) ; how art thou at liberty to ask that the Gentiles should adopt
Jewish customs, which by thy behavior thou thyself dost not honor ?”
But, in fact, the reader could only take the explanation of the éuixés Coe
from perd tov tvdv ovvfobiev (ver. 12), and of the "Iovdaixds Coe from iré-
oreAde . . . weptrouye (ver. 12). No one could light upon the alleged ideal
view (reverting, in the apodosis, to the empirical !), the more especially as
the breaking off from eating with the Gentiles would have to be regarded as
a Gentile habit (in an ethical sense) ! The [7 is not the moral living accord-
ing to the Gentile or the Jewish fashion, but the shaping of the life with
reference to the category of external social observances within the Christian com-
munion, such as, in the individual case in question, the following (Iovdaixdc)
or non-following (éuxac) of the Jewish restrictions as to eating. — rac]
qui fit, ut, ‘‘ how does it happen that” (Rom. iii. 6, vi. 2, x. 14, and fre-
quently), indicating the incomprehensibleness of this morally contradictory
behavior. — ra 20v7 avayxalecc "Iovdatfecv] indirect compulsion. For the Gen-
tile Christians in Antioch must very naturally have felt themselves con-
strained by the imposing erample of the highly-esteemed Peter to look upon
the Jewish habit of living—the observance of the special peculiarities of
the outward legal Judaism *—as something belonging to Christianity, and
necessary for partaking in Christian fellowship and for attaining the Mes-
sianic salvation ; and they would shape their conduct in practice in accord-
ance with this view.‘ De Wette’ assumes, that the emissaries of James
preached the principle of the necessity of observing the law, and that Peter
gave his support, at least tacitly, to this preaching. This is not at all inti-
mated in the text, and is not rendered necessary by the literal sense of
avayxdfecv, which is sufficiently explained by the moral constraint of the in-
ducement of so influential an example, as it is often used in classical au-
thors, ‘‘de varia necessitate quam praesens rerum conditio efficit,” ‘of
the various necessity which the present condition of affairs effects." The

1 Contrary to the view of Hilgenfeld and
others.

2 Since It does not run: é¢wedy . . . Efnoas.

8The “lovéaigerv: comp. Esth. vill. 17;
Plut. Cic. 7. Where a freedman is spoken of,
who was éevoxos re “lovéwigey, ‘“ chargeable
with Judaizing,” and in reference to whom
Cloero says: ri" lov8aig mpos xoipor, ‘' What
has a Jew todo with swine; comp. also

6

Ignat. ad Magnes. 10, dcoroy lor Xproror
"Incoty Aadety cai “lovdaigey, “It is absurd
to profess Christ Jesus and yet to Juda-
ize.""

4 Comp. Usterti, p. 66 f.

® Comp. also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198 f.,
Komment. p. 168.

® Sturz, Lez. Xen. I. 18. 6.

82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

view which understands the word here not at all of indirect constraint, but
of definite demands,’ by which Peter sought to turn them back into the
path of Jewish Christianity, is opposed to the divine instruction imparted
to this apostle, to his utterances at the council, and to our context, accord-
ing to which the dvayxdfecv can have consisted in nothing more than the oix
op§orodeiy as it is represented in ver. 12 f., and consequently must have been
merely a practical, indirect compulsion, not conveyed in any express de-
mands. Wieseler obscures the intelligibility of the whole passage by un-
derstanding the 'Iovdaifecv of the observance of the restrictions as to food en-
acted by the apostolic council. In decisive opposition to this view it may be
urged, that in the whole context this council is left entirely unmentioned ;
further, that these restrictions as to food had nothing to do with the Jew-
ish proselytes (on whose account, possibly, their observance might have
been called an ’Iovdaifecv) ; lastly, that the compliance with the same on the
part of the church at Antioch, especially so soon after the council (see on
ver. 11), cannot, according to Acts xv. 30, at all be a matter of doubt.
Moreover, Paul, who had himself together with Peter so essentially co-op-
erated towards this decree of the council, have—in the presence of Peter, .
of the Christians of Antioch, and even of those who were sent by James—
characterized the obedience given to the restrictions in question by the in-
applicable and ill-sounding name "Iovdaifecv ? It would have shown at least
great want of tact.

Ver. 15. A continuation of the address to Peter down to ver. 21.* Others
have looked upon vv. 15-21 as addressed to the Galatians ;° but to this view
it may be objected, that Paul himself does not indicate the return-to his
readers until iii. 1, and that the bare, brief reproach in ver. 14 would
neither correspond to the historical character of so important an event,
nor stand in due relation with the purpose for which Paul narrates it (see
on ver. 11) ; as indeed he himself has in vv. 11 and 14 so earnestly pre-
pared the way for, and announced, his opposition, that the reader could
not but expect something more than that mere question—so hurriedly thrown
out—of indignant-surprise.‘ And how could he have written to his (for the

1 Ritschl, p. 146. ver. 14 alone could in no way seem ade-
2So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, quate, and least of all could it suffice to
Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Tittmann, procure a duly proportionate satisfaction

(Opuec. p. 865), Knapp (Ser. rar. arg. II.
p. 482 f.), Flatt, Winer, Rickert, Schott,
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette and Moller,
Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Holsten.

*Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius,
Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe,
Matthies, Hermann, Hofmann, Wieseler,
Reithmayr.

* Indeed the practical renunciation (not
mere denial) of the principle of Christian
freedom required a renewed apology for,
and vindication of, the latter ; especially as
Paul had called Peter to account before the
assembled church, whereby the act assumed
a solemnity to which the brief question in

for the offence given to the church (ver. 11).
He does not, however, ‘‘demonstrate" bis
explanation to Peter (Wieseler's difficulty),
but presents it in the most vivid and strik-
ing dialectic, compressing everything which
would have afforded matter for a very co-
pious demonstration sharply and sternly,
towards the defeat of the great opponent
who had been unfaithful to himself. Hof-
mann inconsiderately holds that, if Paul
after the concession é¢O@vucws Cis «x. ovx “Iov-
Saixes had thus explained himself in a de-
tailed statement to Peter, he would have
acted absurdly. It would have been absurd,
if Paul, in order to say the (¢o or three

CHAP. I1., 15. 83

most part) Gentile-Christian readers jyeic pboe 'Iovdaior x.7.A., without telling
them whom he meant thereby ? Just as little can we assume that Paul again
turns to the Galatians with «ai jucic in ver. 16,’ or in ver. 17,? or in ver. 18 ;*
or that he‘ has been imperceptibly led away from the thread of his historical
statement, so that it is not possible to show how much belongs to the speech
at Antioch. No, the whole of this discourse (vv. 15~21)—thoroughly un-
folding the truth from principles, and yet so vivid, and ‘in fact annihilating
his opponent—harmonizes so fully with the importance of a public step
against Peter, as well as with the object which Paul had in view in relat-
ing this occurrence to the Galatians especially, among whom indeed these
very principles, against which Peter offended, were in great danger, that, up
to its tragic conclusion dpa Xprords dwpedy arédavev (ver. 21), it must be re-
garded as a unity—as the effusion directed against Peter at Antioch ; but,
at the same time, it cannot be maintained that Paul spoke the words quite
literally thus, as he here, after so long a lapse of time, quotes from lively
recollection of the scene which he could not forget. — gueic pbcet Iovdaior, xa?
ovn é& &9vav duapr.}] Paul begins his dogmatic explanation in regard to the
reproach expressed in ver. 14 with a concession : ‘‘ We are Jews by birth (in
this Paul feels the whole advantage of belonging to the ancient holy people
of God, Rom. iii. 1 f., ix. 1 ff.), and not sinners of the Gentiles” (by Gentile
descent). Gentiles as such, because they are dvoyo: and d¥coe (Rom. ii. 12 ;
1 Cor. ix. 21 ; Eph. ii. 12), are to the Israelite consciousness duaprwiof and
Gdixoe (1 Sam. xv. 18; Tob. xiii. 6; Wisd. x. 20: comp. Luke xviii. 32,
xxiv. 7; 1 Cor. vi. 1); and from ¢hie—the theocratical—point of view Paul
says ¢& é9vév duaprwdoi, born Gentiles, and as such sinners, as all Gentiles are.
Not as if he would look upon the 'Iovdaioue as not sinners ; according to the
sequel, indeed, they needed justification equally with the Gentiles (see Rom.
ii. 8, 22 f., v. 12; Eph. ii. 2f.). But the passage affirms that the Jews—as
the possessors of the revelation and the law, of the ancient theocratic viod-
ecia ‘‘ adoption,” and the promises (Rom. ix. 4), and as belonging to the holy
axapyf, ‘‘first fruits,” and root-stock of the theocracy (Rom. xi. 16)—possessed
as their own a religious consecration of life, whereby they stood on a cer-
tain stage of righteousness in virtue of which, although it was not that of
the true dixa:ooiwy, they were nevertheless exalted far above the Gentiles in:
their natural state of sinfulness (Eph. ii. 12 ; Tit. iii. 5). Luther well says:
‘‘ Nos natura Judaei in degali justitia excedimus quidem gentes, qui pecca-
tores sunt, si nobis conferantur, ut qui nec legum nec opera ejus habent ; verum
non in hoc justi sumus coram Deo, externa est illa justitia nostra,” ‘‘We who
are by nature Jews in legal righteousness exceed the Gentiles, who are sin-
ners, if they be compared with us, as they have neither the law nor its
works ; but in this we are not righteous before God ; such righteousness of
ours is external.” If duaprwot had not been unduly understood according to
the purely ethical idea (the opposite of sinlessness), the discourse wouid mot

words to Peter recorded in ver. 14, had 2 Luther, Calvin.

brought the whole act of the xara mpécwmoy 3’ Cajetanus, Neander.

aire avréarny before the assembled church. ¢ Erasmus and Estius by way of sugges-
1 Calovius, Paulus. tion, Usteri.

84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

have been so broken up as by Elsner, Er. Schmidt, and others : ‘‘ Nos na-
tura Judaci, licet non ex gentibus, peccatores,” ‘‘ We, by nature Jews, although
not of the Gentiles, are sinners ;” comp. Paulus. Hofmann’s view is also simi-
lar : ‘‘that the apostle excluded from himself that sinfulness only, which
was implied in Gentile descent—characteristic of those not belonging natu-
rally to the Jewish nationality.” ’ Paul wishes, not to affirm the different
nature of the sinfulness of those born as Jews and Gentiles respectively, but
to recall the theocratic advantage of the Jews over the sinners of Gentile
descent ; in spite of which advantage, however, etc. (ver. 16). The con-
trast lies in the idea of a theocratic sanctitas, ‘‘holiness,” peculiar to the born
Jew, onthe one hand ;* and on the other, of a profane vitiositas, ‘‘ viciousness,”
wherewith the Gentile descent is burdened. [See Note XXXVIIL., p. 97. ]—
has the emphasis: We on our part (I and thou). Ȏv is not to be supplied #yeic]
here (Riickert, Schott); but the concession in ver. 15 stands by itself, and the
contrast is added without preparation in ver. 16." Thecontrast thus strikes
one more vividly, and hence the absence of the pév can afford no ground for
calling in question (with Hofmann) the sense of a concession.‘ On the dif-
ference between "Iovdaio: (theocratic bond of union) and ‘Efpaia (national-
ity), see Wiescler.’

Ver. 16 is usually construed so that eidéreg . . . Xpicrov is a parenthesis ;
and either the sentence is made to begin with quci¢ in ver. 15, and this gueic
is again taken up by the subsequent «ai jueic,* or sumus is supplied after
duaprwdoi, & new sentence is commenced by eidérec, and xai fueic x.7.A. is taken
as xpodosis.’ Both forms of construction would give eidéree . . . Xproroi
as the motive for the émoreboauev. But in this way the statement, how Paul
and Peter (for these are the subject ; see on ver. 15) attained to faith, would
not tally with history, for the conversion of these two apostles did not at
all take place by means of logical process in the argumentative way of <dé-
reg . . . émcotevoauev. Both of them were in fact miraculously and suddenly
laid hold of by Christ ; and thereby, on their becoming believers, the light
of the statement of purpose in the sequel dawned upon them. We must
therefore consider as correct the punctuation of Lachmann,®* who is followed
by Wieseler : a comma only before eidérec, and a period after Xproroi, ‘‘ We
are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing however” (eidéreg still
belonging to the ésuév, which has to be supplied), that is, since we never-
theless know, that a man is not justified, etc.; so that what thou, Peter,

1 Comp. his Schri/tbew. I. p. 564, 610, ‘‘ Our
sinfulness does not bear the characteristic
Gentile shape.’’

2 Calvin appropriately says : ‘“‘ Quia autem
promissis haereditariam benedictionem fa-
cilebat, ideo naturale vocatur hoc bonum,"
‘But since the promise made the blessing
hereditary, this advantage is on this ac-
count called natural.”

3Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 4%;
Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. 105, ‘‘ quando altera
pars per 8¢ sit evehenda,”’ ‘‘since the other
part is to be inferred by means of the é¢.""

Comp. also Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 8.
15.
6 Ceber ad. Hebrderbrief, 1861, II. p. 28.

* So Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies,
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten,
Reithmayr.

7 Beza and others; also Rickert, Usterl,
Schott, Fritzsche, d. conform. N. T. Lachm.
p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, Mat-
thias, Mdller.

*In the small edition ; in the larger one
the usual punctuation is followed.

CHAP. II., 16. 85

doest (ver. 15), completely conflicts with this certainty, which we have not-
withstanding of our Jewish pre-eminence. [See Note XXXIX., p. 97:] — ov
dixacovras dv9pwroc] The emphatically prefixed d:xacovraz is negatived : a man
is not justified. As to the idea of dixasotada:, see on Rom. i. 17. Here also
it appears clearly as an actus forensis, and as incompatible with the perversion
of the idea by the Catholics and the followers of Osiander.! From works of the
law, which would be the determining ground of God’s acquittal ; by means of
faith, which is imputed by God as righteousness (Rom. v. 5, 24 f.),—these
are the contrasted points, while the idea of dtcasovoda: is the same.? — t& Epywv
véuov] véuov is not subjective (works, which the law by its precepts call forth),
but objective: works, which relate to the law, that is, works by which the pre-
cepts of the law are fulfilled, which have as their opposite the duaprfyara vduov,
Wisd. ii. 12." Our passage testifies also in favor of this view by the contrast
of xicrewe "Iyoov Xpiorov, inasmuch as the one relation (épywv) to the one ob-
ject (véuov) stands correlatively contrasted with the other relation (riorewc)
to the other object (Iycov Xpicrov). Schott, following the older expositors, ‘
quite erroneously limits véuog to the ceremonial law,—a limitation which
never occurs in the N. T.* and, especially where justification is the matter
in question, would be quite unsuitable ; for the impossibility of justification
by the law has reference to the whole law, viewed.in its requirements jointly
and severally, which in its full extent, and in the way willed by God, no man
can fulfil.* — éav nf] not a compromise between justification by works and jus-
tification by faith in the Jewish-Christian consciousness,’ but a transition to
another mode of conception : A man is not justified by the works of the
law ; he is not justified, except by, etc.* Consequently we have here neither
justification by the works, which are done by means of faith (the Catholic
view), nor Christ’s fulfilment of the law, which is apprehended by faith.’
The former is not Pauline, '® and the latter has only its indirect truth (for the
N. T. nowhere teaches the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law), in
so far as the atoning work of the Lord completed on the cross, which is the
specific object and main matter of justifying faith, necessarily presupposes
His active, sinless obedience (2 Cor. v. 21), of which, however, nothing is
here said. [See Note XL., p.-97.] But here in éav uf we have the ‘‘sola fide”
of Luther and his Church." It is only the man justified solely by faith, who

thereupon fulfils by means of the Spirit the requirements of the law.’* This
1 See especially Wieseler in loc. ® So also Jatho, Br. and. Gal. p. 18 f.

3 Comp. on Rom. fil. 25 f. 109 See the constantly repeated attacks on

3 See on Rom. ff. 15. the part of the Catholics against the evan-

* Including Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus. _gelical doctrine of justification by faith, in

® Although, according to the context, at Mohler, Symbol. p. 182, ed. 4; Reithmayr,

one time the ethical, and at another the
ritual, aspect of the law preponderates.
Comp. on Rom. fil. 20, and Schmid, did.
Theol, II. p. 886.

* Comp. iff. 10; Weiss, Div. Theol. p. 259.

7 Holsten, in spite of the apodosis.

®*Comp. Hymn. Cer. 77 {., ov8é rus dAAos
Girtos aOavdtwy, ei ph veheAnyepéra Zevs,
“nor ig there any other cause of immortals
except (ci «#) the cloud-gatherer Zeus."

p. 179 ff. More unprejudiced is Déllinger,
Ckristenth. u. Kirche, pp. 187, 202, and else-
where. On the other hand, Romang (in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 1, 2) has made loo much
concession to the Catholic justification by
works, and has, like Hengstenberg, erro-
neously assumed a gradual progress of
justification.

11 Comp. on Rom. ill. %.

12 See on Rom. vill. 4.

86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

is the moral completion of the relation of the law to redemption. — I700%
Xporov]} object : on Jesus Christ. Comp. Mark xi. 22.'—é& and 6:4 denote
the same idea (of causality) under two forms (that of origin and that of me-
diate agency), as Paul in general is fond of varying his prepositions.* In
dia * faith is conceived as the subjective condition of justification—the pres-
ence of which is the necessary causa medians of the latter. Certainly the
man, as soon as he believes, enters immediately into the state of justifica-
. tion ; but the preposition has (notwithstanding what Hofmann says) nothing
to do with this relation, any more than 2 postpones the being righteous, as
the result of action, until the very end of life, whereas it may be conccived
at any moment of life, asa result for the time being. — xai jueic] begins a
new sentence (see above). That which Paul had just laid before Peter as a
point on which both were convinced,—8rz ob dixawtra: dv0pwrog tE Epywv
véuov, éav uy did ior. 'I. X.,—he now confirms by reminding him of the
righteousness which they also had aimed at in having become believers
(éxcoreboauev); 80 that xai yuezc, even we both, supplies the special applica-
tion of the foregoing general dv3pwroc. The order Xpeacrdyv 'Iyncoty lays
a greater stress on the Messianic character of the historical person who is the
object of faith, than is the case in the usual order.*— érc é& Epywr vdpov ov
duawhoerac maca odpé]® These words, é ipyov véuov, take up again what
had just been said with solemn emphasis, by means of the confirmatory 67,
since indeed. Tlaca odpé conveys the idea of ‘‘ all men” (comp. above, dvi3-pu-
roc), with the accompanying idea of moral weakness and sinfulness, on which
is based both the need of justification, and also its impossibility by means of
works in the sight of the justifying God.* Looking at the difference in the
terms used and the absence of the usual formula of quotation, it is not to be
assumed that Paul intended here to give a Scripture-proof (from Ps. ecxliii.
2), as Wieseler and others think. An involuntary echo of the language
may have occurred, while the idea was more preciscly defined. The negation
is here also not to be separated from the verb ; for it is not raca odp& which
is negatived, but dixawPfoerac in reference to raéca odpf. Fritzsche’ aptly
says: ‘‘non probabitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis,”
‘‘ whatever is of the flesh will not be approved by means of the obedience
rendered the law.” Lastly, the future denotes that which never will occur.
The reference to the judgment (Rom. v. 19), which is discovered here by
Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of place.°®

Ver. 17. The dé dialectically carries on the refutation of Peter ; but the
protasis beginning with ei cannot have its apodosis in eipéSypev x. a. du. ;° on

1 See on Rom. ili. 22, and Lipsius, Recht- * Hofmann, who explains it, as if Paul
JSertigungsl. p. 112. had written «i 8 é¢nrotuer (if we, when we
2 See on Rom. ill. 80; 2 Cor. iil. 11; Eph.i.7. became believers, sought, etc.) dccam@jvar
§ Comp. fil. 26. év Xptorp, evpéOnney x.7.A. (we thereby ex-
4 Comp. ver. 4, ili. 26. hibit ourselves at the same time as sinners).
§ Comp. Rom. fil. 20. According to Hofmann, the cipé@nxer is in-
6 Comp. on Acts il. 17. tended to apply to both members of the
7 Diss. I. in 2 Cor. p. 2. sentence,—a forced, artificial view for

® Comp. ver. 21. It is otherwise, v. 5; which the context affords neither right nor
2 Tim. lv. 8 reason.

CHAP, II, 1%. 87

the contrary, it runs on as far as dyaprwdoi, which is then followed by the
interrogatory apodosis. Consequently : But if we (in order to show thee,
from what has been just said, how opposed to Christ thy conduct was),
although we sought to be justified in Christ, were found even on our part sinners.
This protasis supposes that which must have been the case, if Peter's Juda-
izing conduct had been in the right ; namely, that the result would then
have been that faith does not lead to, or does not suffice for, justification,
but that it is requisite to combine with it the observance of the Jewish law.
If faith does not render the "Iovdai{e:v superfluous, as was naturally to be
concluded from the course of conduct pursued by Peter, then this seeking
after justification in Christ has shown itself so ineffectual, that the believer
just stands on an equality with the Gentiles, because he has ceased to be a
Jew and yet has not attained to righteousness in Christ : he is therefore
now nothing else than an dyaprudde, just as the Gentile is. But if this be
the case, the apodosis now asks, Is Christ, therefore, min‘ster of sin (and not
of righteousness) ?— seeing that our faith in Him, which seeks for right-
eousness by Him, has the sad result that we have been found like the Gen-
tiles in a state of sin. The answer to this question is, Far be it/ It isa
result to be abhorred, that Christ, instead of bringing about the righteous-
ness sought in Him, should be the promoter of sin. Consequently the state
of things supposed in the protasis is an anti-Christian absurdity. — The
subject of Cyrotvrec and ecipéSypyev is, as before, Peter and Paul. — (yroivrec]
emphatically prefixed, in reference to the preceding sentence of purpose, iva
OcxawPapuev x.t.A. 3; 80 that this Cyreiv dixauwd. is not in reality different
from the mioreiev cig Xpor., but denotes the same thing as respects its ten-
dency. To the Cyrovvres then corresponds the eipéOyyuev, which introduces
an entirely different result: if we have been found, if it has turned out as a
matter of fact, that, etc.! As to etpéSnuev we must, however, notice that—
as in the apodosis apa Xproré¢ x.r.A. we cannot without proceeding arbitra-
rily supply anything but the simple éori, and not d» qv (iii. 21)—the aorist
requires the explanation : inventi sumus, ‘‘ have been found,” ? and therefore
neither reperimur, ‘‘ are found,’ nor éneenti essemus, ‘‘ would be found,’ nor
should be found, * nor were to be found.® Observe, moreover, that in eipé?., in con-
trast to Cyrotvre¢ x.7.4., the accessory idea of something unexpected suggests

* Rom. vif. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 2, xv. 15; 2 Cor.
xi. 12

* Valgate, Beza, Calvin, and many others.
80 correctly also Lipsius in Hilgenfeld's
Zetlechr. 1861, p. 78 ff. He, however, {m-
proving on Holsten’s similar interpretation,
thus explains the whole passage: ‘If we,
being born Jews, have, by our seeking
after the salvation In Christ, confessed our
sinfulness (and consequently, at the same
time, the impotence of the law to make us
righteous), does it thence follow that Christ,
by inviting also us Jews to seek righteous-
neas in Him and not in the law, has led us
astray to a life in Gentile impurity?’ But

this inference does not stand in logical con-
sistency with the protasis, and could not
even suggest itself asa false conclusion;
for duaprias is assumed to be taken ina
different sense from duzaprwAoi,—the latter
in the sense of defectus justitiae, the former
as vittositas ethnica. Holsten also under-
stands dyuaprias as the unfettering of sin in
the moral life (comp. v. 18; Rom. i. 6 f., e¢
al.),—an idea which is here foreign to the
context.

3 Erasmus, Castalio.

4 de Wette and many others.

§ Luther,

6 Schott,

88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

itself. — tv Xpior@] nothing else than what was previously put as éx wicrewg
Xpiorov, but expressed according to the notion that in Christ, whose person
and work form the object of faith, justification has its causal basis.* Its op-
posite : év véuy, iii. 11, and the idia dixasocivy, Rom. x. 8. — «ai abroi] et ipsi,
also on our part, includes Peter and Paul in the class of dzaprudoi previously
referred to in ver. 15. — dpa X. auapr. didx.] 1s, at any rate, a question (Vul-
gate, numquid), for with Paul «9 yévorro is always preceded by a question.*
With this, however, either mode of writing, doa (Lachmann) or dpa (Tisch-
endorf), may stand. Both express igitur, rebus sic se habentibus, ‘‘ therefore,
as matters stand,” but dpa (Luke xviii. 8; Acts viii. 80), although Paul
does not elsewhere use it (but just as little does he use an interrogative apa‘),
is the livelier and stronger.* To take dpa for dp’ of, nonne (Olshausen,
Schott), is a purely arbitrary suggestion, which fails to apprehend the sub-
tlety of the passage, the question in which (not dpa in itself, as held by
Hartung) bears the trace of an ironical suspicion of doubtfulness.* Besides,
dpa is never really used for dp’ of, although it sometimes seems so.” Riickert
has mistaken the sense of the whole passage: ‘‘If we, although we seek
grace with God through Christ, nevertheless continue to sin, etc., do ye
think that Christ will then take pleasure in us, greater pleasure than in the
Gentiles, and thus strengthen and further us in our sin?” Against this it
may be urged, that Paul has not written eiproxéueda ; that the comparison
with the Gentiles implied in xai airot would be unsuitable, for the sin here
reproved would be hypocritical Judaizing ; and that ver. 18 would not, as is
most arbitrarily assumed, give the reason for the yu?) yévarro, but, passing over
the 7 yévorra and the apodosis, would carry us back to the protasis and
prove this latter. The nearest to this erroneous interpretation is that of
Beza and Wieseler, who (so also essentially Reithmayr) find expressed here
the necessity of the union of sanctification with justification.* But the right
sense of the passage, as given above, is found in substance, although with
several modifications, and in some cases with an incorrect apprehension of
the aorist cipédnuev (see above), in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,

! Comp. on Matt. 1. 20.

22 Cor. v. 21; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iil. 24.

8 Rom. fli. 4, vi. 2; Gal. Hil. 21, e¢ a.

‘Which is assumed by Wieseler, Butt-
mann, Hofmann.

5 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 180; Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 39 f.

6 Comp. Buttmann, ad Fiat. Charmid. 14,
ed. Heind.

? Herm. ad Viger. p. 88; Heind. ad Plat.
Theaet. p. 476; Eliendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 216.
See Kiihner, ad Aen. Mem. il. 6. 1.

. ® They take the essential sense to be: ‘If
the man whos Justified in Christ has sinned,
Christ is not to blame for this; for (ver. 18)
the man himself is to blame for the trans-
gression, because he builds again the do-
minion of sin which He had destroyed.”’ So
Wieseler. This interpretation is utterly
unsuitable, if ver. 15 ff. is still addressed to

Peter. It may be urged also against it,
that Paul, by using evpéOnuer (instead of
evpirxéueba), would have written in a way
both obscure and misleading ; further, that
the relapse of the justified man into sin
did not at all suggest or presume as prob-
able the conclusion that Christ was to
blame for it ; moreover, that the expression
apaprias Sidxovos must assert something of
a far stronger and more positive character
(namely, sin-producer) ; lastly, that ver. 18,
taken in Wieseler’s sense, would, notwith-
standing its carefully-choBen expressions,
contain nothing more than an almost
meaningless and self-evident thought, in
which, moreover, the destruction of the
dominion of sin, which has been accom-
plished by Christ or by the justifying grace
of God (Rom. vill. 8), would be attributed
to man (xaréAvoa),

CHAP, I1., 18. 89

Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Wolf,
Wetstein, and others ; also Semler, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri,
Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald,
Matthias ; several of whom, however, such as the Greek Fathers, Luther,
Calovius, Koppe, Usteri, Lachmann, taking the accentuation dpa, do not
assume any question, which does not alter the essential sense, but does not
correspond with the 4? yévo:ro which follows ; while Hilgenfeld unnecessa-
rily supposes a breviloguence: ‘‘ then I ask, Is then Christ,” etc. ? — Xpioréc]
‘Cin whom, yet, we seek to be justified,” Bengel. — dyapr. dedx.] dyapr.
emphatically prefixed, in contrast to the d:cawSjvac : one, through whom sin
receives service rendered, siz is upheld and promoted.'! The opposite, d:d-
Kovoe dtxaoovvyc, 2 Cor. xi. 15.

Ver. 18. Ground assigned for the 7 yévo:ro : No ! Christ is not a minister
of sin ; for—and such is the result, Peter, of the course of conduct cen-
sured in thee —if Iagain build up that which [have pulled down, I show myse!f
as transgressor ; so that Christ thus by no means appears, according to the
state of the case supposed in ver. 17, as the promoter of sin, but the reproach
—and that a reproach of transgression — falls upon myself alone, as I exhibit
myself by my own action. Remark the emphasis, energetically exposing
the great personal guilt, which is laid jirst on zapaBdryy (in contrast to
duapriag didxovoc),then on évavrév (in contrast to Xproréc), and jointly on the
juxtaposition of the two words. In the bullding up of that which had been pulled
down Paul depicts the behavior of Peter, in so far as the latter previously,
and even still in Antioch (ver. 12), had pronounced the Mosaic law not to
be obligatory in respect of justification on the Christian who has his right-
eousness in Christ and not in the law, and had thus pulled it down asa
building thenceforth useless, but subsequently by his Judaizing behavior
again represented the law as obligatory for righteousness, and thus, as it
were, built up anew the house which had been pulled down.* Paul is fond
of the figure of building and pulling down.** The jirst person veils that,
which had happened with Peter in conereto, ‘‘in the concrete,” under the
milder form of a general proposition, the subject of which (= one, any one)
is individualized by J.4—-raira] with emphasis : this, not anything else or more
complete in its place. —rapafdryv] not sinner generally, as Wieseler, according
to his interpretation of the whole passage, is forced to explain it (see on ver.
17), but transgressor of the law (Rom. iv. 15, ii. 25) ; so that, in conformity
with the significance of the figure used, véuov is obviously supplied from the
context (vv, 16, 19),—and that asthe Mosaic law, not as the véuoc ry¢ wicreus,

} Luther's gloss: ‘* Whoever desires to
become godly by means of works, acts just
as if Christ Dy His ministry, office, preach-
ing, and sufferings, made us first of all sin-
ners who must become godly through the
law ; thus is Christ denied, crucified again,
slandered, and sin is built up again,
which had previously been done away by
the preaching of falth.”

3 Comp. Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr.

p. 288.

%See Rom. xv. 20; 1 Cor. vili. 1, x. 28;
Eph. if. 20 f. ; Rom. xiv. 20; 2 Cor. v. 1, e¢ al.
Comp. Talmud, Berach. 63.1, in Wetstein:
‘*jam aedificasti, an destruis? jam sepem
fecisti, an perrumpes?”’ ‘Art thou de-
stroying who hast been building? wilt thou
break through who hast made the hedge ?”"

4 Comp. Rom, vil. 7. ‘

90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

the gospel.’ But how far does he, who reasserts the validity of that law
which he had previously as respects justification declared invalid, present
himself as a transgressor of the same? Notin so far as he proves that he had
wrongly declared it invalid and abandoned it,’ or as he has in the pulling down
sinned against that which is to him right, as Hofmann interprets it,? but, as
ver. 19 shows, because the law itself has brought about the freedom of the
Christian from the law, in order that he may live to God ; consequently he
that builds it up again acts in opposition to the law, and thus stands forth
as transgressor, namely, of the law in its real sense, which cannot desire, but
on the contrary rejects, the re-exchanging of the new righteousness for the
old.‘ The word is purposely chosen, and stands in a climactic relation to
duaptwdo (ver. 17),—the category which includes also the Gentiles without
law. —ovvordyw] I show. See Wetstein and Fritzsche, ad Rom. iii. 5;
Munthe, Obdss. p. 358 ; Loesner, p. 248. But Schott explains it as commendo,
laudo, ‘‘I commend, I praise,”® making it convey an ironical reference to the
Judaists, who had boasted of their Judaizing behavior. This idea is not in
any way indicated ; ° and the ironical reference must have rather pointed at
Peter, who, however, had not made a boast of his Judaizing, but had con-
sented to it in a timid and conniving fashion. Hence Bengel’s explanation
is more subtle; ‘‘ Petrus voluit commendare se ver. 12 fin.; ejus commen-
dationis tristem Paulus fructum hic mimesi ostendit,” ‘‘Peter wished to
commend himself, ver. 12, at the end ; Paul here by a mimesis shows the
sad fruit of this commendation.” But according to the connection, as exhbib-
ited above, between ver. 18 and ver. 17, the idea of commendation is so en-
tirely foreign to the passage, that, in fact, éuavrdv cvvordve expresses essen-
tially nothing more than the idea of etpéOnpev in ver. 17; bringing into
prominence, however, the sel/-presentation, the se//-proof, which the person
concerned practically furnishes in his own case : he establishes himself as a
transgressor.

Ver. 19 f., containing the “‘ summa ac medulla Christianismi,” ‘‘ sum and
marrow of Christianity” (Bengel), furnishes the confirmation of ver. 18 ; for

1 Koppe, Matthies.

2 Ambroslus, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vor-
stius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Rosenmil-
ler, Borger, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld,
Ewald.

*The application to be made of the
general proposition is said to be this:
“Whosoever desires and seeks to be-
come righteous in Christ would not do
so, unless he recognized the matter in
which he sinned as a breach of the law
which he has again to make good, and that
which he does to make it good is se(/-
confession as a transgressor.”’ This forced
perversion should have been precluded by
the very consideration that xaraAvew in
reference to the law cannot be understood
in the sense of breaking it, like Avew rd
oaBBarov, John vy. 18 (comp. vii. 26), but
only in the sense of Matt. v. 17, according

to which, of course, the building up again
is no making good again. Comp. on caradAveuw
tovs véuous, Polyb. fii. 8. 2.

* Comp. Rom. ili. 31. See the fuller state-
ment at ver. 19. Comp. Chrysostom and
Theophylact (avrds yap .. . 6 wouos.. . me
ewdyynoe wpds Thy wiorw cai execocey adeivar
avrov, ‘for the law itself led me to faith
and persuaded me to break it’). Bengel,
moreover, well says: ‘“* Vocabulum horri-
bile, legis studiosioribus,”’ “a horrible term
to those more eager for the law.”’

§2Cor. iff. 1, v. 12, x. 12.

® Schott should not have appealed to the
form ovrerdve, Both forms have the same
signification. Hesychius: cvmoravey, ewat-
veivy, davepovv, BeBacovy, wapariOdvar. Only
the form cvy.crdve is less frequent and later,
Polyb. iv. 5, 6, xxviil. 17. 6, xxxii. 18. 8; 2
Cor. lil. 1, v. 12.

CHAP. II., 19. 91

which purpose Paul makes use of his own experience’ with sublime self-as-
surance and in a way sufficient to shame Peter : For I for my own part, to
give utterance here to the consciousness of my own experience, apart from
the experience of others, am through the law dead to the law, in order to live to
God. In this view the contrast to Xpioréc is not expressed already by this
éy4 (Hofmann); but only by the éyé of ver. 20. The point confirmatory of
ver. 18 lies in dia véuov ; for he, who through the law has passed out of the
relation to the law which regulated his life, in order to stand in a higher re-
lation, and yet reverts to his legally-framed life, acts against the law, rapa-
Bérnv éavrdv ovviordver. The véuo¢ in both cases must be the Mosaic law,
because otherwise the probative force and the whole point of the passage
would be lost ; and because, if Paul had intended véduov to refer to the gos-
pel,* he must have added some distinguishing definition.* The immediate
context, that is, the Xporg cvveotatpwua: x.t.4. which closely follows (and
not ver. 16), supplies precise information how Paul intended the dia véuov
véup aréSavov to be understood. By the crucifixion the curse of the law was
fulfilled in Christ (iii. 18); and so far Christ died through the law, which
demanded, and in Christ’s death received, the accomplishment of its curse.
In one, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, the curse of the law is like-
wise fulfilled, so that in virtue of his ethical fellowship in the death of
Jesus he knows himself to be dead d:4 véyov,* and consequently at the same
time dead to the law (comp. Rom. vii. 4); because, now that the law has
accomplished in his case its rights, the bond of union which joined him to
the law is broken ; for xarnpyfSnpev ard rov vouod, awoSavérrec év G xatecyoueda,
‘‘we have been delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we
were held,” Rom. vii. 6. So, in all essential points, Chrysostom* and
others, Zachariae, Usteri (Schott wavers in his view, Riickert still more so).°
This is the only interpretation which keeps closely to the context, and is
therefore to be preferred to the views of others, who understand d:d véuou to
refer to the Messianic contents of the law and the prophets, by which Paul
had been induced to abandon the law,’ and of others still, who find the tn-
sufficiency of the law for salvation expressed.* Neither is there suggested in

1 Not—as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Cru-
sins hold, contrary to the context—desig-
nating himself as representative of believers
generally.

2 Jerome, Ambrose, Erasmus, Luther,
Vatablus, Zeger, Vorstius, Bengel, Michael-
is, Koppe, Morus, Rosenmfiller, Borger,
Vater.

3 Rom. fil. 27, vill. 2, ix. 81; comp. 1 Cor.
ix. 21.

4 Not, therefore, as Hermann interprets,
&a répov $y xardAvoa,“ through the law re-
jected by myself.”

® He indeed also specifies the interpreta-
tion, by which véuov is understood of the
gospel, as wellas the view, which takes rénov
of the Mosaic law, but elucidates the rela-
tion of &ka by Deut. xvill. 18. He neverthe-

less evidently gives the preference to the
interpretation given above.

© Comp. Lipsius, Z.c. p. 81 f.; Weiss. did.
Theol. p. %8; Moller on de Wette, p. 50.

7 Theodoret, Corn. & Lapide, Hammond,
Grotius, and others ; also Baumgarten-Cru-
sius.

® As Winer, “lex legem sustulit ; ipsa lex,
cum non posset mihi salutem impertire, mei
me juris fecit atque a suo imperio libera-
vit,” “the law removed the law; the law
itself, since it could not impart salvation to
me, made me my own master, and freed
me from its dominion.’”? Olshausen, Mat-
thias, and likewise Hofmann, who under-
stand it to refer to the knowledge acquir-
ed through the law, that it was impossible
to attain righteousness in the way of the

92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

the context the reference to the pedagogic functions of the law, iii..24, which
is found by Beza,' Calvin, Wolf, and others ; also by Matthies, who, how-
ever, understands did as quite through. De Wette thus explains the peda-
gogic thought which he supposes to be intended: ‘‘ By my having thorough-
ly lived in the law and experienced its character in my own case, I have
become conscious of the need of a higher moral life, the life in the Spirit ;
and through the regeneration of my inner man I have made my way from the
former to the latter.”” So, also, in all essential points, Wieseler, although the
usus paedagogicus, ‘‘ pedagogical use,” of the law does not produce regener-
ation and thereby moral liberation from its yoke (which, however, d:é vdéuov
must affirm), but only awakens the longing after it (Rom. vii. 21. ff.), and
prepares the ground for justification and sanctification. The inner deliver-
ance from the the yoke of the law takes place dca rvebyarocg (v. 18 ; Rom.
viii. 2). A clear commentary on our passage is Rom. vii. 4-6. — iva Oeq Cjou]
that I might live to God, that my life (brought about by that avéSavov) might
be dedicated to God, and should not therefore again serve the véuoc,*—which
is the case with him who 4 xaréAvoe ravra mau oixodopuet (ver. 18).4 — Xpior¢
ovveoraipwuzat] Situation in which he finds himself through that d:é répuov
véuy atéJavov, and accompanying information how this event took place in
him. Corresponding with this, afterwards in ver. 20, (3 . . . Xpiord¢ con-
tains information as to the way in which iva Oe@ Cyow was realized in him.
With Christ I am crucified, thus expressing the consciousness of moral fel-
lowship, brought about by faith, in the atoning death of Christ,—a subjec-
tive fellowship, in which the believer knows that the curse of the law is
accomplished on himself because it is accomplished on Christ,° and at the
same time that his pre-Christian ethical state of life, which was subject to
the law, is put an end to (voug aréSavov).* Observe also how in this very
passage it is evident from the whole context, that civ in cvvecraip. and in
the corresponding expressions’ denotes not the mere typical character of
Christ or the resemblance to Him (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the actual /él-
lowship, which, as accomplished and existing in the consciousness of faith,
is matter of real experience. On the perfect, which expresses the blessed
feeling of the continuance of what had taken place, comp. vi. 14. Here it
is the continuance of the liberation of the moral personal life from the law,
which was begun by the crucifixion with Christ.

Ver. 20. 26 d2 obxéte tyd, Cg d2 dv éuot Xpicréc] The comma which is.

law,—which righteousness, therefore, could
only be attained by means of faith ; comp.
Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, also Ewald, whose
interpretation would seem to call for &a
Tov vopoy,

1“ Lex entm terrens conscientiam ad Chrta-
tum adducit, qui unus vere efficit, ut moria-
mur legi, quoniam nos justificando tollit
conscientiae terrores,” * for the law by ter-
rifying the conscience leads to Christ, who
only effects it that we die to the law, since
by justifying us He removes the terrors of
conscience.”

2 “Having passed quite through the law,
I have it behind me, and am no longer
bound to it.”

3 iva Gey Cnow is therefore not (with Chry-
sostom, Cajetanus, Calvin, and others) to
be joined to Xptorg cvverravpwua ; for it
essentially belongs to the completeness of
the thought introduced by yap.

4 Comp., moreover, Rom. vi. 11.

5 Comp. ili. 18 (8a vépov arébavoy).

* Comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 4, and on Col. il.
20.
7 Rom. yi. 8; Col. ii. 1%, 20, e¢ al.

CHAP. II., 20. 93

usually placed after (@ 62 is correctly expunged by Lachmann, Riickert,
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Hofmann ; for, if fa...
éyS were not to be conjoined, 4444 must have stood before otxérz. The
second d2 is our but indeed after a negative,’ and ¢& and ¢% are on both occa-
sions emphatically prefixed : alive however no longer am I, but alive indeed is
Christ in me ; whereby the new relation of life is forcibly contrasted to the
previously expressed relation of death (Xpiorp ovveot.). After the crucifixion
of Christ followed His new life ; he, therefore, who is crucified with Christ,
thenceforth lives also with Him ; his whole pre-Christian moral personality is,
in virtue of that fellowship of death, no longer in life (6 radaide abrov dv9pwroc
ovveoravpo0n, Rom. vi. 6), and Christ is the principle of lifein him. This
change is brought about by faith (see the sequel), inasmuch as in the
believer, according to the representation here given of Paul’s own experi-
ence, it is no longer the individual personality that is the agent of life,* but
Christ, who is present in him (through the Spirit, Rom. viii. 9 f.; Eph. iii.
16 f.), and works, determines, and rules everything in him, (@ d2 otxér: éyd,
C@ da év éuot Xpioréds : The mind of Christ is in him (1 Cor. ii. 16), the heart
of Christ beats in him (Phil. i. 8), and Christ’s power is effectual in him.
(See Note XLI., p. 98.] Thereby is the proof of the words iva Oe¢ Chow
rightly given.* — 6 d2 viv (6 év capxt x.r.A.] Explanation of what has just
been said, (6... Xprorég : but that which Inow live in the flesh, I live in faith
on, etc. This explanation is placed by dé in formal contradistinction to the
preceding apparent paradox. The emphasis, however, lies on viv, now,
namely, since the beginning of my Christian condition of life, so that a glance
is thrown back to the time before the Xpior@ owvectabpwya, and viv corre-
sponds with ovxér:. Niv is often understood ‘ in contrast not with the pre-
Christian life, but with the future life after death.’ A reference of this
kind is, however, entirely foreign to the context, does not harmonize with
the emphasis which is laid on viv by its position, and is by no means re-
quired by éy capxt ; for this addition to (é is made by Paul simply with a
view to indicate that after his conversion the material form of his life re-
mained the same, although its ethical nature had become something entirely
different. —é capxt] denotes life in the natural human phenomenal form of
the body consisting of flesh. The context does not convey any reference to
the ethical character of the adp& (as sedes peccati, ‘‘the seat of sin’’).°— &
wiores] not per sidem, ‘‘by faith,” but, corresponding to év capxi, in faith ;
so that faith—and indeed (comp. i. 16) the faith in the great sum and sub-
stance of the revelation received, in the Son of God * — is the specific element
in which my life moves and acts and is developed. It is prefixed emphat-
ically, in contrast to the entirely different pre-Christian sphere of life, which

1 Hartung, Partikeli. I. p. 171.

2 Mortuus est Savwus,” “Saul is dead,”
Erasmus.

2 See on Rom. vi. 10.

4 As by Erasmas, Grotius (adhuo), Riickert,
Usteri, Schott, followlng Augustine and
Theodoret.

§ Rather: after the wapovela, “or ap-
pearing of Christ.”

* Comp. Phil. 1. 22; 2 Cor. x. 8.

7 Chrysostom, Beza, and others.

® Notice the anarthrous siore, and then
the article affixed to the more precise defini-
tion.

94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

was the vdéuoc. — rod dyarhoavrés pe x.t.A.] points out the special historical
fact of salvation, which is the subject-matter of the faith in the Son of God,
giving impulse to this new life.’ Kai is explanatory, adding the practical
wroof of the love. Observe also the yé and trép éuod (see on i. 4) as expres-
sive of the conscious and assured jiducia in the jides.?—Lastly, the construc-
tion is such, that 5 is the accusative of the object to (4, and the whole runs
on in connection : the life which I live, I live, etc. The interpretation :
quod vero attinet, quod, ‘‘ which, indeed, is of importance that,” etc. (Winer),
is indeed grammatically admissible,‘ in so far as 4 is likewise retained as the
accusative of the object ; but it needlessly injures the flow of the discourse.

Ver. 21. Negative side, opposed to an antagonistic Judaism, of the
life which Paul (from ver. 19) has described as his own. By this negative,
with the grave reason assigned for it, ei yép x.7.4., the perverse conduct of
Peter is completely condemned. — J do not annul (as is done by again assert-
ing the validity of the law) the grace of God (which has manifested itself
through the atoning death of Christ). —aderd] as in iii. 15, Luke vii. 30,
1 Cor. i. 19, 1 Tim. v. 12, Heb. x. 28: make of none effect ; see the sequel.
It is here the annulling, practically involved in the Judaistic courses, of the
grace of God in Christ, which is in fact rendered inoperative and cannot
make righteous, if righteousness is furnished by the law. The rejection of
grace (Vulgate and others, adjicio) which is involved in this, is a practical
rejection.* As to aVereiv generally, which does not occur until after Poly-
bius, see Schweigh. Lez. Polyb. p. 12.—ei yap x.7.4.] justifies what has
just been said, oix aderd. — dia véuov] through the law, namely, as the insti-
tute which brings about justification by virtue of the works done in harmony
with it.° This is emphatically prefixed, so that Xproré¢ corresponds in the
apodosis. — dwpedy] not: without result (Erasmus, Paraphr., Piscator), a
meaning which it never has either in classical authors (in whom it occurs in
the sense of gratis only) or in the LXX., but: wzthout reason, without cause.”
Chrysostom justly says : mwepirrdc 6 tov Xpicrov Vadvaroc, ‘the death of Christ
would be superfluous,’ which was the very act of the grace which desired to
justify men. This death would have taken place unnecessarily ; it would have
been, as it were, an act of superfluity,® if that which it was intended to
effect were attainable by way of the Jaw. Erasmus aptly remarks, ‘est
autem ratiocinatio ab impossibili,” ‘‘it is, however, arguing from what is im-

1 Comp. Rom. vill. 87; Eph. v. 2.

2 Luther well says, ‘‘Hae voces: dilexit
me, plenissimae sunt fidel, et qui hoc breve
pronomen me illa fide dicere et sibi appli-
care posset, qua Paulus, etiam futurus esset
optimus disputator una cum Paulo contra
legem,” ‘‘These words, ‘Loved me,’ are
most full of security, and he who could ut-
ter and apply to himself this short pronoun
me in the faith wherein Paul did, would be
the best disputant with Paul against the
law.’ But this faith {s not the fides formaia
(Catholics, including Bisping and Reith-
mayr), although it is the source of Christian

love and Christian life.

? See Bernhardy, p. 106; Fritzsche, ad
Rom. I. p. 898 f.; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor.
p. 802. :

4 See on Rom. vi. 10.

5 So that # xdpis ovedrs yiverat xdpis, Rom.
xi. 6.

* Comp. on iil. 11.

7 As 1 Sam. xix. 5, Ps. xxxiv. 8 (not Job i.
9): comp. John xy. 25; Ecclus. xx. 21, xxix.
6 f.; Ignat. Tradl. 10, Sepedy ovv aroOvicKe,
“TI do not die in vain.”

6 Comp. Holsten.

NOTES. 95

possible.” Observe the arclusive expression of the clause assigning the rea-
son of oix adero, which allows of no half-and-half division of justification
between law and grace.

Note.—Paul is discreet enough to say nothing as to the impression which his
speech made on Peter. Its candor, resolution, and striking force of argument
would, however, be the less likely to miss their aim in the case of Peter, seeing
that the latter was himself convinced of Christian freedom (Acts xv. 7 ff.), and
had played the hypocrite in Antioch only by connivance from fear of men (ver. 13).
But as, according to this view, an opposition of principle between the two
apostles cannot be conceded (contrary to the view of Baur and his followers),
we must abstain from assuming that this occurrence at Antioch had any lasting
and far-reaching consequences ; for it simply had reference to a moral false step
taken in opposition to Peter’s own better judgment, and the scandal arising
therefrom. It was therefore so essentially of a personal nature, that, if known
at all by Luke, it might well have remained unmentioned in Acts—considering
the more comprehensive historical destination of that work—without suggest-
ing any suspicion that the absence of mention arose from any intentional con-
cealment (comp. on Acts xv.). Such a concealment is but one of the numberless
dishonest artifices of which the author of Acts has been accused, ever since
certain persons have thought that they recognized in our epistle ‘‘the mutely
eloquent accuser of the Book of Acts” (Schwegler), which is alleged to throw
‘‘a veil of concealment’’ over the occurrences at Jerusalem and Antioch (Baur,
Paulus, I. p. 148, ed. 2).

Nores py American Eprror.

XXX. Ver. 1. wdAw avéBny.,

Sieffert, while agreeing with. Meyer as to the identification of this visit with
that in Acts xv., shows that Meyer's argument as to any discrepancy between
this epistle and the account in Acts is based on the assumption that Paul is
still occupied with the proof that he had not learned his gospel from the other
apostles—a proof which was finished in ver. 24 of the preceding chapter. Hero
he cites two other incidents in his life, showing his equal standing as an apos-
tle. Hence there was no need for any allusion to a second visit. Baur espe-
cially uses this seeming discrepancy to assail the historical accuracy of the Book
of Acts. Sanday well remarks: ‘‘ Discrepancies greater than any that appear
here may be observed in the accounts of events separated from their record by
but a small interval of time and attested by numerous witnesses . . . So
shallow and slight is that house of cards which forms one of the most imposing
structures of modern negative criticism.’”’ The full investigation of the sub.
ject belongs to the exposition of Acts.

XXXI. Ver. 1. xa Tirov.

There should be no difficulty in regarding Titus as beionging to the ‘' cer-
tain others” of Acts xv. He is mentioned here to the exclusion of the rest, in
view of what follows in ver. 8.

96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

XXXII. Ver. 2. xar’ idiav d2 roi¢ doxovacy.

Sieffert considers Meyer's inference that the account requires the general dis-
cussion to be first, incorrect. So also Lightfoot.

XXXII, Ver. 5. pevdddeagor.

Sieffert substitutes along note beginning : ‘‘ The continuous agreement between
Gal. ii. 3-5 and Acts xv. 1 sqq., which has been cited already at ver. 1 for the
general identity of the journey of Paul to Jerusalem mentioned in both places,
decides at once against the assumption of Meyer, that as the accounts in Gal. ii.
and Acts xv. relate to different occurrences respecting the same journey of Paul,
so the two passages, Gal. ii. 2 (dve9éunv avroic) 3-5 and Acts xv. 4, 12 report two
distinct matters, both of which, nevertheless, could have occurred at the same
visit of the apostle to Jerusalem. But there is just as little foundation for re-
garding the account of Acts excluded by that of Paul, unless they are both, es-
pecially that of Paul, misunderstood, and the distinction between their purpose
ignored ; that of Paul being directed to the proof of his personal dignity, and that
of Acts to the historical exhibition of the general ecclesiastical development. On
the contrary, it is manifest that the account in Acts is in every respect adapted
to complete the brief declarations of Paul. Thus while these declarations contain
no indication as to whether Paul had only one or several conferences with the
church, the account of the latter is furnished by Acts.”

XXXIV. Ver. 8. 'O yap évepynoas.

‘‘By this is not meant the call to the apostolate (Fritzsche), or the mere
equipment and making fit (Schott, Meyer, Wieseler), but the entire efficacious
operation of God for the successful execution of the apostolic calling (cf.
Winer, Usteri, de Wette, Hofmann), but it is not to be limited to the gift of
the results (Baur).’’ Sieffert.

XXXV. Ver. 10. trav rr you.

The “ poor'’ are Christianized Jews, mainly in Palestine (cf. Rom. xv. 26, 27 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 3), but uot necessarily confined thereto. In going to the Gentiles,
such Jewish converts from the diaspora as would be found destitute were to be

- cared for. Cf. Eadie.

KXXVI. Ver. 10. Entire Verse.

‘The private conference of Paul with the pillars of the church here re-
ported is not mentioned in Acts. It may be readily inferred that with this ac-
count the words, Acts xv. 6, ovvnxOncav de ol aréotoAa xai ol mpeoBvrepor idetv
mept rov 26)ou Tovrov are to be combined, as, e.g., Ebrard and Pfleiderer do in
different ways. By including in the doxoivrec the elders present with Paul
(Ebrard), or believing that they are not directly excluded by the wording
(Pfleiderer), they find an account indicated of a private conference with the
apostles and elders entirely corresponding to that in Acts. Ebrard, however,
regards this as only a preliminary conference, and not until after the contro-
versy had increased (ver. 7) does Peter enter the assembly, in which, according
to ver. 12, ray rd 1A#G0¢, and, according to ver. 22, 6A 7 éxxAnola is present ; while
Pfleiderer believes that the transactions according to Acts took place in only

NOTES. 97

anarrow circle, and only the result was erroneously represented as a formal
resolution of the church. But the latter view is excluded by the fact that
already in ver. 12 the church (dv rd wA780¢) is regarded as present. Even the
former view can scarcely be supported, as the silence of the entire body that
follows the address of Peter is manifestly in opposition to the idea of the oc-
currence of much controversy after the coming together of the apostles and
elders, as in them the entire body is present and participates. All, therefore,
that is related in Acts xv. 6-29 refers to the only congregational meeting con-
ducted by apostles and elders, while that which is referred to Gal. ii. 3-5
belongs to the public transactions. After this there remains in the report
given in Acts no room for a private conference ; this must be referred to the
time of the informal preliminary conference, Acts xv. 4, since, according to the
representation of Paul, its temporal priority is not only possible, but even prob-
able (cf. v. 2). Accordingly, if the private conference, Gal. ii. 6-10, is entirely
passed by in Acts as outside of its historical purpose, then what is reported in
Acts xv. cannot be excluded by the former; for otherwise the chief antago-
nisms between the two accounts would have respect to the relation and position
of the apostolic pillars. But such is not the case. For not only the recogni-
tion of Paul’s commission to the heathen by the original apostles, but also
their essential doctrinal agreement with Paul in respect to various interests
and offices are indicated by the public addresses and resolutions of Acts xy.”’
(Sieffert).
XXXVIL. Ver. 11. xara mpdcurov avry avréotny «.7.A,

Meyer's objection to Bengel’s interpretation does not seem valid. What if
the question be left unanswered as to the persons from whom the condemnation
proceeded ? The act carried with it its own condemnation. So Alford,
Lightfoot, Sanday, Sieffert. Meyer is supported by Ellicott, Eadie, and Riddle
in the American Lange. The argument that the condemnation must have been
public, or a public rebuke would not have been given, does not meet the case,
since the public offence required a public protest on the part of Paul.

XXXVI. Ver. 15. duapredoi.

déuaptrwAoci is used in preference to £0v7, not without a shade of irony, as better
enforcing St. Paul’s argument (Lightfoot).

XXXIX. Ver. 16. eidorec d2 Sri x.7.A.

According to Sieffert, ver. 16 forms a new sentence, and the é:dérec is a parti-
cipial foundation to the nai jusic. The knowledge, too, is not merely discur-
sive, but that which is rooted in the sense of guilt and the consciousness of
communion with Christ.

XL. Ver. 16. ’Edv py «.7.A.

The obedientia activa must not be excluded from the meritorious cause of
justification, as the remark of Meyer would imply. ‘‘ By his active obedience
Christ most exactly fulfilled the divine law in our stead, in order that penitent
sinners, applying to themselves, by true faith, this vicarious fulfilment of the
law, might be accounted righteous before God the judge, Gal. iv. 4,5; Matt.
v.17; Rom. x, 4” (Hollaz),

z

98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

XLI. Ver. 20. ra dé ovnére eyo.

‘* Wondrous words! I am so identified with Him, that His death is my death.
When He was crucified, I was crucified with Him. Iam so much one with Him
under law, and in suffering and death, that when He died to the law I died to
the law’’ (Eadie). The application of this to the argument against Peter is
well presented by Brenz: ‘‘ He who believes in Christ is incorporated with
Christ by faith, and becomes His member. But to him who is a member of
Christ's body belong also all the blessings of Christ which He Himself has
acquired by the cross and death. What then has he acquired? First, Christ,
by His cross, broke down and removed the partition between Jews and Gentiles,
and made of the two one people, i.e., by His own blood He so blotted out the
law of Moses that there is in Christ no distinction between Jews and Gentiles.
When, therefore, by faith I am incorporated with Christ, I am participant of
this blessing, so that even though I do not live according to the political law
of Moses, nevertheless I have been accepted by God for Christ's sake. Secondly,
Christ by His death and blood removed the handwriting which was against us,
Col. 2. This handwriting is the conscience of sin, which is written in our
heart by the law, manifesting sins and condemning us. When, then, I am
incorporated with Christ by faith, I become participant of this blessing, that the
handwriting of my conscience does not pertain at all to me, because it has
been blotted out by the blood of Christ, nor has it any longer any authority or
strength, because its seals have been removed by Christ’s cross, and its letters
have been blotted out by Christ’s blood. This is verily to be crucified with
Christ.”’

CHAP, ITI. 99

CHAPTER III.

Ven. 1. After ¢@doxave Elz, (and Matth.) has rg aAnOelg pu? reibecba, against
decisive evidence. An explanatory addition from v. 7. — é wiv] is wanting
in ABC 8, min., and several vas. and Fathers, and is omitted by Lachm. But
not being required, and not understood, how easily might it be passed over !.
There was no reason in the text for attaching it as a gloss, least of all to x«ar’
ép0adpovc rpoeyp. (as conjectured by Schott), for these words were in fact perfectly
clear by themselves. Justly defended also by Reiche.—Ver. 8. évevAnynbzcovra:}
Elz, gives evAoy., against decisive testimony [% A BC DE). In Acts iii. 26 also,
évevdoy. is exchanged in several authorities for the usual simple form. — Ver. 10.
According to decisive evidence [X ABC DEF Gl], ore is to be adopted (with
Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, and Tisch.) before érxardpatoc. — Ver. 12. After avra
Elz, has dv@pwroc¢, against decisive testimony. Addition from the LXX.,
Lev. xviii. 5; Rom. x. 5.— Ver. 13. Instead of yéyp. ydp, read, on pre-
ponderating testimony, witn Lachm. and Tisch., érz yéypawrac approved
by Griesb. The former arose from ver. 10.— Ver. 17. After Oecov, Elz.,
Scholz, Reiche, have e¢ Xpiordv, in opposition to A B O &, min., several
vss. and Fathers. Added as a gloss, in order, after ver. 16, to make it
evident from ver. 24 what covenant is intended, although this is obvious
fron’ the context, and the addition was therefore by no means necessary (a8
maintained by Ewald and Wieseler). In the sequel, ér7 is (with Griesb.,
Lachm., Scholz, Tisch.) to be placed afier the number, according to decisive
evidence [X A BC DE F G). — Ver. 19. rpoceré6n] Griesb. and Scholz (follow-
ing Mill and Bengel) read éré67. Not sufficiently attested by D* F G and afew
min., vss., and Fathers ; and the compound verb appeared to conflict with ver.
15. — Instead of © érnyyeAra:, only L and many min., along with some Fathers,
read 6 éennyy. A reading arising from the fact that g@ was not understood. —
Ver. 21. rov Geov] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. (bracketed by
Lachm.), and is therefore so decisively attested that it cannot be regarded as
an explanatory addition. The self-evident meaning and the previous reference
without tov Oeov (see ver. 16 ff.) led to the omission. — Ver. 21. dv éx vduov jv]
Many variations, F G have merely éx véuov ;1 D*, Damaso, éx vizoy Fv; A BC,
Cyr., &x véuov (B, év véuw) dv fv. In default of internal evidence, the latter is,
with Lachm., Tisch., Schott, to be preferred as the best attested (comp. &, éx
vouov hv dv). The omission of dv arose from the 7 following, just as easily as
the omission of 7 from the following 7. The Recepta is to be considered as the
restoration of the original dy in a wrong place. — Ver. 23. ovyxexAeiopévor] A B
D* F G &, 31, Clem. (once) Cyr. Damasc. read cvyxAziouzévorz. Recommended
by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Scholz, Schott [Tisch., 1872]. The Recepta, spe-
cially defended by Reiche, is an ancient emendation of the not-understood pres-

1 Which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 488, considers as probably the original
reading.

100 THE EPISTLE OF PATL TO THE GALATIANS.

ent participle. — Ver. 28. el¢ éore év Xptorg "Incov] A has tore Xprorov "Incov ; and
%, tore ev Xprorg "I, But ei¢ was very easily suppressed by the preceding tyeic,
and then év Xpiorg "Inco was altered in accordance with the beginning of ver.
29. The reading & instead of els in F Gand several vss., also Vulgate, It.,
and Fathers, is an interpretation. — Ver. 29. xai] is wanting in ABCDE ®&,
89**, and a few vss. and many Fathers, and is expunged by Lachmann, Tisch,
aud Schott ; justly, because it was inserted for the purpose of connection,

ConTENTS.—Paul now begins to unfold to his readers that righteousness
comes not from the law, but from faith. With this view, after having ex-
pressed censure and surprise, he refers in the first place to their own expe-
rience, namely, to their reception of the Holy Spirit (vv. 1-5). He then
passes on to Abraham, who had been justified by faith, and of whom believ-
ers were the sons who, in conformity with Scripture, were to enjoy with
Abraham the blessing announced to him (vv. 6-9). For those that trust in
works of the law are cursed, and by the law can no man be justified (vv.
10-12). It is Christ who by His atoning death has freed us from the curse
of the law, in order that this blessing should reach the Gentiles through
Christ, and the promised Holy Spirit should be received through faith (vv.
13, 14). But the covenant of promise concluded with Abraham, which
moreover applied not merely to Abraham, but also to Christ, cannot be ab-
rogated by the law which arose long after (vv. 15-18). This leads the apos-
tle to the question as to the destination of the law, which he briefly answers
in ver. 19 positively, and then in vv. 20-23 negatively, to the effect that the
law is not opposed to the promises. Before the period of faith, the law had
the office of a za:daywyéc in reference to Christ ; but after the appearance of
faith this relation came to an end, for faith brought believers to the sonship
of God, because by baptism fellowship with Christ was established, and there-
upon all distinctions apart from Christ vanished away (vv. 28-28). And
this fellowship with Christ includes the being children of Abraham and
heirs of the promises.

Ver. 1. O irrational Galatians! With this address of severe censure Paul
turns again to his readers, after the account of his meeting with Peter ; for
his reprimand to the latter (ii. 15-21) had infeed so pithily and forcibly
presented the intermixture of Judaism with faith as absurd, that the excited
apostle, in re-addressing readers who had allowed themselves to be carried
away to that same incongruous intermingling, could not have seized on
any predicate more suitable or more naturally suggested. The more in-
appropriate, therefore, is the idea of Jerome,’ who discovered in this
expression a natural weakness of understanding peculiar to the nation.
But the testimony borne on the other hand by Themist.* to the Galatian
readiness to learn, and acuteness of understanding—the consciousness of
which would make the reproach all the more keenly felt—is also*® to be set
aside as irrelevant.‘ — rig tude éSdoxave] ric conveys his astonishment at the

1 Comp. also Erasmus, and Spanheim ad 2? Notwithstanding Hofmann.
Callim. H. in Del. 184, p. 489. 4Comp. Luke xxiv. 25; Tit. iif. 3.
3 Or. &, in Wetstein, oni. 6.

CHAP. III., 1. 101
great ascendency which the perversion had succeeded in attaining, and by
way of emphatic contrast the words ric iuac are placed together: Who hath
bewitched you, before whose eyes, etc. ?’— Bacxaivw (from Bdfd, to speak)
means here to cast a spell upon (mala lingua nocere, Virg. Ecl. vii. 28), to bewitch
by words, to enchant*—a strong mode of describing the perversion, quite in keep-
ing with the indignant feeling which could hardly conceive it possible.’
Hence the word is not to be explained, with Chrysostom and his followers: who
has envied you, that is, your previous happy condition?—although this signifi-
cation is of very frequent occurrence, usually indeed with the dative,‘ but also
with the aceusative.® — oi¢ car’ d¢0-aA pore "Ino. Xp. rpoeypagy év ipiv éoravpuptvoc |
This fact, whith ought to have guarded the Galatians from being led away
to a Judaism opposed to the doctrine of atonement, and which makes their
apostasy the more culpable, justifies the question of surprise, of which the
words themselves form part ; hence the mark of interrogation is to be placed
after éoravp. —xar’ d¢0aAuoic] before the eyes. See examples in Wetstein.°—
apocypadn] is explained by most expositors, either as antea, ‘‘ previously,”
depictus est, ‘‘ portrayed,” or palam, depictus est, ‘‘ openly portrayed,” * with
which Hofmann compares the brazen serpent in the wilderness, and Caspari°
even mixes up a stigmatization with the marks of Christ’s wounds, which
Paul, according to vi. 17, is supposed to have borne on his own body. But
these interpretations are opposed not only by the words év tyiv (see below),
but also by the wsusloqguendi. For, however frequent may be the occurrence
of ypd¢ecv in the sense of to paint, this signification can by. no means be
proved as to mpoypdgerv.° The Greek expression for showing how to paint,
tracing out, in the sense of a picture given to copy, is troypégerv. Following.
Elsner and others, Morus, Flatt, and Schott understand it as palam scriptus
est, ‘‘ was openly described :”'' ‘ita Christus vobis est ob oculos palam de-
scriptus, quasi in tabula vobis praescriptus,” ‘‘ Christ was so openly described to
you, as though set before you on a panel,” Morus, Thisis inconsistent with év tziv,
for these words cannot be joined with éoravpwyévog (sce below) ; and Schott’s
interpretation : in animis cestris, ‘‘in your minds”—so that what was said
figuratively by ol¢ . . . mporyp. is now more exactly defined sermone proprio,
‘*in the strict sense,” by év iuiv — makes the év tyiv appear simply as some-
thing quite foreign and unsuitable in the connection, by which the figure is

1 Comp. VY. 7.

2 Bos, Exercitatt. p. 178 f., and Wetstein.

SComp. faccavia, fascinatio, sorcery,
Plat. Phaed. p. 95 B; Baexavos, Plut. Symp.
v.73; aBdoxartros, unenchanted.

4 Kfibner, II. p. 247; Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 482; Piers. ad Herodian. p. 470 f.

®In Ecclus. xiv. 6, Herodian. fl. 4. 11.

* Comp. car’ Sppara, Soph. Ant. 756, and
on fi. 11.

T Chrysostom, Luther, Erasmus, Castalio,
Beza, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others ; also
Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr.

® Most modern exposltors, following Cal-
vin; including Winer, Paulus, Rtickert,
Usterl, Matthies, Olshausen, Baumgarten-

Crusius, de Wette, Reiche, Ewald, Wieseler,
Hofmann, Holsten.

® In the Strassb, Beitr. 1854, p. 211 f.

10 Not even in Arist. Az. 450. See Rettig
in Stud. u. Krit. 1880, p. 97.

311 Macc. x. 86; Lucian, Zim. 51; Plut.
Mor. p. 408 D, Demetr. 46, Camill. 11 eé al.
On this meaning is based the interpretation
of Ambrose, Augustine, and Lyra, ‘‘ He
was proscribed, that is, condemned,” which
is indeed admissible so far as usage goes
(Polyb. xxxii. 21, 12, xxxfi. 221; Plut.
Brut. 2, but quite unsuitable to the
context. Comp. Vulgate: proscrintus eat,
instead of which, however, Lachmann has
praescriptus est,

102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

marred. [See Note XLII., p. 159.] Inthe two other passages where Paul uses
mpoypagecy (Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 8) it means to write beforehand, so that zpé
has a temporal and not a local signification ;' nor is the meaning different in
Jude 4 (see Huther). And so it is to be taken here.* Paul represents his
previous preaching of Christ as crucified to the Galatians figuratively as a
writing, which he had previously written (xpoeypdédn) in their hearts (év iiv).*
In this view xar’ d¢Badyobs is that trait of the figure, by which the personal
oral instruction is characterized : Paul formerly wrote Christ before their eyes
in their hearts, when he stood before them and preached the word of the cross,
which through his preaching impressed itself on their hearts. By his vivid illus-
tration he recalls the fact to his readers, who had just been so misled by a
preaching altogether different (i. 6). With no greater boldness than in
2 Cor. iii. 2 f., he has moulded the figure according to the circumstances of the
case, as he is wont to do in figurative language ;‘ but this does not warrant a
pressing uf the figure to prove traits physically imcompatible.* Jerome and
others® have indeed correctly kept to the meaning olim scribere, ‘‘ of writing
formerly,” ” but have quite inappropriately referred it to the prophecies of the
O. T. : ‘‘quibus ante oculos praedictio fuit Christi in crucem sublati,” ‘‘ be-
fore whose eyes there has been a prediction of Christ raised upon the cross,”
Hermann. Apart from the circumstance that the precise mode of death by
crucifixion is not mentioned in the prophetical utterances, this would consti-
tute a ground for surprise on the part of the apostle of a nature much too
general, not founded on the personal relation of Paul to his readers, and
therefore by no means adequate as a motive ; and, in fact, vv. 2-4 carry
back their memory to the time, when Paul was at work among them. — év iniv]
is not, with Grotius, Usteri, and others, to be set aside as a Hebrew pleonasm
(D233 WR), but is to be understood as in animis vestris, ‘‘in your minds,” ®
and belongs to rpoeypdén ; in which case, however, the latter cannot mean
either palam pictus, ‘‘ openly portrayed,” or palam scriptus est, ‘‘ openly
written,” because then éy iuiy would involve a contradictto in adjecto, ‘‘ con-
tradiction in what is added,” and would not be a fitting epexegesis of oi¢,°
for the depicting and the placarding cannot take place otherwise than on some-
thing external. To take év iyiv as among you and connect it with rpoeyp., would
yield not a strengthening of oi¢ (as de Wette holds), but an empty addition,
from which Reiche and Wieseler also obtain nothing more than a purport
obvious of itself.’° On the other hand, Hofmann hits upon the expedient of

1 Comp. Ptol. vill. 25. 15, and see Hermann
on our passage.

2So taken correctiy also by Matthias,
who, however, explains the expression
from the idea of an amviet used against the
enokaniment. But this idea would presup-
pose some secret writing, the very opposite
of which is conveyed by the expression.

3 Comp. 2-Cor. ili. 2f.

4 Comp. tv. 19.

§ An objection urged by Reiche.

* Also Hermann, Bretschnelder, and Ret-
tig, Z.c. p. 98 ff.

7 Rettig. however, remarking undecid-
edly, that it may also mean palam scribvere,
** to write openly.”’

8 Comp. 2 Cer. iil. 2: Soph. PAU. 1809:
ypadou dpevwr ow; Aesch. Prom. 701, Suppl.
991, Choeph. 450.

® Winer, comp. Schott.

10 Reiche, ‘id factum esse a se, gentium
apostolo, inter eos praesente,” “* that it was
done by himself, the apostle of the Gen-
tiles, while present with them" (not, it
might be, alio loco or per homines sublestae
Jideé, not danculum, but cunctis, publico

CHAP. IIL, 2. 103
dividing the words cic . . . goravp. into two independent sentences : (1) Before
whose eyes is Jesus Christ ; (2) asthe Crucified One, He has been freely and pub-
licly delineated among you. But, apart from the linguistically incorrect view
of rpoeypagy, this dismemberment would give to the language of the passage
a violently abrupt form, which is the more intolerable, as Paul does not
dwell further on the asyndetically introduced mpoeyp. év ipiv ioravp. or
subjoin to it any more particular statement, but, on the contrary, in ver. 2
brings forward asyndctically a new thought. Instead of introducing it ab-
ruptly in a way so liable to misapprehension, he would have subjoined
xpoeypdon —if it was not intended to belong to oi¢ —in some simple form
by ydp or ore or d¢ ox oye. Without any impropriety, he might, on the other
hand, figuratively represent that he who preaches Christ to others writes
(not placards or depicts) Christ before their eyes in their hearts. Most ex-
positors connect év ipziv with éoravp., and explain either as propter vos (Koppe),
contrary to the use of év with persons (see on i. 24) ; or, unsuitably to the figu-
rative idea kar’ ogdadpoic x.7.4., in animis vestris, ‘‘ your minds ;”! or (as
usually) inter vos, ‘‘among you :” ‘‘so clearly, so evidently. . . just as if
crucified among you,” Riickert. But the latter must have been expressed
by o¢ éy tuiv éoravp., and would also presuppose that the apostle’s preaching
of the cross had embodied a vivid and detailed description of the crucifixion
It was not this, however, but the fact itself (as the iAacrgpiov), which formed:
the sum and substance of the preaching of the cross ; as is certain from the
apostle’s letters. Lastly, Luther’s peculiar interpretation, justly rejected by
Calovius, but nevertheless again adopted in substance by Matthias,—that
év buiv éatavp. is a severe censure, ‘‘ quod Christus, ‘ that Christ’ (namely, after
the rejection of grace) non vivit, sed mortuus in eis est, ‘does not live, but has
died in them’ (Heb. vi. 6),” which Paul had laid before them argumentie
praedictis, ‘‘in the arguments before mentioned”—is as far-fetched, as alien
from the usual Pauline mode of expression, and as unsuitable to the con-
text as the view of Cajetanus, that, according to the idea ‘‘ Christ suffers.
in His members” (Col. i. 24), év iu. éoravp, is equivalent to for the sake of
whom ye have suffered so much. — éoravp.] as the Crucified One, is with great
emphasis moved on to the end.*

Ver. 2. The foolishness of their error is now disclosed to them, by remind-
ing them of their reception of the Holy Spirit. ‘‘ See howeffectually he
treats the topic from experience,” Luther, 1519. — rotro pdvov PéAw padeiv ag’

corum conrentu, etc., ‘‘in another place,” taken place through ethical fellowsh!p inthe

or, “by men of trifling faith,” not ‘“‘se-
cretly,”” but ‘‘ before all, in their public
assembly,’ etc. Wieseler: “not merely
Jrom a distance by means of an epistle."’

1 To this category belongs Bengel's mys-
tical interpretation, ‘forma crucis ojus in
corde vestro per fidem expressa, ut jam
vos etiam cum illo crucefigeremin!),”’ “the
form of his cross !s by faith impressed upon
your heart, that now you might also be cru-
cified with Him.” Thus the expression would
signify the killing of the old man which had

death of Christ, to which év vpn. doravp. is re-
ferred by Storralso. A similar view is taken
by Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 24: that év vpivis
proleptic, “so that He, as the atoning One,
came into and abode in you;" comp.
Ewald, ‘‘to paint clearly before the eyes
that Christ is now really crucified in them,
and, since they have Him in them, He has
not been crucified for them in vain ;” also
Windischmann.
3 Comp. 1 Cor. iL Q {, 23.

104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

tuov] This only—not to speak of other self-confessions, which I might
demand of you for your refutation—this only I wish to become aware of from
you. Bengel pertinently remarks : ‘‘ zévov, grave argumentum.” To take
paveiv (with Luther, Bengel, Paulus) in the narrower sense to learn—the
apostle thus representing himself ironically as a scholar—is justified neither
by the tone of the context nor by the tenor of the question, which in fact
concerns not a doctrine, but simply a piece of information ; parvddéve is well
known in the sense of to come to know, cognoscere.' rovro BotAouas padeiv.
— ag’ tuev] is not used instead of rap’ tuo (Riickert) ; for azé also may
denote a direct paciv." And this is what Paul means, for he conceives
himself speaking with his readers as if they were present. — é& fpywv vépou
x.T.A.] Was it your fulfilment of works which the law prescribes,* or was
it the preaching to you of faith (that is, faith in Christ), which caused your
reception of the Spirit? The wvetua is the Holy Spirit (the personal divine
principle of the whole Christian nature and life), and the Holy Spirit
viewed generally according to His very various modes of operation, by
which He makes Himself known in different individuals ; not merely in
relation to the miraculous gifts, 1 Cor. xii.—-xiv.;* for Paul reminds the
whole body of his readers of their reception of the Spirit, and it is not till
ver. 5 that the duvdye are specially brought forward as a specific form of
the operations of the Spirit."°—The 7 which follows means : or, on the other
hand ; ‘‘ duo directe opposita,” Bengel. The axo? wicrewe is explained either
as the hearing of faith,*® or as that which is heard, i.6., the report, the message
of faith, which treats of faith. axof admits of either meaning.’ But ricreuc
is decisive in favor of the latter, for it is never the ‘‘ doctrina fidei,” ‘‘ doc-
trine of faith” (see on i. 23), but always the subjective faith, which, how-
ever, as here, may be regarded objectively ; and hence also adherents of
the second interpretation,® are wrong in taking rior as system of doctrine.
Moreover, axof#, in the sense of preaching (discourse heard), but not in
the sense of auditio, ‘‘hearing,” is familiar in the N. T. ;° hence Hol-
sten incorrectly takes micrew as the genitive of the subject to axojec, 80
that the wiori¢ is the dxotovca,—a view opposed also by Rom. x. 17.
But Hofmann also is incorrect in holding that it should be construed éx
niorewe axo7¢ (faith in news announced) ; against which the antithesis 2
Epyuv véuou is decisive. Through the news concerning faith, which was
preached to them, the readers had become believers (Rom. x. 17 ; Heb. iv.
2), and consequently partakers of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, Flatt and

1 See Acts xxiil. 27; Ex. ff. 4; 2 Macc. vil.
2; 8 Macc. {.1; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 31; Hell. il.
1.1; Aesch. Agam. 615. Comp. Soph. Qed.
Col. 505.

2 Comp. especially Col. i. 7; see on 1 Cor.
xi. 23.

? Comp. on fi. 16.

4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome.

§ Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 27 f.

*° Reception of the gospel preached : Vul-

gate, Beza, Bengel, Morus, Rickert, Usteri,
Schott, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others.

’For the former, comp. Plat. Theaet.
p. 112 D; Plut. Mor. p. 41 E; Soph. A. 9;
LXX. 1 Sam. xv. 22: and for the latter,
comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 274 C ; Dem. 1097.8;
LXX. Isa. lili. 1; John xii.88; 1 Thess. it.
13; Rom. x. 17; Heb. iv. 2; Ecclus. xll. 23.

§ As Calvin, Grotius, Zachariae, Roseén-
mifiller, and others.

® So even in Rom. x. 16, John xii. 88, pas-
sages which Matthias seeks to explain dif-
forently.

CHAP. III., 3. 105
Matthies, following a few ancient expositors, have quite arbitrarily and,
although not without linguistic precedent in the LXX. (1 Sam. xv. 22),
without any countenance from the N. T., understood axojc as equivalent to
traxope (Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26; 1 Pet. i. 22). The acceptance of the axon ricrew
which took place on the part of the readers was understood by them as a
matter of course, since from this axo7 proceeded the reception of the Spirit.
They were in fact called through the gospel. ©

Ver. 3. Are ye to such a degree irrational ?—pointing to what follows. The
interrogatire view (in opposition to Hofmann) is in keeping with the fervor
of the language, and is logically justified by the indication of the high degree
implied in vbruc.' — évapEdpevoe rvetipart, viv apni éxitedciofe ;] After ye have
begun by means of the Spirit, are ye now brought to completion by means of the
flesh? The second part of the sentence is zronical: ‘‘ After ye have made a
beginning in the Christian life by your receiving the Holy Spirit (ver. 2),
are ye now to be made perfect by your becoming persons whose life is sub-
ject to the government of the odpf? Do ye lend yourselves to such comple-
tion as this?” In the same measure in which the readers went back to the
legal standpoint and departed from the life of faith, must they again be
emptied of the Holy Spirit which they had received, and consequently be re-
converted from svevuarixoi into capxtxoi (Rom. vii. 5, 14), that is, men who,
loosed from the influence of the Holy Spirit, are again under the dominion
of the odp£ which impels to sin (Rom. vii. 14 ff., viii. 7 f., e¢ al.). For the
law cannot overcome the odpé (Rom. viii. 8, 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56). According to
this view, therefore, rvevua and odps* designate, not Christianity and Judaism
themselves, but the specific agencies of life in Christianity and Judaism (Rom.
vii. 5, 6). expressed, indeed, without the article in qualitative contrast as
Spirit and flesh, but in the obvious concrete application meaning nothing else
than the Holy Spirit and the unspiritual, corporeal and psychical nature of
man, which draws him into opposition to God and ‘inclination to sin (sce,
e.g., Rom. iv. 1; John iii. 6). — évapEauevor] What it is which they have begun,
is obvious from rveiua éAdBere in ver. 2, namely, the state into which they
entered through the reception of the Spirit—the Christian life.* This re-
ception is ‘‘ the indisputable sign of the existence and working of true Chris-
tianity,” Ewald. — éiredciofe] is understood by most modern expositors ‘ as
middle ;* although Koppe (with whom Rickert agrees) entirely obliterates
the literal sense by the assumption, that it is put so only for the sake of the

1 On ovrws, comp. Soph. Ani. 220, ov« gory
etre pepos, ‘is not so foolish :’* John fil. 16;
Gal. 1.6; Heb. xii. 21; and see Voigtlander,
ad Luc. D. M. p. 220; Jacob, ad Luc. Alex.
p. %.

2 Following Chrysostom, Theophylact,
and many ancient expositors. Rickert,
Usteri, and Schott believe that capxi is
chosen with special reference to circumei-
tion (Eph. fl. 11). But the context by no
means treats specially of circumcision, and
the contrast of itself necessarily involved
Oapnt.

3 Bos, Wolf, and others, as also Schott,
assume the figurative idea of a race in the
stadium. But this reference would require
to be suggested by the conéezt (as in v. 7);
for although émcreAcioda: is used of the com-
pletion of a race, as of every kind of com-
pletion (Herodiun. vill. 8 5, if, & 17 f.,
iv. 2. 7), it has not this special meaning of
itself, but acquires it from the context.

4 Including Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wet-
te, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann.

6 Comp. Luther, Castalio, and Others.

106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

contrast and denotes “‘tantum id, quod nune inter Gal. fiert solebat, contra-
rium pristinae eorum sapientiae,” ‘‘ only that which was now generally oc-
curring among the Galatians contrary to their former wisdom,” etc. Winer
explains more definitely : ‘‘carne finire, h. e. ita ad rv odpxa se applicare,
ut in his studiis capxcxot¢ plane acquiescas,” ‘‘ to finish in the flesh, i.¢., so
to apply oneself to the flesh as to entirely acquiesce in these fleshly pursuits ;”
and Wieseler : ‘‘instead of your advancing onward to the goal, ye make the
most shameful retrogression.”! But éxcreAciv and émireAcioba: always denote
ending in the sense of completion, of accomplishing and bringing fully to
a conclusion (consummare).* If, therefore, the word is taken as middle, it
must be explained : ‘‘ After ye have begun (your Christian life) with the Spirit,
do ye now bring (that which ye have begun) to completion with the flesh?” *
But the active to complete is always in the N. T. represented by ém:reAciv, not
by émcreAciofac in the middle (comp., on the contrary, 1 Pet. v. 9), however
undoubted is the occurrence of the medial use among Greek authors.‘
Moreover, the rocatra énd@ere cing which follows (see on ver. 4) makes the
subject of éx:reAeiofe appear as suffering, and thereby indicates the word to
be passive, as, following the Vulgate (consummamini), Chrysostom, and Theo-
phylact, many of the older expositors have understood it,*—viz., so that the
Judaistic operations, which the readers had experience of and allowed to be
practised on themselves, are expressed by antiphrasis, and doubtless in refer-
ence to their own opinion and that of their teachers, as their Christian com-
pletion (réAecot roeiabe !).° But how cutting and putting to shame this irony
is, is felt at once from the contradictory juxtaposition of carne perficimint,
‘* ye are made perfect in the flesh !” Nearest to our view (without, how-
ever, bringing forward the ironical character of the words) comes that of
Beza, who says that perficimini applies to the teaching of the pseudo-apostles,
who ascribed ‘‘ Christo tantum initia, legi perfectionem justitiae,” ‘‘to Christ
only the beginning, and ‘to the law the perfection of righteousness.”
The present denotes that the Galatians were just occupied in this écreAziofat.
Comp. i. 6. The emphatic viv (‘‘nunce, cum magis magisque deberetis
spirituales fieri relicta carne,” ‘‘ now, when the flesh being left, ye should
have become more and more spiritual,” Bengel) should have prevented it
from being taken as the Attic future (Studer, Usteri).

Ver. 4. After Paul, by the viv capxi émiredeiobe, has reminded his readers
of all that they had most foolishly submitted to at the hands of the false
apostles, in order to be made, according to their own and their teachers’
fancy, finished Christians, he now discloses to them the uselessness of it in
the exclamation (not interrogation), ‘* So much have ye suffered without profit |”
What he means by rocatra érdOere, is therefore everything with which the

1 Comp. Hofmann. ‘Plat. PAil. p. 27 C; Xen. Mem. iv. 8.8;
2 See especially Phil. 1. 6, 6 évapfaperos Polyb. i. 40. 16, ii. 58. 10, v. 108. 9.
. mreAdoer; 1 Sam. iff. 12, apfopac nai 6 Some of them indeed translating it pas-

émcreAécow : Zech. iv. 9; Luke xili.82; Rom. sively, but in the {interpretation (comp.

XV. 28; 2Cor. vil. 1, vill. 6,11; Heb. viii.6, © Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Benge))

ix.6. Comp. Thucyd. iv. 00. 4, 50a fy vce = not strictly maintaining the passive sense.

Aoura émredeoar: Xen, Anad. iv. 8. 13 ¢ Comp. also Matthias, Vémel, Reithmayr.
® Comp. Holsten. 7 Comp. Semler.

CHAP. III., 4. 107
false apostles in their Judaistic zeal had molested and burdened the
Galatians,—the many exactions, in name of compliance with the law, which
these had necessarily to undergo at the hands of their new teachers.’ Bengel
refers it to the patient endurance of the apostle’s ministry, produced through
the Holy Spirit ; but this view is not at all suggested by the context, and
would not correspond to the sense of récyerv (but rather of avéyeoOa:). All
the expositors before Schomer (in Wolf) and Homberg,’ understand it
(followjng Chrysostom and Augustine) of the sufferings and persecutions on
account of Christianity ; so that Paul asks, ‘‘ Have ye suffered so much in
vain ? Seeing, namely, that ye have fallen away from the faith and hence
cannot attain to the glory which tribulation brings in its train” (2 Cor. iv.
17 ; Rom. viii. 17). But, apart from the fact that no extraordinary suffer-
ings on the part of the Galatians are either touched upon in the epistle (iv.
29 is quite general in its character) or known to us otherwise, this interpre-
tation is completely foreign to the connection. After Schomer and Hom-
berg, others * explain it : ‘‘ So many benefits (by means of the Spirit) have ye er-
perienced in vain ?”* Certainly racyu, something befalls me, is a voz media,
‘*colorless word’ (hence Matthies even wishes to understand it of the
agreeable and disagreeable together), which, according to the well-known
Greck usage, as the passive side of the idea of roeiy, may be employed also
of happy experiences ;° but, as the latter use of the word always occurs
with a qualitative addition either expressed (eb, ydpiv, reprvdv, ayabd,
évpoiua, or the like) or indicated beyond doubt by the immediate context, °
‘it is not to be found at all in the whole of the New Test., the LXX.,
or the Apocrypha (not even Estb, ix. 29). Thus the interpretation,
even if rocatra could convey any such qualitative definition of the text, is
without precedent in the usage of Scripture. Paul in particular, often as
he speaks about the experiences of divine grace, never uses for this purpose
xéoxev, which with him always denotes the experience of suffering. He
would have written, as the correlative of the bestowal of grace, éAdSere or
edéfacGe (2 Cor. vi. 1). Ewald’s suggestion of powerful and vehement move-
ments of the Spirit is forced, and unwarranted by the text. The very word
togavra points to the suffering of evil, just as 7r0AAd, wdAa woAAG wabeiv, with-
out «axd or the like, is frequently so used in Greek authors. — elye xal cinq]
A hint that the case might be still worse than was expressed in eixj : if
indeed it is only in vain (and not even to the positive jeopardy of your Mes-
sianic salvation) that ye have suffered.’ Chrysostom and his followers dis-
cover a mitigation and encouragement to improvement in the words et ydp

‘Comp. 1.6 f., iv. 10, v. 2, 8, vi. 18, fl. 4;
2 Cor. xi. 20.

* As also Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Sem-
ler, Michaelis, Morus, Rickert, Olshausen,
Reitlimayr, and others.

* Including Schoettgen, Raphel. Kypke,
Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiler, Borger,
Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Baumzarten-
Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler,
Hofmann, Matthias, Sleffert.

*8o also Fritzsche, Diss. I. in 2 Cor. p. 54,

and Holsten.

§ Xen. Anad. v. 5.9: ayaddr udy rt wacyery,
xaxdy 82 undér,

* As Joseph. Ant?. ill. 15.1: dca wabdyres
€€ avrov cai wnAixey evepyeoiwy meradrdafdrres,

7On «ai, compare Hartung, Fartikell. I.
p. 136; Baeuml. Partik. p. 150. So, in sub-
stance, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Kypke,
Michaelis, Rosenmiller, Paulus, Matthies,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette,
Ewald, Wieseler, Matthias, and cthers.

108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,
BovdanOeinré dyoty avavyypat xal dvaxrhoacbat éavrov¢, ovx eixg, ‘if you would be
willing to be recovered and restored, it would not be in vain,” Chrysostom,
as also Ambrose, Luther,’ Erasmus, Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius,
Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Zachariae, Morus, and others. In this case
xai must be understood as really;* but the idea of improvement, where-
by the supposed case of the eix7 would be cancelled, is not indicated
by aught in the context. Even should the words be taken as merely
leaving open the possibility, that matters had not actually already gone so far
with the readers (Hofmann), Paul himself would have rendered his very
earnest reproach rocaira éxd0. cig both problematical and ambiguous, and
would thus have taken the whole pith out of it.—eiye] assuming, namely,
that ye even only, etc., makes the condition more prominent, and serves to
intensify the mere «i. Paul fears that more may take place than that which
was only expressed by eix7. This, however, is conveyed by the context, and
is independent of the yé, instead of which rép might have been used.’ Still
more marked prominence would have been given to the condition by
eixep ye xai.4 [See Note XLIII., p. 159. ]

Ver. 5. After the logical parenthesis (vv. 8, 4), oty resumes*® what was
said in ver. 2, but in an altered tense (the present), in order to annex the
example of Abraham as a proof of justification by faith. —émyopqyav and
évepyav are not to be understood as imperfect participles ;° for, if referring to
the reception of the Spirit for the jirst time corresponding to éAdfere in ver.
2, Paul must have written ém:yopyyfoag and évepyfoas. No, he denotes the
éweyopyyety x.t.A. as still continuing among the Galatians; it has not yet
ceased, although now, of course, in consequence of the active efforts of the
Judaizers under which they had suffered, it could not but be less strong and
general than previously ;* ‘‘nondum ceciderant, sed inclinabantur, ut ca-
derent,” ‘‘they had not yet fallen, but were inclining towards a fall,” Au-
gustine. —In éxcyopnyeiv the évi is not insuper, ‘‘ besides,” but denotes the
direction, as in the German ‘‘darreichen, evkommen lassen.’* — kai évepy. ]
and — to make mention of a particular yép:oza — which, etc. — duvdyerg] may
be miracles (1 Cor. xii. 10) ;° or miraculous powers (1 Cor. xii. 28). The
analogy of 1 Cor. xii. 6 (comp. Phil. ii. 18 ; Eph. ii. 2) favors the latter.
— && Epywv vduov, 7 EE akong riat.] 8¢. rovet Toro," OY Emtxopyyel Lpiv TO Tredpa
x. évepyei Suvdpece ev tuiv; Is this his operation upon you caused by works of
the law or by the knowledge of faith ? comes it in consequence of your pros-
ecuting those works, or of such knowledge being communicated to you ? by

1“ Objurgat quidem, sed ita ut semper
oleum juxta infundat, ne eos ad desper-
ationem adigat....Non omnino abject
spem de vobis,” ‘He chides indeed, but
in such way as always to pour in oil at the
same time, in order not to drive them to
despair... Ihave not entirely cast away
my hope of you.”’

2 Hartung, I. p. 182.

* See Baeumll. /.c. p. 64f. Comp. on 2 Cor.
v. 8; Eph. fli. 2.

* Plat. Theaet. p. 187 D ; Herod. vi. 16.

8 Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad
Derar. p. 719.

¢ Castalio, Bengel, Semler, and others.

7 viv capki éwtreAcio@e, Ver. 3.

82 Cor. ix. 10; Col. i. 19; 2 Pet. 1.5;
comp. also Phil. 1. 19.

* In which case é» is among, Winer and
others.

10 Jn which case éyv is within you, Borger,
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Wiese-
ler, and others.

11 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 836.

CHAP. III., 6, 7%. 109
the former way of active merit, or by the latter way of the reception of
divine preaching? As to dxo) riorsuc, here also not (with Hofmann) =
miavtc axoqe, see On ver. 2.

Ver. 6. The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding question is: é&
axofe Tiotews ; and to this, but not directly to that question itself,’ Paul
subjoins—making use of the words well known to his readers, Gen. xv. 6,
according to the LXX.—that great religious-historic argument for the right-
eousness of faith, which is presented in the justification of the progenitor
of the theocratic people. Seeing that Paul has just specified the operation
of the Spirit caused by the preached news of faith, as that which proves the
justifying power of faith, he may with just logic continue : even as Abraham
believed God (trusted His Messianic promise ; comp. on John viii. 56), and it
(this faith) was counted to him as righteousness, that is, in the judgment of the
gracious God was imputcd to him as rectitude.* (See Note XLIV., p. 159 seq. ]
Neither, therefore, is a colon to be placed? after’Afp., nor‘ is ver. 6 to be
considered as protasis and ver. 7 as apodosis, for ver. 7 is evidently inde-
pendent, and it would be a very arbitrary course’ to take ver. 6 as an
anacoluthon.® For the reward of Abraham’s justifying faith according to
Gen. l.c., see Jas. ii. 22 f. ; 1 Macc. ii. 52 ; and Mechilta.’

Ver. 7. Know ye therefore (since Abraham’s faith was counted to him for
righteousness) that those who are of faith, etc. — ywwdéonere is taken as indica-
tice by Cyprian, ep. 63 ad Caecil., Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Erasmus,
Beza, Menochius, Piscator, Semler, Rosenmilller, Rickert, Reithmayr, and
others. The tone of the passage is more animated by taking it as tmper-
ative.* —oi ix xior.] designates believers, according to this their specific pe-
culiarity, under the point of view of origin. It is faith from which their
Spiritual state of life proceeds.* —oiro:] has the emphasis :'° these, and no
others. The contrast here is usually supposed to be : not the bodily descend-
ants of Abraham. But how foreign to the context is a comparison between
the bodily and spiritual children of Abraham! The only interpretation in
harmony with the context is: ‘‘ these, and not those who are && tpywv vopov.” "
So also, correctly, Rtickert and Wieseler. — vioi 'AGp.] chilaren of Abraham
in the true sense. For the true vioi can have no nature different from the
essential nature of the father.

1 As Hofmann holds, according to his
wrong interpretation of axo7s ricrems.

9 It Is self-evident from the words of the
text, how improperly the idea of sanctifica-
tion Is here mixed up with justification by
the Catholics (also Bisping and Reithmayr).
We have here justification simply as an
actus forensis, a forensic act of the divine
judgment, and that proceeding from grace,
Rom. fv. 2 ff.

2 With Koppe.

‘With Beza and Hilgenfeld.

6 With Hilgenfeld.

* See, moreover, on Rom. fv. 3; Hoele-
mann, de justitie ex fide ambabus in V. T.
edibus, Lips. 1867, p. 8 ff.

7 Jalkut. Sim. I. f. 69. 8, ‘hoo planum est,
Abrahamum neque huno mundum neque
futurum haereditate consequi potuisse,
nis! per fidem, qua credidit,“* It is plain that
Abraham could have obtained by inhert-
tance neither this world zor the future, un-
less through the falth by which he be-
lieved,”’ q. d. Gen. xv. 6.

®The Vulgate has in Lachmann’s text,
cognoscite, So also Castalio, Calvin, and
others, as well as most modern expvaitors.

®Comp. Rom. if. 8, lil. 26, iv. 14; John
xvill. 87, ef al.

10 Comp. Rom. vill. 14, ix. 6.

11 See vv. 8-10.

12 Comp. John vill. 8, 89; Rom. iv. 11 f.

110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Vv. 8, 9. After having pointed out from the Scripture that’ none other
than believers are sons of Abraham, Paul now shows further according to
Scripture that none other than these have a share in Abraham’s blessing, that
_ is, are justified.

Ver. 8. Aé] marks the transition from the sonship of Abraham pertaining
to believers to the participation in his blessing. — mpoidovca] personification.’
The Scripture foresaw and the Scripture announced beforehand, inasmuch
as whatever God foresaw and announced beforehand—in reference, namely,
to that which is at present taking place—formed an element of Scripture,
and was expreseed in it.*— éx ricrewc] is the main point of the participial
sentence : of faith, not of the works of the law as the causal condition on
the side of man. — dcxacoi] present, for the time foreseen (smpoidovca) was the
Christian present. — rd 26vy] the Gentiles (comp. ver. 14), so that the latter
have not to subject themselves to the law in order to become righteous. —
mpoeugyyedicato] pre-announced the glad tidings. po refers, as in rpoidciea,
to the future realization in Christian times. This promise was a gospel be-
fore the gospel. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Test., in
the LXX., or the Apocrypha ; but it is found in Philo.*— dri évevaoynd¥e.
év aol xdvra ra EGvy] Gen. xii. 8, quoted according to the LXX. with the rec-
itative 3r:, but so that, instead of maca: al gvdai ti¢ ypc, wdvTa Ta ESv7 is
adopted from Gen. xviii. 18;‘ and this not accidentally, but because Paul is
dealing with Gentile Christians, whom it was desired to subject to the law.
Hence ® it is not to be explained ° of all nations, both Jews and Gentiles.—
The emphasis in this utterance of promise is to be laid, not on rayvra (Schott),
but on the prefixed évevAoyy97covraz. For if the Scripture had not foreseen
that faith would justify the Gentiles, it would not have promised blessing in
Abraham to all the Gentiles ; from which it follows (ver. 10) that it is be-
lievers who receive this blessing, and not those of the law, on whom indeed
the Scripture pronounces not blessing, but curse (ver. 10). The characteris-
tic évevAoy. can only be meant to apply to those who are of faith, and not to
those who are of the law. What it is that in Paul's view is expressed by
évevAoyeioSat, Gen. xii. 3, in its Messianic fulfilment, is evident from the
preceding ar: éx rictewe dixacoi ra E9v7, namely, God’s gracious gift of justi-
Jication (the opposite of the xardpa, vv. 10, 11), which, because it is promised
as blessing, can only be shared by belierers, and not by those of the law who
are under curse." The correctness of this view is certainly confirmed by

1 Comp. ver. 22; Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17; John
vil. 88.

2 Comp. the frequent Aéye: 7 ypady ; like-
wise Siphra, f. 186.2: Quid vidit (WR) scrip-
tura, etc., ‘‘ what did scripture see.”

3 De opif. m. p.7 A, de nom. mut. p. 1060
D; also Schal. Soph. Trach. 835.

4 Comp. also xxif. 18.

6 And see ver. 14.

* With Winer, Matthias, Schott, Baum-
garten-Crusius, following earlier exposi-
tors.

7 De Wette, who is followed by Wieseler,

understands the Wessing to be ‘‘the whole
salvation of the kingdom of God,"*—an idea
too comprehensive for the context. Bahr
(in Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 920) erroneously
concludes from ver. 14, that by the blessing
is meant the receplion of the Spirit. See on
ver. 14. This reception, as well as the Mes-
sianic salvation generally,—or, ‘‘ fe good
which ts intended for mankind,” as Hofmann
puts it,—ensues as a consequence of the ei-
Aoyia, asthe Messianic amwAeca ensues as a
consequence of the xardpa, if the latter, as in
the case of those who adhere to the works

CHAP. III., 9, 10. 111
ver. 14, where to the reception of the blessing there is annexed, as a further
reception, that of the Holy Spirit, so that the bestowal of the Spirit is not
included in the idea of the evAcyia, but this idea is limited in conformity
with the context to the justification, with which the whole reception of sal-
vation begins. [See Note XLV., p. 160.] — évcoiis not : per tuam posterita-
tem, i.¢., Christum, ‘‘through your posterity, 7.e., Christ,” * by which inter-
pretation the personal cof (and how much at variance with ver. 9!) is en-
tirely set aside, as if ¢y r@ owépuari cov (ver. 16) were used. But it is: in
thee ; that is, in the fact that thou art blessed (art justified) is involved (as
& consequence) the blessedness of all the Gentiles, in so far as all the Gen-
tiles are to attain justification by faith, and it is in the blessing of Abraham,
the father of all the faithful (Rom. iv.), that the connection between faith
and justification is opened and instituted for all future time. Comp. EI-
licott. On évevdoyeioda:, to be blessed in the person of any one, a word which
does not occur in Greek authors, comp. Acts iii. 25, Ecclus. xliv. 21.

Ver. 9. "Qore] The general result from vv. 7, 8. If, namely, beliecers are
sons of Abraham (ver. 7), and if the Scripture, in its promise of blessing to
Abraham, has had in view faith as the source of divine justification for the
Gentiles, believers accordingly are those who are blessed with believing Abraham.

were is used in its common acceptation of the actual consequence, and is there-

fore not to be explained in the sense of oitu¢ viv, to which Hofmann’s view
comes, — ol éx micrewg] has the whole emphasis, as in ver. 7. — ctv 16 mioT@
’A3p.] Paul does not repeat év, but writes ofv, because he looks from the
present time of ebAcyoivra: into the past, in which Abraham stands forth as
the blessed one, with whom those who become blessed are now placed on a
like footing. iv is not, however, equivalent to xcaddéc, a view on behalf of
which appeal ought not to be made to Rom. viii. 82 ;? but it expresses fellow-
ship, for believers, inasmuch as they are blessed (justified), share with believ-
ing Abraham the same divine benefit which began in his person and is ex-
tended to believers as the viotc homogeneous with him. The predicate morg
is added to 'Afp., in order to denote the similarity of the ethical character,
which necessarily accompanies the similarity of the result.

Ver. 10. Argumentum e contrario, ‘‘ argument from the contrary,” for the
correctness of the result exhibited in ver. 9.3 For how entirely different is the

of the law, is not cancelled (ver. 10). The Beza, Usteri, Rickert, take the right view ;

evaoyia, therefore, is not yet the blessing of
Messianic salvation itself, the «xAnpovoyia,
but, as Hunnius (in Calovius) aptly explains
it, ‘* Benedici tn hac promiasione est didera-
ri maledictione \egis aeternae et vicissim
haeredem scribi justitiae et bonorum coeles-
tium,” ‘‘ To be blessed, in this promise, {s to
be freed from the curse of the eternal law,
and in turn to be enrolled an heir of right-
eonaness and heavenly blessings.’ Grotius
is much too indefinite : ‘Summa bona adi-
piscentar,”’ ‘They will attain the highest
blessings.”* Also Ewald’s paraphrase, *‘ the
blessing of the true religion," is too general.

comp. also Méller (on de Wette) and Reith-
mayr.
1 Jerome, Oecumenius, Menochiusg, Estius,

Calovius, Rambach. Morus, Borger, Flatt,

Schott ; comp. also Bengel.

2 Koppe and others.

3 The conclusion is based upon the dilem-
ma: éither from faith or froin the law.
Tertium non datur, “there is no third alter-
native.’ This is no supposititious idea (as
Hofmann objects), but a necessary logical
assumption, such as exists in every argu-
ment ¢ contrario.

112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

position of those who are workers of the law! These, as & whole, according
to the Scripture, are under a curse ; so that it cannot be supposed that they
should become blessed. The extension of the argumentative force of the yap
to the whole series of propositions, vv. 10-14,’ so that ver. 10 would only
form the introduction to the argument, is the less to be approved, because
this ydp is followed by a second and subordinate ydp, and then in ver. 11
an argument entirely complete in itself is introduced by dé Moreover,
by the quotation of Scripture in ver. 10 that which it is intended to prove
(cor x.t.A.) is proved completely and strikingly.? — dco: yap é& Epyav vduov
ciciv] the opposite of the oi é miotewe in ver. 7: for all who are of works of
the law, that is, those whose characteristic moral condition is produced and
regulated by observance of the law (comp. on Rom. ii. 8), the men of law,
oi Exduevor Tou véuov, Oecumenius.* —The quotation is from Deut. xxvii. 26
freely after the LXX. ; and the probative force of the passage in reference to
dco . . . Od Katdépay eioi turns on the fact that no one is adequate, either
quantitatively or qualitatively, to the éupévew év rao x.r.A. 3 consequently
all who are éé épywy véuou are subjected to the curse here ordained. He alone
would not be so, who should really render the complete (év rac) and constant
(éuzéver) obedience to the law, by virtue of which he as a doer of the law
would necessarily be pronounced righteous (Rom. ii. 18), and would have
a claim to salvation as d¢eiAzzua (Rom. iv. 4) ; but see Rom. iii. 9-20, vii.
7-25. — émixatdpartoc] sc. éort, VK, xarnpauevoc, Matt. xxv. 41, that is, has
incurred the divine opy#.4 The word does not occur in Greek authors,
among whom xardparog is frequently used. But comp. Wisd. iii. 18, xiv.
8 ; Tob. xiii. 12 ; 4 Macc. ii. 19. The aréAea, eternal death, the opposite
of the ¢joera: in ver. 11, ensues as the final destiny of the éa:xardparoc (comp.
Matt. xxv. 41), the consummation and effect of the xardpa. — d¢ ovx éupévec]
What is written in the book of the law is conceived as the normal range of
action, which man steps beyond. More frequently used by classical authors
with the mere dative than with év.— 7ao:] as well as the previous rac, is
found in the Samaritan text and in the LXX., but not in the Hebrew.
Jerome, however, groundlessly accuses the Jews of mutilating the text on
purpose (to mitigate the severity of the expression). — rov roijoa: aird] design
of the éupévec x.t.A.

Ver. 11 f. Aé] carrying on the argument. After Paul in ver. 10 has proved
the participation of believers in the blessing of Abraham by the argumentum
econtrario, that those who are of the law are under curse, it is his object now
—in order to complete the doctrinal explanation begun in ver. 6 on the basis
of Scripture—to show, on the same basis, the only way of justification, and
that (a) negatively: it is not by the way of the Jaw that man becomes right-
eous (vv. 11, 12), and (5) positively: Christ has made us free from the curse
of the law (ver. 13). Observe (in opposition to Wiescler’s objection) that in

1 Holsten, Hofmann. § Comp. Acts xly. 22; Heb. viii. 9; 3 Tim.
2In opposition to Holsten, 2. Zvang. d. ili. 14; Ken. Ages. 1. 11; Thuc. iv. 118 9;
Paul. u. Petr. p. 290. Plat. Legg. vill. p. 844 C; Polyb. ill. 70. 4;
3 Comp. 6 épyagduevos, Rom. iv. 4. Tsocr. de Pace, p. 488 fin.; Liban. IV. 271,

4 Comp. Rom. iv. 15. Reiske ; Joseph. Anié. viil. 10. 3, et ai.

CHAP, III, 11. 113
dixawira: rapa r. Oep, the being justified in spite of the curse, and consequently
the becoming free from it, is clearly and necessarily implied by the context
preceding (ver. 10) and following (ver. 18). — Vv. 11 and 12 contain a com-

plete syllogism ; 6 dixatog éx riot. Cyoeras forming the major proposition, ver. —
12 the minor, and vdéyup ovdeic dixacottas rapa r@ Geg the conclusion. The
subtle objections of Hofmann are refuted not only by the combination é
dixatog éx ricteac, but also by the necessary inner correlation of d:xacoctvy and
lus, which are put as reciprocal.— The first 5r: is declarative, and the second
causal : ‘‘ but that through the law no one. . . , is evident, because,” etc.
Homberg and Flatt take them conversely : ‘‘ But because through the law no
one... , it is evident that,” etc. The circumstance that doy bri must
mean it is evident, that (Flatt),' is not to be adduced as favoring the latter
view ; for in our interpretation also it has this meaning, only dr: is made to
precede.* Against it, on the other hand, we may urge, that ver. 12 would
be quite superfluous and irrelevant to the argument, and also that 6 dixaco¢
ix miotews Cyoerat, as & well-known aphorism of Scripture, is far more fitly
employed to prove than to be itself proved. Far better is the view of Ben-
gel, who likewise is not inclined to separate djAov dr. : ‘‘ Quod attinet ad
id ‘as to the fact’ (the former dr: thus being equivalent to ei¢ éxeivo, brz,
2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10 ; John ii. 18, ix. 17), quod in lege nemo justificetur coram
Deo, id sane certum est,” ‘‘that no one is justified in the law before
God, it is doubtless true,” etc. The usual view is, however, more natural *
and more emphatic. Hofmann‘ wishes to take vv. 11, 12 as protasis to vv.
18, 14 ; according to his view, dre specifies the cause, and d7Aov (or dyAevéri):
only introduces the illustration of this cause. But we thus get a long par-
enthetically involved period, differing from the whole context, in which
Paul expresses himself only in short sentences without periodic complica-
tion ; moreover, the well-known use of dyAovéri as namely * does not occur
elsewhere in the N. T., although the opportunities for its use were very fre-
quent (1 Cor. xv. 27, 1 Tim. vi. 7, are wrongly adduced) ; further, it is @
priort very improbable that the two important quotations in vv. 11, 12
should be destined merely for incidental illustration ;° and lastly, there would
result an awkward thought, as if, namely, Christ had been moved to His
work of redemption, in the death on the cross, by the reflection contained in
vv. 11, 12.7 —év véuq] not : by observance of the law, which would he é£ fpywv
vénov,* but : through the law, in so far, namely, as the law is an institution
which does not cancel the curse so pronounced and procure justification ;
for otherwise faith must have been its principle, which is not the case (see
the sequel). The law is consequently, tn principle, not the means by the use

1 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27.

2 See Kiihner, II. p. 626.

§ For if we take Bengel’s explanation, the
&HAov will not suit well the following words,
because they form an utterance of Scripture.
We should expect possibly yeyparra:, so that
then the first 67 would have to be under.
stood as: iva eisHre, Sts, “that ye may see
that” (Fritzsche, Quaest, Luc. p. 59 ff.;

8

Schaef. ad Dem. IT. p. 71).

4 In loc. and Schriftdew. I. p. 615 f.

§ See especially Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit.
p. 106; Bast, Palaeogr. p. 804.

6 Comp. Rom. i. 17.

7 Comp., on the contrary, iv. 3-5; Rom.
viiL 8; 2 Cor. v. 21.

§ Erasmus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and oth-
ers.

114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

of which a man can attain to justification.! Xprorée in ver. 18 corresponds to
the emphatically prefixed év véuy (what by the law is not done, Christ has
effected) ; therefore év is not to be understood * as : in, in the condition of
of Judaism, or in the sense of the rule (Wieseler), but as : through, by means
of. — rapa Td Oeq] judice Deo, opposed to the judgment of men.* — 6 dixacoc
éx mwiotews Cyoerac| an aphorism of Scripture well known to the readers, which
therefore did not need any formula of quotation.‘ The passage is from Hab.
li. 4, according to the LXX. (6 dé dixatog éx miot. pou Choera:, or, according to
A.: 6 6d dix. nov éx mw. uw. ¢.), where it is said: The righteous (p'T¥) shall
through his fidelity (towards God) become partaker of (theocratic) life-blessed-
ness. The apostle, glancing back from the Messianic fulfilment of this
saying—which he had everywhere in view, and experienced most deeply in
his own consciousness—to the Messianic destination of it, recognizes as
its prophetic sense : ‘‘ He who is righteous through faith (in Christ) shall obtain
(Messianic) life.” Comp. on Rom. i. 17. In so doing Paul, following the
LXX., which very often renders 3) by ricrsc, had the more reason for
retaining this word, because the faithful self-surrender to God (to His prom-
ise and grace) is the fundamental essence of faith in Christ ; and he might
join éx riorewe to 6 dixatoc, because the life éx wiotewe presupposes no other
righteousness than that éx wiorews. Here also, as in Rom. J.c. (otherwise in
Heb. x. 38), the words 6 dixaiog éx mictewe are to be connected,* and not éx
wiorews Cycerato :* for Paul desires to point out the cause of the righteousness,
and not that of the life of the righteous, although this has the same cause ;
and in ver. 12, 6 ro:joa¢ aird stands in contrast not to 6 dixa:ocg merely, but to
6 dixatog éx wiotews.” Paul, however, did not write 6 é« riorewe dixarog OF dikavog
6 éx wiotewc, because this important saying was well known and sanctioned
by usage in the order of the words given by the LXX.; so that he involun-
tarily abstained from the freedom of dealing elsewhere manifested by him
in quoting from Scripture. The grammatical correctness of the junction of
éx ior. to dixacog is evident from the fact that the phrase d:caovoda: Ex zior.
is used ; comp. ver. 8.

Ver. 12. Minor proposition ; dé the syllogistic atgui. See on ver. 11.—
ox tot Ex miarewc, is not of faith, is not an institution which has faith as
the principle of its nature and action. Comp. ver. 10. — aA?’ 6 roijoag x.7.A. |
but he who shall have done them (namely, the zpoordynara and xpivata, ‘‘stat-
utes and judgments” of God, Lev. xviii. 5) shall live (shall have life in the
Messiah’s kingdom) through them, so that they form, in this way of doing,

1 On this a8vvaroy rov véuov (Rom. vill. 8),
comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungst. p. 68: Ne-
ander. II. p. 658 ff.; Weiss, débl. Theol.
p. 286 f.

2 With Rfickert, de Wette, and others.

* Comp. Rom. if. 18; Winer, p. 369 [E. T.
492].

‘D* E F G, Syr. Erp. It., have yéyparra:
yap before 6, F G also omitting énAov.
‘Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27; Rom. ix. 7; and besides
Heng. in loc.

5 Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Pareus, Bengel,
Baumgarten, Zachariae, Michaelis, Semler,
Morus, Griesbach, Knapp, Rickert, Winer,
Gramm. p. 129, Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, Hoe-
lemann, and others.

® So most of the oider expositors, follow-
ing Jerome and Augustine; also Borger,
Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Wiese-
ler, Ewald, Holsten, Hofmann, Matthias.

7 Compare, besides, Hoelemann, /.c. p. 41 f.

CHAP. III., 13. 115
the channel of obtaining life. Thus in the express words of the law (Lev.
xviii. 5), likewise presumed to be familiar to his readers, Paul introduces
the nature of the law as contrasted with é« riorew.. Comp. Rom. x. 5.
After a4’, yéyparrac is not (with Schott) to be supplied ;' but, as the form
with the apostrophe indicates, Paul has connected 444’ immediately with
6 rofoag avré, leaving it to the reader not only to explain for himself atré
and é avroic from his acquaintance with the O. T. context of the saying re-
ferred to, but also to complete for himself the connection from the first half
of the verse : ‘‘The law, however, has not faith as its principle ; but the
doer of the commandments—this is the axiom of the law—shall live by
them.” a

Ver. 18. Connection : ‘‘ Through the law no one becomes righteous (vv.
11, 12); Christ has redeemed us from the curse.”* The asyndeton renders —
the contrast stronger.‘ Riickert * reverts to ver. 10, supplying x in ver.
10, and dé in ver. 18. This is incorrect, for Xpicroc finds its appropriate
antithesis in the words immediately preceding ; and, as in general it isa
mistake thus to supply xév and dé, it is here the more absurd, because doo in
ver. 10 has expressly received in ydép its reference to what precedes it.
Against Hofmann’s interpretation, that ver. 13 is apodosis to vv. 11, 12, see
on ver. 11.— ae] applies to the Jews ; for these were under the curse of
the law ° mentioned in ver. 10, and by faith in Christ made themselves par-
‘takers of the redemption from that curse accomplished by Him, as Paul had
himself experienced. Others have understood it as the Jews and Gentiles."
But against this view it may be urged, that the Gentiles were not under the
curse of the Mosaic law (Rom. ii. 12) ; that a reference to the natural law —
as well (Rom. ii. 14, 15) is quite foreign to the context ;° that the law, even
if it had not been done away by Christ, would yet never have related to the
Gentiles,’ because it was the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph.
ii. 14 f.) ; and lastly, that afterwards in ver. 14 cic ra 20vy is placed in con-
trast to the #uac, and hence it must not be said, with Matthias, that it so
far applies to the Gentiles also, since the latter as Christians could not be
under obligation to the law,—which, besides, would amount to a very in-
direct sort of ransom, entirely different from the sense in which it applied
to the Jews. — &7yépacev] Comp. iv. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 20, vil. 23 ; Eph. i. 7 ;
2 Pet. ii. 1 ; Matt. xx. 28; Rev. v. 9; Diod. Hze. p. 580.4; 1 Tim. i. 6;
Polyb. iii. 42. 2. Those who are under obligation to the law as the record
of the direct will of God,” are subject to the divine curse expressed therein ;

1 Comp. also Matthias, who understands neous view of evAoyia in ver. 8.
even ovc fori as runs not. 7 G@omarus, Pareus, Estius, Flatt, Winer,

3 Comp. on Rom. xv. 8; 1 Cor. {. 81.

8 See on ver. 11.

¢ Comp. Col. ffi. 4.

®Comp. also Flatt, Koppe, Schott, Ols-
hausen.

* Which is not to be turned into a subjec-
tive condition, as Bahr (Stud. u. Krit. 1840,
p. 922) wishes, who explains it as the state of
spiritual death, in consequence of his erro-

Matthies.

® In opposition to Flatt.

® In opposition to Winer.

10 For in the apostle’s view everywhere,
and here also, the law Is this, and ver. 19 is
not at variance with its being so (in opposi-
tion to Ritschl in d. Jahrd. f. D. Theo. 1863,
p. 528 f.). Comp. on Col. il. 15.

116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

but from the bond of this curse, from which they could not otherwise have
escaped, Christ has redeemed them, and that by giving up for them His life
upon the cross as a Afrpov, ‘‘ ransom,” paid to God the dator et vinder legis,
‘‘giver and maintainer of the law,”—having by His mors satisfactoria,
‘* death for satisfaction,” suffered according to God’s gracious counsel in
obedience to the same,' procured for them the forgiveness of sins,* so that
the curse of the law which was to have come upon them no longer had any
reference to them. This modus, ‘‘ mode,” of the redemption is here ex-
pressed thus : ‘‘ by His having become curse for us,” namely, by His crucifix-
ion, in which He actually became the object of the divine opy7. The empha-
sis rests on the xardpa, which is therefore placed at the end and is immedi-
ately to be vindicated by a quotation from Scripture. This abstract, used
instead of the concrete, is purposely chosen to strengthen the conception, and
probably indeed with reference to the a n? Pp, ‘‘accursed of God,”
Deut. xxi. 23. But xardpa is used without the article, because the object is
to express that which Christ has become as regards the category of quality—
He became curse, entered into the position, and into the de facto relation, of
one visited with the divine wrath ; it being obvious from the context that it
was in reality the divine curse stipulated in the law, the accomplishment of
which He suffered in His death, as is moreover expressly attested in the
passage of Scripture that follows. The idca of xardpa as the curse of God
—obvious of itself to every reader—forbids us to explain away (with Hof-
mann) the ‘‘becoming a curse” as signifying, not that God accomplished
His curse on Christ, but that God decreed respecting Christ that He should
suffer that which men did to Him as fulfilment of the curse of the Jaw, which
was not incurred by, and did not apply to, Him. The exact real parallel,
2 Cor. v. 21, ought to have prevented any such evasive interpretation. And
if Paul had not meant the curse ef God, which Christ suffered irép fuay, —
as no reader, especially after the passage of Scripture which follows, could
understand anything else,—he would have been practising a deception.
Christ made sin by God, and so suffering the divine curse—that is just the
foolishness of the cross, which is wiser than men (1 Cor. i. 25). Comp.,
besides, Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 81, who, however, regards the
contents of our passage and of 2 Cor. v. 21 under the point of view of the
cancelling of sin (sin being viewed as an objective power), and thus comes
into contact with Hofmann’s theory. — irép judv] That trép, as in all pas-
sages in which the atoning death is spoken of, does not mean instead of,°
see on Rom. v. 6. Comp. oni. 4. The satisfaction which Christ rendered,
was rendered for our benefit; that it was vicarious,* is implied in the cir-

1 Rom. v. 19; Phil. ff. 8.

2 Eph. L. 7; Col. £ 14; Rom. fil. 24; 1 Tim.
fl. 6; Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 2,

3 Comp. Thilo, ad Protev. Jac. 3, p. 181.

4Comp. Weiss, 010. Theol. p. 821, d ; Kah-
nis, Dogm. I. p. 518 f., III. p. 882; Delitzsch,
2. Hebr. p. 714.

§So here, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Riick-

ert, Reithmayr, following earlier exposi-

tors; comp. also Lipsius, Rech(fertigungs.
p. 184 f.).

* As is expressly stated in Matt. xx. 28,
1 Tim. fi. 6, by avr¢. Comp. Thomasius, Cir.
Pers. u. Werk, Ill. 1, p. 88 ff.; Gess, in the
Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. TI. 4, III. 4. The
less satisfactory is it, therefore, with
Schweizer in the Stud. u. Krit, 1858, p. 425
ff., to find that the essential import of

CHAP. III., 13. 117
cumstances of the case itself, and not in the preposition. The divine curse
of the law must have been realized by all, who did not fully satisfy the law
to which they were bound (and this no one could do), being compelled to
endure the execution of the divine 6;%, ‘‘ wrath,” on themselves ; but for
their deliverance from the bond of this curse Christ intervened with His
death, inasmuch as He died asan accursed one, and thereby, as by a purchase-
price, dissolved that relation to the law which implied acurse.! This ef-
fect depends certainly on the sinlessness of Christ (2 Cor. v. 21), without
which His surrendered life could not have been a Atrpov, ‘‘ransom’” (Matt.
xx. 28), and He Himself, by the shedding of His blood, could not have been
& iAaorfpioyv, ‘ propitiation ” (Rom. iii. 25), because, with guilt of His own,
He would have been amenable to the curse on His own account, and not
through taking upon Him the guilt of others (John i. 29) ; but utterly aloof
from and foreign to the N. T. is the idea which Hilgenfeld here suggests,
that the curse of the law had lost its validity once for all, because it had
for once shown itself as an unrighteous curse. The death of Christ served
precisely to show the righteousness of God, which has its expression in the
curse of the law.’ — dr: yéyp. . . . €¢Aovis not an epexegesis to yevopu. in.
yu. cat. (Matthias, who writes 4, r:), but is a parenthesis in which the yevd-
evoc xardpa, Which had just been said of Christ, is vindicated agreeably to
Scripture, by Deut. xxi. 28, freely quoted from the LXX.* Accursed (vis-

our passage only amounts to this, that the
Mosaic law had been set aside on the ap-
pearance of Christianity, and that this set-
ting aside was decisively evinced by the
death on the cross. See, on the other hand,
Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zettschri/t, 1859, p. 226
ff., and in his neut. Theol. p. 156 f.

1 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vil. 28; Col. il. 14.

2 See on Rom. ili. 25.

$ The LXX. has xexarnpayévos twd Geod was
xpepduevos em fvAov. The vd Geov is also
expressed in the Hebrew. Jerome accuses
the Jows here also of intentional falsifica-
tion of the text, alleging that in an anti-
Christian interest they had inserted the
name of God into the original text. Bahr,
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 928 ff., is of opin-
ion that Paul purposely omitted vd @eou,
so as not to represent Christ as cursed dy
God (with which Hofmann agrees); that He
was called cursed only because, through
His death, He appeared as cursed before all
to whom the law was given. But this is
incorrect, because the expression {s not
Paul’s, and because, so interpreted, the
whole proof adduced would amount only
to a semblance, and not toa reality. Christ
has certainly averted from men the curse
of God which was ordained in the law (ver.
10), by the fact that He, as the bearer of
the divine curse, dled while hanging on the
cross. Having thus actually become éa:-

xaraparos, He became the propitiatory sacri-
fice for those who were subject to the law,
whom He consequently redeemed from the
definite divine curse of the law (ver. 10), so
that on the part of God the actus forensie,
“forensic act,” of justification now com-
menced: and for this reason, although the
crucified One was éxcxardparos, Paul could
elsewhere represent Him as ben evwdiacs
(Eph. v. 2). Luther aptly remarks: ‘ Si ris
negare eum esse peccatorem et maledictum,
negato etiam passum, crucifzum et mortuum,""
“If you want to deny that He isa sinner
and cursed, deny also that He suffered, was
crucified, and died.” The cause of the
non-adoption of vwd @Geod cannot be that
Paul, under the influence of a subordinate
value assigned to the law as not directly
given by God, had the passage imprinted
on his mind without ord @eov (Ritschl, l.c.
p. 528), for he did not entertain any such es-
timate of its inferior value. We must, in
fact, simply abide by the explanation that
he quoted the passage of Scriptur. from afree
recollection (as is already shown by ém«ard-
parosand the addition of 4), and in doing
so, having in view only the “ cursed’ as the
point of the passage, left unnoticed the en-
tirely obvious vr) Geov. In a similar way,
in ver. 11, in the quotation Hab. if. 4, he
does not adopt the mov of the LXX.

118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

ited with the wrath of God) ts every one who (according to the LXX., in
which the article is wanting, every one, if he) is hanged ona tree. The orig-
inal historical sense of this passage applies to those malefactors who, in or-
der to the aggravation of their punishment, were after their execution pub-
licly hung up on a (probably cross-shaped) stake,’ but were not allowed to
remain hanging over the night, lest such accursed ones should profane the
holy land.? Now, so far as Christ when put to death hung upon a stake,’
the predicate éx:cardpatoc applies alsoto Him ; and this furnishes the script-
ural proof of the preceding yevéuevoc xardpa.

Ver. 14. Divine purpose in Christ’s redeeming us (the Jews) from the
curse of the law ; inorder that the blessing promised to Abraham (justifica-
tion ; see on ver. 8) might be imparted in Christ Jesus to the Gentiles (not:
to all peoples, as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius, following the earlier ex-
positors, take rd 297, in opposition to the context). So long, namely, as
the curse of the law stood in force and consequently the Jews were still
subject to this divine curse, the Gentiles could not be partakers of that
blessing ; for, according to that promise made to Abraham, it was implied
in the preference which in the divine plan of salvation was granted to the
Jews (Rom. i. 17, xv. 8, 9, iii. 1, 2, ix. 1-5), that salvation should issue
from them and pass over to the Gentiles (comp. Rom. xv. 27 ; John iv. 22,
xi. 52). Hence, when Christ by His atoning death redeemed the Jews
from the curse of the divine law, God, in thus arranging His salvation,
must necessarily have had the design that the Gentiles, who are expressly
named in the promise made to Abraham (ver. 8), should share in the prom-
ised justification, and that not in some way through the law, as if they
were to be subjected to this, but in Christ Jesus, through whom in fact the
Jews had been made free from the curse of the law. The opposite of this
liberation of the Jews could not exist in God’s purpose in regard to the
Gentiles. Riickert takes a different view of the logical connection (as to
which most expositors are silent), in the light of Eph. ii. 14 ff.: ‘*So long
as the law continued, an impenetrable wall of partition was set up between
the Jewish and the Gentile world; . . . and just as long it was simply
impossible that the blessing should pass over to the Gentiles.” But the
context speaks not of the law itself as having been done away, but of the
curse of the law, from which Jesus had redeemed the Jews ; so that the idea
of a partition-wall, formed by the law itself standing between Jew and Gen-
tile, is not presented to the readcr. Ustcri thus states the connection :
‘‘Christ by His vicarious death has redeemed us (Jews) from the curse of
the law, in order that. (justification henceforth being to be attained through
faith) the Gentiles may become partakers in the blessings of Abraham,
since now there is required for justification a condition possible for all,—namely,
faith.” * Butsince the point of the possibility of the justification of the Gentiles

1 Analogous to our former custom of fast- Wolf, p. 536; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 460 f.;
ening criminals on the wheel, in order to Bahr in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 924 f.
aggravate the punishment. * Comp. Acts v. 30, x. 89; 1 Pet. if. 24

2 Deut. xxi. 28; Num. xxv. 4; Josh. x. 2%; 4 Comp. Chrysostom, Oecumentius, and
2 Sam. iv. 12. See Lund, Jd. Heiligth. ed. §Theophylact.

CHAP. III., 14. 119
is not dealt with in the context, this latter expedient is quite as arbitrarily
resorted to, as is Schott’s intermingling of the natural law, against the
threatenings of which faith alone yields protection (Rom. ii. 12 ff., iii. 9 ff.).
—el¢ ra é0vy] might reach to the Gentiles (Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15), that is, be
imparted to them (Rev. xvi. 2). Such was to be the course of the divine
way of salvation, from Jerael to the Gentiles. Observe, that Paul does not
Bay xai cig r. Edvy, as if the Gentiles were merely an accessory. —# evAoyia row
Afp.} the blessing already spoken of, which was pre-announced to Abraham
(ver. 8), the opposite of the xazvépa ; not therefore life (Hofmann), the
opposite of which would be @dvaroc, but justijfication—by which is meant
the benefit itself (Eph. i. 3 ; Rom. xv. 29), and not the mere promise of it
(Schott). — év Xpsorg@ Incov] so that this reception of the blessing depends,
and is founded, on Christ (on His redeeming death). The dca ry ricrews
which follows expresses the matter from the point of view of the subjective
medium, whilst év Xpor@ presents the objective state of the case—the two
elements corresponding to each other at the close of the two sentences of
purpose. — iva riv éxayyediav x.t.A.] cannot be subordinated to the previous
sentence of purpose (Rickert), for it contains no benefit specially accruing
to the Gentiles.? It is parallel to the first sentence of purpose by way of
climax.? After Paul had expressed the blessed aim which the redeeming
death of Christ had in refcrence to the Gentiles,—namely, that they should
become partakers of the evAoyia of Abraham,—he raises his glance still
higher, and sees the reception also of the Holy Spirit (the consequence of
justification) as an aim of that redeeming death ; but he cannot again ex-
press himself in the third person, because, after the justification of the Jews
had been spoken of in ver. 13 and the justification of the Gentiles iu ver. 14
(iva cig ta tty. . . "Inoov), the statement now concerns the justified
generally, Jews and Gentiles without distinction : hence the first person,
Ad3wuev, is used, the subject of which must be the Christians, and not the
Jewish Christians only. This by no means accidental emergence of the first
person, after ra 20v7 had been previously spoken of in the third, is incom-
patible with our taking the reception of the Spirit as part of the ebdroyia
(Wieseler), or as essentially identical with it (Hofmann). — rj érayyeAiav
Tov mvevpatoc] THY éExayyediav AauBdveryv means to become partakers in the realiza-
tion of the promise (Heb. x. 86 ; Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4) ; but rod rvetpuarog
may be either the genitive of the subject (that which is promised by the Spirit)
or of the object (the promised Spirit). The latter interpretation (comp. Acts
ii, 38 ; Eph. i. 13) is the usual and correct one.’ For if (with Winer)
we should explain it, ‘‘dona illa, quae a divino Spiritu promissa sunt,” the
blessings which have been promised by the Divine Spirit” (Luke xxiv.

1 Comp. on 2 Cor. vill. 13 f.

® Paul would have written Adfwo:, which
Chrysostom actually read—evidently an al-
teration arising from misunderstanding.

® Comp. Rom. vii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 3; Eph.
vi 19 f.

‘ Beza, Bengel, Hofmann, and others.

5 So that rh» éwayyediav is to be referred

to the O. T. promise of the communication
of. the Holy Spirit (Joel ffi.; Acts fi. 16),—a
promise well known to all the apostle's
readers. Hilgenfeld incorrectly holds that
**the promise given to Abraham is directly
designated as an éwayyeAXa rod mvevmaros (a
promise, the substance of which is the
wveupa).”

120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

49 ; Acts i. 4), then, in conformity with the context, this expression must
refer back to ver. 8 ;' and to this the jirst person Adwuev would not be suit-
able, as Paul referred that promise given to Abraham in the Scripture (by
the Holy Spirit) to the Gentiles. And if ryv éxayyediay tov mveiparog were
essentially the same as the evAoyia rod ’Afp., it would be entirely devoid of
the explanatory character of an epexegesis. — did tr. x/cr.] For faith is the
causa apprehendens, ‘‘ apprehending cause,” both of justification and of the
reception of the Spirit ; comp. vv. 2-5, v. 5.

Vv. 15-18. What Paul has previously said concerning justification, not
of the law, but of faith, with reference to that promise given to Abraham
(vv. 8-14), could only maintain its ground as true before the worshippers of
the law, in the event of its being acknowledged that the covenant once
entered into with Abraham through that promise was not deprived of
validity by the subsequent institution of the law, or subjected to alteration
through the entrance of the law. For if this covenant had been done away
with or modified by the law, the whole proof previously adduced would
come to nothing. Paul therefore now shows that this covenant had not been
invalidated or altered through the Mosaic law.

Ver. 15.* 'AdeAgo:] Expressive of loving urgency, and conciliating with
reference to the instruction which follows.* How entirely different was it
in ver. 1! Now the tone of feeling is softened. — xara dv0pwrov Aéyw] not
to be placed in a parenthesis,‘ points to what follows—to that which he is
just about to say in proof of the immutability of a divine dcadfx7, ‘‘ covenant.”
The analogy to be adduced from a human legal relation is not intended to
be excused, but is to be placed in the proper point of view ; for the apostle
does not wish to adduce it from his higher standpoint as one enlightened
by the Spirit, according to the measure of divinely-revealed wisdom, but
he wishes thus to accommodate himself to the ordinary way among men (of
adducing examples from common life), so as to be perfectly intelligible to
his readers (not in order to put them to shame, as Calvin thinks).* — dpc]
yet. The logical position would be before oideic. A dtadfnn, although human,
no one yet cancels. Such a transposition of the iuwe (which here intimatesa
conclusion @ minor?) is not unfrequent in classical authors, and again occurs
in the case of Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 7. There is therefore all the less reason for
writing it dudc, in like manner,” which would be unsuitable, since that which
is to be illustrated by the comparison only follows (at ver. 17). Riickert*®
takes it in antithetical reference to xara dv3p. Aéyw : ‘‘I desire to keep only
to human relations ; nevertheless,” etc. This would be an illogical antith-
esis. Others, contrary to linguistic usage, make it mean yet even,® or guin

1 gpoidotca } ypady «.7.A. mpoevnyyeAicaro 8 Comp. avrpdpwreiws and avdpowivws (Dem.
te ABp. x.7.A, 689. 24, 1122.2; Rom. vi. 19). See generally
2 As to vv. 15-22, see Hauck In Stud.u. on Rom. fli.5; 1 Cor. ix.8; and van Hen-
Krit. 1862, p. 512 ff.; Matthias, d. Abachn.d. gel, Annot. p. 211 f.
Gal. Br. iii. 15-22, Cassel, 1866. As ts vv. 15- 6 See on this passage.
29, see Buhl, in the Luther. Zeilzechr. 1867, 7 Morus, Rosenmiller, Jatho
p. 1 ff. 8 So also Olshausen and Windischmann.
3 Comp. Rom. x. 1. * Grotius, Zachariae, Matthies.
« Erasmus, Calvin, and many others.

CHAP. III., 15. 121
amo,’ and the like. — cexvpuzévyy] ratified, made legally valid, Gen. xxiii. 20;
4 Macc. vii. 9; Dem. 485. 13; Plat. Pol. x. p. 620 E ; Polyb. v. 49. 6 ;
Andoc. de myst. § 84, p. 11 ; comp. on 2 Cor. ii. 8. — dtadhxnv] not testa-
ment (Heb. ix. 16 f.), as the Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and many others,
including Olshausen, render it, quite in opposition to the context ; nor, in
general, coluntary ordainment, arrangement (Winer, Matthies, Usteri,
Schott, Hofmann : ‘destination as to anything, which we apply for one's
benefit,” Holsten, following earlier expositors) ; but in the solemn biblical
signification of 13, covenant (Jerome, Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, Semler,
Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Reithmayr, and
others ; also Ewald : ‘' contract”), as in iv. 24 and all Pauline passages. The
emphatic prefixing of av) pézov points to the majus, ‘‘ greater,” the d:ad fxn of
God ; and God had entered into a covenant with Abraham, by giving him
the promises (ver. 17).* The singular (av3pérov) is not opposed to this view;
on the contrary, since av3pérov d:adhxn is put as analogue of the diadiun of
God (which God has established), there could, in accordance with this
latter, be only one contracting party designated: a ratified covenant,
which a man has established. The ratification, as likewise follows from the
d:adnxn of God, is not to be considered as an act accomplished by a third
party ; but the covenant is legally valid by the definitive and formal conclu-
sion of the parties themselves who make the agreement with one another. —
ovdeic averet fy Exidiat.] viz. no third party. Such an interference would indeed
be possible in itself, and not inconsistent with the idea of a covenant (as
Hofmann objects). But cases of this sort would be exceptional, and, in the
general legal axiom expressed by Paul, might well be left unnoticed. That
obdeig is not the same subject as av@pdrov (Holsten‘), is evident both from
the expression in itself, and from the application in ver. 17, where the i7d
tov Ozov corresponds to the av9perov and the (personified) véu0c, which comes
in as a third person, to the ovdelo. —# émidtardocetac} or adds further stipula-
tions thereto, which were not contained in the covenant. That the éri inthe
word émdiardocerae (not occurring elsewhere) denotes against (Schott), is
inconsistent with the analogy of éridiaridyue, emidiaywdonw, exidiaxpivw, and
80 forth ;‘ in that case avrid:ardooerac musthave been used. Erasmus, Winer,
Hauck, and others wish at least to define the nature of the additions
referred to as coming into conflict with the will of the author of the d:ad fxn
or changing it ; but this is arbitrary. The words merely affirm : no one
prescribes any addition thereto; this is altogether against the general rule of
law, let the additions be what they may.°

1 Wolf. tifles the subject in ovde/s with the founder

2 Comp. Gen. xvil. 7; Ex. il. 24; Lev. xxvi.
42; Luke 1. 72; Acta fil. 25; 2 Macc. i. 2;
Ecclas. xliv. 20, 22.

2On adereiy dcadyjx., to do away a cote-
nant, trritum facere, comp. 1 Macc. xv. 27; 2
Macc. xiil. 25; Polyb. xv. 1. 9, fil. 20. 2, xv.
8. 9.

4 “Yet in the sphere of the human no one
cancels his voluntary disposition, which has
become legally valid.” Matthies also iden-

of the d:adyxy.

®Comp. Joseph. Bell. il. 2. 8, agiav ris
érccadynans Thy Scadjany elvai xvpewrépay, Antt,
xvii. 9. 4.

* Chrysostom aptly remarks: «iy roApa rts
avarpdat werd traita éAdwy 9 mpocdetva: Tt,
Touro yap dom’ % émdiaraccera, “NO one
coming after these things ventures to re-
fute or to add anything, for this is: 7, ¢wi8sca-
raggera,”"

122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Ver. 16. This verse is usually considered as minor proposition to ver. 15,
so that vv. 15-17 contain a complete syllogism, which is, however, inter-
rupted by the exegetical gloss ob Aéye «.r.4., and is then resumed by rowro
62 Aéyw in ver. 17." But against this view it may be urged, (1) that the
minor proposition in ver. 16 must necessarily, in a logical point of view,—as
corresponding to the emphatic dpuu¢ avOpérov in ver. 15,—bring into promi-
nence the divine character of the promises, and must have been expressed in
some such form as Oed¢ dé rp ’ABp.; and (2) that the explanation as to xai +o
onéppart avrov, 80 carefully and emphatically brought in (not merely ‘‘allu-
sive,” Hilgenfeld), would be here entirely aimless and irrelevant, because it
would be devoid of all reference to and influence on the argument. The
train of ideas is really as follows : *—After Paul has stated in ver. 15 that
even a man’s legally valid covenant is not invalidated or furnished with ad-
ditions by any one, he cannot immediately attach the conclusion intended
to be deduced from this, viz., that a valid covenant of God is not annulled
by the law coming afterwards ; but he must first adduce the circumstance
which, in the case in question, has an essential bearing on this proof,—that
the promises under discussion were issued not to Abraham only, bué at the
same time to his descendants also, that is, to Christ. From this essential cir-
cumstance it is, in fact, clear that that covenant was not to be a mere tem-
porary contract, simply made to last up to the time of the law. Accordingly,
the purport of vv. 15-17 is this : ‘‘ Even a man’s covenant legally completed
remains uncancelled and without addition (ver. 15). But the circumstance
which conditions and renders incontestable the conclusion to be thence de-
duced is, that the promises were spoken not merely to Abraham, but also to
his seed, by which, as is clear from the singular r@ orépuari, is meant Christ
(ver. 16). And now—to complete my conclusion drawn from what I have
said in vv. 15 and 16—what I mean is this : A covenant previously made
with legal validity by God is not rendered invalid by the law, which came
into existence so long afterwards” (ver. 17). — 16 dé 'ABp. éppéOnoav ai Exay-
yediat x. Tg orépuatt avtov] The emphasis is laid on xal 76 orépyare avroi, the
point which is here brought into prominence as the further specific founda-
tion of the proof to be adduced. This element essential to the proof lies in
the destination of Christ as the organ of fulfilment ; in the case of a promise
which had been given not merely to the ancestor himself, but also to Christ,
the fulfiller, it was not at all possible to conceive an aéérai¢ by the law.*
The passage of the O. T. to which Paul refers in xai r@ oréppare airoi, is
considered by most expositors, following Tertullian (de carne Christi, 22)
and Chrysostom, to be Gen. xxii. 18: évevAoyyyoovra év TE omEpparicov
révra Ta &vn ti¢ yxc, ‘*In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be bless-
ed.” But, from the words ob Aéyec’ cai roi¢ orépyaow x.7.A. which follow,
it is evident that Paul was thinking of a passage in which xai 7@ ovép-
particov is expressly written. Hence (with Estius and Bengel, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Buhl) the

2 See Morus, Koppe, Riickert, Schott, de 2 Comp. also Holsten, 2. Ev. d. Paul. u.
Wette, Hilgenfeld. Petr. p. 204.
3 Comp. also Wieseler.

CHAP. III., 16. 123
passages Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, are rather to be assumed as those referred
to,—a view confirmed by the expression «xAypovouia in ver. 18.1 Comp.
Rom. iv. 18. — éppéPyoav®| they were spoken, that is, given, as some min.,
Eusebius and Theophylact, actually read 2d60ncar. The datives simply
state to whom the promises were spoken, not: in reference to whom (so
Matthias),—an interpretation which was the less likely to occur to the
reader, well acquainted as he was with the fact that the promise was spo-
ken directly to Abraham, who at the same time represented his omépya.
—al imayyeAia] in the plural: for the promise in question was given on sev-
eral occasions and under various modifications, even as regards the contents;
and indeed Paul himself here refers to a place and form of promise differ-
ent from that mentioned above in ver. 8. In xa? ro orépyare airov he finds
that Christ is meant; hence he adds the following gloss (Midrasch): od
Réyet’ xal roic onéppacw x.7.4., in which the singular form of the expression is
asserted by him to be significant, and the conclusion is thence drawn that
only one descendant (not : only one class of descendants, namely the spirit-
ual children of Abraham, as, following Augustine, Cameron and others,
Olshausen and Tholuck, d. A. 7. im neuen T. p. 65 ff. ed. 6, also Jatho,
hold) is intended, namely Christ. That this inference is purely rabbinical,*
and without objective force as a proof, is evident from the fact that in the
origina} text }/"! is written, and this, in every passage in the O. T. where it
expresses the idea of progenies, ‘‘ progeny,” is used in the singular,‘ whether
the posterity consists of many or of one only.* Also the later Hebrew and
Chaldee usage of the plural form in the sense of progenies > does not depend,
any more than the Greek use of ovépuara,’ on the circumstance that, in con-
tradistinction, the singular is to be understood dg 颒 évég.° The classical

iii. 15, the LXX. translators have referred
owépna, * seed,” to an individual (to a son);

1 The correct view is found even in Ori-
gen, Comment.in Ep. ad Rom. tv. 4, Opp. IV.

p. 582: “‘Ipse enim (apostolus) haec de
Christo dicta esse interpretatur, cum dixit :
*Soriptum est, ¢idi dabo terram hanc et sem-
fri tuo. Non dixit : et seminibus, tanquam
in multis, sed semini tuo, tanquam in uno,
qui est Christus,'*’ “* For the apostle himself
interprets these things as spoken of Christ,
when he said: it has been written : ‘ To thee
and to thy seed will I give this land.’ He
said not: ‘and to seed,’ as in many, but as
in one, who {fs Christ.» Comp. also p. 618,
and Homil. 9 in Genes. Opp. II. p. 85; and
earlier, Irenaeus, Haer. v. 82. 2; later, es-
pecially Jerome.

* As to this form, which has preponder-
ant attestation (Lachm. Tisch.), comp. on
Rom. ix. 12; Ktthner, I. p. 810, ed. 2.

# Surenhusius, caradd, p. 84 f. ; Schoettgen,
Hor. p. 733; Déipke, Hermeneut. I. p. 176 ff.

*In 1 Sam. vill. 15, D.D° Vi are segetes ves-
trae,‘ your crops.”

® Gen. iv. 25; 1 Sam. {. 11; Targ. Ps. xviil.
26, where Isaao is called Abraham's jy}.
In the so-called Protevangelium also, Gen.

for they translate, avrds cov rypijca xedadrry.
But it does not thence follow that this sub-
ject was the Messiah, to whom the O1w*,
correctly understood by the LXX., but
wrongly by the Vulgate (coniere?, ‘‘ bruise"),
isnot suitable. The Messianic reference of
the passage lies in the enmity against the ser-
pent here established as the expression of a
moral idea, the final victorious issue of
which was the subject-matter of the Mes-
sianic hope, and was brought about through
the work of the Messiah. Comp. Hengsten-
berg, Christol. I. p. 26 ff.; Ewald, Jahrd. II.
p. 160f.; also Schultz, alttest. Theol. I. p. 486 f.

® See Gelger in the Zeilschr. d. morgenl.
Gesellech. 1858, p. 807 ff.

7 Soph. O. C. 606. 1277; O. R. 1246; Aesoh.
Eum. 909.

8 Comp. 4 Mace. xviii. 1: & rev 'ABpapaioy
owepuater dawéyovo wai8es ‘IopayAtra:, wei-
Oeade ry voue rovTy, ‘‘ children of Israel, de-
scendants of the seeds of Abraham, obey
this law.”

124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

use of aivara is analogous (comp. on John i. 18). Moreover, the original
sense of these promises, and also the ro oxéppar: of the LKX., undoubtedly
apply to the posterity of Abraham generally ; hence it is only in so far as
Christ is the theocratic culmination, the goal and crown of this series of
descendants, that the promises were spoken to Him ; but to discover this
reference in the singular xai r@ oxéppari cov was a mere feat of the rabbini-
cal subtlety, which was still retained by the apostle from his youthful cult-
ure as a characteristic element of his national training, without detriment
to the Holy Spirit which he had, and to the revelations which had been
vouchsafed to him. Every attempt to show that Paul has not here allowed
himself any rabbinical interpretation of this sort ' is incompatible with the
language itself, and conflicts with the express d¢ éor: Xproréc; which clear-
ly shows that we are not to understand orepydrev with ini rodAav, nor orkp-
Harog with 颒 évd¢ (Hofmann, Buhl), but that the contrast between many
persons and one person is the point expressed. But the truth itself, which
the gloss of the apostle is intended to serve, is entirely independent of this
gloss, and rests upon the Messianic tenor of the promises in question, not on
the singular r@) omépyart. — ov Aéyee] 8c. [See Note XLVL., p. 160.] Oedc¢, which
is derived from the historical reference of the previous épjé@ycav, so well
known to the reader.* — d¢ éxi roadav] as referring to many individuals, in
such a manner that He intends and desires to express a plurality of persons,
On éri, upon, that is, in reference to, with the genitive along with verbs of
speaking, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, p. 248 ; Ast.
Ler. Plat. I. p. 767. — d¢ éort Xproréc] which oréppa, denoting a single indi-
vidual, is Christ. The feebly attested reading 4 is a mistaken grammatical
alteration ; for how often does the gender of the relative correspond by at-
traction to the predicative substantive.* Xpioré¢ is the personal Christ Jesus,
not, as some, following Irenaeus ‘ and Augustine,* have explained it: Christ
and His church,* or the church alone.’ Such a mystical sense of Xpioréd¢ must
necessarily have been suggested by the context (as in 1 Cor. xii. 12); here,
however, the very contrast between ro2Aav and évdc is decidedly against it.*
Ver. 29 also is against, and not in favor of, this explanation ; because the
inference of this verse depends on the very fact that Christ Himself is the
orépua Tou ’Aj3p. (see on ver. 29). The whole explanation is a very superflu-
ous device, the mistaken ingenuity of which (especially in the case of Tho-
luck and Hofmann) appears in striking contrast to the clear literal tenor of
the passage.® It is not, however, Christ in his pre-human existence, in so

1 See among recent expositors, particu- _lein, Ndsselt, and others.
larly Philipp! in the 2fecklenbd. Zettechr. 1855, ® See also vv. 19, 22, 24, 27, 28.

p. 519 ff. : comp. also Hengstenberg, Chrisiol. ® Tholuck holds that in ver. 16 Paul de-
I. p. 50 f.; Tholuck, é.c., and Hofmann. sired to show that the promises could not
® Comp. Eph. fv. 8, v. 14. possibly extend to “‘ the posterity of Abra-
3 See Kithner, IT. p. 505. ham in every sense,"" and that consequently
4 Haer. v. 82. 2. the natural posterity was not included;
® Ad iil. 29, Opp. TV. p. 884. that the singular points rather toa definiie

* Beza, Gomarus, Crell, Drusius, Ham- posterity, namely the believing. The latter
mond, Locke, and others; also Tholuck, are taken along with Christ as an unity,
Olshausen, Philippi, /.c., Hofmann. and, partly as the spiritaal successors of

7 Calvin, Clericus, Bengel, Ernesti, Dider- the patriarch, partly in their oneness with

CHAP. III., 17%. 125

far as He according to the Spirit already bore sway in the patriarchs (1 Cor.
x. 1 ff.), who is here referred to, because it is only as the Adéyo¢ évoapxoc, ‘* the
incarnate word,” that He can be the descendant of Abraham (Matt. i. 1;
Rom. i. 8). Comp. ver. 19.

Ver. 17. Result of vv. 15 and 16, emphatically introduced by roiro d2 Atya,
but this which follows (see on 1 Cor. i. 12), J say as the conclusion drawn from
what is adduced in vv. 15 and 16 : A covenant which has been previously made
valid (ratified) by God, the law . . . does not annul. What covenant is here
intended, is well known from the connection, namely, the covenant made
by God with Abraham, through His giving to him, and to his orépua in-
cluded along with him, the promises in Gen. xii. 8, xviii. 18 (ver. 8), xiii.
15, xvii. 8 (ver. 16). The xipworg (comp. on ver. 15) is not any separate
act following the institution of the covenant, but was implied in the very
promises given : through them the covenant became valid. The xpo in
mpoxexup. is correlative with the subsequent pera, and therefore signifies :
previously, ere the law existed. — 6 pera rerpaxdéora x.t.A.] cannot be intended
to denote a comparatively short time (Koppe), which is not suggested by
the context ; but its purport is: The law, which came into existence
so long a time after, cannot render invalid a covenant, which had been
validly instituted so long previously by God and consequently had already
subsisted so long. ‘‘Magnitudo intervalli auget promissionis auctoritatem, ”
“The greatness of the interval increases the authority of the promise,”
Bengel. According to Hofmann, the statement of this length of time is in-
tended to imply that the law was something new and different, which could
not be held as an element forming part of the promise. But this was obvious
of itself from the contrast between promise and law occupying the whole
context, and, moreover, would not be dependent on a longer or shorter in-
terval. With regard to the number 430, Paul gets it from Ex. xii. 40 (in
Gen. xv. 18 and Acts vii. 6 the rownd number 400 is used) ; but in adopting
it he does not take into account that this number specifies merely the dura-
tion of the sojourn of' the Israelites in Egypt. Consequently the number here,
taken by itself, contains a chronological inaccuracy ; but Paul follows the
statement of the LXX., which differs from the original text—the text of the
LXX. being well known to and current among his readers—without entering

the great Scion proceeding from hisfamily, _ fied to by Soripture generally ; but, on the

they constitute the descendants of Abra-
ham. But in this case Paul, instead of ws
éxi woAA@y, must at least have written os
dwt wavrewy; instead of ws 颔 évds, as eri
row évds; and instead of és éors Xpiords, he
must have written 6 dor % éxxdnoia civ
Xpore. — According to Hofmann, in loc.
(not quite the same in his Schriftdew. I. 1,
p. 107 f.), Paul, following the analogy of
Gen. iv. 25 and thinking in rots owdppacc of
several posterities by Ure side of each other,
lays stress on the oneness of Abraham's pos-
terity expressed in the singular, the expres-
sion in the singular serving him only as the
shortest means (?) for asserting a fact testi-

other hand, he has, by means of esfimating
this noit of posterity in the light of the his-
tory of redemptton, been able, and indeed
obliged, to interpret r@ owépuari cov a8 re-
ferring to Christ, the promised Saviour, with-
out thereby maintaining that this expression
in the singular could signify only an tndivid-
ual, and not a race of many members. But in
this way everything which we are expected
to read in the plain words is imported into
them, and artificlally imposed upon them,
by the expositor. Besides, in Gen. iv. %
oxéppa érepow means nothing more than an-
other son.

126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

further into this point of chronology, which was foreign to his aim. In Ex.
xii. 40 the LXX. has 9 d2 xaroixyoce rév vid "lop. fv xardxgoav év y@ Aly. wal
év yf Xavadv, ‘‘ Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in
the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan was” (the words x. é. y. X.
are wanting in the Hebrew), éry rerpaxéoca rpedxovra, ‘‘ four hundred and
thirty years.” This text of the LXX. was based upon a different reckon-
ing of the time—a reckoning which is found in the Samaritan text and in
Joseph. Antt. ii. 15. 3.1. The interval between God’s promise to Abraham
and the migration of Jacob to Egypt—an interval omitted in the 430 years
—cannot indeed be exactly determined, but may be reckoned at about 200
years ; so that, if Paul had wished to give on his own part a definition of
the time, he would not have exceeded bounds with 600 years instead of 480.
The attempts to bring the 480 years in our passage into agreement with the
480 years in Ex. xii. 40 are frustrated by the unequivocal tenor of both pas-
sages.? — yeyevic] is not said ad postponendam legem, ‘‘for postponing the
law” (see, on the contrary, John i. 17), as Bengel thinks (‘‘ non dicit data,
quasi lex fuisset, antequam data sit,” ‘‘he does not say gicen, as though it had
been law before it was given”) ; for every law only comes into eristence as law
with the act of legislation.—On dxvpol, incalidates, overthrows, comp. Matt.
xv. 6; Mark vii. 13 ; 8 Esr. vi. 32 ; Diod. Sic. “xvi. 24; Dion. H. vi. 78 ;
and dxvpoy ro.eiv, in more frequent use among Greek authors. — ei¢ rd xarapy.
tiv érayy.] Aim of the axvupoi : in order to do away the promise (by which the
d:ab4xn was completed), to render it ineffective and devoid of result.
Comp. Rom. iv. 14. ‘‘Redditur autem inanis, si vis conferendae haereditatis
ab ea ad legem transfertur,” ‘‘ But it is rendered ineffectual, if the power of
conferring the inheritance be transferred from it to the law,” Bengel.
Observe once more the personification of the law.

Ver. 18. ‘‘I am right in denying, that through the law the diaf¥jxy passes
out of force and the promise is to cease.» The proof depends on the anti-
thetical relation between law and promise, whereby the working of the one
excludes the like working of the other. For if the possession of the Messianic
salcation proceeds from the law, which must have been the case if God's cove-
nant with Abraham had lost its validity by means of the law, then this pos-
session comes no longer from promise,—a case which, although necessary on that
supposition, cannot occur, as is evident from the precedent of Abraham, to
whom salvation was given by God through promise. The mode of conclu-
sion adopted in Rom. iv. 14 is similar. — é« vézov] so that the law is the in-
stitution which causes this result (in the way of following its command-
ments). Comp. on év véugy, ver. 11. — 4 xAnpovopia)] the possession, non, re-
fers in the theocratic-historical sense of the O. T. to the land of Canaan and

1 See Tychsen, Fac. X. p. 148.

3 £.g., Grotius: The time in Ex. xii. 40 is
reckoned from Aéraham's journey to Egypt.
Perizonius, Orig. Aeg. 20; and Schoettgen,
Hor. p. 786. The 480 years do not begin
until after the period of the promises, that
is, after the time of the patriarchs, and of
Jacob in particular. Bengel, Ordo temp.

162: The terminus a quo is the birth of
Jacob. Comp. Olshausen: Paul reckons
from Jacob and his journey into Egypt. In
like manner Hofmann: The terminus a quo
is the time ‘‘at which the promise given to
Abraham was at all repeated ; also Hauck :
‘* From Jacob, as far as the pure, genuine
oméppa 'ASp, reached.”’

CHAP. III., 19. 127

its several portions (Deut. iv. 21; Josh. xiii. 28) ; but in its N. T. sense,
the conception of the xAypovouia is elevated to the idea of its Messianic fulfil-
ment (Matt. v. 5), so that the kingdom of the Messiah and the whole of its
fulness of salvation and glory are understood thereby (1 Cor. vi. 9 ; Gal. v.
21; Eph. v. 5; Acts xx. 82, ef al.).1 So also here ; and Paul uses this
word (not # cwrnpia, } Swf, or the like) because he has previously (see on
ver. 16) referred to passages in which the «Ayzpovouia (that is, according to
this Christian idealizing of the O. T. historical sense : the kingdom of the
Messiah) is promised. — ovxér:] The one relation, if it exists, cancels the
other. It is (in opposition to Koppe) the logical (not historical) no longer.
Comp. Rom. vii. 17, xi. 6. — dé? éxayyeAiac] by means of promise, so that in
his case the possession of the Messianic salvation is the fulfilment (by way
of grace) of a promise, and not the possible result (by way of reward) of
rendering prescribed services, and the like, which fall under the idea of the
vduoc. — xeydptorac] se. riv KAnpovouiay donavit (Vulgate), bestowed by way of
gift (the contrast to dgciAyza, Rom. iv. 4, 16), namely, as a future possession |
to be realized at the time of the rapoveia (Matt. viii. 11). On yapizeo8ar tivi r1,
comp. Rom. viii. 82; 1 Cor. ii. 12; Phil. i. 29, ii. 9; Acts xxvil. 24;
Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6. 22 ; Polyb. xvi. 24.9. Without supplying anything,
Schott and Matthias render : To Abraham God has, through promise, been
gracious, Comp. Holsten : He has bestowed a favor on him. But the sup-
plying of ri xAnpovouiay harmonizes best with the immediate context and
the logical relation of the two divisions of the verse, the second of which
forms the propositio minor, and therefore, like the major, must speak of the
xAnpovoyia.* Caspari,® following classical usage, but not that of the N. T.,
has wrongly taken xeydpioras in a passive sense, so that God is conceived as
the inheritance. This is in opposition to the context, and also against the
view of the N. T. generally, according to which the xAypovoyia proceeds from
God (Rom. viii. 17), and is not God Himself, but eternal life (ver. 21 ; Tit.
lii. 7; Matt. xix. 29, e¢ al.), the kingdom of the Messiah (v. 21 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9,
xv. 50 ; Jas. il. 5), and its salvation (Rom. i. 16) and dominion (Rom. iv.
13 f. ; Matt. v. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 12).

Ver. 19.4 After Paul has shown in vv. 15-18 that the law does not abol-
ish the far earlier covenant of promise, he might very naturally be met by
the inquiry, ‘‘ According to this view, then, what sort of end is left to
be served by the law in connection with the history of salvation ?” Hence
he himself raises this question and answers it. — ri ob 6 véuoc]} 8c. gore : how
does it stand therefore (if it is the case that the law does not abolish the cov-
enant of promise) with the law? A general question, in which, to judge
from the answer that follows, the apostle had in view the purpose for which
God gave the law. On the neuter ri, with a nominative following, comp. 1
Cor. iii. 5 (in the correct reading): ri civ gory "AroAAd, ‘‘ What then is Apol-
los ?” and see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 501 E ; Bernhardy, p. 886 f. Follow-

3 Comp. on Kom. iv. 18; Eph. 1. 11. self-obvious, is not expressed.

* Ver. 18 is a syllogisimus conditionalis, 3 In d. Strassd. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff.
* conditional syllogism,” of the nature of a {On ver. 19, see Stdélting, Betirdge z.
dilemma, the conclusion of which, because regese d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 50 ff.

128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

ing J. Cappcllus, Schott (also Matthies, though undecidedly, Jatho and
Wieseler) takes ri for da ri ; very unnecessarily, however, and in opposition
to the constant use of the ri otv so frequently recurring in Paul’s writings
(Rom. iii. 1, iv., e al.; comp. Gal. iv. 15). — rév rapaBdcewy xapwv rpooeriby]
Jor the sake of transgressions it was added ; that is, in order that the trans-
gressions of the law might be brought out as real, it was, after the covenant
of promise was already in existence, superadded to the latter (xape:o77 fev,
Rom. v. 20). The law namely, because it gives occasion to the potency of
sin in man to bring about in him all evil desire (Rom. vii. 5, 8), and never-
theless is too weak as a counter-power to oppose this sinful development
(Rom. vili. 3), is the dtvayic t7¢ duaptiag (1 Cor. xv. 56 ; and see Rom. vii.
7 ff.); but sin—which, although existing since Adam (Rom. v. 18), is yet
increased by that provocation of the law—has only come to assume the defi-
nite character of rapauacc in virtue of the existence of the law and its rela-
tion thereto (Rom. iv. 15). The same purpose of the law is expressed in
Rom. v. 20, but without the stricter definition of sin as rapa3ace. Accord-
ingly, rav mapaB. zap is not (with Wetstein) to be rationalized to this
effect : ‘‘Lex sine dubio eo consilio lata est, ut servaretur, taxoje ydpiy ;
vitio tamen hominum evenit, ut peccata multiplicarentur,” ‘‘ Without doubt
the law was given to be kept, viz., for obedience ; by man’s fault, however,
the result was that sins were multiplied.” This is in itself correct (comp.
Rom. vii. 12), but is irrelevant here, where the point in question is the posi-
tion of the law in connection with the divine plan of salvation, the final
aim of which is redemption. The real idea of the apostle is, that the emer-
gence of sins—namely, in the penal, wrath-deserving (Rom. iv. 15), moral
form of tranagressions—which the law brought about, was designed by God
(who must indeed have foreseen this effect) when He gave the law, and de-
signed in fact as a mediate end in reference to the future redemption ; for
the evil was to become truly great, that it might nevertheless be outdone by
grace (Rom. v. 20). The result, which the law, according to experience,
has on the whole effected, and by which it has proved itsclf the divauec ric
duaptiag (comp. also 2 Cor. iii. 6), could not be otherwise than the aim of
God.! Luther (1519) strikingly remarks: ‘‘Ut remissio propter salutem,
ita praevaricatio propter remissionem, ita lex propter transgressionem,” ‘‘ as
forgiveness on account of salvation, so violation of duty on account of for-
giveness, and the law on account of forgiveness.” Observe, further, the
article before zapa/3., which summarily comprehends, as having really that
character, the transgressions arising and existing since the giving of the
law.? Others? consider that by rav rapa. yapiw the recognition of sins is ex-
pressed as the aim of the law.‘ But (1) this idea could not have been ex-

p. 207.

1Comp. Ritschl, p. 74 f.; Baur, neutest.
Theol. p. 140 f.; Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hol-
sten, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Matthias (who,
however, assumes the intentional appear-
ance of an ambiguity), Stélting, and others ;
also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungel. p. 7%; Lech-
ler, apost. Zeit. p. 110.

2 Comp. Holsten, sz. Zv. d. Paul. u. Petr.

3 Some unexegetically combine (he two ex-
planations, as Bengel: “‘ut agnoscerentur
et invalerescerent,” ‘“‘that they might be
acknowledged and gain strength.”

So Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Piscator,
Calovius, Wolf, Schoettgen, Michaelis,
Windischmann, and others; also Winer

CHAP. III., 19. 129
pressed by the mere rév rapaf. xépe ; for although yépw is not always
exclusively used in its original sense, for the sake of, in favor of, but may
also be taken simply as on account of,* still, in order to be intelligible, Paut
must have written rio émtyvécews tov mapaBdoewy yépw as signifying : im
order to bring sins to recognition as transgressions. And (2) the point of
the recognition.of sin was entirely foreign to this passage ; for in rav rapa.
x4piv Paul desires to call attention to the fact that the law, according to the
divine plan, was intended to produce exactly the objective, actual (not
merely the subjective) opposite of the diaaosfvy (comp. vv. 21, 22). On ac-
count of this connection also the interpretation of many expositors, ‘‘ for re-
pressing transgressions,” is wholly to be rejected, because opposed to the con-
text.* This view is decidedly disposed of by the expression rapaGacewy, since
mapaBdcerc a8 such could only come into existence with the law (Rom. iv.
15); previously there were sins, but no transgressions,—a view with which
Rom. v. 14 does not conflict, because the matter in question there is the
transgression of a quite definite, positive command of God. The two last
interpretations are combined by Flatt and Schott, as also by Reiche, follow-
ing older expositors,3 — a course inconsistent with hermeneutical principles
in general, and here in fact involving an amalgamation of two erroneous views.
[See Note XLVIL., p. 160. ] — xpoceré@y] it 0as added, is not inconsistent with
what was said in ver. 15, ovdelg . . . émcdtardocera:, because in the latter gen-
eral proposition under otdeic third persons are thought of. The law, more-
over, was not given as émidiaffxn (see on ver. 15), but as another institution,
which, far from being a novella to the diaffxn, was only to be a temporary
intermediate measure in the divine plan of salvation, to minister to the final
fulfilment of the promise. Sce the sequel, and comp. Rom. v. 20, x. 4. —
&xpic ob EAGy 7d orépua x.7.2.] terminusad quem, ‘‘ goal,” of the merely provis-
ional duration of this added institute. But these words are neither to be
connected, in disregard of their position, with darayeic,‘ nor to be placed in.
a parenthesis ; for the construction is not interrupted. As to dypic¢ ov 2467,
usque dum venerit, ‘‘ until it should come,” comp. on Rom. xi. 25. Accord-
ing to the general usage of the N. T.,° the subjunctive, and not the optative, ©
is used. Paul has noé put dv, because there was no idea in his mind of any
circumstances which could have hindered the event.’ — rd orépua © éxhyy. }

(‘“ut manifestam redderet atque ita argue-
ret illam, quam Judaei peccando sibi con-
trahebant, culpam,” “to render manifest
and so to convict of that guilt which the
Jews by sinning had contracted *’).

1 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IT. p. 947, appropriate-
ly remarks: “‘xdp.v cum genitivo dictum:
tn grattam alicuius, inde alicuiue aut hom-
inis aut rei causa significans, quamquam
minime semper gratia adsignificatur, quae
Ammonii doctrina est, p. 58."° Comp.
1 John iii. 12,

*8o0 Jerome, Chrysostom, Oecaumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Grotius, Zachariae,
Semler, Morus, Koppe,Rosenmilller, Paulus,

Rickert, Olshausen, Neander, Baumgarten-
Crusius, de Wette, Baur, Ewald (“‘in order
to punish them more etriclly’’) ; also Messner,
Lehre @. Ap. p. 222, and Hauck, comp.
Buhl; several, such as Grotius and Riok-
ert, think that the {nolination to Egyptian
idolatry is chiefly referred to.

3 Comp. also Matthies.

« Hofmann.

® Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 198.

® Matthiae, p. 1158.

7 See Stallbaum, ad Phaed. p. 62 C; Her-
mann, de part. dy, p. 110 ff. : Hartung, Parti-
kell. TI. p. 291 ff. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 28.

130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,

that is, Christ, whose advent, according to ver. 16, necessarily brought with
it the fulfilment of the promise. The dative, however, does not stand for
eic bv," but just as, in ver. 16 : to whom the promise was made. — extyyeara}
not promiserat, ‘‘had promised,”* comp. Rom. iv. 21, Heb. xii. 26; but pro-
missio facta est, ‘‘the promise was made” (2 Macc. iv. 27), because thus it is
not requisite to supply Ged, and the expression corresponds very naturally
with éppéOgoav ai éxayyeAia: in ver. 16. Hence also it is superfluous to supply
4) KAnpovonia (Ewald). —darayeic dv ayybaAwy év x. peo.) the mode in which 6
véuog mpoaeréAn, or the form of this act : having been ordained through angels,
etc. On diardocew véuov, comp. Hesiod, épy. 274. The simple racoew vdyov
is more frequently used, as in Plat. Legg. p. 863 D. It means to ordaina
law, that is, to issue it for obedience, not to arrange it for publication (Stélt-
ing), so that the angels would be described here as the diaskeuastai,
‘¢ revisers,’? of the law,—an idea which has no support anywhere, and would
run counter to the view of the directly divine origin of the law (Ex. xxxi.
18, xxxii. 16 ; Deut. ix. 10). As to the use of the aorist participle in the
language of narration, see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774 ; Bernhardy, p. 383.
The tradition that the divine promulgation of the law took place amidst the
ministry of angels, is first found in the LXX., Deut. xxxiii. 2 (not in the
original text) [Sce Note XLVIII., p. 160] ; then in Heb. ii. 2, Acts vii. 88,
58, Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3, and in the Rabbins, and also in the Samaritan
theology.? Because the tradition itself and its antiquity are thus beyond
doubt, and there is no warrant for supposing that Paul did not know it or
was not likely to adopt it (as, indeed, he adopted other traditional teach-
ings, 1 Cor. x. 4, 3 Cor. xii. 2), it is a mere mistaken evasion to explain dé
as inter, ‘‘among,” or coram, ‘‘in presence of,” 4 which would have ultimately
to be referred to the idea ‘‘ by the mediation of” (as 2 Tim. ii. 2). The same
remark applies to the view which looks upon the ayyéAwy even as men, like
Moses and Aaron ;° Chrysostom left it optional to understand it either
of priests or of angels. As to the monstrous amplifications which this
tradition of the agency of the angels underwent at the hands of the
later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. I. p. 809 f. Paul
does not look upon the angels as authors of the law,°—as is certain
from the whole view taken in biblical history of the law generally
as divine," and here especially is all the more decidedly indicated by
the use of the d:é (and not ié), for every reader in fact conceived
of the angels as ministering spirits of God,* who accompanied the Lord
appearing in majesty ; and consequently no one could attach any other
sense to did than ‘‘ministerio angelorum,” ‘‘ by the ministry of angels,’
which is clear as the meaning in Heb. ii. 2 from dia rod xvpiov in ver.

1 Winer, Usteri. Kell and Tzschirner’s Anal. IV. p. 189 ff.,

2 Vulgate, Bengel, Flatt, Hofmann.

?Comp.on Acts vii. 58; Delitzsch, on
Hebr. il. 2.

4 Calovius, Loesner, Morus.

5 Zeger, and revived by Cassel, d. Mitiler
é. exeg. Versuch, 1835.

© As held by Schulthess, Voigtlander in

and Huth, Commentat. Altenb. 1834.

7 See the apostle’s own designation of the
law a8 vouos Beov, Rom. vii. 22, 3, and as
ypadn, vers. 10, 13, iv. 21 f., e¢ al.

®Comp. LXX. Deut. xxxill. 2: ee Segtsor
avrov dyyeAot wer’ avrov, “from his right hand
the angels with him.”

CHAP, Ill., 19. 131
3.—é yeipi pecitov’] For Moses received the tables of the law from God,
‘and carried them down to the people. Thus in the legislation he was the
middle person between the Giver of the law and its recipients ; with the tables
in his hand, he was God's envoy to Israel, acting between the two parties.
On account of this historical circumstance (Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15), év yeipi
is to be understood not merely as a vivid mode of designating the mediation
(%3), but quite literally.? In the N. T. the designation of Moses as yeoirys
forms the basis of the expression in Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24 ; and on the
subject itself, comp. Acts vii. 38. This designation does not occur in the
O. T. or in the Apocrypha ; but by the Rabbins Moses is called mediator
NOD, ‘PY, also m5w.3 The better known and the more celebrated Moses
was as mediator of the law,‘ the more decidedly must we reject every in-
terpretation in which the peciry¢—not more precisely defined by Paul, but
presumed to have its historical reference universally familiar —is not refer-
red to Moses. This applies not only to the view of most of the Fathers,
who, following 1 Tim. ii. 5, Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24, take the Mediator
to be Christ,* but also to Schmieder’s view,’ that an angel is intended—the
angel of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special duty of
teaching Moses the law. Certainly the Rabbins speak of an angel of the
law ;* but this part of their teaching cannot be shown to have existed in
the time of the apostles, nor can it find a biblical basis in the passages quoted
by Schmieder (Ex. xix. 19 f., xx. 18, xxxiii. 11; Num. xii. 5-8 ; Deut. v.
4 f.; also Ex. xxxili. 18-28, xl. 35 ; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. Ixviii. 18 ; Acts
vii. 58 ; Mal. iii. 1). See also, in opposition to Schmieder,’ especially Liicke
in the Stud. u. Krit. p. 97 f. — The object for which Paul has added é:atayei¢
. . . peairov, is not to convey the impression of an inferior, subordinate position
held by the law in comparison with that of the gospel or that of the promise,
inasmuch as the former was ordained not directly by God, but through
angels and a mediator.” (See Note XLIX., p. 161.] (Luther, Elsner, Wolf,

1 pecirms is a word that belongs to the
later Greek (Polyb., Lucian, eé al.). Comp.
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 121. It occurs in the
LXX. only in Job ix. 33.

2 Comp. Ex. xxxii. 15; Lev. xxvi. 46.

®See Schoettgen, Hor. p. 788 f.; Wet-
stein, p. 224. Comp. Philo, de vita Mos. II.
p. 678 f. A; and on the matter itself, Deut.
v. 5; also Joseph. Antdé. fil. 5. 8.

4 Comp. Aboth R. Nath. i. 1, *‘ Legem,
quam Deus Israelitis dedit, non nisi per
manus Moeis dedit,” ‘* the land which God
gave to the Israelites only by the hands of
Moses.”

6 Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome,
Augustine, Chrysostom, Oecumentus, Theo-
phylact ; so also Beza, Lyra, Erasmus, Cal-
vin, Pareus, Calovius, and others.

*8o also very recently Culmann, zum
Verstdndn. der Worte Gal. iil. 20, Strassb.
1964.

1 Nova interpr. Gal. ill. 19, 2, Numburg.

1826.

® He was called Jeffia; see Jalkut Rudbeni,
f. 107. 3.

®° With whom Schneckenburger agrees,
See on ver. 20.

1° Luther, 1538: ‘“‘ Lex est servorum vox,
evangelium Demini," “The law is the
word of servants; the gospel, that of the
Lord.”” Hofmann: Paul gives his readers
to understand ‘hat the event of the giving of
the law was no fulfilment of the promise (see,
however, on ver. 20). Bengel: God com-
mitted the law to angels, ‘quasi alienius
quiddam et severius,” *‘ as though more re-
mote and severe.”’ Buhl confines himself to
saying that Paul wished to represent the
difference between the mode of revelation
in the case of the law and that of the cove-
nant of promise. But the question regard-
ing the purpose of this representation as
bearing on the apostle's argument thus
remains unanswered, According to Hilgen-

132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Estius, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Tychsen, Flatt, Rickert, Usteri, de Wette,
Baur, Ewald, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Hauck, and others ; comp. also Olshau-
sen, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 77 ; Vogel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865,
p. 530), but its object is to enable the reader to realize the glory of the law in
the dignity and forma] solemnity of its ordination.' It may be decisively
urged in favor of the latter view, (1) that, if the mention of the angels was in-
tended to suggest a lower relation in comparison with a higher, this higher re-
lation must have been distinctly expressed (asin Heb. ii. 2), or at least must
have been quite definitely discoverable from the immediate context (by the
addition of a uévov perhaps, or the like). Regarded in themselves, the ap-
pearance of angels and the agency of angels (comp. also i. 8) are always
conceived as something majestic and glorifying, * even in respect to Christ,*
and especially in respect to the law,‘ the bestowal of which was one of the
high divine distinctions of Israel.* Just as little can it be said (2) that é yecpi
peoirov is a depreciatory statement, for in fact the gospel also is given év yeipi
pecirov ; to which argument the objection cannot be made, that the Media-
tor of the gospel, as the Son of God, is far more exalted than the mediator
of the law : for év yerpi pecirov does not state at all what kind of mediator it
was who intervened in the promulgation of the law, but leaves the dignity
or lowliness of his person entirely out of view, and asserts only that a medi-
ator was employed in the giving of the law ; so that in respect of this rela-
tion regarded by itself there was no qualitative difference between the law
and the gospel : both were mediated, given through the hand of a mediator.
By way of comparison and contrast with the gospel, év yecpi avfpdrov or some
such expression must have been used, whereby the mediation of the law
would be characterized as inferior to that of the gospel. Lastly, (3) it by no
means formed a part of the plan and object of the apostle to depreciate the
law as a less divine institution,—a course which, besides being inconsistent
with his recognition of the law elsewhere,* would have been even unwise in
dealing with zealots for the law ; whereas it was in the highest degree ap-
propriate to acknowledge the high dignity of the law as evinced in the maj-
esty and solemn formality of its promulgation, and then to show that it had
by no means cancelled the promises. Thus the glory of the law glorified the
covenant of promise, while the apostle’s opponents could not find any antag-
onism to that law. In opposition to these arguments, the appeal to 6 Oeds,
ver. 20,” has the less weight, because in mpoceré@y7 and diarayeic (ver. 19) God
in fact is obviously the acting subject, and the promise also was expressed
passively by ériyyeArac (without ede). According to Holsten, 2. Heang. d.
Paul, u. Petr. p. 299 ff., Paul intends to express ‘‘the pneumatic truth,”

feld, Paul's intention was to detach as far
as possible the origin of the law from the
supreme God ; and in this respect also he
was the precursor of Gnosticism.

1 So Calvin and others, including Winer,
Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Mat-
thias ; comp. Weiss, bi. Theol. p. 284.

* Hence we must not say with Schmid,
bit. Theol. II. p. 280, that the intention was

to fntimate that the giving of the law was
not “the absolute normal act’ of the divine

economy.

® Matt. xxiv. 81, xxv. 81; John i. 52; 1 Tim.
ill. 16, e¢ a.

4 LXX. Dent. xxxiff. 2; Acts vii. 38, 58.

5 Rom. ix. 4.

© Rom. vii. 12-28.
7 Usteri, Schneckenburger, de Wette.

CHAP. I1I., 20, 21. 133

that, in the purpose of God, the significance of the law in the economy of
salvation was to be that of amediator, viz., between promise and fulfilment.
But if this were so, how wonderfully would Paul have concealed his
thoughts !_ He must have said that this mediatorial position of the law ez-
hibited itself'in the form of its bestowal ; for this in itself, and apart from
any other intimation, could in no way be known to the reader, to whom
angelic and mediatorial agency presented themselves only as historically
familiar attributes of the majesty and divinity of the law. The law iteec/f
would not be placed by these attributes in the category of the peoirye. Nor
is 8télting’s view more worthy of acceptance, who, in diaray. de’ ayyé2wv, de-
tects the idea: ‘‘in order that the Jews might obtain the blessing of Abraham”
(Heb. i. 14), and explains év yerpi pecirov to mean that the law served as an
instrument to the mediator for reconciling discordant parties with one another
(and these parties are alleged to have been the Jews and Gentiles). These
two ideas, which are only in a very indirect way compatible with the scope
of the Pauline teaching as to the relation of the law to the gospel, or with
history itself, could not have been found out by the readers, especially after
ver. 18, and after rév rapaBdc. ydprv, and would have needed a more precise
explanation in what reference they were to be taken. In unison with the
history of the giving of the law, which was familar to every reader, the two
points could only be understood as reminiscences of the historical circum-
stances in question ; and peciryc in particular could not be conceived as a
reconciling mediator, but only in the sense conveyed in Acts vii. 38.

Ver. 20 down to yu yévorro, ver. 21. “ But from the fact that the law was
ordained through a mediator, it must not at all be concluded that it is opposed to
the promises of God.” The expression just used, év yerpi ueoirov, might pos-
sibly be turned to the advantage of the law and to the prejudice of the
promises, tn this way, that it might be said : ‘‘ Since the idea of a mediator
supposes not one subject, to whom his business relates, but more than one,
who have to be mutually dealt with, and yet God (who gave the law through
& mediator) is one, so that there could not be one God who gave the law and
another who gave the promises (for there are not more Gods than one); it
might possibly be concluded that, because the law was ordained by God in
a different way from the promises,—namely, by the calling in of a mediator
acting between the two parties,—the earlier divine mode of justification
(that of faith) opened up in the promises was abolished by the law, and in-
stead of it, another and opposite mode of justification (that of the works of
the law) was opened up by God.” Paul conceives the possibility of this
inference, and therefore brings it forward, not, however, as an objection on
the part of opponents, but as his own reflection ; hence he expresses the
concluding inference, 6 obv véuo¢g x.r.4., in an interrogative form, to which
he thereupon replies by the disclaimer, 7 yévocro. The explanation of the
words, which in themselves are simple enough, is accordingly as follows :
‘““ But the mediator—not to leave unnoticed an inference which might possi-
bly be drawn to the prejudice of the promises from the év yecpi peoirov just
said—but the mediator, that is, any mediator, does not belong to a single person,
but intervenes between two or more ; God, on the other hand, is a single per-

1384 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

gon, and nota plurality. Je it now—when these two propositions are applied
an concreto to the law and the promises—is it now to be thence inferred that the
law, which was given through a mediator, and in which therefore there took
part more subjects than one, in point of fact two (namely, God and Israel),
between whom the mediator had to deal, is opposed to the divine promises, in
which the same one God, who in the case of the law acted through a medi-
ator and so implied two parties, acted directly ? God forbid ! From this
point of difference in the divine bestowal of the law and the promises, by
no means is any such conclusion to be arrived at to the prejudice of the lat-
ter, as if now, through the law mediatorially given by the one God, another
divine mode of justification were to be made valid.” In this view, ver. 20
contains two loci communes, from the mutual relation of which in reference
to the two concreta under discussion (the law and the promises) in ver. 21 a
possible inference is supposed to be drawn, and proposed by way of ques-
tion fora reply. The dé is in both cases adversative : the first introducing
a supposed objection, and the second an incidental point belonging to this
objection, the relation of which incidental point to the first proposition
strengthens the doubt excited ; 6 ueoiry¢ denotes the mediator absolutely as
genus (‘‘ quae multa sunt cunctis in unum colligendis,”, Hermann, ad Iph.
Aul, p. 15, pref.): évdc ovx éorc is predicate, negativing the évdc eiva: as re-
gards the mediator, with emphatic stress laid on the prefixed évé¢ (not on
the ovx, as Hofmann thinks), and évéc is masculine,’ without requiring any-
thing to be supplied : ei¢ gore is predicate, and eic, in conformity with the
axiom of monotheism here expressed, is used quite in the same purely numer-
ical sense as évdéc previously. Lastly, in the interrogative inference, ver. 21,
6 vduoc is used, as the close annexation by ovv sufficiently indicates, in pre-
cise correlation to 6 ueoityc in ver. 20 (for the law was given through a medi-
ator, ver. 19), and trav érayyediéy Tot Ocod to ~ éxtyyeATa, Ver. 19 ; but the
emphasis in this question of ver. 21 is laid upon «ard, for Paul will not allow
it to be inferred from the two propositions expressed in ver. 20 (u# yévorro),
that the law stood in arclation to the promises which was antagonistic to them
and opposed to their further validity as regards justification. — The numer-
ous different interpretations of this passage—and it has had to undergo above
250 of them—have specially multiplied in modern times : for the Fathers of
the Church pass but lightly over the words which in themselves are clear,
without taking into consideration their difficulties in relation to the general
scope of the passage,—mostly applying the 6 dé peairne évig ovx Eorcv, taken
correctly and generally, to Christ,* who is the Mediator between God and

1 Not neuter, as Holsten takes it, although promise, but between the two component

d 82 Beds els éorey which follows can only
indicate the masculine. Holsten, not with-
standing all his subtle acuteness, errs also
in making the law itself, in opposition to
the tenor of the words, to be the peairns (see
on ver. 19), and in explaining the predicate
els attached to o @eds in the sense of the im-
mutability of the divine will ; holding that
the law stands, not In unity with the

parts of the latter (the giving of the
promise and its fulfilment), and that God's
one saving will reveals itself In the promise
and its two parts. See, in opposition to
Holsten, Hilgenfeld in his Zetéschr. 1860,
p. 230 ff.

2 Jerome, however, explains the passage
as referring to the fico natures of Christ:
‘‘manu mediatoris potentiam et virtutem

CHAP. III., 20, 21. 135

man, and partly casting side-glances at the opponents of Christ’s divinity ;?
although a diversity of interpretation (some referring peoirye to Moses, and
others to Christ) is expressly mentioned by Oecumenius. Although no spe-
cial dogmatic interest attached to the passage, nevertheless in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries (see Poole’s Synopsis) the variety of inter-
pretations was already such that almost every interpreter of importance
(yet, as a rule, without polemical controversy, because the dogmatic ele-
ment did not come into play) took a way of his own. It became, how-
ever, still greater after the middle of the eighteenth century (especially after
grammatico-historical exegesis gained ground, but with an abundant in-
termixture of its philological aberrations), and is even now continually
increasing. How often have the most mistaken fancies and the crudest
conjectures sought to gain acceptance in connection with our passage,
the explanation of which was regarded as a feat of exegetical skill !* It is
enough that out of the multitude of various interpretations—omitting the
criticism in detail of the earlier views down to Keil *—we specify the more

ejus debemus accipere, qui cum secun-
dum: Deum unum sit {pse cum Patre (6 34
@eds, as God), secundum mediatoris officium
(6 € peoirys) alius ab eo intelligitur,” “* By
the hand of a Mediator we ought to under-
stand the power and virtue of Him who ac-
cording to God is understood as one with
the Father, but in His office of mediator
is understood as other than Him” (évds ovx
éorw)! Theodoret understands 6 8 peoirys
definitely of Moses, who intervened be-
tween God and the people (évos ove éory),
but holds that 4 8@ @eds els cory affirms
that it is one and the same God who
first gave the promises to Abraham, then
gave the law, and now has shown the
goal (ro wépas) of the promises. Mecirns is
explained as referring to oses by Genna-
dius in Oecumenius (p. 742 C); on the
other hand, Chrysostom and Theophylact
take as a basis the conclusion, wore xat
& Xproras dv0 rintoy éore pecitys, Geov SndAaky
Kai av3purwy, ‘‘ so that Christ is Mediator of
two, manifestly of God and men" (Theo-
phylact).—Among modern Catholic exposi-
tors, Windischmann and Bisping have close-
ly followed Jerome in the reference of the
second half of the verse to the ¢wo natures
of Christ. The meaning is supposed to
amount to this, that the promise was direct-
ly addressed from God to God (i.¢.,to Christ),
and the passage is thus a locus classicus in
Savor of the divinity of Christ. Not so
Reithmayr, who in substance follows the
interpretation of Theodoret.

1 See Chrysostom.

3 For a general view of the mass of inter-
protations, the following works are of ser-
vice :—Koppe, Ere. VII. p. 128 ff. ed. 3: Bo-

nitz, Plurimor. de i. Gal. ill. 200 sententiae ex-
aminatae novaque ejus interpr. tentata, Lips.
1800; also his Spictleg. observatt. ad Gail. iil.
20, Lips. 1802: Anton, Diss. ?. Gal. ill. 20 cri-
tice, historice, et exeg. tract. in Pott’s Sylloge,
V. p. 141 ff. : Keil (seven programmes), in
his Opuse. I. p. 211 ff.: Winer, Zrc. III. :
Schott, p. 455 ff.: Wieseler, and de Wette
ed. MOller, in loc.

* Luther, 1519: “‘Ex nomine mediatoris
concladit, nos adeo esse peccatores, ut legis
opera satis esse nequeant. Si, inquit, lege
justi estis, jam mediatore non egetis, sed
neque Deus, cum sit ipse unus, secum op-
time conveniens. Inter duos ergo quaert-
tur mediator, inter Deum et hominem, ac si
dicat; impiissima sit ingratitudo si media-
torem rejicitis, et Deo, qui unus est, remit-
titis,” etc., ‘‘From the name of Mediator
he concludes that we are sinners in such
way as to be unable to fulfil the works of
the law. If, said he, ye are just by the law,
ye do not need now a Mediator, and God,
since He is one, js not self-consistent. A Me-
diator, therefore, is required between two,
viz., between God and man, as though he
were to say: Most godless would be your In-
gratitude if you reject a mediator, and to
God, who Its one, you remit,” etc. Erasmus
in his Paraphr., understanding Christ as re-
ferred to (in the Annofai. he says nothing
at all about the passage): ‘“* Atqui concillfa-
tor, et si intercedit, inter plures intercedat
oportet ; nemo enim secum ipse dissidet.
Deus autem unus est, quocum dissidium
erat humano generi. Proinde tertio quo-
piam erat opus, qui naturae utriusque par-
ticeps utramque inter sese reconcillaret
Deum placans sua morte, et homines sua

136

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

recent literature, and adduce the following : 1. Keil, who comes nearest to
our view, explains thus (see Opuse. I. p. 365 ff.) : ‘‘ Meditatorem quidem non
unius sed duarum certe partium esse, Deum autem, qui Abrahamo beneficit

doctrina ad vernm Dei cultum pelliciens,”
“But the conciliator, who intercedes, must
intercede among a number; for no one
disagrees with himself. God, however,
with whom there was disagreement as re-
spected the human race, is one. Hence
there was need of a third participant of
both natures to reconcile both with one
another, appeasing God by his death, and
alluring men by his doctrine to the true
worship of God."’ Calvin also, explaining
the passage of Christ, considers: ‘* diversi-
tatem hic notari inter Judaeos et gentiles.
Non uniusergo mediator est Christus, quia
diversa est conditio eorum, quibuscum
Deus, ipsius auspiciis, paciscitur, quod ad
externam personam. Verum P. inde aesti-
mandum Dei foedus negat, quasi secum
pugnet aut varium sit pro hominum diver-
sitate,’’ ‘Here the diversity between Jews
and Gentiles is noted. Christ, therefore,
is not a mediator of one, because diverse
isthe condition of those with whom God,
by His tokens, makes a covenant as to
the outward person. But Paul denies that
God's covenant is to be thence estimated
as though it were inconsistent or various in
accordance with the diversity of men.”
Castalio gives the sense of the words cor-
rectly: ‘‘Sequester autem internuntius est
duorum, qui inter seso aliquid paciscuntur:
atqui Deus unus est, non duo,” “ A media-
tor is a messenger between two who make
some covenant with one another: but God
is one, nottwo;”’ but then draws therefrom
the strange inference: “‘itaque necesse est
Mosen Dei et Israelitarum internuntium
fuisse, nec enim potest Dei et Dei internun-
tius fuisse, cum duo Dei non sint,” “It was
necessary, therefore, for Moses to be a
mediator between God and the Israelites ;
for he could not have becn a mediator be-
tween God and God, since there are not
two gods;” and from this again he infers
that both parties had thus promised some-
thing, God promising life and the Israelites
obedience ; and lastly, with equal arbitrari-
ness : ‘‘ nunc quoniam legi parere nequeunt,
supplicio sunt obnoxii,"’ ** Since, now, they
cannot obey the law, they are subject to
punishment.” Grotius (comp. Beza): ‘* Non
solet sequester se interponere inter eos, qui
unum sunt (evds, neuter), f.e. bene conve-
niunt; Deus sibi constat,” ‘‘ A mediator is
not accustomed to interpose between those
who are one (évos, neuter gender), i.e., those

who well agree. God is self-consistent ;"°
from which he arbitrarily infers: ‘*quare
nisi homines se mutassent, nunquam opus
fuisset mediatore neque tum neque nunc,”
‘* Wherefore, unless men had changed, there
would never have been need of a mediator,
whether then or now."* Comp. Schoettgen,
who, however, assumes the first part of the
verse to be an objection on the part of the
Jews,and 0 8 @eds eis eorcy to be Paul's reply.
Wolf, although referring uecirov in ver. 19
to Moses, yet in ver. 20 understands pecirnys
of Christ: ‘‘Ille vero mediator (qui impri-
mis hic respiciendus est) unius non est (sed
duorum), quorum unus est Deus,” “ But
that mediator who must here be especially
regarded is not of one, but of two, one of
whom is God.” Clarke, who understands
peoir, in ver. 19 as referring to Christ:
* Quilibet vero peotrys est duarum partium.
Deus est una pars. Ergo quorum erit Chris-
tus mediator nisi Del et hominum?” “ But
every mediator is of two parts. God is one
part. Of whom, therefore, will Christ be
mediator, unless of God and men?’ Ben-
gel discovers the syllogism : Unus non utitur
mediatore illo (i.e., quisquis est unus, is non
prius sine mediatore, deinde idem per me-
diatorem agit); atqui Deus est unus (non
est alius Deus ante legem, allus deinceps,
sed unus idemque Deus); ergo mediator
Sinaiticus non est Dei sed legis, Dei autem
promissio,” **‘ One does not use that medi-
ator (i.¢e., whoever is one, does not act first
without a mediator, and then do the same
through a mediator) ; but God is one (there
is not one God before the law, and anotber
after the law, but God is one and the
same); the Sinaitic mediator, therefore, is
not of God, but of the law, whilethe prom-
ise is of God.” Wetstein: ‘“Sicut quando
arbitrum vel medium vel sequestrum dici-
mus, intelligimus ad officium ejus pertinere,
ut non uni tantum partium faveat, sed
utrique sese aequum praebeat; ita etiam
quando Deum dicimus, intelligimus non
Judaorum solum, sed omnium hominum
patrem. Undestatim colligitur, Mosen, qui
inter Judaeos solum et Deum medius fuit,
non veri nominis medium fuisse, sed a
bonitate Dei expectari debere allum, totius
humant generis negotlum gerentem, I[.e.
Christum,"’ ‘‘ As when we speak of an ar
biter or medium or mediator, we under-
stand that it pertains to his office to
favor not only one of the parties, but to

CHAP. III., 20, 21. 137
aliquid promiserit, unum modo fuisse ; hincque apostolum id a lectoribus suis
colligi voluisse, in lege ista Mos. pactum mutuum Deum inter atque populum
Israelit. mediatoris opera intercedente initum fuisse, contra vero in promissione
rem ab uniustantum (Dei se., quisolus eam dederit) voluntate pendentem trans-
actam, hincque legit isti nihil plane cum hac ret fuisse, adeoque nec potuisse en
novam illius promissionis implendae conditionem constitui, eoque ipso promis-
sionem hane omnino tolli,” ‘‘That a mediator indeed is not of one, but
certainly of two parties, but that God, who had promised some benefit to
Abraham, was only one ; hence that the apostle wished it to be inferred by
his readers that in the law of Moses a mutual agreement had been made be-
tween God and the Israelitish people by the intervention of a mediator ;
but, on the other hand, that what is comprised in the promise is dependent
upon the will of only one (viz., of God, who alone has given it), and hence
that the law and the contents of the promise are entirely different, and, ac-
cordingly the new condition of the fulfilment of this promise, could not be
fixed, and by this very means the promise be altogether withdrawn.” But
(a) to take the second half of the verse not generally, like the first, but his-
torically, as if 7y was written, is an arbitrary deviation from the parallelism ;
and (0) the conclusion professedly to be drawn by the reader, hinceque legi isti
nihil, ‘‘hence that law,” etc., is quite without warrant, for Paul himse’f puts
as a question in ver. 21 the inference which he conceives may be possibly
drawn from ver. 20. 2. Schleiermacher’s explanation is essentially sim-

show himself just to both; so also when
we speak of God, we understand the Father
not alone of the Jews, but of all men.
From this the inference is immediate that
Moses, who was mediator between the
Jews only and God, was not one of true
name, but that from the goodness of God
another ought to be expected to act for
the entire human race, i.e., Christ.”” Mi-
chaelis (following Locke): ‘* But this law
cannot, in respect to the Gentiles, alter any-
thing in the former covenant of God. For
one of the parties who had a share in this
covenant, namely, the Gentiles, had not
empowered Moses as x mediator and knew
nothing of him; but God Himself is only
one party, and cannot alter His covenant
through a mediator appointed on one side
only.” Noésselt (Erercitatt. ad 8. 8. tnlerpr.
p. 148 ff.) and Rosenmiiller: ‘* Jue autem
(Moses nempe) mediator tllius unius (prolis
Abrahamicae, the Christians /) non est, Deus
autem est unus (communis omnium) Deus.”
“ Bat he” (viz. Moses) ‘* is not the mediator
of that one” (viz., the offspring of Abraham)
**but God Is one”’ (i.e. common to all).”
Morus, interpreting it as a syllogism with
an interrogatire major: ‘** Zc vero (Moses)
nonne est mediator ejus, gui immutabdtilis est ?
BSubsumtio; afqui vero Deus eat tmmutabilte.
Conclusto; num ergo lex adtersari potest,

etc. ?” “*But is not this one” (Moses) ‘‘ the
mediator of him who js immutable? Minor
premise: But God is immutable. Conclu-
sion: Can the law then be against,”’ etc.
Gabler (Prolus. ad Cal. fii. 20, 1787) has the
same alteration in the sense of els: ‘' He
(Moses) was nol, however, a mediator of some-
thing immutable,” etc. Koppe: “Jam qut-
dem non vou Mosis tantum suus est pecitys
(plures fuerunt, imprimisque 6 pecirys ris
xatv. Siabjxns Jesus) sed unus tamen idemque
Deus est, qui misit omnes, is adeo dedet sidbt
constare nec potest secum ipse pugnare,” “It
is true indeed that by the law of Moses he is
not alone its mediator (there were a num-
ber, and especially Jesus, the Mediator of
the new covenant), but, nevertheless, He
is one and the same God, who sent all,
and therefore He ought to be self-consis-
tent, and cannot conflict with Himself.”
So also, in substance, Baumgarten-Cru-
sius: évés means for one matier ; and the
sense is, ‘‘that the law has been one of
the many divine Institutions, but as such
it must stand in connection with the general
plan of the divine government.’’—Some of
these interpretations condemn themselves,
and others find their refutation in our ex-
amination of the more modern interpreta-
tions after Keil.

138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

ilar (in Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 186 ff.) : ‘‘ The mediator of an agreement does not
exist where thereis only one person, but always presupposes two persons ; these
were God and the Jewish nation. But God is One in reference to His promises ;
that is, God therein acts quite freely, unconditionally, independently, and for
Himself alone, as One numerically, because it is no agreement between two, but
His free gift (xdaptc). Does the law therefore conflict, etc.?”* But in this
view (a) the application of ver. 20 to the concreta, ‘‘ concrctes,” of the law
and the promises, which is in fact not made until ver. 21, is imported into
and anticipated in ver. 20. Moreover, (0) cic imperceptibly changes from
its numerical sense into the idea of aloneness and independence ; and (ce)
the idea of free grace is arbitrarily introduced, and is not expressed by Paul.
Nearest to this interpretation of Schleiermacher and Usteri comes Hilgenfeld,
whose interpretation,? accompanied essentially by the same difficulties, ulti-
mately amounts to the non-Pauline idea, that the position of God as a party
in regard to the law is not in harmony with the divine unity (that is, with
the divine monarchy). Comp. also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungal. p. 77, accord-
ing to whom Paul negatively ‘‘strikes the law to the ground as incompati-
ble with the sole agency of God.’ But how could Paul desire to strike to
the ground the law, which to him was ayoc, ayabéc, ‘holy, good,” and
mvevuatixéc, ‘* spiritual” (Rom. vii. 12, 14) ? No, all he desires to show is, that,
notwithstanding the diversity of its divine bestowal from the mode of giving
the promise, it is not opposed to the promise. 8. Winer: ‘‘ Non potest
peaitng cogitart aut fingi, qui sit évdc, unius h. e. unius partis: 6 d2 Oed¢
ele éor, Deus et unus, una (altera) tantummodo pars ; ita guaenam est altera?
gens Israel. Jam st hoe, sponte efficitur, legem Mos. pertinere etiam ad Judaes,
hosque legi isti observandae adstrictos fuisse,” ‘‘ A mediator cannot be con-
ceived of or imagined who is of one, i.¢., of one part ; ‘ but God is one,’ one
(other) part only. What then is the other? The Israclitish nation. If
now this is so, it spontaneously results that the law of Moses pertains also to
the Jews, and they are bound to observe this law.”’* Thus ver. 20 contains
only a parenthetical idea, Paul having in view to re-establish the dignity of

1In essential points, Usteri (Kommentar,
p. 121; comp. with Beilage, p. 289) agrees
with Schleiermacher in his explanation.
Moreover, the substance of Schleier-
macher's interpretation is already to be
found in Zachariae, who parapbrases as
follows: ‘“‘A mediator presupposes two
parties who make some promise to each
other, inasmuch as a promise made on one
side without a counter promise does not
need any mediation between two. But in
the case of Abraham God alone promises,
who grants him a promise out of free
grace.”

2In his Commentary. He takes another
view in his Zeilschr. 1860, p. 236 ff.: ‘ Paul
wished to express that the covenant of the
law, being ordained through angels and a

mediator, and consequently through a
plurality, shows itself thereby to be entirely

.aiferent from the covenant of promise

which was given by the divine unity, and
consequently cannot cancel the latter."
But this cancelling might certainly have
been inferred from the very difference ;
besides, the plurality, which ls supposed to
be implied in évds ove éeorivy, would have
nothing at all to do with the angels, but
would necessarily refer only to the medi-
ator, who has to mediate between two—in
this case, between God and the Israelites.
?In the explanation of the words Kern
(in the 7b. Zeitachr. 1830, 8) agrees with
Winer, only he does not insert fantummodo,
“only,” in the second clause. He looks
upon the words as an opponent's objection,

CHAP. IIL, 20, 21. 139
the law, which appeared weakened hy rév rapa. yépev rpocertOn : Lex Mos.
data fuit peccatorum gratia ; propterea vero non est, quod quis eam tanquam ista
exayyedaig longe inferiorem contemnat; data e nim et ipsa est auctoritate
divina, ‘‘ The law of Moses was given on account of sins ; but from this the
inference is not just that one may despise it as far inferior to the promise ;
for it was given by divine authority."—dciaray. dc’ ayyéAwv— gentique
Hebr. tanquam agendi norma proposita iv yeipi peoir. b¢ obK ~oriv
évéc, ‘* As a noun of action it was set forth to the Hebrew nation.” It can-
not be urged against Winer, that Paul must necessarily have written 6 eig.'
But (a) in the logically exact chain of argument there is no indication at all
that ver. 20 is to be taken as a parenthesis. (6) Since 4 pesirne is subject, 6
@eé¢, which likewise is placed at the beginning of the sentence, may not be
arbitrarily understood as predicate. (c) It must have been more precisely
indicated by Paul, if it were intended that the first éoriv should be under-
stood as the copula of a general judgment, and the second as historical
(appears in the gicing of the law); for every reader, if he had understood the
first half of the verse as a gencral judgment, would naturally understand
the second in like manner, (d) It would not occur to any reader to refer ei¢

and in 6 8 @eds «ls dor he finds the idea
intimated, that God in consequence took it
upon Himself to bless those who obey the
law ; whence the question follows: Does
therefore the law, by which God has bound
Himself to make blessed on account of
works, conflict with the promises of God?
But against this view it may be urged that
there is absolutely nothing to indicate ver.
20 as the language of an opponent ; further,
that the points brought forward against
Winer, under (3), (c), and (d), equally apply
here; and lastly, that the idea found in 6 8
@eds cls dor is not suggested by the con-
text, but arbitrarily Introduced. Baur also,
Paulus, Il. p. 215 f. ed. 2(comp. his neutest.
Theol. p. 157), agrees with Winer in his con-
ception of the words: the mediator belongs
not to one, but to two parties, but God is
only the one of the two parties. By this
Paul is supposed to intimate, that the law
has a merely subordinate significance, just
as that of the mediator, insomuch as he
is not himself one of the two partics. is
merely subordinate: “the éwayyedAia,
“promise,”? a# @ 6:a6%«y, ‘ covenant,”
in which God elséar:, “is one,” without a
eaiztns having anything to do with tt, stands
higher than the vé nos, “law,” which cannot
be conceived without the peoirns, “ medi-
ator,” and is essentially conditioned by him.”
But in this interpretation Paul would not
have said what he meant to say, and would
have eaid what he did not mean. The view
of Holsten (Deulung u. Bedeut. d. Worte

Gal. ili. 20, Rostock 1858, and Inhalé u.
Gedankengang des Gal. Br. 1859, pp. 89 ff.,
63 ff.) is allied to the explanation of Baur.
Holsten understands pecirns,** mediator,” as
referring to the law, and makes évés neuter:
Between the law and the promise the rela-
tion is not that of an év, but of an essential
distinction: but God is at one with Him-
self, not presenting any difference with
Himself, namely, in the sense of the im-
mutability of the divine will. This explana-
tion cannot be accepted, because it starts
from the supposition that the law is placed
under the category of the pecizys, “ media-
tor.’”’ Paul cannot have so conceived it, be-
cause he has said that the law was ordained
through a pecirys, ‘‘ mediator ;”’ therefore
law and mediator must have been present to
his mind as different ideas. — Steinfass (in
Guericke's Zeitschr. 1856, p. 237) understands
the literal sense definitely and correctly,
but from the words 6 82 @e dsels éorey, * Dut
God is one,” derives the tacit idea: God
therefore is not the other party, and consc-
quently is not under the law—by which the
freedom of Christ as the Son of God from
the law is supposed to be proved. But this is
an idea foreign to the context and imported
into the passage, not even quite Pauline ;
for submission to the law certainly formed
a part of the state of humillation of the
Son of God (Gal. iv. 4), while as to the
state of exaltation His elevation above the
law is a matter of course.
1 See Winer, Gramm. p. 110.

140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

to a suppressed 6 érepog : for évég had just been used absolutely in a numeri-
cal sense, in which therefore eic at once presents itself ; and this the more,

because the first sentence, by its negative form, has prepared the way for an
antithesis to follow. (e) The idea which ddé Oedé¢ cic éorev is supposed to in-
dicate : therefore the law is obligatory on the Israelites, conveys something
which is so entirely a matter of course, that it could not be made use of at
all as an element of the dignity of the law ; for the law was, in fact, given to
the Israelites, and even to think of that obligation as non-existent would
have been incongruous. And (j) even assuming such a superfluous idea,

in what a strangely mysterious way would Paul have intimated it! That
which he meant to say, he would wholly without reason have concealed, and

have given out as it were a riddle. Apart from the unsuitableness of the,
idea generally, and from the inappropriate cic, he must have said: 6 dé
"Iopana eic éorev, ‘‘ but Israel is one.” 4. Schulthess has sought to vindicate
his interpretation,’ viz. : ‘‘ Hie mediator (Moses) non est mediator unius, i.¢.,

communis illius Dei, qui olim Abrahamo spopondit, per eum aliquando gentes
beatum iri, et qui est unus, 8. communis omnium parens, sed est potius medi-

ator angelorum,” ‘‘This mediator (Moses) is not a mediator of one, i.e.,

common to that God who once promised Abraham that through Him at some
time the nations would be blessed, and who is one, or the common parent
of all, but is rather the mediator of angels.” * But (a) how erroneous it is to
assume that the anarthrous évéc should denote the universal God of men, and
how slien this reference is to the context! (b) How opposed is the dv
ayyéAwy to the notion, that Moses was ‘‘ mediator angelorum”!/ (c) How at
variance is the idea of the law as the work of angels with the conception
throughout the Bible (comp. on ver. 19) of the law as the work of God! In

1 Proposed in Kell and Tzschirner's Azali.
Il. 8, p. 188 ff. in his Hngelwelt, Hngelgesetz
und Engeldienst, Ziirich 1833, and in de G.
Termanno, enodatore ep. P.ad Gal., Ziirich
1835.

2Similar also is the interpretation of
Caspari (in the Strassd. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff.),
that ‘* Moses, the middle-man of the angels
who gave the law, is not the mediator of
the One who gave the promise ; he is the
mediator of many angels, but God is one.”
Vogel’s explanation (in the Stud. u. Avit.
1865, p. 524) comes in substance to the same
effect : ‘‘ Where there is a mediator, there
is a plurality of ‘hose commissioning him ;
such a plurality existed in the giving of the
law; but God is one; consequently the law
proceeded from a plurality distinct from
God, and the angels form this plurality.”
In opposition to Vogel, see Hilgenfeld, in
his Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 452 ff.; Matthias, in
the monograph quoted at ver. 19. p. 30 ff. ;
Hauck, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 699 ff.
Nevertheless Hauck (in the Stud. u. Arit.
1862, p. 541 ff.) has likewise assumed a plu-
rality in weoimms, mediaior—the plurality of

men, whom Hosea represents as one out of the
midet of them (but mecitms does not mean
this); hence he cannot be representative of
the one God. Nothing in our passage can be
regarded as more certain than that o peci-
™s, applied to the act of giving the law,
embraces in itself the idea: 6v edwxe xvptos,
“‘ what the Lord made”’ (not directly, but),
ava pécov avTrov Kai ava pécoy TwY
vioyv ‘lopayA evra Spe Zevq ev yxetpt
Mwvoy, “ between him and the children of
Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses”
(Lev. xxvi. 46). Buhl, Zc. p. 13, has inter-
preted the passage similarly to Hauck, but
with an incorrect inference from the nega-
tion of necessity to the negation of posst-
bility: the mediator always represents &
great number of persons ; but God is single,
and as such does not need any mediator :
therefore tho mediator (ver. 19) cannot be
the representative of God, but, on the cpn-
trary, can only accept the law for a plural-
ity of recipients. Thus the law stands in
contrast to the covenant of promise, which
was given to the One omédppa, ** seed.”

CHAP. III., 20, 21. 141
how wholly different s way must Paul have spoken of and proved such a
paradox, and how frequently would he have reverted to it (especially in the
Epistle to the Romans) in his antinomistic discussions ! 5. Akin to this, as
far as the idea is concerned, is the interpretation of Schmieder (Nova interpr.
l. Paul Gal. iii. 19 f., Numb. 1826, and in Tholuck’s literar. Anz. 1880, No.
54) : ‘' Quivis minister vel multorum est vel unius: atqui mediator non eat
unius: ergo est multorum minister. Qui multorum est minister, ad quod genus
mediator pertinet, non est unius: atqui Deus (absolute) unus est: ergo cum
multorum sit mediator, non est Dei minister,” ‘‘ Every minister is either of
many or of one ; but a mediator is not of one: therefore he is a min-
ister of many. He who is 4 minister (to which class a mediator belongs)
of many, is not of one ; but God is absolutely one : since, therefore, he isa
minister of many, he is not a minister of God.” The connection is
supposed to be : ‘‘ Concedo legem per angelos datam esse a Deo, non humana
arte inventam, sed eo ipso, quod per angelos ministros, non per Deum aut Dei
jilium promulgata est, inferior est evangelio,” ‘‘T grant that the law was
given by God through angels, and not devised by human art, but from the
very fact that it was published through angels as ministers and not through
God or the Son of God, it is inferior to the gospel.” ! This interpretation is
objectionable, (a) in a general point of view, because it rests wholly on the
erroneous view that xecirov in ver. 19 applies not to Moses, but to the ange-
lus mediator, ‘‘ angel mediator ;” (6) because Paul could not have expressed
so peculiar an antinomistic argument more obscurely or more enigmatically
than by thus omitting the essential points ; (c) because the idea of peoirne
by no means implies that the peoirye is the ‘‘ minister multorum:” he may
be commissioned as well by one as by many, as, in fact, Christ was commis-
sioned as a peoirne by One, viz., by God.* 6. Steudcel, in Bengel’s Archiv. I.
p- 124 ff., supposes that ver. 19 is an opponent’s question : ‘‘ To what purpose

then serves the law ?

1 Schneckenburger's explanation (in his
Beitr. p. 189 ff.. and in the Stud. u. Krit.
1885, p. 121) agrees with Schmieder's.
Huth's attempt at an explanation (Comment.
de loco Gal. iil. 19 f., Altenb., 1854) agrees
partly with Schmieder and partly with
Schulthess ; he understands ev xe:pi pectrov
of an “‘angelus mediator,’ angel-mediator,
and then in ver. 20 finds the idea that the
law proceeds from angels, and not from
God, as follows: ** Mediatore enim nihil opus
Suisse, st unus lantummodo legem tuliseet ; at
si mullitudo quaedam, qualts est angeloruim,
legem ferre cull tum rei summa exsequenda
traditur uni, gui mediatloris vicem inter legis
latores et coe gerat quibus lex destinata est.
Haec autem ratio cadere non potest in Deuin,
quippe qui unis numero sit, ideoque mediatore
non indigeat. Ex hoc ipso igitur, quod in
Serenda lege Moeaica opus futt medtatore, col-
ligendum est, originem efus repeti non dedere
ab uno Deo, sed a pluribus, h. ¢.ab angelis,

Was it bestowed merely somehow as an additional gift on

quorum mediator vice fungebatur,” ‘For
there would have been no need of a media-
tor, if only one had borne the law; but ifa
multitude, such as that of angels, wishes to
bear the law, then to execute the comple-
tion of what matter pertains thereto, it is
delivered to one who occupies the place of
mediator between the bearers of the law
and those for whom it has been destined.
This method, however, cannot occur with
respect to God,'us being one in number and
accordingly not needing a mediator, From
the very fact, then, that in propounding the
law of Moses, there was need of a mediator,
it must be Inferred that its origin should
not be derived from one, viz., God, but from
many, é.¢., from the angels, whose place the
mediator fulfilled.”

2See also, in opposition to Schmieder,
Liicke tn the Stud. u. Krit, 1828, p. 95 ff.;
Winer, Ecc. Ill. p. 171 ff.

142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

account of transgressions (in order to be transgressed), until the seed should come
to whom the promise applied? And yet was tt made known through angels,
and by the ministry of a mediator ?” To which Paul answers, Certainly through
the ministry of a mediator ; only he was not the mediator of an united seed (of
the oréppuarog tév muoretovtwy, ver. 16), but God is one (not another for the
Gentiles).” But (a) there is nothing that indicates any such division of the
passage into dialogue ; and (5) how strange it would be that Paul should
have grasped, and furnished a reply to, nothing but the dast part of the op-
ponent’s question, év yepi pecirov, which, moreover, would be only a subor-
dinate part of it! (c) The article must be added to évéc, if it is to apply to
the orépua already spoken of (as assumed also by Jatho) ; but no supplement
whatever to évé¢ is suggested by the context ;' and if rov évi¢g orépuaroc
were read, then, according to ver. 16, it would mean not the body of
Christians, but Christ Himself.* (d) évé¢ and ei¢ would be taken in different
senses : united and one.* 7. Sack ‘ supposes that Paul avails himself of the
idea of a mediator to limit the recognition of the law, which perhaps some
Jewish Christians were disposed to assert to an exaggerated extent, and
says: ‘‘ The mediator, however, is not of one kind, but God is One and the
same. For us Christians there is certainly another mediator than. Moses ; but
God, the God in both Testaments, is nevertheless One and the same.” But
it is obvious that évé¢ éore cannot mean unius generis est, ‘‘is of one
class,” and it is equally evident that the clause, ‘‘ for us Christians there

1 This applies also against Kaiser's strange
attempt (de apologetic. Ev. Joh. consiltis, Erl.
1824, p.7 ff.) to obtrude the entirely foreign
supplement of vids : ‘* Hic mediator Moses non
est unius flius, Deus aulem (nempe) est unue,”
‘‘This mediator, Moses, is not the son of one,
but God is one.”? Moses is not to be com-
pared with Christ, the only-begotten Son
of God.

*This remark also applies to the very
forced and arbitrary explanation of Mich.
Weber (Paraphr. cap. TI. ep. ad. Gat. 1868) :
* Hic autem tnterventor (dfosex) non est inter-
ventor uniue illius posteritalis Abrahami,quam
paulo ante Christianos esse dixi, Israditarum
kata msvevpa, sea Israclitarum xara
capa interventor quippe in quo spem suam
Jduciamque ponunt (Joh. il. 45). Exe hac igitur
parte, in interventore, Israclitae natacdpKa,
differunt ab Isracdlitis xara mvevpa, quippe
qui spem fiduciamque suam non in Mose, sed
in solo Christo ponunt, pecitn Geo x. avOpurwy
(1 Tim. 1. 5). Zn Deo autem (6 yé @eds) nulla
est dicersitas; nihil discriminis Israelitis
nara capxa cum Ieraelitis xara mvevpa tnterce,
dit, cundem Deum verum colunt tli quem hi-
Deus est unus idemque. Utrique habent qut-
dem aAdov nai aAdov tnterventorem, non autem
GAAov xai aAAov Deum,” ‘* This intercessor
(Moses), however, is not the intercessor of
that one posterity of Abraham, which

shortly before I have said to be Christians,
viz., the intercessor of Israelites according
to the spirit, but of Israelites according to
the flesh, since they put in him their hope
and confidence (John fi. 45). In this respect,

‘therefore, in the intercessor, Israelites ac-

cording to the flesh differ from Israelites
according to the spirit, since they put their
hope and trust not in Moses, but in Christ
alone, the mediator between God and men
(1 Tim. if. 5). In God, however, there is no
diversity; no distinction intervenes between
Israelites according to the flesh and Israel-
ites according to the spirit; the former
worship the same true God as the latter;
their God is one and the same. They have
different interceasors, but not different
gods.”

2 And in els the relation of God to the
Jews and Gentiles would be arbitrarily as-
sumed. This is alsodone by the anonymous
writer, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 381 ff.,
according to whom our passage is intended
to assert that the mediator of the law was
not only the mediator of God, but also had
reference to the Jewish people, whereas
God with His promise had reference to all
the nations of the earth, both Jews and
Gentiles.

4In the 7b. Zetlschr. 1881. I. p. 106 f.

CHAP. III., 20, 21. 143

is certainly,” etc., is arbitrarily brought in. See also Schneckenburger,’
and (in opposition to Steudel, Kern, and Sack) Winer.” 8. Hermann: Jn-
terventor non est unius (i.6., interventor ubi est, duos minimum esse oportet, inter
quos tlle interveniat) ; Deus autem unus est: ergo apud Deum non cogitari po-
"test interventor ; esset enim is, qui intercederet inter Deum et Deum, quod ab-
surdum est,” ‘‘ An intercessor is not of one (z.e., wherever there is an in-
tercessor, there must be at least two with whom he intercedes) ; God, how-
ever, is of one ; therefore an intercessor with God cannot be thought of ;
for he would have to be one to intercede between God and God, which
is absurd.”” And the connection is: ‘‘ Jd agebat P. ut ostenderet, legem
Mosis, quae nihil neque cum promissione Abrahamo data neque cum praesente
effectione promissionis commune haberet, dumtazat interim valuisse, jam autem
non amplius valere. Rationem reddit hance, quod superaddita sit (ideo
nx pocet&éOn dizit), eoquenon pertineat ad testamentum, cui non liceat quidquam
addi ; deinde quod non, sicut testamentum illud, ab ipso Deo condita et data, sed
disposita per angelos allataque sit manu interventoris: atqui interventori, quod
intercentor non sit unius, non esse locum apud Deum, qui unus sit, utpote testa-
tor, cujus unius ex voluntate nemine intercedente haereditatem capiat haeres,”
‘‘Paul did this to show that the law of Moses, which had nothing in
common with the promise given to Abraham, nor with the present effect
of the promise, only had been some time valid, but was now no longer
valid. He gives this reason, that it was added (he said accordingly zpoce-
réGy), and accordingly does not pertain to the covenant, whereto nothing
could be added ; then that it was not instituted by God Himself and given,
as that former covenant, but ordained by angels and delivered by the hand
of a mediator ; but for the intercessor, since he is not the intercessor of one,
there is no place with God, who is one, seeing that He is the testator, from
the will of whom alone and without the intervention of any one, the heir
receives the inheritance.” But (a) it could not be expected that the reader
should derive from ver. 20 the idea that no mediator is conceivable in the
case of God on account of His oneness ; nor could it be so conceived by
Paul himself, for, in fact, with the one God a mediator may certainly have
a place,—not, however, ‘‘inter Deum et Deum,” ‘‘ between God and God,”
into which absurdity no one could fall, unless Paul so expressed it, but inter
Deum et homines, ‘‘God and men,” in which office the history of the theoc-
racy showed so many mediators and at last Christ Himself. (6) The question
in ver. 21 (otv), with the answer expressive of horror, j) yévorro, presupposes
that the subject-matter of this question—consequently an antagonistic rela-
tion of the law to the promises—might possibly (although quite unduly) be
derived from ver. 20. But according to Hermann, Paul in vv. 19 and 20
has already proved that an antagonism of the law to the promises does not
exist, that the law was no longer valid, and had nothing at all in common
with the promises. So, in a logical point of view, the question in ver. 21,
6 oby véuog x.t.A., could not be asked, nor could the answer yu yévorro be
made. (¢) It may, besides, be urged against Hermann, that not only is 6’

? Beitr. p. 187 f. 3 Zeitechr. f. wissensch. Theol. II. 1, p. 81 ff.

144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,

ayy. év yeept peo. regarded as lowering the authority of the law, but a quite
undue stress is also laid upon mposeréOy ; for in ver. 19 the emphasis lies on
tov mapaB. xépv, 9 Matthies’ interprets : ‘‘ But the mediator . . . does not
relate to one, for his nature is in fact divided or disunited, since he is placed
between two sides or parties opposed to one another ; and therefore in connection
with him we cannot think of unity, but only of duality, or of the variance sub-
sisting between two parties ; but God is One, comprehends in Himself nothing
but unity, so that His nature contains no variance or disunion.”” Thus
also, in the main, de Wette,* and among the older expositors Jac. Cap-
pellus. But the simple numerical conception of unity is thus arbitrarily
transformed into the philosophical idea, and the contrast of plurality is
turned into the contrast of disunion. How could a reader discover in 6 Qedc¢
el¢ gory anything else than the popular doctrine of Monotheism? 10.
Schott : ‘‘ Mediator quidem non uni tantum (eidemque immutabili) addictus
est homini 8. parti, t.¢., in quavis causa humana, quae mediatore indiget, duae
certe adsunt partes, quibus pecitng inserviat, sice res inter duos tantum hom-
ines singulos transigatur, sive multitudo sit ingens eorum, qui alterutram cel
utramque partem constituant (0c. c. populus) . . . ubi plures imo multi ejusdem
Joederis participes sunt et fiunt (praesertim ubi maxima est singulorum vicissi-
tudo, dum mortuis succedunt posteri), facile etiam mutatis animorum consiliis
atque propositis, foedus mutatur aut tollitur, peoity cujus ope constitutum
Juerat haud impediente . . . proinde ext eo quidem, quod lez Sinaitica tv
xetpi pecirov promulyata est (ver. 19), non sequitur auctoritatem 01 compe-
tere perpetuam [his verbis P. corrigere voluit perversam eorum opinionem, qui in
defendenda legis auctoritate perpetua talitura ad personam Mosis mediatoris
provocarent] . . . attamen Deus est unus, gui semper idem manet Deus immu-
tabilis, foedus legislationis Sinaiticae non fuit humanae, sed divinae auctorita-
tis, neque ab arbitrio hominum, sed a voluntate Dei pendebat immutabilis.
His perpendendis quaestio excitabatur (cer. 21), an forte haec legislatio Sinait.
auctoritate divina insignis ipso Deo jubente promissionem Abrahamo datam
ejusmodi limitibus circumscribere (mutare) voluerit, ut non amplius esset pro-
missio, cujus eventus liberae tantum Dei gratiae adnecteretur,” ‘* A mediator,
indeed, is not devoted to only one (and that too an immutable) man or
party, i.e., in every human cause that needs a mediator, there are undoubt-
edly two parties present which the mediator serves, whether the transaction
be between only two individuals, or the multitude of those constituting one
or the other party be great, ¢.g., the people . . . where a number, aye, many
are and become sharers in the same covenant (especially where the change
of individuals is very great, when posterity succeed the dead), and where
the designs and purposes of minds being easily changed, the covenant is
easily changed or annulled, when the mediator by whose aid it was estab-
lished does not hinder. . . . Hence from the fact that the Sinaitic law was
promulgated ‘in the hand of a mediator’ (ver. 19) it does not follow that

1 As in substance also Rinck, Zucubr. clause is merely: “that zchich God in Him-
orit. p. 172 ff., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1884, self, irrespective of the disunion which has
p. 309 ff. arisen between Him and men, has promised,

* According to him, theideainthesecond _ és elevated above this disunton.”

CHAP. III., 20, 21. 145

perpetual authority belongs thereto [by these words, Paul wished to correct
the perverse opinion of those who in defending the perpetually valid author-
ity of the law appealed to the authority of Moses]... . Yet God is one,
who always remains the same immutable God, and the covenant of Sinaitic
legislation was not of human, but of divine authority, and did not depend
upon the will of men, but upon the will of the immutable God.. In weigh-
ing these things, the question was excited (ver. 21) as to whether perhaps this
Sinaitic legislation, notable by its divine authority, God himself command-
ing it, was intended to circumscribe (change) the promise given to Abraham
by such limits, that it would be no longer a promise, whose issue would be
dependent only upon the free grace of God.” How much is supplied by the
expositor in this interpretation, so copiously provided with modifying
clauses! But it is decidedly erroneous, on account of the sense of eic and
évég being changed into the idea of immutadilis, ‘‘immutable,”? and also
because the proposition 6 d2 peoitng évdg ovx forcv is limited to causae humanae,
and yet the inference is supposed to be therein conveyed that the Sinaitic
legislation is not always valid. Paul assuredly could never have thus illogi-
cally corrected the zealots for the law, and then in the very same breath have
set aside the inference by attamen Deus est unus, ‘‘ but nevertheless God is
One.” 11. Gurlitt? refers évég to the Gentile Christians, as one of the two
divisions of the ozépua 'Afp.: ‘‘ The law was giren through angels and
through a mediator, and God indeed is throughout only One; what proceeds
from Lim, therefore, demands in every case equal recognition. It must
nevertheless be taken into consideration, that the mediator is no mediator
of those who were previously Gentiles, and that therefore the law was
not destined for the latter by God Himself.” But, apart from the fact that in
this view of évéc there must have been previous mention of a twofold pos-
terity of Abraham and roi évéc must have been here used, and not to men-
tion that the évé¢ and cic are not taken as alike in sense, the interpretation
must be at once pronounced decidedly wrong, because it depends upon the
erroneous view that the orépya, vv. 16, 19, means not merely Christ Him-
self, but also the corpus mysticum, ‘‘ mystical body,” of Christ. 12. Olshau-
sen, taking 6 dé Oed¢ cic éorrvy as : God is one or a single one, and consequently
only one party, explains it thus : ‘‘ Mediation presupposes a state of separa-
tion, and there can be no mediation in the case of one ; since God is the one
party, there must also have been a second, viz., men, who were separated
from God. In the gospel it is otherwise : in Christ, the representative of
the Church, all are one ; all separations and distinctions are done away
in Him” (ver. 28). Thus Paul, in order to call attention to the inferiority
of the law to the gospel, gives a cursory, parenthetic explanation as to the
idca of a mediator. This is (1) unsuitable to the context ; for in ver. 19,
Otaray. dt’ ayyéAwy év xeipi peo. has set forth the glory of the giving of the law.
(2) The idea: and consequently also only one party, is quite arbitrarily added to
¢d2 Gedc cig tory. (8) In like manner, all the rest which is supposed properly

1 For which Schott should not have ap- * In the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 806 ff. ; 1843,
pealed to Rom. fil. 80, Phil. i. 27. p. 715 ff.

10

146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

to constitute the sense of the words (‘‘ men, who were separated from God ;”
‘‘in the gospel it is otherwise,” etc.) is the pure invention of the expositor.
18. Matthias,’ correctly explaining the first half of the verse, sees in 6 d2
Ozd¢ etc gory the minor premiss of an enthymeme, which has to be completed
by supplying the major premiss and conclusion : ‘‘ If God is one of those two
parties, the law, although ordained by angels, is necertheless an ordinance of
God ; but God is this ; and consequently the law, etc., is an ordinance, not of
angels, but of God.” Against this interpretation we may urge that the special
connection with the point d:arayele dc’ ayyéAwy is not conveyed by the text ;
that the explanation of ci¢ by alter is contrary to the context ; that ver. 21
would be unsuitably subjoined from a logical point of view (see on xazd,
ver. 21) ; and lastly, that the idea of the law being an ordinance of God
was one altogether undisputed and not needing any proof. 14. Ewald?
assumes that Paul with this ‘‘ quick flash of thought’’ intended to say:
‘‘The idea of the mediator necessarily presupposes two different living
beings between whom, as being at variance or separated, mediation has to
take place ; because the mediator of one is not, does not erist at all, is an im-
possibility. But since God is in strictness only One, and does not consist of
two inwardly different Gods or of an earlier and later God, it is evident that
Moses as mediator did not mediate between the God of the promise and the
God of the law, and thereby mix up the law with the promise and cancel
the promise by the later law ; but he only mediated (as is well known)
between God and the people of that time.” But even this interpretation,
the thought of which would probably have been expressed most simply
by Paul writing 6 dé pecizyg Oeov éativ, 6 dé Cede cig Eotcv, is liable to the
objections urged above (under 8) against Hermann’s explanation. 15.
According to Hofmann (compare also his Schriftbew. UH. 2, p. 55 ff.),
the jirst half of the verse is intended to affirm that, where there is only
one to whom something is to be given, there 1s no room for mediatorship ; such
an individual recipient may receive it directly. Now, as the promise ran
to Abraham’s postcrity as an unity, it is evident that the giving of the law,
just because it was destined for a plurality of individuals, could be no
fulfilment of the promise. The second half of the verse, which with dé passes
on to the dirine side of the event, places the unity of God in contradistinction
to the plurality of angels; that which comes to men through the latter must be of
a different kind from the promised gift, which the One was to give to the One—
the one God to the one Christ. Thus on this side also it is clear that the
giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise. but was only
ordained for the time, until Christ should come. But (a) all this artificial
interpretation must at once fall to the ground, because it conceives érd¢ to
be opposed to a plurality of recipient subjects ; for it is not true that the
bestowal through a mediator presupposes such a plurality, seeing that it
may take place just as well with one as with many recipients. (5) It is in-
‘correct that the unity of God is placed in contrast with the plurality of

1 After several earlier attempts, accord- graph quoted at ver. 15.
ing to his last view of 1866, in the mono- * Comp. also his Jahrb. IV. p. 109.

CHAP. III., 20, 21. 147

angels (which is not even marked, by woAAéy ayy. or the like): it stands in
contrast to the évd¢ ovx zorcv, and it is untrue that the ‘‘ mediateness of the
giving involved its taking place through many”—just as if the mediate
giving could not with equal fitness take place through one, as in fact it has
very often been given by God threugh one! (¢) Paul’s intention is, not to
show that the giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise, but,
as is clearly evident from ver. 21, to show that the law was not opposed to
the promise. — 16. Wieseler : ‘‘ Moses as mediator, however (dé being restrictive),
has reference not merely to God (but also to men): for a mediator from his
nature has not reference to one (but to two parties) ; but God is one. Conse-
quently the failure of that mediatorial office of Moses was based on the fact,
that he as mediator had to do not only with God, but also with men. The
fault does not lie with the faithfulness of God, who appointed him as medi-
ator,—an idea which cannot be entertaincd,—but rather with the action of
men,” etc. Against this interpretation it may be urged, not only that the
words cic éorcy imperceptibly acquire the sense : is only one of the two parties,
which Paul would certainly have been able to express otherwise than by the
confession of monotheism (Deut. vi. 4 ; Jas. il. 19 ; Rom. iii. 80; 1 Cor.
viii. 4, 6, e¢ al)., but also that the idea of a failure on the part of the law-
giving, and of the blame due for it, was remote from the apostle’s mind,
and would here be unsuitable to the divine purpose expressed in ver. 19.
The law became to men the divayucr rij¢ duapriac, ‘‘strength of sin” (1 Cor. xv.
56) ; but this falls to be regarded not as a failure on the part of the law-
giving, but as a necessary stage in the development of the divine plan of salva-
tion (ver. 22 ff.; Rom. vii.). 17. According to Stélting,’ évé¢ and eic are to
be taken in the sense of absolute unity. Ver. 20 is supposed to contain a
syllogism with a suppressed conclusion: viz., A mediator does not belong to
one ; but God is one ; consequently a mediator does not belong to God.
Accordingly God is absolutely excluded from any mediation through the law:
the objects of this mediation are on the one hand the Jews, and on the other
hand their contrast, the Gentiles ; and the law was to unite these two disso-
ciated parts, which it cffected by showing that the Jews were in need of
redemption, and by making the Gentiles capable of redemption (Rom. iii.
22 f., 29f.). The mediator, with the law in his hand, is supposed to have
placed himself between Jews and Gentiles, and to have made both equal
through the law,—an equalization which does not take place with God, as
there is not one God of the Jews and another God of the Gentiles, between
whom mediation might occur, but only a single God, who treats Jews and
Gentiles with equal justice, being, as He is, a single Person without oppo-
nent, an absolute unity. Even this acutely carried out interpretation is not
tenable : for (a) the reader finds no indication in the text that évé¢ and ic
are to be taken in the pregnant sense of absoluteness ; and Paul, in order to be
understood, must at least have written, in the second half of the verse, some-
thing like 6 dé Ged¢ é bvruc cig (OF 6 azAde ec) Eorev, ‘‘ God is actually or abso-
lutely one. Nor (0) is it correct that absolute unity excludes the being an object

1 Bettrdge 2. Hxeg. d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 86 ff.

148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

of mediation ; because the absolutely one God has allowed mediation to
take place between Himself and man, not only through Christ, but also in the
ancient history of salvation, through His ministers (the angels, Moses, and
the prophets). (c) There is nothing in the words of the passage to make us
think of the Jews and Gentiles as objects of the mediation ; since the law is
rather to be recognized as the pecérorzov, ‘‘ middle wall” (Eph. ii. 14) between
the two, which had to be removed by Christ in order to their union. Tothe
national consciousness, not only of the apostle, but also of his readers, God and
Israel could alone occur as the parties reconciled with one another through
the peoiryc. (d) It is not correct that the conclusion drawn from ver. 20 is’
not expressed. It is expressed in ver. 21, and rejected as erroneous.—Lastly,
Riickert confines himself to the correct translation of the words, ‘‘ The me-
diator does not refer to ona (but always to more than one) ; but God is one ;”
from which is to be concluded, ‘‘ Therefore the mediator does not refer to God
alone, but also to others.” He, however, at the same time confesses that
he does not see any way, in which these propositions and this conclusion
are to be connected with the foregoing passaye, so as to yield any relevant
and lucid thought. While Rickert has thus despaired of an explanation on
his own part, he has not questioned the title of the passage to receive an
explanation. But this course, to which Michaelis was already inclined,’
has been actually adopted by Liicke,* who holds ver. 20 to be a gloss,
which had originally served, on the one hand, to explain the conclusion
of ver. 19 (the mediator was interpreted as applying to Christ, and it
was desirable to point out that this mediator belonged not merely to the
Jews, but also to the Gentiles), and, on the other, to give a reason for the
beginning of ver. 21. But the witnesses in favor of its genuineness * are so
decisively unanimous, that no other passage can appear better attested.
Liicke only makes use of an argumentum a silentio,—namely, that Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Origen do not cite our verse ;‘ but little stress can be laid
on this, when we consider how lightly in general the Fathers were wont to
pass over the words in question, without even discerning in them any
special importance or difficulty. [See Note L., p. 161.]

Ver. 21. 6 obv véu0¢ xara tow ExayyeAtdy ;] obv, the reference of which is
differently explained according to the different interpretations of ver. 20,
draws an inference, not from the definition of the object of the law in ver.
19,° but from ver. 20, which is not arbitrarily to be set aside, or to be treat-

1" wished, in fact, that it were allow-
able for me in the explanation to pass over
the whole verse, and to give it out asa
marginal note of some reader not under
standing Paul, which had found its way
into the text.""—Michaelis, Puraphr. p. 38,
ed. 2.

2In the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 88 ff.

* There is not even the slightest variation
in the individual words, or in their arrange-
ment,—a fact which, judging by critical
analogy, would be scarcely conceivable ina

text compiled from adouble gioss. Only
the £th. adds duorum at the end, evi-
dently an exegetical addition, the author of
which appears to have had in his mind some
explanation which bore a similarity to that
of Clarke, Locke, Winer, or Gurlitt.

‘Clement of Alexandria has it at: least
once, in the Theodot. ed. Col. p. 797 A.

®Castalio, Luther, Gomarus, Pareua,
Estius, Bengel, and others, including Lficke,
Olshausen, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann,
Spolting.

CHAP. III, 21. 149
ed merely as an appendage of ver. 19." The law, namely, which was given
through a mediator, and therefore essentially otherwise than the promise,
' might thereby appear to introduce on the part of God another way of grant-
ing the Messianic salvation than the promises, and consequently to be opposed
to the latter.? — xara tév éxayyedcdv] See vv. 8,16. The «ard is the usual
contra, in opposition to. Matthias incorrectly explains it : ‘‘Is it included
under the idea of the promises ?” Since the simple éori—and not, possibly,
tacceta, ‘‘ arrayed’ %—is to be supplied, the expression would be wholly
without the sanction of usage. Moreover, looking to the specific difference
in the ideas of the two things, Paul could not have asked such a question at
all. — ei ydp £6607 vépuoc x.r.A] ground assigned for the xu) yévorro, and there-
fore proof that it would be incorrect to conclude from ver. 20 that the law
was opposed to the promises. For if it had been opposed to the promises,
the law must have been in a position to procure life ;‘ and if this were so,
then would righteousness actually be from the law,® which, according to the
Scriptures, cannot be the case (ver. 22). — véuoc] just as in the whole con-
text : the Mosaic law, although without the article, as in ii. 21, iii. 11, 18 ;
Winer, p. 117.—6 duvép. fwor.] The article marks off the definite quali-
ty which, in the words e yap #66, véuoc, is conceived by the law-giver
as belonging to the law:* as that which is able to give life ; and this is the
point of this conditional sentence. — fworogjoa:] ‘‘ Hoc verbo praesupponi-
tur mors peccatori intentata,” ‘‘By this word, the death threatened
against the sinner is presupposed,” Bengel. The (w#, however, which the law
is not able to furnish, is not the being alive morally," but, in harmony
with the context, the everlasting Messianic life (see Kiuffer, de bibl. CwH¢
aiwvtou notione, p. 75), as is evident from ver. 18 (ei yap éx véuov 4 KAnpovopia)
and from ver. 22. Comp. also 2 Cor. ili. 6. The moral quickening is pre-
supposed in this Cworojoa. The law, in itself good and holy, could not sub-
due the dominion of the principle of sin in man (Rom. viii. 8), but rather
necessarily served to promote this dominion (see on ver. 19), and was there-
fore unable to bring about the eternal life which was dependent on obedi-
ence to the law (ver. 12): given unto life, it was found unto death, Rom.
vii. 10. Paul never uses (woraeiv of the moral quickening, nor cv{woroeiv
either (Eph. ii. 5 ; Col. ii. 18). The (w4 is the eternal life which is mani-
fested at the Parousia (Col. iii. 8 f.), and therefore in reality the xAxpovouia

2 Also in 1 Cor. vi. 15, od» (in opposition to
S§tditing’s appeal to the passage) introduces
a possible (mischievous) inference from
what immediately precedes, to be at once
repelled with horror by sh ydvocro.

* See the fuller statement at ver. 20.

3 See Lobeck, Pkryn. p. 272.

‘This consequence depends upon the
dilemma: Life may be procured either

through the promises or through the law.

If, therefore, the law stands in opposition
to the promises, so that the latter shall no
longer be valid, the Jaz must be able to
procure life. This dilemma is correct,

because no third possibility is given in the
divine plan of salvation.

& Even if ay be not genuine, this interpre-
tation is not altered (Buttmann, newt. Gr.
p. 194, 6); and we cannot explain (with Hof-
mann): “If there was given, etc., then
was,’ eto. This imperfect (eral) would be
illogical; Paul would have written éoviy or
yéyover,

* Winer, p. 127; Kfihner, ad Xen. Mem. il.
7, 18.

7 Winer, Rfickert, Matthies, Olshausen,
Ewald, Wieseler, Hauck, Hofmann, Bubl,
and others, following older expositors.

150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

(vv. 18, 29).' — dvru éx véuov av Fv 4 dixatootvy] then in reality (not merely in
Jewish imagination) the law would be that, from which the existence of right-
cousness would proceed, namely, by its enabling men to offer complete obe-
dience. The argument proceeds ab effectu, ‘‘ from the effect” ({woxorjeat),
ad causam, ‘‘to the cause” (7 dixacooivy), for, without being righteous before
God, man cannot attain eternal lifé : not as Riickert, Wieseler, Hofmann,
and others, in accordance with their view of (wor., are compelled to assume,
a causa (the new moral life whereby the law is fulfilled) ad effectum, ‘for
the effect’ (the d:xasooivy which would be acquired by the fulfilment of
the law). The relation between Cworogjoa: and 9) dixacocbvy is aptly indicated
by Oecumenius : oi« éouwcev ovdé édixaiwoev, ‘‘neither saved nor justified,”
and by Bengel: ‘‘ Justitia est vitae fundamentum, ‘‘ Righteousness is the
foundation of life.”

Ver. 22. But the case supposed (20667 véuoe 6 duvdu. Cworoijoa:) does not
exist : for, on the contrary, according to the Scriptures all men have been
subjected to the dominion of sin, and the purpose of God therein was, that
the promised salvation should not come from the law, but should be bestowed
on believers on account of faith in Christ. [See Note LL, p. 161.] What
sort of position is assigned under these circumstances to the law, is then
stated in ver. 28. — ovvékdAeioev 4 ypag? x.t.A.] Scripture is personified, as in
ver. 8. That which God has done, because it is divinely revealed and attest-
ed in Scripture (see Rom. iii. 9-19) and thereby appears an infallible certain-
ty, is represented as the act of Scripture, which the latter, as in its utterances
the professed self-revelation of God, has accomplished. The Scripture—that
is, when regarded apart from the personification, God, according to the di-
vine testimony of the Scripture—has brought all into ward under sin, that is,
has put the whole of mankind without exception into the relation of bond-
age, in which sin (comp. Rom. iii. 9) has them, as it were, under lock and
key, so that they cannot escape from this control and attain to moral free.
dom. On the figurative expression, and on the conception of the matter as
a divine measure (not a mere declaration), compare on Rom. xi. 32. Fol-
lowing Chrysostom (7Aéyfev) and others, Hermann finds the sense : ‘‘ per le-
gem demum cognitum esse peccatum,” ‘‘that only by the law is sin known”
(Rom. vii. 7 f., iii. 19 ff.), which, however, does not correspond with the
significance of the carefully-chosen ovvéxAeoev, and is also at varianee with
4 ypa¢h, which is by no means* equivalent to véu0¢, but denotes the O. T.,
whilst 6 véuo¢ in the whole connection is the institute of the law. The bond
of guilt which is implied in the dominion of sin is obvious of itself, without
any need for explaining dyapriav as the guilt of sin. — Moreover, the empha-
sis is on the prefixed ovvéxdecev : included, so that freedom, that is, the at- _
tainment of dixaoctv7, is not to be thought of. <vyxAeiev, however, does
not denote : to include together, with one another, as Bengel, Usteri, and
others hold,* which is clearly proved by the fact that the word is very often

1Comp. ¢foera, ver. 12, to which our Theodoret), Beza, Calvin. Baumgarten,
gwor. glances back. Crusius and others think.
2 As, following the Fathers (but not * Not even in Rom. xi. 82.

CHAP. III., 23. 151
used of the shutting up of one, unaccompanied by others ;' but ovy corre-
sponds to the idea of complete custody, so that the enclosed are entirely and
absolutely held in by the barriers in question.* — ra xdvra] the collective whole,
not : all which man ought te do (Ewald), but like roig rdévrac, Rom. xi. 82.
The neuter used of persons, who are thus brought under the point of view
of the general category : the totality." According to Calvin, Beza, Wolf,
Bengel, and others (comp. also Hofmann), ré rdvra is supposed to refer not
merely to men, but also to everything which they are, have, or do. But the
figurative cvvéxdeoev, and also the context by roi¢ wiorebove: and the personal
indications contained in ver. 23 ff., give the preference to our interpreta-
tion. Besides, ra wdvra, taken of things, would mean all things,‘ which is
here unsuitable.* — iva 3 imayyedia x.r.A.] the purpose ef God, because that
which was previously represented as the action of Scripture was in reality
the action of God.* — 4 éxayyeda] that which was promised, a sense which the
abstract receives through dofj." That which is meant is the promised gift,
already well known from the context, namely, the xAzpovoyia, vv. 16, 18. —
éx riotewc] not from obedience to the law, which with that subjection under
the control of sin was impossible, but so that the divine bestowal proceeds,
_ as regards its subjective cause, from faith in Jesus Christ. The emphasis is
on this é« rior. "I. X., and not on éxayyeAia (Hofmann).®° — roi¢ micretover] is
explained by Winer and others as an apparent tautology arising from the
importance of this proposition (and therefore emphatic); but without ade-
quate ground ;*° the expression, on the contrary, is quite in keeping with
the circumstances of the Galatians. That salvation was intended for believ-
ers, was not denied ; but they held to the opinion that obedience to the law
must necessarily be the procuring cause of this salvation. Paul therefore
says: in order that, in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, not in virtue of obe-
dience to the law, salvation should be given to the believers—so that thus
the believers have no need of anything further than faith."

Ver. 23. Aé] no longer connected with aa24 (Hofmann), but leading over
to a new portion of the statement (the counterpart to which is to follow in
ver, 25),—namely, to the position which the Jaw held under the circum-
stances expressed in ver. 25. Before the introduction of faith, it was to
guard and maintain those who belonged to it in this relation of bondage, so
that they should not get rid of it and become free,—a liberation which was
reserved for the faith which was to come. — rpé rov d2 éAGciv] dé in the third

118am. xxiv. 19; Ps. xxxi.9; Polyb. xi.
2. 10; 1 Macc. xi. 66, xif. 7.

2 Comp. Herod. vil. 129: Aiuvy ovyxAnio-
paévy savrodey, ‘‘a harbor shut fn from every
side,”’ Eur. Hec. 487 ; Polyb. 1. 17. 8, 1. 51. 10,
fil. 117. 11; also Plat. Zim. p. 71 C, where it
is used with éudpdrrey: 1 Macc. iv. 31, v. 5.
Una includere, “ shut in together,’ would be
ovycareziciav, Herod. 1. 182; Lucian, Vit.
aubt.9, D. mort. xiv. 4

3 fee on 1 Cor. 1. 27; Arrian. v. 22. 1.

4 Xen. Mem. & 11; Rom. xi. 86, ef ai.

®Comp. on the matter itself, Rom. iit.
9, 19.

* Therefore we must not (with Semler,
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winer, Matthi-
as, and others) explain it ‘logically: that
it might appear to be given,” etc.

7 Comp. ver. 14.

® Comp. ver. 8.

® See ver. 28 ff.

1¢ Passages such as ver. 9, Rom. {. 17, Phil.
iii. 9, are not relevant here.

11 Comp. v. 4 f.

152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

place with the prepositional phrase.'— Here also riore is neither doctrina
Jjidem postulans, ‘‘ the doctrine demanding faith,” the gospel, as most ancient
expositors and Schott think, nor the dispensation of faith,* but subjective faith,
which is treated objectively. Comp. oni, 23, iii. 2: As long as there was
not yet any belief in Christ, faith was not yet present ; but when on the
preaching of the gospel men believed in Christ, the faith, which was previ-
ously wanting, had come, that is, had now set in, had presented itself,—
namely, in the hearts of those who had become believers. On éAéciv as ap-
plied to mental things and states, which sect in, comp. Pind. Wem. i. 48
(hopes); Plat. Pol. iii. p. 402 A (understanding) ; Soph. O. R. 681 (déxnoxs,
opinion). Comp. also Rom. vii. 9.— td vduov igpovpotueba ovykdeduevor]
(see the critical notes) : under the law we were held in custody, so that we were
placed in ward with a view to the faith about to be revealed. The subject
is: we Jewish Christians (ver. 25) ; the emphasis is on 7d véuov, and after-
wards on ziorv. The law is represented as a ruler, under whose dominion
(ix6d véuov) those who belonged to it were held in moral captivity, as ina
prison ; so that they, as persons shut up in the ¢gpovpd, ‘*‘ ward,” under lock
and key, were placed beyond the possibility of liberation—which was only
to ensue by means of the faith that was to be revealed in the future. The
words and the context do not yield more than this : the paedagogic efficacy
of the law is not inferred till ver. 24, and is not to be anticipated here.
This view is opposed to that of many expositors,‘ who find already expressed
here that paedagogic function, which, however, is understood in the sense
of the ‘‘ usus politicus,” ‘‘ political use,” of the law (but see on ver. 24): ‘‘in
severam legis disciplinam, guae nein omnem libidinem effunderemur cavit,
traditi,” ‘‘ delivered to the strict discipline of the law, which guarded us from
giving ourselves over to every lust,” Winer. But the whole explanation of
the law guarding from sin (to which also Wieseler refers égpovp.) is opposed
to the correct interpretation of rav rapaBdcewy yap (ver. 19), and also to
ver. 22. The captivity so forcibly described by Paul is just the sinful
bondage under the law, Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 56. Observe, moreover, in
order to a just understanding of the passage, that td véuov, according to
the very position of the words, cannot without proceeding arbitrarily
be connected with ovyx4.‘,—a connection which is not warranted by the

1S8ee Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 897; Klotz,
ad Devar. II. p. 878 f.

* Buhl, comp. Rickert.

3If, with Winer, Usteri, and Schott, édpovp.
is explained merely as asservabamur (1 Pet.
{. 5),—comp. Hofmann, ‘* we were hed in
keeping,”’—it yields, according to the con-
nection with ovyxcexcAciouévos, and with the
inference thereupon of the paedagogte func-
tion of the law, too weak a thought. Comp.
Wisd. xvii. 16. Luther, Calvin, and many
others, including Rickert and de Wette,
have rightly found in édpovp. and avyxexa.
the figurative idea of a prison (¢povpior

Plat. Az. p. 865 E; ¢povpd, Plat. Phaed.
p. 62 ff). The prison, however, is not the law |
itself; but the latter is the ruler, under
whose power the captives are in prison,—
because, namely, under the law, as the
Suvayzis THe auaprias (1 Cor. xv. 56), they are
not in a position to attain to the freedom
of moral life.

4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius,
Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Winer, Rickert,
Schott, Ewald, and others.

5So de Wette, Wieseler, and many
others, also my own former interpretation.

wv*

CHAP. III., 23. 1538

other thought, ver. 22,—but must be joined to é¢povp ;’ and further, that
the present participle ovyxAecéuevoc (with the cig ry ué2A. x... belonging to
it) forms the modal definition of i¢povpobueba, representing the continued opera-
tion of the latter, which, constantly appearing in fresh acts, renders libera-
tion impossible. Hofmann®* understands ovyxdeiew cig in the sense of con-
straining to something ; it expresses in his view the constraining power, with
which subjection to the law served to keep the people directed towards the
faith which was to be revealed in the future.** Such an use of the phrase is
indubitably found among later Greek authors, and is especially frequent in
Polybius ;‘ but how improbable, and in fact incredible it is, that Paul should
have here used this word in a different sense from that in which he used it
immediately before in ver. 22, and in the kindred passage, Rom. xi. 32 (he
has it not elsewhere)! This sense could not have occurred to any reader.
Besides, the idea of constraint against one’s will, which must be conveyed in
ovyx2eéu. etc,© and which Hofmann obliterates (‘‘ the law conferred on the
people its distinctice position, and its abiding in this distinctive position was
nt the same time an abiding directed towards the faith that was to come”),
would neither agree with the text (vv. 22, 24) nor harmonize with history. *
—eig tiv péiddovoay riot aroxaAvgOqva:] AS eic in ver. 24 is evidently to be
understood as felic,and as the temporal interpretation usgue ad, ‘‘up to,” * after
apo Tov EAMeiv tiv miortv, Which includes in itself the terminus ad quem, would
be very unmeaning, eic is to be explained : towards the faith, that is, with
the design, that we should pass over into the state of faith. Luther (1519)
aptly remarks: ‘‘in hoc, ut fide futura liberaremur,” ‘‘in this, that
we should be freed by future faith.” In accordance with the view
of Oeccumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Calovius, Raphel, Bengel, Hof-
mann, fic «.t.A. is to be connected with ovyxAeduevor, because the latter,
without this annexation of the telic statement ci¢ x.r.A., would not forma
characteristic modal definition of égpovp. This ei¢ x.r.A. is, in the history of
salvation, the divine aim of that otyxAeoic, which was to cease on its attain-
ment ; Christ is the end of the law. Comp. ver. 22, where iva «.r.A. corre-
sponds with the eic¢ «.7.4. here. — uéAAoveav] is placed first,*® because with
that earlier situation is contrasted the subsequent future state of things which
was throughout the object of its aim.’ — aroxaAvgFjvac] for so long as there
was not yet belief in Christ, faith had not yet made its appearance : it was
still an element of life hidden in the counsel of God, which became revealed
as a historical phenomenon, when Christ had come and the gospel—the

' Augustine and many others, also Hof-
mann, Reithmayr, Buhl.

* Comp. his Schrifidew. II. 2, p. 59.

*Raphel, Polyd. p. 518, has understood
ovyxAciay eis ina similar way to Hofmann,
and finely paraphrased it: ‘eo neceasitatis
quem adigere, ut ad fidem tanquam sacram
ancoram confugere cogatur,” “‘to drive
with such a degree of necessity, that it is
compelled to betake itself to faith as a
sacred anchor.” Comp. Bengel.

“See Raphel, and Schweighiéuser, Lez.
Polyd. p_571 f.

5 See Hitzache, ad Rom. Il. p. 545.

* Rom. xi. ; Acts xxvili. 25 ff.

? Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe,

‘Morus, Rosenmfiller, Rfickert, Usteri, and

others.

®Paul did not write cis 7. wior. 7. udAA,
awon.

* Comp. on Rom. vill. 18 Similarly in
1 Pet. v. 1, 2 Macc. viii. 11. -

154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

preaching of faith (vv. 2, 5)—was made known. 'Amoxad. cannot be under-
stood as the infinitive of design and, according to the reading ovyxexAecopévor,
as belonging to the latter word,’ because in the religious-historical connec-
tion of the text it must signify the final appearance of the blessing of salva-
tion, which hitherto as a pvorjpiov, ‘‘ mystery,” had been unknown (Rom. xvi.
25). Besides, Paul would thus have written very far from clearly ; he must at
least have placed the infinitive before ovyxexdec.

Ver. 24. Accordingly the law has become our paedagoque unto Christ. Asa
paedagogue* has his wards in guidance and training, for the aim of their
future majority, so the law has taken us into a guidance and training,
of which Christ was the aim, that is, of which the aim was that we in
due time should no longer be under the law, but should belong to
Christ. This munus paedagogicum, ‘‘ pedagogical office,” however, result-
ing from ver. 28, did not consist in the restriction of sin,’ or in the circum-
stance that the law ‘‘ ad inhonestis minarum asperitate deterreret,” ‘‘by the
asperity of its threats deterred from dishonorable things,” ‘—views de-
cidedly inconsistent with the aim expressed in ver. 19, and with the tenor
of ver. 23, which by no means expresses the idea of preparatory improve-
ment ; but it consisted in this, that the law prepared those belonging to it
for the future reception of Christian salvation (justification by faith) in such
a manner that, by virtue of the principle of sin which it excited, it contin-
ually brought about and promoted transgressions (ver. 19 ; Rom. vii. 5 ff.),
thereby held the people in moral bondage (in the ¢povpd, ver. 23), and by
producing at the same time the acknowledgment of sin (Rom. iii. 20)
powerfully brought home to the heart (Rom. vii. 24) the sense of guilt and
of the need of redemption from the divine wrath (Rom. iv. 15),—a redemp-
tion which, with our natural moral impotence, was not possible by means
of the law itself (Rom. iii. 19 f., viii. 8). Luther appropriately remarks :
‘‘Lex enim ad gratiam praeparat, dum peccatum revelat et auget, humilians
superbos ad auxilium Christi desiderandum,” ‘‘ For the law prepares for
grace, while it reveals and amplifies sin, humbling the proud to desire
Christ’s aid..”* Under this paedagogal discipline man finally cries out :
tadalrwpoc ty, Rom. vii. 24. — ei¢ Xpiorév] not usgue ad Christum, ‘until
Christ,” * but designating the end aimed at, as is shown by iva éx w. dex. 3
comp. ver. 23. Chrysostom and his successors,’ Erasmus, Zeger, Elsner, and
others, refer eic to the idea that the law mpdc rov Xprordy, d¢ éorev 6 deddoxadog,
arfye, ‘‘ led to Christ, who is the teacher,” just as the paedagogi had to con-

1 Matthias: ‘‘in order to become mani- Comp. also Simplio. Zpict. 10, p. 116, ed.

fest, as those who were under the ban with
a view to the future faith.”

2 See on 1 Cor. iv. 15.

? Comp. Liban. D. xxv. p. 576 C: xpa@roy
May vou@ wasaywyjcouey avray Thy wpoaipe-
ou, ws ay Thy awd TOU vopov Cnuiay avadudpnevat
owOporety dvayxagerrat, “at first by means
of the law we will moderate their course of
life, that, avoiding the penalty from the
law, they may be compelled to be discreet.”

Schweigh. ; and see Grotius on our passage.

4 Winer, and most expositors, including de
Wette, Baur, Hofmann, Reithmayr, but not
Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler.

5 See also Weiss, Did!. Theol. p. 287 f. ; Hol-
sten, z. Hvang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 815 f.

* Castalio, J. Cappeilus, Morus, Rosen-
miiller, Rickert, Matthias.

¥ See Suicer, 7hes. II. pp. 421, 544,

CHAP. III., 25, 26. 155
duct the boys to the schools and gymnasia.’ But this introduces the idea of
Christ as a teacher, which is foreign to the passage ; He is conceived of as
reconciler (iva ix wiot. dex.) [See Note LIL, p. 162.] — iva éx micrews dixaiw6.] is
the divine destination, which the paedagogic function of the law was to ful-
filin those who were subject to it. The emphatic é« ricrews (by faith, not
by the law) shows how erroneously the paedagogic efficacy of the law is re-
ferred to the restriction of sin.

Ver. 25. No longer dependent on the dore in ver. 24. Paul now desires
to unfold the beautiful picture of the salvation which had come. — oixéri] This
is the breathing afresh of freedom. On the matter itself, comp. Rom. vi.
14, x. 4, vii. 25. — ind radday.] without article : under tutorial power.

Ver. 26. The argumentative emphasis is laid first on zdvrec, and then, not
on vioi,—which expositors have been wont to understand in the pregnant
sense : sons of full age, free, in contrast to the rai implied in ra:daywyéc,?
—but on vioi Geot, because in this Ocov the viol actually has its express and
full definition, and therefore to supply the defining idea is quite unwarrant-
able. All of you are sons of God by means of faith ;* but where all without
exception and without distinction are sons of God, and are so through
faith, none can be, like Israel before the appearance of faith, under the
dominion of the law, because the new state of life, that of faith, is
something altogether different,—namely, fellowship with the vidéry¢ of
Christ (ver. 27). To bé a son of God through /aith, and to be under
the old tutorial training, are contradictory relations, one of which ex-
cludes the other, The higher, and in fact perfect relation,‘ cxcludes
the lower. — dvrec] Paul-now speaks in the second person, because what
is said in ver. 26 f. held good, not of the Jewish Christians alone (of
whom he previously spoke in the jirst person), but of all - Christians in
general as such, consequently of all his readers whom he now singles
out for address ; whether they may have previously been Jews or Gen-
tiles, now they are sons of God. Hofmann supposes that Paul meant by
the second person his Gentile-Christian readers, and wished to employ what
he says of them in proof of his assertion respecting those who had been pre-
viously subject to the law. In this case he must, in order to be intelligible,
have used some such words as kal ydp pec 20vn wévrec x.7.A. According to
the expression in the second person used without any limitation, the Gala-
tian Christians must have considered themselves addressed as a whole with-
out distinction,—a view clearly confirmed to them by the dco (ver. 27), and
the "Iovdaiog wd? “EAAqy comp. with mavre¢ tyeig (ver. 28). Where, on the
other hand, Paul is thinking of the Galatians as Gentile Christians (ao far
as the majority of them actually were so), this may be simply gathered from

1 Plat. Lys. p. 206 C; Dem. 818. 12; Ael.
V. 7. i. 21.

2 8ee, against this view, Wieseler and
Matthias.

2 da 7. xior. stands third in the order of
emphasis, but has not the main stress laid
upon it In contradistinction to the wrdvres
(Hofmann), as if it stood immediately after

wéaytes ydp,

‘Theodoret aptly remarks: éafe rev
wenvorevaérwy Td TéXA Loy: Ti yap TEACloTEpoY
Teav viev xpyuaricovrey @eod, ‘He showed
that which is complete in those who have
believed ; for what is more complete than
sons enjoying communion with God?”

156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

the context (iv. 8).—é» Xpior@ "Iycot] belongs to mlorews. According to
the construction wioretecy ev rim,' 4 rioreg dv Xpiorp is fides in Christo reposita,
the faith resting in Christ ; the words being correctly, in point of grammar,
combined so as to form one idea.* But Usteri, Schott, Hofmann, Wieseler,
Ewald, Matthias, Reithmayr (Estius also pronouncing it allowable), join é»
Xp. "I, with viol Oecd tore, of which it is alleged to be the modal definition ;
specially explaining the sense, cither as ‘‘ utpote Christo prorsus addicti”
(Schott), or of the ‘‘inclusion in Christ” (Hofmann), or as assigning the obd-
jective ground of the sonship, which has its subjective ground in dia rt. zior.
(Wieseler ; comp. Hofmann ond Buhl). But all these elements are already
obviously involved in dia tr. zior. itself, so that év X. 'I., as parallel to did r. x.,
would be simply superfluous and awkward ; whereas, connected with dd
r. ., it expresses the emphatic and indeed solemn completeness of this idea
(comp. ver. 22), in accordance with the great thought of the sentence,
coming in all the more forcibly at the end, as previously in the case of éAGeiv
(ver. 23) and éAGobonc (ver. 25) the riorcc was mentioned without its object,
and the latter was left to be understood as a matter of course.

Ver. 27. The words just used, vioi Geo gore, expressing what the readers
as a body are through faith in Christ, are now confirmed by the mention of
the origin of this relation ; and the ground on which the relation is based
is, that Christ is the Son of God.* — dco] corresponding to the emphatic
aévrec in ver. 26. — eig¢ Xproréy] in relation to Christ,‘ so that ye who belong
to Christ through baptism become partakers in fellowship of life with Him.
— Xprordv évedicache] laying aside the figure, according to the connection :
Ye have appropriated the same peculiar state of ‘life, that is, the very same
specific relation to God, in which Christ stands ; consequently, as He is the
Son of God, ye have likewise entered into the sonship of God, namely by
means of the rvevya viobeciag received at baptism.® Observe, besides, how
baptism necessarily. presupposes the verdvoca (Acts ii. 88) and faith.* The
entrance on the state of being included in Christ, as Hofmann from the point
of view of elvac év X. explains the expression, is likewise tantamount to the
obtaining a share in the sonship of God. The figure, derived from the
putting on of a characteristic dress,’ is familiar both to the Greek authors

1See Mark 1. 15; Eph. i. 18; LXX. Ps.
Ixxvilf. 22; Jer. xif. 6; Clem. 1 Cor. 22: 4 év
Xptorg wiorcs, Ignat. ad Philad. 8: é r¢
evayyeAig ov morevw,

2 See Winer, p. 128; Fritzsche, ad Mare.
p. 68, ad Rom. I. p. 19% f. Comp. Eph. 1 1,
15; Col. 1.4; 1 Tim. iil. 18.

$Comp. Chrysostom: et & Xpioros vids rou
Ocod, ov 8 avrov évbdduca roy vidr Exwv dy
éauT@ Kai mpds avrov dpowm@eis cis wiay ovyyér-
ataycai piay Wéay HxOns, “If Christ ts the
Son of God and you have put on Him, hav-
ing the Son in himself, you also, being made
like Him, have been brought into one family
and one image.” Luther, 1519: ‘Si autem
Christum induistis, Christue autem filius Dei,
et vos eodem indumento flii Dei estis,” “But

if you have put on Christ and Christ is the
Son of God, by the same garment you are
sons of God.”

* See on Rom. vi. 8.

6 iv. 5-7; Rom. viii. 15; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit.
fli. 5.

* Comp. Neander, I. p. 778 f.; Messner,
Lehre der Ap. p. 279.

T Looking at the very general occurrence
of the figure, and seeing that the context
contains no indication whatever of any
special reference, we must entirely reject
any historical or ritual references. See the
many discussions of the earlier expositors in
Wolf. By some the figure was looked upon
as referring to heathen customs (as Ben-
gel: ‘*Christus nobis est,"’ ** Christ is to us

CHAP. IIL., 28. 157
and the Rabbins.' In the latter passage the putting on of Christ is enjoined,
but it is here represented as having taken place; for in that passage it is con-
ceived under the ethical, but here under the primary dogmatic, point of
view.* Usteri incorrectly desires to find in the évdteofa: Xpioréy of our pas-
sage, not the entering into the sonship of God, but the putting on of the new
man (Col. iii. 9-11), having especial reference to the thought of the univer-
salistic, purely human element, in which all the religious differences which
have hitherto separated men from one another are done away. This view
is inconsistent with the word actually used (Xpcorév), and with the context
(viol Geot, ver. 26). Nevertheless, Wieseler has in substance supported the
view of Usteri, objecting to our interpretation that viot @cov expresses a son-
ship of God different from that of Christ, who was begotten of God. It is
true that Christians are the sons of God only by adoption (vio8ecia) ; but just
by means of this new relation entered upon in baptism, they have morally
and legally entered -into the like state of life with the only-begotten Son,
and have become, although only His brethren by adoption, still His brethren.*
This is sufficient to justify the conception of having put on Christ, wherein
the metaphysical element of difference subsists, as a matter of course, but is
left out of view. On the legal aspect of the relation, comp. ver. 29 ; Rom.
viii. 17. — Moreover, that the formula év Xpiore eivac is not to be explained
from the idea Xpiordv évdioacha:, see in Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 82. Just
as little, however, is the converse course to be adopted (Hofmann), because
both civa: év reve and évdtoaofai riva or vc are frequently used in the N. T.
and out of it, without any correlation of the two ideas necessarily existing.
The two stand independently side by side, although in point of fact it is
correct that whosoever 7s év Xporg has put on Christ through baptism.

Ver. 28. After ye have thus put on Christ, the distinctions of your
various relations of life apart from Christianity have vanished ; from the
standpoint of this new condition they have no further validity, any more
than if they were not in existence. — 4x] is an abbreviated form for éveor:
(1 Cor. vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 11 5; Jas. 1. 17), not the adverbially used preposition, ‘
as Winer, Usteri, Wiescler, and others assume, with the accent thrown
back. Against this view it is decisive, that very frequently é and év are
used together,® and yet there is no éori added, whereby the 2 shows that it
stands independently as a compound word = éveor: or évecot.* Translate :
there is not, namely, in this state of things when ye have all put on Christ,
a Jew, etc. The tpeic in vv. 28, 29 shows that the individualieing form of

the toga virilis"), by others to Jewish cus-
toms (‘it applies to the putting on of the
robes of the high priest at his appointment,”
Deyling, Odss. III. p. 480, ed. 2), by others
to Christian customs (“it applies to the
putting on of new—at a later time white—
garments after baptism,” Beza). The latter
idea is especially to be set aside, because
the custom concerned cannot be shown to
have existed in apostolic times; at any rate,
it has only originated from the N. T. idea
of the putting on of the new man, and is

its emblematic representation.

1 Schoettgen, Hor. p. 872. See on Rom.
xill. 14.

2 Comp. Luther, 1588.

3 Comp. Rom. vill. 29.

Hom. Od. vil. 96; Schaefer, ad Boe.
p. 51; Ktthner, I. § 618.

§1 Cor. vi. 5, and frequently in Greek
authors, as Xen. Anad. v. 3. 11; Herod. vil.
112.

* Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 501.

158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

statement, applying to the readers, is still continued ; therefore Hofmann is
wrong, although consistent with his erroneous interpretation of the second
person in ver. 26 f., intaking 2 as general: ‘‘in Christ,” or ‘now since
faith has come,” on the ground that év iyiv is not added (which was obvious
of itself from the context).'—dpcev nai O7Av] Comp. Matt. xix. 4. The re-
lation here is conceived otherwise than in the previous oix . . . otdé, namely :
there are not male and female, two sexes ; so that the negative is not to be
supplied after xai.? — mdvre¢ yap x.t.A.] Proof from the relation cancelling
these distinctions, which is now constituted : For ye all are one, ye forma
single moral person ; so that now those distinctions of individuals outside
of Christianity appear as non-existent, completely merged in that higher
unity to which ye are all raised in virtue of your fellowship of life with
Christ. This is the ei¢ xacvdg dvOpwroc, Eph. ii. 15. Observe the emphatic
wévre¢ as in ver. 26, and dca in ver. 27. — év Xptor@ "Incov] Definition of cic
éore. They are one, namely, not absolutely, but in the definite sense of their
relation as Christians, inasmuch as this unity is causally dependent on Christ,
to whom they all belong and live (ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 15f. ; Rom. xiv. 8). °
Ver. 29. But by your thus belonging to Christ ye are also’ Abraham's
posterity : for Christ is indeed the orépua ’AB, ‘‘ seed of Abraham” (ver. 16),
and, since ye have entcred into the relation of Christ, ye must consequently
have a share in the same state, and must likewise be Abraham’s oxépya,
‘(seed ;” with which in conformity to the promise is combined the result, that
ye are heirs, that is, that ye, just like heirs who have come into the possession
of the property belonging to them, have as your own the salvation of the
Messianic kingdom promised to Abraham and his seed (the realization of
which is impending). — dé] drawing a further inference, so that, after the ex-
planation contained in ver. 28, ei dé iuetg Xprorod in point of fact resumes the
Xpiordv évedboacbe of ver. 27. The emphatic iyeic has as its background of
contrast the natural descendants of Abraham, who as such do not belong to
Christ and therefore are not Abraham's oripyua.— rot ’ASp.] correlative to
Xptorov, and emphatically prefixed. Ye are Abraham’s seed, because Christ is
so (ver. 16), whose position has become yours (ver. 27).'— Kar’ éxayy.] for
r@ Afp. Eppyfnoay ai émayyeAiaa nai re oméppare avrod, ver. 16. It is
true that this orépya in ver. 16 is Christ: but Christians have put on Christ
(ver. 27), and are altogether one in Christ (ver. 28) ; thus the xa7v’ érayy. (in
ecnformity with promise) finds its justification. But the emphasis is laid, not
On kar’ érayy. a3 contrasted with card véyov,® or with another order of heirs, ®
or with natural inheritance (Reithmayr), but on «Aypovduor, which forms the
link of connection with the matter that follows in ch. iv., and both here and
at iv. 7 constitutes the important key-stone of the argument. This «Azpovdpor
is the triumph of the whole, accompanied with the seal of divine certainty by
means of xar éxayy. ; the two together forming the final death-blow to the
Judaistic opponents, which comes in all the more forcibly without «ai (see

1 As tothe idca generally, comp. Col. ill. 4 Comp. Theodoret and Theophylact.
11; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xil. 18. ® Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Wieseler.
2 Bornemann, ad Act.xv. 1. . © Hofmann.

3 See Col. fil 11.

NOTES. 159

critical notes), The alleged contrast was obvious of itself long before in
the words prépya rov ’ABp. (comp. ver. 18). The article was no more
requisite than in ver. 18. — «Aypovéuor] The connection with the sequel
shows, that the sense of heir is intended here. Tov 'Afp. is not, however,
to be again supplied to xAypovéuo, as might be inferred from orépua ; but,
without supplying a genitive of the person inherited from, we have to think
of the xAnpovopia of the Messianic salvation.’ Against the supplying of rob
’A3p. we may decisively urge not only the sequel, in which nothing what-
ever is said of any inheriting from Abraham, but also xar érayy. For if
Paul had wished to express the idea that Christians as the children of
Abraham were also the heirs of Abraham, the car’ érayy. would have been in-
appropriate ; because the promise (ver. 16) had announced the heirship of the
Messianic kingdom to Abraham and his seed, but had not announced this
heirship in the first instance to Abraham, and then announced to his seed in
their turn that they should be Abraham’s heirs.

Nores sy American Eprror.

XLI. Ver. 1. éy buiv.

On the other hand, the interpretation of éy tuiv as “‘in your hearts,” is just
as inconsistent with xar’ dp9aAyuéduc, and there seems to be no satisfactory
ground for deserting the ordinary classical meaning of mpoypd¢gerv as palam
scribere (Sieffert). ‘‘ Not only does this meaning harmonize best with the promi-
nent and purely local xar’ 6@aAudve (compare xar’ duuara, Soph. Antiq. 756),
but also best illustrates the peculiar and suggestive é8doxavev, which thus gains
great force and point, ‘who could have bewitched you by his gaze, when you
had only to fix your eyes on Christ to escape the fascination.’ Comp. Numb.
xxi. 9”’ (Ellicott).

XLII. Ver. 4. elye.

Sieffert notes that the elye may have either a positive or contingent force,
like the Latin siquidem, viz., either ‘‘as indeed” or ‘‘if indeed.’ The connec-
tion (ver. 5) requires the latter, not as indicating a possibility of improvement,
but the possibility that the readers had not yet fully reached the dreaded
extreme. Eadie quotes the Syriac as: ‘‘ And I would that it were vain.”’

XLIV. Ver. 6. eAoyio8n atry cic Sexacoodvyv.

‘‘The apostle is speaking of faith, not as it is a quality inhering in us (for in
that respect it does not justify, since it is obedience to only one commandment,
is imperfect and long already due), but as it apprehends the redemption of
Christ. . . . Scripture not only asserts that faith is accounted to us for right-
eousness, but also that Christ ‘is our righteousness,’ Jer. xxiii. 6, xxxiii. 16;
in Him ‘we have righteousness,’ Is. xlv. 24; ‘who of God is made unto us
righteousness,’ 1 Cor. i. 830; ‘in Him we are made the righteousness of God,’

3 Comp. Rom. viii. 17.

160 | THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

2 Cor. v. 21. Since, therefore, Christ and faith are said to be at the same time
our righteousness, the consequence is that faith is and is called our righteous-
hess, because it apprehends Christ's righteousness and makes it ours” (Ger-
hard’s Loci Theologici, vii. 262).

XLV. Ver. 8. évevAoynOjoovra:.

Sieffert argues at length that Meyer's statement, instead of identifying the
blessing with justification, should have simply named the latter as the neces-
sary precondition of the former, which with Bahr he regards as ‘‘ the life com-
municated by the spirit.” The two are, however, so closely joined that Meyer
really affirms no substantial error.

XLVI. Ver. 16. to oxépuarte.

Better Eadie: ‘‘The apostle’s argument is that the singular orépua signifies
what the plural orépuura could not have suggested. . . . It is true that orfpya
may have a plural signification, as in Rom. iv. 18, ix.7. . . . In the promise
made to Abraham, however, the singular term is not a collective unity, but has
an impersonal sense which no plural form could have borne. The singular
form thus gives ground to the interpretation which he advances. The Septua-
gint had already given a similar personal meaning to orépypa — avrdg cov rygpnoee
xegaAnv, Gen. iii. 15. That seed is Christ—not Jesus in individual humanity,
but the Messiah so promised.” Lightfoot : ‘‘He is not laying stress on the
particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a col-
lective term is employed, where ra réxva or dc’ ardéyovor, for instance, might have
been substituted.”

XLVI. Ver. 19. rév rapaBécewv yp.

We see no inconsistency in such combination. The argument of thé
apostle is : The law, far from being a means whereby the Spirit and His gracious
comfort are received (ver. 2), is, on the contrary, simply one whereby the abyss
of sin within man becomes manifest in outward acts. Man’s state is sin. The
law becomes the occasion for the expression of this state in transgression. So
the law is both the revealer of sin (original) and the occasion for sin (actual).
Its influence is to bring the deep-seated corruption to the surface, and evoke
the symptoms that show its real nature. The rod held before the serpent at
once provokes its bite, and reveals its nature. This is hinted at even by the
remark of Meyer: ‘‘ Previously there were sins, but no transgressions,”’

XLVOI. Ver. 19. dt’ dyyé7 uv.

Keil and Delitzsch (commentary on Deuteronomy), on the contrary, find this
in the Hebrew text: ‘‘The Lord came not only from Sinai, but from heaven,
‘ out of holy myriads,’ i.e., out of the midst of the thousands of holy angels who
surround His throne (1 Kings xxii. 19; Job i.6; Dan. vii. 10), and who are
introduced in Gen. xxviii. 12 as His holy servants, and in Gen. xxxii. 2, 3, as
the hosts of God, and form the assembly of the holy ones around His throne
(Ps. Ixxxix. 6, 8; cf. Ps. Ixviii. 18 ; Zech. xiv. 5; Matt. xxvi. 53; Heb. xii. 22 ;
Rev. v. 11, vii. 11).”

NOTES. 161

XLIX. Ver. 19. ev yeep? pecirov.

We cannot appreciate the distinction made by de Wette, Sieffert, and others
between the promise and the gospel, but recall the definition of Melanchthon
in the Apology : ‘‘The gospel, which is properly the promise of the remis-
sion of sins’’ (Mueller, p. 94, § 43). With this exception, we regard the argu-
ment conclusive that the apostle is actually setting forth the superiority of the
gospel or promise to the law. The ministration of angels, indeed, exhibited
the glory of the law, which is also made manifest by Heb. xii. 18-29, wherein
its inferiority is nevertheless set forth. Sieffert’s answer to Meyer is briefly :
1. With reference to the mention of angels, it is in general correct that all
manifestations and activity of angels are regarded as majestic and glorifying,
yet that this is only the case because purely natural occurrences and purely
natural modes of working form the antithesis, as contrasted with which the
appearance of angels is an indication of divine working. 2. The word peolrng¢,
applied, it is true, to Christ in 1 Tim. ii. 5, and which even in profane writers
varies greatly in its meaning, has not, when used with respect to Christ, the
specific force of one who interposes between two contracting parties. In this
connection, as not in 1 Tim. ii. 5, the weakness and not the glory of the law is
indicated by the yeoirnc. The difference in Christ's case is dependent on the
person that becomes the peoirns. 3. It is shown that this position is not
in violation of theargument. The entire passage, chap. iii. 6, iv. 7, is intended
to prove the incorrectness of the Jewish position that the law stands in direct
and positive relations to the divine plan of salvation, but, on the contrary,
that it has only a negative relation and preparatory validity, that it does not
correspond to the absolute, but only to the conditioned willof God. This is
what is stated in concise and pointed form in ver. 20. A glorying of the law
here would be highly out of place.

Lightfoot really solves the difficulty involved when he finds in the peoirne
an argument for our Lord's divinity, ‘‘ otherwise he would have been a media-
tor in the same sense as’’ (here) ‘‘ Moses was a mediator.”

L. Ver. 20. Entire verse.

The interpretation of Sieffert not only deserves attention, but seems very ap-
plicable : ‘‘ The law is inferior to the promise, as its mediator, Moses, belongs
not to God alone, but at the same time to Him and the people of Israel. Ac-
cording to the entire connection, this can mean only the same as already vv. 15-
18 was indicated, that the law as a contract made between God and the people,
whose validity depends upon'what is done by the people of Israel, corresponds
only to the conditioned will of God, but cannot be, as the autonomously given
promise, an adequate expression of God’s absolute will, of His eternally valid
decree of salvation.” So Sanday: ‘‘ Therefore, the promise is not a contract ;
and resting on God it is indefeasible.” The argument of the succeeding verse
then becomes: “‘ If the law given through a mediator like this belongs not to
God alone, and is not an adequate expression of the absolute will of God to
save, is then perhaps the law contrary to the promises of God?” (Sieffert).

LL. Ver. 22. 2d26n vdp:0¢.
Not ‘‘ on account of faith in Christ,’’ um des Glaubens an Christum willen, but
‘(on account of Christ through faith,’’ um Christus willen durch den Glauben,
11

162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

propter Christum perfidem (Augsburg Confession, Art. iv.), faith being only the
instrumental and Christ the meritorious cause.

LIT. Ver. 24. ra:daywyoe tig yptorov.

Yet even though this specific application be surrendered, the generic re-
mains, viz., that the care of the pedagogue ends when that of a higher power
begins. ‘‘Horace notes asa peculiar advantage of his own, that his father
himself had taken the place of pedagogue to him, Sat., Lib. L., vi. 81, 82°’
(Sanday). If, however, the application of reconciliation is by the teaching of
the gospel (Rom. x. 8, 9, 14), is there any inconsistency in regarding Christ in
this verse as both teacher and reconciler?

CHAP. IV. 163

CHAPTER IV.

Ver. 6. #udv] Elz. has ipev, against & A BC D* F G, and many of the Fathers,
after the foregoing éoré. — Ver. 7. xAnpovouoc] Elz. and Scholz add Geot dia
Xpcorov, There are many variations, among which «Anp. dia Geov has most ex-
ternal attestation, viz., A B C* 8*, Copt. Vulg. Boern. Clem. Bas. Cyr. Didym.
Ambr. Ambrosiast. Pel. ; so Lachm., Schott, Tisch. The Recepta xAnp. Ocod
dia Xptorov is defended by C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschiorum Opusce. p. 148, and
Reiche ; whilst Rinek, Lucubr. crit. p. 175, and Usteri, hold only «Anp. dia Xpio-
Tov as genuine, following Marian.** Jerome (238, lect. 19, have xAnp. did
"Incov Xprorov) ; Griesb. and Riick., however, would read merely xAnpovdyuoc (80
178 alone). Theophyl. Dial. c. Maced., and two min., have from Rom. viii. 17
KAnp. pév Oeov, ovyxkAnp, 62 Xpiorov. Amidst this great diversity, the much pre-
ponderating attestation of kAnp. did Oeov (in favor of which F G also range them-
selves with «xAnp. dia Oed6v) is decisive ; so that the Recepta must be regarded as
having arisen from a gloss, and the mere «Anporvdéyoc, which has almost no at-
testation, as resulting from a clerical omission of d:a Ocov.— Ver. 8. dvoe: uz] So
ABC D* ER, min., vss., Ath. Nyss. Bas. Cyr. Ambr. Jer. Approved by
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. Matth. Scholz, Schott,
Reiche, have 1) ¢icee. Opposed to this is the decisive weight of the evidence
just given, and the internal ground, that in roi¢ 7 gvoe odor Oeoic might easily
be found the entire non-existence of the heathen gods, which could not but be
more satisfactory than our reading, leaving as this does to the gods reality in
general, and only denying them actual divinity. The same cause probably in-
duced the omission of ¢vce: in K, 117, Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Ambr. Ir.
Victorin. Ambrosiast.— Ver. 14. re:pacudy nov tév] So Elz. Matth. Scholz,
Tisch. [1859], Reiche, following D*** K L, many min., and a few vss. and
Fathers. But AB D* F G &*, 17, 39, 67*#, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Jer. Aug. Am-
brosiast. Sedul., have sre¢pacpdv tov [(C**, same, with addition of rév]. Recom-
mended by Mill. and Griesb., adopted by Lachm [Tisch. 1872]. And justly ;
tucy not being understood, was either expunged (so C*?, min., Syr. Erp. Arm.
Bas. Theophyl.; approved by Winer, Riick., Schott, Fritzsche), or amended by
pov rév. Comp. Wieseler.—Ver. 15. rig otv] Grot., Lachm., Riick., Usteri, Ewald,
Hofm. (Tisch. 1872] read mov otv, which is indeed attested by ABC FG ®,
min., Syr. Arr. Syr. p. (in the margin), Arm. Copt. Vulg. Boern. Dam. Jer. Pel.,
but by the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia (rd ody ri¢ évraifa avr)
rou now 6 paxap.), Theodoret, Theophyl., and Oecum., is pretty well shown to
be an ancient interpretation. — The jv which follows is omitted in A BCL &®
[P] min., Aeth. Damasc. Theophyl. Theodoret. ms. Expunged by Lachm. and
Scholz, also Tisch. Rightly. According as ri¢ was understood either correctly
as expressing quality, or as equivalent to vod, either #v (DE K et al.) or éore (115,
Sedul. Jer.), or even viv (122, Erp.), was supplied. In Oecum. the reading jv
is combined with the explanation rot by recourse to the gloss: viv yap ovy dpa
aizév, — dv] before édux, [K** D** EK) is wanting in ABC D* FG RX, 17, 47,

164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
|

Dam. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. : a grammatical addition. — Ver. 17. éx-
kAgicat tude) Elz, has éxxa 7udc, which is found only in a very few min., was intro-
duced into the text by Beza,' and must be looked upon as an unneces-
sary conjecture.— Ver. 18. ro (nAoveta:] A C and four min., Damasc. have
CnAovabar merely (so Lachm.), while B®, and 17, 23, 39, Aeth. Vulg. Jer.
Ambrosiast., read (nAcvofe. The latter is an ancient error in transcribing, which
involved the suppression of the article. The correct form (yActcfa: was re-
stored, but the article, which seemed superfluous, was not recovered. — Ver. 21.
axovere] DEF G, 10, 31, 80, Vulg. It. Sahid. Arm., and Fathers, have ava-
ytvooxere. An ancient interpretation. — Ver. 24. dvv] Elz. has al dvo [according
to®* and min. ], against decisive testimony [¥*** A BC D E F G, etc. ]. — Ver.
25. “Ayap) is wantingin CFG &, 17, 115, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Boern. Cyr.
Epiph. Damasc. Or. int. Ambrosiast. Jer. Aug. Pel. Sedul. Beda. Deleted by
Lachm. [Bentley, Bengel] and Wieseler, condemned also by Hofmann, who refers
(Fritzsche, Lightfoot and Tisch. 1872] “Ayap to the Syriac Church, although it
is attested by A B D E K L P, and most min., Chrys., and others. But instead
of yép, ABD E, 37, 73, 80, lect. 40, Copt. Cyr. (once), have dé. The juxtapo-
sition of ydp “Ayap led to the omission sometimes of the "Ayap and sometimes of
the yép. After the latter was omitted, in a part of the witnesses the connection
that was wanting was restored by dé ; just as in the case of several, mostly more
recent authorities, instead of ydp after dovAeve:, dé has crept in (so Elz.), be-
cause the argument of the apostle was not understood. — cucrotyei dé] D* F G,
Vulg. It. Goth., read 4 cvoro:yoioa ; D*, however, not having the article. A
gloss, in order to exhibit the reference to "Ayap in ver. 24. — Ver. 26. jucdv] Elz.
reads rdvtwy gueov; Lachm. has bracketed rdvrwv. But it is wanting in
B C* DE FG X&, some min., most vss., and many Fathers. Deleted by Tisch.;
defended by Reiche. An amplifying addition [from Rom. iv. 16] involuntarily
occasioned by the recollection of iii. 26, 28, and the thought of the multitude of
the réava (ver. 27). — Ver. 28. queic . . . éopév) Lachm. and Schott, also Tisch.,
read tpeic éore, following B D* F G, some min., Suhid. Aeth. Ir. Victorin. Ambr.
Tychon. Ambrvsiast. Justly ; the first person was introduced on account of vv.
26 and 31. — Ver. 30. xAnpovousjoy) Lach. [Tisch. 1872] reads xAnpovounoer, follow-
ing BD E & and Theophylact ; from the LXX. — Ver. 31. dpa} A CO, 23, 57,
Copt. Cyr. Damasc. Jer. Aug., have jyeic dé; B D* E &, 67**, Cyr. Marcion,
rend 46. The latter is (with Lachm. and Tisch.) to be preferred ; for #pei¢ dé
adeAgoi is evidently a mechanical repetition of ver. 28 (Rec.), and dpa is too
feebly attested (F G, Theodoret, have apa ovv).

Conrents.—Further discussion of the xAnpovdpovg elvar (iii. 29), a8 a priv-
ilege which could not have been introduced before Christ, while the period
of nonage lasted, but was jirst introduced by means of Christ and Christian-
ity at the time appointed by God, when the earlier servile relation was
changed into that of sonship (vv. 1-7). After Payl has expressed his sur-
prise at the apostasy of his readers, and his anxiety lest he may have labored
among them in vain (vv. 8-11), he entreats them to become like to him, and
supports this entreaty by a sorrowful remembrance of the abounding love
which they had manifested to him on his first visit, but which appeared to

t Beza himself allows that duds stands in Lavin), but considers that the sense requires
all the codd. (in the fifth edition he adds: as.

CHAP. IV., l. 165
have been converted into enmity (vv. 12-16). He warns them against the
selfish zeal with which the pseudo-apostles courted them (ver. 17), while at
the same time he reproves their fickleness (ver. 18), and expresses the wish
that he were now present with them, in order to regain, by an altered mode
of speaking to them, their lost confidence (vv. 18-20). Lastly, he refutes
the tendency to legalism from the law itself, namely, by an allegorical inter-
pretation of the account that Abraham had two sons, one by the bond-
woman, and once by the free woman (vv. 21-30), and then lays down the
proposition that Christians are children of the free woman, which forms the
groundwork of the exhortations and warnings that follow in ch. v. (ver. 31).

Ver. 1. Aéyw dé] Comp. iii. 17, v. 16; Rom. xv. 8; 1 Cor. 1.12: now J
mean, in reference to this «Aypovouia brought in through Christ, the idea of
which I have now more exactly to illustrate to you as for the first time real-
ized in Christ. This illustration is derived by Paul from a comparison of
the pre-Christian period to the period of the servile, slave-like child-
hood of the heir-apparent. — 颒 dcov ypdvov] As in Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor.
vii. 89. — 6 xAnpovéuoc}] The.article as in 6 peoiryc, iii. 20: the heir in any
given case. KAyp. is, however, to be conceived here, as in Matt. xxi. 38, as
the heir of the father’s goods, who is not yet in actual personal possession,
but de jure—the heir apparent, whose father is still alice. So Cameron,
Neubour (Bibl. Brem. v. p. 40), Wolf, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, and
many Others, including Winer, Schott, Wiescler, Reithmayr. But Riickert,
Studer (in Usteri), Olshausen (undecided), Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette,
Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most of the
older expositors, conceive the heir as one whose father is dead. Incorrectly,
on account of ver. 2 ; for the duration of the guardianship (in which sense
txd émitpdérovc, ver. 2, must then be understood) could not have been
determined by the will of the father,’ but would have depended on the law.?*
Hofmann thinks, indeed, that the point whether the father was bound by a
law of majority is not taken into account, but only the fact, that it is the
Sather himself who has made arrangements respecting his heir. But in this
view the rpofecuia, as prescribed by the father, would be entirely illusory ;
the notice would be absurd, because the zpofecuia would be not rod rarpéde,
but rov véuov. —vfrioc] still in boyhood.* ‘‘Imberbis juvenis tandem
custode remoto gaudet equis,” ‘‘ the beardless youth, his guardian at length
removed, delights in horses.” [Horace, Ars. Poetica, 161, 162], etc., Virg.
Aen. ix. 649. [See Note LIII., p. 212.] Quite in opposition to the context,
Chrysostom and Oecumenius refer it to mental immaturity.‘ — oidév diagfper -
dotAov}] because he is not sué juris.*— xipiog ravrwv dv] although he is lord of
all, namely, de jure, in eventum, ‘‘by right,” ‘‘eventually,” as the heir-

1 Baumgarten-Crusius, indeed, appeals to
the proof adduced by Gottling (Gesch. d.
Rim. Staatsverf. pp. 109, 517), that Gatus, I.
55. 65, 188, comp. Caes. Bell. Gall. vi. 19,
mentions the existence of a higher grade of
the patria potestas among the Galatians.
But in this way it is by no means shown
that the time of the majority was, after

the death of the father, dependent on the
settlement which he had previously made.

2 Hermann, Staateallerth. § 121.

2 Comp. 1 Cor. xfil. 11.

4 Rom. il. 20; Hom. Ji. v. 406, xvi. 4,
ef al.

5 Comp. Liban. in Chtis, p. 11 D, in Wet-
stein.

166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

apparent of all the father’s goods. Consequently neither this nor the pre-
ceding point is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the father is still
alive." Comp. Luke xvi. 81.— The xAnpordpyog vitio¢ represents, not the
people of Jsrael ; * but, according to the connection with iii. 29 (comp. iv. 3),
the Christians as a body, regarded in their earlier pre-Christian condition.
In this condition, whether Jewish or Gentile, they were the heir-apparent,
according to the idea of the divine predestination (Rom. viii. 28 ff.; Eph.
i, 11; John xi. 52), in virtue of which they were ordained to be the Israc!l
of God (vi. 16), the true orépua of Abraham.

Ver. 2. 'Eritporog means here not guardian,’ as it is explained by all who
look upon the father as dead,‘ but overseer, governor, and that without any
more special definition ;° it is neither therefore to be taken * as synonymous
with oixovéuoc (which would give a double designation without ground for
it), nor as equivalent to radaywyds (which would be an arbitrary limitation).
The term denotes any one, to whose governorship the boy is assigned by the
father in the arrangement which has been made of the family affairs ; and
from this category are then specially singled out the olxevéuo, the superior
slaves appointed as managers of the household and property (Luke xvi. 1), on
whom the »4r10¢ was dependent in respect to money and other outward wants.
— aypt tig mpolecpiacg tov marpéc] Until the appointed time of the father, until
the term, which the father has fixed upon for releasing his son from this
state of dependence. 4 rpoOecuia, tempus praestitutum, does not occur else
where in the N. T., but is frequent in classical authors.”

Ver. 8. ‘Hueic] embraces Christians generally, the Jewish and Gentile
Christians together. In favor of this view we may decisively urge, (1) the
sense Of ororyeia Tov xdopov (sce below) ; (2) ver. 5, where the first ira applies
to the Jewish Christians, but the second, reverting to the first person, applies
to Christians generally, because the address to the readers which follows in
ver. 6 represents these as a whole, and not merely the Jewish Christians
among them, as included in the preceding iva ri viobeciav arordBuper ;
lastly, (3) that the orxér: and rére, said of the Galatians in vv. 7 and 8, point
back to the state of slavery of the jueic in ver. 3. Therefore jueic is not to
be understood as referring either merely to the Jewish Christians ;* or—as Hof-
mann in consistency with his erroneous reference of ili. 29 to the Gentile
readers holds—to ‘‘ the Old Testament church of God, which has now passed
over into the New Testament church ;” or to the Jewish Christians pre-em-
inently ;° or, lastly, even to the Gentile Christians alone.'° — bre qyuev virion]
characterizes, in terms of the prevailing comparison, the pre-Christian con-

1 As Hofmann and others have objected.

2 Wieseler.

3 dphavay éwitpowos, Plat. Legg. p. 766 C;
Dem. 988. 2; Ken. Mem. 1. 2. 40; 2 Macc. xi.
1, xill. 2, xiv. 2; comp. also the rabbinical
DIDI In Schoettgen, Hor. p. 748 f.

4 See, however, on ver. 1.

®§ Herod. i. 108; Pind. Qi. 1. 171; Dem.
819.17; Xen. Oec. 21.9; and very frequent-
ly in classical authors.

¢ Asin Matt. xx. 8; Luke vill. 3

7See Wetstein; also Jacobs, Ach. Tat.
p. 440.

®§ Chrysostom and most expositors, in-
cluding Grotius, Estius, Morus, Fiatt,
Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Cruslus, de
Wette, Wieseler.

® Koppe. Rickert, Matthies, Olshausen.
10 Augustine.

CHAP. IV., 3. 167%
dition, which, in relation to the Christian condition of the same persons,
was their age of boyhood. Elsewhere Paul has represented the condition of
the Christians before the Parousia, in comparison with their state after the
Parousia, as a time of boyhood.'— #76 ra crotyeia rot xéopov quev dedova. |
corresponds, as application, to the ovdév dcapéper dobAov . . . GAAG ird émirpé-
movc éoTi xai oixov. The word cro:yeiov—which denotes primarily a stake or
peg standing in a row, then a letter of the alphabet,’ then, like apy, element®
—moeans here at all events clement,‘ which signification has developed itself
from the idea of a letter, inasmuch as a word is a series of the letters whick
form it.* In itself, however, it might be used either in the physical sense of
elementary substances, which Plato ° calls also yév7," as it frequently occurs in
Greck authors applied to the so-called four elements,® or in the intellectual
sense of rudimenta, ‘‘ rudiments,” jirst principles.” In the latter sense the
verb oro:zeovy was used to signify the instruction given to catechumens.”* In
the physical sense—in which it is used by later Greek authors for designat-
ing the stars'! — it was understood by most of the Fathers: cither as by
Augustine,” who thought of the Gentile adoration of the heavenly bodies.
and of other nature-worship ; or as by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose,
Pelagius, who referred it to the Jewish observance of new moons, feasts,.
and Sabbaths, which was regulated by the course of the moon and sun.
So, combining the Gentile and Jewish cultus, Hilgenfeld, p. 66,'* who.
ascribes to the apostle the heterogeneous idea of ‘‘ sidereal powers of heaven,”
that is, of the stars as powerful animated beings ; '* and Caspari,'"® in whose
view Paul is supposed to have placed Mosaism in the category of star and:
nature worship ; and likewise Reithmayr, although without such extrava-
gances. But because the expression is applicable neither merely to the cir-

1 See 1 Cor. xfll. 11; Eph. iv. 13.

2 Plat. Theael. p. 02 E; Xen. Mem. ii. 1.
1; Arist. Poet. 20.2; Lucian, Jud. voc. 12.

® See Rudolph on Oced. p. 402 ff.

¢ A point on which almost all expositors
agree. Yet Luther, 1519, following the
precedent of Tertull. c. Marc. v. 4, adopted
the signification of lelfers; ‘* pro ipsis literis
legis, quibus lex constat. .. . Mundi autem
vocat, quod sint de ils rebus, quae in mun-
do sunt,”’ “ for the very letters of the law,
in which the law consists. . . Moreover,
he says ‘of the world,’ because they are of
the things which are in the world.’ So also
in 1524, and at least toa similar effect in
1588. More recently Michaelis has also ex-
plained it as letters ; holding that the acts
of the Levitical law were intended, be-
cause, taken as a whole, they had preached
the gospel by anticipation. Similarly Nés-
selt, Opusc. IL p. 200, takes cro:xeta as
signs (Arist. Eccl. 652, where it is used for
the shadow of the plate on the sun-dial ;
comp. Lucian, Gall. 9, Cronos. 17), holding
that the Jewish ceremonies are thus named
hecause they prefigured the future Chris-

tian worship. These views are all errone-
ous, because the expression crotxeia +r.
xoopov applies also to Gentile habits.:

® Walz, Rhetor. VI. p. 110.

* Rubnk. ad Tim p. 288.

72 Pet. ill. 10,12; Wisd. vil. 17, xix. 18:
4Maco. xii. 18; Plat. 7im. p. 48 B, 56 B, Polit.
p. 278 C; Philo, de Opif. m. p. 7, 11, Cherub.
p. 162; Clem. Hom. x. 9.

8 Comp. Suldas, a.v.

* Heb. v. 12; Plut. de yueror. educ. 16;
Isocr. p. 18 A; Nicol. ap. Stobd. xiv. 7. 31;
see Wetstein.

10 Constité. ap. vi. 18. 1, vil. 2%. 2 Comp.
our expression the A, B, C of an art or
science. Comp. generally, Schaubach, Com-
mental. quid arorxeia tov xécpov in N. T.
sidi velint, Meining. 1862.

11 Diog. L. vi. 102; Man. lv. 624; Eustath.
Od. p. 1671, 58.

12 De civ. D. ky. 11.

13 Comp. in his Zeitschr. 1858, p. 99 ; 1866,
p. 814.

14 Comp. Baur and Holsten.

18 In the Strased. Belir. 1854, p. 206 ff.

168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

cumstances of the heathen, nor merely to those of the Jewish, cultus (see, on
the contrary, vv. 8-10),—-to the latter of which it isin the physical sense not
at all suitable, for the Jewish celebrations of days and the like were by no
means a star-worship or other (possibly unconscious) worship of nature,
under which man would have been in bondage, but were an imperfect
worship of God—and because the context suggests nothing else than the
contrast between the imperfect and the perfect religion, as well as also on
account of the correlation to v#mo, the physical sense of cro yeiov is altogether
to be rejected.’ Besides, it would be difficult to perceive why Paul, if he
had thought of the stars, should not have written rot ovpavod instead of row
xéozov. Hence Jerome,’ Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and most
of the later expositors, though with various modifications, have correctly
adhered to the sense rudimenta disciplinae, ‘‘ rudiments of discipline,” which
‘alone corresponds to the notion of the vymérys (for the age of childhood does
mot get beyond jirst principles). The crotxeia tov xéopuov are the elements of
non-Christian humanity (xécpoc ; see 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 82, e¢ al.), that is, the
elementary things, the immature beginnings of religion, which occupy the
minds of those who are still without the pale of Christianity. Not having
attained to the perfect religion, the xécyoc has still to do with the religious
elementary state, to which it is in bondage, as in the position of a servant.
Rudiments of this sort are expressly mentioned in ver. 10 ; hence we must
understand the expression; not in a onesided fashion as the elementary
knowledge, the beginnings of religious perception in the non-Christian world *—
with which neither the idea of the relation as slavery, nor the inclusion of
the Jewish and Gentile worships under one category would harmonize—but
as the rudimenta ritualia, the ceremonial character of Judaism and heathenism, *

1 With strange arbitrariness Schulthess
(Engédwelt, pp. 118, 120) has recently antict-
pated Hilgenfeld in re-asserting this sense ;
holding that the stare are meant, but that
Paul is glancing at the Jewish minletry of
angels (Job xxxvill.7(!)). More thoroughly
Schneckenburger (in the theol. Jahrb. 1848,
p. 445 ff.) has again defended the physical
reference (elements of the visible world).
Comp. Holsten, z. Fv. d. Patwd.u. Petr. p. 828.
In this interpretation the law must be ex-
cepted (as is done by Holsten) from the
ototxeca,—an exception which is forbidden
‘by the whole connection with ch. ili., and
4s also Inconsistent with the concrete in-
#tances {In vv. 8 and 10: see above. Nean-
der also—who, however, introduces the
idea of the sensuous forms of religton—would
retain the physical reference, which is
decidedly assumed by Lipsius (Rech/ferti-
gungel. p. 88), who specially commends the
interpretation of Hilgenfeld ; whilst Mess-
ner (Lehre d. Ap. p. 226) agrees in substance
with Neander, holding that Se8ovA. urd ra
oroxeta rou eécpou is “the dependence of
the religious consciousness on the earthly,

sensuous, perishable things, of which this
earthly «écuos, as to its fundamental ele-
ments, consists. But why, then, the re-
striction “as to its fundamental edements” ?
And the idea of perishableness is t-
ported. Ewald understands by it the
elements of the world, into the whole of
which life must be brought through the
spirit, and unity and meaning through
God; it comprehends the Jewish observ-
ances as to meats and days, as well as the
heathen star-worship. Yet how unsuited
to popular apprehension (as pertaining to
natural philosophy) would the whole ex-
pression thus be ! an enigmatio designation
for the heathen worship, and an unsuitable
one for the Jewish cultus, which is based
on divine precept. As to the way in which
Hofmann understands the material ele-
ments of the world, see the sequel.

2 Also mvés in Theophylact, and Genna-
dius in Oecumentus, p. 747 D.

* Comp. Kienlen, in the Strasad. Beitr. Tl.
p. 188 ff.

« Comp. Schaubach, Z.c. p. 9 ff.

CHAP. IV., 3. 169
with which, however, is also combined the corresponding imperfection of
religious knowledge.’ Against the explanation, ‘‘ religious elementary things
of the world,” the objection has been made, that this idea is suitable neither
to Judaism, in so far as the latter was a divine revelation, nor even to
heathenism, which, according to Paul, is something foreign to religion ; see
especially Neander. But the latter part of the objection is erroneous (Acts
xvii. 22, 23); and the former part is disposed of when—in the light of the
pretensions put forth by the apostle’s opponents, which were chiefly based
on the ceremonial side of the law—vwe take into account the relative charac-
ter of the idea rudimenta, ‘‘rudiments,” according to which Judaism, when
compared with Christianity as the absolute religion, may, although a
divine institution, yet be included under the notion of croyeia, because
destined only for the v#mor and serving a transitory propacdeutic purpose. *
Most of the older expositors, as also Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette (with many various and mistaken interpretations of xéano¢ ; see Wolf
and Riickert in luc.), have referred the expression merely to Judaism,* whilst
Koppe and Schott only allow the analogous nature of ethnicism to be included
incidentally; but, besides what has been above remarked on jyeic, these views
are at variance with the idea of rot xéouov. This idea is, at all events, too
wide to suit the Jaw, which was given to the people of Israel only ; whether
it be taken as applying to mankind generally (de Wette, Wieseler), or to
the unbelieving portion of mankind, in contrast to the ayo: in a Christian
sense.‘ Certainly it might appear unwise (see especially Wieseler) that Paul
should have placed Judaism and heathenism in one category. But, in point
of fact, he has to deal with Judaistic seductions occurring in churches chiefly
Gentile-Christian : he might therefore, with the view of more effectually
warning them and putting them to shame, so designate the condition of
bondage to which by these seductions they were induced to revert, as to
comprehend it in the same category with the heathen cultus, from the
bondage of which they had been not long before liberated by Christianity.
According to Hofmann, the cro:yeia r. xéouov are contrasted with the promise
given to Abraham of the xAypovouia xéouov, Rom. iv. 18. He supposes that
out of the destruction of the material elements of the present world (2 Pet. iii.
10) the oixouzévy uéAAovea (Heb. ii. 5) will arise, and that this will derive its
nature and character from the Spirit, the communication of which is the
beginning of the fulfilment of that promise. Isracl, however, has been in
bondage under the material elements of which the present world is composed,
tnasmuch as in what it did and what it left undone it was subject to stringent

2 Comp. Col. fi. 8, 20.

*Comp. Baur, Paulus, IT. p. 222, ed. 2;
Welsa, bid!. Theol. p. 289; also Ritschl, alt-
kath. K. p. 78.

* The faw ‘‘ as a means of training calcu-
lated only for the age of childhood,” de
Wette, who is followed by Wieseler.

‘ Olshausen, feeling the difficulty which
the idea of «écyos puts in the way of the
reference to Judaism, hits upon the arbi-

trary expedient of taking the expression
to apply to the merely external and literal
way Of anprehending the O. T., which con-
fines itself merely to the actions, without
considering the idea involved in them.
“This was the procedure of the Judaists,
and fn this shape the Old Test. appeared
not merely as the beginning of divine life,
but also as given over to the world,” eto.

170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

laws, which had reference to the world in its existing materiality ; it had to
conform itself to the things of this corporeal world, whilst the promise had
been made to it that it should be lord of all things. Apart from the errone-
ous application of jueic (see above), every essential point in this interpreta-
tion is gratuitously introduced. In particular, the contrast on which it is
based—namely, that of the new world of the aidv which is to come—is
utterly foreign not only to the whole context, but even to the words them-
selves ; for, if Paul had had this contrast in view, he must, in order not to
leave his readers wholly without a hint of it, have at least added a rotrov'
to rov xécpov.* It is, moreover, incorrect to discover in the crosyeia the op-
posite of the future world, so far as the latter has its nature from the Spirit.
The world of the aiay vé2Awy, as the new heaven and the new earth (2 Pet.
ili, 13), must likewise be corporeally material, and must have its cro:yeia,
although the cyjua of the old world will have passed away.*— qucv dedovawn. |
may be taken either together, or separately ; the latter is to be preferred,
because it corresponds more emphatically to the ovdéy diagépec dotAov (ver. 1)
and the id ém:rpémovg éors (in ver. 2) : we were enslaved ones.

Ver. 4. “Ore d2 7AGe 1d rAGpwpua tov xpévov] corresponds to the dypz ri¢
npofecun. tov warp. (ver. 2). The time appointed by God, which was to
elapse until the appearance of Christ (6 zpévoc)—consequently the pre-
Messianic period—is conceived as a measure which was not yet full, so long
as this period had not wholly elapsed.‘ Hence rd rAjpwpa tov zpévov is :
that moment of time, through which the measure of time just mentioned became
Jull.* — On what historical conditions Paul conceived that counsel as to the
fulness of time to depend * cannot, after his view of the destination of the
law which intervened between the promise and its fulfilment (iii. 19, 24 ;
Rom. v. 20), remain doubtful. Theophylact takes in substance the right
view. The need had reached its height. Comp. Chrysostom, ad Eph. i.
10: bre pddcora eueAAov ardéAAvoba, réte diecwOyoav, ‘‘ when they were just
about to be destroyed, they were saved.” ‘Without due ground Baur per-
ceives here’ the idea that Christianity proceeded from a priuciple inherent
in humanity, namely, from the advance of the mind to the freedom of self-
consciousness. — éiarfore:dev] He sent forth from Himself. Ver. 6; Acts vil.
12, xi. 22, xvii. 14, e¢ al. ; Dem. 251. 5 ; Polyb. iii. 11. 1, iv. 26. 2, iv. 30.
‘1, and frequently. The expression presupposes the idea of the personal
pre-existence of Christ,* and therewith at the same time His personal divine
nature (Rom. viii. 8, 32 ; Phil. ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9) ; so that in reality the
apostle’s idea coincides with the Johannean 6é Adyoc yw mpoc r. Gedy and Ged¢

11 Cor. vil. 81, 1. 20, iff. 19: Eph. if. 2.

2 He does not add rovrov in Col. if. 8, 20,
just because the contrast suggested by
Hofmann was far from his thoughts.

® Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 31.

“Comp. Gen. xxix. 21; Mark £. 15; Luke
xxi. a4; John vil. 8; Joseph. Anéé. vi. 4. 1,
et al.

® Comp. on Eph. 1. 10, and Fritzsche, ad
Rom. II. p. 478.

*Theophylact : dre way el8os xaxias 8:2feA-

Boica 4 dicts } avOpwrivyn eeiro Oepameieas,
* when human nature, having experienced
every form of evil, necded medical treat-
ment.” Baur: ‘‘ when mankind was ripe
for it; de Wette: ‘conditioned by the
need of certain preparations, or by the ne-
cessity of the religious development of man-
kind which had reached a certain point.”

7 See his neut. Theol. p. 178.

® See Rabiger, Christol. Paul. p. 16; Lechler,
apost. Zeit. p. 30; Weiss, ditt, Theol. p. 316 ff.

CHAP. IV., 4. 171
$v 6 Adyoc, but is not to be reduced to the notion of ‘ the ideal first man,” ?
whose human birth, on account of His pre-existence, is conceived by Paul
as not without a certain Docetism.? This remark also applies against the
view of Beyschlag referring it to the pre-existent prototype of man,* in con-
nection with which the Messianic name of Son ie supposed to be carried
back from the historical to the pre-historical sphere. This is at variance
with the express designation, as tpwrdéroxoc¢ méone xricewe (Col. i. 15),
which likewise forbids us to say, with Hofmann: ‘‘ By the sery fact, that
God has sent Him forth from Himself into the world, He is the Son of’ God.”
According to Col. i. 15, He is, even before the creation, in the relation of
Son to the Father, as begotten by Him,—a relation, therefore, which could
not be dependent on the subsequent sending forth, or given for the first
time along with the latter. — yevéuevov éx yuvatxéc] 80 that He was born of a
woman ; the relation of the aorist participle is the same as in Phil. ii. 7 f.
The reading yevvduevov—attested only by min., and otherwise feebly, al-
though recommended by Erasmus, adopted by Matthias, and defended by
Rinck—is a correct interpretation,‘ which also occurs at Rom. i. 8, in Codd.
mentioned by Augustine. Who this yw” was, every reader knew ; we must
not, however, say with Schott, following many of the older expositors, ‘‘ de
virgine sponsa dicitur,” ‘‘ it is said ‘of the betrothed virgin ;’”° but comp.
Job xiv. 1 ; Matt. xi. 11. Noris anything peculiar to be found in éx ;° on the
contrary, éx is quite the usval preposition to express the being born.’ This
very fact, that Christ, although the Son of God, whom God had sent forth
from Himself, entered into this life as man (Rom. v. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21;
Acts xvii. 31) and—just as an ordinary man enters into temporal life—as
one born of woman, Paul wishes to bring into prominence as the mode of
carrying out the divine counsel.* The supernatural generation which pre-
ceded the natural birth was not here in question ; its mention would even
have been at variance with the connection which points to Christ’s humilia-
tion : it is not, however, anywhere else expressly mentioned by the apostle,
or certainly indicated as a consequence involved in his system (Weiss).°
Nor is it to be inferred from éfarfore:Aev, in connection with the designation
of Him who was sent forth as the Son ;” because, while it is assumed that as
the Son of God He was already, before His incarnation, with God (6 Adyo¢ Fw
mpo¢ Tov Oedv), the mode of His incarnation—how He was born xara odpxa éx
oxépuzatoc Aavid '—is not defined — yevduevoy trd véuov] Luther: ‘‘made

1 Hilgenfeld.

3 See, on the contrary, Rom. 1.3; indeed,
Paul throughout is the very opposite of
Docetism.

3 Christal. d. N. 7. p. 20 ff.

* As to the meaning, but not as to the
tense ; see Phot. Qu. Amphil. 90.

® Comp. Augustine, Serm.16 de temp. ;
Jerome, and others.

*** er semine matris ... non viri et mu-
Heris coitu,"’ “ of the seed of the mother. . . not
by the union of man and woman,” Calvin ;
comp. Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Calovius,

and others; Theophylact, following Basil,
Jerome, and others: ex ris ovgias avris gaya
Aafdrra,

7 John fff. 6; Matt. 1. 16; 1 Pet. {. 2, et ai.,
8 Esr. iv. 16; 4 Macc. xiv. 14; frequently
used also in classical authors with yiy-
verOar.

® Comp. Rom. vill. 3; Phil. ii. 7.

_* Comp. on Rom. |. 8.

10 Hofmann, comp. also his Schri/idew.
TI. 1, p. 84.

11 Rom. i. 8; comp. ix. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 8;
Acts ii. 80.

172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

under the law ;” and so most expositors : legi subjectum, ‘‘ subject to the
law.” But it is arbitrary to take yevou. here in another sense than before ;? and
the vivid emphasis of the twice-used yevéu. is thus lost. Hence Michaelis,
Koppe, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Lechler, rightly understand yevéy. as na-
tum. Thus also, in fact, ‘‘ the beginning of an eiva: td véuov" (Hofmann) is
expressed, and expressed indeed more definitely. Paul desires to represent the
birth of the Son of God not merely as an ordinary human birth, but also as
an ordinary Jewish birth ;* and he therefore says : ‘‘ born of a@ woman, born
under the law,” so that He was subjected to circumcision and to all other ordi-
nances of the law, like any other Jewish child. But God caused His Son
to be born as an ordinary man and as an ordinary Israelite, because other-
wise He could not have undergone death—either at all, or as One cursed by
the law (iii. 13), which did not apply to those who were not Jews (Rom. i.
12)—and could not have rendered the curse of the law of none effect as
regards those who were its subjects.? For this reason, and not merely on
account of the contrast to rév vidy avrov,4 Paul has added yevdu. éx yuv., yev.
vvd véu., a8 a Characteristic description of the humiliation into which God
allowed His Son to enter. See the sequel. — With respect, moreover, to
the perfect obedience of Christ to the law, it was a preliminary condition
necessary for the redeeming power of His death (because otherwise the
curse of the law would have affected Him even on His own account) ; but it
is not that which is imputed for righteousness; on the contrary, this is purely
Saith in the t\Aaorhpcoy, ‘* propitiation,” of His death.* The doctrine of
the Formula Concordiae as to the imputation of the obedientia Christi actica®
is not borne out by the exegetical proof, of which our passage is alleged to
form part ; but the atoning death of Christ is the culminating point of His
obedience towards God (Rom. v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; 2 Cor. v. 21) [See Note
LIV., p. 212 seq.], without the perfection of which He could not have accom-
plished the atonement ; and the form which this obedicnce assumed in
Him, in so far as He was subject to the Jaw, must have been that of legal
obedience.’

Ver. 5. The object for which God sent forth His Son, and sent Him in-
deed yevdu. é« yuvain., yevdu. bd véuov. — tore trd véuov] The Israelites arc
thus designated in systematic correspondence to the previous yevdu. td vduov.®
— ifayopéoy] Namely, as follows from rotc td véuov, from the dominion of
the law, vv. 1-8 (in which its curse, iii. 11, is included), and that through
His death, iii. 18. Erasmus well says: ‘‘dato pretio assereret in liberta-
tem,” ‘‘ As the price had been given, he would claim for liberty.” — iva raw
viodea. a0AdB.] The aim of this redemption ; for of this negative benefit the
viofecia was the immediate positive consequence. But Paul could not again
express himself in the third person, because the vio#ecia had been imparted to

1 Viewed by itself, yivec@a: vxé with the ? Comp. Rom. vili. 8 f.; Heb. ili. 14 f.
accusative, in the sense (o be subject to, is, ina 4 Schott.
linguistic point of view, quite as correct 5 See on iff. 18; Rom. iv. 5, 24, v. 6 ff.,
(1 Macc. x. 88; Thuc.1.110.1; Lucian. Abdic. etal.
28) as with the dative (Herod. vil. 11; Xen. *p. 685.
Anad, vil. 2. 8, vii. 7. 82; Thuc. vil. 64. 2). 7 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. IT. 1, p. 180.
2Comp. Heb. ff. 14-17.. ® Comp. fil. 25, iv. 21, v. 18; Rom. vi. 14.

CHAP. IV., 6. 173

the Gentiles also, whereas that redemption referred merely to the Jews ; but
now both, Jews and Gentiles, after having attained the vio#ecia no longer id
Ta oTOLxEIa TOV xéopou yoay dedovAwpévor (ver. 8) : hence Paul, in the first person
of the second sentence of purpose, speaks from the consciousness of the com-
mon faith which embraced both the Jewish and the Gentile portions of the
Christian body, not merely from the Jewish-Christian consciousness, as Hof-
mann holds on account of éoré in ver. 6.'—-The vio8eoia is here, as it always is,
adoption* — a meaning which is wrongly denied by Usteri, as the signification
of the word allows no other interpretation, and the context requires no other.
Previously not different from slaves (vv. 1-8), as they were in the state of vyr-
érn¢, believers have now entered into the entirely different legal relation to-
wards God of their being adopted by Him as children.* The divine begetting
(to which Hofmann refers) is a Juhannean view ; see on John i. 12. In the
divine economy of salvation the gracious gift of the viofecia was needed in or-
der to attain the xAypovouia ; while in the Auman economy, which serves as the
figure, the heir-apparent becomes at length heir as a matter of course.
Accordingly Paul has not given up (Wieseler) the figure on which ver. 1 ff.
was based—a view at variance with the express application in ver. 8, and
the uninterrupted continuation of the same in ver. 4; but he has merely
had recourse to such a free modification in the application, as was suggested
to him by the certainly partial difference between the real circumstances of
the case and the figure set forth in vv. 1, 2.‘—a7oAéG.] not : that we might
again receive, as is the meaning of aroduuf. very often in Greek authors,®
and in Luke xv. 27 ; for before Christ men never possessed the vlofecia here
referred to (although the o/d theocratic adoption of the Jews was never lost,
Rom. ix. 4) : hence Augustine and others are in error when they look back
to the sonship that was lost in Adam. Nor must we assume® that, because
the viofecia is promised, it is denoted by amoddB. as dgecAoutyy,—a sense
which is often conveyed by the context in Greek authors and also in the
N.T.,7 but not here, because it is not the viofecia expressly, but the xAnpovoyia,®
which is the object of the promise. As little can we say, with Riickert and
Schott, that the sonship is designated as /ruit (avo = inde) of the work of
redemption, or, with Wieseler, as fruit of the death of Jesus apprehended
by faith : for while it certainly zs so in point of fact, the verb could not
lead to it without some more precise indication in the text than that given
by the mere éfayop. On the contrary, a7o148. simply denotes : to take at
the hands of any one, to receive, as Luke xvi. 25; Plat. Legg. xii. p. 956 D,
and very frequently in Greek authors.

Ver. 6. A confirmation of the reality of this reception of sonship-from the
experience of the readers ; for the éoré, which, after the foregoing more gen-
eral statement, now comes in with its individual application,’ does not refer

2 Comp. the change of persons in ill. 14. and others, including Baumgarten-Crusius,
2S8ee on Eph. 1.5; Rom. viil. 15; and Hofmann, and Reithmayr.

Fritzsche, in loc. 7 Luke vi. 3, xxill. 41; Rom. 1. 27; Col.
® Comp. Weiss, ditt. Theol. p. 388 f. il. 24; 2 John 8,
« Comp. ver. 7. 8 ji]. 20, iv. 7.
& See especially Dem. 78. 8; 162. 17. * Comp iil. 26.

6 With Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel,

174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

to the Galatians as Gentile Christians only,' any more than in iii. 26-29. —
rc] is taken by most expositors, following the Vulgate, as quoniam.* And
this interpretatjon® is the most simple, natural, and correct ; the emphasis
is laid on vioi, which is thercfore placed at the end : but because ye are sons,
God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son, etc. He would not have done this,
if ye had not (through the vlofecia) been viol ; thus the reception of the Spir-
it is the experimental and practical divine testimony to the sonship. If not
sons of God, ye would not be the recipients of the Spirit of His Son. The
Spirit is the seal of the sonship, into which they had entered through faith—
the divine onpeiov attesting and confirming it ; comp. Rom. viii. 16.4 Others°
take dr: as that, and treat it as an abbreviated mode of saying : ‘But that
ye are sons, is certain by this, that God has sent forth,” etc.* This is unneces-
sarily harsh, and without any similar instance in the N. T.; modes of
expression like those in Winer, p. 575 f. and Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor.
p. 205, are different. Wieseler takes it as equivalent to cic éxeivo, ore: '
‘*as concerns the reality (éoré is to have the emphasis) of your state as sons.”
But this would unnecessarily introduce into the vivid and direct character
of these short sentences an element of dialectic reflection, which also appears
in Matthias’ view. Hofmann handles this passage with extreme violence,
asserting that dr: dé is an elliptical protasis,—the completion of which is to
be derived from the apodosis of the preceding period, from éfaréor. in ver.
4 onward,—that éoré vioi is apodosis, and that the following éfaméor. «.1.2.
is the further result connected with it. In Hofmann’s view, Paul reminds
his (Gentile) readers that they are for this reason sons, because God has done
that act éfarloredev x.t.A. (ver. 4), and because He has done it in the way
and with the design stated in ver. 4f. This interpretation is at variance
with linguistie usage, because the supposed elliptical use of ér: dé does not
anywhere occur, and the analoyies in the use of e dé, ctc., which Hofmann
adduces—some of them, however, only self-invented (as those from the epis-
tles of the apostle, 2 Cor. ii. 2, vii. 12)—are heterogeneous. And how
abruptly éfaréor. 6 Oed¢ x.7.A. would stand! But, as regards the thought also,
the interpretation is unsuitable ; for they are sons, etc., not because God
has sent Christ, but because they have become believers in Him that was sent
(iii. 26 ; John i. 12); it is not that fact itself, but their faith in it, which is
the cause of their sonship and of their reception of the Spirit ; comp. ili. 14.
To refer the sending of the Spirit to the event of Pentecost (as Hofmann does),
by which God caused His Spirit to initiate ‘‘a presence of a new kind” in the
world, is entirely foreign to the connection.’ — éfaréore:dev 6 Oed¢ «.7.A.] for
it is rd mvevua Td Ex Oeov, 1 Cor. ii. 12. Observe the symmetry with éfazicr.

1 Hofmann.

2 Luther, Castallo, Beza, Calvin, Gro-
tius, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller,
Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
de Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, and
others.

3 On én, because, at the beginning of the
sentence, comp. 1 Cor. xil. 15; John xx. 29,
xy. 19.

4 See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 340.

6 Theopbylact, Ambrose, Pelagius, Koppe,
Flatt, Riickert, Schott. :

® Comp. iif. 11.

7 See on Mark xvi. 14; John it. 18, ix. 17,
xi. 51, xvi. 19; 1 Cor. i. 26; 2Cor. 1. 18, xi.
10.

®Comp., on the contrary, fil. 2, v. 14.

~

CHAP. Iv., 6. 1%5
x.7.a in ver. 4. The phrase conveys, in point of form, the solemn expres-
sion of the objective (ver. 4) and subjéctive (ver. 5) certainty of salvation, but,
in a dogmatic point of view, the like personal relation of the Spirit, whom
God has sent forth from Himself as He sent forth Christ. — ré rveipa tov
viov avrov] So Paul designates the Holy Spirit, because he represents the re-
ception of the Spirit as the proof of sonship ; for the Spirit of the Son can-
not be given to any, who are of a different nature and are not also viol Oeov.'
But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, inasmuch as He is the divine
principle of Christ’s self-communication, by whose dwelling and ruling in
the heart Christ Himself * dwells and rules livingly, really, and efficaciously
(ii. 20) in the children of God.* Comp. the Johannean discourses as to the
self-revelation and the coming of Christ in the Paraclete. [See Note LV.,
p. 213. ]— sua] The change of persons arose involuntarily from the apostle’s
own lively, experimental consciousness of this blessedness.‘—x«pdZov] The
strong word expresses the matter as it was : with crying the deep fervor ex-
cited by the Spirit broke forth into appeal to the Father.’ The Spirit
Himself is here represented as crying (it is different in Rom. l.c.), because
the Spirit is so completely the active author of the Abba-invocation, that
the man who invokes appears only as the organ of the Spirit. Comp. the
analogy of the opposite case—the crying of the unclean spirits (Mark i. 26,
ix. 26). —’AfSa 6 war4p] The usual view taken by modern expositors,° fol-
lowing Erasmus and Beza, in this passage, as in Rom. viii. 15 and in Mark
xiv. 36, is, that é warfp is appended as an explanation of the Aramaic Ab’:
for Greek readers ;’ along with which stress is laid on the ‘‘ childlike sound”
of the expression, so foreign to the Greek readers." But see, against this
view, on Rom. viii. 15. No; ’ASa, the address of Christ the Son of God
to His Father, which had been heard times without number by the apostles
and the first believers, had become so established and sacred in Christian pray-
er that it had assumed the nature of a proper name, so that the deep and lively
emotion of the consciousness of sonship could now superadd the appella-
tive 6 xarfp ; and the use of the two in conjunction had gradually become so
habitual,® that in Mark xiv. 86, by an hysteron proteron, they are placed even
in the mouth of Christ. In opposition to this view, which is adopted by
Hilgenfeld and Matthias, it has been objected by Fritzsche,” that 6 rarfp
expresses exactly the same as the Aramaic 83%, and that, if 838 had assumed
the nature of a proper name, this name would very often have occurred

1 Comp. Rom. villi. 9.

* Comp. on 2 Cor. fil. 17.

® See on Rom. vili. 9, 14.

4 Comp. Rom. vil. 4.

® Comp. Rom. viil. 15; also Ps. xxii. 8,
xxviii. 1, xxx. 8 ; Baruch Ili. 1, iv. 20.

*See the usual view of the ancient ex-
positors, following Augustine, in Luther:
“* Abba pater cur geminarit, cum grammat-
{ca ratio non appareat, placet vulgata ra-
tio mysteril, quod idem Spiritus fidei sit Ju-
daecorum ct gentium, duorum populorum
unius Dei,” ‘* As to why ho cries ‘ Abba,

Father,’ since a grammatical reason is
not apparent, the ordinarily received ex-
planation of the mystery lis satisfactory,
viz., that the spirit of faith of Jews and
Gentiles is of the one God of two peoples, is
the same.”” Comp. Calvin and Bengel.

780 Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Rickert, Us-
teri, Schott.

® Hofmann.

® Bengel appropriately remarks, *‘haec
tessera filiorum in Novo Testamento,” ‘this
pledge of sons in the New Testament.”

10 ad Rom, II. p. 140.

176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

in the N. T. and afterwards instead of Oeéc ; and people would not have
said constantly ’ASBa 6 rarjp, but also 'ABBa 6 Gede. But these objections
would only avail to confute our view, if it were maintained that ’A@Ga had
become in general a proper name of God (as was 11/7" in the O. T. and the
other names of God), so that it would have been used at every kind of men-
tion of God. The word is, however, to be regarded merely as a name used
in prayer: only he who prayed addressed God by this name ; and just be-
cause he was aware that this name was an original appellative and expressed
the paternal character of God, he added the purely appellative correspond-
ing term é rargp, and in doing so satisfied the fervor of his feeling of sonship.
This remark applies also to Wieseler’s objection, that 'A8a could only have
continued to be used asan appellative. It might become a name just as well
as, for instance, Adonai, but with the consciousness still remaining of its
appellative origin and import. Moreover, that the address in prayer 'Af3a
6 ravip took its rise among the Greek Jewish-Christians, and first became
habitual among them, is clear of itself on account of the Hebrew Abéa. It
is to be remarked also, that, according to the Rabbins, analogous emotional
combinations of a Hebrew and a Greek address, which mean quite the same
thing, were in use.’ Fritzsche’s view is, that the 'AfSa of prayer, which
had through Christ’s use of it become sacred and habitual, was so frequent-
ly explained on the part of the teachers of the Gentile Christians, as of Paul,
by the addition of 6 rarfp, that it had become a ‘habit with these teachers to
say, ’AB;3a 6 rargp. But this would be a mechanical explanation which, at
least in the case of Paul, is @ priori not probable, and can least of all be as-
sumed in @ case where the fervid emotion of prayer * is exhibited. Paul
would have very improperly allowed himself to be ruled by the custom.
Wieseler contents himself with the strengthening of the idea by two synony-
mous expressions, but this still fails to explain why warep, wdrep," or wdrep
6 rarnp quar,‘ is not said, just as xipie, xipie, and the like. — On the nomina-
tive with the article, as in apposition to the vocative, see Kriiger, § 45. 2. 7.

Ver. 7. "Qore] Inference from vv. 5 and 6.—ovxér:] no longer asin the
pre-Christian condition, when thou wast in bondage to the ororyeia row
xéouov. — et] The language, addressing every reader, not merely the Gentile
readers (Hofmann), advances in its individualizing application.*°— ei dé
vid¢, xai xAnpovéuoc] But if thou art a son (and not 4 slave, who does not in-
herit from his master), thou art also an heir, as future possessor of the Mes-
sianic salvation, and art so (not in any way through the law, but) through
God (d1a @cov ; see the critical notes), who, as a consequence of His adoption
of thee as a son, has made thee also His heir. To Him thou art indebted
for this ultimate blessing, to be attained by means of sonship. This da
@eov cannot also apply to vide (Hofmann), so that 44a’ should include all the

1 See Erud. f. 58.2: °5 “WD (midomine, (Rom. vill. 15; Gal. iv.6; Mark xiv. 86), the
mi _xipve, ““ my Lord”). Comp. Schemoth most fervid tone of prayer prevails.
rabd. f. 140.2: “SN ‘VW ‘YP: See Schoett- ? Comp. Soph. @. C. 1101.
gen, Hor. p. 252. Comp. xvpte b xdptos Huey, Ps. vill. 2.

2 And let it be noticed, that in a the 6 Ver. 5, awoAdBwuev; ver. 6, éore; ver. 7,
three passages where ‘ABfa 6 warjp occurs ef. Comp. v. 26, vi. 1.

CHAP. IV., 7%. 1°77
rest of the verse in one sentence. With ei dé a new sentence begins. Other-
wise Paul must have written : aA’ vidc, vide dé Gy nal KAnpovéuog. Riickert
unjustly blames the apostle for having, in e dé vids, xa? xAnp., departed from
the right track of his thoughts, because in ver. 1 he had started at once
from the idea of xAypovéuos. But in ver. 1 the apostle, in fact, has not
started from the Messianic idea of xAnpovéuoc, but from its lower analogue in
civil life. With respect to the legal aspect of the conclusion itself, ei dé vids,
xai xAnp.'—in which, by the way, the father is conceived as dividing the in-
heritance during his lifetime,—the idea is not based on the Jewish law of
inheritance,’ according to which the (legitimately born) sons alone,* if there
were such,—the first-born among these taking, according to Deut. xxi. 17,
a double portion,—were, as a rule, intestate heirs.‘ The apostle’s idea is
founded on the intestate succession of the Roman law, with which Paul as
a Roman citizen was acquainted, as in fact it was well known in the prov-
inces and applied there as regarded Roman citizens. According to the
Roman law sons and daughters, whether born in marriage or adopted chil-
dren (and Paul conceives Christians as belonging to the latter class), were
intestate heirs. It is evident 1m itself, and from iii. 28, that vids, which
Paul used here on account of its correlation with dovdjoc, does not, in ‘the
popular mode of expression, exclude the female sex. To assume a mere
allusion to general human laws of succession (Wieseler) is not sufficient ; for
Paul has very distinctly and clearly conceived and designated the vidri¢ of
the Christian as a relation of adoption, which presupposes for his conclusion
as to the heirship a special legal reference, and not merely the general and
vague correlation of the ideas of childship and heirship. The clear precision
of his thought vouches for this, and it ought not to be evaded by declaring
such a legal question even foolish (Hofmann),—a dogmatical judgment
which is all the more precipitate, as the specific Johannean idea of the di-
vine begetting of the children of God" can by no means be found in the
Pauline rveiya viobeciac.® Besides, viobecia is, and after all remains, nothing
else than the quite definite legal idea of adoption, which separates the vivi
elozoiroi OF Oerol ® from those begotten or yvyouoi.

3 Comp. Rom. viii. 17.

2 80 Grotius, who says: “‘Jure Hebr. filii
tantum haeredes, sed sub illo nomine indi-
cantur omnes fideles cujusque sint sexus,”’
“By the Hebrew law only the sons are
heirs; but under this name all believers,
whatever be their sex, are indicated.” The
fact that Christians are the adopled children
of God, {s decidedly opposed to this.

*In Prov. xvil. 2 nothing is said of
adoption.

*See Keil, Archdol. IT. § 142; Ewald, Ad-
terth. p. @8f ; Saalschiitz, &. R. p. 820f.

§ Comp. also Fritzsche, Tholuck, and van
Hengel, on Rom. viil. 17.

* On the whole of this subject, see C. F. A.
Pritzache, ufrum Pauli argumentatio Rom.
villi. 17 ef Gal. iv. 7, Hebraeco an Pomano

12

jure aestimanda sit, in Frilzechior. Opuac.
p. 143 ff.

7 Comp. Weiss, Ji. Theol. p. T17 ff.

® The adoption into the state of children
takes place on God's part along with justi-
fication, and is on man’s part certain to the
believing self-consciousness, to which the
xvetpa vioSecias also attests it. Beyschlag
(Christel. p. 222) wrongly holda that the
communication of the Spirit is itself the
viodecia, No, those who receive the Spirit
are already believing, justified, and thereby
vid@ero:, and obtain through the Spirit the
testimony that they are vioi,—a testimony
which agrees with that of their own con-
sciousness, cvupaprvpe, Rom. vill. 16. See
on Rom. vill. 15.

® Pollux, fil. 21.

178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TQ THE GALATIANS.

Ver. 8. ’A22d] Nevertheless, how fearfully at variance is your present ret-
rograde attitude with the fact of this divine deliverance from your previous
lost condition ! This topic is dealt with down to ver. 11. Observe that
a224 introduces the two corresponding relations rére uévy and viv dé in con-
junction.’ — rére] then ; reminds the reader of the past time, in which they
were still dov2o: (ver. 7). —ovx eidéreg Ocdv] Cause of the édovAcicare which
follows. In the non-knowledge of God (for ovx eidd>. forms one idea) lies the
fundamental essence of the heathenism, to which the apostle’s readers had
mostly belonged.* As to the relation of the thought to Rom. i. 20 f., see
on that passage. — idovdetoare] The aorist simply designates the state of
bondage then existing as now at anend, without looking at its duration or de-
velopment.* — roic¢ gfoee 9 ote Oevic] to the gods, who by nature, however, are not
so! For, in the apostle’s view, the realities which were worshipped by the
heathen as gods, were not gods, but demons.‘ In his view, therefore, their
nature was not divine, but at the same time not of mere mundane matter ;° it
was demoniac,—a point which must have been well known to the Galatians
from his oral instruction. — The negation denies subjectively, from the apos-
tle’s view.* [See Note LVI., p. 218.]

Ver. 9. Tvdurec Ocdv] After ye have known God through the preaching of
the gospel. Olshausen’s opinion, that «idére¢ denotes more the merely
external knowledge that God is, while 31éy7e¢ signifies the inward essential
cognition, is shown to be an arbitrary fancy by passages such as John vii.
37, viii. 55 ; 2 Cor. v. 16. [See Note LVII., p. 213.] — uaA2ov dt] imo cero, a
corrective climax,’ in order to give more startling prominence to the following
Og émtorpégere x.T.A., a8 indicating not a mere falling away from the knowl-
edge of God, but rather a guilty opposition to Him. — ywuobévree izd Oeoi']
after ye have been known by God. This is the saving knowledge, of which on
God’s part men become the objects, when He interests Himself on their be-
half to deliver them. Into the erperience of having been thus graciously
known by God the Galatians were brought by means of the divine work
which had taken place in them, anticipating their own volition and endea-
vor—the work of their calling, enlightenment, and conversion® [see Note
LVIII., p. 214] ; so that they therefore, when they knew God, became in that
very knowledge aware of their being knowon by God,—the one being implied in
the other—through their divinely bestowed admission into the fellowship of
Christ.° Hofmann desires the condition of the acceptance of gracc to be men-

1 But so, that the thought introduced by
éé (ver. 9) is the main thought. Comp.
Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 168.

2 Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5; Acts xvii. 28, 30,
-e€ a, :

1 See Kahner, IT. p. 78 f.

4 See on 1 Cor. x. 2.

* Ewald, comp. Wisd. xiii. 1 ff.

* Comp. 2 Chron. xill. 9: éyévero cis iepdéa
Ty un oye Oey.

7TRom. viii. 84; Eph. v. 11; Jacobs, ad
Ach. Tat. II. p. 955; Kfihner, ad Xen. Afem.
iff. 18 6; Grimm, on Wisd. viii. 19.

*Hence in point of fact Theophylact

(following Chrysostom) rightly explains:
mpocAnd0dvres Uwd @eov, “taken hold of by
God.” Because of God’s knowing them
they have known God; consequently not,
“proprio Marte vel acumine sui ingenii
vel industria, sed guia Deva misericordia
eva eos praeveneri(, quum nihil minus quam
de ipso cogitarent,"* ‘‘ by their own effort or
the acuteness of their genius or by their
industry, but Jecause God by His mercy has
anticipated them, while they were thinking
less of nothing than of Him," Calvin.

® Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. interpol. 1: &°
of (through Christ) ¢yvwre Gedy, paddAor 62 vx"

tally supplied ; but this is arbitrary in itself, and is also incorrect, because those,
who are the objects of God's gracious knowledge, are already known to Him
by means of His rpéyvwarg as the credituri, ‘‘ those who are to believe,” and are
ordained by Him to salvation (see on Rom. viii. 29f.). But the literal sense
cognoscere is not to be altered either into approbare, amare,’ or into agnoscere
suos ;? nor is it to be understood in the sense of Hophal : brought to the knowl-
edge ; * nor can we, with Olshausen, turn it into the being penetrated with
the love wrought by God, which only follows upon the being known by
God, 1 Cor. viii. 3. Lastly, there has been introduced, in a way entirely
un-Pauline, the idea of the self-recognition of the Divine Spirit in us,‘
or of the consciousness of the identity of the human and the divine
knowing (Hilgenfeld). On the deliberate change from the active to the
passive, yvdvrec, yrwobévrec, comp. Phil. iii, 12. Luther, moreover, appropri-
ately remarks, ‘‘non ideo cognoscuntur guia cognoscunt, sed contra quia
cogniti sunt, ideo cognoscunt,” ‘‘It is not because they know that they are
known ; but, on the contrary, they know because they have been known.”
— rac] ‘‘interrogatio admirabunda,” ‘‘ wonderful question” (Bengel), as in
ii, 12.— adv] does not mean backwards,* as in Homer,*—a rendering
opposed to the usage of the N. T. generally, and here in particular to the
wadkyv aveotev which follows ; it means iterwm, and refers to the fact that the
readers had previously been already in bondage to the ocro:yeia, namely,
most of them as heathen. Now they turn indeed (érorpégere, present tense,
as in i. 6) to the Jewish ordinances ; but the heathen and Jewish elements’
are both included in the category of the crocyzeia rov xécpuov,® so that Paul is
logically correct in using the rd2v ; and the hypothesis of Nésselt,°® that the
greater part of the readers had been previously proselytes of the gate, is
entirely superfluous, and indeed at variance with the description of the pre-
Christian condition of the Galatians given in ver. 8 ; for according to ver.
8, the great mass of them must have been purely heathen before their con-
version, because there is no mention of any intermediate condition between
réreand viv. According to Wieseler, * ré/cv is intended to point back to their
conversion to Christ, so that the turning to the oro:yeia is designated as
a second renewed conversion (iriotpégere), namely, in pejus. This would
yield an ironical contrast, but is rendered impossible by the words ol¢ réAcv
Gveiev dovi. OéAere. Wiescler is driven to adopt so artificial an explanation,
because he understands the orocyeia as referring to the law only ; and this
compels him afterwards to give an incorrect explanation of oi¢. — aofev7 x.

avrov ¢yvectnre, ‘‘ through whom we knew
God, or rather were known of Him.’’ Simi-
larly, in an opposite sense, ad Smyrn. 5: ov
Tweg ayvoourres dpvovrra: (abnegant), waAAov
82 RpriOycar (abnegali suni) vn avrod (by
Christ), “whom some ignorantly deny, or
rather were denied of Him.** See on 1 Cor.
vill. 3, xflf. 12; also Matt. vil. 23.

1 Grotius and others.

2 Wetstein, Vater, Winer, Rickert, Usteri,
Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others.

3 Beza, Er. Schmidt, Cornelius A Lapide,

Wolf, Ndsselt, Koppe, Flatt, and others.

4 Matthies.

§ Flatt, Hofmann. :

*See Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost, p. 886; Na-
gelsbach 2. Jiias, p. 34, ed. 8.

7 On the latter, see Heb. vil. 18 f.

® See on ver. 3.

® Opusc. I. p. 298 ff.; comp. Mynster in his
kl. theol. Schr. p. 76; Credner, E¥ni., and
Olshausen.

1° Comp. also Reithmayr.

180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
mruyé] because they cannot effect and bestow, what God by the sending cf
His Son has effected and bestowed (ver. 5).'— rédsv dvwGev] for those revert-
ing to Judaism desired to begin again from the commencement the slave-service
of the crozeia, which they had abandoned.* Not a pleonasm, as mda éx
devrépov (Matt. xxvi. 42), rddsv abrig (Hom. JI. i. 59), or debrepov aidcc (Hom.
Il, i. 518) ; but the repetition is represented as a new commencement of the
matter, as éx véac aifig apxis, ‘‘ again from a new beginning,”® and wéaw
apxic, ‘‘again from the beginning.” ‘ It is just the same in the instances in
Wetstein. The ic is, however, the simple dative asin ver. 8 and usually with
dovazter ; it is not equivalent to év otc (Wieseler), with dova. used absolutely.
— Aédere] ye desire, ye have the wish and the longing for, this servitude! ®
Ver. 10. Facts which vouch for the emorpégere wédcv x.7.4, just expressed.
— The interrogative view, which Griesbach, Koppe, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Hilgenfeld, following Battier,* take, has been again abandoned by Usteri,
Schott, and Wieseler ; and Hofmann prefers the sense of sorrowful erela-
mation. But the continuance of the reproachful interrogative form (ver. 9)
corresponds better to the increasing pitch of surprise and amazement, and
makes ver. 11 come in with greater weight. — raparnpeiofe] Do ye already
so far realize your 6éAere Ye take care, sedulo cobis observatis, ‘‘ golicitously
observe,” namely, to neglect nothing which is prescribed in the law for
certain days and seasons.’ The idea superstitiose, ‘‘ of superstitiously,” ® is not
implied in zapa, nor the praeter jidem, ‘‘ beside faith,” which Bengel finds in
it. — #uépac] Sabbaths, fast and feast days. Comp. Rom. xiv. 5, 6 [Col. ii.
16]. — pavac] is usually referred to the new moons. But these, the feast-days
at the beginning of cach month, come under the previous category of juspac.
In keeping with the other points, raparnpeiofa: pijvag must be the observance
of certain months as pre-eminently sacred months. Thus the seventh month
(Tisri), as the proper sabbatical month, was specially sacred ; ° and the fourth,
fifth, seventh, and tenth months were distinguished by special fasts. —
xatpotc] DWN, Lev. xxiii. 4. The holy festal seasons, such as those of the
Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, are meant ; ‘‘ quibus hoc
aut illud fas erat aut nefas,” ‘‘ whereon this or that was lawful or unlawful,”
Erasmus.—évavroi¢] applies to the sabbatical years,” which occurred every
seventh year, but not to the jubilee years, which had, at least after the time
of Solomon, fallen into abeyance." But that the Galatians were at that
time in some way actually celebrating a sabbatical year (Wieseler), cannot
be certainly inferred from éavr., which has in reality its due warrant as
belonging to the consistency and completeness of the theory. Onthe whole

seventh days ;”’ also Dio Cassa. lili. 10 (of the
observance of a law).
® Winer, Bretschneider, Olshausen, and

others.
Kell,

1 Comp. Rom. vill. 8, x. 12; Heb. vil. 18.

2 apxgis xporépas éwéuevor, ‘‘ proceeding
upon their former beginnings.” Pind. OV.
x. 94. Comp. Wisd. xix. 6.

® Plut. solert. anim, p. 950. *See Ewald, Alterth. p. 469 f.;

4 Barnab. Zp. 16.

® Comp. ver. 21.

* Bil. Brem. VI. p. 104.

7 Comp. Joseph. Anté. fil. 5. 5: waparnpeiy
ras éBdouddas, “to carefully observe the

Archdol. I. p. 368 ff.

19 See, as to these, Ewald, p. 488 ff. ; Keil,
p. 871 ff.

11 Ewald, p. 501.

CHAP. IV., 11, 12. 181
passage, comp. Col. ii. 16, and Philo, de septenar. p. 286.—From our
passage, moreover, we see how far, and within what limits, the Galatians
had already been led astray." They had not yet adopted circumcision, but
were only in danger of being brought to it (v. 2, 8, 12, vi. 12, 18). Nothing
at all is said in the epistle as to any distinction of meats (comp. Col. J.c.),
except so far as it was implied in the observance of days, etc. Usteri
(comp. Riickert) is of opinion that Paul did not mention circumcision and
the distinction of meats, because he desired to represent the present religious
attitude of his readers as analogous to their heathen condition. But, accord-
ing to the comprehensive idea of the crocysia rov xéouov, even the mention
of circumcision and the distinctions of meats would have been in no way in-
appropriate to the rdAcv dveSev. Olshausen quite arbitrarily asserts that the
usages mentioned stand by synecdoche for all.

Ver. 11. to8otpar ipac, phvuc x.T.A.] not attraction,” because, if this had
been the case, ipzei¢ must have been the subject of p#ruc «.7.A.2 On the con-
trary, ¢oBoiya: iuac is to be taken by itself, and pufruc x.7.A. as a more pre-
cise definition of it: ‘‘ I am afraid about you, lest perhaps I,” etc.‘ Itis not
without cause that Paul has added iyac, but in the consciousness that his
apprehension had reference not to his own interests (his possibly fruitless la-
bor, taken by itself), but to his readers ; they themselves were the object of
his anxiety, their deliverance, their salvation.’ — cix7] without saving result
(iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. 2), because ye are in the course of falling away from the
life of Christian faith, which through my labors was instituted among you.
—xexoriaxa] Perfect indicative ; for the thought was before the apostle’s
mind, that this case had actually occurred.* —ei¢ iuac] for you, ei¢ denotes
the reference of the toilsome labor which he had undergone ¢o the Galatians.
Comp. Rom. xvi. 6. — Luther (1524), moreover, aptly remarks on ver. 11 :
‘¢ Lacrymas Pauli haec verba spirant,”’ ‘‘ these words of Paul breathe tears.”

Ver. 12.7 After this expression of anxicty, now follows the exhortation
to return, and with what cordiality of affection ! ‘‘ Subito. . . 949 Kal rdAn,
argumenta conciliantia et moventia admovet,” ‘‘ He suddenly employs ap-

2De Wette very arbitrarily considers
that the present tense denotes, not the
reality then present, but only the necessary
consequence of the ésrp. and Sov, OéAers,
conceived as being already present.

* Winer, Ustert, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld,
Wieseler, Buttmann.

* Plat. Legg. x. p. 886 A: GoBotuai ye rois
Boxenpovs . . . ui) ws Vey KaTradponjcworr,
“I fear the knaves, that perchance they
may despise you.” Phaedr. p. 282 C, do-
Rovperce rots ney ovciay xextnuévous, “H
XPjpacw abrovs UvrepBddwrvra, “Fearing
those having acquired property, that they
might exceed them in wealth.”’ Diod. Sic.
fv. 40; Thuo iv. 1.1; Xen. Anabd. iil. 5. 18,
vil. 1.3; Soph. Trach. 547. See the passages
in Winer, p. 581 ff.; Krager, gramm. Unters.
IL. p. 162 ff.; Ktthner, I. p. 611.

#Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 289 D: rocovroy

capa of dido... doPovrra, “such a body
the friends fear” (are apprehensive about
it). Soph. O. BR. 767: Sé8orn" éuavrdv.. .
1) WOAA’ dyay eipnudy’ 7 por, “I was alarmed
about myself that too many things had been
spoken by me.”

®*The mode of expression is analogous
also in a hostile sense, ¢.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 18:
eépoBodyro roy Onpaydyny, we ouppveinoay mpds
avrdy ot wodira, ‘** They feared Theramenes,
lest the citizens might pass over to him."’
Thuc. iv. 8 5: rhy 8 vacow ravryy hoBovperos,
wh €£ aris roy réAqnoy odio: woimvrac, ** hav-
ing feared this island, lest from it they
might make war on them.”

¢ Hermann, ad Zur. Med. 810, Elma. ;
Winer, p. 469; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed.
p. & E.

7 As tovv. 12-290, see C. F. A. Fritzsche, in
Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 281 ff.

182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

peals to win their favor and move their sympathy,” Bengel. — yiveofe d¢
éya, bre xaya Oc tueic] is explained in two ways,—either as a summons to
give up Judaistic habits, or as a summons to love. The correct interpreta-
tion is: ‘‘ Become as I, become free from Judaism as I am, for I also have
become as you ; for I also, when I abandoned Judaism, thereby became as a
Gentile (ii. 14 ; Phil. ili. 7 f.), and placed myself on the same footing with
you who were then Gentiles, by non-subjection to the Mosaic law. Now
render to me the reciprocum, ‘reciprocity,’ to which love has a claim.”'
This interpretation is not only in the highest degree suitable to the thought-
ful delicacy of the apostle—who might justly (in opposition to Wicseler's
objection) represent his former secession from Judaism as a service rendered
to his readers (as Gentiles), because he had in fact seceded to be a con-
verter of the Gentiles—but is the only explanation in harmony with the words
and the context. ‘Eyevéu7v must be supplied in the second clause, and to
take it from yiveofe is just as allowable as in 1 Cor. xi. 1 (in opposition to
Hofmann).* As to xayd, comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 1. Following Chrysostom,
Theodoret and Theophylact, Erasmus (in his Paraphrase), Vatablus, Sem-
ler, and others, also Matthies, interpret : ‘‘ Become as J, abandon Judaism ;
Jor I also was once 9 zealous adherent of it like you, but have undergone a
change.” But as éyevéuzy isthe only supplement which suggests itself in
harmony with the context, Paul must have written the ju, which on this
view requires to be supplied,* and this 7u7v would in that case have con-
veyed the main element of the motive.‘ But as Paul has written, the point
of the passage lies in his desire that his readers should become like unto
him, as he also had become like to the readers. Schott * correctly supplies
éyevéunv, but he again supplies zyevéobe with tyeic : ‘‘ siquidem ego quoque
factus sum, quales vos facti estis, cum Jesu Christo nomen daretis, abjeci
studia pristina Judaismi pariter atque vos olim abjecistis,” ‘‘Since I also
became, as ye became when ye enlisted with Jesus Christ ; I rejected the
former pursuits of Judaism, in like manner as ye formerly rejected them.”
Incorrectly, because this would presuppose that Paul was speaking to Jewish
Christians, and because the motive, thus understood, could only have been
of real avail as a motive in the event of Paul having been converted later
than the Galatians. Jerome, Erasmus,* Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Mi-
chaelis, Rickert, interpret : ‘‘ Become as I, lay aside Judaism, for I also hace
lovingly accommodated myself to you ;" comp. Wieseler : ‘‘ Because I also, when
I brought the gospel to you, froma loving regard toward you Gentiles put aside
Jewish habits” (ii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 21).7 Against this view it may be urged,

1 So Koppe, Winer, Usteri, Neander,
Fritzsche, de Wette, Hilgenfeld.

* Comp. Phil. ii. 5; and see generally,
Kriiger, § lxil. 4. 1; Winer, p. 541 f.; Xen.
Anabd. vil. 7. 18: xpocpev dxep are.

2As Justin. ad Graec. ii. p. 40. ed. Col.
yiverOe ws tye, ort xdyes Hunv es vueis, “ be-
come as I, because I also was as ye."

« Pui, nec amplius sum, “ Iwas, but am no
longer.”

§ Comp. Rosenmiiller and Flatt.

* In his Annotationes.

7 So also in substance Olshausen, Ellicott,
Reithmayr, and others ; similarly also Hof-
mann. According to Hofmann, Paul says
of himself that he places himself on an equal-
tty with his Gentile readers (inasmuch as,
where his vocation requires it, he lives
among the Gentiles as if he were not a Jew),
and, on the other hand, requires of them

CHAP. Iv., 12. 183
that, in Paul’s working as an apostle to the Gentiles, his non-Judaistic atti-
tude was a matter of principle, and not a matter of considerate accommodation,
and that long before he preached to the Galatians. Besides, the result would
be a dissimilar relation betwcen the two members ; for Paul cannot require
the putting away of Jewish habits as a matter of affectionate consideration,
but only as a Christian necessity. [See Note LIX., p. 214.] The reciprocity
of what is to be done under this aspect is the point of the demand. Ac-
cording to Ewald, Paul says, ‘‘ As Christians, follow ye entircly my ex-
ample, because I too am a simple Ciristian and, strictly speaking, not more
than you.” But thus the very idea that was most essential, that of ‘‘a simple
Christian” would not be expressed. Others, including Luther, Beza, Cal-
vin, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, and Morus, find the sense :
‘¢ Tove me, as love you.”” But how could the reader discover this in the words
since Paul has not yet said a word as to any deficiency of love to him ?
Beza and Grotius wrongly appeal to the mode of designating one who is
beloved as an aller ego, an idea which dec éyé and de ipei¢ do not at all con-
vey. — adeAgoi, déoua: tov] The language of softened and deeply moved love.
The words are to be referred not to the sequel,! in which there is nothing
besought, but to the previous summons, with which he beseeches them to
comply. —ocidév ue 7duchoare] suggests a motive for granting his entreaty
yiveote &¢ éy4, by recalling their relation to him, as it had stood at the time
when he first preached the gospel to them : ‘‘ How should ye not grant me
this entreaty, since yc have done no injury to me (and certainly therefore
in this point just asked for, will not vex me by non-compliance) ; but ye
know,” etc. According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, Pelagius,
Luther, Calvin, Estius, Windischmann, and others, including Winer, the
words are intended to give an assurance that the previous severe language
had not flowed from displeasure and irritation against his readers. But
Paul has in fact already changed, immediately before, to the tone of love ;
hence such an assurance here would come in too late and inappropriately.
Nor would the oidévy ye qducgoare, which on account of the connection with
ver. 13 evidently applies to the period of his first visit, necessarily exclude
a subsequent offence ; so that the ‘‘igitur non habui, quod cobis trascerer,”
‘‘T have, therefore, had no reason to be incensed with you” (Winer), which
has been discovered in these words, is not necessarily implied in them. The
temporal reference of the ovdéy ue adixgoare, which is definitely and necessa-
rily given by ver. 13, excludes also the view of Beza, Bengel, Rickert,

that they shail place themselves on an equalily
with him (and therefore shall not live after
the Jewish manvuer, but shall share his free-
dom from the law, after he has accommo-
dated himself fo their position aloof from
the law). Hofmann insists, namely, on the
supplying of yivoua: (present), which, as
well as yiver@e, he understands in the sense
of behaving and conducting themselves.
This sense, however, is not suitable, since
the readers are really to decome different, and
not merely to accommodate themselves to

another line of conduct ; the yivec@a: would
not therefore retain the same sense in the
two halves of the verse. See also, in oppo-
sition to this view, Méller onde Wette. The
use Of yivecdac in the sense of a praestare
is, however, in itself linguistically admis-
sible (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. |. 7. 4), but
not in conformity with the proofs adduced
by Hofmann; as to which Dissen, ad Dem.
da. Cor. p. 289 f., takes the correct view.
1 Luther, Zeger, Koppe, and others.

184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIAKS.

Ewald, and others, that Paul represents the vexation occasioncd to him by
the relapse of his readers as having not occurred,’ in order to cncourage
them by this meiosis to a compliance with the yiveo8e dc iy. Lastly, those
interpretations are incorrect, which, in spite of the enclitic we, lay an anti-
thetic emphasis on the latter ; as that of Grotius (‘‘ me pricatim,” ‘‘ me per-
sonally”), that of Rettig ’® (not me, but God and Christ), and that of Schott
(nihil mihi nocuistis, vobis tantum, ‘‘ you have injured me nothing, but only
yourselves”). Nor is Hofmann’s view more correct : that Paul, taking oc-
casion by a passage in the (alleged) epistle of his readers, desired only to
say to them that the ovdév ye ydixgo. was not enough ; instead of having merely
experienced nothing unbecoming from them, he could not but expect more ct
their hands, for which reason they ought to recall what their attitude to
him had been at his first visit to them. In this view what is supposed to
form the train of thought is a purely gratuitous importation, with the fiction
of a letter written by the Galatians superadded ; and the assumed strong
contrast to the sequel must have been marked by a péy after ovdéy,* or by
GAAé instead of dé, in order to be intelligible. — On adicciv with accusative of
the person and of the thing, comp. Acts xxv. 10 ; Philem. 18 ; Wolf, Lep?.
p. 848 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. i. 6. 7.

Vv. 13, 14. Contrast to the preceding ovdév ue 7dux. Comp. Chrysostom :
‘‘'Ye have done nothing to injure me; but ye doubtless know, that I on
account of weakness of the flesh preached the gospel to you the former time,
and that ye,” etc. — d&’ acfévecav rig capxég] The only correct explanation,
because the only one agreeable to linguistic usage, is that adopted by Flatt,
Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and others, also by Winer, Gramm. p. 373,
on account of weakness of the flesh: ‘ so that it is clear, that on Paul’s first
journey through Galatia (Acts xvi. 6) he was compelled by reason of
bodily weakness to make a stay there, which properly did not form a part
of his plan ; and that during this sojourn, forced on him by necessity, he
preached the gospel to the Galatians. How he suffered, and from what cause,
whether from natural sickness,* or from ill-treatment which he had previ-

3“ All was forgotten and forgiven,”
Ewald.

2 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 100.

2As to Plat. Rep. p. 398 A, Hartung,
Partik. I. p. 168, forms a right judgment.

4 Benge! also translates correctly : ““prop-
ler infirmitatem,” ** because of weakness,”
but erroneously explains that the weakness
was not indeed ‘‘causa praedicationis ipstus,"’
“the cause of his preaching,” but ** adju-
mentum, cur P. eficacius praedicaret, cum
Galatae facilius rejicere posse viderentur,”’
‘“‘an aid whereby Paul preached the more
efficaciously, although the Galatians might
seem to be able to reject him the more
readily.”” Similarly, but still more incor-
rectly, Schott, who detects an ‘acumen
singulare’’ in Paul’s saying: ‘‘ per ipsam
aegritudinem carnis doctrinam divinam
vobis tradidi,”’ ‘through very weakness of

the flesh, I delivered to you the divine
doctrine ;”’ for the fact that Paul, although
sick, had preached very zealously, had been
of great influence in making his preaching
more successful. In this interpretation
everything is mistaken: for 6a must have
been used with the genitive; the “ ipeam,"’
“very,’’ and the thought of successful preach-
ing are quite gratuitously imported; and
the whole of the alleged ‘ acumen” would
be completely out of place ere, where Paul
wishes to remind his readers of their lore
then shown to him, and not of the efficacy
of his preaching.

5 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7. In respect to 2 Cor.
f.c., Holsten, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift,
1861, p. 250 f., conceives it to refer to epi-
leptical disturbances of the circulatory and
nervous system, such as occur among vision-
aries, Comp. his Ko. d. Pawl.u. Petr. p. 85.

~

CHAP, Iv., 13, 14. 185
ously endured on account of the gospel,’ we do not know. The mention
of an involuntary or rather quite unpremeditated working among the Gala-
tians ic not opposed to the apostle’s aim,* but favorable to it ; because the
love which received him so heartily and joyfully must have been all the
greater, the less it depended on the duty of befitting gratitude for a benefit
previously destined for the recipients, and for exertions made expressly on
their account. Many others have understood dé:¢ as denoting the apostle's
condition: ‘‘ amidst bodily weakness,” which is then referred by some, and
indced most expositors, following Chrysostom and Luther, to persecutions
and sufferings, by others to his insignificant appearance,® by others to sickness, *
and by others even to embarrassment and perplexity on account of the strange
circumstances.* But in this case d:¢ must have been used with the genitive ;*
for expressions such as dia dépa, dia vinta, did ordua, de’ aiBépa, x.7.A., in
which d:é denotes stretching through, are merely poetical.’ We should be
obliged to think of the occasioning state (as in dia rovro, dtd wodAd, x.7.A.),
which would just bring us back to our interpretation. Hence we must
reject also the explanation of Grotius: ‘‘ per varios casus, per mille
pericula rerum perrexi, ut vos instituerem,” ‘ through various calamities,
through a thousand dangers, I proceeded to establish you.” Others still have
gone so far as to refer &' aof. ri¢ capxéc to weakness of the Galatians, to
which Paul accommodated himself. So Jerome, Estius, Hug, and Rettig l.c.
p. 108 ff. : ‘* Ihave preached to you on account of the weakness of your flesh,”
which is supposcd to mean: ‘‘I have in my preaching had respect to the
infirmity of your flesh.” Utterly mistaken : because Paul must necessarily
have added a modal definition to eizyy. (even if it had only been an oirwr),
or must have written xar’ ao#. instead of dc’ dof. ; moreover, év TH capxi pov in
ver. 14 shows that Paul meant the aaGévera rij¢ capxéc to apply to himself. —
Td «pérepov] may mean either : earlier, at an earlier time, so that it would be
said from the standpoint of the present,® which in relation to the past is the
later time (John vi. 62, vii. 51, ix. 8; 2 Cor. i. 15 ; 1 Tim. i. 18 ; 1 Pet. i.
14; Heb. x. 32; LXX. Deut. ii. 12; 1 Chron. ix. 2; 1 Macc. xi. 27) ; or
the former time, so that the same fact (the preaching) took place twice
(Heb. iv. 6, vii. 27). It is interpreted in the former sense by Usteri and
Fritzsche, and in the latter by Koppe, Winer, Rickert, Matthies, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, and
others.° The latter is the correct view, so that rd mpérepov presupposes a
second sojourn of the apostle among the Galatians. For if he had preached

1 Comp. Gal. vi. 17.

3 As Rickert objects.

8 Calvin.

* Rickert, Matthies, Olshausen, Ewald;

82 Kadipunida ynvy xadounermmy, ‘‘the country
now called Boeotia, but at an earlier time
Cadmeis,”’ Isocr. de pace, § 121 and Brem!
in loc.

comp. also in Jerome.

* Baumgarten-Cruslus.

* See Matthiae, p. 1358; Fritzsche, ad
Rom. I. p. 138.

™8ee Schaefer, ad Mosch. 4. 91; Bern-
hardy, p. 236 f.; Kfthner, IT. p. 282.

§ Thue. i. 12.2: Thy viv Bousriay, xpérepoy

® The older expositors, translating it jam
pridem (Vulgate), or priva (Erasmus, Beza,
Calvin), or antea (Castalio), do not for the
most part attempt any more precise expla-
nation. Luther: ‘for the frst time.” Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact do not
give any explanation of 72 spor.

186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

among them only once, ré rpérepov would have been quite an idle, superfiu-
ous addition. But Paul adds it just in order to denote quite distinctly his
Jirst visit, during which he founded the churches (Acts xvi. 6) : at his second
visit (Acts xviii. 28), the happy experiences which he had enjoyed 13 xpére-
pov were not repeated in such full measure ; the churches were already tainted
by Judaism. Comp. Introd. § 2, 8. Fritzsche, indeed, maintains that vv.
18, 19 imply that Paul before the composition of the epistle had only once
visited the Galatians ; but see on ver. 19.

Ver. 14. Still dependent on dr, as is logically required by the contrast to
ovdéy ye 76ux., Which is introduced by oidare d2, ri. — tov meipaopdy tyav év
T® capxi pov x.7.A.] As to the reading tudy, see the critical notes. The sense
is; that ye were put to the proof as respected my bodily weakness (namely, as to
your receiving and accepting my announcements, demands, etc., notwith-
standing this my suffering and impotent appearance ; see the. antithesis,
GAA’ we x.t.2.) 5 this proof ye have not rejected with disdain and aversion, but on
the contrary have submitted yourselves to it so excellently, that ye received me as
an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. The xai is not and yet,' but the simple
and, continuing the address (oidare, ore x.t.A.). — év TH capKi pov] is the more
precise definition of rév recpacp. tar, specifying wherein the readers had to,
undergo a trial,—namely, in the fact of Paul’s having then preached to them
in such bodily weakness.* Hence év rg capxi did not require the connecting
article, as it is in reality blended with rév recpacpdy tyev 80 as to form one
iden.* And the definition of the sense of év rH capxe pov is derived from d¢'
aobiveray 77¢ capxés in ver. 18. Fritzsche, l.c. p. 245, objects to the sense
which is given by the reading tyuév : 1. sententiam ab h.l. abhorrere, ‘‘ The
sense is inconsistent with the connection.” But how aptly does the negative as-
sertion, that the Galatians, when they were put to the trial by the apostle’s
sickness, did not despise and reject this trial, correspond with the positive
idea, that, on the contrary, they have received him as an angel of God!
And how suitable are the two ideas together to the previous ovdév ye 7dixy-
care! 2. Sententiam verbis parum aptis conceptam esse; expectaras xadoc¢
trepeivare, ** The sense is inadequately expressed by the words ; and that we
should expect xarac irepeivare.” But this xao¢ brepeivare is in fact most ex-
haustively represented by the negative and positive testimony taken together ;
the negative testimony expresses the acceptance, and the positive the stand-
ing, of the re:pacydc. 8. The sense does not suit the following adn’. . . édé-
§ac6t pe. But even with the adoption of the reading tua» the rejection
of the apostle is in point of fact negatived ; hence rév reipacudv tuav . . .
éferrtoare cannot be inappropriate to the édéfaofé ve which follows. Lach-
mann‘ makes xal rv retpacy. ty. iv tr. o. wu. dependent on oidare (placing a
colon after év r@ capxi pov), whereby the flow of the discourse is quite unnec-
essarily broken. [See Note LX., p. 214.]— é&errbcare] expresses the sense of

1 Koppe, Winer, Matthies. Bacaviger bas év, “‘ put to the test,"’ Plat. Pol.
* Comp. Plat. Phil. p.21 A: éy cot weipw- _—vi. p. 508 A.
weda, upon thee we would make the trial. 3 See on ill. 26.
Hom. #. xix. 884, weipidyn. . . dy évrecs, ‘Comp. Buttmann in Stud. u. Krit. 1860,
‘“‘was tried In the harness.” Comp. also sp. 879.

CHAP. Iv., 15. 187%
efovd. figuratively and by way of climax, adding the idea of detestation.’
So forcible an expression of the negative serves to give the greater promi-
nence to the positive counterpart which follows.* This deviation from the
Greek usage should be acknowledged, and must be considered as caused by
éfov0., as in fact Paul is fond of repeating, not without emphasis, com-
pounds presenting the same preposition (ii. 4, 13 ; Rom. ii. 18, xi. 7, e¢ ad.).
— a¢ Xpiordy "Incovv] a climax added asyndetically in the excitement of feel-
ing, and presenting to a still greater extent than d¢ dyyeA. Geov (Heb. i. 4 ;
Phil. ii. 10 ; Col. i. 16) the high reverence and love with which he had
been received by them, and that as a divine messenger. Comp. Matt. x. 40;
John xiii. 20. Observe also, that even among the Galatians Paul doubtless
preached in the first instance to the Jews (whose loving behavior towards
the apostle was then shared in by the Gentiles also) ; hence the comparison
with an angel and with Christ in our passage is in keeping with the apos-
tle’s historical recollection, and does not render it at all necessary to assume
an vorepov tpérepoy in the representation, which would thus anticipate the
already Christian view.

Note.—According to the Recepia tr. rep. pov rav év T. 0. p., OF, a8 the first pov
has special evidence against it, according to the reading rdv meip. Tov ty T. 0. L.,
the explanation must be: ‘' My bodily temptation ye have not despised or disdain-
fully rejected,” that is, “‘ Ye have not on account of my sickness, by which I
have been tried of God, rejected me, as the bodily impotence in which it ex-
hibited me to you might have induced you to do.’" Taken by itself, this sense,
and the mode of expressing it, would be suitable enough,* even without the hy-
pothesis, based on ééexr., of some nauseous sickness.‘ [See Note LXI., p. 214.]

Ver. 15. Of what nature, then, was your self-congratulation? A sorrowful
question | for the earnestness with which the Galatians had then congratu-
lated themselves on the apostle’s account, contrasting so sadly with their
present circumstances, compelled him to infer that that congratulation was
nothing but an effervescent, fleeting, and fickle excitement. Hence the
reading srov ob (see the critical notes) is a gloss in substance correct ; comp.
Rom. iii. 27. Others explain it: On what was your self-congratulation
gruunded ? Why did you pronounce yourselves so happy ?*® In this case
qualis would have to be taken in the peculiar sense : how caused, which,
however, would require to be distinctly suggested by the context. Others

! Comp. Rev. ffi. 16, and the Latin des

puere, respuere.

2In the other Greek writers, besides the
simple wrvey (Soph. Ant. 649. 1217), there
occur only xcarasriey tivds, dwoxriew tive
(4 Maco. til. 18; Eur. Troad. 0668, Hec. 1265;
Hes. épy. 724), and dawrveyw rivé (in Philo
also waparrvey) in this metaphorical sense
(Kypke, IJ. p. 280; Ruhnk. Zp. crit. p. 149;
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 12; but ée«rrey
is always used In the proper sense (Hom. Od.
v. 82; Aristoph. Vesp. 702: Anthol. Theo-
dorid. 2; Apoll. Rhod. 478), as also éurrvey
nui (Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 17. Even in the

passage quoted by Kypke, Plut. de fort. vel
virt. Alex. I. p. 828, it is used in the proper
ane because eerep xaduwdéy stands beside
t.

3 In opposition to Wieseler.

“In opposition to Fritzsche.

* So Bengel, Koppe, Winer, Matthias, and
Schott. Schott, in opposition to the con-
text, and all the more strangely seeing that
he does not even read jv, but merely sup-
plies it, lays strees upon this 3»: ilo tem-
pore, nune non tem, “at that time, not
now in like manner ;”’ comp. Oecumentius.

188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

still, as Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, and including
Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Reiche, Wieseler, interpret : ‘‘ How great
(comp. Eph. i. 14) therefore was your congratulation |! how very happy you
pronounced yourselves !” But then the dore in ver. 16 would be deprived
of its logical reference, which, according to our interpretation, is contained
in rig obv 6 paxap. tu. And the words would, in fact, contain merely a su-
perfluous and feeble exclamation. — The paxapiopé¢ (comp. Rom. iv. 6, 9),
with which tua» stands as the genitive of the subject, and not as the geni-
tive of the object,*—for the object is obvious of itself, —refers to the circum-
stance that they had congratulated themselces, not that they had been con-
gratulated by Paul and others,*® or even that they (the Galatians) had con-
gratulated the apostle. See the sequel. The word, synonymous with
ebdaipovionéc, 18 never equivalent to paxapiérnc.*— paprupd yap tiv x.7.A.]
justification of the expression just used, 4 paxapopoc tydv. — roi o¢fadpod¢
x.7.A.] A description of the overwhelming love, which was ready for any
sacrifice. Such proverbial modes of expression, based upon the high value
and indispensableness of the eyes (Prov. vii. 2; Ps. xvii. 8 ; Zech. ii. 8;
Matt. xviii. 9; and comp. Vulpius and Doering, ad Catull. i. 3. 5), are
current in all languages. Nevertheless, Lomler,* Riickert, and Schott
have explained the passage quite literally: that Paul had some malady of
the eyes, and here states that, if it had been possible, the Galatians would
have given him their own sound eyes. But considering the currency of the
proverbial sense, how arbitrarily is this view hazarded, seeing that nowhere
else do we find a trace of any malady of the eyes in the apostle !"_ Riickert
and Schott, indeed, found specially on ei dvvaréy, and maintain that, to ex-
press the meaning of the ordinary view, Paul must have written: ‘‘if it
had been necessary.”” But in any case the idea was a purely imaginary one,
and as a matter of fact practically impossible (adivarov) ; if Paul, therefore,
had said : ‘‘if it had been necessary,” he would at any rate have expressed
himself unsuitably. Besides, ei dvvarév expresses the self-sacrificing love in
a yet far stronger degree. And, if Paul had not spoken proterbially, the
whole assurance would have been so hyperbolical, that he certainly could
not have stood sponsor for it with the earnest paprypd iviv. [See Note
LXII., p. 214 seq. ] — éfopt¢.] the standing word for the extirpation of the
eyes.'— éddxaré oc] namely, as property, as a love-pledge of the most joyful

1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 590 D.

2 Matthias.

* Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecu-
menius.

* Estius, Locke, Michaelis.

® Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Homberg,
Calovius, comp. Olsh.

*In the Annai. d. gesammt. theol. Lit. 1881,
p. 276.

7 Lomler and Schott trace back the al-
leged disease of the eyes to the blindness
at Damascus, and identify it with the o«éaow
(2 Cor. xii. 7). The latter idea is just as
mistaken as the former. For the oxdéAoy

was, in the apostie'’s view, an operation
of Satan, whereas the blindness at Damas-
cus arose from the effulgence of the celes-
tlal Christ. And this blindness, as it had
arisen supernaturally, was also supernat-
urally removed (Acts ix. 17, 18). That a
chronic malady of the eyes should have
been left behind, would be entirely op-
posed to the analogy of the N. T. miracles
of healing, of which a complete cure was
always the characteristic.

® See Judg. xvi. 21; 1 Sam. xi. 2; Herod.
vill. 116; Joseph. And. vi.5.1; Wetetein,
tn loc.

CHAP. Iv., 16. 189
self-sacrificing devotedness, not for use (Hofmann, following older expositors),
—a view which, if we do not explain it of a disease of the eyes in the apos-
tle’s case, leads to a monstrousidea. Without dv (see the critical notes) the
matter is expressed as more indubitable, the condition contained in the
protasis being rhetorically disregarded.’

Ver. 16. ‘Qere] Accordingly ; the actual state of things which, to judge
from the cooling down—which that painful question (ric obv 6 paxapopos
ipav ;) bewails—in the self-sacrificing love depicted in vv. 14, 15, must
have superseded this love, and must now subsist.? The words contain a pro-
foundly melancholy exclamation : ‘‘ Accordingly, that is my position ; I am
become your enemy |” etc. So great a change has the relation, previously
so rich and happy in confidence and love, experienced by the fact that it
is my business to speak the truth to you (mark the present participle aA7bebuy).
This conduct which I pursue towards you, instead of confirming your
inclination towards me and confidence in me, has taken them away ; I
have become your enemy! To place (with Matthias) a note of interrogation
after yéyova, and then to take 4170. tuiv as an exclamation (an enemy, who
tells you the truth/), breaks up the passage without adequate ground.
Utterly groundless, illogical, and unprecedented (for the dove of an infer-
ential sentence always follows the sentence which governs it) is the inver-
sion forced upon the apostle by Hofmann, who makes out that dore x.7.1. is
dependent on {ydovaw tuac: ‘80 that I am now your enemy, if I tell you
truth, they court you ;” it is the result of these courtings, that, when the
apostle agreeably to the truth tells his converts (as in i. 8 f.) what is to be
thought about the teaching of his opponents (?), he thereby comes to stand
as theirenemy. In this interpretation the special reference of aAjbebuv ipiv
is purely gratuitous. To explain the dore consecutioum with the indicative,
the simple rule is quite sufficient, that it is used de re facta; and the
emphasis of the relation which it introduces lies in its indicating the
quality of the preceding, to which the consecutioum refers.* Hofmann
increases the arbitrary character of his artificial exposition by subse-
quently, in ver. 17, separating ob xadé¢ from CyAovorw inac, and looking
upon these words as an opinion placed alongside of dore éx6p. ip. yéy.,
respecting this mode of courting. His interpretation thus presents at once
8 violent combination and a violent separation. — éy@pdc tuav] The context
permits either the passive sense : hated by you,‘ or the active: your ene-

3 See Hermann, ad Soph. El. 902; de part.
av, p. 70 ff.; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. IV. p. 480
f.; Stallbaum, ad Flat. Symp. p. 198 C;
Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 490.
But Ellendt (Zer. Soph. I. p. 1%) well re-
marks, *‘Sed cavendum, ne in discrimine
utriusque generis, quod pertenue est, con-
stituendo argutemur,” “But care must be
taken, lest in maintaining the distinction
between the two olasses, we prate about
what is excessively subtile."’

9 Sore cannot specify a reason, as Wieseler
thinks, who, anticipating ver. 17, explains :

“For no other reason than because ye pro-
nounced yourselves so happy on my account,
am I (according to the representation of the
JSalse teachers) become your enemy,” ete.
Wleseler therefore takes sore, as if it had
been 8&4 rovro.

§Comp. Ellendt, Lez. Soph. II. p. 1012:
* Rem qualis sit, addita ret consequentis sig-
nijficatione definit,” “It defines a subject as
to its nature, by adding the meaning of
that which results."

4De Wette, Windischmann, and older
expositors.

190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

my ;' the latter, however, so taken that 2y@p. tudv yétyova is said in accord-
ance with the (altered) opinion of the readers. This active interpretation is
to be preferred, because the usage among Greek authors (and throughout the
N. T. also) in respect to the substantive éxy6péc with the genitive is decisive
in its favor.* From the time of Homer, éyfpé¢ means hated only with the
dative,* which either stands beside it or is to be mentally supplied.‘ —
yéyova] To what time does this change (having become), which by the perfect
is marked as continuing, refer? It did not occur in consequence of the
present epistle,® for the Galatians had not as yet read it ; nor at the jirst visit,
for he had then experienced nothing but abundant love. It must therefore
have taken place at the second visit,* when Paul found the Galatian churches
already inclined to Judaism, and in conformity with the truth could no
longer praise them (for only éraivéryg rot dixaiov GAnbeber, ‘‘ a commender of
what is just speaks the truth,” Plat. Pol. ix. p. 589 C), but was compelled
to blame their aberrations. — adAjbebwy ipiv] For ‘‘teritas odium parit,”
‘‘truth begets hatred,” 7’ and dpyflovras amavrec roig petra mappyotac 7’ alnOy
2£yova, ‘* All are provoked with those who frankly speak the truth.”* As to
aAnbetery, to speak the truth, see on Eph. iv. 15.

Ver. 17. The self-seeking conduct of the Judaizing teachers (i. 7), so en-
tirely opposed to the dAnbetur tyuiv. The fact that they are not named is quite
in keeping with the emotion and irritation of the moment ; ‘‘ nam solemus
suppresso nomine de iis loqui, quos nominare piget ac tacdet,” ‘‘ For those
whom it disgusts and offends us to mention we generally refer to witha
suppression of the name,” Calvin. — CyAcverw tuac] that is, they exert them-
selves urgently to win you over to their side ; they pay their court to you
zealously.* For the contrast to the behavior of the apostle harmonizes well
with this sense ; which is also accordant with linguistic usage, since (7/60
with the accusative means to be zealous about a person or thing, and obtains in
each case the more precise definition of its import from the context." Next
to this interpretation comes that of Calvin, Beza, and others, including
Riickert :'' they are jealous of you (2 Cor. xi. 2; Ecclus. ix. 1). Taking it so,
it would not be necessary to conceive of Paul and his opponents under the
figure of wooers of the bride,'® of which nothing is suggested by the context;
but it may be urged against this explanation, that iva avrovc Cydovre is not
appropriate in the same sense. This remark also applies tothe interpretation
of Koppe and Reithmayr: !° ‘‘ they enoy you (Acts vii. 9), are full of an envious

1 Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, and many * So, correctly, Erasmus, Castalio, Er.

others; also Rickert, Matthies, Schott,
Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann.

3 Dem. 489. 19. 1121. 12: Xen. Anabd. ifi. 2
5, de vewrat. 18. 12; Soph. Af. 554.

3 Xen. Cyrop. v. 4.80; Dem. 21. 12. 245.
16; Lucian, Sacrif. 1; Herodian. ili. 10. 6.

4 Rom. v. 10, xi. 28; Col. 1. 21.

8 Jerome, Luther, Koppe, Flatt,
others.

® Acta xviii. 28.

7 Terent. Andr. 1. 1. 40.

® Lucian, Addic. 7.

and

Schmid, Michaelis, and others, including
Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette,
Ewald, Wieseler, and Hofmann.

10Dem. 1402. 20. 500. 2; Prov. xxiv. 1;
Wisd. 1.12; 1 Cor. xii. 81; and see Wetstein.

11 Comp. Vulgate: aemulantur.

12 The bridegroom being Christ ; see on
2Cor. xi. 2

18 Following Ambrose, Jerome, and The-
odoret.

CHAP. Iv., 1%. 191
jealousy of your freedom ;” and to that of Chrysostom and Theophylact :
they viewith you.’ The factitive explanation : they make you to be zealous
(Matthias), is opposed to linguistic usage, which only sanctions rapat7Adu],
and not the simple verb, in this sense. — ot xadac] not in a morally fair, hon-
orable way, 28 would have been the case, if it had been done for your real good.
—ixxieica:] To exclude ;* they desire to debar you ; inthis lies the wickedness
of their (j20¢. The question which arises here, and cannot be set aside
(as Hofmann thinks) : Exclude from what? is answered by the emphatic
avrobc which follows, namely, from other teachers, who do not belong to their
clique. These ‘‘other teachers” are naturally those of anti-Judaizing
views, and consequently Paul himself and his followers ; but the hypothesis
that Paul only is referred to‘ is the less feasible, as the very idea of
éxxZeioa: in itself most naturally points to a plurality, to an association. Since
the avrots which follows applies to the false teachers as teachers, we must
not conceive the erclusion* as from the whole body of Christians, nor® as from
all Christians thinking differently ; comp. Hilgenfeld : ‘‘from the Pauline
church-union.” It is arbitrarily taken by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theo-
phylact, as exclusion from the state of true knowledge ; by Erasmus and Cor-
nelius & Lapide, from Christian freedom; by Luther (1519), a Christo et
Jiducia ejus, ‘‘ from Christ and confidence inhim ;” by Matthies, from the king-
dom of truth; 7 by Wieseler and Reithmayr, from the kingdom of heaven ; by
Matthias, from salration by faith. All interpretations of this nature would
have needed some more precise definition. Koppe falls into a peculiar
error: ‘‘aconsuetudine et familiaritate sua arcere vos volunt,” ‘‘ They would
preclude you from their companionship and intimacy” (ii. 12). — iva abroi¢
Cnaovre] As iva is used here with the present indicatire, it cannot mean
in order that ;* but must be the particle of place, ubi.° This ubi may, how-
ever, mean either : in which position of things ye are zealous for them ;"° or, in
its purely local sense : ‘‘they wish to debar you there, where you are zealous

1 Comp. Borger ; ¢nAos wdv éoriy ayadds Gray
Tig aperny pemnral tivos, GHAos 82 ov Kards,
drav rig owevdy dxBadreiy THs aperns Toy KaTOp-
dovrra, ** Zeal is good when one imitates the
excellence of anothcr; but {it is not good
when one jis eager to reject, because of
his virtue, one who i3 successful * (The-
ophylact).

* Syr. translates includere, and consequent-
ly read éyxAcioar. This would mean: they de-
sire loinclude youin their circle, so that ye
should not get free from them and come to
associate with other teachers. Thus, in
point of fact, the same sense would result
as in the case of éxcAcioa, only regarded
from a different point of view. Fritzsche's
reference of ¢yxA. to the legis Mos. carcerem
is not suggested by the context. The read-
ing is altogether so weakly attested, that it
can only be looked upon as an ancient er-
ror of transcription.

2 The wish expressed by Erasmus fn his
Annott.;: ‘Utinam hodie nulli sint apud

Christianos in quos competat haeo Pauil
querimonia !" ** Would that to-day there
were none to whom this complaint of Paul
were not pertinent!” is still but too applica-
ble to the present day.

4**A me meique communione,” “ from
me and fellowship with me,’ Winer; so
also Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Kypke.
Michaelis, Rickert, Olshausen, Reiche, and
others.

* With Borger and Fiatt.

* With Schott.

7 Comp. Ewald: from genuine Christian-
ily.

§ CnAoure is not the Attic future (Jatho).
See Winer, p. 72; Buttmann, p. 88. In Thue.
fi. 8. 8, and fil. 58. 4, éAcev@epovc: and dpnuovre
are presents ; see Kriiger tn lec.

® Valokenaer, ad Herod. |x. 27: iva onde
WTA,

10 My former explanation, as in 1 Cor. iv. 6;
see on that passage, and Ellendt, Lez. Soph.
I. p. 889.

192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Sor them,”—namely, in the Judaistie circle, in which it is they themselves who
are zealously courted by yuu, whose favor you have to seck, etc. The latter
view, as the simplest, is to be preferred. On the usual explanation of iva
as a particle of design, recourse is had to the assumption of an abnormal con-
struction of degenerate Greek ;' or of a mistake on the part of the author or
of the transcriber ;* or, with Fritzsche, to the reading (7Aa-e.2 But all these
expedients are quite as arbitrary as the assumption of a faulty formation of
mood.‘ The interpretation of iva as udi is based not on an ‘‘ exaggerated
philological preicison,”*® but on a linguistic necessity, to which the cus-
tomary interpretation, yielding certainly a sense appropriate enough in itself,
must give way, because the latter absolutely requires the subjunctive mood.
[See Note LXIII., p. 215.]

Ver. 18. Paul knew that the state of things mentioned in ver. 17 was but
too assuredly based upon reality. So long as he had been with them (on
the first occasion, and still even during his short second visit), the Galatians
had shown zeal in that which was good, viz., in the actual case: zeal for their
apostle and his true gospel, as was their duty (consequently what was morally
right and good). But after his departure this zeal veered round in favor of
the Judaizing teachers and their doctrine. Hence the apostle continues,
giving a gentle reproof, and for that reason expressing the first half of the
sentence merely in a general form : ‘‘ Good, however, is the becoming eealous
in @ good thing aluays, and not merely during my presence with you ;” that is,
‘‘Tt is good when zealous cndeavors are continuously applied in a good cause,
and not merely,” etc. The chief emphasis rests on this zévrore with its an-
tithesis. The special form, in which Paul has clothed his thought, arises
from his inclination for deliberately using the same word in a modified shade
of meaning.* But the very point of this mode of expression requires that
CnAovefae should not be taken in a sense essentially different from the correct
view of it in ver. 17 ; consequently, neither as invidiose tractari, ‘‘to be en-
viously treated” (Koppe), nor as to endure enoy (Riickert), which, besides,
cannot be conveyed by the simple passive. In Usteri’s view Paul intends
to say, ‘‘ How much was I not the object of your (720¢ (zeal and interest),
when I was with you! But if it should cease again so soon after my de-
parture from you, it must have lost much of its value.” But the very nai
udvov év TO apeivai pe mpdc tua¢ plainly shows that Paul did not conceive
himself as the object of the (yAcvofa ; in order to be understood, he must

1 Winer, Olshausen. Hilgenfeld, Wieseler,
Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others.

2 Schott.

3 Which only 113 and 219** have.

4 Rickert, Matthies.

8 As Hilgenfeld thinks, who appeals in
favor of iva, ut, with the indicative to
Clem. Hom. xi. 16: tva pnodév trav epooxvvov-
dveor Urnpxev. This is certainly not “ philo-
logical precision," but inattention to lin-
guistic fact ; forin this Clementine passage
the quite customary iva, u/, is used with
the indicative of the preferife, ‘‘quod tum

fit, quando ponitur aliquid, quod erat
futurum, si aliud quid factum esset, sed
jam non est factum,” ‘‘ which occurs when
anything which was to be is stated, if any-
thing else was to have been done, but now
has not been done.’ Klotz, ad Devar. p.
630 f.;: Herm. ad Viger. p. 850 f.; Kihner,
II. § 778 With regard to the respective
passages from Barnabas and Ignatius, in
support of iva with the present indicative,
see on 1 Cor. iv. 6.

® Rom. xiv. 18; 1 Cor. iil. 17, e¢ ai. » comp.
Wilke, Rhedor. p. 848 f.

CHAP, Iv., 18. 193
have added this ve to CyAcvefa:, since there was no previous mention of
himself as the object of the (740. This objection also applies to the view
of Reiche, although the latter takes it more distinctly and sharply : ‘‘ Bo-
num, honestum et salutare (vi. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Thess. v. 21), vero est
expels aliorum studio et amore, modo et consilia honesto, év nadg (conf. 2 Cor. xi.
2; Geov CHA), tdque continuo ac semper mdvrore, nec tantum praesente me inter
vos,” ‘* It is indeed good, becoming, and advantageous (vi. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 1;
1 Thes. v. 21) to be sought after by the devotion and love of others, in an hon-
' orakble way and from an honorable purpose (conf. 2 Cor. ii. 2), and that con-
tinually and always, nor only when I am present among you.” But éy xadg!
cannot mean ‘‘ modo et consilio honesto” (this is expressed by xadae in ver.
17) ; it denotes the olyect of the (7Acvc@a:, and that conceived of as the sphere
in which the (7AcveGa: takes place. Schott interprets, unsuitably to the xa?
Ht? udvov x.t.A. which follows : ‘‘ Laudabile est, guovis tempore appeti vel trahi
ad partes alicujus, si agitur de bono et honesto colendo,” ‘‘It is praise-
worthy at any time to be eager for or to be drawn to the interest of one,
provided it be done for the purpose of cultivating the good and honorable.”
So also, in substance, de Wette, with relation to the passive demeanor of the
Galatians, and with an extension of the idea of the verb : ‘‘ Jt is, however,
beautiful to be the object of zealous attention in what is good,” by which are in-
dicated the qualities and advantages on account of which people are ad-
mired, loved, and courted.* Similarly Ewald : ‘‘It is beautiful to be the
object of zealous love in what is beautiful,” (yAcvorv and fyAcbre in ver. 17 being
understood in a corresponding sense. But this interpretation also does not
harmonize with the xai py) udvov x.7.4. which follows ; and hence Ewald
changes the idea of ¢yActofa: into that of being worthy of love, and conse-
quently into the sense of (yAwrdv elvac. Hofmann over-refines and obscures
the correct apprehension of the passage, by bringing ver. 18, in consequence
of his erroneous reference of acre éxfpd¢ x.7.A. (see on ver. 16), into connec-
tion with this sentence, considering the idea to be: ‘‘ Just as his person had
formerly been the object of their affection, it ought to have remained so,
instead of his now being their enemy in consequence of the self-seeking
solicitude with which his opponents take pains about them if he speaks to
them the truth. For in his case the morally good had been the ground, on
account of which he had been the object of their loving exertion,” etc. The
earlier expositors,*® as also Olshausen and Matthias (the latter in keeping

Ep cary, used adverblally, means either
at the fit @me (Plat. Pol. ix. p. 571 B; Xen.
fel. iv. 3. 5), or at the suitable place (Xen.
TTell, 11. 1, 25), and in general, fiUy (see Sturz,
Lez. Xen. ll. p. 648), but does not occur in
the N. T.

3Theophylact (comp. also Chrysostom
and Theodoret) has evidently understood
the passage substantively, just asde Wette:
TOVTO aiviTrerar, WS Apa CnAwTo! Roav wacty emi
tn TeAaéryn, “This suggests that, there-
fore, they were enviable as to their per-
fection.” Linguistically unobjectionable.

13

Comp. Xen. Mem, fi. 1. 19: éwatvopdvous x.
GnAovnevous Umd tay aGAdwy, “praised and
esteemed happy by the rest.”” Sympos. 4.
45; Hiero, 1. 9; Eur. Alc. 908; Soph. 2.
1016; Aesch. Pers. 698; Plat. Gorg. p. 478 C,
Cndwros Oy cai evdaimorrfcuevos, ‘* being envi-
able and accounted happy.” See gener-
ally, Blomf. Gloss. Aesch. Prom. 388; Pier-
son, ad Moer. p. 169.

3 Not all. The learned Grotius has evi-
dently understood {t passively: ‘Rectum
erat, ut semper operam daretis, ut ego a
vobis amurl expeterem; est enim hoc

194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

with his factitive interpretation of the active), mostly take {yAvic6a: as
middle, in sense equivalent to ¢720vv, with very different definitions of the
meaning,' but inconsistently with the usus loquendi.

Ver. 19. This verse i not be attached to the preceding,? —a construc-
tion which makes this earnest, touching address appear awkward and dis-
similar in character to what is previously said,—but the words are to be
separated from what precedes by a full stop, and tobe joined with what
follows, the tender affection of which is quite in harmony with this loving
address. Difficulty has been felt as to dé in ver. 20 ;* but only from énat-
tention to the Greek use of dé after the address, when the writer turns to s
new thought, and does so with a tacit anthithesis, which is to be recognized
from the context. It is found so not merely with questions,‘ but also in
other instances.* Here the slight antithetic reference lies, as the very repe-

tition of mapeivac mpd¢ tuac indicates, in his glancing back to xa? pp udvov~

x.t.a., namely : ‘‘ Although zeal in a good cause ought not to be restricted
merely to my presence with you, I yet would wish to be now present with
you,” etc. The dé of the apodosis, which Wieseler here assumes, is not suit-
able, because 7eAov dé x.r.A. does not stand in any kind of antithesis to rex».
pov obe 742. ddivw x.t.A.; and besides, no connected construction would result
from it ; far the idea : ‘‘ Because ye are my children . . . I would wish,” does

amari honestum,” “It was right for you
always to take pains that I might aspire
to be loved of you; for it is good to
be loved.” Also Michaelis (comp. Er.
Sohmidt): “It is good when others court
our favor.” Both interpretations come
very near to that of Usteri.

1 Erasmus, ParapAr., ‘ Vidistis me legts
. ceremonias negligere, nihil praedicare prae-
ter Christum, aemulabamini praesentem.
Si id rectum erat, cur nunc absente me
vultis alios aemulare in fis, quae recta non
sunt?” ‘‘You saw that I neglected the
ceremonies of the law, that I preached
nothing but Christ, and you emulated me
when I waspresent. If this was right, why,
now, inmy absence do you wish to emulate
others in such things as are not right.’ Lu-
ther, 1524 : ‘‘ Bonum quidem est aemulari et
imitari alios, sed hoc praestate in re bona
semper, nunquam in mala, non tantum me
praesente, sed etiam absente,” ‘“‘It is
good indeed to emulate and imitate others,
but do this always in a good matter, never
in an evil, not only in my presence, but
also in my absence * Comp. Calvin: ** Imi-
tari vel eniti ad alterius virtutem,” ‘To
imitate or strive after the virtue of an-
other.”’ -Beza: “‘ At noster amor longe est
alius ; vo8 enim bonam ob causam non ad
tempus, sed semper, non solum praesens,
sed etiam absens absentes vehementissime
complector,”’ ‘But our love is far differ-
ent; forin a’good cause J] most ardently

embrace you, not for a time, but always;
not only when [ am present, but also when
I am absent, do I embrace you absent.”
Locke (év xaAg masculine): ‘‘ Vos amabatis
me praesentem tanquam bonum, fas itaque
est idem facere in absentem,”’ *“* You loved
me when present as a good ; therefore it is
right to do the same towards Ine absent."
Bengel: ‘‘Zelo zelum accendere, zelare
inter se,” “‘To kindle zeal by zeal, to be
mutually zealous.’”? Morus: ‘“ Laudabile
autem est, sectari praeceptorem fn re bona
semper, neque solum,”etc., “It is, more-
over, praiseworthy always in agood matter
to follow a teacher, nor only,” etc. ; sub-
stantially, therefore, as Erasmus. Others in-
terpret In various ways. Olshausen : “‘ Paul
desires to make known that he finds the zeal
of the Galatians In itself very praiseworthy,
and certainly would not damp it; and he
therefore says, that the being zealous is
good if it takes place on account of a good
cause, and is maintained not merely in his
presence, but also in his absence.”” So
already Calovius and others.

2 Bos, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, Rick-
ert, Usteri, Schott, Ewald, Hofmann.

3 Which therefore is omitted in Chrysos-
tom and some min.

4Hom. 7. xv. 244; Plat. Zegg. x. p. 890
E; Xen. Mem. 1. 8. 13, il. 1. 26; Soph. @. €-
823. 1459.

® Herod. {. 115; Xen. Angad, v. 5. 18, vi. 6.

12.

CHAP. lV., 19. 195

not correspond with the words. According to Hilgenfeld, that which the
address is intended to introduce (viz., to move the readers to return) is wholly
suppressed, and is supposed to be thereby the more strikingly suggested.’
But the affectionate tenor of the wish which follows in ver. 20 harmonizes
so fully with the tender address in ver. 19, that that hypothesis, which

- Calvin also entertained (‘‘ hic quasi moerore exanimatus in medio sententiae

tractu deficit,” ‘‘here as though stupefied by grief, he loses courage right in
the midst of the delivering of his judgment”), does not seem warranted.
Nevertheless Buttmann also? assumes an anacoluthon. —rexvia pov] The
word rexvia, so frequent in John, is not found elsewhere in Pauls writings.
But Lachmann and Usteré ought not to have adopted (following B F G &*)
the reading réxva, since it is just in this passage, where Paul compares him-
self to a mother in childbirth, that the phrase\‘' my Uittle children” finds a
more special motive and warrant than in any other passage where he uses
réxva.*— ob¢] The well-known constructio xaré obveo.w, ‘‘ construction accord-
ing to sense.” 4— réduv adivw] whom I once more travail with. Paul repre-
sents himself, not, as elsewhere (1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Philem. 10), asa father, but
in the special emotion of his love, as a mother who is in travail, and whose
labor is not brought to an end (by the actual final birth) until nothing further
is requisite for the full and mature formation of the rexviov. So long as this
object is not attained, according to the figurative representation, the odivecy
still continues.° Bengel remarks very correctly : ‘‘ Loqguitur ut res fert,
nam in partu naturali formatio est ante dolores partus,” ‘‘ He speaks as the
case demands, for in natural birth formation precedes the pains of birth.”
The point of comparison is the loving exertion, which perseveres amidst trouble
and pain in the effort to bring about the new Christian life. This metaphor-
ical ddivey had been on the first occasion easy and joyful, ver. 13 ff.
(although it had not had the full and lasting result ; see afterwards, on
axptc ov x.t.A.); but on this second occasion it was severe and painful, and
on this account the word ddivs is chosen (and not rixrw or yevvd), which,
however, is also appropriate to the earlier act of bearing intimated in wd”,
since the idea of pains is essential to the conception of a birth, however
slight and short they may be. The sense, when stripped of figure, is: ‘‘ My
beloved disciples ! at whose conversion I am laboring for the second time
with painful and loving exertion, until ye shall have become maturely-
formed Christians.” This continuous of¢ rdAw ddivw is to be conceived as
begun, so soon as Paul had learned the apostasy of his readers and had com-
menced to counteract it ; so that his operations during his second visit ® are
thus also included : hence we cannot’ consider vv. 18, 19 as intimating

1 Comp. also Refithmayr.

3 Neut. Gr. p. 831.

71 Cor. iv. 14; 2 Cor. vi. 18: comp. also
1 Tim. i. 18; 2 Tim. fi. 1.

* Winer, p. 138.

* Heinsius, Grotius, Koppe, Rickert, and
others, erroneously hold that wéiver here
means fo be pregnant, which it never does,
not even in the LXX., Isa. xxvi. 17; Ps. vii.

15; Song of Sol. viil.5; Philo, guod Deus
immut. p. 818 B; Plat. Theaet. p. 148 C, 210
B. Onwédiver with the accusative of the
person, comp. parturire aliquem, Isa. li. 2;
Song of Sol. vilf.5; Eur. Zph. A. 1234.

Comp adndevwr vuty, ver. 16.

7 With Fritzsche (i.c. p. 244) and Ulrich
(in the Stud. u. Krit. 1886, p. 459).

196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

that Paul had only once visited Galatia. According to Wieseler, réAcv ddivw
is intended to express the idea of the ratjyevecia, ‘‘ regeneration,” Tit. iii.
5 ; Paul had regenerated his readers already at their conversion, and here
says that he is still continuously occupied in their regeneration, until they
should have attained the goal of perfection on the part of the Christian —
similarity with Christ. This is incorrect, because réA:7 must necessarily -
denote a second act of travail on the part of Paul. Paul certainly effected
the regeneration of his readers on occasion of the first ddivecv, which is pre-
supposed by zéAcv ; but because they had relapsed (i. 6, iii. 1, iv. 9 f., e¢
al.), he must be for the second time in travail with them,.and not merely still
continuously (an idea which is not expressed) their regenerator, so that the
idea of the xd4:v, the repetition, would be on the part of the readers. The-
ophylact ! aptly defines the sense of rdjw ddivw not as that of a continued
avayévynacc, ‘‘ new birth,” but as that of rdacv érépac avayevvfoeuc, ‘again
another new birth.” The sense, ‘‘ whose regeneration I am continuing,”
would have been expressed by Paul in some such form as oi¢ ob rabopa
avayevvov, ‘‘ whom I do not cease to beget anew,” or od¢ Er: xai viv avayevva,
‘‘whom even now I am begetting anew.” — dypic ob popputy Xprorog tv tyiv]
A shadow is thus thrown on the result of the jirst conversion (birth), which
had undergone so sudden a change (i. 6). The reiterated labor of birth is
not to cease until, etc. This meaning, and along with it the emphasis of
the dypi¢ od x.7.4., has been missed by Hofmann, who, instead of referring
médjuv to wdive only, extends it also to dypic ov x.r.A. In connection with the
general scope of the passage, however, the stress is on popgw6p: ‘until
Christ shall have been formed, shall have attained His due conformation,
in you,” that is, until ye shall have attained to the fully-formed inner life of
the Christian. For the state of ‘‘ Christ having been formed in man” is by
no means realized ‘‘ so soon as a man becomes a Christian,”’* but, as clearly ap-
pears from the notion of the dypic od, is the goal of development which the
process of becoming Christian has to reach. When this goal is attained,
the Christian is he in whom Christ lives (comp. on ii. 20); as, for
instance, on Paul himself the specific form of life of his Master was
distinctly stamped. So long, therefore, as the Galatians were not yet de-
veloped and morally shaped into this complete inward frame, they were
still like to an immature embryo, the internal parts of which have not yet ac-
quired their normal shape, and which cannot therefore as yct come to the
birth and so put an end to the ddivery. In the Christian, Christ is to inhabit
the heart (Eph. iii. 17) : in him there is to be the voir, ‘‘ mind,” of Christ
(1 Cor. ii. 16), the rvetua, ‘‘ spirit,” of Christ (Rom. viii. 9), the oxAdyyva,
‘* bowels,” of Christ (Phil. i. 8) ; and the body and its members are to be
the body and members of Christ (1 Cor. vi. 18,15). All this, which is com-
prehended in the idea Xproréc év tyuiv, is in our passage rendered intelligible
by the representation that Christ is to be formed in us, or to become present
in the life-form corresponding to His nature. This view is not different in
reality, although it is so in the mode of representation, from that of spirit-

1 Comp. Chrysostom. 3 Hofmann.

CHAP. IV., 20. 197
ual transformation after the image of Christ (2 Cor. iii. 18); for, according
to our passage, Christ Himself is in Christians the subject of the specific de-
velopment. Bengel, moreover, well remarks: ‘‘ Christus non Paulus, in
Galatis formandus,” ‘‘ Christ, not Paul, is to be formed in the Galatians,”’—
popddw] occurs here only in the N. T.; but see LXX. Isa. xliv. 18 (ed.
Breit.) ; Symmachus, Ps. xxxiv. 1; Arat. Phaen. 375 ; Lucian, Prom. 8 ;
Plut. de anim. generat. p. 1018 ; Theophr. ¢. pl. v. 6, 7.*

Ver. 20. As to the connection of thought of the dé with ver. 18, see on
ver. 18. —#@ecAov] namely, if the thing were possible.*— dpr:] just now,
presently (see on i. 9), has the emphasis. — aAAdfa: riv gwvtv pov] The em-
phasis is on aAAdgéa:. But in harmony with the context (see vv. 16, 18, and
the foregoing dpr:), this changing can only refer to the second visit of the
apostle to the Galatians, not to the language now employed in his letter, as
many expositors think.* Erroneously, therefore—and how sharply in oppo-
sition tothe previous affectionate address !— Ambrosius, Pelagius, Wet-
stein, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, take the
sense to be: to assume a stern language of reproof. Hofmann also erro-
neously holds that Paul means the (in oral expression) more chastened tone of
a didactic statement—aiming at the bringing the readers back from their
error—after the strongly excited style in which, since the word @avydfw in
i. 6, he had urged his readers, as one who had already been almost deprived
of the fruit of his labors. As if Paul had not previously, and especially
from iii. 6 to iv. 7, written didactically enough ; and as if he had not also
in the sequel (see immediately, ver. 21, and chap. v. and vi. down to the
abrupt dismissal at the end) urged his readers with excitement enough |!
The supposition, however, which Hofmann entertains, that Paul has hitherto
been answering a letter of the Galatians, and has just at this point come
to the end of it, is nothing but a groundless hypothesis, for there is no trace
of such a letter to be found in the epistle. No; when Paul was for the
second time in Galatia, he had spoken sharply and sternly, and this had
made his readers suspect him, as if he had become their enemy (ver. 16) :
hence he wishes to be now with them, and fo epeak to them with a voice differ-
ent from what he had then used, that is, to speak to them in a soft and gentle -
tone.‘ By this, of course, he means not any deviation in the substance of
his teaching from the dAnfeterv (ver. 16), but a manner of language betoken-
ing tender, mother-like love. A wish of self-denying affection, which is

1 See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 845.

2Comp. Rom. ix. 8; Acts xxv.2. See
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 285; Kihner,
II. p. 68; Fritzsche, ad Rom. Il. p. 245.

280 also Zachariae (who is followed by
Flatt) : ‘‘to lay aside my present mournful
language, and to adopt that of tenderness
and contentment.” In this case Paul must
have used évracda: ; for unless his readers
had improved in their conduct, it would
have been érnpossitle for him to speak con-
tentedly. Bengel, in opposition to the idea
of ad\Adéas: ‘ molliter scribit, sed mollius

loqu! vellet,” ‘‘ He writes mildly ; but he
would wish to speak still more mildly.”
Jerome explained the passage as referring
to the exchange of the vor enistotica, ‘** epis-
tolic utterance,” for the vivus sermo, ‘‘ liv-
ing speech,” of actual presence, which
might have more effect in bringing them
back ad veritatem, ‘‘to the truth.”

*Not exactly weeping, as Chrysostom
thinks : wotjoa: «cai 8axpia nai wavra sis
Optvoy émonrdcacdau, ‘to shed tears, and to
turn all things to lamentation.”

198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

ready and willing, in the service of the cause and for the salvation of the
persons concerned, to change form and tone, although retaining ¢uvdy
yevdéay ayvwordy, ‘*a voice unexperienced in falsehoods.” ! The latter was
a matter of course in the case of a Paul, willingly though he became al}
things to all men ; comp. on 1 Cor. 1x. 22. Many other expositors* under-
stand it as : to speak according to the circumstances of each case, with tenderness
and affection to one, with severity and censure to another. Comp. Corn. a
Lapide : ‘‘ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc ob-
secrarem, nunc objurgarem vos,” ‘‘namely, that, as a mother now I might
caress, now sigh over, now beseech and now chide you.” But this cannot be
expressed by the mere ajAdfa tr. 9., which without addition means nothing
more than to change the voice,* that is, to assume another voice, to let
oneself be heard otherwise, not differently.‘ Paul must have added either
& more precise definition, such as cig moAAove tpdrove, ei¢ poppac mAelovac,
‘‘into many ways, various forms,”* or at least some such expression
as mpoc thy zpeiay (Acts xxvili. 10), mpdc 1rd ovugépov (1 Cor. xii. 7),
mpo¢ Otaxpioty Kxadov te wai xaxov (Heb. v. 14). Fritzsche incorrectly in-
terprets it : to adopt some other voice, so that ye may believe that ye are
listening to some other teacher, and not to the hated Paul. What a strange,
unseemly idea, not at all in keeping with the thoughtful manner of
the apostle |! According to Wieseler, the sense intended is : to exchange my
speaking with you ; that is, to enter into mutual discourse with you, in order
most surely to learn and to obviate your counter-arguments. But in this
view ‘‘with you” is a pure interpolation, although it would be essentially
requisite to the definition of the sense; and aAAdacecy Adyouc, to say nothing of
GAA. dwr7v, is never so used. What Wieseler means is expressed by dpeiSeobai
tiva Adyorg, ‘‘ to answer one in words,” ° rpoad:aréyeoBai ri, ‘‘ to answer one in
conversation,” ’ cvfyreiv rem, or mpd¢ teva, ‘‘ to dispute with one,” ® Adyouc avri-
BadAev xpédc, ‘‘to have communication with,” * dotval re nai awodéEacbar Adyov,
‘‘to give and to receive an account” (Plat. Rep. p. 581 E). — ére aropoipac
év ipiv] justifies the wish of aA2déar iv dwv. yov. The usual interpretation is
the correct one : Tam perplexed about you; év duiv is to be taken as in
the phrase fapSa év iyiv, ‘‘I have confidence in you,” 2 Cor. vii. 16, so that
the perplexity is conceived as inherent in the readers, dependent on their
condition as its cause (comp. also i. 24). The perplexity consists in this,
that he at the time knows no certain ways and means by which he shall
effect their re-conversion (ver. 19); and this instils the wish (67:) that he
could now be present with them, and, in place of the severe tone which at
the preceding visit had had no good effcct (ver. 16), could try the experi-

2 Pind. Ol. vi. 112. lix. p. 575, in Wetstein. Comp. Rom. L. 2% ;
* As Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Wisd. iv. 11, xii. 10; frequently in the
Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, LXX.
Koppe, Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, ® Lucian, Vit. Auct. 5,

de Wette. ® Hom. Od. iti. 148, e¢ al.

§ Comp. adAAdrrew xwpay, Plat. Parm. p. 189 7 Plat. Theaet. p. 161 B.
A; el8os, Eur. Bacch. 58; xpaua, Eur. Phoen. ® Acts vi. 9; Luke xxii. B.
1252 ; grodds, Gen. xxxv. 2. * Luke xxiv. 17.

4 See Artem. fi. 20, lv. 56 ; Dio Chrysostom,

CHAP. IV., 21. 199
ment of an altered and milder tone. The form dzopotpa: is, moreover,’ to be
taken passively (as a middie form with a passive signification), so that the
state of the dropeiv is conceived of as produced on the subject, passively.*
Fritzsche, J.c. p. 257, holds the sense to be : ‘‘ Nam haeretis, quo me loco ha-
beatis, nam sum vobis suspectus,” ‘For ye are embarrassed in what place to
have me, since I am suspected of you.” Thus év iuiv would be among you, and
aropovzac : I am an object of perplexity, according to the well-known Greek
use of the personal passive of intransitive verbs.* But the sense: ‘‘sum
vobis suspectus” is interpolated, and there is no ground for deviating from
the use of aopoiua: throughout the N.T.; ‘ as, indeed, the idea ‘‘ sum cobis
8 us,” “*T am suspected of you, ” cannot give any suitable motive for
the wish of the aAAdga: ry guvfv, unless we adopt Fritzsche’s erroneous
interpretation of ajAdéa:. To disconnect * éy iviv from amopovpa:, and attach
it to GAA4é. r. dwrfv pov, would yield an addition entirely superfluous after
napeivat mpo¢ tuac, and leave éropotpua: without any more precise definition of
its bearing. And the proposal to attach dr: arop. év tiv as protasis to the
following Aéyeré por * would have the effect of giving to the Aéy. zor, which
stands forth sternly and peremptorily, an enfeebling background.

Vv. 21-30. Now, at the conclusion of the theoretical portion of his epistle,
Paul adds a quite peculiar antinomistic disquisition,—a learned Rabbinico-ual-
legorical argument derived from the law itself,—calculated to annihilate the in-
fluence of the pseudo-apostles with their own weapons, and to root them
out on their own ground.

Ver. 21, without any connecting link, leads most energetically’ at once in
mediam rem. On the Aéyeré pot, 80 earnestly intensifying the question, comp.
Bergler, ad Aristoph. Acharn. 818. — ol id véuov x.1.A.] Ye who wish to be
under the law. This refers to the Judaistically inclined readers, who, partly
Gentiles and partly Jewish Christians, led astray by the false teachers (i. 7),
supposed that in faith they had not enough for salvation, and desired to be
subject to the law (ver. 9), towards which they had already made a con-
siderable beginning (ver. 10).° — rav véuov obx axotere ;| Hear ye not the law ?
Is it not readin your hearing?’ The public reading of the venerated divine
Scriptures of the law and the prophets, after the manner of the synagogues, ’°
took place in the assemblies for worship of the Christian churches both of
Jewish and of Gentile origin: they contained, in fact, the revelation of
God, of which Christianity is the fulfilment, and an acquaintance with them
was justly considered as a source of the Christian knowledge of salvation ;

1Comp. azopyndeis, Dem. 880. 2, and aro-
pndijiceras, Ecclus. xvili. 7.

2 Schoemann, ad Jsaeum, p. 192,

* Bernhardy, p. 341; Kiihner, II. p. 3% f.
Comp. Xen. de rep. Lac. xill. 7: ore rev
Seoudveor yiyverdac ovSty amropetra, Plat.
Soph. p. 248 B, Legg. vii. p. 799 C.

42 Cor. iv. 8; Luke xxiv. 4; Acts xxv.
20; John xili. 22

§ With Hofmann.

‘ Matthias,

7 Adyerd pot: “urget quasi praesens,"’ ‘‘ he
urges as though present,” Bengel.

® Chrysostom aptly remarks : «adds eiwev:
ot déAortes, OV yap THS TwY Npayparwy axodAov-
Oias, aAAad Ths dxeivay axalpov dirovecxias rd
mspayna Hv, ‘* Well does he say: ye who
wish, for the subject was not of the suc-
cession of things, but of their unseasonable
contentiousness.”

* Comp. John xii. 84 ; 2Cor. fil. 14.

10 Ttom, fi. 15 ; Acts xv. 21; Luke fy. 16.

200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

for its articles of faith (1 Cor. xv. 8 f.) and rules of life (Rom. xiii. 8-10, xv.
4) were to be xara ra¢ ypagds, ‘‘ according to the Scriptures.” Now the hear-
tng of the law must necessarily have taught the Galatians how much they
were in error. [See Note LXIV., p. 215.] Hence this question, expressive
of astonishment,’ which is all the stronger and consequently all the more
appropriate, the more simply we allow dxotere to retain its primary literal
signification. Hence we must neither explain it * as audiese, t.¢., nosse, notum
habere, ‘‘to have heard, i.e., to know, to be acquainted with ;”* nor, with
Jerome and many others, including Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger,
Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, as to understand,‘ which Paul conceives as the hear-
ing of the rvevuza speaking behind the ypéuuc ;° nor, with Erasmus, de Wette,
Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, as dxotecy rivoc, to give attention, that is, to bestow
moral consideration.* —véyo¢ is used here in a twofold sense :’ it means, in
the first place, the institute of thelaw ; and secondly, the Pentateuch, accord-
ing to the division of the Old Test. into Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa.*
The repetition of the word gives emphasis.

Ver. 22. T'aép] now gives the explanation of and warrant for that question,
by citing the history, narrated in the law, of Ishmael and Isaac, the two sons
of the ancestor of the theocratic people.® — éx ry¢ madionnc] by the (well-
known) bondswoman, Hagar.” As to the word itself (which might also de-
note a free maiden), see Wetstein, I. p. 526 f. ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 259 f.
— éx tig éAevd.] Sarah. |

Ver. 23 presents the relation of diversity between the two, in contrast to
the previously mentioned relation of similarity, according to which they
both were sons of Abraham. — xara odpxa] according to the flesh, so that the
birth was the result of a natural carnal intercourse. Differently in Rom. i.
8, ix. 5. — yeyévvyra:] is born; the perfect realizes the historically existing
relation as present. — did tio éxayyediac] through the (well-known) promise,
Gen. xvii. 16, 19, xviii. 10; Rom. ix. 9. This must not, however, be ra-
tionalized (with Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others) into ‘‘ per eam vim ex-
traordinariam, quam Deus promiserat,” ‘‘by that extraordinary power
which God had . promised,” which does violence to the history in Gen-
esis, as above ; nor, with Hofmann, to the effect that the promise, with
which Abraham had been called, was realized in the procreation itself ;
but it is to be definitely explained in accordance with the tenor of the words
and with Gen. xxi. 1: ‘‘by virtue of the promise he is born,” so that in his
procreation (Matt. i. 2 ; Luke iii. 84) the divine promise made to his parents,

1 Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 3 See Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 08 C; Ast,
2, p. 57) deals with our passage in an un- ad Plat. Legg.i. p.9; Spohn, Lectt. Theoer.
warrantable and intolerably violent man- i. p. 25.
ner by writing ot (as relative), but makes Comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 2.
the summons (fell me, ye who, wishing to be §So Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr.
under the law, do not hear the law) to beonly sip. 882.
prepared for by ver. 22 ff.,and that which ® Rather, to have an ear for, as 1 Cor. xiv.
Paul had in view in the Aéyeré wor of ver. 21 2; Matt. x. 14; John viii. 47.
to follow at length in ver. 30. The address 7 Comp. Rom. Kil. 19.
runs on simply and appropriately, and af- 8 See on Luke xxlv. 44.
fords no occasion for any such intricacy. ® See Gen. xvi. 15 f., xxi. 2 f.

2 With Winer; comp. Matthies. 10 See Gen. xvi. 8.

CHAP. IV., 24. 201
which had assured them of the birth of a son, was the procuring cause of
the result, which would not have occurred without such an operation of the
power of the divine promise (Gen. xvili. 14), seeing that the two parents
were in themselves incapable of the procreation of Isaac ; for Sarah was
barren, and both were already too old (Gen. xviii. 11; Rom. iv. 19).’

Ver. 24. “Ariwa] quippe quae, quae. quidem, ‘‘ Surely which things, or which
things indeed," taking up the recorded facts under the point of view of a
special quality. — tori GAAnyopobueva] are of allegorical import. The word
aAAryopeiv, not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., means dAdo dyopetev, 8o to
speak (to set forth, to relate), that another sense is expressed than the words
convey ; which further meaning lies concealed behind the immediate meaning
of what issaid.* In the passive: to haveanallegorical meaning,* Schol. Soph.
Aj. 186 ; Porph. Pyth. p. 185 ; Philo, de Oherub. I. p. 148 ; and see gener-
ally, Wetstein.‘ The understanding of the O. T. history in an allegoric
sense was, as is well known, extremely prevalent among the later Jews.°
But on account of the Rabbinical training in which Paul had been brought
up,* and on account of his truthful character, nothing else can be assumed
than that he himself was convinced that what he related contained, in addi-
tion to its historical sense, the allegorical import set forth by him ; so that
he did not intend to give a mere argumentum xar’ évOpwrov, ‘‘ ad hominem,”
but ascribed to his allegory the cogency of objective proof. [See Note LXV.,
p. 215.] Hence he has raised it into the keystone of his whole antinomistic
reasoning, and has so earnestly introduced (ver. 21) and carried it out, that
we cannot hold (with Schott) that it was intended to be an argumentum
secundarium, quod insuper accederet, ‘‘a secondary argument to be added
besides.” But in the view of a faith not associated with Rabbinical train-
ing, the argument wholly falls to the ground as areal proof (Luther says
that it is ‘‘too weak to stand the test”) ;* while the thing proved is none the

1 Comp. Chrysostom.

2 Hesychius: apdAryopia GAAo re wapa 1d
axovépevoy Vroseceviovea, “ An allegory indi-
cating something else than what is heard.’’
Comp. Quinctil. vill. 6; see Plut. Mor. p. 868
D, Athen. il. p. 69 C; Philo, de migr. Abr.
p. 420 B; Joseph. Antt. prooem. 4

* Not: to be the object of allegorical con-
ception (Hofmann). The allegorical sense
is @ priori contained and given in the facts
which stand recorded ; they have, contained
in them, the allegorical t#mport which is only
exhibited by the explanation. If éorey adAny.
were to be taken, not in the sense of being
expressed, but in that of being conceived as
such, which is certainly found in Plutarch,
Synesius, and elsewhere, Paul must have
written aAAryopetra, or the verbal adjective
GAAnyopyréos. Moreover, aAAnyopety is relat-
ed to aivirres@a: as species to genus; but
Hofmann arbitrarily asserts that the la/ter
requires for its interpretation wif, the for-
Mer understanding. Aivirrecdac includes

every obscure or velled discourse (Herod. v.
56; Plat. Rep. p. 82 B, and frequently;
Soph. AJ. 1187; Eur. Jon. 480; Lucian, V. Z7.
i. 2), whether it be in an allegorical form or
not, and whether it require wit or not.

4 In the older Greek, allegory was termed
trdévoa (see Plut. de aud. poet. p. 19 E),
Plato, de Rep. p. 878 D; Xen. Symp. 8.6;
Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 200 f.).

5 Synopses. Sohar. p. %.1: ‘‘ Quicunque di-
cit narrationes legis alium non habere
sensum, quam illius tantum historiae, istius
crepet spiritus,”’ ‘‘ Whoever says that the
narratives of the law have no other sense,
than only of that history, let his spirit
prate.”’ See generally, Dépke, Hermeneut.
I. p. 104 ff.; Gfrorer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth.
I. 1. p. 68 ff.

® Comp. Tholuck in the Stud. u. Kriz. 1885,
Pp. 869 ff.; Weiss, 0103. Theol. p. 295 f.

7 We must be on our guard against oon-
founding the idea of the allegory with that
of the type (1 Cor. x. 6, 11; Rom. v. 14;

-

202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

less established independent of the allegory, and is merely illustrated by it.
‘‘ Nothing can be more preposterous than the endeavors of interpreters to
vindicate the argument of the apostle as one objectively true.” ?— avra]
namely, Hagar and Sarah ; for see afterwards #ric écriv "Ayap. Hence not
equivalent to ravra, se. ra aAAryopotueva, ‘‘ The things allegorized,”? as is
assumed, in order not to admit here an eivac onvavrixév. — eior] namely, alle-
gorically, and so far = signify.* — dto d:abijxar] two covenants, not: institutions,
declarations of will,‘ or generally ‘‘ arrangements connected with the history
of salvation” (Hofmann), any more than in iii. 15. The characteristic of
a covenant, that there must be two parties, existed actually in the case of
the d:afyxac (God and the men, who were subject to the law,—God and the
men, who beljeve in Christ).° — pia pév ard dpove Suva] One proceeding from
Mount Sinai, which was instituted on Mount Sinai, and therefore issues
from it. Instead of azé, the mere genitive might have been used,° but the
former is more definite and descriptive. The Ȏv is without any correspond-
ing dé," for in none of the cases where dé subsequently occurs is it correlative
to this uév. In point of fact the contrast anticipated in pia uév certainly

comp. Heb. ix. 24; 1 Pet. fil. 21), as Calvin
and many others have done: “a familia
Abrahae simnilitudo ducitur ad ecclesiam ;
quemadmodum enim Abrahae domus tunc
fuit vera ecclesia, ita minime dublum est,
quin praecipui et prae aliis memorabiles
eventus, qui in ea nobis contigerunt, nobis
totidem sint ¢ypi,” ‘‘From Abraham's
family the comparison is applied to the
church ; for as the household of Abraham
was then the true church, s0 there is no
doubt that the events that are chief and
notable above others which have happened
to us init are types to us." Also Tholuck
(d. A.T.im N.T. p. 89, ed. 6) and Wieseler
understand aAArnyopovzeva as equivalent to
Tumexas Aeyopeva. Buteven Philo, dg opis. m.
I. p. 88. 10, puts the type not as equivalent,
but only as similar to the allegory; and
Josephus, Anét, prooem. 4, speaks of Moses
as speaking ina partly allegorical sense,
without intimating that he intended Ais-
torical types. The allegory and the type
are contrasted on the one hand with that
which is only wAdcpara pidwy, ‘‘ figments
of myths,” and on the other hand with
that which js said ¢& evdeias (directly,
expressly). But neither does a type ne-
cessarily rest on allegorical interpreta-
tion, nor does the allegory necessarily pre-
suppose that what is so interpreted is a
type; the two may be independent one
of the other. Thus, ¢g., the allegory of
the name of Hagar, in Philo, Adeg. IT.
p. 185. 29, is anything but typology. See
the passages themselves in Wetstein. At
any rate, the allegory has a much freer
scope, and may be handled very differently

by different people ; ‘‘ potest alius aliud et
argutius fingere et veri cum similitudine
suspican, potest aliud tertius, potest aliud
quartus, atque ut se tulerint ingeniorum
opinantium qualitates, ita singulae res
possunt infinitis interpretationibus expli-
cari,” ‘“‘one can represent more skilfully
one thing, and another, another, and re-
gard it as a figure of the truth. A third,
another; a fourth, another; and as the
qualities of the mind’s thinking are dis-
posed, so each subject can be explained
with infinite interpretations,’ Arnobius.
The ¢ype is a real divine preformation of a
N. T. fact in the O. T. history. Comp. on
Rom. v. 14; also Tholuck, é.c. p. 47 ff. But
one fact signifies another aWegorically, when
the ideal character of the latter is shown
as figuratively presenting itself in the
former; in which case the significant
fact needs not to be derived from the
O. T., and the interpretations may be very
various. Comp. Kleinschmidt in the 23feck-
lend. theal. Zeitschr. 1861, p. 858. Matthias,
in the interpretation of our passage, abides
by the wider idea of “‘figure,’’ but this
does not satisfy the strict ideaof the alle-
gorical, so faras this is the expression of an
inner, deeper significance,—of an érépus
vooupLEvor,

1 Baur, Paulus, I. p. 812, ed. 2

2 Calovius and others.

2 Comp. Matt. xiii. 20, 38, e¢ ai.

4 Usteri.

§ Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 25.

® Bernhardy, p. 223.

7 Kihner, II. p. 430.

i i ee

CHAP. IV., 205. 203
follows in ver. 26, but not in conjunction with yév ; see what is said on
ver. 26. — ic dovdsiavy yevvica] bringing forth unto bondage, that is, placing
those who belong to this covenant, by means of their so belonging, in a
state of bondage, namely, through subjection to the Mosaic law.’ The notion
of a mother has caused the retention of the jigurative expression yevvica. —
qtig éotiv “Ayap] ric, guippe quae, ‘‘which indeed,” is neither predicate *
nor attributive definition,? as if it were written "Ayap ovca, ‘‘ being Hagar ;”
but it is the subject, just as arva and ara, and also 7r¢ in ver. 26. The
name, not as yet expressed, is now emphatically added. The Sinaitic cove-
nant is that which Hagar is in the history referred to—is allegorically iden-
tical with Hagar.

Ver. 25. The gre éorty "Ayap, just said, has now a reason assigned for it,
JSrom the identity of the name ‘‘ Hagar” with that of Mount Sinai. Toa yap
"Ayap . . . ’ApaBig, however, is not to be placed in a parenthesis, because
neither in the construction nor in a logical point of view does any inter-
ruption occur ; but with ovororyei dé & new sentence is to be commenced.
‘* This covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical history—a fact which is con-
JSirmed by the similarity of the name of this woman with the Arabian designation
of Mount Sinai. Not of a different nature, however,—to indicate now the cor-
responding relation, according to which no characteristic dissimilarity may ex-
ist between this woman and the communitybelonging to the Sinaitic covenant,
because otherwise that ric éoriv "“Ayap would be destitute of inner truth—
not of a different nature, however, but of a similar nature is Hagar with the
present Jerusalem, that is, with the Jewish state; because the latter is, as
Hagar once was, in slavery together with those who belong to it.” This para-
phrase at the same time shows what importance belongs to the position of
ovarayei at the head of the sentence. —.1d yap "Ayap Leva Spo éorw ev rt.
’"AoaB.] That the name Hagar‘ accorded with the Arabic name of Sinai,
could not but be a fact welcome to the allegorizing Paul in support of his
ari éotiv "Ayap.°-—He now writes Luva dpoc, and not dpo¢ Zcva as in ver. 24, be-
cause "Ayap and 2:va are intended to stand in juxtaposition on account of the

Sis

coincidence of the two names. In Arabic fr

and although no further ancient evidence is preserved that the Arabs called
Sinai xar’ éfox4v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the stone,* yet Chrysostom in his day says
that in their native tongue the name Sinai was thus interpreted ; and in-
deed Biisching ’ quotes the testimony of Harant the traveller,* that the Arabs
still give the name Hadschar to Mount Sinai,—a statement not supported

means lapis, ‘‘a stone ;”

1 See ver. 1 ff.

§ Bengel.

3 As that &kadixn, which Hagar is; so Hof-
mann.

*7d "Ayap denotes this; see Eph. iv. 9;
Kfihner, II. p. 187. ‘

® Comp. John ix. 6.

‘We may add that .* occurs else-

where as a geographical proper name in
Arabia Petraea. Thus the Chald. Paraphr.

always gives the name &‘)M to the wil-
derness called in the Hebr. 3% As to the

town ye which is, however, to be pro-

nounced Hidschr and not Hadschr, and, on
account of its too remote site, cannot come
into consideration here (in opposition to
Grotius and others). see Ewald, p. 498 f.,
and Jahrb. VIII. p. 290.

1? Erdbeschr. V. p. 585.

® [Who in 1598 was at Sinal, Sieffert.]

r0L THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,

by the evidence of any other travellers. Perhaps it was (and is) merely a
provincial name current in the vicinity of the mountain, easily explained
from’ the granitic nature of the peaks,’ with which also the probable sig-
nification of the Hebrew *3°), the pointed,? harmonizes,? and which became
known to the apostle, if not through some other channel previously, by
means of his sojourn in Arabia (i. 17).4 Itistrue that the name of Hagar (12))

does not properly correspond with the word J= (13m), but with fre fugit,

<<‘ flees ;” but the allegorizing interpretation of names is too little bound to
literal strictness pot to find the very similarity of the word and the sub-
stantial resemblance of sound enough for its purpose, of which we have
still stronger and bolder examples in Matt. ii. 23, John ix. 6. Beza, Cal-
vin, Castalio, Estius, Wolf, and others, interpret, ‘‘for Hagar is a type of
Mount Sinai in Arabia ;”* but against this view the neuter ré "Ayap is decisive.
[See Note LXVI., p. 215 seq.] — év, ’ApaBig] not in Arabia situm, “‘ situated
in Arabia” *—for how idle would be this topographical remark’ in the
case of a mountain so universally known !—nor equivalent to apa;i:cri, 50
that ’Apaf. would be an adjective and d:adéxrw would have te be supplied ;°
but : in Arabia the name Hagar’signifies the Mount Sinai.’ So Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact, Luther (‘‘for Agar means in Arabia the Mount Sinai’),
Morus, Koppe, Reiche, Reithmayr, and others. — ovoro:yei] The subject is, as
Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly has it, Hagar, not Mount Sinai °—a view
which runs entirely counter to the context, according to which the two
women are the subjects of the allegorical interpretation, while 73 yap "Ayap

1 Robinson, I. p. 170 f.

2 See Knobel on Ex. p. 190.

% Asto the mineralogical beauty of the
mountain, see Fraas, dus a. Crient geolog.
Beobacht. 1867.

« Comp. also Ewald, p. 495 ; Reiche, p. 68.

§ At the same time Celvin and others re-
mark on év ’Apafig : “hoc est extra limites
terra sanctae, quae symbolum est aeternae
haereditatis,"’ ‘‘ This is outside the limits
of the Holy Land, which is the symbol of
the eternal inheritance.”” Thisreference is
also discovered by Wieseler, who, with
Lachmann, reads only rd y. Xcva opos éoriv
ev r."Apaf., “for the Sinai mountain lles
beyond the Holy Land, and indeed in Aradia,
where also the alien Hagar is at home." In
his view, Paul meant to say that, through
their alien nature, the Sinaitio dadjncn and
Hagar showed themselves to answer to
each other, —namely, as intervenient ele-
ments in the history of salvation. But this
Paul kas not said; the substance of it
would have to be read delween the lines.
How very natural it would have been for
him at least to have written, instead of or
in addition to év r. "Apa8., €£w (or paxpay ard)
rhs yns Xavaay, in order thus at least to give
some intimation that the dlien character was
the point! This also applies against the
view of TIofmann (comp. also his Schri/t-

bew. II. 2, p. 70 f.), who likewise follows the
reading, omitting “Ayep, and agrees in sub-
stance with Wieseler's explanation, taking
Mount Sinai as contrast to Sion, and Arabia
as contrast to the land of promise. Comp.
also, in opposition to this exposition, which
imports elements wholly gratuitous, Ewald,
Jahro. X. p. 239.

* Schott and older expositors.

7? Which is not (with Bengel) to be brought
into an antithetical relation to evoraye
8 (the Mount Sinat is indeed situated in Ara-
bia, but corresponds, etc.), as if it were ac-
companied by a uév (and with the adop-
tion of Lachmann’s reading); for in this
case the allegorical signification of the
Hagar would not be based on any ground.

8 Matthias.

® Observe that the apostle does not at all
wish to say that Hagar is inthe Arabic lan-
guage generally the name of Sinai; but, on
the contrary, by ¢v ry "Apafia he character
izes that name asa name used in the country,
provincial, Hofmann unjustly finds in the
words according to our reading ‘‘ aleurd-
tty."°

10 Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysos-
tom, and his followers, Thomas, Erasmus,
Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and
others; also Hofmann now.

CHAP. IYV., 25. 205
Luva bpog tori év ry 'Apaf. was merely a collateral remark by way of con-
firmation. Incorrectly also Studer and Ustcri, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius,! Windischmann, Reithmayr, hold that the subject is still uéa pév.
Grd dpovg Xuva, ‘‘one from Mount Sinai,” the Sinaitic constitution. In this
way there would be brought out no comparison at all between the subject
of cvoro:yei and the present Jerusalem ; and yet such, according to the sig-
nification of cvero:yeiv (see afterwards), there must necessarily be, so that in
dovAcier ydp x.t.A. lies the tertium comparationis, ‘‘third object of compar-
ison.” The Sinaitic d:a6f«y is not of a similar nature with the present Jeru-
salem, but is itself the constitution of it ; on that very account, however,
according to the allegorical comparison Hagar corresponds to the present
Jerusalem. ovoro:zeiv means to stand in the same row,* that is, here, to
stand in the same category,* to be of the same nature and species, otcro:yov
elvat.4 Consequently : Hagar belongs to the same category with the present
Jerusalem, is of a like nature with it,’ hasin common with it the same
characteristic relation, in so far namely that, as Hagar was a bondwoman,
the present Jerusalem with its children is also in bondage.* Thus ovor. ex-
presses the correspondence. But i€is incorrect to take it as : she confronts as
parallel.’ This must have been expressed by dvriorayei. Many of those
who regard Sinai as the subject (see above) interpret : ‘‘ it extends as far as
Jerusalem.””* This would have to be more exactly defined with Genebrardus,
ad Ps, cxxxiii. 3, following out the literal meaning of the word ovororyei :
‘‘perpetuo dorso sese versus Sionisaontes exporrigit,” ‘‘it extends in an un-
broken ridge to the mountains of Zion.” But even granting the -geograph-
ical reality of the description, and setting aside the fact that Sinai is not
the subject, Paul must have named, instead of rg viv ‘Iepove., Mount Zion.
Hofmann, in reference to the position of Sinai in Arabia and of Jerusalem
in the land of promise, interprets the expression locally indeed, but as in-
dicative of the non-local relation, that the present Jerusalem belongs to the
same category with the mountain although Arabian, which has it side by
side on the same line in the order of the history of salvation. An artificial
consequence of the geographical contrast introduced as regards év 'Apa/3., as
well as of the erroneous assumption that Mount Sinai is the subject. At
the same time a turn is given to the interpretation, as if Paul had written
ovoto. yet 62 abt 7 viv ‘Iepove. — rH viv "Iepovoadfu) does not stand in contrast
to the former Salem," but in Paul’s view means the present Jerusalem

1 Also Hofmann formerly.

3 See Polyb. x. 21.7, and Wetstein.

* evcrotxia, Aristot. Metaph. 1. 5, pp. 986,
1004.

4 Theophr. c. pl. vi. 4.2; Arist. Afeteor. 1.8;
Lucian, g. hist. conacr. 48.

® Comp. Polyb. xtil. 8 1: dpota cai c¥oroya,

* See below.

? Rickert, Winer. Comp. also Wieseler:
“ corresponds to it; not, however, at a like,
but at a different stage,"* whereby the idea
of a type is expressed. This view is not to
be supported by Polyb. x. 21. 7, where

cugvyourras Kai ovoroxourras dcayévecy MEANS
to remain in rank and file (‘' servare ordines
secundum wapagrdrtas et éwcBdras,"’ Schwelg-
h&user), so that as well the cu¢vyotvres as
the cvcrotxourres always form one row with
one another.

8 Xen. Symp. 2. 20, Anad. v. 4. 12; comp.
avriorocxos, Eur. Andr. 746, and avrcrotxia,
Plut. Mor. p. 474 A.

® Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, and
others,

10 Erasmus, Michaelis.

206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

belonging to the pre-Messianic period, as opposed to # dvw ‘Iepove. (ver. 26),
which after the apoveia will take its place. See on ver. 26. Moreover,
the present Jerusalem and its children’ represcnt the Israelitie common-
wealth and its members.*? — dov2etec yap x.t.a.] namely, to the Mosaic law.
The bondage to Rome? is not, according to the context, referred to cither
alone ‘ or jointly.° The subject is 4 viv 'Iepove., and not "Ayap.* Looking
at the usage both of classical authors and the N. T., there is nothing sur-
prising in the change of subject.". Lachmann (also Ewald) has incorrectly
placed the words dov2ete: . . . avty¢ in a parenthesis.

Note.—If the reading of Bengel and Lachmann, ré y. Ziva dpog éoriv év r. ’ApaB..,
be adopted, the interpretation would simply be: ‘for the Sinai-Mount is in
Arabia ;” so that év 77 ’Apa3. would serve to support the allegorical relation of
Hagar to Sinai, seeing that Hagar also was in Arabia and the ancestress of the
Arabians. This certainly forms a ground of support much too vague, and not
befitting the dialectic acuteness of the apostle. In the case of the Recepta also,
év TH 'Apaf., taken as a geographical notice, is so superfluous and aimless, that
Schott’s uncritical conjecture, treating the words ro y. “Ay. dp. %. é. év Tr. "Apaf.
as a double gloss, is not surprising. Bentley, who is followed by Mill, Proleg.
§ 1306, even wished to retain nothing of the passage but 10 dé "Ayap ovorotyzei TF
viv ‘lepovo. x.7.2. Against the interpretation of é rj ’ApaZ. by Wieseler and
Hofmann, see above.

Ver. 26. But altogether different from the position of the present Jerusa-
lem is that of the upper Jerusalem, which is free; and this upper Jerusalem
is our mother. — dé] places the dvw 'Iepove. in contrast with the previous 7
viv Iepove. The pia pév of ver. 24 has been left, in consequence of the
digression occasioned by the remarks made in ver. 25, without any correla-
tive to follow it (such as 47 dé érépa),—an omission which is quite in harmony
with the rapid movement of Pauline thought.* He leaves it to the reader
to form for himself the second part of the allegorical interpretation after the
similarity of the first, and only adduces so much of it as is directly suggested
by the contrast of the just characterized 17 viv ‘Iepove. He leaves it, there-
fore, to the reader to supply the following thought : ‘‘ But the other cove-
nant, which is allegorically represented in this history, is the covenant insti-
tuted by Christ, which brings forth to freedom : this is Sarah, who is of the
same nature with the upper Jerusalem ; for the latter is, as Sarah was, free
with its children, and to this upper Jerusalem we Christians as children
belong.” — 4 dé dvw 'Iepovea?ju] is neither the ancient Jerusalem, the Salem
of Melchizedek,*® nor Mount Zion, which is called in Josephus 7 arw 7éAcc,” as
- among the Greeks the Acropolis at Athens was also so named.” Both inter-

1“ Inhabitants 5 see Matt. xxill. 87, Ps. Winer, p. 586.

cxlix. 2. ® Comp. Rom. vii. 12, 4 al.; also Rom.
2 Comp. Isa. x]. 2. v. 12.
® Pelagius. * Oeder, Michaelis, Paulus.
4 Castalio, Ewald. 10 See the passages in Ottil Spicil. ex Jose-
* Bengel. pho, p. 400 f.

* Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others. 11 Vitringa, Elsner, Mill, Wolf, Rambach,
7 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 C; Moldenhauer, Zachariae.

CHAP. IV., 26. 207
pretations are opposed to the context, and the former to linguistic usage.’
The contrast between heaven and earth elsewhere conveyed by advo, as used
by Paul (Phil. iii. 14 ; Col. iii. 2), is found here also, since # viv ‘Iep. is the
earthly Jerusalem. It is true that this contrast would have been more
accurately expressed if, instead of rg viv ‘Iepovo., he had written rg xdrw
'Iepove. (OD 70 powi), ‘the Jerusalem below ;” but in using the viv he
thought of the future Jerusalem as its contrast (Heb. xiii. 14), and after-
wards changed his mode of representation, by conceiving the future as the
upper: for it is the heavenly Jerusalem, called by the Rabbins bw powiy
nyn, ‘Jerusalem on high,” which, according to Jewish teaching, is the
archetype in heaven of the earthly Jerusalem, and on the establishment of
the Messiah’s kingdom is let down to earth, in order to be the centre and
capital of the Messianic theocracy, just as the earthly Jerusalem was the
centre and capital of the ancient theocracy. Comp. Heb. xi. 10, xii. 22,
xiii. 14; Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2.2. And as previously the present Jerusalem
represented the Jewish divine commonwealth, so here the upper Jerusalem
represents the Messianic theocracy, which before the rapovoia, ‘‘ presence or
coming of Christ,” is the church, and after the rapoveia is the glorious kingdom
of the Messiah. With justice, accordingly, the church on earth (not merely
the ‘‘ecclesia triuwmphans,” ‘‘church triumphant”), has at all times been
deemed included in the heavenly Jerusalem,? for the latter is, in relation to
the church, its rodirevya (commonwealth, according to others : citizenship},
which is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20). The heavenly completion of the church
in Christ ensues at the rapovoia, in which Christ who rules in heaven will
manifest in glory the life—hitherto hidden with Him in God ‘—of the com-
munity, which is the body and xA7pwya, ‘‘fulness,” of Him its Head (Eph. 1.
22 f.). Thus the church on earth is already the theocracy of the heavenly
Jerusalem, and has its zoAirevza in heaven ; but this its xAzpovopia, ‘*inheri-
tance,” is, until the rapovoia, only an ideal and veiled, although in hope
assured, possession, which at the second coming of the Lord at length attains
objective and glorious realization. It is, however, by no means to be as-
serted that Paul entertained the sensuous Rabbinical conceptions of the
heavenly Jerusalem ;° for he nowhere presents, or even so much as hints, at
them, often as he speaks of the rapovoia and the consequences connected with
it. In his view, the heavenly Jerusalem was the national setting for the
idea—founded on the exalted Christ as its central point—of the kingdom of
the Messiah before and after its glorious realization. — éAevOépa éoriv] that is, in-
dependent of the Mosaic law (opposite of the dovAete: in ver. 25), in free,
moral self-determination, under the higher life-principle of the Spirit (Rom.

1 vw always means above. When it appcars
to mean ofim, it denotes the ascending line
of ancestry, as ¢.g. in Plat. Legg. ix. p. 880 B:
h warp. H étT. avwrépw, ‘either to the father
or one still higher."’ Theaet. p. 175 B al.; the
earlier time lying behind being regarded as
higher (Polyb. v. 6. 1, iv. 2. 3, iv. 50. 8).

1See generally Schoettgen, de Hleros.
coelest. in his Horae, p. 1208 ff. ; Meuschen,

N. T. ex Talim. Wl. p. 199 ff.; Wetstein, in
loc. ; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 211 ff.; Ewald,
ad Apoc. p. 11, 807.

2 See Luther, and especially Calovius, in
loc.

4 See on Col. iff. 3 f.

5 See Elsenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II.
p. 839 ff.

208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

viii. 2; 2 Cor. iti. 17). —#ri¢ Ect? ufrnp yudv] correlative with the above-
mentioned era rév réxv. avt7¢ ; hence, if Paul had wished to lay the stress
upon 7udv,' he must have made this evident by the marked position gri¢ fucy
ufr. é. The emphasis lies rather on 7ric, that is, she who, etc. (comp. on
ver. 24), guippe quae libera Hierosol, ‘‘since she is the free Jerusalem.” To
this Jerusalem as our zoAdfreyua, ‘‘ commonwealth,” we Christians belong, as
children to their mother (Phil. iii. 20 ; Eph. ii. 19). In bondage, it would
not be our mother. Hofmann interprets differently : ‘‘the freedom of this
Jerusalem may be seen in her children.” But this would be a correlative ret-
rospective conclusion, since Paul has neither written dr: (but rig), nor has he
expressed himself participially otca pir. ju. ftnp without the article is
qualitative. That juav applies to the Christians generally, including also the
Gentile Christians, is obvious of itself from the context, and does not require
the addition of rdvrwy in the Teztus receptus, which is defended by Ewald
(in opposition to Reiche), to make it evident.

Ver. 27. Proof from Scripture * that no other than this, the free Jerusalem
(greg), is our mother. This, namely, is according to Paul the subject
addressed, the unfruitful one, because Sarah—who, according to the alle-
gory, answers to the heavenly Jerusalem—was, as is well known, barren.
The historical sense of the prophecy (Isa. liv. 1, exactly according to the
LXX.) is the joyful promise of a great increase to the depressed people of
God in its state of freedom after the Babylonian exile. The desolate, unin-
habited Jerusalem, which had become like an unfruitful wife, is summoned
to rejoice, because it—and in this light, certainly, it is poetically compared
with itself as asecond person (in opposition to Hofmann)—is to become
more populous, more rich in children, than formerly, when it was the hus-
band-possessing spouse (of Jehovah). The fulfilment of this Messianic
prophecy— Messianic because pervaded by the idea of the victorious theoc-
racy—is discerned by Paul in the great new people of God, which belongs
to the dvw ‘Iepovoadnu, to this Sarah in the sense of the fulfilment, as its
mother. Before the emergence of the Christian people of God, this
heavenly Jerusalem was still unpeopled, childless ; it was oreipa, ‘‘ barren,”
ov rixrovoa, ‘‘not bringing forth,” ov« ddivovea, ‘‘ not in travail,” Epnuoe,
desolate” (solitaria, that is, in conformity with the contrast : without
conjugal intercourse), consequently quite the Sarah of the allegory, before
she became the mother of Isaac. But in ard with the emergence of the Chris-
tian people of God, the avw 'Iepoveadqu has become a fruitful mother, rejoic-
ing over her wealth of children, richer in children than # viv ‘Iepovoadgu,
this mother of the ancient people of God, which hitherto, like Hagar, had
been M373, Eyovea tov dvdpa, ‘‘ married.” This avyjp, ‘ husband,” is God
(not the law, as Luther interprets), whose relation to the theocratical common-
wealth of the old covenant is conceived as conjugal intercdurse. In virtue
of this idea, the relation of God to the viv 'IepoveaAzu—the latter regarded

1 Winer, Matthias. ‘Jerusalem above,” is the allegorical

2 For this Scriptural proof, the particular counterpart of Sarah, this oxeipa 4 ov
pussage Isa. liv. 1 is selected with great ricrovea «.r.A, ‘‘ barren, not bringing forth,”
skill and true tact, since the avw ‘IepovaaAnpu, etc.

CHAP. IV., 28. 209

as a woman # Zyovca rév dvdpa—is the counterpart of the relation of Abraham
to the xaidicxy, ‘‘ bondwoman,” Hagar, whose descendants came into life
card odpxa, ‘‘ according to the flesh.” On the other hand, the relation of
God to the dvw ‘IepoveaAfu—the latter likewise regarded as a woman, who,
however, had hitherto been oreipa x.r.A.—is the counterpart of the relation
of Abraham to the free Sarah, whose far more numerous descendants were
children of promise (ver. 28). Comp. Rom. ix. 8. — # ob rixrovoa] not for
the past participle,’ but expressing the state of the case as it stands: ‘‘ which
does not bear,” the consequence of creipa, sterilis, unfruitful, as Sarah was.
Mpx, “barren.” In the same way afterwards, 4 oix ddivovea. — pitov] guviv
is usually supplied. For many instances of pfyvup: govfy or avdfy,* to
unchain the voice, that is, to speak aloud, see Wetstein, in loc. ; Loesner, -
Obss. p. 883 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 885, XI. p. 57, XII. p. 181.* But
since the verb alone is never thus used, it is safer to derive the supplement
from what has preceded ; hence Kypke and Schott correctly supply eb¢po--
otvyy, “gladness” (rumpe jubilum, begin to rejoice), not because 12°) “NSD,
‘* break forth into joy,” stands in the Hebrew (Schott), but because eigpo--
oivyy flows from the previous etgpdvOyre ;‘ ‘‘ rejoice, let it break forth.” The
opposite is pyyvyue xAavOudv, ‘‘ break into weeping” (Plut. Per. 86), bfyr.
daxptwv véuara, ‘* break into streams of tears’ (Soph. Trach. 919). — creipa
x.t.A. applies in the connection of the original text to Jerusalem, and is also
here necessarily (see ver. 26)—according to the Messianic fulfilment of the
prophecy, in the light of which Paul apprehends the scriptural saying—to
be referred to Jerusalem, but to the dvw ‘Iepovoadgu, pric ori ufrnp por,
whereas the # éyovoa rév dvdpa which is placed in comparison with it is the
viv ‘Iepovoadju. See above. Chrysostom and his successors, Bengel and
others, consider that the words oreipa x.r.4. apply to the Gentile Christians
(she who had the husband being the Jewish church) ; but against this view
it may be urged that that ric gor? pirnp yuav, which refers to all Christians,
is to be proved by ver. 27. — wodAd . . . paAdov #] not used instead of
xdefova #, ‘‘ more than,” which would leave the multitude of children entirely
undetermined ; but it affirms that both had many children,—the solitary one,
however, the greater number : for numerous are the children of the solitary
one in a higher degree than those of her who possessed the husband. So the
LXX. has rightly understood the Hebrew °)3') 0°3°.

Ver. 28. It is not till ver. 29 that a new thought is entered on ; hence
ver. 28 is to be regarded as a remark explaining the fulfilment of the
prophetic utterence, which has its actual realization in the case of Christians,
and is to be annexed to ver. 27 (by a semicolon). So correctly, in opposi-
tion to the usual separation from ver. 27." — But the Christians (ipeic indi-
vidualizing ; see the critical notes) are the many children of that spiritual
Sarah, the heavenly Jerusalem !— xara "Icadx] After the manner of Isaac ;
comp. 1 Pet. i. 15 ; and see Wetstein and Kypke, also Heindorf.*— iray-

1 Grotius and others. ‘The LXX. probably did not read 7135,

5

® Eur. Suppl. 710. _ “Joy.”
* Comp. the Latin rumpere vocem (Draken- § Hofmann, Ewald, Wieseler.
borch, ad Siz. Jt. tv. 828). © Ad Plat. Gorg. p. 22% f.

14

210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
yediag téxva] érayy. is emphatically prefixed : children of Abraham, who are
not so by carnal descent like Ishmael, but by promise. So, namely, as Isaac
was born to Abraham in sirtue of the promise (ver. 28), are Christians by
means of divine promise also children of Abraham, in virtue of the fact that
they were promised by God to Abraham as réeva, ‘‘children ;” without
which promise, having reference to them, they would not stand in the rela-
tion of sonship to Abraham. Comp. Rom. ix. 8. We must not on account
of ver. 23 explain the expression here, any more than in Rom. ix. 8,’ as
liberi promissi, ‘‘the children promised.” *

Vv. 29, 80. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this their higher state of son-
ship, these spiritual children of Abraham are persecuted by the bodily chil-
dren of Abraham, as was formerly the case with Isaac and Ishmael ; but
(ver. 80) how wholly without ultimate success is, and, according to the
Scripture, must be, this persecution! This is not a collateral trait (Hol-
sten), but the consolatory practical result in which the allegory terminates
—its triumphantly joyful conclusion. Comp. on ver. 81. — rére] then, namely,
at that time when the allegorically-significant history came to pass. — 6 xara
odpxa yevvneic] see ver. 28. —éidiuxe] persecuted. It is true that in Gen. xxi.
9, Ishmael is designated only as a mocker (of Isaac).* But Paul follows the
tradition, which, starting from the basis of that statement, went further.‘
According to Hofmann, Paul in the word d:éxey probably intends a running
after Isaac wantonly to annoy him (just as the partisans of the law followed
after the believing Gentiles in order to annoy them, vv. 10,12). Quite unsup-
ported by any historical evidence, and very inappropriate to the rapdccew of
the Judaists (of which there is no mention here at all); comp. i. 7. — rap
xara mvevua] him that is born according to the Spirit, that is, him who was
born in consequence of the intervening agency of the Holy Spirit (for the
divine rvedua, as the principle of the divine promise, is instrumental in the
efficacy of the latter). By means of the vis carnis Isaac could not have been
born, but only by means of the vis UQpiritus divini, which, operative in the
divine promise, furnished at his procreation (Rom. iv. 17 ff.) the capacity
of generation and conception. In fact, therefore, rav xara rvevua conveys
the same idea as rdv dca tHe érayyeAlac yevvnbévra, ver. 28. The explanation :
per singularem efficacitatem Dei, ‘‘by the unique efficaciousness of God,” ®
compares things which are in their nature different (Luke i. 35), and is not
verbally accurate. And Hilgenfeld unnecessarily assumes * that the expres-
sion is to be explained by a blending together of the ideal reference of the

! See in loc.

* Winer and others.

4 The idea that Paul, in using é8iw«e, really
intended nothing more than this mocking
(‘nulla enim persecutio tam molesta esse
nobis debet, quam dum impiorum ludibriis
videmus Jabefactari nostram vocationem,”
“ For no persecution should be so grievous
to us as that which occurs when we see our
calling shaken by the reproaches of the
godless,” Calvin), is not in harmony with
the comprehensive sense of the word.

‘See Beresch. R. Hii. 15: Dixit Ismael
Isaaco : eamus et videamus portionem nos-
tram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sa-
gittas, et jaculatus est Isaacum et prae se
tulit ac siluderet,"’ ‘Ishmael said to Isaac:
Let us go and see our portion in the field;
and Ishmael carried the bow and arrows,
and shot at Isaac, and acted as though he
were fn sport.” r

5 Schott.

* Comp. Bengel.

CHAP. IV., 31. all

allegory to the Christians, and of its historical basis. — ofrw cai viv) So also
now the children of Abraham according to the flesh (the Jews) persecute
those who are Abraham’s children xara rvevya (Christians, érayyeAiag réxva,
ver. 28). Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 15. This otrw xai viv does not exclude any
kind of persecution which the Christians suffered at the hands of the Jews ;
but that which is intended must have been actual persecutions, such as those
to which the Christians as a body were so generally at that time subjected
by the Jews, and not the rapdocew on the part of the Judaists.’ — adda ri
Aéyes 4 ypagq ;] triumphantly introduces the divine certainty of ‘the want of
success, which will attend this didxecv, to the destruction of the persecutors
themselves. Observe how the importance of the utterance is brought out
more vividly by the interrogative announcement.* The quotation is from
Gen. xxi. 10, almost exactly following the LXX. Instead of pera rot vied
pov "Iocdk, ‘‘ with my son Isaac,” in the LXX.,* Paul has written perd rod viod
Tig éAevOépac, not accidentally, but in order to give prominence to the con-
trast, which significantly refers back to the chief point of the allegory (comp.
ver. 22). — &Bate x.7.A.] The words of Sarah to Abraham (which, however,
in Gen. xxi. 12 are expressly approved by God and confirmed with a view
to fulfilment), requiring the expulsion of Hagar and her son from the house.
From this, looking to the scope of the allegory, the Galatians are to infer
the exclusion of the non-free Jews, who were now persecuting the free
Christians, from the people of God. This exclusion already actually exists
even in the present aiéy, in so far as the true Israel which is free from the
law (the 'Iopa?A row Oecd, vi. 16) has taken the place of the ancient people
of God, and will attain its perfect realization at the mrapovoia, ‘‘ coming of
Christ,” when none but the free Christian family of God will share in the
xAnpovoyia, ‘‘ inheritance,” of eternal Messianic salvation. Comp. iii. 18, 29.
According to Hofmann,‘ the meaning is, that as Abraham separated Ishmael
from Isaac, so also the readers are to dismiss from among them, as unentitled
to share in their inheritance, those who desired to force upon them their
own legalism ; the Christian body ought to remain undisturbed by such per-
sons. This weakening of the idea is impossible with a correct conception
Of didxecv in ver. 29 ; the sure divine Nemesis against the persecutors must be
meant—the divine éxdixyorc, ‘‘ vengeance” (Luke xviii. 7 f. ; 2 comp. Thess. i.
6, 8). — ov yap pa KAnpov] prefixed with great emphasis ; the son of the bond-
woman shall assuredly not inherit.° As to the exclusion, according to the
Israelite law, of the children of a concubine from the right of inheritance,
see Selden, de success. ad leg, Hebr. p. 28 ; Saalschitz, MW. R. p. 881 ; Ewald,
Alterth. p. 266. [See Note LXVII., p. 216.]

Ver. 81 is usually looked upon as the keystone, as the final result of the
previous discourse. ‘‘ Applicat historiam ct allegoriam, et summam absolvit
brevi conclusione,” ‘‘ He applies the history and allegory, and brings it to a
close in a brief conclusion,” Luther, 1519. But so taken, the purport of ver.

1 Hofmann, see on ddlane, ? Which therefore D* E? F G, codd. of

2 Comp. Rom. iv. 8, x. 8, xi. 2, 4; Dissen, the Itala, and some Fathers read also here.
ad Dem. de cor. p. 186, 87; Blomfield, * Comp. also his Schrifidew. LI. 2, p. 71.
Gloss. ad Aeach. Pers. 1018. 5 Comp. Gen. xxv. 5 f.

212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,

81 appears to express far too little, and to be feeble, because it has been
already more than once implied in what precedes (see vv. 26, 28). Wedo
not get rid of this incongruity, even if with Riickert we prefer the reading
queic df, also approved by Hofmann (see the crit. notes), and assume the
tacit inference : ‘‘ consequently the inheritance cannot escape us, expulsion
does not affect us.” For, after the whole argument previously developed,
any such express application of ver. 30 to Christians would have been entire-
ly superfluous ; no reader needed it, in order clearly to discern and deeply
to feel the certainty of victory conveyed in ver. 30 ; hence ver. 31 would be
halting and without force. No ; ver. 81 begins a new section.’ The allegor-
ical instruction, which from ver. 22 onwards Paul has given, comes toa
close forcibly and appropriately with the triumphant language of Scripture
in ver. 80 ; and now Paul will follow it up by the exhortation to stand fast
in their Christian liberty (v. 1). But first of all, as a basis for this exhorta-
tion, he prefixes to it the proposition—resulting from the previous instruc-
tion—which forms the ‘‘ pith of the allegory,” ? and exactly as such is fitted
to be the theoretical principle placed at the head of the practical course of
action to be required in the sequel, ver. 81. This proposition is then fol-
lowed by r9 éAevOepia juadc Xprord¢ 7Aevvépwoev, V. 1, which very forcibly serves
as a medium of transition to the direct summons orfxere otv. ‘‘ Therefore,
brethren, —seeing that our position is such as results from this allegory,—tce
are not children of a bond-woman (like the Jews), but of the free woman ; for
Sreedom Christ has made us free; stand therefore fast,” etc.

Nores py American Eprror.

LOT. Ver. 1. varios.

Nyc is the etymological equivalent of the Latin infans (N-éroc—in fans,
in both cases negativing the idea of speech. Hence the word has here the
force of the technical legal ‘‘ infant,’’ viz.,a minor, Liddell and Scott find the
meaning of “one still unfit to bear arms ’’ in Hom. Il. ii. 136 ; ix. 440.

LIV. Ver. 4. yevdpuevov bro vépuov.

The application of this passage, rejected by Meyer, is thus stated by Philippi :
‘‘From the strict, even emphatic correspondence in the expression of thesis
and antithesis, it manifestly follows that the Son of God was under the law in
the same way as was Israel, in order to redeem Israel from slavery to the law,
and to introduce it into the adoption of God's children. But in its youth, like
a minor to pedagogues, Israel was subject to the ordinances of the law demand-
ing fulfilment, corresponding to which the redeeming work of the Son of God
is to be regarded as a vicarious fulfilment of the law, and in this connection
his atoning death appears of itself as the completion of his obedience rendered
to the demands of the law (his yevéofac ixd véuor), The passages cited, viz.,

1 Comp. Lachmann, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann. ® Holsten.

NOTES. 213

Matt. xx. 28; John iv. 34; Phil. ii. 8; Gal. iv. 4; cf. Heb. v. 7, 8, treat the
Lord’s death as the culmination of His entire obedience of life, and represent
the life, passion and death of the Redeemer under a point of view entirely in-
divisible, which is none other than that of the vicarious fulfilment of the law.
The vicarious obedience of life, in distinction from the vicarious surrender of
life, in which it ceases, is typically prefigured in the O. T. For the priest
was the substitute of the people accepted of God, not only by his presentation
of the offering, but already in the Levitical purity and spotlessness of his
nature, life and conversation.’’ Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. 2 : 296 sq.

LV. Ver. 6. 1d mvetpa rod vlodv.

Meyer does not express all that is contained in the words ‘‘the Spirit of His
Son.’’ ‘If in John xiv. 16 only the procession of the Spirit from the Father
is treated of, yet He proceeds not only from the Father through the Son, but
also from the Son Himself. ‘For he shall receive of mine,’ says the Lord,
John xvi. 14 ; andasthe Father gives and sends Him, so also does the Son. Cf.
Matt. iii. 11; John i. 33 ; Acts ii, 33, possibly also John vii. 38, 39. ‘‘ Receive
ye the Holy Ghost.’’ With these words He Himself imparts the spirit to His
disciples. In Rom. viii. 9 the Spirit of God is also called the Spirit of Christ ;
in Phil. i. 19, the Spirit of Jesus Christ ; in 2 Cor. iii. 17, the Spirit of the
Lord ; in Gal. iv. 6, the Spirit of His Son ; and in Rev. xxii. 1, a stream of
living water (cf. John vii. 38, 39 ; also iv. 14) proceeds from the throne of God
and of the Lamb. The Spirit is accordingly just as much the possession of
the Son as of the Father.’’ (Philippi’s Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, ii. 222.)

LVI. Ver. 8. roi¢ pices 1) cdot Bevis.

Sieffert cannot appreciate any change of meaning, resulting from the transfer
of the 4 from before the ¢uce, as in the text. recept. to before ovc:, as in best
codices. In either case a pure negative is expressed that the false gods are
not gods in reality, and there is nothing implied on either side of the question
as to whether they are pure fiction or have an objective existence as demonia. .
This must be determined from other passages, 1 Cor. viii. 4, x. 19, 20.

LVIL Ver. 9. yvdvres.

While Meyer’s disproof of Olshausen’s distinction is conclusive, that of
Lightfoot must be accepted : ‘‘ While olda, I know, refers to the knowledge of
facts absolutely, y:vocnw, I recognize, being relative, gives prominence either
to the atfainment or the manifestation of the knowledge.’’ So Westcott on 1 John
ii. 29: ‘* Knowledge which is absolute (eid7re) becomes the basis of knowledge
that is realized in observation (ycvdcxere).’’? The same distinction is observed
in classical Greek. Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon (under ytyvdoxe) : ‘‘ The strict
distinction seems to be that the former class, éyvuxevai, novisse, etc., means to
know by observation, the latter eidéva:, scire, etc., to know by reflection. Thu-
cydides i. 69: éyd & old’ bre ytyvdoxete tovruv arayvrec,” ‘I know that ye all
have come to know this one.’’ The same distinction underlies the German
Kennen and Wissen. It is recognized in the Revised Version by the -render-
ing: ‘‘ But now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known of God.”

214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

LVIII. Ver. 9. yruobévrec trd Oecd.

Sieffert’s exceptions to Meyer’s argument seem invalid ; but a more careful
observance of the distinction between the two words ‘‘to know,” used in verses
8 and 9, makes the argument clearer, as exhibited in a compressed form by
Sunday : ‘‘ In speaking of the Galatians as ‘coming to know’ God, it might
seem as if too much stress was laid on the human side of the process, and
therefore, by way of correction, the apostle presents also the divine side.
Any true and saving knowledge of God has for its converse the ‘ being known
of God,’ i.e., recognition by God and acceptance by Him, such as is involved in
the admission of the believer into the Messianic kingdom.”

LIX. Ver. 12. yiveoOe d¢ éyo.

Such an appeal, however, implies no yielding of the principle involved.
The argument is well paraphrased by Lightfoot: ‘‘I gave up all those time-
honored customs, all those dear associations of race to become like you. I
have lived as a Gentile to please you Gentiles. Will you then abandon me,
when I have abandoned all for you ?”

LX. Ver. 14. oldare dé dre x.7.A.

In reply, Sieffert defends Lachmann and Buttmann by maintaining that
there is no flaw in the discourse here, which assumes an abrupt character as
frequently, because of the deep emotion of the apostle ; that in vv. 10-12 there
is a succession of disjointed sentences, and that in chap. ii. 21 asyndeton in
beginning of sentence occurs. He proposes this paraphrase: ‘‘ Ye know how
through infirmity of the flesh I preached, etc., and how ye were put to the test
in my flesh.”’

LXI. Ver. 14. eferrtoare.

Marginal reading of Revised Version: ‘‘ spat out.’’ Lightfoot : ‘*Ye did not
treat with contemptuous indifference or active loathing.’’

LXII. Ver. 15. rove dgbaApove tudr.

Eadie (pp. 329-341) bas an excursus on Paul’s infirmity. The various views are
classified: I. The carnal style of his preaching (Jerome). II. Persecution
(Chrysostom, Eusebius of Emessa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecu-
menius, Theophylact, Ambrosiast ; also Calvin, Beza, Fritzsche, Schrader, Ham-
mond, Reiche). III. Inner temptation. 1. To unbelief, stirring up of re-
maining sin, pangs of sorrow on account of his past life (Gerson, Luther,
Calvin, Osiander, Calovius). 2. To incontinence (Augustine, Jerome, Gregory
the Great, Salvian,, Thomas Aquinas, Bede, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, 4 Lapide,
Bisping) ; against which (a) such would not be given by God. (6) Nor could
he have gloried in this, 2 Cor. xii. 9. (c) Nor would this inner struggle have ex-
posed him to scorn or aversion. (d) He declares his perfect freedom from
such temptations, 1 Cor. vii. 7. Luther: ‘‘ Ah no, dear Paul; it was no such
trial as afflicted thee.’? IV. Some painful and acute corporeal malady, which
could not be concealed, but had a tendency to induce loathing (Flatt, Billroth,
Emmerling, Rickert, Meyer, de Wette, Lightfoot, Alford, Howson, Chandler,
Buttger, Eadie). Against the view that it was a malady of the eyes, among

NOTES. 215

other arguments, it is urged : (a) The translation, ver. 15, ‘your eyes,’’ is un-
emphatic, not ‘‘ your own eyes.’’ (b) Defect of vision would not induce the
loathing of ver. 14. (c) The thorn was given fourteen years before he wrote
2 Cor. ; but his conversion was much earlier. (d) Arguments to prove that he was
permanently blinded are untrustworthy. Other conjectures concerning specific
affection : hypochondriacal melancholy, haemorrhoids, kidney-disease, gout,
the stone, severe headache, epilepsy. Each must be tested by the loathing
mentioned in this epistle.

LXII. ver. 17. iva avrode dnhoire.

Such adverbial force of iva as that proposed by Meyer is without an instance
in either the LXX. or N.T. The same use of Zva with indicative occurs also in
1 Cor. iv. 6. Unjustified by classical Greek, Winer declares that ‘‘in later
works it occurs so frequently as to preclude the supposition that every instance
is a mistake of transoribers.’’ The process of Meyer's interpretation from that
of the fourth to the fifth edition shows how unnatural the application. Besides,
the telic and the adverbial’iva are in reality the same word, and the attention
must be confined here altogether to the difference of moods. Winer’s remark,
that in both passages the verb after iva is one ending in ow, is worthy of note.
Hence Buttmann’s hypothesis that the present of this class of verbs has with

tva the force of the future. Sieffert, in common with almost all interpreters,
takes issue with Meyer.

LXIV. ver. 21. dv véyov obx axovere.

There seems no reason to depart from the simpler and ordinarily received
meaning : ‘‘ Will ye not listen to the law?’ Argued in Ellicott, with whom
_ agree Alford, Schmoller, Eadie, Lightfoot and Sanday.

LXV. ver. 24. éorey dAAnyopotpmeva.

Sieffert adds, instead of what follows in Meyer: ‘‘But whether he ascribed
the latter to all the details of his exposition is, nevertheless, a question. In
any event Meyer’s assertion is incorrect that Paul has raised this allegory to
the keystone of his whole antinomistic reasoning, eto. On the contrary,
Schott’s judgment is perfectly apposite. For the proper doctrinal demonstra-
tion is concluded already in chap. iv. 7, while the allegory is introduced into
the midst of the personal admonition to Christian freedom beginning already
in ch. iv. 8. (iv. 8-20, v.-1-12), and is expressly designated (v. 21) as in-
tended for the special practical wants of the readers . . . Meyer's assertion,
that the argument falls wholly to the ground as a real proof in the view of a

faith not associated with Rabbinical training, pertains of course to the alle-
gorical form of the proof.’’

LXVI. ver. 25, 7d "Ayap.

‘If the word Hagar be omitted [according to ® C F G17, the old Latin, Vul-
gate, Aethiopic, and Armenian versions ; Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril, Damas-
cenus, Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius, Pri-
marius, and probably all the Latin Fathers’’], the passage is capable of a very

216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

easy and natural interpretation : ‘Sinai,’ St. Paul argues, ‘is situated in
Arabia, the country of Hagar’s descendants, the land of bond-slaves.’ And such,
too, seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even though with the
received text we retain Hagar: ‘ This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,’ 7.e., it
represents Mount Sinai, because Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land of Hagar
and her descendants. It is not ’Ayap, the woman Hagar, but rd ’Ayap, the
thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is under discussion.”
See the very learned and minute examination of this passage in the special ex-
cursus, pp. 192-200 of Bp. Lightfoot’s commentary, from which the above is
taken. In it will be found Philo’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah.

LXVII. ver. 29.

The opinion of Sieffert is worthy of note, that the main object of the apostle
is to show how the parallel subsisting between Hagar and Sarah is also appli-
cable to their sons, Ishmael and Isaac, to whom also the allegory is pertinent.

CHAP. V. | 217

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 1. 19 éAevbeple, 9 yudc Xprorog HAevOépwoe, orjxete] So Griesb. (reading,
however, Xpiavd¢ fudc), Riick., Tisch.(1859), Wieseler. But Elz., Matth., Winer,
Rinck, Reiche, read rg éAevOepia odv, § Xpiord¢ Hude HAevOépwoe, ornxere. Lachm.,
followed by Usteri, reads r7 éAevBepig hud Xpeordc HAevOépwoev. orgxere odv, Which
was also approved of by Mill, Bengel, Griesb. [Eadie, Tisch. (1872)]; and
Winer does not reject it. Scholz gives rg éAevOepia, 9 Xpiords Huds HAevOépuce,
orfxere ovv. Schott lastly, following Rinck, joins ry éAevOepig, 7 judo Xpwri¢
qAevbépwcer to iv. 31, and begins the new sentence with orjxere odv. So also
Ewald. Lachmann’s reading, which is also followed by Hofmann, must be
held to be the original one : (1) because amidst the numerous variations it has
a decided preponderance of testimony in its favor, for 7 is wanting in ABC D*
% and 9 min., Dam., and ovv after orjxere is written in A B C D* (in the Greek)
F GX and some 10 min., Copt. Goth. Aeth. Boern. Vulg. ms. Cyr. Bas. ms.
Aug. Ambrosiast. ; (2) because from it the origin of the rest of the readings
can be explained easily, naturally, and without perjudice to the witnesses—
namely, from the endeavor to connect rg éAevO. fu. X. FAev8. immediately with
iv. 31. Thus in some cases rj was merely changed into 7 (FG, It. Vulg. Goth.
and Fathers) ; in others 7 was inserted before fyude (Griesb.), allowing r7 to re-
main. The relative thus introduced led others, who had in view the right con-
nection with orfxere, either to omit the ot (after orjxere), which the presence
of the relative rendered awkward (E. Vulg. It. Syr. p. Fathers ; Griesb., Rick.,
Tisch.), or to place it immediately after éAevOeplg (C*** K L, min., Fathers ;
Elz). Lastly, the transposition Xpiord¢ guds was an involuntary expedient to
place the subject first, but is condemned by the decisive counter-weight of the
evidence. It is a dubious view which derives the different readings of our
passage from the accidental omission in writing of H before Hyag (Tisch., Wiese-
ler), especially since very ancient witnesses, in which 7 is wanting, read not
quads Xpioréc, but Xprordc fuds (as C L. &** Marcion, Chrys.).—Ver. 3, rdéA:v] is
wanting in D* F G, 73, 74, 76, It. Chrys. Theophyl. Victorin. Jerome, Aug. Am-
brosiast. The omission is caused by the similarity of the ravri which follows.
—Ver. 7. tvéxowe] The Elz. reading dvéxope is opposed to all the uncials and
most min., and is therefore rightly rejected by Grot., Mill., Bengel, Matth.,
Lachm., Tisch., Reiche, whereas Usteri sought very feebly to defend it. — The
tg which follows is wanting in A B &*. But the article forms a necessary part
of the idea (comp. ii. 5, 14), and the omission must be looked upon as a mere
error in copying. Without just ground, Semler and Koppe consider the whole
TH GAO. ui weiOcoOu: to be not genuine ; and the latter is disposed, instead of
it, to defend pydev? reifeo6e, which is found in F G, codd. Lat. in Jer. and some
vss. and Fathers, after meifeoOa:, but is manifestly a gloss annexed to the fol-
lowing 4 tecoxovy x.7.A. Still more arbitrarily, Schott holds the whole of ver. 7
to be an inserted gloss. — Ver. 9. (vuzoi] D* E, Vulg. Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in
Jer. and Sedul., and several Fathers, read doAoi. Approved by Mill. and

218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Valck. Schol. Il. p. 178. An interpretation, because in this passage the leaven
represents something corrupting (otherwise in Matt. xiii. 33). Comp. on
1 Cor. v. 6. — Ver. 14. év évi Aéyw] Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) read viv, and
D* E F G, It. Ambrosiast. have év tyuiv év dj Adyy. Marcion’s reading is of an-
tinomistic origin (hence he also omitted the following év rQ) ; but the duty in-
troduced by it became subsequently blended with the original text. — rAnpotra:]
Defended by Reiche ; but A BC &, min., Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.)
Damaso. Aug. read metAnpwra:. Justly ; the meaning of the perfect (which is
also adopted by Lachm., Riick., Schott, Tisch.) was not apprehended by me-
chanical transcriber$. — ceavréy] Elz., Matth., Schott, read éaurév. Certainly in
opposition to ABC DEK 8, min., and Greek Fathers ; but the pronoun of
the second person was very likely to occur to the copyists (in the LXX. Lev.
xix. 18, there is the same variety of readings), and indeed the final letter of the
foregoing é¢ might easily lend support to the ceavrév : hence éavrév is to be re-
stored, in opposition to Griegb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., and others. Comp. on
Rom. xiii. 9.—Ver. 17. ravra dé] Lachm. and Schott [Tisch. 1872] read ravra yép,
following &* B D* E F G*, 17, Copt. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. Looking
at this preponderance of attestation, and seeing that the continuative dé might
easily appear more suitable, yép is to be preferred. — Ver. 19 f. uoryeia] is
wanting before zopy. in ABC ®*, min., and many vss. and Fathers ; 76, 115,
Epiph. Chrys. Theophyl. have it after ropvela. In opposition to Reiche, but
with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Schott, Tisch., and others, it is to be deleted,
since it bas been introduced, although at a very early date (It. Or.), most
probably by the juxtaposition of the two words in other passages (Matt. xv. 19 ;
Mark vii. 21; comp. Hos. ii. 2), well known to the transcribers. — épecc, C#Aoe]
Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular, following weighty evidence ; the plurals
were introduced in conformity to the adjoining. — Ver. 21. ¢évor] is wanting
in B &, 17, 33, 35, 57, 73, and several Fathers, but in no version. Rejected by
Mill., Seml., and Koppe, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. On account
of the similarity of sound with the preceding word it might just as easily be
omitted, as it might be added from Rom. i. 29. Hence the preponderance of
witnesses determines the point, and that in favor of the retention.

ConTENnTs. — Exhortation to steadfastness in Christian freedom, and warn-
ing against the opposite course. If they allowed themselves to be circum-
cised, Christ would profit them nothing, and they would be bound to the
law as a whole ; by legal justification they would be severed from Christ and
from grace, as is proved by the nature of Christian righteousness (vv. 1-6).
Complaint and warning on account of the apostasy of the readers, respecting
whom, however, Paul cherishes good confidence ; whereas he threatens
judgment against the seducers, whose teaching as to circumcision is in no
sense his (vv. 7-12). A warning against the abuse, and an exhortation to
the right use, of Christian freedom, which consists in a demeanor actuated
by mutual love (vv. 18-15) ; whereupon he then enters into a detailed ex-
planation to the effect that the Holy Spirit, and not the flesh, must be the
guiding power of their conduct (vv. 16-25). After this, special moral ex-
hortations begin (ver. 26).

Ver. 1. Ta éAevfepia puac Xpiordc 7Aevbépwcev] On this reading, see the
critical notes. The sentence forms, with iv. 31, the basis of the exhortation

CHAP. V., l. 219

which follows, orfxere obv x.7.2. See on iv. 81. For freedom, in order that
we should be free and should remain so, that we should not again become
subject to bondage, Christ has set us free (iv. 1-7), namely, from the bondage
of the crovyeia tov xéouov (iv. 8). The dative rg 2Aev. is therefore commodi,
not instrumenti.? By so taking it, and by attending to the emphasis, which
lies not on Xpiorée, but on the r@ éAevdepig following immediately after zc
éAevépac in iv. 81, we obviate entirely the objection of Riickert* that Paul
must have written : X. #udc éAevbepia pAevBipwoev, OF ei¢ EAevO., OF TH eAev#.
ratry, or fv Exyouev, or some other addition of the kind. — orfxere obv] stand
JSast therefore, namely, in the freedom, which is to be inferred from what
goes before ; hence the absence of connection with rj éAev#. does not pro-
duce any obscurity or abruptness.‘ On the absolute orfxere, which obtains
its reference from the context, comp. 2 Thess, ii. 15. —xal yu} wéduw x.1.A.]
and be not again held in a yoke of bondage. Previously they had been (most
of them) in the yoke of heathenism ; now they were on the point of being
held in the yoke of Mosaism (only another kind of the croyeia rot xéopov).
The yoke is conceived as laid on the neck: Acts xv. 10 ; Ecclus. li. 26 ;
Dem. 822. 12 ; Hom. H. Cer. 217. As to mda, comp. on iv 9. dovdelar
denotes the characteristic quality belonging to the yoke.*— évéyeo#a, with
the dative* or with éy,” is the proper expression for those who are held either
in a physical (net or the like) or ethical (law, dogma, emotion, sin, or the
like) restriction of liberty, so that they cannot get out.° Here, on account
of the idea of a yoke, the reference is physical, but used as a figurative repre-
sentation for that which is mental, which affects the conscience.

Note.—If we take the reading of the Recepta, and of Griesbach and his fol-
lowers (see the critical notes), we must explain it: ‘* In respect the freedom of
[therefore], for which Christ has set us free, stand fast, and become not again, ete. !’’
—so that rg fAevOepia is to be taken like rg micre: in 2 Cor. i. 24 and Rom. iv.
20, and 7 as the dative commodi (Morus, Winer, Reiche). 7 might also (with the
Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Rickert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler,
and many others) be taken as ablative (instrumentally) : ‘‘ qua nos liberavit,"’
‘* with which he has freed you,”’ after the analogy of the classical expressions
Gv Bly, doa dare x.7.2, (Bernhardy, p. 107; Lobeck, Paral. p. 523 ff.), and of
the frequent use both in the LXX. and the N. T. (Winer, p. 434) of ‘‘ cognate”
nouns in the dative. But this mode of expression does not occur elsewhere with
Paul, not even in 1 Thess, iii. 9. According to Schott, Ewald, and Matthias,
who join it to iv. 31 (see the critical notes), we get the meaning: ‘‘ We are not
children of a bond-maid, but of the free woman through the freedom, with which Christ
made us free; stand fast therefore.’’ Thus ry éAevOepig 4 hudcs Xpror. 7AevO. be-
comes a self-evident appendage ; and Xpiorés receives an emphasis, just as in
iii. 13, which its position does not warrant,

1 Cf. ver. 18; John vill. 86, vi. p. 770 EB: 80vAaoy gvysy, Ep. 8, p. 854 D;
2 Comp. also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 155; Dem. 822. 12; Herod. vii. 8.

Holsten, Hofmann, Reithmayr. ®Dem. 1231. 15; 2 Maco. v. 18; 3 Maco.
8 Comp. Matthies and Olshausen. vi. 10.
4 In opposition to Reiche. 7 Dem. 1069. 9.

®*Comp. Soph. Aj. 924: wpds ola sovdAcias 8 See Kypke in loc., and Markland ad Lye.
fvyd xwpodmer. Eur. Or. 18380; Plat. Legg. V.p. 87, Reisk.

220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Ver. 2. Paul now in a warning tone reveals to them the fearful danger to
which they are exposed. This he does by the address Ide in the singular,'
exciting the special attention of every individual reader, and with the ener-
getic, defiant interposition of his personal authority : ty IatAoc, on which
Theophylact well remarks : rq rov oixeiov wpoodmov aftomioriay Gvti méonc azo-
delEews ridyor, ‘Instead of all demonstration he presents the trustworthiness
of his own person.” * — day repiréuvnof_e] To be pronounced with special
emphasis. The readers stood now on the very verge of obeying thus far—
and therefore to the utmost—the suggestions of the false apostles in taking
upon them the yoke of the law, after having already consented to prelimi-
nary isolated acts of legal observance (iv. 10). — Xpioric tude ovddv ddeAhoer]
comp. ii. 21. Xprord¢ is emphatically placed first, and immediately after
swepr. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly remarks: 6 mepirepvduevoc ae véuov
dedoixae mwepiréuvetat, 6 d2 dedoixog anctorei TZ duvdmet tig yapitoc, 6 d2 amioray
ovdéy xepdaives rapa tio amtotouutync, ‘* He who is circumcised is circumcised
as fearing the law, but he who fears the law distrusts the power of grace,
and he who distrusts gains nothing from that which he distrusts.” On such
a footing Christ cannot be Christ, the Mediator of salvation. Paul’s judg-
ment presupposes that circumcision is adopted, not as a condition of a holy
life,* but as a condition of salvation, which was the question raised among the
Galatians.‘ The future, ageAgoe:, which is explained by others ° as referring
to the consequence generally, points to the nearness of the Parousia and
the decision of the judgment. Comp. ver. 5: éAnlda dixacoobvns, just as
previously the idea of the «Anpovoyia in iv. 80.

Ver. 8. With regard to the judgment just expressed, Xprord¢ ovdév tpac
OgeAfoe:, Paul now, with increasing emotion (yapripoua:, ravti avOp. zepir.),
gives an explanation (vv. 3, 4) which clearly discloses the entire certainty
of this negation. — The dé is not potius,* because it is not preceded by any
antagonistic assertion, but is the autem which leads on to more detailed
information.’ — papripoyua:] in the sense of zaprypé, as in Acts xx. 26 ; Eph.
iv. 17 ; Joseph. Bell. iii. 8. 3; and also Plat. Phil. p. 47 D, while in classi-
cal authors it usually means to summon as a witness and obtestor. Paul testi-
Jies that which with divine certainty he knows. The context does not war-
rant us to supply 66», with Bretschneider and Hilgenfeld. — ré/cv] not con-
tra, ‘‘against,” ° which is never its meaning,*® but again, not however in the
sense that ver. 3 is described as a repetition of what was said in ver. 2,”
which it is not ; nor in the sense that Paul is thinking merely of the testify-
ing in itself, and not of its purport,"'—an interpretation which cannot but be
the less natural, the more neccssarily as that which is attested méA:v stands
in essential inner connection with the axiom which had been previously ex-

1 Comp. Soph. 7rack. 824. 8 Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Koppe, Wahl;

2 Comp. 2 Cor. x. 1; Eph. ffi. 1; Col. {. 28. comp. Usterl.

* Holsten. ® See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 166 f.

4ii.8,5; Acts xv. 1, xvi 8 Comp. Lech- 10 Calvin, Castalio, Calovius, Wolf, Zach-
ler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 248. arlae, Paulus, and others.

5 De Wette, Hofmann, and most. 1] Hofmann ; comp. Fritzsche, Winer, de

* Schott. Wette.

7 Herm. ad Viger. p. 845.

CHAP. Y., 4. 221
pressed (‘‘ prodatio est proximae sententiae sumta et loco repugnantium,” ‘‘ The
proof of the next sentence is derived from the topic of things that conflict,”
Calvin); but in the sense that Paul calls to the remembrance of his readers his
last presence among them (the second), when he had already orally assured
them of what he here expresses.' Comp. oni. 9, iv. 16. — zavri avfp. repir. |
stands in a climactic relation to the foregoing tuiv, remorselessly embracing
all: to every one J testify, so that no one may fancy himself excluded from
the bearing of the statement. According to Chrysostom and Theophylact,
with whom Schott and others agree, Paul has wished to avoid the appearance
nar’ ExOpav rata Aéyeoba: ; but in this view the whole climactic force of the
address is misunderstood. — édAov] has the emphasis.* Circumcision binds
the man who accepts it to obey the whole law, because it makes him a full
member of the covenant of the law, a proselyte of righteousness, and the
law requires from those who are bound to it its entire fulfilment (iii. 10).
Probably the pseudo-apostles had sought’ at least to conceal or to weaken
this true and—since no one is able wholly to keep the law,*—yet so fearful
consequence of accepting circumcision, as if faith in Christ and acceptance of
circumcision might be compatible with one another. On the contrary, Paul
proclaims the decisive aut... aut.‘ The state of the man who allows him-
self to be circumcised stands in a relation contradictory to the state of grace.°

Ver. 4. But whosoever is justified through the law—a way of justification
which necessarily follows from the already mentioned obligation—is sepa-
rated from Christ, etc. A complete explanation is thus given as to the
Xpiord¢ ipae ovdév agedjoe. Asyndetic (without dé), and reverting to the
second person, the language of Paul is the more emphatic and vivid. —
xarnpyf0nre|] In the first clause the stress is laid upon the dread separation
which has befallen them, in the second on the benefit thereby lost,—a
striking alternation of emphasis. The pregnant expression, xarapyeioOa: aré
revoc,* is to be resolved into xarapyeicOa: nai yupifecbar and rivoc, that is, to
come to nothing in regard to the relation hitherto subsisting with any one, so that
we are parted from him." Hence the sense is: your connection with Christ is
annulled, cancelled: amexéryre.* Justification by the law and justification for
Christ’s sake are in truth opposita, ‘‘ opposites ” (works—faith), so that the one
excludes the other. —oirives tv véum dixawovofe] ye who are being justified
through the law. The directly assertive and present d:xaovoGe is said from the
mental standpoint of the subjects concerned, in whose view of the matter
the way of salvation is this : ‘‘ through the law, with which our conduct
agrees (comp. ili. 11), we become just before God.” Hence the concrete
statement is not to be weakened either by taking dica:ovofla: in the sense of
Cyreiv dexacovofa, li. 17,° or by attributing a hypothetical sense to oirivec."

1 Moldenhauer, Flatt, Rickert, Olshau-
sen, Wieseler.

2 Comp. Jas. {I. 10.

§ Acts xill. 88, xv. 10; Rom. vill. &

4 Aut... aut indicates an exclusive alter-
native. If one member be true, the other
must be false.

® Comp. Rom. vi. 14 f., xi. 6.

® Comp. Rom. ix. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 8; see gen-
erally, Fritzsche ad Rom. II. p. 250.

tT Just the same in Rom. vil. 2, 6.

® Oecumenius.

® Rickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earli-
er expositors.

1° Hofmann, who erroneously compares
Thuc. v. 16. 1.

a2~ THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
Whomsoever Paul Aits with his oirivec «.7.4., he also means. —riz¢ yapitoc
éferéoare] that is, ye have forfeited the relation of being objects of divine
grace. The opposite : ixd ydpiw elvac (Rom. vi. 14), to which divine grace
faith has led (Rom. v. 2).!_ Whoever becomes righteous by obedience to the
law, becomes so no longer by the grace of God,? but by works acccord-
ing to desert ;* so that thus his relation of grace towards God (which is
capable of being lost) has ceased.

Ver.'5. Ground ¢ contrario, ‘‘on the contrary,” for the judgment passed in
ver. 4 on those becoming righteous by the law ; derived, not generally from
what makes up the essence of the Christian state,‘ but specially from the
specific way in which Paul and those like him expect to be justified. The
reasoning presupposes the certainity, of which the apostle was conscious,
that the jueic are those who are not separated from Christ and have not fallen
from grace. — jyueic] wee, on our part : ‘‘ qui a nobis dissentiunt, habeant sibi,”
‘¢ Let those who differ from us keep their views to themselves,” Bengel. —
mvetpare x wiotew] is not (with Luther) to be considered as one idea (‘‘ Sper-
itu qui ex fide est,” ‘‘through the Spirit who is of faith),” since there is no
contrast with any other spirit, but rathcr as fwo points opposed to the é
voup in ver. 4: ‘“by means of the Spirit, from faith, we expect,” etc. ; so
that the Holy Spirit is the divine agent, and faith in Christ is the subjective
source of our expectation.” We must not therefore explain rveiuare either as
the spirit of man simply,® or (comp. on Rom. viii. 4) as the spiritual nature
of man sanctified by the Holy Spirit ;” but similarly to ver. 16, as the odjectire
mveiua aytov, Which is the divine principle of spiritual life in Christians, and
which they have received é£ axoye wiorewc.® And the Holy Spirit is the divine
mainspring of Christian hope, as being the potential source of all Christian
dispositions and of Christian life in general, and as the earnest and surety
of eternal life in particular.*° —éAmida dixasocivys arexdex.] amexdé yeo8ac (Rom,
viii. 19, 23, 25; 1 Cor. 1. 7; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Pet. iii. 20) does not indeed
denote that he who waits is wholly spent in waiting,'® but rather'' the persist-
ent awaiting, which does not slacken until the time of realization."* The
genitive dixaostync is not appositionis, ‘‘one of apposition,” '* so that the
sense would be : ‘‘ the righteousness hoped for by us,” the genitive with éAri¢
never being used in this way ; but it is the objective genitive : the hope of
being justified, namely, in the judgment, where we shall be declared by
Christ as righteous. At variance with the context, since justification itse/f

1 On the figurative éxwirrecy, comp. 2 Pet.
{i1. 17; Plat. Gracch. 21: éxweretvy cai ore p-
exOat THs wpos Tov SHypov evvoias, Polyb. xii.
14.7; Lucian, Cont. 14; Ecclus. xxxi. 4.

3 Swpeay, Rom. iil. 24.

® Rom. fv. 11, 16, xi. 6.

4 Hofmann.

§ On wvevpan, comp. Rom. vil. 6, vill. 4,
15 f., Eph. £ 18 f., ti. 22, e¢ al.; and on é«
wiorews, comp. fl. 16, tv. 22, Rom. i. 17, fil. 22,
ix. 80, x. 6, e¢ al.

‘With Grotius, Borger, Fritzsche, and
others.

? Winer, Paulus, Rickert, and others;
comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hof-
mann.

® ili, 2, 5, iv. 6

®2Cor. |. 2, v.5; Eph. {. 14; Rom. vii.
11, 23.

10 Hofmann.

11 Comp. generally Winer, de verb. compos.
IV. p. 14.

13 C, F. A. Fritzsche in Frifeschior. Opusec.
p. 156.

18 Wieseler.

CHAP. V., 6. 223
is in question (see ver. 4) [See Note LXVIII., p. 248], others understand it
as the subjective genitive, as that which righteousness has to hope for,’ that is,
the hoped for reward of righteousness, namely, eternal life.* The fact that the
dixaootvy itself---that is, the righteousness of faith, and not that of a holy
life,*—is presented as something future, need not in itself surprise us,
because during the temporal life it exists indeed througk faith, but may
nevertheless be lost (see vv. 2, 4), and is not yet a definitive possession, which
it only comes to be at the judgment (Rom. viii. 33 f.). In a corresponding
way, the viofecia, although it has been already entered upon through faith
(iii, 26, iv. 5), is also the object of hope (Rom. viii. 23). This at the same
time explains why Paul here speaks in particular of an éAmi¢ dixacocivnc ; he
thereby indicates the difference between the certainty of salvation in the con-
sciousness (Rom. viii. 24) of the true Christians, and the confidence, depend-
ent upon works, felt by the legally righteous, who say: év dum dixat-
otvuefa, because in their case the becoming righteous is something in a con-
tinuous course of growth by means of: meritorious obedience to the law.
Lastly, the expression amexdéyeoda: tArida is not to be explained by the sup-
position that Paul, when he wrote éArida, had it in his mind to make éyouev
follow, ‘—an interpretation which is all the more arbitrary, because there is
no intervening sentence which might divert his thought,—but the hope is
treated objectively,® so that arexdéxeoda: tArtda belongs to the category of the
familiar expressions (7 Biov, miorebew Pdgav 3 Amida. . . mpoodoxacda. The
Catholic doctrine of the gradual increase of righteousness" is entirely un-
Pauline, although favored by Romang, Hengstenberg, and others. Justifi-
cation does not, like sanctification, develop itself and increase ; but it has,
as its moral consequence (iv. 6), sanctification through the Spirit which is
given to him who is justified by faith. Thus Christ is to us d:xasootvy re xa?
dytacuéc, 1 Cor. i. 80.

Ver. 6. Warrant for the éx ricreuc : for in Christ Jesus, in fellowship with
Christ (in the relation of the év Xpior@ elvac), neither circumcision nor uncir-
cumcision is of any avail ; the fact of a man being or not being circumcised
is of no influence, but faith, which is operative through love, se. icvbe tr. The
rt tozbec is to be left in the same general and unlimited form in which it
stands. Circumcision and uncircumcision are circumstances of no effect or
avail in Christianity. And yet they were in Galatia the points on which
the disturbance turned ! On the faith active in love, which is the effective
saving element in the state of the Christian, comp. 1 Tim. i. 5; 1 Thess, i.

! Hofmanzn, in fact, arrives at the same re-
sult, although he rejects the interpretation
of the genitive as the gen. subjecti: ** To wait
for the dlessing of righteousness already pre-
pared for him, which constitutes the substance
Oo his hope,“"—consequently for the orddavos
of his &xasocvrvn, 2 Tim. iv. 8 (see Huther in
loc. ed. 8).

2So Pelagius, Beza, Piscator, Hunnius,
Calovius, Bengel, Rambach, Baumgarten,
Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, Paulus, Win-
dischmann, Reithmayr, and others; comp.

also Weiss, didf. Theol. pp. 338, 541.

® Holsten.

4 Winer, Usteri, Schott.

§ Comp. on Col. 1. 5; Rom. villi. 24; Heb.
vi. 18.

* Lobeck, Faralip. p. 801 ff. Comp. Acts
xxiv. 15: éAwi8a . . . fv cai avroi obro: wpoo-
Sdxorrac, Tit. ii. 18; Job Hl. 9; Isa. xxviil.
10; 2 Macc. vil. 14; Eur. Alc. 180: viv 8@ ris’
ére Biov éAwida wpog8éxwuas ; Dem. 1468. 18.

? Trident. vi. 10. 24, Déllinger.

aad THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
8; 1 Cor. xiil.; also Jas. ii. 22. By means of this faith man is xcacv) xriorc,
vi. 15. Bengel well says : ‘‘Cum jide conjunxit ver. 5, spem, nunc amerem ;
in his stat totus Christianismus,” ‘‘ with fazth, he joined in v. 5 hope, and now
love ; in these all Christianity consists.” How very necessary it was for the
‘Galatians that prominence should be given to the activity of faith in love,
may be seen from vv. 15, 20, 26. The passive view of évepyovu., which is
given by the Fathers and many Catholics, such as Bellarmine, Estius, Reith-
mayr, in whom the interest of dogmatic controversy against the Protestants
came toa great extent into play, is erroneous, because évepyeioda: in the
N. T. is always middle (vim suam exserere), ‘‘ to exert its force.”’ It does
not mean, ‘‘ having been rendered energetic through love,” * but working through
love, expressing thereby its vital power. Moreover, our passage is not at
variance with justification solely by faith : ‘‘ opera jieri dicit ex fide per car-
itatem, non justificarti hominem per caritatem,” ‘‘ He says that works are
done from faith by love, not that man is justified by love,” Luther. Comp.
Calovius : ‘‘ Formatam® etiam fidem apostolus refellit, cum non per carita-
tem formam suam accipere vel formari, sed per caritatem operosam vel effica-
cem esse docet. Caritatem ergo et opera non fidem constituere, sed consequié
et ex eadem fluere certum est,” ‘‘The Apostle also refutes jides formata,
since he teaches that it does not receive its form, neither is it formed by
love, but that through love it is active or efficacious. It is certain, there-
fore, that love and works do not coypstitute faith, but follow it, and flow
from it.” It must, however, be observed that love (the opposite of all self-
ishness) must be, fromm its nature, the continuous moral medium of the oper-
ation in faith in those who are thereby justified,‘ 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff.°

Vv. 7-9. How naturally—and, in conformity with the apostle’s lively
emotion, asyndetically—the utterance of this axiom of the Christian char-
acter and life, which the readers had formerly obeyed, is followed by disap-
proving surprise at the fact that they had not remained faithful to it (ver.
7), and then by renewed warming against the false teachers, based on the un-
godly nature (ver. 8) and the destructive influence (ver. 9) of their opera-
tions !— érpéyere xaddc] that is, your Christian behavior—your Christian
life and effort—was in course of excellent development. A figurative mode
of presenting the activity of spiritual life very frequently used by the apos-
tle.* — ric tua évéxowe] A question of surprise (comp. iii. 1): who hindered
you?" In Polyb. xxi. 1. 12 it is used with the dative. So also Hippocr.
pp. 28, 85 ; for it means properly : to make an incision. — ri ady7Seig pp
reiSeadac] from obeying the truth, that is, the true gospel, according to which
faith alone is that which justifies. 4 is employed, as usual, after verbs of

1 gee on 2 Cor. i 6; Fritzsche, ad Rom.
vil. 6, II. p. 18.

2 Relthmayr.

3 The ‘ fides formata”’ is also found here
by Bisping, and especially Reithmayr, fol-
lowing the Trid. Sess. vi. 7, de justif. See,
on the other hand, Apol. Conf. Aug p. 81 f.
[Book of Concord (Jacobs), p. 102 f.]

4 Comp. also Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Theol.

p. 282 ff.

*Comp. Lipsius, Rechifert. p. 182 ; Romang,
in Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 90 ff., who, how-
ever, concedes too much to the idea of Ades
Jormata.

® Comp. fl. 2; Phil. iff. 11.

™Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18; Rom. xv. 2;
1 Pet. ili. 7.

CHAP. V., 7-9. Q25°
hindering.' The infinitive with u# denotes that which, so far as the will of
the hinderer is concerned, shall not take place. — 7 mecouovp x.t.A.] After
the surprise comes the warning.* Whether, however, the word is to be un-
derstood actively, as persuasion, or passively, as compliance, is a point which
must be decided in the several passages by the context. In this passage it
is understood as persuasion by mss. of the Itala (suasio), Vulgate (persuasio),
Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius & Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Zach-
ariae, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, ©
Matthias, Holsten, and others ; on the other hand, Chrysostom,* Oecume-
nius,‘ Theophylact,*® Luther (1519 and 1524 ; but in 1538, and in his transla-
tion : such persuasion), and others,* explain it as compliance,’ which, how-
ever, does not fit the word used absolutely. The latter rather yields the
thought: The persuasion is not of your caller, is not a thing proceeding from
God (see, on the contrary, 2 Cor. xi. 15). Paul would have this applied to
the mode of operation of the pseudo-apostles, who worked upon the Gala-
tians by persuasion (talking over), so that they did not remain obedient to
the truth, but turned dard rot xadécavtos abrods év xdpite Xpiorov to an éErepov
ebayyéicov (1. 6). If it were to be taken as compliance, some more precise
definition must have been appended ;° because compliance is ungodly not
in itself, but only according to the nature of the demand, the motive, and
the moral circumstances generally. Some have made it to mean credulitas,
‘‘credulity,”*® but the sense of the word is thus altered. The talking over,
however, did not need anything added, since it is of itse/f, in matters of
faith at any rate, objectionable ; hence it was very superfluous in Luther,
Grotius, and many others, to take the article as demonstrative. Moreover,
the active sense is excellently adapted to the designation of God by 6 xadayv
dpyac, Inasmuch as the talking over is a mode of operating on men character-
istically different from the divine calling: the former not befitting the

1 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 810f.; Pflugk,
ad Eur. Hec. 867; Winer, p. 561.

2% weopnor} occurs again only in Apoll.
Synt. p. 195. 10, in Eustath. (Ji. «, p. 687. 5, a,
Pp. 21, %, ef al.; see Wetstein), and in the
Fathers (Ignat. ad Hom. 8 interpol.; Just.
Mart. Ap. I. 58, p. 87 ; Epiph. Haer. xxx. 21;
Chrysostom, ad 1 Thess. i. 4.

3 ovx éwi roOUTOCS ExdAecey Uuas 6 KaAwY, Gore
ovre gadcverba, ‘He who called you did not
call you on these conditions in order that
you thus waver.”

4 rd wecoOHvas Tois Aéyovaty Uuiry wepirduvec-
da, “to be persuaded by those bidding you
be circumcised.”

8rd weiderda: roe draracw, “to obey
those deceiving.”

* Including Morus, Winer, Rfiickert, Mat-
thies, Olshausen, Reiche, Hofmann, Reith-
mayr.

’ This view serves to explain the omis-
sion of the ovx in D*, min., Cod. lat. in Jer.
and Sedul. Clar. Germ. Or. (once), Lucifer.

15

Theodoret also appears not to have read it,
as he gives the explanation : id:orv Geot rd
cadeiy, 7 5¢ weiderdat Trev axovévrwy, ‘it is
the prerogative of God to call ; of the hear-
ers, to obey.”

8 At least buev, which is actually read by
Syr. Erp. codd. in Jer. Lucif. Aug. Ambro-
siast. Sedul. Arm. has avrn yap waicpory.
Vdmel and Hofmann seek to remove the in-
definiteneas by reading instead of the ar-
ticle the relative 4: which obedience. But,
according to this view, § reou. must have
been correlative to the foregoing reiderdar
(comp. Wisd. xvi. 2), and this consequently
must have been defined not negatively, but
positively, somewhat as if Paul, instead
of ry adnd. uh welderdar, had written érdpp
evayyelle xeidecda:. But having written r.
GAyd. wh weiderdar, he must, in correlation
with uy} weidecda, have continued relatively
with § aweideca,

* Estius, Winer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
others.

226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

divine dignity like the latter ; the former bound up with human premedi-
tation, art, and importunity, taking place év re:vi¢ cogiag Adbyore (1 Cor. ii.
4), counteracting free self-determination, and so forth.'' Bengel, Morus
and de Wette understand it as obstinacy (the ‘‘clinging to prejudices,” de
Wette), making it correspond with the foregoing rq dAnSeig up reideada.
So also Ewald, although translating it as self-confidence, and comparing
wicvvoc. But the passages cited above from Eustathius do not make good
this signification ; and, in particular, Od. x. p. 785. 22, is quite improperly
adduced in its favor.” Reiche, preferring the signification compliance, takes
the sentence as asking indignantly : ‘‘ Annon assensus, obsequium veritati
praestandum e Deo est, qui vos vocavit ?” ‘‘Is not then assent, obedience to
the truth to be rendered from God, who has called you ?” But why should
Paul have expressed this by the singular word ze:ouovf not used by him else-
where, instead of the current and unambiguous ioreg or traxoy tig TiaTewr 2
By employing the latter, he would, in fact, have also suited the foregoing
reideadac, — The caddy tude is neither Christ ® nor the apostle,4 but God.* The
present participle is not to be understood of a continuing call ‘‘ad resipiscen-
tiam,” ‘‘ to repentance,” * a view at variance with the constant use of the abso-
lute xadriv,’ nor does it represent the calling as lasting up to the time of
their yielding compliance against the truth,° which would be an idea foreign
to the N. T. ;° but it is to be taken substantivally, your caller, the definition
of the time being left out of view."° God, the caller to everlasting salvation,
has assigned to every one, by calling him at his conversion," the ‘‘ normam
totius cursus,” ‘‘rule of his entire course” (Bengel). — pixpa Ciun x.r.A.] The
meaning of this proverbial warning (see on 1 Cor. v. 6) is : ‘‘ If the false apos-
tles have, by means of their persuasion, succeeded in making even but a small
‘beginning in the work of imparting to you erroneous doctrines or false
principles, this will develop itself to the corruption of your whole Christian
faith and life.” So, taking the figure with reference to doctrine, in sub-
stance also Chrysostom, Theophylact (who, however, explain yexpa Cin too
specially of circumcision), Luther, Calvin, Cornelius & Lapide, and many
others, including Flatt and Matthies. It is true that the dogma of his op-
ponents was in itself fundamentally subversive (as Wieseler objects); but
its influence had not yet so far developed itself, that the Ciu7 might not
have been still designated relatively as yzxpé. Others interpret it as refer-
ring to persons : ‘‘ vel pauci homines perperam docentes possunt omnem coe-
tum corrumpere,” ‘‘even a few men teaching erroneously can corrupt an
entire body,” Winer ;* but against this it may be urged that the number of

1 Comp. Soph. Fragm. 744, Dind.: &etvoy rd * Hofmann.
tas Tedovs mpécwrov. Aesch. Agam. 885: *{.6; Weiss. div. Theol. p. 886 f.

Prarac 8 a rdAawa wed. 10 Comp. 1 Theas. v. 24; Winer, p. 881.
2 See Reiche, p. 79 f. Wt Phil. iii, 14.
3 Theophylact, Erasmus, Michaelis, and 13 Comp. Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine,
others. Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Locke, Bengel,
* Locke, Paulus. Borger, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, de Wette,
5 See on I. 6. Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Windisch-
¢ Beza. mann, Reithmayr, and others.

74. 6, v. 18; Rom. vill. 80, e¢ ad.

CHAP. V., 10. 227

the false teachers, as it is in itself a matter of indifference, and does not
acquire greater significance through their having intruded themselves from
without, remains also unnoticed throughout the epistle, and the point in
question was solely the influence of their teaching (comp. recouovg), which
was the leaven threatening to spread destructively.’

Ver. 10. After the warning in vv. 8, 9, Paul now assures his readers how
he cherishes confidence in them, that their sentiments would be in con-
formity with this warning ; but those who led them astray would meet
with punishment. — éyé] with emphasis : [on my part, however much my
opponents may think that they have won over your judgment to their side.
Groundlessly and arbitrarily Rickert affirms that what Paul says is not alto-
gether what he means, namely, ‘‘I indeed have done all that was possible,
so that I may be allowed to hope,” etc. —ei¢ tuac] towards you.* Usually
with the dative or ézi. — év xvpiv] In Christ, in whom Paul lives and moves,
he feels also that his confidence rests and is grounded.* — ovdéy &2A0] is re-
ferred by most expositors, including Luther, Calvin, Winer, Rickert,
Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, to the
previous purport of the epistle generally as directed against Judaism. But
what is there to warrant this vague reference? The warning which imme-
diately precedes in vv. 8, 9 (not ver. 7, to which Wieseler, Hofmann, and
others arbitrarily go back) has the first claim to have oidév é/20 referred to
it, and is sufficiently important for the reference. The antithesis 6 d2 rapac-
ow also suits very appropriately the subjects of that warning, 4 meconxovy and
Sign, both of which terms characterize the action of the seducers. Usteri
interprets : that ye will not allow any other than your hitherto subsisting
sentiments.” No, @ change, that is, a correction of the sentiments pre-
viously existing, is precisely what Paul hopes for. — ¢povacere] ye will have
no other sentiments (the practical determination of thought). The future
(comp. vi. 16) refers to the time when the letter would be received. Hither-
to, by their submissiveness towards those who were troubling them, they
seemed to have given themselves up to another mode of thinking, which
was not the right one.‘ — 6 d2 rapdoowy ipuac] The singular denotes not, as in
2 Cor. xi. 4, the totum genus, but, as is more appropriate to the subsequent
boric Gv 9, the indicidual who happened to be the troubler in each actual
case.© The idea that the apostle refers to the chief person among his op-
ponents, who was well known to him,*—formerly even guessed at by name,
and identified with Peter himself (Jerome),—has no warrant in the epistle.
See, on the contrary, even ver. 12, and compare i. 7, iv. 17. — boric av 9] is
to be left entirely general : without distinction of personal position, be he, when
the case occurs, who he will. The reference to high repute’ would only be

2 Comp. 1. 7 ff., ili. 1. 5 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 815.

2 Comp. Wisd. xvi. 24. ¢ Erasmus, Luther, Pareus, Estius, Ben-

3 Comp. Phil. fi. 24; 2 Thess. iil.4; Rom. gel, Rickert, Olshausen, Ewald, and others ;
xiv. 14. comp. also Usteri.

# dAdo, comp. Lys. in Eratoeth. 48 ; érepos is ™ Theodoret, Theophylaet, Luther, Estinus,
more frequently thus used, see on Phil. fii. and many others; including Koppe, Fiatt,
15. Rickert, de Wette.

228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
warranted, if 6 rapdoc. applied definitely to some particular person. — 1d
xpiuza| the judicial sentence xar’ é€ox4, that is, the condemnatory sentence of
the (impending) last judgment.’ Of excommunication® the context con-
tains nothing.* — Bacrdoe:] the judicial sentencc is conceived as something
heavily laid on,‘ which the condemned one carries away ns he leaves the
judgment-seat. The idea of Aau3dvev xpiua* is not altogether the same.
Ver. 11. But I, on my part. The Judaistic teachers, whom the apostle
thus confronts, had,* as is evident from our passage—with the view of
weakening the hindrance, which among Pauline churches they could not
but encounter in the authority of the apostle opposing them—alleged (per-
haps making use of Timothy’s circumcision, Acts xvi. 3, for this purpose)
that Paul himself still (in other churches) preached circumcision ; that is,
that, when Gentiles went over to Christianity, they should allow themselves
to be circumcised. This calumny’ was sufficiently absurd to admit of his
dismissing it, as he does here, with all brevity, and with what a striking
experimental proof! [See Note LXIX., p. 243.] But if I am still preach-
ing circumcision, wherefore am I still persecuted? For the persecution on the
part of the Jews was based on the very fact of the atagonism to the law,
which characterized his preaching of the Crucified One. See the sequel.
— et meptropsy ttt xnpboow) Paul might also have said, ei 7. é. éxfpvooor, tr. é.
édtaxdunv dv, for he means what objectizrely is not a real matter of fact. But
he transfers himself directly into the thought of his opponents, and just as
directly shows its absurdity ; he assumes the reality of what his opponents
asserted, and then by the apodosis annuls it as preposterous : hence the sense
cannot be, as it is defined by Holsten, that his persecution on account of no
longer preaching circumcision had not, possibly, the alleged pretext of
making the Gentiles complete members of the theocracy, but only the one
motive of national vanity and selfishness, to annul the offence of the cross.°
— The emphasis is laid on rep:roufy ; but éri, still, does not convey the idea
that Paul, as apostle, had formerly preached circumcision. For although

1 Comp. Rom. fl. 8, fll. 8; 1 Cor. xi. 20.

§ Locke, Borger.

8 Jatho also explains the word as referring
to this and other ecclesiastical penalties.
But it was not the manner of the apostle to
call for the discipline of the church in so in-
direct and veiled a fashion (comp. 1 Cor. v.).

42 Kings xvill. 14.

Rom. xiii. 2; Jas. iff. 1; Luke xx. 47,
et al,

* See Chrysostom.

™ Comp. also Hilgenfeld in his Zeiézechr.
1860, p. 216 ff.

® Holsten has, in a special excursus (2.
Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387 ff.), acutely
explained his interpretation, and endeavor-
ed to vindicate it. At the close he puts it
in this shape: “ Paul wisheg to denounce
to the Galatians the seeret, unexpressed
ground of his persecution on the part of his
opponents: ‘ J, dear brethren, am only perse-

cuted because I no longer preach circumcision ;
Sor, Uf I still preach itas the divine will, why
am I still persecuted f— Thue indeed is the @f-
Sence of the cross annulled” But still Paul
must have had some special inducement
for proposing, in¢i «.r.4., a notoriously non-
real case as a logical reality ; and this in-
ducement could only be found in the cor-
responding accusation of his opponents.
Otherwise it would be difficult to see why
he should not have thrown his language
into such a form, that the protasis should
have begun either with « and the imper.
fect or with or: (because), and the expression
of the apodoses should have undergone cor-
responding modification. According to Hol-
sten’s view, the words have a dialectic enig-
matical] obscurity, which, looking at the sim-
plicity of the underlying idea, would be
without motive.
* See Schneider, ad Flat. Rep. p. 449 C.

CHAP. V., 11. 229
the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit produced in none of the apostles at once
and absolutely the laying aside of all religious error previously cherished,
but led them forward by gradual and individual development into the whole
truth ;' yet in the case of Paul especially, just because he was converted
in the midst of his zealotry for the law, the assumption that he had still
preached the necessity of circumcision for salvation, and had thus done
direct homage to the fundamental error opposed to the revelation of God in
him (i. 15), and to His gospel which had been revealed to him (i. 11 f.),
would be quite unpsychological. And in a historical point of view it would
be at variance with the decidedly antinomistic character of his whole apos-
tolic labors as known to us,? as well as with the circumstance that the
requirement of circumcision in the case of the Gentile Christians, Acts xv.,
came upon the apostolical church as something quite new and unheard of,
and therefore produced so much excitement, and in fact occasioned the
apostolic conference. In a purely exegetical point of view, moreover, such
an assumption is not compatible with ri ére didxoua, because we should
thereby be led to the inference that, so long as Paul preached circumcision,
he had not been persecuted ; and yct at the very beginning of his Christian
labors he was persecuted by the Jews.® Rickert‘ is of opinion that in
using érz they only mean to say that Paul, although he preached Christ,
required that, notwithstanding this, they should still allow themselves to be
circumcised. Comp. Olshausen, who refers ér: to the inferiority of the ten-
dency. But in Olshausen’s view, the reference to an earlier xyptrrecv mepirouty
still remains unremoved ; and in that of Biickert, the ér: is unwarrantably
withdrawn from the apostle and passed over to the side of those to whom he
preached. Even if (with Hofmann‘) we understand the ér: as in contradis-
tinction to the earlier time, when the preaching of circumcision had been of
general occurrence and had been ints due place, the reference of this ér: is
transferred to a general practice of the earlier time, although, according to the
words of the apostle, it clearly and distinctly assumes his own previous
xhpvocey wepit. The correct view is the usual one, adopted also by Winer,
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, that ér: points back
to the period before the conversion of the apostle. Certainly the objection is
made,* that Paul at that time, as a Jew among Jews, and coming in contact
with Jewish Christians only, had no occasion at all to preach circumcision.
But looking at our slight acquaintance with the circumstances of the
apostle’s pre-Christian life, this conclusion is formed much too rashly. For,

1 See Liicke’s apt remarks on John fi. 10, enttime.” Thisis also unsuitable, because

p. 501.

* Comp. Acts xxi. 21.

§ Acts ix. 94 f.; 2 Cor. xi. 82 f.

‘Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and de
Wette.

® According to Hofmann, the apostle’s
meaning is, “that they would have no
longer any cause for persecuting him, so
soon as his preaching of Jesus Christ should
be that, which it is not—a continuance of
the preaching of circumcision at the pres-

«i would introduce a sumtio Acti, ‘the as-
sumption of what is false," and that indeed
in the view of Paul himself. Certainly é¢
with the present indicative might be so
put ; but in the apodosis the optative with
ay must have been used, as is the case in
the passages compared by Hofmann him-
self (Xen. Anabd. vil. 6. 15, v. 6.12. See also
Memor. il. 2. 8; Bornemann, ad Sympoe. 4.
10, 5. 7; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 487).
* See Reithmayr and Hofmann.

230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

as ¢7Awrfc for God and the law,‘ Saul, who was an energetic and* esteemed
Pharisaic Rabbi, might often have had occasion enough to preach and to
defend circumcision, partly in the interest of proselytizing, and partly also
in polemic conflict with Christians in and beyond Judaea, who maintained,
that their faith, and not their circumcision, was the cause of salvation. —
ri ére dtGxopaz ;| This ér: also, which by most? is taken as logical, as in Rom.
iii. 7, ix. 19, cannot without arbitrary procedure be understood otherwise
than as temporal: ‘‘Why am I yet always persecuted ?” Why have they
not yet ceased to persecute me ?” They could not but in fact have seen how
groundless this d:dxcecv was | — dpa xarfoyytat x.t.4.] dpa is, as always, igitur,
rebus sic se habentibus, ‘‘ therefore, as matters are” (if, namely, I still preach
circumcision), Paul gives information concerning the foregoing question, —
how far,namely, there no longer existed any cause, etc.: thus therefore is the
offence of the cross done away, that is, the occasion for the rejection of the
gospel, which is afforded by the circumstance that the death of Christ on the
cross is preached as the only ground of salvation.‘ If Paul had at the same
time preached circumcision also as necessary to salvation, then would the Jew
have seen his law upheld, and the cross would have been inoffensive to him ;
but when, according to his decisive principle, ii. 21, he preached the death
of the cross as the end of the law (iii. 18; Rom. x. 3, e¢ al.), and rejected
all legal righteousness—then the Jew took offence at the cross, and rejected
the faith.* To take it as an interrogation *—with which the accentuation
might have been dpa (comp. on ii. 17)—appears logically not inappropriate
after ri éri dtdnouat, but yields a less striking continuation of the discourse.
Ver. 12. The vivid realization of the doings of his opponents, who were
not ashamed to resort even to such falsehood (ver. 11), now wrings from
his soul a strong and bitterly sarcastic wish’ of holy indignation : Would
that they, who set you in commotion, might mutilate themselves / that they who
attach so much importance to circumcision, and thercby create commotion
among you, might not content themselves with being circumcised, but
might even have themselves emasculated | On d¢eAcy as a particle, see on
1 Cor. iv. 8. ‘‘Omnino autem observandum est (‘‘It is generally to be ob-
served that’) ddeAov * non nisi tum adhiberi, quum quis optat, ut fuerit ali-
quid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est aut futurum est,” ‘is
employed only when one desires something to have been, or to be in the
present or future, which has not been, or is not, or will not be,” Her-
mann, ad Viger. p. 756. It is but very seldom used with the /uture, as

1 Acts xxiii 8; comp. Gal. i. 14; Phil.
ili. 5.

2 Comp. Acts xxii. 4, 5.

3 Including de Wette and Wieseler.

41 Cor. 1. 2; Phil. iff. 18.

5 Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact.

* Syr., Bengel on ver. 12, Usteri, Ewald,
and others.

7 According to Hofmann, indeed, it is
** quite earnestly meant," and is supposed to
contain the thought that ‘‘ their perversity,
which is now rendered dangerous by their

being able to appeal to the revealed law.
would thereby assume a shape in which it
would cease to be dangerous.” How arbi-
trarily the thought is imported! And yet
the wish, if earnestly meant, would be at all
events a siZyone. Fora similar instance of
a bitterly pointed saying against the Judais-
tic overvaluing of circumcision, see Phil.
ili, 2.

® As to the form &S¢eAoy, see Interpr. ad
oer. p. 285 f.

CHAP. V., 13. 231
Lucian, Soloec. 1.1— ai] the climactic ‘‘ even,” not that of the correspond-
ing relation of retribution,’ in which sense it would be only superfluous and
cumbrous. — aroxéyovra:] denotes castration, either by incision of the vena
seminalis (Deut. xxiii. 1) or otherwise.‘ Owing to «ai, which, after ver. 11,
points to something more than the circumcision therein indicated, this in-
terpretation is the only one suited to the context : it is followed by Chry-
sostom and his successors, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cajetanus, Grotius,
Estius, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, and many others ; also Winer, Riickert,
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann,
Reithmayr, Holsten ; comp. Ewald, who oxplains it of a still more com-
plete mutilation, as does Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others, In
opposition to the context, others, partly influenced by an incorrect aesthet-
ical standard,* and sacrificing the middle signification,—which is always
reflexive in Greek prose writers,‘ and is also to-be maintained throughout in
the N. T.’— have found in it thesense: ‘‘ eritium imprecatur impostoribus,”
‘He imprecates destruction against impostors ;” * or have explained it of
the dicine extirpation ;° or: ‘‘may they be excommunicated ; or : may all
opportunity of perverting you be daken from them ;”"' or: ‘‘ may they cut
themselves off from you.” * [See Note LXX., p. 244.]— avacraroiv] stronger
than rapdacoev, means here éo stir up (against true Christianity), to alarm."
The word, used instead of the classic aydoraroy roeiv, belongs to the later
Greek.

Ver. 13. ‘‘It is with justice that I speak so indignantly against those
men ; for ye, who are being worked upon by them to bring you under the
bondage of the law, have received God's call to the Messianic kingdom for
an object entirely different,—in order that ye may be free.” Thus the
apostle again reminds his readers of the great benefit already indicated in
ver. 1, but now with the view of inculcating its single necessary moral
limitation. -— éw AevSepig] that ye should be free; ixi used of the ethical aim
of the xatciv.'5 — udvov ui x.t.A.] Limiting exhortation. But the verb, which

1 8ee Hermann /.c.; Graev. ad Lue. Sol.
II. p. 730.

2 Wieseler.

3 Arrtan, Epict. fi. 20. 19.

4 See the passages in Wetsteln. Comp. asé-
anowos, castrated, Strabo, xiii. p. 680; awroae-
xoupévos, Deut. xxiif. 1.

® Comp. Calovius: “ glossa impura,”’ ‘‘an
impure gioss.’'

* Kfihner, I. p. 19.

T Winer, p. 289.

4 Calvin, acknowledging, however, the
word as an allusion to circumcision ; Calo-
vius, and others.

® Wieseler.

1¢ Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Cornelius &
Lapide, Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae,
Moras Baumgarten-Crusius, Windisch-
mann, and others; Luther, in his trans-
Jation, rendered it: lo be extirpated (thus

like Calvin); in his Commentary, 1519, he
does not explain it speoially, but speaks
merely of acurse which {is expressed. In
1524, however, he says characteristically :
“Si omnino volunt circumclidi, opto, ut et
abscindantuyet sint eunuchi {Ili amputatis
testiculis et veretro, {. e., qui docere et
gignere filios spirituafes nequeunt, extra
ecclesiam ejiciendi.”’ On the other hand,
in the Commentary of 1588, he says quite
simply, ‘‘allusit ... ad circumcisionem,
q. d. cogunt vos circumcidi, utinam ipsi
fanditus et radicitus excindantur."

11 Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten.

13 Ellicott.

18 Comp. Acts xvil. 6, xxi. 38.

14 Sturz, dial. Mac. p. 146.

18 Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 7; Eph. il. 10; Soph.
Oed. C. 1459: rafio’ fb’ @ xarsis,

232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

is obvious of itself (rpérere, perhaps, or even Zyeve), is omitted, the omission
rendering the address more compact and precise.’ This also curresponds
(in opposition to Hofmann’s groundless doubt) to the usage of the Greeks
after the prohibitory u4.’— cic agopuny rg capxi] for an occasion to the flesh ; do
not use your liberty so that it may serve as ‘an occasion for the non-spiritual,
psychico-corporeal part of your nature to assert its desires which are
contrary to God.* As to cdp in the ethical sense, see Rom. iv. 1, vi. 19,
vii. 14 ; John iii. 6. — adda did tHe aydane dovA. aAAGA] but let love (through
which your faith must work, ver. 6) be that by means of which ye stand in
a relation of mutually rendered service. An ingenious juxtaposition of free-
dom and brotherly serviceableness in that freedom.‘ The special contrast, how-
ever, which is here opposed to the general category of the odpf, has its
ground in the circumstances of the Galatians, and its warrant in what is about
to be said of love in ver. 14.

Ver. 14.* Reason assigned for the é:a ry¢ aydrne x.7.A. just said : for the
whole law is fulfilled in one utterance ; that is, compliance with the whole
Mosaic law has taken place and exists, if one single commandment of it is
complied with, namely, the commandment, ‘‘ Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
If, therefore, ye through love serve one another, the whole point in dispute
is thereby solved ; there can no longer be any discussion whether ye are
bound to fulfil this or that precept of the law,— ye have fulfilled the whole
law. ‘‘Theologia brevissima et longissima ; brevissima quod ad verba et
sententias attinet, sed usu et re ipsa latior, longior, profundior et sublimior
toto mundo,” ‘‘ Theology the briefest and the longest ; the briefest, as to
words and sentences, but in experience and fact wider, longer, deeper and
higher than the whole world,” Luther. 6 ae véuoc * places the totality of
the law in contradistinction to its single utterance. The view of Hofmann,
that ‘‘it denotes the law collectively as an unity, the fulfilment of which eristing
in the readers they have in the love which they are to show,” falls to the
ground with the erroneous reading, to which it is with arbitrary artifice
adapted ; as in particular, 6 ra¢ véuoc means not at all the law as unity, but
the whole law." In point of fact, the phrase does not differ from dAo¢ 4 vdpor,
Matt. xxii. 40. Without alteration in the sense, the apostle might also
have written rac yap 6 véuoc, which would only have made the emphasis fall

1Comp. Matt. xxvi. 5; Butgmann, neuf,
Gr. 888.

2See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 315 B;
Hartung, Partixell. II. p. 153; Klotz ad
Devar. p. 669; Winer, p. 554 f.

' % Comp. Rom. vii. 8.

Comp. Rom. vi. 18, 22; 1 Cor. ix. 19;
1 Pet. fi. 16; 2 Pet. fi. 19.

6’ Hofmann reads the verse : 6 y. ras vépos
éy Uuiy wemArjpwrat’ ayamyjoes «.7.A. A form
of the text so destitute of attestation (Ter-
tullian alone has in vobis instead of ev evi
Ady), that it is simply equivalent to a (very
strange) conjecture. Also the omission of év
re is much too feebly attested. In the text,

followed above, A BC & agree.

* Comp. 1 Tim. {. 16; Acts xix. 7, xx. 18;
Soph. Hi. 1244; Phil. 18; Thuc. if. 7. 2, vill
98.8; Kriiger, § 50. 11. 12.

¥ (This Is an approximate rendering of the
passage, the meaning of which is not, to me
at least, very clear. Hofmann seems to
have been conscious of this want df clear-
ness, for in his revised edition just issued
he has considerably altered his mode of ex-
pression, but still leaves the matter some-
what obscure.—W. P. D.] Comp. also 2
Macc. vi. 5; 8 Maco. vi. 2 e¢ al. ; Herod. 1.
111.

CHAP. V., 14. 233
still more strongly on wdc. — rerAfpwra:] As to the reading, see the critical
notes. The perfect denotes the fulfilment as complete and ready to hand,
as in Rom. xiii. 8. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Estius, Baumgarten, Semler, Morus, Rickert, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-
Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, and others, have correctly explained zAnpoio-
Sa: of compliance with the law ; for the explanation comprehenditur, ‘‘is
comprised,” * that is, iickedallaiotra: (which, however, in Rom. xiii. 9 is dis-
tinguished from rAnpove ar), is at variance with the universal usage of rAnpoiv
rv véuov in the N. T.* The thought is the same as in Rom. xiii. 8, 6
Gyanav tiv Erepov véuov menAfpuxe, and xiii. 10, rAfpwua vopov aydrn.
Grotius interprets rAyp. in the same way as in Matt. v. 17: ‘‘sicuti rudi-
menta implentur per doctrinam perfectiorem, ‘as rudiments are filled out
by the more perfect doctrine.” This interpretation is incorrect on account
of ras, and because a commandment of the Mosaic law itself is adduced. —
év rg] that is, in the saying of the law ; see Winer, p. 103. — ayérqoec]
Lev. xix. 18. Respecting the imperative future, see on Matt. i. 21; and
as to éauréy used of the second person, see on Rom. xiii. 9.4 On the idea of
the dc éavr., see on Matt. xxii. 89.4 The neighbor is, for the Christian who
justly (Matt. v. 17) applies to himself this Mosaic commandment, his fellow-
Ohristian,® just as for the Jew it is his fellow-Jew. But how little this is to.
be taken as excluding any other at all, is shown not only by distinct intima-
tions, such as vi. 10, 1 Thess. iii. 12, 2 Pet. i. 7, but also by the whole
spirit of Christianity, which, as to this point, finds its most beautiful ex-
pression in the example of the Samaritan (Luke x.) ; and Paul himself was
a Samaritan of this kind towards Jews and Gentiles. — The question, how
Paul could with justice say of the whole law that it was fulfilled by love
toward one’s neighbor, is not to be answered, either by making véyoc signify
the Christian law,* or by understanding it only of the moral law,’ or of the
second table of the Decalogue,* or of every divinely revealed luw in general ;°
for, according to the connection of the whole epistle, 6 ra¢ véuoc cannot
mean anything else than the whole Mosaic law. But it is to be answered by
placing ourselves at the lofty spiritual standpoint of the apostle, from which
he regarded all other commandments of the law as so thoroughly subordi-
nate to the commandment of love, that whosoever has fulfilled this com-
mandment stands in the moral scale and the moral estimation just as if he
had fulfilled the whole law. From this lofty and bold standpoint every-
thing, which was not connected with the commandment of love (Rom. xiii.
8-10) fell so completely into the background,” that it was no longer con-

1 Erasmus, Castallo, Luther, Calvin, Ram-
bach, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Rosen-
miller, Winer, Usteri, Olshausen, Reiche,
and others.

® Comp. écmuwrAdva: +r. vduov, Herod. I..
199; so also Philo, de Abrah. I. p. 86. See vi.
2; Matt. iif, 15; Rom. vill. 4, xiif. 8; Col.
iv. 17.

® Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 447.

*Comp.Cic de Legg. 1. 12:.'‘ Nihilo sese
plus quam alterum homo diligat,” “Leta

man love himself no more than he does
another.”’

® Comp. ver. 18, aa and see ver. 14,

* Koppe.

7 Estius and many others.

® Beza and others; also Wieseler ; comp.
Ewald.

® Schott.

10 Especially the precepts as to culius, in
the apostle’s view, were included among
the croixeia rot xéopov, Iv. 8.

284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

sidered as aught to be separately and independently fulfilled ; on the
contrary, the whole law appeared already accomplished in Jore, that is, inthe
state of feeling and action produced by the Spirit of God (ver. 22 f.; Rom.
xv. 80), in which is contained the culminating point, goal, and consumma-
tion of all parts of the law.' The idea thus amounts to an impletio tottus
legis dilectione formata, ‘‘ fulfilment of the whole law, energized by love,”
by which the claim of the law is satisfied (ver. 28). The view of Hofmann,
that here the law comes into consideration only 80 far ae it is not already
Fulfilled in faith ; that for the delierer its requirement consists in the com-
mandment of love, and even the realization of this is already existing in his,
so that he has only to show the love wrought in him by God—simply
emanates from the erroneous form of the text and the wrong interpretation
of ver. 14 adopted by him. That the apostle, moreover, while adducing
only the commandment of love toward one’s neighbor, does not exclude the
commandment of love towards God,‘ was obvious of itself to the Christian
consciousness from the necessary connection between the love of God and
the love of our neighbor.* Paul was induced by the scope of the context to
bring forward the latter only (vv. 18, 15).

Ver. 15. Adxvere xat xareoOiere] A climactic figurative designation of the
hateful working of party enmity, in which they endeavored mutually to
hurt and destroy one another. Figurative expressions of this nature, de-
riyed from ravenous wild beasts, are elsewhere in use.‘ «xarecfiecv is not,
however, to be understood * as to gnaw, but must retain the meaning which
it always has, to eat up, to devour.° Observe the climaz of the three verbs,
to which the passive turn of the final result to be dreaded also contributes :
Bi i716 GAAGAwy avadwhyre] lest ye be consumed one of another—consumamini ;
that is (for Paul keeps by his figure), lest through these mutual party hos-
tilities your life of Christian fellowship be utterly ruined and destroyed.
What is meant is not the ceasing of their status as Christians,” in other
words, their apostasy ; but, by means of such hostile behavior in the very
bosom of the churches, there is at length an utter end to what constitutes
the Christian community, the organic life of which is mutually destroyed by
its own members.

Ver. 16. With the words ‘‘ But I mean” (iii. 17, iv. 1) the apostle intro-
duces, not something new, but a deeper and more comprehensive exhibition
and discussion of that which, in vv. 18-15, he had brought home to his
readers by way of admonition and of warning—down to ver. 26. Hofmann
is wrong in restricting the illustration merely to what follows after aad,
—a view which is in itself arbitrary, and is opposed to the manifest corre-

1 Therein lies the essence of the so-called 3 Comp. 1 John fv. 20; 1 Cor. viil. 1, 8.
tertius usus, ‘‘ third use,” of the law, the fur- 4See Maji Odes. II. p. 8; Jacobs, ad
ther development of which is given inthe Anthol. VIII. p. 280; Wetstein, tn doc.
Epistle to the Romans. Comp. Sieffert, in ’ With Schott.
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. p. 271. [See Chap- ¢ See on 2 Cor. xi. 20; Hom. Jé. ff. 814, xxi.
ter on ‘The Third Use.” Formula qf Con- %, Od. 1.8, e¢ al.; LXX. Gen. xl. 17; Isa. 1.
cord, chap. vi., Philadelphia edition, Book 7%; Add. ad EstL. {. 11.
of Concord, I. 508 sqq., 595 sqq.] 7 Hofmann.

2 Comp. Matt. xxii. 87 f.

CHAP. Y., 1%. 235
lation existing between the contrast of flesh and spirit and the agopuf,
which the free Christian is not to afford to the flesh (ver. 18). — rvetpar:
sepirateire| dative of the norma.' The subsequent rvetyar: dyeofe in ver. 18
is more favorable to this view than to that of Fritzsche,? who makes it the
dative commodi (spiritui divino vitam consecrare, ‘‘to consecrate the life to the
Divine Spirit,” or to that of Wieseler, who makes it instrumental, so that
the Spirit is conceived as path (the idea is different in the case of dé in
2 Cor. v. 7), or of Hofmann, who renders : ‘‘ by virtue of the Spirit.” Ca-
lovius well remarks : ‘‘juzta instinctum et impulsum,” ‘‘according to the
suggestion and impulse of the Spirit.” _The spirit is not, however, the
moral nature of man (that is, 6 Z0w dvOpwroc, 6 vovc¢, Rom. vil. 22, 28), which
is sanctified by the Divine Spirit,* in behalf of which appeal is erroneously
@ee also Rom. viii. 9) made to the contrast of cdp£, since the divine rveipya
is in fact the power which overcomes the odpf ;‘ but it is the Holy Spirit.
This Spirit is given to believers as the divine principle of the Christian life
(iii. 2, 5, iv. 6), and they are to obey it, and not the ungodly desires of
their cdpé.* The absence of the article is not * at variance with this view,
but it is not to be explained in a qualitative sense,’ any more than in the
case of Oedc, xiptoc, and the like ; on the contrary, rvevua has the nature of
& proper noun, and, even when dwelling and ruling in the human spirit,
remains always objective, as the Divine Spirit, specifically different from the
human (Rom. viii. 16).° —xal éxiOvpiav capnde ob up reAéonre}] is taken as con-
sequence by the Vulgate, Jerome, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Gro-
tius, Estius, Bengel, and most expositors, including Winer, Paulus, Rickert,
Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr ;
but by others, as Castalio, Beza, Koppe, Usteri, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Ewald, in the sense of the imperative. Either view is well adapted to the
context, since afterwards, for the illustration of what is said in ver. 16, the
relation between odp& and wvevua is set forth. But the view which takes it
as consequence is the only one which corresponds with the usage in other
passages of the N.T., in which ov uf with the aorist subjunctive is always
used in the sense of confident assurance, and not imperatively, like ot with
the future, although in classical authors ot uf is so employed. ‘‘ Ye will
certainly not fulfil the lust of the flesh,—this is the moral blessed consequence,
which is promised to them, if they walk according to the Spirit.”*® [See
Note LXXI., p. 244.]

Ver. 17. ‘H ydp odpé brcOupei card rov mvebparoc, rd dé rvevua Kata T. odpKoc]
The foregoing exhortation, with its promise, is elucidated by the remark

1 gata wvevna, Rom. vill. 4. Comp. vi. 16;
Phil. ili. 16; Rom. iv. 12; Hom. £. xv. 104:
obre Avds Bdonasr dpéory, “‘ Nor do I order my
life according to the will of Zeus.”

3 Ad Rom. I. p. 2%.

8 Beza, Gomarus, Rickert, de Wette, and
others; comp. Michaelis, Morus, Flatt,
Schott, Olshausen, Windischmann, De-
litzsch, Psychol. p. 889.

4 Rom. vii. 23 ff., Rom. viil. 1 ff.

§ Comp. Neander, and Miller, v. d. Stinde,
IL. p. 458, ed. 5.

* In opposition to Harleas on Eph. p. 268.

7 Hofmann.

® Comp. on vv. 8, 5, and on Rom. vill 4;
also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 78.

*On redAciv, used of the actual carrying
out of a desire, passion, or the like, comp.
Soph. O. R. 1880, H7. 769 ; Hesiod, Scut. 36.

236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
that the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to one another in their desires, 80 that
the two cannot together influence the conduct. — As here also rd mretya is
not the moral nature of man (see on ver. 16), but the Holy Spirit,’ a com- -
parison has to some extent incorrectly been made with the variance between
the vovc and the odpf (Rom. vii. 18 ff.) in the still umregenerate man, in
whom the moral will is subject to the flesh, along with its parallels in Greek
and Roman duthors.* Here the subject spoken of is the conflict between
the fleshly and the divine principle in the regenerate. The relation is there-
fore different, although the conflict in itself has some similarity. Bengel in
the comparison cautiously adds, ‘‘qguodammodo,” ‘fin a measure.” — ravra
yap GAAnAo avtixecrac] As to the reading ydp, see the critical notes. It in-
troduces a pertinent further illustration of what has just been said. In order
to obviate an alleged tautology, Riickert and Schott have placed saiva >.
GAA. avrix. in a parenthesis (see also Grotius), and taken it in the sense :
‘‘for they are in their nature opposed to one another.” A gratuitous inser-
tion ; in that case Paul must have written : ¢fce: yap ravta aAA. avrix., for
the bare dvrixecrac after what precedes can only be understood as referring
to the actually existing conflict. — iva pf x.7.4.] is not® to be joined to the
first half of the verse,—a connection which is forbidden by the right view of
the ravra yap GAA. avrix. as not parenthetical—but to the latter. iva ex-
presses the purpose, and that not the purpose of God in the conflict men-
tioned— which, when the will is directed towards that which is good, would
amount to an ungodly (immoral) purpose—but the purpose of those power,
contending with one another in this conflict, in their mutual relation to the
moral attitude of man’s will, which even in the regenerate may receive a
twofold determination.‘ In this conflict both have the purpose that the
man should not do that very thing (ravra with emphasis) which in the re-
spective cases (av) he would. If he would do what is good, the flesh, striving
against the Spirit, is opposed to this; if he would do what ia evil, the Spirit,
striving against the flesh, is opposed to that. All the one-sided explanations
of & av 6éAnre, whether the words be referred to the moral will which is
hindered by the fiesh,® or to the sensual will, which is hindered by the

1 De Wette wrongly makes the objection,
that in the state of the regenerate this re-
lation of confiict does not find a place, see-
ing that the Spirit has the preponderance
(vv. 18, 24). Certainly so, if the regenera-
tion were complete, and not such as It was
in the case of the Galatians (iv. 19), and if
the concupiscentia carnis, *‘ lust of the flesh,"®
did not remain at allin the regenerate.
That svevyza here denotes the Holy Spirit, is
confirmed by ver. 22. The difference of the
conflict in the unconverted and in the re-
generate consists in this,—that in the case
of the former the cdpf£ strives with the
better moral will. (vots), and the odpé is vic-
torious (Rom. vil. 7 ff.); but in the case of
the regenerate, the odpf strives with the
Holy Spirit, and man may obey the latter
(ver. 18). In the former case, the creature-

ly power of the odp€ |s in conflict with the
likewise creaturely vovs, but in the latter
with the divine uncreated svetyce. De
Wette was erroneously of opinion that here
Paul says briefly and indistinctly what in
Rom. vit. 15 ff. he sets forth clearly; the view
of Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 389, is similar.

2 Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 21; Arrian. Epict. 11. 2%;
Porphyr. dé abst.i. 86; Cic. Zac. il. 21, e
al,, and Rabbins (see Schoettgen, Hor.
p. 1178 ff).

® With Grotius, Semler, Moldenhauer,
R&ckert, and Schott.

4 Comp. Weiss. bibl. Theol. p. 361 f.

® Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Morus,
Rosenmiller, Flatt, Usteri, Riickert, Schott,
de Wette ; alao Baumgarten-Crusius, Hol-
sten, and others.

CHAP. V., 18. 237

Spirit,’ are set aside by the fact that iva yf «.r.4. is connected with the pre-
ceding raira ydp GAA. avrix., and this comprehends the mutual conflict of
two powers.* Winer has what is, on the whole, the correct interpretation :
‘+3 mvevua impedit vos (rather zmpedire vos cupit), quo minus perficiatis ra
Ti¢ capxéc (ea, quae % odp£ perficere cupit), contra #4 cdépé adversatur vobis,
ubi 7d roi rvetyaroc peragere studetis,” ‘‘ The Spirit hinders (rather desires
to hinder) you from accomplishing the things of the jlesh (i.e., those which the
Jlesh desires to accomplish) ; on the other hand, the flesh antagonizes you when
you are eager to do the things of the Spirit.”* This more precise statement
of the conflict (raira . . . ravra rocgre) might indeed in itself be dispensed
with, since it was in substance already contained in the first half of the
verse ; but it bears the stamp of an emphatic and indeed solemn exposition,
that it might be more carefully considered and laid to heart. In Hof-
mann’s view, iva yu? x.t.A. is intended to express, as the aim of the conflict,
that the action of the Christian is not to be self-willed (‘‘springing from
himself in virtue of his own self-determination’”) ; and this, because he can-
not atiain to rest otherwise than by allowing his conduct to be determined
by the Spirit. But setting aside the fact that the latter idea is not to be
found in the text, the conception of, and emphasis upon, the se/f-willed,
which with the whole stress laid on the being self-determined would form
the point of the thought, are arbitrarily introduced, just as if Paul had
written : iva yp? & dv avrot (or avrot ipeic, Rom. vii. 25, or abSalperor, or
abroyvépuovec, avrévouot, avréBovdo, or the like).

Ver. 18. If, however, of these two conflicting powers, the Spirit is that
which rules you, in what blessed freedom ye are then! 4 — rveiuare dyeode]
See on Rom. viii. 14.° —ov« éor2 txd véuov] namely, because then the law can
have no power over you ; through the ruling power of the Spirit ye find your-
selves in such a condition of moral life (in such @ xawérne Sug¢, Rom. vi. 4,
and rvetyaroc, Vii. 6), that the law has no power to censure, to condemn, or
to punish anything in you.* In accordance with ver. 23, this explanation
is the only correct one ; and this freedom is the true moral freedom from
the law, to which the apostle here, in accordance with ver. 18, attaches
importance.” There is less accuracy in the tfsual interpretation:* ye no
longer need the law ; as Chrysostom : ric ypela véuov; ro yap olxofev xarop-
Botvre Ta pile row xpeia radaywyov ; or : you are free from the outward con-
straint of the law;° comp. also Hofmann, who, in connection with his mis-
taken interpretation of ver. 14, understands a subjection to the law as a
requirement coming from without, which does not exist in the case of the

1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, _ rately.

Neander. Comp. also Ewald, “ in order that 4 Comp. 2 Cor. ili. 17; Rom. viil. 2 ff.

ye, according to the divine will expressed ® Comp. also 2 Tim. Ill. 6.

on the point, may not do that which ye nossi- ® Comp. on Rom. viil. 4.

ay might wish, but that of which ye may ’ Comp. 1 Tim. 1.9.

know that God destres and approves it." ® Adopted by Winer, Rickert, Matthies,
3 Comp. Ernest! Urepr. der Siinde, I. p.89. Schott, Baumgarten-Crasius; comp. de
280 in substance Ambrose, Oecumenius, Wette.

Bengel, Zachariae, Koppe, Matthies, Reith- * Usteri, Ewald.

mayr, and others; Wleseler most accu-

238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Christian, because in him the law collectively as an unity is fulfilled. [See
Note LXXII., p. 244 seq. ]

Vv. 19-23. The assertion just made by Paul, that the readers as led by
the Spirit would not be under the law, he now illustrates more particularly
(dé), by setting forth the entirely opposite moral states, which are produced
by the flesh and by the Spirit respectively (vv. 22 f.) : the former exclude
from the Messiah's kingdom (are therefore abandoned to the curse of the
law), while against the latter there is no law.

Ver. 19. Gavepd dé x.7.4.] Manifest, however (now to explain myself more
precisely as to this ov« éor? td réyov), open to the eyes of all, evidently
recognizable as such by every one, are the works of the flesh, that is, those
concrete actual phenomena which are produced when the flesh, the sinful
nature of man (and not the Holy Spirit), is the active principle. The dé (in
opposition to Hofmann’s objection) is the dé erplicativum, frequently used
by Greek authors and in the N.T.? That one who is led by the Spirit will
abstain from the épya which follow, is obvious of itself ; but Paul does rot
state this, and therefore does not by dé make the transition to it, as Hof-
mann thinks, who gratuitously defines the sense of ¢avepé as : ‘‘ well known
to the Christian without law.”* The list which follows of the épya rij¢ capxéc
contains four approximate divisions : (1) lust: mopveia, axafapo., acéAy.; (2)
idolatry : eidwiodarp., gappax.; (8) enmity: Exfpac... gévor ; (4) intemper-
ance: p&0at, xapor. — axaBapcia) lustful impurity (lewdness) generally, after
the special ropveia. Comp. Rom. i. 24; 2 Cor. xii. 21. — aoéAyea] lustful
immodesty and wantonness. See on Rom. xiii. 18. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 21 ;
Eph. iv. 19; 1 Pet. iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 7. [See Note LXXIIL., p. 245.]

Ver. 20. EidwioAarpeia} is not to be considered as a species of the sins of
lust ;* a view against which may be urged the litera] sense of the word, and
also the circumstance that unchastity was only practised in the case of
some of the heathen rites. It is to be taken in its proper sense as idolatry.
Living among Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not unfrequently seduced
to idolatry, to which the sacrificial feasts readily gave occasion.‘ — ¢appaxeia]
may here mean either poison-mingling,*® or sorcery. * The latter interpretation
is to be preferred,’ partly on account of the combination with cidwAodarpeia,®
partly because ¢évo. occurs subsequently. Sorcery was very prevalent,
especially in Asia (Acts xix. 19). To understand it, with Olshausen,
specially of love-incantations, is arbitrary and groundless, since the series of
sins of lust is closed with aofAyesa. — The particulars which follow as far as
¢évo. stand related as special manifestations to the more gencral éyfpa:z. On
the plural, comp. Herod. vii. 145 ; Ken. Mem. i. 2. 10. — fHA0¢, Rom. xiii.
18 ; jealousy, 1 Cor. iii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 20, Jas. iii. 16.— The distinction

1 Winer, p. 421; Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. ¢ Ex. vil. 11, 22, vill. 3; Isa. xlvil. 9, 12;
1.1. Rev. ix. 21, xviii. 28, xxi. 8; Wisd. xil. 4,

2 On davepés, lying open to cognition, mani- = xvill. 13; comp. ¢dppaxe, Herod. ili. 85;
JSestua, see Van Hengel, ad Rom. I. p. 111. dapuaxevey, Herod. vil. 114.

? Olshausen. 7 With Luther, Grotius, Estius, Koppe,

* Comp. on 1 Cor. v. 11. Winer, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, Ewald,

* Plat. Legg. vill. p. 845 E; Polyb. vi.18. | Wieseler, Hofmann, and others.
4, xl. 8.7; comp. ¢appaxds, Dem. 794. 4. ® Comp. Deut. xvill. 10 ff.; Ex. xxii. 18,

CHAP. V., 21, 22. 239
between @uud¢ and dpyf is, that dpy4 denotes the wrath in itself, and Auuds
the effervescence of it, exasperation. Hence in Rev. xvi. 19, xix. 15, we have
Oud tie opyyc.' — épieiac] self-seeking party-cabals.* — diyooracia, alpéceis]
divisions, factions.* Observe how Paul, having the circumstances of the
Galatians in view, has multiplied especially the designations of dispeace.*
According to 1 Cor. iii. 8 also, these phenomena are works of the flesh.

Ver. 21. $6évo, ¢évo1] paronomasia, as in Rom. i. 29; Eur. Troad. 786.
— Kapa] revellings, comissationes, especially at night.°— xai ra doa robrac]
and the things which are similar to these (the whole matters mentioned in vv.
20, 21). ‘Addit ef dis similia, quia quis omnem lernam carnalis vitae
recenseat ?”’ ‘‘ He adds ‘such-like;’ for who can recount the entire marsh of
this carnal life.” Luther, 1519. — The rpo in rpodéyw and mpoeizov is the be-
JSorehand in reference to the future realization * at the rapoveia ; and the past
wpoeizrov reminds the readers of the instructions and warnings orally given
to them, the tenor of which justifies us in thinking that he is referring to
the first and second sojourn in Galatia. — rpdéocovrec] those who practise such
things ; but in ver. 17 woijre : ye do.” — Baoidciav Ocot ov KAypovou.|*® Sins of
this kind, therefore, exclude the Christian from the kingdom of the Messiah,
and cause him to incur condemnation, unless by yerdvoa he again enters
into the life of faith, and so by renewed faith appropriates forgiveness.°
For the having been reconciled by faith is the preliminary condition of the
new, holy life, and therefore does not cancel responsibility in the
judgment.”

Ver. 22. 6 62 xapro¢ rov wvetuaroc] essentially the same idea, as would be
expressed by ra d2 épya row mvstuaroc—the moral result which the Holy Spirit
brings about as its fruit.!? But Paul is fond of variety of expression.'* A special
intention * in the choice cannot be made good, since both épya and xapré¢

2 See on Rom. It. 8. ® 2 Cor. vil. 9, 10; Rom. vill. 84; 1 John ff.

2 See on Rom. fi. 8; 8 Cor. xii. 20.

§ Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 18f. On atpecrs in this
signification, which occurs only in later
writers (1 Cor. xi. 19; Acts xxiv. 5, 14), see
Wetstein, II. p. 147 f. Comp. aipercoris,
partisan, Polyb. 1. 79. 9, ii. 88. 7.

* Comp. Soph. O, C. 123% f.

® Herm. Privataiferth. § 17. 29. Comp.
Rom. xili. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 8; Plat. Zheaet.
p. 173 D : Seiwva cai civ avAnrpics kopor,“* ban-
quets and revellings with flute-girls."” Symp.
p. 212 C; Isaeus, p. 39. 21 : ctomor cai avdAyeca,
“revellings and licentiousness."’ Herod. 1.
21: wivecy x. nopy xpdecdas ds adAnAovs, ‘to
drink and indulge in revelling with one an-
other.” Jacobs, Del. epigr. |v. 48: copov x.
waoys xoipave wavvuxisos, “lead the revel
and the entire night festival.”

¢ Herod. {. 58, vil. 116; Lucian. Jov. Trag.
8; Polyb. vi. 3. 2.

7 Bee on Rom. 1. 82; John Iii. 20.

® Comp. 1 Cor. vi.9f, xv. 50; Eph. v.5;
das. il, 5; and generally, Rom. vi. 8 ff.

1f.; observe the present participle.

1° Rom. vi.

112 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10.

12 Comp. Pind. Ol. vil. 8: capris dperds,
Nem. x. 12, Pyth. il. 74; Wisd. iii. 18, 15.

18 Comp. Eph. ii. 9, 11.

14 Chrysostom thought that Paul had used
xapwés, because good works were not, like
evil works, brought about by ourselves
alone, but also by the divine ¢:Aavdpwria.
Comp. also Holsten, who, however, makes
the distinction sharper. Luther and many
others, including Winer, Usteri, Schott:
because it is beneficent and pratseworthy
works which are spoken of. Matthies: be-
cause that whereby the Spirit proves His
presence, is, in and by Itself, directly fruit
and enjoyment. Reithmayr mixes up vari-
ous reasons, including the very groundless
suggestion that in xapwes there is implied
the acknowledgment of man's joint part in
the production.

18 Comp. the clear passage in the LXX.

240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

are in themselves toces mediae, ‘‘colorless terms,” ! and according to the
context, nothing at all hinged on the indication of organic development, *—
a meaning which, moreover, would have been conveyed even by épya, and
without a figure,—or of the proceeding from an inner impulse.? The
collective * singular xapréc has sprung, as in Eph. v. 9, from the idea of inter-
nal unity and moral homogeneity ; for which, however, the singular ipyov
(see on vi, 4) would also have been suitable (in opposition to the view of
Wieseler).—That g¢é¢ and rveiyza are not to be considered as identical on ac-
count of Eph. v. 9, see on Eph. l.c. — ayémy] as the main element,° and at
the same time the practical principle of the rest, is placed at the head, cor-
responding to the contrast in ver. 18. The selection of these virtues, and
the order in which they are placed, are such as necessarily to unfold and to
present to the readers the specific character of the life of Christian fellowship
(which had been so sadly disturbed among the Galatians, ver. 15). Love
itself, because it is a fruit of the Spirit, is called in Rom. xv. 80, aydxry rov
rvetaroc. — xapd] is the holy joy of the soul, which is produced by the
Spirit,° through whom we carry in our hearts the consciousness of the divine
love,’ and thereby the certainty of blessedness, the triumph over all suffer-
ings, etc. The interpretations : participation in the joy of others,* and a
cheerful nature towards others,® introduce ideas which are not in the text."
— eiptvy] Peace with others. Rom. xiv. 17; Eph.iv. 8. The word has
been understood to mean also peace with God,"' and peace with oneself ; * but
against this interpretation it may be urged, that this peace (the peace
of reconciliation) is antecedent to the further fruits of the Spirit, and that
eipfvy x.t.A. i8 evidently correlative with éyfpa x.r.A. in ver. 20, so that the
eipfvg Oeov (see on Phil. iv. 7) does not belong to this connection. —
paxpoOvyia] long-suffering, by which, withholding the assertion of our own
rights, we are patient under injuries,'* in order to bring him who injures us
to reflection and amendment.'* The opposite : dguipia, Eur. Andr. 728. —
xpnoréryc) Benignity. 2 Cor. vi. 6 ; Col. iii. 12.'*— ayafwotvy] goodness, pro-
bity of disposition and of action. It thus admirably suits the ior: which
follows. Usually interpreted :'* kindness ; but see on Rom. xv. 14. — sioric]
Jidelity..' Matt. xxiii. 28 ; Rom. iii. 3; and sce on Philem. 5. — zpatry :
meekness.'® The opposite : aypiérnc, Plat. Cone. p. 197 D, in Greek authors

® Calvin, Michaelis.
10 Rom. xii. 15.
11 Rom. vy. 1.
12 de Wette and others.
13 Boabis eis dpyiv, Jas. i. 19.
24 Comp. Rom. il. 4; 2 Cor. vi. 6.
18 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff.
16 Also by Ewald and Wieseler.
17 de Wette, Wieseler, Reithmayr, take it

Prov. x. 16, where épya and «apwoi alternate
exactly in the opposite sense: ¢pya Sixaiwy
gwiy woes, xapmoi 5¢ aveBwv avaprias.

1 See on xcapwros especially, Rom. vi. 21 f.;
Matt vii. 20; Plat. Zp. 7, p. 336 B.

* To which Olshausen refers capros.

3 de Wette.

Hom. Qd. i. 156, and frequently.

§1Cor. xili.; Rom. xil. 9.

* See on Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Thess. i. 6 ; comp.
also 2 Cor. vi. 10.

T Rom. v. 5.

® Grotius, Zachariae,
Winer, Usterl.

Koppe, Borger,

as confidence, the opposite to distrust, 1 Cor.
xilil.7. But the substantive does not occur
in this general sense in any other passage
of the N. T.

18 See on 1 Cor. iv. a1.

CHAP. V., 23, 24. 241
often combined with d:AavOpwria. — tyxpéreca] self-control, that is, here conti-
nence, as opposed to sins of lust and intemperance.!

Ver. 23. Just as ra rosadra in ver. 21,* Hy rowbrov in this passage is also
neuter, applying to the virtues previously mentioned among the fruits of the
Spirit,* and not masculine, as it is understood by Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, and many of
the older expositors ; also by Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Hofmann.‘ It
is, moreover, quite unsuitable to assume (with Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller,
Flatt, and others) a peiwors ;* for Paul wishes only to illustrate the ot eivaz
id véuov, which he has said in ver. 18 respecting those who are led by the
Spirit. This he does by first exhibiting, for the sake of the contrast, the
works of the flesh, and expressing a judgment upon the doers of them ; and
then by exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, and saying : ‘! against virtues and
states of this kind there is no law.” Saying this, however, is by no means
‘‘more than superfluous” (Hofmann), but is intended to make evident how it
is that, by virtue of this their moral frame, those who are led by the Spirit
are not subject to the Mosaic law.* For whosoever is so constituted that
a law is not against him, over such a one the law has no power. Comp.
1 Tim. 1. 9 f.

Ver. 24. After Paul has in ver. 17 explained his exhortation given in ver.
16, and recommended compliance with it on account of its blessed results
(vv. 18-28), he now shows (continuing his discourse by the transitional dé)
how this compliance—the walking in the Spirit—has its ground and motive
in the specific nature of the Christian ; if the Christian has crucified his flesh,
and consequently lives through the Spirit, his walk also must follow the
Spirit. — r7v odpxa éoratpwoav| not : they crucify their flesh ;* but : they hace
crucified it, namely, when they became believers and received baptism,
whereby they entered into moral fellowship with the death of Jesus ® by
becoming vexpol ry duapria. The symbolical idea: ‘‘to have crucified the
flesh,” expresses, therefore, the having renounced all fellowship of life with
_ sin, the seat of which is the flesh (cdpé) ; so that, just as Christ has been ob-

jectively crucified, by means of entering into the fellowship of this death on
the cross the Christian has sulyectively—in the moral consciousness of faith
—crucified the oépé, that is, has rendered it entirely void of life and efficacy,
by means of faith as the new element of life to which he has been trans-
ferred. To the Christians ideally viewed, as here, this ethical crucifixion of

1 Eeclus. xviii. 90: Acts xxiv. 25: 2 Pet. 1. tive.

6; Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 1: adpodiciev x. yarrpds
éyxpardoraros.

3 Haec talia: see Engelhardt, ad Plat.
Lach, p. 14; Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 2

§ Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius,
Calvin, Beza, yet doubtfully, Castalio, Cor-
nelius & Lapide, and most expositors.

4So also Baumlein, in the Stud. u. Krit.
1862, p. 551f. The objection thatthe singu-
lar 3 xapwés in ver. 22 forbids the neuter in-
terpretation (Hofmann), is quite groundless
both in itself and because capwos is collec-

16

& Non adversatur, sed commendai, ‘He
does not oppose, but commends,” and the
like ; so also de Wette.

* The fundamental idea of the whole epis-
tle—the freedom of the Christian from the
Mosaic law—is thus fully displayed in its
moral nature and truth. Comp. Sieffert, in
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1889, p. 264.

7 Luther and others; also Matthies.

® See on if. 19, vi. 14; Rom. vi. 8, vil. 4.

* Rom. vi. 11.

242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

the flesh is something which has taken place,’ but in reality it is also some-
thing now taking place and continuous.* The latter circumstance, however,
in this passage, where Paul looks upon the matter as completed at conver-
sion and the life thenceforth led as (7 rvet pari,” is not to be conceived ‘ as
standing alongside of that ideal relation,—an interpretation which the his-
torical aorist unconditionally forbids. — civ roic¢ maOhu. x. taig Exibup) together
with the affections* and lusts, which, brought about by the power of sin in-
stigated by the prohibitions of the law,* have their seat in and take their
rise from the cdpé, the corporeo-psychical nature of man, which is antago-
nistic to God ; hence they must, if the odpé is crucified through fellowship
with the death of the Lord, be necessarily crucified tith it, and could not
remain alive.’ The ém:@via are the more special sinful lusts and desires, in
which the ra¥para display their activity and take their definite shapes.*
The affections excite the feelings, and hence arise éx:Svuia, in which their
definite expressions manifest themselves. °

Ver. 25. If the Christian has crucified his flesh, it is no longer the ruling
power of his life, which, on the contrary, proceeds now from the Holy Spirit,
the power opposed to the flesh ; and the obligation thence arising is, that
the conduct also of the Christian should correspond to this principle of life
(for otherwise what a self-contradiction would he exhibit !) — ei Japuev rveb-
pat] introduced asyndetically (without oiv), so as to be more vivid. The
emphasis is on mvetyari, as the contrast to the cdpf : If after the crucifying
of the flesh we owe our life to the Holy Spirit, by which is meant the life
which begins with conversion, through the zad:yyeveoia (Tit. iii. 5)—the life
of the new creature, vi. 15."°—The jirst wveipars is ablatice: the second, em-
phatically placed at the commencement of the apodosis, is the expression of
the norma (ver. 16).!' ovorzeiv (comp. also Acts xxi. 24) is distinguished
from zepirareiv in ver. 16 only as to the figure ; the latter is ambulure, the
former is ordine procedere (to march). But both represent the same idea,
the moral conduct of life, the firm regulation of which is symbolized in
ora ety.

Ver. 26. Special exhortations now begin, flowing from the general obliga-
tion mentioned above (vv. 16, 25) ; first negative (ver. 26), and then positire
(vi. 1 ff). Hence ver. 26 ought to begin a new chapter. The address,
aderdoi (vi. 1), and the transition to the second person, which Riickert,
Schott, Wiescler, make use of to defend the division of the chapters, and
the consideration added by de Wette, that the vices mentioned in ver. 26
belong to the works of the flesh in ver. 20, and to the dissension in ver. 15
(this would also admit of application to vi. 1 ff.), cannot outweigh the con-
nection which binds the special exhortations together. — xevédéfor] tanam

1 Comp. Rom. vi. 2 ff. 9 rn yap ext Tov Supdy lovey Suvdpe: SHAM
2 Rom. viii. 18; Col. fil. 5. Ste rovro éxAyjdy To Svopa, “it is manifest
3 Ver. 25; comp. ili. 20. that this term was applied to the force
4 With Bengel and Schott. coming upon the Spirit (éwt rov dupzdy),””
8 See on Rom. vil. 5. ’ Plat. Crat. p. 449 D. Comp. 1 Thess. fv. &

® Rom. vil. 8. 10 Comp. Rom. vi. 4 ff., vil. 5 f., vill. 9;
7 Comp. on ver. 17; Rom. vil. 14 ff. 2 Cor. ili. 6; Gal. fi. 20.

® Nom. vii. 5, 8. 1! Comp. vi. 16; Phil. ili. 16; Rom. iv. 12

NOTES. 243
gloriam captantes.' In these warnings, Paul refers neither merely to those
who had remained faithful to him,* nor merely to those of Judaistic senti-
ments,? for these partial references are not grounded on the context ; but to
the circumstances of the Galatians generally at that time, when boasting
and strife (comp. ver. 15) were practised on both sides. —Both the yevdpeda in
itself,‘ and the use of the first person, imply a forbearing mildness of ex-
pression. — aAAnioue zpoxar., GAAGAoig PYovoivres| contains the modus of the
xevodotia : challengizg one another (to the conflict, in order to triumph over
the challenged), entying one another (namely, those superior, with whom
they do not venture to stand a contest).° — gJ3ovety governs only the dative
of the person, ° or the accusative with the infinitive," not the mere accusative ;°
hence the reading adopted by Lachmann, aAAgAouc g¥ov.,° must be considered
as an error of transcription, caused by the mechanical repetition of the
foregoing aAAyAove. — The fact that 44242. in both cases precedes the verb,
makes the contrariety to fellowship more apparent, ver. 18.

Notes By AMEnIcan Eprror.

LXVIII. Ver. 5. éArida dixasootvn,.

The restriction of the argument by Meyer to justification seems too narrow.
The subject at this particular place is rather, as Sieffert remarks : What is the
goal towards which the true Christian advances from the time of the reception
of grace? In opposition to the painful and fruitless endeavor to fulfil the law,
this is, according to ver. 5, the joyful hope founded upon faith and grace.
Weiss’ paraphrase is: ‘‘We expect the salvation which we have to hope for
in consequence of the righteousness which has been presented us éx riorewe’’
(Eng. Trans. I. 451),

LXIX. Ver. 11. & mepiroupy x.7.A,

This interpretation, to which Sieffert objects, on the ground that while con-
sistent with the line of argument, it nevertheless is incomprehensible how such

' Phil. ii.3; Polyb. xxvil. 6. 12, xxxix. 1.
1. Comp. cevodofeiv, 4 Macc. v. 9, and xevo-

ate (ver. 24). Hofmann dogmatically affirms
that forbearing mildness is out of the ques-

Sofia, Lucian V. //7. 4, MH. D. 8. See Servius,
ad Virg. Aen. xi. 84.

2 Olshausen.

* Theopbylact and many others.

4 Flamua, ‘‘let us become.”? The matter
is conceived as already in course of taking
place ; hence the present, and not the aorist,
as is read In G*, min., yerwoueda. The Vul-
gateand Erasmus also correctly render it
eficiamur. On the other hand, Castalio,
Beza, Calvin, and most expositors, incor-
rectly give simus, “let us be.’’ Against
efictamur Beza brings forward the irrele-
vant dogmatic objection: “ atqui natura
tpea tales nos genuit,” ‘“* But our very nature
has begotten us as such,” which does not
hold good, because Christians are regener-

tion. It is, in fact, implied in the very ex-
pression. Comp. Rom. xil. 16; 2 Cor. vi.
14; Eph. v.17. And passages such as iv. 12
are in no way opposed to this view, for they
are without negution ; comp. Eph. v. 1, Phil.
fil. 17. -

§ On wpoxadciodat, to provoke, see Hom. Ji.
iif. 432, vii. 50. 218. 285; Od. viil. 142; Polvyb.
i. 46. 11; Bast. ep. criz. p. 56, and the passages
in Wetstein.

® Kohner, IT. p. 247.

7 Hom. Od. i. 346, xviil. 16, x1. 881; Herod.
viii. 109.

8 Not even In Soph. O. &. 810.

* Following B G*, and several min.,
Chrysostom, Theodoret, ms., Oecumenius.

244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

slander could have originated, has been well put by Lightfoot : ‘* At this point
the malicious charge of his enemies rises up before the apostle : ‘ Why, you do
the same thing yourself ; you caused Timothy to be circumcised.’ To this he
replies : ‘What, do J, who have incurred the deadly hatred of the Judaizers,
who am exposed to continual persecution from them, do I preach circumci-
sion?” For other circumstances than the circumcision of Timothy, whence
this charge might have originated, see Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of N. T., Eng. Tr., I.
486,

LXX. Ver. 12. amoxdéwovrac,

‘‘The common interpretation of the Fathers, confirmed by the use of the
language in the LXX., is not to be rejected only because it is displeasing to the
delicacy of modern times” (Jowett). The American section of the Revision
committee, following the French rendering of Deut. xxiii. 1, recommends the
euphemism, ‘‘ Go beyond circumsion” as the preferable mode of expressing this
idea of the verb in a version for general circulation. Both Lightfoot and Eadie
emphasize the fact that such mutilation was a part of the rites of the worship
of Cybele, and as such the allusion would have been at once understood. The
idea conveyed is that circumcision, when no longer fulfilling its original design
as an ordinance adumbrative of Christ and His blessings, has no more validity
than such degrading prescriptions of the heathen, and that the sole difference
is in degree, but not in kind. The application of this principle here is in the
vein of intense irony. The explanation of Sanday is certainly remarkable, that
while the interpretation here maintained is the true one, Paul is writing
under the strain of passion, and in his anger uses an expression that indicates
‘‘one of very few flaws in a traly noble and generous character.”’

LXXI. Ver. 16. exOupiav capxoc.

‘‘ The Pauline conception of cdp£, even where not used in ethical relations, is
not contrary to its original anthropological signification, according to which it
is the human body (not indeed with respect to the form, which is designated by
capa, but) with respect to its contents, and therefore especially with respect to
its material substance, as well as according to its powers; and, therefore, in
its inner combination with the lower human soul-life, which Paul ordinarily
understands by the term wvy7, as contradistinguished from the higher spiritual
life of man allied to God, the voic¢. This sensuvo-psychical side of man’s na-
ture is clearly also cdpf here, where wveiya and odp§ appear as two different
pringiples working upon the human will from the higher human spiritual life,
as also in Rom. vii., where odpé and yéAn are antithetical to votc. Butin this and
other passages where oépé maintains an ethical relation, it especially signifies
the sensuo-psychical side of man’s nature, so far as it is brought by the human
will which was originally in harmony with God into antagonism with God and
all that is godly, and thus, by the egoistic alienation of that will from God,
constituted a dominant life-principle, active through the first sin of Adam in
the entire human race, and continually perpetuated through transmission”
(Sieffert).

LXXII. Ver. 18. oix écré td vipov.

While Sieffert’s interpretation, as opposed to Meyer, that the Mosaic law is
here referred to, cannot be substantiated, yet it is better, not merely with
Usteri and Ewald, but with a large number of exegetes (Hofmann, Lightfoot,

NOTES. 245
Eadie, among the more recent) and dogmaticians, to regard the not being under
the law as freedom from the constraint and coercion of the law. So far as
man is led by the Spirit of God, the law is written on his heart. No longer an
external matter, it becomes a second nature, a life-force, whereby the duties
prescribed by God are rendered with joy, instead of reluctance. Thus Weiss
( Bibl. Theol. of N. T., I, 483, Eng. Trans.) : ‘‘ Those who are led by the Spirit
are, viz., no longer under the law (Gal. v. 18) ; for what the law with its require-
ment strove after, and yet could not reach (Rom. viii. 3), that the Spirit really
attains to, inasmuch as at His instigation the requirement of the law is fulfilled
in them who walk according to the Spirit. The power of the Spirit, which is
operative in man, has taken the place of the law, which is ontwardly fixed in the
letter.” Quenstedt (iv. 11): ‘‘ Not to be under the law signifies to be freed from
the curse and constraint of the law, because the regenerate are led by the Spirit,
are delighted in the law according to the inner man, and spontaneously do the
things which are of the law.” Cf. Formula of Concord (598 : 16): ‘*As long as
man is not regenerate and conducts himself according to the law, and does the
works of the law because they are thus commanded, from fear of punishment or
desire for reward, he is still under the law, and his works are properly called
by St. Paul works of the Jaw, for they are extorted by the law, as those of slaves”
(Phil. edition). Compare Westminster Confession, xix. 7.

LXXIII. Ver. 19. épya rig capxdc,

‘The flesh is spoken of in the entire short paragraph in its lusting and
warrings, in contrast with the Spirit in its wrestlings and leadings. Those who
are guided by the Spirit are not as such under the law ; but the flesh is under
law, under its sentence and dominion : manifest are its works, and the law
cannot but condemn them as épya, works done by the evil and unrenewed na-
ture. It is needless to press a contrast in ¢avepé with the fruit of the Spirit, as
being more hidden, and needing to be educed and specified. The works of
the flesh are notorious and notoriously of a corrupt origin’’ (Eadie).

246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,

CHAPTER VI.

Ver, 2. dvardAnpdoare] [Elz., Tiseh, 1859, following & AC D, ete.] Lachm.
and Schott (Tisch. 1872], read avarAnpucere, following B F G, 33, 35, and several
ves. and Fathers. Looking at this amount of attestation, to which the vss. give
special weight (including Pesch., Vulg. It.), and considering that the impera-
tive might readily have been occasioned by the preceding imperatives, the
aorist form being involuntarily suggested by the similar future form, the future
is to be preferred.—Ver. 10. épyatoueia] A B L, min., Goth. Oec. read épya-
Coueba, Approved by Winer, but too feebly attested, especially as hardly any
version is in favor of it. A mere error in transcribing, after the preceding
indicatives Qepicoveyv and éyouev, Looking at the frequent confusion of w and o,
we must also regard as a copyist’s error the reading in ver. 12 of dioxovrai,
adopted by Tisch., and attested by A C, etc., instead of d:dxuvras (B D, etc.). —
Ver. 12. uy] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive testimony, to be
placed after Xpiorov. — Ver. 18. wepitepvouevos] B L, many min., also vss. and
Latin Fathers, read mepirerunuévot.. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by
Lachm. and Scholz, and approved by Rinck and Reiche. And justly ; the pre-
terite is absolutely necessary, as the Judaistic feachers are meant. The present
has crept in as a mere mechanical error of the transcribers, who had just pre-
viously written mepiréuvecGa:, and perhaps also recollected v. 3. — Ver. 14. ro
before xéouzqy is omitted by Lachm. [and Tisch. 1872.] on weighty evidence ;
but it might be readily suppressed, owing to the preceding syllable yw, espe-
cially as the article might be dispensed with, and xooyoc just before was anar-
throus.—Ver. 15. év yap Xpraté "Inoov ofre| B, 17, Arm. Aeth. Goth. Chrys. Georg.
Syncell. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., have merely otre ydp (Syr. Sahid., ob ydp).
Approved by Mill, Seml., Griesb., Rinck, Reiche ; adopted by Bengel, Schott,
Tisch. Justly ; the Recepta is manifestly an amplifying gloss, derived from v.
6.— éoriv] Elz. and Matth. read ioyte:, against decisive evidence. Derived
from v. 6. — Ver. 16. orotyjoovo1v] [Tisch. 1872], following ¥&, B C** K L P,
Vulg. Chrys. Cyr. Theodoret, Dam. But, A C* DE F G, 4, 71, Syr. utr. Sahid.
It. Cyr. Victorin. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., read oraryovorv. Approved by Griesb.,
placed in the margin by Lachm., adopted by Tisch. [1859]. But the present
suggested itself most readily to the unskilled transcribers, and what ground
could these have had for the alteration in the future ?— Ver. 17. xvpiov is
omitted before ’Iycot in A B C*, 8, 17, 109, Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. ms. Petr.
Alex. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A frequent addi-
tion, in this case specially derived from ver. 18 ; hence several witnesses add
hpov.

ConTENTs.—Continuation of the special admonitions begun in v. 26 (vv.
1-5) ; then an exhortation to Christian morality in general, with allusion to

1JIn favor of thismay probably be reck- weprrexrnpévot, which betray through the
oned also F with weprrezrjpor, and G with §$ wrongly written » perfect forms.

CHAP. VI., 1. 247

its future recompense (vv. 6-10). A concluding summary, in the apostle's
own handwriting, of the chief polemical points of the epistle (vv. 11-16) ;
after which Paul deprecates renewed annoyance, and adds the benediction
(vv. 17, 18).

Ver. 1. Loving (adeAgof) exhortation to a course of conduct opposed to
xevodofia. — éav Kal mpoAngy x.t.A.] Correctly rendered in substance by the
Vulgate : ‘‘ etsi praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto.” The mean-
ing is: ‘‘ifecen any one' shall have been overtaken by any fault,—so, namely,
that the sin has reached him more rapidly than he could flee from it (1 Cor.
vi, 18, x. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22). So Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and most expositors, including Riickert and
de Wette ; and in substance also Wicseler, who, however, explains spoa.
figuratively of a snare, in which (év) one is unexpectedly (po) caught.*
There is, however, no intimation of this figure in the context (xarapriZere) 3
and to explain év the quite common instrumental use amply suffices, accord-
ing to which the expression is not different from the mere dative. Ina
mild and trustful tone Paul conceives the sin, which might occur among
his Galatians, oniy as ‘‘ peccatum praeciptiantiae,” ‘*a sin of precipitancy ;”
for this is, at any rate, intimated by rpoAngdg. On xpodauBdverr, to overtake,
comp. Xen. Cyn. 5, 19; 7, 7; Theophr. H. pl. viii. 1. 3 ; Polyb. xxxi. 23.
8 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 75 ; Strabo, xvi. p. 1120. In éav xat the emphasis is
laid on ci (if even, 7f nevertheless).* Others‘ have explained mpoAngd9 as
deprehensus fuerit, is seized ; but against this view it may be urged that, as
the word cannot be used as merely equivalent to the simple verb, or to
nataAnody,° or éyxaraAngdy,* no reference for the mpo can be got from the
context.” Even in Wisd. xvii. 17, rpoAnpdeig¢ means overtaken, surprised by
destruction. And the xai does not require that interpretation, because,
while it might belong to zpo2790%,° so as to mean also actually caught,® or,
by way of climax, eren caught, it does not necessarily belong to it. — tyeic
oi xvevparcxoi] Paul thus puts it to the consciousness of every reader to
regard himself as included or not: ye, the spritual, that is, who are led by
The opposite : wuyixoi, capxexoi (1 Cor. ii. 13 f., iii. 1). In
the case of dvvaroi, Rom. xv. 1, the circumstances presupposed and the con-
trast are of a different character. Those very avevyarixoi might readily be

the xveipa ajcov.

1 dvdpwros, as in ver. 7, and 1 Cor. xi. 2,
iv. 1, eé al.

2Comp. Goth. “‘gafahdiddu,” that is,
caught.

3 8ee Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519; Baeuml.
Purtik. p. 151.

4 Grotlus, Winer, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld,
Ewald, Hofmann.

3 John viii. 4.

6 Aeschin. Ces. p. 62. 17.

7 Grotius strangely interprets: ‘‘ depre-
hensus anlequam haec epistola ad vos veniat,”
“ caught before this epistle come to you.”
Winer introduces more than the text war-
rants: “‘etiams! quis anlea deprehensus fu-
erté in neccato, eum tamen (flerum peccantem)

corrigite,”” ‘“‘even though one have been
previously caught in sin, nevertheless cor-
rect him (again sinning).”. Paul must have
expressed this by ¢dv xat wad Andd;.
Olshausen affirms that by zpo the Aap Baveora
is indicated as taking place before the xcara-
priger, But ‘his relation of time was so
obvious of itself, that it would have been
strange thus to express it. Hofmann inter-
prets not more aptly: ‘‘ere he repenis of the
sin,” as if this idea could only be thus
mentally supplied! Luther appropriately
remarks, “if a man should somehow 0¢
overtaken by a fault.”

® Klotz. p. 521; Kfihner, § 8%, note 1.

® Comp. 1 Cor. vil. 17.

248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

guilty of an unbrotherly exaltation and severity, if they did not sufficiently
attend to and obey the leading of the Spirit towards meekness. — xarapri-
Cere] bring him right, into the proper, normal condition ; dopSotre, Chrysos-
tom.' A figurative reference to the setting of dislocated limbs?* is not sug-
gested by the context. — év mvebyuari mpadrytog] through the Spirit of meekness,
that is, through the mveipya Gyov producing meekness. For zvebdya should
be understood, not with Luther, Calvin, and many others, of the human
spirit (1 Pet. iii. 4), of the tendency of feeling or tone of mind,*® but of the
Holy Spirit, as is required by the very correlation with wvevyarixoi.‘ But
among the manifold xapréc tov mveiparog (Vv. 22), mpairyrog brings promi-
nently forward the very quality which was to be applied in the xaraprifev.
In that view it is the ‘‘ character palmarius hominis spiritualis,” ‘the pre-
eminent characteristic of the spiritual man,” Bengel. — oxorév ceavrév x.1.A.]
looking (taking heed) to thyself lest, etc.° There is here a transition to the
singular, giving a more individual character to the address ; just as we fre-
quently find in classical authors that after the plural of the verb, the singular
of the participle makes the transition from the aggregate to the individual.*
Erasmus aptly remarks that the singular is ‘‘magis idoneus ad compel-
landam wniuscujusque conscientiam,” ‘‘ better adapted for addressing the
individual conscience.” There is therefore the less ground for considering
these words as an apostolical marginal note (Laurent). — yp? xal od reep.) lest
thou also (like that fallen one) become tempted, enticed to sin,—wherein the
apostle has in view the danger of the enticement being successful.?_ Lach-
mann places a full stop after rpairytoc, and connects cxorav . . . metpacdig
with the words which follow ; a course by which the construction gains
nothing, and the connection actually suffers, for the reference of xai ob to
Tov rocovroy is far more natural and conformable to the sense than the refer-
ence to aaAfAuwr.

Ver. 2. 4224Aav] emphatically prefixed (comp. v. 26), opposed to the hab-
it of selfishness : ‘‘ mutually one of the other bear ye the burdens.” ra apy,
however, figuratively denotes the moral faults (comp. ver. 5) pressing on
men with the sense of guilt, not everything that is oppressive and burden-
some generally, whether in the domain of mind or of body,*—a view which,
according to the context, is much too vague and general (vv. 1, 8, 5). The
mutual bearing of moral burdens is the mutual, loving participation in
another's feeling of guilt, a weeping with those that weep in a moral point of
view, by means of which moral sympathy the pressure of the feeling of guilt
is reciprocally lightened.* As to this fellowship in suffering, comp. the ex-

Hofmann.
® Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Cramer's

1 Comp. on 1 Cor. I. 10.
2 Beza, Hammond, Bengel, and others.

3 Rickert, de Wette, Wieseler, and others.

4 See on 1 Cor. iv. 21.

®& Comp. Soph. Phil. 506. In Plat. Theaet,
p. 160 E, Luke xi. 35, it is differently used.
Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 209.

* See Bernhardy, p. 421 ; Lobeck, ad Soph.
Aj. 191.

7 Comp. 1 Cor, vil. 5.

® Matthies, Windischmann, Wieseler,

Cat. (and in Fritzsche, p. 129), well remarks
that the bearing of one another's burdens
takes place, dray 81d wapaivévews nai xpynoro-
THTOS EMLXOUPiCns avT@ Thy Wuyny, Ved THS
Tov awapTHpatos cuvetdijcens Pe
Bapnudyynyv, “whenever by advice and
kindness you relieve his splrit, weighed
down by the consciousness of sin."

CHAP. VI., 3. 249

ample of the apostle himself, 2 Cor. xi. 29. It is usually taken merely to
mean, Have patience with one unother’s faults ;' along with which several, such
as Rosenmiller, Flatt, Winer, quite improperly (in opposition to aAAgdur,
according to which the burdened ores are the very persons affected by sin)
look upon Bapy as applying to faults by which a person becomes burden-
some to others. But the command, thus understood, would not even come
up to what was required in ver. 1, and would not seem important and high
enough to enable it to be justly said : xal obrug avarAnpocere Tov vépov Tr. Xp.
—and in this way (if ye do this) ye will entirely fulfil the law of Christ, the
law which Christ has given, that is, the sum of all that He desires and has
commanded by His word and Spirit, and which is, in fact, comprehended
in the love * which leads us to serve one another. What Paul here requires
is conceived by him as the culminating point of such a service. He speaks
of the véuoc of Christ in relation to the Mosaic law,* which had in the case
of the Galatians—and how much to the detriment of the sympathy of love—
attained an estimation which, on the part of Christians, was not at all
due to it ; they desired to be id véuov, and thereby lost the éyvozov Xprorov
eivac.‘ <A reference at the same time to the example of Christ, who through
love gave Himself up to death® (as contended for by Oecumenius and
Usteri), is gratuitously introduced into the idea of véuoc. The compound
GvardAnp is, as already pointed out by Chrysostom (who, however, wrongly
explains it of acommon fulfilment jointly and severally), not equivalent to the
simple verb,* but more forcible : to jill up, to make entirely full (the law
looked upon as a measure which, by compliance, is made full ; comp. v.
14), so that nothing more is wanting.’ The thought therefore is, that with-
out this moral bearing of one another’s burdens, the fulfilment of the law of
Christ is not complete ; through that bearing is introduced what otherwise
would be wanting in the avardAfpwoig of this law. And how true this is !
Such self-denial and self-devotion to-the brethren in the ethical sphere ren-
ders, in fact, the very measure of love full,® so far as it may be filled up at
all.°

Ver. 8. Argumentum e contrario for the preceding kal otrug avarAnp. ft. v. T.
Xp.; in so far as the fulfilment to be given in such measure to this law is
impossible to moral conceit.—For tf any one thinks himself to be something,
imagines himself possessed of peculiar moral worth, so that he conceives
himself exalted above such a mutual bearing of burdens, while he is nothing,
although he is in reality of no moral importance, he is, so far from fulfilling
the law of Christ, involved in self-deception. — On eivai r1, and the opposite
pndev elvas, nullius momenti esse, ‘‘to be of no account,” ** comp. ii. 6, and see

1 Rom. xv. 1. as to which you are deficient.” 1 Thess. tl.
av. 18 f. 16; Matt. xiii. 14. See Tittmann, Synon.
3 Comp. v. 14. p. 228 f. ; Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. com-
#1 Cor. ix. 21. pos.in N. T. usu, TI. p. 11 f.

§ Rom. xv. 8; Eph. v. 2. ®1 Cor. xifl. 4 ff.

* Rickert, Schott, and many others. ® Rom. xili. 8.

7Comp. Dem. 1466. 20: ay dy éxAciryre 10 Comp. Arrian. Zpict. ti. 24: 8oxov pew me
Upeis, Ov ebpioete TOVs avatAnpwoorTas, “Syou = elvat, wy 8’ ovdeis, ** to be of no account.”
will not find such as will fill up those things

250 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

on Acts v. 86 ; 2 Cor. xii. 11 ; Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 148. As to nf with
the participle, see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 801. If uydév dv be attached to
the apodosis,’ the effect is only to weaken the judgment which is expressed
in it, because it would contain the fundamental statement (since he is nothing)
in which the éavr. ¢pevaz. is already obviously involved, and consequently,
as the first portion of the affirmation in the apodosis, would anticipate the
latter portion of it and take away its energetic emphasis. This is not the
case, if the ‘‘ being nothing” belongs to the antithetical delineation of con-
ceited pretension in the protasis, where it is appropriate for the completeness
of the case supposed. Moreover, undév av is really applicable in the case of
every one, Luke xvii. 10 ; Rom. iii. 28 ; 1 Cor. iv. 7, et al. — ¢pevarara] de-
notes deception in the judgment, here in the moral judgment ; the word is
not preserved in any other Greek author.*

Ver. 4. But men ought to act in a way entirely different from what is in-
dicated by this doxei elvai rz. ‘‘His own work let every man prove, and
then,” etc.—The emphasis lies on 16 épyov (which is collective, and denotes the
totality of the actions, as in Rom. ii. 7, 15; 1 Pet. i. 17; Rev. xxii. 12),
opposing the objective works to the subjectire conceit. — doxipazérw] not : pro-
batum reddat,* ‘render approved,” a meaning which it never has (comp. on
1 Cor. xi. 28), but : let him try, investigate of what nature it is. — xa? réré]
and then, when he shall have done this (1 Cor. iv. 5), not : when he shall
have found himself approved.* — cic éavrév pdvov 7d xabynua Ee, K.7.2.] does
not mean, he will keep his glorying for himself,® that is, abstinedit a gloriando,
‘he will abstain from glorying;” ® for although Zyecv may, from the context,
obtain the sense of keeping back,’ it is in this very passage restricted by xai
ovK ei¢ Tov érepov to its simple meaning, to hace ; and xatynua is not equivalent
to xabyyorc, but must retain its proper signification, materies gloriandi,
‘‘subject for glorying.” ® Nearest to the view of Koppe in sense come those
of Winer : ‘‘non tantas in se ipso reperict laudes, quibus apud.alios quoque
glorietur,” ‘‘In himself he will not find such praise, of which to boast also
before others ;” of Usteri : ‘‘then will he have to glory towards himself
alone, and not towards others,”—a delicate way of turning the thought :
“then he will discover in himself faults and weaknesses sufficient to make him
think of himself modestly ;” and of Wieseler, ‘‘he will be silent toward
others as to his xabynua.” But in accordance with the context, after the re-
quirement of self-examination, the most natural sense for cic (on account of
the antithesis, cig éavrdv —eic rov Erepov) 18: in respect to, as regards ; morc-
over, in the above-named interpretations, neither the singular nor the article
in rév érepov obtains its due weight. The sentence must be explained : then
woill he have cause to glory merely as regards himself, and not as regards the
other ; that is, then will he have cause to boast merely in respect of good of

1 Michaelis, Baumgarten, Morus, Jatho, 4 Erasmus, Estius, Borger, and others.

Hofmann. ® Comp. Hilgenfeld.
2 But comp. dpevardrns, Tit. 1. 10; Ignat. * Koppe.
Trail. interpol. 6; Etym. M. 811. 8. ™Hom. JJ. v. 271, xxiv. 115; Eur. Cyd.

?Beza, Piscator, Rambach, Semler, 270.
Michaelis, Rickert, Matthies. 8 Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, and always.

CHAP. VI., 5. 251

his own, which he may possibly find on this self-examination, and not in
reference to the other, with whom otherwise he would advantageously com-
pare himself. Castalio aptly remarks : ‘‘ probitas in re non in collatione,”
‘‘worth isin the thing, not in the comparison,” and Grotius: ‘‘ gaude-
bit recto sui examine, non deteriorum comparatione,” ‘‘ He will rejoice by a
just examination of self, not by comparison with the worse”—as, for
instance, was done by the Pharisee, who compared himself with robbers,
adulterers, ctc., instead of simply trying his own action, and not boasting
as he looked to others, whom he brought into comparison.’ xabynyua with the
article denotes, not absolute glory,* which no one has (Rom. iii. 28), but the
relevant cause for the xavyao0ae which he finds in himself, so far as he does
so, on that trial of his own work. It is therefore the xaiynua, supposed or
conceived by Paul, as the result of the examination in the several cascs.?
This relative character of the idea removes the seeming inconsistency with
vv. 8 and 5,‘ and excludes all untrue and impious boasting ; but the taking
cabynua Exew tronically,* or as mimesis,® is forbidden even by xai ovx ei¢ rov
érepov. Hofmann interprets, although similarly in the main, yet without
irony, and with a more exact unfolding of the purport : ‘‘ while otherwise he
Sound that he might glory as he contrasted his own person with others, he will
now in respect to the good which he finds in himself, seeing that he also discovers
certain things in himself which are not good, have cause to glory only towards
himself—himself, namely, who has done the good, as against himself who has
done what ia not good.” But in this interpretation the ideas, which are to
form the key to the meaning, are gratuitously imported ; a paraphrase so
subtle, and yet so clumsy, especially of the words eic¢ éavrdv pdvov, could not
be expected to occur to the reader. More simply, but introducing a differ-
ent kind of extraneous matter, de Wette interprets : ‘‘and then he will for
himself alone (to his own joy) have the glory (if he has any such thing, which
is evidently called in question) not for others (in order thereby to provoke
and challenge them).” But how arbitrary it is to assign to cic two refer-
ences so entirely different, ahd with regard to xabynua to foist in the idea :
‘Sif he has aught such” / A most excellent example of the ei¢ éavrav pévov 7d
xaiynua éxecv is afforded by Paul himself, 2 Cor. x. 12.’

Ver. 5. Reason assigned, not for the summons to such a self-examination,
but for the negative result ofit, that no one will have to glory cig rév érepov :
Sor every one will have to bear his own burden. No one will be, in his own

1Comp. Calvin and others; also Relth-
mayr.

* Matthies.

8 Bernhardy, p. 15.

4In opposition to de Wette.

8 Against which Calvin justly pronounces.

* Bengel and others; also Olshausen: “a
thorough self-examination reveals so much
in one’s own heart, that there can be no
question of glory at all.’’ So in substance
Chrysostom and Theophylact hold that
Paul has spoken evycaraBarixws,** by accom-
modation,” in order to wean his readers

gradually from the habit of glorying; 6 yap
éStodeis iH TOD TAngiov ws 6 Papicaios, Kata
kavxagdat, Taxédws Kai Tov Kad" davToy evaBpv-
veoda. azxootycera, ‘' For becoming accus-
tomed not, as the Pharisee, to exult over
one’s neighbor, he will abstain quickly even
from private conceit,”* Theophylact. Comp.
Oecumenius, according to whom the sub-
stantial sense is: é¢avrov xarayvwoerat, Kai
ovxi érépwy, “He will accuse himself, and
not otbers.”
7 Comp. 2 Cor. {. 12 ff.

252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
consciousness, free from the moral burden of his own sinful nature, which he
hasto bear. The future does not apply to the last judgment, in which every
one will render account for his own sins,’ and reccive retribution,? —a
view which, without any ground in the context, departs from the sense of
the same figure in ver. 2, and also from the relation of time conveyed in é€e,
in ver. 4; but it denotes that which will take place in every man after the
self-examination referred to in ver. 4: he will, in the moral consciousness,
namely, produced by this examination, bear his own burden ; and that will
preclude in him the desire of glorying ei¢ rév érepov.—The distinction
between Bdpoc and gopriov (which is not diminutive) consists in this, that
the latter denotes the burden in so far as it is carried (by men, beasts, ships,
wagons ; hence /reight, baggage, and the like), while the former denotes the
burden as heavy and oppressive ; in itself the gopriov may be light or heavy ;
hence : gopria Bapéa,* and zAagpa ; * whereas the Bépor is always burdensome.
The expression is purposely chosen here from its relative character.

Ver. 6. In contrast to the referring of every one to himself (vv. 4, 5), there
is now, by the xowwveirw dé, which is therefore placed emphatically * at
the beginning, presented a fellowship of special importance to a man’s
own perfection, which he must maintain : Fellowship, on the other hand,
let him who is being instructed in the doctrine* have with the instructor" in all
good (ver. 10), that is, let the disciple make common cause (endeavor
and action) with his teacher in everything that is morally good. So,
following Marcion (?) (in Jerome) and Lyra, in modern times Aug.
Herm. Franke (in Wolf), who, however, improperly connects é raaw
ayaGoic, with xarnyovvr:, Hennicke, de neru loci, Gal. vi. 1-10, Lips. 1788 ;
Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. p. 70, Matthies, Schott, Keerl, Diss. de Gal. vi.
1-10, Heidelb. 1834, Trana, Jatho, Vémel, Matthias ; also not disapproved
by Winer. Usually, however,® there is found in the words a summons to
liberality towards the teachers, so that év raow ayaboic is taken as referring to
the communication of everything good,* or more definitely, of all earthly
good things,’® or of good things of every kind ;™ and xowwveirw is taken either
transitively," as if the word were equivalent to xovovv:" communicet

1 Augustine, c. dit. Petil. i. 5; Luther.

* Jerome, Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin,
Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel. Michael-
is, Borger, Riickert, and others ; comp. also
Hofmann.

3 Matt. xxill. 4; Ecclus. xxi 16.

* Matt. xi. 30.

§ In opposition to Hofmann.

© xar’ éfoxHv, ‘ especially,” in the gospel ;
comp. 1 Thess. i. 6; Phil. {. 14. .

7 The question, whether the persons here
meant were permanent teachers of the
church, or itinerant evangelists, is to be
answered by saying that neither of these
two kinds of teachers is excluded. For al-
though at that time there were noédéacxadcr,
“teachers,” spectaily instituted except the
presbyters (see on Eph. iv. 11), there wero

nevertheless members of the church endow-
ed with the xapiopa di8acnadAias, * charism of
teaching,” who devoted themselves to the
function of continuous instruction in their
churches. Rom. xii. 7.

8 As by Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Olshausen,
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld,
Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and
others.

® Ewald.

10**in omni facuitatum genere, ut usa
venit,” “in every kind of resources, as the
case may be,’’ Bengel.

41 Ellicott, Hofmann.

12 So usually, also by Ewald.

18 As to the distinction between the two,
see especially Thuc 1. 30. 3

CHAP. VI., 6. Roo

(which, however, cannot be conclusively established in the N. T., not even
in Rom. xii. 13 ; and in the passages from Greek authors’ it is to be referred
to the idea : ‘' to share with any one”), or intransititely :* ‘‘let him stand in
Sellowship,”” namely by communication, or in the sense of the participation
in the teacher, which is perfected év rao ay.* But against the whole of
this interpretation may be urged : (1) the singular want of connection of
such a summons, not mercly with what goes before,* but also with what
follows,® wherein Paul inculcates Christian morality generally. (2) Since in
vv. 1-5 moral faultiness was the point in question, the reference which most
naturally suggests itself for év raocv ayaGoig is a reference to moral good.
(8) At the conclusion of this whole section in ver. 10, épyafouefa rd ayafov
x.T.4., Td ayafev is nothing else than the morally good. (4) The requirement
itself, to communicate with the teacher in all good things, would, without
more precise definition,* be so indeterminate and, even under the point of
view of the possession as common property, Acts iv. 32,7 which we do not
meet with in Paul’s writings, so little to be justificd, that we cannot

1In Fritzsche, ad Rom. ITI. p. 81, and
Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 817, Goth.

2 So Usteri, de Wette, Wieseler.

8 Hofmann, comparing Rom. xv. 27.

#The connection with what goes before
might be dispensed with, for Paul might
(through 8¢) have passed on to a fresh sub-
ject. Winer, indeed, conceives the con-
nection to be: “cum vv. 4,5 ea tetigisset,
quae priva sibi quisque habere debeat, nunc
ad haec descendere, quae cum allis commu-
nicanda sunt,” ‘When vv. 4, 5 he had
touched on those things which every one
should have as private to himself, he now
descends to those which are to be shared
with others” (comp. Erasmus, feraphr.)
But, with the precept of /iverality towards
teachers, so entirely alien to what goes be-
fore, this connection appears forced ; and
it would be better to forego any connecting
link with what precedes (Riickert) than to
bring out an illogical relation of the con-
trast. de Wette discovers a satisfactory
connection with vv. 1-5in the circumstance
that there, as here, the apostle has in view
defects of Christian social life. This, how-
ever, is to specify not a connection, but
merely a logical category. According to
Ewald, the previous counsels are to be con-
ceived as for the most part addressed to
the Pauline teachers of the Galatians, and
Paul therefore now adds a word as to the
correct behavior of the non-teachers also.
But the former idea is assumed without
ground in the text, which speaks quite gen-
erally. According to Wieseler the concep.
tion is, that the care for worldly mainte-
nance was a species of the Bdpy, “ burdens”
(ver. 2), which the readers were to relieve

them of in return for their being instructed
inthe word. But those Sap», ‘* burdens,” are
necessarily of a morai nature, burdens of
guilt, According to Hofmann, Paul has
previously exhorted every one to serve his
neighbor with that which he is, and now ex-
horts every one to employ that which he
possesses, a8 his Christian position requires.
A scheme of thought purely artificial, and
gratuitously introduced.

§ The sequel down to ver. 10 Is indeed re-
ferred by Luther (most consistently in 1538)
and others, including Olshausen and de
Wette, with more or with less (Koppe, de
Wette, Hilgenfeld) consistency, to the deha-
vior towards the teachers, by the despising of
whom God is mocked, the support of whom
isa sowing of seed for spiritual objects,
etc. But looking at the general nature of
the following instructions, which there fs
not a word to limit, how arbitrarily and
forced is this view! Not less far-fetched
and forced Js the explanation of Hofmann.
who considers that, becanse by means of
the xcotvwvety «.7.A. the teacher is enabled to
attend to his own business, Paul in vv. 7 ff.
Warns against the erroncous opinion that
people might, without danger to the soul,
deal lightly with that cocwwveiy «.7.A.; that
by means of this coiwvety people devote
that which they possess to the Spirit, etc.

* Luther, 1588: Paul desires simply, ‘ «2
lideraliler eos alant, quantum satis est ad
vitam commode tuendam,” ‘ that they liber-
ally support them, so far as is sufficient for
the proper maintenance of life,”—an idea
which is not suggested in the passage.

7 de Wette.

204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

venture to attribute it—thus thrown out without any defining limitation—
to the apostle, least of all in a letter addressed to churches in which misin-
terpretations and misuse on the part of antagonistic teachers were to be
apprehended. Through the stress laid by Wieseler on the spiritual counter-
service of the teacher,’ the expression év zacrv ayafoic, seeing that it must
always involve that which is to be given by the disciples to their teacher,
is by no means reduced to its just measure (the bodily maintenance as
recompense for the rvevudrina received, 1 Cor. ix. 11; Phil. iv. 15); whilst
Ewald’s interpretation, ‘‘communication in all good things,”* cannot be
linguistically vindicated either for xocvw». or for év.* Paul would have said
perhaps: xorva roveirw 6K.7.A. THK. TavTa ayaa, Or something similar in correct
Greek. The objection raised against our interpretation,‘ that it is difficult
to see why this particular relation of disciple and teacher should be brought
into prominence, is obviated by the consideration that this very relation
had been much disturbed among the Galatians by the influence of the
pseudo-apostles (iv. 17), and this disturbance could not but be in the high-
est degree an obstacle to the success of their common moral effort and life.
But in reference to de Wette’s objection that xocvwveiv, instead of prueiobar, isa
strange expression, it must be observed that Paul wished to express not at all
the idea of peueicba, but only that of the Christian xcovevia between disciple
and teacher. The disciple is not to leave the sphere of the morally good to
the teacher alone, and on his own part to busy himself in other interests
and follow other ways ; but he is to strive and work in common with his
teacher in the same sphere. In this view, the expression is (in opposition
to Hofmann’s objection) neither too wide nor too narrow. Not too wide,
because the sphcre of moral good is one and the same for teachers and
learners, and it is only the concrete application which is different. Not too
narrow, because moral fellowship in Christian church-life finds its most
effective lever in the fact that learner and teacher go hand in hand in all
that is good. — 6 cary yoipevog tov Adyorl.® It isself-evident that Paul means
only the relation to true, Pauline teachers. —év rao. ajafvic]) the sphere,
in which common cause is made.* A classical writer would say, zavrwv aya-
iv," or cig wavra ayafd,* or even xepi ravruv ay.° On the plural ra ayafa, as
applied to moral good, comp. John v. 29 ; Matt. xii. 35 ; Ecclus. xi. 31,
xvii, 7, xxxix. 4, xiii. 25; and frequently in Greck authors. Paul might
also have written év rav7i épyw ayabd ;'° but éy raoww ayafoic is more compre-
hensive. The dative 76 xarny. is the datirus communionis, ‘‘ dative of
impartation,” everywhere common."' [Sce Note LXXIV., p. 271 seq. }

Ver. 7. A warning to the readers, in respect to this necessary moral fel-
lowship, not to allow themselves to be led astray (by the teachers of error

1 Comp. also Hofmann. * Comp. Acts xvifl. 25.
2 Comp. Grotius: ‘per omnes res bonas, © Comp. Matt. xxiil. 30.
t.e.,non per alimenta tantum, sed et alla 7 Heb. fi. 14; Plat. Pep. p. 464 A; Soph.
obsequia et officia,’’ *‘ not only by support, Trach. 543.
but by other services and offices.” * Plat. Rep. p. 453 A.
$= 5, according to Sprachi. p. 484 f. ® Polyb. xxxi. 26. 6.
4See Ritickert, Usterl, Hilgenfeld, Wiese- 1© Col. i. 10.
ler. 11 Dem. 142, wit. 789. 2.

CHAP, VI., 8. 255
or otherwise), with very earnest reference to the divine retribution. This
nearest and easy connection makes it unnecessary to refer back to the whole
of the section from ver. 1 onward.’ [See Note LXXV., p. 272.] — 9 waar-
Gode] Sce on 1 Cor. vi. 9. — Ged¢ ob punrypiferac] God is not sneered at, that
is, mocked ; He does not submit to it. See the sequel. This mocking of God
(a more forcible expression of the idea recpdfecv Ocdv) takes place on the
part of him who, by immoral conduct, practically shows that he despises
God and accounts nothing of His judgment. On puxrnpifecv, properly, to turn
up the nose,* and then to deride, comp. Sueton. Claud. 4 : oxdrretv nal puxrnpi-
fev, ‘to jeer at and deride.” *—65 yap éav omeipy x.7.A.] Proof for @cd¢ ov
puxtnpi{eraz. The identity between the kind of seed sown and the kind of
fruit to be reaped from it (rovro, this, and nothing else ; for instance, from
the sowing of weeds no wheat) is a figurative expression for the equivalent
relation between moral action in the temporal life and the recompense at
the judgment.‘

Ver. 8. Ground assigned for the foregoing proposition. ‘‘So it is, sincein
Jact the two opposite sorts of ground which receive the seed will also yield
two opposite kinds of harvest.” In the words 6 édv oreipg avdp. tovz7o x. Sepi-
oe: Paul, as was required by the matter which he would figuratively present —
(evil—good), has conceived two different classes of seed, with two sorts of
recipient soil likewise essentially different ; one class comprises al] the
kinds of seed which are sown to a man’s own flesh, the other class includes
all those which are sown to the Holy Spirit. He who scatters the former
class of seeds, and therefore sows to his own flesh, will from this soil, which
he has furnished with the corresponding seed, reap corruption, etc. There-
fore we have not here any alteration in the figure, by which Paul leaves the
description of the seed, and passes over to that of the soil,° but a proof that
the state of the case, in accordance with the two kinds of soil which come into
view, will not be other than is said in ver. 7. Observe the dr, for the most
part neglected by expositors, which is not explanatory, but causative (‘‘ quo-
niam,” Vulgate). — 6 orelpwy eg tr. odpxa éavrov| that is, he who is minded
and acts so that his own flesh—his sinfully-determined corporeo-psychical
nature ‘—is the element conditioning and prompting his thoughts and ac-
tions. éavrov is added, because afterwards an objective principle, rd mvedua,
is opposed to this selfish subjective principle." The idea that ei¢ r. odpxa

1 Wieseler.

2 Comp. Horat. 1. 6.5; Zp. 1. 19. 45.

*Sext. Emp. adv. math. i. 217; Job xxii.
19; Prov. {. 90, xil. 8; 8 Ezr. {. 51. Comp.
also wuarip, Diog. L. il. 19; Lucian. Prom. 1;
muatnpiopuds, 2 Macc. vil. 89; and muxrnpiorijs,
Athen. iv. p. 182 A, v. p. 187 C.

“Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 6. The same figure is
frequently used as to recompense. Hos. viii.
7; Job iv.8; Prov. xxii. 8; Ecclus. vil. 2;
Plat. Phaedr. p. 260D; Arist. Rhet. iil. 4;
Plut. Mor. p. 894 D; Cic. de orat. ii. 65: “‘ut
sementem feceris, ita metes,”’ “‘as you
make the seeding, so will you reap.”

§ Riickert, Hofmann, according to whom
it Is only this alteration which explains tho
connection with ver. &

* Comp. v. 16 f.

7 Luther (1519 and 1524), with strange ar-
bitrariness, holds that Paul desires to obvi-
ate the thought “ de seminatione maaculi in
carnem feminae.”’ Butin 1588 he consistent-
ly abides by the reference to the attitude
towards the teachers, and explains: “‘qul
nihil communicat ministris verbl, aed se so-
lum bene pascit et curat, id quod caro suadet,*°
“who communicates nothing to the minis-
ters of the Word, but only feeds well him-

256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

éavrot applies to cireumeision' is entirely forcign to the context. — é8opér]
corruption, destruction,” that is, here, in accordance with the contrast of (u#
aidrioc, the eternal axédeca.* But the suggestion that ¢8opdv is used in refer-
ence to the corruptibility of the flesh,‘ cannot be entertained, because the
true Christians who die before the rapovcia partake the lot of corruption,
and the point of time for the harvest is conceived as not earlier than the
nearly approaching rrapovoia (ver. 9), in which either ¢8opd or Cw7 aidmor will
be the result of the judgment. According to de Wette, Paul has chosen this
expression in order to denote the perishableness of carnal aims, and at the
same time their destructive consequences for the soul. This is arbitrary.
The general idea of ¢9opav obtains its more precise definition simply from
Conv aidv.'—6 d2 orelpuv eig 7d mvevua] No more than in chap. v. does rd
wvevua here mean the higher nature of man,* but’ it denotes the Holy Spirit.
Jerome aptly remarks, that for this very reason Paul did not again add éavrow
(which Ernesti would arbitrarily again supply). The less, therefore, the
ground for misapplying the passage in favor of the meritoriousness of good
works. The sense, when divested of figure, is : ‘‘he who is minded and
acts so that the Holy Spirit is the element which determines and prompts
him.” — ix rov rveiparoc Sepioe x.7.A.] At the mapovoia.® g8opd and Cuy aid-
ving are conceived as the two kinds of produce which shall have sprung up
from the two different sorts of recipient soil.

Ver. 9. Encouragement, not to become weary in that which is meant by
this second kind of sowing ; rd xaddv rooivrec is the same as would be figura-
tively expressed by cic rd rveia orelpovres. The autem (dé), which simply
marks the transition to this summons, cannot be attached to the exhortation
in ver. 6, as appending to it another.® — éxxaxduev] As to this form, and
the form éyxax.," see on 2 Cor. iv. 1. On the ‘‘slight paronomasia”"™ in
xaddv and éxxax., comp. 2 Thess. iii. 18. He who loses moral courage (éxxaxei)
loses also moral strength (éxAterar). — xaip@ yap idiy] at the time expressly des-
tined for the reaping (Matt. xili. 30), by which is meant the time of the
mapovota, Which man must await with perseverance in what is good.'? — up
éxAvdpevor] not becoming weary,'? which is not to be understood of the not be-
coming fatigued in the reaping,'4 a contrast being therein discovered either

self, and attends to what the flesh advises,”
etc. Comp. Calovius and others: also Hof-
mann : he who applles thal which he possesses
to his own flesh, in order to gratify its desires.
We may add that the Encratites made use
of our passage (see Jerome) as a ground for
rejecting sexual intercourse and marriage ;
holding that he who takes a wife sows to
the flesh, etc.

1 Pelagius, Schoettgen; comp. Riickert
and also Usteri.

3 Rom. vill. 21; Col. 1. 22; 2 Pet. fi. 12;
LXX. Pr. cil. 4; Wisd. xiv. 12; Thuc. it. 47;
Plat. Pol. vill. p. 446 A; and frequently.

®*The same thought is expressed in
Rom. viil. 18: ef card gdpxa ¢nre, wdAdrcre
awodviccey, Comp. ver. 28,

¢ Winer, Schott, Reithmayr, and others;
comp. also Chrysostom and Theodoret.

® Comp. 1 Cor. iif. 17; 2 Pet. fi. 12.

® Riickert, Schott, and most expositors ;
also Ernesti Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 60, I.
p. 90 f.

7 Sv also Wieseler and Hofmann.

® See also Rom. viii. 11, 15-17 ; 2 Cor. v.
5; Eph. i. 14.

® Hofmann.

10 Lachmann, Tischendorf.

11 Winer.

12 Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 15; Tit. 4.8

13 Matt. xv. 82; Mark viii.8; Heb. xii. 8;
1 Macc. fil. 17; Wetstein, L. p. 426 ; Loesner,
p. 386.

14 Thus expressing the idea: ‘‘ Nulla erit

CHAP. VI., 10. 257
with the toils of the harvest proper,’ or with the labor of sowing.* Either
form of the contrast would yield a description of the eternal harvest, which
would be feeble, superfluous, and almost trifling, little in harmony with the
thoughtful manner of the apostle elsewhere. We may add, that it is not
the nature of the harvest (which was obvious of itself from ver. 8), but the
time of the harvest, which constitutes the point on which the jy éxxax. is
grounded ; and therefore on xa:p¢ idiy Calvin aptly remarks, ‘‘ Spe igitur et
patientia suum desiderium sustineant fideles et refrenent,” ‘‘In hope and
patience, therefore, let believers sustain and restrain their longing.” Hence
ue) éxAvou. is rather to be taken as : if we do not become weary in doing good.’
This denotes the present state, by which the future harvest is conditioned.
It involves not a clumsy repetition,‘ but a reiterated setting forth of the
condition, urgently emphasizing its importance, by means of a correlate
word which closes the sentence with emphatic earnestness.° Nor would p29
ExAvdévreg have been more correct,® but on the contrary : ‘‘ videndum, quod
quoque loco tempus vel ferri possit,” ‘‘ we must consider what time in every
place can be especially admitted,” Herm. ad Viger. p. 773. Ewald’s ex-
planation : undeniably, that is, necessarily, is without support from linguis-
tic usage. Hofmann incorrectly makes yu éxAvéuevoe begin a new sentence ;
for Paul always places dpa obv at the commencement, but here he would have
fully preserved the emphasis of 2? éxA., if instead of dpa.oty he had written
merely otv, or merely dpa.

Ver. 10. Concluding exhortation of the section of the epistle which began
at ver. 6, inferred from the preceding xa:p@ yap idipy Bepicouev pp éxA. (apa
ovv). The specialty of this exhortation lies in d¢ xa:pdv tyouev, which is
therefore emphatically prefixed : as we have a season suitable thereto.’ This
seasonable time will have elapsed, when the wapovoia sets in ; we must there-
fore utilize it as ours by the épydfecfla: rd ayafév. The same idea as the
é€ayopdZec8a tr. xaipév in Eph. v. 16 ; Col. iv. 5. Hofmann introduces the
idea, that there will come for the Christians, even before the zapovoia, an
‘‘hour of temptation,” in which they can only (?) withstand evil, but not
bestow good one on another. This idea is in opposition to the context in ver.
9, and is nowhere else expressed ; and its introduction rests on the incor-
rect explanation of épyé¢. rd aya6év as referring to beneficence, and on the
wrong idea that the doing good will become impossible. — d¢ is the usual
as, that is, as corresponds with and is suitable to this circumstance, that we
xaipov Exouev.£ Others, likewise retaining the signification ‘‘ as,” interpret :

4 Usterl.

§ Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 886.

* Rickert, Hofmann.

7 For instances of xaipdy éxecy, opportunum

satietas vitae aeternae,” “‘ There will be no
satiety of life eternal,’ Calovius. This isthe
meaning also of Luther's translation:
* without ceasing" (Vulgate, non daficientes);

comp. Estius.

1 Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumentus.

® Usteri ; the two ideas are combined by
Chrysostom, Clarius, and others.

®See Photius in Oecumenius, p. 766 D,
and Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and
nearly all modern expositors.

1?

tempus habere, see Wetstein.

® Comp. Luke xii. 58; John xii. 85; Clem-
ent, 2 Cor. 9; ws éxoney xatpdy rov iadjvat,
émidapey eavrois ry Sepamevorns Gey, ‘as we
have opportunity to be healed, let us give
ourselves to the care of God that healeth.”

208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

prout habemus opportunitatem, ‘‘ as we have opportunity,” that is, when and
how we have opportunity.! For this, indeed, no conditional éy would be
necessary ; but how weak and lax would be the injunction ! Besides, xa:pév
has obtained, by means of ver. 9, its quite definite reference. Others take
oc as causal.* 80 Koppe, Paulus, Usteri (because we have time and oppor-
tunity), de Wette ; also Winer, who, however, does not decide between
quoniam, ‘‘ since,” and prout, ‘‘as.” But dc, in the sense of because, is no-
where to be found in Paul’s writings (not even in 2 Tim. i. 8). Most ex-
positors explain it as 80 long as,* which, ‘however, it never means, not even
in Luke xil. 58. —7ré aya6év] the morally good, not the useful.4 Not merely
the article, but also the use of the expression by Paul, in definite connec-
tion with épydfecfla:, as applying to morality active in works,° ought to have
prevented the interpretation of 1rd ayafév, at variance with the context, as
benefits.° Hofmann’s interpretation (‘‘do good towards others”), in more
general terms evading the definite idea, amounts to the same thing. The
ayaOév in this passage is the same as 7d xadév in ver. 9. That which is good
is also that which is morally beautiful. Comp. especially Rom. vii. 18 f. —
apoc] in relation to, in intercourse with : see Winer, p. 378 f. ; Sturz, Ler. Xen.
III. p. 698 ; Bernhardy, p. 265. — roic oixeiove r7¢ wiotews] the associates in the
Saith, believers. oixeiog, primarily inmate of the house, comes to be used gen-
erally in the sense of special appertaining to," without further reference to
the idea of a house. So with the genitive of an abstract noun, as oixcia:
giAoaogiac, ‘‘ associates of philosophy” (Strabo, I. p. 13 B), yewypagiag, ‘‘ of
geography” (Strabo, I. p. 25 A.), dAcyapyiac, ‘‘ of the oligarchy” (Diod. Sic.
xiii. 91), and the like in Wetstein, p. 236 ; Schweigh. Ler. Polyb. p. 401.°
The ziortc is the Christian faith ; those who belong to it are the morebovrec.
The opposite would be : rove adAorpiove rx¢ meor. The idea that the church
is the olxoc Ocot is improperly introduced here, in order to obtain the sense :
“* qui per fidem sunt in eadem atque no, familia Domini,” ‘‘ who are by faith
in the same family of God as we.” For ric wiorewe conveys the complete
definition of rot¢ aixeioug ; and the sense mentioned above must have been
expressed by some such form as roic¢ fudy olxetove tHe Tictews."' Paul might
also simply have written xpd¢ rove niotebovrag ; but the expression oixeiovc
r. w. suggests a@ stronger motive. Among the rac, in relation to whom we
have to put into operation the morally good, those who belong to the faith
have the chief claims—because these claims are based on the special sacred
duty of fellowship which it involves—in preference to those who are stran-

1 Thus Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Zach-
ariae, Hilgenfeld.

2Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 118; Matthiae,
p. 1511.

7So Flatt, Rickert, Matthies, Schott,
Olshausen.

4 Olshausen.

* Rom. fi. 10; Eph. fv. 28.

¢ Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and inany
others, including Schott, de Wette, and
Wieseler.

™ Comp. LXX. Isa. lvifl. 7.

8 Comp. 7a Tis aperns oixeta, “things con-
formable with virtue,"’ 2 Macc. xv. 12; 7a
THs dicews oixeia, ‘things conformable with
the nature,*’ Dem. 1117. 25.

91 Tim. fil. 15; Heb. fil. 2, v. 6 x. 21;
1 Pet. iv. 17. 3

10 Beza; comp. Estius, Michaelis, and,
others, also Schott and Olshausen, Wiese-
ler, and Ewald, who limits the idea to the
same church.

11 Comp. Phil. if. 80, e¢_ ai. ; Winer, p. 180,
rem, 8.

CHAP. VI., 11. 259
gers to the faith, although in respect even to the latter that conduct is to be
observed which is required in Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 12.

Note. — If the reading épya{éue9a (see the critical notes), which is followed by
Ewald, were the original one, the indicative would not (with Winer in his
Commeniary, but not in his Gramm. p. 267) have to be taken as a stronger and
more definite expression instead of the hortative subjunctive (do we therefore the
good), since this use of the present indicative (Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 559, ad
Delect. epigr. p. 228 ; Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 109; Bernhardy, p. 396) in non-in-
terrogative language (John xi. 47) is foreign to the N. T., although opportunities
for it often presented themselves. The interpretation of the whole sentence
as an interrogation has been rightly given up by Lachmann (also at Rom. xiv.
19), because so complete an interruption by a question does not occur elsewhere
in Paul’s writings, and the addition pdéd:ora dé mpic ‘Tove oikeioug THC TicTewe in-
dicates that the passage is of the nature of an assertion, and not of a question.
Epydfouela rd aya%éy would rather represent the matter as actually talking place
(we do il, we hold it so, it is our maxim), and would thus belong to the ideal delin-
eation of Christian life common with the apostle; which might indeed be
highly appropriate in its place at the conclusion of a discourse as a note of
triumph, but here, in immediate connection with mere exhortations and injunc-
tions, would be somewhat out of place.

Vv. 11-18. Final section of the epistle in the apostle’s own handwriting.
The main points of controversy are here briefly summed up : then in ver. 17
a repetition of molestations is deprecated, and ver. 18 concludes with the
farewell blessing.

Ver. 11. Not ‘‘an odd verse,” the purport of which is ‘‘ a singular whim :”'
on the contrary, in accordance with his well-known manner in other pas-
sages,” Paul adds to the letter, which up to this point he had dictated,* the conclu-
sion from ver. 11 onward in his own handwriting.‘ By means of these
autograph endings the epistles indicated their authentic character.’ But
this close of our epistle, as stringently comprehending all its main points
once more, was intended to catch the eyes of the readers as something 80
specially important, that from ver. 12 to the end the apostle wrote it with very
large letters,* just as we, in writing and printing, distinguish by letters of a
larger size anything that we wish to be considered as peculiarly significant.
To this point, and consequently to the quite special importance of the addi-
tion now made at the end, not by the hand of the amanuensis, but by
his own hand in large writing, Paul calls the attention of his readers, and

' UsterL

21 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. fff. 17.

3 Comp. Rom. xvi. 22.

4 From 2 Thess. fil. 17 it isto be assumed
that Paul closed ai his epistles with his
own hand, even when he does not expressly
say $0.

5 See 2 Thess. ff. 2, ili. 17.

* The principal emphasis is on the word
ryrixocs, Which is therefore placed apart;
the secondary stress lies on r7 éuz xapi. It

may, however, be doubtful whether Paul
wrote merely ver. 12 with larger letters, and
the sequel with his own hand but In his
ordinary mode of writing, or whether he
continued the large characters down to
ver. 16 0r to ver. 18. The internal connec-
tion of vv. 12-16, the uniform solemn tone
of these verses down to their solemn von-
clusion, and the abrupt character of ver.
17, all unite in inducing us to adopt the
second view.

260 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

says : ‘‘ See with how great letters I have written (the sequel, from ver. 12) to
you with my own hand!” Neither idere ' nor éypaya* is at variance with the
reference to what follows ; for Paul, following the custom of letter-writers,
has in his mind not the present point of time, when he is just about to write,
but the point of time, when his readers have received the letter and conse-
quently see what and how he has written.* Just in the same way in Philem.
19, éypapa TH Evy zepi points to what follows. In keeping with this is the
similarly common use of éreyypa, ‘‘ respectu habito temporis, quo alter donum
accipiebat,” ‘‘ respect being had to the time wherein another received the
gift.”* Holsten, Voemel, Matthias, Windischmann, Reithmayr, agree with
our view. Grotius also (‘‘sua manu scripsit omnia, guae jam sequuntur,”
‘- With his own hand he wrote all that now follows”), Studer, and Laurent
refer the words to what follows. Grotius, however, contrary to the usus
luquendi, explains mnAixoic a8 how much, thus making Paul call attention to the
length of his autograph conclusion ; and Studer understands it as referring
to the unshapeliness of the letters (in opposition to this, see below) ; while
Laurent,® against the signification of the word, adheres to the qualibus,
‘* what sort,” of the Vulgate, and is of opinion that Paul wrote this conclusion
of the letter in the cursive character. Usually, however (as also by Ewald,
Wieseler, Hofmann [Eadie]), ver. 11 is referred to the whole epistle, which
Paul had written with his own hand,° ryAixorg being explained’ as referring
to the unshapeliness of .the letters,° arising from want of practice in writing

1 In opposition to Riickert and Schott.

2 In opposition to Usteri.

*Philem. 19, 21; 1 John if. 14, 21; Acts
xv. 27, xxiii. 30; Rom. xvi. 2; Thuo. 1.1
in. ; Isocr. ad Demonic. in.

4 Kthner, ad Xen. Anad. i. 9. 2; comp.
Krfiger, § 53. 10. 1.

8In the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 644 ff., and
in his neuvt. Stud. p. 125. 5.

®In adopting this view various grounds
have been guessed for its autograph com-
position. Pelagius: ‘‘that Paul desired to
show that he was not afraid!” Ambrosi-
aster, comp. Augustine and Michaelis:
** that he desired to prove the genuineness of
the epistle.’ Chrysostom (who, moreover,
assumes in addition the cause assigned by
Pelagius), Luther, Calvin, Calovius, and
many others: ‘‘that his intention was to
show the Galatians his earnest care for
them, to make them attentive in reading,
and the like.” Hilgenfeld: “that he at
tached 80 much importance to the epistle.”
Ewald: ‘‘that 7imothy had not been with
him just at the time when he composed the
epistle ; and he thus wished, in the post-
script written at a somewhat later period,
to make excuse for the large inelegant
letters in which the epistle had been writ-
ten.”” Hofmann: “that the autograph writ-
ing was intended to bring the apostle as it

were vividly before the eyes of his readers.”
Hofmann is also of opinion that Paul had
not elsewhere written with his own hand,
that he might not needlessly curtail the
time for procuring his bodily maintenance.
As if the dictating to the pen of another
would not have involved just as much loss
of time! Tertius and Timothy were hardly
shorthand writers. Or is Paul supposed to
have been occupfed in tent-making during
the time when he was dictating his letters,
which presuppose so much abstraction and
concentration of mental labor ?

7 With Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy-
lact, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Estius, Winer,
Rickert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld.

® This is not, as is often stated, the view
of Jerome, who, on the contrary, specifies
this view only to reject it, and assumes
that down to ver. 11 the epistle was writ-
ten by the amanuensis, but after ver. 11 by
Paul himself in very large characters, in
order that his readers should recognize his
genuine handwriting and at the same time
his solicitous care forthem. Jerome there-
fore comes nearest to our view, but intro-
duces into the xyAixots purposes which have
no natural connection with the largeness of
the characters, and could not, without fur-
ther intimation, have been understood by
the reader. Theodore of Mopsuestia ex-

—

CHAP. VI., 11. 261

Greek ; o7 myAix. ypéup. being explained as: what a large letter I have
written to you. So most expositors, including de Wette and Hofmann.
But against this latter view—although the epistle, notwithstanding 1 Pet. v.
12, Heb. xiii. 22, would no doubt be long enough for an autograph one—
may be urged the very use which it assumes of ypdupara for éroroAg,' since
Paul elsewhere always calls an epistle éx:oroA# ;* and, on the other hand, he
just as constantly uses the word ypdéupa, in the singular® and plural,‘ to ex-
press the idea of a letter of the alphabet ; and also the decisive consideration
that the employment of the dative (instrum.), instead of the accusative,®
would be quite in opposition to all usage.* The dative would only be
suitable if, instead of éypaya, wapexdAeca perhaps, or some suitable word,
followed. Against the former interpretation, which refers the word to the
unshapeliness of the letters, it may be urged that the idea of auopdia is arbi-
trarily introduced into ryAixog, a8 this quality is by no means an essential
characteristic of large letters ; secondly, that the charge of want of practice
in writing Greek cannot be proved. The native of Tarsus and Roman citi-
zen, who from his youth had enjoyed a learned training in Jerusalem, where
the Greek language was very current among the Jews’—the man who
handled with so much delicacy and skill the Greek literary language, who
was familiar with the works of the Greek poets,* and who was in constant
intercourse with Greek Jews and Gentiles,—is it to be thought that such an
one should not have possessed even the humble attainment of writing Greek
without making the letters of an unshapely size? In Wieseler’s view, the
large letters were very legible (for the public reading of the epistle) ; and in
calling attention to this circumstance, Paul desires to bring into prominence
his great love for his readers, which shuns no trouble on their account.
But even thus the matter would amount only toa trifle. The Galatians
were in possession of far greater proofs of his love than the size of the char-

plains it better, likewise understanding
myAixots ypdupacw correctly (ueigoow éxp7-
caro ypaupacr, “he used larger letters’’),
and specifying as Paul’s object that péAAwy
xaddrreadat tov evavriwy, ‘being about to
assail his adversaries,’ he wished to inti-
mate that he neither épydpg ovre apveirar
7a Aeyoueva, ‘*is ashamed of nor disowns
what he has said.” [See Note LXXVI.,
Pp. 272. ]

1 Taking the word by itself, there can be
no doubt that ypdupua (ecriptum, 2 Tim. fil.
15, John v. 47) may, according to the con-
text, mean episfle, so that in the plural it
would denote epistolae (Acts xxvill. 21, and
often In Greek authors), but may also
apply toa single epistle. Thus, for instance,
Thuc. vii. 8. 8, where émoroAy 1s used short-
ly before ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 26, where emoroAy
occurs immediately after; Xen. Eph. i. 5
and Locella én loc. Comp. also Luke xvi. 6;
1 Macc. iv. 10, 14; Ignat. Rom. 8, ad Polyc. 7.

2] Cor. v, 9, xvi. 3; 2 Cor, jill, 1 f., x, 10;

2 Thess. f1. 2, if. 14, 17.

3 Rom. il. 27, 29, vil. 6; 2 Cor. ffi. 6.

42 Cor. Hf. 7.

® Acts xxili. 25; Rom. xvf. 22: 2 Pet. fff. 1.

* Quite trrelevantly Hofmann compares
the usage of combining a verb with the
abatract noun derived from it in the dative
(Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 159); and just as
irrelevantly the expression ciretw Acyy,
Matt. villi. 8 (see on this passage), Luke
vil. 7. Not even that use of ciety Adyy, in
which it may denote 40 deltver as an orator
(Kriiger on Thuc. i. 2. 1), would here be
analogous. Only such phrases as, ¢.7.,
Xpvoois ypdupacr ypadecy, to write with golden
letiers, Lucian. Alex. 48; meydAots ypaup.
avaypadey, to write down in darge leflers,
Gymn. 2+ ypaupacwy ‘EAAnvicois, Luke xxill.
88, Elz.; dowsexios ypaus., Soph. Fragm.
460 D, really correspond.

7 See Hug, Zin. IT. § 10.

§ See on Acts xvil. 2%,

262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
acters in his own handwriting, which, besides, might be something very
different from legibility.

Ver. 12." AU those whose wish and will are directed to making a fair show in
the flesh, that is, to the having a specious appearance, while they are involved
in fleshly habits, —this class of men force circumcision upon you, and they do .
so solely for the reason that they may not: bring on themselves persecution on
account of the cross of Christ. This persecution they would incur on the part
of the Jews, if they preached the cross of Christ and at the same time re-
jected circumeision ; whereas, by ineisting on circumcision, they disarmed the
zeal of the Jews for the law,* and removed from the cross of Christ all occa-
sion of their experiencing persecution for it.* In order to understand the
passage rightly, we must note that the emphasis is on cizpoownfoa: (not on
év capxi) : they desire to combine a pleasing erterior with an unspiritual,
carnal state of life, in which they really are. Thus is characterized the hyp-
ocritical conduct of these people, whose jesuitry makes them resemble the
ragote xexoviapévoce (Matt. xxiii. 27; comp. Acts xxiii. 3).4 So many as
belong to this dissembling class, they constrain you to be circumcised !|— ev-
mpéowroc] speciosus facie, ‘‘ fair of face,” sometimes applied to actual beauty of
person,® and sometimes to a mere specious appearance,‘ is very commonly
used among Greek authors ;’ but cizpoowreiv is not preserved elsewhere in
the literary language.* — év capxi] is the element of the sinful nature of man,°
in which, instead of being renewed and refined by the Holy Spirit, those
hypocrites are found living, and at the same time endeavor to give to them-
selves a good coloring which would prepossess the opinion of others in
their favor. The juxtapositicn of the words, ‘‘to look fair in the flesh,”
reveals the moral contradiction in their nature, and delineates their whole
portraiture, as if with one sharp touch, indignantly, vigorously, and appro-
priately. The words are usually explained : ‘‘those who desire to be well-
pleasing by means of outward carnal things, such as circumcision and the observ-
ance of the ceremonial law generally.” '° Of course év capxi might, ex adjuncto,
obtain the sense, by means of circumcision and observance of the law," but in
this passage the context suggests no ground for thinking of anything else
than that which was just shortly before meant by odpf, in the contrast
drawn between odpé and mvevya. And how feeble and inexpressive, when
placed at the commencement of so energetic a passage, would be the de-
scription of the misleaders which this interpretation would yield! Holsten
interprets in a similar way, but develops the sense more accurately, and
takes év capxi as the sphere in which the etzp. manifests itself, ‘‘all who

1 As to vv. 12-16, see the excursus of
Holsten, 2. Frang. d. Paul u. Petr. 348 ff.

2 Comp. on v. 11.

3 Note the critically correct position of
the 2%.

4 Comp. 2 Cor. v. 12.

®& Ag Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10.

® As Herod. vii. 168; Dem. 277. 4; Lucian.
Herm. 51.

7 Comp. Gen. xil. 11.

8 In Dion. Hal. fli. 11 we find evrpocewia ;
in Symmachus, Ps. cxll. 6, evrpocwxiodycar.
Comp. ¢avorpogwreiv, Cic. Alt. vil. 21, xiv.
21; cepvonpoowrey, Arist. Nud. 363.

® Ver. 8, fil. 3, v. 17.

10 Riickert ; comp. Beza, Gomarus, Koppe,
Rosenmfiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies,
Schott, Olshausen, and others.

11 Comp. Rom. il. 2%.

12 Comp. Wieseler.

CHAP. VI., 13. 263
desire a fair show in the fleshly domain ;” this applies in the concrete to cir-
cumcision, which could have true significance only as a sign of inward right-
eousness,! but to which these persons adhered ‘‘ for its fair show of righteous-
ness.” But it is not until ver. 13 that odpg obtains its reference in harmony
with the text to circumcision ; in respect to which, moreover, the idea, that
circumcision is the seal of righteousness, is not at all intimated in the connec-
tion of our passage. Lastly, Chrysostom and his successors, Erasmus,
Calvin, Estius, Grotius, and others, have assigned to év capxi the unmeaning
sense zap’ avfpdrocg ; and Hofmann has arrived at the trifling interpretation,
that the idea meant was ‘‘a pleasing cheerfulness of outward appearance,
springing from and testifying to a natural amiability, to which the opponents
of the apostle aspired : they would fain appear with the expression of natural
amigbility.”” Thus the description of the opponents placed at the head of
this final outburst, so full of holy severity and indignation, would simply
amount to the assertion of an amiable bonhommie, ‘‘ good-fellowship,” by which
they were impelled. MHolsten justly designates this view as inconceivable.
[See Note LXXVII., p. 272.] — avayxdfovorw] they are occupied with, busy
themselves in, forcing circumcision upon you.’ As to the idea of avayxdé.
see on Matt. xiv. 22.2— pdévov iva] merely from the (self-interested) motive,
that they, etc. —1 cravpp tov Xpiorov] that is, on account of the cross of
Christ, because they preach Christ as crucified. The instrumental dative
denotes the cause of the persecution. See Rom. xi. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 12;
Bernhardy, p. 101 f. ; Winer, p. 202 f. So most expositors, including
Rickert, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hil-
genfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann. But others explain the words according to
the idea of the raGjyata Xpicrov :* ‘‘ne participes fiant suppliciorum Christi,”
‘“lest they may become partakers of Christ’s sufferings,” Winer ; comp.
Jerome, Luther, Grotius, Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, Morus, de Wette,
Ewald. The evident reference to v. 11° is decidedly opposed to this inter-
pretation, even apart from the singular nature of the idea rg oravpw
diéxecPa: (Paul would have written rai¢ OAiveo: or the like).

Ver. 18. They have no other design than merely that stated in ver. 12
(iva r@ oravp@ x.7.2.). For so far from its being their aim, by the enforce-
ment of circumcision, to re-establish the observance of the law among you,
not even the circumcised (who are in question) themselves, for their own part,
keep the law, but dt’ avOpwrivyy diAorimiay ravta mdvta yiverat brép apeckeiag TaV
ariorwv, ‘‘ through human ambition all this is done to please the unbeliev-
ing,’? Chrysostom. — oi mepirerunuévoe] is said contemptuously, and with

? Rom. ili. 25 f.

4 Seo Bernhardy, p. 870.

® Comp. il. 8, 14.

* See on 2 Cor. i. 5; Col. 1. 24.

§ Holsten holds the peculiar view, that

been to the Jewish Christians an obscure
point, and in presence of the Pauline
churches a painful wound, by the recollection
of which they were, in a metaphorical
sense, persecuted. But what plain reader

what is in v. 11 expressed oldjectively, re-
ceives here a sudjective turn: “in order that
they (those who are offended) should no more
be persecuted through (the offence at) the
croes.”’ The oravpds r. X. had, in his view,

would have been able to unriddle a sense
so enigmatically wrapped up—a sense which
Paul might easily have expressed in clear
words?

264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

indignation, of the fraternity of the false apostles, of whom it might at
least have been expected that they themselves would combine obedience to
the law with their being circumcised.’ But the ground for their non-
observance of the Mosaic law is conceived by Paul to be, neither their dis-
tance from Jerusalem,’ nor the general impossibility of a complete fulfilment
of the law * — both of which would be exculpatory, and wholly unsuited to
the idea of the worthlessness of the persons concerned, — but their hypo-
oritical badness.‘ It is true that, among the Jews generally, notwithstanding
their self-conceit, there was a deficiency in their obedienceto the law ;* but
ap observance of the law might have been expected at all events from these
mepiterunuévot, Who were such champions for circumcision and insisted on it
so much (ver. 12). Yet not even they themselves, etc. —iva év rg dyer. capxi
xavy.] The odpé is not to be here taken again in an ethical sense, as in yer.
12 ;° but, according to the close and definite connection with rep:réuveobaz, it
must be taken as referring to the corporeal nature, so far as it is in it that

circumcision takes place.’

1 As at any rate the false teachers are
meant, and these were Jewish Christians,
the reading wepireuvopevo: is plainly absurd.
They were, in fact, not subjected to circum-
cision (Reithmayr), but circumcised, and
could not therefore be designated, ‘' accord-
ing to their quality as Jews” (Moeller on de
Wette), a8 weptrenvéuevar (present). See
especially Reiche, p. 98. The idea that these
men were formerly Gentiles, part of whom
were still on the point of accepting circum-
cision, and that their adherenis are included
(de Wette), is quite as unhistorical (see Acts
xv. 1,5; 2Cor. xi. 22; Acts xi. 20-22) as the
expedient of Hilgenfeld is groundless: that
among those false teachers (“‘the circum-
cision-people”’) the act of circumcision had
still continued, not merely outwardly in the
reception of the newly-born and proselytes
(in that case Paul must have sald ot weperdu-
vovres), but also inwardly, by virtue of the
significance ascribed toit. In his Zeifschr.
1860. p. 220, Hilgenfeld appeals to ot wepcrep-
vouevoe in the Act. Petr. ef Pardi, 68; but
wrongly, because there (see the sequel) the
subject is moral circumcision. The view of
Neander is also mistaken, p. 366. Accord-
ing to Wieseler and Matthias, who likewise
read weptrepvouevor, the reptreurouevoe were
those among the Galatian Gentile Christiane,
who, led away by the pseudo-apostles,
allowed themselves to be circumctsed. In that
case we must with these expositors make
the seducers themselves, the pseudo-
apostles, the subject of SéAovow. But this
view is intolerable; how could Paul enable
the reader to guess this change of subject ?
The subject of ¢vAdvc. must also be the
subject of déAovory, or else Paul must have
written as awkwardly as possible. Cuonse-

The emphasis is, however, on iverépg ;* hence

quently the subject of both the verbs can
only be the false apostles, who, however,
were mepirerunuevor, and not weprreprdpevor,
—Hofmann aud Holsten are of opinion that
the present participle is intended to denote
the Jews generally, inasmuch as circumcision
wasinuse among them. Against this view
it may be decisively urged, that the subjects
of the following déAovew can be no other
than ot reprrexryopevor, and thus likewise the
Israelites generally (as Hofmann consis-
tently explains it); nevertheless these
Oédovres (ver. 18) must necessarily be the
very same as those to whom the d¢Aovery in
ver. 12 applies, and therefore not the Jews
generally, but the Judaistic adversaries.
Moreover, to these only is the ovésé, not even,
suitable, which presupposes in those con-
cerned a higher degree of obligation than in
the case of others who were bound to obey
the law. The forced expedient of Holsten
is highly arbitrary: that Paul included the
false teachers (consequently, according to
our reading and interpretation, the wepsrer~
uyuwevoc) in the catezory of those circumcising
themselves (and therefore the wmepirepvome-
vor). Comp. Stallbaum, ad EHuthyphr. p. 123
Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 618.

2 Theodoret and others ; also Schott.

8 Jerome, Estius; comp. Usterl.

4 Comp. ver. 12.

5 Rom. il. 17-28.

6 Wieseler, comp. Ewald.

7 Eph. ff. 11; Col. if. 18.

8 Not on capxi (Matthias, Holsten), as if
Paul had written rp capci vuwr. Comp.
2 Cor. viii. 8, Rom. xi. 81, 1 Cor. xv. 31, where
the pronoun, rarely used by Paul, is like-
wise emphatic.

CHAP. VI., 14. 265

Olshausen is the more wrong in finding a contrast—which is quite out of
place here—to the souls, which those false teachers ought to have sought
after. The antithetic element of 19 dyer. lies in the conceit of the repcrer-
pnpevor 28 to their own circumcision, as the correlate of which the circum-
cision of the Galatian Gentile Christians, to be effected by them, was to be
the subject of their boasting. But this sentence of purpose is parallel to
the iva rq oravpd x.r.A. contained in ver. 12, seeing that the pseudo-apostles
in fact by this intended boasting—of their diffusion of theocratic Judaism
by the circumcision of Gentile Christians which they procured—thought to
avert the persecutions of the Jews ; Theophylact : iva éy r@ xaraxdérrew rv
tyerépay odpxa Kavyhowrrat o¢ diddoxada tuav nai pabyrag buac Exovrec, ** that
in cutting your flesh they may boast that they are your teachers and have
you as disciples.” It is a xavydoGa:, in the face not of heathenism,' but of the
non-Christian Judaism, from whose side the persecution on account of the
cross of Christ (ver. 12) was threatened.

Ver. 14. By way of contrast, not to the national vanity of the Jews,? but
to the xavyacGa: which the pseudo-apostles had in view, Paul now presents his
own principle: ‘‘ from me, on the other hand, far be it to glory, except only in
the cross of Christ.” — éuol un yévotro xavy.] mihine accidat, ut glorier, ‘to me
let it not happen to glory.” On this deprecating expression with the infini-
tice, comp. LXX. Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16 ; 1 Macc. xiii.
5, 9, 10; Ignat. Hph. 12; Ken. Cyr. vi. 8.11: & Zed péytore, AaBeiv por
yévacro airév, Anad. i. 9.18 ; Dem. xxxiii. 25 ; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p.
866. — In the words ¢i yp? év rh cravpH down to xécuy, observe the defiant
enthusiasm, which manifests itself even in the fulness of the expression.
How very different the conduct of the opponents, according to ver. 12 !
Nothing but the crossof Christ is to be the subject of Ais xavyao0a: ; nothing,
namely, but the redemption accomplished on the cross by Christ constituted
the basis, the sum, and the divine certainty of his faith, life, hope, action,
etc.* Thus it isa truly apostolic orymeron: xavyaoba tv th oravpg. The
cross is ‘‘ rd xabynua tov kavynudturv, ‘‘ the boast of boasts,” Cyril. — de’ od
éuat kdopog éorabp. Kaya r@ xéopy] reveals the cause why he may not glory in
anything else: ‘‘ through whom the world is crucified to me, and I (sc. torai-
pwya) unto the world,” that is, ‘‘by whose crucifixion is produced the
result, that no internal fellowship of life longer exists between me and the
world : it is dead for me, and I forit.” By Calvin, Bengel, Winer, Usteri,
Hofmann, Holsten, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others, dé’ ov is referred to the
cross. But it is more pertinent to refer it to the fully and triumphantly ex-
pressed subject immediately preceding, roi xupiov judv'Inoot Xpiorov :* through
whom, that is, according to the context, by means of whose crucifizion. [See
Note LXXVIII., p. 272.] This effect is dependent on the inward fellow-
ship with the death of Christ ° commenced by faith, and maintained by the

1 Tiolsten. 4 Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Luther, and

? Hofmann, in accordance with his in- many others, including de Wette, Ewald,
terpretation of ver. 18. Wieseler.

® Comp. Phil. ill. 7 ff.; 2 Cor. v. 15 ff.; 6 il, 19 f.; Rom. vi.

1 Cor. 1. 28, If. 2, ef al.

266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

Holy Spirit. By this fellowship Paul is transplanted into an entirely new
relation of life, and feels that all the previous interests of his life are now
stripped of their influence over him, and that he is now completely inde-
pendent of them.'— éyoi] for me, denotes the ethical reference of the rela-
tion. See«Bernhardy, p. 84. —xéoyoc* finds its explanation from ver. 15
(obre repirouy, obre axposveria), namely, the organic totality of all relations aloof
Jrom Christianity, looked upon, indeed, as a living power, which exercises
authority and sway over the unconverted, but in the case of the converted
has become dead through his admission into the fellowship of faith and life
with the crucified Lord ; that is, has ceased to influence and determine his
thoughts, feelings, and actions. Thus the world is crucified to him by
means of the crucifixion of Christ.* — xayé r@ xéouw] for the cessation of the
mutual fellowship of life is meant to be expressed, and the matter to be
thus wholly exhausted.‘

Ver. 15. I'ép] introduces an explanatory reason assigned, not for the
kavyac0a év t¢ otavp@,® which has already received its full explanation in
the relative sentence 6: ov x.r.a., but for the just expressed de’ ov Euoi xéopog
«.t.A, This relation of his to the world cannot indeed, according to the
axiom obre mepitouf x.r.A., be other than that so expressed. In justification
of this reference of yép, observe that. rep:rou7 and axpoSvoria comprehend the
two categories of worldly relations apart from Christianity, which had so
prominently re-asserted themselves in those very Galatian disturbances
(comp. v. 6). For neither circumcision availeth, nor uncircumeision, but a new
creature :* that is, ‘‘for it is a matter of indifference whether one is circum-
cised or uncircumcised; and the only matter of importance is, that one should
be created anew, transferred into a new, spiritual condition of life.” Astothe
form and idea of xacvi xriotc, see On 2 Cor. v.17. As characteristics of the naw
xriotc, we find, according to ii. 20, the 64 dé év éuoi Xprorde ; according to iii. 27,
the ‘‘ having put on Christ ;” according to v. 6, rioteg dv ayanng évepyoupévy 3
according to Eph. ii. 10, the meperareiv év épyoug ayaboig ; and according to
1 Cor. vii. 19, rapyow évroAdy Ocov. In the new man (Col. iii. 10), Christ
determines all things; the new man is ciydvro¢ tH¢ avacrdcewe Of Christ
(Rom. vi. 5), set free by the Spirit from the law of sin and of death (Rom.
viii. 2), a child and heir of God (Rom. viii. 16 f.). That this principle,
moreover, was that of the Christian point of view, was self-evident to the
reader ; without again adding év Xpior@ 'I7cov, as in v. 6 (sec the critical
Matthias, Reithmayr, and

1 Comp. Phil. fil. 7 ff. § Hofmann,

* Without the article: see Winer, p. 117.

3 Comp. Col. ii. 20; Eph. fi. 2 f.; 1 Cor. vil.
81, 33, 34; Jas. iv. 4; 1 Johnii. 15 f.

4 Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 18; 2 Thess. {. 12; ‘‘ nec
malis illius territor, nec commodis titillor,
nec odium metuo, nec plausum moror, nec
ignominiam formido, nec gloriam affecto,”
“Iam nelther terrified by its evils, nor
gratified by its advantages, nor do I fear
its hatred, nor do I care for its applause,
nor dread its shame, nor grasp after its
glory,” Erasmus, Paraphr.

others.

*Itis stated by Syncell. Chron. p. 27 (ed.
Bonn, p. 48), and Phot. Amphil. 188, that
Paul derived this utterance from the
apocryphal Apocalypsis Mosis. It is pos-
sible that the same thought occurred in
that book; but it is certain that Paul
derived it from his own inmost conscious-
ness. It may have passed from our
passage into the aroxdAuyis Mwicéws. Comp.
Licke, Linl. in d. Offend. Joh. I. p. 2 f.

2

CHAP. VI., 16. 207

remarks), Paul has rendered this Christian axiom the more striking by set-
ting it down in an absolute form. It stands here as his concluding signal of
triumph.

Ver.-16. The heart, full of the great truth in ver. 15, has now a wish of
blessing for all who follow it in their conduct. The simple and, carrying ~
on the train of thought and linking it with ver. 15, serves to express this
wish. A reference to ver. 14, so as to connect our verse with the wish
therein contained,’ is not required by xai, and is forbidden by the importance
of ver. 15, which would in that case have to be reduced to a mere paren-
thetical insertion. — The emphasis lies not on roiry, but on 1 xavéu ;? for
it is the very canonical character of the saying in ver. 15 which has to be
brought out : ‘‘ who shall walk according ‘to the guiding line, which is here-
in given.” We are prohibited from assigning to caver the non-literal mean-
ing rule, mazim (as is usually done ; see Schott in loc.), by the figurative
oroyjoovorv, which requires the literal meaning guiding line (2 Cor. x. 138 ff.),
that is, in this passage, a line defining the direction of.the way ; as such, the
maxim expressed in ver. 15 is placed before them. As to cro:yeiv, comp. on
v. 25. The anacoluthic nominative boot x.t.A. has rhetorical emphasis, di-
recting the whole attention of the readers first to the subject in itself which
is under discussion.* The future cro:xfo.4 applies to the time of receiving
the letter.* Paul hopes that the letter will have a converting and strength-
ening effect upon many readers, but makes the question, who should be
warranted in applying to himself the concluding blessing, depend on the
result. — eiphvy én’ abtoic nal sAeoc] se. ein,® welfare (ove [peace] ; see on
Eph. vi. 23; John xiv. 27) on them, and mercy (Tittm. Synon. p. 69 f.).
Comp. 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. 1.2; Jude 2; 2 John 8, in which passages
E2eo¢ stands first. Here it follows after, not because Paul intended at first
to write ecipfvy only,” nor because in éAeo¢ he had specially in view the day of
judgment,® which indeed is expressly added in 2 Tim. 1. 18, but because
he has thought of the effect produced before the producing cause. What
welfare it is that Paul wishes—namely, all Messianic welfare—is obvious of
itself. The peace of reconciliation forms a part of it. éeo¢ is, moreover,
to be considered as neuter, because Paul throughout so uses it ;° although
the neuter form, which very often occurs in the LXX., is but very rarely
found in classical authors.!°—In éx’ avrobs is implied the idea that welfare
and mercy come down upon them from heaven.!! — xa él rdv "Iapaza tov Oeoi]
That this is a reminiscence of Ps. cxxv. 5, cxxvili. 6,'* could only be as-

? Hofmann. wish; éxnifgaro rov éAcov x. THy eiphyny, “* He
2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 19. prays for mercy and peace.”
* Comp. on Matt. vil. 24, x. 14; John I. 12; 7 So, arbitrarily, Olshausen.

Acts vii. 40. ® Hofmann.
4 Comp. v. 10. ® Even in Tit. iif. 5 it is neuter, according
§ Comp. row Aotwod, ver. 17. to decisive testimony.

* Taken as a wish of blessing, the thought 10 See Dindorf, ad Diod. ili. 18; Ktthner, I.
harmonizes more naturally with the conclu- _p. 896, c. ed. 2.
sion of the epistle, than if it is taken as an 11 Comp. Luke il. 25, 40, tv. 18; 2 Cor. xii.
affirmation (de Wette, ora: or éoriv), Chry- 9; Mark 1. 10; Acts xix. 6, e¢ al.
sostom and Theophylact appear to have 12 Theophylact, Erasmus, and others;
supplied ¢orac; but Theodoret takes it as also Rickert, Schott, de Wette, Reiche.

268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

sumed without dealing arbitrarily, if, instead of xai éx? rév "Ip. rev Oeod,
Paul had written : eipivy éxi rov "Iopaga | which, after the instruction given
by him in iv. 21 ff., he might have written without any danger of misunder-
standing. Still less can the expression be referred to Ps. ]xxiii..1 ; for
which purpose Hofmann employs an impossible interpretation of the He-
brew text of the passage. The Jsrael of God, that is, as contrasted with
Jacob’s bodily descendants as such,’ the Israelites who belong to God as His
own, and therefore form the real people of God ideally viewed,? are at any
rate the true Christians.* But according as xal is taken either as explanatory
or as conjunctive, we may understand either the true Christians in general,
Jewish and Gentile Christians,‘ or the truly converted Jews.* If we adopt
the latter interpretation, we must either refer the foregoing dco and avrots
to the Gentile Christians,—a view which is, however, decisively at variance
with the universal doo, and with the description excluding any national
reference, r@ xavéve robrw oroey. — or" we must explain the train of thought
as follows : ‘‘Salvation be upon all true Christians, and more especially (to
mention these in particular ; see on Mark i. 5, xvi. 7) on all true Jewish
Christians !” But however near Paul's fellow-countrymen were to his heart
(Rom. ix. 1), he not only had no ground in the context for bringing them
forward hese so specially ; but any such distinction would even be quite
improperly introduced—especially in the deeply-impassioned close of the
letter—in presence of churches which consisted principally of Gentile
Christians and had been involved by Jewish interference in violent contro-
versies. And even apart from this, no reader to whom the teaching of the
apostle as to the true Israelites was familiar ® could think that rév ‘Iap, rot
Ocov referred to Jewish Christians only ; this would be opposed to the specific
conception of Paul on this point. We must adhere, therefore, to the ezpli-
cative view of xai as the correct one,’ and indeed, namely, so that it intro-
duces an appropriate, more precise description '° of the subjects previously
characterized. Hofmann is wrong in objecting that the eperegetical xai is
always climactic. Moreover, the designation of all those, who shall walk

1Comp. Rom. ix. 6; 1 Cor. x. 18; Phil. 4 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin,
fii. 8. Pareus, Cornelius & Lapide, Calovius, Baum-

2 Comp. also John 1. 48. garten, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, Winer,

*Not the Jews (Morus), nor even the Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
pious Jews,—those, namely, who have not Wleseler, and others (Alford, Lightfoot].
rejected the gospel out of stubbornness, and 5 Ambrosiaster, Beza, Grotius, Estius,
permit the hope of their coming torecog- Schoettgen, Bengel, Rickert, Matthies,
nize the rule expressedin ver. 15 (Reiche, Schott, de Wette, Ewald, Reithmayr, and

p. 97 f.). The apostle, according to his whole
system, could not understand under the
ideal Israel of God any others than believers
(ili. 7, 20, iv. 26; Rom. ix. 6-8). To him the
xatyyn xtiovs in ver. 15 was not conceivable
otherwise than as necessarily conditioned
by faith (iil. 28; Eph. ii. 10); hence he could
not expect of any Jew not yet converted,
however pious he might be as an observer
of the law, that he would walk according
to the canon of ver. 15,

others ([Ellicott, Eadie]; Usteri does not
decide.

¢ With Grotius, Schott, Bengel, Ewald.

7 With Rickert, Matthies, de Wette,
Reithmayr, and others.

8 See ili. 7, iv. 21 ff.

® 1 Cor. fil. 5, vill. 12, xv. 88; John i. 16.

1° Hartung, Partixell. I. p. 145 f.; Winer, ©
p. 407.

1! See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 828,

CHAP. VI., 17. 269

according to that entirely anti-Jewish rule of conduct, as the Leraelites of
God, forms as it were the final triumph of the whole epistle over the Juda-
istic practices, the very aim of which was to assert the title of the ‘Iopana
xara cépxa to the heritage of salvation. Hofmann is entirely mistaken in
his view that xai is even, and that the Israel of God are the Jew- Christiana,
so that Paul expresses the idea that he desired to include even these in his
wish. It was, indeed, obvious that in ér’, abrobe they could not be, and were
not intended to be, excluded ; but Paul was neither so unwise nor so devoid
of tact as expressly to state that self-evident point, as if there could possibly
be any doubt about it. By adding this last word, he would only have of-
fended the theocratical point of honor (Rom. i. 16). Lastly, Matthias also
is wrong in supposing that xal éwi rév "Iop. rov Oeod begins the new sentence
(ver. 17) : ‘‘ And concerning the Israel of God henceforth let no man,” etc.
This interpretation ought to have been prevented by the solemn repetition
of the preposition, which indeed on the second occasion would acquire
quite a different sense (concerning).

Ver. 17. Tov Accrov] occurring only here in the N. T., very frequent in
other authors ; not ceterum, “ besides,” so that it would be a formula abrum-
pendi, “‘ formula of transition,” ) equivalent to 1rd Aocrév,* but the genitive of
time ;* and that as denoting ‘‘repetitionem ejusdem facti reliquo tempore,”
‘a repetition of the same deed in the time remaining.” ‘ The sense posthac,
‘‘ after this,” might also have been expressed by the accusative;*® but in this case
a repetitio perpetua, ‘constant repetition,” would be meant.* Calvin ex-
plains : ‘‘as for the rest,” 1.¢6., praeter novam creaturam, ‘‘ beside, the new
creature.” Comp. Wieseler : ‘‘ quod restat,” ‘‘as to what remains.” In
this case, either the genitive would stand absolutely: ‘‘ as concerns what re-
mains ;”" or it would be dependent on «érove. But, looking at the frequent
use Of rot Aocrov as a particle of time, both these explanations would be very
unnecessarily far-fetched. This remark also applies to the view of Hof-
mann, who strangely attaches rov Ao:rod, notwithstanding the want of an
antithetical particle, as genitive of the object to «érovc, and conceives
"Iopa#A as again supplied : on account of the Israel, which is not the Israel of
God. Respecting that Israel, in the apostle’s view, he has not to inquire
whether it will be injured through the labor to which he is called. As if
any such cold, remorseless renunciation could be justly attributed to the
apostle who held his ovyyevei¢ xara cdpxa so painfully dear,* and strove in
every possible way to gain them.* But from the hostile annoyances and
vexations, which the reader would readily understand to be referred to in
these words, the apostle desires to remain henceforward exempt ; and this

1 Bengel, Zachariae, and others.

22 Cor. xili. 11; Eph. vi. 10; Phil. Hi 1,
e¢ al.

3 Kihner, IT. p. 189) : posthac, henceforward
(Xen. Anad. v. 7. 8, vi. 4. 11; Plat. Legg.
vil. p. 816 D, Demos. p. 885 B; Herod. fi.
108; and the passages in Wetstein.

* Hermann, ad Viger. p. 706.

rd Ardy, Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 41;

1 Cor. vil. 29; Xen. Anad. il. 2 5, iii. 28;
Soph. 7rach. 907, 917.

¢ Hermann, Z7.c. Comp. Kithner, ad Xen.
Anad. ii. 2. 5.

78 8 Aocwéy, 1 Cor. iv. 2, see Heind. ad
Charm. p. 8; Matthiae, p. 815.

® Rom. ix. 1ff., x. 1.

® 1 Cor. ix. 2.

270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

he demands with apostolic sternness. —éiy® ydp x.r.4.] the emphasis is on
éyé : it is not the teachers who are hostile to me, these men afraid to suffer
(ver. 12), but Z who bear, etc. oriyuara' signifies marks branded or etched
in, which, usually consisting of letters,? were put on the body (especially
on the forehead and hands) in the case of slaves, as the device of their
masters ;° of soldicrs, as the badge of their general ; of criminals, as a
sign of their offence ; and among some oriental nations also, as a token of
the divinity which they worshipped.‘ Here Paul has had in view the
marks borne by slaves :* for, according to the immediate context (vv. 14,
18), Christ is present to his mind as the Zord ; and also in 2 Cor. xi. 23 he
discerns, in the ill treatment which he has suffered, the proof that he is
didxovog Xpiorov.° The genitive 'Inoot denotes therefore the Ruler, whose ser-
vant Paul is indicated to be by his oriyyzara ; and because in this case the
feeling of fellowship with the concrete person of his Master has thoroughly
pervaded him, he does not write Xpeorov, but Iycot.’ Others have explained:
‘* notae corporis tales, quales ipse Christus gestavit,” ‘‘such bodily marks as
Christ himself bore ;”* but against this it may be urged that Paul has not
made use of a word which of itsclf conveys a complete idea (such as rv
véxpworv, 2 Cor. iv. 10), but has used the significant oriynara, which neces-
sarily prompts the reader to ask to whom the person marked® is described
as belonging. Therefore "Iyood is not! to be considered as the genitive
of the author. — But what was it that Paul bore in his body as the orfyyara
"Incov ? ~The scars and other traces of the wounds and mal-treatment, which he
had receited on account of his apostolic labors."' For in the service of Christ he
had been maltreated (2 Cor. xi. 23), and that so that he must have retained
scars or similar indications.'? Some expositors have, however, believed that

1 oriyna is paroxytone ; see Lobeck, Par-
alip. p. 408.

3 Lev. xix. 28.

3In the Zast; but among the Romans
only in the case of slaves who were sus-
pected or had run away (as a sign of the
latter offence, they were by way of punish-
ment branded with % or F. U. G.).

48 Macc. il. 29; and Grimm in loc. See
Wetatein, p. 287 f.; Lipsius, Zvect. il. 15;
Deyling, Obss. III. p. 428 ff.; Spencer,
Legg. rit. i 14. 1; Ewald, tn Apocal.
p. 151 f.

5’ Not of soldiers, as Grotius (comp. Cal-
vin), and Potter, Arch. Il. p. 7, think ; for
this must have been suggested by the con-
text. Wetstein understands sacras noias,
“sacred marks” (Herod. fi. 118: oréyuara ipa),
so that Paul represents Christ ‘‘ut Deum,
quem rdv xvpiov car’ éf0x7%v vocat,”’ ** as God,
whom he calls pre-eminently the Lord.”
But these ¢acrae notae are only found among
particular nations, such as the Persians and
Assyrians (Plut. Lucull. p.607 E; Lucian, dé
Dea Syra, 59; comp. also what is related in
Herod. il. 113 about a temple of Hercules in

Egypt, and in the Asiatic Researches, vit.
p. 281 f., about the Indians); hence so foreign
a custom would not be likely to suggest
itself to the apostle, nor could it be under-
stood by his readers without some more
special indication.

® Comp. also Rev. vii. 8.

¥ Comp. on 2 Cor. fv. 10.

® Morus, comp. Borger.

® ontyuarias, also otcyparoddpos, ‘* bearing
tatoo-marks,”’ Lid. and Scott], Polyaen.
Strat. i. 2A.

10 With Gomarus and Rickert.

11 Not as Luther, 1519 and 1524, following
Augustine, thought: the taming of the
flesh and the fruits of the Spirit; against
which the év rg cwpari pov is itself decisive.
In the Commentary of 1588, he understands
“plagas corpori suo impressas et passiones,
deinde ignita tea diaboli, tristitiam 4
pavores animi,’ ‘the blows and sufferings
impressed upon his body, then too the fiery
darts of the devil, and sorrow and fear of
mind,” which thus throws together very
different elements outward and inward.

12 See 2 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

NOTES. a71
Paul adduces these oriyyara by way of contrast to the sear of circumeision ,;'
butthis idea is arbitrarily introduced, and in its paltriness alien to the lofty self-
consciousness which these words breathe.—Lastly, as regards the sense in
which the reference of yap is to be taken, many expositors explain it, with
Grotius : ‘‘ satis aliunde habeo, quod feram,” ‘‘I have enough from other
quarters to bear.” So, in substance, Vatablus, Bengel (‘‘ afflicto non est
addenda afflictio,” ‘‘ affliction should not be added to affliction”), Morus,
Winer. But what a feeble reason to assign would this be, either as fretful
or as even bespeaking compassion, and wholly repugnant at all events to
the proud feeling of being marked as the doiAog of Christ !* And the éyd, so
full of self-consciousness in opposition to the false teachers, is inconsistent
with this view. No; Paul means’® to say: for J am one who, by being
marked as the servant of Christ, is in possession of a dignity, which may
justly exempt him from any repetition of molestations (such as had vexed
him on the part of the Galatian churches).—On faordfw, comp. Chrysostom :
ovn elmev Eyw, GAAG Baotdsu, dorep tec éxi Tpomaiog péya gpovar, ‘‘ He does not
say: ‘I have,’ but ‘I bear,’ as if highly regarding them as trophies.”

Ver. 18. ‘H xdpi¢ tot Kupiov x.t.A.] See on i, 6. — pera rod mvebparog par]
sc. ely, A special design, on account of which Paul did not write merely
pe? tuan,* or pera wévrwv tudv,* is indeed assumed by many expositors (that
Paul desired once more to indicate that salvation does not come from the
odpé),* but cannot be made good ; especially as also in Philem. 25," instead
of the persons simply, we find that with greater significance and fervor the
spirit of the persons (so also at the close of the Epistle of Barnabas) is
named, because it is on the zrvedyua of man (the higher principle of life with
the voic)® that the grace of Christ works,’ when the Spirit of Christ
takes up His abode in the human spirit and so confers His yapiouara. Paul
might also have written pera rovypvyor iu., ‘‘ with your souls ;”’”® but even in
that case the gracious operation of Christ would have to be conceived as
issuing from the seat of self-consciousness (the zveiya of man). — adeAgoi]
The epistle, in great part so severe, ends with a mode of address which still
breathes unaltered love (1 Cor. xvi. 24).

Nores By AMERICAN Eprron.

LXXIV. Ver. 6. év rdouv ayaboic.

In support of the usual interpretation that refers this passage to the sharing
of temporal goods, Eadie collects the following places where aya#é has snch
meaning : Luke xii, 18, 19, xvi. 25; and in LXX., 2 Sam. vii. 28 ; 1 Chr. xvii.

1 Erasmus in his Annof., Beza, Schoettgen,
Grotius ; comp. Bengel and Michaelis.

2 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff.

3* Velutl trophaea quaedam ostentans,”
‘“‘as though displaying some trophies,”
Erasmus, Paraphr.

41 Cor. xvi. 28; Col. iv. 18; 1 Thess. v. 28.

§2 Cor. xiil. 18; Phil. iv. 23; 2 Thess. fil.
18; Tit. iif. 15.

* Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, and
others; also Riickert, Usteril, Schott, Ols-
hausen.

7 And 2 Tim. iv. 22.

®See on Luke 1.46; Rom. L 4, vill. 10;
2 Cor. fi. 18, ¢e¢ al.

® Rom. villi. 10, 16.

10 Comp. 2 Cor. xif. 15; 1 Pet. 1. 9, 22, if.
11, 25.

aia THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,

26 ; 2 Chr. xviii. 12, 17 ; and Lightfoot cites the Epistle of Barnabas, § 19: ‘‘Thou
shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbor .. . for if ye are partakers in
common of things which are incorruptible, how much more of those things
which are corruptible.” With this agrees the recently found ‘‘ Teaching of
the Apostles” (lines 92, 93): ‘‘ Thou shalt not turn away the needy, but shalt
share (ovyxocvavjoecc) all things with thy brother.’’

LXXV. Ver. 7.

Eadie and Sieffert insist on the necessity of regarding this exhortation as in-
tended to enforce the entire section from ver. 1, ‘‘ treating of duties which
spring out of love, the fruit of the Spirit, and which are themselves forms of
spiritual beneficence or well-doing— duties, however, which one may be tempted
to neglect, or regard only in a negative aspect.”’

LXXVI_. Ver. 11. mnAixots ypdéupacw.

An analogy is found in the bold signature of John Hancock to the Declara-
tion of Independence,

LXXVII. Ver. 12. ebxpocungoa: év capxt.

There is much force in Sieffert’s exception that Meyer's interpretation is in-
consistent with the only grammatical construction allowable here, viz., the
qualification of the evrpéowroc by Ev capxi. Meyer's argument would require év
capxi évrec OF oapxixoi évrec. Sieffert explains it as conveying the idea of the
sphere of the external, with special reference to circumcision. This latter, on
the other hand, seems too narrow. Ellicott interprets év capxi as ‘‘ the earthly
existence and conditions of man ;’’ Alford, ‘‘in outward things which belong
to man’s natural state ;’’ Lightfoot, ‘‘in external rites ;’’ Eadie, ‘‘ the unrenew-
ed nature cropping out under its more special aspect of sensuousness and exter-
nalism.” ‘‘ They who wish to make a fair appearance, according to the stand-
ard of the unrenewed nature,” seems tous to be the meaning.

LXXVIII. Ver. 14. év 7@ cravp@ rod xvpiov.

The Revised Version reads ‘‘through which,’’ thus making the cravpy the
antecedent ; the marginal reading, however, is ‘‘whom.’’ Meyer's construction
is further supported by Ellicott, Alford, and Riddle, and antagonized by Schmol-
ler, Lightfoot, Eadie, Sanday, and Sieffert. The latter claims that when Meyer
says ‘‘by whom, i.e., by whose crucifixion is produced the result,” he virtually
acknowledges that the context requires that the reference be to the cross ; and
finds in it an excellent antithesis to the assumptions of the Judaizers who, from
worldly motives, were unwilling to bear the consequences of the cross. On
the other hand, both the immediate proximity of the rod Kupiov nud ‘Inoot
Xpcorov, and the grandeur of Him whom it indicates, renders reference toa
more remote antecedent very improbable. The question is purely grammati-
cal, Either construction ultimately ends in the same idea. oravpdc is referred
by some to the subjective cross, or the afflictions that attend devotion to
Christ’s cause, asin Rom. v. 3; but thisis justified neither by the immediate
context, cf. v. 12, nor by the argument which is to offset the trust in the law,
by faith that finds its ground of salvation in nothing but the death of Christ.

TOPICAL INDEX.

A.

Abba, Father, 175 seq.

Abraham, his faith, 109 seq., 159 ; the
promises to, 122 seq. ; his spiritual
seed, 158 seq.; his two sons, 200

seq.

Accountability, personal, 251 seq.

Advent, Second, of Christ, 13 seq., 38.

Angels and the law, 132, 160 seq.

Anathema, 18 seq., 39; justified,
20 seq.

Arabia, 29 seq., 40 seq.

Atonement, of Christ, 12 seq. ; vica-
rious, 116 seq., 172, 212 seq.

B.

Barnabas, 79.

Benedictions, 267 seq., 271.

Benevolence, Apostolic, 48, 74 seq. ;
to believers, 258 seq.

Blessing, spiritual, 267 seq.

Bondage, Spiritual, 167 seq. ; ceremo-
nial, 179 seq.; warned against,
219 seq.

C.

Ceremonial observances, 180 seq.
Christ Jesus, His divinity, 9 ; sub-
ordinated to the Father, 9 seq.,
37 seq. ; His atoning death, 12 seq.,
38 seq., 172, 212 seq. ; His second
advent, 13, 38; His active obedience,
85 seq., 97; our justification,
87 seq., 114 seq. ; and the law, 91
seq.; His atoning love, 93 seq. ;
becoming a curse for us, 116 seq. ;
as the seed of Abraham, 124 seq.,
160; as Mediator, 134 seq.; His
pre-existence, 170 seq. ; His incar-
nation, 171 seq.

Christianity, its sum and substance,
90 seq. ; and Judaism, 169 seq.

Church, The Christian, its collective
opinion, 55 seq. ; triumphant, 207

Circumcision, in the Apostolic Church,
57 seq. ; and Christ, 220, 223 seq.,
. 266 seq.; and the law, 220 seu. ;

18

going beyond, 231, 244; urged by
the dissembling, 262 seq.
Communism, Christian, 253 seq., 271

seq.
Crucifying the flesh, 241 seq.

D.

Damascus, 24; Paul’s sojourn at, 29
seq., 40 seq.

Days, Observance of, 180 seq.

Discrepancy, alleged, between Paul
and Luke, 50 seq., 95

Doxology, of Paul, 14.

E.

Election, Divine, 27.
Envy, illustrated, 190 seq.
Equality, Spiritual, in Christ, 158

seq.
Exclusiveness, Sectarian, 77 seq.

F.

Faith, working righteousness, 93 seq.,
105 seq., 109, 159, 222 seq.; receiv-
ing salvation, 150 seq., 161; and
baptism, 156 seq.; in love, 223 seq.

Fellowship, Christian, 73 seq., 96 ; in
suffering, 248 seq.; in teaching, 252
seq.; with Christ, 265 seq., 272.

Festival Seasons, 180 seq.

Flesh, The, and the Spirit, 235 seq.,
244 ; the fruits of, 238, 245.

Forbearance, mutual, 248 seq.

Forgiveness, 247 seq.

Fraternal union, 73 seq., 96.

Freedom, Christian, 62 seq.. 95, 206
seq., 210 seq.; steadfastness in, 219
seq.; in love, 231 seq.; and the mor-
al law, 237 seq., 244 seq.

G.

Galatia, 1 seq.

Galatians, The, 1 seq.; their churches,
2 seq.; their Judaizing teachers, 3
seq.; their fickleness, 15 ; receiving
the Holy Spirit, 103 seq.; as sons of
God, 155 seq.; welcoming Paul, 186

74

seq., 214 seq.; converted through
Paul, 195 seq.; not always faithful,
224 seq.

Galatians, The Epistle to the, 2 seq.;
occasion of its writing, 3; object
of its writing, 4; its contents, 4;
time of composition, 4 seq.; place
of writing, 6 ; its genuineness, 7.

Gentiles, The, saved by Christ, 118

seq.

God, the Father, 10, 37 ; His decrees,
26 seq.; no respecter of persons,
68 ; His efficacy, 70 ; His promises,
122 seq.; His unity, 145 seq.; the
knowledge of, 178 seq., 213 seq.

Good Works, 85 ; and the law, 89 seq.

Gospel, The, 16 ; its counterfeit, 17.

Grace of God, The, 94 seq.

Growth, Spiritual, 196.

H.

Hagar, and Sarah, 201 seq., 215 seq.

Harvest, Spiritual, 257.

Holy Spirit, The, received, 103 seq.;
given unto believers, 175 seq., 213 ;
in the Christian life, 235 seq., 242 ;
and the flesh, 235 seq., 244; the
fruits of, 239 seq.

Humility, enjoined. 249 seq.

Hypocrisy, Spiritual, 78 seq., 95.

L

Imputation, 86.
Independence, Spiritual, 67 seq.
Inheritance, Law of, 177.

J.

James, the brother of Christ, 33 ; his
Apostolic rank, 71 seq.

Jerusalem, The new, 206 seq.

Judaism, 169 seq.

Judaizing Teachers, 61 seq,, 96.

Justification by Faith, 53, 84 seq., 93
seq., 109, 159, 155 seq., 222 seq.; by
the law, 113 seq., 221 seq.

K.

Knowledge of God, The, 178 seq., 213
seq. -
L.

Law, The, not justifying, 83 seq., 111
seq.; and good works, 89 seq. ; and
Christ, 91 seq.; not annulled, 94
seq.; does not annul the covenant,
120 seq.; its asim and object, 127
gos its promulgation, 130, 160;
ordained through a Mediator, 133
seq.; and God's promises, 149 ; its
captivity, 151 seq.; a schoolmaster,

TOPICAL INDEX.

154 seq.; read in the church ser-
vices, 199 seq.; fulfilled in love,
232 seq.; and freedom, 237 seq.,
244 seq.

Law of Inheritance,
Roman, 177.

Leaven, doctrinal, 226.

Legalism, Jewish, 81 seq.; its cap-
tivity, 151 seq.

Liberty, Christian, 62 seq., 95, 206
seq., 210 seq.; steadfast in, 219 seq. ;
in love, 231 seq.; and the moral
law, 237 seq., 244 seq.

Life, moral, 92; in Christ, 92 seq.,
98; in the Holy Spirit, 235 seq.,
241 seq.

Love, in freedom, 231 seq. ; as the
royal law, 232 seq.

M.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, her vir-
ginity, 33, 41.

Mediator, The, of the law, 133 seq. ;
as Christ, 134 seq.

Moses, and the Law, 130 seq. ; as a
mediator, 140 seq.

Mount Sinai, 202 seq.

Jewish and

P.

Parousia, The, 13 seq., 38 ; before and
after, 167.

Patience, in well-doing, 256 seq.

Paul, as founder of the Galatian
churches, 2 seq. ; as an apostle of
God, 9, 37; salutes the churches,
11 seq.; pronounces a curse, 18
seq., 39; and justifies himself, 20
seq.; relates his past experience,
23 seq. ; his sojourn in Damascus
and in Arabia, 29 seq., 40 seq. ; his
visit to Cephas in Jerusalem, 31
seq., 41 ; visits Syria and Nilicia, 34
seq. ; preaches the faith of Christ,
36 seq. ; his second visit to Jerusa-
lem, 43 seq., 95 ; receives revela-
tions, 24 seq., 52 seq. ; his indepen-
dence, 67 seq.; as apostle to the
Gentiles, 70 seq.; his apostolic
recognition, 73 ; resisting Peter, 75
seq.; his bodily weakness, 184
seq. ; converting the Galatians, 195
seq. ; his tender appeal, 197 seq. 5;
persecuted by the Jews, 228 seq.,
243 seq.; preaching circumcision,
229 seq. ; his handwriting, 259 seq. ;

lories in Christ, 265 seq., 272 ;
lesses the believers, 267 seq. ; his

scarred body, 269 seq. ; his parting
salutation, 271.

Persuasion, Spiritual, 226.

Peter, 71; resisted by Paul, 75 seq.

TOPICAL

Poor, The, care for, 48, 74 seq.

Prayer, to the Father, 175 seq.

Preaching, a divine calling, 28.

Pedestination, Divine, 166.

Promises of God, The, to Abraham,
122 seq. ; and the law, 149.

Prophecy fulfilled, 208 seq.

R.

Reaping, and sowing, 255 seq.

Recompense, Moral, 255 seq., 257.

Redemption, through Christ, 115 seq.

Regeneration, Spiritual, 266.

Revelations, of Paul, 24 seq., 52 seq.

Righteousness, by faith, 93 seq. 105
seq., 109, 159, 222 seq., 243.

8.

Salvation, in answer to faith, 150, 161
seq. ; through Christ, 155 seq.
and Hagar, 201 seq.
Self-glorification rebuked, 250 seq.

INDEX. 2°5

Selfishness rebuked, 248 seq.

Sin, and the law, 129 seq., 160.

Sonship of believers, 173 seq., 176
seq.

Sowing, and reaping, 255 seq.

Star-worship, 167 seq.

Strife, among Christians, 234; warn-
ed against, 242 seq.

Subordination, of Christ, 9 seq.,
37 seq.

Suffering, Fellowship in, 248 seq.

T;

Titus, 57 seq.

Treviri, The, 1.

Truth, not hostile, 189 seq.
U.

Unity of God, The, 145 seq.

Z.
Zeal, impure, 190 seq. ; pure, 192.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

HAN D-BOOK

TO THE

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

BY

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Ts.D.., .

OBEROONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
REV. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

WITH A PREFACE, TRANSLATION OF REFERENCES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY
NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY

HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIO THEOLOGY IN THB THEOLOGIOAL SEMINARY OF THE EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH AT PHILADELPHIA, ‘AND LATE PROFESSOR OF THE
GREEK LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, PENNSYLVANIA
COLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA.

NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS,
10 AND 12 Dey STREET.
1884.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

I wave at length the pleasure of issuing the last volume of the English
translation of Dr. Meyer’s own part in the great work -which bears his
name, and of thereby completing an undertaking on which I have ex-
pended no small amount of time and labor at intervals for the last eight
years. I am aware that I have taxed considerably the patience of the
subscribers and of the publishers, but I felt it due to them, as well as to
Dr. Meyer, who had entrusted me with the charge of seeing his work
faithfully reproduced, that the work should be done with care rather
than with haste.

The present volume has been translated with skill and judgment by
Mr. Evans from the fourth edition of the German—the last form, in
which this portion of the Commentary had the advantage of Meyer’s own
revision. A fifth edition has since appeared (in 1878), under the charge
of Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in which he has treated the
book in a way similar to that adopted by Dr. Weiss with the Commenta-
ry on Mark and Luke, although not altering it to an equal extent. It is
difficult to see why he should have followed such a course, for he him-
self states that he ‘‘ has never been able to approve the custom of allow-
ing other hands to remodel the works of the departed.’’ I have already
expressed, in the prefatory note to the volume on Mark and Luke, the
grounds on which I take exception to the plan so pursued, and I content
myself with here referring to them as equally applicable in principle to
the less important changes made by Dr. Schmidt. I find a striking cor-
roboration of my remark as to the work manipulated by Dr. Weiss being
“‘to a considerable extent a new book by another author, and from a
standpoint in various respects different,’’ in the judgment pronounced
by Dr. Schirer, in a recent review (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 9th Octo-
ber, 1880), on the same editor’s treatment of the Commentary on the
Gospel of John, when, after mentioning various features of ‘‘ complete
independence’’ and ‘‘ thorough remodelling,’’ he states that the result
of the whole is ‘‘an essentially new work.’’ Dr. Schirer indicates ap-
proval of the course pursued ; but it seems to me alike unfair to the
memory of Meyer, and uncalled for under the circumstances. It is

280 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

quite open to an editor to write a book of his own on the subject, or to
append as much as he deems necessary to his author’s text by way of ad-
dition and correction ; but it is no¢ open to him thus to recast an epoch-
making work of exegesis, and to retain for its altered shape the sanction
of the author’s name. At any rate, I have thought it right, so far as
the English reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise,
the work of Meyer, without addition or subtraction, in its latest and pre-
sumably best form as it left his hands,

I may add, that whatever cure may have been bestowed on the revis-
ion of the Commentary by Dr. Schmidt has not apparently extended to
the correction of the press, for many errors, which have been discovered
and corrected by Mr. Evans and myself in preparing the translation, still
disfigure the new edition of the German. It is, of course, extremely
difficult to avoid such errors in a work of the kind ; and I have no doubt
that, notwithstanding the care of the printers, to whose excellent arrange-
ments I am much indebted, the reader may light on not a few mistakes,
as concerns references, accents, and the like ; but, as Dr. Meyer was
not a particularly good corrector of the press, I trust that the English
edition may be found in that respect fully more accurate than the orig-
inal.

In the Generai Preface prefixed to the first volume issued (Romaxs),
I stated the grounds that had induced me to undertake the superintend-
ence of the work, and the revision of the translation, in the interests of
technical accuracy and of uniformity of rendering throughout. And in
order that the subscribers may be assured that the promise therein im-
plied has been fulfilled to the best of my ability, I think it right, in
conclusion, to state for myself (and I believe that the same may be said
for my friends Drs. Crombie and Stewart, who lent me their aid at a
time when other work was pressing heavily upon me) that I have care-
fully read and compared every sentence of the translation in the ten vol-
umes which I edited—collating it for the most part in ms., as well as
subsequently on its passage through the press ; that I have not hesitated
freely to make such changes on the work of the translators as seemed to
me needful to meet the requirements which I had in view ; and that,
under these circumstances, I alone am formally and finally responsible
for the shape in which the Commentary appears. All concerned in the
enterprise have much reason to be gratified by the favor with which it
has been received. I have, indeed, seen some exception taken to the
style, and to the frequent use of technical terms such as éeltc, protasts,
and the like ; but our object was to translate the book into intelligible
English, not to recast its literary form (which, as I have formerly ex-
plained, has suffered from the mode in which the author inserted his

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 281

successive alterations and additions); and it is, from its very nature,
destined mainly for ministers and students, who ought to be familiar
with the import of those convenient technical terms.

At the close of the article by Dr. Schiirer, of which I have spoken be-
fore, he asks leave to repeat an urgent wish which he had some years
ago expressed, that ‘‘there might be appended to the introduction of
each volume of the German Commentary a list of the exegetical litera-
ture.’? He does not seem to be aware that in the English edition this
want has been supplied with considerable fulness. I shall be glad to
place the lists—all of which were prepared by me, except that prefixed
to the Gospel of John, for which I am indebted to Dr. Crombie—at the
service (a few errors apart) of any future editors of the original.

WILLIAM P. DICKSON.
Guascow CoLLEeGE, October, 1880.

PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR.

Since the year 1859, when the third edition of this Commentary was
issued, there has appeared hardly any contribution of scientific impor-
tance to the exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians. The Commen-
tarius Criticus of the late Dr. Reiche contains, doubtless, many good
exegetical remarks ; but they are subservient to his main aim, which is
critical, and elucidate merely detached passages or expressions ; while
the Lectures of Bleek are very far from having the importance which has
been justly recognized as belonging to the previous series of Lectures by
him on the Synoptic Gospels,

But while thus, apart from various able discussions of particular pas-
sages, I was less directly stimulated by new literary apparatus to subject
my work to revision, the labor itself was not thereby rendered the lighter.
The dies diem docet could not but, in the case of a task so moment-
ous, have its title fully conceded ; and it will be found that I have
sought to place much on a better and more complete footing, so as to do
fuller justice to the great object of ascertaining thoroughly, clearly, and
dispassionately the meaning of the Apostle’s discourse. By this I
do not understand the discovery of those fanciful illusions [ Phantasma-
gorteen] that people call profound. For the latter there is assuredly lit-
tle need in the case of Paul, who, with the true penetration characteris-
tic of his views and ways of unfolding them, knows how to wield his
gifts of discourse so that his meaning shall be clear and palpable and
apt; and least of all in the case of this very Epistle, where the Christo-
logical teaching rises of itself to the utmost height and embraces heaven
and earth. This distinctive character cannot be injured by the circum-
stance that the apostolic writing, as a letter to the Hphesians,—such as,
according to the critically-attested address, it is and will remain,—con-
tinues to be, at all events, an enigmatical phenomenon, and its histori-
cal conceivableness in so far an open question. Its elevation above the
changes and controversies of Christological formulae and modes of con-
ception cannot be thereby affected, and its prominent position in the
New Testament as at once a testimony and a test of the truth cannot,
amid any such change and strife, be prejudicially endangered.

Hannover, 10th Nov. 1866.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE

TO THE

EPHESIANS.

[For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testa-
ment, see the list prefixed to the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew ; for
those which treat of the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see that
which is prefixed to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The fol-
lowing list includes only those expositions which relate to the Epistle to the
Ephesians, Works mainly of a popularand practical character have, with a
few exceptions, been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in them-
selves, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the
present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by
Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended
denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued ; + marks
the date of the author’s death ; c. = circa, an approximation to it.]

[Bagrzy, Alfred, Principal of King’s College, London, and Canon of West-
minster: The Epistle to the Ephesians, with commentary (Handy
Commentary Series), edited by O. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of

Gloucester and Bristol). 16°, London, Paris and New York. ]
Battvus (Bartholomaeus), + 1637, Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Ephesios. .. . 4°, Gryphisw. 1619.

BaumaGaktTen (Sigmund Jakob), + 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle. See Gaxatrans.
BavuMmGakten-Crusivus (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena:
Commentar tiber den Brief Paulian die Epheser.... §Herausgege-

ben von Ernst Julius Kimmel... . 8°, Jena, 1847.
Bayne (Paul), ¢ 1617, Minister at Cambridge: An entire commentary upon the
whole Epistle . . . to the Ephesians. .. . 2°, Lond. 1643.

Buiegx (Friedrich), ¢ 1859, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Vorlesungen tiber die Briefe
an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser. ... 8°, Berl. 1865.

Boprus. See Boyp.

Borp (Robert) of Trochrig, + 1627, Principal at Glasgow and Edinburgh : in
Epistolam ad Ephesios praelectiones supra oc. . . . 2°, Lond. 1652, al.

Braun (Karl), Superintendent in Altenburg: Die Briefe 8. Pauli an die
Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet.

fiange's Bibelwerk. } 8°, Bielefeld, 1867.
nslated from the German, with additions [Ephesians], by M. B.
Riddle, D.D. 8°, New York, 1870.

Buogs (Martin), + 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : Praelectiones in Epistolam
ad Ephesios habitae Oantabrigiae . . . in lucem editae diligentia Im.
Tremellii. 2°, Basil. 1662.

284 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

CuHaNnDLer (Samuel), D.D., + 1766, Presbyterian Minister in London. [See
GALATIANS.

Cramer (Johann Andreas), + 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Neue Uebersetzung

des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer Auslegung desselben.

4°, Hamb. 1782.

Crocros (Johann), + 1659, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commentarius in Epistolam

ad Ephesios. 8°, Cassellis, 1642.

Davies (John Liewelyn), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone. See Pumrr-
PIANS and CoLossIAns.

Drvant (Petrus), + 1724, Minister at Rotterdam: De Brief aan die van Efeze
verklaart en toegepast. 4°, Rotterd. 1711, al

Church: A commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Ephe-

sians. 8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1854.

Exuicotr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A critical

and grammatical commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.

8°, Lond. 1855, al.

Esmancn (Heinrich Peter Christian), + 1831, Rector at Schleswig : Brief an die

pheser iibersetzt. 8°, Altona, 1785.

Ewap (Georg Heinrich August), + 1876, Prof. Or. Lang. at Géttingen: Sieben

Sendschreiben des Neuen Bundes uebersetzt und erklirt. [Send-
schreiben an die Heidenchristen (die Epheser). }

8°, Gdtting. 1870.

Eapre (John), D.D., + 1876, Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian

Frrauson (James), + c. 1670, Minister of Kilwinning. See GALATIANS.
Fatt (Johann Friedrich von), + 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tibingen. See Ganatians.

Gunz (Gottlob Friedrich), + 1756, Pastor at Lauban : Griindliche Erléuterang
des lehrreichen Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Lauban, 1736.

Hacenzacn (Karl Rudolph),+ 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel : Pauli Epistolam ad
Philemonem interpretatus est OC. R. Hagenbach. 4°, Basil. 1829.
Haxgwess (Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von), + 1879, President of the Consistory at
Minich : Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser.
8°, Erlang. 1834, al.
Herricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf. See Korrz
(Johann Benjamin).
Hopee (Charles), D.D., + 1878, Prof. Theol. at Princeton : A commentary on
the Epistle to the Ephesians. 8°, New York, 1856, al.
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), + 1877, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen :
Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht.
Theil iv.1. Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser. iv. 2. Die Briefe an die

Kolosser und an Philemon. 8°, Nérdlingen, 1870.
HottzmMann (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Strassburg : Kritik der Epheser-
und Kolosser-Briefe. . . 8°, Leip. 1872.

Ho.zHAvsEN (Friedrich August) : Der Brief an die Epheser tibersetzt und erklart.
8°, Hannov. 1833.

KéaLEp (C. N.): Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Epheser.

8°, Kiel, 1854.
Korrz (Johann Benjamin), ¢ 1791, Superintendent at Gotha: Novum Testa-
mentum Graece perpetua annotatione illustratum. Voll. i.-iv. 8°,
Gétting. 1778-83. [Vol. vi. Epp. ad Galatas, Ephesios, Thessaloni-
censes. Editio tertia emendata et aucta. Curavit H. Chr. Tychsen.
Kravse (Friedrich August Wilhelm), + 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna: Der

Brief an die Epheser tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet.
8°, Frankf, a. M. 1789.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 285

Lacus (Daniel), + 1678, Prof. Math. at Greifswald : Commentatio quadripartita

super Epistolam ad Ephesios. 4°, Gryphisw. 1664.
Lacurroot (Joseph Barber), D.D., Bishop of Durham. See Patiirrians and Co-
lossians.

Locke (John), + 1704. See GaLarians.
Luruer (Martin), ion Reformer : Die Epistel an die Epheser ausgelegt, aus
seinen Schriften herausgegeben von Chr. G. Eberle. 8°, Stuttg. 1878.

Masor [Mayer] | (Georg), + 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Enarratio Episto-
lae Pauli

i scriptae ad Ephesios. 8°, Vitemb, 1552.

Marrutes (Conrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Erklarung des Briefes

Pauli an die Epheser, .. . 8°, Greifsw. 1834.

Murer (Friedrich Karl), + 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Commentar tiber den

Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1834.

Morvs (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig. See
GALATIANS,

Moscutvs [Mevussiin] (Wolfgang), + 1573, Prof. Theol. at Berne. See GaLaTrans.

Passavant (Theophilus) : Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des Briefes
Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Basel, 1836.
Porr (G. C.) : Uebersetzung und Erklaérung der drei ersten Kapitel des Briefs
an die Epheser, nebst einer kurzen Einleitung.... 4°, Rostock, 1799.

Roxtn (Herman Alexander), + 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Commentarius

in principium Epistolae ad Ephesios. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1715.
Et commentarii . . . pars altera, cum brevi Epistolae ad Colossenses
exegesi. Ed. Dion. And. Roell. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1731.
Rotxoce (Robert), + 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh : In Epis-
tolam Pauli ad Ephesios commentarius. 4°, Edin. 1590, ai.
Royaarps (Albertus): ... Paullus’ Brief aan de Ephesers schriftmatig ver-
klaart. 3 deelen. 4°, Amsterd. 1735-38.
Riicgrerr (Leopold Immanuel), + c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Der Brief Pauli
an die Epheser erléutert und vertheidigt. 8°, Leip. 1834.

ScHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Die Briefe an die Epheser,
Philipper, Colosser. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [Lange’s

Bibelwerk, i] 8°, Bielefeld, 1862.
Scumip (Sebastian), 696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Paraphrasis super
pistolam ad Ephesios. 4°, Strassb. 1684, al.

ScCHNAPPINGER (Bonifacius Martin Wunibald), + c. 1825, Prof. at Heidelberg :

Brief an die Epheser erklirt und erlantert von Bonifaz vom heil. Wun-

ibald. 4°, Heidelb. 1793.

ScuiirzE (Theodor Johann Abraham), + 1830, Director of the Gymnasium at
Gera : Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios,

8°, Leip. 1778.

Srexer (Philip Jakob), + 1705, Consistorial-Rath at Berlin: Erklérung der

Episteln an die Epheser und Colosser, .. . 4°, Halae, 1706, al.
STEVART ee i 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentarius in Episto-
lam phesios. 4°, Ingolstad. 1593.

Srrer (Rudolph Ewald), + 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben : Die Gemeinde in
Christo, Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1848-49.

Tr. (Salomon von), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden. See Romans.
Tonner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., + 1861, Prof. of Bibl. Interpretation at
ew York : The Epistle to the Ephesians in Greek and English, with
an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1856.
TycHszn (Thomas Christian), + 1834. See Koprz (Johann Benjamin).

286 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE,

VaTABLvs [VASTEBLED] (Francois), + 1547, Prof. Heb. at Paris : Annotationesin
ovum Testamentum. [Critici Sacri.]

WELLER (Hieronymus), ¢ 1572, Superintendent at Freiberg: Commentarius
in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios. ‘ 8°, Noriberg, 1559.
WIESINGER (J. C. August). See ParmsPprans. ;

ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott), ¢ 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel. See Ganuarians.
ZANCHIvs (Hieronymus), (eae Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Ephesios. 2°, Neostadii, 1594.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.—READERS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE IS ADDRESSED.

: T’ Ephesus, the capital of proconsular Asia, a flourishing abode of

commerce, arts, and sciences, and the seat of the world-renowned

' worship of Artemis,—which, formerly one of the principal settle-

ments of the Ionian population, has, since its destruction by the

Goths, had its site marked only by gloomy ruins, and now by the

small village of Ajasaluk, or, according to Fellows, Asalook,’— Paul

planted Christianity (Acts xviii. 19, xix. 1, etc.) ; and his successful labors

there, during a period of nearly three years, placed him in the close confi-

dential relations to the church, of which his touching farewell to the elders

(Acts xx. 17 ff.) is an imperishable memorial. The church was in its founda-

tion a mized one, composed of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts xix.

1-10, xx. 21) ; but at the later date, when our Epistle was composed, the

Gentile-Christian element, which already appears from Acts xix. 26 exten-

sively diffused, so greatly preponderated, that Paul could address the

church a potiori as a Gentile-Christian one ; see i. 12 f., ii. 1 ff, 11, 19, iv.

17, iii. 1. Hence it must not be inferred from this, that the Epistle could
not have been addressed to the Ephesian church.?

Our Epistle is expressly addressed, in i. 1, to the Christians at Ephesus.*
For the words év 'E¢foy are so decisively attested, that they cannot be de-
prived of their right toa place in the text, either by isolated counter-
witnesses, or by the internal grounds of doubt as to the Ephesian destina-
tion of the Epistle. Among the manuscripts, ¥ has év 'E¢écy only from the
hand of a later corrector ; B has the words only in the margin, and (not-
withstanding Hug, de antig. Ood. Vat. p. 26) not from the first hand ; ‘

1 See, generally, Creuzer, Symbol. II. p.
118 ff.; Pococke, Jforgeni. IIT. p. 66 ff.; von
Schubert, Reise in das Morgeni. I. p. 284 ff. ;
Guhl, EZphesiaca, Berol. 1&2; Fellows,
Journal written during an Kxcursion in Asia
Minor, London, 1888, p. 274 f. [See also
Discoveries at Ephesus, by J. T. Wood, who
discovered the site of the Temple of Arte-
mis in 1960.—Ed.]

® Reiche, Bleek, and others.

3 See Lfinemann, de ep. ad Eph. authentid,

eto., 1842; Anger, der d. Laodi
(Betir. 2. Kink. in’s N. 7.1.), 1848. Reiche,
in his Comment. crit. in N. 7. IT. 1850, has
the most fully and thoroughly controverted
the view of the Epistle being destined for
Ephesus, and the genuineness of the words
dy "Edéce. Comp. also Weiss in Herzog’s
Encyll. XTX. s.v. ‘‘ Epheserbrief.""

48ee Tischendorf in the allg. K.-Zeit.
1843, No. 116, and in the Stud. und Krit.
1847, p. 188.

288 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

while in the Cod. 67, proceeding from the twelfth century,’ it was placed
certainly in the text by the first hand, but was deleted by a second hand
(which betrays generally an affinity with B). The evidence of the versions
is unanimous for év ‘Egéow ; but in the’ Fathers we find undeniable indica-
tions that the omission in B x*, and the deletion in Cod. 67, are founded
upon older codices, and have arisen out of critical grounds. For Basil the
Great, contra EHunom. ii. 19,* says : roi¢ "Egeciog ExioréAAuy Oe yvacing pvoué-
vorg T dvti, ‘‘ writing to the Ephesians as being united truly by knowledge
to Him who is” (that is, to Him who is existent, in the absolute sense) é
Emiyvdcewc, Svrag avrov¢e idialévtug avéuacev elmav' Toig dyiotg tToi¢g ator
kai meoroic év Xpiote 'Iycob. Otte yap cal of mpd qudv rapadeddxaat,
kal Husic év Tolg wadaiore TOY avTtypagiw ebphxauev, ‘‘he calls them in a special
sense those who are, saying, To the saints rof¢ oto: and the faithful in
Christ Jesus. For thus those before us have transmitted it, and we have
found it in the ancient copies.” From this passage it is clear that Basil
considered it indeed certain that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians,
but looked upon the words é»v 'E¢éow as non-genuine, to which conclusion
he had been led not merely by way of tradition, but also through the old
mss. existing in his time, which he had himself looked into, and which had
not év ’E¢éoy.? It has, however, been incorrectly asserted that Jerome also
did not find éy ’Egéom in Mss., but knew it merely as a conjecture.‘ He
says, namely, oni. 1 :° Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant ex eo, quod
Moysi dictum sit, ‘‘Some, with an excessive refinement, think from what
was said to Moses” [Ex. iii. 14] : haec dices jiliis Israel: qui est misit me,
etiam e08, gui Ephesi sunt sancti et fidelis, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos.*...

1 According to others, including Reiche
(Comm. crit. p. 102), even from the ninth or
tenth century; but not from the year 13831,
as Credner, Kini. I. 2, p. 897, states. This
year belongs to the Codex 67, which con-
tains the Acts and Catholic Epistles. See
Griesbach, II. p. xv. ; Scholz, ITI. p. x.

3 Opp. ed. Garnier, I. p. 254.

3 We must candidly recognize this as the
result of the words of Basil. It is a parti-
san and mistaken view to assert that, in
making the above quotation of the address
of our Epistle, he had not included ev
"Ed¢éow, because he had previously said rots
*Edecions extoréAAwy, and that his appeal to
tradition and the old uss. applied only to the
article rots before otocy (l’Enfant, Wolf), or
to otoww (Wiggers in the Stud. u. Arit. 1841,
p. 4% f.). In opposition to l’Enfant, it may
be urged that Basil must necessarily have
written rovs dovras previously, because
the genuineness and the stress of the article
(which is still wanting in Cod. 48) would
have been in question; in opposition to
Wiggers, that not the slightest critical trace
of a previous omission of otevy is to be found;
while, against both, we may urge the deci-
sive consideration, that it is in the highest

degree arbitrary to assume that in the case
of a verbal critical citation, such as Basil
here gives with so earnest and emphatica
statement of his reason for doing 80 (otrw
yapn.7.A.), words were passed over, because
they would be obvious of themselves, and
words, too, which were so far from being un-
important, that in fact it was only their ab-
sence that could warrant the metaphysical
explanation of rots odow, and did beyond
doubt give rise to it. And ff Basil were
concerned only with rots or ovow, why,
then, has he not merely cited the passage
as far as otvovr, but also added the cai mierois
éy X. "I., so unimportant for that metaphys-
ical conception of trois ovo, and—strangest
of all—omitted just the é» "E¢éow which
stood between? An inconceivable parsi-
mony! No; no reader could understand
the ovrw yap «.t.A. otherwise than of the
form of address just literally cited in the
TOUS a@yioLs TOLS OdELY Kat mioTors ew X.,’ 1, from
which the recension which was then current
differed, in that it contained é» ‘E¢écy.

* Bottger, Beitr. 3, p. 87; Olshausen.

® Opp. ed. Vallars. VII. p. 545.

¢ Probably (see the scholion from Origen
in Tischendorf) this explanation proceeded

INTRODUCTION. — 289
Alié vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui sint, sed qui Ephesi sancti a jideles sint,
scriptam arbitraniur, ‘‘ These words shalt thou say to the children of Israel,
He who is hath sent me, that the saints and faithful at Ephesus are ad-
dressed by a term descriptive of essence. Others, indeed, suppose that the
epistle was written not simply to those who are, but to those who are at
Ephesus, saints and faithful.” But this ‘‘seriptam arbitrantur,” ‘‘ they
thought it written,” does not refer to the fact that these ‘‘ alii,” ‘‘ others,”
had thought that the readers of the Epistle were the Ephesians ; to Jerome,
on the contrary, év ’E¢écy is quite an undoubted part of the text (sanctis
omnibus, qui sunt Ephesi, ‘‘to all saints who are at Ephesus,” is his reading),
and he only adduces two different explanations of roi¢ oto, by which,
however, év ’E¢éoy is not affected. According to the one interpretation,
the Christians at Ephesus were designated as evisting in the metaphysical
sense ; according to the other, roi¢ obo was taken in the usual simple
sense of eiva:, and consequently the Epistle was regarded as directed not to
the eristent Ephesian Christians, but to the Christians who were to be found
at Ephesus. Thus Jerome has not mentioned the omission of év 'Egfoy, and
therefore probably was not aware that the opinion of those ‘‘ guidam” had
originated from the very reading without év 'E¢éoy ; on which account he
looked upon this opinion as a curiosity. Hence he furnishes, almost con-
temporaneously with Basil, an important counterpoise to his testimony.
But if Basil in his time stands alone, he has a precursor, whose testimony
points back to a considerably greater antiquity, in Tertullian, who says,
contra Marc. v.11: ‘‘Praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios
praescriptam' habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos, ‘‘T pass by here another
epistle, which we have, addressed to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the
Laodiceans ;” and at ver. 17 : ‘‘ Heclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad
Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando
interpolgre gestiit, ‘‘According to the true testimony of the church, we hold
this epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. But
Marcion had sometimes a strong desire to interpolate the title” (7.¢., to make
it otherwise, alter it), quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator ; nihil autem
de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam, ‘‘as if
in that he had been a very diligent inquirer ; but the question of the title
is of no account, since the apostle wrote to all, when he wrote to some.” Ac-
cording to this, in Tertullian’s time the Epistle was acknowledged by the
orthodox church, and by Tertullian himself,? as an Epistle to the Ephesians,

from Origen, since it looks quite like him,
and he wrote a commentary on the Epistle,
which was used by Jerome.

1 That is, superscribed. Comp. for example,
Gellius, v. 21, ‘‘epistola .. . cut litulus prae-
ecriptus est,’ ‘‘ the epistle to which the title
is prefixed.’* The words ‘‘ ad Ephesios,"’ “to
the Ephesians,”’ and ‘‘ ad Laodicenos,"’ ‘to
the Laodiceans,"’ are the “ ipsissima verba,”’
*‘very words,” of the prefixed titulus prae-
scriptus. Hence tidulus, “ title,” and prae-
ecribere, *‘ prefixed,” are not to be referred

19

to the address and salutation, which are, in
fact, an integral part of the epistolary text
itself (against Harless, Linemann, and
others, and Laurent in the Jahrd. fiir
Deutsche Theoi. 1866, p. 181). See also Reiche,
Comment. crit. p. 108. The reading peracrip-
tam in the above passage of Tertullian has
evidently arisen from praescriplam (which
is contained in the editions of Pamela
and Rigaltius) not having been understood.

2Comp. cont. Marc. |v. 5, de praescrip.
haer. 86.

290 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

and only heretics like Marcion regarded it as addressed to the Laodiceans ;
but Tertullian cannot have read or known of év’Egéfoy, i. 1, because other-
wise he would not have spoken merely of a change in the superscription,’ and
would not have appealed to the ‘‘ veritas ecclesiae,” ‘‘truth of the church,”
but to the tezt. It has been objected, indeed (see especially, Harless and
Wiggers, and compare also Liinemann), that this is an inference from the
critical standpoint of our time, and that it would have been quite natural
in Tertullian summarily to bring in the ‘‘ veritas ecclesiae,” ‘‘truth of the
church.” But this would only have been natural for him in the event of the
question relating to a falsification of the text by Marcion. The question
here concerns a falsification of the title, which, if the words éy ’E¢écw had
stood in the text, would have been at variance with the text ; and what
would have been in that case more natural than to appeal to the apostolic
’"E¢éoy ? ~The invocation of the ‘‘ veritas ecclesiae’’ serves precisely to prove
that an apostolic év "E¢éow was not known to Tertullian. This at the same
time applies in opposition to the remark of Wiggers, I. 1, p. 429, that
Marcion could not have read anything else than éy ’Eg¢fow in the address, if
he had discovered anything to be changed in the superscription, which was
naturally (7) of the same tenor (7 rpd¢ ‘Egeciouc émictoAy). No, he not merely
may, but must have read in the address nothing at all of the place for which
the Epistle was destined ; otherwise he must have falsified the address also,
and not merely the traditional superscription—which is not to be assumed,
since Tertullian brings a charge against him merely as concerns the titulus,
‘* title,” and, on his own part, betrays no knowledge whatever of an
év 'E¢éow in the address, How, then, could Tertullian dismiss the falsifica-
tion of Marcion with the evasive nihil autem de titulis interest cum ad omnes,
‘*the question of titles is of no account,” etc., if he had before him in
the apostolic text év ’E¢éoy, before which the title tpic¢ Aaod:xéag would at
ence have broken down? Little as it fell in with Tertullian’s purpose to
assail Marcion at length on account of his falsification of the title, since he
was occupied in confuting his dogmatic errors, surely it would have re-
quired no more words to dispose of the falsifier of the title by an appeal to
the text, than to get rid of the matter with the superficial nihil autem de
titulis, etc. And how could Marcion himself (evidently on the ground of
Col. iv. 16) have hit upon the idea of changing the title of the Epistle, if
he himself had read éy ’E¢éow in i. 1? Dogmatic reasons, which at other
times determined the heretic in his critical proceedings, did not exist here
at all. If, in accordance with all this, the testimony of Tertullian, as well
as the procedure of Marcion, to which he bears witness, 1s adcerse to the &v
’"Egéow ; that, on the other hand, of Ignatius, ad Eph. 12, is not to be used
either for or against, whether we look at his words in the shorter or the
longer recension. ?

1 Praescrintam, titulum; comp. on this
last, de pudic. 29, al.

2 According to the longer recension (in
Dressel, p. 882): “Yuets 8 IlavAov cuppmic-
ras doré Hyytacpévov, memaprupyudvov ... ds

wavrore dr Tais Seyoerty avrov pry
povever vuewy (vulg. Huey), “ye are
initiated into the mysteries of the gospel
with Paul the holy, the martyred, who Is
always mindful of you (vulg. of us) in his

INTRODUCTION. 291

But although, when the matter is thus cleared up, Basil on the ground of
older mss. rejected ¢v ’E¢éow, and Marcion and Tertullian did not read the
words, they are yet to be most decidedly retained as original, for the follow-
ing external and internal reasons (in addition to the attestation, upon which
we have already remarked, of all other still extant witnesses, and especially
of the versions) :—(1) The entire ancient church has designated our Epistle
expressly as Epistle to the Ephesians (Irenaeus, Haer. v. 2, 3 ; Clemens Alex.
Strom. iv. 8, p. 592, ed. Potter ; Tertullian, Origen, and others, even as
early as the Canon Murat., and Valentinus in the Philosoph. Or. vi. 84) with-
out even a single voice, with the exception of Marcion’s, being raised against
this view. But if the words év 'Egéow had been wanting from the outset, and
the Epistle had thus borne on the face of it no place of destination, such a
consensus would have been quite as inexplicable in itself as at variance with
the analogy of the other Epistles, in which throughoat the judgment of the
church as to the first readers coincides with the superscription, where there
is one, and beyond doubt depends upon it. (2) In all his Epistles Paul
designates in the address the recipients most definitely, even when he does
not write to the Christians of a single town (1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 1), or to
a single church (Gal. i. 2). Accordingly, our Epistle, if fairly regarded in
accordance with the address, should év 'E¢éow not be genuine, would be
marked out as a catholic one, without any limitation whatever of locality or
nationality of the readers,—a view with which the contents (i. 15, ii. 11,
iii. 1, iv. 17, etc.) as well as the mission of Tychicus (vi. 21) would be de-
cidedly at variance. (3) On each occasion, when St. Paul in the address has
used roi¢ ovorv, it serves to specify the locality of the readers. See Rom. i.
7: roi¢g ovow év ‘Pouy ; Phil. 1. 1: roic ovow év dcAimmae ; 1 Cor. i. 2: 7H oboy
év Kopiviy, and even so 2 Cor. i. 1. Compare the addresses in the Ignatian
Epistles. (4) If Paul had written roi¢ dyiote Toi¢g oborv Kai mioroic, we should
have a form of address, which does not even admit of any tolerable expla-
nation. It would yield the meaning : fo the saints, who are also (not merely
saints, but also) believing.’ But what a flat and inappropriate severance of
the ideas ‘‘ saints and believing,” which should rather be conjoined into unity
(comp. Col. i. 2)! With the apostle there are no saints, who are not also

prayers.’’ Following the reading yuev, #makes mention of you in his whole letter!

Credner here concludes that our Epistle
was not directed to the Ephesians alone.
But it would apply to “the Pauline Chris-
tians in general,’ so that it would not at
all contain a reference to the individual
Epistle. According to the shorter recen-
sion, the passage runs thus: [avaAov «.7.A.,
8s éy wdoyn éxtgrodAg pynpovevaer
tpay, “of Paul, who in every epistle ad-
monishes you.” Here ¢v rdcp éxioroAn does
not mean, in the whole Epistle,—a linguis-
tically erroneous interpretation which,
though still defended by Harless and re-
peated by Dressel, would yield a quite frrel-
evant meaning ; for how strange to say to
A, who has received a letter from B: B

This Is surely obvious of itself, and is not
at all a point appropriate to be dwelt upon!
On the contrary, ¢y wacy éx:eroAp Means:
tn every Epistle ; so that Ignatius does not
mean our Epistle alone, nor yet by ve»
specially the Ephesians as such, but the
Ephesians as Pauline Christians generally
(as regards category), and hence could say :
he makes mention of you in every Epistle.
It is not difficult to see how, in the words
under consideration, the longer recension
is related as erplanatory to the shorter.

1 It is not necessary that in this case otouw
should stand after morois. Comp. John i.
49, tv. 9; Acts vil 2; Eph. il. 1, eto.

292 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

believers. The explanation of Meier is chargeable with the same inappro-
priateness : to the saints, who are also faithful (since the unfaithful have
ceased to be saints) ; and, moreover, it is to be taken into consideration
that ricroic is not defined to have the sense of faithful by the context, but
rather, when used in the address, and connected with év X. ’I., most natu-
rally presents the sense of believing, as in Col. i. 2." Credner, Hinl. I. 2,
p. 400, translates : to the saints, who are in fact also believers, and this is held to
mean : to the saints, who are true believers ; in the mouth of Paul equiva-
lent to Pauline Christians. But, in this case, roi¢ otccv could not, without
risk of being misapprehended, dispense with a defining addition (in facf),
or Paul at least must have written roi¢ xai ovoty tioToic, in which case by
means of cai the special emphasis of ote.y might be indicated (who are not
merely called believers, but aiso are so). Yet even thus the expression
would not be clear, and the meaning : to the Pauline Christians, would be
purely imported. In a contert, where Pauline and anti-Pauline Christians
were spoken of, the reader might without further indication understand
under true believers the former ; but not in the address, where this ref-
erence is not suggested by anything, and the less so, seeing that this con-
trast does not come once under discussion in the Epistle itself. Schneck-
enburger and Matthies attach roi¢ oto to roi¢ ayiows. The latter? explains:
Toi¢ ovowv, who are there (namely, in Asia Minor, whither Tychicus was jour-
neying to visit them), which imputcs to Paul a strange clumsiness. But
Schneckenburger? renders : fo the saints, who arein fact such. But even thus
Paul, in order to obviate misunderstanding (and in the address of an official
writing at any rate people express themselves definitely and clearly), could
not have dispensed with some defining adjunct (in fact) to roi¢ oto ; and,
even apart from this, how unsuitable would the address be, whether we ex-
plain the true saints as standing in contrast to the nominal Christians or to
the Jews! The former would yield an indefinite designation of the readers,
and would contain an exclusion and separation unsuited to the apostolic
spirit and working. And the latter would be quite out of place, since the
Epistle has nothing at all to do with the contrast to Judaism. All expla-
nations «without tv 'E¢éow are fanciful impossibilities, unless we keep to the
first-given simple translation of the words. Weiss does this in Herzog‘s
Encykl. XIX. p. 480 ; rejecting év 'Egéow, he makes the saints, who are believers
also on Christ,‘ to be said of the New Testament saints in contrast with those
of the Old Testament. But this contrast would itself be quite without any
motive in the contents of the Epistle ; indeed, in the «ai (also) there would be
implied a side-glance at the unconverted Jews, which would be out of place
and unsuitable.

1 This also holds in opposition to Bott-
ger's views, Beitrdge, 8, p. 20 ff.: to the
saints, who there are also faithful, in which
the ovo. presents a contrast to the apostate
Jewish-Christians, who had been faithful.
Such a contrast would necessarily, from
the very nature of the case, have been
spoken of in the Epistle itself—We may

add that already the Gothic version has
translated morois, faithful (“* triggvaim "’).

2 Comp. Bengel.

3 Beitrage, p. 188,

“ So in substance also Reiche, Comsn. crit.
p. 122: ‘‘ sanctis, tisdemque Ademin Christum
proftentibus,” ‘‘to the saints, and the same
professing faith in Christ.”

INTRODUCTION. 293

In view of all that has been said, we must defend év ’Edéoy, i. 1, as decid-
edly genuine. But wherefore was it omitted at so early a period’ in a por- -
tion of the codices? Certainly this omission was not a mere transcriber’s
error ;? for not only is such an error in itself improbable at the very main
point of the address, but it would not have obtained any considerable diffu-
sion. Further,‘the possible reason, which may account at Rom. i. 7 forthe
absence of év ‘Pdéuy in various Mss., namely, through a transcript of the Epis-
tle for public reading in another particular church, is here at any rate im-
probable, since the manuscripts not containing év’E¢géom must have been cir-
culated in very different regions (Asia and Africa) and in very considerable
number. This latter fact might point to the hypothesis that, by omitting
év ’Egéoy, It was sought to give to an Epistle so general in tenor and weigh-
ty, the impress of a Catholic one.? But, in point of fact, the apostolic Epis-
tles directed ad guosdam, ‘‘ to some,” were already of themselves regarded
as written ad omnes, ‘‘ to all,” ‘* and hence there was no need of the proced-
ure indicated. Equally inadmissible, moreover, is the view (see below),
that from the very first in a portion of the manuscripts the place for the
local name was left vacant, and thereby év 'Egéow was omitted.° Nor yet
can we accept the dogmatic reason, that the name of the place was expunged
with a view to favor the metaphysical explanation of roi¢ oto, specified in
Basil and Jerome, since the converse alone is natural, namely, that the met-
aphysical interpretation of roi¢ ovocv arose from the fact of the text being al-
ready deprived of the év ’Egéoy,

The omission would rather appear due to ancient historical criticism.
From the contents of the letter at a very early period the inference had been
- drawn, that it was addressed to persons who were as yet personally unknown
to the apostle, and still novices in Christianity. And how naturally did
this lead to the view that the Ephesians had not been the recipients, and so
to the striking out of év’Egéow ! The text written without é 'Egéow was
soon laid hold of to support the metaphysical explanation of roi¢ otocy, which
had arisen out of it ; and the favor and diffusion which the latter received

1 Marcion, Tertullian, the old mss. in
Basil.

2 Linemann.

7Comp. Wieseler,
Zetlalt. p. 488.

4 Jerome, c. Marc. v. 17.

® Schott, Jsag. p. 279, suggests that per-
haps Paul himself had commissioned Ty-
chicus to have copies for other churches
made at Ephesus, and to have the names
of these offer churches inserted therein in
place of the é» Ed¢écw, which came from
himself; and that a copyist had left a blank
for the future insertion of the name, which
he had forgotten thereafter to fill up.

* Historical traces of this ancient view
are to be found in Theodoret, Pra¢f., and on
i. 15, who relates “ that some had asserted
that Paul pydére rovs "Edecious reOeapevoy,
* never having seen the Ephesians,’ had writ-

Chronol. des apost.

ten this Epistle to them ;’’ and also in Eutha-
lius (ap. Zaccagni in Collect. mon. vet. ecct.
p. 524) : 9 wpds “Edecious.. . hs dv rH mpoypady
To pvoThpioy éxriderat, wapanAngiws TH pos
‘Pwyaious: audorédpocs 5é ef axons yrwpipots, cat
eigiy abrat wpds avridiacroAny apxai carnxoupe-
vor Kal moTwy cicaywyai, ‘‘ the Epistle to the
Ephesians, in whose introduction the mys-
tery is presented, just as in that to the Ro-
mans: to both known by hearing, and
they are in distinction elements for cate-
chumens and introductions for believers.’’
Comp. also the Synopses. script. sacr. in Atha-
nasius, Opp. ILI. p. 194, ed. Bend.: ravrnv émo-
Téd\Ace amd 'Pwyuns, ovr mev avrovs ¢wpaxes,
axovcas 62 pévoy wepi avrav (Trav 'Edeciwy),
‘* He writes this from Rome, not as yet hav-
ing seen them, but only having heard of
them *’ (é.¢., of the Ephesians).

294 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
from its accordance with the taste of the age necessarily contributed to the
spread of the text which was denuded of the é 'Egéow. The omission of
these words, thus originated and diffused, could not indeed do away with
the correct ecclesiastical tradition of the Epistle being destined for Ephesus,
or frustrate the preservation of év'Egéow and the triumph of that original
reading (supported as it was by all the versions), which had been already
achieved by the time of Jerome; but it did make it possible for Marcion,
seeing that he already found év 'Egésw no longer in the text, to alter, in
opposition to tradition, the title mpdc 'Egeciouc into mpé¢ Aaodixéac, regarding
the Epistle on the basis of Col. iv. 16 as addressed to the Laodiceans—in the
service of the same criticism, under which, only handled in a negative sense,
év 'Egéoy had disappeared.

But, it is said, the contents—quite general in tenor, without personal
reminiscences and references, without salutations (not even Timotheus and
Aristarchus are mentioned, as in Col. i. 1, iv. 10 ; Philem. 24), without any
trace of that close intimacy in which Paul had stood to his Ephesian con-
verts, as a father to his children '—are of such 4 character that the Epistle
of itself betrays that it was not directed to the Ephesians ; and the passages,
i, 15, iii. 1-4, iv. 21, point to readers who had not been in any personal con-
nection with the apostle. Mainly based on this internal character of the
Epistle, we find two hypotheses concerning the readers for whom it was
destined :—I. Following Marcion, Grotius, Hammond, Mill, Pierce, du Pin,
Wall, the younger Vitringa, Venema, Wetstcin, Paley, e¢ al., including, re-
cently, Holzhausen and others (sce on Col. iv. 16), as well as Rabiger,* have
supposed ® that the Epistle was addressed to the Laodiceans, as being pergon-
ally unknown to the apostle (Col. ii. 1). While this hypothesis‘ falls of
itself, if the genuineness of év ’E¢éow is established, it may, moreover, be
urged in opposition to it—(a) that from Marcion's procedure we may not in-
fer an Asiatic tradition. For the ecclesiastical tradition is quite unani-
mous in regarding the Ephesians as readers of the Epistle; there is no
trace of deviation ; the heretic stands alone with his adherents, without
any anticipation or echo of his critical paradox. (6) Since, according to
Col. iv. 16, the Epistle to the Laodiceans had at the very first become
known in two different churches,—in Laodicea and Colossae,—and
without doubt was disseminated from both by copies, it is the more
incomprehensible how the Ephesians could appropriate to themselves

fdentical with that mentioned in Col iv. 16;

1 It {s arbitrary and contrary to the man-
ner of the apostle to assume, with Wurm
(in the 7d. Zeitechr. 1888, I. p. 98), that
Paul, because of painful experiences which
he had had in Ephesus, avoided mention of
previous occurrences. How altogether dif-
ferent is his procedure, especially in the
Epistle to the Galatians !

2 Christologia Paul. p. 48.

® See, in opposition to this assumption,
also Satori, der d. Laodicenerbrief, Liibeck,
1853, and especially Reiche, p. 181 sqq.
Reiche, however, considers our Epistle as

in his view it was destined not merely for
the Laodiceans, but also for Hterapolie and
other churches of that region, and thence had
no place specified in the opening address;
but Paul had orally imparted to Tychicus
more particular directions as to that point.
See, in opposition to the alleged encyclical
destination of the Epistle, generally what is
said below under II. The view of Weiss is
essentially similar to that of Reiche.
4 To which Baur, p. 457, is also inclined.

INTRODUCTION. 295
the Laodicean letter, and how universal ecclesiastical tradition could
support this view without meeting with opposition in the church itself.
The appeal to the earthquake, which, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiv. 27,
in the year 60° destroyed Laodicea,* yields no result, since, according to
Tacitus, /.c., Laodicea was soon restored ; and the Christian church there
cannot have perished (Rev. iii.), still less the knowledge of the Epistle
which Paul had written to them. No doubt, in view of Col. iv. 16, there
must have been an affinity of contents between the Epistle to the Laodiceans
and that to the Colossians, which seems to tell in favor of the identity of
our Epistle with the former ; but may not Paul, besides our Epistle and that
to the Colossians, have written a third kindred in its contents ? which has
perished, like a letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), one to the Philip-
pians (see on Phil. iii. 1, Remark), and perhaps aléo others, which have left
no traces behind. (c)If our Epistle is the Epistle to the Laodiceans, it must °
have been written before the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. iv. 16), which,
according to § 2,'is not to be assumed. Indeed, at Eph. vi. 21 and Col. iv.
7, there might possibly be not even meant one and the same journey of
Tychicus (which yet forces itself on us so undeniably in pursuance of the
words and the geographical relations), seeing that Paul, in the Epistle to the
Colossians (iv. 15), directs the Laodiceans, and an individual among them,
to be saluted,—which, from the nature of the case, he would hardly have done,
if he had been sending to them at the same time a letter, and that by so
trusted a fellow-laborer,? who, besides, had to travel by way of Laodicea to
Colossae (see on Col. iv. 16, Remark). (@) What Holzhausen says of Col.
ii. 2, that it was written with a consciousness of the Epistle to the Ephesians,
is purely imaginary.‘ Following Beza,* and Ussher,* Garnier,’ Bengcel,
Benson, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Ziegler,® Justi,® Stolz, Haenlein,

1 According to Eusebius, Chron., and Oro-
slus, Hist. vil. 7, only at a later date ; see
Wieseler, p. 455.

2 According to Eusebius and Oroslus,
Colossae and Hierapolis also.

$ This enigma would only admit of solu-
tion from the domain of conjecture. The
easiest thing would be to say, that Paul,
when he had the Epistle to the Colossians
with his salutation to the Laodiceans al-
ready completed, had only then resolved to
send further with Tychicus a let/er to the
Laodiceans, in drawing up which he was
aware that Tychicus would reach Laodicea
before Colossae. But with all hypotheses,
which are not made in the consistent fol-
lowing out of an ascertained fact, the
ground falis away under our feet. Others
have asserted that Paul wished to repeat
the salutations, or that he had only, as ho
was writing to the Colossians, heard about
Nymphas through Epaphras; but these,
after all, are nothing but suppositions,
which, moreover, are invalidated by the

fact that our Epistle fs to be placed after
that to the Colossians (see § 2). Bertholdt
considers the salutation in Col. iv. 15 mere-
ly as introduction to the subsequent com-
mission (“have the letter brought to the
Laodiceans with my salutation”). But
how utterly in opposition to the connec-
tion !

4See, in opposition to it, Harless,
p. xxxix.—II.

5 Who, on the subscription to the Epistle,
expresses the conjecture that it was sent
not so much ad Ephesios ipsos proprie,
“properly to the Ephesians themselves,"’
as rather fo Ephesus, ‘‘ ut ad celeras Asiaticas
ecclesias transmitieretur,” “that it might
be transmitted to the other Asiatio
churches ;"’ and that hence, probably, arose
the partial omission of é¢v "E¢décy.

*In his Annales ad ann. 64.

tad Basil. i.c.

® In Henke'r Magaz. IV. 2, p. 225 ff.

® Vermischte Abhandlungen, II. p. 81 ff.

296 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

Schmidt, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, Flatt, Hemsen, Schott, Feilmoser,
Schrader, Schneckenburger, Neander, Riickert, Credner, Matthies, Meier,
Harless, Béttger, Anger, Olshausen, Thiersch,' Guericke, Lange, Bleek,
and others have, though with manifold variations in detail,* regarded
our Epistle as a circular letter. In that case Ephesus has mostly been in-
cluded in the circle of churches concerned, but sometimes—as by Koppe,
Haenlein,*® Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Reiche—entirely excluded ; while
Laodicea and its neighborhood have been in various ways brought in (accord-
ing to Credner, ¢.g., one copy of the letter was sent to Ephesus to be circulated
among the churches on the west coast of Asia Minor ; and another copy
to Laodicea, to be circulated among the churches in the interior), in fact,
have even been regarded as the locality for which the Epistle was primarily
and specially destined ; Bleek being withal of opinion that the Ephe-
sians only got it to read from Tychicus on his journey to Phrygia, and re-
tained for themselves a copy of it. But, in opposition to the view of any
sort of encyclical destination, we may decisively again urge—(a) the univer-
sal and undivided ecclesiastical tradition, which does not exhibit the very
slightest trace of such a destination. Indeed, both the orthodox and Mar-
cion are here at one, since both name only one church as the receiver of the
Epistle. And when we remember what a high honor any church could not
but consider it to have received an apostolic writing, the utter disappear-
ance of all knowledge that our Epistle had belonged to other churches, or
had been claimed by them as their property, would be quite inconceivable.
(0) Even apart from the circumstance that Paul does not in the Epistle give
the slightest hint of any encyclical destination for it, the words of the address
év ’Egéow, which cannot critically be dislodged, expressly testify against it.
Paul could not thus address it, if he had intended it for more extended cir-
culation, or even for other localities.‘ How very differently he knew how
to stamp on the face of the Epistles to the Corinthians the body of readers
for whom they were intended! But if the év ’Eoéoy 1s held to be spurious

1 Kirche tm apost. Zeitalt. p. 145 sqq.

2 See Lanemann, p. 88 sqq.

2 Who has even lighted on the Pelopon-
nesus /

4 This holds also in oppostion tothe form
which Harless has given to the matter.
The readers, in his view, were daughter-
churches of Ephesus, or Christians scattered
about the country, who had first been made
acquainted with the gospel from Ephesus,
and of whom Paul had received intelligence
through the Ephesians. To these Christians
he had forwarded the Epistle through the
Ephesian church. But as the Ephesian
cburch itself might also extract benefit and
edification from it, the apostle had wished
that the Epistle should be publicly read to
the principal church and remain with it.
Harless conceives of Tychicus as giving the
following message to the Ephesians: “J

bring to you here aletter which concerns you
all, but specially the Gentile Christians, of
whom you have spoken to the apostle. Take
care that the letter, when it has been read with
you, should also come into their hands, ye who
know best the ways and means for that end;
and bring me to them, in order that I, in ae-
cordance with the apostle’s commission, may
tell them what I have told you concerning his
condition."’ Thus the letter would primari-
ly and mainly have applied to readers out-
side of Ephesus, and Paul would have ad-
dressed it rots otow "EN "E¢éow? He would
have suppressed its principal destination.
and would have placed as the address only
a mediate and subordinate one? No, Paul
would have known how really to express in
the opening address the relation which
Harless has merely presupposed. if he had
so conceived of it. See also Reiche, p. 127.

INTRODUCTION. 29%
(against this view, see above), then the address, which with év ’Eg¢écy is too
limited for a circular letter, would «without these words be too wide for the
purpose ; for then no local definition of the readers whatever would be indi-
cated, and the Epistle would present itself not as an encyclical, but as a
catholic’ Epistle. (c) If, with Rickert and Olshausen, we should assume that
Paul, in the several copics which he gave to Tychicus, had left blank the
name of the place in order that it might be subsequently filled up with the
names of the churches concerned,’ or that at least in some copies a vacant
space was left to be filled up at pleasure,® this is (a) altogether an arbitrary
transplanting of a modern procedure from the counting-houses of the present
day back into the apostolic age, from which we have circular letters indeed,
but no trace of such a process of drawing them out, the mechanical
nature of which would hardly square with the spirit of the apostolic
age. And (8) would not the Epistle, even if every church concerned had
received a copy provided with its own name, have yet remained a circular
letter ? Thus, indeed, in the individual church-names of the different copies
there would have been just so many contradictions to the proper destination
of the Epistle. Why, then, should not Paul—in case of his giving to
Tychicus the alleged circular letter in several copies—have named in every
address uniformly the recipient churches as a whole? (y) It would have
been utter folly ‘if Paul in a portion of the copies had left the name of the
place blank, to be filled up according to pleasure in a manner which had not
already been fixed. Could he write i. 15 ff., vi. 22, without having quite a
definite conception what churches he had in view? (d)If only the name
was to be left blank, why was év also omitted ? why did not the copies run
Toig otowy év . . . Kal mortoig x.t.A. ? (e€) How inexplicable, that only copies
with év "E¢éoy, and, in addition, those having no name whatever, should
have had the good fortune to be preserved and distributed |! Each of the
churches in question would have sought to preserve and to multiply the
copy addressed ¢o it under its name ; and different traditions with regard to
the readers would inevitably have been current at a very early date in the
church side by side. (¢) If Laodicea was in the circle of churches in ques-
tion, Colossae also was so (Col. iv. 16). But Colossae did not get the
alleged circular letter through the despatch of a copy intended for the Co-
lossians, and addressed to them, but had to procure for itself the Laodicean
Epistle from Laodicea (Col. .c.). These arguments tell at the same time

1 Success cannot attend the attempt men- __ this bold stroke of tradition would hardly

tally to supply the local destination of the
letter (that disappears with the rejection
of ¢v "Edpéoy) from any other quarter in deal-
ing with so singular and nameless an ad-
dress. Weiss, J.c. (comp. Reiche), thinks
that Paul had given information to Tychi-
cus for what circle of churches in Asia
Minor the letter was intended; but that
the later tradition had appropriated it to
the chief town and chief church, and had
completed the address accordingly. But
that premiss is arbitrarily assumed, and

have gained universal assent, especially in
view of its enigmatic relation to the con-
tents of the Epistle. If Ephesus did not
from the first stand in the text, as Marcion
did not read it, the latter would haveacted
with more tact in having recourse to Laodi-
cea.

2 Ussher first suggested this, followed by
Garnier, Bengel, Eichhorn, Hug, and others.

2 Moldenhauer, Michaelis, Bertholdt,
Hemsen, and others.

4 Comp. Matthael, ed. min. III. p. 208.

298 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
against Bleek’s hesitating conjecture, that Paul in the Epistle, which was
primarily intended for Laodicea, Hierapolis, etc., had left a gap after roic
ovorv, because, at the time of writing the letter, he was not yet able to specify
all the several churches ; as likewise against Anger's view, that the circular
letter, primarily destined for Ephesus, had at the same time been destined
for the daughter-churches of Asia, and among these, also for Laodicea ;
that Tychicus had to bring it first to Ephesus, from whence it was to make
its way to the other churches, and so to Laodicea, and from thence to
Colossae. In opposition to this view, see Zeller' and Wieseler.* Similarly
Laurent,? who assumes that Paul had intended the Epistle for the two
churches, Laodicea and Ephesus, but had only despatched one copy for the
two, in which he left the designation of the place open. Thus copies with
designations of the place had arisen through transcripts, some with éy Aaod:-
xeig, some with év ’Egéoy, the latter of which obtained the upper hand.
But from the evidence of Tertullian (see above) we cannot gather that he
had seen mss. with év Aaodixeig. Besides, there would subsist no reason at
all why Paul, if he had written to these two churches, should not also have
mentioned both of them in the address.

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, no other critical procedure
in ascertaining the readers of the Epistle rests on a historical basis but that
adopted by most of the later commentators, which arrives at the conclusion
that our Epistle was directed to the Ephesians and to no further church, in
pursuance of the genuine év ’Egécy, and in agreement with the primitive
and universal tradition of the church. So among the later commen-
tators Whitby, Wolf, Cramer, Morus, and more recently Rinck,* Wurm,‘
Wiggers,* Wicseler." We must, however, candidly confess that, while
the difficulties of the individual passages 1. 15, ill. 1-4, iv. 21, may
be elucidated by their exegesis, the tone and contents of so general
a tenor, the absence of any reminiscences of personal connection with
the readers, the want of salutations, etc., in an Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, remain more surprising than would be the case in any other
Epistle. The appeal made by Wiescler® to the elevated and didactic char-
acter of the Epistle is not sufficient to explain this strange phenomenon ;
we lack the historical information for this purpose, and scientific modesty
and prudence prefer to confess in this case the non liquet, rather than to

1 Theol. Jahrb. 1844, I. p. 199 ff.

® Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 442 sq.

3In the Jahrb. f. Deuteche Theol. 1866,
p. 181.

"4 Sendschr. der Korinther, p. 81 ff., and in

the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 948 ff.

§In the 7tib. Zeilschr. 1838, I. p. 97 f.

* Yet he also takes up the view (already
expressed by Beza in his remarks on the
subscription), that the apostle has not
merely regarded the word spoken to the
Ephesians as spoken to them, but has
desired and designed a diffusion of the
Epistle among, and a knowledge of it in,
wider circles, so that under the one church

he is addressing the whole body of Asiatic
Christians, which had Ephesus as their
mother-church and centre.. But against
this view it must be urged—apart from the
circumstance that St. Paul says nothing
whatever of this supposed design—that in
all the other Epistles too he might presup-
pose their being communicated to wider
circles, and yet is not thereby withheld from
entering into particulars, sending saluta-
tions, and the like. In the Stud. u. Krit.
1841, p. 412 ff.

7 Chronol. d. apost. Zettalt. p. 4438.

Sp. 449.

INTRODUCTION. 299

construct hypotheses which, as has been shown, fall to pieces of themselves,’
There must have existed historical circumstances which occasioned the Epis-
tle to receive the strange form that it undoubtedly has, but we are not
acquainted with them. It is very natural, however, to think of the phe-
nomenon in question as, in part at least, causally connected with the mission
of Tychicus. In accordance with vi. 21 f., Paul may have reserved all de-
tails to be orally communicated by the latter, who seemed specially fitted
for this purpose, since he, as an inhabitant of Asia,* as a witness of Paul's
farewell to the presbyters (Acts xx. 4), and also named elsewhere as an em-
issary to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12), was undoubtedly very accurately acquainted
with the relations of Paul to the Ephesians ; while on the part also of
the apostle himself there might be special motives (based possibly on the
accusation brought against him by the Jews, Acts xxi. 28, 29, and on the
covetousness of the venal Felix, Acts xxiv. 26), arising from the conditions
of his imprisonment and surveillance, for his deeming it advisable by way
of precaution to compose his Epistle to ¢his particular church, with which
he was on the most intimate footing, without setting forth personal relations
and special circumstances. Nevertheless, this Epistle, as an apostolical
letter to the Ephesians, with its so general, and, even in various particulars,
surprising contents, remains an enigma awaiting further solution ; and we
must confess that if Ephesus had not been given as the place of destination,
criticism would least of all have been likely to light upon this church among
the Asiatic churches known to us. [See Note I., p. 308.]

SEC. 2.—PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION.

St. Paul was a prisoner when he wrote the Epistle, iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20. It
has always been the prevailing opinion that this imprisonment was the cap-
tivity af Rome, narrated in the Acts of the Apostles. But David Schulz,*
and after him Schneckenburger,‘ Schott,’ Béttger,* Wiggers,’ Thiersch,'
Reuss,’ Schenkel,” and Zéckler,” have decided in favor of the captivity at

1 This holds also of those hypotheses,
which do not keep to the view of the Chris-
tian church at Ephesus as such, regarded as
a whole, being the readers of the Epistle.
Thas Neudecker (ZinJ. p. 502) holds that the
Epistle is directed to that portion of the
church which had been converted by the
disciples of the apostle after he had left
Ephesus; and Liinemann conceives that
Paul has written to a church which had
been founded but a short time before in the
immediate neighborhood of Ephesus, and
which was so closely bound up with the
Ephesian Charch that it might be considered
asa part of it. Such hypotheses are strik-
ingly and decisively disposed of by the
simple and definite rots otow dy 'Edecy,
which does not admit of any more limited
interpretation than the addresses rois otovw
ery ‘Pwoun, Rom. 1. 7; trois otocw dv ScAixwocs,

Phil. {. 1, eto.

2 Perhaps even from Ephesus. In Acts
xx. 4, Tychiocus and Trophimus are named
as “of Asia,” but the latter at least is defi-
nitely designated in xxi. 20 as an Epheastan.

In the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 612 ff.

* Bettr. p. 14f.

§ Graul (Lips. 1886) wrote in opposition to
Schulz and Schott.

* In connection, doubtless, with his
hypothesis that that Roman imprisonment
only lasted a few days.

7 In the Stud. u. Arit. 1841, p. 486 ff.

®° ad. Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 176.

© Geach. der heil. Schr. N. T. § 114.

10 Comp. also Weiss in Herzog’s EncyH.
XIX. p. 718.

11In Vilmar's Pastoral-theol, Blitt, 1868,
p. 27 f.

300 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Caesarea. And rightly so. Not, however, as if the friends of Paul, who
are named in the contemporary letters to the Colossians and to Philemon
(Col. iv. 9-14 ; Philem. 10 ff., 23f.), could not have been with him at Rome,
as has been sought to be inferred from the Epistle to the Philippians, which
only (i. 1) mentions Timotheus ;’ nor, again, on account of mpé¢ épav, Pki-
lem. 15, which expression as contrasted with aidévov by no means presupposes
merely a quite short separation of the runaway Onesimus from his master ;
nor yet because Paul at Rome could not have obtained sufficiently accurate
information concerning Colossae, for this might, in fact, have been. got
sufficiently by means of Epaphras (Col. iv. 12) ;—but, (1) because it is in
itself more natural and probable that the slave Onesimus had run away from
Colossae as far'as Caesarea, than that he should have fled, at the cost of a
long journey by sea, to Rome, the more especially as the fugitive was not
yet a Christian. The objection,*® that in the great city of Rome he would
have been more secure from being tracked by the fugitiearti, who were every-
where on the look-out for runaway slaves, cannot be maintained, since this
police-agency was certainly most to be dreaded in the capital itself and in
the company of a state-prisoner. (2) If our Epistle and the Epistle to the
Colossians had been sent from Rome, then would its bearer Tychicus, who
was accompanied by Onesimus (Col. iv. 8, 9), have arrived at Ephesus first,
and then at Colossae ; and accordingly we might reasonably expect that
Paul would have mentioned to the Ephesians along with Tychicus (Eph. vi.
21, 22) his companion Onesimus (as he does in Col. iv. 8, 9), in order by that
means to prepare for his beloved Onesimus a good reception among the
Ephesians. If, on the contrary, Tychicus started with Onesimus from Cae-
sarea, he arrived by the most direct road, in keeping with the design of the
journey of Onesimus, first at Colossae, where he left the slave with his mas-
ter, and thence passed on to Ephesus ; accordingly Paul had, in the circum-
stance that Onesimus did not go with Tychicus to Ephesus, a natural reason
for not including a mention of Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephesians.’
It is not enough to explain this non-mention from the general absence of
individual references in our Epistle (Wieseler), since here the question con-
cerns a single passage, which 7s really of an individual and personal tenor.
(3) In Eph. vi. 21, Iva 62 eidqre nat ipcic, this xai indicates the conception
that, when Tychicus should come to the Ephesians, he would have already
fulfilled the aim here expressed in the case of others. And these others are
the Colossians (Col. iv. 8, 9), with regard to whom, therefore, Paul knew
that Tychicus would come jirst to them, which again tells in favor not of
Rome, but of Caesarea, as the starting-point. If the messenger had been
despatched from Rome, and so had proceeded from Ephesus to Colossae, we
should then have expected the «ai at the corresponding passage in the
Epistle to the Colossians.‘ Further, (4) Paul, in Philem. 22, asks Philemon

1 In any case the Epistletothe Philipplans 24), Acts xxvii. 2.
was written later. But these friends might 2 See Wieseler, p. 417.
just as well have been with the apostle at * Comp. Wiggers, é.c. p. 440 ff.
Rome as at Caesarea, as certainly was the 4 Wiggers appeals to ver. 22, holding,
case with Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10; Philem. namely, that Paul could not legitimately

INTRODUCTION. 301

to prepare a lodging for him, and that, too, for speedy use.’ This, on the
one hand, presupposes the fact that his present place of imprisonment was
much nearer to Colossae than the far distant Rome, especially considering
the slowness of navigation in those days ; on the other hand,—and this is
withal the main point,—we must assume, in the light of this request, that
Paul thought of coming from his place of imprisonment, after the speedy
release which he hoped for, direct to Phrygia, and in particular to Colossae
unto Philemon, without making any intermediate journeys, since otherwise
there would be no motive for the request as to the immediate preparation of
a lodging for him at the house of Philemon simultancously with the taking
back of Onesimus. But now it is plain from Phil. ii. 24 that Paul, when he
was lying a prisoner at Rome and was there hoping for his liberation, intended
to journey to Macedonia (not to Spain, to which his views had been directed
earlier, Rom. xv. 24),—which, after what has been said above, is not in
keeping with the bespeaking of a lodging with Philemon. This bespeaking,
on the other hand, is quite appropriate, if Paul was at Caesarea. From
that place, after the speedy release which he hoped for, he intended to
journey through Phrygia and Asia generally, and next to carry out his
old plan, which was directed to Rome (Rom. i. 10 ff.; Acts xix. 21).
Whether at this time he still entertained his earlier plan of a journey to
Spain (Rom. xv. 24 ; at Phil. ii. 24 he had given it up), is a matter of indif-
ference for our question. But it is certain that Paul at Caesarea, consider-
ing his gentle treatment and the lax prosecution of his trial under Felix,
might hope for speedy liberation (Acts xxiv. 23, 26). It has been main-
tained? that neither the freedom to preach (vi. 19 ; Col. iv. 3 f. is not here
relevant), nor the conversion of Onesimus (Philem. 10), suit his condition at
Caesarea, but that they suit only his position at Rome according to Acts
xxviii. 30 f. ; but this is to assert too much, for the notice at Acts xxiv. 28
leaves sufficient scope for our recognizing such activity on the part of the
captive Paul even in Caesarea. Comp. Introd. to Col. § 2.

If, accordingly, Paul composed the Epistle in Caesarea, the date of its
composition is either A.D. 60 or a.p. 61.

Finally, the question whether this Epistle or that to the Colossians was first
written, is not to be answered on a psychological basis * by considering their
inner relationship and peculiar character, because in that case there is too
much scope left for subjectivity,—as, indeed, on such grounds some have

have written dy éwrepa wpds vuas eis avrd
touro «.7.A., if Tychicus must, in the very
nature of the case from his being destined
for Colossae, have come to Ephesus. But
wrongly. For even if Tychicus, in virtue
of the direction of his journey (from Rome
to Colossae), would necessarily have been
brought by the way of Ephesus, he might
nevertheless have merely passed through
ft, if St. Paul had not expressly given him
orders for the definite object of Eph. vi. 22,
and entrusted him with commissions to the
church. The fact that Tychicus must nec-

essarily have travelled by way of Ephesus
would not therefore exclude the truth of
the érepwpa wpds vpas «.r.A. We may add,
that from Rome the travellers might have
reached Colossae, without even touching
at Ephesus,—by way of Miletus possibly,—
so that Paul, if Rome be presupposed as the
starting-point, might the more fitly write
these words.

1 See on Philem. Z.c.

2See Wieseler, p. 420, Guericke, and
others.

3 As,o¢.g., by Credner, § 157, who holds that

302 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

found the Epistle to the Ephesians the carlier;! nor yet by inferring, with
Hug, from the non-mention of Timothy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that
this Epistle was written earlier than the letters to the Colossians and to
Philemon, because in the latter Timothy shares in the salutation, and must
thus have have joined Paul later.*? But that the Epistle to the Colossians
was written before that to the Ephesians, is to be assumed for the following
reasons : (1) As Colossae was the first and nearest goal which Tychicus, in
company with the Colossian Onesimus, would reach from Caesarea (see
above), it could not but be the most natural and obvious course for the apos-
tle to write the letter to the Colossians sooner than the letter which was to
be delivered only at a further stage of his friend’s journey ; (2) xai tueic,
vi. 21, refers to the passage Col. iv. 7, and presupposes that Paul had al-
ready written and had in his recollection this latter Epistle. If, indeed,
the Epistle to the Laodiceans were identical with the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, then, according to Col. iv. 16, the Epistle to the Colossians would
necessarily be the later. But see § 1, and on Col. iv. 16.

SEC. 8.— GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

After previous expressions of doubt on the part of Schleiermacher® and
Usteri, de Wette has come forward more decidedly than before, assailing
the genuineness of the Epistle ;* and the critics of Baur’s school ° relegate
the Epistle to the age of Gnosticism and Montanism, whereas de Wette °
still allows it to belong to the apostolic age, and to a gifted disciple of
the apostle as its author. So too Ewald;’ he denies that it was written by
Paul, but yet places it much nearer to the great apostle than the Pastoral
Epistles ; while Weisse ® lightly characterizes it as an unapostolic paraphrase

the Epistle to the Ephesians was written
earlier—(1) Because its aim is the more gen-
eral, and that of the Epistle to the Colos-
sians, as the special, is subordinate. (2)
Because the former, as directed (according
to Credner’s view) to unknown Pauline
Christians in Asia, would have required the
most mature consideration, whereas the
Epistle to the Colossians would be much
more easily drawn up, since Paul had
Epaphras and Onesimus with him—and so it
could not fall but thata portion of the ideas
laid down in the former Epistle would be
transferred also to the latter, in such wise
that what was there general in tenor would
assume a special form. (8) Because in our
Epistle the expression is more abstract, etc.
—It would not be difficult, with equal
plausibility, to invert the relation, and to
represent the more special, the easier, and
more concrete as psychologically antecedent
to the more general, more difficult, and
more abstract shape.

1 Cornelius & Lapide, Béhmer, Credner,

Schneckenburger, Matthies, Anger, Guer
icke, Reuss, and others that to the Colos-
sians (Schleiermacher, Harless, Neander,
Meier, Wiggers, de Wette, Bleek, Weiss).

_ 2 We might, in fact, with equal right infer
the converse, viz., that Timothy had, at the
writing of the Epistle to the Ephesians,
already left Paul again and had journeyed
to some other quarter, so that this Epistle
would be the later—as Schott really judges
it to be.

3 Vorl. #5. Hinl. I. N. T. p. 165 f£., 194.

4 Kregel. Handbuch, zwetle Aufl. 1847, and
EKinl., fiinfle Auf. 1848.

5 Schwegler, krit. Aftecellen zum Epheseror.,
in Zeller's theol. Jahrb. 1844, 2, p. 378 ff.;
nachapostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 880 ff., 313 ff.;
Baur, Paulus, p. 418 ff.. comp. also his
Christenth. d. dreiersten Jahrh. p. 104 ff.

€ Comp. Schleiermacher.

7 Sendschr. ad. P. p. xii.; Geschichte d, apost.
Zeit. p. 248 ff.

&® Dogmat. I. p. 148.

INTRODUCTION. 303
of the Epistle to the Colossians, and Hausrath' speaks of it as an Epistle to
the Laodiceans retouched by another hand.

De Wette’s reasons, in addition to his finding the destination for Ephesus
unsuitable, are as follow : that the Epistle, which is devoid of all specially
distinctive character in its aim and references, is so dependent on the Epis-
tle to the Colossians, which is almost a mere verbose amplification of it, as
to be out of keeping, when divested of the reference to the false teachers.
Such a copying from himself is unworthy of the apostle ; the style, too, is
un-Pauline, overladen as it is with parentheses and accessory clauses, in-
volving a want of connection (ii. 1, 5, ili. 1, 18), copious in words but poor
in thoughts ; so, too, are the divergences in particular expressions,’ as well
as in the thoughts, doctrinal opinions, and mode of teaching.? But (a)
while the absence of any concrete and direct peculiarity of character in its
aim and references is surprising, it is altogether unfavorable to any doubts
as to its genuineness, partly because the bringing out at all of a writing
under an apostle’s name and authority makes us presuppose more definite
tendencies and more readily recognizable conditions as aimed at in it ; partly
because, in particular, the circumstances of the Ephesian church, and the
close relationship of the apostle to them, must have been so generally
known, that a non-apostolic author would either have deliberately taken
account of and employed them, or else, if the design of his undertaking
permitted it, would have made another and happier selection of an address
than this very év’Eg¢éow. He who could prepare under the name of the
apostle an Epistle of so throughly Pauline a tenor, must have been quite
able to imitate him in the mention and handling of concrete circumstances,
and would, by such an omission of those matters as is apparent in our Epis-
tle, neither have satisfied himself nor have answered his design of person-
ating Raul—so much would he have failed in acting his part. The very
fact that the Epistle, as an Epistle to the Ephesians, had its genuineness so
generally recognized by the ancient church, is, when we consider the gen
eral nature of its contents, which always remains mysterious, a doubly valid
evidence that this recognition has historically arisen out of immediate and
objective certainty. Further, (0) as regards the relation of the Epistle to
that to the Colossians, there appear, as is well known, many resemblances in

1a, Ap. Paulus, 1865, p. 2, 188.

2 ‘*éy rots éwovpaviors, 1. 8, 20, fl. 6, fil. 10,
vi. 12; ra wvevparind, vi. 12; &:dBodos, tv.
27, vi. 11 (elsewhere only in 1 and 2 Tim.) ;
xoopoxpatwp, Vi. 12; owripoy, vi. 16. Words
differently used: otxovomia, i. 10, fll. 2,9;
pvoripsov, V. 82 (as in Rev. 1. 20, xvii. 5, 7);
wA¥pwua, i. 23(comp. Col. 1. 19, Hl. 9); evAoyia,
{. 83 aidy, fl. 2: weptwoinors, 1. 14; apOapoia,
vi. 24; pavOdver, iv. 20; dwridey, fil. 9;
wanpoto@a évy, Vv. 18; wAn. eis, Ill. 19; the com-
binations Bacireia ro} Geov cai Xprorod, v.
5; rd O¢Anua rou xvpiov, v.17. Interruption
and resumption of the construction, iil. 2-
14; the constructions tore y.wwoxorres, V. 5;
twa dofijira, v.88; tva with the optative,

1. 17, ili. 26. Frequent omission of the article
before defining additions, {. 8, 15, ff. 7, 11,
15, 21 f., and other passages; diffuseness
and pleonasm, 1. 19, vi. 10, fil. 18; 11. 6 f., 21
(dv Xptore ‘Incod), and various other points."

?‘*Unbecoming appeal of the apostle to
his insight, ill. 4; putting together of the
apostles and prophets, il. 20, ili. 5; arbitrary
use of the passage in the Psalms at iv. 8;
quotation of a non-biblical passage, v. 14;
the conceptions of demonology, ii. 2, vi. 12;
the characteristics of God, {. 17, iil. 9, 15;
the laying stress on Old Testament promise,
v. 2f.; the dissuasion from theft, iv. 28; the
un-Pauline salutation. vi. 2 f.”

304 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

matter and form—some even literal—between the two Epistles. This may,
however, be sufficiently explained, in part subjectively from the fact that
Paul had just written the Epistle to the Colossians before writtng to the
Ephesians, so that his mind was still full of and pervaded by the ideas,
warnings, and exhortations which he had expressed in the former ; in part
objectively, from the fact that the state of affairs at Ephesus must have
been well enough known to the apostle to induce him to repeat various
portions of the writing which he had just composed for another Asiatic
church, and that to such a degree that he considered it fitting even to re-
produce various things word for word from the Epistle to the Colossians,
which lay before him. To declare this a course unworthy of the apostle is
rash, since we have no other pair of letters from his hand issued so contem-
poraneously and under the influence of so similar a train of thought. But
while certainly several elements from the Epistle to the Colossians have
been amplified as to cerbal expression in ours, there are also several that are
reproduced in a more concise form (e.g., i. 15-17 compared with Col. i. 8, 4 ;
Eph. ii. 16 with Col. i. 20 ; Eph. iv. 32 with Col. iii. 12 f., and others) ;
and those amplifications admit of natural explanation from renewed dwelling
on the same thoughts, in which Paul did not proceed mechanically, and a
mind such as his easily had recourse to more words rather than fewer in
setting forth the subject afresh. At any rate, de Wette’s judgment of it
as almost nothing but a verbose amplification, is exaggerated, seeing that the
two Epistles present in their course of thought, tenor, and mode of treat-
ment very essential differences,? and the conclusion that a pseudo-Paul was
at work would, at all events, be too hasty, so long as it was not from other
sufficient grounds clear that Paul could not have been himself the amplifier.
On the other hand, it is scarcely conceivable of an amplifying imitator, that
one so intimately acquainted with the apostle’s ideas and diction, should
have chosen a single Pauline Epistle for the sole and often literal basis of his

1 Eph. i. 7, comp. Col. 1. 14. Eph. iv. 20, comp. Col. fil. 8, iv. 6.
a i. 10, os “4, 20. ** iv. 31, ms “if, 8.
i {.15-17, “ “4.8, 4. ** iv. 82, os “ fil. 12 f.
ee | 18, oe 06 i. 27. 6 Vv. 3, ti) 66 iil 5.
“1, 21, - “4. 16. “ ov.4 “1H. 8.
* Wet... “1. 18 f. “ ov. 5, - “ili. 5.
© 1.1, 12, a we i, 21, ee, 7 + se “ili. 6.
“fi. 5, ih “fi, 18. “sv. 15, " “fv. 5.
fl, 15, r “fi. 14. * vi19f.,, ‘ “fil. 16 f.
“fi, 16, : 1, 20. “sv. 21, mi if. 18.
* {if 1, = “4. MA. “vy. 25, - ‘© ili, 19.
Hh. 2, a “« 1.25. eo owt. s “U1, 20.
“fil, 8, . “4, 26. So ied, si if. 21.
MS, - “ f, 2B, B. “vi. 5 ff., ie “* fil. 22 ff.
* i. 8f., oA 2. “vi. 9, a * iv. 1.
“Iv. 1, mn “4. 10. “ vi. 18 ff., “ “ Iv. 2 ff.
“fv. 2, _ * fil. 12 f. “ ovi21f., ‘“ “ fv. 7f.
“iv. 8 f., 4 ‘fil. 14 f. See the table inde Wette, p. 266 ff. Comp.
oS 168, * “Hf, 19. Bemmelen, Diss. de epp. ad Eph. et Col. inter
“fv. 19, oe * fff. 1, 5. se collat., Lugd. Bat. 1808.
“ fv. Rf, “ “fil. 8 ff. 2See Harless, p. lxix. ff.; Lfiinemann, d¢
“ fv. 8f * “TH. 8 f. Ep. ad Eph. authenttd, etc., p. 10 ff.

INTRODUCTION. 305

work ; for thereby he would merely have imposed an unnecessary restriction
on himself, and have increased the probability of his fiction, made up
though it might be in the best sense, being recognized as such. A man,
who could think and write in so Pauline a manner as that wherein the por-
tions not parallel to the Colossian Epistle are thought and written, might
with ease have given to his pretended apostolic treatise a shape quite dif-
ferent and not so palpably exhibiting any single source. (c) With respect
to the objections taken to the style of the Epistle as too diffuse, loaded with
parentheses and accessory clauses, carrying with it a want of connection
(ii. 1, 5, iii. 1, 13), verbose, and poor in new ideas, it is to be observed,
first, and generally, that this verdict is an unfavorable judgment resting on
taste and subjective in character ; and, secondly, that in its individual con-
crete references it relates to a certain peculiarity of the Epistle, which yet
is not un-Pauline, seeing that, in fact, the unity of mould and flow, the
pectus atque indoles Paulinae mentis, ‘‘ the heart and character of the Pauline
mind,” ? which pervades it from beginning to end,’ leads us more fairly and
justly to set down the greater diffuseness, and what is called overloading,
to the account of the apostle himself, deeply moved as he was by his subject.
There is greater diffuseness certainly, but how natural is this, when we con-
sider the general character of the grand subject-matter and of its evolution,
and the absence of casual contents! There are a number of parentheses
and accessory clauses certainly, but not after an un-Pauline fashion, and
natural enough to a writer so full of the ideas concerned and the collateral
thoughts suggested by them. Nowhere is there in reality want of connec-
tion, as it is the province of the exposition to show. A poverty of new
ideas is merely apparent in proportion to the standard of the expectation
cherished a priori; the letter abounds in many-sided modifications and ex-
panded statements of thoughts which were vividly present to the writer's
mind, in part from the Epistle to the Colossians, but a rich accession of new
ideas was neither withal intended nor called forth by dialectic controversy
(as to the copiousness of diction, see above). As respects (d) the particular
divergences of style, adraf Aeyéueva are found in every Epistle of Paul, as
well as other peculiar modes of expression, as may readily be conceived in
the case of a letter-writer having so delicate and comprehensive a mastery
of the Greek language ; but no one of the proofs brought forward by de
Wette (which are in part inappropriately selected, and, on the other hand,
might have had their number increased), is at variance with the idiosyncrasy
of the apostle. And, further, (e) azaf voojpeva are not appropriate grounds
for doubting the genuineness of a writing in dealing with one whose mind
was so inexhaustibly rich, and whose conception moved with such admirable
Jreedom and many-sidedness in the Christian sphere, as was the case with
Bt. Paul. Everything which is adduced as surprising in conception and
doctrine may be psychologically and historically explained as standing in

1 Erasmus. ac pectus,” ‘‘In this epistle of Paul there
3 “Idem in hac epistola Paull fervor, is the same fervor, the same depth, and

-eadem profunditas, idem omnino spiritus altogether the same spirit and heart.”

20

306 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

full accord with the pure Pauline Gospel (see the exposition), and the ob-
jections which are taken to the mode of teaching find analogies in other
Pauline Epistles, and rest upon aesthetic presuppositions, which in a his
torico-critical examination of the New Testament writings supply us with
but very uncertain criteria, seeing that in such a case modern taste is much
too easily called in as an extraneous ground influencing the judgment.
The more candidly de Wette speaks out as to the Epistle not having been
composed in the apostolic age, and makes a gifted disciple of Paul to be its
author, the more insoluble he makes the riddle, that such an one should
have left his treatise without trace of individual historical relations of the
apostle to the Ephesians, which it would have been so easy for him to inter-
weave. Lastly, the reasons urged by the school of Baur, according to
which this Epistle and the companion Epistle to the Colossians, forming a
spurious pair, are held to be a product of Gnosis in opposition to Ebionit-
ism,’ are disposed of, when the exposition, dealing in a strictly objective
manner, demonstrates in the very places which have been called in question
simply Pauline contents. See, in opposition to Baur’s contrast, specially
Klépper,? and with regard to the Christology of our letter and that to the
Colossians, Raibiger.? The more decisive in that case becomes the weight,
which the external attestation by uninterrupted church-tradition throws
into the scale. This attestation has been even dated back to the Apostolic
Fathers ; but in Ignatius, Eph. 12, the Epistle is not at all directly men-
tioned,‘ and in Polycarp, Phil. 12, where itis said: ‘‘ut in his scripturis
dictum est : Irascimini et nolite peccare, et : Sol non occidat super iracundiam
cestram,” ‘‘that in these writings, it is said: ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’
and ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath,’” there is no quotation of
Eph. iv. 26, but rather, as in his scripturis, ‘‘in these writings” (comp. imme-
diately before : in sacris literis, ‘‘in the Holy Scriptures”) and the intervening
et, ‘‘and,” prove, the citation of two Old Testament sayings, namely, Ps. iv. 5
and Deut. xxiv. 18, 15, though the connecting of these two passages may be
based on a reminiscence of our Epistle.° Apart from the citations in the
interpolated Ignatian letters, the undoubted and express ecclesiastical attes-
tation begins with Irenaeus, Haer. v. 2, 3, and v. 14. 8, and is not inter-
rupted by any contradiction.* Even the Valentinians already in Irenaeus,

2 Comp. on Col. Introd. § 8.

2 De orig. epp. ad Eph. et Col., Gryph.
18538.
8 De Christologia Pautina, p. 42 ff.; Lange,
apost, Zeitalt. 1. 1, p.11$ ff. Lange, how-
ever, wrongly defines the Christological
distinction of the two Epistles, p. 117, to the
effect, that in the Ephesian letter Christ is
the Omega, in the Colossiun the Alpha, of
all things. In both letters He is the A and
the 0, but in the Colossian letter the Chris-
tological theme stands in the foreground,
and is treated more sedulously and more
comprehensively.

4 See above, § 1.

®The general question, whether at this

date Apostolic Fathers adduce Nez Testa-
ment sayings with ws yéeyparra:, ypady, and
the like, does not therefore pertain to us
here. Specially important in this relation
is the citation in Barnabas 4, in regard to
which Credner, Beié7. I. p. 28, has been mis-
taken in answering that question In the
negative, as the Codex Sinaiticus showed.
The citation from Barnabas is certainly not
to be referred to a wrillen source generally
(Weizsicker), nor even to 4 Esdr. viil. &
which passage is heldto be confounded
with Matth. xix. 30 (Volkmar).

*Marcion held it as Pauline, bat as ad-
dressed to the Laodiceans.

INTRODUCTION. 307
i. 8. 5, cite Eph. v. 18 expressly as a saying of Paul, and in the Philosoph.
of Origen, vi. 34, as ypa¢y.

Remakk. — The apparent resemblances to the first Epistle of Peter of ex-
pressions and thoughts in the Epistle to the Ephesians ' are too little character-
istic adequately to justify us in presupposing a dependence of our Epistle on
that of Peter.2 We should rather assume the converse, when we remember
how strictly Paul preserved and acutely vindicated his apostolic independence;
but it is quite sufficient to take our stand on the creative power of the church-
language formed by Paul, from which Peter was neither able nor willing to
hold himself aloof, while it remains an open question whether he had read
' Epistles of Paul. 2 Pet. (iii. 15 f.) is not genuine.

SEC. 4.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS.

We are unable to perceive from the letter itself any special occasion given
for it on the part of the Ephesians ; hence it seems to have been called forth
by mere accident through the mission of Tychicus and Onesimus to Colos-
sae—an opportunity, which Paul made use of to send Tychicus also to Ephe-
sus, in order not only to supply the Christians there with (oral) news of
him, and-to obtain news of them, but also to address to them a written dis-
course, partly on the glory of redemption and of their state as Christians,
partly on the conduct in keeping with it, in order to strengthen and further
them in steadfastness and unity of faith and Christian morality ; yet not
so, that the proper aim of the Epistle * is to be discerned in the irenic sec-
tion iv. 1-16. There are no traces of Ephesian false teachers, similar to
those at Colossae,‘ in the Epistle (for iv. 14 f. may be explained from the
general experience of the apostle, and v. 6 relates to moral seductions) ;
neither is a precautionary regard to such theosophy and asceticism * at any
rate capable of proof, since in the Epistle itself it is not at all hinted at.
Bengel well says: ‘‘Singulare haec epistola specimen praebet tractationis
evangelicae in thest . . . inde nullum speciatim errorem aut vitium refutat
aut redarguit, sed generatim incedit,” ‘* This epistle furnishes a unique speci-
men of evangelical treatment thetically . . . hence he refutes or reproves
no error or vice specially, but proceeds generally.” Paul may, however,
have had in the background the thought of the possible approach of that
Gnostic danger, though he did not consider it necessary or suitable at this
time to furnish an express reference or warning to that effect.

As regards contents, the Epistle divides itself into a predominantly dogmat-
ic and a predominantly hortatory portion. The dogmatic portion is a lofty *

1 S8ee Weiss, Petrin. Lehrdegr. p. 426 ff.,
who has, however, adduced under this
head far too much.

* Weiss, who considers both genuine;
Schwegler, who regards both as spurious.

3 de Wette.

* This in opposition to Michaelis, Haen-
lein, Flatt, Schott, Neudecker, and others.

§See Schneckenburger, Beifr. p. 135 ff.;
Olshausen ; comp. also Meter and Weiss.

SugnrAwy oddédpa ydue tery vonudtery Kai
dwepéyxwv? & ydp pndauod cxeddv épOdyfaro,
raita évravda sAoi, ‘He is exceedingly full
of thoughts and lofty things; what he
almost nowhere utters, that he here ex-
plains,*’ Chrysostom.

308 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

effusion over the glory and blessedness of the redemption effected through
Christ, to which also the readers, formerly Gentiles, had attained, and there-
after over the relation of the apostle to this saving dispensation, and to the
share of the readers therein (chap. i. iii.). The hortatory portion summons
them to a conduct worthy of their calling, and, first of all, to Chrigtian
unity (iv. 1-16) ; and then to a moral walk opposed to their previous Gen-
tile life—which is illustrated in detail as concerns very diversified conditions
and relations (iv. 17-vi. 20). By way of conclusion, Paul refers, as regards
his personal relations, to Tychicus, of whose mission he specifies the object
(vi. 21 f.), and ends with a double benediction (vi. 23 f.).—Luther (in his
editions of the N. T. down to 1537) reckons the Epistle among ‘‘ the gen-
uine and noblest books of the New Testament, which show to thee Christ,
and teach everything which it is necessary and good for thee to know, even
though thou shouldest never see or hear any other book or doctrine.”

Nore By American Eprror.

L. év Egéoy. (See p. 299.)

Meyer is supported also by Alford (who answers at length, vol. iii. pp. 13-18,
the contrary arguments of Conybeare and Howson), Eadie, Ellicott, Words-
worth, Braune, Riddle, Scrivener (Introd. to Criticism of N. T., Second Ed.,
p. 101). On the other hand, see Schaff (Church History, I., p. 779), and Westcott
and Hort, in Appendix to N. T., pp. 123 sqq. The latter would retain the reading
in different type, as “ a legitimate but unavoidably partial supplement to the
true text, filling up a chasm which might be perplexing to a reader in later
times,”

CHAP. I. 309

avaov éxioroln xpos Egectous.

ABDEFGK X, min. have the shorter and older superscription: por
’"Edeciovc. I, min.: tov dyiov dxooréAov IlavAov émioroAy mpd ’Egec.

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 1. év ’Egécy] See Introd. §1. Tisch. has put it in brackets. — Ver. 3. é
before Xporé is wanting only in some min.,—an omission, which, although
followed in the editions of Erasmus, Steph. 3, and Beza, and approved of by
Mill, is not at all deserving of notice as a various reading. — Ver. 6. é» 7) AB
x* min. Chrys. (alic.) have 7¢. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm.
[Tisch, Treg.] and Riick., and rightly so. The attraction was resolved partly
by the simple 9 (so Theophy]. Ambrosiast.), partly, in keeping with the preva-
lence of év in the context, by év 3, which latter is defended by Reiche on insuffi-
cient grounds, — Ver. 10. ra év roi¢ ovpavoic] The ré read in Elz. after ré is, on
decisive evidence, deleted by the later editors (except Harless). But in place of
év, BD EL y* min. Theodoret, Dam. Oecum. Tert. have ézi, which Lachm.
[Tisch. Treg. Hofm.] and Riick. have rightly received. The usual form of con-
ception, év roi¢ ovpavoic (comp. iii. 15), superseded the apparently unsuitable
éxi, At Col. i. 20, many min. Chrys. and Theodoret have likewise én? roi¢ obp-
avoic, where éxi, indeed, is too weakly attested, but has most probably come
from our passage.— Ver. 11. éxAnpoOnuev] A D E F G, It. have éxagOnuev.
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Riick. But Matth. Harless,
Tisch. Reiche (Treg. Hofm. Ewald, Holtzm.] have rightly defended the still more
considerably attested Recepta as the more difficult reading, glossed by éxA7Onuev.
The gloss is to be derived from Rom. viii. 13 : ot¢ d2 rpodpice, rovrovt nal éxdAece.
—Ver. 12. rij¢ before déénc is, following Griesb., deleted by the more recent
editors (except Harless) on preponderating evidence. An addition easily sug-
gested ; comp. ver. 14.—Ver. 14. 6¢] A B F GL, min. Athan. Cyr. Euthal.
Chrys. (in the text) have 6. So Lachm. and Riick. But 6 was, on account of
the preceding zvevza, the more easily introduced and retained, since by that
means the old opinion, that 6¢ applies to Christ, was met. — Ver. 15. ri dydanv
T7v) Lachm. has only r7v, following A B x* 17, Cyr. (alic.) Jer. Aug. (alic.). A
copyist’s error, and how easily caused by the repetition of the rjv! If the
addition had been made from Col. i. 4, jv &yere would have been inserted in-
stead of the second r7v. — Ver. 16. The second jyév is wanting in ABD ®&,
min. Cant. Goth. Hil. ; F and G have it after vovovuevoc. Deleted by Lachm.
and Riick. A defining addition, which was first written in the margin, and
then inserted, sometimes before, sometimes after zocotpevoc. — Ver. 18. xapdlag]
Elz. has d:avolac, against decisive testimony. An interpretation. — xa] is want-
ing in A B D* F G &* 59, It. Goth. Ambrosiast. Victorin., and is deleted by
Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.) and Riick., but came to be more readily left out than

310 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

added, because the concluding xai only comes in afterwards. — Ver. 20. évip-
ynoev] Lachm. reads évjpynxev, after AB, Cyr. Procop.; and rightly so. The
aorist, in itself more in current use, was suggested by the aorists following. And
the attestation 1s strong enough, since the vss. and Latin Fathers cannot be
taken into account.—éxdioev] Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.] and Riick. read xafioas,
following A B 8, min. Slav. Vulg. Cyr. utr. Euseb. Procop. Tert. Jer. Ambr.
Pel. An attempt to help out the construction. — ot:pavoic, instead of Exovpaviorr,
though adopted by Lachm., is too feebly attested by B, Victorin. Hilar. — Ver.
23. ra] is wanting in Elz., but has been, upon decisive evidence, restored by
Bengel, Griesb. and the later editors ; comp. ver. 22.

Contents.—After the usual address and apostolic salutation (vv. 1, 2),
St. Paul begins with an ascription of praise to God for the salvation in Christ
(ver. 8), which he sets forth (a) as already lovingly predestined by God in eter-
nity to the praise of His grace (vv. 4, 5) ; (6) as brought about by the death
of Christ (vv. 6, 7) ; then (c) as made known according to the purpose of the
divine kindness, to unite all in Christ (vv. 8-10) ; and lastly, (d) as really
appropriated according to the predestination of God (ver. 11) ; this latter
. in respect as well to those who had been Jews (ver. 12) as to those who had
been Gentiles (vv. 13, 14), both of whom were destined to the praise of
the divine glory.— Wherefore, since the Gentiles also had attained to such
happiness, he too, after having heard of their faith and love, ceases not to
give thanks for his readers, when making mention of them in his prayers,
in order that God might enlighten them by His Spirit concerning the hope
to which their calling exalted them, the glory of the future salvation, and
the greatness of the divine power in the believers (vv. 15-19), which power
they were to recognize by what God had wrought in the case of Christ,
whom He had raised from the dead and exalted above all, and had given
Him as Lord over all to be Head to the church, which is His bod y—that which
is filled by Him, who filleth all with all (vv. 20-23).

Vv. 1, 3. Acd GcAfp. Geos] See on 1 Cor. i. 1. — roi¢ dyiorg] See on Rom. i.
7. —xal mioroig iv X. 'I.] furnishes, with roi¢ dyioc, the completeness of the
conception, hence it is not an epexegesis,’ but an appended element, and xai
is the closely copulative and. Comp. Col. i. 2. It is not, however, the
conception of fidelity and persererance which is appended,’ but the notion of
faith in Christ, since in the address, where the persons are to be designated
very distinctly, roi dylocg alone would not yet characterize the readers ex-
pressly as Christians. Comp. Phil. i. 1. —é» Xpcor@ "Ijoov] does not belong
to dyiotg and moroic, s0 that it would denote the sphere, within which the
Christians are saints and believing,* for otherwise (comp. on Col. i. 2) «at
meoroig would be quite superfluous and a tame and heavy addition, inasmuch
as the notion of dywc tv Xpiorh presupposes the notion of mord¢ ev Xprorg ;
but mercly to moroic: fidem in Christo reponentibus, t.e., ‘‘to those reposing
faith in Christ.” Comp. i. 15, and see on Mark i. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26. — Ver. 2.
See on Rom. 1. 7.

1 Beza, Vorstius, Calovius, and others. ready Calovius.

* Grotius, Locke, Baumgarten, Rosen- 3 Harless; comp. Boyd, Storr, Opwec. Il.
miller, Mefer; see, on the other hand, al- _—p. 121, Meier, Schenkel.

CHAP. I., 3. 311

Ver. 3. EvAoynréc] praised (7173), se. eln7. Comp. Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. i. 3;
Luke i. 68 ; 1 Pet. i. 3; 1 Kings xv. 89. It is prefized here, since, as in
most doxologies (see on Rom. ix. 5), in keeping with the emotion of the
heart which breaks forth in songs of praise, the emphasis lies on it. Where
the stress in conformity with the context rests upon the person, this is pre-
fixed, as at 1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Jobi. 21; Ps. lxvili. 19, cxii. 1,
2; Rom. ix. 5. The second Epistle to the Corinthians begins also with an
ascription of praise to God, and the general character of that now before us
cannot, in view of the general contents of the Epistle (comp. 1 Pet. i. 8 ff.),
appear un-Pauline (in opposition to de Wette), especially as the thanksagiv-
ing which has reference to the readers comes in afterwards in ver. 15 f. —6é
Ord¢ nai warzp Tov Kvpiov x.7.2] God, who at the same time is the Father of Jesus
Christ. See on Rom. xv. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 81; Theodore of
Mopsuestia in Cramer’s Catena. Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, and
others, including Michaclis, Koppe, Rickert, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek
(Ewald, Hofmann, Braune], have incorrectly attached rov xvpiov juav also to
6 Ged. It is true, indeed, that there is no objection to the idea ‘‘ the God
of Christ” in itself, and 7ré before xai would not be at all necessary, as
Harless thinks (sec iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 25, al.) ; but against it stands the fact
that é Ocd¢ nat zarfp, even without a genitive, was a stated Christian
designation of God (comp. on Rom. xv. 6), in which case rarfp only, and
not Oedc¢, requires a complementary genitive (v. 20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Jas. i.
27, iii. 9). Moreover, the expression the God of Christ stands so isolated in
the N. T. (see on ver. 17), that we may not attribute to it any such cur-
rency, as it must have had, if it were contained in the formula 6 Oed¢ xai
naryp Tov xupiov x.t.A. [See Note II., p. 350.] — 6 etAoyhoac yuac] Aorist: by
the work of redemption. Observe the ingenious correlation of the passive
evaoynrég and the active evAoyfoas, a8 well as the dilogia, by which the for-
mer denotes the blessing in word, and the latter the blessing in deed (comp.
Rom. xv. 29 ; 2 Cor. ix. 5f.; Gal. iii. 8, 9,14 ; Acts iii. 26). uae applies
to the Christians generally, not to Paul,' against which view the unsuitable-
ness of such a thanksgiving of the apostle for himself at the head of the
Epistle, as well as the actual plurality of persons in the whole context (vv.
4, 11, 12), and «aya, ver. 15, are decisive, —éy rdon evAoyig mvevuatixy] in-
strumental : by His imparting to us every spiritual blessing ;* none has He
withheld from us. This, however, is not to be explained as Blessing, which
concerns our spirit,* but : proceeding from the Holy Spirit, because the dis-
tinctively Christian benefits are meant, and these are yapioyzara. Comp.
Rom. i. 11, xv. 29; 1 Cor. xii. 1 ff. This blessing is wrought by God from
heaven through the communication of the Spirit (ver. 18; Gal. iii. 5;
1 Cor. xii. 6, andl elsewhere), hence God is praised for it. We may add that a
contrast to the earthly benefits promised to the Jews in the Old Tcstament,‘ or
to the typical blessings of the Jews and the empty possessions of the Gentiles,‘

1 Koppe. ler ; Koppe and Rickert are undecided.
*Comp. Teat, XII. Patr. p. 722: ebdrcy. dv 4Grotius and others, including recently
eyabois, Holzhausen.

* Erasmus, Michaelis, Morus, Rosenmil- § Schdttgen.

312 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

is foreign to the context. Paul denotes the matter in a purely positive
form as it is, according to its characteristic nature; hence there is not in
néoy any contrast to merely sporadic blessings in the O. T. The ebdoyia con-
sists in the most varied expressions, as in grace, truth, peace, joy, love,
hope, consolation, patience, and all Christian virtues as the fruit of the
Spirit (Gal. v. 22; Rom. v. 1 ff.). Compare wav dyaGdv rd év guiv, Philem.
6. — év roi¢ érovpavioc] local : in the heavenly regions, in heacen. Comp. ver.
20, ii. 6, iii. 10, vi. 12. Against the instrumental rendering, according to
which it is understood, as a more precise definition of the spiritual blessing,
of the heavenly possessions,’ we may urge, not the article,*-—which would
very appropriately denote the category, —but the fact, that Paul has not
added ayafoic or yapiouac:, just because in our Epistle év roi¢ éxovpaviorg is
constantly a designation of place.® The local év roic érovpavioig is referred,
either to God, so that heaven appears as the seat where the divine blessing
is being prepared‘—but how idle and self-evident that would be ! or to jyeic,
so that heaven, as the seat of our zoAfrevua (Phil. iii. 20), would be the scene
of the divine blessing. So Pelagius, Beza (who leaves a choice between the
two views), Grotius (who says that the blessings place us e¢ spe et jure in
coelo, ‘‘ both by hope and right in heaven”), Baumgarten, Koppe, Riickert,
and others. The aorist would not be at variance with this view, since the
matter might be set forth proleptically in accordance with an ideal mode of
looking at it (comp. ii. 6). But the whole explanation is far-fetched and
opposed to the context ; for rvevyaring shows that Paul has not thought of
our having received this blessing in the heavenly vrodirevya, secing that the
Holy Spirit is received on earth as the present earnest of the heavenly herit-
age (vv. 13, 14). Accordingly, the third reference remains the only correct
one, under which é» roi¢ érovpaviog 18 attached as u local definition to emAoyia
mvevpatixy : with every spiritual benefit in heaven, so that, because the Holy
Spirit is in heaven, as is God Himself 6 17 xarockiav érovpdviov Exuv (2 Mace.
iii. 39), the blessings also of the Spirit are regarded as to be found in heaven
and brought down thence to us. See Heb. vi. 4. [See Note ITI., p. 350 seq. }
—tv Xpioré] for in Christ lay the ground of that evAoye’y accomplished in our
case ; not out of Christ, but in Him lay the cause that God blessed us with
every spiritual blessing, since His act of redemption is the causa meritoria,
‘meritorious cause,” of this divine bestowal of blessing. Comp. ver. 4.

where elsein the N. T., is surprising. In
the case of any writer, no doubt, a phrase
not incurrent use with him at other times
may be accidentally and temporarily sug-

1 These would not be possessions, which
have reference to the heavenly life, but
possessions which are lo be found in heaven
and are imparted to us. For érovpartos al-

ways means “‘(o be found in heaven.” See
Wetstein, I. p. 447; Bleek on Heb. fil. 1,
p. 875. Comp. ra éwi rots ovpavois, ver. 10.
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumentus, Lu-
ther, Castalio, Piscator, Vorstius, Homberg,
Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Flatt, Bleek,
and others.

2 In opposition to Rfickert, Harless, Ols-
hausen.

3 The expression év rots érovpaviows, which
occurs five times in this Epistle and no-

gested to him, the use of which he involun-
tarily appropriates and soon again as invol-
untarily abandons ; yet it remains a sur-
prising fact that the expression €v rois éxov-
paviots is not also used in the Epistle to the
Colossians written at the same time, where
there was no lack of opportunity (J. 5, 16,
20) for the use of the expression, although
the two Epistles exhibit so much verbal af-
finity.
4 Beza, Boyd, Weiss.

CHAP, I., 4. 313

Ver. 4. Further amplification of 6 ebAoyfoac x.7.4. on to ver. 14. See the
contents. — xafdc] even as, denotes that that eiAoyety has taken place in con-
Sormity with the fact that, etc., and is consequently argumentative ; see on
1 Cor. i. 6; John xiii. 84. — é&eAéEaro fuac] He has chosen us (from the col-
lective mass of men) for Himself (sihi). Comp. 1 Cor. i. 27; Rom. ix. 11,
xi. 5, 7, 28; John xv. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 9 f. Entirely without reason Hof-
mann, Schriftbeweia, I. p. 223, denies that éexAéyecfac here has reference to
others not chosen, and asserts that it applies only to that which we, in the ab-
sence of election, should not have become. This is according to the. very
notion of the word quite impossible. ’ExAéyeo8a: always has, and must of logical
necessity have, a reference to others, to whom the chosen would, without
the éxAoy#, still belong. Even in Acts vi. 5, xiii. 17; 1 Tim. v. 21 ; Ex.
xviii. 25; Deut. iv. 37, it sets forth the distinctive separation from the
remaining mass, just as also Christ, as one who is chosen out from all that
is man, is called the éxAexréc of God (Luke ix. 85, xxiii. 85). — é airg] for
in nothing else and in no one else than in Christ, whose future work of re-
demption God has foreknown and decreed from eternity (Acts xv. 18 ; Rom.
xvi. 25; 2 Tim. i. 9; 1 Pet. i. 20, al.), lay the ground, that the electing
grace (Rom. xi. 5) chose us (comp. iii. 11) ; hence God had, as respected
the subjects to be affected by the election, to deal, not in any arbitrary
manner, but according to His rpéyvwore, ‘‘ foreknowledge,” of the same (prae-
cognovit credituros, i.e., he foreknew who would believe). See on Rom.
viii. 29. Christ is not, however, here conceived of as Himself chosen
God, and we as included in Him (év air@), a8 Hofmann, p. 229, thinks ;
but, as the more precise explanation in ver. 5 shows, the divine act of our
election has in Christ its determining ground, so that to us by this act there
is assigned and allotted no other than the salvation to be gained through
Christ (who in the fulness of the times was out of His pre-existence to be
sent as Incarnate and wasto accomplish the work of salvation). Apart from
this connection of the divine election with Christ we should noé be chosen ;
but in Christ lay for God the causa meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” of our
election.' The reference of év air@ to God? is to be rejected on account of
the utter superfluousness of this definition, and on account of the preceding
tv Xpcorg. — mpd xataBoAze xéopuov] thus before all time, already in eternity.
Comp. Col. i. 15 ff. ; 2 Thess. ii. 18 ; Matt. xxv. 34; also 1 Cor. ii. 7;
2 Tim. i. 9. The erpression is nowhere else found in Paul ; but see Matt.
xiii. 85 ; Luke xi. 50 ; John xvii. 24; Heb. iv. 8; 1 Pet. i. 20; Rev. xiii.
8. [See Note IV., p. 351. ]— eivac jude dyiove x.7.A.] Infinitive of the design: in
order that we should be, etc. The predicates dyco¢ and duepoc (blameless, Herod.

1 Beyschlag (Christol. d. N. 7. p. 141) finds
in gv avry the thought, “that the divinely
conceived prototypes of perfected believers
are from eternity posited by God in the One
Prototype of humanity acceptable unto
Him, as the countless multiplications of
the same, to be thereupon brought through
the historically realized One Prototype to
their realization and perfection.”’ In op-

- position to this view we may simply urge

the context, according to which é» avre de-
notes Christ as the personal ground of the
éxAoy? made before all time, in so far as He,
as Reconciler, is the bearer of the divine grace,
vv. 6, 7. °

2 Al. Morus, Holzhausen: with Himeel/,
in His heart.

* See Winer, p. 208 f.

&

314 » THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
li. 177 ; Theoc. xviii. 25) exhaust the conception positively and negatively.’
It is not, however, to be explained of the holiness conditioned by morality
and virtue,* in which case reservations on account of human imperfection are
often arbitrarily inserted, nor is it referred, as by Riickert, to the ideal point
of view of the apostle ; but rather of the holinessand blamelessness brought
about through the atoning death of Christ by means of the d:xacociny Ocov
thereby attained (Rom. iii. 21 ff., v. 1 ff., viii. 1, 83 ff. ; 1 Cor. vi. 11;
Heb. x. 10, 14, 29), in favor of which the very elva: (not yivecOa:) and the
whole context are decisive (vv. 5, 6, 7). We may add that, if the emphasis
with which our Epistle brings into prominence the holiness of the Church
(comp. v. 27) is to be held as betraying the standpoint of the second cen-
tury,*® for which especial reference is made to iii. 10, 31, with equal reason
the like suspicion may be thrown even on the most fully acknowledged
Epistles (such as the Epistles to the Corinthians). [See Note V., p. 351 seq. }
—xartevériov avtov] before God’s eyes, 7udice Deo (Col. ii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 20, iv. .
5). Itis God's judgment, which has made the reconciled holy and blameless,
and that by imputation of faith unto righteousness ; thereupon He gives to
them every evAoyla mvevyarixh, ver. 83. The reference of avréc¢ successively
recurring to different subjects cannot surprise us ;* and so it is not to be writ-
ten atrot (as Harless still does), but atrov, from the standpoint of the author.°*
— év ayary] is attached by many to ver. 4, so that it is connected either
with éfeAéfaro,* but in how isolated and awkward a way ! or with eiva: quac
dyiouc x.7.4.," so that év aydrg would be the ground, or rather the element
(evangelii rd wav, ‘‘all of the gospel,” says Grotius, ‘‘ lies in love”), of the
holiness and blamelessness. But this is not compatible with the correct ex-
planation of dyiovg xat audpouc, asa state brought about by the iracrhpiov of
Christ, according to which, not é aydry, but év lore, would have been a
definition of the element of holiness in keeping with the context. Hence
the connection with mpoopicac, ver. 5, remains as the only correct one.’ The
only one of the objections made to this view which is plausible is that oi
Matthies and Meier, that the following xara rv evdoxiay roi GeAnudrog avrov
would render the preceding éy ayéryin this connection superfluous. But see
on ver. 5.

Ver. 5. Love was the disposition of God, in which He through this our
election predestined us to viofecia. Hence this divine motive is prefixed
with emphasis, quite in keeping with the character of ascription of praise

1Comp. Plut. Pericl. p. 178 D: Beds...
xaBapds nai auiavros, and see on Col. 1. 22;
Eph. v. 27.

2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Pisca-
tor, Grotius, Calixtus, and many others, in-
cluding Flatt, Rfickert, Matthies, Meier,
Schenkel.

®? See Schwegler, in Zeller’s Jahrd. 1844,
p. 382,

# Winer, p. 185.

* Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 276; Kihner,
ad Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 49.

* Oecumenius, Thomas, Flacius, Olearius,

Baumgarten, Flatt, and others.

7 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, La-
ther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Gro-
tius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others, including
Rickert,—but with hesitation,—Matthies,
Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius.

® So the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, Augustine, Estius (but with
hesitation), Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae,
Koppe, and others, including Lachmann,
Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Tischendorf,
Schenkel, Bleek.

CHAP. I., 5. 315

marking the discourse. Conscquently : in that He in love predestined us.
Homberg has indeed conceived the relation of the time‘of mpoopicag to
éfedéiaro as : ‘‘ postguam nos praedestinavit adoptandos, elegit etiam nos, ut
simus sancti,” ‘‘ after he predestinated us for adoption, he élected us to be
holy ;” but the usugl view correctly conceives mpoopicac as coincident in
point of time, and accomplished simultaneously with éfeAéfaro, so that it is
regarded as the modus, ‘‘ mode,” of the latter (see on yvupicac, ver. 9). For
the predestination (the mpoopifecv) is never elsewhere distinguished from the
election as something preccding it ; it rather substantially coincides with it
(hence at Rom. viii. 29 only the expression mpodpice is used, while in viii. 38
only ixdexroi are mentioned), and only the rpdéywwor, ‘‘ foreknowledge,” is
prior, Rom. l.c.’ It is, we may add, purely arbitrary to distinguish éfcAéfaro
and spoopicac, so that the former should apply to individuals, the latter to the
whole.? Both verbs have in fact the same objects (#uaéc, which denotes the
persons); see on Rom. viii. 29. [See Note VI., p. 352.]— The zpo in
apoopicac, ‘‘ beforehand,” points to the future realization. Certainly the predes-
tination has taken place before the creation of the world (ver. 4) ; but this is
not expressed by zpo, which rather looks always towards the future setting
in of the thing predestined. See Rom. viii. 29 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. i. 11;
Acts iv. 28 ; Heliod. p. 298, 14, p. 266, 15; Sopater in Walz, Rhet. V.
p. 152, 20. —ci¢ viobeciay dba "Incot Xprorod cic airdéy] are to be taken closely
together : unto adoption through Jesus Christ in reference to Him,—that is,
He has destined us ¢o stand in the relation of those assumed as children through
mediation of Jesus Christ to Him (to God). Comp. Rom. viii. 29. That
viobecia is nowhere merely childship,* but adoption, see on Rom. vii. 15 ;
Gal. iv. 5. viofecia is never predicated of Christ Himself ; for He is the
born Son of God (Rom. vili. 3; Gal. iv. 4), who procured for His own the
assumption into the place of children (whereby they became de jure His
brethren, Rom. viii. 29). The pre-eminence of Christ is therefore essential,
not merely prototypal, as of the head of humanity ;° He is the povoyevfe.
Through adoption believers have passed out (comp. Rom. vii. 24 f.) of their
natural state, in which by sin they were liable to the wrath of God (ii. 8),
and have entered into the state of reconciliation, in which, through the
mediation of the reconciling death of Christ (vv. 6, 7), by means of the
faith in it which was counted to them for righteousness (Gal. iii. 26 ; Rom.
iv. §, 23 f.) they have forgiveness of sins, and are heirs of the Messianic
blessedness (ver. 14; Gal. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 10, 11, 17), as a guarantee of
which the Holy Spirit is given to them (ver. 14 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; Rom. viii. 16).—
sic atrév] does not apply to Christ,* since Christ is mediator of the adoption,

1 Comp. Lampsing, Pauli de praedestinat.
decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 70. See on this
use of the aorist participle, Hermann, ad
Viger. p. 774; Bernhardy, p. 888; Winer,
p. 321.

4 Schenkel.

* As Meier and Bleek still take it here,
following Usteri.

‘Even the old theocratic viodecia was

adoption ; for the Jews were as such, and
not as men generally, the chosen and pecu-
Nar people to whom the Messiah was prom-
ised. See on Rom. ix. 4.

® In opposition to Beyschlag, CAristol. d.
NV. T. p. 22 f.

* Anselm, Thomas, Castalio, Vorstius,
Menochius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, and others,
including de Wette.

316 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

and this is a relation to God. This simple sense of reference toward is to be
maintained, and we must not introduce either ad gloriam gratiae suae, ‘‘to
the glory of his grace,” ' or ‘‘ bringing our race ei¢ aivév.”* At variance with
linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, and Calixtus take it for év éavré, and dis-
cover in it the independence of the divine zpoop:oyde ; and Grotius, Wolf,
Baumgarten, Koppe, Holzhausen, Meier hold it as equivalent to aii, ,
himself (‘‘as children, who rightly belong to Him as His own,” Meier).
Comp. also on Col. i. 20. — We may add that here, too, we must not write®
aitév, but airév. [See Note VII., p. 352.] Comp. above on xarevémiov
avroi.— Kata tiv evdoxiav tov OsAguatog avrov (not atrot) : conformably to the
pleasure of His will, just as it was the purpose of His will. Comp. Matt. xi.
26 ; Luke x. 21. So Vulgate, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, Flatt, and others,
including Riickert, de Wette, Bleek. It may also signify : according to
the benevolence of His will. But this notion is already and more strongly
contained in év aydzy ; and the element which is here meant, of free sel/-
determination, independent of all human desert, as regulative of the zpoopi-
Cecv, is clearly pointed to in the parallel by 4» rpoéfero év atré. Comp. also
ver. 11 ; 2 Tim. i. 9.

RemMaRk.—Predestination is not made dependent on any sort of causa
meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” on the part of man (comp. ver. 11), but is simply
an act of free divine kindness, whose determination has its causa impulsiva,
‘‘impelling cause,’”’ only in Christ ; so that, in the case of the predestined sub-
jects, faith is set forth as the causa apprehendens, ‘‘ apprehending cause,” of the
salvation destined for them «ata rpdyvwory (Rom. viii. 29) ; and with this Rom.
ix., when rightly apprehended, agrees. The conditions mentally supplied by
expositors (as e.g., Grotius, who finds in our passage ‘‘decretum ejus, quod
Deus facere vult, si et homines faciant quod debent,’’ ‘‘ his decree that God wishes
to act, provided men also do what they ought ;” comp. already Jerome) remove
the relation out of the sphere of the divine evdoxia tov OeAnuaro¢c into that of
dependence on human self-choice, and consequently into the domain of the
accidental. The notion of absolule decree, however, breaks down before the
mpoyvworc as the necessary premiss of the divine é«Aoy7y—a premiss, which
doubtless involves the necessity of morally restricting the truncus aut lapis,
block or ‘‘stone,’’ of the Formula Concordiae (comp. Luthardt, Lehre vom freien
Willen, p. 272). -

Ver. 6. As love was the disposition serving as motive for the divine predesti-
nation (ver. 5), so is the glorifying of the divine love (which, however, is
here designated in accordance with its distinctive peculiarity, because it
refers to sinners, ii. 1 ff., as grace) its divinely conceived ultimate aim,
not, as Grotius would have it, conseqguens aliud, ‘‘ something consequent.”
Comp. 2 Cor. i, 20; Phil. i. 11. —eic¢ &racvov débfn¢ THe xdpiTo¢ airov (not
avrov) means neither to the glorious praise of His grace," nor to the praise of

1 Piscator ; comp. Schenkel. 4See, generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II.

2 Theophylact. p. 369 ff. So Harless, Olshausen, Baumgar-

3 With Beza, Stephanus, Mill, Griesbach, _ten-Crusius, following older expositors.
Knapp, Meier, and others. § Grotius, Estius.

CHAP. I., 7%. 317

His glorious grace,’ the one of which is just as arbitrary as the other ; but :
to the praise of the glory of His grace. The quality of the grace, its glory—
its greatness laudably evincing itself—is brought into prominence as the
object of the praise to be bestowed on it.* Bengel already in his day aptly
distinguished the notions : ‘‘Primum nascitur laus gratiae,” ver. 7, ‘‘ inde
laus giorise,” ‘‘the praise of grace arises first, then the praise of glory.”—
déEn¢ without the article may not surprise us on account of the genitival defi-
nition that follows. See Winer, p. 118 f. — He éxapirwoev quae ev ty 7yan.]
ac is attracted by the preceding ri xapiroc,* instead of 7v.4 Xaperéw means:
gratia aliquem afficere, ‘‘to treat any one with grace ;” and, according as
the yépi¢ is conceived of subjectively as love-worthiness, or objectively as the
divine grace, the sense may either be : to make love-worthy, as Chrysostom °
and his followers,* Cornelius & Lapide, and many Roman Catholics,’ have
taken it, understanding thereby not merely the reconciliation, but also the
positive sanctifying, the justitia inhaerens, ‘‘inherent righteousness ;” or :
to grant grace (as it is taken usually). In the former sense,* the word occurs,
Niceph. Prog. ii. 2 ; Symm. Ps. xvii. 28 ; Ecclus. xviii. 17 ; also Ecclus.
ix. 8 in Cod. A; and Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 11 ; in the latter sense, in Luke
i. 28 ; Test. XII. Patr. p. 698. The latter is here decidedly correct, since
the preceding r7¢ yapitoc, especially with 7¢ as the reading, permits no devi-
ation from that meaning, just as ver. 7 sets forth simply the work of pardon-
ing grace. — tv te Hyarnpévy] Christ as the vld¢ r7¢ aydmne abrov, ‘‘ the son of
his love,” Col. i. 18 (comp. Matt. iii. 17), is car’ é&ox4, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the
beloved of God, and in Him has God shown us grace, 7.¢., in the fact that He
gave Him up to death for us (ver. 7), He has brought home to us His grace.
Comp. ii. 13 ; Rom. viii. 89 ; 2 Cor. v.19. The designation of Christ by
é wyawhuevog makes us feel the greatness of the divine grace. Comp. Rom.
viii. 32, v. 8 ff. ; John iii. 16; 1 Johniv. 9 f.

Ver. 7. More precise elucidation, on the basis of experience (2youev), of
what had just been said, éyapir. juag tv ro 7yar. — év g] So that in Him our
possession of the redemption has its ground. He it is, without whose per-
son and work we should not have been redeemed ; ywpi¢ Xpiorod (ii. 12), no
Grodbtpwore. Comp. Rom. iii. 24. The relative has, as is often the case,’
argumentative significance. Comp. here especially iii. 12. — rjv axoAbrpworw]
the redemption, namely, from God’s wrath and penalties, which before our
entrance into faith we had incurred through sin (Rom. i. 18, iii. 28, v. 5 f£.,
vii. 7,ff. ; Eph. ii. 8, v. 6, ad.), as those who were under the dominion of

1 Luther, Castallo, Beza, and most expos-
itors, including Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Holz-
hausen, Meier.

2Comp. Bornhardy, p. 58 f.; Held, ad
Timol. p. 368.

3 ydpev xapirouv ig conceived of as aydwny
éyaray, il. 4; John xvil. 2; comp. Dem.
906, 28: xdperas xyapicer Oar.

4 Comp. iv. 1; and see on 2 Cor. i. 4; Hom.
ZB. xxii. 649; Arist. P¥. 1044: ris vBpeos fs
UBpigopas.

5 Chrysostom says: Just as if one were
to make a sick or famished man into a
beautiful youth, so has God made our soul
beautiful and love-worthy for the angels
and all saints and for Himself.

* Comp. also Luther.

T Including Bisping.

® See Wetstein, I. p. 651.

® See, generally, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phil.
p. 195 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 871.

318 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the devil (Col. i. 18; Acts xxvi. 18). The purchase-price (1 Cor. vi. 20,
vil. 28 ; Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45) through which Christ, in voluntary
obedience to God’s gracious counsel, accomplished this dmoAtrpworc, was His
blood, which He shed as an iAaorfpiov, ‘‘ a propitiation,” for the benefit of men
(Rom. iii. 25, v. 8, 9; 2 Cor. v. 21; Col. i. 21, ii. 18 f.). On azodbrpwors,
as the effect of the atoning death, in which case the blood of Christ is
always conceived of as the purchase-price, see Rom. iii. 24. — dia rov aipyaroc
avrov} by means of His blood, a more precise definition of the preceding ty ¢.
Paul might have written év 76 aivare abrod (ii. 13) ; but he in general prefers
an interchange of prepositions (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 11 ; Rom. iii. 30; Gal. ii.
16 ; Philem. 5), to which he was here specially led by his epexegetic pur-
pose (comp. ili. 12 ; 1 Thess. iii. 7). — rv ageow tiv rapartwpdtur) apposi-
tion to r#v aroAbrpworv, the essence of which is the forgiveness of sins obtained
on account of the death of Christ. As to the distinction between sdpeair
(Rom. iii. 25) and dgeccg (used by Paul also in Col. i. 14), see on Rom. iii
25. — Tov rapartupdtov denotes always the actual individual sins (ii. 1 ff. ;
and see on Rom. v. 20) ; hence Paul has not mentally included a forgive-
ness of inborn sinfulness.' [See Note VIII., p. 352.]—xara rav wAovroy ric
x4piro¢ avzov] is not to be resolved into an adjective (‘‘ gratia liberaiissima,”
‘‘by his most liberal grace,” Koppe) ; but the riches, 4.¢., the great fulness,’
of the divine grace is that, in consequence of which we have in Christ the
redemption. It is to be noted that here, as well as in ver. 6, the reference
to the divine grace serves to wind up one element of the discourse, and (by
n¢) to annex another. As to rAovro¢g rice yaprrog (il. 7, iii. 16), see on Rom.
ii. 4. We may add that Lachmann, Riickert, Tischendorf [Westcott and
Hort] have the form 13 rdobroc, following A B D* E (?) ®* min., to which
also F G fall to be added with the transcriber’s error roi mAovroc ; and
rightly.*®

Ver. 8. "He érepiocevoev ei¢ fuac] qo stands by attraction (comp. ver. 6),
not for 7,‘ so that érepicc. would be intransitive, — for the attraction of the
dative, rare even in classic authors,* is not found in the N. T., not even in
the passages adduced by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247, — but for 7, so that
éreptoo. is transitive (2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 12) : which He has
made abundant, has shown in an exceedingly high degree (agOdévuc éfé yee,
‘‘ungrudgingly shed,” Theophylact), toward us. If, with Calvin and
Beza,* we should not assume any attraction at all, but should take the geni-
tive as at Luke xv. 17, there would result the sense, unsuitable to what
follows (yrwpicac x.t.A.): of which He had superabundance towards us. —itv
doy co¢ig xa gpovfoe] is not’ to be attached to yrupicac, because it would
thus, like év aydémg in ver. 5, denote the attribute of God operative in the
yrwpifecv, which, on account of doy (see below), is not admissible. If,

1 Olshausen. § Kriiger, Gramm. 51. 10. 8, and Grammat.
2 Codex 17 has 1d wAHG0s. Unters. III. p. 274 f.
3? See on 2 Cor. vill. 2, Remark; and see ® Comp. also Holzhausen.

Winer, p. 64. 7 With Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret,

4 Camerarias, Calvin, Piscator, Erasmus, Homberg, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis,
Schmid. Griesbach, Koppe, Holzhausen, Scholz.

CHAP. I., 9. 319

again, we should, with Chrysostom,' regard it as the state of men brought
about by yvupicas x.r.A., this would be forced, and, as concerns the sense,
there might be urged against it the circumstance that, in the making known
of the divine mystery, Paul had to set forth, not the divine display of
grace in ttself (this was given in the work of redemption, vv. 6, 7), but the
display of grace as revealed. Hence it was necessary that there should be
added to 7 éreptoc. cig ju. & definition, and this is ty rdéog cod. x. gpov.:
which he has displayed abundantly towards us by every kind of wisdom and dis-
cernment (with which He endowed us, comp. Col. i. 9), in that He made
known to us, etc. Observe here withal the climaz, in which, rising from
the simple 7¢ évapirwoev jude, ver. 6, the apostle now, at this further display
of grace, says : 7¢ émepiccevoev etc yuac. Riickert,? although connecting it
with #¢ érepioc. cig Hu., incorrectly holds the divine wisdom to be meant,
and takes the sense to be, that God has with highest wisdom and discern-
ment dispensed His grace over us. Not only would this introduce here
something remote from the point,—since in the whole context Paul is com-
mending only grace as such, and not any other attribute along with it,—but
the words themselves are opposed to it, not indeed by ¢porfoe in itself,
which * might be used also of God (1 Kings iii. 28 ; Prov. iii. 19 ; Jer. x.

- 12), but certainly by récz. For raca cogia does not mean summa sapientia,

‘the highest wisdom,” but every kind of wisdom, which, according to a
popular mode of expression, like our. ‘‘all possible wisdom,” ‘ can be said
only of men. The rodvmoixcaog copia, iii. 10, is not analogous,’ but
denotes the absolute wisdom according to its manifold modes of manifesta-
tion.* [See Winer, § 18: 4] —xal gpovfce] Comp. 1 Kings iv. 29: éduxe
kbpcoc gpévycw TH Ladwpov nal cogiay roAAgy ; Dan. ii. 21: didot¢ codiav roi¢
copoig xai gpdvyoww roic eidéor otveoty 5 Joseph. Antt. ii. 5. 7, viii. 7.5. pé-
vnorg is an aptitude, which proceeds from wisdom (7 dé cogia avdpt rixre:
¢gpeévnnv, Prov. x. 28), in connection with which the distinction is to be
noted, that cogia is the general notion® which embraces the collective activity
of the mind as directed to divine aims only to be achieved by moral means
(comp. on Col. i. 9) ; whereas ¢gpévyor¢ denotes the more special notion of
the morally determined intelligence, the insight of practical reason regulating
the dispositions éxcorjun ayaféy xai xaxdv, ‘‘ understanding of good and evil,”
Plato, Def. p. 411 D 3 ete aAnfijc peta Adyou mpaxrix) wept ra GvOpdrw ayala x.
xaxd, ‘‘ A true practical habit exercised by the reason with respect to things
good and evil to man,” Arist. Hth. vi. 5. 4). See, especially, also Cic. Off.
i. 43. Comp. on gpévyocc, which Paul has not elsewhere, Luke i. 17 ; Beck,
bibl. Seelenil. p. 62.

Ver. 9. In that He has made known to us the mystery of His will. The
aorist participle signifies an action coincident and completed at the same
time with évepicc. See oni. 5. —uiv] applies, as in the whole connection,

? Comp. Michaelis and others. * In opposition to de Wette.
*Comp. Jerome, Castallo, de Wette, and * [See Winer, § 18: 4.]

others. T émorjun Ceiwy te xai avOponirwy mpayyid-
4 In opposition to Harless and Schenkel. tov, * understanding of divine as well as of

4 Theile, ad Jacob. p. 7. human things," Sext. Emp. ade. phys. 1. 18.

320 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

to Christians generally ; but in this case the extraordinary kinds of making
known, which individuals among them had experienced (such as Paul him-
self, who was instructed 6’ aroxaAtyeuc, iii. 3; Gal. i. 12), are left out of
account. —1rd pvorip. tov OeAgu. avrov] tov GeAju. is an objective genitive.
And the mystery with which the divine will is occupied, is the counsel of re-
demption accomplished through Christ, not in so far asit is in itself incompre-
hensible for the understanding, but in so far as, while formed from eternity,
it was until the announcement of the gospel hidden in God, and veiled and
unknown to men. See Rom. xvi. 25 f.; Eph. iii. 4 f., 9, vi. 19 ; Col. i.
26. By the prophets the mystery was not disclosed, but the disclosure of
it was merely predicted ; here at the proclamation of the gospel the prophetic
predictions became the means of its being disclosed, Rom. xvi. 25 f. — xara
tiv evdox. abtov] belongs not to rd zor. tov Ged. avr.,' in which case it would
stand in a tautologic relation to rov 6cA. avr., but rather to yvepicag x.1.2.,
stating that God has accomplished the making known in pursuance of His
Sree self-determination. Comp. on ver. 5. — 74» mpolGero év atte] would be in
itself redundant, but serves for the attaching of that which follows ; hence
no comma is to be placed after airé. It is not, however, to be written as
avr®,*? since here the airé¢g cannot appear as the third person, as would be
the case if the text had run in some such form as xara ry rodfeaw abrov, and
as was previously the case with the thrice occurring aizov. If aro were to
be read, a subject different from God would be meant ; as, indeed, Chry-
sostom and his successors, as well as Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others,
in reality understood it of Christ, although the latter only comes in again
at ver. 10, and that by name. — mpoéGero] set before Himself (Rom. i. 13),
purposed (namely, to accomplish it) in Himself, i.e., in His heart (anthropo-
pathic designation). This purpose, too (mpdé#eorc, ver. 11), is to be con-
ceived as formed before the creation of the world ; without this idea,
however, being expressed by po, which is not even to be taken tempo-
rally, but locally (to set before oneself), comp. on mpoyeipifouar, Acts. iii. 20.
There is incorrectness, for the very reason that év avrg does not apply to
Christ,:in the translation of Luther (comp. Vulgate): ‘‘ and has brought
Sorth (herfirgebracht] the same by Him,” though zpoé6. in itself might
have this meaning. See on Rom. tii. 25.

Ver. 10. Eic¢ oixovopulav tov tAnpop. tov xatp.| Unto the dispensation of the ful-
Jilling of the times, belongs not to yvwpicac,*® but to the immediately preceding
fv xpoéGero év atm, which is inserted solely with a view to attach to it el¢
otxov. K.T.A. ; and ei¢ does not stand for év,‘ but denotes what God in form-
ing that purpose had in view, and is thus telic : with a design to." With the
temporal rendering, usgue ad,* we should have to take mpoé6ero in a pregnant
sense, and to supply mentally : ‘‘consilio secretum et abditum esse voluit,”
‘¢He wished it to be secret and concealed in his counsel,” * which, however,

1 Bleek. Piscator, and others.
2 As by Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf § [See Winer, § 49. ]

(Westcott and Hort, Eng. Rev. Version]. * Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, Estius, Er.
5 Bengel. Schmid, Michael., and others.

4 Vulgate and several Fathers, also Beza, 7 Erasmus. Paraphr.

CHAP. I., 10. 321

with the former explanation is superfluous, and hence is arbitrary here,
although it would in itself be admissible (Winer, p. 577). — oixovopia] house-
management (Luke xvi. 2), used also in the ethico-theocratic sense (1 Tim.
i, 4), and specially of the functions of the apostolic office (1 Cor. ix. 17 ;
Col. i. 25), here signifies regulation, disposition, arrangement in general, in
which case the conception of an oixovéuog has receded into the background.!
— The rAgpwua Tov xatpur, td quo impleta sunt tempora, ‘‘ that wherein times
are fulfilled” (comp. on iii. 19) is not in substance different from rd rAfpwpa
tov ypévov, Gal. iv. 4 ; nevertheless, in our passage the pre-Messianic period
running on from the beginning is conceived of not as unity, as at Gal. J.c.,
but according to its different sections of time marked off by different epochs,
the last of which closes with the setting in of the Messianic work of redemp-
tion, and which thus with this setting in become full (like a measure), so
that nothing more is lacking to make up the time as a whole, of which they are
the parts. This xAjpwyua is consequently not, in general, tempus justum, ‘‘ the
right time,” * but the fulness of the times, 7.¢.,that point of time, by the setting
in of which the pre-Messianic ages are made full,*® that is, are closed as com-
plete.* Fritzsche * conceives it otherwise, holding that 1d 7A4pwya is plenitas,
‘fulness,” the abstract of Apc, hence 7A. 7. x. plenum tempus, ‘‘ the full
time,” ol wAgpecc xatpof. But while zA7puua doubtless signifies tmpletio, ‘‘ ful-
filling,” like rAjpwor, in Ezek. v. 2; Dan. x. 3 ; Soph. Zrach. 1203 ; Eurip,
Tro. 824, it never denotes the being full. — Now, in what way is the genitive-
relation oixovopia tov tAnpdpuaros to be understood? A genitive of the object °
tov wAnpOu cannot be, inasmuch as it may doubtless be said of the rAfpwuna
Téav kaip. a8 & point of time fixed by God : it comes (Gal. iv. 4), but not: #
48 arranged, oixovoyeirac. Harless takes the genitive as eperegetic. But a
point of time (xAfp. r. xatp.) cannot logically be an appositional more pre-
cise definition of a fact (cixovouia). The genitive is rightly taken as express-
ing the characteristic (temporal) peculiarity, as by Calovius : ‘‘dispensatio
propria plenitudini temporum,” ‘the dispensation peculiar to the fulness
of the times.” Comp. Riickert. Just as xpiow peydAnc puépac, Jude 6.
Hence : with a view to the dispensation to be established at the setting in of the
Sulness of the times. For, bre je rd TAGpwua Tou xodvov, eLaréatecAev 6 Bede
Tov vidy avrov, ‘‘ when the fulness of the time came God sent forth his Son,”
Gal. /.c., and on His emergence rerAfpuraz 5 xatpdc, ‘‘ the time is fulfilled,”
Marki. 15. There was no need that the article should stand before oixov.
just because of the complete definition contained in the following genitive.

2 Comp. iff. 2; Xen. Cyr. v. 3. 25; Plut.
Pomp. 80 ; frequently in Polyb. (see Schweig-
haeuser, Lex. FPolyb. p. 402; comp. also
2 Macc. fil. 14; 8 Mace. ili. 2; Act. Thom. 57).

2 Morus: at its time.

*The apostolic idea of the wrAjpwxa tov
rapey excludes the conception of a series
of worlds without beginning or end (Rothe).
See Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 170 ff.

Comp. Herod. Ul. 22: oydecorra 8 érea
gous wAjpema avépit paxpotarovy mpoxdecOa,

21

“eighty years are appointed as the longest
fulness of life to man” (implementum vitae
longissimum, i.¢., longissimum tempus, quo
impletur vita,‘‘ the longest fulness of life, é.¢.,
the longest time in which life is fulfilled"),
and see on Gal. iv. 4; Wetstein on Mark }.
15.

8In Thesauri quo sacrae N. T. gloesae
tllustr. spectm., Rostock 1839, p. 23, and ad
Rom. Il. p. 478.

* Menochlus, Storr, Baumgarten-Crusius.

322 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Comp. on ver. 6. It would only be required, if we should have mentally to
supply to oixovoyiay a genitival definition, and thus to make it an independent
idea, as is done by many,' who explain it as administrationem gratiae, ‘‘ an ad-
ministration of grace,”—a view which is erroneous, just because a genitive
already stands beside it, although oixovopia tov tAnpdépatog tov xaipov, taken to-
gether, is the Christian dispensation of grace. This genitival definition
standing alongside of it also prevents us from taking, with Luther, ei¢
oixovouiay (8c. tov yvornpiov) as : ‘* that it should be preached ;” or from supply-
ing, with Grotius and Estius,* ry¢ eidoxiag avrov with oixov., in neither of
which cases would there be left any explanation of the genitive sense appli-
cable to rot tAnpdparog r. x. Quite erroneous, lastly, is the view of Storr,
Opuse. I. p. 155, who is followed by Meier, that oixovoyia roi zAnp. 1. x. is
administratio eorum quae restant temporum, ‘‘the administration of those
times that remain.” For to take r. zAjp. r. x. in the sense of reliqua tempo-
ra, 2.€., novi foederis, ‘‘the remaining times, z.¢., of the new covenant,” is
in the light of Gal. iv. 4, Mark i. 15, decidedly to misapprehend it. [See
Note IX., p. 352 seq. ] — avaxedaiacicacba ra xdvta tv TH XptovgH] epexegetical
infinitive, which gives information as to the actual contents of that oixovoyia :
(namely) again to gather up together, etc. Therein the arrangement designated
by oixovopia tr. 7A. Tr. x. Was to consist. This connection is that which nat-
urally suggests itself, and is more in keeping with the simple mode followed
in the context of annexing the new portions of the discourse to what imme-
diately precedes, than the connection with zpoéfero,* or with 16 pvorip. rod
@eA. avrov.4 We may add that Beza, Piscator, and others have taken es
oixov. T. wA. 7. x. along with dvaxegad. as one idea ; but in that case the pre-
ceding 7 xpoéevo év air@ must appear quite superfluous and aimless, and
ei¢ oixovon. K.T.A., by being prefixed to avaxegad., irrelevantly receives the main
emphasis, which is not to be removed from avaxegaA. — avaxegadadcaobaz|
xepadacoy in the verb xeda2a:éa means, as it does also in classical usage, chief
thing, main point ;* hence xega?.a:dw : summatim colligere, as in Thue. iii. 67.
5, vi. 91. 6, viii. 58. 1; Quinctil. i. 6. Comp. ovyxedadaotefa, Ken. Cyr.
viii. 1. 15 ; Polyb. iii. 8. 1, 7, iv. 1. 9. Consequently avaxegadaidu : summi-
tim recolligere, ‘‘ recapitulate summarily,” which is said in Rom. xiii. 9 of
that which has been previously expressed singulatim, ‘‘ individually,” in sep-
arate parts, but now is again gathcred up in one main point, so that at
Rom. l.c. év roévw 76 Aéyq@ denotes that main point in which the gathering
up is contained. And here this main point of gathering up again,
unifying all the parts, lies in Christ; hence the gathering up is not
verbal, as in Rom. l.c., but real, as is distinctly apparent from the objects
gathered up together, rd émi roi¢ obpavoic x.t.A. It 18 to be observed withal,
(1) that avaxegad. does not designate Christ as xepa27— although He really
is 80 (ver. 22) —so that it would be tantamount to urd piav xepaddy ays,

1 Wolf, Olshausen, and others. to indicate by the name ‘ mystery;’ also
2 Comp. Morus. Harless, comp. Olshausen, Schmid, did.
8 Zachariae, Flatt, and others. Theol. II. p. 847, and others.

4 Beza: Paul is explaining quid mysterti 5 See Wetstein, ad Rom. xiil. 9.
nomine significare voluerit, “ what he wanted

CHAP. I., 10. 323
‘Sto bring under one head,’ but as xegéAacov, which is evident from the
etymology ; (2) that we are not to bring in, with Grotius and Hammond,
the conception of scattered warriors, or, with Camerarius, that of an nrith-
metical sum (xe¢dAaov, see Wetstein, /.c.), which must have been suggested
by the context ; (3) that the force of the middle is the less to be overlooked.
inasmuch as an act of government on God's part is denoted : sibt summatim
recolligere, ‘‘to gather again summarily for himself” ; (4) that we may not
give up the meaning of ava, tterum, ‘‘ again,” * which points back to a state in
which no separation as yet existed.’ This ava has had its just force already re-
cognized by the Peshito and Vulgate (instaurare, ‘‘to restore”), as well as by
Tertull. de Monog. 5 (ad initium reciprocare, ‘‘ to go back to the beginning”), ‘
although xegada:dw is overlooked by the former, and wrongly apprehended by
the latter. See the more detailed discussion below. — ra révra] is referred by
many (see below) merely to intelligent beings, or to men, which, according
to a well-known use of the neuter, would be in itself admissible (Gal. iii.
22), but would need to be suggested by the context. It is quite general :
all created things and beings. Comp. vv. 22, 23. —ré éml roig ovpovoic xat ra
ext tic yao) that which is on the heavens and that which is on the earth, ini roic
ovpay. (see the critical remarks) is so conceived of that the heavens are the
stations at which the things concerned are to be found.® Even in the classi-
cal writers, we may add, prepositions occurring in close succession often
vary their construction without any special design init.‘ As regards the
real sense, Ta éxi Toic ovpav. is not to be arbitrarily limited either to the spirits
in heaven generally,” or to the angels,® or to the blessed spirits of the pious men
of the O. T.,° nor must we understand by it the Jews, and by ra évi ric yi the
Gentiles,” as, indeed, Koppe was able to bring out of it all mankind by de-
claring heaven and earth to be a periphrasis for xéopoc ; but, eutirely with-
out restriction, all things and beings existent in the heavens and upon earth are
meant, so that the preceding ra révra is specialized in its two main divi-
sions. Irenaeus” quite arbitrarily thought of all events which should have
come to pass on earth or in heaven, and which God gathers up, #.e¢., brings
to their complete fulfilment, in Christ as in their goal.” But how far has
God gathered together again all things, things heavenly and things earthly,
in Christ ? Before the entrance of sin all created beings and things were

! Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Calovius, Ben-
gel, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Mat-
thies, Meler, de Wette, and others.

2 Winer, de verbor. cum praep. conj. in N. T.
usu, IIT. p. 8f.

3 In opposition to Chrysostom, Castallo,
and many others.

Comp. Goth.: “aftra ugfulljan” (again
lofi up).

® Comp. the well-known éwi x@ovi (Hom.
77. tif. 195, al.) 5; éwt wvAnoww (ZZ, fii, 149); éwi
svpyy (Jl. vi. 431).

* See Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 1.20. Comp.
as to the local esi with genitive and dative,
4g., Hom. J7, 1. 486.

7 Riickert, Meler.

*® Chrysostom, Calvin, Cameron, Balduin,
Grotius, Estius, Calovius, Bengel, Michaelis,
Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten-Cru-
sius [Weiss], and others.

* Beza, Piscator, Boyd, Wolf, Moldenhau-
er, Flatt, and others.

109 Locke, Schoettgen, Baumgarten, Tel-
ler, Ernestti.

1) Adv. Haer. ili. 18.

13 Comp. Chrys.: ra yap &a paxpod xpdévou
cixovopovmeva aryxepadawaaro dv Xpire,
toutéots ovvdrexe, ‘‘ for the things long ad-
ministered he gathered together in Christ,
é.¢., cut them short.”

324 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

undividedly united under God's government ; all things in the world were
normally combined into organic unity for God’s ends and in Jlis service.
But through sin this original union and harmony was broken, first of all in
heaven, where a part of the angels sinned and fell away from God ;’ these
formed, under Satan, the kingdom antagonistic to God, and upon earth
brought about the fall of man (2 Cor. xi. 3), extended their sway
farther and farther, and were even worshipped in the heathen idols
(1 Cor. x. 20 f.). With the fall of man there came to an end also
the normal state of the non-intelligent «rio, ‘‘ creature” (Rom. viii.
19 ff.) ; heaven and earth, which had become the scene of sin and of
the demoniac kingdom (ii. 2, vi. 12), were destined by God to de-
struction, in order that one day a new heaven and a new earth—in which
not sin any more, but moral righteousness shall dwell, and God shall be the
all-determining power in all (1 Cor. xv. 28)—shall come imperishable (Rom.
viii. 21) in its place (2 Pet. iii. 13). The redeeming work of Jesus Christ
(comp. Col. i. 20) was designed to annul again this divided state in the
universe, which had arisen through sin in heaven and upon earth, and to
re-establish the unity of the kingdom of God in heaven and on earth ; 50
that this gathering together again should rest on, and have its foundations
in, Christ as the central point of union and support, without which it could
not emerge. Before the Parousia, it is true, this dvaxegadaiuorc is still but
in course of development ; for the devil is still with his demons év roi¢ éov-
paviog (vi. 12), is still fighting against the kingdom of God and holding
sway Over many ; many men reject Christ, and the xriouw, ‘‘ creature,” longs
after the renewal. But with the Parousia there sets in the full realization,
which is the aroxardoraoce révrwr, ‘‘ restitution of all things” (Matt. xix. 28 ;
Acts ili. 21 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ff.) ; when all antichristian natures and powers
shall be rejected from heaven and earth, so that thereafter nothing
in heaven or upon earth shall be excluded from this gathering together
again.* Finally, the middle vovce (sibi recolligerc, ‘‘to gather for him-
selr”) has its warrant in the fact that God is the Sorereign (the head of
Christ, 1 Cor. xi. 4 and ili. 23), who fulfils His will and aim by the gather-
ing up again, etc. ; so that, when the avaxegadaiworg is completed by the
victory over all antichristian powers, He resumes even the dominion com-
mitted to the Son, and then God is the sole ruling principle (1 Cor. xv. 24,
28). Our passage is accordingly so framed as to receive its historically ade-
quate elucidation from the N. T., and especially from Paul himself ; and
there is no reason for seeking to explain it from a later system of ideas, as
Baur does,* who traces it to the underlying Gnostic idea, that all spiritual
life which has issued from the supreme God must return to its original unity,
and in that view the ‘‘ affected” expression ei¢ olxov, Tr. wAnp. tT. xacp is held to

1 For this falling away Is the necessary p.3819 ff. On Jude6and 1 Tim. ili. 6, in which
presupposition for the Satanic seduction of passages a reference has been wrongly
our first parents, 1 John fil. 8-10 ; John vill. found to the first fall in the angelio world,
44, where an originally evil nature of the see Huther.
devil (Frommann, Hilgenfeld) is not to be 2 Comp. Photius in Oecumenius.
thought of; see Hahn. Zheol. d. N. T. I. 3p. 424.

CHAP. I., 10. 325

convey a covert allusion to the Gnostic pleroma of seons and its economy.’
The ‘‘ genuinely Catholic consciousness” * of the Epistle is just the genuinely
apostolic one, necessarily rooted in Christ’s own word and work. The per-
son of Christ is not presented ‘‘ under the point of view of the metaphysical
necessity of the process of the self-realizing idea,” * but under that of its
actual history, as this was accomplished, in accordance with the counsel of
the Father, by the free obedience of the Lord.

Remark 1.—The illustration which Chrysostom has given for ra én? roi¢
ovpavolc x. Ta eni tHe yic, from the conception of a house repaired (d¢ dv repr
oixlag Tig eltrot ra pev cabpa ra dé ioxupa Exovonc’ avwxoddéunoe Ti oixiay . . . odTw
wal évravOa mwavrac ind play Hyaye Kegadqy, ‘‘as one would say of a house having
some things decayed and others strong: ‘ He so rebuilt the house, and there
brought all under one head’”), has been again employed by Harless, whose
view of the passage (approved by Schenkel) is that the apostle speaks thus,
*‘ because the Lord and Crealor of the whole body, of which heaven and earth are mem-
bers, has in the restoration of the one member restored the whole body; and in this con-
sists the greatest significance of the reconciliation, that it is not merely a restoration of
the life of earth, but a bringing back of the harmony of the universe.’’ But in this
way the words of the apostle are made withal to suggest merely the doing away
of the contrast between heaven and earth (or, according to Schenkel’s tortuous
metaphor, ‘‘ between the heavenly glorified centre of creation and the earthly,
sin-troubled circumference of creation”), and there is conceded to the ré ém?
roi¢ ovpavoig merely an indirect participation in the avaxegadaiwor, and the
direct de facto operation of the Messianic oixovouia on the heavenly world is set
aside—which appears the less admissible, inasmuch as ra évi r. ovp. has the prec-
edence. According to Paul, the heavenly world and the earthly world were to
be affected, the former as immediately and properly as the latter, by the avaxe-
gadaiwore trav ravtwrv ; for the Satanic kingdom, for the destruction of which
Christ came, and whose destruction was the condition of the avaxegadaiware,
has its seat in the regions of heaven (vi. 12 ; comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I.
p. 343 ff.), and works in the viloi t7¢ ameiBelac (ii. 2) upon earth, so that in heaven
and upon earth there exists no unity under God.

Remarx 2.—The doctrine of Restoration, according to which those who have
continued unbelieving and the demons shall still ultimately attain to salvation,
altogether opposed as it is tu the N. T., finds no support in our passage, where
(in opposition to Origen, Samuel Crell, and others), on the contrary, in the
avaxedaa, «.7.A, there is obviously implied, from the general point of view occu-
pied by Christian faith, the separation of unbelievers and of the demoniac
powers, and their banishment into Gehenna ; so that the avaxegadaiworc is not
meant of every single individual, but of the whole aggregate of heavenly and
earthly things, which, after the antichristian individuals have been separated
and consigned to hell, shall again in the renewed world be combined into unity
under God, as once, before the entrance of sin, all things in heaven and on
earth were combined into such unity. Hence Olshausen is wrongly of opin-
ion that our passage (as well as Col. i, 20) is to be brought into harmony with

1 See, on the other hand, Rabiger, Caries pp. 109.
tol. Paulina, p. 55. ® Baur, neufest. Theol. p. 264.
2Baur, Christenth. d. drei erst. Jahrh.

326 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the general type of Scripture doctrine by laying stress in the infinitive aroxegaa.
upon the design:of God ‘‘ which, in the instituting of a redemption endowed
with infinite efficacy, aims at the restoration of universal harmony, at the bring-
ing back of all that is lost.’’ Apart from the fact that avaxegad. is only an epere-
getical infinitive (see above), it is altogether opposed to Scripture to assume
that the aim in redemption is the restoration of all that is lost, even of the
devils. For those passages as to the universality of redemption, and sayings
like 1 Pet. iv. 6, Phil. ii. 10 f., leave the constant teaching of the N. T. concern-
ing everlasting perdition entirely untouched (comp. on Rom. v. 18, xi. 32;
Phil. ii. 10) ; and as regards the devils, the design of God in the economy of re-
demption was to vanquish them (1 John iii. 8, and elsewhere ; 1 Cor. xv. 24 f.),
and to deliver them up to the penalties already prepared for them of everlast-
ing pain in hell (Matt. xxv. 41; Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Rev. xx. 1 f. ; comp.
Bertholdt, Christol. p. 223). The restoration of the devils, as an impossibility
in the case of spirits radically opposed to God, is not in the whole N. T. so
much as thought of. The prince of this world is only judged.

Remark 3.—Those who understand rd é7i roc otp. specially of the angels (see
above) have been driven—inasmuch as these pure spirits have no need of re-
demption in the proper sense—to unbiblical expedients, such as the view of
Calvin (comp. Boyd) : that the angels before the redemption were not ezira per-
iculum, ‘* beyond danger,”’ but had through Christ attained ‘‘ primum ut perfecte
et solide adhaereant Deo, deinde ut perpeluum statum retineant,” ‘‘ that they should
perfectly and firmly cleave to God, and then to retain a perpetual estate’’ (of
all which the N. T. teaches nothing !) ; or that of Grotius : ‘‘antea inter angelos
factiones erant et studia pro populis (Dan. x. 13!) . . . ea sustulit Christus, rez
factus etiam angelorum, unum ex tot populis sibi populum colligens,” ‘‘ previously
there were among the angels factions and devotion to the interests of public
bodies (Dan. x. 13); these Christ removed, being made King of angels, collect-
ing from so many peoples one for himself ;’’ or that of Augustine and Zeger,
that the number of the angels, which had been diminished by the fall of some,
was completed again by the elect from among men. Baur (comp. Zanchius),
out of keeping with the notion of the dvaxegaAalworc, thought of the knowledge
(iii. 10) and bliss (Luke xv. 10) of the angels as heightened by redemption.
Others again (Chrysostom on Col. i. 20; Theophylact, Anselm, Cornelius 4
Lapide, Hunnius, Calovius, Bengel, e¢ al.) have found the dvaxegadaiwore in the
fact that the separation which sin had occasioned between the angels and sin-
ful men was done away.’ So also in substance Riickert : ‘‘Originally and ac-
cording to the will of God the whole world of spirits was to be one, ...
through like love and obedience towards the one God. . . . Sin did away with
this relation, mankind became separated from God ; hence also of necessity
the bond was broken, which linked them to the higher world of spirits. . . .
Christ... . is to unite mankind to Himself by a sacred bond, and thereby to bring
them back to God, and by that very act also. . . to do away with the breach ;
all is again to become one.’’ Comp. Meier, as also Bahr on Col. i. 20. But
the apostle is in fact speaking of the reuniting not of the heavenly wifh the
earthly, but of the heavenly and the earthly (comp. Remark 1); moreover,

1In connection with this view it was Christ was, as to His divine nature, the head
quite arbitrarily, and with a distinction at of the angels, and as to His human nature,
variance with Scripture, assumed that the head of men.

CHAP. I., 11. 327

according to this explanation, the avaxegadaiworg of the heavenly spirits with
men would be the consequence of the expiation made for men by Christ, and
thus Paul must logically have written: rd ém ri¢ yii¢ x. Ta Ex Toig Ovpavolc.
[See Note X., p. 353.]

Ver. 11. ’Ev airg] resumes with emphasis the é¢y Xpiorg,' in order to attach
thereto the following relative clause ;* hence before éy avrg a comma is to be
-placed, and after it not a full stop, but only acomma.® Comp. on Col. i.
20. —év © xal éxAnpdOnuev] in whom (is the causal basis, that) we have also
obtained the-inheritance. ai, in the sense of also actually introduces the ac-
complishment corresponding to the preparation (which was expressed by fv
mpotOeto év avT@ ig oixovouiav x.t.A.).4 It has reference to the thing, not to the
persons, since otherwise it must have run «al jueic éxAnp., a8 In ver. 18 ; hence
the translation of the Vulgate : ‘‘in quo etiam nos,” etc., and others,’ is in-
correct. The sudject is not the Jewish Christians,* because there is no antith-
esis of #ueicg and wueic, ver. 18, but the Christians in general. exAnpO@npev
means : we were made partakers of the xAgpoc, ‘‘ inheritance” (Acts xxvi. 18 ;
Col. i. 12), that is, of the possession of the Messianic kingdom, which before
the Parousia is an ideal possession (ver. 14 ; Rom. viii. 24), and thereafter
arealone. [See Note XI., p. 853.] The expression itself is to be explained
in accordance with the ancient theocratic idea of the mn3 (Deut. iv.
20, ix. 26, 29), which has been transferred from its original Palestinian
reference (Matt. v. 5) to the kingdom of the Messiah, and thus raised
to its higher Christian meaning (see on Gal. ili. 18) ; and the passive
Sorm of this word, which is not met with elsewhere in the N. T., is quite like
POovovpat, dtaxovotmat, miorebouat (see on Gal. iv. 20), since we find xAnpobv rivi
used.” Others* have insisted on the signification of being chosen by lot
(1 Sam. xiv. 41, 42 ; Herod. i. 94; Polyb. vi. 88. 2 ; Eurip. Jon, 416, al.),
and have found as the reason for the use of the expression : ‘‘quia in ipsis
electis nulla est causa, cur eligantur prae aliis,” ‘‘ because in the elect them-
selves there is no cause why they should be elected in preference to others,” ®
in which case, however, the conception of the accidental is held as excluded
by the following zpoopia@. x.r.A.; * but it may be urged against this view that,
according to Paul, it is God’s gracious will alone that determines the éxAoy4
(ver. 5 ; Rom. ix. 16 ff.), not a Geia riyn, ‘* divine chance,” which would be
implied in the éxanp.; comp. Plato, Legg. vi. p. 759 C : xAnpoww obtw rH Oeig
thyn anxodi:dévra, ‘‘thus to apportion one confiding in divine chance.” —
mpoopcoblyres x.7.A.] predestined, namely, to the xAgpoc, according to the purpose
of Him, who worketh all things according to thecounsel of His will. The words
are not be placed within a parenthesis, and ra rdvra is not to be limited to

? Herm. ad Viger. pp. 784, 785 ; Bernhardy, 6 Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller,

p. 280 f. Meier, Harless, Schenkel, and others.
* Kfihner, IT. § 680, 5. _ Pind. Of. vill. 19; Thuc. vi. 42.
® So, too, Lachmann, Tischendorf. 8 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom,
*See Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 182; Klotz, Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and Bleek
a@ Devar. 636 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. 152. {Cremer}.
“Including Erasmus, Paraphr., and Ro- * Estius.

senmiller. 1° See Chrysostom and Estius.

328 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

what pertains to the economy of salvation,' but God is designated as the all-
working (of whom, consequently, the circumstances of the Messianic salva-
tion can least of all be independent). Comp. ravepyéryc Zets, ‘‘ all-effecting
Zeus,” Aesch, Ag. 1486. But, as God is the all-working, so is His decree
the ravroxparoptxéy BobAnjua, ‘‘ omnipotent purpose,” Clem. Cor. I. 8. — As to
the distinction between Bovdf and #éAnua, comp. on Matt. i. 19. The former
is the deliberate self-determination, the latter the activity of the will in gen-
eral.

Ver. 12. Causa jinalis, ‘‘the final cause,” of the predestination to the
Messianic xAgpoc :* in order that we might redound to the praise of His glory
(actually, by our Messianic xAgpovopia), we who have beforehand placed our
hope on Christ,—we Jewish-Christians, to whom Christ even before His
appearing was the object of their hope. Only now, namely, from cig ré eivaz
yuac onward, does Paul divide the subject of éAypd6. and spoopiobévres,
which embraced the Christians generally, into its two constituent parts, the
Jewish- Christians, whom he characterizes by yao . . . rove mponAmxérac év
T@ Xpior@, and the Gentile- Christians, whose destination to the same final
aim—namely, cic rd eivac eig Exacvoy x.t.2.—he dwells on afterward in vv.
18, 14 (passing over to them by év @ xai tyeic), and hence ver. 14 concludes
with a repetition of ei¢ éra:vov ric d6En¢ avTov.* — jude] has emphasis, prepar-
ing the way for the subsequent introduction of xai tueic¢. — rove rponAmeérac]
quippe qui, ‘‘as they who,” etc. On mpoeAmivev, to hope before, comp. Posei-
dippus in Athen. ix. p. 877.C. The spo does not transfer the hoping into
the praescientia Dei, ‘‘foreknowledge of God,’’‘ nor has it a reference to
the later hoping of the Gentiles,’ since the hoping of the Gentiles is
not subsequently expressed ; nor is mponAr. equivalent to the simple form,‘
which is not the case of any verb with po ; but it applies to the fact that
the Jews had the Old Testament prophecies, and hence already before Christ
set their hope upon the Messiah (Rom. iii. 2, ix. 4 ; Acts iii. 25, xxvi. 6f.,
22, xxviii. 20, al.). So, correctly, Zéckler takes it.’ But de Wette, who‘
denies the division — also unnoticed by Chrysostom and his successors—
into Jewish and Gentile Christians (understanding ud, generally, of the
Christians, and ipeic, ver. 18, of the readers), takes po in mpondAr. as: before
the Parousia. Comp. Theophylact : mpiv } éimiorg 6 uéAAwy aidr, ‘‘ before the
coming age impend.” But in this way the zpo would be without significance,
while, as taken by us, it is characteristic. It is incorrect, too, that ver. 13
affirms nothing peculiar of the Gentile-Christians. As standing in contrast

1 Piscator, Grotius.

2 Many others, including Flatt, Meier,
Harless, have attached eis rd efvartowpoopicd.
(predestined, to be, etc.); but this is not
only not in keeping with the analogous eis
éwatvov «.7.A., vV.6 and 14, but also inappro-
priate, because spoop:c8. did not yet refer
specially to the Jewish-Christians.

* Thus what Paul dwells on in vv. 11-14
may be summarized thus: “In Christ we
have really become partakers of the Messi-

anic salvation, to which we were predes-
tined by God, in order that we Jewish-
Christians, and also you Gentile-Christians,
should redound to the praise of His glory."

4 Jerome.

5 Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Boyd, Estius,
Bengel, Michaelis, and others.

* Morus, Bretschneider.

7 de vi ac notione vocab, éawis, 1856, p. 82 f.

® Comp. Rickert, Holzhausen, Matthies,
Bleek.

CHAP. I., 13. 329

to the xpoyAmixérag elvac of the Jewish- Christians, what is said in ver. 13 serves
precisely to characterize the Gentile-Christians. They, without having
entertained that previous hope (ii. 12), have heard, believed, etc. — The
usual construction, suggested of itself by the very sequence of the words,
has been—after the example of Morus, Koppe, ed. 1, Flatt, and Matthies —
departed from by Harless, followed by Olshausen, inasmuch as he regards
cig Exacvoy dé£n¢ avrov as an inserted clause [inciswm] : ‘‘ we who were predes-
tined, etc., to be those—to the praise of His glory—who already before hoped in
Christ.” In this way Paul would point to the reason, why the xAjpor had
first been assigned to the Jews. But (1) in that case éxAypd0. and mpoopiod.
must already have applied specially to the Jewish-Christians, which no
reader could guess, and Paul, in order to his writing intelligibly, must have
indicated, by putting it in some such way as: év @ qpyeic ExAnpwOnper, oi
spoopiobévres . . . €i¢ Td elvat . . . Tove mponAmecKérac x.t.A. As the passage
actually stands, the reader could find the Jewish-Christians designated only
at ver. 12, not previously. (2) ei¢ éracvov ddE¢ avrov has, in accordance with
the context (see ver. 14 ; comp. also ver. 6), by no means the character of
an incidental insertion, but the stress of defining the ultimate aim, and that
not in respect of a pre-Christian state, but of the Christian one. This, how-
ever, only becomes suitably felt, when we read ei¢ rd elvas quae sig Exacvov d6E€N¢
airov together. (3) The predestination of God (xpooprofévres) is in the connection
related not to a pre-Christian state, such as, according to Harless, the eivae
rovg mponAmixérac tv r. Xpiorg would be, but to the realization of the Mes-
sianic blessedness (ver. 5). Comp. Rom. viii. 29; 1 Cor. ii. 7; as
also Acts iv. 28. Lastly, (4) the objections taken by Harless to the usual
connection of the words are not tenable. For (a) the symmetry of the two
corresponding sentences in form and thought depends on the fact that in the
case of both sections, the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, the glorifying
of God is brought into prominence as the final aim of their attaining to sal-
vation, and hence ver. 14 also closes with ei¢ &ravoy r. d6£. avrov. (6) The
repeated mention of the predestination on God's part to salvation is solemn,
not redundant ; and the less so, inasmuch as the description of God as
Ta wdvra évepyovrroc 18 added. (c) The objection that we cannot tell
why the apostle brings in that predestination only with regard to the mpoya
mixétec, While yet it manifestly applies also to the axotcayrec, is based on the
misunderstanding, according to which éxAypé@. and zpoopiof. are already
restricted to the Jewish-Christians ; for the subject of these words is still the
Christians without distinction, — Jewish and Gentile Christians, — so that
the predestination of both the former and the latter is asserted. It is only at
ver. 12 that the division of the subject begins, which is continued in

Ver. 18, so that év 6 xat tueic leads over to the second constituent element
(you Gentile- Christians). — As regards the construction, it is regarded by
Wolf, Bengel, Morus, and others,’ including Riickert, Matthies, Holzhau-
sen, de Wette, Bleek, Bisping, as anacoluthic ; the é¢v » of the second half
of the verse is held to resume the first. Incorrectly, since in the resumption

1 Comp. already Jerome.

330 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

xat iueic would have been essential. As Paul has written the passage (cal
miorevo.), there is added to what has previously been affirmed of the tpeic
(axobcavres), & new affirmation ; hence éy g «. mor. «.7.A. is the continuation,
not the resumption of the discourse. The verb after év ¢ xai tyeic is there-
fore to be supplied; not, however, #Azixare,’ since in fact the preceding
mponAnixérac—which, besides, was only an appositional constituent element
of the discourse—would yield zpoyArixare, which is inapplicable to the
Gentile-Christians ; nor yet éxAnpdOyre,* since éxAnpdOnuev, ver. 11, already
embraced the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and with ei¢ rd elvas quae x.t.2.
a new portion of the development sets in. The right course is merely to
supply mentally the substantice verb, in accordance with the current expres-
sion év Xpror@ elvat, to belong to Christ as the element of life, in which one
exists. Ience: in whom also ye are. Thus Paul paves the way for his
transition to the Gentile-Christians, in order, after first specifying how it
was that they had become such (vv. 13, 14), finally to assert of them also
the ei¢ Eraivov rye déEn¢ abrov (ver. 14). — axotaavres Tov Ady. THE GAnO.] after
ye have heard the word (the preaching) of the truth, for after this hearing
there set in with them the év Xpiorg eivac. The truth kar éfoyx, ‘‘ pre-emi-
nently,” is the contents of the 2éyo¢. But a contrast to the types and shadows
of the O. T.,* or to heathen error,‘ is not implied in the context. Comp.
Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 15. —1d etayy. r. owrnp. tu.] descriptive apposition to
Adyog TH¢ GA79. The genitive here also denotes the contents ; that which is
made known in the gospel is the Messianic salvation. Harless takes both
genitives as genitives appositionis, ‘‘of apposition,” inasmuch as the gospel
is the truth and the cuwrrpia. The gospel, however, zs not the salvation, but
an exertion of the power of God, which lads to salvation (Rom. i. 16;
1 Cor. i. 18) ; the analogous combinations, too, of rd evayy. with a genit.
abstract., ‘‘an abstract genitive,” as rd evayy. ti¢ ydpitog tr. Oeod (Acts xx.
24), ric eipfync (Eph. vi. 15), r#¢ BaccAclac, are opposed to the assumption of
a genit. apposit., ‘‘ genitive of apposition.” Comp. on Marki. 1. Finally,
the context also, by axotcavrec and moreicavrec, points not to what the doc-
trine is, but to what it proclaims. Comp. Rom. x. 14. — év © xai mioretoarres
x.t.A.] A further stage of the setting forth how they became what they were,
in order to reach its goal ei¢ éraivov riz¢ déEn¢ avrov, ver. 14. Precisely with
regard to the Gentile-Christians, who had previously been aloof from all
theocratic connection (no mponAzcxétec év TH Xpior@), the apostle feels himself
impelled not to be content with the simple ‘‘in whom also ye are, after ye
have heard the Gospel,” but specially to bring into relief the sealing of the
Holy Spirit. — év »] is referred not merely by those who regard it as resump-
tive (see above), but also by many others with Luther,* to Christ ; but why
should we pass over the neareat antecedent ? The xai finds its reference,

1 Erasmus in his version, Beza, Castalio, * Chrysostom.

Calvin, Estius, and others. 4 Cornelius & Lapide, Baumgarten; Gro-
2 Erasmus, Paraphr. ; Piscator, Zanchius, _ tius thinks of both.
Cornelius & Lapide, Boyd, Vorstius, Zach- ‘Including Harless, Meier, Olshacsen,

ariae, Koppe, and others, including Meler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel.
Harless, Olshausen.

CHAP. I., 13. 831

agreeably to the context, in the accession of the faith to the hearing (Rom.
x. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 1). Hence & @ is to be referred, with Castalio, Calvin,
Beza, Erasmus Schmid, and others,' to ré evayyéAcov, and to be joined, with
Castalio, to moretcavrec, not to écgpayiod. (as usually), according to which
mioreto. would be superfluous,? and the periodic flow of the discourse would
be injuriously affected. Hence: in which ye, having become believers, were
sealed through the Holy Spirit. As to moretew év (Mark i. 15), see on Gal.
iii, 26. — mioretoavrec] is not to be taken, with Harless, as contemporaneous
with éogpay. (see on vv. 5, 9) ; but it contains that which was prior to the
agpaytseca:. The order of conversion was : hearing, faith, baptism, reception
of the Spirit. See Acts ii. 87, vili. 12, 17, xix. 5, 6 ; Rom. vi. 3, 4; Tit.
iii. 5 f. ; Gal. iii. 2, iv. 6. Certainly even the becoming a believer is not
the work of human self-determination (see Acts xvi. 14 ; Phil. i. 29 ; Rom.
xii. 3 relates to the measure of faith of the baptized) ; yet this divine opera-
tion is only preparatory, and the effusion of the Spirit, properly so called,
ensued only after baptism :* hence twoater and Spirit (John iii. 5). — éogayia-
Gyre] were sealed, i.e., confirmed, namely, as xAypovéuo of the Messianic king-
dom. [8ce Note XII., p. 353.] See what follows. Comp. iv. 30, and see on
2 Cor. i. 22 ; John iii. 33. This sealing is the indubitable guarantee of the
future Messianic salvation received in one’s owen consciousness (Rom. viii. 16)
through the Holy Spirit, not the attestation before others.‘ An allusion has
been arbitrarily found in éo¢gpay. to cirewmeision (Rom. iv. 11), or to the oriy-
para of heathen ceremonies (Grotius assumes both : ‘‘ non extra signati estis
in cute, guomodo Judaei circumeisi et Graecorum idolorum punctis notati,” ‘‘ ye
were not sealed outwardly in the skin,” asthe Jews were circumcised and
the Greeks were stamped with the marks of their idols”), nay, even to the
ogpayig Dianae, with which those initiated into her mysteries were marked.°
—1¢ mvebuare tig érayyeA.] Dativus tnstrwmentalis, ‘‘instrumental dative,”
and ric ivayy. 1s genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘ genitive of quality,” denoting the
promise as characteristic of the Holy Spirit, for He is, in fact, the Spirit
promised in the O. T. (Acts ii. 16 ff. ; Joel iii. 1-5; Zech. xii. 10; Isa.
xxxli. 15, xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 26 f., xxxix. 29. Comp. Luke xxiv. 49;
Acts 1. 4; Gal. ili. 14). Others :* the Spirit, who confirms the promise (of
salvation). But how wholly imported, since in rvevya itself there is implied

1 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.

2If ev belongs to écdpay., we must, in
the event of ¢ applying to the Gospel, ex-
plain: ‘“‘by means of which ye also, after
ye became believers (or ye, after ye also
became believers), were sealed.’ Comp.
Beza. But if gis to apply to Christ, the
sense would be: “in whom (being) ye also,
after ye became believers (or: ye, after ye
also became believers), were sealed.’*” How
utterly superfluous screvcarres is in either
case, will be at once felt. Harless regards
dy § as more precisely defined by rq nvevpare,
Inasmuch as the Spirit of God is also the
Spirit of Christ (Rom. vili. 9; 2Cor. ill. 17:
Gal iv. 6). But even thus sicrevcartes

remains unnecessary, since ¢vy ¢ surely ex-
presses the already existing spiritual union
with Christ.

3 As to the single instance of the effusion
of the Spirit defore baptism, see on Acts x.
44.
4Gore elvar SHAov, Ste @eod Eore Adyos x.
xAnpos, ‘so that it may be evident that ye
are God's lot and inheritance," Theophy-
lact ; comp. Chrysostom, Cornelius & La-
pide, Flatt, Holzhausen, and others.

§ Amelius ; comp. note on Gal. vi. 17.

6 Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Piscator; and as
early as Chrysostom and Theophylact,
alongside of the former correct view.

382 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

nothing at all of the notion of confirmation ! No, the Old Testament prom-
ise belonged to the Spirit ; He is specifically the Spirit of promise, and by
that very fact He became for the recipients the sealing of Messianic blessed-
ness. — 7 ayiyv| is not added accidentally, nor yet because the sanctificatio
of the Spirit would be the confirmatory element,’ for in 76 dyiw there is im-
plied the quality, not the effect of the Spirit ; but Paul desires to bring out
very emphatically and solemnly that, by which the ogpayifecfac has been ac-
complished ; hence he says, with corresponding pathos : r@ xveipare rie
érayyediag TH ayiy. We may add that we are not to think, with Grotius,
Estius, and others, of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, since, in fact, the
tpeic generally are the o¢pay:obévrec, but rather of the outpouring of the Spirit,
which all experienced after their baptism (Acts ii. 38 ; Gal. ili, 2 ff.). See
also ver. 14. — According to Schwegler,? the rvevyua tic exayyed. is to be held
as pointing to the later period, to which the doctrine of the Paraclete in
the (not genuine) Gospel of John belongs. But Comp. Gal. iii. 14.

Ver. 14. "Oc gory appaBav tig KAnpovoyiac fu. | stands in significant relation
(as affording more precise information) to éo¢payiobyre : whois earnest of our
inheritance ; for in the reception of the Spirit the recipients have obtained
the guarantee—as one receives earnest-money as a guarantee of future pay-
ment in full—that they shall become actually partakers of the Messianic
blessedness (comp. Rom. viii. 15-17 ; Gal. iv. 6, 7). é¢, applying to the
rvevpa, not to Christ, agrees in gender with appaBor.? As to the epexegetic
relative, see Nigelsb. on Hom. Jlias, ed. 8, p. 8. As to apjafav, see on
2 Cor. 1. 22. — cig axoditpwow tHe mepixothoewc] unto the redemption, etc., is
likewise (comp. also iv. 30) the causa jinalis, ‘‘final cause,” of éogpayiobyre
x.T.A., consequently that, to which the purpose of God was directed, when
ye were sealed. Comp. ver. 10. Others connect it with o¢ gory. . . qpév,*
in which case ei¢ is taken by some likewise in a telic sense, by others as
usque ad (the latter at variance with the parallel etc which follows). But
the more precise definition thus resulting would in fact. be, after r. xAnpov.
hu., quite self-evident and unnecessary. — The aoAtrpworg is here—in ac-
cordance with the whole connection, and because the zepirolzaig (see below) -
is the subject which experiences the d7oAttpworc—the jinal consummation of
the redemption effected by the Afrpov of Christ (ver. 7) at the Parousia
(Luke xxi. 28), when suffering, sin, and death are wholly done away, and in
the glorifying (resurrection, or relative transformation) of the body there
sets in the défa of the children of God, and the in all all-determining do-
minion of God (1 Cor. xv. 28). See Rom. viii. 18-23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 54 ff.
Comp. Eph. iv. 80. Beza aptly terms this final definitive redemption
anodbtpwov éAevOepdoews. — The xepiroinotg avrov (for avrod at the end does
not apply, as it is usually referred, merely to ryc¢ ddéé7¢, but also to r#¢ zepi-
mo.gc., Whereby the latter obtains its definite character, and the discourse
gains in vividness and energy’) is the acquisition of God, i.e., the people ac-

2 Pelagius, Lombard. 4 Estius, Flatt, Rickert, Schenkel, Bleek,
2 In Zeller’s Jahrd. 1844, p. 388. a.
3 See Herm. ad Viger. p. 708 ; Heindorf, ad ® So also Hofmann, Schriftdcw. IT. 2, p. 20;
Phaedr. p. 29; Buttm. neui. Gr. p. M1 [E. and Schenkel.
T. 281].

CHAP. I., 14. 333

quired by God for His possession, by which is here meant the whole body of
Ohristians, the true people of God, acquired by God as His property by
means of the redeeming work of Christ. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9; as also Acts
xx. 28, where the Christian community is presented as the acquisition of
Christ (comp. Tit. ii. 14). The expression quite corresponds to the Hebrew
mT a0, by which the people of Israel is designated as the sacred pecu-
lium Dei, ‘‘ peculiar treasure of God,” and opposed to the Gentiles. Sec
Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18 f. ; Ps. cxxxv. 4. The LXX. too,
though usually expressing the notion of 190 by sepioboroc, translate it, Mal.
ili. 17, by weperoinorc. Comp. also Isa. xliil. 21: Aaéy pov by mweprerornoduny
CAS") «7.4. The objection to this view,' that meperoinoce never in itself,
without defining addition, signifies the people of God,’ entirely disappears
when we take in the airov: ‘‘unto redemption of His acquired possession,
unto the praise of His glory.” Others, retaining likewise the signification of
acquired possession, explained it in the neuter sense, like Calovius (comp.
already Bugenhagen) : ‘‘ plena fruitio redemtionis haereditatis nobis acqui-
sitae,” ‘‘ the full fruition of the redemption of the inheritance acquired for
us.” Comp. Matthies: ‘‘ unto the redeeming of the promised glorious
possession.’’ But how can it be said of the salvation acquired for us, that
it is redeemed ? And the plena fruitio, ‘‘ full fruition,” isimported. Beza,
wrongly denying the concrete use of reproinotc, insists upon the abstract
notion of vindication, assertion, and specifies as the meaning : ‘‘ dum in liber-
ationem vindicemur,” ‘‘ until we are emancipated.” But this would need to
be expressed by ei¢ sepitoinoww rH¢ anoAutpdcews (comp. 1 Thess. v. 9 ;
2 Thess. ii. 14). The word is also taken in the abstract sense by those
who understand it as preservation, conservatio,* like Bengel, Bos (‘‘re-
demtio, quae salutem et conservationem affert,” ‘‘redemption which
effects salvation and preservation”), Bretschneider (‘‘redemtio, qua vitae
aeternae servamur,” ‘‘redemption whereby we are preserved unto eternal
life”), Holzhausen (who, following Homberg, arbitrarily assumes aod. ri¢
weper. to stand for avoA. xai wepir.). But against these explanations it may
be decisively urged that in the case of repiroinoig the thought : unto ever-
lasting life, or the like, is added arbitrarily, and that the assumed genitive
relution does not arise out of the notion of aroAtrpworc, according to which
the genitive is either the subject, which is redeemed (Luke xxi. 28 ; Rom.
Vili. 23), or expresses that, from which one becomes free (Heb. ix. 15 ;
Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 178). To the erroneous attempts at explanation
belongs also that 4 which takes rie meperothoewe for tiv mepirocpOeicav, the re-
demption acquired for us, or (so Bleek) the redemption, which is to become our
possession,® —eic ixavov ti¢ dé—n¢ avrov] a climactic parallel to what goes
before, containing as it does the jinal aim of God in the sealing with the

1 Which Is followed, afterthe Peshito and Pair. p. 6383; Plat. Defin. p. 418 C; Wetst.
Oecumenius, by Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, II. p. 424.

and most expositors, including Flatt, Riick- 4 Vatablus, Koppe.

ert, Meier, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, 5 This sense, too, would in fact have

Baumgarten-Crustus, Schenkel. needed to be expressed by eis wepirocyocy
2 See especially Koppe. THS amoAUTpwCEWS.

* Heb. x. 89; 2 Chron. xiv. 18; Zest. XII.

334 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

Holy Spirit. And thus has Paul accordingly reached what he had in view
in the joining on of év @ xai tueic, ver. 18, namely, the assigning to the
Gentile-Christians the same ultimate destination, which he has in ver. 12
predicated of the Jewish-Christians. — The reference of airoi to God, as in
vv. 12, 6,' flows from éogpay., which is God's act.* The glory of God is the
final aim of the whole unfolding of salvation.

Ver. 15.” Only now, after the general ascription of praise to God for the
Christian economy of salvation, which had since ver. 3 flowed forth from
him in an enraptured greeting, does Paul reach that, with which he is wont
on other occasions at once to begin—the thanksgiving to God for the Chris-
tian position of the readers, and intercession for them. — did rovro] has refer-
ence to vv. 18, 14: because this is the case, that ye too are in Christ and hate
been sealed with the Holy Spirit, etc. See already Theophylact. There isno
reason for going farther back and referring it to the whole preceding devel-
opment from ver. 3 onward,‘ since thanksgiving and intercession have
reference to the readers, and it is only ver. 18 that has led over to the
latter. — xayo] I also; for Paul knows that by his exercise of prayer, ver.
16, he is co-operating with the readers. Comp. on Col. i. 9. — axotoag] does
not serve to prove that the Epistle could not have been written to the Ephe-
sians, or not to them alone (see Introd. § 1) ; Grotius in fact has already
aptly remarked : ‘‘Loquitur autem apostolus de profectu evangelii apud
Ephesios, ez quo ipse ab illis discesserat,” ‘‘the apostle speaks, moreover, of
the progress of the Gospel among the Ephesians from the time when he had
departed from them.” * No doubt Olshausen® maintains that Paul so ex-
presses himself as to make it apparent that with a great proportion of his
readers he was not personally acquainted, appealing to Col. i. 4. But may
he not here, as at Philem. 5, have heard respecting those who were
known to him, what at Col. i. 4 he has heard respecting those who were
previously unknown to him?—rpv xaf tag rior] jfidem, quae ad vos
pertinet, i.e., vestram jfidem, ‘‘the faith which pertains to you, te.,
your faith.” Comp. Acts xvii. 28, xviii, 15, xxvi. 3." The difference
between 7 caf ipac riorec and 1 ricti¢ tuev lies only in the form of concep-
tion, not in the thing itself. Yet the mode of expression, not occurring
elsewhere in the letters of the apostle, belongs to the peculiar phenomena of
our Epistle. The assertion of Harless, that it denotes the faith of the
readers objectively, as in itself a thing to be found among them, while # xiarss
imav denotes it subjectively, according to its individual character in each one,’
is the less capable of proof, in proportion to the prevalent use among the
later Greeks of the periphrasis of the genitival relation by «card.* — é& ro

1 Not, with Estius and Hofmann, to p. 445; and already Theodoret én loc.
Christ. * Comp Bleek.
2 See van Hengel, Annot. p. 198 ff. 7 Thuc. vi. 16.5 (rq xar avrovs Big); Ael

3On vv. 15-19, see Winzer, Commentat.,
Lips. 1836.

4 Harless, Winzer, Schenkel, and others,
following Oecumenius.

5’ Comp. Winzer, p. 5; Wiggers in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 480 f.; Wieseler,

V. Hf. li. 12 () nar’ avrdv apery).

6 Comp. Matthies and Schenkel.

® See Valckenaer, ad Luc. p. 4f.; Schaefer,
ad Long. p. 880; Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic.
xiv. 12,

CHAP. I., 16, 17. 335

xupiy] belonging to rior (fidem vestram in Christo repositam, ‘‘ your faith
reposed in Christ”), and blended without any connecting article into unity
of idea with it. Sce on Gal. i. 26. Winzer connects it with diya:
‘*fidem, quae vobis, Domino Jesu veluti insitis, . . . inest,” ‘‘ faith which
is in you, as though you were in the Lord Jesus ;” but this is forbidden by
the order of the words. — xa? rijv aydr. tiv cig wdvrag x.7.A.] Here, too, Paul
might have left out the second article, so that the sense would be: «ai rod
ayanny tuacg Exew elg mdvrag (comp. Col. i. 4), as at 2 Cor. vil. 7: zdv dye
Cyaoy iwép évov. But he has first thought of the notion of love in itself, and
then added thereto, as a special important element, the thought, riv eic
navrac tT. dy. —adévracg ‘character Christianismi,” ‘‘the stamp of Chris-
tianity,” Bengel. Comp. vi. 18; Philem. 5. We may add Chrysostom’s
apt remark : ravrayov cuvarret xal cvyxoAAa thy lore Kai ri aydryy Aavpaoryy
riva Evvepida, ‘‘ He everywhere joins and cements faith and love—a wonderful
pair.” Comp. Gal. v. 6; 1 Cor. xiii.

Ver. 16. Ov ratoua:] a popular form of hyperbole. My thanksgiving—so
full and urgent is it—can find noend. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2 ; Luke ii. 87 ;
Herod. vii. 107 : rotrov dé aivéuy otx énatero, ‘‘He did not cease praising
this one.” —ebyaniotav inip inav] to give thanks on your account. On the
participle, see Herm. ad Viger. p. 771; Bernhardy, p. 477 ; and on iép
(super vobis, ‘‘orer you”), comp. v. 20; Rom. i. 8, Elz. ; 1 Tim. ii. 1.—
pvelav rotobpevog Ext trav mpooevy. pov] accompanying definition to evapora :
while I make mention inmy prayers. Comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Thess. i. 2; Phil.
i. 8; Philem. 4. What Paul makes mention of is learned from the context,
which furnishes not merely ipov (Elz. ; see the critical remarks), but a
more precise definition, namely : of what he has heard concerning the faith
and love of the readers, and for which he gives thanks on their account.
This pveiay moobuevog x.7.A., however, is not superfluous, and after evyap.
tnxép ou. self-evident ; but it serves, through the close joining on to it of the
following iva «.r.A. (after ver. 16 only a comma is to be placed), as a means
of leading over from the thanksgiving to the intercession connected with it,
and is thereby accounted for. — éxt] of the prevailing relations and circum-
stances, in or under which anything takes place. See on Rom. i. 10.

Ver. 17. “Ivaé Qedc x.7.A.] contains the design cherished by Paulin the pveiav
. . . Rpooevy. pov: in order that God might give you, etc. In this expressed design
is implied the intercessory tenor of the yveiav roceioac; hence ivais not here to be
deprived of its notion of design, nor is it to be explained’ by supplying before it
the conception of “praying.” The apostle would say that what he has heard of
their farth, etc., induces him to unceasing thanksgiving on their behalf, while
he makes mention of it in his prayers to the end that God might give them, etc.
The telic éruc, Philem. 6, stands in another connection than the iva in our
passage. See on Philem./.c. The optative d¢77 is used, because the design
is thought of as subjective conception and expectation, the realization of which
is dependent entirely upon the will of God, and consequently belongs only

1 Harless; comp. Rfickert, Olshausen, of Soin, see Buttmann, I. p. 507; Lobeck,
Winer, § 41, and others. ad Phryn, p. 346.
20n this form of later Greek instead

336 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

to the catcsory of what is wished and possible. On iva with an optative'
after the present or future, see, generally, Hermann, ad Soph. El. 57 ; ad
Aj, 1217 ; Reisig, ad Oed. Ch. p. 168 ff. ; Bernhardy, p. 407 ; and especially
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 622 ff. — 6 Ged¢ rod xvpiov gu. I. X.] for God has sent
Christ—who, having before all time proceeded from His essential nature
(Col. i. 15), was the creative organ of the Father—forth in the fulness of
the time in pursuance of His decree, to which the Son was obedient (Phil.
ii. 8), has given Him up to death, raised and exalted Him, and is continually
the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 8), who even as ofwfpovoc, ‘ co-enthroned,” of
the Father is subordinate to the Father (Rom. viii. 34), [See Note V., p. 38,
by Am. Ed., on Galatians], and finally will give back to God the dominion
which God has given to Him (1 Cor. xv. 27, 28). In the consciousness of
His relation of dependence on God, Christ Himself calls the Father @edé¢ por,
John xx. 17 ; Matt. xxvii. 46. Comp. Col. ii. 2, Lachm. The opinion extorted
in the anti-Arian interest from the Fathers,* that 6 Ocd¢ rod xvp. applies to
Christ’s human nature, and 4 rarip ric défn¢ to the divine,* isto be mentioned
only as matter of history, asare also the forced construction, to which Meno
chius and Vatablus were induced by a like prejudice to resort, that @zd¢ and
riicdééne are to be taken together (rot xupiov. . . marhp being inserted), and
the at least more skilful turn of Estius: ‘‘ Deus, qui est Domini nostri
Jesu Christi pater gloriosus,” ‘‘God, who is the glorious father of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” — 6 rarnp ri¢ dbEnc] the Father (namely, of Christians) to whom the
glory (the majesty xar’ éfox#, ‘‘ pre-eminently’”’) belongs.. See on Acts vii.
2, and 1 Cor. ii.8. The resolution into an adjective pater gloriosus, ‘ glori-
ous father,” * isin itself arbitrary, does not exhaust the eminent sense of 7
défa, and fails to perceive the oratorical force® of the substantival designa-
tion. Others take rarfp in the derived sense of auctor, ‘‘ author,”® so that
God is designated as He, from whom the glory of the Christians’ proceeds.
Certainly the idea of auctor, ‘‘ author,” may be expressed, specially in the
more elevated style, by rarfp ;° but as this is nowhere else done by Paul,
so here he has no reason for resorting to such an usage, to which besides the
analogous expressions, Oedc t#¢ déénc, ‘‘God of glory” (Ps. xxix. 8; Acts
Vii. 2), Baotdedte reo dé=nc, ‘‘ King of glory” (Ps. xxiv. 7), wipiog ric ddEns,
‘*Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 11. 8), Xepoufinz déénc, ‘‘ cherubim of glory” (Heb.
ix. 5), are opposed. We may add, that the description of God by 4 O«d¢

2 Lachmann and Rickert (as also Fritz-
sche, ad Rom. III. p. 280) write doy with an
tota subscriptum under », so that it would
thus be the Iunic subjunctive (Od. xii. 216).
But often asthe aorist subjunctive of dideur
occurs in the N.T., this Zfomeric form never
presents itself. The form é¢ in B is a man-
ifest emendation.

2 See Suicer, Thea. I. p. 944.

8 8éfay ydp thy Geiay diow wvduacey, for
he called the divine nature, glory !’’ Theo-
doret and Oecumenius ; comp. even Ben-
gel and Bisping.

4Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaclis, and

others.

6 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887.

¢ Erasm. Paraphr.; Bucer, Cornelius &
Lapide, Grotius, Wolf, and others, including
Holzhausen and Olshausen.

7 According to Grotius: of Christ and the
Christians.

8 Job xxxviil. 28: Jas. i. 17, where the
¢wra are personified; Pind. Pyth. iv. 813,
where Orpheus is called aovda» sarjp; and
see Ast, Zex. Plat. ITI. p. 66; Jacobs, ad
Ach. Tat. p. 802 f. ; John viii. 44 is not bere
applicable.

CHAP. I., 17. 337
. . . 66&n¢ stands in appropriate relation to the design of the intercession ;
for of the God of Christ and Father of glory it is to be expected that He
will do that, which the cause of Christ demands, and which serves to the
manifestation of His own glory. Oecumenius rightly remarks : xai mpd¢ 7d
spoxeipevov ovoudser Tov Oedv. — rvevua cogiag x. avoxadiy.] The Holy Spirit,
too (for it is not the human spirit that is here meant, as Michaelis, Riickert,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek would take it’), Paul is wont to
characterize mpdc rd mpoxeiuevov, Rom. viii. 2, 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 5 Gal. vi. 1.
Comp. 2 Tim. i. 7. Here: the Spirit who works wisdom and gives revelation
(1 Cor ii. 10). The latter is a greater result of the work of the Spirit,? in
accordance with which He not only by His enlightening operation fur-
nishes wisdom (jve01¢ Oeiwy x. avOpwrivey mpayudtwy Kai Tov TovTwY aiTiuy,
‘‘the knowledge of things divine and human, and of their causes,” 4 Macc.
i. 16 ; conceived of, however, by Paul in reference to the Christian economy
of salvation, comp. ver. 8), but further, as the organ of God, effects also
special revelations of divine saving truths and purposes not otherwise
known. Harless regards x. aroxad. as the objective medium, which brought
about the state of: cogia, so that the character of the cogia is more precisely
defined by x. avoxaA. But in passages like Rom. i. 5, ydpev x. aroaroAny, xi.
29, ra yapiopata x. 7 KAnoc Tov Oeov, the discourse advances from the general
to the special, not from the thing itself to its objective medium. Logically
more natural, besides, would be the advance from the objective medium to
the subjective state, according to which Paul would have written : azoxadi-
peuc cal oogiac. Finally, the climactic relation, which is brought out in the
two words under our view, makes the wish of the apostle appear more fer-
vid and full, and so more in keeping with his mood. It is obvious of it-
self, we may add, that Paul here desires for his readers, to whom in fact
the Spirit has been already given from the time of their conversion (ver.
13), a continued bestowal of the same for their ever-increasing Christian en-
lightenment.? Baur, p. 487, conjectures here something of a Montanistic
element. But it was not by the Montanists that the rveiua was first re-
garded as the principle of Christian wisdom, etc. ; it isso already in the
teaching of the whole N. T. — év émryvécer airov) That abrov does not apply
to Christ,+ but to God (although we have not to write airow), is clear from

1 Rickert: “God grant you a heart wise
and open for His revelations ;’’ de Wette:
“the quality of mind which consists in
wisdom (mediate knowledge) and reve-
lation (susceptibility for the immediate
knowledge of divine truth’). According
to Schenkel, it is the spirit wrought in the
regenerate by the Holy Spirit. All this is
oppoeed to the N. T use of zvevuea with the
gentiious abstracti, ‘‘abstract genitive.’ And
nowhere in the N. T., where the being giten
is predicated of the wretza, is it anything
else than the olyective xv., whether it be di-
vine or demoniacal (Lake xi. 18 ; John fll. 84;
Acts vill. 18, xv. 8; 1 Thess. lv. 8; 2 Tim. 1.

?)
ad

7; 1 John iif. 24; Rom. v. 5, xf. 8). The
presence or absence of the article with
mvevna makes no difference; see on Gal. vy.
16. As to the singular expression svevya
ayiwwovens, used of the Spirit of Christ, in
Rom. |. 4, see on that passage.

2 But not, as Olshausen (comp. Grotlus)
maintains, the xapioua of prophecy, of
which the more detailed exposition, ver.
18 ff., shows notrace. And Paul, in fact, Is
praying for aZ his readers. See, however,
1Cor. xii. 29.

3Comp. Col. 1. 9.

‘Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Baumgarten,
Flatt.

338 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the atrov of vv. 18, 19; it is only at ver. 20 that the discourse passes over

to Christ. Nor is éy ércyv. airov, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zachariae,

Koppe (with hesitation), Lachmann, Olshausen (who was forced to this by

his explaining rvetpa oop. x. aroxaA. in the sense of extraordinary charis-

mata), to be attached to what follows, whereby the parallelism (svetpa cog.

x. arox. is parallel with zedur. tr. 090. rT. xapd. iu., and év éryv. abr. with eig 73
eidévac x.t.A.) would without reason be destroyed ;? but it denotes the sphere
of mental activity, in which they, already at work therein (and that likewise
through the Spirit, ver. 13), are to receive the spirit of wisdom and reve-
lation.” Erroneously év is taken for eic,? or as per,* which latter would
represent the knowledge of God as bringing about the communication of the
Spirit, and so invert the state of the case. It is true that Calovius remarks:
‘*quo quis magis agnoscit Christum, eo sapientior fit et revelationem divini
verbi magis intelligit,” ‘‘The more one acknowledges Christ, the wiser he
becomes, and understands the revelation of the divine word the better ;”
but the question is one, not of an agnitio, but of a cognitio, and not of un-
derstanding the revelation of the word, but of a revelation to be received
through the agency of the Holy Spirit. — In éziyvworg observe the force of
the compound, which implies an eract and penetrating yvoots, as is very evi-
dent especially from 1 Cor. xiii. 12, and is wrongly denied by Olshausen.'*
[See Note XIII., p. 353. ]

Ver. 18. Tegwriopévoug rove o¢fa2pods x.7.A.] is usually * taken as apposition-
al, and made dependent on d@y tyiv ; in which case it has been rightly ob-
served that the translation should not be, with Luther : enlightened eyes, but,
on account of the article: He may give to you the eyes enlightened, ete.
But (1) in general an enlightened understanding is not proper to be set forth
us in apposition to the Holy Spirit, but rather as the effect of the same. (2) The
conception that God gives to them their eyes (which as such they already
have) in the condition of enlightenment, as zegwricpzévovc, remains in any
case an awkward one ; inasmuch as we should have to transform the giring,
which was still a proper and actual giving in ver. 17, zeugmatically into the
notion of making at ver. 18,” in order to remove the incongruity caused by
the presence of the article. Bengel, with his fine insight, aptly remarks :
‘* Quodsi 49¢0a2uob¢ esset sine articulo, possct in sensu abstracto sumi (enlight-
ened eyes) et cum det construi,” ‘‘ But if 69@a2uobve were without the article,
it could be taken in an abstract sense (enlightened eyes) and be construed with
det.” Hence, with Beza, Bengel, Koppe, Bleek, reguriou. is to be taken as

1 Seo Harless.

2 Comp. 2 Pet. {. 2.

* Luther, Castalio Piscator, Cornelius a
Laplide, Wolf, Bengcl, Moldenhauer, Rosen-
miller, and others.

4 Erasmus, Calovius, and others. ;

5 Olshausen appeals to the fact that, just
where the most exalted form of knowledge
—the charismatic—is spoken of, the word
employed Is not ériyywors, but yraots, 1 Cor.
xil. 8, xiii. 8. Tva@ors, however, in the char-

ismatic sense was the name—as it were,
the terminus technicus, ‘‘ technical goal,” for
the thing—which as such was meant to de-
note the essence, not the degree. Comp.
Col. i. 9.

¢ As also by Rilckert, Matthies, Meier,
Holzhausen, Harless, Winzer, Olshausen,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel,
Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 272.

7 Flatt, following Heinsius, quite arbi-
trarily supplies eivac.

CHAP. I., 18. 339

the so-called accusative absolute, such as, from a mingling in the conception
of two sorts of construction, is to be met with often also in classical writers
—and that without repeating the subject (iuac) in the accusative (in opposi-
tion to Buttmann)—instead of another case which would be required in
strict accordance with the construction, particularly instead of the dative ;?
and thus Beza’s proposal to read zepwriopuévorg was entirely uncalled for.”
Accordingly, zeguriou. relates to tiv, and rove gf. is the accusative of more
precise definition : enlightened in respect of the eyes of your heart, i.e., 8o that
ye are then enlightened, etc., with which is expressed the result of the com-
munication of the Spirit prayed for.* — rove d¢Oadau. ric xapd. tu.) figurative
designation of the understanding,‘ which is enlightened, when man discerns
the divine truth. The opposite : Rom. i. 21, xi. 8,10. The reference of
the enlightenment to knowledge is necessarily given by 4¢6aApofc, and should
not have been regarded as one-sided ;° and the power of the new life is not
here included under the zeguriou., since it is not the heart in general, but
the eyes of the heart that are set forth as enlightened, consequently the or-
gan of cognition.* — xapdia] does not merely denote, according to the popular
biblical usage, the faculty of emotion and desire,’ but is the concrete ex-
pression for the central seat of the psychico-pneumatic personality, conse-
quently embracing together all the agencies (thinking, willing, feeling) in
the exercise of which man has the consciousness of his personal inward cx-
perience ; in which case the context must suggest what side of the self-con-
scious inner activity of life (here, the cognitive) is in particular to be thought
of.* —ei¢ 1d eidévar tua] alm of weguriop. x.7.A. : in order that ye may know
what (quanta, ‘‘ how great’’) is the hope of His calling, i.e., what a great and
glorious hope is given to the man, whom God has called to the kingdom of

lvweort sot Opdcos abvrvovwy xAVoucay
dpriws évecpatwr, Soph. El. 479 f.; Plat.
Lach. p. 186 D; Thuc. v. 79. 1.

2Comp. Acts xxvi. 3. See, generally,
Brunck, ad Soph. l.c.; Jacobs, ad Athen.
p. 97; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 176 D,
and ad Rep. pp. 386 B, 500 C, 586 E; Kiihner
and Kriiger, ad Xen. Anabd. 1. 2.1; Nagelsb.
on Iliad, ed. 8, p. 181.

81 Thess. ill. 18; Phil. iil. 21; Hermann,
ad Viger. p. 807 f.; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee.
690.
Plat. Pol. vil. p. 688 D: rd rhs Wuyns Suma,
Soph. p. 24 A; comp. Ovid. Met. xv. 64,
and see Grotius and Wetstein.

* In opposition to Harless.

*Comp. Clem. ad Cor. 1.19: ésPAdpopuer
TS Sumace THS Puxns €i¢ TO paxpodvpoy
vrov BovAnua, ‘‘ Let us look with the eyes
of our soul to his Jong-suffering will ;*’ and
L 3: gvegxdncay Huey of dbdadpoi THs Kap-
dias, ‘** The eyes of our heart were opened."

7 Olshausen, Opuse. p. 159; Stirm in the
Tab. Zeilechr. 188A, 8, p. 58.

® Comp. Rom. i. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. iv.
12; Phil. iv. 7; 2 Pet. i. 19; and see, on tho

activity of the heart in thinking and cog-
nition, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 f., as also
Krumm, de notiontd. psychol. Paul. p. 80.
The observation of the latter, that tho
cognitive activity of the heart Is based on
internal experience (which, however, bolds
good not only as to St. Paul, but also else-
where in the N. T.), is not refuted by the re-
joinder of Delitzsch, p. 177. In this very
passage (comp. fil. 18) the cognition is not
merely discursive, but the experience, in
which it has its root, is that of the divine
communication of the Spirit and enlighten-
ment. Analogous Is the case with 2 Cor.
iv. 6. As to Phil. iv. 7, see on that passage.
The heart, as the seat of self-consciousness
and of the conscience, Is the receptacle of
experience and elaborates it. Comp. Beck,
bibl. Seelent. p. 67. If it does not admit the
experience, or does not elaborate it unto
saving knowledge, it is closed (Acts xiv.
16), hardened (Eph. iv. 18), slothful (Luke
xxiv. 25), covered as with a veil (2 Cor. fit.
15), void of understanding, etc. See also
Oebler in Herzog’s Encyk. VI. p. 17.

340 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the Messiah, by means of that calling (ri¢ «Ajo. is genitive of the efficient
cause). éAric, accordingly, is not here, any more than elsewhere (Rom.
viii. 24 ; Gal. v. 5; Col. i. 5, al.), res sperata, ‘* object hoped for,” as the
majority, including Meier and Olshausen, take it. Observe also here the
three main elements in the subjective state of Christians : faith, and lore, and
hope (vv. 15, 18); in presence of faith and lore the enlightenment by the
Holy Spirit is to make the glory of hope more and more known ; for the
nodivevua Of Christians is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20), whither their whole
thoughts and efforts are directed. Faith, with the love which accompa-
nies it, remains the centre of Christianity ; but hope withal encourages and
animates by holding before them the constant object of their aim.’ This in
opposition to Weiss, who here finds hope brought into prominence, ‘‘ quite
after the Petrine manner,” as the centre of Christianity.?— rai tig o zAeirey
x.7.A] this is now the object of the hope. Therepctition of ric, as well as the
kai tle. . . kati, has rhetorical emphasis (comp. Rom. xi. 34 f.); and, in
& whovroc tHe b6En¢ THC KANpovopiag ai'rov, What a copious and grand accumula-
tion, mirroring, as it were, the weightiness of the thing itsclf ! which is not
to be weakened by adjectival resolution of the genitives.? doa, glory, is the
esscntial characteristic of the Messianic salvation to be received from God
as an inheritance at the Parousia (Rom. viii. 17); and how great the rich
Julness of this glory is, the readers are called to realize. év roi¢ dyior does
not mean : in the Holiest of all (Heb. ix. 12), as Homberg and Calovius con-
jectured, for this is not suggested by the context ; but : among the saints
(Num. xviii. 23 ; Job xlii. 15 ; Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18); for the community
of believers (these are the ayo, i. 1, 4), inasmuch as they are to be the sub-
jects of the Messianic bliss, is the sphere, outside of which this -Aovrog x.7.2.
will not be found. Comp. 6 xAjpoc trav ayiwv, Col. i. 12. It is connected
with the éori to be mentally supplied after zic, so that we have to translate,
as is required by the article before zAniroc : what, i.e., how great and exceed-
ing, is the riches, etc., among the saints. Harless objects that Paul must
have written 6 év roi¢ dyiowc, and that év roi¢ dyiug receives unduly the main
stress. But the construction ric ior: 6 wAovro¢ év roi¢ dyiowg is in fact logical-
ly quite correct, and év roi¢ dyiorg would have of necessity the main empha-
sis only if it stood after ric. Usually * év roi¢ ayiorg 1s regarded as an appen-
dage to ri¢ KAnpovoy. avrov: ‘‘the inheritance given by God among the
saints,’ in connection with which Riickert, quite at variance with N. T.
usage, explains of adyw: of the ‘‘ collective body of morally good beings in
the other world.” But since 7 xAypovozia Ocod 1s completely and formally
defined by this very Gzoi (airov), and does not first receive its completencss
by means of év roi¢ dyiow (see, on the contrary, Rom. viii. 17; Gal. iv. 7).
this more precisely defining addition must have been attached by means of
rhc, and passages like Rom. ix. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 17; 1 Cor. x. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 7
(see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I, p. 195 f.), are not analogous. If airov were not

1 Comp. Rom. yv. 2, villi. 18 ff.; 1 Cor. ix. 3 Comp. Col. 1. 27; 2 Cor. iv. 17.
24 ff.; 2 Cor. iv. 17, xill. 12 f.; Gal. vi. 9; As by Riickert, Harless, Winzer, Ols-
Phil. iii. 12 ff. ; Col. i. 28, fil. 1 ff. hausen, but not by Koppe and de Wette.

2 Petrin, Lehrbegr. p. 427.

CHAP. I., 19. 341

in the text, tv roi¢ dyiorg might be the definition of the xAypovoyia here meant,
and blended with rir x27povoziac so as to form one idea. We may add, that
Harless wrongly refers to the riches of the glory, etc., preponderantly to the
present earthly Baoireia ror Oeot. Comp. de Wette. It is only the future
kingdom of God, to be sct up at the Parousia, that is the object of the «Ay-
povouia (1 Cor. vi. 9, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v. 5; Matt. xxv. 34); and
here in particular the context (éa7ic, ver. 18 ; éyeipac x«.7.4., ver. 20) still
points to the future glory, which Paul realizes as already present.

Ver. 19 ff. After the object of the hope, there is now set forth also that by
which it is realized, namely, the infinite power of God shown in the resurrec-
tion, etc., of Christ : and what (quanta, *‘ how great”) 13 the exceeding (sur-
passing all measure) greatness of His power in relation to us who believe. The
construction is as in the preceding portion, and consequently such, that ci¢
yuac Tovg mor. attaches itself not to ric duvapy. aitov,' but to the éari to be
mentally supplied after ri. — From the context preceding (éAmi¢ xAnpovouiac)
and following (ver. 20 f.) it is clear that Paul is not here speaking of the
power of God already in the earthly life manifesting itself as regards believ-
ers in their inward experience,’ not even of this as included,* but only of the
power to be shown as regards believers in future at the Parousia, where this
mighty working displayed in Christ’s resurrection, exaltation, and appoint-
ment as Head of the church, must necessarily, in virtue of their fellowship
with Christ, redound to the fulfilment of the hope, to the ddéga rij¢ xAnpovomiac
(see vv. 20-23). Hence Paul continues: xara ri évépyecav x.7.A.] This is
indeed connected by many with roi¢ miorebovrac,‘ in which case the morebew
appeared as consequence of the évépyea «.7.2., a8 pyov Ocov—a View which
was helped among the older expositors® by the interest of opposition to
Pelagian and Socinian opinions ; but in this way the whole course of thought
is deranged, and the simple and solemn exposition in ver. 20 is made sub-
servient to an expression quite immaterial, which Paul might equally well
have omitted (rod¢ moretovrac). It is not the design, according to the con-
nection, to prove the origin of faith. Chrysostom, Calvin, Calixtus, Estius,
Grotius, and others, including Meier and Winzer, have found in xara tiv
ivépy. x.T.A. an amplification * of rd trep3. pbyefocg «.t.A. But in this way
all that follows would only be destined to hold the disproportionate place
of a description, and would be isolated from ci¢ rd eidévac vac, Which yet was
the definite basis of the discourse hitherto ; and this isolation there is no
reason to assume. Hence we have to take xara r. évépy. x.t.2. a8 the ground
of knowledge of the preceding point. What is the exceeding greatness of the
divine power tuwards believers, the readers are to know in tirtue of the
operation, etc. ; in accordance with this operation they were to measure that
excecding greatness. Harless refers it not mercly to the preceding point,

1 Meler, Harless, de Wette, Baumgarten- § Schenkel.
Crusius, Bleek, after many older expositors; ‘See Erasmus, Calovius, Rosenmiller,
comp. 3 Cor. xili. 4. Flatt, Rickert, Matthies, and others.

2 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Photius, 5 See, especially, Calovius.
Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, includ- * De Wette: the real ground ; comp. also

ing Flatt, Matthies, Rickert, Mejer, Har- Bleek.
less.

342 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

but to all the three points adduced after eic¢ rd cidévac tac. But, as the eép-
yera Tov Kparore TH¢ iaxioc, Corresponds simply to the notion of the divas, we
are not entitled to refer farther back than to the point in which the divapy
was spoken of. — riyv évépy. rot xpat. tig toxtog avz7ot] a touching accumulation
of terms, presenting the matter in genetic form ; for icyic is strength in itself
as inward power, as tis or virtus (Mark xii. 30 ; 2 Pet. ii. 11), xpdroc, might
expressing itself in overcoming resistance, in ruling, etc. (Luke i. 51; Acts
xix. 20; Eph. vi. 10; Col. i. 11; Heb. ii. 14; Dan. iv. 27 ; Isa. xl. 26),
and évépye:a, the efficacious working, the active erertion of power.' The Vul-
gate aptly renders: ‘‘secundum operationem potentiae virtutis ejus,” ‘‘ac-
cording to the operation of the power of his virtue,” and Bengel remarks :
‘Sr, evépyecav, haec actus est, ‘i.e., an act ;’ tov xparouc, hoc in actu est,’ ‘i.e.,
én act.’”

Ver. 20. *Hy] namely, é{pyecav ; see Winer, p. 205. —év 7@ Xpiore] in the
case of Christ. —éyeipac] aorist participle, contemporaneous with the act of
the verb, like yrupicac, ver. 9.7 — Kai éxd@ioev] deviation from the participial
construction after xai.? — év roi¢ érovpav. | in the heaven (see on ver. 3), is not to:
. be transformed into the vague conception of a status coelestis, of a higher rela-
tion to the world, and the like,‘ but to be left as a specification of place. [Sec
Note XIV., p. 853seq.] For Christ is with glorified body, as civAporoc, ‘‘ co-
enthroned,” of the Father on the seat where the Divine.Majesty is enthroned
(see on Matt. vi. 9), exalted above the heavenly angels (ver. 21), in heaven
(Phil. iii. 20 f.) ; so Stephen beheld Him (Acts vii. 55), and the seer of the
Apocalypse (Rev. v., al.) ; and from thence, surrounded by the angels, He
will return, even as He has bodily ascended thither (1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Actsi.
11, ili. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 21 f. ; Matt. xxiv. 30, xxv. 31) ; hence also those
who arise and are changed at the Parousia are caught up cic dépa, ‘‘ into
the air,” to meet the Lord coming from heaven (1 Thess. iv. 17). Up to
that time He intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father (Rom. viii.
84). The true commentary on éxdéficev év defeG abtov év toig Exovp. is accord-
ingly, Mark xvi. 19 : dveA7g07 cig Tov otpavoy Kai ExdOicev Ex deEtav tov Ocor.
And our passage itself, ver. 20 ff. (comp. iv. 10), is the commentary on 6
Oedc avrav imxepinbwoe x.t.A. Phil. i. 9.

Ver. 21 is no parenthesis, since neither the construction nor the logical
progress of the thought is interrupted. — irepdvw expresses not the infinite
exaltedness,® nor yet the dominion orer,* although the latter is implied
in the nature of the case, but simply: up abore (Heb. ix. 5; Ezek. 1. 26,
viii. 2; Deut. xxviii. 1; Cant. tr. puer. 37; Tob. 1.3; Ael. V. ix. 7;
Polyb. xii. 24.1). The opposite is ivoxéru, Mark vi.. 11; Heb. ii. 8. —
mdonc apyic . . . xupiérytog is neither to be understood, with Schoettgen, of

1 For similar combinations of words hav-
ing a kindred sense, see Lobeck, Paralip. I.
p. 584 f. Comp. Soph. Philoct. 590: xpos
ioxvos kpdros. Job xxi. 28 (LXX.).

2In connection with this, observe the in-
terchange of the perfect (évjpynxev, see the
critical remarks) and the aorist (éyeipas):
which (working) Jie has wrought (concluded

action, regarded from the standpoint of the
writer), when He raised, etc.

3 See Hermann, ad Soph. Ei. p. 158, and
note on Col. 1. 6; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 82 f.
[E. T. 882].

4 Calovius, Harless, Hofmann, and others.

6 The Greek Fathers, Beza, Estius.

® Bengel.

CHAP. I., 21. 343
the Jewish hierarchs, nor, with van Til,’ of the various grades of Gentile
rulers, nor, with Morus, of human powers in general, nor, with Erasmus,
Vorstius, Wolf, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Olshauscn, and others, of
quodeumque gloriae et dignitatis genus, ‘‘any kind of glory and dignity”
(comp. 1 Cor. xv. 24); but, as is shown by the immediate context (éxafioev
. . . éy roi¢ érovpav.) and the analogous passages, iii. 10, Col. i. 16, Rom.
viii. 88 (comp. also 1 Pet. iii. 22), of the angels, who arc designated accord-
ing to their classes of rank (abstracta pro concretis, ‘‘ abstracts for concretes”),
and, in fact, of the good angels, since the apostle is not here speaking (as in
1 Cor. xv. 24) of the victory of Christ over opposing powers, but of Fis exal-
tation above the existing powers in heaven. See, moreover, on Rom. viii.
38. In opposition to Hofmann, who? would find in the different designa-
tions not any order of rank, but only various relations to God and the world,
see Hahn, Theol. d. N. 7. I. p. 291 ff. Christ Himself already, Matt. xviii.
10, assumes a diversity of rank among the angels ; it is thus the more arbi-
trary, that expressions evidently in stated use, which in the case of two
apostles and then in the Test. XII. Patr. correspond to this idea (even apart
from the Jewish doctrine of classes of angels) should not be referred to it.
More precise information, however, as to the relations and functions of the
different grades of angels‘ is not to be given, since Paul does not himself
enter into particulars on the point, and the Rabbinical theory of classes of
angels, elaborated under the influence of Platonism, yet dissimilar,® is not
in keeping with the designations of the apostlc,* and has evidently been
elaborated ata later date. It is nevertheless probable that the order of suc-
cession is here arranged according to a descending climax ; for (1) the apos-
tle, in looking at the matter, proceeds most naturally from above downward,
from the right hand of God to the heavenly beings which hold the net
place beneath Him, and so on; (2) the apyai, éovoiaz, and duvaue¢ are
always mentioned in the same order (iii. 10 ; Col. i. 16, ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii.
22); the é£oveia:, however, with the fpdvor (Col. i. 16) are” placed in the
seventh heaven, and the dvvduec only in the third (p. 547), as, indeed, in
Jamblichus, v. 21, p. 136, the duvéyere are placed far below the apyai. -Ac-
cording to this, the @pdvoc and xupiéryrec, Col. 1. 16, would be placed in
juxtaposition as the two extremes of the angelic series. Anothcr view is
taken by Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 297 f.— That Paul, moreover, sets
forth Christ as exaltcd above the angel-world, with a polemic purpose in
opposition to the @pyoxeia ayyéAwv of the Gnosis of Asia Minor (comp. Col.
ii. 18),° is not to be assumed, since the form of the representation maintains

‘In Wolf.

2 Schriflbew. I. p. 347.

* Comp. also Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 558 f.

4Ignatius, 7rall. 5, calls them ras rorod-
egias tas ayyeAuds. Comp. also Hermas,
Past. 1. 3, 4. But if the apyac «.7.A. are
angels, they are also conccived of as person-
al, not as ‘“‘ principles and potencies, pow-
ers, forces, ordinances, and laws" (Bey-
schlag, Christol. d. N. 7. p. 244), consequent-
ly in an abstract sense. The abstract desig-

nation has its basis in the fact that classes or
categories of personal belt:gs are expressed,
just as, ¢.g., efoveia issaid of human author-
ities, which consist of persone.

§ See Eisenmenger, Eutdeckt. Judenth. If.
p. 874; Bartolocci, Bil. Rabd. 1. p. 267 ff. ;
Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. Heils, I. p. 857 ff.

® See Harless in loc. ; Fritzsche, ad Rom.
II. p. 226.

7 Text. XII, Patr. p. 548.

® Bucer, Estius, Hug, and others.

344 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

purcly a positive character, and the thing itself was so natural to the Chris-
tian consciousness generally (comp. Heb. i. 4), and to the connection in the
case of our passage in particular, as to need no polemic occasion in order to
its being expressed. and expressed with such solemnity. Even a purpose
of guarding against possible infection on the part of such a Gnosis’ is at
least not expressed or more specially indicated ; it may, however, have still
been partially present to the mind of the apostle from the sphere of thought
of the previously composed Epistle to the Colossians. Comp. Introd. § 4.
—xai mavtog évéuarog x.t.A.] and, i.e., and generally,* above every name thich
is named. Let any name be uttered, whatever it is, Christ is above it, is
more exalted than that which the name so uttered affirms. Comp. Phil. ii.
9. That dvoza is here dignitatis potentiaerve nomen, ‘‘a name of dignity or
power,” * as Hom. Od. xxiv. 98 ; Strabo, vi. p. 245 (év dvéuare elvac), and the
like,* is not to be supposed on account of dvouafopuévov, since this makes the
simple literal meaning name the only possible-one ;° and, if Morus and
Harless * have supplied the notion underlying the preceding abstract nouns:
‘‘above every name, namely, of such character,” they have done so arbitra-
rily, as wavréc stands without restrictive addition. av dvoya is quite gen-
eral ; any name whatever ; from the heavenly powers, above which Christ is
placed, the glance of the apostle stretches to every (created) thing generally,
which may anyhow be named. Comp. mdvra, ver. 22.—ov pdévoy x.7.2.]
cannot belong to éxd@cev x.7.4.," since éxd@ccev is an act, which has taken
place in the aid airoc, but it belongs to dvoyafou.: which is named in the
present world-period, before the Parousia, and in the future one, after the
Parousia. As to aldv otroc and aidy uéAAwr, see on Matt. xii. 82. ‘‘ Natural
and supernatural order of the world,” ® and similar conceptions, are not to
be substituted for the historical idea.

Ver. 22. While Paul has before been setting forth the exaltation of Christ
over all things, he now expresses the subjection therewith accomplished of all
things under Christ: xai mdvta . . . avto?, with which consequently the
same thing—the installation into the highest xvupidry¢ (Phil. ii. 10 £.)—is ex-
pressed, only from another point of view (from below, from the standpoint
of the object subjected ; previously from above, from the seat of the exalted
Lord), in order to present it in a thoroughly exhaustive manner. Such a
representation is not tautological, but emphatic. Theodoret, with whom
Harless agrees, makes the purpose : kai r#v xpogntinyy Exzyaye paprupiayr, ‘* He
also introduced the prophetical testimony.” But the words, while doubt-
less a reminiscence of Ps. viii. 7 (6), in such wise that Paul makes the expres-
sion of the Psalm his own, are not a citation, since he does not in the least
indicate this, as he has done at 1 Cor. xv. 27 by the following irav d2 eizy.
Certainly, however, he recognized that, which is said in Ps. vili. of man as
such, as receiving its antitypical fulfilment in the exalted Christ (see on

! Schneckenburger, Olshausen. ®’ Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 262 B.
% See Fritzsche, ad Maith. pp. 786, 870. * Comp. also Michaelis and Rickert.
3 Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others. 7 Morus, Koppe; comp. already Beza and

4 See Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 46; Jacobs, Zanchius.
ad Anthol. IX. p. 226. 6 Schenkel.

CHAP. I., 23. 345
1 Cor. Z.c., comp. also Heb. ii. 8), and thereby it was the more natural for him,
when speaking here of the dominion of Christ, to appropriate the words of
the Psalm. — rdvra has the emphasis, like tdoy¢ and ravréc before. All—
all that is created — God has subjected to Christ. If Paul had meant sim-
ply all that resists Christ,’ he must have said so, since there is no mention of
subjecting what is hostile either before or in the eighth Psalm. — xai avrov
x.t.4.| and Him, the One thus exalted and ruling over all, Him even He
gave, etc.; observe the emphasis of the airév prefixed. What dignity of the
church in Zim / — idwxe] is usually taken in the sense of rifyusc ;? but here
as arbitrarily as at iv. 11. Grotius and Riickert rightly take it as: He gate
him . . . to the church. If Paul had conceived of rf éxxA. not as dependent
on éduxe, but as attached to xed. oxép rdvra, it would be difficult to see why
he should not have written ric éxxAnoiac.® Comp. Col. i. 18. — imép xdvra]
exalted above all things, is neither transposed :* ‘‘ipsum super omnia (8c. pos-
itum) dedit ecclesiae ut caput ejus,” ‘‘ He gave Himself placed above all
things as Head of his Church,” Grot.; nor does it signify especially (éxi
naocv, vi. 16), as Boyd and Baumgarten would have it ; nor is it, in its true
connection with xega’., to be taken as summum caput, ‘‘ the supreme head,” *
by which, according to Koppe and Olshausen, it is meant to be indicated
that Christ is higher than the apostles, bishops, etc. In opposition to this
interpretation, it may be decisively urged that only One Head to the church
can at all be thought of, and that wdévra here calls for the same explanation
as above in the case of wdvra tiréraf. Hence rather : and Him He gave as
Head over all things (to which position, as just shown, He had exalted Him)
to the church (Christians as a whole). Since He, as Head over all things, was
given to the church, it is obvious that He was to belong to her in a very
special sense as her own Lead ; hence itis, in accordance with a well-known
breviloquentia,® unnecessary to supply xegaAgv again before ry éxxa.

Ver. 23 gives information (#ric¢, ut quae, ‘as it is,” denotes the attribute
as belonging to the nature of the éxxAnoia ; see Kiihner, II. p. 497) as to the
relation in which the church stands to this Head given to it. It is the body
of the Head. — 1d cdua airov] namely, in the mystical sense, according to
the essential fellowship of spirit and of life, which unites the collective
‘mass of believers with Christ, their Ruler, into an integrant and organic
unity, wherein each single individual is a member of Christ in Christ’s body.
Comp. ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 16, v. 23, 80; Col. i. 18, 24, ii. 19, iii. 15; Rom.
xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 15, x, 17, xii. 18, 27.— 1d wAgjpwua tov ra wavta év mace

! Grotius, Rosenmfller, Holzhauscn, Ols-

hausen.

* Harless: ‘and installed Him as Head
over all things for the church ;"’ comp. Hof-
mann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 117.

* Hofmann indeed thinks that. if edwxe +7
dcednoig were to be taken together, Paul
would not have inserted cegad. uwép wavra.
But why not? The very position assigned
to xed. uw. w., a8 placed apart from avror, is
in keeping with the importance of this defi-

nition of quality, which at the same time,
s0 placed, brings together with striking em-
phasis trep ravra and 7H exxA. Christ has He
given as Head over ali things to the church.
So high and august is His esteem for it!

4 Peshito, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Eras-
mus, Grotius, Estius, and others.

® Beza, Morus, Koppe, Rickert, Holzhau-
sen, Meier, Olshausen, Bleek, comp. Mat-
thies.

* Matthlae, p. 1588; Kiahner, IL. p. 602.

346 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

a2npovn. | & significant explanatory parallel to 76 cépa avrov, which more pre-
cisely characterizes the relation of the church to Christ, in so far as the latter,
as Head over all, is also its Head ; and that in non-figurative language. The
church, namely, is the Christ filled, t.e., that which is filled by Him,'in
so far, namely, as Christ, by the Holy Spirit, dwells and rules in Chris-
tians, penetrates the whole Christian mass with His gifts and life-powers,
and produces all Christian life (Rom. viii. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. iil. 17 ; John xv.
5 ; Eph. iii. 17 ; Col. i. 27). His presence and activity, through the medium
of the Spirit, fills the collective Christian body. And Christ, by whom the
Christian church is filled, is the same eho jilleth the all (i.e., the rerum uniter-
sitas, ‘‘ universe of things,” whose Head He is, ver. 22) with all, for by Him
was the world created, and by Him, as the immanent ground of life (Heb. i.
3), is it maintained and governed (i Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16 ff. ; Usteri,
Lehrbegr. p. 315 ff.) ; hence this interpretation of iv mao: yields no intoler-
able sense,* but is entirely Pauline. Accordingly, by the fact that the church
is named the rAjpwua of Christ, the idea that Christ is the Head of the
church, of His body, receives elucidation ; and by the characteristic desig-
nation rov ra wdvra év aot TAnpovp., is elucidated the conception, that He as
Head over all is Head of the church, ver. 22. — 1d rAypwxa is here (comp.
generally on ver. 10) equivalent to 7d rexAnpwpévov, ‘‘that which is filled.”
Thus, as is well known, not only are ships’ cargoes or crews,* but also the
ships themsclves—so far as they are freighted or manned—called wAnpéyara ;*
thus it is said in Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 920, of the soul : yevouévy dé
mAfpwopa aperov ; thus among the Gnostics the supersensible world is called
Td wAgpwpa, the filled, in opposition to rd xévwya, the empty, the world of the
senses.° Sce also Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 470. év aor is not : everyzhere,*
in all modes of manifestation,’ in all points,® or the like ; but instrumental,’
as atv.18: with all; and rAnpovuivov is middle, as in Xen. Hell. v. 4. 56, vi.
2. 14; Dem. p. 1208, 14; 1221, 12, in connection with which the medial
sense is not to be overlooked : gui sibi implet ; for Christ is Lord and final
aim (ver. 22 ; Col. i. 16; Heb. ii. 10) of all. Comp. Barnabas, Ep. 12:
Eyeie Kai Ev tobT@ tiv dézav Tov ‘Inoadv, Ore év av’T@ wdvta Kai ei¢ avrdév, ‘‘ you have
#iso in this the glory of Jesus ; for in Him and to Him are all things.” The
ubiquity of the body of Christ, which our text was formerly employed to
defend (sce especially Calovius), and even now is once more adduced to

1 Not, as Elsner (Obss. p. 204) would take
it : thal by which Christ te filled, against which
there would be doubtless no linguistic ob-
jection (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. IT. p. 469 f.),
but it may be urged that the church is not

5 Baur, Gnosis. pp. 157, 462 ff.

* Baumgarten-Crusius.

7 De Wette, Bleek.

® Marless.

® Comp. Plut. de plac. phil. 1.7.9: éxAynpero

to be thought of as dwelling In Christ, but
Christ as dwelling in the church (1 Cor. fii.
16; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Eph. il. 22), and that the
following paraphrastic designation of
Christ would not be in keeping with that
conception.

2 Schenkel.

3 Dem. 565, 1.

* Lucian, V. 77. il. 87, 88.

év paxapiornr, ‘ He was filled with blessed-
ness.’ Paul himself has employed sAypovr
with such varied construction (with the da-
tive, Rom. i. 20; with the genitive, Rom.
xv. 14; with the accusative, Col. i. 9), that
even the combination with év cannot sur-
prise us,—a combination which he has also
in Phil. iv. 19.

CHAP. I., 23. 347
prove (Philippi, Dogm. IV. 1, p. 484), is the less to be found here, seeing that
the év rao:, to be taken instrumentally, makes us think only of the all-pene-
trating continuous activity of Christ. [See on ver. 20, Note XIV., p. 353 seq. ]
The continuity of this activity is implied in the present zAypouyz., in which
Hofmann, II. 1, p. 539, finds a gradual development, and that of the resto-
ration of the world ; of which last there is here no mention at all, but, on
the contrary, of the upholding and governing of the world, as Col. i. 17 ;
Heb. i. 3." As regards the explanations that differ from ours, we may
remark—(1) Many, who have rightly apprehended 16 Ajpwyua and zAnpovpévon,
wrongly restrict ra wdvra év rac to the spiritual operations in the Christians,
either, as Grotius : ‘‘Christus in omnibus, credentibus éc., implet omnia,
- mentem luce, voluntatem piis affectibus, corpus ipsum obsequendi facultate,
ad quae dona perpetua accedebant primis temporibus etiam yapicyara illa
xvevpatexa, etc.,” ‘Christ in all, viz., believing fills all things, the mind
with light, the will with godly dispositions, the very body with the power
of obedience, to which perpetual gifts there were added in the first times
also the spiritual yapiouara,” etc., or, as Flatt (comp. Zachariae and Morus):
‘* who fills all without distinction of nations, Jews and Gentiles, everywhere,
or always [év ao: ?], with good.’ In this view the fact is overlooked that
ra mévra, after the preceding xegadnv ixép wdvra, admits of no sort of limita-
tion, and that, if vod . . . wAnpouuévov were designed only to say how far
the church is the rAfpwya of Christ, this whole addition would be quite as
superfluous for the Christian consciousness as it would be indistinctly ex-
pressed. We have, on the contrary, in rd rAjpwye tov x.7.A. & climax of the
representation, which advances from that which the church is in relation to
Christ (ré rAfpwue airot) to His relation towards the universe (hence, too, ra
aavra is prefixed).* (2) Since avrot and rov ra 7. év mr. wAnpoun. are signifi-
cantly parallel, and no change of subject is indicated ; and since, on the
other hand, the thought, that the church is the rAfpwua of God, would be
inappropriate here, where the idea : Christ is its head, is dwelt on,—all ex-
planations fall to the ground which refer row rAnpovy. to God, such as that
of Theodoret : éxxAjoiay . . . mpoonydpevoe Tov pév Xpiorov odpa, rov d2 warpd¢
TAfpwua’ ETAQpWoE yap avTiy mavrodardv yapioudtuv x.t.A., and of Koppe, by
whom the sense is alleged to be : ‘‘ the whole wide realm of the All-Ruler!”
Comp. Rosenmiiller. Homberg, Parerg. p. 289, Wetstcin (‘‘ Christus cst
plenitudo, gloria patris omnia in omnibus implentis,” ‘‘ Christ is the fulness,
the glory of the Father filling all in all”), and Mcier refer the genitive to
God, but regard 1d rAjpuya as apposition to avrév ; Meier: ‘‘ Him, the ful-
ness of Him who filleth all in all ; for in Christ there dwells the fulness of
God (Col. ii. 9), and it is God who fills the universe” (Jer. xxiii. 24, al.).
This explanation is manifestly involved, makes reg éori 1d cpa abrov an in-

1 Comp. Hermas, Past. sim. fil. 9. 14.

2 It is the more mistaken a course, in spite
of this advance, yet again to refer év zac
to the Christians. This error has misled
Schenkel to put into our passage the
thought: ‘“‘in all members of the Christian
community [é» waor] the Divine aim of the

Creator, underlying the structure of the uni-
verse, receives its accomplishment through the
life of the exalted Redeemer flowing into them."
But little skill is attributed to the apostle,
when it is supposed that he designed to ex-
press this thought by means of the words he
has written.

348 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

sertion which, if nothing further were to be added to it, would be after
éduwxe KEgaAYY . . . TH éxxAnoia quite aimless and idle, and leaves ra xévra
év mace Without more precise analysis. The same reasons hold also in oppo-
sition to Bengel, who regards 1d rAjpwya as accusatire absolute (comp. on
Rom. xii. 1), as epiphonema of what was said from ver. 20 onwards : ‘‘ Hoc,
quod modo explanavi, inquit apostolus, repraesentat nobis plenitudinem
Patris omnia implentis in omnibus, ut mathematici dicunt : id quod erat
demonstrandum,” ‘‘ What I have thus explained, the apostle says, represents
to us the fulness of the Father filling all in all, as mathematicians say :
‘that which was to be proved.’” (3) Since.it is self-evident that Christ, as
Head of the church, is not without this His body, and since it could not
therefore enter the apostle’s mind, at the solemn close, too, of the section,
to bring forward the fact that the body belongs to the completeness of the
head,—all those explanations fell to the ground as quite inappropriate
which take 76 7Azjpwua as supplementum, ‘‘ the complement” (Matt. ix. 16 ;
Mark ii. 21),’ in which case some were consistent enough to take xAnpovupérev
likewise in the sense of completing, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy-
lact, Menochius, Boyd, Estius,* and others ; and some inconsistent enough
to explain it, incompatibly with the paronomasia, by implere, and thus dif-
ferently from mAypwpza, as Beza,* Calovius, comp. Calvin, Balduin, Baum-

1 So also Schwegler in Zeller's JaArd. 1844,
p. 887, where, moreover, the comparison of
the union of Christ and the church to mar-
riage (v. 25 ff.) is brought in quite unwar-
rantably. As man and wife supplement each
other to form the totality of the species (as
head and body), so, too, the church (as the
body of Christ) is held to be the complemen-
tum,‘ complement,” of Christ (as the head
of the church). Baur, too (Paulus, p. 426),
takes the union of Christ with the church
here as marriage (as a syzygy), and explains
wAnpwua entirely from the Gnostic point of
view. By rd #Anp. tov ra wavra év wage wAY-
povz., in his view, nothing else is affirmed
than that ** Christ is the wAjpwya (ihe totality
Of the aeons) in the highest absolute sense,
in so far as it is all in an absolute manner
(ra wdvra év wacr), Which He fills with Him-
self as the absolute contents thereof.” Ac-
cordingly, Ajpwpua is to be taken neither
simply in an active nor simply in a passive
sense, but in such wise that the two notions
pass over the one into the other; because,
in fact, that which makes full is in turn
that which is made full, that which is filled
with its definite contents. ‘' As rAnpovpevos
Ta mavra ev wact, Christ is the rAjpwya, filling
the wdvra ev rac with its definite contents;
and this sAjpwua itself is the absolute total-
ity filled with its absolute contents.”
Comp. Baur, @. Christenth. d. drei ersten
Jahrh. p. 296, and Neutest. Theol. p. 8.
Operations of this sort, which do not exe-

getically educe their results, but import
them, are too much dominated by the pre-
supposition of post-apostolio relations not
to be safely left to their own fate, to which
they have already been consigned.

2* Qui secundum omnia, s. quoad omnia
inomnibus sui corporis membris adimple-
tur. Nisi enim essent hic quidem pes ejus,
fille vero manus, alius autem aliud membrum

. hon perficeretur Christus secundum
rationem capitis,’ ‘‘ who is fulfilled as to
all things in al! members of His body. For
unless this indeed were His foot, and that
His hand, and another another member,
Christ would not have been perfected ac-
cording to the nature of a Head,” Estius,
He is followed by Bisping, who here finds
the basis and germ of the doctrine of the
treasure of the merits of the saints!

§**Omnino autem hoc addidit apostolus,
ut sclamus Christum per se non indigere
hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in
omnibus re vera,” ‘‘ But the Apostle added
this entirely for the purpose that we should
know that Christ of Himself does not need
this supplement, since He truly effects all
things in all,’ Beza. Calovius: ‘Tanto
in pretio Christus suam habet ecclesiam,
tam tenere amat, ut se quodammodo iz-
perfectum et mancum reputet, nisi nobis con-
jungatur, et nos ipst tanquam corpus capiti
uniamur cev wAjpapya ejus,” “In such value
does Christ have His church, so tenderly
does He love it, that He accounts Himself

CHAP. I., 23. 349
garten ; also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. p. 219 f. : ‘‘ His destination, to fill all
in all, is completely attained only in the church.” [See Note XV., p. 354.] (4)
The necessity for taking 7A/pwya in one and the same sense is fatal to the ex-
planation of Afpepua as equivalent to rAfoc, copia, coetus, numerosus, ‘‘ abun-
dance, numerous assembly,” ‘ or even : full measure.* Further, (5) the passive
construction of Apouzévov (Vulg.) leaves absolutely no tolerable expla-
nation of ra mrdvra év maot; for which reason not only the exposition
of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, and others (see above, under No. 3),
but also the similar one of Jerome® and that of Holzhausen, are to be
rejected. The last-mentioned discovers the meaning : ‘‘Christ carries in
Himself the fulness of eternal blessings” (ra zdvra év rao, signifying the
eternal '!). Yet, again, (6) seeing that 1d wAfpwua neither in itself nor
in accordance with the context, denotes the Divine défa, ‘‘ glory,” of
which the M2°D¥%, ‘‘shekinah,’” was the real presence,‘ there falls to the
ground not only the explanation of those who treat 1d rAypwpua as equiv-
alent in meaning to temple, like Michaelis and Bretschneider, but also
that of Harles3: ‘‘the apostle designates the church with the same word,
by which he elsewhere [?] designates the abundance of the glory dwell-
ing in Christ and God, and issuing from Him. It, however, is the ful-
ness of Christ, not as though it were the glory which dwelt in Him, but
because He causes His glory to dwell, as in all the universe, so also in it. It
is the glory, not of one who without it would starve, but of Him who fills
the universe in all respects ;° rAgpnc zaoa 4 37 6bEn¢ abrov, ‘the whole earth

imperfect and defective unless joined to us,
and we ourselves united as a body to the
Head, as its wAvjpena. Comp. Luther's gloss ;
also Apol. Conf. A, p. 14. Calvin, more-
over, prefers to limit ra wavra to the spir-
iluahs gubernatio ecclesiae, “spiritual gov-
ernment of the church.”

1 Storr, Morus, Stolz, Koppe, Rosenmfll-
ler. Morus: “‘Quae proinde est societas
subditorum ejus et hominum magna copia,
quae colit hunc (quae subest huic, quae sub
hoc rege vivit), qui omnes omnino in hoc
coetu omnibus generibus bonorum accu-
mulare de diein diem solet,” ‘“‘ Which is,
accordingly, the fellowship of His subjects,
and the large number of men, that wor-
ships Him (that is beneath Him, that lives
under this King), who is wont from day to
day in this assembly to increase al} men
with all kinds of blessings.” Rosenmfiiller:
**Coetus numerosus iU{us, qui omnes (hom-
ines) omnibus bonis replet,” ‘‘The numer-
ous assembly of Him, who fills all men with
all blessings,” by which God is held to be
meant.

4 Cameron, Bos.

3“ Sicut adimpletar {mperator, si quoti-
die ejus augetur exercitus, .. . itaet Dom-
inus noster Jesus Christus in eo, quod sibi
credunt omnia et per dies singulos ad fidem

ejus veniunt, ipse adimpletur in omnibus, sic
tamen, ut omnia adimpleantur in omnibus,
i.e., ut qui in eum credunt, cunctis virtuti-
bus pleni sint,”’ ‘‘Just as the emperor is
fulfilled, if his army is increased daily. . .
so also our Lord Jesus Christ is Himself
fulfilled in all, in this, that they entrust all
things to Him, nevertheless so that all are
fulfilled in all, é.¢e., that those who believe in
Him are full of all virtues.”

4 Buxtorf, Lex. Talim. p. 2894 ff.

5 According to Harless, ev rao. means in
every way, and implies that not in one way
(only) is the sphere of earth full of the glory
of Christ; the glory of the Creator is one,
that of the Enlightener before the incarna-
tion (John L 8) another, that of the Redeem-
er another. But how {is the limitation of
ra wavra to the earth to be justified? And are,
then, these ‘hree modes of glory adduced,
which after all the reader must have guessed
aé without any hint, sufficient to exhaust
the quite unlimited 颻 wacoc? and is the
thought of the glory of the Creator and the
Enlightener before the incarnation in keeping
with the present participle? The whole ex-
planation pours into the simple words a
series of thoughts and reservations, in pres-
ence of which the words remain a very rid-
die of the Sphinx.

350 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

is full of His glory” (Isa. vi. 8) ; but it is the glory of Christ, because He is
united With it alone, as the head with its body.” Lastly, (7) Riickert also
proved unsuccessful in his attempt to explain it : the church, in his view,
is designated as the means (7d wAjpwua, that whereby the wAypoiv comes
about) by which Christ carries out in all (7ao, masculine) that which is com-
mitted to Him for completion (ra zdvra), as ‘‘the means of His accomplish-
ing the great destination which devolves upon Him, namely, the universal
restoration and bringing back to God.” Against this may be urged both
the language itself, since ro tA7pwyua never signifies the means of accomplish-
ment, and the context, which neither speaks of a restoration and bringing
back to God nor furnishes any limitation of ra zéyra to that which is implied
in the divine plan. — We may add that there cannot be shown here as
regards the use of 7A7pwua, any more than previously as regards the classes
of angels, any direct or indirect polemic preference to Gnosticism. To the
later speculations of Gnosticism, however, the forms of the trarscendent
doctrines of the apostle could not but be welcome ; not as if Gnosticism had
thought out its material in accordance with such Scriptural forms,! but it
poured in into their mould, and, moreover, further developed and amplified
the forms which it found ready to hand.

Nores By AMERICAN Eprror.

II. Ver. 3. 6 Ged¢ kad rarHp Tod Kupiov.

Schmidt in the revised Meyer here dissents, and refers to Braune’s argument,
who contends that the joining of xvpiov to the 6 Gedc, as well as to ra7}p, is most
natural, especially as warjjo does not require, as Meyer states, a complementary
genitive, see Eph. v. 20; 1 Cor, xv. 24, xvi. 23 ; Gal. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Tim.
i. 2. Neither is the expression ‘‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” so iso-
lated, ver. 17; Matt. xxvii. 46 ; John xx. 17; Rev. ii. 7, iii. 12. The Vatican
manuscript omits xai waz)p. Eadie, Alford, Barry, Riddle concur in this con-
struction. Ellicott, on the other hand, inclines to Meyer, while acknowledg-
ing that the other interpretation is both exegetically and doctrinally tenable.

III. Ver. 35. év roig exovpaviorc.

The emphasizing of any local relation here gives a wrong shade to the argu-
ment. Meyer's plea that the év roic éxovpavioig must be interpreted according
to the meaning of the expression as found in the other five places it occurs in
this Epistle, if viewed with respect to local relations, would introduce a singular
interpretation from chap. vi. 12. A more general explanation is better ; ‘“‘ What
belongs to heaven in contrast to what belongs to and is on earth” (Braune). 'Exov-
pévoc ‘signifies what pertains to heaven as to a higher and more divine order of
things,” 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48,49 ; Heb. xii. 22 ; Eph. i. 20 ; 1 John iii. 12. ra éxovp.,
as against ra éviyeca, that order of things which includes the blessings of com-
plete salvation. So «Ajors érovpdvioc, Heb. xiii. 1, dwped exovp., vi. 4; xi. 16.

1 Tertull. de praescr. 38.

NOTES. 351

Hence ra exovpdvia denote those blessings collectively, Eph. i. 3, ii. 6 ; Heb. viii.
5, ix.23; Phil. ii. 10, of erovp., things which come within the range of this
order’? (Cremer's Lexicon of N. T. Greek., Eng. Trans, (1878), p. 468). ‘* These
spiritual blessings are truly exovpaya, with respect to their origin, since they
descend from the Father, who is ezovpdvioc, Matt. xviii. 35 ; with respect to
their quality, because in dignity and eminence they are neither earthly nor
heavenly with respect to the earthly and material heavens, but supercelestial,
which even the angels in heaven delight to ‘look into,’ as they are truly
‘above thought, above word, above every comprehension of a created nature ;’
and with respect to end, because not only in the kingdom of grace on this earth,
but also in the kingdom of glory in heaven, we enjoy the blessedness acquired
in Christ” (Calovius), |

IV. Ver. 4. mpd xaraBodare xéopov.

Chrysostom’s note on the etymology of xarafoAje (a casting down) is interest-
ing: *‘ Beautiful is that word, as though he were pointing to the world as cast
down from some vast height. Yea, vast indeed and ineffable is the height of God,
so far removed, not in place, but in incommunicableness of nature ; so wide the
distance between creation and creator !’’ Weiss (Bibl. Theaq]., Eng. Trans.,
vol. II., p. 98) suggests the argument contained here for the divinity of Christ :
‘‘ If Christians are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, and are
thereby already blessed in Him in the heavenly world, then the Mediator of
salvation, in whom the election and the blessing could be grounded at a time
when the objects of these did not exist, must have Himself existed before the
world. . . For Paul there is at once an eternal divine existence of the Christ
who in His earthly life has become the Mediator.’’ So also Bengel. The su-
periority of Christianity to Judaism is also indicated : ‘‘The Jews dated their
election from Abraham, and boasted of its antiquity’’ (Grotius). But ‘the
election in Christ preceded the election of the Jewish nation in their forefathers;
and redemption, the verification of the archetype of humanity through Christ,
and proceeding from Him, is the end of the whole terrestrial creation, so that
everything else appears as a preparation for this highest object in the counsel of
creation in reference to the world’’ (Neander’s Planting and Training of Chr.
Church, American edition, p, 479).

V. Ver, 4. dytove kad duapove,

The reference of these words by Meyer to forensic righteousness is much
disputed, though supported by Braune, Olshausen, and Harless. So too Phil-
ippi (Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, v. 1, p. 278): ‘Justification consists in the nega-
tive dgeore Tov mapartapdtuy, the positive dylove cai audpove elvac, and reception
into the vlofecia.’’ Ellicott is in doubt as to whether the reference is to justi-
fication or sanctification, inclining, however, to the latter, which is maintained
by Estius, Boyd, Stier, Alford, Eadie, Barry, Riddle, As justification, however,
is not a subordinate end to sanctification, and the inherent righteousness of
the believer, however perfect in its final stage, is incomparable with the im-
puted righteousness of the Redeemer, with which he is clothed in justification,
we cannot appreciate the exceptions taken to Meyer's view. If the result
that emerges in time is that Christ became a curse for us (Gal. iii. 13) and we
are made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor, v. 21), there is nothing incon-

852 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

sistent in regarding the eternal purpose that we should be holy and blameless
before Him, as directed to that putting on of Christ whereby all that He is
becomes ours. In the world of glory it is the forensic righteousness that is
the special theme of the hymns of the church triumphant, Rev. i. 6, vii. 14.

VI. Ver. 5. mpoopioac nude.

Other distinctions have been drawn between the éxAéyeoGaz and the mpoopicen:
“ «They differ only in an ordinative and objective manner,’ the é« of the former
referring to the mass from whom the selection was made, the zp¢ of the latter
to the pre-existence and priority of the decree’’ (Scherzer in Ellicott.) ‘:The
matter to he considered when zpoopigecv is used, is not who are the subjects of
this predestination, but what they are predestined to. This second object of the
verb, as it has been called, forms an essential part of the conception expressed
by it ; what is called the first object, i.e., the persons who, is an accidental one,
a contingency belonging to history, whereas tpoopife.v itself precedes history.”

VII, Ver. 5. etc atrév,

‘* We may thus paraphrase: ‘God predestinated us to be adopted as His
sons ; and that adoption came to us through Christ, and was to lead us unto
and unite us to God’”’ (Ellicott).

VIL. Ver. 7. rév zaparropdétuv.

Meyer's inference is here too sweeping. That the inborn sinfulness is not
here designated must be conceded. But the 7a tapartwydra as the concrete
manifestation of the sinful habit, may readily be used by synecdoche for
everything in man that incurs God's wrath. See Cremer’s Lexicon of N. T.
Greek (Eng. Trans., 1878, p. 499) : ‘‘In rupartuya reference is especially made
to the subjective passivity and suffering of him who misses or falls short of the
enjoined command ; and the word has come to be used both of great and
serious guilt, and generally of all sin, even though unknown and unintentivnal
(Ps. xix. 13 ; Gal. vi. 1), so far as this is simply a missing of the right... . . Like
its verb, napaztwya is used synonymously with dyapria as the generic word,
Rom. v. 20, and is thus a missing of the mark, and includes both duapria and
mapajsacts.””

IX. Ver. 10. ¢cic otxovouiay Tov TAnpwpATOS,

Harless traces the confusion concerning this passage to three sources:
1. Incorrect translation of cic (when regarded as standing for ‘r). 2. Incorrect
understanding of oixovoyia (dispensation of grace). 3. Wrong construction of the
genitive, tAnpduaroc. Cremer defines oixovoyia as denoting ‘* either (1) actively,
the administrative activity of the owner or of the steward ; or (2), passively, that
which is administered, the administration or ordering of the house, or the ar-
rangement, e g., of a treatise or discourse’’ (Platarch). He finds the object of
oikovoyiay not in the rod xAnpdpuaroc, but in the relative 7 zpoébero, which re-
sults in the paraphrase: ‘‘ The administration of God’s saving purpose pertain-
ing to the fulness of the times,” ‘‘ administration’’ being taken in its passive
sense. (Lexicon of N. T. Greek, E. T., 1878, p. 480 sq.). Weiss (Bibl. Theol.
of N. T., Il. p. 79) adopts the temporal meaning of oixovopiav, to which Harless

NOTES. 353

so strongly objects, viz., a “‘ fixed period, in which the measure of the ages that
are past was to become complete.” Barry, on the other hand, concurs with
Cremer: ‘* Which He purposed in Himself for administration (or disposal) of the
fulness of the (appointed) seasons, to gather,” etc.

X. Ver. 10. dvaxegadadoac$a: ra wavra. ,

The ra zavra is limited by Philippi (Kirch. Dog. III. 393), and Hodge, ‘to the
redeemed,” by Boyd to the “elect,” while, according to Calovius, all men are
comprised in the avaxedaiaivcic, with respect to God's intention and Christ's
merit, but it becomes restricted by the guilt of man’s unbelief. Better Eadie :
‘*Man is reconciled to God, and all who bear God’s image are reconciled to
man, Angelsare ‘ministering spirits’ to him, and all holy intelligences delight
in him. Not only has harmony been restored to the universe, and the rupture
occasioned by sin repaired, but beings still in rebellion are placed under
Christ’s control, as well as the unconscious elements and spheres of nature.
This summation is seen in the form of the government: Jesus is universal
Regent.’ Hunnius (quoted by Calovius) presents the relation of this dvaxeg-
avaiworg to the angels : ‘‘ Although nothing is obtained for the angels by Christ's
death, yet something is obtained for all that has a certain relation to the angels,
in that the angels, who formerly were alienated from men by transgression,
now acknowledge them again as their fellow-servants, associates, and fellows
of the same joy and kingdom, and, therefore, do not disdain to serve them.”

XI. Ver. 11. exAnpdOnper,

The Eng. Rev. Vers., following Bengel, de Wette, Stier, Alford, Ellicott,
Braune, translates ‘‘we were made a heritage.”’

XI. Ver. 13. togpaylo6yre.

‘* By the term ‘sealing’ is not meant the first production of faith, but its ul-
terior progress and confirmation” (Boyd). ‘‘% ogpayic is undoubtedly used by
ecclesiastical writers simply for baptism, but any special reference of this
nature would not appear in harmony with the present context” (Ellicott). ‘The
reception of the Spirit,’’ after faith mentioned by Meyer, must necessarily be
understood of fuller bestowals of the Spirit, since faith itself is His work.

XIII. Ver, 17. év extyvdoes avrov.

imeyvoot, ‘always of a knowledge which very powerfully influences the form
of religious life . . . Thus, as Delitzsch says (Ep. to Hebrews), we may speak
of a false yraorc, but not of a false ex:yvaoic’’ (Cremer).

XIV. Ver. 20. év roi¢ éravpaviocg.

In Note III. we have indicated that such local restriction is too contracted.
So here. The degéia avrod is God’s universal power, Ps. xliv. 3; cxviii. 15, 16;
exxxix.10. Yet this must not be so understood as to deny the reality of Christ's
ascension, or to ascribe to His exalted body a diffusion throughout all space.
Chemnitz, the great expounder of the position maintained by Harless, says
(De Duabus Naturis, p. 178): ‘‘ We by no means hold, that either in union or in

23

354 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

glory, with its substance lost and its essential properties abolished, the body
of Christ: is converted or changed into a spiritual, infinite, immense substance,
uncircumscribed by any essential property, so as, by reason of its essential, in-
finite immensity, to be in all places and fill all things, as divinity is in this
manner everywhere present . . . (p. 176) By, and of itself, even in glory, it
is limited by the property of its nature, and in the manner of glorified bodies
is somewhere, the privilege of the hypostatic union excepted. . . . Yet it must
be added that Christ, either in glory or the former natural form, is not so held
and confined in heaven, as not to be able, whenever He wishes, to afford also
on earth His presence after that form.’’ In other words, the doctrine of the
communicatio idiomatum does not involve the denial of an ordinary local relation
of our Lord's body to a heavenly sphere, although it is maintained that the ¢v
roic érovpavioig implies what transcends all limitations of space. MHarless re-
fers here, with great approval, to Tholuck on Matt. vi. 9. The term ‘‘ubignity,”
in this relation as used by Meyer, chap. iv. 10, and foot-note to chap. vi. 31, is
a misnomer. Sce Krauth’s Conservative Reformation, p. 495 sq.

AV. Ver. 23. 70 TAypwuu Tov K.T.A.

Schmidt inserts in Meyer, 5th ed., the following from Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of
N. T., II. 112: ‘‘ Not only does the church, as the body, stand in need of Christ, as
the head, but the apostle ventures the bold expression that Christ also needs
the charch, as the body, as that which belongs to His completeness, or makes his
being first entirely complete.’’ On this Cremer remarks: ‘*An ingenious
thought, but not so true.’’

CHAP. IL 355

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 1. After duapriasce, BD EF G 8, min. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm.
Valg. It. Theodoret, Lucif. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pel. have jua», which Lachm.
and Tisch. have rightly received into the text. On account of the redundancy
of the pronoun and its absence in ver. 5, the omission of it was easier than its
addition from s comparison of Col. ii. 13 (in opposition to Reiche), — Ver. 3.
téxva ¢vcer] Lachm. and Riick. read ¢vce réxva, following AD EF GL, min.
Vulg. It. Or. (once), and other Fathers. But considering how closely réxva dpyic¢
go together, the transposition gvce: réxva was so natural, that in opposition to
these important witnesses the Recepia, attested by B K &, most min. Or. (thrice)
Chrys. Dam. Theophyl. Oec., is, with Matth. Scholz, Harless, Olsh. de Wette,
Tisch. (Treg. Hofm. Braune, West. and Hort] to be maintained. — Ver. 11.
The order zoré dueic in Lachm. and Tisch. is justified by A B D* E &* codd. of
It. and Fathers. More feebly attested is the order éyev. éyytc, ver. 13, in
Lechm., which weakens the antithesis. — Ver. 12. év rq xaipy] év is wanting in
decisive witnesses. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rtick. Explanatory ad-
dition. — Ver. 15, é éavrg] Lachm. [West. and Hort]: év avrg. The wit-
nesses are greatly divided. But E was easily passed over after Ev. — Ver. 17.
ka) toi¢] Lachm, Tisch. Riick.: xai etpyvnv roic, according to decisive testimony.
The emphasis of the repetition of eip7». was not duly regarded, and so the ap-
parently redundant word was neglected. For the same reason there was writ-
ten in ver. 19, instead of the far prepondorantly attested aAd’ éoré, simply dAAé
(Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 21. xdoa oixod.] Elz. Scholz, Rick. Reiche read xdoa 7
oixod. But the article is wanting in BDEFGK L &* and many min., also
in Clem. Bas. Chrys. (in the commentary) Theodoret, Oec., and was added (AC,
Chrys. Theophyl.) because it seemed needed by the sense. See, however, the
exegetical remarks.

CoNTENTS.—You also, when ye were dead through sins,—as indeed we
Jewish-Christians too were in the same condition of sin and subjectiun to
the divine wrath,—God has by virtue of His love made us alive with
Christ, raised us and transferred us into heaven, in order, in the world-ages
to come, to show His grace towards us in Christ (vv. 1-7). For out of
grace have ye attained to salvation, not through merit of works (vv. 8-10).
Remember, therefore, that ye were formerly as Gentiles unhallowed and un-
happy, but now through the death of Christ ye are in quite a different posi-
tion (vv. 11-13). For Christ has through His death established peace
between Jews and Gentiles (vv. 14-18). Ye, consequertly, are no longer
aliens, but fellow-members of the theocracy, members of the houschold of
God, built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, whercin
the corner-stone is Christ, in whom every building is built, and ye too, unto
a holy temple (vv. 19-22).

356 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Ver. 1. Connection: After Knatchbull and others! had attached xai tac
to cig quas Tove xioveiovrag, 1, 19, and Bengel to iv évfpy., i. 20 (both arbitra-
rily confusing, and the former also mistaken, for the reason that jude, ver. 19,
already included the readers), Lachmann and Harless have closed i. 23
with only a comma, and annexed «ai (cuvejwonoince) tude xai avrov Eduxe x.7.2.,
ver. 22. So also de Wette, without, however, approving the mere comma
after 1. 23. But in this way we should have to expect not tydag, but juae
(comp. 1. 19 : ei¢ Huadg rot¢ miotetovras), for Paul would attach to what God
has done in relation to Christ that which He has at the same time done in
the case of the Christians. And, inasmuch as he has employed the pronoun
of the second person, he has thereby indicated the beginning of a new por-
tion. Moreover, i. 23 is so majestic and solemn in import and form, that
it is admirably suited for a sonorous conclusion, but hardly for a mere paren-
thetic insertion. No, after the apostle has previously spoken of the exceed-
ing power of God in the case of believers, which may be recognized by vir-
tue of what He has done in the case of Christ, whom He raised, exalted,
etc., he wishes now, 77 application of this to the readers, to bring the latter
to the consciousness that God has made also them (kai tac), when they were
dead in their sins, to be alive, etc., with Christ, and thus has shown also in
their case that exceeding power. — The construction is broken off, even before
the subject and the verb are expressed, by the afflux of the thoughts in the
relative clauses which begin ver. 2, but is resumed ver. 4 by means of di,
so that the subject not yet named in ver. 1 is at length named and charac-
terized in ver. 4 ; and in ver. 5 the verb (ovve{woroince) comes in with repe-
tition of the object, which, however,—in accordance with what has been
said in the intervening clauses,—had already in ver. 4 passed over into the
first person and thus become universal (juac¢). As to the details, see below.
The resumption accordingly begins already, in ver. 4, with 6 dé @ede 3° not
first with ver. 5, as Wolf and others, including Griesbach, Koppe, ed. 1,
Scholz, Meier, Riickert, Holshausen, would have it, because otherwise ver.
4 in turn would be anacoluthic, and yet 6 Oed¢ is the subject of cuvefwor. —
vexpovg Toi¢ mapatrT. x. T. duapt. izav] The dative denotes the causa efficiens,
‘‘ efficient cause,” of the death. The expression with éy, Col. ii. 13, is not
equivalent. Quite at variance with the context, Cajetanus‘ holds that the
dative is as in Rom. vi. 11, in which case the force of dvrac as a present par-
ticiple is urged : since ye are dead for the sing. tiyvav also is against this, as
well as the plural, since in the being dead for sin the latter appears as prin-
ciple (Rom. vi. 11).—A real distinction between raparréuara and dyapriat
does not exist,* in so far as both expressions denote the same thing (the pec-

' Mentioned by Wolf, Cur. on f. 19

2 Calovius, Cramer, Koppe, and Rosen-
miller attached «a: tuas immediately to
{. 23, namely, to rAnpoupeérov : qui sicut omnes
alios beneficiis cumulat, sic etiam vos,"
** who, just as he loadens all others with his
favors, so also loadens you,’’ Rosenmiiller,
This, however, {s entirely incompatible with
tas correct explanation of rov ta sdyra év

act wAnpovmdvov, i. 28, and with the corre-
lation of vexpovs and ovvegwor,

®As even ThLeophylact expressly ob-
serves.

4Not Estius, who rejects this explana-
tion.

5 Augustine, ad Lev. qu. 20, makes the
former denote the desertio dont, ‘* desertion
of good,” the latter the perpetratio mali,

CHAP. II., 1. 357

cata actualia, *‘ actual sins,” in thought, word, and deed) in a twofold form
of conception as ‘‘ missing” and ‘‘fall ;’? and the abstract duapriac cannot
mean, like } duapria at Rom. v. 20, sin in adstracto, ‘‘in abstract,” as ruling
power, but in virtue of the plural can only mean the actual sins (dyaprhpara) ;
comp. on Rom. v. 20.7— dvrac] state, which was present at the time, when
God made them alive. — vexpofc] is understood by the expositors (apart
from those who, like Koppe and Rosenmiiller, substitute for the literal
meaning the notion of wretched, miserable) of spiritual death (comp. v. 14),
i.e., of the deadness of true moral life through the ‘‘ alienatio animae a Deo,”
‘‘alienation of mind from God,” Calvin.* But by what, we ask, is this
spiritual sense indicated ? Must not vexp. toi¢ rapamrt. x. ratc dyzapt. have
reminded the readers quite naturally and neccssarily of the connection, well
known to them, between unexpiated sins and the eternal death (the eternal
condemnation),—a connection, in which they once as Gentiles shared ? Sec
on Rom. vi. 16, 22 f., vii. 9-11, 24, viii. 2,6. [See Note XVI., p. 398.] The
explanation of physical death is inadmissible, because this is a consequence
not of individual sins, but of the sin of Adam; see on Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor.
xv. 22. The expression vexpoi is proleptic: when ye were dead through
your sins, ¢.¢., when you had through your sins drawn upon you death, had
become liable to eternal death, 30 that in this way the certo morituri, ‘‘ those
who are surely to die,” are designated as vexpoi. Comp. Rom. vii. 10, viii.
10, and the well-known wuydpiov el Baordfov vexpév, ‘* you are a soul carrying
a dead body,” Epict. Anton. iv. 41. See also on Col. ii. 12. Without
Christ, the everlasting death, which they had incurred by their sins, would
not be annulled and averted from them ; but, after that Christ has com-
pleted the work of atonement and they have become believers in Him, eter-
nal life has become the portion of those who were by their sins liable to
eternal death, and that by means of the fellowship of life, into which they
are brought through faith with the Christ who is made alive from the dead,
raised, and exalted to heaven, which is more fully expressed, vv. 5, 6, by
ouveCworroinace T@ Xpior@ x.t.A. Thus the passage certainly treats of the atone-
ment accomplished by Christ, to which believers owe eternal life (sce vv. 7,
8). The moral restoration‘ is the consequence of the atonement (ver. 10),
the ethical produce of the same through the Spirit. — The relation, we may
add, of our passage to Col. ii. 18 and i. 21 is not that of a servile depend-
ence, but that of afresh and living remembrance, with new and peculiar
amplification.

*“perpetration of evil,” or the former to be
the sin of rashness, the latter that which is
deliberate, which last distinction is adopt-
ed also by Tittmann, Synon. p. 47. Jerome
makes the former delicta cogitattone in-
choata, ‘‘ offences begun in thought,” the
latter sins of deed ; comp. Olshausen. Ben-
gel: waparr. applies to the Jews, and apapr.
to the Gentiles. Meier (comp. Baumgarten-
Crusius): the two words are distinguished
as act and siate. Matthies: the former are

mental errors and obscurations, the latter
moral sins and vices. Harless and de
Wette : the former denotes single transgres-
sions, the latter a! kinds of sins, including
sins in thoughé.

1 See, generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. L
p. 824.

2 Sec Note VIII. on chap. f. %.

2 Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 127.

$ lofmann.

358 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Ver. 2. Shadows before the light which arises in ver. 4. — év aig] domain,
in which, etc. It is the pre-Christian sphere of life, and then follows («era
x.t.A.) the normal standard which rules init. aig has shaped itself after
the gender of the last substantive, but embraces both.! — xara rév aidva rob
xéapov Tovrov] according to the age of this world, i.e., a8 was in keeping with
the period of time appointed for the present world (subsisting up to the
Parousia). For immorality is the characteristic of this world-period (Rom.
xii. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 12) in contrast to the future new world, in
which dcxacocivy bears sway, and the nearer the Parousia, the more the aia
is wovnpéc (sce on Gal. i. 4 ; comp. ver. 16, and on vi. 18). Others explain
aidyv as life ;* for which Riickert—who, in a strangely erroneous way, explains
it as equivalent to cata Tov aiara TovTov Tov Kéouov—and Matthies put : spirit
of the time, and Olshausen : tendency of the time ; comp. Bleek. But, however
current aidv in the signification of life may be in classical Greek, especially
in Homer, Pindar, Herodotus, and the tragic pocts,* yet in the N. T., often
as the habitually used word recurs, it is never so employed, but always in
the signification of juncture of time, age. The shift to which Keppe has
recourse,‘ that aiév and xéouocg are synonymous—hence Koppe makes 46 aioy
rou kéauov Tourov equivalent to 6 xécpoc ovroc—stands on a level with the ca-
pricious inversion of Bretschneider, who makes it tantamount to 4 xéopog rob
alavoc tobrov : homines pravi ut nune sunt, ‘‘wicked men as they now are.”
No, Paul might have written briefly xaré tov aiova tovror (comp. i. 21) ; but,
in accordance with the graphic amplification of thé passage carrying such
terrible emphasis, he has paraphrased this rotrov by roi xéopov robvov. Accord-
ing to Beausobre and Michaelis (‘‘the God of this world ”), aidy tov xéopor
rovrov is meant to denote the devil in polemic reference to the Gnostic doc-
trine of aeons (sce what follows). According to Baur, p. 433 f., the expres-
sion itself is a Gnostic one, equivalent to the coouoxpdzwp (comp. vi. 12), and
denoting the devil. But this is imported, inasmuch as the explanation of
aiév in the sense usual in the N. T. yiclds quite a Pauline thought. The
devil appears only in what follows, and would, if he was to be designated
already here, and that as Lord of the pre-Messianic period, have been desig-
nated, as at 2 Cor. iv. 4, as 6 Orig tov aidvog rotrov, or in a like concrete
manner. — «ard roy dpyor'ra r7¢ tfovoias row aépoc} climactic parallel to the pre-
ceding. ‘Sic res fit cxpressior,” ‘‘ Thus the subject becomes more explicit,”
Bengel. The opposite is card Oc6r, iv. 24 ; 2 Cor. vii. 9. Comp. 1 John
v. 14: xara rd OéAnua tov Ocov. The deril Paul here represents as the ruler
over the might of the air, in which é£ovoia is collectire, denoting the totality
of the mighty ones (the demons, Matt. xii. 24) concerned.® This éfovsia
has its seat in the air, which exists between heaven and earth (rot aépoc) ;
the atmosphere, pertaining, in contrast to the higher pure aif#p,® still to the

1 See Matthiae, p. 991. Aesch. Prom. 887; Eliendt, Lez. Sopa. I.
280 also Harless; comp. H. Stephanus: p. 50.
“secundum eam, quae in hoc mundo est, 4 Comp. Estius and Fiatt.

vivendi rationem,” ‘‘according to that ’ Comp. Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 469; Bern-

mode of life which isin this world,’ Cas- hardy, p. 47.

talio, Beza, Grotius, e¢ al. * See Duncan, Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 36.
* See Duncan, ed Rost, p. 47; Blomf. ad

CHAP. II., 2. 359
physical realm of earthly things (yj¢ ioduo:poc agp, ‘‘earth’s equal partner,
air,” Soph. #7. 87), is the seat, the territory of the might of the demons.
This and nothing else Paul expresses in distinct words, the évaéprog datpiB4,
‘‘ aerial life,” ' the izoupdviog témoc, *‘ sub-celestial place,” * of the demons ;
and neither ought row aépog to have been taken® as equivalent to rot oxérove,
‘« darkness” (vi. 12 ; Col. i. 13), because, though it may, as it often does
in Homer, denote misty glaom, clouds, etc., in contradistinction of the pure
aifffp, it never takes the place of the absolute oxéroc,*and in the N. T. always
means simply air; nor ought it to have been explained by a metonymy as
mundus, ‘‘the world.” *® According to Hahn,® row aépoc is designed to ex-
press the acriform nature of the demons ; they are not really apiritual, but
only spirit-like ; aeriformness is their physical constitution. Thisis already in
itself incorrect, since the demons must of necessity have the same physical con-
stitution as the angels (including also their supra-terrestrial corporeity, comp.
on Matt. xxii.30),and hence, although they have become axdfapra, ‘‘ incorrup-
tible,” they have yet remained rvetuara, see in this very Epistle, vi. 12 (ré xvev-
patixa 74¢ rovnpiac). Olshausen would remove the demons from the atmosphere
by taking a7p as equivalent to ovpavdc,’ appealing to 1 Thess. iv. 17 (where,
however, a7p is nothing else than air), and even giving out this passage as
the only one in the N. T. where the word ayp clsewhere occurs (but see
Acts xxii. 23 ; 1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9; Rev. ix. 2, xvi. 17). As an equally ex-
emplary companion-piece of rationalizing artifice may be quoted the inter-
pretation of Stolz :* ‘‘ We have here to think of the rational beings acting
and walking upon the carth, of men, who as sensuous creatures breathe in
the air, in the atmosphere surrounding the earth.” Hofmann, who else-
where took af#p erroneously as equivalent to rvevya, whould now ® not less
erroneously make rov mveiuarog dependent upon rod aépoc, and by the latter
understand the atmosphere formed by the breathing of that rvevpa. ‘‘ So long
as they [the disobedient] allow this spirit to be their spirit, they live in the
atmosphere thereof, and as it were inhale it—an atmosphere, which is the
sphere of dominion [the é¢foveia] of Satan.” But apart from the clumsy and
obscure accumulation of three genitives (at 2 Cor. iv. 4, 7, they flow easily
and clearly one out of the other), there may be urged against this view
generally the strange awkwardness of the thought (‘‘the air of the spirit
which worketh in the disobedient is the atmosphere formed by the breath-
ing of the same spirit”), and more specially the considerations, first, that

1 Oecumenius, comp. Theophylact.

4 Chrysostom.

3Clericus, Heinsius, Michaelis,
Flatt, Matthies, and others.

* Comp. Buttmann, Zerilog. I. p. 115.

6 Thomas, Bullinger, and others.

6 Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 328 f.

7 He holds that Paul has perhaps employ-
ed the expression for the purpose of char-
acterizing the demons as not indeed earth-
ly, but yet also as not heavenly. He has
employed the expression, just because he

Storr,

conceived of the demons as making their
abode in the atmosphere. And he does not
choose a higher expression (as in vi. 12) for
this sphere, because he wishes here to make
the reader feel the /ower domain of the
power as opposed to the heavenly domain,
and thus also the ignominiouve character of
the same ; hence the expresrsion is neither
accidental nor strange (in opposition to
Hofmann).

8 Erlaut. p. 17.

® Schriftb. I. p. 457.

360 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

éfovoia does not mean sphere of dominion ;' secondly, that there is nothing
to indicate that the a7p originated through the breathing (or blowing) of the
spirit (we should at least expect the essential zxvéovrog instead of évepyovrtog);
thirdly, that, if éfovoia is to denote the sphere of dominion, zi¢ éFovsiac
would be only an ambiguous pleonasm, and we cannot see why Paul should
not have written merely rév dpyovra rov aépog x.r.A.—as regards the historic
basis of the conception of the apostle, that the demons have their abode in
the air, he has carried it over from his pre-Christian, Jewish-Rabbinic circle of
ideas into the contents of his Christian belief. It is true that there are
found among the Rabbins very diverse, confused, and at times very mon-
stroue assertions concerning the dwelling-place of the demons,” but Harless*
far too hastily thence concludes : ‘‘in such sloughs as these one secks in vain
Jor the explanation of the apostle’s expression.” For while there are found
diverse opinions in the Rabbins, and among them also that which assigns to
the demons the air as a territory, the expression of the apostle shows us
which of the different Rabbinic conceptions he has not followed, and which
is accepted by him. Thus, indeed, 6g., the doctrine which R. Bechai ‘
presents as a well-known one, that only those demons which produce dreams
dwell in the air, but those which seduce man to sin in the man himself,
and yet others in the depths of the sea, is not the view of the apostle.
But the belief, which Paul here announces as his own and presupposes in
his readers, namely, that the demoniac kingdom in general, and not merely
a single division of it, is in the air, is to be found very definitely preserved
among the Rabbins also. For (1) the very Rabbinical tenet of the winged
nature of the demons* manifestly points to the region of the air as their
abode, since they are shut out from the communion of God. (2) In partic-
ular passages this is expressly stated. Comment. in libr. Aboth. f. 88. 2:
‘‘Sciendum, a terra usque ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et praefec-
tis, et infra,” ‘‘ It must be known that from earth to the expanse all things are
full of bands and prefects, and below” (that is precisely in the agp), ‘‘ pluri-
mas esse creaturas laedentes et accusantes, et omnes stare ac volitare in
atre,” ‘‘there are very many creatures injuring and accusing, and that all
stand and fly in the air,” etc. Further, it is said in Tuf Haare, f. 9, 2,
that under the sphere of the moon, which is the last under all, is a firma-
ment ("Pp )... and there are the souls of the devils, etc.° Further, R.
Bechai says, in Pentat. f. 189, 4, where he is explaining how it comes about
that the demons know what is future: ‘‘ because they dwell in the air
V183), ... they learn future things from the princes of the planets.” The
same R. Bechai, in Pentat. f. 18, 1, relates, as a Rabbinical tradition, that
Noah had in his ark, according to Gen. vi. 19, preserved devils also, and
says in confirmation of this exposition : for it would have been impossible

1 Not even in Luke xxiii. 7, where it ex- 3 Followed by O]shausen.
presses the idea of governing authority, of 4in Pental, f. 90, 1. ;
jurisdiction. So often in Plutarch, Diodo- Talmud, Chagig. 2; R. Eliezer in Bar
rus, etc. toloce. I. p. 820 ff., al.

3 See, especially, Elsenmenger, E'ntdeckt. * See Eisenmenger, II. p. 411.
Judenth. Il. p. 437 ff.

CHAP. II., 2. 361

for them to remain in their own place, which is the air (SN NNW DO)p3).*
The assertion, too, of R. Menasseh, in Eisenmenger, II. p. 456 f., that the
rising smoke of the incense which was offered to the devils was their food,
points to the air as their dwelling-place; as, indeed, according to the Cab-
bala (Cadb. denud. I. p. 417), the demons dwell ‘‘below the upper sanc-
tuary.”? Thus much, consequently, is clear and transparent enough in the
‘< muddy sloughs” of Rabbinical tradition, that the kingdom of the demons
was located in the air ; and with this we find the apostle in agreement.
Hence we have no mght to deny that he has retained this conception from
the sphere of his Rabbinical training, but at the same time it would be
quite unwarrantable to attribute to him the singularities associated with this
tenet by the Rabbins, since, in fact, he asserts nothing more than that the
devilish powers are in theair. Thisisa simple historical statement, in which,
we may add, it is quite arbitrary to discern a ‘‘ profound hint,” namely, of
their dismal and spectral nature (in opposition to Schenkel). The right
explanation is given also by Schmid, Bibl. Theol. § 86, and Bleek. Among
the Pythagoreans, too, we meet with an analogous view ;? but quite unfound-
ed is the assertion of Wetstein : ‘‘P. ita loquitur ex principiis philoso-
phiae Pythagoreae, quibus illi, ad quos scribit, imbuti erant,” ‘‘ Paul thus
speaks according to the principles of the Pythagorean philosophy, with
which they to whom he writes were imbued.” Paul presupposes in his
readers an acquaintance with his expression as the expression of Ais doctrine,
and speaks so emphatically and solemnly that any sort of accommodation is
not to be thought of. [See Note XVII., p. 899.] — rod mvebyarog] is still
dependent on rév dpyorra, so that the power over which the devil rules,
after being designated as regards its outward existence by the phrase é£ovelac
tov aépoc, is now designated as regards its active operation in men’s hearts,
namely, as the spirit which 18 at work in the disobedient. This rveiua, of which
Satan is the ruler, ia not, however, to be thought of as being the human
mind, since, thus understood, it would not suit as apposition to the ric
éfovaiag tov aépoc, which is different from the human individuality, as, indeed,
Tov évepy. x.T.A. points to an agent different from the human individual ;
but rather as the principle proceeding from its dpywy, the devil, and passing
over into men to become operative in their hearts—the antithesis of the Holy
Spirit which proceeds from God. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 12. This rveiua is, in
contrast to rd rvetua THC GAnOeiag, the mvevya tio TAGYnc, 1 John iv. 6. It is
not, however, ‘‘ odd,” ‘ nor is it ‘‘ unnatural,” ° to speak of a ‘‘ ruler of this

?Comp. Nishmath chasim, f. 115, 2.

2 With this Rabbinical view agrees also
Test. XIL, Patr. p. 20; vwd rod aepiou mvev-
arog Tou BeAcdp, where adpcov means lo be
Sound in the air. See Plat. Epin. p. 98D:
8aipovas, adptov 8 yévos. Comp. Test. XTI.
Patr. p. 547. If we take aéptos in such pas-
sages as aeriform (Hahn), we confound it
with adpuvos (Arist. de Anim. ilf. 18; Metaph.
ix. 7). Comp. rather, Ascens. Isa. 10: “ de-
scendit in firmamentum, ubi princeps hujus
mundi habitabat,”’ ‘‘ He descended into the

firmament where the Prince of this world
dwelt.”

® Diog. Laert. vill. 82: card rdyv pev Muddyo-
pay elvai re wavra Tov aépa Wuyer eumAcor, Kai
Tovtous Saimovds Te kai npwas vouicerda, ** AC-
cording to Pythagoras, all the air fs full of
spirits, and these are considered demons
and heroes,"’ and compare the other pas-
sages in Wetstein, and Elsner, p. 206;
Dougt. Anal. p. 127.

4 de Wette.

§ Bleek.

362 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

spirit ;” but this is quite analogous to the conception, according to which
Christ is spoken of as ‘‘ Lord of the Holy Spirit” (2 Cor. iii. 18). We have
further not to understand rot rvetyuarog collectirely ;1 for the éFovoia zov aépor
is, indeed, the sum total of the plurality of the demons, but the spirit,
which is brought by its ruler, the devil, into the hearts of men and operates
within them, is in all vlot r7¢ azec?. one and the self-same spirit, just as the
Holy Spirit is in all individuals who believe one and the same. Others
regard rou wreipatog a8 apposition to tov apy. t. ove. t. aép., in that they
cither assume the use of an abnormal case occasioned by a deviation from
the construction (genitive for accusative), as Piscator, Calovius, Semler,
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, de Wette, Bleek, or look upon the genitive
as one of «upposition to tov dpyorra, as Flatt. But how purely arbitrary is
the former ! and how impossible the latter, since rév dpyorra, in accord-
ance with its significance, demands a defining genitive, and already has it in
ric efove. T. aép., and consequently rov mveiparoc cannot be taken in any
other relation !— ir] is emphatic,—not, however, as Meier supposes:*
“Ceren now, when it is so powerfully counteracted by the gospel,” which
must have been expressed by xai viv; * but viv stands opposed to the preced-
ing xorf, when the diabolic mveiuza was active in all, even in the readers.
Comp. ver. 3. Riickert ‘4 thinks of the ertraordinary, expecially dangerous
power which the Satanic kingdom developed just at the time of the redemp-
tion (2 Thess. ii. 2 f£.); so also de Wette. But that could not be under-
stood from the simple évepy., and would have required the addition of a
repiocotépuc, wrep3aazdvruc, ‘extraordinarily, exceedingly,” or the like. Ac-
cording to Olshausen, rtv is to be held as opposed to the future age, and to
make the diabolic activity appear as limited, in contrast to the everlasting,
divine activity of the Holy Spirit. But a contrast to the aidy pi7Zuv is not
at all implied in the context ; indeed, it was entirely self-evident that the
Satanic activity extends only to the time before the Parousia ; how then
could it occur to a reader to find in the rv a negation of the aidy pédiur t
— év toig¢ vinic r7¢ azec.] in their souls, The expression viol 7. azeé. is He-
braizing,® and denotes the dependence which has its basis in the relation of
the person or thing concerned to the genitive-noun, here the genesis of the
spiritual condition, so that roic é€ areeiag (Comp. Rom. it. 8) would signify
the same thing. Comp. Winer, p. 213. The opposite 1s téxra traxoge,
1 Pet. i. 14. By areciée:a, however, is not meant wnbelicf;® for this could
only be logically included under the notion of disobedience as refusal
of belief, consequently as opposite to the traxoy wisrewe (Rom. i, 5 ; Heb.
iv. 6, 11; and see Fritzsche on Rom. xi. 80). And with that sense in the
present case the following év aig xai jueig mavreg would be at variance,

1Vatablus, Grotius, Estlus, Wolf, Mi-
chaelis, Holzhausen.

2Comp. Zanchius.

§ As Ignat.a/ Si-yrn, interp. 7.

Comp. Bengel and Holzhausen.

§ For among Greek writers are found only
such expressions as vles ‘Ayator, raidses

Swypader, ‘sons of Achaeans, children of
painters," and the like, but nut with
abstract nouns; see Blomtield, Glass. Pere.
408, p. 188; Stallb. ad Plut. PAil. p. 10%.

¢ Luther, Bengel, Koppe, Harless, and
others.

CHAP. II., 3. 363

since not all Jewish-Christians had, like Paul, resisted the faith. Now, as
Paul is speaking,only of the immorality of the unbelievers (vv. 1, 3), ave(Oeca
is here the want of compliance towards God (Rom. xi. 30), 7.¢., towards
His revealed and natural law respectively (Rom. ii. 8 ff.), displaying itself
through their immoral conduct.

Ver. 8. After the apostle has just depicted the pre-Christian corruption of
the readers, who were Gentile- Christians, the sinful corruptness of all—this
basis for his enthusiastic certainty of the universality of the redemption
(Rom. i. 18... ii. 24, iii. 19, 28, xi. 32 5 Gal. ii. 15, 16, ili. 22, al.)—pre-
sents itself at the same time with such vividness before his mind, that he now
also includes with the others the whole body of the Jewish- Christians (xai peic
xéavrec) in the same state of corruption, and accordingly, on the resumption of
the argument at ver. 4, he cannot again employ the second person introduced
in ver. 1, but must change this into jac. Inasmuch as kai jyueic, we also,
must necessarily denote the class falling to be added to tac, ver. 1, we cannot
understand by it the Christians generally ;' but, since the ipei¢ are Gentile-
Christians, we must take it to mean the Jewish-Christians. The general
moral description which follows is not opposed to this view,’ since it was
the very object of the apostle to delineate the essential equality in the moral
condition of both.? Comp. Rom. i. 2, 3. De Wette explains it quite arbi-
trarily : ‘‘ we also, who have been already a considerable time Christians,” — év
oi¢] is not to be referred to roi¢ mapanréuart, ver. 1,4 for that reference is
not to be supported by Col. iii. 7, but, on the contrary, is impossible with
the reading tyuév after duapr., ver. 1, and is, moreover, to be rejected,
because Paul has not again written év aic, and because refercnce to the
nearest subject is altogether suitable ; for the Jewish-Christians also all
walked once among the disvbedient, as belonging to the ethical category of
the same, inasmuch as they likewise before their conversion were through
their immoral walk disobedient towards God (Rom. ii. 17 ff., 25, iii. 9 ff.).
— iv taig ixtOuu. tie capKoc ju.] More precise definition to what has just been
said fv oi¢ . . . aveotpdaénuev roré, denoting the immoral domain of the pre-
Christian state, in which this walk took place, namely, in the desires of our
corporeo-psychical human nature, whose impulses, adverse to God, had not
yet experienced the overcoming influence of the Holy Spirit (Rom. vii.
14 ff., viii. 7 ; Gal. v.17 ; Rom. viii. 2, al.), and hence rendered ineffectual
the moral volition directed towards the divine law (Rom. vii. 17-20). The
opposite is: mvetyart xepimareiv (kai éxibvuiay capxds pH tedeiv), Gal. v. 16 ;
comp. Rom. viii. 13. — zo.oirzec x.7.A.] 80 that we, etc., now specifies the way
and manner of this walk, wherein the prefixed zo:otvrec has the emphasis, in
that it predicates what they did, as afterwards jer, what they were. The
GeAjuara (comp. on the plural, Acts xiii. 22 ; Jer. xxiii. 26 ; 2 Macc. i. 8)

' Estius, Koppe, and others. wanting to him.

* As de Wette objects. 4 Peshito, Jerome, Grotius, Estius, Ben-

3 In doing which Paul could, least of all, gel, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmiiller.
venture to except himself, although, ac- 82 Cor. 1. 12:2 Pet. if. 18; comp. Xen.

cording to Phil. ili. 6, the justitia externa, Ages. ix. 4; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 885 E; Polyb.
“outward righteousness,” had not been ix. 21.5.

364 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

are here in reality not different from the éx:6vyiaz, which, however, are con-
ceived of as activities of the will, that take place on the part of the cdpt and
the didvoca: (both conceived of under a personified aspect as the power ruling
the ego of the unconverted man). As regards rd» d:avoiiv, which stands re-
lated to ri¢ capxéc as the special to the general, the bad connotation is not
implied in the plural, as Harless conjectures (who finds therein ‘fluctuating,
changing opinions”), but in the contert, which makes us think of the unholy
thoughts,' whose volitions were directed to evil, in the state of disobedience.
Comp. Num. xv. 89: pvyothoecbe macdy tov évroAdv xupiov Kal mothoere avrag.
kai ov dtacrpadghaccfe oriow Tov diavoiay dpoyv, ‘* Remember all the command-
ments of the Lord and do them ; and that ye seek not ;” also Jer. xxiii. 26;
Isa. lv. 9 (ré dcavofuara), where likewise the prejudicial connotation lies not
in the plural, but in the connection. — xat juev réxva obcee opypc) Instead of
continuing the construction in uniformity with rosotvre¢ by xai dvrec, the
apostle passes over, as at i. 20 (see on that passage), emphatically into the
oratio finita, depicting, after the immoral mode of action, the unhappy con-
dition in which withal we found ourselves. The fact that on this account
quev is prefized has been left unnoticed, and hence xai j#uev has been either
tacitly (so usually) or expressly ? connected with év ol . . . aveorp. Harless
[also Hofm. Braune, Ewald] regards the words as only a supplemental and
more exact definition and modification of the thought expressed immediately
before ; but in that case an isolation of the words is needlessly assumed, and
likewise the correlation of the prefixed verbs zooivrec and quev is overlooked.
— réxva opyi¢ are children of wrath (comp. on ver. 2), that is, however, not
merely those worthy of wrath,* which relation of dependence is not in keeping
with the context, but, as vexpoi¢ roic raparr. shows, ver. 1, subject to wrath,
irae obnowii, standing under wrath (comp. v. 8 ; Matt. xxiii. 15 ; John xvii.
12). So most expositors rightly take it. To whose wrath they were subject,
Paul does not indicate (for he does not write ric dpy7c, comp. Rom. xii. 19),
but (comp. Rom. iv. 15) he leaves it to the reader to say for himself that it
is God’s wrath he has to think of (see ver. 4). As to the wrath of God,—
which here, too, is not to be understood merely of that of the future judg-
ment,‘—the holy emotion of absolute displeasure at evil, which is neces-
sarily posited by absolute love to the good, and is thus the necessary princi-
ple of temporal and eternal punishment on the part of God (not the punish-
ment itself), comp. on Rom. i. 18. — étcec] dative of the more precise mode
(=xaréd dgborv), may either attach itself merely to réxva (not to jer), so that
the idea expressed is : nature-children, téxva gvoixad opyqs 5° or it may more
precisely define the whole notion réxva opyqc, thus : wrath-children by nature,
téxva Opy7c gvoud ; 80 that the réxva dpy., like viol r. dreBeiac, ver. 2, forms &

1 That these were selfish, is in itself cor- 2 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumentus,
rect, but is not implied in the word itself, | Theophylact, ‘Castalio, Calvin, Grotias, and
- and is not expressed by Paul (in opposition others.
to Hofmann, Schrifthew. I. p. 563). 4 Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 17.

9 As by Fritzsche, Conject. p. 45, who takes 5 See on such datives joined on to nouns.
dv rais émdup. ths capKds coy movodvres «.7.A. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 688; Heind. ad Cratyl,
together as one clause. p. 181

CHAP. II., 3. 365
single idea. The latter is the correct view, because réxva is used figuratively
and receives the real contents of the conception only by means of opyic, for
which reason it is not tobe thought of as separated therefrom.' The notion
of ¢&cec must obtain its more precise definition solely from the context, as to
whether, namely, it betoken an innate relation, *—whether it be consequently
equivalent to yevéce:, and the sonship of wrath be éuguroc, a gualitas innata,
‘‘implanted an innate quality,” *— or, on the other hand, a relation brought
about by development of a nativa indoles, ‘‘native disposition,” one that has
been produced by virtue of natural endowment.‘ In the latter sense David is
said by Josephus, Anté. vii. 7. 1, to have been ¢fcee dixatog nat beooeBhs, ‘‘ by
nature just and religious ;” comp. xiii. 10. 6. Philo, de conf. lingu. p. 327E :
avridoyuxol gbce, ‘by nature contradictory,” Xen. Oec. xx. 25: gboee gidoy-
ewpyéraroc, ‘‘ by nature most fond of country life,” Plut. Artazr. 6 : gbce
BaptOryoc obea, ‘‘ by nature being sullen,” Arist. Polit. 1.1. 9 : dvOpwrog pboer
zoA:rixdy Caov, ‘man by nature o political animal,” and many others. Ac-
cording to this view, qyuev réxva pices dpy7¢ Would have to be paraphrased by:
quev, TH gboee ypnodpevor, téxva opyf¢c. From early times® the word in our
passage has been employed in defence of original sin as an inborn condition
of culpability (inborn peccatum vere damnana, ‘‘ sin truly condemning’), as in-
deed even Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Usteri,* Julius Miller, Lechler, Phil-
ippi, Thomasius, and others have understood an inborn childship of wrath.
‘Paulus nos cum peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum ven-
enum ex utero afferunt,” ‘* Paul testifies that we are born with sin, as serpents
bring from the womb their poison,” Calvin. ‘‘Hoc uno verbo, quasi ful-
mine, totus homo, quantus est, prosternitur ; neque enim naturam dicit
laesam, sed mortuam per peccatum ideoque irae obnoxiam,” ‘‘ By this one
word, as by a thunderbolt, the entire man, however great he is, is prostrated ;
for he docs not say that nature is injured, but is dead by sin, and therefore
subject to wrath,” Beza.”_ But (1) the context points, in vv. 1-8, as again also

1 According to this view, there is here in
the position of the words a severance
(Kiihner, II. p. 627) whereby the genitive is
separated from its governing word (Buttm.
neul. Gr. p. 882 [E. T. 887]). This hyperba-
ton has for its object the reserving of the
whole emphasis for the closing word dpyjis,
and letting it fall thereon. Comp. Philem.
Sragm. p. 354, ed. Cleric.: roAAwv dice ois
sacvy aitia xaxwy, ‘‘ by nature, the cause of
many evils to all.”

4 Asin Gal. li. 15; Xen. Hem. {. 4.14; Dem.
1411 ult.; Soph. Af. 1280; 0. C. 1297; Isoo.
Evag.16: re wey yap hv dice: warpis, rov 8a
.. . vou woAiTHyY éexexoinyvro; specially in-
structive are Plat. Prot. p. 323 C D, Dem.
Ted, 7.

3 Wisd. xif. 10, comp. xill. 1, and thereon
Grimm, Handb. p. 288.

‘ As Rom. fi. 14; 1 Cor. xl. 14; Xen. Mem.
i. 2. 14, fv. 1.8; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 777 D; Ael.
V.d. ii. 18. 3, xxli. 9.13 see also Wetstein

in loc., and Loesner, p. 840 f.

§ See, already, Augustine, Refract. i. 10.
15; de verb. ap. 14.

* Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 80, we may add,
suspects the genuineness of ¢vce:, partly on
account of its alleged singular position,
partly on account of the various readings.
But as regards the position, see above. And
of various readings there are none at all,
since different translations are not various
readings. ¢dvca is omitted only in 109, Aeth.
No doubt Clem. Alex. ad Gent. (Opp. ed.
Pott, p. 28)is also adduced, where the pas-
sage is cited without ¢dvce. But in Clem.
i.c. (comp. p. 560) we have no citation, but
merely a free use Of the passage, from
which the existence of variations cannot be
made good. Clement, we may add, singu-
larly explains réxva opyys by tpeddpeva opy7,
opyns Opéumara.

7 Comp. Form. Cone. p. 689 f.

366 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
in ver. 5, to an actually produced, not to an tndorn state of guilt.' Further,
(2) if Paul had wished, after touching on the sinful action, to bring into
| prominence the inborn state of culpability, and so had taken the course ab
effectu ad causam, ‘‘ from the effect to the cause,” ¢fcee would have an em-
phasis, which would make its critically assured position, as it stands in the
Recepta, appear simply inappropriate ; in fact, not even the position in
Lachmann (jyev dicer téxva dpyi¢) would be sufficiently in keeping, but we
should be obliged logically to expect: «at dboes juev réxva dpyie, “and
(already) by birth were we children of wrath,” in which would lie the
source of sinful action. But (3) the ecclesiastical dogma, that man is a born
subject of wrath, from birth an object of the divine condemnation, is not at
all a doctrine of the apostle, according to whom man by his actual sin falls
under the wrath of God (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8, 9, vii. 7 f., al.), inasmuch,
namely, as he becomes subject to and follows the inborn principle of sin
(Rom. vii. 14 ff.), in opposition to his moral will, which he likewise by na-
ture bears in himself ; in connection with which, we may add, bodily death
has its causal basis not in the individual sin of the particular persons, but in
the connection of the whole race with the fall and death-penalty of its first
progenitor (see on Rom. v. 12). And (4) how could Paul, speaking of the
Jews, predicate of them an inborn childship of wrath, when he regarded them
as xAddoug dyious tic pisn¢e ayiag (Rom. xi. 16)! They were in fact oi xara giow
xAddot of the sacred olive-tree of-the theocracy (Rom. xi. 21) ; how could
they be at the same time the opposite (observe the xara ¢gtocv), born rixva
opy7¢ # See also Gal. ii. 15, where the ¢fcec Iovdaio: are opposed to the é£
éOvav duaprwioi,? as well as Rom. ix. 4, where of them is predicated the pos-
session of the viofecia, consequently the type of the Christian childship of
God, whereof the inborn childship of wrath would be the direct opposite.’
Several have found in ¢éoe: the sense : ‘‘ apart from the special relation in
which they as Israclites stood to God ;”‘ but this is just a mere saving
clause obtruded on the text, in connection with which there is nevertheless
retained the un-Pauline conception of born liability to wrath, consequently
of condemnation from the cery jirst, without any personal participation and
contracting of guilt, before one yet knows sin (Rom. vii. 7).° Further, (5)
if Paul had thought of an inborn liability to wrath, he could not have re-
garded even the children of Christians as holy and pure (1 Cor. vil. 14) ; and
infant baptism must have been already ordained in the N. T., and that, in-
deed, with the absolute necessity, which had to be subsequently assigned to

1 Quite mistakenly Grotius argues from
the context against the ecclesiastical ex-
position in this way: ‘‘ Non agi hic de labe
originaria, satis ostendunt praecedentia,
ubl describuntur vitia, a quibus multi veteram
Suere immunes,” ‘‘ That here the original
fall is not treated of, is sufficiently shown
by what precedes, where vices are described
from which many of the ancients were
free.” See, on the other hand, Rom. i.-iil.,
xi. 82; Gal. iff. 22, a.

2 Which Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 564

(comp. his Heil. Schr. N. T. IT. 1, p. 94), de-
nies on invalid linguistic grounds ; see on
Gal. lc.

3See, generally, on the sanctity of the
people of God, Ewald, Alderth. p. 262 ff.

4 Thomasius, I. p. 289.

6 This remark also holds in opposition to
the essentially similar interpretation in
Hofmann, p. 565, comp. Schmid, dil. Thed.
II. p. 274, and Julius Miller, v. d. Stind:,
p. 377 f.

CHAP. IIL., 3. 367

it in consistency with the elaboration of the dogma of original sin bringing
eternal condemnation on every one born by ordinary generation. The ex-
planation of an inborn state of wrath (which also does not tally with the fact
that Jesus promises the kingdom of heaven to those who should be like
children, Matt. xviii. 2 f., xix. 14 f.) is accordingly to be rejected as opposed
to the contert and un-Pauline ; and gtoe defines the childship of wrath to the
effect, that it has arisen in virtue of natural constitution (observe the just-
mentioned {r:Ouuia: rye capxéc, comp. the véyoc év rotg uéAeot, Which overcomes
the moral law in man, Rom. vii. 28, 24). [See Note XVIII, p. 899.] Cer-
tainly man is bern with this natural, sinful quality, ¢.e., with the principle of
sin, by the awakening and development of which the moral will is vanquished
(Rom. vii. ; comp. also John iii. 6) ; it is not, however, the mere fact of
this inborn presence having its basis in his odp&, that in and of itself! makes
him the child of wrath,? but he only becomes so, when that constitution of
his moral nature, that mingling of two opposite principles in his natural dis-
position, has—which, however, is the case with every one (Rom. iii. 9, xi.
32; Gal. iii. 22)—brought about the victory of the sin-principle, and there-
with the capxixév and wempapévov bd rHv duaprtiav elvac (Rom. vii. 14).2 Others,
such as Erasmus, Balduin, Bengel, Morus, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Matthies, de
Wette, Bleek,* have explained it of the so-called natural state of man, i.¢., of
the state of the pre-Christian life, which was as yet aloof from the influence
of xépic (ver. 5 ff.) and of the Holy Spirit ; but in this way, properly speak-
ing, nothing is explained ; for while the whole description, and not merely
gicer, delineates ‘‘ the natural state in which the redemptive activity of God
found the nations,” ° in connection with ¢éce there always remains the special
question, whether the ‘‘dy nature” denotes an inborn relation to wrath or
not. Holzhausen would even combine gtce: opy7¢ (‘‘ wrath which comes from
the ungodly nature-life’’),—a view from which, even if gion meant nature-
life, the very absence of any article ought in itself to have precluded him ;
Tie TH Gboet Spyic, OT THC Ex THO oto. dpy7c, Or the like, must have been used.

1 The objection of Lechler, p. 107 (comp.
Philippi, Dogm. III. p. 205 f.)—that my ex-
planation, inasmuch as the sinful disposi-
tion is inborn, thereby after all concedes the
traditional Church-view—overlooks the es-
sential distinction, that it is only accord-
ing to the latter that man is Jorn as object
of the divine wrath ; whereas, according to
my view, the natural disposition to sin does
not yet in and by itself make him such
an object of wrath, but he becomes so only
through the setting in of actual sin, which,
it is true, does not fail toemergein any one
who lives long enough to be adle to sin.
According to the traditional view, even the
newly-born unconscious child fs already
guilty and liable to the Divine wrath; so
that in this way the imputation attaches it-
self not merely to the pernetration of sin,
but even to the occasion io sin, which every
one has by nature. This is, so far as I can

see, exegetically incompatiWle with the anthro-
pological teachings of the apostle else-
where, especially with his exposition in
Rom. vii. 7 f. Only with the actual sin, ac-
cording to Paul, is the guilé connected, and
consequently the wrath of God. Aninsorn
guilt is not taught by the apostle; as is
rightly brought out by Ernesti, but is only
hesitatingly hinted at by Bleek.

3 Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. Tp. 207.

*Through Christian regeneration the
moral will attains, by virtue of the Spirit
(Rom. vill. 2), the ascendancy In man, and
he becomes therewithal qualitatively deias
Kowwyds dvcews, 2 Pet.1.4, and weradapnBdreayv
THs ayswryntos Tov @eov, Heb. xii. 10. Comp.
1 John v. 18.

Comp. also Weber, vom Zorn Gottles,
p. 88.

§ de Wette.

368 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Moreover, Cyril, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Grotius, erroneously hold gice
as equivalent to a/70ac (comp. others in Jerome, who take it as prorsus),
which it never is, not even in Gal. iv. 8, to which Grotius appeals. Lastly,
in a quite peculiar way Ernesti' obtains the exact opposite of a born liabil-
ity to wrath by conducting his interpretation so as to enclose réxva give
within two commas, and to connect opy#¢ with juev : ** We were in conse-
quence of our actual sinfulness, although children [of God in the Israelitish
sense, Rom. ix. 4] by nature, liable to wrath even as the Gentiles ;” according
to which, therefore, juev opyz¢ is explained from the well-known usage of
eivai tevog in the sense of ‘‘ belonging to.” But it may be decisively urged
against this view, first, that the supplying the thought of Geoi after ré«va (as
Isa. lxiii. 8 ; Rom. viii. 17 ; Gal. iv. 6) is not in any way suggested by the

- context, but is purely arbitrary, and the more so, inasmuch as there is already

in the text a genitive which offers itself to complete the notion of réxva ; and
secondly, that there is nothing to indicate the contrast assumed by Ernesti
(although, etc.), for in order to write in some measure intelligibly, Paul
must at least have said : xai juev réxva pév oboe, opy7ge dé, although this, too,
on account of the absence of adefinition to réxva, would have been enigmat-
ic enough. Equally to be rejected is the quite similar interpretation of
Nickel,? who explains as though the words ran : xai jyuev Ocod pév téxva gioet,
opyi¢ dé réxva, ‘‘ We were, on the one hand, by nature God’s children ; on the
other, children of wrath.” —d¢ xa? of Ao:roi] sc. joav. The Aoeroi are the Gen-
tiles (Rom. iii. 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 18), and xaiis not adhue (Grotius), but the
also of comparison.

Ver. 4. Now begins, after the intervening clauses, vv. 2, 3, the resump-
tion, and that with the subject, which Paul already had in mind at ver. 1.
See on ver. 1. It is not, however, by oiv, but by dé, that the thought is
taken up again, because that which is now to be spoken of (the abundant
compassion of God) stands in an adversatire relation to what has been said
in the relative clauses.* — rAotocog dv év éAéec x.t.A.] The connection is : God,
however, since He is rich in mercy, has for His much love's suke made . . . 08

. alive in Christ. As to the distinction between ZAco¢g and oixripude, see
on Rom. ix. 15. On év éAéec, comp. 1 Cor. i. 5; Jas.-ii. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 11;
1 Tim. vi. 18. — did tiv roAA. aydryy abrov] namely, in order to satisfy it.’
Luther erroneously renders : through His great love. The Vulgate, rightly:
propter, etc. Comp. Philem. 8. We may add that not airod is to be
written, but airoi, as at i. 6. — fv gydx. gu] as in John xvii. 26. Comp.
the classical Zpwra épav, Lobeck, Paral. p. 516. The manifestation of the
divine love thereby meant is the atoning death of Christ, in which, in pur-
suance of the abundance of the divine compassion, the great love of God
communicated itself to us. Rom. v.18; Johniii. 16 ; Eph. v. 2, 25. — quac]
After the glance has extended from the readers (vv. 1, 2) also to the Jewish

1 Urepr. @. Stinde, lI. p. 174 ff. mercy toward the wretched, was the

2In Reuter’s Repert. 1860, Oct., p. 16. motive for not leaving them to their misery,

3 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 877. [Cf. Winer, but, etc. The éAeos is thus related to the
§ 58, 7.] ayary as the species to the genus.

‘The great love of God, who isrich in

CHAP. II., 5. 369
Christians (ver. 3), the resumption of the object with 7.a¢ now embraces both,
the Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Ver. 5. The «ai is not to be taken as in ver. 1 (‘‘also us collectively,”
Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlier expositors), which, apart from the
universal reference of the #uac, the order of the words forbids (xai quar
must have been written), according to which, also, the «ai of ver. 1 can by
no means be here resumed ;! further, xai isnot, with Koppe, to be taken as al-
though, seeing that, in fact, amaking alive cannot take place otherwise than
from a state of death, and consequently xai cannot convey any climactic stress,
on which account Harless explains incorrectly from a logical point of view :
‘* even in the state of death, in which we were.”* Erasmus paraphrases as
though «ai stood before ovve{wor., and even the expedient to which Morus has
recourse, that «ai corresponds to the xai of ver. 6 (non modo, ‘‘not only,”
. . - verum etiam, ‘‘ but also”), would demand this position. Others give
other explanations, and many are silent with regard to it. If xai were also,
it would have to be referred to évrac,? and would express the reality of the
relation asserted in ver. 1.4 But there would be nothing to call for the as-
surance of this reality. Itis rather the simple copula: and, annexing to
the dia r. xodA. ay. fv 7y. ju. @ further element. The two clements, side
by side, place in the full light what God has done. God has, on account
of His much love, and when we were dead in the sins, made us alive with
Christ. The xai might also be omitted, but the keeping of the points
thus apart strengthens the representation. — roi¢ raparr.] The article denotes
the sins, which we had commitied, with a retrospective glance at ver. 1.—
ouvelworoinoe TH Xp.] is by most expositors* understood of new spiritual
quickening.” But how is this to be justified from the context? If the

. reader was reminded by vexpotc roi¢ raparr. of the eternal death, to which
he had been subjected by his pre-Christian life of sin (see on ver. 1), he
would now have to think of the eternal life, which begins with the resur-
rection, and he could the less think of anything else than of this real resur-
rection-life, since afterwards there is further expressed the translation to-
gether into heaven, and then, in ver. 7, the intention of God is referred to
the times after the Parousia. And had not already i. 18 f. pointed definitely
to the future xAnpovoyia? How, in this connection, could a reader light
upon the merely ethical, spiritual quickening (Rom. vi. 4 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 15;
Gal. ii. 19 f.)? No, God has made believers alive with Christ; 4.6. in
Christ's revivification, which God has wrought, theirs also is included. By
virtue of the dynamic connection in which Christ stands with His believers,
as the head with its body (i. 28), their revivification is objectively compre-

1 Riickert, Matthies, Holzhausen, and
most of the older expositors.

2 Comp. Calvin and de Wette.

3 For, as to the fact that «ai, also, always
lays the stress upon (Aat word, before which
it stands, see Haupt, Obes. Crit. p. 55 ff.
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 688.

* Hartung, L p. 18% f.

§ Bleek describes this view of mine as

24

probably the correct one, and follows it.

* Including Flatt, Rickert, Meier, Mat-
thies, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Baum-
garten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, Bleek.

1 ** Justificationem et regenerationem nos-
tram complectitur,” ‘It embraces our justi-
fication and regeneration.” Boyd ; Rickert
would have us think mainly of the justifca-
tion.

370 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

hended in His,—a relation, in fact, of which the Christian is conscious in
faith ; ‘‘quum autem jides suscipitur, ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini,
et ab homine rata habentur,” ‘‘ But when faith is received, all those things
are applied to man by God and are considered as ratified by man,” Bengel.
So the matter stands in the view of the apostle as accomplished, because the
making alive of Christ is accomplished ; the future actual making alive, or, as
the case may be, change at the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 23), is then the subjec-
tive individual participation of that which is already objectively given on
the part of God in the resurrection of Christ. Certainly Paul might, in ac-
cordance with another mode of looking at it, have expressed himself by the
Suture, as at 1 Cor. xv. 22; cf. Rom. viii. 17 ; but who does not feel that
by means of the aorist' the matter stands forth more forcibly and trium-
phantly out of the believing conviction of the apostle ? of¢ édixaivce robrow
xai édé€ace, Rom. viii. 30. — The of in ovvefwor. is by Beza erroneously re-
ferred to the coagmentatio gentium et Judaeorum, ‘“‘union of Gentiles and
Jews,” a reference which is forbidden by the 7» Xpiord ; and by Grotius,
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and others, it is explained ad ezemplum, ‘‘ according
to the example,” * by which the Pauline idea of fellowship with Christ, which
also lay at the bottom of i. 19, is quite arbitrarily explained away. — Comp.
on Col. ii. 18; Rom. viii. 17 5 2 Tim. ii. 12. — ydpiri tore ceawon.| by grace
(not by merit) are ye partakers oy the Messianic salvation! an impassioned
(hence expressed in the second person), parenthetic reminding the readers
of the divine basis of the salvation which had accrued to them, designated
by ovrefworoigce ; a reminding, which was very natural for the apostle in
general (for its tenor was the sum of his doctrine and the constant echo of
his own experience, 1 Cor. xv. 10), and more especially here, where he rep-
resents the quickening of believers as accomplished with the making alive
of Christ, which could not but repel even the most distant thought of per-
sonal merit. In connection with owe(wor. 7. Xp. the possession of the
Messianic bliss is designated as an already accomplished fact, although it was
before the Parousia (Col. iii. 8 f.) merely a possession in hope (Rom. vill.
24), and the final realization was yet future (Rom. v. 10). That the ydpirt
emphatically placed at the beginning* means the grace of God, not of
Christ,‘ is manifest from the context, in which God is constantly the
subject.

Ver. 6. After the making alive of Christ in the grave followed His resur-
rection, with which Paul regards that of believers as likewise accomplished.
Hence : xa? ovvfyecpe, which in like manner is not to be taken in the spiritual
sense ;* but see on ver. 5. With strange inconsistency several expositors,
such as Menochius, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius, Grotius, although taking

d

1“ Ponitur autem aoristus de re, quae,
quamvis futura sit, tamen pro peracta recte
censeatur, cum... alia re jam facta con-
tineatur,”’ ‘* The aorist is used of a matter,
which, although it be fature, nevertheless is
properly regarded as past, when it is con-
tained in another matter already accom-
plished,” Fritesche, ad Rom. II. p. 206.

2 Comp. Anselm: sicué, ‘‘ just as."’

’For ‘‘grattam esse docet proram et
puppim,” ‘He teaches that grace is both
prow and stern,” Bengel.

4 Beza; comp. the inserted o8 in D* EF
G, Vulg. It. Victorin. Aug. Ambrosiaster.

5 “To make them enter upon the new life
of grace,”’ Rickert.

| i i

CHAP. II., 7. 371

ovvezwor. metaphorically, nevertheless have taken this ovvfye:pe (as well as
the element that follows) in a literal sense, and mentally supplied nempe spe,
‘namely, by hope,” or the like. —xai ovvexdficev tv roig éxovp.] and hath
given to us joint-seat in the heavenly regions (comp. i. 20), so that we have
part (see on 1 Cor. vi. 2) in the dominion of the Exalted One (2 Tim. ii. 12);
which Paul likewise sees as already accomplished’ with the installing of
Christ at the right hand of God ; hence, there was no need at all for supply-
ing the thought jure et virtute spirituali, ‘‘by spiritual right and virtue,” *
or for a transference of the matter to the praescientia Dei, ‘‘God’s fore-
knowledge,” * and other such expedients. —év Xptor@ 'Ijcov] belongs to
cuviyerpe and ovvexd@ioev év toig éxovpav., 80 that what was expressed in the
case of ovvef{wor. by (ovy) rH Xpcor@, is here expressed, in yet more exact
conception of the relation, by (ov) év Xpioré (jointly in Christ). Inasmuch,
namely, as God raised and eralted Christ (év XptorH), He has raised and
exalted us with Him. é Xpor( accordingly is by no means intended to
denote the ovyxafifecv as figurative.‘ — On év roic érovpav. (see on i. 8) Bengel,
we may add,° aptly remarks : ‘‘non dicit in dextra ; Christo sua manet ex-
cellentia,” ‘‘ He does not say : ‘at the right hand ;’ His own excellence re-
mains to Christ.” The transitive ovyxafifev is not elsewhere preserved.
Ver. 7. Aim of God in connection with what is said, vv. 5, 6.—iva
tydeiénra:] prefixed with emphasis : in order—not to leave concealed and
unknown, but—+to avhidit and make manifest, etc. Comp. Rom. ix. 28.— é
TOt¢ aiaot Toic Exepy.] in the ages coming on, 1.6., in the times after the Parousia,
as being already on the approach.* In the times from the Parousia (con-
ceived as near at hand) onward, the manifestation designed by God of His
grace towards believers was to take place, because not before, but only after
the Parousia, would the making alive of the believers, etc., implicitly con-

1 Explanations in the epiritual sense.
Calixtus: ‘‘ Ea nobis dedit dona, quae ci-
vibus coelorum propria sunt,’ ‘*He hath
given us those gifts which are peculiar to
citizens of heaven.”? Rosenmfiller: ‘‘ Sum-
ma felicitate nos ornavit, quasi Jam in
coelo essemus recepti,”’ ** He hath furnished
us with the highest happWmess, as though we
had been already received in heaven.”’
Riickert and Bleek remind us of the wodi-
tevuea Of Christians, which is in heaven
(Phil. ili. 20; comp. Col. lil. 1 ff.). Meier:
* Exaltation into a celestially enlightened.
pure and holy, state of life.” Matthies:
“The spiritual kingdom of heaven or of
God.” Olshausen: “ The awakening of the
heavenly consciousness.””> Koppe remarks
superficially and with hesitation: ‘‘ Nobis
quidem in omnibus, ‘inall these terms,’ his
fwomaciodas eyeiperdat, xadigaw év érovp.
nibil inesse videtur nisi summae et uni-
versae felicitatis, qua Christiani vel jam
fruuntar, vel olim magis etiam fruituri sunt,
descriptio,”’ “nothing seems to us to be in-

cluded but a description of the supreme and
universal happiness which Christians either
already or will hereafter enjoy.’’ Accord-
ing to Baumgarten-Crusius, there is ex-
pressed ‘ exaltation into a purely spiritual
heaven-like state.”” De Wette takes ovve-
Sworn. of the deliverance out of the misery of
sin, ovriyeipe of regeneration and, at the
same time, of the resurrection of the body
guaranteed in the spiritual life, and cvvexa-
dioev «.7.A, Of the hope of the eternal éd£éa,
Schenkel interprets it of the presentiment of
the future glory.

3 Bengel.

3 Jerome.

4 Olshausen.

5 Comp. already Estius.

®Comp. LXX. Isa. xliv. 7, xlv. 11; Judith
ix.5; 8 Maco. v. 2; Luke xxi. 96; Jas. v.1;
Hom. Od. xxiv. 142; Thuc. {. 126: Plat. Soph.
p. 284 D ; Aesch. Prom. 98: 1d wapdv 76 1° ewep-
xsuevoy, Pind. Of. x. 11: dxadev yap éreAdwr
© méAAwy xpdvos.

372 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

tained in the making alive of Christ, ‘be actually accomplished in the
subjects. Incorrect, seeing that the apostle was previously speaking, not
of the spiritual, but of the real resurrection, etc., is the rendering of Morus:
‘‘per omne vestrum tempus reliquum quum in hac vita tum in futura
quoque,” ‘‘ through all your time left, not only in this life, but also in that
which is to come,” as well as that of Wolf :! ‘‘tempora inde ab apostolicis
illis ad finem mundi secutura,” ‘‘the times that were to follow from those
of the apostles to the end of the world.” Koppe brings out, ‘‘ ut aeternum
duraturum argumentum extaret,” ‘‘that an argument might stand forth
which would last eternally,” which is quite mistaken, since, while it is
‘true that the aidvec ol érepyduevor are eternal times, the words do not signify
tempora aeternum futura, ‘‘times to be eternally.” Respecting the plural
toi¢ aide, comp. on iii. 21. To infer from this that the setting in of the
Messianic period will not be accomplished suddenly, but by way of suc-
cessive development,’ is at variance with the whole N. T. The future
aidv sets in through the Parousia very suddenly and in an instant, Matt.
xxiv. 27; 1 Cor. xv. 52, al. Hence we have not mentally to supply with
évédeié. anything like: ‘‘ ever more completely,” ® or ‘‘ ever more effectively,” ‘
which is sheer caprice. — The form 1d rAotroc is here also decisively attested.
See on i. 7. —év ypnorérnre 颒 jude év Xpiord 'Inoov] is to be taken together,
and the instrumental ¢v indicates by what God will manifest the exceeding
great riches of His grace in the ages to come, by kindness towards us in
Christ Jesus, i.e., by means of the fact that He shows Himself gracious
towards us, of which the ground lies in Christ (not in us, see ver. 8). The
article was not at all requisite before 颒 juac, since yproréry7: is anarthrous,
and besides ypyordérnc 颒 yuac, like ypyordy elvas 颒 yuac (Luke vi. 35), can be
closely joined together in thought. Comp. on i. 15.— The ydpe¢ is the
source of the ypgoréryc, which latter displays itself in forgiving (comp.
Prayer of Manass. 11 ; Tit. iii. 4; Rom. ii. 4) and in benefiting, and there-
fore is the evidence of the former, the opposite of azorovia, Rom. xi. 22.°
Ver. 8. How entirely was I justified in saying : 1d brepBd?20v r20vTO¢ Ti
xaptroc avrov | for, etc. Thus Paul now expresses himself with more detail
as to the great truth, of which his heart was so full that it had already, ver.
5, interrupted the course of his address. — rq ydpiti] by the grace. By the
article the divine grace just now spoken of is indicated, after it had been
meant doubtless by the anarthrous ydprr:, ver. 5, but designated by it only
as regards the category (by grace). — dia r#¢ wictewe] for the faith in the atone-
ment made by Christ (Rom. iii. 25, 80, al.) is, as the cause apprehendens,
‘‘apprehending cause,” of the Messianic salvation, the necessary mediate
instrument on the part of man, while the xédpic is the divine motive, the
causa efficiens, ‘‘ efficient cause,” of the bestowal. The emphasis, however,
is retained by r9 ydpiri alone, and did r7¢ ior. is only the modal definition
tO otowo. —xal rovro oix é& tua x.t.A.] Nothing is here to be treated as

1Comp. Calvin, Piscator, Boyd, Estius, 3 Flatt.

Calixtus, Michaelis, Zachariae, Meler, Mat- 4 Schenkel.

thies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek. ‘Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 195; van
3 Schenkel. Hengel, ad Rom. IL p. 682.

CHAP. II., 8. 373

parenthesis; neither the whole xat rovro down to épyuv, ver. 9,’ nor merely
cod rd dapov,? since neither the construction nor the course of thought is
interrupted. «ai rovro is referred by the Fathers in Suicer,® Erasmus, Beza,
Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, including Koppe,
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, to the faith (ra
xcoretvev), comp. Phil. i. 29; 2 Cor. iv. 14. In that case xai rovro . . . dapov
would have to be taken parenthetically. But how violent is this taking to
pieces of the text, since oi« é£ tuay and ovx é& Epywv present themselves in a
manner alike natural and weighty as elements belonging to one flow of the
discourse! Rightly, therefore, have Calvin, Calovius, Baumgarten, Semler,
Zachariae, Morus, and others, including Riickert, Matthies, Holzhausen,
Hariless, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek, referred it to the salwation just desig-
nated as regards its specific mode. Paul very earnestly and emphatically
enters into more detailed explanations as to what he had just said, ry yap
xaprre x.7.4., namely, to the effect that he briefly and forcibly places in the
light of the respective contrasts, first, that objective element of the saving
deliverance which has taken place (rj ydépers) by ovx é& tua, Oeov 1d dapor,
and then the subjectize element (dia ri¢ wiatews), by ovK && Epywv iva pw. T. Kavy.
His thought is: ‘‘ Through grace you are in possession of salvation by
means of faith, and that to the exclusion of your own causation and operative
agency.” This latter he expresses with the vivacity and force of contrast
thus: ‘‘ and that (xai rovro, see on Rom. xiii. 11) not from you, it is God's
gift ; not from works, in order that no one may boast.” The asyndetic juxta-
position takes place with a ‘‘ propria quadam vi, alacritate, gravitate,” ‘‘ pe-
culiar force, ardor, and dignity.” ‘— oix 2£ iuav] negatives their own personal
authorship of the salvation.* — Qeov rd dadpov] 4.6., Geo ddpov Td ddpov, God's
gift is the gifé in question (namely, the ceowopuévov elva:). Comp. already
Bengel. — ctx e& épywv] Parallel of ctx é& iuzav, hence to be completed by
éor2 ceowopévo. (not by 7d dapdy écri), not from work-merit does it come that
you have the salvation. The épya would exclfide the rior as the sudjective
condition of salvation (Rom. iii. 28, iv. 5, ix. 82; Gal. ii. 16, iii, 2), as 2
tuov would exclude the ydpec as the objective cause of salvation, because it
presupposes the idia d:xacootwy (Rom. x. 8). No doubt éé épywv excludes also
the yépcc, as does likewise é& tudv exclude the zicri¢ ; but the two elements
opposed to the ydpic and the riori¢ are, on occasion of the proposition r9 yap
xépert . . . miorews, held apart after the manner of a formal parallelism.
That, moreover, the notion of the épya is determined not merely by the
Jewish law, but—inasmuch as the readers were for the most part Gentile-
Christians—also by the natural law (Rom. ii. 14 f.), is self-evident. The
proposition in itself, however, ove é& éEpywy, is so essential and universally
valid a fundamental proposition of the Pauline Gospel, and certainly so
often expressed by the apostle among Jcws and Gentiles, that the severe
judgment as to its having no meaning, when laid down without reference

1 Griesbach, Scholz. 4 Dissen, Eve. IT. ad Pind. p. 273.
2 Lachmann, Harless, de Wette. § Kliendt, Lex. Soph. L. p. 551 f.
3 Thes. I. p. 728.

374 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

to the Mosaic law, must appear unfounded.!— iva] design of God in the rela-
tion indicated by ov« é& épyuv, not ecbatic.2? Comp. 1 Cor. i. 29, 31, and as
regards the thing itself, Rom. iii. 27. Grotius aptly says: ‘‘quicquid est
in flumine, fonti debetur,” ‘‘ whatever is in the river, is due the fountain,”

which, however, is not to be limited merely to the prima gratia. [See Note
XIX., p. 400.] See ver. 10 ; 2 Cor. x. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 10.
Ver. 10. Reason assigned for the previous oix é€ iuav . . . xavyfo. If,

namely, we are God's roijua, our Messianic salvation cannot be of our own
acquiring, but only God's gift ; and if we are created in Christ unto good
works, how could merit of works (which would need to have been already
acquired in the time anterior to this our creation) be the cause of our sal-
vation, and subject of our own boasting? The argumentative stress lics
consequently (1) on avrov, and (2) on «riodévrec ; and then oi¢ xponroiuacev
x.T.A, is an elucidation significantly bearing on xrio@évrec év X.°I. éxt Epy. ay..
which makes the impossibility of pre-Christian merit of works thoroughly
palpable. —avrov] with emphasis : His, just His work, and no other’s, are
we.* — roinua, thing made (comp. Rom. i. 20), refers to the ethical creation
(that of the new spiritual state of life), which the Christian as such has ex-
perienced (raacyyevecia, Tit. iii. 5), not, as Tert. c. Mare. v. 17, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Basil, and Photius would have it, to the physical creation (the
spiritual being only introduced by «xriofévrec x.7.4.), Which is opposed to the
context, as is also the combination of the two creations by Pelagius, Eras-
mus, Matthies, and Riickert : ‘‘as Christians we . . . are God’s work just
as well, as in respect of our being men at all.” Only the form, in which the
constituting of the new condition of life is expressed, is derived from the
physical creation. — «riofévreg] by God at our conversion. — év Xpior@ "Inoov}
forel rig Ev Xptorg, xawy xrioc, 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15. Christ is the
specific element of life, within which the ethical zrolnua Oecd has come to
pass, but apart from which this creative process has not taken place. — ézi
Epyotg GyaBoic] moral aim.‘ On the thing itself, comp. Rom. viii. That, by
which God prepares what is created by Him in Christ for this moral end, is
the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii. ; Gal. iii. 2; John ii. 5f. Good works (not
Zpya véuov) are fruits of regeneration, different from épywr, ver. 9. — ol¢ mpo7-
toiu. 6 Gedc] ot¢ is to be taken, according to the usual attraction (see Winer,
p. 147 f.), for a :* which God hath before (previously to the xrioBévrec) placed in
readiness, in order that we might walk in them, that they might be the ele-
ment in which our life-walk should take place.* The prefixed mpoyr. has
in the circumstances significant emphasis. Paul conceives, namely, of the
morally good works in which the walk of the Christian moves, as being
already, even before his conversion, placed in readiness’ by God, namely,

1.In opposition to de Wette.

3 Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen.

%Comp. Hom. Od. x. 27: avrav yap azwA-
é6ped" adppadinow. Winer, p. 140.

# (Cf. Winer, § 48.]

6 Syriac, Gothic, Vulgate, Castalio, Beza,
Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Grotius, and others,
including Harless, Matthies, Holzhausen,

Olshausen, de Wette, Lamping, p. 87 f.;
Bleek.

6 thy én’ avTois dxavoroy cxéow SndAoi, “* He
shows the never-ending state for them,”
Oecumentius.

7 Plut. Mor. p. 230 E; Joseph. Anté. xvii.
6,6; LXX. Isa. xxviil. 24; Wisd. ix. 8.

CHAP. I1., 10. 375
in His decree. And this could not but be the case, if God would create
unto good works. For, if the converted man is God’s creature, then the
moral activity of life, in which the specific nature of the xa? xrias is to
manifest itself, and without which he would not be God's roinua and xriaic,
must likewise proceed from God; consequently, when the moral creative
act (the regeneration) is accomplished, it must already in God’s counsel
and will, bein such wise prepared and held ready for communication, that it
has to receive the new creature from its Creator, and in this way to work
the works of God. Thus these good works following regeneration are as it
were outflowings from a divine treasure beforehand placed in readiness,
from which the regenerate man has received them, when he does them and
walks in them.’ The sense of the word rpoerocudfev is changed, if it is ex-
plained only as to predestine,* which would be expressed by rpoopife ;* and
it is rationalized away when Olshausen says that the circumstances and rela-
tions, under which it is possible to men to perform good works, are ordained
by God. It is not of the circumstances which render the works possible,
but of the works themselves, that Paul affirms that God has before placed
them in readiness ; as accordingly, when they are accomplished, it is God
who works the willing and working (Phil. ii. 18). According to Hofmann,’
the good works are once for all present in Christ, so that they need not to
be brought forth first by us, the individuals, but are produced before-
hand, in order that our fellowship with Christ may be also a fellow-
ship of His conduct—that our walk in Him may be a walk in them.
But in this way Paul would have left the very point of the thought
in porroiu. (namely, in Christ) unexpressed. Others take oi¢ as dative
of the destination: unto which God hath prepared us.° In this case,
iva tv avroi¢ xepix. would by no means be a redundant and feeble tautology,
as Harless supposes, but an emphatic epexegesis of oi¢. But against this
view it may be urged that Paul must necessarily, because the verb would be
quite objectless, have added #uac,° the omission of which, considering the
frequency of the attraction of oi¢ ford, could only have led the reader astray ;
moreover, po would receive no emphasis accordant with the prefixing of
mponroiu., inasmuch as the time of the mpoeroruéfecv Would coincide with that
of the xrifecv. Valla and Erasmus take oic as masculine ; for whom He hath
before appointed, that we, etc., to which also Riickert, although hesitating
between this and the preceding explanation, is inclined. But how arbitra-
rily in this way is ol¢ referred to what is more remote and different from’

1 Explanations like that of Grotius;
“praeparavit tum praescribendo formam
operam tam dando Spiritum,’’ “ He pre-
pared them both by prescribing the form of
the works, and by giving the Spirit,’ etc.,
fail of doing justice to the case by making
wpo in sponr. synchronous with cricOdvres.

* Augustine and others, including Har-
less, Lamping.

3 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. TI. p. 389.

« Schrifthew. II. 1, p. 865, If. 2, p. 204.

SLather, Clericus, Semler, Michaelis,

Zachariae, Morus, Flatt, Meler, Schenkel,
and others.

* This also in opposition to Calovius, who
takes ols in the allative sense: “ quibus, so.
hactenus dictis ... per justificationem et
renovationem, praeparavit vel disposuit
(nos), ué in operibus bonis ambulemue,” “ by
which, viz., these hitherto mentioned,
through justification or renewal he pre-
pared or disposed us, so that we may walk
in good works,”

376 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

abroi¢ ! and how changed is the literal sense of mrpoerocudfecv | - Utterly arbi-
trary and erroneous, finally, is the view of Bengel, Koppe, and Rosenmiiller,
as also of Baumgarten-Crusius, that it is to be explained per Hebraismum,
‘*as a Hebraism,”? for év oi¢ iva wepirarhowuev mpont. 6 Oedc, in which case
Koppe and Rosenmiiller make zpoeromudlewv equivalent to velle jubere, ‘‘ wish,
bid !"—According to Schwegler,* Baur,* and de Wette, there is to be discov-
ered in our passage the post-apostolic tendency to combine the doctrine of Paul
(ovx 8 Epywv) with the Jewish-Christian view (that of James) concerning good
works. As though the works were not in our passage too, as in all Pauline
Epistles, based upon faith (observe, withal, év X. 'I.) |—The Pauline faith
has always moral practice as its necessary vital activity, and this is conse-
quently always the aim (not : witimate aim) of the new creation wrought
through faith by means of the Spirit. We may add that the good works,
even at our passage,—where, moreover, they are traced back wholly to God
as the author,—are so far from being the condition of justification, that, on
the contrary, the dogmatic canon here receives full confirmation : ‘‘ Bona
opera non praecedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum,” ‘Good works
do not precede the one to be justified, but they follow him as justified.”
Comp. Calovius. Aptly does Bengel remark on rep:rar. : ‘‘ambularemus,
non salraremur aut viveremus,” ‘that we should walk, not that we should
be saved, or should live.” The assertion, that here (and in Colossians) much
greater importance is ascribed to good works than in the other letters of the
apostle,‘ is, looking even to vv. 7—9, incorrect. ([Sce Note XX., p. 400.)
Ver. 11. Acé] Therefore, because such exalted and unmerited benefits have
been imparted to us (vv. 4-10). [See Note XXI., p. 400 seq.] These bene-
fits should move the reader to remember his former miserable heathen state
(roré, v. 8 ; Col. i. 21), in order the more gratefully to appreciate, by con-
trast with the past, the value of his present state. — dri roré tyeig ra Edu év
capxt] Neither jre nor dytec is to be supplied, but (observe the order criti-
cally vouched for : word iyeic) dre is taken up again by the r: of ver. 12, and
mott by tO xaip@ éxeivg, ver. 12; while ra 20v7 év capxi is a descriptive defini-
tion to ineic, to which it is related by way of apposition, and ol Acyduevn
x.7.A. is attributive definition to tueic ra ESvn év capni : that at one time ye,
the Gentiles in the flesh, ye who (quippe qui) were named Foreskin . . . that
ye at that time, etc. — ra &9v7 év capri] is closely connected as one conception,
and hence without the article before év capxi. This év capxi is, as to its
meaning, necessarily defined by the undoubted meaning of the following é
capxi ; on which account it is neither to be taken, as a contrast to regenera-
tion, of the former unholy life of the readers,* nor as origine carnali, natali-
bus, ‘‘by carnal origin, birth,” ° nor is it to be generalized into respectu
status externi, ‘‘ with respect to the external condition.”" It has reference
to the foreskin. In the flesh, on account of the non-circumcised foreskin,

1 See, on the other hand, Fritzsche, ad * Ambrosiaster, Calovius, Wolf, Holzhau-

Matth. p. 189. sen.
3 In Zeller’s Jahkrd. 1844, p. 891. 6 Bucer, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, Rosen-
3 Paulus, p. 458. miller, Flatt.

4 Baur, neut. Theol. p. 270. 7 Morus.

CHAP. II., 12. 377

the character ethnicus, ‘‘Gentile character,” was inherent.—The rd é3vy & o.,
with the article, designates the readers as to their category. The contempt,
however, incurred in their pre-Christian state lies not in ra é0vy év o. (for
this they still remained), but in the following oj Aeyépevor x.r.A.; although
we may not, by mentally supplying’ the contrast ov« év mvetyar:, make év
oapxi into an element of recommendation. — ol Aeyduevor. . . xetporw.] is not to
be placed in a parenthesis,? seeing that it is a continued description of the
Gentile state of the readers. As the £317 79 capi, they were those designated
by the name Foreskin/! And, then, the delineation of this despised relation
is brought to a yet higher climax when it is specified by whom they were
thus reproachfully designated, namely, by the so-called Circumcision, whichis
made in the flesh with the hand. So low was the position you occupied ! By
those who bear the name of this surgical operation performed on the flesh
(counterpart of the ideal circumcision, Rom. ii. 28 f.; Phil. ii. 8 ; Col. ii.
11; Acts vii. 51), and hence have by it in and of itself no pre-eminence at
all, you must allow yourselves to be designated, for want of this external
rite, with the reproachful name of Foreskin! év capi xetpor. does not per-
tain to Aeyou., but is an addition of the apostle himself to repir., describing
how the matter stands. The abstracta, ‘‘ abstracts,” axpo8. and repr. do not
here stand pro coneretis, ‘‘ for concretes,” but are stated names, by which the
concretes were in accordance with their peculiar character designated. Comp.
2 Thess, ii. 4 : éw? révra Aeyéuevov Oedv # of Bacua. The circumstance that
Paul, instead of td rij¢ Aeyouévyc, has not again employed the plural expres-
sion id Trav Azyouévur, is to be explained by the fact that he wishes to in-
dicate the repcrou4 a8 a name, which is not adequate to the idea of it in the
case of the subjects so termed : by the so-called circumcision. [See Note
XXII, p. 401.] The expression is depreciatory (comp. 1 Cor. vili. 5) as con-
cerns the people who bore the name meprrou4; whereas oi Acyéuevor axpo3voria
would indicate not the conception of ‘‘ so-called,” but, in a purely objec-
tive manner, the mentioned fact : ‘‘ those called Foreskin” (Heb. ix. 3).
Ver. 12, As regards the construction, see on ver. 11. — ro nape éxeivy]
takes the place of the orf, ver. 11, and means the pre-Christian, heathen
period of the readers. On the dative of time without év, see Winer, p. 195 f.
— xupic Xpiorov]| aloof from connection with Christ ; for ‘‘ ywpi¢ ad subjec-
tum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur,” ‘‘is referred to the subject
which is separated from the object.”* It is dependent on jre as its first sad
predicate, and does not belong, as a more precise definition, to the subject,‘
in which case it would in fact be entirely self-evident and superfluous. Jn
how far the readers as Gentiles were without Christ, we are told in the
sequel. They stood afar off and aloof from the theocratic bond, in which
Christ would have been to them, in accordance with the promise, the object
of their faith and ground of their salvation. If Paul had wished to express
merely the negation of the Christian relation,* how tame and idle would this

1 With Chrysostom and his successors. Bleek.

4 Griesbach, Scholz. 5 Ye were without knowledge of Christ ;
3 Tittmann, Synon. p. 94. comp. Anselm, Calovius, Flatt.

* “ When ye were as yet without Christ,"

378 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

in itself have been! and, moreover, not in keeping with the connection of
that which follows, according to which, as is already clear from ver. 11,
Paul wishes to bring out the disadvantage at which the readers, as Gentiles,
had been placed in contradistinction to the Jews. Hence Grotius rightly in-
dicates the relation as to contrast of ver. 12 to ver. 18: ‘‘ Nunc eum (Chris-
tum) non minus possidetis vos guam ti, quibus promissus fuerat,” ‘‘ Now ye
possess Him (Christ) no less than they to whom He had been promised.”
Rickert refers ywpic X. to the activity of Christ under the O. T. previously to
His incarnation, with an appeal to 1 Cor. x. 4.2 But r¢ xaipo éxeivy, in
fact, applies to the pre-Christian lifetime of the readers, and thus comprises
a time which was subsequent to the incarnation. Xpiorov means the historical
Christ, so far as He was the very promised Messiah. The relation yupic
Xpiorov is described from the standpoint of the apostle, for whom the bond
with the Messiah was the bond with Christ. [See Note XXIII., p. 401.] —
The charge that the author here makes an un-Pauline concession to Juda-
ism * is incorrect, since the concession concerns only the pre-Christian rela-
tion. Comp. Rom. ix. 4, 5. A superiority of Judaism, in respect of the
pre-Christian relation to Christianity, Paul could not but necessarily teach
(comp. Acts iii. 25 f.; Rom. i. 16, iii. 1 f.; Gal. iii. 13 f.); but that Chris-
tianity as to its essential contents was Judaism itself, merely extended
through the death of Christ to the Gentiles also, he has not taught either
here or elsewhere ; in fact, the doing away of the law taught by him in this
very passage is the very opposite thereof.* — amnAAorpiopévot x.t.A.] Comp.
On araddorpi6w, Dem. 255, 8; Polyb. i. 79. 6, i. 82. 9; often in the LXX.*
and Josephus, Krebs, Obss. p. 826. The notion of alien does not here
(comp. also iv. 18 ; Col. i. 21) presuppose the existence of an earlier fellow-
ship, but it was their status ethnicus, ‘‘ Gentile state,” itself,* by which the
readers were at one time placed apart from connection with the rodcreia roi
"Iopafa. 7.6., whereby this aAAorpeérac took place. The opposite: idcoz, otxeioz,
ovurodira: (ver. 19). sodcreia signifies as well political constitution * as right
of citizenship." The latter signification is assumed by Erasmus, Luther,
Beza, Bullinger, Michaelis, and others. But the idea of right of citizen-
ship was for the apostle, himself a Roman citizen, as well as for the readers,
a secular privilege, and one therefore foreign to the connection of our pas-
sage, where everything points to the theocracy, and this was the political
constitution of the Israelites. — rot "Iopaz1] The divine name of Jacob (Gen.
XXXli. 28, xxxv. 10) is, according to the traditionally hallowed usage of

1Comp. Olshausen (“the immanence of
Christ as regards His divinity in Israel’’).

2 Schwegler, /.c. p. 388 f.

3In opposition to Baur, Paulus, p. 545;
Christenth. der drei ersten Jahrh. p. 107.

« Schleusner, Thesaur. I. p. 825.

® Not, as Grotius would have it (whom
Rosenmiller follows): the diversity of
political institutions: ‘‘In illa republica a
Deo instituta non modo honores non pote-
ratis capere, sed nec pro civibus haber ;
adeo distabant instituta,” ‘‘ In the state estab-

lished by God you were not only not able to
receive honors, but not even to be held as
citizens ; to such an extent did the institu-
tions differ.”’

* Thuc. ii. 86; Plato, Polit. vii. p. 50 B;
Teg. \v. p. 712 E; Arist. Polit. ili. 4.1; Isoo.
Evag. viii. 10; Xen. Ages. 1. 37; 2 Mace. lv.
11, vill. 17.

T Herod. ix. 84; Dem. 161, 11; Thue. vi.
104. 8; Diod. Sic. xii. 51; 8 Macc. ffi. 21;
Acts xxii. 28; Joseph. Antz, xii. 3. 1.

«a a TAH Sere gu 8 Neem

CHAP. II., 12. 379

the O. T., the theocratic name of his posterity, the Jewish people, Rom. ix.
6; 1 Cor. x. 18; Gal. vi. 16, af. The genitive, however, is not to be ex-
plained like dorv ’A@Q;vav ;* for 6 Icpafa is the people, which has the polity.
— nai Efvo: rov dadyxav rijg éexayy.| and foreign to the covenants of the promise
(not belonging thereto); these words are to be taken together ;* for only thus
do the two elements belonging to each other and connected by «ai, which
serve for the elucidation of ywpic Xpiorov, stand in harmonious symmetry ;
only in this way, likewise, is similar justice done to the two last particulars
connected by xai,—éArida pi) Eyovtes xai Gdeor év rg xéouqy—wWhich in their
very generality and brevity carry the description of the Gentile misery to
the uttermost point ; only in this way, lastly, does févo: ray diafyxav acquire
the characteristic coloring which it needs, in order not to appear tame after
arnAdorp. t. oA. Tt. "Iop., for precisely in the charactcristic ric éxayy. lies the
sad significance of the being apart from the odireia tov Iopaja. The cove-
nanis of the promise, i.e., the covenants with which its promise xar’ ifoym,
‘‘pre-eminently,” namely, that of the Messianic saloation (Rom. ix. 4; Gal.
ili.), was connected, are the covenants made with Abraham (Gen. xii. 2 f.,
7, xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 20, xxii. 16 ff.) and repeated with the other patri-
archs (Gen. xxvi. 2 ff., xxviii. 18 ff.), as also the covenant formed with the
people through Moses. The latter is here (it is otherwise at Rom. ix. 4,
where there specially follows 4 vovodecia) neither excluded,’ seeing that this
covenant also had the promise of Messianic life (6 roiwjoa¢g attra Choerac év
avrotc, Gal. ili. 12), nor exclusively meant.‘ Either is arbitrary, and against
the latter there may be urged specially the plural, as well as the eminent
importance which Paul must have attributed to the patriarchal covenants in
particular.* — éArida pu? Ex. x. d0eot év TH x.] Consequence of the preceding
aryddorp. . . . érayy., and in what a tragic climax | The very generality of
the expressions, inasmuch as it is not merely a definite hope (Paul did not
write rv éArida) and a definite relation to God that are denied, renders
these last traits of the picture so dark ! — éArida] Bengel : ‘‘ Si promissi-
onem habuissent, spem habuissent illi respondentem,” ‘‘if they would have
had the promise, they would have had the hope corresponding thereto.”
But in this way Paul must have written rv éArida. No, those shut out
from the promise, are for the apostle men without hope at all; they have
nothing to hope for, just because they have not to hope for the promised sal-
vation. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 18. Every explanation of a definite hope ° con-
flicts with the absence of the article, and weakens the force of the picture.
— py Exovrec] uf is not to be explained from the dependence of the thought
on what immediately precedes,’ by which the independence of the element

? Harless.

* In opposition to Ambrosiaster, Cornelius
& Lapide, Morus, Rosenmiller, and others,
who attach ris exayy. to what follows.

§ Rickert, Harless, Olshausen, and others.

Elsner and Wolf, as was already sug-
gested by Beza.

*On fev0s with a genitive (Kithner, II. p.
168), Comp. Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 1; Soph. Qed.

R. 219; Plato, Apol. p. 17 D, al.

6 Of the resurrection and life everlasting,
Bullinger, Grotius, and many ; of the prom-
ised blessings, Estius; of deliverance, Har-
less; comp. Erasmus and others.

7 “Foreign to the covenants of the prom-
ise, without having hope,” as Harless would
take it,

380 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

Ar. up} Fx. would be sacrificed to the injury of the symmetry and force of

the passage ; but the subjectivity of the negation results from pvnpovetere,

Sts. . . re, in accordance with which py éyovrec is a fact now conceived in

the recollection of the readers.’ The yf refers the éAr. yu? Ex. to the concep-

tion of the subject of the governing verbum sentiendi (urnpovetere). — a8en]

the lowest stage of Gentile misery. We may explain the word,* which oc-

curs only here in the N. T., and not at all in the LXX. or Apocrypha, either:

not believing in God, atheists,* or godless, impii, reprobate,‘ or : without God,

sine Deo (Vulgate), ¢.¢., without divine help, without the protection and as-
sistance of God.® The last-mentioned sense, as yielding the saddest closing
predicate,* is here to be preferred. The Gentiles had gods, which, how-
ever, were no gods (Acts xix. 26, xiv. 15; Gal. iv. 8); but, on the contrary,

what they worshipped and honored as divinities, since the forsaking of the
natural knowledge of God (Rom. i. 19 ff.), were demons (1 Cor. x. 20); 80
that for them with all their desoidacuovia (Acts xvii. 22) God was really want-
ing, and they apart from connection with God's grace and help lived on in
a God-forsaken state. Paul might have written Yeoorvyeic, as at Rom. 1 30,
but he continues in the stream of negatire designations, which gives to his
picture an elegiac coloring. — év r@ xécuy] is referred by Calovius and Koppe
to the preceding elements as a whole. But in this way it would have
something of a dragging effect, whereas it attachesitself with force and sug-
gestiveness to the bare d%eo, whose tragical effect it serves to deepen.
Only it must not be explained, even when so connected, with Koppe: ‘‘tnter
ceteros homines, in his terris,” ‘‘among other men in these lands,” in which
sense it would be devoid of significance. Nay rather, profane hnmanity
(observe the contrast to the rodreia rod "Iopaz2), the Gentile world, was the
unhallowed domain, in which the readers in former time existed without
God. It adds to the ungodly How the ungodly Where. Olshausen ex-
plains ; ‘‘in this eril world, in which one has such urgent need of a sure
hope, a fast hold to the living God ;” but this is imported, since no predi-
cate stands beside xéouqm. According to Riickert, it is to form a contrast to
é3eo, and that in the sense: ‘‘in the world, of which the earth is a part,
and which stands under God’s government.”* But Paul must have eaid
this, if he had meant it (by éy 7@ xéouy tov cod, or something similar).
Oecumenius and Meier : év rg xara rdv wapévra Biov wodreig, ‘‘in the com-
monwealth according to the present life,” etc. This would be expressed by
Kata Tov kéozov. — The question, we may add, whether the é27ida . . . xécpy
applies to all Gentiles, not even a Socrates or a Plato excepted, is, in the

1 Comp. Kithner, IT. § 715, 3.

2 8See, generally, Diog. Laert. vil. 119;
Sturz in the Comm. soc. phil. Lips. Il. p. 65
ff. ; Meier in the Ziad. EncyXl. I. 24, p. 466@.

® Plato, Apol. p.2%C; Lucian, Alex. 3;
Aelian, V. 2. ii. 81; comp. Ignat. ad Trail.
10: a@eos Svres, rouréoriv amiorot,

‘ Plato, Legg. xif. p. 966 E; Xen. Anabd. iL
5. 89; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 288.

® Soph. Oed. R. 688 : dBeos, dgcAos,comp. 254.

® Comp. aéeci, Hom. Od. xviil. 852 ; Mosch,

,

fi. 148. [See also Cremer's WOrterbuch,
Eng. Trans. p. 281.)

7™So in substance also Grotius: “ per
omnes terrarum oras vernm Deum, mundi
sc. opificem, aut ignorabatis, aut certe non
colebatis, sed pro eo Deos ab hominibus
fictos,” “In all regions of the earth, ye
either were ignorant of the true God, viz.,
the Creator of the world, or certainly did
not worship Him, but instead of Him wor-
shipped the gods made by man.”

ee

CHAP. II., 13. 381

view of the apostle, to be answered affirmatively, at all events in general
(Rom. iii. 10 ff., xi. 16 ff.; 1 Cor. i, 19 ff.), but has only an indirect appli-
cation here, since the apostle is speaking of his readers, whom he describes
as to their category. That, if the subject of his discourse had called for it,
he would have known how to set limitations to his general judgment, may be
assumed of itself, and in accordance with Rom. ii. 14f. Comp. Acts xvii. 28.

Ver. 18. But now in Christ Jesus ye, once afar off, are made nigh by the

- blood of Christ. — mi dé] contrast to r@ xaip éxeivy, ver. 12: but as your

relation now stands. Comp. Rom. vi. 22, vii. 6; Col. i. 21, iii. 8, — &
Xpror@ "Incov| not to be supplemented by éoré,! nor yet a more precise defi-
nition of vvvi,? in which case several, proceeding more accurately, supply
évrec.* But such a more precise definition would be very unnecessary, and
would have significant weight only if a special emphasis rested upon é as
in contradistinction to ywpic, ver. 12, which, however, cannot be the case,
since there is not again used mercly év Xpiorg, but év Xpiorm *Inacov. The
év Xpior@ "Incov civac of the readers, moreover, was not prior to the éiyyic
éyevfOnre, but its immediate consequence ; hence we should have at least
to explain it, not: postguam in Christo estis recepti, ‘‘ After ye were
received in Christ,” but: cum in Christo sitis recepti, ‘‘ When ye were
received,” wherewithal there would still remain the very unnecessary char-
acter of this more precise definition, or of this conditional accessory clause
(de Wette). Accordingly év Xp. 'I. is to be connected with éyyi¢ éyev#?. :
ye are in Christ Jesus, in whom this has its efficient cause, made near; and
iv r¢ aiuare rob Xp. is then the more precise definition of the mode of év Xp.
I. Comp. dé rot aivaroc atrot, i. 7. Hence we have not to place a comma,
as Lachmann and Tischendorf have done, either before or after év Xp. ‘I. —
‘Incov] could not be added at ver. 12, but might be added here, where the
Christ who historically appeared in the person of Jesus is intended. —
paxpdv] figurative description of the same relation as was expressed in ver.
12 by anmyAdAorpiwpévoe tHE ToAtT. Tov ’Iop., and Efvoe tiv diadyx. THe
trayy. — tyyic éyevtO. év 1G aiu. t. Xp.] For, by the fact that Christ shed Hia
blood, the separation of the Gentiles from the Jews was done away, and
consequently the fellowship of the former with the community of God’s
people (which the true Christian Israel henceforth was) was effected. Sce
ver. 14 ff. The bringing to participation in the blessings of the theocracy is,
after the precedent of Isa. xlix. 1, lvii. 19, expressed often also among the
Rabbins by the figurative propinguum facere, ‘‘to make near” (which with
them is, with special frequency, equivalent to proselytum facere, ‘‘to make a
proselyte”), and in that case the subject to whom the approach is made
is always to be derived from the context.4 — tyyic yiveoda:, to come near ; only
here in the N. T., frequent in the classic writers.°

1 Baumgarten-Crustus. Mechiita, f. 88. 12, where, as here, the theoc-
* Rickert : ‘ under the new constitution, racy is to be thoughtof. See,in general,
founded by Christ.” the passage In Wetstein and Schéttgen,
7 Calvin: “* postquam in Christo estisre- Zorae, p. 761 ff.
cepti,” ‘after ye were recelved in Christ,” 6 Xen. Anadb. v. 4. 16, iv. 7.28; Thue. Stl.
Koppe, Harless, Bleek. 40. 6.

4As ¢.g. Vayikra R. 14, where God, and

382 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Ver. 14.! Confirmatory elucidation to ver. 18, especially as to the element
implied in the év Xpor® "Igcov, and more precisely in the éy 7¢ aizar. row
Xpiorov. — avréc] ipse ; as regards his own person,’ is not put in opposition to
the thought of ourselves having made the peace,* which is in fact quite for-
eign to the passage ; but—and what a triumph of the certainty and com-
pleteness of the blessing obtained is therein implied !—‘‘ non modo pacifica-
tor, nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipse vinculum est utrorumque,” ‘‘ not
merely the peacemaker, for at the cost of himself he procured peace, and he
himself is the bond of both,” Bengel. See what follows. Observe also
the presence of the article in 7 eipfyn, Acnoting the peace xar éoxfy, ‘‘ pre-
eminently ;”‘ He is for us the peace absolutely, the absolute contrast to the
éydpa, ver. 15. The Rabbinical passages, however, in which the Messiah
(Comp. Isa. ix. 6) is called pow, ‘“peace,” ° do not bear on this passage,
since in them the point spoken of is not, as here,* the peace between Jews and
Gentiles. — 6 rothoag x.t.A.] quippe qui fecit, ‘‘ since he has made,” etc., now
begins the more precise information, how Christ has become Himself our
peace. —ra augérepa] the two [Germ. das Beides], i.e., the two existing parts,
the Jews and Gentiles. The neuter expression corresponds to the following
év. Nothing is to be supplied.” — ] not so, that one part assumed the
nature of the other, but so that the separation of the two was done away
with, and both were raised toa new unity. That was the union of the
divine olxovouia. See the sequel. Comp. Col. iii. 11; Gal. ili, 28 ; Rom.
x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13; John x. 16. —x«at rd peodroryov rov gp. Abaca] is
related to the foregoing as explicative of it.* ov ¢payyov is genitive of appo-
sition: the partition wall, which consisted in the (well-known) fence. What
is meant by this, we are then told by means of the epexegetic rg éy3payv ;
hence Paul has not by the figurative rd yeodr. rod gpaypov Aboac merely wished
to express the (negative) conception that Christ has done away with the iso-
lation of the O. T. commonwealth.° De Wette censures the ‘‘extreme
tameness” of the explanation, according to which rd peodr. x.7.A. 18 taken not
as a designation of the daw, but asa preliminary designation of the Zy¥pa.
But the twofold designation of the matter, describing it first figuratively
and then properly, is in keeping with the importance of the idea, the direct
expression of which produces after the previous figure an effect the more
striking. —To take the genitive in an adjectival sense, as equivalent to 1d
peodbtotxov diagpdcoov,’ is wrong, because the characteristic adjective notion
is implied in 1d peodro:zov," which has been felt also by Castalio and Beza,

1“ Ver. 14-18 ipse verborum tenere et
quasi rhythmo canticum imitatur,” ‘‘ He
imitates poetry by the very tenor and as it
were rhythm of the words,” Bengel.

3 [‘* He personally, as in Micah v. 4,”’ De-
litzsch, Zuth. Zeilschr. 1878, p. 8; also
Holtzmann, p. 244.—Schinidt.]

3 Hofmann.

« Buttmann, neuf. Gr. p. 109 [E. T. 125].

8 Wetstein in loc. ; Schittgen, Horae, II.
p. 18.

*In opposition to Hofmann, Schrifttew.

II. 1, p. 874, who, at variance with the con-
text, understands eipy¥vy primarily in rela-
tion to God ; similarly Calovius and others.

7 Grotius : yérn.

8 cai, see Winer, p. 888; Fritzsche, Quaest.
Luc. p. 9 f.

®° As Hofmann, Schrifltbew. II. 1, p. 33,
holds, refining on rd peodr. r. dp., and con:
necting rhv €xOpay with carapyjeas.

19 Vorstius, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Ro-
senmiiller, Meier, and others.

11 Paries intergerinus, found elsewhere

"tie. Ape

CHAP. II., 15. 383

inasmuch as they erroneously translated it as though rév gpaypdv rod peao-
toiyov were used. A reference, we may add, to a definite ¢payuds, which
underlies the figurative expression, is not to be assumed, since the words
furnish nothing of the sort, and any kind of fence serving as a partition-
wall illustrates the éy3pa. Some have thought of the stone screen which in
the temple-enclosure marked off the court of the Gentiles, and the inscrip-
tion of which forbade every Gentile from farther advance.’ But at most
this could only be assumed, without arbitrariness, if that screen had
statedly borne the name of ¢gpayzéc. Other references, still more foreign to
the matter, which have been introduced, such as to the Jewish districts in
large towns, which were marked off by a wall or otherwise,” may be seen in
Wolf. Among the Rabbins, too, the figure of a fence is in very frequent
use. See Buxtorf, 3.0. 1°0.—Atcac] in the sense of throwing down,?
belongs to the jigure, and is not chosen on account of the rjv éy0pav, which
does not come in till afterwards, although it would be chosen suitably there-
to.*—It has been wrongly designated as an un-Pauline idea, that, Christ
through His death should have united the Jews and. Gentiles by means of
the abolition of the law.* This union has in fact taken place as a raising of
both into a higher unity, vv. 16, 18, 21 f. ; hence that doctrinal principle
is sufficiently explained from the destination of Paul as the apostle to the
Gentiles and his personal experience, and from his own elsewhere attested
universalism, and need not have as a presupposition the post-apostolic
process of development on the part of the church gradually gathering itself
out of heterogeneous elements into a unity, so as to betray a later ‘‘ cathol-
icizing tendency.” ®

Ver. 15. Tyv éx8pav] This, still included in dependence upon Atcac, is
now the peoédroazxov broken down by Christ : (namely) the enmity. It is,
after the example of Theodoret,’ understood by the majority * of the Mosaic
law as the cause of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, in which case the
moral law is by some included, by others excluded. But, in accordance
with ver. 14, the reader is led to nothing else than the opposite of eipfyn,
i.¢., to the abstract enmity ; and in the sequel, indeed, the abolition of the
law is very definitely distinguished from the destruction of the enmity (as
means fromend). Hence the only mode of taking it, in harmony with the
word itself and with the context, is: the enmity which existed between Jews and
the Gentiles, comp. ver. 16. So Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Cornelius & La-
pide, Bengel, and others, including Riickert and Bleek ; while Hofmann
turns the notion of ¢y79pa into the mere dzaAAorpiwore of ver. 12, and, refer-

only in Eratosthenes quoted by Athen. vil. 3 Wetstein, ad Joh. ii. 19.
p. 281 D, in Hesychius under car#AcW, and in 4 See Wetstein tn loc.
the Fathers. In Athen. Z.c. it is masculine : 5 See Schwegler, /.c. p. 880 f.

Tov THs Noovns Kai apeThs megororxoy. * Baur.
1 Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 2, vi. 2.4; Anté. vill, 7 Comp. revds in Chrysostom.
3. 2f., xv. 11.5, al. Middoth, il. 8. So An- ® Including Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Clart-

selm, Ludov. Cappellus, Hammond, Bengel, _ us. Grotius, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmiiller,
Wetstein, Krebs, Bretschneider, Holzhau- Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-
sen, and others. Crusius, de Wette.

* Sohdttgen and others.

384 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

ring it to the estrangement on the part of the Gentiles towards the theocra-
cy hated by them, removes the distinctive mark of reciprocity demanded
by the context. Quite erroneously, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumen-
ius, and lately Harless, hold that the enmity of the Jews and Gentiles
towards God is meant. In accordance with the context, ver. 14, the peod-
toryov can, in fact, only be one separating the Jews and Gentiles from
each other, and not something which separates both from God; and how
mistaken is such a view also on account of what follows ! for the Mosaic
law might be conceived of as producing enmity towards God so far doubt-
less as the Jews are concerned (1 Cor. xv. 56 ; Rom. v. 20, vii. 13 ; Gal. iii.
19), but never as respects the Gentiles, who stood aloof from all relation to
the Mosaic law (Rom. ii. 12). [Sce Note XXIV., p. 401.] — év rq oapxi airoi]
does not belong to r#v éy3pav (as Lachmann [and Westcott and Hort] also
punctuates it) so that ‘‘the national hatred in His people” would be meant;’
nor yet to Afcac,* because in that case this mention of the death of Jesus
would be irrelevantly dissevered from the modal definition rép véuor xarapyy-
oac, to which, in the nature of the case, it belongs as an essential element ;
but it stands with an emphasis suitable to the context (comp. airé¢ yap, ver.
14) at the head of the specification that now follows, in what way Christ has
effected what was said in ver. 14 by avric¢ yép tory . . . ex3pav : so that He
by His flesh has done away with the law, namely, when He allowed His flesh
to be crucified (Col. i. 21 f.), dissolved thereby the tie with the law that
brought men under curse (see on Gal. iii. 13), and thus opened up the justi-
fication through faith (Rom. iii. 21 ff.), whereby the institution of the law was
em)tied of its binding power (comp. Rom. x. 4 ff. vii. 1 ff.; Col. ii.14). The
moral commands also of the law had thereby, while not ceasing to be valid,
" ceased to be held as constituent elements of the law-institute as such justifying
in the way of compliance with it ; and its fulfilment, and that in augmented
power, now proceeds from the new vital principle of faith (Rom. viii. 4),
on which account Christ, although He is the end of the law (Rom. x. 4;
comp. 2 Cor. iii. 11), could nevertheless say that He had come to fulfil the
law (Matt. v. 17), and Paul could assert : véuov lorduev, Rom. 111. 31. Hof-
mann imports into the év rg capx? abroi the thought : in and with the doing
away of His life in the flesh, in respect of which He wus an Israelite, Christ
has rendered the appertaining to His community independent of the relig-
ious-legal status of an Israelite. Asthough the atoning death of Christ, in the
usual dogmatic sense of the apostle, had not been most distinctly indicated al-
ready before by the & r¢ aivar: rot Xpiotov, ver. 18, as afterwards by the arox-
ataAAdéy x.t.A., ver. 16, and by the rpocaywyf, ver. 18! This meaning is not
here, any more than at Col. i. 21 f., to be exegetically modified or explained
away. — Trav évroAdy tv déynac] to be taken together, yet not in such a way that
év stands for ofy ® or xai,* but as : thelaw of the commandments consisting in
injunctions, whereby the dictatorial character of the legal institute (as a
whole, not merely partially, as Schenkel imports) is exhibited. The geni-

1 Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, Schulthess, Rfickert, and others.
Engelicelt, p. 198. 3 Flatt.
* Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, ¢ Koppe, Rosenmiller.

CHAP. II., 15. 385
tive rav évroAsy denotes the contents of the law, and év déypact the essential
jorm in which the évrodai are given. The connecting link of the article
(rev) before év déyzacc was not requisite, since we may correctly say : évréA-
Readai ti év déypare OF évrodnw didévac év déypari, and therefore évroAny év déypuare
may be conjoined so as to form one conception.’ Comp. on iii. 18; Rom. vi. 4;
Gal. iv. 14, iii. 26. This view of the connection is adopted, after the precedent
of many older expositors, by Riickert, Matthies, Meier, Winer, pp. 123, 197,
Bisping, Schenkel, Bleek [Ewald, Opitz, Weiss, Bidl. Theol.].* If one
should ° refer év déyu. to karapyfoac, there would result—even apart from the
fact that with our mode of connecting év r9 capa? airot, this construction is
not even possible—the wholly untrue and un-Pauline thought that Christ
has through injunctions abolished the law. No doubt some have imputed to
év déyuac: the sense praecepta stabiliendo, ‘‘ by establishing the precept," ‘ in
doing which they had in view the evangelical doctrine of faith and the gra-
tia unicersalis.° But even thus the sense remains untrue and un-Pauline,
seeing that the doing away of the law has taken place not at all in a doctri-
nal way, but by the fact of the death of Christ (Rom. vii. 1 f.; Gal. iii. 18 ;
Col. ii. 14). And what a change would be made in the meaning of the
word déyza, which in the N. T. signifies throughout nothing else than in-
junetion (Col. ii. 4 ; Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7, xvi. 4; comp. Plat. Legg. i.
p- 644 D ; Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 5, vi. 6. 8 ; Dem. 774. 19 ; Herodian, i. 7.6;
4 Macc. iv. 23 f.) ! The distinction ought not to have been overlooked be-
tween évroA# and déyua, which latter puts the meaning of the former into the
more definite form of the enjoining decree. A peculiar view is taken by
Harless* likewise connecting év déyuz. with xarapyfoac, and holding that é»
denotes the ‘‘side on which that efficacy of the death of Christ exerts it-
self ;” Christ did not render the law ineffectual in any such capacity as
oxdy Tov peAAdvTwr, OF a8 taidaywydv eig Xpiorév, ‘‘a shadow of things to
come,” or ‘‘as a schoolmaster unto Christ,” but on the side of the déypara."
Incorrectly, because déyuzao. must of necessity have had the article, and be-
cause it is nowhere taught that the law is done away only in a single respect.

! There is consequently no need whatever
for the evasive view of Theile (in Winer’s

classical writers accumulated articles!
Plato, Philed. p. 88 A; Dem. OV. ill. 11, and

Exeget. Stud. 1. p. 188 ff.), which is arbitrary
and makes the meaning of the expression
simply ambiguous, that Paul has not added
the article, because év 8déypz. Is to be con-
ceived of in the like relation to rav yépoyv as
to rey dvroAwy.

2 Several of‘the older expositors, never-
thelees, explained : legem mandatorum in
decretia silam, ‘‘ the law of commandments
fixed in decrees” (Erasmus, comp. Castalio,
Beza, Calvin, and others), so that they con-
nected év déyu. with rdy yéuor. But in that
case rov must of necessity have stood before
ev Sé6yn. And to excuse the absence of the
article ‘* od congeriem articulorum," “‘ on ac-
count of the accumulation of articles”
(Erasmus), is arbitrary. How often have

25

many others. They avoid only the coming
together of the same article, ¢.g. rd 76 (Stall-
baum, ad Plat. Rep. pp. 882 C, 598 B).
Comp. also Buttmann, neut. Cr. p. 80 [E. T.
92].

* With the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, Pe-
lagius, Chrysostom, and his successors,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Estius,
Bengel, Holzhausen, and others, includ'ng
Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. if. p. 168 f.

4 Fritzsche.

& See Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsues-
tla, Theodoret, Theophylact, Estius, Ben-
gel, and others.

* Tollowed by Olshausen. .

7“*In reference to the commanding form
of its precepts,”’ Olshausen.

386 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

The Mosaic legal institute as such, and not merely from a certain side, has in
Christ its end (Rom. x. 4); the oxd trav pedAdvrov, ‘‘ shadow of things to
come,” in the law has only a transient typical destination (see on Col. ii. 17),
and the work of the za:daywyé¢, ‘‘ schoolmaster,” is at an end with the at-
tainment of maturity on the part of his pupils (Gal. iii. 24 f.). Incorrect
also is the view of Hofmann, p. 877, who, likewise taking év déyyao: as mo-
dal definition to xarapyfoac, and for the expression with év comparing 1 Cor.
ii. 7, finds the meaning : by the very fact that Christ has put an end to pre-
cepts generally, He has invalidated the O. T. law of commandments. The
statement that Christ has put an end to déyzara generally, i.e., to commanding
precepts in general, is at variance with the whole N. T., which contains nun-
berless definite commands, and, in particular, with the teaching of Paul,
who even places Christianity as a whole under the point of view, Rom. iii.
27, ix. 31, Gal. vi. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 21, of a véuoe (which, without déyzara, is
not at all conceivable '), and specially with Col. ii. 14. Paul would at least
have made a limiting addition to év déyuacn, and have written something
like év déyuact dovAeiag (comp. Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 24, v. 1). —ie roig
dio . . . elpyvnv] a statement of the object aimed at in the just expressed ab-
rogation of the law, which statement of aim corresponds to what has been
said concerning Christ in ver. 14, more precisely defining and confirming
the same. Harless arbitrarily passes over what immediately precedes, and
holds that iva. . . eipfv7v expresses the design of 4 rofoac Ta auddrepa év, in
which case too, we may add, there would result a tautological relation of
the thought. — roi¢ dio] The Jews and Gentiles, who before were designated
in accordance with the general category under a neuter form, are here con-
ceived of concretely as the two men under discussion, of whom the one is the
totality of the Jews, and the other that of the Gentiles, out of which two
men Christ has made a single new man. This is the collective subject of
the xa:v xriotc, Gal. vi. 15 (the whole body of Christians). — év éavrg] is
neither, with Grotius, to be taken as: per doctrinam suam, ‘‘ by his doc-
trine,” nor, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, as equivalent to é
favrov, ‘‘ by himself,” * but it affirms that the unity to be brought about out
of the two by the new creation was‘to be founded in Christ Himself, that is,
was to have the basis of its existence and continuance in Him, and notin
any other unifying principle whatever. In the case, namely, of all individ-
uals, from among the Jews and Gentiles, who form the one new man, the
death of Christ is that, wherein this new unity has its causal basis ; without
the death of the cross it would not exist, but, on the contrary, the two
would still be just in the old duality and separation as the Jew and the
Greek. Calvin well remarks that in se ipso, ‘‘in himself,” is added ‘ne al-
ibi quam in Christo unitatem quaerant,” ‘‘ that they should not seek unity
elsewhere than in Christ.” Comp. Gal. iii. 28. [See Note XXV., p. 401.]
This union, negatively conditioned by the abolition of the law, and having
its basis in the self-sacrifice of Christ, is positively accomplished as regards
1 The Séyuara of Christianity are the true 2 Oecumentus : ov &’ ayyéAwy % GAAwY ripty

dei wapdévra Scypara, ‘always present de- édvrduewv, ‘neither through angels nor any
crees,"’ Plato, Theaet. p. 138 D. other powers.”

ee eel

CHAP. II., 16. 387

the subjects through the Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 18. Comp. subsequently ver. 18.
But objectively accomplished—namely, as a fact before God and apart from
the subjective appropriation by means of the Spirit—it is already by virtue
of the death, which Christ has undergone for the reconciliation of both par-
ties, Jews and Gentiles, with God; see ver. 16. — xa:vév] For this one is now
neither Jew nor Greek, which the two, out of which the one has been made,
previously were; but both portions have laid aside their former religious and
moral attitude, and without further distinction have obtained the quite new
nature conditioned by Christian faith. Is xavév had not been added, eic
dv3purog might be incorrectly conceived of as an amalgam of Jew and
Gentile. To exclude, we may add, from xavév the moral element’ is not
merely arbitrary, but, according to the apostolic way of looking at mat-
ters, even impossible, 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. iv. 27, vi. 14 f., v. 6. — romp
tipivav] Present participle, because the establishment of peace as what was
duly to sct in with the designed new creation, was implied in the very scope
thereof ; it was that which wasto be brought about in and with it. Observe
that zoréy sipgvgv is spoken from the standpoint of the design expressed in
iva rovg dbo «.T.A., and is included as belonging to what is designed ; conse-
quently : so that He (by this new creation) makes peace (not made peace).
eipivy is, in accordance with the context, the opposite of Zy0pa, ver. 15,
consequently peace of the two portions with each other, not : with God,*
nor : mpod¢ rov Gedy xat mpdc GAALAove, ‘‘ with God and with one another.” *

Ver. 16. Continuation of the sentence expressive of the design. Christ
has by His death done away with the law, in order to make the Jew and
the Gentile into one new man (ver. 15), and (and consequently) a0 to accom-
plish the reconciliation of both with God, that they should as one body be recon-
ciled with God through the cross, after He has slain thereon the enmity which
hitherto existed between them. —xai] is the and of the sequence of thought ;
from what was before said resulted the way and manner of the reconciliation
of the two with God ; hence also dzoxaradA. is prefized. — aroxaradAdoou,
only here and Col. i. 20 ; in the other Greek writings only xaraA2dcou is pre-
served, which is not distinguished from d:aAAdcow.* The composition with
avé may, after the analogy of other compounds with azé (comp. droxai-
ornut, avoxarop3du, al.), denote again ;* but it may also (comp. arovauydlu,
aroveparetw, al.), strengthen the notion of the reconciliation. The latter is
better adapted to the context (év évi céuar: ; and see ver. 18). In oppo-
sition to Hofmann’s conversion of the notion into that of the restoration
of fellowship with God, see on Col. i. 20. We may add that aoxaraaa does
not apply to the mutual reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles,* but, as the ex-
press ro Oe says (Rom. v. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20), to the reconciliation of
both with God, whose wrath, namely, against sinners Christ has by His

1 Meier, comp. Riickert. “He brought again into one flock,” also

3 Harless. Harless [and Cremer, Worterbuch].

* Chrysostom, Oecumenius. , * Grotius, according to whom r@ @eg is

* In opposition to Tittmann, Synon. p. 101; then equivalent to ui Deo serviant / “that
see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff. they may serve God.”’

® Calvin: “ reduxerié in unum gregem,”

388 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

aorfpiov changed into grace. Comp. on Col. i. 21; 2 Cor. v. 18; Rom.
v. 10. — rove audorépove] not again rote dto, because they are now conceived
as united, comp. vv. 14, 18. — év év? cdyari] is held by Chrysostom, Theo-
doret, Theophylact, Beza, Calovius, Calixtus, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae,
Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Harless, Hofmann, Lechler, and others,
to be the body of Christ ; by the offering up of one body both are recon-
ciled with God. But how superfluous in that case would the dia rod cravpov be!'
Moreover, Christ is in fact the subject, and how could it be said of Christ
that by a single body He has reconciled both with God, or—as Hofmann
gives to the meaning a turn quite departing from the N. T. and especially
the Pauline doctrine of atonement—that Hc has made a single body (His
body, namely) to be their unity embracing them in the like fellowship of
God,* since in fact the case of a plurality of bodies on the part of Christ was
not even as an abstraction conceivable ? This inappropriateness, hardly
excusable by the reference to roi¢ dudorépove and not removed by the pure
invention of a contrast to the many bodies offered up under the O. T.,’
would only cease to be felt, if God were the subject, so that Paul might say
that God had by the surrender of one body reconciled the two (2 Cor. v. 18 ;
Col. i. 21) with Himself. Hence Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, Photius, Anselm,
Erasmus, Bucer, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Grotius,
Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Winer, Bleek, have rightly found in é» oda the
unum corpus, ‘‘one body,” which is formed of the Jews and Gentiles united
into a cig xarvdc dvOpuroc, Comp. on éy oaua, Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. x. 17;
Eph. iv. 4; Col. iii. 15. Christ has reconciled the two in one body, i.e.,
constituting one body without further separation—the two portions of
humanity as one whole—unto God. How entirely is this mode of taking it
in keeping with the whole context ! See especially vv. 14, 15. — azoxreivag
thy ExIpav év aire] after he shall have slain, etc. ; for it is inserted in the
second half of the affirmation of design which begins with the iva of ver. 15,
so that it is correlative to the roéw eipyvy of the first half. On azoxr.
Grotius correctly observes : ‘‘idem hic valet, quod modo Atcac, sed crucis
facta mentione, aptior fuit translatio verbi dzoxrefvac, quia crux mortem
adfert,” ‘‘ Here the same applies as above to Atoac, but when mention of
the cross is made, the use of the word azoxreivac is more fitting, because
the cross brings death.” And the éyJpa (here personified) is not to be ex-

1 Hofmann, after Tertuail. c. Mare. v. 17,
attaches it to the following amwoxr., by
which, however, the emphasis that mani-
festly Nes on awoaz. is pushed forward to
osa Tov oravpov.

2 **In His person subsists the newness of
human nature for them, and in His body,
wherein [as a bodily living man] Hehas gone
unto God, they have the place where man-
kind is restored to communion with God,”
Hofmann, p. 880. With this explaining
away of the atonement it was no doubt
consistent to connect &d@ rot cravpov with

amoxr,, and to refer back év avrg to the &
copa, The simply correct rendering is giv-
en, ¢.g., in the version of Castalio: “‘ué in
sese ex Guobus conderet unum novum hominem
JSaciendo pacem, et ambos uno tn corpore rec-
onciliaret Deo per crucem peremtia in ea inim-
icitéis,” ** that in Himself He might produce
one new man by making péace, and that
He might reconcile both in one body to God
by means of the cross, the enmity being re-
moved in it.”
3 Calovius.

CHAP. II., 17. 389

plained otherwise than in ver. 14 ; hence not the Zaw,’ nor the hostile rela-
tion of the Jews and Gentiles towards God,? but the enmity of the two
towards each other. The aim of the apostle was not to explain the nature of
the atonement in general as such, but to show how Christ has reconciled
with God the Jews and Gentiles combined into unity, and to thisend it was
pertinent to say that He had cancelled the enmity which had hitherto sub-
sisted between them. The aorist participle, we may add, affirms not some-
thing simultaneous with droxaradA. (ita ut interficeret, ‘‘so that he might
slay,” but something preceding (after that He has slain), so that the relation
of time is conceived of otherwise than in the case of the correlative rodv
eipfyyv, ver. 15. Paul, namely, has conceived the matter thus: Christ has
desired by His death on the cross to cancel the mutual enmity between
Jews and Gentiles (see on ver. 15), and then by means of this death to rec-
oncile both, who should now in this manner be united into one aggregate,
év évt cdyart with God. In reality these are indeed only different sides of
the effect of the death of Christ on the cross, not separate and successive
effects ; but in the representation unfolding the subject, in which Paul will
here, as in 4 picture, set the matter before us in its various elements, they
appear so, and this isin keeping with the whole solemn pathos which is
shed over the passage. — év aizq] 1.¢., on the cross. The reference to odpare®
falls with the correct explanation of év éi oduartz, The reading év éavrp
(F G, 115, codd. in Jer. Arab. pol. Vulg. It. Goth. Syr. p. Ambr. Aug.)
would yield the same sense as that reference to cdéuar:, but isa conformation
to ver. 15, in accerdance with which Luther also translated ‘‘ through Him-
self.”

Ver. 17. After Christ has established peace, He has come and has also
proclaimed it, to the Gentiles and the Jews. This proclamation, namely,
cannot be regarded as preceding the fact by which the peace was established,
so that éAvév would apply to the bodily advent of Christ upon earth,‘ and the
connection with ver. 14 would be: ‘‘ Christ is peace in deed (ver. 14) and
word (ver. 17) ; He not only zs peace, but He proclaimed it Himself at His
appearing on earth,” Harless. For, when it is said in ver. 14, aird¢g yép éorw
}) eipfvn juaev, the time thought of is, as vv. 14-16 show, the time after the
erucifizion of Christ, through which and since which He is our peace, so
that xai 20d» «.r.A,. does not merely attach itself to aird¢ ydp tora 4 eipiyn
quov and leave all that intervenes out of view ; but, on the contrary, this
intervening matter is so essentially bound up with airo¢ y. é. # eip. $u., that
NOW xai éAVov «.7.A. can introduce not a mpérepov, but only a torepov of the
crucifixion, annexing as it does the further course of the matter. Rightly,
therefore, most expositors have understood in éA3é»v an advent following the
crucifizion of Christ, in connection with which either the resurrection of
Christ has bten thought of,’ or His having come in His spirit,*or in the

? Michaelis, Koppe, Holzhausen. “Chrysostom, Anselm, Estius, Holzhau-
* Most expositors, including Rickert, sen, Matthies, Harless.
Meler, Harieas, Hofmann. 5 Bengel, Rickert.

*? Bengel, Semler, Hofmann, following ® Olshausen.
Tertullian.

-

390 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

preaching that took place through the apostles (so most), in which latter
view A%cv is wrongly by many, as Raphel, Grotius, Wolf, Zachariae, Koppe,
Rosenmiiller,’ regarded as without significance ; it is in truth an ‘‘insigne
verbum,” ‘‘a remarkable word,” Bengel. The correct explanation (comp.
ver. 18) is given by Olshausen.* In the Holy Spirit, namely, not only ac-
cording to John (John xiv. 18, al.), but also according to Paul, Christ Him-
self has come (in so far as it is Christ's Spirit) from heaven to those who
have received the Spirit, and dwells and rules in them (Rom. viii. 9, 10;
2 Cor. iii. 17, xiii. 5 ; Gal. ii. 20), and this proclamation has taken place at
the instance of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 16), and through the Spirit Himself
(Rom. xv» 18; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3). The point of time expressed by
etnyyedioaro is the conversion of the persons concerned, at which they received
the Spirit (Gal. iii. 2; Eph. i. 18). Accordingly, the apostle could, with-
out writing at variance with history, name first the readers as original
Gentiles (iuiv roi¢ paxpév), and then the Jews ; for when the Ephesians
became Christians, there had already long since been converted not merely
Jews, but Gentiles and Jews. Had he, on the other hand, meant the actual
, coming of Christ upon earth and His oral preaching, the historical necessity
would have presented itself of mentioning jirst those that were near and
then those that were afar off. — We may add that the concrete and vividly
depicting expression éA’ov evyyy. can the less occasion surprise, as the
whole passage bears a patheticimpress. Comp. also Acts xxvi. 23. — eipfryy
has been, from the time of Chrysostom, ordinarily explained of peace with
God, while only a few, as Estius and Koppe, suppose peace with each other
to be included ; but Olshausen rightly understands the latter alone, as does
also Bleek. Only this is in keeping with the whole connection (see, more-
over, the immediately preceding azoxr. rHv tz3pav, and comp. ver. 19), and,
moreover, has ver. 18 not against it, but in its favor (sce on ver. 18).—
tuiv toig uaxpév and toi¢g éyyéc] (both to be explained in accordance with ver.
12, and comp. Isa. lvii. 19) are dependent on eizyyeAicaro,—the view which
immediately and most naturally suggests itself. Harless would attach both
very closely to eip#v7v,—a course to which he was impelled by his explana-
tion of 29a» ev7yy., In order not to present the apostle as saying what is in-
consistent with history (Matt. xv. 24, comp. x. 5 f. ; John x. 16; Matt.
xxi. 43, a/.). But the inconsistency with history would still remain.*—The
repetition of eipfynv (see the critical remarks) has rhetorical emphasis, John
xiv. 27 ; Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 898]. This éruovf of the expres-
sion, however,‘ excludes the view of Wieseler, p. 444, that roi¢ tyybe also is
in apposition to tuiv, and means specially the Jewish-Christians in Ephesus.

1 Comp. Meler.

2Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and de
Wette, also Hofmann, Schrifidew. IT. 1,
p. 475, and Bleek.

3 If Paul had understood éA8. einryy. in the
sense of Harless, he must at all events have
written eip. rots éyyis x. eip. duty rots paxpav.
Harless himself has paraphrased (comp.
Erasm. Paraphr.): ‘‘The contents of his

message was & peace which availed for all,
Jews as well as Gentiles.” Evidently under
an involuntary sense of the historical rela-
tion, but in opposition to the words, ac-
cording to which Harless ought to have par-
aphrased ; “availed for all, Gentiles as weil
as Jews.”
4 Nagelsbach on Hom. JZ. 1. 486.

CHAP. II., 18, 19. 391

Ver. 18. Proof from an appeal to fact for what has just been said : etyyy.
ciphuay ipiv tT. paxp. x. elp. toig éyybc. In this case the main stress of the
proof lies in ol dud¢érepo: év dvi rveby. If, namely, through Christ, both in
One Spirit have the rpooaywyf to the Father, to both must the same news,
that of peace, have been imparted by Him. This is the necessary historic
premiss of that happy state of unity now actually subsistent through Christ.
He must have proclaimed eip#vq to the one as to the other ; of this Paul now
gives the probatio ab effectu, ‘‘ proof from the effect.” Others hold that rz
introduces the contents of the message of peace.’ But the contents are fully
expressed in the eipfv7 itself, agreeably to the context ; hence, too, we may
not say, with Riickert, that the essence of the cipfrvy is explained. Accord-
ing to Harless, the truth of that proclamation is shown from the reality of the
possession. But in this way a subsidiary thought (namely, that the procla-
mation was true) is introduced not merely arbitrarily, but also unsuitably (for
the truth of that which has been proclaimed was self-evident). — rj mpo-
caywyiv] Christ is not conceived of as door,? which is remote from the con-
text, but as bringer ; in which case there may be an allusion to the Oriental
custom of getting access to the king only through a mpocaywyebs (see on
Rom. v. 2), but not to sacrificial processions in accordance with Herod. ii. 58,*
which would be an unsuitable comparison. Before Christ had reconciled
men with God, communion with God was, on account of the wrath of God
(ver. 3; Rom. v. 10), denied to them ; Christ by His iMacrfpiv removed
this obstacle, and thus became the rpocaywyetc, through the mediation of
whom (dé: airov) we now and henceforth have the bringing near‘ unto God. In
substance the having the rpocaywyf to God is not different from the eipfv7
apoc Tov Oedu (Rom. v. 1), and from the filial relationship of the reconciled. It
is the consequence of the atoning death of Jesus; the peaceful relation of
believers towards God, brought about through this death. Comp. 1 Pet. iii.
18. Here, moreover, as at Rom. v, 2, the notion of bringing towards, which
the world has, is not to be interchanged with that of approach or access,‘
as though zpécodov were written in the text. Christ by the continuous
power and efficacy of His atoning act is the constant Bringer to the Father.
Comp. iii. 12. —év évt rvebpyar:] for the Holy Spirit is to both one and the
same element of life (comp. on Rom. viii. 15), apart from which they can-
not have the mpocaywyf to God. The referring of it to the human spirit °
ought to have been precluded by taking note of the Divine Zrias in our
passage (dc avrod, év di rvebyare, mpoc tov matrépa); comp. vv. 12, 22.
— Observe, further, the difference of meaning between the Zyouev (denoting
the continuously present possession of the signal benefit) and the éoyfxapev
of Rom. v. 2 (see on the latter passage).

Ver. 19. "Apa otv] draws the inference from vv. 14-18 ; and this infer-
ence is the same in its tenor with what was said at ver. 18, but is car-

1 Baumgarten, Koppe, Morus, Flatt. 6 As still by Rickert, Harless, Bleek.
2 John x. 7; Beza, Calvin. 6 onobupasoy, ** with one accord,”’ Anselm,
® Meter. Homberg, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosen-

*Thuc. {. 8; Polyb. ix. 41.1, xi. 4.10; miiller.
Xen. Cyr. vil. 5. 45.

392 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

ried out in more detail ; for this is just what was to be proved ver. 14
ff., — £évor] i.¢., such as are not included as belonging to the theocracy, but are
related towards it as strangers, who belong to another state ; the opposite is
oupmodira tov dyiwv. Comp. ver. 12. The same is indicated by répoco: :
inquilini,’ i.e., those who, coming from elsewhere, sojourn in aland or
city without having the right of citizenship (Acts vii. 6, 29; 1 Pet. ii.
11). It is the same as is expressed in classic Greek by péro:xo:,? in contra-
distinction to the wodiry¢ or aoréc.4 [See Note XXVI., p. 401.] The Gen-
tiles are in the commonwealth of God only inguilini, sojourners, not
citizens ; they have no sod:reia therein ; although they are ruled by God
(Rom. iii. 29) and included in the Messianic promise (Rom. iv. 12 f.), they
are so in the second place (Rom. i. 16), and without participating in the
time-hallowed peculiar prerogatives of the Israelites (Rom. iii. 1, ix. 4 ff).
The referring of répoixo: to the conception of a household (persons pertaining
to the house, members of the family) is not to be made good by linguistic
usage (not even by Lev. xxii. 10), and is not demanded by the antithesis of
oikeios Tov Geov,* inasmuch as oixeio tov Oeov sustains a climactic relation to
the preceding ovyrod. ray dyivv, and the two together form the contrast to
Eévo and xépoxot. The reference to the proselytes * is quite at variance with
the context (vv. 11-18). — aA’ éoré] emphatic repetition of the verb after
éAAd. Comp. Rom. viii. 15 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8; Heb. xii. 18 ff. — ovprodira:] be-
longs to the inferior Greek ; Lucian, Soloec. 5 ; Ael. V. H. iii. 44 ; Joseph.
Antt. xix. 2. 2.° —rév ‘dyiov] t.¢., of those who constitute the people of
God. These were formerly the Jews (ver. 12), into whose place, however,
the Christians have entered as the ’Icpa7A rot Geot (Gal. vi. 16), as the true
descendants of Abraham (Rom. iv. 10 ff.) and God’s people (Rom. ix. 5 ff.),
acquired as His property by the work of Christ (see on ix. 14). The
Ephesians have thus, by becoming Christians, attained to the fellow-citizen-
ship with the saints,—which saints the Christians were,—so that ra»
cyiuv does not embrace either the Jews ® or the patriarchs,® with whom even
the angels have been associated.’ — oixeio: rov Ocov] members of Gods house-
hold. The theocracy is thought of as a family, dwelling in a house, of
which God is the oixodeorérnc. 1 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. iii. 2, 5, 6, x. 21;
1 Pet. iv.17. Comp. WT 3, Num. xii. 7; Hos. viii. 1. Harless : belong-
ing tothe house of God, as the building-stones of the house, in which God
dwells, But thus the following figure is anticipated, and that ina way con-

' Among Greek writers wapoccos has not
this signification, but is equivalent to neigh-
bor; it has it, however, in the LXX. (Ex.
xii. 45; Lev. xxv. 628). Comp. wapotxia,
Acts xiii. 17, and in the LXX.; Clem. Cor.
fi. 5.

3 See, in general, Wetstein, ad Luc. xxiv.
18; Gesen. Thes. 8.0. awin.

§ Wolf, prol. Dem. Lent. p. lxvi. ff.; Her-
mann, Staatsalterth. § 115.

4 Plat. Pol. vill. p. 568 A, al.

§In opposition to Bengel, Koppe, Flatt,

Meier, Harless, Olshausen, Schenkel.

¢ Anselm, Whitby, Cornelius & Lapide,
Calixtus, Baumgarten.

7 See Lobeck, ad Paryn. p. 172.

§ Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, Morus.

* Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumentus,
and others; Theodoret: dyiovs évrav@a ov
POvOY TOUS THS xaptTos, GAA Kai Tovs ey FORYy
Kat Tovs mpd vdmou Aeye, “Here by saints he
refers not only to those of grace, but also to
those of the law and before the law.”’

10 Calvin, Flatt.

CHAP. II., 20. 393
trary to the meaning of oixeiog ; and an incongruous contrast is afforded to
the rdporxor.

Ver. 20. The conception olxoc Geot leads the apostle, in keeping with the
many-sided versatility of his association of ideas, to make the transition
from the figure of a household-fellowship, to the figure of a house-structure,
and accordingly to give to oixeio: rov Ocov a further illustration, which now is
no longer appropriate to the former figurative conception, but only to the
latter, which, however, was not yet expressed in oixeio: roi Ocot. Comp.
Col. ii. 6, 7. — érocnodoundévrec] namely, when ye became Christians. The
compound does not stand for the simple term,' but denotes the building up.
Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14; Col. ii. 7; Ken. Hist. vi. 5. 12 ; Dem. 1278.
27. ést, with the dative, however,* is not here occasioned by the aorist par-
ticiple,* which would not have hindered the use either of the genitive ‘ or of
the accusative (i Cor. ili. 12; Rom. xv. 20) ; but the accusative is not em-
ployed, because Paul has not in his mind the relation of direction, and it is
purely accidental that not the genitive of rest, but the dative of rest is em-
ployed. (See Note XXVIL., p. 402.] — raw aroor. x. tpod.] is taken by Chry-
sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Morus, and otlhiers, in-
cluding Meier, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, as genitive of
apposition ; but wrongly, since the apostles and prophets are not the foun-
dation, but have Zaid it (1 Cor. iii. 10). The foundation laid by the apostles
and prophets* is the gospel of Christ, which they have proclaimed, and by
which they have established the churches ; see on 1 Cor. iii. 10. ‘‘ Tes-
timonium apost. et proph. substructum est fidei credentium omnium,”
‘*The testimony of the apostles and prophets is the support of the faith
of all believers,” Bengel. — rpogyrév] has been understood by Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Estius,
Baumgarten, Michaelis, and others, including Riickert, of the Old Tes-
tament prophets. That not these, however, but the Mew Testament proph-
ets (see on 1 Cor. xii. 10), are intended,* is clear, not indeed from the
non-repetition of the article, since the apostles and prophets might be
conceived as one class,’ but (1) from the very order of the words,®
which, especially from the pen of an apostle, would most naturally
have been raw mpogyrav x. arooréAwy ; (2) from the analogy of iii. 5, iv. 11 ;
and (8) from the fact that the foundation-laying in question can, from
the nature of the case, only be the preaching of the Christ who has come,
because upon this foundation the establishment of the church took

1 Koppe. 7 Xen. Anad. Ii. 2.5: of erparnyoi cal Aoxa-
® Comp. Xen. Anad. ft. 4. 11. yoé; comp. Saupp. ad Xen. Venat. v. A;
§ Harless. Dissen, ad Dem, de cor. p. 878.

4 Hom. Ji. xxil. 225; Plato, Legg. v. p. 786 E.

5 As most expositors, including Koppe,
Flatt, Rfickert, Matthies, Harless, Bleek,
correctly take it.

* Pelagius, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel,
Yachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt,
Harless, Mefer, Matthies, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek.

8 This has been very arbitrarily explained
by the assertion that the apostles preached
the gospel immediately, that they possessed
the greater endowment of grace, that the
foundation had been no recens positum,
“not been one recently fixed,” and such
like. See specially Calovius and Estius.

394 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

place, and in that preaching the old prophetic predictions were used only
as means (Rom.xvi. 26). Comp. also ver. 21. [See Note XXVIII., p. 402.]
Harless supposes that the apostles are here called at the same time prophets.’
In this way, no doubt, the objection of Rickert is obviated, that, in fact,
the prophets themselves would have come to Christianity only by means
of the apostles, and would themselves have stood only on the Sepuéasoc ray
arooréAuyv ; but (a) from the non-repetition of the article there by no means
follows the unity of the persons (see above), but only the unity of the cate-
gory, under which the two are thought of. (8) There may be urged against
it the analogy of iv. 11, as well as that in the whole N. T., where the ec-
clesiastical functions are already distinguished * and prophets are mentioned,
apostles are not at the same time intended. It is true that the apostles had of
necessity to possess the gift of prophecy, but this was understood of itself,
and they are always called merely apostles, while simply those having re-
ceived the gift of prophecy, who were not at the same time apostles, are termed
prophets ; comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28 f. (¢) There would be no reason whatever
bearing on the matter in hand why the apostles should here be designated
specially as prophets ; nay, the contrast of Moses and the prophets, arbitrarily
assumed by Hofmann, would only tell against the identity (Luke xxiv. 27,
44; Acts xxiv. 14; Johni. 46). That objection of Rickert, however, dis-
appears entirely when we contemplate the prophets as the immediate and
principal fellow-laborers in connection with the laying of the foundation
done primarily by the apostles, in which character they, although them-
selves resting upon the Seué2cv of the aposties, yet in turn were associated
with them as founders. And the more highly Paul esteems prophecy (1 Cor.
xiv. 1), and puts the prophets elsewhere also in the place next to the apos-
tles (iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 f.), with so much the more justice might he desig-
nate the apostles and prophets as laying the foundation of the churches ; and
the less are we warranted, with de Wette, in finding heretraces of a disciple
of the apostles, who has had before him the results of the apostolic labors as
well as the period of the original prophecy as concluded, or with S8chwegler *
and Baur (p. 438), in recognizing traces of Montanism with its new proph-
ets as the continuers of the apostolate. — dyro¢ dxpoy. avrov "I. X.] wherein Je-
sus Christ Himself is corner-stone. On this most essential point, without which
the building up in question upon the apostolic and prophetic foundation
would lack its uniquely distinctive character, hinges the whole completion
of the sublime picture, vv. 21, 22. The gospel preached by the apostles
and prophets is the foundation, the basis, upon which the Ephesians were
built up, z.¢e., this apostolic and prophetic gospel was preached also at Ephe-
sus, and the readers were thereby converted and formed into a Christian

1 So also Rfickert on iff. 5, and Hofmann,
Schriftbew. TI. 2, p. 122. The latter adduces
as a reason, that wpod. is no peculiar N. T.
designation like aréer. This, however, it
surely is, namely, in the N. T. sense, for
which the O. T. word was the most suitable
vehicle. Philippi also, Glaubenslehre, I.
Pp. 268, ed. 2, declares himself in favor of

Harless.

2 This is not yet the case at Matt. xxilf. %,
where rather the 2hole category of Christian
teachers is still designated by Old Testa-
ment names. In the parallel Luke xi. 49,
on the other hand, the apostles are already
adduced as such by name.

In Zeller's Jahrd. 1844, p. 879.

CHAP, IIL, 21. 395
community ; but the corner-stone of this building is Christ Himseel/, inas-
much, namely, as Christ, the historic, living Christ, to whom all Christian
belief and life have reference, as necessarily conditions through Himself the
existence and endurance of each Christian commonwealth, as the existence
and steadiness of a building are dependent on the indispensable corner-stone
which upholds the whole structure.’ Only as to the figure, not as to the
thing signified, is there a difference when Christ is here designated as the
corner-stone, and at 1 Oor. iii. 11 as the foundation. The identity of the
matter lies in rév xeizevov, 1 Cor. lc. See on that passage. In the figure of
the corner-stone (which ‘‘ duos parietes ex diverso venientes conjungit et
continet,” ‘‘ joins and holds two walls coming from different directions,”
Estius), many have found the union of the Jews and Gentiles set forth.* But
this is at variance with aca oixod., ver. 21, according to which for every
Christian community, and so also for those consisting erelusively of Jewish-
Christians or exclusively of Gentile-Christians, Christ is the corner-stone. —
avrot] does not apply to rd Seueréy,* for Christ is conceived of as the corner-
stone, not of the foundation, but of the building (ver. 21). It belongs to
"I700v Xptorov, which with this airov is placed emphatically at the end, in
order then to join on by év @ «.r.A. that which is to be further said of Christ,
in so far as He is Himself the corner-stone. The article avrot rov’I. X.
might be used ; Christ would then be conceived of as already present in
the consciousness of the readers :‘ it was not necessary, however, to use it ;°
but the conception is : Christ Himself is corner-stone ;° so that Christ Him-
self, as respects His own unique destination in this edifice, is contradistin-
guished from His laborers, the apostles and prophets.— Whether, it may be
asked, is rp JepeAiy masculine (see on 1 Cor. ili. 10) or neuter? It tells in
favor of the former that, with Paul, it is at 1 Cor. iii. 11 (also 2 Tim. ii. 19)
decidedly masculine, but in no passage decidedly neuter (Rom. xv. 20;
1 Tim. vi. 19). Harless erroneously thinks that the neuter is employed by
the apostle only metaphorically.

Ver. 21. An elucidation to dyvro¢ axpoy. avrod I. X., bearing on the matter
in hand, and placing in yet clearer light the thought of ver. 19 f. : in whom
each congregation, in whom also yours (ver. 22), organically develops itself unto
its holy destination." — iv ¢] means neither by whom,* nor upon whom,° but :
in whom, so that Christ (for ¢ applies neither to dxpoy., as Castalio, Estius,
and Koppe suppose, nor to r# Seuediy, as Holzhausen would have it, but to
the nearest and emphatic airov 'I7cot X.) appears as that wherein the joining

1 On dxpoywscaios, ac. AiBos, which does not
occur in Greek writers, comp. LXX. Isa.
xxvifi. 16; Symm. Ps. oxvil. 22; 1 Pot. li. 6;
on the subject-matter, Matt. xxi. 42.

8 Theodoret, Menochias, Estius, Michael-
is, Holzhausen, Bretschneider, and others.

? Bengel, Cramer, Koppe, Holzhausen,
Hofmann, IT. 2, p. 122.

4 He Himseif, Christ; see Fritzsche, ad
Malth. p. 117:

§ In opposition to Bengel.

2. vi. 450; Xen. Anabd. ii. 1. 5, Apol. 11,
al. ; see Bornemann, ad Anad. i. 7. 11; Kréi-
ger on Thue. |. 27. 8

7 Observe the apostle's view of the church,
as a whole and in its single parts, as one
living organism. Comp. Thiersch, die Kirche
im apost. Zeitalt. p. 1534, 162; Ehrenfeuch-
ter, prakt. Theol. I. p. 55 ff.

® Castalio, Vatablus, Menochius, Moras,
and others, including Flatt.

* Estius, Koppe, and others.

396 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

together of the building has its common point of support (comp. i. 10).—
maoa olxodou4| not: the whole building,’ which would be at variance with
linguistic usage, and would absolutely require the reading (on that account
preferred by Matthies, Winer, and others) waca 7% oixodou# (see the critical
remarks), but: every building. The former interpretation, moreover, the
opposition of which to linguistic usage is rightly urged also by Reiche,’ is
by no means logically necessary, since Paul was not obliged to proceed from
the conception of the whole body of Christians té the community of the
readers (ver. 22), but might pass equally well from the conception ‘‘ erery
congregation,” to the conception ‘‘alseo ye” (ver. 22), and thus subordi-
nate the particular to the general. The objection that there is only
oné oixodouf* is baseless, since the collective body of Christians might
be just as reasonably, as every congregation for itself, conceived as a
temple-building. The latter conception is found, as in 1 Cor. iii. 16, so also
here, where the former is linguistically impossible. Chrysostom, however, is
wrong in holding that by aoc oixod. is signified every part of the building
(wall, roof, etc.), since oixodou4# rather denotes the aggregate of the single
parts of the building, the edifice, and since not a wall, aroof, etc., but only
the building as a whole which is thought of, can grow unto a temple. —
ovvappoa. | becoming framed together ; for the present participle represents the
edifice as still in the process of building, as indeed every community is engaged
in the progressive developement of its frame of Christian life until the Pa-
rousia (comp. on 1 Cor. iii. 15). The participle is closely connected with
éy @ : every building, while its framing together, 7.e., the harmonious com-
bination of its parts into the corresponding whole, takes place in Christ,
grows, etc. The compound ovvappodoyeiy (with classical writers cvvapudcev)
is met with only here and iv. 16, but dpzodoyeiv in Philipp. Thess. 78. — aber]
On this form of the present, read in the N.T. only here and at Col. ii. 19,
but genuinely classical, see Matthiae, p. 541. — cic vady dycov] Final result of
this growth. It is not, however, to be translated : unto a holy temple, for
the conception of several temples was foreign to the apostle with his Jewish
nationality, but : unto the holy temple, in ‘which there was no need of the
article (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16). To realize the idea of the one temple—that is
the goal unto which every community, while its organic development of life

1 Oecumenius, Harless, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek.

2The admissibility of the anarthrous
form waca oixosouy, in the sense of “the
whole building,’ cannot be at all conceded,
since oicosouy is neither a proper name, nor
to be regarded as equivalent to such. See
Winer, p. 101; Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 78
{E. T. 86]. In general was in the sense of
whole can only be without an article, when
the substantive to which it belongs would
not need the article even without rac (Kri-
ger, § 50, 11. 9). Hence waca ono’, can only
signify either every building, or else a duild-
ing utterly. In the latter sense Chrysostom

appears, very unsuitably, no doubt (see
above), to have taken it. According to
Hofmann, IT. 2, p. 128, raca oixod. is meant
to signify ‘“‘ whatever becomes a constituent
part of a building” (thus also the Gentiles
who become Christians). As if otxod0x.3 could
mean constituent part of a bullding! It sig-
nifies, even in Matt. xxiv. 1, Mark xiii. 1f.,
edifice. And as if waa, every part of the
building, when in fact only f200 constituent
parts, namely Jews and Gentiles, could be
thought of, were in harmony with this
relation! The rendering is inguisticaRy and
logically incorrect. ‘
3 de Wette.

CHAP. II., 22. 397

has its firm support in Christ, groweth up. — & xvpiy] By this not God is
meant, as Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Holzhausen, and others suppose,
but Christ (see the following éy 9). By the majority it is connected with
cyov, in which case it would not have, with Beza, Koppe, Rosenmiiller,
Flatt, to be taken for the dative, but' would have to be explained of the
dy:érn¢ of the temple, having its causal ground in Christ, thus specifically Chris-
tian. But the holiness of the temple lies in the dwelling of God therein (see
ver. 22) ; it does not, therefore, first come into existence in Christ, but és already
existent, and the church becomes in Christ that which the holy temple 2s, inas-
much as in this church the idea of the holy temple realizes itself. Others
have rightly, therefore, connected it with atfe:, although év is not, with
Grotius, Wolf, e al., to be translated by per. In the case of every building
which is framed together in Christ, the growing into the holy temple takes
place also in Christ (as the one on whom this further development depends).
The being framed together and the growing up of the building to its sacred

destination—doth not otherwise than in the Lord.

Ver. 22. ’Ev ¢] applies to év xupiy, and is to be explained quite like év ¢ in
ver, 21. The reference to vaév* appears on account of the immediately pre-
ceding év xupiy arbitrary, and, according to the correct apprehension of raoa
oixod., a8 well as with regard to the following eic¢ xarocxyrénpiov x.7.4., impos-
sible. — cuvvorxodopueiode] is indicative, not imperative,* against which vv. 19, 20
are decisive,‘ according to which Paul says not what the readers ought to be,
but what they are, hence he, at ver. 22, attaches in symmetrical relatice
construction the relation of the readers to that which subsists in the case of
every Christian community, ver. 21. The compound, however, may mean
either : ye are built along with (the others), comp. 8 Esdr. v. 68 (cvvo:xodop-
foupev byiv), 80 that the church of the readers would be placed in the same
category with the other churches (so it is ordinarily understood) ; or: ye
are builded together, so that otv relates to the putting together of the single
parts of the building.® The latter isto be preferred, because the parallelism
of vv. 21 and 22 makes the attaching of different senses to the two compounds
ovvappodoy. and ovvoixod. Appear groundless. — ei¢ xarocxyrhpiov tov Ocov] unto
the dwelling of God, quite the same, only with a variation of expression, as
before ei¢ vadv dycov was (comp. Matt. xxiii. 21), and pertaining to ovvoixod.
The supposition of Griesbach and Knapp, that éy ¢ x. tu. ovvotxod. is an in-
terpolation, and ei¢ xarocx. x.r.A. still belongs to aifec ; as, again, the expe-
dient of Koppe and Rickert, that ei¢ caro. rov Ocov means, in order that a
dwelling of God may arise; and finally, the assertion of Harless, that xarocx.
tov Geov is not identical with the vad¢ dy:oc, but that the individual Christians
were so termed because God dwells in them and the whole forms a vad¢ ayzoc,

1 So also de Wette, Hofmann, Bleek. the familiar olc6’ & 8pacor, and the impera-
2 Calixtus, Rosenmiller, Matthies. tive often standing after ecre.
3 Calvin, Meler. § Comp. Philo, de praem. et poen. p. 923 E:

“In and of itself the relative clause would _—oixiay ed avvwxosounudvny x. cvrnppoonevny,
not exclude the imperative (inoppositionto ‘a house well-built and put together,”
Hofmann). See, ¢.g., Soph. Qed. Col. 735 comp. Thuc, 1 98.8; Dio Cass. xxxix. 61.
(al, 781): dy xr’ Oxvetve, Herod. 1. 89. Comp.

398 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

—are only different forced interpretations, resulting from the linguistically
unwarranted explanation of the above aca oixodopzf as the whole building. —
év rvebuarc] receives from most expositors an adjectical turn : ‘‘ 8 spiritual
temple, in opposition to the stone one of the Jews.”’ How arbitrary gen-
erally in itself ! how arbitrary, in particular, not to refer év xvetpar: to the
Holy Spirit ! since we have here, exactly as in ver. 18, the juxtaposition of
the Divine Trias, while the context presents nothing whatever to suggest
the contrast with a temple of stone. Harless :* ‘‘a dwelling, which is in the
indwelling of the Spirit ;” and this, forsooth ! is held to mean : ‘‘ smasemuch
as the Spirit dwells in them, they are a dwelling of God and of Christ.” But,
apart from the fact that of this ‘‘and of Christ” there is nothing whatever in the
text, in this way év rvefyart, which according to the literal sense could only be
the continens, ‘‘ containing,” would in fact be made the contentum/! ‘that
which is contained.” From this the very analogies, in themselves inappropriate
(because they are abstracta, ‘‘ abstracts’), which Harless employs : yapa é
avetmati, aydrn év rv., ‘‘ joy in the spirit, love in the spirit,” ought to have
precluded him. The true view is to connect it not merely with xaroi. row
Gcov, but with cuvolxodopeiobe ei¢ xatoix. tov Oeov, and év is instrumental. Ye
are being builded together unto the dwelling-place of God by virtue of the
Holy Spirit; in so far, namely, as the latter dwells in your Christian
congregation (see on 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16 f.; comp. Jas: iv.
5), and thereby the relation of being the temple of God is brought about
—a relation, which without this indwelling of the Spirit would not occur,
and would not be possible. For the Spirit of God is related to the ideal
temple as the Shechinah to the actual temple, and is the conditio sine qua non
of the same. Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, likewise connects év x7.
only with xarox.r. 8. The objections of Harless to the instrumental ren-
dering of év are not valid ; for (a) the circumstance that éy wvebpyar: was
placed only at the end not only very naturally resulted from the parallelism
with ver. 21, seeing that in ver. 21 there is not contained an element corre-
sponding to the év rvefuar:, and consequently this new element is most nat-
urally appended at the end, but the position at the close imparts also to the
éy zvebu. an unusual emphasis,* comp. also iii. 5 ; and (6) the suggestion that
mvetua, as the objective medium, must have the article, is incorrect, seeing
that zvedya, with or without an article (in accordance with the nature of a
proper noun), is the objective Holy Spirit.

Nores py AMERICAN EDrror.

XVI. Ver. 1. dvra¢ vexpovc.

On this view presented by Meyer, Harless remarks: ‘‘ The supposition of
some, that vexpéc here means ‘condemned to death,’ ‘liable to death,’ is en-
tirely arbitrary, since it has not the least foundation either in Greek or Hebrew.”’
Ellicott : ‘‘ The proleptic reference to physical death, viz., ‘ certo morituri’ (Mey.)

1 Rickert. 2 Comp. Meier and Matthies. ® Ktihner, IT. p. 695.

NOTES, 399

seems irreconcilable with the context. The wAovo.og dv év éAéer, which seems to
specify God’s mercy in extending His resurrectionary power, would thus lose
much of its appropriateness, and the particle xai its proper ascensive force.”
Braune: ‘Spiritual death alone is spoken of, since God is the source of life
(Ps. xxxvi. 10), and without Him men are in the shadow of death (Matt. iv. 16 ;
Luke i. 79 ; Matt. viii. 22; Luke xv. 24, 32; Rom. vii. 9, 10). Eadie: ‘‘ With-
out putting any polemical pressure on the phrase, we may regard it as spiritual
death, not liability to death, but actual death ... The epithet implies : 1. Pre-
vious life; 2. Insensibility; 3. Inability.” Against the remark of Cremer : ‘‘ Were
we to take vexpéc to denote religious inaction and incapability, we should vio-
late the connection of the passage which treats‘of the reception of salvation ;’’
we need refer only to the entire argument of the preceding chapter that shows
that even man’s receptivity for grace proceeds entirely from the divine purpose
for his salvation. ‘‘ The Scriptures teach that man in sins is not only weak and
sick, but also entirely dead. As now a man who is physically dead cannot, of
his own powers, prepare or adapt himself to obtain again temporal life ; so the
man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot, of his own strength, adapt or apply
himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness, unless he be
delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin” (Formula of
Concord, p. 553).

XVII. Ver. 2. rob dépos.

The discussion of this topic by Harless is very full (p. 143-161), thorough
and discriminating, and his conclusion, that the ap refers to what is neither
earth nor heaven, is more plausible than Meyer's supposition that St. Paul
drew this conception from a Rabbinical source. ‘‘ Without venturing to deny
that the word may mysteriously intimate a near propinquity of the spirits of
evil, it may still be said that the limitation to the physical atmosphere (Meyer)
is as precarious in doctrine as the reference to some ideal ‘atmosphere belting
a death-world’ (Eadie), or to the common pariance of mankind (Alford), is too
vague and undefined”’ (Ellicott).

XVUOI. Ver. 3. réxva gvoe: dpyiie.

On Meyer's discussion, see Eadie: ‘‘The same may be said of Meyer’s inter-
pretation, ‘through the development of natural disposition;’ for if that disposi-
tion was natural, its very germs must have been in us at our birth, and what
is that but innate depravity ?’’ As to the objection ‘‘that the word cannot refer
to original depravity, because it is only of actual sins that the apostle speaks
in the preceding clauses,”” we may reply with Olshausen, that in this clause
actual sins are pointed out in their ultimate foundation “ in the inborn sinful-
ness of each individual by his connection with Adam.’’ Harless: ‘The ¢ior¢
of an individual thing denotes the peculiarity of its being, which is the result
of its being, as opposed to every accessory quality; hence gvcer elvac or roteiv te
means to be and to do anything by virtue of a state, or an inclination not ac-
quired but inherent.” To this Alford adds: ‘If this be correct, the expression
will amount to an assertion on the part of the apostle of the doctrine of origi-
nal sin. There is from its secondary position no emphasis on give ; but its
doctrinal force as referring to a fundamental truth otherwise known is not
thereby lessened. And it is not for Meyer to argue against this by assuming

400 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

original sin not to be a Pauline doctrine. If the apostle asserts it here, this
place must stand on its own merits, not be wrested to suit an apparent precon-
ceived meaning of other passages . . . It would be easy to show that every one
of them (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8, 9, v. 12, vii. 9, xi. 21; Gal. ii. 15) is consistent
with the doctrine here implied.” Ellicott: ‘‘It must fairly be said that the un-
emphatic position of ¢vce: renders it doubtful whether there is any special con-
trast to ydpir:, or any direct assertion of the doctrine of Original Sin ; but that
the clause contains an indirect, and, therefore, even more convincing assertion
of that profound truth, it seems impossible to deny.” Riddle: ‘The attitude
here taken as respects this fearful fact of a universal natural state of condemnation
is precisely that which the Scriptures hold towards the question of the exist-
ence of God: it is not proved but assumed.” To the above it may be added
that the interpretation of Rom. xi. 16, 21; Gal. ii. 15; 1 Cor. vii.4; Matt,
Xviii. 2 f.; xix. 14f., indicated by Meyer under (4) and (5), renders the regenera-
tion of those there mentioned impossible, since it makes of them by nature
the children of God, and grace is conferred already by generation. The fullest
treatment of this passage is in Harless, pp. 165-180.

XIX. Ver. 9. lva «.1.A.

The prima gratia of the scholastics here mentioned is thns described by
Melanchthon, Apology of Aug. Conf., p. 86, § 17: ‘The adversaries, not to
pass by Christ altogether, require a knowledge of the history concerning
Christ, and ascribe to Him, that He has merited for us that a habit be given,
or as they say prima gratia, which they understand as a habit, inclining us the
more readily to love God. . . They imagine that the will can love God ; but
nevertheless this habit stimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully,’’
p. 111, § 41. ‘‘They err who imagine that he had merited only a prima gratia,
and that afterward we please God and merit eternal life by our fulfilling of the
law.”’

XX. Ver. 10. ol¢ mpoeroiuacev 6 Bede.

‘‘God, before we were created in Christ, made ready for us, prearranged, pre-
pared a sphere of moral action, or a road, with the intent that we should walk in
it, and not leave it ; this sphere, this road was épya aya0a” (Ellicott). ‘** Though
in such works there be no merit, yet faith shows its genuineness by them. In
direct antagonism to the Pauline theology is the strange remark of Whitby,
‘that these works of righteousness God hath prepared us to walk in are con-
ditions requisite to make faith saving.’ ... Works cannot impart any elements
to faith, as they are not of the same nature with it. The saving power of faith
consists in its acceptance and continued possession of God’s salvation [i.e.,
Christ’s merit.—Ed.]. Works only prove that the faith we have isa saving faith”
(Eadie). ‘‘ The Holy Ghost in the Ten Commandments shows the regenerate in
what good works ‘God hath before ordained that they should walk’” (Form.
of Concord, p. 597). ‘The source of all good works, the apostle says, is the
new birth’’ (Ib.).

XXI. Ver. 11. did,

Stier makes the ground of the d:é extend still further back, and the point to
lie especially ‘‘in the miserable condition from which they have now been de-

NOTES. 401

livered.’’ Ellicott’s suggestion that it refers “to the declaratory portion of the
foregoing paragraph, vv. 1-7 (vv. 7-10 being an argumentative and explana-
tory addition),” harmonizes with this. Essentially the same, Eadie and Braune,

XXII. Ver. 11, id ric Aeyopuévac meprrouije.

‘The circumcision made with hands in the flesh is designated as a Aeyouévn,
i.e, as something not real; it is even & xararouy (Phil. iii. 3), a mutilation
without a purpose. Circumcision has not lost any significance in itself, since jt
has been fulfilled in a typical sense’’ (Weiss’ Bibl. Theol. of N. T., IZ. 118).

XXL. Ver. 12. yupi¢ Xpeoroi,

Harless, followed by Ellicott, makes the succeeding clauses explanatory of
what is contained in these words. Grotius, de Wette, and Eadie interpret it
as ‘‘ without the promise of Christ.’’ Calovius: ‘ Destitute of faith in Christ,
and without His saving knowledge,’’ The true interpretation includes this,
but comprehends still more. For it is the absence also of that personal com-
munion of man with Christ which is designated as the mystical union, Gal. ii,
20 ; John xv. 5: Eph. iii. 17,

XXIV. Ver. 15. rv ExOpav.

The context points to the enmity of man towards God which lies back of
this enmity of Jew and Gentile, to which primary reference is here made
(Braune, Eadie). Ellicott co-ordinates the two ideas. Alford interprets it as en-
mity to God. Calovius and Harless regard ‘‘ haired” as standing for ‘‘ cause of
hatred,”’ pointing to the ceremonial law in the rdv véyov rév évroAdy. See Eadie
for examples from the classics (Tacitus V. 4, 5; Horace, Satires, I. ix. 70;
Juvenal), illustrating the hatred of Gentiles to Jews ; also ‘‘ Judaism at Rome’
by Huidekoper, § 3, New York, 1880.

XXYV. Ver. 15. twa rove dvd xricg «.7.A.

Martensen makes a striking application of this passage to the relation of the
individual to the Church (Chr. Ethics, I. 213): ‘‘ They” (i.e., Christians) ‘‘ are
all one, because only in their totality are they the new man. That is to say,
that the new man is not perfectly realized in any single one of them, and with-
out unity each of them is merely a fragment, reflecting only a single ray of
Christ’s image ; for only the entire church can mirror Christ’s kingdom.”

XXXVI. Ver, 19. wdporxos,

The Greek metic was ‘‘at Athens a resident alien who paid a certain tax
but enjoyed no civic rights’ (Liddell and Scott). He was intermediate between
the févoc and the aoréc. In Sophocles, Antigone, 852, it is applied to one whose
home is neither among the living nor the dead. The best illustration of the
condition of metics will be found in the oration of Lysias (who was himself a
metic) against Eratosthenes, Cf. Grote’s History of Greece, chapter Ixv.
Cremer defines the N. T. répocxoc, ‘‘one who dwells in a place without the
rights of a home.”

26

402 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

XXVIL Ver. 20, én) r Geveriv.

Schmidt in the revised Meyer dissents, as also do Braune, Alford, and
Ellicott. The dative denotes a more absolute and more closely fitting relation,
and its use instead of the genitive is not accidental.

XXVIII. Ver. 20. rév dwooréAuy nal rpogytav.

To these arguments, Eadie adds the following : ‘‘In writing to persons who
had been Gentiles, whose faith in Christ rested not in old predictions realized
in Him, but on apostolic proclamation of His obedience and death—a reference
to the seers of the Hebrew nation would not have been very intellig:ble and
appropriate. To Jews with whom the apostle had ‘reasoned out of the Script-
ure,’ and whom he had thus convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the refer-
ence would have been natural and stirring ; but not so in an address to the
Gentile portion of the church, situated in the city of Diana.”

CHAP, ITT. 403

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 3. éyvapicin)] Elz. Matth. Reiche have éyvdpice, in opposition to decisive
testimony. A more precisely defining gloss, — Ver. 5. Before érépare Elz. has,
likewise against decisive testimony, év, which was attached on account of the
double dative. — Ver. 6. airov] after érayy. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon
preponderating evidence, to be deleted. — Ver. 7. éyevéuqv] Lachm. Tisch.
[Treg.] Rick. [West. and Hort] read éyev7Onv, after AB D* FG &. With this
preponderant attestation the more to be preferred, in proportion to the ease
with which the more current form might involuntarily creep in. — rjv dofeicar]
Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Riick.: rij¢ dobetonc, approved also”
by Griesb. Attested, it is true, by A BC D* FG 8, min. Copt. Vulg. It. Latin
Fathers ; but how readily would the genitive present itself to the mechanical
copyist after ver. 2! comp. ver. 8. — Ver. 8. év roic.] A BC ®, min. Copt. have
merely toic. So Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Riickert. Strongly
enough attested ; specially as the parallel in subject-matter, Gal. i. 16, offered
év as an addition. — The neuter 1d 7Aocvro¢ is also here and at ver. 16 prepon-
derantly attested. — Ver. 9. rdéyrac] suspected by Beza, placed within brackets
by Lachm. But it is wanting only in A &, two min. Cyr. Hilar. Jer. Aug. The
omission, at any rate too feebly attested, may have been accidental, or even
after év roic é0veorv intentional, — oixovouzla] Elz. has xocvwvia, in opposition to
almost all the witnesses. An interpretation. — After xricavr: Elz. has dia 'Incot
Xpiorod, which is defended, it is true, by Rinck (in whose view Marcion had
deleted it) and by Reiche (who holds it to have been omitted by the orthodoz),
but is condemned by the decisive counter-testimony as an exegetico-dogmatic
addition. — Ver. 12. r9v rappnolav x. tiv rpocaywyzv] The second rv is wanting
in AB &* 17, 80, Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] Riick.; but its super-
fluousness occasioned the omission. F G have 1} npocaywy? cic tiv mappyciar,
a change produced by the absolute riv mpocay. — Ver. 14. roi xupiov huav 'Igcou
X. is wanting in ABC & 17, 67** Copt. Aeth. Erp. Vulg. ms. and important
Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Riick. Harless. An addition to xurépa
readily offering itself, although defended by Reiche (on insufficient internal
grounds). — Ver. 16. d¢7] ABCFG X, 37, 39, 116, and several Fathers have
69. So Lachm. [West. and Hort] and Riick. With this important attestation
6 is here the more to be preferred, as dn offered itself to the copyists from i.
17. — Ver. 18. B460¢ x. toc] Lachm. [West. and Hort] reads tywog x. BdGoc, on
considerable but not decisive evidence. But the sequence of thought, ‘‘ height
and depth,” was more familiar. Comp. Rom. viii. 39. — Ver. 21. év rg éxxanoia
éy Xptore ’Incov] So D** K L, min. Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. and other Greeks.
But ABO & 73, 80, 213, Copt. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. Jer. Pel. have év r. éxxA.
xa év X. ’I. (80 Lachm. [West. and Hort} and Riick.). D* F G, It. Ambrosiast.
have év X. "I. nal rj éxxA. Only 46 and Oros. have év X. ’I. merely, without tv rj
éxxA., evidence which is far too weak to justify suspicion of év rg éxxd. (in oppo-

404 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

‘sition to Koppe and Riick.). The «ai, although strongly attested, is an old un-
suitable connective addition ; and the placing of év r. éxxa. after év X.’L isa
transposition in accordance with the sense of rank. Hence, with Tisch. and
Reiche, the Recepta is to be upheld.

ConTENTS.—On this account am I, Paul, the prisoner of God for the sake
of you, the Gentiles (ver. 1). Effusion over the nature of his office as apos-
tle of the Gentiles (vv. 2-12), which concludes with the entreaty to the
readers not to become discouraged at the sufferings which he is enduring
on their behalf (ver. 18). On this account he beseeches God that they
might be inwardly strengthened in the Christian character, in order that
they may know the whole greatness of the love of Christ, and thereby be-
come filled with all divine gifts of grace (vv. 14-19). Doxology, vv. 20, 21.

Ver. 1. On this account, namely, in order that ye may be built unto the
dwelling of God by means of the Spirit (ii. 22),—on this behalf, that your
Christian development may advance towards that goal, am I, Paul, the fet-
tered one of Christ Jesus for the sake of you, the Gentiles. The position of
Paul in fetters on account of his labors as the apostle of the Gentiles * could
only exert a beneficial influence upon the development of the Christian life
of his churches, as edifying and elevating for them (comp. ver. 18), as, on
the other hand, it must have redounded as a scandal to them, if he had
withdrawn from the persecutions (Gal. vi. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff.; Phil. ii. 17
f.). Hence the robrov yépcv emphatically prefixed. — zy [laiAoc] in the con-
sciousness of his personal authority (comp. 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. v. 2 ; 1 Thess.
li. 18; Col. i. 28 ; Philem. 9), which the bonds could not weaken, but
only exalt (2 Cor. xi. 23 ff). — 6 déopuoc rov ’I. X.] The article denotes the
bound one of Christ xar’ éfoy#, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” such as Paul could not
but, in accordance with his special relation. to Christ (Gal. 1. 1, vi. 17), ap-
pear to himself and others, The genitive expresses the author of the being
bound. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 8; Philem. 9. See Winer, p. 170. Paul regards
himself, in keeping with the consciousness of his entire dependence on Christ
(as dovAog Xpiorod), as the one whom Christ has put in chains.—As regards the
construction, by many the simple eiué is rightly supplied after 6 déapuo¢g rod Xp.
I.,7 so that 6 déomo¢ rov X. "I. is predicate, in connection with which some
have neglected the article, others have rightly had regard toit.* He is,
however, the déapiog of Christ on behalf of the Gentiles ; and this thought
leads him in the sequel to explain himself more fully regarding his vocation
as apostle of the Gentiles, whereupon he only briefly returns to the point
of his imprisonment in ver. 13, after having been led away from it by the
detailed exposition of the theme, to which he had been incited by the tép
tov tvev. Free movement of thought natural in a letter. Supplementary
additions, such as legatione fungor, ‘‘am discharging the duties of the em-

1“ Quia gentes Judaels adaequabat, incidit 2 Syriac, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Eras-
in suorum popularium odium," ‘‘ Because mus, Cajetanus, Beza, Elsner, Calovius,
he made the Gentiles equal to the Jews, ho Wolf, Michaelis, Paraphr.; Morus, Koppe,
incurred the popular hatred of his own Rosenmiiller (Schenkel], and others.
nation,’ Drusius. Comp. Grotius, Calovius. 3 See especially Beza.

CHAP, IIL., 2. 405
bassay,”’' or hoe scribo, ‘‘am writing this ” (Camerarius, and the like),? are
not implied in the context, and are therefore erroneous. Others have re-
garded the discourse as broken off, and have found the resumption either at
ver. 8,2 or at ver. 13,‘ or at ver. 14,° or only at iv. 1.° But all these hypoth-
eses are—inasmuch as, according to the above explanation, ver. 1 in it-
sclf yields with ease and linguistic correctness a complete and suitable sense
—unnecessary complications of the discourse. Baumgarten-Crusius regards
the discourse as entirely broken off under the pressure of the crowding
thoughts, so that it is not at all resumed in the sequel.—After ver. 1 only
a comma is to be placed.

Ver. 2. Confirmation of that which has just been said, imép tuay rav Over,
by the recalling of what the readers have heard concerning his vocation.
‘“* For you, the Gentiles," I say, upon the presupposition that, etc. This presup-
position he expresses by elye, ¢.e., tum certe si, ‘‘then certainly if,”’ it being
implied in the connection (for of his church he could not presuppose anything
else), not in the word itself, that he assumes this rightly. He might have
written elrep, if at all, provided that, or elwep ye, provided namely,* but he has
conceived the presupposition under the form at least if, if namely, and 80
denotes it. Comp. on Gal. iii. 4 and 2 Cor. v. 3 ; wherever elye is used and
the assumption is a certain one (as also at iv. 21), the latter is to be gath-
ered from the connection. From whom the readers had heard the matter in
question, their own consciousness told them, namely, from Paul himself and
other Pauline teachers, so that ciye q7xobcare x.t.A. ig a reminder of his preach-
ing among them. Hence our passage is wrongly regarded as at variance with
the superscription mpdc ’Eg¢eciovc, and as pointing to readers to whom Paul was
not personally Known ; while others, as Grotius,’ have, without any ground in
the context, assigned to the simple axotew the signification bene intelligere,
“‘understand well ;”’ Calvin, on the other hand, had recourse to the altogeth-
er unnatural hypothesis : ‘‘ Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, ewm tacuisse de
his rebus,” ‘‘Tt is credible that when he was engaged at Ephesus he was silent
concerning these matters ;” and Béttger ” refers it to the hearing of this Hpis-
tle read, against which the very. avay:véoxovrec that follows in ver. 8 is deci-
sive. Estius very correctly states that elye is not ‘‘ dubitantis, sed potius affir-
mantis ; neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii, guibus P.
tpes evang. plusquam biennio praedicaverat, ‘‘ of one doubting, but rather of
one affirming ; for the Ephesians could not have been ignorant to whom Paul

1 Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Calvin, Vata-
blus.

Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, Bisping,
Bleek ; de Wette, characterizing this con-

2 Already in early witnesses supplement-
ary additions are met with in the text:
apecfeve in D* E 10, followed by Castalio
and Calvin; postulo in Clar., Germ. ; xexav-
xnuce in 71, 219, a7.

* Oecumenius, Grotius.

* Zanchius, Cramer, Holzhausen.

* Theodoret, Luther, Piscator, Caliztus,
Cornelius & Lapide, Estius, Homberg,
Schdttgen, Benge! Baumgarten, and others,
including Flatt, Lachmann, Rickert, Winer,

struction as “hardly Pauline.”

‘ Erasmus Schmid, Hammond, Michaelis
in note to his translation.

7 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 808.

* Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 4, Anad. i. 7.9; often in
the tragedians.

®°So also Rinck, Sendschr. der Korinth,
p. 56, who, however, takes the correct view
in the Stud. u. Krit, 1849, p. 954.

10 Beitr. lil, p. 46 ff.

406 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

himself had preached the Gospel for more than two years.”’ Paul might have
expressed himself in the form of an assertion (jxotcare yép, or éxe? 7xobaaze),
but the hypothetic form of expression constitutes a more delicate and sug-
gestive way of recalling his preaching among them,’ without, however, con- -
taining an obliguam reprehensionem, ‘‘ indirect reproof,” ? of which the context
affords no trace.—ryv oixovopiay ri¢ ydptto¢ x.t.2.] the arrangement (see on i.
10) which has been made regarding the grace of God given to me with reference
to you (ri¢ xdptroc is the objective genitive). The more precise explanation
is then given by dre xara amoxdAvyy x.7r.A. The yapic is here, in accordance
with the context (ri¢ dof. por cig twas), the divine bestowal of grace that took
place in the entrusting him with the apostolic office. Comp. on Rom. xii. 8,
xv. 15. Others, like Pelagius, Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Rosen-
miiller, e¢ al., have explained oixov. r. ydp. as the office of administering
evangelic grace; but against this it may be urged that not ric dofeionc, but
vv dofeicav, must have been afterwards used. This mistake is avoided by
Wieseler, p. 446 f., where he takes it as : the office for which I have been
qualified by the grace conferred upon me on your behalf. This office the
readers had heard, inasmuch as they had heard the preaching of the apostle.
But how are we to justify the expression ‘‘to hear the office,” instead of
‘‘to hear the official preaching”? The words would merely say : if ye have
heard of the office, etc., Gal. i. 18 ; Col. i. 4; Philem. 5.

Ver. 3. In this more detailed specification of the oixovoyzia meant in ver.
2, xata atoxdéAvyy has the emphasis: by way of revelation, expressing the
mode of the making known, in accordance with a well-known adverbial
usage.‘ In substance the d? azoxa2iwews of Gal. i. 12 is not different. Ac-
cording to the history of the conversion in Acts xxvi. (not according to
Acts ix. and xxii.), we have here to think not merely of the disclosures
that followed the event near Damascus (as Gal. i. 12), but also of the reve-
lation connected with this event itself ; for the contents of what is revealed
is here the blessing of the Gentiles, and with this comp. Acts xxvi. 17, 18,
as also Gal. i. 16 ; hence from xara azvoxda. we may not infer a post-apostolic
time of composition.’ — ¢yvwpicf;] namely, on the part of God ; comp. vv.
2, 5. — rd prvorfpov} see on i. 9 ; it applies here, however, not to the counsel
of redemption in general, but to the inclusion of the Gentiles init. It is
not until ver. 6 that the apostle comes to express this special contents which
is here meant. — xafdc down to the end of cer. 4, is not to be treated as a pa-
renthesis, inasmuch as 4, ver. 5, attaches itself to the év 16 wvor. r. X. im-
mediately preceding. — xaBo¢ xpotypaya év ddiyw] as I before wrote in brief,

1De Wette dogmatically lays it down |

that the readers had no need, if the apostle
had already exercised his apostolic calling
among them, now first to learn from him-
self that he had received it. But in so
speaking he has not attended to the fact
that the object of the yeovcare is not the re-
ception of the apostolic vocation in general,
but the mode of this reception (namely,
kata amoxaAuyy, ver. 8), This account of

the manner in which he had become their
apostle he communicated to them when he
was with them, and @f ‘his he reminds them
now.

2 As also the Attic writers, in place of
ere ye, delicately use the hypothetic eiye ;
see Kiihner, ad Xen. Afem. i. 5. 1.

8 Vitringa, comp. Holzhausen.

4 Bernhardy, p. 241.

® Schwegler.

CHAP. IIL, 4. 407
refers not to xara droxdaujiv, but to éyvep. yor rd uvorhp., as is shown by ver.
4, where Paul characterizes that which was before written as evidence of
his knotoledge of the mystery, but not as evidence of the revelation by which
he has attained to this knowledge. Groundlessly, and at variance with the
subsequent present avay:vécxovrec, Calvin, Hunnius, and others have’ re-
ferred zpotyp. to an epistle which has now been lost, in support of which view
the passage in Ignatius év wdoy émoroAg* has been made use of.’ It applies
(not to i. 9, 10, as many would have it, but), as is proved by the here meant
special contents of the uvorfpioy (ver. 6), to the section last treated
of, concerning the Gentiles attaining unto the Messianic economy of salva-
tion, li, 11-22.4— dy dAiyy] dtd Bpayzéwr, ‘‘in short,” Chrysostom: éy is
instrumental.° See Acts xxvi. 28.° The same is expressed by cvvrépuc,
Acts xxiv. 4, summarily. Wetstein well puts it: ‘* pauca tantum attigi,
cum multa dici possent,” ‘‘ I have touched upon only a few things, although
many could be said.” Following Theodoret, Beza (with hesitation), Calvin,
Grotius, Estius, Erasmus Schmid, Koppe, and others have taken it as a
more precise definition of the mpé: paulo ante, ‘‘shortly before.” But in a
temporal sense év oAiyp means nothing else than in a short time (see on Acts
xxvi. 28; Comp. Plat. Apol. p. 22 B ; Dem. xxxiii. 18; Pind. Pyth. viii.
181 : év S dAiyy Bporéy 1d reprvdy abgera, ‘‘the delight of mortals will in-
crease),’’ which is not suitable here ; pd oA‘yov must have been used (Acts
v. 86, xxi. 88 ; 2 Cor. xii. 2, al. ; Plat. Symp. 147 E, al.)."

Ver. 4. In accordance with which ye, while ye read it, are able to discern,
etc.°— xpdc 5 applies to that which Paul rpofypawe, and mpéc indicates the
standard of the judging; in accordance with which.’ The inference: oix
Eypayev S0a Eypav, GAN boa Exdpovy voeiv, ‘‘ He wrote not as much as was
necessary, but as much as they were capable of understanding,” ”° finds no
justification at all in what Paul has previously written. — avay:véoxovrec] not
attendentes, ‘‘ attending,” but, as always in the N. T., legentes, ‘‘ reading.”
— ri obveoly pov év r@ pvotnpiy tov X.] is to be taken together, and before é
it was not needful to repeat the article, because ovméva év (to have under-
standing in a matter) was avery current expression (2 Chron. xxxiv. 12 ;
Josh. i. 7; Dan. 1.17. Comp. 3 Esdr. i. 33: ti¢ cuvécews avrov év rh véup
xupiov. The genitive rot Xpiorov is ordinarily taken as genitivas object, ‘‘ an

1 Although it was already rejected by and entirely unnecessary. Doubtless the

Theodoret.

3 See Introd. § 1.

3 See Fabric. Cod. Apoc. I. p. 916.

* Comp. already Oecumentus.

5 Yet it may also be concelved of locally,
as Thuc. iv. 2%. 2; 96. 2 (see Kriiger): in
small space, in a concise passage.

* Comp. the classical &° dA‘yer, Plat. Paw.
p. 81 D, Legg. vi. p. 778 C, év Bpaxet and dy
Bpaxdo: (Dem. 582, 8).

7 Comp. dAcyor rt wpérepov, Herod. fv. 81.

® Wiggers (Stud. u. Xrit. 1841, p. 488) re-
gards as subject the Ephesians, not as
such, but as representatives of the Gentile
world : ‘ye Gentiles.” Arbitrarily imported,

ovveors Of the Ap. év rep pvernple rod X. must
have been entirely beyond doubt for the
readers in consequence of their personal
connection with him; but thereby his
appeal to what he has just written does not
become inappropriate, but only the more
forcible and effective. There Hes a cer-
tain peiwors in this reference to that which
he has just written.

®See Bernhardy, p. 205; Ellendt, Lex.
Soph. Tl. p. 652; Winer, p. 361.

10 Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom ; Ben-
gel compares ex unque leonem, ‘‘you may
know the lion from its claw.”

11 Calvin.

408 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

objective genitive :” the mystery which has reference to Christ. But, even
apart from Col. i. 27, the whole subsequent detailed statement as far as ver.
12 suggests the contextually more exact view, according to which Paul
means the pvorfpiov contained in Christ. Christ Himself, His person and
His whole work, especially His redeeming death, connecting also the Gen-
tiles with the people of God (ver. 6), is the coneretum of the Divine mys-
tery. — The assailants of the genuineness of the Epistle find ver. 4 incom-
patible with the apostolic dignity,’ nay, even ‘‘self-complacent and courting
favor.”* But here precisely the point brought into prominence, that the
mystery had become known to him xara droxéAvyv, justifies the stress laid
upon his ocfveoc in the mystery, so far as he has already manifested the
same in his Epistle. The apostle might have appealed in proof of this
otveotg to his working, but he might also—especially taking into account
the change which had meanwhile occurred in the personal composition of the
church—adduce for this purpose his writing, in doing which his very
apostolic dignity raised him above considerations of the semblance of self-
complacency and the like. Hardly would another, who had merely as-
sumed the name of the apostle Paul, have put into his mouth such a self-
display of his ofveots—which, in order not to fall out of his assumed apos-
tolic part, he would rather have avoided. — As to otveoic, see on Col. i. 9.
Ver. 5. Not an explanation, to what extent he was speaking of amystery :*
for that the readers knew, and the design of bringing in a mere explanation
would not be in keeping with the elevated solemn style of the whole verse ;
but a triumphant outburst of the conscious exalted happiness of belonging
to the number of those who had received the revelation of the mystery—an
outburst, which was very naturally called forth by the sublime contents of
the prorhpiov. — érépare yeveaic] may be either a definition of time, like the dative
at ii. 12 (so taken usually) ; in that case yeveaic is not periodis or temporibus,
‘¢ periods” or ‘‘ times,” in general, but: in other generations (comp. on ver. 21);
or it may express the simple dative relation, so that yeveaic is generationibus :*
which to other generations was not made known, according to which roic¢ vloi¢ trav
avép. would form a characteristic epexegesis.° This was my previous view. Yet
the former explanation, as being likewise linguistically correct, and withal
more simple and more immediately in keeping with the contrast viv, is to be
preferred. The érepa: yev. are the generations which have preceded the viv; and
toig vioic Trav avOp. (not elsewhere occurring with Paul) has the significance,
that it characterizes men according to their lower sphere conditioned by their
‘‘ortum naturalem,” ‘‘ natural origin,’’* under which they were incapable
in themselves of understanding the pvorfpcov. Comp. Gen. xi. 5 ; Ps. viii.
5, xi. 5 ; Wisd. ix. 6. That specially the O. 7. prophets are meant by roi¢
vioig rav avOpdr., a8 Bengel supposed,’ is wrongly inferred from roi¢ dyios

1 de Wette. 807.

* Schwegler. * Bengel.

* Rickert, Meler. 7 In quite an opposite way Jerome would
4‘ Vulgate. exclude the ancient patriarchs and prophets

5 Lobeck, ad Aj. 808; Bernhardy, p. 65; from the viois rey dv6p.; for these were
Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 8, pp. 272, rather sons of God/

CHAP. III., 5. 409

GrooréAoe x.7.A., since the contrast does not lie in the persons,’ but in the
time (érépae yeveaig . . . viv). It is true Ezekiel often bears the name
DWM-13, “Son of man” (vii. 1, xii. 1, al.), not, however, as prophet, but as
man ; and thereby likewise his human lowliness and dependence upon God
are brought home to him. — dc] By this expression, which (in opposition to
Bleek) is to be left as comparative, the disclosure made to Abraham and the
ancient prophets of the future participation of the Gentiles in Messiah's
kingdom (Gal. iii. 8 ; Rom. ix. 24-26, xv. 9 ff.) remains undisputed ; for
‘‘fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum, ‘‘to
them this mystery was as it were far off, and displayed under covering,”
Beza ; hence the prophetic prediction served only as means for the making
known of the later complete revelation of the mystery (Rom. xvi. 26). —
viv] in the Christian period. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 12. — amexadigé,] not a repe-
tition of &vwpicby, but the distinguishing mode in which this manifestation
took place, is intended to be expressed : xard aroxdéAvyw étyvwpioty, ver. 8.
—Trolg dyiowg axoor. x.t.A.] is not to be divided by 2 comma after dytoic,* so
that azoor. air. x. mpog. would be apposition or more precise definition,
whereby the flow of the expression would be only needlessly interrupted.
The predicate holy was already borne by the Old Testament prophets
(2 Kings iv. 9; Luke i. 70 ; 2 Pet. i. 21), and this appellation at our passage
by no means exposes the apostolic origin of the Epistle to suspicion ;? but
it is very naturally called forth by the context, in order to distinguish the
recipients of the revelation amidst the mass of the viot rav avOpdrur, in ac-
cordance with the connection, as God’s special messengers and instruments,
as dycoe Oeov dvOpwro: (2 Pet. i. 21) ; whereupon the apostolic consciousness
in Paul was great and decided enough not to suppress the predicate sug-
gested by the connection,‘ while he is speaking of the apostles and prophets
in general, whereas, immediately afterwards, at ver. 8, in speaking of him-
self'in particular, he gives full play to his individual deep humility. How
can we conceive that the author should thus in one breath have fallen out
of his assumed part at ver. 5 with roi¢ dyiouw, by a ‘‘slip,”*® and then have
resumed it at ver. 8 with éuol r6 tAayiorortpy | — abroi] not of Christ,* but of
God, whose action is implied in éyvupioby and arexadigO7. — xai mpodhracc]
quite as at ii. 20 — év zvetyarc] The Holy Spirit is the divine principle,
through which the amexadidby took place. Comp. i. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 10 ff.
Rickert wrongly takes it as : inan inspired state, which rveiya never means,
but, on the contrary, even without the article is the objective Holy Spirit.
Comp. on ii. 22. Koppe and Holzhausen connect év mvetyart: (sc. ovo) with
mpogfrac. In this way it would be an exceedingly superfluous addition,
since prophets, who should not be év mv., are inconceivable, whereas a rev-

1The asdarodce and zpodyrac were also 4A side-giance at the Jews, who would
viot rwy av@p., but a sacred éxAcy#, “‘selec- have seen a blasphemy in the apostolic
tion," of the same. message of the joint-heirship of the Gen-
2? Lachmann, Bisping. tiles (Lange, Apostol. Zettalt. I. p. 128), is
3 de Wette derives ay:ocs from the passage utterly remote from the connection.
Col. 1. 26 recast in post-apostolic times; ® Baur.
Baur: from the post-apostolic reverential , ° Bleek.
looking back to the apostles.

410 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

elation was conceivable even otherwise than through the Spirit (by means
of theophany, angel, vision, ecstasy, etc.). Meier connects év my. even
with dyiors, 80 that the sense would be : in sacred enthusiasm ! and Ambro-
siaster! with the following elva: «.r.A. Baur, p. 440, knows how to explain
év rvetuare from a Montanistic view, and thinks that it is only on account
of the prophets that it is applied to the apostles also.

Ver. 6. Hpevegetical infinitive, more precisely specifying the contents of
the pvorfpiov : that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, etc. This eiva: (which is
not to be changed into should be) is objectively contained in the redeeming
work of Christ, and the subjective appropriation takes place by the conver-
sion of the individuals. — ovyxAnpovéua] denotes the joint possession (with
the believing Jews) of eternal Messianic bliss,—a possession now indeed
still ideal (Rom. viii. 24), but to be really accomplished at the setting up
of the kingdom. See oni. 11,14, v. 5; Acts xx. 82; Rom. viii. 17 ; Gal
iii, 28.— cbhoowua nad ovuptroya x.t.A.] That which is already sufficiently
designated by ovyxAnp. is yet again twice expressed, once figuratively and
the next time literally ;* in which no climax is to be found,® but the great
importance of the matter has led the apostle, deeply impressed by it, to ac-
cumulated description.‘ obccwua denotes belonging jointly to the body (i.¢., as
members to the Messianic community, whose head is Christ, i. 23, ii. 16).
The word does not occur elsewhere, except in the Fathers,® and was per-
haps formed by Paul himself. Comp. however, cvoowuartoroeiv, Arist. de
mundo, iv. 80. ovuputroyoc, too, occurs only here and v. 7, and besides, in
Josephus, Bell. i. 24. 6, and the Fathers.* The érayyedla is the promise of
the Messianic blessedness, which God has given in the O. T., comp. ii. 12.
He, however, who has joint share in the promise is he to whom it jointly relates,
in order to be jointly realized in his case ; hence 4 érayyedia is not to be
interpreted as res promissa, ‘‘a promised matter,” which several’ have re-
ferred to the Holy Spirit (Gal. iii. 14; Heb. vi. 4; Acts ii. 39), but at
variance with the context (cvyxdAyp.). The thrice occurring ovr has the
aparov of the Jews (Acts iii. 26 ; Rom. i. 16) as its presupposition.* — év ro
Xpior@] dependent on elva:, applies to all three elements, as does also the
following dia rod etayy. In Christ, as the Reconciler, the ovyxAnpovoyia x.7.4.
of the Gentiles is objectively founded ; and through the gospel, which is
proclaimed to them, the subjective appropriation in the way of faith is
brought about. The annexing, with Vatablus, Koppe, and Holzhausen, é&
T¢ Xpior@ to r7¢ érayy., is not to be approved, just because the reader, as he
needed no more precise definition in connection with ovyxAnp. and ciccwza,

1 Comp. Erasmus.

® Harless thinks, the one time after the an-
alogy of persons, and the other time after the
analogy of things. But as well in cvccwpe as
in ocuupuér. the relation of persons and of
things is combined.

8 Jerome, Pelagius, Zanchius, Schenkel.

On the accumulation of synonymous ex-
pressions in earnest emotional discourse,
comp. Ditntzer, Aristarch. p. 41. 7

5 See Suicer, 7hes. IT. p. 1191.

© Comp. cupsperéxw, 2 Macc. v. 9; Xen.
Anab. vil. 8.17; Plat. Theaet. p. 181 C.

7™Menochius, Grotius, Bengel; comp.
Estius.

8 But the thought that the substantial
contents of the gospel are identical with
Judaism (Baur, Neutest. Theol. p. 276) 1s in-
correctly imported. See, in opposition to
it, especially il. 15.

CHAP. IIL, %, 8. 411

understood also of himself what érayyeAia was meant, and the absolute ric
éxayy. (see the critical remarks) is more emphatic.

Ver. 7. Acdxovoc] Comp. Col. i. 28 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; also Lukei. 2. Paul
became a servant of the gospel when he was enjoined by God through Christ
(Gal. i. 1, 15 ff. ; Acts ix. 22, 26) to devote his activity to the proclamation
of the gospel. The distinction from irnpéryc (used by Paul only at 1 Cor. iv.
1) is not, as Harless supposes, that d:dxovog denotes the servant in his activ-
ity for the service, while imnpérys denotes him in his activity for the Master
(see, in opposition to this, 1 Cor. xii. 8 ; Rom. xiii. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 8 ; Col. i.
7, iv. 6) ; but both words indicate without distinction of reference the relation
of service, and the difference lies only in this, that the two designations, in
accordance with their etymology, are originally borrowed from different con-
crete relations of service (d:4x., runner ; imnp, rower; see the Lexicons, and
on didxovoc, Buttm. Levil. I. p. 218 ff.) ; in the usage, however, of theN. T.,
both words have retained merely the general notion of servant, as very fre-
quently also with Greek writers. [See Note XXIX., p. 431.] In opposition
to Harless it may be also urged that not only is the expression dcaxoveiv revi
rc used, but also in like manner iryperetv rivi rt.) The gift, which was con-
ferred upon Paul by the divine grace, and in consequence of which he became
a servant of the gospel, is, agreeably to the context, the apostolic office (comp.
vv. 2, 8), not the donum linguarum, ‘‘ gift of tongues,” ? nor yet the gift of
the Holy Spirit.* — xara rip évipy. +. dup. aizov) belongs to riv dobeiody por.
To the efficacious action of the power of God (comp. ver. 20, and on i. 19) the
bestowal of the gift of grace leads back the mind of the apostle, in the con-
sciousness of what he had been before, Gal. i. 18 ff. ‘‘Hacc est potentiae
ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid efficere,” ‘‘ This is the efficacy of his
power, viz., to make out of nothing something grand,” Calvin. By the be-
stowal, in fact, of that gift of the divine grace Saul had become changed
into Paul ; hence xara rv évipy. t. dvr. avrov.

Ver. 8. The apostle now explains himself more fully on what had been said
in ver. 7, and that entirely from the standpoint of the humility, with which,
in the deep feeling of his personal unworthiness, he looked forth upon the
greatness and glory of his vocation. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9. — After ver. 78
full stop is to be placed, and rojic¢ 2@veow evayy. is the explanation of the
xapic ait7. Harless regards éuoi . . . avry asa parenthetic excalamation,
like ii. 6, and roic¢ év. evayy. a8 a more precise definition of what is meant
by dwoed. He finds it contrary to nature to meet in the long intercalation
(vv. 2-13) a halting-point, and yet not a return to the main subject. But in
Opposition to the whole view of such an intercalation, seeon ver. 1. And
hardly could it occur to a reader not to connect ebayyeAfcaofa: with the imme-
diately preceding } yépc¢ airy, specially when r@ éAaxiororépy x.t.2. points to
the contrast of the greatness of the vocation, which very greatness is de-
picted, and in how truly grand a style ! from roi¢ é@veorv forward. — On the
forms of degree constructed from the superlative (or even the comparative,

1 Xen. Anabd. vil. 7. 46, Cyr. 1. 6. 89; Soph. ® Grotius.
Phil. 1012. 3 Flatt, after older expositors.

412 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

as 8 John 4), sce Sturz, ad Maitt. p. 44; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 185 f. ;
Winer, p. 65. In the analysis the comparative sense it to be maintained (the
least, lesser than all).—The expression of humility ravruv dyiuy,' i.¢., thanall
Christians, is even far stronger than 1 Cor. xv. 9. Ovx eime rév aroorddun,
‘* He did not say than the apostles,” Chrysostom. What was the ground of
this self-abasement (which, indeed, Baur, p. 447, enumerates among the
‘“‘heightening imitations’’) the reader knew, without the necessity for Paul
writing it to him,—namely, not the consciousness of sin in general,’ in
which respect Paul knew that he stood on the same level with any other
(Rom. iii. 22, xi. 82 ; Gal. iii. 22), as with every believer upon an equal footing
of redemption by the death of Christ (Gal. iii. 18, 14 ; Rom. vii. 25, viii. 2},
but the deeply humbling consciousness of having persecuted Christ, which, inex-
tinguishable in him, so often accompanied his recalling of the grace of
the apostolic office vouchsafed to him (1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6;
comp. 1 Tim. i. 18). —roi¢ éveorv] Paul was apostle of the Gentiles. — 7
avettyv. TAovTos Tov Xpiorov] By this is meant the whole divine fulnessof salva-
tion, of which Christ is the possessor and bestower, and which is of such a
nature that the human intellect cannot explore it so as to form an adequate
conception of it. This does not hinder the proclamation, which, on the
contrary, is rendered possible by revelation, but imposes on the knowledge
(1 Cor. xiii. 9-12) as on the proclamation their limits. As to avefcxyv., see on
Rom. xi. 33.

Ver. 9. Ka? dwrica: mévrac) According to Harless, who is followed by
Olshausen [Hofmann and Braune], Paul makes a transition to all men:
‘‘not, however, to the Gentiles alone, but to al.” Wrongly, since Paul must
have written xa? rdvra¢ gwrisa:, as he had before prefixed roi¢ tveoww, wévrac
applies to all Gentiles, and the progress of the discourse has regaid not to
the persons, but to a particular main point (cai, and in particular), upon
which Paul in his proclamation of the riches of Christ gives information to
all Gentiles. — gwricac) collustrare, ‘‘to lighten,” of the enlightenment of the
mind (John i. 9), which is here to be conceived of as brought about by
means of the preaching. Comp. Heb. vi. 4,* x. 82; Ps. exix. 180 ; Ecclus.
xlv. 17. Docere, ‘‘ to teach,” ‘ hits doubtless the real sense, but unwarrant-
ably abandons the figure. The possible difficulty that Christ Himself is in
fact the light (John i. 9, xii. 85) disappears on considering that the apostles
are mediately the enlightened ones (2 Cor. iv. 4; Matt. v. 14), the proclaim-
ers and bearers (Acts xxvi. 18) of the divine light and its moral powers (v. 8).
—ti¢ 7 otxovopia x.7.A.] t.¢., what is the arrangement, which is made with regard
to the mystery, etc. As to oixovoula, see on i. 10, iii. 2 ; the mystery is that
indicated as to its contents in ver. 6 ; and what has been adjusted or ar
ranged with regard thereto (1 oixovoyfa rod pvorgipov) consists in the fact that

1 The readings avdpwrwy in4and Chrys., and Semler ought not to have looked upon
awrooréAey in Archel., and ayiev arogréAwy itas spurions.
in 46, are attempts at interpretation, of 2 Harless.
which avdpwrwr was meant to guard against * And Bleek, ad loc.
understanding the dyiwy of the angels; ‘Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and
ayiewy ts wanting only in Marcion and 72*, others.

CHAP. III., 9. 413
this mystery, hidden in God from the very first, was to be made known in
the present time through the church to the heavenly powers. See what fol-
lows. — drroxexpup. | oeotynuévov, Rom. xvi. 25. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Col. 1.
26. — ard trav aidver] from the world-periods, since they have begun to run
their course, from the very beginning. The mystery, namely, was decreed
already mpd rav aidvwr, 1 Cor. ii. 7, comp. Eph. i. 4, but is conceived of as
hidden only since the beginning of the ages, because there was no one pre-
viously for whom it could be hidden. The same thing with amd rév aidvev
here is denoted at Rom. xvi. 25 by the popular expression ypévoig aiwvioic,
‘< times eternal.” We may add that azé rév aidévwy occurs in the N. T. only
here and Col. i. 26 ; elsewhere is found the expression current also in Greek
authors, az’ aidvos (Luke i. 70 ; Acts iii. 21), and ex rov aidvoc (John ix. 32).
—r® rd xdvra kricavtt] quippe qui omnia’ creavit, ‘‘ inasmuch as he created
all things.” Herein lies—and this is the significant bearing of this more pre-
cise designation of God—a confirmation of what has just been said, rot aroxe-
Kpun. and Trav aidv. tv tg Oeg. Bengel aptly observes: ‘‘rerum omnium
creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquae oeconomiae, pro potestate Dei uni-
versali liberrime dispensatae,” ‘‘ The creation of all things is the foundation
of all the rest of the economy unrestrictedly regulated according to the uni-
versal power of God.”” He who has created all that evista must already have
had implicitly contained in His creative plan the great unfolding of the
world, which forms the contents of this mystery, so that thus the latter was
ard Trav aiévev hidden in God. Comp. on 6 rotéy ravta yvuotd an’ aiavos,
Acts xv. 18, and as tothe idea which underlies our passage also, that already
the creative word contemplated Christ as its aim,’ Col. i. 16 ff., and the .
commentary thereon. Ritickert thinks that Paul wishes to indicate how far
it may not surprise us that He, from whom all things are derived, should
have concealed a part of His all-embracing plan, in order to bring it to light
only at the due time. But, apart from the fact that the creation of all
things does not at all involve as a logical inference the concealment of a
part of the divine plan, it was not the aoxexpuy. in itself that needed a
ground assigned for it, since in fact this predicate is necessarily implied in
the notion of pvorfpiov, but the aroxexp. Grd tTHv aidvwrv. This amd trav
aidven is the terminus a quo, which was introduced with the crioce rav ravrwv.
At variance with the context, Olshausen holds that Paul wished to call at-
tention to the fact that the establishment of redemption itself [of which the
apostle in fact is not speaking] is a creative act of God, which could have
proceeded only from Him who created all things. Harless places r@ ra
wavra xrio. in connection with iva x.r.4., ver. 10. But see on ver. 10.

The totality of that which exists, the
whole world. Every limitation of this uni-
versal meaning is unwarranted, as when
Beza, Piscator, Flatt, and others refer it
to mankind. ‘‘Unus Deus omnes populos
condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se vocat,”’
“As one God created all nations, so also
does He now call all to Himself,"’ Beza.

Holzhausen, too, arbitrarily limits it to all
spiritual beings, called to everlasting life ;
while Matthies mixes up also in «ricarr: the
qfecting of the spiritual blessedness.

2 Hence els ‘Incovy Xpiordvy would have
been a more correct gloss than &a "Iycov
Xp., which the Recepia has.

414 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

REMAREK.—When da 'Incot Xpiorod is recognized as not genuine (see the
critical remarks), the possibility is taken away of referring xrioavrs to the
moral creation by Christ, as is done by Calvin, Zanchius, Calixtus, Grotius,
Crell, Locke, Semler, Morus, Koppe, Usteri, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
others. But even if those words were genuine, the formal and absolute «rifecv,
as well as the emphatically prefixed and unlimited ra zdvra, would justify only
the reference to the physical creation, Gen. i. Comp. Calovius and Reiche.

Ver. 10. ‘Iva] not ecbatic (Thomas Aquinas, Boyd, Zanchius, Estius,
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen), introduces the design, not,
however, of r@ rd mévra xricavti, as, in addition to those who understand
«ric. of the ethical creation, also Harless would take it.' The latter sees in
t® ra wévra xrioavrt iva x.7.2. an explanation ‘‘ how the plan of redemption
had been from all ages hidden in God ; inasmuch as tt was He who created
the world, in order to reveal in the church of Christ the manifoldness of His
wisdom.” But the very doctrine itself, that the design of God in the crea-
tion of the world was directed to the making known of His wisdom to the
angels, and by means of the Christian church, has nowhere an analogy in the
N. T. ; according to Col. i. 16, Christ (the personal Christ Himself) is the
aim of the creation of all things, even of the angels, who are here included
in ra wévra. But as youpiofy evidently corresponds to the droxexpuypévor,
and viv to the 4x3 réyv aidvwv, we cannot, without arbitrary disturbance of
the whole arrangement of this majestic passage, regard iva yrwpio6y as other
than the design of row aroxexp. ard Tov aidvur év to OcG. This statement of
aim stands in exact significant relation to the vocation of the apostle, ver.
8 f., through which this very making known to the heavenly powers was
partly effected. The less is there reason for taking iva yvup. x.7.4., with de
Wette (on ver. 11) and Hofmann? (who are followed by Schenkel), after
earlier expositors, as defining the aim of the preaching of Paul, ver. 8 f. ; in
which case, besides, it would be offensive that Paul should ascribe specially
to Ais work in preaching as its destined aim that, in which the other
apostles withal (comp. in particular Acts xv. 7), and the many preachers to
the Gentiles of that time (such as Barnabas), had ashare. The joining on
to the adjectival element amoxexp. x«.r.A. produces no syntactical incongruity,
but is as much in keeping with the carrying forward of the discourse by
way of chain in our Epistle, as in accord with the reference of so significant
a bearing to ver. 8 f. — yvwpichy viv] The emphasis is not upon vir,* but
upon yrwpiofj, in keeping with the aroxexp. : in order that it should not
remain hidden, but should be made known, etc. — raig apyaic x. tr. éEoveiac]
See on i. 21. The angelic powers are to recognize in the case of the Christian
church the wisdom of God ;—what a church-glorifying design, out of
which God kept the pvor#piov from the beginning locked up in Himself !
To the heavenly powers (comp. 1 Pet. i. 12), which therefore are certainly
not thought of as abstractions, the earthly institute is to show the wisdom of

180 also Baur refers !t, p. 4%, but ex- 2 Schriftberw. I. p. 361.
plains the thus resulting aim of the creation 8 Riickert and others.
from the doctrine of the VYalentinians.

CHAP, III., 10. 415
God ; an even, however, is quite arbitrarily inserted before raic apy." The
explanation of the diabolic powers,* which Vorstius, Bengel, Olshausen, -
Hofmann, Bleek at least understand as included, is entirely foreign to the
context (it is otherwise at vi. 12), even though év roi¢ érovpaviog (comp. 1.3,
20), were not added. Throughout the whole connection the contrast of
earth and heaven prevails. Wrongly, too, we may add, secular rulers,*
Jewish archons,* heathen priests,® and Christian church-overseers,* have been
understood as here referred to (comp. i. 21); while Koppe would embrace
‘‘ quicquid est vi, sapientia, dignitate insigne,” ‘‘ whatever is remarkable
for force, wisdom, dignity,” and would only not exclude the angels on
account of éy roi¢ éxouvp. — év roig éxovp. is, a8 always in our Epistle (see on i. 8),
definition of place: in heaven, not : in the case of the heavenly things, which are
to be perceived in connection with the church’ and such like ® [See above,
Note III., on ch. i. 8.] It is most naturally to be combined (comp. vi. 12) with
raic apy. x. T. é£ove., in which case it was not needful to place raic before év roig
érovpaviocg, seeing that the év roi¢ éxovpav., more precisely fixing the definition
of the notion of the apyai and éfovola: (for even upon earth there are apyai
and éfovoia:), is blended into a unity of notion with those two words,’ so
that there is no linguistic necessity for connecting, as does Matthies," év roi¢
éxovp. With yvup. — The question why Paul did not write simply roi¢ ayyéAoug
is not to be answered, with Hofmann, to the effect, that the spirits ruling
in the ethnic world are intended, because such a special reference of the
general expression r. apy. x. T. éfove. must have been specified (by the addi-
tion of rév évev, or something of that sort); but to the effect, that the
designation of the angels on.the side of their power and rank, in contradis-
tinction to the did rij¢ éxxAnoiac, serves for the glorifying of the éxxancia. The
designation corresponds to the fulness and the lofty pathos by which the
whole passage is marked. In i. 21, also, an analogous reason is found,
namely, the glorifying of Christ. It is to be observed, in general, that the
name éyyedog does not occur at allin our Epistle. — dca tic éxxAnoiag] The

1 Grotius, Meier.

* Ambrosiaster, Vatablus, not Estius.
* Zeger, Knatchbull.

* Schéttgzen, Locke.

heavenly—as the kingdom of God.” In the
heavenly kingdom the wisdom of God be-
comes manifest by means of the church,
and particularly to these high and mighty

* van TiL ones, because these are now, in the heaven-
6 Zorn. ly kingdom founded by Christ, drought, by
7 Zeltner, comp. Baumgarten. means of the church, to the consciousness Of
® See in Wolf. their powerlessness.—Thus, in fact, there are,

* Fritzache, ad Rom. I. p. 195.
1° The whole apprehension of our passage

as well in the notion of «rigew as in that of
apxai x. éfove., two wholly different con-

by Matthies ts mistaken. He refers 79 724
wdévra xtio. to all that God has either cre-
ated in the natural reference of the term,
or accomplished in a spiritual respect for
the salvation of men. According to his
view, iva applies to ry 7a w. xrio.; apxat nai
¢fovciae are ‘‘the high and mighty ones
who live in the world, or even in an invis-
ible spiritual manner play their part in the
same :” 7a ¢wovpdama is to be taken ‘‘as the
actually sabsisting aggregate of all that is

ceptions combined, in opposition to the
hermeneutic principle of the unity of the
sense ; 7a érovparya is arbitrarily generalized
in a spiritualistic way, and the thought that
the apxai xai éfoveia: are brought to the
consciousness of their powerlessness is
purely imported, and the more mistakenly,
fhasmuch as it is God's co¢éa, not His
8uvauis, of which it Is here said that it is
made manifest to the apxai xai efous.

416 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Christian church (i.¢., the collective body of believers regarded as one com-
munity, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 28, x. 32, xv. 9; Gal. i. 11 ; Phil. iil. 6 ; Col.i.
18, 24,—hence not betraying the later Catholic notion) is, in its existence
and its living development, as composed of Jews and Gentiles combined in
a higher unity, the medium de facto for the divine wisdom becoming known,
the actual voucher of the same ; because it is the actual voucher of the
redemption which embraces all mankind and raises it above the hostile
contrast of Judaism and heathenism,—this highest manifestation of the
divine wisdom (Rom. xi. 82 f.). To the angels, in accordance with their
ministering interest in the work of redemption (Matt. xviii. 10 ; Luke xv.
7,10; 1 Cor. xi. 10; Heb. i. 14 ; 1 Pet. i. 12), the church of the redeemed
is therefore, as it were, the mirror, by means of which the wisdom of God
exhibits itself to them. [See Note XXX., p. 431.] — woAvmoix:Aoc].! It
signifies much-manifold, i.¢., in ahigh degree manifold, quite corresponding
to the Latin multivarius. That it signifies rery wise? has been erroneously
assumed from Aesch. Prom. 1808, where roix:Aog means crafty. As roAvmoi-
xidoc, the wisdom of God manifests itself to the angels through the church,
inasmuch as the counsel of the redemption of the world is therein pre-
sented to them in its universal realization, and they thus behold the mani-
fold ways and measures of God, which He had hitherto taken with reference
to the Jews and Gentiles, all now in their connection with the institute of
redemption,—all uniting in this as their goal. The church is thus for
them, as regards the manifold wisdom of God, the central fact of revelation ;
for the zoAurakitovg ddov¢ Geov, Which they before knew not as to their ulti-
mate end, but only in and by themselves (and how diverse were these ways
with the Jews and with the Gentiles !), they now see in point of fact,
through the church (‘‘haec enim operum divinorum theatrum est,” ‘‘ for
this is the theatre of divine works,” Bengel), a8 wodvmoix:Aog cogia. Thus
by the appearing of the éxxAyoia as a fact in the history of salvation, the
wisdom of the divine government of the world has been on every side
unveiled and brought to recognition. Entirely without warrant, Baur
assumes, p. 429, that the Gnostic cogia, with its heterogeneous forms and
conditions,* was present to the mind of the writer.

Ver. 11. Kard rpdéQcow trav aidvuv] belongs neither to roAvmoix:Aoc,* nor to
cogia,® nor does it relate to ver. 9,° nor yet to all that precedes from ver. 3 or
ver. 5,7 but to iva yrupio67 x.7.4., giving information important in its bearing
on this iva: in accordance with the purpose of the world-periods, t.e., in con-
formity with the purpose which God had during the world-periods (from
the commencement of the ages up to to the execution of the purpose) ; for
already mpd xaraBoAge xéopov it was formed, i. 8, but from the beginning of
the world-ages it was hidden in God, ver. 9. On the genitive, comp. Jude
6; Ps. cxlv. 18; Winer, p. 169. Others, incorrectly, take it as : the pur-
pose concerning the different periods of the world, according to which, namely,

1 Eur. Iph. 7. 1149; Eubul. in Athen. xv. 4 Holzhausen.

p. 678 D; Orph. v. 11, Ix. 4. ’ Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius.
2 Wolf, Koppe, Rosenmiiller. * Michaelis.
8 Comp. Iren. Haer. i. 41. 7 Flatt, comp. Zanchius, Morus.

CHAP. III., 12, 13. 417%
God at first chose no people, then chose the Jews, and lastly called Jews
and Gentiles to the Messianic kingdom,’ for it is only the one purpose, ac-
complished in Christ, that is spoken of. See what follows. According to
Baur, xara rpdfcow rév aiév. means : according to what God ideally proposed
to Himself in the aeons (that is, the subjects of the divine ideas, constitut-
ing as such the essence of God). According to the Gnostic view, this
returns, after it has been accomplished in Christ, as the realized idea back
into itself. — fw éroinoev év X. 'I.] applies not to cogia,? but to rpdéeorv, and
means : which He has fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Comp. rd 6éAnua roceiv (ii.
3; Matt. xxi. 31; John vi. 38), r7v yodunv roreiv (Acts xvii. 17). Others:
which He has formed in Christ Jesus.‘ Linguistically admissible. Comp.
Mark iii. 6, xv. 1; Isa. xxix. 15; Herod. i. 127. But the context tells in
favor of the first-named interpretation, since what follows is the explana-
tion assigning the ground of the purpose not as formed, but as carried into
effect ; hence not merely év Xprorg is said, but év Xpeorg "Incov (comp. i. 5),
since not the forming of that purpose, but its accomplishment, took place in
the historically manifested Messiah, Jesvs—in Him, in His personal self-
sacrifice is the realization of that divine purpose contained.

Ver. 12. ’Ev 6 «.r.A.] gives the experimentally (éyouev) confirmatory proof
for the just stated 4» évoinoey év X. "I. Sce oni. 7. — rv rappyciay] denotes
not the libertatem dicendi, ‘‘ freedom of speech,” as at vi. 19, since not mere-
ly the apostle’s® experimental consciousness, but that of the Christian is, in
harmony with the context, expressed by éfyouev; and the limitation to
prayer ® is entirely arbitrary. It is rather the free, joyful mood of those recon-
ciled to God, in which they are assured of the divine grace (the opposite :
fear of God’s wrath). Comp. Heb. iii. 6, iv. 16, x. 19, 85 ; 1 John ii. 28,
iii, 21, iv. 17, v. 14; also Wisd. v. 1, and see Grimm in loc.; Bleek on
Hebr. 11. 1, p.416 f. This rappycia xar' éEoxhvé, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” is de-
noted by the article. —xai rjv mpocaywyiv] See on ii. 18. Likewise a for-
mally consecrated notion. — év rerocOfoec] Fundamental disposition, in which
we have, etc. For without confidence (see, as to reroif., on 2 Cor. i. 15) the
rappnoia and the rpocaywy7 are not possible. How gloriously is this reroi@yarg
on the part of the apostle expressed at e.g. Rom. viii. 38 f. ! — dia r¢ riorewe
avrov|] Causa medians, ‘‘instrumental cause,” of the Zyouev «.r.A. Christ is
the objective ground on which this rests, and faith in Christ is the subjec-
tive means for its appropriation and continued possession, Rom. v. 1,2. In
avrov there is implied nothing more than in ei¢ avrév (see on Rom. iii. 22 ;
Gal. 11). 22), and what Matthies finds in it (the faith having reference to
Him alone) is a sheer importation.

Ver. 13. Once more reviewing the whole section concerning the great
contents of his office as apostle of the Gentiles (vv. 2-12), he con-

' Sohoettgen, comp. Chrysostom, Theo-
phylact, Estius, Cornelius & Lapide, Baum-
garten, Semler.

3 Jerome, Luther, Moldenhauer.

*8o Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Zacl:a-
riae, Koppe, Rosenmiller, Holzhausen, Mat-
thics, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek and

re

others.

4 So Beza, Calvin, Estius, Michaelis, Mo-
rus, ef al., including Flatt, Rickert, Meier,
Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius: also Hof-
mann, Schriftbew. I. p. 530.

5 Vatablus.

* Benge), HNolzhausea.

418 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

cludes it, in especial retrospective reference to the introduction there-
of (ver. 1), with the entreaty to the readers not to become discouraged,
etc., in order thereupon yet further to attach to ver. 14 ff. a rich out-
pouring of intercession for them, which terminates in an enthusiastic
doxology (ver. 20f.). According to this view, dio has its reference not merely
in ver. 12, but in the whole of what Paul has said, vv. 2-12, regarding his
office, namely : On that account, because so great and blissful a task has by
God’s grace been assigned to me in my calling, I entreat you, etc. The
greater the office conferred by God, the less does it become those whom it
concerns to take offence or become downcast at the sufferings and persecu-
tions of its holder. — 7 éxxaxeiv] applies to the readers: that ye become not
disheartened, faint-hearted and cowardly in the confession of the gospel,—
not to Paul: that I become not disheartened, as Syriac, Theodoret, Jerome,
Bengel, Semler, and others, including Riickert, Harless, Olshausen, Baum-
garten-Crusius [Hofm. Braune, Cremer WéOrterb.], take it. In opposition
to the latter, it may be urged that the supplying of Oedéy after airotpaz,
demanded in connection therewith, is in no wise indicated by the context,
which rather in the bare airotuar (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20, x. 2) conveys only the
idea of a request to the readcrs (it is otherwise at Col. i. 9 ; Jas. i. 6).
Further, #ri¢ éort déga tudv manifestly contains a motive for the readers, to
fulfil that which Paul entreats. Only from rofrov ydpcv, ver. 14, begins an
intercession for the readers, that God may strengthen them.’ The you, finally,
after OAipeot is wholly superfluous, if Paul is imploring constancy for him-
self ; but not, if he is beseeching the readers not to become faint-hearted,
while he is suffering for them.—As to the form éyxaxeiy in Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Riickert, see on 2 Cor. iv. 1. — év rai¢ OAlpeot pov trép iu. |
in the tribulations which I endure for your sake (namely, as apostle of the
Gentiles). Comp. Paul's own so touching comment upon this irép iuéy, in
Phil. ii. 17. The év denotes the subsisting relation, in which their courage is
not to give way. See Winer, p. 346. To this conception the explanation
on account of? is also to be referred. irép tyuov is rightly attached, without
repetition of the article, to rai OAiy. uov, because one may say OAiSeoba: ixtp
revocg (2 Cor. i. 6 ; comp. Col. i. 24). Comp. on Gal. iv. 14. Harless con-
nects irép bu. with airotya : I pray for your benefit. How violently opposed
to the order of the words, and, with the right view of airotya:, impossible !
— rig tort d6£a tudv] is designed to animate to the fulfilment of the entreaty,
so that #ri¢ introduces an explanation serving as a motive thereto,? not
equivalent to 7, but referring what is predicated ‘‘ad ipsam ret naturam,”
‘‘to the very nature of the subject,‘ like gui quidem, quippe qui, utpote
qut. #ricmay be referred either to the p9 éxxaxeiv,* or to rai¢ OAipect pov ixéip
tudy (so usually). In either case the relative is attracted by the following

2 Harless finds, with Rhenferd (in Wolf), others.
the connection: “ ut pro se primum, tum pro 2 Herm. ad Oecd. R. 688; Ellendt, Lez.
Ephestis oret.". But this change of the per- Soph. II. p. 885. :
sons would have needed to be indicated by 4 Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 190.
emphatic pronouns, if it were not to be 6 Theodoret, Zanchius, Harless, Olshau-
looked upon as imported. sen, Schenkel.

* Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Estius, and

WoO , Ww

CHAP. III., 14, 15. 419
ééfa, and this not as Hebraizing,’ but asa Greek usage.’ The usual reference
is the right one ; the sufferings of the apostle for the readers were a glory cy
the latter, it redounded to their honor that he suffered for them,® and this
relation could not but raise them far above the éxxaxeiv, else they would not
have accorded with the thought brought to their consciousness by the gric
éori défa tuev. The referring of #ri¢ to uy éxxcxely is inconsistent with the
correct explanation of the latter (see above) ; for if Paul had said that it
was glorious for the readers not to grow faint, he would either have given
expression to a very general and commonplace thought, or else to one of
which the specific contents must first be mentally supplied (gloria spiritualis,
‘spiritual glory”); whereas the proposition: ‘‘my tribulations are your
glory,” isin a high degree appropriate alike to the ingenious mode of ex-
pression, and to the apostolic sense of personal dignity, in which is im-
plied a holy pride. Comp. Phil. ii. 17.

Vv. 14, 15.4 Totrov yépiv] on this account, in order that ye may not become
disheartened, ver. 18. Against the view that there is here a resumption of
ver. 1, see on that verse. —x«durro x.t.4.] riv xaravevvyptyyy dénow édfAwoer,
‘‘He indicated his entranced supplication,” Chrysostom. See on Phil. ii.
10. ‘'A signorem denotat,” ‘‘ from the sign he denotes the thing,” Calvin ;
so that we have not, with Calovius and others, to think of an actual falling
on his knees during the writing. Comp. Jerome, who makes reference to
the genua mentis, ‘‘knees of the mind.” — mpéc] direction of the activity :
before the Father. —i€ ot waoa watpia «.t.A.] Instead of saying: before the
Father of all angels and men (a designation of God which naturally suggested
itself to him as an echo of the great thoughts, ver. 10 and ver. 6), Paul ex-
presses himself more graphically by an ingenious paronomasia, which can-
not be reproduced in German (xarépa . . . marpid) : from whom every family
in heaven and upon earth bears the name, namely, the name zrarp:d, because God
is rarfp of all these rarpcai. ‘Less simple and exact, because not rendering
justice to the purposely chosen expression employed by Paul only here, is the
view of de Wette : ‘‘every race, z.6., every class of beings which have arisen
(7), bears the name of God as its Creator and Father, just as human races
bear the name from their ancestor, ¢.g., the race of David from David.” — #
ov] forth from whom ; origin of the name, which is derived from God as
xaThp.* — naoa rarpid] warpidé, With classical writers ordinarily zérpa, is equiv-

1 Beza, Matthies, and many.

2 Comp. as regards the ordinary exegesis,
according to which the number also is at-
tracted, Dem. ¢. Aphob. p. 858. 81: «xe...
oyécnxorvra piv pevas, fy éAaBe wpoixa rijs
ayrpés ; and see, In general, Winer, p. 150.

3 This assertion stands in correct conneo-
tion with his high apostolic position. That
the apostle as Séopi0s tov Xpiorov suffered
for the Gentile-Christians, could only re-
dound to the honor of the latter, inasmuch
as they could not but appear of the higher
value. the more he did not refuse to under-
go afflictions for them. This we remark in

opposition not only to Rickert, who finds
it most advisable to leave the contents of
the clause indefinite, in order not to deprive
it of its oratorical significance, but also in
opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who
are of opinion that the sufferings of the
apostle could not in themselves be any
glory for the Gentile-Christians. They are
so on account of the dignity of the sufferer,
and of his relation to those Sor whose sake he
suffered.

4On ver. 15, see Reiche, Comm. Crit.
p. 156 ff.

5 On dvoudgerda éx, comp. Hom. ZZ. x. 68:

420 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

alent to gens, a body belonging to a common stock, whether it be meant in
the narrower sense of a family,’ or in the wider, national sense of a tribe
(Acts iii. 25 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 28 ; Ps. xxii. 27 ; Herod. i. 200). In the latter
sense here ; for every gens in the heavens can only apply to the various
classes of angels (which are called razp:ai, not as though there were propaga-
tion among them, Matt. xxii. 30, but because they have God as their Creator
and Lord for a Father [see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. II. 106, Amer. ED.] ; as a
suitable analogue, however, to the classes of angels, appear on earth not the
particular families, but the nationalities. Rightly Chrysostom and his suc-
cessors explain the word by yeveai or yévy7. The Vulgate has paternitas, a
sense indicated also by Jerome, Theodoret, and others. Theodoret says : a
airbag trapxyet matip, 6¢ ov rap’ dAAov tovro AaBow Eyet, a2A’ avrde roic GAZotc
petradéduxe Tovro, ‘‘ who is truly a father, since he has this, not by receiving
it from another, but himself communicated it to the rest.” This view (comp.
Goth. : ‘‘all fadreinis’) is expressed by Luther (approved in the main by
Harless [and by Cremer, Lexicon]) : Who is the true Father over all that are
called children, etc. But xarpid never means fathership or fathcrliness (<a-
tpétnc), and what could be the meaning of that fathership in hearen ??
naca, every, shows that Paul did not think only of ttro rarpiai, the totality
of the angels and the totality of men,* or of the blessed in heaven and the
elect on earth,‘ but of a plurality, as well of angelic as of human rarprai :
and to this extent his conception is, as regards the numerical form, though
not as regards the idea of rxazp.d, different from that of the Rabbins, accord-
ing to which the angels* are designated as familia superior, ‘‘ the highcr
family.” * Some have even explained raca zarpid as the trhole family, in which
case likewise either the angels and men,’ or the blessed in hearen and Christians
on earth,® have been thought of : but this is on the ground of linguistic usage
erroneous. Comp. on ii. 21. [See Note XXXI., p. 481 seq. ] — ovopdcera:!
bears the name, namely, the name rarpdé ; see above. The text does not
yield anything else ;° and if many * have understood the name children of

warpédev ex yevens bvouddwr dvipa éxacror.
Xen. Mem. iv. 5. 12; ey 82 nai rd dcardye-
oSa. dvonacdnva ex TOU ouridyras cory
BovAeverdar. Soph. Ped. R. 1036.

1 To this head belongs also the Jewish-
genealogical distinction from ¢@vAy, accord-
ing to which sarpa denotes a branch of
one of the twelve tribes (évAmv). See on
Luke fi. 4. Similarly in the sense of a
family-association often with Pindar. On
the relation of the word to the kindred
dparpia, see Boeckh, ad Pind. Nem. V. L.
iv. 47; Dissen, p. 387; Hermann, Staatsal-
ferth. § 5. 4, 10.

2 Jerome finds it in the archangel:, and
Theodoret says: ovpaviovs wardpagrovs
wvevpartixous «cade, and cites 1 Cor.
iv. 15.

7 Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Koppe, and
others.

4 Calovius, Wolf.

* With the Cabbalists, the Sephiroth.

®See Wetsteln, p. 247 f. ; Buxtorf. Lr.
Talim. p. 1758; Schoettgen, Horae, p. 1237 f.

7 Michaells, Zachariae, Morus, Meier,
Olshausen, and earlier expositors.

® Beza.

® For the very reason that Paul does no
put any defining addition to dvopzd¢era: (in
opposition to Reiche's objection). Nor is
it to be objected, with Reiche, that the
human werpd bears the name not from
God, but from the human ancestor. This
historical relation remains entirely unaffect-
ed by the Aiqhkr thought, that they arc
called sarpia from the universal, heavenly
Father.

10 Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel.
Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and
others, including Flatt und Olshausen.

CHAP. IIL, 14, 15. 421

God, thisis purelyimported. Others have taken ‘‘ nomen pro re,” ‘‘ the name
for the thing” (Zanchius, Menochius, Estius, e¢ al.), so that dvoudlecbac
would denote eristere. So, too, Riickert, according to whom Paul designs
to express the thought that God is called the Father, inasmuch as all that
lives in heaven and upon earth has from Him existence and name (2.¢., dig-
nity and peculiarity of nature). Contrary to linguistic usage ; eiva: dvoudlerac
must at least have been used in that case instead of dvoudfera:.’ Incorrectly
also Holzhausen : dvoudfecv means to call into existence. Reiche takes é& ov
dévondcerae (of whom it bears the name) as the expression of the highest domin-
ion and of the befitting reverence due, and refers raca razpia év ovp. to the
pairings of the Acons. The former without linguistic evidence : the latter
a hysteroproteron. |

Remarxk 1.—In ¢f od . . . dvoudleras God is certainly characterized as univer-
sal Father, as Father of all angel-classes in heaven and all peoples upon earth. Comp.
Luther's gloss: ‘‘All angels, all Christians, yea, all men, are God’s children,
for He created them all.’’ But it is not at all meant by the apostle in the bare
sense of creation, nor in the rationalistic conception of the all-fatherhood, when
he says that every zarpid derives this name éx Oecd, as from its father ; but in
the higher spiritual sense of the divine Fatherhood and the sonship of God.
He thinks, in connection with the éé ot, of a higher warpé0ev than that of the
mere creation. For rarpiai, so termed from God as their zar7p, are not merely
all the communities of angels, since these were indeed vio? Oeov from the begin-
ning, and have not fallen from this vidrn¢ ; but also all nationalities among
men, inasmuch as not only the Jews, but also all Gentile nations, have obtained
part in the Christian viofecia, and the latter are ovyxAnpovéua nal otoowua Kai
ouppitoxa Tio éexayyeAlac Ev ry Xpeor® (ver. 6). If this has not yet become com.
pletely realized, it has at any rate already been so partially, while Paul writes ;
and in God’s counsel it stands ideally as an accomplished fact. On that account
Paul says with reason also of every nationality upon earth, that it bears the
name zarpia, because God is its Father. Without cause, therefore, Harless bas
taken offence at the notion of the All-fatherhood, which is here withal clearly
though ideally expressed, and given to the passage a limitation to which the
all-embracing mode of expression is entirely opposed: ‘‘ whose name every
child [i.e., every true child] in heaven and upon earth bears.” Consequently, as
though Paul had written something like: ¢& ob rdoa dA Qty) mwatpid K.T.A.
With a like imported limitation Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘‘ omnis cognatio spiritu-
dis, qua conglutinantur sive angeli in coelis, sive fideles in terris,” ‘‘every spir-
itual relationship, whereby either angels in heaven, or the believing on earth
sre united.’’

Remanx. 2.—With the non-genuineness of rov xvpiov quar I. X. (see the crit-
ical remarks) falls also the possibility of referring 2& ot to Christ.2 But if those
words were genuine (de Wette, among others, defends them), éé od would still
apply to God, because éé vt x.r.A, characterizes the fatherly relation, and iva do
x.t.A. applies to the Father. — Lastly, polemic references, whether in opposition

1Comp. Isaeus, de Menecl. her. 41: rov 2 Beza, although with hesitation, Calvin,
sarépa, ob elvat avoudody, Plat. Pol. iv. p. Zanchius, Hammond, Cramer, Relche, and
4% E: dbvopdovrai reves evar. others.

422 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

to the particularism of the Jews,! or even in opposition to ‘‘scholam Simonis, qui
plura principia velut plures Deos introducebat, ‘‘the school of Simon, which
introduced a number of principles, as though a number of gods,” ? or, in oppo-
sition to the worship of angels,* or in opposition to the Gnostic doctrine of.
Syzygies,‘ are to be utterly dismissed, because arbitrary in themselves and in-
appropriate to the character and contents of the prayer before us.

Ver. 16. “Iva dq] (see the critical remarks) introduces the design of the
xéurtw x.t.A., and therewith the contents of the prayer. Comp. oni. 17. —
xatd Td mAovrog rH é6En¢ avTov] t.e., In accordance with the fact that His glory
is in so great fulness. Comp. oni. 7. It may be referred either to do tyiv
or to what follows. The former is the most natural ; comp. i. 17. <Ac-
cording to His rich fulness in glory, God can and will bestow that which is
prayed for. The défa, namely, embraces the whole glorious perfection of
God, and can only with caprice be limited to the power® or to the grace.* —
duvauet xpataw0jvac] instrumental dative : with power (which is instilled) to
be strengthened; opposite of éxxaxeiv, ver. 18. That which effects this
strengthening is the Holy Spirit (é:4 rod rvetyaroc airov). Comp. Rom. xv.
18. According to Harless, it is dative of the form,’ so that the being
strengthened in power is regarded as opposed to the being strengthened
in knowledge, or the like. But to what end would Paul have added
eig tov gow dv6p., if he had meant such special strengthening? The
strengthening is to concern the whole inner man; hence the reference
to a single faculty of the mind (Olshausen refers Juvéye: primarily to the
will) has no ground in the context. Others have explained it adrerbially :
ina powerful manner.* In this way divayz:c would be power, which is ap-
plied on the part of the strengthener.* But our interpretation better accords
with the contrast of éxxaxeiv, which implies a want of power on the part of
the readers, — ei¢ Tov tow GvOpurrov] cic, not for év,"* but in reference to the in-
ner man, containing the more precise definition of the relation." The inner
man (not to be identified with the xa:voc dvOpwroc) is the subject of the voir, the
rational and moral ego,—the essence of man which is conscious of itself as
an ethical personality,—which is in harmony with the divine will (Rom.
vil. 16, 25) ; but in the case of the unregenerate is liable to fall under
bondage to the power of sin in the flesh (Rom. vii. 23), and even in the
case of the regenerate * needs constant renewing (iv. 23 ; Rom. xii. 2) and
strengthening by the Spirit of God, whose seat of operation it is (dvvdyer

1 Chrysostom, Calvin, Zanchius, and ® Comp. Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 2.
others. 10 Vulgate, Beza, and others.
3 Estius. 11 See Kiihner, II. § 557, note I.
8 Michaelis. 12 It must be decided exclusively by the
4 Reiche. connection on each occasion, whether (as

§ Grotius, Koppe, and others.

6 Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, and others:
comp. Matthies, Holzhausen, Olshausen.

7 Comp. icxvay rots copacr, Xen. Mem. il.
7.7%.

* Beza, Vater, Rickert, Matthies. See
Bos, ed. Schaef. p. 748; Matthiae, p. 897.

here and 2 Cor. iv. 16; comp. 1 Pet. fii. 4)
the Inner man of the regenerate fs intended,
or that of the unregenerate (Rom. vii. 22).
The man is regenerate, however (in oppnsi-
tion to the evasive view in Delitzsch, Prych.
p. 880 f.), only of water and the Spirit (Tit.
fii. 5).

CHAP. I1I., 17. 423

nparawOivat dtd Tov rvebyaroc), in order not to be overcome by the sinful de-
sire in the cdpé, of which the yy, the animal soul-nature, is the living
principle (Gal. v. 16 f. ). The opposite is é &&w dvbpwrog (2 Cor. iv. 16),
i.e., the man as an outward phenomenon, constituted by the capa ri¢ oapxdc
(Col. ii. 11), which, by reason of its psychical quality (1 Cor. xv. 44), is the
seat of sin and death (Rom. vi. 6, vii. 18, 24). The inner man in and by
itself is—by virtue of the moral nature of its vovc, as the Kyo exerting the
moral will, and assenting to the divine law (Rom. vii. 20, 22)—directed to
the good, yet without the renewing and strengthening by the Holy Spirit
too weak for accomplishing, in opposition to the sinful principle in the
oéps, the good which is perceived, felt, and willed by it (Rom. vii. 15-23).
{See Note XXXII., p. 432.] We may add, it is all the less an ‘‘ absurd as-
sertion,”’ that the conceptions 6 fow and 6 ww dvfpwroc are derived from
Plato's philosophy,* inasmuch as for the apostle also the voi¢ in itself is the
moral faculty of thinking and willing in man ; inasmuch, further, as the
Platonic dichotomy of the human soul-life into rveiza (voc) and ypuyzf is
found also in Paul (1 Thess. v. 23 ; comp. Heb. iv. 12), and inasmuch as
the Platonic expressions had become popular (comp. also 1 Pet. iii. 4), so
that with the apostle the Platonism of that mode of conception and expres-
sion by no means needed to be a conscious one, or to imply an acquaintance
with the Platonic philosophy as such. [See Note XXXIII., p. 432.]

Ver. 17. Karowxjoa: x.r.A.] Parallel to duvéyec xparaww6yva, etc., which
‘*declarat, quale sit interioris hominis robur,”’ ‘‘ declares the nature of that
strength which belongs to the inner man,” Calvin. According to Rickert,
something different from what forms the object of the first petition is hero
prayed for, and there is a climax. In this way we should have, in the
absence of a connecting particle, to take the infinitive, with de Wette, as
the infinitive of the aim ; but the circumstance that with Christians the
being strengthened by the Spirit, who is indeed the Spirit of Christ, can-
not at all be thought of as different from the indwelling of Christ (Rom.
viii. 9, 10; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Phil. iv. 18; Rom. xv. 17f.), and the subse-
quent épp:¢. x. refex., which manifestly further expresses the conception of
the xpara:wGpvar, decide for the former view. The explanatory element,
however, lies in the emphatically prefixed xaro:joa : that Christ may take
up His abode by means of faith in your hearts. In the Holy Spirit, namely,
which is the Spirit of Christ (see on Rom. viii. 9, 10; Gal. ii. 20, iv. 6;
2 Cor. iii. 17), Christ fulfils the promise of His spiritual presence in the
hearts (John xiv. 28; comp. above, on ii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), in which
faith is the appropriating instrument on the part of man (hence d:@ rij¢ rio-
teuc). Where thus there is axparacwOqvac da rov rvetpuaroc, there is also
to be found a xarocxg#oar of Christ ; because the former is not possible
without a continuous activity of Christ in the hearts. Opposed to the
xaroxqoa: Of Christ in the hearts is a transitory (mpécxa:poc) reception of the
Holy Spirit (Gal. iii. 8). A more precise definition, by virtue of which the

1 Harless. and Philo, in Wetstein, and Fritzsche on
2? See the passages from Plato, Plotinus, Rom. vil. 22.

424 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

clause xaro:xjoa: x.r.A. may in reality be an explanatory clause to that which
precedes, is thus before us, namely, in the prefixed emphatic xaroxqoaz it-
self. This in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who find this more pre-
cise definition only in the following év ay. éppit. x. rebeu. —On xartotxeiv in
the spiritual sense, comp. Col. i. 19, ii. 9; Jas. iv. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 138; Test.
XIT. Patr. pp. 652, 784; and the passages in Theile, ad Jac. p. 220.
The conception of the temple, however, is not found here ; for the temple
would be the dwelling of God, and Christ the corner-stone, ii. 20 ff.

Ver. 18. ’Ev aydmry éppil. x. refeu.] is not to be separated by interpunction
from the following iva, because it belongs to iva «.1.4.:! in order that, rooted
and grounded in love, ye may be able, etc. Thus the aim of the two preced-
ing parallel infinitive clauses is expressed, and the emphatically prefixed
ay. éppil. x. reOeu. is quite in keeping with the Pauline doctrine of the riav«¢
dc aydang évepyovuévn, Gal. v. 6 ; 1 Cor. xiii. Through the strengthening
of their inner man by means of the Spirit, through the xarocxjoa: of Christ
in their hearts, the readers are to become established in love, and, having
been established in love, are able to comprehend the greatness of the love
of Christ. How often iva and other conjunctions follow a part of the sen-
tence which is with special emphasis prefixed, no matter whether that part
of the sentence be subject or object (Rom. xi. 81; 2 Cor. ii. 4; 2 Thess. ii.
7; Acts xix. 4; Gal. ii. 10, al.), may be seen in Fritzsche,? Buttmann.’
Comp. on Gal. ii. 10.* éy ay. éppig. x. reOeu. is, on the other hand, connected
with what precedes by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, Estius, Er.
Schmid, Michaelis, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Riickert, Mat-
thies, Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, holding
that it attaches itself, with abnormal employment of case, predicatively to
év taic xapd. tudv.* To the abnormal nominative of the construction contin-
ued in participles there would be in itself nothing to object ; ° but here the
perfect participles are opposed to this, since they in fact would express not
the state into which the readers are to come,’ but the state in which they
already are,* the state which is presupposed as predicate of the readers.° But
to the desire that the readers might be strengthened, and that Christ might
make His dwelling in their hearts, the presupposition that they «were already
év aydty éEppifwpévoe would stand in quite illogical relation. Present partici-
ples would be logically necessary : ‘‘ inasmuch as ye are being confirmed in
love,” namely, by the fact that Christ takes up His dwelling in you.
De Wette, on the other hand, is wrong in appealing to Col. ii. 7, where, in-

inasmuch as the predicate is

1 Comp. Lachmann.

® Ad Rom. II. p. 541.

8 Neut. Gr. p. 3838 [E. T 889].

* This construction is here followed by
Beza, Cajetanus, Camerarius, Heinsi:1s,
Grotius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Rosen-
mfiller, Flatt, Meier, Schenkel, and others,
including Winer, § 68, 1, and Buttmann
[E. T. 209]. Comp. already Photius in Oce-
cumenius.

5 Harless holds that the changing of the
construction is here, as Col. iL. 2, the more

natural,
equally applicable to xcapsiacs and Uuey, and
as an essential element must stand forth in-
dependently.

® See already Photius in Oecumentius, ad
loc. ; Winer, p. 505, Buttmann, p. 256 [E. T.
299].

™Tta utin amore sitis stabiles,”’ ‘That
ye may be stable In love,’” Morus.

®So also Rickert.

* So Hariless and Olshausen.

CHAP. III., 18. 425

deed, in the case of épp:lupévor the having received Christ appears as having
already preceded. — év ayéry] is, in accordance with the following figures,
the soil in which the readers were rooted and grounded, namely, in love, the
effect of faith, Christian brotherly love ; hence there is no reason in the rela-
tion of faith to love’ for supplying after éppcf. x. refeu., with Holzhausen
and Harless, ¢v Xpsor@, which is not even required by the anarthrous dydry;
for without an article (in amando, ‘‘in loving”), it has ‘‘ vim quasi verbi,”
‘Cas it were the force of a verb,” Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 1.9. Such a
supplement is, however, the more arbitrary, inasmuch as there is already a
definition by év ; consequently the reader could not light upon the idea of
supplying such in thought. é» ay. éppit. x. reOeu. is prefixed with emphasis,
because only the loving soul is in a position to recognize the love of Christ
(comp. 1 John iv. 7 ff.). Erroneously Beza says : ‘‘ charitatem intcllige, gua
diligimur a Deo,” ‘‘ understand charity, whereby we are beloved of God,” ?
and Bengel holds that the love of Christ, ver. 19, is meant ; against which
in the very mention of love along with faith (i. 15; 1 Cor. xiii.) the absence
of a genitival definition is decisive. [See Note XXXIV., p. 482 seq.] —
éppil. xai reOeuea.| a twofold figurative indication of the sense: steadfast and
enduring. Paul, in the vivacity of his imagination, conceives to himself the
congregation of his readers as a plant (comp. Matt. xiii. 3 ff.), perhaps a
tree (Matt. vii. 17), and at the same time as a building. Comp. Col. ii. 7 ;
1 Cor. iii. 9. Passages from profane literature for the tropical usage of
both words may be seen in Raphel, Herod. p. 584 ; Bos, Exerc. p. 183 ;
Wetstein, p. 248.4— éf:axtoyre] ye may be fully able (Ecclus. vii. 6 ; Plut.
Mor. p. 801 E ; Strabo, xvii. p. 788). — xaraAaBic6a] to apprehend, xatavoeiv.
Comp. Acts iv. 18, x. 34, xxv. 25 ; Josephus, Anté. viii. 6. 5, with classical
writers in the active. Comp. on Johni. 5. Strangely at variance with the
context (because the object is not suited thereto), Holzhausen takes it to
mean fo lay hold of, as a prize in the games (1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. ili. 12). —
avy raat Toig dyiorg} The highest and most precious knowledge (Phil. iii. 8)
Paul can desire only as a common possession of all Christians ; individuals,
for whom he wishes it, are to have it in communion with all, as the knovwl-
edge of the ground of salvation, so the attaining of the salration itself (Acts
xx. 82). — rid rAdrog x.7.A.] Sensuous illustration (arbitrarily declared by
de Wette to be ‘‘ hardly” in keeping with the Pauline style) of the idea :
how great in every relation. The deeply affected mind with its poetico-imag-
inative intuition looks upon the metaphysical magnitude asa physical, mathe-
matical one, owuarixoic oxfuact, ‘‘in corporeal characters,” * extending on every
side. Comp. Job xi. 7-9. The many modes of interpreting the several di-
mensions in the older expositors may be seen in Cornelius & Lapide and
Calovius. Heery special attempt at interpretation is unpsychological, and

1 Calvin already aptly remarks: ‘‘neque naces debeamus esse in caritate,” “ How
enim disputat P., ubi salue nostra fundata firm and tenacious we should be in love”).
sit. . . sed quam firma et tenax debeat in 2 So also Calovius, Wolf, and others.
nobis esse caritas,’’‘‘ For Paul dves not 3 Comp. the Fathers in Suloer's Thee. I.
dispute as to where our love isfounded... pp. 905.
but how firm and tenacious love in us 4 Chrysostom.
should be’? (rather; ‘‘ quam firmi et te-

426 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

only gives scope to that caprice which profanes by dissecting the outpour-
ing of enthusiasm.’ Of what, however, are these dimensions predicated? Not
of the Christian church, as the spiritual temple of God, Rev. xxi. 16,? which
is at variance with the context ; inasmuch as a temple is not spoken of
either before or after (reOeueAcwuévor . . . Td TARPwa Tov Oeov !). Not of the
work of redemption,*® because, after a new portion of the discourse is com-
menced with ver. 14, the nvorfpcoy is not again mentioned ; hence also not
of the mystery of the cross, in connection with which marvellous allegories
are drawn by Augustine and Estius from the figure of the cross.‘ Not of
the love of God to us ;* because previously év ayéry does not apply to this
love. Not of the ‘‘ divine gracious nature,” * which would only be correct if
the predicates were exclusive attributes of the divine nature, so that, asa
matter of course, the latter would suggest itself as the subject. Not of the
wisdom of God, which de Wette quite irrelevantly introduces from Col. ii.
8; Job xi. 8. The love of Christ to men, ver. 19, is the subject,’ the bound-
less greatness of which is depicted.* Instead, namely, of the apostle add-
ing ri¢ aydérn¢ tov Xporod immediately after iyo¢ and thus bringing toa
close the majestic flow of his discourse, now, when he has written as far as
ioc, there first presents itself to his lively conception the—as regards sense,
climactically parallel to the just expressed xaradasicba . . . byoc—oxymoron
yvovat ti brepBaddovoar tie yvooewc; he appends this, and can now no longer
express the love of Christ in the genitive, so that 1rd wAdro¢ . . . inpoc

1 By way of example, we subjoin some of
these modes of explanation, ¢g., Oecu-
menitus ; it isindicated that redemption and
the knowledge of Christ were foreordained
from eternity (ujxos), extend to all (xAdros),
reach even to hell in their efficacy (Bados),
and that Christ bas ascended above the
heavens (vyos). Erasmus, Paraphr. : ** alti-
tudine ad angelos usque se proferens, pro-
Sunditate ad inferos usque penetrans, long-
ttudine ac latitudine ad omnes bujus mundl
plagas sese dilatans,"’ “‘in height reaching
to the angels, in depth penetrating to hell,
in length and breadth stretching itself to all
the regions of this world.” Grotius, ‘‘ Zaéis-
sime se effundit in omnes homines, et in
longum, t.e., in omnia saecula se extendit,
et ex tnfima depressione hominem liberat,
et in loca suprema evehit,” ‘* Most widely
does it diffuse itself towards all men, and in
tis length it extends toall nations, and in its
depth frees man from the lowest depression,
and elevates him to the highest places.”’ For
other instances, see Calovius.

2 Heinsius, Homberg, Wolf, Michaells,
Cramer, Koppe, and others ; Comp. Bengel.

® Chrysostom: 7d pvonipiov 1d Ueip toy
oixovozndéy, Theophylact, Oecumemtius,
Theodoret, Beza, Piscator, Zanchlus, Calo-
vius, and others, including Rtickert, Meier,
Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Bleek.

« According to Estius, the length applies
to the upright beam of the cross as far as
the cross-beam ; the dreadth, to the cross-
beam ; the heighi, to the portion projecting
above the cross-beam; the depth, to the
portion fixed in the ground. He compre-
hends the length of the cross, who perceives
that from the beginning to the end of time
no one is justified save by the cross; the
breadth, who reflects that the church in all
the earth has come forth from the side of
Christ; the height, who ponders the sub-
limity of the glory in heaven obtained
though Christ ; the depth, who contemplates
the mystery of the divine election of grace,
and is thereby led to the utterance, Rom.
xi. 82! This as a warning instance how
even the better exegetes, when they give
the reins to subjectivity, may lose them-
selves in the most absurd attempts at inter.
pretation.

§ Chrysostom: 1rd péyedos ris aydwrys row
@cov, ‘“‘ the greatness of God's love.” Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Vatablus,
Grotius, Baumgarten, Flatt.

¢ Matthies.

7 Castalio, Calvin, Calixtus, Zachariae,
Morus, Storr, Rosenmiller, Holzhausen.

®Comp. Luther: “that nothing is so
broad, Jong, deep, high, as to be beyond the
power and help of Christ."

CHAP. III, 19. 427

remains without a genitive, but lays claim to its genitival definition as self-
evident from the dyar7v rot Xpiorov immediately following.

Ver. 19. Tvéva:] Parallel to xaradaBéodar. —ré] and, denotes, in a repeti-
tion of words of corresponding signification (caraZzaBéioda . . . yvdva), the
harmony, the symmetrical relation of the elements in question ;' hence we
have the less to assume a climaz in connection with yvdvat re x.r.A., since this
must have been hinted at least by yvavac dé, or more clearly by paAAov é2 xal
yvova, or the like. — ry trepBdAr. ri¢ yuéoews] The oxymoron (‘‘ suavissima
haec quasi correctio est,” ‘‘ This is a very charming correction, so to speak,”
Bengel) lies in the fact that an adequate knowledge of the love of Christ
transcends human capacity, but the relative knowledge of the same opens
up in a higher degree, the more the heart is filled with the Spirit of Christ,
and thereby is itself strengthened in loving (vv. 17, 18), which knowledge
is not of the discursive kind, but that which has its basis in the consciousness
of experience. Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly says : rd yréva: avrt rov arodaiaa
Abyet, ext rpayudruy eirav Tiy yvaotv, o¢ év padug 7d Eyvdpicds por ddovc Cwye,
avri row év arodaboet pe Tie Cupe natkornoac, ‘‘He says ‘to know,’ instead of
‘to enjoy,’ speaking of knowledge in respect to things, as in the Psalm,
‘Thou hast made known to me the ways of life,’ instead of ‘Thou hast put
me in the enjoyment of life.’” The genitive ri¢ yudcews is dependent on the
comparative trepfdAdovear,® not upon ayém, from which construction the
reading of Jerome,® aydr7y tic yvdoeuc, has arisen, which in any case—even
though we should understand, with Grotius, the love (to God and one’s
neighbor) which flows from the knowledge of Christ—yields an inappropriate
sense, and obliterates the oxymoron. —aydér rov Xprorov] genitive of the
subject. tis the love of Christ to us (Rom. viii. 85), shown in His atoning
death (Gal. ii. 20 ; Rom. v. 6 f., a/.). Incorrect (although still unhappily
enough defended by Holzhausen) is the view of Luther, 1545 :4 ‘‘ that to
love Christ is much better than all knowledge.” At variance with the
words, since rv trepB. ric yvdc. Can Only be taken acjectively ; and at vari-
ance with the context, since love to Christ is not spoken of in the whole
connection. Comp., on the other hand, vv. 8, 12. —iva rAnpufjre x.r.A.] Aim
of the éfco@bev xaradaBtobac . . . Xptorov : in order that ye may be filled up to
the whole fulness of God. 1d rAfpwua tov Ocov (comp. iv. 18, rAgpupa row
Xptorov) is, according to the context, which speaks of the operationes gratiae,
‘‘ operation of grace” (vv. 16-18, 20), the charismatic fulness, which is be-
stowed by God. Hence the sense : in order that ye may be filled with divine
gifts of grace to such extent, that the whole fulness of them (rav has the empha-
sis) shall have passed over upon you. tAfpwya namely, the definite meaning of
which is gathered from the context (comp. on i. 10, i. 28), has, by virtue of
its first signification : id quo res impletur, ‘‘that with which a thing is
filled,” often also the derived general signification of copia, rAavroc, rAGGos,
because that, by which a space is made full, appears as copiously present.

1 Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 108. ‘In the earlier editions he had correctly :
2 Hom. J. xxill. 847; Plat. Gorg.p.475C; the love of Christ, which yet surpasses all
Bernhardy, p. 170. knowledge.

2 Also A, 74, 115, Al., Ar. p.

428 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

So Song of Sol. v. 12: winpdyara idérav, Rom. xv. 20: rAfpapa edoylac
Xpiorot, Eph. iv. 18;' Eur. Jon. 664: ¢idev rAgpwua. Comp. Hesychius :
TAjpwua’ wAfoc, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 471. Quite so the German Fille.
Grotius takes it actively, thus as equivalent to wAgpwor, making full:
‘‘donis, guibus Deus implere solet homines,” ‘‘the gifts wherewith God is ac-
customed to fill men.” This is not, indeed, at variance with linguistic usage
(see on i. 10), but less simple, inasmuch as the passive zAypwhjre most natu-
rally makes us assume for tA#pwya also the passive notion, namely, that of
the experienced divine fulness of gifts. Others, retaining the signification :
ad quo res impletur, ‘‘that wherewith a thing is filled,” but not the signifi-
cation copia, ‘‘ fulness,” derived therefrom, have assumed as the meaning :
the perfection of God. Sce Chrysostom : rAnpotoba: rdong aperiig fo TAHpNS
éoriv 6 Geb, ‘to be filled with all the virtue whereof God is full.”
Comp. Oecumenius and others. Recently so Rickert : ‘‘in order that you,
may be continually more filled with all perfection, until you have finally at-
tained to all the fulness of the divine perfection.” Comp. Olshausen. But
this goal cannot possibly be thought of by Paul as one to be realized in the
temporal life (1 Cor. xiii. 10-12). This also in opposition to Matthies, who
understands the infinite fulness of the—in grace, truth, etc., inexhaustible
—essence of God, which has become manifest in Christ. Harless here, too
(but see oni. 23), will have the gracious presence of the divine déga, with
which God fills His people, to be meant ; just as Holzhausen make us think
of the Shechinah filling the temple.* The church, however, is not according
to the context here meant by 7A¢poua ;° and the turgid and involved analysis
given by Schenkel in this sense is quite an arbitrary importation of meaning, ‘
since ei¢ 7. T. TAHp. T. 8. can only state simply that the rAypwh7vaz is to be a
Sull one, consequently rav 7d zAfpwua must be the totality of that which is
communicated by the rAnpwhijvar. — cig] does not stand for é,° and does not
signify either : into the tery (becoming merged into), as Matthies, nor up tow-
ards,as Schenkel explains it, to which zAgpwya is not suitable ; but it in-
dicates the quantitative goal of the fulfilment.*

Vv. 20, 21. That which is strictly speaking the prayer, the petition, is at
an end ; but the confidence in the Almighty, who can still do far more,
draws forth from the praying heart a right full and solemn ascription of
praise, with the fulness of which that of Rom. xvi. 25-27 is to be compared.
— trip mévta rojoa] to be taken together. To be able to do beyond all, i.¢.,
more than all is a popular expression of the very highest active power ; so that
rdvra is quite unlimited, and it is not, with Grotius, arbitrarily to be limited
by quae hactenus visa sunt, ‘‘ what has hitherto been seen.” This trip zavra
does not belong to duvauévy,’ because otherwise zro:joa: would be superfiu-

1 Not even in John {. 16, where, rather, the
context (ver. 14: wAnpys xdptros x«.7.A.) de-
mands the first signification : Chat, of which
Christ is full.

2 Comp. Baumgarten, Michaelis.

3 Koppe, Stolz, and others.

$ The world-whole (?) fulfilling tteelf (7) in
God, i.e., completing itself unto the expression

of the highest perfection, reflecting itself in the
church (f), in so far as there is no longer found
in itany want, any kind of defect." A com-
plication of ideas, of which the clear-headed
rational Pau! was quite incapable.

§ Grotius, Estius. Rosenmiiller.

* Matthiae, p. 1848.

7 Holzhausen.

CHAP. III., 21. 429

ous ; nor does érép stand adzerbially (2 Cor. xi. 28), as Bengel would have
it, which could not occur to any reader on account of the rdvra standing be-
side it. There is nothing at which the action of God would have its limit ;
Ile can do still more. —wzepexrepicoov dv aitoby. % vootu.) & more precise
definition to the universal and indefinite irép rdévra, specializing and at the
same time enhancing the notion of irép : above measure more than what we ask
or understand. According to Rickert, dv airoiy. has reference to rdvra : Paul
namely, instead of adding dv airobu. immediately after réyra, has first for
the strengthening of the izép introduced the additional tepextep., and now
must needs annex in the genitive what ought properly, as construed with
ravra, to follow in the accusative. A course in itself quite unnecessary ;
and if the apostle had been concerned only about a strengthening of the
irép, and he had, in using wévra, already had 4 airoty. in his mind, he must
have written after iwepexrep.: rdvtov & atrofu.; so that the sense would be:
more than all (which we ask, etc.), exceedingly more than all, which we ask,
etc. — iepexrepicoot| is, with the exception of 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 13 (Elz.),
codd. at Dan. iii. 22, nowhere else preserved.' The frequent, and in part
bold, compounds with trép used by Paul are at such places in keeping with
the intensity of his pious feeling, which struggles after adequate expression.
— dy, for robrwy ad, is genitive of comparison.*—%] Whether our asking or our
apprehending be regarded, the one as the other is infinitely surpassed by God’s
active power. ‘‘ Cogitatio latius patet quam preces ; gradatio,” ‘‘ Thought
takes a wider range than prayers ; a gradation,” Bengel.— rv évepyoup. ] not
passive,” *® but middle. See on Gal. v. 6. — év jyiv] in our minds, appeal to the
consciousness of experience with regard to the divine power, which is at
work in the continued enlightenment and whole Christian endowment of
the inner man.‘ Michaelis arbitrarily refers it to the miraculous gifts, which
in fact would be applicable only to individuals,

Ver. 21. aivrq] pointing back with rhetorical emphasis.* — 7} défa] se. eiy :
the befitting honor. Comp. Rom. xi. 86, xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Phil. iv. 20.
Certainly God has the glory (i. 17), from which fact Harless explains the
article ; but it is not of this that the doxologies speak, not of this fact being
testified to God, but of His receiving the human praise, which to Him per-
tains (Rev. iv. 11). Compare the conception, dotva: dééav rEg Geg, Luke
xvii. 18 ; Acts xii. 23; John ix. 24 ; Rom. iv. 20 ; Rev. iv. 9. —év rg éxx2.
fy Xpor@ 'I.}] not to be taken together,® against which we may decidedly
urge, not indeed the want of the article,—since # éxxAycia tv Xpiorg, the
Christian church, might be combined as one idea in contradistinction from
the Jewish, or any other éxxAycia whatever, — but the utter superfluousness
of this distinguishing designation ; for that 4 éxxAycia was the Christian
church, the éx«Ayoia xar'éfoxqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” was self-evident. Rather is év

1 Comp., however, trepexwepiocns, 1 Thess. “ Chrysostom aptly remarks that this, too,
v. 18; Clem. Cor. 1.20; Acay de mepiocod, we should neither have asked nor hoped.
Mark vi. 51; vUsepreptooms, Mark vil. 87; ® See Schaef. Melet. p. 84; Kfhner, II,
vreprepcocevw, Rom. v. 20; 2 Cor. vil. 4. p. 880.

3 See Bernhardy, p. 139. * Luther, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller,

3 Estius. Flatt, Holzhausen, Meler, Olshausen.

430 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

7H éxxa, the outward domain in which God is to be praised, and év Xprorg the
spiritual sphere in which this ascription of praise is to take place ; for not
outside of Christ, but in Christ—as the specific element of faith, in which
the pious life-activity of the Christian moves—does he praise God. Comp.
vv. 5, 20. Allied, but not identical (in opposition to Grotius and others), is
the conception d:¢ Xprorov, Rom. i. 8, vii. 25. Both conceptions : Col. iii.
17. — ig maoac Tag yevede x.7.A.] unto all generations of the world-age of world-
ages." This cumulation of the expressions is solemn. The adv rév aidvey
denotes the eternal world-period beginning with the Parousia, the atéy péAAuy,
conceived of as the superlatioum, ‘‘ superlative,” of all world-periods,* in 80
far as it, just as the last and eternal one, transcends all other alévec since
the beginning of the world. Comp. Dan. vii. 18; 3 Esdr. iv. 88. The
plural expression of aiavec trav aiévey (Gal. i. 5; Phil. iv. 20, a2.) is not
different as to the thing intended, but is so as to the conception ; since in
it the Messianic period, although equally thought of (comp. also on Luke i. .
50) as the superlative of all the aidvec, is not thought of in its untty with-
out distinction, but as a continuous series of several periods : consequently
not as a single totality, as in the case of 6 aiév, but according to the several
constituent parts, which collectively form the whole of the Messianic eter-
nity,—in short, not as the time of times, as in our passage, but as the times of
times. [See Note XXXYV., p. 483.] By cic wdoac rac yevede x.7,A. the thought is
expressed, that the indicated ascription of praise to God will extend éo all the
generations of the (nigh) Messianic world-period, ¢.¢., that this ascription of
praise in the church is to endure not only up to the Parousia, but then also
ever onward from generation to generation in the Messianic aeon,—conse-
quently to last not merely é¢ rd rapév, ‘‘ for the present,” but also é¢ 73 aidcov,
“forever.” On yeved, generation (three of which about = 100 years), comp.
Acts xiv. 16, and the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha in Schlcusner's
Thes.; from Greek writers, in Wessel.* The designation of the successive
time-spaces of the everlasting Messianic aiéyv by yeveai, is derived from the
lapse of time in the pre-Messianic world-period—in which with the chang-
ing gencrations one age of man ever succeeds another—by virtue of a cer-
tain anthropological mode of regarding eternity. Of the church, however,
it is presupposed that she herself (and so, too, will it be with her praising
of God) endures on into the everlasting aidév, but not that she has still a very
long temporal duration before the Parousia, according to which de Wette
has here found a contradiction to the apostle’s expectation elsewhere of the
nearness of the Parousia. The Parousia brings for the éxxAncia not the end,
but the consummation. Hofmann,‘ retaining «ai before éy Xp. ’I. (see the
critical remarks), would have ei¢ rdoag rag yevede x.7.4.,to belong only to &
Xp. I., and not to év rg éxxAnoig ; for only at present and upon earth does
the glorification of God take place in the church, but in Christ it takes place
eternally. Incorrectly, because even the temporal glorification does not

1‘° aioves, periodi oeconomiae divinaeab Bengel.
una quasi scena ad aliam decurrentes," 2 Winer, p. 220.
“*nerfods of the divine economy extending, 3 Ad Diod. I. 24.
as it were, from one scene to another,” Schriffbew. IT. 2, p. 127.

NOTES, 431

take place otherwise than év Xprorg "Iyoot, consequently the cai would have
had its logical position only after Xpior6 "Incov. If wal were genuine, it
would not be equivalent to dé, as would need to be assumed on Hofmann’s
view, but it would be ef quidem, idque, ‘‘ and indeed,” ‘‘and that too,” how-
ever superfluous and cumbrous such a stress laid on it might be. Accord-
ing to Baur, p. 438, there meets us again here the Gnostic idea of the aiévec,
in accordance with which they, ‘‘as the yeveal rov aidvog rév aidvuy, are
the acons in the sense, in which God Himself, as the extra-temporal unity
of time, individualizes Himself in the aeons as the elements of self-unfold-
ing time.” In this way one may over-urge Gnosticism.

Norges spy American Eprror.

XXIX. Ver. 7. didxovoc.

‘* The meanings of dcdxovoc and trnpérnc are much more nearly allied ; they do
in fact continuously run into one another, and there are a multitude of occa-
sions on which they might be promiscuously used ; the more official character
of the umnpérnc is the point in which the distinction between them resides.”’
Trench’s Synonyms of the N. T., Second Series, p. 57.

XXX. Ver. 10. dtd rig txxAnoiac.

Eadie develops this thought with great eloquence : ‘‘ The church teaches the
angelic hosts. They have seen much of God’s working—many a sun lighted
up, and many a world launched into its orbit. They have been delighted with
the solution of many a problem and the development of many a mystery. But
in the proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, with its strange preparations ;
various agencies and stupendous effects—involving the origination and extinc-
tion of Judaism, the Incarnation and the Atonement, the manger and the cross,
the spread of the Greek language and the triumph of the Roman arms, ‘ these
principalities and powers in heavenly places’ beheld with rapture other and
brighter phases of a wisdom which had often dazzled them by its brilliant
and profound versatility, and surprised and entranced them by the infinite ful-
ness of the love which prompts it, and of the power which itself directs and
controls. The events that have transpired in the church on earth are the
means of augmenting the information of those pure and exalted beings who
encircle the throne of God. 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. i, 12.”’

XXXI. Ver. 15. wdoa warpid x.t.A.

The exact meaning of this passage is, that as every clan or family bears the
name of its ancestor (as, for example, in modern times Luther and Washington
are the names of more remote ancestors of the individuals so well known to the
world), so every patria is simply a perpetuation of the name of the pater
whence it ultimately springs. Wherever the patria is found its paternity is at
once indicated. If we find those who are members of a patria, ‘‘they lose the
cold and official name of subjects in the familiar and endearing appellation of
sons, and they are united to one another not dimly and unconsciously, as dif-

432 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

ferent products of the same divine workmanship, but they merge into one fam-
ily—‘ all they are brethren.’ Every rarpia must surely possess unbounded con-
fidence in the benignity and protection of the xar7p, and to Him, therefore,
the prayer of the apostle is directed” (Eadie).

XXXII. Ver. 16. rév gow dvOpwror. (1).

The higher powers of the unregenerate man are here regarded by Meyer as
not entirely dead with respect to spiritual things; they are only impaired,
directed to the good, but without the Holy Spirit too weak to effect anything.
Cf. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. This is perfectly consistent with Meyer's interpreta-
tion of chap. ii. 1, which see, and, on the other side, Note XVI, p. 398 seq. To
the student of church history the name of a serious error in the early church
will be readily suggested. Yet Dr. Riddle is right in maintaining that Dr.
Hodge goes too far in classifying all interpretations that insist upon a dis-
tinction between ‘‘the inner man’’ and ‘‘the new man,’’ as semi-Pelagian.
‘‘The inner man” is the sphere in which ‘‘the new man” is developed, ‘‘ the
central point of the human personality” (Harless, Chr. Ethics, p. 195), ‘not
the pure in antithesis to the impure, but only that in the regenerate man which
daily experiences renewal . . . In antithesis to the externality of the worldly
life, it is the inner man upon which the grace of God lays hold, the inner man
which daily is renewed while the outward man perishes’ (Harless on Eph. iii.
16). Hence in its application, as here, it may often by synecdoche be almost
identical with ‘‘ the new man.’’ Elsewhere 6 éow (owGev) dvfpwroc certainly
designates the regenerate internal nature of man (2 Cor, iv. 16 ; Eph. iii. 16 ;
cf. 1 Pet. iii. 4), although even there not in itself, but only in respect of the
connection’’ (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychology, p. 446). So Ellicott, Eadie, Braune,

XXXII. Ver. 16. rov iow Gvfpwrov. (2).

The relation of the expression to the Platonic philosophy is well indicated by
Cremer (Lexicon, p. 104 sq.): ‘* This Platonic reflection, with its identification
of the intellectual and moral nature, may be regarded as the expression, in
Platonic form, of a presentiment of the truth, such as readily dawns on the
human mind ; but we must not, therefore, suppose that St. Paul’s expression
had this basis—it was the outcome rather of bis own moral and religious ex-
perience in its harmony with the words of divine revelation,”’

XXXIV. Ver. 18. év ayary.

Westcott and Hort attach this clause to the preceding verse. As to Meyer’s
interpretation : ‘‘ The absence of the article is unduly pressed, both by Meyer
(in amando), and Harl. (subjective love, man’s love to Christ), such omissions in
the case of abstract nouns, especially when preceded by prepositions, being
not uncommon in the N. T., see Winer's Gr. § 19. 1, p. 109, and comp. Middle-
ton, Gr. Art. vi. 1, p. 98 (ed. Rose).” (Ellicott), So Eadie, in almost the same
words, who adds: ‘‘ But the entire context proves that the love referred to is
the grace of love. One would have expected a genitive of possession, if ayary
were not predicated of the persons themselves—if it were not a feeling in their
hearts. It is a clumsy and equivocal exegesis to comprise under the term both

NOTES. 433

Christ’s love to us and our love to Christ. Nor can we accede to Meyer, who
seems to restrict it to brother-love ; for if it be the grace of love which is here
specified, then it is love to Christ and to every creature that bears His image.
.. . This love is the root and foundation of Christian character, asall ad-
vancement is connected with its existence and exercise. ‘He prayeth well
whe loveth well.’ Love is the fundamental grace.’’ Yet only as the fruit of
faith, as the preceding verse shows.

XXXV. Ver. 21. rov aidvog rév aidvar.

“The addition of the genitive strengthens the idea. It is a periphrasis for
the superlative, Mutthiae, § 430” (Cremer). ‘‘ Harless finds a difference between
the two expressions aidvec tov aidvwy and aidy réy aidver, the former being
rather exlensive, and conveying the idea of mavrec aidvec, the latter being rather
inlensive, and more strictly in accordance with the Hebrew superlative. This is
ingenious, but apparently of doubtful application, as in actual practice the dif-
ference between the two expressions is hardly appreciable’’ (Ellicott). ‘‘ Eter-
nity is conceived as containing ages, just as our ‘age’ contains years ; and
then those ages are thought of as made up, like ours, of generations. Like the
similar expression aidve¢ Tav aidvwy, itis used by a transfer of what we know
in time, to express imperfectly and indeed improperly the idea of eternity’’
(Alford).

28

434 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER IV.

Ver. 6, After mdow Elz. has, with min. Chrys. Theodoret, tuiv ; for which
DEFGXKLand many min., also several vss. and Fathers, read 7uiv. So
Griesb. and Scholz. But neither pronoun is present in ABC &® and several
_ Main. vss. and Fathers. The pronouns are exegetic additions, designed to se-
cure the reference of rdvrwr, ravtwr, mdovv to the Christians. — Ver. 7. The ar-
ticle of yepi¢ is wanting in B D* F G L, Dam. min. Deleted by Lachm.
[Treg.] But it was more easily absorbed through the preceding H than
brought in through writing it twice ; and in its favor tell the readings 7 yapic
adty in C** 10, 31, Cyr., and # ydpi¢ atrov in Aeth., in which the article is
glossed. — Ver. 8. Before @duxe Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. have «ai, which has
against it A C*¥* D* E F G &®* 17, Copt. Slav. ant. Vulg. It. and several Latin
Fathers, and hence is suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachin. [and
Tisch.] But considerable witnesses still remain in favor of xai ; and since the
LXX. does not have it at Ps. lxviii. 19, the omission seems to have taken place
in accordance with the LXX. — Ver. 9. After xaréBn Elz. has zpazov, in opposi-
tion to decisive witnesses, although defended by Reiche. A more precisely
defining addition, as is also uépy in Elz. after xaror. Less weighty authority,
it is true, testifies against this uépy (hence it is retained not only by Reiche,
but also by Lachm. Scholz, Riick. (Hof. Braune, West. and Hort]), but it betrays
itself as a glossing product of the very old explanation of the descent into
hell, in order to designate the place whither Christ descended as subterranean.
— Ver. 15. Instead of 6 Xpioréc, A BC &* min. Fathers have merely Xpioréc.
So Lachm. and Tisch. [Treg. and West. and Hort]. To be preferred, on ac-
count of the oldest ms. attestation. — Ver. 16. pépovcg] A C, 14, 66 (on margin),
Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. and several Fathers have péAovc, which, after Grot.
Mill, and Bengel, is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Riick. (not
Lachm). An interpretation in accordance with the context. G has pérpove,
which likewise testifies in favor of puépovc. — Ver. 17. Aoixd] is wanting with
AB D* FG &, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Clem. Cyr. and Lat. Fathers.
Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Rick. [Tisch. Treg. West. and
Hort]. But how naturally might it be omitted, since Paul was speaking to
Gentiles who were now Christians, and upon a comparison with 1 Thess. iv. 5!
— Ver. 18. éoxot:ouévor}] Lachm. Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], read éoxorwpé-
vot, following AB &, Ath. Rightly ; the current form was brought in. — Ver.
26. The article before rapopy., deleted by Lachm. [Treg. West. and Hort.], is
wanting in A B &*, and is more likely to have been added on account of the
definite reference in the text, than to have been omitted. — Ver. 27. u7jre] All
uncials have z7dé. On that account, even apart from the greater linguistic
probability, rightly approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Scholz,
Riick. and Harless. — Ver. 28. To dyaGdv raic yepoiv] Many variations, among
which raig¢ idiate yepot rd ayabdv (so Lachm. [Tisch. Treg.] and Riick.) is by far
the best attested reading (A DE F G &* min. Ar. pol. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm.

CHAP. IV., 1. 435

Valg. It. Basil, Epiph. Naz. Jer. Aug. Pel.). The shortest readings are : merely
76 aya6dy with Clem., and merely raic yepoivy with Tertull, Harless (comp.
Mill) conjectures that the latter is the original form, and that 1 Cor. iv. 12, Gal.
v. 10 gave occasion to glosses. But only 1 Cor. iv. 12 is here parallel, because
Gal. vi. 10 does not speak of literal labor. There would hence be more war-
rant for regarding the simple rd dya6év in Clement as original. But in opposi-
tion to this, if may be urged that raic yepciv is wanting in no other witness,
and is in the highest degree appropriate to the connection ; whereas ré dyuGdv,
since the mention is of manual labor, might easily appear inappropriate. The
true reading accordingly I hold to be raic yepot rd dya06v, which remains, if we
delete idiacc in Lachm., as an addition from 1 Cor. iv. 12. And with this agree
also B &** Amiat. Ambrosiast., which actually read rai¢ yepo) rd ayafdy [West.
and Hort : raic xepotv rd aya9dv.] —Ver. 29. ypeiac] D* E* F G, 46, Arm. in sever-
al codd. of Vulg., codd. of It., Lat. codd. in Jer. and several Fathers :
sictewc. An interpretation.— Ver. 32. dé] is wanting, no doubt, in B
and min. Clar. Germ. Clem. Dam. Oec., and is deleted by Lachm., but was
easily dropped out through the last syllable of yivec6e. Omitted, it was then
in accordance with v. 1 made up for, in many witnesses, by ov (D* F G, lect.
6, 14, codd. of It.). — tuiv] Lachm.: jyiv, after B** D E K L, min. Syr. utr. Ar.
pol. Sahid. Arm. Chrys. in comm., Theodoret, Theophylact. But 7uiv appears
an alteration in accordance with v. 2; where, no doubt, the variations jud¢ and
vuov are found, but in opposition to so decisive a preponderance of witnesses
reading judc and nudr, that dude and tudv only become an evidence for the
originality of our duir.

Contents.—The paraenetic portion of the Epistle begins with the general
exhortation to the readers to live worthily of their vocation, whereupon, es-
pecially, mutual loving forbearance and the preservation of Christian unity
are brought prominently forward (vv. 1-3). Thereon follows, vv. 4-16, a
detailed exhibition of those relations, which render the preservation of
Christian unity a duty, namely—(a) that there is one body, one Spirit, etc.,
vv. 4-6. Further, (0) that to every individual is grace given in the measure
in which Christ apportions His gift, vv. 7-10. And (ce) that Christ has giv-
en the different teachers, until all should have attained to unity of the faith
and of knowledge, in order that dependence on false teaching may cease,
and, on the other hand, the truth may be acknowledged in love, and thus
all may grow in relation to Christ the head, from whom the whole church,
the body, accomplishes in love its organic development to perfection, vv.
11-16. Hereupon the discourse returns to the form of exhortation, namely,
that they no longer walk after a Gentile manner (vv. 17-19). They had, in-
decd, been quite otherwise taught, namely so, as it is truth in Jesus, that
they should lay aside the old man, and, on the other hand, should be re-
newed in their mind and should put on the new man (vv. 20-24). Lastly,
thus grounded, there follow the special exhortations no longer to lie, but to
‘speak the truth ; not to sin in anger, etc.; no longer to steal, but to work,
etc.; to hold no bad discourse, but, etc.; not to be bitter, passionate,
etc., but kind, compassionate, forgiving (vv. 25-32).

Ver. 1. See on vv. 1-6, Winzer, Commentat., Lips. 1889. — xapaxadd]

436 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

‘¢ Parte doctrinae absoluta venit, ut solet, ad adhortationes,” ‘‘after the doc-
trinal portion is finished, he comes, according to his custom, to exhortations,”
Grotius. No doubt, there presently begins again at ver. 4 a doctrinal ex-
position as far as ver. 16, but itis subservient to the paraenesis, and is itself
pervaded by the paraenetic element (vv. 14, 15). —otv] deduces the exhor-
tation from the immediately preceding ili. 21. For a walk in keeping with
the vocation, through which one belongs to the church, is what is practical-
ly in keeping with the praise of God in the church. The suitableness of
this nearest reference gives it the preference over the more vague ordinary
view, that otv draws its inference from the whole contents of the first three
chapters. Comp. on Rom. xil. 1.—é)a 6 déopsoc év xvp.] gives to the rapa-
cada ovv a touching force ‘‘ad excitandum affectum, quo sit efficacior exhor-
tatio,” ‘‘for the purpose of exciting emotion, whereby his exhortation might
be the more efficacious,” Estius ; comp. Calvin. Similarly Ignat. Trail. 12:
mwapaxadei iuac ta deoud pov, & evexev’Inoov Xpiorov mepipépw, ‘‘ my chains which
I bear for the sake of Jesus Christ beseech you.” But all that has been
said about exciting sympathetic feeling,'! cheering obedience,*® and the like,
is quite inappropriate, since it was just in his sufferings that Paul was
conscious of all his dignity with holy pride (comp. iii. 18 and on Gal. vi.
17). 8o here, too, in the zapaxada, the reader was to be affected by the
consciousness of the dignity and greatness of the martyr who utters it.? Ac-
cording to others, Paul wishes to present himself as an evample.* In that
case he must at least have written : rapuxaio ovv ty 6 déop. év xup. kal bag
afiac wepiw. x.T.A. — év xupiy] does not belong to wapaxadé,* but to 6 déapoc,
beside which it stands, and which alone needs its significant reference ;
comp. iii. 1; Phil. i. 18. Paul was the prisoner in the Lord (the article as
iii. 1), for he did not endure a captivity having its ground apart from Christ,
—such as one suffers who for any other reason is placed in bonds,—but én
Christ his being bound had its causal basis, just because he was bearing the
chains for Christ’s sake ; without, however, év xupip signifying ‘‘ for Christ’s
sake” (comp. on Gal. i. 24), as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many would
have it. Comp. rather, ovvepyéc év Xpiorg, ayarnroc év xupiy, ddxipog év Xpiore,
éxaextoc év xvpiy, Rom. xvi. 8, 8, 9, 10,18, al. It gives to the déopsog its spe-
cific character, by which therefore the captivity was essentially distinguished
from any other. — é xvpiw] is annexed without an article, because it is blend-
ed with 6 déoyeog into a unity of conception. The genitive designation, iii.
1, expresses the same thing, but otherwise conceived of. — afiwe mepirar#oa,
x.T.A.] t.e., to lead such a life-walk as is appropriate to the call to the Measi-
anic kingdom issued to you (at your conversion), ‘ne sint tanta gratia indig-
ni,” ‘‘ lest they be unworthy of such grace,” Calvin. Comp. Phil. i. 27;

! Koppe and older expositors. Christ's sake more than a king does in his
2**Ut Paulum obsequio exhilararent,’’ diadem.”
“That they should delight Paul by their 4 Harless, Olshausen ; comp. also Koppe.
obedience,” Bengel. ® Semler, Koppe with hesitation; Zan-

*Theodoret aptly remarks: rots &a@ ro» chius already suggested, but did not ap-
Xpeorov decpots évaBpuvetar waddrAov 7 Bacirevs _— prove it.
6:abyjpnart, “He delights in his bonds for

CHAP. IV., 2. 437

Col. i. 10; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Thess. i. 11; Matt. iii. 8; Rom. xvi. 2; Bern-
hardy, p. 140. The future possession of the kingdom, forsooth, is destined
only for those whose ethical frame is renewed and sanctified by the Holy
Spirit. See vv. 21 ff., 830; Rom. viii. 4 ff., xiv. 17; Gal. v. 21 f.; 1 Cor.
vi. 9 f., al. —#c] as at i. 6; and see on 2 Cor. i. 4. Attracted instead of
gv. Yet Paul might have written 9, 2 Tim. i. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 20.

Ver. 2. Mera séo. rarecvogp. x. mpaér.] the characteristic dispositions ac-
companying this rep:rargoac ; see Winer, p. 387, and with regard to mdone,
oni. 8; it belongs to both substantives. On the subject-matter, comp. Matt.
xi. 29; Col. iii. 12. The opposite of humility: ra iynAa gpoveiv, Rom. xii.
16, xi. 20 ; 1 Tim. vi. 17 5 doxeiy elvai r:, Gal. vi. 38. Onthe notion of zpaérye,
gentleness, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 140. [See Note XXXVI., p. 488 seq. ] —
peta paxpod.| is attached by Calvin, Estius, Zeltner, Calixtus, Baumgarten,
Michaclis, Zachariae, Riickert, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, to the fol-
lowing dveydueva. But the very repetition of the preposition, to which
appeal is made, most naturally points backwards, so that pera vexpod. appears
as parallel to yera mw. rarecvogp. x. mpaér., inasmuch, namely, as Paul makes
the general be followed by the special, and then gives to the latter the elu-
cidation aveyduevor x.t.A. Besides, pera paxpod., if it belonged to dveydu.,
would have an undue emphasis, since without long-suffering the avéyeo6a
GAAfZAuy would not exist at all ; Col. iii. 12 f. Bengel and Matthies, follow-
ing Theodoret and Oecumenius, have attached the whole pera 7. rar. x.
mpaét., peta paxpod. to avexduevot. But in this way we lose the gradual tran-
sition from the general éftuc repemar. tr. KA. to the special aveydu. aAAGA., which
under our construction is very naturally brought about. — aveydu. aarga, év
ayéry] The reciprocal forbearance in (ethical habit) love (comp. Rom, xv. 1 ;
Gal. vi. 2) is the practical expression of the pexpofyuie. Comp. Col. iii. 18.
It consists in the fact that we ‘‘aliorum infirmitates aequo animo ferimus,
nec ob ea, quae nobis in proximo displicent, ab ejus amicitia recedimus, sed
personam constanter amamus, etsi cif7a in odio habeamus,” ‘‘ bear the infir-
mities of others with patience, and do not withdraw from his friendship
because of those things in our neighbor that ,displease, but constantly love
his person, even though we have his vices in hatred,” Calovius. The nominatice
of the participle (comp. Col. i. 10) is put xara rd voobuevov, because the logical
subject of afiw¢ meperar., ver. 1, is tueic.’ Ignoring this familiar construction,
Heinsius, Knatchbull, and Homberg have placed a full stop after ver. 1, and
then supplied estote, ‘‘ be ye,” to the participles—a course which would only
be admissible if, as in Rom. xii. 9, this concise, pregnant mode of expres-
sion were implied in the context.— i aydry] belongs to the preced-
ing. On the thing itself, comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4. Lachmann, Holzhausen,
and Olshausen attach it to omovdéfovrec. The reason given by Olshausen,
that, as the paxpof. is only a form of expression of love, év dydrq could
not belong to what preccdes, would be set aside, even if it were in
itself valid, by the correct separation of vera uaxpo8. from avexsu. And ave-
x6u. GAA7A., taken alone, renders the discourse simply abrupt. How harmo-

1 Seo on ill. 18; comp. on 2 Cor. j. 7, and Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 970.

438 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

nious is the structure, when both participial clauses begin with the partici-
ple and close with the definitions attached by &, in which definitions there
is opened up the whole ethical domain (love and peace) to which the before-
named special virtues belong (1 Cor. xiii.) !

Ver. 8. Parallel of aveyéuevor x.7.4., which is characterized as respects the
effort by which it must be upheld. — ry évéryra tov rvetparoc] The rveiya is
not the human spirit, so that in general animé studiorumque consensus, ‘‘ har-
mony of mind and desires” is meant,' but, as is shown from ver. 4, and is in
itself clear from the exhortation to the Christian life (ver. 1), the Holy Spirit,
instead of which we have not, with de Wette and Schenkel, to understand
the Christian spirit of the community ; the N. T. knows not this modern
notion, but knows only the Holy Spirit of God, as that which rules in the
church (ii. 22), and upholds and develops its specific life, so that the latter
has precisely in the xorwuvia rod mvebuaroc (Phil. ii. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 18) its
common source and support. Rightly already Chrysostom (73 rvebya rors
yévet xai rpéroicg dtagopbic dteornxérac évoi, ‘‘ the Spirit unites those separated in
race and in ways of difference”) and his successors, Beza, Calovius, Benge},
and others, including Harless, Winzer, Bleek, and Ch. F. Fritzsche :* the
unity, which the Spirit produces. Comp. Phil. i. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 18 ; John
xvii. 21. And this unity is the identity of faith, of love, of sentiment, of
hope, etc., in the different subjects who are moved by the Spirit. —# ro
ouvvdiony Ti¢ eipyvnc] is attached by Lachmann to what follows, whereby the
parallelism with the preceding participial clause is destroyed. And after the
definition by év 7@ cvvdéouy tie eip. being prefixed, several of the following
elements of unity would not be appropriate, since even without the bond of
peace there is one Lord, one baptism, one God and Father. — év is ordinarily
taken as instrumental: through the bond of peace. In opposition to the par-
allelism with év ayé7y 3; and through the unity of the Spirit the bond of
peace is preserved, not the converse.* Hence : in the bond of peace, by which
is denoted the ethical relation, in which they are to preserve the unity of the
Spirit, namely, while peace one towards another must be the bond, which is to
envelope them. rig cipyvyc, accordingly, is genitive of apposition. Comp. otr-
decuoc evvoiac xal gidiac, *‘a bond of good will and friendship,” Plut. Num.
6; Acts vili. 23 ; Isa. lviii. 6. Others : ‘‘vinculum, quo paz retinetur,” ‘‘a
bond whereby peace is maintained,” ‘and thisis held to be lore. Appeal is
made to Col. iii. 14, and to the parallel with é» dydry. But, in Col. Le.,
love in fact is expressly named, and designated as civdecuog rig Tedeloryrtoc ;
while justice is done to the parallel with év ayémy by our interpretation also,

1 Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Erasmus, Calvin,
Piscator, Estius, Wolf, Koppe, and many,
‘{ncluding Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
Rickert, according to whom Paul did not
write tov vods, because he derives the unity
of the spirit from the Divine Spirit.

2 Nora opp. acad. p. QA4.

* What de Wette observes in opposition
to this view—that the peacefulness, to
which the readers are exhorted, is to pre-

serve the unity of the Spirit by the fact that
it holds all enveloped with the bond of
peace—is not sufficient ; since this peace-
fulness, which encircles all with the ond
of peace, at any rate preswpposes the unity
of the Spirit. Where there is dispeace, this
unity is already wanting.

4 Bengel ; so Theophylact, Calovius, and
others, including Rickert, Meier, Harless,
Winzer.

CHAP. IY., 4, 5. 439

and it was at any rate most natural for the reader to understand under the
the bond of peace peace itself, conceived of as a bond. Expositors would not
have sought for another explanation, had they not taken év as instrumental,
in which case the difficulty obtruded itself, that the unity of the Spirit is not
preserved by means of peace, but peace by means of the unity of the Spirit.
That, moreover, no inference may be drawn from ver. 8'as to divisions pre-
vailing in the church, Bengel has already rightly observed : ‘‘etiam ubi
nulla fissura est, monitis opus est,” ‘‘even where there is no sundrance,
there is need of admonitions.” And particularly was such exhortation nat-
ural for the apostle, even in the absence of special occasion, considering the
many saddening experiences which he had met with elsewhere on this point!

Ver. 4, on to ver. 6. Objective relations of unity, to which the non-compli-
ance with what is demanded in ver. 8 would be contradictory,’ and which
are consequently meant to incite towards compliance,—but without yép,*
which gives greater animation to the discourse. The simple éori isto be sup-
plied (comp. 1 Cor. x. 17); for the discourse is not hortatory, as it is taken
to be by Pelagius, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Calvin, Camerarius, Estius,
Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others, including Hofmann,* with which vv.
5 and 6 would not be in accord ; for the same reason also the words are not
to be attached appositionally to orovddéfovrec,* but they are independent and
purely assertive : there is one body and one Spirit. On év caua, by which the
totality of Christians as corpus (Christi) mysticum, ‘* Christ’s mystical body”
is meant, comp. ii. 16 ; Rom. xii. 5 ; 1 Cor, x. 17, xii. 13; on & zvebya,
which is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of that corpus mysticum, ‘‘ mystical
body,” ii. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 18. The explanation : ‘‘ one body and one soul”
(*‘quasi diceret, nos penitus corpore et anima, non ex parte duntaxat,
debere esse unitos,” ‘‘as though he said that we ought to be completely united
in body and soul, and not only partially,” Calvin), is excluded, as at vari-
ance with the context, by the specifically Christian character of the other
elements, and rendered impossible by the correct supplying of éori (not esse
debetis, ‘* ye ought to be”). — xaOd¢ nai éxAGb. x.7.A.] with which unity (& o.
x. &y xv.) the relation also of your calling is in keeping (comp. Col. iii. 15),
which took place by the fact that (év instrumental, see on Gal. i. 6) one
hope (namely, that of the eternal Messianic bliss) was communicated to you ;
for all in fact were called by God to this very Messianic owrypia (Phil. iii.
14).— rao KAho. tpov] genitive, as at 1.18. Bengel, we may add, aptly re-
marks : ‘‘Spiritus est arrhabo, atque ideo cum ejus mentione conjungitur
spes haereditatis,” ‘‘ The spirit is the seal, and therefore together with His
mention, is joined the hope of inheritance.” *

Ver, 5. Continuation. There are not several Lords, but One, who is Lord

1 These set forth—(1) the church itself con- _ this entire unity—one God and Father, etc.,
stituted on the fooling of unity—one body, ver. 6. Observe the threefold tripartile ar-
one Spirit, one blessed consummation, ver. rangement.

4; (2) means, by which the constilution of it as 2 Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. Il. p. 277.
an unity ts produced and preserved—one 3 Schriflbew. TU. 2, p. 128.

Lord, one faith, one baptism, ver. 5; (8) 4 Bleek.

the supreme ruler, disposer, and sustainer of 5 Comp. also Clem. Cor, I. 46.

440 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

of all believers, even Christ ; not several kinds of faith, but one faith, inas-
much as all place their confidence upon the atoning death of Christ, on
account of which they are justified and obtain salvation (Rom. iii. 23 f£.);
not several kinds of baptism, but one baptism, namely, into Christ (Rom. vi.
8; Gal. ili. 27 ; Acts x. 48, xix. 5). —el¢ xbpeoc at the head ; because pla
ciorce and the éy Bérrioua accomplished in the case of those who have be-
come believers are consequentia, ‘‘ consequences,” of cic xbpcoc. — To make of
siorte the doctrine of the faith,’ is at variance with linguistic usage ; comp.
on Gal. i. 23; Rom.i.5. [See Note XXXVIL., p. 484.] The évérne ri¢ rioreus
is here represented as present, but in ver. 18 as future. Both with justice; in-
asmuch as here the Christian faith in the narrower sense is intended, the jides
saloifica, ‘‘saving faith,” which in adi Christians was essentially the same,
while at ver. 13 it is the Christian faith in the wider sense, within the com-
pass of which there was diversity of convictions (as respects the validity of
the law, the resurrection, veneration of angels, asceticism, partaking of
flesh offered to idols, and other matters). — Of the Lord’s Supper, the unity
of which might likewise appear as a suitable element in the connection (1
Cor. x. 17), Paul does not make mention : according to Calovius, because it
was comprehended ‘‘ uno baptismatis sacramento ex paritatis ratione,” ‘‘in
the one sacrament of baptism, because of equality,” according to Harless,
because Paul was mentioning only the fundamental conditions of the Chris-
tian fellowship, as they exist from the outset, at the first entrance upon it ;
according to Olshausen, because the specific act of the Supper, the partak-
ing (rather, the communion, 1 Cor. x. 16) of Christ, is included in ei¢ xbpcoc,
pia wiorte ; according to de Wette, because it was less a something condi-
tioning the unity, than something representing this unity itself.* But, in
opposition to Calovius and Olshausen, it may be urged that, if Paul had
adopted the synecdochic point of view in the selection, he would not have
needed to mention viorc, since baptism presupposes faith ; in opposition to
Harless, that the fundamental conditions of the Christian communion which
Paul mentions are such, not specially for the beginning of it, but for its
whole duration ; in opposition to de Wette, finally, that the Lord's Supper
is, precisely as a representation of the unity, at the same time a powerful
ethical incitement thereto, and hence would have been admirably appropriate
in the scries of points adduced. The ground of its not being mentioned is
rather to be sought in the fact that the adducing of the Lord’s Supper
would have disturbed the threefold triad of the elements adduced, and have
broken through the whole rhythm of the passage. And the holy meal
might the more easily remain unmentioned, because it was at that time not
yet an observance subsisting by itself, but was combined with the common
meals ; hence, doubtless, in a context, where the Lord’s Supper is spoken of,
the ei¢ dproc (1 Cor. x. 17) is brought forward as a symbol of the unity of
Christians, but in another context the thought éy deizvov xvpiov or pia tpdrefa

1 Grotius, Zachariae, and others. would not stand in the way of the varied

* Most mistakenly of all, Schenkel holds development of arite. In that case, doubt-
that Paul did not regard a uniformobser- less, Paul would have done well not to
vance of the Supper as necessary, and mention daptien either.

OHAP. IV., 6. 441

cuplov—because the Supper was not something subsisting alone like baptism,
which as the constituent element of Christian standing could not remain un-
mentioned—did not so necessarily suggest itself. [See Note XXXVIII.,
p. 484. ]

Ver. 6. Observe the climactic advance in vv. 4-6: the Church, Christ,
God ;—and at the same time the climax in the divine Triad : Spirit, Lord,
Father. Only the dominion of the Father is the absolute one, that of the
Son is the derived, conferred, obtained (Phil. ii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff., iii.
23, al.,! in which He also disposes of the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 18).° — ravruv]
é.e., of all believers, as those who have the vioGecia (i. 5 ; Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal.
iii. 26, iv. 5), a0 that God is their God and Father. Holzhausen erroneously
(seeing that the context treats of the Christian évérnc) thinks that all men
are intended. Not even the spiritually dead members of the church are in-
cluded,* as results from the sequel indicated by d:4 and év, since they have
not the Spirit and belong not to Christ (Rom. viii. 9), but are aloof from
connection with Him and stand outside of grace (Gal. v. 4 f.; John xv. 2,
6), consequently have no share in the body of Christ (i. 28) and in the living
temple of God (ii. 22 f.). —6 én révroy x.r.A.] The relation of the Ged¢ xai
satyp wavrey to the zac: in threefold manner. Comp. Rom. xi. 36, where,
howevér, the prepositions define the subject, not, as here, the object.
xdvrev, TavTuv, and wag are equally to be taken as masculine, because the
preceding wdévrwv was masculine, and because the discourse continues in ver. 7
with évi d2 éxdot quay, wherein the ravrec are individualized. Wrongly,thcre-
fore, many ‘ have taken the first two as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zachariae,
Koppe, e¢ al., give the second point alone as neuter, and Matthies, on the
other hand, cxplains all three elements of the relation of God to the world
and mankind, consequently as neuter. —émi révrav] éxéve révtav, ‘above
all,” Chrysostom ; 1)v deororeiav onpuaive:, ‘‘He indicates absolute sway,”
Theodoret.* After this relation of transcendence there follows, in dia...
xaow, that of tmmanence.— dia rdvrwv] cannot, since the rdyre¢ are the
Christians and the relation of God to what is Christian is characterized,
apply either to the creation,* so that we should have to think of the all-
penetrating creative power of God, or to providence;™ but the charismatic
presence of God by means of the Holy Spirit, pervading and ruling all Chris-
tians, is meant. See also ver. 7, and comp. 1 Cor. xii. 6. The distinc-
tion from the following év rao lies not in the thing itself, since both elc-
ments denote the immanent ruling of God by virtue of His Spirit, but
in the form of conception, since with év the relation is conceived of ag
operative indwelling, and with 6:4 as operative movement throughout all
Christian hearts.°. According to Harless, the thought expressed in d:a raévrav

1Comp. Ernesti, Ursprung d. Sinde,I.p. odor. xiil. 14; Lobeok, ad Phryn. p. 474;

194 ff. Winer, p. 385.
2§8ee also Geass, ton der Person Christi, * Estius, Wolf, and others.

1st ed., p. 158 ff. 7 Chrysostom and his successors ; Beza,
§ In opposition to Miinchmeyer. Grotius: ‘‘per omnes diffundit providam
*Including Erasmus, Michaelis, Moras, suam gubernationem,” ‘‘through all He

Rickert, Baumgarten-Crusius. diffuses his provident governance.”

® Comp. Rom. Ix. 5 Seo Wessel, ad Di- ®*“Deus enim Spiritu sanctificationis

442 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

is, that God as head works through the members. But of the conception of
the head and the members there is absolutely nothing in the context ;
further, though mention is made of God as Father, itis not the Father,
but Christ, that is Head of the members ; lastly, in place of the simple or,
which is to be mentally supplied, there would be insensibly introduced a
wholly different supplement, namely, tvepydy, or a similar verb.’ At the
foundation of this explanation there lies, indeed, the presupposition, that
the relation of the Zrinity is expressed in the three prepositions, as Jerome,
Thomas, and many of the older expositors would have it. Against this alto-
gether arbitrary supposition, however, Theophylact already rightly declared
himself.? Olshausen, too, finds here, as at Rom. xi. 86, the Trinity; holding
that God is described in His various relations to the creature [rather to the
Christians] a8 Lord over all things, as instrument by which they are (this
being held to apply to the Son), and as the element in which they are.
Thus, moreover, the prepositional relation of the last two clauses is exact-
ly reversed, inasmuch as not é:4 mdvrov x.t.A. is explained, but d? ob wdvrec
x.t.A.! According to Beyschlag,* there is expressed, at least in the form of
hint, the threefold mode of existence of God (‘‘self-preservation, self-disclosure,
self-communication”). But apart from the fact that such a threefold form
of existence is not the expression of the New Testament triad, the self-com-
munication, in fact, is implied not only in év raorv, but necessarily already
in did révrov. Lastly, Koppe is wrong in an opposite way : ‘‘ Sententia
videtur wna, tantum variis formulis synonymis (!) expressa haec: cui vos omnes
debetis omnia,” ‘‘ The thought seems one; only this is expressed in various sy-
nonymous formulas; viz., ‘‘ to whom you all owe all things.”,—Observe, further,
that the great fundamental elements of unity, vv. 4-6, are matters of fact,
historically given with Christianity itself, and as such are not affected by
differences of doctrine ; hence without reason there have been found here
traces of the later age, when ‘‘upon the basis of the Pauline thought a
Catholic church was built,” of which the centralization in doctrine and
constitution was not derived from the adherents of Paul, but was a Petrine
thought.‘ The Catholic idea in our passage is just the Pauline one (1 Cor.
xii.), cherished by Christ Himself (John xvii. 20 f.).

Ver. 7.° Aé] forms the transition from the summary rédvTwr, rdvruv, rao,
ver. 6, to each individual among the Christians. No single one, however,—
in order to adduce this also as motive to the preservation of the évérn¢ rov
xvetzatoc¢,—was overlooked in the endowing with grace ; on every indirid-

diffusus est per omnia ecclesiae membra,”
‘For by the Spirit of sanctification, God
has been diffused through all the members
of the Church,” Calvin.

1This also in opposition to Winzer:
“qui per omnes operatur, quasi unoquo-
que utitur ad declarandam suam majesta-
tem, ad consilia sua exsequenda,” ‘‘ who
works through all, as though He uses each
one to declare His majesty and execute His
counsels.” So, in the main, de Wette
(comp. Bengel): it applies to the operation

brought, about by means of all; and Reiche:
‘omnibus utitur quasi instrumentis, quibus

. . res Christiana stabilitur, augetur, con-
summatur,” ‘Hfe uses all as instruments
whereby Christianity is established, aug-
mented, and consummated.”

2See also Hofmann, Schriftew. L p. 1.

3 Christol.d. N. T. p. 250.

4 Schwegler.

§ See on vv. 7-9, Hoelemann, Bidelstudien,
IT. p. 93 ff.

CHAP. IV., 8. 443
ual was it conferred, the grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ,
so that each individual on his part can and ought to contribute to the pres-
ervation of that unity. — 7 yéprc] t.e., according to the context, the grace of
God at work among the Christians, the communication of which is manifested
in the diverse yapiovara ; hence our passage is in harmony with the repre-
sentation given, Rom. xii. 6. — #6697] by Christ. — xara rd wétpov x.7.A.] ri
dwpeacg is a subjective genitive (Rom. xii. 3, 6 ; Eph. iv. 13). Hence: in
the proportion in which the gift of Christ is meted out, according as Christ
apportions to the one a larger, to the other a smaller measure of His gift
(i.e., the gift of the divine yépic). — The duped tov Xpiorod is the gift which
Christ gives (2 Cor. ix. 15), not : which Christ has receiced,' in opposition to
which ver. 8, iduxe déuara tr. avdp., is decisive.

Ver. 8. If it had just been said that by Christ the endowment of grace
was distributed in varied measure ‘to each individual, this is now confirmed
by a testimony of the Scripture. Nothing is to be treated as a parenthesis,
inasmuch as neither course of thought nor construction is interrupted. — dd
2£ye1] wherefore, because the case stands, as has been said, ver. 7, He saith.
Who says it (comp. v. 14), is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word
the Scripture is. See on 1 Cor. vi. 16 ; Gal. iii. 16 ; the supplying 7} ypagq
Or rd xvevpa must have been suggested by the context (Rom. xv. 10). The
manner of citation with the simple Aéyec, obviously meant of God, has as its
necessary presupposition, in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theop-
neustia of the O. T. The citation that follows is not ‘‘ ez carmine, quod
ab Ephesiis cantitari sciret,” ‘‘from a hymn, which he knew was often sung
by the Ephesians,” and for which Ps. ]xviii. 18 had partly furnished the
words, *—which is quite an arbitrary way of avoiding the difficulty, and at
variance with the divine Aéyec,—but is the passage of Scripture Ps. xviii.
18 itself according to the LXX. with free alteration. This psalm, in its his-
torical sense a song of triumph upon the solemn entry of God into Zion, is
here understood according to its Messianic significance—an understanding,
which has its warrant, not indeed in the much too general and vague prop-
osition, that one and the same God is the Revealer of the Old and of the

1 Oeder. in Wolf; see in opposition tothis
view, already Calvin.

2 Storr, Opusc. III. p. 309; Flatt.

3QOn what particular historic occasion
this highly poetic song was composed, is
for our passage a matter of indifference.
According to the (raditional view, it was
composed by David on the occasion of the
removal of the ark of the covenant from
the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem (2
Sam. vi. 12 ff.; 1 Chron. xv. f.) ; according
to Ewald, for the consecration of the new
temple after the captivity; according to
Hupfeld. upon the return from the captivity
and the restoration of the kingdom; ac-
cording to Hitzig, in celebration of the vic-
tory after the war of Jehoram and Jehosh-
aphat against the Moabites (2 Kings Iil.).

Others explain it otherwise. See the dif-
ferent views and explanations in Reuss, d.
acht u. sechzigste Psalm, ein Denkinal exeget.
Noth u. Kunst, 1851, who, however, himself
very inappropriately (without ‘exegetical
exigency and art’’) places the psalm in the
late period between Alexander and the
Maccabees, when the wish for the reunion
of the scattered ‘Israelites in Palestine is
supposed to be expressed in it; while Jus-
tus Olshausen even interprets it of the vic-
tories of the Maccabees under Jonathan or
Simon. See Ewald, Jahrb. IV. p. 8 f.
Certainly the psalm is neither Davidic nor
of the Maccabaean age, but belongs to the
restoration of the Theocracy after the cap-
tivity.

444 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

New Covenant,' but in the circumstance that the triumphal procession of
Jehovah, celebrated in the psalm, represents the victory of the Theocracy ;
and that, as every victory of the Theocracy is of a typical and in so far pro-
phetic Messianic character, the return of Christ into heaven appears as the
Messianic actual consummation of the divine triumph. The /ree deviation
from the original text and the LXX. consists partly in the immaterial cir-
cumstance that Paul transfers into the third person that which is said in
the second, and adds to avOpaéroac the article wanting in the LXX. ; partly
in the essential point, that instead of the original sense : ‘‘ Thou receivedst
gifts (namely, gifts of homage) among * men,” *® he expresses the sense : He
gave gifts to men,‘ whilc in other respects reproducing the transition of the
LXX. Consequently Paul has, as regards the éduxe, given a sense opposite
to the original one—a degree of variation such as, with all freedom in the
employment of Old Testament passages, is nowhere else met with in the
writings of the apostle, on which account the book Chissuk Emuna accused
him of falsifying the words of the psalm, while Whiston lovoked upon the
Hebrew text and the LXX. in Ps. lxviii. 18 as corrupt. This difference is
not to be explained, with Riickert, by lightly asserting: ‘‘ Paul did not
even perhaps know exactly how the words ran,” etc.; for in this way he
would be chargeable with a shallow caprice, for which there is no warrant;
moreover, the agreement, in other respects, of the citation with the original
text and the LXX. leads us to infer too exact an acquaintance with the pas-
sage adduced, to allow us to assume that Paul adduced the words in the
full belief that [\) was read in the Hebrew, and éduxe in the LXX. Rather
must he have in reality understood the passage of the psalm, as to its main
substance, just as he gives it. Inasmuch, namely, as he had recognized the
words in their bearing upon the antitypical Messianic fulfilment, and that
as a confirmation of what had been said of Christ in ver. 7, this latter spe-
cial application must have bcen suggested to him by another reading, which
he followed,* or else—with the freedom of a Messianic interpretation of the
words—by an exposition of the Hebrew words, which yielded essentially the
sense expressed by him. If the latter is the case (for in favor of the former
there is no trace of critical support), he took nN, etc., in the sense: thou
didst take away gifts, to distribute them among men,* and translated this in an

1 Harless.

2 Yet DOIN might also denote that men
themselves are the gifts. So Ewald takes it,
fc. (and comp. his <AusfiéArl. Lehrd. der
Hebr. Sprache, § Wi h), referring it specially
to the humbler servants of the temple,
whom David and Solomon,¢g., gathered
from among the subjugated peoples and
settled around the temple, whom thus God,
as if in a triumphal procession from Sinai
to Zion, Himself brought in as captives,
and then caused to be devoted by men to
Him as offerings, in order that they, who
were once so turbulent, might dwell peace-
fully in His service (‘‘ even rebellious ones
must dwell with Jah God,” as Ewald renders

the closing words of the passage). The
sense: ‘‘ (through men,” which Hoelemann,
on account of ver. 11, finds as a ‘* second-
ary” meaning in OWS, is not to be thought
of, not even according to the apostle, who
has expressed his view with such simple
definiteness by édwxe rois avOpwwors.

* DINZ NAD AMP, LEX.: cafes &
pata év avOpory, or according to another
reading: év av@pwrors.

‘Dv? MID 1p.

6 Tn) instead of nnp?.

On the 3, see Ewald, Ausfikri. Lehro.

der Heb. Spr. § 217 f. 1.

———— or

CHAP. IY., 8. 445

explanatory way: éduxe Sépara roi avOpdrag ; in connection with which the
transposing into the third person is to be regarded as an unintentional va-
riation in citing from memory. np», namely, has often the proleptic sense
to fetch (Germ. holen], é.e., to take anything for a person and to give it to
him." Comp. Bengel : ‘‘ accepit dona, quae statim daret,” ‘‘he received gifts,
which he immediately gave.” The utterance, however, as thus understood,*
Paul has reproduced, interpreting it as he has done, in order to place be-
yond doubt the sense which he attached to it, for the reader who might
have otherwise understood the words of the LXX. The Chaldee Para-
phrast likewise understood np? in such wise, that, while interpreting the
passage of Moses, he could expound : 8} *)27 3)Np 17), dedisti dona filiis
hominum, ‘‘Thou hast given gifts to the children of men.” It is evident
from this, since there is good reason for presupposing in the Targum—the
more so, as in our passage the Peshito agrees therewith *—older exegeti-
cal traditions, that Paul himself may have followed such a tradition.‘ To
assume that he actually did so, is in itself, and in reference to the previous
Rabbinical training of the apostle, free from objection, and has sufficient war-
rant in that old and peculiar agreement, even though we should explain the
agreement between the same citation in Justin, c. Tryph. 39, 87, and the quo-
tation of the apostle, by a dependence upon the latter.* On the other hand,
it is not to be said, with Beza, Calovius, and most older expositors,* that
the explanation given by Paul really corresponds with the historic sense of
the passage in the Psalm,’ which, judging by the context, is decidedly in-
correct. Even Calvin says: ‘‘nonnihil a genuino sensu hoc testimonium
detorsit Paulus,” ‘‘Paul somewhat distorted this testimony from its gen-
uine sense ;” and already Theodore of Mopsuestia aptly remarks : imadAdéac
d2 rd tAaBe dépara obtuc ev rH Yaduo xeiuevov, EdwKe Sédmara Eine, TH
traddayy mepi ti oixeiay xpyoduevoc axoAoviiay’ éxei wév ydp, ‘‘exchanging the
* He received gifts,’ thus stated in the psalm, he said, ‘ He gave gifts,’ using
hypallage for a proper construction ; for there” (in the psalm) spd¢ riv
urdbeow Td éAa Bev ipporrer, évravfa d2, ‘‘ he joined, ‘received,’ to the subject,
while here” (in our passage) r@ mpoxecuévy Td EdwKev axdAovdor Fy, ‘* ‘gave’
was in accordance with what preceded.” The deviation from the historic
sense cannot be set aside with fairness and without arbitrary presupposi-
tions. This holds not only of the opinions of Jerome and Erasmus (that in the
psalm np? is used, because the giving has not yet taken place, but is prom-

! See Gen. xvill. 5. xxvii. 18, xlit. 16, xlviii.
9; Job xxxviil. 20 (and Hirzel in loc.); 2
Sam. iv. 6, af.; see Gesen. Zhes. IT. p. 760,
and Hoelemann, p. 97 f.

2 The phrase formerly so often compared,
1a) nye np) Cex. xxl. 10, xxiv. 16), ts
not in place here, since np. in that phrase,

signifies nothing else than the simple ‘ake.
§ Which likewise, Ps. Ixviil. U.c., has dedisti
dona filtis hominum, “* Thou hast given gifts
to the children of men.”
* Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Cred-

ner, Beitrdge, IT. p. 121 f.

§ Credner, Beitr. II. p. 120.

® Chrysostom, without, however, enter-
ing into any particulars, says merely: the
prophet says thou hast received, but Paul:
he has given; and the two are one and the
same. Theodoret more precisely explains
himself: azddrepa 8 (the taking and giving)
yeydvnvar> AapBdvev yap Thy rior amodidwcs
thy xapiy, ** both occurred; for receiving
faith, he gave grace.’’ Comp. Oecumenlus.

7 See especially, Geier, ad Ps. é.c. p. 1181;
comp. also Hoelemann, p. 98 f.

446 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

ised as future) and of Calvin,’ but also of the expedients to which Harless
and Olshausen have recourse. According to Harless, namely, Paul wishes
to express the tdentity of God, whose decds at that time the word of Script-
ure represents in a form which, as identical with the form of Christ’s action,
makes us recognize the word of the O. T. as pointing forward to what was
to come, and the Christ of the N. T. as the God who already revealed Him-
self under the O. T.; in the words of the psalm the captives themselves are
described as sacrificial gifts, which the victor as God takes to Himself among
men ; the apostle changes merely the form of the words, so far as the con-
text makes it neccessary, inasmuch as he wishes to make out that those van-
quished ones—who have not made themselves what they are, but have been
made so of God — are those, of whom he had said that on every one accord-
ing to the measure of the gift of Christ the grace had been bestowed which
was already pointed to in the psalm. ‘‘ There is no other there,” says the apos-
tle, ‘‘than He who had descended to earth, to gain for Himself His own ;
not that they would have presented themselves to Him, but He takes them
as it pleases Him, and makes them what it pleases Him.” But (1)
Paul does not wish to express the identity of God, etc., but to show
that what is said of Christ in ver. 7 was also already prophesied Ps.
Ixviiil. 18; it was a question of the identity of the thing, as to which
it was self-evident that the triumph celebrated in Ps. Ixviii. is in
the N. T. fulfilment celebrated by Christ, who had come in the name of the
Lord. (2) In the Ps, J.c., MIND nnp?, ‘‘thou hast received gifts,” applies
to the gifts of homage which the triumphing Jehovah has received among
(from) men. Certainly, according to another explanation (see above,
Ewald’s view, and comp. also Bleek), the men themselves, namely, the van-
quished, may be regarded as the gifts or offerings which God has received ;
but who could withal read between the lines in the apostle’s citation what,
according to Harless, one ought to read between them, in order in the end
to find only the form of the words changed? Olshausen, who, we may men-
tion, quite erroneously (see vv. 9, 10) specifies roi¢ avOpdérore as the point of
the citation,? agrees with Harless in so far as he is of opinion that the

1“Quam de Christi exaltatione pauca
verba Psalmi citasset, de suo adjecit, cum
dedisse dona, ut sit minoris et majoris com-
paratio, qua ostendere vult Paulus, quanto
praestantior sit ista Dei ascensio in Chris-
ti persona, quam fuerit in veteribus eccle-
siae triumphis,”’ ‘‘When he cited a few
words of the Psalm concerning Christ’s
exaltation, he added by his own authority,
that he had given gifts, in order that there
might be a comparison of less and greater,
whereby Paul wants to show how much
more excellent is this ascension of God in
the person of Christ, than it was in the an-
cient triumphs,”

2“*Paul does not wish by the quotation
primarily to represent Christ as the dispens-
er of the gifts, but to prove from the O. T.

itself the universality of the gifts of Christ,
consequently the equal title of the Gentiles;
He has by His redemption conferred gifts
not merely on this one or that one, not up-
on the Jews alone, but wpon men as such,
upon mankind.” What Olshausen has fur-
ther advanced respecting the dative ex-
pression with the article (instead of which
the Hebrew text has among men, while no
article is used in the LXX.)—to wit, that
by €5. S6u. rots av@pwwors, which ap
plies to aZ men, it is not intended to say:
all men must be redeemed, and as redeem-
ed receive gifts; but: all men may be re-
deemed, and as redeemed obtain gifts of
grace; and in so far this deviation from
the original was altogether immaterial—is
pure invention. The difference certainly

CHAP. Iv., 8. 447
thought of the psalmist : ‘‘ Thou hast taken to Thyself gifts among men,”
affirms nothing else than : ‘‘Thou hast chosen to Thyself the redeemed as
offerings ;”’ but further adds: ‘‘ But the man whom God chooses as an of-
fering for Himself, i.¢., as an instrument for His aims, He furnishes with
the gifts necessary to the attainment of the same ; and this side (7) the
apostle, in accordance with his tendency, here brings into special promi-
nence.”? Similarly also Hofmann,’ who is of opinion that here, in the N. T.
application of the passage from the psalm, it is one and the same thing
whether one say : that Christ has, for the accomplishment of the work of
His honor, caused to be given to Himself by His vanquished that which
they possessed, or: that He has given them gifts to this end ; ‘‘for He
takes that which is theirs into His service, when He gives to them what is .
His, to make them capable of service.” Essentially so also Delitzsch on
the psalm, /.c. Such subtleties, by means of which any guid pro quo at
pleasure may easily enough be got out of the alleged light and significance
of the ‘‘ history of the fulfilment,” * may be conveniently foisted upon the
words of the apostle, but with what right ?— avaBa¢ cic ioc] Whether we
understand the pin my in the original text of the ascending of the vic-
torious God into heasen’® or to Zion,* or leave it without more precise defi-
nition of place ;° according to the Messianic accomplishment of the divine tri-
umphal procession, which takes place through Christ, the words apply to
Christ ascended (comp. twGeic, Acts ii. 88) to heaven (Ps. cii. 20, al.; Ecclus.
xiii, 8 ; Luke i. 78), who has brought in as captives enemies that have been
vanquished by Him upon this triumphal march. [See Note XXXIX.,
p. 484 seq. ]—aiyuadwoia, namely, is the abstract collective for aiyudawroa: (Ju-
dith ii. 9 ; Ezr. vi. 5; Rev. xiii. 10 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 70), like fvyuzpayia for
fixpayo, etc. See onii. 2. On the connection with the kindred verb (to
take captive, to lead, to bring in as such), comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ;
1 Macc. ix. 72 ; and see, in general, Winer, p. 201 ; Lobeck, Paral. p. 501.
The character of aizuadwretw as Greek is even worse than that of aiyyadwrifu.*®
But what subjects are meant by aizyuaducia? Not the redeemed, as already
Justin, «. Tryph. 36; further, Theodoret (cb yap éAevbépove dvtrac juac
OxmaAdrevoev, add’ td tov diaBdAov yeyevnuévore avryyuaddrevoe, nai tiv eAevdepiav
juiv édwphoaro, ‘‘ He did not make captive us who were free, but in turn
made us captive who were under the devil, and presented us with freedom”)
Oecumenius, Thomas, Erasmus,’ and others, including Meier, Harless, Ols-

does not lie in the fact that DTN3 points

only to some, and the expression of Paul to
ali men, as Olshausen supposes, but solely

in the nnp> of the original text and the

éSexe of Paul. As well DIN5 as tors avOpa-
wos designates men according to the cate-
gory ; but according to the original text it
is men who are the givers, so that the Tri-
umphator fakes them; whereas, according
to Paul, the men are the recipients, to whom
Ee gives,

1 Schriflbew. TI. 1, p. 484 f.

3 Delitzsch.

3 Hengstenberg, Lengerke, Hitzig, Har-
less, Hoslemann, and others.

4 Ewald, Bleek.

§ Hofmann.

* See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 442.

™=° Captivorum gregem e peccati dia-
bolique tyrannide liberatum,” ‘‘a body of
captives delivered from the tyranny of sin
and the devil.”’

448 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

hausen,’ Baumgarten-Crusius,* have interpreted it ; seeing that the captives,
both according to the original text and according to our citation, are differ-
ent from the avOpdro, ‘‘men,” who are subsequently mentioned, namely, such
vanquished ones as are visited by the victor with the hard penal fate of cap-
tives in war. Hence also it cannot be the souls delivered by Christ from
Hades* that are spoken of. It is the enemies of Christ and His kingdom, the
antichristian powers, including those of hell (but not these alone) ; their
power is broken by the completed redeeming work of the Lord. By His
resurrection and exaltation they have been rendered powerless, and subject-
ed to His victorious might ; consequently they appear, in accordance with
the poetical mould of our passage, as those whom He has vanquished and
carries with Him on His procession from Hades into heaven (see ver. 9), 50
that He, having gone up on high, brings them in as prisoners of war. Not as
if He has really brought them in captivity to heaven, but under the jigure
of the triumphator, as which the ascended Christ appears in accordance with
the prophetic view given in Ps. lxviii., the matter thus presents itself,
namely, the overcoming of His foes displaying itself through His ascension.
This vanquishing, we may add, in its actual execution still continues even
after the entering upon the kingly office which took place with the exalta-
tion of Christ ; dei yap abvrév Bactlebew aypic ov 09 wavTac Tove ExOpove brs
rovc wédag avrov, ‘‘ for He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under
His feet,” 1 Cor. xv. 25. Not the jimal overcoming of the foes of
Christ is thus meant, but the actual aiyuadwretev aiyyzadA. ofttimes recurs un-
til the final consummation, until at length foyvaro¢ éxOpic xarapyeita 3
Gavaroc, ‘* The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,” 1 Cor. xv.
26, namely, at the resurrection on the last day. In this case, however,
there is the more reason for leaving the matter without more precise
definition of the hostile powers vanquished (Satanic and human), as
the context suggests nothing more special, and as, speaking generally, the
XpaAdr. aixyuad. does not form for the aim and connection of our passage
the essential point of the psalmist’s saying, but the latter would have
been quite as fully in its place here, even though that gypaddr. aizp. had
not been inserted, since the element confirmatory of ver. 7 lies simply
in the avaPac cig too Eduxe déuata roig avfipwraic.* ‘Yet we have not, with

a

1 “Men upon earth, so far as they are
held captive by sin and in the ultimate
ground by the prince of this world, and
among these, in particular, the Gentile
world.”

2“ Those gained for the kingdom of
Christ.”

3 Lyra, Estius, and many Catholic exposi-
tors; KGnig, con Christi HoUenfahrt, p. 2;
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 414; and Baur.

* Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Calo-
vius, and many others understood specially
the devil and those things connected with
him, death, condemnation, and sin. Comp.
Luther’s gloss: ‘‘that is sin, death, and

conscience, that they may not seize or keep
us.’’ Grotius rationalizes : ‘‘ per apostolorum
doctrinam, vicit et velut captivam egit
tdololatriamn et vitia alia,” “ by the doctrine
of the apostles he conquered and led idalairy
ang other vices captive.” Most compre-
hensively, but with an admixture of hetero-
geneous elements, Calvin says: ‘** Neque
enim Satanam modo et peccatum et mor-
tem totosque inferos prostravit, sed ex
rebellibus quotidie facit sibi obsequentem
populum, quum verbo suo carnis nostrae
lasciviam domat; rursus hustes suos, i.¢.,
impios omnes quasi ferreis catenis continet
constrictos, dum illorum furorem cohibet

CHAP. IV., 9. 449
Morus,’ to rationalize the conception of the apostle: ‘‘removit omnia, quae
religionis suae propagationi et felicitati hominum obstarent impedimenta,”
‘«He removed all things which, as impediments, obstructed the propagation
of his religion and the happiness of men,” by which the sense is altered, and
vanquished foes become obstacles taken out of the way. — déuara] according
to Paul, gifts in which é667 7 ydpic, ver. 7, thus equivalent to yapicuara.
An appropriate commentary on the sense in which Paul has taken the
citation, is Acts ii. 33. But to look upon the interpretation of the éafe
déuata of the Ps. /.c., in the sense of gifts of the Spirit as current among
the disciples of the apostles,* is the more arbitrary, inasmuch as de Wette him-
self finds it probable that some apostle [see Note XL., p. 485,] has alle-
gorized the passage of the psalm.

Ver. 9 is not a (Rabbinical) argument to show that the subject of the pas-
sage in the psalm is no other than Christ, in so far as of Him alone could
be predicated that descending which, in speaking of ascending, must be
presumed to have gone before.*? Such an argument would have been aim-
less, since the subject of the passage of the psalm in its Messianic fulfilment
was self-evident ; it would, moreover, not have even logical correctness,
since, in fact, God Himself, as often in the O. T., might be thought of as
the xarafd¢ who avé37. Paul rather brings out in ver. 9 what the ascension
of Christ prophetically meant in Ps. \xviii. contains as its presupposition ; and
this for the end of showing * how the matter affirmed and supported by the
passage of the psalm in ver. 7, namely, Christ’s bestowal of grace on all
individuals respectively, stands in necessary connection with His general posi-
tion of filling the whole universe; a function upon which He must hace entered
by His very descending into the depths of the earth and His ascending above all
heavens (ver. 10). — dé] carrying forward the argument : ‘‘ but the avéfy, in
order now to show you what is therewith said,” etc. — 1d avéfy] not: the
word avé,3n, for this does not occur in the passage of the psalm, but the predi-
cate avé3n, which was contained in avaBdc. — ri éoriv} not : what of an ertra-
ordinary nature,* but simply : what is said therewith, what is implied in it ?
Comp. Matt. ix. 13; John xvi., 17 f., x. 6, al. — dre nal xaré3y] that He also
(not merely ascended, but also) descended. The having ascended presup-
poses the having descended. The correctness of this conclusion rests upon
the admitted fact that the risen Christ had His original dwelling not upon
earth, as Elijah had, but in the heaven, whither He went up ; consequently

sua virtute, ne plus valeant, quam IIlis con-
cedit, ‘‘For not only did he prostrate
Satan, and sin, and death, and all hell, but
out of the rebellious he daily makes for
Himself an obedient people, when by His
word he subdues the wantonness of our
fiesh ; again His enemies, #.¢., all the god-
less He holds bound as though with iron
chains, while by his virtue He curbs their
fury, so that they have no more power than
He concedes them.”

1 Comp. Flatt.

2 De Wette.

29

* Michaelis, Koppe; Giider, von der Ers-
chein. Christi unter den Todten, p. 88; also
my own earlier view.

‘The view of Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Erasmus, Cornelius & Lapide, and otbers,
again taken up by Olshausen (comp. also
Hofmann, é.c. 848), that Paul would by the
example of Christ exhort to humility, is
quite at variance with the context. And
Rickert also is wrong in holding that ver. 9
contains only an incidental remark, which
might equally well have been wanting.

§ Hoelemann.

450 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

He could not but have descended from this, if He has ascended. Comp.
John iii. 18.— The depth, however, into which He descended— whether,
namely, merely to the earth, or deeper still into the subterranean world—is
not to be inferred from the avéBy itself, but was fixed with historic certainty
in the believing consciousness of the readers ; hence Paul could with good
reason write not merely dr: xai xaréBy, but Gre wai nar. cig rad nardrepa
THO YTS, i1.e., into that which is deeper down than the earth, into Hades.’ He
might also have designated Hades by rad xardérara ric yic, the lowest
depth of the earth (YR NVANA, LXX. Ps. lxiii. 9 ; Prayer of Azar. 13;
not Ps. cxxxix. 15, where ‘‘in the depths of the earth” is only a sensuous
form of the conception ‘‘in secret”) ; but has purposely chosen that compara-
tive expression—in which the genitive is that of comparison, not the parti-
tive genitive—in order to impart as strong a coloring as possible to the depth
of Hades, in contradiction to that heaven from which Christ descended ; He
descended deeper than the earth ia (the earth being conceived of as a plane),
in that He descended even into the subterranean region beyond, into Hades.
The goal of the humiliation Paul here designates locally, whereas at Phil. ii. 8
he specifies it as respects the degree, namely, by pé zp: Oavdrov x.7r.4., which,
however, is as to substance in agreement with our passage, since the death
of Christ had as its immediate consequence His descent into Hades (Luke
xxiii. 43 ; Matt. xii. 40 ; Acts ii.27; 1 Pet. iii. 19), as, indeed, also at Phil.
ii. 10 (karayfoviev) this descent is presupposed as having taken place in
death. The explanation of the so-called descent into hell? is therefore the
right one,* because the object was to present Christ as the One who fills the
whole universe, so that, with a view to His entering upon this His all-filling
activity, He has previously with His victorious presence passed through the
whole world, having descended from heaven into the utmost depth, and
ascended from this depth to the utmost height—a view, which of necessity
had to extend not merely to the earth, but even into the nether world, just
because Christ, as was historically certain for every believer, had been in the
nether world, and consequently, by virtue of His exaltation to the night
hand of God, really had the two utmost limits of the universe, from below
upwards, as the terminos a quo and ad quem of His triumphal progress.
Further, had Paul intended only the descent to earth, it would not be easy
to see why he should not have written merely xaréSy, or at any rate simply

1 xaréBnv 8épnor “Aisos eiow, “I descended
within the abode of Hades,’ Hom. Qd.
Xxfii, 252; ‘AiSao Sduovs vrd KevOert yains
épxex, ‘You come to the abode of
Hades, beneath the depths of the earth,”’
dt. xxii. 482; comp. Od. xxiv. 204; Soph.
Ant. 816, Trach. 1088.

2 Irenaeus in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, I.
p. 7: Tertullian, Jerome, Pelagius, Ambro-
siaster, Erasmus, Estius, Calovius, Bengel,
and many others, including Rickert, Ols-
hausen, Delitzsch, Lechler, Ewald, Hoele-
mann, Bleek; Baur scenting Gnosticism
[Braune, Gess, Ewald, H, Miller].

§ Thomasius, II. p. 262, is stilidoubtful on
the question ; Kahnis, I. p. 508, regards it
as preponderantly probable. Calvin called
it inepta, “silly,” and Reiche falea, ‘‘ false."

4 Thomas, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Ham-
mond, Michaelis, Fischer, de witiis Lez.
N. T., and many, including Winer, p. 470;
Holzhausen, Meier, Matthies, Harless,
Rabiger, p. 68 ff., Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Hofmann, p. 345, Bisping, Schenkel,
Schmid, Bil. Theol. II. p. 291, Reiche, Comm.
crit. p. 1174 f., Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T.
228 [Weiss’ Bibl. Theol., R. Schmidt, Hilgen-
feld, Pfiiciderer, Reuss, Engelhardt].

CHAP. IV., 10. 451

xarlBn cig rv yay Or xaréByn ei¢ THY yHv natw (Acts ii. 19), instead of
employing the circumstantial and affected, but yet only feebly paraphrasing
expression : into the lower regions, which are the earth (for so we should have to
explain cic ra xardérepa tH¢ yqc, understood only of the earth ; see Winer, l.c.).
This expression is only accounted for, sharp and telling, when it points the
reader to a region lower than the earth, to that Hades, whither every reader
knew that Christ had descended. Doubtless the apostle might have writ-
ten simply eio ddov (Acts ii. 27) or éu¢ gdov (Matt. xi. 23), or also cig rv
&3vocov (Rom. x. 7) or ei¢ tiv xapdiay tHe yo (Matt. xii. 40) ; but the whole
pathos of the passage, with its contrast of the extremes of depth and height,
very naturally suggested the purposely chosen designation eic¢ rd xaréreoa
tie ync. The ordinary objection, that, in fact, Christ did not ascend from
Hades, but from earth to heaven, is of no effect, because He has in reality
returned, arisen and ascended from Hades, consequently Hades was the
deepest terminus a quo of His ascension, as it had previously been the deep-
est terminus ad quem of His descent, and on this deepest turning-point all
here depended, even apart from the fact that the long interval of forty days
between resurrection and ascension is historically very problematic (see
Remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51). Nearest to our view come Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Bullinger, Drusius, Zachariae, and others,
who, however, refer the passage only to the death and the burial ; ! whereas
Calomesius, Witsius, Calixtus, and others (already Beza, by way of sugges-
tion), appealing to Ps. cxxxix. 15, strangely enough interpret it of the
descent into the womb. [See Note XLL, p. 485. ]

Ver. 10. Result from ver. 9, without ot, but thereby coming in the more
vividly and with a certain triumph ; ‘‘alio gravi dicto antecedentia com-
plectitur aut absolvit,” ‘‘By another weighty expression he sums up or com-
pletes what precedes.” *— The prefixed 6 xaraSd¢ has the emphasis, which is
further augmented by airéc:* The one who descended, just He, He precisely
(identity of the person), is also the one who ascended on high aboce all heavens.
—6 avaBi¢ trepavw révrov tov ovpav.] points back to that avaBdc ei¢ ioc,
ver. 8, more precisely defining this cic tiwoc as the region highest of all.
The expression ‘‘ above all heavens” has its basis in the conception of seven
heavens, which number is not to be diminished to three.‘ See on 2 Cor. xii.
2. The trepdve (in the N. T. only here and i. 21; Heb. ix. 5) describes the
exaltation of Christ—clearly to be maintained as local—as the highest of all
(comp. treptywoe, Phil. ii. 9), in such wise that He, having ascended through
all heavens (dieAnAviéra tov¢ ovpavoic, Heb. iv. 14), has seated Himself above
in the highest heaven, as the ofvOpovocg of the Father, at the right hand of
God. Comp. Heb. vii. 26 : iynAdrepoc rev obpavaev yevduevog. The spiritual-
istic impoverishing of this concrete conception to a mere denial of all ‘‘en-
closure within the world” * is nothing but a rationalistic invention. Comp.

1 Comp. also Zrlang. Zettschr. 1886, p. 284. 4 Harless : ap, aidiip, rpiro¢g ovpards ; comp.

* Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. iI. p. 278. Grotius, Meler [Delitzsch in Luth. Zeil-

3 ob yap GAAos KareAyjAvOe Kai GAAos aveAy- — ach rift for 1878, pp. 609-13], and others.
Avéey, ‘‘ For he who came down is no other ® Hofmann, II. 1, p. 585.

than he who went up,” Theodoret.

452 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Acts vii. 56, ili. 21, i. 9-11. —iva winpdoy ra xévra] points back to the be-
stowal of grace expressed in ver. 7, and prophetically confirmed in ver. &,
and that as expressing the universal relation into which Christ has entered
towards the whole world by His exaltation from the lowest depth to the lofti-
est height ; in which universal relation is also of necessity contained, as a
special point, that bestowal of grace on all individuals. As intended aim,
however (iva), this rAypotv ré mévra stands related to the previous ascension
of Christ from the uttermost depth, into which He had descended, to the
uttermost height of heaven ; because He had first, like a triumphing con-
queror (see ver. 8), to take possession of His whole domain, i.e., the whole
world from Hades to the highest heaven, in order now to wield His kingly
sway over this domain, by virtue of which He «was to jill the universe with His
activity of sustaining and governing, and especially of providing all bestowal of
grace. [See Note XLII., p. 485.] This was to be the all-embracing task of
His kingly office, until the consummation indicated at 1 Cor. xv. 28. It
is according to this view, and from i. 23, self-evident that we have to
explain wAyp. ra mdvra, neither with Koppe,! de caticiniorum complemento,
‘‘ of the fulfilment of prophecies,” nor with Riickert and Matthies, of the
completion of the redeeming work; nor yet possibly to limit 7d rdvra to the
whole Christian community.?, Comp. rather on i. 28, and observe that in
our passage that évi dé éxdoty tuay 26607 x.7.A. of ver. 7 stands to this iva x27-
péoy Ta wayra in the same relation of the species to the genus, as in i. 23 ré
mAfpwpa (Xptorov) does to rov ra mévra év wat wAnpovpévov. The ubiquity of
the body of Christ * is not here, any more than at i. 23 or elsewhere, spoken
of ;* although, with Philippi, Hoelemann has still found it here, holding
the conception of the purely dynamic wAypowy ra rdvra as unrealizable,
because Christ is in a glorified body. If this reason were valid, an absolute
bodily omnipresence would result : it proves too much, and leads to a con-
tradictio in adjecto, which could only receive a Docetic solution. [See Note
XIV. on chap. i. 20 ; and Note III. on chap. i. 3.]

Ver. 11.° And he has, etc. From the general zAypovv ra révra, ver. 10,
there is now brought into prominence in reference to the church, with a ret-
rospective glance at ver. 7, the special point with which the apostle was here
concerned, in order to give the clinching argument to his exhortation as to
the keeping of the unity of the Spirit. Christ, who has ascended from the
lowest depth to the loftiest height, in order to fill all things, precisely He,
has—such is His autonomy in His church—given the different teachers and
leaders of the church, until we all shall have attaincd to the unity of the

1 Following Anselm and others.

2 Beza, Grotius, Morus, Flatt, Schenkel,
and others.

3 Faber Stapulensis, Hunnius, and others;
specially contended for by Calovius.

* Wrongly are Oecumenius and Theophy-
lact adduced as favoring this explanation.
They, forsooth, very correctly refer the
filling to the dominion and operation of
Christ (comp. also Chrysostom), and ob-
serve with equal justice that Christ, after

He had already before His incarnation
filled all things by His purely divine nature,
now, after having, as the Incarnate One,
descended and ascended, does the filling of
the universe pera capxés, ‘‘ with his flesh”
(Oecumenius), é.¢., 80 that In doing so He is
in a different state than before, namely,
clothed with a body, consequently as God-
man,

5 See Schott, Progr. quo locus Pauli Ephes.
iv. 11 seg., breviler explic., Jen. 1830.

CHAP. IV., 11. 453
faith, etc. — We are not to treat as a parenthesis either vv. 8-10’ or vv. 9, 10,*
since the continuation of the discourse with xa? airé¢ emphatically attaches
itself to the preceding airéc. — éduxe] is not, any more than at i. 22, equiva-
lent to é@ero,* seeing that, in fact, the giving in the proper sense, to which
Paul here looks back, has preceded, and Christ has in reality given the apos-
tles, etc., to the church,‘ namely, through the specific charismatic endow-
ment and, respectively also, by His own immediate calling (arooréAovc) of the
persons in question. Calvin rightly remarks on éduxe: ‘‘ quia nisi excitet,
nulli erunt,” ‘‘ for unless He call forth there will be none.” This raising up
and granting of the appropriate persons for the perfecting of the church as
His body, not the institution of a spiritual office in itself, which as such has
exclusively to administer His means of grace, is here ascribed to Christ.‘
The appointing to the service of the individual congregations (as ropuévac
xai d:daox.) of such persons given by Christ lay in the choice of the congre-
gations themselves, which choice, conducted by apostles or apostolic men,
Acts xiv. 23, took place under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Acts xx. 28.
Thus Christ gave the persons, and the community gave to them the service.
As regards the time of the éduxe, it is to be observed that this was indeed a
potiors the time after the ascension (among the apostles in the narrower sense,
also as respects Matthias and Paul), but that, as was obvious for the readers,
the earlier appointment of the original apostles was not thereby excluded.
The latter, namely, are not alone meant by aroordédjovc, but (comp. on 1 Cor.
xv. 7) also men like Barnabas and James the Lord’s brother must be reck-
oned among them. — The order in which they are brought up is such, that
those not assigned to a single church precede (aroor., stpop., evayy.), and
these are arranged in the order of rank. Hence the sroruévec, because belong-
ing to particular churches, had to follow, and it is without reason that a
Montanistic depreciation of the bishops ° is found here. — rove pév aroordAore]
some as apostles. Their characteristics are their immediate calling by Christ,
and their destination for all nations. Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 28. — rpogfrac]
As to these speakers, who, on the receipt of revelation and through the
Holy Spirit, wrought with highly beneficial effect, yet without ecstasy, who
likewise in iii. 5 are mentioned after the apostles, see on 1 Cor. xii. 10 ;
Acts xi. 27.— ebayyeAorag] who repiidvrec éxfpurrov, ‘‘ going about, preached,”
Theodoret ;7 missionary assistants to the apostles. See on Acts xxi. 8. Oecu-

1 Griesbach and others.

3 Koppe. «

® Theophylactand many, including Meier,
Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius.

4 Observe the importance, for the con-
tinued appointment of the ministers in the
church, of the conception of the matter
{mplied in edwxe, Christ gives the ministers
of the church; the church fakes those
given, and places them in the service of the
church. Thus the church (or whoever has
to represent the rights and duties of the
church) has not in any way arbitrarily to
choose the subjects, but to discern those

endowed by Christ as those thereby given
to it by Him, to acknowledge and to induct
them into the ministry ; hence the highest
idea of the ecclesiastical scrutiny is, to test
whether the persons in question have been
given by Christ, without vrejudice, we may
add, to the other existing requirements of
ecclesiastical law.

Comp. (in opposition to Miinchmeyer)
Hofmann, Achriftbew. IT. 2, p. 288 ff. ;
Moller in the Deutsche Zetischr. 1852, No. 21.

6 Baur.

7 See Nésselt, ad Theodoret. p. 424.

454 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

menius would, at variance with the context (for Paul is speaking only of
the’ exercise of teaching in the church), and probably also at variance with
history (at least as regards our canonical gospels), understand the authors of
the Gospels, which is adduced as possible also by Chrysostom. — roi¢ dé srai-
uévac nat dcdaon.| denotes not the presbyters and deacons,' nor the presbyters
and erorcists,* nor yet the presbyters and teachers as two separate offices,’
the latter in the sense of 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; but, as the non-repetition of rote dé
shows, the presbyters and teachers as the same persons, so that the presbyters
are designated by rocuévac in stated figurative appellation (1 Pet. v. 2;
Acts xx. 28 ; John xxi. 15 ff.) with reference to their function of guiding
oversight over doctrine, life, and order in the church, consequently as éxis-
coro ;‘ and by d«:dacxdaAovc, with reference to their function of teaching.
We may add, that the d:ddcxadoc were not, as such, at the same time presby-
ters, for the didayf# was imparted by a special ydpiouc, which even ordinary
members of the church might possess (1 Cor. xiv. 26) ; but every presbyter
was at the same time d:ddoxadoc, and had to be endowed with this ydproya ;
hence Paul here puts together rotuévac wai didackadove, and, 1 Tim. iii. 2, it is
laid down as the requirement of an érioxoroc that he should be didaxrixés. —
Comp. Tit. i. 9. See also Augustine, Hp. lix. Comp. Jerome: ‘‘ Nemo
. . . pastoris sibi nomen assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit,”
‘‘No one ought to assume for himself the name of pastor, unlcss he can
teach whom he feeds.” 1 Tim. v. 17 is not opposed to this (see Huther in
loc.).

Ver. 12. Behoof, for which Christ has given, etc. ‘‘ Non potuit honori-
ficentius verbi ministerium commendare, quam dum hunc illi effectum tri-
buit,” ‘‘ He could not commend the ministry of the word with greater
honor, than by ascribing to it this effect,” Calvin. —- The three clauses are not
co-ordinate.© Against the co-ordination may be decisively urged not the
varying of the prepositions, for Paul is fond of interchanging them (comp.
Rom. ili. 30, v. 10, xv. 2 ; 2Cor. iii. 11), but the circumstance that ei¢ Zpyov
diaxoviac in its position between the first and third points would be unsuit-
able.* Rather ere cig py. dtaxov. and ei¢ olxod. tov ody. rou Xp. two defini-
tions to édwxe, not parallel to mpd¢ tov xarapt. tay ayiwy, but parallel to each
other; so that we have thus, with Lachmann, Harless, Tischendorf, Bleek, to
delete the comma after dyiov. apd¢ tdv xatapt. Téy ayiwy contains, namely,
the aim for which Christ has given those designated in ver. 11 ei¢ Epyov dtaxo-
viag, cig oxodopyy Tov a@patoc Tou Xp. He has, on behalf of the full furnishing of
the saints, given those teachers for the work of the ministry, for the edification of
the body of Christ. The objection that the olxod. rot ody. is a yet higher aim
than that of the xarapr. ray dyiwy’ is incorrect ; since, on the contrary, the

1 Theophylact.

2 Ambrosiaster.

3 Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, Grotius, Callix-
tus, and others, including de Wette.

4 See on Acts xx. 28, and Ch. F. Fritzsche,
in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 42 ff.

® Chrysostom, Wolf, Bengel, Semler,
Holzhausen, and others.

® If the three elements were parallel, Paul
must logically bave thus arranged them :
(1) eis épyor Staxovias, (2) rpds row xatraprio poy
Tev ayiwy, (8) eis oixodonyy Tov cwpmatos ToD
Xpicrov,—advancing from the less definite
to the more definite.

7 De Wette.

CHAP. IV., 12. 455

xarapt. *. dy. is the higher point, which is to be attained by the edification
of the body of Christ, and consequently might be conceived of as aimed at
therein.' Observe, withal, the expression of perfection : xatapr., and the ex-
pression of development : oixodop4. Many others, including de Wette, have
made the two clauses with ei¢ dependent on xarapriopzdy, so that the sense
would be : ‘‘ for the qualifying of believers that they may in each and every
way themselves labor for the advancement and edification of the church.” ?
But (a) dtaxovia, where the context is speaking of those engaged in the
service of the church, always denotes the official service (Rom. xi. 18;
2 Cor. iv. 1, vi. 3; comp. Acts vi. 4 ; 2 Cor. iii. 7 ff., ix. 12, ad.), and hence
may not here be transmuted into the general notion of rendering service to,
Surthering (see especially 1 Pet. iv. 10). And if we should in that connection
retain the official notion of d:axovia,* the training of the ayo to be teachers
would be the thought resulting ; which would be inappropriate, because
Paul regarded the Parousta as so near, and conceived of the yapicuara as
continuing till then (see 1 Cor. xiii. 8), and therefore the thought that teachers
had to be trained was remote from his mind. (6) But if he had merely
meant to say: ‘‘to make the individual Christians jointly and severally
meet for co-operating to the furtherance of the church,’’‘ then zdvroyp
would have been to rév ayivy an essential element, which could not have been
left out. Olshausen regards the two clauses introduced by eic as a partition
of the xavapricpdc rav dyiwy : ‘‘ for the perfecting of the saints, and that, on
the one hand, of those furnished with gifts of teaching for the fulfil-
ment of the teacher’s office ; on the other hand, as regards the hearers, for
the edifying of the church.” Incorrectly, seeing that o/ ayso: are the objects
of the teaching labors mentioned in ver. 11 and consequently cannot in-
clude the teachers themselves, and seeing, moreover, that the oixodou? rod
cou. Tov Xp. most appropriately describes the working of the teacher, so that
no reader could, especially after cic zpy. dcax., conjecture that ei¢ oixod. «.T.A.
was to apply to the Aearers, inasmuch as no one could read the ‘‘on the one
hand” and the ‘‘on the other” between the lines, Lastly, in quite an arbi-
trary and erroneous way, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe have even assumed
a trajection for eg épy. diax. mpdg Tov xatapr. Tav dy. elg oix. Tov od. ToD Xp.,
in connection with which there have been very various explanations.* — xarap-
tiouée, not elsewhere found in the N. T. (in Galen used of the adjustment of a
dislocated limb), means, like xardpriorc, 2 Cor. xiil. 9, the putting of a person
or thing into its perfect state, so that it is as it should be (dprioc). Vulgate :

1Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbeweia, IT.
2, p. 128.

2 Meier; comp. Flatt, Schott, Rtickert,
Schenke!, and others, as already Erasmus.
$ Flatt, Schott ; comp. also Zachariae.

* Rickert.

®*Grotius: “ut sanctis ministrent eos
perficiendo magis et magis . . . ut ad eum
modum fllf quoque sanoti apti flant aedifi-
candae ecclesias, t.¢., docendis alils,"" ‘to
minister to the saints by perfecting them

more and more.. . 80 that In this way the
saints also might become fit for edifying the
church, t.¢., by teaching others."* Michaells:
“ that they should be able ministers of His
church, in order that the saints might be-
come more perfect, and His church, which Is
His body. might attain its due magnitude.”
Koppe: “* dene eis épyor Scaxovias (eis 7d Sca~
kovety Trois ayiocs, ‘to minister to the saints’),
mpos 7d xaraprifey avrovs,” —and cig oixod,
«.7.4., 18 sup posed to belong again to édexe,.

456 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

ad consummationem.! — Epyov dtaxoviag] does not stand for the simple draxovia,*
but means the work of the draxovia, t.¢,, the labor which is performed in the
ministerial office of the church. —eicpoixodouyv roi ody. rov Xp.] for the up-
building (= ei¢ rd otxodopety Td oOu. Tov Xp., comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 12 ; Eph. iv.
29) of the body of Christ. This is that épyov ; and so an appositional more
precise definition of that which precedes. But on that account to take épyov
as a building*® is an undue anticipation. The expression oixodopzy rot odparor
is a blending of two figures, both of which were, from what precedes, pres-
ent in the conception of the apostle (i. 23, ii. 20 ff., iii. 6),—the church as
the body of Christ and as an edifice. Comp. ver. 16.

Ver. 18. Goal, up to the contemplated attainment of which Christ has bestow-
ed the different teachers, ver. 11, for the purpose specified in ver. 12. péype
is put without av (comp. Mark xiii. 30) because the thought of conditioning
circumstances is remote from the apostle’s mind. * — xaravryouperv| shall have
attained to unity, t.¢., shall hare reached it as the goal. Comp. Acts xxvi.
7; Phil. iii. 11 ; 2 Macc. vi. 14; Polyb. iv. 34 ; Diod. Sic. i. 79, ad. Some
have found therein the coming together from different places,® or from differ-
ent paths of error ;* but this is purely imported. — ol rdvre¢] the whole, in our
totality, t.e., the collective body of Christians, not all men,’ Jews and Gentiles,®
which is at variance with the use of the first person and with the preceding
context (mpéc¢ rév xataptiopdv tev dyiuv). — ic rv evéryta TH¢ TiotT. Kai THE
éxtyv. Tov viot rov Gov] does not stand for éy rg évéryri x.r.A., ‘in the unity,” °
but is that which is to be attained with the xaravr. The article is put with
évér., because not any kind of unity is meant, but the definite unity, the future
realization of which was the task of the teachers’ activity, the definite ideal
which was to be realized by it. — rod viov rov Ccod is the object—accordant
with their specific confession "—not only of the éxiyywors, but also of the
sioric (See On Rom. ili. 22; Gal. ii. 16). The goal then in question, to
which the whole body of believers are to attain, is, that the rior in the Son
of God and the full knowledge " of the Son of God may be in all one and
the same ; no longer—as before the attainment of this goal—varying in the
individuals in proportion to the influences of different teaching (ver. 14).
kai tao éxcyv., however, is not to be taken as epexegesis of ri¢ riar.,”
which is precluded not by «ai (see on Gal, iv. 16), but by the circumstance

1 Comp. Morus, and see xarapri¢w, Luke
vi. 40; 1 Cor. 1. 10; 2 Cor. xifli. 11; Heb. xfil.
21; 1 Pet. v.10. Translations like ad coag-
mentationem, ‘for union” (Beza), and ad in-
slaurationem, ‘‘for renewal’ (Erasmus),
would need to be suggested by the context.
With strange inappropriateness, Pelagius
and Vatablus have referred the carapriopos
to the number of the Christians: ‘‘ad com-
plendum numerum electorum,” “ for com-
pleting the number of the elect.”

32 Koppe ; see, on the other hand, Winer,
p. S41 f.: Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 117.

3 Schellhorn in Wolf, Holzhausen.

4 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 14 ff.; Hartung,

Partikellehre, TI. p. 201 ff.

*Vatablus, Cornelius & Lapide, and
others.

6 Michaelis.

7 Jerome, Moras, and others.

* Hammond.

® Grotius.

10 The sum of the confession, in which all
are to become one in faich and knowledge.
—not merely, as Bleek turns it, are to fee
themselves one in the communion of faith
and of the knowledge of Christ.

11 More than yrwors ; see Valckenaer in
Lue. p. 14f., and comp. on {. 17.

12 Calvin, Calovius, and others,

CHAP. Iv., 13. 457
that there is no ground at all for the epexegetic view, and that rlori¢ and
éxiyvwoig are different notions, although the two are mutually related, the
former as the necessary condition of the latter (Phil. iii. 9, 10 ; 1 John iv.
16). Peculiar, but erroneous, is the view of Olshausen,' that the unity de-
tween faith and knowledge is to be understood, and that the development,
of which Paul speaks, consists in faith and knowledge becoming one, i.e., in
the faith, with which the Christian life begins, becoming truly raised to
knowledge. At variance with the context, since the connection speaks of
the unity which is to combine the different individuals (ver. 8 ff.); and also
opposed to the whole tenor of the apostle’s teaching elsewhere, inasmuch as
faith itself after the Parousia is not to cease as such (be merged in knowl-
edge), but is to abide (1 Cor. xiii. 13). [See Note XLII., p. 486.] —eic¢ dvdpa
sézecov] concrete figurative apposition to what precedes : unto a full-grown
man, se., shall have attained, z.¢., shall have at length grown up, become ulti-
mately developed into such an one.? The state of the unity of the faith,
etc., is thought of as the full maturity of manhood ; to which the more im-
perfect state, wherein the évér7¢ is not yet attained (ver. 14), is opposed as
a yet immature age of childhood. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. Paul does not
say ei¢ dvdpag redeiovc, because he looks upon the zdvre¢ as one ethical person;
comp. ii. 15 f. On réAecoc, of the maturity of manhood, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6,
xiv. 20 ; Heb. v. 14.2—ei¢ wérpov x.7.2.} second apposition, for the more pre-
cise definition of the former. The measure of the age of the fulness of Christ
is the measure, which one has attained with the entrance upon that age to
which the reception of the fulness of Christ is attached (sce the further ex-
planation below), or, without a figure: the degree of the progressive Chris-
tian development which conditions the reception of that fulness. The #A:xia
in question, namely, is conceived of as the section of a dimension in space,
beginning at a definite place, so that the 7:x/a is attained only after one
has traversed the measured extent, whose terminal point is the entrance into
the jaxia.4 4Acnia, however, is not statura (Luke xix. 8), as is supposed
by Erasmus, Beza, Homberg, Grotius, Calixtus, Erasmus Schmid, Wolf,
Bengel, Zachariae, Riickert, and others, which would be suitable only if the
avip tédecoc always had a definite measure of bodily size ; but it is equivalent
to aetas, ‘‘age” (Matt. vi. 27), and that not, as it might in itself imply,® spe-
cially aetas virilis, ‘‘ the age of manhood,” * since, on the contrary, the more

1 Whom Bisping has followed.
2 The most involved way, in which the

troduced an exhortation as yet entirely
foreign to the connection (only with ver. 17

whole following passage can be taken, is to
be found in Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2,
p. 129 ff. He begins, in spite of the absence
of a particle (ody or 8¢), with eis dv8pa réAccoy
anew sentence, of which the verb is avgjcw-
pey, ver. 15; the latter is a self-encourage-
ment to growth; but tva pyxdre «.17.A. Is de-
pendent on avéjowuey. In this way, in
place of the simple evolution of the dis-
course, such asisso specially characteris-
tic of this Epistle, there is forced upon it an
artificially-involved period, and there is !n-

does Paul return to the hortatory address).

And Bleek thereon; Plato, Legg. xi.
p. 929 C, i. p. 648 D; Xen. Cyr. 1.2.4; Polyb.
iv. 8.1, v. 29.2. Comp. also, for the figura-
tive sense, Philo, de agric. I., p. 801, Leg. ad
Caium, init.

Comp. Hom. Ji. xi. 225: dwt p’ ABns épicv-
Séos, ixeto pérpov, Od. xi. 317: «i HBys wérpov
ixocro, XVIli. 217.

® Dem. 17. 11; 1852. 11; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 8.

* So Morus, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Matthles,
Holzhausen, Harless, and others.

458 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

precise definition of the aetas, ‘‘age,” in itself indefinite, is only given by ros
nAnp. t. Xp., which belongs to it (Winer, p. 172); so that facia rov wAnp. tr.
Xp. taken together characterizes the adult age of the Christians. [See Note
XLIV., p. 486.]— red wAnpdparoc +r. Xp.] defines the age which is meant, as
that to which the fulness of Christ is peculiar, 4.¢., in which one receives the ful-
ness of Christ. Before the attainment thereof, i.¢., before one has attained to
this degree of Christian perfection, one has received, indeed, individual and
partial charismatic endowment from Christ, but not yet the fulness, the
whole largas copias, ‘‘ large supplies,” of gifts of grace, which Christ commu-
nicates. xAjpeua is here, just as at iii. 19, not the church of Christ,’ which
in i. 23 is doubtless so characterized, but not so named. This also in oppo-
sition to Baur, p. 488, according to whom 1d rAgp. r. Xp. means : ‘ Christ's
being filled, or the contents with which Christ fills Himself, thus the
church.” All explanations, moreover, which resolve z27pwua into an ad-
jectival notion (rAypwGeic) are arbitrary changes of the meaning of the word
and of its expressive represcntation, whether this adjectival notion be con-
nected with #xiacg* or with rov Xprorov.* Grotius, doubtless, leaves rfp.
as a substantive ; but, at variance with linguistic usage, makes of it the de-
ing full, and of r. Xp.,‘ the knowledge of Christ (‘‘ad eum staturae modum,
qui est plenus Christi, 7.¢., cognitionis de Christo,” ‘‘to the measure of
the stature that is full of Christ, 7.¢., of knowledge concerning Christ’’).
Rickert takes rAfpwyua as perfection, and rot Xpiorov as genitive of the posses-
sor. The meaning of the word he takes to be: ‘‘ We are to become just as
perfect a man as Christ is.” Christ stands before us as the ideal of manly
greatness and beauty, the church not yet grown to maturity, but destined to
be like Him, as perfect as He is,—which is a figure of spiritual perfection
and completion. But wAfpuya nowhere signifies perfection (reAeéryc), and
nowhere is Christ set forth, even in a merely figurative way, as an ideal of
manly greatness and beauty. He stands there as Head of His body (vv. 12,
15, 16). As little, finally, as at ili. 19, does tAgpapua rov Xp. here signify the
Sull gracious presence of Christ.» §8o also Matthies : ‘‘the fulness of the Di-
vinity manifest in Christ and through Him also embodied in the church.”
Where the zAfpeua tov Xp. is communicated, there the full gracious presence

1 Storr, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Baumgarten-
Crusius.

2So Luther: ‘‘of the perfect age of
Christ."" Comp. Castalio, Calvin (‘* plena
actas,"’ ‘“*full age’’), Estius, Michaelis, and
others; in which case rov Xpicrov has by
some been taken sensu mystico, ‘‘in a mys-
tic sense,” of the church, by others (see
Morus and Rosenmiiller) ad guam Chr. nos
ducit, ‘‘to which Christ leads us," or the
like, has been inserted.

2 So most expositors, who take yjAucia as
stature. Itis explained: stature of the full-
grown Christi, as to which Beza says,
* Dicitur ... Christus non in sese, sed tn
nobis adolescere,”’ ‘** Christ is said to grow,
not in Himself, but in us; Wolf, on the

other hand: “Christus ...in exemplum
proponitur corpori suo mystico, .. . ut,
quemadmodum ipse qua homo se ostendit
sapientia crescentem, prout annis et statura
auctus fuit, ita fideles quoque sensim incre-
menta capiant in fide et cognitione, tandem-
que junctim perfectum virum Christo...
similem sistunt,"’ ‘* Christ is set forth as an
example to His mystical body .. . so that
as He as man shows Himself growing in wis-
dom as He grew in years and stature, s0
believers also might gradually receive ad-
ditions in faith and knowledge, and at
length jointly present the perfect man in
Christ." Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.

4 So already Oecumenius.

5 Harless ; comp. Holzhausen.

CHAP. IV., 13. 459
of Christ is in man’s heart (Rom. viii. 10; Gal. iii. 20), but rd ragp. rod Xp.
does not mean this.

Remanx 1.—The question whether the goal to be attained,indicated by Paul in
ver. 13, is thought of by him as occurring in the temporal life, or only in the aidy
péAdwrv, ‘‘world to come,’’ is answered in the former sense by Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Thomas, Luther, Cameron,
Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Morus, and others, including Flatt (who thinks of
the last times of the church on earth), Riickert, Meier, de Wette, Schenkel ; in
the latler sense,’ by Theodoret (ri¢ dé reAccézryToc év TO péiddAovre Biy TevédueGa),
Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, and others, including Holzhausen ; while Harless
judges that Paul sets forth the goal as the goal of the life of Christian fellow-
ship here upon earth, but says nothing on the question as to whether it is to
be attained here or in the life to come ; as also Olshausen is of opinion that
Paul had not even thought of the contrast between here below and there. But
vv. 14, 15 show most distinctly that Paul thought of the goal in ver. 13 as set-
ting in even before the Parousia ; and to this points also the comparison of iii.
19, where, in substance, the same thing as is said at our passage by ei¢ pérpov
naektac «.T.A., is expressed by iva rAnpufijre cig madv Td TANpwEA Tov Beov. The
development of the whole Christian community to the goal here described, Paul
has thus thought of as near at hand, beyond doubt setting in (ver. 14) after the
working of the antichristian principle preceding the Parousia,® as a conse-
quence of this purifying process, and then the Parousia itself. We have conse-
quently here a pointing to the state of unity of faith and knowledge,? which
sets in after the last storms Tov évecrétoc aiwvog movnpo (Gal. i. 4), and then is
at once followed by the consummation of the kingdom of Christ by the Pa-
rousia.4 With this view 1 Cor. xiii. 11 is not at variance, where the time after
is compared with the age of manhood; the same figure is rather employed
by Paul to describe different future conditions, according as the course of the
discussion demanded. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 20, iii. 1. On the other hand, the
reason adduced for the reference to an earthly goal,’ namely, that after the
Parousia there is not faith, but sight, is invalid ; for see on 1 Cor. xiii. 13.

REMARK 2.—Mé ype xararvtyowpev x.t.A. is not to be interpreted to the effect,
that with the setting in of the unity, etc., the functions thought of in ver. 11
would cease,—which rather will be the case only at the Parousia (1 Cor. xiii.
8-10, iti. 13 ff.),—Dbut the time of the unity, etc., is itself included in the (last)
period of the duration of those churchly ministrations, so that only the Pa-

1 In fact, Fathers of the church (Augus-
tine, de Cir. li. 15; and see also Jerome,
Epit. P. 12) and scholastic writers (Anselm,
Thomas) have referred our passage to the
resurrection of the dead, of whom it is held
to be here said, that they would all be rais-
edin full manly age like Christ. Several
(already Origen, as is asserted by Jerome,
ad Pammach. Ep. 61, and afterwards Scotus)
have even inferred that all women (with
the exception of Mary) would arise of the
male sex |

2 See on vi. 11; Usterl, LeArdegr. p. H8 f.

3 This ewiyrwors is consequently not yet

the perfect one, which occurs after the Pa-
rousia, as it is described 1 Cor. xilf. 12.

“ According to Schwegler, /.c. p. 881, our
passage betrays the later author, who, tak-
ing a retrospective view from the Montanis-
tic standpoint, could conceive the thought
of such a division into epochs. As though
Paul himself, looking forward from his
view, as he expresses it, ¢.7.,1 Cor. xil. 4 ff.,
could not also have hoped for a speedy de-
velopment unto unity of the falth, etc. !
The hypothesis of a “‘ certain time-interest”’
(Baur) was not needed for this purpose,

§ Calovius and Estius.

460 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

rousia is their terminus. The distinction made by Tittmann, Synon. p. 33 f.,
between dyp: and uéyp:—which in fact receive merely from the connection the
determination of the point, whether the ‘‘until’’ is to be taken inclusively or
exclusively—is invented.' The distinction of the two words lies not in the
signification, but in the original sensuous mode of conception which was
associated with the unfil: ‘‘quum altera particula spatium illud, quoad
aliquid pertinere diceretur, metiretur ex altitudine, altera vero ex longitudine,”
‘‘since one particle would measure the space, as to which anything would be
said to pertain, from its height, but the other from its length,” Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 226.

Ver. 14. “Iva] cannot, at all events, introduce the design of the attained
goal in ver. 13, in opposition to which aiggowuer, ver. 15, clearly testifies ;
since, in the case of him who has already become the avijp réAeoc, the av&dvecv no
longer has place. But it is also arbitrary to refer the affirmation of aim to
vv. 11, 12,*as Harless would do,* who holds ver. 13 and ver. 14 ff. as co-ordi-
nate, so that ver. 13 describes the final goal up to which the arrangement
endures, and ver. 14 ff. the design of this same. That ver. 14 stands in a
subordinate relation to ver. 18, is shown by the retaining of the same figure,
as by iva itself, which is not preceded by another iva, or something similar,
to which it would be parallel. If Paul had referred iva to vv. 11, 12, it
would have been logically the most natural course to arrange the verses
thus: vv. 11, 12, 14, 15, 13, 16. The relation of our sentence expressive
of aim to the preceding is rather as follows : while in ver. 13 there was ex-
pressed the terminus ad quem, which is appointed to the labor-task, contained
in ver. 12, of the teachers given according to ver. 11 by Christ, there is now
adduced that which is aimed at in the case with atiew to the ultimate attain-
ment of that terminus ad quem, namely, the change, which meanwhile, in
accordance with that final aim, is to take place in the—till then still current
—condition of the church. Thischange, divinely aimed at, is characterized
ver. 14 in its negative nature (uyxétc x.r.A.), and ver. 15 in its positive nature
(aAnbebovrec dé x.7.2.). — unéti] no longer, as this is still at present the case.
It points to the influence, which had at that time not yet ceased, of false
teachers in the Christian church at large (see ver. 13). Of false teachers in
Ephesus itself there is in our Epistle still no trace, although in Acts xx. 29 f.
Paul had already expressed their future emergence. — v#710:} for, in order
to attain to full maturity, one must first emerge out of the state of child-
hood. What Paul here represents as yvyridryc, namely, the dependence on
false teachers, in connection with which the évérg¢ described in ver. 13 can-
not set in, he himself expresses by xAvdwrifdpevor, becoming tossed by
waves (Isa. lvii. 20) and driven to and fro (as a ship abandoned to the break-
ers), on which figurative representation of restless passive subjection to in-
fluences, comp. Heb. xiii. 9; Jas. 1. 6; Jude 12 f.; Josephus, Anfé. ix. 11.
8; Aristaenet. i. 27 ; Dio Chrys. Orat. 82. —avri dvéup rie didaccad.] rz
tpory dé éuplvuv nal avéuoue éxddece tag dtadépove didacxa2iac, ‘‘ continuing the

1 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 808 f. Zanchius.
2 Koppe, Flatt; comp. Michaelis and 3 Comp. Bleek.

CHAP. IV., 14. 461
trope, he called differences of doctrine, winds,” Theophylact. Comp. Plut.
de aud. poet. p. 28 D: ph ravti Ady rAdyiov, Gorep rvebpari, rapadidoic éavrdv,
‘lest presenting himself obliquely to every word, as to a breeze.” The
use of the article with d:dacxaA. denotes the doctrine in abstracto, ‘the
abstract.” In the fact that now this, now that, is taught according to varying
tendencies, there blows now this, now that, wind of doctrine. That Paul has
false teachers before his mind, is evident from the context. — év r9 «vBeie
tay GvOpor.| instrumental: becoming tossed and driven to and fro by every
wind of doctrine in virtue of the deceit of men. After didacx. no comma is
to be placed.’ xvBeia, from xbBog (cubus), a die, means properly dice-play ,; *
then in a derived signification fraudulentia, ‘‘ deceit.” * Comp. the German
Spiel. In this signification the word has also passed over to the language
of the Rabbins ¥°33p.‘ Others have explained it as: levitas, temeritas,
‘‘inconstancy, heedlessness,” *—which notion (like the German auf’s Spiel
setzen: to put at stake) xvBetew really expresses in Plat. Prot. p. 814 A;
Meleag. 73,°—but this is opposed to the context, which represents the false
teachers as deceivers. — trav avOpdruv] Instead of being under the gracious
influence of Christ (ver. 18), and thereby becoming strong and firm (comp.
iii. 16 ff.), one is given up to the deceptive play of men / — év ravoupyia pic
tiv weOodeiav Tig wAdvyc] More precisely defining parallel to the preceding :
by means of cunning, which is effectual for the machination of error. On
savoupyia, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3; Plat. Menez. p. 247 A.
peGodefa is preserved only here and vi. 11, but from the use of péflodoc’ and
pebodetw,® is not doubtful as to its signification. aAdvy means error, also at
Matt. xxvii. 64 ; Rom. i. 27; 2 Pet. iii. 17, ii. 18 ; Jas. v. 20. Whether this
has been brought about through the fault of lying and immorality * must be
decided by the context, as this must in reality be assumed to be the thought
of the apostle in the present case, both from the connection and from the
view which Paul had formed on the basis of experience (not, as Riickert
pronounces, from a certain dogmatical defiance, which had remained with
him as his weak side ; comp. on the other hand, on 2 Cor. xi. 12) with
regard to the false teachers of his time (2 Cor. ii. 17, xi. 18 f.; Gal. ii. 4,
vi. 12 ; Phil. ii. 21), although it is not involved in the word in dself. To
take widvy as seduction” is not to be justified by linguistic usage, since it al-
ways (also 2 Thess. ii. 11) means error, delusion, going astray ; as with the
Greek writers also it never has that active meaning.—~7/dvn¢ is genitivus sub-
jecti, ‘a subjective genitive ;” the wAdvy, which peodeie:, is personified, in
which case, however, it would be quite arbitrary to say, with Bengel: erroris,
t.¢., Satanae, ‘‘ of error, t.¢., of Satan.” Compare rather the frequent personifi-

1 Comp. Lachmann and Tischendorf.

* Plato, Phaedr. p. 24D; Xen. Afem. i. 8.
2; Athen. x. p. 445 A.

3 Arrian. Zpict. il. 19, lil. 21, and see Oecu-
menius.

* See Schoettgen, Horae, p. 75; Buxtorf,
Lez. Talm. p. 1984.

§ Beza, Salmasius,
others.

Morus, Flatt, and

® See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 89.

72 Macc. xill. 18: Esth. xvi. 18; Plut. Hor.
p. 176 A; Artem. ili. %; Aristaen. 1. 17.

8 2 Sam. xix. 27; Aquila, Ex. xxi. 18 ; Diod.
Sic. vil. 16; Charit. vii. 6.

* Harless.

10 Luther, Beza, and o*hers, including
Rickert, Matthies, Baumgarten-Cruslus, de
Wette.

462 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

cations of dyapria, d:xatoofvy (Rom. vi. 16 ff., al.), and the like. The article
is not necessary before mpéc r. nefod.,’ since ravovpy. has no article ; hence
no reason whatever exists for attaching mpé¢ r. ueflod. x.7.A., with Riickert, to
the participle (‘‘ driven about... according to the several arts of seduc-
tion”), by which ¢v zavovpy. is singularly isolated. — We may add that,
when it is said that the fluctuation between different doctrinal opinions,
here presupposed as a matter of fact, is not suitable to the apostolic age,’
too much is asserted. Paul had experienced enough of this sort of waver-
ing : all his Epistles testify of it.

Ver. 15. Still connected with iva, ver. 14. — dé] after the negative prota-
sis : on the other hand, yet doubdtless.* In order that we... on the other
hand, confessing the truth, may grow in love, etc. GAnOetey means nothing
else than in Gal. iv. 6, verum dicere, ‘‘to spéak the truth,” opposite of
wetdeota:,* which here, as contrast to the repipépecba: rzavtl avéuy tig didac-
kadiac, is the confession of the evangelic aA#bera. ev aydry belongs to avshe.,*
the ethical element of which it denotes ; for love (to the brethren) is the
sphere, apart from which the growth of the mystic body, whose members are
held together by love,* does not take place, iii. 18 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12 ff., comp.
xiii. 1. With how great weight is this element here placed at the begin-
ning and ver. 16 at the end ; and how definitely is the hint already thereby
given to take év ayary together with avé#o., in keeping with its connection
in ver. 16 ! Others, nevertheless, connect it with aAybetorrec, in doing which
some explain, yet not without diversities in specifying the sense,’ veritatem
sectantes cum caritate, ‘‘ striving after truth with love ;”° others : sincere dili-
gentes, ‘‘ sincerely loving.” ® But neither of these interpretations is to be
linguistically justified, since aAy6cbey never means to strice after truth, or to
hold fast the truth, to possess the truth, or the like, but always to speak the
truth (comp. also Prov. xxi. 8; Ecclus. xxxi. 4), to which, likewise, the
sense of to verify, to prove as true, found ¢.g.in Xen. Aznab. vii. 7. 25, Isa.
xliv. 26, may be traced back. Against the second of these interpretations '*
there is also in particular the context, seeing that sincere loce would bea quite
unsuitable contrast to the spiritual immaturity given up to the false teachers,
which is described ver. 14. If, however, we should seek to connect aA7bei-
ev in the correct sense of terum dicere, ‘‘to speak the truth,” with év ayazy
(confessing the truth in love), then only the love not towards others in gen-

! In opposition to Rickert.

2 Baur, p. 448.

3? See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171 f.; Klotz,
ad Devar. p. 360 f.

Comp. Xen. Anad. 1. 7. 18, iv. 4.15; Mem.
{. 15; Plat. Demod. p. 888 C ; Phil. Leg. Aleg.
IL. p. 84.A; de resip. Nog, p. 280 E.

5 Comp. already Lucifer: ‘‘ crescamus in
caritate,” “let us grow in love.”

* Comp. Chrysostom.

7 Calvin and most exposttors: ‘ veritatis
studio adjungere etiam mutuae communi-
cationis studium, ut placide simul profi-
ciant,”’ ‘‘to the pursuit of truth to add also

the pursuit of mutual communication, that
they may advance together calmly.” Cas.
talio, Bullinger, Riickert: ‘‘to hold fast to
the truth received and investigated .. . so
that . . . our firmness may be tempered by
a friendly consideration for the weaker.”

6 Valla, Erusmus, Calvin, Bullinger, Calo-
vius, Wolf, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe,
Stolz, Flatt, Rickert, Bleek, de Wette? ef
al.

® Luther, Bucer, Grotius, Loesner, Morus,
et al.; comp. also Beza and Matthies.

10 Luther, eto.

CHAP. IV., 1d. 463
eral,’ but towards those of another confession, could be meant ; and this too,
would here, where the latter are described as deceptive teachers of error,
be at variance with the context. Harless, it is true, rightly connects év
éyéry with avéfo., but explains adyfebovrec : being true in evangelical disposi-
tion, and then brings év aydry cic abrév together. Against this may be urged,
not indeed the hyperbaton,* but the fact that a27#. is not taken in accord-
ance with correct linguistic usage, and that the definition ‘‘in evangelical
disposition,” is imported at variance with the context (since we have here a
contrast not to the ravovpyia of the false teachers, but to the childish zepigé-
pea: ravri avéuy x.T.A.) ; a8 also that the corresponding év aydmy of ver. 16
shows that év aydry in ver. 15 does not mean love to Christ. Wrongly also
Baumgarten-Crusius, although connecting with até., renders : possessing the
truth. — aiffowpuev] dependent on iva, ver. 14, is not to be taken, according
to classic usage, transiticely (1 Cor. iii. 6 f. ; 2 Cor. ix. 10), as Valla, Mol-
denhauer, and others held, but inéransitively (comp. ii. 21, and see Wet-
stein, I. p. 835), to grow ; for, in keeping with the figure ive pyxérs dyev
viriot, it represents the progressive development of the Christian life. Comp.
ver. 16. Bengel aptly observes: ‘‘haec atfya . . . media est inter in-
fantes et virum,” ‘‘this increase is between childhood and manhood.”
— ic aizév] in reference to Him. Christ is indeed the Head of the body,
the growth of the members of which thus stands in constant relation
to Christ, can never take place apart from relation to Him as determining
and regulating it, to whom the course of the development must harmo-
niously correspond. The commentary to ¢ic airév is furnished by the fol-
lowing é& ob wav rd odua x.7.A. ; the relation of the growth to the head, which
is expressed in an ascending direction by cic avrév, is expressed ina descend-
ing direction by 2 ov. Thesense : into the resemblance of Christ,‘ is op-
posed to the context (since Christ is thought of as head) ; as also the expla-
nation of Koppe and Holzhausen :° ‘‘ to grow up in Him,” is inappropriate,
since the body as little grows up to the head, or reaches forth to the head,*®
as it grows into the head.’ Others have taken eic for év,* but this was a
mistaken make-shift, whether it was explained with Cornelius a Lapide :
‘Christi capitis virtute et influzu,” ‘‘by the virtue and influence of Christ
as Head,” or even with Grotius : ‘‘ ipsius cognitione,” ‘‘by his knowledge.”
— 7a rdvra] is rightly explained : én all points, in every respect (comp. 1 Cor.
ix. 25, x. 33, xi. 2, and see on Acts xx. 35), in which case, however, the ar-
ticle has not generally been attended to.*® Harless refers it to the previously

1 This In opposition to Hofmann.
§ Bernhardy, p. 460; Kihner, LI. p. 627 f.

junction of dv (84) and eis, Col. 1. 16 f.
4 Zanchius and others.

3 This treating of cis avréy and (ver. 16) ég
od as parallel is not ‘“ paradoxical’ (de
Wette), but represents the relation aa ¢é is.
—Christ the goai and source of the develop-
ment of life in the church, #.¢., to Christ
withal is directed the whole aim which de-
termines this development, and from Christ
proceeds all endowment, by which it is ren-
dered possible and takes place. Analogous,
and just as little paradoxical, is the con-

§ Comp. de Wette and Bleek.

® Hofmann.
7In opposition to Matthies : ‘‘ fo grow én-
to Him, t.e.... ever more deeply to be-

come absorbed into His infinitely true and
holy nature.

§ Luther, in the original editions, has not :
‘“‘an dem das Haupt ist,’ but ‘an den, der
das Haupt Ist.”’

® So still Meier and Matthies.

464 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

mentioned évéry¢ in its contrast to the wavering of unsettled knowledge.
But since the évéry¢ of ver. 12 appears as the goal to be attained by the
growth, and since, moreover, not several things (a plurality) are thereby
denoted, to which the plural ra ravra might relate, this view cannot appear
in keeping with the context. The explanation which most naturally sug-
gests itself is : in all the points of our growth, wherein the emphasis re-
mains upon ei¢ avrév. Our growth shall, in all points in which we grow,
proceed in relation to Him, who is the Head, etc. Koppe, Wahl, and Holz-
hausen regard ra wdvra as nominative, explaining it of all the members. But
in that case ol rdvreg must have been written. Comp. ver. 13. — é¢ éorw #7
Kegady Xpioréc] significant more precise definition and very cmphatic nam-
ing of the subject intended by ei¢ aizév, although this subject was self-evi-
dent. Paul did not write rdv Xpiorév (as apposition to airév), but in accord-
ance with the usual Greek construction he drew the apposition into the ac-
cessory clause.! According to de Wette, 5 Xp. is merely to serve for facili-
tating the construction with the following 2 ov, and thus to have merely a
formal significance. But of such a facilitating there was no nced whatever.

Ver. 16. Harmony of what is said, ver. 15, for all individuals, with the
objective relation of Christ to the whole as the organism growing by way
of unity out of Christ. Comp. Col. ii. 19. — From whom the whole body, be-
coming fitly framed together and compacted (becomes compacted and), by means
of each sensation of the supply (of Christ), according to an operation propor-
tionate to the measure of each several part, bringeth about the growth of the
body, to the edifying of itself in lore. — é& ot] is equivalent neither to ei¢ év,?
nor to per quem, ‘‘ through whom,” ?® but denotes the causal going forth, as
Col. le. ; 1 Cor. viii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 1, xiii. 4; and frequently.*— way 76
capa] xav has the emphasis: the whole body, thus no member being ex-
cepted ; it glances back to ol zdvrec, ver. 18. — cvvapyod. x. ovupiay.] Pres-
ent participle, expressing what was continuously in actu, ‘‘in act.” As to
ovvappod., comp. on ii. 21 ; cvu;38dga is employed by classical writers of
men or of single parts of things, which one brings together into an alliance,
to reconciliation, to a unity,* and might be employed here the more aptly,
inasmuch as the single parts of which the collective mass designated by
av Td o@pa Consists, are the different Christian individuals. A distinction
in the notion of the two words, such as is asserted by Bengel (owappos. de-
notes the jitting together, and onuf:f. the fastening together) and Grotius
(the latter denotes a closer union than the former), is arbitrarily assumed.
The distinction consists only in this, that cvvapyoi. corresponds to the jigure,
and ovuf.Z. to the thing figuratively represented. With regard to the for-
mer, observe that dpyovia also, with the Greeks often denotes the harmonious
relation of unity between the body and its parts.*°— The verb to éf ot wav 73

1 See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 41 A: 3 Koppe.
evpyce Trovs ws adndws Sixacras, olwep Kai Aé- 3 Morus, Flatt, Holzhausen.
yovrac éxec Stadgew Mivws re cat ‘Paddsavidos 4 See Bernhardy, p. 225.
cat Aiaxos. Pflugk, ad Eur. ec. 771. Comp. 5 Herod i. 74; Thuc. if. 29. 5; Plato, Rep.

2 Cor. x. 18; Winer, p. 469; Ellendt, Zez. p. 504 A; comp. Col. iL 2.
Soph. U. p. 868. ® Sce Jacohs, Delect. epigr. vil. 39.

CHAP. Iy., 16. 465
copa cuvapp. K. ove BiB. 18 rHv absqow tov ody. roeirat, in which the repetition
of roi odparog is neither negligence’ nor a Hebraism,’ but is introduced for
the sake of perspicuity on account of the intervening definitions, as is often
the case with classical writers.? — dia mdone ddqe THe ércxop7y.| belongs not to
ouufiBaz. (30 ordinarily), to which connection the erroneous interpretation
of dof as band (see below) led, but to -7v aifyow roceira.* It is not the union
that is brought about by the aga? rij¢ éxexop7y., but the growth, inasmuch as
Christ, from whom as Head the union proceeds, bestows the ér:yopnyia for
the growth. dof is usually explained junctura, ‘‘joining,”* commissura,
means of connection, joint, and the like. But without any support from lin-
guistic usage. It may signify * contact, also holding fast, adhesion, and the
like,’ but it never means vinculum, ‘‘ bond” (ovvag7). Rightly Chrysostom
and Theodoret have already explained it by aio@no, feeling, perception.®
Hofmann ’® prefers the signification : contact, and understands the connection
of the several parts of the body, whereby the one supplies to the other that
which is necessary to growth, which supply in the case of the recipient
takes place by means of contact with it. In this way wdoa agy rig extyopry.
would be every contact which serves for supplying, and the ém:yopryia would
be the communication of the requisites for growth by one part of the body to
the other. But the former Paul would have very indistinctly expressed by
the mere genitive (instead of ric érsyop. he might have written r7¢ mpod¢ ri
éxtyopyyaiv), and the latter is imported, since the reader after é£ ov could
only understand the éxcyop7yia proceeding from Christ. If we were to take
ag in the sense of contact, the above explanation of Oecumenius would
be the simplest (every contact, which the body experiences through the
érxtxopnyia Of Christ) ; but there may be urged against it, that the expres-
sion instead of the mere dia mdonc émcxopnyiag would be only diffuse and
circumstantial without special reason, while the expression : ‘‘ sensation of
the értzopyyia,” very appropriately points to the growth through the influ-
ence of Christ from within outward. [See Note XLY., p. 486.] — ri¢
éxcxopny.| Genit. objecti, ‘‘objective genitive :” every feeling in which the
supply is perceived, experienced. What supply is meant by the émyopryia
with the article becomes certain from the context, namely, that which is
afforded by Christ (through the Holy Spirit), i.¢., the influence of Christ, by

1 Rockert. um auxilium, “ handle for mutual aid.” An

2 Grotius.

§ See Bornemann, Schol. in Luce. p. xxxv.;
Kriiger, Anad. p. 27; Ellendt, ad Arrian.
Exp. Al. 1. 55.

4 Zanchius, Bengel, and others.

* Vulgate.

® As in Lucian, de luctu 9,and often in
Plutarch.

7 In virtue of this signification there was
denoted by 4¢% also the fine sand with
which the oiled athletes sprinkled each oth-
er, in order to be able to take a firm grasp
(see Steph. Thesaur. ¢.v.). Thence Bengel
derives the interpretation: ansae ad mutu-

30

arbitrary abstraction from a conception en-
tirely foreign to the context. Comp. Au-
gustine, de civ. Dei, xxil. 18: “‘tactum sud-
ministrationis,” “contact for supply,” and
see Oecumentius : 9 awd Tov Xptorov natiovca
rvevparixy Sivas evds éexdotrouv péAovs
avrov arrondyn, “the spiritual power
coming from Christ, laying hold of each one
of His members.”’

®See Plato, Zoer. p. 100 D, E; Po. vil.
p. 523 E; and the passages in Wetstein. So
also Col. ff. 19.

® Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 182.

466 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

which He supplies to His body the powers of life and development necessary
to a growth in keeping with its destiny (éxcyopyyei, 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal.
ili. 5, exhibet, ‘‘ presents ;” the substantive occurs only further at Phil. i. 19,
not in Greek writers). Those who understand a¢f as bond, take ri¢ ém-
xop7y., partly correctly in this same sense,’ save that they explain the geni-
tive as a genitive of apposition, partly * of the reciprocal service-rendering of
the members, —an explanation which,* originating in the erroneous interpre-
tation of d¢#, introduces into the context something heterogeneous. Beza
transmutes rf¢ ércyop7y. into an unmeaning participle : ‘‘ per omnes suppedi-
tatas commissuras,” ‘‘ through all supplied joints.” — nar évépy. év pérpp ede
éx. pép.] belongs neither to rij¢ éxcyopny.,* in which case, it is true, the non-
repetition of the article might be justified on the ground of a blending of 7
imiyopyyia naz’ évépyetav x.7.A, Into one conception, but on the other hand may
be urged the fact that év pérp» «.7.4., a8 a specification of measure, points of
itself to the growth, rot to the ézzopryia ; nor to ovus:8al.,° to which even
what precedes did not belong, but : after Paul has stated whereby the body
grows (dia mao. agze Tho Extxopry.), he now also adds the relation in which it
brings about its growth, namely, according to an efficacy in keeping with the
measure of each several part, t.e., 80 that the growing body in its growth fol-
lows an activity of development in keeping with the measure peculiar to each
several part of the body,—consequently no disproportioned monstrous growth
results, but one which is pursuant to proportion, adapted to the varied meas-
ure of the several parts (so that, ¢.g., the hand does not grow disproportion-
ately larger than the foot, etc.). Without figure: From Christ the church
accomplishes its progressive development according to an efficacy, which is
not equal in all individuals, but appropriate to the degree of development
appointed for each several individual. Rtickert and Bretschneider take «ar
évépyerav adverbially : after a powerful manner. But évépyeca in itself does
not denote powerful working, but efficacy, activity in general, so that it
would need a more precise definition for the sense supposed (i. 19, iii. 7;
Phil. iii. 21; Col. i. 20, ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 9, 11). — & pérpw] according to
measure, pro mensura,; see Bernhardy, p. 211 ; Winer, p. 345. — pépove] is
held by Harless to denote the several parts, which again in their turn ap-
pear as having the control of the other members (pastors, etc., ver. 11). Against
this is évdc éxdorov. It denotes, according to the context, in contradistinc-
tion to the whole of the body each part of the body, whether this part may be
a whole member or in turn only a portion of a member (comp. Luke xi. 36),
and is hence of wider meaning than péAove. —ailnow] in the N. T. only
further at Col. ii. 19, often with Greek writers,* also 2 Macc. v. 16. —
movitat| produces for itself (sibi), hence the middle; comp. subsequently cic

1 Riickert, Harless, Olshausen. genitive of definition (on behalf of). But see
2So Luther and most expositors, includ- above, in opposition to Hofmann.

ing Matthies, Meter, Baumgarten-Crusius, ‘ Koppe, Mefler, de Wette, and many.

de Wette. § Harless [and Engelhardt].
?In which case the genitive rijs émy. More classic, however, is avéy. See

would have to be taken, with Grotius,de Stallbaum, ad Fiat. Rep. vi. p. 509 B.
Wette, Baumgarten-Cruslus, and others, as

CHAP, Iv., 17. 467
oixodoz. éavrov.— The sense: for the perfecting of itself (aim of ri abine.
srowira:), is expressed, as at ver. 12, in another, dissimilar, but likewise very
familiar figure, by ei¢ oixod. éavrov. — év aydéry] Love of all one to another is
the ethical sphere, within which the abéjow roeioba: ic oixod. éavrov on the
part of the whole body proceeds—outside of which this cannot take place.
Comp. ver. 15. On account of ver. 15, the connection with rv abéyow
roteitac etc oixod. éavrov is more in keeping with the context than the usual
one with the mere ei¢ oixod. éavrov. — We may add, that the mode of regard-
ing the church in our passage is not ‘‘ genuinely Gnostic,” as Baur pro-
nounces, but genuinely Pauline. Comp. especially 1 Cor. xii. 14-27.

Ver. 17. That ovr, like the Latin ergo, here resumes ver. 1,' is rightly as-
sumed ; since the exhortation begun vv. 1-8 is really interrupted by the
digression, vv. 4-16, and the duty now following pyxére reperareiy x.1.A., is
but the negative side of the afiwg mepirarfoa x.7.A. of ver. 1. Theodoret
aptly observes : mad avéAaBe r7¢ mapaivécews 7d mpooluiov, ‘again he recurred
to the beginning of the exhortation.” — roiro] to be referred forwards:
What follows then (now to return to my exhortations) J say and asseverate, etc.
—paptipoua: does not signify obsecro, ‘‘ I beseech,” but I testify, i.¢., I assever-
ate, aver. See on Gal. v. 3. Since, however, there lies in this expression
and in Aéyw the notion of exhortation and precept, there is no need of supply-
. ing deity to the following infinitive.* — év xupiy] not per Dominum, ‘‘ by the
Lord,”* which would be zpéc¢ xvpiov (comp. on Rom. ix. 1), and with paprbpopaz
would have to be denoted by rdv xbpcov ;* but rather, as at Rom. ix. 1,
1 Thess. iv. 1: in the Lord, so that Paul expresscs that not in respect of his
own individuality does he speak and aver, but that Christ withal is the ele-
ment, in which his thinking and willing moves,—through which, therefore,
the Aéyw and yaprip. has its distinctively Christian character. — pyxér:] after
that ye, from being Gentiles, have become Christians. — xaOoc xa? ra Aowra
t6vm x.t.2.] The «ai has its reference in the former walk of the readers.
These are no longer to have such a walk, as was, like their previous walk,
that also of the other, 7.¢., the still unconverted (comp. ii. 8; 1 Thess. iv.
13) Gentiles. — 7d Accra} for the readers, although Christians, belonged
nationally to the category of Gentiles. —éyv paraérytt tov vod avtév} (not
aurév) 1s the subjective sphere, in which the walk of the other Gentiles takes
place, namely, in nothingness (truthlessness) of their thinking and willing
(voc), which, however, neither denotes, after the Hebrew an, idol-worship,*
nor is it to be referred, with Grotius, especially to the philosophers (comp.
1 Cor. iii. 20), but is to be understood of the whole intellectual and moral char-
acter (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18) of heathenism, in which the rational and moral
principle (the vovs) is theoretically and practically estranged from the

1 Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f.: Klotz, ad
Dever. p. 718.

2 See Kithner, 7d Xen. Mem. il. 2.1; Butt-
mann, neul. Gr. p. 25 [E. T. 278]; also
Heind. ad Plat. Prot. p. 346 B.

3 Theodoret : vwd udprupe ydp dnat Te Kvpip
taura Adyw, ‘‘He says, ‘I say this with the
Lord as witness ;’” so already Chrysostom

and most expositors, including Koppe,
Flatt, Olshausen.

“I call the Lord to witness, Plat. Phil.
p. 12 B; Eur. Phoen. 629; Soph. Oed. Col.
817.

§ Seo, in opposition to this, Fritzsche, ad
Rom. i. 21.

468 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

truth (ver. 18), and subject to error and the service of sin (ver. 19). We
may add, that the para:éryc is not an inborn one,’ but (Rom. vii. 7 ff.) one
that has come to pass, although it has come to pass ¢gtoe (ii. 3). Comp. Rom.
i, 21, it. 15.

Ver. 18 exhibits the ground of the fact, that the Gentiles walk év para:éryzt
Tov vod¢ avrav, Which ground is twofold according to the twofold power
belonging to the voice, the intelligent and the practical. To the former éoxorwpé-
vot relates (see the critical remarks), to the latter arn4d. +. Cwic +. Geot : since
they are darkened® in respect of their exercise of thinking and willing (dwavoig,
comp. Luke i. 61; Col. i. 21; 1 Pet. 1. 13 ; 1 John v. 20) ; estranged from
the life of God. —toxor. ... vtec is to be taken together,*® since, if dvre¢
annddorp. are joined,‘ the logical and formal parallelism is disturbed, inas-
much as then éoxor. ri dtavoig would be merely predicate and dvrec amyAAorp.
specifying the rcason (subordinate to the former), and the emphatic prefix-
ing of the two perfect participles, as brought into prominence by our punc-
tuation, would go for nothing. And that the second clause does not specify
the reason, why the darkening has come over the minds of the Gentiles,’ is
clear from the following d:4 rv dyvoay x.t.A., wherein, conversely, the
ignorance is indicated as the cause of the estrangement from God. Riickert,
moreover, thinks that, according to our punctuation, dvre¢ would stand
before 7% dtavoia ; but this is groundless, since écxor. r7 diavoig is conceived
of together.® —arnddotp.] See on ii. 12, and, concerning the constructio xara
otveo.v, Buttmann, neut. Gram. pp. 114, 242 [E. T. 281]. — rij¢ Swipe rov Ceci]
Srom the life of God, does not admit of any explanation, according to which
Cwh would be life-walk, which it never means in the N. T., not even in
2 Pet. i. 8.7 Hence not : the life pleasing to God,*® but, as Luther aptly ren-
ders : ‘‘ the life, which is from God.” The genitive is the genitive originis,
‘Sof origin” (comp. dcxatoobyy Oeov, Rom. i. 17, and see Winer, p. 167 f.),
and fw7 is the counterpart of @évaroc, 80 that it is to be understood as:
‘‘tota vita spiritualis, quae in hoc seculo per fidem et justitiam inchoatur
et in futura beatitudine perficitur, quae tota peculiariter vita Dei est, qua-
tenus a Deo per gratiam datur,” ‘‘the entire spiritual life, which is begun
in this world through faith and righteousness, and perfected in future
blessedness, which entire life is peculiarly God’s, as it is given by God
through grace,” Estius.* It is at all events the life of Christian regeneration,
which is wrought by God in believers through the Spirit (Rom. viii. 2) ;°
while the Gentiles are by their heathen nature alien to this divine life.

1 Zanchius, Calovius, and others; comp.
Calvin.

2 Comp. Joseph. Anté. ix. 4.3; the oppo-
site: dwrigey thy &cdvoay, viii. 5. 8

%Clem. Al. Profrep. ix. p. 69, Potter;
Theodoret, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann,
Harless, de Wette.

*Beza and many, including Riickert,
Meier, Matthies, Scholz.

5 In opposition to Riickert.

® Comp. Herod. 1. 85: ov cadapds xeipas ewr,
Xen. Ages. xi. 10: wpasraros didacs wy.

7 Especially instructive for the distinction
of the notion ¢w7 from that of life-ewalk, is
Gal. v. 25.

8 Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Morns,
and others; comp. Theodore, Theophy-
lact, Grotius, and Flatt.

®Comp. Calvin and Cajetanus.

10 This divine making alive does not coin-
cide with justification, but the latter is the
actus judiciatis, ** judicial act,’’ of God that
precedes the former. Comp. especially
Rom. viit. 10: gw, dca Sccasocurny.

CHAP. IV., 19. 469

This in opposition to Harless, who understands it as the estrangement from
the life and light of the Adyog in the world (John i. 8). Paul in fact is speak-
ing of the Gentiles of that time (not of those who have lived in the time
before Christ), in their contrast to the Christians (ver. 17) as persons who
were partakers of divine life through the radyyevecia (comp. ii. 5 ; Rom. vi.
4). Various elements are mixed up by Beza : ‘‘ vitam illam, qua Deus vivit
in suis quamque praecipit et approbat,” ‘‘the life whereby God lives in His
own people, and which He commands and approves ;” and Olshausen :
‘‘the life, which God Himself is and Aas, and which pertains to the creature
so long as it remains in fellowship with God.” — dia ri dyvoay . . . xapdiag
avrav| on account of, etc. ; the cause of this estrangement of the Gentiles
from the divine life is the ignorance which is in them through hardening
of heart, consequently due to their own fault. did r. rép. r. x. attaches itself
to r7 obcay év adroic, and is consequently subordinated to the preceding dia
Tt. dyvoray r. ovo. ev avr. Usually did. . . did are regarded as co-ordinate ele-
ments ; and indeed, according to Harless and Olshausen, who are followed
by de Wette, this twofold specification of reason has reference not merely to
arnAdorp. t. C. r. 8., but also to éoxor. 7% dtavoig dvrec, in which case Olshau-
sen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Schenkel! assume that dia riv dyvorav
x.T.A. Corresponds to éoxor. x.r.A., and then did tiv répwou x.7.A. to annAdAorp.
T.¢.T.0. The dyvora, however, cannot be the cause, but only the consequence
of éoxor. rp diavoia, since dyvora (used by Paul only here, but ayvoeiv occurs
frequently) is not dulness of the higher faculty of cognition,? but nothing else
than ignorance (Acts iii. 17, xvii. 80 ; 1 Pet. i. 14). The Gentiles were not
darkened on account of their ignorance, seeing that in fact ignorance is not
inaccessible to the light, as the example of all converted Gentiles shows ; but
their being estranged from the life of God was occasioned by their ignorance,
and, indeed, by their ignorance for which they were to blame on account of
hardening of heart. Accordingly, the commas after cot and avroi¢ are to be
deleted. Meier is quite wrong in holding that the ignorant are the Gen-
tiles, and the hardened the Jews. Paul speaks only of the Gentiles.
[See Note XLVI., p. 486.] — ry oicav bv airoicg] not: guae iis innata est,
‘‘ which is innate to them,” nor yet said in contrast to external occasions,*
which is not at all implied in the context, but : because Paul wished to
annex the cause of the dyvoa, he has not put dia tiv dyvoaev air ay, but, in
order to procure the means of annexation, has employed the participial
expression paraphrasing the airéy : rv ovcay év abroic. This expression con-
firms the view that the second dé is subordinate to the first.

Ver. 19. The estrangement of the Gentiles from the divine life, indicated
in ver. 18, is now more precisely proved in conformity with experience :
oirwvec, uippe qui, etc.: being such as, void of feeling, have given themselves over
to lasciviousness. — anndynxérec] avalobyro: yevduevor, ‘‘ being senseless,” Hesy-
chius. The ‘‘ verbum significantissimum,” ‘‘a most significant word,” ¢ from
adyeiv and ard, is equivalent to dedolere, to cease to feel pain, then to be

1Comp. Grotius and Bengel. * Harless,
2 Rickert. ; 4 Bengel.

470 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
void of feeling, whether there be meant by it the apathy of intelligence, or the
state of despair, or, as here, the moral indolence, in which one has ceased to
feel reproaches of conscience,’ consequently the securitas carnalis, ‘‘ carnal
security ;” see Wetstein, and also Matthiae, ed. min. in loc. The explana-
tion having despaired * imports a special definition of the meaning without
warrant from the context, but is found already in Syr. Arm. Vulg.
It. Ambrosiaster, and from it has arisen the reading a7/ruére¢ (D EF G
have dg7An.), which probably already those vss. followed. — éavroi]
with deterrent emphasis. To bring into prominence what was done on
the part of their own freedom, was here in accordance with the paraenetic
aim. It is otherwise put at Rom. i. 24: mapéduxev avroic 6 Oedc. The
two modes of regarding the matter are not contrary to one another,
but go side by side (see on Rom. i. 24); and according to the respective
aims and connection of the discourse, both have their warrant and their
full truth. —+rj doeAyeig] personified. It is to be understood of sensual
lasciviousness (comp. on Rom. xiii. 13; 2 Cor xii. 21; Gal. v. 19), as,
subsequently, axaOapoiac of sensual filthiness (comp. Rom. i. 24; 2 Cor.
xii. 21; Gal. v. 19), not of ethical wantonness and impurity generally,*
since the w/ecovegia connected with it is likewise a special vice, as indeed, on
the other hand (Rom. i. 24 ; comp. ver. 29 and Col. iii. 5), unchastity ap-
pears as the first and chief vice of the Gentiles. — cic épyaciav axafapsiac réanc]
aim of this self-surrender to the dcéAyeca (comp. Rom. vi. 19) : for the prose-
cution of every uncleanness, in order to practise every sort of uncleanness.‘
Koppe takes it as trade (Acts. xvi. 16, xix. 19, xxiv. 29). But could the
trade of prostitution ® be thus generally predicated with truth of the Gen-
tiles? This at the same time tells in opposition to the explanation followed
by Grotius, Bengel, Stolz, Koppe, Flatt, and Meier, of the év wAeovefig that
follows as quaestus ex impudicitia, ‘profit from lewdness” (on the thing
itself, see Aristaen. i. 14). In fact, év rAeovetia adds to the vice of sensuality
the other chief vice of the heathen, and signifies : with covetousness. The
explanations : with unsatiableness,* or certatim, ‘‘emulously,” ' or with haugh-
tiness,° or in gluttony,® are all of them at variance with linguistic usage,
1“ Homines a Deo relicti sopita consclen- ‘“‘prosecution of evil

Katey poxdnpav,

tia, extincto divini judicii timore, amisso
denique sensu tanquam attoniti, belluino
impetu se ad omnem turpitudinem projl-
clunt,” ‘‘men abandoned of God, with
conscience stupefied, with the fear of
divine judgment extinguished, and finally
with sensibility lost, as though struck by
lightning, with bestial impulse cast them-
selves headlong into every form of dis-
grace,”’ Calvin.

2Comp. Polyb. ix. 40. 4: awaAyourres rais
éArict,

* Harless, Matthies, Meler, and others.

*On épyagia, comp. LXX. Ex. xxvi.1; 2
Chron. xv. 7; Isa. {. 81, al.; Plat. Proé.
p. 353 D: ris n8orvns éepyaciay, ‘‘ prosecution
of pleasure,”’ Eryz. p. 408 E: épyactas mpay-

deeds.”

5 Dem. 270. 15, Reiske, and thereon Dis-
sen, de Cor. p. 801.

® Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumentus,
Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, and others, includ-
ing Matthies.

7 “Quasi agatur de lucro, ita allus allum
superare contendat,” ‘‘as though he treats
of gain, whereby one vies to excel another,”
Beza.

® Holzhausen,

* Harless. He is followed by Olshausen,
who explains wAcovegia of repletion with
meat and drink, and terms this physical
greed! According to classical usage, rA«o-
vefia might mean superabundance, but not
gluttony.

CHAP. IV., 20, 21. 471

partly in general, partly of the N. T. in particular, in which w2eovegia never
means anything else than covetousness. Sensuality and covetousness are the
two cardinal vices of the heathen, which are to be avoided by the Christians.
See v. 8; 1 Cor. v. 10 f. ; Col. iii. 5. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 2, iii. 14.

Ver. 20. ‘Ypeic dé] opposed to the unconverted Gentiles. — ovy obruc éudbere
tov Xpiorév] but ye have not in such manner (so that this instruction would
have directed you to that Gentile conduct of life, ver. 17 ff.) learned Christ.
Observe the litotes in ovy obtrwe (quite otherwise, comp. Deut. xviii. 14). The
proposal of Beza : ‘‘ Quid si post obrwe distinctionem adscribas ?” ‘‘ suppose
you put a punctation mark after oirwc 7” [so Hofmann and Braune], is,
although adopted by Gataker and Colomesius, quite mistaken, since ver. 21
contains the confirmation not of the mere fact tuddere rdv Xpiordy, but of the
mode in which the readers have learned Christ, hence ovy obrwo must neces-
sarily belong to iuadere tov Xprotéy. — 6 Xpioréd¢ does not mean the doctrine
of Christ or concerning Christ,’ nor does zavPdverv revé mean to learn to know
any one, as it has usually in recent times been explained,? wherefore Raphel
wrongly appeals to Xen. Hellen. ii. 1. 1 (iva adrAgaove pddouev drécot einoar,
comp. Herod. vii. 208, where it means to perceive) ; but Christ is the great
collective object of the instruction which the readers have received (Gal. i. 16 ;
1 Cor. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. i. 19; Phil. i. 15, a/.), so that they have learned Christ.
This special notion is required by the following ciye . . . édidd zd.

Ver. 21. Eiye] tum certe si, ‘‘then assuredly if,” as to which, however,
there is no doubt (for Paul himself had preached to them Christ, and in-
structed them in Christ), introduces, as in iii. 2, in a delieate way the con-
firmation of the ot x obra éuddere rov Xpiordv : assuming, at least, that ye hace
heard him and have received instruction in him, as it is truth in Jesus, that ye
lay aside, etc., thatis : if, namely, the preaching, in which ye became aware of
Christ, and the instruction, which was imparted to you as Christians, have been
in accordance with the fact that true fellowship with Christ consists in your lay-
tny aside, etc. —avrdv jxovoare] to be explained after the analogy of the
éudSere trav Xprotév, ver. 20 ; but airéy, like év airg subsequently, is prefixed
with emphasis. — é air@] is neither ab eo, ‘‘by him,”* nor de e, ‘from
him,” 4 nor ‘‘per eum,” ‘‘ through him,”® nor ‘‘ilius nomine, quod ad illum
attinet,” ‘‘in his name, as to what concerns him” (Bengel) ; but it is to be
explained from the conception év Xprorg¢ eivac : in Him, in the fellowship of
Christ, that is, as Christians. Observe the progress of the discourse, which
passes over from the first proclamation of the gospel (airdy 7xobcare) to the
further instruction which they have thereupon received as already converted
to Christ (év avrg édidaxd.)—two elements, which were previously compre-
hended in épabere tov Xptorév. — xade¢] in the manner how, introduces the mode
of the having heard and having been instructed, so that this #xotcare xat
Edda xOnTe xadioc x.7.A. corresponds to the previous ovy obruc éuddere rov Xptordy,
affirmatively stating what ovy cirwe had indicated negatively. — éoriy aapdeca

2 So moet expositors before Rickert; but 3 Castalio, Gataker, Flatt.
see Bengel and Flatt. 4 Piscator.

* By Rickert, Holzhausen, Meier, Mat- § Beza,
thies, Harleas.

472 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

év r@ "Inoov] Truth it is in Jesus, that ye Jay aside, etc., in so far as without
this laying aside of your old man there would be no true but only an appar-
ent fellowship with Jesus. [See Note XLVII., p. 486.] — é 16 'Inoov] Paul
passes from the official name Xpuorée to the personal name "Iyootc, because he,
after having previously recalled the preaching made to the Ephesians and
instruction concerning the Messiah, now brings into prominence the moral
character of this preaching and instruction, and the moral life of true Chris-
tianity is contained in believing fellowship with the historical person of the
Messiah, with Jesus,' whose death has procured for believers their justifica-
tion, and by virtue of their fellowship with Him the new life (Rom. vi. 2.
3), 80 that to be év r@ "In7cov with a retention of the old man, would be a con-
tradictio in adjecto—would be untruth, and not adjfea tv re 'Incov. We
may add that this transition, unforced also at i. 15, from Xpiordg to "Incote
was not necessary ; for, had Paul again written é r@ Xporg, there would
therewith, as before, have been presented to the moral consciousness just
the historical Christ Jesus. Comp. Gal. v. 24 ; Col. iii. 10f. The accusa-
tive with the infinitive arodfoda ivac depends on éorey adGdea év TH "Iyo07,
so that it appears as subject of the sentence.” Usually azodéioda: ipac is
made to depend on édiddySnre, in which case xaddc éorey aagdea tv re "Inood
is very differently explained. Hither it is regarded as a parenthesis,* as by
Riickert, who takes xadéc augmentatively, so that the sense is: ‘‘If ye are
rightly instructed concerning Christ, ye have not so learned Him, for that
would be false ; with Him (there where Christ is, lives and rules) there is,
in fact, only truth (moral, religious truth) to be met with.” Or xaddéc torw
x.7.4. is attached to éd:ddySyre, and then arodéioda tua is taken as epexege-
sis of xaddéc éorev x.t.A., in which case aa7Jea in turn is differently explain-
ed.‘ Or the connection is so conceived of, that a ovrwc is supplied before
arod#o8a:, in which case Jesus appears as model.® So also Harless,* who,
taking a/#feca as moral truth (holiness), justifies iua¢ from the comparison of
Jesus with the readers (‘‘ as truth is in Jesus, so to lay aside on your part’),
in which case ’Iyoov, not Xperp, is held to be used, because the man Jesus

1Comp. 2 Cor. fv. 10 ff.: for ‘* Christi
ideam perfectissime et fulgidissime exple-

Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Morus, and others.
6 Jerome led the way with this explana-

vit Jesus,” ‘“‘Jesus has fulfilled most per-
fectly and most illustriously the ideal of
Christ,’ Bengel.

2 Kibner, IT. p. 347 f.

3 Beza, Er. Schmid, Michaclis.

“Camerarius, Raphel, Wolf: ‘‘ edocti es-
tis .. . quae sit vera disciplina Christi, ni-
mirum ut deponatis,” ‘“‘ye have learned
what ts Christ's true discipline, viz., that ye
lay aside.’ Comp. Piscator: ‘‘ quaenam
sit vera ratio vivendi in Jesu tanquam in
capite...nempe deponere,” “what is
the true mode of living in Christ as a Head
... Viz., to lay aside.*”’ Grotius: ‘“‘si ita
edocti estis evangellum, quomodo {llud re-
vera se habet,”’ “if ye have learned the
Gospel as it truly is;*’ so also Calixtus,

tion: “‘quomodo est veritas In Jesu, sio
erit et in vobis qui didicistis Christum,"’
“as the truth fs in Jesus, so also will it be
fn you who have learned Christ.” Subse-
quently it was followed by Erasmus, Esti-
us (“sicut in Christo, Jesu nulla est igno-
rantia, nullus error, nihil injustum, sed
pura veritas et justitia, sic et vos,” ‘as in
Christ Jesus, there is no ignorance, no
error, nothing unjust, but pure truth and
righteousness, so also ye,” etc.), and others,
including Storr, Flatt (‘‘as He Himeelf is
holy '’), Holzhausen, Meier (aA7jdeca is Chriae
tian virtue, “that ye, as truth in Jesus is,
should lay aside"’).
® Followed by Olshausen.

CHAP. IV., 22. 473
is set forth as pattern. Matthies likewise makes arodéoda: depend on éd-
déy0yre, but annexes xaddéc x.r.A. aS More precise definition to év avro : ‘Sin
Him, as or in as far as the truth is in Jesus, as He is the truth.” So Castalio
appears already to have taken it. But all these explanations break down
in presence of the tuac, which, if arodéoda iuac belonged to édiddxdrre,
would be quite inappropriate. In particular, it may be further urged (a) in
opposition to Riickert, that according to his explanation the parenthesis
naddog éativ GApSea év TS 'Ijoov must logically have had its place already after
tov Xpioréy ; (6) in opposition to Harless, that the alleged comparison of
Jesus with the readers is at variance with the order of the words, since Paul
must have written : xadac év rd "Ijocd aAiSed écrev, tyag amodéoda: ; (c) in
opposition to Matthies, that xavac x.r.A. does not stand beside év aire, and
that a240ea must have had the article. De Wette explains it to this effect :
In Jesus there is (as inherent quality, comp. John vili. 44) truth (especially
in a practical respect), consequently there is implied in the instructions con-
cerning Him the principle and the necessity of moral change. But even
thus we may expect, instead of aro}. tudo, merely the simple aro¥éicVa:.
Others have attached arodécda: tuds to ver. 17, as continuation of the
pyxéte tuac meperareiv x.7.A.,' In which case caddc éorey aagd. ev rH 'Inood
is likewise differently understood.* But after the new commencement of
the discourse ipeic dé ovx otc, ver. 21, this is simply arbitrary and forced.
Credner takes a peculiar view :? ‘‘ Ye have not thus learned to know the
Messiah, provided that ye (as I am warranted in presupposing, for it is only
to such that I write) have heard Him and have been instructed in Iim, as
He as truth (truly, really) is in Jesus.” “Thus Paul is held to distinguish his
readers from such Gentiles as, won over to faith in the near advent of the
world’s Redeemer, had reckoned themselves as Christians, but without be-
lieving in Jesus as that Redeemer. But of such Gentiles there is not found
any trace in the N. T. (the disciples of John, Acts xix. 1 ff., are as such to
be reckoned among the Jews) ; besides, there would lack any attachment
for the following crovéoda: ivac, and in using aAgSea (instead of év adr. or
GA79¢) Paul would have expressed himself as enigmatically as possible.
Lastly, Hofmann,‘ without reason, wishes to attach év 16 'Inoov not to cada
éazcv adz7d., but to what follows ; the in itself quite general xae¢ gore GAn-
Gea stood in need of being characterized definitely as Christian, not the
aroflécGa: x.r.A., a8 to which it was already implied in the nature of the case
and was self-evident.

Ver. 22. ’Aro@éofla: tuac] dependent on xabdg éorw adrifea tv tg "Ini.
See on ver. 21. What is truth in Jesus, Paul states, not in general (to lay
aside, etc.), but individualizingly in relation to the readers; that ye lay aside."

1 Cornelius A Lapide Bengel, Zachariae; truth.’ Zacharlae: “For in what Jesus

not Wetstein, who at ver. 22 merely says
“ respicit comma 17,” “ he recurs to v. 17.”
3 Bengel: “ita uti veritas (vera agnitio
Dei veri) reapse est in Jesu ; qui credunt in
Jesum, verant,” “as the truth (the true
knowledge of God) is really in Jesus, let
those who believe in Jesus speak the

teaches to us js alone to be found the truth
by the heathen. . . despised.”’ Both thus
explain It, as !f aAyé. had the article.

§ Kinl. il. p. 896 f.

4 Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 201.

8 Not: that ye hare laid aside, as Hofmann
wishes to take it, who explains as if Paul

4%4 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
Michaclis and Flatt give the strangely erroneous rendering : to lay aside
yourselves! Inthat case there would be wanting the main matter, the re-
flexive éavrotc ; and how alien to the N. T. such a form of conceiving self-
denial ! Luther and others are also incorrect in rendering : lay aside. It
is not till ver. 25 that the direct summons comes in, and that in the usual
form of the imperatite, instead of which the infinitive,‘ and with the accusa-
tive iuac in addition,? would be inappropriate. The figurative expression
of laying aside is borrowed from the putting off clothing (comp. évdi:cacba,
ver. 24), and in current use, as with Paul (Rom. xiii. 12, 14 ; Col. ili. 8 f£.;
Gal. iil. 27), so also with Greek writers ;* hence there was the less reason
for forcing on the context any more special reference, such as to the custom
(at any rate, certainly later) of changing clothes at baptism.‘ — xara ry
mpotépay avactpogiv] is not to be explained, as if the words stood : rév xa2.
aviip, rav xaré rw mporépay dvaorp.,* but : that ye lay aside in respect of your
JSormer life-walk the old man, so that it expresses, in what respect, in reference
to what the laying aside of the old man is spoken of. ‘‘ Declarat vim verbi
relationem habentis deponere,” ‘‘According to, shows the force of the word re-
lating to it : ‘ Put off,’” Bengel. The Pauline wai. d6p., ideally conceived
of, is not injuriously affected, as de Wette thinks, in its internal truth by
this recalling of the pre-Christian walk (as if the author had conceived of it
empirically). The mporépa avaorp., in fact, concerns the whole moral nature
of man before his conversion, and the axofécfa: rév rad. GvOp. affirms that
the converted man is to retain nothing of his pre-Christian moral personality,
but, as concerns the pre-Christian conduct of life, is utterly to do away
with the old ethical individuality and to become the new man. Sucha
contrast, however, as Cornelius & Lapide (comp. Anselm) found : ‘‘non
quoad naturam et substantiam,” ‘‘not as to nature and substance,” would
be in itself singular and forcign to the context. — As to avacrpod#, see on
Gal. 1. 13. — rév radaiév avfp.} The pre-Christian moral frame ° is represented
as a person. See on Rom. vi. 6. [See Note XLVIUL., p. 486 seq. ] — rév dec-
péuevov x.T.2.] an attribute of the old man serving as a motive for that azrodéoPa:z
x.T.A.: which is being destroyed according to the lusts of deception. Oerpdpevov
is not to be explained of putrefaction," seeing that 6 mradatdc avOp. is not
equivatent to r3 cdua, nor yet of inward moral corruption,® or self-corruption,”
seeing that the moral corruption of the old man is obvious of itself and is

had written: awodepzdvovs Uuads .. .
ovada: Te wvevpart .. . évdvgauévous «.T.A,

& Jerome, Oecumenius, Vorstius, Grotius,
Raphel, Estius, Semler, Koppe, Rosenmil-

avave-

Starting from the aorist infinitive thus
taken at variance with linguistic usage
(comp. on Rom. xv. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 1), Hof-
mann has incorrectly understood the whole
passage. According to his interpretation,
the perfect infinitive must have been used.
The Vulgate already has correctly not
deposutese, but deponere.

1 Winer, p. 282 f.

3 Matthiae, p. 1267.

8 See Wetstein, in loc.

# So Grotius.

ler, and others.

* Not original sin (as Calovius and others
would have it), which, in fact, cannot be
laid aside, but the moral Aabitus, such as it
is in the unregenerate man under the do-
minion of the siu-principle. Comp. Rom.
vil. 7 ff. ; Eph. it. 1 ff.

7 Michaelis.

® Koppe, Flatt, Olshausen, Meler, Hariess,
and older expositors.

® Schenkel.

CHAP. IV. ; 23. 475

already present, not merely coming into existence (present participle, which
is not to be taken, with Bengel, as imperfect), but of eternal destruction (Gal.
vi. 8), in which case the present participle : which goes to ruin (comp. on
1 Cor. 1. 18), is to be taken either of the certain future realized as present, or
of the destruction in the course of development.’ The latter appears more
appropriate to the contrast of rdv card Gedy xriobivta, ver. 24. — xara tag ém-
Avuiag tig araznc] THE atarne is subjective genitive, and 7 axdry is personified.* °
Hence : in accordance with the lusts of deception, with which it has had de-
signs on the corruption of the old man.” What daréry is meant, cannot be
doubtful according to the context, and according to the doctrine of the
apostle as to the principle of sin in man, namely, the power of sin deceiving
man (Rom. vii. 11). Comp. Heb. iii. 18, also 2 Cor. xi. 8. The adjectival
resolution into cupiditates seducentes, ‘‘ seducing desires,” * followed by many,
is in itself arbitrary and not in keeping with the contrast in ver. 24 (ric
bAnbeiac).

Ver. 23. Positive side of that which is truth in Jesus : that ye, on the other
hand, become renewed in the spirit of your reason. — avaveodvofa:] passive, not
middle,‘ since the middle has an active sense (1 Macc. xii. 1; Thuc. v. 18,
43 ; Polyb. vii. 8. 1, and often). The renewal is God's work through the
Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 1 f.; Tit. iii. 5), and without it one is no true Chris-
tian (Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. v. 15), consequently there can bo no mention of
adnera tv 7G ’Incov. Respecting the distinction between avavedw (only here
in the N. T.) and avaxa:véu, recentare and renovare, as also respecting ava,
which does not refer to the restitution of human nature, as it was before
the fall, but denotes the vecentare, ‘to renew,” in reference to the previous
(corrupt) state, see on Col. iii. 10. —r¢ avebpare tod vod iuav] The genitive
is at any rate that of the subject ; for instead of simply saying r¢ rveiuare
tudv,® Paul makes use of the more precise designation in the text. But the
Tp wvetzare may be either instrumental or dative of reference. In the former
case, however, we should * have to understand the Holy Spirit, who has His
seat in the voice of the man on whom He is bestowed, and through whom (da-
tive), the avaxaivwgre tov vodc, ‘* renewal of the mind,”’ Rom. xii. 2, is effected,
so that now the old varaorne, ‘‘ vanity,” of the vote, ‘‘ mind” (iv. 17) no longer
occurs, and the xacvéryc, ‘‘ newness,” which, on the other hand, has ‘set in
(Rom. vi. 4), is @ xasvéryg rov mvetyaroc, ‘‘ newness of spirit.” Comp. Tit.
iii, 5. But, in opposition to this view, we may urge, first, that the Holy
Spirit bestowed on man is never in the N. T. designated in such a way that
man appears as the subject of the Spirit (thus never: 7d mvetya tudv and
the like, or as here : 1rd rveipa toi vod¢ tuav) 5 and secondly, that it was the
object of the apostle to put forward the aspect of the moral self-activity of

18o Grotius: “qui tendit ad exitium,’> here penetrates deeper, namely, to the

** which tends to destruction.” fountainhead of the vital activity of the
3 Comp. Hesiod. Theog. 224. vous, to the inner agent and mover in that
§ Grotius. activity.
4 Renew yourselves, Luther. * With Oecumentius, Castalio, and others,

* He might have written, asin Rom. xif. including Ch. F. Fritzsche in his Nov. Opusc.
2, merely re vot Upwey; but his conception _p. 244 f., and Fritzsche, ad Rom. IL. p. 28.

476 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the Christian life, and hence he had no occasion expressly to introduce the
point, which, moreover, was obvious of itself: through the Holy Spirit.
Accordingly, there remains as the right explanation only the usual one (da-
tive of reference), according to which the veya is the human spirit, in dis-
tinction from the divine (Rom. viii. 16). Consequently : in respect of the
spirit of your voic, that is, of the spirit by which your voi¢ is governed. The
avevpa, namely, is the higher life-principle in man, the moral power akin to
God in him, the scat of moral self-consciousness and of moral self-determi-
nation. This rvetza, which forms the moral personality of man, the Ego of
his higher (7 turned towards God, has as the organ of its vital exercise—
as the faculty of its moral operation—the voic, that is, the reason in its eth-
ical quality and activity (comp. on Rom. vii. 23), and puts the voi ' at the
service of the divine will (Rom. vii. 25), in an assent to the moral practice
of this divine will revealed in the law and a hatred of the contrary (Rom.
vii. 14 ff.). But, since this Ego of the higher life, the substratum of the
inward man—the mrvevya, in which the voi¢ has its support ard its deter-
mining agent—is under the preponderant strength of the power of sin in
the flesh non-free, bound, and weak, so that man under the fleshly-psychical
influence of the natural character drawing bim to sin becomes liable to the
slavery of immoral habit, the rvetya rot vodg needed renewal unto moral
freedom and might, which consecration of power it receives in regeneration
by means of the Holy Spirit, in which case, however, even the regenerate
has always to contend against the odp£ still remaining in him, but contends
victoriously under the guidance of the divine rveiua (Gal. v. 16-18).

Ver. 24. Observe the change of tenses. The laying aside of the old man is
the negative commencement of the change, and hence is represented as a
momentary act ; the becoming renewed is an enduring process, the jinishing
act of which is the putting on of the new man, correlative to the azofécfa:.
Hence aroféic6a:, aorist ; avaveovoba, present ; évdboacfa, aorist. — voy xamov
évOpurov] As previously the old immoral state is objectivized, and objectivized
indeed as a person, so is it also here with the new Christian moral state. Thus
this new habitus appears as the new man, which God has created (xrioGévra), but
man appropriates for himself (évdicacfa:), so that thus moral freedom is not an-
nulled by God’s ethical creative action. — xriofévra] not present, but the new
moral habitus of the Christian is set forth as the person created by God,
which in the individual cases és not first constituted by growth, but is receited,
and then exhibits itself experimentally in the case of those who, according
to the figurative expression of the passage, have put it on. — xavé Oeév] Comp.
Col. iii. 10 ; not merely divinely, and that in contrast to human propaga-
tion,’ but : according to God, i.e., ad exemplum Dei, ‘‘ according to the mod-
el of God” (Gal. iv. 28). Thereby the creation of the new man is placed
upon a parallel with that of our first parents (Gen. 1. 27), who were created

1 Bengel excellently puts it: ‘ Spiritu§ in thinking that expositors have here neg-
mens, ‘In the spirit of the mind;’ 1Cor. lected to seek instruction from 1 Cor. xiv.
xiv. 14, Spiritus est tnlimum mentis, ‘The 14,
spirit is the inmost shrine of the mind*”’ 2 Hofmann, Schrifidew. I. p. 289.
Delitzsch consequently errs (Peychol. p. 184)

CHAP. IV., 25. AV?

after God’s image (xar’ eixéva tov xricavroc, Col. iii. 10); they, too, until
through Adam sin came into existence, were as sinless év dixasocivy xat
dardratt tic aAnfeiac.'— év dixatoobvy x.t.4.] belongs to rdv xara Oedr xriobévra,
expressing the constitution of the new man created after God ; furnished,
provided with rectitude and holiness of the truth.* The truth is the opposite
of the amdry, ver. 22, and like this personified. As in the old man the
"Ardry pursues its work, so in the new man the ’AA7Oea, i.c., the Truth car
éEox4v, ‘* pre-eminently,” the divine evangelical truth, bears sway, and the
moral effects of the truth, righteousness and holiness, appear here, where the
truth is personified, as its attributes, which now show themselves in the new
man who has been created. The resolving it into an adjective: true, not
merely apparent, righteousness and holiness,*® is arbitrary and tame. And
to take év instrumentally ‘ is erroneous, for the reason that righteousness and
holiness form the ethical result of the creation of the new man ; hence Beza,
Koppe, and others thought that év must be taken for eic¢. dixatootvy and
éatérn¢ (comp. Luke i. 75 ; 1 Thess. ii. 10 ; Tit. i. 8) are distinguished so, that
the latter places rectitude in itself (d:xacooivy), in relation to God (sanctitas,
‘‘holiness’’) ; rd pév roi¢ beoig mpoagiAéc Sorov, ‘‘ what is pleasing to the gods is
holy,” Plat. Huth. p. 6 E.5 With special frequency the two notions are as-
sociated in Plato.

Ver. 25. On the ground of what was previously said (d:6), as application
of gor aAfOea tv td ‘Inoov arobéobat tude x.r.A. on to ver. 24, there now fol-
low various special (not systematically arranged) exhortations as far as ver.
82. — That the encourngement to lay aside lying and to speak the truth stands
at the head, appears to be occasioned simply by the last uttered rj¢ aAnbeiac;
and the figurative form of the precept (amroféuevor) is an echo from what pre-
cedes. It is possible also, however, that the prohibitions of lying, wrath,
stealing, as they are here given, had their concrete occasion with which we
are not acquainted. The reasons which Zanchius, e.g., has discovered, are
arbitrary. And Grotius says incorrectly : ‘‘ Hoc adversus eos dicit, qui,
ut gratias capatarent aut Judaeorum aut gentium, alia dicebant, quam sen-
tirent,” ‘‘ This he says against those who, to obtain the favor of either Jews
or Gentiles, said other things than they thought.” The subsequent ér: éopév
aAAKA. wéAn shows, in fact, that Paul has thought mercly of the relation of
fellowship of Christians one with another, and has meant pera rov wAgoiov avtod
of the fellow- Christian, not of the fellow-man generally.* — Aadeire . . . avrow
is a reminiscence from Zech. viii. 16. — ri éopav x.t.A.] Motive (reminding
them of vv. 12-16). Members one of another, and ¢o lie one to another, how
contradictory ! Reciprocal membership is, in fact, a connection so inti-
mate and vital, subsisting in constant mutual furtherance and rendering

2Comp. Ernest!, Ursprung der Stinde, Tt. Calvin, Grotius, and most expositors.
p. 185 ff., in opposition to Julius Miiller, IT. 4 Morus, Flatt.
p. 487, who calls In question the identity of ® See Tittmann, Syron. p. %, and the pas-
contents between the xara Seedy and the aages In Wetstein.
original divine image. * Jerome, Estius, Grotius, Michaelis, and
2 On «ev, see Matthiae, p. 1840. others.
? Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Beza,

478 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

of service | ‘‘est enim monstrum, si membra inter se non consentiant, imo si
fraudulenter inter se agant,” ‘‘ for there is a monster if the members do not
harmonize with one another, but act towards each other deceitfully,” Calvin.
Chrysostom shows at great length how the several members of the real body
do not deceive one another, and Michaelis repeats it ; but Paul says nothing
of this. — a@AA7A. wéAn] members of each other, mutually the one of the other.
The same conception is met with Rom. xii. 5, and is not inaccurate, ' since,
indeed, in the body of Christ, even as in the physical body, no member ex-
ists for itself, but each belonging to each, in mutual union with the other
members, 1 Cor. xii. 15 ff.

Vv. 26, 27. See Zyro in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 681 ff. — dpyifecbe nai pp
duapravere] @ precept expressed literally after the LXX. Ps. iv. 5, as to
which it must be left undetermined whether Paul understood the original
text? as the LXX. did, or chose this form only in recollection of the LXX.,
without attending to the original text. To the right understanding of the
sense (which Paul would have expressed by dpyZéuevor ui) duaprdvere, Or Some-
thing similar, if that definite form of expression in the LXX. had not present-
ed itself to him) the observation of Bengel guides us: ‘‘ Saepe vis modi cadit
super partem duntaxat sermonis, ‘Often the force of the mode falls on only
a part of the remark,’ Jer. x. 24."* Here, namely, the 7s modi, ‘‘ force of the
mode,” lies upon the second imperative (comp. passages like John. i. 47,
vii. 52): be angry and sin not, i.¢., in anger do not fall into tranagression ; 80
that Paul forbids the combination of the dvaprdavecv with the 6 pyiCecbas
Comp. Matthies : '‘In the being angry let it not come to sin ;” Harless : ‘‘ Be
angry in the right way, without your sinning.” Paul, therefore, does not for-
bid the dpyiZec@a in itself, and could not forbid it, because there is* a holy
anger,® which is ‘‘calcar virtutis,” ‘‘a spur to virtue,” as there is also a
divine anger; the dpyifecfa: kai duaprtravecv, however, is not to take place,
- but, on the contrary, the dpyiZeoda: is to be without sin, consequently an
dpyiiecbac kai wa aduaprdvecv, Asregards the substantial sense, the same
result is brought out with the wsval explanation, but it is usually believed °
that the imperative may be resolved conditionaliter, ‘‘ conditionally,” in
accordance with Hebrew usage: if ye are angry, do not sin (Isa. vili. 9 f. ;
Amos v. 4, 6, al.).° But the combination of the two imperatives connected

1 Rickert.
* The words of the original, *MOTIA-9N)
Pe mean: tremble, and err not (Ewald),

with which David calls upon his enemies to
tremble on account of their iniquities tow-
ards him, the favorite of God, and not
further to sin. Comp. also Hupfeld in loc.
Yet other recent scholars, including Hitzig,
have translated, in harmony with the LXX.:
Be angry, but offend not.

* Comp. also Isa. xilf. 1; Matt. xi. 25; and
see Buttmann, neu/. Gr. p. 249 f. [E. T. 290].

* When, however, Harless would assign to
our passage a place ‘‘not under the head

of anger, but under that of placability,” he
overlooks the fact that in anger cone may
commit sin otherwise than by implacabil-
ity; and that the following 6 HAws «.1.A.
brings into prominence only a ¢ingle precept
Salling under the 7 apapr.

5 See Wuttke, Sitfenl. IT. § 243.

® That this, however, is not meant In ver.
81, see On that verse.

T Seneca, de ira, ili. 8.

® And already in the Cons(itutt. <A post. it.
58, 2, the passage of the Psalm is so taken.

* So also Koppe, Flatt, Rftckert, Holzhau-
ren, Meier, Olshausen, Zyro, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Bleek.

CHAP. IV., 26, 27. 479

by and, like: do this, and live, Gen. xii. 18, comp. Isa. viii. 9, and similar
passages, —a combination, moreover, which is not a Hebraism, but a general
idiom of language (comp. divide e impera),—is not at all in point here,
because it would lead to the in this case absurd analysis: ‘‘if ye are angry,
ye shall not sin.” Winer, p. 279, allows the taking of the first imperative in
a permissive sense.’ In this way we should obtain as result : ‘‘be angry (I
cannot hinder it), but only do not sin.” 80 also de Wette. No doubt a per-
mission of anger, because subsequently xai 4) duzapr. follows, would not be in
conflict with ver. 81, where manifestly all hostile anger is forbidden ; but the
mere «ai is only logically correct when both imperatives are thought of in the
same sense, not the former as permitting and the latter as enjoining, in which
case the combination becomes ezceptive (‘‘ only, however”), which would be
expressed by aAdd, zA#v, or pévov.? Beza, Piscator, Grotius, and others
take opyil. interrogatively: ‘‘irascimini, et ne peccate,” ‘‘ Are you angry ?
do not sin.” Against this we cannot urge—the objection usually taken
since the time of Wolf—the xai, which often in rapid emotion strikes in
with some summons ;* but we may urge the fact that Paul reproduces
a passage of the LDXX.‘ in which oryif. is imperative, and that such an abrupt
and impassioned question and answer would not be in keeping with
the whole calm and sober tone of the discourse. — u7 duaprévere] forbids
every kind of sinning, to which anger may lead. Zyro, after Neander,
would limit it to the hostile relation towards others, which, however,
is purely a supplied thought (cig rdv rAnoiov, or the like). — 6 FAs...
diaB6Ay] not included as belonging to the words of the Psalm, states
in what way the given precept is to be carried out; namely, (1) the
irritation must be laid aside on the same day, and (2) no scope may there-
in be given to the devil. — 6 jAco¢ up émidvéro x.t.A.] Comp. Deut. xxiv. 13,
15 ; Jer. xv. 9; Philo, de Legg. Spee. Il. p. 824.*° The énidvétw is to be
taken : go down over your irritation.* That the night is here conceived of
as the nurse of wrath,’ or that the eventide of prayer is thought of,® is
arbitrarily assumed. Jcrome and Augustine interpreted it even of Christ,
the Sun of Righteousness, and Lombard of the sun of reason! The mean-
ing of these words, to be taken quite literally,” is no other than : before
evening let your irritation be over, by which the very speedy, undelayed aban-

1 Comp. Krter, § 54, 4. 2.

2 This is no ‘ philological theorizing,” but
is based on logical necessity. No instance
can be adduced in which, of two impera-
tives coupled by «ai, the former is to be
taken as concessive and the second as pre-
ceptive, in contrast to the former. To re-
fer to Jer. x. 24 a5 a parallel, as Winer does,
is erroneous, for the very reason that in
that passage—which, however, in general
fs very different from ours— Ayr, not xa,
is used.

* Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 148.

‘Which, it is true, is quite arbitrarily
denied by Beza and Koppe.

® On the citation of these words in Polyc.

Phu. 12, see Introd. § 3.

*Comp. also Hom. 72. fi. 418, and Faes!,
in loc. (Nigelsbach in ioc. tukes another
view).

7 Fathers in Sulcer, I. p. 1823; Bengel, and
others.

® Baumgarten.

* Comp. the custom of the Pythagoreans :
eiwore wpoaxdeiey cig AotSopias Uw’ dpyins, # piv
9 Tov HAcov BUvace rag Sefias eufddAAowres
aAAHAS Kai aowacdueros SceAvovro, “If
they were ever led by wrath to abuse,
taking each other's hands and embracing,
they were reconciled before the sun went
down,” Plut. de am. frat. p. 488 B.

480 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

doning of anger is concretely represented. — sapopy:opéc is the arousing of
wrath, exacerbatio, from which opy%#, asa lasting mood, is different. Comp.
LXX. 1 Kings xv. 30, al. Inthe Greek writers the word does not occur.
We may add that Zanchius and Holzhausen are mistaken in holding the
sapé in the word to indicate unrighteous irritation. See, on the other hand,
e.g., Rom. x. 19 ; Ezek. xxxii.9. It denotes the excitement brought upon us-
[See Note XLIX., p. 487. ]— undé] nor yet, for the annexation of a new clause
falling to be added.’ The Recepta pare would so place the two prohibitions
side by side, that they ought properly to be connected by neither... nor
(ufre... pfre), but that Paul had not yet thought of this in the first clause,
but had written the simple «4, and had only at the second clause changed
the conception into such a form as if he had previously written pfre (comp.
our: not...nor). This usage is met with (in opposition to Elmsley) also
in classical writers, although more rarely,* but not elsewhere in Paul, and
hence is not probable here. — didore rérov] 7.¢., give scope, opportunity for be-
ing active. See on Rom. xii. 19. —16 dtaSday] to the devil ; for he is de-
noted by d:é/3oAo¢ in all passages of the N. T., where it is not an adjective
(1 Tim. iii. 11, 12 ; 2 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit. ii. 8), even in 1 Tim. iii. 6 ; John vi.
70. Hence Erasmus,’ Luther, Erasmus Schmid, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus,
Stolz, Flatt, and others ‘ are in error in holding that d:4fodo¢ is here equiva-
lent to calumniator ; in which view Erasmus thought of the heathen slander-
ing the Christians, to whom they were to furnish no material ; and most
expositors thought of the tale-bearers nursing disputes, to whom they were
not to lend an ear. In an irritated frame of mind passion easily gains the
ascendency over sobriety and watchfulness, and that physical condition is
favorable to the devil for his work of seducing into everything that is op-
posed to God. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 8; 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; Eph. vi. 11 ff. Harless
refers the danger on the part of the devil to the corruption of the church-
life,® the fellowship of which, in the absence of placability, 1s rent by the
devil. But this, as not implicd in the context, must have been said by an
addition (év r9 éxxAyoia, or the like, after rérov).— The name d:dBoA0¢ does
not occur elsewhere in the undoubtedly genuine Epistles of the apostle ; but
this, considering the equally general currency of the two names devil and
Satan, may be accidental. Comp. also Acts xiii. 10. We may add that the
citation of the Clementines (Hom. xix. 2): p dére rpdpacty rp rovnp@, ‘‘ Give
no pretext to the evil one,” has nothing todo with our passage.‘

Ver. 28. The stealer is no more to steal. The present participle does not
stand pro praeterito, ‘‘for the past,” but : he who occupies himself with steal-
ing. The right view is already taken by Zanchius ; see also Winer, p. 316.
As there were in the apostolic church fornicators (1 Cor. v. 1), so there were
also stealers,* and the attempts to tone down the notion are just as arbitrary

1 See Hartang, Partikell. I. p. 210. 5 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.
2 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 709; Bornemann, ‘In opposition to Schwegler, Zc»
ad Xen. Anab. \v. 8. 8, p. 808, Lips.; Maetzn. pp. 398 f.
ad Antiph. p. 195 f. 7 Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, and most of
3 Not in the Paraphr. the older expositors. following the Vulgate.

* Koppe is undecided. ®In connection with which the appeal to

CHAP. IV., 29. 481
as they are superfluous.’ The question why Paul does not mention restitu-
tion (Luke xix. 8; Ex. xxii.; Lev. vi.; Isa. lviii. 6; Ezek. xxxiii. 15; Plato,
Legg. ix. p. 864 D f.) is not, with Estius, to be answered to the effect, that it is
contained in pyxéri xAerréro ;? but to the effect, that Paul’s design was not to
give any complete instruction on the point of stealing, but only to inculcate
the prohibition of the same and the obligation of the opposite (which, more-
over, has restitution for its self-evident moral presupposition). The whole
exhortation in this form has, indeed, been regarded as inappropriate, because
not in keeping with the apostolic strictness ;? but we have to observe, on the
other band, that Paul elsewhere too contents himself with simple prohibitions
and commands (see ¢.g. Rom. xiii. 13 f.), and that the apostolic strictness fol-
lows in the sequel (v. 5). — waAdov dé] rather on the other hand, imo vero, en-
hancing in a corrective sense the merely negative pyxér: xAerr. See on Gal.
iv. 9. — xomlazw x.t.A.] let him labor, in that he works with his hands that which
is good ; in that, by the activity of his hands (instead of his thievish prac-
tices), he brings about that which belongs to the category of the morally
good. Bengel well says : ‘‘ré ayadév antitheton ad furtum prius manu pi-
ceata male commissum,” ‘‘is the contrast to the theft first committed with
thievish hand.” — iva Eyy «.7.4.] The view of Schoettgen, that this applies
to the Jewish opinion of tl:e allowableness of theft serving for the support of
the poor,‘ is indeed repeated by Koppe (comp. Stolz) and Holzhausen, but
is—considering the general nature of the 6 xAérr. pnxére Aewr., addressed,
moreover, to readers mostly Gentile-Christian—not expressed in the
words, which rather quite simply oppose to the forbidden taking the giving
according to duty. —r@ xpeliav Eyovr:] to the one having need, namely, that
there may be imparted to him. Comp. 1 Cor. xij. 24; Markii. 25; 1 John
iii. 17; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C, xii. p. 965 B.

Ver. 29. After the three definite exhortations, vv. 25, 26, 28, now follow
more gencral and comprehensive ones. — lag Adyog . . . ue) éxrrop.] The ne-
gation is not to be separated from the verb. With regard to every evil dis-
course, it is enjoined that it shall not go forth, etc.°— carpéc] corrupt ; in
the ethical sense : worthless (8 u) ri idiav yxpeiav mwAnpoi, ‘‘ which does not
satisfy its appropriate use,” Chrysostom), praous, ‘‘ distorted ;” opposite :
ayabdc Tpd¢ oixodouny Tig xpeiac.* — GAN’ ei Tig GyaBd¢ mpdc otk. T. xp.] but if there

the permission of stealing among various
heathen nations, as among the Egyptians
and Lacedaemonians (see Wolf, Cur. ; Mil-
ler, Dorier, IT. p. 810 f.), is entirely unsuita-
ble in an apostolio epistle with its high
moral earnestness. Against such a preju-
dice Paul would have written otherwise.

1 See, 4g., Jerome: “furtum nominans
omne, quod alteriue damno quaeritur,”
naming as theft everything sought with in-
jury to another." He approves, moreover
the Interpreting it of the furtum eptrituale,
“spiritual theft,” of the false prophets.
Estius: ‘‘generaliter positum videtur pro,
fraudare, subdtrahere, etc.,*‘ It seems to be put

31

generally for ‘to defraud, withdraw,’ etc.”
Comp. Calvin and many, as also still Holz-
hausen.

2°* Nam qui non restituit cum possit, ts ad-
hue in furto... perseverai,” ‘*for he who
does not restore when he can, is still perse-
vering in theft.’ This is in itself true, but
no reader could light upon such a pregnant
meaning of the uyxers cAewrére.

3 See de Wette.

4 Jalk. Rubeni, f. 110,4; Vafikra rabbda, f.
147, 1.

5 See Fritzsche, Diss. 1I. in 2 Cor. p. 24 ff.

® See, in general. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. S17
f. ; Kypke, IT. p. 297 f.

482 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

is any (discourse) good for the edification of the need, sc., let it proceed from
your mouth. On ayafé¢ with eic, rpéc,' or infinitive, denoting aptitude or
serviceableness for anything, see Kypke, II. p. 298. — poe oixodopi» ric
xpeiac does not stand by hypallage for cic xpeiav ric oixodouge, * but rye ypeiac
is an objective genitive; it is the need just present, upon which the edi-
fying (Christianly helpful) influence of the discourse is to act. Rickert
and Olshausen take 9 ypeia for of ypeiav Eyovres. Arbitrarily and to the dis-
turbance of the sense, since in fact every one has need of edification, conse-
quently rc zpeiag Would convey nothing at all characteristic, no modal defi-
nition of ayald¢ mpdc oixodou. — iva b9 ydpuv roig axotove:] aim of the éxxop. ix
t. or. tu., previously conceived as supplied : in order that it (this discourse)
may bestow. grace, 1.e., benefit, on the hearers, may bring blessing for them.
Opposite of such discourses : 2 Tim. ii. 14. Theodorct (iva gavg dexrad¢ roic
ax.,‘‘ that it may appear acceptable to the hearers, etc.”), Luther, Calovius,
Raphel, Kypke, Zachariae, Michaelis, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and others, in-
cluding Rickert, Meier, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius : in order that it
may afford pleasure, be agreeable, to the hearers. Comp. also Chrysostom, who
compares the discourse to a fragrant ointment. But, apart from the fact
that discourses, which are good zpéc oixodopuiy ric ypelac, cannot always be
agreeable (1 Cor. vii. 8 ff.), this interpretation is opposed to linguistic
usage, according to which ydpw didwu always signifies gratificari, to
confer a kindness, to show a service of love, or the like (Jas. iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. v.
5; Ex. iii. 21; Ps. lxxxiv. 12 [11]; Tob. i. 18 ; Soph. Aj. 1333; Plat.
Legg. iii. p. 702 C ; also in the passages adduced by Wetstein and Kypke).

Ver. 30. Connected by «ai with what precedes ; hence not, with Lach-
mann and Tischendorf, to be separated by a full stop from ver. 29, by which
there would result an exhortation too indefinite in the connection. — And
grieve not (which would take place by means of Adyo: carpol) the Holy Spirit
of God. Evil discourses are so opposed to the holy nature and aim of the
Divine Spirit, who dwells in the Christians, that He cannot fail to be
grieved thereat.* An anthropopathic conception of the consciousness, with
which the Spirit of God is holily affected, of the incongruity of human ac-
tion with His holiness ; but how truly and touchingly in keeping with the
idea of the lore of God, which bears sway in His Spirit (Rom. v. 5)! The
man becomes conscious of this grieving of the divine zveiza, when he, who
has become through the atonement and sanctification the dwelling-place of
the Spirit, no longer receives from this Spirit the testimony that he is the
child of God (Rom. viii. 16). The chosen expression, ‘‘ the Holy Spirit of
God,” renders the enormity of such action most palpable. An allusion, we
may add, to Isa. Ixiii. 10 is not to be assumed, since in that passage the
napoétverv [exasperating] of the Spirit is characteristic. —év @ icdpay. sic
yuépav aroAurp. | furnishes motive for the exhortation : for if ye have received

1 Plat, Rep. vil. p. 522A, and Stallbaum phwore évrevéqrat re Gey xai awoory ad cov,
tn loc. *‘ Distress not the Holy Spirit that dwell-
2 Beza. eth in you, lest he entreat God, and he de-
§ Comp. Hermas, ii. 10.8, as also ll.3: 2% part from you.”
OAtBe rd wredma Gytoy Td ey Goi KaTOLKOUY,

NOTES. 483

so great a benefit through the Holy Spirit, how wrong (ungrateful) is it
when you grieve Him! Harless, following older expositors, finds the poasi-
bility of losing the seal here hinted at. But to this us Avreire points less nat-
urally than 2) rapocivere (Isa. lxiii. 10) would point to it. —éogpay.] quite
as at i. 18. — cic fuép. arodurp.] for the day of redemption ; when at the Pa-
rousia the certainty of the deliverance unto salvation, indicated by éo¢pay.,
becomes reality. As to aroAbrpwors, comp. on i. 14; Luke xxi. 28; also
Rom. viii. 23.

Vv. 81, 32. Mexpia] Bitterness, i.¢., fretting spitefulness, Acts viii. 23 ; Jas.
iii. 14."— As to the distinction between Ouude (ebullition of anger) and épyh,
see on Rom. ii. 8; Gal. v. 20. The context shows, we may add, that here
loveless and hostile anger is meant: hence there is no inconsistency with
ver. 26. — xpavyy] clamor, in which hostile passion breaks out, Acts xxiii. 9.?
— Biracgnuia] not : ‘‘ verba, quae Dei honorem . . . laedunt,” ‘‘ words that
injure God’s honor,” Grotius ; but, in accordance with the context, evil-
speaking against the brethren, comp. Col. iii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 4; Matt. xii.
81, xv. 19. —xaxia] is here not badness in general, vitiositas,* but, in harmony
with the connection, the special spite, malice, Rom. i. 29; Col. iii. 8. This
is the leaven of the mxpiax.r.A. — yiveoOe] not be, but become, in keeping with
the apO7rw a¢’ iuav. — xpnoroi] kind, Col. iii. 12.4 The conjecture that the
word contains an allusion to the name Christians,* is an arbitrary fancy. —
etor2ayxvor] compassionate. Comp. Manass. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 8, and the pas-
sages from the Test. XII. Patr. in Kypke. — yapi{éuevo:] forgiving, 2 Cor.
ii. 7, 10, xii. 18. The explanation donantes [donating] (Vulgate), largientes
[giving bountifully] (Erasmus), is not in keeping with the context. — éavroi¢]
equivalent to aAAfAoc. See on Col. iii. 12. —xaddc nal 5 Gede x.7.4.] Motive
to the yap:2. éavr., from their own experience of the archetypal conduct of
God. Matt. vi. 14, xviii. 21 ff. — év Xprorq] in Christ, in whose self-surren-
der to the death of atonement the act of the divine forgiveness was accom-
plished, i. 6 f. ; 2 Cor. v. 19.

Notes By AMERICAN Eprror.

XXXVI. Ver. 2. uera rion tarevodpootvne x.7.A. °

“The very work for which Christ's gospel came into the world was no other
than to cast down the mighty from their seat, and to exalt the humble and
meek ; it was then only in accordance with this its task and mission that it
should dethrone the heathen virtue yeyadopuyia, and set up the despised
Tarecvogpoourn in its room. .. Indeed, the very word rarxeivogpootvn is, I
believe, itself a birth of the gospel; I am not aware of any Greek writer
who employed it before the Christian era, or apart from the influence of
Christian writings after... The use which heathen writers make of

1 See Wetstein, ad Rom. iil. 14; Loesner, anger.

Obes. p. 844 f.; Wyttenbach, ad Plut. or. 3 Clic. Tuac. iv. 15. 84,

VI. p. 1088. 4See Tittmann, Synon. pp. 140, 198.
2 Chrysostom calls the «pavy% the steed of ® Olshausen.

484 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

tarevée, tarewérn¢, and other words of this family, shows plainly in what
sense they would have employed rarecvogpoovvn, had they thought it good
to allow the word. For indeed the instances in which ravemwdéc is used in
any other than an evil sense, and to signify aught else than that which
is low, slavish and mean-spirited, are few and altogether exceptional.”
(Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., First Series, p. 201). As to its relation to
mpaétn¢: ‘*The gospel of Christ did not to so great an extent rehabilitate
mpaérnc . . . Epadérn¢ did not require to be turned from a bad sense to a good,
but only to be lifted up from a lower good to a higher."’ Aristotle ‘finds the
axpaérnc worthy of praise, more because by it a man retains his own equanimity
and composure, than from any nobler reason.” But ‘‘the scriptural zpadryc
is not in man’s outward behavior only ; nor yet in his relations to his fellow-
men ; as little in his mere outward disposition. Rather it is an unwrought
grace of the soul, and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God
(Matt. xi. 29 ; James i. 21). It expresses that temper of spirit in which we
accept His dealings with us without disputing and resisting ; and it is closely
linked with the razetvogpoovrn, and follows close upon it (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii.
12}, because it is only the humble heart which is also the meek ; and which as
such does not fight against God, and more or less struggle and contend with
Him.”’
XXXVI. Ver. 5. pia wiorec.

Meyer's position is confirmed by Harless, who denies absolutely the applica-
tion of fides quae creditur to ziortg in Scripture. Nevertheless, the qualification
of Ellicott should not be overlooked: ‘That this, however, must not be
unduly limited to the feeling of the individual, e.g., to faith in its utterly sub-
jective aspect, seems clear from the use of uwia and the general context. As
there is one Lord, so the pia riovic is not only a subjective recognition of this
eternal truth, but also necessarily involves a common objective profession.

XXXVIII. Ver. 5. Omission of the Lord's Supper.

Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, Branne agree in the explanation as given by the last:
«« The Lord’s Supper is rather an act of the preserved unity than a motive for
its preservation. It is celebrated by those who have been reconciled with God
and hold each other to be brethren ; it does not so much give an impulse to
peaceableness, as it is a result of the same, as acommon celebration of those
who have been united together, as an attestation of the church which has
become one in the Lord.’’ Alford adds: ‘‘In 1 Cor. x. 17, where an act was
in question which was a clear breach of union, it forms the rallying-point.’’

XXXIX. Ver. 8. éwxe déuara.

The idea of 2dwxe cannot be justified from the letter of Ps. Ixviii. 18. The
form of the quotation would be unallowable in an uninspired writer. But by
illumination of the Holy Spirit, the apostle discerns the true idea involved in
Christ's reception of'gifts, and employs a word which will the more fully and
clearly express the mind of the Spirit in the Psalm. ‘‘ We cannot argue
from the meaning of the word, but we may from the scope of the passage.
The truth is, that the apostle sees in the literal O. T. a higher spiritual signifi-
cance... The apostle sees that when a king takes, he takes to give, and

NOTES. 485

therefore substitutes the one word for the other, without at all putting the
one word as the translation of the other.” (Perowne on Ps. Ixviii. 19). ‘* We
admit then frankly and freely the verbal difference, but remembering that the
apostie wrote under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we recognize here neither
imperfect memory, precipitation (Ritck.), arbitrary change (Calv.), accommoda-
tion (Morus), nor Rabbinical interpretation (Meyer), but simply the fact that
the psalm, and especially ver. 18, had a Messianic reference, and bore within it
a further, fuller and deeper meaning. This meaning the inspired apostle, by a
slight change of language and the substitution of ‘‘ gave’’ for the more dubious
‘« received,’’ succinctly, suggestively and authoritatively unfolds’ (Ellicott).

XL. Ver. 8. gyparcrevoev aiypadwolar x.t.A,

The roi¢ avOpdrore in the succeeding clause must not be pressed too far on
either side in the interpretation of the.aiyvyaAwoiav. The former might readily
be included under the latter, the reference being to the same object only with
a changed relation, as Harless, Olshausen and Braune evidently regard it. On
the other hand, the aiyzaAwaiav probably includes everything arrayed against
Christ’s power, ‘‘sin, death and conscience,” Luther, Er. ed. 64: 240; or
‘‘Satan and the gates of hell,” Calovius, or, with the great body of interpreters,
‘‘Satan, sin and death,” which, against their will, are converted into means for
advancing the salvation of men. Thus a continual repetition of what is stated
in Heb. ii. 14 is occurring. Yet what occurs thus with these forces of the evil
world is also fulfilled in another manner with converted men. They become
‘* gifts” to their fellow-men in the church by first having been led willing cap-
tives by the great conqueror. This is the history of all the ‘ apostles,”
‘‘prophets,” ‘‘ evangelists,” etc., enumerated in ver. 11, as the church's
“‘ gifts.’”’

XLL Ver, 9. ei¢ Ta xararepa peépn.

‘‘The greater the descent, the greater the ascent ; and if the aiyyzadwoia con-
sisted of Satan and his powers, the warfare in which they were taken captive
would most naturally be contemplated in all its extent, as reaching to their
habitation itself : ‘ This ascent, what does it imply but a descent, and that even
to the lower parts of the earth, from which the spoils of victory were fetched.
This meaning seems to be upheld by the rd rdvra which follows, as well as by
the contrast’’’ (Alford). So among English writers, Ellicott and Barry. Dr.
Riddle suggests that this view may have been maintained from the desire to
sustain the article of the Creed: ‘‘He descended into hell,” while ‘‘ the other
may have been quite as much influenced by the fear of favoring the Romish
appendages.’’ Eadie has an analysis of the various views, and a long defence
of the expression as referring to the earth. Braune correctly rejects with
Meyer Chrysostom’s interpretation, which applies it to Christ's burial, Phil-
ippi (Kirch. Glaubeéns, iv. 1, 171) refers it to the Incarnation,

XLII. Ver. 10. iva rAnpwog ta mavra.

Luther : ‘‘ That in all things he might work all, and without Him nothing be
done, thought, or spoken’’ (Randglossen, Erl. ed. lxiv. 241).

486 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

XLUI. Ver. 13. ri¢ extyvaceuc.

‘‘Clear and exact knowledge” (Cremer). See Note XIII., chap. i. 17:
‘‘ Christians are not to be, as in times past, some fully informed in one section
of truth, but erring through defective information on other points concerning
the Saviour—some with a superior knowledge of the merits of His death, and
others with a quicker perception of the beauties of His life . . . but they are
to be characterized by the completeness and harmony of their ideas of the
power, the work, the history, the love, and the glory of the Son of God”
(Eadie).

XLIV. Ver. 13. cig wérpov «.7.A.

facia has rarely in classical Greek the meaning of ‘‘stature,’’ but often used
of ‘‘the flower or prime of life, t.e., from 17 to 45,’’ and of women, ‘‘ marriage-
able age” (Liddeil and Scott).

XLV. Ver. 16. did rdone ddie tig Extxopryiac.

The use of dé¢7¢ for joint is found in Aristotle, whose terminology is decisive
as to the propricty of the application. Col. ii. 19 seems to clearly settle the
fact that it must have such meaning here. So Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, Riddle.

XLVI. Ver. 18. dea ry dyvoray x.7.A.

Neither Tischendorf nor Westcott and Hort approve of the deletion of the
commas, which Meyer finds necessary for his interpretation. There is nothing
difficult in tracing their habitual ignorance to repeated acts whereby the light
of the truth was excluded, An effort to be ignorant results in a state of com-
plete darkening of understanding. Neither is this in any way inconsistent
with the doctrine of original sin. The earlier condition of the heathen was
one in which they were more susceptible to the movements of divine grace.
‘For this two-fold condition’’ (i.e., of darkening and alienation), ‘‘ the apostle
gives a two-fold ground, whose members mutually condition each other, because
they are attached to one and the same subject. . . . The condition of their
darkening and alienation from the life that is of God depends upon their in-
ner ignorance and hardness of heart. That this inner ignorance is not a mere
limitation of the understanding, is expressed by the combination with the
topwotc’ (Harless).

XLVI. Ver. 21. xaddc¢ éoriv adnbeca.

There is an antithesis here to the év yaraiérnr: of ver. 17. As opposed to
this vanity, the quality of their teaching is here described as truth, while ‘‘ the
next verse contains its substance '’ (Eadie) or contents.

XLVUI. Ver. 22. rév radardv dvfpwrov,

‘‘A bold and vivid personification of the old nature we inherit from Adam,
the source and seat of original and actual transgression’’ (Eadie). ‘Our
former unconverted self ; personification of our whole sinful condition before
regeneration (Rom. vi. 6 ; Col. iii. 9), and opposed to the xacvo¢ or véoc dvOpwrroc

NOTES. 487

(ver. 24 ; Col. ili. 10)” (Ellicott). ‘The natural man in the corruption of his
sin” (Braune). Meyer's exception to the reference of this by Calovius to orig-
inal! sin is at once answered by the fact that, with Calovius, original sin is the
sinful habit, which begins to be laid aside in regeneration. The examination
of the controversy with Rome on this topic in Apology of Augsburg Confession,
Art ii., pp. 75-83, will give much light here.

XLIX. Ver. 26. éx? rapopytopy tydv.

‘The srapopy:ouds of Eph. iv. 26 is not dpy7, however we may tranalate it
‘wrath.’ This it cannot be ; for the mapop):o6¢ there is absolutely forbidden ;
the sun shal] not go down upon it; whereas under certain conditions dpy7 is a
righteous passion to entertain. TheScripture has nothing in common with the
stoic’s absolute condemnation of anger ; it takes no such loveless view of other
men's sins as his who said: ‘Disturb not thyself; if any one sins, he sins to
himself’ (Marc. Ant. iv. 46). It inculcates no apathy, but only a restraint over
passion . . . The Scripture permits, and not only permits, but when the right
occasion for it has arrived, demands it. ... There is a ‘wrath of God,’a
wrath also of the merciful Son of Man (Mark iii. 5), and a wrath which right-
eons men not only may, but, as they are righteous, must feel; nor can there
be a surer and sadder token of an utterly prostrate moral condition than the
not being able to be angry with sin—uand sinners.” . . . Yet ‘‘there is that
which may cleave even to a righteous anger, the rapopy:opuds, the irritation, the
exasperation, which must be dismissed at once’’ (Trench, Synonyms, First
Series, 180, 181).

488 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 2. jac... nav] Tisch. (Treg. and West. and Hort]: tude...
tusv. But the witnesses for this are of unequal value and not strong enough,
specially as the pronoun of the second person naturally presented itself from
the context. — Ver. 4. kai aicxp. xai}] A D* E* F G, min. Sahid. Vulg. It. and
Fathers of some importance: } aiczp. 4. Approved by Griesb., adopted by
Lachm. and Riick., and rightly so ; the Recepia appears to be an old alteration
in accordance with ver. 3, where also it is only at the third vice that 7 comes
in, &* has «al aioxzp. 7, a8 also Syr. p.—7d oix dvjxovra] AB ®, 31, 67, 73,
Clem. Antioch. Ephr. Cyr. : dé ovx avixev. So Lachm. and [Tisch. Treg. West.
and Hort) Riick. ; commended also by Griesb: An interpretation, probably
occasioned by the fact that the following dAAa udAAov eiyvap. was regarded as
the contrast to Ta obx avjxovra. — Ver. 5. lore] Elz.: éoré, in opposition to far
preponderant evidence. Defended, it: true, by Matth. (‘* pluribus Graecis in
mentem venire poterat icre,” ‘‘ lore could occur to most Greeks,” but evidently a
mechanical miswriting or alteration ; rejected also by Reiche, Hofmann and
Ewald.-.- d¢ ¢otiv eidwaodAdrpyc] [Lachm. West. and Hort], following only B &,
67*** lect. 40, Cyr. Jer., has & éoriy eitdw7oAatpnc, Which Mill and Griesb. recom-
mended. FG, Vulg. It. Goth. Victorinus, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster have 6 éorw
eidwAvdarpeia. By the latter the original d¢ éoriy eidwAordtpyc, Which seemed to
require an explanation, that it might not be misunderstood, was explained, and
subsequently ceidwAoAdarpyc was restored, whereby the reading of Lachm. arose.—
Ver. 9. gwrd¢] Elz. Matth.: mvetuarocs, in opposition to decisive witnesses.
Gloss from Gal. v. 25. — Ver. 17. cuvievrec] A B &, min, Chrys. ms. Damasc.
Jer. : ovviere. So Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Rick, Harless,
however, has cuvdvrec, after D* FG. The latter, though doubtless to be ac-
cented ovvidyte¢ (see on Rom. iii. 11), is as the less common form to be pre-
ferred ; the imperative is a gloss from the context, supported by no version. —
Ver. 19. wrvevyarixaic] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., and is
bracketed by Lachm. It might have been introduced from Col. iii. 16 ; but
the evidence for the omission is too weak, and the omission might easily be
occasioned by the homoeoteleuton. — év 19 xapdig] Lachm. and Riick. : é» craic
xapdiacc, after important witnesses (not B). But the plural would in itself very
naturally occur to the copyists, and still more from the comparison of Col. iii.
16. — Ver. 21. Xpicrotv] Elz. : Geot, in opposition to decisive witnesses, among
which D E F G, codd. of It. add 'I7cov, some before, some after the Xp. Mill
already rightly judges that gé80¢ Ocod was the more current conception, whereby
Gcod (K : xvplov) was brought in ; ¢é680¢ Xpsorod does not occur elsewhere. —Ver.
22. After avdpdow, Elz. Scholz have wrurdcoecofe, and Lachm. {and Treg.]
timvotacctoGwoav. The latter in accordance with A &, min. Copt. Vulg. Goth.
Clem. (once) Basil, Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag. D EF G, lect. 19, It. Syr. have
the Recepta, but before roic ldlow. These diversities only confirm the proba-
bility that the verb was originally wanting, as also B, codd. Gr..in Jer. Clem.

CHAP. V., l, 2. 489

(once) have no verb. The verb, deleted by Tisch. and rejected by Reiche [and
West. and Hort], is an expedient to help the construction. — Ver. 23. avyp (Elz.:
6 dvyp) and airés (Elz.: «ai airé¢g éort) rest on decisive critical evidence ;
although Reiche again defends the Recepta, which is a smoothing of the text.—
Ver. 24. idiorg] is, following B D* E* F G &, min. codd. It., with Lachm. Treg.
Tisch, [West. and Hort], to be deleted as an addition from ver. 22.-— Ver. 25.
éautov] is wanting in A B &, min. Clem. Orig. Cyr. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm.
Tisch. and Rick. But if anything were added to yvvaixac, it would be most
natural to add Idiac from ver. 22. The tuoyv read in F G (Vulg. It. ete. : vestras)
is an explanation of éavrap, and tells in favor of this, the dropping out of which
is to be explained from its superfluousness. — Ver. 27. avrdcg] Elz. : avrg, in
opposition to far preponderating testimony ; altered from a failure to under-
stand the emphatic airés. — Ver. 28. Lachm. has rightly adopted, on decisive
authority, oftwe xat of dvdpes SgetAovory., B has the order ofrw¢ dg.
xai ol dvdpoc. — Ver. 29. Instead of Xprordc, Elz. has xvpioc, in opposition to
decisive evidence. — Ver. 30. éx tij¢ capxdg atov nal éx Téy dor. avrod] is wanting
in A B &* 17, 67** al., Copt. Aeth. Method. and perhaps Ambrosiast. Deleted
by Lachm. [Treg. Tisch. West. and Hort], suspected also by Mill and Griesb.,
defended by Reiche. The omission has arisen either from mere accident, by
passing in the process of copying from the first avrov immediately to the third,
or more probably through design, from want of perceiving the suitableness of
the words in the context, and judging their meaning inappropriate. If they
had been added from the LXX. Gen. ii. 23, we should have found written ix
tov doréwy avrod Kal éx tig capxdg abrov. — Ver. 31. Tov mar. adrov «x. Tr. pnr.]
Lachm. and Tisch. on preponderant testimony have merely zarépa xai pnrépa.
Rightly ; the Recepla is from the LXX.— xpd¢ tiv yvv.] Lachm. and Rick. :
7H yvvatxi, in accordance doubtless with many and considerable witnesses (not
B), but an alteration in conformity with the LXX. (according to A, Ald.) and
Matt. xix. 5.

ContENTs.—Exhortation to the imitation of God, to love, as Christ
through His sacrificial death has loved us (vv. 1, 2). Warning against un-
chastity, avarice, and other vices, inasmuch as they exclude from the Mes-
sianic kingdom (vv. 3-5). The readers are not to let themselves be deceived
by empty words, and not to hold fellowship with the vicious ; for, as those
who from being dark have become Chnistianly enlightened, they are under
obligation to walk accordingly, and to have no fellowship with the works
of darkness, but rather to rebuke them, which is a course as necessary as it
is salutary (vv. 6-14). They are therefore to be careful in their walk as
wise (vv. 15-17), and not to become drunken, but to become full of the Holy
Spirit, which fulness must express itself by alternate utterance in psalms
and hymns, by singing praise in the silence of the heart, and by continual
Christian thanksgiving towards God (vv. 18-20). Subject the one to the
other in the fear of Christ, the wives are to render to their husbands true
Christian subjection (vv. 21-24), and the men to their wives true Christian
Jove (vv. 26-838), in connection with which, however, the wife owes rever-
ence to the husband (ver. 83).

Vv. 1, 2. If Paul has just said xafdc xai 6 Oed¢ tyapicaro tiv, he now, on
the ground of these words (ody), sums up under one head the duty of love

490 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

expressed in detail, iv. 32, and that as imitation of God by a loving walk,
such as stands in appropriate relation to the love shown to us by Christ,
which serves as pattern for our conduct. With this is expressed the specific
character and degree of the love required as an imitation of God (John xiii.
84, xv. 13). Accordingly, ver. 1 corresponds to the «aba xai 6 Gedg ev Xp.
éxapioaro as a whole, and ver. 2 to the év Xpcor@ in particular ; yiveoe obv at
the same time corresponds emphatically to the yiveode dé of iv. 82, introducing
in another form—flowing from the last words of ver. 32—the same thing
as was introduced by yiveo¥e dé. — oc réxva ayaz.] in accordance with your
relation to God as His beloved children. ayary7ré denotes neither amabiles,
“lovely,” ! nor good, excellent children, nor is it to be said with Vater : “ut
solent liberi, qui ¢unc diliguntur,” ‘‘as children are wont, who are then
loved ;” but what a love has God shown to us by the vioYecia (1 John iii.
1; Rom. v. 8, 5, al.) ! Now, to be God’s beloved child, and not to become
like the loving Father, how contradictory were this! See Rom. vi. 1 ff.; 1
John iv. 7 ff.; Matt. v.45. Yet the erpression ‘‘imitators of God” is found
with Paul only here. — xai] annexes wherein this imitation of God must
consist, namely, therein, that lore is the element in which their life-walk
takes place—love, such as also Christ has displayed towards us.—x«ai rapéduxev
x.7.2.] Practical proof of the 7yérycev. Comp. ver. 25 ; Rom. v. 8 f.; Gal.
ii. 20. Paul might have written rapéorycev, but wrote rapédux., because he
thought of the matter as a self-surrender. The notion of sacrifice docs not
lie in the verb, but in the attributes.? We may add that with zapéd. we
have not to supply cic Sdvaror,? but ro GeG* belongs to it, to the connecting
of which with cic dopuqv evwdiac > the order of the words is opposed (comp. Ex.
xxix. 18; Lev. i. 9, 18, 17, xxiii. 18, 18 ; Gen. viii. 21), since the emphatic
prefixing of ro Geo, if it belonged to cig dou. evwd., would be quite without
reason, inasmuch as there is not any kind of contrast (for instance, to human
satisfaction) in the case. —irép yor] for our behalf, in order to reconcile us
to God. The idea of substitution is not expressed in the preposition,* but
lies in the conception of a sacrifice, under which the N. T. represents the
death of Christ,’ and that, indeed, as evpiatory sacrifice. See on Rom. v.
6; Gal. iii. 18. — rpocgopay x. Yuaiav] as an offering and a sacrifice. The
latter (13!) is a more precise definition of the former ; for rpoogopd is every-
thing in general which is brought as an offering, whether it be bloody or
unbloody (113). Comp. Ecclus. xiv. 11. Of the sacrifice of Christ, also
Heb. x. 10, 14. Harless explains the joining of the two substantives to the
effect that Christ, as He was a sacrifice for others (Svciav), also presented
Himself as an offering (rpoogopév). But, apart from the fact that thus Paul
must logically have written Yuciay x. zpoopopdy (as in Ps, x]. 7; Heb. x. 5),

1 Zanchius. See also van Hengel, ad Bom. L
2 In opposition to Hofmann's objection. p. 459 f.
® Grotius, Harless, and others. 7In opposition to Hofmann, Schri/thew.

‘Which Bengel, Hofmann, and others II. 1, p. 888 f., who makes the apostle mere-
with less simplicity attach to mpocd, x. ly say, ‘‘that Christ has gone the way of
duveiay. death, in order as our well-pleasing repre.

§ Luther, Koppe, Meier, Harless. sentative to come to God.”

CHAP. V., 3. 491

‘

both words, in fact, state in what character Christ presented Himself to God,
both express the objective relation, while the subjective relation of Christ is
conveyed in wapéduxey éavrdv ixip yuov. Comp. 1 Pet. 1. 18. —ei¢ donq
evudiac] 30 that it became for Him an odor of fragrance, figurative designation
of its acceptableness to God (Phil. iv. 18), after the Hebrew DIV}-1M (Lev. i.
9, 13, 17, ii. 12, iii. 5), which was the original real, anthropopathic basis of
the idea of the acceptableness of a sacrifice toGod.! The underlying notion
of the burning of that which was offered did not of course come into account
in the case of the lAacrfpiov of Jesus, but the thought of the expression is in
the sacrificial designation of the atoning deed independent of its origin.*
— The question whether Christ is here in reality presented as an expiatory
sacrifice, or merely as one who in His self-surrender well-pleasing to God
has left us a pattern,*? has been raised by the Socinians,‘ who denied the
former,® is decided not merely by izép judy, but by the view prevailing
throughout the N. T., and specially with Paul, of the death of Jesus as the
iAaorhpiov, Rom. iii. 25 (comp. also Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. i. 18; 1 Tim.
ii. 6), which also is contained here in Suciav.* Certainly the main point in
the connection of our passage is the love displayed by Christ, but the practi-
cal proof of this love is represented as that which it just really was, namely,
us expiatory sacrifice ; in opposition to which the addition ei¢ dou. evwd.,
which in the O. T., save in Lev. iv. 31,’ is not used of expiatory sacrifices,
is not to be urged, inasmuch as—even apart from Lev. /.c.—Christ offered up
Himself, consequently His expiatory sacrifice was at the same time a vuluntary
offering.

Ver. 3. Aé] leading over to another portion of the exhortation. — axatapaia
and wieovegia, quite as at iv. 19, the two main vices of heathendom. The
latter thus is here neither insatiability in lust,® nor ‘‘imprimis de prostibulis,
quae sunt vulgato corpore, ut quaestum lucrentur,’’ ‘‘ especially of courtesans
who prostitute their bodies for pay,” Koppe, Stolz, but : avarice. — 7] is
not equivalent to xai,* nor yet explicative, ® but disjunctive, separating another
vice from the correlative ropveia xai raca axa¥apcia; " neither fornication and
every kind of uncleanness, nor avarice, nor shamelessness (ver. 4), etc.
— pnde bvopaziadw év ipiv] not once be named, etc. ; lxavag rd proapov Trav eipy-
pévan trédecke, nal avta¢g avréyv mpooryopiaa reo pvpun¢g E€opicae nedctoac, ‘‘ He
sufficiently indicated that which was impure in the subjects mentioned,
enjoining that their very names be banished from memory,” Theodoret. "—

2 See Gen. vill. 21; Ewald, Alerth. p. 81.

2 Without that which is symbolized in
‘oonh evwdias, the sacrifice of Christ would
not have been propitiatory. Comp. on the
expression itself the Homeric xvicons aovs
airuy, * sweet savor of fat,” Od. xii. 869.

3 So Usteri, LeArdegr. p. 118; Rickert.

4See Catech. Racov. 484, ed. Ocder,
p. 1006.

5 See also Calovius, Bidi. il. p. 716 f.

®Comp. Lechler, apost. und nachapost.
Zeitalter, p. 7; Ebrard, Lehre con der siell-
vertrel. Genugth. p. 68 ff.; Philippi, Dogm.

IV. 2, p. 204 ff.

7 See, with regard to this passage, Oehler
in Herzog’s Encyki. X. p. 648.

® As Heinsius (cortroverted by Salmasius,
de foen. Trap. p. 121 ff.), Estius, Locke,
Baumgarten, Michaelis, Zachariae, and
others would take it.

® Salmasius, Schleusner.

19 Heinsius.

1) Comp. Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 275 f.

13 Comp. ver. 12. Dio Chrys. p. 860 B:
otacw 8¢ ovde dbvopdgaw dfiow wap’ vmiy, “ It
is improper for you even to mention the

492 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

xadac mpérer aylo] namely, that these vices should not once be mentioned
among them. So aicypa dvéuara, ‘‘ such disgraceful words” ' are they !

Ver. 4. Aicxpérnc] abomination, disgraceful conduct.* Most expositors, in-
cluding Rickert, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen,* limit it to disgraceful utfter-
ances, but without warrant of linguistic usage (this would be aicypooyia, see
Col. iii. 8; Xen. de rep. Lac. v.6 ; Aristot. derep. vii. 17 ; Polyb. viii. 18. 8,
xii. 18. 8) ; or in the context, in which it is only the following clements
that contain the unchristian speaking. — nwpodoyia] is the carrying on of in-
sipid, foolish talk.‘ — evrparedia] signifies properly ready cersatility from zpérw
and eb), urbanity; then specially a witty, jesting manner ; and in a bad
sense, as here, the witticism of frivolity, scurrilitas, ‘‘ scurrility.”’* [See Note
L., p. 524.] —raotx dvixovra] as that which is unseemly. Comp. Winer,
pp. 221, 388 f. It refers only to pwpodoyia and evrpareda, since for aicypérne
such a characteristic description would be entirely superfluous, and aA44 pad? ov
ei yaptoria] points back merely to those peccata oris, ‘‘ oral sins.”—a2Aa pa72ov
evyapioria|] From the preceding prdé dvoualéodw év iniv we have here to supply
éotw or yivéodu tv tuiv, which is contained therein, in accordance with a well-
known brachylogy.® evyapioria is, according to standing usage,” not grace-
Sulness of speech, a8 Jerome, Calvin,® Salmasius, Cajetanus, Hammond, Sem-
ler, Michaelis, Wahl, Meier, and others would take it, which would be
ei'yapt, but giving of thanks, in which case there results a contrast far more
in keeping with the Christian character and the profoundly vivid piety of
the apostle (comp. Col. ii. 7, iii. 15, 17; 1 Thess. v. 18). Gratitude towards
God (for the salvation in Christ), expressing itself in their discourse, is to
supersede among Christians the two faults before mentioned, and to sanctify
their oral intercourse. ‘‘ Linguae abusui opponitur sanctus et tamen laetus
usus,” ‘‘the holy and yet joyful use of the tongue is opposed to its abuse,”
Bengel. Morus erroneously refers it to thanksgiving towards others; ‘‘ the
language of courtesy.”

Ver. 5. Paul returns to the vices mentioned ver. 3, and assigns the reason
for their prohibition. —icre yevdoxovrec] indicative ; Paul appeals to the con-
sciousness of the readers, which, considering their familiarity with the prin-
ciple laid down, was at all events more natural to him, and more in keep-
ing with the destination as a motive (ydp), than the imperative sense.* The
participle, however, is not here to be explained from the well-known

faction.”? Herod. i. 188: dooa 8 ot wordery 41. 1.

oun éferrt, tata ov8é Adyery fears, ‘* What it
is not allowable to do, itis not allowable
even to mention."” Dem. 1259, 17: & «ai
ovouddew dxvycau’ ay, “ which I would hesl-
tate even to mention.”

1 Plat. Rep. p. 344 B, and Stallbaum in Joc.

2 Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A.

3 Not Matthies and Harless.

4 Antig. de Mirab. 126: pwpodrwyias cai
aéodecxias, ‘idle talk and frivolity,’ Arist.
H. A.i. 11; Plut. Mor. 504 A.

5 See in general, Wetstein ad loc. ; Dis-
sen, ad Pind. p. 180; Krfiger on Thue. if.

* Kfthner, IT. p. 604.

7 Comp. also Loesner, Odss. p. 45 f.

®“*Sermones nostros vera suavitate et
gratia perfusos esse debere, quod fiet, si
miscebimus utile dulci,”’ ‘“‘ Our conversation
should be pervaded with true sweetness
and grace, which will occur if we will
mingle the useful with the sweet.”’

® Vulgate, Valla, Castalio, Vatablus,
Erasmus Schmid, Estius, Grotius, Wolf,
Bengel, Koppe, Rfickert, Matthies, Ols-
hausen, Bleek, and others.

CHAP. V., 5. 493
Hebrew and Greek mode of connecting the finite verb with its participle,’
inasmuch as yivdox. is another verb ; but it denotes the way and manner of
the knowing.’ —é¢. . . ovx éyet] See on iv. 29, and Winer, p. 155. — d¢
éoriy eidwAoAdrpnc] applies to the covetous man, whom Paul declares in a mets-
phorical sense to be an idolater, inasmuch as such an one has made money
and property his god, and has fallen away from the service of the true God
(comp. Matt. vi. 24). Comp. Phil. iii. 19; Col. iii. 5 ; and the passages
from Philo and the Rabbins, which express the same mode of regarding
covetousness and other vices, in Wetstein, and Schéttgen.? Doubtless ropveia
and axadapoia are also subtle idolatry ; but only with regard to avarice
does Paul, here and at Col. iii. 5, bring it into special relief, in order with
thoroughly deterrent force to make this felt xar’ efox#v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,”
as antichristian (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 10). For Paul, in particular, whose all-
sacrificing self-denial (2 Cor. vi. 10, xi. 27) stood so sharply contrasted with
that self-seeking passion, such a peculiar branding of zAeovefia was very nat-
ural. Zachariae, Koppe,‘ Meier, Harless, as also Fritzsche,’* refer d¢ éorcw eidwd.
to all three subjects. Unnecessary deviation from that which after the singu-
lar of the relative must most naturally suggest itself to the reader, and op-
posed to the parallel Col. iii. 5, where #re¢ éoriv eidwAodarpeia has its reference
merely to the rAeovegia assured by the use of the article ryv mAzovegiav, and it
is only afterwards that the comprehension of the before-named vices by
means of the neuter plural d: a comes in. — ova éxet xAnpovoulay] Comp. on
i. 11. By means of the present tense the certain future relation is realized as
present.° —év ri Baca. tov Xpiorov x. Oeov] for the Messianic kingdom be-
longs to Christ and God, since Christ and God shall have the government of
this kingdom. Christ opens it at His Parousia, and rules it under the su-
preme dominion of God (1 Cor. xv. 27) until the final consummation, where-
upon He yields it up to God as the sole ruler (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). But, after
Beza, Zanchius, Glass, Bengel,’ Rickert and Harless have explained it, on
the ground of the non-repetition of the article : ‘‘of Him, who is Christ and
God,” so that Christ is here spoken of as God.® Incorrectly, since Ged¢ had
no need of an article (see Winer, p. 110 f.; comp. Baa:Aeia Gcow, 1 Cor. vi. 9,
10, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21), and Christ, in accordance with the strict monothe-
ism of the apostle (comp. iv. 6), could not be called by him @edr in the abso-
lute sense, and never has at all been called by him Ged¢. See on Rom. ix.

1 Winer, p. 317 f.

2 Thie you are aware of from your own
knowledge, so that I need not first to instruct
you with regard to it, that, etc. Comp. the
classic opwy xai axovwy oléa, “I know by see-
ing and hearing,” Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 14.
Tovro thus applies to the following on,
not to ver. 8 f.,as Winer maintains. See
Kfhner, II. § 681. 2

>? Horae, p. T9.

4 Koppe, we may add, allows a choice be-
tween two arbitrary alterations of the lit-
eral meaning. The sense in his view is
either: ‘‘quae quidem Aagilia regnant inter

gentiles idololatras,"" *‘ which crimes prevail
indeed among Gentile idolaters,"’ or: ‘‘as
little as an tdolater.”

® De conformat. N. T. critica Lachm. I.
1841, p. 46.
. © See Bernhardy, p. 871.

7 Comp. also Calovius.

® Yet Rickert is of opinion, inconsistently
enouph, that the question whether Paul in
reality here meant it so cannot be decided,
because he is not here speaking of Christ
in general, but only incidentally making
mention of His kingdom.

494 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

5; Col. ii. 2.2 The designation of the kingdom as Baavdzia of Christ and of
God is climactic (comp. on Gal. i. 1), and renders the warning element more
solemn and more powerful to deter, through the contrast with the supreme
holiness of the kingdom.* — On the proposition itself, comp. Gal. v. 21.

Ver. 6. Let no one deceive you with empty words! In those against whom
the warning is here given, Grotius sees partly heathen philosophers, partly
Jews, which last ‘‘ omnibus Judaizantibus, quomodecunque vixissent, partem
fore dicebant in seculo altero,” ‘‘ said that for all Judaizers no matter how
they lived there would be a part in the world to come.” Olshausen? thinke
of frivolous Christians of antinomian sentiments, who would in future
emerge ; Meier, of teachers of Gentile tendencies. In accordance with the
context (éxi rote vivig rig atewelac, ovuutroyor abrav, Hre yép tore oxétoc) we
have to understand Gentiles who have remained unbelieving, who in their in-
tercourse with the Christians sought to palliate those Gentile vices, to give
them out as matters of indifference, to represent abstaining from the same
as groundless rigor, and thereby to entice back the Christians to the Gentile
life. Their discourses were xévo:, inasmuch as the corresponding contents,
i.e., the truth, was wanting to them.‘ — did raira yap x.t.A.] for certainly
very scrious consequences follow these vices: on account of these vices (d:d
tavra emphatically prefixed) comes (down) the wrath of God upon the dis-
obedient, for this vicious conduct piles up the load of guilt one day to re-
ccive punishment (Rom. ii. 5), from which they could be liberated only by
means of faith in Christ, the despising of whom leaves them to abide under
the wrath of God and to encounter its judicial execution. To refer ratra
to the deceiving with empty words,* has against it not so much the plural—
since ravra often also in classical writers denotes (see Winer, p. 146) one
notion or thought (according to the aggregate of its several marks)—as
rather the unsuitability of the sense in itself and to the following yp% oiv
yiveae x.7.A. a8 Well as to the parallel Col. iii. 6. — opy7 tov Geov] Not the
punishment of the present life is meant, since the opy) rov Oeod is the opposite
of the Baoiteia, ver. 5 ; but the wrath of God in the day of judgment, which
future, as in ver. 5, is realized as present. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 10. —The
viol r7¢ arevd. are here those refusing faith to the gospel, and thereby diso-
bedient to God. It is otherwise ii. 2. Comp. Rom. xi. 30, xv. 31.

Ver. 7. Oiv] since on account of these sins, etc. — ovypéroyo avray]} avrév
can, in keeping with the context, only be referred to the vioic rH¢ azerd.,
whose co-partners the Christians become, if they practise the same sins,
whereby they fall from the state of reconciliation (Rom. xi. 22 ; 2 Pet. iii.
17) and incur the divine dpyf (ver. 5). Koppe’s interpretation : ‘‘ ejusdem
cum iis fortunae compotem fieri,” ‘‘ to become participant of the same fort-

1Comp. Beyschlag, Christo. d. N. 7. IT. p. 200f.; aloo cevodoyia, empty talk, Plat.

p. 208 f. Bfor. p. 1069 C ; xevodoyeiy, Isa. vill. 19.
2 Comp. also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sinde, I. 5’ Chrysostom places both explanations
p. 207 f. side by side; comp. Theophbylact and
® Comp. Bleek. Oecumenius.

Comp. Col. fi.8; LXX. Ex. vy. 9, ai.; ‘Calvin, Meijer, and others; Matthies
Plat. Lach. p. 196 B; Dem. 821,11; Hom. combines present and future.
Od. xxii. 449, and the passages in Kypke,

CHAP. V., 8, 9. 495
une with them,” is an importation at variance with the context (see vv. 8
11). — As to ovgptroyoc, see on iii. 6.

Ver. 8. Reason assigned for the exhortation just given : For your former
state of darkness (with which those vices were in keeping) is past ; now,
on the other hand, ye are Christianly enlightened ; as befits such, let your
walk be. — #re] prefixed with significant stress, has the force of a ground
assigned as praeterite, just as at Rom. vi. 17. Riickert incorrectly holds
that Paul has omitted uéy, which is at variance with good composition. The
non-use of uéy has its logical ground, and that in the fact, that the clause is
not conceived in relation to that which thereupon confronts it by dé. Just so
in classical writers, where yéy seems to be wanting.’ —cxéroc¢] Abstrac-
tum pro concreto, ‘‘ abstract for concrete,” to make the designation the
stronger (Kiihner, II. p. 25 f.) : dark, by which the opposite of the posses-
sion of divine truth is denoted. — viv d2 «.r.4.] now on the other
hand, since your conversion, how entirely different is it with you,
how entirely different must your walk be! Light in the Lord are
ye, t.¢., furnished with divine truth in your fellowship with Christ,
in whom, as the source and giver of light (ver. 14), ye live and move.
Comp. i. 18.—d¢ réxva gurdéc] as children of light, i.e, as enlightened
ones. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 5; Luke xvi. 8; John xii. 86. As such
they are now to show themselves in their walk. Without oiv the exhor-
tation comes in with the greater energy.’

Ver. 9. Parenthetic incitement to the observance of the preceding sum-
mons, by holding forth the glorious fruit which the Christian illumination
bears ; doxcudfovrec is then (ver. 10) accompanying definition to reperareire,
and the p29) ovyxovwreire, ver. 11, continues the imperative form of address.
For taking the participle of ver. 10 as grammatically incorrect in the sense
of the imperative * there is absolutely no ground. — dp] or, not the merely
explanatory namely. which introduces into the whole paraenetic chain of the
discourse something feeble and alien. — 6 xapra¢ rov gwréc] indicates in a fig-
urative manner the aggregate of the moral effects (xapré¢ collective, as in
Matt. iii. 8 ; Phil. i. 11) which the Christian enlightenment has as its result.
Comp. on Gal. v. 22.4— éy médoy dyafwotvy] se. tori, so that every kind of
probity (ayafwc., see on Rom. xv. 14 ; Gal. v. 22), etc., is thought of as that,
in which the fruit is contained (consists).*— dicacootvy] moral rectitude,
Rom. vi. 18, xiv. 17. See on Phil. i. 11.°—aAy6cig] moral truth, opposed
to hypocrisy as ethical yeidoc, 1 Cor. v. 8; Phil. i. 18, iv. 8; John iii. 21.

1 See Krtiger, Anab. iil. 4. 41; Bornemann,
ad Cyrop. Ill. 2. 12, Goth. ; Klotz, ad Devar.
p. 856 f.; Ellendt, Lez. Soph. I. p. 888.

*Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510
C; Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. II. p. 276.

§ Bleek, following Koppe.

4 Where what is here termed «xapr. rot
durée is called xapr. rou wvevparos. Not as
though wveipa and ¢a@s were one and the
same thing (Delitzsch, Bidt. Psychol. p. 800),
but the Spirit, through whom God and

Christ dwell in the heart, Rom. vili. 9, pro-
duces the des in the heart (2Cor. iv.6; Eph.
i. 17 f.), so that the fruit of the Spirit is al-
so the fruit of the light, and vice verad.
Nor is the fruit of the word sown upon the
good ground anything different.

5 Comp. Matthiae, p. 1342.

® According to Phil. {. 11, the Christian
moral rectitude has again its capwée in the
several Christian virtues, which are the ex-
pressions of its life.

496 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

The general nature of these three words, which together embrace the whole
of Christian morality, and that under the three different points of view
“‘ good, right, true,” forbids the assumption of more special contrasts, as
e.g. in Chrysostom : ayafwc. is opposed to wrath, d:xaoo. to seduction and
deceit, aanf. to lying. Others present the matter otherwise ; see Theophy-
lact, Erasmus, Grotius.

Ver. 10. Aoxcudlovrec] after the parenthesis in ver. 9, a modal definition of
the walk called for in ver. 8, which is to be prosecuted under a searching
consideration of what is well-pleasing to Christ (r@ «vpiy), as to which sub-
jectively the Christian conscience (Rom. xiv. 23) and objectively the gospel
of Christ (iv. 20 ; Rom. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 27) give the decision. Comp. ver.
15; Rom. xii. 2; 1 Thess, v. 21.

Ver. 11. Evyxorvwveire] hare not fellowship with (the disobedient) in the
works of darkness (comp. ver. 7 ; and as regards the dative, see on Phil. iv.
14), ¢.e., in those works, which are wrought in consequence of spiritual dark-
ness—of the ethical frame of mind opposed to divine truth. Comp. Rom.
xiii, 12. They are the gpya mwovnpd (Col. i. 21), the épya rac capxés (Gal. v.
21), the vexpd épya (Heb. vi. 1), the épya aoeBeiacg (Jude 15). — roig axéprorc]
the non-fruitful ones, inasmuch, namely, as they draw no blessing after them.
The perdition which they have as result (Rom. vi. 21, viii. 13; Gal. vi. 8;
Eph. iv. 22, al.) is conceived as negation of blessedness (comp. ver. 5).
Comp. épya vexpé, Heb. vi. 1, 1x. 14. —paddov dé xai] but rather even, imo adeo.
See on Gal. iv. 9; Rom. ix. 34. Bengel well remarks ; ‘‘ non satis absti-
nere est,” ‘‘it is not enough to abstain.” — éAéyzere] reprocve them (these
works), which occurs when they are not passed over in silence and indul-
gently excused, but are held up with censure to the doer, and have their
immorality discovered and brought home, in order to produce amendment.
This chastening reproof is an oral one, since the context does not intimate
anything else ; not one de facto, ‘‘ expressed in deeds,” ’ not ‘‘ dictis et fac-
tis,” ‘‘ by words and deeds.”* Comp. on John iii. 20, xvi. 8; 1 Cor. xiv.
24.
Ver. 12 assigns the reason for the demand just expressed, éAfyyere, by
pointing to what quite specially needed the éAéyzew,—by pointing to the
secret vicious acts of the unbelievers, which are so horrible, that one must
feel ashamed even but to mention them. Thus, consequently, the.éaéyyere
has its ground assigned as concerns its great necessity. — xpve9] not elsewhere
in the N. T.* in the protasis has the emphasis,—hence it is prefixed,—and
denotes that which takes place in secret, in the darkness of seclusion. More
special references, such as to the horrible excesses in connection with the
heathen mysteries,4 or even to the ‘‘ familiam Simonis Magi, quae erat infanda-

1“*Sancta nimirum et honesta vita," 3 Macc. iv. 12; Xen. Symp. v.8; Pind. OV.
‘doubtless a holy and honorable life,” 1.75; Soph. 7rach. 686, Antig. 85; to be writ-
Beza: comp. Erasmus, Cameron, Zanchius. ten with Iota subscriptum, Ellendt, Zez.

2 Bengel; comp. Theophylact, Photius, Soph. I. p. 992; Lipsius, Gramm. Unters.
Calovius, Holzhausen, Olshausen, and p.6f.
others. 4 Eisner, Wolf, Michaelis, Holzhausen.

> But see Deut. xxvili. 57; Wisd. xvill. 9:

CHAP. V., 12. 497

rum libidinum magistra,” ‘establishment of Simon Magus which was the
mistress of dreadful lusts,” ! have just as little warrant in the context as the
weakening of the meaning of the word by Morus, who understands thereby
the mores domesticos, ‘‘domestic habits,” of the Gentiles. According to
Koppe,* Meier, Harless, and Olshausen, the xpvp% y:véueva are not meant to
be specially the secret deeds of vice, but the Epya rot oxérovg in general,
which are so designated in accordance with the view conditioned by oxéroc.*
But against this may be urged, first, the fact that oxéro¢ (here in the ethical
sense) and xpv¢g are quite different notions, inasmuch as manifest vice also
is an épyov rov oxérovc, Whereas only the peccata occulta, ‘‘ secret sins,” take
place xpug ; secondly, the emphasis, which the prefixing of xpvgj demands
for this word, and which, if xovg denoted nothing special, would be entire-
ly lost, so that Paul might have written merely rd ydp yevdueva in’ avrin ;
thirdly, the contrast of the following ¢avepovra:, which presupposes in the
édéyzerv something which had been done secretly ;‘ and lastly, that it would
in fact be quite an exaggerated assertion to say of the sins of the Gentiles gen-
erally, that it is a shame even to mention them. — ix’ airév] by the vioi ri¢
areBeiac. —xai Afyerv| even only * to say, what they in secret do, one must be
ashamed.* The tacit contrast is the roi» of the doers. Compare the purdé
of ver. 8.

Remarx.—The confirmatory relation of ver. 12 to what precedes has
been very variously apprehended, and with various definitions of the sense
itself. Calvin, anticipating, holds that the intention is to state what is
accomplished by the éAeyéic : thereby light is brought into their secret things,
‘‘ut sua turpitudine pudefiant,’’ ‘‘that they may become ashamed of their
baseness,” comparing 1 Cor. xiv. 24. Of this there is mention only in the
sequel. Entirely at variance with the words is the view of Grotius (comp.
Calovius): ‘nam nisi id fiat, audebunt etiam clam turpiora,” ‘‘for unless he
were to do this, they will dare secretly even baser things.’’ Bengel (comp.
already in Oecumenius) finds in ver. 12 the cause adduced, ‘‘cur indefinite
loguatur ver. 11 de operibus tenebrarum, cum fructum lucis ver. 9 definite de-
scripserit,’’ ‘why he speaks indefinitely, ver. 11, of the works of darkness when
he definitely described, ver. 9, the fruit of light." Imported, and opposed to
the emphatic xpvg7. While, moreover, Koppe translates yap by doublless (zwar),
Rickert wishes at least to supply a doubtless. ‘Doubtless their secret sins are
not of such kind that they can be mentioned with honor, yet it belongs to you,
as children of the light, to convince them of the wickedness of their actings.”’
But the supplying of uév is pure invention. See on ver. 8. Quite mistaken
also is the explanation of Meier: ‘‘ Yes, reprove them severely and openly to
the face ; for the merely unconcerned speaking and telling of such deeds of
shame secretly committed is likewise disgraceful, unworthy, and mean.” This

1 Estius. tioned and unlawful.”
® Flagitia quaevis, ‘‘ any kind of crimes." 5 See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 136.
3 See Harless. * Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 465 C : dxves ai Adyecy,

* Comp. Hellodorug, vili. p. 397: 4 ric Sens =“ Thesitate even to mention,” Dem. 1268, 11:
bfOadpds dAdyyew cai rd durjvvra xpvdia cai & woAAny aicxvrny exes nat Adyar, “ which are
G6duira gutigwr, “the eye of justice con- very shameful even to mention,” and the
victing and enlightening secrets unmen- _s passages in Wetsteln.

32

498 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Paul would at least have expressed thus: 1d yap Afyeww pévov (antithesis to rd
bAbyxecv) ra xpugg bx’ avtav ytvdueva aioxp. éorc. Impossible, likewise, is Holz-
hausen's interpretation : ‘‘ The sins committed in the darkness of the heathen
mysteries the Christians are not to disclose; they are not even to utter the names
thereof, they are too abominable.’’ Apart from the consideration how singular
such a precept must appear face to face with the decidedly moral character of
the apostle, apart also from the fact that the mysteries are purely imported (see
above), such a view should have been precluded as well by the ydp in itself
(since, in fact, no counlerpart of xpvg¢7 precedes), as by the succeeding rd d2
advra, which, according to Holzhausen, is meant tosignify the vices, *‘ which
can endure your light.” Following Anselm, Piscator, Vorstius, Zanchius,
Flatt, Harless finally discovers in ver. 12 the assigning of a reason not for the
éAéyxzere, which is held to follow only with ver. 13, but for nu? cuyxotveveire roic
Epyore toig dxdpr. tov oxérovg : ‘* for even but to mention their secret deeds is a
shame, to say nothing of doing them.’’ But against this the right apprehension
of the emphatic xpvgj (see above) is decisive ; moreover, the exhortation pu}
ovyxo.veveire x.T.2,, has already, in what precedes, such repeated and such
specifically Christian grounds assigned for it (vv. 3, 4, 5, 8, as also further roi¢
axdprorc, ver. 11), that the reader, after a new thought has been introduced
with paddAov, could not at all expect a second ground to be assigned for the
previous one, least of all such a general one—-containing no essentially Christian
ground—as would be afforded by ver. 12, but rather would expect a ground
to be assigned for the new thought pdAov dé xai éAéyxere which had just been
introduced.

Ver. 13. The assigning of grounds for that precept, uaAAov dé nal tAtyyere,
is continued,—being attached by means of the contradistinguishing dé,—in-
asmuch as there is pointed out the salutary action of the Christian light
which is brought to bear by means of the required é2éyyzecv upon all those
secret deeds of shame: But everything (all those secret sins), when it ts re-
proved, when you carry that éAéyyere into effect upon it, is by the light (id
tov gwréc has the emphasis) made manifest, is laid bare in its real moral char-
acter, unveiled and brought into distinctness before the moral consciousness
by the light of Christian truth which is at work in your éAéyyerv ; by the
light, I say, it is made manifest, for—in order to prove by a general propo-
sition that this cannot come otherwise than from the light—all that which ts
made manifest, which is brought forth from concealment and is laid open in
its true nature, is light, has ccased thereby to have the nature of darkness,
and is now of the essence of light. This demonstrative proposition is based
upon the inference : ‘‘Quod est in effectu, ‘what it is in effect’ (géd¢ éav.),
id debet esse in causa, ‘it ought to be in cause’ (id rov gwréc).” If thus
there is warrant for the general av 1d ¢avepoby. goo éore, 80 must there also
be warrant for what was previously said in the Christian sense, id row
¢wrd¢ gavepovra. [See Note LI., p. 524s8eq.] From this simple explanation
of the words it becomes at once clear that we have not, with most expositors,'
to attach tnd roi ¢. to éeyxdueva, but to gavepovra:,? to which it is emphat-

1Including Baumgarten-Crusius and de Schmid, Estius, Bengel, Meier, Harless,

Wette. Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek.
* Castalio, Zanchius, Zeger, Erasmus

CHAP. V., 13. 499
cally prefixed ; and further, that gavepobyevov is not to be taken as middle,
in which case again various explanations have been brought out, namely,
either : ‘‘Luz enim illud est, quod omnia facit manifesta,” ‘‘for that is
light which makes all things manifest,” *or : ‘‘ Omne enim illud, quod mani-
festa facit alia, luz est,” ‘‘for everything that makes other things man-
ifest is light,”* or: ‘‘Quilibet autem, ‘For every one’ [yép !], qui alios
docet, est lux, . . . eo ipso declarat, se esse verum Christianum,” ‘‘ who
teaches others is a light ...and by this very thing declares that
it is true Christianity,”* or : ‘‘he who does not refuse to be made manifest,
becomes an enlightened one,” Bengel,—against which interpretations not
only the immediately preceding passive gavepovra: is decisive, but also lin-
guistic usage, in accordance with which ¢avepovya: is always passive.* And
if we adhere to the view of gavepobu. as passive, we must exclude every ex-
planation, in which a guid pro quo is perpetrated, or something is imported,
or ydp is cither neglected or incorrectly taken. We have therefore to set
aside—(1) the explanation given by Elsner and Wolf, that Paul says : ‘‘ hom-
inum scelera in tenebris patrata, a fidelibus, qui lux sunt, improbata, non modo
protrahi in lucem, verum etiam homines, illis sceleribus inquinatos, rubore suf-
fundi increpitos convictosque, et ipsos quoque gig fieri hac ratione, emendatis
vitiis tenebrisque in novae vitae lucem conversis,” ‘‘ that the crimes of men
perpetrated in darkness, condemned by believers who are light, not only are
brought to the light, but also that men, stained with these crimes, chided
and convicted, are covered with shame, and in this way they themselves
become light, by the reformation of their vices, and the change of the dark-
ness into the light of the new life ;” (2) that of Zachariac : ‘‘ Everything
which is sharply tested according to the light of the doctrine of Christ and holds
its ground, one has no need to keep secret; . . . all, however, which one can per-
form openly and before every one’s eyes . . . is itself light, and strikes every
one as good and praiseworthy ;” (3) that of Storr: ‘‘ Quisquis ea, quae moni-
tus est @ luce, audit, is patefit, emergit e tenebris ; guisquis autem patefactus
est, is luce collustratus est,” ‘‘ Whoever hearkens to those things which he
is taught by the light is made manifest, emerges from darkness ; but who-
ever is made manifest is illumined by the light ;” that of Koppe:° ‘‘for
what is itself enlightened must be also a light for others ;” (5) that of Riickert,
who would refer yap to a conclusion tacitly drawn from what precedes (“ ye
are light, consequently it is also your business éAfyyew té éxeivev Epya”) :
‘for all that is made manifest, that is, or by that very fact becomes, light,” from
which again the suppressed conclusion is to bedrawn : consequently it may
be hoped that those also will become light, when they are convinced of the

1 Beza; so Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and
others, as also Bleek, who In place of dave-
povpevoy conjectures : davepour ro.

* Erasmus Schmid; so also Cajetanus,
Estius, Michaelis, and others.

§ Kuinoel in Velthusen, etc., Commentatt.
It. p. 178 ff.

* The article before ¢ws might (this we
remark In opposition to Olshausen) be dis-

pensed with even in Beza's explanation, so
that dws eors would have to be translated:
ts light-eszence, has the nature of Ilght. If,
however,—which is not the case,—¢avepovu.
were really to be translated as active, the
simplest rendering, and the one most in
keeping with the context, would he : for é#
ts the light making everything manifest,
® Comp. Cramer.

500 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

reprobate character of their action ; (6) that of Meier and Olshausen : “‘ for
all that is enlightened by the light, is itself light,” ' which according to Meier
is equivalent to : ‘‘ becomes itself transparent and pure as light,” according
to Olshausen : ‘‘ becomes changed into the nature of light.” (7) Nearest to
our interpretation comes that of Harless, followed in part by Schenkel.
Harless, however, finds expressed from ra dé rdvra onward the necessity of
the éAéyecv, which is rather implied in ver. 12, to which in ver. 13 the sal-
utariness of the éAéyyew attaches itself; he explains gavepoiu., moreover, as
if it were practerite, and does not retain ray yap rd davepobu. x.r.2. in its gen-
erality as locus communis, inasmuch as he takes ga éomv : is no longer a
secret work of darkness, but is light. — According to Baur, p. 435, the prop-
osition zav 7d gavep. ga¢ éore belongs to the Gnostic theory of light,? and has
been introduced into its present connection out of this quite different sphere
of ideas. But the state of the case is exactly the converse ; the Valentin-
ians laid hold of this utterance of the apostle as supporting their doctrine,
and expressly cited it,* and consequently took it away from the connection
in which he used it so as to favor their own theory.

Ver. 14. This necessity and salutariness of the #Aeyéi¢, which Paul has
just set forth in vv. 12, 18 (not of the mere subsidiary thought, zav yap
«.t.A.), he now further confirms by a word of God out of the Scripture. —
6:6] wherefore,—because the éAéy ere is 80 highly necessary as I have shown in
ver. 12, and of such salutary effect as is seen from ver. 13,—wherefore he
saith: Up, thou sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon
thee. ‘This call of God to the vioi rij¢ aredieiag to awake out of the sleep and
death of sin confirms the necessity of the @Acyé:¢, and this promise : ‘‘ Christ
shall shine upon thee,” confirms the salutary influence of the light, under
which they are placed by the éAfyyecv. Beza refers back é:é to ver. 8, which
is erroneous for this reason, if there were no other, that the citation address-
es the as yet unconverted. According to Pickert,‘ the design is to give
support to the hope expressed in ver. 13, namely, that the sinner, earnestly
reproved and convicted, may possibly be brought over from darkness into
light. But see on ver. 13. With the correct interpretation of wav yap «.r.2.,
the expositions are untenable, which are given by Meier : ‘‘on that account,
because only what is enlightened by the light of truth can be improved ;”
and by Olshausen : ‘‘ because the action of the light upon the darkness can-
not fail of its effect.” Harless indicates the connection only with the words
of Plutarch :° yaipew yp roic éAfyyovow’ . . . hae yap Avrotwrec Steyeipoverr,
‘* Those reproving should rejoice ; for by grieving, they arouse us.” Inex-
act, and—inasmuch as with Plutarch yaipes and Avrotvyrec stand in em-
phatic correlation, and Avrotvrec thus is essential—inappropriate. — Aéyes] in-
troduces, with the supplying of 6 Osdé¢ (as iv. 8), @ passage of Scripture, of
which the Hebrew words would run: YR O97} OY PN Te my
rvn 1p. But what passage is that? Already Jerome says: ‘‘ Nunquam

1 Olshausen. 3 rouro 8¢ 6 DlatAos Adye: x.1.A., ** And this
2“ All development takes place only Paul says," etc., in Iren. 1.8. 3.

through that which in itself already exists « Comp. Erasmus, ParapaAr.

becoming manifest for the consciousness.”’ § Tom. xiv. p. 364, ed. Hutt.

CHAP. V., 14. 501
hoc scriptum reperi,” ‘‘ Never have I found this writing.” Most expositors
answer: Isa. Ix. 1. So Thomas, Cajetanus, Calvin, Piscator, Estius,
Calovius, Surenhusius, Wolf, Wetstein, Bengel ,' and others, including Har-
less and Olshausen ; while others at the same time bring in Isa. xxvi. 19,*
as also Isa. lii. 1? and Isa. ix. 1.4 But all these passages are so essentially
different from ours, that we cannot with unbiassed judgment discover the
latter in any of them, and should have to hold our citation—if it is assumed
to contain Old Testament words—as a mingling of Old Testament reminis-
cences, nothing similar to which is met with, even apart from the fact that
this citation bears in itself the living impress of unity and originality ;
hence the less is there room to get out of the difficulty by means of Bengel’s
expedient : ‘‘apostolus expressius loquitur ex luce N. T.,” ‘‘The Apostle
speaks more expressly according to N. T. light.” Doubtless Harless says
that the apostle was here concerned not about the word, but about the
matter in general, and that he cites the word of pre-announcement with the
modification which it has itself undergone through fulfilment, and adduces
by way of analogy Rom. x. 6 ff. But in opposition to this may be urged,
first generally, that such a modification of Isa. lx. 1 would have been not a
mere modification, but would have quite done away with the identity of the
passage ; secondly, in particular, that the passage Isa. lx. 1, specially ac-
cording to the LXX. (gurifov, gwrifou 'InpovoaAju, ixec yap cov Td gar, Kai
dda xupiov évl o@ avaréradxev), needed no change whatever in order to serve
for the intended Scriptural confirmation, for which, moreover, various other
passages from the O. T. would have stood at the command of the apostle,
without needing any change ; and lastly, that Rom. x. 6 is not analogous,
because there the identity with Deut. xxx. 12-14 is unmistakably evident
in the words themselves, and the additions concerning Christ are not there given
as constitucnt parts of the Scripture utterance, but expressly indicated as
elucidations of the apostle (by means of roir’ Zor). Quite baseless is the view
of de Wette, that the author is quoting, as at iv. 8 (where, indeed, the cita-
tion is quite undoubted), an O. T. passage in an application which, by fre-
quency of use, has become so familiar to him that he is no longer precisely
conscious of the distinction between text and application. Others, includ-
ing Morus, have discovered here a quotation from an apocryphal book, under
which character Epiphanius names the prophecy of Elias, Georgius Syncel-
lus an apocryphal authority of Jeremiah, and Codex G on the margin, the
hook (‘‘Secretum”) of Enoch. That, however, Paul tittingly cited an
apocryphal book,* isto be decisively rejected, inasmuch as this is never done

1 Who, however, at the same time follow-
ing older expositors In Wolf (comp. Rosen-
miilller, Morgenland, VI. p. 142) called to his
ald a reminiscence of the “ formula in festo
buccinarum adhiberi eolita,” ‘‘a formula
that used to be employed at the feust of
trumpets.” See, in opposition to the error
as to the existenco of such a formula,
based upon a passage of Maimonides, Wolf,
Curae.

2 Beza, Calixtus, Clericus, Meler Baum-
garten-Crusius, and others.

® Schenkel.

« Baumgarten, Olshausen.

§ See, in general, Fabricius, Cod. Paeude-
pigr. V. T. pp. 1074, 1108; Apoer. N. T. 1.
p. 524,

* According to Jerome, he is held not to
have done it, ‘“‘quod apocrypha compro-
baret, sed quod et Arati et Epimenidis et

502 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

by him, but, on the contrary, the formula of citation always means canoni-
cal passages. Hence, also, we have not, with Heumann,' Michaelis, Storr,
Stolz, Flatt, to guess at an early hymn of the Church as the source.* Others
have found therein a saying of Christ, like Oeder,* in opposition to which
may be urged, not indeed the following 6 Xpovéc, which Jesus might doult-
less have said of Himself, but rather the fact that the subject Xpcordéc to
Aéyec could not be at all divined, as indeed Paul has never adduced sayings
of Christ in his Epistles. This also in opposition to the opinion mentioned
in Jerome,‘ that Paul here, after the manner of the prophets (comp. the
prophetic : thus saith the Lord), ‘‘ rpoownoraiav Spiritus sancti figuraverit,”
‘uttered a prosopopoeia of the Holy Ghost.” Grotius* regards even ré dé as
subject : ‘‘ Luz illa, 1.e., homo luce perfusus, dicit alteri,” ‘‘the light, i.¢., a
man pervaded with light, says to another.” Asif previously the ga: were
homo luce perfusus/ ‘‘a man pervaded with light,” and as if every reader
could not but have recognized a citation as well in 6:3 Afyec as in the char-
acter of the saying itself! Erroneously Bornemann also * holds that Aéyee
is to be taken impersonaliter, ‘‘impersonally ;” tn this respect it is said, one
may say, so that no passage of Scripture is cited, but perhaps allusion is
made to Mark v. 41. This impersonal use is found only with ¢yci. See the
instances cited by Bornemann, and Bernhardy, p. 419. In view of all these
opinions, my conclusion, as at 1 Cor. ii. 9, is to this effect : From dd Aéyes
it is evident that Paul desired to adduce a passage of canonical Scripture,
but—as the passage is not canonical—in virtue of a lapsus memoriae he ad-
duces an apocryphal saying, which, citing from memory, he held as canoni-
cal. From what Apocryphal writing the passage is drawn, we do not
know. [See Note LII., p. 525.] — espe] up! Comp. aye, érerye. See, in op-
position to the form of the Recepta éyetpa:," Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 55 f. —
6 xafetduv] and then éx vexp@v form a climactic twofold description of the
state of man under the dominion of sin, in which state the true spiritual
life, the moral vital activity, is suppressed and gone, as is the physical life
in the sleeping (comp. Rom. xiii. 11) and in the dead respectively. Comp.
Isa. lix. 10. How often with the classical writers, too, the expression dead
is employed for the expression of moral insensibility, see on Matt. viii. 22 ;
Luke xv. 14; Musgrave, ad Oed. R. 45 ; Bornemann, in Luc. p. 97.°— av

Menandri versibus sit abusus ad ea, quae
voluerat, in tempore comprobanda,”
“because he approved the Apocrypha, but
because he adapted the verses of Aratus,
Epimenides, and Menander to those things
that he wished at the time to be approved.”’

1 Poicile, IT. p. 890.

2This opinion is already mentioned by
Theodoret: tivés S¢ rwv épunvevtway epacay
wvevparixns xaptros afiwOerras tivas Wadpovs
ovyypaya, ‘some of the interpreters said
that those endowed with spiritual grace
composed certain psalms,” in connection
with which they had appealed to 1 Cor. xiv.
26. Bleek, too, ad loc., and already in the

Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 381, finds it probable
that the saying Is taken from a writing
composed by a Christian poet of that early
age.

3 Syntagm. Obss. sacr. p. 697 ff.

‘Comp. also Bugenhagen and Calixtus.

§ Comp. Koppe.

® Schal.in Luc. p. xlvili. f.

7 So also Lachmann.

80nd cadevduyv, comp. Sohar. Levit. f.
88, c. 130: “* Quotiescunque lex occurrit, totles
omnia hominum genera excitat, verum omnes
somno sepulti Jacent in peccatia, nihil iniells-
guni neque attendunt,”’ ** As often as the law
occurs, it excites all classes of men, but

CHAP. V., 15, 16. 503

éora}] On the form, see Winer, p. 73 ; Matthiae, p. 484. —émigatoe:] from
éxigaioxw, see Winer, p. 82; Job xxv. 5, xxxi. 26. The readings érmpaices
gor 6 Xp. and ixipaicer¢ tov Xp. are ancient,’ and are not to be explained
merely from an accidental interchange in copying, but are connected with
the preposterous fiction that the words were addressed to Adam buried
under the cross of Christ, whom Christ would touch with His body and
blood, thereby causing him to become alive and to rise.. See Jerome. The
words themselves : Christ shall shine upon thee, signify not: He will be
gractous to thee,* but : He will by the gracious operation of His Spirit
annul in thee the ethical darkness,* and impart to thee the divine aA7Gea,
of which He is the possessor and bearer (Christ, the light of the world).
Observe, moreover, that the arising is not an act of cne’s own, indepen-
dent of God and anticipating His gracious operation, but that it takes place
only through God's effectual awakening call. On this effectual calling then
ensues the Christian enlightening.

Ver. 15. Oty] is, after the digression begun with paddov d2 nai éAéyzere of
ver. 11, resumptice, as at iv. 17. Look then to it—now to return to my ex-
hortetions with regard to the Christian walk, vv. 8-10—how ye, etc. Cal-
vin, whom Harless follows, states the connection thus: ‘ Si aliorum dis-
cutere tenebras fideles debent fulgure suo, quanto minus caecutire debent in
proprio vitae instituto,” ‘‘If believers ought by their brightness to dis-
perse the darkness of others, how much less should they be blind in their
own course of life.” This would be correct, if Paul had written Biérere oty
avroi, or BAérere obv, TG avToi. — BAérere] is the simple : luok to, take heed to
(1 Cor. xvi. 10 ; Phil. iii. 2; Col. iv. 17), not: ‘‘ utimini luce vestra ad
videndum,” ‘‘ use your light for seeing,’ Estius,‘ which is forbidden by rar. —
mac axpiBac weperareire] x O¢ not equivalent to iva,°and reprrareire not for the
sudjunctice,* but : look toit, in what manner yecarry out the observance ofan exact
walk in strict accord with duty.’ Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche, in Fritzschior.
Opuse, p. 208 f.; Winer, p. 269. — nu d¢ doogo:, x.r.A.] Epexegesis of the axpr-
Bag just mentioned, negative and positive :*presenting yourselves in your walk
not as unwise, but aswise. We have thus tosupply neither repiraroivrec * nor
anything else ; but, like axpcBac, its more precise definition ju) d¢ dcogos x.1.A.
is dependent on zep:rareire. With regard to uy, referring to BAgmere, see
Winer, p. 421; and for the emphatic parallelismus antitheticus, ‘‘ anti-
thetical parallelism,” comp. Niégelsbach,*® Bremi,’* Winer, p. 587 f.

Ver. 16. Accompanying modal definition to the preceding dc odgo: : ementes
cobis, ‘‘ buying for yourselves” (middle) opportunitatum, ‘‘ the opportunity,”
1.e., in that you make your own the right point of time for such walk, do not let
it pass by unused. In this figurative conception the doing of that for which

they all lie in sins, buried in sleep, and ® Koppe.

neither understand, nor attend to aught.” * Grotius.
1 See Chrysostom and Jerome ad loc. 7 Comp. axpiBodiaaos, Arist. Eth. Nic. v.
2 So, at variance with the context, Bret- 10. 8.

schneider. ® Harless.
9 Avey thy viata rhe auaprias, ** dispersing * Anm., 2. lilas, ed. 3, p. 80 f.

the night of sin,’ Gregory of Nazianzus. 10 Ad Dem. de Chers. p. 108, 73.

4 Comp. Erasmus.

504 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
the point of time is fitted, is thought of as the purchase-price, by which the
xaipéc becomes ours.' Others have thought of the sacrifice of all earthly things
and of all lusts asthe purchase-price ;? but this is imported, since the context
yields nothing else than the fulfilment of duty meant by the axpiBic zxepexe-
teiy ; hence we have not, with Harless, to interpret it of the right moment
‘‘for letting the light of correction break in upon the darkness of sin,” *
which would be to revert, at variance with the context, to the topic of the
éAey fic already ended. Luther‘ incorrectly renders : ‘‘ Suit yourselves to the
time.” That would be dovietew rg xaipo, Rom. xii. 11. Similarly also
Grotius :5 ‘‘quovis labore ac verborum honestis obsequiis vitate pericula et
diem de die ducite,” ‘‘In any labor, and honorable obedience of words,
avoid dangers and pass the time.” Comp. Bengel, who compares Amos v.
13, and understands the prudent letting the evil day pass over ‘‘ quiescendo
vel certe modice agendo,” ‘‘by resting, or certainiy by working moder-
ately,” whereby the better time is purchased, in order to make the more use
thereof. In opposition to Grotius and Bengel, it may be urged that this
alleged mode of the éayopdlew ray xaipév is not mentioned by Paul, but im-
ported by the expositor, and that the counsel of such a trimming behavior
is hardly compatible with the moral decision of the apostle, and with his ex-
" pectation of the approaching end of the aiéy ctroc. We may add that the
compound é€ayop. is not here to be understood as redeem (Gal. iii. 18, iv. 5),
as ¢.g., Bengel would take it (rom the power of evil men), and Calvin (from
the devil), seeing that the context does not suggest such reference ; but the -
‘x in the composition is intensive, and denotes what is entire, utter, as also
in Plut. Crass. 2 ; Polyb. iii. 42. 2; Dan. ii. 8. [See Note LIII., p. 525.] —
dre ai uépas wov7pai eior] supplies a motive for the éay. r. xacp., for the days,
the present times, are evil, for moral corruption is now in vogue. Somuch the
more must it intimately concern you as Christians (for how exalted is their
task above the wickedness of the present time! Phil. ii. 15, iii. 20) rav
xapov éEayopdlecba. Beza, Flacius, Grotius, Hammond, Rosenmiiller, and
others refer srovypai to the misfortune of the time (Gen. xlvii. 9 ; Ps. xlix. 6
[5]) ; but the context opposes the moral bearing of the Christian to the im-
moral condition of thetime. According to de Wette’s here very unfounded
scepticism, the writer is indistinct and hesitating, because he is bringing
Col. iv. 5 into another connection.

Ver. 17. Ad rovro] Because ye ought so to walk as is said in vv. 15, 16, of
which ye as dgpoves (whose walk, in fact, cannot be wise) would be inca-
pable. Others : because the times are evil. But the dre ai ju. mov. ciot was

1Comp. Col. iv. 5; LXX. Dan. ff. 8; 2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecamenius ;

Atonin. vi. 26: xep8arréov rd wapdv, “the
present must be bought,” Plut. Philop. 15:
xa.tpoy apragey, ‘to seize an opportunity.”
The opposite is xa:pov wapievar, ‘‘ the oppor-
tunity passes by,” Thucyd. iv. 27. Gal. vi.
10 is parallel as to substance. Classical
writers gay «asp. spiac@a, “to purchase an
opportunity,”” Dem. 120. 26, 187. 22, but in
the proper sense of buying for money.

comp. also Augustine, Flacius, Zanchius,
Estius, Rickert, and others.

3 Comp. Michaelis and Rosenmifiller.

4 Who in earlier editions bad rightly: rv-
lease the time.

®* Comp. Hammond.

* Menochius, Zanchius, Estius, e¢ ai., in-
cluding Rickert, Matthies, and de Wette.

CHAP. V., 18, 19. 505
only a subsidiary thought subservient to the ayopd¢. r. xa:p., and affords no
suitable reason for the following exhortations. — yu? yiveofe] not : be not, but
become not. — agpovec] devoid of intelligence, imprudentes, t.e., ‘‘ qui mente non
recte utuntur,” ‘‘those who do not use the mind aright,’”’? namely, for the
moral understanding of the will of Christ, as here the contrast teaches.
Comp. on ¢pévyocc, i. 8. The dcogor of ver. 15 is a higher notion than
&¢povec, which latter denotes the want of practical understanding, the oppo-
site of gpéviuoc.2 Every d¢puv is also doogoc, but the dcogoc may yet be ¢pé-
viuog (Luke xvi. 8), namely, for immoral ends and means, which here the
context excludes, See also the following contrast. — ovviovrec] understand-
ing, more than yivdoxovree. Comp. Grotius, and see on Col. i. 9. — 7d 066A.
tow xup.}] of Christ. Comp. Acts xxi. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 19.
Ver. 18. Kai] and in particular, to mention a single vice, which would
belong to a¢pociv7. — wy pebbon. oivy] become not drunken through wine, which
stands opposed to the allowable use of wine, without our having on that
account to seek here a reference to Montanism.* To conclude, however,
from ver. 19 that excess at the Agapae is meant (1 Cor. xi. 21), as Koppe
and Holzhausen maintain,‘ is quite arbitrary ; inasmuch as neither in the
preceding nor following context is there any mention made of the Agapae,
und this special abuse, the traces of which in the N. T. are, moreover, only
to be found in Corinth, would have called fora special censure. — iv @ éoriw
aowria] Geterring remark. év » does not apply to of» alone, as Schoettgen
holds,*® but to the peficxecfat olvw : wherein is contained debauchery, dissolute
behavior. A vivid description of the grosser and more refined acwria may
be seen in Cicero. On the word itself (in its literal sense unsavableness),
see Tittmann, Synon. p. 152 ; Lobeck, Paralip. I. p. 559. A more precise
limitation of the sense’ is without warrant in the text. — a2Aa xAnpotote év
aveipart) but become full by the Spirit. The imperative passive finds its ex-
planation in the possibility of resistance to the Holy Spirit and of the
opposite fleshly endeavor ; and év is instrumental, as at i. 23 ; Phil. iv. 19.
The contrast lies not in olvoc and mvevua,® because otherwise the text must
have run p? olvy uedion., GAA’ év mvebuatt tAnp., but in the two states—that of
intoxication and that of inspiration. This opposition is only in appearance
strange,° and has its sufficient ground in the excitement of the person in-
spired and its utterances (comp. Acts ii. 18). [See Note LIV., p. 525.]
Ver. 19. Acconrpanying definition to the just required ‘‘ being filled by
the Spirit,” as that with which this AaAeiv éavroic¢ padpoic x.7.A. isto be simul-
taneously combined as its immediate expression: so that ye speak to one
another through psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. What a contrast with

1 Tittmann, Synon. p. 148.

3 Plat. Gorg. p. 498 B; Xen. Mem. il. 8,1;
comp. Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 86; Luke xi.
40, xii. 20.

3 Schwegler.

* Comp. also de Wette.

* Whose Rabbinical passages therefore,
as Bumsmidd, rabba, f. 206,38. “ ubicunque est
vinum, i est immunditia,” “ wherever

there is wine, there is uncleanness,"’ are
not to the point here.

® De Fin. ii. 8.

T Jerome understands /ascitious excess, as
also Hammond, who thinks of the Buc-
chanalia.

® Grotius, Harless, Olshausen, and others.

* In opposition to de Wette.

506 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the preceding év ¢ icrw aswria ! Comp. Col. iii. 16. — Aadowvrec éavroi¢] not
meditantes vobiscum, ‘‘ meditating with you,” ! but it denotes the reciprocal
speaking (€avrois, in the sense of a2/7A0:¢, a8 iv. 32, toeach other), the oral inter-
change of thoughts and feclings, which—just because the condition is that
of being filled by the Spirit—does not make use of the conversational lan-
guage of ordinary life, or even of drunken passion, but of psalms, etc., as
the means of mutual communication (dativus instrumentalis, ‘‘ instru-
mental dative ;” Luther incorrectly renders : adout psalms*). That, how-
ever, the apostle is here speaking of actual tcorship in the narrower sense,"
is assumed in opposition to the context, since the contrast pj ution. oive,
GAAG wAnp. év wv. does not characterize the Aadeiy éavroig as taking place in
worship, although in itself it is not denied that in worship too the inspired
antiphonal singing took place.‘ The distinction between waAyudc and
tuvoc consists in this, that by yatu. Paul denotes a religious song in
general bearing the character of the O. T. psalms, but by inv. specially a song
of praise,* and that, in accordance with the context, addressed to Christ
(ver. 19) and God (ver. 20). Properly paAués (which originally means the
making the cithara sound) is a song in general, and that indeed as sung to
a stringed instrument; * but in the N. T. the character of the psalm is deter-
mined by the psalms of the O. T., so called xar’ éfox7, ‘‘ pre-eminently”
(1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26 ; Jas. v. 18). According to Harless, the two words are
not different as regards their contents, but yadyoic is the expression of the
spiritual song for the Jewish- Christians, iunvore for the Gentile- Christians.
An external distinction in itself improbable, and very arbitrary, since the
special signification of invoc, song of praise, is thoroughly established, and
waiuéc also was a word very current in Greek, which—as well in itself as
more especially with regard to its sense established in Christian usage in
accordance with the conception of the O. T. psalms—could not but be
equally intelligible for the Gentile-Christians as for the Jewish-Christians.’
According to Olshausen, wadyoi are here the psalms of the O. T., which had
passed over from the synagogue into the use of the church. But worship
is not spoken of here ; and that the Christians, filled by the Spirit, impro-
vised psalms, is clear from 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26. Such Christian psalms and
hymns are meant, as the Spirit gave them to be uttered (Acts ii. 4, x. 46,
xix. 6),—phenomena doubtless, which, like the operations of the Spint
generally in the first age of the church, are withdrawn from our special
cognizance. —xai gdaic rvevz.] Inasmuch as $64 may be any song, even
secular, zvevyarcxaic is here added, so that by gdaic rvevy. is denoted the whole

1 Morus, Michaelis.

2 Pliny, Zp. x. 97: Carmen Christo quasi
Deo dicunt secum inewem,” “they sing
with one another a hymn to Christ as
God” (éavrois).

* Olshausen.

‘ See 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26; Niceph. Call. xiff.

8: thy Trev arridwuvey cuyndaay avwlevy azxoc-
téAwy éxxdncia wapéAafe, ‘‘The church re-
celved the use of antiphons from the times
of the apostles,"” <A collection of church-

hymns {is of course not even remotely to be
thought of in our passage ; and it is to go
in quest of a reason for suspecting our
Epistie, when, with Schwegler, the mention
of Wadpuoi «.7.A. is designated as surprising.

§ Plat. Legg. ill. p. 700 B, opposed to @p%-
vos.
* See Spanheim, ad Callim. p. 55.

7 See also Rudelb. in the Zeiéschr. f. Luth.
Theol. 1855, 4, p. 684 f.

CHAP. V., 20. 507
genus, of which the yadyoi and tuvo: were species. mvevpartixaic defines
the songs as proceeding from the Holy Spirit, as Ocorveicrovc.’ It is to be
observed, moreover, that Paul docs not require a constant Aadeiv éavroi¢ padpoic
x.T.A. on the part of his readers, but, in contradistinction to the heathen aouria
in drunkenness, as that which is to take place among the Christians instead
of drunken revelry with its dissolute doings. — The cumulation ypadu. x. tyr.
x. od. wv. belongs to the animated and urgent style of discourse.* — gdovre¢
nai pdAAovrec év TH Kapd. tu. TH Kvpie] co-ordinate with the preceding Aadovwrec
x.T.4., containing another singing of praise, namely, that which goes on in
the silence of the heart. The point of difference lics in év raic xapd. dy., as
contradistinguished from the preceding éavroic. Usually this second par-
ticipial clause is regarded as subordinate to the previous one ; it is held to
affirm that that reciprocal singing of praise must take place not merely with
the mouth, but also in the heart.* But how could it have occurred to Paul
here to enter such a protest against mere lip-praise, when he, in fact, repre-
sents the psalm-singing, etc., as the utterance of the being filled by the
Spirit, and makes express mention of rvevuarixaic gdaic, in which case,
at any rate, the thought of a mere singing with the mouth was of itself ex-
cluded. The right view is found substantially in Rickert (who, neverthe-
less, already here imports an ‘‘ always”), Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Schenkel. — 76 xupiy] to Christ, ver. 20.

Ver. 20. A third modal definition to the rAnpovode év rvetpati, likewise co- —
ordinate with the two preceding ones, bringing into prominence—after the
general singing of praise, etc., of ver. 19, which is to take place as well audi-
bly as in the heart—further, and in particular, the thanksgiving, which the
readers have always for all things to render to God. — rdvrore] This always
is not to be pressed ; see on 1 Cor. i. 4 ; in accordance with Col. iii. 17, aé
all action in word and work. Observe, however, that mrdvrore is only intro-
duced at this point ; for not the gdew and y~dAAev, but certainly, amidst the
constant consciousness of the divine manifestations of grace, thanksgiving
also, like prayer in general, may and ought to belong to the constant activ-
ity of the Christian life. Comp. vi. 18 ; Rom. xii. 12 ; Col. iv. 2; 1 Thess.
v. 17. For the emphatic juxtaposition rdvrore ixép rdvrwv, comp. 2 Cor. ix.
8, and see Lobeck, Paralip. I. p. 56. This révruv is not masculine, but neu-
ter, and relates, in accordance with the context, to all Christian blessings.
To understand it of all that happens to us, even including sufferings, as is
done by Chrysostom,* Jerome, Erasmus, and many, including Meier, Ols-
hausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de Wette, is foreign to the connection,
yet doubtless the Christian rapdxAyorg and joy in suffering belong thereto.
— év ovdp. Tov xvpiov x.7.2.] not ad honorem Christi, ‘‘for the honor of

1 Pind. Ol. ill. 18: devpopor vieworr’ én’ apy-
Opwrous aovda:, ‘songs allotted by the gods
go to men.”

2 See Bornemann, Schol.in Luc. p. xxvill.
f. Comp. also Lobeck, Paralip. I. p. 60 f.

es xapbia WddAe O BH BOON Thy yAwTray
xiweay, GAAd Kai Tov your «is THY THY Acyoudvey
caravénoww é.eyeipwy, “Not only does he

make melody in his heart who moves his
tongue, but he who excites his mind to the
understanding of the things said,’ Theo-
doret.

* Theodoret.

§ Chrysostom, in fact, inclades even hell
therein, the contemplation of which is for
us a check of fear and thus very salutary.

508 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Christ,” but : so that what is embraced in the name Jesus Christ’ is the
clement, in which your grateful consciousness moves in the act of thanks-
giving. Comp. Col. iii. 17 ; John xiv. 18. As regards subject matter, éy
Xpiore (iii. 21) would be different, and did Xpiorov (Rom. vii. 25) similar. —
7@ Oe@ xai warpi] See on i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 24. The referring of
ratpi to Christ, the Son,? is more in keeping with the connection (év ovdyare
x.t.A4.) than the rendering : our Father.‘

Ver. 21 £.5 The words ixoragc. aAAna. év $68 Xp. still belong to ver. 20,°
parallel to the ei yapcorowvree x.7.7., adding to this relation towards God the
mutual relation towards one another. Then begins with ai yvvaixes a new
section, into the first precept of which we have to take over the verb from
the troracoduevoe just used, namely, txordaccecode™ or trotaccécdwoay (Lach-
mann). Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, and others,® in-
correctly hold that the participle is to be taken imperatirely ; in that case an
éoré to be supplied in thought must, as in Rom. xii. 9, have been suggested
by the context. Olshausen quite arbitrarily proposes that we supply men-
tally : ‘‘areall belierers.” If the new section was to begin with wzoraoc.,
then trorasc. GAA. év ¢. Xp. would have to be regarded as an absolutely pre-
fixed general attribute, to which the special one afterwards to be adduced
would be subordinate (‘‘inasmuch as ye subject yourselves in the fear of
Christ, the wives ought,” etc.). It would not militate against this view,
that in the sequel only the tréragic of the wires follows, while the izexoq of
the children and servants, in chap. vi., can no longer be brought into con-
nection with our iroracoduevor. For often with the classical writers also,
after the prefixing of such absolute nominatives, which have reference to
the whole collectively, the discourse passes only over to one part (not to
several).° But against it may be urged the consideration that ai yvraixec has
no special verb ; such a verb, and one correlative as to notion with izorasc.,
could not but be associated with it.—On the thought izordoceatasz
aGAAGAotg, comp. 1 Pet. v. 5; Clem. Cur. i. 38. — év 9630 Xprorov] 1s the
fundamental disposition, in which the trordaceoPa: aAAjAosg is to take place.
And Christ is to be feared as the judge. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 11 ; 1 Cor. x. 22.
— roig idiotg avdpdow] to their own husbands. Without being misunderstood,
Paul might have written merely roi¢ avdpdow, but idiog serves to make the
obligation of the irordoceo¥at toic avdpdorw palpable in its natural necessity ;
for what a wife is she, who refuses obedience fo her own husband !* Through-

1 Flatt.

2 Per quem omnia nobis obtingunt,”’ ‘“‘ by
whom all things become ours,” Bengel.

3 Erasmus, Estius, Harless, Baumgarten:
Crusius, and others.

* Zanchius, Rickert [Bleek], Matthies,
[Braune], and others.

5 Amore sublime, more ideal regulation
of the married state is not conceivable than
that which ts here set forth by the apostle,
vv. 21-33, and yet it is one which has flowed
from the living depth of the Christian con-
sciousness, and hence 1s practically appli-

cable to all concrete relations.

*So Lachmann, Tischendorf,
(West. and Hort].

7 Elzevir.

8 Comp. also Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 188.

* See particularly Naigelsbach, z. /dias, ed.
8, p. 885 f.

19 So also Stobaeus, S. 22: @corw . . . épwry-
Satca, Ti mpwtov ein yuvacnt, To tH dig, Edn,
apéecnery avin, ‘‘ Theano, being asked what
was the first thing to a wife, To please,’
said ho, ‘her own husband.’ ”

Bieek

CHAP. V., 23, 24. 509
out the N. T. id:o¢ never stands in place of the mere possessive pronoun, but
has always, as also with the Greeks, an emphasis to be derived from the con-
nection, even at Matt. xxii. 5, xxv. 14 (see tn loc.) ; 1 Pet. iii. 1 ; and Tit. ii.
5 (where the relation is as in our passage). This in opposition to Winer,
p. 189, and at the same time in opposition to Harless and Olshausen, who! see
in 6 idtoc av#p nothing more than a designation which has become usual for the
husband. From the very context, in itself 6 avjp is husband.* That which,
on the other hand, Bengel finds in idio : ‘‘ etiamsi alibi meliora viderentur
habere consilia,” ‘* even though elsewhere they should seem to have better
judgment,” is imported. — d¢ 7 xvpiy] By this is not meant the husdands,*
which must have been roic¢ xupiots, but Christ, and d¢ expresses the mode of
view in which the wives are to regard their obedience towards the hus-
bands, namely, as rendered to the Lord; comp. vi. 6, 7. For the husband
(see what follows) stands in relation to the wife not otherwise than as Christ
to the church ; in the conjugal relation the husband is the one who repre-
sents Christ to the wife, in so far as he is head of the wife, as Christ is the
Head of the church. To find in dc the mere relation of resemblance‘ is erro-
neous on account of what follows ; the passage must have run in the form
we # éxxAnoia TO kvpiy, Which Erasmus has imported into his paraphrase :
‘‘non aliter, quam ecclesia, subdita est Domino Jesu,” ‘‘ not otherwise than
as the church is the subject to the Lord Jesus.”” We may add that the view
of Michaelis—that here and Col. iii. 18 the teachings as to marriage are di-
rected against errors of the Essenes (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 8)—is the more to be
regarded as a fiction, inasmuch as Paul is speaking not of the propriety of
marriage, but of the duties of the married life.

Vv. 23, 24. ‘Ore avyp . . . éxxAnoiacg] Reason assigned for the d&¢ rq xvpiy
just demanded. For the husband is in the marriage relation the same as
Christ is in relation to the church ; the former, like the latter, is the
head. —arjp] a husband is head of his wife; hence avfp is without, and
juvarnée with the article. — d¢ xai] as also with Christ the relation of being
Head exists, namely, in regard to the church. —airé¢ 6 awryp rov aduarog] is
usually taken as apposition to 6 Xprords,* according to which atrég would
take up the subject again with special emphasis :° ‘‘ He, the Saviour of the
body,” He who makes His body, é.¢., the church, of which He is the Head,
partaker of the Messianic owrzpia.’ But while there is not here apparent
from the connection any purpose, bearing on the matter in hand, for such
an emphatic description,*® there may be urged against it the following adja,

1 Comp. also Dorville, ad Charit. p. 452.

3 Hom. Od. xix. 204; Matt. i. 16.

® Thomas Aquinas, Semler.

4“ Uxoris erga maritum officia similia
quodammodo sunt oficiis Christianorum erga
Christum,” *‘ The duties of a wife towards
her husband are in a measure like the du-
ties of Christians towards Christ,’ Koppe.

§ Holzhausen (comp. already Chrysostom)
has again referred airés to the Ausdand,
who is called cwrip rot awparos in compar-
ison with Christ, inasmuch as the being of
the wife is conditioned by the husband. In-

correctly, since no reader could refer avrés
to any other subject than to the one imme-
diately preceding, 6 Xpiords, and since it
was intelligible to describe the church
doubtless, but not the wife, as rd copua
(without further addition). Nor is cwrjp
ever employed in the N. T. otherwise than
of Christ or God.

* Schaefer, Melet. p. 84; Bernhardy, p. 283.

7“ Werito et efficaica,” “by merit and
efficacy," Calovius.

* For the view, that hereby a reminder is
given to husbands of the fact, which is

510 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

which, if it is not placed in combination with avrac 6 our. r. cdu., admits of
no logical explanation. Usually, it is true, this 444d is taken syllogistically.'
But the syllogistic a4Ad, and that in the Greek writers combined with pm,
is employed for the introduction of the propositio minor, ‘‘ minor proposi-
tion ;”? whereas here we should have the conclusio, ‘‘ conclusion,” and we
should thus have to take aAAd, in accordance with its discontinuative
force,® for Oore, against which, however, militates the fact that the sen-
tence assigning a reason, drs avyp x«.r.A., has already fulfilled its destined
object (ver. 22), so that it could not occur to any reader to seek in the ad-
versative aAad an inference from this confirmatory clause. If Paul had
wished again to infer, from ver. 28, that which is proced by this verse, he
would have written oiy or the metabatic dé. Besides this, however, ver. 24,
as an inference from ver. 28, would contain a very superfluous prolixity of
the discourse, inasmuch as the contents of ver. 24 was already so fully given
by the thought of ver. 23 attached to what precedes by means of rz, that
we could not but sce here a real logical pleonasm, such as we are not accus-
tomed to mect with in the writings of the concise and sententious Paul.
According to Wincr, p. 400, ver. 24 is meant to continue and conclude the
argument, so that ver. 23 proves the d¢ r@ xvpiw from the position of Christ
and the husband, while ver. 24 proves it from the demand implied in this
position, and hence a4Aé amounts ultimately to the sense : ‘‘ but then, which
is the main thing.” But even in this way only a continuing dé, autem, and
not the adversative 4444, at, would be quite in accordance with the thought.
When, moreover, it is assumed, with Riickert, Harless, Bleck, that aaa,
after the intermediate thought avroc 4 owr. r. o., is used as breaking off and
leading back to the theme,‘ it is self-evident that the brief clause atria 4
owr. Tt. o.—introduced, moreover, only as apposition—has not at all inter-
rupted the development, and consequently has not given occasion for such
a leading back to the theme.* Hofmann finally takes a42a as repelling a

often forgotten by them, that they (see ver.
29) ought to make their wives truly happy
(Erasm., Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others,
including Riickert, Meier, Matthies, Baum-
garten-Crusius; comp. also Hofmann,
S-hrifiberr. II. 2, p. 134 f.), is inadmissible,
since the instructions for husbands begin
only with ver. 25. Harless remarks: “* In-
asmuch as the apostle finds the obedience
of marriage, realized in it by the wife, also
fn the relation of the church to Christ, he
shows immediately the ground of this
pecullar relation in the manifestation of the
gracious power of the Lord by redemp-
tion.” Butin this way the question as to the
reason determining this addition 1s not an-
swered, and the gracious power of the Lord
is, in fact, not denoted by the simple owrip.
Olshausen (so already Piscator) thought
that avrds 6 cwrnp tov cwou. had merely
the design of setting forth Christ more
distinctly in the character of xedaAn, inas-

much as it designates the church as the
capa which He rules. But it is not ov
omperos that has the emphasis ; and cedar}
THs éxxA., spoken of Christ, needed no eluci-
dation, least of all in éhis Epistle.

1 So Beza, Grotins, and others, including
Matthies, Olshausen, do Wette [Ewald,
Braune].

2 Apollon. Alex. in Beck, Anecd. II. p.
518, 889; Hartung, Purtikell. IT. p. 884;
Fritzsche, ad Jom. v. 14; Klotz, ad Dever.
p. 68.

3 “Argumentorum enarrationem aut
aliam cogitationem abrumpit ct ad rem
ipsam, quae sit agenda, vocat,” “* It breaks
off the reckoning «f arsuments or other
thought, and calls to the subject itself
which is to be done,” Klotz, é.¢. p. 5; comp.
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812; Ellendt, Lex.
Soph. 1. p. 78.

4 See Hartung, /.c. IT. p. 87.

® And how would Paul have returned to

CHAP. V., 25. 511
possible objection, and to this effect : ‘‘ But even where the husband is not
this (namely, one who makes happy, as like Christ he ought to be) to his
wife, that subordination nevertheless remains,” etc. But in this way the very
thought, upon which everything is held to turn, is purely read into the
passage. In view of all that has been said, I (and Schenkel agrees with me
in this) cannot take avrdc 6 owr. r. o. as apposition, but only as an indepen-
dent proposition, and I understand 4AAd in its ordinary adversative sense,
namely, thus: ‘‘ He for His person, He and no other, is the Saviour of the
body ; but this relation, which belongs exclusively to Himself, does not take
away the obligation of obedience on the part of the wives towards their
husbands, nay, rather, as the church obeys Christ, 80 must also the wives obey
their husbands in every respect.” The right view was already perceived by
Calvin, when on account of the adversative 444d he proposed the expla-
nation :’ ‘‘ Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est servator ecclesiae,
nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos praeesse, Christiexemplo, utcunque
pari gratia pon polleant,” ‘‘It is true that Christ has this peculiarity, that He
is the Saviour of the Church ; nevertheless, let the women know that their
husbands are over them, according to the example of Christ, however un-
equal may be the favor they exercise.” Comp. also Bengel, who aptly re-
marks : ‘* Vir autem non est servator uxoris ; in eo Christus excellit ; hinc
sed sequitur,” ‘‘The husband, however, is not the Saviour of the wife ; in
this Christ excels ; hence bué follows.” . . . What Hofmann objects is
quite irrelevant ; for the thought, that Christ is Saviour of the body, is not
superfiuous, but has its significant bearing in the contrast which follows ;
and Paul had not to write #4 instead of rod cduarog with a view to
clearness, since Christ was, in fact, just designated as xegad# ; consequently
nothing was now more natural and clear than the designation of believers
by row odparoc, the correlative of xega?4. The objection of Reiche, that
airdg comes in asyndetically, can have no weight in the case of Paul espe-
cially, and of his brief and terse moral precepts (see immediately ver. 28,
and comp. in particular Rom. xii. 9 ff.). — ai yuvaixec] sc. troraccéoSwoar.
See ver. 22. — év ravri] in which case it is presupposed that the command-
ing on the part of the husbands is in keeping with their position as representing
Christ towards the wife. ‘Q¢ ebaeBbaot vouoderav mpoorSetxe rd év ravri,
‘* As making rules for the godly, he added the é» ravri,” Theodoret.

Ver. 25. If the duty of the wives was trordocecOat roic ardpdaw o¢
t@ xvupiy, that of the husband is: dyardre rac yuvaixac, xaOao nai 6
Xptorde x.7.A., @ love, therefore, which is ready to undergo cven death
out of affection for the wife. ‘‘Si omnia rhetorum argumenta in unum
conjicias, non tam persuaseris conjugibus dilectionem mutuam, quam hic
Paulus,” ‘‘If you cast all the arguments of orators together, you will not

his theme! He would have said again, in celerum, and inavrds 3 owr. 7. o. found the

another form, In ver. 24, that which he had
just sald in ver. 28! After so short a clause
as avrds 5 owr. tr. c., what an un-Pauline
diffuseness !

1 He did not, however, himself give it the
preference, but erroneously touk dAAd as

thought: “ !ta nihil esse mulleri utillus neo
magis salubre, quam ut marito subsit,”
** Nothing is more useful, nor more advan-
tageous to a woman than to be subject to
a@ husband."

512 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
persuade husband and wife so effectually to mutual love as Paul does here,”
Bugenhagen. — xai éavrdv mapéd. x.t.A.] A practical proof of the ydmnez.
Comp. ver. 2. What giving up is meant (namely, that unto death) is obvious
of itself here, where no definition is added to zapéd.; Gal. ii. 20; Rom. iv. 28.
Ver. 26. Aim, which Christ had in view in giving up Himself for the
church, and therewith continued statement of the pattern of love given by Him.
— iva air. ay. x.t.A.] ‘in order to sanctify it, after having cleansed it through
the bath of water, by means of the word.” In His sacrificial death, namely,
Christ’s intention with regard to His future church had this aim, that, after
having by baptism brought about for its members the forgiveness of their
pre-Christian sins, He would make it partaker of Christian-moral holiness
by means of the gospel. That cleansing is the negative side of that, which
Christ contemplated with regard to His church in‘His death, and this sanc-
tification by means of the gospel constantly influencing the baptized is the
positive side ; the former the antecedens, ‘‘ antecedent,” the latter the conse-
quens, ‘‘ consequent ;” and both are caused by the atoning death, which is
the causa meritoria, ‘‘ meritorious cause,” of the forgiveness of sins brought
about by means of baptism, and the contents of the gospel as the word of
the cross. The sanctifying influence of the latter is the efficacy of the Holy
Spirit, who works by means of the gospel (vi. 17) ; but the Holy Spirit is
subject to Christ (2 Cor. iii. 18), and Christ also communicates Himself in
the Spirit to men’s hearts (Rom. viii. 9 f.) ; hence it is said with justice
that Christ sanctifies the church through the word (comp. also ii. 21), in
which case it is self-evident to the Christian consciousness that the opera-
tive principle therein is the Spirit operating by means of the word. The Vul-
gate translates xafap. mundans, ‘‘cleansing,” and Zanchius says: ‘‘modum
exprimit, quo eam sanctificet,” ‘‘he expresses the mode, whereby he
sanctifies it.” So, too, Harless, who holds dydoy and xaOapicas not to be
different notions, but the latter to be a more precise definition of the for-
mer, which signifies purum reddere a culpa peccati, ‘‘ to render pure from the
guilt of sin.” The aorist participle would not be opposed to this view, be-
cause it could express that which is coincident in point of time with dy:dey
(see on i. 9) ; but it is opposed by the fact that é Afar: cannot be joined
to xafapisac (see below), but sanctification by the word must of necessity be
something other than the cleansing by baptism, as also at 1 Cor. vi. 11
(comp. Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16), the cleansing by means of baptism (aveAotcacbe)
precedes the sanctification (fyiaofyre).’ Comp. Tit. iii. 5—7.* — r@ Aourpe ro

emaculetur > care ungitur, ut anima conse-
cretur,” ‘The flesh is washed, in order

1In Act. Thom. p. 40 f. : nardpifov avrovs
eis THY ohy woimyny Kadapicas altos év TE Te

Aoutpy «.7.A., ‘‘ Mingle them with thy fold,
having cleansed them in thy laver,” the act
of the «arducfor «.7.A., is (in opposition to
Harleas) conceived of as immediately sud-
sequent to the act of the xcadapicas «x.r.A.
The Fathers, too, separate the cleansing
and the sanctifying of the person who re-
ceives baptism. So ¢.g., Justin Martyr, de
resurrect. in Grabe, Spictii. II. p. 189. Tertull.
de resurrecit.8: “Caro abluitur, ut anima

that the soul may be cleansed ; the flesh is
anointed that the soul may be consecrated.”
Cypr. ad Donat. de gratia, p.8: ** Undae
genitalis auxilio superioris aevi labe detersa
in expiatum pectus serenum desuper se
lumen infudit,”’ “ By the aid of the genital
wave, the stain of the former life being deans-
ed, the light from above infuses itself into
the expiated breast,”’ etc.

2 Hofmann, II. 2, p. 185, would, in opposi-

CHAP. V., 26. 513
idaroc] (genitive materiae, ‘‘of material”) denotes the well-known bath of
water xar’ éfoxiv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” which is administered by baptism. We
have thus here not simply an allusion to baptism,’ but a designation of the
same (comp. Tit. ui. 5 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11), and an allusion to the bath of the
bride before the wedding-day ; see on ver. 27. — év pyar] belongs to ay:doq
(comp. John xvii. 17), but is not placed immediately after it, because the
two verbal definitions ay:doy and xaOapicas, and again the two instrumental
definitions r¢ Aovtp@ rov tdaroc and év Pjyari, are intended to stand together,
whereby the structure of the discourse is arranged of set purpose conform-
ably to the sense and with emphatic distinctness. ya is the gospel, 7d phua
tig wiotews, Rom. x. 8, comp. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, and here stands
without an article, because, denoting the word xar’ éfo,y#v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,”
it could be treated like a proper noun, such as véuoc, yépic, and the like.
The connecting of év py. with dy:dog is followed also by Jerome, Castalio,
Calovius, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Winer, p. 125, Riickert, Bisping, Bleek.*
Others, however, join it to r@ Aourp@ rov idaroc,* in which case they under-
stand by pjya either the baptismal formula,‘ or the divine precept,® or the
divine promise,® or ‘‘lavacro invocatione divini nominis efficaci,” ‘‘ the laver
efficacious by the invocation of the divine name,” ’ or the gospel,* or the divine
power and efficacy in the word of truth, so that év pjyat: is equivalent to év rreb-
yatt.® But all these explanations break down in presence of the fact, that we
should need to read r¢ Aovrpe rod darog TG, OF TOU Ev Pyu., Since neither 76 Aourpév
nor 7é idwp admits of being joined into unity of idea with év pyuar: ;'° as well
us of the fact, that the special interpretations of pjua, except that of gospel,
are purely invented. Others have combined év pqyz. with xaOapicas," in which
case likewise év pu. has been explained by some of the words of the institu-
tion and their promise, by others of the gospel,’ while Harless trans-

tion to the simple and clear course of the
representation, combine «xadapigas «.7.A.
with the following tva rapagrncn, but for
the invalid reason that afterwards ri
éxxAnoiay iy repeated, and not the mere
avryv used. Asif Paul might not have used
the mere avryy even with this combination !
And how often do all writers repeat the
noun with emphasis (so here), or for the
sake of perspicuity, instead of using tho
pronoun! Comp. on iv. 16.

1 Grotius, Homberg.

? Against de Wette's objections is to be
observed, (1) that, according to Rom. x. 8,
17, pjma can certainly be taken as the
gospel ; (2) that sanctification is wrought
indeed through the Spirit, but the Spirit is
mediated through the gospel, Gal. fil.5; (3)
that the order of the words is not forced,
but purposely chosen.

8 Luther: “by the water-bath in the
word.”’ :

‘ Chrysostom : éy pyyuare woig; év dvéuare
Tov waTpdos Kai TOD viov Kai TOU ayiov mrev-
naros, “In what word? Inthe name of the

33

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost ;” comp. Theodoret, Theophylact,
Occumenius, Ambrosiaster, Menochlus,
Calovius, Flatt, de Wette, and others.

§“*Lavationem. . . nitentem divino man-
dato,” “ a washing resting upon the divine
command,” Storr.

*** Qua vis et usus signi explicatur.”
“whereby the force and use of the sign are
explained,” Calvin; comp. Michaelis,
Knapp, Tychsen.

7 Erasmus.

® Augustine, Estius, Flatt, Holzhausen,
and others.

® Olshausen.

10 Such as ai dvroAai éy Séypacr, il. 15, or 7
wioris ev Xp., or the like.

11 Syriac, which inserts cat before év pry ;
Bengel, Baumgarten, Matthies, Harless.
Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann; perhaps
also Beza and Calvin ; Meier is quite indis-
tinct.

12 Baumgarten.

19 Syriac, Bengel: ‘in verbo est vis mun-
difica, et haec exseritur per lavacrum,”

514 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

lates : ‘‘ by way of utterance, by way of promise,” which can refer only tothe
promise given with the institution ; and Hofmann : with a word, which is
alleged to mean : so that He uttered His effective will, that it should become
clean. But it is altogether arbitrary, since xaSapioac already has a modal
definition, to attach év pfuar: thereto in addition, and on the other hand to
leave dy:doy isolated, although év jjy. can very suitably as regards sense be
attached to ay:doy ; further, that which cleanses, i.e., that which not merely
symbolically represents the cleansing,’ but does away with the pre-Chris-
tian guilt of sin, is baptism,* comp. also 1 Pet. iii. 21, Acts ii. 88, xxii. 16,
and not the jyua, whether we understand thereby the gospel or the words of
the institution ; lastly, the sense by ‘‘ way of promise” Paul would have
known how to express otherwise than in so indefinite and cnigmatic a
manner, such as, possibly, by nar’ éxayyediav, Gal. iii. 29 ; as, indeed, also
the sense understood by Hofmann could not have been more indistinctly
conveyed than by the bare éy pjuar:.* Grotius combines év pjuate with
xafap., but supplies &¢ before év r¢ Aovrpg : ‘‘ verbo suo quasi balneo,” ‘by
his word asa bath.” As if one could simply thussupply &¢! Lastly, Koppe
is quite wrong in holding that év Ajuare iva is in accordance with the
Hebrew syx 157 Sy, ‘‘ upon the word which,” nothing more than the bare
iva. Not even the LXX. have translated thus barbarously! [See Note
LV., p. 525 seq. ]

Ver. 27. Aim of the dy:doy év phuati, and so final aim of the éavroy rapi-
duxev irép avtyc, to be realized at the Parousia. Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 2. srapac-
rhoy is already rightly referred to the time of the consummatio saeculi, ‘‘ consum-
mation of the world,” by Augustine, Jerome, Primasius, Thomas, Beza, Estius,
Calotius, and others, including Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek ;
while the Greek Fathers, Lyra, Cajetanus, Bucer, Wolf, Benge}, and others,
including Harless and Hofmann, p. 136, think of an act of Christ in the
aidv ovros, ‘‘ this world,” and many others do not at all declare their views
with regard to the time. But if iva rapacr. x.7.A. is not to apply to the time
of the Parousia, it must either be taken as the design of the caOapicac,‘ or
as a parallel to iva airiv dy:doy.* The former is not admissible, because év
piuati,which itself belongs to dy:doy (see on ver. 26), stands between ; nor
yet is the latter, because dy:doy does not denote the same thing with xa@apica;
(sce on ver. 26), but the making holy through the word ; and this making
holy cannot from its nature be parallel to the momentary act of presenting of
the church asa glorious and spotless one, but can only be antecedent, so

‘‘in the word is the cleansing force, and _—spresses his will to make a woman his wife,

this is exerted through the laver,”” comp.
Matthies and Baumgarten-Cruslus, as also
Schenkel.

1 Schenkel.

* This also in opposition to Theile in
Winer’s Ervegel. Stud. p. 187: év pyyare is a
sort of correction of rq Aovrpe@ tov d8aros.

*What Hofmann, II. 2, p. 191, oddly
enough adduces by way of elucidation:
**As the husband by the word, which ex-

takes away from her the reproach of her
virgin state (comp. Isa. iv. 1; 1Cor. vil. 36),
so has Christ done for the church,” drags
in something entirely foreign to the matter,
and, indeed, something very wnsuitadle, as
though the church were thought of as
wapdévos Uwépaxpos |

4 Bengel.

® Harless.

CHAP. V., 27. 515
that this presentation must be the final result of the sanctifying which has
already taken place through the word. — rapacrfon] might set forth, present,
coram sisteret, namely, as His bride. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2. The view of Har-
less, that the church is conceived of not as bride, but as spotless offering
(on rapacr. comp. Rom. xii. 1), is opposed to the context, and incorrect
also on account of éavrg, by which, in fact, there would result the concep-
tion that Christ presents the offering to Himself. No, the union of Christ
with His Church at the Parousia, in order to confer upon it Messianic bless-
edness, is conceived of by Paul (as also by Christ Himself, Matt. xxv. 1 ff.,
comp. Rev. xix. 7 ff.; see also John iii. 29) under the figure of the bring-
ing home of a bride, wherein Christ appears as the bridegroom and sets
JSorth the bride, ¢.e., His church, as a spotless virgin (the bodily purity is a
representation of the ethical) before Himself, after He has already in the
aidy otros, ‘‘ this world,” cleansed it by the bath of baptism (7.¢., blotted out
the pre-Christian guilt of the church) and sanctified it through His word. To
deny the reference of xafapicag x.r.A. and of ver. 27 to the circumstances of a
wedding, and particularly the allusion to the bath to be taken by the bride
before the wedding-day,’ is an over-refinement of taste at variance with the
context.*—The presentation in our passage was referred by Kahnis?® to the
Lord's Supper, an application which is warranted neither by the context nor
by the analogy of 2 Cor. xi. 2 and Matt. xxv. —airé¢ éavrg] so that what
takes place is not therefore as in the case of the bringing home of actual
brides by others, but Christ Himself, as He gave Himself to sanctify it, etc.,
presents the church as bride to Himself at His Parousia, and indecd as
évdofov, in glorious beauty (Luke vii. 25; Isa. xxii. 18, al.), which is
with emphasis placed before riv ixaxAnoiay, and subsequently receives by
means of 4) éyovoav x«.r.A. a detached, more precise negative definition
specially to be brought into prominence.‘ —oritov] maculam, comp. 2 Pet.
ii, 13, a word of the later age of Greek, instead of the Attic aniic.* In the
Jigure is meant 2 corporeal blemish, but in the reality a moral dcfilement.
The same is the case with pvrida, rugam, ‘‘ wrinkle,” which occurs only here
in the N. T., but often in the classical writers, not in the LXX. or Apoc-
rypha. Spccial distinctions as to what is intended by the two figures are
arbitrary. So e.g. Estius :* oid. signifies deformitas operis, ‘‘ deformity of

1 Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann,
and others.

(comp. on Matt. xxv. 1; Gal. iv. 19). If we
press the figures beyond the ferfium com-

2 It is certainly obvious that this bathing
in the case of an actual bride was not the
business of the bridegroom (as Hofmann ob-
jects); but in the case of the church con-
ceived as the bride the cleansing by the
bath of baptism is the act of the bride-
groom (who in fact does not cause the
bride, cleansed and sanctified by him, to be
presented by others, but presents her to
himself), and thus Paul has drawn the
Jgure tiself in accordance with the state of
matters in the reality delineated, as indeed
frequently figures are modified in accord-
ance with the thing to be represented

parationis, no one is any longer appropri-
ate.— On the Aovrpdy vupdecdy, “ bridal
laver ” (at which «adap, rg Aovtpy Tov vSaros
here glances), comp. specially Bos, Evrercilt.
p. 185 f.; Hermann, Priratallerth. § 81. 6;
Becker, Chariclea, il. p. 460 ff. ; as also Bux-
torf, Synag. p. 626.

3 Abendm. p. 144.

# With regard to avrds éavry, comp. 2 Cor.
1.9; Xen. Afem. ill. 5. 11; Thucyd. vi. 40. 3;
Krtiger, § 51. 2. 12.

6 See Lobeck. ad Phryn. p. 2%.

6 After Augustine.

516 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

work,” and pur. duplicitas intentionis, ‘duplicity of intention ;” Grotius :
the former applies to the carere vitiis, ‘‘to lack faults,” the latter to the
cegetos semper esse, ‘‘ always to be vigorous,” for good (because wrinkles are
characteristic of age). —% re rév rovobrwv| which belongs to the category of
such things, of that which disfigures, like spots and wrinkles. — a2’ iva 9
x.t.4.] change of the construction, instead of 422 ofcav x.r.2., a3 if iva paix
x.7.A. had been said before. Versatility of the Greek mode of thought and
expression.'—-d)ia] the thing signified in place of the figure, which would
be more congruously expressed by dyv7y (2 Cor. xi. 2). —aduopoc] i. 4.
Comp. Cant. iv. 7. Grotius, at variance with the context, holds that Paul
had in the case of both expressions thought of : ‘‘quales tictimae esse de-
bebant in V. T.,” ‘‘as victims had to be in the O. T.”

Ver. 28. Ovrec] To refer this, with Meier and Baumgarten-Crusius, as
also de Wette is disposed to do, to the following d¢,? might, doubtless, be
admissible in itself (see on 1 Cor. iv. 1), but is here quite out of place ;
because oirw¢ would then have an undue emphasis, and the declaration
would stand without any inner connection with that which precedes. It
relates to what is said from xafic kai 6 Xpioréc, ver. 25 onwards to ver. 27,
and is equivalent to : in accordance with this relation, in keeping with this holy
loce of Christ for the church. We may add that Zanchius, who is followed
by Estius and Harless,‘ is in error in saying, ‘‘digressus non nihil ad mys-
terium, nunc ad institutum redit,” ‘‘the digression recurs sometimes to the
mystery, but now to the ordinance.” There was no digression in what pre-
cedes, but a delincation of the love of Christ scrving as an example for the
hushands. — dc ra éavrév cduara] not : like their own bodies,® but : as their
own bodies. For Christ loved the church not dike His body, but as His body,
which the church és and He its head, ver. 23. §Sois also the husband head of
the wife, and he is to love the wife as his body—which conception, however,
does not present the Gnostic notion of the z/jpwya,* but, on the contrary,
comp. 1 Cor. xi. 3. Schoettgen, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier, and others make
wo Ta EauT. oouata Mean nothing more than : like themselces ; but this is in it-
self quite arbitrary and without support from linguistic usage, and also ut-
terly inappropriate to the example of Christ, since we certainly cannot say
of Christ that He loved the church like Himself! In the Rabbinical pas-
sages, too, as Sanhedr. f. 76, 2: ‘‘quiuxorem amat ut corpus suum,” ‘‘ who
loves his wife as his body,” etc., this ué corpus suum, ‘‘as his body,” is to

1 See, in general, Matthiae, p. 1527 f.;
Winer, p. 509; Buttmann, neufest. Gr. p. 208
[E. T. 241].

2 Estius likewise would have {t so under-
stood, unless ovrws xai ot avdpes ddeiAovory
be read; which, however, is really to be
read. see the critical remarks.

3 Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. 1.39; Herm.
ad Viger. p. 793.

4 Who thinks that Paul is only resuming
the simple injunction of ver. 25, with the
expansion @s ra ¢avtwy cuuata. Certainly
the main point of the precept, ver. 28, lics

in those words ; but this whole precept is
by means of otrws grounded on what fs said
from xadws «x. 6 Xp., ver. 25, onward.

8 Meier; comp. also Grotius, who here
brings in the entirely heterogeneous com-
parison : “ Sicuti corpus est instrumentum
animi, ita uxor est instrnmentum viri ad
res domesticas, ad quaerendos liberos,"’ “As
the body is the instrument of the mind, so
the wife is the instrument of the husband for
domestic affairs, for obtaining children.”

* Baur.

CHAP. V., 29. 517
be taken literally, and that in accordance with the mode of regarding man
and wife as one flesh, We may add that Paul does not by means of dg 7+.
éavt. odu. pass over into another figure, or even to another view of the sub-
ject,' but already, in the preceding description of the love of Christ to the
church, his conception has been that Christ loves the church, His bride, as
his body, which conception he now first, in the application, definitely indi-
cates, and in vv. 29-31 more particularly elucidates. — 6 ayanay ryv éavrow
yevaixa éavrov ayara] From the duty of loving their own wives o&¢ ra éav7dr
oduara, results—inasmuch as in fact according to this the wife belongs es-
sentially to the proper self of the husband as such—the proposition of con-
jugal ethics, that the love of one's own wife is love of oneself. This proposition
Paul lays down, in order to treat it more in detail, vv. 29-82, and finally
repeat it in the form of a direct precept in ver. 33.

Ver. 29. Tap] assigns the reason of what immediately precedes, and that so, that
this statement of the reason is intended to impel to the exercise of the self-love
involved in the love tothe wife. The connection of the thoughts, namely, is
this : ‘‘ He who loves his own wife, loves himself ; for, if he did not love her,
he would hate his own flesh, which is so repugnant to nature that no one has
ever yet done it, but rather every one does the opposite, as also Christ—and
that gives to this natural relation the highest consecration—acts with regard
to the church, because this constitutes the members of His body.” — zor? }
ever, not, as Mayerhoff would take it:* formerly, in the heathen state, the
contrast to which is supposed to be : but possibly zow, under the influence
of an asceticism directed against marriage—a view, which the present
tenses that follow ought to have precluded. — ri éavrov capxa] cdps is here
indifferent ® without the conception of what is sinful.‘ Paul might have
written ocdua instead,*® but chose odpxa, because the idea of the wia caps,
which is realized in the married state, is already (see ver. 21) present to his
mind. — a/2'] se. ixaaroc.* — éxrpéger] enutrit, ‘‘nourishes.” The compound
form denotes the development that is brought about by the nourishing ;
comp. vi. 4.’ — 647.7ec] makes it warm, foret (Vulgate) ; Guth: ‘‘carmeith.”
It is thus to be taken in its proper signification." Bengel aptly says : ‘‘id
spectat amictum,” ‘‘ this refers to clothing, as nourishing does to food.” The
usual interpretation is : ‘‘he fosters it,” Luther. Without support from lin-
guistic usage. —It is, we may add, self-evident that otdeic . . .
expresses a proposition of experience, the correctness of which holds as a
general rule, and is not set aside by exceptional cases. The crucifying of
the flesh, however, in Gal. v. 24, has regard to the sinful odps. — cafe wai 6
Xp. thy éxxAno.] 8c. extpégder kal OdAret, which is here, of course, to be inter-

auriy

1 Rickert. corporis nostri caritatem,” ** I confess that

2 Koloss. p. 144.

3 Comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. 7.1. p. 425.

*See also Ernesti, Urapr. d. Siinde, I.
p. 54,
® Curtius, vil. 1: ‘“‘ corporibus nostris,
quae utique non odimus,” ‘with our
bodies, which assuredly we do not hate ;”
Seneca, Ep. 14: ‘* fateor iusitam nobis esse

love of our body is implanted In us.”

® See Stallbaum, ad Flat. Rep. p. 86D;
ad Symp. p. 192 E.

7 See the passages in Wetstein.

® Hom. Odyas. xx!. 179, 184, 246; Xen. Cyr.
v. 1.11; Soph. Phil. 88; also Theocr. xiv.
88; Deut. xxii.6; Job xxxix. 11; 1 Thess.
il. 8.

518 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

preted metaphorically of the loving operation of Christ for the salvation of
His church, whose collective prosperity He carefully promotes. To bring
out by interpretation specially two elements' is arbitrary. According to
Kahnis,’ Christ nourishes the church as His body by the communication of
His body in the Supper. But apart from the fact that 6d4are: does not suit
this, there is no mention a¢ all of the Lord’s Supper in the whole connection.
Comp. on sapacr., ver. 27, and see on ver. 80 ff. The xaOd¢ nai 6 Xp.
rv éxx2. is the sacred refrain of the whole Christian ethics of marriage ;
comp. vv. 23, 25.

Ver. 30. Reason why Christ éxrpége: xai OdAxrec the church : because we are
members of His body. jgédn is prefixed with emphasis ; for we are not an
accidens, ‘‘accident,” but integral parts of His body. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 27.
— &x THE CapKos auTOd K. Ex TOV doTéwy avTov] More precise definition of the péiz7
tov oGparog airov just said, in order to express this relation as strongly as
possible : (proceeding) from His flesh and from His bones. This form of
expression is a reminiscence of Gen. ii. 23, where Adam expresses the origin
of Eve out of his bones and out of his flesh,4—to which origin the deriva-
tive relation of Christians to Christ is analogous, of course not physically,
but in the spiritual, mystical sense, inasmuch as the Christian existence as
such—the specific being and spiritual nature of Christians—proceeds from
Christ, has in Christ its principle of origination, asin a physical manner Eve
proceeded from Adam. The at any rate non-literal expressions are not in-
tended to bear minuter interpretation. They do not affirm that believers
are produced and taken out of Christ's glorified body, which is already for-
bidden by the expression ‘‘ flesh and bones.” Rather is the same thing in-
tended—only brought, in accordance with the connection, into the definite
sensuously genetic form of presentation suggested by Gen. l.c.—which else-
where is denoted by xa:vi xriotg (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15), as well as by é
82 obxéte EyO, CH dé Ev Evol Xprorée (Gal. ii. 20), by Xprordv évedioache (Gal. ili.
27), by the relation of the éy wveipya eiva: to Christ (1 Cor. vi. 17), and in
general by the expressions setting forth the Christian raaryyevecia.© Comp.
the xowwrdv yiveobar Oeiac ¢foewc, 2 Pet. i. 4. With various modifications it
has been explained of the spiritual origination from Christ already by Chry-
sostom (who understood the regeneration by baptism), Ambrosiaster, Theo-
doret, Occumenius,’ Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Vorstius,® Calvin (‘‘ qui

1Grotius: “‘ nufrit eam verbo et Splritu,
cestit, virtutibus,”’ ‘‘ nourishes it with His
word and Spirit ; clothes it with virtues.”

3 Abendm. p. 148 f.

®? This reminiscence the more readily sug-
gested itself to the apostle, not only in
general, because he was wont to think of
Christ as the second Adam (Rom. v. 12 ff.),
but also specially because he was just
treating of the subject of marriage.

4 That Paul should not prefix éx rev
doréwy, a8 in Gen. fi. 28, but ex trys capxos,
was quite naturally suggested to him by
ver. 20. The explanation of Bengel is arbi-
trary and far-fetched.

8 Gess, Jerson Chrixi,p. 24 ff.; comp.
Bisping.

® Philo also, p. 1094, applies the words of
Gen. l.c. to a spiritual relation—to the rela-
tion of the soul to God. If the soul were
better and more like God, it would be able
to make use of those words, because,
nemcely, it ove éoriv aAdAorpia avrov, adda
oddfpa oixeia, ‘$s not foreign to Him, but
emphatically His own.”

7 é£ avrov 3, xa0d amapxy nuwv dors ris Sev-
répas wAdcews, wowep ex TOD "Addy da THY xpw-
vnv, Of Him, as He is our beginning of the
second creation, as Adam was by the first.”

8 “Spirituall tantum ratione ex ipso

CHAP. V., 31. 519
spiritus sui virtute nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vitam ex eo hauriamus,”
‘« who by the virtue of His Spirit inserts us-into His body, that we may derive
life from Him”), Calovius, Bengel, Matthies, de Wette,’ Hofmann, Reiche,
and others ; while, withal, Koppe (so also Meier) thought only arctissimam
quamlibet conjunctionem, ‘‘a most intimate union,” to be denoted, whereby
justice is not done to the genetic signification of the éx. Others explained it:
in so faras we hare the same human nature as He. So Irenaeus, Jerome,
Augustine, Thomas, Michaelis ; comp. also Stolz and Rosenmiiller. Decid-
edly erroneous, partly because Paul could not in this sense say : ‘‘ we are
of Christ's flesh and bone,” but only the converse : ‘‘ Christ is of our flesh
and bone” (Rom. i. 8, ix. 5; John i. 14); partly because the element of
having like nature with Christ would apply not merely to Christians, but
to men as such generally. Others refer it to the crucifixion of Christ: ‘‘ex
carne ejus et ossibus crucifizis, i.e., ex passione ejus predicata et credita
ortum habuit ecclesia,” ‘‘ from his flesh and crucified bones, 7.e., from his
passion preached and believed, the church has its origin,” Grotius.” But the
crucifizis, ‘‘ crucified,” is purely imported, and could the less be guessed
here, inasmuch as from the words the history of Adam and Eve inevitably
came to be recalled ; and there is nothing to remind us* of the ‘‘ martyr-
stake of the cross,” upon which Christ ‘‘gare up” His ficsh and bones
*‘and suffered them fo be broken” (? see John xix. 33, 86). Others, finally,
have explained it of the real communion with the body of Christ in the Lord's
Supper. §So recently,‘ in addition to Kahnis and Thomasius,‘ also Harless
and Olshausen, the latter of whom says : ‘‘it is the self-communication of
His divine-human nature, by which Christ makes us to be His flesh and
bone ; He gives His people His flesh to eat and His blood to drink.” But
not even the semblance of a plea for explaining it of the Supper lies in the
words ; since Paul has not written cai éx rév aizarog avrov, which would have
been specific in the case of the Supper, but xai é« rot doréwv airov! Riickert has
renounced any attempt at explanation, and doubts whether Paul himself
thought of anything definite in the words. A very needless despair of
exegesis ! [See Note LVI., p. 526.]

Ver. 31. Not a citation from Gen. ii. 24, but (comp. vi. 2) Paul makes
these words of Scripture, which as such were well known to the readers,
his own, while the deviations from the LXX. are unimportant and make no
difference to the sense. What, however, is spoken, Gen. l.c., of the union
of husband and wife, Paul applies by typical inrerpretation to the coming

Christo quasi procreatos esse,” ‘‘ Only in
a spiritual manner, as if they were pro-
created from Christ Himself.”

2 Who, however, in the second edition,
regards the words as spurious.

> Comp. already Cajetanus, as also Zan-
chjus, Zachariac, Schenkel, having refer-
ence to John vi. 51 f., xiv. 18 ff.

§ In opposition to Schenkel.

* Many of the older expositors, following
Theodoret and Theophylact, at least
mixed up the Supper in various ways in

their interpretation. So Beza and Calvin
say that it Is olelgnatio et symbolum, “a
sealing and symbol,” of the mystic fellow-
ship with Christ here meant. Grotius
found an aZusion to the Supper: while, on
the other hand, Calovius maintained that
we were er Christo, ** of Christ,” not only by
regeneration, but also by the commuanica-
tion of His body and blood in the Lord's
Supper.
§ ITI. 2, p. 78.

§20 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

(future: xaradeiper x.t.A.) union of Christ with the church (see ver. 32), a
union which shall take place at the Parousia, up to which time the church
is the bride of Christ, and at which time it is then nuptially joined with
Iiim (see on ver. 27),—and so the apostle expresses this antitype of the con-
jugal union in the hallowed words of Scripture, in which the type, the
marriage union in the proper sense, is expressed. We have accordingly
to explain it thus : For this reason, because we are Christ's members, of His
flesh and of His bone, ghall a man (i.¢., antitypically, Christ, at the Parousia)
leave father and mother (i.e., according to the mystic interpretation of the
apostle : He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and be united with
his wife (with the church), and (and then) the to (the man and the wife, i.e.,
Christ who has descended and the church) shall be one flesh (form one ethi-
cal person, as married persons by virtue of bodily union, become a physical
unity). Those expositors who, in keeping with the original sense of Gen.
l.c., take the words of actual marriage,’ have against them as well the
avti robrov, which cannot be referred without arbitrariness to anything else
than what immediately precedes, as also the future expression, which (as
also in Gen. /.c.) must denote something yet to come ; and not less the
statement of Paul Himself, ver. 82, according to which av@pwroc must be
interpreted of Christ, and rjv yvvaixa of the church, not merely perhaps? is to
be so interpreted. Hofmann likewise * understands it of ‘real marriage, and
sees all difficulties vanish if we more closely connect ver. 32 with ver. 81,
so that rd pvorfpiov tovro sums up the Old Testament passage itself and
makes this the subject, and then the sense is: ‘‘ That, as the passage affirms,
the marriage communion is the most intimate of all communions for this reason,
because the wife proceeds from the husband—this mystery, which was foreign to
the Gentiles, is great. It is a highly significant mystery of the order laid
down by the creation, a most important revelation of the divine counsel in this
domain, which the apostle interprets as applying to Christ and the church,
because marriage in this respect has its higher counterpart in the domain of
redemption, but without excluding its validity also for the married as regards
their relation regulated by the creation.” This view is incorrect, for the very
reason that to make 1d yvorgpiov be said in reference to the Gentiles is quite
foreign to, and remote from, the connection ; because, further, Paul must
have written éya dé viv Aéyo ; because Afyw docs not mean ‘‘I say of it,” but
*‘T say it,” 2.e., I interpret it ; because avri robrov would remain entirely out
of connection with that which precedes, and thus the passage of Scripture
would make its appearance quite abruptly ; because, if the reader was to
understand the whole passage of Scripture as the subject, summed up in 73
pvorip. tovro, of what follows, the apostle must have indicated this, in order
to be intelligible, by something like ré dé avri trotrov x.t.4., protppeor
péya éoriv; and because, finally, the validity of the fundamental law of
marriage, ver. 31, for married persons is so entirely self-evident, that a quite

1So most expositors, including Matthies, an abrupt form merely as a hint thrown
Meier, Schenkel, Bleek, Rickert, who, out for the more initiated.
however, here too despairs of more precise 2 Reiche.
explanation, as the passage stands forth in 3 XI. 2, p. 139.

CHAP. V., 31. 521
unsuitable thought (‘‘ but without excluding,” etc.) is attributed to the 2p
of ver. 83. — Those, further, eho explain it of Christ and the church, as Hun-
nius, Balduin, Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, are mistaken in be-
lieving the connection with Christ already existing in the present aidv as that
which is meant ; inasmuch as in the xaradeier tov rat. x. t. pyr. they think
of the incarnation,' or generally of the fact that ‘‘ Christus nihil tam carum
habuit, quod non nostri causa abdicaverit,” ‘‘ Christ held nothing so dear
as not to have abdicated it for our sake,”’? or even of the separation of Christ
from His nation? or from the synagogue ;* while Harless and Olshausen
pass over xaradeipe: tov warépa x.t.A. without more precise explanation, as
unessential to the connection and aim, and regard only Kai éoovraz oi J. tic
o. #. as the main point, explaining it of the Lord’s Supper.* But the whole
reference to the already present connection with Christ is incorrect, because
this connection was just before expressed in the present form by pé27 éouév
x.7.4., but now upon this present relation is based the setting in of a future
one (xaradciwer x.t.A. ; observe the future forms), and that by avr? roiroy,
quite as in Gen. ii. 24 by means of évexev rotrov the future relation of
marriage is deduced from the then existing relation of Adam and Eve.
These expositors, besides, overlook the fact that in the aidy oiroc, ‘‘ this
world,” Christ is not yet husband, but until the Parousia still bridegroom of
the church (ver. 27), which He only at the Parousia presents to Himself as
a purified and sanctified bride for nuptial union. Moreover, the setting
aside of the whoie portion xaradeiwer GvOpwrog tov rart..x.7.2., on the part of
Harless and Olshausen, is a purely arbitrary proceeding. — avti rotrov] See
Winer, p. 826. It is distinguished from the évexey rofrov in the LXX. only
by its placing the cause and the fact thereby conditioned in comparison

1“ Etiam Christus patrem quasi reliquit,”
** Christ also, as it were, left His Father,”
Bengel.

2 Grotius.

3 Michaelis.

4 Bisping.

5 What in marriage the fleshly union is,
that in the connection of the church with
Christ the substantial union by means of
the Supper is alleged tobe! ‘As man
and wife are indeed a!ways one in lore, bul in
the elements af conjugal union, in which the
specific nature of marriage consists, become in
aspecial sense one flesh ; so is also the church
as a whole, and each congregation, like each
aoul in tt, always one spirit with Christ, the
Head of the body, but in the edements of the
sacred Supper the believing soul celebrates ina
tery special sense the union with its Saviour,
in thatit takes up into itself His flesh and
Wood, and therewith the germ of the immortal
body.” This fanciful view of Olshausen is
without any warrant in the context, and at
variance with the future «caradAciwe, which
must~and that indeed according to Gen.

fi.—express something nol yet accomplished,
but only to be expected in the future. More-
over, the “leaving,” etc., does not at all
suit the conception of the communion of
Christ with believers in the Supper, and
least of all the orthodox Lutheran concep-
tion of ubiquity. [See above, Note XIV.]
Nevertheless Kahnis (Adendm. p. 144) has
entirely acceded to the view of Olshau-
sen. He objects to the explanation of the
union of Christ with the church at the
Farousia, that this union cannot possibly be
thought of as “a sacrificial renunciation,
on the part of Christ, of His heavenly
glory.” But the matter is neither so thought
of nor so represented. That which Is meant
by caradecwer, the coming again of Christ
from heaven, will—and this was well known
to the believing consciousness of cvery
reader—take place not without His heavenly
glory, but zcith that glory; and by tho
union, which is expressed in the typical
representation mpooKoAAnOyncera: «.7.A., the
ovvsofacPava of the believers will then be
accompHshed. Comp. Col. fll. 4.

522 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

with each other according to the conception of requital (for this).’ The
reference of avri rovrov, with regard to which many are entirely silent, can
be found only in ver. 30 : because our relation to Christ is this. See above.
Other references, as those of Estius : ‘‘ quia mulier formata est ex ossibus et
carne viri,” ‘* because the woman was formed of the man’s flesh and bones,”
and Holzhausen : ‘‘ because the man, in loving his wife, loves himself,” *
are forced just because of their taking ver. 81 not according to its mystic
reference, but of real marriage. — arpu7oc] a human being, i.e., according to
the context, a man,? by which, however, according to the mystical interpre-
tation of the apostle, Christ is antitypically to be understood. — xai 7
pnrépa] is doubtless taken up along with the rest as a constituent part of
the words of Adam, but is not destined for a special exposition in the
typical reference of the passage to Christ, since caradriper tov wartpa avrow
can, in accordance with that typical reference, only apply to the descend-
ing of Christ from the right hand of God, which will ensue at the Parousia.
Then the otv6poveg of the Father comes down to earth, to wed Himself
(Matt. xxv. 1) to the church, the bride, 2 Cor. xi. 2.

Ver. 32. For the understanding of ver. 31 in the sense of the apostle an
exegetical gloss was necessary, which is here given: This mystery 2s great,
is important and exalted in its contents, but I say it, adduce it (namely, this
mystery, by which is meant just the declaration of Gen. ii. 24), tn reference
to Christ and the church, — td pvorjpiov toro] So Paul terms those Old Testa-
ment words just employed by him, in so far as they have a hidden meaning
not recognized without divine enlightenment.4— éyd dé] ¢yé, which Holz-
hausen even declares to be superfluous, has emphasis : J, however (dé meta-
batic), opposed to the possible interpretations which might be given to the
mysterious utterance.® — ei¢ Xpicrov Kal cig tiv éxxAnolav] so that we have thus
under év0pwrog¢ to understand Christ, and under 9 ywvy atroi the church.
This has been rightly discerned already by the Fathers,* only they should
not have thought of the coming of Christ in the flesh,* but of the Parousia.
See on ver. 81. Lastly, it is worthy of notice simply under a historical
point of view, that Roman Catholics,* on the ground of the Vuigate, which
translates urorfpiov by sacramentum, proved from our passage ° that marriage
isa sacrament. It is not this that is conveyed in the passage, as indeed in
general marriage ‘‘non habet a Christo institutionem sacramentalem, non
JSormam, non materiam, non jinem sacramentalem,” ‘‘ has from Christ neither
a sacramental institution, nor form, nor substance, nor end,” ” but it is rather

1 Comp. avé’ é&»v, and sec Matthiae,
p. 1827; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 170.

3 Comp. Meierand Matthies.

3 Withont on that account adv@pwe2o0s stand-
ing for avijp, see Fritzsche, ad Afatt. p. 598.

‘4With the Rabbins, too, the formula
mysterium magnum, “a great mystery”
(Jatkut. Rub. f. 69, 4: RTP TY NT) is
very common. See Schoettgen, TZorae,
p. 783 f.

® Later Rabbinico-mystical interpretations

of marriage may be seen in Schoet‘gen,

Hor. p. 784. Philo, p. 1096, allegorizes those
words in reference to reason, which for-
sakes wisdom and follows the senses.

*See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theopby-
lact, Jerome. *e

7 In connection with which Jerome inter-
preted rv pyrépa of the heavenly Jerusa-
lem ; comp. Estius.

® But not Erasmus, Cajetanus, or Estius.

® See also Catech. Rom. il. 8. 16 f.

30 Calovius, and sce the Apol. Conf. Aug.
M. 204, J. 215.

CHAP. V., 33. 523

the sacredly ideal and deeply moral character, which is forever assured to
marriage by this typical significance in the Christian view. We may add
that monogamy is presupposed as self-evident, but does not form the set pur-
pose of the passage, which would be purely imported.’

Ver. 33. I127v] is usually explained to the effect, that it leads back
to the proper theme after the digression of vv. 80-32, or merely ver. 82.7
‘‘ Paulus prae nobilitate digressionis quasi oblitus propositae rei nunc ad
rem revertitur,”’ ‘‘Paul as it were forgetting his subject, through the
nobleness of the digression, now returns to it,” Bengel. A digression,
however, has certainly not taken place, but vv. 80, 31 essentially belong
to the description of the love of Christ to the church, and ver. 32 was a
brief gloss pertaining to the right understanding of ver. 31, and not
a digression. And rAjv is used by way doubtless of breaking off (Luke
xix. 27, al.), but not of resuming. So also here: Yet—not further to
enter upon the subject of this prorjpiov—ye also ought (as Christ the
church), each one individually, in such manner (oizwe, t.e., in keeping with
the ideal of Christ contained in this nvorypiov) to love his own wife as himself.
With «ai the persons appealed to, and with obrwe the mode of what they are
to do, arc placed in a paralicl with Christ. — ol caf? éva] ye one by one, tos
singuli, man by man.? The following verb, however, has taken its regimen
from éxacros, not from the proper subject jyueic, as often also in classical
writers.*— The twofuld designation oi xaf éva ixacro¢g strengthens the concep-
tion, that each one without exception, etc. — we éavrdy] as himself, so that the
love issues from, and is determined by, the point of view : 6 ayazav riyv
éaurov puvaixa éavrov ayavG, Ver. 28. — 7 dé yur9 iva goyrat Tov avdpal 4 62 yvv7
is with emphasis absolutely * prefixed, not yet dependent on the notion of
tolo (see on 2 Cor. viii. 7) to be supplied in thought before iva. Hence:
but the wife—she ought to fear her husband. In this brief stern closing utter-
ance, the apostle, while stating the obligation of the husband to love the
wife d¢ éavrdv, yet secures as concerns the wife the relation of subordina-
tion, namely, the duty of vererence for the husband—a duty, which is not
done away with by that obligation on the part of the husband. ‘‘Optime
cohaecrebit concordia, si utrimque constabunt officia,” ‘‘ Harmony will
best be maintained, if on both sides the duties be diligently observed,”
Erasmus, Paraphr. Rightly, we may add, in accordance with the context
Occumenius defines the notion of goByrat: oe mpérec yuvaixa go3ciobat, pi
dovtorperas, ‘‘ Not in a servile way, but as is fitting that a wife fear.” Sce
Vv. 22-24,

1 In opposition to Schwegler, p. 387. Gorg. p. 508 E; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. iil. 1.
2 Olshausen. 8.
3 See Matthiae, p. 1857. § Winer, p. 506.

“See Matthiae, p. 765; Stallbaum, ad

524 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

a
Notes By AMERICAN Eprror.

L. Ver. 4. aiaypérnc, xa) pupodoyia 7 et tparedia,

The first is ‘‘the shameful, whether actively exhibited or passively approved
in word, gesture or deed ’’ (Ellicott). As to the second, ‘‘that which is meant
here by stultiloquy or foolish speaking is the ‘lubricum verbi,’ as St. Ambrose
calls it, the ‘slipping with the tongue,’ which prating people often suffer,
whose discourses betray the vanity of their spirit, and discover ‘the hidden
man of the heart’ (Jeremy Taylor, quoted by Trench). ‘Luther hits the mark
with Narrentheidinge, buffoonery, which denotes what is high-flown, pompous,
in loose discourse’’ (Braune). Both Stier and Trench call attention to the
fact that, considering the sense of ‘‘ fool” and ‘‘ folly ” in the N. T., something
positive as well as negative is hers indicated. The classical evrpamezo¢ was
‘cone ready with an answer or repartee.” To be such ‘‘required polish,
refinement, knowledge of the world, wit.’’ Yet sin, by losing its coarseness,
only became all the more dangerous. ‘In the finer talk of the world, its
‘persiflage,’ its ‘ badinage,’ there is that which would attract many, whom
scurrile buffoonery would only revolt and repel”’ (Trench). Itis ‘‘ that ribald-
ry, studied artifice, polite equivogue, which are worse in many cases than
open foulness of tongue” (Eadie) ; that finds ‘‘ occasion for wit or levity in
anything, however sacred, fearing nothing so much as to be dull, and mistak-
ing all seriousness and reserve for dulness’’ (Barry). ‘‘ Pleasantry of every
sort is not condemned by the apostle. He seems to refer to wit in connection
with lewdness — double entendre” (Eadie). Stier remarks that even St. Paul did
not abstain from wit, as may be seen in Acts xxvi. 29 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10; 2 Cor.
xii. 13, and adds: ‘‘ But his wit is holy, full of meaning, and his jesting, if so
it may be called, is inseparably united with the purest earnestness, as is
proper. Never from mere pleasure in empty wit do we find the form without
profitable contents, as well as never to the injury of his neighbor.”’

LI. Ver. 13. wav yap 76 gavepotpevoy d¢ EoTiv.

The interpretation of Meyer has been adopted in the English Revised Ver-
sion, and supported among others by Alford, Ellicott, Barry, Riddle. The
chief objection urged by Olshausen and Endie, ‘that light does not always
exercise this transforming influence, for the devil and the wicked are reproved
by the light, without themselves becoming light,’” is answered by Ellicott :
‘‘ All that is asserted is that ‘whatever is illumined is light ; whether that tend
to condemnation or the contrary depends upon the nature of the case and
the inward operation of the outwardly illumining influence.” <‘‘St. Paul here
explains still more clearly what he means by illumination. It implies the
catching the light and reflecting it so as to become a new source of light. It
must be noted that the subject of the sentence is not ‘the works of darkness,’
but ‘all things’ in general. Hence the whole process is described, with almost
scientific accuracy, as threefold. First, the things or persons are dragged out
of darkness into light ; then they are illuminated ; lastly, they become light
in themselves and to others. There are no doubt exceptions to this the right
and normal process, in the case of the utterly reprobate, who have lost all

NOTES. D25

power of reflecting light, and are, therefore, dark still in the blaze of noon ;
but the next verse shows that St. Paul is not contemplating these ; and even
these may be beacons of warning to others ” (Barry).

LI, Ver. 14. did Aéyer. "Eyerpe.

Better than Meyer's explanation is that of Ellicott : ‘‘It seems much more
reverent, as well us much more satisfactory, to say that St. Paul, speaking
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is expressing in a condensed and
summary form the spiritual meaning of the passage. The prophet’s imme-
diate words (Is. lxi., 1 sq.) supply, in substance, the first part of the quotation ;
the concluding part is the spiritual application of the remainder of the verse.”
See Terry's Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 500 sq.; Toy’s Quotations in the N. T,,
p. 199 sq.

LITi. Ver. 16. éayopaféuevor tov xarpdv.

‘‘That we are to make a wise use of circumstances for our own good or that
of others, and like prudent merchants to buy up the fitting season for so doing”
(Eilicoct). Compare Dan. ii. 8: ‘*I know that ye would gain the time,”’ ‘‘i.e.,
catch the opportunity to escape from difficulty ’’ (Barry).

LIV. Ver. 18. 4) oivw peStoxere K.T.A.

‘It is a sensation of want, a desire to fly from himself, a craving after some-
thing which is felt to be out of reach, eager and restless thirst to enjoy some
happiness and enlargement of heart, that usually leads to intemperance. But
the Spirit fills Christians and gives them all the elements of cheerfulness and
peace ; genuine elevation and mental freedom; superiority to all depressing
influences ; and refined and permanent enjoyment. Of course, if they are so
filled with the Spirii, they feel no appetite for debasing and material stimu-
lants ” (Eadie).

LY. Ver. 26. év fjuare.

The construction is peculiar, and grammatical difficulties appear to what-
ever of the three words this clause be attached, the separation from the aytacy
being a great objection to Meyer's view. May not the true solution be indi-
eated by the incidental remark of Ellicott that it belongs ‘“‘to the whole
expression"? Developing this still further, the idea would become ‘‘that he
might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the word ; for the means of this cleans-
ing was by a washing of water, in accordance with and in virtue of the word."’
"Ep piypar, if it be joined with xu@apicas or with re AovTpy tod tdaroc, means
in virlue of a word, viz., of the word of salvation preached, év being taken as in
Acts iv. 7, 9,10... This xa@., etc., possesses its distinctive power and force
because it takes place in virtue of a word, and év p. serves only to complete the
thought, the description of baptism. Hence the omission of the article ”’
(Cremer’s Lexicon, p. 267). Philippi (v. 1, 197) also calls attention to the
fact that the omission of the article before the A7yaz: ‘* marks the close, insep-
arable connection between the Aourpév tdaroc and the pjua.” Accedit verbuon ad
elementum et fit sacramentwn (Augustine). ‘‘It is not the water that produces
these effects, but the word of God which accompanies and is connected with
the water, and our faith which relies on the word of God connected with the

526 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

water” (Luther, Small Catechism, iv. 3). ‘‘If the word be taken away, the
water is the same as that with which thé servant cooks” (Luther, Large Cate-
chism, p. 464),

Ellicott defines fjua as ‘‘the gospel,” i.e, ‘the word of God preached and
taught preliminary to baptism,” a view which is perfectly consistent with the
word of divine institution and promise, since the entire gospel is epitomized
therein.

LVI. Ver. 30. ére péAn fopév x.7.A,

While any direct allusion to the Lord’s Supper must be rejected, nevertheless,
as in John vi., a principle is here presented which finds its highest realization
in that sacrament.

CHAP. VI. 527

CHAPTER VI.

Ver. 1. After iuar Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have év xvpiy, in opposition to B D* F G,
It. Marcion, Cyril, Cypr. Ambrosiast. Rejected by Mill, suspected by Griesb.,
deleted by Lachm. and Riick., but defended (on the ground of Col. iii. 20) by
Harless and Reiche. The latter with justice ; since the witnesses who omit do
not preponderate, and since for the purpose of a gloss not év xcupiw but o¢ re
xuply (Vv. 22) would have suggested itself. If, however, év xvpiy had been added
from Col. i.c., it would have been brought in after dixa:ov. — Ver, 5. roic xupivic
xatd odpxa] Lachm. [Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort] and Riick.: roi¢ xara cdpxa
xvpiog, following A B 8, min. Clem. Dam. Theophyl. From Col. iii. 22.—Ver.
6. The article before Xpicrou is, with Lachm. and Tisch. [West. and Hort], in
accordance with preponderating testimony, to be deleted. — Ver. 7. oc, which
is wanting with Elz., is decidedly attested. — Ver. 8. 6 idy ri &xacrug] Lachm.
[Treg.] and Riick. have &kucro¢ 6 gar, which was also recommended by Griesb.,
following ADEFG, min. Vulg. It. Bas. Dam. Other variations are, éxacro¢
édv Tt (B), édv worjo. Exacrog (R*), edv Te moe. Ex, (R**), 6 Edy tic Exuctog (1, 27, 32,
al.), édv te &xaor. (46, 115, al., Theoph. ms.), éév reg Exaor. (62, 197, al.), éav reg
(or Tt) dv8pwrocg (Chrys. in Comment.). The best attested reading is accordingly
&xacroc 6 édv. But if this had been the original one, it would not be at all easy to
see how it could have given rise to variations, and specially to the introducing
ofthe rz, The Recepia, on the other hand (again adopted by Tisch.), became very
easily the source of the other readings, if the copyist passed over from OT! at
once to the subsequent TI. Thus arose the corruption drt &kacro¢g trotgon K.T.2.,
and thence, by means of different ways of restoring what had been omitted,
were formed the variations, in which case dvOpwro¢ came in instead of éxacro¢g
as a gloss, designed to indicate the general sense of &xaoroc.—xopseitac] A B D*
FG ®&* Petr. alex.: xouicerat.! So Lachm. Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], Riick.
In Col. iii. 25, likewise, these two forms are found side by side in the critical
witnesses. Nevertheless here, as there, cou‘cera: is more strongly attested, and
hence to be preferred. xomceiruac may have originated in a reminiscence of
1 Pet. v. 4. — Ver. 9. tucy avréyv] many variations, among which av7ayv x. tudy (80
Lachm. Tisch. [Treg. West. and Hort], Riick. and Harless; recommended also by
Griesb.) is that most strongly attested, namely, by AB D* min. Arm. Vulg. Goth.
Copt. Clem. Pet. Chrys. (alicubi) Damasc. Jer. Aug. Pel. Rightly. The men-
tion of the slaves (adrav) appeared here partly in itself, partly from a comparison
with Col. iv. 1, not relevant; hence the Recepia (anew defended by Reiche)
tov av7ov, in which case avrav applies to the masiers, just as avruy tuo in
EF G, and merely iuav in 17. Others, leaving the «ai standing, at least pretixed
tov (L, min. Syr. p. Fathers : tuov xai airov). &* testifies in favor of Lach-
mann’s reading by éauriy xal tucv, whereas ®**, like the others, has regarded

1 A reads KOMIZETE, and thus testifies indirectly in favor of coviceras,

528 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the prefixing of tuav (thus iy. «. gavr.) as necessary. — Ver. 10. rd Aor76v] Lachm.
Tisch. Treg. West. and Hort. and Riick. read row Aoirov, following AB &* 17, 73,
118, Cyril, Procop. Dam. Thus at least not preponderantly supported. In
favor, however, of ro Aoirdy, testifies also the reading duvayove$e, which is found
in B 17, instead of the following évdvvayoicbe, and probably has arisen from
the confounding on the part of the copyist of the N in Ao:rév with the N in
ENéuvayotote. Since, moreover, rd Aoizrdv better accords with the sense than
tov Aarov (see on Gal. vi. 17), I hold the latter to be a mechanical repetition
from Gal. l.c. — The following ddeAgoi vov is wanting in B DE &* Aeth. Az.
Clar. Germ. Goth, Cyril, Damasc. Lucifer, Ambrosiast. Jerome ; while in A! F
G, codd. Ital. Syr. p. Vulg. Theodoret, only uov is wanting. adeAgoi pov, which
Griesb. also holds suspected, and Lachm. Tisch. Riick. | West. and Hort], have
deleted, is an addition from Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1 ;2 Cor. xiii. 11. And
this addition, too, tells in favor of the originality of rd Aouzér. — Ver. 12. jyir]

B D* F G, 52, 115, Syr. Ar. pol. Slav. ant. It. Goth. Lucif. Ambrosiast. : tiv.
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Riick. But how naturally
would tiv suggest itself to the copyists, inasmuch as the whole context speaks in
the second person !—rov axorovg Tovrcv] Elz. has rov ox. tov aiarog rovrov, in op-
position to decisive witnesses. Expansion by way of gloss. — Ver. 16. ézi waoww)
Lachm. [West. and Hort] reads év zdow, for which more current expression,
however, only B &, min. Vulg. It. and some Fathers testify, and several vss. are
doubtful. — ra before rezvp. is wanting, indeed, in BD* FG, and is deleted by
Lachm., but was easily regarded as superfluous and thus passed over. — Ver.
17, déSacAe} is wanting in D* F G, codd. It. and various Fathers, while A D***
K Land min. read déSao$a: (so Matth.), and Arm. places dé{ao8e before thu wepixed.
Suspected by Griesb. But if no verb had stood, and a gloss had been supplied,
we should most naturally expect avaAdfere to be added. In consideration,
however, of the seeming redundancy, it is much more likely that the omission
was made. The infinitive has come in after the preceding oféca:. — Ver. 18.
avté tovro}] A B &, min. Basil, Chrys. (in commentary) Damasc. have only avzé ;
D* F G have airév, and Latins in ium or in illo s. ipso, which readings likewise
tell in favor of the simple ai7é. With reason (in opposition to Reiche) rovro is dis-
approved by Griesb., and rejected by Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., West. and Hort] and
Rick. An exegetical, more precise definition in accordance with Paul’s practice
elsewhere. — Ver. 19. dv97] Elz. has dofein, in opposition to decisive testimony.
Perhaps occasioned by a mere repetition of the H in copying. — Ver. 21. eidyre
kai jueig] Lachm. and Riick. read xaiipeic eidgre. SoA DEFG 8, min. Vulg.
It. Theodoret, Lat. Fathers. In what follows Lachm. and Riick. [West. and
Hort] place yvupice: before tyiv, following BDEFG &, min. It. Goth. Ambrosi-
ast. The latter from Col. iv. 7. And the former is to be explained from the cir-
cumstance that «ai tyeic was, through inattention to the reference of the «ci,
omitted as superfluous (so still in cod. 17), and was thereupon reintroduced
according to the order of the words which primarily suggested itself, by which
means it came before eidijre.

ContTEents.—How the children (vv. 1-8), the fathers (ver. 4), the slares
(vv. 5-8), and the masters (ver. 9) are to demean themselves. Concluding
exhortation to the acquiring of Christian strength, for which purpose the

1 A has aédeAdgoi only after evduvanovcde,

CHAP. VL, 1, 2. 529

readers are to put on the whole armor of God, and thus armed to stand forth,
in order victoriously to sustain the conflict with the diabolic powers (vv.
10-17) ; in connection with which they are ever to apply themselves to
prayer, and to make intercession for all Christians, and, in particular, for
the apostle (vv. 18-20). Sending of Tychicus (vv. 21, 22). Concluding
wishes (vv. 23, 24).

Ver. 1. 'Ev xupiy] characterizes the obedience as Christian, the activity of
which moves in Christ, with whom the Christian withal stands in commun-
ion of life. The reference to God' is already refuted by the very év 963
Xpicrod, iv. 21, placed at the head of all these precepts, as also by the stand-
ing formula itself (comp. Col. iii. 20). — dixasov] right, 7.6., xara rdv rov Ceo
véuov, ‘‘ according to God's law,” Theodoret.- Comp. Col. iv. 1; Phil. i. 7,
iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; Luke xii. 57.—In favor of infant baptism, i.e., in favor of
the view that the children of Christians were as early as that time baptized,
nothing at all follows from the exhortation of the apostle to the children.*
The children of Christians were, through their fellowship of life with their
Christian parents, even without baptism daycoc (see on 1 Cor. vii. 14 ; Acts xvi.
15), and had to render to their parents obedience év xupiv. [See Note LVIL.,
p. 557.]

Ver. 2. The frame of mind towards the parents, from which the traxotery
just demanded of the children must proceed, is the rzzav. Hence Paul con-
tinues, and that in the express hallowed words of the fourth commandment :
Tima Tov twarépa cov «.t.A. (Ex. xx. 12; Deut. v. 16). And as he had before
subjoined the general motive of morality rovro yap éor: dixatov, so he
now subjoins the particular incitement #ri¢ éorev évtoAy mpdry év érayyed.,
so that the relation as well of the two precepts themselves, as of their motives,
vv. 1, 2, is climactic, and qrig . . . éxayyeAig can by no means be a paren-
thesis.* — ric] utpote quae, ‘since it is,” specifies a rdason. See on iii. 13.
— évroAn rportn iv éxayyed.| The article is not necessary with the rpér7, which
is in itself defining, or with the ordinal numbers generally.¢ Comp. Acts
xvi. 12; Phil. i. 12, a2. And the statement that the commandment /irst as
to number in the Decalogue has a promise, is not inconsistent with the facts,
since the promise, Ex. xx. 6, Deut. v. 10, is a general one, having reference
to the commandments as a whole. Just as little is it to be objected that no
further commandment with a promise follows in the Decalogue ; for Paul says
mpory, having before his mind not only the Decalogue, but also the entire
series of all the divine precepts, which begins with the Decalogue. Among the
commandments, which God has given at the time of the Mosaic legislation
and in all the subsequent period, the commandment : ‘‘ Honor father and
mother,” is the first which is given with a promise. The apparent objection
is thus removed in a simple manner by our taking évroay as divine command-
ment in general, and not restricting it to the sense ‘‘commandment in the

1 ** Praeter naturaelegem . . . Dei quoque 2In opposition to Hofmann, Schri/tbew.
auctoritate sancitum docent,” “In addi- IT. 2. p. 192.
tion to the law of nature, they teach that 3 Griesbach, Rickert, and others.
which is established by the authority of 4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. vii. 7. 35.
God," Calvin ; comp. Wolf.

34

530 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. .
Decalogue.” If Paul had had merely the Decalogue in mind, he must have
written : the only commandment.’ For the assumption that ‘‘ it is the first,
not with regard to those which follow, but to those which have preceded,”?
would not even be necessarily resorted to, if it were really established—
which, however, is assumed entirely without proof—that Paul had taken
into account merely the ten commandments, seeing that he and every one of
his readers knew that no other commandment of the ten had a promise.
From the arbitrary presupposition, that merely the Decalogue was taken into
account, it followed of necessity in the case of other expositors, either that
they restricted évroA4Z simply to the commandments of the second table,’ in
connection with which Holzhausen even maintained that ivroA7 never denotes
& commandment in reference to God (see Matt. xxii. 36, 38 ; Mark xii. 28) ;
or else that they tampered with the numerical sense of rpi77, and made out
of it a cery important, a chief commandment.‘ What a feeble motive would
thus result ! and zpéry7 would in fact mean the most important, which, how-
ever, the fourth commandment is not (Matt. xxii. 838; Rom. xiii. 9, 10;
Gal. v. 14). Further, the proposal of Erasmus, that zpéry iv érayyeA. should
be held to apply to the definite promise of ver. 8, mention of which jirst
occurs in the fourth commandment, is not worthy of attention,® but errone-
ous ; because the same promise occurs after the fourth commandment only
with a general reference to the commandments as a whole (Deut. v. 33, vi. 2),
as it has also occurred even before the fourth commandment in such a gen-
eral form (Deut. iv. 40) ; and because, besides, érayy. could not but have
the article. — iv ixayyeA.] is to be closely attached to xpdéry, as expressing
that, wherein this commandment is the first, the point in which the predi-
cate pertains to it. Comp. Diodor. xili. 87 : év dé evyeveig nai rAobTy mpator,
‘‘the first in nobility and richness,” Soph. O. R. 83: mpéarocg év ovpdgopaic,
‘* the first in results.” In point of promise it is the first (ob ry réger, ‘‘ not in
order,” Chrysostom).

Ver. 3. After Paul has just said : ‘‘the first commandment with promise,”
he now adduces the definite promise, on account of which this predicate
pertains to that commandment, and that according to the LXX. of Ex. xx.
12, Deut. v. 16, with immaterial variation (LXX. : xai iva paxpoyp. yéivy éxi
r. y.), and with omission of the more precise designation of Palestine,
which in the LXX. follows after y7ce. This omission, however, was not
occasioned by the circumstance that the promise was to bear upon long life

? According to Bleek, Paul had not at the
moment the form of the following com-
mandments of the Decalogue definitely
before his mind. But with such inadvert-
ence no one is less to be charged than
Paul.

2 Harless.

3 In opposition to this, Erasmus aptly re-
marks: ‘‘ Haec distinctio non est fundata
in s. literis, sed est commentum recentio-
rum theologorum,” ‘‘This distinction is
not grounded in the Holy Scriptures, but fs
a fiction of more recent thevlogians.” In

general it is to be observed tHat, according
to Philo and Josephus, each of the two
tables contained five commandments, not,
as Augustine (whom Luther followed) sup-

, posed, the first ¢hree, and the second seven,

—and thus two sacred numbers, in which
case, moreover, there was found in the
first table a reference to the Trinity. Am-
brosiaster, Zachariae, Michaelis, the latter
misconstruing the absence of the article
before évroAn zpwry as favoring his view.

¢ Koppe, Morus, Flatt, Matthies, Meter.

® Harless.

CHAP, VI., 4. 531

én general,' in which case, indeed, én? ric y#¢ might also have been left out ;
but Paul could so fully presuppose acquaintance with the complete words
of the promise, that with the mere ix? ri¢ y#¢ enough was said to preclude
any misunderstanding which should depart from the original sense : in the
land, i.e., Palestine. So, namely, in accordance with the sense of the
original text well known to the readers, émi ri¢ yc is to be understood, not
as ‘‘upon earth ;” for the promise is here adduced historically. Hence its
original sense is not at all to be altered or spiritualized, or to be taken con-
ditionally, as e.g. was done by Zanchius : if the promise is not fulfilled sim-
pliciter, ‘‘absolutely,” yet it is fulfilled commutatione in majus, ‘‘by a
change to what is greater; or by Calovius : ‘‘ Promissiones temporales
cum conditione intelligendae, quantum gc. temporalia illa nobis salutaria fore
Deus censuerit,” ‘‘ Temporal promises must be understood conditionally,
viz., so far as God regarded that these temporal matters would be salutary
to us ;” comp. also Estius, who at the same time remarks? that’ the land of
Canaan prefigures the kingdom of heaven (comp. Matt. v. 5), and the long
life everlasting blessedness. Nor is it to be said, with Bengel, Morus,
Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Harless, that the earthly blessing is promised
not to the individual, but to the people. For in the summons ‘‘ thou shalt”
in the Decalogue, although the latter on the whole (as a whole) is directed
to the people, the individual is withal addressed, as is evident from the very
commandments in which the neighbor is mentioned, and as is the view
underlying all the N. T. citations from the Decalogue-law, Matt. xv. 4, v.
21, 27; Rom. vii. 7, xiii. 9. — eb oot yévyrac] Comp. Gen. xii. 18 ; Deut. iv.
40; Ecclus, i. 18. A Greek would employ ed xdoyevv, eb xpdérrev, or the
like, or even ayalé cou yévirar. — xai fog x.7.A2.] is regarded by Winer, p. 258.
and de Wette,* not as dependent upon iva, but as a direct continuation of
the discourse. But this expedient is unnecessary, inasmuch as iva with the
future actually occurs in the case of Paul (see on 1 Cor. ix. 18 ; Gal. ii. 4) ;
and is, moreover, here out of place, since there is not any direct continua-
tion of the discourse in those passages of the O. T., the sense of which Paul
reproduces. At Rev. xxii. 14 also the future and subjunctive are inter-
changed after iva, as also in classical writers the same variation after Swe is
well known.‘ And how aptly do the two modes of construction here suit
the sense, so that yévgra: expresses the pure becoming realized, and éoy
paxpoypdév. the certain emergence and continued subsistence.* The change isa
logical climax.

Ver. 4. The duty of fathers, negative and positive. —xai of warépec] and ye
Jathers, so that xai quickly subjoins. Comp. ver. 9. Paul does not address
the mothers, not because he is thinking of the training of grown-up children, °
nor on account of an Oriental depreciation of the mothers,’ in opposition to

1 Calvin, Koppe, Rfickert, Matthies, Bremi, in Schaef. Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 277;

Schenkel, and many. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 885 f.: Buttmann,
2So again typically Olshausen, comp. Neufest. Gramm. p. 184 [E. T. 213].
Baumegarten-Crusius. 6 Kiihner, IT. p. 491.
* Comp. already Erasmus. * So quite arbitrarily Olshausen.

* See on the erroneous canon Dawesianus, ? Riickert.

532 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

which view—even apart from passages like Prov. xiv. 1, xxxi. 10 ff.—the
whole teaching of the apostle concerning the relation of husband and wife
in marriage (v. 25 ff.) is decisive ; but because the husband, as the head of
the wife, has, even in the bringing up of children the rule, and the wives
join in prosecuting the work of training tbroracadpevar totg idiow avdpdow
(v. 22 ff.).— yp mapooyifere] by injustice, harshness, hastiness of temper,
undue severity, and the like, whereby the children are irritated against the
fathers ; at Col. iii. 21 there is subjoined as motive iva py cOvudow. — exrpéi-
gere}] not as at v. 29, but of the bringing up, and that on its moral side.
Prov. xxili. 24 ; 1 Macc. vi. 15, 55 ; Plato, Gorg. p. 471 C ; Polyb. vi. 6.
2.' — év waidecia xai vovdecia xvpiov} év denotes the regulative element, in which
the training is to take place.* Hence : in the Lord's training and correction.
radeia is the general term, the training of children asa whole, and vov@ecia
is the special one, the reproof aiming at amendment, whether this admoni-
tion take place by means of words? or of actual punishments.‘ See Gellius,
vi. 14; Kypke, Obss. ad 1 Thess. v. 14. With regard to the form, in place
of which the better Greek has vovléiryaic, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512.
[See Note LVIII., p. 557.] «vpéov means neither to the Lord,* nor according
to the doctrine of Christ,* nor worthily of the Lord,” or the like ; but it is the
subjective genitive, so that the Lord Himself is conceived as erercising the
training and reproof, in so far, namely, as Christ by His Spirit impels and
governs the fathers therein.* Riickert is unable to come to a decision, and
doubts whether Paul himself had a distinct idea before his mind.

Ver. 5. On vv. 5-9, comp. Col. iii. 22~-iv. 1.— Here, too, there is doubt-
less no approval, but at the same time no disapproval of the existing slavery
in itself, which—in accordance with the apostolic view of a Christian's
position (Gal. iii. 28; 1 Cor. vii. 22 ; comp. Tit. ii. 9 f.; 1 Pet. ii. 18)—
like every other outward relation of life, ought not to affect spiritual free-
dom and Christian unity ; hence at 1 Cor. vii. 21 it is expressly prescribed
that the slave is to remain in his position,® as, indeed, Paul even sent back
Onesimus after his conversion to his master, without requiring of the latter
his manumission.’® — roi¢ xvpiotg xara odpxa] to those, who in a merely human

1 See Wyttenbach, ad Plut. de educ. p. 66; by you to me are of her teaching; you

Lennep, ad Phaiar. p. 850 0.

2Comp. Polyb. 5. 65. 7: raw év wadeias x.
woos K, WoAuTiKois EOeoey exTeOpaupévey, * Of
those brought up in the training and laws
and political customs.”

8 vouderixot Adyor, Xen. Mem. 1.2. 21.

foi perv paBSo: vovderovcs «.7.A., Plut.
Quaest. Rom. p. 283.

§ Luther.

* Krasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Menochlus,
Estius, Zachariae, Koppe, Morus, Rosen-
miller, Bisping, and others, including Holz-
hausen, who, however, takes «vp. of God.

Y Matthies.

® Comp. Soph. Evectr. 385: dwavra ydp co
tana vovdermuara xeivys Si8axra, xovdév ex
caurhs A¢yes, “For all the admonitions given

speak nothing of yourself."

® Comp. Ignat. ad Polyc. 4; Constitt. Apoet.
iv. 12, vii. 18; viii. 32, 2 f.

10 The reforming efficacy of the gospel ad-
dresses itself to knowledge and feeling,
out of which, and so out of the inner I!fe of
faith, the alterations of the outward forms
and relations of life gradually take shape
with moral necessity by way of conse-
quence ; as history, too, has shown, which,
when it has developed Itself ina revolution-
ary manner, has either violently precipi-
tated, or forsaken, or inverted that course,
or else fn its necessary development has
encountered such hindrances as disowned
the influence of this necessary develop-
ment, and yet could not arrest it. ‘“ Civi-

CHAP. VI., 6, 7%. 533
relation are your rulers, t.¢., your human masters, whose slaves you are as re-
gards outward temporal position in life, by way of distinction from the
higher divine master, Christ ; hence also roi¢ «vp. x. o. stands without repe-
tition of the article, combined into one idea ; comp. on ii. 11. As Paul im-
mediately after makes mention of the higher master Christ (é¢ 7 Xpior@),
it was very natural for him, in view of the twofold and very diverse rcla-
tion of masters which was now present to his mind, to add xara odpxa, in
the use of which any special set purpose cannot be made good. This in op-
position to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, who find in it a
consolatory allusion to the decroreia mpécxacpoc, ‘‘ temporary mastership ;” in
opposition to Calvin, who supposes a softening of the relation to be con-
veyed in this expression, as being one that leaves the spiritual freedom un-
touched ;' and in opposition to Harless, who finds in the predicate the
thought that, although in another domain they are free, yet in earthly re-
lations they had masters. — pera 96f0v x. rpdu.] i.¢., with that zeal, which is
ever keenly apprehensive of not doing enough. Comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 8 ;
2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii, 12. —év amwAdrayze tig napd. tu.] State of heart, in
which the obcdience with fear and trembling is to take place ; it is to be no
hypocritical one, in which we are otherwise minded than we outwardly seem,
but an upright, inwardly true one, without duplicity of disposition and act.
Comp. Rom. xii. 8 ; 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11; Jas. i. 5. In Philo joined with
axaxia.*? Oecumenius well observes : é yap xai perd ¢6f30v x. rpduov dovAcverv,
GAA’ ovK ef eveniag GAAd kaxobpywe, ‘‘for it is possible to serve with fear and
trembling, and yet not with good will, but malevolently.” —d¢ rq Xpiorg]
as to Christ, so that you regard your obedience to your masters as rendered
to Christ (comp. v. 22).* See ver. 6. An allusion to revard ‘ is imported.
Vv. 6, 7. The év awadrytre . . . Xporp just spoken of is now more pre-
cisely described. — y? war’ o9@a/p. we avOp.| not after an eye-serving manner as
men-pleasers, The word ogfadpodovacia occurs nowhere else than here and
Col. iii. 3, but its meaning is, from its composition, clear.* It is the service
which is rendered to the eyes of the master, but in which the aim is merely
to acquire the semblance of fidelity, inasmuch as one makes himself thus
noticeable when seen by the master, but is in reality not such, acting, on
the contrary, otherwise when his back is turned.* — a6purdpeoxo:] Comp.
Ps, lili. 5; Psalt. Sal. iv. 8. 10, in Fabric.;" and see Lobeck.® The meu

tates maiie studiis malisque doctrinis re-
pente evertuntur,” “ States are suddenly
overthrown by wicked desires and wicked
doctrines,"’ Cic. Leg. il. 15.80. It is not,
however, to be overlooked that by the
apostle’s mode of regarding the relation of
freedom and slavery which he found erist-
ing, the slavery iniroduced by Christians,
the enslaving of free men, the slave trade,
etc., are by no means justified—rather are
these things impossible, where the knowl-
edge and feeling, that spring from evan-
gelical faith, are the principles which shape
the life and the furms assumed by it.

1Comp. Beza, Zanchius, Grotius, Flatt,
and others.

3 See Loesner, Odes. p. 262.

3 [os timp @eov, Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, line 104.)

4 Theodoret.

SComp. oddadpdsovdAcs in the Conafitt.
Apoat. iv. 12. 2

* Theodoret : ray ovx ef ciAucpivovs xapdias
spocdepondyny Sepaweiay, GAAa Te oXHmare Ke-
xpwoperny,” “the service rendered not from
a pure heart, but adopting the semblance.”

T Cod, Pseud. i. p. 99.

® Ad Phryn. p. 61.

534 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

whom such slaves endeavor to please are just their masters, and the fault of
this behavior lies in the fact that such endeavor is not conditioned by the
higher point of view of serving Christ and doing the will of God, but has as
its aim simply Auman approbation. Even of slaves Matt. vi. 24 holds good.
Comp. Gal. i. 10.— GAA’ de dovsor Xpicrov, mwoodvrec 1d OéAnua Tov cod Ex
vvyic] but as slaves of Christ, in that ye do the will of God from the heart.
The contrast lies in dotAo: Xpecrov (comp. ver. 7), and moovvreg «.7.A. i8 &
modal definition of this their service, whereupon there follows in ver. 7
yet a second modal definition. Now to be a slave of Christ and not to do
the will of God, and that indeed ez animo (from a genuine impulse of the
soul), would be a contradiction, seeing that God is the Father of Christ,
has sent Christ, and is the Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3, iii. 23). According
to Rickert, d¢ dovAc: Xpicrot is subordinate, and moobvrec tr. O€A. Tr. Oeov ex
wuxne forms the contrast : ‘‘but doing as Christ’s servants the will of God
from the heart.” But after axOpwrdpecxo:, comp. with ver. 5, this subordina-
tion of d¢ dovax: Xp. is altogether arbitrary and opposed to the context. é«
wvyxi7¢ is no doubt attached to what follows by Syriac, Chrysostom, Jerome,
Bengel, Koppe, Knapp, Lachmann, Harless, de Wette ; but yer evvoiac,’
since it expresses the well-meaning disposition, already in fact includes in
itself the sense of éx yvyfe ;? and it is arbitrary to assume, with Harless, that
éx w. expresses the relation of the true servant to his sercice, and per’ evvoiac
his relation to his master. — d¢ r@ xvpiy] 8.¢. dovAcbovrec, as to the Lord, the
true mode of regarding his service as rendered to Christ. —xai ovx avép.|
Comp. on Gal. i. 1.

Ver. 8. Eidérec] Incitement to the mode of service demanded, vv. 5-7:
since ye know that whatever good thing each one shall have done, he shall bear off
this (the good done) from the Lord, whether he be slate or free. — 6 dv rt
éxacvoc] édv in the relative clause with the subjunctive instead of dyv,* and ri
separated from i¢.4—Tovro xou.|] Expression of entirely adequate recompense.
See on 2 Cor. v. 10. — rapa xvpiov] from Christ, at the judgment. — cire
dowvAog, cite EAcvd.] EderEe TH wapérTe Bip weTuptopevyy ri dovdAciay Kai deororeiar,
peta 6& ye THV Evtevdev Exdnuiav ove Ere dovdeiac Kat deomoreiac, GAA’ apeTHe Kai
xaxiac écouévay dtagopdv, ‘‘ He showed the servitude and mastership obtaining
in the present life, but after the departure hence, the difference to be no
longer between servitude and mastership, but between virtue and wicked-
ness,” Theodoret. It is evident, we may add, from our passage that Paul
did not think of a ceasing of slavery among Christians before the Parousia,
—a view which was very naturally connected with the conception of the
nearness of the latter, which did not admit of his looking forth upon the
development of centuries.

Ver. 9. Kai of xbpior} like xai of warépec, ver. 4. —ra aird] the same. The
master, namely, who treats his servants wer’ evvoiac, does essentially (meas-

1 Comp. Xen. OQec. xil. 5. 7. ® Buttmann, neul. Gramm. p. 68 [E. T.
2 Fzanimi sententia, Col. iil. 28; Mark xil. 72].
80, 33; Luke x. 27: Joseph. Anéf. xvii. 6.8 ; 4 Asin Plato, Legg. ix. p. 864 E: §w ay rive

Xen. Anabd. vil. 7.43; Nicarch. epigr. 2; xaraBdAdyp, Lys. p. 160: Ss dy ms tpas ob
Theocr. Idyll. ili. 35. wot.

CHAP. VI., 10. 535

ured by the disposition as the inner essence of the act) the same thing
towards the slaves as the slave serving per’ evvoiac does towards his master. —
aveévteg tov arecA.] Negative modal definition of the ra aird rouire mpd¢
avrobe, especially to be laid to heart in the circumstances by the masters.
By aviévrec may be denoted either the abating, or the entire leaving off,
giving up, of the threatening. In the former sense (Wisd. xvi. 24) it has
been taken by Erasmus,’ Vatablus, Zeger ; but certainly the latter sense
alone? is appropriate to the rd aird rowire ; especially asr#v amecagy (with
the article) denotes not threatening in general, but the threatening, namely,
‘‘quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet,” ‘‘as the common crowd of
masters is wont.” *— eidérec] specifying a motive, as in ver. 8. Comp. Col.
iv. 1; Barnab. 19 ; Constitt. ap. vii. 18. Inasmuch, namely, as they know
that He, who is Lord as well of the slaves as of the masters (xai avrey xai
tuav, see the critical remarks), is in heaven (the exalted Christ), and with
Him is no partiality, so that He gives to the master as such no preference
over the slave as such : how should they not cease to comport themselves
with their threatening, as though Christ were not the Lord of both in
heaven—in heaven, whence at the judgment He will, without partiality,
alike sustain the injured rights of the slaves, and punish the unchristian
threatening of the masters, which, instead of operating by moral means,
only terrifies by rude authority. Comp. Seneca, Thyest. 607 :

“Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae
Jus dedit magnum necis atque vitae
Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus.
Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit,
Major hoc vobis dominus minatur ;
Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.”*

‘“Ye, to whom the ruler of sea and earth has entrusted the great right of
life and death, dismiss your elated and arrogant looks. Whatever an in-
ferior dreads from you, that a master greater than you threatens. Every
sovereignty is beneath a sovereignty still more severe.” As to the notion of
mpoowrodmpia, see on Gal. ii. 6.

Ver. 10.* After this special table of domestic duties laid down since v. 21,
now follows, in a full energetic effusion down to ver. 20, a general jinal ex-
hortation, winding up the whole paraenetic portion of the Epistle (iv. 1
ff.). — Td Aourdy] as concerns the rest, namely, what you have still to do in
addition to what has been hitherto mentioned. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ;
Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8 ; 1 Thess, iv. 1; 2 Thess. ili. 1. — évdvvapoiade tv rupiy|
denotes the Christian strengthening, which cannot subsist outside of Christ,
but only in Him as the life-element of the Christian (Phil. iv. 18). As to
évdvvapovadat, to become strong, gain strength, which is not a middle,*
see on Rom. iv. 20. — xai év rg xpdree rig taziog aitov] and by means of the
might of His strength, which might, namely, must produce the strengthening

1“ Minus feroces minusque minabundi,” ‘On vv. 10-17, see Winzer, Leips. PAngst-
“* less flerce and less threatening.” programm, 1840.

2 Comp. Thucyd. fli. 10.2: &@pay avévras. & ** Corroborate vos,” “ strengthen your-

® Erasmus, Paraphr. selves," Piscator.

536 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

in you. As to the respective notions, see oni. 19. The «ai is not explica-
tive, but annexes to the element, in which the strengthening is to take
place, the effective principle of it (2 Cor. xii. 9). ‘*‘ Domini virtus nostra
est,”” ‘‘ The Lord's power is ours,’ Bengel.

Ver. 11. What they are to do in order to become thus strong, in connec-
tion with which the figurative discourse represents the readers as warriors
(comp. 2 Cor. x. 4; 1 Thess. v. 8; Rom. vi. 13, 23, xiii. 12; 1 Tim. i. 18,
vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7). The more familiar, however, this figure was to the
apostle, the more freely and independently is it here carried out, although’
a reminiscence of Isa. lix. 17 * underlies it.2 — ry mavorAiay tov Gcov] ry
nxavorA. has the emphasis. In the very fact that not merely single pieces of
the armor,‘ but the whole armor of God is put on,* resides the capacity of
resistance to the devil. If rot Oeov had the emphasis,* there must have
been a contrast to other spiritual weapons (for that no material, actual
Weapons were meant, was self-evident). Rightly, therefore, have most
expositors kept by the literal meaning of ravomAia, complete suit of armor
of the heavy-armed soldier, érAirne ;’ and the assertion‘ that it here is equiv-
alent generally to armatura [i.e., the armor, but not the arms},° is arbitrary
and contrary to linguistic usage ; even in Judith xiv. 3, 2 Macc. iii. 25, the
notion of the complete equipment is to be adhered to.” According to
Polyhius, vi. 23, 2 ff., there belong to the Roman zavordia shield, sword,
greaves, spear, breastplate, helmet. But the circumstance that in the de-
tailed carrying out of the figure, ver. 18 ff., not all these parts are mentioned
(the spear is wanting), and withal some portions are brought in (girdle,
military sandals) which did not belong exclusively to the equipment of the
heavy-armed soldier, but to military equipment in general. can, least of all
in the case of Paul, occasion surprise or betray a special set purpose.
Whether, we may add, the apostle thought of a Jewish or a Roman warrior
is, doubtless, substantially in itself a matter of indifference, since the kinds
of armor in the two cases were in general the same;?! but the latter supposi-
tion is the most natural, inasmuch as the Roman soldiery wielded the power
in all the provinces, Paul himself was surrounded by Roman soldiery, and
for most Gentile readers in a non-Jewish province the term ravoriia could

1 Comp. on tov cwrnpiov, ver. 17.

Comp. Wisd. v. 17 ff., and thereon
Grimm, Handb. p. 119 f.

® According tode Wette, we have here “a
playful imitation in detail of 1 Thess. v. 8,
in which use is made of Isa. lix. 17 (perhaps
also of Wisd. v. 17 ff.).."". An unwarranted
judgment, inasmuch as Paul himself could
here carry out more comprehensively his
figure elsewhere thrown out in only afew
outlines, and this he has done worthily and
without attempt at play. An imitator, on
the other hand, would here have assigned
no other signification to the pieces of
armor mentioned 1 Thess. v. 8 than they
bear in that place.

4 Luther : harnees.

§ ‘We guid nobis desit,” ‘‘ that nothing
may be lacking to us,” Calvin.

® Harless.

7 See Herod. {. 60; Plato, Legg. vil. p. 796
B; Bos, Ewercitt. p. 192; Ottil Spicileg.
p. 409.

® Recently by Harless.

® Valgate, which was justly censured by
Beza.

10 Of the manner in which Paw himself
wore and wielded the wavoxAia rov Seow,
his whole labors and each one of his
Epistles afford the most brilliant evidence;
the latter especially in such outbursts as
Rom. vill. 81 ff.; 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff., 11, 2% ff.
Comp. also 2 Cor. x. 4 f.

11 See Kell, Arch. § 158.

CHAP. VI., 12. 537
not but call up the thought of the Roman soldier. Even though Paul had,
as we must suppose, the recollection of Isa. lix. 17 when he was employing
such figurative language, this did not prevent his transferring the prophetic
reminiscence to the conception of a Roman warrior (in opposition to
Harless). — rot Geov] genitivus auctoris, ‘‘ genitive of the author:” the
mavordia, which comes from God, which God furnishes. Sense without the
figure : ‘‘ appropriate to yourselves all the means of defence and offence which
God bestows, in order to be in a position to withstand the machinations of the
devil.” — arjva: pbc] stand one’s ground against ; a military expression in
keeping with the figure.’ The same thing is implied by orjva: with the
dative, Hom. Jl. xxi. 600. Comp. dvrioryte tH diaBddAw, Jas. iv. 7. — rac
ueOod.|] See on iv. 14. The plural denotes the concrete manifestations,
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 11. Luther aptly renders : the wily assaults. —
rov diaBdAov] ‘* principis hostium, qui ver. 12 ostenduntur,” ‘‘ the chief of
the enemies indicated in ver. 12,” Bengel.

Ver. 12. I am warranted in saying mpdc rd¢ pedod. rov diaBdAov ; for we
have not the wrestling with feeble men, but we have to contend with the
diabolice powers. This contrast Paul expresses descriptively, and with what
rhetorical power and swelling fulness! Observe, moreover, that the con-
flict to which Paul here refers is, according to ver. 18, still future, but it
is by Zorw realized as present. — ovx . . . adda] The negation is not non tam,
or non tantum, ‘not so,” or ‘‘not so much,” * but absolute ;* since the con-
flict on the part of our opponents is one excited and waged not by men, but
by the devilish powers (though these make use of men too as organs of
their hostility to the kingdom of God).‘* — # +447] The article denotes gener-
ically the kind of conflict, which does not take place in the case of the
Christians (jyiv) ; they have not the wrestling with blood and flesh. Nothing
else, namely, than lucta, a wrestling, is the meaning of the 74éA7,° a word
occurring only here in the N. T., and evidently one specially chosen by the
apostle (who elsewhere employs ayéyv or zd y7), with the view of bringing out
the more strongly in connection with pd¢ aiuza xa? odpx. the contrast between
this less perilous form of contest and that which follows. Now, as the
notion of the dy is not appropriate to the actual conflict of the Christians
mpog Tac apydc x.t.A., because it is not in keeping either with the ravordia in
general or with its several constituent parts afterwards mentioned ver. 14 ff.,
but serves only to express what the Christian conflict is not; after aiid
we have not mentally to supply again aay, but rather the general notion
of kindred signification 7 udéz7, ‘‘the battle,” or zayxeréov, ‘‘ one must fight,” °

1 See Kypke, IL p. 801. Comp. Thucyd.
v. 104, and Poppo’s note thereon.

2 Cajetanus, Vatablus, Grotius, and
others.

* Winer, p. 439 ff.

4 Comp. already Augustine, De verbo
Dom. 8: ‘* Non est nobis colluctatio adver-
sus carnem et sanguinem, i.e., adversus
homines, quos videtis saevire in nos. Vasa
sunt, alius utitur; organa sunt, alius tan-

git,” ‘‘ Our struggle is not against flesh and
blood, i.¢., against men. They are vessels ;
another uses them; they are organs,
another touches them.”

*Hom. J7. xxiii. 685, 700 ff. ; Xen. Mem. iv.
8. 27; Plat. Legg. vil. 705 D; and Ast, ad
Legg. p. 878.

* Comp. Plato, Soph. p. RO C: wpds ye
TOUTOY wayTi Adéyw waxeréor, “against this one
must fight with every argument.”

538 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

as frequcntly with Greek writers,' and in the N. T.* we have to derive from
& preceding special notion an analogous more general one. What we have
to sustain, Paul would say, is not the (less perilous) wrestling contest with
blood and flesh, but we have to contend with the powers and authorities,
etc. We have accordingly neither to say that with mé2y Paul only lighted
in passing on apother metaphor (my own former view), nor to suppose (the
usual opinion) that he employed dz in the general sense of certamen, which,
however, is only done in isolated poetic passages,* and hence we have the
less reason to overlook the designed choice of the expression in our passage,
or to depart from its proper signification. — mpéc aiya xai odpxa) t.e., against
Jeeble men, just as Gal. i. 16. Only here and Heb. ii. 144 does aiua stand
first, which, however, is to be regarded as accidental. Matthies* under-
stands the lusts and destres having their root in one's own sensuous individuality ;
but this idea must have been expressed by xpoc tiv cépxa alone without aiya
(Gal. v. 17, 24, aJ.), and is, moreover, at variance with the context, since
the contrast is.not with enemies outside of us, but with superhuman superter-
restrial enemies. — xpdc tac apxéc] This, as well as the following mpé¢ ra¢
éEovoiac, designates the demons, and that according to their classes (analogous
to the classes of angels),*° of which the apyai seem to be of higher rank than
the éfovciac (see on i. 21), in which designation there is at the same time
given the token of their power, and this their power is then in the two
following clauses (mpd¢ roc . . . érovpaviorg) characterized with regard to
its sphere and to its ethical quality... The exploded views, according to
which human potentates of different kinds were supposed to be denoted by
Gpx-, é€ove. «.7.2:, may be seen in Wolf. — mpo¢ robe xoopoxpar. tov ox6r. robrov]
4.€., against the rulers of the world, whose domain is the present darkness. The
oxétog tovro is the existing, present darkness, which, namely, is charac-
teristic of the aiay ovroc, and from which only believers are delivered, inas-
much as they have become ¢é¢ év xvpiy, réxva tov gurd¢ (iv. 8, 9), being
translated out of the domain opposed to divine truth into the possession of
the same, and thus becoming themselves o¢ gworjpec év xéopuy (Phil. ii. 15).
The reading row oxdérovc rod aidvoc rotrrov is a correct gloss. This pre-Mes-
sianic darkness is the element adverse to God, in which the sway of the world-
ruling demons has its essence and operation, and without which their
dominion would not take place. The devils are called cxoopoxpdropes,®
because their dominion extends over the whole world, inasmuch as all men
(the believers alone excepted, ii. 2) are subject to them. Thus Satan is

1 See Déderlein, de drachy. in his Reden
u. Aufs. ii. p. 269 ff. Kriger, Regist. zu
Thucyd., p. 818.

3 Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 886 [E. T.
392).

$8 Lycophr. 124, 1358.

4 Lachmann, Tischendorf.

® So already Prudentius, Jerome, Caje-
tanus.

¢ ** As every kingdom as such is inwardly
organized, so also is the kingdom of the evil
spirits,” Hahn, Zheol. d. N. T. I. p. S7.

T Observe how in our passage every word
rises up as a witness against all attempts to
make of the devil a mere abstraction, a
personified cosmic principle, and the like.
Beyschlag too, Christol. d. N. T. p. 244 f.
contests, without, however, at the time
entering into a detailed argument, the per-
sonality of Satan, as of the world of angels
and spirits in general, and regards him as

_the vital principle of matter, the self-seek-

ing of nature, etc. : .
8 Comp. Orph. #1. viil. 11, xi. 11.

CHAP. VI., 12. 539

called 6 Ged¢ rov aidvog robrov, 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6 dpyur rov xécpov tobrov, John xii.

81, xvi. 11 (comp. John xiv. 30), and of the world itis said that 4 xéopo¢
bAog év rH Movypw xetrat, 1 John v. 19. The Rabbins, too, adopted the word
NO pintp, and employed it sometimes of kings, while they also say of the
angel of death that God has made him xooyoxpdrwp.' Later also the Gnos-
tics called the devil by this name,’ and in the Testamentum Salomonis? the
demons say to Solomon : queic éopuev ra Acydueva croryeia, of KoopoKpatopec Tov
xédopov Tobrov, ‘‘ we are the so-called principles of this world.” The opinion
that the compound has been weakened into the general signification rulers *
is not susceptible of proof, and not to be supported by such Rabbinical
passages as Bresh. rabba, sect. 58 f., 57. 1: ‘‘ Abrahamus persecutus quatuor,
‘Abraham having persecuted the four,’ xooyoxpdropac,”” where xoopoxpar. de-
notes the category of the kings, and this chosen designation has the aim of
glorifying. See also, in opposition to this alleged weakening, Shir. R. 8,
4: ‘+The xoopoxpdropec are three kings : dominates ab ertremitate mundi ad
ettremitatem ejus, Nebucadnezar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar,” ‘‘ruling from
one extremity of the world to the other, Nebuchadnezar, Evilmerodach,
Belsazar.”” — pic rd mvevparixa rig rovnpiac] against the spirit-hosts of wick-
edness. The adjective neuter, singular or plural, is collective, compre-
hending the beings in question according to their qualitative category as a
corporate body, like rd wodctixdv, the burgess-body ; ° rd immxéy, the cavalry ;° ra
Anorpixd, the robbers," ra dovAa, ra aizuddwra x.7.4.° Winer, p. 218, correctly
compares r@ daruévea according to its original adjectival nature. — ri¢ rovnpiac]
genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘of quality,” characterizing the spirit-hosts meant;
érecdy yap eioe Kai ot ayyeAoe rvebyata, mpoctOnxe THE wovnpiag, ‘for since
the angels also are spirits, he added rie rovnpiac,”” Theodoret. Moral wicked-
ness is their essential quality ; hence the devil is pre-eminently 6 rovqpéc.
The explanation spirituales nequitias, ‘‘ spiritual wickedness,” ° is impossible,
since, if rd mvevparixd expressed the quality substantively and raised it to
the position of subject,'? we should have to analyze it as: the spiritual
nature, or the spiritual part, the spiritual side of wickedness, all of which
are unsuitable to the context. — é roi¢ éxovpaviog] Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Photius, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Castalio, Camerarius, Heinsius, Clarius,
Calovius, Glass, Witsius, Wolf, Morus, Flatt, and others incorrectly render:
Jor the heavenly possessions, so that it would indicate the object of the con-
flict, and év would stand for#rép ordi4. Against this view we may urge not
the order of the words, since in fact this element pushed on ¢o theend would
be brought out with emphasis," but certainly the év, which does not mean on
account of,* and ra éxovpdvia, which in our Epistle is always meant in a local

! See Schoettgen, Horas, p. 790; Buxtorf, * Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Clarius, Zeger,
Lez. Talmud. p. 2006 f.; Wetstein, p. 250. Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and others.

9 Iren. {. 1. 10 See Matthiae, p. 004; Kdahbner, II.
§ Fabricius, Pseudepigr. i. p. 1047. p. 122.

4 Harless. 33 Kithner, IT. p. 625.

® Herod. vil. 108. 13 Where It is rendered so according to the
© Rev. ix. 16. approximate sense, the analysis follows
¥ Polyaen. v. 14, 141. another course. See on Matt. vi. 7; John

® See Bernhardy, p. 83. xvi. 80; Acts vil. 20; 2 Cor. ix. 4.

540 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

sense (see oni. 3). The view of Matthies is also incorrect, that it denotes
the place where of the conflict : ‘‘in the kingdom of heaven, in which the
Christians, as received into that kingdom, are also constantly contending
against the enemies of God.” 1a érovpéva does not signify the kingdom of
heaven in the sense of Matthies, but the hearenly regions, heaven. Rickert,
too, is incorrect, who likewise understands the place where of the conflict,
holding that the contest is to be sustained, as not with flesh and blood, so
also not upon the same solid ground, but away in the air, and is thus most
strictly mars iniquus, ‘‘an unequal war.” Apart from the oddness of this
thought, according to it the contrast would in fact be one not of terrestrial
and superterrestrial locality, but of solid ground and baseless air, so that Paul in
employing év roi¢ éxovpav. would have selected a quite inappropriate designa-
tion, and must have said éyrgaép:. Baumgarten-Crusius gives us the choice
between two incorrect interpretations : the kingdom of spirits, to which the
kingdom of Christ too belongs, or the affairs of that kingdom. The correct
connection is with ra mvevyarixa rij¢ movnpiac, 80 that it expresses the seat of
the evil spirits.! This ‘‘in the heavenly regions” is not, however, in accord-
ance with the context, to be understood of the abode of God, of Christ, and
of the angels (ili. 10) ;? but, according to the popular view (comp. Matt. vi.
26)—in virtue of the flexible character of the conception ‘‘ heaven,” which
embraces very different degrees of height (compare the conception of the
seven heavens, 2 Cor. xii. 2)— of the superterresirial regions, which, although
still pertaining to the domain of the earth’s atmosphere, yet relatively appear
as heaven, so that in substance ra éxovpdévia here denotes the same as 6 agp,
by which at ii. 2 the domain of the Satanic kingdom is accurately and prop-
erly designated.* This passage serves as a guide to the import of ours,
which is wrongly denied by Hahn ‘ on the basis of an erroneous interpreta-
tion of afp, ii. 2. According to the Rabbins, too, the lower of the seven
heavens still fall within the region of the atmosphere.* And the reason why
Paul does not here say év ro afp: is, that he wishes to bring out as strongly
as possible the superhuman and superterrestrial nature of the hostile spirits,
for which purpose to name the air, as the place of their dwelling might be
less appropriate than to speak of the heavenly regions, an expression which

1 So Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Luther, Beza,
Calvin, Vatablus, Estius, Grotius, Erasmus
Schmid, Bengel, Koppe, and many, includ-
ing Usterl, Meijer, Holzhausen, Harless,
Ojshausen, de Wette, Bleek.

2In opposition to Hahn, Zheol.d. N. 7.
I. p. 345.

2 Comp. Philippi, Glaudensi. IIT. p. 800 f.
Pradentius has already, amartigenia, 518
ff.,in a poetic paraphrase of our passage,
correctly apprehended the meaning:

“Sed cum spiritibus tenebrosis nocte
dieque

Congredimur, quorum dominatibus humi-
dus iste

Et pigris densus nebulis obtemperat aér.

Scilicet hoc medium coelum inter et infima
terrae,

Quod patet ac vacuo nubes suspendit
hiatu,

Frena potestatum variarum sustinet ac
sub

Principe Belial rectoribus horret Iniquis.

His conluctamur praedonibus, ut sacra
nobis

Oris apostolici testis sententia prodit.”

Comp. Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 144. — Ao-
cording to Aecens. Isa. 10, it is the frma-
mentum, in which the devil dwells.

4 Thea. d. N.T. 1. p. 336 f.

* See Wetstein, ad 2 Cor. xii 2.

CHAP. VL, 13. 541
entirely accords with the lively coloring of his picture.! Semler and Storr,
ignoring this significant bearing and suitableness of the expression, have
arbitrarily imported a formerly, as though the previous abode of the demons
had any connection with the matter ! Schenkel has even imported the irony
of a paradox, which has the design of making the assumption of divine
power and glory on the part of the demons ridiculous, as though anything
of the sort were at all in keeping with the whole profound seriousness of
our passage, or could have been recognized by any reader whatever! Hof-
mann finally? has, after a rationalizing fashion, transformed the simple
direct statement of place into the thought : ‘‘ not limited to this or that
locality of the earthly world, but overruling the same, as the heavens encir-
cle the earth.” The thought of this turn so easily made, Paul would have
known how to erpress—even though he had but said : ra dvra we év roig érov-
paviog, or more clearly : ra dvra tavrayov bd Tév ovpavév. The absence of a
connective article is not at all opposed to our interpretation, since ra zvev-
para tHe Tovnpiac év Toi¢ évovpaviong might the more be combined into one
idea, as it was the counterpart of such spirits upon earth. Comp. roi¢
mAovoio év TH viv aiavt, 1 Tim. vi. 17, and see on ii. 11, iii. 10. [See Note LIX.,
p. 557 seq.] — The rpéc, four times occurring after 4224, has rhetorical em-
phasis, as it needed to be used but once.*— As at ii. 2, so here also, Gnos-
ticism is found by Baur in expression and conception, because, forsooth,
Marcion and the Valentinians designated the devil as the xooyoxpdrwp, and
the demoniac powers as ra mvevuarixad ti¢ tovnpiac.4 This is the inverting
method of critical procedure.

Ver. 13. Ard rovro} because we have to fight against these powers. —
avaddBere| the usual word for the taking up of armor.’ The opposite : xara-
ridnus. — avtiorzva:| namely, the assaults of the demons. —év ri jutpa ri
rovnpi] The evil day means here, according to the context, neither the
present life,* nor the day of death,* nor the day of judgment ;* nor yet, as
most expositors suppose, in general, the day of conflict and of peril, which the
devil prepares for us,° for every day was such, whereas the evil day here man-
ifestly appears as a peculiar and still future day, for the conflict of which the
readers were to arm themselves. Hence also not : erery day, on which the
devil has special power ;° but the emphatic designdtion 7 yuépa 4 rovnpd

! Entirely uncalled for, therefore, and
less In keeping with the coloring of the
passage, would be the alteration already
discussed in Photius, Quaest. AmphUoch., 94,
whereby, namely, rives had changed the
ézovpamas into vVrovpaviots—a conject-
ure approved by Erasmus, Beza, and
Grundling (in Wolf). Luther, who trans-
lates ‘* under the heaven,”’ probably did so,
not as taking é» for vré,—like Alting subse-
quently (in Wolf),—but dy way of erplanc-
tion. Already in Homer ovpavde is, as is
well known, employed of the higher region
of air (under the firmament). See Nagels-
bach, Hom. Theol. p. 19.

* Schrifibeweis, I. p. 455.

®Comp. Dem. 812, 7: wpds wai8er, wpds
yuvaccey, mpos twr Orrwy pir ayadwr, Winer,
p. 874; Buttmann, Neutest. Gramm. p. 841
[E. T. 896).

4 Tren. 1. 5. 4, 1. 28. 2.

6 See Kypke and Wetstein.

* Chrysostom, Oecumenius, who at the
same time believed Spayip ray rov woAcnou
xaipov, ‘* the brief time of the battle,”’ to be
hinted at.

7 Erasmus Schmid.

8 Jerome.

*So also Rickert, Harless, Matthies,
Meier, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
Wette, Bleek.

1° Bengel, Zacharilae, Olsbausen.

542 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
could suggest to the reader only a single, xar’ éfox#v, ‘‘pre-eminently,” morally
evil, day well known to him, and that is the day in which the Satanic power
(6 Tlovypsc) puts forth its last and greatest outbreak, which last outbreak of
_ the anti-Christian kingdom Paul expected shortly before the Parousia.'
[See Note LX., p. 558.] Comp. also the éveorac aidy wovypdc, Gal. i. 4, and
the remark thereon. —xai a@ravra xarepyacduevo: aryva] This orgva: corre-
sponds to the preceding avriorjvac, of which it is the result; and in the
midst, between avrioriva: and or#va, lies amavra xatepyac. : ‘‘ to withstand in
the evil day, and, after you shall have accomplished all things, to stand.” The
latter expression is the designation of the victor, who, after the fight is fin-
ished, is not laid prostrate, or put to flight, but stands. What is meant by
a&wavra, is necessarily yielded by the connection, namely, ererything which
belongs to the conflict in question, the whole work of the combat in all its parts
and actions. The «arepyéfeo0az retainsits ordinary signification peragere,
conficere consummare, ‘‘to achieve, accomplish, complete,” ? and is not, with
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Camerarius, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Kypke,
Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, and
others, to be taken in the sense of debellare, overpower, in which sense it is,
like the German abthun and ntedermachen and the Latin conficere, usual
enough,‘ but is never so employed by Paul—frequently as the word occurs
with him—or elsewhere in the N. T., and here would only be required by
the text, if awavrac were the reading.° De Wette objects to our interpreta-
tion as being tame. This, however, it is not, and the less so, because xarep-
yafec0a is the characteristic word fora great and difficult work,* and aravra
also is purposely chosen." To be rejected also is the construction of Erasmus,
Beza,* Calixtus, Morus, Rosenmiiller, and others : ‘‘ omnibus rebus probe com-
paratis ad pugnam,” ‘‘all things being well prepared for the battle.” * This
would be sapaoxevacdyevo: (1 Cor. xiv. 8), and what a redundant thought
would thus result, especially since orjvac would then be not at all different
from avticr#vac ! Lastly, the translation of the Vulgate, which is best at-
tested critically ; in omnibus perfecti, ‘‘in all things perfect,” ” is not to be re-
garded, with Estius, as the sense of our reading, but expresses the reading
xatetpyacuévot, Which is, moreover, to be found in a vitiated form (xarepyac-
pévor) incodex A. Erasmus conjectured a corruption of the Latin codices.
Ver. 14. In what manner they accordingly, clad conformably to the preced-
ing requirement in the zavordia rov Oecd, are to stand forth. —orjre] is not
again, like the preceding orjva, the standing of the victor, but the standing

1 See Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 848 ff.

2 Comp. Xen. Anab. i. 10. 1.

* Comp. van Hengel, ad. Rom. I. p. 208.

* See Kypke, IT. p. 801.

®§ Koppe felt this, hence he viewed aravra
as masculine, in accordance with Kypke's
proposal! Even in those passages which
Kypke adduces for carepydgeodat wavrta, in-
stead of xarepy. ravras, wavra {is to be left in
the neuter sense, and «xarepy. 1s to complete, to
execute, Freely, but correctly in accord-
ance with the sense, Luther renders:

“that ye may perform all well, and keep
the field.”

* Herod. v. 24; Plato, Legg. ili. p. 686 E,
al. ; and see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 107.

7 AU without exception; seo Valckenaer,
Schol. I. p. 889.

8 Who proposes this explanation along-
side of the rendering prostratia, “ over-
thrown,”’ and is inclined to regard it as the
better one.

® Bengel.

10 Comp. Lucifer, Ambrosiaster, Pelagtus.

CHAP. VI., 15. 543

Sorth of the man ready for the combat. Besides Isa. lix. 17, Wisd. v. 17 ff.,
see also Rabbinical passages for the figurative reference of particular
weapons to the means of spiritual conflict, in Schoettgen, Horae, p. 791 £. —
repilwoauevo: Ti Gogby] having your loins girt about. Comp. Isa. xi. 5. For
the singular r. o0¢., comp. Eur. Electr. 454 : rayvrdpoc dda [quick of foot],
and see Elmsley, ad Eur. Med. 1077. The girdle or belt 'is first mentioned by
the apostle, because to have put on this was the first and most cssential re-
quirement of the warrior standing armed ready for the fight ; to speak of a
well-equipped warrior without a girdle is a contradictio in adjecto, for it was
just the girdle which produced the free bearing and movement and the nec-
essary attitude of the warrior. Hence it is notto be assumed, with Harless,
that Paul thought of the girdle as an ornament, Comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. — év aAy-
6eiaj}instrumental. With truth they are tobe girt about, z.e., truth isto be their
girdle, Comp. Isa, xi. 5. As for the actual warrior the whole aptus habitus,
‘¢ prepared state,” for the combat (this is the tertium comparationis, ‘‘ point of
comparison”), would be wanting in the absence of the girdle ; so also for the
spiritual warrior, if he is not furnished withtruth. From this it is at once
clear that aA7Jeca is not to be taken objectizely, of the gospel, which, on the con-
trary, is only designated later, ver. 17, by pjyza Oeov-; but subjectively, of truth
as inward property, 7.¢., harmony of knowledge with the objectivetruth given in
the gospel. The explanation sincerity* is, as expressive only of a single virtue,
according to the context too narrow (compare the following dixaosivy, riots
x.7.A.), and the notion, moreover, would merge into that of the following
éixaoobvy, an objection which applies likewise to the explanation Christian in-
tegrity.*— rv Udpaxa tic dtxaioo.| Genitivus appositionis, ‘‘appositive geni-
tive.”* As the actual warrior has protected the breast, when he ‘‘ 6dpyxa repi
or#Gecary Eduvev,” ‘‘ has put the plate about the breast,” so with you dixasooiry
isto be that, which renders your breast (heart and will) inaccessible to the
hostile influences of the demons, dixacoctvy is here.Christian moral ree-
titude (Roni. vi. 13), inasmuch as, justified through faith, we are dead to sin
and laveév xacvéryte CwH ¢ (Rom. vi. 4). Harless and Winzer understand
the righteousness by faith, by which, however, inasmuch as this righteousness is
given with faith, the @upedc rig miotrws, subsequently singled out quite spe-
cially, isanticipated. [See Note LXI., p. 558.] As previously the intellect-
ual rectitude of the Christian was denoted by aA/6e:a, so here his moral rec-
titude by dixacocivn.

Ver. 15. And the service which the trodguara, the military sandals,* ren-
der to the actual warrior, enabling him, namely, to advance against the
enemy with agile and sure step, the éro:uacia rov evayyediov rH¢ eipyvnc is to
render to you spiritual warriors, inasmuch as by virtue of it you march
briskly and firmly against the Satanic powers.—tmodjodpevo x.t.A.] having

1 (uorip, covering the loins and the part 3 Morus, Winzer.
of the body below the breastplate, also 4 Comp. 1 Thess. v.8; Wisd. v. 19; Soph.
called gory, Jacobs, ad Anthol, VIII. p. 177, 0. BR. 170: dpovri8os éyxos.
not to be confounded with geua, the lower § Xen. Angad. iv. 5. 14 [Josephus, B. J, vi.
part of the coat of mail. 1. 8] (catigae, compare the Heb. {i), Isa.
* Calvin, Boyd, Estius, Olshausen, Bis- {x.4; sre Gesenius, Thes. II. 982; Bynaeus,
ping, and others. de cale. Hebr. pp 83 ¢.

544 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

your feet underbdound with the preparedness of the gospel of peace. év does not
stand for cic,’ but is instrumental, as in ver. 14, so that the éro.asia is con-
ceived of as the foot-clothing itself. Beza well remarks: ‘‘non enim vult nos
docere dumtaxat, oportere nos esse calceatos, sed calceos etiam, ut ita
loquar, nobis praebet,” ‘‘ For he does not wish only to teagh us that we
ought to be shod, but. so to say, offers us the very sandals.” — érocpagia’
is preparedness,* whether it be an outward standing ready,‘ or an inward
being ready, promptitudo animi, ‘‘ readiness of mind.” So LXX. Ps. x. 17,
comp. éroiun 1 xapdia, Ps. lvii. 7, cxil. 7, where the LXX. indicate the notion
of a prepared mind, which is expressed in Hebrew by forms of the stem j13,
by the use of éroizacia and évorpos, following the signification of making
ready, adjusting, which }1> has in all the conjugations of it which occur
(Deut. xxxii. 6 ; Ps. viii. 4; Gen. xliii. 16 ; Prov. xix. 29; Neh. viii. 10;
Ps. lix. 5), alongside of the signification of laying down, establishing, from
which the former one is derived. Hence the LXX. translate }13) too® by
évotpacia ; not as though in their usage éroiacia signified foundation, which
it never does, but because they understood }13'D in the sense of érotuacia. So
Ezra ii. 68, where the house of God is to be erected upon 77 érotuaciav
aurov, upon the preparation thereof, i.e, upon the foundation already lying
prepared. So also Ezra iii. 3; Ps. Ixxxix. 15 ; Dan. xi. 20,21. Wrongly,
therefore, have Wolf (after the older expositors), Bengel, Zachariae, Morus,
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Bleek, and others, explained .éroruacia by fun-
damentum or firmitas, ‘‘ foundation or firmness ;” so that Paul is supposed
to indicate ‘‘vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem
adeo ipsam, certam illam quidem et fundamento, cui insistere possis, simi-
lem,” ‘* either constancy in keeping the religion of Christ, or that very relig-
ion itself, like a foundation whereon you can stand,” Koppe. This is not
only contrary to linguistic usage (see above), but also opposed to the con-
text, since the notion does not suit the figurative conception of putting on
shoes (irodyodu.). It is the readiness, the ready mind ; not, however, jor
the proclamation of the gospel,* —since, in fact, Paul is speaking to fellow-
Christians, not to fellow-teachers,—but the promptitudo, ‘‘ readiness "—and
that for the conflict in question—tvhich the gospel bestows, which is produced
by means of it. So Oecumenius (who has this interpretation alongside the
former one), Calvin, Castalio, and others, including Matthies, Holzhausen,
Harless, Olshausen, Winzer, de Wette, Schenkel. The explanation of
Schleusner : ‘‘instar pedum armaturae sit vobis doctrina salutaris . . . quae

1 Vulgate, Erasmus, Vatablus, and
others.

2 With classical writers ¢rocudrys, Dem.
1268. 7, but see also Hippocr. p. 2, 47.

3 In Wisd. xili. 12 it means making ready
(food). The Vulg. translates it in our pas-
sage in praeparatione (comp. Artemid.
ii. 57).

4 Josephus, Antt. x. 1.2: 8&ayxtAtous ex ris
€M0i Wapovons iwmous eis ETOaciay Uuiy wapé-
Xety €rotmos cic, ‘Tam ready to afford you

two thousand cavalry of that of mine pres-
ent.”’

® Foundation, as Ps. 1xxxix. 15.

* So, in some instances with a reference
to Isa. lii. 7, Chrysostom, Oecumentus, Pe-
lagius, Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Clarius,
Cornelius & Lapide, Erasmus Schmid, Es-
tius, Grotius, Calovius, Calixtus, Michaelis,
and others, including Rfickert, Meier,
Baumgarten-Crusius.

CHAP. VI., 16. 545

cobis semper in promptu sit,” ‘‘ Let the saving doctrine be to you like an
equipment of the feet which may always be in readiness,” is to be rejected on
account of ver. 17, according to which the gospel is the sword. — ri¢ eipfvne]
Subject-matter of the gospel, and that purposely designated in harmony with
the context. For the gospel proclaims peace xar’ é£oxqv, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” 7.¢.,
the inner peace with God, Rom. v. 1, Phil. i. 20, and produces precisely there-
by consecration of courageous readiness for the conflict in question (Rom. viii.
81, 88, 39). At variance with the context, Erasmus, Paraphr., makes it:
‘‘evangelium, quod non tumultu, sed tolerantia tranquillitateque defenditur,”
‘‘the gospel which is defended, not by tumult, but by tolerané¢e and tran-
quillity ;”? and Michaelis holds: the peace between Jews and Gentiles is
meant. If, however, it is taken, with Koppe and Morus, in accordance
with the more extended sense of pio (comp. Rom. x. 15), the salvation-
bringing (rather : the salration-proclaiming, comp. i. 18) gospel, this is
done without any justification from the text, and to the injury of the special
coloring of the several particulars. Winzer, finally, contrary to the unity
of the sense, combines peace with God and everlasting salvation.

Ver. 16. ’Exi rao] not: before all things,’ but : in addition toall.* By
the three pieces previously mentioned, vv. 14, 15 (which were all made fast
to the body), the body is clothed upon for warlike purposes ; what is still
wanting, and must be added to all that has preceded, is shield, helmet,
sword, vv. 16, 17. — rov Supedv] Supedc, Which Polybius mentions and more
fully describes as the first part of the Roman ravor2ia (vi. 23. 2 f£.), is, with
Homer, that which is placed in front of the doorway and blocks the entrance, *
and only with later writers ‘* is the shield,* and that the scutum, the large
shield, 4 fect in length and 24 feet in width, as distinguished from the
small round buckler, clypeus,aozic.® Paul does not say aovic, because he is rep-
resenting the Christian warrior as heavy-armed. — rig riorewe] Genitivus appo-
sitionis, ‘‘ appositive genitive,” as ri¢ dtxatooivyc, ver. 14. The faith, however,
is not the faith of miracles,” but the jides salcijfica, ‘‘saving faith” (ii. 8), by:
which the Christian is assured of the forgiveness of his sins on account of the
sacrificial death of Christ, and at the same time is assured of the Messianic
blessedness (i. 7, ii. 5 ff., iii. 12), has the Holy Spirit as the earnest of ever:
lasting life (i. 18, 14), and consequently has Christ in the heart (ii. 17; Gal..
ii. 20), and as child of God (i. 5; Rom. viii. 15 f.; Gal. iv. 5 ff.) under the
government of grace (Rom. viii. 14) belongs so wholly to God (Rom. vi.
11 ; comp. 1 John iii. 7 ff.), that he cannot be separated by anything from
the love of God towards him (Rom. viii. 38) ; and on his part is consecrated
only to the service of God (i. 4 ; Rom. vii. 4, 6, vi. 22), and hence through
God carries off the victory over the power of Satan opposed to God (Rom.

1 Luther, Castalio, Michaclis, and others. ® See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 386, and Wet-

2 Comp. Luke iil. 20; Polyb. vi. 23.12: «xt ~— stein, ad loc.
8 wact TovTOLS MpogemicoTMOUYTaL wrepire *See Lipstus, de milit. Rom. Ill. 2 ed.
oreddve, ‘In addition to all these, they are Plant. 1614, p. 106 ff.; Alberti and Kypke
adorned with a feather garland." See in doc.; Ottil Spicileg. p. 409 f. Comp. the
Wetstein, ad Lue. xvi. 26; Matthiae, p. 1371. Homeric caxos and the Hebrew ny.

3 Od. Ix. 240, 213. 7 Chrysostom.

¢ Plutarch, Strabo, etc.

35

D416 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHFSIANS.

xvi. 20; 2 Thess, iii. 3). Only wavering faith is accessible to the devil (2
Cor. xi. 3; comp. 1 Pet. v. 8, 9). — év @] by means of which, i.e., by holding
it in front. —dvvfoecd<] for the conflict in question is future. See on vv.
12, 13. — row xovnpoi:] of the morally evil one xar’ éoyx7, ‘* pre-eminently,”
i.e., the devil ; 2 Thess. iii. 3; Matt. v. 37, vi. 13, xiii. 19, 38 ; John xvii.
15; 1 John v. 19. —ra' rerepwpéva] those set on fire, the burning ones.2 The
malleoli are meant, i.e., arrows tipped with inflammable material (tow, pitch)
and shot off after being kindled, which, known also to the Hebrews (see
expositors on Ps. vii. 14), were in use among the Greeks and Romans, and
are to be distinguished from the javelins of the same kind.* For the de-
scription of the malleoli, see Ammian. Marcell. xxiii. 4 ; and see, in gen-
eral, Lydius, Agonist. p. 45, de re mil. p. 119, 315 ; Spanheim, ad Julian.
Orat. p. 193. Pvisoned arrows ‘ are not meant,* since these ave not on fire
(xervpwyéva), but ercite a fire (inflammation). The aim of the predicate, we
may add, is to present in strong colors the hostile and destructice character
of the Satanic assaults ; but more special explanations of its import, such
as of the burning desires excited by Satan,‘ or of doubts and of the anguish of
despair’ are inappropriate ; and the more so, inasmuch as in the whole con-
text the apostle is speaking of diabolic assaults in general, not of particular
kinds thereof. — oféca:] The shields of the Greeks and Romans were as a
rule of wood, with a thick coating of leather.* So Paul conceives of faith
under the figure of such a shield, which not only prevents the missiles from
injuring the warrior, but also by reason of its coating brings it about that
these do not set on fire the wood of the shield, but must needs be themselves
extinguished, so that thus the warrior, by holding the shield in front of him,
can quench the fiery arrows. :

Ver. 17. We have to prefix not a full stop, as is done by Lachmann and
Tischendorf, seeing that ver. 18 has reference to the whole from orjre on-
ward, vv. 14-17 (see on ver. 18), but only acomma. Paul, namely, passes over
from the participial construction into that of the cerbum finitum, ‘‘finite verb,”
as at i. 20,—a change to which he was drawn by the increasing vivacity of
his figurative conception, which, moreover, induced him now to prefix the
object (reptxepadaiay and pudayatpav, ver. 17). —In natural sequence he brings
forward jirst the taking of the helmet, and then that of the sword ; because
the left hand slready grasps the shield (ver. 16), and thus after the taking
of the sword there is no hand free. — rov owrypiov] again genitive of apposi-
tion. The salvation, i.e., the salvation xar’ efox7v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the sal-
cation of the Messianic kingdom, of which the Christian is partaker (Gefore the

1 The article implies that Satan discharges
other arrows besides burning ones. See
Kfihner, ad Xen. Anabd. iv. 6. 1.

2 Comp. Apollod. Bids. ii. 5.2; Leo, Tact.
Xv. 27, ed. Heyn.; also wvpddpor diorot in
Thuycd. fi. 75. 4; BéAn wupddépa, Diod. xx.
96; Zosim. Hist. p. 256, 2.

® Falaricae, see Vegetius, iv. 8.

4 Od. 1. 260 f.; Virg. Aen. ix. 778; Ps.
xxxviil. 3; Jobvi. 4; and see Lyd. de re mil.

p. 118.

* As supposed by Royd, Hammond, Bo-
chart.

* Chrysostom, Theophylact ; comp. Oecn-
menius.

7 Boyd.

8 Hom. Jl. v. 452; Herod. vii. 91; Polyb.
ic.; Plin. villi. 39; and see, in general,
Lipsius, de milit. Rom. ili. 2, p. 109 ff.

CHAP. VI., 17. 547
Parousia, as an ideal possession, Rom. viii. 24'), serves, appropriated in his
consciousness, to protect him against the assaults of the devil aimed at his
everlasting life, like the helmet, which defends the warrior from deadly
wounds on the head.?' For the use of cwr#prov as a substantive, comp.
Luke ii. 20, iii. 6 ; Acts xxviii. 28 ; frequently met with in the classics and
the LXX.;sce Schleusner, Thes. sub voce. Neither Christ Himsely’* nor the gos-
pel‘ is meant. It is true that the word curfprov is not elsewhere used by
Paul ; but here it is explained as a reminiscence from the LXX. Isa. lix. 17.
— dt£acte] receive, namely, from God (ver. 13), who offers you this helmet.—
ri paxatpay Tov mveiparoc] The genitive cannot here be appositional,* since
there follows the explanation 6 éort Ajua Ocov, from which it is clear that the
sword of the Spirit is not the Spirit itself, but something distinct there-
from, namely, the word of God (comp. Heb. iv. 12).* If Paul had wished to
designate the Spirit itself as sword, the explanation 6 éor: pjua Geo would
have deen inappropriate, inasmuch as the word of God and the Holy Spirit
are different things ;7 in Romans, too, rvevua means nothing else than the
Holy Spirit. The pdyzarpa rov rveby. is the sword, which the Holy Spirit fur-
nishes (comp. riyv ravordiav tov Oeov, vv. 11, 18), and this sword is the word
of God, the gospel (comp. on v. 26), the contents of which the Spirit brings
vividly to the consciousness of the Christian, in order that he may defend
himself by the divine power of the gospel (Rom. i. 16) against the assaults
of the diabolic powers, and may vanquish them, as the warrior wards off
and vanquishes the enemy with the sword. Limitations of the fjya Ocoi,
either to the commandments of God,* or to the divine threatenings against the
enemies of the Christians,*® arc as arbitrary and inappropriate as is the ex-
plaining rod rvetparos of the human spint,” or by xvevparixzv,” which, accord-
ing to Grotius, is to serve ‘‘ molliendis translationibus,” ‘‘for rendering the
transfers less abrupt,” but yet would have again to be explained by ;ow
aveiuatoc in the sense of the Holy Spirit. — 6 éor:] applying, according to
the ordinary attraction, to tiv péyaipayv. Olshausen, in accordance with his
erroneous conception of rov rvebyaroc, refers it to the latter. So already
Basil, contr. Hunom. 11, who proves from our passage that not only the
Son, but also the Spirit is the Word !

REMARK ON vv. 14-17.—In the exposition of these several portions of the ar-
mor of the spiritual warrior, it is just as unwarrantable to press the compari-

1 Hence Paul in 1 Thess. v. 8 gays: wepsxe-
daraiay ¢Awiéa cernpies, which, however,
does not justify in our passage the expla-
nation hope of salvation, given to it by Caje-
tanus, Calvin, Zanchius, Boyd, Estius,
Grotius, Calixtus, Michaelis, Rosenmiller,
Meler, Winzer, and others.

2 As to the Roman helmets, see Lipsius, de
mit. Rom. ill. 5, p. 122 ff.

> Theodoret, Bengel.

“ Holzhausen.

*In opposition to Hariess, Olshausen,
Schenkel, and older expositors.

* Comp. also Bleek.

TIt is true Olshausen observes that the
Word as to its inner essence is Spirit, as the
effiux of God the Spirit. But that is a guid
pro quo; for the word would not here be
termed Spiri/ (as John vi. 68), but the Spirit,
i.e., the Holy Spirit Himself. A like quid pro
quo is made by Schenkel, namely, that the
word of God is the most adequate expression
of the absolute Spirit (John iv. 2).

® Flatt.

* Koppe.

3° Morus, Rosenmiiller.
11 Grotius, Michaelis, and others; comp.
already Chrysostom and Erasmus.

548 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

sons, by pursuing the points of comparison into such particular details as it may
please us to select from the various uses of the pieces of armor in question
(an error which several of the older expositors committed),—whereby free room
is given for the play of subjectivity, and the vivid objective delineation of the
apostle’s figure is arbitrarily broken up,—as it is, on the other hand, arbitrary
to disregard the differences in the figures derived from military equipment,
and to say : “‘ universa potius armorum notio tenenda est,” ‘‘rather the entire
notion of arms must be retained ” (Winzer, lc. p. 14; comp. Morus, Rosen-
miller, and others). The esential characteristic—the specific main point—
whereby the pieces named are distinguished from each other in respect of that
for which they serve, must be furnished by the nature of the comparison with
the respective means of spiritual conflict ; so that Paul must have been con-
scious why he here designated, e.g., d:xacocvvy as the breastplate, faith as the
shield, etc., namely, inasmuch as he looked at the former really from the point
of view of the essential destination of the breastplate, the latter from that of
the essential destination of the shield, etc. Otherwise his representation would
be a play of figures, of which the separate images, so different in themselves,
would have no basis in the conception of what is represented. To this there is
nothing opposed in the fact that here dixa:oovvy appears as the breastplate,
while at 1 Thess. v. 8 it is faith and love which so appear ; for the figurative
mode of regarding the subject can by no means, with a mind so many-sided,
rich, and versatile as that of St. Paul, be so stereotyped that the very same
thing which he has here viewed under the figure of the protecting breastplate,
must have presented itself another time under this very same figure. Thus,
e.g., there appears to him, as an offering well-pleasing to God, at one time
Christ (Eph. v. 2), at another the gifts of love received (Phil. iv. 18), at another
time the bodies of Christians (Rom. xii. 1) ; under the figure of the seed-corn,
at one time the body becoming buried (1 Cor. xv. 36 f.), at another time the
moral conduct (Gal. vi. 7); under the figure of the leaven, once moral corrup-
tion (1 Cor. v. 6), another time doctrinal corruption (Gal. v. 9); under the fig-
ure of clothing which is put on, once the new man (iv. 24), another time Christ
(Gal. iii. 27), at another time the body (2 Cor. v. 3), and other similar in-
stances.

Ver. 18. After Paul has, vv. 14-17, placed before his readers in what
armor they are to stand forth, he shows yet further how this standing
ready for the combat must be combined with prayer: ‘‘ with prayer and
entreaty of every kind, praying at each moment in virtue of the Spirit.”
These are two parallel specifications of mode, whereof the second more pre-
cisely defines the first, and which stand in grammatical and logical connec-
tion with orfre ovv, ver. 14 ; not with the intervening déSaofe, ver. 17, which
rather is itself subordinate to the orre, and only by a deviation from the
construction has come to be expressed in the imperative instead of the par-
ticiple, wherefore orjre ody remains the precept ruling the whole deserip-
tion, vv. 14-17. Should we join them to défac6r, neither rdon¢e nor év ravri
xaip@ would be appropriate to this momentary act ; for we would, in fact,
be told not how the sword of the Spirit should be handled,’ but how it

¥ Olshausen. comp. Hariess: ‘the temper in which they are fo wield such weapons."

CHAP. VI., 18. 549
should be taken! An imperative signification ' the participle has not. — da
rdong mpocevy. Kk. defo.] is to be taken by itself, not to be joined to the fol-
lowing zpocevydu.,* since otherwise a tautological redundancy of expression
would arise (not to be confounded with the mode of expression rpocevzy
xpoccixecbar, Jas. v. 17),—arbitrarily conjectured by de Wette to have
been occasioned by Phil. iv. 6,—and because it is an impossibility to pray
dia wdong mpocevyye ev wayvri xapo.* ded here denotes ‘‘conditionem, in
qua locatus aliquid vel facias vel patiaris,” ‘‘a condition, fixed in which
you either do, or suffer something,” * i.¢., while ye employ every kind of prayer
end entreaty, omit no sort of prayer and entreaty. Those who join with
xpoceryou. take dia as by means of. But see above. The expression rao7¢
apoocevy. receives its elucidation from the following é ravi xa:p?, inasmuch
as to different circumstances of the time different kinds of prayer, as
respects contents and form, arc appropriate. mwpocevygs and déinoce are
distinguished not so, that the former applies to the obtaining of a blessing,
the latter to the averting of an evil ‘—a meaning which, quite without proof
from the linguistic usage of the single words, is derived merely from the
combination of the two ; but rather as prayer and entreaty, of which only
the former has the sacred character and may be of any tenor ; the latter, on
the other hand, may be addressed not merely to God, as here, but alzo to men,
and is supplicatory in tenor.*—év ravri xatpp] at every season, not merely
under special circumstances and on particular occasions. Comp. Luke xxi.
36. It is the adiazeitrwe rpooetyeofa:, 1 Thess. v. 17, ii. 13, i. 8 ; Rom. i. 9.
— év tveipari:] understood of the human spirit (Rom. viii. 10), would denote
the heartfelt prayer in contrast to the mere utterance of the lips.” But this
contrast was so obvious of itself, that such a description of prayer would be
quite out of place in the flow of the passage before us, accumulating, as it
does, simply clements that are specifically Christian. The Holy Spirit is
meant (ver. 17), by virtue of whom the Christian is to pray. See Rom.
vili. 15, 26 ; Gal. iv. 6. (See Note LXIL, p. 558.] — cai cig avrd aypuTy. x.1.A.]
attaches to the general mpocevyduevo: tv vw. x. év mv. something special,
namely, intercession, and that for all Christians, and in particular for the
apostle himself : and in that ye on this behalf are watchful in every kind of
perseverance and entreaty for all saints and for me, etc. According to de
Wette, cig avrd apy. is to be held as still belonging to the general exhorta-
tion to prayer, and év x. zpooxapr. x.r.A. to be the addition of a special ele-
ment, like év evyap., Col. iv. 2. But how idly would «. ei¢ avrd ayp. then be
used, seeing that the continual praying is already before so urgently ex-
pressed |! Moreover, xai betrays the transition to a new element of prayer.
— tig avté] in reference thereto, on behalf of this, namely, of the zpocrizecbas

1 Bleek. 4 Fritzeche, ad Rom. I. p. 188; Winer,
.2 So usually, as also by Rickert, Matthies, p. 889.

Tiarless, Bleek; not Meier and Baumgar- § Grotinus and many.

and

ten-Crusiaus.

® The case would be otherwise, and this
impossibility would not exist, if it were
raid: &a wdons wpocevyans x. bejc, aai ev w.
easpy.

*See Harless on the passage,
Fritzsche, ad Rom. IT. p. 872 f.

7 Castalto, Zanchius, Erasmus Schmid,
Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiler, and
others.

550 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

év wavti xaip@ év rvetpare just required. By atrd, namely, is denoted that
which is just being spoken of, and it is distinguished from airéd retro (the
Recepta) only in this respect, that the latter (comp. on Rom. ix. 17) desig-
nates the subject in question at the same time demonstratively, and so still
more definitely.’ According to Holzhausen,’ it has reference to iva poz dof}.
But in that case ei¢ rovro must have been written ; and, moreover, zepi
ravtuyv tov ayiwy would be from a logical point of view opposed to it. —i
zdoyn TpooxapT. kK. deyoet wTepi T. T. ay.) denotes the domain, wherein, etc. On
behalf of the required rpoceiyecha: they are to be watchful in ecery kind of
perseverance and entreaty for all saints. The mpooxaprépnoc is, uccording to
the context (and comp. Col. iv. 2), the perseverance in prayer, so that év =.
apoox. corresponds to the dia mde. tr pocevyye atthe beginning of the verse,
and then with «ai (év rdoy) defoe:, as there, the entreaty attaches itself, but
now with the more precise definition : epi ré.twv rev dyiwy, Which hence
belongs not to rpooxapr., but only to degoe, as, indeed, accordingly the lat-
ter may not be amalgamated with mpocxapr. into a év dia dvoiy. According
to Riickert, iv mda mpooxapr. x. deicec ts added, in order to be able to annex
nepi navt. t. ay. But in that case could not Paul have written merely ¢ic
auré aypury. wep wavr. 7. ay., and that without risk of being misunderstood ?
No, the év doy mpoox. x. defo., in itself not essential, gives to his discourse
the emphasis of earnestness and solemnity.* — mdoq] as previously zaoze.
Ver. 19. Kal imép éuov] wai: and in particular.‘ The special point
which, in connection with the intercession embracing all Christians, he
would have to be made matter of supplication for himsel/, is stated in what
follows. wuz ép expresses, as previously the epi in current use, the sense in
commodum, *‘ for the advantage of ; ” * and only the form of sensuous percep-
tion, which underlies the two prepositions, is different, as in the case of the
Germ. iber and um, comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18. It is wrongly assumed by
Harless that only i ép expresses in itself the relation of care for, and not
xepi. The notion of the latter—that of encircling—in fact sensuously em-
bodies such care ; hence with classical writers too, especially with Demos-
thenes, repi and iép are interchanged without any difference of sense, ¢.g.°
— iva po 600% «.7.A.] Aimof the xat bréip ézo0d, and consequently contents
of the intercession for the apostle (comp. on iii. 16): in order that utterance
may be given to me on the opening of my mouth, i.e., that there may not be
withheld from me by God, but may on the contrary be conferred, that
which I ought to speak when I open my mouth. That Paul means the
speaking with a view to the proclamation of the gospel, is from the context (see
ivy mappyo. yvup. x«.7.A.) clear. The emphasis, however, is upon do0@ 4%, to
which, in the sequel, év rappyoig significantly corresponds ; for this freedom

1 See on ver. 22; Kfihner, ad Xen. Afem. © PRil, il. p. 74. 85: ny wepi rep dicaior
fil. 10. 14; Stallb. ad Pigt. Rep. il. p. 362 D. und vrep twv to mpayparey elvar tay Bov-
3 Comp. Koppe. Anv, GAA’ Uwep rer ey ry xwpe, 10. 16: ov eps
Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Lue. p. Soéns ovd" umép pépovs ywpas wokexover, LEN.
xxxviil f. Mem. 1.1.17: 0 2ép rovrer wepi avrov wapay-
4 See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11, 713. vera, Thucyd. vi. 78. 1: vrdp ye ris uns xov-

®See Schaefer, App. ad Dem. I. p. 190; — Svvevacy, evOvpndirwd ov mepi THs euys paAAOP.
Buttmann, Jad. ad Mid. p. 183.

CHAP. VI., 19. 551
of speech is the consequence wished for by Paul from that bestowal. Comp.
Luke xxi. 15. As to avoiyecv rd orépa, which in itself represents
nothing else than the opening of the mouth to speak, comp. on Matt. v. 2 ;
2 Cor. vi. 11 ; on the substantive dvoc fcc, comp. Thuc. iv. 67. 8. The
expression is graphic, and has here something of a pathetic nature, without,
however, containing a qualitative feature of the discourse itself, not even the
character of unpremeditated utterance,’ which would have been expressed by
év avTQ TH avoiser Tov or., OF in asimilar significant way. This at the same
time in opposition to Calvin, Boyd, Zanchius, Michaelis, Zachariae, and
othcrs, including Koppe, Rickert, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius,
de Wette, Bleek, Schenkel, who explain: unresercedly, frankly, which
would have to be attached not to what follows (see below), but closely to
z.6yo¢, and thereby, again, the év zappyaia yrup. would be unwarrantably antic-
ipated. Following Bullinger, Calovius, Cornelius & Lapide, and others,”
Harless and Olshausen understand the dvoéi¢ tov oréuarng as the act of God,*
holding it to denote : the bestowed capacity of speaking in contrast toan earlier
bound state of the tongue. Paul would thus have said : ‘‘in order that utter-
ance may be given unto me through my mouth being opened.” But what
needless diffuseness of expression, since 609% 26;o¢ and dvoke¢ tov orduarog
would be just the same thing! Kypke and Koppe attach év aroigerrob or. u.
to what follows ; in which case Kypke regards év rappyoig as epexegesis of
avoiges t. or. u., and Koppe, following Grotius,‘ refers év zapp. to the outicard
frecdom ; ‘‘non vinculis constrictus in carcere latens,” ‘‘not bound by
chains, concealed in prison.” The latter explanation is logically erroneous,
since, thus understood, év zappyo. would be something quite other than the
dvasic tov orduarog, and thus could not be added by way of apposition, with-
out «ai ; and linguistically erroneous, since zappyoia never denotes outward
freedom, and here especially its signification of boldness is rendered clear by
the mappyordowpa: of ver. 20.° In opposition to Kypke, it may be urged
that an addition of so purely exegetical a character, as ev rapp. would be to
év avoig. Tr. ordu. u., would not be in keeping with the elevated style of the
discourse, which is not couched in anything like a didactic tone. Kdster,‘
with whom, in the main, Bleck agrees, attaches év avoif. r. ordu. u. to what
follows, and takes do6g 2éyo¢ in the well-known classical sense : to allow one
to come to speech, to let him speak ;" so that Paul is supposed to say : ‘‘ that

1Oecumenius;: év avrg ry avoigac 4 Acyos
wpoyer, * in the very opening, the word went
forth.”

* Grotius also regards the dvocfis rov ors-
watos as the act of God: “sic Deus labia
aperire dicitur, ubi materiam suppeditat
sibi gratias agendi, ‘ Thus God 1s said to
open the lips when he supplies the matter
for thanksgiving,’ Ps. li. 15," yet makes out
of it, after the Rabbinical MD PNND (sce
Capell. Spicile7. p. 112; Buxtorf, Lex. Talim.
Pp. 1872), oceasione (loquendi) data, ‘“ the op-
portunity to speak being given.’’ But the
sence, “opportunity lo speak,” could only

so be brought out in the event of the words
running thus: iva po 8009 dvocéis rov orépua-
TOS LOU.

3Comp. Ezek. fil. 27, xxix. 81, xxxfl. 22;
Ps. li. 17.

*“Ut abhac custodia militari liber per
omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem
evang.,”” ‘That free from this military
guard, I may carry the tidings of the gos-
pel throughout the entire city," etc.

® Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. II. in2 Cor. p.99f.

* In the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 317.

7 Dem. 2, 18; 27, 9; 508, 16; 1220, 20;
comp. Aéyov ruxeiv, 229, 18.

552 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

opportunity to speak may be given to me, namely, at the opening of my
mouth (that is, when I wish to speak) frankly to proclaim,” etc. But even
in this way év avoiger tov ordu. pov. would be only a needless and cumbrous
addition. — é» wappycia yvupioa x.t.A.] with frankness to make known the
mystery of the gospel, i.e., the mystery (see on i. 9) which forms the contents
of the gospel. The opportunity of preaching was not taken from the
apostle in his captivity at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), nor yet afterwards at
Rome (Acts xxviii. 30 f.). Should we attach é zapp. to what precedes,’
youpioa: Would be without a necessary modal definition.

Remarg.—If the Recepia dofein were genuine, the statement of aim, intro-
duced by iva, would be adduced from the mind of the persons praying, thus in
the character of the oratio obliqua. Seeon i. 17.

Ver. 20. For which (to conduct its cause) I discharge the office of am-
bassador in a chain. Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 20. It is to be explained neither
us though irép ob xpeofebur év dzioe: eiui, ‘for which discharging the office
of ambassador, I am in a chain,” *? were written, nor as though tizép ot xai
tv ddtoe: mpecetw, ‘for which and in a chain, I am discharging the office
of ambassador,” were the reading ;? nor is ov to be referred, as is usually
the case, merely to rot evayye2, but to rd. pvorypeov rod evayy., seeing
that this was the object of jvupica:, and to this jvwpica the xprcfeiw
significantly corresponds. Comp. Col. iv. 3: Aadgoa rd prorgpiay tom
Xpiorov, de & Kai dédepat. — tpeoBeiw] whose ambassador he is, was at once
understood by the reader, namely, Christ's; and equally so ¢o tckom his
embassy was addressed, namely, to all peoples, specially the Gentiles
(Acts ix. 15, xxii. 15; Rom. i. 14, xi. 13; Gal. ii. 9). The opinion
of Michaelis, that Paul designates himself as delegate of Christ to the
Roman court, would, even if he had written the Epistle in Rome, be im-
ported, since no reader could find anything clsc than the apostle denoted by
apeofetw without more precise definition. — év d2ice:] On éy, comp. phrases
like cic rv GAvow éurixrerv, Polyb. xxi. 3. 8. Wetstein, we may add, aptly
observes: ‘‘alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis
haberi non poterant,” ‘‘in other relations ambassadors sacred and inviolable
by the law of nations, could not be held in bonds.” To infer, however,
from the use of the singular ‘ the custodia militaris, ‘‘the military custody, ~
in which Paul was at Rome (Acts xxviii. 20 ; 2 Tim. 1. 16), is too hasty ;
partly for the general reason that the singular must by no means be urged.
but may be taken collectively,* and partly for the special reason that we have
to think of Paul at. Caesarea too, and that from the very beginning of his
captivity there (see on Acts xxiv. 23), asin the custodia militaris, ‘‘ mili-
tary custody ;” Actsxxiv. 27, xxvi. 29.° The significant bearing of the addi-

1 Vatablus: ‘‘ut detur mihi aperto ore gationem,” “now also I do not cease my
loqui Jibere, ut notum faciam,” “that it | embassy,”’ etc.
may be given me to speak freely with open 4 Baumgarten, Paley, Flatt, Steiger.
mouth, that I may make known,” etc. § Bernhardy, p. 68 f.

2 Zachariae, Rickert, Matthies. ¢ In the latter passage the plural swy Sern.

2 Grotius: “nunc quoque non desino le- = rovrwy is not at variance with this view, as

CHAP. VI., 2l. ddd
* tion éy dAtee: is to make palpable the so much greater need of the rappycia,
and so the more fully to justify the longing for the intercessory prayer of
the readers. — iva év avro rappyo. oc dei pe AaA.| Parallel to the iva po: do87. . .
evayyedlov, ver. 19, and indeed not tautological,’ but, by means of d¢ det pe
AadAjoat, more precisely defining the thought already expressed. As similar
paralicls by means of a second iva, comp. Rom. vii. 18 ; Gal. ii. 14 ; 1 Cor.
xii. 20 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8. Harless regards this second iva as subordinate to the
first. Thus the words would express not the aim on account of which Paul
summons his readers to prayer, as stated by Harless, but the aim of the dot
Adyoe x.t.A. But this would be inappropriate, since dol Adyo¢ x.1.A. has
already the definition of aim appropriate to it, namely, in év rapp. yvup.
x.7.4. Bengel and Meier make iva dependent on zpecBetu év adfoee (in which
case Meier imports the sense, as if the words were iva xai év avt® mapp.) ; but
the clause expressive of the aim : ‘‘in order that I may therein speak as
boldly as I am bound to speak,” does not logically correspond to the mpeo3eiw
éy ddice:, because without any reference to év dAioee. Had Paul mercly
written : iva rapprotdowua év aire (without we dei pe AaAgoa), by which the
nappya. would have become emphatic,* or : iva roAA@ maAAov rappys. Ev atTy,
the logical relation would be satisfied. — éy -airg] namely, in the mystery o/'
the gospel, i.e., occupied therewith, in the proclamation thereof." Comp.
Acts ix. 27. Harless understands év of the source or ground of the mappycia, :
which has its basis in the message itsclf [rather : in the mystery of the
gospel ; see on iép ov]. But the context represents the pvorgpiov rov evayy.
as the object of the bold discourse (ver. 19); and the source of the rappnoia is
in God (sec 1 Thess. ii. 2), which is not indeed here expressed, but is implied
in the fact that it is to be obtained for the apostle by prayer on the part of
the readers. — cc det ye AaAgoa:] to be taken together (comp. Col. iv. 4); and
after ye there is not to be put any comma, by which AcAgoa: would be con-
nected with xappyo.,‘—a course, which is impossible just because rappyo.
already expresses the bold speaking ; and thus AaAjoa:, if it were to be more
precisely defining, could not but of necessity have with it a modal definition
(comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2).°

Ver. 21. Aé] Serving to make the transition to another subject. — xai ipei¢]
ye also, not mcrely the Colossians, Col. iv. 8, 9.° While most of the older
expositors pass over this xai in silence,’ Riickert and Matthies strangely
enough think that it stands in contradistinction to the apostle himself. From
this there would in fact result the absurd thought : ‘‘in order that not only
I, but also ye may know how it fares with me.” — ra xar’ éué] my circum-
stances, my position, Phil. i. 22 ; Col. iv. 7.°— ri xpdoaw] more precise defini-
tion of ra car’ éué : what I experience. i.e., how it fares with me, how I find my-

itis rather the cafegoric plural, and leaves
the question entirely undecided, whether
Paul was bound with one or more chains.

1 In opposition to Harless.

2 This seems also to have been felt by
Bengel, who connected ws Se we Aad. with
yvwpioa, which oertainly could not occur
to any reader.

* Matthiae, p. 13842.

¢ Koppe.

& See Fritzsche, Diss. IT. in 2 Cor. p. 100 f.

¢ See Introd. § 2.

7 Rightly, however, explained {na gener-
al sense by Bengel: “perinde ut alii,”
** just as others."

® See Kiihner, II. p. 119.

5d4 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

self.' So often also in classical writers, ‘‘ de statu et rebus, in quibus quis
constitutus est et versatur,” ‘‘of the condition and affairs wherein any one
is placed and is occupied,” Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. 629.4 — Tizixoc] See Acts
xx.4; Col. iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 12. Beyond these passages unknown. —<é
ayamnrog adeAods xai mor. diax. ev xvp.} So Paul characterizes Tychicus by way
of commendation,* and that (a) as his beloved fellow-Christian, and (4) as his
faithful official servant. As the latter, he was employed by Paul for just
such journeys as the present. Comp. 2 Tim. iv.12. Mark likewise, accord-
ing to 2 Tim. iv. 11, receives from the apostle the testimony that he is for
him eiypyoros cig diaxoviav. Others, like Grotius (comp. Calvin), do uot re-
fer didxavoc to the relation to the apostle, but explain it : sercrant of the gospel
[minister evangelii], while Estius and many understand specially the ecclesi-
astical office of the deacon. But Col. iv. 7, where d:dxovag xai civdove0¢ are
united (the latter word softening the relation of service towards the apostle
expressed by d:dxovoc), speaks in favor of our view. — év xvpiw] belongs only
to didxovoc, not to adeAgéc as well (in opposition to Meier and Harless), since
only the former had need of a specific definition (comp. on Phil. i. 14), in
order to be brought out in its true relation (and not to bear the semblance
of harshness). Not beyond the pale of Christian relations was Tychicus ser-
cant of the apostle, but in Christ his service was carried on, Christ was the
sphere of the same, inasmuch as Tychicus was official didxovog of the apostle.
év xupiy is attached without an article, because combined with dedxcvog so as
to form one idea.

Ver. 22. "Exeuwa mpéc tudo] namely, that he should travel from Colossae
to you, Col. iv. 7-9.4 — ic ard rovro] in this very design.’ — iva yvore za zepi
yuav] must on account of cic avrd rovro necessarily convey the same thing as
was said by iva eidgre ra nar’ éué, ti mpdoow, ver. 21 ; hence the conjecture of
Rickert, iva yo re rad wepi tudy, is entirely baseless ; and at Col. iv. 8 also
we have, in accordance with preponderant evidence, to read iva yore Ta repi
juav. — By yuav Paul means himself and those that are with him (see Col. iv.
10 ff. ; Philem. 10 f., 23 ff.), concerning whom information was likewise
reserved for the report of Tychicus. — rapaxadatoy] might comfort. For Ty-
chicus had to tell of sufferings and afflictions which Paul must needs endure
(comp. ver. 20), and on account of them the readers were called yz éxxaxeiv,
ili. 13. Amplifications of the notion ° are arbitrary.

Ver. 23 f. Twofold wish of blessing at the close, in which, however, Paul
does not, as in the closing formulae of the other Epistles, directly address

1 Others, like Wolf: what I am doing. .
But ‘hat the reader knew. He was doing
the one thing, which always occupied him.
See vv. 19, 20.

2Comp. Ael. V. Z. il. 35, where the sick
Gorgias is asked ri wparra. Plato, Theael.
p. 174 B: Soph. Oed. R. 74; and see Wet-
stein and Kypke.

?The assumption of a more special de-
sign as regards morés, namely. that it is
meant to represent Tychicus asa éruatiworthy
reporter (Grotius), {s inadmissible, because

Tychicus without doubt was known to the
readers (Acts xx. 4). It was otherwise in
relation to the Colossians. See on Col.
iv. 7.

* See Introd. § 2.

5 See on ver. 18, and Bornemann, ad Xen.
Mem. ili. 12.2; Pflugk, ad Kur. Androm. 41.

* Rickert: ‘‘to elevate by address to
them of every kind ;’ Baumgarten-Crusius :
to strengthen ; comp. Estius, who proposes
exhortetur, ‘‘ to exhort.”

CHAP. VI., 23. 555
the readers (ye ipay, werd rdvrev tpov, peta Tov wvebpatog buov). This vari-
ation is to be regarded as merely accidental, and the more so, seeing that he
has in fact been just addressing his readers directly, and seeing that a ef’
vuay or the like would simply address the readers, as has so often been done
in the Epistle itself, leaving, we may add, the question, who these readers
ure, in itself wholly undetermined. For what is asserted by Grotius on ver.
24: ‘‘ Non Ephesios tantum salutat, sed et omnes in Asia Christianos,” ‘‘ He
salutes not only the Ephesians, but also all Christians in Asia,” is not implied
in roi¢ adeApoic—which, on the contrary, represents quite the simple iyiy, in-
asmuch as Paul conceives of the recipients of the Epistle in the third person.
According to Wieseler, p. 444 f., the apostle in ver. 23 salutes the Jewish
Christians (adeAg.), and in ver, 24 the Gentile Christians (+dvruv) in Ephesus.
Improbable in itself, more particularly in ¢his Epistle, which so carefully
brings into prominence the unity of the two ; and the alleged distinguish-
ing reference would neither be recognizable, nor in keeping with the apos-
tolic wisdom. — cip#vy] not concordia, ‘‘ harmony,” as recommended by Cal-
vin,’ but, as Calvin himself explains : eelfure, blessing, pido, without more
precise definition, because it takes the place of the calete (ppwofe, Acts xv.
29) at the close of our Epistle,? and because that special sense is not at all
suggested from the contents of the Epistle (comp. on the other hand, 2 Cor.
xiii. 11). — aydry wera ziorews| is one object of the wish for blessing, not
two. After the gencral fare well! namely, Paul singles out further the
highest moral element, which he wishes for his readers, He does not, how-
ever, write xai aya77 xai tiovi¢, because with good reason he presupposes faith
(in the atonement achieved by Christ) as already present, but has doubtless
to wish for them that which, as the constant life of faith, is to be combined
with it (1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. v. 6), Christian brotherly love, consequently lore
with faith (ayda77 has the emphasis, not pera rior.).2 Bengel and Meicr
understand the dizine love, to which, however, pera zior. is unsuitable,
although Meier explains it : in conformity with their own faith, partly at vari-
ance with linguistic usage,‘ partly importing a thought (their own). The
reading éieoc (instead of aydzy) is to be regarded simply as a glossematic
consequence of the explaining it of the divine love, and yet, though found
only in codex A, it is held by Riickert to be the true one (comp. Gal. vi.
16) ; Paul, he says, wishes to the readers eip#vn x. tAeoc for the reward (7) of
faith. — ard Geod warpd¢ x. xp. "I. X.] See on Rom. i. 7% Grotius, we may
add, rightly observes : ‘‘conjungit causam principem cum causa secunda,”

1“ Quia mox fit dilectionis mentio,” “* be-
cause afterwards there is mention of love ;”’
comp. also Theodore and Oecumenlus,

§ Hence also not to be explained of fhe,
peace of reconciliation (Bengel, Matthies,
Schenkel, and others), any more here than
in the opening salutations of the Epistle,
where it takes the place of the epistolary
saluien., ev wparrecy.

Comp. Plato, Phaed. p. 253 E: «dAdos
mera vyteias AauBdvey.

“nerd may, it is true, sometimes be ap-
proximately as to sense rendered by con-
Jormably to, but the analysis in those cases
issuch as does not suit our passage. See
e.g. Dem. ZLept. p. 490; Plato, Phaed. p. 66
B, where pera rev vouwry and pera rou Adyou
is to be explained, in connection with the
laws, eto., i.¢., with the aid of the same.
Comp. also Thucyd. fil. &. 5, and Kriiger in
loc, See in general, Bernhardy, p. 255.

556 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

‘‘HIe joins the first with the second cause.”' For Christ is exalted on the
part of God to the government of the world, and particularly to the Lord-
ship of the church (i. 22 ; Phil. ii. 9) ; and His dominion has in God, the
Head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 8), not merely its ground (comp. also Eph. i. 17),
but also its goal (1 Cor. ili. 23, xv. 28).

Ver. 24. While Paul has in ver. 23 expressed his wish of blessing for the
readers (roi¢ adeAgoic), he now annexes thereto a further such general wish,
namely, for all who love Christ imperishably, just as at 1 Cor. xvi. 22 he takes
up into the closing wish an avd@exza upon all those who do not love Christ.
—% xdpic] the grace xar’ éfoypy, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” ¢.¢e., the grace of God
in Christ. Comp. Col. iv. 18; 1 Tim. vi. 21; 2 Tim. iv. 22; Tit. iii.
15. In the conclusion of other Epistles: the grace of Christ, Rom. xvi.
20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 28; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Gal. vi. 18; Phil. iv. 23;
Thess. v. 28; 2 Thess. iii. 18; Phil. 25. — év agfapcig] belongs neither
1 to ‘Iycoty Xpioréy,* nor to 4 yxape,? nor yet to the sit, ‘‘be,” to be
supplied after } xzdpic, as is held, after Beza (who, however, took é
for eic) and Bengel, recently by Matthies,‘ Harless,* Bleek, and ols-
hausen, which last supposes a breriloguentia, ‘‘an abbreviated expression,”
for iva Cui Exywor tv adGapaia, 1.6., Cut aidvnov. Buf, in opposition to
Matthies, it may be urged that the purely temporal notion eternity (ci¢
rov aidva) is foisted upon the word imperishableness ; and in opposition to
Harless, that the abstract notion imperishableness is transmuted into the con-
crete notion of imperishable being, which is not the meaning of agfape.,
even in 2 Tim. i. 10 (but imperishableness in abstracto, ‘‘in the abstract”),
and that év agfapcia, instead of adding, in accordance with its emphatic
position, a very weighty and important clement, would express something
which is self-evident, namely, that according to the wish of the apostle the
grace might display itself not év gfaproi¢ (1 Pet. 1. 18), but év agBdprace ; the
breviloquentia, ‘‘abbreviated expression,” lastly, assumed by Olshausen is,
although a¢éape. in itself might be equivalent to (a7 aidwoc,* a pure inven-
tion, the sense of which Paul would have expressed by cig ag@apciav. The
right connection is the usual one, namely, with ayatayrwy. And in ac-
cordance with this, we have to explain it : who love the Lord in imperishable-
ness, i.e., so that their love does not pass away, in which case év expresses the
manner. Comp. the concluding wish Tit. iii. 15, where év ziarec is in like
manner to be combined with ¢g:Aowrrac. Others, following the same connec-
tion, have understood the sinceritas, ‘‘ sincerity,” either of the love itself *

' The order in the combination of the two
causes {s inverted in Gal. Z.c.; 8a “Inoov Xp.
cat @eov watpos.

2 Wetstein: “Christum immortalem et
glorlosum, non humiiem," “ Christ immortal
and glorious, not humble,” etc.; see also
Reiners in Wolf and Semler.

§ “ Favor immortalis,” ** immortal favor,”
Castalio, Drusius; comp. Piscator and MI-
chaellis, who take éy as equivalent to ovr,
while the latter supposes a reference to

deniers of the resurrection !

‘ “That grace with all. . . may bein der
nily ; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius."

* According to whom év denotes the ele-
ment in which the xydps¢ manifests itself,
and addapc. is all imperishable being,
whether appearing in this life or in eter-
nity.

«See Grimm, Handb. p. 60.

7 Pelagius, Anselm, Calvin, Calovius, and
others,

NOTES. 557

or of the disposition and the life in general,’ but against this Beza has
already with reason urged the linguistic usage ; for uncorruptedness is not
agOapaia (not even in Wisd. vi. 18, 19), but agOopia (Tit. ii. 7) and ad:apfopia
(Wetstein, II. p. 878). Onadg@apoia, imperishableness (at 1 Cor. xv. 42,
52, it is in accordance with the context specially incorruptibility), comp.
Plut. Arist. 6; Rom. ii. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 25; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. i. 10;
Wisd. ii. 23, vi. 18 f. ; 4 Macc. ix. 22, xvii. 12.

Norrs spy AMERICAN Eprror.

LVII. Ver. 1. Ta réxva «.7.A.

Stier, Braune and Philippi agree here with Hofmann, over against Meyer ;
but emphasis cannot be thrown on either side. Attention, however, to
another point, noted by Eadie and Braune, is important, viz., the clear implica-
tion of thy presence of children at the public worship, where this epistle was
to be read.

LVIII. Ver. 4. év radeia xai vovbecig.

The Revised version translates : ‘‘In the chastening and admonition of the
Lord.” Trench, following Grotius, and followed by most English writers,
rejects the distinction advocated by Meyer, and defines the former as ‘‘ train-
ing by act and discipline,’’ and the latter as ‘training by word.” ‘For the
Greeks, zaideia was simply ‘ education ;’ nor in all the many definitions of
watdela, which are to be found in Plato, is there so much as the slightest pro-
phetic anticipation of the new force which the word should obtain. But the
deeper apprehension of those who had learned that ‘foolishness is bound in
the heart’ alike ‘ of a child’ and of a man, while yet the ‘rod of correction
may drive it far from him’ (Prov. xxii. 15), led them, in assuming the word, to
bring into it a further thought, they felt and understood that all effectual in-
rtruction for the sinful children of men includes and implies chastening, or, as
we are accustomed to say, ont of asense of the same truth ‘ correction.’’’
Yet, as Barry suggests, the authority of the father in this, as allowed under the
Roman law, is here softened by the addition of the «vpiov. In the discipline,
the fact must be remembered that they belong to Christ, ‘‘ taken into His arms,
and sealed as His little ones." This intensifies infinitely ‘‘ the greatest reverence
due a child,’’ of which Juvenal wrote.

Cremer defines vovfeaia by ‘‘ well-intentioned, but serious correction,” and
adds: ‘‘ This pulling right, or correction, just as the Lord uses it, is opposed to
wrath, Wisd. xvi. 5, 6, xi. 11 ; and the admonition answers to what precedes
He) wapapyifere x.7.A., for mapop)ivev, to imitate, to provoke to wrath, implies and
presupposes one’s own anger. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14. Tla:deia and vovtecia alike
have as their end the dvOpurog ré2ews, Col. i. 28; Eph. iv. 13, but vovOecia is
intended to obviate deviations, and to establish the right direction of the
madeia” (Lexicon, p. 442), See Martensen’s Social Ethics, pp. 62 sq.

3 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, adduci, patitur,” “ That {s indicated which
Erasmus, Flacius, Estius, Zeger, Grotius: by no force, no enticements, allows ftself to
**significatur Is, qui nulla vi, nullis preci- be corrupted, 1.¢., to be withdrawn from the
bus, nullis illecebrisse corrumpl, f.¢.,a@recto = right,*’ and others, including Wieseler.

558 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

LIX. Ver. 12. &v roi¢ érovpaviorc.

Again, as in chap. i. 3, ii. 2 (see Notes IIT., XVII.), we cannot appreciate the
argument for a local restriction. The contrast here is between the weakness of
man and the strength of his great enemies, and the apostle’s idea is fully ex-
pressed by interpreting this as meaning ‘‘ of a sphere higher than that of earth.”’
The inference from the other constructions that would have been used for this
is scarcely in point here. ‘‘ The latent opposition alza xai cap§ (on earth) and
ra mvevu. (in supernal regions), suggests a word of greater antithetical force,
which still can include the same lexical meaning. As in chap. ii. 2, there was
no reason for limiting the term to the mere physical almosphere, so here still
less need we adopt any more precise specification of locality’’ (Ellicott).
Barry adds another element, well worthy of note: It ‘surely points to the
power of evil as directly spiritual, not acting through physical and human
agency, but attacking the spirit in that higher aspect, in which it contemplates
heavenly things and ascends to the communion with God.”’

LX. Ver. 13. 19 nuépe 7H rovnpd.

These words are not those of a mere man, mistaken in his inference con-
cerning an approaching crisis, as Meyer's interpretation implies, but they are
inspired of the Holy Ghost, and refer to a contest through which it was un-
erringly foreseen that the readers of this epistle were to pass.

LXI. Ver. 14. ri¢ dixacoctvys.

Ellicott concurs with Meyer, defining the thought better, viz., ‘‘ the right-
eousness which is the result of the renovation of the heart by the Holy Spirit.”
But is there actually a tautology involved by interpreting it as referring to the
righteousness of Christ? Faith and its righteousness, however closely united,
are nevertheless different things, and thus understood, there is no anticipa-
tion. Besides, without tautology, Paul elsewhere speaks of faith as both the
means and the fruit of justification. Braune makes ‘‘ the righteousness” refer
to both that of faith and of life. We prefer, with Eadie, following Harless, to
understand it of ‘‘ justification by the blood of the cross.” ‘To every insinu-
ation that they are so vile, guilty, worthless and perverse—so beset with sin
and under such wrath that God will repulse them, they oppose the free and
perfect righteousness of their Redeemer, which is ‘upon them,’ Rom. iii. 22.
So that the dart thrown at them only rings against such a cuirass, and falls
blunted to the earth.”

LXI. Ver. 18. év rvevyari.

Schmidt inserts in revised Meyer, Hofmann’s explanation, that the expres-
sion refers to prayer as such as should be a constant occupation of the spiritual
life, and is never a mere outward activity, such-as in chap. v. 18, to which
the semblance of prayer by the natural man must be limited. ev rvevyar: is un-
derstood then as referring to the Holy Spirit in His relation to the human
spirit, |

TOPICAL INDEX.

A.

Adoption, 315.

Age, Present, The, 358.

Ajasaluk, 287.

Angels, The, and redemption, 326
seq., 303 ; classes of, 343 seq.; rec-
ognizing God's wisdom, 414 seq.

Anger, Warned against, 478 seq.;
righteous, 487.

Application in the Christian calling,
503 seq.

Armor, The Christian’s, 542 seq., 547.

Artemis, 287.

Ascension of Christ, The, 449, 485.

Atonement, The, of Christ, 314, 351
seq., 317, 352, 368, 490 seq.; conse-
quence of, 357, 384 seq., 387 seq.,
389 seq.

B.

Baptism, 440 ; its cleansing influence,
513 seq.

Basil on Ephesians, 288 seq.

Believers, Christian, alive in Christ,
369 ; saved by grace, 370 ; exalted
with Christ, 371; in God’s king-
dom, 392 seq.; as the dwelling of
the Holy Spirit, 397 seq.; grounded
in love, 424 seq.; knowing Christ's
love, 425 seq., 432 seq.; filled with
God, 427 seq.; receiving the gifts of
grace, 443 ; progressing in faith and
knowledge, 456 seq.; their goal, 459 ;
their head in Christ, 463 ; exhorted to
a pure walk, 467 seq. ; warned against
heathen vices, 469 seq., 491 seq.;
admonished to spiritual regenera-
tion, 475 seq.; exhorted to moral
life and conduct, 477 sey.; exhorted
to love, 490 seq.; as children of
light, 495 ; to redeem the time, 503
seq.; warned against debauchery,
508 exhorted to social worship,
506 seq.; to be sanctified, 512 seq.;
members of Christ’s body, 518 seq.;
admonished to be strong in the
Lord, 535 seq.; to put on God's ar-
mor, 536 seq.; to pray always, 548

seq., 558 ; receive Paul's benedic-
tion, 554 seq.
Benediction bestowed, 554 seq.
Bitterness reproved, 483.
Buffoonery condemned, 492, 524.

C.

Children, their obedience to parents,
529 seq.; their baptism, 529 ; their
presence at public worship, 557;
their training, 532, 557.

Church, The, as Christ’s body, 345
seq., 464 seq.; as united in Christ,
396 seq., 465 seq.; its holiness,
397 seq.; a8 one community, 416,
431; its progressive development,
466 seq.; subject to Christ, 509 seq. ;
sanctified by Christ, 512 seq.; to be
glorified, 514 seq.

Christ, His blessings, 312 ; His adop-
tion, 315; His grace, 317; His re-
demption, 317 seq., 352, 490 seq.;
union with Christ, 320; sent by
God, 321, 352; His resurrection,
341 seq., 369 seq.; His glorified
body, 342 seq., 353 seq.; His exal-
tation and dominion, 342 seq., 371,
452; filling the church, 346 seq.; His
divinity, 351 seq.; as our peace, 382
seq.; His atonement, 384 seq.; and
the law, 385 seq.; reconciling man
to God, 387 seq.; preaching peace,
390 seq.; as the corner-stone, 394
seq.; the ground of salvation, 417 ;
dwelling in the believers, 423 seq.;
His love, 425 ; overcoming His ene-
mies, 448 : His ascension and de-
cension, 449 seq.; the head of be-
lievers, 463 ; calling the believers,
502 seq.; the aim of His death, 512
seq.; His love to the church, 516.

Circumcision, 377.

Colossians, Epistle to the, 301 seq.

Commandment with promise, The,
530 seq.

Communicatio idiomatum, The doc-
trine of the, 354.

Confidence, Spiritual, 417.

560 TOPICAL

Conflict, The Christian's, 537 seq.

Conversion, its order, 331; man’s
part in, 425 seq., 422 seq.; its ne-
cessity, 475 seq.

Covenants of promise, 379.

Covetousness, 470; excludes from the
kingdom, 493.

D.

Debauchery condemned, 505,

Demons, The, and their habitation,
359 seq., 399; their power, 538
seq., 557 seq.

Depravity, Natural, 367 seq.

Descent into Hades of Christ, 450,
485.

Devil, The, 450, 538 seq.

Devils, The, and their restoration,
326 ; their food and dwelling-place,
361, 399 ; their influence and power,
538 seq., 557 seq.

Discourse, Evil, reproved, 481 seq.

Doxology, A, 429 seq.

E.

Edification in speech, 482.

Election, Divine, 313 xeq., 351 seq.

Encouragement, Spiritual, 418 seq.,
422 seq.

Endowments, Spiritual, 418 seq., 422.

Enlightenment, Christian, 337 seq.

Enmity between Jew and Gentile,
383 seq.

Ephesians, Epistle to the, 287 seq. ;

_ its address, 287 seq. ; place
of composition, 299 seq.; time
of composition, 300 seq. ; its gen-
uineness, 302 seq. ; its dependence
on Colosgians, 303 seq. ; its occa-
sion, object, and contents, 307 seq.

Ephesus, 287.

F.

Faith and salvation, 372 seq. ; as in-
strumental cause, 417; its unity,
440 ; its aim, 456 seq.; saving, 545.

Fathers, their duty to children, 632
geq.

Forbearance, 437 seq.

Foreknowledge of God, 313 seq., 351
Beq.

Forgiveness of sins, 318, 352; mu-
tual, 483.

G.

Gentile gods, 380.

Gentiles, The, in God's kingdom, 392,
410 seq. ; blessed, 406 seq. ; their
irreligious condition, 468 seq.; their
ignorance, 469, 486; their lasciv-
iouaness, 470 seq., 496 seq.

INDEX.

Glory of Messianic salvation, The,
340, 379 ; of God, 422 seq.

Gnosticism, 350.

Good Works and salvation, 373 seq. ;
and justification, 376, 40U.

Gospel, The, and salvation, 330 seq.

God, the Father, 311 seq., 350 seq.;
His foreknowledge and election, 313
seq., 351 seq., 416 seq.; His judg-
ment, 314; His love, 314 seq., 368
seq.; His administration, 321 seq.,
352 seq.; awakens to spiritual life,
356 seq.; his wrath, 364 seq.; as the
Creator, 413 seq.; as the universal
Father, 419 seq., 431 seq.; His glory,
422 seq.; praise to, 429 seq.; unity
of, 442 seq.; renews man, 475 seq. ;
His call to the sleepers, 500.

Grace, its glory, 317; its saving
power, 328 seq., 369, 372 seq.

H.

Holiness, 314, 341 seq.

Hope, Christian, 340 seq.

Holy Spirit, The, received. 331, 353;
His working, 337; dwelling in the
believers, 397 seq.; strengthening
the inner man, 423 ; unity in, 439
seq.; renewing man, 475 seq.: griev-
ed, 482 seq.; the fruits of, 495 seq.;
the sword of, 647.

Humility, 412.

Husband and wife, 508 seq.; love of
the former, 516 seq.; ground of
their union, 519 seq.

I.

Immorality, 358.
Infant Baptism, 366. seq.
Instability, Religions, 460 seq.

J.
Jerome on Ephesians, 289.

Justification and good works, 376,
400.

K.

Kingdom, Messianic, The, 327 seq.
Knowledge, Christian, 338 seq., 353 ;
of Christ, 457 seq.

L.

Labor commended, 481.

Law, The, and Christ, 385 seq.

Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 294 seq.

Lord’s Supper, The, 440; an act of
preserved unity, 484; reference to,
515, 519, 526.

Love, Divine, 314 seq., 368 seq.; man
exhorted to, 4¥0 seq.

TOPIOAL INDEX.

M.

Malice condemned, 483.

Man, The Inner, 428.

Marcion on agar pees 289 seq.
Marriage state, 519 seq.

Masters, their duty to servants, 534

eq.
Mercy of God, The, 368 s
Messianic predictions r

Motic Greek, The, 392, 401.

Monogamy, 523.

Mystery, The Divine, 413; a great,
522. Z

445

Onesimus, 300.
Original Sin, 365 seq., 399 seq.

P.

Parousia, The, 324, 371 Beq., 430 ;
and the believer's goal, 459 ; the
churoh of Christ in, 515.

Paul as a prisoner, 299 8eq. ; for the
Gentiles’ sake, 405 seq. ; as receiv-
ing revelations, 406 ; receiving spir-
itual gifts, 411 seq.; supplicates
the Father, 419 seq. ; desires the
believer's prayers, 549 seq. ; his
hanes py wers, 551 seq. ; as am-
assador of Christ, 552 seq. ; sends |
Tychicus, 554 ; imparts his bless. |
ing, 554 seq.

Peace of the Gospel, The, 543 seq.

Philemon, 301.

Praise to God, 311 seq., 394 seq.

Prayer, Intercessory, $35 seq., 549 ; as
a Christian habit, 548 seq., 558 ;
the object of, 550 seq.

Predestination, 313 seq., 351 seq. ;
through love, 314 seq., 316, 352 ;
its final cause, 328 seq.

Promises of God, 331 seq.

Prophecy fulfilled, 443 seq. |

Psalm quoted, 443 seq.

R.

Recompense, Spiritual, 534.

Redemption in Christ, 317 seq., 352,
333 ; the eternal plan of, 414.

Regeneration, 475 seq.

Restoration, 325 seq.

Restitution, 324 seq.

Resurrection of Christ, The, 341 seq.,
369 seg.

Righteousness, Forensic, 814, 352 seq. ;
as moral rectitude, 543, 558.

561

saber Apostolic, 310 ; the glory
of, 34

Pe petri of God, 328 seq.; by grace,
369, 372 seq.; of the Messianic
king dom, 546 seq.

Sanctification the aim of Christ’s sae.
rifice, 612, 525.

Servants, their duty, 532 seq.

Sealing with the Spirit, 331, 353.

Sin, Dead unto, 357; original, 365
seq., 399 ; to be exposed, 498.

Stealing forbidden, 480.

Subjection of all things to Christ, 344
seq.

T.
Thaskanit on Ephesians, 289 seq.

ry tania 507
pecans earn me

Trinity, The, reads
Truth in love, 462; in Christ, 472

Trathfulness commended, 477 seq.
Tychicus, 300.

U.
Ubiquity of Christ's body, 346 seq.,
353 seq.
Unchastity, warned against, 491 ; ex-
cludes from the kingdom, 493 ; of

the heathen, 496 seq.

Union in Christ, 320.

Unity in the Spirit, 438 seq.; of the
faith, 440; ite aim, 456 seq.

W.

Wall of partition, 382 seq.

Wife and husband, 508 seq. ; ground
of their union, 61Y 8eq.; their mu-
tual love and reverence, 523.

Wine, ita excessive use condemned,
506.

Wisdom, Divine, 319 ; recognized, 414
ret known through the church,
41

Word of God, The, 547.

Works and salvation, 373 seq. ; and
justification, 376, 400.

Worship, Social, 506 seq.

Wrath of God, The, 364 seq.; visited
upon immorality, 494.