Full text of "St. Paul's epistle to the Ephesians A rev. text and translation with exposition and notes"

See other formats

ee:

soi

au Re
cs

ore

er
EPH
Sheen

re:

PTE N
ae

ST PAUL'S

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

ST. PAUL'S _ “ats
EPISTLE TO THE: EPHESIANS

a Bid Uy) Ne we , 3?

A REVISED TEXT AND TRANSLATION

WITH

EXPOSITION AND NOTES

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON D. D.

DEAN OF WESTMINSTER

SECOND EDITION

PN Tn
ry

‘London
MACMILLAN AND CO. Luonrep

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1904,

o
veuaon- . .
° vooe
o
wavs °
o eave
eure
° Gong
Cowon Po,
oe
a ou Pedy
° ° So,
Bu
2
er
e
a
eves 2
o
© Po,
bob oo
e
Mo o
woe
°
e oO o
eon
oe
ue
ou
eo ”
° eo
bare)
e Yo
eee
Yo, o
ve uy Ca e
weer
o we
2
o e@ewore
wu
° o
od ae
~

wits few es
o
OG tees

. »
» uv

w Pw

Lu al wv
e Ye

First Edition, 1903.

Second Edition, 1904.

' AMPLISSIMO - THEOLOGORVM . HALLENSIVM « ORDINI
QVORVM . EX - DECRETO
AD . GRADVM . DOCTORIS. IN ». SACRA - THEOLOGIA

ANTE . NOVEM . ANNOS « PROVECTVS . SVM
HAS - CHARTAS - TANDEM
HAVD . IMMEMOR
DEDICO

I ee

én cOma Kat nN TINEyMa.

Ovdev dorw dpewov eipnyys, ev f was médepos katapyetrat

érovpavioy—Kal-émvyetav.
Ianarrus,

ayToc pdép écTin A elpHinH HMQ@N.

PREFACE.

N English commentator on the Epistle to the Ephesians
finds a portion of the detail of his work already done
by the master-hand of Bishop Lightfoot in his edition of the
companion Epistle to the Colossians. For the discussion of
particular words I have accordingly referred again and again
to Lightfoot’s notes. Where I have felt obliged to differ from
some of his interpretations, it has seemed due to him that.

I should state the ground of the difference with considerable
fulness, as for example in more than one of the detached notes:
for we may not lightly set aside a judgment which he has
given,

Lightfoot had himself made preparations for an edition of
Ephesians; but only an introductory Essay and notes on the
first fourteen verses have seen the light (Biblical Essays,
pp. 875—396; Notes on Epistles of St Paul, pp. 307—324).
A more solid contribution to the study of the epistle is to be
found in Hort’s Introductory Lectures (Prolegomena to Romans
and Ephesians, pp. 683—184). I have hothing to add to the
discussion of the authorship of this epistle which these lectures
contain,

My object has been to expound the epistle, which is the
crown of St Paul’s writings. I have separated the exposition
from the philological commentary, in order to give myself
greater freedom in my attempt to draw out St Paul’s meaning:
and I have prefixed to each section of the exposition a trans-
lation of the Greek text. In this translation I have only

Vill PREFACE.

departed from the Authorised Version where that version
appeared to me to fail to bring out correctly and intelligibly
the meaning of the original. The justification of the renderings
which I retain, as well as of those which I modify or reject,
must be sought in the notes to the Greek text.

In order to retain some measure of independence I have
refrained from consulting the English expositors of the epistle,
but I have constantly availed myself of Dr T. K. Abbott’s work
in the International Critical Commentary, since it is as he
says ‘primarily philological.’ |

I offer the fruit of a study which has extended over the
past ten years as a small contribution to the interpretation of
St Paul. The truth of the corporate life which was revealed
to him was never more needed than it is to-day. Our failure
to understand his life and message has been largely due to our
acquiescence in disunion. As we rouse ourselves to enquire

after the meaning of unity, we may “hope that he will "speak —_
to us afresh.

_ Several friends have helped me in seeing this book through

the press: I wish to thank in particular the Reverend

J. O. F. Murray and the Reverend R. B. Rackham.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY,
Feast of the Transfiguration, 1903.

CONTENTS.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

, , PAGE
INTRODUCTION .uiicscsssconcecsccsecsscccccsccescecssecsccusscssacascossceecs I
TRANSLATION AND EXPOSTTION ......cccccccseccccscccesceees 17
TEXT AND NOTES wiscsecessssscssscssssecssccssensssssetessessessesseaes 141

On the meanings of yapts ANA yaperoov .iccecececcaccecsececssecccecs 221
‘The Beloved’ as a Messianic title .......cccccscccnsecesscccescsccaces 229
On the meaning of puornpioy in the New Testament............. 234.
On vepyeiy ANA TS COPNALCS ....s.ccocecccccnecceecececsescsecsenssseces 241
On the meaning Of eriyvoOcs ..1...ecccecccecoccccecctsccscccsoscesccesscs 248
On the meaning of sAjpopa sesssseceececesccees ae stedtenesecececeveasee 255
On the Word cuvappoNoyeEty ...cccecsscreccocacecseccereccssscaseccecascazes 260
On madpmots ANA MHPOCIS ...0.cccesccscccssscesceressesscences seecnseseeenes 264
On some current epistolary PRIASES.....cccceccesceccccceresscessecenss 275
Note on various readings ...c.cecccser st enececesececcesececseeteecasones 285
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS ...... se seeeeeescesctecacesecstareesencees 305

INDEX OF SUBJECTS .cescsssssssessesosses sesssessessvenssaseresessecsess 311

INTRODUCTION.

T PAUL was in Rome: not, as he had once hoped, on a, St Paul in
friendly visit of encouragement to the Roman Christians,
resting with them for a few weeks before he passed on to
preach to new cities of the further West; not in the midst
of his missionary career, but at its close. His active work was
practically done: a brief interval of release might permit him

to turn eastwards once again; but to all intents and purposes
his career was ended. He was a prisoner in Rome.

To know what had brought him there, and to comprehend the ax of
his special mission, of which this was in truth no unfitting his mis-
climax, we must pass in brief review the beginnings of the”
Christian story. |

1. Our Lord’s earthly life began and ended among a people r. I. al
the most exclusive and the most hated of all the races under n ministry
the universal Roman rule. But it was a people who had an un- jmited to-
paralleled past to look back upon, and who through centuries of
oppression had cherished an undying hope of sovereignty over
all other races in the world. Our Lord’s life was essentially a
Jewish life in its outward conditions. In every vital point He:
conformed to the traditions of Judaism. Scarcely ever did’

He set foot outside the narrow limits of the Holy Land, the
area of which was not much larger than that of the county of
Yorkshire or the principality of Wales, With hardly an excep-
tion He confined His teaching and His miracles to Jews. He
was not sent, He said, but unto the lost sheep of the house of

‘EPHES. ° I

2 | EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Israel. It is true that He gave hints of a larger mission, of
founding a universal kingdom, of becoming in His own person
the centre of the human race. But the- exclusive character of. -
His personal ministry stood in sharp contrast to those wider
hopes and prophecies. He incessantly claimed for His teaching
that it was the filling out and perfecting of the sacred lessons
of the lawgivers and prophets of the past. He seemed content —
to identify Himself with Hebrew interests and Hebrew aspira-
tions. So it was from first to last. He was born into a Jewish
family, of royal lineage, though in humble circumstances; and —
it was as a Jewish pretender that the Romans nailed Him to.

& CYOss.

2. The 2. The little brotherhood which was formed in Jerusalem
early . . . . os
Church to carry on His work after His Ascension was as strictly limited
begins

with the im the sphere of its efforts as He Himself had been. It was
same limi- composed entirely of Jews, who in no way cut themselves off

es from the national unity, and who were zealous worshippers in
the national temple. It was a kind of Reformation movement —
within the Jewish Church. It sought for converts only among
Jews, and it probably retained its members for the most part
at the national centre in the expectation of the speedy return
of Jesus as the recognized national Messiah, who should break
the Roman power and rule a conquered world from the throne
of David in Jerusalem.

A popular We cannot say how long this lasted: perhaps about five

ment, years. But we know that during this period—a long one in
the childhood of a new society—the Apostles and the other
brethren enjoyed the esteem and good will of all except the
governing class in Jerusalem, and that their numbers grew
with astonishing rapidity, The movement was characteristi-
cally a popular one. While the Sadducaic high-priestly party
dreaded it, and opposed it when they dared, the leader of the
Pharisees openly befriended it, and ‘a great multitude of the
priests’ (who must be distinguished from their aristocratic
rulers) ‘became obedient to-the faith’ (Acts vi. 7). This
statement indicates the high-water mark of the movement in

INTRODUCTION. 3

its earliest stage. It shews too that there was as yet no breach loyal to
at all with Judaism, and that the specifically Christian gather- Judaism.
. ings for exhortation, prayers and eucharists were not regarded
as displacing or discrediting the divinely sanctioned sacrificial
worship of the temple. :
3. But the Apostles had received a wider commission, 3. A crisis
. although hitherto they had strictly adhered to the order of the prougnt
Lord’s command by ‘beginning at Jerusalem.’ A crisis came
at last. A storm suddenly broke upon their prosperous calm:
a storm which seemed in a moment to wreck the whole structure
-which they had been building, and to dash their fair hope of
the national conversion in irretrievable ruin.
The Jews of Alexandria had been widened by contact with by St
Greek philosophy and culture. They had striven to present Biepren's
their faith in a dress which would make it less deterrent to '#hine.

the Gentile mind. If we cannot say for certain that St Stephen —

—was-an-Alexandrian,we-know-at-any-rate-that—he—was—a-repre

_ sentative of the Hellenistic element in the Church at Jerusalem.
A large study of the Old Testament scriptures had prepared
him to see in the teaching of Christ a wider purpose than others
saw. He felt that the Christian Church could not always
remain shut up within the walls of Jerusalem, or even limited
to Jewish believers. What he said to suggest innovation and

to arouse opposition we do not know. We only know that the What he
points on which he was condemned were false charges, not ras said
unlike some which had been brought against the Lord Himself. *™*
He was accused of disloyalty to Moses and the temple—the
sacred law and the divine sanctuary. His defence was drawn
from the very writings which he was charged with discrediting. The politi-
But it was not heard to the end. He was pleading a cause oa panies
already condemned; and the two great political parties were f"4™™"
at one in stamping out the heresy of the universality of
the Gospel. For it is important to note the change in the
Pharisaic party. Convinced that after all the new movement
was fatal to their narrow -traditionalism, they and the common
people, whose accepted leaders they had always been, swung

I—2

4 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

round into deadly opposition. The witnesses, who by the law
must needs cast the first stones at the condemned, threw off their
upper garments at the feet of a young disciple of Gamaliel.
Fersect: ‘The murder of St Stephen was followed by a general perse-
tersthe cution, and in a few days the Apostles were the only Christians
Chureh, left in Jerusalem. We may fairly doubt whether the Church
which is 28 a whole would have been prepared to sanction St Stephen’s
thus line of teaching. Had they been called to pronounce upon it,
the conse- they might perhaps have censured it as rash and premature, if
quences of not indeed essentially unsound. But they were never asked.
teaching, the question. They were at once involved in the consequences
being to Of What he had taught, with no opportunity of disclaiming it.
sanction Providence had pushed them forward a step, and there was
* no possibility of a return.
4. The 4. The scattered believers carried their message with them ;
ieee of and they soon found themselves proclaiming it to a widening
extension“ circle of hearers. St Philip~preaches-to—the—unorthodex-and—
Gentiles. half-heathen Samaritans; later he baptises an Ethiopian, no
Philip, Jew, though a God-fearing man. St Peter himself formally
declares to a Roman centurion at Caesarea that now at length
he is learning the meaning of the old saying of his Jewish Bible,
that ‘God is no respecter of persons’, At Antioch a Church
springs up, which consists largely of Gentile converts.
but Saul, But we must go back to Jerusalem to get a sight of the
is to be man on whom St Stephen’s prophetic mantle has fallen. He
cessor of was with him when he was taken up, and a double portion

Stephen. ae
of his spirit is to rest upon him. The fiery enthusiasm of the
persecuting Saul, the most conspicuous disciple of the greatest .
Pharisee of the age, was a terrible proof that Christianity
had forfeited the esteem and favour of her earliest years in
Jerusalem. The tide of persecution was stemmed indeed by
his conversion to the persecuted side: but for some time his
own life was in constant danger, and he retired into obscurity.
He came out of his retirement as the Apostle, not of a
Christianized Judaism, but of St Stephen’s wider Gospel for

the world.

INTRODUCTION. 5

. Alike by birth and training he was peculiarly fitted to be His three-
the champion of such a cause. A Jew, born in a Greek city, eet i
and possessed of the Roman franchise, he was in his own person for bis
the meeting-point of three civilisations. In a unique sense
he was the heir of all the world’s past. The intense devotion
of the Hebrew, with his convictions of sin and righteousness
and judgment to come; the flexible Greek language, ready
now to interpret the East to the West; the strong Roman
force of centralisation, which had made wars to cease and had
bidden the world to be at one:—in each of these great world-
factors he had, and realised that he had, his portion: each of
- them indeed was a factor in the making of his personality
and his career. With all that the proudest Jew could boast,
he had the entry into the larger world of Greek culture, and
withal a Roman’s interest in the universal empire. He was

a man to be claimed by a great purpose, if such a purpose

—_—§there—were—to—claim—him:—His—J-udaism—could—never—have

enabled him to enter on the fulness of his inheritance. Chris-
tianity found him ‘a chosen vessel ’, and developed his capacity
to the utmost. |

The freer atmosphere of the semi-Gentile Church in Antioch Antioch
marked out that great commercial centre as a fitting sphere ing poi
for his earliest work. From it he was sent on a mission to
Cyprus and Asia Minor, in the course of which, whilst always
starting in the J ewish synagogue, he found himself perpetually
drawn on to preach his larger Gospel to the Gentiles, Thus Gentil
along the line of his route new centres of Gentile Christianity founded.
were founded,—Churches in which baptism practically took the
place of circumcision, and Jews and Gentiles were associated
on equal terms, At Antioch, on his return, the news of this
was gladly welcomed: ‘a door of faith’ had been opened to the
Gentiles, and they were pressing into the kingdom of God.

5. We could hardly have expected that the Christians of 5 bles
Jerusalem, now again returned to their home, would view the of the
matter with the same complacency. The sacred city with its vewish |

memories of the past, the solemn ritual of the temple, the holy

6 . EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. —

language of the scriptures and the prayers of the synagogue
all spoke to them of the peculiar privileges and the exceptional
‘destiny of the Hebrew people. Was all this to go for nothing ?
Were outside Gentiles, strangers to the covenant with Moses,
to rise at- a bound to equal heights of privilege with the
circumcised people of God ?

His dis- We are apt to pass too harsh a judgment on the main body

natural. of the Jewish believers, because we do not readily understand
the dismay which filled their minds at the proposed inclusion of
Gentiles in the Christian society, the nucleus of the Messianic _
kingdom, with no stipulation whatever of conformity to Jewish —
institutions. Day by day, as the Jewish believer went to his
temple-prayers, it was his proud right to pass the barrier
which separated Jew from Gentile in the house of God. What
was this intolerable confusion which was breaking down the
divinely constituted middle-wall of partition between them?

_ His dearest hope, which the words of Christ had only seemed-——

for a moment to defer, was the restoration of the kingdom
to Israel. What had become of that, if the new society was to
include the Gentile on the same footing as the Jew? Was not
Christ emphatically and by His very name the Messiah of the
Jewish nation? Could any be a ood Christian, unless he
were first a good Jew?
The ren- It is essential to an understanding of St Paul’s special
dering | mission, and of the whole view of Christianity which he was

‘Christ’
disguises Jed to take during the progress of that mission, that we should

the Jewish appreciate this problem as it presented itself to the mind of —
‘Messiah’. the Jew who had believed in Christ. The very fact that
throughout the Apostolic writings the Greek translation Xpsrés
takes the place of the Hebrew ‘ Messiah’ disguises from us the
deep significance which every mention of the name must have
had for the Palestinian Christian, The Syriac versions of the
New Testament, in which the old word naturally comes back
again, help us to recover this special point of view. How
strangely—to take a few passages at random’—do these words

' 1°y Cor. viii rr, ix 12, xii 27.

INTRODUCTION. | | 7

sound to us: ‘him who is weak, for whom the Messiah died’;
‘the Gospel of the Messiah’; ‘ye are the body of the Messiah’.
Yet nothing less than this could St Paul’s words have meant
to every Jew that heard them.

Again, St Paul’s own championship of Gentile o liberty ; is St Paul's
so prominent in his writings, that we are tempted to overlook of the
those passages which shew how keenly he himself realised **™*#™
the pathos of the situation. A Hebrew of purest Hebrew
blood, a Pharisee as his father was before him, he saw to his
bitter sorrow, what every Jewish Christian must have seen, that
_ his doctrine of Gentile freedom was erecting a fresh barrier
against the conversion of the Jewish nation: that the very
universality of the Gospel was issuing in the self-exclusion of
the Jew. The mental anguish which he suffered is witnessed
to by the three great chapters of the Epistle to the Romans
(ix—xi), in which he struggles towards a solution of the
problem.‘ A disobedient and gainsaying people’ it is, as the

prophet had foretold. And yet the gifts and the calling of

God are never revoked; ‘God hath not cast off His people,

whom He foreknew’. The future must contain somewhere the
justification of the present: then, though it cannot be now,

‘all Israel shall be saved’. It is the largeness of his hope The
that steadies him. His work is not for the souls of men so prise
much as for the Purpose of God in Christ. The individual which ed
counts but little in comparison, The wider issues are always him.
before him. Not Jews and Gentiles merely, but Jew and
Gentile, are the objects of his solicitude, Not the rescue of

some out of the ruin of all is the hope with which the Gospel

has inspired him, but the summing up of all persons and all

things in Christ.

6. The feeling, then, which rose in the minds of the Chris- 6. The
tian portion of the Jewish people on hearing of the proposed and ite
indiscriminate admission of Gentiles into the Church of Christ #*"*
might have found its expression in the cry, ‘The Jewish Messiah The
for the Jews!’ Gentiles might indeed be allowed a place in meme

the kingdom of God. The old prophets had foretold as much

. not taken
by the
Apostles.

___ The con-
flict at
Antioch. |

The con-
ference at
Jderusa-
lem.

The
danger
averted
for the
moment
only.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

as this. Nor was it contrary to the established practice of.

later Judaism, after it had been forced into contact with the —
Greek world. The Gentile who submitted to circumcision and
other recognised conditions might share the privileges of the
chosen people. But admission on any lower terms amounted
to a revolution; the very proposition was a revolt against.
divinely sanctioned institutions.

We are not to suppose that the Apostles themselves, or
even the majority of the Jewish believers, took so extreme
a view: the conference at Jerusalem is a proof that they did _
not. But even they may well have been perplexed at the
swiftness with which a change was coming over the whole face
of the movement in consequence of St Paul’s missionary action:
and they must have perceived that this change would be
deeply obnoxious in particular to those earnest Pharisees whom |
they had led to believe in Jesus as the nation’s Messiah.

‘Antioch, where they proclaimed to the Gentile believers:
‘Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot
be saved’. Happily St Paul was there to champion the Gentile
cause. We need but sketch the main features of the struggle
that ensued.

A conference with the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem
was the first step. Here after much discussion St Peter rises
and recalls the occasion on which he himself had been divinely
guided to action like St Paul’s. Then comes the narrative of
facts from the missionaries themselves. Finally St James
formulates the decision which is reached, ‘to lay on them
no other burden’ than certain simple precepts, which must of
necessity be observed if there were to be any fellowship at all
between Jewish and Gentile believers.

So the first battle was fought and won. The Divine
attestation given to St Paul’s work among the Gentiles was a
proof that God had opened to them also the door of faith,
They were pressing in: who could withstand God by trying to
shut the door? But when the novelty of the wonder wore.

Some—of—the—more—ardent—of—these—found—their—way—to

INTRODUCTION. | 9

away, the old questionings revived, and it seemed as though
the Church must be split into two divisions—Jewish and
Gentile Christians. .

To St Paul’s view such a partition was fatal to the very Two con-
mission of Christianity, which was to be the healer of the onivtiea.
world’s divisions. The best years of his life were accordingly
devoted to reconciliation. Two great epistles witness to this
endeavour: the Epistle to the Galatians, in which he mightily
defends Gentile liberty; and the Epistle to the Romans, in
which, writing to the central city of the world, the seat of its
empire and the symbol of its outward unity, he holds an even
balance between Jew and Gentile, and claims them both as
necessary to the Purpose of God.

One practical method of reconciliation was much in his Gentile
thoughts. Poverty had oppressed the believersin Judaea. Here liberality

was a rare chance for Gentile liberality to shew that St Paul Jewish
poverty.

was_right_in saying that_Jew_and_Gentile_were_one—man—in

Christ. Hence the stress which he laid on the collection of
alms, ‘the ministry unto the saints’ (2 Cor. ix 1). The alms
collected, he himself must journey to Jerusalem to present
them in person. He knows that he does so at the risk of his —
life: but if he dies, he dies in the cause for which he has lived.
His one anxiety is lest by any means his mission to Jerusalem
should fail of its end; and he bids the Roman Christians
wrestle in prayer, not only that his life may be spared, but also
that ‘the ministry which he has for Jerusalem’, or, to use an
earlier phrase, ‘the offering of the Gentiles’, may be ‘acceptable
to the saints ’ (Rom. xv 16, 31).

His journey was successful from this point of view; but it St Paul’s
led to an attack upon him by the unbelieving Jews, and a long arertaon
imprisonment in Caesarea followed. Yet even this, disastrous ™°"*
as it seemed, furthered the cause of peace and unity within
the Christian Church. St Paul was removed from the scene of
conflict. Bitter feelmgs against his person naturally subsided
when he was in prison for his Master’s sake. His teachings
and his letters gained in importance and authority. Before he

10 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

was taken to his trial at Rome the controversy was practically

dead. Gentile liberty had cost him his freedom, but it was an

accomplished fact. He was ‘the prisoner of Jesus Christ on
close the behalf of the Gentiles’; but his cause had triumphed, and the _
versy. equal position of privilege of the Gentile converts was never

again to be seriously challenged.

7. The 7. Thus St Paul had been strangely brought to the place ,
of the where he had so often longed to find himself. At last he was
Bpistle in Rome: a prisoner indeed, but free to teach and free to write.
Ephe- = And from his seclusion came three epistles—to the Philippians,

sians.

to the Colossians, and ‘ to the Ephesians’.
A non- The circumcision question was dead. Other questions were
controver-

sial expo- being raised; and to these the Epistle to the Colossians in -

vodtive Particular is controversially addressed. This done, his mind is

truth: free for one supreme exposition, non-controversial, positive,

fundamental,_of—the-great—doctrine—of_his_life—that_doctrine__
into which he had been advancing year by year under the
discipline of his unique circumstances—the doctrine of the
unity of mankind in Christ and of the purpose of God for the
world through the Church. |
the issue The foregoing sketch has enabled us in some measure to
of is see how St Paul was specially trained by the providence that

tory and
of his im- yuled his life to be the exponent of a teaching which transcends

cream all other declarations of the purpose of God for man. The best
years of his Apostolic labour had been expended in the effort to
preserve in unity the two conflicting elements of the Christian
Church. . And now, when signal success has crowned his
labours, we find him in confinement at the great centre of the
world’s activity writing to expound to the Gentile Christians of
Asia Minor what is his final conception of the meaning. and
aim of the Christian revelation. He is a prisoner indeed, but
not in a dungeon: he is in his own hired lodging. He is not
crushed by bodily suffering. He can think and teach and
write. Only he cannot go away. At Rome he is on a kind of |
watch-tower, like a lonely sentinel with a wide field of view

INTRODUCTION. II

_ but forced to abide at his post. His mind is free, and ranges

_. over the world—past, present and future. With a large liberty

- of thought he commences his great argument ‘before the

. foundation of the world’, and carries it on to ‘the fulness of the
times’, embracing in its compass ‘all things in heaven and on
the earth’.

_* 8. If the writer’s history and circumstances help us to 8. ihe
understand the meaning of his epistle, so too will a considera- of the
tion of the readers for whom it was intended. But here we epistle.
meet with a difficulty at the very outset. The words ‘in Omission
Ephesus’ (i 1) are absent from some of our oldest and best of the tin

_- MSS., and several of the Greek Fathers make it clear that they Ephesus’.

did not find them in all copies. Indeed it is almost certain

_ that they do not come from St Paul himself.

There are good reasons for believing that the epistle was A circular

. . . tier.
intended. as a circular letter, an encyclical, to go the round of oe

~__mnany~ Churches-in~Asia—Minor.—We-have-parallels_to_this_in
1 St Peter and the Apocalypse, in both of which however the

. Churches in question are mentioned by their names.

‘The capital of the Roman province of Asia was Ephesus, Naturally

To Ephesus such a letter would naturally go first of all: and Bret to
when in later times a title was sought for it, to correspond 2Phesus-
with the titles of other epistles, no name would offer itself so
readily and so reasonably as the name of Ephesus. Accordingly Hence its
the title ‘To THE EPHESIANS’ was prefixed to it, And if, as ttle.
seems not improbable, the opening sentence contained a space
into which the name of each Church in turn might be read—
‘to the saints which are * * * and the faithful in Christ
Jesus ’—it was certain that in many copies the words ‘in
Ephesus’ would come to be filled in.

The internal evidence of the epistle itself is in harmony The
with the view that it was not specially intended for the Ephe- in inne
sian Church. For in more than one place the Apostle appears P#'™".

to be writing to Christians whom he has never seen, of whose St Paul.
faith he knew only by report, and who in turn knew of his

1 See the detached note on ey ’E¢écy.

St Paul’s
special
relation
to
Ephesus.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

teachings only through the medium of his disciples ( 15, iii.2,
iv 21). -

Moreover the encyclical nature of the epistle removes what
would otherwise be a most serious objection to its authenticity.
If we read the notices of St Paul’s relations with Ephesus, as
they are given by St Luke in the Acts, we observe that for a
long while he appears to have been specially checked in his _
efforts to reach and to settle in that important centre, At one
time ‘he was‘forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word -
in Asia’ (xvi 6). Other work must take precedence. Not
only were the Galatian Churches founded first, but also the
European Churches—Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth. Then
on his way back from Corinth he touches at the city of his
desire, but only to hurry away, though with a promise to ..
return, if God so will (xviii 21). At last he comes to remain,
and he makes it a centre, so that ‘all they which dwelt in

Yet this
epistle
has no
saluta-
tions of
indi-
viduals.

Theincon-
sistency
disap-
pears, if

Asia heard-the word of the Lord’ (xix ro). As he tells the
Ephesian elders at Miletus, when he believes that he is saying
his last words to them, ‘ For three years night and day I ceased
not to warn every one of you with tears’ (xx 31).

To judge by the other letters of St Paul, we should expect
to find a letter to the Ephesians unusually full of personal
details, reminiscences of his long labours, warnings as to special
dangers, kindly greetings to. individuals by name. We are
struck by the very opposite of all this. No epistle is so general,
so little addressed to the peculiar needs of one Church more.
than another. As for personal references and greetings, there
are none. Even Timothy’s name is not joined with St Paul's
at the outset, as it isin the Epistle to the Colossians, written
at the same time and carried by the same messenger: not one
proper name is found in the rest of the epistle, except that of
Tychicus its bearer. ‘Peace to the brethren’, is ‘its close;
‘grace be with all that love our Lord’.

The apparent inconsistency disappears the moment we strike
out the words ‘in Ephesus’. No one Church is addressed: the.
letter will go the round of the Churches with the broad lessons _

INTRODUCTION. 13

° which all alike need: Tychicus will read in the name from this isa
’ circular
place to place, will explain St Paul’s own circumstances, and {etter.

will convey by word of mouth his messages to individuals.

Thus the local and occasional element is eliminated: and The elimi-
in this we seem to have a further explanation of that wider #0729

‘ ° . 1 t
view of the Church and the world, which we have in part ®ome

accounted for already by the consideration of the stage im wider

- the Apostle’s career to which this epistle belongs, and by view.
the special significance of his central position in Rome.
The following is an analysis of the epistle: Analysis.

iz,2. Opening salutation.
i3—14. A Doxology, expanded into
(a) a description of the Mystery of God’s will: elec-
tion (4), adoption (5), redemption (7), wisdom (8),
consummation (10) ;
(6) a statement that Jew and Gentile alike are the

portion—of-God—(11—14);
iz5—ii iro. A Prayer for Wisdom, expanded into a descrip.
tion of God’s power, as shewn
(a) in raising and exalting Christ (19—23),
(0) in raising and exalting us in Christ, whether
Gentiles or Jews (ii 1—10).

ii ro—22. The Gentile was an alien (11, 12); but is now
one man with the Jew (13—18); a fellow-citizen (19),
and part of God’s house (20—2z2).

’ iii 1—13. Return to the Prayer for Wisdom ; but first
(a) a fresh description of the Mystery (26),
(6) and of St Paul’s relation to its proclamation (7—13).

iii r4—21. The Prayer in full (14—19), with a Doxology
(20, 21).

iv 1—16. God’s calling involves a unity of life (1—6),
to which diversity of gifts is intended to lead (7—14)—
the unity in diversity of the Body (15, 16).

iv 17-24. The old life contrasted with the new.

‘iv 25—v 5. Precepts of the new life.

v6—21. The old darkness and folly: the new light and

wisdom.

‘The
present
interest
of the
Epistle
to the
Ephe-
sians.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

v 22—vig. Duties interpreted. by relation to Christ:
wives and husbands (22—33);
children and parents (vi 1—4);
slaves and masters (5—9).
vi 1o—20. The spiritual warrior clad in God’s armour.
vi 21—24. Closing words.

The topic of the Epistle to the Ephesians is of pre-eminent
interest in the present day. At no former period has there
been so widespread a recognition in all departments of human
life of the need of combination and cooperation: and never,
perhaps, has more anxious thought been expended on the
problem of the ultimate destiny of mankind. Whilst it is
true that everywhere and always questions have been asked |
about the future, yet it is not too much to say that we, who
have begun to feel after the truth of a corporate life as higher
than an individual life, are more eager than any past generation

_ has been to learn, and perhaps are more capable of learning,

The
Apostolic
message
is for all
time.

what is the goal for which Man as a whole is making, or, in
other words, what is God’s Purpose for the Human Race.

_ Among the perpetual marvels of the Apostolic writings is
the fact that they contain answers to enquiries which have
long waited to be made: that, while the form of the written
record remains the same for all ages, its interpretation
grows in clearness as each age asks its own questions in
its own way.

EXPOSITION

OF THE

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY,
THE WISDOM THAT HATH BEEN HIDDEN,
WHICH GOD FOREORDAINED BEFORE THE WORLD
UNTO-OUR-GLORY.

One God, one law, one element,
And one far-off divine event,
To which the whole creation moves.

[TO THE EPHESIANS]

pr an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the is, 2
saints which are [at Ephesus] and the faithful in Christ
Jesus: *Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ.

The two points which distinguish this salutation have been
noticed already in the Introduction. No other name is joined with
St Paul’s, although the salutation of the Epistle to the Colossians,
written at the same time, links with him ‘Timothy the brother’,

No one Church is addressed, but a blank is left, that each Church
in turn may find its own name inserted by the Apostle’s messenger.
Paul the Apostle, and no other with him, addresses himself not to
the requirements of a single community of Christians, but to a
universal need—the need of a larger knowledge of the purposes
of God. .

3 BLESSED be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, i 3-14
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in the heavenly
places in Christ: * according as He hath chosen us in Him before
the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
blameless before Him in love; *having foreordained us to the
adoption of sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according
to the good pleasure of His will, *to the praise of the glory
of His grace, which He hath freely bestowed on us in the
Beloved; 7in whom we have redemption through His blood, the.
forgiveness of trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
®’ which He hath made to abound toward us in all wisdom and
prudence, * having made known unto us the mystery of His will,
according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in
Him, * for dispensation in the fulness of the times, to gather

EPHES.” , 2

EXPOSITION OF THE [I 3,

up in one all things in Christ, both which are in the heavens
and which are on earth; in Him, “in whom also we have been
chosen as God's portion, having been foreordained according to
the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the
counsel of His will, *that we should be to the praise of His.
glory, who have been the first to hope in Christ; in whom ye |

also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your

salvation——in whom also having believed, ye have been sealed
with the holy Spirit of promise, “which is the earnest of our
inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession, to
the praise of His glory.

From the outset the elimination of the personal element seems
to affect the composition. Compare the introductory words of some

of the epistles:

1 Thess. ‘We thank God always concerning you all...’
2 Thess. ‘We are bound to thank God always for you...’

2 Cox. vii

2 Cor. i 3,
4

Gal._‘TI_marvel_that_ye_are_so_soon_changing...’
Col. ‘We thank God always concerning you...’

Here, however, no personal consideration enters. His great.
theme possesses him at once: ‘ Blessed be God...who hath blessed
us’, The customary note of thanksgiving and prayer is indeed
sounded (vv. 15 f.), but not until the great doxology has run its full
course.

There is one parallel to this opening. The Second Epistle to

‘the Corinthians was written in a moment of relief from intense

strain. The Apostle had been anxiously waiting to learn the effect
of his former letter. At length good news reaches him: ‘God’,
as he says later on, ‘which comforteth them that are low, com-
forted us by the coming of Titus’. In the full joy of his heart he

‘begins his epistle with a burst of thanksgiving to the Divine

Consoler: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who com-
forteth us in all our trouble, that we may be able to comfort them
that are in any ‘trouble, by means of the comfort with which

- we ourselves are comforted of God’.

The blessing there ascribed to God is for a particular mercy:
‘Blessed be God...who comforteth us’. But here no special boon is
in his mind. The supreme mercy of God to man fills his thoughts:
‘ Blessed be God...who hath blessed us’. .

I 3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. - 19

The twelve verses which follow baffle our analysis, They are a vv. 3—14
kaleidoscope of dazzling lights and shifting colours: at first we fail .
to find a trace of order or method. They are like the preliminary
flight of the eagle, rising and wheeling round, as though for a
while uncertain what direction in his boundless freedom he shall
take. So the Apostle’s thought lifts itself beyond the limits of
time and above the material conceptions that confine ordinary men,

_and ranges this way and that in a region of spirit, a heavenly
sphere, with no course as yet marked out, merely exulting in the
attributes and purposes of God.

At first we marvel at the wealth of his language: but soon we
discover, by the very repetition of the phrases which have arrested
us, the poverty of all language when it comes to deal with such
topics as he has chosen, He seems to be swept along by his theme,
hardly knowing whither it is taking him. He begins with God,—
the blessing which comes from God to men, the eternity of His
purpose of good, the glory of its consummation. But he cannot
order his conceptions, or close his sentences. One thought presses
hard upon another, and will not be refused. And so this great
doxology runs on and on: ‘in whom...in Him...in Him, in whom...

in whom...in whom...’ .
But as we read it again and again we begin to perceive certain
great words recurring and revolving round a central point:

‘The will’ of God: wv. 5, 9, 11.
‘To the praise of His glory’: vv. 6, 12, 14.
‘In Christ’: vv. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 bis, 11, 12, 13 bis.

The will of God working itself out to some glorious issue in
Christ—that is his theme. A single phrase of the ninth verse sums
Té up: it is ‘the mystery of His will’. ;

In proceeding to examine the passage clause by clause we shall .
not here dwell on individual expressions, except in so far as their
discussion, is indispensable for the understanding of the main
drift of the epistle. But at the outset there are certain words and
phrases which challenge attention; and our hope of grasping the
Apostle’s meaning depends upon our gaining a true conception
of the standpoint which they imply. They must accordingly be
treated with what might otherwise seem a disproportionate fulness.

. The third verse contains three such phrases. The first is: ‘with i 3
all spiritual blessing’. It has been suggested that the Apostle

inserts the epithet “ spiritual’ because the mention of two Persons

- of the Blessed Trinity naturally leads him to introduce a reference

2—2

Gen. xzii
17

Deut.
xXviil 3, 5

v19
——-vi12

Phil. ii 10

EXPOSITION OF THE it 3

to the third. Accordingly we are asked to render the words:
‘every blessing of the Spirit’.

But a little consideration will shew that the epithet marks an
important contrast. The blessing of God promised in the Old
Testament was primarily a material prosperity. Hence in some of
its noblest literature the Hebrew mind struggled so ineffectually
with the problem presented by the affliction of the righteous and
the prosperity of the wicked. In the Book of Genesis the words
‘in blessing I will bless thee’ are interpreted by ‘in multiplying I
will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven’. In Deuteronomy
the blessing of God is expressed by the familiar words: ‘ Blessed
shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field ..
Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store’.

The blessing of the New Covenant is in another region: the
region not of the body, but of the spirit. It is ‘spiritual blessing’,
not carnal, temporal blessing. The reference then is not primarily
to the Holy Spirit, though ‘spiritual blessing’ cannot be thought
of apart from Him. The adjective occurs again in the phrase
‘spiritual songs’: and also in the remarkable passage: ‘our wrest-

(places)’. It is confirmatory of this view that in the latter passage
it occurs in close connexion with the difficult phrase which we must
next discuss.

The expression ‘in the heavenly (places)’ occurs five times in this
epistle (i 3, 20; ii 6; iii 10; vi 12), and is found nowhere else.
The adjective (érovpdvios) is not new: we find it in Homer and
Plato, as well as in the New Testament, including other epistles of
St Paul. The nearest parallel is in an earlier letter of the same
Roman captivity: ‘every knee shall bow of things in heaven and
things on earth and things under the earth’.

It might be rendered § among the heavenly things’, or ‘in the
heavenly places’: or, to use a more modern term, ‘in the heavenly
sphere’, It is a region of ideas, rather than a locality, which is
suggested by the vagueness of the expression. To understand what
it meant to St Paul’s mind we must look at the contexts in which
he uses it. .

Leaving the present passage to the last, we begin with i 20: after
the Resurrection God ‘seated Christ at His right hand 4 an the heavenly
sphere, above ‘every principality and authority and power and
dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world but
also in that which is to come’. Thus ‘the heavenly sphere’ is
regarded ‘as the sphere of all the ruling forces of the universe. The

ling-is-- against-the -spiritual-(things)-of wickedness inthe heavenly

13] _ EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. ar

highest place therein is described in Old Testament language as Ps. cx 1
‘God’s right hand’. There Christ is seated above all conceivable rivals.

We are not told whether the powers here spoken of are powers of

good or powers of evil. The Psalm might suggest that the latter

are at least included: ‘Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make

Thine enemies Thy footstool’, But St Paul’s point is, as in
. Phil. ii 10, simply the supremacy of Christ over all other powers.

In ii 6. we have the surprising statement that the position of
Christ. in this respect is also ours in Him. ‘He raised us together —
and seated us together in the heavenly sphere in Christ Jesus; that
He might display in the ages that are coming the surpassing riches
of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus ’.

In iii 10 we read: ‘that there might now be made known to the
principalities and powers im the heavenly sphere by means of the
Church the very-varied wisdom of God’. St Paul is here speaking
of his special mission to the Gentiles as belonging to the great
mystery or secret of God’s dealings throughout the ages: there are
powers in the heavenly sphere who are learning the purpose of God
through the history of the Church,

____The last passage is perhaps the most remarkable: ‘We have not vi 12

to wrestle against blood and flesh, but against the principalities,
against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this
world, against the spiritual (hosts) of wickedness in the heavenly
sphere’, Our foe, to meet whom we need the very ‘armour of
God’, is no material foe: it is a spiritual foe, a foe who
attacks and must be fought ‘in the heavenly sphere’. We are
reminded of Satan standing among the sons of God and accusing Job i 6
Job. We are reminded again of the scene in the Apocalypse:
‘there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels, to fight against Apoe. xii 7
the dragon : and the dragon fought, and his angels’,

We now return to our passage: ‘ Blessed be God... who hathiz
blessed us with all spiritual blessing in the heavenly sphere’,

'The heavenly sphere, then, is the sphere of spiritual activities :
that immaterial region, the ‘unseen universe’, which lies behind the
world of sense. In it great forces are at work : forces which are con-
ceived of as having an order and constitution of their own; as having
in part transgressed against that order, and so having become dis-
ordered :, forces which in part are opposed to us and wrestle against
us: forces, again, which take an intelligent interest in the purpose
of God with His world, and for which the story of man is an
object-lesson in the many-sided wisdom of God: forces, over all of
which, be they evil or be they good, Christ is enthroned, and we in
Him.

EXPOSITION OF THE | | [I 3,

We may call to our aid one other passage to illustrate all this.
‘The things in the heavens’, as well as ‘the things on earth’, are -

to be summed. up—to be gathered up in one—in the Christ.

(i 10). Or, as the parallel passage, Col. i 20, puts it: ‘It pleased
God to reconcile all things through Christ unto Himself, setting
them at peace by the blood of the cross, whether they be the things
on earth or the things in the heavens’. That is as much as to say,
‘The things in the heavens’ were out of gear, as well as.‘the things

‘on earth’. And so St Paul’s Gospel widens out into a Gospel of the

Universe: the heavens as well as the earth are in some mysterious
manner brought within its scope.

It is important that we should understand this point of view.
‘Heaven’ to us has come to mean a future state of perfect bliss. —
But, to St Paul’s mind, ‘in the heavenly sphere’ the very same
struggle is going on which vexes us on earth. Only with this
difference ; there Christ is already enthroned, and v we by representa-
tion are enthroned with Him.

In other words, St Paul warns us from the beginning that he
takes a suprarsensual view of human life. He cannot rest in the

‘things seen’ :-they-are-not-the-eternal,_the-real_things+they—are

' but things as they seem, not things as they are: they are things

2 Cor. ivr8

ito

‘for a time’ (mpéckarpa), not things ‘for ever’ (aiuvia).

The third important phrase which meets us on the threshold of
the epistle is the phrase ‘in Christ’, It is characteristically Pauline.
It is not, of course, confined to this epistle, but it is specially —
frequent here.

A word must first of all be said as to the two forms in which
St Paul uses the name ‘Christ’. It is found sometimes with and
sometimes without the definite article. The distinction which is
thus introduced cannot always be pressed: but, speaking generally,
we may say that in the first case we have a title, in the second a
proper name: in other words, the first form lays emphasis on the
Office held, the second on the Person who holds it, ;

In the present passage, in speaking of the blessing wherewith
God has blessed us, St Paul points to Christ as the Person in whom
we have that blessing—‘in Christ’. Below, in speaking more
broadly of the purpose of God for the universe, he lays the stress —
upon the Office of the Messiah—‘to gather up in one all things in
the Christ’. But it is possible that in many cases the choice be-

‘tween the two forms was determined simply by the consideration of

euphony. gt
The Messiah was the hope of the Jewish nation. Their expecta-

I 3] . EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. |

tion for the future was summed up in Him. He was the Chosen,
the Beloved, the Anointed of God; ‘the ideal King in whom the

nation’s destiny was to be fulfilled.

The Life and Death of Jesus were in strange contrast to thé
general Messianic expectation. The Resurrection and Ascension
restored the failing hope of His immediate followers, and at. the
same time helped to translate it to a more spiritual region. They
revealed the earthly Jesus as the heavenly Christ.

- To St Paul ‘Jesus’ was preeminently ‘the Christ’; Very rarely
does he use the name ‘Jesus’ without linking it with the name or
the title ‘Christ’: perhaps, indeed, only where some special reference

is intended to the earthly Life. So, for example, he speaks of ‘the 2 Cor.iv1o

dying of Jesus’: and, in contrasting the earthly humiliation with

the heavenly exaltation which followed it, he says: ‘that in the Phil-iitof.

-name of Jesus every knee should bow,...and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lorp’.
If the primary thought of the Messiah is a hope for the J ewish

. people, St Paul’s Gospel further proclaims Him to be the hope of

the world of men, the hope even of the entire universe. That the
Christ was the Christ of the Gentile, as well as of the Jew, was the

special message which he had been called to announce—‘to bring-as iii-8

a gospel to the Gentiles the unexplorable wealth of the Christ’.
This was the mystery, orsecret of God, long hidden, now revealed :

as he says to the Colossians: ‘God willed to make known what is Col. i 27

the wealth of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which
is Christ in you’—you Gentiles—‘ the hope of glory’.
That ‘the Christ’ to so large an extent takes the place of ‘Jesus’

in St Paul’s thought is highly significant, and explains much that

seems to call for explanation. It explains the fact that St Paul
dwells so little on the earthly Life and the spoken Words of the
Lord, He cannot have been ignorant of or indifferent to the great
story which for us is recorded in the Gospels. Yet he scarcely
touches any part of it, save the facts that Jesus was crucified, that
He died and was buried, that He rose and ascended. Of the
miracles which He wrought we hear nothing ; of the miracle which
attended. His birth into the world we hear nothing. Of the struggles
with the Pharisees, of the training of the Twelve, of the discourses
to them and. to the multitudes, he tells us nothing. It is a solitary
exception when, as.it were incidentally, he is led by a particular
necessity to relate the institution of the Eucharist.

It cannot have been that these things were of small moment in
his eyes. He must have known at least most of them, and have
valued them. But he had a message peculiarly his own: and that

EXPOSITION OF THE (I 3

message dealt not with the earthly Jesus, so much as with the
heavenly Christ. ‘In the heavenly sphere’ his message lies. ‘Hence-

2 Cor.v 16 forth’, he says, ‘know we no man after the flesh: yea, if we have

known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him (so)
no more’. ‘The Death, the Resurrection, the Ascension—these are
to him the important, moments of the life of Christ; they are the
ladder that leads upwards from ‘Christ: after the flesh’ to ‘Christ
in the heavenly sphere’—-the exalted, the glorified, the reigning
Christ ; the Christ yet to be manifested as the consummation of the
purpose of God. And if St Paul looked beyond the earthly life of
the Lord in one direction, he looked beyond it also in another. To
his thought ‘the Christ’ does not begin with the historical ‘Jesus’.
The Christ is eternal in the past as well as in the future. The
earthly life of Jesus is a kind of middle point, a stage of humiliation

2Cor.vilig for a time. ‘Being rich, He became poor’; ‘being in the form of

Phil. ii 6 f.

God...He humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, coming
to be in the likeness of men’, That stage of humiliation is past:
‘God hath highly exalted Him’: we fix our gaze now on ‘Jesus
Christ’ ascended and enthroned.

We may _not, indeed, think that_‘ Jesus’_and_‘the—Christ? can

, ever in any way be separated : St Paul’s frequent combination of

Acts ix 5

Acts ix 22

the two names is a witness against such a separation. Yet there —
are two aspects: and it is the heavenly aspect that predominates
in the thought of St Paul.

It is instructive in this connexion to compare the narrative of
St Paul’s conversion with the account that immediately follows of
his first preaching. It was ‘Jesus’ who appeared to him in the
way: ‘Who art thou, Lord?...I am Jesus’, He had always looked |
for the Messiah: he was to be taught that in Jesus the Messiah
had come. The lesson was learned; and we read: ‘Saul waxed
strong the more, and confounded the Jews that dwelt in Damascus,
proving that this was the Christ’. He had seen Jesus, risen and
exalted: he knew Him henceforth as the Christ.

We observe, then, that the conception which the phrase ‘in
Christ’ implies belongs to the same supra-sensual region of ideas to
which the two preceding phrases testify. The mystical union or
identification which it asserts is asserted as a relation, not to
‘ Jesus ’—the name more distinctive of the earthly Lifeg-but to ‘the
Christ’ as risen and exalted.

The significance of the relation to Christ, as indicated by the
preposition ‘in’, and the issues of that relation, are matters on

which light will be thrown as we proceed with the study of the

epistle. But it is important to note at the outset how much is

I 4] | EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 25

summed up in this brief phrase, and how prominent a position it
holds in St Paul’s thought.

In Christ, the eternal Christ, who suffered, rose, ascended, who
is seated now at God’s right hand supreme over all the forces of the
universe: in Christ, in the heavenly sphere wherein He now abides,
in the region of spiritual activities, all spiritual blessing is ours: in
Christ God has blessed us; blessed be God. >

In the verses which follow (4—14) we have an amplification of vv. 4-14
the thoughts of v. 3, and especially of the phrase ‘in Christ’. This
amplification is introduced by the words ‘ according as’.

And first St Paul declares that the blessing wherewith God hath
blessed us is no new departure in the Divine counsels. It is in
harmony. with an eternal design which has marked us out as the
recipients of this blessing : ‘according as He hath chosen us in Him i4
before the foundation of the world’,

‘ He hath chosen us’ or ‘elected us’. Election is a term which
suggests at once so much of controversy, that it may be well to lay
emphasis on its primary sense by substituting, for the moment, a
word of the same meaning, but less trammelled by associations—

the word ‘selection’. TO

The thought that God in His dealings with men proceeds by the
method of selection was not new to St Paul. The whole of the
Old Testament was an affirmation of this principle. He himself
from his earliest days had learned to cherish as his proudest posses-
sion the fact that hé was included in the Divine Selection. He
was a member of the People whom God had in Abraham selected
for peculiar blessing.

. The Divine Selection of the Hebrew People to hold a privileged
position, their ready recognition of that position and their selfish
abuse of it, the persistent assertion-of it by the Prophets as the
ground of national amendment—this is the very theme of the Old
Testament scriptures. It is on account of this, above all, that the
Christian Church can never afford to part with them. Only as we
hold the Old Testament in our hands can we hope to interpret the
New Testament, and especially the writings of St Paul. Only the
history of the ancient Israel can teach us the meaning of the new Gal. vi 16
“Israel of God. .

No new departure in principle was made by Christianity. Its
very name of the New Covenant declares that God’s method is still
the same. Only the application of it has been extended: the area
of selection has been enlarged. A new People has been founded, a
People not limited by geographical or by racial boundaries: but

ivi

EXPOSITION OF THE _ [1 4

still a People, a Selected People—even as to-day we teach the
Christian child to say: ‘The Holy Ghost, which sanctifieth me and
all the Elect People of God’.

God, then, says St Paul, selected us to be the recipients of the
distinctive spiritual blessing of the New Covenant. It is in accord-
ance with this Selection that He has blessed us.

The Selection was made ‘in Christ before the foundation of
the world’. That is to say, in eternity it is not new; though in
time it appears as new. In time it appears as later than the
Selection of the Hebrew People, and as an extension and develop-
ment of that Selection. But it is an eternal Selection, indepen-
dent of time; or, as St Paul puts it, ‘before the foundation of the
world’.

Here we must ask: Whom does St Paul regard as | the objects
of the Divine Selection? He says: ‘Blessed be God...who hath —
blessed us...according as He hath selected us...before the foundation
of the world’. "What does he mean by the word ‘us’?

The natural and obvious interpretation is that he means to .
include at least himself and those to whom he writes. He has

spoken_so_far_of_no_others.__Later_on_he_will_distinguish two great

classes, both included in the Selection, of whom he has certain
special things to say. But at present he has no division or dis-
tinction. He may mean to include more: he can scarcely mean to
include less than himself and the readers whom he addresses.

It has been said that in the word ‘us’ we have ‘the language
of charity’, which includes certain individuals whom a stricter use
of terms would have excluded, That is to say, not all the members
of all the Churches to whom the letter was to go were in fact
included in the Divine Selection.

To this we may reply: (1) Nowhere in “the epistle does St Paul

suggest that any individual among those whom he addresses either

is or may be excluded from this Selection,

(2) Unworthy individuals there undoubtedly were: but his
appeal to them is based on the very fact of their Selection by God:
‘I beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye
have been called’,

The Old Testament helps us again here. Among the Selected
People were many unworthy individuals, This unworthiness did
not exclude them from the Divine Selection, On the contrary, the
Prophets made their privileged position the ground of an appeal to

- them.

Moreover, just as the Prophets looked more to the whole than
to the parts, so St Paul is dominated by the thought of the whole,

14, 5] ‘EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. | 27

and of God’s purpose with the whole. It is a new Israel that
Christ has founded—a People of privilege. We are apt so far to
forget this, as to regard St Paul mainly as the Apostle of individu-
ality. But in the destiny of the individual as an individual he shews
strangely little interest-—strangely, I say, in comparison with the
prevailing thought of later times; though not strangely, in the

” light of his own past history as a member of a Selected People.

We take it, then, that by the word ‘us’ St Paul means to
include all those Christians to whom he intended his letter to come.
It is reasonable to suppose further that he would have allowed his
language to cover all members of the Christian Church every-
where. . = .

The one doubt which may fairly be raised is whether the later
phrase of v. 12, ‘we who have been the first to hope in Christ’,
should be taken as limiting the meaning of ‘us’ in the earlier

- verses, This phrase we must discuss presently: but meanwhile it is
- enough to point out that the parallel passage in the Epistle to the
Colossians, where some of the same statements are made (compare
especially Eph. i 6, 7 with Col. i 13, 14), has no such limitation,
and _quite_clearly includes the Gentiles to whom he was writing.
We may therefore believe that here too the Gentile Christians are
included, up to the point at which the Apostle definitely makes
statements specially belonging to the Christian Jew.

The aim of the Divine Selection is plainly stated in the words,
‘that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love’. Thei4
phrase ‘in love’ must be joined with the preceding words, not with
those that follow ; although the latter collocation has some ancient
interpreters in its favour. For (1) the same phrase occurs five
times more in the epistle (iii 17, iv 2, 15, 16, v 2), and always in
the sense of the Christian virtue of love—not of the Divine love
towards man: and (2) here it stands as the climax of the Divine
intention. Love is the response for which the Divine grace looks ;
and the proof that it is not bestowed in vain. On our side the -

. result aimed at is ‘love’: just as on God’s side it is ‘the praise of
the glory of His grace’.

‘ Having fore-ordained us unto the adoption of sons throughis
Jesus Christ unto Himself’. The sonship of Man to God is implied,
but not expressed, in the Old Testament. In the light of the later
revelation it is seen to be involved in the creation of Man in the Gen.i26f.
Divine image, by which a relationship is established to which appeal Gen. ix 6
can be made even after the Fall. In a more special sense God is @ Jer, xxxig
Father to Israel, and Israel is the son of God. But sonship in the Ex, iv 22

EXPOSITION OF THE [I 5,6

completest sense could not be proclaimed before the manifestation
of the Divine Son in the flesh. He-is at once the ideal Man and
the Image of God. In Him the sonship of Man to God finds its
realisation. Those who have been ‘selected in Him’ are possessed
of this sonship, not.as of natural right, but as by adoption. Hence
‘the adoption of sons’ is the distinctive privilege of the New
Covenant in Christ. .

The doctrine of Adoption is not antagonistic to the doctrine of
the universal sonship of Man to God. - It is on the contrary in the
closest relation to it. Itis the Divine method of its actualisation.
The sonship of creation is through Christ, no less truly than the
sonship of adoption. Man is created in Christ: but the Selected
People are brought more immediately than others into relation with
Christ, and through Christ with the Father.

‘According to the good pleaswre of His will’. Ultimately, the
power that rules the universe is the will of God. ‘It pleased His
will’: we cannot, and we need not, get behind that.
§To the praise of the glory of His grace’. This is the ordained
issue : God’s free favour to Man is to be gloriously manifested, that —

it may be eternally praised.

vv. 3-6

‘Grace’ is too great a word with St Paul to be mentioned and
allowed to pass, It will, as we shall see, carry his thought further.
But first he will emphasise the channel by which it reaches us:
‘His grace, which He hath freely bestowed on us in the Beloved’.

_ If ‘the Beloved’ is a Messianic title, yet it is not used here without .

a reference to its literal meaning. In the parallel passage in
Col. i 13 we have ‘the Son of His love’. Just as in the Son, who
is Son in a peculiar sense, we have the adoption of sons: so in the
Beloved, who is loved with a peculiar love, the grace of God is
graciously bestowed on us.

To sum up wv. 3—6: The blessing, for which we bless God, is
of a spiritual nature, in the heavenly sphere, in the exalted Christ.
Ié is in accordance with an eternal choice, whereby God has
selected us in Christ. Its goal, so far as we are concerned, is the
fulness of all virtues, love. It includes an adoption through Jesus
Christ to a Divine sonship, Its motive lies far back in the will of
God. Its contemplated issue in the Divine counsel is that God’s
grace, freely bestowed on us in His Well-beloved, should be gloriously
manifested and eternally praised.

It is noteworthy that up to this point there has been no
reference of any kind to sin: nor, with the exception of a passing
notice of the fact that it has been put out of the way, is there any

°In whom we have re emption oa trough His-blood, the forgiveness-iz—_—__

16, 7] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

allusion to it in the whole of the remainder of this chapter. We
are taken in. these verses into the eternal counsels of God. Sin,
here as elsewhere in St Paul’s teaching, appears as an interloper.
Tt comes in to hinder the progress of the Divine Purpose; to check
it, but not to change it. There is nothing to lead us to suppose
that the grace of God comes to Man in Christ simply on account of a
necessity introduced by sin. Sin indeed has served to magnify the

grace of God: ‘where sin hath abounded, grace hath yet more Rom. v 20

abounded’. But the free favour which God has bestowed on the

_ Selected People in Christ is a part of the eternal Purpose, prior to

the entrance of sin. There is good reason to believe that the Incar-
nation is not a mere consequence of the Fall, though the painful
conditions of the Incarnation were the direct result of the Fall.
And we may perhaps no less justly hold that the education of the
human race by the method of Selection must likewise have been

_ necessary, even if Man had not sinned at all.

But the mention of ‘grace’ leads St Paul on to speak of the
peculiar glory of grace, on which he has so often dwelt. Grace is
above all grace i in baffling sin.

of trespasses’. We must again bear in mind St Paul’s Jewish
training, if we are to understand his thought. This is especially
necessary, where, as here, the terms which he employs have become
very familiar to us.

‘* Redemption’, God is often spoken of in the Old Testament as
the Redeemer of His People Israel. The first great Redemption,
typical of all the rest and frequently referred to as such by the
Prophets, was the emancipation of Israel from the Egyptian bondage.
With this the history of Israel, as a People, and not now a family
merely, began. A new Redemption, or Emancipation, initiates the
history of the New People.

‘Through His blood’. These words would be scarcely intel-

_ ligible if we had not the Old Testament. To the Jewish mind
‘ blood’ was not merely——nor even chiefly—the life-current flowing Gen. iv 10

in the veins of the living: it was especially the life poured out in
death; and yet more particularly in its religious aspect it was

the symbol of sacrificial death. The passover lamb whose blood .

was sprinkled on the lintel and doorposts was the most striking
feature of the Redemption from Egypt. The sacrificial blood of the

Mosaic ‘ritual was the condition of the remission of sins: ‘without Heb. ix 22

blood-shedding no forgiveness takes place’,
The New Covenant is the consummation of the Old. The

EXPOSITION OF THE [I 7—9

Redemption i is through the blood of Christ, and it includes ‘the
Sorgweness of trespasses’,

‘ According to the riches of His grace’ The mention of ‘grace’
had led to the thought of its triumph over sin: and this in turn
leads back to a further and fuller mention of ‘ grace’.

‘His grace which He hath made to abound towards us in all
wisdom and prudence’. The last words help to define the grace
in another way: among its consequences for us are ‘wisdom and
prudence’. Wisdom is the knowledge which sees into the heart
of things, which knows them as they really are. Prudence is
the understanding which leads to right action. Wisdom, as it is
set before us in the Sapiential books of the Old Testament, includes
both these ideas: but with St Paul Wisdom belongs specially to
the region of the Mystery and its Revelation.

The great stress laid by St Paul on Wisdom in his later letters
calls for some notice. In writing to the Corinthians at an earlier
period he had found it necessary to check their enthusiasm about
what they called Wisdom—an intellectual subtlety which bred
conceit in individuals and, as a consequence, divisions in the

Christian Society. He had refused to minister to their appetite for__

this kind of mental entertainment. He contrasted their anxiety for
Wisdom with the plainness of his preaching. He was forced into.
an extreme position: he would not communicate to them in their
carnal state of division and strife his own knowledge of the deeper
things of God. But at the same time he declared that-he had
a Wisdom which belonged not to babes, but to grown men}. .
And it is this Wisdom which we have in the present Epistle. It

1 Cor. ii7 deals as St Paul had said with ‘a mystery’: it is a Wisdom long

hidden but now revealed.

‘Having made known to us the mystery of His will’. This
together with what follows, to the end of v. 10, is explanatory of
the preceding statement. ‘God hath made grace to abound toward
us in all wisdom and prudence, in that He hath made known to us

the mystery of His will’.

‘The mystery’ or ‘secret’, It is tempting to regard St Paul’s
employment of the word ‘mystery’ as one of the instances in which
he has borrowed a term from popular Greek phraseology and has
lifted it into the highest region of thought. The word was every-
where current in the Greek religious world. When the old national

1 Contrast 1 Cor. ii 1, 2 with ib. this subject (Prolegg. to Romans and
ii 6, 7: and see Dr Hort’s words on Ephesians, 180 fi.).

I 9] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

spirit died out in Greece, the national religious life died with it, and
the ancient national cults lost their hold on the people. . About the
same time theré came into prominence all over the Greek world
another form of religious worship, not so much public and national
as private and individualistic. It had many shapes, and borrowed

-much from Eastern sources. Its aim was the purification of indi- ~

vidual lives ; and its methods were (1) the promise of a future life,
and (2) the institution of rites of purification followed by initiation
into a secret religious lore. With some of the mysteries much that
was abominable was connected: but the ideals which some at least
of them proclaimed were lofty. The true secret of divine things
could only be revealed to those who passed through long stages of
purification, and who pledged themselves never to disclose ‘the
mysteries’ which they had been taught.

The ‘mystery’, of which St Paul speaks, is the secret of God’s
dealing with the world: and it is a secret which is revealed to such
as have been specially prepared to receive it. But here—so far at
any rate as St Paul’s writings are concerned\—the parallel with
the Greek mysteries ends. For the Secret of God has been pub-
lished in Christ, There is now no bar to its declaration. St Paul
has been appointed a steward of it, to expound it-as containing the
interpretation of all human life.

As a matter of fact the word has come to St Paul from a wholly
different source. We now know that it was used of secrets which
belong to God and are revealed by Him to men, not only in the
Book of Daniel, but also in a book which presents many parallels to
the Book of Daniel, and which just ‘failed, when that book just
succeeded, in obtaining a place within the Jewish canon. Portions
of the long lost Greek of the Book of Enoch have recently been
restored to us, and we find that the word ‘mystery’ ‘is used in
it again and again of divine secrets which have rightly or wrongly
come to the knowledge of men. And even apart from this particu-
lar book, we have ample evidence for this usage in the Greek-speak-
ing circles of Judaism. The word, with its correlative ‘revelation’,
was at hand in the region of the Apostle’s own Jewish training,
and we need not seek a heathen origin for his use of it *.

‘ According to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Him,
Jor dispensation in the fulness of the times, to gather up in one all

1 With later parallels to the Greek ~ ? See the detached note on the
mysteries in the rites of the Christian meaning of pvorhpior.
Church we are not here concerned.

32 | EXPOSITION OF THE [I 10

things in Christ. This is a description in the broadest terms of
the scope and contents of the Divine Secret.

iro _ © For dispensation in the fulness of the times’. The similar
language of iii 9 is the best comment on this passage. The Apostle
declares there that it is his mission to shew ‘what is the dispensation
of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who
created all things’. The Creator of the universe has a Purpose in

iii 11 regard to it—‘an eternal purpose which He hath purposed in Christ
Jesus our Lord’, The secret of it has been hidden in God until
now. The ‘dispensation’ or ‘working out’ of that secret Purpose

ili 3 is a matter on which St Paul claims to speak by revelation.

‘ Dispensation’ is here used in its wider sense, not of household
management, which is its primary meaning, but of carrying into
effect a design. The word must be taken with the foregoing phrase
‘the mystery of His will’; and we may paraphrase, ‘to carry it out
in the fulness of the times’. The thought is not of ‘a Dispensation’,
as though one of several Dispensations: but simply of the ‘carrying
out’ of the secret Purpose of God.

_ That secret Purpose is summarised in the words, ‘to gather up

—_———_—in-one-all_things-in- Christ.
‘To gather up im one’. As the total is the result of the
addition of all the separate factors, as the summary presents in
one view the details of a complicated argument—these are the
metaphors suggested by the Apostle’s word—so in the Divine
counsels Christ is the Sum of all things.

‘All things’. The definite article of the Greek cannot be
represented in English: but it helps to give the idea that ‘all
things’ are regarded as a whole, as when we speak of ‘the
‘universe’: compare Col. i 17 and Heb. i 3.

‘In Christ’, The Greek has the definite article here also: for
the stress is laid not on the individual personality, but rather on the
Messianic office. The Messiah summed up the Ancient People:
St Paul proclaims that He sums up the Universe.

The contrast between ‘the one’ and ‘the many’ was the
foundation of most of the early Greek philosophical systems.
‘The many ’—the variety of objects of sense—was the result of
a breaking up of the primal ‘one’, ‘The many’ constituted im-
perfection: ‘the one’ was the ideal perfection. The philosopher
could look beyond ‘the many’ to ‘the one’—the absolute and alone
existent ‘one’.

There is something akin to this here.. The variety of the
universe, with its discordances and confusions, has a principle
of unity. ‘In Christ’, says St Paul in Col. i17, ‘all things consist’ ;

I 10] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 33

in Him, that is, they have their principle of cohesion and unity:

even as ‘through Him and unto Him they have been created’. Col. i 16
If confusion has entered, it is not.of the nature of things, and it is

not to be eternal. In the issue the true unity will be asserted and
manifested. ‘The mystery of the will of God’ is the Divine
determination ‘to gather up in one all things in Christ’.

St Paul has thus been led on past the method of God’s working
to the issue of God’s working. He has told us the purpose of the
Divine Selection. It is not simply, or mainly, the blessing of the
Selected People. It is the blessing of the Universe.
It is worth while to note how entirely this is in harmony with
the lesson of the Old Testament, though it far transcends that
earlier teaching. Abraham was chosen for peculiar blessing: but
at the moment of his call it was said to him: ‘in thee shall all Gen. xii 3
families of the earth be blessed’. And to take but two of the later

'. utterances, we may recall the warning of Ezekiel: ‘I do not this Ezek.

for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for Mine holy name’s sake... **¥i 22
and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord’; and the familiar

words of the Psalm: ‘O let the nations rejoice and be glad: for Ps, lxvii
Thou shalt judge the folk [the “chosen people] righteously,—and-4~7
govern the nations upon earth...God shall bless us: and all the
ends of the earth shall fear Him’.

It was the failure to recognise this mission to bless the whole
world that was the ‘great refusal’ of Judaism. A like failure to
grasp the truth that it is the mission of Christianity to sanctify the
whole of human experience has blighted the Church of Christ again |
and again. Out of that failure it is the purpose of St Paul’s greatest
epistle to lift us to-day.

For the Christian hope is an unbounded hope of universal good.

It has two stages of its realisation, an intermediate and a final
stage: the intermediate stage is the hope of blessing for the Selected
People; the final stage is the hope of blessing for the Universe—
‘the gathering up in one of all things in Christ, things in heaven.
and things upon the earth’.

Without attempting to analyse this burst of living praise, we ov: 3—1¢
yet may notice that there is a certain orderliness in the Apostle’s
enthusiasm. The fulness of ‘spiritual blessing’ of v. 3 is expounded
under five great heads: Election, v. 4; Adoption, ». 5; Redemp-
tion, v. 7; Wisdom, v. 8; Consummation, v. ro.

We might have expected him at last to stay his pen. He has
reached forward and upward to the sublimest exposition ever framed

2
EPHES, . : 3

34 EXPOSITION OF. THE . [I 11, 12

of the ultimate Purpose of God. His doxology might seem to have
gained its fitting close. But St Paul is always intensely practical,
and at once he is back with his readers in the actual world. Jew
and Gentile are among the obstinate facts of his day. May it not
be thought. by some that he has been painting all along the glowing
picture of the Jew’s hope in his Jewish Messiah ?

It is plain, at any rate, that he desires at once to recognise the
place of Jew and Gentile alike in the new economy. So without a

ir1—13 break he proceeds: ‘in. Him, in whom. also we have been chosen as
God’s portion, having been foreordained...that we should. be ta the
praise of His glory, who have been the first to. hope in. Christ; in
whom. ye also..

‘We have been chosen as God’s. portion’; that i is, assigned. by: God
to Himself as His own lot and portion. Underneath the phrase
lies the thought of Israel’s peculiar position among the nations.
Compare the words of the great, song in Deut. xxxii 8 ff:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,

When He separated the children of men,

He set the bounds of the peoples

According to the number of the children of Israel.

For the Lord’s portion is His people;
Jacob is the lot. of His. inheritance.
He found him in a desert land,
And in the waste howling wilderness;,
He compassed him about, He cared for him,
He: kept him as the apple of His eye.
The prophet Zechariah foresaw the realisation of this once more in
Zech. iir2 the future: ‘The Lord shall inherit Judah as. His portion in the
holy land, and shall yet choose Jerusalem’.
To St Paul the. fulfilment has come. In the dispensation of
the mystery of God’s will, he says, this peculiar position is ours:
iu ‘we have: been chosen. as God’s portion, having. been foreordained
according to: the purpose of Him. who worketh all. things: according
to: the counsel of His will’,

Thus far no word of limitation has occurred: but now at once

ize the first. of two classes is marked out: ‘that we should. be to the
praise. of His. glory’—we, ‘who, have been. the first to hope im
Christ’.

The limiting phrase is capable of two explanations, tt seems
most natural to interpret it of the Christian Jews,—those members
of the Jewish people. who: have recognised Jesus. as their Messiah,
Elsewhere. the Apostle lays. stress. on the fact that Christ was first

I 23) . EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 35

preached to and accepted by Jews. The Jewish Christian had a
distinct priority in time: indeed the first stage of the Christian
Church was a strictly Jewish stage. St Paul recognises this,
though he hastens at once to emphasise the inclusion of the Gentile
Christians. It is.‘to the Jew first’——but only ‘first’: ‘to the Jew Rom. ii 10
first, and to the Greek; for there is no respect of persons with God’.
But it is also possible to render, ‘who aforetime hoped in the
Christ’, and to refer the words to the Jewish people as such. This
would be in harmony with such an expression as ‘For the hope of Acts xxviii
Israel I am bound with this chain’. 20
In either case, if for a moment he points to the Jewish priority,
it is only as a priority in time; and his very object in mentioning it
is to place beyond all question the fact that the Gentiles are no
less certainly chosen of God.
‘In whom ye also’. The main verb of this sentence is not easy i 13
to find. It can hardly be ‘ye have been chosen as (God’s) portion’,
supplied out of the former sentence: for the assignment to God is
a part of the eternal purpose in Christ, and not a consequence of
‘hearing’ and ‘believing’. It might be ‘ye hope’, supplied out of
the preceding participle. But it is simpler to regard the seritence

as broken, and taken up again with the words ‘in whour also’.

‘In whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel
of your salvation,—in whom also having believed, ye have been
sealed with the holy Spirit of promise’. To the Jew came the
message first: but to you it came as well. You too heard ‘the
word of the truth’, the good news of a salvation which was yours
as well as theirs. You heard, you believed; and, as if to remove all
question and uncertainty, God set His seal on you. The order of
the words in the original is striking: ‘Ye were sealed with the
Spirit of the promise, the Holy (Spirit)’. Here again we have the
expansion of an Old Testament thought. ‘To Abraham and his Gal. iii 16
seed were the promises made’: but the ultimate purpose of God
was ‘that upon the Gentiles should come the blessing of Abraham Gal, iii 14
in Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith’. ‘To you is the promise (of the Holy Spirit)’, says Acts ii 39
St Peter on the Day of Pentecost, ‘and to your children, and to all
_ . that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call’, And
when the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles at Caesarea he cried;
‘Can any forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, Acts x 47
seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit, even as wel”

The gift of the Spirit of the Promise was not only God’s
authentication of the Gentile converts at the time, but their foretaste
and their security of the fulness of blessing in the future. This is

3-2

iv 30

EXPOSITION OF THE [Ligas

expressed in two ways. First, by a metaphor from mercantile life.
The Holy Spirit thus given is ‘the earnest of our inheritance’, The
word arrhabén means, not a ‘pledge’ deposited for a time and ulti-
mately to be claimed back, but an ‘earnest’, an instalment paid at |
once as a proof of the bona jides of the bargain. It is an actual
portion of the whole which is hereafter to be paid in full. Secondly,
‘ye have been sealed’, says the Apostle, ‘unto the redemption of
God’s own possession’. So later on, speaking of the Holy Spirit,.
he says: ‘in whom ye have been sealed unto the day of redemption’,

- The full emancipation of the People of God is still in the future.

‘The redemption of God’s own possession’ is that ultimate

' emancipation by which God shall claim us finally as His ‘peculiar

treasure.’ So the Septuagint rendered Mal, iii 17 ‘They shall be

to me for a possession, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day which
I make’; comp. 1 Pet. ii 9, ‘a people for God’s own possession’.

It is noteworthy that St Paul is careful to employ in regard to
the Gentiles the very terms—‘ promise’, ‘inheritance’, ‘ emancipa-
tion’, ‘possession ’—-which were the familiar descriptions of the
peculiar privilege of Israel. Moreover in the phrase ‘our inherit-
ance’ he has suddenly changed back again from the second person

| Hie |

Jer. xiii 11

i 15—23

to the first; thereby intimating that Jews and Gentiles are, to
use a phrase which occurs later on, ‘co-heirs and concorporate and
co-partakers of the promise’.

At last the great doxology comes to its close with the repetition
for the third time of the refrain, ‘to the praise of His glory’—words
which recall to us the unfulfilled destiny of Israel, ‘that they might
be unto Me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for
a glory: but they would not hear’,

*S WHEREFORE I also, having heard of your faith in the
Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, “cease not to
give thanks for’ you, making mention of you in my prayers;
*that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,
may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and _ revelation
in the knowledge of Him; “the eyes of your heart being
enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of His calling,
what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
*and what the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward
who believe, according to the working of the might of His
strength, * which He hath wrought in Christ, in that He
hath raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right

Lis, 16] . EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

hand in the heavenly places, *above every principality and

_ authority and power and dominion, and every name that is
named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to

‘come; “and He hath put all things under His feet; and Him
hath He given to be head over all things to the church, * which _

_ is His body, the fulness of Him who all in all is being fulfilled.

From doxology the Apostle passes to prayer. His prayer is
introduced by expressions of thanksgiving, and it presently passes
into a description of the supreme exaltation of the heavenly Christ,
and of us in Him—for, though it is convenient to make a pause at
the end of c. i, there is in fact no break at all until we reach ii 11.

‘ Having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and love unto all i 15
the saints’. It is St Paul’s habit to open his epistles with words of
thanksgiving and prayer; and as a rule his thanksgiving makes
special reference to the ‘faith’ of those to whom he writes: some-
times with ‘faith’ he couples ‘love’; and sometimes he completes
the trinity of Christian graces by a mention of ‘hope’, Thus:

(1) Rom 8+ _that_your_, Faithis_spoken of throughout the

whole world.

(2) 2 Thess. i3: because that your faith groweth exceedingly,
and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth.

_ Philem. 5: hearing of thy love and faith which thou hast |

toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints. .

(3) 1 Thess. i 3: remembering without ceasing your work of
Jaith and labour of love and patience of hope, ete.

Col. i 4, 5: having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and

the love which ye have “toward all the saints, because of the
hope, ete.

‘I cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my i 16
prayers’, This ‘making mention’ is a frequent term in St Paul’s
epistles (1 Thess. i 2, Rom. ig, Philem. 4). We might suppose it to
be a peculiarly Christian expression. But, like some other phrases
in St Paul, it is an old expression of the religious life of the people,
lifted up to its highest use. Thus in a papyrus letter in the British
Museum, written in Egypt by a sister to her brother and dated
July 24, 172 B0., we read: ‘I continue praying to the gods for
your welfare. I am well myself, and so is the child, and all in the
house, continually making mention of you fie. no doubt, ‘in
prayer’]. When I got your letter, immediately I thanked the gods
for your welfare...’. Here are the very terms: ‘making mention’

EXPOSITION OF THE [I 16—18

and ‘I thanked the gods’. And the language of many other letters
bears this put, <A frequently occurring phrase is, for example,
this: ‘I make thy reverence to our lord Serapis’, St Paul, then,
instead of praying to ‘our lord Serapis’, makes his request to ‘the
God of our Lord Jesus Christ’: instead of a conventional prayer

_ for their health and welfare, he prays for their spiritual enlighten-

izyz, 18

2 Cor. i 3;
Acts vii 25
1 Cor. ii 83
Jas. ii 1

ment: and so what to others might have been a mere formula of
correspondence becomes with him a vehicle of the highest thought
of his epistle.

His prayer is this: ‘that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of glory, may gwe unto you the Spirit of wisdom...that ye
may know...”.

It is to be noted that for the sake of emphasis the Apostle has
resolved the combined title of v. 3, ‘the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Obrist’. His prayer is directed to Him who is not only
the Father of our Lord, but also our Father in the heavenly glory.

With the title ‘the Father of glory’ we may compare on the one
hand ‘the Father of mercies’; and on the other, ‘the God of

glory’, ‘the Lord of glory’, and the remarkable expression of
St James ‘our Lord Jesus Christ of glory’, Moreover, when after

Luke xi 13

John xiv
26, xvi 13

a long break the Apostle takes up his prayer again in iii 14,
we find another emphatic expression: ‘I bow my knees to the
Father, of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named’—
an expression which may help to interpret ‘the Father of glory’ in
this place. .

The prayer takes the form of a single definite request for a
definite end: that ‘the Father...may give unto you the Spirit of
wisdom...that ye may know’. The words are closely parallel to
our Lord’s promise as given by St Luke: ‘The Father...will give
the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him’.

For note that it is a Spirit, that St Paul prays for. It is not
an. attitude of mind, as when we speak of ‘a teachable spirit’. In
the New Testament the word ‘spirit’ is used in its strictest sense.
All true wisdom comes from a Spirit, who dwells in us and teaches
us. It is a teaching Spirit, rather than a teachable spirit, which
the Apostle asks that they may have.

In St John’s Gospel the personality of the Divine Teacher is
strongly emphasised: ‘The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send

in My name, He will teach you all things’; ‘When He, the Spirit

of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth’, There in the

Greek we have the definite article (rd wvedua ris aAnOelas): here it

is absent (xvejyqa godias). To attempt to make a distinction by
1 See the detached note on current epistolary phrases.

I 17, 18] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

inserting the indefinite article in English would perhaps be to go
further than is warranted. There is, after all, but one ‘ Spirit of
wisdom’ that can teach us,

But a distinction may often be rightly drawn in the New
Testament between the usage of the word with the definite article
and its usage without it. With the article, very generally, the
word indicates the personal Holy Spirit; while without it some
special manifestation or bestowal of the Holy Spirit is signified.
And this latter is clearly meant here, A special gift of the Spirit
for a special purpose is the subject of St Paul’s request,

’ The Spirit thus specially given will make them wise: He will
come as the ‘Spirit of wisdom’. Yet more, as the ‘Spirit of
revelation’ He will lift the veil, and shew them the secret of God.

‘Revelation’——‘apocalypse’, or ‘unveiling’—is a word which is
naturally used where any ‘mystery’ or ‘sécret’ is in question.
The Divine Secret needs a Divine Unveiling, So St Paul declares
of himself: ‘by apocalypse was the mystery’—by revelation was iii 3
the secret—‘made known unto me’. He prays that it may be so
for those to whom he writes. In one sense it is true that a secret
_ once published is thereafter but ‘an open secret’. But it is no less

true that the Christian ‘mystery’ demands for its unveiling the
perpetual intervention of the ‘Spirit of apocalypse’.

‘In the knowledge of Him’: i.e. of ‘the God of our Lord Jesus i 17
Christ, the Father of glory’: as such must He be recognised and
known, And to this end ‘the eyes of their heart’ must be opened i 18

and filled with light.
tual process: it begins with the
and the will’,

1 A striking illustration of the lan-
guage of St Paul in this passage is to
be found in 2 (4) Hsdras xiv 22, 25:
‘If I have found grace before thee,
send the Holy Ghost (or, ‘a holy
spirit’) into me, and I shall write all
that hath been done in the world
since the beginning...And he answered
me,...I shall light a candle of under-
standing in thine heart, which shall
not be put out, till the things be per-
. formed which thou shalt begin to
write’.

In this book, which is perhaps al-
most contemporary with St Paul, there
are two.or three other verbal parallels
which are worth noticing here: with

The Divine illumination is no mere intellec-

heart, the seat of the affections

‘the Julness of the times’ compare 2 (4)
Esdr. iv. 37, ‘By measure hath He
measured the times, and by number

_ hath He numbered the times; and He

doth not move nor stir them, until
the said measure be fulfilled’: with
‘the mystery’ compare xii 36, ‘Thou
only hast been made meet to know
this secret of the Highest’ (comp.
v. 38, x 38, xiv 3 ‘the secrets of the
times’): with ‘ye were sealed’ com-

pare perhaps vi 5, ‘Before they were °

sealed that have gathered faith for
@ treasure,’ and x 23, ‘And, which
is the greatest [sorrow] of all, the seal
of Sion hath now lost her honour’,
See also below, p. 48.

EXPOSITION OF THE [I 18—20 © |

‘That ye may know’, A threefold knowledge, embracing all
eternity—the past, the future, and not least the present.

(1) ‘ What is the hope of His calling’. Note that St Paul does
not say ‘the hope of your calling’, ie. His calling of you: though

that is included. The expression is wider: it is universal. "We are

taken back, as in the earlier verses of the chapter, to the great past
of eternity, before the foundations of the world were laid. It is
‘His calling’, in the fullest sense, that we need to understand.
That ‘calling’ involves a ‘hope’, and we must learn to know
what that hope is. It is a certain hope: for it rests on the very
fact that the calling is God’s calling, and no weak wish of ours

1Thes.v24 for better things. ‘Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will

i119, 20

do it’.

(2) ‘What the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the
sainis’. This too they must know: the glory of the eternal future.
Again, it is not ‘of your inheritance’—but something grander far.
It is ‘His inheritance’; of which they are but a tiny, though a
necessary, part. ‘The Lord’s portion is His people: Jacob is the
lot of His inheritance’.

(3) ‘And what the exceeding greatness of’ His power to us-ward
who believe’. Not merely God’s calling in the past, and God’s
inheritance in the future ; but also God’s power in the present. Of
the first two he has said much already: on the third he will now
enlarge. And so he is led on, as it were by a word, to a vast
expansion of his thought.

This power is an extraordinary, a supernatural power. It is the
very power that has raised Christ from the dead and seated Him at
God’s right hand, and that makes Him now supreme over the uni-
verse. This is the power that goes forth ‘to us-ward who believe’,

‘According to the working of the might of His strength, which
He hath wrought in Christ’. We have no words that fully represent
the original of the phrase, ‘the working...which He hath wrought’.
Both the noun and the verb are emphatic in themselves, and
St Paul seldom employs them, except where he is speaking of some
Divine activity’. ‘Might’, again, is an emphatic word, never used
of mere human power in the New Testament. St Paul heaps word
upon word (dvvais, évépyera, xparos, iox’s) in his determination to
emphasise the power of God that is at work in the lives of ‘them
that believe’. oe |

‘In that He hath raised Him from the dead’. Compare Rom.
viii 11, ‘If the Spirit of Him that raised Jesus from the dead
dwelleth in you...’

i See the detached note on évepyeiv and its cognates.

I 20—23] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 41

‘And set Him at His right hand in the heavenly places’. The
resurrection is a step in the path of exaltation.

‘Above every principality and authority and power and dominion’, i 21
‘These titles St Paul uses as denoting familiar distinctions of spiritual
forces. We have another list in Col. i 16: ‘Whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or authorities’. Originally terms of
Jewish speculation, they came in after times to play a large part in
Christian thought. The Apostle’s purpose in mentioning them,
both here and in the Epistle to the Colossians, is to emphasise the
exaltation of Christ above them all. He closes the list with ‘every
name that is named’, ie. every title or dignity that has been or can
be given as a designation of majesty. Compare Phil. ii 9 ‘the
Name which is above every name’.

That spiritual potencies are in the Apostle’s mind is clear from
_ the phrase ‘in the heavenly sphere’, as we have already seen (above,
on v. 3); and also from the added words ‘not only in this world
(or age), but also in that which is to come’.

Above all that anywhere is, anywhere can be—above all
grades of dignity, real or imagined, good or evil, present or to

___come—the mighty power of God has exalted and enthroned the

Christ.

‘And He hath put all things under His feet’. Thus Christ has i 22
fulfilled in His own person the destiny of man: ‘Let them have Gen. i 26
dominion...’, The actual words are derived from the eighth Psalm :

‘What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man Ps. viii 4, 6
that Thou visitest him?...Thou hast put all things under his feet’.
The best comment is Heb. ii 6—g.

‘And Him hath He given to be head over all things to the church, i 22, 23
which is His body’. When St Paul combats the spirit of jealousy
and division in the Corinthian Church, he works out in detail the
metaphor of the Body and its several parts. But he does not there —

' speak of Christ as the Head. For not only does he point out the
absurdity of the head’s saying to the feet, I have no need of you;

but he also refers to the seeing, the hearing and the smelling, to

_ which he could not well have alluded as separate functions, had he

been thinking of Christ as the head. Indeed in that great passage

Christ has, if possible, a more impressive position still: He is no

part, but rather the whole of which the various members are parts:

‘for as the body is one and hath many members, and all the mem- 1 Cor. xii
bers of the body being many are one body; so also is the Christ’, !?

This is in exact correspondence with the image employed by our

Lord Himself: ‘I am the Vine, ye are the branches’. That is to John xv 5
say, not ‘I am the trunk of the vine, and ye the branches growing

42 EXPOSITION OF THE ut 23

out of the trunk’; but rather, ‘I am the living whole, ye are the
parts whose life is a life dependent. on the whole’,

' Here however the Apostle approaches the consideration of .
Christ’s relation to the Church from a different side, and his lan-
guage differs accordingly. He has begun with the exalted Christ;
and he has been led on to declare that the relation of the exalted
Christ to His Church is that of the head to the body.

It is interesting to observe that later on, when he comes to ex-
pound the details of human relationship as based on eternal truths,

v22f, he says in the first place, ‘Let wives be subject to their own hus-
bands as to the Lord; because the husband is head of the wife, as
also Christ is head of the Church, Himself being saviour of the
body’: but then, turning to the husbands, he drops the metaphor
of headship, and bids them love their wives as their own bodies,
following again the example of Christ in relation to His Church;
and he cites the ideal of marriage as proclaimed at the creation of

Gen.ii24; man, ‘the twain shall become one flesh’, Not headship here, but

toh me identity, is the relation in view. ‘This mystery’, he adds, ‘is a
mighty one: but I speak (it) with reference to Christ and to the
Church ’,

Thus-the-two conceptions - one involve to St Paul's mind no inherent _
contradiction. He passes easily from one to the other. Each in
turn serves to bring out some side of the truth.

Nor may we say that the headship of Christ is a new concep-
tion, belonging only to the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the
Colossians? For in the same Epistle to the Corinthians in which
he regards Christ as the whole Body of which Christians are the

1 Cor. xi 3 parts, he also says, ‘I would have you know that the head of every
man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man (i.e. her
husband), and the head of Christ is God’. This is not quite the.
same thought as we have here; but it is closely parallel.

We now come to what is perhaps the most remarkable expres-

sion in the whole epistle, It is the phrase in which St Paul.

. further describes the Church, which he has just declared to be

i 23 Christ’s Body, as ‘the fulness of Him who all in all is being
Fulfilled’.

When the Apostle thus speaks of the Church as the pleroma

or fulness? of the Christ, and in the same breath speaks of the

Christ as ‘being fulfilled’, he would appear to mean that in some

mysterious sense the Church is that without which the Christ is

1 Eph. i 22, iv 1s, v 23; Col. i 18, ii 10, 19.
2 See the detached note on mAjpwpya.

I 23] | EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

not complete, but with which He is or will be complete, That
is to say, he looks upon the Christ as in a sense waiting for

completeness, and destined in the purpose of God to find com-

pleteness in the Church.

This is a somewhat startling thought. Are we justified in
thus giving to St Paul’s language what appears to be its obvious
meaning ¢

1. First, let us pay attention to the metaphor which has just |

been employed, and which leads directly up to this statement.
Christ is the Head of the Church, which is His Body. Now, is
it. not true that in a certain sense the body is the pleroma or
fulness of the head? Is the head complete without the body?
Can we even think of a head as performing its functions without
a body? In the sense then in which the body is the fulness
or completion of the head, it is clear that St Paul can speak
of the Church as the fulness or completion of the Christ.

Even now, in the.imperfect stage of the Church, we can see
that this is true. The Church is that through which Christ lives
on and works on kere below on earth. Jesus, the Christ incar-
__ nate, is no longer on earth as He was. His feet and hands no
longer move and work in our midst, as once they moved and
wrought in Palestine. But St Paul affirms that He is not without
feet, and hands on earth: the Church is His Body.. Through the
Church, which St Paul refuses to think of as something separate
from Him, He still lives and. moves among men’.

2. But, further, although he may make havoc of his meta-
-phors, St Paul will never let us forget that the relation of the
Church to Christ is something even closer than that of a body
to its head, In the present passage he has been describing the
exalted Christ; and he asks, How does He in His supreme posi-
tion of authority stand to the Church? He stands as Head to
the Body. But this is never all the truth; and if we bear in
mind St Paul’s further conception, in accordance with which the
whole—Head and Body together—is the Christ, we get yet further
help in our interpretation of the statement that the Church is the
pleroma of the Christ. For it is plainer than ever that without
the Church the Christ is incomplete: and as the Church grows
towards completion, the Christ grows towards completion; the
Christ, who in the Divine purpose must be ‘all in all’, ‘the Christ’
-—if we may so use the language of our own great poet—‘that
is to be’.

3. Again, this conception illuminates and in turn receives

+ See the quotation from Clement of Alexandria on p. 140.

q Cor. xii
12

Col, iii rz

A4 EXPOSITION OF THE | [33

light from a remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Colossians.
St Paul is there speaking of his own sufferings: he can even re-
joice in them, he tells us. If the Church and the Christ are
one, the suffering of the Church and the suffering of the Christ
are also one. The Christ, then, has not suffered all that He is
destined to suffer; for He goes on suffering in the sufferings of
the Church, These sufferings of the Church have fallen with
special heaviness on St Paul, He is filling up something of what
is still to be filled up, if the sufferings are to be complete. So
Col.i24 he says: ‘Now I rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf, and fill
up in your stead the remainder (literally, ‘the deficits’) of the
sufferings of the Christ in my flesh, on behalf of His Body,
which is the Church’. Thus then the Church, the completion of
the Christ, is destined to complete His sufferings; and St Paul
rejoices that as a member of the Church he is allowed by God
to do a large share of this in his own person on the Church’s
behalf. The thought is astonishing ; it could never have occurred
to a less generous spirit than St Paul’s. It is of value to us
here, as helping to show in one special direction how to St Paul’s
. mind the Christ in a true sense still waited for completion, and—
_____—would—find-that—completion only in the Church.

St Paul, then, thinks of the Christ as in some sense still in-
complete, and as moving towards completeness. The conception is
difficult and mysterious no doubt; but the Apostle has given us
abundant warning earlier in the epistle that he is dealing with
no ordinary themes. He has already told us that the purpose

ito of God is ‘to gather up in one all things in the Christ’, Until
that great purpose is fully achieved, the Christ is not yet all
that the Divine wisdom has determined that He shall be. He
still waits for His completeness, His fulfilment. As that is
being gradually worked out, the Christ is being completed, ‘being
fulfilled?

By way of enhancing this ultimate completeness St Paul in-—
serts the adverbial phrase ‘all in ail’, or, more literally, ‘all
(things) in all (things)’, We feel its force the more when we
read the whole context, and observe that it comes as a climax
after two previous declarations of supremacy over ‘all things’;
‘He hath put all things under His feet; and Him hath He
given to be head over ali things to the Church, which is His
Body, the fulness of Him who all in all is being fulfilled’, And
indeed immediately before this we read, ‘above every principality
...and every name’. All conceivable fulness, a completeness which

I 23]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

sums up the universe, is predicated of the Christ as the issue of

the Divine purpose.

‘Through the Church’, as the Apostle will declare yet more iii 10
explicitly further on, this Divine purpose is being worked out

The

Head finds completeness in the Body: the Church is the completion
of the Christ: for the Christ is being ‘all in all fuljilled’, is moving
towards a completeness absolute and all-inclusive '.

1 It may be well here to note that
the three great Versions of antiquity
support the rendering of the pas-
sage which is here given. The Latin
Church, the early Syrian Church, and
the Egyptian Church so understood
the words: see the commentary ad
loc.

Of the Greek commentators two
may be here quoted.

Origen says (Cramer, Catena in
Ephes. pp. 133 ff.; comp. Jerome
ad loc.):

‘‘Now, we desire to know in what

——way—the—Church, being the Body of

revolt from their king. So nothing
is more in harmony with the merciful
kingdom of Christ, than each of those:
reasonable beings aided and perfected
by Him, who help to fulfil that king-
dom; in that fleeing unto Him they
help to fulfil His Body, which is in a
manner empty, while it lacks those
that are thus aided by Him. Where-
fore Christ is fulfilled in all that come
unto Him, whereas He is still lacking
in respect of them before they have
come,”

The words of the great master are
not always clear, but his illustration

Christ, is the fulness of Him who all
in allis being fulfilled ; and why it is
not said ‘of Him who filleth (rhy-
podvros) all in all,’ but who is Himself
‘filled’ (or ‘fulfilled,’ w)ypovpévov) :
for it will seem as though it would
have been more naturally said that
Christ was He who filleth, and not He
who is filled. For He Himself not
only is the fulness of the Law, but
also is of all fulnesses ever the fulness,
since nothing comes to be full apart
from Him. See, then, if this be not
the answer; that inasmuch as, for the
close relation and fellowship of the
Son with reasonable beings, the Son
of God is the fulness of all reasonable
beings, s6 too He Himself takes as it
were a fulness into Himself, being
shown to be most full in regard to
each of the blessed. And that what
is said may be the plainer, conceive
of a king as being filled with kingdom
in respect of each of those who aug-
ment his kingdom ; and being emptied
thereof in the case of those who

is a good one up to a certain point:
end at least there is no doubt of what
he thought the passage meant,

Chrysostom, in his Commentary
on the passage (Savile, iii 776), after
expounding the Headship of Christ to
His Body, says:

“But, as though this were not
enough to show the relation and close
connexion, what says he? ‘The ful-
ness’, he says, of Christ is the Church.
For the fulness of the head is the
body, and the fulness of the body is
the head....* The fulness’, he says: that
is, just as the head is filled (or ful--
filled) by the body. For the body is
constituted of all its parts, and has .
need of each one....For if we be not.
many, and one a hand, another a foot,
and another some other part, then
the whole Body is not fulfilled. By
means of all, then, His Body is ful-
filed. Then the Head is fulfilled,
then there comes to be a perfect Body,
when we all together are knit and
joined in one. Do you see the riches

i 23 and
lit

i 3—iii 21

115—23

EXPOSITION OF THE [I 23, IL x:

The beginning of c. ii cannot be separated from the close of
c. i, The Apostle has been led away to expound the mystery
of the exalted Christ: but he comes quickly back to the actual
persons to whom he is writing, and deals at some length with
their relation to the exalted Christ. The transition is exactly
parallel to that in v. 11, where from ‘the gathering up in one of
the universe in the Christ’ he turns at once to speak of the relation
of himself and of his readers to Christ—‘in whom also we...in whom
ye also...

It will be useful at this point to note the general construction of
the first part of the epistle:

(1) A Doxology—leading to evér-expanding thoughts of the
purpose of God in Christ, and describing the relation of Jew and
Gentile to that purpose (i 3—14).

(2) A Prayer—leading to a preliminary exposition of the
mystery of the exalted Christ (i 15-23), and then to a fuller
discussion. of the relation of Jew and Gentile to Him (ii 1—z2).

(3) In iii 1 the Apostle recurs to the thought of his Prayer ;
but at once breaks off to say more of the mystery, and of his own

work in proclaiming it; and then (iii 14) returns to his Prayer, and___

closés-it-at-last-with-a- ~brief= Doxology (iii 20, 21).

We may now gather up the leading thoughts of i rs—23, in
order to grasp the connexion of this passage with what follows:

‘T have heard of your faith (15): I thank God, and I pray (16)
that you may have the true knowledge (17), the light which falls
on the opened eye of the heart; that you may know the hope
of God’s calling, the glory of God's inheritance (18), the great-
ness of God’s power: above all, the last of these as it bears
upon ourselves (19). Judge what it is by looking at the exalted
Christ: there you see it at work (20). God has raised Him, and
exalted Him above every conceivable dignity of this world or
the next (21). Thus supreme, He has further made Him Head
of a Body (22), which in turn fulfils and completes Him; for to
an absolute completeness He is still moving on (23)’.

The grammatical construction was broken in v, 22: from
that point independent sentences follow one another, no longer
subsidiary to the words ‘according to the working...which...’ of
vv. 19, 20.

The verb of our next sentence, which is simply added by a
conjunction to those which precede, is long in coming; for once

of the glory of the inheritance? Do power towards them that believe? Do
you. see the exceeding greatness of the you see the hope of the calling?”

II 1] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

more the construction is broken, to be picked up again in v. 5.
We find the verb at last in‘He hath quickened us together with
Christ’.

So that the line of thought is this: The power which the Apostle
specially prays that they may know is the very power by which
God has raised Christ from the dead and seated Him in the
heavenly region (i 20), and also has quickened them (both Gentiles
and Jews, as he breaks off to explain), and raised them, and
seated them in the heavenly region in Christ (ii 5, 6). In the
original the sequence is brought out clearly by the repetition of
the verbs of i 20 in a compound form in ii .6.

AND you, who were dead in your trespasses and sins,
- *wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this
world, according to the prinee of the power of the air, of the
spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience ; 3wherein
we also all had our conversation in time past in the lusts of our
flesh, doing the desires of our flesh and of owr minds, and were

ii I—I10 |

——by-nature-children_of wrath, even_as the rest :—‘+but God, being

rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He hath loved us,
Seven though we were dead in. trespasses hath quickened. us
together with Christ,—by grace ye are saved,—®and hath
raised us together and seated us together in the heavenly
places in Christ Jesus: 7that in the ages to come He might
shew forth the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness
toward us in Christ Jesus. *For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves: 7 1s the gift of God: Snot of
works, lest: any man should boast. ‘For we are His workman-
ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
afore prepared that we should walk in them.

The grammatical construction is: often broken in St Paul’s

writings. from. a. desire to clear up obscurities at once and to fore-
stall possible misconceptions. His style reminds us of the freedom
and rapidity of conversation: it hurries eagerly on, regardless of
formal rules, inserting full explanations in a parenthesis, trusting
to repetitions to restore the original connexion, and above all
depending. on emphasis to drive the meaning home. We have the
less cause to be surprised at this freedom of composition, when we

48 . EXPOSITION OF THE . [iI 1,-2

remember that several of his epistles contain the clearest indi-
cations that the Apostle’s practice was to dictate his letters to an.
amanuensis', Accordingly in many cases the force of a passage
will most readily be felt when we read it rapidly or read it aloud.

In the present instance the Apostle desires to work out a simple
parallel. The mighty power of. God, he would say, which raised
Christ from the dead and seated Him in the heavenly region, has.
been at work in you as well. For you too were dead, and you too
it has raised from the dead and seated with Christ in the heavenly
places. But he breaks off in the middle to explain (1) in what
sense he could speak of them as dead, and (2) that not only they,
the Gentiles, were dead, but the Jews likewise. Quite similarly. in
i 13 he had broken off to say that not the Jews only had been taken.
as God’s portion, but they, the Gentiles, likewise.

iis ‘Dead in your trespasses and sins’: that is to say, you were
dead, not with a physical death as Christ was, but with the death of
sin; dead while you lived, because you lived in sin. This state of
death was the inevitable condition of those who had no life beyond
the life of this world, which is dominated by death and the lords of
deat ba. $$ $$ $a
lie ‘ According to the course of this world’. The expression of the
original is pleonastic. The Apostle might have said either ‘this
age’, or ‘this world’. But for the sake of emphasis he says, in a
phrase which we cannot use in English without ambiguity, ‘the
age of this world’. ‘This age’ and ‘this world’ represent a single.
Hebrew phrase, which is often found in the Rabbinic writings,
where it stands in contrast to ‘the age (or ‘ world’) to come’ , that
is to say, the age introduced by the advent of the Messiah. The
contrast is not found in the canonical books of the Old Testament ;
2 (4) Esdr. but it occurs frequently in 2 (4) Esdras. Thus we read: ‘The
vill 3 Most High hath made this world for many, but the world to come
Matt.xiiz32 for a few’. The same contrast is found in St Matthew’s Gospel,
and we have had it already in this epistle*.
St Paul is in agreement with contemporary Jewish thought in
regarding ‘this age’ as evil and as transitory (see Gal. i 4, 1 Cor.
Rom. xii 2 vii 31). ‘Instead of being ‘conformed’ to it, Christians are to be
‘transfigured’ even now ‘by the renewing of their mind’. For them —

1 Compare e.g. Rom. xvi 22,.1 Cor. 3 See Eph. i 21, and the com-
xvi 21, Col. iv 18, 2 Thess. iii 17. mentary on that verse. Compare also

2 On ‘life’ and ‘death’ in a spiritual 2 (4) Esdr. vi 9, ‘For Esau is the end
sense see the striking words of Dr Hort of this world, and Jacob is the begin-
(Hulsean Lectures, App. pp. 189ff.). ning of it that followeth’.

II 2, 3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 49

this ‘world’ is already dead, having been itself ‘crucified’ in the Gal. vi 14’
crucifixion of Christ. | .
‘ According to the prince of the power of the air’. Here again
the Apostle adopts the language of his contemporaries. It was the
" general belief of his time that through the Fall the whole world had
become subject to evil spirits, who had their dwelling in the air,
and were under the control of Satan as their prince. So in the
"New Testament itself we read of ‘the power of darkness’, in Col.i13_
contrast with the kingdom of Christ ; of ‘the power of Satan’, and 183 ts wv
even ‘the kingdom of Satan’ ; and Beelzebub is named as ‘the xii. 26;
prince of the devils’. Later on in this epistle we have a further Mark iti 22
description of ‘the spiritual hosts of wickedness’, who are called vi 12
in a strange phrase ‘the world-rulers of this darkness’.
This ‘power (or ‘authority’) of the air’ is further described by
a collective term as ‘the spirit that now worketh in the sons of ii2
disobedience’. The phrase is carefully chosen so as to suggest that
the world-power as a whole stands in sharp contrast to God. It is
‘a spirit’, and it ‘worketh’—the same forcible word which has been i 11, 20
used twice already of the Divine working.
‘The sons of disobedience’ is a Hebraism. It recurs in v 6.
~— Compare also Luke xvi 8,-xx-34,‘the-sons-of this-world’ (or‘age’):

and contrast 1 Thess. v 5, ‘sons of light’ and ‘sons of day’. In
rendering it into Greek the word ‘children’ is sometimes used
instead of ‘sons’; as in ii 3 ‘children of wrath’, and v 8 ‘ children
of the light’: but the meaning is precisely the same.

Lest the Gentiles should seem for a moment to be placed in a
‘worse position than the Jews, St Paul breaks off to insert a guard-
ing clause. We were all alike, he says, in this evil case. ‘ Wherein ii 3
we also all had our conversation im time past in the lusts of our flesh,
doing the desires of our flesh and of our minds’.

Whether in Gentile or in Jew this lower life was hateful to
God: it was a life of disobedience, and as such it incurred the
Divine wrath. We ‘were by nature children of wrath, even as the
rest’,

‘Children of wrath’ is, as we have seen, an expression parallel.
to ‘sons of disobedience’, That the ‘wrath’ here spoken of must:
be the Divine wrath, and not human ‘ passion’, is made clear by a

. later passage, in which similar phraseology recurs: ‘on account v6
of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the sons of dis-
obedience’. Moreover, to interpret ‘wrath’ in this place as

‘passion’ would destroy the contrast which immediately follows
between ‘wrath’ and ‘mercy’. The phrase plainly signifies ‘ objects

EPHEs.® 4

EXPOSITION OF THE [Il 3

of the Divine wrath’: compare Rom. i 18, ii 5, 8, where ‘the wrath
of God’ is shewn to attend Gentiles and Jews alike who do amiss.

Thus far the expression involves no difficulty. This is what
St Paul has always taught: Jew and Gentile are in the same case:
they have alike lived in sin: they are alike ‘sons of disobedience’.
and ‘children of wrath’.

But into the latter phrase he inserts the words ‘by nature’:
‘children by nature of wrath’ is the order of the original. In
interpreting these words it is important to remember that we are
accustomed to use the word ‘nature’ much more freely than it was
used in St Paul’s day. We speak, for instance, of ‘an evil nature’:
but there is no such term to be found in the New Testament. So
too we often use the word ‘natural’ in a depreciatory sense, as
when we render 1 Oor. ii 14, ‘The natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God’. But in the Greek the word is puyixds,
‘the man of soul’, as opposed to wvevpatixds, ‘the man of spirit’.
The Greek word for ‘nature’ is a neutral word. It simply means
the natural constitution of a thing, or the thing in itself apart from
anything that may come to it from outside. As a rule it has a
good meaning rather than a bad: thus ‘according to nature’ is

good, ‘contrary to nature’ is bad; compare Rom. xi 21 ff, and
Rom. i 26.
An important example of St Paul’s use of the phrase ‘by

Rom, ii 14 nature’ is found in the words, ‘When the Gentiles, which have

Gal. ii rs

Gal. iv 8

not Law, by nature do the things of the Law’: ie, without the
intervention of a direct revelation. Other examples are, ‘We are
by nature Jews’: ie. we have not become such ; we are such: and,
‘those which by nature are not gods’, though they -may be thought
such and called such. |
The sense of the present passage is: We were in ourselves chil-

dren of wrath, even as the rest: but God in His mercy did not
leave us to ourselves—as the Apostle hurries on to say, breaking his
sentence again in order to point the contrast. "We must be careful,
then, while retaining the rendering ‘by nature’, not to introduce
later meanings and associations of the word ‘nature’; nor to
make St Paul throw the blame upon a defect of constitution which
necessarily led to sin and wrath. That is not the teaching of this
passage. ‘By nature’, as St Paul used the words, men were not
necessarily led to do wrong: they could not shift the blame on to
their ‘nature’.

1 In 2 Pet. i 4 we read of a ‘Divine in contrast to a ‘nature of beasts’
nature’ (dela pivots); and in Jas. iii 7 — (gdots Onplwv).
of a ‘human nature’ (dvOpwalvy picts)

II 3—6] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Much of the confusion which has shrouded the meaning of
the passage is probably due to the word ‘children’, This sug-
gests to many minds the idea of infancy: so that St Paul is
taken to mean that by our birth as children we came under the
Divine wrath. But this is quite foreign to his meaning here. He
is not thinking, as in Rom. v, of the sin and death in which we are
involved through Adam’s disobedience. He is speaking of actual
transgressions, of a conversation in the lusts of the flesh, Atten-
tion to the two parts of the phrase has shewn us (1) that ‘children
of wrath’ is a Hebraism for ‘objects of wrath’, and (2) that ‘ by
nature’ means simply ‘in ourselves’, as apart from the Divine
purpose of mercy. So that the common misinterpretation which
makes the phrase mean ‘deserving of wrath from the moment of
birth’ is due to a neglect first of a Hebrew, and then of a Greek
idiom.

St Paul hastens on, as so often, from sin to grace, only mention-
ing sin in order to shew how grace more than meets it: compare

Rom, iii 23 £, v 12-21. Here sin and wrath lead on to ‘a wealth ii 4
- of mercy’, as in the previous chapter sin led on to ‘a wealth of iy

grace’.

‘ Even though we were dead in trespasses’. With these words he ii 5

takes up the broken sentence of v. 1: only now the Jew has been
linked with the Gentile in the ‘ disobedience’ and the ‘wrath’, and
therefore must be kept with the Gentile in the ‘mercy’. Hence
not ‘you,’ but ‘we’.

‘He hath quickened us together with Christ,—by grace ye are
saved’, St Paul’s affection for the word ‘grace’, the word which to
him sums up his own special proclamation1, the word which is his
sign-manual ‘in every epistle’, leads him to break off again to insert
it; and the insertion itself will presently be repeated and expanded,
causing a yet further digression (v. 8).

‘Ye are saved’; not ‘ye are being saved’ (present)—salvation
regarded as in process*: nor ‘ ye were saved’ (aorist)—salvation as
a single Divine act*: but ‘ye are saved’, or ‘ye have been saved’
(perfect)—salvation as a Divine act completed indeed, but regarded
as continuous and permanent in its issues.

(with Him) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus’. The compound

1 See the detached note on the that were being saved’.

meanings of ydpis. 3 As in Rom. viii 24, ‘for by hope
2 As in 1 Cor.i18, xv2; 2 Cor.ii were we saved’.

15; and especially Acts ii 47, ‘them

‘And hath raised us together (with Him) and seated us together ii 6

2 Thess. iii

i6
iy

ii 8, 9

EXPOSITION OF THE — [II 6—10-

verbs (curjyepey and ovvexdGicev) are intended to recall the simple
verbs (éyefpas and xaficas) of i 20. Christ was dead, and was raised
from the dead. We too, in a true sense, were dead, and as truly
were raised from the dead in His Resurrection: aye, and were
seated, even as He was seated, in the heavenly sphere’.

All this is spoken of as a Divine act contemporaneous with the
Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. It is wholly independent of
any human action, It is the free grace of God, which has lifted us
into a new world in Christ. As its motive the Apostle can but
suggest the glorification of grace.. As he had said before that the
Election and the Adoption were ‘to the praise of the glory of His
grace’: so here he says, ‘that in the ages to come He might shew
Jorth the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in
Christ Jesus’.

‘For by grace’, he repeats, ‘are ye saved through faith’: and -
lest by any means the possibility of merit should seem to creep in
with the mention of the. ‘faith’ which realises this great salvation,
he adds at once: ‘and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
not of works, lest any man should boast’: or, if we may slightly
paraphrase the words to force out the meaning of the original :

‘aye, and not of yourselves: the gift, for such it is, is God’s gift:
not of works, that none may have ground to boast’,

‘ For we are His workmanship’: more closely, ‘for His making
we are’—words which recall Ps. ¢ 3: ‘it is He that hath made us,
and not we ourselves’, But the words which here follow shew that
it is not of the first Creation that St Paul is speaking. There has
been a-new Making of Man in Christ. We have been ‘created in
Christ Jesus’.

This is that New Creation of which St Paul speaks in Gal.
vi 15, as having done away with the distinction between those who
were within the Jewish covenant and those who were outside it:
‘for neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision ; but
(there is) a new creation’. Similarly in 2 Cor. v 16 f. he declares
that distinctions of the flesh are done away: ‘ We from henceforth
know no man after the flesh...so that if any man be in. Christ,
(there is) a new creation: the old things have passed away : lo,
they have become new’.

Mankind had started as One in the original Creation. But in
the course of the world’s history, through sin on the one hand, and
on the other hand through the revelation of God to a selected
People, a division had come in. Mankind was now Two and not

1 See above pp. 20 ff.

II 10] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

One, There was the privileged Jew, and there was the unprivileged
Gentile. It was the glory of grace to bring the Two once more
together as One in Christ. A new start was thus made in the
world’s history. St Paul called it a New Creation: .

We shall see presently the importance which he attaches to this
view. ‘He is our peace’, he says, ‘who hath made both One... ii 14f.
that He might create the Two in Himself into One New Man,
making peace’, And so again, later on, he speaks of ‘the New iv 24
Man, which according to God is created in righteousness’,

The New Creation, then, in St Paul’s language is that fresh
beginning in the history of the human race by which the old division
is done away, and the unity of mankind is restored. It was for the
realisation of this unity that St Paul laboured and suffered. His
supreme mission was to proclaim Christ as the centre of a united
humanity. And this is the drift of our present passage. The
Apostle has been speaking of the relation of both Gentile and Jew
to Christ. Both alike were in themselves the objects of Divine
wrath by reason of their disobedience: but both alike, though dead,
were quickened, raised, exalted, with and in Christ Jesus. Man was
made anew by God. Free grace had done it all: works, or ‘merit’,

as we should say, had no part in the matter. It was a New
Creation: ‘God’s making are we, created in Christ Jesus’.

‘Created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath afore ti 10
prepared that we should walk in them’. Not ‘of works’, but ‘unto
works’. The Divine purpose is not achieved apart from the ‘ good
works’ of men: only it does not begin from them, but leads to
them. ‘They are included in the Divine will for man: they are
ready for our doing ; and we are created to do them. This reference
to ‘works’ is an echo of the earlier controversial teaching. It is
directly suggested by the mention of ‘faith’, which is the human
response to the Divine ‘ grace’.

We must not allow our attention to be distracted by the details
of interpretation from the very remarkable thought which is
enshrined in the verses which we have been considering. The
Apostle has been praying that God would grant to those to whom i 17
he is writing the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, with a view to
their knowing in particular the mighty energy that is at work in i20
themselves and in all Christian people. It is that miraculous power
which raised and exalted Christ. It has in like manner raised and
exalted them in Christ: for they cannot be separated from Him,
even as the Body cannot be separated from its Head. The result i 22
of this action on God’s part is manifold. It lifts them out of the ii r—10

Col. iii x ff.

EXPOSITION OF THE [ID 10, 12 |

present ‘age’, or ‘world’, and sets them ‘in the heavenly sphere’,
It lifts them above the control of the world-forces which rule here
below, and seats them where Christ is seated above all the powers
that are or can be. It lifts them out of death—the death of sin—
and makes them truly alive. It annihilates the old distinction
between Gentile and Jew, and inaugurates a New Creation of man-
kind: for Gentile and Jew alike were dead, and alike have been
quickened and exalted in Christ Jesus. And all this is the free
gift of God, His sovereign grace.

The same teaching, couched to some extent in the same words,
may be gathered out of various parts of the Epistle to the Colossians
(see especially i 21, ii 12, 13, 20); and there it is pressed to the
logical conclusion, which is only hinted at in the ‘good works’ of
our passage. For there the Apostle urges: ‘If therefore ye
have been raised together with Christ, seek the things that are
above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God: set your
thought on the things that are above, not on the things that are on
the earth. For ye have died, and your life is hidden with Christ
in God’,

Nor is the teaching by any means confined to these two epistles,

Rom, vir1

We need but recall the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, -
where again the logical conclusion is vigorously pressed: ‘In like
manner do ye also reckon yourselves dead to sin, but living to God
in Christ Jesus’.

In our present passage the practical issue is not insisted on, but
merely hinted at in passing. The Apostle’s main thought is the
unity which has thus been brought about, and the new hope which
accordingly is opened up for mankind as a whole. Hence he passes
on at once to expound the wealth of privilege to which, as the result

_of this new unity, his Gentile readers have been introduced.

ii 1122

= WHEREFORE remember that in time past ye, the Gentiles
in the flesh, who are called the Uncircumcision by that which
is called the Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands,—”* that
at that time without Christ ye were aliens from the common-
wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope and without God in the world. * But now in
Christ Jesus ye who in time past were far off have been made
nigh by the blood of Christ. “For He is our peace, who hath
made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of the
partition, *having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law

II 11] . EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

of commandments contained in ordinances; that He might
create in Himself of the twain one new man, so making peace;
and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and He came and
preached peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them
that were nigh ; “for through Him we both have our access in
one Spirit unto the Father. ”So then ye are no more strangers
and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and
of the household of God, being built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the
corner-stone ; “in whom all the building fitly framed together
groweth into an holy temple in the Lord; “in whom ye also
are being builded together for an habitation of God in the

Spirit.

‘ Wherefore remember’. It is hard for us to realise the vital ii x:

interest of this teaching to St Paul’s readers. To us the distinction
of Jew and Gentile is not the most important fact in human life.

—

The battle for our privilege as Gentile Christians—for our part
and place in Christ—was fought and won eighteen hundred years
ago. We have forgotten the struggle and the victory altogether.
We do not recognise that this was a decisive battle of the world’s
history.

But for the Gentiles to whom St Paul wrote the abolition of this

great distinction was everything. For five and twenty years the |

conflict had been raging. At one moment the issue had depended
onasingle man. A little place the Christian Jew was prepared to
allow to the Christian Gentile. He might be like ‘the stranger in
the gates’: but he could not be as the true born child of privilege,
unless indeed he were prepared to abandon his Gentile position, and
by circumcision identify himself with the Jew.

At one critical moment even St Peter withdrew himself, and Gal.iirrff.

would not sit at the same table with the Gentile Christians. St
Barnabas at that moment was likewise carried away. St Paul stood
alone. He saw that everything depended on absolute equality
within the Church of Christ. He withstood St Peter to the face,
and brought him to his true self again. That scene and a score of
others, when in different ways the same struggle was being waged,
left a deep mark on St Paul’s mind. -Two Churches or one—that to
his mind was the question at issue. One Church, in the providence
of God, and through the work of St Paul, it was destined to be.

ii rr

EXPOSITION OF THE - [IT ru, 12

The struggle was over—but only just over—-when he wrote this
letter. It was the morrow of the victory. Can we marvel that
while it was vivid in his memory, and in the memories of all, he
should delight again and again to remind the Gentiles of what had
been gained? ‘ Wherefore remember’. |

‘ Remember that in time past ye, the Gentiles in the flesh’. The
connexion appears ‘to be this. "We—both Gentiles and Jews, with.
no distinction now—are God’s New Creation in Christ; created
with an end to fulfil, a path marked out to tread. Wherefore
remember what you were, and what you are. You were the
despised, outside, alien Gentiles, while these fleshly distinctions

2 Cor.v16 lasted. But now that ‘we know no man after the flesh’, now that

the New Creation has made the Two no longer Two, but One, all is
yours: you have equal rights of citizenship, an equal place in the
family of God; you go to make up the Temple in which it pleases
God to dwell. . ;

‘Remember that in time past ye, the Gentiles in the jlesh’,—while
‘the flesh’ was the ground of distinction, as it was while the sign
of God’s covenant was a mark made by a man’s hand on a man’s

flesh—‘ who are called the Uncircwmeision by that which is called
the Circumcision, in the flesh, made with hands’, There is no
necessary trace of contempt, as has been sometimes thought, in the
expressions, ‘who are called the Uncircumcision’, and ‘which is
called the Circumcision’, These were familiar names on Jewish
lips, even if St Paul himself will not lend them his sanction. There
is no ground for the interpretation, ‘the so-called’, as if the Apostle
meant that the distinctions were absurd or unreal. They were very
real and very tremendous; but they were done away in the New
Creation. So far as there is any depreciation of circumcision in the
passage, it is found in the last words, which are intended to suggest
that it belongs to an order that is material and transient. |

The emphasis which the Apostle wishes to lay on the words ‘the
Gentiles’ has led him again to expand, and so the sentence is broken.
This is the third time in the epistle that he has broken his sentence
to emphasise the position of the Jew and the Gentile: compare i 13
and ii 3. Nothing could more clearly shew the place this question

held in his thought.

‘ That at that time without Christ ye were aliens from the common-
wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise’, A
contrast is here drawn between their old position, ‘at that time
without Christ’, and their new position, ‘now in Christ Jesus’
(v. 13). This contrast is somewhat obscured if we render, as in the

II 12] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 57

Authorised Version, ‘that at that time ye were without Christ,
being aliens’ &c. They are called upon to remember. not simply
that they were without Christ, but what they were without Christ.

Jt is interesting to compare with this statement of disabilities
the Apostle’s catalogue in an earlier epistle of the privileges of those
whom he terms ‘his brethren, his kinsfolk after the flesh’: they Rom. iz
“are Israelites’; theirs ‘are the adoption, and the glory, and the 3—5
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the worship, and the
promises’; theirs ‘are the fathers’, that is, the patriarchs and
prophets, the heroes of the past ; and of them ‘is the Christ accord-
ing to the flesh’. These were their distinctive privileges, which
marked them as the Elect People. It was these things that the
Gentiles had lacked.

‘In Christ’, indeed, as they now were, all was theirs ; but ‘ with-
out Christ’, as they had been, they were unenfranchised ‘outlanders’,
aliens and foreigners, with no rights of citizenship in the sacred Gen. xvii 7

commonwealth, with no share in “the covenants which guaranteed Lakel ve
the promise made to ‘ Abraham and his seed for ever’. 72 f.

* Having no hope’. ‘The Jew had a hope: the Gentile had none.
The golden age of the Gentile was in the past: his poets told him

of it, and how it was gone. ‘The Jew’s golden—age—was-in-the

future: his prophets told him to look forward to its coming.

. ‘ And without God’, Though there were ‘gods many and lords : Cor. viii
many’, ‘yet in the true sense they had no God. It had not yet °

been revealed, as it was revealed through Christ, that ‘the God of Bom. iti

the Jews’ was ‘the God of the Gentiles also’. *9

This is the only place in the New Testament where the word
afeos occurs, It is in no contemptuous sense that the Apostle
speaks of them as having been ‘atheists’, or ‘godless’. It was the
simple and sad description of their actual state, not indeed from
their own, but from the only true point of view.

The charge of ‘atheism’ was hurled again and again by the
heathen at the Christians of the early days. Justin Martyr com-
plains that Christians were persecuted as a@eo, and reminds the
persecutors that Socrates had been put to death as @Oeos, On a
memorable occasion the phrase was turned back on those who used
it. The Martyrdom of Polycarp tells (c. 9) how the proconsul bade
the aged bishop, in words which it was customary to employ,
‘Swear by the genius of the emperor; repent; say, Away with
the atheists’ (Alpe rods dOéovs—meaning the Christians). ‘Then —
Polycarp, looking towards the people and waving with his hand,
groaned and looked up to heaven and said, Afpe rods aféouvs’. It
was they and not the Christians, who had no God.

i 13

EXPOSITION OF THE SSS “[I. 1214

‘In the world’, These words are the positive description of the
state which the Apostle has hitherto been describing entirely by
negatives. Coming at the close, they stand in sharp contrast to
what immediately follows: ‘but now in Christ Jesus...’

They are not however to be taken by themselves, but in close
connexion with the two preceding phrases. The world, to St Paul,
is the present outward order of things; not of necessity to be
characterised as evil; but evil, when considered as apart from God,
or as in opposition to God. Without a hope, and without a God—
this was to be ‘in the world’ and limited to the world, with nothing |
to lift them above the material and the transient. It was to be, in
St John’s language, not only ‘in the world’, but ‘of the world’.

‘ But now in Christ Jesus ye who in time past were far of have
been made nigh by the blood of Christ’, In the remainder of this
section the Apostle reverses the picture. They were ‘without
Christ...in the world’: they are ‘in Christ Jesus’, The distance
betwéen the unprivileged and the privileged is annihilated: ‘the

Isa. Ivii rg far’ has become ‘near’. These are Old Testament terms: the

allusion is more explicitly made below in v. 17.
‘ By-the-blood-of Christ’, or (more literally) ‘in the blood of the _
Christ’. So ini 7 we had ‘through His blood’, when the Apostle
was speaking of the Emancipation, before he had distinguished the
two classes of Jew and Gentile, and when he was describing the
blessings of the new Election in the imagery of the old covenant.
We may reserve to a later point the consideration of his: present
use of the words. .

‘ For He 1s owr peace’, Thepronoun is emphatic in the original.
We might render: ‘For He Himself is our peace’, or ‘For it is He
who is our peace’.

Note that the Apostle, having taken two words from the passage
in Isaiah, now takes a third. Tn fact it is thus that the word

Isa. lvii 19 ‘ peace’ is suggested to him: for the old promise ran : ‘ Peace, peace

ii 15

to him that is far off, and to him that is nigh’. ‘It is He’, says
St Paul, ‘whois our peace’, Notealso the change in the pronouns—.
from ‘ye’ to ‘our’, To you and to us the peace has come. We
were strangers to one another ; nay, we were enemies: ‘it is He
whois our peace’. .

He, ‘who hath made both one’—both the parts one whole. The
neuter of the original cannot well be expressed by an English
translation. Lower down, instead of the neuter he will use the
masculine: ‘that He might create the two (men) into one new man,
(so) making peace’.

Wr] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

| This is the most perfect peace: not the armed peace of rival

powers, not even the peace of the most friendly alliance ; but the
peace which comes from absolute unity. There can be no morea
quarrel, when there are no more two, but only one.

‘And hath broken down the middle wall of the partition’ ; that is,
the intervening wall which formed the barrier.

To understand the metaphor we must know something of the
construction of the Temple in St Paul’s day. The area which had
been enclosed by Herod the Great was very large. It consisted of
court within court, and innermost of all the Holy Place and the Holy
of Holies, There were varying degrees of sanctity in these sacred
places. Into the Holy of Holies only the High Priest could enter,
and that once in the year. The Holy Place was entered daily and
incense was burned by a priest on the golden altar at the moment
of the sacrifice of the morning and evening lamb. This sacrifice took
place outside in the Court of the Priests, where was the great Altar
of Burnt-offerings. Outside this again were two further courts—the
Court of the Sons of Israel immediately adjacent, and beyond this
on the east the Court of the Women. The whole of the localities
thus far mentioned formed a raised plateau: from it-you-descended
at various points down five steps and through gates in a lofty wall, to
find yourself not yet outside the temple-precincts, but on a narrow
platform overlooking another large court—the outer court to which
Gentiles who desired to see something of the glories of the Temple,
or to offer gifts and sacrifices to the God of the Jews, were freely
admitted. Further in than this court they were forbidden on pain
of death to go. The actual boundary line which the Gentile might
not cross was not the high wall with its gates, but a low stone
barrier about five feet in height which ran round at the bottom of
fourteen more steps’. .

In the year 1871, during the excavations which were being
made on the site of the Temple on behalf of the Committee of the
Palestine Exploration Fund, M. Clermont Ganneau found one of
the very pillars which Josephus describes as having been set up on
the barrier to which St Paul here refers, It is now preserved in

1 This account is derived from
Josephus Antiqg.xv 11, B.J.¥ 5, In
the latter passage he says: ‘As you
went on through this first court to the
second there was a stone fence run-
ning all round, three cubits high and

most beautifully worked; on it there
were set up at equal distances pillars
setting forth the law of sanctity, some
in Greek and some in Roman charac-
ters, how that no man of another race
might pass within the sanctuary’.

ii 1g

ii 11—14

EXPOSITION OF THE [It 14

the Museum at Constantinople, and it bears the following inscrip-
tion in Greek letters’:

NO MAN OF ANOTHER NATION TO ENTER

WITHIN THE FENCE AND ENCLOSURE

ROUND THE TEMPLE. AND WHOEVER IS

CAUGHT WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME

THAT HIS DEATH ENSUES,

That barrier, with its series of inscribed stones threatening
death to the intruder, was still standing in the Temple courts at the
moment when St Paul boldly proclaimed that Christ had broken it
down, It still stood: but it was already antiquated, obsolete, out
of date, so far as its spiritual meaning went. The sign still stood:
but the thing signified was broken down. The thing signified was
the separation between Gentile and Jew. That was done away in
the person of Jesus Christ. A few years later the sign itself. was
dashed down in a literal ruin. Out of that ruin a fragment of it
has been dug, after exactly eighteen hundred years, to enforce
St Paul’s words, and by a striking object lesson to bid us, the
Gentiles, ‘remember’ that in Christ Jesus we who were ‘far off’

have been ‘madenigh’, SSS

At this point we may pause to draw out in greater fulness the
teaching of the Apostle in this passage. He has called on the
Gentiles, who have newly been admitted into a position of absolute
equality of privilege with the Jew, to remember what they were
and what they now are. They were the Gentiles, according to a
distinction which he describes by the words ‘in the flesh’: that is
to say, they were the Uncircumcision, as they were called by those
who on their part were called the Circumcision. The distinction
was an external one: it was made ‘in the flesh’ ; it was made by a
man’s hand. The very terms suggest—and are chosen to suggest—
that it was temporary, not eternal. But it was not therefore un-
real; nor was it wrong: it was part of the Divine method for the
education of the world. It is done away now ; but it was divinely
ordained, and tremendous in its reality while it lasted.

This is what they were. There was a dividing line, and they
were on the wrong side of it. And consequently, as he goes on to
say, they were not only without the sign of privilege, but without
the privilege itself. For they were not members of the Chosen
People: they were aliens, they were strangers: they knew nothing
of a Divine fellowship, a sacred polity, in which men were linked
to one another and to God, in which God had entered into covenant

1 For the Greek text see the commentary ad loc.

II 14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 61

with men and had blessed them with a promise which brightened
their outlook into the future, Nothing of all this was for them:
they had no hope, no God: they were in the world without a hope
and without:a God—the world, which might be so full of hope and |
so full of God, to those who knew the Divine purpose and their
own share in it; but which was as a fact to them, in their isolated,
unprivileged condition, a hopeless and a godless world. That is
what they were: it would do them good to think upon it.
_ If we bear in mind how closely St Paul links together member-
ship in a Divine polity and fellowship with God Himself, we shall
be saved from some difficulties of interpretation later on, He did
not deny that God was working in the hearts of the Gentiles all
the while: something of God could be known to them, was known
to them: ‘He left not Himself without witness’; He was always Acts x xivi7
doing them good : their sin consisted in their rebellion against Him
who made Himself felt among them, at least in some degree, as the
Lord of their spirits. But they were not like the favoured Jews,
who knew God and had been brought into an actual fellowship
with Him, who had God ‘so nigh unto them’, who were claimed Deut. iv 7
every moment of their lives as God’s own ; so that in a peculiar

sense God was ‘the God of Israel’; and Israel-was—‘the-Israel-of
God’,

The Jew, and the Jew alone, was nigh to God. And hence it
followed that to be nigh to the Jew was to be nigh to God, and to
be far from the Jew was to be far from God.

This then is what St Paul says: You were far off, but now you
have been made nigh. In the first instance he means, You were
far off from the Jewish commonwealth and the covenants that con-
tained the promise: but he cannot separate this thought from that
other which gave it all its meaning and importance—far from the
sacred commonwealth is far from God. ;

‘We must go back upon his life-long training, if we would under-
stand his position. From a child he had been taught that he was
a member of a Selected People, that he was brought into a Divine
fellowship. This membership, this citizenship in the sacred polity,
was the fact on which his whole life rested. This was what made
life worth living to him: this was his one only and sufficient
hope for the great future. When he became a Christian this was
not taken from him, Only he now saw that his People’s hope had
come: he saw in Jesus the Messiah of his People’s longings. All,
and more than all, that his prophets had foretold had actually come
to pass. The Divine fellowship, the sacred commonwealth, was
more than ever to him now. To be within it, as he knew he was,

Mark xi
17

Ps. ii 8

EXPOSITION OF THE fIl-14

was infinitely more precious a privilege, to be outside was far more
grievous a disability, than ever it could have seemed before.

Hence the deep pathos of his language as he describes the hopeless
misery of the Gentile world. Hence too his supreme delight in pro-
claiming, not that the Divine fellowship was suddenly at an end, but
that the old limits by which it had been confined to a single race were
done away ; that the world was no longer two parts—one privileged,
the other unprivileged—but one whole, all privileged alike ; that the
partition wall which had kept the Gentile at a distance was simply
broken down, and that Jew and Gentile might enter hand in hand
into the One Father’s house, ‘the house of prayer for all nations’,

It was the fulfilment of the Jewish hope—not its disappointment
—which had brought about this glorious issue. It was the Messiah
who had done it. The Jew lost nothing: he gained everything—
gained new brothers, gained the whole Gentile world. In Christ
God had ‘ given him the heathen for his inheritance, and the utter-
most parts of the earth for his possession’.

The Gentile too had gained all. He indeed had nothing to lose,
and could only gain. He had gained brotherhood with the Jew, a
place in the Divine family, the franchise of the sacred polity, his

ii 13

passage across the partition which had divided him from the Jew
and thereby had divided him from God. He was brought nigh—
nigh to the Jew, and nigh to God.

All this is in St Paul’s thought when he says: ‘ Ye were far off,
but ye have been made nigh’,

We have not yet considered the important words which he adds
to this statement: ‘in’ or ‘by the blood of the Christ’, The
reconciliation by which ‘the far off’ and ‘the near’ are brought
together—by which Gentile is made nigh to Jew and thereby nigh

Heb. ix 18 to God—is ‘not without blood’. For neither was the Jew’s own

covenant ‘ without blood’.

We need to remind ourselves that from the earliest days every
treaty between man and man, as well as every covenant between
man and God, was ratified and made sure by the blood of a sacrifice,
All that is done away now, and we find it hard to do full justice to
a conception so foreign to our ways of thinking. But we must bear
this fact in mind if we would understand St Paul. The covenant’
between a nation and its deity was a covenant of blood: the peace
between a nation and a nation was ratified by a victim’s blood’.

1 The history of this idea, which by the late Professor W. Robertson
played so large a part in human life Smith (part I. ‘Fundamental Institu-
before the Christian era, is elaborately tions’).
treated in The Religion of the Semites

ID 14, 15] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

That the Messiah had been killed was at first sight the defeat
and failure of all the expectation of which He had been the centre.
His resurrection dispelled the gloom, and shewed that He had
triumphed in spite of death—even through death, for He had shewn
Himself the conqueror of death. His death was presently seen to
have been a necessary stage of His work. It partook of the nature
of a sacrifice. It was the blood of a covenant: so He Himself had

solemnly described it on the eve of His crucifixion—‘ This is My Mark xiv
243 comp.
Ex, xxiv 8

Blood of the Covenant’, St Paul gives us here an interpretation of
His words. The ‘blood of. the Christ’ had made a new treaty of
peace between the two opposing sections of humanity: it had made
the two into one. ‘The blood of the Christ’ had made ‘ the far off’
to be ‘near’: it had widened out the old Covenant, so as to embrace
those who had been outside: it had become the fulfilment of all the
sacrificial blood-shedding of the old Covenant, which it superseded
only by including it in a new Covenant, in which Jew and Gentile
alike had access to the one and only God. His life-blood poured out
as the ratification of the new Covenant, says St Paul, has made ‘ the
far off’ ‘near’; for He Himself is our peace ; He Himself has made

the two parts one whole ; He Himself has broken down the partition-

wall that shut off the one from the privileges of the other.

Up to this point the Apostle’s meaning is clear, when once we
have grasped the conceptions which lie behind his thought. But he
is conscious that he has been using the language of metaphor, and
he proceeds to elaborate and to interpret what he has been saying.
The participial clause which follows is a re-statement in other terms
of what has immediately preceded.

‘ Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of command-
menis contained in ordinances’. This recasts and presents afresh
the statements ‘He Himself is our peace’ and ‘He hath broken
down the middle wall of the partition’. ‘Jn His flesh’ corresponds
to the emphatic pronoun ‘He Himself’; the abolition of ‘the
enmity’ is a new description of ‘our peace’. As the division was
symbolised and expressed in the barrier of the Temple, so ‘the
enmity ’ was expressed in ‘the law of commandments contained in
.ordinances’, Accordingly the breaking down of the Temple barrier
is one and the same thing with the abolition of the enmity as it had
taken outward shape in the enactments of the ritual law.

But these phrases deserve to be considered one by one. ‘Jn
His flesh’, ‘ His flesh’ is the scriptural term for what we speak of
as His humanity, His human nature. ‘He took upon Him flesh’
was an early Christian mode of speaking of the mystery of the

ii 15

Matt. v 17

EXPOSITION OF THE [II 15 .

Incarnation. It is the same in’ meaning with the great phrase of
the Te Deum, Tu ad liberandum suscepisti hominem, ‘Thou tookest
upon Thee man, todeliver him’, The flesh of Christ is our common
humanity, which He deigned to make His own. So that in Him
‘all flesh’, that is, all humanity, finds its meeting point. And thus
He is Himself our peace: in His own person He has abolished our’
enmity.

‘ The law of commandments contained in ordinances’ was abolished
by Christ. The fulness of this expression is no doubt intentional.
Christ came ‘not to destroy’ the law, ‘but to fulfil’ it: not to
break it down, but to fill it with its full meaning. “Yet this was to
do away with it in so far as it was a limited code of commands.
All its commandments were swallowed up in the new commandment
of love. In so far as it was petrified in enactments, and especially
in those external ordinances which guided all the details of the
Jew’s daily life and were meant above all things to keep him
distinct from the outside Gentile,—just in that sense and in that
measure it was annulled in Christ. This is made clearer by the
guarding phrase ‘in ordinances’, The law, so far as it was a ‘law
of commandments’ and was identified with external ‘ ordinances’,

Col, ii 14

Col. if. 20,
or

was-abolished-by-Christ:
The Apostle uses parallel language in the Epistle to the Colos-
sians. ‘He hath cancelled the bond that stood against us, (that
consisted) in ordinances: He hath taken it out of the way, having
nailed it to His cross’, And he asks, lower down, of those who
seemed to wish to return to a modified system of external prohibi-
tions: ‘ Why are ye still ordinance-ridden?’ And at the same time
he explains his meaning by examples of such ordinances: ‘Touch
not, taste not, handle not’. To re-enact these was to abandon the
Gospel and to return to ‘the commandments and doctrines of men’.
‘The law of commandments in ordinances’ had an important
use while the distinction ‘in the flesh’ between Jew and Gentile
had to be clearly marked. The touch of certain things defiled, the
taste of certain meats made a man unclean.. To touch even in the
commerce of the market what a Gentile had touched, to eat at the
same table at which a Gentile ate—these things were defiling then.
The ordinances were framed to prevent such pollution, such sins
against the Divine covenant which marked off the Jews as a
peculiar people. It was just these distinctions that were done away’
now ; and with them the ordinances which enforced them were
annulled.
‘The law of commandments in ordinances’ was abolished, and
abolished by the Messiah Himself. ‘In His flesh’ He had united

ID 5—17) EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 68

those whom these distinctions had held apart: ‘in His blood’ He
had made a new Covenant which included them both,

‘ That He might create in Himself of the twain one new man, so ii rg
making peace’, This is the New Creation, the New Man, of which
we have spoken already. Henceforth God deals with man as a
whole, asa single individual, in Christ. Not as Two Men, the
privileged and the unprivileged—Two, parted one from the other by
a barrier in the most sacred of all the relations of life: but as One
Man, united in a peace, which is no mere alliance of elements
naturally distinct, but a concorporation, the common life of a single
organism.

‘And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the ii 16
cross, having slain the enmity thereby’. Here the Apostle expresses
what has all along been implied in his thouglit, namely, that the
peace by which the Gentile was reconciled to the Jew was at the
same time a peace with God. In the new Covenant which was
made ‘in the blood of the Christ’ not only were the two sections of
humanity brought nigh to one another, but both of them in the
same moment were brought nigh to God.

‘In one body’. This is the ‘one body’ which has resulted from

the union of the two sections. Itis the ‘one body’ to which the
‘one Spirit’ of v. 18 corresponds. It is not the human body of the
Lord Jesus; that was referred to above in v. 15 by the expression
‘in His flesh’. Here St Paul is speaking of that larger Body of
the exalted Christ, of which he has already declared that it is Hisi 23
fulness or completion, and of which he will presently declare that iv 4
‘there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope
of your calling’.

‘ Having slain the enmity thereby’, that is, by the Cross. An
. alternative rendering is ‘having slain the enmity in Himself’, The
meaning is the same in either case: and the expression is a bold
one. Christ in His death was slain: but the slain was a slayer
too.

‘And He came and preached (or ‘published good tidings of’) ii 17
peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh’.
In these words St Paul combines with the passage of Isaiah which
he has already used in vv. 13, 14 another passage of the same book.
‘Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near, saith Isa. Ivif 19
the Lord’, is combined with ‘How beautiful upon the mountains Isa. lii 7
are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth
peace’. The verb ‘to publish good tidings’ is drawn by the Apostle
from the Septuagint version of the latter passage.

EPHES, ® . 8

EXPOSITION OF THE [II 18, 19.

In the words ‘He came and preached’ we have a reference not
to the work of the Lord Jesus on earth before the Crucifixion, but
to the work of the exalted Christ in announcing the peace which
His death had made.

‘ For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the
Father’. The new Covenant was henceforward the ground of the
Jew’s approach to God, as well as of the Gentile’s. For the old
Covenant was swallowed up in the new. Jew and Gentile now
rested alike on the new Covenant, and so all distinction between
them was at an end.

It is noteworthy that, as the Apostle proceeds, the hostility
between Jew and Gentile has been gradually falling into the back-
ground, The reconciliation of which he speaks is the reconciliation
of both to God, even more than of each to the other; and the
climax of all is found in the access of both to the common Father.
For the supreme blessing which the new Covenant has secured is
freedom of approach to Him who is to be known henceforth by His
new Name, not as Jehovah the God of Israel, but as the Father.

‘In one Spirit’. This phrase is the counterpart of the phrase »
‘in one body’ of v. 16. ‘In one body’ we both were reconciled to

iv 4

Comp.
1 Cor, xii
13

ii 19

God: ‘in one Spirit’ we both have our access to the Father. The
‘one body’ is animated by ‘one Spirit’, So, later on, the Apostle
declares: ‘There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye have been
called in one hope of your calling’. Even if the reference is not
primarily to the Holy Spirit, yet the thought of Him as the Spirit
of fellowship is necessarily present where the ‘one Spirit’ of the
‘one body’ is spoken of. The Body of the Christ has a Spirit that
dwells init. That Spirit is the Spirit of the Christ, the Holy Spirit,
‘When we grasp this correlation of the Body of Christ and the Spirit
of Christ, we can understand why in the Apostolic Creed the clause
‘The Holy Catholic Church’ forms the first subdivision of the
section which begins, ‘I believe in the Holy Ghost’,

‘So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are
fellow-citizens with the saints’, The Apostle returns to his political
metaphor, and uses a term which was well understood in the Greek
cities. The ‘sojourners’ were a class of residents who were recog-
nised by law and were allowed certain definite privileges: but
their very name suggested that their position was not a permanent
one: they resided on sufferance only, and had no rights of citizen-
ship, The Gentiles, says St Paul, are no longer in this position of
exclusion from the franchise of the sacred commonwealth. They

are ‘ fellow-citizens with the saints’, ‘The saints’ was a designation
r os

IL 19, 20] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

proper to the members of the ancient People of God. They were
a ‘holy nation’: they were ‘saints’ by virtue of their national
consecration to Jehovah. The designation was naturally retained
by St Paul, when the Chosen People was widened into the Catholic
Church. To quote Bishop Lightfoot’s words’: “The Christian
Church, having taken the place of the Jewish race, has inherited
all its titles and privileges ; it is ‘a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people’ (1 Pet. ii9). All who
. have entered into the Christian covenant by baptism are ‘saints’ in
the language of the Apostles, Even the irregularities and_profli-
gacies of the Corinthian Church do not forfeit it this title”.

- The Gentiles, then, had been admitted to full rights in the
polity of ‘the saints’: they were now no less truly a part of the
consecrated people than were the Jews, But the Apostle adds a
further metaphor. He has just spoken of God as ‘the Father’, to
whom they had been given access. In harmony with this he now
declares that the Gentiles are members of God’s family, or house-
hold : they have all the privileges of the sons of the house : they are

‘of the household of God’. In this phrase he uses an adjective ii 19

(oixeios) which implies the word ‘house’ in the non-material sense in

which we often use it ourselves: comp. 1 Tim. iii. 4 and 15. But
we can scarcely doubt that it is the feeling of the radical meaning
of the word that leads him on to the new metaphor which he at
once developes, and which would seem excessively abrupt if it were
not for this half-hidden connexion. They are not merely members
of the household, but actually a part of the house of God.

‘ Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, ii 20

Christ Jesus Himself being the corner-stone’. They are not the first
stones laid in the building: they are built up on others which were
there before them. The foundation stones are the apostles and

prophets, the chief stone of all being Christ Jesus Himself, who is the Isa. xxviii

‘corner-stone’, as the Old Testament writers had called the Messiah.

16; Ps.
exvlii 22

In an earlier epistle St Paul had emphatically declared: ‘ Other joy, iii 11

foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ’. |
But there he is employing his metaphor in a different way. He is
not speaking of persons who are builded in, but of persons who
build. He himself, for example, is not a stone of the building; but
‘a wise master-builder’: those of whom he speaks are builders also,
and their work will come to the testing, The foundation he has
himself laid in the proclamation of Christ Jesus: it is not possible
that any of them should lay any other foundation: but it is only
too possible that the superstructure which they raise should be
4 Note on Philippians i 1,
5—2

EXPOSITION OF THE [II 20°

worthless, and that instead of wages for good work done they
should come in for the fine which attached to careless or fraudulent
workmanship. Here the application of the metaphor is different.
The stones are persons: the foundation stones are the apostles
and prophets, the most important stone of all being ‘ Christ Jesus
Himself’.

This last phrase is emphatic. Christ, the Messiah who had
been spoken of beforehand as the corner-stone; Jesus, the human
manifestation of the Christ in time: ‘Christ Jesus Himself’, He

is part of the Body which He brings into being, for He is its Head: ~

Matt. xvi
18

He is part of the House which He founds, for He is its Corner-
stone. The passage in St Paul’s mind at this point is Isa. xxviii 16,
as it was rendered by the Septuagint: ‘Behold, I lay for the
foundations of Sion a stone costly and chosen, a precious corner-
stone for the foundations thereof’. And just because he will speak
of Christ in the old prophet’s terms as a corner-stone, he cannot
here speak of Him as the whole foundation.

We are naturally reminded by this passage of the saying of our
Lord to St Peter: ‘I say unto thee, Thou art Peter (Iérpos), and
upon this rock (zérpa) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell

Isa, xxii 22
(Heb.)

shall not prevail against it: I will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven’, Here we have the same metaphor, and again
its application is slightly varied. In English the play upon words
is wholly lost’: in the Greek it is somewhat obscured by the change
from Ilérpos to wérpa. The feminine word (érpa) could not well be
the name of a man, and accordingly the Greek name of Cepha was
Tlérpos, which signifies a stone rather than a rock. But in the
Aramaic, in which our Lord almost certainly spoke, there was no
such difficulty. Cepha was equally a stone or a rock. So that the
words must have run, just as we now read them in the Syriac
versions: ‘Thou art Cepha, and upon this cepha I will build My
Church’.

It is worth our while to notice how the metaphor of a house is
there applied to the Church. It is the Divine House which Christ
will build (He is neither the foundation nor the corner-stone, but
the Builder), and the keys of it He will place in the Apostle’s
hands. Thus by a rapid transition the Apostle’s own relation to
the house is expressed by a new metaphor; he is now the steward
of the house: compare the prophet’s words: ‘I will give the
key of the house of David...’. Thus the Church—the Ecclesia—
corresponds to ‘the kingdom of heaven’, which the Messiah has —
come to establish: each of the designations being drawn from the.
past history of the sacred commonwealth, which was at once ‘the

II 20, 21] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Ecclesia of the sons of Israel’ and ‘the kingdom of Israel’. ‘My

Ecclesia’, Christ says, (ie. My new Israel) ‘I will build’: compare
Amos ix 11 f., cited in Acts xv 16 f., ‘I will build again the taber-
nacle of David which is fallen down’.

_ In our present passage the foundation is not Peter (Cepha, the
rock) ; he is only a part with others of the foundation: not Christ,
for even He is but a part, though the chief part, the corner-stone:
but ‘the apostles and prophets’. The scope of these designations I
have discussed elsewhere’. Here it is enough to say with regard
to the former that though the Twelve and St Paul himself are no
doubt primarily intended, we need not seek to narrow it to them to
the exclusion of others who may have been founders or joint-founders
of Churches. With regard to the latter the whole context makes
it abundantly plain that St Paul is not taking us back from the
New Covenant to the Old—not speaking of Old Testament prophets
in the past—when he says that the apostles and prophets are the
foundation of the new House of God.

-When St Paul speaks of Christ as the corner-stone, he uses
metaphor which appears to be wholly Oriental. The Greeks laid
no stress on corner-stones. We must go to the East if we would

understand at all what they mean. The corner-stones in the
Temple substructures, which have been excavated by the agency
of the Palestine Exploration Fund, are not, as we might perhaps
have supposed, stones so shaped as to contain a right-angle, and
thus by their projecting arms to bind two walls together; though
it would appear from an incidental remark of Sir Henry Layard
(Nineveh ii 254) that he had seen some such at Nineveh. They are
straight blocks which run up to a corner, where they are met in the
angle by similar stones, the ends of which come immediately above
or below them. These straight blocks are of great length, frequently
measuring fifteen feet. The longest that has been found is described
by Sir Charles Warren (Jerusalem Recovered, p. 121) in his account
of the excavation of the southern wall of the sanctuary area. It
measures 38 feet and 9 inches, and belongs to a very ancient period
of building. It was such a stone as this that furnished the ancient
prophet with his image of the Messiah.

‘In whom all the building jfitly framed together groweth unto an
holy temple in the Lord’, The uncertainty which has attended the
translation of these words may best be illustrated by bringing
together the various forms of the English Version in this place?.

1 See Encyclopedia Biblica, arts. 2T cite the older renderings from
‘Apostle’ and ‘Prophet (N. T.)’: see ‘The English Hexapla’ (Bagster,
also below, pp. 97 £. 1841).

ii a1

7°

EXPOSITION OF THE [II 21

WIcLIr.—1380. In whom eche bildynge made: wexeth in to
an holi temple in the lord. . |

TYNDALE.—1534. In whom every bildynge coupled togedder,
groweth vnto an holy temple in the lorde.

CRANMER.—1539. In whom what buyldyng soever is coupled
together, it groweth vnto an holy temple in the Lorde.

GENEVA.—1557. In whom all the buyldying coupled together,
groweth vnto an holy temple in the Lord.

RaHEIMs.—1582. In whom al building framed together, groweth
into an holy temple in our Lord.

AUTHORISED.—1611. In whom all the building fitly framed
together, groweth vnto an holy temple in the Lord.

REVISED.—1881. In whom ‘each several building, fitly framed
together, groweth into a holy *temple in the Lord.

1 Gr. every building. 2 Or, sanctuary.
We need not at this point enter into the causes of so great

variety of rendering. This would be to discuss the influence of the
Latin Vulgate, and of the variants in the Greek text. Our study

of-the-context-should_by-this-time-have-made_it_perfectly_clear_that,

St Paul contemplates a single structure and no more. Such a
rendering then as ‘every building’ (that is to say, ‘all the build-
ings’) is out of harmony with the general thought of the passage,
If the Apostle has in any way referred to parts which go to make
up a whole, it has always been to two parts, and only two, viz. the
Jew and the Gentile. To introduce the idea of many churches
going to make up one Church is to do violence to the spirit of this
whole section. The rendering ‘each several building, fitly framed
together, groweth into a holy temple’ offends the most conspicuously
against the Apostle’s thought. For it must logically imply that
the ‘several buildings’ grow into ‘several temples’: and this is at
once inconsistent with the single ‘habitation’ or ‘ dwelling-place’ of
God, which the Apostle mentions in the next verse.

In English the word ‘building’ has various shades of meaning,
each of which is found equally in its counterpart in the Greek. It
may mean ‘the process of building’: it may mean ‘the building
itself when complete’. Or it may have a sense intermediate between
these two, and mean ‘the building regarded as in process’, The
Apostle’s meaning is saved by the rendering of the Rheims Bible
‘al building’; but this is somewhat harsh, and limits us too strictly
to the process, as contrasted with the work in process. ‘ All that
is builded’, or ‘all building that is done’ might express the sense
with sufficient accuracy : but this hardly differs from ‘all the build-

a 21) _ EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

ing’, when. we keep before our minds the thought of the building
in process, as opposed to the completed edifice. We may accord-
ingly retain the familiar rendering, although it is not free from
‘ambiguity if the context be neglected, and although it was origi-
nally intended as the translation of a reading in the Greek which
the textual evidence precludes us from accepting.

All work done on this House of God, all fitting of stone to
stone, as the building rises coupled and morticed by clamp and
dowel,—all this work is a growth, as though the building were a
living organism. St Paul has no hesitation in mixing his meta-
phors, if thereby he can the more forcibly express his meaning.
We have the exact converse of this transition in the fourth chapter:
if here ‘the building grows’ like a body, there ‘ the body is builded’.

‘An holy temple’. The word ‘temple’ in our English Bible is
used to render two Greek words, naos and hieron. The first of
these—which is used in this place—denotes the shrine, the actual
House of God, which in the Jewish temple consisted of the Holy
Place and the Holy of Holies. The second, on the other hand, has
the wider meaning of the temple-precincts—the courts and colon-
nades, in which the people gathered for worship. This distinction

iv 12, 16

is observed alike by Josephus and by the writers of the New Testa-
ment. Thus the heron was the temple into which the Pharisee
and the publican went up to pray: it was there that our Lord used

Luke xviii
10; Mark
353

to teach: it was thence that He drove out the traders, But it Maxt si 15
was in the naos that the angel appeared to Zacharias the priest : Luke i 9
it was between the naos and the altar that Zacharias, ‘the son of Matt. xxiii

Barachias’, was slain: it was the veil of the naos that was rent at
the Crucifixion’.

A passage which is sometimes cited to justify a false interpreta-
tion of our present verse is Matt. xxiv 1, ‘the buildings of the
temple’. But note the word there used: ‘ And Jesus went out and
was departing from the hieron, and His disciples drew near to point
out to Him the buildings of the hieron’. The plural could be used
of the temple-precinct through which they were passing, adorned as
it was with the splendid structures of Herod. It could not be
used of the xaos, which was a single building, divided only by the
partition of a veil. Accordingly it seems impossible to assign
any meaning to the phrase ‘every building groweth into a holy
naos’, except it be such a meaning as is directly opposed, as we

1 The only passage where there xxvii 5: Judas cast the price of the
could be a reason for wishing to give Lord’s betrayal into the naos.
to the naos a wider meaning is Mait.

35
Mark xv 38

li 10
vi Io

li 22

EXPOSITION OF THE | [II 21, 22°

have seen, to the whole teaching on which St Paul is laying such
evident stress. .

‘In the Lord’. This is the first time in the epistle that this
title has stood by itself. It may not be wise always to insist on a
conscious motive for the choice of the phrase ‘in the Lord’, in
preference to the phrase ‘in Christ’. Yet it can hardly be a mere
coincidence that where the Apostle describes the transcendental
relation of believers to Christ as the ground of their acceptance
with God he uses the expression ‘in Christ’, or one of the fuller
expressions into which this title enters; whereas, when he is
speaking of the issues of that relation as manifested in life and
conduct here below, he uses the phrase ‘in the Lord’. Contrast,
for example, the words ‘created in Christ Jesus’ with the words
‘Be strong in the Lord’. The Christ of the privileged position is
the Lord of the holy life: if in Christ we are in heaven, in the Lord
we must liveonearth. Christ is the corner-stone of the foundation ;
the building grows to an holy temple in the Lord.

‘In whom ye also’, These words have by this time a familiar
sound. The Apostle insists afresh upon the inclusion of the Gen-
tiles: and he is thus led into what-might seem a mere repetition « of

Exod. xv
173

1 Kings
viii 30 etc.

what he has already said, but that the two fresh expressions which -
he adds produce the effect of a climax.

‘Are builded together for an habitation of God in the Spirit’.
Once more he takes his word from the Old Testament. The
‘habitation’ or ‘dwelling-place of God’ was a consecrated phrase.
Tt was the proudest boast of the Jew that the Lord his God, who
dwelt in heaven, dwelt also in Sion. To the new People the same

2Cor.vi16 high privilege is granted in a yet more intimate manner. ‘For we

Lev. xxvi
rf.

are the temple of the living God: as God hath said, I will dwell in
them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be
My people’.

‘In the Spirit’. Here, as so often, the Apostle does not make
it plain whether he is speaking directly of the Divine Spirit or not.
But it is to be observed that this section, which began with the
words ‘in the flesh’ (twice repeated), ends with the words ‘in
the spirit’, No doubt the thought that the habitation of God is
spiritual, in contrast to the material temple, is present to the
Apostle’s mind, even if it does not exhaust the meaning of his
words, And we may perhaps regard the expression of 1 Pet. ii 5,
‘a, spiritual house’, as the earliest commentary on this passage.

Thus St Paul closes this great section by declaring that the
Gentiles had full rights of citizenship in the sacred commonwealth,

II 22, IIT 1] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 73

that they were true sons of the household of God, nay that they were
a part of His Holy House, builded upon its foundation, secured by
its corner-stone, that corner-stone which gave unity to all building
that was reared upon it; so that all such building, duly welded into
one, was growing into a holy shrine, to be the spiritual dwelling-
place of God.

Such was ‘the mystery of the will of God’. It was that they ig
might grasp this mystery that he had begun to pray for the ‘Spirit
of wisdom and apocalypse’ on their behalf. And now that he has i 17
so far expounded it, in brief language compared with its mighty
magnitude, it becomes again the basis of his prayer. Or rather, the
prayer which he had essayed to utter, and the first words of which
had carried him so far that the prayer had lost itself in the wonder
of the blessing prayed for,—that prayer he once more desires to
_ take up and at length to utter in its fulness.

This he attempts to do in the words: ‘For this cause I Paul, the tii 1
prisoner of Christ Jesus for you, the Gentiles’: but, as we shall see, F
new thoughts again press in, and in v. 14 he makes another and at/
last a successful attempt to declare the fulness of his petition :f
‘For this cause I bow my knees’.

For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you, iii 1—13
the Gentiles —if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation
of the grace of God which was given unto me to you-ward:
show that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery,
as I have written afore in few words, ‘whereby, when ye read, —
ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;
5which in other generations was not made known unto the sons
of men, as it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles
and prophets in the Spirit ; to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-
heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of
the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, ’whereof I was
“made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God which
was given unto me according to the working of His power,—

“unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this
grace given,—to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable
riches of Christ, *and to bring to light. what is the dispensation
of the mystery which from the ages hath been hid in God who
created all things; “to the intent that now unto the princi-

ist.

EXPOSITION OF THE | [III xz

palities and powers in the heavenly places might be made
known through the church the manifold wisdom of God,
“according to the purpose of the ages which He purposed in
Christ Jesus our Lord, “in whom we have our boldness and
access with confidence by the faith of Him. Wherefore I ask
you that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which are
your glory.

The construction is at once broken at the end of v. 1. There is
something even in those few words which has suggested a new train
of thought, and the Apostle cannot check himself until he has —
expressed what is in his soul. What is the starting-point of this
new departure ?.

Hitherto St Paul has been strangely unlike himself in one
particular. He has been marvellously impersonal. His only
reference to himself since the salutation has been in the words,
‘TI cease not to give. thanks and to pray’. He has said nothing
of his own peculiar office as the chosen herald of these new revela-
tions of the will and way of God; and of all that he had personally

Acts xx 31

irs f.

iii 1

endured, whether in long journeyings and constant labours to bring
this message to the Gentiles, or in persecutions and imprisonment
directly due to his insistence on the wideness of the Gospel. The
reason for this unwonted reserve is, as we have partly seen already,
that he is not writing to the members of a single Church of his own
foundation, whom he had ‘admonished night and day with tears’,
who knew him well and to whom he could write as he would have
spoken face to face. He is writing to many who had never seen
him, though they must have heard much of him and probably had
learned the Gospel from his fellow-workers. He is writing not a
personal word of encouragement, but an exposition of the Divine
Purpose as he had come to know it—a word of large import for
multitudes who needed what he knew it was his to give them. He
has heard how the great work has been going forward far beyond
the limits of his own personal evangelisation. He thanks God for
it. Itis part of the fulfilment of the Purpose. He is fully taken
up with declaring what the Purpose has brought to the Gentiles as
a whole, It is only as he reaches a resting-place in his thought,
that he hears as it were the clink of his chain, and remembers
where he is and why he is there: ‘J Paul, the prisoner of Christ
Jesus for you, the Gentiles’,

But the words are too full to be left without a comment or a
justification. ‘You may never have seen my face, he seems to say,

III 2] _ EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 75

but surely you have heard how God has been using me to help you:
_ you may even have been discouraged by learning to what my efforts
on your behalf have brought me.

The fresh points which are to be emphasised in the remainder of iii 2—13
this section, which is one long parenthesis, are these; (1) St Paul’s
peculiar mission as the exponent of the mystery of the inclusion of
the Gentiles, as the publisher of the great secret, as the herald of
the Gospel of ‘grace’ ; (2) the newness of the revelation, hid in God;
till now, but made known at last to the apostles and prophets of !
the Christian Church ; (3) the sufferings which his mission has
entailed upon him, and which yet must not dishearten those for
whom he suffers.

The section is full of echoes of the earlier part of the epistle.
Almost every great phrase has its counterpart in the first two
chapters :—the mystery made known by revelation ; revealed by
the Spirit to the apostles and prophets ; the inheritance, the body,
the promise, in which the Gentiles have their share in Christ ; the
grace of God, and the working of His power; the dispensation of

__the grace, and of the mystery ; the heavenly region ; the purpose

of eternity ; the free access to God.

‘Tf so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of iii 2
God which was given unto me to you-ward’, The form of the sentence
is conditional, just as in iv 21; but it can scarcely mean anything
~ Jess than ‘For surely you have heard’. The expression as a whole,
however, confirms the conclusion that among those to whom the
epistle was addressed a considerable number, if not the majority,
had never come into personal contact with the writer: had he been
writing solely or even primarily to his own Ephesian converts, he
could never have expressed himself so.

‘The grace of God which was given unto me’ is a favourite phrase
of St Paul. The-context usually makes it quite clear that ‘the.
grace given’ him was not a spiritual endowment for his own personal
life, but the Gospel of God’s mercy to the Gentile world. Thus, in
describing his visit to the Apostles at Jerusalem, St Paul says,
‘When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Gal. ii 7,9
Uncircumcision,...and when they knew the grace which was given
unto me,...they gave right hands of fellowship to me and to Barnabas,
that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circum-
cision’, An equally striking example is found where St Paul
justifies his action in addressing a letter to the Roman Christians: Rom, xy.
‘T have written the more boldly’, he says, ‘by reason of the grace 15

Col. i 25

EXPOSITION OF THE [IIT 2, 3

which was given unto me from God, that I should be a minister
of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles’. As we have seen in part already,
‘grace’ was the significant word which summed up for St Paul his
own. special message—the merciful inclusion of the Gentile in the
purpose of God’

In a parallel passage of the Epistle to the Colossians we find the
words, ‘according to the dispensation of God which was given unto
me to you-ward’; and an English reader might be led to suppose
that in our present passage the construction likewise must be, ‘the
dispensation...which was given’, The ambiguity, which does not
exist in the Greek, might be avoided by the rendering ‘that grace
of God which was given unto me’ (so the Revised Version renders) ;
but this expedient has the disadvantage of partially obscuring the
identity of a phrase which recurs again and again in St Paul’s
epistles?. . .

Both here and in Col. i 25 ‘the dispensation’ spoken of is a
dispensation in which God is the Dispenser, and not the adminis-
tration, or stewardship, of any human agent. This is made clear
by the parallel use of the word ini 10, and again below in iii 9.

Gal.i rg f.

Gal. ii 2

‘ How that by revelation was made known wnto me the mystery’.
We have already noted * the signification of the word ‘mystery’ or
* secret’, and of its natural correlative ‘apocalypse’ or ‘ revelation’.
By Divine disclosure, St Paul declares, the Divine secret had been
made known to him. The recognition of the wideness of God’s
purpose was neither a conclusion of his own mind nor a tradition
passed on to him by the earlier Apostles. A special providence had
prepared him, and a special call had claimed him, to be the depositary
of a special revelation. ‘It was the good pleasure of God’, he says
elsewhere, in words that remind us of an ancient prophet*, ‘who
separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through
His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among
the Gentiles’, And of his visit to the Apostles in Jerusalem he
says emphatically, ‘I went up by revelation, and I laid before
them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles’, The message

1 See above p. 51; and, for the 3 pp. 30 f., 39.
detailed examination, see the detached 4 Comp. Jer. i 5, ‘Before I formed
note on xdpis. Theuseofthewordin thee in the belly I knew thee, and
the Acts is in striking harmony with before thou camest forth out of the
the usage of St Paul: see esp. xi. 23, womb I sanctified thee; I have ap-
XV II. pointed thee a prophet unto the
2-The same ambiguity meets us mations’.
below in ». 7.

IiI 3—5] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 77

itself, and the method of its proclamation and of its justification,
were alike given to him by Divine revelation.

‘As I have written afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye iii 3 f.

can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ’, In the
earlier chapters the Apostle has stated already in brief his concep-
tion of the Divine purpose as it has been made known to him. He
has not indeed declared it in the set terms of a formal treatise.
But he has given them enough to judge by: if they attend to it
they cannot but recognise as they read that he writes of that which
he knows, and that a special knowledge gives him a special claim to
speak of the mystery of Christ..

‘ Which in other generations was not made known unto the sons iii 5
of men’. Here St Paul takes up a fresh point. He has not had ¥
occasion hitherto in this epistle to dwell on the newness of the great
revelation. It is his reference to his own part as the receiver and
proclaimer of the illuminating truth, that leads him on to explain,
not indeed that the Divine purpose is a new thing, but that its
manifestation tomen isnew. The Purpose was there in the treasury
of the heavenly secrets from eternity: but it was a secret ‘kept in Rom. xvi
silence’. ‘The sons of men’, whom it so deeply concerned, knew it 25

not as yet: it was hidden away from Jew and from Gentile alike.

‘ As it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets
in the Spirit’. This clause, without revoking the last, seems to 7°”?
leave room for those glimpses of the Divine purpose, which the
Apostle would never have wished to deny to the holy and wise of
the past. Yet their half-lights were but darkness, when compared
with the day of the new revelation.

In contrast to ‘the sons of men’ of the past, to whom the secret
had not been disclosed, St Paul sets ‘ the holy apostles and prophets’
of the present, to whom a spiritual revelation of it had come. This
word ‘holy ’—or ‘saints’, as we render it when it stands by itself—
has played an important part in the epistle already. It is to ‘their
saints’ that the epistle is formally addressed ; that is, as we have
seen, to those who in Christ are now the hallowed People of God.

The Apostle thanks God that they are recognising their position in
practice by a love which goes out ‘to all the saints’. God’s heritage, i 1, -
he declares in passing, is ‘in the saints’, that is, in His hallowed i 18
People. And, later on, he explicitly contrasts the alien state of the
Gentiles apart from Christ with their new position of privilege in
Christ as ‘ fellow-citizens with the saints’, When the same word is ii 19
used, as an adjective, to characterise the ‘apostles and prophets’ to
whom the new revelation has been made, it cannot be a mere otiose
epithet or conventional term of respect, nor can it be properly taken

og
nora

iii 8

ii 2of,

EXPOSITION OF THE [IIL s, 6

in any other sense than hitherto. Xt is no personal holiness to which
the Apostle refers; it is the hallowing which was theirs in common
with the whole of the hallowed People. Here is the answer to
the suggested difficulty, that while St Paul must certainly have
included himself among the ‘apostles’ to whom the revelation came,
he would hardly have called himself ‘holy’, even in this indirect
fashion. There is no real incongruity. Not his holiness, but God’s
hallowing is in question—the hallowing which extended to all the
members of the hallowed People, even, as he would tell us, to
himself, though he was ‘less than the least’ of them all. .

The mention of the apostles and prophets, as those to whom the
new revelation was made, recalls and helps to explain the position of
the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the ‘holy temple’
of God’s building. With the reference to the Spirit as the medium
of the revelation we may compare the prayer for ‘the Spirit of
revelation’ to be the guide of his readers into the knowledge of
God’s purpose. Here, as in some other places, the Apostle’s language
is so vague that we cannot tell with entire certainty whether he
refers directly to the personal Divine Spirit, or rather desires to
suggest that the reception of the revelation is a spiritual process.

The actual phrase ‘in (the) Spirit’ does not preclude either view.

What, then, is the substance of this secret—old as eternity, yet
new in its disclosure to mankind? The Apostle has told us already,
as he says, in brief: but now to remove all possible misconception
he will tell us once again, repeating in fresh words the images
which he has already so fruitfully employed. It is ‘that the Gentiles
are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers
of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel’,

The middle term of this threefold description (otvowos) cannot
be rendered by any current English word. ‘Concorporate’, a loan
from the Latin, and analogous to ‘incorporate’, is the word we
want; but, though it has been used in this connexion, it is not
sufficiently familiar to take its place in a rendering of the passage. .
In relation to the Body the members are ‘incorporate’: in relation
to one another they are ‘concorporate’, that is, sharers in the one
Body. The unusual English word might indeed express the fact
that St Paul himself, in order to emphasize his meaning, has had
recourse to the formation of a new Greek compound},

1 The rendering of the Latin Vul- fends the unusual Latin on the ground
gate is ‘cohaeredes et concorporaleset that it was important to represent the
comparticipes’ (Ambrosiaster actually force of the repeated compounds. ‘I
has ‘concorporatos’). St Jerome de- know’, he says, ‘that in Latin it

-IIl6—o] «EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 79

‘Through the gospel, whereof I was made a minister according iii 6 ff.
to the gift of the grace of God which was given unto me...to preach
unto the Gentiles...’. There is a close parallel in the Epistle to Col.i24#.
the Colossians : ‘the Church, whereof I was made a minister ac-
cording to the dispensation of God which was given unto me to
you-ward, to fulfil the word of God, (even) the mystery that hath
been hid’, &c. In both passages the Apostle emphasises the great-
ness of his peculiar mission, which corresponded to the wide mercy of
God to the Gentiles. Here he adds ‘ according to the might (or ‘ work-
ing’) of His power’: words which remind us of Gal. ii 8, ‘He that
wrought (or ‘ worked mightily’) for Peter unto the apostleship of
the Circumcision, wrought for me also unto the Gentiles’.

Once more he breaks his sentence, lest, while as Apostle of the Rom. xi
Gentiles he glorified his ministry, he should for one moment seem 13
to be glorifying himself. Never did a man more stoutly press his
claims: never was a man more conscious of personal unworthiness.
He was not ‘a whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles’: yet 2 Cor. xi 5
he felt that he was ‘the least of the apostles’ and ‘not worthy to be 1 Cor. xv 9
called an apostle’, He was ‘less than the least of all saints’, that is, iii 8
of all the holy People of God: but yet the fact remained that to -*

——hinr this marvellous grace of God had been given.
‘To preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ’.

His mission was to ‘bring as the gospel’—the verb of the original
takes up again ‘ the gospel’ of v. 6—to the Gentiles the inexplorable
wealth of the Christ. He can never sufficiently admire the marvel
of the Divine inclusion of the Gentiles, or be sufficiently thankful
that it is his privilege to make it known to them. .

‘And to bring to light what is the dispensation of the mystery ii 9
which from the ages hath been hid in God who created all things’. So
in the parallel already quoted he continues: ‘the mystery that hath Col. i 26
been hid from the ages and from the generations,—but now it hath
been manifested to His saints’, The purpose of God is an eternal
purpose—‘a purpose of the ages’, as he says below in v. 10. It has
remained concealed since the beginning of things; but it was the
very purpose of Creation itself.

As the Creation includes other intelligences beside Man, so the

makes an ugly sentence. But because
it so stands in the Greek, and because
every word and syllable and stroke
and point in the Divine Scriptures is
full of meaning, I prefer the risks of
verbal malformation to the risk of
missing the sense’, The English

Version, ‘fellow-heirs, and of the same
body, and partakers’ &c., fails to re-
produce the reiterated compound (cw-)
of the original; and I have therefore
adopted the necessarily paraphrastic
rendering of the Revised Version.

80 EXPOSITION OF THE [III ro—13

secret of the Divine purpose in Creation is published now to the
iii 10 whole universe, as the justification of the Divine dealing: ‘to the
intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly
places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom
of God’. The Apostle has found a perfectly satisfying philosophy
of history : he believes that it is able to ‘justify the ways of God to
men’; and not to men only, but also to those enquiring spiritual
' powers of the heavenly sphere, who have vainly sought to explore

the design and the methods of the Creator and Ruler of the world.
‘Through the church’, This is only the second time that the
Comp. i22 word ‘Church’ has been used in the epistle. We shall have it
iii 21 again at the end of the chapter in an equally emphatic position :
_ ‘to Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus’. It recurs
v23—32 six times in the important passage which closes chap. v. St Paul
never uses the word in this epistle in the sense of a local Christian
society, though he does in two out of the four times in which it

occurs in the Epistle to the Colossians.

Through the Church ‘the very-varied wisdom of God’ is made
known to the universe. The metaphor is taken from the intricate
beauty of an embroidered pattern. We have an echo of itin 1 Pet.

iv 10, ‘the manifold (or ‘ varied’) grace of God’.

iii rr ‘ According to the purpose of the ages which He purposed in Christ
Jesus our Lord’. ‘The purpose of the ages’ is a Hebraistic phrase
for ‘the eternal purpose’: just as we say ‘the rock of ages’ for
‘the everlasting rock’, from the Hebrew of Isaiah xxvi 4.

iii 12 ‘In whom we have our boldness and access with confidence by the

faith of Him’. These words are an echo of ii 18, and form a similar

climax. The issue of all is that we are brought near to God Him-
self through faith in Christ,

iii 13 ‘ Wherefore I ask you that ye faint not at my tribulations for you,
which are your glory’. The meaning is: ‘I ask you not to lose
heart, when you hear of my suffering as the prisoner of Christ on
your behalf’. It might seem to some as though the Apositle’s
sufferings and imprisonment augured ill for the cause which he
represented, This was not the view that he himself took of

Col. i.24 them. ‘I rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf’, he says to the
Colossians, in a remarkable passage to which we have already had

occasion to refer at some length’, Never for a moment did he ~.

himself lose heart. He saw a deep meaning in his sufferings: they
were the glory of.those for whom he suffered. He commends this
reason to his readers with a logic which we can hardly analyse.

1 See p. 44.

~ Divine dealing with man ; to declare that through the ages one

III 13) EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. _ 81

Perhaps he could scarcely have explained it to them. It is the
language of the heart.

The section which we have been considering forms, strictly iii 1—13
speaking, a mere parenthesis. It is a personal explanation ae
occasioned by the words, ‘I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus
on behalf of you, the Gentiles’, But, though in form it is a
digression, which still further postpones the utterance of the
Apostle’s Prayer, yet in the general movement of the thought of
the epistle it plays an essential part. Though he speaks from
his own personal standpoint, the Apostle’s thought ranges before
and after, and he is led to give us such a complete philosophy
of history as had never been attempted before. He is confident
that he is in possession of the secret of the Creator Himself:—‘ by
apocalypse the mystery has been known to me’,

Hitherto he had been considering mainly the effect of the work
of Christ, in the reconciliation of the two opposed sections of
humanity, in the reception of the Gentiles into the sacred common-
wealth, and in the nearer approach of Jew and Gentile alike to the
one Father. But now he is bold to trace the whole course of the

increasing Purpose runs’; and even to suggest that human history
is intended to read a lesson to the universe.

The Purpose which is now made clear to him was included in .
the design of Creation itself. But it was a hidden purpose, a Divine
secret, a mystery of which the apocalypse could not be as yet, ‘The iii 5
sons of men’ had lived and died in ignorance of the secret of their
own lives and of the universe. Generation followed generation until
the time was ripe for the disclosure of ‘the mystery of the Christ’,

At last to the apostles and prophets of a new age the revelation was
given. Indeed to ‘the less than the least’ of them all the message
had been primarily entrusted. His part it had been to flash the
torch of light across the darkness; to illuminate past, present and
future at once, by shewing ‘what is the dispensation of the mystery iii. 9,
that hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things’.

It was a glorious task: through incessant toil and suffering he
had accomplished it: his imprisonment at Rome could only remind
him that for his part the work was done. Yet in a wider sense it,
was only begun. The process which had been revealed to him was >kr
to move steadily on, in presence of all the spiritual forces of the
universe, who keenly watch the drama of this earthly theatre, For
they too ‘through the Church’ are to learn ‘the very-varied wisdom iii 10
of God, according to the purpose of the ages which He formed in

EPHES.” 6

iii 14—21

EXPOSITION OF THE [III 14

the Christ, even Jesus our Lord’. And it is because the process
must go forward, and not slacken for anything that may occur to
him, that ‘ the prisoner in Christ Jesus’ bows his knees and lifts his
heart in prayer to God.

4For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, *of
whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named, "that
He would grant you according to the riches of His glory to
be strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner man,
7that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts in love; ye
being rooted and founded, =*that ye may be able to comprehend
with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height
and depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth
knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God.
2°Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above
all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh
in us, **to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus,
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

iii 14

iii 19
iii 20
lii 14
iii 1

After many digressions, into which he has been led by his desire
to make plain not only what he prays for, but on whose behalf he
prays, and what is his relation to them which leads him so to pray,
the Apostle succeeds at last in uttering the fulness of his Prayer.
The Prayer is in its final expression, as it was at the outset, a
prayer for knowledge. That knowledge is indeed declared to pass
man’s comprehension; but the brief doxology with which the
petition closes recognises a Divine power to which nothing is
impossible.

‘For this cause’. These words are resumptive of the opening
words of the chapter, ‘For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ
Jesus for you, the Gentiles’, Accordingly they carry us back to
the great mercy of God to the Gentiles (expounded in ¢. ii) as the |
ground of the Apostle’s Prayer. But the Prayer needed as its
further preface a reference to his own peculiar mission as the
publisher of the new declaration of that mercy, and to the sufferings
by which he rejoiced to seal his mission. After this reference has
been made and fully explained, he knits up the connexion by
repeating the words ‘ For this cause’.

‘I bow my knees to the Father’, We shall miss the solemnity of
this introduction unless we observe how seldom the attitude of
kneeling in prayer is mentioned in the New Testament. Standing

Ill 14,15] .. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 83

to pray was the rule: comp. Matt. vi 5, Luke xviii 11,13. Kneeling
was expressive of unusual emotion: comp. Luke xxii 41, Acts xxi 5.
Indeed when we compare Luke xxii 41 ‘kneeling down’ with Mark
xiv 35 ‘He fell upon the ground’ and Matt. xxvi 39 ‘ He fell upon
His face’, the parallels point us to the fact that what there is
meant is not our ‘kneeling’ in an upright position, but kneeling
with the head touching the ground—the Eastern prostration. This
was and is the sign of ‘the deepest reverence and humiliation : and,
as is well known, the posture was forbidden in the early Church on
the Lord’s day.

But the significance of St Paul’s phrase becomes still clearer,
when we note that it is, in its particular wording, derived from a
_ passage of Isaiah (which he quotes in Rom. xiv 11 and alludes to in
Phil. ii ro): ‘I have sworn by Myself,...that unto Me every knee Isa. xlv
shall bow’. In that reverence, which is due only to the Supreme, 73
to whom it must needs one day be rendered by all, he bends low
before the Father. .
_ ©The Father, of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth 18 iii 14, 15
named’. At the first commencement of his prayer the Apostle had
spoken of God as ‘the Father of glory’. In this we have one of i17

several notable parallels between the prayer as essayed in the first
chapter and the prayer as completed in the third chapter.

It will be instructive to bring together here the various refer-
‘ences which St Paul makes in this epistle to the fatherhood of God.
In his opening salutation we find the words ‘from God our Father i 2
and the Lord Jesus Christ’; and similar words occur at the close vi 23
of the epistle. His great doxology opens with the words, ‘ Blessed i 3
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’; and this title is
resolved and emphasised, as we have seen, in the form ‘the God of i17
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory’, Presently he uses the

’ name absolutely, in speaking of ‘our access to the Father’; and ii 18 f.

he follows it by the significant phrase, ‘of the household of God’.
Then we have our present description, which expands and interprets
the title ‘the Father of glory’; and shortly afterwards we find the
absoluteness and universality of the fatherhood yet further de-
clared.in the words, ‘one God and Father of all, who is over all iv 6
and through all and in all’. Then, lastly, Christian duty is summed
up in the obligation to ‘give thanks always for all things in the v 20
name of our Lord Jesus Christ to Him who is God and Father’.

This survey may help to shew us with what fulness of appreciation
the Apostle recognises the various aspects of the new truth of the
Divine fatherhood as revealed to man in Jesus Christ.

‘The Father, of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth ts iii 14, 15

6—2

EXPOSITION OF THE [IIT rs, 16

named’, The literal translation of the words rendered ‘ all father-
hood’ is ‘every family’. But this translation entirely obscures to —
an English reader the point of the Apostle’s phrase. In Greek the
word for ‘family’ (zatpid) is derived from the word for ‘father’
(xaryp). But in English the ‘family’ is not named from the
‘father’. So that to reproduce the play upon words, which lends
all its force to the original, we must necessarily resort to a para-

_ phrase, and say ‘the Father, of whom all fatherhood is named’?

iro
Col. i 20

Phil, ii 10

Eph. i 17

The addition of the words ‘in heaven and on earth’ reminds us
of the large inclusiveness of the Divine purpose as declared to us by
St Paul. We have had this collocation already, where the Apostle
spoke of the summing up of all things in Christ, ‘both which are in —
the heavens and which are on earth’. Similarly he tells-us elsewhere
that the reconciliation in Christ includes ‘all things, whether things
on the earth or things in the heavens’, And if in one place he adds
‘things which are under the earth’ as well, it is to declare that
there is nothing anywhere which shall not ultimately be subject to
Christ. In the present passage it would be irrelevant to enquire
what ‘ families in heaven’ the Apostle had in his mind. His whole

point is that ‘the Father’—whom he has before called ‘the Father
of glory ’—is the source of all conceivable fatherhood, whether earthly
or heavenly.

According to this notable utterance of St Paul, God.is not only
the universal Father, but the archetypal Father, the Father of
whom all other fathers are derivatives and types. So far from
regarding the Divine fatherhood as a mode of speech in reference
to the Godhead, derived by analogy from our conception of human
fatherhood, the Apostle maintains that the very idea of fatherhood
exists primarily in the Divine nature, and only by derivation in
every other form of fatherhood, whether earthly or heavenly. The
All-Father is the source of fatherhood wherever it is found. This
may help us to understand something further of the meaning which
is wrapped up in the title ‘the Father of glory’.

‘That He would grant you according to the riches of His glory to
be strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner man’. We
have already pointed to the close parallel between the language of the
prayer as it is at first enunciated in chap. i and that of its fuller
expression which we have now reached. In each case the prayer is
directed to the Father—‘the Father of glory’ (i 17), ‘the Father,
of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named’ (iii 14 £.).
In each case petition is made for a gift of the Holy Spirit—‘ that

1 The Latin and Syriac versions, as in the same difficulfy and escaped it .
will be seen in the commentary, were by a like paraphrase.

III 36, 17] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 85

the Father of glory may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation’
(i 17), ‘that He would grant (or ‘give’) you according to the riches
of His glory to be strengthened with power by His Spirit’ (iii 16).
We noted before how closely this corresponds with the promise of
our Lord, as recorded by St Luke, ‘The Father from heaven will Luke xi 13
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him’. Again, the sphere of
action of the Spirit is in each case described in a striking phrase—
‘the eyes of your heart being enlightened’ (i 18), ‘to be strengthened -
in the inner (or ‘inward’) man’ (iii 16). Finally, the ultimate aim
of all is knowledge of the fulness of the Divine purpose—‘that ye
may know what is the hope of His calling’, &c. (i 18f.), ‘that ye
may be able to comprehend what is the breadth and length and
height and depth, and to know’, &c. (iii 18f.). Knowledge and
power are inextricably linked together: the prayer to know the
mighty power (i 19) becomes the prayer to have the mighty power,
in order to be strong enough to know (iii 19).
‘That Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts in love’, iii 17
Here we must bear in mind that it is for Gentiles that the Apostle
prays. He has already declared to them that they are ‘in Christ’ : he i 13, ii 13
now prays that they may find the converse also to be a realised truth,

‘that Christ may dwell in your hearts’. In writing to the Colossians
he speaks of this indwelling of Christ in the Gentiles as the climax
of marvel in the Divine purpose : ‘God hath willed to make known Col. ii 27
what is the riches of the glory of this mystery in the Gentiles, which
is Christ in you’. Thus we come to see the force of the phrases
‘through faith’ and ‘inlove’. It is only ‘through faith’ (or ‘through
the faith’, if we prefer so to render it) that the Gentiles are par-
takers of Christ: and it is ‘in love’, which binds ‘all the saints’
together, whether they be Jews or Gentiles (comp. v. 18 ‘to com-
prehend with all the saints’), that the indwelling of the Christ, who
-is now the Christ of both alike, finds its manifestation and consum-
mation. We may compare with this the words with which the
Apostle prefaced his prayer at the outset : ‘Wherefore I, having i 15 f.
heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the
saints, cease not to give thanks on your behalf, making mention of
you in my prayers’,

‘Ye being rooted and founded’. We have parallels to these
expressions in the Epistle to the Colossians, which help us to inter-
pret them here: ‘If ye are abiding in the faith, founded and firm, Col. i 23 -
_and not being shifted’; and ‘Rooted and built up in Him, and Col. ii 7
confirmed in the faith, as ye have been taught’. These parallels are
a further justification of the separation of the participles from the
words ‘in love’, and their connexion in thought with the ‘faith’

iii 18

Isa. lv 8

EXPOSITION OF THE (TIT 17—19

which has previously been mentioned. It is only as they have their .
roots struck deep and their foundation firmly laid in the faith as
St Paul proclaims it to them, that they can hope to advance to the
full knowledge for which he prays.

‘That ye may be able to comprehend with all the saints. what is
the breadth and length and height and depth’. In the original the
expression is yet more forcible :.‘that ye may have the strength to
comprehend’. The clause depends on the participles ‘rooted and
founded’; but it has a further reference to the words ‘to be
strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner man’.

The object: of the knowledge for which the Apostle prays was
stated with some fulness ini 18 f.: ‘that ye may know what is the
hope of His calling, what the riches of the glory of His inheritance
in the saints, and what the exceeding might of His power to us-ward
who believe’. Here it is indicated under vague terms, chosen to
express its immensity. For the Divine measures exceed human
comprehension : as it is written, ‘My thoughts are not your thoughts’.
And yet in this boldest of prayers the Apostle asks that they may
be comprehended. The uttermost extent of the Divine purpose is
the goal, however unattainable, of the knowledge for which the

Col. i 26f.

iv 13

Apostle prays.

‘To comprehend with all the saints’, The knowledge of the
Divine purpose is the privilege of ‘the saints’, So the Apostle
speaks to the Colossians of ‘the mystery which was hidden...but
now it hath been made manifest to His saints, to whom God hath
willed to make known’, &c. As ye, says the Apostle in effect, are
now ‘fellow-citizens of the saints’, and as your love goes out ‘towards
all the saints’, in verification of your oneness with them; so you may
share ‘with all the saints’ that knowledge which is God’s will for them,

We need not exclude a further thought, which, if it is not
expressed in these words, at least is in full harmony with St Paul’s
conception of the unity of the saints in God’s One Man, The
measures of the Divine purpose are indeed beyond the comprehension
of any individual intelligence: but in union ‘with all the saints’ we
may be able to comprehend them. Each saint may grasp some
portion : the whole of the saints—when ‘we all come to the perfect
man’—may know, as a whole, what must for ever transcend the
knowledge of the isolated individual.

‘And to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge ’, These
words are a re-statement of the aim, with a recognition that it is
indeed beyond attainment. The Father’s purpose is coincident with
the Son’s love: both alike are inconceivable, unknowable—and yet
the ultimate goal of knowledge.

III 19] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. | 87

‘That ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God’. The climax iii 19
of the Apostle’s prayer points to an issue even beyond knowledge.
He has prayed for a superhuman strength, in order to the attain-
ment of an inconceivable knowledge, which is to result in what he
can only call fulness—‘all the fulness of God’ What is this
fulness for which St Paul prays, as the crowning blessing of the
Gentiles for whom he has laboured and suffered ?

Fulness, or fulfilment, is a conception which plays a prominent
part in St Paul’s thought both in this epistle and in that which he
sent at the same time to the Colossian Church. It is predicated
sometimes of Christ and sometimes of the Church. It is spoken of
now as though already attained, and now as the ultimate goal of a
long process.

Again and again, in these two epistles, we find the thought of
the complete restoration of the universe to its true order, of the
ultimate correspondence of all things, earthly and heavenly, to the
Divine ideal. This issue is to be attained ‘in Christ’, and at the
same time ‘in’ and ‘through the Church’.

Thus, to recall some of the main passages, it is the purpose of
God ‘to gather up in one all things in Christ, both that are in the i xo

heavens and that are on earth’: and again, ‘It hath pleased God... Col. i rof.
through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself...whether they
be things on earth or things in the heavens’. Under the figure of
the universal headship of Christ we have the same thought : ‘ Who Col. ii 10
is the head of every principality and authority’; ‘He set Him at Eph.izoff.
His right hand in the heavenly places above every principality and
authority...and gave Him to be head over all things to the
Church...’,. And the Church’s part in-the great process by which
the result is to be attained is further indicated in the words : ‘ that iii 10
there might now be made known to the principalities and authorities
in the heavenly places, through the Church, the manifold wisdom of
God’: ‘to whom’, as the Apostle says later on, ‘be the glory in the iii 21
Church and in Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without
end’.

To express this complete attainment of the end of all things in
Christ and through the Church, the word ‘ fulness’ or ‘ fulfilment’,
with its verb ‘to be filled’ or ‘fulfilled’, is used in very various
ways. Christ Himself is spoken of not only as ‘filling’ or ‘ful- iv 10
filling all things’, but also as being ‘all in all filled’ or ‘fulfilled ’. i 23
In close connexion both with Christ’s headship of the Church, and
also with the reconciliation of all things, the Apostle speaks of ‘ all Col. i 19
the fulness’ as residing in Christ: ‘for it hath pleased God that
in Him should all the fulness dwell, and through Him to reconcile

EXPOSITION OF THE [TIT 19

all things unto Himself’, The Church is expressly said to be‘ the
fulness’ of Christ, fulfilling Him as the body fulfils the head. All
the members of the Church are to meet at last in a perfect, Man,
and so to attain to ‘the measure of the stature of the fulness of the
Christ’. And for the saints the Apostle here prays that they ‘may
be filled unto all the fulness of God’. .

One remarkable passage remains, in which ‘fulness’ is predicated
at once of Christ and of the saints: ‘for in Him dwelleth all the
fulness of the Deity in a bodily way, and ye are filled (or, ‘fulfilled ’)
in Him’. It is usual to limit the reference of this passage to the
incarnation of Christ in His individual human body, and to take it

_ as meaning that in that body resides the Godhead in all its com-

Col. i 19

pleteness. But this is to neglect St Paul’s special use of the terms
‘fulness’ and ‘body’, as they recur again and again in these
epistles. For we have already had in the previous chapter the
expression ‘ that in Him should all the fulness dwell’ ; and we have

Eph. iii rg also to reckon with the phrase ‘that ye may be filled unto all the

li 14

fulness of God’. Moreover, when St Paul refers to the individual
human body of Christ in these epistles, he does so in unmistakeable

terms, speaking either of ‘His flesh’ or of ‘the body of His flesh’. __

——_©ol-i-22— But ‘the body of the Christ’ to St Paul is the Church.

Col. ii 8 ff.

When we bear this in mind, we at once understand the appro-
priateness of the second clause of this passage : ‘and ye are filled
(or ‘fulfilled’) in Him’. The relation of Christ to the Church is
such that His fulness is of necessity also its fulness. And,
further, the whole passage thus interpreted harmonizes with its
context. ‘Take heed’, says the Apostle, if we may paraphrase
his words, ‘lest there be any who in his dealings with you is a
despoiler through his philosophy (so-called) or empty deceit (as it
is in truth). ‘Emptiness is all that he has to offer you: for he
exchanges the tradition of the Christ, which you have received
(v. 6), for the tradition of men: he gives you the world-elements
in place of the heavenly Christ. For in Christ dwells all the
fulness (as I have already said), yea, all the fulness of the Deity,
expressing itself through a body : a body, in which you are incor-
porated, so that in Him the fulness is yours: for He who is your
head is indeed universal head of all that stands for rule and
authority in the universe’.

Thus St Paul looks forward to the ultimate issue of the Divine
purpose for the universe. The present stage is a stage of imperfec-
tion: the final stage will be perfection. All is now incomplete: in
the issue all will be complete. And this completeness, this fulfil-
ment, this attainment of purpose and realisation of ideal, is found

YI19-IV1] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. | 89

and is to be found (for to St Paul the present contains implicitly
the future) in Christ—in Christ ‘by way of a body’; that is to
say, in Christ as the whole, in which the head and the body are
inseparably one. .

Even beyond this the Apostle dares to look. This fulfilled and
completed universe is in truth the return of all things to their
creative source, through Christ to God, ‘of whom and through Rom, xi 36
whom and unto whom are all things’,—‘that God may be all in 1 Cor. xv
all’. Thus ‘the fulness’, which resides in Christ and unto which 28
the saints are to be fulfilled, is ‘all the fulness of the Deity’, or, as
he says in our present passage, ‘all the fulness of God’,

No prayer that has ever been framed has uttered a bolder
request. It is a noble example of zappyoia, of freedom of speech, of
that ‘boldness and access in confidence’ of which he has spoken iii 12
above. Unabashed by the greatness of his petition, he triumphantly
invokes a power which can do far more than he asks, far more than
even his lofty imagination conceives. His prayer has risen into
praise. ‘Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above iii 20 f.
all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, to
Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus, throughout all ages,

world without end. Amen’.

‘According to the power that worketh in us’. Once more we are
reminded of his first attempt to utter his prayer. It was at a
closely similar phrase that he began to digress: ‘that ye may i 18 ff.
know...what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward
who believe, according to the working of the might of His strength,
which He wrought in Christ, in that He raised Him’, etc. It is
the certainty of the present working of this Divine power that
fils him with exultant confidence.

‘To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus’—in the
Body and in the Head. This is only the third time that the
Apostle has named the Church in this epistle. He has spoken of it
as that which fulfils the Christ, as the body fulfils the head. He i 23
has spoken of it again as the medium through which lessons of the iii 10
very-varied wisdom of God are being learned by spiritual intelli-
gences in the heavenly region. He now speaks of it, in terms not
less remarkable, as the sphere in which, even as in Christ Jesus:
Himself, the glory of God is exhibited and consummated.

I THEREFORE, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that ye iv 1—6
walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called, with all
lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one

ivi

iii 2—13

’ Wirs

i 23
lii 10

iil 21

iv 2

EXPOSITION OF THE ova

another in love; sgiving diligence to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace. +There ts one body and one Spirit,
even as also ye are called in one hope of your calling : Sone
Lord, one faith, one baptism: Sone God and Father of all, who
is above all and through all and in all.

LT therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you’. He repeats the
title ‘prisoner’ by which he has already described himself; and
thereby he links this section to the long parenthesis in which he has
interpreted his use of it. He seems to say: I am a prisoner now,
and no longer an active messenger of Jesus Christ. I can indeed
write to you, and I can pray for you. But with yourselves hence-
forward rests the practical realisation of the ideal which it has been
my mission to proclaim to you.

We have already had occasion to draw attention to the ‘special
usage of St Paul in regard to the names ‘Christ’ and ‘the Lord’’.
It is in full harmony with this usage that he has previously called
himself ‘the prisoner of Christ Jesus’, emphasising his special mission
to declare the new position of the Gentiles ‘in Christ’; whereas now
he says,‘ the_prisoner-in-the-Lord’,as he begins * 0 speak o! of the
outcome of the new position, the corporate life ruled by ‘the Lord’.

‘That ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called’. The
great human unity, which the Apostle regards as the goal of the
Divine purpose, has been created and already exists in Christ. It
is being progressively realised as a fact in the world of men by the
Church, which is ‘the body of the Christ’ and His ‘fulfilment’,
‘Through the Church’, as fulfilling the Christ, the very-varied
wisdom of the Divine purpose is being taught to the intelligences of
the spiritual sphere. ‘In the Church and in Christ Jesus’ the
Divine purpose is to find its consummation to the eternal glory
of God.

It is the responsibility of the members of the Church for the
preservation and manifestation of this unity, which the Apostle
now seeks to enforce. You, he says, have been called into the
unity, which God has created in Christ : you have been chosen into
this commonwealth of privilege, this household of God: you are
stones in this Temple, members of this Body. This is your high
vocation ; and, if you would be true to it, you must ever be mindful
of the whole of which you are parts, making your conduct worthy of

. your incorporation into God’s New Man.

‘ With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing

1 See above, p. 72.

IV.2] ° EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

one another in love’. It is the mental dispositions which promote
the right relation of the parts to the whole and to each other in the
whole, that the Apostle first demands of them. His experience had
taught him that these dispositions were indispensably necessary for
the maintenance of unity.

This emphatic appeal for dlowliness of mind’, as the first of
virtues to which their new position pledged them, must have been
peculiarly impressive to converts from heathenism. To the Greek
mind humility was-litile else than a vice of nature. It was weak
and mean-spirited ; it was the temper of the slave; it was incon-
sistent with that self-respect which every true man owed to himself.
The fulness of life, as it was then conceived, left no room for
humility. It was reserved for Christianity to unfold a different
conception of the fulness of life, in which service and self-sacrifice
were shewn to be the highest manifestations of power, whether
human or Divine. The largest life was seen to claim for itself the
right of humblest service. The Jew had indeed been taught
humility in the Old Testament, on the ground of the relation of
man to God. ‘The high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’
would only dwell ‘with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit’.

Isa. Ivii 15

But the Gospel went far further and proclaimed that humility was
not the virtue of weakness only. The highest life, in the fullest
consciousness of its power, expresses itself in acts of the deepest

humility. ‘Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things John xiii

into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God ;

He riseth from supper, and laid aside His garments, and took a
towel and girded Himself. After that he poureth water into a
bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with
the towel wherewith .He was girded’. It is in harmony with this
that St Paul, in a great theological passage, treats humility as the

characteristic lesson of the Incarnation itself. ‘In lowliness of Phil. ii 3

mind’, he pleads, ‘let each esteem other better than themselves...
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus...who
humbled Himself’.

In our present passage the Apostle enforces humility on the
ground of the relation of man to man in the great human unity. A
larger life than that of the individual has been revealed to him. Its
law is that of mutual service: and its first requisite is the spirit of
subordination, ‘lowliness of mind and meekness’.

‘With long-suffering, forbearing one another’. 'The patient spirit
by which each makes allowance for the failures of the other, is
closely related to ‘the lowliness of mind’, by which each esteems the
other better than himself.

92 , EXPOSITION OF THE - [IV 2, 3

‘In love’. Here, as so often in this epistle, love is introduced as |
the climax, the comprehensive virtue of the new life which includes
all the rest’, In the Epistle to the Colossians the same thought is

Col. iii | even more emphatically expressed : ‘Put ye on...lowliness of mind,

12 ft meekness, long-suffering; forbearing one another...and, over and

. above all these, love, which is the bond of perfectness ’.

iv 3 ‘Giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace’. The word ‘endeavouring’, which the Authorised Version
employs in this place, has come to suggest in our modern usage too
much of the possibility of failure to be strong enough to give the
Apostle’s meaning. The word which he uses has an eagerness about
it, which is difficult to represent in English? The Church to him

_was the embodiment of the Divine purpose for the world: it was
the witness to men of the unity of mankind. What would become
of this witness, how should: the purpose itself be realised, if the
unity of the Church were not preserved? Well might he urge upon
his readers eagerly and earnestly to maintain their oneness. They
must make a point of preserving it: they must take care to keep it.

‘Zo keep the unity’. . The unity is spoken of as a thing which
already exists, It is a reality of the spiritual world. It_is.a_gift_of —

God which is committed to men to keep intact. At the same time,
as St Paul will presently shew, it is a unity which is ever enlarging

iv 13 its range and contents : ‘until we all come to the unity’, ‘The unity
must be maintained in the process, if it is to be attained in the
result,

‘The unity of the Spirit’, Hitherto St Paul has avoided the
abstract word, and has used concrete terms to express the thought .
iirg ff, of unity: ‘one man.,.in one body...in one Spirit’. Indeed the
characteristically Christian word to express the idea is not ‘unity’
or ‘oneness’ (édrys), but the more living and fruitful term ‘com-
munion’ or ‘fellowship’ (kowwvia): a term implying not a meta-
physical conception but an active relationship: see, for example,
Acts ii 42, 2 Cor, xiii 14, Phil. ii 1. Yet the more abstract term
has its value: ‘the oneness of the Spirit’ underlies ‘ the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit’, which manifests and interprets it.
By a mischievous carelessness of expression, ‘ unity of spirit’ is
commonly spoken of in contrast to ‘corporate unity’, and as though

1 Compare for the emphatic posi- which are used to render the corre-
tion of the phrase ‘in love’,i4, iiiry, sponding substantive (o7ovdy) in 2 Cor.
iv 15, 16. vii irf., viii 7 f., 16: ‘carefulness’,

2 The range of the word and the ‘care’, ‘diligence’, ‘forwardness’,
difficulty ‘of adequately translating if ‘earnest care’,
may be illustrated by the five synonyms

IV 3—6] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

it might be accepted as a substitute for it. Such language would
have been unintelligible to St Paul. He never employs the word
‘spirit’ in a loose way to signify a disposition, as we do when we
speak of ‘a kindly spirit’. To him ‘spirit’ means ‘spirit’, and
nothing less. It is often hard to decide whether he is referring
to the Spirit of God or to the human spirit. In the present passage,
for example, we cannot be sure whether he wishes to express the

unity which the Holy Spirit produces in the Christian Body, as in

the parallel phrase ‘the fellowship of the Holy Spirit’ ; or rather the
unity of the ‘one spirit’ of the ‘one body’, regarded as distinguishable
from the personal Holy Spirit. But at any rate no separation of
‘body’ and ‘spirit’ is contemplated: and the notion that there
could be several ‘bodies’ with a ‘unity of spirit’ is entirely alien to
the thought of St Paul. Tt is especially out of place here, as the
next words shew.

‘ There is one body and one Spirit, even as-also ye are called in
one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God
and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all’. The
seven unities here enumerated fall into three groups: one body, one

Spirit, one hope: one Lord, one faith, one baptism : one God and

2 Cor. xiii
14

iv 4 ff,

Father of all,

_ The Apostle begins from what is most immediately present to
view—the one Body, vitalised by one Spirit, and progressing towards
the goal of one Hope. This Body depends for its existence upon
one Lord, its Divine Head, to whom it is united by one Faith and
one Baptism. Its ultimate source of being is to be found in one

_ God, the All-Father, supreme over all, operative through all,
immanent in all.

More succinctly we may express the thought of the three groups
thus :

One Body—and all that this involves of inward life and ultimate

perfection ; . .

One Head—and that which unites us to Him;

One God—to whom all else is designed to lead us.

Elsewhere St Paul has said, in words which express a similar
progress of thought : ‘ Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s’.

*Who is above all and through all and in all’. A timid gloss,
which changed the last clause into ‘in you all’, has found its way
into our Authorised Version ; but it is destitute of authority. The

Greek in the true text is as vague as the English rendering given
above: so that we cannot at once decide whether St Paul is speaking
of ‘all persons’ or ‘all things’. The words ‘Father of all’, which

immediately precede, may seem to make the former the more natural.

1 Cor. iii
23

iii 14 f.

Col. iii rr

Col. iii 9,
12

Col. iii 12

iv 7—16

EXPOSITION OF THE [IV. 6,7

interpretation ; but they cannot in themselves compel us to abandon
the wider meaning.

The Apostle is indeed primarily thinking of the Body of Christ
and all its members. The unity of that Body is the truth which he
seeks to enforce. But when he has risen at length to find the source
of human unity in the unity of the Divine fatherhood, his thought
widens its scope. The words ‘ Father of all’ cannot be less inclusive
than the earlier words, ‘The Father of whom all fatherhood in

-heaven and on earth is named’. And the final clause, ‘Who is ©

above all and through all and in all’, is true not only of all intelli-
gent beings which can claim the Divine fatherhood, but of the total
range of things, over which God is supreme, through which He
moves and acts, and in which He dwells.

Ii was a startling experiment in human life which the Apostle
was striving to realise. Looked at from without, his new unity was
a somewhat bizarre combination. ‘Greek and Jew, circumcision
and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman ’—all
these are no more, he boldly proclaims to the Colossians, ‘but’ all in

all is Christ’. The ‘ putting on of the New Man’, he goes on to tell _
--them,-involved-the welding into one of all these heterogeneous

elements ; or rather the persistent disregard of these distinctions, in
presence of the true human element, which should so far dominate
as practically to efface them. In every-day life this made a heavy de-
mand upon the new virtues of self-effacement and mutual forbearance.
Accordingly he declares, in language closely parallel to that which
he uses in this epistle, that to put on the New Man is to ‘put on
the heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, meekness, long-
suffering ; bearing one with another, and forgiving each other, if
any have a complaint against any’, ‘Over and above all these
things’ they must put on ‘love, which is the bond of perfectness’.
And the paramount consideration which must decide all issues is
‘the peace of the Christ ’, unto which they have been called ‘in one
Body’.

7Bur unto every one of us is given grace, according to the
measure of the gift of Christ. ®Wherefore it saith:

When He ascended up on high, He led a captivity captive,

And gave gifts unto men.

9Now that, He ascended, what is it but that He also
descended into the lower parts of the earth? ‘He that
descended, He it is that also ascended above all heavens, that

IV 7] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

He might fill all things. And He gave some, apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers; for the perfecting of the saints for the work of
ministry, for the building of the body of Christ, "till we all
come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son
of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ: “that we be no longer children, tossed to
and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the
sleight of men, by craftiness according to the wiles of error;
shut maintaining the truth in love, may grow up into Him in
all things; which is the head, even Christ, *from whom the
whole body, fitly framed together and compacted by every joint
of tts supply, according to the effectual working in the measure
of each several part, maketh the increase of the body, unto
the building thereof, in love.

‘But. unto every one of us is given grace, according to the measure iv-7

of the gift of Christ’. The recognition of the whole-is to St-Paul

the starting-point for the consideration of the position of the indi-
vidual parts. For the unity of which he speaks is no barren
uniformity : it is a unity in diversity. It secures to the individual
his true place of responsibility and of honour.

In order to appreciate the language of this passage we must
recall the phraseology which the Apostle has used again and again
in the earlier part of chap. iii. He has there spoken of ‘the grace iii 2
of God which was given’ to him on behalf of the Gentiles. He was
made minister of the Gospel which included the Gentiles ‘ according iii 7
to the gift of that grace of God which was given’ to him: to him—
for he will repeat it the third time—though less than the least of
the holy people—‘this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles iii 8
the unexplorable wealth of the Christ’. This reiterated identifica-
tion of his special mission with the gift of grace illustrates the
passage before us. To each individual, if not to all in like measure,
the same grace has been given. The Divine mercy in its world-wide
inclusiveness is committed to each member of the holy people, not:
as a privilege only, but also as a responsibility *.

‘According to the measure of the gift of Christ’, The grace is

1 Compare Phil. i7, where St Paul nexion with ‘the defence and con-
speaks of the Philippians as ‘fellow- firmation of the Gospel’.
partakers with him of grace’, in con-

Rom, xii
x ff.

EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 7—10

the same; but Christ gives it in different measures, as the Apostle
proceeds to explain.

At this point we may usefully compare with the present context
as a whole a parallel passage in the Epistle to the Romans, in
which, after the Apostle has closed his discussion of the wide inclu-
siveness of the Divine mercy, he calls for a fitting response in. the
conduct of those to whom it has come. The language of the two
passages offers several similarities. The opening phrase, with which
he passes from doxology to exhortation, is in each case the same:
‘I beseech you therefore’. There, as here, ‘the grace which is given
to me’ leads the way to ‘the grace which is given to us’. There

‘too we find an appeal for humility on the ground of the one Body

and the distribution of functions among its members, ‘as God hath
dealt to every man the measure of faith’. ‘Having gifts’, the
Apostle continues, ‘which are diverse according to the grace which
is given to us’: and he adds a catalogue of these gifts, which we
shall presently have to compare with that which follows in this
epistle. These various functions, diverse according to the distribu-
tion of the grace—such is the Apostle’s teaching in both places—
are indispensable elements of a vital unity.

iv 8

Ps. Ixviii
18

iv 9

iv 10

“Wherefore tt saith: When He ascended up on high, He led a
captivity captive, and gave gifts to men’. The Apostle has already
connected the exaltation of Christ with the power that is at work
in the members of His Church. The varied gifts bestowed by the
exalted Christ now. recall to his mind the ancient picture of the
victorious king, who mounts the heights of the sacred citadel of
Zion, with his captives in his train, and distributes his largess from
the spoils of war. It is the connexion between the ascension and
the gifts, which the Apostle desires to emphasise; and the only
words of the quotation on which he comments are ‘He ascended’
and ‘He gave’.

‘Now that, He ascended, what is it but that He also descended
into the lower paris of the earth ?’? Desiring to shew that the power
of Christ ranges throughout the universe, St Paul first notes that
His ascent implies a previous descent. This descent was below the
earth, as the ascent is above the heavens.

‘ He that descended, He it is that also ascended above all heavens,
that He might fill all things’. From its depths to its heights He has
compassed the universe. He has left nothing unvisited by His
presence. For He is the Divine Fulfilller, to whom it appertains in
the purpose of God to fill all things with their appropriate fulness:
to bring the universe to its destined goal, its final correspondence
with the Divine ideal. Compare what has been said above on iii 19.

IV 11] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 97

‘And He gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets’, The nomina- iv rr

tive is emphatic in the original: ‘He it is that gave some as
apostles’, etc. Having commented on ‘He ascended’, St Paul goes on
to comment on ‘He gave’. It is Christ who in each case fulfils the
ancient hymn. He it is that ‘ascended’, and He it is that ‘gave’,
The Ascended One is the giver of gifts. His gifts are enumerated
in a concrete form: they are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors
and teachers. All these in their diversity of functions are given by
the Ascended Lord for the varied and harmonious development of
His Church,

In the passage of the Epistle to the Romans to which we hav
already alluded, the gifts are catalogued in the abstract.: prophecy, Rom. xii
ministry, teaching, and the like. Here the Apostle prefers to speak 68.
of the members who fulfil these functions as being themselves gifts
given by Christ to His Church. In another catalogue, in the First
Epistle to. the Corinthians, he passes from the concrete method of
description to the abstract: ‘God hath set some in the Church, 1 Cor, xii
first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that
miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of

—_—tongues’, —There—too—he—has—been—speaking—of the—Body—and—its
Members; and the general thought is the same as here: the
diversity of gifts and functions is not only consistent with but
necessary to corporate unity.

‘Some, apostles ; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists ; and
some, pastors and teachers’, We shall be disappointed if we come to
this passage, or either of the parallels referred to above, in the
expectation of finding the official orders of the Church’s ministry.
The three familiar designations, bishops, presbyters and deacons,
are all wanting. The evidence of the Acts of the Apostles, which
employs the first two of these designations in reference to the
leaders of the Ephesian Church, together with the evidence of the
First Epistle to Timothy which employs all three in dealing with
the organisation and discipline of the same Church, forbids the
Suggestion that such officers are not mentioned here because they
did not exist in the Asian communities to which St Paul’s letter
was to go, or because the Apostle attached but little importance to-
their position. A reason for his silence must be sought in another
direction. The most intelligible explanation is that bishops, pres-
byters and deacons were primarily local officers, and St Paul is here
concerned with the Church as a whole. Apostles, prophets and
evangelists are divinely-gifted men who serve the Church at large ;
and if a local ministry is alluded to at all it is only under the vaguer
designation of ‘pastors and teachers’,

3
EPHES, 7

98 EXPOSITION OF THE IV a1

This is not the place to discuss the development of the official
ministry: but it may be pointed out that it rises in importance as
the first generation of apostolic and prophetic teachers passes away,
as the very designations of ‘apostle’ and ‘prophet’ gradually dis-
appear, and as all that is permanently essential to the Church of the
apostolic and prophetic functions is gathered up and secured in the
official ministry itself.

The recovery of the Didaché, or Teaching of the Apostles, has
thrown fresh light on the history of the first two terms of St-Paul’s
list’. It shews us a later generation of ‘apostles’, who are what we
should rather term ‘missionaries’, They pass from place to place,
asking only for a night’s lodging and a day’s rations. They would
seem to correspond to the ‘evangelists’ of St Paul’s catalogue, who
carried the Gospel to regions hitherto unevangelised. This mention
of them establishes beyond further question that wider use of the
name ‘apostle’, for the recognition of which Bishop Lightfoot had
already vigorously pleaded’.

Yet more interesting is the picture which the Didaché draws for
us of the Christian prophets. It shews us the prophets as pre-
eminent in the community which they may visit, or_in_which they —

may choose to settle. They appear to celebrate the Eucharist, and
that with a special liturgical freedom. They are to be regarded as
beyond criticism, if their genuineness as prophets has once been
established. They are the proper recipients of the tithes and first-
fruits of the community, and this for a noteworthy reason: ‘for
they are your high-priests’, And when at the close of the book
‘bishops and deacons’ are for the first time mentioned, honour is
claimed for them in these significant terms: ‘For they also minister
unto you the ministration of the prophets and teachers: therefore
despise them not; for they are your honourable ones together with
the prophets and teachers’, In this primitive picture it is instruc-
tive to observe that the ministry of office is in the background,
overshadowed at present by a ministry of enthusiasm, but destined
to absorb its functions and to survive its fall.

iv 12 ‘For the perfecting of the sainis for the work of ministry’. The

1 The Didaché was published by
Archbp Bryennius in 1883. In its
present form it is a composite work,
which has embodied a very early (pos-
sibly Jewish) manual of conduct. Its
locality is uncertain, and it cannot
be dated with prudence earlier than
about 130 A.D. It is impossible to

regard it as representative of the
general condition of the Church at so
late a period: it would appear rather
to belong to some isolated community,
in which there lingered a condition of
life and organisation which had else-
where passed away.
2 Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 95.

IV 12, 13] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 99

second of these clauses must be taken as dependent on the first, and
not (as in the Authorised Version) as coordinate with it, The
equipment of the members of the Body for their function of service
to the whole is the end for whicli Christ has given these gifts to
His Church. If the life and growth of the Body is to be secured,
every member of it, and not only those who are technically called
‘ministers’, must be taught to serve. More eminent service indeed
is rendered by those members to whom the Apostle has explicitly
referred; but their service is specially designed to promote the
service in due measure of the rest: for, as he tells us elsewhere,
‘those members of the body which seem to be feebler are necessary’. 1 Cor. xii
Thus ‘the work of ministry’ here spoken of corresponds to the 7?
‘grace given to every one of us’, which is the subject of this iv7

section.

An illustrative example of this ministry of saints to saints is to
be found in St Paul’s reference to an interesting group of Corinthian
Christians: ‘I beseech you, brethren,—ye know the house of Ste- 1 Cor. xvi
phanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have 15 #
addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints1,—that ye submit

yourselves—unto—such,-and—to—every-one-thathelpeth with us and

laboureth. I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus
and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have
supplied: for they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore
acknowledge ye them that are such’. From words like these we
may see that every kind of mutual service is included in the early
and unofficial sense of this word ‘ ministry’.

If ministry such as this is characteristic of each member of the
Body, it was preeminently characteristic of the Head Himself:
‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister’: Mark x 45
‘I am among you as he that ministereth’. Luke xxii

‘For the building of the body of Christ’. This is the process to ad 13
the forwarding of which all that has been spoken of is directed.

In describing it St Paul combines, as he has done before, his two
favourite metaphors of the temple and the body. He has previously ii er
said that the building of the Temple grows: here, conversely, he
speaks of the Body as being builded.

‘Tull we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of
the Son of God’. Unity has been spoken of, first of all, as a gift to
be kept ; it is now regarded as a goal to be attained. Unity, as it
exists already and is to be eagerly guarded, is a spiritual rather
than an intellectual oneness; the vital unity of the one Spirit in

1 Literally, ‘they have appointed themselves unto ministry to the sainis’.
7—2

100 ‘EXPOSITION OF THE. (IV 13.

the one body. Unity, as it is ultimately to be reached by all the

. saints together, will be a consciously realised oneness, produced by

oe faith in and knowledge of the Son of God. We are one now: in
the end we all shall know ourselves to be one.

‘ The Son of God’. St Paul is so careful in his use of the various
designations of our Lord, that we may be ‘confident that he has
some reason here for inserting between two mentions of ‘the Christ’
this title, ‘the Son of God’, which does not occur elsewhere in the
epistle. It is instructive to compare a passage in the Epistle to the

Gal. ii20 Galatians, where a similar change of titles is‘made. .‘T have been
crucified with Christ’, says the Apostle, ‘and I no longer live, but
in me Christ lives : and the life which now I live in the flesh, I live
by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered Himself
up for me’. He with whom he has been crucified, He who now
lives in him, is ‘Christ’: He whose love brought Him down to
suffer is ‘the Son of God’. The title is changed to one which

John xvii 5 recalls the glory which Christ had with the Father before the world
was, in order to heighten the thought of His condescending love.
And so in our present passage, when he is treating of the relation of

our Lord to His ‘Church, he speaks_of_Him_as_ ‘the Christ’ (forthe ——

article is used in both places in the original): but when he would
describe Him as the object of that faith and knowledge, in which our
unity will ultimately be realised, he uses the words ‘the faith and the
knowledge of the Son of God’; thereby suggesting, as it would seem,
the thought of His eternal existence in relation to the Divine Father.
_ Till we all come...to a perfect man’: that is, all of us together
(for this is implied by the Greek) to God’s New Man, grown at
length to full manhood. Not ‘to perfect men’: for the Apostle
iv 14 uses the plural of the lower stage only: ‘that we be no longer
children’ is his own contrast. We are to grow out of our indi-
vidualism into the corporate oneness of the full-grown Man.

_ *To the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (or, of the
Christ)’: that is, to the full measure of the complete stature, or
maturity, of the fulfilled Christ. We cannot forget that St Paul

1 23 has already called the Church ‘the fulness of Him who all in all is.

being fulfilled’, But in using the expression ‘the fulness of the

Christ’ in this place, he is thinking of more than ‘the Church,

which is His Body’. For here we get once more to the background.

of St Paul’s thought, in which the Body and the Head together are.
ultimately the one Christ—‘the Christ that is to be’.

In the New Man, grown to perfect manhood, St. Paul finds the

consummation of human life. He thus takes us on to the issue of

the new creation which he spoke of in chap. ii. There the ‘one new

“IV 13, 14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

man’ is created in the Christ: but he has a long growth before him.
- More. and more are to claim. their position as. members of him.
‘Christ is fulfilled’—to quote Origen’s words again.’—‘in all that
come unto Him, whereas He is still lacking: in respect of them
before they have come’. When they shall all have come to the
unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, when
they shall all have come to a full-grown Man; then in the ripe
maturity of the New Man, ‘the fulness of the Christ’ will itself
have been attained.

The poet, who has spoken to us of ‘the Christ that is to be’, has
also most clearly expressed for us a part at least. of the truth of the
Making of Man’:

Man as yet is being made, and ere the crowning Age of ages,

Shall not aeon after acon pass and touch him into shape?

All about him shadow still, but, while the races flower and fade,
Prophet-eyes may catch a glory slowly gaining on the shade,

‘Till the peoples all are one, and all their voices blend in choric
Hallelujah to the Maker ‘It is finish’d. Man is made’.

‘That we be no longer children’. This expression, viewed from iv 14

Io]

the-mere standpoint of style, spoils the previous metaphor: but it is
obviously intended to form a sharp contrast. The plural is to be
noted, Maturity belongs to the unity alone. Individualism and
self-assertion are the foes of this maturity. We are not to be
‘babes’, isolated individuals, stunted and imperfect. Out of indi-
vidualism we must grow, if we would attain to our perfection i in the
membership of the perfect Man.

‘No longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with
every wind of doctrine’. St Paul does not linger on the distant
ideal. He is quickly back to the present stage of childhood, which
has still to ‘pass the waves of this troublesome world’ in which
ideals are too apt to suffer shipwreck. The new metaphor is drawn
from the sea which the Apostle knew so well, the symbol of insta-
bility and insecurity. It suggests the jeopardy of the little boats,
storm-tossed and swung round by each fresh blast, so that they
cannot keep their head to the waves and are in danger of being
swamped.

‘By the sleight of men, by craftiness according to the wiles of
error’. The dexterous handling of the dice and the smart cleverness
of the schemer are the figures which underlie the words here used.
They suggest the very opposite of the Aposile’s straightforwardness

1 The full quotation is given inthe ‘The Making of Man’ in The Death of
note on p. 45. Ocenone and other Poems (1892).
# Tennyson, In Memoriam evi: and

102

EXPOSITION OF THE —-—SS[IV 14, 15

2 Cor. iv 2 of teaching. Ours is not, he had once said to the Corinthians, the

iv I5

versatility of the adept, which plays tricks with the Divine message.
So here he warns us that subtleties and over-refinements end in
error. We must keep to the simple way of truth and love.

‘But maintaining the truth in love’, In this epistle St Paul is
not controversial. He attacks no form of false doctrine, but only
gives a general warning against the mischievous refinements of over-
subtle teachers. With the ‘error’ to which these things lead he
briefly contrasts the duty of ‘ maintaining the truth in love’; and
then at once he returns to the central truth of the harmony and
growth of God’s one Man.

‘May grow up into Him in all things’. The next words, ‘ which
is the head ’, seem at first sight to suggest that the Apostle’s meaning
is ‘may grow up into Him as the head’. But although the limbs of
the body are presently spoken of as deriving their growth from the
head—the head being regarded as the source of that harmony of the
various parts which is essential to healthy development—it would
be difficult to give a meaning to the expression ‘to grow up into
the head’. Accordingly it is better to regard the words ‘may grow

up—into—Him_in—all things’ as complete— in themselves. What
St Paul desires to say is that the children are to grow Up, not
each into a separate man, but all into One, ‘the perfect man’, who
is none other than the Christ,

The law of growth for the individual is this: that he should
learn more and more to live as a part of a great whole; that he
should consciously realise the life of membership, and contribute his
appropriate share towards the completeness of the corporate unity ;
and that thus his expanding faculties should find their full play in
the large and ever enlarging life of the One Man. It is to this that
St Paul points when he says, ‘that we be no longer children, but
grow up into Him every whit’.

In one of the most remarkable poems of the Jn Memoriam
Tennyson suggests that the attainment of a definite self-conscious-
ness may be a primary purpose of the individual’s earthly life’ :

This use may lie in blood and breath,
Which else were fruitless of their due,

Had man to learn himself anew
Beyond the second birth of Death,

We gather from St Paul that there is a further lesson which we are
called to learn—the consciousness of a larger life, in which in a
sense we lose ourselves, to find ourselves again, no longer isolated,

1 In Memoriam, xiv.

IV 15] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

but related and coordinated in the Body of the Christ. That the
poet, too, knew something of the mystery of this surrender of the
individual life may be seen from his Prologue:

Thou seemest human and divine,
The highest, holiest manhood, thou :
Our wills are ours, we know not how;
Our wills are ours, to make them thine,

‘ Which is the head, even Christ’. Backwards and forwards the
Apostle moves, with no concern for logical consistency, between the
conception of Christ as the Whole and the conception of Christ as
the Head of the Body. The newness of the thought which he is
endeavouring to develope—the thought of human unity realised
through and in the Christ—is doubtless responsible for these
‘ oscillations. We feel that the conception is being worked out
for the first time, and we watch the struggle of language in face of
the difficulties which present themselves. The initial difficulty is
to conceive of a number of persons as forming in a real sense one
‘body’. In common parlance this difficulty is not recognised,
because_the—word_—hody-”_is_used—merely_to-signify—an—aggregation.
of persons more or less loosely held in relation to one another, and
its proper meaning of a structural unity is not seriously pressed.
But just in proportion as ‘a body’ is felt to mean a living organism,
the difficulty remains. And St Paul makes it abundantly clear that
it is a living organism—a human frame with all its manifold struc-
ture inspired by a single life—which offers to him the true concep-
tion of humanity as God will have it to be.

A further difficulty enters when the relation of Christ to this
Body comes to be defined. It is natural at once to think of Him as
its Head : for that is the seat of the brain which controls and unifies
the organism. But this conception does not always suffice. For

103

Christ is more than the Head. The whole Body, in St Paul’s Rom. xii 5

language, is ‘in Him’; the several parts ‘grow up into Him’,

Even more than this, the whole is identified with Him: ‘for 4s ¢ Cor. xii

the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of !7

the body being many are one body; so also is the Christ’. In the

New Man ‘Christ is all and in all’. Identified with the whole Col, iii 11

Body, He grows with its growth and will find His own fulfilment -

only in its complete maturity.

We are not therefore to be surprised at the rapidity of the tran-
sition by which the Apostle here passes from the thought of Christ
as the Whole, into which we are growing up, to the thought of Him
as the Head, upon which the Body’s harmony and growth depends. :

104 EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 16, 17

iv 16 ‘ From whom the whole body, fitly framed together and compacted
by every:joint of its supply’. The expression ‘fitly framed together’

ii ox is repeated from the description of the building process which has
already furnished a figure of structural, though not organic, unity.
The remainder of the passage is found again, with slight verbal

Col. ii1g variations, in the Epistle to the Colossians : ‘from whom the whole
body, furnished out and compacted by the joints and bands,
increaseth with the increase of God’. The Apostle is using the
physiological terms of the Greek medical writers. We can almost

Col. iv14 see him turn to ‘the beloved physician’, of whose presence he tells
us in the companion epistle, before venturing to speak in technical
language of ‘ every ligament of the whole apparatus’ of the human
frame. There is no reference either here or in the Epistle to the
Colossians to a supply of nourishment, but rather to the complete
system of nerves and muscles by which the Jimbs are knit togethor
and are connected with the head.
‘ According to the effectual working in the measure of each several
part’: that is, as each several part in its due measure performs its
appropriate function. Unity in variety is the Apostle’s theme:
unity_of _structure_in_the_whole,_and_variety_of_function—in_the
several component parts: these are the conditions of growth upon
which he insists. .
‘ Maketh the increase of the body, unto the building thereof, im
love’, This recurrence to the companion metaphor of building
reminds us that the reality which St Paul is endeavouring to
illustrate is more than a physiological structure. The language
derived from the body’s growth needs to be supplemented by the
language derived from the building of the sacred shrine of God.
The mingling of the metaphors helps us to rise above them, and
thus prepares us for the phrase, with which the Apostle at once
interprets his meaning and reaches his climax,—‘in love’.
We have thus concluded a further stage in St Paul’s exposition.
ito To begin with we had the eternal purpose of God, to make Christ
iirs,iii4f. the summing into one of all things that are. Then we had the
mystery of Christ, consummated on the cross, by which Jew and

iv3f. Gentile passed into one new Man. Lastly we have had the unity.
of the Spirit, a unity in variety, containing a principle of growth,
by which the Body of the Christ is moving towards maturity.

iv 17—24 7Tuis I] say therefore and testify in the Lord, that ye no
| longer walk as do the Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their-
mind, ‘*darkened in ¢heir understanding, being alienated from

IV 17-19} ‘EPISTLE TO. THE EPHESIANS.

the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them because
of the blindness of their heart; **who being past feeling have
given themselves over unto lJasciviousness, to work all unclean-
ness with greediness. *But ye have not so learned Christ;
2tif so be that ye have heard Him, and have been taught in
Him, as the truth is in Jesus; *that ye put off as concerning
your former manner of life the old man, which is corrupt
according to the lusts of deceit ; ?3and be renewed in the spirit
of your mind, *4and put on the new man, which after God is
created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

‘This I say therefore and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer iv 17
walk as do the Gentiles walk’. The double use of the verb ‘to
walk’ points us back to the beginning of the chapter. There he
had commenced his: solemn injunction as to their ‘walk’; but the
first elements on which he had felt bound to lay stress, humble-
ness of mind and mutual forbearance, the prerequisites of the life
of unity, led him on to describe the unity itself, and to shew that,

it was the harmony of a manifold variety. Now he returns to
his topic again with a renewed vigour: ‘This I say therefore and
testify in the Lord’—in whom I am who speak, and you are
who heart. .

His injunction now takes a negative form: they are ‘not to
walk as do the Gentiles walk’, This leads him to describe the
characteristics of the heathen life which they have been called
to leave,

105

‘In the vanity of their mind, darkened in their understanding, iv 17 £

being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is
in them because of the blindness of their heart’. They have no
ruling purpose to guide them, no light by which to see their way,
no Divine life to inspire them: they cannot know, because their
heart is blind. The last phrase may recall to us by way of contrast
the Apostle’s prayer for the Gentile converts, that ‘the eyes of their i 18
heart’ might be enlightened. And the whole description may be
compared with his account of their former state as ‘in the world ii 12
without hope and without God’.

‘Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lascivi- iv 19
ousness, to work all wneleanness with greediness’, They have not
only the passive vice of ignorance, but the active vices which are

1 See above on iv. r.

106

EXPOSITION. OF. THE [IV 19~21

Rom. i. 21 bred of recklessness. In the opening chapter of the Epistle to the

—2

iv 20

iv 21

Romans the same sequence is found: ‘they became vain in their _
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened...wherefore God
also gave them up to uncleanness...for this cause God gave them
up unto vile affections...even as they did not like to retain God
in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to
do those things which are not convenient’. There it is thrice
said that ‘God gave them up’: here it is said that, ‘having
become reckless, they gave themselves up’. The emphasis which
in either case St Paul lays on want of knowledge corresponds
with the stress which, as we have already seen, he Jays upon
true wisdom},

‘But ye have not so learned Christ’, or, as it is in the original,
‘the Christ’. That is to say, You are no longer in this darkness and
ignorance : you have learned the Christ : and the lesson involves a
wholly different life.

© Tf so be that ye have heard Him, and have been taught in Him,
as the truth is in Jesus’, The conditional form of the sentence is
used for the sake of emphasis, and does not imply a doubt. We

iv 15

iv 24 f

may paraphrase it thus: ‘if indeed it be He whom ye have heard
and in whom ye have been taught’. The phrases to learn Christ,
to hear Him, and to be taught in Him, are explanatory of each
other. The Apostle’s readers had not indeed heard Christ, in the
sense of hearing Him speak. But Christ was the message which
had been brought to them, He was the school in which they had
been taught, He was the lesson which they had learnt. .

The expression ‘to learn Christ’ has become familiar to our
ears, and we do not at once realise how strangely it must have
sounded when it was used for the first time. But the Apostle
‘was well aware that his language was new, and he adds a clause
which helps to interpret it: ‘even as the truth is in Jesus’, or
more literally, ‘even as truth is in Jesus’, He lays much stress
on truth throughout the whole context. He has already called
for the maintenance of the truth in opposition to the subtleties
of error: he will presently speak of the new man as ‘created
according to God in righteousness and holiness of the truth’;
and, led on by the word, he will require his readers as the first
practical duty of the new life to put away falsehood and speak
truth each to his neighbour.. But truth is embodied in Jesus, who
is the Christ. Hence, instead of saying ‘ye have learned the truth,
ye have heard the truth, ye have been taught in the truth’, he says

1 See above, p. 30.

IV 21—24] EPISTLE. TO THE EPHESIANS,

with a far more impressive emphasis, ‘It is Christ whom ye have
learned, Him ye have heard, in Him ye have been taught, even as
the truth is in Jesus’.

' Nowhere else in this epistle does St Paul use the name ‘Jesus’
by itself. Nor does he so use it again in any of the epistles of
his Roman captivity, if we except “the one passage in which he

107

specially refers to the new honour which has accrued to ‘the name Phil. ii ro

of Jesus’. Even in his earlier epistles it rarely occurs alone ; and,
when it does, there is generally an express reference to the death
or resurrection of our Lord’, We have already said something
of the significance of St Paul’s usage in this respect? He uses
the name ‘Jesus’ by itself when he wishes emphatically to point
to the historic personality of the Christ. And this is plainly his
intention in the present passage. The message which he pro-
claimed was this: The Christ has come: in the person of Jesus—
the crucified, risen and ascended Jesus—He has come, not only
as the Messiah of the Jew, but as the hope of all mankind. In
this Jesus is embodied the truth: and so the truth has come to
you. ‘You have learned the Christ; Him you have heard, in Him

you have been taught, even-as the truth is-in-Jesus:

‘That ye put off as concerning your former manner of life iv 22 ff.

the old man, which is corrupt according to the lusts of deceit,
and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new
man, which after God ts created in righteousness and holiness of
the truth’. The injunctions which St Paul has hitherto laid upon
his readers have been gentle admonitions, arising directly out of
the great thoughts which he has been expounding to them. His

first injunction was: Remember what you were and what you are. ii 11 f.
The next was: Cultivate that humble and forbearing temper, which iv 2 ff.

naturally belongs to what you are, which tends to keep the unity.
But now his demand takes a severer tone: I protest in the Lord, he
says, that you be not what you were. *

The knife goes deep. As regards your former life, he declares,
you must strip off ‘the old man’, a miserable decaying thing, rotted
with the passions of the old life of error. ‘You must be made new
in your spirits. You must array yourselves in ‘the new man’, who
has been created as God would have him to be, in that righteousness
and holiness to which the truth leads.

1 So in 1 Thess.i ro, iv 14, Rom. Jude. But in Hebrews it occurs alone
vill 11, 2 Cor. iv ro, 11, 14. The re- eight times; and this is, of course, the
maining passages are Gal. vir7, Rom. regular use in the Gospels.

iii 26, 2 Cor. iv 5. The name is not 2 See above, pp. 23 f.
used alone in James, : and 2 Peter, or

108 EXPOSITION OF THE [LV 22—24

What is ‘the old man’ who. is here spoken. of? St Paul has

Rom. vi 6 uséd the term in an earlier epistle. ‘Our old man’, he had written
to the Romans, ‘was crucified with Christ’. From the context of
that passage we may interpret his meaning as follows: I said that
by your baptism you were united with Christ in His death, you
were buried with Him. What was it that then died? I answer:
The former you. A certain man was living a life of sin: he was
the slave of sin, living in a body dominated by sin. That man,
who lived that life, died. He was crucified with Christ. That is
what I call ‘your old man’.

To the Romans, then, he has declared that their ‘old man’ is
dead. This, he says, is the true view of your life. It is God’s

Rom. viz view of it, in virtue of which you are justified in His sight. And

fi this view, the only true view, you are bound yourselves to take, and
make it the ruling principle of all your conduct.

Gal. ii 20 Elsewhere he says: This is my own case. I have been crucified
with Christ : I no longer live. Yet you see me living. What does
it mean? Christ is living in me. So great was the revolution
which St Paul recognised as having taken place in his own moral

experience, that—he doesnot hesitate -to-speak—of—it—as—a—change—_
of personality. I am dead, he says, crucified on Christ’s cross.
Another has come to live in me: and He has displaced me in
myself. .
What was true for him was true for his readers likewise.
Christ, he says, has come and claimed you. You have admitted
His claim by your baptism. You are no longer yourselves. The
old you then died: Another came to live in you. .
In our present passage, and in the closely parallel passage of the
Epistle to the Colossians, St Paul urges his readers to bring their
lives into correspondence with their true position, by ‘putting off
the old man’ and ‘putting on the new man’. That they had done
this already in their baptism was not, to his mind, inconsistent with
Col. ii 12, such an admonition. Indeed he expressly reminds the Colossians
20; M11 that they had thus died and been buried with Christ, and had been
raised with Him to a new life. None the less he urges them to
a fresh act of will, which shall realise their baptismal position :
' Col. iii g ff. ‘putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new,
who is ever being renewed unto knowledge according to the image
of Him that created him; where there is no Greek and Jew,
circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman,
freeman ; but Christ is all and in all’.
The metaphor here employed is a favourite one with St Paul.
They are to strip off the old self: they are to clothe themselves with

IV 22-24] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 109

Another. ‘This Other‘is sometimes said to be Christ Himself. Thus
St Paul writes to the Galatians: ‘As many of you as were baptised Gal. iii 27
into Christ did “put on Christ’; and to the Romans he says: ‘ Put Bom. xiii
ye on the Lord Jesus Christ’, Yet we could not substitute ‘Christ’ ‘+
for ‘the new man’ either here or in the Epistle to the Colossians.
For in both places the Apostle speaks of ‘the new man’ as having
been ‘created ’,:a'term which he could not apply directly to Christ.
An. earlier passage in this epistle, which likewise combines the
term ‘new man’ with the idea of ‘creation’, may perhaps throw
some light on this difficulty, even if it introduces us to a further
complication. In speaking of the union of the Jew and the Gentile
in Christ, St Paul uses the words: ‘that He might create the two ii 15
in Himself into one new man’. As ‘the new man’, who is to be
‘put on’, is the same for all who are thus renewed, they all become
inseparably one—one new Man. But the one new Man is ulti-
mately the Christ who is ‘all and in all’, We cannot perhaps
bring these various expressions into perfect harmony : but we must
not neglect any one of them. Here, as often elsewhere with
St Paul, the thought is too large and too many-sided for a complete

logical_consistency_in_its_exposition

The condition of ‘the old man, which is corrupt according to the iv 22
lusts of deceit’, is contrasted first with a renewal of youth, and
secondly with a fresh act of creation. These two distinct con-
ceptions correspond to two meanings which are combined in the
phrase ‘is corrupt’. For this may mean simply ‘is being destroyed’,
‘is on the way. to perish’; as St Paul says elsewhere, ‘our outward 2Cor. iv 16.
man perisheth’, using the same verb in a compound form. But
again it may refer to moral pollution, as when the Apostle says to
the Corinthians, ‘I have espoused you to one husband, to present 2 Cor. xi
you as a pure virgin to Christ; but I fear lest, as Satan deceived ” f
Eve, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity and purity
which is towards Christ’, If in our present passage the words
‘which is corrupt’ stood alone, we might take the first meaning
only and render ‘which waxeth corrupt’ or, better, ‘which is
perishing’: and this would correspond to the contrasted words, ‘ be
renewed in the spirit of your mind’, But the second meaning is
also in the Apostle’s mind : for he adds the words ‘ according to the
lusts of deceit’, and he offers a second contrast in ‘the new man
which is created after God’, or more literally ‘according to God’,
that is as he says more plainly to the Colossians ‘according to the Col. iii 10
image of Him that created him’. The original purity of newly-
created man was ‘corrupted’ by means of a ‘deceit’ which worked
through ‘the lusts’, The familiar story has perpetually repeated

IIo

iv 25—v 2

‘EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 25

itself in human experience: ‘the old man is corrupt according to
the lusts of deceit’, and a fresh creation after the original pattern
has been necessitated : it is found in ‘the new man which after God
is created in righteousness and holiness which are (in contrast with
‘ deceit’) of the truth’.

25 WHEREFORE putting away lying, speak every man truth
with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be
ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your
wrath; *7neither give place to the devil. *Let him that stole
steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his
hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to
him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed
out of your mouth, but that which is good, for building up as
need may be, that it may give grace unto the hearers: 3°and
grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto
the day of redemption. 3* Let all bitterness and wrath ‘and

iv 25
iv 26
iv 28
iv 29
iv 31

anger and clamour and evil-speaking be put-awayfrom—you;
with all malice: 37and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted,
forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath forgiven you.
V. *Be ye therefore followers of God, as His beloved children ;
2and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved you, and hath
given Himself for you, an offermg and a sacrifice to God for a
sweetsmelling savour.

The Apostle proceeds to interpret in a series of practical precepts
his general injunction to put off the old man and put on the new, to
turn from the life of error to the life which belongs to the truth.
He appeals throughout to the large interests of their common life:
it is the Spirit of fellowship which supplies the motive for this moral
revolution. Six sins are struck at: lying, resentment, stealing, bad
language, bad temper, lust,

Lying is to be exchanged for truthfulness, for the Body’s sake.
Resentment is. to give way to reconciliation, lest Satan get a footing
in their midst. Stealing must make place for honest work, to help
others : bad language for gracious speech, ‘unto building up’, and lest
the one holy Spirit be grieved. Bad temper must yield to kindliness
and forgivingness, for God has forgiven them all; yea, to love, the
love of self-giving, shewn in Christ’s sacrifice. Lastly lust, and all
the unfruitful works of the dark, must be banished by the light.

IV 25, 26] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. III

Thus the Apostle bids them displace the old man by the new,
the false life by the ‘righteousness and holiness of the truth’:

Ring out the old, ring in the new;
Ring out the false, ring in the true;
Ring in the Christ that is to be.

‘Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his iv 23
| neighbour : for we are members one of another’, In the original the
connexion with what has immediately preceded is very clearly
marked. For the word rendered ‘ putting away’ is the same as that
which has been used for ‘putting off’ the old man, though the
metaphor of the garment is now dropped: and ‘lying’, or ‘false-
hood’ as it could be more generally rendered, is directly suggested
by the word ‘truth’ with which the last sentence closes. Truthful-
ness of speech is an obvious necessity, if they are to live the life of
‘the truth’. a
The Apostle enforces his command by a quotation from the
prophet Zechariah : ‘These are the things that ye shall do: Speak Zech. viii
- ye every man the truth with his neighbour: truth and the judge- 16
ment of peace judge ye in your gates’. But he gives a character of

his own to the precept in the reason which he adds: ‘for we are
members one of another’. These words remind us how practical he
is in all his mysticism. The mystical conception that individual
men are but limbs of the body of a greater Man is at once made the
basis of an appeal for truthfulness in our dealings one with another.
Falsehood, a modern moralist would say, is a sin against the mutual
trust on which all civilised society rests. St Paul said it long ago,
and still more forcibly. It is absurd, he says, that you should
deceive one another: just as it would be absurd for the limbs of a
body to play each other false. The habit of lying was congenial to
the Greek, as it was to his Oriental neighbours. St Paul strikes at
the root of the sin by shewing its inconsistency with the realisation
of the corporate life.

‘ Be ye angry, and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your iv 26 f.
wrath ; neither give place to the devil’. The first words of this
passage are another quotation from the Old Testament. They are
taken from the Greek version of the fourth Psalm, and are perhaps Ps. iv 4
a nearer representation of the original than is given by our English
rendering, ‘Stand in awe, and sin not’. That there is a righteous
anger is thus allowed by the Apostle: but he warns us that, if
cherished, it quickly passes into sin. According to the Mosaic law
the sun was not to set on a cloke held as a surety, or the unpaid wage Deut. xxiv
of the needy: and again, the.sun was not to set on a malefactor put 3) 15

112

Deut, xxi,

23
(Josh. viii
29, X 27)

iv 28

iv 29

Matt. vil
17h, xii 33,
xiii 48

EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 27—~29,

to death and left unburied. This phraseology furnishes #i:!5 Apostle
with the form of his injunction, Its meaning ‘is, as an old com-
mentator observes, ‘Let the day of your anger be the day of your
reconciliation ”?.

The phrase to ‘ give place to the devil’ means to give him rooxz
or scope for action. Anger, which suspends as it were the har-
monious relation between one member and another in the Body,

gives an immediate opportunity for the entry of the evil spirit*

‘ Let him that stole steal no more : but rather let him labour, work-
ing with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give
to him that needeth’. ‘This is indeed to put off the old, and to put
on the new. It is a complete reversal of the moral attitude. Instead
of taking what is another's, seek with the sweat of your brow to be
in a position to give to another what you have honestly made your
own. .

* Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth’. The
word here rendered ‘corrupt’ is used in the Gospels of the worthless

_tree, and of the worthless fish: it is opposed to ‘good’, in the sense

of being ‘ good-for-nothing’. But the ‘corrupt’ speech here con-
demned is foul talk,-and not merely idle talk. It is probable that

Col. iv 6

Rom. xiv
19

St Paul in his choice of the word had in mind its original meaning
of ‘rotten’ or ‘corrupted’: for in a parallel passage of the com-
panion epistle he says: ‘Let your speech be alway with grace,
seasoned with salt’; the use of salt being not only to flavour, but to
preserve.

‘ But that which ts good, for building up as need may be’. The
words ‘edify’ and ‘edification’ have become so hackneyed, that it
is almost necessary to avoid them in translation, if the Apostle’s
language is to retain its original force. How vividly he realised the
metaphor which he employed may be seen from a passage in the
Epistle to the Romans, where he says, if we render his words
literally: ‘ Let us follow after the things that belong to peace and to

1I¢ is worth while to repeat Fuller’s
comment quoted from Eadie by Dr
Abbott (ad loc. p. 141): ‘Let us take
the Apostle’s meaning rather than his
words—withall possiblespeed todepose
our passion; not understanding him
so literally that we may take leave to
be angry till sunset, then might our
wrath lengthen with the days; and men
in Greenland, where days last above a
quarter of a year, have plentiful scope
of revenge’,

2 The Didaché, in a list of warnings:
directed against certain sins on the
ground of what they ‘lead to’, says
(c. ili): ‘Be not angry; for anger leads
to murder: nor jealous, nor quarrel-
some, nor passionate; for of all these
things murders are bred’. In the same
chapter comes another precept which
it is interesting to compare with the
sequence of St Paul’s injunctions in
this place: ‘My child, be not a liar;
since lying leads to thieving’.

___in_the_present-epistle,.

IV 30] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

the build.. sup of one another : do not for the sake of food pull down
God’s work’. Moreover in the present chapter he has twice. spoken i
of ‘the building up of the body’; while in-an earlier chapter he has
elaborated the metaphor of the building in relation to the Christian
ovciety. In the present passage he recurs to this metaphor, as
in v. 25 he recurred to the figure of the body. Speech, like
everything else, he would have us use for the help of others who
are linked with us in the corporate life—‘ for building up as occasion
may offer’.

‘That it may give grace unto the hearers’, The phrase to ‘ give
grace’ may also be rendered to ‘give gratification’: and this is
certainly the idea which would at once be suggested to the ordinary
Greek reader. But to St Paul’s mind the deeper meaning of grace
predominates. This is not the only place where he seems to play
upon the various meanings of the Greek word for ‘grace’, Thus,
for example, in the passage which we have quoted above from the
Epistle to the Colossians, the obvious sense of his words to a Greek

113

v 12, 16
i 20 ff

Il 20

mind would be: ‘ Let your speech be always with graciousness’ or Col. iv 6

‘graceful charm’: and another instance will come before us later on
g

‘And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto iv 30

the day of redemption’. Each of St Paul’s injunctions is enforced
by a grave consideration. Falsehood is inconsistent with member-
ship in a Body. Cherished irritation makes room for the evil spirit.
Stealing is the direct contrary of the labour that toils to help others.
Speech that is corrupt not only pulls down instead of building up,
but actually pains the Holy Spirit of God.

The Spirit specially claims to find expression in the utterances
of Christians, as St Paul tells us later on in this epistle, where he

says: ‘ Be filled with the Spirit ; speaking to one another in psalms v 18 f.

and hymns and spiritual songs’. The misuse of the organ of speech
is accordingly a wrong done to, and felt by, the Spirit who claims to
control it. The addition of the words, ‘whereby (or ‘in whom’) ye
are sealed unto the day of redemption’, carries us back to the

mention of the sealing of the Gentiles with ‘the holy Spirit of the i 13,

promise’, that is, the Spirit promised of old to the chosen people.
This is the ‘one Spirit’, of which the Apostle says in an earlier

epistle that ‘in one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body, 1 Cor. xii
whether Jews or Greeks’. Thus the Holy Spirit stands in the 13

closest. relation to the new corporate life, and is specially wronged

1 Bee below, p. 116. For the various © New Testaments see the detached note
meanings of ‘grace’ in the Old and on xdpis,

EPHES.? 8

114

iv 31 f.

Luke vi
35 ff.

EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 31—V 2

when the opportunity of* building it up becomes an occasion for its
defilement and ruin.

‘Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and evil
speaking be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one
to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ
hath forgiven you’. The fifth injunction, to put away bitter feelings,
and the quarrelling and evil-speaking to which they give rise, is
enforced by an appeal to the character and action of God Himself. —
You must forgive each other, says the Apostle, because God in
Christ has forgiven you all.

‘ Be ye therefore followers (or ‘ imitators’) of God, as His beloved
children’. These words must be taken closely with what precedes,
as well as with what follows. The imitation of God in His merciful-
ness is the characteristic of sonship. ‘Love your enemies, and do
them good, and lend hoping for nothing again; and your reward
shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High; for He is
kind to the unthankful and evil. Be merciful, even as your Father
is merciful’,

‘And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved you, and hath given
Himself for you, an offering and_a_sacrifice_to_God_for_a—sweet-

¥ 25

smelling savour’. The Apostle has invoked the Divine example
first of all in regard to forgiveness. He now extends its reference
by making it the basis of the wider command to ‘walk in love’.
Take, he says, God as your pattern: copy Him; for you are His
children whom He loves. "Walk therefore in love—such love as
Christ has shewn to you.

For us, the love of God is supremely manifested in the love of
Christ, who gave Himself up on our behalf, ‘an offering and a
sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell’, We then are to love
even as Christ loved us; that is, with the love that gives itself for
others, the love of sacrifice. St Paul thus points to Christ’s sacrifice
as an example of the love which Christians are to shew to one
another. Your acts of love to one another, he implies, will be
truly a sacrifice acceptable to God; even as the supreme act of
Christ’s love to you is the supremely acceptable Sacrifice.

Two passages may help to illustrate this teaching and the
phraseology in which it is conveyed. One of. these is found later
on in this chapter, where the Apostle charges husbands to love
their wives ‘even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself
up for it’, The other offers us another example of the application
of the sacrificial phraseology of the Old Testament to actions
which manifest love. The language in which St Paul dignifies
the kindness shewn to himself by the Philippian Church is strikingly

V3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 115

similar to that of our present passage: ‘Having received of Phil. iv 18
Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of
a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God’.

3But fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it v 3—14
not even be named among you, as becometh saints; +neither
filthiness nor foolish talking nor jesting, which are not befitting ;
but rather giving of thanks, ‘For this ye know of a surety,
that no fornicator nor unclean person, nor covetous man, which
is an idolater, hath any inheritaace in the kingdom of. Christ
and of God. ‘Let no man deceive you with vain words; for
because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the
children of disobedience. 7Be not ye therefore partakers with
them. *For ye were in time past darkness, but now are ye
light in the Lord: walk as children of light: for the fruit of
light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth; *proving
what is acceptable unto the Lord. *And have no fellowship

with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them :
for of the things which are done of them in secret it is a
shame even to speak; *3but all things when they are exposed
by the light are made manifest ; for whatsoever is made manifest «
is light. *4Wherefore it saith :

Awake, thou that sleepest,
And arise from the dead,
And Christ shall shine upon thee.

‘Bué fornication and all wneleanness, or covetousness, let tt not v3
even be named among you, as becometh saints’. The five prohibitions
which have preceded stand side by side with no connecting particles
to link them to each other. This, as a point of style, is far more
unusual in Greek than it is in English.. Accordingly the adversative
particle with which the final prohibition is introduced deserves the
more attention. The Apostle has called upon his readers to put
away falsehood, irritation, theft, corrupt speech, bitter feelings.
But, he seems to say, there is another class of sins which I do not
even bid you put away: I say that you may not so much as name
them one to another.

‘As becometh saints’, He appeals to a new Christian decorum. ii 19
*'Ye are fellow-citizens with the saints’: noblesse oblige.

8—2

116

v 18 ff.

EXPOSITION OF THE [V 4, 5

‘ Netther jfilthiness nor foolish talking nor jesting, which are not
befitting ; but rather giving of thanks’. The first of these nomina-
tives might be taken with the preceding verb, ‘let it not even be
named’; but not the other two, The meaning however is plain:
‘neither let there be among you’ these things which degrade
conversation, or at least relax its tone. Having summarily dismissed
the grosser forms of sin, the Apostle forbids the approaches to them
in unseemly talk, in foolishness of speech, even in mere frivolous
jesting. The seemingly abrupt introduction of ‘thanksgiving’ in
contrast to ‘jesting’ is due to a play upon the two words in the
Greek which cannot be reproduced in translation. Instead of the
lightness of witty talk, which played too oftex on the border-line of
impropriety, theirs should be the true ‘grace’ of speech, the utter-
ance of a ‘grace’ or thanksgiving to God'. He developes the
thought at greater length below, when he contrasts the merriment
of wine with the sober gladness of sacred psalmody.

‘For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator nor unclean
person, nor covetous man, which is an tdolater, hath any inheritance
in the kingdom of Christ and of God’. St Paul has spoken of the

Gentile Christians_as_having received—_‘the-earnest-of-the-inherit-——

1 Cor. vi

ance’, and as being ‘ fellow-heirs’ with the Jews. Here however he
declares that those who commit the sins of which he has been
speaking are thereby excluded from such inheritance. They have
indeed practically returned to idolatry, and renounced Christ and
God. They have disinherited themselves.

This extension of the metaphor of “inheritance? is a Hebrew
form of speech which has passed over into the Greek of the New.
Testament. Thus we have in the Gospel the phrase ‘to inherit.
eternal life’*. The connexion of ‘inheritance’ with ‘the kingdom’
is found in Matt. xxv 34, ‘inherit the kingdom prepared for you’,
and in James ii 5, ‘ Hath not God chosen the poor of this world,
rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom’, etc. In St Paul we find
only the negative form of the phrase, as in 1 Cor. xv 50, ‘flesh
and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God’. The two other -
passages in which it occurs present close parallels to our present.
passage. ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of Godt Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,

1 For a similar play on the word x 25: comp. Tit, iii 7, The phrase.
‘grace’, see above p. 113. ‘to inherit life’ is found in Psalms
2 Mark x 17 and parallels, Luke of Solomon xiv 6.

V s—8] . EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 117

nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God’. And in closing

his list of ‘the works of the flesh’ the Apostle says: ‘Of the which Gal. v 21
TI foretell you, as I have also foretold you, that they which do such

things shall not inherit the kingdom of God ’, This repetition

might almost suggest that he was employing a formula of teaching

which had become fixed and could be referred to as familiar: ‘Know

ye not?’, ‘I foretell you, as I have also foretold you’, ‘This ye

know assuredly ’.

‘The kingdom of Christ and of God’, The epithet ‘of God’
points to the nature of the kingdom, as opposed to a temporal
kingdom: hence it is that in St Matthew’s Gospel the epithet
‘of heaven’ can be so often substituted for it. The epithet ‘of
Christ’ is more rare’: it points to the Messiah as ‘the king set upon Px. ii 6
the holy hill of Sion’, the Divine Son, the Anointed of Jehovah
who reigns in His name. So St Paul says that ‘the Father...hath Col. i 13.
transplanted us into the kingdom of the Son of His love’. The
two thoughts are brought into final harmony in 1 Cor. xv 24ff:
‘Then cometh the end, when He shall deliver up the kingdom to
God, even the Father...that God may be all in all’.

‘ Let-no-man-deceive_you—with_vain_words.:_for_because-of_these-v-6
things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience’.
The Apostle recurs to language which he has used already: he has
spoken of ‘the children (or ‘sons’) of disobedience’, and has called ii 2 f.
them ‘children of (the Divine) wrath’. The wrath of God falls Comp.
upon the heathen world especially on account of the sins of the toga
flesh which are closely connected with idolatry.

‘ Be not ye therefore partakers with them: for ye were in time past v 7 t.
darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord’. Having completed his
list of special prohibitions, the Apostle returns to his general
principle: Be not like the Gentiles. Once more he reminds his iv 17
readers of what in time past they were, and of what they now are. Comp. ii
They have been taken into a new fellowship, and cannot retain the 1
old. The Gentiles whom they have left are still ‘darkened in their iv 18
understanding’: but they themselves have been rescued ‘ out of the Col. i 12 f.
power of darkness’, and ‘made meet to be partakers of the inherit-
ance of the saints in light’. Here the Apostle does not say merely
that they were in time past im the darkness and now are in the
light: but, heightening his figure to the utmost, he speaks of them
as once ‘darkness’, but now ‘light’.

1 For ‘the kingdom of Christ’ in we have ‘Thy glory’), Luke i 33, xxii
the Gospel compare Matt. xiii 41, 294., xxiii 42, John xviii 36. See also
- Xvi 28, xx 21 (where in Mark x 37 2 Pet. irr, Apoc. xi 15.

118
v8

xr Thegs.
val.

VI7

VII

Gal. v 19,
22

vii fi

EXPOSITION OF THE [V 813

‘ Walk as children of light’. We may compare St Paul’s words
to the Thessalonians: ‘But ye, brethren, are not in darkness...for
ye are all children of light and children of the day’. While speaking
of their position and privilege the Apostle has called them ‘light’
itself: now that he comes to speak of their conduct, he returns to
his metaphor of ‘walking’, and bids them ‘walk as children of
light’.

‘ For the fruit of light is in all goodness and righteousness and
truth’. With ‘the fruit of light’ in this passage we may compare
‘the fruit of the Spirit’ in the Epistle to the Galatians. Indeed
some manuscripts have transferred the latter phrase to this place,
where it is found in our Authorised Version.

‘Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord’, These words belong
in. construction to the command ‘ Walk as children of light’, the
intervening verse being a parenthesis, The light will enable them
to test and discern the Lord’s will’. So below he bids them ‘under-
stand what the will of the Lord is’,

‘And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness’.
Just as in the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle contrasted ‘the
fruit of the Spirit’ with ‘the_works_of-the-flesh- ;-se-here,while he
speaks of ‘the fruit of light’, he will not speak of ‘the fruit of
darkness’, but of its ‘fruitless works’.

‘But rather expose them ; for of the things which are done of them
in secret it 1s a shame even to speak; but all things when they are
exposed by the light are made manifest; for whatsoever is made
manifest is light’, The Apostle is not content with the negative
precept which bids his readers abstain from association with the
works of darkness. Being themselves of the nature of light, they
must remember that it is the property of light to dispel darkness, to
expose what is hidden and secret. Nay more, in the moral and
spiritual world, the Apostle seems to say, light has a further power :
it can actually transform the darkness. The hidden is darkness;
the manifested is light; by the action of light darkness itself can be
turned into light.

‘Ye were darkness’, he has said, ‘but now ye are light’: and
this is only the beginning of a great series of recurring transforma-
tions. You, the new light, have your part to play in the conversion
of darkness into light. Right produces right: it rights wrong.
Or, as St Paul prefers to say, light produces light: it lightens
darkness,

1 On the use of the title ‘the Lord’ in these places, see what has been
said above pp. 72, go.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 11g

V 14, 15]

‘ Wherefore tt saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the v 14
dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee’. This quotation is not to
be found in any book that we know. It is probably a fragment of
an early Christian hymn: possibly a baptismal hymn; or possibly
again a hymn commemorating the descent of Christ into the under-
world’. We may compare with it another fragment of early
hymnology in x Tim. iii 16.

TAKE therefore careful heed how ye walk, not as unwise VY 15—33
but as wise, **redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
77Wherefore be ye not fools, but understand what the will of
the Lord is. ‘And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess ;
but be filled with the Spirit, *?speaking to yourselves in psalms
and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody
with your heart to the Lord; *giving thanks always for all
things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ unto our God and
Father; **submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of

Christ,

1 Two early suggestions are of suffi-
cient interest to be noted here, One
is found as a note on the passage in
John Damasce. (quoted by Tischendorf):
‘We have received by tradition that
this is the voice to be sounded by the
archangel’s trump to those who have
fallen asleep since the world began’,
The other is a story told by St Jerome
(ad loc.): ‘I remember once hearing a
preacher discourse on this passage in
church, He wished to please the
people by a startling novelty; so he
said: This quotation is an utterance
addressed to Adam, who was buried on
Calvary (the place of a skull), where
the Lord was crucified. It was called
the place of a skull, because there the
head of the first man was buried.
Accordingly at the time when the
Lord was hanging on the cross over
Adam’s sepulehre this prophecy was
fulfilled which says;
Adam that sleepest, and arise from the
dead, and, not as we read it Christ

’ eentre of the world.

Awake, thou -

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,

shall shine upon thee [ém@atoe], but
Christ shall touch thee [érupatoe]:
because forsooth by the touch of. His
blood and His body that hung there
he should be brought to life and
should arise; and so that type also
should be fulfilled of the dead Elisha
raising the dead. Whether all this
is true or not, I leave to the
reader’s judgment, There is no doubt
that the saying of it delighted the
congregation; they applauded and
stamped with their feet. All that I
know is that such a meaning does
not harmonise with the context of the
passage’. There are other traces of
the legend that Adam was buried on
Calvary, which was regarded as the
The skull often
depicted at the foot of the crucifix is
Adam’s skull. It is not impossible
that the strange preacher was going
on tradition in connecting the words
with the release of Adam from Hades
at the time of the Lord’s Descent.

120 EXPOSITION OF THE [V15, 16

as unto the Lord: 23for the husband is the head of the wife,
even as Christ is the head. of the church, being Himself the
saviour of the body. *But as the church is subject unto
Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing.
*3Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave Himself for it; **that He might sanctify
it, cleansing it by the washing of water with the word; *7that
He might present the church to Himself all-glorious, not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should
be holy and without blemish. 2*So ought the husbands also to
love their wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his wife
loveth himself; *9for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but
nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the church; >for
we are members of His body. 3'For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh. 3*This mystery is great; but
I speak 2é concerning Christ.and_the church.—33Neverthelesslet

_ every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself;
and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

vig f. ‘Take therefore careful heed how ye walk, not as unwise but as
aise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil’. In his desire to
pursue his metaphor of the conflict between light and darkness the
Apostle has been led away from his practical precepts of conduct.
To these he now returns, and he marks his return by once more
using the verb ‘to walk’. Four times already he has used it with a
ivr special emphasis in this and the preceding chapter: ‘I beseech you
iv 17 that ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called’: ‘T
vil. protest that ye no longer walk as do the Gentiles walk’: ‘Be
followers of God, as His beloved children, and walk in love, as
v8 Christ also hath loved you’: ‘Once ye were darkness, now ye are
light ; walk as children of light’, And now he sums up what he
has just been saying, and prepares the way for further injunctions,

in the emphatic words, ‘ Take therefore careful heed how ye walk”'.
The contrast between the darkness and the light finds practical
expression in the phrase ‘not as unwise, but as wise’. The power
of the light to transform the darkness suggests that the wise have a

1 The rendering of the Authorised spectly’, is based on a slightly dif-
Version, ‘See that ye walk circum- ferent reading of the original.

V 17, 18] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 121

mission to redeem the time in which they live. ‘The days are evil’
indeed, and the unwise are borne along in the drift of wickedness.
The wise may stand their ground ‘in the evil day’: nay more, they
may ransom the time from loss or misuse, release it from the bondage
of evil and claim it for the highest good. Thus the redemptive
power of the new faith finds a fresh illustration. There is a Divine
purpose making for good in the midst of evil: the.children of light
can perceive it and follow its guidance, ‘proving what is well-
pleasing to the Lord’. Only heedless folly can miss it: ‘ Wherefore’, v 17
he adds, ‘be ye not fools, but understand what the will of the
Lord is’.

‘And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess’, Elsewhere v 18
this last word is translated ‘riot’. The Apostle’s meaning is that Tit. i 6;
drunkenness leads to excess in a more general sense, to dissolute- 1 Pet #¥ 4
ness and ruin. The actual words ‘Be not drunk with wine’ are
borrowed, as other precepts have been borrowed in the former
chapter, from the Old Testament’. They are found in the Greek
translation of Proverbs xxiii 31, where they are followed by the
contrast, ‘but converse with righteous men ’*.

‘ But_be_filled_with_the_Spirit’ ; more_literally_‘in’ or ‘through
the Spirit’, There is a fulness, which is above all carnal satis-
faction ; a spiritual fulness wrought by the Holy Spirit. It issues
not, as fulness of wine, in disorder and moral wreck, but in a
gladness of cheerful intercourse, psalm and hymn and spiritual
song, a melody of hearts chanting to the Lord.

The first age of the Christian Church was characterised by a
vivid enthusiasm which found expression in ways which recall the
simplicity of childhood. It was a period of wonder and delight.

The floodgates of emotion were opened: a supernatural dread
alternated with an unspeakable joy. Thus we read at one moment Acts ii 43,
that ‘fear came upon every soul’, and at the next that ‘they did eat 4°
their meat with exultation and simplicity of heart’. ‘Great fear’ v 5, 11
results from a Divine manifestation of judgment: ‘ great joy’ from a viii 8
Divine manifestation of healing power. Thus ‘the Church went in ix 31
the fear of the Lord and in the consolation of the Holy Spirit’. The
Apostles openly rejoiced as they left the council that they had been vy 41
allowed to suffer for the Name: Paul and Silas in the prison at xvi 25
Philippi prayed and sang hymns to God, so that the prisoners heard
them. Nowhere in literature is the transition from passionate grief

to enthusiastic delight more glowingly pourtrayed than in St Paul’s

1 See above on iv 25 f. is quite different: ‘Look not thou
2? The Hebrew text of the passage upon the wine when it is red’, ete.

122

v 19 ff.

EXPOSITION OF THE [V 19, 20

second epistle to the Corinthian Church. From such a writer in
such an age we can understand the combination of the precepts to
set free the emotion of a perpetual thankfulness in outbursts of
hearty song, and at the same time to preserve the orderliness of
social relations under the influence of an overmastering awe : ‘ speak-
ing to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing

and making melody with your heart to the Lord; giving thanks

always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ unto
our God and Father ; submitting yourselves one to another in the fear
of Christ’.

The implied contrast with the revelry of drunkenness makes it
plain that in speaking of Christian psalmody the Apostle is not
primarily referring to public worship, but to social gatherings. in
which a common meal was accompanied by sacred song. For the
early Christians these gatherings took the place of the many
public feasts in the Greek cities from which they found themselves
necessarily excluded, by reason of the idolatrous rites with which
such banquets were associated. The agapae, or charity-suppers, .
afforded an opportunity by which the richer members of the com-
munity_could_gather_their-poorer-brethren—in—hospitable fellowship.

V 20

In the earliest times these suppers were hallowed by the solemn
‘breaking of the bread’, followed by singing, exhortations and
prayers. And even when the Eucharist of the Church had ceased
to be connected with a common supper, these banquets retained a
semi-eucharistic character, and the element of praise and thanks-
giving still held an important place in them.

‘Giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ unto our God and Father’. The parallel passage in
the companion epistle enforces the duty of thanksgiving no less
forcibly. After urging upon the Colossians gentleness, forgiveness

Col. iii 15 and peace, he proceeds: ‘And be ye thankful. Let the word of

Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom: teaching and admonishing
one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual : songs with grace,
singing in your hearts to God: and whatsoever ye do: in word or in
deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God
the Father through Him’.

The expression, which occurs in both these passages, ‘in the .
name of’, corresponds to the reiterated expressions ‘in Christ’ and
‘in the Lord’. Believers are in Him: they must speak and act in
His name.

‘ Unto our God and Father’, The rendering in the Authorised
Version, ‘unto God and the Father’, does not satisfactorily represent
the original, which means ‘to Him who is at once God and the

V21,22] |‘ EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 123

Father’. We are to give thanks to God, who in Christ has now
been revealed to us as ‘the Father’.
‘ Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ’. The v 21

_ enthusiasm of which the Apostle has spoken is far removed from
fanaticism. The glad life of the Christian community is a life of
duly constituted order. The Apostle of liberty is the Apostle of
order and subordination, This is strikingly illustrated by the fact
that the verb ‘to submit oneself’ (often rendered ‘to be subject’) is
used twenty-three times by St Paul. If we except 1 St Peter, which
is not independent of St Paul’s epistles, it occurs but nine times in
the rest of the New Testament. "We may recall a few passages:
‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers’; ‘The spirits of Rom. xiiiz
the prophets are subject to the prophets’; ‘Then shall even the tay a8
Son Himself be subject to Him that hath subjected all things
unto Him’,

Recognise, says the Apostle, that in the Divine ordering of
human life one is subject to another, We must not press this to
mean that even the highest is in some sense subject to those who
are beneath him. St Jerome indeed takes this view, and proceeds
to commend the passage to-bishops, with-whom-he-sometimes-found
himself in collision. But the Apostle is careful in what follows to
make his meaning abundantly clear, and does not stultify his precept
by telling husbands to be subject to their wives, but to love them ;
nor parents to be subject to their children, but to nurture them in
the discipline of the Lord.

. The motive of due subordination is given in the remarkable
phrase ‘the fear of Christ’, In the Old Testament the guiding
principle of human life is again and again declared to be ‘the fear
of the Lord’, or ‘the fear of God’. This is ‘the beginning of
wisdom’, and ‘the whole duty of man’. St Paul boldly recasts
the principle for the Christian society in the unique expression ‘the
fear of Christ’. He will interpret his meaning as he shews by
repeated illustrations that the authority which corresponds to
natural relationships finds its pattern and its sanction in the
authority of Christ over His Church.

‘ Waves, submit yourselves wnto your own husbands, as unto the v 22
Lord’. Having struck the key-note of subordination—the recogni-
tion of the sacred principles of authority and obedience—the Apostle
proceeds to give a series of positive precepts for the regulation of
social life, which is divinely founded on the unchanging institution
of the family. He deals in turn with the duties of wives and
husbands, of children and parents, of servants and masters;
beginning in each case with the responsibility of obedience, and

124

iii 14 f.

EXPOSITION OF THE —— [V 23—25

passing from that to the responsibility which rests on those to
whom obedience is due. Those who obey must obey as though
they were obeying Christ: those who are obeyed must find the
pattern of their conduct in the love and care of Christ, and must.
remember that they themselves owe obedience in their turn to
Christ. .
‘The thought of the parallel between earthly and heavenly
relationships has already found expression at an early point in
the epistle, where the Apostle speaks of ‘the Father from whom
all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named’. In the present
passage it leads him back to his special topic of the relation of
Christ to the Church as a whole. Jt enables him to link the
simplest precepts of social morality with the most transcendent

' doctrines of the Christian faith. The common life of the home is

v23f.

x Cor. xii

V 24

¥ 25

discovered to be fraught with a far-reaching mystery. The natural
relationships are hallowed by their heavenly patterns.

‘ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
of the church, being Himself the saviour of the body’. This last
clause is added to interpret the special sense in which Christ is here
called ‘the head_of the-church”,_We-have-already-had-occasion-to
observe that this metaphor of headship does not to St Paul’s mind
exhaustively express the relation of Christ to His Body’. For, in
fact, Christ is more than the Head: He is the Whole of which
His members are parts. ‘For as the body is one and hath many
members, and all the members’—including the head—‘are one
body: so also is the Christ’. To this more intimate relation, not
of headship, but of identification, the Apostle will point us a little
later on in this passage. or the moment he contents himself with
explaining the special thought which he has here in view. ‘Christ
is the head of the church, as being Himself the saviour of the body’.
It is the function of the head to plan the safety of the body, to
secure it from danger and to provide for its welfare. In the highest
sense this function is fulfilled by Christ for the Church; in a lower
sense it is fulfilled by the husband for the wife. In either case the

responsibility to protect is inseparably linked with the right to rule:

the head is obeyed by the body. This is the Apostle’s point; and
accordingly he checks himself, as it were, from a fuller exposition of
the thoughts towards which he is being led: ‘bué’—for this is the
matter in hand—‘as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the
wives be to their husbands in every thing’.

§ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,
and gave Himself for it’. Subordination must be met by love. The

1 See above pp. 41 f., 103.

V 26,27] «EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 12!

relation of Christ to the Church still supplies the heavenly pattern.
‘Hast thou seen’, says St Chrysostom, ‘the measure of obedience ?
hear also the measure of love’.

Just as the Apostle interpreted the headship of Christ by the
insertion of the clause ‘being Himself the saviour of the body’; so
here he interprets the love of Christ by a group of sentences which
lift him for the moment high above his immediate theme.

‘Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it’. This is a
repetition of words which he has used already in urging the general
duty of love: ‘Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us’. Here, as v 2
there, the love is defined as the love of self-surrender: but the
sequel is different: there it was that He might Himself be a sweet-
smelling offering to God; here it is that He might hallow and
cleanse His Bride the Church.

‘That He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water v 26
with the word’. We are reminded of St Paul’s appeal to the
Corinthians: ‘Such were some of you’—fornicators, idolaters, and 1 Cor.vi11
the like: ‘but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were
‘justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of
our-God2,—

-The ‘word’ that is here spoken of as accompanying ‘the
washing of water’ is plainly some solemn mention of ‘the name
of the Lord Jesus’, in which they ‘ were washed’ from their former
sins. The candidate for baptism confessed his faith in the Name:
the rite of baptism was administered in the Name. The actual
phrase which is here used is vague: literally translated it is ‘in a
word’: that is to say, accompanied by a solemn word or formula,
which expressed the intention of baptiser and baptised, and thus
gave its spiritual meaning to ‘the washing of water’. The purpose
of Christ was accordingly that He might hallow His Bride by the
cleansing waters of a sacrament in which, in response to her confes-
sion, His Name was laid upon her.

‘That He might present the church to Himself all-glorious, not v 27
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy
and without blemish’: More literally, ‘that He might Himself
present the church to Himself, glorious’, etc. We may contrast
the language which the Apostle uses to the Corinthian Church:

‘I am jealous over you with the jealousy of God; for I betrothed 2 Cor. xi:
you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ’.

Here no human agency is allowed to intervene. The heavenly
Bridegroom cleanses and sanctifies the Church His Bride, and then

Himself presents her to Himself in the glory of immaculate beauty

and unfading youth.

126

v 28

v2g ft.

Gen. ii 24

V3r~

_Mark x » _comparative_laxity_of the_ Mosaic_legislation—in— regard—to—divoree;

EXPOSITION OF THE ~ [V 2832

Such is the love of the Divine Husband to His Bride, of Christ
the Head to His own Body the Church. ‘So ought the husbands also
to love their wives as their own bodies’. The conclusion follows at
once, if indeed it be true that the husband is the head, and the wife
the body. Nay, the relation is if possible more intimate still: the
man isin fact loving himself. ‘He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth
at, even as Christ the church ; for we are members of His body’. The
Aposile is gradually passing away from the thought of headship to
the more mysterious thought of complete oneness. This thought he
will not expand: he will only point to it as the spiritual significance
of the fundamental principle enunciated from the beginning in the
words ‘they two shall be one flesh’, Some manuscripts anticipate
his reference to the book of Genesis by inserting at this place ‘of
His flesh and of His bones’, But the words appear to be a gloss,
and the passage is complete without them.

‘ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh’. To these
words our Lord appeals in the Gospel, when He is confronted by the

‘They are no more twain’, is the conclusion He draws, ‘but one

flesh: what therefore God hath joined together let not man put

¥ 32

asunder’. St Paul makes his appeal to the same words with a
different purpose. He is justifying his statement that ‘he that
loveth his wife loveth himself’, This must be so, he declares, for it
is written, ‘they two shall be one flesh’: But if it be true in the
natural sphere, it is true also of the heavenly pattern. Hence he
adds: ‘This mystery is great; but I speak it concerning Christ and
the church’, The Apostle does not mean that the complete union
of husband and wife as ‘one flesh’, which is declared in the words
which he has cited, is a very mysterious thing, hard to be understood.
In English we can speak of ‘a great mystery’ in this sense, using the
epithet ‘great’ simply to emphasise or heighten the word to which
it is attached; as in the familiar phrases ‘a great inconvenience’,
‘a great pity’, But the corresponding word in Greek is not so
used: it retains its proper meaning of magnitude or importance: so
that ‘a great mystery ’ means ‘an important or far-reaching mystery’,
Here the word ‘mystery’ probably signifies either something which
contains a secret meaning not obvious to all, or the secret meaning
itself. Accordingly the Apostle’s words mean either that the state-
ment which he has quoted is a symbolical statement of wide import,
or that the secret meaning therein contained is of wide import. In —
either case he is practically saying: There is more here than appears

V33-VI1] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 127

on the surface; there is an inner meaning of high importance:
I speak it—or, I use the words—of Christ and. the Church.

In conclusion he returns to the practical lesson. which it is the
duty of his readers to draw for themselves in daily life. ‘ Neverthe- v 33
less let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself;
and the wife see that she reverence her husband’. The word translated
‘reverence’ would be more literally rendered ‘fear’. At the close
of the section the Apostle strikes again the key-note with which he
began. ‘The fear of Christ’—the fear of the Church for Christ v 21
which is the pattern of the fear of the wife for her husband—is no
slavish fear, but a fear of reverence. Just as the word is often
applied in the Old Testament to the reverence due to God, so it is
used of the reverence due to parents: ‘Ye shall fear every man his Lev. xix 3
mother, and his father’. Moreover, of Joshua it is said, ‘they Josh. iv 14
feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life’: and in
Proverbs we read, ‘My son, fear thou the Lord and the king’, Prov. xxiv

*CHILDREN, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is viz—9
right. *Honour thy father and mother; which is the first
commandment—with—promise ;3that—it-may-be—well-with—thee;
and thou mayest live long on the earth. +And, ye fathers,
provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in
the discipline and admonition of the Lord. |

sServants, be obedient to your masters according to the
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart,
as to Christ; ‘not with eyeservice as menpleasers, but as
servants of Christ, 7doing the will of God; doing service
heartily with good-will, as to the Lord, and not to men:
8knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the
same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or
free. 9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, for-
bearing threatening; knowing that both their Master and
yours is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with
him,

‘Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right’, or vit
‘righteous’, The precept accords at once with natural right, and
with the righteousness enforced by the Divine law. That the latter

point of view is not excluded is shewn by the citation from the
Decalogue,

128

vi 2 f.

Lev, xix
1 ff.

Rom. i 30
2 Tim. iiiz

V 21

vi 4

EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 2—5

‘Honour thy father and mother ; which is the first command-
ment with promise ; thatit may be well with thee, and thow mayest
live long on the earth’. The importance of this obligation in the
Mosaic legislation may be seen by the prominent place which it
holds in the following passage of the Book of Leviticus: ‘Speak
unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto
them: Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. Ye
shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep My ©
sabbaths: I am the Lord your God’.

In characterising the Gentiles of whom he thrice says that
‘God gave them up’, the Apostle notes among other signs of their
depravity that they were ‘disobedient to parents’. Similarly the.
evil men of ‘the last days’ are described as ‘ disobedient to parents’

_ and ‘without natural affection’.

Obedience is to be rendered ‘im the Lord’. Although the
Apostle does not expand the thought, he returns in this expression
to the key-note which was first struck in the phrase ‘in the fear
of Christ’.

‘And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but bring

them—up—in—the—discipline—and—admonition—of—the—Lord’.

vi §

Gal. iii 28

insisting on obedience, the Apostle enforces the right exercise of
authority. His demand is not only negative—the avoidance of
a capricious exercise of authority, which irritates and disheartens
the child (compare Col. iii 21, ‘lest they be discouraged’): but it
is also positive. For parents are as much bound to insist on
obedience as children are to render it. There is a ‘discipline of
the Lord’ which is the responsibility of the parent, just as obedience
‘in the Lord’ is the duty of the child.

‘ Servants (slaves), be obedient to your masters (lords) according
to the flesh’. This passage gains in force when we observe that.
in several instances the same Greek word is repeated where in
English a variety of renderings is almost unavoidable. Thus the
word which in v. 1 has been rendered ‘obey’ must here be rendered
‘be obedient to’, in order to bring out the parallel ‘ (obedient) to
your masters...as to Christ’. Again, the Greek has throughout the
same word for ‘master’ and for ‘Lord’; and in like manner the
same word for ‘servant’ and for ‘bond’. This latter word might
equally well be rendered ‘slave’: for it is bondservice that is
primarily intended.

‘With fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to
Christ’. The relation of slaves to their masters offered a problem
which could not be overlooked in the new Christian society. The
spiritual liberty and equality proclaimed by St Paul—‘there can

After—

VI 6—9] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

be no bond nor free...for all of you are one man in Christ Jesus ’—
might easily be misinterpreted with disastrous results. The Apostle
of liberty, however, was, as we have already seen, the Apostle of
order. Spiritual freedom was to him not inconsistent with subjec-

tion ‘in the fear of Christ’. Accordingly he rules out at once in v 2r

the plainest terms the notion that the Gospel affords any pretext
to the slave for insubordination or for a careless attitude towards
his earthly master. On the contrary he declares that the Gospel
heightens obligations, by regarding the service rendered to the
earthly lord as service rendered to the heavenly Lord. It thus
brought a new meaning into the life of the Christian slave. He
was Christ’s slave, doing God’s will in his daily tasks. This con-

. sideration would affect the thoroughness of his work: ‘not with vi 6£.

‘eyeservice as menpleasers, but as servanis of Christ, doing the will
of God’: and also its temper: ‘doing service heartily with good-
will, as to the Lord, and not to men’. <A further thought of
encouragement is added. Work has its value and its reward,
whether the condition of the worker be bond or free: whatever
good has been done, whether by slave or by master, will be repaid

by_the Master of both alike: ‘knowing that whatsoever good thing vi 8

129

any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be
bond or free’.

If the burden of hopelessness is thus lifted from the slave,
a new burden of responsibility is fastened on the shoulders of
the master. Willing and thorough service must be met by

a kindly and considerate rule: ‘And, ye masters, do the same vig,

things unto them, forbearing threatening ; knowing that both their
Master and yours is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons
with Him’,

If we are to judge aright the message which the Gospel brought
to the slave in apostolic days, we must needs make an effort of
the historical imagination. For we of the present time think of
the institution of slavery in the lurid light of the African slave-
traffic and its attendant horrors. It is not solely the ownership
of one man by another man which revolts us. It is still more

the crushing of a savage by a civilised race, and the treating of

a black man as less than human by a white. But the Greek:

slave at Corinth was not separated by so wide and deep a gulf

from his master ; nor was his lot so intolerable as the term slavery
suggests to modern ears. If it had been, then surely we should
have found St Paul proclaiming to Christian masters the immediate
duty of emancipating their slaves. He does not, however, speak
of slavery as a social evil crying for a remedy. Philemon indeed

2
EPHES., 9

£30 _- EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 10

. Philem.16 is to treat Onesimus as ‘more than a slave, a brother beloved’:
but Onesimus must go back to Philemon. Apostolic Christianity
did not present itself to the world with a social programme of
reform. It undertook to create a new human unity under present
conditions, teaching master and slave that they were members of —
the same body, sharers in a common life, both alike related to
one Lord. It strove to make this human unity—the one new
Man—a visible reality in the Christian Church. It dealt with
the conditions which it found, and shewed how they might be
turned by master and slave alike into opportunities for ‘doing
good’ which would be rewarded ,by the common Master of them
both. At the same. time it planted a seed which was to grow in
secret to a distant and glorious harvest.

vi 1o—20 7OHINALLY, be strong in the Lord, and in the might of
His strength. Put on the armour of God, that ye may be
able to stand against the wiles of the devil. *?For we wrestle
not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities,
against_the_powers, against-the—rulers-of the-darkness-of this —
world, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly
places. *3Wherefore take unto you the armour of God, that
ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done
all to stand. ‘Stand therefore, having your loins girt about
with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness,
and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of
peace; “*withal taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall
be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one,
77And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of God, *with all prayer and sup-
plication praying always in the Spirit, and watching thereunto
with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints; *9and
for me, that utterance may be given unto me, in the opening
of my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery of the
gospel, *°for which I am an ambassador in bonds; that therein

I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

As we approach the close of the epistle it is well that we
should look back and try to realise its main drift. The Apostle
began with a disclosure of the great purpose of God for the world—

VI 10] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 31

the gathering into one of all things i in the Christ. He prayed that i ro

_ his readers might have the eyes of their hearts opened to see and i 18
understand this purpose and their own share in the realisation of

. it. He shewed that while hitherto they, as Gentiles, had stood ii 11 ff.
“ outside the sphere of the special development of the purpose, they.

were now no longer outside it, but within. For a new beginning

had been. made: J ew and Gentile had been welded together in

Christ to form God’s New Man. The proclamation of this oneness iii x ff.

of mankind in Christ was the mission which was specially entrusted

to St Paul, and for which he was in bonds. That they should

know and understand all this was his earnest prayer, as their

knowledge of it was an essential preliminary of its realisation.

Having been given this unity, they must keep it, They had been iv 3

called to be parts of the One Man, to be limbs of the Body through

which Christ was fulfilling Himself; and this consideration must

rule their life in every detail. Here was the ground of the distinc-

tion of functions in the various members of the Body: some were iv 11 #.

given by Christ to be apostles, others to be prophets, and so forth,

to fit the saints as a whole for the service which they were called

to-render;and-to-forward_the_building of _the_Body of the Christ ;

till all should meet in one grown Man, who should at length have
reached the complete stature of the fulness of the Christ. Here

too was the ground of the commonest of obligations: the reason,

for example, why they should not lie to one another was that they iv 25
were members one of another. The positive duties of social life
found their sanction in the same doctrine of unity in the Christ:

the reason why wives should be subject to their husbands, and why vy 22
husbands should love their wives, was that husband and wife stand

to each other even as Christ and the Church; in a relation of
authority and obedience, and yet in a relation of perfect oneness—

not twain, but one. Children and parents, slaves and masters, were vi 1 ff.
in like manner to exemplify the ordered harmony of the new life

in. Christ. .

At last he draws to a close. He comes back from these special
injunctions which deal with particular relationships to a general
exhortation which concerns the whole. For there is one thing
more to be said. It is not enough to remember that harmony
and mutual helpfulness are the conditions of the Body’s growth
and health. If all be well within, there is yet an outside foe to
be continually faced. A struggle is to be maintained with no
visible human enemy, but with superhuman and invisible forces
-of evil, And for this conflict a divine strength is needed, God’s
New Man must be clad in the very armour of God.

9—2

132 EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 10—12.

vi rof. ‘ Finally, be strong in. the Lord, and in the might of His. strength.

Put, on the armour of God’, This note of. strength was sounded

irgf. at the outset. The Apostle prayed that they might know. ‘the ex-

ceeding greatness of His power to. us-ward who. believe, according to.

. the working of the might of His strength, which He hath wrought.

in Christ’, as the Resurrection and Ascension have testified. There

the triumph of Christ. occupied the Apostle’s mind: Christ’s exalta-

tion in the heavenly sphere above all forces, good or evil, of the

Spiritual world. Here he has in view the need of the same mighty:

strength, in order that the Church may realise and consummate

that triumph. A comparison of the two passages will shew how

much of the earlier language is repeated in this final charge.

vi rr ‘Put on the armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against

. the wiles of the devil’. The word ‘whole’ which is inserted in the

Authorised Version is redundant, and tends to obscure the Apostle’s

meaning. It is God’s panoply, or armour, which must be put on.

| The divineness, rather than the completeness, of the outfit is em-

vi 13 phasised: and this becomes clear when the phrase is repeated and

explained later on. The contrast here is between ‘the armour of
God”_and_—the—wiles-of the-devil~:—and-the-Apostle-is_led-by- this —_

. latter phrase to define more expressly the nature of the conflict’.

vi 12 © For we wrestle not against flesh and blood’: literally, ‘for to
us the wrestling is not against blood and flesh’. The emphasis falls
on the personal pronoun: ‘we have not to wrestle with a human
foe’: not on the metaphor of wrestling, which is only introduced
by the way, and is not further alluded to.

‘But against the principalities, against the powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual hosts of
wickedness in the heavenly places’, We have seen already that
St Paul speaks in the language of his time when he describes the
world as subject to spiritual powers who have fallen from their

ier first estate and are in rebellion against God. In his first mention
of them he left it open to us to regard them as not necessarily evil
powers: his one point was that whatever they might be Christ
was exalted above them all in the heavenly sphere. In a later

iii 10 passage he spoke of them again in neutral language, as watching
the development of God’s eternal purpose for man, and learning
‘through the Church the very-varied wisdom of God’. Similarly

Col.iz6 in the companion epistle he declares that they have all been
created in Christ; and some of them at least appear to be not

1 So. Wiclif renders rightly, ‘Clothe you with the armure of God’; and
Tyndale, ‘Put on the armour of God’,

VI 12—14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 133

irretrievably lost, but to be included in the reconciliation of ¢ things

in earth and things in heaven’. In a later passage indeed they Col. ii 15
appear as enemies over whom Christ has triumphed: and this is

in harmony with the words which we are now considering. For

here they are declared to be the dangerous foe which meets the

Church in that heavenly sphere, the invisible world, in which the
spiritual life is lived’.

_ © Wherefore take unto you the armour of God, that ye may be vi 13
able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand’.

The Apostle returns to his original metaphor of warfare, which he

will now proceed to expand. . The struggle is with a superhuman |

foe, and necessitates a superhuman armour, Terrible as is the

foe, the Apostle never doubts for a moment of the issue of the
conflict. The battle has been already won by Christ Himself,

who on His cross stripped off and flung aside the principalities Col. ii 15
and the powers and put them to open shame. His triumph has

to be realised in His Body the Church. He was pictured by the
prophets as the Divine warrior who came forth clad in Divine
armour to battle with iniquity. In the same armour He goes

forth again in the person of His Church, ‘conquering and to con- Apoc. viz
quer’. Hence the Apostle never contemplates the possibility of
defeat: he is but pointing the way to a victory which needs to
be consummated.

‘Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and vi 14
having on the breastplate of righteousness’, The panoply, or suit
of armour, of the Roman heavy infantry is fully described for us
by Polybius, who enters into its minutest details’, St Paul in
this passage, as we have said, lays no stress on the completeness
of the outfit: indeed he omits two of its essential portions, the
greaves and the spear; while on the other hand he emphasises
the need of being girded and shod, requirements of all active
service, and by no means peculiar to the soldier. The fact is
that, as his language proves, he is thinking far less of the Roman
soldiers, who from time to time had guarded him, than of the
Divine warrior who was depicted more than once by the Old
Testament prophets.

Two passages of the Book of Isaiah were specially in his
mind. In one the prophet has described what was indeed ‘an
evil day’:

1 See above, pp. 20ff., 49,80. On St Paul to contemporary thought’,
the whole subject the reader may especially the chapter on ‘The world
consult with advantage Mr H. St J. of spirits’.

Thackeray’s essay on ‘The relation of? Polybius vi 23.

EXPOSITION OF THE | [VI-14

134
Isa. lix Judgment is turned away backward,
14 ft. And righteousness standeth afar off :
For truth is fallen in the street,
And uprightness cannot enter.
Yea, truth is lacking;
And he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey:
And the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him that there was
no judgment.
Then the Divine warrior steps forth to do battle with iniquity :
He saw that there was no man,
And wondered that there was none to interpose:
Therefore His own arm brought salvation to Him;
And His righteousness, it upheld Him.
And He put on righteousness as a breastplaie,
And an helmet of salvation upon His head ;
And He put on garments of vengeance for clothing,
And was clad with zeal as a cloke,.
An earlier prophecy had pictured the Divine King of the future
' as anointed with the sevenfold Spirit, and going forth to make first
‘war, and then peace, in the earth :
Isa, xi 4f. He shall smite the earth with the word of His mouth?;
| And with the Spirit through His lips shall He slay the.
wicked ;
And He shall have His loins girt about with righteousness,
And His reins girdled with truth.
Wisd. v A notable passage in the Book of Wisdom shews how these
17 ff, descriptions of ‘the armour of God’ had impressed themselves on

the mind of another Jew besides St Paul:

He shall take His jealousy as a panoply,

And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance
on His enemies;

He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate,

And shall array Himself with judgment unfeigned as with
a helmet ;

He shall take holiness as an invincible shield,

And He shall sharpen stern wrath as a sword.

The Apostle does not hesitate, then, to take the words of
ancient prophecy and transfer them from God and the Divine
representative King to the New Man in Christ, whom he arms

1 So the Greek Bible renders it. |

VI 14—17] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 135

for the same conflict with the very ‘armour of God’. In so doing
he was in harmony with the spirit of the prophet of old. For the
voice which cried, ‘Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Isa. lig;
‘Lord’, cried also, ‘ Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Sion’. t
‘And your, Jeet shod with the preparation (or, ‘ readiness’) of the vi 15
gospel of peace’: prepared, as it were, from the outset to announce
~ peace as the outcome of victory. The readiness of the messenger
of peace is a thought derived from another passage of the Book
of Isaiah : ‘ How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him Isa. lii 7
that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth
good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto
Zion, Thy God reigneth !’
‘ Withal taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to vi 16f.
quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one: and take the helmet
of salvation and the sword of the Spirit’. Girded, guarded, and
shod, with truth, with righteousness, and with readiness to publish
the good tidings of peace: while all that the foe can see is the
great oblong shield, the crested helm, and the pointed two-edged
blade—the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword
of the Spirit.
‘The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God’. The
comparison of speech to a sword is frequent in the Old Testament :
‘whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp Ps. lvii 4;
sword’: ‘who have whet their tongue like a sword, and shoot out !=iv 3
their arrows, even bitter words’: ‘He hath made my mouth like Isa. xlix 2
a sharp sword’. And in the Apocalypse Christ is represented as Apoc.i16;
having a sword proceeding out of His mouth. The passage which *!X 15
is immediately in the Apostle’s mind is one which we have already
quoted: ‘ He shall smite the earth with the word of His mouth, Isa. xi 4
and with the Spirit (or, breath) through His lips shall He slay
the wicked’. St Paul gathers up these words into a new combina-
tion, ‘the sword of the Spirit, which is the word (or, utterance)
of God’.
The word of God, as uttered through His prophets, is spoken
of as an instrument of vengeance: ‘Therefore have I hewed them Hos. vi 5
by the prophets: I have slain them by the words of My mouth’.
But from such a thought as this the Apostle rapidly passed to the
mention of prayer as “the natural utterance of Christian lips, and
the effective instrument of success in the conflict with evil. We
may note the repetition : ‘the sword of the Spirit., praying in the
Spirit’, It is almost as though the Apostle had said, For the
Divine warrior the sword of the Spirit is His own utterance which
puts His enemies to flight: for you it is the utterance of prayer

136 | | EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 1720

in the Spirit. If this is not clearly expressed, yet it seems to be
implied by the close connexion which binds the whole passage to-
gether: ‘ Take,..the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, with
all prayer and supplication praying always in the Spirit’. Prayer is

Rom. viii indeed the utterance of the Spirit in us, crying Abba, Father, and

15) 268 making intercession for us according to the will of God.

‘And watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication
for all the saints’. If the military metaphor is not distinctly
carried on by the word ‘watching’, the injunction is at any rate
peculiarly appropriate at this point. God’s warrior, fully armed,
must be wakeful and alert, or all his preparation will be vain.

vi rof. ‘And for me, that utterance may be given unio me, in the
opening of my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery
of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in bonds; that therein
I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak’. At this point the
Apostle’s language again runs parallel with that which he uses
in the Epistle to the Colossians. For there the exhortation to

Col. iv 2 ff. slaves and their masters is: followed at once by the words: ‘ Perse-
vere in prayer, watching therein with thanksgiving, praying withal -

for-us-also, that-God- would open unto us a door of utterance, to
speak the mystery of the Christ, for which also I am in bonds,
that Imay make it manifest, as I ought to speak’. This parallel
determines the meaning of the phrase ‘the opening of my mouth’.
Jé is not, as our Authorised Version renders it, ‘that I may open
my mouth’; but rather ‘that God may open my mouth’. He is
the giver of the utterance. The Apostle is His spokesman, His
ambassador, though, by a strange paradox, he wears a chain.

vi 21—24 2*BuT that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do,
Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the.
Lord, shall make known unto you all things: whom I have
sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our
affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts,
23Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ
in incorruptibility.
The words which concern the mission of Tychicus are found also
Col.iv7 in the Epistle to the Colossians, with hardly a difference, except

_ that there Onesimus is joined with him. Tychicus is mentioned
-Acts xx 4 in the Acts together with Trophimus as a native of proconsular

VI 21—24] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 13!

' Asia, who met St Paul at Troas on his return from Greece through
Macedonia in the year 58 4.D. This was the memorable journey
which issued in the Apostle’s arrest in the temple at Jerusalem —
and his imprisonment at Caesarea. It is probable that as a dele-
gate of the Colossian Church he went, as Trophimus did on behalf Acts xxi
of the Ephesians, the whole of the way to Jerusalem. But at least
we may think of him as present when the Apostle preached and
broke bread at Troas, and when he addressed the Ephesian Elders
at Miletus. This was five years before the date of the present
epistle, which he carried from Rome to the several Asian Churches.
Five years later we find him again with St Paul, who speaks of Tit. iii 12
sending him or Artemas to visit Titus in Crete, and who actually 2 Tim. iv
sent him not long afterwards to Ephesus. So by acts of service @
extending over a period of ten years he justified his title of ‘the
beloved brother’ and the Apostles’ ‘faithful minister’.

‘Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the vi 23
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’, In sharp contrast with the
full list of salutations addressed to individuals in the Colossian
Church stands this general greeting, which will serve alike for

each of the Churches to which the letteris-brought:

‘Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in ine vi 24
corruptibility’. St Paul invariably closes his epistles by invoking
upon. his readers the gift of that ‘grace’ which holds so prominent
a place in all his thought. In one of his earliest epistles we read:
‘The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the 2 Thess.
token in every epistle: thus I write: The grace of our Lord Jesus #17!
Christ be with you all’, We may suppose then that after he had
dictated the general salutation which took the place of individual
greetings, he himself wrote with his own hand what he regarded
as his sign-manual. This final salutation is still general in its
terms, being couched in the third person contrary to his custom.
The words have in part a familiar ring. Again and again in the
Old: Testament and the later Jewish writings mercy is promised Exod. xx
to or invoked upon ‘them that love’ God. It comes naturally © ete.
therefore to the Apostle to invoke ‘grace’ upon ‘all them that
love our Lord Jesus Christ’. But to this he adds a new phrase,
to which we have no parallel—‘in incorruptibility’.

There is nothing in the immediate context which leads up to
or helps to explain this phrase. The word ‘incorruptibility’ has
not occurred in the epistle: but the Apostle uses it elsewhere
in the following passages: ‘To them who by patient continuance Rom. ii 7
in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality’; ‘Tt t Cor, xv

. . . 42, 50,
is sown in corruption: it is raised in incorruption...for this cor- 5 a3

138 EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, [VI 24

2 Tim. iro ruptible must put on imeorruption’, &c.; ‘Our Saviour Jesus Christ,
who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality
to light through the Gospel’. It signifies that imperishableness

Rom. i23; which is an attribute of God Himself, and which belongs to. the

1 Tim.i17 unchanging order of the eternal world. Imperishableness is the
characteristic of our new life in Christ and of our love to Him.
That life and that love are in truth immortal; they belong to a
region which is beyond the touch of decay and death.

So the epistle which opened with a bold glance into the eternal
past closes with the outlook of an immortal hope.

TIPOS) E®ESIOYS

"Oorep Sta rod odparos 6 garnp Ade. xal jaro, ovrws Kal mpéorepov
pev dua trav mpodnrav, viv $8 da tdv droorddov Kat tay Sidackddev. 7
exrAnaia yap umnperet tH Tod Kupiov évepyeia. evbev Kal rote avOpwroy
dvéhaBev iva Se adrov vmnperioy to Oedjpare rod marpés, kal mdvrore
@Oparov 6 pirdvéporos évdverat Oeds eis tiv avOpadray carnpiay, mpdrepoy

peév tous mpodyras, viv dé ryy éxxdnoiay.

Even as through the body the Saviour used to speak and heal, so afore-
time through the prophets and now through the apostles and teachers.
For the Church subserves the mighty working of the Lord. Whence both
at that time He took upon Him man, that through him He might sub-
serve the Father's will; and at all times in His love to man God clothes
Himself with man for the salvation of men, aforetime with the prophets,
now with the Church. .

CLEMENT oF ALExANDRIA, Lclog. Proph. 23.

IPOS E®EXIOY~S.

I AYAOS. dréarodos Xpio-rou Inood dia OeAnparos

Geoi rots dyios rots ovow fév “Edéow] Kai

~ > ~~ 3) Ae
motos ev Xpiorq “Inco

2 / ea 4 > 7 2 ‘
Xapes UElY Kat etpnvn aro

Geot. rrarpos tjuwv Kat Kupiov “Incov Xpicrov.

1, 2. ‘Pau, an apostle of Christ
Jesus by the will of God, to the
members of God’s consecrated Peo-
ple who are [in Epxesus, } faithful
‘believers in Christ Jesus. I give
you the new watchword with the old

____ Grace and peace be with you, from
God our Father and from the Lord Elders to the Gentiles, Acts-xv-23,in—___

Jesus Christ’.

I. trois ayios| For the transference
of the technical description of the
ancient People to the members of the
Christian Church, see Lightfoot on
Col. i 2 and Phil. i 1.

év “Edéog] See the note on the
yarious readings. The omission of
the words leaves us with two possible
interpretations: (1) ‘to the saints
which are......and the faithful in
Christ Jesus’, a space being left, to
be filled in each case by the name of the
particular Church to which the letter
was brought by Tychicus its bearer ; or
(2) ‘to the saints which are also faith-
Jul in Christ Jesus’, The former
interpretation is supported by the
parallels in Rom. i 7 rofs odaw év “Pay,
and Phil.it rots ovow év GiAinros. A
strong objection to the latter is the
unusual stress which is thrown upon
kat morois by the intervention of rots
ovow unaccompanied by the mention
of a locality.

kat morois}] The ‘saints’ are further
defined as ‘faithful in Christ Jesus’,

an epithet in which the two senses of
miors, ‘belief’? and ‘fidelity’, appear
to be blended: see Lightfoot Gala-
tians p. 157.

2. xdpis tpiv Kal eipyyy] The Greek
salutation was yaipew, which occurs
in the letter of the Apostles and

that of Claudias Lysias, Acts xxiii 26,
and in the Epistle of St James. The
oriental salutation was ‘Peace’: see
Ezra iv 17 (‘Peace, and at such a
time’), v 7, [vii 12], Dan. iv 1, vi 25;
and contrast the Greek recensions
1 Esdr. vi 7, viii 9, Esther xvi 1, where
we have yaipew.

The present combination occurs in
all the Pail ne episties (except 1 and
2 Tim, and Titus [7], where @decos
intervenes: comp. 2 John 3). It is
also found in Apoc. i 4, and with
aAnOuvGein in 1 and 2 Peter. In Jude
we have édeos, eipyyn and dydmy.

Whether xdpis was in any way .
suggested by yaipey must remain :'

doubtful: a parallel may possibly be |

found in the emphatic introduction ~

of yapain 1 Johni4. What is plain is
that St Paul prefixes to the character-
istic blessing of the Old Dispensation
(comp. Numb. vi 26) the characteristic
blessing of the New. The combination
is typical of his position as the Hebrew
Apostle to the Gentiles. See further
the detached note on ydprs.

142

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[I 33.4

3E 3 \ € 6 \ \ \ ~ , e w“
UAoynTtos 6 Geos Kal maTnp Tov Kupiov mov
T o ~ € > / € ~ > / 3 4
nooi Xpirrov, 6 evAoynoas pas év wary eidoyia
mvevuatixh év Tois éroupavios év Xourr@, *kabus é£e-

3—10. ‘I begin by blessing God.

who has blessed us, not with an
earthly blessing of the basket and the
store, but with all spiritual blessing
in the heavenly region in Christ.
Such. was the design of His eternal
selection of us to walk before Him
in holiness and love. From the first
He marked us out to be made His
sons by adoption through Jesus Christ.
The good-pleasure of His will was the
sole ground of this selection; as the
praise of the glory of His grace was its
contemplated end. His grace, I say;
for He has showered grace on usin Him
who is the Beloved, the Bringer of the
great Emancipation, which is wrought

Here St-Paul combines the two signifi-
cations: EvAoynrés...6 evAoynoas Hpas.

6 Oeds kai raryp] The first, as well
as the second of these titles, is to be ©
taken with the following genitive. A
sufficient warrant for this is found ‘in
v. 17, 6 beds Tov Kupiov Ayay “Iycod
Xprorod, 6 rarjp ris So&ns (comp. also
John xx17). Some early interpreters
however take the genitive with aarjp
alone. Thus Theodore allows this
latter construction, and Theodoret
insists upon it. Moreover the Peshito
renders: ‘Blessed be God, the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ’; and the
earlier Syriac version, as witnessed to
by Ephraim’s commentary (extant only

by His death and which delivers us
‘from sin: such is the wealth of His
grace. The abundance of grace too
brings wisdom and practical under-
standing: for He has allowed us to
know His secret, the hidden purpose
which underlies all and interprets all.
Long ago His good-pleasure was deter-
mined: now, as the times are ripening,
He is working out His plan. And the
issue of all is this—the summing up,
the focussing, the gathering into one,
of the whole Universe, heavenly things
and earthly things alike, in Christ’.

3. EvAoyyrés| This word is used
only of God in the New Testament.
It recurs in the present phrase, 2 Cor.
i 3, 1 Pet. i 3; and in the phrase
evrAoyntos eis rods aldvas, Rom. i 25,
ix 5, 2 Cor. xi 31. The only other
instances are Mark xiv 61, Luke i 68.
Of men, on the other hand, evAoyy-
pévos is used, e.g. Matt. xxv 34, Luke
142. EvAoyyrés implies that blessing
is due; edAoynpévos, that blessing has
been received. The blessing of man
by God confers material or spiritual
benefits: the blessing of God by man
is a return of gratitude and praise,

in an Armenian translation), seems to
have had: ‘Blessed be our Father,
the Father of our Lord’, etc. On
the other hand B stands-alone (for
Hilary, in Ps. levi, quotes only
Benedictus deus, qui benedixit nos,
etc.) in omitting xai zarjp.

éy wdoq evdAoyia mvevparixg| ‘with
all spiritual blessing’. It might be
rendered ‘with every spiritual bless-
ing’; but it is better to regard
evroyia as abstract: compare 2. 8 ev
mwaon copia.

éy rois érovpaviots] The interpre-
tation of this phrase, which occurs
again in i 20, ii 6, iii 10, vi 12, and
not elsewhere, is discussed at length
in the exposition. The Latin rendering
is ‘in caelestibus’, The Peshito has

(=€y rots ovpavois) in all
instances except the last. It is inte-
resting to note that in i 20 B anda
few other authorities read éy ois
ovpavois.

4. égedéfaro] We may render this
either ‘He hath chosen’ or ‘He chose’;
and so with the aorists throughout
the passage. In Greek the aorist is

the natural tense to use; but it does

1s, 6] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 143

lol 2 2 a \ a / > en
AEaTo eas ev avT@ mp0 karaPoris Ko pov, elvat Haas
~ 3 b
dylous Kat duwpous KaTevwirioy avtov év ayamn, *1po-
4 A nn “~ > /.
opioas ras eis viobeciay Sia “Inco Xpiorou ets auToV,
w~ 4 ~ 3 f .
kata Tiv evdokiay Tov OeAnuaros avTod, Seis ératvov

not of necessity confine our attention but offers no interpretation of ‘in
to the moment of action. caritate’: Ambrosiaster has it, and
apo karaBodjjs xkéopov] Here only explains the words of our love to God
in St Paul: but see John xvii 24, which produces holiness: Jerome also
1 Pet. i 20. The phrase dmd xata- has it, and gives as alternatives the
Bodjs kécpov is several times used in connexion with what immediately
the New Testament, but not by St precedes, and Origen’s view which
Paul. ~ connects the words with spoopicas.
dylous cal dpudpous] These adjec- The Vulgate rendering (found also in
tives are again combined inv 27; and, f) ‘in caritate qui praedestinauit’
with the addition of dvéyxAntos, in precludes the connexion with mpo-
Col. i 22. In the Lxx dyopos is opicas.
almost exclusively found as a ren- The simplest interpretation is that
dering of DDN, which occurs very which is indicated by the punctuation
frequently of sacrificial animals, in given in the text. It is supported by
the sense of ‘without blemish’, But the rhythm of the sentence, and also
n’1N—is—also—freely—used—of—moral——by—the—frequent—recurrence—in—this
rectitude, and has other renderings, _epistle (iii 17, iv 2, 15, 16, v 2) of the
such as réAetos, aueumros, xadapés, phrase év dydry in reference to the
dxaxos, Sows. Accordingly a sacri- love which Christians should have one
ficial metaphor is not necessarily to another.

implied in the use of the word in 5. els viodeciav] St Paul uses the
this place. word vioGecia five times; Rom. viii

év dyarn} This has been interpreted. 15, 23, ix 4, Gal. iv 5, and here. It is
(1) of God’s love, (2) of our love, found in no other Biblical’ writer.
whether (a) to God or (6) to each Although the word does not seem to
other. Origen adopts the first view; occur in the earlier literary Greek, it
he connects ¢y dydry with mpoopicas is frequent in inscriptions. In addi-
(‘in love having foreordained us’): tion to the ordinary references, see
but he allows as a possible alternative Deissmann Newe Bibelstudien (1897)
the connexion with éfeAdgaro. This p. 66. He cites from pre-Christian
alternative (He hath chosen us...in inscriptions the formulae xa@ viodeciay
love) is the view taken by Ephraimand 3¢ and xara Ovyarporosiay dé, occurring
by Pelagius. The connexion with in contrast to cara yéveow.
mpoopicas, however, is more usual: In Rom. ix 4 St Paul uses the term
it is accepted by Theodore and in enumerating the privileges of the
Chrysostom: the Peshito precludes ancient Israel, dy 7 viobecia kat 4 Sé£a
any other view by rendering ‘and in xat ai SiaOjxat x.7.A. Here therefore
love He’ &c.; but Ephraim’scomment it falls into line with the other expres-
shews that the conjunction cannot sions which he transfers to the New
have been present’ in the Old Syriac People: such as dy, drodvrpwats,
version. — éxAnpaOnuer, emayyeXia, mepuroinats.

In Latin the rendering ‘in caritate evdoxiav rod GeArjparos] Comp. 2. 9;
praedestinans’ (d.g,) left the question and for the emphatic reiteration comp.
open. Victorinus has this rendering, 2. 11 xara ri BovAjy rod Oedjparos

144

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

(I 7—I10

dogns Ths xaperos auTou, “is exapirwieev nas ev TH
iryamnpeva, 7Tév @ Exouev THY drodiTpwow Sta TOU
. , ~ , ~ , 5

aivaros avrov, Tyv aperw THY TapaTTwLETWY, KATA

\- ~ “ , ~
TO whovros THs XapITos auTou,

ge 2 , 2
nS. emepiacevorey ets

nas ev waon copia Kal ppovnerer yyopicras rely TO
pevorrripiov TOU Oediparos aurou, KaTa. THY EvooKiay
avToU nV mpoeero év avTe * °eis OlKovomiay TOU TAnpw-

avrod. Fritzsche (on Rom. x 1) dis-
cusses evdoxeivy and evdoxia. He shews
that the verd is freely used by the
later Greek writers, and especially
Polybius, where earlier writers would
have said é3ofev and the like. The
noun appears to be Alexandrian. The
translators of the Greek Psalter, who
uniformly employ evdoxety for 3,
render j1¥0 by evdoxia'(7 times) and

by 6éAnpa (6 times). Apart from this—Messianic-designation-are-given—in-a—§

' evdoxia is found twice only, except in
Ecclesiasticus where it occurs 16
times. In Enoch i 8 we have xai rv
evdoxiay Sdcet avrois Kal mavtas €vdo-
yioe. Like })3, it is used largely
of the Divine ‘good-pleasure’ (comp.
Ps. exlix 4 dre evddoxe? Rupios ev
Aa@ avMi), but also of the ‘good-
pleasure’, satisfaction or happiness of
men.

6. §s éxapirecerjpas| The Apostle
is emphasising his own word xapis. It
is instructive to compare certain other
phrases in which a substantive is
followed by its cognate verb: as in
©. 19 Kara rip évépyeay.. Av évipyncer,
ii 4 dea ry modAyy dydmny avrou qv

yyanyngey mas, iv I THs KAjoews HS
éxdyOnre. The meaning is ‘ His grace
wherewith He hath endued us with
grace’; which is a more emphatic way
of saying ‘ His grace which He hath
shewn toward us’ or ‘hath bestowed
upon us’, So that the phrase does
not greatly differ from that of v. 8
‘His grace which He hath made to
abound toward us’. For other uses
of xapiroiv, and for the early inter-

pretations of the word in this place,
see the detached note on ydpis.

The relative js has been attracted
into the case of its antecedent. It.is
simplest to regard it as standing for
7- ND,.G,KL, with the Latin version
(in qua), read év7: but this is probably
the grammatical change of a scribe. .

év tO yyarnpeve| The reasons for
regarding o ryamypévos as a current

detached note. In the parallel passage,
Col. i 13f, St Paul writes: xa peré-
ornoey eis THY Bagtrelay rot viod Tis
dyamns avrod, év 6 gyouev «rAd. In
that passage the desire to emphasise
the Divine Sonship of Christ may
account for his paraphrase of the
title.

7. & @ Zyouey ryy dirodurpoo |
Soin Col.i 14. For the meaning of
arohvtpaots see note on 2. 14.

8. is érepicaevoev] Probably by
attraction for qv émrepiocevoey: comp.
2 Cor. ix 8 Suvare? S€ 6 eds wacay
xapev wrepiooedoa eis vpas.

9. To pvorypov] Comp. iii 3, 4, 9,
Vv 32, vi 19: and see the detached
note on pvorypcor.

apoébero] ‘He hath purposed’.
The preposition in this word has the
signification not of time, but of place:
‘He set before Himself’. Sowe have
mpobeais, ‘purpose’, in v, II.

10, els olxovoniav] The word oiko-
vopia means primarily either ‘the office
of a steward’ or ‘household manage-
ment’. The latter meaning however
received a large extension, so that

I 10]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

145

PaTos TWY KalpwV, dvaxeparawoacbat Ta TavTa év TH
o A 3 4 ~ 3 ~ 4 V 3 \ “~ ~ . 3
: Xia: T Ws Ta emt TOL ouvpavols Kat Ta €7l THS YNS ev

olxovopey and oixovouia were used in
the most general sense of provision
or arrangement. This wider use of
the words may be illustrated from
Polybius. Zhe verb occurs in Polyb.
iv 26 6 trép rév Sdov olkovopet (the
Aetolians refuse to ‘make arrange-
ments’ with Philip previous to a
- general assembly); and in iv 67 9
tadra d¢ olxovopnoas (of appointing a
rendezvous), ‘when he had made these
dispositions’ (comp. 2 Mace. iii 14, 3
Mace. iii 2). Zhe noun is exceedingly
common: e.g. Polyb.i 4 3 iv b€ kadddou
kai cvAANBOnv oiKovopiav TS yeyovoray,
where he is pleading for a broad
historical view of the general course
of events; ii 47 10 ravrny émixpv-
sreaOat riv olkovopiay, ‘to conceal this
his actual policy’ or ‘line of action’ ;

dvaxepadaidcarba] The verb is
derived not directly from kepady, ‘a
head’, but from xedddatov, ‘a sum-
mary’ or ‘sum total’ (comp. Heb. viii
1). Accordingly it means ‘to sum
up’ or ‘present as a whole’; as in
Rom. xiii 9, where after naming
various precepts St Paul declares that
they are ‘summed up in this word,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy-
self’ (evrodr@r@ Adye dvaxepadatovrat).
The Peshito has yo “passa
hawhs yes4n, ‘ut cuncta denuo

nouarentur’; and Ephraim’s Commen-
tary shews that this was the Old
Syriac rendering. Similarly the Latin
version has ‘instaurare’ or ‘restau-
rare’, though Tertullian and the-
translator of Irenaeus seek to re-

V 40 3 rayxelavy éAduBave TO mpaypa
Tyv oixovopiay, ‘the project quickly
began to work itself out’; vi 9 10
(in closing a discussion of the way
in which one form of polity succeeds
to another) atry moAtredy dvaxixdoots,
airy diceas oikovopia, K.T.Asy 1.€., 680
forms of government recur in a cycle,
so things naturally work themselves
out’, ,

Both here and in iii 9, ris 7 olko-
vouia rod pvornpiov k.T.A., the word is
used of the manner in which the
purpose of God is being worked out
in human history. At a later time
oixovopia acquired a more concrete
meaning; so that, for example, the
Christian. ‘dispensation’ came to be
contrasted with the Mosaic ‘dispen-
sation’, As the rendering ‘for the
(or @) dispensation of the fulness of
the times’ is not free from ambiguity,
it is preferable to render ‘for dispen-
sation in the fulness of the times’.
In any case rAnpaparos is a genitive
of further definition. Compare with
the whole phrase Mark i 15 sesm)7-
pera 6 xaipés, and I Tim, ii 6 ré
Hapruptov katpois idiots.

EPHES.’*

produce the Greek word more closely
by ‘recapitulare’. In both Syriac
and Latin versions the preposition
ava has been interpreted of repetition.
But its meaning here is rather that
which we find in such compounds as
dvadoyiler Oat, avapiOpeiv, dvackomety :
so that in usage the word goes not.
seriously differ from ovyxepadavoir,,
the slight shade of distinction being
that between ‘to gather up’ (with the.
stress on the elements to be united)
and. ‘to gather together’ (with the
stress on their ultimate union). See
Lightfoot ad loc, (Notes on Episiles-
of St Paul) and on Col. i 16,

11—14. ‘In Christ, I repeat, in:
whom we have been chosen as the:
Portion of God: for long ago He set.
His choice upon us, in accordance: .
with a purpose linked with almighty
power and issuing in the fulfilment of”
His sovereign will. We have thus:
been chosen to be to the praise of the
glory of God—we Jews; for we have
been the first to hope in Christ.. But
yet not we alone. You too, you Gen-
tiles, have heard the message of truth,
the good news of a salvation which is

: 146

3 ”~ rz?
QuTwW, “EV w
é é

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

[I 11—13

loo ‘0 / \ ,
kal éxAnpwOnuev poop CévTes KaTa 71p0-

) ~ v / fol \ A lo)

Oecowy Tov Ta TwavTa évepyovvros Kata THv BovAny TOU -
4 “ \ > ~ /

OeAnparos airov, “eis TO eivat nas eis Erawov Sogéns

“~ A / “ ~
avTov Tous mponAmikoTas éY TO XpLOTS

. iG \
13 dy @ Kal

e ~ > , 4 / “~ 3 ‘4 BY > .
Umels adkovoayTes Tov Noyov THs aAnOeias, TO evay-

yours as much as ours. You too have
believed in Christ, and have been
sealed with the Spirit, the Holy
Spirit promised to the holy People,
who is at once the pledge and the
first instalment of our common heri-
tage; sealed, I say, for the full and
final emancipation, that you, no less
than we, may contribute to the praise
of the glory of God’.

II. éy @ kat ékAnpaOnpev mpoopic-
dévres| This is practically a restate-
ment in the passive voice of é£e\céaro
npas...mpoopicas nuas (ve. 4, 5). So

lot’ or ‘the portion’ of God: as, e.g.,
in Deut. ix 29 otro Aads cov kat
kK\fRpos gov (comp. Esth. iv 17, an
addition in the uxx).. The rendering

of the R.V., ‘we were made a heri-

tage’, is more correct than that of the
A.V., but it introduces the idea of
inheritance (kAypovopia), which is not
necessarily implied by the word. We
might perhaps be content to render
éferé£aro (v. 5) and ékAnpwd6npev by
‘chose’ and ‘chosen’, as was done in

the Geneva Bible of 1557: an ancient

precedent for this is found in the

Chrysostom comments: Oeds yap 6
" éxdeEduevos Kat KAnpwodpevos. KdAz-
poty is ‘to choose by lot’ or ‘to
appoint by lot’. In the passive it is
‘to be chosen (or ‘appointed’) by
lot’. But the image of the lot tends
to disappear; so that the word means
‘to assign’, or (mid.) ‘to assign to
oneself’, ‘to choose’; and in the
passive “to be assigned’ or ‘chosen’,
The passive, however, could be used
with a following accusative in the
sense of ‘to be assigned a thing’, and
so ‘to acquire as a portion’. Thus in
the Berlin Papyri (11 405) we read,
in a contract of the year 348 a.D.:
émidy AiBov ovroxdmryy Kal ovradeTiKny
pnxXavyy, watp@a jpav syra, ékdypo-
Onpev, wr.A. This is the meaning
given in the present passage by the
A.V. (‘in whom also we have obtained
an inheritance’): but there appears to
be no justification for it, except when
the accusative of the object assigned
is expressed,

‘Accordingly the meaning must be
‘we have been chosen as God’s por-
tion’: and the word is perhaps se-
lected because Israel was called ‘the

Peshito, which employs the same
verb in both verses— ~=X\ and

patie.

ra mavra évepyovvros| ‘who worketh
all things’: see the detached note on
évepyetv.

12. rTovs mpondmtkoras] ‘who have
been the first to hope’. For this use
of «po in composition (“before an-
other ’) compare I Cor, xi 21 Exaoros
yap ro itor Setzvov mpodapPavec €v TO
gayeiv, So far as the word in itself
is concerned it might be rendered
‘who aforetime hoped’: but the
meaning thus given is questionable:
see the exposition,

13. é€v @ kal dpeis] It is simplest
to take duets as the nominative to
éodpayioOnre, regarding the second
év 6 as picking up the sentence, which
has been broken to insert the em-
phatic phrase ‘the good tidings of a
salvation which was yours as well as
ours’, A somewhat similar repetition
is found 4 in li 11, 12 dre ore dpeis.. wee
ott ire KT.

Tov Aoyov Tis dAnOeias| The teach.
ing which told you the truth of things

I 14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 147

yéAtoy Tis Twrnpias Upc, ev @ Kat morTevoavTES
expparyiobnre TO mvEvpare THS emaryyeNias TH dyin,
48 éorw dppaBav THS kAnpovopias TeV, eis aroNv-
Tpwow Tis TepiTonTews, eis Erratvov THs SoEns avTob.

14. 8s éorw

(comp. iv 21), to wit, that you were meaningless as a note on pignus:
included in the Divine purpose—the thus his attention was drawn to the
good tidings of your salvation. In inadequacy of the Latin version: but
Col. i 5 we have the same thought: nevertheless in revising that version
‘the hope laid up for you in the (if indeed to any serious extent he did
heavens, whereof ye heard aforetime revise it in the Epistles) he forgot, or
in the word of the truth of the gospel did not care, to insist on the pr oper
which came unto you’, &c. Compare distinction.
also 2 Cor. vi 7 év Ady@ dAnOelas and = §§ With the whole context compare
James i 18 Ady ddnbeias. . 2 Cor. i arf. 6 8 BeBacdy yas civ
_codpayicdyre K.T.A. | Compare i iv 30 © diy eis Xpioréy Kal xpicas rpas Geds,
TO wvedpa TO ayioy tov Oeov, €v @ kal oppayirdpevos quads Kat Sods rov
eodpayicOnre eis 7jépav dmrodurpdceas, dppaBdva Tov mvevparos év tais Kap-
_ and 2 Cor. i 21 f. (quoted below). diats nudy (for the technical term

this word fully in the last of his notes pp. 1ooff. and Gradenwitz Hinfihr-
on this epistle (Notes on Epp. p. 323). ung indie Papyruskunde, 1900,p. 59).
It is the Hebrew word fi") (from Gradenwitz (ibid. pp. 81 f£) shews _
22, ‘to entwine’, and so ‘to pledge’). that the dppaBav, as it appears in the —
-It is found in classical Greek writers; papyri, was a large proportion of the
- so that it was probably brought to payment: if the transaction was not
Greece by the Phoenician traders, completed the defaulter, if the seller,
and not by the Hebrews, who knew repaid the dppaSév twofold with in-
little of the Greeks in early days. It terest; if the buyer, he lost the
came also into Latin, and is found in dppaBay.
a clipped form in the law books as nav] - Note the return to the first
arra. In usage it means strictly not person. It is ‘our inheritance’: we
‘a pledge’ (évéyupov), but ‘an earnest? and you are ovvkAnpovopzot, comp.
(though in the only place in the Lxx iii. 6.
where it occurs, Gen. xxxviii 17 ff. it eis droAvrpwow| The verb Avrpoi-
has the former sense), That is to say, o6a:is used of the redemption of Israel
it is a part given in advance as a from Egypt in Exod. vi 6, xv 13 (284),
security that the whole will be paid and six times in Deuteronomy (i175).
hereafter—a first instalment. In the Psalms it represents both
Jerome ad loc. points out that the Hebrew words; in Isaiah generally
Latin version had pignus in this _ the first of them: and it is frequently
place instead of arrabo. Yet in his found in other parts of the Old Tes-
Vulgate he left pignus here and in tament. The Redemption from Egypt
2 Cor. i 22, v 5. The explanation is the ground of the cotiéeptfon
probably is that in his Commentary throwglioutS“and ‘témancipation’ is
he was practically translating from perhaps thie: word which expresses the
Origen, and found a careful note on meaning most clearly. In English
appoBav, which would have been the word ‘redemption’ almost inevit-

rI0o—2

14.—dppaSev]_Lightfoot -has-treated_— PeBaoiv, see-Deissmann Bibelstudien—_—_

148

ably suggests a price paid: but there
is no such necessary suggestion where
Avrpovcba is used of the People,
even if occasionally the primary sense
is felt and played upon. In drodv-
tpwots (and even Avtpwors in the
New Testament) the idea of emanci-

pation is dominant, and that of pay-.

ment seems wholly to have disap-
peared. In the Old Testament the
form dmoditpwcis is only found in
Dan. iv 30° (Lxx), of Nebuchadnezzar’s
recovery (6 xpdvos the dmoduTpaceds
pov). See further Westcott Hebrews
pp. 295 ff, and T. K. Abbott Lphe-
sians pp. 11 ff.

THs mepurotjoens | The verb meperot-
jetrOae is found in two senses in the
‘old Testament: (1) ‘to preserve alive’
(nearly always for i71M), (2) ‘to ac-
quire *, Corresponding to the former
sense we have the noun seprroinats,
‘preservation of life’? (7M), in 2

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[I. Id

the meaning in this place. With the
Hebrew we may compare Exod. xix 5.

nbsp > nnn, which the uxx ren-
dered gcecbé pot Aads mepiovotos, in-
serting Aads from a recollection of
Deut. vii 6, xiv 2, xxvi 18. The peri-
phrasis gcovrai pou eis wepuroinow is
Hebraistic; comp. Jer. xxxviii (xxxi)
33 ¢oovral pot eis Aadv: although in |

Malachi we have 1030, not mibapd (as
in Ps. exxxv 43 eis meptovotacpév
uxx). Ini Pet. ii 9 we have Aads eis
mepiroinow, Where the passage in
Exodus is chiefly in mind: and where
it would seem that Aads is a reminis-
cence of the Lxx of Exodus, and «is
wepuroinow of the Luxx of Malachi:
both passages were doubtless very
familiar. The view that sepsroinots
had a recognised meaning in con-
nexion with Israel seems to be con-
firmed by Isa. xliii 21 ‘This people

Chron. xiv 13 (12); corresponding to
' the latter we have Mal. iii 37 Eaovrai

ie ..€ls nucpay Hy éyd mod, eis trept-

doinow (Mwy soe aw Ond95 ym

bsp), ‘they shall be to Me,...in the
day that I do make, a peculiar trea-
sure’: these are the only places (exe,
Hag. ii 9, Lxx only) where the noun is

- used.

In the New Testament the verb is
found, probably in the sense of ‘ pre-
serving alive’, in Luke xvii 33 (aep:-
wonoacda Bl; but XA etc. have
céoa, and D woyorAoa:), where in

the second member of the verse we ©

have woyovyce. In the sense of
‘acquiring’ it is found in Acts xx 28
(qv mepterroijcaro Sta Tod aipatos rod
idiov) and in 1 Tim. iii 13 (Baépér
xadcv). The noun is found in Heb.
X 39 els mepunoinow wWuyxfjs, I Thess,
Vv 9 els meptroinow. cwrnpias, and
2 Thess. ii 14 eis wepuroinow Sdéns: in
each of these places the meaning is
debated; see Lightfoot on the two
last (Notes on Epp. pp. 76, 121).
The passage in Malachi is specially
important for the determination of

LXX rendered Aady pov dv mepteroinod-
pny: comp. Acts xx 28 (quoted above).

Accordingly we may render the
whole phrase ‘unto the redemption
of God’s own possession’, understand-
ing by this ‘the emancipation of God’s
peculiar people’. The metaphor from
a mercantile transaction has by this
time been wholly dropped, and the
Apostle has returned to the phrase-
ology of the Old Testament.

The Old Latin rendering is ‘in
redemptionem adoptionts’; that of
the Vulgate ‘in redemptionem ac-
quisttionis’, In 1 Pet. ii 9 both
forms of the version have ‘populus
acquisitionis’, though Augustine and.
Ambrose have ‘in adoptionem’, and
Hilary ‘ad possidendum’. The Pe-
shito renders ‘unto the redemption
of the saved? (lit. ‘of them that live’);
but Ephraim’s commentary makes it

. doubtful whether ‘the redemption of

your possession’ was not the render-
ing of the Old Syriac. Origen and.
Theodore seem to have understood
meptroijots in the sense of God’s
claiming us as His own. The former

have _I-formed-for—-Myself’, which the-—

I 15—18] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 149°

“~ / 7 \ : ~ 4 ‘

% Aida TovTO Kayo, dkovoas Thy Kal Uuas rioTW

~ ~ A 4 f A

év 7@ Kupiw Inco’ Kal tTHv dydrny eis wWavras Tous

/ ~ A ~ J

dryious, ov mavoua evyapicTev Uirep UuwY, pyElav Tol-
. \ ~ “~ - \.. “~ ,

ovjevos éri Twv mpowevyav pou, “iva 6 Beds Tob Kupiov
~ rat “ A ~ / , ~

yyuov “Incoot Xpwrov, 6 raryp Tis SdEns, Sen vpiv

~ . / “~

mvevyua codias Kat drokadvrvpews év ériyveioe avo,
18 / A 3 6 4 fw DY4 e ~ 3

wepwrTicpevous Tous opVadous THS Kapdlas UUwY Els

Ig. Om dydarny

(Cramer Catena p, 121) paraphrases,
iva drodurpobdar kal repimombdce TO
dep: the latter (bid. p. 122), rv mpos
avroy oixetwotv AapBavew. This is no
doubt a possible alternative, and it is
probably the meaning of the Old Latin
rendering.

' I§—19. ‘With all this in mind, the
tidings of your faith which believes
in the Lord Jesus, and your charity

———_-~which-loves-all-who-share—with—you—sion-of vpdév—after-this-phrase,-when

the privilege of God’s consecrating
choice, cannot but stir me to per-
petual thanksgiving on your behalf.
And in my prayers I ask that the
God of our Lord Jesus Christ, His
Father and ours in the heavenly glory,
may give you His promised gift, the
' Spirit of wisdom, who is also the
Spirit of revelation, the Unveiler of
the Mystery. I pray that your heart’s
eyes may be filled with His light,
that you may know God with a three-
fold knowledge—that you may know
what a hope His calling brings ; that
you may know what a wealth of
glory is laid up in His inheritance
in His consecrated People; that you
may know what an immensity charac-
terises His power, which goes forth
to us who believe’.

15. ryv xa’ pais wiorw] A peri-
phrasis for the more ordinary phrase

THY wiotw tpav: see in the note on.

various readings, where the reading
ayarny is discussed,

€v TG kupio “Incov| A stricter con-
struction would require the repetition
of riv before this phrase. But comp.

Col. i 4 rqv aiorw dpdy dv Xpiord
*Inood. The same loose construction
occurs immediately afterwards with
thy ayannv. Other examples in this
epistle are ii 11 ra @yy ev capki, iv 1
6 Séopuos ev kvpio: comp. also Phil. i
5 ém ry xowavia dpav els TO edayye-
Atov, Col. i 8 ray dudy aydirny év vev-
part.

16. pveiav rowodtpevos| The omis-

wept duav has immediately preceded,
has an exact parallel in 1 Thess. i 2 ev-
Xaptorodper...mept mavrav dav, pvetav
mocovpevoe x.7.A. The meaning is not
‘remembering’ (which would be pvy-
fovevovres, comp. I Thess. i 3), but
‘making remembrance’ or ‘mention’,
and so ‘interceding’. See the de-
tached note on current epistolary
phrases.

17. 6-Geds x7.A.] These titles are a
variation upon the titles of the dox-
ology in &. 3 6 Oeds kal waTip Tou Kupiov
"av “Inood Xpiocrodv. The fatherhood
is widened and emphasised, as it is
again when the prayer is recurred to
and expanded in iii 14.

droxadvyews| AmoxdAviis is the
correlative of pvorypiov: compare iii
3) 5.

év émtyvéces atrod| ‘in the know-
ledge of Him’ ; not ‘full’ or ‘advanced.
knowledge’: see the detached note on
the meaning of émiyvacrs.

18. mehwricpévous rovs dépOadpods
tis kapdias jpav] literally ‘being en-
lightened as to the eyes of your heart’.
The construction is irregular; for after

“150 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [I 19-21

\ cid’é ¢ on fy © 3 \ a / >A
TO elévat Uuas Tis éoTw 4 EéAmls TIS KAnTEWS avTOV,
? can “~ , ~ : ~ : ~
Tis 0 WAOUTOS Tis dogns THs KAnpovopias avrou év Tots
e / 19 \ / Ae / / os 3 /
aytow, kal Ti To vmepBadrAov péyebos THs Suvapews
“~ . “ 4 4 > /
avTou eis uds Tos mirTEVvOYTAaS, KaTa THY évepryetav
~ 7 “~ 3 / ~ aA tA ~
TOU KpaTous THS loxKVos avTOV, iv évnpynkey ev TH
~ \ -~ ~
XpioTd. éyeipas airov éx vexpwv, Kai Kabioas év SeEta
~ ~ , 4 4 lod 4
avToU év. Tois éroupaviots “UTEpavw Tacns apxXAs Kat
20. évipynoey

vpiv we should have expected mepa-
ticpeévors: but the sense is plain.

There is an allusion to this passage
in Clem. Rom. 36, dca rovrov (se, "Inood
Xpworod) yvedyOnoay tipav of opdadpot
Ths Kapdias: Sia rovrou 4 dovveros Kai
écxotapévy Stdvou nav dvadddret els
ro das: the former of these sentences
confirms the reading xapdias in this
place; the latter recalls at once Rom. i
21 and Eph. iv 18.

ing...which He hath wrought’? see
detached note on éevepyeiv and its cog-
nates.

Tov Kparovs tis iryvos avrod) The
same combination is found in vi 10
évduvapotade ev kupip Kal év TO Kpdret
tis toxvos avrod. Comp. also Col. i 11
év mdoy Suvduer Suvvapovpevoe Kara Td
kparos tis ddfns avrov. With perhaps
but one exception (Heb. ii 14) the

word xpdros in the New Testament-is——

19—23. ‘The measure of the might
‘of His strength you may see first of
all in what He has wrought in Christ
Himself. He has raised Him from
the dead; He has seated Him at His
own right hand in the heavenly region ;
He has made Him supreme above
all conceivable rivals,—principalities,
authorities, powers, lordships, be they
what they may, in this world or the
next, And, thus supreme, He has
made Him the Head of a Body—the
Church, which thus supplements and
completes Him; that so the Christ
may have no part lacking, but may
be wholly completed and fulfilled’,

19. Td varepBdddov péyeos] The
participle comes again in ii 7 ré dep-
Baddow wAovros, and in iii 19 rhy taep-
Baddovear ris yrdoews ayarnv. Other-
wise it is only found in 2 Cor, iii 10
(with dda), ix 14 (with ydpis). We
have the adverb imepBadAdvrws in
2 Cor. xi 23. The noun tmepBond3 oc-
curs seven times in St Paul’s epistles,
but not elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment.

evépyevav...qv ernpynxev| ‘the work-

only used of the Divine might.

20, év rots érovpaviois] On this ex-
pression see the note on 2, 3.

21. wtmepdvo| ‘above’. The only
other places in the New Testament
in which the word occurs are iv 106
avaBas vmepdve Tdvray Tév ovpavar,
and Heb. ix 5 virepdve dé avrijs (sc. ris
KiBwrov) XepovBely Soéns. The latter
passage shews that the duplicated
form is not intensive; as neither is
its counterpart dmoxdro (compare
Heb. ii 8= Ps. viii 7 dxoxdro rév mo- -
86v avdrod with v. 22 of this chapter).

We have a striking parallel to the
language of this passage in Philo de
somn. i 25 (M. p. 644): "Epnpve d€ 75
dvap (Gen. xxviii 13) éornprypévov ént
THS KAipaxos Tov dpydyyehov Kupiov.
Umepdva yap és apparos nvioyov # ds
veds KuBepyyrny vmodnnréoy iotracbat
To dv én coparav, emt Wuyar,...ér
aépos, én’ ovpavod, ex aicdnray Surd-
peor, én dopdray dicear, soarep
Ocara xai d@éara, rév yap Kéopop
dmavra éfdyras éavrot xai avapricas
Ti ToTAUTHY yvoxE Gow.

maons apis xt.A.] ‘every princi-

I 22]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

151

, \ / \ \ ,

éLovatas Kat Suydpews Kal KuptoTnTos Kal TayTos dVv0-
t / A a , \
Matos dvouaCouevoy ov povoy év TH awn TOUTM dra

~ /
kal év To péAdOvT’

pality’, &c. The corresponding list
in Col. i 16, where the words are in
the plural (eire Opovor etre xupidrnres
etre dpyat efre éfovcia), shews that
these are concrete terms. Otherwise
we might render ‘ail rule’ &. We
have the plurals dpyai and éefovciat
below in iii 10 and vi 12. On these
terms see Lightfoot Colossians, loc.
cit. Although the Apostle in writing
to the Colossians treats them with
something like scorn, yet his refer-
ences to them in this epistle shew
that he regarded them as actually
existent and intelligent forces, if in
part at any rate opposed to the Divine
will, In the present passage, how-

———ever, they are mentioned only to em-—-

phasise the exaltation of Christ.

qavros ovopatos ovopatouévov| For
dvopa in the sense of a ‘title of rank’
or ‘dignity’, see Lightfoot on Phil. ii
9: and compare I Clem. 43, 76 évdd&m
dvopare (sc. ris iepootvys) Kekoopn-
pérn, and 44, of dméorodo jay eyvo-~
cav...drt tpis eorat emi rod dvdparos
Tis émtoxonjs. Among the Oxyrhyn-
chus. Papyri (Grenfell and Hunt,
pt I no. 58) is a complaint (a.p. 288)
of the needless multiplication of of-
ficials: qroAdol BovAdpevos Tas Taptakas
ovoias katecOlew dvopata éavtois é&ev-
povres, of pév xeiptorar, of dé ypappa-
téwy, of dé hpovrictady, «7A. closing
with the order: ra dé Aowa dvopuara
mavonrat,

év TO alau Kr] The same con-
trast i is found in Matt. xii 32 obre ev
TOUT@ TO ala. ovre év TO peAdovr: t
It is the familiar Rabbinic contrast
between Mit pbyy, the present age,
and S23 ndoy, the age to come. Dal-
man, who fully discusses these terms
(Die Worte Jesu 1 120 ff.), declares
that there is no trace of them in pre-
Christian Jewish literature,

\ c
KGL. TANTA YTETAZEN Yd ToYc TOAAC

In the New Testament mtn pov is
represented by 6 aidy otros again in
Luke xvi 8, xx 34, Rom. xii 2, 1 Cor.
i 20, ii 6, 8, iii 18, 2 Cor. iv 4; by 6
aidy 6 évecroés in Gal. i 4; by 6 viv
aidv in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim.
vi 17, 2 Tim, iv 10, Tit. ii 12: and
also by 6 xécpos obros in 1 Cor, iii 19,
V Io, vii 31, and in the Johannine
writings, in which aigv only occurs in
the phrases els rév aidva, éx rod aldvos
(or in the plural, as in Apoc). In
the same sense we often have 6 aidy

or 6 Koopos, just as now is used for

im Day, We may compare also 6
katpos ovros, Mark x 30 (= Luke xviii
= 30); Luke-xii— 563 —o-vov “Ratpos,— Rom.
iii 26, viii 18, xi'5; and 6 xaipos 6 éve-
omnes, Heb. ix 9.

On the other hand the words «é-
opos and xaipes cannot enter into the

representation of nanpdy. For this
we have 6 aidy 6 péAAov again in Heb.
Vi 5 (Suvduets re péAdovros aidvos); 6
aidy 6 épxopevos in Mark x 30 and the
parallel Luke xviii 30; 6 aidv éxeives in
Luke xx 35. We may note however
THY olkouperny THY péAAovcay in Heb.
iis. .
We have below in this epistle the
remarkable phrases 6 aidy rot xocpov
rovrov in ii 2, and of aidves of émepyo-
pevor in ii 7.

22. kal mdvra xd.) An allusion
to Ps. viii 7 mavra trérakas troxdro
Tév moody avrov, Which is quoted so
from the Lxx in Heb. ii 8. A similar
allusion is made in 1 Cor. xv 27 wavra
yap vmeragey vd rods modas avrod,
With the whole context compare
1 Pet. iii 22 és éorw év befea Geod
mopevbeis eis ovpavdy vrrorayévtov adrd
dyyéhov kat é£ovocrdy Kab Suvdpewy,

which is plainly dependent on this
passage,

152

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[I 23—IE x

n \ : \ A , ~
ayrof, Kal avTov eOwkey Kearny vireo mavTa TH éKKAN-
7 J ‘ ~ ~ 4 4 nw A
oia, 3nTIs EOTLY TO DHMA AUTOU, TO TAnowMa TOU Ta

, ~ l4
wayvTa éy Tac mAnpoUpevov.

Umép mavra] repeats the wavra of
the quotation, which itself points back
to mdons...mravrés in % 21.

23. Td mAjpopa «r.A.] ‘the ful-
ness (or fulfilment) of Him who
all in all ts being filled (or ful-
filled)’. On the meaning of rAjpopa,
see the detached note.

Ta wdvra év waow| The phrase is
used adverbially. It-is more emphatic
than the classical adverb zavrdaracw,
which does not occur in the New
Testament. It is found, though not
adverbially, in 1 Cor. xii 6 6 avrés
Oeds, 6 évepyav ta wdyra év traow
(where however év magw may mean
‘in all men’); and as a predicate in

1_Oor,_xv_28_iva_7_6_6e0s_mdvra_éy—earlier_Syriac_version,—of—which-the——

maow, and with a slight variation in

‘Col. iii 1m dAAa mdyra kal év naow

Xptords. In each of the last two
cases there is some evidence for
reading ra wdyra: but the absence of
the article is natural in the predicate.
This use of the phrase as applied to
God and to Christ makes it the more
appropriate here. St Paul uses
mdyTa adverbially i in x Cor. ix 25, x 33
(rdvra waow dpérke), xi 2, Phil. iv
13; and likewise ra mdyra in this
epistle iv 15 ta...avéjowper eis adrov
ra mavra, an important parallel,
mwAnpoupévov] There is no justifica-
tion for the rendering ‘
in all’(A,V.). The only ancient version
which gives this interpretation is the
Syriac Vulgate. In English it ap-
pears first in Tyndale’s translation
{1534). The chief instances cited for
awAnpodaba as middle are those in
which a captain is said to man hig
ship (vaiv mAnpovo Oa), Le. ‘to get it
filled’. But this idiomatic use of the
middle (comp. maida diddoKxer Oar)
affords no justification for taking it
here in what is really the active

TI. "Kal vuas ovras

sense. St Paul does indeed speak of
Christ as ascending ‘that He might
fill all things’; but then he uses the
active voice, iva mrypaoy Ta wavTa
(iv 10). Had his meaning been the
same here, we can hardly doubt that
he would have said wAnpoivros.

The passive sense is supported by
the early versions. (1) he Latin.
Cod. Claromont. has supplementum
qui omnia et in omnibus impletur.
The usual Latin is plenitudo eius qué
omnia in omnibus adimpletur: so
Victorinus, Ambrosiaster and the
Vulgate. (2) The Syriac. The
Peshito indeed gives an active mean-
ing: but we have evidence that the

Peshito was a revision, took the word
as passive; for it is so taken in
Ephraim’s commentary, which is pre-
served in an Armenian translation.
(3) The Egyptian. Both the Bohairic
and the Sahidic take the verb in the
passive sense.

Origen and Chrysostom gave a pas-
sive sense to the participle (see the
citations in the footnote to the expo-
sition). So did Theodore, though his
interpretation is involved: he says
(Cramer Catena, p. 129) ovk eirey 8rt
Ta jwavra mAnpol, GAN’ rt avros év Tact
wAnpotrayy Touréotww, év maou mARpYsS
éoriv kr. The Latin commentators
had adimpletur, and could not give
any other than a passive meaning.

II. 1, 2. ‘Next, you may see that
power as it has been at work in your-
selves. You also it has raised from -
the dead. For you were dead—not
with a physical death such as was the
death of Christ, but dead in your sins.
Your former life was a death rather
than a life. You shaped your con-
duct after the fashion of the present
world, after the will of the power

—— ¢ision is not the instrument of death:

“Il 2]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

153

yexpous T ots TapaTr Tépag iv ad T ais duapriats UM,
%éy ais OTe TEpleTATHO ATE KaTaQ TOV aiwva TOU KOO" {LOU

that dominates it—Satan and his un-
seen satellites—the inspiring force of
those who refuse obedience to God’.
I. vexpovs rots raparrapacw] ‘You
were dead—not indeed with a physi-
cal death; but yet really dead in
virtue of your trespasses and sins’.
The dative is not properly instru-
- mental (if the meaning had been
‘put to death by’, we should have
had vevexpwpévovs), but is attached to
the adjective by way of definition.
The dative in Col. ii 14, 76 nab? jay
xetpsypadoy ois déypaowy,is somewhat
similar. In the parallel passage
Col ii 13, vexpovs dvras rots maparra-
paow kai 7H dxpoBvoria Tis gapKos
Upar, it is clear that the uncircum-

We cannot render the dative better
than by the preposition ‘in’.

2. mwepteraryoare| Weptrareipy is
used to express a manner of life only
once in the Synoptic Gospels, viz. in
Mark vii 5 od mepimarotdow...cara THY
gapadoow Trav mpeoBuréporv. It is
similarly used once in the Acts (xxi
21, Trois €Ocow mepurareiv), and once in
the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii 9,
Bpdpacw, ev ois ovK apednOnoay oi
qepinarovvres). These three instances
refer to the regulation of life in
accordance with certain external
ordinances. They do not refer to
general moral conduct. This latter
sense is found in the New Testament
only in the writings of St Paul and
St Jobn. Thus it occurs twice in
St John’s Gospel (the metaphor of
‘walking’ being strongly felt), and
ten times in his Epistles. It is
specially frequent in St Paul’s
writings, being found in every epistle,
if we except the Pastoral Epistles.
It occurs seven times in this epistle.

It is not found in 1 Peter, 2 Peter,
Jude or the Apocalypse: in these

writings another word takes its place, «
namely ropeveoOar—a word also
used four times in this sense by St
Luke (Luke i 6; viii14, a noteworthy
place; Acts ix 31, xiv 16): but
neither St Paul nor St John em-
ploys this word so.

This metaphor of ‘walking’ or

' ‘going’ is not Greek, but Hebrew in

its origin. It is in harmony with the
fact that from the first Christianity
was proclaimed as a Way (Acts ix 2,
xviii 25, 26, &c.).

There are two words which express
the same idea from the Greek point.
of view: (1) mwoAtreverOar, a
characteristically Greek expression :
for conduct to a Greek was mainly a
question of relation to” the State:-so
Acts’ xxiii 1 éyé maon ouverdnoet
“GyaOj =«menodireypae TO Oe, and
Phil. 1 27 povoy d&ias roo ebayyedtou
rov Xptorov wodtreveobe. (2) dvacr pé-
deo Gat (once in 2 Cor., Eph., 1 Tim. ;
twice in Heb,; once in 1 Pet., 2 Pet.),
with its noun dvacrpopy (once in Gal.,
Eph., 1 Tim., Heb., Jas, ; six times in
i Pet., twice in 2 Pet.).

While we recognise the picturesque
metaphor involved in the use of
wepuraretv for moral conduct, we must
not suppose that it was consciously
present to the Apostle’s mind when-
ever he used the word. Here, for
example, it is clearly synonymous
with dvaorpépeo ba, which he employs
in the parallel phrase of 2. 3.

kata Tov aidva Tov Kéopou Tovrou]
This is a unique combination of two
phrases, each of which is frequently
found in St Paul’s writings—é aidy
ovros and 6 Kdopos obros : see the note
on i 21. The combination of syn-
onyms for the sake of emphasis
may be illustrated by several phrases
of this epistle: i 5 Kara Thy evdoxiav
Tod OeAjparos avrov, II Kata tiv

154

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

[Ii 2

’ ~ / o / ~
TOUTOU, KaTa Tov apxovTa Tis EEovclas Tov depos, TOU
WVEUMATOS TOU viv évepyobivTos év Tots viots Tis arreEl-

Bovdjy rod OcAnparos avrov, 19 Kara
Thy évépyeay Tov xpdrovs THs loxvos
avrov, iv 23 7G mvetpart TOD vods YuGr.
xara ov dpxovra] The Apostle
takes term after term from the
current phraseology, and adds them
together to bring out his meaning.
Compare with the whole of this
passage, both for style and for
subject matter, vi 12 mpés ras dpyds,
mpos Tas é£oucias, mpbs Tovs KOC HO-.
" xpdropas rod oxdrovs rovrov, mpos Ta
qvevpatcxa Tis wovnpias év rots émov-
pavios. There he represents his
readers as struggling against the
world-forces, in accordance with which

their former life, as here described, -

had been lived.
With the term 6 dpyov x.7.A. com-
pare Mark iii 22 (Matt. ix 34) é 76
apyorre Tov Saovioyv, and Matt. xii 24
. (Luke xi 15) ev r@ BeeCeBovdr Fpxovre
tov Saoviov: also John xii 31 6
apxav Tov Kdopov Tovrov, XiV 30,
xvi 11. The plural of dpyovres row
aiévos rovrov is found in 1 Cor. ii 6, 8,
apparently in a similar sense. In
2 Cor. iv 4 we read of 6 Oeds rod aidévos
TovToU.

tis efovoias tov dépos] Compare
Col. i 13 os épvcaro ruas ék ris e€oucias
Tov oxorous, and Acts xxvi 18 rod
“émorpéyrat ad oxorous eis Gas Kal
tis éfovctas tod Sarava émi rov Geov:
also our Lord’s words to those who
arrested Him, Luke xxii 53 dn’
airy éotiy tuay 7 apa cal 7 éfovcia
Tov oKdrous.

In the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs (Benj. 3) we have izé rod
depiov mvevparos Tov Bediap: but we
cannot be sure that this language is
independent of the present passage.
The same must be said of the con-
ception of the firmament in the
Ascension of Isaiah, a8 a region
between the earth and the first
heaven, filled with contending spirits

of evil: c. 7,‘ We ascended into the
firmament,..and there I beheld Sam-
mael[ who elsewhere (c. 1) is identified
with Malkira, ‘the prince of evil’]
and his powers’, &c. There can be
no doubt, however, that the air was.
regarded by the Jews, as well as by
others, as peopled by spirits, and
more especially by evilspirits. Com-
pare Philo de gigant. 2 (Mangey,
p. 263), ods dAAoe Girdcopar Saipovas,
dyyéAovs Mavofs elofev dvopateu
uxal O€ clot ard roy dépa merdpuevat:
and more especially in his exposition
of Jacob’s Dream (de somn. i 22,
p- 641): KAipak toi év péev TO
Kéop@ ovpBodixas Aéyerar 6 dip, od
Baows pév ore yi}, xopui o& odpavés-
ane yap Tijs weAnuaxis opatpas ...dxpt

otros dé dore yruydv dowpdrer oikos,
x7.A. For the Palestinian doctrine
of evil spirits reference may be made
to the instructive chapter Die Siinde
und die Démonen in Weber Altsyn.
Theol. pp. 242 ff.; see also Thackeray,
as referred to in the note on p. 133
above. In a curious passage in
Athanasius, de incarn, 25, our Lord’s
crucifixion is regarded as purifying
the air: pdvos yap ev 7@ dépe tis
droOvyckes 6 oTavp® Tedeovpevos*
8:6 Kal elxéras rodrov wmeuewev 6
Kips’ cttw yap tyabels roy pév dépa
éxabapiCev ad re ths diaBorcKhs Kar
macys Tov daiuovey émtBovdis, K.T.d.
rod mvetparos} We should have
expected rather rd mvedpa, in apposi-
tion with roy dpyovra. It may be
that this was the Apostle’s meaning,
and that the genitive is due to an un-
conscious assimilation to the genitives
which immediately precede. If this
explanation be not accepted, we must
regard rod mvevparos as in apposition
with ris efovolas and governed by
roy dpxovra, In 1 Cor. ii 12 we find
To mTvevpua TOU Kécpov Opposed to rd

yiis-€oxarns-c-dyp wavry radeis epOacey———

II 3]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

155

Olas: 3éy ols Kal pels mavres dverrparpnyev more év
Tats émiGupicus Ths oapKes uwv, TowbyTes Ta OeAnpaTa
Tis capKkos Kal Twv Siavowy, Kat jucla Téxva pioet

mvedua TO ék Tov Oeod. But we have
no parallel | to the expression roy
dpxovra.. .TOU mvevparos K.T.A.

tod voy evepyoivros | So ‘this world’
is spoken of as 6 viv aidy in 1 Tim, vi
‘17, 2 Tim. iv 10, Tit. ii 12, The word
évepyetv, like the word wvedpa, seems
purposely chosen in order to suggest
a rivalry with the Divine Spirit: see
the detached note on évepyeiv.

3—7. ‘Not that we Jews were in
any better case. We also lived in
sin, following the dictates of our
lower desires. We, no less than the
Gentiles, were objects in ourselves of
the Divine wrath. In ourselves, I
say: but the merciful God has not

vened the neuter is more natural ;
and that the word waparrapacty was
principally present to the Apostle’s
mind is shown by the omission of kat
rais dpaprias when the phrase is
repeated. The change from mepira-
rety t0 avaorpéepecbat (on these syno-
nyms see the note on . 2) does not
help to justify the supposed change
in the meaning of the preposition: for
dvactpépecOar and dvactpod are
frequently followed by év to denote
condition or circumstances,

For the working out of the parallel,
compare} i1I,13év@ Kat exnpadOnper...
év 6 kat Upeis, and ii 21, 22 év @ Traca
ofkodops}...ev @ kat tpeis ovorxodop-

lef{ us to ourselves. Dead as we
were, Gentiles and Jews alike, He
has quickened us with Christ,—Grace,
free grace, has saved you !—and raised.
us with Him, and seated us with Him
in the heavenly sphere: and all this,
in Christ Jesus, For His purpose has
been to display to the ages that are
yet to come the surpassing wealth of
His grace, in the goodness shewn
toward us in Christ Jesus’.

3. &v ois Kal nueis] ‘wherein we
also’: so the Latin ‘in guibus’ as in
v. 2, not ‘inter quos’. At first sight
it seems as though éy ois must be
rendered as ‘among whom’, ic.
‘among the sons of disobedience’,
But the parallel which the Apostle is
drawing is brought out more forcibly
by the rendering ‘wherein’. Thus
we have (2. 1) das dvras vexpous Tots
Tapamrépacw kal tats dpaprias tar,
év ais wore mepuerarhoare.. (0. 3) &v ois
kal tpeis mavres dveorpadnpéy more..
(2. 5) kal dvras nuas vexpovs Trois mrapa-
wrépacv. That the relative is in the
first instance in the feminine is merely

due to the proximity of duaprias.

After the sentence which has inter-

<ixbe. In the- present instance the
parallel is yet further developed by
the correspondence of éy rots viois rijs
dreias (v. 2) and ifueba réxva pice
opyiis (0 3).

ev tais émibupias] The preposition
here has the same sense as in the
phrase év ofs x.7.A.3 80 that the latter
of the two phrases is to be regarded
as an expansion of the former.

Ta Gedrjpara] The plural is found
in Acts xiii 22, and as a variant in
Mark iii 35.

Toy Siavordr] ‘our minds’. With
this and with ris capes we must supply
jpev, which was used with rijs oapKos
at its first mention and therefore is
not repeated. For the rendering
‘thoughts’ no parallel is to be found
in the New Testament. In Luke i 51
didvoia xapdias avréy means strictly
‘the mind of their heart’; -comp,
1 Chron. xxix 18. In the Lxx we
usually find xapSia as the rendering
of 25 (225) 3 but 38 times we have
dedvoxa, which is only very exceptionally
used to represent any other word.
That the plural is used only in the
ease of diavoidy is due to the impos-

156 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [Il 4-8

dpyis ws Kat oi Nowol: 46 Sé Oeds mAOVotOs wy év érEEL,
Sia THY wOAAHY ayarny avrou iv yyarnoey tuas, Sxai
évTas ius vexpovs Tots TapaTTépacw cuveCworoingey
TO XploTs,—yapiti dare TeTwo pévoli— Kal TuvHyEipEv
kat ouvexdOioev év Tots éroupaviows év Xpiote “Inood,
Tiva évdelEnra év Tots ai@ow Tois émepyopuevots TO
UmepBadAoy WAOUTOS THs XapLTOS auTou év XONTTOTHTL

ép nuas év Xpiore@ “Inood.

8_- A / a
TH yap xapiTi ETE TETW-

, \ , ~ lod . ~ A
opevor ia wicrews: Kal TovTO ovK EF Udy, Oeot Td

sibility of saying réy capxav in sucha
context,
réxva...opyijs| In Hebraistic phrases
of this kind réxva and viol are used
indifferently as representatives of ‘32:
compare ii 2, v 8.
é dice] ‘by nature’, in the sense of
“in ourselves’, Other examples of

‘this adverbial use_ are_Rom._ii_14—¢pyjv,— where—it—is—suggested— bya

Grav yap eOvn...pices Ta TOU Vopov
‘modo, Gal. ii 15 ripeis ices "Iov-
daior, iv 8 rois hice: py otoew Ocois.

5. cuvefworoinoey] The word oc-
curs only here and in Col. ii 13,
cuvefworoinoe pas ovv air. The
thought there expressed makes it
plain that +6 ypiorg@ is the right
reading here, and not év r@ xpwrTd,
as is found in B and some other
authorities. The mistake has arisen
from a dittography of en.

xdpirt] In pointed or proverbial
expressions the article is by preference
omitted. When the phrase, which is
here suddenly interjected, is taken up

again and dwelt upon in 2. 8, we have
TH yep xapere KT,

6. aurijyeiper kat ovverddicer] i. @.,
‘together with Christ’, as in the case
of cuveCworoinoey just before. So in
Col. ii 12, cvvrapérres air@...cuvnyép-
Onre. The compound verbs echo the
éyeipas and xadicas of i 20.

év rois émovpaviots] Compare i 3,
20. This completes the parallel with
. the exaltation of Christ. *Ev Xpurd
"Incov is added, as ev Xpiors in i 3,

although ody Xpior@ is implied by the
preceding verbs: for év Xptorg "Incod
states the relation in the completest:
form, and accordingly the Apostle
repeats it again and again (vz. 7, Io).
7. évoeiénrat] ‘shew forth’, The
word is similarly used in Rom. ix 22
ei d¢ Oéddkwov 6 Geds evdcigacbas riv

citation in v. 17 of Hx. ix 16 éras

evdetEopar ev ool ry Suvaply pov.
xpnorérnt:] ‘kindness’, or ‘ good-

ness’, The word is used of the Divine

‘kindness in Rom. ii 4 rot wAovrov rijs

Xpnorornros avdrod, and in Rom. xi 22,
where it is contrasted with dmoropia:
also in Tit. iii 4, where it is linked
with @itavOperia: compare also Luke
vi 35 Ore avrés xpnords eorw K.T.d.
8—10. ‘Grace, I say, free grace has
saved you, grace responded to by
faith. It is not from yourselves that
this salvation comes: itis a gift, and
the gift is God’s. Merit has no part
in it: boasting is excluded. Itis He
that hath madeus, and not weoufselves:
He has created us afresh in Christ
Jesus, that we may do good works
which He has made ready for our
doing. Not of works, but unto works,
is the Divine order of our salvation’.
8. xat rotro] ‘and that’, as in
Rom, xiii 11 kai rovro elddres roy
xaipév. It is a resumptive expression,
independent of the construction. It
may be pleaded that, as 3:4 mwiorews
is an important element, added to the

- IT 9—11]

m~ pn? 2 af A ; aa
Swipov %ovK é& Epywv, iva ur Tis Kavynonrat.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

157

1° auTOU

4 ~ ~ 4
yep éo-pev roinua, krioOévres év Xpirrg "Inoov émt
Epryots dyabois ois mponroiuarer « 6 Oeds tva &v airois

TEPLT ATO WILEY.

™ Ato pevneovevere STt wore Upsets Ta €Oyn év oapKi,

phrase of 2. 5 when that phrase is re-
peated, cai rotro should be interpreted
as specially referring to iors. The
difference of gender is not fatal to

such aview: but the context demands °

the wider reference ; more especially
the phrase ovk« é& épyov shews that
the subject of the clause is not ‘faith’,
but ‘salvation by grace’.

Oceov rd Sépov] Literally ‘God's is
the gift’, Geos being the predicate.
But this is somewhat harsh as a
rendering; and the sense is sufficiently
_ given in our English version: ‘it is

r1—18,. ‘Remember what you
were: you, the Gentiles—since we
must speak of distinctions in the
flesh—the Uncircumcision as opposed
to the Circumcision. Then, when
you were without Christ, you were
aliens and foreigners; you had no
share in the privileges of Israel; you
were in the world with no hope, no
God, Now all is changed: for you
are in Christ Jesus: and accordingly,

- though you were far off, you are made

near by the covenant-blood of Christ.
For it is He who is our peace. He

the gift of Goa’.

10. moinpa] The word occurs
again in the New Testament only in
Rom. i 20 trois rompacw voodpeva
xafopara. We have no single word
which quite suitably renders it:
‘workmanship’ is a little unfortunate,
as suggesting a play upon ‘works’,
which does not exist in the Greek.

ent épyots adyabois] ‘with a view to
good works’, Compare 1 Thess. iv 7
ov yap exadecev nyas 6 eds él adxabap-
aia, and Gal. v 13 dpeis yap er ehevdepia
eKAqOnre. See also Wisd. ii 23 6 Oeds
ekruvev Tov dyOpamov er apbapaia,
Ep. ad Diognet. 7 TOUTOY Tpos avTovs
dréorethev® dpa ye, os dvOparray av tis
Aoyioflro, emt ruparvids cai GéBo xab
katanAnéer; The interval between this
usage and the idiom by which ém with
a dative gives the condition of a
transaction is bridged by such a phrase
as we find, for example, in Xenoph.
Memorab. i 44 mpémet per Ta er
aerela yryvépeva yvdpns eivat épya.

ols mponroipacer | by attraction for
a. mponroipacey, The verb is found i in
Rom. ix 23, émt oxetn édéous, & mpo-
yroipacev eis Sd€av,

has made the two parts one whole.
He has broken down the balustrade
that was erected to keep us asunder:
He has ended in His own person the
hostility that it symbolised: He has
abrogated the legal code of separating
ordinances, For His purpose was by
a new creation to make the two men
one man in Himself; and so not only ©
to make peace between the two, but
to reconcile both in one body to God
through the cross, by which He killed
the old hostility. And He came with
the Gospel of peace—peace to far and

near alike: not only making the two

near to each other, but giving them
both in one Spirit’ access to the
Father’.

11, tpets ra €Ovy] The term ‘Gen-
tiles’, which has been implied in dpeis
so often before, is now for the first
time expressly used. In an instructive
article On some political terms em-
ployed in the New Testament (Class.
Rev. vol. i pp. 4 ff, 42 ff.) Canon E. L,
Hicks says (p. 42): ‘’EOvos, the corre-
lative of Aacs in the mouth of Hellen-
istic Jews, was a word that never had
any importance as a political term

158

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. .

[Ih

e 4 3 : / ¢ A ~ , ~
ot Aevyouevot dxpoBvatia vo THs NEyouEVNS TEPLTOLNS

. 7: ed 5 ~ ie 9 .
év capkl yeporromTov,—"dTt Te TH Kalp@ éxelvy
. “~ . / ~ : “~
xwpis Xpirroi drnddoTpiwpevor tis moTElas TOU

until after Alexander. It was when
‘Hellenism pushed on eastward, and
the policy of Alexander and his suc-
cessors founded cities as outposts of
trade and civilization, that the con-
‘trast was felt and expressed between
modes and é6yy, Hellenic life found
its normal type in the mdéA:s, and
barbarians who lived xara xépas or in
some less organised form were €@yn’.
He refers to Droysen Hellenismus
iii 1, pp. 31f. for illustrations, and
mentions among others Polybius vii 9,
where modes and é6vy are repeatedly
contrasted. The word @@vy was thus
ready to hand when the Lxx came to
express the invidious sense of D4,

tis Aeyonémys] This is directly
suggested by of Aeydpevor. The Apostle —
may have intended to suggest that
he himself repudiated both terms
alike. In Rom. ii 28 f. he refuses to
recognise the mere outward sign of
circumcision: ovdé 7 ev 7G Pavep@ ev
capki meptropy *dAAG...meprropi Kapdias
€y mvevpari, ov ypaupart, He thus
claims the word, as it were, for higher
uses; as he says of the Gentiles them-
selves in Col. ii 11, wepterpyOnre wept-
TOLH AXELPOTOLTO...€V TH WEptTopy TOU
Xprorov.

xetporoujrov] This is the only place
where this word occurs in St Paul’s
epistles. But we have dyecporoinros in

which-is-found-so-commonly -in-Deu-
_ teronomy, the Psalms and the Pro-
phets. It is curious that, while St
Paul freely employs ¢6vn, he never
uses the contrasted term dads, except
where he is directly referring to a
passage of the Old Testament.

év capxi] The addition of these
words suggests the external and tem-
porary nature of the distinction. For
their position after ra %6vy see the
note on i315. Here it was perhaps
unavoidable: for ra éy capxi vy or
ra €6vn Ta év capxi would suggest the

existence of another class of 26vn:

whereas the meaning is ‘those who
are the Gentiles according to a dis-
tinction which is in the flesh’.
larly we have ris Aeyouévys meptrouijs
év capki.

of Aeyouevar] ‘which are called’.
The phrase is not depreciatory, as
‘the so-called’ would be in English.
The Jews called themselves 7 repi-
rouy, and called the Gentiles 7 dxpo-
Bvoria, St Paul does not here use
the latter name, which was one of
contempt; but he cites it as used
by others.

Simi- |

2 Cor-v I oikiay axeiporoinroy aidvioy
év rots ovpavois, and in Col. ii 11
(quoted above). It serves to empha-
sise the transience of the distinction,
though it casts no doubt on the validity

"of it while it lasted.

12, xapis) ‘without’, or ‘apart
From’. St Paul does not use avev,
which is found only in Matt. x 29
dev tov matpbs por, in an inter-
polation into Mark xiii 2 dvev yeipar,
and twice in 1 Peter, where yapis is
not used, It is usual to take ywpis
Xpiorod as a predicate and to place a
comma after it. This is perfectly
permissible: but the parallel between
TG Kap éxeivp xwpis Xpirrod and vurt
d€ év Xptor@ Incod makes it preferable
to regard the words as the condition
which leads up to the predicates which
follow.

amrn\doTptopévor| The Apostle seems
to have in mind Ps. lxviii (Ixix) 9 dayA-
Aorprwapevos eyeryOny CMT WAND) rois
adeAdois pov, xal Eévos rots viois rijs
pnrpés pov. This will account for his .
choice of a word which does not appear .
to be a term of Greek civic life. Its
ordinary use is either of the alienation

II 13] |

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

159°

. yf ~ ~ ~ : , .
lapand Kal Eévor trav SiaOyxey Tis érayyeAtas, éArida
. AL of - bs) xO 3. a / 13 de 9 X a“
pay Exovres kal dco dv TH Kdcuw. *vuvi be év Xpiora

of property, or of alienation of feeling :
the latter sense prevails in Col. i 21, xat
vas wore ovras amnAdorpiwpévous Kat
éxOpovs +7 Stavoig......dmoxaryAdager,
where estrangement from God is in
question. The participial sense is
not to be pressed: strictly speaking
the Gentiles could not have been alien-
ated from the sacred commonwealth
of which they had never been members.
The word is used almost as a noun,
as may be seen from its construction
with dvres in iv 18 and in Col. i 21.
So too here we have drt Fre...dmnd-
Aorpr@pévor...xai Eévor. It thus scarcely
differs from dAdérpios: comp. Clem.
Rom. 7, of the Ninevites, €Aa8ov cory-
piay, kaimep GAXdrpiot Tod Oeod dvres.

montretas] ‘commonwealth’, or
© nolity’.
where the word occurs in the New
Testament, Acts xxii 28, it is used of
the Roman citizenship. In later
Greek it was commonly used for
“manner of life’; compare sroAcrev-
eo6a, and see the note on sepurareiv
in iiz. In this sense it is taken here
by the Latin version, which renders
it by ‘conuersatio’, But the contrast
in v. 19 (cuvrrodira:) is decisive against
this view.

&évo.] The use of vos with a
genitive is not common: Soph. Qed.
Rex 219f. and Plato Apol. 1 (févas
gyev) are cited. Here the construc-
tion is no doubt suggested by the
genitive after dzy\Aorpiopévor. In
Clem. Rom. 1 we have a dative, rijs
te dAdorpias kai Eévys rots éxdexrois
‘Tov Oeod, papas Kat avociov oTdcews :
on which Lightfoot cites Clem. Hom.
‘vi 14 os dAnOelas ddAorpiav ovcav Kat
&évnv. In the papyrus of 348 aD,
cited above on i 11, the sister who
has taken the Al6os otroxémrys as her
share of the inheritance declares that
she has no claim whatever on the
orTadertk}) pnxary: ‘hereby I admit

that I have no share in the aforesaid
grinding-machine, but am a stranger
and alien therefrom (dAAd gévoy pe
eivat Kai dAXOrptoy avris)’.

rav Siabyxav) The plural is found
also in Rom, ix 4 @y...al diabjKar.
For the covenant with Abraham, see

- Gen. xvii 7; for the covenant with

the People under Moses, seo Exod.
xxiv 8.

tis érayyeAias] Comp. i 13 and
iii 6, where the Gentiles are declared
to share in the Promise through
Christ.

éArrida pj Exovres] Thesame phrase,
in a more restricted sense, occurs in
1.Thess. iv. 13 xa@ds kat of Aourol of pi
Zyovres eAmida. Christ as ‘the hope’
of the Gentiles was foretold by the

In—the—only—other—place — prophets (Isa. xi 10, xlii_4; comp.

Rom. xv 12 and Matt. xii 21), and was
the ‘secret’ or ‘mystery’ entrusted
to St Paul (Col. i 27).

&cor.] The word does not occur
elsewhere in the whole of the Greek
Bible. It is used here not as a term
of reproach, but as marking the
mournful climax of Gentile disability.

“év t@ kop] These words are not
to be taken as a separate item in the
description: but yet they are not
otiose. They belong to the two pre-
ceding terms. The Gentiles were in
the world without a hope and with no
God: in the world, that is, with no-
thing to lift them above its material-
ising influences,

St Paul uses the word xocpos with
various shades of meaning. The fun-
damental conception is that of the
outward _order_of things, considered
more especially in relation to man...
It is rarely found without any moral
reference, as in phrases of time, Rom.
i 20, Eph. i 4, or of place, Rom. i 8,
Col. i 6. But the moral reference is
often quite a general one, with no
suggestion of evil: asin 1 Cor. vii 31

160

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[IT 14

3 o e ~ 4 of . ’ .. 16. 2 ‘ 3
Incot vUpets ot. more dvTes maxpan éyernOnre erryc ey.

~ 14 ~ ~
T@ aivate Tov xptoToU.

\ / >
“4auTOs yao éorw H ciprinu

~ 4 / a A / ~
MOV, 6 Tomoas Ta duporepa ev Kal TO pEeaOTOLYOV TOU

Xpepsvor rov Koopov, 2 Cor. i 12 dve-
orpddnpey €v TO Koopa, Tepircorépas
bé m@pos pas. In the phrase é 6 Koopos

ovros there is however a suggestion.

of opposition to the true order: see
the note on i 21. Again, xoopos is
used of the whole world of men in
contrast with the elect people of
Israel, Rom. iv .13, xi 12, 15. The
world, as in opposition to God, falls
under the Divine judgment, Rom. iii
6, 19, I Cor. xi 32: ‘the saints shall
judge the world’, 1 Cor. vi 2. Yet
the world finds reconciliation with
God in Christ, 2 Cor. v 19. In three
passages St Paul uses the remarkable
expression ra orowyeia Tov Koopov, Of

world-forces-which-held-men-in-bond-—epiBéBrynro-AlOtvos; rpimnyus-_pev tos;

age until they were delivered by
Christ, Gal. iv 3, Col. ii 8, 20. In
the last of these passages the expres-
sion is followed by a phrase which is
parallel to that of our text, ri as
(avres ev xdop@ Soypariferbe; Limi-
tation to the world was the hopeless
and godless lot of the Gentiles apart
from Christ.

13. paxpay...éyyis}] These words,
and eipyvn in the next verse, are from
Isa. lvii 19: see below, 2. 17.

év TO aipart] Compare Col. i 20
elpqvoroujoas da Tod aiparos rod orav-
pov avrod.

14. avrés| He, in His own person;
compare év aura, 0. 15.

7a dppérepa évy| Below we have
rovs dvo...cis va &vOpwmoy (v. 15), and
Tous ducorépous (v. 16). Comp. 1 Cor.
iii 8 6 Quredov kat 6 Tori¢wy éy ciow:
and, on the other hand, Gal. iii 28
mavres yap vueis eis ore ev Xporg
*Incod. At first the Apostle is con-
tent to speak of Jew and Gentile as
the two parts which are combined
into one whole: in the sequel he
prefers to regard them as two men,

made by a fresh act of creation into
one new man. .

T6 pecdroryoyv] The only parallel to
this word appears to be 6 peaérotxyos
in a passage of Eratosthenes (apud
Athen. vii 14, p. 281 D), in which he
says of Aristo the Stoic, 76n d€ wore
kat Tobroy mepdipaxa Tov Tis ioovijs
Kal aperijs peadrotyov Stopurrovra, Kat
dvachatyopevoy mapa TH HOov7.

tov dpaypov} ‘the fence’, or ‘the
partition’, The allusion is to the
Spvdaxros or balustrade inthe Temple, |
which marked the limit to which a
Gentile might advance. Compare
Joseph. B. J. Vv 5 2 dia rovrov mpor

évrov emi rd Sevrepov iepov Spiaxros

navy. 8€ xaptévras Stetpyacpévos: ev
atr@ Oe ciorjecay €& toov Siacrjparos
oriAa roy THS ayvelas mpoonpalvoveat
voor, ai pev “EAAnvixois ai de ‘ Poparxois
yedupacry, pydéva Gddogurov € évrés Tov
dyiou waptévars ro yap Oevrepor i iepov
dywoy éxadeiro, , One of these inscrip-

‘tions was discovered by M. Clermont

Ganneau in May 1871. Owing to the
troubles in Paris he announced his
discovery in a letter to the Athe-
nacum, and afterwards published a
full discussion, accompanied by a fac-
simile, in the Revue Archéologique
1872, vol. xxiii pp. 214 ff, 2090 ff
The inscription, which is now at Con-
stantinople, runs as follows :

MHOENAAAAOTENHEISTIO
PEYEZOAIENTOSTOYTIE
PITOIEPONTPY®AKTOYKAI ©
TTEPIBOAOYOZAANAH
POHEAYTOIAITIOZES
TAIAIATOE=AKOAOY
OEINOANATON

Further references to this barrier
are found in Joseph. Anti. xv 11 5
(épxiov Arivov Spupdkrou ypadh_ Ko-~

II 15, 16]
lo! / \
payyuot Avoas, ™ Thy
yomov Taév évToAMy év
duo xrion év aire eis

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

161

éyOpay év TH TapKt abroii TOV
doymacw KaTapynoas, iva Tous
éva xawov &vOpwrov trowy cipn-

2 ‘ f > \ ,
vnv, Kal droxatahAdén Tous duorepous év évi gwmaTe

Adov eiorévat Tov dAdoebv_y OavariKijs
areoupéns tis Cyplas), B. J. vi 2 4:
comp. Philo Leg. ad Caium 31 (M. 1
577). Past this barrier it was sup-
posed that St Paul had brought
‘Trophimus the Ephesian (ay évdpifov
bre els TO iepdv eioyyayey 6 Iavdos),
Acts xxi 29.
Avoas] In the literal sense caradvewv
is more common: but we have the
(staple - verb in John ii 19 Adare rép
yaov TourTov,
15. ryv &yOpay] If these words be
taken with Adcas, a metaphorical sense
must be attributed to the participle, as

an objection, though not a fatal one,
to such a construction. It is in any
case simpler to take ray ¢yOpay with
katapyyoas, although that verb is
chosen by an afterthought as speci-
ally applicable to roy vépnov x7.A. The

s Sense remains the same whichever
construction is adopted. The barrier
in the Temple court, the hostility
between Jew and Gentile, and ‘the
law of commandments’ (limited as
the term is by the defining phrase év
ddypactv) are parallel descriptions of
the separation which was done away
in Christ.

It has been suggested that TH
éxdpay év Th capri avrod is closely
parallel to dmoxreivas ri %yOpay év
avr@ (sic) in v. 16; and that the
Apostle had intended to write
droxreivas in the former place, but
was led away into an explanatory
digression, and took up his phrase
later on by a repetition. This may
be a true explanation, so far as the
intention of the writer is concerned :
but as a matter of fact he has left ry
€xOpav at its earlier mention to be

EPHES.?

governed by one of the other parti-
ciples, presumably by xarapyjoas.

év TH capki avrov] Compare Col.
i 21, 22 yori bé droxarphhdyqnre ev TO
odpare ris capkos avrod dia rod Bavd-
Tov [avrod].

rov voyov] In Rom, iii 31 the
Apostle refuses to use xarapyeiy of
rov vopov, although he is willing to say
katnpynOnpev amo rov vouxov in Rom,
vii 6. Here however he twice limits
Tov vonoy, and then employs the word
xarapyjoas. It is asa code of mani-
fold precepts, expressed in definite
ordinances, that he declares it to have —

well_as—the—literal—_This-in— ~itself—is —been- annulled.

év Séynaow] The word is used of
imperial decrees, Luke ii 1, Acts xvii
7; and of the ordinances decreed by
the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem,
Acts xvi 4. Its use here is parallel
to that in Col. ii 14, é£adeivas 76 Kad”
mpOv xetpoypahov tois Soyyacw : see
Lightfoot’s note on the meaning of
the word, and on the strange mis-
interpretation of the Greek commen-
tators, who took it in both passages
of the ‘doctrines or precepts of the
Gospel’ by which the law was abro-
gated. Comp. also Col. ii 20 (doy-
pariverGe).

ktion] Compare 2. 10 xriobevres ev
XptorS "Incod, and iv 24 roy Kawwor-
avOperoy toy Kara Gedy KrioOévra.

év airo] ‘in Himself”. The earlier-
Mss have aytw, the later for the.
most part eaytw. Whether we write:
ait@ or avrg, the sense is undoubtedly
reflexive. See Lightfoot’s note on
Col. i 20,

16. droxara\Ad&y] On the double
compound see Lightfoot’s note on
Col. i 20,

162

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

(II 17—19

~ ~ fel “~ of
vo Bed Sia Tod oTavpov, amoKTeivas THY ExOpay év

aura’

MOAKPAN KA EIDHNHN TOIC érryc’

kal éAOwv efurredicato eipHNHN Uuly Toic

ld oa sf
Bort O¢ avToU Exo-

\ \ ? / 4
Mev THY TeoTaywynv ot duorepor év évt TvEUpATL TPOS

TOV WATépa.
év avr@] This may be rendered
either ‘thereby’, i.e. by the cross, or
‘in Himself’. The latter is the inter-
pretation of the Latin, ‘in semetipso’.
Jerome, who is probably following an
interpretation of Origen’s, says (Val-
lars, vii 581): ‘Zn ea: non ut in
Latinis codicibus habetur in semet-
ipso, propter Graeci pronominis am-
biguitatem: éy air@ enim et in
semetipso et in ea, id est cruce,
intelligi potest, quia crux, id est
oravpés, iuxta Graecos generis mas-
culini est’.

> 4 A 7 4 /
doa ovv ovKert éore Eévot Kal Tapolkot,

sO in Rom, V 2, O¢ od Kal ri mpora~
yoy eoxrnapev [rq miore| els thy
xapw TaUTqY : and, absolutely, i in Eph.
iii 12 & Exopev Ty mappyoiay Kat
mpocaywyyy ev merobyoe, The last
passage is decisive against the alter-
native rendering ‘introduction’, not-
withstanding the parallel i in 1 Pet. iii
18 @ ba Spas mpocaydyn TO Ged.

éy evi mvevpare) The close paral-
Jelism between rovs duorépous € év evi
odpare TO Oe@ (2. 16) and of dppérepot
éy evi meipare mpos roy marépa shews
that the é avetpa is that which cor-

The-interpretation ‘thereby’ would
be impossible if, as some suppose, d:a
Tov atavpov is to be taken with dzo-
kreivas: but that this is not the
natural construction is shewn by the
parallel in Col. i 22 vuvi dé dwoxarad-
Adyyre...0ca rod Oavdrov [adrod|, comp.
Col. i 20. Hither interpretation is
accordingly admissible. In favour of
the second may be urged the avros of
v. 14 and the év aira of 7 15. On
the suggested parallel with ey rj
capi avrod see the note on v.15.

17. evnyyedioarox.r.A.] The Apostle
illustrates and enforces his argument
by selecting words from two prophetic
passages, to one of which he has
already alluded in passing : Isa, iii 75
ws apa én rév opéov, Gs modes evay-
yerulopuévoy dxonp eipyyns, ds evayyeds-
(ouevos ayaa: lvii 19, elpyyyy én’
eipyyny Tois paxpav kal Tois éyyus
otow, The first of these is quoted
(somewhat differently) in Rom. x 15,
and alluded to again in this epistle,
vi 15. The second is alluded to by
St Peter on the day of Pentecost,
Acts ii 39.

18. ri mpocaywyjv] ‘our access’:

responds to the éy capa, a8 in iv 4.
That the ‘one spirit’ is ultimately
indistinguishable from the personal
Holy Spirit.is true, just in the same
way that the ‘one body’ is indistin-
guishable from the Body of Christ:
but we could not in either case sub-
stitute one term for the other with-
out obscuring the Apostle’s meaning.

19—22. ‘You are, then, no longer
foreigners resident on sufferance only.
You are full citizens of the sacred
commonwealth : you are God’s own,
the sons of His house. Nay, you are
constituent parts of the house that is
in building, of which Christ’s apostles
and prophets are the foundation, and
Himself the predicted corner-stone.
In Him all that is builded is fitted
and morticed into unity, and is grow-
ing into a holy temple in the Lord.
In Him you too are being builded in
with us, to form a dwellingplace of
God in the Spirit’.

19. mapotxot] The technical distinc-
tion between the &évos and the xdpat-
kos is that the latter has acquired by
the payment of a tax certain limited
rights, But both alike are non-citi-

——found—in—Josephus—C4.ntéxix—2-2),

II. 20]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

163

idAd éore cuvroNirat Twv dyiwy Kal oixetot TOU Oeou,
20 3 } Ge 3 4 ~ @ , ~ 3 7 \
°° €vroukodopnlertes. Et TH Cepediw Twv adrooToAwY Kat
: i ~.. f : : lo) “ ~
mpopnTav, OVvTos dxpoywnaiov aitot Xpirrov Inco,

zens, Which is St Paul’s point here.
So the Christians themselves, in
relation to the world, are spoken of in
1 Pet. ii 11, from Ps. xxxviii (xxxix)
13, 88 maporxos kal maperidnpo: and
this language was widely adopted,
see Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. pref. For
mapotxos and its equivalent peérotkos
see H. L. Hicks in Class. Rev. i 5f,,
Deissmann Neue Bibelst. pp. 54 f.
cuvroNira] The word was objected
to by the Atticists: comp. Pollux iii
51 6 yap ovproXirns ov Soxtpor, ei Kat
Evpuridns adtg@ xéxpynrar éy “Hpaxdei-
das re Kat Onoet (Heracleid. 826, in
the speech of the @epdroy). It is

and in inscriptions and papyri (Berl.
Pap. i 632, 9, 2nd cent, A.D.).
tév ayiov| See the note on i 1.
The thought here is specially, if not
exclusively, of the holy People whose
privileges they have come to share,
oixetot] Otkeios is the formal oppo-
site of d\Adrpios: ‘one’s own’ in con-
trast to‘ another’s’: comp. Arist. Rhet.
157 rod S€é oixeta eivas 7 wy (dpos
éoriv), drav ef avt@ 7 dmaddotpidoa.
The word has various meanings, all
derived from oixos in the sense of
‘household’ or ‘family’. When used
-of persons it means ‘of one’s family’,
strictly of kinsmen, sometimes loose-
ly of familiar friends: then more
generally ‘devoted to’, or even ‘ac-
quainted with’, eg. pirocodias. In
- St Paul the word has a strong sense :
see Gal. vi 10 pdXtora 8€ mpis rods
oixelous ris miorews, and I Tim. v 8
tov idlov Kat padtora oixelwy (comp.
®. 4 Tov idtoy oikov evoreBeiv).

20. émoxodopnbévres] The word oi-
xos underlying olxeio: at once suggests
to the Apostle one of his favourite
metaphors. From the oikos, playing
on its double meaning, he passes to

the oixodop7. Apart from this sug-
gestion the abruptness of the intro-
duction of the metaphor, which is
considerably elaborated, would be
very strange,

éxi 7@ Oepedig|] This corresponds
with the éi of the verb, which itself
signifies ‘to build upon’: compare
1 Cor. iii I0 ds cots dpyxiréxtay
Oepédvov EOnxa, dAdos S€ ezrotxodopel,
In that passage Jesus Christ is said
to be the Oeuédios. Here the meta-
phor is differently handled; and the
Christian teachers are not the build-
ers, but themselves the foundation of
the building.
mpopnrav| that—is, prophets of the
Christian Church. There can be no

‘doubt that this is the Apostle’s mean-

ing. Not only does the order ‘apostles
and prophets’ point in this direction ;
but a few verses lower down (iii 5) the
phrase is repeated, and in iv 11 we
have rovs pév admoordXous, tors de
mpoyras, Tovs dé evayyeAtoTds, K.T.A.,
where Old Testament prophets are
obviously out of the question. That
Origen and Chrysostom suppose that
the latter are here intended is a proof
of the oblivion into which the activity.
of the prophets in the early Church
had already fallen.
dxkpoyouaiov] The word is taken
from the xx of Isa. xxviii 16, where
it comes in connexion with 6epédza.
The Hebrew of this passage is ID’
Spi map’ Mp yma HON ON yyy.
“Di, ‘I lay as a foundation in Sion
a stone, a stone of proof, a precious
corner stone of a founded foundation’.
The uxx rendering is "Idot éyd ép-
Bad. eis ta OepAdca Sedv didov
mwonureAy ekAexrov dxpoyaviaiov evripoy,
eis ra Oepédua airs. It is plain that
dxpoyemaioy corresponds to i735,
whether we regard it as masculine

rII—2

164

ax ey w

(sc. Af6ov), or as a neuter substantive ;
see Hort’s note on 1 Pet. ii 6, where
the passage is quoted. In Job
xxxviii 6 Aidos youatos stands for
M2 JAN: in Jer. xxviii (li) 26 Aidos
eis yoviav for 1352 JAN: and in Ps,
‘exvii (exw) 22 eis kepadny.yavias for
26 Yin. In the last of these places
Symmachus had dkpoywmaios, as he
had also for n°N5, ‘chapiter’, in
2 Kings xxv 17. In Ps. exliii (cxliv)
12 Aquila had os érydma for M13,
‘ ©as corners’ or ‘ corner-stones’.
*Axpoyoraios is not found again
apart from allusions to the biblical
passages. The Attic word is yoraios,
which is found in a series of inscrip-
tions containing contracts for stones
for the temple buildings at Eleusis
(CTA iv 10540 ff.): eg. kat érépous

(AiOous) yonaiovs e& mod[dv] a[avra-

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[II 21

“A 3 \ / af ‘4 A
waa oikodouyn Tvvappodoyoupern avEet eis vaov

corner-stone’) both here and in

1 Pet. ii 6; though in Isa. xxviii 16 we

have ‘corner stone’, Neither the

Hebrew nor the Greek affords any

justification for the rendering ‘chief
corner-stone’. *Axpoywriaios stands to

youaios a8 én’ dxpas yovlas stands to

eri ywvias: the first part of the com-

pound merely heightens the second.

' 21. waoa oixodopy] ‘all (the) build-

ing’, not ‘each several building’. The

diffeulty which is presented by the

absence of the article (see the note

on various readings) is removed when

we bear in mind that St Paul” is_
speaking not of the building as com-

pleted, ie. ‘the edifice’, but of the

building as still ‘growing’ towards

completion, The whole edifice could

not be said to ‘grow’: but such an

expression is legitimate: enough if

xe] Ovo (1054¢, 1 83): also, in an
order for ra émikpava rév Kiovev Tav
eis TO mwpoor@ov To *Edevoin, it is
stipulated that 12 are to be of certain
dimensions, ra S¢ ywrata dvo are to
be of the same height, but of greater
length and breadth (comp. Herm.
Sim. ix 2 3 nixr@ Se tijs mvAns éory-
kewoav trapGévot Sadexa* ai oy & ai eis
Tas yovias éorykviat évdokdrepai por
éddxovy elvas: they are spoken of in
15.148 ioyupérepa).. In Dion. Hal.
lii 22 the Pila Horatia in the Forum
is spoken of a8 7 yonaia otuXis.
But, of course, in none of these in-
stances have we the corner-stone
proper, which is an Eastern concep-
tion. That even for a late Christian
writer yoraios was the more natural
word may be gathered from a com-
ment of Theodore of Heraclea (Cor-
derius im Psalm. cxvii 22, p. 345),
Kara Tov youaiov Aidovy ra éxdrepov
ovyKpotay Teixos. oS
The earlier Latin rendering was
‘angularis lapis’ (d.g, Ambrst., and
so Jerome in some places): the later,
‘summus angularis lapis’, which
has been followed in the A.V. (‘chief

used of the work in process. This is_
the proper sense of oixodopux, which is |
in its earlier usage an abstract noun, |
but like other abstract nouns has a :
tendency to become concrete, and is
sometimes found, as here, in a kind
of transitional sense. Our own word
‘building’ has just the same range of
meaning: and we might almost
render raca olxodop7 as ‘ all building
that is carried on’.

The word is condemned by Phry-
nichus (Lobeck, p. 421; comp. pp.
487 ff.) as non-Attic: olkodopm ov
Aéyeraey dvr’ adrod dé oixoddunua.
The second part of this judgment
proves that by the middle of the

second century A.D. oixodony Was -

familiar in a concrete sense. The
earliest instances of its use are how-
ever abstract. In the Zabulae Heracl.
(CIST 645, i 146) we have és dé ra
éroixia xpycovras Evdors és ray oiko-~
dopav, A Laconian proverb quoted.
by Suidas (8. v. “Imros) ran: Oixodopa
ae AdBow «7... ‘May you take to
building’—as one of the wasteful
luxuries. In Aristot. Hih. Nic. v 14
(p. 1137 5, 30) we have: dowep kai rijs

—

___ of the building of the Church (Notes

II 21]

AcaBias oixodopis 6 podiBdiwos aver,
where the variant otxodopias gives
the sense, and witnesses to the rarity
of ofko8ou7, which is not elsewhere
found in Aristotle. The concrete
sense seems to appear first in passages

where the plural is used, though even .

in some of these the meaning is
rather ‘building-operations’ than
‘edifices’ (eg. Plut. Lwueull. 39
. oixoSopat roAvredcis). In the txx the
word occurs 17 times. With one or
two possible exceptions, where the
text is uncertain or the sense obscure,
it never means ‘an edifice’, but
always the operation of building.

In St Paul’s epistles ofxodop7 occurs
eleven times (apart from the present

epistle). Nine times it is used in the -

fabstract sense’ of ‘edification’, a
meaning which Lightfoot thinks owes
fits origin to the Apostle’s metaphor

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

165

time in the abstract sense. Apart

from St Paul it is found in the New
' Testament only in Mark xiii 1, 2

(Matt. xxiv 1), where we have the
plural, of the buildings of the temple
(iepov). This is the only certain
instance of the concrete sense (of
finished buildings) to be found in
biblical Greek. °

In the elaborate metaphor of
Ignatius, Ephes. 9, we have the.
abstract use in mponrotpacpevor eis
oixodopyy Oeot marpos, ‘prepared
aforetime for God to build with’. So
too in Hermas, again and again, of
the building of the Tower (Vis. iii 2,
etc.); but the plural is concrete in
Sim. i 1. In Barn. Ep. xvi 1 the
word is perhaps concrete, of the
fabric of the temple as contrasted
with God the builder of a spiritual
temple (eis ryv oixo8opqy FAmioav).
The Latin_rendering is _‘ omnis

on Epp. p. 191). The two remaining
passages give a sense which is either
abstract or transitional, but not
strictly concrete. In 1 Cor. iii 9 the
words Gcod yedpytov, Oeod oixodopy
éore form the point of passage from
the metaphor from agriculture to the
metaphor from architecture. It can
hardly be questioned that yedpycov
here means ‘husbandry’, and not ‘a
field’ (comp. Ecclus. xxvii 6 yedpyrov
EvAov éxpaives 6 Kapmos avrov):
similarly oixodou7 is not the house as
built, but the building regarded as in
process : we might almost say ‘God’s
architecture’ or ‘God’s | structure’,
The Latin rendering is clearly right :
- det agricultura, dei aedificatio estis.
‘The language of the other passage,
2 Cor. v 1, is remarkable: oixodopjy
éx Oeod Eyopev, oixiay dyeporoinroy :
not ‘an edifice coming from God’,
but ‘a building proceeding from God
as builder’. The sense of operation
is strongly felt in the word: the
result of the operation is afterwards
expressed by oixiay dyetporoinroy,
In the present epistle the word comes
again three times (iv 12, 16, 29), each

aedificatio’ (or ‘omnis structura’
Ambrst.), not ‘omne aedificium’.
The Greek commentators, who for
the most part read aca oixodopy, have
no conception that a plurality of
edifices was intended. They do in-
deed suggest that Jew and Gentile
are portions of the building which are
linked together (eis pilav oixodopyy) by
Christ the corner-stone. If, however,
the Apostle had meant to convey this
idea, he would certainly not have
said maoa oixodony in the sense of
wacat al olxodopai, but possibly dudd-
repat ai oixodouai, or something of the
kind,

The nearest representation in Eng-
lish would perhaps be ‘all that is
builded’, ie. whatever building is
being done. But this is practically
the same as ‘ail the building’, which
may accordingly be retained, though
the words have the disadvantage of
being ambiguous if they are severed
from their context. If we allow our-
selves a like freedom with St Paul in
the interweaving of his two metaphors,
we may construct an analogous
sentence thus; & @ maca avfyois

166

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[II 22—III r

af | 2 ? 222 e \ e a by ~ 6, >
avytov €yV KUplO), éyv @ Kat UMELS CDUVOLKOOOMELOUE ets

. A 4
KaTounTypioy Tov Geo év mvevpari.

TIT.

cuvappohoyoupery olkoSopetrat eis copa
rékecov ev xvpio: this would be
fairly rendered as ‘in whom all the
growth is builded’, etc.; nor should
we expect ‘in such a case waoa 7
avénots.

guvappodoyoupery | This compound -

is not found again apart from St Paul.
In iv 16 he applies it to the structure
of the body. There is some authority
in other writers for dppodoyeiv. For
_ the meaning see the detached note.
avée:| Compare Col. ii 19 ater
tiv avéyow tov Geod. Both avéo and
avfave are Attic forms of the present.
The intransitive use of the active is
not found before Aristotle. It pre-
vails in the New Testament, though

A lol
—?tTovrov yaow éyw Tlaidos 6 déoyuos Tov

Ill. i—7. ‘All this impels me
afresh to pray for you. And who am I,
that I should so pray? Paul, the
prisoner of the Christ, His prisoner
for you—you Gentiles, You must
have heard of my peculiar task, of the
dispensation of that grace of God
which has been given me to bring to
you. The Secret has been disclosed
to me by the great Revealer. I have
already said something of it—enough
to let you see that I have knowledge
of the Secret of the Christ. Of old
men knew it not: now it has been
unveiled to the apostles and prophets
of the holy people. The Spirit has
revealed to their spirit the new ex-
tension of privilege. The Gentiles are

we have the transitive use_in_1_Cor.—co-heirs, concorporate, co-partakers of.

ii 6f., 2 Cor. ix ro.

22. karounrypwov| In the New
Testament this word comes again
only-in Apoc. xviii 2 karosknrypiov
Saipovier (comp. Jer. ix I1 es karotxy-
thptov Spaxoyrwy). It is found in the
uxx, together with xaro:xia, xarolknots
and xarotxecia, for a habitation of any
sort; but in a considerable group of
passages. it is used of the Divine
dwelling-place, whether that is con-
ceived of as on earth or in heaven.
Thus the phrase ¢roipov xarounrinpidy
cov comes in Exod. xv 17, and three
times in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kings
viii, 2 Chron. vi): comp Ps. xxxii
(xxxiii) 14. These Old Testament
associations fitted it to stand as the
climax of the present passage.

év wvetpari] The Gentiles are builded
along with the Jews to form a dwell-
ing-place for God ‘in (the) Spirit’.
This stands in contrast with their

separation one from the other ‘in

(the) flesh’, on which stress is laid at
the outset of this passage, 7. 11 ra
Em ev gapi., THs Aeyouerns mepcrouiis
év oapet.

the Promise. This new position has
become theirs in Christ Jesus through
the Gospel which I was appointed to
serve, in accordance with the gift of
that grace, of which I have spoken,
which has been given to me in all the

‘ fulness of God’s power,’

i. Tovrov yapw] Theactual phrase
occurs again only in 2. 14, where it
marks the resumption of this sentence,
and in Tit.i5. We have ov xdpev in
Luke vii 47, and ydpu rivos in 1 John
iii 12. In the Old Testament we
find rovrov (yap) ydpw in Prov.
xvii 17, 1 Macc. xii 45, xiii 4. .

éy® Tlatdos} For the emphatic
introduction of the personal name
compare 1 Thess. ii 18, 2 Cor. x 1,
Col. i 23; and especially Gal. v 2. In
the first three instances other names
have been joined with St Paul’s in
the opening salutation of the epistle:

but this is not the case in the Epistle

to the Galatians or in the present
epistle.

6 Séopios Tov xpiorod “Incot] In
Philem. 1 and 9 we have déopioes
Xpiorod “Incod, and in 2 Tim. i 8 rov

III 2—4] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. — 167

A ~ \ a ~~ a ‘y . ,
xpirrov “Inoov virep vuav Tov EOyav,—rel ye HKovTaTeE
TH oiKOvopiay THs yapiTos Tov Deow Tis SoBcions pot

~ ef . : \
eis vuas, 367t KaTad aroxadduyw éyvepicOn por To

o / @ A f y 3 NL 4 ‘ aA Py / 0
puornpiov, Kabws mpoeypayva év oriryw, *mpos 0 divacbe

Séopiov avrod (sc. Tov xupiov yypov) Gal. ii 2, and the more striking
Below, in iv 1, the expression is parallel in Rom. xvi 25 xara dmoxd-
different, éyd 6 déopsos ev xupio. Aupw pvornpioy Kr.dA. "Amoxdduyis
Unép tpav ray ébvav] So iniiiz, is thenatural correlative of zvarjpior,
vyeis ta &6yn. The expression is on which see the detached note.
intentionally emphatic. His cham- éyvopicby] Compare vv. 5,10. The
Pionship of the equal position of the word comes, in connexion with ro
Gentiles was the true cause of his jpvorjpcov, in Rom, xvi 26, Eph. i 9,
imprisonment. Compare v. 13 é vii9, Col.i27. -
tais ONiipeoiy pov Umep par, Tris eor mpoéypayva| This is the ‘ epistolary
ddfatpav. aorist’, which in English is repre-
2. ef ye jeovcare] The practical sented by the perfect. For the
effect of this clause is to throw new temporal force of the preposition in
emphasis on the words immediately this verb, compare Rom. xv 4 dca
preceding. ‘It is on your behalf yap mpoeypady. Here, however, the
(imrép-vpov)-that_I_am-a-prisoner—as_— meaning _is_scarcely_more_than that_of
you must know, if indeed you have éypaya: ‘I have written already’
heard of my special mission to you (not ‘aforetime’), The technical
(eis dpas)’, We have a close parallel sense of rpoypdgew found in Gal. iii 1
in iv 21 ef ye adriv ijxovcare xr-A. does not seem suitable to this context.
The Apostle’s language does not év oNlye] ‘in a few words’: more
imply a doubt as to whether they had exactly, ‘in brief compass’, or, as we
heard of his mission: it does imply say, ‘in brief’, The only other New
that some at least among them had Testament passage in which the
only heard, and had no personal phrase occurs is Acts xxvi 28f. The
acquaintance with himself. phrase is perhaps most frequently
oikovoniay] See the note on ito; used of time; as in Wisd. iv 13
and compare 7 olxovopiarod puornpiov, TedewOcis ev dAiyo émdnpwce xpovovs
below in v. 9. In Col. i 25 we have jaxpovs. Aristotle, however, Rhet.
kara Tnv olkovopiay rod Oeod riv Sobei- iii Im (p. 14126, 20), in discussing
ody pou els vpas, mAnpGoa Toy Adyow pithy sayings, says that their virtue
rod Oeod, ro pvorypioy «1A. In all consists in brevity and antithesis, and
these passages God is 6 oixovopav: so adds 4 pdOnors Sid prev Td ayrixeicOat
that they are not parallel to 1 Cor. péaddrov, dia Sé rd ev Griyp Oarropv
ix 17 oixovouiay weniorevpat, where vyiverar. A useful illustration is cited
the Apostle himself is the oixkovduos by Wetstein from Eustathius in ZI.
(comp. 1 Cor. iv 1,2). | li, p. 339, 18, odrw per 7 “Opnpixy év
xapiros] For the use of this word ddly@ Stagecadyrat icropia: ra Se
in connexion with St Paul’s mission xara pépos adris rowabra.
to the Gentiles, and in particular for 4. mpos 6] that is, ‘looking to
the combination 7 xdpis 4 dodeiad pot which’, ‘having regard whereunto’ ;
(1 Cor. iii 10, Gal. ii 9, Rom. xii 3, and so ‘judging whereby’: but the
Xv 15, Eph. iii 7), see the detached note expression is unusual. The force of the:
ON xapes. preposition receives some illustration
3. kara azokddvyw] Compare from 2 Cor. v 10 iva xouionrat éxacros

168

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[III 5, 6

dvaywwoKovrTes vojoat THY cUveriv pou év TO wuoTnpio
Tou xpirrov, 56 érépais yeveais ovK éyvwpicOn ois
viois Tav advOpsrwyv ws viv dmrexadipOn Tots dyiows
drogtoAos avtov Kal mpodyras év mvevuati, Seivat

ta S14 rod adparos mpos a empager,
krA, The participle avaywaoxovres
seems to be thrown in epexegetically,
Judging by what he has already
written, they can, as they read, per-
ceive that he has a true grasp of
the Divine purpose, and accordingly,
as he hints, a true claim to inter-
pret it,

The Latin rendering ‘prout potestis
legentes intelligere’, i.e. ‘so far as ye
are able...to understand’, has much
in its favour. This is also the inter-
pretation of most, if not all, of the
Greek commentators: cuveperpijcaro
thy Swackadiavy mpos Grep éywpovy
(Severian, caten, —ad—toc.).— But it emp
makes dvayiwodoxorres Somewhat more
' difficult, unless we press it to mean
“by reading only’.

The suggestion that dvayweoKovres
may refer to the reading of the pro-
phetic parts of the Old Testament in
the light of (apos 6) what the Apostle
has written (Hort, Romans and
Ephesians, pp. 150f.) is beset with
difficulties; for (1) where dvaywo-
oxew is used of the Old Testament
scriptures, the reference is made clear
by the context, and not left to be
gathered | from the word. itself; 1 Tim.
iv. 13 mpdcexe TH Gvayvaoe: cannot be
proved to refer solely to the public
reading of the Old Testament: (2)
the same verb is quite naturally used
of the reading of Apostolic writings,
Acts xv 31,1 Thess. v 27, Col. iv 16,
Apoe. i 3: (3) the close proximity of
apoéypaya suggests that what they
are spoken of as reading is what he
has written :
Old Testament revelation falls for the
moment out of sight (see especially
#. 5), and the newness of the message
is insisted on.

(4) in the whole context”

ray oviveriv pou év x7Ar.] A close
parallel i is found i int ( 3) Esdr.i 31 rijs
TuverEe@s avrod ev To vane Kuplov.
In the Lxx ovméva ev is a frequent
construction: but it is a mere repro-
duction of a Hebrew idiom, and we
need not look to it for the explana-
tion of our present phrase. For the
omission of the article before év ra
puornpio, see the note on i 15.

5. érépats yeveais] ‘in other gene-
rations’, the dative of time; compare
Rom. xvi 25 xpovots alwvios. Teved
is used as a subdivision of aiwy, and
the two words are sometimes brought
into combination for the_sake—of
emphasis, as in iii 21 and Col. i 26.
The rendering ‘to other generations’
is excluded by the fact that éyvapicdy
is followed by rois viots rav avOpérrar.

rois viois tév avOpdrav| It is
remarkable that this well-known He-
braism, frequent in the Lxx, occurs
again but once in the New Testament,
viz. in Mark iii 28 (in Matt. xii 31
this becomes simply rots dvépdzrozs).
The special and restricted use of the
phrase 6 vids rov dvOpdérou may
account for the general avoidance of
the idiom, which however is regularly
recalled by the Syriac versions in
their rendering of dvOparo (Matt.
Vv. 10, ef passim),

rois dytos droordkos Kr.A.] In
the parallel passage, Col. i 26, we
have viv dé épavepan ois ayios
avrod, ois 7OeAncev 6 Beds yrapica,
«r.A. The difference is in part at
least: accounted for by the prominent
mention of ‘ apostles and prophets’ in

~the immediately preceding section

(ii 20).
év mvetpati] See ii 22, v 18 and vi
18, and the notes in these places.

ee
As

‘It 7—9)

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

zy : / : a 2 ~
wa 20vn cuvKANpOVOMA Kal CUYT wpa Kal TUVMETOXA THIS
A ~ ‘ ~ ©

érayyeNias év Xpiore@ “Inood dia Tod evayyeNiov, 700

° 4, , \ ‘ 3 A ~ ‘4 ~
_ éyernOny Siakovos kara TyHv dwpeay Tis xapiTos TOU

Oeod ris Sobcions por Kata Thy évépyerav THs Suvapews
avrov-—*éuot TH eXayirtorépw TdvTwy dyiwy éd0oby
i xapts alrn—rois Gvecw evayyenNicacba td dveE-
ixviac-rov mAovTos TOU xpirrod, %xal gwrica Tis 1

9. pwrloa)+mrévras.

6. cuveAnpovopa «.t.A.] Of the
three compounds two are rare (cuvKAn-
povopos, Rom, viii 17, Heb. xi. 9, 1
Pet. iii 7, Philo: ouvpéroxos, v. 7,
Aristotle and Josephus). The third
(avvewpos) was perhaps formed -by
St Paul for this occasion. Aristotle’s
ovvewparoroteiy, if it implied an adjec-
tive at all, would imply cvvodparos

avy and owparororetv). In later Greek
adowpos, &vowpos are found side by side
with dodparos, évedparos. -

7. éyevyOnv didxovos| Compare
Col. i 23, 25, where however we have

éyevounv, which is read by some MSS -

here. The two forms of the aorist
are interchangeable in the uxx and
in the New Testament, as in the later
Greek writers generally.

As the ministration Spoken of in
each of these passages is that special
ministration to the Gentiles which
was committed to St Paul, and as the
article is naturally omitted with the
predicate, we may fairly render:
‘whereof I was made minister’ (or
even ‘the minister’). But it is not
necessary to depart from the familiar
rendering ‘ @ minister’,

xaptros...evépyecav] See the notes
on 2. 2 and i 19 respectively.

8—13. ‘Yes, to me this grace has
been given—to me, the meanest
member of the holy people—that I
should be the one to bring to the
Gentiles the tidings of the inexplor-
able wealth of the Christ: that I

‘ should publish the plan of God’s

eternal working, the Secret of the
Creator of the universe: that not
man only, but all the potencies of the
unseen world might learn through the
Church new lessons of the very varied
wisdom of God—learn that one pur-
pose runs through the ages of eter-
nity, a purpose which God has
formed in the Christ, even in Jesus

__(but_it_is_probably_a_compound_of__our_Lord, in-whom_we-have-our_bold.

access to God. So lose not heart, I
pray you, because I suffer in so great
a cause. My pain is your glory’.

8 édAaxiororépo] Wetstein ad loc.
has collected examples of heightened

_ forms of the comparative and super-

lative. The most recent list is that
of Jannaris, Historical Greek Gram-

mar, § 506. For the most part they |

are doubled comparatives or doubled
superlatives: but Jannaris cites
peyrorérepos from Gr. Pap. Br. Mus.
134, 49 (cent, I—IT. A.D.),

Trois €Oveow evayyedicacba] The
order of the words throws the
emphasis on rois éveow. St Paul's
Gospel (ré evayyéAuov pov, see especially
Rom. xvi 25) is the Gospel of God’s
grace to the Gentiles.

dveftxviaoror] Compare Rom. xi 33
*Q Babos mdourov...dveEtxviacrot ai
680i avrod. The only parallels seem
to be Job v9, ix 10, xxxiv 24, where
“Pn }'N is so rendered by the Lxx,
who in that book employ tyvos for
pn.

wAovros| Apart from 1 Tim. vi 17,
no instance of wAoiros in the sense of
material wealth is to be found in St

170 .

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[III 10

7 ~ , “~ , 4 ~,
oikovoyia Tov puoTnpiov Tov drroKeKpumpéevov aro TwV

s/f 3 a ~ n 4
aiwvev év To Dew Ta Ta

f , 10 +
TAYTA KTIOQAYTI, tya yro~

pro i yuy Tats apyais Kal Tais éfouctats éy Tots é7ou-

paviows dia THs éxKAnoias

Paul’s writings. On the other hand,
his figurative use of the word has no
parallel in the rest of the Greek Bible.
Of fourteen instances of it, five occur
in this epistle. In the uses of the
derivates qmAovotos, mAovoliws, mAov-
reiv, wAovritew, the same rule will be
found to hold, though there are some
interesting exceptions.

9. erica ris 7 Kr.d.| ‘to bring
to light what is the dispensation’.
Compare Col. i 27 yrwpioa ti ré
wAovTos «.7.A., Where the whole con-
text is parallel to the present passage.
Serifew is a natural word for the
public disclosure of what has been

érecra O€ TOY ypapparav éadwxKoray Kal
mehoriopevav: also Suidas Sorifew
airtaruxy: eis pos adyew, eayyée\rew,
followed by a quotation in which
oceur the words darifew ro xara ray
évrokny amdppyrov. Compare 1 Cor.
iv 5 orice: ra kxpurra tod oKorovs,
and 2 Tim. i 10 g¢aricavros bé Cony
cai apOapciay (with the context).
There is considerable authority (see
the note on various readings) for the
addition of aavras after qwricat.
The construction thus gained is like
that in Judg. xiii 8(A text), doricarw
jpas ri woujrapev to madapio (B has
cuvBiBacdro). But the sense given to
gorioa— to instruct’ instead of ‘to
publish’—is less appropriate fo the
present context; moreover the inser-
tion of wavras lessens the force of the
emphatic rots @6veo.r. The change was

probably a grammatical one, due to.

the desire for an expressed accusative:
John i 9, 76 das...0 horife: ravra av-
Opwrov, is no true parallel, but it may
have influenced the reading here.

dé rev aidvov}] Compare Col. i 26
TO pveTipiov To amoKexpuppevoy amd

% WoAvTroiktAos copia TOU

TaY aidver Kal drs Tov yeveov: Rom,
XVI 25 puornpiov xpavors aloviors
errympévor : 1 Cor. ii 7 Geot copiay
év prornpia, Thy diroxexpuppergy, Ld
mpodpirev 6 Geds mpo Tov aldvey. e
phrase dé trav aidvev is the converse
of. the more frequent els rovs aidvas :
comp. dz’ aisvos, Luke i 70, Acts
iii 21, xv 183 dao rov aidvos kai eis
rov aidva, Ps, xl (xli) 14, ete. The
meaning is that ‘from eternity until
now’ the mystery has been hidden.
xticayrt| The addition in the later
MSS of 8:4 *Incotd Xpiorod points to a
failure to understand the propriety of
the simple mention of creation in this

kept_secret:_see—Polyb—xxx—8—1 context. The true text hints that the

purpose of God was involved in cre-
ation itself.

10. iva yropio i] Compare i9
yropicas jpiv Td puornptor, iii 3
eyvapicOn por, 5 érépais ‘yeveais ovK
eyropiodn, vi 19 év wappycia yropioat —
TO pvoTipioy. The rejection of the
gloss mdvras (see on v.9) leaves us the
more free to take this clause closely
with @erica:: ‘to publish what from
eternity has been hidden, in order
that now what has hitherto been
impossible of comprehension may be

made known throughout the widest
sphere.’

dpxais...émovpaviois| See the notes
oni 21 » and the exposition pp. 2of.

dua rijs éxkAnoias] Compare éy rf
éxxAnoia below, 2%. 21.

modvmoixidos] The word is found
in Greek poetry in the literal sense of
‘very-varied’; Eur. Lph. in Taur.
1149, of robes; Eubulus ap. Athen.
XV 24, p. 679d orépuvoy wodvmoixtopy
dvééov: also, figuratively, in the
Orphic hymns vi 11 (reAerq), lxi 4
(Adyos). In Iren. 1 iv 1 (Mass. p. 19)
we have madous ... mwodvpepods kab

TIE x11] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 171
Gcot, “xara mpdbeow THv aiwvev jv éroinoey év TH

wodvrrotkiiov vmdpxyovross Anechoof Again, we have xar’ émrayny (1 Cor.
the word is heard in 1 Pet. iv 10 vii6, 2 Cor. viii 8) and xar’ émtrayny
grotkiAns xdpiros Geod. tov alwviov beov (Rom. xvi 26): also
II. xara mpdbecw] This expression kar éxdoyjy (Rom. ix 11) and «ar
occurs adverbially in Rom, viii 28 éxAcyiy yaperos (Rom. xi 5). Compare
Trois KaTa.mpoGegw KAnrois ovow. It further Rom. ii 7, xvi 5, 25, Phil. iii
there signifies ‘in accordance with 6: also in this epistle, i 11 mpoopi-
deliberate purpose’, on the part, that o@évres xara mpodeow Tov Ta mavra
is, of Him who has called: the mean- évepyotvros xr.
ing is made clear by the words which qv émoingev| ‘These words involve a
follow (dre ots mpoéyww xzr.A.) and serious difficulty. If they are taken
by the subsequent phrase of ix 11 as equivalent to 4» mpoébero (comp. i
i kar’ éxAoyiy mpdbects Tod Oeot, ‘the 10), we suppose a breach of the rule
purpose of God which works by elec- by which the resolution of such verbs
tion’. ‘is made with soeioda, not with
In Aristotle #pddecis is a technical soceiv, No other instance of this can
term for the setting out of the topic be found in St Paul, while we have
of a treatise or speech: thus we have on the contrary in this epistle, for
the four divisions (Rhet. iii 13, p. example, preiay moeicOa (i 16) and
1414}, 8) apooipov, mpdbects, miotis, avénow moioba (iv 16). A phrase
éerridoyos, ‘prelude,_proposition, proof, _like_6éAnua moreiv, which is sometimes

peroration’. In Polybius wpoéeots is _ cited, is obviously not parallel, as it is
of frequent occurrence in the sense of not a resolution of @éAew,
a deliberate plan or scheme; and this It was probably this difficulty, rather
sense is found in 2 and 3 Maccabees; than the omission of the article before
comp. Symm., Ps. ix 38 (x 17), in- «mpdecoww, that led early interpreters
terpr. al., Ps. exlv (exlvi) 4. In Polyb. to regard card mpobeow rév aiavey as
xii 11 6 we have the actual adverbial a semi-adverbial phrase parentheti-
phrase, of lying ‘deliberately’, xara cally introduced, and to take iy ézoi-
mpdbeow epevoneve. In no writer yoev as referring to codia. Jerome
previous to St Paul does it appear to so interprets, though he mentions the
be used of the Divine purpose or plan. possibility of a reference either to
‘tév aidyev] The addition of the éxkdyclas or to mpdbeow. It is pro-
defining genitive destroys only to a able that here, as so often, he is
certain extent the adverbial character reproducing the view of Origen. But
of the expression. The result is diffi- the Old Latin version, which he
cult to express in English: neither follows in the text, also interpreted
‘according to the purpose of the ages’ _ so: ‘secundum propositum seculorum,
(which would strictly presuppose xara quam fecit’: a rendering which rules
THY mpodeoww Td aidver), nor ‘accord- out the connexion wpobecw...4v. So
ing to @ purpose of the ages’, gives too the translator of Theodore (MSS,
the exact shade of meaning, which is non ed.), but of Theodore’s own view
rather ‘in accordance with deliberate we have no evidence, Theophylact
purpose, and that purpose not new, and Euthymius Zigabenus expressly
but running through the whole of refer jv to codiay, Chrysostom’s text
- eternity’. Thisconstructionisfrequent at this point is in some confusion:
in St Paul's writings. Thus we have but he suggests, if he did not actually
kar’ évépyecay (iv 16) and kar’ évépyeray read, aidvev av éroijoev (comp. Heb.
Tov Sarava (2 Thess. ii9),on whichsee i 2 87 od cat éroinocey tovs aidyvas).
below in the detached note on évepyeiv. The Vulgate (so too Victorinus) sub-

172

m~ 9 ~ ~ 4 e ~~ m2?
Xpirte “Incov Tea Kupiw ruc, ”év

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[III x2

af 4
@ ExouEY THY TaAp-

pnciav Kat moocaywyny év memolyoa Sid THs wicTEws

_ stitutes pragfinitionem for proposi-
tum, and thus‘restores the ambiguity
of the original, which the simpler
change of quod for quam would have

avoided. Itis noticeable that Jerome -

had suggested propositio as an alter-
native rendering of mpodeois. The

absence of guam fecit from Ambrosi- °

aster’s text points to another attempt
to get rid of the difficulty.

This construction, however, is ex-
ceedingly harsh, and it presents us with
the phrase codiay raeiv, which seems
to have no parallel, Another way
out of the difficulty has met with more
favour in recent times; namely, to
take éroincer in the sense of ‘wrought
out’, But it may be doubted whether
mpoberw mwoty could bear such a

meaning : we—should—certainly—have —of-God (comp. ii To).

expected a stronger verb such as
‘ émeredXeiv or exmAnpoiv. This view,
indeed, seems at first sight to be
favoured by. the full title given to
Christ, and the relative clause which
follows it. But a closer examination
shews that the title itself is an almost
unique combination. In Rom. vi 23,
viii 39, 1 Cor. xv 31, (Phil. iii 8) we
have Xprorés “Inoots 6 xipws dy
(nov), in itself an uncommon order:
but no article is prefixed to Xpiords.
Only in Col. ii 6 have we an exact
parallel, ds ody rapeAdBere tov xptoréy
"Incobv rov Kvptoy, x.7.A.; Where Light-
foot punctuates after ypioroy and
renders ‘the Christ, even Jesus the
Lord’. Accordingly, in the present
passage, even if we are unwilling to
press the distinction in an English
rendering, we may feel that an exact
observation of the Greek weakens the
force of the argument derived from
the fulness of the title, and leaves us
free to accept an interpretation which
regards éroijoev as referring to the
formation of the eternal purpose in
the Christ.

On the whole it is preferable to |
suppose that the Apostle is referring .
to the original formation of the pur-
pose, and not to its subsequent working
out in history. We may even doubt
whether here he would have used the
past tense, if he had been speaking of
its realisation.

Instances may be found in the
Lxx and in New Testament writers
other than St Paul, in which srovezv is
used where we should expect srovei-
o6a; comp. Isa. xxix 15, XXX I, BovAny
woteiv, and see Blass V. 7. Gram. § 53,
3 and Jannaris Hist. Gr. Gram. §
1484. Further, we may remember
that zroveiy in biblical literature often
has a strong sense, derived from the

Hebrew, in reference to creative acts

The framing
of the Purpose in the Christ may be
regarded as the initial act of creation,
and the word éroinoev may be not in-
appropriately applied to it. In other
words mpdbecw éroinoey is a stronger
form of expression than mpddeow
érowjoaro, which is the mere equivalent
of mpoébero: and it suggests that ‘the
purpose of the ages, like the ages
themselves (Heb. i 2), has been called
into existence by a Divine creative
act.

With this passage, and indeed with
the whole of this section, should be
compared 2 Tim, i 8—12, where there
are striking parallels of language and
of thought, which are the more notice-
able in the absence of any explicit
reference to the Gentiles,

12. thy tappynoiary K.r.d.] Compare
1118. For the meanings of sappycia
see Lightfoot on Col.ii15. Ordinarily
it is used of ‘boldness’ in relation to
men: here it is of the attitude of man
to God: there seems to be no other
example of this use in St Paul; but
see Heb. iii 6, iv 16, x 19, 35, 1 John
ii 28, iii 21, iv 17, V 14.

III 13, 14]

auTou.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

173

: “a ~ .Y ~ ~*~ 4,
3610 atTovmat <vmas> pn évKaxely év Tais OXI-

4 e 4 ¢ A 34 2 \ / ¢ a
eoiv pou virép Uuay, Aris éoriv So€a Vuov.
. “ Ul A
“Tovrov yapw KaprTw Ta yovara jou mpos TOV

mweroOyoe] The word is used six

times by St Paul, but is found nowhere

else in the New Testament, and but
once in the Lxx.

avrot| Compare Mark xi 22 @yere
giotw Geod, Rom, iii 22, 26, Gal. ii 16,
iii 22, Phil. iii 9, in all of which cases
however rigors is without the article.
In James ii 1, Apoc. ii 13, xiv 12 the
article is prefixed, but the meaning is
different. . Here rijs may be regarded
as parallel to rjv before wappyciav: so
that the meaning would be ‘our faith
in Him’,

13. airoduat pi évxaxeiv] Does
this mean (1) ‘I pray that I may not
lose heart’, or (2) ‘I pray that you
may not lose heart’, or (3) ‘I ask you

‘

not to lose heart’? Whichever inter-
pretation is adopted, the omission of
the subject of evcaxeiy is a serious
difficulty. Theodore gives the first
interpretation, which may plead in
its favour that the subject of the
second verb is most naturally supplied
from the first, and that, as the suffer-
ings are St Paul’s, it is he who needs
to guard against discouragement. But
the absolute use of airotpat, as ‘I ask
of God,’ where prayer has not been
already spoken of, seems unjustifiable:
and that the Apostle should here
interpose such a. prayer for himself
is exceedingly improbable, especially
when his language elsewhere with
regard to sufferings is considered, e.g.
in Col. i 24. Origen at first offers
this interpretation, but passes on to
plead for the second as more agree-
able to the context. Jerome, who
read in his Latin ‘peto ne deficiatis,’
points out that the Greek may mean
‘peto ne deficiam, and then repro-
duces the comments of Origen.

The third interpretation is by far
the most satisfactory: but we sadly
miss the accusative vuds. It is pro-

bable that it has been lost by homoeo-
teleuton, ymac having fallen out
after the -ymat of arroymai: compare
Gal. iv 11, where in several MSS ymac
has been dropped after ho Boymal. I
have accordingly inserted vpas pro-
visionally in the text,

éveaxeiv] ‘lose heart’: from xaxés
in the sense of ‘cowardly’. On the
form of this word, éyxaxeiy (évk-) or
éxxaxeiv, see Lightfoot on 2 Thess, iii

_13 (Notes on Epp. p. 132). It occurs

five times in St Paul’s epistles: else-
where in the New Testament it is
found only in Luke xviii 1. In 2 Cor,
iv 16 it. is, a8 here, followed by a
reference to 6 ow dvOpwmos in the
immediate context. This connexion

subject of évxaxeiy here is the readers
of the epistle, for whom the Apostle
goes on to pray that they may be
‘strengthened in the inward man’,
14—19. ‘All this, I repeat, im-
pels me afresh to prayer. In the
lowliest attitude of reverence I pros-
trate myself before Him, to whom
every knee shall bow—before the
Father from whom all fatherhood
everywhere derives its name. I ask
the Father to give you, through the
Spirit's working on your spiritual
nature, an inward might—the very
indwelling of the Christ in your hearts,
realised through faith, consummated
in love. I pray that your roots may
be struck deep, your foundations laid
secure, that so you may have strength
enough to claim your share in the
knowledge which belongs to the holy
people: to comprehend the full mea-
sures of the Divine purpose; to know
—though it is beyond all knowledge
—the love of Christ; and so to attain
to the Divine completeness, to be
filled unto all the fulness of God’.
14. Tovrov ydpw] The repetition

of thought confirms the-view-that-the——

174

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[III 35

; t 152 = ” Y » ’ m oS 2 om
WAaTEpa, ef ov TaCa TAaTpia Ev Ovpavols Kat El NS

of this phrase marks the close con-
nexion of ov. 1 and 14, and shews that
what has intervened is a digression.

kduato x.t.A.| The usual phrase for
‘Kneeling’ in the New Testament is
Gets ra yévara. The present phrase is
found again only in a quotation from
I Kings xix 18 in Rom. xi 4; in a
quotation from Isa, xlv 23, dre éuot
Kappes may ydvu, in Rom. xiv 11; and
in Phil. ii 10, iva év 76 Gydpare "Inood
wav yovu kapiyn, an allusion to the
same passage of Isaiah.

mwarépa] The insertion after this
word of rod xupiov fay Incod Xpicrotd
is a mischievous gloss, which obscures
the intimate connexion between the
absolute warjp and maca warp. It
is absent from X*A BOP.

15. waoa matpia] Tarpid denotes
a group of persons united by descent

Stee Td BORGCR
from-a-common father or, more gene-

rally, a common ancestor. It has thus
the narrower meaning of ‘family’ or
the wider meaning of ‘tribe’. It is
exceedingly common in the genea-
logical passages of the Luxx, where it
often stands in connexion with olxos
and dvAj. St Paul plays on the deri-
vation of the word: marpia is derived
from mrarjp: every warped, in the visible
or the invisible world, is ultimately
named from the one true Father (6
gatnp), the source of all fatherhood,

The literal rendering is ‘every
family’; but the point of the passage
cannot be given in English without
a, paraphrase, The Latin rendering
‘omnis paternitas’ seems to be a bold
effort in this direction ; for paterni-
tas, like ‘fatherhood’ in English, ‘is
an abstract term and does not appear
to be used in the sense of ‘a family’,
It is true that Jerome (ad loc. and
ade. Helvid. 14), in order to bring
out a parallel, renders marpiai of the
Lxx by paternitates: but in his own
version (Numb. i 2, etc.) he does not
introduce the word, nor does it occur
as a rendering of zarpia in the Latin

version of the uxx. Patria is occa-
sionally so used, and is found also in
a quotation of our present passage
in the metrical treatise [Tert.] ade.
Marcionem iv 35.

Similarly the rendering of the
Peshito wfhom=act An must
mean ‘all fatherhood’: comp. sax.
hommes ‘the name of father-
hood’ in Aphrahat (Wright 472 f.).
The Latin and Syriac versions there-
fore warrant us in rendering the pas-
sage in English as ‘the Father of
whom all fatherhood...is named’,

On the teaching of the passage it
is worth while to compare A-thanasius
Orat. contra Arian.i 23 ov yap 6 Geos
dvOpwroy pipeirac* dAAad paddov oi
avOpwrot dia roy Gedy, kupiws cal pdvov
ddnOGs bvra marépa Tov éavrod_viod, Kal
avrol marépes GvopacOnocav trav idiov
tékvov’ €& adtov yap maoa marpia év
ovpavois kal émi yijs avopd¢erar: and
Severian ad loc, (Cramer Caten. vi 159)
To bvona Tod maTpos ovK ad’ yay
dviOev avo, GdAN dvadbev 7A Ger eis tas,
dnAovert ws ice: dy Kal ovK dvdpare
p-ovov,

The difficulty supposed to exist in
St Paul’s speaking of ‘families’ in
heaven may have led to the mistrans-
lation| of the A.V. ‘the whole family,’
The same difficulty led Theodore to
adopt (perhaps to invent) the reading
darpia (so the Paris codex: the form
is found both in Inscrr. and MSS for
parpia, see Dieterich Byzant. Archiv.
i 123), on the curious ground that this
word denoted not a ovyyéveca but
merely a avornpa. The insertion of
the gloss. referred to above had pro-
bably blinded him to the connexion,
marpés...marptd, upon which the whole
sense depends,

The difficulty is not a serious one:
for the addition év ovpavois kal emt
vis, like the similar phrase in i 21,
évopatopevov ov povoy ey TO aldve
rovr@ dAda xat ev r@ péAdovni, is

III 16, 17]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

175

’ . f ~ ~ \ A ~~. ~ ,
dvouadCera, “iva do Upiv Kata TO TAOVTOS THs SoENS
~ / ~ A ~ , ~
avrou Suvauer KpaTawOyva dia TOU mvevuaTos avTOU
Y / on ‘ A 4
eis Tov tow avOpwrov, “KaTouKHoa Tov xpirroy dia

~ 7 2 ~ , e ~ F) ’ / ° 3

Tis wiorews év Tats Kapdias Uuwy év dyarn éppifw

perhaps only made for the sake of
emphasis. We may, however, note the
Rabbinic use of 8°98 ( familia) —‘the
family above and the family below’:
see Taylor Sayings of Jewish Fathers
ed, 2, p. 125, and Thackeray S¢ Paul
and Contemp. Jewish Thought p.
149.

évopatera] ‘is named’, i.e: derives
its name: for the construction with
éx compare Soph. O. 7. 1036 dor’
avopdoOns ex tixns tairns os ef (Sc.
Oisirous), and Xenoph. Memorab. iv
5 12 py O€ kat ro dtadéyeoOar dvopa-
oOijvat ex Tov K.T.A.

16, roy Eo@ GvOpwroy] This phrase

17. karoxjoa| Karoxeiy is rare
in St Paul, who more frequently uses
olxety or évoixeiy. It occurs again only
in Col. i 19, ii 9, and we have xarotxn-
typtov in Eph. ii 22. When used in
contrast to mapoixeiy the word implies
@ permanent as opposed to a tem-
porary residence (see Lightfoot’s note
on Clem. Rom. pref.); where it occurs
by itself it suggests as much of
permanence as oixety necessarily does,
but no more.

éy dyany| Reasons for joining |
these words with what precedes have
been given in the exposition. In
favour of this collocation it may also

finds its full explanation in 2 Cor.
iv 16 810 ovK éveaxodpev, dAd’ ei Kat
6 ta nyadv avOpwmos Sdiapbeiperat,
GN 6 Eco tay dvaxawovra jyépa
kat quepa. ‘Our outward man’ is in
the Apostle’s subsequent phrase 7
émlyetos nay olkia Tov oxyvous, Which
is subject to dissolution : ‘ our inward
man’ is that part of our nature which
has fellowship with the eternal, which
looks ‘not at the things which are
seen, but at the things which are not
seen.” There is no reason to seek for
a philosophical precedent for the

phrase : at any rate Plato Rep. 5894, ©

which is persistently quoted, offers no
parallel ; for there 6 évrés dvépwros,
‘the man who is within him’, is only
one of three contending constituents
{the others being a multiform beast
and a lion) which the Platonic parable
supposes to be united under what is
outwardly a human form,

In St Paul the phrase occurs again
in Rom. vii 22. And in x Pet. iii 3 f. we
have a contrast between 6 ¢&wev...
iparioy xdopos and 6 kpurrés ris
xapdias avOpwmas ev 1G apOdpra rot
qouvxiov kal mpadws mvevparos.

be observed (1) that év dydry forms
the emphatic close of a sentence
several times in this epistle; see i 4
and note, iv 2, 16: and (2) that the
anacoluthon which follows appears to |
be more natural if the fresh start is
made by the participles and not by an
adverbial phrase; compare, e.g., iv 2
avexdpevot dAAjA@v ev aydry and Col.
li 2 ouvBiBaabévres ev dyamy.
éppifopevor] St Paul is fond of
passing suddenly to the nominative
of a participle, as in the two passages
last quoted, to which may be added
Col. iii 16 6 Adyos...évotxeitw év tyiv...
diddoxorvres: see Lightfoot’s note on
that passage. There is therefore no
reason for supposing that ta is be-
lated, as was suggested by Origen,
and as is implied in the rendering of
the A.V., ‘that ye, being rooted’, é&c.
On the contrary, iva depends directly
on the participles which precede it.
For the metaphors compare (1)
Col. ii 7 éppifapevos cat érrorxodopov-
pevor év atr@ Kat BeBatcoipevn tH
wioret, and (2) Col. i 23 ef ye émipeévere
th wiores reOcpedtopevor cal éSpaior,
and 1 Pet. v 10, where deuedidoe: is

176. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [III 18-20

péevot Kat TeOepediwpévor, “iva éLioyvonte KaradaBe-
o0a avy raow Tots dyios Ti ro mAaTOS Kal [ijKOS. Kat
ios kai Babos, Myvavai Te THY UmepBdAdoVvaay Tis
yveoews ayamrny Tou Xpiorov, iva wAnpwOnre eis TaV
TO TAnpwua Tov Oeod. “Ta Sé Suvvauévw Umép TavTa

~ ol @ , ° .
Woujoa vrepexrepiacoy wy atTouueda i vooumey KaTa

found in NK LP, though not in AB.
For the combination of the metaphors
Wetstein cites Lucian de Saltat. 34
@omep tives pitas kat Oepedua rijs
épxjoews Foav,

18. é&axvonre] A late word, found
but once elsewhere in the Greek
Bible, Ecclus. vii 6 (B: but NAC
have the simple verb). It suggests
the difficulty of the task, which calls
for all their strength.

karahaBéo Gat | The middleis found
thrice (Acts iv 13, x 34, xxv 25), and,
as here, in-the-sense of ‘to-perceive’-

wAdros x.7.A.]| Theodore’s comment
is admirable and sufficient: wa «try
this xaptros To péyeOos and tay wap’
_npdy cvoparoy, St Paul is not think-
ing of the measures of the ‘holy
temple’, as some of the moderns
suggest; nor of the shape of the cross,
as many of the ancients prettily
fancied. He is speaking in vague
terms of the magnitude of that which
it will take them all their strength
to apprehend -—-the Divine mercy,
especially as now manifested in the
inclusion of the Gentiles, the Divine
secret, the Divine purpose for man-
kind in Christ. To supply rijs dydans
Tov xpicrov out of the following
sentence is at once needless and
unjustifiable, ‘With the intentional
vagueness of the phrase we may com-
pare Didaché ¢. 12 civeow yap e&ere
dektav Kal dpvorepay.

19. vmepBdddovaar] ‘YrepBadXew is
used with either an accusative or a
genitive (Aesch. Plat. Arist.) of the
object surpassed. So too dmepéyew:
comp. Phil. ii 3 vmepeyovras éavray
with Phil, iv 7 7 vawepéxouga wayra voip.

els x.r.A.] ‘up to the measure of’:
comp. iv 13 eis pérpov yrsxias rod
wAnpeparos Tov xptoTod. The Apostle’s
prayer finds its climax in the request
that they may attain to the complete-
ness towards which God is working
and in which God will be all in all.
Ideally this position is theirs already
in Christ, as he says to the Colossians
(ii 9): év avtd xaromet way rb mAq-
popa tis Oedrntos owpatixes, kal éoré
év airg mem\npopévor, kr. Its reali-
sation is the Divine purpose and,

accordingly, the Apostle’s highest
prayer. On the sense of rd wAnpopa
tov Geow see the exposition. We may
usefully compare with the whole
phrase Ool. ii 19, where St Paul
describes the intermediate stage of
the process, saying of the Body:
avéer thy avEnow Tod Oeod.

The reading of B and a few cur-
sives, iva wAnpw6y way Tb wAypapa Tov
Geod, offers an easier construction, but
an inferior sense,

20, 21. ‘Have I asked a hard
thing? I have asked it of Him who
can do far more than this; who can
vastly transcend our petition, even
our imagining : of Him whose mighty
working is actually at work in us.
Glory be to Him! Glory in the
Church and in Christ Jesus—glory in
the Body alike and in the Head—
through all the ages of eternity’.

20, 76 d¢ duvanévp] Compare the
doxology i in Rom. xvi 25, r@ dé duva-
péve dpas ornpil€at, KA.

Sarepexrrepisood)} This word occurs
twice in St Paul’s earliest epistle, but
not elsewhere: 1 Thess. iii 10 vuxrés
kal 7épas virepexmepioaou dedpuevot, V

III. 21—IV 2]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

177

chy Svvapu 7 evepryoumevny ev ripiy, © oir ep 4 dda év
TH exccAne ice Kal éy Xpirry Tnood eis wdoas Tas yEeveas
TOU alovos THY aidvwry" ayer.

TV.

, 4
‘Tlapaxadw ovv vas éyo 6 Boos éy Kupio

4 lon ~ / « , ‘
ais TEPLTATHOAL THS KANTEWS 7S éxAnOnre, 7 UETQ
\ A \

waons TaTewoppoavuns Kat mwpavTnTOS, META paKkpo-

13 myeiaOas adrovs Umepexmepioaod év
aydrn. Here it is employed as a
preposition to govern ov airoipeba:
so that the construction is, ‘to Him
that is able to do more than all, far
beyond what we ask’. The phrase
dmép mavra, which was to have been
followed by @ airovueéa, has thus
become isolated through the exuber-
ance with which the Apostle empha-
sises his meaning.

vood per] Compare Phil. iv il, iv_7 7 4 of
eipyyy To Tov Oeod 4 vmepéyouca wdvra
your.

THY evepyoupérny] ‘that worketh’ :
sufficient rendering, though the force
of the passive can only be given if we
say ‘that is made to work’: see the
detached note on évepyciv. Compare
Col. i 29 Kara ri évépyeav adrov Thy
évepyoupémp ev épol ev Suvdper.

21. év th rd] ‘in the church
and in Christ Jesus’. The variants
help to shew how striking is the true
text. For (1) the order is reversed
in D,G,; and (2) «at is dropped in
KLP etc. whence the rendering of
the Authorised : Version, ‘in the
church by Christ Jesus’. With this
timidity we may contrast Jerome’s
comment ad loc.: ‘Ipsi itaque deo sit
gloria: primum in ecclesia, quae est
pura, non habens maculam neque
rugam, et quae propterea gloriam
dei recipere potest, quia corpus est
Christi: deinde in Christo Jesu, quia
in corpore assumpti hominis, cuius
sunt uniuersa membra credentium,
omnis diuinitas inhabitet corpora-
liter’.

yeveds] Compare Col. i 26 dré trav

EPHES.?

aldvey kal awd ray yevedv: and see
the note on . 5 above.

IV. 1—6. ‘I have declared to you
the Divine purpose, and the calling
whereby you have been called to take
your place init. I have prayed that
you may know its uttermost meaning
for yourselves. Prisoner as I am, I
can do no more. But I plead with
you that you will respond to your
calling. Make your conduct worthy
of your position. First-and-foremost,
cultivate the meek and lowly mind,
the patient forbearance, the charity,
without which a common life is im-
possible, For you must eagerly pre-
serve your spiritual oneness. Oneness
is characteristic of the Gospel. Con-
sider its present working and its pre-
destined issue: there is one Body,
animated by one Spirit, cherishing
one Hope. Look back to its imme-
diate origin: there is one Lord, to
whom we are united by one Faith in
Him, by one Baptism in His name,
Rise to its ultimate source: there is
one God, the Father of all, who is
over all, through all and in all’,

I. IlapaxaAé ovv vuas] The same
words occur in Rom. xii 1, after a
doxology which, as here, closes the
preceding chapter.

dgias| Comp. Col. i 10 repurarficat.
agios rod kupiov, I Thess, ii 12 es ra
mepinarety vpis d&iws rod Geod Tov
kadobvros dyads, Phil. i 27 povoy agios
Tov evayyeXiou Tod yprorod moAcrever Oe.
For sepirareiy and its synonyms see
the note on ii 2.

2. tamewodpooiwns| For the low
sense of this word in other writers,

_—2

178

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

LV 3-6

Guulas, dvexduevor ddAHAw év dyary, orovddCovTes
TypEelv THY EvoTHTA TOU MvEvuaTos éy TH TVVOET UY THS
eionuns *év copa Kal év mvedma, KaOws Kal éxAnOnTe év
pug édridt THs KAjoEws Udy Seis KUptos, pia miaTis, Ev
Barriopa: Seis Oeds Kal waTnp TavTwy 6 émt TavTwY

. and for the place of ‘humility’ in the

moral code of Christianity, see Light-.

foot’s note on Phil. ii 3: and for
mpavrns and. paxpouyia, see his note
on Col. iii 12.

avexopuevor] For the transition to
the nominative participle see the note
on iii 17.

3. omovddfovres] ‘giving dili-
gence’: ‘satis agentes’ Cypr., ‘solli-
citi’? Vulg. For the eagerness which
the word implies, see the exposition.

évérnta] Considering that St Paul
lays_so_ much stress on unity, it is

the first. two may be regarded as in
apposition to the participles—‘ being,
as ye are, one body and ‘one spirit’.
The others are then loosely attached
with no definite construction. In
translation, however, it is convenient
to prefix the words ‘there is’ to the
whole series.

év avedpa}] For the ‘one spirit’,
which corresponds to the ‘one body’,
see the note on ii 18 éy él mvevpar.

eAidt x.7.A.] Comp. i 18 9 éAmts

' Tis KAyoews ad’rov. . God’s calling is

the general ground of hope: ‘your

remarkable that he uses the abstract
word ‘oneness’ only here and in o.
13. In each case he quickly passes
to its concrete embodiment—here é
oapa, in v. 13 els dvdpa réhecov. In
both places it is followed by defining
genitives—rod avevparos and (e. 13)
ths wlorews Kal Tis emvyvaoews Tov
viod rot Geod. It is possible to take
tov mvevparos here of the Holy Spirit,
as the producer and maintainer of
unity: comp. 4 Kowevia rod dyiov
mvevparos, 2 Cor. xiii 13; and so
perhaps xowovia mvedparos, Phil. ii 1.
But it is equally possible to regard
‘the spirit’ as the ‘one spirit’ of the
‘one body’: see the next verse.
ovvdéopeo] Peace is here the bond
of oneness. In Col. iii 14f. ‘love’
is ‘the bond of perfectness’, while
.*peace’ is the ruling consideration
which decides all such controversies
as might threaten the unity of the
Body: see Lightfoot’s notes on that
_ passage, .
4. é&v odpa] Having already broken
his construction by the introduction
_of the nominative participles, St Paul
adds a series of nominatives, of which

calling’, Le. His calling of you, makes——

you sharers in the one common hope.

5. eis xupcos] Comp. 1 Cor. viii 6
qty ets beds 6 mratyp, é€& ov Ta mayTa
kat jpeis eis avrov, at eis KUptos "Incovs
Xptorés, O° ov Ta wdvra Kat pets OC
avrov: also 1 Tim. ii 5 fs yap eds,
eis at peoitns Kt.

pia riorts] One faith in the one
Lord united all believers: comp.
Rom. iii 30 efs 6 Geds, bs Stxauwsoes
wepttouny éx wictews Kal dxpoBuoriay
Ota tis wiotews.

év Bantiopa| Baptism ‘in the name
of the Lord Jesus’ was the act which
gave definiteness to-faith in Him. It
was at the same time, for all alike,
the instrument of embodiment in the
‘one body’: 1 Cor. xii 13 kal yap év

ev mvedpate tpeis mavres eis Ev dpa

éBarricOnpev, etre "Iovdaioe ire "EAAn-
ves, etre SotAot etre ehevdepor,

6. émtadvrover.A.] Comp. Rom. ix 5
6 dv emt ravrav Oeds evraynris els rods
aiavas, Supreme over all, He moves
through all, and rests in all. With éy
wacw we may compare I Cor. xv 28
iva 9 6 Oebs mdvra ev maow, though
there the emphasis falls on mavra.

IV 7,8]

? 4 ~
Kal Ota wavTwy Kat év mao.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

179

, a]
7éve dé éxdorw rueoy

€500n 4 yapis KaTa TO péTpov Tis SwpEeas TOU xpoTod.

3810 Neryer

‘AnaBadc eic Yyoc HXMAA@TEYCEN AIYMAAWCIAN,
Kal EAWKEN AGMATA TOIG AN OPOTTOIC.

The text of NABCP (é aow) is

undoubtedly right. D,G,KL, with the
Syriac and Latin, add jpiv: and a
few cursives have vyiv, which is repre-
sented in the A.V. When we have
restored the reading, we have to ask
what is the gender of wavroy and
nacw. The Latin translators were
compelled to face this question when
rendering émt mdvrev and dia wavroy,
All possible variations are found, but
the most usual rendering seems to be
that of the Vulgate, ‘super omnes et

the complete maturity of the fulfilled
Christ’.

7. 1% xdpts] BD, with some others
omit the article: but it has probably
fallen out after €566n.

pérpov] Comp. Rom. xii 3 éxdore
as 6 Oeds epépicev pérpoy rioreas.. The
word, which is found in only one other
passage of St Paul, 2 Cor. x 13,
occurs thrice in this context; see vv.
13, 16, This repetition of an un-
accustomed word, when it has been
once used, is illustrated by the re-

»_¢__P-

per omnia’, which also has- good. early —currence: of évérys, 00. 3, 13.

authority. The fact that rarjp mavrav
precedes might suggest that the mas-
culine is intended throughout: but
éri mavrev at once admits of the
wider reference, see Rom. ix 5 quoted
_ above; and-we shall probably be
right in refusing to limit the Apostie’s
meaning.

7—13. ‘Not indeed that this one-
ness implies uniformity of endowment
or of function. On the contrary, to
each individual in varying measures
by the gift of Christ has been en-

trusted the grace which I have already .

spoken of as entrusted to me. The
distribution of gifts is involved in the
very fact of the Ascension. When
He ascended, we read, He gave
gifts. He, the All-fulfiller, descended

to ascend: and He it is that gave

apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors
and. teachers—a rich variety, but all
for unity: to fit the members of the
holy people to fulfil their appropriate
service, for the building of the body
of the Christ, until we all reach the
goal of the consciously realised unity,
which cannot be reached while any
are left, behind—the full-grown Man,

8. 6d déyee] The exact phrase
recurs in v 14. We find xal wd\w
Aéyet, following yéyparra, in Rom.
XV 10; comp. also 2 Cor. vi 2, Gal. iii
16. We may supply 7 ypady, as in
Rom. x 11 and elsewhere, if a nomi-
native is required.

dvaBas| In the uxx of Ps. lxvii
(Ixviii) 19 the words are: *AvaBas els
Upos #xpaddrevoas alypadwoiay, ~ra-
Bes Sopara év avOpdizrois (dvOpare B*>),
‘The Psalmist pictures to himself a
triumphal procession, winding up the
newly-conquered hill of Zion, the
figure being that of a victor, taking
possession of the enemy’s citadel, and
with his train of captives and spoil
following him in the triumph....In the
words following, Hast received gifts
among men, the Psalmist alludes to
the tribute offered either by the van-
guished foes themselves, or by others
who come forward spontaneously to
own the victor, and secure his favour’
(Driver, Sermons on the O. T., 1892,
pp. 194f.).

St Paul makes two alterations in
the text of the txx: (1) he changes
the verbs from the second person to

I2—2

Choe"

180 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. {IV 9, 10

\ ’ ' , Loe v A
ro be "ANEBH TL €oTW Ef pn OTL Kal KareBn eis Ta

karébrepa Hepa THS vis 5 9 karapas avros éorw Kat
6 avaBas Umepaves TavTwav TwY ovpavey, iva wAnpwcy

9 KaréBn] + mparor

the third, (2) he reads édwxev dépara

trois avOparots for é\aBes Sopara ev

avOpanras. Accordingly of the two
words which he selects to comment
on, dvaBas and exer, the second is

entirely absent from the original of.

the text. The explanation is thus
given by Dr Driver (ibid. pp. 197 f.):
‘St Paul is not here following the
genuine text of the Psalm, but is in
all probability guided by an old
Jewish interpretation with which he
was familiar, and which, instead of
received gifts among men, para-
phrased gave gifts to men.... The

earth’ or ‘the parts below the earth”
is a matter of indifference, as in
either case the underworld is the
region in question. The descent is to
the lowest, as the ascent is to the
highest, that nothing may remain un-
visited.

10. ad’rés €orw Kr] ‘He tt ts
that also ascended’: so in v. II xat
avrés edwxev.

imepave| ‘above’, not ‘far above’:
see the note on i 21.

mavrav tev ovpavar] ‘all heavens’,
or ‘all the heavens’. The plural ov-
pavoi, which, though not classical, is

Targum on the —Psalms—renders: _frequent_in_the_N ew Testament, is is

“Thou ascendedst up to the firma-
ment, O prophet Moses, thou tookest
captives captive, thou didst teach the
words of the law, thou gavest them as
gifts to the children of men”’, The
Peshito Syriac likewise has: ‘Thou
didst ascend on high and lead capti-
vity captive, and didst give gifts to
the sons of men’, For other ex-
amples of the influence of traditional
Jewish interpretations in St Paul's
writings, see Dr Driver's art. in the
Expositor, 1889, vol. ix, pp. 20 ff.

9. xaré8yn] For the addition of
mparor, see the note on various read-
ings.

carérepa| So far as the Greek
alone is concerned, it might be allow-
able to explain this as meaning ‘ this
lower earth’. But the contrast vrep-
dvw tay ovpavay is against such an
interpretation. And the phrase is
Hebraistic, and closely parallel to
that of Ps. Ixii (Ixiif) 10 eigeAevoovrat
els Ta KaTérata THs yijs, ie. Sheol, or
Hades; and of Ps. exxxviii (exxxix)
15 &y rots xaTwraras (B xarardra) rijs
yiis. Whether we interpret the phrase
as signifying ‘the lower parts of the

generally to be accounted for by the
fact that the Hebrew word for ‘heaven’
is only used in the plural. But certain
passages, such as the present and
2 Cor. xii 2 gws rpirov ovpavod (comp.
also Heb. iv 14), imply the Jewish
doctrine of a seven-fold series of
heavens, rising one above the other.
For this doctrine, and for its history
in the Christian Church, see ari.
‘ Heaven’ by Dr 8. D. F. Salmond in
Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. The
descent and ascent of ‘the Beloved’
through the Seven Heavens are de-

' picted at length in the Ascension of

Isaiah (on which see my art. in the
same dictionary).

mwdnpdoy| The context, which de-
scribes the descent to the lowest and.
the ascent to the highest regions,
suggests the literal meaning of ‘filling
the universe’ with His presence:
comp. Jer. xxiii 24 pi) ovyt Tov ovpa-
voy kal thy yi éyd mrnpd; Aéye
Kipws. But in view of the use of the
verb and its substantive in this epistle.
in the sense of ‘ fulfilment’, it would.
be unwise to limit the meaning here.

-He who is Himself ‘all in all fulfilled”

IV 11, 12]

Ta Wavra.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

181

: 4 1 /
kal avTos €AWKEN TOUS Mev aTOOTOAOUS,

. 4 .
tous 6€ mpopyras, Tous bé evayyehiords, ToUs 8é ot-
A : ‘ ~
pevas Kal diacKkddovs, “apcs TOV KaTapTIopMoY Tov

(i 23) is at the same time the fulfiller
of all things that are, whether in
heaven or on earth. We may not lose
sight of the Apostle’s earlier words i in
-iIo dvaxepahaudcac bat Ta jWavra ey x)
Xpor@, Td émi Tots. ovpavois Kat Ta ert
tis ys. The local terminology of
descent, ascent, and omnipresence
thus gains its spiritual interpretation.

II. atros fSaxev wr.A.| ‘He tt is
that gave some for apostles’ ete.
Compare 1 Cor. xii 28 kat ots pep
fera 6 Geds ev rH éxxAnoia TpaTov
droaronous, devrcpoy mpodyras, KA.
"Edexey is here used, because the
Apostle is commenting on the exev

of the ascended Christ are some of
them apostles, some prophets, and so-
forth. With avrés eaxey compare
avrés éotw xai 6 avaGds in the pre-
ceding verse.

dzrogroXovs. . mpoprras | ‘ Apostles
and prophets’ have already been
spoken of as the foundation vot the
Divine house (ii 20), and as those
members of the holy people to whom
the mystery of the Christ is primarily
revealed (iii 5).

Under the term ‘apostles’ no
doubt the Twelve and St Paul are
chiefly referred to: but that the
designation was not confined to them
was shewn by Lightfoot (Gad. pp. 95 f.),
and has since been illustrated by the
mention of apostles in the Didaché.
Prophets are referred to in Acts xi
27 f. (Agabus and others), xili 1, xv
32 (Judas and Silas), xxi 9 (prophet-
esses), 10; 1 Cor. xii 28, xiv 29 ff
For the prominent place which they
hold in the Didaché, see the exposi-
tion. For a discussion of both terms
I must refer to my articles ‘ Apostle’,
‘Prophet’, in the Encyclopaedia
Biblica.

evayyektoras|] The term ‘evange-
lists’ denotes those who are specially
engaged in the extension of the-
Gospel to new regions. It is found
again only in Acts xxi 8, 2 Tim. iv 5.

mouzévas] Used only here of Christ-
ian teachers, though it is applied to
our Lord in Heb. xiii 20, 1 Pet. ii 25
and v 4 (dpxeroiynv); comp. John x
11,14. Comp. also the use of zozpai-
vey in John xxi 16, Acts xx 28,
t Pet. vy 2, Jude 12. It suggests the
feeding, protection and rule of the
flock.

didackddovs] ‘Teachers’ are joined
with ‘prophets’ in Acts xiii 1, and

déuara_of_his_quotation.—The-déuara—they follow them in the list in 1 Cor.

xii 28; but we have no other refer-
ence to them as a class, except in
Rom. xii 7 (6 d:daoxwy, dv 17 Sidacka-
Aig). ‘Prophets and teachers’ are
also mentioned in the Didaché ec. 15
(quoted in the exposition). The
‘pastors and teachers’ are here sepa-
rated from the foregoing and linked
together by the bond of a common
article. It is probable. that their
sphere of activity was the settled
congregation, whereas the apostles,
prophets and evangelists had a wider
range.

12. xarapricpdv] The verb carap-
tifew is discussed by Lightfoot on
1 Thess, iii 10 (Votes on Epp. p. 47).
He illustrates its prominent idea of
‘fitting together’ by its classical use
for reconciling political factions,
and its use in surgery for setting
bones. In the New Testament it is
used of bringing a thing into its
proper condition, whether for the
first time or, as more commonly, after
lapse. Thus we have (1) Heb. xi 3
karnprio Gat Tavs aldvas pypart Oeod,
xill 21 karaptigat vas év mavrl dyabo
els TO rowjoat To OéAnpa avrow, I Pet.

182

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

[IV 13

| . ,
dryiwy eis Eoyov Staxovias, eis oikodouny TOU owmaTos

le ol / 4 ; 8
TOU xXpioTOU, Buéypt KaTavTHowWpEY ol mavTEs cis THY

V 10 xaraprice, ornpife, obevdcet:

(2) literally, Mark i 19, of putting

nets in order; metaphorically, of
restoration of an offender, Gal. vi 1
xarapricere rovodroy, and of the rectifi-
cation of short-comings, 1 Thess. iii 10

kataprica Ta vorepnuata Tis wiorews —

tpav. The senseof restoration prevails
- in 2 Cor, xiii 9 rotro Kal evxopueda, TH
pov kardpriow, which is followed by
karapriferde i in @ 11: in I Cor. i Io
katnprigpévar ev ro avT@ vot follows
the mention of oyiopara.

For the form see Clem. Strom. iv
26 (P. 638) r rod cwrijpos karapric pd
TeXetcovpevoy: and comp. Ariateas,
Swete Introd. to LXX 544, mpos
Gyr erioxepw kai rpérepv éLapriopoy.

In_this passage xarapriopos sug-

of any service which the saints render
to one another, or to the Body of
which they are members, or (which is
the same thing) to the Lord who is
their Head.

The phrase eis ¢pyov Staxovias is
most naturally taken as dependent on
xaraptiopov. The change of preposi-
tions (mpos...eis) points in this direc-
tion, but is not in itself conclusive:
the absence of the definite articles
however, with the consequent com-
pactness of the phrase, is strongly
confirmatory of this view. The mean-

‘ing accordingly is : ‘for the complete

equipment of the saints for the work
of service’,

oixodounyv] ‘building’ rather than
‘edification’: for the picturesque-

gests the bringing of the saints to a
condition of fitness for the discharge
of their functions in the Body, without
implying restoration from a disor-
' dered state.

eis Epyov diaxovias] The nearest
parallel is 2 Tim. iv 5 épyor molycov
evayyedtorou (for épyov micrews in
2 Thess. i 11 is ‘activity inspired by
faith’, comp. 1 Thess. i 3): but. the
sense here is much more general than
if we had els epyov diaxdvev.

Ataxovia is the action of a servant
(8tdxovos) who waits at table, etc:
comp. Luke x 40, xvii 8, xxii 26 f,
Acts vi rf. But it has the same
extension as our word ‘service’, and
it was at once applied to all forms of
Christian ministration. ‘Thus 9 dca-
_kovia rod Aoyouv is contrasted with 7
xaOnpepiy Staxovia in Acts vi 1, 4.
And it is used with a wide range
extending from the work of the aposto-
late (Acts i 17, 25, Rom. xi 13) to the
informal ‘service to the saints’ to
which the household of Stephanas
had appointed themselves (eis dtaxo-
viav trois dylo eragay éavrovs 1 Cor.
xvi15). Here we may interpret it

ness of the metaphor must be pre-
served. Comp. ii 21 waca olxodopy
...avféer, and the note there. The
phrase eds oixodopjy x7r.A. gives the
general result of all that has hitherto —
been spoken of; as in 2 16, where it
is repeated.

13. karavtnooper| This verb is used
nine times in the Acts, of travellers
reaching a place of destination. Other-
wise it is confined in the New Testa-
ment to St Paul. In x Cor. xiv 36 it
is contrasted With é&edbeiy: 7 ag?
tpady oO Aeyos Tob Geot eéndber, 4 eis
vpas pévous xaryvrncev; (‘were you
its starting-point, or were you its only
destination ?’): see also 1 Cor. x 11
par, eis ods Ta TAY TaY aldvev KaTyv-
ryxev, Phil. iii 11 ef wws xaravrijow eis
ry é£avaoracw. x.7r.A. Unity is our
journey’s end, our destination.

of mavres| i ie. ‘all of us together’ .
As often in the phrase Ta mavra,
when it means ‘the universe of things’,
the definite article gathers all the
particulars under one view: comp.
Rom. xi 32 ouvécdewwev yap 6 Oeds
Tous mavras els ameGiav iva Tous mdvras
éXejon, 1 Cor. x 17 Gre els dpros, év

183

IV 14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

évornta Tis wiorews Kal THs émupvacews TOU vio Tov.

~ ‘ ~ 4

Geod, cis avdpa TéAEov, cis uéTpov HAtkias Tod mAnpw-
“~ 4 . QR ,

patos TOU xpiorou: “iva pnxéte euev vyTot, KAVOwVt-

vaya of todhol € éoper, of yap mayres éx
Tov évos pr ‘ou peréxopen,
eis...els...e¢s] The three clauses are
co-ordinate. In accordance with the
general rule caravray is followed by eis
to indicate destination. .
évornta| See above, on 2. 3.
nioreas] Comp. pia miotis, 2 5.
Both wicrews and érvyydcews are to
be taken with the following genitive
rov viov tov beod: comp. Gal. ii 20 év
wiore: (@ TH TOD viod rod Oeod.
unity springs from a common faith in,
and a common knowledge of, Christ
as the Son of God.
émtyvocews| ‘knowledge’, not ‘full’

tached note on éziyveots. .

tov viov tov Geot| St Paul's first
preaching at Damascus is thus de-
scribed in Acts ix 20, éxypvacey rov
"Inoobp ort ovrds €otw 6 vids Tod Beod.
In his earliest epistle we have the
Divine sonship mentioned in con-
nexion with the resurrection: 1
Thess, i 10 dvapévew rov viov avrod ée
TOY ovpavarv, Ov Hyeipey ex THY veKPOY,
"Ingovv, «7.A.: and this connexion is
emphasised in Rom. i 3 rov opiorbév-
ros viov beod év duvdues kata mvedpa
dywoumns €& dyaotdcews vexpov. On
the special point of the title in the
present context see the exposition.

dvipa] The new human unity is in
St Paul’s language cis xawds avOpa-
mos (ii 15). Here, however, he uses
dvijp réAetos, because his point is the
maturity of the full-grown organism.
Man as distinguished from angels or
the lower animals is dvépwros. He is
dyjp as distinguished either (a) from
woman, or (0) from boy. It is in view
of this last distinction that dvijp is
here used, to signify ‘a human being
grown to manhood’, Comp. 1 Cor.
xiii 11 dre funy vimos...dre yéyova

The .

dip: 80 here, in the next verse, we
have by way of contrast ta pyére
Gpuev vifrtot.

It is specially to be observed. that
St Paul does not say els dydpas reAei-
ous, though even Origen incidentally
so interprets him (Cramer Catena,
ad loc, p. 171). Out of the imma-—
turity of individualism (xjmo), we
are to reach the predestined unity of
the one full-grown Man (eis avdpa
réhetov). .

pérpov] ‘the measure’ in the sense
of ‘the full measure’; as in the
phrases pérpov 78ns Hom. JZ. xi 225,
coins pérpov, Solon iv 52. Td pérpov

___or ‘further_knowledge’:see-the-de-—rfjs—Atxias—is—quoted—by— Wetstein

from Lucian Jmag. 6 and Philostra-
tus, Vit. Soph. i 25, 26, p. 543.

yAtkias| A stage of growth, whether
measured by age or stature. It is
used for maturity in the phrase
qAckiay éyew (John ix 21, as also in
classical Greek).

m\npépatos} We cannot separate
‘the fulness of the Christ’ in this
passage from the statement in i 23
that the Christ is ‘being fulfilled’
and finds His fulness in the Church.

* When all the saints have come to the

unity which is their destined goal, or,
in other words, to the full-grown
Man, the Christ will have been ful-
filled. Thus they will have together
reached ‘the full measure of the ma-
turity of the fulness of the Christ’.
14—-16. ‘So shall we be babes no.
longer, like little boats tossed and
swung round. by shifting winds, the
sport of clever and unscrupulous in-
structors ; but we shall hold the trath
in love, and so grow up into the
Christ. He is the Head: from Him
the whole Body, an organic unity
articulated and compacted by all the
joints of its system, active in all the

184

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

[IV: 14

4 4 / “
Comevor Kal repipepopevar rravti dvéuw THs SiacKaNlas
~ , nn f
év TH KuBia. Tov advOpuirrwy év mavovpyia mods THY pyebo-

functions of its several parts, grows
with its proper growth and builds
itself in love’.

14. vy] In addition to 1 Cor.
xiii 11, quoted above, compare 1 Cor.
iii If. ovx durjOnv Aadfjoas. dpi os
mvevpartkois GAN as capkivots, os

vytriow év XptoT@> yada vpas émérica,

od Bpaya, otra yap édvvace.
kdvdenCopevor] Comp. Luke viii
247@ dvép@ kai Te krvieon Tov Ddaros,
James i 6 6 ydp Staxpudpevos Eorxev
KAudor. Oadrdoons dvepiCopévp kal
piriCopéva. When used metaphori-
cally xAvdeov is ‘storm’ rather than
‘wave’: comp. Demosth. de fals. leg.
Pp. 442 kxAvdova kal paviay ra xabe-
ornkéta mpdypara yyoupever, Philo de

congr.-erud._grat.12(M._528)_oddov—_used_to-render_pi5y),-of-which-dpom-

kat kAvdova moddy dd Tov odparos
evdeEapnérm, Plut. Coriol. 32 xabamep
év xemave moA\A@ kal KAvdou Tis
méXews. So we find the verb used in
Josephus Ant. ix 11 3, 6 Sijpos rapac-
aopevos Kat krvdoviCdpuevos.

mepipepouevor] ie, swung round. It
occurs, but only as an_ ill-attested
variant for rapadépec Gat ‘to be carried
aside, out of course’, both in Heb, xiii
9 (dsSayais otkiiats kal Eévats pr) mapa-
géperbe), and in Jude 12 (vepéAa
avuSpot td dvépov mapabepopevat).
_wavri dvéum] This is to be taken
with both participles: the xAvdov is
due to the dvepos, as in Luke viii 23f.

ris didacxarias] ‘of doctrine’: the
article marks the abstract use of the
word,

xuBia] ‘playing with dice’ («iBox),
‘gaming’, and so, metaphorically,
‘trickery’. Ev is instrumental: ‘by
the sleight of men’. KvBevew is used
in. the sense of ‘to cheat’ in Arrian
Fivictet. ii 19 28. Epiphanius Haer.
xxxiv 1 describes Marcus as payiijs
dmdpyov kuBelas eumretporaros, and ibid.
21 says that no xuBevrixy émivoa can
stand against the light of truth.

Origen ad loc. uses the expression
kuBeurixas Siddcxev, for the meaning
of which we may compare ¢. Cels. iii
39 ovdév véOov Kai KuBeutixdy Kal me-
TAacpévoy Kat ravolpyov éexdvrwv (of
the Evangelists).

tov dvOperev| <A similar depre-
ciatory use of of avépemor is found in
Col. ii 8, 22, the latter of which
passages is based on Isa. xxix 13.

mavoupyta| In classical Greek zav-
odpyos, Which originally means ‘ready
to do anything’, has a better and a
worse meaning, like our word ‘cun-
ning’ in biblical English, The better
meaning is found e.g. in Plato Rep,
4090 aavodpyéds tre Kat codds. It
prevails in the Lxx, where the word is

pos is another equivalent: comp.
Prov. xiii I vids mavovpyos vmyjKoos
matpi. The only place where the ad-
jective occurs in the New Testament
is 2 Cor. xii 16, where St Paul play-
fully uses it of himself, imdpyev zar-
odpyos SoA spas édaBov. St Luke
uses savoupyia of the ‘craftiness’ of
our Lord’s questioners in reference to
the tribute-money, thus hinting at the
cleverness with which the trap was
laid, whereas St Mark and St Matthew
employ harsher words (vzoxpicts,
movnpia). In his quotation from Job
v 13 in 1 Cor. iii 19 St Paul renders
now. by é& rH wavoupyig atrap,
where the Lxx has év ry hpovyoce
airév. In 2 Cor. xi 3 he says 6 d¢us
éfnnarnoer Evav év ty mavoupyia avrov,
referring to Gen. iii 1, where DY is
represented in the Lxx by ppompdra-
ros. Lastly, we find the word in 2
Cor. iv 2, pi mepimarotyres év mravoup-
via pndé Sododvres tov Adyov Tod Geod.
There it is the context which deter-
mines that a bad cleverness is meant,
In our present passage Origen links
the word with ¢évrpéyea, another
word for ‘cleverness’. But the clever-

IV 15, 16]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

185

Slav This whens, 15 dAnOevovres dé év dyamy avérowuer
eis avTov Ta mayra, ds éorw i Kepadn, Xpiords, * °ée
ov wav TO Gwpa ovvapmodoyouuevoy Kal cuvBiBaCd-

ness is condemned by its reference,
_ apes thy pebodiay rijs mhdvys.

pebodiay] Comp. vi 11 ras pedodias
tov StaBddov. MeOodia and pebodevew
come from <6odos, which is originally
a way of search after something, and.
so an inquiry (used e.g. by Plato
of a scientific investigation), and so
ultimately ‘method’. The verb pedo-
Sede, however, came to have a bad
sense, ‘to scheme’, ‘to employ craft’,
Polyb. xxxviii 4 10. In the uxx it is
so used in 2 Sam. xix 27 pebddevcer
6 SovAds cov, No other instance of
peOodia is cited; but for péOodos in the
bad sense see Plut. Moral. 176, Arte-
mid. Oneir. iii 25, Conc. Ancyr._1.

ways] In all the passages where
it occurs in the New Testament mAavy
will bear the passive meaning, ‘error,,
though the active meaning, ‘deceit’,
would sometimes be equally appro-
priate. There is no reason therefore
for departing from the first meaning
of the word, ‘wandering from the
way’, and so, metaphorically, ‘error’,
as opposed to ‘truth’. Here it stands
in sharp contrast with dAn@evovres.

It seems best to take pos ri
peOodiay ris mAavys in close connexion
with éy mavoupyia, which otherwise
would be strangely isolated. The pre-
position wpés will then introduce the
standard of reference, somewhat as in
Gal. ii 14 ov« dpOorodotew mpis riv
aAnOevav tod evayyediov. We may
render, ‘by craftiness in accordance
with the wiles of error’.

15. aAnbevovres] ‘maintaining the
truth’. The Latin version renders,
Sueritatem autem facientes’, The
verb need not be restricted to truth-
fulness in speech, though that is its
obvious meaning in Gal, iv 16 dore
exOpss vpav yéyova adnOevov tpiv;
the only other place where it is

found in the New Testament, The
large meaning of dA7Geca in the Christ-
ian vocabulary, and especially the
immediate contrast with Adv in this
passage, may justify us in the render-
ing given above. The clause must
not be limited to mean ‘being true in
your love’, or ‘ dealing truly in love’.

év dyary] For the frequent repeti-
tion of this phrase in the epistle, see
the notes on i 4, iii 17, Truth and
love are here put forward as the twin
conditions of growth.

ra mavra| ‘in all things’, in all
respects, wholly and entirely : com-
pare the adverbial use of ra L mayTa Ev

maow- in-i-23.

és eorw] This introduces a new
thought, by way of supplement: the
position of eis avrdy before ra awdvra
shews that the former sentence is
in a sense complete. We feel the
difference, if for the moment we
transpose the phrases and read avér-
cope Ta mavra eis avrdv, OS €oTW 1
keady: such an arrangement would
practically give us the phrase avéy-
caopev els THy Keadyy, which would
almost defy explanation. Similarly

. in Col. ii 10 ev avrg is separated by

menAnpopevo. from 6s éorw, which
again introduces a new thought after
the sentence has been practically
completed,
€& od] Compare the parallel
passage, Col. ii 19 ov kpardy ri
kepadyy, €£ ov wav rb odpa Sta Tey
apadv Kai ovvdécpav émiyopyyoupevoy
kat ovvBiBaCouevoy av&er tiv avénow
tov Geot. Here, however, the inser-
tion of Xpioros in apposition to xe-
gady gives us a smoother construc-
tion.
ovvappodroyotpevov] This word does
not occur in the parallel passage.
Its presence here is doubtless due

186

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

[IV 316

‘4 t ~ a
pevoy Oia maons ais Ths érvyopnyias Kat’ évépyeay év

to its having been used in the’ meta-.

phor of the building in ii 21. See
the detached note on cvvappodoyeiv.
ovvB:Baloperov] In Col, ii 2 cur-
BiBac Gévres probably means ‘instruct-
ed’, as it does in the xxx. But here
and in Col. ii 19 it means ‘united’.
In classical Greek it is commonly used.
of ‘bringing together’ or ‘reconciling’
persons. It is possible that in its
present context it is a term borrowed
from the medical writers.
apis] The word doy has. very
{ various meanings. Besides its com-
mon use (1) for ‘touching’, ‘touch’
and ‘a point of contact’, from drropat,
it also signifies (2) ‘kindling’, from
are in a special sense, (3) ‘sand’, as
a technical term of the arena (see my

plague’, often in the uxx. None of
. these senses suits the present context
or the parallel in Col. ii 19 wav ré
copa Oia tév apdy kat cvvdécpov
emtxopyyoupevoy Kal cuvBiBatdpevor.
For in both places the function
assigned. to the agai is that of hold-
ing the body together in the unity
which is necessary to growth.

But the word has another sense
which connects it with dra, ‘I fasten’
or ‘tie’, The wrestler fastens on his
opponent with a dpi) dduros: comp.
Plat. Anton. 27 abi & ceiver if cuv-
Siairyots &huxrov, moral. 86¥ el Bra-
Bepds dy radda kal ducperayelpioros
dpocyéras abny évdidwow airod, Dion.
H. de Dem. 18 rois dOAntais ris ddnOe-
vijs NeEews laxupas ras dpas mpoceivat
dei xal ddixrous ras AaBds. The word,
together with some kindred wrest-
ling terms, was used of the union of
the Democritean atoms: Plut. Moral.
769¥F rais xar’ ’Emixovpov ddais kat
meptrAokais, comp. Damoxenus ap.
Athen. 10258 kat cupmdekopérns ovyt
cupdavors ddds. We find dupa used
in the same sense of the wrestler's
grip, Plut. Fab. 23 dupara nad AaBas,

and even of his gripping arms, Id.
Alcib. 2.

That doy in the sense of a band or
ligament may have been a term of -
ancient physiology is suggested by an
entry in Galen’s lexicon of words used
by Hippocrates (Gal. xix p. 87): ddds- -
Ta Gupara mapa Td aya, i.e. bands,
from the verb ‘to bind’, At any rate
it seems clear that the word could be
used in the general sense of a band
or fastening (from dzrw), and that
we need not in our explanation of
St Paul’s language start from addy in
the sense of ‘touch’.

Lightfoot indeed, in his note on
Ool. ii 19, adopts the latter course,
and seeks to bridge the gulf by means
of certain passages of Aristotle. But

--note—on—Passio—Perpet.to),-(4)-*a—Aristotle_again_and_again_ contrasts

aby ‘contact’ with ovpduots ‘cohe-
sion’; and in the most important of
the passages cited he is not speaking
of living bodies, but of certain dia-
phanous substances, which some
suppose to be diaphanous by reason
of certain pores; de gen. et corr.i 8.
(p. 326) odre ydp Kara ras ddas (i.e.
‘at the points of contact’) évdéyeras
Sudvar dud rav Siahavay, ovre dia rev
gwopov. In fact in Aristotle addy
appears to mean touching without
joining: hence e.g. in de caelo i 12
(p. 280) he argues that contact can
cease to be contact without péopd.

‘Ady then may be interpreted as a
general term for a band or fastening,
which possibly may have been used
in the technical sense of a ligament,
and which in Col. ii 19 is elucidated
through being linked by the vinculum
of a common definite article with
ovvdecpos, 2 recognised physiological
term.

émxopnyias] The word occurs again
in Phil. i 19 dca ris dpay dejoews cat
értyopryias Tod mvevpatos Inaod Xpio-
rov, ‘through your prayer and the
supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ’.

TV 16] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 187

Commentators are wont to explain it are the conditions of growth on which
as meaning ‘an abundant supply’,thus the Apostle is insisting.
differentiating it from xopnyia, ‘a Aristotle, who does not employ the
supply’, But this interpretation of compound forms, frequently uses
the preposition in this word, as in yopnyeiv and xopryia in contrast with
éntyveots, does not appear to be sub- aeduxévae and vats. In Pol, iv I
stantiated by usage. (p. 1288) he says that education has
The xopryés supplied the means of two pre-requisites, natural gifts and
putting a play on the Athenian stage. fortunate circumstances, d@vors and
The verb xopryeivy soon came to mean yopyyia rvynpd (a provision or equip-
‘to furnish’ or ‘supply’ in the widest ment which depends .on fortune).
sense. A little later the compound The best physical training will be
verb émyopyyeiv was similarly used. that which is adapted to the body
There is a tendency in later Greek to best framed by nature and best pro-
prefer compound to simple verbs, vided or equipped (caA\cora mepuxdre
probably for no other cause than the «al xeyopyynuéve): comp. iv II (p.
greater fulness of sound. The. force 1295). So again, vii 4 (p. 1325) od
of the preposition, before it ceased to yap oldy tre modcireiay yevéobur thy
be felt, was probably that of direction, dpiotyy avev ovppérpov xopnyias, 13
‘to supply to’: compare the Latin (p. 1331) deirat yap Kal yopnyias rivds
compounds with sub, such as sup- ro (qv xadas, Eth. Nic. x 8 (p. 1178)
plere, subministrare: and:see 2 Cor. Sdéee & av [y rod vod dpery| kab ris
ix 10 6 6¢ émtyopnyév_oméppa_r@—éxros-xopnylas-émt-puxpov-h én Ekarroy

omeipovrt, Gal. iii 5 6 ody émtxopnyay Sdeiarbat ris GOs, i It (p. 101) ri oby
dpiy ro wvedpa. LHven if émtyopyyjyara xwdver Aéyery evdaipova Tov Kar’ dperiy
means ‘additional allowances’ in redeiay évepyotvra kal rois éxrés ayadois
Athen. Deipnosoph. iv 8 (p. 1400), this ixavds xeyopyynuevoy, k.7.A.; and many
does not prove a corresponding use more instances might be quoted. The
for the other compounds: and inany limitation to a supply of food, where
case an ‘additional supply’ is some- it occurs, comes from the context, and
thing quite different from an ‘abun- does not belong to the word itself,
dant supply’. which is almost synonymous with
The present passage must be read xarackevy, and differs from it mainly
in close connexion with Col. ii 19, by suggesting that the provision or
where oopa...émiyopnyotpevoy Offers 2 equipment is afforded from outside
use of the passive (for the person and not self-originated.,
‘supplied’) which is also commonly This general meaning of provision
found with yopynycicda. But in what or equipment is in place here. The
sense is the body ‘supplied’ by means body may properly be said to be
of its bands and ligaments? It is equipped or furnished, as well as held
usual to suppose that a supply of together, by means of its bands and
nutriment is intended, and the men- ligaments; and accordingly we may
tion of ‘growth’ in the context appears speak of ‘every band or ligament of
to bear this out. But we cannot its equipment. or furniture’, The
imagine that the Greek physicians rendering of the Geneva Bible (1560),
held that nutriment was conveyed by if a little clumsy, gives the true
the bands and ligaments, whose func- sense: ‘by euerie ioynt, for the furnt-
tion is to keep the limbs in position ture thereof’, But as the word
and check the play of the muscles ‘equip’ does not belong to biblical
(Galen iv pp. 2f.). Nor is there any English, we must perhaps be content
reference to nutriment in the context with the rendering, ‘by every joint of
of either passage: order and unity its supply’, The Latin renders, ‘per

188

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[IV. 17

mérpy évcs ékdo-Tov epous THY abénow TOU TWMATOS
qwowtrat eis oixoSopny avTou éy dyary.

™Totto ovv Aéyw Kal Maptupopat év Kupie, MNKEeTL
Uuads mepirareiv Kabws kal ta EOyn wepiTarel év parat-

omnem tuncturam [some O.L. autho-
rities have tactum]subministrationis’,
which adequately ‘Tepresents the ori-
ginal.

kar’ évépyeav|] These words are to
be taken closely with év pérp@ évos
éxdorov pépous. For the further de-
finition of an anarthrous substantive
by a prepositional clause, comp. v. 14
év mavoupyia mpos tiv pebodiay ris
mAavns. It is just possible that we
are here again in presence of a tech-
nical term of Greek physiology.
Galen (de facult. natural. i. 2, 4, 5)
distinguishes between épyov, ‘work

I7—24. ‘This then is my meaning
and my solemn protestation. Your
conduct must no longer be that of
the Gentile world. They drift without
& purpose in the darkness, ‘strangers
to the Divine life; for they are igno-
rant, because their heart is blind and
dead: they have ceased to care what
they do, and so have surrendered
themselves to outrageous living, de-
filing their own: bodies and wronging
others withal. How different is the
lesson you have learned: I mean, the
Christ: for is not He the message you
have listened to, the school of your

done’, ‘result’, and évépyea, ‘the
working process’, ‘function’: the
impulse that produces the évépyea
being Svvayis. The meaning would
accordingly be ‘in accordance with
function in the full measure of each
several part’, ‘as each part duly fulfils
its proper function’, At the same
time we must not lose sight of the
strong meaning of évépyera in St Paul:

see the detached note on evepyeiy and

its cognates.

ray avgnow rr] ‘maketh the
increase of the body’. The distance
of the nominative, say ro oda, is the
cause of the redundant rod cdparos.
All that was required was avée:, but
the resolved phrase lends a further
impressiveness : comp. Col. ii 19 ate
Tv avEnow Tov Geod.

els oixodopiy adrod | ‘unto the build-
ing thereof’. He recurs to the meta-
phor which he has already so used in
v.12 (eis olkodopny Tov odparos), and
has again touched upon in cvvappo-
Aoyoupevov.

év dydrn] Once again this phrase
closes a sentence: see the notes on
i 4, iii 17.

instruction? In the person of Jesus
you have truth embodied. And the
purport of your lesson is that you must
abandon the old life once and for all;
you must strip off the old man, that
outworn and perishing garment fouled
by the passions of deceit: you must
renew your youth in the spiritual
centre of your being; you must clothe
yourselves with the new man, God’s
fresh creation in His own image,
fashioned in righteousness and holi-
ness which spring from truth’.

17. paprdpopat] ‘I testify’ or ‘pro-
test’, See Lightfoot on Gal. v 3 and
1 Thess. ii 11 (Notes on Epp. p. 29).
Maprupeiy ‘to bear witness’ and pap-
tupeiodat ‘to be borne witness to’ are
to be distinguished in the New Testa-
ment, as in classical Greek, from pap-
tupeoOa, which means first ‘to call to
witness’ and then absolutely ‘to pro-
test’ or ‘asseverate’.

ev kupio] See the exposition on ®. I.

dpas] emphatic, a8 duets in v. 20,

mepurareiv] See the note on ii 2.

ra 0m] The alternative reading,
ra Aoura €Ovn, has but a weak attesta-
tion : see the note on various readings.

IV 18, 19]

4 ie! A ~
OTNTL TOU VOOS avrey, *

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

189

eooripevor TH davola, évres

dando puopevor THS: Cans TOU Geob, Sid THY dryvowav

Tv ovcay év avrois dia THY Tuopwow Tis Kapdias

auTov, “otrwes amndynkoTes éavTous TapédwKav TH
4 > , ., ? ,

doehyeig eis épyaciav dkaapoias waons év mAeovesia.

St Paul’s usage varies: (1) they had |

not ceased to be @vy as contrasted
_ With ‘Iovdaior, Rom. xi 13 dpiv dé Aéyo

tois €veow, also xv 16 and Eph. ii.
I1; yet (2) in a sense they were no: as
longer ¢6yn, 1 Cor. xii 2 ofSare Ore dre:

€0vm wre xrA. Here at any rate the

meaning is plain: ‘there is a conduct

which characterises the Gentile world:
that you have done with’. .
paratornte] St Paul uses the word
again only in Rom, viii 20, rH ‘yap
paraiornre 7 KTiots umerayy. * It suggests
___either_absence_of_purpose-_or failure
to attain any true. purpose: comp.
Eccl. i 2, etc. paradrns paraoryrey.
We have similar language used of the
Gentile world in Rom. i 21, éparais-
Onoav éy Tos Siadoyiopois avrav Kal
éoxoticOn 7 daovveros adtav Kapdia,

18, dvres] to be taken with darn h-.

Aorptopévor, as in Col. i 21 xat dpas
more évras amn\dorpiopevous K.7.A. To
join it with éoxorwpévoe would give us
@ very unusual construction; whereas
dam \dorptopévoe is used almost as a
noun, see the note on ii 12.' Accord-
ingly ‘being alienated from the life of
God’ does not imply that they had at
one time enjoyed that life: it means
simply being aliens from it.
rhs (wis rod beov] the Divine life
communicated to man: to this the
Gentiles were strangers, for they were
@eot, ii 12, For the proclamation of
the Gospel as ‘life’ see. Acts Vv 20
mavra Ta pypara Tis fafs Taurys.
riv ovcav}] This is not to be taken
as emphatic, as it would have to be if
we punctuated after éy avrois. It
introduces the cause of the ignorance,
They have no life, because they have
no knowledge: and, again, no. know-

ledge because their heart is incapable
- of perception.

— mépworw) Wdpwcis ris rapdias i is to
be distinguished from oxAnpoxapdia,

as ‘obtuseness’ from ‘obstinacy’. See
the additional note on mdpaccs.

19. dmndyyxores] They are ‘past
JSeeling’ ; i.e. they have ceased to care.
*Amadyeiv (‘to cease to feel pain for’,
Thuc. ii 61) comes to have two mean-
ings: (2) despair, as in Polyb. 1355
ro O€ mpodavés memroxos pony woAi-
Teva Kal tas’ drnhynxvias oxas TOY
»__ Suvdpecoy | (se._militum) ét_r6_xpetrrov

qyayev, and so elsewhere; (2) reck-
lessness, Polyb. xvi 127 r6 sytip pacrew
éua tov cwpdtoy év port TiOéueva py
moteiy oKiay amndynkvias éott wouyiis,
i.e. such a statement shews a perfectly
reckless mind. ‘Desperation’ and
‘recklessness of most unclean living’
(misspelt ‘wretchlessness’ in Article
xvii) are moods which stand not far
apart. The Latin rendering ‘despe-
ranies’ does not necessarily imply the
variant atrHAttikotec (for aTHACH-
KoTtec) which is found in D,(G,).
doehyeia] The meaning of dcéAyera
is, first, outrageous conduct of any
kind; then it comes to mean specially
a wanton violence; and then, in the
later writers, wantonness in the sense
of lewdness. See Lightfoot on Gal.
Vv 19: ‘a man may be dxdéapros and
hide his sin; he does not become
doedy}s until he shocks public de-
cency’.

€pyaciay| From the early meaning
of épyor, ‘work in the fields’ (comp.
Hesiod’s*Epya xal 1jépox) comes epyd-
ms ‘a field-labourer’, as in Matt. ix 37,
ete, and dpydteoOa, which is properly
‘to till the ground’. The verb is then

190

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

[IV 20—22

~ \ ef ? \ : ‘
°ypets O€ ovX oUTWS eudbere TOV ypiETOV, “El ye abrov
VA ~ 4 Xd
ikovoare Kat éy avT@ édidayOnre, Kabus gor ddjnbea

év t@ Inoot, “drobéca

widened to mean the producing of
any, result by means of labour. ’Epya-
cia is used in Acts xvi 16, 19, xix 24f.
in the sense of business or the gains
of business; and still more generally
in Luke xii 58 dés épyaciay (=da
operam) amnddaxOat an’ avrod.

In the New Testament éepyaeoGat,
like épyov, is transferred to moral
action (as épydtecOat ro dyafov Rom.
ii 10, xaxdv xiii 10), Here els épyaciay
maons axabapcias is a resolved expres-
sion used for convenience of construc-
tion instead of épydteoOat wacav dxa-
6apciav. It means no more than
‘performance’ or ‘practice’: ‘in opera-
zionem omnis immunditiae’.

~ \ A
Uuas KaTa THY TpoTEépay

without further definition; and, as the
context does not fix a particular mo-
ment, they may be rendered in Eng-
lish either by the simple past tense
or, perhaps more naturally, by the
perfect.

21. et ye adrév jxovcare| See the
note on iii 2. Ev ye does not imply
a doubt, but gives emphasis. It is
closely connected with avrov, which
itself is in an emphatic position: ‘if
indeed it is He whom ye have heard’.

év avr] ‘in Him’ as the sphere of
instruction; not ‘by Him’ (A. V.) as
the instructor.

xaos x1A.] This clause is ex-
planatory of the unfamiliar phrase-

év trAeovetial ‘with greediness’, or
- *yapacity’; i.e. ‘with entire disregard
of the rights of others’, as Lightfoot
explains it in his note on Col. iii 5.
It\cove&ia often means more than
‘covetousness’: smAcovexrety is used
in the sense of ‘to defraud’ in the
special matter of adultery (& 76
ampaypzart) in I Thess. iv 6. Com-
menting on év swdeovefia Origen (Cra-
mer, ad loc.) says pera rot mAcovexreiv®
éxetvous S€ (fors. 53) dv rods ydpous
vobevouerv, and below dxa@apciay dé év
aAcovetia THY potxeiay olopat eiva, See
further the notes on v 3, 5 below.

20. épabere] The expression par-
Odvew Tov xpiorov has no exact paral-
lel; for pav@avew is not used with an
accusative of the person who is the
object of knowledge. But it may be
compared with other Pauline expres-
sions, such as roy xpiordy mapada-
Beiv (Col. ii 6), évdvcacéa (Gal. iii 27),
yvGvat (Phil. iii 10), and indeed dxovew
in the next verse, which does not
refer to hearing with the bodily ear.

The aorists at this point are not to
be pressed to point to the moment of
conversion: they indicate the past

ology which has been used. For ri
GAjbevayv pavOdvew, dxotew, év TH aAn-
Geia diddoxerOa, would present no
difficulty. Truth is found in the per-
son of Jesus, who is the Christ: He
is Himself the truth (John xiv 6):
hence we can be said to ‘learn Him’.

dA70ca] In the older MSS no dis-
tinction was made between dd7dea
and ddnGeia: so that it is possible to
read xaéds dorw ddnGeia, ev TO “Inaod,
‘as He is in truth, in Jesus’, Or re-
taining the nominative dAjdea, and
still making 6 ypiordés the subject, we
may render ‘as He is truth in Jesus’.
Of these two constructions the former
is preferable; but neither suits the
context so well as that which has been
given above. |

22. drobéc6a] The clause intro-
duced by the infinitive is epexegetical
of the general thought of the preced-
ing sentence: ‘this is the lesson that
ye have been taught—that ye put of’

etc. *AroOéo6a, standing in contrast

with évdtcacGa, is equivalent to the
drexdicacGa of the parallel passage,
Col. iii 9 f,, drexdvoduevoe roy maXatoy
dvOpwrov civ tais mpagecw avrod, kat

IV 23, 24]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

I9I

dvactpopnv Tov madav avOpwrov tov Pbapouevov
kata tas érOupias rijs dmarns, Bdvavectoba bé TH
mvevpatt TOU voos Juv, “Kal évdvcacOae Tov KaLvoV
dvOpwrov tov kata Gedy xricOévra év Sikawoodvy Kat

4 ~ .
ooioTnTe THS a&AnOetas.

évivcduevot toy véov, The metaphor
is that of stripping off one garment
to put’ on another. Compare also
Rom. xiii 12 droOdpeba ody ra Epya
Tov oxdrovs, evdvodpeba S€ Ta Sa TOD
goros. ;

dvaorpopyv] Comp. dvecrpadnpev
wore in ii 3; and for dvacrpépecbac
as a synonym of wepurarety see the
note on ii 2.

mwakaiy dvOparov| Comp. Rom.
vi 6 6 rakatds Hudy dvOpwmos ovve-
oravpé6y. Tadarcs stands in contrast
alike to xawd0s (v. 24), new in the sense

body of our Lord, Ool. i 22, ii 11.

24. xara Oedv) ‘after God’: God
Himself is the rézos after which the
new man iscreated, The allusion is to
Gen. i 27 Kar eixéva Oeod édroincey
avroy, the language of which is more
closely followed in Col. iii 10 ray véov
Toy dyaxawotpevoy eis éniyvooty Kar’
eixdéva rou xricavros avrov.

Govornts] For the usual distinction
between dovdrys and dixatooctvyn, as
representing respectively duty towards
God and duty towards men (Plato,
Philo), see Lightfoot’s note on 1 Thess,

of fresh, and to véos (Col. iii 10), new
in the sense of young. The ‘old man’
is here spoken of as POecpopevos, in
process of decay, as well as morally
corrupt; we need in exchange a per-
petual renewal of youth (dvaveoic dai),
as well as a fresh moral personality
(xaos avOpwros). The interchange
of tenses deserves attention: dzro6é-
oba,..pberpopevor...dvaveodva bat. ..evdv-
caréa, Viewed as a change of gar-
ments the process is momentary;
viewed as an altered life. it is con-
tinuous,

23. mvevpar, tod voos] The mind
had been devoid of true purpose (év
paraornrs tov yoos,.v. 17), for the
heart had been dull and dead (8:4 ry
aépoow ris kapdias, v. 18). The spi-
ritual principle of the mind must
acquire a new youth, susceptible of
spiritual impressions. The addition
of rot vos vay indicates that the
Apostle is speaking of the spirit in
the individual: in itself dvaveoto Gat
76 mvetiparc would have been am-
biguous in meaning. We may com-
pare his use of 76 odya ris capKés
avrod in speaking of the earthly

li 10 daiws kal dixaicos (Notes on Epp.
p. 27 f.). The combination was a
familiar one; comp. Wisd. ix 3, Luke
i 75.

dAnbeias| to be taken with both the
preceding substantives, ‘in righteous-
ness and holiness which are of the
truth’; not as A, Y. ‘in righteousness
and true holiness’. There is an im-
mediate contrast with ‘the lusts &
deceit’, xara ras émOupias tis dmarns
®. 223; just as in v. 15 dAnOevovres
stands in contrast with rijs mAdzns.
Truth as applied to conduct (see also
%. 21) is a leading thought of this
section, and gives the starting-point
for the next.

25—V. 2. ‘I have said that you
must strip off the old and put on the
new, renounce the passions of deceit
and live the life of truth. Begin
then by putting away lying: it is con-
trary to the truth of the Body that
one limb should play another false.
See that anger lead not to sin; if
you harbour it, the devil will find a
place among you. Instead of. steal-
ing, let a man do honest work, that.
he may have the means of giving to

192

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[IV 25-—27 .

\ . LA lon a , .
Arto dro0éuevor To ~Weidos Aadcite dAHOEIAN

a n ‘ 4 a . - 4
Ekactoc meTd TOF TAHCION ayTo;, Ort éo-uev aNAn-

Awy wéAn.

> ry c. ‘ ef
6s prizecde kai MH AmMapT&nete? O HALOS

A s . ~ ~ . :
bn éridvéTw él mapopytoue vuewv, "unde didote TéTOV

others. Corrupt talk must give way
to good words, which may - build. up
your corporate life, words of grace in
the truest sense: otherwise you will
pain the Holy Spirit, the seal of your
present unity and your future re-
demption. The bitter temper must
. be exchanged for the sweet—for kind-
ness and tenderheartedness and for-
givingness. God in Christ has for-
given you all, and you must copy
Him, for you are His children whom
He loves. In love you too must live,
such love as Christ’s, which is the
love of sacrifice’.
| 25. daroOéyevor] repeated from ar-

sin not’ (but R. V. marg. has ‘Be ye.
angry’). The Hebrew means literally
‘tremble’: so Aquila (cAoveiobe): but
it is also used of anger. .

6 fAws K7.A.] Grotius and others
cite the remarkable parallel from
Plut. de amore fratr. 488 B «ira
ptpetoOas rovs IvOayopixous, of yéver
pndev -rpoojxovres GNA Kowod Adyou

peréxovres, euore mpoayOeiev eis Aovdo-

pias vm opyis, mply 7 Tov BAcoy Sivae
ras Se&tas éuBdddovres adAAyAots Kal
domacdpevot SteAvovro, For the form
of the precept compare Deut. xxiv
15 avOnpepoy droddces Tov poor
adrov (SC. Tod wévyTos), ovK émidtcerat

obécba, v. 22; but the metaphor
of the garment is dropped, and the
sense is now more general, not ‘put-
ting off’ but ‘putting away’. So in
Col. iii 8 vert 5é dwrdberde Kai dpeis ra
mavra, opyyv, x.7.A., before the meta-
phor has been introduced by dzexdu-
odpevot (2.9). We cannot with pro-
priety give the same rendering here
and in 2, 22, as ‘putting away’ a gar-
* ment does not in English signify put-
ting it off.

To Weddos| The word is suggested
by rijs dAnéeias in the preceding verse ;
but it is used not in its more general
sense of ‘falsehood’, but in the nar-
rower sense of ‘lying’, as is shewn
by the next words, Comp. John viii
44 Grav adj Td WedSos, K.7.r.

Aadeire «.7.A.] An exact quotation
from Zech. viii 16, except that there
we have pos roy for wera rov. In
Col. iii g the precept py Wevderde els
dAAyjAovs occurs, but without the
reason here given, which is specially
suggested by the thought of this
epistle.

26. opyiferOe w.r.d.] Ps, iv 4, UXx.;
where we render ‘Stand in awe and

6 Aus é aire: and Heang. Petre
§§ 2, 5, and the passages quoted by
Dr Swete ad loc.

sapopy.on@| The word does not
appear to be found outside biblical
Greek, although sapopyifopa: (pass.)
sometimes occurs. In the Lxx. it
always (with the exception of a
variant in A) has an active meaning,
‘provocation’, whereas smapo&vopos
is used in the passive sense, ‘indigna-
tion’: mapopyifew and rapogdvew are
of common occurrence and often ren- _
der the same Hebrew words. Here
mapopyopos is the state of feeling
provocation, ‘wrath’. Tapopyifew oc-
curs below, vi 4.

27, didore rorov] In Rom. xii 19 dére
rorov Tj opy7 the context (‘Vengeance
is Mine’) shews that the meaning is ©
‘make way for the Divine wrath’.
The phrase occurs in Keclus. iv 5 py
dds rérov dvOpdm@ xarapdcacbai ce,
xix 17 dés rorov vop@ “Yiorov (give
room for it to work), xxxviii 12 xat
larp@ 8bs rérov (allow him scope). It
is found in the later Greek writers,
as in Plutarch, Moral. 462 B det de
pire maifovras avri (sc. 77 dépyf) Se -

IV 28, 29]
TO diaBoryp.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

193.

a a a
85 KAeTTWY MNKETL KNerreTw, peaAAor

88 xomidrw Epryafouevos Tais yepolv TO ayaboy, iva

exm peTaciovar TH Xpetav ExovTt.

eras Aoyos cam os
7

ék TOU orduaros UUOV pt éxrropever Ow, ada et Tis
‘dyabds mpos oixodopny Tis xpelas, va O@ xdpw Tots

ddvat roroy: but it is perhaps almost a
Latinism: comp. locum dare (Cic. al.).
diaBcA@] There is no ground for
interpreting this with some of the
older commentators as meaning here
‘a slanderer’: for although the word
is not used by St Paul outside this
epistle and the Pastoral Epistles, its
sense is unmistakeable in vi. 11.

28. oxAérrov| The man who has
been given to stealing,as distinguished
from 6 xAérrns, a common thief, and
also from 6 xAéyas, one who has stolen
on a particular occasion.

contrasted with the ‘good’ fish (ré
cad), In these places the word is
used in the sense of ‘worthless’: and
the original meaning of ‘corruptness’

has entirely disappeared. It does not
follow that the word as used by St
Paul means only ‘idle’ or ‘worthless’,
like the fia dpyov of Matt. xii 36.
The context requires a stronger sense;
the sin rebuked is on a level with
lying and stealing. If it does not go
so far as the aicypodoyia of Col. iii 8,
it certainly includes the popodoyia
and evrpareAia which are appended

komdr@ K.T.A.| Compare I Cor. iv
I2 xomidpev épyatopevo. tais idias
xepoiv, and 1 Thess. iv. 11 épydfeoOat
tats xepolv vay. On the other hand
we have in Rom. ii 10 and Gal. vi 10
the phrase épydeaat ro dyabév (which
is to be compared with epyd(eoOat thy
dvopiay, frequent in the Psalms and
found in Matt. vii 23). Here the
combination of the two phrases gives
an effective contrast with xAérrew.
For the addition of idias see the note
on various readings.

29. Adyos campos] ampos pri-
marily means ‘rotten’ or ‘corrupt’:
but in a derived sense it signifies
‘effete’ and so ‘worthless. It is
often joined with zaAaics, which it
approaches so nearly in meaning that

it can even be used in a good sense of ©

‘old and mellow’ wines. Ordinarily,
however, it signifies ‘old and worn
out’: see the passages collected by
Wetstein on Matt. vii 18. In the
Gospels it stands as the antithesis of
dyaQos and xadds: Matt. vii 17 f., xii
33, Luke vi 43, of the ‘bad’ as con-
trasted with the ‘good’ tree and
fruit; Matt. xiii 48 of the ‘bad’ as

EPHES.’

to aicyporns in Eph. v 4.

el reg dyads] For e@ ris, ‘whatever’,
comp. Phil. iv. 8. *Ayaéc¢s is morally
good, in contrast to campés, and not
merely ‘good for a purpose,’ which
would be expressed by evderos, Com-
pare Rom. XV 2 éxarros HOV 7
wAnoiov apeckéro eis TO dyabov pos
oixodopiy.

tis xpelas] Xpeia is (1) need, (2)
an occasion of need, (3) the matter in
hand. For the last sense compare
Acts vi 3 ots xaraorjoopev emi ris
xpeias ravrns, and Tit. iii14. Wetstein
quotes Plut. Perici. 8 6 Tepixdijs wept
rov Aéyov evAaBis Hy, Sor det mpos Td
Biua Badifey nvyero trois Oeois pndé
paiva pndevy éxmeceiy dxovtos avrod mpos-
THY jMpoKeréerny xpelay dydppootor.
The meaning here is, ‘for building:
up as the matter may require’, or-
‘as need may be’.

The Old Latin had ad aedijica-
tionem jidet, and the bilingual MSS
D,*G, read ricrews for ypelas. Jerome
substituted ‘opportunitatis’ for fider’.
Further evidence is given in the note
on various readings,

xepw] For xdpis in respect of

194

dkovovew.
Geov, &v wo

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[IV 30—32

v ~ \ a. 4 “
Kal py AvirEelTEe TO WvEeUMA TO aytoy TOU
éodpayicOnre eis iucpavy dzroduvTpwcews.

~ 4 \ 4 \ A 4
Yardoa mikpia Kal Ouyos Kal 6pyn Kal Kpavyn Kat BAa-

-~ ‘
ognpia dora add’ vuwv ovy waon kaxia,

speech compare Col. iv 6 6 Asyos
duay mavrore év xapite, Gate HpTupevos
(seasoned with the true ‘salt’ of
speech), and Col. iii 16 gdais mveupa-
rixais ev yapire x.7.A. Compare also
the contrast between edrpareAia and
evyapicria below in v 4; and see the
detached note on ydpis. We cannot
reproduce in English the play upon
the two meanings of ydpis in this
passage.

30. pt) Avmeire] Compare Isa. Lxiii.
10 mapadéuvay 76 mvedpa TO Gycov adrod.
On our present passage is founded
the remarkable injunction of the

#viver Ge

arohvtpwow tis wepiroujoews. The
Spirit was the seal of the complete
incorporation of the Gentiles. Com-
pare further 1 Cor. xii 13 kal yap ev
evi avedpate pets wdvres eis bv copa
éBarricOnper, etre "lovdator etre "ENAN-
VES, K-TA.

31. mexpia] The three other pas-
sages in which. this word occurs
borrow their phraseology directly or
indirectly from the Old Testament
(Acts viii 23, Rom. iii 14, Heb. xii 15).
Here the usage is genuinely Greek,
and may be compared. with Col. iii 19
py mixpaiverbe mpos ards. Aristotle

Shepherd_of—Hermas—in—regard—to— in discussing various forms of anger

Avy (Mand. x). The interpretation
there given is capricious and. purely
individualistic : Gpov oov dard eeavrod
Th omqv kat pi) ONBe ro mebpa ro
dywov TO ev got KarotKouy.. 70 yep
mvedpa Tov Beod ro dobev els tTHY cdpKa
Taurqy Advmyy ovx dmopépes ovdé rrevo-
xeopiav. evdvoa otv riv fapdryra,
x.7.A. To St Paul on the contrary the
Spirit is the bond of the corporate
life, and that ‘grieves’ Him which
does not tend to the ‘building-up’ of
the Christian society. We may com-
pare Rom. xiv 15 et yap da Bpaopa
6 adedkpos cov Avmeirat, ovkért Kata
Gydrnv wepurareis: and Jerome on
Ezek. xviii 7 (Vall. v 207): ‘in euan-
gelio quod iuxta Hebraeos Nazaraei
legere consueuerunt inter maxima
ponitur crimina, gut Sratris sui spi-
ritum contristauerit’, That which
tends not to build but to cast down,
that which grieves the brother, grieves
the Spirit which is alike in him and
in you.

eoppayicdyre] The whole clause is
an echo of i 13 f. eoppayiabyre TO
arvedpart Ths émayyedlas TO Gyio...cis

says (Lith. Nie. iv 11): of ney oby
opyidor Taxéws pev opyicovrat, kat ois
ov dei, kal ef” ois ov Sei, kal waddov F y
det- savovrac dé rayéus.. wot O€ mixpol
dvadedAvrot, kal mroAty xpovov dcpyitov-
Tat* Karéxouvce yap tov Oupdv. It
appears, then, that mixpia is an em-
bittered and resentful spirit which
refuses reconciliation.

Gvyds xr.A.] Compare Col. iii 8
épyiv, Oupov, xaxiav, Bracdnpiay, ai-
oxpodoyiay, and see Lightfoot’s notes
on these words. The Stoics distin-
guished between Guyués, the outburst
of passion, and épyj, the settled feel-
ing of anger.

xpavyy]| ‘outcry’: but, here only, in
the bad sense of clamouring against
another. Its meaning is defined by
its position after dpy7, and before
Pracdnpia (‘evil speaking’ or ‘slander-
ing’). |

dpoyro| Compare 1 Cor. v. 2 iva
dp6y €x pécov dud 6 To epyoy rovro
npdéas. St Paul uses the word again
only in 1 Cor. vi 15 and Col. ii
14.

xaxig] ‘malice’, not ‘wickedness’:

IV 32]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

195

A . 3 . 4

dé eis aAANHAOUS ypNoTOl, clomAayyvoL, yaptCopevot
~ \ “ ~

éavtots xabws kali 6 beds év Xpior@ éyapioato vypiv.

comp. Tit. iii 3 év xaxig kat hove
Sudryorres.

32. xpyoroi x7.A.] The parallel
passage, Col. iii 12, has: evdicacbe...
om\eyxva oixrippob, Xpnorérnra, Ta-
metvo@poovvyy, mpairytra, paxpodupiay,
dveyopevor adAjAwv, Kat yapeCopevoe
éavrois, édv Tis mpos twa exn poupny:
xaOds Kat 6 Kupwos éxapicato tpiv, obr@
kat vpeis. In our epistle the demand
for humility and forbearance has been
made before (iv 2); kindness, tender-
ness, forgivingness are now enforced.

evorAayxva] The word occurs
again only in 1 Pet. iii 8. It is not
found in the uxx, but occurs in the
Prayer of Manasses (2. 7) which is one
of the Canticles appended to the
Greek Psalter. It is also found, with

it is so on account of the clause which
follows: they among themselves must
do for themselves what God has done
Jor them.

Origen, who noted the variation,
was led by it to interpret yaprCdpevor
in the sense of ‘giving’ as God has

‘given’ to us, as in Rom. viii 32 TOs
oxi kal oby aire Ta mavra Hyiv xapi-
cera; The kindness and tender-
heartedness which we shew eis d\\7-
Aous, he says, is in fact shewn rather
to ourselves, da 76 cveocdpous was
eivat.. TavTa. dé é eavtots xapifopeba, 6 ooa
kal 6 beds npiv év Xpiorg €xapicato.
But the parallel i in Col. iii 13, where
édy ris mpos tia exn ponpyy is added,
is in itself decisive against this view.
The Latin rendering ‘donanies...

its substantive evomAayyvia, in the
Testam. xit patriarch. Hippocrates
uses it in a literal sense of a healthy
condition of the owAdyxva, as he also
uses peyaddonAayxvos of their enlarge-
ment by disease. Euripides, hes.
192, has evom\ayyvia metaphorically
for ‘a stout heart’. The use of the
word for tenderness of heart would
thus seem to be not classical, but
Jewish in origin, as Lightfoot suggests
in regard to omdayyvifecda in his
note on Phil. i 8. IoddorAayxvos
occurs in Jas. v 11, with a variant
moAvevorAayxvos: see Harnack’s note
on Herm. Vis. i 3 2.

éavrois] For the variation of the
pronoun after the preceding eis d\A7-
Aous see Lightfoot’s note on Col. iii 13
dyexopevot GA Aov kal yapiCopevor éav-
rots. To the instances there cited
should be added Luke xxiii 12 éyé-
vovro 8é gidot...per GAAAwY? TpoU-
arijpxov yap ev éxOpa avres mpos avrovs,
' where the change is made for variety’s
sake (Blass Gram. N. T. § 48, 9).
The same reason suffices to explain
the variation here. If éavrois is the
more appropriate in the second place,

donauit’ lends it no support, as may
be seen at once from Col. ii 13 ‘do-
nantes uobis omnia delicta’, a use of
donare which is Ciceronian. __

é&y Xpiorg] ‘in Christ’, not ‘for
Christ’s sake’ as in A.V. The expres-
sion is intentionally brief and preg-
nant. Compare 2 Cor. v 19 Oeds qv
éy Xpior@ kécpoy KaraddAdcowv éavTs,
where the omission of the definite
articles, frequent in pointed or pro-
verbial sayings, has the effect of pre-
senting this as a concise summary of
the truth (6 Adyos rijs xaraAXayijs).
In Col. iii 13 we have simply o xpos
(or 6 Xpuords). Here however the
mention of 6 deds enables the Apostle
to expand his precept and to say yi-
veoOe ody pupnrat Tod Oeow K.T.A.

éxapioaro| ‘hath Sorgiven *, ‘For-
gave’ (Col. iii13 A.V.) is an equally
permissible rendering. It is an error
to suppose that either is more faithful
than the other to the sense of the
aorist, which, unless the context
decides otherwise, represents an in-
definite past.

tpiv] On the variants here and in
v 2 see the note on various readings.

13—2

196 |

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[V 1, 2

V. *ylverOe oov pupntal Tod Ocot, ws Téxva dyannTa,
"kal wepirareite év dryarn, KaOws Kal 6 xpos rrya-
Tnoev vedas Kal mapédwKey éavroy virép vudv mpoc-
mopan Kal @ycian TH ew eic écmMHN eYWdAIac

V. 1. pupyrai] Again and again
we find in St Paul’s epistles such
expressions as pepyral jpav (1 Thess.
i 6), pepnral pou (I Cor. iv 16, xi 1).
pupetcOa ipas (2 Thess. iii 7, 9).
Here he boldly bids his readers
‘follow God’s example’, ‘copy God’.
Comp. Ign. Eph. 1 pupnrat dvres Geod,
Trail. 1 etpdy ipas ads Eyvoy puunras
dvras Oeod.

réxva dyaryra] ‘as His beloved chit-
dren’. The epithet leads the way to
the further precept xai mepimareire ev
ayann.

2. smapédoxey}] The closest parallels
are in % 25 xabds Kal 6 ypioros Hyd-

ceedingly common. St Paul uses zrpoo-
dopa again only in speaking of ‘the
offering of the Gentiles’, Rom. xv. 16:
évcia he employs again four times
only (once of heathen sacrifices). It is
therefore probable that here he bor-
rows the words, half-consciously at
least, from the Psalm.

els oopiy evodias|] Oop is found
in the literal sense in John xii 3.
Otherwise it occurs only in St Paul
and in every case in connexion with
evodia, Which again is confined to his
epistles. The passages are 2 Cor. ii
14—16 rhy copiy ris yodoews avrod
avepovyre Ov judy év wavri rér@* Ore

moe Thy exkrnolay Kat éavTov wapéda- Xpicrod evwdia eopev ro Oe@ ev Trois

kev omep avris, and Gal. ii 20 rod viot
tov Oeod Tov ayanyoavros je Kal mapa-
Sovros Eavroy trép éuod. But we may
also compare Gal. i 4 rod dévros éavrév
dmép TGY Guaptioy jporv, and in the
Pastoral Epistles 6 dots éavréy dvri-
Autpoy.imép wdvrev (1 Tim. ii 6), ds
edwxev éaurovy dmep jpov (Tit. ii 14).
In Rom. viii 32 the action is ascribed.
to the Father, irép pad mdvroy mapé-
doxey atrév, and in Rom. iv 25 we
have the verb in the passive, ds mape-
666n Sua tra waparrépara judy. In
the last two passages, as in the fre-
quent occurrences of the word in the
Gospels, there is probably a reference
to Isa. liii 9, 12. It is to be noted
that in none of these passages is any
allusion to the idea of sacrifice added,
as there is in the present case.

vpov| For the variant rjuav see the
note on various readings,

apoo dopa Kai @voiay] These words
are found in combination in Ps, xxxix
(xl) 7 duoiay cai rpoopopay otk 7OeA7-
cas. (quoted in Heb. x 5, 8). Mpoc-
dopa is very rare in the Lxx (apart
from Ecclus.), whereas éucia is ex-

colouévots Kal ev rois dmokAvpévots:
ois pev dopy éx Oavdrov Kt.A., and
Phil. iv. 18 sremAnpopar SeEdpevos mapa
*Eragpobdirou ra rap’ var, danny evo-
dias, Ouoiav dexrjv, evdpecrov TG Oe@,
where the wording is closely parallel
to that of the present passage. The
Apostle is still employing Old Testa-
ment language: dop7 edadias, or eis
éo-pi edodias, occurs about forty times.
in the Pentateuch and four times in
Ezekiel. The fact that he uses the
metaphor with equal freedom of the
preaching of the Gospel and of the
gifts of the Philippians to himself
should warn us against pressing it too
strongly to a doctrinal use in the
present passage.

Jerome, doubtless reproducing Ori-.
gen, comments as follows: ‘Qui pro
aliorum salute usque ad sanguinem
contra peccatum dimicat, ita ut et.
animam suam tradat pro eis, iste
ambulat in caritate, imitans Christum
qui nos in tantum dilexit ut crucem.
pro salute omnium sustineret. quo-
modo enim ille se tradidit pro nobis,
sic et iste pro quibus potest libenter

V 3, 44)

. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

197

*Tlopveia dé Kat dxabapoia Wao il wreovezia pave
dvopa eo Ow év Upiv, Kabeds mperret dryiots, 4ial aioxpo-
THs Kal wwpodoyia q evTpamreNia, a ovK dvixev, d\Aa

occumbens imitabitur eum qui obla-
tionem et hostiam in odorem suaui-
tatis se patri tradidit, et fiet etiam
ipse oblatio et hostia deo in odorem
suauitatis’. So toc Chrysostom: ‘Opas
To vmép exOpav mabeiy Gre dopy evo-
dias éovi, Ovoia edmpdadexros; Kav
amubavys, tore éon Ovcias TotTo pyst-
gacbai éore rov Oedv.

3—14. ‘The gross sins of lust and
rapacity must not even be mentioned
—for are you not numbered with
saints? Nothing foul, nothing even
foolish must pass your lips: let the
grace of wit be superseded by the
truer grace of thanksgiving. You
know for certain that these black sins

dxaSapcia réoa. Neither is it a sy-
nonym for dxadapcia maca: for in
Col. iii 5 (quoted below on . 5) it
stands even more clearly apart at the
close of the list, being introduced by
kat my, a3 here by the disjunctive 7.

4. aiocxpérns] occurs here only in
the Greek bible; but in Col. iii 8 we
have voi be adrdbecOe kal vpeis Tra
mavra, cpyyy, Ovpor, kaxiay, Braodn-
piay, aicypodoyiay é« Tov oTdparos
UPOV.

_pepohoyia] Comp. Plut. Mor. 504.8
obras ov Véyeray ro mivew, el mpocein
TO wivew TO oom ay GAN’ 7 pewporoyia
eOnv Wouel THY olvoc.

#| The disjunctive particle sepa-

exclude from the kingdom. Let no
false subtilty impose upon you: it is
these things which bring down God’s
wrath on the heathen world. With
that world you can have no fellowship
now: you are light, and not darkness
as you were, As children of light
you must walk, and find the fruit of
light in all that is good and true.
Darkness has no fruit: with its fruit-
less works you must have no partner-
ship: nay, you must let in the light
and expose them—those secrets of
unspeakable shame. Exposure by the
light is manifestation: darkness made
manifest is turned to light. So we
sing: Sleeper awake, rise from the
dead: the Christ shall dawn upon
thee’,

3. i} mdeoveéia] Comp. iv 19 eis
€pyaciay dxaOapcias mdons év meo-
ve&ig, It is clear that weovegia has in
the Apostle’s mind some connexion
with the class of sins which he twice
sums up under the term dxa@apcia
waoa: yet it is not included, as some
have supposed, in this class: other-
wise we should have expected the
order sopveia Sé€ xat wAcovegia Kai

rates edrpareAia from aicypérys and
popodroyia, which are in themselves
obviously reprehensible. Moreover
the isolation of evrpameAia prepares
the way for the play upon words in
its contrast with evyapioria.
evtpameXia] versatility—nearly al-
ways of speech—and so facetiousness
and witty repartee. Aristotle regards
it as the virtuous mean between
scurrility and boorishness: Eth. Nic.
ii 7 13 wept dé rd dU To pev ev radi,
6 pev pécos evrpamedos Kai 4 Sidbects
evrpamedia, 4 S€ varepBory Bwpodoyta
kal 0 €xyav avrivy Bapordyxos, 6 & éAAci-
mov a@ypoikds tis Kal 4 ekts aypotxia.
In certain circumstances, however, cat
of Bapoddyxot evrpdmedot rpocayopetor-
rat ws xapievres (ibid. iv 14 4); this
does not mean that evrpamedia be-
comes 2 bad thing, but that the bad
thing (Bapodoyia) puts itself forward
under the good name, Comp. hei.
ii 12 ad fin. 4 yap evrpamedia memat-
Seuzévy UBpis éeoriv: this is not given
as 2 definition of the word: the point
is that as youth affects dBprs, 80 evrpa-
media, which is a kind of ‘insolence
within bounds’, is also a characteristic

198

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[V5

Ma@\Aov edyapictia: SrovTo yap iore ywwoKovtes Ste

of youth. Although this quick-witted
raillery might easily be associated
with impropriety of conversation—
and this danger is doubtless in the
Apostle’s mind—yet the word itself
appears to remain free from taint.
This may be seen, for example, by its
frequent association with ydp:s and
its derivatives: comp. Josephus Antig.
xii 4 3 yodeis Se ext ri ydprre Kal
evrpameNia Tov veavioxov: Plutarch
Mor. 52 » (of Alcibiades) pera evrpa-
medias (Gv kat ydptros.

dvpxev] ‘Comp. Col. iii 18 ds dvijxev
év xupig, and see Lightfoot’s note, in
which he illustrates the use of the
imperfect in this word and in mpoojKev
and xaOjxey (Acts xxii 22) by our own
past tense ‘ought’ (=*‘ owed”).

evyaptoria] St Jerome’s exposition
deserves to be given in full, as it

with certain learned persons among
the Greeks, to use the word evyapiria
[the editions give edyapioria] as dis-
tinguished from eucharistia, ie. to
distinguish between gratiosum esse
and agere gratias, I suppose that the
Apostle, a Hebrew of the Hebrews,
used the current word and intended
to hint at his own meaning in the
signification of the other word: and
this the rather, because with the
Hebrews gratiosus and gratias agens
are expressed, as they tell us, by one
and the same word. Hence in Pro-
verbs (xi 16): yuvy evydpioros éyeipes
avipt Sofav, mulier grata suscitat
uiro gloriam, where it stands for
gratiosa, We should appear to be
doing violence to the Scripture in
thus daring to interpret mulier
gratias agens as mulier gratiosa,

throws light not only on the interpre-

tation of the passage but also on the

history of biblical commentary. ‘Up
to this point,’ he says, ‘the Apostle
seems to have introduced nothing
foreign to his purpose or alien to
the context. But in regard to what
follows, some one may raise the ques-
tion, What has “giving of thanks” to
do immediately after the prohibition
of fornication and uncleanness and
lasciviousness and shamefulness and
foolish speaking and jesting? If he
was at liberty to name some one
virtue, he might have mentioned
“justice”, or “truth”, or “love” : though
these also would have been somewhat
inconsequent at this point. Perhaps
then by “giving of thanks (gratiarum
aciio)” is meant in this place not that
by which we give thanks to God, but
that on account of which we are called
grateful or ingratiating (grati siue
gratiost) and witty (sadst) among men.
For a Christian must not be a foolish-
speaker and a jester: but his speech
must be seasoned with salt, that it
may have grace with them that hear
it. And since it is not usual, except

-were it not that the other editions

agree with us: for Aquila and Theo-
dotion and Symmachus have so ren-
dered it, viz. yur) ydpiros, mulier
gratiosa, and not evxydpioros, which
refers to the “giving of thanks”
Thus far St Jerome. But whence
this subtle feeling for Greek, this apt
quotation from the Greek bible, this
appeal to various translators instead
of to the ‘Hebrew verity’? We have
the answer in an extract from Origen’s
Commentary, happily preserved in
Cramer’s Catena: Ov« dvijxe dé trois
dyiows ovdé abr [sc. edrpameAlal, d\Aa
paGddov 7 ev raat wpds Gedy evyapiorias
Tyouv evxapiotia Kad’ iy edyapicrovs
kal. xaplevrds twds ghapev: pwpoddyor
pev oty Kal evrpamedov od Set eivat,
evxdptoroy Sé xat yaplevra, Kal ézet
dovvnbés cote TO eimeiv ‘dAK& paddov
evxapitia’ (sic legendum: ed. edyapi-
otia), tdya avrl rovroy éxpyoaro TH er
@Adou Keupévy AéEet kal eimev ‘ada
paddAjov edyapioria’, kal piprore “00s
éort TG dvduate THs evyaptorias Kar
Tou evyapioroy robs amd ‘EBpaiov
xpicOat dvri tis evyapirias (ed. evya-
ptorias) kai evyapirov, x7. He then

V5)

a / N 9 7 sv /
mas mopvos ij dxaBaptos 4 mAEOvEeKTHS,

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

199

d éorw Eldwro-

? ) 4 , a ~ , ~
Aarpns, obK exet KAnpovopiav év TH Bacieig TOU xXpI-

proceeds to cite the Lxx and other
versions of Prov. xi16. St Jerome’s
comment is thus fully accounted for,
and we are able to see how closely he
followed Origen, his indebtedness to
whom he expresses in his preface.
Since this note was written my friend
Mr J. A. F. Gregg has examined the
Paris Ms of the Catena, and found
that in both places it gives the word
evxapitia. This word indeed appears
to have no substantial existence and
to be a mere conjecture on the part
of Origen.

We cannot suppose that St Paul
meant anything but ‘thanksgiving’ by
evxapioria. But he was led to his
choice of the word by the double
meaning which certainly belongs to

vii 2, xii 17 f. In 1 Thess. iv 6 it is
used in connexion with the sin of
impurity,.rd py vmepBaivew Kal meo-
vexreiy €v TH Mpdypart Tov adedAov
avrov. Certain forms of impurity
involve an offence ayainst the rights
of others (‘thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's wife’). Accordingly m\eo-
ve&ia occurs in close proximity to sins
of impurity in several passages. The
context in such cases gives a colour
to the word ; but it does not appear
that mAecove£ia can be independently
used in the sense of fleshly concu-
piscence. The chief passages, besides
those which have been cited above,
are 1 Cor. v9 ff. &ypaipa vpiy ev ti
émuarony pay cuvavapiyvec bar mropvots,
ov mavras Tots mopvots Tou kég pou

the adjective evyapioros (comp., for
example, Xenoph. Cyrop. ii 2 1 ev-
xaptororarot Aoyot). See the note on
iv 29 tva 56 ydpw Trois dxovovow.

5. lore ywookorres}] This appears
to be a Hebraism for ‘ye know of a
surety’. The reduplication with the
infinitive absolute QUID y5' and the
like) occurs 14 times in the Old
Testament. The xx generally render
it by yvovres yudoecGe, etc. Some-
times the reduplication is simply
neglected. In 1 Sam. xx 3, however,
we find yweoxoy oidev, and in Jer.
xlix (xlii) 22 the actual phrase fore
ywodoxoyres dre occurs in several MSS
sub asterisco, being a Hexaplaric
reading which in the margin of Codex
Marchalianus is assigned to Symma-
chus.

mAeovéxrns| See the notes on 2. 3
and iv 19; and compare Col. iii. 5
mopveiav, axaOapatay, 1dOos, émOupiav
kakyny, Kat THY mdeoveEiay Aris éoriv
eiSwXodarpia. In the New Testament
the verb m)eovexreiy is confined to
two of St Paul's epistles: it regularly
means ‘to defraud’, 2 Cor. ii. 11 (a
#4) weoverrnbdpev bd rov arava),

Tovrou i} Tois mNeovextais Kat dpragw
4 eid@doddrpats, émet aeidere Gpa éx
Tov Koopou é£eAdciv, viv dé eypaypa
Upiy py ovvavaptyvua bat édy tis ddeAqhos
Gvopatopevos 7 wopvos i} meovéxrns 4}
eldwAoAdrpns 7 AoiSopos 4 pébvaos 7
dprag, TG rowotro pyde cuverbiev:
vig f. # ov« ot8are Gre Gdcxoe Geod
Baotdeiay ov kAnpovopycovew; pn wa-
vaobe> ore mépyoe ovre eidwAoAdrpat
ovre potrxyol ore padakol ovre dpoevo-
otras ore KNémrat ovre mAeoveKTat, ov
péOuaot, ov Aoidopot, ovy dprayes Bact-
Relay Oeot KAnpovoyyaovow. In the
former passage mAcovéxrars comes in
somewhat suddenly when mépvors alone
has been the starting-point of the
discussion; but the addition kat dp-
qaév shews that the ground of the
discussion is being extended. The
latter passage recurs largely to the
language of the former. For a further
investigation of mAcoveEia, and for its
connexion with eidwAodarpia, see
Lightfoot’s notes on Col. iii 5.

Tov yptorov Kai Geot} The article
is sometimes prefixed to the first only
of a series of nearly related terms:
compare ii 20 émi ré Geuedin rév

200 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [V 6—1r

aro Kat Oeov. ‘“pundels buds draraTw Kevois Adyars,
dia raira yap epyera 1 dpyn Toi Ocod émi Tos vious
tis drelias. ‘un ovv yiverbe cuvpétoxo: avtav *7TE
yap jwore cKoTos, viv Sé pus év Kupips ws Téxva pwTos
mepimateite 96 yap Kapmos TOU dwros év racy dyabu-
avrg Kal Siatocvvy Kat dAnOeigs *SoKipaGovres Ti éoriv
evapeo'rov T4 Kupins “Kal pn cuvKowwretTe Tots Epryots
Tois akapTos ToU oKOToUS, paAAov Sé Kal édey ETE,

droatdkoy Kai mpodyray, iii 12 TH
mappnoiav kat mpocayayyy, iii 18 ri rd
m\atos kal pijxos Kat tyros Kat Babos.

6. xevois Aéyots| The only parallel
is a close one; Col. ii 8 ded...xevijs
drdrys. Kevds when used of speech
is practically equivalent to yevdyjs:
comp. Didaché 2 otk éarat a ddyos
gou revdys, ov Kevds, dAAa peperTa-
pévos mpaéec: also Arist. Eth. Nic. ii

clearly out of place: 1 Cor. xiv 24
eav dé mavres mpopyrevaaty, eiaedOy Sé
tis amoros } iduorns, edéyxerat vrd
mwavrav, dvaxpiverat: Urd mdytoy, Ta
kpunra ris Kapdlas avrov havepa yive-
tat, where the verb éAdyyer seems to
suggest the explanatory sentence ra
kpumTa...pavepa yivera. So in our
present passage ¢A¢yyere is immedi-
ately followed by ra yap kpupy yws-

7 I xevorepot_(Adyor)as—opposed—to—reva, and subsequently we have ra

GAnOwadrepa: Galen de diff. puls. iii 6
' (Kithn viii 672) ores ody kat rovs
- Adyous eviore yrevdeis cvopdtouct Kevous.

7. guvpéroxo.| This compound and
ouvKowevetre In &% II may be con-
trasted with the three compounds
GurKAnpovopa, civeT@pa, cvvpéToxa, by
which the Apostle emphasised their
entry into the new fellowship (iii 6).

9. dya0wotvvn} Comp. Rom. xv. 14,
Gal. v 22, 2 Thess, i 11. It repre-
sents the kindlier, as d:xasoovvn repre-
sents the sterner element in the ideal
character: comp. Rom. v 7.

10. Soxipatorres «.7.A.] Comp. Rom.
xii 2 eis 7d OoxipdCew pas ri rd GéAnpa
Tov Geov, ro ayaov Kal evapecroy Kal
réAcov: and Col. iii 20 rovro yap
evdpeoror cori év xupio. For the use of
evapeoros and its adverb in inscriptions
see Deissmann Weue Bibelst. p. 42.

11. éAéyyere] The ordinary mean-
ing of édéyyew in the New Testament
is ‘to reprove’, in the sense of ‘to
rebuke’, But in the only other pas-
sage in which the word occurs in
St Paul’s writings (apart from the
Pastoral Epistles) reproof in words is

dé mavra eAeyxopeva dws Tod pwris
bavepodra, Accordingly it is best to
interpret the word in the sense of ‘to
expose’; a meaning which it likewise
has in John iii 20 puoe? ro pas Kal
ovk €pxerat mpos TO as, iva pH edeyxO7

‘Ta Epya avrod (contrast iva davepwby

in the next verse). This signification
is illustrated by Wetstein from Arte-
midorus ii 36 #Avos awd Svacws eEava-
té\Nwy Ta KpunTa Ehéyxet THY AcAnOEvat
Soxovvrey, and also from the lexico-
graphers. .

With this interpretation we give
unity to the whole passage. ‘The
contrast throughout is between light
and darkness. First we have, as the
result of the light, that testing which
issues in the approval of the good
(Soxizd¢erv) ; secondly, as the result
of the meeting of the light with the
darkness, that testing which issues in
the exposure of the evil (édéyxev).
And then, since éhéyyeoOae and have-
podobat are appropriate respectively
to the evil and the good (as in John
iii 20, quoted above), the transforma-
tion of the one into the other is

Vv 12—14]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

201

\ 4 ~ / y . a .f 4
"ra yap Kpupy ywoueva Ur’ avrav aioypov éotw Kat.
/ \ \ “~ \
Aévyew: Bra de wavra éheyyoueva Vd TOU Pwros pave-
~ ~ s ~ A /
povrat, wav yap To pavepoupevoy pus éariv. +510 réyer

/
“Ervyetpe, 6 kabevdwyv,
kai dvdora ék TéY vEeKpor,

a.) /
Kal emipauoret

marked by the change of the verbs:
éheyxoueva...pavepodrat...rd . pavepov-
pevov das éortiv.

12. aloypov éorw Kat déyerv] The
order of the sentence deserves atten-
tion: Ta yap xpuyp@ ywopueva stands
closely connected with ¢Aéyyere, and
forms a special interpretation of ra
épya rod axorovs: whereas aioxpov
€orw xat Aéyew means simply that
they are ‘unspeakably shameful’.

13. ta O¢ mavra] This might be

wot O Xpirres.

realised in those to whom he wrote:
re yap more oxoros, viv dé pas (v. 8).
14. 86 Aéyer] Comp. iv. 8. Seve-
rian (Cramer’s Catena ad loc.), after
saying that the passage is not to be
found in the canonical writings, adds:
xdptopa Wv Tore Kal mpocevyfs kat
spadpay vmoBdAdovros tov mvevparos,
kadds eyes ev tH mpds Kopwiovs’
"Exaotos vpav Wadpov exet, mporevy7y
Exec...d7A0v ody Ore ev evi rovTay roy
mvevpaticay Yadav ro. mporevyav

taken to mean ‘but all these things’,
namely ra xpupy ywopeva ta’ adrar.
It seems however more in St Paul’s
manner to interpret ra wdvra as ‘all
things’, and to regard the article as
linking together the individual ele-
ments (zdvra) and presenting them as
a whole, The statement accordingly is
universal in its reference. All things
when they come to be tested by the
light cease to be obscure and become
manifest.

—havepotpevov] ‘Omne enim quod
manifestatur lumen est’, Vulg. To
render with the Authorised Version
‘for whatsoever doth make manifest is
light’ is to do violence to the Greek
(for there is no example in the New
Testament of the middle voice of
bavepovv), and to offer a truism which
' adds nothing to the meaning of the
passage. In St Paul’s mind ‘to be-
come manifest *means to cease to be
darkness, and to be a partaker of the
very nature of light: ‘for everything
that becomes manifest is light’. Thus
the Apostle has described a process
by which darkness itself is transformed.
into light. The process had been

exetra TodTO & eumpovevoev. The at-
tempts to assign the quotation to an
apocryphal writing are probably mere
guesses,

émibavoet] For the variants ém-
yatoes and érupatces see the note
on various readings.

15—33. ‘Be very careful, then, of
your conduct. By a true wisdom you
may ransom the time from its evil
bondage. Cast away folly: under-
stand the Lord’s will. Let drunken-
ness, and the moral ruin that it brings,
be exchanged for that true fulness
which is the Spirit’s work, and which
finds glad expression in the spiritual
songs of a perpetual thanksgiving ; in
a life of enthusiastic gratitude to the
common Father, and yet a life of
solemn order, where each knows and
keeps his place under the restraining
awe of Christ. The wife, for example,
has her husband for her head, as the
Church has Christ, the Saviour of His
Body: she must accordingly obey her
protector. So too the husband’s pat-
tern of love is Christ’s love for the
Church, for which He gave up Him-
self: and wherefore? To hallow His

202

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[V 15, 16

t oy a x ~ 4
SBrerrere ovv akpiBws mos epirareite, pry ws
f \ /
acopot GAN’ ws cool, * éEaryopaCopevot TOV Kalpov,

Bride by a sacramental cleansing, to
present her to Himself in the glory
of a perfect beauty, with no spot of
disfigurement, no wrinkle of age. But
Christ’s Bride is also Christ’s Body:
and the husband must love his wife
as being his own body. Who hates
his own flesh? Who does not feed
and tend it? So isit with Christ and
the Church: for we are the limbs of
His Body. Is it not written of
marriage, that the two shall be one
flesh? Great is the hidden meaning
of those words. I declare them to be
true of Christ and the Church: your
part is to realise their truth in your
respective spheres: as the fear of
Christ is met by Christ’s love, so let
the wife fear, and the husband love’. .

I5.—_BrXérere] St Paul frequently
uses BAérew in the sense of ‘to take
heed’: (1) with the accusative, as in
Col, iv. 17 BAéze tiv Siaxoviay (look to,
consider), Phil. iii 2 rods kivas x7.d.
(beware of); (2) with ia or p7}, fre-
quently; (3) with mds, here and in
t Cor. iii 10 gxacros dé Breréro wads
éxorxodouet. Here only we have the
addition of dxpiBds,—‘take careful
heed’, On the variant més dxpi8as
see the note on various readings.

weperrareire] Tho repetition of this
word takes us back to v. 8 os réxva
gwris wepizareire. The particle ody
is resumptive. The metaphor of dark-
ness and light is dropped, and the
contrast is now between aooda and
cool.

16. é§ayopagdpevor] Comp. Col. iv
3 év codia mepurateire mpos tovs téw,
Tov katpov éfayopaouevot, *Ayopdcer
is used of persons by St Paul only in
the phrase 7yopacOnre rips, 1 Cor. vi
20, vii 23, in each case the metaphor
being of purchase ino servitude. So
we have in 2 Pet. ii 1 rov dyopacarra
adrovs Seorérnv. It is used of the
redeemed in the Apocalypse, v 9,

xiv 3f. "Efayopdfew is only used by
St Paul, and in the two other places
in which it occurs it has the meaning
of ‘buying out’ or ‘away from’: Gal.
ili 13 Xpiorés muds eEnyopacey ék ris
xatdpas, iv. 5 va robs vird vopov e€ayo-
paoy, This meaning of ‘ransoming,
redeeming’ is found in other writers.

There seems to be no authority for
interpreting the word, like cvvayopd-
¢ew and cuveveicdat, as ‘to buy up’
(coemere). Polyb. iii 42 2 is cited as
an example, éénydpace map’ avray ra
Te povoévAa moia wavra (Hannibal
bought all the boats of the natives in
order to cross the Rhone); but the
sense of ‘buying up’ is given by the
addition of mrdvra, and the verb itself
both there and in Plut._Crass.2 need.
mean no more than ‘to buy’, In
Mart. Polyc. 2 we have the middle
voice as here, but in the sense of
“buying off’ (comp. the use of ¢£wvet-
oOa and éxmpiacba), did pias Spas
THY aidmov Kodacw eEayopatspevot.

‘A close verbal paraliel is Dan. ii 8
oda drt kapov vpeis eLayopdtere, ‘T
know ofa certainty that ye would gain
the time’ (Aram. #23} JIFI8 NPY I),
but this meaning is not applicable to
our passage. The Apostle appears to
be urging his readers to claim the
present for the best uses. It has got,
so to speak, into wrong hands— the
days are evil days’—they must pur-
chase it out of them for themselves.
Accordingly the most literal transla-
tion would seem to be the best, ‘7e-
deeming the time’; but not in the
sense of making up for lost time, as
in the words ‘Redeem thy misspent
time that’s past’.

rov xaipovy] A distinction is often
to be clearly marked between xpovos
as ‘time’ generally, and xa:pés ‘ the
fitting period or moment for a par-
ticular action’. But xaipds is by no
means limited to this latter sense.

“Vv 17, 18]

Bre ai rjucpar wovypai ciovw.
f s f ~ /
acppoves, d\Ad ouviere Ti TO OéAnua Tow Kupiou

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

203

~_-: A
78a TouTO wn yiverOe
Bical

‘ Py . , 1
mH meOycKecOe OING, évy w €or dowTia, dAAa TAH-

Thus in St Paul we have 6 viv xatpés,
Rom. iii 26, viii 18 (ra waOjpara rot
viv xatpod), xi 5: and 6 xaspds alone,
for the time that now is, or that still
is left, Rom. xiii 11 e’Séres rév xarpév,
dre Spa Hon vpas €€ Imvov éyepOjvat,
1 Cor. vii 29 6 xatpos cuverradpévos
éoriv. See also Gal. vi 10 ws Karpov
exouev, which Lightfoot takes to mean
‘as we have opportunity’; but he
allows that ‘there is no objection to
rendering it “while we have time”,
and compares Ignat. Smyrn. 9 os ére
xatpov Exopey, and [2 Clem.] 8, 9:
sroynpat] Compare vi 13 avriorivat
év th Tpéoa tH wovnpa, and Gal. i 4
éx_tot_aldvos_rot_éveoraros_movnpot.

assimilation to the text of our passage,
but that Origen confirms it (Tisch.
Not. Cod. Sin. p. 107). As the words
év olvors occur in the preceding verse,
the change in B is probably due to a
desire for uniformity.

dowria] Comp. Tit. 16 rékva éyov
word, pu) ev KaTnyopia dowrias 7} av-
umoraxra, 1 Pet. iv 4 py ovvrpexdvrov
dpayv els Ti adray Tis drwrias dvayvow.
The adverb is used in Luke xv 13
Steoxdpricey THY ovoiay avtou fav
dodras (comp. v. 30 6 Katahaydy cov
roy Biov pera mopvaev).

wAnpovobe ev wvevpat.] Thesequence
of thought appears to be this: Be
not drunk with wine, but find your

Though ‘the days are evil’, they are
capable in some degree at least of
transformation: the time may be
rescued. So Origen interprets the
whole passage: ofovel €avrois roy Kat-
pov evovpevot, eyovra os mpos Tov
GvOpdrwov Biov wovnpas jpépas. Sre
obv cis rt Sov rov Kaipoy KaravadicKo-
pev, Oynodpueba airév Kat avrnyopdoapev
€auTois BoTEpEl TEMpapevoy TH TOY av-
Opdrov xaxia...c£ayopatopevoc dé rov
katpov Svra év ruépais movnpais, oiovel
petamovodpev- Tas moynpas jpépas els
GyaOas, xt.. Severian’s comment
(also in Cramer’s Catena) is similar: 6
eEayopa(épevos tov ddddrpiov Sovdov
éEayopaterat Kal xrarat avrdy. émel odv
6 kaipos 6 rapav SovAever Tols wovnpois,
eEayopdcacbe a’rév, dote xataypyoa-
cba adr mpos edo eBetar.

17. ovviere xt.A.] Comp. 2 I0
Soxtpdfovres xt.A. For the variant
cuvévres see the note on various
readings.

18. yy peOvoxeabe oive| So Prov.
xxiii 31 (Lxx only), according to the
reading of A. B has éy oivots, S oivots.
We might hesitate to accept the
reading of A, regarding it as an

fulness through a higher instrumen-
tality, or in a higher sphere. If the
preposition marks the instrumentality,
then mvedpa signifies the Holy Spirit :
if it marks the sphere, svedpa might
still mean the Holy Spirit, but it
would be more natural to explain it
of spirit generally (as opposed to
flesh) or of the human spirit. In the
three other places in which we find ¢v
avevpart in this epistle there is a like
ambiguity: ii 22 cuvouodopeiode eis
KaTotkytyplov Tov Oeod éy mvevpart, tii 5
amexaht On Tois dyiows droordAols av-
tou Kal mpodyrats év mvevpari, vi 18
mpooevyopevot ev tmavrt Kaip@ ev mvev-
part. In every case it appears on the
whole best to interpret the phrase as
referring to the Holy Spirit: and the
interpretation is confirmed when we
observe the freedom with which the
Apostle uses the preposition in in-
stances which are free from ambi-
guity ; as 1 Cor. xii 3 év mvevpars Geot
Aaday, 13 év evi wvedpare €Banric Onper,
Rom. xv 16 mpoogopa...jyiacpern ev
mvevpare dyio: compare also Rom. xiv
17, where there is a contrast some-
what resembling that of our text, od

204. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [V 19—22

potobe év wvevpart, AadodvTes éavrois yadpois Kal
, buvors kal @dais mevparixais, adovres kal v-ddAorTes
TH kapdie UMaY TH Keuplep, * edyapiorobvres WaVTOTE
varep WavTwy ey dvopare Tou kupiou jpav Inoot Xpuoroi
TH Oem Kal waTpi, *Jroraccdpevot dhAnAos év PoBy

XpwrTou.

yap éorw % Baowcia Tov Geod Bpaots
kat moots, GAAd Sixaiocvvy Kai elpjvy
kat yapa ev wvevpare ayia.

If then we adopt the interpretation,
‘Let your fulness be that which comes
through the Holy Spirit’, how are we
to render the words in English? The
familiar rendering ‘ Be filled with the
Spirit’ suggests at first sight that the
injunction means ‘ Become full of the
Holy Spirit’. Such an injunction
however has no parallel: had this

—_——heen the Apostle’s meaning he would

almost certainly have. used the geni-
tive (comp. eg. Acts ii 13 yAevKous
pepeotopévos eiciv): and he would
probably have cast his precept into
the form of an exhortation to pray
that such fulness might be granted.
Nevertheless this rendering, though
not strictly accurate, suffices to bring
out the general sense of the passage,
inasmuch as it is difficult to distin-
guish between the fulness which
comes through the Spirit, and the
- fulness which consists in being full of
the Spirit: the Holy Spirit being at
once the Inspirer and the Inspiration.
We may therefore retain it in view
of the harshness of such substitutes
as ‘ Be filled in the Spirit’ or ‘by the
Spirit’.

19. Aadodvres x.7.A.] Comp. Col. iii
16 diddoKovres kat voverovvres éavrovs
Yarpois, 7 Tpvors, goats mveupareKais év
xapirs, Govres év rais xapdias tpav ro
Ged. See Lightfoot’s notes on that
passage: ‘while the leading idea of
Waruds is a musical accompanirent,
and that of dpros praise to God, gy
is the general word for a song’.

~ ‘ ~ J. ~
Ai yuvaikes, Tois iio dvdpacw ds TH

Accordingly the defining epithet zrvev-
parckais is reserved for this last word
in both places. On the variants in
this verse see the note on various
readings.

20, euxaptarobyres Karn.] So in
Col. iti, 17 kat may 6 re éay moufre ev
oye uy év Pye, mavra ép dvopart
Kupiov “Tyoob, evxyapiotouvres TO Oe@
marpl 8? adrod. Compare 1 Thess. v
16 mavrore xaipere, adtareinres mpoved=
xeabe, €v travri edyapioreire.

22, Ai yuvaies k.r.\.) Asa matter
of construction this clause depends on
the preceding participle: ‘submitting
yourselves one to another in the fear
of Christ: wives, unto your own hus-
bands, as unto the Lord’. Ai yuvaixes
accordingly stands for the vocative,
as in Ool. iii 18, ai yuvaixes, vrordo~
ceade trois dvdpdow, ds dvixev év xupig:
compare the vocatives of dydpes, ra
téxva, etc. lower down in the present
passage, vi 1, 4 f, 9. When this
section was read independently of the
preceding verses, it became necessary
to introduce a verb; and this is
probably the cause of the insertion
of drordcoesbe or vrotaccécbacey in
most of the texts: see the note on
various readings.

idiots] The parallel in Col, iii 18
shews that this word may be inserted
or omitted with indifference where
the context makes the meaning clear.
So we find idias with yepoiv in 1 Cor.
iv 12; but not according to the
best text, in Hph. iv 28, 1 Thess.
iv 1x. It was often added by scribes,
in accordance with the later prefer-
ence for fulness of expression.

V 23—26]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

205

, 23 e/ > / F) A ~ A e 4
Kupiw, Bort avno eorw Kepadn TNS YUValKOs WS Kal O
i “A ’ . ~
Xptoros Kepady THs éxkAnolas, a’Tos cwTNe TOU Tupua-
/ nw “~
Tos. *dAAa ws 14 éxkAnoia VroTaToETA TH YpLTTH, .

tf -~ ~ /
ovTws Kal ai yuvaikes Tots dydparw év mayTi.

501

4 fal ‘ ~ 4 , A
dvépes, dyamare Tas yuvatkas, Kabws Kal 6 ypioros
‘ 5) A , A

nyannoey THv éxKAnoiay Kat éauvTov TapeowKeEv UTE
va n A / 7 ww“ ~
auras, “iva abtny ayiaon kabapioas T@ ovTew TOU

23. dvjp) The definite article (6) is
absent in the best text: ‘a husband
is head of his wife’, or, more idiom-
atically in English, ‘the husband is
the head of the wife’. The article
with yvvaxos defines its relation to
damp. So in 1 Cor. xi 3 xepadry de
yuvakos 6 avyp, ‘a woman’s head is
her husband’, it defines the relation
of dvjp to the preceding yvvatkes.

atrés catyp| On the variant xat

19 of dvOpes, dyamGre ras yuvaikas Kat |
pay mexpaiveobe mpos avrds.

26. dywdon xabapicas| ‘Cleanse and
sanctify’ is the order of thought, as
in 1 Cor, vi 11 dAAa dredovoacée,
ada trytaoOynre : cleanse from the old,
and consecrate to the new. But in
time the two are coincident, It was |
no doubt the desire to keep xa6apicas
closely with +4 Aourpé «7A. that led
to the rendering of the Authorised

avrds €or cotyp see the note on
various readings. The true text in-
dicates the special reason why the
Apostle here speaks of Christ as the
Head. He will not however enlarge
on the subject, but returns, with dAAqa,
to the matter in hand.
24. adda ds] In order to retain
-for ddd its full adversative force
many commentators interpret the
preceding words, avros carip roi
oadparos, 28 intended to enhance the
headship of Christ, as being vastly
superior to that of the husband: so
that the connexion would be, ‘but
notwithstanding this difference’, etc,
The interpretation adopted in the
exposition saves us from the neces-
sity of putting this strain upon the
Apostle’s language. As in. several
other places, dAAd is used to fix the
attention on the special point of
immediate interest: comp. 1 Cor. xii
24, 2 Cor. iii 14, viii 7) Gal. iv 23, 29:
if this is not strictly ‘the resumptive
use’ of dAdgd, it isakin to it, The use
of srAyv at the end of this section
(2. 33) is closely parallel.
25. Of dvdpes xr.A.] So in Col. iii

Version, ‘sanctify and cleanse’. To
render xaQapioas ‘having cleansed’
would be to introduce a distinction
in point of time: we must therefore
say ‘cleansing’ (or ‘by cleansing’).
For the ritual sense of xadapite,
see Deissmann (Neue Bibelst. pp.
43 £), who cites CZA um 74 xaapi-
(cot (sic) dé dmé o(«)dpdev xalt xot-
péov| kali yuvaxds], Aovoapévous Se
katraxéhaka avOnepov ei omopev ler Oar.
T@ Aourp@| Three allied words must
be distinguished: (1) Aourpoy ‘the
water for washing’, or ‘the washing’
itself ; (2) Aovrpay, ‘the place of wash-
ing’; (3) Aournp, ‘the vessel for wash-
ing’, ‘the laver’, Each of these may
in English be designated as ‘the bath’.

_ We may take as illustrations of (1) .

and (2) Plutarch, vita Alexandri 23
karadvoas 8€ kat rperdpevos mpos dov-
rpov 4 dreuupa, and Sympos. p. 734 B,
where after speaking of 7 wepi ra
Aovtpa woAvrddera he relates that
’"AréEavdpos pev o Bagiwe’s ev TO
Aourpave mupérray éxabevder. In the
LXX (1) and (3) are found: Aoutnp is
used for ‘a laver’ 16 times: Aourpdy
represents M¥M] in Cant. iv 2, vi 6

206

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[V 27

+) 2 87 ay of / a9 \ ¢ m of 5
VOaTOS EV pNMaTl, “Wa TapacTHoN avVTOS EAvTH EV ofov

(of sheep coming up ‘from the wash-
ing’), and occurs in Sir. xxxi (xxxiv)
30 Bamri{dpevos dé vexpov Kal madw
dmropevos adrov, ri dpednoev TG Aovtp@
avrod; In Ps, lix (1x) 10, evii (cviii)
10 *¥IT) VD ‘my washpot’ is rendered.
by Aquila A€8ys Aourpod pou (the Lxx
has A€Bys ris eAwidos pov). The Latin
versions maintain the distinction by
the use of dabrum for ‘laver’ (in the
Pentateuch: olla, etc, elsewhere), and
of dawacrum for ‘washing’ in Canticles.
In Ps, lix (1x) 10 Jerome’s version has
olla lauacri: in Sirach Cyprian and
the Vulgate have Jauatio, but Au-
gustine thrice gives Jawacrum.

For patristic references confirming
the meaning of ‘ washing’ for Aourpdv,
see Clem. Alex. Paed. iii 9 46, Dion.
Alex. ep. xiii ad fin., Epiph. expos.

Jid. 21, Dind. 11 583; and contrast |
____Hippol._[?]-ed._Bonwetsch-Achelis-1:for—the—Christian—confession— which

pt 2, p. 262 pera tyv Tis KokvpByOpas
dvayévynow.

The only other passage in the New
Testament where Aocutpoy occurs is
Tit. iii 5 fowoey yas dia Aovrpod
madtwvyeverias Kal avaxawodoews mved-
paros ayiov. Both there and here the
Authorised Version correctly renders
it ‘the washing’: ‘the bath’ would not
be incorrect, though somewhat am-
biguous: ‘the laver’ is incorrect,
and has probably been suggested by
the Latin ‘7auacro’, which has been
misunderstood.

év pyyatt] In the New Testament
pjpa represents the various uses of
the Hebrew 127. (1) A spoken word
of any kind, as in Matt. xii 36 pia
dpyov. (2) A matter, as in Luke i 37
ove aduvarnoes rapa Tov beod wav pia,
‘nothing shall be too hard for God’
(where rapa rod reproduces a Hebrew
idiom, the passage being based on
Gen. xviii 14 py advvarjoes rapa rod
$cod [the true reading, supported by
the old Latin, not mapa ro bed]
piipa;), and Luke ii 15 76 pia rovro
76 yeyovos, (3) Ina solemn sense, as

when ‘ihe word of God’ comes to a
prophet, Luke iii 2 éyévero pia Geod
él “lwdvny: comp. Anya Ocod in this
epistle, vi 17. It is also used more
specially (4) of the Christian teaching,
as in 1 Pet. i 25 (from Isa. xl 8) ro de
pipa xupiov peéver eis rév aldva- rotro
dé eorw ro pia Td evayyeducGer eis.
vpas, and Heb, vi 5 xaAov yevoapeévous
Geo pia. The most remarkable
passage is Rom. x 8 ff, where, after
quoting Deut. xxx 14 éyyis cov rd
papa éorw, év re ordpari cov kal év
ty kapdig cov, the Apostle continues
tour gorw ro pia tis micrews &
knptocouev. Gre dav opuodoynons To
pijpa év rG oropart cov brt KYPIOS
THSOYS, xal morevons x7. Here
ro pjpa stands on the one hand for
the Christian teaching (comp. . 17
dua pyparos Xpiorod), and on the other

leads to salvation. With this must
be compared 1 Cor. xii. 3, where the
same confession appears as a kind of
formula, and is sharply contrasted
with a counter-formula ANAOEMA
IHSOYS. Compare, too, Phil. ii.11
qwaca yAdooa eLopohoyyonra: ort KY-
PIO IHZOYS XPIZTOS,

In the present passage it is clear
that the phrase ev prpare indicates
some solemn utterance by the accom-
paniment of which ‘the washing of
water’ is made. to be no ordinary
bath, but the sacrament of baptism.
Comp. Aug. tract. 80 in Joan. 3 ‘ De-
trahe uerbum, et guid est aqua nisi
aqua? accedit uerbum ad elementum,
et fit sacramentum ; etiam ipsum tam-
quam uisibile uerbum’.

What then was this Aja? Chry-
sostom asks and answers the question
thus: °Ev pypart, dyot+ woig; év dvé-
pare marpés Kat viod kal dyivy mvev-
paros: that is to say, the -triple
formula of baptism. In the earliest
time, however, baptism appears to
have been administered ‘in the name
of Jesus Christ’ (Acts ii 38, x 48,

V 28)

4 9 , A

THY EKKANnoO LAY, BY
/ J

ToLOVTwY, GAN’ iva

comp. viii 12) or ‘the Lord Jesus’
(Acts viii 16, xix 5); and on the use
of the single formula St Paul’s argu-
ment in 1 Cor. i 13 seems to be based
(ua TlatAos éoravpady imép dcr, 7 eis
TO Svona IavAov éBarricOnre;). The
special ja above referred to points
the same way. The confession or
KYPIOS IHSOYS was the shortest and
simplest statement of Christian faith
(comp. Acts xvi 31 ff. micrevoov émi
Tov Kiptov "Incoby kat cowboy od Kal 6
oikds gov...kat éBarrioby avrés ral of
avrov dravres wapaxpipa). That some
confession was required before bap-
tism is seen from the early glosses
upon the baptism of the eunuch, Acts
viii 37, and that this soon took the
form of question and answer (émepa-

_ where the context contains phrases

which correspond with the second _

division of the baptismal creed of
the second century. Indeed the origin
of the creed is probably to be traced,
not in the first instance to the triple
formula, but to the statement of the
main facts about ‘the Lord Jesus’ as
@ prelude to baptism ‘in His name’.
When under the influence of Matt.
xxviii 19 the triple formula soon
came to be universally employed, the
structure of the baptismal creed
would receive a corresponding ela-
boration.

It is probable, then, that the pjpa
here referred to is the solemn mention
of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
in connexion with the rite of baptism,
either as the confession made by the
candidate or as the formula employed
by the ministrant. We may therefore
render the passage: ‘that He might
sanctify tt, cleansing it by the washing
of water with the word’,

For the use of the preposition
we may compare vi 2 éy émayyedig.
The absence of the definite article

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. ©

207

éyouray omidoy i putida 4 Tt Tw
4 dyla Kal auwpos.

f /
98 obras opet-

presents no difficulty; the meaning is
‘with a word which is appropriate
to this washing’, the pijua being
sufficiently defined by the context.
There appears to be no ground for
supposing that the Apostle here makes
any allusion to a ceremonial bath
taken by the bride before marriage.
There is no evidence for such a rite |
in the Old Testament, the passages.
sometimes cited being quite irrelevant
(Ruth iii 3, Ezek. xxiii 40). In the
legend of ‘Joseph and Asenath’ there
is no such ceremony, though it is true
that after her long fast Asenath
washes her face and hands before she
puts on her bridal costume. Nor
does it appear as a Christian cere-
mony, though it probably would have

——rya)_is- suggested by 1 Pet. iii or, been retained—if-St- Paul -had-been

regarded as alluding to it here. St
Paul’s thought is of the hallowing of
the Church, and thus he is at once
led to speak of the sacrament of
baptism.

27. mapaoryoy} Comp. 2 Cor, xi 2
Hpporduny yap vas évt dvdpt mapbévoy
ayy mapacrica To xptoro. Here
Christ Himself (adres, not adrjv, see
the note on various readings) presents
the Church all-glorious to Himself.
"Evdofov is the predicate: the word
occurs again in I Cor. iv 10 wpeis
EvdoEo, nueis dé ariwor, and twice in
St Luke’s Gospel, vii 25 (of glorious
apparel), xiii 17 (of glorious works).

oridov 7} putida] ‘spot of disfigure-
ment or wrinkle of age’, Neither
word is found in the uxx. Comp.
2 Pet. ii 13 oidoe kal popo: Plut.
Mor. 789 D ois 4 yeAopévy moda Kal
puris édurepias paprus émipaiverac:
Diosc. i 39 (de oleo amygdalino) aipe
8€ Kal omidous ék mpordmov kal épy-
Aes (freckles) xal puridas.

dyia kat Guwpos| Comp. i 4 eiva
Has aylovs Kal dydpovs Karevdmioy
avrov év aydmp, and see the note there.

208 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [V 2932

Aovow Kal ot avdpes dyaway Tds éavTav yuvaikas ws
Ta éavTav cadpata’ 6 dyarév tiv éavTO yuvaika
éavTov dyad, “ovdels yap more THv éavTOU ocdpKa
euionoev, d\Aa éxtpéepe Kal Oddrre adryy, Kabeds Kat d
xXotrros Thy éxxAnolav, °Ste péAn eopev TOU TwuaTOS
avrou. inti ToYToy KaTadeivel AN@pwmoc TON
TaTEpdA Kal THN MHTEPA KAl TpocKOAAHOHCcETAI
mpdc THN FYNAIKA a¥TO¥Y, Kai EconTal of AYo eic
cépka Mian. %ro puorrotoy TolTO péya éorriv, éyw O€

_ 28 odras| This is not to be taken
as the antecedent to ds ra éaurdy
oodpara, which means ‘as being their
own bodies’, It refers to the general
drift of what has gone before: ‘thus’,
‘in this same manner’. This is the
meaning of ofras in Matt. v 16 odras
Aaquwpdrw To pds tyady, xrd.: that is

not ‘in such a way...that they may
' gee’ ete.

29. odpxa] The change from odpa
to capé gives a fresh emphasis to the
thought, and at the same time pre-
pares the way for the quotation in
®% 31.
exrpépet xai Oadres] Each of these

words is once used by the Apostle -

elsewhere, but in reference to the
nurture of children: below, vi 4 ék-
rpepere avta éy madeia kat vovdecia
Kupiov: 1 Thess. ii 7 ds dav rpodss
Oddary ta EéavTis réxva.

30. pé&An] The relation of the
parts to the whole is here empha-
sised, as is the relation of the parts
of the whole to one another in iv 25
dre é€opev GAAnA@Y pédn. With the
latter compare Rom. xii § of moAAol
év ody éopev ev Xpiotd, 7d Se Kal eis
GAAjAwy péAn: With the former 1 Cor.
vi |15 ra odpara vuov pédn Xpiorod
éoriv, Xii 27 vpeis O€ €ore oOpa Xpwrrod
Kat péAn éx pépous.

For the addition é« ris capxis avrod
kat é€x téy doréwy avrod see the note
on various readings.

31. dyrt rovrov] Comp. av& a»,
2 Thess, ii 10, and four times in St
Luke’s writings. It has been suggested
that dvri here means ‘instead of’, the
contrast being with the idea of a
man’s hating his own flesh (v. 29);
and the mention of cap£ in both
verses is pleaded in favour of this

in which St Paul uses dvri, however,

it does not suggest opposition, but

correspondence: Kaxov ayrt kaxod,
Rom. xii 17,1 Thess. v 153 xopq dvri
mepBoratov, 1 Cor. xi 15. This of
course is in no way decisive of his use
of the word in the present passage:

‘but it seems on the whole more

natural to suppose that dyri rovrov
is intended as equivalent to Gvexey

tovrov by which ypoby is represented

in the xx of Gen. ii 24. Comp.
Jerome ad ioc,: ‘apostolus pro eo
quod ibi habetur évexey rovrov, id est
propter hoc, posuit dvyrt rotrov, quod
latine aliis uerbis dici non potest’.
The only other variant from the 1xx
in our text is the omission of avrod
after warépa and pnrépa: see, how-
ever, the note on various readings,
32. 1d pvoriptoy x.7.A.] The mean-
ing of pvorjpov is discussed in a
separate note. In St Paul’s use of
the word we must distinguish (1) its
employment to designate the eternal
secret of God’s purpose for mankind,
hidden from the past but revealed in

to say, ‘as_the lamp-shineth? (v.15);—interpretation.—In-the few passages

V 33)

, \
Aeyw eis Xpirrov kat eis thy éxxAnoiav.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

209

3erdnv Kae

~ / / A ~ 4
vuets of Kal’ Eva Exawros THv éavTod yuvatka ovTws
5 7 e e ld e \ \ ~ A ww
ayaratw ws éavTov, 4 Oé yun iva Porat Tov dyvdpa.

Christ; comp. in this epistle, i 9, iii 4,
9, vi19; Col. i 26 f, ii 2, iv 3; Rom.
xvi 25; 1 Cor. ii 1, 7: (2) a more
general use of the word in the plural,
1 Cor. iv 1, xiii 2, xiv 2: (3) the use
of the singular for some particular
secret of the Divine economy or of
the future; as in Rom. xi 25 ro
pvotnp.oy rodro (of the partial blind-
ness of Israel, which has been figured
by the olive-tree), 1 Cor. xv 51 idod
puatnpiov vpiv eyo (of the last
trump). The remarkable phrase in
2 Thess. ii 7 ré pvarnpiov tis dvopias,
connected as it is with a thrice
repeated use of dmroxahup6jvat, ap-

Paul is here speaking of marriage as
a sacrament in the later sense.

éyo dé Ayo} +The insertion of the
pronoun emphasises this teaching as
specially belonging to the Apostle. It
was his function in a peculiar sense
to declare the mystical relation of
Christ to the Church.

els] ‘with reference to’: comp. Acts
ii 25 Aaveld yap Aéyet eis avroy.

33. mApy xai dpets] that is, Do you -
at least grasp this, the practical lesson
of love on the one part and of rever-
ence on the other.

_ va hoBira}] This carries us back
to v. 21 é&v doBe@ Xpicrod. There
appears to be a double reference to

pears_to_form_part_of_an_intentional
parallel between ‘the man of sin’ and
our Lord. The remaining examples
are in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim.
iii 9 Tro pvornpioy Tis miotews, iii 16
dpodoyoupéves péya eativ 76 Tis edoe-
Belas puorypiov.

The use of the word in our text is
not quite parallel to any of the above
uses. The union of husband and wife
as ‘one flesh’ is a puoripiov, or con-
tains a pvoripiov (according as we
interpret To praripioy rodro as refer-
ring to the actual statement of Gen.
ii 24, or to the spiritual meaning of
that statement: the word puoripioy
hovers between ‘the symbol’ and ‘the
thing symbolised’ in Apoe. i 20, xvii
5,7). This pvorjptoy is of far-reaching
importance (véya): but all that the
Apostle will now add is that he is
speaking (or that he speaks it) con-
cerning Christ and the Church.

The Latin rendering ‘sacramentum
hoc magnum est’ well represents the
Greek ; for ‘sacramentum’ combines
the ideas of the symbol and its mean-
ing. It is hardly necessary to point
out that it does not imply that St

EPHES.”

this in 1 Pet. iii 1—6, which clearly
is not independent of our epistle:
“‘Opolws yuvaixes vroragcdpevat trois
idiots advipdow...riy év bdBo dyviv
avaotpopiy vpev: and then as if to
guard against a false conception of
fear, pi poBovpevat pndepiay mronow
(where the actual phrase comes from
Prov. iii 25 xat od hoByOjon mrénow
érred Oodaar).

For the ellipse before fva the near-
est parallel seems to be 1 Cor. vii 29
To Aouréy iva Kat of Exovres yuvaixas as
pi) €xovres Gow. For a change from
another construction to one with iva,
see above v. 27 pi fyovcav...ddr’ iva.
je») and a nearer parallel in 1 Cor..
xiv 5 6A Sé wdvras tas dadeipy-
yAcooats, paddov dé iva mpodnretyre..

VI. 1—9. ‘These principles ofrever-.
ence and love extend through the-
whole sphere of family life. Children:
must obey: it is righteous: and the:
old precept still carries its special
promise. Fathers must insist on
obedience, and must not make dis-
cipline more difficult by a lack of
loving patience. Again, slaves must

210

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[VI 1-4

y : . 4 . 4 ~ ~ ~

VI. *Ta tékva, vraxovere Trois yovebow vue ev

‘4 “n / 4 t
kupiw, ToiTO yap éorw Sixaioyy “Tima TON TaTépa

4 4
-cOY Kal THN mHTépa, HTIs éoriy évToAn mpwrTn €V
2 / 3¢ > . , om t
erayyeNia, 3ina ef col FéENHTAI Kal ECH MAKPOYXpd-
2.4 a a \ e /

Nioc émi tac rac. 4Kat of marépes, yu mwapopyicere

obey: with a trembling fear and a
whole-hearted devotion, looking to
their masters as to Christ Himself.
They are Christ’s slaves, doing God’s
will in their daily tasks; not rendering
a superficial service to please an
earthly lord; but with their soul in
their work, serving the Lord in heaven,
not men on earth: for the Lord
accepts and rewards all good work,
whether of the slave or of the free.
And the masters must catch the
same spirit: the threatening tone
must be heard no more: they and
their slaves have the same heavenly

Lord, before whom these earthly dis-

‘ tinctions disappear’.

I. Ta réxva] Comp. Col. iii 20 ra
Téxvd, vUmaKxoveTe Tois yovetow Kara
qdvta, Tovro yap evdpeotéy éoriy ev
xupig.

2. Aris dary «r.d.] ‘which ts the
Jirst commandment with promise’.
The obvious interpretation of these
words appears to be the best. It
has been objected (1) that a kind of
promise is attached to the second
commandment of the Decalogue, and
(2) that no other commandment has
a promise attached to it after the
fifth. It may be replied (1) that the
appeal to the character of God in the
second commandment is not properly
speaking a promise at all, and (2)
that many commandments, not of the
Decalogue, have promises attached to
them, so that the Apostle may be
thought of as regarding these as the
subsequent commandments which his
expression implies. *Evrod7 is not of

necessity to be confined to one of the —

‘Ten Words’, When our Lord was

asked Hola doriy évroAn mpary mavrev;

He did not in His reply go to the
Decalogue either for ‘the first’ or for
‘the second, like unto it’ (Mark xii
28 ff).

It is possible to understand zpory
here, as in the Gospel, in the sense
of the first in rank; or, again, as the
first to be enforced on a child: but
neither interpretation gives a satis-
factory meaning to the clause é¢v éray-
yeAia, unless these words be separated
from mpary and connected closely with
what follows—‘with a promise that it
shall be well with thee’, etc. This
however—is-exceedingly-harsh, and it
breaks up the original construction
of the quoted passage, where iva
depends on Tia «.r.A.

3. wa eb xrr.] The quotation
does not correspond to the Hebrew
text either of Hx. xx 12, ‘that thy .
days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee’,

-or of Deut. v 16, ‘that thy days may

be long, and that it may go well with
thee, upon the land which the Lord
thy God giveth thee’. St Paul quotes
with freedom from one of the Lxx
texts, which have themselves under-
gone some change, due in part to
assimilation: Ex. xx 12 fa ed oot
yévnras (these four words are omitted
in A and obelised in the Syro-
hexaplar) cal iva paxpoxonos yévn ent
Tis yas THs dyabAs is Kvpsos 6 beds
gov didecivy co: Deut. v 16 iva
got yernrat Kat iva pakpoxpévios yévy
(A; on F 3; -o1 fre B*> sup. ras.) emt
Tis yas js Kupuos 6 beds cov didwaiv
got

émt ris yis] The omission of the
words which follow in the Lxx gives
a different turn to this phrase: so

VI 5—9] 211.

lod \ ; A
Ta Tékva Uudv, dANa éxtpépere atta év matdeia Kal
5Qi dovAot, Vraxovere. Tois Kara

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Noy@ecia Kypioy.
; , . \ / 4 / 2 e / ~
cdpka Kupiow pera poBou Kal TpOHOU éy admwNOTNTL THS
kapdias UuoY ws TH Xorg, Sun Kar opbahpodovdiay
WS dvOpwadpea kot GAN’ wis SovAot Xpeorob Towvvres TO
OeAnpor TOU Geos, éx wuyis “per evvoias Sovrevorres, as
T@ Kupiy Kal ovk dvOpwrrois, *eiddTes STL ExaoTos, éav

a ? .Y , ,
TL rowjon aryador, TOVTO KOMLOETAL Tapa Kupiou, ETE

dovAos ere éAcvGepos.

that it may be rendered ‘on the
earth’ instead of ‘in the land’.

4. of warépes| Comp. Col. iii 21
ot marépes, py épedilere ra Téxva UpLar,
iva pq dOupaov.

mapopyitere| See the note on
trapopytopa, iv 26,

madeia] Comp. 2 Tim.. iii 16

9 4 e / A a» \ ~
Kae ot xupiot, Ta avra rovetTe

15 (of the reception of Titus), Phil. ii
12; and, for the corresponding verbs,
Mark v 33 gofydecica xat rpépovea.
The combination occurs several times
in the Lxx.

a@m\orntt] In 1 Chron. xxix 17 ev
dmAérnr: xapdias renders 39 "YS,

For this word and 6pGadpodovdla see

apéeripos mpos SidacKaXtav, wpos eXey=
_ pov, mpos éravopbacw, mpos matdelav
ayy ev Suaoctvyn, The word is not
used elsewhere by St Paul, though he
used the verb radeda, ‘to discipline’,
or in a severer sense ‘to chastise’.
Although the substantive may signify
simply education or training, yet
‘nurture’ (A.V.) is too weak a word

for it in this place. It is better to

render it ‘discipline’. Comp. Heb.
xii II waoa pév mawdeia mpos pev rd
mapov ov Soxet yapas eivat GAG Adm.

vovdecia| Comp. 1 Cor. x 11, Tit.
iii 10. It is less wide in meaning
than waideia, and suggests a warning
admonition, With this injunction
compare Didaché 4 ov« dpeis rhv
xelpd cou amd rot viod cov 7} ard Tis
Gvyarpés gov, GANG and vedrynros didd-
es rov HoBov rob Geos.

5. Of dobhor] Comp. Col. iii 22
of SobAor, dmaxoveTe Kara qwavTa Tots
Kara odpka xupiows, pn év opOah-
podouhiats, as dvOpamrdpecat, adn’
e Gmhérnrt xapdias, hoBotpevor rév
‘dptoy.

@dBov xai rpdyov}] Comp. 1 Cor. ii
3 (of St Paul’s preaching), 2 Cor. vii

Lightfoot’s notes on Col. iii 22.

6. dvb pwomdpecot] Comp. Ps. lii
[iii] 6 6 beds Steoxdprecer 6 dora avOpa-
napéoxar, Ps. Sol. iv 8 f. dvépadmev dy-
Oporapéckov..,dvOpwmdpeckay Aadody-
Ta povov peta Séddrov. See also Gal. i
10, I Thess, ii 4.

ék Voxis] Comp. Col. iii 23 a
éay Toure, ex pouxiis épydlerdbe, ds TG
kupio kal ovk dvOpamos. The parallel

suggests that the phrase should here

also be taken with what follows, and

not, as in A.V., with what. precedes.

Moreover the preceding sentence is
more forcible if ‘doing the will of God’
stands by itself as the interpretation
of ‘as servants of Christ’.

7- per’ evvotas| "Ex poyisi is opposed.
to listlessness: per’ edvoias suggests
the ready good-will, which does not
wait to be compelled.

8. eidéres ord] Comp. Col. iii 24
eldéres ore amd ‘kupiou drodjuyper de
vy dvrarodeaw Tijs KAnpovopias * TO
kupip Xpiorg@ SovAevere* 6 yap aduxv
kopicera, & Adiknoev, Kat ovK gor
mpocwroAnpia,

9. of kiptor] Comp. Col. iv. 1. of
kuptot, TO Sikatov xal tiv icdrnta Tots

I4—2

212

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[VI 10, 11

. yo: / 4 \ ~
moos avrous, aviévres Tiv adrreAny, eiddtes STi kal avTwY
“ ~ \ .
kal vuav 6 KUpios éorw év ovpavois, Kal TpoTwrTo-
‘4 > ry 4 2 ae
Anprbia ovK éorw map ara. .
“~ ~ “~ , ~ 4
*°Tou Aourou évovvapoiobe év kupiw Kal év TH KpaTet
“ ~ A fel ~
Tis ixyvos aitov. “évivcacbe tiv mavotNiav Tou Geot

dovAots. rapéyeoOe, eidores Sre Kal vpeis
ExeTe KUptov év ovpare.

ra avra) i.e. ‘deal in like manner
with them’. The phrase is not to be
pressed too literally: it signifies in
general, ‘act by them, as they are
bound to act by you’.

duévres] There is no parallel to
this use of the verb in the Greek
bible: but in classical Greek it is used
either with the genitive or with the
accusative in the sense of ‘giving up’,
‘desisting from’.

With this passage Wetstein com-

pares Seneca Zhyest..607 ‘Vos, quibus—_perpetual_prayer.—Prayer, too, is your

rector maris atque terrae Ius dedit
' magnum necis atque uitae, Ponite in-
flatos tumidosque uoltus. Quicquid a
uobis minor extimescit, Maior hoc
uobis dominus minatur. Omne sub
regno grauiore regnum est’,

cat avrév xa) dpav| See the note
on various readings,

mpoowroAnpwyia] Comp. Acts x 34.
See also Lightfoot’s note on Col. iii
25. With the whole passage compare
Didaché 4 ov« émiraéeas Sovtg cov
4 wadioky, tois emt rév adrév Oedy
éAriCovow, év mixpia gov: prrore ov
py poByOncovra tov én’ dudorépas
Gedy: ov yap epyerat Kata mpdcwmroy
Kadécat, GAN’ ef)’ obs 7d avedpa jroi-
pacer duets dé of SovAot drorayyoerbe
ois Kuplois vay, as Tum@ Geod, ev
alaxvvy kal PdoBo.

1o—20, ‘My final injunction con-
cerns you all. You need power, and
you must find it in the Lord. You
need God’s armour, if you are to
stand against the devil. We have to
wrestle with no human foe, but with
the powers which have the mastery of
this dark world: they are not flesh

and blood, but spirit; and they wage
their conflict in the heavenly sphere.
You must be armed therefore with
God’s armour. Truth and righteous-
ness, a8 you know, are His girdle and
breastplate; and in these His repre-
sentative must be clad. In the confi-
dence of victory you must be shod
with the readiness of the messenger
of peace. With faith for your shield,
the flaming arrows of Satan will not
discomfit you. Salvation is God’s hel-
met, and He smites with the sword
of His lips. Your lips must breathe

watch, and it will test your endur-
ance. Pray for the whole body of
the saints: and pray for me, that my
mouth may be opened to give my
own message boldly, prisoner though.
T be’.

10. Tod Aouwrov] This is equivalent.

‘to 76 Aowrdy, with which St Paul
' frequently introduces his concluding

injunctions: see Lightfoot’s note on
Phil. iii x. For the variant 76 Aourdy
in this passage see the note on various
readings.

évduvapovabe] This verb is confined.
in the New Testament to the Pauline.
epistles and one passage in the Acts,.
Zadros dé padroy éveduvapodro (ix 22):
it appears in the Lxx rarely, and never:
without a variant. *Evdvvapyoty (from.
évduvapos) is scarcely distinguishable:
from dvvapody (Col. i 11, Heb. xi 34),
which is found as a variant in this.
place.

II. tavordiav] ‘ Armour’, as con-.
trasted with the several pieces of the:
armour (émAa). So it is rightly ren--
dered in Luke xi 22 mv ravordayv
avrod aipe ep’ 7 émeroide. Comp..

VI 12] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 213

. \ \ , ton n ‘ \. ‘0 AY os
moos To SvvacOa Uuas orivat mpos Tas pEeOodias Tob
€. f ~ , A & 4
StaBorou- ™8rt ovK err ruiv i wadn mpos aipa Kal
/ 3 \ \ \ ? / A \ 2 , A
capka, aA\Na pos Tas adpxas, wpos Tas é£ovcias, moos
\ ~ 4 , ; \ \
TOUS KOTMOKPaTOpAs TOV DKOTOUS TOUTOU, TPOS Ta TVEU-

qavor\ay Xpvoiy ‘armour of gold’, flesh and blood’.. In the Book of
2 Macc. xi 8; énéyvacay mporerra- Enoch (xx 4) the offspring of the
xora Nixdvopa civ tH mavordig ‘they angels who sinned with the daughters
knew that Nicanor lay dead in hishar- of man is described as‘ flesh and blood’
ness’, ibid. xv. 28. It corresponds to in contrast with ‘living spirits’.

the Latin armatura (= omnia arma). —-_ dpxds x.r..] Comp. i 21, iii 10.
The rendering ‘whole armour’ (comp. Koopoxparopas| The word xoopoxpd-
‘complete harness’ 2 Mace. iii. 25) is | rwp has two significations. (1) ‘Ruler
redundant, and in the present pas- of the whole world’: as in the Orphic
sage it distracts attention from the Hymns im Sol. 11, in Pan. 11, and
important epithet rod deod. ‘Puton ina scholion on Aristoph. Nub. 397,
God’s armour’ is the Apostle’s injunc- Zersyxwors 6 Bacsheds tov Aiyurriov
tion. His meaning is presently made xocpoxpdrwp yeyovds. In the Rab-
clear by his quotations from the de- binical writings the word is trans-
scription of the Divine warrior in Old _literated and used in the same sense:

Testamen For—further —as-in Schir-&., ‘three kings, cosmo=
illustrations of mavorhla see the notes cratores, ruling from one end of the
on ov. 13 f. world to the other: Nebuchadnezzar,

peOodias] See the note on iv 14. Evilmerodach, Belshazzar’ ; and of the

12, mdAn] This word is not used angel of death in Vajikra R., where
by prose writers in the general sense however Israel is excepted from his
of struggle or conflict. It always re- otherwise universal rule. (2) ‘Ruler
tains, except in a few poetical phrases, of this world’: thus standing in con-
its proper meaning of ‘wrestling’. trast to mavroxpdrop, ‘ruler of the
Theodore ad loc. says: ‘inconsequens whole universe.’ It corresponds to
esse uidetur ut is qui de armis om- 6 dpywv tod kdopov (rovrov), John
nibus sumendis et bello disputauit xii 31, xiv 30, xvi 11, and to the
conluctationem memoretur: sed nihil Jewish title of Satan Down TY. Ac-
differre existimat, eo quod neque uera cordingly we find the Valentinians
_ ratione de conluctatione aut de militia applying it to the devil, Tren. (Mass.)

illi erat ratio’, etc. 15 4, ov kat kogpoxpdropa kadovot,

ala kat oripxa] Comp. Heb. ii 14 In 2 Mace. God is spoken of as 6 rod
Ta matdla KeKowdvykev aiyaros Kal cap- kéopou Bacireus, Vii 9, and 6 Kuptos Tob
Kos. The more usual order, oapé kat —_ xdorpou, xiii 14; and corresponding titles
aiza, is found in Matt. xvi 17, I Cor. occur in the late Jewish literature.
xv 50, Gal. i. 16, The expression occurs But no such expressions are used in
in Ecclus. xiv 18 odras yeved capes kat the New Testament, where the world

- aiparos, 7 pev reAeura, é érépa d€ yerva- is commonly regarded as falsely as-

vat, and xvii 31 (where it is paralleled _serting its independence of God. ‘All
by yi xat omodés). J. Lightfoot, on the kingdoms of the world and the
Matt. xvi 17, says:‘The Jewish writers glory of them’ are in the power of
use this form of speech infinite times, Satan (Matt. iv 8, Luke iv 6): only in
and by it oppose men to God’. He _ the apocalyptic vision do we find that
cites especially the phrase ‘a king of éyévero 1) BactAela tod Kéopou Tod Kv-

214

Marika Tis mrovnpias éy Tots eroupaviors.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[VI 13, 14

3$1a TOvVTO

dvaNaBere tTHv TavowAiay TOU Beoi, ti iva SuvnOnre avrt-
orivat év TH imepa TH movnpe kal drayTa KkaTepyaod-
EVOL OTHVAL. Morice OUY TEPIZWCAMENO! THN OCHYN

piov Wpav Kat rod xptorod adrov (Apos,
xi 15). God, on the other hand, is
addressed as xipie rod ovpavod Kat rijs
vis (Matt. xi 25, Luke x 21).

The second of the two meanings is
alone appropriate here. It is not of
world-wide rule, but of the rule of this
world, that the Apostle speaks; and
this is made clear by the addition of
Tov axkdrovs Tovrov. The expression
as a whole is not easy to render into
another language. We find mundt-
tenens in Tert. adv. Mare. v 18, ade.
Valent. 22, de fuga 12; and mundi-
potens in de anima 23, and in Hilary
_ tn ps. exviii. But the ordinary Latin
rendering is aduersus (huius) mundi

rectores tenebrarum harum. The
Peshito boldly paraphrases: ‘the
rulers of this dark world’. This

fairly represents the Apostle’s mean-
ing: it is with the powers which rule
this world, their realm of darkness,
that we have to contend. In English

Sthe world-rulers of this darkness’ is

hardly intelligible. The familiar ren-
dering (though suggested by a faulty
text, which added rod aidvos) suffi-
ciently gives the sense: ‘the rulers
of the darkness of this world’,

ra svevparixa] ‘the spiritual hosts’
or ‘forces’. The phrase ra svevparuxa
this wovypias differs from ra mvevpara
ra wovnpa in laying more stress upon
the nature of the foe. The rendering
‘hosts’ is preferable to ‘elements’,
because it suggests personal adver-
saries: ‘forces’, in the biblical sense,
would be equally suitable, but to
modern ears it has the same imper-
sonal meaning as ‘elements’,

év trois éoupaviots] Comp. i 20, ii 6,
iii 10, The Peshito has ‘and with the
evil spirits which are beneath the hea-

vens’, implying a variant drrovpaviors.
The same rendering is found in 'the
Armenian version, so that it goes
back to the Old Syriac, as is further
shewn by its occurrence in Ephraim’s
commentary. Theodore knew of this
interpretation (prob. fromthe Peshito),
but condemned it,

13. dvadaGere| Comp. Judith xiv 3
avadaBorres obrot Tas tavotAlas avrav:
Joseph. Ant. iv 5 2 ras ravorXias dva-
AaBdvres edOéws exdpovy eis To epyor,
XX 5 3 KeNevet TO OTpdrevpa way Tas
mavorhias dvadaBov qKew els THY ’Avra-
viav.
movpg|—Comp.-v--16-8re ai Cjpepat
trovnpai elaw: also Ps. xl (xli) 1 &
vimépg mompa (MY) DID) sdoeras adrov
6 KUpios.

karepyacapevot}] This verb is very
frequently used by St Paul, and
always in the sense of ‘ producing’ or
‘accomplishing’. It occurs 18 times

in the Epistles to the Romans and the

Corinthians; but in the later epistles
only in Phil. ii 12 rjv €aurdyv cornpiav
carepyatecOe. Here therefore it is
most naturally interpreted as ‘having
accomplished all that your duty re-
quires’. There is no reason to desert
the ordinary usage of the New Testa-
ment for the rarer sense of ‘over-
coming’, which occasionally occurs in
the classical writers. The Latin ren-
dering ‘in omnibus perfecti’ (om. in
amiat.), if not a corruption of ‘omni-
bus perfectis’, must be regarded as
a loose paraphrase: Jerome in his
commentary has ‘ uniuersa operatt’.
14. mepi(ooduevos «7.d.] — With
the description which follows com-
pare 1 Thess. v 8 évdvoduevot bdpaxa
giotews Kal ayanns Kal weptxeadaiay
éxrida oornpias. Both passages are

VI is—t7]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

215

Uuav én ddnOeia, Kal éNAYCAMENO! TON O@paka TAC
Atkatocynuc, %Kal vrodnoamevot Toyc dAac ey ETOL-
facia Tot evarreAioy Thc eipHnue, “ev racw ava-
“AaBovres Tov Oupeoy Tis Tic-Tews, év w SvvnTecOe Tavra
ta BéAn Tov movnpod ta wemvpwméva Berar "Kal

based on Isa. lix 17 eveddcaro Sdixai-
oovyny as Odpaxa, kal mepiébero srept-
xeadaiay oornpiov emi ris Kepadis.
In our present passage the Apostle
has also drawn upon Isa, xi 4 waragée
Viv TO Noy@ Tod oTdparos avrod, Kat év
mvevpare Oud xeiWéav avedel aoeBy- Kat
éorat Sixatocvvy eCwopévos THY Goduy
avrov, kal dAnOeia eiAnpévos Tas mAev-
pas. On these passages is also founded
the description of the Divine warrior
in Wisd. v 18: Anperae aavorAiay Tov
(pdov avrod, kai OmAoToujces THY Kriow
eis duvvav éxOpav- évddcera Pdpaxa

is, in any case, ‘in addition to all’:
comp. Luke xvi 26 xal éy waot rovros
pera&v jay xK.r.A., where there is the
same variant ézi.

6upedv] Comp. Polyb. vi 23 gore
& 4 ‘Popatey mavordia wparov pev
Oupeds, ob Td pév TATOS eoTl THs KUp-

‘rhs émupavetas weve yyutrodioy, rd Sé

pajxos Troddy terrapav: 6 dé peicav, Ere
kat mwadaotiaios. The scutwm con-
sisted, as he tells us, of two layers
of wood glued together and covered
first with linen and then with hide:
it was bound with iron above and

Otxacordyny, Kat wepiOnoerat Kopv0a
kptow dpumoxpirov: Ajnyryerat dowiba
dxatapexnrov oornra.

15. érowsacia] The word is used
in the uxx for a stand or base: but
it is also found in the following pas-
sages, Ps, ix 38 (x 17) ryv éromuaciay
tis Kxapdias avtav mpocécyey To ods

cov (Heb. ‘Thou wilt prepare (or

establish) their heart, Thou wilt cause —

Thine ear to hear’), lxiv 10 (Ixv 9)
Hroiacas THY Tpopiy avray, drt ovTas
4) éroysacia cov (comp. Wisd. xiii 12
els €rousaciay rpopys), Na. ii 4 év
nuepa éronacias avrov. The Apostle
means to express the readiness which
belongs to the bearer of good tidings.
He has in his mind Isa. lii 7 mdpeue
és apa ent Tév dpéwy, ws wodes evay-
yerifouévov dxony eipyyns, which in
Rom. x 15 he quotes in a form nearer
to the Hebrew, os dpaios of odes trav
evayyedtCopévey dyad.

16. év waow] For the variant emi
macww see the note on various readings.
’"Ert waoc occurs in the description of
the Roman armour by Polybius (vi 23),
emt O€ mace rovras mpocemtkoopobryrat
mrepive orepdve «r.A. The meaning

below, and had an iron boss affixed”

to it. The dowis, or clypeus, was a
round shield, smaller and lighter.
metrupwpéva cBéoa] Wetstein gives
many examples of the use of flaming
missiles: they were often employed
to destroy siege-works, as well as to
wound or discomfit individual soldiers,
Thue. ii 75 mpoxadvppara eiye Séppets
kat dipbépas, dare rods épyatopevous
kat ta &vAa pte mupdepois diorois
Badrcobae ev dopadreia te eivat, Liv.
xxi 8 ‘Phalarica erat Saguntinis mis-
sile telum hastili abiegno et caetero
tereti praeterquam ad extremum
unde ferrum exstabat: id, sicut in
pilo, quadratum stuppa circumliga-
bant linebantque pice...id maxime,
etiamsi haesisset in scuto nec pene-
trasset in corpus, pauorem faciebat,
quod cum medium accensum mit-
teretur conceptumque ipso motu
multo maiorem ignem ferret, arma
omitti cogebat nudumque militem
ad insequentes ictus praebebat’. The
exact expression occurs in Apollodor.
Bibl. ii 5 de Hercule: ryv vdpav...
Badov Beret remrup@pévots Hvaynacey
éeOciv. For the absence from some

216 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[VI 18—20

THN TEPIKEMAAAIAN. TOT COTHPIOY déFaobe, Kat THN
MAYAIPAN TOY TNEYMATOC, & éorw paima 6e0Y¥, 8 Sia
Tacns mporeuy is Kael Sencrews, mporevx pevor év mart
Kalow év mVEUart, Kal eis avTo ayoumvouvres év mao
Tpookaprephret Kal denoe rept TAVTOV TwOV aryiwy,
Skat vrrep emoy, iva Mot Sob Aoyos éy dvotget TOU OTO~
patos plou, éy Tappnoig ‘yrepioat TO puorriipiov TOU

evayyeNiou ”

°vmrep ov mperBeiw év ddvoel, iva év alta

Tappnoidcwpat ws Set ue AcAHoAL.

texts of the article before rervpwpéva
see the note on various readings.

17. mepixehadaiav«.t.a. | See 1 Thess.
v8 and Isa. lix 17, quoted above. To.
cernpiov is found in Luke ii 30, iii 6,
and in St Paul’s speech in Acts xxviii
28; in each case it comes directly or
indirectly from the Lxx.

watch’. Comp. Mark xiii 33 Bhérere
dypumveire, 35, ypnyopeire ovv, xiv 38
yenyopeire kat mporexerde : Luke
xxi 36 dypumveire év mavtt xaip@ Sed-
pevor: and the parallel passage Col.
iv 2 ti mporevyn mpookaprepeire, ypn-
yopobvres év airy év evyaportia.
mpooxaprepyoet| The verb-is-com-
mon, but no independent reference

dééaade] is here equivalent to Xd- mor

_ Bere: comp. Luke ii 28, xvi 6 f., xxii 17
(deEdpevos moriptov).

Thy pdxaipay Trou mvevparos| The
phrase is accounted for by Isa. xi 4
(quoted above), though the actual
words do not there occur.

pia Gcod] For fia see the note
on v 26. Comp. Isa. xi 4 r@ Adyo
Tou otduaros avrov, and Heb. iv 12
(av yap 6 oyos Tod Oeod Kab evepyns
kal ToueTepos umép wagay payatpay
Siofopov, «K.T.A.

18. mpocevxis|] For the connexion
of this with the pia deod compare
1 Tim. iv. 5 dydlerac yap dit Adyou
beov kat évrevéews.

dejcews] This word is joined with
mpooevxy, for the sake of fulness of
expression: see Phil. iv. 6, 1 Tim. ii 1,
v5.

év wvedpare] ‘in the Spirit’: see the
note on v 18,

els avré] Comp. Rom. xiii 6 es
avro ToUTO Tpoa Kaprepouvres,

dypumvoivres] "Aypumveip and yp7-
yopey are both used in the Luxx to
render “PY, ‘to keep awake’, ‘to

ley

' parallel, Col. iv 3,

4 ue ~ a
Kat Wept Hay, tva K.rA.

for the noun is given.

19. kat vrép éuod] The change
from wepi to drép helps to mark the
introduction of the special request:
but there is no real difference of
meaning, as may be seen from the
Wpocevxopevot apa

Aéyos xr.A. Comp. Col. iv 3 ta
6 Geds avoiéy piv Ovpav rod Adyov,
and Ps. 1 (li) 17 ra yeidy pov dvoi-
£ets, kal 7d oToua pou dvayyedet ri
aiveciv gov.

pvorypiov] Comp. Col. iv 3f. AaAq-
gat TO pvoTipioy Tod xpiorov, dv 6 Kal
Sepa, iva havepdocw airs ds Sei pe
Aarfjioa. For pvorjpiy see i 9, and
the references there given. For the
absence from some texts of rod evay-
yeAiov see the note on various readings.

20. mpeoBevo}] Comp. 2 Cor. v 20
drép Xptorov ovv mpeaBevopev,

ev advoa}| Comp. Acts xxviii 20
eivexey yap Tis édmidos rod “IopanA rhy
GAvow rabryy mepixeat, 2 Tim, i. 16
tH Gdvoly pov ove éracxvvOy.

21—24. ‘Tychicus will tell you

VI 21—24]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 217

~ ~ A 4 / 7

"Iva Se eidnte kal vues Ta Kat’ éué, TL mpacow,
7 . , te / ¢ 3 \ Dy rn A 4
mwavra yvupioe viv TuxiKos 6 dyarntos ddedos Kal
, A 14 A las >
miartos Sidkovos éy kupia, “ov émeuyra mpos vuas eis

~ fod y lol 4 /
ato ToUTO iva yviTE TA Tepl rua Kal Tapaxadéon

\ , e °
Tas Kapdlas Upev.

33 Eionyy Tots ddedgots Kat dydrn peta TicTews

dro Qceot warpds Kai Kupiov “Incov Xpirrov.

a4 7

~ , A ~
Naps META TaVTWY TOV dyaTaYTwY TOY KUpLOY Tima

Incobv Xpurrov év dpbapcic.

how I fare. I am sending him to
bring you information and encourage-
ment, I greet all the brethren with
one greeting: peace be theirs, and
love joined with faith. Grace be
with all who love our Lord in the
immortal life in which He and they
are one’.

ti mpdoocw] ‘how I fare’: as in
the common phrase ed rparrayv. But
there is no parallel to this usage in
the New Testament; for in Acts xv 29
ev mpd&ere appears to be used in the
sense Of xados moujoere.

23. rots ddeAois] The term déer-
gos was taken over by Christianity

21. Iva dé«.7.A.} Almost the same
words occur in Ool. iv 7 f.: ra kar’ epeé
mwavra yvapioes tpi TdyxtKos 6 dyannros
adeAgos Kal mors Sidkovos, kat civdov-
Aos év kupio, dv Erepipa mpos vyas eis
atré TovTo, va yore Ta TEepi judy Kal
mapakahéon Tas xapdias jpav. On the
phrases common to both passages it is
sufficient to refer to Lightfoot’s notes.

kai vets] This may be taken in
two senses: (1) ‘ye also’, ie. as well
as others to whom the Apostle is
sending a letter at the same time
and by the same messenger: for
although this meaning would not be
at once obvious to the recipients of
this letter, the words might naturally
be used by the Apostle if he were
addressing a like statement to the
Colossians : (2) ‘ye on your part’, with
an implied reference to the knowledge
which the Apostle had gained of their
condition (i 15 dkovoas ri Kad’ pas
miotw «.7.d.). The latter interpreta-
tion, however, is somewhat forced,
and the former is rendered the more
probable by the close similarity be-
tween the parallel passages in the
two epistles.

from Judaism. See Acts ii 29, 37,
iii 17, vii 2, etc., where it is addressed
bya Jew to Jews. Similarly before his
baptism Saul is addressed by Ananias
as adehdds, Acts ix 17. Here the
general term takes the place of the
special names which occur in most of
the epistles addressed to particular
Churches.

dydirn peta micteas|] Love accom-
panied by faith. Faith and love the
Apostle looked for and found among
those to whom he writes: see i 15,
and comp. Col. i 4. He prays that
they may together abide with them.

24. xdpis] The familiar doracpés,
with which St Paul closes every
epistle (see 2 Thess, iii 17 f£), takes
here a more general form and is
couched in the third person. This
is in harmony with the circular na-
ture of this epistle. .

év ddéapcia] *Adpbapcia signifies
indestructibility, incorruptibility, and
so immortality. “Ag@apros and d-
POapcia are used of the Deity; eg.
by Epicurus ap. Diog. Laert. x 123,
mp@rov pév tov Oedv (Gov apbaprov
kal paxdpwov vopitwy (ds 4 Kown rod

218

Geo’ vonorts dreypagn) pndev payre rhs
dplapoias dARGrptoy pyre ris paxapto-
tTnTos dvoixewov atta mpocanres way
&€ rd uAdrrew avrod Suvdpevoy ry
pera apOapaias paxaptérnta wept avrav
doéale: and Plutarch, Aristides 6, rd
Geiov rpict Soxet Scahépew, dpbapcia
kai Suvdpec kat dperj. They are like-
wise used by the Stoics of the xoopos;
Chrysippus ap. Plut. Moral. 425 D,
ovx yxicta rovroy (sc. the pévos Toros
in which the Kdopos is situated) ouv-
eipyerbar mpbs rv Stapovny Kat olovet
ap@apciav; and by the Epicureans of
their atoms. [Comp.thetitle of Philo’s
treatise, Hep) dbbapcias xécpov.]

In the Greek Old Testament d-
@éapros occurs twice: Wisd. xii 1 ré
yep apbapréy cov mvetpa eatw &v
mwacw, XVili 4 ro GpOaprov vépov das.
The same writer in two notable pass-
ages connects the ap@apcia granted
to men with the ddéapcia of God’s
own nature: ii 23 f dri 6 Geds_exricev

toy avOpwrov én’ apOapoia, xai eixova
_ ths idias iedrgtos (v. b. dudidrnros)
éroingey airdv: POdvp dé diaBddov
Oavaros eiodOev cis Tov Kéapoy, K.T.A.,
vi 18 f. dydan dé ripnois voy avris
(sc. ras aoias), mpocoyy 8é vopeov
BeBaiwors sdb Oapoias, abOapaia dé éyyts
eivat moet Geod. The only other ex-

amples are found in 4 Mace. (of men —

who pass to an immortal life), ix 22
Gowep ev wupt peraoxnuariCopevos els
dd Gapoiay, XVli 12 76d0b€res yap tore
dper} be tropoviis SoxiudCovea Ta vixos
éy abOapcia év Con mohuxporig, Sym-~
machus used the word in the title of
Pg, Ixxiv (Ixxv), émwwixios mept adéap-
alas Yodpds (LXX pi diadGeipys).

So far then the meaning of déapros
(dp@apoia) is clear, and there is no
tendency to confuse it with dpOopos
(d@Oopia). The latter adjective occurs
once in the Lxx: Esther ii 2 frnOire
To Baowrei kopdota &pOopa xara ro
elder (comp #. 3 xopdova mapGerka Kade
T@ cider).

‘In the New Testament we find
dpéapros used of God, Rom. i 23
HAAakay rhv Sd£av rod apOdprov bed

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

[VI 24

éy Spotdpare eixdvos péaprob dvOpdirrov,
1 Tim. 117 dpédpre dopar@ pore beg:
and: of the dead after resurrection,
1 Cor. xv 52 éyepOjcovra apOapror.
It is also used as an epithet of
orepavos (1 Oor. ix 25), xAqpovopia
(1 Pet. i 4), and omopa (tb. 23; comp.
iii 4). The substantive occurs in
1 Cor. xV 42 omeiperac ev Oopa,
éyeiperas ev apOapoia, 50 ovde 4 pOopa
tiv adGapolay xAnpovopel, 53 det yap
ro pbaprov rodro évdvcacGa apéap-
ciav, cal ro Oynréy rovro évdicacOat
d@avaciay. It occurs again in Rom.
ii 7 rois pev Kab’ v drropoviy épyou dyabov
Sogav xat ripry Kat apOapciay (nrotow,
Cony aidviov, 2 Tim, i 10 carapyyoavros
pév rov Odyarov, paticavros Sé Conv
kat dpOapoiay dia Tov evayyediov. (In
Tit. ii 7 it has been interpolated after
abopiary, cepvornra,—having come
in probably as a marginal gloss on
a@Oopiar.)

doubt as to the meaning of dpéapcaia.
If (a aidwos is the life-principle
which is already at work,.d@éapoia is
the condition of immortality which
will crown it in the future.

The use of the word in the epistles
of Ignatius deserves a special con-

‘sideration, if only because we find in

Rom.7 the expression ayday &pOapros.
In Eph. 15 f. Ignatius is speaking of
false teaching and false living as de-
structive of the ‘temples’ of God, with
an allusion to x Cor, iii 17 ef Tis rép
vaoy rou Geod Oeipe, xr.A. He de-
clares that oi oixe@@dpor, those who
violate God’s house, forfeit the king-
dom of God. If this be so for the
bodily temple, still more does it hold
of those who ‘violate (@deipew) the
faith of God by evil teaching’. They
and their hearers are defiled and shall
go into the unquenchable fire. He
proceeds: Aca rovro pipoyv édaBev emt
tis Kepahiis avrod 6 xipios, va mvéy
Th éxxAnoia abéapciav. He is playing
upon the two senses of @éeipew,
physical destruction and moral cor-
ruption: but that the sense of in-

Trall-these passages therecanbeno

VI 24]

corruptibility or immortality predomi-
nates when the word ddOapcia is
introduced is shewn by the contrasted
Svawdia rijs SidackaXias of the devil,
who would carry us away ‘from the
life which is the goal set before us’
(ék rod mpoxetpévov Cav). The phrase
has a noteworthy parallel in Iren. iii
11 8 wavrayober wvéovras riv apbapoiav
kat dvalwmupotvras rovs avOpémous (of
the four Gospels): comp.i 4 1 andi61;
the metaphor being perhaps derived
from the Xpicrod evodia and the éop7
éx Cais els Cony of 2 Cor. ii 15 f.

In Magn. 6 we have eis rimov xat
Sidaynv adéapoias, but the context
does not throw fresh light on the
meaning of the word. Philad. 9 ré
d€ evayyéXov dadpriopa eorw apGap-
cias recalls 2Tim.ito. In Trail. 11
qv ay 6 Kaprés avrav apbapros stands
in contrast with xapmréy Oavatnddpor.

In Rom. 7 we have ody dona: rpopy _weta travray rév év addapoia dyandy-

Oopas followed by ropa Gédo ro aipa
avrov, 6 éoTw adydrn apOapros. In
this passage we have a combination
of the ideas which appear separately
in Trall. 8 év dyarn, 6 éorw aipa’Inood
Xpicrod, and Eph. 20 éva dprov kdavres,
3 éorw dppaxoy dOavacias, dvrisoros
tod pt) amodavey GAG Cay dv "Inood
Xpiorg@ Sia mavrés. [Comp. Clem.
Alex. Paed. i 47 6 dpros...cis dbOap-
ciav tpépwr.| - Both the déavacia and
the ap@apoia of Ignatius are lifted
out of the merely physical region by
the new meaning given to ‘life’ by the
Gospel: but the words retain their
proper signification in the higher
sphere, and still mean freedom from
death and from dissolution. "Ap@apaia
is not confused with dq@éopia or
ad:apOopia, 80 as to denote freedom
from moral corruptness.

I cannot point to any passage in
the writers of the second century in
which a@Oapros and déapaia are used
of moral incorruptness, though the
words are common enough in the
usual sense of immortality (see Athe-
nag. de Res. passim). On the other
hand dopo: occurs in a well-known

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

219

passage of Justin (Ap. i 15, comp.
adiahOopa ibid. 18).

Since, however, @écipew and Géopa
express the physical and moral ideas
which are negatived in apéapcoia and
apOopia respectively, it was quite
possible that ddéapaia should come
to be regarded as denoting not only
the indissolubility of eternal life, but
alsothe purity which Christian thought
necessarily connected with eternal life.
And this may explain the uncertainty
which attends Origen’s use of the
word in some passages. Thus in his
treatise on Prayer, § 21, we read ra
dtePOappéva Epya 7} Adyous } vonpara,
Tamewa Tuyxavovra xal émidnra, Tis
apOapcias dAAcrpia tod xupiov. He
seems again to play on two possible
senses of dp@apoia in c. Cels. iii 6o,
where our present passage is referred
to: émet dé xai 7 xdpis rod Beov éore

toy roy didarkadov Trav ris dBavacias
pabnparar, ‘doris dyvos’ ov povoy ‘dad
mavros puoous’ (the words of Celsus),
G@\Aa Kat tév éharrdver eivat vousco-
pévav apaptnparav Oappay pveicbo,
xv.A. In his Commentary (on this
verse) Origen combats an extreme
view which interpreted d@éapcia as
implying strict virginity. He does
not reply, as he might have replied,
that in Scripture adéapcia is always
used of immortality; but he suggests
that pfopa is predicable of any sin,
so that dpéapcia might be implying
absolute freedom from sin of any
kind: dere rovs dyaravras roy Kiptov
npav "Inooby Xpioroy év apOapcia etvat
Tous maons apaprias drexouévous. The
later Greek commentators also in-
terpret ddéapcia in this place of
incorruptness of life. The Latin
commentators, who had in incorrup-
tione tointerpret, sometimes preferred
to explain it of soundness of doctrine,
but with equally little justification
from the earlier literature.

How then are the words to be
understood? It has been proposed
to connect them with 7 xapis, 80 that

220

the Apostle’s final prayer should be
an invocation of ydpis év dpOapaia, i.e.

of grace together with that blessed —

immortality which is the crowning
gift of grace. But this cannot be
regarded as a natural expansion of
his accustomed formula, even if the
disposition of the sentence be not

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[VI 24

fatal to this interpretation. It is
better to keep the words dv dddapaia
closely with rév dyardvrav rv xipioy
npdv "Incoty Xpordv, to render them
‘in incorruptibility’, and to explain
them as meaning ‘in that endless
and unbroken life in which love has
triumphed over death and dissolution’,

-ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. | 221

On the meanings of yapes and yapurooy.

I. XApic.
1. The word xapis has a remarkable variety of meaning even in the Meanings
earliest Greek literature. It is used ; in classi

(1) objectively, of that which causes a favorable yegard, attractive- jure:
ness: especially (a) grace of form, gracefulness ; and (b) grace
of speech, graciousness :

(2) subjectively, of the favorable regard felt towards a person,
acceptance or favour :

(3) ofa definite expression of such favorable regard, a fazour (ydpw

Sodvat) :

(4) of the reciprocal feeling produced by a.favour; the sense of =

favour bestowed, gratitude (ydpw dmodobva, eidévat, Zyew) :
(5) adverbially, as in the phrases xdpw twds, ‘for the sake of a
person, or a thing’; mpés xdpw rwi ze rpdrrev, ‘to do some-
thing to please another’. .
Greek writers of all periods delight to play upon the various meanings Play on
of the word ; as in such sayings as 1) ydpis xdpw épet. meanings.

The Greek translators of the Old Testament used ydp:s almost exclus- The Greek
ively as a rendering of the Hebrew jf, a word connected with 129 ‘to 0. T.
incline towards’, and so ‘to favour’. ,

Thus in the Pentateuch we find the phrase evpeiy ydpw (20 times, Penta--
besides €yew ydpw, for the same Hebrew, once) and the phrase dodva: teuch.
xapw (five times); each being regularly followed by a term expressive
of relation to the favouring person, évavriov rivds, évdmedy Twos or Tapa TW.

In Ruth and the books of Samuel we have edpeiy xapy év dPOadrpois Ruth and
ros (12 times), where the same Hebrew phrase of relation is more Samuel.
literally translated.

Up to this point we have no other use of the word at all. In Kings Kings and
and Chronicles however, besides evpeiv ydpw évayriov (once), we twice find Chroni-
xapw used as an adverb. cles.

In Esther, besides evpeivy ydpw (six times: once for ‘12h, and once for Esther.
this and {) together), we have ydpis used for nba in Vi 3, riva ddfav 4
xépw eroujoapey x.7.d.. ‘What honour and dignity hath been done to
Mordecai for this?’ (A.V.). In a Greek addition xv 14 (=v 2) we read rd

‘ ?
mporwmory cov xapirov pecrov.

1 This rendering is found once in the Pentateuch, Gen. xxxiii 8.

222 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Favor. The distinctive meaning then of yapis as representing {1 in the historical
able esti- books of the Old Testament is the favour which an inferior finds in the eyes
by @ of his superior. It is to be noted that Sofvac ydpw is here correlative to
superior. evpeiy yap. It does not mean ‘to favour’, but ‘to cause to be favoured’
by another. It thus differs altogether from the true Greek phrase doiva:
xépw, ‘to grant a favour’.
Psalms: In the Psalms the word occurs twice only: xliv (xlv) 2 e£eyvéy [4]
extended xapts év yeiAeor cov, lxxxiii (lxxxiv) 11 ydpww kai ddéav Sdce. In each case
& it renders 10, which has acquired a certain extension of meaning.
Proverbs: In Proverbs we find it 21 times, the plural being occasionally used.
Thrice it renders {i¥3, which is commonly represented by ed8oxia. The
accepta- general meaning is favour or acceptance in a wide sense, as the condition
bility with of a happy and successful life. Such xdpis is as a rule the accompaniment
God and of wealth and high station: but God gives it as a reward of humility, iii 34

me rarewois S¢ Sid@ow xapw, |
Ecclesi- In Ecclesiastes yapts is used twice for jf], and again the sense is wide.
astes. It is remarkable that in Isaiah, Jeremiah and (with few exceptions)

Prophets the Prophets generally ydpis is not found at all. The exceptions are

almost three passages in Zechariah (always for }M), iv 7, vi 14 and xii 10 (ékyed...

unused. - gyejua xdperos Kal olkrippod); Dan. i 9 fwxe...ryujy Kat ydpw (85 3) évay-
riov...(Theodot....ets @Acov xat oleretppoy évértov,..)3 and Ezek. xii 24, the
adverbial phrase mpés_xdpw.

Wisdom In the Wisdom books we find, as we might expect, a more extended

Hterature: use of the word: and the sense which corresponds with {iJ appears side

ith by side with various Greek usages. It is specially noteworthy that twice

‘mercy’. we have the combination ydpis kal Edeos [ev] rots éxAexrots avrod (Wisd.
iii 9, iv-15).

Enoch : With this last expression we may compare Enoch v 7, 8 kad tots ékXeK-
with anil rots @orat pas Kat ydpis Kat elpin...tére SoOyoera. trois ékAsexrois das
‘peace : ne kal ydpus.

TheN.T. It appears from the foregoing investigation that the New Testament
Pitts 4 Writers inherited a wealth of meanings for the word xdpts :

both (a) the purely Greek significations, which were familiar to all who used
Greek the Greek language, but which to some extent fell into the background, in
and He- consequence of the appropriation of the word to a specially Christian use;
uses : (6) the significations which the word had acquired through its use by
esp. ‘the the Greek translators of the Old Testament to represent }.

bleasin 6 Of the latter significations the most important was that which we find
quent on in the latest books, namely, the favour of God, or rather the blessed. condi-
Divine —_tion of human life which resulted from the Divine favour—a sense in which
favour’. the word came, as we have seen, to range with such spiritual blessings as

Zheos, pas and eipyvy.

1 This phrase needs to beconsidered allowance must be made for the more
in the light of what has been said of independent use of yds withouta term
Sodvac ydpw évavriov twés (see Gataker of relation in the later Old Testament
Cinnus, ed. Lond. 1651, p. gof.); but literature.

In Jude 4 we read ry rot Oeod xdpira peraribévres els doéAyecay.

ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. 223
Turning now to the New Testament, we observe that the word is not Distribu-
found in the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark; but that it occurs in on 7 the
every other book, with the exception of the First and Third Epistles of foment
St John’, We may consider first those writers whose phraseology is in
general most remote from that of St Paul.
In St John’s Gospel ydpis is found only in the Prologue: i 14 sAjpys St John’s
xadperos kal dAnOeias...16 ék tod mAnpdparos avrot jpeis mavres éddBoper kai Gospel :
xapw dvri xdpiros...17 7 xapis Kal 4 ddqOea dia “Incod Xptorod éyévero. only in the
These verses are closely connected and offer a single emphatic presenta- ges
tion of xapis as a blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ. Grace and
truth together stand in contrast to the law as given through Moses.
A fulness of grace and truth pertains to ‘the Word made flesh’. Out
of that fulness we all have received: we have received ‘grace for grace’—
that the gift in us may correspond with the source of the gift in Him.
The only other occurrences of the word in the Johannine writings do Other
not help us to interpret the words of the Prologue. In 2 John 3 we have Johannine
merely the greeting xdprs, Zd«os, eipyvq (comp. the Pastoral Epistles). In °oks.
the Apocalypse we have the salutation ydpis kal elpyvy awd 6 Sy, x7. and
the closing benediction, 1} ydpis rot xupiov "Incod Xpiorod pera ray dyiov,
in each case Pauline phrases with a peculiar modification.
The Epistle of St James contains the word only (iv 6) in an allusion to St James.
and a quotation from Prov. iii 34 (see above).

This St Jude.
form of the accusative is not found elsewhere in the New Testament,

except in Acts xxiv 27. Xdgis does not occur in the opening salutation

of the epistle (€Acos vpiv cat cipyvy Kal dydrn mAnOvrGein). It is observable

that the whole of the phrase above quoted, with the exception of the word

doédyeta, is absent from the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii 1 ff In 2 Peter, 2 St Peter.
however, we have the salutation ydpus div cal eipyvy mAnOvvOetn, and in

lii 18 the injunction avédvere dé év ydpure kal yudoe TOD Kupiov Hyar.

We now come to the Lucan books, in the latter of which at any rate St Luke’s
we shall be prepared to find tokens of the direct influence of St Paul. In Gospel:
Luke i 30 the angelic salutation Xaipe, xeyapirwpévn is followed by edpes opening

dp xd «7@ beg, a purely Hebraistic expression. In ii e read Chapters,

yep Xap mapa TO Ged, & Pure’y 2 Pression. 40 W Hebraistic
of the Child Jesus, y¢pis Gcot fy én’ atré: and in ii 52 “Incois mpoéxorrey ysa,

TH copia Kai HAuKig Kal yapirs mapa be@ cat dvOpdmas (comp. 1 Sam. ii 26

ro maddptov Sapoujd éeropevero peyadvvopevov Kai dyabdy, Kal pera Kupiov

kai pera dvOpdrev). The phraseology of the first two chapters of St Luke’s

Gospel is largely derived from the historical books of the Old Testament :

and these uses of yapis are characteristically Old Testament uses. In iv 22,
€Oavpatov émt trois Adyows Tis yapiTos, KT.A.. we have another obvious Later on,

Hebraism. But the remaining examples of the word give us purely tones

1 No account is here taken of ex- the Vulgate and the Bohairic. For a

amples of xdpw used adverbially with
a genitive. In 3 John 4 peorépay
TovTwy obx éxw xapdv, it seems im-
possible to accept the reading ydpw,
which is found in B, a few cursives,

confusion between the same words see
Tobit vii 17 xdpw dvrt rijs \orys cov
tavrys [xapdy &], Eeclus. xxx 16 xdpuw
N1, xapdy N7ABC.

(224 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Greek usages: sola ipiv yapis driv; (vi 32, 33, 34): mi) Exee xdpe 7G Soto
re eroinoey ra Staraybevra; (xvii 9).
The Acts: In the Acts we find in the earlier chapters clear instances of the Old
Hebraistic Testament use of ydpis: ii 47 eyovres ydpw mpds Sdov roy adv, Vii IO
BES. eoxey a’r@ xapw Kat codiay evavriov bapad, vii 46 etpey ydpw évadmtov
rov Oecov. Perhaps we should add to these iv 33 ydpis re peyadn yy ém
advras avrovs, and vi 8 Srépavos 8€ wAypys ydperos nat duvdyews éxoler
répara, x.r.. ; but it is possible that we have here a distinctively Christian
Greek use of the word. Of purely Greek usages we have ydpira xaradécOat in

uses. xxiv 27, and ydpw xaradéoOa in xxv 9; also airovuevoe xdpw xar adrod in
xxv 3 (comp, the use of yapifer@a: in xxv 11, 16).
The new But there is another class of passages in the Acts in which ydprs is -

Christian found in a new and Christian sense. The first of these is xi 23, where
meaning: we read of St Barnabas at Antioch, iSdy ry ydpw ryv rod Geod éxdpn.
The emphatic form of the expression helps to mark the introduction of the
new phrase: and it may be observed that, wherever throughout the book
the word occurs in this sense, it is (with the single exception of xviii 27)
followed by a defining genitive. The passages are the following:
xiii 43 mpoopévew TH yapire Tov Geod,
xiv 3 TO kupip To paprupodyre TS Ady@ Tis xdptros avrod,
26 dOev Foav mapadcdopévos tH xdptre TOV Geod,
Xv Ir Oud ris xapiros rod Kupiou “Incod murevopey cwOQvar_xaP Sv
TT pbrror- edict
40 sapadobeis rH xapere Tod Kupiov,
xviii 27. cuveBadero roAd Tois wemiorevkdow dia THs xaptTos,
Xx 24 dStapapripacGa rd evayyédov Tijs xapiros Tov Oeod,
32 mapariGepar vas TO Kupip Kal TO Ady@ Tis xdptros avrod.

in con- It is noteworthy that this use of ydpes belongs to the narratives which
nexion — deal with the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles: see especially xv 11.
with the The surprising mercy of God, by which those who had been wholly outside.
reception es * ss oe
of the the privileged circle were now the recipients of the Divine favour, seems
Gentiles. to have called for a new and impressive name which might be the watch-
word of the larger dispensation.
St Paul Although it is not probable that the introduction of ydpis into the
developes Christian vocabulary was due to St Paul, yet there can be little doubt
the term that the new and special use of it which we have just noted was closely
connected with his missionary efforts, and that he did more than any one
to express to develope the meaning of ydpis as a theological term. To him, for
the free- example, we owe the emphasis on the freeness of the Divine favour
- Which is marked by the contrast of ydpis with ddeiAnpa, ‘debt’, and
and uni- ay . wpe i ) :
versality With épyov in the sense of meritorious ‘work’; and the emphasis on
of the the universality of the Divine favour, which included Gentiles as well as
Gospel. Jews, in contrast to ‘the law’ which was the discipline of Israel.
His Moreover he seems in some sense to have appropriated the word, as
appropria- though he had a peculiar claim and title to its use. The first of his epistles
tion of the A : : , ‘
wordin opens and closes with an invocation of ydpis upon his readers: and every
connexion subsequent epistle follows the precedent thus set, In 2 Thess. iii 17 f. he
with his declares that this may be regarded as his sign-manual, authenticating as it

ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. 225

were his epistle: ‘Oo doracpes TH eu} xeipt Tathov, 8 6 éorw onpetoy éy may special
émoroni otras ypada: } xapis Tov Kupiou Huady "Incod Xpworod pera mavrov mission :
ry) DV.

The following series of passages will serve to shew how closely he
connected the word with his own special mission to the Gentiles.

(a) In regard io himself as proclaimer of the universal Gospel. (a) in re-

1 Cor. iii 10 xara tiv ydpw Tod Geod rHv Sobciody pot, ds copis apyxe- ere

réxtov Oepédov eOyxa.

1 Cor. xv Io xapere dé Beod eiut é elt, Kat 7j xdpis avrod 9 eis épe
ov Keviy eyevjOn, GAAG mepiocorepoy avray mavrov exoriaca, ovK eyd dé
GAA 9 xapts Tod Beod [7] ody époi.

2 Cor. i112 od« év codia capkixg dAN év ydpir. Oeod dveorpadnuey ev
TO Kéopne, wepurcorépws Sé mpos dpas.

2 Cor..iv 15 ra yap mavra be dpas, wa 4. xapis wAeovdoaca dia rév
mevav THY evxapioTiay mepiacevan eis Thy Sdkay rod Geod.

Gal. i 15 f. 6 ddopicas pe...xat Kadécas dia tis xapiros avrod...va
evayyeAifapat atréy év tois eOveow.

Gal. ii 7 f. idvres drt memiorevpar ro evayyédcoy Tis axpoBvotias...Kat
yuovres THY yap Ti Sobeicdy por.

Gal. ii 21 odx derd rv xdpw rod Oeod- ef yap Sia vopou KT.A.

Rom. i 5 d¢ ob éAdBouey xdpiv Kat aroorodny ets vraxony niorews év
—néow-roistOveow. —.——SOCOOt~Ctsi‘CsC“‘<; 727 3«OOS”*”
~ Rom, xii 3 A€yo yap dia ris xapiros rhs Sobeions poe mavtt r@ dvre ey
tpi: that is, with all the force of my special commission and authority,
to you to whom it gives me a right to speak. The phrase is taken up
again in ». 6,

Rom. xv 15 os éravapypvyjoxov tpas, Sid tHy xdpw ryv Sobciody pos
dé tov Ged eds 6 cival pe Aetroupyov Xptiorod "Inaod els ra Ebyn.

Phil. i 7 & re rois Sexpois pov kat év ry drrodoyia cai BeBadoe rot
evayyeAlov ovvKowwvots pou Tijs xaptros mavras vas Gvras. It was for
the wider Gospel that St Paul was bound.

See also Eph. iii 1—13, and the exposition.

(0) In regard to the Gentile recipients of the universal Gospel. (0) in re-

2 Thess. i 12, The persecution which the Thessalonians suffer is a gard to his.

proof that ‘the kingdom of God’, for which they suffer, is truly for them. converts.
They as believers are equated with ‘the saints’: in them, no less than

in Israel (Isa, xlix 3), the Name is to be glorified—‘the Name of the

Lord Jesus in you, and ye in Him’, xara ri xapw rod beod rudy kat

kuplov “Incod Xpicrod.

2 Thess. ii 16 6 dyamyoas judas Kai Sods mapaxAnow aiwviay xa édwida
dyabny év xdpirt, mapaxadéca dpav ras kapdias. By grace ‘the consola~
tion of Israel’ is widened to the consoling of the Gentiles, The thought
is: For us too it is through grace, which has extended it (and may
you realise it!) to you as well,

1 Cor. i 4 én) tH yapire rou beod rH Sobcion tpiv év Xpisrs “Inood.
You have been called into fellowship, 2 9.

2 Cor. vi 1 mapaxadoipev py eis xevdv riy xdpw rob Geod SéEacOas ipais.

2 Cor. viii 1 yrwpifoper dé dpiv, ddeAgol, thy xdpiv rod Oeod tiv dedo-
pérmy év rais éxxAnoias ris Maxedovias. The contribution to the Jewish

EPHES.? 15

The ad-
mission

of the _
~ Gentiles

dominates
his use of
the word,

This is in
harmony
with the
latter part
ofthe Acts.
Later
history of
the word.

Grace
versus
Freewill.

Variously
explained,

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

Christians was a signal witness to the fellowship into which the Gentiles
had been brought by grace, It was a proof that grace was being con-
tinually given to those who made this return of grace. St Paul plays
on the senses of the word with great delight i in this connexion: 2. 4 vy
Xap Kai thy Koweviay ris Staxovias ris eis rods dylous: v. 6 émerehéoy eis
vas kal thy xdpw ratrov: ©. 7 ta kal év radry rH ydpiTi meptooetnre:
®. 9 ywookete yap tiv xdpw rod Kupiou jpay “Incod [Xpicrov]: v 19 év
TH Xapire ravry rH Svaxovoupéry id’ jpadv: ix. 8 devarel dé 6 Beds wacay
xapw mepicoedoa eis vas: 0. 14 émurobotvrav tpas Sia rH drepBda-
Aovoay ydpw tod Geod ép’ dpiv. The play on words was a truly Greek
one: comp. Soph. Ajazx 522 xdpis xdpw yap éorw 7 rixrovo’ dei.

Gal. i 6 perarifeabe daé rot xadécavros tpas év xapire Xprorod eis
érepov evayyéAcov.

Gal. v 4 xarnpyjOnre dro Xptorod ofrwes ev vouw dixaodade, tis ydpiros
é&erécare. You have separated yourselves from that which was your
one ground of hope.

Col. i 6 dd’ is apépas jxotoare Kal eméyvwre tiv xdpw tov Oeod ev |
ddyécig. This is again in connexion with the declaration of the uni-
versal scope and fruitfulness of the Gospel.

See also Eph. ii 5—9, and the exposition.

A review of these passages makes it impossible to doubt that St Paul’s

use of ydpis is dominated by the thought_of the-admission-of the Gentiles

to-the privileges which had been peculiar to Israel. Grace was given to
the Gentiles through his ministry: grace was given to him for his ministry
to them. The flexibility of the word enables him to use it in this twofold
manner. The Divine favour had included the Gentiles in the circle of
privilege: the Divine favour had commissioned him to be its herald for
the proclamation of that inclusion,

This being so, we recognise the fitness with which St Luke, the com-
panion of St Paul and the historian of his mission, uses the new name
with peculiar reference to the proclamation and the reception of the
universal Gospel among the Gentiles,

It is unnecessary to follow the history of the word into the Pastoral
Epistles, where it is somewhat more widely used (comp. 2 Tim. ii 1, Tit. iii 7),
though its specially Pauline usage may be illustrated by Tit. ii 11; or
into the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the reference is quite general;
or into 1 Peter, which adopts so much of the phraseology of St Paul’s
epistles. As the first great controversy of Christianity passed out of
sight, terminology which had been framed with peculiar reference to it
became widened and generalised ; and the word ‘grace’ in particular lost
its early association, while it remained in the new Christian vocabulary
and. was destined, more especially in its Latin equivalent gratia, to be the
watchword of a very different and scarcely less tremendous struggle.

2. YapIToYN.

2. Closely connected with St Paul’s use of xapis is his incidental use
on one occasion only of the word yapiroty (Eph. i 6). Its meaning ‘both
there and in Luke i 28, the only other occurrence of the word in the New
Testament, has been variously explained.

ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. 227

~The verb xaptroiy properly signifies ‘to endue with xdpis’: and its Its mean-
meaning accordingly varies with the meaning of xdpis. Thus from ydpis ing varies
in the sense of ‘ " gracefulness of form’ (compare Hom. Od. ii 12 Oeomeotny of y dns,
& dpa rd ye xapw Karéxyevev AO); we have the meaning ‘to endue Greek
with beauty’: Niceph. Progymn. ii 2 (ed. Walz. I 429) Muppav ious pev usages:
éeyapirwcey els poppy: comp. Ecclus, ix 8, in the form in which it is ‘to endue
quoted by Clem. Alex. Paed. iii 11 83 dnéazpeyrov dé roy opbahpov dd With
yovacxds kexaptropévys (LXX. edudphov). Again, from the sense of ‘gra- beauty,’ a
ciousness of manner’ we have the meaning ‘to endue with graciousness’ : °f ewitl =
Keclus. xviii 17, ‘Lo, is not a word better than a gift? And both are ene’,
with a gracious man (mapa dvrdpt Kexapirapere) : : a fool will upbraid
ungraciously (dyapiorws)’.

The above are Greek usages. A Hebraistic use, of ‘being caused to Hebraistic
find favour’ in the eyes of men, is seen in Ps.-Aristeas Hp. ad Philocr. 18
(ed. Hody, Oxf. 1705, p. xxv; Swete’s Introd. to DXX p. 5581. 4 ff): in
answer to the question, How one may despise enemies —Hoxykas _mpes
mavras avOpamrovs edyoray ral karepyacdpevos didias, Aéyov ovGévos ay exots*

To b€ kexaprroo Gat mpos mavras dvOpdrovs, cat kahoy Sdpov eiAnévat mapa
Geot tobv7’ gor Kpariorov'.

In Luke i 28 the salutation Xaipe, ReXapironern, 6 Kiptos pera cov St Luke:
gives rise to the unuttered inquiry mroramos ety 6 domac pos ovros ; and the
__angel_proceeds. :-M?})-doBoi,— ‘Maptdps-etpes- yap xapwwapa TE OE | (comp.

Gen. vi 8). Thus Rexapir@ouery is explained in an Old Testament sense as 82 O. T.
7} evpovoa xdpiw mapa 7$ 6eG: and the meaning of yaprrody accordingly is ‘divinely
‘to endue with grace’ in the sense of the Divine favour, This was favoured’,
doubtless the meaning intended to be conveyed by the Latin rendering

gratia plena, though it has proved as a matter of history to be somewhat
ambiguous’, Similarly the Peshito has eh Unfortunately.

_ the Old Syriac (sin and cz) fails us at this point. Aphrahat (Wright 180, 2)

and Ephraim Comm. in Diatess. (Moes. 49) both omit the word in question,

and read ‘ Peace to thee, blessed among women”!

1 A few further examples of xap:roiv
may here be noted :

In Test. xii Patriarch. Joseph 1, we
have év dodevelg juny Kal db tyros
éweoxévaré pe év pudaxy Funv Kat 6
cwrhp éxaplrucé pe. This is of course
an allusion to Matt. xxv 36, and éyapt-
tase is probably borrowed directly
from Eph. i 6; the word being used
simply in the sense of ‘bestowed. grace
upon me’: it is paralleled in the con-
_ text by aydarnoe, épidate, avipyaye,
‘prevdepwae, éBonOnce, ded Opewe, mape-
kKddece, éhuce, ouvyybpnoe, éeppicaro,
SYwoe, as well as by érecxéparo.

Hermas Sim. ix 24.3 6 ofv Kiptos
dav tiv admdérnra atbrév xal rica
vomdtyta, éwdyOuvey avrovs éy ols
kérwots TOV xetpOy adriv, Kal éxaplrw-
sev abrois dv mdoy mpdée avrav.

The Latin Version (practically the
same in both its forms) has: ‘dedit
eis in omni opere gratiam’.

Epiphanius (Haer, Ixix 22): 6 6é
Movojs cuvécer ex Oeod KexapiTu-
pévos hpwra ov Tatra, ddd Kal 7d ere
GVWTEPOV, K.-T.

2 In the Apocalypse of the Virgin
(James Apocr, Anecd. 1, 115 ff.) the
Blessed Virgin is constantly spoken of
and even addressed as 4 xeyapirwpévy.

3 Ambiguity almost necessarily arose

-when gratia came to have as its pre-

dominant meaning a spiritual power
of help towards right living,

4 Not unconnected with this may
be the confused reading of the Latin
of Codex Bezae: ‘habe benedicta ding
tecum | benedicta tu inter mulieres.’

I5—2

228 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

St Paul In interpreting St Paul’s meaning in Eph. i 6, eis érawov 8ébys ris
Sane hn xaprros avrov is. éxapiracey pas év tS yyamnpéve, it is important to bear
own word i= mind that he is emphasising his own word ydprs. And we must compare
xdpis s certain other places in which a substantive is followed by its cognate verb:
Eph. i 19 xara ryy évépyeav...qv évipyykev (where he is thus led to a some-
what unusual use of évepyeiv: see the detached note on that word): ii 4
dud ry moAAQy aydrny avrod qv Aydryncey ads: iv 1 ths KAjoEews Is
exdyOnre: 2 Cor. i 4 bia ris mapaxAjoews ys mapaxadovpeba avroi. The
‘endued sense appears to be, ‘ His grace whereby He hath endued us with grace’.
us with This is a more emphatic way of saying, ‘His grace which He hath bestowed
grace’- on us’: it does not differ materially from the subsequent phrase of 2. 8,
‘ His grace which He hath made to abound toward us’.

Versions, The Peshito version seems to recognise this meaning of the passage in
Peshito. its rendering pin sAve.wsa om, ‘which He poured on us’. The Latin
Latin. version, however, renders: ‘gratiae suae in qua gratificauit nos’. The

- verb ‘gratifico’ appears to have been coined for this occasion. The com-
ment of Pelagius on the verse gives the meaning which was probably
present to the translators mind: ‘In qua gratia gratos fecit nos sibi

A various in Christo’. The interpretation was perhaps the natural issue of the
reading. ¢orruption of js into év 7, which is found in D,G, and later authorities
and is probably a scribe’s grammatical emendation. The relative 7s is to
be explained by attraction to the case of its antecedent, as in 2 Cor.i4,
quoted above,—It-is-simplest-to-suppose that it stands for 7: there appears
to be no warrant for a cognate accusative, fv éxapiracey.
Chryso- Chrysostom’s interpretation of éyapirwcev jyas is marked by a deter-
stom’s in- mination to compass every meaning of the word. In the first instance:
terpreta- he notes quite briefly (Field p. 110 F): ovkody ef eis rotro éexapirwoey, eis
Zmawov Soéns ris xaptros avrov, xai iva dein riv yapw advrod, pévopey év
avry. Here it would seem as though he took éyapiracer jpis as simply
meaning ‘endued us with grace’; in that grace, he urges, we ought
plays to abide. But presently it occurs to him (111 B) to contrast éyapirwoev
onthe with éyapicaro. Thus he says: ove efmev ‘fs éyapicaro’, ddW ‘ éxaptracey
nonnes of jpas’> rouréori, ov peovoy apaptnydroy dryAdagey adda nal erepdarous
xdpisand émoinoe. He gives as an illustration the restoration of an aged and
its deri- diseased beggar to youth, strength and beauty (the old Greek idea of
vatives, ydois): obras téjoKnoey yay Thy Wuyry, Kat Kadiy xal moGewhpy Kat ere .
pacroy éroincer:...cbras jpas értxaperas éroince kal avrg@ moBetvors.
He then quotes ‘The king shall desire thy beauty’ (Ps. xlv 12). He is
then led off by the phrase xeyap:ropéva pryyara to speak of the ‘gracious-
ness of speech’ which marks the Christian: ovyl yapiev éxeivo To matdioy
elvai cbapev, dep Gv peta tis To owpatos Spas Kal wordy exn THY éy
Trois pypact xapiv; rowirol eiow of moroi...ri yapiéorepay tay pnpd-
tev &¢ dv dmoraccipeba rp StaGcho, d° dy cuvtraccdpeba tO xptorg;
but misses ris cpodoyias éxeivys tis mpd Tov Aovrpov, rhs pera To Aovrpov; But.
St Paul’s im all this he is wilfully gomg back from St Paul's use of xdpis, and
eamné: introducing the sense of charm of form or of speech which belonged to
xaptrody in nou-biblical writers.

THE BELOVED. 229

‘The Beloved’ as a Messianic title.

1. In the Lxx 6 }yamnpévos occurs several times as a name of the chosen 1. Use in
people, as personified in a single representative. In the Blessing of Moses the Greek
it is used three times to translate Jeshurun (})W?): Deut. xxxii 15 dwreAd- 5 swamp:
KTUrev © Teyamnevos, XXXili 5 Kat Zora ev TG Hryamnpévp Apywv, 26 ove eorw pévos.
aomrep 6 Oeds rod Hyarnpévov. It again represents Jeshurun in Isa. xliv 2
pH) PoBod, wats pov "laxdB, Kal 6 wyamnpuévos "IopayA ov éfeAcEdunv: here
*Iopa7yA is an addition of the Luxx (in the Targum it also occurs in this place,
but as a substitute for Jeshurun).

It is also used to render 1°): in the address to Benjamin (without the
article) Deut. xxxiii 12 .yamnpévos td Kupiov (TINY WT) xarackyvodce
merotOds: and in Isa, v 1 dow 6) 76 fyamqneve dopa tot dyamyrod [pov]
('N)) 7G dpredavi pov. dpmreddy éyergOn +O Hryamnpero k.7.d.

We may note also its occurrence in Bar. iii_37 “laxd8-rG-maidi-adrod

~ Kal “Iopand tO jyannpevo [dn] avrod: and in Dan. iii (35) di “ABpadp
Tov Hyanmnpévoy dd oot (comp. 2 Chron. xx 7 oméppare "ABpaan tO
qyamnpéve cov).

2. In the uxx we find two distinct meanings of 6 dyamyros. 2. Of 6
(1) Like 6 pyarnuévos, it is sometimes used for 7°) ‘beloved.’ Thus dryaamrnT és.

we find it in Ps xliv (xlv) tit. 33) dadp rod dyamyrod: in Ps. lix (ix) 5 ‘Beloved’.
and Ps. cvii (cviii) 6 dws av pucOdow of dyarnroi cov.
In Isa. v 1, as we have already seen, where 6 #yamnpévos represents 1°7?,
6 dyamyrés is used for 11, in order to make a distinction}.
(2) But we also find 6 dyamnrds used, according to a Greek idiom, for ‘ Only’.
an only son. In the story of the sacrifice of Isaac it occurs three times
where the Hebrew has I" ‘only’: Gen. xxii 2 rév vidv cov tov dyamy-
roy: comp. vv. 12, 16. Of Jephthah’s daughter we read in Judg. xi 34
MP! Ni PY: for this the A text has cat airy povoyer}s air dyannry
(to which many cursives add mepuuxrés av’rd): B has xai qv airy povo-
yens (et hace unica et Aug’), In Amos viii 10 and Jer. vi 26 mévOos
dyarnrov is used as the equivalent of ‘a mourning for an only child’?:

1 Té also represents “Y)? in Jer. |

“EXXVili 20 (Xxxi 20) lds d-yasmyrés
"Ed¢patu, and INN in Zech. xiii 6 ds
éexhiyyyy &v rg olky Te ayarnre [A rob
ayarnrot] pov.

* Jerome, writing on Jer. vi 26,
shews that he failed to recognise the
idiom at this place: ‘ubi nos diximus
luctum unigeniti fac tibi, pro unigenito

in Hebraico scribitur IAID, quod magis.

solitarium quam unigenitum sonat: si
enim esset dilectus siue amabilis, ut
Lxx transtulerunt, IDID poneretur.’
Even Greeks at a late period seem to
have found a difficulty in the use of
dyarnrés in the uxx. Gregory of
Nyssa (De Deit. F. et Sp. &. iii 568
Migne) has, as a citation of Gen. xxii
2, AaBé por, pyol, rdv vidy cov Tov dya-
mnrov, Tov povoyerj. Dr Hort points

230 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
comp. Zech. xii 10 xéwpovrar én’ adrav xomeroy os én’ dyannre [-dy
AQ}.
3. Use in r In the New Testament we find 6 jyarnpévos in Eph. i 6, the passage
NT. which has given occasion for this investigation.
O aya- ‘O dyarnrés is used, both directly and indirectly, of our Lord in the
_ wards in yang ’
the Gos. Gospels.
pels. (1) At the Baptism:
Markit 30 ef 6 vids pou é dyaryrés, év oot eddsaqoa.
Matt. iii 17 Odrés dori 6 vids pov 6 dyamnrés, év d evdddxnoa.
Luke iii 22 as in St Mark, but with a notable ‘ Western?
variant?,
(2) At the Transfiguration:
Mark ix 7 Odrds éorw 6 vids pou 6 dyanntés.
Matt. xvii 5 Odrds éorw é vids pov 6 dyannros, év @ edddxyoa.
Luke ix 35 Odrds dorw 6 vids pov 6 éxAedeypevos®,
Comp. 2 Pet.i17 ‘O vids pou 6 dyamnrés odrés ear.
(3) Indirectly, in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.
Mark xii 6 re éva ciyer, vidv dyannrév.
Luke xx 13 wépapo rov vidv pov rov dyamyrev.
St Matthew has no parallel to this clause.
Tis mean- | If the third of these examples stood alone, it would be natural to
ing. interpret it in accordance with the Greek idiom referred_to above:and—
a close_parallel-might-befound in Tobit iii 10 (S text), pia cor dmjpyev
évyarnp dyarnry. But it is difficult to separate its interpretation from
that of 6 vids pou 6 dyarnrds, which is twice applied directly to our Lord.
Of this three renderings are possible:
(1) ‘Thou art My only Son’,
(2) ‘Thou art My beloved Son’,
(3) ‘Thou art My Son, the beloved’.
Notan ‘The first of these renderings is vigorously championed by Daniel Heinsius,
epithet, Kwercitt.ad N. T. p. 94 (ed. Cantabr. 1640) on Mark i11. The second is

familiar to us in our English Bible, and in St Mark at least it suggests

out (Two Dissert. p. 49 n.) that from
his comment we can see that he found
the word povoyer#j in his text.

The usage belongs to classical Greek
from the time of Homer: see Od. ii
365, iv 727, 817, and comp. Il. vi
400 f. From prose writers we may
cite Demosth. Midias CP. 567 ob} php
_ Nexijpards 7 otrws 6 ro Nixiov 6 diya
“anrds mais, and Xenoph. Cyrop. iv
62 @Oapa...dpre yevecdoxovra roy dpiorov
maida Tov dyarnréy. Aristotle shews
an interesting extension of the usage,

when in referring to the lex talionis .

he points out (Rhet. i 7) that the
penalty of ‘an eye for an eye’ be-
comes unfair when a man has lost

one eye already; for then he is de-
prived of his only organ of vision
(d-yarnrdv yap adypyrat).

1 We may note that in Prov. iv 3
mY is represented by dyamdpevos.
This word is used of Christ in Just.
Dial. 93 dyyedrov éxeivov...rav dyamd- -
pevov br’ adbro? roi xuplov xai Beod:
but there it stands for the more usual
ayarnpéevov.

2 Tids wou ef ob, éyd onuepor yeyévvnkd
ce (Dabe...): from Ps, ii 7.

3 This is the reading of NBLE syr®™
arm sah boh a. It is undoubtedly to
be preferred to that of ACD syreuresh
bevg, which have 6 dyarnrés with St
Mark.

THE BELOVED. 231
itself as the most obvious translation. Yet there is some reason for sup-

posing that the third interpretation was that which presented itself to the

minds both of St Matthew and of St Luke.

St Matthew assimilates the utterances at the Baptism and the Trans- but a dis-
figuration, writing in each case Odrds éarw o vids pov 6 dyanntds, ev @ tines ttle,
evdoxnoa. It is possible that the right punctuation of this sentence is thew,
that which is suggested in the margin of the text of Westcott and Hort
at Matt. iii 17: Obrds éorw 6 vids pov, 6 dyannrés év @ eddéxnoa. For in
Matt. xii 18 we find a remarkable change introduced in a quotation from
Isa. xlii 1. The Hebrew and the ixx of this passage are as follows:

sa-pOMs TDN $0
2 Ny) 73
*JaxaB 6 mais pou, avridmppopat adrov
"IopanaA 6 éxdexros pov, mporedékaro adrév % Yux7 pov.
But St Matthew has:
*I8ov 6 mais pov dy ypériaa:
6 dyamrnrés pou oy evddxnoer 4 Wy pov.
There is no justification for rendering ‘3 otherwise than as ‘My
Elect’+, It would seem therefore that St Matthew, in substituting * ‘My

Beloved, has-been influenced by the twice repeated phrase of his Gospel

6 dyarnrés év @ evdcxnoa: and it follows that he regarded 6 dyamyrds as
a distinct title and not as an epithet of 6 vids pov.

St Luke, by his substitution of 6 éxdeAeypevos for 6 dyamyrés (iX 35), and to
appears likewise to indicate that the latter was regarded as a title by itself, St Luke:
for which the former was practically an equivalent. .

It is worthy of note that the Old Syriac version, in every instance and in the
(except one) i in which its testimony is preserved to us, renders 6 vids pov Old Syriac
6 dyannrés by pzaazava «te ‘My Son and My Beloved’: the conjunction Version.
being inserted to make it clear that the titles are distinct?

Iti is further to be urged on behalf of this interpretation that the words The two

3d ef 6 vids pov of the Voice at the Baptism according to St Mark directly alinsions.

It.

1 This passage, Isa. xlii 1, is ex- mentators. Thus in Harnack’s note

plicitly referred to the Messiah in the
Targum, which renders it thus: NN
SANNT YN MPIPS KY Tay
sD M3 ‘Behold My servant Messiah;
_ Iwill uphold him; Mine elect, in whom
My Word is well-pleased’, —
Curiously enough the Latin trans-
lation of this which is given in the
Polyglots of Le Jay and Walton has
dilectus meus as the rendering of *YFin.
The mistake is perhaps due to a re-
membrance of the Vulgate in Matt.
xii 18. However it may have origin-
ated, it is time that it was corrected;
for it has misled a series of com-

on Te wyyanrnpévy in Ep. Barn. iii 6
we read: ‘Nomen erat Messiae apud
Tudaeos ex Ies, 42, 2 repetitum’, with
references to Liicke, Hinl. in die Apok.
edit. 1 p. 281 n. 2, and Langen, Das
Judenthum in Paliist. 2. Z. Christi
p. 162, 427. Hilgenfeld in his edition
of Ep. Barn. carries on the tradition.
2 So in Matt. iii 17 (sin cu), Luke
iii 22 (sin: cu vacat), Matt, xvii 5
(cu: sin vacat), Luke ix 35 (cu: sin
Sa =6 exdeheyudvos). For
Mark i rx we have no evidence. The
one exception is Mark ix y (sin
Satay “Sea: cu vacat),

232 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

reproduce the language of Ps. ii 7, ‘The Lord hath said unto me, Thou aré
My Son’. If therefore we may suppose that ‘the Beloved’ and ‘the Elect’.
were interchangeable titles in the religious phraseology of the time, we
have in the Voice a combination of Ps, ii 7 with Isa. xlii 1, and ‘the Son’
who is set as King upon the holy bill of Sion is identified with ‘the Servant
of Jehovah’; so that in the Divine intimation of the Messiahship the ideas
of triumph and suffering are from the outset linked together.
. Harly 4. In the early Christian literature outside the New Testament we
hristian frequently find é fyamnpévos used absolutely of Christ; and also 6 #yary-
writers. , ” ge * :
'O fryany. Hévos mais, & combination which recalls Isa. xliv 2. The former occurs
pévos ab- thrice in the Epistle of Barnabas: iii 6 6 dacs oy Hroipacey ev rh Hyary-
solutely: évp adrod, iv 3 6 deomorys cuvrérpnxer rods Katpods Kal Tas Tuépas, fa
TaXvvy o Hyamrnzévos avrov Kal emt rH KAnpovopiay HEn, iv 8 cuverpiBn adrav
y Stadyxn, va 4 rod Wyamnuevov “Incod évxaracgdpayiady els ri Kapdiay
quav. See also Ignat. Smyrn. inscr. éxxAnoia Geot warps Kat Tov Hyamn-
pévov “Iyaod Xpicrov: Acta Theclae 1 mavra ra déyia Tod Kupiov...xal Tis
yerjocos Kal ris dvagrdceas Tod yHyamnpevov éyAvKawey avrovs, Kat Ta
peyadeia tod xptorov x.r.d.1: Clem. Paedag. i 6 25 avrika yotr Barrifopévp
TG kupio am ovpavav éxjnxncev ova pdpres jyannpevov: Yids pou et od
dyamnrés, éyd onpepov yeyévunka oe.
similarly ‘O dyannros is used throughout the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, as
édyarnrés. though it were a recognised appellation of the Messiah: and although it
is there due to_a_Christian_-hand,it-not-improbably represents a traditional =
Jewish usage,
Combina- We find the combination 6 7yamypuévos ais in Clem. Rom. lix 2, 3: and
tions with 6 dyannrés mais in Hp. ad Diogn. 8, and, as a liturgical formula, in Mart.
Tbe Polye. 14, Acta Theclae 24. In Herm. Sim. ix 12 5 we have rod vid
atrod Tod yyamnpévov vn’ avrov: comp. Sim. v 2 6 rév vidy adrod tov
ayannrov.
The A4pos- A number of references to y#yannpévos and dyanyrds in the Apostolic
tolic Con- Constitutions are brought together by Harnack in his note on Hp. Barn.
stiiutions. si 6 Specially to be observed are v 19 (Lag. p. 152, L 14) rére diovrae
roy dyamnrav tov Geod, ov é&exévryoay, which shews that the dyamnrés of
Zech. xii 10 was interpreted of Christ: and v 20 (Lag. p. 153, L 24), where
the title of Ps. xliv (xlv) 34 uUmrép rod dyamryrod is similarly explained
(comp. Jerome Commentarioli in Pss., Anecd. Mareds. iii pt. 1, and
Corderius Catena in Pss. ad loc.).

Summary. The case then for regarding ‘the Beloved’ as a Messianic title in use
among the Jews in New Testament times may be stated thus. |

1. ‘The Beloved’ (6 #yarnyévos LXX) is used in the Old Testament
as a, title of Israel. It is easy to suppose that, just as the titles ‘the
Servant’ and ‘the Elect’ were transferred from Israel to the Messiah as
Israel’s representative, so also the title ‘the Beloved’ would become a title
of the Messiah.

1 In Iren. i 10 1 (Mass.) we read: kat contain a reference to Eph. i 10
Thy &waapxov els rods obpavods dvddypw dvaxeparausoacOa Ta mdyra, it is pro-
700 dyyarnpévov Xpicrod "Iyoot rod able that 6 iyarnudvos was directly
xuplov joy: but, as the next words suggested by Eph. i 6.

THE BELOVED.

2. When the first and the third of our Gospels were written, ‘the
Beloved’ and ‘the Elect’ were practically interchangeable terms. For in
St Matthew we find 6 dyamrnrés pov in a citation of Isa. xlii 1, where the
Hebrew has ‘2 and the uxx renders literally 6 ékAexrés pov. And,
conversely, St Luke substitutes 6 ékAeAeypévos for 6 dyamnrés in the words
spoken at the Transfiguration.

3. Each of these substitutions in a different way favours the view that
in St Mark’s twice repeated phrase 6 vids pov 6 dyamnrés & separate title i is
given by 6 dyamyrds, and not a mere epithet of vids.

4. The Old Syriac Version emphasises the distinctness of the title by
its rendering ‘My Son and My Beloved’.

5. In Eph. i ig St Paul uses &v rd #yamnuéve as the equivalent of éy
7 xptorg, in a context in which he is designedly making use of terms
which had a special significance in Jewish phraseology.

6. In early Christian literature 6 #yamnpévos is undoubtedly used as
a title of our Lord; and it is difficult to suppose that its only source is this
one passage in St Paul.

7. If the Messianic portions of the Ascension of Isaiah cannot be
regarded as pre-Christian, yet the persistent use in them of 6 dyamnrds as
the designation of Messiah suggests that the writer must have thought it

233

consistent with verisimilitude_in a work which _affected_to_be_a_Jewish
prophecy of Christ. .

234

. History of

the word.

1. Its deri-
vation and
classical
use.

Later use.

2. Usageof

the Greek
oO. T.

Lxx of
Daniel.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

On the meaning of pvariprov in the New Testament.

The history of the word pvoripioy is curious and instructive. Starting
with a technical signification in pagan religion, the word passes through
a neutral phase in which the original metaphor has ceased to be felt, and
in the end is adopted as a technical term of the Christian religion. The
fact that it ends as it began in signifying a religious rite readily suggests
that it was borrowed by Christianity directly from paganism. With certain
limitations this may be true. That the Christian Sacraments of Baptism
and the Eucharist were called pvorjpia is probably due, in part at least,
to the fact that the word was in common use for rites to which these
Sacraments seemed to present some parallels, But, if so, it is certain
that the borrowing process was considerably facilitated by the use of
pvornpiov which is found in the New Testament; ; and that use, as v as we
shall see, has _no_direet—connexionwith the ori original technical sense of
the word.

1. We find in the classical Greek writers a group of words—pvee,
puorys, pvorypwov—all of which are technical terms: ‘to initiate’, ‘one
who is initiated’, ‘that into which he is initiated’. Of the derivation of |
puéo nothing certain can be said. It has often been stated that the root
is to be found in pio. But picas means ‘with the eyes shut’; and though
the word is sometimes used by transference also of shutting the mouth,
it is always necessary that the word ‘mouth’ should be expressly added
in order to give this meaning. We cannot be certain therefore—though
in itself it is not improbable—that the first meaning of the word is one
of secrecy. We must be content to say that in usage pvorjpioy signifies
a religious rite which it is profanity to reveal.

In later Greek the word was used metaphorically of that which may
not be revealed, a secret of any kind’ Thus we have a line of Menander
(incert. 168), pvornpidry cov wi xaretrns TH Piro: ‘tell not thy secret to
a friend’.

2. The word is not used by the ixx in translating any Hebrew word of
the canonical books of the Old Testament. But in the Greek of Dan. ii,
where the original is Aramaic, it is used eight times? to render 81", a word
borrowed from Persian and found in Syriac as ~iwt4. It is here used

in reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation by Daniel:

1 In Plato Theaet. 136a the word has (9), a passage which has fallen out of
not lost its original meaning atall,as the uxx by homoeoteleuton, but is pre-
is shewn by duiyros in the context. served in Theodotion’s version.

2 We may add to these Dan. iv 6

THE MEANING OF MYSTHPION. 235

the ‘mystery’ was revealed to Daniel by the God who alone reveals
-. ‘mysteries’, The word ‘secret’ seems fully to represent the meaning.
In the remaining books of the Greek Old Testament we have the O. T.

following examples of the use of the word?: Apoory-

Tobit xii 7 puvorjpiov Baoiiéws Kadov xptwat, ra dé Epya tod Geod P
dvaxaddrrew evdogos (repeated in ». 11).

Judith ii 2 ero per’ airay rb. pvoripiov tis BovAjs adrod (when
Nebuchadnezzar summons his servants and chief men).

2 Mace. xiii 21 mpoottyyethey dé ra puotypia (of Rhodocus, who ‘ dis-
closed. the secrets’ to the enemy).

Wisd. ii 22 Kat ovk eyvecay pvoripia beo', ovde pucdiy qAmoay
éctdrynros (of those who put the righteous to torture and death:
‘their malice blinded them’).

Wisd. vi 22 ri dé dorw codia xat mas éyévero dmayyeddy

kal ovK drrokpiipo vpiv pvotapia.

Wisd. xiv 15 puoripia kai rederds (of heathen mysteries: comp.
puoras Odoov in xii 5).

Wisd. xiv 23 # yap rexvodovous rederas } xpdia pvornpia (again of
heathen mysteries).

‘Keclus. iii 18 mpdeow droxadvmre: ta puoripia avrod [8@: not in
N*¥ABOC} .

Ecclus._xxii_ 22_pvornplov_dmoxadtyreos_Kat—mnyfis—dodtas—(of— the
things which break friendship).

Ecclus. xxvii 16 6 dmoxad’nrey pvotipia amodecey wiorw (and
similarly with the same verb in vv. 17, 21).

In the other Greek translators of the Old Testament we have occa-~ Other
sional examples of the use of the word. Greek

Job xv 8 ‘Hast thou heard the secret of God?’ So A.V.: Heb, a :
DIN.

R.V. ‘Hast thou heard the secret counsel of God?’ marg. Or,
‘Dost thou hearken in the council ??
LXX 7 ouvraypa Kupiov dxjxoas; Symm. Theod. pvorypiov.

Ps. xxiv (xxv) 14 LXX xparaiopa Kipwos trav oBoupévav adrav.
Theod. Quint. pvorypsov.

Prov. xi 13 ‘a talebearer revealeth secrets’; uxx dyijp diykwacos
arroxaAurrres Bovhas év cuvedpio. Symm. pvorypiov.

Prov. xx 19 (not in LKX): the same words. Theod. pvoTiptoy,

Isa. xxiv 16 bs (not in LEX): rd pvoripidy pov euoi bis, A.V. ‘My
leanness! my leanness!’

We see from these examples-(1) that the word pvor/jpcov was the natural The word.
word to use in speaking of any secret, whether of the secret plan of a cam- +8 used of
paign or of a secret between a man and his friend. It is but sparingly any secret,
used of a Divine secret: it may be that the earlier translators of the Old and found
Testament purposely avoided the word on account of its heathen associa- with une
tions. We see moreover (2) that its natural counterpart is found in words xadtrrev.

1 Of cognate words we may note: doris yap dorw ris ro Geod émiorhuns,
HvorTiKGs = ‘secretly,’ 3 Macc. iii 10: ‘she is privy to the mysteries of the
pions, of Wisdom, in Wisd. viii 4 knowledge of God’.

4. The
Gospels
and the
Apoca-
lypse.

Pauline
Epistles.
‘The mys-
~ tery of
iniquity ’,

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

like droxaddrrew and dmroxdAvyis, words which are equally applicable to all
senses of pvoryproy.

3. An important link between the usage of the Greek Old Testament
and the usage of the New Testament is found in the later Jewish Apo-
cryphal literature. Thus, we may note the following examples from the
Book of Enoch : .

viii 3 (apud Syncell.) of Azazel and his companions: mdvres ovrot
qpEavro dvaxadtvwrrew ra puorypia tats yuvartiv avrav.

ix 6 (Gizeh fragm.) edyAwoey ra pvoripia rod aldvos ra ev TE
odpav@: so in x 7, xvi 3 der, of the same matters!

4. Inthe New Testament, apart from the Pauline Epistles, the word is
only found in one passage of the Synoptic Gospels (with its parallels) and
four times in the Apocalypse.

Mark iv 11 dpiv ro pvorgpeov Sé8ora: Tis BaciAcias tod Geod (Matt. Luke
piv déSorat yudva. ra pucripia tis Bacdelas rod Oeod [Matt. rdv odpavdy)).

‘The secret’ of the kingdom was revealed to the disciples, while the
multitudes heard only tt the parables which contained but at the same time
concealed it.

Apoc. i 20 ré pvoripioy rév éxra dorépwy ovs ides...

In this place the word pvaorjprov follows immediately after the words
& peddet yiver Oa perd raira. These words and yvorypsoy itself are printed
in small uncials in the text of Westcott and Hort, with a reference to
Dan-ii-29._ Whether a direct allusion to the Book of Daniel was intended
by the writer may be doubted. The sense of pvornjpcov in Dan. ii appears
to be quite general; whereas here we seem to have an instance of the
use of the word in a somewhat special sense, as either the meaning
underlying an external symbol, or even the symbol itself. See below on
Apoc. xvii 5, 7.

Apoe, x 7 kal érekéoby TO MYCTHPION TOY OE0F, ws evnyyékucey TOYC
éayTof AoyAoye Toye trpopHTtac.

With this we must compare Amos iii 7 (Lxx) day py daroxadiwrn rradelav
mpos tovs SovAous avrovd roves mpodyras (YTD nba ox ‘3). Here we find that
puaotipcov, Which apparently had been avoided by the uxx, has now become
the natural word for the Divine ‘secret’.

Apoc. xvii 5, 7 cat éxt ro pérwroy atrijs dvopa yeypappévor, pvotyptoy,
BABYAQN...éya épd cot rd puotyptoy Tijs yuvaikds Kal rov énpiov. The
name Babylon is itself a pvorjprov, that is, a symbol containing a secret
meaning. In the second place the pvorjpioy is rather the meaning of the
symbol, as in i 20.

5. We now come to the Pauline Epistles. The earliest example we
meet with is an isolated one. The word is used in describing the opera-
tions of the Antichrist in 2 Thess. ii 7. The Man of Iniquity is to be
revealed (droxadup6j, v. 3). At present however there is ré xaréyov—eis
76 dmoxakupbjvat adray év 7G avrod Kap Td yap pvorhpcoy dn evepyeirar

1 The Greek fragments of the Book Aethiopie text, see Anrich Mysterien-
of Enoch are reprinted in the last wesen, p. 144, notes: it occurs several
volume of Dr Swete’s manual edition times in connexion with ‘the Tableta
of the Septuagint (ed. 2, 1899). For of Heaven’.

references to the word ‘mystery’ in the

THE MEANING OF MYSTHPION. 237

ris davopias: pévov 6 karéxwv dpri Ews ék péoou yévyrat. kal rére dmoka-
hupbyjoerac 6 dvopos, K.r.d.

Here there can be little doubt that the word pucri}pioy has been a secret to

suggested as being the natural counterpart to the dmoxdduyis already be ed.
spoken of. The Man of Iniquity is the embodiment of the principle of veale
iniquity in a personality. The restraint which at present hinders him
from being ‘revealed’ is spoken of first as a principle of restraint (rd
xaréxov), and then as a personal embodiment of that principle (6 xaréxov).
While the restraint is effectual, the dvozia cannot be ‘revealed’ as 6 dvo-
pos. But already it is at work, and it will be ‘revealed’ later on: till it
is ‘revealed’ it.is a ‘secret’—ré pvorijpiov ris dvopuias. There is perhaps
an intentional parallel with the ‘secret’ of the Gospel, which waited to be
revealed in its ‘proper time?.

In 1 Cor. ii 1 St Paul is reminding the Corinthians of the extreme ‘The mys-
simplicity of his first preaching to them: kdyad éAdav pos dpas, dderopoi, eae of
qAOov ov Kad’ irepoxny Adyou 7 copias Katayyé\Nov vpiv Tb pvoTpLov? Tod
bead, od yap Expwa re eidévar ev vyiv ef py Inoody Xpiorov Kai rovrov éorav-
popévov. Not with any superiority of ‘wisdom’ had he come to them; not
as a publisher of the Divine secret: nay rather as knowing nothing save
Jesus Christ, and Him as crucified (the message of the Cross being, as
he had already said in i 18, folly to the Greeks). But, although for the
moment he seems to disparage ‘wisdom’ and ‘mysteries’, he presently

—adds (ii 6): -coptay dé Aakoiper ey rois-redecors (‘the full-grown’, as opposed.
to ynriots of iii 1): and he continues in v. 7: dAAa AaAodpev Geod codiav
éy pvotnpig, Thy droKexpuppévyy, fy mpodpirey 6 Oeds mpd Tay aidvav eis
dofav ypav. This use of the word is the characteristically Pauline use.
It denotes the secret Purpose of God in His dealings with man. This
is par excellence the Mystery.

' -_In i Cor. iv 1 the Apostle describes himself and his fellow-workers as The plural
Smnpéras Xptorod Kat olxovdyous puornpioy beod, ‘entrusted for the sake of #veTipia.
others with a knowledge of the Divine secrets’. The word is twice again -

‘used in the plural: in 1 Cor. xiii 2 cay Zy@ spodnretay cal cid ra pvornpia
wdvra Kal wacav tiv yvaow, where its connexion with prophecy is note-
worthy: and in 1 Oor. xiv 2 wvevpare S€ Aade? pvorypia, where it is connected
with speaking in a tongue which no one understands, in contrast with
such prophecy as is intelligible to the Church,

Syriac Peshito and the Bohairic. It
has also some Latin support. On the

1 There is a merely verbal parallel
to 7d pvorhpioy rijs dvoplas in the de-

scription which Josephus (B. J.i 24 1)
gives of Antipater. In contrast with
others who uttered their thoughts
freely, and were accused by him for
their unguarded utterances, the taci-
turnity and secrecy of Antipater are
emphasised: roy ’Avrimdrpov Blov ovKx
dv jpaprév ris elrdy xaxlas puoriptor.
His life was a villainous secret.

2 It is to be noted that here there is
a variation of reading: puoripioy is
read by N*AC, some cursives, the

other hand papriépov is the reading of
&°BD,G,LP, most cursives, the Latin
Vulgate, the Sahidic, Armenian and
Aethiopic; and it has the support of
Chrysostom and some other patristic
writers. It may have come in from a
recollection of 76 papripiov Tov xpiorod
ini6. The substitution destroys the
completeness of the contrast between
v.1 and v. 7, and gives altogether a
weaker sense.

238 _ EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

‘A mys- One more example is found in the same epistle (1 Cor. xv 51), of the
tery’. change at the Second Coming: idov pveriptoy vpiv réyo. This may
be compared with the use of the word in the latter part of the Book
of Enoch. .

‘This In Rom. xi 25 the problem of the unbelief of Israel, which accords

mystery’. with ancient prophecy and in some strange way is bound up with ‘mercy’
to the Gentiles, is spoken of as a Divine secret: ov yap Gado spas
dyvociv, adeAqoi, rd pooripioy TOUTO,...6Tt Mépwots diwrd pépous TO Tapai
yéyover, KT.d.

‘The mys- In Rom. xvi 25, 26 we have again the characteristically Pauline use

tery’ par of the word: kard dmoxdAupw pvornpiov ypéivos aleviows cearynuévov,

excellence, davepwbévros Sé viv, did re ypaba gnricav kar éreray}v tot aiwvio
pw s € viv, ypapay mpodynrixay kar’ éemerayjy tot aiwyviov

Ocot eis vmaxoyy miorews eis wayvra ta Oy yvopirbévros. This is the

secret of secrets, the eternal secret now at last revealed in the Christian

_ Church. :

Epistle to This last passage shews that the use of the word which we find in the

Colos- Epistles to-the Colossians and the Ephesians is no new one. The Mystery

sians. =—_— par excellence has a special reference to the Gentiles, In fact it is nothing
less than the inclusion of the Gentiles as well as the Jews in a common
human hope in Christ. So in Col. i 26, 27 we read: ré puoripiov To
drroxexpuppevoy ard rév aidvev Kal dnd Trav ‘yevediv, —viv Sé éedavepoby
Trois dyios avrob, ois 7OeAyoev 6 Oeds ywopica ri ro wdodros ris ddéns
Tod puotnptov Tovrou éy_rois s €Overty, 6 €or Xpurros—é ev-vpiv,7-ehmis-rijs

ddéns. ‘Christ in you Gentiles’—that is the great surprise. None could

have foreseen or imagined it. It was God’s secret. He has disclosed
it to us.

In Col. ii 2 the same thought is carried on in the words, es ériyywow
tod pvornpiov tov Oeot, Xpiorod, év @ cioly mdvres of Onoavpol rijs codias
Kal yrooews amdéxpypo. Here ‘the mystery of God’ is Christ as the
treasury of the hidden wisdom which it is granted them to know.

In Col. iv 3 the Apostle bids them pray that he may have opportunity
Aadfjoat TO pvoTypiov Tod ypicrod, OC b Kal Sédeuar, Wa havepdow aro os
def pe AcARoa.

Epistle to In the Epistle to the Ephesians the word occurs five times in this same

Ephe- sense. We need but cite the passages here.

Sans, i. 9, Io ‘yopioas mi To puoripioy Tou Gedqparos avrov, Kara said eddoxiav
avrot hv mpoébero & év avr@ eis oixovopiay Tov wAnpaparos Tay Kapa, dvaxepa-
Aadcacbat Ta Tavra ey TH XpLoTO. .

lili 3—6 xara drroxdduxper eyvapis8y proc TO _proriipioy, xabos mpotypavra
év ohiyy, mpos é dvvacde dvaywdoxovres pojjoat thy civeciy pou é&v TO
puornpie tod xpwrod, 6 érépais yevenis ovK eyrapia dy tots viots Tay dy-
Opairrwy ds voy drrexaipoy Tots dylots dmoorodos avrod Kat mpoiyrars ev
metpart, evar Ta Ovn mvvEAnpovopa kat otvowpa Kal curpéroya Tis erayye-
Aias év Xptore “Ingot dua rod evayyeXiov.

iii 9 kal porica ris 7 olkovopia ro puotypiov Tov dzoKexpuppévov ard
TOV aldvev ev TO bes T@ Ta wavra Krivapre.

vi 19 év mappyoia yoopioar TO pvoTyptoy TOD evayyediou umép od mpe-
oBetw év adie.

The Mystery, then, on which St Paul delights to dwell is the unification

THE MEANING OF MYSTHPION. | 239

of humanity in the Christ, the new human hope, a hope for all men of all
conditions, a hope not for men only but even for the universe,

The word pvorjpioy occurs once more in the Epistle to the Ephesians, ‘This
and in a sense somewhat different from any which we have hitherto mystery’.
considered. In Eph. Vv 3 we read: 7rd pvorrn pov TOUTO péya éoriv, eyo
8 A€yw els Xprordv cal cis rH éxxAyoiav. St Paul has cited the primaeval
ordinance of Marriage, which closes with the enigmatic words xat écovrat
of duo eis odpxa piav. This saying is true, he seems to say, of earthly .
marriage; but it has a yet higher signification. The ancient ordinance
is not merely a divinely constituted law of human life; it has a secret
meaning. Itis a pvaorjpiov, and the pvorypioy is a mighty one. I declare
it in reference to Christ and to the Church. I say no more of it now:
but I bid you see to it that in common life each one of you is true to its
first and plainest meaning, for the sake of the deeper meaning that lies
hid in Christ.

The sense in which the word here o occurs may be illustrated from later A symbol,
writers. Justin Martyr, for example, uses it somewhat in the same way °F its
when he speaks for instance (Trypho 44) of certain commands of the ™e#nine-
Mosaic law as being given eis pvorypiovy rod Xpiorod.: or, again, when he
says of the Paschal lamb (Zrypho 40) ré pvarypioy obv trot mpoBarov...

Tumos qv Tod Xpirov. The Paschal rite contained a secret, not to be
revealed till Christ came. Thus 75 pvorjpwv is practically a symbol or

__—_a_type,_with_stress-laid-upon-the-secrecy-of-its-meaning -until-it-comes to
be fulfilled.

We have still to consider two passages in the Pastoral Hpistles. In ‘The mys-
1 Tim. iii 9 we read that a deacon is to hold ré puoripiy ris miorews tery of the
év xadap& avvedioet. It is not required of him, as of the bishop, that he ‘ith’.
should be Sdaxrixés. Hence no secret lore can be meant: he is not the

depositary of a secret tradition, as the words might have seemed to imply
had they been spoken of the bishop. The phrase in its context can only
refer to such elementary and fundamental knowledge as any servant of the
Church must necessarily have.

In the same chapter (w. 16) we read: xat ouodoyoupévas péya éoriy ro ‘The mys-
wis evoeBelas pvorjptov: and the words are followed by what appears to tery of
be a quotation from a Christian hymn. The epithet ‘great’, which is here ® godliness’,
applied to ‘the mystery of godliness’, is the same as in Eph. v 32. It
refers to the importance, not to the obscurity, of the mystery (see the note
on that passage). But the use of this epithet is the only point of contact
in the expression with the phraseology of St Paul: for the word evoéBaa
belongs to the peculiar vocabulary of these as compared with the other
Pauline epistles.

In both these instances the word pvoryjpiov appears to have a more A more
general meaning than it has elsewhere in St Paul’s writings. The sum of general
the Christian faith seems to be referred to under this term. It is perhaps ™°#™6-
a natural expansion of what we have seen to be the characteristically
Pauline use of the word, when the special thought of the inclusion of the
Gentile world in the Purpose of God has ceased to be a novel and en-

Srossing truth. But whether such an expansion can be thought of as

240 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

directly due to the Apostle himself is a part of the difficult problem of
the literary history of these epistles,

Conelu- We have found, then, no connexion between the N ew Testament use

e100. of the word ‘mystery’ and its popular religious signification as a sacred
rite, which the initiated are pledged to preserve inviolably secret. Not
until the word has passed into common parlance as ‘a secret’ of any kind
does it find a place in biblical phraseology. The New Testament writers
find the word in ordinary use in this colourless sense, and they start it
upon a new career by appropriating it to the great truths of the Christian
religion, which could not have become known to men except by Divine
disclosure or revelation. A mystery in this sense is not a thing which
must be kept secret. On the contrary, it is a secret which God wills to
make known and has charged His Apostles to declare to those who have
ears to hear it.

ENEPr EIN AND ITS COGNATES. 241

On évepyetvy and its cognates.

The meaning of évepyety and the cognate words in St Paul’s epistles has Limita-
been so variously understood that it is desirable to attempt a somewhat tion of use
more complete investigation of them than has hitherto been made. That in Be
the sense which they bear in the New Testament is in some respects "
peculiar is in part due to a fact which it may be well to note at the
outset : namely, that, wherever its ultimate source is directly expressed,
the évépyea is always attributed either to Divine or to Satanic agency.

The prevailing thought is that of a Divine évépyea. In the two passages
in which the evil spirit is spoken of as exerting évépyeta, there is evidence
in the context of an intentional parallel with, or parody of, the methods of
Divine action: see above in the note on Hph. ii 2, and Lightfoot’s notes
on 2 Thess. ii 3—11 (Notes on Epp. pp. 111 ff). This limitation lends

a_certain_impressiveness-to-this-whole-series-of words. Even where évep-
yeiv is used of human action (Phil. ii 13) we are reminded that God
Himself is 6 évepyév ré évepyeiv. And it is further in harmony with
this conception that wherever in St Paul’s writings éevépyesa is attri-
buted to things, as opposed to persons, the form of the verb used is
not évepyeiv but evepyeicba.

1. At the base of all these words lies the adjective ¢evepydés, which 1. The
signifies ‘at work’: compare évapyos, ‘in office’, used in documents pre- adjectives
es as : P : see . évepyéds,
served in inscriptions and papyri. It is found in Herod. viii 26, of certain évepyhs.
deserters who came into the Persian camp Biov re Sedpevor kai évepyol Ciacsical
BovAcpevor eiva. The word has various shades of meaning, as ‘active’, writers.
‘busy’, ‘effective’ (of troops), ‘under cultivation’ (of land), ‘productive’ |
(of capital); and in most cases the opposite condition is described by dpyos.
The Jater form is evepyys (Aristotle has évepyéoraros). In Polybius both
forms occur, and they are frequently interchanged in the manuscripts.
The uxx has évepyds once, Ezek. xlvi 1, of the six ‘working days’; but Biblical.
¢ never évepys. In the New Testament, on the contrary, évepyjs is the Writers.
only form’ We have it in 1 Cor. xvi 9, @tpa yap poe dvewyev peyddy
kat évepyys: that is, an ‘effective ’ opportunity of preaching: for the meta-

1 This form of the word lent itself Jerome, when he quotes the passage
readily to confusion with évapyjs. In in commenting on Isa, Ixvi 18, 19,
the two passages of St Paul in which has evidens, though elsewhere he has
it occurs the Latin rendering is evidens efficax. For further examples of the
(or manifesta) which implies éap- confusion see the apparatus to my
‘vis in Greek mss. In Heb. iv 2 edition of the Philocalia of Origen,
évapyjs is actually found in B; and pp. 140, 141, 144.

EPHES.? 16

242

2. The
substan-
tive
evEpryeta.
Aristotle,

Galen.

Greek
O.T,

—SéPaul.

2 Thess, ii
Q, Ii.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. |

phor of the ‘open door’ compare 2 Cor. ii 12, Col. iv 3. In Philem. 6, dras
9 Kowvovia Tis mioteds vou evepyis yevyrat, it means ‘productive of due
result’, ‘effective’: and in Heb. iv 12, {av yap o Aoyos Tov Geov xat évepyiis
kal Tousrepos vrép macay pdxatpay dicropor, it again seems to mean ‘ effec-
tive’; but perhaps the word was chosen with a special reference to (av:
for évepyos and évepyeiv are used of activity as the characteristic sign of
life’—‘alive and active’.

2. The substantive ¢vépyea is employed by Aristotle in a technical
sense in his famous contrast between ‘potentially’ (Syvdpe) and ‘actually’
(évepyeig). We have it too in the Nicomachean Ethics in the definition of
To avOpdmwov dyabsv, which is declared to be Wuyiis évépyea Kar’ dperny
év Bio tedeim (i 6 15, p. 1098, 16%); and in this connexion a contrast is
drawn between évépyea and é€is.

It is interesting to compare with this the definition of the term in
physiology as given by Galen, de natural. facultt. i 2, 4,5. He distin-
guishes carefully épyoy ‘result’, évépyera ‘action productive of gpyov’, and
dvvaus, ‘force productive of évépyeta’.

In the Greek Old Testament the word occurs only in Wisdom and
in 2 and 3 Maccabees. It is used twice of the operations of nature,
Wisd. vii 17, xiii 4; once in the phrase ovy émday évepyeia, ‘not by force
of arms’ (xviii 22); and again in the notable description of Wisdom as the
écorrpov dinhidarov tis Tov Geod évepyeias (vii 26). It is used in 2 Mace. iii
29, 3 Mace. iv 21, v 12, 28,.of a-miraculous-interposition of Divine power.

The instances last quoted suggest that already the way was being
prepared for that limitation of the word to a superhuman activity which
we noted at the outset as characterising its use in the New Testament.
St Paul, who alone uses the word, has it five times expressly of the
exercise of Divine power (Eph. i 19, iii 7; Phil. iii 21; Col. i 29, ii 12).
In Eph. iv 16 it is used in the phrase xar évépyeiayr, without an express
reference indeed to God, but of the building of the Body of the Christ;
so that this can hardly be regarded as an exception.

On the other hand it occurs twice of an evil activity. In the descrip-
tion of the incarnation of iniquity, which is to parody the work of Christ
and to claim Divine honours, we have the expression, ob éoriy 7 mapovcia
kar’ évépyeray rod Sarava. Already the Apostle has said, ré yap pvorypioy
70n évepyeirat tis dvopias: and lower down he adds, of those who are to
be deceived by the signs and wonders of this false Christ (cypeiou xat
tépacw yevdous), wépmes avrois 6 beds evepyevav mAdvyns eis To moreboae
avrovs th eide. This ‘working of error’, which makes men believe the

1 In Xenophon Memorab. i 4 4 we
have {@a eudpovd re xat évepyd, in
contrast with the eldwra dppovd re xat
axlyynra of sculptors or painters. Com-
pare also Athan. de incarn. 30 et yap
Oy vexpds Tis yevduevos oddév évepyciv
Sivarae «7d. y was, elep ovK Lorw
évepyav [sc. 6 Xpirrés], vexpod yap tev
éort otro, airés rods évepyotvras Kat
fOvras rhs évepyelas wave, x.7.A. In

Wisd. xv rr we read

Bre Tryvénoev tov wAdcavra adtrév,

kal Tov durveticavta abr woxhy év-

epyoidcap

Kal éuguvojaavra mveiua fwrixdy.
The passage which underlies this is,
of course, Gen. ii 7 éveptoncer els Td
apbowrov abrod rvoy Swijs, kal éyévero
6 &vOpwrres els puxhy Sacav.

ENEPIEIN AND ITS COGNA'TES. 243

false pretender (who is ‘the lie’, as Christ is ‘the truth’), is itself a
judgment of God. We may compare ‘the lying spirit’ sent forth from
God to deceive Ahab, 1 Kings xxii 21—23.

3. The verb évepyeiv, after the general analogy of denominatives in -ew, 3. The
means primarily ‘to be at work’, ‘to work? (intrans.), and is accordingly Verb évep-
the opposite of dpyeiv. So Aristotle freely employs the word in connexion Tatransi-
with his special sense of évépye:a. Polybius, whose use of the word is for tive.
the most part. somewhat peculiar, has this first and most natural meaning
in a passage in which he prophesies the filling up of inland seas: iv 4o 4,
pevovons ye 57 Tis adris ta€ews wept Tovs Torous, Kal Tév airiav ris éyxya-
geas evepyoivrav Kata Td cuvexés. We may compare also Philo, de leg.
alleg. iii 28 (Mangey, p. 104) érav wapodea [sc. 7 xapa] Spacrypiws evepy7.

But indeed the usage is too common to need illustration.

A further stage of meaning is used when the verb is followed by an Transi-
accusative which defines the result of the activity. Then from the in- tive.
transitive use of ‘to work’ we get a transitive use. There appears to be
no example of this in Aristotle: but instances are cited from Diodorus
Siculus and Plutarch, and it is common in later Greek. In Philo, de
uit. contempl. (M. p. 478), the meaning is scarcely different from that of
mparrew: & yap wyovres ev atadios exeivot...vixtap ev oKxdrm peOvorres...
evepyovcw: and this is often the case in other writers. So far as I am
aware, the accusative always expresses ‘that which is worked’, and never

‘that which is made to work’. That is to say, évepyeiv does not seem ever
to mean ‘to render évepyov’, in the sense of ‘to bring into activity’.
Thus, though Polybius uses again and again such expressions as evepyf Polybius.
Tovovpevot THY eodov (xi 23 2), and évepyerrépay amoaivovot ri vav-
paxiay (xvi 14 5); he does not use evepyety as equivalent to évepyoy
moceioba, In the one place where this might seem at first sight to be
his meaning (xxvii I 12 évepyeiv éméragav rois apxovat tiv cuppayiay)
this interpretation cannot be accepted in view of the strong meaning
(‘assiduous’, ‘energetic’, ‘vigorous’) which évepyds (-ys) invariably has in
this writer. We must therefore render the words, ‘to effect the alliance’.

We come now to the Greek Old Testament. In the intransitive sense Greek
évepyeiv is found in Num. viii 24 in B, as the substitute for a somewhat 0-7.
troublesome phrase of the original, which AF attempt to represent by
Aecroupyeiv Nevroupylay é» Epyos. It occurs again in Wisd. xv 11 (quoted
already) and xvi 17 évy r6 mdvra oBevvivte DSate mreioy evypyer rd wip.

The transitive sense is found in Isa. xli 4, ris évypyyoe Kal éroinoe radta;
in Prov. xxi 6 6 évepydv Onoavpicpara yAdoon wevdel, and xxxi 12 evepyet
yap tT avdpi dyaba.

In the New Testament évepyeiv comes, apart from St Paul’s epistles, Gospels.
only in Mark vi 14 (Matt. xiv-2) dia. rotro evepyotow ai Suvduers év avrg, Intransi-
where the connexion of the word with miraculous powers is to be noted. Ye

In St Paul we find the intransitive use in three passages, The first St Paul.
is Gal. ii 8, 6 yap évepyjoas Lérpo eis drocrodiy rijs meptrophs émppyyoev ntransi-
kat épol els ta f6vn, ‘He that wrought for Peter’, etc. The connexion of "'”
évepyeiv with miraculous interpositions, which we have already observed,
and which will be further illustrated below, may justify us in interpreting

16—2

244, EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS::

this passage, in which St Paul is defending his apostolic position, in the
light of 2 Cor. xii 11 f., ovdév yap vorépnoa trav UmepAlavy adroorddor, ef
rai ovdév elute: ra pév onpueia tov droordAov KarespydoOy év vpiv dv mdon
vropovg, onpelots [re] kal répacw Kai Suvduerw. Compare also [Mark]
xvi 20 rod xupiov cuvepyoivros Kal roy Adyov BeBaovvros dia Trav émako~
Aovbotvrav onueiov, Acts xiv 3, xv 12, Heb. ii 4. In any case we must
avoid the mistake of the Authorised Version, which renders ‘He that
wrought effectually in Peter...the same was mighty in me’. We cannot
attribute to St Paul the construction evepyety rivi in the sense of évep-
yey & rum, though it may have come in at a later period through a
confusion, with évepyd{eoda, which is a compound verb’. In Eph. ii 2
we have. the intransitive use again in rod mvevparos rod viv évepyovvros
év trois viois tis dmeOias. In Phil. ii 13 we have ré Oékew xal ro évep-
yeiv, where the word is exceptionally used of human activity, as we have
already noted, and is introduced as a kind of echo of the preceding 6 |

evepyar.
' Transi- The transitive sense occurs in the passage just cited, Phil. ii 13 6
tive. évepydv...rd Ode xKr.A.; also in Gal. iii 5 6 evepydv Suvapes ev dpiv, and

in a specially instructive passage, 1 Cor. xii G6—11, dcatpéves evepynpdror
eioiv, kal 6 avros Beds, 6 evepyav Ta mdvra év waow...add@ Oé evepyjpara.
Suvdpewv...rdyra 8é radra évepyel 6 ev Kat rd adrd mvetpa. Here again.
the reference is to miraculous powers. In Eph, i 11 we have xara mpo-
beaw rod ra mavra_évepyobvros kata THY Bovdjy-rod_Gedyparos—atrov,-where-
we must render ‘who worketh all things’: for we are not justified in.
supposing that it can mean ‘who setteth all things in operation’: the
thought of ‘moving the universe’, expressed in Heb. i 3 by épov ra.
Travra TO prpare Ths Suvduews avroi, must not be introduced here. Simi-
larly in Eph. i 19, xara ay évépyecav Tov Kpatous tis loyvos avrod Hv
évmpynkev ev rh xptoT@ éyelpas avrdv x7.A., we must render ‘according to:
the working...which He hath wrought’. If the original is more emphatic:
than such a rendering may seem to imply, this is due chiefly to St Paul’s.
general attribution of évepyetv and évépyeca to Divine operation.

4. *Evep- 4. We now come to the point of chief difficulty, the use and meaning:
yetaOat, = of evepyeio bat.
Passive, From the meaning of évepyeiv c. accus., ‘to work, effect, do’, we

‘tobe — readily get a passive use, evepyciodar, ‘to be wrought, effected, done’.
Wrought’, thus Polybius uses it of a war ‘being waged’: in i 13 5 he says that,
Polybius. contemporaneously with certain wars between the Romans and the
. Carthaginians, mapa rots “EAAnow o KAcopennds xadovpevos empyeiro

moNepos : comp. Joseph. Anit. xv 5 3. Again, in ix 12 3 he uses ray:

év xaip@ evepyoupevan as a variant upon his previous phrase rav pera

ddAov Kal ov xaip@ mparropévoy; and in ix 13 9 he lays stress on a.

1 In Athenag. Supplic. 10 we have is adequately explained as dativus
an apparent, but perhaps only ap- commodi. A more doubtful looking
parent, instance of such aconstruction: instance is Clement. Hom. vii 11 xal
xatro. kal avrd 7d évepryoby rots éx- dia Tolra dyaprdvover véoous évepydir
gwvodor mpogntikas dytov wveIua dwép- ddvarat.
poay elval payer ro Geot. The dative

ENEPIEIN AND ITS COGNATES, 245:

general's choice of those &’ dv kal pe? dy évepynOnocera rb kpidev, ‘his
-_ decision shall be executed’, ‘his plan shall be carried out’, This is the.
sense which the form bears in the only passage of the Greek Old Testament
in which it occurs, 1 Esdr. ii 20 évepyeira: ra xara roy vadv.

Although Aristotle does not use évepyeiy in a transitive sense, yet we Aristotle.
find a few instances of the passive évepyeicOa: in his works.

Ilepit uray ii 7 (827, 33"). The sun réyu roel (826, 37"): but the
moisture may be so great, adore Bi meraiver Oat: Tore 7 Uypotns avrn, eis
iy otk émpyiey mers, x7d., Le. in which més has not been wrought
or effected by the sun.

Suotk. dxpoda. ii 3 (195, 28>). He has been classifying causes and
effects (airia cal dy atria). Causes are either xara Sivapww or évepyovrra:
they are duvdpes in respect of Suvard, and édvepyovvra in respect of évep-
yovpeva: of the last an instance is d8¢ 6 olxodopay rade TG oixodopcupéra.
Potential causes and possible results are contrasted with effective causes
and effected results.

Tlept uyijs iti 2 (427, 7°). The text is uncertain; but there is a con-
trast between duvdues and ro eivat, followed by a further distinction:
T@ 8 civa ov, dd\dAa rh evepyeia bat dtaiperoy, ‘in the being carried into
effect’ or ‘realised’.

Tlepi xoop. 6 (400, 23) God is to the universe what law is to the
state: 6 rijs modews vopos adxivytos av év rais Tay ypopevoy ouyais_mdvra

——_ vixovopmel Ta KaTa THY wodireav. In accordance with law one man goes to

the Prytaneum to be feasted, another to the court to be tried, another to
the prison to be put to death: yivovra: dé cat Syuobowiat voptpor...dedv
te Ovoiat Kai jpdwy Oepameiat...ddda dé Gddows évepyovpeva Kara play mpoo-
tag i) vouiov egovoiav, Here the word is used in no philosophic sense,
but simply means ‘ carried out’ or ‘done’4,
It is interesting to note that in Xenophon we have two examples "Apyeto bat
' of the passive of dpyeiv. Cyrop. ii 3 2 ovdev yap adrois dpycirat réy in Xeno-
mpdrrecba Seonéveov, ‘they leave nothing undone’, ‘let nothing lie dpyév’, PPO?
Hiero 9 9, if it be made clear that any one who finds a new way of -
enriching the state will be rewarded, ovdé atry dy ‘q oxéyus dpyoiro:
a few lines below we have this repeated in the form, zoAXovs Gy xal rodro
eEoppijoeter Epyor rovetoda TS ockomeiv te ayabov. The use of dpyeiv ‘to be
--idle’? (of persons) and dpyeic6a: ‘to be left idle’ (of powers) may prepare
us for a corresponding use of évepyeiv ‘to be at work’ (of persons) and
evepyeia bat ‘to be set at work’ (of powers).

In the New Testament all the examples of évepyeicOa, with the ’Evepyei-
notable exception of James v 16, belong to St Paul. The passages are 790 in
the following : St Paul.

(r) 1 Thess. ii 13 f. Adyou Geod, bs kal evepyeirat év duiy rois morevovow.
dpeis yap pypnrai éyernOnre...... bre ra avra émdbere kat vpeis kT A.

(2) 2 Thess. ii 7 ro yap puornpsov 78n evepyeirat ris dvopias’ povoy
6 karéywv pri, K.T.d.

(3) 2 Cor. i 6 ecire mapaxadovpeda, vrep tis tugv mapaxAjoews Tis
evepyoupemys év vmopory Trav alrady rabnpdrev ay Kat tyels
mao x oper.

1 This instance is not given in Bonitz’s index.

246

Not the
middle
voice.

—_—§fhe-sense

of the

- passive:
not of
things to
be done,

_ but of

powers to
be set in

operation. ¢

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

(4) 2 Cor. iv 12 Bore 6 Gavaros év ypiv évepyeira, 7 Oé (an ev dpiv,

(5) Gal. v 6 GANG mitts O° dyamns évepyoupéry.

(6) Rom. vii5 f. ra waéijpara tév duapriay rd dia rod yopov éynpyeiro
évy rois pédcow quay eis ro Kapropopioa TG Oavare: vuvi dé

_ karnpynOnpev Kr.d.

(7) Col. i 29 eis 6 kal komid dywuCoperos kara ry evépyecay adrod THY
évepyouperny év époi ev Supapet.

(8) Eph. iii 20 xara ray Sivapw ri evepyouperny év jpiv.

In approaching the consideration of these passages we are met by the
dictum, which has received the sanction of Lightfoot}, that evepyeto@a: is
always middle, ‘never passive in St Paul’, It is difficult to reconcile this
judgment with the observed fact that évepycioda: is never used by St Paul
of persons, while évepyeiy is always so used. If the words be respectively
passive and active, this distinction is perfectly natural: but there seems
no reason why the middle should be specially applicable to things in
contrast to persons’, Moreover, so far as I am aware, there is no trace
of a middle in any other writer. The aorist where we find it is always

érnpynOnv. The one passage of Polybius which appeared to offer an

example to the contrary, ii 6 7 xardmAnéw Kat poBov evepynodpevot Tois
Tas mapaXlas oixovot, is now emended with certainty by the substitution
of évepyardyevor, which at once restores the proper construction of the
dative and gives back a well recognised idiom.

If then we decide that in St Paul as elsewhere évepycio ba: is passive, we
have to ask whether that sense of the passive of which we have already
found examples, ‘to be carried out, effected, done’, will give a satisfactory
sense in the passages before us.

The very first of them refuses this interpretation. The Divine message .
of the Gospel (6 Adyos rod Oeod) évepycirar év trois mucrevovow. St Paul’s
meaning here appears to be ‘is made operative’, ‘is made to produce its
appropriate result’: another writer would probably have given us évepyei,
is operative’; but St Paul prefers the passive, the agent implied being
God 6 évepydy. The Gospel is not allowed to lie idle and unproductive :
it is transmuted into action: the Thessalonians share the sufferings which
are everywhere its characteristic accompaniment.

Similarly in (3), the wapdkAnots is made effective only by fellowship in
the sufferings of the Gospel: and the thought in (4) is closely allied.

In (2), whereas the evil spirit may be said évepyeiy (Eph. ii 2), the
pvoTyptoy Tis dvouias, the counterpart of the pvorrpcov rot xpiorod, is said
évepyeta Gat, ‘to be set in operation’.

In (5) the sense appears to be: ‘faith is made operative through love’,
without which it fails of its action (dpyet)*. With a like interpretation (6)
presents no special difficulty.

In (7) and (8), especially when compared with Eph. i 19 kara ry dvép-

1 See his note on Gal. v 6. younévy here as passive, though unlike

2 Compare Greg. Naz. Or. 318 {i St Paul he thinks of a human agency:
559 D) Kat ef évépyea, evepynbiicerar Strom. i 4 (p. 318) was otk &ugw dro-
Syrovirt, obK evepyjoet, kat duod rye Serdar, evepydy rhy mlorw dad ris
évepynOnva. matoerat. dyarns memomnpevot;

® Clement of Alexandria took évep-.

ENEPrEIN AND ITS COGNATES, 247

yetav...4v enijpynkev x7... we again find the passive appropriately used.
St Paul says 7 évépyesa evepyeirar, not évepyei, because he regards God
as 6 évepyor. ;

It is to be observed that in actual meaning évepyeiy and evepyeia Oat
come nearly to the same thing. Only the passive serves to remind us that
the operation is not self-originated. The powers ‘work’ indeed ; but they
‘are made to work’,

The passage in St James's Epistle (v 16 amodd lover Sénows dixalov James v
évepyouuévy) is notoriously difficult. We must not hastily transfer to this 16.
writer a usage which so far as we know is peculiar to St Paul. Yet it
is at least possible that here too évepyoupévy means ‘set in operation’ by
Divine agency. _

In later times évepyetv was used in the sense of ‘to inspire’, whether the Later use
inspiration was Divine or Satanic. But this usage has no direct bearing for ‘in- ,
on the meaning of the word in the New Testament, spiration’.

248 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

On the meaning of érripvoots.

I. “Exvyi- . 1. The word émiyvwcis is not found in Greek writers before the time
blaasion ‘2 of Alexander the Great. “Emvywdcxew, however, is used occasionally by
assical . . y _
authors, most all writers. Thus in Homer, Od. xxiv 216 ff, when Odysseus
proposes to reveal himself to his father, he says:
avrap éyO marpos Teipyoouat Huerépo.o,
al Ké ww émcyvey Kal ppdocerat opbadpoiaw,
n€ Kev ayvotqoe troddw xpdvoy audis édvra.
If he discern me and read me with his eyes,
Or know me not, so long I am away.

Again, in Od. xviii 30 f, the beggar Irus challenges Odysseus to fight
him in the presence of the suitors:
(éoai vv, va mayres énuyydwor kal ode
TT papvapdvous-—reis-8 by ot vearép@ dvdpi: paxovo ;
‘that these may know us, how we fight’: that they may discern which is
the better man of the two.
In Aesch. Ag. 1596ff. it is used of Thyestes at the banquet:
avtix dyvoia AaBav
éober Bopdy GBparov, as Gpas, yévet.
kde’ émevyvous epyov ov xaraicwoy —
Guage, KT A.
Here, as in Od. xxiv 216 ff, it is used in contrast with dyvou, ‘not recog-
nising’, ‘not discerning’,
In Soph. .4j. 18 f. we have:
kai viv éréyvas ed ps. én’ dvdpi dvopevet
Bdow xukdoivr’, Aiarvte T@ caxeopépy.
‘And now thou hast discerned aright that I am hunting to and fro on
the trail of a foeman’: so Jebb, who says in a note: “éréyvas with partic.
(xukAodvr’) of the act observed, as Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. 33 éréyvas & av...ovdéva
obre dpyt(opevov...ovre xaipovra”. .
Soph. £7. 1296 f.:
ovTw O érws pityp ce py “mtyvadcerat
gadpe mpoodre.
‘And look that our mother read not thy secret in thy radiant face’: Jebb,
with a note: “—syvdcera, ‘detect’: the dative is instrumental”.
In Thucydides there are two distinct usages of the word. The first
is the same as that which we have already noticed: eg. i 132: sapazotn-
capevos oppayisa, tva,..py émiyyG, Avec Tas emiareddas: ie. that the receiver

THE MEANING OF ETTIFNQCIC. 249

of the letter might not detect what he had done, The second corresponds
with a special meaning of yiwodcxw, ‘to determine’ or ‘decide’ (i 70, ii 65,
iii 57): it does not directly concern us here. It is nearly synonymous with
émexpiveww, .

If now we inquire what is the force of the preposition, or in other The force
words how does émywocxew differ from yuvdcxew, we may note first of all Of the pre-
that the simple verb would have given the meaning, intelligibly if less position.
precisely, in all the cases which we have cited. There is no indication
that émywecxew conveys the idea of a fuller, more perfect, more advanced
knowledge.

We find a large number of compounds in ézé, in which the preposition It signifies
doesnot in the least signify addition, but rather perhaps direction. It not ad-
seems to fix the verb upon @ definite object. Thus we have ézaweiv, dition, but
emderxvivat, émityreiv, emikadely, emtxnpvooey, emixpareiy, émixpumtTey, émt-
perco Oat, emipupunokea Oat, emwoetv (excogitare), émixopnyeiv. , So also émixowos
means ‘common to’ and is followed by a genitive or dative of the object.

In these cases we cannot say that the compound verb is stronger than the
simple verb. The preposition is not intensive, but directive (if the word
may be allowed). It prepares us to expect the limitation of the verb to
a particular object. .

Thus -ywooxew means ‘to know’ in the fullest sense that can be given A limita-

to the word ‘knowledge’: émvywodcxew directs attention to some particular tion sug-

point in regard to which ‘knowledge’ is affirmed. So that to perceive gested,
a particular thing, or to perceive who a particular person is, may fitly be
expressed by émywdcxew. There is no such limitation about the word
ywvdoxew, though of course it may be so limited by its context.

2. We may now consider the usage of the uxx. In Hebrew the2. The

ordinary word for ‘to know’ is Y'3', . But in the earlier books of the O.T. verb in
‘YDi3 is used in the sense of discerning or recognising. Thus it is the word °

employed when Jacob’s sons say to him: ‘Know now whether it be thy son’s
coat or no. And he Anew it, and said, It is my son’s coat’ (Gen. xxxvii 32 f.).
So again in Gen. xlii 8, ‘And Joseph Anew his brethren, but they knew
not him’, Here, as we might expect, the word is rendered by émiywo-
oxey. Throughout the historical books émvywdoxew generally represents
"371, though occasionally it is a rendering of YX, In the Prophets, how-
ever, 213 is very rare, and émywodcrev is used forty-five times to render
YT, To shew to what an extent the two words were regarded as identical

in meaning, we may note that in Ezekiel the phrase ‘they (ye) shall Anow
that I am the Lord’ is rendered about thirty-five times by yodaovrai (yra-
cece), and about twenty-five times by ereyrdcorra (émiyvdcerde)'.
In the later books of the Lxx we come across the word éxiyvwots, of The noun.
which hitherto we have said nothing. It occurs four times in books of

1 For the distribution of the render- the simple verb alone occurs (save as
ings between the two translators of a var. lect. of A) in chapters xxviii to
Ezekiel see Mr Thackeray’s article in xxxix.

Journ. of Theol. Studies, Apr. 1903:

250. | EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.:

which we have Hebrew originals. Three times ériyrwois Geod represents
poy DY (Prov. ii 5, Hos. iv 1, vi 6, the enly places where this expres-
sion seems to occur). The fourth occurrence of the noun is again in Hosea
(iv 6), where in the same verse NY3 is rendered first by yoors and then
by eriyroois,
- Besides these passages we have only 2 Mace. ix 11, eis ériyvoow
nbeiv Geia pacrey, ‘to come to knowledge under the scourge of God’, —
Symmachus used the word in Ps. Ixxii (xxiii) 11, ‘Is there knowledge in the
Most High?’, where the Hebrew is 73, and the ixx have yréors.
It may be worth while to add that in Wisdom we have yosots Ge0t
twice, but é eriyvoas does not occur at all. In Eeclesiasticus also we have
yvdors Kupiov, but émiyvocts is not found.
Thus we learn from the Greek O. T. nothing more than that the
word was coming into use, and that it was employed in a familiar passage
of Hosea, the first part of which is cited in the N.T.; ‘I desired mercy, and
not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings’ (Hos.
vi 6).
3. Verb 3. In Schweighiuser’s index to Polybius émywdcxew appears as
and noun occurring eight times. It regularly means ‘to discover’ or ‘discern’:
bing, Y- once it is coupled with padei (iii 32 8, émtyvava, xal paeciv); three times

it is strengthened by cadds. The noun ériyvaors occurs twice (iii 7 6,

31 4). In each case the historian -is-defending-the-study of general history

as contrasted with mere narratives of particular wars. In the latter place
he speaks of ‘the knowledge of past events’, rv ray mapeAnAvOdrey éri-
yvoow, using in the context two parallel phrases, ry ray mpoyeyordrev
erioTnpyy and tis Tdy mpoyeyovdrav vrourjoews. In iii 7 6 he says that
a statesman cannot dispense with ‘knowledge’ of this kind, rijs rév mpoetpn-
pévay éxiyvdoeos. There is no indication whatever that any strong meaning, —
such as full or advanced knowledge, was attached to the word.

4. The 4. We now come to the New Testament. In the Gospels and Acts
yer in the @ emreyrdorkey is found in the sense of ‘ perceiving’, ‘discerning’, ‘recognising’ ,
ospe just as in classical authors. It is interesting to compare Matt. xi 27, ovdeis
énvywocket Tov vidy, x.7.A., With the parallel in Luke x. 22, ovdeis yivdces ris
éorw 6 vids, x7A. In Luke i 4, va éxtyvgs wept dv xarnyynOns ASyov ry
daddvctav, we have the word used with good effect to indicate the discern-

ment of a particular point in regard to things already known.
andin St § In St Paul’s Epistles we find both the verb and the noun. In Rom. i 32
Paul . we have: ofrwes rd Sixalwpa Tod beod énvyvévres, which is to be compared.
with v. 21, dudre yrdvres rov Gedv. The difference, if there be one, is that
érvyvovres is more naturally used of knowledge of a particular point. In
1 Oor. xiv 37, émywockéro & ypddo tpiv ore xupiov éotly évrody, and
2 Cor. xiii 5, 9 ov émiyweoxere Eavtods ort “Incovs Xpioros év dyiv; it is
again used of discerning or recognising a special quality. It is used of
the recognition of persons in 1 Cor, xvi 18, écywookere ody rovs rotovrous,
and in 2 Cor. vi 9, ds dyvoovpevor kai émiywaokduevor (comp, the passages

lint Kings viii 4 élyrwots stands in Esther [xvi 6] itis a variant of &*
for NYS in AR, but B has yao, and = for evyvapootvyy.

THE MEANING OF ETTIPNOCIC.
cited above, Hom. Od. xxiv 216 ff., Aesch. Ag. 1596ff.). In Col. i6f., dd’ js

jpepas neovoare Kat éréyvore THY ydpw Tov Oeod év dAnOeia: Kabds éepa-
dere x.7.d., there may be a suggestion of discriminating and recognising
as true: we have ywockew tiv xydpw in 2 Cor. viii 9, Gal. ii. 9. So too in
1 Tim, iv 3, éreyvaxdot tiv dAnOecay.

251

There remain two remarkable passages in which St Paul plays on Plays on
ywooxey and its compounds, 2 Cor. i 13, od yap dAda ypddopev duty the word.

GN 4 & dvaywodoxete 7} Kal emvywookere, CAmrifo dé drt ews TéAous éme-
yrdcecOe, xabads kal éméyvate yas dmb pépous; Ore Kavynua dpav éopev
xabarep xat dpets juov. The last part of this is plain enough: ‘ye have
recognised us, in part at any rate, as being a glory to you, as you are
to us’, With the former part we may compare iii 2 ‘ye are our epistle,
yvookopérn Kal dvaywooxopém’, the full-sounding word being placed
second. So here the sound of the words has no doubt influenced the
selection: ‘ye read and recognise’. But we cannot say that émcywockew
refers to a full knowledge of any kind, especially as it is subsequently
joined with dio pépous.

In 1 Cor. xiii the Apostle compares yvdois, as a spiritual gift, with In com-
bination
with yiwd-
COKE, -

dyarn. Tveors is after all in our present condition but partial; éx pépous
yap ywoéoxoper: the partial is transient, and disappears on the arrival of
the perfect. So the child gives way to the man. We now see mirrored
- images which suggest the truth of things: we shall then see ‘face to

face’. The words recall the promise of God that He would speak
to Moses ‘mouth to mouth’ and not d¢ aiwypdrov (Num. xii 8): also
Deut. xxxiv 10, Moofjs, by €yya Kupws avrov mpécwmoy Kata. mpocwnov!:
and Ex. xxxiii 11, ‘The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend’, St Paul continues: dpre ywdcxw éx pépous, rére
dé émvyvdcopat Kabds Kal éreyvdoOnv. The thought of fuller knowledge
_ which is here given is expressed, not by the change from ywdcxe to its
compound, but by the contrast with ék pépovs and by the defining clause
introduced by xaéas', We see this at once if we try to cut the sentence
short, and read only: dpr: ywooxo éx pépovs, tore S€ éxvyvdconat: this
would be unmeaning; for there is no ground for supposing that it could
mean by itself, ‘then shall I fully know’. It is probable that émuyydcopat
is introduced because éreyvdadny (of knowledge of a person) is to follow.
At the same time we may admit that the full-sounding word is purposely
chosen to heighten the effect at the close. That no higher kind of know-
ledge is implied in the compound word is seen when we compare Gal. iv 9,
yrorres Oeod, pGiddov Oé yroabevres imd Oeod.

The only remaining instance of the verb in the N.T. is in 2 Pet. ii 21, In 2 Peter.

a \ 2 tad s 3 Zz 4 eat a , a 2 a
Kpeirroy yap vy avrois py emeyvoxévar riv Gooey tis Stxavogdyns 7} émiyvodow
vroorpéwat k.T.A.

The noun éiywors is freely used by St Paul. It is generally followed, "Exlyrwois

as we might expect, by a genitive of the object: thus, duaprias, Rom. iii 20;

with

in StPaul:

en-

of God or Christ, Eph, i 17, iv 13, Col. i 10 (cf. 2 Pet. i2, 3, 8, ii 20); 70d itive of the
Oedjparos avrob, Col. i 93; rod pvornpiov rod Oeot, Col. ii 2; dAnéeias, object;

1 So quite correctly Euthymius Ziga- —_abrdv (sc. rév Gedy) whéov" 7d yap ‘Kadds
benus ad loc.: ‘rére d8 emvyrdooua’ kat ereyvddoOnv’ Td whéov Syol.

252 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

1 Tim. ii 4, 2 Tim. ii 25, iti 7, Tit. i 1 (ef. Heb. x 26); mavris dyadod,
Philem. 6. We do indeed find ydors similarly used of God and of Christ
(2 Cor. x 5, Phil. iii 8); but émiyywors had the advantage of avoiding the
ambiguity as to whether the following genitive was objective or subjective
(as in Rom. xi 33, 3 Bddos...yudcews Geo). Accordingly as a rule yrdors is
used where knowledge in the abstract is spoken of, but émiyywors where the
special object of the knowledge is to be expressed.
without a Rom. i 28, ovx éSoxipacay roy Oedy Exew ev éervyvdce, is no exception
genitive. to this rule. In Rom. x 2, (fAov Geod Zxovow, add’ ov kar’ éexiyvacw, the
word may perhaps suggest the idea of discernment: as also in Phil. i 9, ‘that
your love may abound more and more év émyvaéce kal rdoy aicbyoel,
eis To Soxipatew «rAd. : and in Col. iii 10 f, ‘putting on the new man,
which is renewed eis éxiyywow xar’ elxdva tod xrivavros avroy, Saou ovK
éu “EXAny k.7.d., where there is no contrast with any imperfect knowledge,
but the knowledge referred to may perhaps be specially the discernment
. and recognition of the abolition of the old distinctions of race and condi-
tion. But perhaps it is unnecessary to search for any particular subtilty
of meaning in the word.

5. The 5. This long investigation has been necessitated by the determination
view that of commentators to interpret émiyvwois as a fuller and more perfect kind
emlyywas oF yéo.s. Thus Grotius on Eph. i 17 says: ‘ émiyvoors proprie est maior

vfasther’ exactiorque cognitio’, a remark which he repeats _on_( Col. i9._In-dealing ——

___or ‘fuller—however—with~ intyraris Guaptias ° in Rom. iii 20 he is more cautious,
know. — and says: ‘émiyvaous idem quod ydors, aut paulo amplius’. Among the
ledge.’" moderns Fritzsche (on Rom. i 28), Alford, Ellicott and Lightfoot take the
Grotius. same view. Lightfoot comments on the word twice (Phil. i g and Col. i 9).
At the latter place he says: ‘The compound ériéyvwors is an advance upon
Lightfoot yvéors, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge’. He cites in
cites favour of this view Justin Martyr Tryph. 3 (p. 221 A): émtoripn ris éorw
Hari ] mapéxovca avTav TAY dvOparrivey kat trav bciwy yraow!, greta tis rovrwy
arty bed 8 The context of thi

THTOS Kai ekaLogurns émiyvoow ; 3 © context 0 8 passage requires to
be carefully considered. In the preceding sentences Justin has been dis-|
cussing the nature of philosophy : it is, he says, ‘the science of the existent
and the knowledge of the true’ (émorjpy éori rod dros Kal rod ddybovs
éxiyvocis). His interlocutor objects that émiarjpn has different meanings :
it means one kind of thing when applied to generalship, seamanship or
medicine; another in regard to things human and divine. And then he
asks (in the words already cited): ‘Is there an émiorjun which affords
a knowledge (yvéors) of the actual things human and divine, and after
that a knowledge (ériyvwors) of the divineness and righteousness of
these same things?’ Here the distinction (if we are to press for one)
is between a knowledge which reveals to us the things themselves, and

a, knowledge which discerns certain qualities of those things.

1 Justin is here employing acurrent Wendland’s edition iii 88. Comp.
definition of copia. See Philo de con- also 4 Mace. i 16, copia 34 rolvur.
gressu (Mangey i 530) cola 5¢ émory- — eariv -ywdors Oelwv xal dvOpwriver mpay-

pny Oelwv kat dvOpwrlvwr kal Tay robrwy = dT,
airlwy, and the references given in

THE MEANING OF ETIFNaACIC. 253

Lightfoot also cites St Chrysostom on Col. ig: Zyvare, dAda Set re Kai Chryso-
émyvava. To do this passage justice we must look first at St Chrysostom’s stom,
comment on the preceding words (v. 6), ag’ is juépas feovoare kal éréyvare
rip xapw rot Geod év ddnbeig, xabds éudbere dws "Emagpa «.t.A. He says:
dua édé£acde, dua €yvore thy ydpw rod Oeod. From this it does not appear
that he can have laid much stress on the preposition. So when he comes
to the phrase iva wAnpobijire tiv éxiyvaaw rod OeAjpares avrot, it is on
mAnpobpre that the stress of his comment falls: ‘iva mAnpwbfre’, pyoiv,
odx iva AdByre: EhaBov yap GAA TO Aelrov iva wAnpwbjre. Then below
he says: Ti dé éorw ‘iva mAnpoiire tiv éxiyvoow rod Oedjparos avrod’;
dia rod viod mpoodyerOar nuas aird, ovkére b¢ dyyéAov. Gre pév ovy det
mpooayerOat, eyvares Aeiwes S€ dpiv rd rovTo pabeiv, Kat dia ti Tov vidy
émepyev. Again no stress falls on ériyywow. There is indeed something
more to be learned, viz. riv éniyvwow rod OeAnparos atvrov: but it is not
a fuller knowledge of the will of God which is in question. So he
continues: ‘kal alrovpevor’, gyois pera moddjs THs omovdis: robro yap
Seixvucw, dre Eyvore, GANG Sei te kal emvyydva, Here éyvere corresponds
to St Paul’s éréyvwre ri xdpw tot Geod. ‘You have learned something’,
he says, ‘but you must needs learn something more’. The ‘something
more’ is conveyed by ri xai, not by the change of verb, If we are to
make a distinction it must-be between general knowledge (éyvare) and
particular knowledge (émyyaéva). We cannot on the strength of this

___sentence_alone_insist__on_a_new_sense_of_érvyodcxewv,—viz._‘to—learn
further’. It is of course conceivable that a late writer might be led

by the analogy of some compounds with ézi to play upon the words in

this particular way: but we have no proof of it at present; and even if

it were true for the fourth century, it would be hazardous to carry such

a meaning back to St Paul.

Another passage cited by Lightfoot, Clem. Alex. Strom.i 17, p. 369, and
need not detain us. It is itself borrowed from Tatian ad Graecos 40; and Clement
the ov kar’ émiyywow which both passages contain is a mere reproduction of Alex-
of St Paul’s words in Rom. x. 2. °

Dr Hatch in his Essays on Biblical Greek (p. 8) refers to Const. Hatch
Apost, vii 39, with the remark that it makes éwiyvwors ‘the second of the cites
three stages of perfect knowledge : yrdous, émiyywots, rAnpopopia’. Unfor- aposts

tunately for his readers he does not quote the passage. The writer, who tions,
has been expanding precepts of the Didaché, says: 6 péd\ov xarnxeioPa

tov Aodyov Tis dAnbcias madevérbw mpd tov Banticparos (cf. Did. 7) riv

wept Tod dyevyyrou yuaow, THY Tepl viod povoyevois éxiyywow, THY Tepl Tod

Gyiov mvedparos mAnpodopiav. That is to say, a catechumen before Baptism

must be instructed in a knowledge of the Holy Trinity. The writer is in

want of synonyms: he may even fancy that he is working up to a climax,

and may have chosen ériyvecis as a word of fuller sound than ydors. But
nothing is to be gained from verbiage of this kind for the strict definition

of words.

Two interesting examples of ém:ywaokew and éziyywois may here be Further
added. Clem. Alex. Q.D.S. 7 f.: Ovdxoiy rd péyerrov kat xopupaidraroy illustra-
Tdv mpos thy Coy padnpatov...yydvat rv Oedv...deov gore xtycarda dia Hons.
yudcews kat xaradypews...4 bev yap trovrov dyvora Odvaros eotw, yj Se

254 | EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

émiyvacts avrod xa) olxelwois: kal % mpds atrdy aydrn Kat é£opolwots
porn far. Tovrovy ov mparov émuyvavat rh (nooner tiv dvras wi
qapakeAeverat, oy ovdels eriyivdaKec el py 6 vios Kal @ ay 6 vids daroKa-
Audy Srevra rd péyedos rod carijpos pet exeivov Kal Thy Kawérynta Tis
xdpiros pabeiv. It is noticeable that émiyvoois comes in for the first
time in contrast to dyvoa. The first requirement for the true life is
émtyvdva. It is quite clear therefore that ériyvoors here is not a fuller
or more advanced knowledge.

Eus. #. Z. vi 11 6, a passage in a letter of Alexander of Jerusalem to
the Antiochenes, which was brought to them by Clement of Alexandria.
Alexander speaks of Clement as dydpis évapérov kal Soxipov, oy tore Kat
vpeis Kal éenvyvdoeobe. This is rendered by Rufinus wirum in omnibus
uirtutibus probatissimum, quem nostis etiam. uos et eo amplius cognos-
cetis', This no doubt gives the general sense well enough. But the
contrast in the Greek is between eiSévac and émeywocxety, and not, be it
noted, between ywdoxew and ervywookev. The meaning appears to be
‘ye know him by name, and ye shall now get to know him in person’: ‘ye
have heard of him, and ye shall now make his acquaintance’. There is no
reason for supposing that the Antiochenes had ever seen Clement up to
this time: otherwise we might seek to explain ércyydcerGe as ‘ye shall
recognise him as such as I have described him’.

Con- So far then as we are to distinguish between yvdors and éniyroois,

clusion. we may say_that_—yvdéo.s-is_the-wider-word and expresses ‘knowledge’ in
the fullest sense: éaiyvoats is knowledge directed towards a particular
object, perceiving, discerning, recognising?: but it is not knowledge in the
abstract: that is yadocs. It follows that the genitive after yydors may be
either subjective or objective: but the genitive after ériyywo1s denotes the

object of the knowledge.

1 So Jerome (de uiris ill. 38) wirum
illustrem et probatum, quem uos quoque
scitis et nunc plenius recognoscetis.

2 Origen’s comment on- Eph. i 17
(Cramer, p. 130) presses the sense of
‘recognition’, in accordance with a
favourite view of his. It is worth re-
cording, if only as shewing that to
him at any rate the word ériyvwos

did not suggest a fuller or further
knowledge: Ei yap ph ratréy dors
"wiors Oeoh Kat émlyrwors Peo adn 6
érvywdokwpy olovel dvayvwplver 6 wddae
elds érehédnoro, boo. Sév énvyvicer’
ylvovrat Geod médar Poecay adrdév> d-
érrep ‘ uvnoOnoovras Kat érvorpagiaovras
aps Kuptov wdvra re. répara Tis vis’.

THE MEANING OF TTAHPQMA. 255

On the meaning of mdjpopa.

The precise meaning of the word zA7jpepa has been a matter of much The
controversy among biblical critics. It was discussed at great length by theory of ;
C. F. A. Fritzsche in his commentary on Romans (1839), vol. ii pp. 469 f£, ~ "7°?
and to him subsequent writers are in the main indebted for their illustra-
tions from Greek literature. Fritzsche’s long note was drawn from him
by the statement of Storr and writers who followed him, that wAyjpopa
always has an active sense in the New Testament. He, on the contrary, nouns in
starts with the assertion that substantives in -ya have a passive sense, ~#% have a
He admits a few cases in which m)yjpopa has an active sense: such as EORO
Eurip. road, 823: °

Aaopedovrie sai,
Znvos exes KuAikov

wAypopa, Ka\Niocray Aarpeiay

' and Philo de Abr. 46 (Mangey, ii 39), where faith toward God is called
mapnyopnpa Biov, wAnpwpya xpyoray édridov. But he insists that in such
cases mAnpopa means ‘the filling’ or ‘fulfilling’, and not ‘that which fills’
(complendi actionem, non td quod complet). He then proceeds to show
that the fundamental sense of r\jpwpa is a passive sense.

.But we must note carefully what he means when he thus speaks of ‘id quo

a ‘passive sense’. In ordinary parlance we understand by the passive Tes com-
sense of wAjpepa, ‘that which is filled’ (¢@ quod completum est): but of pletur’.
this Fritzsche has only one plausible example to offer, viz. wAnpepara,
as used in naval warfare as an equivalent of ‘ships’ (to this we shall return
presently). He himself, however, uses the expression ‘passive sense’ to
cover instances in which wAjpepa means ‘that with which a thing is filled’
(id quo res completur s. completa est). This extension of phraseology
enables him, with a little straining, to find an underlying passive significa-
tion in all instances of the use of wAjpopa, apart from those which he has
already noted as exceptions.

Lightfoot, in his commentary on Colossians (pp. 257—273), discusses Light-
the word mAjpopa afresh, and deals (1) with its fundamental significa- foot’s
tion; (2) with its use in the New Testament; (3) with its employment “™%s™
as a technical term by heretical sects. At the outset he recognises
the confusion which Fritzsche produced by his unjustifiable use of the
expression ‘passive sense’. Thus he says: ‘He apparently considers that
he has surmounted the difficulties involved in Storr’s view, for he speaks
of this last [td quo res impletur] as.a passive sense, though in fact it is
nothing more than 7d guod implet expressed in other words’.

256

and modi-
fication :

the result
of the
agency -
of the
verb:

yetstricily

passive.

Difficulty
of this

‘theory il-
lustrated.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Lightfoot, accordingly, starting with the same postulate of the passive
signification of all verbal substantives in -ua, undertakes to find a genuine
passive sense underlying those instances in which Fritzsche had interpreted
mAjpopa as id quo res impletur. ‘Substantives in -ya’, he says, ‘formed.
from the perfect passive, appear always to have a passive sense. They
may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing ; they may signify the
action itself regarded as complete, or the product of the action; but in
any case they give the result of the agency involved in the corresponding
verb’.

Lightfoot appears to have correctly diagnosed the formations in -ya,
when he says, ‘they give the result of the agency involved in the corre- —
sponding verb’. It is, however, unfortunate that, in his desire to be loyal
to what he speaks of as a ‘lexical rule’, he insists that ‘in all cases
the word is strictly passive’, For the maintenance of this position
involves again an extension of the term ‘passive’, not indeed so violent
as Fritzsche’s, but yet unfamiliar and easily leading to misconceptions.
Thus, to take one instance, we may allow that x@Avua is in the first place
the result of ‘hindering’, ie, ‘hindrance’, But when the ‘hindrance’ is
thought of not merely as an abstract idea, but as a concrete thing, it has
come to mean ‘that which hinders’; that is to say, it has acquired in
usage what we should naturally call an active signification. And yet the
theory in question demands that c#Avpa, the result of the agency of the
verb xodvo, shall be‘strictly passives
The-straits to which Lightfoot is put by this theory may be illustrated
from his interpretation of the word zA7jpwya in Mark ii 21, the saying
about the new patch on the old garment. The true text of St Mark at
this point is somewhat rough, but not really obscure: No man seweth
a piece of new (or undressed) cloth on an old garment; ei d¢ yy, alper
T6 TAYpepa dm’ avrob, To Kawov rod madaov. Our old translators rendered
mAjpepa, ‘the piece that filled it up’; taking wAjpwpua in the sense of
‘the supplement’. It cannot be denied that this gives an admirable
meaning in this place. Perhaps a stricter writer would have said dvamr)sj-
pepa, for dvamAnpody seems to differ from m\ypody in the same way as ‘to
fill up’ differs from ‘to fill’: it suggests the supply of a deficiency, rather
than the filling of what is quite empty to start with. Apart from this,

‘which is perhaps somewhat of a refinement, we might render the words

The
passive
sense not
to be in-
sisted on.

literally : ‘the supplement taketh therefrom, fo wit, the new from the old’.
But Lightfoot boldly refuses the obvious explanation, and, insisting on his
theory, interprets 76 wAyjpopa as ‘the completeness which results from the
patch’: ‘the completeness takes away from the garment, the new com-
pleteness of the old garment’. We must hesitate long before we dissent
from the interpretations of so great an expositor: but we are sorely tempted
to ask if there is not a nearer way to the truth than this,

To return: if we are to have a theory to cover all these formations
in -ya, it seems wisest to abandon altogether the traditional rule ‘that
substantives in -ya have a passive sense’, and adopt in its place the wider
rule ‘that they give the reswlt of the agency of the corresponding verb’.
This result may be thought of as primarily an abstract idea. But it is
a common phenomenon in language that words denoting abstract ideas have

THE MEANING OF TIAHPOMA. 257

a, tendency to fall into the concrete. The result of ‘mixing’ is ‘mixture’
(abstract); but, again, the result is ‘a mixture’ (concrete)!

But before we discard a venerable tradition, let us try to do it some False
measure of justice. There must have been some reason for a rule which ®2alogy
has dominated us so long: and the reason appears to be this. There are ‘perfect
two familiar sets of substantives in Greek which are derived from verbs: passive’.
they are commonly spoken of as those ending in -ovs and those ending
in -ua. When we compare them for such verbs as soéw, mpdooe, didwpt,
piyvups, we find that the one class (aoinots, mpagts, Sdots, piéis) expresses
the action of the verb—‘making’, ‘doing’, ‘giving’, ‘mixing’; while the
other class (aoinua, mpaypya, Sopa, piypa) represents the result of that
action—‘a thing made’, ‘a deed’, ‘a gift’, ‘a mixture’, A vast number
of similar examples can be cited, and at once it appears that we have
a simple distinction between the two classes: substantives in -ovs have
an active sense, substantives in -ya have a passive sense. Moreover we
observe an obvious similarity between the formations in -ya and the perfect
passive of the verbs from which they are derived :

Weroinpat, WemTonpevos, Toinpa
Tenpaypal, TEenpaypevos, Tpayya
déSopat, Sedopévos, Sua
pépeypat, pepeypeévos, piypa.

It is probable that this ‘false analogy’ has had something to do with Forms in
propagating and maintaining the idea that these formations are specially -“7-, not
connected with the passive. It would certainly conduce to clearness and 1 “4%
accuracy if these formations were spoken of as formations in -zar-, as their
oblique cases show them to be. The formative suffix is added directly
to the root or to the strengthened verbal stem: a8 pry-, pry-par-3 morn-,
qown-pat-; Whereas for the perfect passive the root is first reduplicated,
pé-pey-pat, me-roin-pat. The original meaning of the formative suffix -par- —
is now altogether lost to our knowledge. It appears in Latin in a stronger
form as -mentio-, and in a weaker form as -min-; cf. ‘ornamentum’ (from.
‘ornare’), and ‘fragmen, -minis’ (from ‘frangere’). Side by side with these
Latin forms we have others in -éon-, as ‘ornatio, -onis’, and ‘fractio, -onis ’,
which are parallel to the Greek derivatives in -ov-.

The help that we gain from comparative grammar is thus of a negative Usage
kind; but we may be grateful for it, as releasing us from bondage to the #!one can:
old rule which connected these formations with the passive of the verb. feae ioe
We are now thrown back upon usage as our only guide to the discovery nification.
of a general signification which may serve as the starting-point of their
classification. It may be questioned whether we ought to demand such
a general signification ; but if we do, then ‘the result of the agency of
the corresponding verb’ may serve us well enough. Thus mpayya is the
result of ‘doing’, ie. ‘a deed’; ddua, the result of ‘giving’, ‘a gift’;
ornamentum, the result of ‘adorning’, ‘an ornament’; j/ragmen, the

1I¢ happens that ‘a mixture’, when and is passive; but ‘a legislature’ is
it ceases to be an abstract, is passive; active and ‘legislates’.
80, too, ‘a fixture’ is .‘a thing fixed’,

EPHES.?” 17

258

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

result of ‘breaking’, ‘a fragment’. But. it is quite possible that this
result should be followed by a substantive in the genitive case, so as to
express the same relation as would be expressed if the corresponding

‘verb were followed by that substantive in the accusative case. Thus

ornamentum domus would express the same relation as ornare domum:

_ and xdAvpa ris émtxeipyoews, a8 Kwdvew THy émiyeipnow. When this is

Classi-
fication :

neutral,

passive,

andactive.

the case, the word may fairly be said to have an active sense. In Latin
we have such instances as solamen, lewamen, nutrimen, momen (=moui-
men); and many others; most of them having fuller forms, perhaps as a
rule later, in -mentum.

We may conveniently classify the Greek words of this formation in -par-
under three heads:

. (1) Where the verb is intransitive, and accordingly there is nothing
transitive about the corresponding substantive: as dyduepa, aivrypa,
dAafoveupa, GApa, dudprnpa, Bidrevpa, yéAacpa, Kadynya.

(2) Where the verb is transitive, and the substantive corresponds to
the object of the verb, and thus may rightly be said to have a passive
Sense: a8 dyyeApa, dyopacpua, ayuppa, alrnua, dkovopa, axpoapa, ‘yévynpa.

(3) Where the verb is transitive, and the substantive is no longer the
object of the verb, but the object can be expressed as a genitive following
the substantive: as dyAdiopa, dynopa, aypevpa, 26porcpa, aidpnya, dddolwpa,
dupa, duvypa, dvdoeopa, vderypa, Fdveua, piunpa, oyiova. Why should

Usage
sometimes
wavers.

Forms in
-ct- also
vary in
meaning.

The use of
wAjpopa,

not these be called active? .

It is important to notice that in distinguishing between classes (2) and
(3) usage is our only guide: there is nothing whatever in the nature of the
formation which points us in one direction rather than in another. As
a matter of fact many words oscillate between the two meanings. *AyaAya,
for example, may be the object ‘honoured’ (as dyaApara Oedv), or that
‘which gives honour’ to the object (as dyakya Sépev): Bodya may be the
food eaten’ or the canker that eats: Bdcxnua, the cattle that are fed, or
the food that feeds them: but it is seldom that both meanings are thus
retained together.

If the forms in -yar- perplex us by their apparent inconsistency, the
forms in -ov are scarcely less unsteady. They ought properly to remain
in the abstract region to which they certainly belong; but they are very
unwilling in many cases to be so limited. They choose to descend into the
concrete, and in doing so they often coincide with the corresponding forms
in -yar-. Thus in practice we find that rdgis and rdypza can both mean
‘a rank’; mpafis and mpa@yya, ‘a deed’; evdeéis and evderyya, ‘a proof’;
épdryots and éepdrnya, ‘a question’. The starting-points of the two sets
of words are different: the forms in -o1- denote the action in process; the
forms in -par-, the action in vesuit. In the first instance. always, in the
second sometimes, the primary meaning is an abstract one ; and so long as
the abstract meaning is retained the distinction between the two sets of
words is clear enough. When however the abstract gives way to the
concrete, the distinction often disappears.

We have said enough on these two formations in general to clear
the way for a consideration of the word mdrjpepya, which has suffered
hitherto from the loyalty of its expositors to a grammatical canon against

259

which it was determined to rebel. We may first examine some of the as a nau-
examples ordinarily cited. We begin with two nautical usages of the tical term ;
word. Naty mAnpotv, or wAnpotcba, is ‘to man a ship’, or ‘to get it
manned’; and the result of such action in either case is sAypopa, which
has the concrete meaning of ‘a crew’. That wAjpopa sometimes means
‘the ship’, as being ‘the thing filled’ with men, is not a strictly accurate
statement. For in the passages cited (Lucian, Ver. Hist. ii 37, 38, and
Polyb. i 49) the literal meaning is ‘crews’; though ‘to fight with two
crews’ (dmé dvo rAnpwpdrav payeorbat) is only another way of saying, ‘to
fight with two ships’. The other nautical use of wAjpepa for a ship's
‘lading’ or ‘cargo’ is again a perfectly natural use of the word when it
is concrete. To say that in these two instances wAjpopa does not mean
‘that with which the ship is filled’ is to make a statement difficult to
maintain: and it is not easy to see what is gained by maintaining it.
There is a whole class of instances in which the word mAypopa has as a ‘full
a somewhat stronger sense, viz. that of ‘the full complement’. Thus in comple-
Aristid. Or. xiv p. 353 (Dind.) we have pire adréprets ZrcoOar mijpopa évas ~O* 3
oixeiov otparevpatos mapacxér Gat, ie, enough to put it at full strength. So
mjpopa Spaxos (Kccles. iv 6) means ‘a handful’; wAjpwpa omupidos, ‘a
basketful’*. In these cases the ‘fulness’ spoken of is a ‘complement’ in
the sense of entirety: it is strictly a ‘fulness’ in exchange for ‘emptiness’.
Another shade of meaning may be illustrated by the well-known passage as ‘that

THE MEANING OF TIAHPOMA.

of Aristotle, in which he is criticising Plato’s Republic (Arist. Polit. iv 4). without
. The simplest conceivable form of a city, Socrates had said, must contain six thing a
kinds of artisans or labourers—weaver, husbandman, shoemaker, builder, incom-
smith, herdsman ; and in addition to these, to make up a city, you must plete’.
have a merchant and a retail dealer. ‘These together’—to use Aristotle’s
words—‘form the pleroma of a city in its simplest stage’: raira ravra
yiveras mANpopa Tis mpatns moAkews. If you have all these elements present,
then your extremely simple city is complete. They are its pleroma. With
them. you can have a city, without them you cannot. Nothing less than
these can make a city, gud city, complete. -

This last example is of special interest in view of St Paul’s use of Eph. i 23.
a@hjpopa in Eph. i 23, where the Church is spoken of as that without
which in a certain sense the Christ Himself is incomplete. For the
theological import of the word, however, reference must be made to the
exposition, pp. 42 ff., 87 ff, 100 f. The present note is confined to its

philological signification.

1 Comp. Mark viii 20: récwv odupl-
Swy wypdpara Kracpdrwv jpare; ‘How
many basketfuls of fragments took ye
up?’ ‘Basketfuls’ is a harsh plural;
but St Mark’s Greek is certainly not
less harsh. As to Mark vi 43, xat jjpay
KAdopara Sddexa xopivwv wypdpera,

we can but say that on no theory of
the meaning of rAnpdépara could it
ever have been tolerable to a Greek
ear, If St Mark wrote it so, the
other Evangelists were fully justified
in altering it, even though the later
copyists were not.

17—2

260

A meia-
phor from
building.

Details of
the con-
struction
of ancient
buildings.
Eleusis,
Lebadeia.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

On the word cvvapporoyerv.

The history of this word is of sufficient interest to deserve a special
note; and its investigation will incidentally throw some fresh light on
one of St Paul’s favourite metaphors.

The materials for our knowledge of the methods of construction of
large public buildings in ‘Greece have been greatly increased of late by
the publication of a series of inscriptions. The most important of these
are the contracts for the quarrying and preparing of stones for sacred
buildings at Eleusis in the fourth century 3.0. (CTA iv 1054 6 ff), and the
contracts for the construction of an immense temple of Zeus at Lebadeia
in Boeotia, a work which was never brought to completion’. The latter
are printed in CJG, GS i 3073, and also with a most instructive commentary
in E. Fabricius de architect. Graeca (1881): they appear to belong to the
second century B.C.

Specifi-
cations of
contract ;

fines; -

payment;
testing
of work.

St Paul’s
language
illustrated
hereby.

The Lebadean inscription opens with a direction to the contractor to
have the whole of the contract carved on tablets which were to be set up
in the sacred enclosure? It proceeds to state that, if the contractor be
guilty of fraudulently putting in bad work (xaxoreyvav), or of any breach
of the regulations, he shall be fined ({qpyswOjoera); and later on we find
a similar penalty attached to negligence on the part of the workmen. The-
payment is to be made by instalments, a portion being reserved until the
work has been finally passed after careful examination by the vaoroioi and.
the dpyiréxrav: Kat cuvrehéoas Sdov rd epyov, Srav Soxipac67, Kopicdcbw
rd émidéxarov TO drodepber.

We cannot fail to be reminded of St Paul’s words in 1 Cor. iii 10 ff.: és
codis dpxiréxroy Oepédtov EOnxa, GAdos S€ émorxodopet. Ekacros Sé Bre-
wéra mwas emouxodopet: Oepedtoy yap GAdov ovdeis Sdvarat Ocivar mapa rov
Keipevov, Os eat "Ingots Xpiotds: ef dé tis érorxodopet emt Tov Gepédiov
xpvalov, dpydpiov, ALBous riuious, Edda, xéprov, Kahdunv, éxdoTou Td Epyor
bavepov yevyoetat, 7 yap nuépa Syrdoe- Ste ev awupt droxadvmrerat, Kat
éxdorov To Epyov omotdy dotw To mip adrd Soxipdoet. eb Twos TO Epyov
pevet & émoxoddpnoer, pio Oday Anpyerac: ef Tivos TO Epyov KaTaKanoeTat,
(ypioadnoerat.

"1 Compare Pausan. ix 39 4 roirov small fraction of the whole building.

pev 5) dua 7d péyeOos 7 kal rGv rodkduwy
7d GdrerddAnAoy adelkacww rplepyov. -

2 Fabricius estimates that there
must have been at least 16 of these
tablets, and that they must have con-
tained altogether not less than 130,000
letters; and these dealt only with a

The payment was reckoned at the rate:
of a stater (=3 drachmas) and three
obols for the cutting of a thousand.
letters. This preliminary work was
to be done within ten days from the
first advance of money to the con-
tractor.

THE MEANING OF CYNAPMOAOTLFEIN. 261

The inscription has a further interest in connexion with this passage, Further
_ in that it records a contract for the continuation of work which has already astra
advanced to a certain stage. Stones already in position are spoken of as ae _
xeipevot kai: réAos Exovres: comp. CIG, IMA ii 11 6 viv keipevos -OepéXos: celpevov.
The Apostle has combined with his metaphor the conception of the Day
of the Lord that tests by fire (Mal. iii 1 ff), and this accounts for the
remainder of the remarkable phraseology of the passage. With the words
which follow (v. 17), et ris rév vadv Tov Beod Pbeciper, Pbepet rotrov 6 Geds, POelpev.
it may not be altogether irrelevant to compare (Zeb. 32 ff.) cai dav rwa
vyt Aiov SiapGeipy...€repov droxaracryoe Séxipov trois dios dvaddpacw,
ovbév émtkadvovra To epyov- rov be dtabbapevra ribov e€dker ex rod iepod
évros nepay mévre, K.7.d.

We may pass now to the passage which has suggested this note, Eph. ii Eph. ii 21.
21 aca oixodou7) cuvappodoyoupérn, and endeavour to find the exact sense
of the verb dpyodoyeiv. We must begin by considering certain analogous
forms which occur in the phraseology of building. .

Adoddyos is a word frequently found in company with réxrev. The Builder's
one is a fitter of stones, as the other is a joiner of wood. For AcdoAdyor terms.
xai réxroves see Thue, vi. 44, vii 43, and other references given by Bliimner A:dodéyos:
Technologie iii 5. The original meaning appears to have been ‘a chooser 2¢ first ‘a
of stones’; and that this was still felt is seen from Plato Zegg. ix 858 8, Selecter of
kabdrep 7) ABoAcyos 7} Kai Twos érépas dpxopévots cvaeTavews, Tapadopy- ,

cacbat yuony é& av ékNekopeba Ta mpochopa TH peXNovon yerijoecbar
svoracer: and x 902 H, ovde yap dvev cpixpav tovs peyddous daciv of dLOo- afterwards
Adyou Aidovs ed KeicGa. But the word obtained a technical meaning in the ‘a fitter
fitting of stone-work where every stone was cut to measure. Julius Pollux of atone-
gives Aidodéyos and AGodoyetvy as synonyms of AcGovpyds and Acdoupyeiv!: °
moreover, as an equivalent of AvOdorpwrov, he gives ArGoAoynpza, which is

found in Xenoph. Cyrop. vi 3 25..

In the earlier building, and probably always in certain classes of work, The pro-
stones were selected to fit, rather than cut according to prescribed mea- cess of
sures. But in the temple-building with which our inscriptions deal the pempie-
exact measures were defined in the contracts, and the stones had to be 6
hewn accordingly. No mortar was used, and the whole process of fitting
and laying the stones was a very elaborate one. It is fully described in the
contract for the paving of the stylobates in the Lebadean inscription.

There were two parts of the blocks (xaraorpwrijpes) which had to be Preparing
worked: the lower surface (dois) and the sides (dpyoi). In each case not the stones.
the whole of the surface was smoothed, but only a margin, the interior
part being cut in, so that there might be no projections to produce uneven-
ness when the stones were brought together. The margins were carefully
smoothed, first with a fine tool, and then by a rubbing process. The
smoothness was tested by the xavdv, a straight bar of stone (A‘Owos
kxavey) or, for the larger surfaces, of wood (EdAwos xavdv). The xavdy The xardv.
was covered with ruddle (piAros), and then passed over the surface:
wherever the surface did not take the ruddle, it was shewn to be still
uneven; and the work was continued, until the surface, when rubbed

1 Pollux vii 118 ff.: Acboupyéry, not tine us, which at this point seems
AGouvdxdy, is the reading of the Pala- to present a better text.

262 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

with the xavéy, was uniformly red. With this compare Eurip. H. /. 945
Ba@pa | doivxe xavon cal rixots tippoopéva. The names given in the in-
The ter- scriptions to the processes of polishing and of testing respectively were
mination TpizparoAoyeiy and piAroAoyetv. These terms are not found in literature:
heed wide- 20 doubt they were simply masons’ words; and it is possible that the
ly by false termination (-Aoyeiv) was due to a false analogy with the familiar A:6o-
analogy. Aeyeiv. It is clear at any rate that the original meaning of the termination
has completely disappeared in these compounds, Another word of the
same order is Wydodoyeiv, of working in mosaic: see Tobit xiii 17 ai
mAaretat “Iepovcadnp Bypvdd@ xal. avOpaxe Kai Aid ex Sovdelp Wwnypodro-
y19jcovra, If this were shewn to be an early word, we should incline
to give the termination its full meaning in the first instance, and then to
suppose the whole word transferred from the selecting of the pieces of
mosaic to their setting: but it may quite well be regarded as formed
; merely by analogy, like rpizparodoyetv and pudrodoyeiv.
Soindpyo- = It is reasonable to believe that in dozoAcyeiv we have yet another of
Aoyet”. these formations due to analogy: for the termination cannot in this case
have ever had its proper foree. If this be so, the exact technical
. meaning of dpyds ceases to be of moment for the understanding of the
Various verb. Probably dpyés meant first a ‘fitting’, then the joint or juncture
senses of where one stone was fitted to another, and then, in the sense in which
dpués- we have already had it, the side of the stone which is worked so as to
fit-with-the-corresponding-side—of—another—stone.—In-CZA_iv—-1054 fit —_

appears to be the juncture of two drums of a column: for there each
appos is to have two éumd\ca (dowel-holes) and one bronze zodos (dowel) :
so that it seems that the ¢uméAca must be one in the lower drum and
one in the upper. .Compare Hcclus. xxvii 2 dyad pécov dppadv Ridwv
Tayyoerat maowanos.
“A pHodo- ‘Appodoyeiv, then, represents the whole of the elaborate process by
ete de which stones are fitted together: the preparation of the surfaces, in-
whole cluding the cutting, rubbing and testing; the preparation of the dowels
process. and dowel-holes, and finally the fixing of the dowels with molten lead.
| The word is a rare one; but the two examples of it which are cited are
Used by both of interest!. Sextus Empiricus, speaking of the weakness of divina-
Dapiri tion from the signs of the Zodiac, says (M. v 78): ro dé mavrav xupiwraror,
ous, éxagrov tay (wodiov od auvexés éote capa, ov domep ij ppodoynpévoy
T® mpo éavrod xat ped ato ouvpmra, pydeptas perafd metovons Siacrd-
andin an gews, «.r.A. The other example is a beautiful epigram of Philip of
epigram. ‘Thegsalonica in the Anthology (Anth. Pal. vii 554), on a monument raised
to a stonemason’s boy by his own father’s hands.
Aartmos *Apyerédns *AyaGavope madi Gavevre
xEpolv cifupais ipyokoynoe tadov.
aiat mérpov éxeivor, ov ovk éxoAae aidnpos,
GAN érdkn muxivots Sdkpvct Teyyopevos.
ped* orndy POrpéry kovdhy péve, Ketvos ty clang
“Ovtws marp@n xelp emébnxe AiGor.

1 The word occurs, but perhaps not Comm. in Apocal. c. 65 atry 68 4 és
independently of St Paul, in Andreas é& dylwv dpyodoyetrat.

THE MEANING OF CYNAPMOAOTFEIN. 263

In dear remembrance of a son
A father cut and set this stone:
No chisel-mark the marble bears,
Its surface yielded to his tears.
Lie on him lightly, stone, and he
Will know his father’s masonry.

The compound cuvappodoyelv is not found apart from St Paul. He The com-
uses it both in this passage and in iv 16, where he applies it to the pound
structure of the body. Such an application was easy, a8 dpuds was also yop oy
used of the joints of the body (4 Macc. x 5, Hebr. iv 12): but the word °
was probably only chosen because it had been previously used in its
proper sense, and because the Apostle delighted i in combining the archi-
tectural and physiological metaphors, as when in the context he twice
speaks of ‘the building of the body’ (v0. 13, 16). In the parallel passage
in Colossians (ii 19) his language is different, as there has been no

employment of the metaphor of building.

264. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

i /
On ropwots and wrypwats.

Tdbpwacs In Eph. iv'18 the word sdpacts has been uniformly interpreted as
rendered ‘blindness’ in the Latin, Syriac and Armenian versions, and, with perhaps
bling: but one exception (Geneva 1557, ‘hardenes’), in the English versions, until
Eph. iv 18. the revision of 1881, in which it is rendered ‘hardening’. The word and its
cognate verb zwpody deserve a fuller investigation than they have hitherto
received. We shall consider (1) their derivation and history, (2) their use
in the New Testament, (3) their interpretation in early versions and com-
mentaries, (4) the confusion of rwpody, mapwors with anpody, mjpacts, (5) the
use of anpés and its derivates to denote ‘ blindness’.

1. Deriva- 1. Idpos (in mss frequently wépos) or Aidos wadpuvos (rdpwos) is a kind
tion and of marble, tophus. Theophrastus Lap. 7 thus describes it: mopos 6 didos,
Y* Spotos TS xpdpart xal TH muxvoryre TS apie, riv 8€ xovpdrynra povov éxwv

rov_mdpov.—Aristotle-speaks-of stalactites-as—oi-mdpot of év Trois omnAaios

IlGpos (Meteor. 4,10). In the medical writers rGpos is used for (2) a node or bony
in medical formation on the joints, (6) a callus, or ossification which serves as a mortar
‘writers. +o unite the portions of a fractured bone. But it is not used, apparently,
in the wider sense of the Latin cadium or callus, for a callosity or hardening
of the flesh: that in Greek is rvAn. Tlepoty accordingly signifies (a) to
petrify; as in a quotation from Pisis in Suidas, rds ixpddas rwpodvra xat
_ ohiyyovra MAader rpém@: (6) to cover with a callus; Diose. i 112 xdraypa
Tispoby an aapoi, tb. 86 ra dxdpara napot : in this technical sense rwpody and érure-
nense. 1a" jooy and their derivatives are common in the medical writers: otherwise
awapouv is exceedingly rare.
Also of There is a further development of meaning (c), to deaden or dull, of
bility ; which I have only been able to find one independent example outside
biblical Greek. Athenaeus (xii 549) cites a passage of Nymphis of Heraclea,
in which rwpotcéa is used to express the insensibility of the flesh by
reason of excessive fat. Dionysius the tyrant of Heraclea umd rpudijs nat
rijs ka’ yjpepav adndayias Ehabev vrepoapxyjcas. He would fall into a coma-
tose condition, and his physicians could only rouse him by pricking him
with long needles: péype pev ody tivos ind ris Terapwpems ex Tod oTéaros
GapKos ovK éverole. THY alcOnow ei dé mpos Tov Kabapdy romov 7 Bedovn
dteAOodoa COvye, Tore Sinyeipero. Aelian, V. H. ix 13, tells the same story,
paraphrasing as follows: 7» & dpa rotro émmehés érépors Spar, gor Gy dAn dud
Tis werrapoperns Kal tpdmov Twa addAorpias av’rod capKds Sueiprev 7 Beddvn,
GAN’ éxeivés ye Exerro AlOov Siapépwr ovdév. It is clear that the likeness to a
stone, which Aelian introduces to explain what was probably an unfamiliar
use of rwpotcGa, refers not in the least to the hardness of the flesh—for
the needle could pass through it— but to its deadness or insensibility.

___the_spiritual_sense_there_was_more_than_the_vail_on_Moses’_face-that-pre

ON TINPNCIC AND THPACIC. | 205

The word has thus travelled some distance from its original meaning, and of
and it was destined to go still further. The idea of insensibility could be obsoura-
transferred from organs of feeling to the organ of sight: and accordingly in sight.
the one place in which it occurs in the Greek Old Testament it is used of
the eyes: Job xvii 7 merdpavra: yap dmb dpyijs of épOadpol pov. We render
the Hebrew at this point, ‘Mine eye is dim by reason of sorrow’, The
verb 7113 is used of the eyes in Gen. xxvii 1 (of Jacob), where the Lxx has
npBrvvOncav: Deut. xxxiv 7 (of Moses), uxx yuavpdéyoay: Zech. xi 17,

LXX éxruprwbycera. The other Greek translators of Job used jyavpa-

énoav instead of wexdporra. The word had thus come to be practically

equivalent to memjpwrra, ‘are blinded’, which is found as a variant

in N°* A,

_ Thus we see that w#peors, losing its first sense of petrifaction or hard- Change of
ness, comes to denote the result of petrifaction as metaphorically applied to meaning.

the organs of feeling, that is, insensibility, and more especially in reference

to the organs of sight, obscuration or blindness.

2. Tlwpotv and répects occur eight times in the New Testament: four 2- In the
times in St Paul, three times in St Mark, and once in St John. New test
(x) 2 Cor. iii 14 GAN érr@pody ra vonpara avrav. St Paul.
‘Moses put a vail on his face, that the children of Israel might not gaze » ree iii

(drevicat) on (or unto) the end of that which was being done away’. But in 14.

vented their seeing—érapadbn ra vojpara airoy. ‘For unto this day the
same vail at the reading of the Old Testament remains, not being lifted (or -
unvailed)—for i in Christ it is done away—but to this day whenever Moses
is read a vail lieth upon their heart . . . But all of us with unvailed face
etc... . But if our gospel is vailed, it is in them that are lost that it is
vailed, in whom the god of this world eriphagcey Ta vonuata Tay dict,
els rd py avydoat Tov pwrtiopoy Tod evayyediou’.

The context has to do with seeing and not seeing. Not seeing is not
really due to the vailing of the object: it is the fault of the minds which
should be able to see: if vailing there still be, it is a vail upon the heart.
The minds of the Israelites érapd6y: the minds of unbelievers the god of
this world éripAwoer. Accordingly intellectual obtuseness or blindness is
the sense which is most appropriate to this context. Indeed to speak of a
mind or understanding as being ‘hardened’ appears to be an unparalleled
use of words.

(2, 3) Rom. xi 7, 25 & émifyret “Iopand, rodro ovK éméruxev: 9 dé exAoy? Rom. xi
eméruxyev of S€ Aowrol érwpadnoay ... mdpwors did pépovs tH “lopayd 7) 25:
yéyovep.

The context speaks of the failure of a portion of Israel. Some, ‘the
election’, attained what they sought: the rest érwpdéOncav: ‘as it is
written, God gave them a spirit of deep sleep (xaraviéews); eyes that
they should not see, and ears that they should not hear’. This is
followed by a quotation from Ps. lxviii [lxix], in which occur the words,

1 Jerome’s translation of the Hexa- Hebrew he gives caligauit ab indigna-
plar text has here obscurati sunt ab tione oculus meus.
tra oculi mei: in rendering from the

266

Eph. iv 18.

St Mark.
Mark iii 5.

Mark vi
Bde

Mark viii
17.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

‘Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see’. It is here to be noted
that the one thought which is common to the two passages used to illustrate
the rwpwors is the ‘eyes that see not’. Thus again the meaning is, ‘they
were rendered obtuse or intellectually blind’: and ‘they were blinded’ is
a more appropriate translation than ‘they were hardened’. In 2. 25 the
context throws no light on the meaning. The wdpwors éx pépovs reproduces
the thought of 2. 7: part of Israel suffers from it: ‘the election’ is again
referred to in 2. 28.
(4) Eph. iv 18 da rv wdpwow ris kapdias adrdv.

The Geniiles are described as ‘darkened in their understanding (écxo-
ropévo. tH Savoia), being aliens from the life of God because of the
ignorance that is in them by reason of the zapwors of their heart’, oirwes
anndynkdres éavrovs mapédaxay ti doedyeia «.7.A. The whole thought of
the passage is parallel with that of Rom. i 21 ff, and there are several
coincidences of language. The ‘darkening of the understanding’ and the
‘raépwors of the heart’ may be compared with the words éoxoricOn 7
dovveros avtéy xapdia. Here the deadness or insensibility of the heart
stands between the darkening of the understanding and the loss of feeling
or moral sense which produces despair or recklessness. Moral blindness,
not contumacy, is meant. ‘Hardness’ might perhaps be allowed as a
rendering, if we could secure that it should not be misunderstood in the
sense of oxAnpoxapdia, ‘stubbornness’. ‘Hardening’ is a specially mis-
leading translation—it—is—not—the—process, but the result, which is in
question—intellectual obtuseness, not the steeling of the will.

(5) Mark iii 5 wvvAurodpevos emt ri rapdoet Tis Kapdias aitay,

Before healing the man with the withered hand, our Lord. asks, ‘Is it
lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do evil?? When the Pharisees
were silent, ‘He looked round on them with anger, being grieved at the
maépwors of their heart’. The context is not decisive as between the mean-
ings moral obtuseness or blindness and wilful hardness. Nor do the
synoptic parallels help us: Luke (vi 10) simply drops the clause; Mait.
(xii 10) drops rather more, and inserts new matter. _

(6) Mark vi 52 a@AX’ jv 7 Kapdia avraéy rerapapéry.

When our Lord had come to the disciples walking on the water, ‘they
were exceedingly amazed in themselves; for they.understood not concern-
ing (or in the matter of) the loaves; but their heart was memrwpopéyn’.
Here the interpretation ‘hardened’ seems needlessly severe: the point is
that they could not understand. Luke omits the incident: Matt. (xiv 33)
substitutes ‘And they that were in the boat worshipped him saying, Truly
thou art the Son of God’.

(7) Mark viii 17 meropopény exere tiv kapdiav tpor;

When the disciples had forgotten to take bread and misunderstood our
Lord’s reference to the leaven, Jesus said, ‘Why reason ye because ye have
no bread? Do ye not yet perceive nor understand? Have ye your heart
renopoyémy? Having eyes see ye not, and having ears hear ye not? and
do ye not remember .. .?? Here the close connexion with ‘the unseeing

_ eye’ favours the interpretation ‘moral blindness’. Indeed ‘hardness’

suggests a wilful obstinacy, which could scarcely be in place either here or
in vi 52. Luke has not the incident: Matt. (xvi 9) drops the clause.

ON TIOPACIC AND THPOACIC. | 267

(8) John xii 40 rerdpdoxev adradv rods dpOarpods kal émdpocey adréy St John.
ri xapdiav, John xii
‘For this cause they could not believe, because that Esaias saith again ;
He hath blinded their eyes, and éx#pwce their heart, that they may not
see with their eyes and perceive (vojowory) with their heart’, etc. This is
a loose citation of Isa. vi 10, according neither with the Lxx nor with the
Hebrew. Lxx émayivbn yap 4 xapdia tov Aaov rovrov, Kai Tois Goly adray
Bapéws feovoar, kal rods dbarpods exdppueay, py wore wow Tois 6pOadpots
kai Tois daly dxovcwow xai rh Kapdia cvvdow «rd. Heb. ‘Make the heart
of this people fat’, etc. (}OY').
We must note the parallels:

, e. XS oF
retrupAwxey . .. va pn Woow

, @ A} ,
éemapocey .. . wa pi) vontecty

Hwpody here denotes the obscuration of the intellect as rupActy denotes
the obscuration of the sight. If érapecev is intended in any way to repro-
duce the verb ‘to make fat’, then ‘dulness’ or ‘deadness’ rather than
‘hardness’ is the idea which would be suggested, and we have a close
parallel with the passage quoted above from Nymphis ap. Athenaeum.

The above examination of the contexts in which mépwors is spoken of Contexts
appears to shew that obtuseness, or a dulling of the faculty of perception suggest
equivalent to moral blindness, always gives an appropriate sense. On the | °Ptuse-

3
___other_hand_the_context_never_decisively_favours_the_meaning ‘hardness’, moral .

and this meaning seems sometimes quite out of place. blindness.
3. We pass on to consider the meaning assigned by early translators 3. Versions
and commentators. and com-
(x) 2 Cor. iii. 14. ae
Latin, sed obtust sunt sensus corwm. (@) an

Syriac (pesh.), . agus mas olamdhe ‘they were blinded in their
minds’! (the same verb renders érvg@Aaceyr in iv 4).
Armenian ?, ‘but their minds were blinded’ (ef. iv 4).
So too Ephr., adding ‘and they were not able to look upon the mysteries
which were in their law’.
(z) Rom. xi 7.
Latin, excaecati sunt.
Syriac (pesh.), atamthe< ‘were blinded’.
Armenian, ‘were blinded’. So Ephr. ‘with blindness they were blinded
for a time’, etc.
(3) Rom. xi 25.
Latin, obtusto Ambrst. Hilar.
caecitas clar vg Ambr. Aug.
Syriac (pesh.), -=a\ towax ‘blindness of heart’.
Armenian, ‘blindness’.

1 According to another reading Syriac (see Euthaliana, Texts and
(ed. Lee) ‘their m nds were blinded’ Studies, iii 3 72—98). For the same
( oT isn), reason I refer to Ephraim’s Commen-

2 I quote the Armenian version be- tary, written in Syriac, but preserved
cause it often afford evidence of Old to us only in Armenian,

268

The mean-
ing of
‘obtusus’.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

(4) Hph. iv 18.
Latin, caectias.
Syriac (pesh.), om=\ hotnax. ‘blindness of their heart’,
Armenian, ‘ blindness’ (‘of their heart’).
Ephr., ‘blindness’ (‘of their minds’).
(5) Mark iii 5.
Latin, caeciias ab ef q vg.
emortua ... corda c (da) ffir.
Syriac (sin.), ._a: hadusn ‘deadness of their heart’.
(pesh, hier.), ~om=a\ hassr ‘hardness of their heart’.
Armenian, ‘ blindness’.
(6) Mark vi 52.
Latin, obcaecatum f vg.
obtusum abe dir (ff contusum).
Syriac (sin.), team. ‘blind’.
(pesh.), »>>~ = (used for érayivéy Matt. xiii 15, Acts xxviii 27)
‘fattened’, and so ‘stupid’.
Armenian, ‘ stupefied * as with in deep sleep.
(7) Mark viii 17.
Latin, caecatum f vg.
obtusum (-alabed Fi.

Syriac-(sin.), Sass blinded

(pesh.), ws ‘hard’,
Armenian, ‘ stupefied’ as with amazement,
(8) John xii 4o.
Latin, indurautt a b e ff q vg.
D rerugdwxev avrov tTyv kapdtay \ omitting the inter-
d excaecauit eorum cor vening words.
| hebetauit Vig. Taps. ;
Syriac (pesh.), aXsu~wt ‘they have darkened’ (=cxorig¢o elsewhere).
(sin cu defective.)
Armenian, ‘ atupefied’ as with amazement.

In the great majority of cases the Latin interpretation is either caecttas
or obtusio. On the second of these words something needs to be said.
Obtundere means to beat and so to blunt.(e.g. the edge of a sword). Then
it is applied metaphorically: ‘aciem oculorum obtundit’ Plin.; ‘obtundit
auditum’ Plin.; ‘multa quae acuant mentem, multa quae obtundant’ Cic:;
‘obtundat eneruetque aegritudinem’ Cic. Obtwsus is similarly used:
‘mihi autem non modo ad sapientiam caeci uidemur, sed ad ea ipsa, quae
aliqua ex parte cerni uideantur, hebetes et obtusi’ Cic.; so often of sight:
and also of hearing, ‘obtusae aures’: and of the mind, ‘sensus oculorum
atque aurium hebetes, uigor animi obtusus’. So again the adverb: ‘croco-
dili in aqua obtusius uident, in terra acutissime’ Solin, Ambrosiaster’s
comment on 2 Cor. iii 14 well illustrates the force of obtust: ‘quae obtusio
infidelitatis causa obuenit: ideo conuersis ad fidem acuitur acies mentis, ut
uideant diuini luminis splendorem’. Obtusus is the opposite of acutus.
There is no idea of ‘hardness’ in the word. Obtusio therefore was admir-

ON TIOMPACIC AND THPACIC. 269
ably adapted to express the sense of moral obtuseness or blindness con-
veyed by mapacis.

The remarkable rendering emortua corda in some Old Latin mss of Excep-
Mark iii 5 corresponds to the variant vexpdoe. which appears only in Codex tional ren-
Bezae!, This variant has received unexpected support through the dis- derings:
covery of the Sinaitic Syriac. ness’s

In one passage only (John xii 40) does the Latin render by indurauit. ‘hardness’.
Here it is to be noted that excaecauit could not be used, as it had occurred
just before to render rervpAwxev.’ There appears to be no manuscript
authority for the rendering of Vigilius, hebetawit (de trin. xii, p. 318)%

The Peshito Syriac always interprets in the sense of ‘blindness’ in Syriac
St Paul: in St Mark it has ‘hardness’ twice, and ‘fatness’? once: in Tender-
St John it has ‘darkness’, The Sinaitic Syriac has ‘blindness’ twice in
St Mark, and ‘deadness’ once, where however it is rendering véxpwors. In
St John its reading is not preserved. The Curetonian Syriac fails us at all
these points, as also does the Armenian version of Ephraim’s Commentary
on the Diatessaron’,

Origen. Jn Matth. t. xi. c. 14 (Ru, iii 498), after having twice used (6) Com-
érvpdocey in reference to 2 Cor. iv 4, he speaks of those who are ‘not the Dontators:
planting of God, ddd toi mwpdcarros atrav Thy Kapdiay Kal KdAvppa sen
émOévros avrn’.

In Matth-t- xvi ce. 3 (Ru. iit 711), rapabvevres tiv Sidvoiay Kat Tupio-
Gévres rov Noyiopov ovK eBderov To BovAnpa Tay ayiov ypapparoy,

In Joann. fragm. (Brooke ii 297 f.), dvabéperOar emi rov mommpdv .. .
Tuprdaarta twav rods opOadpors Kal mnpdcavra [lege mope@cavra] avray Thy
kapdiav . . . dddos ody 6 rupAdy Tors obOadpors kal rapav Tas Kapdias, kat
Gros 6 idpevos x7.r. Ibid. p. 301, ris Seororixjs Kal owrnpiov SdacKadias
9) dotpann Tupdods kal wem@papévous éeoryndirevoe Tous "lovdaious.

These are the only relevant passages which I have been able to find in
the Greek of Origen. They all suggest that he took zwpoty in the sense of
the destruction of moral or intellectual sight.

In Ep. ad Rom. |. viii c. 8 (Ru. iv 631), ‘sed excaecati sunt spiritu
compunctionis’ (=dAX’ érwapdénoay mvevpare katavigews).

Ibid. ‘et hic enim oculos et aures cordis, non corporis, dicit, quibus —
excaecati sunt et non audiunt’.

Ibid. c. 12 (Ru. iv 639), ‘pro his qui caecitate decepti, id est, cordis
obtusione [=zepdce:] prolapsi sunt... cum uero... coepisset Israel

1 It is to be noted that in Tischen-
dorf’s note ‘D’ is omitted per incuriam
after ‘vexpwoe’. It would seem to be
due to this that in Wordsworth and
. White’s Vulgate vexpioe is said to be
found in no Greek us.

2 On this Book see below pp. 291, 303.

3 In regard to the Coptic I owe tomy
brother Forbes Robinson the following
information. The root used in all
cases is oom (Sah. tom), ‘to shut’:

ef. Matt. xxii 12, where 6 5é épipchdy
is rendered, ‘but he, his mouth was
shut’. It is found also in Eph, ii 14
for gpayuds. It renders rupdoiy in
2 Cor. iv 4, 1 John ii 11, and in John xii
40 ‘He hath shut (ews) their eyes
and He hath shut (ow) their heart’.
A longer form, derived from the same
root, is used in both dialects of shutting
a door: but the simple form is not so
used in the New Testament,

270

Chryso-

stom.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

discutere a semetipso caecitatem cordis, et eleuatis oculis suis Christum
uerum lumen aspicere’, etc.

In Gen. hom. vii 6 (Ru. ii 80), commenting on Gen. xxi 19, ‘God
opened her eyes’, he quotes Rom. xi 25 and says, ‘ista est ergo caccitas
[=adpwcrs] in Agar, quae secundum carnem genuit: quae tamdiu in ea
permanet, donec uelamen literae auferatur per euangelium dei et uidéat
aquam uiuam. nune enim iacent Iudaei circa ipsum puteum, sed oculi
eorum clausi sunt... aperti ergo sunt oculi nostri, et de litera legis
uelamen ablatum est’. .

In Levit. hom. i 1 (Ru. ii 185), after quoting 2 Cor. iii 16, he says,
‘ipse igitur nobis dominus, ipse sanctus spiritus deprecandus est, ut omnem
nebulam omnemque caliginem, quae peccatorum sordibus concrete uisum
nostri cordis obscurat, auferre dignetur’, etc.

In all these passages it would seem that not only the translator, but
also Origen himself, interpreted axdpwors in the sense of ‘blindness’. I can
find but one passage that looks in another direction; but it does not
disprove our view of his ordinary use of the word.

In Exod. hom. vi 9 (Ru. ii 149 f.), commenting on Ex. xv. 16 droAsdw-
Oirwcay, ws Gy mapédOy 6 rads cov, he says (quoting Rom. xi 25): ‘caecitas
[=a#poois] enim ex parte contigit in Israel secundum carnem, donec
plenitudo gentium subintrotret: cum enim plenitudo gentium subintra-
uerit, tunc etiam omnis Israel, qui per incredulitatis duritiam factus fuerat
sicutlapis;saluabitur’.

This comment shows that Origen recognised the derivation of mépecis
from mépos, a kind of stone, and that upon occasion he was prepared to
play upon it; but it does not prove that he would ordinarily have taken it
to mean ‘ hardness ,

Chrysostom. Cramer catena in Jo. xii 40 ody 6 beds éxdpacey adrav
thy xapdiay . .. tous de Svotpémous ruphabérras ind tod SiaBodov.

Hom. vii in 2 Cor. (ed. Ben. x 483 f.) 4 yap mépoots yoopns éotiv
dvaicOynrov Kai dyvdpovos .. . met kal ev rH det Maiiogws ov dia Maida
dxetro [sc. 7d kaAvppa] GANG Ota thy rovtev maxvrnra Kal capKiKpy yropny.

Hom. xiii in E:phes. (xi 96) dé rotrov 7 mapoots, a7ré Tovrou 7 oKOTOUNYN
Tis dcavolas. gore yap pards Aduyyavros éoxoricdas, & Grav oi dpbarpot acGeveis
dow: dobeveis dé yivovrat j xupdy émreppoj} mompav ip fevparos wAnppopa.
ovre O17) Kai evraiéa, 6 érav 7 wonky p pipy Tov Brorixdy mpaypdroy To StopareKéy
HpOv emuhion Tis Scavoias, éy oKoTaces yiverat, Kat xabdarep év Bdart xara
BaGous keimevot Tov Atop ovK dy Sumpeinuer 6 pay, domep Twos Siappayparos
rod moddov dvodey émxeysévov Vdaros* ota Oy Kat év trois o@Oadpois tijs
duavolas yiverat wdpwots Kapoias, trouréorw dvatcOnoia, Srav pydets Thy Yuxiy
karagety poBos ... mdpwors S€ oddaydbev yiverat GAN’ 9 ad dvaicGycias:
TOvTO dtapparret Tous mépous: bray yap pedpa tmemnyos eis Eva cuvaynrat Torov,
vexpov vyiverat TO pédAos Kat dvaicOnray.

Here he is trying to get at the meaning of a word which puzzles him.
He fancies that it is derived from mdpos, and denotes an obstruction of
the pores, producing insensibility. We shall see in a moment that the
word was often written dpwors : indeed in Cramer’s Catena, which quotes
an earlier part of Chrysostom’s comment at this place, it is so spelt.

ON TTOPACIC AND TTHPNCIC. 271
On the other hand it is to be noted that in commenting on Heb. iii 12
he says (xii 63 0): dio yap oxAnpérnros 4 dmioria yiverat: kat xaOamep Ta
reTapapéva TOY TwpATeY Kal oKANPA ovK Elker Tals TOY iatpar yepoly, obTw
kal ai yuyai ai oxAnpurOcioas ovk cikov rH Aéye rod Geod.
Among later Greek commentators we find occasional references to Later
oxAnpoxapdia in connexion with the passages in which mdpwors is men- CoMmMen-

tioned : but the interpretation ‘insensibility’ or ‘moral blindness’ is gene- tators.
rally maintained.

4. Instead of rapoiv and mépwos we have the variants. mypody and 4- Con-

anjpoors in the following uss?: fusion in
Mark iii 5. 17.20. MSE
viii17. D (xemgpopern sic).
John xii 4o. N I p**** (Did. de trin.i 19) [0 had at first emmparnoer]”.
63.122.259 (these three have zemjpaxer).
Rom. xi7. 66**,

This confusion may be taken as corroborative evidence of the fact which
we have already learned from the versions, that mépworts was very com-
monly regarded as equivalent to ‘blindness’, a meaning at which mjpoors
also had arrived from a very different starting-point?,

5. IInpds and semnpwpévos signify ‘maimed’ or ‘defective’ in some 5- pds,

——member of the body, eye or ear, hand or foot. Frequently the member proper'y
is defined, as in the epigram, Anthol. Palat. ix 11 1 anpos 6 péy yviots, 6 8° maimed’:

Gp dppace.
But wnypds and its derivatives, when used absolutely in the later Greek but used

literature, very frequently denote ‘blindness’. This was fully recognised argo | for

by the old lexicographers (e.g. Suidas wnpés+ 6 wavrdrace pi} dpév), but it

1 Forms in wop- or vopp- are also
found : Mark iii 5 in P hbeteer; vi 52 in
XT al; viiliryinT; Rom. xi 25 in L
al pauc; Eph. iv 18 in P 17 Cramer®*,
So too in Job xvii 7 (referred to above),
while NA have semyjpwrrat, some
cursives have serépwrrat.

2 In connexion with cod. & it should
be noted that the Shepherd of Hermas
has two allusions to these Gospel
passages, Mand. iv 2 1, xii 4 4; in the
former of these 8 reads wernpwrat for
aemwpwrat, at the latter it is not ex-
tant. [Of the Latin versions of the
Shepherd the Vulgata or Old Latin
has obturatum est, the Palatine excae-
catum est, in Mand, iv 21; in Mand.
xii 4 4 the Vulgata has obtusum est,
while the Palatine is defective.]

T insert at this point two curiosities:
(x) in Acts v 3 &* reads d:arl éarjpwoer
4 caravas ri xapdlay cov; and there

may be some connexion between this
variant and the more widespread one
érelpacev, tentauit: (2) at John xvi 6
(4 Avery wemdijpwKev buiy THY Kapolav)
Tischendorf notes: ‘go memrwpwxev
(obduravit, ut xii 40)’. I owe to Dr
Skeat the following information: the
Gothic in both places has gadaubida,
‘hath deafened’ (Goth. daub-s=Eng.
‘deaf’); in Mark iii 5, viii 17 (vi 52
vacat) the same root is used: ‘the
root-sense of “deaf” seems to be
‘stopped up ”—well expressed i in Eng.
by dumb or dummy, and in Gk by
rugdés, which is radically the same
word as deaf and dumb’.

3 The two words are brought to-
gether in the comment of Euthymius
Zigabenus on Eph, iv 18 mwwpwoes dé
xal dvawOnola xapdlas 4 mypwots Tod
Stoparixod Ths Wuxys, 6 wypot emtppon
mwabay Kal mriupupa 7dorav.

272

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

appears to have somewhat fallen out of sight in recent times, It may be
well therefore to give some passages by way of establishing this usage.

Plutarch Timol. 37 #3n mpecBirepos dy darn Brdvon tiv Byuw, elra redos
é€mnpd6n per’ ddLyor (and, lower down, mypacis and WeMmnpwevos).

Id. Isis 55 A€youcry bre rod "Qpov viv pev endrage viv & éSehay xarémev
6 Tuddy rév dpOarpdr, efra t@ trio mddw drédaxe, mAnyyy pev aimrropevor
THY Kara pijva pelwow Ths cedivys, mypoaw bé rv exAewyruy, KA,

Philo de somniis i 5 od mavrdwacw duBdeis kat mypod yeyovapeyv, adr”
exouey eimrety Ort K.TA.

Lucian de domo 28, 29 “Hiwos ... iérat rv mipwow of Orion who is
blind. |

Justin Martyr Tryph. 12 @ yip ra dra pay wéppaxtat, of ddGadpot
Upay memjpevrai, cal memdyurat 4 kapdia.

Ibid, 33 ra 8é dra duay wéppaxrat kai ai xapdiae wemjpovrat [in marg,
codicis werapevrat}

Id. Apol, i 22 xodods kai mapadutixods kai ék yeverfs taovnpodst dvyteis
Temrounkevat avToy Kat vexpods dveyeipar. Here we must obviously read anpevs
with the older editors. Compare Zryph. 69 rots ék yeverfjs kal kara rh
gdpxa wnpovs, where the context requires the meaning ‘blind’. So too we
have in the Clementine Homilies xix 22 mepi rod éx yeverfjs mypod xab
dvaBhevapévov, and in Apost. Const. v 7, 17 (Lagarde 137, 11) TO ék
yeveriis mmpo. The expression comes ultimately from John ix 1 ruddy ex

This
meaning

yeverijs.

The ancient homily, called the Second Epistle of Clement, c. 1, offers
an example of the same confusion between mnpos and movnpés. Tnpod dvres
7H Siavoig is the reading of cod. A, and is supported by the Syriac rendering _
‘blind’: but cod. C has wovnpoi. Lightfoot renders, ‘maimed in our
understanding’, and cites Arist. Hth. Nic. i 10 rois pi) memnpapévars pds
dperjv (where, however, semnpopévos may quite well mean ‘blinded’), and
Ptolemaeus ad Flor, (in Epiphan. Haer. xxxiii 3, p. 217) pi) pdvov rd ris
hoxijs Supa ddA kal rd ToD odparos mernpopévav. The context, however,
in the Homily appears decisive in favour of ‘blinded’: for the next
sentence proceeds: duavpwow otv mepixeipevor kat rovabrys dxdvos yénovres
év 1H Opdcet, dveSdéyaper xr.A. Compare Acts of SS. Nereus and
Achilles (Wirth, Leipsic, 1890) ¢. 21 mypos dv 8a mpooevyis ris Aope-
tiddas avéBreev,

Clem. Alex. Protrept. c. 10 § 124 duparav pév ody 7 mipwors Kal ris dxofs
4 Kdpacts.

Celsus ap. Orig. c. Cels. iii 77 alriicOat rots of Brénxovras ds wemnpo-
pévous.

Id. ibid. Vi 66 kohdfeo Oar rip dy nai BrdrrecOar kai vouilew mnpodc bat.

Euseb. £7. Z. ix 8 1 xara rév dpbarpar dtaepdvras én mreiorov ytvdpevoy
(ri védonpa) pupious Scovs dybpas dua yuvargt kai maucl aypods dretpydtero :
ibid. ix 10 15 mypov avroy adinow.

Chrys. Hom. vi in Eph. (on Eph. iii 2: of St Paul’s conversion) xat ré

a ~ > a m~ 3 ,
mpaaoa TO hori exeivo tp droppyre.

Certain words or special usages of words are sometimes found in the
early literature of a language, and more particularly in its poetry, and are

ON TTOPOCIC. AND TTHPNCIC. 273

then. lost sight of only to reappear in its latest literature :. meanwhile they as old as
have lived on in the talk of the people. Iinpés would seem to have a history Homer.
of this kind. For in Homer JJ. ii 599 we read of Thamyris, the minstrel
who challenged the Muses:
ai d€ yokwodpevat mnpov Gécav, avrap downy
Georecinv acbédovro Kal éxréAabov xiOaptoriv.
The simplest interpretation is that they made him blind, and further
punished him by taking away the blind man’s supreme solace. Aristarchus
says that aypés does not mean ‘blind’ here; but his reason is not con-
vincing : ‘because’, he says, ‘Demodocus was blind and yet sang very
well’, This shows at any rate that Aristarchus knew that mypds could
mean ‘blind’: and indeed Euripides (quoted by Dr Leaf tn loc.) so
took it.

We find then the following significations of rdépecis!: Summary.
(1) turning into sépos:
(2) more generally, the process of petrifaction:
(3) @ concomitant of petrifaction, insensibility :
(4) with no reference to hardness at all, insensibility of flesh (due to
excessive fat):
(5) again with no reference to hardness, insensibility of the organs of
sight, and so obscuration of the eyes.

At-this-point-the-word-has-practically-reached-the-same-meaning as had.

been reached from quite another starting-point by rjpecis. The two words
are confounded in Mss, and perhaps were not always distinguished by
authors at a, still earlier period. .

In the New Testament obtuseness or intellectual blindness is the
meaning indicated by the context; and this meaning is as a rule assigned
by the ancient translators and commentators,

There seems to be no word in biblical English which quite corresponds Difficulty
to wépwors. The A.V. gives ‘hardness’ in the Gospels, and ‘blindness’ in of render-
the Epistles. ‘Hardness’ has the advantage of recalling the primary ne wats in
signification of the word. But this advantage is outweighed by the intro- English:
duction of a confusion with a wholly different series of words, viz. cxAnpv-
yew, okAnporns, oxAnpoxapdia. These words convey the idea of stiffness,
stubbornness, unyieldingness, obduracy; whereas mdépeois is numbness,
dullness or deadness of faculty. In oxAnpoxapdia the heart is regarded
as the seat of the will: in mépwots ris capdias it is regarded.as the seat
of the intellect. We feel the difference at once if we contrast the passages
in which the heart of the disciples is said to be merwpwpévy (Mark vi
52, viii 17) with the words in [Mark] xvi 14, dveidioey rv dmoriay airay
kat oxAnpoxapdiay, Ore tots Oeacapévois avtov eynyeppévoy ex vexpav ovK
ériorevoay—a stubborn refusal to accept the evidence of eye-witnesses*.

So in Rom. ii 5 obstinacy is denoted by oxAnpérns: xard dé ri oxdnpd-

1 I omit from this summary the mwpwyévy, on the other hand, is nearer
technical usages of the medical writers to that of dvéyro xat Bpadeis rp xapdlg
referred to above. Tod mirredew x.7.d. in Luke xxiv 25.

2 The idea conveyed by xapila ze-

EPHES.’ , 18

274° EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

TyTad cov Kal dperapydnroy Kapdiay byoavpifes ceavrS dpyqvs compare Acts
xix 9 ds dé ries éoxAnpivovro Kat Hre{Oouv',

If ‘hardness’ does not always suggest to an English ear unbendingness
or obstinacy, its other meaning of unfeelingness or cruelty (for we com-
monly regard the heart as the seat of the emotions?) is equally removed
from the sense of rdpacis.

‘hardness’ § For these reasons ‘hardness’ cannot, I think, be regarded as other than
is mis- 4 misleading rendering of rdépwors: and ‘hardening’ (R.V.) is open to the
leading: farther objection that it lays a quite unnecessary stress on the process,
whereas the result is really in question. .
‘ blind- ‘Blindness of heart’ comes nearer to the meaning than ‘hardness of
ness’ gives heart’; and ‘their minds were blinded’ is far more intelligible in its
the sense, context than ‘their minds were hardened’, The objection to it is that
but varies it introduces an alien metaphor. ‘Deadness’, however, is open to a like
the meta- objection; and ‘dullness’ is too weak. ‘Numbness’ and ‘benumbed’ are
phor. not for us biblical words, nor would they quite suit some of the contexts,
but they might be useful marginal alternatives. On the whole, therefore,
it would seem best to adopt ‘blindness’ and ‘blinded’ as being the least
misleading renderings : and in John xii 40 to say, ‘He hath blinded their
eyes and darkened their hearts’,
Ancient The length of this discussion may perhaps be justified by a reference
pnterpre- to the unproved statements which are found in Grimm’s Lexicon (ed.
tations Thayer), such as ‘mwpéw....._(mépos,-hard_skin,-a-hardening; induration) —
be lightly 70 cover with a thick skin, to harden by covering with a callus’, ‘md-
: rejected. ‘“pwars rijs xapdias [hardening of heart], of stubbornness, obduracy’. The
note in Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 314, is more careful, but yet
contains the explanation that ‘a covering has grown over the heart’, and
throws doubt on the usage of maypds to which I have called attention
(‘perhaps occasionally used of blindness’). My object has been to in-
vestigate a very rare word, the ancient interpretation of which appears to
me to have been too lightly thrown aside.

1 Jt is interesting fo note in our to mwpwors ris Kapdlas.

Litany the petitions for deliverance 2 Compare Burns’s lines in his
(x) ‘from all blindness of heart’, ‘Epistle to a Young Friend’:

(2) ‘from hardness of heart, and con- I waive the quantum of the sin,
tempt of thy word and command- “The hazard of concealin’:
ment’; the latter is shewn by the But och, it hardens a’ within,
context to represent oxAypoxapéla, And peitrifies the feelin’.

while the former doubtless corresponds

EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 275

On some current epistolary phrases,

During the last ten years immense accessions have been made to our Recent _
knowledge of the life and language of the Greek-speaking inhabitants of discoveries
Egypt in the centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian Papyr.
era. The publication of the Berlin series of papyri began in 1895 and has
been steadily continued ever since’. Simultaneously scholars in our own
country and elsewhere have been busy in discovery and transcription, No Private
part of this rich material has a greater human interest than the private CO™™espon-
letters which passed between master and servant, parent and child, friend
and friend, in those far off days. The dry soil of Egypt has preserved them |
from the fate which everywhere else overtakes correspondence intended to
serve but a momentary purpose and wholly destitute of literary merit. To important
the historian who desires to give a picture of the life of a people these to the

simple documents are of unparalleled interest. To the palaeographer they thovalae.

offer specimens of handwriting, often precisely dated and generally assign- grapher,
able with certainty to a limited period, which bid fair to effect a revolution

in his study. To the student of the New Testament they open a new store- and the
house of illustrative material: they shew him to what an extent the writers biblical
of ‘the Epistles’ stood half-way between the literary and non-literary styles orang.
of their day; and, together with the mass of similar documents—leases,
receipts, wills, petitions, and so forth—which the great papyrus-finds have

placed at our disposal, they form an unexpected and most welcome source

from which he may draw illustrations of the biblical vocabulary’.
I have ealled attention in the exposition (pp. 37 f.) to a phrase which The illus-
frequently occurs in St Paul’s letters and which receives illustration from tation of
this epistolary correspondence; and, although the Epistle to the Ephesians phrases
from its exceptionally impersonal character offers few points of contact from
with the documents in question, I take this opportunity to draw together papyrus
some interesting phrases which they offer to us, in the hope that other letters.
workers may be induced to labour more systematically in a new and

fruitful field.

1 Aegyptische Urkunden aus den
kéniglichen Museen zu Berlin, Grie-
chische Urkunden (three volumes) :
transcribed by Wilcken, Krebs, Viereck,
etc. These are cited below as B.P. (=
Berlin Papyri). The other collections
principally drawn upon are: Greek
Papyri chiefly Ptolemaic, edited by
B. P. Grenfell (1896) ; The Oxyrhynchus
Papyri (two volumes), edited by B. P.

Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (1898-9);
Faytim towns and their Papyri, edited
by Grenfell, Hunt and D. G. Hogarth
(1900).

2 Professor G. Adolf Deissmann led
the way in his Bibelstudien (1895) and
Neue Bibelstudien (1897): but new
material is being rapidly added to the
stores upon which he drew.

18—2

276
Typical

letters.

1. Apion
to Hpi-
machus.

A well
educated
writer.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

I shall begin by giving one or two specimens of letters, 2 more or less’
complete ; and I shall then confine my attention to particular phrases.

*Ariov "Emidy@ TQ arp kat xvpig mrelora yaipew.

IIpo pev advrav exopal ce vyaivew xat dia mavros épwpévoy edruyeiy
pera Ths ddeAgis jou Kal tis Ovyatpos avrijs kat rod ddeAod pov. evyapioTa
T® kupio Sepdmds drt pov xuvdvvevoarros eis Oddaccay eowoe. evOéws are
elo Ooy eis Mnojvous, €AaBa Bidrixoy mapa Kaicapos xpucois rpeis, kal -Kadas
poi €or. épwrd oe ovr, KUpté pou mrarnp, ypaor por emtoroALoy, TPGTOV pev
mept tis owrnpias cov, Sevrepoy mepl ris ray ddeA@ay pov, Tpirov iva cov
mpookuvyce Tiy xépav, Sr pe ewaidevoas Kadas, kal ék rovTov édmilo taxd
mpoxowpat Trav Oedy Gehovrav. domacat Karireva moAAd kat rots ddeAHovs pov

kat Zepyvidday kal rovs didous pou. emepuipd vor rd dOdviy pov did Evxrjpovos.
éore O€ pou dvoua *Avravis Md£ipos. éppdcbai oe edxopar,
Kevrupia *Aénvovixn.

There is a postscript written sideways to the left: *Aowdteral oe Sepivos

6 Tov "Ayabod Aaipovos...xat TovpBav 6 rod T'aAdaviov Kal...

This is a letter to his father from a young soldier who has had a rough
passage!, It was written in the second century a.D., and is exceptionally
free from mistakes of grammar and spelling. The boy has had a good
education and is duly grateful to his father. He seems to have taken a
new name on entering upon military service. “Ayrdus is an abbreviation
for Avrdvios,as—dbcvy-is_for-dddvov. Ihave read mpoxowat" in place of

2. Antoni.
us Maxi.
mus to
Sabina.

The same
writer.

3. Tasu-
charion to
Nilus,

Viereck’s mpoxo(ui)oat: the papyrus has mpoxoca: (probably intended for
mpororroa). Compare Gal.i 14 mpocxorroy év rGlovdaicpe vmep woddovs
cumrkidtas év TS yéver pov: Luke ii 52 "Incots apoéxorrey 17 codig Kat
WAtkiq. "Enrepya is the epistolary aorist; ‘I am sending’.

3 a wn ”
Avreivios Mdfipos 2aBivy Ty aeApy mheiora Xaipew. .
LY , € v ~ > ¢ s

TIpo pév rdvrev evxouai oe vyaiver, Kal "yd yap adrés vyaive, priav
gov otovpevos mapa Tois évOdde Geois®, exopioapny ev émiordodwov rapa
Avroveivov tod cuvirodcirou ray Kat emvyvols oe éppwpévny diay éydpny’ Kat
yo Sia wacav adhoppiy ovx oxvd oor ypayrar wept tis cwrnpias pov Kal TOP
a, a wy F 4 \ A LS a ft. > LA id €
é€uav. domaca. Magpov awodda Kal Kompyy tov xipiv pov. domacerat oe 7
ovpPids pov Adduidia kat Mdtpos.........€ppwcbai oe edyopat.

This is written by the same hand as the preceding’ The soldier boy
writes his new name. He has apparently married and settled down.

Tagovxapio NeiAg@ roe ddeAh@ woAAG Xaipew.

Tpé pey wayrov eUxopai gat vytaivew, kal To mpoaKivnpa Gov Tod rapt
TO xupio Zapamidt. yivwcke ore dédaxa Trohepaiov kahapeoera domahicpara
vis oixias eis TO Anunrpiov. ev oty rotons ypayyov por mept Tis oikias dre
rl @xpagas. Kat rov dpaBova rod Zapariwvos “gapakdos' dédaxa ate. Kal
ypavov pot wept THs draypadis. ei woreis tiv aroypatyy épo...... Kade trotels

1B. P. 423. I have omitted the 2 T have since found that Deissmann
brackets by which the Berlin editors has also suggested this reading.
indicate letters supplied where the 3 Krebs begins the new sentence with
papyrus is illegible, and I haveslightly lay and puts no stop after Geois.
varied the punctuation. 4 B. P, 632

EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 277

; ‘ 3 } nn rng € , . > , 4 %
€l.....ypaipov pot évdaxiov, eiva airosdow kal dvardevow mpds oe. Kal mept

a , A é > 7¢ 3 s A} > la mn .
Ty orapiwr, pi) méAet avrd. domdCopat thy adeAPyy pov Taovyddpw Kal riy
Ouyarépa BeAAalov. domdferat vor AiSupos cat “Hrcddwpos. domdferat tuas
TlroAepaios cal TiBepivos xai Saparioy. domatouat Sapariov "Inovbou Kal ré
4 aA Sor Sou le yA . os ’ ¢ Y ‘
réxva avrov, kai ZGpua kal ra réxva avrov Kal 7 yuri, Kat “Hpev kat TaBods kat
"Ioxupiawa. domdcera vpas Zaropveidos. éppdaGai oe edyopar, domaerat
Tacovydptoy Ie.w cal ra réxva aris. “EXévn dowd erat Thy pyrépay pov ToAAG
kal rovs ddeAovs. dowdCerat pas Xatpypov...vos.

This is a second century letter from the Fayim', Tasucharion makes A less
mistakes in spelling and accidence. She has a large circle of friends, Correct
I cannot explain xadapeoird, domadicpara: dopddiwpa is a pledge or style.
security; comp. mapardadicpnara in B. P. 246, 14. Ilapaxdos would appear
to stand for mapaxaae ce. .

ry a“ a , Y ,
Appevods 76 yAukurarp matpt xaipew. 4. Ammo-
> a ~
Kopicapevos cou ro émtord\oy Kal éxcyvotca Ste Gedy Oeddvruy dteadOns, ro ther
, od a .
éxapny moddd: kal adtis Spas ahopyyy edipav €ypaa vot tavodra Ta ypdupara
orovdd(ovca mpookurijcé oat. taxvrepoy Ta éxiyorta Epya ppovricere. av 7
puxpa te inn, gore. édv cot évéxg KadaOw 6 Kopifsuevos cor Td éemordodetor,
> > , 2 ¢ X c > # > , ?, lA e
wéumo. domavovré oe of col mavras kat’ bvopa. daomdteré oe Kédep kal of
“ , End
avrod mavras. éppacbé cor edyopat.

Another second century papyrus from the Fayim2 The false concords An un- |

are Surprising: Kopicdpevos, émvyvovca, evpav, omovdd{ovea, “Exiyovra and educated
évéxy stand for émetyorvra and évéyxy: wavras in each case is for mapres. writer.
The phrase avrijs dpas (comp. av’r7s dpa in another letter on the same
papyrus) is found in Clem. Hom. xx 16: comp. Heang. Petri 5, where it
must be read for avrés dpas. "Eady 7 puxpd re etry, €orat, ‘whatever she asks
shall be done.’

Oday Tuparyg TO Tyuwrdr@ mAciora yaipeww. ae 3. Theon

“HpaxAeldns 6 diradiSovs cot Thy émurrodiy éoriy pov ddedés> d1o rapaxadG to Tyran~
ce pera mdons Suvdpews exe adtov cuverrapevoy. npdtyca S€é Kal “Eppiav
roy adeAdav dia ypamwrod dynyeiobai cor wept rovrov. yxapleoa, Sé pot Ta
piytora édy cov Tis émionpacias tuxn. mpd Sé wavrav dyaivey oe evyopat
‘GBackayres Ta apiora mpattav. eppeco.

This is a brief letter of introduction, written in the year 25 «.D.3 A letter
Among the many interesting expressions contained in these few lines we of intro-
may particularly note the phrase éyew adrév ouverrapévoy, literally have duction.
him recommended to you, which finds a parallel in the @ye pe mapyrnyévoy
of Luke xiv 18, 19.

I. Coming now to details, we begin with the opening formulae. I. Opening
In the formulae.

I. Xalpew, woAAd yaipew and md«iora yaipew are all common.
, pews xe xm 1. Address.

New Testament we find yaipew in James i 1: also in two letters in the
_Acts (xv 23 and xxiii 26). In the Old Testament it occurs in letters
inserted by the Greek translators in 1 Hsdr. vi 7, viii 9, and Esther viii 13
(xvi 1). It is found many times in the Books of Maccabees, where also we
have zodA& yalpev, 2 Mace. ii 19. The Ignatian Epistles give us as a rule

1 B. P. 6o1. 2B. P. 615. 8 Ox. P. 292.

278.

Another
form,

2. Opening

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

mAciora xalpew with various additions. St Paul has a modification of the
usual Hebrew formula :-see the note on Eph. it.

Another introductory form occasionally occurs, in which the imperative
is used. Thus in B.P. 435 we have: Xaipe, Ovadepeavé, mapa tov adeAdot :
and in B.P. 821: Xaipe, ndpré pou marep “Hpdioxos* o¢ domdtouat!, Compare
with these Origen’s letter to Gregory, preserved i in the Philocalia (c.. xiii),
Xaipe ev Oe@, xvpté pov omovdatdrare xat aldeotdrare vie Tpayopte, mapa
‘Opeyévovs : : and Ep. Barn. 1 Xaipere, viot «at Ouyarépes; €y ovdpats Kupiov Tov

dyarjoavros has év elphvn?.
2. Three of the letters which we have given above begin after the

sentence. address with the words. ‘mp0 pev wdvrev edxopal ge dyaivew. With this we

The typi-
cal form,

Alterna-

may compare 3 John 2 dyamnré, wept mavrov eyouai oe evodoicba xat
dyuivew, xabds evodoiral cov 7 Vox. Although no variant is recorded, it is
difficult at first to resist the suspicion that apé mdvrey was what the writer
intended to say?: but on further examination of the passage it would seem
that wept mdvrev is required to give the proper balance to the clause
introduced by xa6és. We have here at any rate an example of the

appropriation of a well-known formula, with a particular modification of

it in a spiritual direction.

The commonest formula of this kind in the second and third centuries A.»,
runs as follows:

Tipo (uév) mdvrov edyopnat oe vyaivew, (kat) 1d_rpocKivnpd—-cov-move-(kal—
éxdorqy jpépav) rapa tO xupig Zapdmidi:: B.P. 333, 384, 601, 625, 714, 775,
843; and, with the addition of pera trav cay rdvror after dyaivew, 2763
with the addition of xat rois cuvvacis Oeois*, 385, 845. The first clause
stands alone in 602, 815; and, with pera ray ody ravror, in 814.

Other variations are: mpd wavrés edxouai oe vyiaivew, Kt.A. in 38; kab
Oca wévraly] ed xopat cal dyeaivew, xd. in 846: mpd TGV drwy eppdabai ve
eVyopat pera TSv dy mavray Kat dia mavrds o€ evruxeiv in 164.

A different formula occurs in 811 (between 98 and 103 AD.), po pev

tive forms. gdyreoy dvayxaioy 8¢ émirtoAts oe dowdocer bac Kal rd dBdoxayra dotvac: and |

in 824 (dated 55/56 a.p. by Zeretelé), spd pév mdvrov dvayxaiwr iynodpny
&:a Emiorohys oe domwdcac bat.

have letters from Theoctistus to the
same Apollonius {apparently): but in
each the instructions begin imme-
diately after the word xalpew. This is
the case also in B. P. 48 written to
Apollonius by Cylindrus and addressed
on the verso ’Amo\\wvly Oeoxricrov:
comp. letters written to him by
Chaeremon B. P. 248, 249, 531. Itis
probable therefore that Schubart is not
justified in offering the supplement.
ebxoual ce dyalvew.

1 Add to these Fayiim Pap. 1209,
Katpe, xipie ryumrare: Ox. P. 112,
Xalpos, xupla pov Zepyvia [..] mapa
Therocelptos.

2 Probably not independent of this
is the opening of the so-called ‘Apos-.
tolic Church Order’ (the ’Emrouy
Spwv): Xalpere, viol xal Ovyardpes, ev
évéuare xuplov "Inood Xpicrod.

3 Ié is however to be noted that
in B. P. 885 Schubarté restores the
text thus: Odoxrisz[os ’Azod(Awrly)

Te girrdry yxalpev.] Tlept wdvroly
edxoual ce tyalvew.]. Iduyov.[..]
This is a papyrus of cent. 1 from the
Fayim. Now in nos, 884, 886 we

* In B. P. 827 we have 76 apooxivnud
gov map re Al ro Kaocly: comp. 38
mapa wiee rots Oeots.

5 Perhaps dca rravrés was intended.

EPISTOLARY PHRASES. | | 279

It is curious to find the phrase mpd per rdvrwv at the end of a letter,
as we do in Ox. P. 294: mpd pey mavrev ceavrod émpédou et” vytaivys.
émicxomov* Anuyntpody kat Awpiova rov marépa. eppoco, This letter is
dated 22 a.D, Similarly in Ox. P. 292 (A.D. 25) quoted above, mpd dé
ravrav tyaivey oe evxouat dBackdvtes Ta dpiora mpdrrav. eppaco.

As we go back to an earlier period we find a difference in formula, An earlier
Thus Grenfell gives us a letter of the second century 8.0. from the Thebaid *yPe-
which opens thus: [e?] ¢ppwca: éppdpeba Sé kai adrod Kai kat Adpodicia kat
iy Ovyarnp kat 4 watdiokn Kal 4 Ovydrnp adris (Greek Papyri 43). A papyrus
of the Ptolemaic period published by Mahaffy has, ydpes rots Jeois mroNny} el
tyaivers dysaiver dé kat Awmxds: and another, xad@e sroveis ef vytaivers*
vytaivw xai-adrés. I assume that another which he cites as deciphered by
Mr Sayce is of the same date: here we read, kaXds moueis ef Eppwoat Kat Ta
otra Got kata yropny éoriv: éppdyeba dé kai jpeis (Flinders Petrie Papyri,
Cunningham Memoirs of Roy. Irish Acad. viii pp. 78—80). . So in a letter
cited by Deissmann (Bibelstudien Pp. 209, 210) from Lond. Pap. 42, dated
J uly 24, 172 BO: ef eppapere TdA\a Kara Aéyow amavra, civ av ds tots Oeois
edxopévn duaredG. kat adr & dyiawov cat rd matdiov Kal of ev ote@ mdvres,
cov dtamavrés pvelav movovpevot.

3, This last formula, pveiay rroteirbat, is of special interest, inasmuch as 3. ‘Making
. it occurs several times in St Paul’s epistles. I have already cited an Mention’,
__example_of_its_use_in_a_letter_of_the_second_century_a.D., written by_an

educated hand (B. P. 632). The passages in St Paul are as follows:

i Thess. i 2 Evxapurrobpe T@ Oe mavrore mept mavror tpay pvelay } 1 Thess.
Trovotjpevot ém rav mporevyav icy ddiadelrrras pumpovevovres UUGY TOU épyou i 2.
Tijs wioTews Kai Tov KOrov THs ayamys Kat Ths Vmrouovas THs éAmidos Tod Kupiou
Hpav "Incod Xprorod eumpoobev rot Oeot cat marpos Huay, eiddres, k.t.d.

Lightfoot in commenting on this passage? (Notes on Epistles of St
Paul, pp. 9f.) decides to punctuate after adiadeinrws: Westcott and Hort
punctuate before it, Another uncertainty is the construction of gumpoodev
Tov Oeod x.7.d., Which Lightfoot joins with the words immediately preceding
and not with pynpovevorres. It would seem that St Paul first used a phrase
which was familiar in epistolary correspondence, and that then out of
pyvelay rrovotpevot, in its ordinary sense of ‘making mention’ in prayer, grew
the fuller clause pvnpovevovres...cumpoobev rot Geod, whether this means
‘remembering your work,’ etc., or ‘remembering before God your work,’ etc.,
in the sense of making it the subject of direct intercession or thanksgiving.

Rom. i 9f Mdprus yap pol é€orw 6 Geds...0s ddtaheintos pveiay dpdv Rom. i of.
Tovovpat mwavTore emt TOV mpoceuxev pov Seduevos et ros Ady wore evoS@Ojcopat
év 7 OcAjpart rod Geot edOeciv mpos yas.

Here again the punctuation is uncertain. Lightfoot places the stop
after zorodpat, Westcott and Hort after pov. We may note the addition of
vpov after pvetay (comp. preiav cov in Philem. 4): it is added in the inferior
texts of 1 Thess, i 2 and Eph. i 16.

1 Comp. James v 12 mpd mdyTwr dé, 3 To the few illustrations of evyapi-
adeAol pov, py dpvdere. ore collected by Lightfoot may now

2 Comp. Ox. P. 293 (A.D. 27), émt- beadded many others from the papyri:
oxorod 5¢ juas xal wrdvras rods év olky. €.2. B. P. 423 (cited above).

280

Philem. 4f.

Eph. i 16.
Phil. i 3.

2 Tim. i 3.

Prayer of
Tantalus,

II. Closing

formulae.

I. Saluta-
tions.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Philem. 4f. Ev xXapiors 5) deg pou WavTore pvelay gov mrovovpevos éml ray —
mpooevx ay pov, dxkovov cov ri» ayarny...drws 7 Kowvovia Tis wivTeds cov
Evepyis ‘yevntat, K.rA.

As Lightfoot points out, the ‘mention’ here ‘involves the idea of
intercession on behalf of Philemon, and. so introduces the és «rd.

Eph. i 16 OU wavopa evxapiordy imp tpav pvetay rrovodpevos emt rév
mpocevxav pov, iva 6 beds KA. .

In Phil. i 3 the same phrase is in the Apostle’s mind, but he varies his
expression: Edyapioraé tO Oe@ pou émt mdoy tH preia UuGy warrore év wdoy
Sejoet pou vrép wdvrwv Udy peta xapas thy Sénow movovpevos K.T.d.

In 2 Tim. i 3 the variation of phraseology is very noteworthy: Xapw
exo TH O€G, G AatTpedw awd mooyéver ev KabapG cuvedjoe, ds ddtadelrras
exo THY wept cov pvelay év rais Sejoeoiv pov, vuKros Kal jpepas emimoday oe
etv, pepvnévos cov trav Saxpiov, x7’. The word pveia meets us but once
more.in the New Testament!: 1 Thess. iii 6 dru fyere pvetav pay ayabyy
savrore émtroOobrtes pas ideiv, kabarep Kal Hueis bpas.

_ As no clear example appears to have been cited hitherto for the use of
pveiay rrovicbar in reference to prayer, it may be interesting to quote the
account of the prayer of Tantalus preserved in Athenaeus vii 14 (p. 281 5):
‘O yobv rv rav ’Arpad&y moujoas Kabodor adixcpevar adrov Meyer mpos rods
Beots kat ouvdcarpiBovra éfovcias ruxeiv mapa tov Atos airnoagbat Grov

cad > 3 tA ? € 4 > a
emsBupel- rov Sé, mpos ras drokaverets andjoras Sta Scaketpevoy, vrép avTayv tre
SUR SV OY, UTS

rovrov_yeia ay_moujoagGar-Kal rot Civ Tov avrov TpK Tporov Tois Bevis: éf’ ois
dyavaxtijcavra rov Ala roy pev evyny arorehcoas Sid vi vrdoxecw, KTR.

II. We pass now from the opening of the letter to its close.

1, The most striking parallel with the Pauline epistles is found in the
exchange of salutations. There are three formulae: (1) domd{opar, ‘I greet
A’; (2) dowaoa, ‘T ask you to greet A. on my behalf’; (3) dowdtera, ‘B,
sends a greeting to A. through me’.

Of the first we have but a single example in the New Testament, and
this does not proceed from the author of the epistle, but from his
amanuensis, In Rom. xvi 21 in the midst of a series of salutations, of
which sixteen are introduced by domdoacOe and four by domdgerar
{-ovra), we read: *Aomd{opat duis éyd Téprios 6 ypdipas tiv émiotodhy év
Kupig.

After the Epistle to the Romans the richest in salutations is the Epistle
to the Colossians: Col iv. 10 ff. "Aowd{era: duds ’Apiorapyxos 6 cuvatypddwrds
pov, Kat Mdpkos 6 dveyrids BapydBa, (mept ob éAdBere evroAds, dav XOn mpos
opis deEaobe avrov,) kai Inoobs 6 Aeyopevos ‘Toboros. dormagerat dpas ’Exadppas
) Ev vp. domwacera, vpas Aovxas 6 larpos 6 dyamyrés kat Anas: donacacbe
rovs ev Aaodixia adeAdods Kal Nopdav cal ri kar’ oikov auris éxkAnoiay,
Many parallels to this list might be offered from the papyri, but sufficient
have been already given in the letters above cited.

1 Myyjyq is found only in2 Pet.i1g variant vals pyelas for rats ypelas in
owovdacw dé xat éxdorore txew tdyas Rom. xii 13, see Sanday and Headlam
pera. THy euiy Eodoy thy rovrav pviuny Romans, ad loc.
mwoetoOa. For the curious Western -

EPISTOLARY PHRASES. | 281

2. The name of an individual is often followed by a phrase which 2. The
includes his household. Thus, B. P. 385 xait domd{opar riv patépa pov kat household
tous ddeAdovs pov, xat Seumpovw kat rovs wap’ avrod: 523 domacae THY saluted.
civBidv cov Kal rods évoixovs wavres!, The nearest parallel to this in the
New Testament is the greeting sent to the household of Onesiphorus,
apparently soon after his death, 2 Tim. iv 19: “Aowaca: Iipiocxay Kat °Axdday
. Kat rov ’Ovnawpdpov oixovy (comp. i 16°ff.). It is possible that a further
parallel is to be traced in the Pauline phrase, 7-car’ oixov adrijs (adrav, cov)
éxkAnota, which may be an expansion of the current phraseology, in the
sense of ‘those of their household who are believers’: it has been perhaps
too readily assumed that the meaning is ‘the church that assembles in their
house’.

3. Where several persons are included in a greeting, the phrase kar’ 3. ‘By
évopa frequently occurs. B. P, 261 dowdferal oe ‘Hpois kat of év oikm mavres name’.
gar’ dvopa: 276 domdgopa: 3 dpas mravres kat dvopa, kad Qpryévns tpas dowdferat
mavres: 615 dowdtovré oe of col mavras Kar’ dvopa: 714 dowalovrar dpas Ta
nadia wdvtas kar dvopa, Irodepaios, TiBepivos, Sapaniwy: comp. 449, 815,

845, 923.

An exact parallel is found in 3 John 15 dorafovrai ce of pidos- domagou

tovs didovs kar’ dvoua. But the phrase is not used by St Paul.

4. At the close of the Epistle to Titus we read: "Aowd(ovrai ce of per’ 4.Friends.

€nov mares: domacat Tovs ¢idovvras jpas ev icra. To this several
_ interesting parallels may be offered: B.P. 625 dawdfouar riv ddcAdyy pov
qWoAAd, kat Ta réxva avdrijs xal [....] kal rovs idodvras jpas mayres: 814 dowd-
Copa "AmwAAwdptoy xat Ovadépiov Kat Tépwvoy [......nal tolis idodvros
pas mavres: comp. 332. Still more noteworthy are the following, from the
letters of Gemellus (4.D. 100—110): Fay. Pap. 118 damag{ou rovs didoivres
oe Tavres Tpos GAnOiav: 119 dowdCov ’Emayaboy Kat rods didouvTes Has mpds
adn Olav.

5. These letters almost always close with ¢, eppaco (Eppade), or éppdabat 5. Fare-
ae (suas) evyoua. This formula occurs but once in the New Testament, well.
namely at the close of the apostolic letter in Acts xv 29,”Eppoocbe. In
Acis xxiii 30”Eppwoo is a later addition.

In the Pauline epistles the place of this formula is taken by his
characteristic invocation of ‘grace. Jude and 2 Peter end with a doxology:

2 and 3 John break off after the salutations: 1 Peter closes with an
invocation of ‘peace’: James and 1 John with final admonitions, introduced
by ’AdeAGol pov and Texvia respectively.

III. We may go on to observe certain phrases which constantly occur II. Con-
in the course of a letter, and which belong to the common stock of ordinary ventional
letter-writers, phrases.

1. Foremost among these is xadds moujoecs introducing a command or 1. Of in-
a request. Thus, B. P. 93 kahés moujoets Stamépapas adry ti Sehparucyy 7 fy direct re-
éxers: 335 (Byzantine) kadds oty moijois méupe (=méuyrat) pou avrd: 814 quest.
kadGs Troijots, Kopsodpevds pou TO emirrddtor, ef méurypes wou Scaxoglas Spaypds

1 Tldpres and mdyras are often interchanged.

- 282 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS,

(the same phrase is repeated at the end of the letter). It occurs alsoin
B. P. 348, 596 (A.D. 84), 829 (A.D. 100), 830, 844 bis (a.p. 83), 848. The
construction with the participle is by far the most common.

In a similar sense ed roujoes is used: B. P. 248, 597 (a.D. 75), Ox. P.
113, 294 (A.D. 22); but this is less common.

We have an example of this formula in 3 John 6, ots xadds rowjoets
mporréuiyas akiws tov Geot. The past tense occurs to express gratitude in
Phil. iv 14, wAqy Kadas érouoare cureoworjoavrés pou TH Orders comp. Acts
X 33 ov re KaAds éroinoas mapayevopeves.

2. Of di- 2, A similar formula is mapaxadé ce, of which it may suffice to quote

rect ‘ two examples in which dco precedes: B. P.164 86 srapaxad ody oé, pidrrare:

quest. Ox. P. 292 (C. A.D. 25) dtd wapakadd oe pera dons Surduews yew adbrov
ouveorapévov. In B. P. 814 we have similarly otros épwrad ce ovr,
pamnp, mews mpos évé x7.A.: and In Ow. P. 294 (A.D. 22) dpord dé ce rai
mapaxane,

In 2 Cor. ii 8 we have: d:6 mapakadd ipas xupaoar eis a’rov aydrny:
comp. Acts xxvii 34 66 wapaxad@ vpas peradaBeiv rpodijs. A glance at the
concordance will shew how common is the phrase wapaxad@ odp (dé) duas in
the epistles of the New Testament. “Epwray is also used, though less fre-
quently, in similar cases: e.g. 2 John 5 xal viv épwrd oe, kvpia. Both verbs
occur in Phil. iv 2 f. Evodtay wapaxadG kat Suvriyny mapaxade 7d ‘adro
hpoveiy ev Kupig. val épwrd kab _oé, yore covfvye,cvvAapBavov—atrais,

x74. As in the papyri, we find sometimes the interjectional use of the
phrase, and sometimes the construction with the infinitive.

3. Intro- 3. Just as cards roujoes and wapaxadG ce are circumlocutions which
ducing in- soften the introduction of an order or help to urge a request}, so the way
formation. 5. prepared for a piece of news by the prefixes ywdoxev oe O6édo or
yivwoke. The former is by far the more frequent. Its regular use is to open
a letter, after the introductory greeting: B. P. 261 Tewdoxew oe bého, éya
kal Ovodepia, day “Hpols réxy, evxdueda édOeciv mpds ce (here it stands
outside the construction): 385 Tewadcxey oe O€dw Sry povy ini éyad: 602
Tuwdoxw ce Oéd@ ore eAprvOe mpds eye Sovyds, Aéywr Gre "Aydpacoy pov rd
pépos rod €Xedvos: 815 Teevdoxw oe bédw, tiv emoroAny cov @daBa (again
outside the construction). In 822 it is curiously disconnected: Twdaky oe
Bde, pu) peAnodra cot wep TaY oITiKaY* edpov yeopydv, KT.A. For further
examples see B. P. 815, 816, 824, 827, 843, 844, 345, 846.

_On the other hand, yivwoxe generally occurs in the body of the letter,
though sometimes it comes at the beginning, as in B. P. 625 Teivooxe,
ddeAGE, exAnpaOny eis ra Bovxddea: and in Ow. P. 295 (A.D. 35) Tivwoke drt
Sérevkos EAOdy de wéhevye. We find it in the Ptolemaic period in the two
papyri published by Mahaffy (Cunningham Memoirs viii pp. 78, 80):
yivooxe 5é kal Gre K7.A,, and (with a participle) yivwoxe d€ pe eyovra
xv.A. For further examples see B. P. 164, 814 bis, 845, Fay. P. 117 bis
(A.D. 108).

To the former phrase we have a parallel in Phil. i 12, which practically
-begins the letter, though a long thanksgiving precedes it: Tuvdorew dé jpas

1 In Modern Greek cas rapaxad& corresponds to our word ‘please’,

EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 283

BotNopat, aBerdoi, 6 éru ra kar’ éué kr.A. We may also compare Rom. i 13
od Oédw S€ dpas dyvoeiy, GSeAqoi, Gre woAddnes mpoeOeuny éAGeiv mpds vpas,
«7.A.: this expression is a favourite with St Paul, and it opens, after a
doxology, his second letter to the Corinthians (i 8); comp. also dé\ dé
(yap) bpas efdévae in 1 Cor. xi 3, Col. ii 1.

The latter phrase is well represented in Heb. xiii 23 Twodoxere roy
ddaApiyv jpadv Tiudbcoy drodedvpéevov. Other examples might be given,
but they are of a didactic character: and not statements of ordinary
information.

4 Satisfaction finds expression in the terms éydpny and diay éxapyy: 4, Ex-
asin B, P. 332 exapny Kopurapey yedppara dre kadas StecdOnre : 632 (given pressing —
above) kai emtyvous oe éppopeévny Aiay éxapnv. We may also compare 2 Batis a0-
fragment of a letter (2nd cent. B.c.) quoted by Deissmann (Bibelstudien .
p. 212), Lond. P. 43: wuvOavopévn pavOdvew oe Aiyimria yodppara ovvexdpny
cot Kat epaurh ore K.7A.

In Phil, iv 10 we read: "Exdpny O€ év Kupig peyddos dre dn sore
dveOadere TO vmép pov dpoveiv. And we have the strengthened phrase in
2 John 4 -Exdpnv lay ore edpnxa éx Toy Téxvor gov wepumarovvray év ddnOela,
and in 3 John 3 "Exdpnv yap Niav épxopévar ddeA@av Kal paprupoivray cov
Th adnGeig.

5. Another form of expressing satisfaction is the use of the phrase s. Ex-

Xapes Tois Oéois or the like.—Thus in B-P--843-we-have, Purdcrew-ce-Géko Pressing
Gre xdpis rots Oeois ixauny eis "AheEdvdprav: Kay. P. 124 adda rois Geois eoriv n ose. al
xdpis dre ovdenia éorivy mpddnpris jpeiv yeyernpévn. A letter of the
Ptolemaic period (Cunningham Mem. viii p. 78) begins: xdpis trois Oeois
ToAAH ei trytaives. In Ox. P. 113 we have: xdpw eyo Geois tacw ywdokovr
ort x72. ;

Xdpis r@ Oe is frequent in St Panl’s letters: yapw eyo r@ bed is found
only in 2 Tim. i 3; comp. 1 Tim. 1 12 ydpw yw rq évduvanecarri pe Xpiors
"Ingo.

IV. In conclusion, a. few phrases may be noted, which, though not IV. Va-
specially connected with the epistolary style of writing, are of interest as rious N. i
illustrating the language of the New Testament. ste ated.

1. Ta xar éuée. Ox. P. 120 (4th century) aypis ay yo wads ra kar x, TA Kar
aipat droribara, e infra ra kata oé Stoixnooy &s mpémov eoriv, pi) Tédeov Ele.
dvarparépev: Grenf. P. (Ptolemaic) 15 ra cad’ yas de€alyayeir].

Comp. Acts xxiv 22 Siayrdcopat ra xa? vpas, Eph. vi 11 tva dé edfre
kal tpeis ra kar’ évé, Phil. i 12 ra kar’ eué paddoy eis rpoxomiy rod evayyedtov
ednjAvbev, Col. iv 7 ra kar’ eve wavra yopioes dpiv ToycKos,

2. "Hoy wore. B. P. 164 d:d wapaxadd odiv cé, hirrare, dy wore weioat 2. “Hb
adréy rot édOeiv: 417 dadAdagoy ody ceavriv dd mavris peredpov, iva Ady TOT
more Gpépysvos yévy, kal ra eva perewpidia Sy wore truxhy ox7: Ox. P. 237
vii 11 (a petition) éricyew re avrov 7dy tore emeiovrd pot, mpérepov pev os
dydpou Karoxijs xapw, viv b¢ mpoddce vopou oddév adr mpoorjxovros},

1 Qn the technical terms peréwpos Grenfell and Hunt, Oz. P. iipp. 180 ff.,
and xarox} in these extracts see 142 ff.

284 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

Comp. Rom. i 10 deduevos ef ras dn wore evodoOjoopa év TS Ocdjpari
tod Geod éAGeiv mpos vpas, Phil. iv 10 éxdpyy 8¢ ev Kuplg peyddws dre 759 wore
dveOadere ro dep Epod hpovety, ef) @ Kat éppoveire pratpeiade OE.

3. Suval- 3. Swvatpe Adyov. B. P.775 &ypns dy yévoue éxi cal cvvdpwper Adyov:
pew Moyo. Og, P, 113 ort awxas adr@ dSpraody por, va cvvdpopa adrd Adyov: Fay. P.
109 Gre cuvipyat Adyor rH warp Kai eAouroypadyké pe Kal dmoxnv Oéro
AaBetv. .
Comp. Matt. xviii 23 d»dpdme Bacrdel os #OéAnoev ovvaipat Adyoy pera Tav
dovAwy avrod- dpgapévou dé adrod ovvaipew mpooyydn cis adr@ dethérns
pupiwy radavray, XXV 19 ouvaipet Adyov per’ avrav.

4. Kéuyos 4, Keprpos evar, Par. Pap. 18 xoprpos exw kal rd vypmidy pov Kat
exe. Médas1, The same phrase is cited from Arrian pict, diss. iii 10 13, érav
6 larpos etn Kopypos exes (comp. ii 18 14).
Comp. John iv 52 éridero oby tiv Spay map’ adrav év Fj Kourporepoy
eoXe”.

5. Nuxrds 5. Nuxrés cat nyépas. B. P. 246 (2/3 cent. A.D.) Gre vuxrds Kad Apépas

kab hépas. dyryyydva tr Oe@ trép jpnav*

. Comp. 1 Thess. iii 10 vuxros Kal yudpas trepexmeptacod Secpevor eis TO
deity dav rd wpocwmor, I Tim. v 5 mpoopéves trais Sejocow Kat Tals mpooevyais
vuxros kal yépas, and many other passages,

I The letter is given by Deissmann, 7° ob Slxacoy yap adbriy Aunicbas rept
Bibelst. p. 215, who has noted the ovdevéds* jrovea yap re AuTetrar. Comp.
parallel. He however cites if thus: 1 Cor. xvi 10 day 5¢ &Oy Truddeos,
kal rév Urrop (sic) yov. Theemendation Pdé¢rere va apiBws yévynrae pds ipas...
is fairly obvious. ph ris ot abriy ékoveryoy., In Phil

2 In the same letter we read: xal ii 28 we have the word ddvurérepos.
mept ‘Houedyns pednodrw buiy was Gdvmos

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 7 285

Note on Various Readings.

The Greek text printed in this edition may be briefly described as in
general representing the text of NB. Accordingly it. is hardly to be dis- The pur-
tinguished, except at a few points, from the texts printed by Tischendorf pose of
(ed. viii) and by Westcott and Hort. The purpose of this note is to discuss *his note.
certain variants of special interest: but first it may be instructive to give
the divergences of our text from B and N respectively, to observe the
main peculiarities of the Graeco-Latin codices D, and G,, and to indicate
the relation to one another of the various recensions of the Latin Version.

1. The divergences from B, apart from matters of orthography, are as
follows: 1. Diver-
i 1 [éy Eqdéoq] ] om, B*: see the special note which follows. — from B
3 kal matip| om. B alone: see the commentary ad doc. .
5 "Iycov Xpucrod| Xv w B: this deserves to be noted in connexion
with the similar variant in i 1.

13 eoppayicbnre] exhpayicby B: but note that this-word-ends-a_line.

15 dyamny] om. B: see the special note.

17 d¢n] da B.

18 dpov} om. B,

20 €rovpaviors] ovpavors B; supported by 71 213, some codices of the
Sahidic, Hil” Victorin.

2I dpxijs Kat efovatas] efovoras kat apxns B alone.

li I rois rapamrapacw kat rais duapriats) rows mapanropacw Kat Tats efr-

Gupeats B alone.

5 Trois wapanrépacwy| ev rors mapamrapacw Kat rats emtOvupuas B alone:
the substitution of émévpias in 2. 1 followed by its insertion in
this verse is remarkable.

ovvetworoingey] +ev B: probably by dittography, but there is some
considerable support for the insertion.
13 Tov xptorot)] om. rou B alone.
22 beov] xu B alone.
iii 3 ore] om. B.
5 droorcAots}] om. B Ambrst only.
9 erica] +zavras B: see the special note.
14 mAnpabire eis ray] mAnpoby wav B17 73 116. [17 adds ets upas
after rov Geou teste Tregell.]
iv 4 xaOds kai] om. xa B.

6 xal év waow] om. cae B 32 Victorin.

7 nov] vpov B.

7) Xas| om. 7 B, with D, and other authorities; but it may have
fallen out after €d06n.

9 xaréBn| + mpororv B: see the special note,

286 | EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

iv 16 avrod] eavrov, with considerable support.
23 T@ mvevpare| pr. ev B alone (except for the uncertain testimony of
a version).
24 évdicarba] evdvcacbe B*, with 8 and some others; but probably
it is an itacism.
32 yiveobe dé] om. de B, with considerable support: moreover D,*G,
read ovp.
univ] nue B:. see the special note.
V 17 Tod Kupiov] +nyer B alone.
19 Wadpois| pr. ev B.
avevpatixais} om. B. On this and the preceding variant see the
special note.
20 “Incod Xpiorod] Xv w B alone.
23 éorww xecpadj] Kepadn eorw B.
24 dAAd ds] om. ws B.
31 rov marépa kal Thy pntépa] marepa Kas pytepa B, with D,*Gy.
32 els THY éxkAnoiay] om. es B,
vi 1 éy xupig] om. B, with D,*G;.
2 éoriv] om. B, with 46.
7 dvOpdras| avOpere B, with slight support.
10 évduvapoicbe] Suvapovede B, with 17 and ‘Origen, cat. in com-

mentary.
12 isi] vp B with - D, PGs etes—$_ Ja TTT
. 16 ra wemvpopéva] om. ra B, with D,*G;.
19 rot evayyeAlov] om. B, with G; Victorin.
20 €yv air@] avro B alone.

2. Diver- 2. The divergences from & are as follows:

om i I Xpicrod "Inooiil wv XU N: see the special note.
° [ev Ed@éow] | om. X*: see special note.
3, Tod Kupiov nuar] Tov.Ku Kat T@Typos nuer N* alone.
6 evAoyroas judas] om. nuas X alone.
7 €xopev] exxouey N*, with G,* and some support from versions.
14 6 éorw] os eorw &, with D, ete.
ris So€ns| om. rns 8, with 17 35.

15 dyarnv} om. N: see the special note.

18 ris Sogns rijs kAnpovopias| THs KAnpovopuas rns So€ns N alone.

20 evipynney| emppynoev &, with most authorities against AB.

ii 4 ev éXder] om. ev N* alone.
7 &* (alone) omits this verse through homoeoteleuton.

re avrov] 65 X* alone.

18 8¢ avrot] +or apdorepos ev ext N* alone, per errorem, dC avrov
having ended the column and page. It would seem therefore
that the length of the line in the archetype is represented by
EXOMENTHNTTpocaraorHNn, Which was at first missed.

20 abrov Xpiorod "Incod] rou xu N*.

iii 1 rod Xpiorob Ingod] om. Incou N*, with D,*G, etc.

9 &v 76 bed] ro 06 N*, This was ‘Marcion’s reading (Tert. c. Mare.

v 18).

iii

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS.

LI év7@ Xpiorg "Ingod] om. ro &*, with D, ete.
18 Sifos kal Bd6os | Ba@os xat upos Ss, with A ete.
I éy kvpig| ev xo N, with aeth,
8 Kat Zener] om. xat N*, with many authorities.
24 évdvcacbat] evSucarde &, with B* and others.
Sixaoctvy Kat éotdrnti] ocwryre Kat Sixatoovvy N* alone: but
Ambrst has in ueritate et custitia.
25 ddjOevav exactos] exaoros adnOecav N* alone.
pera Tov TAnoiov| mpos Tov wAnotov N* alone : Lucifer has ad proat-
mum,
28 xepotv] pr cats N*, with AD.G, etc.: see the special note.
éxn] exnra N* alone: comp. Clem*”! iva éynre.
2 dpav] nuov ®: see the special note.
mpocopar kal Guaiav] Ovoay Kat mpooopay & alone.
4 kal pwpodoyia] 7 popodoyta N*, with AD,*G, ete.
6 8a radra yap] om. yap &* alone.
17 OéAnpa] ppovnua N* alone.
20 Tov Kupiov jpadv] om. nywy ® alone.
22 ai yuvaikes] +vmotaccecOwcay N: see the special note.
23 atvrbs cwrip| avtos o carnp N*, with A 17 etc.
27 avrés éaur@] avros avro N* alone.
#} Tt Téy ToLovTey] Om. 7 Te N* alone.

287

28 deiXovew Kat of avdpes| om. Kat N etc.
odpara] rexva N* alone.
29 ry éavtov odpxa] THY capka avtov X* alone.
31 mpods THY ‘yuvaixa avrod] Ty yuvatke N*: see the special : note.
3 wa—yijs] bis scriptum &* alone.
5 amAdrnre THs Kapdtas] om. Tys & etc.
8 Gre Exacros édy Tt moujon| ort eav momon exaotos N alone.
9 kal avrév] Kat eavray N* alone: see the special note.
ovpavois] ovpayw X, with some others.
10 év kupig| ev ro ko N*, with or.
19 fva pot 6007] wa do6n por N* alone.
20 év adT@ mappnoidowpar] mappyotac@pat ev avrw X alone.
21 eidRre Kal dpeis| kar vpers conte N, with many others.
muaros Staxovos}] om, diaxovos X* alone.

If the combination NB represents a line of textual tradition which 3. The

is of great importance here as elsewhere in the New Testament, on the

ground that its readings are usually justified by internal considerations, codices.

scarcely less interest attaches to another line of tradition commonly spoken
of as the ‘ Western text,’ because it is mainly attested for us by two Graeco-
Latin codices D, and G,. D, is Codex Claromontanus (cent. vi), and is

thus

Acts.

indicated to distinguish it from D, Codex Bezae of the Gospels and
G, is Codex Boernerianus (cent. ix), and was once part of the same

codex as A (Sangallensis) of the Gospels.

1 E, isa copy of Dj, and F, is pro- text is concerned. Accordingly I have
bably : a copy of G, so far as its Greek not cited the evidence of E,F,.

Graeco-

288

Their
textual
history,
Latinisa-
tion.

Interpre-
tative
changes.

Variants
of interest
inD,or Gg.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

At the beginning of the history of each of these codices a Greek text
and an Old Latin text have been brought together in the same volume, and
a, process of assimilation has begun, partly of the Greek to the Latin and
partly also of the Latin to the Greek. If we had the immediate parent of
either of these codices we should probably find corrections of this nature
introduced in the margin or in the text itself. Thus it may have been in
the immediate ancestor of G, that in Eph. iv 15 d\ndevovres dé was changed.
into dAnGeray Sé rowotvres, because the corresponding Latin was weritatem
autem facientes. The like process had already been taking place in the
codex from which D, and G, are ultimately descended. For most of the
obvious Latinisations are common to them both. Thus in ii 11 tro ris
Aeyouevns meptropijs év wapkt xeporroijrou was rightly rendered ab ea quae
dicitur circumcisio in carne manufacta: but an ignorant scribe took
manufacta as the ablative agreeing with carne, and accordingly we find in
D,G, the strange reading év capi xetporonry. Another example is ii 20,
where the true reading is dxpoyemaiov. The Latin rendering for ‘corner
stone’ was angularis lapis (summus angularis lapis, Jerome): hence we
find in D,G, that Aiéov is added after dxpoyevaiov.

Besides this process, by which the Greek texts of these codices have
been considerably affected in detail, we may distinguish another element of
modification which may be called the interpretative element. Thus in ii 5,
in the parenthetical sentence yapiri éore ceawopévor, we find prefixed to

xapure the relative _pronoun-ov,which-brings-it-into the construction of the

main sentence: of rj xdpire Dg, 0d xapire Gz. As cutus is found at this

. point in the Old Latin, it is possible that the inserted pronoun is due to

the Latin translator, and has subsequently passed over to the Greek text.

The similar clause in ii 8, rj yap xdpiri eore ceroopévor, is changed in D,

into r7 yap avrod xdpirt cecwopévo dopév. The change to the first person
is due to the éf jpas of the previous verse, and to the éopey of 2. 10: the

é& tydy of v. 8 had also passed into ¢& ijudv, probably at an earlier stage,

for it has a wider attestation. Another interesting example is the comple-
tion of the broken sentence in iii 1 by the addition in D, of rpeoBevo after

ray edvey: a small group of cursives add xexavyjpat from a similar motive.

More serious is the change in iii 21, where in the true text glory is ascribed

to God éy r7 exedgoig kai €v Xptorg “Inco. The words in this order appeared
80 startling that in one group of Mss (KLP) kai was dropped, so as to give

the sense ‘in the Church by Christ Jesus’ (A.V.). In D,*G, the order is
boldly reversed (€v Yu w «al rij ékkAnoia); and they are supported by Am-

brosiaster and Victorinus. It is probable that to this class we should assign

the addition of vid airod after év r6 iryarnuévp in i 6: but it is to be noted
that this reading has a wide attestation and is undoubtedly very early
(D*G, 8P° vgt4 Victorin Ambrst Pelag etc.: also Ephraim in his com-

mentary, preserved in Armenian, has ‘in His Son’).

Other interesting readings belonging to one or both of these codices are:
ii 15 karapyjoas] xaraprioas D,* alone.
lii 12 év wemobynoce] ev to ehevdepoOqvar D,* alone (not unconnected with
the rendering of rappyaiav by libertatem Victorin Ambrst).
20 tmep mavra Trojoa] om. wrep D,G,, with vg Ambrst etc.

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 289
iv 16 xar’ évépyecay] om. G;, with d, Iren nt (Mass. p. 270) Lucifer
(Hartel p. 200) Victorin Ambrst (cod).
19 drnAynkores] amndmtxores D,, anAmixores Gz, with vg (desperantes)
goth arm aeth ete.
29 rijs xpeias] THs murrews D.*G,: see the special note.
¥ 14 émipaicet cot 6 xpiores] emipaverers rov xv D,*: see the special note.

In conclusion certain readings may be noted in which one or other of Variants
these codices has somewhat unexpected support from one of the great uncials. with unex:
i I Xpicrod ’Incod] Dz, with B and a few other authorities, Fupporte.
7 exouer] ecxouev D,*, with 8* (comp. B in Col. i 14).
IL éxAnpdOnper) exdnOnuev DG, with A: not unconnected perhaps is
the rendering sorte wocati sumus of vg.
V 31 om. rov et r7v D.*G,, with B only.
vi 1 om, évxupio D.*G,, with B Clem Alex (P. 308) Tert (¢. Mare. v 18)
Cyprian (Zestim. iii 70) Ambrst (cod).
16 ra remvpopéva] om. ra D,*G,, with B.
19 om. rod evayyedlov Gz, with B Tert (c. Marc. v 18) Victorin.
It is clear from this list that B at any rate has admitted a ‘ Western’
element in this epistle as in others.

4. Parallel with the Latinisation of the Greek texts of Dia and G, has 4. The
been the process of correcting’ the Latin texts_(d,.and_g,) to-conform- them Old Latin:

to the Greek. In consequence of this correction we cannot entirely rely on yalne of

these texts as representing a definite stage of the Old Latin Version, unless
we can support their testimony from other quarters. Yet the remarkable
agreement between d, and the text of Lucifer in the passage examined.
below is somewhat reassuring.

The history of the Old Latin of St Paul’s Epistles needs a fuller investi- History of.
gation than it has yet received. To what extent it was revised by St Jerome the Old
is still obscure. Some useful remarks upon it will be found in the article atin.
in Hastings’s Bible Dictionary (Zatin Versions, the Old) by Dr H. A. A.
Kennedy; and also in Sanday and Headlam, Romans, Introd. § 7 (2) and.
notes on V 3—5, Vili 36.

The relation of the chief Latin recensions may be judged to some extent Latin
by a concrete example, For Eph. vi 12 ff. we are fortunate in having a, con- texts of
tinuous quotation in Cyprian Testim. iii 117 (comp. Zp. liii 8) and also in ep vi
Lucifer of Cagliari (Hartel p. 296). °

CYPRIAN
non est nobis conluc-
tatio aduersus carnem ef
sanguinem, sed aduersus
potestates et principes
huius mundi et harum
tenebrarum, aduersus
Spiritalia nequitiae in
caelestibus?,

1 T have followed the true text of
Cyprian, which is to be found in Har-

LUCIFER

non est wobis conlue-.

tatio aduersus carnem ef
sanguinem, sed contra
potestates, contra, huius
mundi rectores tenebra-
rum harum, contra spiri-
talia nequitiae in cae-
lestibus.

tel’s apparatus, Hartel’s text gives

EPHES,?

COD. AMIATINUS

non est nobis conluc-
tatio aduersus carnem et
sanguinem, sed aduersus
principes et potestates,
aduersus mundi rectores
tenebrarum harum, con-
tra spiritalia nequitiae
in caelestibus,

‘uobis’, but ‘nobis’ is found in the
better mss and in Ep. lviii 8,

290

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

We may note at the outset that Lucifer’s text at this point is found
word for word in Codex Claromontanus (d,), the only difference being that
there we have the order ‘sanguinem et carnem’, which is probably the
result of correction by the Greek of the codex.

nobis, Cyprian and the Vulgate give the true reading. But ‘uobis’ is
read by g; m (the Specudum, a Spanish text), Priscillian and Ambrosiaster.
Tertullian, however, Hilary and Ambrose have ‘nobis’. The Greek evi-
dence is remarkable from the fact that B deserts its usual company. ‘Hpiy
is found in NAD,°KLP 17 etc., supported by Clement and Origen and the
Greek writers generally : also by boh arm syr(hkl). ‘Ypiv is found in BD,*
G, and some cursives: besides the Latin support already cited, it is sup-
ported by the Gothic and the Aethiopic versions, and by the Syriac Peshito,
which doubtless gives us here the Old Syriac reading, as we gather from
Ephraim’ s Commentary.

It is quite possible that the variation has arisen independently in
different quarters, for in Greek it is among the commonest confusions. It
serves however admirably as an illustration of the grouping of our Latin
authorities.

Sed aduersus (or contra) potestates. A single clause seems in the oldest
Latin to have represented mpés ras dpyds, mpos tas éEouclas (or kat éovcias)
of the Greek text. It may be that principes was being consciously reserved.
to be used in the following clause (aps tots xoopoxpdropas): for there is no

Greek_—evidence-for-the-omission-of-apés ras dpyds. Yet dm Lucif Hil

(ed. Vienn. p. 489) have the single clause although they use ‘rectores’ (Hil
mundi potentes) in the later clause. It is noteworthy that dy i is not in this
case brought into conformity with the Greek (xpis ras dpyds kab éSovaias)
of D,.

On the renderings of xooyoxpdéropas see further in the commentary ad
loc.

CYPRIAN
propter hoc induite
totu arma, ut possitis
resistere in die nequis-
simo, ut cum omnia per-
feceritis stetis adcincti
lumbos uestros in ueri-
tate.

LUCIFER

propterea accipite ar- .

ma dei, ut possitis resis-
tere in die malo, in
omnibus perfecti stare,
praecincti lumbos ues-
tros in ueritate.

COD. AMIATINUS
propterea accipite ar-
ma dei, ut possitis resis-
tere in die malo et omni-
bus perfecti stare. state
ergo succincti lumbos
uestros in ueritate,

Lucifer agrees with d,, except that the latter has ‘omnibus operis’ in
place of ‘in omnibus perfecti’, and ‘stetis’ for ‘stare’.

induite.

So m ‘induite uos’.

tota arma. The omission of ‘dei’ by the best mss of the Testimonia
is confirmed by Zp. Wviii 8. It is interesting to note in connexion with

‘tota arma’ that Jerome ad loc. says ‘omnia arma...:
mavordia, non ut in Latino simpliciter arma translata sunt’.

hoc enim sonat
Yet Cod.

Amiat. gives us ‘arma’, and the Clementine Vulgate ‘armaturam’.

neguissimo.
sions.

In . 16 ‘nequissimi’ retains its place in the later recen-

cum omnia perfeceritis, Itis strange that this excellent rendering was
not maintained: see the commentary ad Zoe.

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS.

ut...stetis accinctt.
for orfjvat: orire ody.
‘stare, estote’.
CYPRIAN
induentes loricam ius-

titiae et calciati pedes in .

praeparatione euangelii
pacis, in omnibus adsu-
mentes scutum fidei, in
quo possitis omnia ignita
iacula nequissimi extin-

guere, et galeam salutis

et gladium spiritus, qui
est sermo dei.

LUCIFER

induentes loricam ius-
titiae et calciati pedes in
praeparatione euangelii
pacis, in omnibus adsu-
mentes scutum fidei, in
quo possitis omniaiacula
nequissimi candentia ex-
stinguere, et galeam sa-
lutis et gladium spiritus,
quod est uerbum dei.

This corresponds to the reading. of D,*G, orfre
In m we find ‘estote’, or according to some Mss
The Vulgate shews correction by a better Greek text.

COD. AMIATINUS
et induti lorica ius-
titiae et calciati pedes in
praeparatione euangelii
pacis, in omnibus sumen-

. tes scutum fidei, in quo

possitis omnia tela ne-
quissimi ignea extin-
guere; et galeam salutis
adsumite et gladium spi-
ritus, quod est uerbum

291

dei.

Lucifer agrees with d., except that the latter has ‘ salutaris’ for ‘salutis’
(comp. Tert. c. Mare. iii 14).

ignita, Tertullian in an allusion (ué supra) has ‘omnia diaboli ignita
tela’: ‘candentia’ is found in m.

adsumite: supplied in the Vulgate, to correspond with défaade which
is omitted by D.*G;.
' sermo: characteristic of the Cyprianic text: comp. Tert. ué supra.

The text of Vigilius Tapsensis (Africa, c. 484) is of sufficient interest to
be given in full (de trin. xii, Chifflet, 1664, p. 313):

‘Propterea suscipite iota arma dei, ut possitis resistere in die maligno;
et cum omnia perfeceritis state cincti lumbos in ueritate, et calciate (? cal-
ciati) pedes in praeparatione euangelii pacis: super haec omnia accipientes
scutum fidei, et galeam salutaris accipite, et gladium spiritus, quod est
uerbum dei’.

Comp. c. Varimadum iii 24, p. 457: ‘In omnibus adsumentes scutum
fidei, in quo possitis omnia iacula nequissimi candentia exstinguere, et
galeam salutis et gladium spiritus, quod est uerbum dei’. This agrees with
Lucifer. The variety of text is worth noting in connexion with the ques-
tion of the authorship of these treatises!.

The following readings deserve attention either for their own importance Special
or as throwing light on the history of the text. The authorities cited are Teadings
selected as a rule from the apparatus of Tischendorf or Tregelles, and the interest.
citations have been to a large extent verified, and sometimes corrected and
amplified.

i I xpictoY incof.

Xpiorod *Inood BD,P 17 syr (hkl) boh vg (am) Or Ambrst Pele: i1 Xpurod
"Inco Xpiorod NAG, KL etc. syr (pesh) arm vg (fu al) Eph (arm) Victorin, T2000.

1 On the authorship of the de trini-
tate see Journ. of Th. St. i 126 fi.,
592 ff.: it is suggested that ‘Book xii
is probably a genuine work of St

Athanasius extant only in this Latin
version’, See also the note on the
text of vi 16, below, p.: 303.

19—2

292

The testi-
mony of B.

ix [é&
Eddoy].

1. Notin
Origen’s

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

It is not easy to decide between these readings. The full title ‘our
Lord Jesus Christ’ would help to stereotype the order ‘Jesus Christ’, This
order in itself is perhaps the more natural, especially in Syriac, ‘Jesus the
Messiah’: the Peshito has it even in the last words of this verse. A copyist
would be more likely to change Xpiorés "Ingots into Ingots Xpiorés than
vice versd.

B persistently has Xpiorod “Incod in the openings of the Epistles: it is
often deserted by 8, and once by all uncials. This fact may suggest the

‘possibility of a revision on principle. In this particular place it appears as

if the scribe of B began to write ly xy, but corrected himself in time. Yet
the support which B here has makes it hazardous to depart from it. It
is otherwise in v. 5, where B stands alone in giving the same reversal
of order.
ii tote d4rfoic tote ofcin [én "Edéca].
The case for the omission of ¢v "Epéoq has been so clearly stated by
recent critics!, that it will suffice to present the main evidence in the

briefest form, to call attention to a recent addition to it, and to set aside

some supposed evidence which breaks down upon examination.

1. The words were not in the text used by Origen [+ aD. 253]. This is _
conclusively shewn by his endeavour to explain rois oow as an independent“

text.

Evidence
of Basil.

2, Evi-
dence of
mss SB 67.

Fresh
evidence
from Mt
Athos.

phrase. In Cramer's Catena ad loc, we read:
"Opryévys S€é dyou Emi povoy *Edeciov etpopev Kelpevov Té ToiCc Srfore

Totc oycr kal Cyroupey, el py mapé\ket mpooketpevov te Toic Arfoic Toic

o¥cr’, cé Svvarar cnpaivew. spa ody el py, domep ev TS EEdd@ Svona pnow
éavtod 6 xpnparifey Macel td *QN, otras of peréxovtes Tod dvros yivovrat
Gvres, KaAovpevot olovel ex TOU pq eivat eis TO elvae KTAS

This comment is no doubt referred to by St Basil [+ a.p. 379] in the
following extract, at the close of which he declares that the words é
’*Edéow were wanting in the older copies in his own day:

AAG Kal trois "Edecios emoréAdwr, ds yrycios jvopevois 7G dvre OV
éruyvdaews, Svtas avrovs idiafévras e@vdpacer, eindy? totic Arfoic tote
oyci Kal tmictoic én Xpict@ *lHcof. otra yap kal of mpd ijpav mapa-
deddxact, Kal jpeis ev rois madaois Trav avreypapoy evpyxapev (Basil. contra
Eunom. ii 19).

2. The words év ’"E¢éo@ were originally absent from 8 and B; and |
they are marked for omission by the corrector of the cursive 67 in the |
Imperial Library at: Vienna (cod. gr. theol. 302).

An interesting addition to the documentary evidence for the omission
has been made by EH. von der Goltz, who has published an account of

1 See Lightfoot Biblical Essays
pp. 377 ff., Westcott and Hort Intro-
duction to N.T., ‘ Notes on select read-
ings’ ad loc., Hort Prolegg. to Romans
and Ephesians pp. 86ff., T. K. Abbott
Ephesians pp. i ff.

2 Perhaps we should read 7g tofc

Arfoic 7d toic ofc.

8 Origen’s comment is reproduced
in an obscure way by St Jerome, who
probably was unaware of any omission
in the text, and therefore failed to
understand the drift of the explana-
tion.

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 293

a remarkable cursive of the tenth or eleventh century in the Laura on

Mt Athos! This ms (cod. 184) contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles, Cod. Laur.
as well as the Pauline Epistles, and once contained also the Apocalypse. 184-
The scribe declares that he copied it from a very old codex, the text of
which agreed so closely with that found in the commentaries or homilies

of Origen that he concluded that it was compiled out of those books. The
margin contains many quotations from works of Origen, which appear to
have stood in the margin of the ancient copy. At the end of the Epistle

to the Ephesians is the following note?: & dmb ray es rv mpds efectos
epopdvay eEqyntikav ropev dyraveyvoooy (leg. dvraveyydcOn) 1) émoroX},
The scribe’s error shews that: this note was copied from an uncial original,

-on having been read for -6H. This Ms omits év ’Edéow, and makes no
comment on the omission. Thus we have positive evidence to confirm the
conclusion that the words were absent from the text of Origen.

3. The only other trace of the omission of the words is found in the 3. Mar-
fact that Marcion included our epistle in his edition of the Pauline Epistles cion.
under the title ‘ro tam Laopiceans’. This he could hardly have done if
the words ev *“Edéoe had stood in the salutation.

4. None of the versions gives any support to the omission. The only 4. Ver-
' two about which a doubt could be raised are the Old Syriac and the Latin. sions.

(1)_ The_Old_Syriac_can_often_be_conjecturally_restored_from-the-com--Old
mentary of Ephraim, which is preserved in an Armenian translation. It is Syriac:
true that Ephraim does not mention the words ‘im Ephesus’. His brief
comment is: ‘Zo the saints and the faithful; that is, to the baptized
and the catechumens’. But that no conclusion can be drawn from this no evi-
is at once seen when we compare with it the corresponding comment on dencefom
Col. it: ‘Zo the saints, he says, and the faithful : the baptized he calls =Pbraim.
saints, and the catechumens he names faithful’: yet no one would argue
from this that the words ‘at Colossae’ were absent from his text.

(2) Lightfoot holds that there are indications in early Latin commen- Latin :
taries that the texts used by their writers either did not contain the word supposed
Ephesi, or contained it in an unusual position which suggests that it was evidence
a later interpolation, Hort makes no reference to evidence to be derived
from this source, and it may perhaps be assumed that he was not satisfied
that a valid argument could be constructed. Butas Dr Abbott has recently
repeated Lightfoot’s suggestions, it is necessary that the passages in question
should be examined in detail. — |

. Vicrorinvs, as printed in Mai Scriptorum veterum nova collectio from
iii 31, has the following comment: ‘Sed haec cum dicit sanctis gui sunt Victor-
fidelibus Ephesi, quid adiungitur? in Christo Iesu’. I confess that I do ™°83
not understand how Lightfoot could render this, ‘But when he says these
words “To the saints who are the faithful of Ephesus,” what does he add?
“Tn Christ. Jesus”.’ For such a rendering would require fdeles, not jide-
libus’, If the text be sound, gui sunt can only be taken in Origen’s

_ | Hime textkhritische Arbeit u. 8. w. 2 Le. p. 78.
Texte u. Untersuch. neue Folge fi 4 3 ‘We are warned that this exsay is
(1899). ‘printed from Lecture-Notes’ (p. 376).

204,

from
Ambrosi-
asters

from
Sedulins
Scotus,

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

sense—‘the saints who arn,’—~and jidelibus must stand in apposition to

sanctis. But there is no trace of such an interpretation in Victorinus:
and as he himself explicitly cites the passage in the usual manner lower
down, we may well conclude that the words in this place have suffered in
the process of transcription. Even if we conjecturally substitute jideles
for fidelibus, and render, ‘to the saints who are faithful in Ephesus’, we
cannot say that Victorinus is giving us a direct citation as contrasted with
a mere allusion. For haec in the sentence before us does not refer to the
words sanctis, etc., but to the preceding phrase Paulus apostolus Iesu
Christi per voluntatem dei, which Victorinus has just told us were also
used in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. So that the passage runs:
‘But when he says these (same) words to the saints who are faithful at
Ephesus, what is added? In Christ Jesus’. The position of Zphesi is thus
accounted for by the emphasis thrown upon it for the purpose of contrast
with the Corinthian Church. It seems clear then that no evidence of a
variation of reading can be drawn from Victorinus.

ii. Lightfoot suggests that AMBROsIASTER may not have had Hphesi in
his text: (1) because ‘the commentary ignores the word Ephesi altogether’ :
(2) because his note suggests that he, or an earlier writer whose note he
adopts, had in his mind rois dyio.s rois ovow kai morois, which he regarded
as meaning ‘the saints who are also faithful’.

But, in regard to (1), a similar omission of the locality occurs in the

corresponding-notes on the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Colossians:
and generally the author’s comments on corresponding phrases are directed
to bringing out the meaning of the word ‘saints’ and its connexion with
‘Christ Jesus’. Moreover the text, as given in the Vetus Editio of Ambrose,
after citing 2. 1 runs thus:

Solito more scribit: Apostolum enim se esse Christi Jesu dei uoluntate
testatur: Sanctis et jfidelibus in Christo Jesu qui sunt Ephesi. Non solum
fidelibus scribit: sed ef sanctis: nt tunc uere fideles sint si fuerint sancti in
Christo Jesu. Bona enim uita tune prodest ac creditur sancta si sub nomine
Christi habeatur: alioguin contaminaiio erit: quia ad iniuriam proficit crea-
toris,

The Benedictine edition (and hence Migne, from which Lightfoot
quotes) omits the words Sanctis et jideiibus in Christo Jesu qui sunt
Ephesit. In the quoted text of v. 1 as given in both editions the
corresponding words are as follows: Sanctis omnibus gui sunt Ephesi,
et fidelibus in Christo Jesu.. The variation is noteworthy. On internal
grounds it would seem to belong to the commentator; but in that case he
does not ignore the word Zphesi,

With regard to (2), we should be more ready to admit the cogency
of the argument if the comment ran: non solum sanctis scribit, sed

et fidelibus.

iii. Sepu1ius Scorus, a compiler of the eighth or ninth century, writes
(Migne, P. ZL. eiii 795):

Sanctis. Non omnibus Ephesiis, sed his quicreduntin Christo. Et jidelibus.
Omnes sancti fideles sunt, non omnes fideles sancti....... Qui sunt in Christo
Iesu. Plures fideles sunt, sed non in Christo, etc.

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. . 295

Lightfoot lays no stress on the omission of Ephesi. ‘But’, he says, ‘the
position of gui sunt is striking. It would seem as though some transcriber,
finding the reading sanctis gui sunt et fidelibus in Christo Jesu in his
copy and stumbling at the order, had transposed the words so as to read
sanctis et fidelibus qui sunt in Christo Jesu. This altered reading may
have been before Sedulius, or some earlier writer whom he copies’.

Fortunately we have some information as to the source which Sedulius A parallel
was drawing from at this point. The Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, 12 ‘¥rima-
which is falsely attributed to Primasius, may or may not be earlier than ais’.
the work of Sedulius. At any rate the following passage from it is worth
quoting as a parallel!:

Sanctis omnibus qui sunt Ephesi. Omnis sanctus fidelis, non omnis fidelis
sanctus. Baptizatis fidelibus siue fideliter seruantibus sanctitatem: catechu-
menis qui habent fidem, quia credunt, sed non habent sanctitatem. Et fidelibus
in Christo Iesu. Qui licitis utuntur. Gratia etc.

The Commentary of Pelagius, printed in Vallarsi’s edition of St Jerome The

(xi, pars iii), seems to lie behind both the preceding extracts. It rung source
thus: , probably
° “te is Pela-
Omnibus sanctis. Omnes sancti fideles, non omnes fideles sancti. Quia gius,

possunt etiam catechumeni ex eo quod Christo credunt fideles dici: non tamen
sancti sunt, quia non per baptismum sanctificati. Siue sic intelligendum, quod
scribat fideliter seruantibus gratiam sanctitatis, Qui sunt Ephesi, et jidelibus who read

in Christo Iesu. Non omnibus Ephesiis, sed his qui credunt in Christo. ‘Ephesi’.
Gratia etc.

iis Kat THN [4rdttHn] eic ANTac Toye Arfoyc.

We must consider this passage in connexion with the parallels to izs xalrip
be found in the two other epistles which were carried by the same [4ydé77].
messenger. ;

i. Eph. 1 15 deotoas rv xa@ tyas miorw ev rd Kupio “Incod kal ri
[ayarny] eis mdvras rovs dyiovs.

ii. Col. i 4 deodoarres ryv miotw tpady ev Xpiord “Invod cat ri dydanv
[jv Exere] eis mavras rods dyious. .

iii, Philem. 5 dkovwy cov ri dydnny kal tiv miorw jy exes els [vo 2.
mpos| rov KUptoy Inooby kat eis wavras rovs dyious. ;

In (i) we have the following readings : Eph. i 15.
(I) xal rip eis mavras rods dyiovs N*ABP 17 Or*129 Cyrtrin 603 Ang
(de praed. ss. xix 39).
(2) xal rHv aydrny eis 7.7.4. Do*G3.
(3) xa ri dydany roy eis. 7. a. N°D°KL al pler Chrys Thdrt
Dam al.
The. Latin, Syriac, Bohairic and Gothic Versions may be claimed

1 In the editio princeps (1537) p. 333- ascribe it to a Gallic writer: it is
On this Commentary see Haussleiter closely related to the Commentary of
in Zahn’s Forschungen zur Geschichte Remigius.

d. NT lichen Kanone iv 24 ff. He would

296

Col. i 4.

Philem. 5.

Tnternal
evidence

ayarny.

The argu-
meni from
Kal? dpas.

The con-
struction
Thy ayaa
els... led to
changes.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

either for (2) or for (3); and 80 also Victorin>i Ambrst Aug (Ep.
cexvii 28) al.

(4) kat rip els wavras rods dyious dyarny 6 cursives, the Catena text
and Cyrich 838,

In (ii) B stands alone in omitting jy ¢yere without giving any substitute.
Jt thus presents a reading difficult at first sight from the grammarian’s
point of view, but quite in accord with Pauline usage. The position of év
XpiorgG “Inoot after miorw in the same verse is a parallel; and other
examples are given in the note on Eph. i 15. As the article was likely
to be inserted by scribes, we may claim the reading of DeKL (ray dyaany
7v) a8 indirectly supporting B; and the insertion of fv éyere may be
regarded as another way of meeting the difficulty, and as perhaps suggested
by 4y execs in iii,

In (iii) scribes who took jv exes as exclusively referring to ray miorw
found a difficulty in the phrase miorw ¢yew eis mavras tobs aylovs, and
accordingly D, with many cursives, the Syriac, Armenian and Aethiopic
Versions, invert the order and read ri rictw kat ri dydrnv. But the
difficulty is really non-existent; for ry dydmpy cai tiv wiorw are alike
included in jy éye:s, and the order offers an example of the grammatical
figure called chiasmus: see Lightfoot ad loc.

We now return to consider the readings of (i). If external authority be

strongly adverse to it. We cannot give zioms the meaning of ‘loyalty’ or
‘trustworthiness’, in view of the parallels in the other epistles: and we
have no example of such an expression as ‘faith towards all the saints’;
for, as we have seen, Philem. 5 cannot be regarded as sich. Moreover
we expect from the two parallels that we should find a mention of ‘love’ at
this point in the Epistle to the Ephesians,

It has been urged that the fact that St Paul writes ry cad’ bpas wiorw
instead of ryv wicrw ipedy prepares us for an unusual collocation ; and that
the contrast involved is between rv cad’ tpas and ry eis wdvras rovs
ayiovs (Hort). But. Dr T. K. Abbott has shewn (ad loc.) that Kad’ ipéas
in such a connexion is by no means unusual in later Greek. He cites
Aelian, V. HZ. ii 12 4 Kar’ avroy dperj, Diod. Sic. i 65 9 xara tiv apyny
dwoeors (laying down the government); and, in the New Testament,
Acts xvii 28 raév xa@? tyas mourdv, xviii 15 vopou tod Ka? Uulis, xxvi 3
Tov Kara “lovdaiovs eOdv. Accordingly nv xa’ twas niotw ev TH kupip
*Incod is not appreciably different from lg nlorw tay ev TO xupip *Incod,
which would closely correspond with Col. i 4.

If in spite of the authorities which support it we reject (1), there can
be no doubt that (2) must be the reading of our choice. For we then have
a close parallel to Col. i 4, when that passage has been purged of accre-
tions. Moreover the same phrase has in each epistle given occasion for
the alterations of scribes; and (3) and (4) are seen to be alternative
methods of escaping from the construction ryv dydmqv eis mdvtas tots
ayiovs. This construction is, however, as we have seen, frequent in
St Paul’s writings. Accordingly we may claim the evidence of (3) and
(4) as practically supporting (2), of which they are obvious modifications:

: alone_considered, _we-cannot-refuse-to-accept (1). But internal evidence is
avours

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 297

so that we have the evidence of all the Versions, as well as ND, cKL ete.,
to support D,* G, against N*ABP (C unfortunately is missing from ito
ii 18, and again from iv 17 to the end).

It is possible that the loss of the word in the chief mss is due to Possible
homocoteleuton. The resemblance between artHn and artHn is so close, Lomoco-
that dydmnv may have been passed over in kalTHNAfATTHNEIC. teleuton.

ii 21 mca olkoAomH.

Ilaca 7¥ olxoSony is read by N*ACP, with many cursives and some ii 21 raca
patristic evidence. olkodopti.
Origen (cat. 151) has been cited for this reading, but the article is Origen’s
absent from the only codex we possess. On the other hand the Athos ms Teading.
described by von der Goltz ( Zeate u. Unters. neue Folge ii 4, p. 75) has raca
1) olxoSoxy written above as an alternative to maca oixodopy: and the margin
contains the following note: 7d pév pytdv Tod drouyjparos: évy @ Taca olko-
Sout) dvev rod apOpov. 7 Sé e&yynots piav héyouoa ry olkodopny ridyot Kal ro
dpOpov. The reference may perhaps be to the words 77 maoy oixodouq, which
occur later in Origen’s comment. It is interesting however to note that in
the supplement which Mr Turner (Journ. of Theol. Studies, April 1902,
pp. 407 f.) has conjecturally added to correspond with Jerome’s Latin, the

words aca 7 oikodouzy are introduced. The change has apparently been
made on the ground that Jerome here writes universa aedijicatio, and not
omnis aedificatio as before: for I understand that Mr Turner had not seen
the evidence of von der Goltz’s us.

We cannot do otherwise than accept the reading of the principal author- Thearticle
ities. The insertion of the article was probably a grammatical correction, imserted
intended to secure the sense at a time when oixodony had come to be vaatoal
regarded almost exclusively as concrete in meaning. See the note in the grounds.
commentary ad loc,

fii 9 wrticat tic H olKoNomfa.

I have discussed the internal evidence for this reading in the commen- iii 9
tary. The external evidence is conflicting. purioas ris

Sorica (without mdvras) is read by S*A 67** Cyril (de recta jide ad Ket shs
reg. ed. Aubert 1638, p. 123). To this Greek evidence we may add that of
Origen as gathered from Jerome’s commentary. For though in the text
Vallarsi prints iluminare omnes, the word omnes is not found in some
codices, and the subsequent comment indicates at two points that omnes
was not present to the commentator’s mind.

@orica mavras has the authority of X°BCD,G, KLP etc. of various
Greek writers, and of all the versions, with the partial exceptions i in Latin
of Hilary (in Ps. ix 3, ed. Vienna p. 76), Aug (de gen. ad lit. v. 38, ed.
Vienna p. 162).
Tt may be that the absence of B from its usual company is due here and
elsewhere in the epistle to Western contamination.

298

iii 18 Bos
kal Bados.

Old
Syriac.

Origen’s
evidence.

The result

uncertain,

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

iii 18 Ywoe Kat Bd@oc.
The main evidence is as follows : ;
trios xat Bdbos BOD,G,P 17 and other cursives, together with all
versions (exc. syr*=!),
Baos xa tyros NAKL and many cursives, Orig Eus Chrys ete.

The exception of the Harklean Syriac is due to the correction by
Greek mss of the earlier Syriac reading. The Peshito had the curious
order dos kat Babos Kal pijxos xat mAdros, and EHphraim’s commentary
attests this for the Old Syriac.

Origen in his commentary undoubtedly accepted the reading Bdéos
kat dyfos, although incidentally he speaks of the Cross as having both
Bios and Babos. We find also BdOos kat dyros in Hom. in Jerem. xviii 2
(Ru. iii 243). The text of von der Coltz’s Athos ms has BaOos kat dos.
But a note in the margin says that dos «at Bados was read in the text of
the copy of Origen’s commentary, though he himself in his comment had
Babos xat twos.

The interpretation of such evidence is uncertain, -If, as in the reading
last discussed, we suppose that B has admitted a Western element, the
claim of the reading of SA Orig (8dé@os xai dos) is very strong. I have
however printed dios xai Bdbos in deference to the judgment of Westcott
and Hort.

iv9
xaréBy.

iv 9 KaTéBu.

This is the reading of SX*AC*D,G, 17 67**.

But wpérov is added in 8°BC°KLP and most cursives. The versions
are divided : dog, agree with their Greek, and there is no addition in sah
boh aeth. On the other hand zpérov is attested by f vg (though not, appa-
rently, by the original scribe of Codex Amiatinus): also by syr goth arm.
Ephraim’s comment is a strange one, and it leaves us uncertain whether
the Old Syriac had the addition or not : ‘Now that which ascended what
is it (saith he) but the body, which descended by means of death into
Hades? for that is the lower region of the earth’.

The Latin translator of Irenaeus has no addition (M. p. 331); but it
must be remembered that this is the case with the Latins generally with —
the exception of Ambrosiaster.

Clement (exc. Theod., P. 979) has no addition, It is noteworthy that he
ends the sentence with xaré8y, and continues thus: 6 xaraBas adros éoriy
els ra kat@rata Tis ys kal dvaBds Vrepdva Tey ovpavar.

Origen, though he does not make this transposition, recognises the
same connexion of thought: im Joann, xix 21 kal ré+ Els ra xarérara rips
yiis 6 xaraBds, ovrés éors Kal dvaBds: comp. xix 20 kal yap eis Ta Karérepa
(sic) pépy Tis vis 6 karaBas, x.7.A. These passages throw no light on Origen’s
reading in regard to spérov: nor does the passage cited from the Latin of
his commentary on Ezekiel (Ru. iii 358): nor again the incidental citation in
Catena p. 162. Jerome’s commentary however in its text has no addition,
and this may perhaps be an indication of Origen’ 8 text at this point.

The strangest point about this reading is the company in which B
finds itself.

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 299

iv 17 KaOdoc Kal TA GONH.

A small group of uncials with many cursives read xaOds kal rd dowra iv 17 7h
ZOvy (N°D.°KLP): so also syr goth arm; but not the Old Syriac as &6vy.
attested by Ephraim’s commentary.

The addition is of an interpretative character.

ivy 28 taic yepcin TO dpaddn.

This is the reading of N°B.' Other readings are: iv 28 tals

To dyabov rats xepoiv L, many cursives, and the text of the Catena mA ai

(? Orig).

tais idias xepolv ro dyabey &*AD.G, and some cursives,

To ayaor rais dias xepoiy K and some cursives.

ro dyabov P 17 67** cod Laur 184 (v. der Goltz, p. 78). This is sup-
ported by m and by Clem. Alex. (P. 308, 371). The comment of Origen
would not require any other reading than this,

The versions do not give us much help in a reading of this kind.

iv 29 mpdc oikoAOMAN TAic ypefac.

We find the remarkable substitution of -sicrews-for “Xpelas -in-D*Gz46--iv-29-r}s—
Ad aedificationem fidei is the almost universal reading in Latin codices xpelas.
and fathers. Jerome ad loc, says,‘ Pro eo autem quod nos posuimus ad
aedificationem opportunitatis, hoc est quod dicitur Graece rijs ypeias, in
Latinis codicibus propter euphoniam mutauit interpres et posuit ad aedifi-
cationem jidet’, Jerome’s rendering is found in Codd. Amiatinus and
Fuldensis (the latter having opportunitatis fidei), but it has not succeeded
in displacing the older Latin rendering in the ordinary Vulgate MSS.

The only Greek patristic evidence cited for micrews is Greg. Nyss. im Clement's
Ecclesiast. vii 6 (Migne p. 727), Basil Regg. pp. 432, 485, alibi. It is how- Te#ding.
ever to be noted that, although in Clem. Alex. Strom. i 18 go (P. 371)
we have mpos oixodopmy ris ypeias, yet in the opening sentence of the
‘Paedagogus we have the expression eis ofxodopuny ricreas.

Tt has been suggested to me that the reading of D,* and Iren. Haer. Comp.
(praef. ad init.) in 1 Tim. i 4 should be borne in mind in the consideration 1 Tim. i. 4.
of this variant: padAov 7 oixodopjy Oeod Thy év miores (D,° has ofxodopiay:
the true reading being ofxovopiav).

iv 32, V2 YMIN...~MAC...~MON.,

The reading of B is exapicaro HY2iV.. afyamoey & Upais kat mapédmxer Eavroy iv 32, V 2
dmép duav. N has ¢ tpiy.. pas (judas N°).. .ypadr. Due. Span
The reading in iv 32 may be considered by itself. B has the support of ”
D, (but not d,) KL: but the same combination reads jyiy also in the parallel
passage, Col. iii. 13, where B goes with the other uncials in reading dpi».
The context would admit of jpiv, but dpi» is the more natural; and it is
supported by SAG,P (the cursives and the versions are divided).

300 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

The readings in v 2 must be considered together. We can hardly allow
a change of the pronoun in the two clauses coupled by cai. The evidence
of the uncials is as follows: an

Suds N*ABP, juds ND,G,KL:
vay B, ev NAD,G,K LP .

The pro- In Modern Greek tpeis and jyeis are indistinguishable in sound, and
nouns this was probably the case when our Mss were written, for the scribes
confused perpetually confuse them. The context usually settles the question: but
y * where either will make good sense, it is difficult to come to a decision. On
the whole we may be satisfied to read the pronoun of the second person
throughout this passage.

V 14 €triaycei cot 6 ypictdc.

V 14 emt By the change of a single letter we get the reading émipaices oot ¢
gatce. yoords. I have already given (p. 119) a passage from Jerome ad loc., in
By pane which he tells of a preacher who quoted the text as follows: ‘Surge Adam
émpatoen. gui dormis, et exsurge a mortuis, et non ut legimus émpatoes vot Xpiords,
id est orietur tibt Christus, sed émufatce, id est continget te Christus’.
There seems to be no Greek evidence to corroborate this. For though
Cramer’s Catena ad éoc., p. 196, 1. 31, has émupavoes aot 6 Xprords, this
appears to be but_a_copyist’s_error:_the-extract-is-from-Chrysostom-ad-loc,, —

and Field’s apparatus (p. 279) shews that several scribes have written
exupatcoe for érupatoe. In Latin however we find continget te Christus in
the old Roman edition of Ambrosiaster ad Joc., and in Augustine on Ps. iii
6 (ed. Ben. iv iib).
Further If this reading is due to a mere mistake, there is another which involves
change, conscious alteration, viz. érupatoes trod ypicrov. It is found in Cod. Claro-
emupaices montanus (D.), the Latin side of which has continges Christum. It was
xpterod. known to Chrysostom: indeed it probably stood in the ms which he was
using for his commentary. For though, according to Field’s text and
apparatus, in the first place in which he quotes the verse he gives us
érupavoe cot 6 xpiores, yet a few lines lower down his comment runs thus:
Kat érupaices, pact, rot ypiotot: of 8é haow *Empatoe: cor 6 ypiords’
paddoy S€ rodrd dart. This comment is far more natural if the text of the
Catena be right, which gives in the first place érupavces rod ypicroi.
Continges Christum is found in Victorinus ad loc., and in some mss of
Ambrosiaster: also in the Latin translator of Origen (Ru. ii 400, iii 78).
Ruricius, epp. lib. ii 11, gives alternative readings: ‘et continges Christum
siue inluminabit te Christus’. Moreover Paulinus of Nola, ep. xxxii 20,
has: ‘Surge inquit gut dormis, et erigere a mortuts, et adtinges Christum’ :
comp. ep. ix 2, ‘quamuis iamdudum ei dixeritis: Hrige te a mortuis, ut
adtingas Christum’.

Vv I5 BAéTreTe OYN AKpIBOC Tc Trepitrareite.

V 18 dxpt- This is the reading of 8*B, 17 and other cursives, Or“: and the order
Bas rs. is supported by the Bohairic version, which however reads ddeAdoi after
dxptBas.

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 301

NA have BAérere ovy, ddedgoi, was axpiBds repurareire, and this is
supported by the Vulgate and Pelagius ad loc. (as edited). D,G,KLP have
the same reading without the insertion of ddeAgof: this is supported by
the Syriac and Armenian versions, and by Chrysostom, Lucifer, Victorinus
and Ambrosiaster. In d, dxpi8ds is not represented.

v 17 cyniere.

This is read by SABP 17 67**...syr arm. - VIy
D,*G, have ovviovres, and D,°KL...have ovmévres which is supported ovviere.
by Chrysostom and others.

The Latin rendering was Propterea nolite effict (fer) imprudenies,
sed intellegentes, etc. It is quite possible that the participle came in by the
process of Latinisation. .

A 2 ~ a
Y¥ 19 admoic kal YmNoic Kal GAaic TNEYMATIKATC K.T-A.

The readings of this verse are compared with those of Col. iii 16 by v 19
Lightfoot, Colossians, pp.247 f. Here it may suffice to note that B (1) inserts vanuots
év before adpois, with P 17 67**; (2) omits mvevparixais, with d, and some “ TA.
mss of Ambrosiaster: (3) reads r7 xapdig, with N*Or™t, against év r7 xapdia
or év rais xapdias. Of these variants (1) and (2) are probably errors, but

(3) may be accepted.

v 22 af rynaikec, tote fAfoic ANApACIN.

The only ms which at present offers this reading is B. Clement of v 22 Al
Alexandria however cites the passage thus (P. 592) where he quotes we. 21— Yates,
25, but where he begins his citation with 7. 22 he inserts droraceéabacav Sooke
(P. 308). Jerome says that the subditae sint of the Latin ‘in Graecis ;
codicibus non habetur’; and he was probably guided by Origen here.

The other readings are:

(a) Al yuvaixes, rots idiots dvdpdow tmordccecGe KL...syr™ Chr

(6) Ai yuvaixes, UmoraccedGe Trois idiots avdparw DoG,

(a) and (6) preserve the vocative construction, which is found below in
v. 25, Vil, 4, 5, 9, and in the parallel passages in Col iii 18 ff.

(b) gives tmoracoecGe in the same position as in Col. iii 18.

¥ 23 ayToc cwTAhp TOY cmartoc.
This is the reading of S*ABD,*G;, latt., except that N*A prefix 6 to v 23 airds

corp. TWTIHp.
N°D"KLP read xai atdros éort oornp tov odpuaros, The change was

‘doubtless intended to make the language more smooth, but it weakens the

sense.

302

V 27 avrds
éaur@.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

v 27 YNa TrapacTHcH aytoc éayTq@.

For atrés we find avriy in D,°K and many cursives: also in Chrysostom, |
But here again the sense is obviously weakened by the change.

vy 30 Sti MéAH éCMEN TOY c&MaToc aYTO¥.
So the words stand without addition in N*AB 17 67** and in von der

Goltz’s Athos ms. This last piece of evidence confirms the view that

Origen knew of no addition (Ru. iii 61). We have further evidence from
the Bohairic and Aethiopic versions, and from Methodius (Sympos. 54,
Jahn p. 17).

But the great mass of authorities add the words éx rijs capxés avrod kal
ék Tév dotéwy adrod. Irenaeus read them and commented on them (Mass.
Vv. 2 3, p. 294). They are derived from Gen. ii 23, Todro viv éoroty éx tay
éoréwpy pov kai capé éx Tis capkos pov, the verse which immediately precedes

‘ that which St Paul goes on to quote, ‘For this cause shall a man leave,’ etc.

It is not impossible that St Paul should himself have made this adaptation
as 2 preliminary to his quotation: but the strength of the evidence against
the words justifies us in regarding them as an early gloss.

V_31__trpOc_ TAN _FYNATKA_ayYTOY

V 31 wpos
Thy
yuvaixke
avrov.

Omission
of the
whole
clause.

In Gen. ii 24 the evidence for the Lxx is as follows:
mpos THY yuvaixa adrov, DE and most cursives, supported by Origen in
his comment on Eph. v 31.
Ti yevatxt adrov, A and some cursives.
Unfortunately the evidence of 8B is wanting.

The passage is thrice quoted in the New Testament.

In Matth. xix 5 the reading is 17 yuvaixi avroi in almost all authorities, :
In Mark x 7 the whole clause xai rpoaxoAAnOjoerat mpos THY yuvaixa avrod
is wanting in NB. For the mss which have this clause the evidence is :

mpos THY yuvaika avrov, DXTII...
TH yuvaci avrot, ACLNA...
In Eph. v 31 the main evidence is:
mpos TH yuvaika avrov, N°CBD<KL
Th yovaxt avrod N* (om. adrov) AD,*G3 17

Origen (Cat. ad loc.) expressly states that St Paul omitted the clause of
the LXX mpockodAnOyjoera wpos tiv yuvaika avrod. In ec. Cels. iv 49 he
quotes, as from St Paul, yéyparra yap dre evexey rovrou xaradeiype
avOpwmos roy marépa kal thy pytépa Kat mpooKoAAnOnoerar mpos THY ‘yuvaika
avrov, kai €covrat of Sto eis caxpa play. 7d pvoTHpioy TovTO wéya éoTiv, KTD,
Here however he is quoting loosely from memory, as is shewn by his giving
évexey rovrov for St Paul's dyri rovrov. Again in Comm. in Matth. t. xvii
c. 34 he first quotes, as it seems, from the Lxx, and then adds St Paul’s
words: but he does not give a continuous quotation from St Paul. These
two passages therefore are not really inconsistent with his statement as to
the omission of the clause by St Paul.

NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 393

It appears that from Marcion’s text of the epistle the clause was also
absent. For Tertullian c. Marc. v 18 cites the passage thus: ‘ Propter hanc
(v2. hoc) relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo in carne una.
sacramentum hoc magnum est’ (‘hanc’ would seem to refer to ‘ecclesiam’):
comp. c. Mare. iii 5 ‘Suggerens Ephesiis quod in primordio de homine
praedicatum est relicturo patrem et matrem, et futuris duobus in unam
carnem, id se in Christum et ecclesiam agnoscere’. Epiphanius in a con-
_ fused note (¢. haer. xlii, schol. 3 in Ephes, p. 373) corroborates this

evidence. ,

It is remarkable that the only evidence of Greek mss for omission of

the clause is that which we have already noticed in Mark x 7.

vig Kat aYT@n Kal YMA@N.

This is the best reading in itself, and it has the strongest authority, being vi 9 xat
supported by &* (éaur.) ABD,*P 17 vg. atrdy Kat
The Latin of Clarom. (d,) has et uestrum ipsorum, and in consequence “**”
of this the second xai of the Greek is dropped by the corrector: so that we

get the reading xal avréy dpa D,°, which is also found in G;.
Cyprian, Testim. iii 73, has et uestrum et ipsorum (om, et 2° cod, Monac.):
this corresponds to cai judy Kat avrdy N° (éavr.) Le

The reading of the Textus Receptus cat vzor avrév has but very slight
support.

_Vi Io tof Aortroy.

This is read by N* AB 17, and is supported by the true text of Cramer’s vi 10 rod
Catena ad loc., which at this point almost certainly represents Origen (see Aourod.
Journ. of Th. St. iii 569).

As 70 Aourdy, or Aosrdv alone, is frequent in St Paul's epistles, we are
not surprised to find the variant 7d Aowréy in X°D,G, and many other
authorities.

vi 16 €N TTSCIN.

The preposition év is given by NBP 17... Cramer’s Catena ad /oc. supports vi 16
this reading in its text, although Chrysostom from whom it is quoting at & téow.
this point has éi. The Latin rendering is im omnibus, with the rarest émt waiow.
exceptions.

On the other hand éi waow is found in AD,G,KL and many other
authorities. Ambrosiaster has super his omnibus. In Book xii of the
de trinitate, ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus, we find the rendering super
haec omnia (Chifflet p. 313). This Book, however, according to a recent
theory is a Latin translation of a Greek treatise (see references in the note
on p. 291 above, see also p. 269 n.). Inc. Varimad. iii 24 Vigilius has the
usual rendering in omnibus.

304

vi 6 rd
TemTupw-
pea,

virg 7d
pvoripioy
Tod evay-

yerlou,

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

vi 16 TA Tretrypwména.

The definite article is omitted in BD,*G;. The combination is inter-
esting, but it may be merely accidental. Origen has the article in his
comment in the Catena, and in his comm. in Exod. Ru. ii 126.. In his
comm. in Joann, xxxii 2 (Ru. iv 406) the article is present, but a little
lower down (p. 407), though Delarue has it, Huet and Brooke omit it. In
the passages cited by Tregelles (Ru. i 266 and in Prov, Mai 12) we have
only allusions from which no argument can be drawn,

Vi I9 TO MyYCTHPION TO? eYarreAfoy.

The omission of rod evayyediov by BG, is supported by Victorinus. In
Tert. c. Mare. v 18 we have the phrase constantiam manifestandé sacra-
menti in apertione oris, which points to the same omission.

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

*Avadés, ii 10, iv 28f., vi 8

ayabwodrn, V 9

dyaray, li 4, V 2, 28, 28, 33, Vi 243
6 tyyarnuevos, i 6

dydarn, i 18, ii 4, iii 19, vi 233 &
drydry, i 4, iii 17, iv 2, 15, 16

dyarnrés, V 1, Vi 21

Gyidvew, Vv 26

deytos* of dytot, i 1, 15, 18, ii 19, iii 18,
iv 12, Vi 183 dyiot, iii 8, V 33 dytos

rijs ddnOelas, i133 KaOws Eorw adh-
Gea, iv 21

drnbevew, iv 15

advo, Vi 20

dpaprdvew, iv 26

dpapria, ii 1

auhy, iii 21

dpwpos, i 4, V 27

dvaBalvew, iv 8 ff.

dvaywwokew, iii 4

Kal duwpos, 1 4, ¥ 273 7d mvedua 7d
dywov, 1 13, iv 30; vads dytos, ii 21;
ol drytot dmdcrodot, iil 5

ayvow, iv 18

dypumvelv, Vi 18

dbev, V 19

dder@pés, Vi 21, 23

Geos, ii 12

alua* (rod xpirrod) 17, 11133 alua Kat
odpt, vi 12

aipew, iv 31

aloxpés, V 12

aloxpérns, V 4

aireicOa:, iii 13, 20

alxparwolay, 7xuadrdreveev, iv 8

aldv' 6 aliv otros, i 213 Tod Kédopou
rovrov, li 23 of aldves, ili 9, 11; of
émepxdpevot, ii 7; 6 ale Tdv alwvur,
iii 21

axadapola, iv 19, ¥ 3

dxdOapros, V 5

dxapmos, V IL

dxovew (rov xpiordy), iv 21

axptB@s, V 15

dxpoBvorla, ii 11

dxpoywrtatos, ii 20

A@dfOea, iv 21, 24f., 9, Vir4; 6 Adyos

EPHES.”

avaxepadaotcba, i To
dvadauBdverv, Vi 13, 16
dvaveotoba, iv 23°

avagra, V 14

dvacrpéperOat, li 3
dvacrpopy, iv 22

dvepos (rijs SidacxaNlas), iv 14
dveitxvlacros, iii 8

dvéxerOar, iv 2

avhxev, V 4

dvip’ els dvdpa rédeov, IV 13
dvOpwrdperkos, vi 6

dvOpwiros’ els &va xawdy, 1115; 6 Fou,

jii 16; 6 wadatés, Iv 223 6 xauwés,
iv 243 of viol rv dvOpdrwy, iii 5
dviévat, Vig
dvoikis, Vi 19
dyrt rovrov, V 31
dyriorivat, vi 13
délws wepurareiv, iv 1
darndynkores, iV 19
darn\orpiopévor, ii 12, iv 18
drarav, V 6
dwdrn, iv 22
drelOta* of viot rijs, ii 2, V6
dareth}, Vi 9
dardorns, vi §

306 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

Groxadvrrew, lil 5
droxaduyns, i 17, iii 3
dwroxaradAdocew, ii 16
droxpirrew, iii 9
awoxreivew, ii 16
drodtrpwots, 1 7, 14, iv 30
‘dréarodos, i 1, ii 20, iii 5, iv x1
drrorlOecOat, iv 22, 25
dppaBay, i 14

dpx}, 1 21, iii 10, vi 12
dpxwv, ii 2

doédyea, iv 19

dsopos, V 15

dowrla, v 18

avéavew, ii 21, iv rg
av&yows, iv 16

atrés (emph.), ii 14, iv of, Vv 23, 27

dpeots, 1 7
66%, iv 16
apOapola, vi 24
ddpwv, V 17

Babos, iii 18

Soxtudfew, V 10

ddpara, iv 8

d6fa, iii 13, 213 els Exaswov (rijs) dééns,
16, 12, 143 6 warhp rijs Sbéys, i 17;
whobros Tis Soéys, i 18, iii 16

dovAevew, Vi 7

Soddos, Vi 5 f., 8

dtvauts, i 19, 21, iii 7, 16, 20

Swed, ili 7, iv 7

ddpov, ii 8

-éyelpew, i 20, V 14

&Ovy, rd, ii x1, iii 1, 6, 8, iv 17

el ye, iii 2, iv 21

eldwhohdrpys, Vs

elpijen, i 2, ii 17, iv 3, Vi 15, 233.9
elpivn tay, li 143 moe elpivyy,

li-15
éxxAnola, i 22, iii ro, 21, V 23 ££, 27,
29, 32

exréyerOat, i 4
éxtropever Oat, iv 29
éxrpépew, V 29, Vi 4

Barriwpa, iV §

Baoirela roi xpicrob Kal Geov, v 5
Bédos, vi 16

Bracpypla, iv 31

Prérew" was, V 15

BovrAh (rod Oehjwaros adrod), i 11

yeveal, iii 5, 21

ywuplfew, io, iii 3, 5, 10, vi 19, 21
woos, iii 19

yovara Kaprrew, iii 14

yovets, Vi 1

dénous, Vi 18

déopuos, tii 1, iv 41

déxerOae (reptxepadalav), vi ry
SidBoros, iv 27, vi x1

SiaPjxoe (THs éraryyeNas), ii 12
Staxovla, iv 12

Sidxovos, iii 7, vi 21

dudvora, ii 3, iv 18

didackadla, iv 14

dibdoKxado, iV 11

Siidoxer Oar (év avrg), iv 21
Slxkatos, Vi x

Sixacoodvn, iv 24, V9, vi 14
66, ti 11, iii 13, iv 8, 25, Vv 14
Obypara, ii 15

ékaxiorérepos, iii §

edéyxew, V II, 13 .

adeos, li 4

éXevOepos, vi 8

édrls, 1 18, ii 12, iv 4

évoelxvvc Oat, ii 7

évdogos, V 27

évduvapoidobat, vi Io

evdtoacbat, iv 24, Vi TT, 14

évépyeua” Kara (ri), i 19, iii 7, iv 16

évepyeiv, i 11, 20, li 2, ili 20

évkaxety, iii 13

évérns, iv 3, 13

évro\y, ti 15, Vi 2

eEaryopdfvew, Vv 16

étioxvew, iii 18

éfovola, i 21, ii 2, iii 10, vi 12.

erayyeNa, i 13, ii 12, ili 6, vi 2

&racvos, v. ddéa

érepxdpevor (aldves), ii 4

émlyvwots, 1 17, iv 13

émidvew, iv 26

érOupla, li 3, iv 22

eripavoxew, V 14

émtxopnyla, iv 16

érotkodopeto bat, ii 20

erroupavias, év rots, 1 3, 20, ii 6, ili 10,
vi 12

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

épyagerOa, iv 28

épyacla, iv 19

epyov (dtaxovlas), iv123 épyaii gf., v x1
érowmacta, vi 15

ed ylverOa, Vi 3

ebaryyenifecOat, ii 17, iii 8
evaryyé\ov, i 13, iii 6, vi 15, 19
evaryyedoral, iv 11

evdperros, V 10

eddoxia, i 5, 9

evroye, i 3

eddoynrés, i 3

eddoyla, i 3

etvoia, Vi 7

evom\ayxvos, iV 32

edrpamenla, V 4

edxaptorelv, i 16, V 20
ebxapiotia, V 4

etwila, V 2

éxOpa, ii 15 f.

fw (rod Ged), iv 18

+307

xapéla, i 18, iii 17, iv 18, V 19, Vi 5, 22

Kaprés Tod gwrds, V 9

xara’? 4 xa’ duds wloris, i153 7d Kar’
éud, Vi 21; of xa? da, V 33

xarafalvew, iv g f.

KaraBod} Kédopov, 1 4

katadapBaverOa, iii 18

warahelrew, V 31

karavray, iv 13

Karapyetv, li 15

KaTapriopos, iv 12

Karevioriov, i 4

xarepydverOar, Vi 13

karotkely, iii 17

Karounryptov, ii 22

Karwrepa pépy, IV 9

kavxaobat, ii g

kevol oye, V 6

Kegan}, i 22, iv 15, V 23

Kvértew, iv 28

KAnpovoula, i 14, 18, V 5

KAnpotoOat, i 11

KMjows, i 18, iv 1, 4

qaula, 1V 13

Hrs, iv 26

tyépa’ amodurpwcews, iv 303 movnpd,
v 16, vi 13

Oddrew, V 29

béknua (Beob, xuptov), i 1, 5, 9, 11,
V 17, Vi6; Ta OeAjmara, ii 3

Geuédxos, ii 20

Oeuedtobobat, iii 17

Artes, iii 13

Oupds, Iv 31

Oupeds, Vi 16

Ovala, V 2

Odpaé, vi 14

téwos, [iv 28], ¥ 22

Incods’ ddjOea ev TQ "Incod, iv 21
Iopata, ii 12

isxds, 1 19, Vi 10

xadaplvfev, V 26

xabliew, i 20

xawos d&vOpwrros, ii 15, IV 24
xoupos, i 10, ii 12, v 16, vi 18
kaxla, iv 31

kanretoOat, iv 1, 4

Kdparrey rd ydvara, iii 14

KAvouvlferbat, iv 14

xouiteyr, vi 8

Koray, iv 28

Koopoxpdropes, Vi 12

Koopos, i 4, ii 2, 12

Kparatodo@a, iii 16

xpdros (rijs trxvos avrob), 1 19, Vi 10

Kpavyh, IV 31

Kpupy, V 12

xrigew, li 10, 18, iii 9, iv 24

xuBla, iv 14

kbpios* év xuply, ii a1, iv 1, 17, Vv 8,
vi I, 10, 213 &v T@ Kuply Inood, i 18

xuptorns, 1 21

NOyos, Vi IQ; THs dAnOelas,i13; campés,
Iv 293 Kevols Adyous, V 6

Nowros* ol Aovrol, ii 3; [Tad Aowrd ZOvy,
iv 17]; 70d dotrod, vi 10

Aourpéy, V 26

Avew, Ti 14

Avreiv, iV 30

paxpobupla, iv 2
paxpoxpovios, Vi 3

pavOdvew Tov xpiordéy, Iv 20
papriperOar, iv 17
paradrns, iv 17

308

paxaipa, Vi 17

péyas (uveripiov), V 32

péyedos, 1 19

peGodia, iv 14, vi 11

BeOvoxecOar, ¥ 18

Hédos, iv 25, V 30

Hépos, iv 16; 7a Kardrepa neon, iv 9
‘pecbrotxov, li 14

peradtdévar, iv 28

hérpov, iv 7,13, 16

Kjos, iii 18

Meunris, VX

puget, V 29

pyelav troetcOa, i 16

pvnpovedew, ii rx

Kuoripov, ig, iii 3 f., 9, ¥ 32, Vi 19
peporoyla, ¥ 4

vads, ii 21

vexpés, i 20, li 1, 5, ¥ 14
viios, iv 14

voeiv, ili 4, 20

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

wapakadev, iv 1, Vi 22

Taparrépara, i rE ii I; §

Tapioravat, v27

wdpotkos, ii 19

mwapopylfev, Vi 4

wapopytopos, iv 26

wappyola, iii 12, vi 19

mwappnoiaserOar, Vi 20

was raoa olxodoun, ii 21; rica rapid,
lii 15; ol wdvres, iv 133 rd mdpra,
irof., 23, iii 9, iv ro, 15, V 133
év wrasw, i 23, iv 6, vi 16

warp (Geds), i 2f., 17, ii 18, iii 14,
iv 6, V 20, vi 23

warp, ili 18

Tladdos, i 1, iii 1

materOar, i 16

mwerrolOyots, ii 12

mepicwvvvcbat, Vi 14

mepikeparala, Vi 17

mepirareiv, li 2, 10, iV 1, 17, V 2,
8, 15

vouos (rav évrohay ev Séypacw),_ ii_15 _mepimolgars, i_14

vovbeata, vi 4
vods, iv 17, 23

évos, li 12, 19

olxetos (rob Oeod), ii 19
olxodopu7}, li 21, iv 12, 16, 29
olkovoula, i to, ili 2, g

owos, V 18

édlyos* ev Odbyy, iii 3

évoua, i 21, ¥ 20
dvoudferOat, 1 21, iii 15, v 3
dpy7, ii 3, iv 31, v 6
dpylverOat, iv 26

davérys, iv 24

éouy evwdlas, V 2

‘éogts, Vi 14

otpavol, i 10, iii 15, iv 10, vi 9
ddelrerr, V 28

b6fOarpodovrla, vi 6

épParpol ris xapdlas, i 18

matdela, Vi 4

radatds dvOpwmos, iv 22
wary, Vi 12

mwavotAla, Vi II, 13
mavoupyla, iv 14
mapadidévat, iv 19, V 2, 25

Tepocetew, i 8

mweptroun, ii 1X

mepipépesOat, iv 14

mixpla, iv 31

morevewv, 1 13, 19

moms, irs, ii 8, ili 12, 17, iv 5, 13,
vi 16, 23 ,

miorés, i I, Vi 21

wravy, iv 14

wharos, iii 18

wheoveKTys, V 5

wheoveéia, iv 19, V 3

wAnpodv, i 23, iii 19, iv 10, Vv 18

wrjpwua, 1 10, 23, iii 19, iv 13

mwrnolov, 6, iV 25

mrovotos, ii 4 .

mdovros, i 7, 18, ii 7, iii 8, 16

wvedua* Tis érayyeAlas 7d dycov, 1133
Td dytov Tod Oeod, iv 30; avrod (sc.
Geod), iii 16; coplas Kal droxaddpeus,
1175 Tod vods tuav, iv 23; év mvedua,
ii 18, iv 4; évérns rod wvedparos,
iv 35 ev mvetyart, ii 22, iii 5, v 18,
Vi 18; pdxatpa rod wrvetparos, Vi 17;
ToU mvedparos Tol viv évepyoivros év
Tots ulots ris daecOlas, ii 2

avevparixds, 13, V 19; TA MvevpariKd,
vi 12

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

arotely (rpdbeow), ili 11; moretoOas pwelay,
i116; roetoOar avénow, iv 16

arolnua, ii Io

wouyséves, iv 11 -

awottrela, ii 12

aonvrolxtdos, iii 10

trovnpla, Vi 12

arovnpés, 6, Vi 16; tuépa, V 16, Vi 13

aropvela, V 3

qopvos, V §

qovs, 1 22, Vi 15

apicoew, Vi 21

arpairns, iv 2

apétew, V 3

apeaBeve, Vi 20

apoypidev, ili 3

apoedrifew, i 12

ampoerounagew, li 10

apibeow, kard, i 11, ii 11

apoopltew, i 5, IT

apocaywy}, ii 18, iii 12

ampocedxerOat, Vi 18

apoceuxy, i 16, vi 18

309

cbviecpos, iv 3

ouwveyelpe, ii 6

otveots, iii 4

cuv{worael, ii §

curiévat, V 17

ouvxabliew, li 6

guvKdnpor duos, iii 6

ouvKowwveiy, VY II

ouvpéroxos, iii 6, V7

cuvorkodopneicOat, li 22

owonirys, li 19

atvowpos, ii 6

opparylierOar, i 13, iv 30

odgerdu, li 5, 8

capa, iv 16, V 23, 28; (rod xpicrod),
i 23, iv 12, V 30; & cdua, ii 16, iv 4

curhp Tod gwparos, V 23

owrnpla, i 13

owrhpiov, 76, Vi 17

rarewogpootvy, iv 2
réxva, V1, Vit, 43 épyis, li 33 pwrds,
v8

apockaprepnots, vi 18
aporko\Nac Oat, ¥ 35 .
aporpopd, V 2
apocwmornuypla, Vi g
aporlbecbat, i g

mpopfrat, ii 20, lii-s, iv 11
avpotcGa, Vi 16

aripwois THs xapdlas, iv 18

pfpa Geod, vi 173 év pian, V 26
pefodoOar, iii 17
puris, V 27

campés, iv 29

dps, ii 3, V 29, 313 & capal, ii 113
év Ti capxt avrod, ii 15; Kara odpka,
vig; mpds alua cat odpxa, Vi 12

oPevvivat, vi 16

oxéros, V 8, I, Vi 12

oxorotcba, iv 18

cogla, i 8, 17, iii 10

copol, V 15

omldos, V 27

omrovddgev, iv 3

oraupos, ii 16 |

orépa, iv 29, vi 19

owapporoyeiobat, ii 21, iv 16

ouBiBdverOa, iv 16

réxevos—(dvjp); iV 13
rnpev, iv 3

rérov didvat, iv 27
Tpopos, Vi §
Tixexos, Vi 21

Bwp, V 26

viofecta, i §

vids’ rod Geod, iv 133 THs dwreOlas, ii 2,
v 6; Trav dvOpdéruy, ili §

tuvos, V 19

traxove, Vi 1, 5

brepdyw, i 21, iv 10

drepBdddew, i 19, ii 7, iii 19

imepexrepigcos, iii 20

brodeioOat, Vi 15

brordcoew, 1 22, ¥ 21, 24

Byos, iii 18, iv 8

gavepodcba, V 13
pOelpecOar, iv 22
poPeicbat, V 33
poBos, V 21, Vi 5
dparyuds, ii 14
gpovnors, i 8

gtoe, ii 3

gas, V 8L, 13
guwrlfev, i 18, ili 9

310

xaplferbar, iv 32

xdpw, rovrod, iii 1, 14

xadpts, i 2, 6F., ii 5, 7f., vi 245 (dodeiva,
€566n), iii 2, 7f., iv 73 wa 36 xdpw
ols dxovovew, iv 29

xaproiv, 1 6

xelp, iv 28

xetporolyros, ii 11

xpela, iv 28; mpds olxodopiy ris xpelas,
iv 29

xpnorés, iv 32

xenorérgs, ii 7:

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.

Xpiorés’ & rp xpior@, i 10,12, 203
&v Te XpioTe "Inood 7G xvply pudr,
iii 11; é& Xpur@, i 3, iv 32; é
Xpicr@ "Inood, i 1, ii 6£., 10, 13,
ili 6, 213 xwpls Xpicrob, ii 12

yddrew, V 19
paruds, V 19
pebdos, iv 25
puxy’ éx puxjs, vi 6

giH, V 19

INDEX OF

agapae, 122

Ambrosiaster, 143, 172, 268, 3013
Roman edition of, 294, 300

Anthology, epigram of Philip of Thes-
salonica, 262 f.

Antioch, Church in, 5, 55

aorist, meaning and rendering of, 142,
190, 195, 205; epistolary, 167, 217,
276

SUBJECTS.

Body, of Christ, the Church, 41 ff.;
fulfilling Him, 43 f., 87 ff., roo f.;
quotations from Clement, 140; Origen
and Chrysostom, 45; one body, 65 f.,
93 £.; fellow-members of (‘concor-
porate’), 78; growth of, 102 ff., 131,
183, 188; building of, 99, 182, 188;
Christ the Head of, 41 ff., 103, 124 f.;
the Saviour of, 124f.; lying is a sin
against, 110 f.; ‘in a bodily way’,

apostles and prophets, 69, 77 f., 97 f.,
163, 181

Aristotle, on a7, 186; xopnyetv, 187 ;
ebrpareNla, 197; évépyea, 242 ff.;
TIPWHA, 259

Armenian version, evidence for Old
Syriac, 214, 267 n.

article : qualifying phrase added with-
out art., irs n., ii m1, ign, ivi;
anarthrous subst. with further defi-
nition, ili 11 n., iv 14, 16 0. ; art.
with first only of related terms,
v5n.;3 art. with the second of two
nouns, V 23 n.

Ascension of Isaiah, on evil spirits,
154; seven heavens, 180; the Be-
loved, 232

Ascension of cur Lord, 24, 96, 179 f.

atonement : redemption through blood,
29; blood of a covenant, 62 f.;
reconciliation, 65 f.

Baptism, 178, 206 f.; confession at,

. 128, 206 f.; origin of baptismal
creed, 207; Voice at the Baptism,
230 f.

Beloved, the, 28; detached note on,
229 ff.

88; ‘the body of His flesh’, 88, 16x

building, metaphor derived from, 67 ff.,
112 £,; building and growth, 71, 99,
113, 182, 188; rooted and founded,
85 f.; of Greek temples, 260 ff.

Calvary, legend of, 119 n.

Christ : the rendering of ‘ Messiah’, 6;
with and without the article, 22, 32 ;
the titles ‘Christ’ and ‘ Jesus’, 23 f.,
107; ‘Christ’ and ‘the Lord’, 72,
go; ‘Christ’ and ‘the Son of God’,
too; ‘in Christ’, 22 ff., 32 f., 57 £.;
‘without Christ’, 56 £, 158; Christ
in us, 85; to ‘learn Christ’, 106,
190; the kingdom of, 117 ; the fear
of, 123, 127, 209; see also Body,
Fulness, Mystery

Church, the, 80, 89, 124 ff. ; its relation
to Christ, see Body, Fulness: the
household of God, 67; God’s house,
68 f.; God’s temple, 71 f.; Christ’s
ecclesia, 68 f.

Clement of Alexandria, on the Church,
140

Colossians, Epistle to, 136 f.; passages
discussed, (i 24) 44, (i 26 f.) 238,
(ii 9) 88, (ii 13 f.) 153

312

Corinthians, First Epistle to : passages
discussed, (ii 1 ff.) 237, (ii 6, 8) 154,
(iii 9) 165, (iii 10 ff.) 260 f., (xii 6)
152, (xiii) 251. Second Epistle to,
1223 its opening, 18 ; passages dis-
cussed, (i 13) 251, (i 21) 147, (iii 14)
265, (v 1) 165, (v 19) 195, (viii 1)
225 f.

corner-stone, 68 f., 163 f.

Dative, of definition, ii 1 n.; of time,
iii 5 n.

Didaché, date and value of, 98 n.; on
apostles and prophets, 98; list of
warnings, 112 n.; parallels quoted
from, 176, 200, 211 f.

dispensation, 32, 144 f.

Elect, the: see detached note on ‘The
Beloved’, 229 ff.

election: the principle of selection,
25 ff. ; the ultimate purpose of, 33 ff.

English versions: early, i 11, 23, iv

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

of Christ, 42 ff., 100 f.; of God, of
the Deity, 88 f.; detached note on
Trjpwua, 255 ff

Galatians, Epistle to: passages dis-
cussed, (ii 7, 9) 78, (ii 20) 108, 183,
(ii 8) 243 f., (v 6) 246

Galen: see Medical writers

Gentiles: use of the term, 157 f., 1893

problem of their inclusion, 5 f., 35 f.,
53 f.; former condition of, 56 ff.,
6of., 105 f.; new position of, 58, 62,
67, 78 f.

grace: opening salutation, 141 ; closing
formula, 137, 217; St Paul’s use of
the term, 28, 5: f., 75 £., 953 to
‘give grace’, 113, 193 f.; grace of
speech, 116, 198 f.; detached note
On xdpis, 221 £

Hebraistic phrases : ‘sons of’, 49, 1 56,
168; ‘purpose of the ages’, 80;
* inheritance’, 116 ; ‘ walking’, 153 ;

163 70, 132.,264. A.V., i x1, 23,

ii 9, 20, iii 15, 21, iv 21, 24, 32,

V 13, 26, Vi 4, 63 57, 92, 99, 118,

120 n., 132, 136. R. V., i 113 76,

264 °

Ephesians, Epistle to : a circular
letter, 11; omission of ‘in Ephesus’,
11 f. and note on variants, 292 ff.5
absence of salutations, 12; analysis
of, 13 f.; summary of, 130 f.

Ephraim Syrus, commentary preserved
in Armenian, 142 f., 145, 148, 152,
214, 267 n., 288, 290, 293, 298 f.

epistolary phrases, 37 f.; opening salu-
tations, 141; detached note on,
276 ff.

Esdras, Second (Fourth):
quoted from, 39 n., 48

parallels

Fatherhood of God, 27 f., 38, 83 ff.,
93 £., 174

flesh: of Christ, 63 £; ‘the body of
His flesh’, 88, 161; ‘in the flesh’,
6, 72; ‘ome flesh’, 126; ‘blood
and flesh’, 213

Fritzsche : notes on evdoxla, 1443 énl-
yuris, 2525 TAjpwuda, 255

fulness, 87 ff.; of the times, 32, 39 n.3

- Sheavens’, 180; ‘know ofa surety’,
199
Hippocrates : see Medical writers
humility, a new virtue, 91

Inscriptions : temple-barrier, 60, 1603
on building, 164, 260 ff.

James, Epistle of: passages discussed,
(iv 6) 223, (v 12) 279 n., (Vv 16) 247
Jerome: his commentary on Ephesians

mainly from Origen, 143, 147, 162,
171 f., 173, 196, 198 f., 297 f. 5 his

revision of the Vulgate, 147, 289;
various readings or renderings, 78
(concorporales), 147 (pignus), 164
and 288 (summus angularis lapis),
171 f. (propositum), 174 (paterni-
tates), 177 (in ecclesia), 193 and 299
(opportunitatis), 208 (propter hoc),
290 (tota arma); on a legend of
Calvary, 119 n.; on bishops, 123;
on the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews,
194; on Clement, 254 n.; on Jer.
vi 26 (dyarnrés), 229 n.; on Job
xvii 7 (zerdpwvra:), 265 0.

Jerusalem, conference at, 8; see
Temple

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Jesus: see Christ
Jewish thought, contemporary, 41, 49,

- 133 Ds, 154, 175, 180, 213
Kneeling, in N.T., 82 f., 174

Latin versions, 289 f.: see Jerome
Lord, the: see Christ: ‘in the Lord’,
72, go, 118, 128

Man, Divine purpose for, 14, 130; not
changed by sin, 29; worked out by
election, 29, 33; through the Church,
44 f.; ‘nature’ of man, 50; new
making of man in Christ, 52 f., 101;
‘one new man’, 65, 94; ‘a perfect
man’, roo f.; the individual and the
whole of humanity, 102 f.; ‘the old
man’ and ‘the new man’, 107 ff.:
see also Unity

Medical writers, illustrations from:
Hippocrates, 186, 195 ; Galen, 187 f.,
200, 242$ Dioscorides, 207, 264

——Messiah,—the—hope-of-the-Jew;-6-£, —-
22 f.:; see Christ

ministry, the Christian, 97 ff.

mystery: source of the word to St
Paul, 30 f.; his use of it, 208 f.3
the Divine ‘secret’, 39, 76 ff., 813
the epithet ‘great’, 126; ‘the mys-
tery of the gospel’, 136, 216; de-
tached note on pvornpiov, 234 ff.

Origen: his commentary on Ephesians,
quoted, 45, 143, 148 f., 152, 163,
173, 183 £., 190, 195, 198 f. (evxa-
plaria), 203 (d&ayopagopuevot), 219
(apOapola), 254 (érlyrwors), 269 f.
_(wépwors), 292 (om. év ’Epésy), 298,

_ 302; text of Greek fragments, 199;
newly edited, 297, 303; notes in
von der Goltz’s ms, 292 f., 297 ff.:
see Jerome

Papyri, illustrations from, 275 ff,:
further citations, 37, 146, 151, 159,
169

Pastoral Epistles, phraseology of, 209
and 239 f. (uveryjpiov), 141 (opening

- palutation), 151 and 155 (6 viv aidv),
153 (absence of epirareivy), 193

EPHES.?

313

(5:aBoros), 196 (Sodvar eavrdv), 200
(éréyxew), 226 (xdpis), 251 f. (ént-
yuors adyGelas), 283 (xdpw exw);
further passages noted in 1 Timothy,
(i 17) 218, (ii 1) 216, (ii 5) 178,
(iti 13) 148, (iv 5) 216, (iv 13) 168,
(v 5) 284, (v 8) 163, (vi 17) 169 3
in 2 Timothy, (i 3) 280, (i 8) 166f.,
(i 10) 170 and 218, (i 8—12) 172,
(i 16) 216, (iii 16) 211, (iv 5) 1818.
(iv 19) 281; in Titus, (i 5) 166,
(ii 7) 218, (iii 3) 195, (iii 4) 156,
(iii 5) 206, (iii 10) 211, (iii 14) 193,
(iii 15) 281

Paul, St: preparation for his mission,
5, 25, 613 his sense of the problem
which faced him, 7, 75 f.; his en-
deavours for reconciliation, 8 f., 55 3
cause and effect of his imprisonment,
of., 74; his relations with Ephesus,
12; his style, 19, 47 £.; his relation
to the life and words of the Lord,
23 f.

Pelagius;-commentary-of,—295

Peter, First Epistle of : dependent on
Ephesians, 151, 171, 178, 209; pas-
sages discussed, (ii 9) 148, (iii 21)
207

Primasius, commentary attributed to,

295
prophets, Christian: see Apostles

Rabbinic literature, 48, 151, 175, 213,
231 n.: see Jewish contemporary
thought

readings, various: see notes on i 6,
lii 9, 13f., 21, iv 6, 19, 29, V 223
and the detached note, 285 ff.

redemption, 29, 36, 147 f.

revelation, 39, 76 f.; see Mystery

Romans, Epistle to, passages discussed,

. (i of.) 279, (vi 6 ff.) 108, (viii 28)
171, (x 8 ff.) 206, (xi 7, 25) 265,
(xii 3) 225

Rome, St Paul at, 1; its influence on
his thought, 5, 10

Salutations, opening, 17 f., 141, 277 f.;
closing, 137, 217 ff., 280 f.

slavery, 128 ff,

Spirit, the: the ‘earnest of the in-

314s

. heritance’, 3g f.; meaning of, 381.,

- 49, 66, 72, 78, 92.3 ‘unity of the

Spirit’, 927 f.; the Spirit and the

. corporate life, 113; ‘filled with the

' Gpirit?, 121 f.; ‘the sword of the
~ Spirit’, 135 f.3 see mvefua
spiritual powers, 41, 49, 132 f.

- Stephen, teaching of St, 3 f.

Temple, description of the, 59; in-
scribed barrier in the, 60, 160;
substructures of the, 69; naos and
_hieron, -71; building
temples, 260 f.
Testaments of the xii Patriarchs,
_ quoted, 154, 195, 227 Be
Thessalonians, First Epistle to: pas-

sages discussed, (i 2 f.) 279, (ii 13 f.) |

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

of Greek -

G37

246, Second Epistle to: passages

discussed, (i 11) 182, (i 12, ii 16)i225,

(ii 7) 209, (Gi 7 ff.) 2362, 24259246,

(iii 17) 137 :
Tychicus, 12 f., 136 f.

Unity, St Paul’s efforts on behalt of,
7 ff., 54; ‘the one’ and ‘the many’
of Greek philosophy, 323 unity of.
mankind in Christ, 52 f., 65,. 91,
943 abolition of distinction between
Gentile and Jew, s5f., 59 ff., 64;
‘the unity of the Spirit’, 92 f.; unity
in diversity, 95 f.; ‘the unity of the
faith’, 99: see also Body, Man

Vigilius of Thapsus: authorship of de
trin. xii, 269, 291, 303

‘CAMBRIDGE ! PRINTED BY J. AND CG. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,

576958
SR66 itobinson
St. Paul's enistle to
mere the aphesi ons.

7 fe PEPE >> Pte
toy _ ee oat |

ae
he Or oh
i

ah i tr
i Ron ao
tel)
wa} iS
ak,
ses SY ‘
ay reer fe Go cr tren cen re
eat to
SP,

ak 5~ 6? REN Pare ory

BEB 24 ut Ltt?

2 AO YTIeAIVIMU =

YSARAIL FHT

oon
* i Riau He wye

‘sony
meng ¢

to Jay

PS ei ase

oe o “Mg 6 18 wu

a etseun Sty
ame 3 US bis ued Uh 7
| ‘ : 99u oe:
yy aragitde s,7mea “4S... ~ ong
pr erase See 969E oS

GosuTgory eee

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "St. Paul's epistle to the Ephesians A rev. text and translation with exposition and notes"

See other formats