Full text of "A commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians"

A COMMENTARY

ON THE

GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL

THE EPHESIANS.

BY THK LATE

JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D.,

PROFESSOR OK BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS TO TliE UNITED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

Cfjirt Etiition.

EDITED BY REV. W. YOUNG, M.A., GLASGOW.

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. C L A 11 K, 3 8 G E 11 G E fc&gt; T R E E T.
1883.

TTATAOS o TV a l KaU u(w &lt;rr*^W ? , x *2 rf ftp *
&lt;rp. ov ft,K{M uraiff.toti. BAi IA. 2KALTK. OliAT. II.

T-JstjXtuv fQofyot y&lt;ftii ruv Mor.u.u.rwj XKI Jyrtoo yxuv. a y.o /uvaauoiJ
ff%i$ov i&lt;f&gt;6iy%*ro, ruin-it. IvratJ^ ^Xa?. TOT XPTiOiTOMOT ; TIIOBKi 12
i/f T^V -rjflf E(f&gt;i&lt;riovi ivrio-ro/.r,*.

Quantis diffieultatibus et qurun j)rofundis qua-stionilms involuta
sit. HlERONYMUS, Proocm. ill Comment, in E}&gt;l#t. ad Ephtsios.

Hoc a^o, ut membrorum ordincm ostcndain, et inonoam, ne abjiciatur
nativa significatio verborum, et jubeo al) ipso ] aulo scntentiarn ]&gt;eti ;
it.iii gigno aliud genus doctrinse. MELANCHTHON, Ei&gt;istolte ad Horn.
Enarratio, Pra fal.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION,

THE following pages arc an attempt to give a concise
but full Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the
Ephesians. ^Iy object has been to exhibit the mind
and meaning of the apostle, not only by a scientific
analysis of his language, but also by a careful delinea
tion of the logical connection and sequence of his
thoughts. Mere verbal criticism or detached annota
tion upon the various words by themselves and in
succession is a defective course, inasmuch as it may
leave the process of mental operation on the part of
the inspired writer wholly untraced in its links and
involutions. On the other hand, the sense is not to be
lazily or abruptly grasped at, but to be patiently
detected in its most delicate shades and aspects, by the
precise investigation of every vocable. As the smaller
lines of the countenance give to its larger features their
special and distinctive expression, so the minuter
particles and prepositions give an individuality of
shape and complexion to the more prominent terms of
a sentence or paragraph. In this spirit philology has
been kept in subordination to exegesis, and gram
matical inquiry has been made subservient to the
development of idea and argument.

VI PREFACE.

At the same time, and so far as I am aware, I have
neglected no available help from any quarter or in
any language. The Greek Fathers have been often
referred to, the Syriae, Coptic, and Gothic versions
are occasionally quoted, and the most recent German
commentators have been examined without partiality
or prejudice. Though agreeing in so many views with
Olshausen, Meyer, llarless, Stier, and Tischendorf, yet
there are many points in connection with the text,
literature, exegesis, and theology of the epistle, on
which I am forced to differ from one or all of them,
and in such cases I have always endeavoured to
" render a reason." Perhaps some may think that too
many authorities are now and then adduced, but the
method has at least this advantage, that if names be of
any value at all, they receive their full complement in
such an enumeration ; and should the opinion of any
of them be adopted, it is seen at once that I do not
claim the paternity, but avoid equally the charge of
plagiarism, and disavow the awkward honour of origin
ality for a borrowed or repeated interpretation. On
many an important and doubtful clause the various
opinions are arranged under distinct and separate
heads, showing at once what had been done
already for its elucidation, and what is attempted in
the present volume. Not that I have merely com
piled a synopsis, for it is humbly hoped that the
reader will find everywhere the living fruits of
personal and independent thought and research.
Sometimes when the truth, which I suppose to
have been delivered by the apostle, is one which has
been either misunderstood or rejected, a few paragraphs

PREFACE. Vll

have been added, more for illustration than defence.
Perhaps, indeed, I may not be wholly free from the
same weakness which I have found in others ; yet 1
fondly trust that my own theological system has not
led me to seek polemical assistance by any inordinate
strain or pressure on peculiar idioms or expressions. It
is error and impiety too, to seek to take more out of
Scripture than the Holy Spirit has put into it. As the
commentator neither creates nor invents the grammar
of the language which he is expounding, I have invari
ably quoted the best authorities, when any special
usage is concerned, so that no linguistic canon or
principle is left to the support of mere assertion. The
lamps which have guided me I have thus left burning,
for the benefit of those who may come after me in the
hope of finding additional ore in the same precious and
unexhausted mine. Will it bespeak any indulgence
simply to hint that the work has been composed amidst
the continuous and absorbing duties of a numerous city
charge, and will it be thought out of place to add, that
the Christian ministry has a relation to all the churches,
as well as to an individual congregation ? In the hope,
in tine, that it may contribute in some degree to the
study and enjoyment of one of the great apostle s
richest letters, the book is humbly commended to the
Divine blessing.

CA.MI:UII&gt;&lt;;K SritKir,
October l&M

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

IN preparing this second Edition, the entire matter of
the first has been very thoroughly revised, in many
parts curtailed, and in many sections altered and
enlarged. Some opinions have been modified, a few
revoked, and others defended. Grammatical investi
gations have been more accurately, because more,
formally stated, and that with uniform care and pre
cision. While the main features of the work remain
the same, the minor improvements and changes may be
found on almost every page. No pains have been
spared and no time has been grudged in remedying the
unavoidable defects of a first edition, which was also
a first attempt in exegetical authorship. I have
refused no light from any quarter, and have always
cheerfully yielded to superior argument. For I have
no desire but, with all the helps in my power, and ever
in dependence on Him who guides into all truth, to
gain a clear insight into the apostle s mind, and to give
an honest and full exposition of it. "Whether, or to
what extent, my desires have been realized, others
must judge. My best thanks are due to Robert Black,
M.A., student of Theology, for his care in reading the
sheets, and his labour in compiling the index.

1:5 L.VN.SIMWNK rRKHCKNT, Gl.ASOOW,
February 1801.

TRUSTEES NOTE.

Tin: Trustees on Dr. Eadie s Estate have resolved to
issue a new edition of his Commentaries on the
Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and
Colossians, three of which are out of print. They
believe the republication to be called for, as the dis
tinctive place which these Commentaries hold has not
yet been filled by other expository works. They also
feel it to be due to the memory of the distinguished
author, who, by his rare ability, extensive learning, and
remarkable acquirements, all of which, through Divine
grace, were consecrated to the study and interpretation
of sacred Scripture, was enabled to bequeath a legacy
so valuable to the Church of Christ. Few exegetical
works will be found to equal these Commentaries in
exact scholarship, while there are none, it may be truly
said, that excel them in spiritual insight, in clear and
masterly exhibition of the mind of the Divine Spirit,
and in thorough sympathy with evangelical truth. The
use of them will prove especially helpful in the study
of the Divine word.

The Rev. William Young, M.A., of I arkhead Church,
Glasgow, at the request of the Trustees, has kindly
engaged to edit the volumes. In his qualifications for

xii TRUSTEES NOTE.

this work, which requires both scholarship and ability,
they have the fullest confidence. While he has applied
a careful scrutiny to all the references, and suggested
such corrections and additions as he felt to be
necessary, he has made no alteration on the text,
which is wholly as it came from the hand of the
author.

The Trustees are gratified to add, that the repub-
lication of the Commentaries has been undertaken by
the Firm of Messrs. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, to
whose enterprise in the publication of valuable theo
logical works, the Christian Church is so much
indebted.

The issue commences with the Commentary on the
Epistle to the Ephcsians, which was the first of the

author s exegetical works.

GEORGE JEFFREY.
DENMSTOUX, GLASGOW,
October 1t, 1883.

THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

I. EPIIESUS, AND THE PLANTING OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH
IN IT.

EPIIESUS, constituted the capital of proconsular Asia l in
B.C. 129, had been the scene of successful labour on the part
of the apostle. On his first and hurried visit to it, during his
second missionary tour, his earnest efforts among his country
men made such an impression and created such a spirit of
inquiry, that they besought him to prolong his sojourn. Acts
xviii. 19-21. But the pressing obligation of a religious vow
compelled his departure, and he " sailed from Ephesus " under
the promise of a speedy return, but left behind him Priscilla
and Aquila, with whom the Alexandrian Apollos was soon
associated. On his second visit, during his third missionary
circuit, he stayed for at least two years and three months, or
three years, as he himself names the term in his parting
address at Miletus. Acts xx. 31. The apostle felt that
Ephesus was a centre of vast influence a key to the western
provinces of Asia Minor. In writing from this city to the
church at Corinth, when he speaks of his resolution to remain
in it, he gives as his reason " for a great door and effectual
is opened unto me." 1 Cor xvi. 9. The gospel seems to have
spread with rapidity, not only among the native citizens of
Ephesus, but among the numerous strangers who landed on
the quays of the ranormus and crowded its streets. It was
the highway into Asia from liome ; its ships traded with the
ports of Greece, Egypt, and the Levant ; " and the Ionian
cities poured their inquisitive; population into it at its great
annual festival in honour of Uiana. Ephesus had been visited

1 Linqvantur Phrygii ad clartu Atice volemut urbes. Catullus, Kjt nj. xlvi.
1 Strabo, xiv. voL iii. ed. Kramer, ik-rlin, 1848 ; Cellaring, XotUia:, ii. 80.

XIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

by many illustrious men, and on very different errands. It
had passed through many vicissitudes in earlier times, and
had through its own capricious vacillations been pillaged by
the armies of rival conquerors in succession ; but it was now
to experience a greater revolution, for no blood was spilt, and
at the hands of a mightier hero, for truth was his only weapon.
Cicero is profuse in his compliments to the Ephesians for the
welcome which they gave him as he landed at their harbour
on his progress to his government of Cilicia (Ep. ad Att. v. 13) ;
but the Christian herald met with no such ovation when lie
entered their city. So truculent and unscrupulous was the
opposition which he at last encountered, that he tersely styles
it " fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus," and a tumultuous
and violent outrage which endangered his life hastened his
ultimate departure. Scipio, on the eve of the battle of Phar-
salia, had threatened to take possession of the vast sums
hoarded up in the temple of Diana, and Mark Antony had
exacted a nine years tax in a two years payment ; l but Paul
and his colleagues were declared on high authority " not to be
robbers of churches : " for their object was to give and not to
extort, yea, as he affirms, to circulate among the Gentiles " the
unsearchable riches of Christ." The Ephesians had prided
themselves in Alexander, a philosopher and mathematician,
and they fondly surnamed him the " Light ; " but his teaching
had left the city in such spiritual gloom, that the apostle was
obliged to say to them " ye were sometimes darkness ; " and
himself was the first unshaded luminary that rose on the
benighted province. The poet Ilipponax was born at Ephesus,
but his caustic style led men to call him 6 iriKpos, " the bitter,"
and one of his envenomed sayings was, " There are two happy
days in a man s life, the one when he gets his wife, and the
other when lie buries her." How unlike the genial soul of
him of Tarsus, whose spirit so often dissolved in tears, and
who has in " the well-couched words " of this epistle honoured,
hallowed, and blessed the nuptial bond ! The famed painter
Parrhasius, another boast of the Ionian capital, has indeed

1 Article "Ephesus," Smith s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography ;
Perry, De Rebus Ephesiorum, Gottirigen, 1837 ; or the full and interesting work
of Guhl Ephesiaca : Scripsit Krnestus Guhl, Phil. Dr. Berolini, 1843 ; Smith s
Dictionary of the Bible, Art. "Ephesus."

THE APOSTLES SUCCESS. XV

received the high praises of Pliny (Hist. Nat. 35, 9) and
Quintilian, for his works suggested "certain canons of
proportion," and he has been hailed as a lawgiver in his art ;
but his voluptuous and self-indulgent habits were only equalled
by his proverbial arrogance and conceit, for he claimed to be
the recipient of Divine communications. Institut. xii. 10.
On the other hand, the apostle possessed a genuine revelation
from on high no dim and dreary impressions, but lofty,
glorious, and distinct intuitions ; nay, his writings contain the
germs of ethics and legislation for the world : but all the
while he rated himself so low, that his self-denial was on a
level with his humility, for he styles himself, in his letter to
the townsmen of Parrhasius, " less than the least of all saints."
During his abode at Kphesus, the apostle prosecuted his
work with peculiar skill and tact. The heathen forms of
worship were not vulgarly attacked and abused, but the truth
in Jesus was earnestly and successfully demonstrated and
carried to many hearts; so that when the triumph of the
gospel was so soon felt in the diminished sale of silver shrines,
the preachers of a spiritual creed were formally absolved from
the political crime of being " blasphemers of the goddess."
The toil of the preacher was incessant. He taught " publicly
and from house to house." Acts xx. 20. He went forth
"bearing precious seed, weeping ;" for " day and night" he
warned them "with tears." Acts xx. 31. "What ardour,
earnestness, and intense aspiration ; what a profound agitation
of regrets and longings stirred him when "with many tears"
he testified " both to the Jews and also to the Greeks repent
ance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ " !
By his assiduous labours the apostle founded and built up a
large and prosperous church. The fierce and prolonged oppo
sition which he encountered from "many adversaries" (1 Cor.
xvi. 9), and the trials which befell him through "the lying in
wait of the Jews" (Acts xx. 19), grieved, but did not alarm,
his dauntless heart. The school of Tyrannus l became the
scene of daily instruction and argument, and amidst the bitter
railing and maledictions of the Jews, the masses of the heathen

i For various opinions about Tyrannus, sec Witsnis, J\felcl&lt;mrta Lfvlrn*!n,
riii. 8 ; ^uidaa, sub vocc ; Neander, rjlanzuny, i. 359 ; Vitringn, dt Vet. Synag.
p. 137.

XVI THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

population were reached, excited, and brought within the circle
of evangelical influence. During this interval the new religion
was also carried through the province, the outlying hamlets
were visited, and the Ionian towns along the banks of the
Cayster, over the defiles of Mount Tmolus, and up the valley
of the Meander, felt the power of the gospel ; the rest of the
" seven churches " were planted or watered, and " all they
which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus."
Demetrius excited the alarm of his guild by the constrained
admission " Moreover, ye see and hear that not alone at
Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia o-^eSoi/ Trdo-Tjs TT}?
Mo-ia? this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much
people." Acts xix. 26.

The eloquence of the apostle was powerfully aided at this
crisis by his miracles Swdjieis ov ra? rv^ovaa^. Surprising
results sprang from the slightest contact with the wonder
worker ; diseases fled at the approach of light articles of
dress as the symbols or conductors of Divine power ; and the
evil spirits, formally acknowledging his supremacy, quailed
before him, and were ejected from the possessed. These
miracles, as has been well remarked, were of a kind cal
culated to suppress and bring into contempt the magical
pretensions for which Ephesus was so famous. None of the
Ephesian arts were employed. No charm was needed ; no
mystic scroll or engraven hieroglyph ; there was no repetition
of uncouth syllables, no elaborate initiation into any occult
and intricate science by means of expensive books ; but shawls
and aprons (rovSdpta rj atfjiiKivdia were the easy and expe
ditious vehicles of healing agency. The superstitious " cha
racters " E (pea ia ypdfjL/jLara, so famous as popular amulets in
the Eastern world, and which the Megalobyzi (Hesychius, sub
vocc) and Melissa?, the priests and priestesses of Artemis, had
so carefully patronized were shown by the contrast to be
the most useless and stupid empiricism. Some wandering
Jewish exorcists a class which was common among the
" dispersion " attempted an imitation of one of the miracles,
and used the name of Jesus as a charm. But the demoniac
regarded such arrogant quackery as an insult, and took
immediate vengeance on the impostors. This sudden and
signal defeat of the seven sons of Sceva produced a deep and

THE GOSPEL IN CONFLICT WITH SUPERSTITION. xvii

general sensation among the Jews and Greeks, and " the
name of the Lord Jesus was magnified." Nay more, the
followers of magic felt themselves so utterly exposed and out
done, that they " confessed and showed their deeds." Tliev
were forced to bow to a higher power, and acknowledge that
their " curious arts " ra Trepi epya were mere pretence and
delusion. Books containing the description of the secret power
and application of sucli a talisman, must have been eagerlv
sought and highly prized. Those who possessed them now
felt their entire worthlessness, and, convinced of the inutility
and sin of studying them or even keeping them, gathered them
and burnt them " before all men " an open act of homage to
the new and mighty power which Christianity had established
among them. The smoke and flame of those rolls were a
sacrificial desecration to Artemis worse and more alarming
than the previous burning of her temple by the madman
Herostratus. The numerous and costly books were then reck
oned up in price, and their aggregate value was found to be
above two thousand pounds sterling apyupiov pvpidcas TreVre.
The sacred historian, after recording so decided a triumph,
adds with hearty emphasis "so mightily grew the word of
God and prevailed." Acts xix. 20.

lint " no small stir " rapa^o^ OVK oXiyos was made by
the progress of Christianity and its victorious hostility to magic
and idolatry. The temple of Diana or the oriental Artemis
had long been regarded as one of the wonders of the world.
The city claimed the title of vewicopos, a title which, meaning
originally " temple-sweeper," was regarded at length as the
highest honour, and often engraved on the current coinage.
Guhl, p. 124; Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. TO. The
town-clerk artfully introduced the mention of this dignity
into the commencement of his speech, for though all the
Ionic Hellenes claimed an interest in the temple, and it was
often named 6 7-r/&lt;? Acrias vaos, yet Ephesus enjoyed the
special function of being the guardian or sacristan of the
edifice. The Kphesians were quite fanatical in their admira
tion and wardenship of the magnificent Ionic colonnades. 1
The quarries of Mount Prion had supplied the marble ; the

1 The asylum afforded by the temple impunitn* mrt/ln ttttttirmli l -d to grrat
abuses interfering with the regular course of juntice ; and in the reign of

XV111 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

art and wealth of Ephesian citizens and the jewellery of
Epbesian ladies had been plentifully contributed for its
adornment ; its hundred and twenty-seven graceful columns,
some of them richly carved and coloured, were each the gift
of a king ; its doors, ceiling, and staircase were formed
respectively of cypress, cedar, and vine-wood ; it had an altar
by Praxiteles and a picture by Apelles ; and in its coffers
reposed no little of the opulence of Western Asia. Thus
Xenophon deposited in it the tithe rrjv BeKarrjv which had
been set apart at Athens from the sale of slaves at Cerasus.
Anab. v. 34. A many-breasted idol of wood, 1 rude as an
African fetich, was worshipped in its shrine, in some portion
of which a meteoric stone may have been inserted, the token of
its being " the image that fell from Jupiter " rov StoTrerou?. 2
Still further, a flourishing trade was carried on in the manu
facture of silver shrines vaoi or models of a portion of
the temple. These are often referred to by ancient writers,
and as few strangers seem to have left Ephesus without such
a memorial of their visit, this artistic " business brought no
small gain to the craftsmen." But the spread of Christianity
was fast destroying such gross and material superstition and
idolatry, for one of its first lessons was, as Demetrius rightly
declared " they be no gods which are made with hands."
The shrev/d craftsman summoned together his brethren of the
same occupation re^lrai, epydrat laid the matter before
them, represented the certain ruin of their manufacture, and
the speedy extinction of the worship of Diana of Ephesus.
The trade was seized with a panic, and raised the uproarious
shout " Great is Diana of the Ephesians ! " " The whole
city was filled with confusion." A mob was gathered and
seemed on the eve of effecting what Demetrius contemplated,
the expulsion or assassination of the apostle and his coadjutors
by lawless violence, so that no one could be singled out or
punished for the outrage. It would seem, too, that this tumult
took place at that season of the year the month of May,

Tiberius that city was heard by its delegates legati before the Koman senate
in defence of the sacred ness of the edifice. Tacitus, Anncd. iii. 60.

1 iiXy,u*&lt;rT&lt;) multimammiam, Jerome, Procem. in Ep. ad Ephes.

2 CreuZ r, Symbolik, ii. 113; Euripides, Jphig. in Taur. 977; Ovid, Fasti,
iiL 72; Dionys. Halicar. ii. 71.

CIVIC UPROAR. Xil

sacred to Diana, the period of the Pan-Ionic games when
a vast concourse of strangers had crowded into Kphesus, so
that the masses were the more easily alarmed and collected.
The tmeute was so sudden, that " the most part knew not
wherefore they had come together." As usual on such occa
sions in the Greek cities, the rush was to the theatre, to re
ceive information of the cause and character of the outbreak.
(Thcatmm uli consultarc vws cst. Tacitus, Hist. ii. 80.) Two
of Paul s companions were seized by the crowd, and the apostle,
who had escaped, would himself have very willingly gone
in i? TOV Sijuov and faced the angry and clamorous rabble,
if the disciples, seconded by some of the Asiarchs or presidents
of the games, who befriended him, had not prevented him. A
Jew named Alexander, probably the "coppersmith," and, as
a flew, well known to be an opponent of idolatry, strove to
address the meeting cnro\(rjdada.i T&lt;O r;/zo&gt; probably to
vindicate his own race, who had been long settled in Ephesus,
from being the cause of the disturbance, and to cast all the
blame upon the Christians. But his appearance was the signal
for renewed clamour, and for two hours the theatre resounded
with the fanatical yell " Great is Diana of the Ephesians."
The town-clerk or recorder &gt;y pap, pa-revs a magistrate of high
standing and multifarious and responsible functions in these
cities, had the dexterity to pacify and dismiss the rioters, first,
by an ingenious admixture of flattery, and then by sound legal
advice, telling them that the law was open, that the great
Kphesian assize was going on dyopaloi ayovrai and that all
charges might be formally determined before the sitting tri
bunal " and there are deputies KOI avOinrcnol tlaiv ; while
other matters might be determined eV TO&gt; tWo/uro tWXr;o-/a
in the lawful assembly." Such a scene could not fail to excite
more inquiry into the principles of the new religion, and bring
more converts within its pule. The Divine traveller imme
diately afterwards left the city. After visiting Greece, he sailed
for Jerusalem, and touching at Miletus, he sent for the presby
ters of the Kphesian church, and delivered to them the solemn
parting charge recorded in Acts xx. 18-35.

1 Conybcarc and HOWSOM, vol. ii. i&gt;ji. SO, 81.

XX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

II. - TITLE AND DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE.

It can surely be no matter of wonder that the apostle should
afterwards correspond with a community which had such an
origin and history as the church of Christ in Ephesus. 1
We cannot sympathize with Conybeare in his remark, that
it " is a mysterious dispensation of Providence " that Paul s
epistle to the metropolitan church at Ephesus " should not
have been preserved to us." 2 For we believe that it has been
preserved, and that we have it rightly named in the present
canon of the New Testament. And such is the general testi
mony of the early church.

Great stress cannot be laid on the evidence of Ignatius.
In the twelfth chapter of his own epistle to the Ephesians,
according to the longer reading, there is no distinct reference
to the Pauline epistle, though there is a high probability of it ;
but there is an allusion to the apostle, and an intimation that
v Trda-r} e7THTTo\fj " in the whole epistle," he makes mention
of them. But in the briefer form of the Ignatian composition
that found in a Syriac version the entire chapter, with the
one before and after it, is left out, and, according to the high
authority of Bunsen 3 and Cureton, 4 they are all three decidedly
spurious. Yet even in the Syriac version the diction is taken,
to a great extent, from the canonical book. It abounds in
such resemblances, that one cannot help thinking that Igna
tius, writing to Ephesus, thought it an appropriate beauty to
enrich his letter with numerous forms of thought, style, and
imagery, from that epistle which an inspired correspondent
had once sent to the church in the same city. According to
one recension, we have allusions to Eph. i. 1 in cap. ix., and
to iv. 4 in cap. vi.

Irenaeus, in the second century, has numerous references to
the epistle, and prefaces a quotation from Eph. v. 30 by these
words /caOcos 6 (jLaKapios UaOXo ? (frijo-Lv, eV TTJ TT/DO? Efaa-iov?
f) " as the blessed Paul says in his epistle to the

1 Gude, Comment, de Eccles. Ephes. Statu, Leips. 1732.

2 Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. 404, note.

3 lynatius von Antiochien und Seine Zcit, p. 23, Hamburg, 1847.

4 Corpus Jtjnatianurn, etc., by William Cureton, M.A., F.K.S., London, 1849.

AUTHORITIES. xx j

Ephesians." Again, quoting Eph. i. 7, ii. 13-15, he logins
by affirming quomodo apostulus Ephcsiis dicit ; and similarly
does he characterize Eph. i. 13 in cpistola qua- ad Ephtsius
est, dicem. Again, referring to v. 13, he says, rovro e KCL\ o
JIaOXo? \eyet. Ad reran* ITcrres., lib. v. pp. 104, 718, 734, 75G.

Nor is the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, later in the
same century, less decisive ; for, in the fourth book of his
Stromata, quoting Eph. v. 21, he says Sto Kal eV rfj TT/DO?
EfafTiovs ypdfai ; and in his Pocdagogut he introduces a cita
tion from Eph. iv. 13, 14, by a similar formula E^eviois
ypaffxai . Opera, pp. 499, 88, Colon. 1G88. His numerous
other allusions refer it plainly to the Apostle Paul.

In the next century we find Origen, in his book against
Celsus, referring to the Epistle to the Ephesians, as first in order,
and then to the Epistles to the Colossians, Thessalonians,
Philippians, and Romans, and speaking of all these composi
tions as the words of Paul TOUV Hav\ov Xoyovs. Contra
Celaiim, lib. iii. p. 122, ed. Spencer, Cantabrigiie, 1G77.
Again, in his tract On Prayer, he expressly refers to a state
ment ev rfj 777)0? E&lt;ea/oi&gt;?.

The witness of Tertullian is in perfect agreement. Eor
example, in his book DC Monogamia, cap. v., he says Dicit
apofttolua, ad Ephesios scribens, quoting Eph. i. 1C. Again, in
the thirty-sixth chapter of his De Prccscriptionibus, his appeal
is in the following terms Aye jam, qui voles curiositatem, mclius
excrccrc in ncyotio saint is tucr,j)ercurrc ccclesws apostolicas, apud
quas ipscr adhuc cathedra apostolorumsuis locis prccsutcnt, apud
quas ip&v authenticcc littercc cornm rccitantur . . . si potex tTi
Asiam tendcrc, hales Ephcsmn. Lastly, in lib. iv. cap. 5 of hia
work against Marcion, we find him saying Videamns, yuid
lf(jant I J hilippc7ises, Thcssaloniccnses, Ephesii. Opera, vol. i. p.
767, vol. ii. pp. 33, lGf&gt;, ed. Odder, 18,14.

Cyprian, in the next age, is no less lucid ; for, in the,
seventh chapter of the third book of his Testimonies, he uses
this language Paulus apostolns ad Ephi-siim ; quoting iv. 30,
31, and in his seventy-fifth epistle he records his opinion thus
Kt-d d Paultta upostuliui /tor idem adhuc api-rtiu* ft clariui
rnanifcstans ad Ephcsios scribit ct dicit, Christ us dil&gt;xit ccclt-
siain ; v. 25. Opera, pp. 280 and 133, ed. Paris, 183G.

Such is the verdict of the ancient church. lint though its

XX11 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

testimony is so decisive, it is not unanimous. Still, this
diversity of opinion only confirms the evidence of the vast
majority. In consequence, however, of this exception, the
question whether the common title to this epistle be the
correct one, has been matter of prolonged controversy, and a
variety of opinion still exists among expositors and critics.
Apart from the evidence already adduced, the settlement of
the question depends, to a great extent, on the idea formed of
the genuineness of the words ev ^E&lt;f&gt;e&lt;j(t&gt; in the first verse.
The old versions are unanimous in their favour, and among
existing MSS. only three throw any doubt upon them. " But
what are these among so many?" In Codex 67, they have
been deleted by some later correctionist. In Codex B they
stand on the margin, as an apparent supplement of the
discovered omission by the original copyist, according to Hug ; l
but according to Tischendorf, on whose critical acumen and
experience we place a higher confidence, they are an evident
emendation from a second and subsequent hand. 2 In the
Codex Sinaiticus yet unpublished, they are absent, but supplied
in like manner by a later hand. 3

Origen, as quoted in Cramer s Catena, says eVl JJLOVCCV
evpopev Kel^evov, TO " rot? aytoi? rot? oven " /cat
el fj,rj irapekKti irpoaKeif^evov TO " TO!? ayto/,?
oven" Ti ^VVCLTCIL (77)jjLaiveiv. opa ovv el (JLIJ wcrjrep ev Ty .

&lt;$&gt;r)cnv eavTov o %pr)/AaTiwv Mtocrel TO &v, OVTWS ol
TOV 6Wo?, ^jivwrai oWe?, KaKov^evou oiovel etc TOV

1 " Juxta tantum in marginc a prima manu, pari elegantia et assiduitate ac
rteliqua pars open s . . . sed charactere panllo exiliori. " De, Antlq. Cod. Vat.
fiommentatio, 1810.

2 " Maim altera posteriore in margine ista suppleta sunt." Novum Ted. in loc.
seventh ed. Also more fully in Studien und Krltiken, 1846, p. 133.

3 Tischendorf says " Multi sunt qui codicempost ipsum scriptoreni attigerunt.
Alii certos taiitum libros, alii totuni codicem vel certe pleraque ix-censuerunt,
rursus alii non tain recenseudo textui quaui supplementis quibusdam stnduerunt,
ut Ammonii Eusel aique numeris addendis. Qua de re accuratiora in Prolegomenis
dabimus. Is qui h. 1. iv i$i&lt;r*&gt; supplevit, item ad fiiiem evang. Lucre *u.i vi&lt;pi.
HI TOV eufttvov, totuni X. T. ix censuit. Soeculo vixisse videtur sexto exeunte vel
septimo atc^ue in numero correctorum eorum qui imprimis in censum veniunt
quartum locum occupat. In brevi adnotatione critica textui paginarum
duodeviginti addita nobis dicitur corn Ex re enim esse visum est ut correctores
et setate et scriptura et indole cognati uno eodcmque numero comprehendantur,
nee nisi ubi certo distingui possunt singulatim indiceutur. " Notitla Editionis
Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici, page 19, Lipsiie, I860.

ORIGKN AND BASIL. Xxiii

r; tivai t* TO etvai " te\taro yap o

iv 6 airro? /JaO\o&lt;, " tVa ra oz/ra Ka7apy/)&lt;rT)." " We found
the phrase to tlie saints that are, occurring only in the ca.se
of the Ephesians, and we inquire what its meaning may be.
Observe then whether, as He who revealed His name to Moses
in Exodus calls His name I AM, so they who are partakers of
the I am, are those who be, being called out of non-existence
into existence for God, as Paul himself says, chose the things
that are not that He might destroy the things that arc."
This, however, must be compared with the references in Origen
previously given by us.

The declaration of Pasil of Cappadocia, not uidike that of
Origeii, has often been quoted and discussed. The object of
]&gt;asil i&gt; to show that the Son of God cannot be said to In*
ef OVK ovraiv, because He is ovra)&lt;; a&gt;v ; fur while the Gentiles
wlm know Him not are called ovtc ovra, His own people are
expressly named 01 oi/re?. The following is his proof from
Scripture, and lie must have been sadly in lack of argument
when he could resort to it: 1 *A\\a xai

7^77(7/0)9 7}l/O)/ieVot? TO) OVTL

avrovs i&LafyvTtoS eoyo/zacrey, tiTrwv rot? ay tots rots ovai

KCLl 7Tt(7TOt9 V XplTT(i) ^IfjaOU OVTO) yap KU\ Ol TTpO 1)fJ,0)l&gt;

i, teal ^//zet? ti&gt; rol^ 7ra\a/OK TWV avrr/pufytt)!
" I&gt;ut also writing to the Ephesians, as being
truly united by knowledge to Him WHO is ; he called them
in a special sense THOSK WHO AI;E, saying, To the saints
rot? OV&lt;TI, WHO A HE, and the faithful in Christ Jesus. For thus
those before us have transmitted it, and we have found it in
the ancient copies." No little refinement and subtlety have
been employed in the analysis of these words. It does not
much concern the critical fact which Basil states, whether,
with L Enfant, Wolf, and Lardner, we understand him a*
basing his argument on the article rotv ; or whether, with
Wiggers, we regard him as discovering his mystical exegesis
in the participle OVGIV; or whether, with Mirhaclis and
Koppe, we hold that rot? ovai is the phrase ui which t In-
absurd emphasis is placed. The fact is plain, that in ancient
MSS. handed down from previous centuries, he had found tin*
lirst verse without the words eV E^t o-w, ami thus rotv c&gt;v&lt;ri
*Cntru Eunomium, lib. ii. cap. 1 J ; Oj*ra, .!. Ganii.-r, toin. i. |.p. 254, 2i5.

XXIV THE LITEKATUKE OF THE EPISTLE.

xal iriGTois. Had the phrase ev .E0ecr&&amp;gt; occurred in the
clause, Basil s ingenuity could have found neither impulse
nor pabulum ; and there is no proof that it ever stood in the
verse in any other position than that occupied by it in the
majority of Codices. Saints, says the father, are there called
01 oWe? they who are that is, persons in actual posses
sion of spiritual existence ; and they receive this appellation
after Him WHO is 6 wv the Being of pure and under! ved
essence. The omission of the words ev \E&lt;/&gt;ecr&) could only
warrant such a phantasy, for otherwise the statement might
have been founded as well on the initial verses of the Epistles
to Rome or Philippi. The sum of Basil s statement is, that
in the early copies which he had consulted, ev Efyeaw was
wanting ; but the inference is, that the words existed in the
copies then in common circulation, nay, that the father him
self looked upon the epistle as inscribed to the church in
Ephesus. At the same time, Basil does not state how many
old copies he saw, nor in what countries they originated, nor
what was their general character for accuracy. The corrobora
tive assertion that he himself had seen them, would seem to
indicate that they were neither numerous nor of easy access.
He does not appeal to the received and ordinary reading of the
verse, but prides himself on a various reading which he had dis
covered in ancient copies, and which does not seem to have been
commonly known, and he finally interposes his own personal
inspection and veracity as the only vouchers of his declaration.
The statement of Jerome is not dissimilar. In his Com
mentary on Eph. i. 1, he says Quidam curiosius quam
neccssc cst, putant ex eo, quod Moysi dictum sit : Hocc dices
filiis Israel, qui est misit me, etiam cos, qui Epltcsi sunt, sancti
ct fidcles cssenticc vocabulo nuncvpafos, ut ab co qui est, hi qui
sunt appcllcntur. Alii vcro simpliciter non ad eos qui sunt,
scd qui Ephesi sancti ct Jidclcs sunt, scriptum arbitrantur.
Opera, ed. Vallarsius, torn. vii. p. 543. "Some, with an
excessive refinement, think from what was said to Moses
These words shalt thou say to the children of Isiael, HE WHO
is, has sent me that the saints and faithful at Ephesus are
addressed by a term descriptive of essence, as if from him WHO
is, they had been named THEY WHO ARE. Others, indeed,
suppose that the epistle was written not simply to those WHO

JEROME. XXV

ARE, but to those WHO ARE AT KPHESUS, saints and faithful."
The language of Jerome does not warrant, so explicitly as that
of Basil, the supposition that he found any copies wanting the
words, in Kphesus. At the same time, it is a strange mis
apprehension of ISottger (Beitrage, etc. iii. p. 37) and Olshausen
to imagine, that Jerome did not himself adopt the common
reading, when he expressly delivers his opinion in the very
quotation. One would almost think, with Meyer, that Jerome
speaks of persons who gave overt a pregnant sense, though
it stood in connection with tV Efaaw ; but the origination
of such an exegesis in this verse only, and in none others of
identical phraseology, surpasses our comprehension for its
absurdity ami caprice. Probably Jerome records the mere
fact or existence of such an interpretation, though he might
not have seen, and certainly does not mention, any MSS. on
whose peculiar omission it might have been founded. He
would, in all likelihood, have pointed out the origin of the
quaint exegesis from the absence of the local designation, if he
had known it ; and the apparent rurioxitas of the explanation
lay in the fact, that rot? OVCFLV had an evident and natural
connection with eV E (peer p. Such a hypothesis appears to be
warranted by the order in which he arranges the words in his
Latin version ijui EpJic.n sunt sancti ct Jiilrlt s as if in order
to give countenance to the alleged interpretation, tin; words
v E&lt;f&gt;(rrp had, in construing the sentence, been dislodged
from their proper position. The probability is, however, that
Jerome refers to the passage from Origen already quoted; for
in his preface he says Illud qinxjue in prefatione commonco
lit sciatis Orifjcncm tria volumina inlianc epistolamconscripsusc,
qucm et nos ex pnrtc, scquuti sumim.

The general unanimity of the ancient church is also seen in
the peculiar and offensive prominence which was given to
Marcion s fabrication. This heresiardi, among his other inter
polations, altered the title of the epistle, and addressed it to
the I^aodiceans 717309 AaoBitctas. One of the most acute and
vigorous of the ancient fathers thus describes ami brands tin-
forgery Prcrb rco hie ct de alia epistold yuani nos ad Kphesios
pnrxcriptam habcmus, hard id tv/v&gt; ad Ijiodicenos. . . .
Jjcclcsiw quidem rcrUate cpistolum utam ad Kphfsivs habemu*
cmissam, non ad Laodiccnos: scd Marcwn d titulum aliquando

XXVI THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

interpolare ycstiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus cxplorator.
Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad ornnes apostolus scrip-
serit, dum ad quosdam " I pass by in this place another
epistle in our possession addressed to the Ephesians, but the
heretics have inscribed it to the Laodiceans. . . . According
to the true testimony of the church, we hold this epistle to
have been sent to the Ephesians. But Marcion sometimes
had a strong itching to change the title, as if in that matter
he had been a very diligent inquirer. The question about
titles is of no great moment, since the apostle wrote to all
when he wrote to some." Advers. Marcion, lib. v. cap. 11, 17 ;
Opera, ed. Oehler, vol. ii. pp. 309, 323. We think it a strained
inference on the part of Meyer, that Tertulliaii did not read
v jE^ecrw in his copies, since in such a case he would have
appealed not to the testimony of the church, but to the words
of the sacred text. But the testimony of the church and the
testimony of the text were really identical, for it was only on
the text as preserved by the church that her testimony could
be intelligently based. By " title " in the preceding extract
we understand, in accordance with Tertullian s miis loqucndi,
the superscription prefixed to the epistle, not the address con
tained in ver. 1. But if Marcion changed the extra-textual
title, consistency must soon have obliged him also to alter the
reading of the salutation, and change eV E(/&gt;ecr into eV
AaoSiKeia. Tertulliaii, then, means to say, that Marcion in
his critical tamperings had interfered with the constant and
universal title of this epistle, and that he did this as the
avowed result of minute inquiry and antiquarian research
(quasi diligentissimus cxplorator). We know not on what
his judgment was founded. He may have found the epistle
in circulation at Laodicea, or, as Pamelius conjectures in his
notes on Tertulliaii, it was the interpretation he attached to
Col. iv. 1C "And when this epistle is read among you,
cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans ;
and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." Mar-
cion s view was not only in contradiction of the whole church,
hut his other literary misdemeanours throw a suspicion at
once on the motives of his procedure, and on the sobriety and
trustworthiness of his judgment.

The result of the whole inquiry is, that in some ancient

EPHESUS OR LAODICEA.. XXvii

copies the words i&gt; Efao-p did not exist, and that some
theologians built a doctrine upon the words of the clause as
read with the omission ; that the omission was not justified by
the current MSS. in the third and fourth centuries ; that the
judgment of the ancient church, with such slight exceptions,
regarded the epistle as inscribed to the Ephesians ; and that
one noted heretic imagined that the current title should In-
changed, and the inspired letter inscribed to the Laodiceans.

It seems strange indeed that this last opinion should have
been adopted by any succeeding writers. Yet we find that
several critics hold the view that the epistle was meant for
the church at Laodicea, among whom are (Irotius, Mill, du Pin,
Wall, Archbishop Wake, the younger Vitringa, 1 Venema,
Crellius, Wetstein, Tierce, Benson, Winston, 1 aley,* (Ires-
well, 3 Huth, 4 Holzhausen, Iliibiger/ and Constable. 6 The
only plausible argument for the theory is, that there are no
personal references or salutations in the epistle a circumstance
supposed to be scarcely compatible with the idea of its being
sent to Kphesus, a city in which Paul had lived and laboured,
but quite in harmony with the notion of an epistle to tin*
church in Laodicea, in which the apostle is supposed to have
been a stranger. 15ut such u hypothesis cannot set aside the
all but unanimous voice of Christian antiquity. And how
came it that out of all copies Laodicea has dropt, and that it
is found in no early MS. or version, and that no ancient critic
but Marcion ever dreamed of exchanging the local terms &lt;
Again, if Col. iv. 16 be appealed to in the phrase "the Epistle
from Laodicea," then if that is to be identified with the present
Ephesian letter, it must have been written long prinr t&gt; the
epistle to Colosse a conjecture at variance with many internal
proofs and allusions; for the so-called epistle to Kphesus and
that to Colosse were composed about the same period, and
despatched by the same trusty messenger, Tychicus. And
how should the apostle command the Colossian church to

&lt;lc tjfnu ino titulo rpl*tuhr 1). /*. rymr nil jo in*rrihitur
jihmioH, pp. 247-379. Frane^uene, 1731.
J J/orrt PaidlniF, c. vi.

3 DiMtrtatioM ujxm a Harmony of the (/ofl/w/x, vol. iv. pp. 208, 217,

4 h ]&gt;i*tola ex Latxlieea in encyclica &lt;ul Ejifn:*i&lt;i* a**rrratu.

* I&gt;e ( /iri*tnloyi&lt;i 7Vi/iMa, p. 47. Vratislavhr, 1852.

Eftays Critical and Tlit oloyical, p. 77. Ixindoii, l&W.

XXV111 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

salute in his name the brethren of Laodicea, if the Laodiceans
had received such a communication by the very same mes
senger who carried the letter to Colosse, and who was charged
to give them all minute particulars as to the apostle s welfare
and thus comfort their hearts ?

It is also to be borne in mind, that Marcion does not fully
bear out this theory usually traced to him ; for according to
Epiphanius, while he had some parts, peprj, of an epistle to the
Laodiceans, he put into his canon as the seventh of Paul s
epistles that to the Ephesians e/SSo/x?; irpbs Efacrtovs. Hccres.,
xlii. cap. 9, p. 310, ed. Petavius ; Paris, 1GG2. Whatever
may be meant, in Col. iv. 16, by the epistle from Laodicea,
it is plain that it cannot, as Stier supposes, be the epistle
before us ; and plainer still, that it cannot be the brief and
tasteless forgery which now passes under the name of an
Epistle to the Laodiceans.

Another hypothesis which has received a very large support
is, that the epistle is an encyclical letter a species of inspired
circular not meant for any special church, but for a variety of
connected communities. The idea was originated by Usher,
in his Annalcs Vctcris et Novi Tcstamcnti, under the year 64
A.D. Uli nolandum, in antiquis nonnullis codicibus (lit ex
Basilii libro ii. advcrsus Eunomium, ct Hicronymi in hunc
Apostoli locum commentario, apparct} gcncratim inscriptam
fuisse hanc epistolam rot? dyiois, TO?? ovai, /cal TricrTols ev
XpiaTa) Iijaov, vel (ut in littcrarum encyclicarum descriptione
fieri solebat) sanctis qui sunt . . . . et fidelibus in Christo
Jesu, ac si Ephcsum primo, ut prcecipuam Asice metropolim,
missa ea fuissct ; transmittenda indc ad rcliquas (intcrscrtis
singularum nominibus) ejusdcm provincial ecclcsias : ad quarum
aliquas, quas Paulus ipse nunquam viderat, ilia ipsius vcrba
potissimiim spectaverint. His idea has been followed by a
whole host of scholars and critics, by Gamier in his note to
the place cited in Basil, 1 by Ziegler, 2 Hanlein, 3 Justi, 4 and
Schmid, by such writers of " Introductions " as Michaelis,

1 The treatises by the most of these authors are well known : some of them
may be noted.

2 In If cuke 8 Magazin, iv. 2, p. 225.

3 Commentate de lectoribus, quibus epistola Pauli quce ad Ephesios missa
traditur, vere. ncripta fx.se videatur. Erlang. 1797.

* I trmlachte Beliandlungen, vol. ii. [&gt;. 81.

THEORY OF USHER.

Eichhorn, Bertlioklt, Credncr, Schneckenburger, Hug, Feilmoser,
Cellerier, Guerike, Home, Bottger, Schott, and Xeudeeker, also
by Neander, Heinsen, Schrader, Liineiuann, Anger, 1 Wiggers,
Conybeare, and Burton, and by the commentators Bengel,
Harless, Boehiner, Zachariae, Itiickert, Matthies, Olshausen,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Meier, Maeknight, Stier, and
Bisping. These authors agree generally that Ephesus was not
the exclusive recipient of the epistle, and the majority of them
incline, in the face of all evidence, to hold the words eV Efacu)
as a spurious interpolation. Others, such as Beza, Turner,
Harless, Boehmer, Schott, Liinemann, 2 Wiggers, 8 Schroder,
Ellicott, Schatf/ and Hodge, reject this line of proof, and
build their argument on another foundation believing that
Ephesus received the epistle, but that some daughter-churches
in the immediate vicinity were associated with it. To such
an opinion there is less objection, though, while it seems to
solve some difficulties, it suggests others. The advocates of
the encyclical character of the epistle are nt agreed among
themselves. Many suppose that the apostle left a blank
space rots ovcnv . . . Kai THO-TOI?, and that the name of the
intended place was tilled in either by Paul himself in the
several copies ere they were despatched, or by Tychicus as
opportunity prompted, or that copies were transcribed in
Ephesus with the proper address inserted in each. Each of
these hypotheses is shaped to serve an end to explain why
so many Codices have eV &lt;/&gt;e &lt;rri&gt;, and none eV AaooiKifi.
There are some who believe that no blank room was originally
left at all, but that the sentence is in itself complete. ^ ith
such an extraordinary view, the meaning differs according ns
ovcnv is joined to the preceding tiyiois or the following iria-rol^.
Meier and Credner join ovaiv to Trio-rot*, and render dn\.
llciliycn, die anch f/rtrni sind "the saints who are also faith
ful," an interpretation which cannot be sustained. See under
i. 1, pp. 3, 4. Credner propounds a worse view, ami regards
TTtcrrot? as signifying genuine Pauline Christians. Schnecken-

1 L lx-rden Laodicenrrbrirf, Lcip/. 1843, rei.lird to in /. IWs Thrul. JahrlmcH
for 1844, p. 199.

l)e ei&gt;tMtol.p f/uam Paula* ad Kj&gt;hr*io* dnl\**r j*rHil*tur antl.tndn, jrrimi*
lectoribua t tiryurnmlu ttumrno ac coimilin. (lotting. lS4 J.

1 Stutlirn und Kritikcn, 1841 4 J, |. 4U ?.

4 history of the Ajx&gt;tolic Church, vol. li. p. 3bO. Eainburgb, Ibi4.

XXX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

burger and Matthies connect ovciv with ayiois, the latter
giving a sense welclie da sind which Bengel had already
advanced qui presto sunt that is, as he explains it, in
the places which Tychicus was under commission to visit.
Schneckenburger renders to the saints who are really so
den Heiligen die es in der That sind. Gresswell holds a
similar view; but the numerous so-called similar Greek
formuhe which he adduces are not in point. Now the usual
exordiums of the apostle are fatal to these hypotheses, for in
them not only is the place of destination named, even though,
as in the case of Galatia, it include a province or circuit of
churches, but the participle is simply used along with the
local name and without pregnant emphasis.

How the words kv JE&lt;eer&&amp;gt; came to be dropt out of the
text, as Basil affirms, we know not. Perhaps some early
copyist, seeing the general nature of the epistle, left out the
formula, to give it the aspect of universal applicability. Or,
the churches " in Asia " claiming an interest in the apostle
and his letters might have copies without the special local
designation ; or, as Wieseler suggests, the tendency of the
second century to take away personal reference out of the
New Testament, may have led to the omission, just as the
words ev Pw/jLy are left out in several MSS. of the Epistle to
the Romans, i. 7.

External evidence is thus wholly against the notion that
either Laodicea by itself, or Ephesus with a noted cluster of
sister communities, was the designed and formal recipient of
this epistle. Nor is the result of internal proof more in favour
of such hypotheses. It is argued that the apostle sends no
greetings to Ephesus a very strange omission, as he had
laboured there three years, and must have known personally
the majority of the members of the church. But the argument
is two-edged, for Paul s long years of labour at Ephesus must
have made him acquainted with so many Christian people
there, that their very number may have prevented him from
sending any salutation. A roll far longer than the epistle
itself might have been filled, and yet the list would have by
no means been exhausted. Omissions might have given offence,
and Tychicus, who was from the same province, seems to have
been charged with all such private business. In churches

NOT AN ENCYCLICAL LETTKR. XXxi

where the apostles knew only a few prominent individuals,
they are greeted, as in Philippi, Colosse, Koine, and Corinth.
It is also objected that an air of distance pervades the epistle,
and that it indicates nothing of that familiarity which the
previous three years residence must certainly have induced.
This idea is no novelty. Theodoret, in the preface to his
Exposition, refers to some who were led to suppose from such
language that Paul wrote this letter before he had visited the
Ephesians at all. Euthalius 1 and the author of the Synopsis
of sacred Scripture found in the works of Athanasius," express
a similar opinion. To such statements, either in their simple
or more exaggerated form, we certainly demur, as the proofs
adduced in their behalf do by no means sustain them. The
expression in i. lf&gt; has been usually fixed on "Wherefore 1
also, alter I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love
unto all the saints." Hut this statement is no proof that Paul
was a stranger. It rather indicates the reverse, as may lie si-en
by consulting our comment on the place. Dr. Davidson and
others instance the similar use of iiKovcrat in the letter to
Philemon, so that the inference based on the use of the term
in Ephesians cannot be justified. The same remarks apply to
other passages commonly adduced to prove the encyclical
nature of the Kphesian epistle. In iii. 2 the apostle says
tfye rfKovaare, rendered by some " if ye have heard of the
dispensation of grace committed to me for you." Hut the
phraseology does not express doubt. Constable maintains
that eiye everywhere has the idea of doubt attached to it.
Essays, p. ( JO. Hut the statement is unguarded, as the particle
puts the matter in a hypothetical shape, and by its use ami
position takes for granted the truth of what is stated or assumed.
Klotz-Dcvarius, ii. p. 8U8. Constable also refers to the
commendation given to Tychicus, vi. 21, as if that implied
that he was a stranger. Hut Tychicus might be of Asia, and
yet not of Ephesus while the eulogy pronounced upon him
is a species of warrant, that whatever he said about tin- apostle
and his private affairs to them might be absolutely credited;
for he was intimate with the apostle "In-loved" and he
was trusty. On the other hand, there are not a few distinct

1 Za. a^nii, Collectanea Montimfntoriim I ft. Krd *. -tc. p. . . 4. f aris, ld9.
1 Athanasius, Oj#ra, toiii. iii. p. 191, cd. Ifc-nctlict. ran*, 109S.

XXX11 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

intimations of the writer s personal knowledge of those whom
he addressed. He writes to them as persons whom he knew
as sealed with the Spirit, as exhibiting the possession of faith
and love the Gentile portion of them as one with the believing
Jews as so well acquainted with him that they were prone
to faint at his sufferings, as having enjoyed distinct and
plenary instruction, and as taking such a deep interest in
his personal affairs, that they would be comforted by the
appearance of Tychicus. And these statements are also direct
language, pointedly addressed to one community, and not
vaguely to an assemblage of churches, unless they were regarded
as one with it. In short, the letter is intended for advanced
Christians ; and such surely were those, so many of whom had
for so long a period enjoyed instruction from the apostle s
own lips. Some years had elapsed since he had been at
Ephesus, and perhaps on that account personal reminiscences
were not inserted into the communication. " Nothing," as
Dr. Davidson says, " is more unjust than to restrict the apostle
of the Gentiles, in his writings, to one unvarying method."
The opinion of Wetstein, Ltinemann, and de Wette, that this
epistle is written to Gentile converts, while the church at
Ephesus was composed principally of Jews, is not according
to the facts of the history, nor according to the language of
the epistle. It is true that the first members of that church
were Jews, and that the twelve converted disciples of John
seem to have formed its nucleus. But was not Paul forced
to leave the synagogue ? and what raised the ferment about
the falling off in the sale of shrines ? Still we cannot accede
to some commentators and Dr. Davidson, that when Paul, in
the first chapter, uses rj/jLels he means himself and the Jewish
converts ; but when he employs ty-iet?, the Gentile disciples
are alone intended. There is no hint that such is the case ;
and is it solely for the Gentile Christians that the magnificent
prayer in the first chapter is presented ? There is nothing so
distinctive about " we " as to confine it to Jews, or about "ye "
as to restrict it to heathens, save where, as in ii. 11, the apostle
marks the limitation himself.

Timothy indeed is mentioned in the salutation to the Colos-
sians, but not in that to the Ephesians. But this fact affords
no argument against us ; for no matter in what form the

DESIGNED FOR EPHESUS. XXXlii

solution is offered, whether Timothy be supposed to have
absent from Koine, or to have been in Ephesus, or to have
been a stranger at the time to the Ephesian church no
matter which hypothesis is adopted, the absence of the name
does not prove the encyclical character of the epistle. There
may be many reasons unknown to us why Timothy s name
was left out. If Timothy came to Ephesus soon after the
arrival of the epistle, Tychicus might have private information
to communicate about him, or have a letter from himself. So
that as his personal teaching was so soon to be enjoyed, this
epistle emanates solely from the great apostle.

We are therefore brought to the conclusion that the epistle
was really meant for and originally entituled to the church
at Ephesus. The strong external evidence is not weakened
by internal proof or statement ; the seal and the superscription
are not contradicted by the contents. Such was the opinion of
the ancient church as a body, as seen in its MSS., ([notations,
commentaries, and all its versions ; of the mediaeval church ;
and in more modern times of the commentators Calvin, Ilucer,
"Wolf, Estius, Crocius, Piscator, Cocceius, Witsius, ZanchiiiM,
Bodius, Kollock, Aretius, Van Til, lloell, Quandt, Kcrgusson,
Dickson, Chandler, Whitby, Lardner, and more recently of
Cramer, Morns, Meyer, Davidson, Stuart, 1 Alexander, 2 Kinck, 3
"\Vurm, 4 Wieseler, 5 Alford, Newland, and Wordsworth.

IH. GENUINENESS OK THE EPISTLE.

The proofs that the Apostle Paul wrote this letter are
stronger still than those which vouch for the correctness of its
present title. It may be doubted, with M-yer, whether at
least the first of the two citations usually adduced from the
twelfth chapter of Polycarp s letter to the Philippines be one

Notes to Fosdick s English Translation of Hug * Introduction, p. "S",
Andover, 1830.

-In Kitto s Cyclnjxrdia, art. Epistle to the F.phesian*.

3 .SV//u-n und Kritikm, 1849, p. 940 under the till.- A ./n/i d T //"*"
an die. Uemeindr. zu fyfcsu* yrrichtrt jn ? von W. Fr. Kiik, 1 f-m-r Zu
Grenzliarh in Hadischcn Ohcrluiide.

4 Tubin. Strefochrijtm, 1833, p. 97.

4 C/iroiioloyie dea Ajxjst. Zvitalt. p. 442, etc.

XXX IV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

from this epistle, since it may be regarded as taken from the
Old Testament ; and perhaps the formula introducing both is
more usually employed in reference to the Old Testament
than the New. Patrcs Apostolici, ed. Jacobson, vol. ii. p. 487.
In the first chapter of the same letter there is a quotation from
Eph. ii. 8, on ^dpiri care aeo-wcr^evoL, OVK eg epywv. Id.
vol. ii. p. 466. Besides the authorities already given, we
might refer to Origen, who, in his Commentary on John, says
JToK o ITauXo? (fzrjcri TTOV, Kal J j/jLeda rkKva (frvcrei 0/377/9.
Again, in his Commentary on Matthew, he refers to Eph. v. 32,
under the same heading &&amp;gt;? JTauXo? faa-iv. Commentarm,
ed. Huet. vol. i. p. 497, ii. p. 315. From Poly carp downwards,
through the succession of patristic correspondents, apologists,
and commentators, the evidence is unanimous, and even Mar-
cion did not secede from this catholic unity, nor apparently
did the Valentinians. Irenteus, Adv. Hccrcs. i. 8, 5. The
heretics, as well as the orthodox, agreed in acknowledging the
Pauline authorship. The quotations already adduced in
reference to the title, are, at the same time, a sample of the
overwhelming evidence. But de "VVette, Usteri, Baur, and
Schwegler, have risen up against this confronting host of
authorities, and cast suspicion on the Pauline origin. Ewald,
too, in his die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulas, etc., omits the
Epistle to the Ephesians, and regards the salutations in the
last chapter of Romans as a fragment of an epistle sent to
Ephesus. Not that there is any external fact in their favour ;
nor that any ancient writer falters in his belief, or hints that
any of his predecessors or contemporaries had the least hesita
tion. Nay, the evidence may be traced back to the first link :
for the Apostle John lived long at Ephesus, and there Polycarp
must have learned from him that Paul was the author ; while
Irenoeus, who is so decided in his testimony, enjoyed the tuition
of Polycarp. And what shall we say of the additional witness
of Ignatius and Origen, of Clement and Tertullian, Basil and
Cyprian 1 But these German critics have a test of their own,
and they apply it at once, not to the external history or chain
of proof, but to the contents of the epistle. So thoroughly do
they believe themselves imbued with the spirit and idiom of
the inspired writer, that they can feel at once, and by an
infallible sense, whether any composition ascribed to him be

OBJECTIONS OP DE WETTE.

XXXV

genuine or spurious. They may not l&gt;e able to detail th
reasons of their critical feeling, but they rely with culm self-
possession on their a-sthetical instincts.

De Wette adduces against the genuineness of this epistle-,
its dependency (Abhiinyiykeit) on that to the Colossians a
thing, he says, without example, except in the case of tin;
First Epistle to Timothy, which is also spurious. This epistle
is only a mere " verbose expansion" wurtrciche Eriwikruny
of that to the Colossians, and besides there are against it the
employment of unusual words, phrases, parentheses, digres
sions, and pleonasms, and an indefinite un-rauline colour and
complexion, both in doctrine and diction. Einbit. in X. T.
14G. Take a sample of the resemblances from the lirst
chapters of both epistles :

EPHE.SIANS.

COLOSSIANS.

i. 4. e7rat 7//xu9 dyt ovs Kai d/xa- i. 22. IlapatrTT/Vai v/xds dyi ous
txoi 9 KartviaTTiov avruv. Kai d/xuj/xoi 9 Kai drcyicAT/Toi. ? Kare-

vit)7riov avrov.

i. 7. *Ey a! t^oitey T7;i uTroAu- i. 14. *Ey ai c^o/xci TIJV uTroAt -
rpioo~iv Sid TOI) ar/xaros avrov, ri)V rpiacriv, rijv d^ecriv TOI d/xa/mun .

i. 10. Ets olKovofj.Lav rov i. 20. Kai &lt;5i avrov UTT(
7r\Tjpij)fj.(iT&lt;i&lt;s TOJV Katpojr, dr&lt;iKC&lt;^)a- Aa^ai Ta Traj Ta ei9 aiTov,
\ani)fra&lt;rOa.L ra Travra eV Ta)X/&gt;ifrT(p, 7rotjyfra9 6id rot 1 at/xaros TC
rd ci Tols ov^jai ois Kai rd cVi y7/9, atToi 1 , 81 at-rot, CITC rd cVi T7ys y?ys
cV at roj. CITC rd cV TOIS orparois.

i. 21. Y7Tcpdro&gt; 7r&lt;iV//9 dp^T/s i- 1C- 18 "OTI eV OLVTW tKTi(T0r]
Kai c^ovtrias Kai 8vTrx/xco;9 i Kiynd- Ta TrdWa Ta &lt;V TOIS ovpovoi? Kai Ta
TV^TOS Kai Trai Tos oViuxaTOS ovo/xa^o- t?ri T&gt;y9 y/9, Ta upurn Kai Ta uttpuTn,
fJLivov ov fjLui ov ci Tcp aitui i TOI TU&gt; CITC Opt n oi CITC KiyuoT)/T9 CITC d/j^ai
dAAd Kai cY T(p Ltt AA Jt Ti. CITC iowriai. ra. Trai-rn ni* avroi 1 Kai

ci s at Toi &lt;KTK7Tai. ]l Kai aiVos i-irriv
TTfw Trdi Toji Kai Ta TrarTa c ai;Tu)

I J/Kf-

.CTTLV Uf&gt;X&gt;l, 7T/)0TOTOKOS *K Tul

pwVj ira ytvrjrat :ra(rii aiTo?

These resemblances are not so strong as to warrant thr id-a
of imitation. Tlie thought and connection aiv dill-n-nt in
both epistles. Thus in Kph. i. 4 perfection i.s presented ns
the end or ideal of the eternal choice; but in Col. i. 1
held out as the result of Christ s death. The forgiveness of

XXXVI THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

sins in Eph. i. 7 is introduced differently from Col. i. 14,
though in both places it is in natural connection witli Christ ;
in the first as a sequence of predestination, but in the second
as an element of redemption, and as introductory to a de
scription of the Redeemer s person. The references to the final
effects of Christ s death, in the two epistles,are also different, both
in introduction and aspect; it is recapitulation in Eph. i. 10,
and reconciliation in Col. i. 20. In Eph. i. 21 the apostle
pictures Christ s official exaltation over all the heavenly hosts,
but in Col. i. 1C, 18 he represents Christ as Creator, and
therefore Head or Governor by essential and personal right.
In both epistles Christ is K(pa\rf, and the church is
but the accompanying illustration is different.

Other similar terms are selected by de Wette
Eph. i. 23, Col. i. 19, ii. 9 ; iivv-nipiov, Eph. i. 9, Col. i. 26 ;
Kal t///a? GVTCLS, Eph. ii. 1, Col. i. 13. Then come such
phrases as irepnofjirj %ipo7ro tyros, Eph. ii. 11 7repiro/j,ij
a^eipoTroirjros, Col. ii. 11; aTrrj\\oTpLWfLvoi, Eph. ii. 1 2 and
Col. i. 21; ev Soypaa-iv, Eph. ii. 15, and in Col. ii. 14;
aTTOKaraXXa^aL, Eph. ii. 16 and Col. i. 20. These resemblances,
like the previous ones, are however in connections so different
that they are proofs of originality, and not of imitation.

De Wette finds many other parallels, both in the thoughts
of the general sections, and also in particular phrases ; those
in Ephesians being moulded from those in Colossians. Thus
the paragraph, iii. 1-21, is said to be from Col. i. 24-29, and
the practical section, Eph. iv. 17-vi. 20, is alleged to be
from Col. iii. 5-iv. 4. Still these and many other similari
ties adduced by the objector are by no means close ; some of
them are not even striking parallels, and they have no tame or
servile air about them. The passages in Ephesians are as bold,
free, and natural, as they are in Colossians. There is nothing
about them betraying imitation ; nothing like a cautious or
artistic selection of Pauline phrases, and setting them anew,
as if to disguise the theft and trick out a spurious letter.
Even Baur, who denies the Pauline authority of both epistles,
admits that both may have had the same author. Paulus, p.
455 Doss dcr Epheserbrief in einem sccunddrcn Vcrhdltniss
zum Cohsserbrief stekt, geht aus allem klar hcrvor, ob er aber
vicl sptiter yeschreiben ist und eincn andcrn zum Vcrfasser hat

OBJECTIONS OF DK WETTK. XXXVii

kann bezweifolt uvrden. Solltcn nicJit beidc Britfe zusammtn aU
BrQderpaar in die Welt ausgcrjangen seyn / Besides, as Meyer
has remarked, so fur from Ephesians being a verlx&gt;se expan
sion of Colossians, as de Wette asserts, it shows in several
places a brevity of allusion where there is fuller statement in
Colossians. Compare Eph. L 15,17 Col. i. 3-G ; Eph. iv.
32 Col. iii. 12-14. Tlie apostle s use of the quotation
from the G8th Psalm, in iv. 8, is brought against him by de
Wette, and, if so, what then shall we say of Horn. x. G and
x. 18 ? The quotation in v. 14 is said by de Wette to be from
an unbiblical writing, and therefore unapostolie in manner;
but it is rather a free quotation from Isa. Ix. 1, and is not
without parallel even in the Gospels. Matt. ii. 1 f&gt;, 23.
Objections are also taken to the demonology, ii. 2, vi. 1 2, that
it is exceptional ; and to the characteristic epithets or clauses
connected with the name of God, that they are singular,
as in i. 17, iii. 9, 1"&gt;, etc. Other peculiarities, as the
prohibition of stealing and the comparison of Christ to
a bridegroom, are brought forward for the same end. We
may reply that not only are such representations apostolic,
but that they are also Pauline, for in other Pauline
writings, in some form or other, they find a place. The
Epistle to the Ephesians has certainly no system of
dogmas or circle of allusions peculiar to itself. It does in
some points resemble that to the Colossians but surely if
two letters are written by the same person, about the same
period, and upon kindred subjects, similarity of diction will
inevitably occur. It would be the merest affectation to seek
to avoid it, nor do the strictest notions of inspiration forbid it.
The mind insensibly vibrates under the influence of former
themes, and the earlier language unconsciously intrudes itself.
And if the topics, though generally similar, are specifically
different, we expect in the style generic resemblances, but
specific variations. De Wette edited the correspondence of
Luther, but he has not rejected any letter, which, written in
the same month with a previous one upon some similar themes,
is not unlike it in spirit and phrase. Such a phenomenon
occurs in this epistle, for many of its verses contain diction
somewhat similar to correspondent passages in Coloaaians. It
is like that to the Colossians, and yet unlike it not with the

XXXV111 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

tawdry and dull similarity of imitation, disguised 1&gt;y the
artful sprinkling of a few discrepancies ; but it lias that like
ness which springs from unity of contemporaneous origin and
theme, and that difference which results, at the same time,
from living independent thought. And if it do contain un-
Pauline thoughts and diction, how came it to be received ?
how was the forgery not detected ? The reasoning against its
genuineness seems to be on this wise. It is so like Colossians
that it cannot be an original document ; but it is also so
unlike other Pauline letters, that it cannot be ascribed to
Paul. The statement neutralizes itself. If usual words prove
it an imitation, what do the unusual words prove ? Does not
rather the natural combination of the so-called usual and
unusual phrases mark it as a document akin to the other
production, and having a purpose, at the same time, peculiar
to itself ? Every original composition on a distinct topic pre
sents those very characteristics and affinities. But the whole
is Pauline in spirit and form. As in the other acknowledged
writings of Paul, so you have here the same easy connection
of thought, by means of a series of participles the same
delight in compound terms, especially formed with vTrep, and
in words that border on pleonasm the same tendency to go
off at a word, and strike into a parenthesis the same
recurrence of &lt;ydp and on introducing a reason, and of iva
pointing to a high and final cause the same culmination of
an argument, in the triumphant insertion of ou JJLOVOV and
fjia\\oi&gt; Se the same favourite formula of a conclusion or
deduction in apa ovv the same fondness for abstract terms,
with the accumulation of exhaustive epithets the same familiar
appeal to the Old Testament, and striking illustrations drawn
from it the same occasional recurrence to personal authority
and inspired warrant, in a mighty and irresistible eyco or fy^^C
the same irregular and inconsequent syntax, as if thought
jostled thought the same rich and distinctive terminology
that calls the gospel fMvarjjpLov, and prefixes TrXoOro? to so
nriny of its blessings ; that includes Sifcaioa vv r}, Tn crrt?, /cX?}(rt?,
KaTaX\,ayr ], and o&gt;/; among its distinctive doctrines ; that
places vlo0(7ia, olKoSo^, avaKaivaHTLS, and Trpoaaycoyi^ among
its choicest privileges ; that gives Jesus the undivided honour
of crwTijp, /ce(pa\/), icvpios, and K/HTJ/9 ; and in its ethics

ITS PAULINE SPIRIT AND STYLE.

opposes irvcvfia to ov/ pf, finds its standard in yo/io?, its power
in uyuTTrj, and its reward in \7n &lt;? with its rich and eternal
K\Tjpovofiia. The style and theology of 1 aul are the same
here as elsewhere ; and we are struck with the same lofty
genius and fervid eloquence ; the same elevated and self-
denying temperament; the same throbbings of a noble and
yearning heart ; the same masses of thought, luminous and
many-tinted, like the cloud which glows under the reflected
splendours of the setting sun ; the same vigorous mental grasp
which, amidst numerous digressions, is ever easily connecting
truths with first principles all these, the results of a master
mind into which nature and grace had poured in royal pro
fusion their rarest and richest endowments.

If, therefore, there be generic sameness in the two epistles
to Kphesus and Colosse, it is only in keeping ; but if there be
specific difference, it is only additional resemblance. If there
should be thirty-eight aira% \eyo/jiva in this epistle, there are
forty in the first two chapters of Colossians, above a hundred
in lioinans, and no less than two hundred and thirty in the
1st Epistle to the Corinthians. (See our Introduction to
Colossians.) The writer does use some peculiar terms, hut
why not ? Might there not be many reasons in the modes of
thought and speech peculiar to Ephesus, and perfectly familiar
to the apostle, that led him to use in this epistle such words
and phrases as eV TOI? eTrovpai t ois, i. !&gt;, 20, ii. 0, iii. 10, vi. 12 ;
TCI TTvevfianKu, vi. 12 ; SidftoXos, iv. 27, vi. 11 ; KOff/jLOKpdrwp,
vi. 1 2 ; aa)T) ipiov, vi. 1 G ; otKOvo/jila, i. 1 &lt;&gt;, iii. 2, 1&gt; ; p.va"n)piov,
v. 32 ; ir\i ipMfj.a y i. 23 ; v\oyta, i. 3 ; ato&gt;i&gt;, ii. 2 ; Trcpnronjffi^,
i. 14 ; d&lt;pOapaia, vi. 24 ; fiavBavciv, iv. 20 ; &lt;jwrt$etv t iii. . ;
TrXrjpovcrBai tV, v. 18 ; and ei?, iii. 11) ; @a&lt;ri\i a rov Seov
Kal XpKTTov, v. 5 ; TO OeXi^fjui rov tcvpiov, v. 17. The forms
of construction excepted against are without any difficulty,
such as a/a with the optative, i. 17, iii. 10 ; tare ytva&gt;&lt;ricoin&lt;:,
v. o ; and a/a QofttjTat, v. 3:&gt;. Nor is tliere any stronger
proof of spuriousness in the. want of the article in the instanced
adduced by the objector. Any forger who had studied the
apostle s style, could easily have avoided such little singu
larities. In line, what de \\Ytte calls pleonasms (llreitc und
J J lt &lt;nnixmHs) t as in i. 11), vi. 10, are clauses where wu-h word
has its distinctive meaniii ; various relations and ujK-cts of

xl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

one great idea being set out in their connection or develop
ment. And if the epistle be a forgery, it is a base one, for
the author of it distinctly and frequently personates the apostle
" I Paul " " I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ," etc.
Indeed, the imitation is so good, that de Wette ascribes it
to the first century, and to a pupil of the apostle s. We can
scarcely suppose that an imposition so gross could be associated
with a genius so lofty as that which has composed such a letter.
Nor can we imagine that the Ephesian church would not detect
the plagiarism. This " discerning of spirits " was one of their
.special gifts, for the keen and honest exercise of which the
Saviour eulogizes them when he says : " Thou hast tried them
which say they are apostles and are not, but hast found them
liars." Eev. ii. 2.

There is, as we have said, that natural difference of style
which arises from difference of subject and situation, in itself
a proof of Pauline authorship. But we deny that there is any
inferiority, such as de Wette complains of, or any of that
verbosity, tedious and imperfect illustration, or superfluity of
terms which are adduced by him as objections. The style
betokens fulness of thought and a rich mind. There is order
without system, reasoning without technical argument, pro
gress without syllogistic landmarks, the connection free and
pliant as in a familiar letter all converging on one great end,
and yet with a definite aim in the several parts. The imme
diate terms are clear and precise, and yet the thoughts are
superposed

" AVith many a winding bout
In linked sweetness long-drawn out."

Each surge may be gauged, but the advancing tide is beyond
measurement.

Therefore the attack of de Wette, faintly responded to by
Usteri in his preface to his Panlin. Lclirbcgrijf, is wholly
unwarranted. It is based upon critical caprice, and upon a
restless subjectivity which gives its mere tastes the authority
of argument. Though so often self-deceived and exposed, it
still deludes itself \vilh a consciousness of immense superi
ority, as if in possession of a second and subtle inspiration.
We place in opposition to de Wette s opinion the following
testimonies :

ANSWER TO DE WETTE. xli

Chrvsostom, no mean judge of a Greek stvlc, says in his
preface to his Commentary, that as Kphesus was a place of
intellectual eminence raina Be ijfiiv oi x 7rX I&gt;&lt;? e^rat, aXX*
coo-re Bel fat, on TroXX?}? eBei T(O TlavXro &lt;nrov&i~)&lt;; trpos c/cetVov?
ypufovTi. Aeyerai 8e teal TO. ftadvrepa ra)i&gt; voijfjLuTwv aurotv
fjL7ri(TTv&lt;Tai, are 7)877 Karrj^rjfiei Ot^. "Kern fit vorjfjLttT
77 eVto-roXr; v-fy-t]\u&gt;v KOL Boypdrayi . . . KCL\
ryfAi rwv vorjfjuiTW Kal VTrepuyKwv. *A yap
c&lt;f&gt;0eyf-aTO rav-ra tvravQa BijXol. " Paul would necessarily
take great pains and tnmMe in writing to the Christians
there. He is said to have intrusted them with his profoundest
conceptions, as they had been already so highly instructed,
and the epistle is full of lofty conceptions and doctrines," etc.
Jerome says in his preface Xunc ad Eplicxiux tninscnndum
ext, medium apostoli cpistolam, nt online if a ct scnsibus. Medium
(intern dico, noil (juo primas seqiicns, extremis major sif, scd
quomodo cor animal is in medio cst, ut ex hoc intelligatis r/uantis
dijjicultatibus, et f/uam prvfundis quastionibus invohtta sit.
Erasmus testifies Idem in hac epistola Pauli fervor, eadcm
profunditas, idem omnino spiritus ac jicctus. Passing Luther
and others, we refer to AVitsius, who adds in his Melctemata
Leidcnsia (p. 192), in higher phraseology Ita vcro universam
relijionis Christianas summam divina hue cpistula cxpomt,
ut exuberantem qnandum non scrmonis tantum Evangclici
7rappj]criai&gt;, ted et Spiritus frindi vim ct scnsum, ct charitatis
Christianas flamm(tm quandam ex clccto illo pcctore cmicantcm,
et lucis divincc fubjorcm qucndam admirabilcm inde cluccntem,
et fontcm aqucr riva: inch scatnrientem, aid clullientcm potim,
animadvertere licait : idquc tantd copia, ut superabundant ilia
cordis jilcnitudo, ipsci animi scnsa intimosf/uc concept us, con
cept us autem rerla prolata, rcrla deniqiic priora qucrquc
subxrqnrntia,prcmant, vrgcfnit, obruant. (Irotius, too, no enthu
siast, thus describes it Jierum sublimitatcm adirquan* wrlns
sublimioribus qitam ulla iniquum halnit liiif/un humiiiut. " I
this," says Coleridge, " tin- divinest composition &lt;&gt;f man. is
every doctrine of Christianity, first, those doctrines peculiar
to Christianity, and secondly, those precepts common to it
with natural religion." Table Talk,}*. Hli : London, IHfil.
Similar testimonies might be taken from Kichhorn s Einltitung,
and from the prefaces of several of the commentators.

xlii THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

The attack upon the genuineness of this epistle (or rather
both epistles, for Colossians is set aside as well as Ephesians)
by the Tubingen school of criticism is of a different nature.
Their idea is, that the epistle is a composition of the second cen
tury, and that it had its origin in the Valentinian Gnosticism.
Baur, 1 the Coryplueus of the party, has openly maintained
the extraordinary hypothesis. Schwegler, 2 Zeller, and
Schneckenburger have gone beyond their master in extrava
gance ; while Bruno Bauer 3 has surpassed them all in anti-
Pauline bitterness and absurdity.

This hypothesis has its origin in the leading error of the
Tubingen school, viz., that the original type of Christianity
was nothing more than Ebionitism, and that its expansion by
the apostle of the Gentiles was in direct antagonism to Peter,
James, and the rest of the apostolical college. In proof, it is
maintained that John, in speaking of only twelve apostles, in
the Apocalypse, xxi. 14, excludes Paul from the sacred number,
and that he praises these very Ephesians for having sifted
and rejected his claims, when he says : " Thou hast tried them
which say they are apostles, and are not, but hast found them
liars." It is surely needless to dwell on the refutation of
such an uncritical statement. An excellent reply to the whole
delusion will be found in a recent work of Lechler, Das
Apostolischc und Nachapostolische Zcitalter, etc., 2nd ed.
Stuttgart, 1857.

In fact, the entire theory is a huge anachronism. The
Gnosticism of the second century was not wholly unchristian
either in idea or nomenclature, but it took from Scripture
whatever in thought or expression suited its specious theosophy,
and borrowed such materials to a large extent from the epistles
of the New Testament. 4 Such a procedure may be plainly
proved. The same process has been repeated in various forms,
and in more recent times in Germany itself. The inference
is not, as the critics hold, that the Epistles to Colosse and

1 Der Apostfl Panlus, sf.ln Lfben und Wirken, etc., p. 420, etc., Stuttgart,
1845 ; or his Krltlsche Miscellen znm Ep1i&lt;&gt;serbrieJ\ in Zellcr n Theolotj. Jahrb.
1844, p. 378. Baur died in December 1860.

* Das Nachapostolische Zeitaltcr, etc. ii. 325, 326. Tubingen, 1846, passim.

3 Kritik der Pauliniftchcn Brirfe, iii. p. 101. Berlin, 1852.

4 DC Oritjine Ep. ad ( oloss. ft Eph. a criticis Tubingensibus e Gnoxi I nlcntiniana
dcducta. Scripsit Albertus Klot-pper, Theol. Lie. Grypliise, 1853.

OBJECTIONS OF BAUR.

Ephesus are the product of Gnosticism in army against
Ebionitism, Ijut only that the Gnostic sophists gilded their
speculations with bihlical phraseology. As well, were it not
for the long interval of centuries, might we infer that the
pantheism of Strauss originated no little of the language of
the AjxDstle John, rather than was copied from it ; or that the
Book of Mormon was the source of the original Scripture, and
not, as it is, a clumsy and recent caricature. We may well
ask How could a document so distinctly Gnostic be accepted
by the church, which was ever in contlict with Gnosticism ?

Baur and his followers hold that this epistle is a Gnostic
effusion, because of its exalted views of the person and reigu
of Christ, its allusions to various ranks in the heavenly
hierarchy, its repeated employment of the term TrXt ipw^a and
its allied verb, and its doctrine of the re-capitulation of all
things in Christ, as if such teaching and even diction were not
common in Paul s acknowledged epistles addressed to European
churches. 1 Tims the, Christology is offensive to Baur, Eph.
i. 20, though the idea is found in 1 Cor. xv. 24. Why
should not the apostle develop his ideas more fully on some
points, in addressing churches in a region where errors on the
same point might soon intrude ? What connection have
Gnostic icons shadowy and impalpable emanations from the;
Bythos or from one another with those thrones and dominions,
principalities and powers, over which Christ Jesus presides as
Governor. Nay, the Gnostics distinguished Christ and Jesus
as icons ; the former having, in fact, sent the latter as Saviour.
The theosophic speculations of the Valentinians are applied
by Baur to the term 7rX?&gt;/3o)/za, in a way that is wholly
unwarranted by its occurrence in both epistles. In this
epistle the term is applied to time, as marked out by God,
and so fulfilled or filled up ; to the church as filled by Christ,
and to God as denoting Jlis spiritually perfect natun 1 ; and
to Christ in the phrase, " the stature of tin* fulness of Christ."
But in such phrases there is no allusion to any metaphysical
notion of the Absolute, either to what contains it or what is
contained in it. Most certainly in the nuptial illustrations,
v. 2f, etc., there is no reference to male and female a-uns, or
to the Su/ygies of the Valentinian system such as that of
r, Dt Chrutoloyia Paulina contra Uaunum. VimtUUiri*, 1

THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

the Xo7o? with &&amp;gt;;; from whom were generated avOpwiros and
Kte\r)&lt;rla, as if the relation of Christ to His church were
a similar relation absolute essence realizing and developing
itself in a concrete Being, as the wife is the complement of
the man Kara av^vyiav. One may indeed wonder how P&gt;aur
could dream that in iii. 10 "that now unto the principalities
and powers in the heavenly places might be made known by
the church the manifold wisdom of God " was contained the
Gnostic idea of the 02on &lt;jo$ia struggling to be united with
ftvOos, and her final return to the 7rX?;pa)/za through the av^vyla
between Christ and His eKK\rja-ia. Or who besides Baur
could imagine that in the phrases Kara TOP alwva rov
Koafjiov rovrov ; et? TTacrct? T? &gt;yevea$ rov aiwvos rwv alwiwv ;
TrpoOeais rwv alwvwv there is a reference to the relation
which the Gnostic reons sustained to God, as the primal extra-
temporal unity of time individualizing Himself in them as
periods, or to their relation to another in sexual union and
development 1 Nay more, in the phrases " as is now revealed
unto His holy apostles and prophets ye are built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets " the quick eye of
Baur discovers traces of Montanism because in it prophets
had a high and honoured place as the organs of divine com
munication. So that in his opinion the man who wrote those
phrases must have lived at a period when so-called prophets
enjoyed apostolic honour, and thus unconsciously betrays
himself and the lateness of his time. As if in Acts, Eomans,
and 1st Corinthians there were no allusion to this class of men,
or as if all those documents too had a post-apostolic origin !
And then Baur would require to tell us how two systems so
opposed as Montanism and Gnosticism could thus coalesce in
the same epistle. The epithet ayio? applied to the apostles
and prophets, betrays, according to de Wette also, a late origin,
and the writer manifests his lateness by his anxiety to
identify himself and exalt himself as an apostle, a prisoner
for the Gentiles a minister, less than the least of all saints
and ambassador in chains. What is this objection but
dictating to the apostle how he shall write when an old man
in a prison, what amount of personal reference shall go into
his letters, or how large or small shall be the subjective
elements in his communication to any particular community,

REFUTATION OF BAUR. X lv

and through it to all churches and for all time ? The
expression " less than the least of all saints " is in no way
inconsistent with such an exalted assertion as " by revelation
he made known unto me the mystery ; " for this refers to
official function, and that only to personal emotion. A more
decided contrast is found in 1 Cor. xv. " the least of the
apostles, that am not meet to he called an apostle ; " and
2 Cor. .\i. f " I was not a whit liehind the very chiefest
apostles." Surely, then, the resemhlance which the subsequent
Gnosticism hears to these doctrines in its theosophy and
angelology, is a proof that it borrowed the shadowy likeness,
hut no proof that out of it were manufactured the apostolic
documents. In fine, the whole scheme has been overwhelmed
with confusion ; for it has been proved by citations from
Hippolytus, 1 that some books of the New Testament are
quoted by him more than half a century before these Tubingen
critics dated or allowed of their existence.

IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE EPISTLES TO KPIIESVS AND

COLOSSE.

The letters of the apostle are the fervent outburst of
pastoral zeal and attachment, written without reserve and
in unaffected simplicity. Sentiments come warm from the
heart without the shaping out, pruning, and punctilious
arrangement of a formal discourse. There is such a fresh
and familiar transcription of feeling, and so much of con
versational frankness and vivacity, that the reader associates
the image of the writer with every paragraph, and his ear
seems to catch and recognize the very tones of oral address.
These impressions must have been deepened by the thought
that the letter came from " such an one as Paul the ag-d,"
often a sufferer, and now a prisoner. If he could not speak,
he wrote ; if he could not see them in person, he despatched
to them those silent messengers of love. Is it then any
matter of amazement that one letter should resemble another,
or that two written about the same time should have so much
in common, and each at the same time so much that is

1 Bunsen a Hipjtolytu*, vol. i. 1 rrf. London, 1852.

Xlvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

peculiar ? The close relationship between the epistles to
Colosse and Ephesus must strike every reader, and the
question has been raised, which of them is the earlier pro
duction. The answer is one very much of critical taste, and
therefore different decisions have been given. A great host
of names, which the reader will find in Davidson s Introduc
tion, are in favour of the letter to Ephesus ; but others, and
these including Meyer, Harless, Wieseler, and Olshausen,
declare for that to Colosse.

Neander says Uncl damns erhellt aucli, class er den Brief
an die Colosser zuerst unter diesen beiden geschreiben liat ; denn
in demsdbcn zeigen sich uns diese Gedanken in Hirer ursprung-
lichen Entstehung und Beziehung, ivie sie durch den Gegensatz
gcgen jene in diesem Brief e von Him beJcdmpfte Sekte hervor-
gerufen wurden. Gescliiclite der Pflanzung, etc., vol. i. p. 524,
4th ed. That is " In the epistle to the Colossians the
apostle s thoughts exhibit themselves in their original form
and connection, as they were called forth by his opposition to
the sect (of Judaizing Gnostics) whose sentiments and prac
tices he combats in that epistle." Little stress can be laid on
such an argument, for whenever the mind assumes an
agonistic attitude, its thoughts have always more vigour
and specialty, more pith and keenness, than when in calm
ness and peace it discusses any ordinary and impersonal topic.
Harless and Wiggers have fixed upon Eph. vi. 21, com
pared with Col. iv. 8. In Colossians the apostle says of
Tychicus, " Whom I have sent unto you that he might know
your estate." But in Ephesians he adds teal, " that ye also
may know my affairs, and what I am doing, Tychicus, a
beloved brother, shall make known to you all things." In
using the word " also," the apostle seems to refer to what he
had said to the Colossians. Naturally he first says to the
Colossians, " that ye may know," but in a second letter to the
Ephesians, " that ye also may know." This hypothesis takes
for granted that the Ephesians would know what was con
tained in the letter to Colosse, or at least that Tychicus would
inform them of its existence, and of its reference to himself as
the bearer of personal and private tidings of the apostle. The
fcai, however, may refer not to the Colossians, but to the
apostle himself as Alford puts it " I have been going at

QUESTION OF PHIOUITY. xlvii

length into the matters concerning you, so if you also on your
part wish to know my matters," etc. The argument from
Kai, therefore, cannot he conclusively relied on. On the other
hand, it is contended by Hug and others, that the absence of
Timothy s name in the beginning of the Epistle to the
Ephesians is a strong proof in favour of its priority. Various
solutions have been given ; one probability is, that Timothy
was absent on some important embassy. These critics
suppose that he had not by this time come to Koine, but did
arrive ere Paul composed the Epistle to Colos.se. This circum
stance is too precarious for an argument to be founded upon it.
Efforts have been also made to demonstrate the priority of
the Epistle to the Ephesians, from its containing no expression
of any hopes of deliverance, and no reference to the success of
the gospel, whereas these occur in the Epistle to the Philip-
pians, written about the same time, lint neither in Colossians
are there any such intimations, and in the letter to Philemon,
which Onesimus carried to him, as both he and Tychicus
carried theirs to the Colossians, he says, generally " I trust
that through your prayers I shall be given unto you." The
question can scarce be solved on such data. It may be tried
by another criterion. Supposing Paul to be in imprisonment,
which of these two churches would he most probably write
to, which of them stood most in need of an epistle, which of
them was in circumstances most likely to attract the
immediate attention of the prisoner that of Ephesus or that
of Colosse ? Lardner lias virtually laid down such a test.
There might be many considerations inducing the apostle to
write to the Ephesians soon after his arrival at Hume.
Ephesus was a place of great importance and trailic, and in it
Paul had stayed longer than in any other city, except Antiocli.
Here also he had wrought many and special miracles, and had
enjoyed great success in his preaching. He had on a previous
occasion determined to sail by Ephesus, ami when he came to
Miletus "he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the
church." These things may have induced him to write first
to Ephesus on his coming to Koine, an. I having liberty of
correspondence. But we might thus reply to these state
ments. The Ephesian church had preserved
unsullied, for no reproof or warning is contained in the

xlviii

THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

epistle. They stood in no immediate need of apostolic
correspondence. No difficulty pressed them, for none is
solved. No heresy had crept in among them, for none is
refuted. But Colosse was threatened by a false system,
which would corrupt the simplicity of the gospel, which had
in it the elements of discord and ruin, but which had a
peculiar charm for the contemplative inhabitants of Phrygia,
so prone to mysticism, and therefore would lie the more
seductive to the church of Colosse, and the more calculated to
work havoc among its members. This being known to the
apostle, such a jeopardy being set before him, would lie not
at once write to Colosse, expose the false system, warn against
it, and exhort the adherents of Christianity to a stedfast
profession ? Would he not feel an immediate necessity for
his interference, would not the case appear to his mind more
urgent, and having more claim on his labour than the church
of Ephesus, where truth was yet kept pure, and the fire on
the altar ascended with a steady brilliancy ? Thus, of such
an argument as that of Lardner no advantage can be taken.
Still, balancing probabilities in a matter where facts cannot be
fully ascertained, we may incline to the opinion that the
earlier epistle is that to the Colossians.

The following table will point out the similarities between
the two epistles :
Eph

i. 1, with Col.

i. 1.

Eph. iv. 15,

with Col. ii. 19.

i. 2,

i. 2.

- iv. 19,

- iii. 1, 5.

i. 3,

i. 3.

- iv. 22,

iii. 8.

i. 7,

i. 14.

- iv. 25,

- iii. 8.

i. 10,

i. 20.

- iv. 29,

iii.8;iv.6

i. 15-17, -

i. 3, 4.

iv. 31,

- iii. 8.

i. 18,

i. 27.

- iv. 32,

- iii. 12.

i. 21,

i. 16.

v. 3,

- iii. 5.

i. 2-2,

i. 18.

v. 4,

- iii. 8.

ii. 1, 12, -

i. 21.

- 5,

- iii. 5.

ii. 5,

ii. 13.

. 6,

- iii. 6.

ii. 15,

ii. 14.

- . 15,

- iv. 5.

ii. Ifi,

i. 20.

- . 19,

- iii. 16.

iii. 1,

i. 24.

- 21,

- iii. 18.

iii. 2,

i. 25.

- v. 25,

- iii. 19.

iii. 3,

i. 26.

- vi. 1,

iii. 20.

iii. 7,

i. 23, 25.

- vi. 4,

- iii. 21.

iii. 8,

i. 27.

- vi. 5,

- iii. 22.

iv. 1,

i. 10.

vi. 9,

- iv. 1.

iv. 2,

iii. 12.

- vi. 18,

- iv. 2.

iv. 3,

iii. 14.

vi. 21,

- iv. 7.

PLACE AND DATE. x lix

Not a few of these similarities are but accidental, and those
which really deserve the name are corroborative proofs of
genuineness.

V. PLACE AND DATE OF ITS COMPOSITION.

The usual opinion has been that the epistle was written
in Borne. Some of the later German critics, however, have
concluded that Ciesarea was the place of composition. Schul/,
in the Stmlit-n iiml JCritikcn, 18l )( J, p. Glli, first broached this
hypothesis, and he lias been followed by Schneckenburger,
Bottger, lleuss, 1 Winers, and even by Schott, Thiersch, and
Meyer.

We find that Paul when in desarea was subjected to very
rigorous confinement. His own countrymen were bigoted and
violent, and only his friends might come and minister unto
him. Intercourse with other churches seems to have been
entirely prohibited. On the other hand, in Koine the watch
and ward, unstimulated by Jewish malice, were not so strict.
The apostle might preach, and labour to some extent in his
spiritual vocation. Again, Onesimus was with the apostle, a
fugitive slave who would rather run and hide himself in the
crowds of Borne, than flee to Ciesarea where he might bo
rnoie easily detected. Aristarchus and Luke were at Uome
too, but there is no proof of their being with 1 aul at Ca-sarea.
Besides, we have; mention of the palace and " (Cesar s house
hold." We cannot be brought to believe by all I lot tier s
reasoning, that such an expression might apply to Herod s
royal dwelling in Ca-sarea. Surely Herod s house could never
receive the lofty appellation of Cojsar s. Antiquity, with the
probability of fact, supports the notion that Borne was the
place where the epistle was composed. Those who contend
for Ciesarea lay stress on the distance of Asia Minor from
Rome, and on the omission of the name of Onesimus in the
Epistle to the Kphesians, as if, setting out from Ca-sarea, tin;
bearer of the letter would arrive at Colos.se first, and Onesimus
delivering himself up to his master, would not proceed with
Tychicus onward to Hphesus. But there were peculiar

1 drtrhlrhtf &lt;l. Ilfil. Srhrift. X&lt; i Tr*tamfnti, 1H.

2 Die Kirche in der Apotioincken Zctialtcr, etc., p. 17. Frankfurt, U

1 THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

reasons for commending Onesimus to the Colossian church.
His flight and conversion would make him notorious and
suspected. Besides, as Paul says, he was one of themselves,
and if he touched at Ephesus first, he needed no formal
introduction, being in the society of Tychicus. Emphasis is
laid on the phrase TT^O? wpav, " for a season," as if it signified
" soon," and referred to the period elapsing between the flight
of the slave and his reaching Paul, as if such brevity would
be realized more likely at Csesarea than Home. But, as has
been answered, the phrase qualifies e^wpiadr), and denotes
that his separation from his master was only temporary. On
the whole, the argument preponderates in favour of Home as
the place whence this epistle was despatched, and probably
about the year 62. 1 From the metropolis of the world, where
luxury was added to ambition, and licentiousness bathed in
blood, an obscure and imprisoned foreigner composes this
sublime treatise, on a subject beyond the mental range of the
wisest of Western sages, and dictates a brief system of ethics,
which in purity, fulness, and symmetry eclipses the boasted
" Morals " of Seneca, and the more laboured and rhetorical
disquisitions of Cicero.

VI. OBJECT AND CONTEXTS OF THE EPISTLE.

The design of the apostle in writing to the Ephesian church
was not polemical. In Colossians, theosophic error is pointedly
and firmly refuted ; but in Ephesians, principles are laid
down which might prove a barrier to its introduction. The
apostle indeed, in his farewell address at Miletus, had a sad
presentiment of coming danger. Acts xx. 29, 30 "For I
know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter
in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them." But the epistle has no distinct allusion
to such spiritual mischief and disturbance. In 2nd Timothy,
too, the heresy of Hymemeus and Philetus is referred to,
while Phygellus and Hermogenes are said to have deserted the

1 Graul, Dt Sententia scripsisse Paulum suas ad Epltex. Coloss. PJtilem.
E i&gt; ixtola*, in Caisaretnsi Captivilate. Lipsiie, 1836.

OBJECT AND CONTENTS. \[

apostle at Koine. In the apocalyptic missive addressed to
Ephesus as the first of the seven churches, no error is
specified ; but the grave and general charge is one of spiritual
declension. The epistle before us may therefore be regarded
as prophylactic more than corrective in its nature. AY hut the
immediate occasion was, we know not ; possibly it was
gratifying intelligence from Ephesus. It seems as if the heart
of the apostle, fatigued aud dispirited with the polemical
argument and warning to the Colossians, enjoyed a cordial
relief and satisfaction in pouring out its inmost thoughts on the
higher relations and transcendental doctrines of the gospel.
The epistle may be thus divided :

I. The salutation, i. 1, 2. II. A general description of
Divine blessing enjoyed by the church in its source, means,
purpose, and final result, wound up with a prayer for further
spiritual gifts, and a richer and more penetrating Christian
experience, and concluding with an expanded view of the
original condition and present honours and privileges of the
Ephesian church, i. 3-23, and ii. 1-11. III. A record of
that marked change in spiritual position which the Gentile
believers now possessed, ending with an account of the writer s
selection to and qualification for the apostolate of heathendom,
a fact so considered as to keep them from being dispirited, and
to lead him to pray for enlarged spiritual benefactions on his
absent sympathizers, ii. 12-22, and iii. 1-21. IV. A chapter
on the unity of the church in its foundation and doctrine, a
unity undisturbed by diversity of gifts, iv. 1-17. V. Special
injunctions variously enjoined, and bearing upon ordinary
life, iv. 17-32, v. 1 33, vi. 1-10. VI. The image of a
spiritual warfare, mission of Tychicus, and valedictory bless
ing, VL 11-24. The paragraphs of this epistle could be sent
to no church partially enlightened, and hut recently emerged
from heathendom. The church at Ephesus was, however, able
to appreciate its exalted views. And therefore arc those rich
primary truths presented to it, tracing back all to the Father s
eternal and benignant will as tin; one origin ; to the Son s
mediation and blood as the one channel, union with Him
being the one sphere ; and to the Spirit s abiding work nnd
influence as the one inner power; while the grand cud of the
provision of salvation and the organization and blessing of the

Hi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

church is His own glory in all the elements of its fulness.
The purpose of the apostle seems to be to refresh the con
sciousness of the church by the retrospect which he gives of
their past state and God s past sovereign mercy, and by the
prospect which he sets out of spiritual development crowned
with perfection in Him in whom all things are re-gathered
as well as by the vivid and continual appeal to present grace
and blessing which edges all the paragraphs.

Whatever emotions the church of Ephesus felt on receiving
such a communication, the effects produced were not perma
nent. Though warned by its Lord, it did not return to its
" first love," but gradually languished and died. The candle
stick was at length removed out of his place, and Mahometan
gloom overspread the city. The spot has also become one
of external desolation. The sea has retired from the harbour,
and left behind it a pestilential morass. Fragments of
columns, arches, and porticos are strewn about, and the wreck
and rubbish of the great temple can scarcely be distinguished.
The brood of the partridge nestles on the site of the theatre,
the streets are ploughed by the Ottoman serf, and the heights
of Coressus are only visited by wandering flocks of goats.
The best of the ruins columns of green jasper were trans
planted by Justinian to Constantinople, to adorn the dome of
the great church of Sancta Sophia, and some are said to have
been carried into Italy. A straggling village of the name of
Ayasaluk, or Asalook, is the wretched representative of the
great commercial metropolis of Ionia. While thousands in
every portion of Christendom read this epistle with delight,
there is no one now to read it in the place to which it was
originally addressed. Truly the threatened blight has fallen
on Ephesus. 1

VII. WORKS ON THE EPISTLE.

The principal writers on the literature of the epistle have
already been mentioned in the course of the previous pages.
Several ancient expositions of the epistle have been lost ; for
Jerome makes mention of one by Origen, of another by Apol-

1 On the present state of Ephesus, the travels of Ainsworth an&lt;l Fcllowes, and
the work of Arundel On the Seven Churches, may be read with advantage.

COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE. IHi

linaris of Laodicea, and of a third by Didyinus of Alexandria.
Among the Fathers we have the twenty-four homilies of Chry-
sostoin, and tlie commentaries of his followers Theodoret,
(Ecumeiiius, and Theophylact. We liuve often referred t&lt;
these, and to others in Cramer s Catena, as presenting the
earliest specimens of Greek commentary. The commentaries
of Jerome, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster l belong to the Latin
church. Exposition was not the work of media-val times,
though we have found some good notes in Anselm, Thomas
Aquinas, and Peter Lombard, and in the Postills of Nicolas
de Lyra of the fourteenth century. The expositors of the
Reformation period follow : Erasmus, Calvin, I eza, Musculus,
liucer, and liiillinger ; somewhat later among the Catholics,
Estius and a-Lapide; and among the Protestants, /anchius,
Calovius, Calixtus, Crocius, Cocceius, Piscator, llunnius, Tar-
riovius, Aretius, Jaspis, Hyperius, Schmid, lioell, and Wolf-
all of whom have written more or less fully on the Epistle to
the Ephesians. Wetstein and Grotius follow, in another era,
with several of the writers in the Critici Sacri. In England
there appeared "An Entire Commentary iqwn the whole
Epistle to the Ephesians, wherein the text is learnedly and
powerfully opened, etc. preached by Paul Bayne, sometime
preacher of God s Word at St. Andrew s, Cambridge;" London,
1G4M : and "An Exposition of the First and part of the
Seeond Chapter of the Epistle to the. Ejthcsians, by Thomas
Goodwin, D.I)., sometime President of Magdalen College; in
Oxford," was published in London in KJ.S1. In Scotland we
have the Latin folio of Principal Uoyd (Bodius), published at
London in 1G52 ; the I^itin duodecimo of Principal Pollock,
reprinted at Geneva, Ifi .Ki ; the E.cpositio Analytica of Dick-
son (Professor of Theology in the I niversity of Glasgow) on
this and the oilier Epistles, published at Glasgow, 1045, and
dedicated to the Marquis of Argyle, because his Gran* had
urged that the Professor should devote some portion of his
course to biblical exegesis. Fergusson of Kil winning also
sent out a lirief Exposition of th&gt; Epistle* of J nul to the
Calatians and Ephesians, at Edinburgh, lu .V.I. The Coin-

1 An unknown writer, so rallnl to distitifjuisli him fr&lt;iu Aml riwr, to whom
his Ciiniiiii-titariea wen- lonj, asrrilM-d, ami with whonc work* thi-y are
i] . Many .^-ujipose him to have Ix-t-n Hilary the Jrarun.

Hv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.

mentaries of the Socinian Crellius and Slichtingius are con
tained in the Fratrcs Poloni. We have also the eloquent
French work of Du Bosc on a portion of the epistle, and a
similar and smaller Meditation by Gauthey, published in 1852.
Lardner mentions an exposition by a Dutcli minister of
Eotterdam, Peter Dinant, of which a flattering review
appeared in the Bibliotlieca Bremensis, 1721. He opposed
both the theory of Grotius and Usher. We pass over the
various editors of the New Testament, such as Slade, Burton,
Trollope, Valpy, Grinfield, and Bloomfield ; and the numerous
annotators and collectors of illustrations, such as Eisner,
Kypke, Krebs, Knatchbull, Loesner, Kiittner, Eaphelius,
Palairet, Bos, Heinsius, Alberti, Keuchenius, Dougtseus, and
Cameron, pronounced by Bishop Hall, the most learned man
that Scotland ever produced. We have not space to charac
terize Hammond, Chandler, Whitby, Callander, Locke, Dod-
dridge, A. Clarke, Macknight, Peile, and Barnes, and the
more popular works on this epistle by Lathrop, M Ghee,
Evans, Eastbourne, and Pridham. We hasten to specify the
recent German commentaries. From that prolific nation of
scholars and critics we have not only such works as those of
Morus, Flatt, Koppe, Eosenmiiller, von Gerlach, Kiihler, and
others, but we have the following formal and specific exposi
tions on this epistle. Simply mentioning the comments of
Spener (1730), of Baumgarten (Halle, 1767), of Schutz
(Leipzig, 1778), of Miiller (Heidelberg, 1793), and of Krause
(Leipzig, 1789), \ve refer especially to the following : Cramer,
neue Ucbcrsctzuny dcs Brief es an die Eplieser ncbst cincr Aush-
guny dcssclbcn. Kiel, 1782. Holzhausen, dcr Brief dcs
Apostcls Paulus an die Ephcser ubersetzt und crlddrt. Han
nover, 1833. Pilickert, der Brief Pauli an die Eplieser erldutcrt
und vertlicidiyt. Leipzig, 1834. Matthies, Erklarung dcs
Brief cs Pauli an die Eplieser. Greifsvald, 1834. Meier,
Commcntar iibcr den Brief Pauli an die Eplieser. Berlin, 1834.
Harless, Commcntar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Eplieser.
Erlangen, 2nd ed. 1860. Olshausen, Biblisclicr Commentary
vol. iv. Ko nigsberg, 1840. Meyer, Kritisek cxcfjctiscker Com-
mentar ubcr das N. T. ; Aclite Altkciluny Kritisek Excgctisclics
Ifandbuck uber den Brief an die Eplieser. Gottingen, 1859.
De Wette, Exeyetisckes Handluch zum N. T. vol. ii. Leipzig,

COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLK. lv

1843. Tassavant, Versuch cin?r praktiichm Audtgung dfs
Briefes Pauli an die Ephescr. Basel, 1830. Catena in Sancti
Pauli Epist. in Gal Ephcsio*, etc., cd. Cramer. Oxon. 1842.
Commentar iiber den Brief Paidi an die Ephcser, von L. F. ().
Baumgarten-Crusius, ed. Kiminel and Schauer. Jena, 1847.
Stier, Auslegung dcs Briefer an die Ephescr. Berlin, 1848. 1
Bisping, Erklarung der Brief e an die Ephcser, Philipper, etc.
Minister, 1855. To tliese must he added the following recent
English and American writers : Turner, The Epittle to th*
Ephesian* in Greek and English. New York, 185G. Alford,
Greek Testament, vol. iii. London, 1856. Hodge, A Com
mentary on the Epistle to the Ep/tcsians. New York, 1850.
Kllicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on Xt.
Paul s Epistle to the Ephcsiaiis, 2d ed. London, 1850. Words
worth, G reek Testament, part iii. London, 18") .). Xewland, A
New Catena on St. Paul s Epistles a Practical and Exfgetical
Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paid to the Ephesians.
Oxford and London, 1800.

NOTE.

In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthias, Kiihiier,
vig, Kriiger, I ernhardy, Schmalfeld, Scheuerlein, Donald
son, Jelf, Winer, Host, Alt, Stuart, Green, and Trollopu arc
simply quoted, the reference is to their respective Greek
grammars; and when Suidas, Hesychius, 1 assow (ed. L o.st
Palm, etc.), liobinson, I UJM , AVilke, AVahl, ]ret-chncidr,
Liddell and Scott, are named, the reference is to their n-sprr-
tive lexicons. If Ilartung he found without any addition,
we mean his Lrhrc rtni den I artikdii der Grifchischen Sprachc,
2 vols. Krlangen, 1832. The majority of the other names an*
those of the commentators or philologists enumerated in tin-
previous chapter, or authors whose works are specified. The-
references to Tischendorfs New Testament are to the seventh
edition.

1 In Tholnck s Amn&lt;jer for IPflS ocrurs a wries &gt;f n-vii-ws of tli- rorniin-nUrir*
of Matthies, Mi-icr, Huck.-rt, Ilul/haiiM-n, and Harh-.-w, wiittm, we Irhwc, by
1 rof. liaumgarten, late of Rostock.

COMMENTARY OX EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER I.

Tin: first paragraph of the epistle introduces, according to
ancient usage, the name and title or office of the writer, and
concludes with a salutation to the persons addressed, and for
whom the communication is intended. 1

(Ver. 1.) UaOXo?, aTToo-ToXo? Xpia-rov Iija-ov. " Paul, an
apostle of Christ Jesus." The signification of the term tt-jrocr-
TO\O? will be found under chap. iv. 11. While the genitive
XpLcrrov Irja-ov is that of possession, and not of ablation, yet
naturally, and from its historical significance, it indicates the
source, dignity, and functions of the apostolical commission,
Acts xxvii. 23. Though, as Harless suggests, the idea of
authorization often depends on some following clause, yet the
genitive apparently includes it the idea of authority being
involved in such possession. This formal mention of his
official relation to Jesus Christ is designed to certify the truth
and claims of the following chapters. On similar occasions he
sometimes designates himself by a term which has in it an
allusion to the special labours which his apostleship involved,
for he calls himself " a servant of Jesus Christ," Horn. i. 1 ;
Phil. i. 1 ; Tit. i. 1. See under Col. i. 1 ; and especially
under Phil. i. 1 :

Bia fleXrJ/AaTo? Oeou "by the will of (lod." The prepo
sition Bid points out the eflicient cause. The apostle is fond
of recurring to the truth expressed in this clause, 1 and U Cor.
i. 1 ; Col. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 1. Sometimes the idea is varied, as
KCLT 7riTayi)v &ov, in 1 Tim. i. 1 ; and to give it intensity
other adjuncts are occasionally employed, such as K\TJTV&lt;; in

2 EPHESIANS I. 1.

liorn. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 1. The notion of Alford, hinted at by
Bengel in his reference to vers. 5, 9, 11, that the phrase may
have been suggested " by the great subject of which he is
about to treat," is not sustained by analogous instances. It is
added by the apostle generally, as the source and the seal of
his office, and not inserted as an anticipative thought, prompted
by the truth on which his mind was revolving. For his was
no daring or impious arrogation of the name and honours of
the apostolate ; and that " will " according to which Paul
became an apostle, had signally and suddenly evinced its
origin and power. The great and extraordinary fact of his
conversion involved in it both a qualification for the apostle-
ship and a consecration to it et? ou? eyu) ere U7roare\\w, Acts
xxvi. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8. It was by no deferred or cir
cuitous process that he came at length to learn and believe
that God had ordained him as an apostle ; but his convictions
upon this point were based from the first on his own startled
and instructive experience, which, among other elements of
self-assurance, included in it the memory of that blinding
splendour which enveloped him as he approached Damascus
on an errand of cruelty and blood ; of the tenderness and
majesty of that voice which at once reached and subdued his
heart ; of the surprising agony which seized and held him till
Ananias brought him spiritual relief ; and of the subsequent
theological tuition which he enjoyed in no earthly school.
Gal. i. 11, 12; 1 Tim. i. 11-13. So that writing to the
churches of Galatia, where his apostleship had been under
rated if not denied, he says, with peculiar edge and precision,
" Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Christ
Jesus and God the Father." Gal. i. 1. This epistle is
addressed

rot? dyiois TO?? ova iv eV E^eaai " to the saints that are
in Ephesus." "Ayios, as a characteristic appellation of the
Christian church, occurs first in Acts ix. 13. The word,
rarely used by the Attic writers, who employ the kindred
adjective dyvos, is allied to a^o^ai and a^a^ai, and signifies
one devoted or set apart to God. Forson, Adversaria, p. 139 ;
Buttmann, Lcxiloyus, sub vocc. This radical meaning is
clearly seen in the related dyia^a), in such passages as Matt,
xxiii. 17 ; John x. 30, xvii. 17. It is not, however, to classic

EPIIESIANS I. 1. 3

usage that we are to trace the special meaning of ayios in the
New Testament, but to its employment in the Septuagint as
the Greek representative of the Hebrew enp, Dent, xxxiii. .*&gt;.
This notion of consecration is not, as Kobinson seems to
intimate, founded on holiness ; for persons or things became
holy in being set apart to God, and, from this association
of ideas, holiness was ascribed to the tabernacle, with its
furniture, its worshippers, and its periods of service. The idea
of inner sanctity contained in the expressive epithet originates,
therefore, in the primary sense of unreserved and exclusive
devotement to Jehovah. Nor, on the other hand, can we
accede to the opinion of Locke and I Earless, that the word has
no reference in itself to internal character, for consecration to
God not only implied that the best of its kind was both claimed
by Him and given to Him, but it also demanded that the hal
lowed gift be kept free from sacrilegious stain and debasement.
So that, by the natural operation of this conservative element,
holiness, in the common theological sense of the term, springs
from consecration, and the " saints " do acquire personal and
internal holiness from their near relation to Clod; the con
sciousness of their consecration having an invincible tendency
to deepen and sustain spiritual purity within them. When
Harless says that the notion of holiness which cannot be
disjoined from a Christian 07109, is not got from the word,
but from our knowledge of the essence of that Christian com
munity to which such a ayios belongs, he seems to confound
source and result ; for one may reply that it is the ayiot who,
as such, originate the character of the Christian community,
and not it which gives a character to them. The appella
tion ayioi thus exhibits the Christian church in its normal
aspect a community of men self-devoted to God and His
service. Nor does it ever seem to lose this meaning,
even when used as a general epithet or in a local sense,
as in Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10; Rom. xv. 4 Jf&gt;. The words TOK
ovaiv fv E&lt;f&gt;ecro), which simply indicate locality, have IHLMI
already analyzed in the Prolegomena. The saints are further
characterized

icai Trio-rot? ei&gt; Xpiar&lt;u Ii)&lt;jov "and believers in Christ
Jesus." These words contain an additional element of
description, and the two clauses mark out the same society

4 EPIIESIANS I. 1.

in two special characteristics. But the meaning of
in this connection must first be determined. There are two
classes of interpreters : 1. Such as give the adjective the
sense of fiddis, " faithful," in the modern acceptation of the
English term that is, true to their profession. Such is the
view of Grotius, Eosenmiiller, Meier, and Stier. But were
such a sense adopted, we must suppose the apostle either to
make a distinction between two classes of persons who were
or had been members of the Ephesian church, or to affirm
that all of them were trusty were, in his judgment, persons
of genuine and of untainted integrity. Did he then suppose
that all the professed ay tot were faithful 1 Or among the
ciytoi did he distinguish and compliment such of them as were
blessed with fidelity ? The word in itself is not very deter
minate, though generally in New Testament usage 7rt&lt;rro? in
the sense of faithful fidelis is accompanied by an accusative
with 7rt, or a dative with h, in reference to things over
which trust has been exercised, and by the dative when the
person is referred to toward whom the faithfulness is cherished.
The idea of " faithful to Christ " would have required but the
simple dative, as in Heb. iii. 2. We have indeed the phrase
in 1 Cor. iv. 1 7 dyaTrrjrov /cal TTICTTOV ev Kvpicp, but there the
formula, "in the Lord," qualifies both adjectives. 2. Some
give the term its active sense of " believers," faithful, in its
original and old English meaning, faith- full full of faith
TTtcrro? being equivalent to r m,a r revwv, save that the adjective
points to condition rather than act. Many old interpreters,
such as Iib ell, Cocceius, Vatablus, Crellius, and Calovius, with
the majority of modern interpreters, take the word in this
signification. For a like use of the word in classical writers
a use common to similar verbal adjectives see Kiihner,
409, 3. The term THCTTO? has often this meaning, and is
so rendered in our version, John xx. 27 ; Acts x. 45, xvi. I ;
2 Cor. vi. 15 ; 1 Tim. iv. 3, 10, 12, v. 16, vi. 2. It should
have been so translated in other places, as Gal. iii. 9 ; Acts
xvi. 15 ; Tit. i. G. The Syriac version also renders it by
the participle ]j^D_.oilo believing. Hesychius defines it
by evTretOr,?. The phrase is thus a second and appropriate
epithet, more distinctive than the preceding, while the article
is not repeated. It is a weak supposition of Morus and

EPHESIANS I. 1. 5

Macknight, that these words were added merely for the sake
of distinction, because the epithet "saints" had but the
simple force of a common title in the apostolical letters.
Neither do we conceive that the full force and meaning are
brought out, if with some, as Beza, Bodius, a-Lapide, Calovius,
and Vorstius, we take the teal as epexegetical, and reduce the
clause into a mere explanation of the preceding title, as if it
stood thus " To the saints in Ephesus, to wit, the believers
in Christ Jesus." For the salient point of their profession
was faith in Christ Jesus, belief in the man Jesus as the
Messiah, the anointed Saviour, the commissioned and success
ful deliverer of the world from all the penal effects of the fall.
It was its faith specifically and definitely in Christ Jesus that
distinguished the church in Ephesus from the fane of Artemis
and the synagogue of the sons of Abraham. /Ito-ros l is here
followed by eV referring to the object in which faith terminates
and reposes ; ei&lt;? is sometimes employed, but eV is found with
the noun in this chapter, ver. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26 ; CoL i. 4 ; see
also Mark i. 15. The same usage is found in the Septuagint,
1 s. Ixxviii. 22, Jer. xii. 6, based perhaps on the Hebrew for
mula "3 ppsn." Though the verbal adjective be used here in its
active sense, it may therefore be followed by this preposition.
If, when ei? is employed, faith is usually represented as going
out and leaning on its object, and if eVt expresses the additional
idea of the trustworthiness of him whom we credit, then eV in
the formula before us gives prominence to the notion of placid
exercise, especially as eV is not so closely attached to the ad
jective as it would be to the verb or participle if it followed
either of them. Eritzsche, Comment in Marc., p. 25. The faith
of the Ephesian converts rested in Jesus, in calm and i&gt;er-

1 Tho disputed signification of this word affords a peculiar and curious instance
of the hazard of extreme opinions. II. Stephens had allirnifd in hi* Th Munu
that virrit is never used in an active sense, and never seems to signify ono &lt;/M
fidem habtt, aut etiam tjui crtdulim t*t. N. Fuller in his Mitcrllama Xttcrti,
lib. i. ch. 19, maintains, in opposition to the great lexicographer, that whenerw
the term is applied to a Christian man pro homine Chritliano *rti jiio uturjxitur,
it invariably denotes a believer, qui credit aut ftdrm adhif&gt;rt I&gt;eo. The unagn
of the New Testament in at least nineteen places, shows that it hu this lattr
or active sense ; still, in some clauses, even when applied to Christian*, it neuron
to bear the sense of fidfli\ Tim. i. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Col. ir. i
12 ; Hev. ii. 10. Among the Greek Fathers, the word is usrd iu both senao,
a-s tho examples adduced by Suicer, tub roc , abundantly testify.

C EPHESIANS I. 2.

manent repose. It was not a mere extended dependence placed
on Him, but it had convinced itself of His power and love,
of His sympathy and merits ; it not only knew the strength
of His arm, it had also penetrated and felt the throbbing
tenderness of His heart it was therefore in Him. There
might have been agitation, anxiety, and terrible perturbation
of spirit when the claims of Christ were first presented and
brought into sharp conflict with previous convictions and
traditionary prepossessions ; but the turmoil had subsided into
quiescent and immoveable confidence in the Son of God.

But does ev XpiaTa&gt; Itjaov simply qualify Tricrroc? ? or does
it not also qualify ay to is ? Storr renders it Qui Christo sacri
sunt ct in cum crcdunt. (Opuscula, ii. 121.) The phrase
" saints in Christ Jesus" occurs in Phil. i. 1, and the meaning
is apparent saints in spiritual fellowship with Christ. In
Col. i. 2 we have " saints and believing brethren in Christ,"
where the words in question may not only qualify " saints,"
but also describe the essence and circle of the spiritual
brotherhood. But we are inclined, with Jerome, Meyer, de
Wette, and Ellicott, in opposition to Harless, Meier, and
Baumgarten-Crusius, to restrict the words ev Xpiara) lya-ov
to TriaroLs. The previous epithet is complete without such
an addition, but this second one is not so distinctive without
the supplement. The intervention of the words rot? ovauv
ev E&lt;t&gt;eo-(p separates the two phrases, and seems to mark them
as independent appellations. But though grammatically they
may be separate names of the same Christian community,
they are essentially and theologically connected. " Nemo
fidelis," says Calvin, " nisi qui sanctus ; et nemo rursum
sanctus, nisi qui fidelis." The more powerful and pervading
such faith is, the more the whole inner nature is brought
under its controlling and assimilating influence ; the more
deeply and vividly it realizes Christ in authority, example,
and proprietary interest in " the church which He has purchased
with His own blood," then the more cordial, entire, and
unreserved will be the consecration.

(Ver. 2.) Xdpis vpiv KOI elp^rrj " Grace to you and
peace." The apostolical salutation is cordial and comprehen
sive. " Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor, greet
ing " Paul to the Ephesians, " grace and peace." It is far

EPIIESIANS I. 2.

more expressive than the vyiatviv, ^atpctv, or eu ir
of the ancient classic formula. The same or similar plrrase-
ology occurs in the beginning of most of the epistles. Xdpis,
allied to ^aipeiv and the Latin gratia, signifies favour, and,
especially in the New Testament, divine favour that
goodwill on God s part which not only provides and applies
salvation, but blesses, cheers, and assists believers. As a
wish expressed for the Ephesian church, it dot-s nut denote
mercy in its general aspect, but that many-sided favour
that comes in the form of hope to saints in despondency,
of joy to them in sorrow, of patience to them in suffering, of
victory to them under assault, and of final triumph to them
in the hour of death. And so the apostle calls it ^dpii* ets
tvKdipov ftor)6eiav grace in order to well-timed assistance.
Heb. iv. 16.

EiprjvTj Peace, is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew
Dife&gt; a term of familiar and beautiful significance. It includes
every blessing being and wellbeing. It was the formula of
ordinary courtesy at meeting and parting. " Peace I leave
with you," said our Lord ; but the term was no symbol of cold
and formal politeness " not as the world giveth, give I unto
you." John xiv. 27. The word in this connection denotes
that form of spiritual blessing which keeps the heart in a state
of happy repose. It is therefore but another phase, or rather
it is the result, of the previous X"P l&lt;f - ^ l( - T distinguishes
these two blessings, as if they corresponded to the previous
epithets tryt ot? Kal Trio-rocs, grace being appropriate to the
" saints," as the first basis of their sanctification ; and ]&gt;eace
to the " faithful," as the last aim or effect of their confidence
in God. But "grace and peace" are often employed in saluta
tions where the two epithets of saints and believers in Christ
Jesus do not occur, so that it would be an excess of refinement
either to introduce such a distinction in this place, or to say,
with the same author, that the two expressions foreshadow
the dualism of the epistle first, the grace of God toward the
church, and then its faith toward Him. Nor can we, an
Jerome hints, ascribe grace to the Father and jn-ace to the Son
as their separate and respective sources. A conscious posses
sion of the divine favour can alone create and susUiin mental
tranquillity. To use an impressive figure of Scripture, the

8 EPIIESIANS I. 2.

unsanctified heart resembles " the troubled sea," in constant
uproar and agitation dark, muddy, and tempestuous ; but
the storm subsides , for a voice of power lias cried, " Peace, be
still," and there is "a great calm:" the lowering clouds are
dispelled, and the azure sky smiles on its own reflection in the
bosom of the quiet and glassy deep. The favour of God and
the felt enjoyment of it, the apostle wishes to the members of
the Ephesian church in this salutation ; yea, grace and peace

ttvro Qeov Trarpos i]^wv /cal Kvpiov Irjaov Xpicrrov " from
God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." The source of
these spiritual blessings is now stated. Erasmus, Moms, and
some Socinian interpreters, would understand the connection
as if KvpLov w ? ere governed by Trarpo?, and not by O.TTO
" From God our Father, the Father, too, of our Lord Jesus
Christ." This interpretation would sever Jesus from the
bestowment of these blessings, as, in such an exegesis, they
are supposed to descend from God, who is our Father, and
who is at the same time designated as Christ s Father. This
construction is wholly unwarranted. Father and Son are both
specified as the sources of grace and peace. Grace and peace
are not earth-born blessings ; they descend from heaven, from
God on His glorious throne, whose high prerogative it is to
send down those special influences ; and from Christ at His
right hand, who has provided these blessed gifts by His suffer
ings and death who died to secure, and is exalted to bestow
them, and whose constant living sympathy with His people
enables Him to appreciate their wants, and prompts Him out
of His own fulness to supply them. God is described as our
Father r^av. Our sonship will be illustrated under ver. 5.
The universal Governor being the parent of believers, who
have a common fatherhood in Him, grace and peace are
viewed as paternal gifts.

The Saviour is characterized as Lord Jesus Christ ; " Lord,"
Master, or Proprietor. O Kvpios is often applied to Jesus in
the Pauline writings. It corresponds to the theocratic intima
tions of a king a great king to preside over the spiritual
Sion. Ps. ex. 1. G abler, in his New Theological Journal, iv.
p. 11, has affirmed, that in the Xew Testament K-vpios, without
the article, refers to God, and that o tcvpios is the uniform
appellation of Christ a distinction which cannot be main-

ZPHESIASS I. 2. 9

tained, as may be seen by a reference to Rom. xv. 1 1 ; 1 Cor.
x. 20 ; Heb. viii. 2 ; for in all those passages the reference
is to God, and yet the article is prefixed. Winer, 19, 1.
Like 6)eo&lt;? in many places, it is often used without the article
when it refers to Christ. In about two hundred and twenty
instances in the writings of Paul, icvpios denotes the Saviour,
and in about a hundred instances it is joined to His other
names, as in the phrase before us. Perhaps in not more than
three places, which are not quotations or based on quotations,
does Paul apply Kvpios to God. 1 It wo,s a familiar and
favourite designation the exalted Jesus is "Lord of all" "He
has made Him both Lord and Christ." He has won this Lord
ship by His blood. Phil. ii. 8, 11. " He has been exalted,"
that every tongue should salute Him as Lord. 1 Cor. xii. 3.
"While the title may belong to Him as Creator and Preserver,
it is especially given Him as the enthroned God-man, for His
sceptre controls the universe. The range of that Lordship has
infinitude for its extent, and eternity for its duration. The
term, as Suicer quaintly remarks, refers not to ova-ia, but to
el-ova la. And as He is Head of the Church, and "Head over
all things to the Church " its Proprietor, Organizer, Governor,
Guardian, Blesser, and Judge whose law it obeys, whose
ordinances it hallows, whose spirit it cherishes, whose truth it
conserves, and whose welcome to glory it anticipates and pre
pares for; therefore may He, sustaining such a relation to His
spiritual kingdom, be so often and so fondly named as Lord.
The apostle invokes upon the Ephesians grace and peace from
the Lord Jesus Christ, whose supreme administration was
designed to secure, and does actually confer, those lordly gifts.
The mention of spiritual blessing fills the susceptible mind
of the apostle with ardent gratitude, and incites him to praise.
In his writings argument often rises into doxology logic
swells into lyrics. The Divine Source of these glorious gifts,
He who gives them so richly and so constantly, is worthy of
rapturous homage. They who get all must surely adore Him
who gives all. With the third verse begins a sentence which
terminates only at the end of the 14th verse, a sentence which
enumerates the various and multiplied grounds of praise.
These are : holiness as the result and purpose of God s eternal
1 Stiurt s Essay, Biblical Itrpository, vol. iv.

10 EPIIESIAXS I. 3.

choice adoption with its fruits, springing from the good
pleasure of His will with the profuse bestowment of grace all
tracing themselves to the Father : pardon of sin by the blood
of Christ the summation of all things in Him the interest
of believers in Him these in special connection with the
Son : and the united privilege of hearing, and trusting, and
being sealed, with their possession of the Earnest of future
felicity a sphere of blessing specially belonging to the Holy
Ghost. Such are the leading ideas of a magnificent anthem
not bound together in philosophical precision, but each
suggesting the other by a law of powerful association. The
one truth instinctively gives birth to the other, and the con
nection is indicated chiefly by a series of participles.

(Ver. 3.) Ev\oyrjTos 6 0eo? Kal Trarrjp TOV Kvplov rjjJL&v
Iijcrov Xpiarov " Blessed be the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ." The verb is usually omitted. The
adjective in the doxology is placed before the substantive,
because being used as a predicate, and representing an
abstract quality, the emphasis lies on it. Such is the invariable
usage in the Old Testament not God is blessed, but, from
the position of the words Blessed be God, nin] ^"ia. At least
thirty times does the formula occur. Ps. Ixviii. 19, in the
Septuagint being a mistranslation or doubled version of the
Hebrew, is only an apparent exception, and the phrase,
Horn. ix. 5, we do not regard as a doxology. In all the passages
quoted by Ellicott after Fritzsche lloni. ix. 5, as if they
were exceptions to this rule, it is ev\oyr)fj,evo&lt;; and not
v\oyrjTc$ which is employed, and there is a shade of difference
between the participle and the adjective for while in the
Septuagint v\oyij[j.evo&lt;; is applied to God, evXoyrjros is never
applied to man. Thus in 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, which
are parallel passages yevoiro being employed in the first
instance, and earw in the second ; and in Job i. 21, Ps. cxii. 2,
in both of which ovofjia /cvplou with etr] occurs, the verbs, as
might be expected, are followed immediately by their nomi
natives. EvXoytjro^ in the New Testament is applied only
to God His is perpetual and unchanging blessedness, per
petual and unchanging claim on the homage of His creatures.
Ev\oyr)nevo&lt;&gt; is used of such as are blessed of God, and on
whom blessing is invoked from Him. Matt. xxi. 9 ; Luke i. 28.

EPHESIANS I. 3. 11

But the blessedness \ve ascribe to Clod comes from no foreign
source ; it is already in Himself, an innate and joyous
possession. Paul s epistles usually begin with a similar
ascription of praise (2 Cor. i. 3). But in many cases the
majority of cases he does not utter a formal ascription : he
expresses the fact in such phrases as " I thank," " We thank,"
" We are bound to thank " " God."

One would think that there is little dubiety in a formula so
plain ; for 6eo? and Tranjp are in apposition, and both govern
the following genitive Blessed be the God of, and the Father
of, our Lord Jesus Christ. The Divine Being is both God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet there are many
who sever the two nouns disjoining 0et9 from /evplov and
so render it, Blessed be God, who is the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ. Theodoret, the Peschito, Whitby, and Bodius,
with Harless, Meyer, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping,
and Ellicott, are in favour of this opinion. But Jerome, Theo-
phylact, Koppe, Michaelis, Iliickert, Stier, Olshausen, and
Alford, adhere to the former view, which we are disposed to
adopt. The words of themselves would bear either construction,
though Olshausen remarks that, to bring out the first opinion,
the Greek should run evXoyrjros 0eo9 o ira-r^p. Theodoret
capriciously inserts the adjective r yuwz/ in his note upon 0eo9.
He represents the apostle as showing Srj\a)i&gt;, o&gt;? rj^tv ^ikv
can 0eo?, TOU Be fcvpiov rjfiwv TTaT^p, as if Paul meant to
describe the Divine Being as our God and Christ s Father. To
say with Meyer that only trarrfp requires a genitive and in it
0eo9, is mere assertion. The statement of Harless, too, that
re should have been inserted before teal, if 8eo9 governed tcvpiov,
ap]&gt;ears to us to be wholly groundless, nor do the investigations
of Hartung, to which Jie refers, at all sustain him. Lchrc
von doi Partikcln d&lt;r (frice/t. fyrachc, vol. i. 125. Compare
1 Pet. ii. 25. Had the article occurred before TraTtjp, this
particle might have been necessary ; but its omission shows
that the relation of Seas and Trarrjp is one of peculiar unity.
Distinct and independent prominence is not assigned to each
term. Winer, 1 J, 3, note. Nor is there any impropriety of
thought in joining 6eo? with xvpiov the God of our I/ml
Jesus Christ. 0eo9 /zeV, says Theophylact, o&gt;? crapKtoOtvTos,
e to? 6eov \(r/ov. The diction of the Greek Father,

12 EPHESIANS I. 3.

in the last clause, is not strictly correct, for the correlative
terms are Father, Son, Trarrjp, u/o? : God, Word, 0eo&lt;?, \6yos.
" The God of our Lord Jesus Christ " is a phrase which occurs
also in the 1 7th verse of this chapter. On the cross, in the
depth of His agony, the mysterious complaint of Jesus expressed
the same relationship, " My God, my God." " I ascend," said
He to Mary, "to my God and your God." Rev. iii. 12. The
phrase is therefore one of scriptural use. As man, Jesus
owned Himself to be the servant of God. God s commission
He came to execute, God s law He obeyed, and God s will was
His constant Guide. As a pious and perfect man He served
God, prayed to God, and trusted in God. And God, as God,
stands in no distant relation to Christ He is also His Father.
The two characters are blended " God and Father." See
under ver. 17. Sonship cannot indeed imply on Christ s part
posteriority of existence or derivation of essence, for such
a notion is plainly inconsistent with His supreme Divinity.
The name seems to mark identity of nature and prerogative,
with infinite, eternal, unchanging, and reciprocal love. 1 Since
this God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ sent Him into
the world, prescribed His service of suffering and death, and
accepted it as a complete atonement, it is therefore His pre
rogative to dispense the blessings so secured

6 evXoyrjcra? fj/xa? " who blessed us " " us," not the apostle
simply, as Koppe supposes from the contrast of vpels in ver. 14.
The persons blessed are the apostle and the members of that
church addressed by him he and they were alike recipients of
divine favour. The evXoyijaas stands in ideal contrast to the
evXoyrjTos God blessed us, and we bless God ; but His bless
ing of us is one of deed, our blessing of Him is only in word.
He makes us blessed, we pronounce Him blessed. He confers
on us wellbeing, we ascribe to Him wellbeing. Ours is
benedicere, His is lenefacere. The participle here, as in many
places, has virtually a causal significance. Kiihner, 6 6 7, a.
We bless Him because He has blessed us. As the word
expresses that divine beneficence which excites our gratitude,

1 For a spirited view of the doctrine of the evfy&lt;r9,- in the hymnology of the
early Church, the reader may consult Dorner, die Lehre von dcr Person Chrinti,
second edition, vol. i. p. 294. See also Thomasius, Chr mti Persona, etc.,

41 (1857).

EPHESIANS I. 3. 13

it must in a doxology have its widest significance. The en
raptured mind selects in such a case the most powerful and
intense term, to express its sense of the divine generosity.
As Fergusson in his own Doric says, " The apostle does not
propound the causes of salvation warshly, and in a cauldril e
manner : "

ev Trdc-Tj evXoyia TrvevfjLariKfj " with all spiritual blessing."
Ev is used in an instrumental sense, and similar phraseology
in reference to God occurs in Tub. viii. 15, Jas. iii. J.
euXoyia is not verbal wish expressed, but actual blessing con
ferred. The reader will notice the peculiar collocation of tho
three allied terms, v-\oyr)T6&lt;;-\oy/)(Tas~\oyia, a repetition not
uncommon in the Hebrew Scriptures, and found occasionally
among the Greek classics.

The blessings are designated as spiritual, but in what sense ?

1. Chrysostom, Grotius, Aretius, Holzhausen, and Macknight

suppose that the apostle intends a special and marked contrast

between the spiritual blessings of the new dispensation, and

the material and temporal blessings of the old economy.

Temporal blessings, indeed, were of frequent promise in tho

Mosaic dispensation dew of heaven, fatness of the earth,

abundance of corn, wine, and oil, peace, longevity, and a

nourishing household. It is true that such gifts are not now

bestowed as the immediate fruits of Christ s mediation, though,

at the same time, godliness has " the promise of the life that

now is." I Jut mere worldly blessings have sunk into their

subordinate place. When the sun rises, the stars that sparkled

during night are eclipsed by the Hood of superior brilliance

and disappear, though they still keep their places ; so tho

blessings of this world may now be conferred, and may now

be enjoyed by believers, but under the new dispensation their

lustre is altogether dimmed and absorbed by those spiritual

gifts which are its profuse and distinctive endowments. If

there be any reference to the temporal blessings of the Jewish

covenant, it can only, as Calvin says, be " tacita antithesis."

U. Others regard the adjective as referring to the mind or soul

of man, such as Erasmus, Estius, Klatt, Wahl, and Wilke ;

while Koppe, Ruckert, and Baumgarten-Crusiua express a

doubtful acquiescence in this opinion. Tins interpretation

yields a good meaning, inasmuch as these gifts are adapted to

14 EPIIESIANS I. 3.

our inner or higher nature, and it is upon our spirit that the
Holy Ghost operates. But this is not the ruling sense of the
epithet in the New Testament. It is, indeed, in a generic
sense opposed to crapKiKos in 1 Cor. ix. 11, and in Kom. xv.
27; while in 1 Cor. xv. 4446 it is employed in contrast
with ^V^L/COS the one term descriptive of an animal body,
and the other of a body elevated above animal functions and
organization, with which believers shall be clothed at the last
day. Similar usage obtains in Eph. vi. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ;
1 Cor. x. 3, 4. 3. But in all other passages where, as in this
clause, the word is used to qualify Christian men, or Christian
blessings, its ruling reference is plainly to the Holy Spirit.
Thus spiritual gifts, liom. i. 1 1 ; a special endowment of the
Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 1, xiv. 1, etc. ; spiritual men, that is, men
enjoying in an eminent degree the Spirit, 1 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 37 ;
and also in Gal. vi. 1 ; Rom. vii. 14 ; Eph. v. 19 ; Col. iii. 16 ;
and in 1 Cor. ii. 13, "spiritual" means produced by or
belonging to the Holy Spirit. Therefore the prevailing usage
of the New Testament warrants us in saying, that these blessings
are termed spiritual from their connection with the Holy
Spirit. In this opinion we have the authority of the old
Syriac version, which reads ooO$&gt; " of the Spirit;" and the
concurrence of Cocceius, Harless, de Wette, Olshausen, Meier,
Meyer, and Stier. The Pauline iisits loquendi is decidedly in
its favour.

Ilda-rj "All." The circle is complete. No needed blessing
is wanted nothing that God has promised, or Christ has
secured, or that is indispensable to the symmetry and perfec
tion of the Christian character. And those blessings are all
in the hand of the Spirit. Christianity is the dispensation of
the Spirit, and as its graces are inwrought by Him, they are
all named " spiritual " after Him.

It certainly narrows and weakens the doxology to confine
those " blessings " wholly or chiefly to the charismata, or
extraordinary gifts of the primitive Church, as "VVells and
Whitby do. Those gifts were brilliant manifestations of
divine power, but they have long since passed away, and are
therefore inferior to the permanent graces faith, hope, and
love. They were not given to all, like the ordinary donations
of the Holy Ghost. Theodoret, with juster appreciation, long

EPIIESIANS I. 3. 15

ago said, that in addition to such endowments, eSo&gt;*f T/I/
\7rtSa T/)S" dvao-Tacreo)?, ra? TJ}? adavavias eVayycXui?, rrjv
VTrocr^effiv T}? /9a&lt;7tXeta? ran; ovpavaw, TO T&gt;;&lt;? vioQecrias ai a&gt;/ia
" the blessings referred to liere are, tlie hope of the resur
rection, the promises of immortality, the kingdom of heaven in
reversion, and the dignity of adoption." The blessings are
stated by the apostle in the subsequent verses, and neither
gifts, tongues, nor prophecy occupy a place in the succinct
and glowing enumeration :

eV rot? tTTovpaviots ev Xpio-rco " in the heavenly places, in
Christ" a peculiar idiom, the meaning of which has been
greatly disputed. What shall be supplied 7rpdyfjui&lt;Ti or
TOTrot?, tilings or places ? The translation, " In heavenly
things," is supported by Clirysostom, Theodoret, (Ecumenius,
Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Holzhausen, Matthies, and Meier.
This view makes the phrase a more definite characterization
of the spiritual blessings. P&gt;ut the construction is against it,
for the insertion of rot? seems to show that it is neither a
mere prolonged specification, nor, as in Ilomberg s view, a
mere parallel definition to eV TTUO-TJ v\o~/ia. The sentence,
with such an explanation, even though the article should be
supposed to designate a class, appears confused and weakened
with somewhat of tautology. Xor can we suppose, with Van
Til, that there is simply a designed contrast to the terrestrial
blessings of the Old Testament. The other supplement, TOTTOIS,
appears preferable, and such is the opinion of the Syriac trans
lator who renders it simply ] . &lt;-n -^ in heaven of .Jerome,
Dnisius, Beza, P&gt;engel, IMckert, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette,
Meyer, Stier, and Jiisping. The phrase occurs four times
besides i. 20 ; ii. G ; iii. 10 ; vi. 12. In all these places in
this one epistle, the idea of locality is expressly implied, and
there is no reason why this clause should IKJ an exception.
Harless remarks that the adjective, as eW would suggest, has
in the Pauline writings a local signification.

l&gt;ut among such as hold this view there are some differ
ences of opinion. Jerome, P&gt;exa, Itodius, and liuckert would
connect the phrase directly with v\o^/ija-a&lt;; ; but the position
of the words forbids the exegesis, and the participle must in
such a cose be taken with a proleptic or future signification,
lieza alternates between two interpretations. According to

1C EPHESIANS I. 3.

his double view, men may be said to be blessed " in heaven,"
either because God the Blesser is in heaven, or because the
blessings received are those which are characteristic of heaven
such blessings as are enjoyed by its blessed inhabitants.
Calvin, Grotius, and Konpe .argue that the term points out the
special designation of the spiritual blessings ; that they are to
be enjoyed in heaven. Grotius says these spiritual blessings
place us in heaven " spc ct jure." The sweeping view of
Calovius comprehends all these interpretations ; the spiritual
blessings are eV rot? eVoupaWot? ratione et oriyinis, qualitatis,
ct finis. 1 The opinion of Slichtingius, Zanchius, and Olshausen
is almost identical. The latter calls it " the spiritual bless
ing which is in heaven, and so carries in it a heavenly
nature." 2

We have seen that the idea of locality is distinctly implied
in the phrase eV rot? eirovpavtois. Olshausen is in error when
he says that " heavenly places " in Paul s writings signify
heaven absolutely, for the phrase sometimes refers to a lower
and nearer spiritual sphere of it ; " He hath raised us up, and
made us sit together with Christ in the heavenly places." Our
session with Christ is surely a present elevation -an honour
and happiness even now enjoyed. " We wrestle against prin
cipalities, against powers against spiritual wickedness in
heavenly places," vi. 12. These dark spirits are not in heaven,
for they are exiles from it, and our struggle with them is in
the present life. There are, therefore, beyond a doubt,
" heavenly places " on earth. Now the gospel, or the Media
torial reign, is " the kingdom of heaven." That kingdom or
reign of God is " in us," or among us. Heaven is brought
near to man through Christ Jesus. Those spiritual blessings
conferred on us create heaven within us, and the scenes of
Divine benefaction are " heavenly places ; " for wherever the

1 While we heartily admire the enterprise of M. Facho and Archdeacon
Tattani, and the critical erudition of Mr. Cureton in reference to the literary
remains of Ignatius, we may be allowed to refer in a matter of philology to two
of his so-called epistles. Mention is made of TK frovpnn o, xai v Sij TUV ayyixuv,
the heavenly regions and the glory of the angels. Ep. ad Smyrn. vi. and also

Ep. (1(1 Trail. TO, iTovp&vict xai ray rofoiiff tots &lt;ra.{ u.yy&lt;Xix,a,s where rovrofiffjci

stands in apposition to T* ivovpa.*!*.

* " Der geistliche Segen welcher in Himmel ist, also auch himmlische Xatur
an sich triigt."

EPHESIAKS I. 3. 17

light and love of God s presence are to be enjoyed, there is

heaven. If such blessings are the one Spirit s inworking,

that Spirit who in God s name " takes of the things that are
Christ s and shows them unto us," then His influence diffuses
the atmosphere of heaven around us. " Our country is in
heaven," and we enjoy its immunities and prerogatives on
earth. We would not vaguely say, with Ernesti, Teller, and
Schutze, that the expression simply means the church. True,
in the church men are blessed, but the scenes of blessing here
depicted represent the church in a special and glorious aspect,
as a spot so like heaven, and so replete with the Spirit in the
possession and enjoyment of His gifts so filled with Christ
and united to Him so much of His love pervading it, and
so much of His glory resting upon it, that it may be called
TO, CTrovpdvia. The phrase may have been suggested, as Stier
observes, by the region of Old Testament blessing Canaan
being given to the chosen people of God as the God of Abraham.
The words tv Xpicrai might be viewed as connected with
ra cTrovpdvia, and their position at the end of the verse might
warrant such an exegesis. Christ at once creates and includes
heaven. But they are better connected with the preceding
participle, and in that connection they do not signify, as
Chrysostom and Luther suppose, "through Christ" as an
external cause of blessing, but "in Him." Castalio supposing
ev to be superfluous, affectedly renders in wins Christi m7&lt;v&gt;-
tibvs, and Schoettgen erroneously takes the noun for the datirus
C linmodi in lauilcm Christi. The words are reserved to the
last with special emphasis. The apostle writes of blessing
spiritual blessing all spiritual blessing all spiritual blessing
in the heavenly places; but adds at length the one sphere in
which they are enjoyed in Christ in living union with tho
personal Kedeemer. God blesses us: if the question be, When 1
the aorist solves it ; if it be, With what sort of gifts ? tho
ready answer is, " With all spiritual blessings" f v ; and if
it be, Where? the response is, " In the heavenly places" lv\
and if it be, How ? the last words show it, " in Christ"-
the one preposition being used thrice, to point out varied but
allied relations. If Christians are blessed, and so blessed with
unsparing liberality and universal benefaction in Christ through
the Spirit s influence upon them ; and if the scenes of such

18 EPHESIANS I. 4.

transcendent enjoyment may be named without exaggeration
" heavenly places " may they not deeply and loudly bless the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ? And so the triune
operation of the triune God is introduced : the Father who
blesses the Son, in whom those blessings are conferred and
the Spirit, by whose inner work they are enjoyed, and from
whom they receive their distinctive epithet.

(Ver. 4.) KaOais efeXe|aro ?Jyu,a? ev avru&gt; " According as He
chose us in Him." The adverb tcaOws defines the connection
of this verse with the preceding. That connection is modal
rather than causal ; Kadw, like KaOoTL, may signify sometimes
" because," but the cause specified involves the idea of manner.
Ka0u)s, in classic Greek tcaOd, is the later form (Phrynichus,
ed. Lobeck, p. 426), and denotes, as its composition indicates,
" according as." These spiritual blessings are conferred on us,
not merely because God chose us, but they are given to us in
perfect harmony with His eternal purpose. Their number,
variety, adaptation, and fulness, with the shape and the mode
of their bestowment, are all in exact unison with God s pre-
temporal and gracious resolution ; they are given after the
model of that pure and eternal archetype which was formed in
the Divine mind

efeXefaro. 1 Cor. i. 27. The action belongs wholly
to the past, as the aorist indicates. Kriiger, 53, 5, 1 ;
Scheuerlein, 32, 2. The idea involved in this word lay at
the basis of the old theocracy, and it also pervades the Xew
Testament. The Greek term corresponds to the Hebrew "ina
of the Old Testament, which is applied so often to God s
selection of Abraham s seed to be His peculiar people. Deut.
iv. 37, vii. 6, 7; Isa. xli. 8; Ps. xxxiii. 12, xlvii. 4, etc.
Usteri, Paulin. Lchrlcgriff, p. 271. The verb before us, with
its cognate forms, is used frequently to indicate the origin of
that peculiar relation which believers sustain to God, and it
also assigns the reason of that distinction which subsists

between them and the world around them. Whatever the
precise nature of this choice may be, the general doctrine is,
that the change of relation is not of man s achievement, but
of God s, and the aorist points to it as past ; that man does
not unite himself to God, but that God unites man to Himself,
for there is no attractive power in man s heart to collect and

EPHESIANS I. 4. 19

gather in upon it those spiritual blessings. But there is not
merely this palpable right of initiation on the part of Clod ;
there is also the prerogative of sovereign bestowment, us U
indicated by the composition of the verb and by the following
pronoun, r;/*a? " us " we have ; others want. The apostle
speaks of himself and his fellow-saints at Ephesus. If God
had not chosen them, they would never have chosen God.

Hofinann (Schriftb. p. 223, etc., 2nd ed. 1857) denies that
the verb contains the idea of choice in its theological use.
Admitting that it does mean to "choose," as in Josh. viii. 3,
and to prefer, as in Gen. xiii. 11, Luke x. 42, he abjures in
this place all notion of selection they are chosen not out of
others, but chosen for a certain end fiir ctwas. The supposi
tion is ingenious, but it is contrary to the meaning of the
compound verb, even in the passages selected by him, as
Ex. xviii. 25, Acts vi. 5, in which there is formal selection
expressed judges out of the people by Moses ; deacons out
from the membership of the early church. The phrase ol
K\eKTol uyye\oi in 1 Tim. v. 21, may, for aught we know,
have a meaning quite in harmony with the literal significa
tion, or K\KTO&lt;; may bear a secondary sense, based on its
primary meaning, such as Hofmann finds in Luke xxiii. 35,
and according to a certain reading, in Luke ix. 35. But
while there is a high destiny set before us, there is a choice
of those who are to enjoy it, and this choice in itself, and
plainly implying a contrast, the apostle describes by eftXt faro.
On the other hand, Ebrard Christliche Doyniatik, 500, vol.
ii. p. G5, 1851 denies that the end of election, considered
as individual eternal happiness, is contained in the verb ; fur
election, according to him, signifies not the choice of individuals,
but of a multitude out of the profane world into the church,
so that eV\e*To? is synonymous with ayios. Election to
external privilege is true, but it does not exhaust the purj&gt;ose:
for it would be stopping at the means without realizing the end.
Besides, the choice of a multitude is simply the choice of each
individual composing it. That multitude may be regarded as
a unity by God, but to Him it is a unity of definite elements
or members. On the divine side, the elect, whatever their
number, are a unity, and are so described TTUV o St5o&gt;*t poi,
John vi. 30; irav o 8t5o&gt;/ca5 avrto, John xvii. 2 u totality

20 EPIIESIANS I. 4.

viewed by Omniscience as one ; bat on the human side, the elect
are the whole company of believers, but thus individualized
vra? 6 Oewpwv TOV viov Kal r nia"revwv John vi. 40 :

Ev avTto " in Him," for such is the genuine reading, not
eavrw, or in ipso, as the Vulgate has it and some commen
tators take it ; nor " to Himself," as the Ethiopic renders it.
The reference is to Christ, but the nature of that reference
has been disputed. Chrysostom says, " He by whom He has
blessed us, is the same as He by whom He has chosen us ;"
but afterwards he interprets the words before us thus Bia rfjs
eis avTov Tr/crrew?, and he capriciously ascribes the elective
act to Christ. Many, as a-Lapide, Estius, Bullinger, and
Elatt, translate virtually, " on account of Christ." But the
apostolical idea is more definite and profound. Ev avru&gt;
seems to point out the position of the T^a?. Believers were
looked upon as being in Christ their federal Head, when they
were elected. To the prescient eye of God the entire church
was embodied in Jesus was looked upon as " in Him." The
church that was to be appeared to the mind of Him who fills
eternity, as already in being, and that ideal being was in Christ.
It is true that God Himself is in Christ, and in Christ purposes
and performs all that pertains to man s redemption ; but the
thought here is not that God in Christ has chosen us, but that

when He elected us, we were regarded as being in Christ our
representative like as the human race was in Adam, or the
Jewish nation in Abraham. We were chosen

7r/5o Kara{3o\fj&lt;; Koa-fjiov, " before the foundation of the
world." Similar phraseology occurs in Matt. xiii. 35 ;
John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 20. The more usual Pauline
expressions are Trpo rwv alaivwv, 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; irpo
Xpovwv alwviwv, 2 Tim. i. 9. Kara^o\rj is also used in the
same sense in the classics, and by Philo. Lcesner, Observat.
p. 338; Passow, sub voce. Chrysostom, alluding to the
composition of the noun Kara-(So\r), says fancifully, " Beau
tiful is that word, as if he were pointing to the world cast
down from a great height yes, vast and indescribable is the
height of God, so wide the distance between Creator and
creature." 1 The phrase itself declares that this election is no

1 Ka/ xtzXus xra/3flX?jv tiTiv, uf O.TO nvo; v^ovs xT/3i/3Xj / ati *v fj.iyu.\tv alroi
^IIKV JS, xoii yxf fAiyot. x*i oifxrov TO ^^9; rav Slav, tu ru rfrcy, aXXa TCU &lt;ivarxi;&gt;j u*i x,e&lt;ri

EPHKSIAXS I. . 21

act of time, for time dates from the creation. Prior to the
commencement of time were we chosen in Christ. Tho
generic idea, therefore, is what Olshausen calls Zatlosiykcit,
Timelessness, implying of course absolute eternity. The choice
is eternal, and it realizes itself or takes effect in that actual
separation by which the elect, 01 K\KToi t are brought out of
the world into the church, and so become tc\r)Tol, ayioi, ical
Trio-Tot. Before that world which was to be lost in sin and
misery was founded, its guilt and helplessness were present to
the mind of God, and His gracious purposes toward it were
formed. The prospect of its fall coexisted eternally with the
design of its recovery by Christ

eivai T)fj,a&lt;f uyiovs Kal a^^ov^ tcaTei WTTiov avrov " in
order that we should be holy, and without blame before
Him." Elvai is the infinitive of design "that we should
be." Winer, 44, 1; Col. i. 22. The two adjectives
express the same idea, with a slight shade of variation.
Deut. vii. G, xiv. 2. The first is inner consecration to God,
or holy principle the positive aspect ; the latter refers to its
result, the life governed by such a power must be blameless
and without reprehension the negative aspect, as Alford and
Kllicott term it. Tittmann, Synonym, p. 21. The pulsation
of a holy heart leads to a stainless life, and that is the avowed
purpose of our election.

That the words describe a moral condition is affirmed
rightly by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Matthies, Meier,
Stier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and de Wette. Some, however,
such as Koppe, Meyer, von Gerlach, Bisping, and Harless,
refer the phrase to that perfect justifying righteousness of
believers to which the apostle alludes in Horn. iii. 21, 22,
v. 1, etc., viii. 1, etc.; 1 Cor. vi. 11. But the terms found hen;
are different from those used by the apostle in the places
quoted, where men are said to be justified, or fully acquitted
from guilt, by their interest in the righteousness of Christ.
On the other hand, the eternal purpose not only pardons, but
also sanctifies, absolves in order to renew, and purilies in order
to bestow perfection. It is the uniform teaching of Paul, that

T~n ?;,&gt;(. It is marvellous that Adam Clarke should find any allu

]&gt;hruse to "the commencement of the relitfioUH syMtcin of the J-w*. and that

Harrington should render it, Ik-fore the foundation of the JcwUh ut-v

22 EPHESIANS I. 4.

holiness is the end of our election, our calling, our pardon and
acceptance. The phrase, " holy and without blame," is never
once applied to our complete justification before God ; and,
indeed, men are not regarded by God as innocent or sinless,
for the fact of their sin remains unaltered ; but they are
treated as righteous they are absolved from the penal con
sequences of their apostasy. It is no objection to our inter
pretation, which gives the words a moral, and not a legal or
forensic signification, that men are not perfect in the present
state. We would not say apologetically, with Calixtus
Quantum fieri potcst, per Dei ipsius yratiam d carnis nostrce
infirmitatcm. We can admit no modification ; for though the
purpose begins to take effect here, it is not fully wrought out
here, and we would not identify incipient operation with final
perfection. The proper view, then, is that perfection is
secured for us that complete restoration to our first purity
is provided for us that He who chose us before time began,
and when we were not, saw in us the full and final accom
plishment of His gracious purpose. When He elected us
He beheld realized in us His own ideal of restored and
redeemed humanity. See under chap. v. 27. Men are
chosen in Christ, in order to be holy and without blame.
1 Thess. iv. 7; Tit. ii. 14. Jerome says, Hoc cst, qui
sancti ct immaculati ante non fuimus, ut postca csscmus. The
father vindicates this view, and refutes such objections as
Porphyry was wont to advance, by putting the plain question,
" Why, if there be no sovereignty, have Britain and the Irish
tribes not known Moses and the prophets ?" These facts are
as appalling as any doctrine, and the fact must be overturned
ere the doctrine can be impugned. The last lesson deduced
by Jerome is, Concede Deo potentiam sui.

KarevwTTiov avrov " before Him," PJW. No good end is
gained by reading avrov, with Harless and Scholz, as the
subject is remote. The meaning is, indeed, before Himself,
that is, before God. Winer, 22, 5; note from Bremi ;
Kiihner, 628. As the middle form of efeXefaro indicates,
they \vere chosen by God for Himself, and they are to be
holy and blameless before Him. The reference to God is
undoubted, and the phrase denotes the reality or genuineness
of the holy and blameless state. God accounts it so. The

EPHESIANS I. 4. 23

"elect" are not esteemed righteous "merely before men," a*
Theophylact explains. Their piety is not a brilliant hypocrisy.
It is regarded as genuine, "before Him" whose glance at
once detects and frowns upon the spurious, however plausible
the disguise in which it may wrap itself. Such is another
or second ground of praise.

The reader may pardon a few digressive illustrations of the
momentous doctrine of this verse. It would be a narrow and
superficial view of these words to imagine that they are meant
to level Jewish pride, and that they describe simply the
choice of the Gentiles to religious privilege. The purpose of
the election is, that its object should be holy, an end that
cannot fail, for they are in Christ; in Him ideally when they
were chosen, and also every man in his own order in Him
actually, personally, and voluntarily, by faith. Yet tho
sovereign love of God is strikingly manifested, even in the
bestowment of external advantage. Kphesus enjoyed what
many a city in Asia Minor wanted. The motive that took
Paul to Kphesus, and the wind that sped the bark which
carried him, were alike of God s creation. It was not because
God chanced to look down from His high throne, and saw the
Kphcsians bowing so superstitiously before the shrine of
Diana, that His heart was moved, and He resolved in His
mercy to give them the gospel. Nor was it because its
citizens had a deeper relish for virtue and peace than the
masses of population around them, that He sent among them
the grace of His Spirit. " He is of one mind, and who can
turn Him?" Every purpose is eternal, and awaits an
evolution in the fulness of the time which is neither antedated
nor postponed.

And the same difficulties are involved in this choice to
external blessing, as are found in the election of men to personal
salvation. The whole procedure lies in the domain of pure
sovereignty, and there can therefore be no partiality where
none have any claim. The choice of Abraham is the great
fact which explains and gives name to the doctrine. AN hy
then should the race of Sliem be selected, to the exclusion of
Ham and Japheth ? Why of all the families in S
that of Terah be chosen ? and why of all the member* of
Tenth s house should the individual Abraham be marked

24 EPIIESIANS I. 4.

out, and set apart by God to be the father of a new race ?
As well impugn the fact as attempt to upset the doctrine.
Providence presents similar views of the divine procedure.
One is born in Europe with a fair face, and becomes
enlightened and happy ; another is born in Africa with a
sable countenance, and is doomed to slavery and wretchedness.
One has his birth from Christian parents, and is trained in
virtue from his earlier years ; another has but a heritage of
shame from his father, and the shadow of the gallows looms
over his cradle. One is an heir of genius ; another, with
some malformation of brain, is an idiot. Some, under the
enjoyment of Christian privilege, live and die unimpressed ;
others, with but scanty opportunities, believe, and grow
eminent in piety. Does not more seem really to be done by
God externally for the conversion of some who live and die
in impenitence, than for many who believe and are saved ?
And yet the divine prescience and predestination are not
incompatible with human responsibility. Man is free,
perfectly free, for his moral nature is never strained or
violated. We protest, as warmly as Sir William Hamilton,
against any form of Calvinism which affirms " that man has
no will, agency, or moral personality of his own." l Fore
knowledge, which is only another phase of electing love, no
more changes the nature of a future incident, than after-
knowledge can affect a historical fact. God s grace fits men
for heaven, but men by unbelief prepare themselves for hell.
It is not man s non-election, but his continued sin, that leads
to His eternal ruin. Nor is action impeded by the certainty
of the divine foreknowledge. He who believes that God has
appointed the hour of his death, is not fettered by such a
faith in the earnest use of every means to prolong his life.
And God does not act arbitrarily or capriciously. He has
the best of reasons for His procedure, though He does not
choose to disclose them to us. Sovereignty is but another
name for highest and benignest equity. As Hooker says, " They
err who think that of the will of God to do this or that, there
is no reason but His will." Ecchs. Pol., lib. i. chap. ii. 3.
The question of the number of the saved is no element of
the doctrine we are illustrating. There have, alas ! been
1 Discussions on Philosophy, Literature, etc., p. COO. Edin. 1852.

EPIIESIAXS I. 4. 25

men, Calvino Culc in lores, who have rashly, heartlessly, and
unscripturally spoken of the e/cXe*Toi as a few a small
minority. God forbid. There are many reasons and hints
in Scripture leading us to the very opposite conclusion. Hut,
in fine, this is the practical lesson ; Christians have no
grounds for self-felicitation in their possession of holiness and
hope, as if with their own hand they had inscribed their
names in the Hook of Life. Their possession of " all spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places " is not self-originated. Its
one author is God, and He hath conferred it in harmony with
His own eternal purpose regarding them. His is all the
work, and His is all the glory. And therefore the apostle
rejoices in this eternal election. It is cause of deep and
prolonged thankfulness, not of gloom, distrust, or perplexity.
The very eternity of design clothes the plan of salvation with
a peculiar nobleness. It has its origin in an eternity behind
us. The world was created to be the theatre of redemption.
Kindness, the result of momentary impulse, has not and
cannot have such claim to gratitude as a beneficence which is
the fruit of a matured and predetermined arrangement. The
grace which springs from eternal choice must command the
deepest homage of our nature, as in this doxology

The eternity of the plan suggests another thought, which
we may mention without assuming a polemical aspect, or
entering into the intricacies of the supra- and sub-lapsarian
controversies. It is this salvation is an original thought
and resolution. It is no novel expedient struck out in the
fertility of divine ingenuity, after God s first purpose in
regard to man had failed through man s apostasy. It is no
afterthought, but the embodiment of a design which, foreseeing
our ruin, had made preparation for it. Neandt-r, indeed, says
the object of the apostle in this place is to show that Chris
tianity was not inferior to Judaism us a new dispensation, but
was in truth the more ancient and original, presupposed even
by Judaism itself. The election in Christ preceded the
election of the Jewish nation in their ancestors. GcxhicM*
dcr Pjlmizunrj, etc, ii. 443. Hut to represent this as the
main object of the apostle is to dethrone the principal idea,
and to exalt a mere inferential lesson into iU place.

26 EPIIESIAXS I. 4.

Before proceeding to the words ev ayaTrrj, we may remark,
that the theory which makes foreseen holiness the ground of
our election, and not its design, is clearly contrary to the
apostolical statement ; chosen in order that we should he
holy. So Augustine says that God chose us not quia futuri
eramus, scd ut essemus sancti et immaculati. There is no room
for the conditional interjection of Grotius, Si et homines
faciant, quod debent. The dilemma of those who hase pre
destination upon prescience is : l if God foresaw this faith
and holiness, then those qualities were either self-created, or
were to be bestowed by Himself ; if the former, the grace of
God is denied; and if the latter, the question turns upon itself
What prompted God to give them the faith and holiness
which He foresaw they should possess ? The doctrine so
clearly taught in this verse was held in its leading element
by the ancient church by the Eoman Clement, Ignatius,
Hernias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, before Augustine worked
it into a system, and Jerome armed himself on its behalf. It
is foreign to our purpose to review the theory of Augustine,
the revival of it by Gottschalk, or its reassertion by Calvin
and Janssen ; nor can we criticise the assault made upon it
by Pelagius, or describe the keen antagonism of Calixtus and
Julian, followed up in later times by Arminius, Episcopius,
Limborch, and Tomline. Suffice it to say, that many who
imagine that they have explained away a difficulty by deny
ing one phase of the doctrine, have only achieved the feat of
shifting that difficulty into another position. The various
modifications of what w^e reckon the truth contained in the
apostolical statement, do not relieve us of the mystery, which
belongs as well to simple Theism as to the evangelical system. 2

1 The Chevalier Ramsay and Dr. Adam Clarke deny that God knows the free
actions of moral agents before they take place.

2 That prince of thinkers, the late Sir William Hamilton, says of the
"Philosophy of the Conditioned" "It is here shown to be as irrational as
irreligious, on the ground of human understanding, to deny, either, on the one
hand, the foreknowledge, predestination, and free grace of God, or, on the other,
the free will of man ; that we should believe both, and both in unison, though
unable to comprehend even either apart. This philosophy proclaims with St.
Augustine, and Augustine in his maturest writings : If there be not free grace
in God, how can He save the world ? and if there be not free will in man, how
can the world by God be judged ? (Ad Valentinum, Epist. 214.) Or, as the
same doctrine is perhaps expressed even better by St. Bernard : Abolish free

KPHKSIANS I. 4. 27

Dr. AVhately has, with characteristic candour, admitted that
the difficulty which relates to the character and moral govern
ment of God, presses as hard on the Anninian as the Culvinist,
and Sir James Mackintosh has shown, with his usual luminous
and dispassionate power, how dangerous it is to reason as to
the moral consequences which the opponents of this and
similar doctrines may impute to them. 1 In short, whether
this doctrine be identified with Pagan stoicism or Mahometan
fatalism, and be rudely set aside, and the world placed under
the inspection of an inert omniscience ; or whether it be
modified as to its end, and that be declared to be privilege,
and not holiness ; or as to its foundation, and that be alleged
to be not gratuitous and irrespective choice, but foreseen merit
and goodness ; or as to its subjects, and they be affirmed to be
not individuals, but communities ; or as to its result, and it be
reckoned contingent, and not absolute ; or whether the idea of
election be diluted into mere preferential choice : whichever
of these theories be adopted, and they have been advocated
in some of these aspects not only by some of the early
Fathers, 2 but by Archbishops Bramhall, 1 Sancroft, 4 King, 1
Lawrence, 6 Sumner, 7 and Whately, 8 and by Milton, 9 Molina, 10

will, and there is nothing to be saved ; abolish free grace, and there is nothing
wherewithal to save. (De Gratid et Libero Arbitrio, c. i. Discuuion*, etc.,
1&gt;. 5!S. ) "

1 Mitcfllanfon* Work*, p. 139.

* &lt; &gt;rigcn, Philoc. cap. xxv. ; Justin Martyr, Dial, cum Tryph, 141 : ( l&lt; in.
Alex. Strom, vi. See also Wiggers, I ergnc. i finer praymatischtn Dtirtt llur-j
tie* A uijimt iti wmu* iind Pelayianixmus. lierlin, 1821.

3 Controversy with ilobbes on Liberty and Necessity. Wurkt, tonic iii.
Dublin, ltJ77.

4 Fiir l r&lt;fdf*tinatu*, etr. t a satire which Lord Mncaulny justly styles " .1
hideous caricature." History of England, vol. ii. p. 3M&gt;, 8th cd.

4 Sermon on Predestination, preached before the Irish House of Ixmls in 17U*
usually annexed to his well-known treatise, On the Origin of Evil, and
reprinted with notes by Dr. Whately in 1821.

* Hampton Le.-turc, On the Articles of thr Church of Enyland imjirojrrly
considered Calvini*tical. 1826.

7 Archbishop of Canterbury, Apostolical Preaching Con fid frtd. 1826.

* EtuHiytt on Some Difficultit-M in the }\ ritiinja of St. J tiul, j&gt;. 91.

u In his treatise J)e Dortriml Christum A, printed tirt in lJ2. r ., by Dr. Sumner,
now Bishop of Winchester.

10 A Spanish Jesuit of the University of F.vorn in Portugal, who, in hU
advocacy of seinipelngian views, first gavo currency to the term tcientm
in his treatise Lilx-ri artiitrii concordia cum gratia dutiw, Dirina
providintia, pmd&tinatione, ft rrprobatiunt. Libon,

28 EPHESIAXS I. 4.

Faber, 1 Xitzsch, 2 Hase, 3 Lange, 4 Copleston, 5 Chandler, Locke,
Watson, 6 and many others, such hypotheses leave the central
difficulty still unsolved, and throw us back on the uncon
ditioned and undivided sovereignty of Him "of whom, to
\vhom, and through whom are all things," all whose plans
and purposes wrought out in the church, and designed to
promote His glory, have been conceived in the vast and
incomprehensible solitudes of His own eternity. I can only
say, in conclusion, with the martyr Pudley, when he wrote on
this high theme to Bradford " In these matters I am so
fearful, that I dare not speak further ; yea, almost none other
wise than the text does, as it were, lead me by the hand."

The position of the words cv dyaTrrj will so far determine their
meaning, but that position it is difficult to assign. Much may
be said on either side. 1. If the words are kept, as in the
Textus Eeceptus, at the end of the fourth verse, then some
would join them to egeXegaro, and others to the adjectives
immediately preceding them. That ev ayuTry at the end of
the verse should refer to efeAefaro at the beginning, is highly
improbable. The construction would be so awkward, that we
wonder how (Ecumenius, Flacius, Olearius, Bucer, and Flatt
could have adopted it. The entire verse would intervene

1 On the Primitive Doctrine of Election. London, 1842.

2 System der Christl Lehre, 141, 5th Auflage. 1844.

3 Hutteriis Kedivivus, 91, 6th Auflage. Leipzig, 1845.

4 Von derfreien und Allgemeinen Gnade Gottes. Elberfeld, 1831. Written
against Booth s Reign of Grace. See Payne s Lectures on Divine Sovereignly,
p. 09.

5 An Inquiry into the Doctrine of Necessity and Predestination. 1821.

6 Inttitutes of Theology, vol. iii. See for opposing arguments the systems
of Hill, Dick, Woods, Chalmers, Wardlaw, and Finney, and of Mastricht,
Turretine, Stapfer, and Pictet. See Ileuss, Hixtoire de la Theologie Chret., etc.,
vol. ii. 132, Strasbourg 1852. Schmidt s Dogmatik, part iii. 30, Dritte
Auilage, Frankfort 1853. Messner, die Lehre der Apostel, etc., p. 252. See
also Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, by J. B. Mozley,
B.D., Oxford. In this volume, with no little argument, he elaborates the
theory that where our conceptions are indistinct, contradictory propositions
may be accepted as equally true such contradictory propositions as God s
predestination and man s free will. But surely we cannot aiiirm them to be
contradictory unless we fully comprehend them, and though they may appear
contradictory when viewed under human aspects and conditions, we dare not
transfer such contradictions to the domain of theology, for the whole question,
as Mansel says, "transcends the limits of human thought." Bampton Lecture,
p. 412, 2nd ed.

EPIIKSIAXS I. 4. 09

between a reference to the act of election and the motive
which is supposed to prompt to it. 2. Others, such as tho
Vulgate and Coptic, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Luther, Heza,
Calvin, Grotius, Matthies, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
Alford, join the words to fllie adjectives aytoi tcai ci/iw/Aot.as if
love were represented as the consummation of Christian virtue.
The doctrine itself is a glorious truth all the Christian graces
tit length disappear in love, as the flower is lost in the fruit.
Those who refer the adjectives to justifying righteousness
justitia ijnputnt i object to this view that it is nut Pauline,
but that eV 7r/&lt;7Tt would be the words employed. 3. Though
\ve are not hampered by such a false exegesis, we prefer to
join eV dydfrrj to the following verse, and for these reasons :
Where 07*09 is used along with a/ut&gt;/xo&lt;?, as in Kph. v. 27, and
even in Col. i. 22, where a third epithet, dveyKXijTos, i.s also
employed, there is no such supplementary phrase as ev dyaTrrj,
Alford tries to get rid of this objection by saying that i&gt; dytiiry
refers not to the epithets alone, but to the entire last clause.
Yet the plea does not avail him, for his exegesis really makes
(v dyaTTTj a qualification of the two adjectives. Olslmuscn
appeals to other passages, but the reference cannot be sustained ;
for in Jude 24 the additional phrase eV dyaXXtdvei qualifies
not ufjLMfjLos, but the entire preceding clause the presentation
of the saved to God. When synonymous epithets are used,
a qualifying formula is sometimes added, as in d^fj.7nov&lt;; t
I Thess. iii. 13, but blameless in what? the adjective is
proleptic, and eV dyici)&lt;rvi&gt;r) is added. Koch, Comment, p. 272.
The words eV ipy]vrj occur also in 2 Pet. iii. 14, in the same clause
with a/za^iTjTo?, but they belong not, as Olshausen supposes,
to the adjective ; they rather qualify the verb evptQfjvat
"found in peace." If eV dyaTrrj belonged to the preceding
adjectives, we should expect it to follow them immediately ;
but the words Karev^iriov avrov intervene. The construction
is not against the Pauline style and usage, as may he seen,
chap. iii. 1$, vi. 18, in which places the emphasis is laid on
the preceding phrase. Nor has Alford s other argument more
force in it that the verbs and participles in this paragraph
precede these qualifying clauses: for we demur to the
correctness of the statement. 1. We interpret the 8th verse
differently, and make i&gt; truey cofoa Kal &lt;/&gt;/jorvW qualify the

30 EPHESIANS I. 5.

following yvcopicras. 2. The other qualifying clauses following
the verbs and participles in this paragraph are of a different
nature from this, four of them being introduced by Kara
referring to rule or measurement, and not to motive in itself
or its elements. 3. It is more natural, besides, to join the
words to the following verse, where adoption is spoken of ;
for the only source of it is the love of God, and it forms no
objection to this view that lv aydiry precedes the participle.
Love is implied in predestination. Di-\ectio prsesupponitur
^ -lectioni, says Thomas Aquinas. And lastly, the spirit of
the paragraph is God s dealing towards man in its great and
gracious features ; and not precisely or definitely the features
or elements of man s perfection as secured by Him. The
minuter specifications belong to God His eternal purpose
and His realization of it.

The union of ev aya-Try with irpoopicras is sanctioned by the
old Syriac version, by the fathers Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Theodoret, and Jerome ; by Zanchius, Crocius, Bengel, Koppe,
Storr, Eiickeit, Harless, de Wette, Olshausen, Holzhausen,
Stier, Turner, and Ellicott; and by the editors Griesbach,
Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf.

(Ver. 5.) Ev ayaTrr) irpooplcras 77/xa? et? viodeaiav Irjcrov
XpiaTov et&lt;? avrov " In love having predestinated us for
the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself." Still
another or third ground of praise. Ev ayaTrrj, facri,
Trpoopla-as, says Chrysostom, and Jerome renders in charitate
prccdcstinans. Saints enjoy the privilege and heritage of
adoption. The source of this blessing is love, and that love,
unrestrained and self-originated, has developed its power and
attachment "according to the good pleasure of His will."
This verse is, to some extent, only a different phase of the
truth contained in the preceding one. The idea of adoption
was a favourite one with the apostle Rom. viii. 14, 15, 19,
23, ix. 4; 2 Cor. vi. 18 ; Gal. iii. 7, 26, iv. 5, G, 7 ; Heb.
ii. 10, xii. 5-8, etc. In the Old Testament, piety is
denominated by the filial relationship " sons of God." Gen.
vi. 2. The theocratic connection of Israel with God is also
pictured by the same tender tie. Ex. iv. 22; Jer. iii. 19;
Hos. i. 10. Tlodedia Oerov v?ov iroielcrBai conveys a
similar idea, with this distinction, that the sonship is not a

EPHESIANS I. 5. 31

natural but a constituted relationship, for the &CTOS was quite
distinct from the yvi]&lt;rios. The idea here is not merely that
of sonship, as Usteri imagines, but sonship acquired by
adoption. Paul in. Lchrbt-yri/, p. 104. Whatever blessings
were implied or shadowed out in the Israelitish adoption,
belong now to Christians. For they possess a likeness to
their Father in the lustrous lineaments of His moral character,
and they have the enjoyment of His special love, the privilege
of near and familiar access, the wholesome and necessary
discipline withheld from the bastard or foundling Heb. xii. 8
and a rich provision at the same time out of His glorious
fulness, lor they have an inheritance, as is told in ver. 11.
God and all that God is, God and all that God has, is their
boundless and eternal possession 1 Cor. iii. 21-23 to be
enjoyed in that home whose material glories are only
surpassed by its spiritual splendours. Adoption is, therefore,
a combined subjective view of the cardinal blessings of
justification and sanctification.

npoopicras The signification of the verb is, " to mark out
beforehand," and it is the act of God. We were marked out
for adoption irpo ; not before others, but before time. The
iTpo does not of itself express this, but the spirit of the con
text would lead to this conclusion. The general idea is the
same as that involved in tfeXcfaro, though there is a specific
distinction. The end preappointed Trpo, is implied in the
one ; the mass out of which choice is made e/t, is glanced at
by the other. In the first case, the Divine mind is supposed
to look forward to the glorious destiny to which believers are
set apart ; in the second case, it looks dov:n upon the unde
serving stock out of which it chose them. Tlpoopiaas may
indicate an action prior to ffeXt faro " Having foreappoiuted
us to the adoption of children, He chose us in Christ Jesus."
Donaldson, 574; Winer, 45, 1. Homberg Pare /, p.
286 thus paraphrases, Pustquam iws prc-dcstiimvU tnlty&gt;tan~
dos, elffjit ctiam nus, ut simna sandi. I5ut as the action Mh
of verb and participle belongs to God, we would rather take
the participle as synchronous with the verb. Bernhanly,
p. 383. For though the order of the Divine decree
subject too high for us, as we can neither gra-p infinitude nor
span eternity, yet wu may say that there is oneness and not

32 EPIIESIANS I. 5.

succession of thought in God s mind, simultaneous idea and
not consecutive arrangement. See Martensen s Christliche
Dogmatik, 207, 208, 209; Kiel, 1855. The doctrine
taught is, that our reception of the blessings, prerogatives, and
prospects implied in adoption, is not of our own merit, but is
wholly of God. The returning prodigal does not win his way
back into the paternal mansion. This purpose to accept us
existed ere the fact of our apostasy had manifested itself, and
being without epoch of origin, it comes not within the limits
of chronology. It pre-existed time. It is strange to find the
German psychology attempting to revive out of these words
Origen s dream of the pre-existence of souls. Surely it forgets
that He whose mind comprises beginning and end, " calls
things that are not, as though they were."

Bia Irjcrov Xpio-rov not simply for Christ s sake, but by
means of His mediation, since but for Him the family had
never been constituted. God s Son is the " first-born " of the
vast household, and fraternal relation to Him is filial relation
to God.

et? avrov " to Himself." It matters not much whether
the reading be avrov or avrov. The former, coming so closely
after Sta I. X., is certainly preferable, while the latter reading
has at least the merit of settling the reference. Griesbach,
Knapp, and Scholz, following Beza, Stephens, and Mill, have
avrov. Other editors, such as Erasmus, Wetstein, Lachmann,
and Tischendorf, prefer avrov, and they are supported by
Harless, Olshausen, and Meyer. The reference of the word,
however, is plainly to God. To Se et? avrov, rbv rrarepa
\eyL Theodoret. Some, indeed, refer the pronoun to Christ.
The scholastic interpreters, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, did
this, and they have been followed by Vorstius, Bullinger,
a-Lapide, and Goodwin, who, however, as his manner is, com
bines both the views ; " the Holy Ghost," he adds, " intended
both." But these expositors are more or less paraphrastic
and wide of the truth. Others, referring it to God, give it the
signification of a dative, such as Calvin, Beza, and Calixtus,
arid join the words with rrpoopiaa^, and find in the formula
this idea, that the cause of our adoption lies only in God, that
predestination is not caused by any motive or power foreign
to Himself extra scipsum. But this exegesis is a capricious

EPIIESIAX3 I. 5. 33

and unwarranted construction of et? with its accusative.
Others, again, take it as a dativus comnuxli for iavrf, as
Grotius, Koppe, Holzhausen, and Meier : " God has made us
His own children," a meaning which does not bring out the
full force of the word. Xot very different is the explanation
of Rtiekert, who makes it equivalent to avrov in the genitive

"He has predestined us to His own adoption." The
apostle does not use the preposition where a simple dative
or genitive would have sufficed. Others, retaining the
undoubted meaning of the accusative, would render it in
various ways. Piscator translates Ad yloriam (/ratio- sucr.
Theophylact, with CEcumenius, explains, rr/v ei? avrov dvd-
*/ov&av adoption leading to Him. Olshausen s notion is
not dissimilar. De Wette renders simply fur ihn ; that is,
for Him whose glory is the ultimate end of the great work of
redemption. Theodore of Mopsuestia thus expounds it, tva
avrov viol \eyoi/j.edd re feat ^prjfiari^fjLev. Something of the
truth lies in all those modes of explanation, with the excep
tion of the view of Calvin, and those who think with him.
.Ei ? occurs twice in the verse, first pointing out the nearer
object of rrpoopio-as, and then the relation of the spiritual
adoption to God. In such a case as the last, ei? indicates a
relation different from the simple dative, and one often found
in the theology of the apostle. Winer, 49, a, c (5), . H, 5.
Adoption lias its medium in Christ: but it has its ultimate
enjoyment and blessing in God. Himself is our Father
His household we enter His welcome we are saluted with

His name and dignity we wear His image we possess
His discipline we receive and His home, secured and
prepared for us, we hope for ever to dwell in. To HIMSKI.K
we are adopted. The origin of this privilege and distinction
is the Divine love. That love was not originated by us, nor
is it an essential feeling on the part of God, for it htis been
exercised

Kara rrjv cvSoxiav rov 0\i )paro&lt;; avrov -" according to the
good pleasure of His will." Kurd, as usual, denotes rule or
measure. Winer, 49, d (a). Evootcia, according to .Ternim- a
word coined by the Seventy, rebus nwis nova trr/xi fimjfntt*,
luis two meanings; that of will it seems good to me
voluntas libcrrima " mere good pleasure;" and that of bciie-

34 EHIESIANS I. 5.

volence or goodwill. The former meaning is held by
Chrysostom (TO a&lt;f)o&pov 8e\r)fjia), by Grotius, Calvin, Flatt,
Riickert, de Wette, Ellicott, and Stier, with the Vulgate and
Syriac. The notion of "goodwill," or benignant purpose, is
advocated by Drusius, Beza, Bodius, Roell, Harless, Olshausen,
and Baumgaiten-Crusius. Such is its prevailing accepta
tion in the Septuagint, as representing the Hebrew P^"J.
The translators gave this rendering on purpose and with
discrimination, for when jiV} signifies will or decree, as it
sometimes does, they render it by 6e\rj^a. Compare Ps.
xix. 15, li. 19, Ixxxix. 18, cv. 4, with Esth. i. 8; Ps.
xxix. 5, xl. 8; Dan. viii. 4, xi. 3, 16, etc. The Seventy
render the proper name nyin (Delight), Cant. vi. 4, by ev&ofcta,
Symmachus by evBoKTjTij. In the New Testament the mean
ing is not different. Luke ii. 14; Bom. x. 1; Phil. i. 15,
ii. 13. Matt. xi. 26, and the parallel passage, Luke x. 21,
may admit of the other meaning, and yet, as Harless suggests,
the context, with its verb rjya\\id&lt;raTo, seems to support the
more common signification. Fritzsche, ad Horn. ii. 369,
note. Ellicott virtually gives up his decision, by admitting
that " goodness is necessarily involved ;" and the philological
and contextual arguments of Hodge for the first view are
utterly inconclusive. We agree with de Wette that the
reference in evboKia is to be sought, not in the TrpowpLa^evoi,
but in irpoopiaas ; but it defines His will as being something
more than a mere decree resting on sovereignty, and there is
on this account all the more reason why praise is due, for the
clause is still connected with evKo^ro^. CEcunienius well
defines it, 1} eV evepyeaia /SouXT/crt?. Theodorefc says, that
the Sacred Scripture understands by evSotcta, TO dyaOov rov
&. 6e\i]fjLa. The 6e\.rj/jLa not an Attic term (Phrynichus, ed.
Lobeck, p. 7) in itself simple purpose, has in it an element
of ev&otcia. Benignity characterizes His unbiassed will.

And the proof of this statement is plain to a demonstration.
For though adoption among men usually results from child
lessness, and because no son has a seat on their hearth, they
bring home the orphaned wanderer, no motive of this kind
has place with God. His heart rejoices over myriads of His
unfallen progeny, and His glory would not have been unseen,
nor His praises unsung, though this fallen world had sunk

EFHESIAXS I. 6. 3")

into endless and hopeless perdition. Again, while men
adopt a child not merely because they like it, but because
they think it likeable in features or in temper, there was
nothing in us to excite God s love, nay there was everything
to quench it in such a ruined and self-ruined creature. So
plain is it, that if God love and adopt us, that love has
no assignable reason save " the good pleasure of His will."
In endeavouring to show that the occurrence of Kara TTJV
ev&otciav after eV dyuTrrj is no tautology, Olshausen savs, that
ayaTTTj refers to the proper essence of God, and that fv&otcia
brings out the prominent benevolence of the individual act of
His will. The opinion of Harless is similar, that dydirT) is
the general emotion, and that its special expression as the
result of will is contained in euSoxia. IVrhaps the apostle s
meaning is, that while adoption is the correlative fruit of love,
purpose, sjxicial and benign, has its peculiar and appropriate
sphere of action in predestination TrpoopiGasrcard. There
is " will" for if God love sinners so as to make them sons, it
is not because His nature necessitates it, but because He wills
it. Yet this will clothes itself, not in bare decree, but " in
good pleasure" and such good pleasure is seen deepening into
love in their actual inbringing. The idea of this clause is
therefore quite different from that of the last clause of v. 1 1.

(Ver. 6.) JSi? exaivov Sof?;? rf;? %dpiros UVTOV "To the
praise of the glory of His grace." .Ei? occurs thrice in the
sentence first pointing out the object of predestination-
then, in immediate sequence, marking the connection of Un
adopted with God and now designating the final end of the
process relations objective, personal, and teleological, different
indeed, yet closely united. Joi/? has not the article, being
defined by the following genitive, which with its pronoun
is that of possession. Winer, 10, 2, b ; l Madvig, 10, 2.
This verse describes not the mere- result, but the final purpose,
of God s 7rpoopi&lt;Tn6s. The proximate end is man s salvation,
but the ultimate purpose is God s own glory, the manifestation
of His moral excellence. 2 Cor. i. 1M) ; IMiil. i. 11, ii. 11.
It was natural in an ascription of praise to introduce this idea,
the apostle s offering of praise V\oyr)To&lt;; 6 0&lt;K being at
that moment a realization of this very purpose, and therefore
See Moulton s Winer, p. 155, note 0.

30 EPHESIANS I. 6.

acceptable to Him. Some critical editors read avrov, but
without valid reason.

The reduction of the phrase to a Hebraism is a feeble
exegesis. That reduction has been attempted in two ways.
Some, like Grotius and Estius, resolve it into et? CTTCIIVOV ev&oov
to the glorious praise of His grace. Others, as Beza, Koppe,
Winer, Holzhausen, and Meier, construe it as %dpis eySofo?.
But it is not generally His glorious grace, but this one special
element of that grace which is to be praised. Winer, 30, 3, 1 ;
Bernhardy, p. 53. Xdpis is favour, Divine favour, proving
that man has not only no merit, but that, in spite of demerit,
he is saved and blessed by God. (See under chap. ii. 58.)
Its glory is its fulness, freeness, and condescension. It shrinks
from no sacrifice, averts itself from no species or amount of
guilt, enriches its objects with the choicest favours, and con
fers upon them the noblest honours. It has effected what
it purposed stooping to the depths, it has raised us to the
heights of filial dignity. Still further : this grace, with its
characteristic glory, is a property in God s nature which
could never have been displayed but for the introduction of
sin, and God s design to save sinners. This, then, was His
great and ultimate end, that the glory of His grace should be
seen and praised, that this element of His character should
be exhibited in its peculiar splendour, for without it all
conceptions of the Divine nature must have been limited and
unworthy. And as this grace lay in His heart, and as its
exhibition springs from choice, and not from essential obliga
tion, it is praised by the church, which receives it, and by the
universe, which admires it. Therefore to reveal Himself fully,
to display His full-orbed glory, was an end worthy of God. 1
The idea of Stier, that the words have a subjective reference,
is far-fetched, as if the apostle had said that we are predestined
to be ourselves the praise of His glory. All that is good in
this interpretation is really comprised in the view already
given.

ev y, or ?^? e^aplrwcev jj/ia?. The former reading has in
its favour D, E, F, G, K, L. The Vulgate and Syriac cannot
be adduced as decided authorities, as they have often charac-

1 No one who has read, can forget, the magnificent tract of Jonathan Edwards
God s Chief End in Creation. Works, i. p. 41 ; ed. 1806, London.

EPHESIAN8 I. 6. 37

teristic modes of translation in such plaas. For &gt;fr we have
the two old MSS. A and B, and ChrysosU&gt;m s first quotation
of the clause. Authorities are pretty nearly balanced, and
editors and critics are therefore divided Tischendorf and
Kllicott being for the first, Lachmann and Alfnrd for tin-
second but the meaning is not affected whichever reading
be adopted. While eV 17 is well supported, ^? would seem to
be quite in harmony with Pauline usage, and is the more
difficult of the two readings, tempting a copyist on that
account to alter it. It stands so by attraction, Rernhardy,
p. 299; Winer, 24. 1; Eph. iv. f; 2 Cor. i. 4; see al*.
under ver. 8. Two classes of meanings have been assigned
to the verb :

1. That of Chrysostom, and the Greek fathers, who usually
follow him, Theodoret, Theophylact, and (Kcumenius ; also
of many of the Catholic interpreters, and of Beza, Luther,
Calvin, Piscator, Olshausen, Hol/hausen, Passavant, and the
English version. The verb is supposed by them to refer to
the personal or subjective result of grace, which is to give men
acceptance with God yratos ct accfptos rcddidit. Men filled
with gratia are yratiosi in the eye of God. Luther renders
angenekm gcmacht, as in our version, " made accepted."
Chrysostom s philological argument is, the apostle does not
say 179 %apicraTo d\X e^apiroiaev rj^a^, that is, the apostle
does not say, " which He has graciously given," but " with
which He has made us gracious." He further explains thr
term by KCU eVe^ao-roix? eVcnr/crey " He has made us objects
of His love;" and He employs this striking ami beautiful
figure " It is as if one were to take a leper, wasted with
malady and disease, with age, destitution, and hunger, ami
were to change him all at once into a lovely youth, sur
passing all men in beauty, shedding a bright lustre from his
cheeks, and eclipsing the solar beam with the glances of his
eyes, and then were to set him in the flower of his age and
clothe him in purple, and with a diadem, and all the vest
ments of royalty. Thus has God arrayed and adorned our
soul, and made it an object of beauty, delight, and love."
But the notion conveyed in this figure appears to us to b
foreign to the meaning of the term. The word occurs, indi
with a similar meaning in the Septuagint, Siruch x\ i 1 7,

38 EPHESIANS I. 6.

where avrjp K%ap LTwpevos is a man full of grace and bland-
ness ; and the same book, ix. 8, according to Codex A and
Clement s quotation, has the same participle, as if it were
synonymous with evpopfyos comely, well-shaped. Opera, p.
257; Colonize, 1G88. Such a sense, however, is not in har
mony with the formation of the verb or the usage of the New
Testament. Yet Mohler, in his Syinbolik, 13, 14, uses the
clause as an argument for the justitia inliwrens of the Romish
Church.

2. The verb ^apiroa), a word of the later Greek, signifies,
according to the analogy of its formation to grace, to bestow
grace upon. So some of the older commentators, as Cocceius,
Eoell, and most modern ones. Verbs in ow signify to give
action or existence to the thing or quality specified by the
correlate noun, have what Kiihner appropriately calls tine
factitive Bedeutung, 368. Thus, 7rvpoa&gt; I set on fire,
I put to death, that is, I give action to irvp and
Buttmann, 119. Xapi-row will thus indicate
the communication or bestowment of the %a/ns. The grace
spoken of is God s, and that grace is liberally conferred upon
us. To maintain the alliteration it may be rendered, The
grace with which He graced us, or the favour with which He
favoured us. The Vulgate has gratificavit, and the Syriac
^2u"|5 which He has poured out. Xdpis has an objective
meaning here, as it usually has in the Pauline writings,
and KxapiTQ)fj,evr), applied to the Virgin (Luke i. 28, Valck-
naer, ap. Luc. i. 28), signifies favoured of God, the selected
recipient of His peculiar grace. Test. xii. Patr. p. 698. The
use of a noun with its correlate verb is not uncommon. Eph.
i. 3, 19, 20 ; ii. 4 ; iv. 1 ; Donaldson, 466 ; Winer, 24, 1.
The spirit of the declaration is To the praise of the glory of
His grace, which He so liberally conferred upon us the aorist
referring to past indefinite time and not to present condition.
The liberal bestowment of that grace is its crown and glory.
It was with no stinted hand that God gave it, as the following
context abundantly shows. This glory of grace which is to
be lauded is not its innate and inoperative greatness, but its
communicated amount. The financial prosperity of a people
is not in useless and treasured bullion, but the coined metal
in actual circulation. The value is not in the jewel as it

EPHESIANS I. 7. 3$

lies in the depth of the mine, in the midst of unconscious
darkness, but .as it is cut, polished, and sparkling in the royal
diadem. So it is not grace as a latent attribute, but grace in
profuse donation, and effecting its high and holy purpose ; it
is not grace gazed at in God s heart, but grace felt in ours,
felt in rich variety and continuous reception it is " the grace
with which He graced us," that is to be praised for its glory.
And it is poured out

v TOJ i^a-rrri^evw " in the Beloved." Some MSS., such
as I) f , E, F, G, add via* ainov, an evident gloss followed by
the Vulgate and Latin fathers. The Syriac adds the pronoun,

in his Beloved m^ o ^. The reference is undoubtedly to

Christ. Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5 ; John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 0,
10, 11; or Col. i. 13 o u/o&lt;? ri}&lt;f dyaTrrjs avrov. Jesus is the
object of the Father s love eternal, boundless, and immut
able ; and "in Him" as the one living sphere, not for His
sake only, men are enriched with grace. But what suggested
such an epithet here ? 1. The apostle had said, " In love
having predestinated us to the adoption of children." We,
as adopted children, are indeed loved, but there is another,
the Son, the own beloved Son. It was not, therefore, affec
tion craving indulgence, or eager for an object on which to
expend itself, that led to our adoption. There was no void
in His bosom, the loved One lay in it. 2. The mediatorial
representative of fallen humanity is the object of special affec
tion on the part of God, and in Him men are also loved by
God. Bengel suggests that the %/3i9 we enjoy is different
from this uyaTrrj. Still the apostle affirms that we share in
love as well as grace. 3. The following verse tells us that
redemption comes to us Sta rov aiparos by His blood, for
the Beloved One is the sacrifice. What love, therefore, on the
Father s part to deliver Him up what praise to the glory of
His grace and what claim has Jesus to be the loved One
also of His church, when His self-sacrificing love for them
has proved and sustained its fervour in the agonies of a violent
and vicarious death ! For the next thought is

(Ver. 7.) *Ev w eyoptv rrjv a7ro\vrpo)(Tii&gt; Btei rov ai^/iTo?
aurov "In whom we have redemption by his Hi*
The apostle now specifies some fruits of tluit grace-

40 EPHESIANS I. 7.

fyapiTOMrev. From a recital of past acts of God toward us, he
comes now to our present blessing. Redemption stands out to
his mind as the deliverance so unique in its nature and so
well known, that it has the article prefixed. It is enshrined
in solitary eminence. The idea fills the Old Testament, for
the blessing which the Levitical ritual embodied and sym
bolized was redemption deliverance from evil by means of
sacrifice. Lev. i. 4, 9 ; iv. 26 ; xvii. 1 1. Blood was the medium
of expiation and of exemption from penalty. Umbreit, Der
Brief an die Romer ausgelegt, p. 261: Gotha, 1856. ^Airo-
\vTpa3cris, as its origin intimates, signifies deliverance by the
payment of a price or ransom \vrpov. It has been said that
the idea of ransom is sometimes dropped, and that the word
denotes merely rescue. We question this, at least in the New
Testament; certainly not in Eom. viii. 23, for the redemp
tion of the body is, equally with that of the soul, the result of
Christ s ransom- work. Even in Heb. xi. 35, and in Luke
xxi. 28, we might say that the notion of ransom is not alto
gether sunk, though it be of secondary moment ; in the one
case it is apostasy, in the other the destruction of the Jewish
state, which is the ideal price. We have the simple noun in
Luke i. 68, ii. 38, Heb. ix. 12; and \wrpovv in Luke xxiv.
21, Tit. ii. 14. The human race need deliverance, and they
cannot, either by price or by conquest, effect their own libera
tion, for the penal evil which sin has entailed upon them
fetters and subdues them. But redemption is not an imme
diate act of sovereign prerogative ; it is represented as the
result of a process which involved and necessitated the deatli
of Christ. The means of deliverance, or the price paid, was the
blood of Christ &ia rov at/xaro? avrov ; as in Acts xx. 28,
where we have TrepicTroirfa-aro, and 1 Cor. vi. 20, where we have,
under a different aspect, rjyopda-drjre, and similarly in Gal. iii.
13. Blood is the material of expiation. The death of Jesus
was one of blood, for it was a violent death ; and that blood
the blood of a sinless man, on whom the Divine law had no
claim, and could have none was poured out as a vicarious
offering. 1 The atonement was indispensable to remission of

1 Quand done vous cntendez ici parler de son sang, ne vous representez ni celui
de la Circoncision, quand lecouteau de la Loi lui en fit perdre quelques gouttes,
huit jours apres sa uaissance ; ni celui de son agonie, quand 1 exces du trouble

ErilESUXS I. 7. 41

sin it was TO \inpov the price of infinite value. Matt. xx.
28, xxvi. 28; Mark x. 45; Heb. ix. 22. The law of (Joel
must be maintained in its purity ere guilty man can IKS par
doned. The universal Governor glorifies His law, and by the
same act enables Himself to forgive its transgressors. The
nexus we may not be able to discover fully, but we believe,
in opposition to the view of Schleiennacher, Coleridge, and
others, that the death of Christ has governmental relations,
has an influence on our salvation totally different in nature
and sphere of oj&gt;eration, from its subjective power in subduing
the heart by the love which it presents, and the thrilling
motives which it brings to Ixjar ujwjn it. See Ileuss, Hist, tic
la Thtulogie Chrtticnnc au Sticle Apostolique, tome ii. p. 182.

eV a&gt; "in whom;" not as Koppe, Flutt, and others would
have it, "on account of whom." The 8&lt;a points to the instru
mental connection which the death of Christ has with our
redemption, but eV to the method in which that redemption
becomes ours. Kom. iii. 24. Aid regards the means of pur-
vision, cv the mode of reception in Christ the Beloved, in
loving, confiding union with Him as the one sphere a
thought vitally pervading the paragraph and the entire epistle.
For how can we have safety if we are out of the Saviour ?
liorn. viii. 1, 33.

The apostle places the forgiveness of sins in apposition
with redemption, not as its only element, but as a blessing
immediate, characteristic, and prominent

Tr)v afaaiv TWV TrapaTrrcDfjLaTOJv " the forgiveness of sins."
Col. i. 14. riapa rrrcafjLa falling aside, offence, differs from
afiaprta, not exactly, as Jerome affirms, that the first tuim
means the lapse toward sin, and the second the completed ad
in itself, for TrapaTrrw^a is expressly applied by Paul in lloin.
x. 15, etc., to the first sin of the first man that offfiuv
of which apapria, or a sinful state, is the sad and universa
result. The word, therefore, signifies here that series and
succession of individual sinful acts with which every man i
chargeable, or the actual and numerous results and manifesta-

qu il rcftsontoit en son esprit, lui en fit u-r &lt;!&lt; pnimcaux &lt;Un le janlin dew
Olives ; ni celui de M flagi-Hation, quand lea vc-rgrn ira nol.UU lui m tircrmt
des ruisseaux dans le Pretoirr. CVst r-lui de M inort m mr."-
lrt dt 67. Paul aut Ej&gt;hteirn*, par fc-u M. Du Hour, t tnr i. p. .

42 EPIIESIANS I. 7.

tions of our sinful condition. "Afacris sometimes standing
by itself, but generally with a^ap-rlwv is release from some
thing which binds, from the chain which fetters Luke iv. 1 9
or the debt or tribute which oppresses. Esth. ii. 18. It
frees from the o^e/Xiy/xa from debt, as at the year of jubilee.
Lev. xxv. 31, xxvii. 24. It is, therefore, the remission of
that which is due to us on account of offences, so that our
liability to punishment is cancelled. It is surely wrong in
Alford to make a&lt;f&gt;eaiv coextensive with a7ro\vrpa)crtv. In the
New Testament the noun does not signify " all riddance from
the practice and consequences of our transgression," but de
finitely and specially remission of the penalty. Mark iii. 29 ;
Acts ii. 38 (the gift of the Spirit there succeeding that of
forgiveness); Acts xiii. 38, 39, xxvi. 18; Heb. x. 18. But
aTToXurpoxji? is much wider, being not only man s deliverance
from all evil from sin, Satan, and death but his entrance
into all the good which a redeeming God has provided peace,
joy, and life a title to heaven and preparation for it. The
of this verse is not, therefore, " equipollent " with
but the following paragraph is ; for the CLTTO-
contains the series of blessings described in it, and
among them forgiveness of sins has a first and prominent
place. "Afaa-is differs from Trdpecns (Rom. iii. 25), for the
latter is pnetermission, not remission ; the suspension of the
penalty, or the forbearing to inflict it, but not its entire
abrogation. Fritzsche, Ad Rom., vol. i. p. 199 ; Trench On
Synon., 33. But the blessing here is remission. And it is
full, all past sin being blotted out, and provision being made
that future guilt shall also be remitted. Permanent dwelling
in Christ (eV &&amp;gt;) secures continued forgiveness. That
forgiveness also is free, because it is the result of His sacrifice
Bta ai/iaro? ; and it is irreversible, since it is God that
justifies, and who shall impeach His equity ? or shall He
revoke His own sentence of absolution ?

And the apostle says, eyofiev in the present time ; not
like eLXo7^aa?, efeXe faro, Trpoopia-as, ^apirwaev descriptive
of past acts of God. The meaning is not We have got it, and
now possess it as a distinct and perfect blessing, but we are
getting it are in continuous possession of it. We are ever
needing, and so are ever having it, for we are still " in Him/

EPHESIANS I. 8. 43

and the merit of His blood is unexhausted. Forgiveness in
not a blessing complete at any point of time in our human
existence, and therefore we are still receiving it. See under
CoL i. 14.

But those 7rapa7rru)/j.ara are many and wanton not only
numerous, but provoking, so that forgiveness, to reach us,
must be patient and ample, and the apostle characterizes its
measure as being

Kara TO TrXoDro? TT}? ^upiro&lt;; airrov " according to the
riches of His grace." With liiickert, Lachmann, and Tischen-
dorf, on the authority of A, B, l) f , F, G, we prefer the neuter
TO TrXoCro?, a form which occurs, according to the best MSS.,
in Kph. ii. 7, iii. 8, 16 ; Phil. iv. 19 ; Col. i. 27, ii. 2 ; Winer.
9, 2, 2. riXovTos is what Paley calls one of the " cant "
words of the apostle, that is, one of the favourite terms which
he often introduces " riches of goodness," " riches of glory,"
"riches of full assurance," "riches of wisdom," etc. It serves
no purpose to resolve the formula into a Hebraism, so that it
might be rendered "His rich grace," or " His gracious riches,"
for the genitive is that of possession connected with its
pronoun. Winer, 30, 3, 1. The classic Greeks use a
similar construction of two substantives. The ainov evidently
refers to God, and some MSS. read ainov. Xdpts see under
il 8. The spirit of the clause may be thus illustrated : The
favour of man toward offenders is soon exhausted, and accord
ing to its penury, it soon wearies of forgiving. But God s
grace has unbounded liberality. Much is expended ; many
sinners of all lands, ages, and crimes are pardoned, fully
pardoned, often pardoned, and frankly pardoned, but infinite
wealth of grace remains behind. It is also to be remarked,
that xa pt? and al/xa are really not opposed. Atonement
not in antagonism with grace. For the opulence of His grace
is seen not only in its innumerable forms and varieties of
operation among men, but also in the unasked ami unmerited
provision of such an atonement, so perfect and glorious in iu
relation to God and man, as the blood of the " Beloved One."

(Ver. 8.) *H? e-ircpia&lt;rcv&lt;rcv 9 was.- " Which Ho 1
made to abound toward us." *H* is the result of attraction.
If it stand for fy, then the verb will have a transit
fication " Which He hath made, or caused to abound." But

44 EFHESIANS I. 8.

if }? stand for the dative, as Calvin, Camerarius, and Schmid
suppose, the meaning is that of our version " In which He
has abounded toward us." Winer, 24, 1. But the New
Testament affords no example of such an attraction, though
this be the usual signification of the verb. The Vulgate,
taking it for a nominative, falsely reads qucc, superabundavit in
nobis ; and Piscator s exegesis is wholly arbitrary, copiose se
cffudit. It is, however, natural to suppose that there is no
change in the ruling nominative. Attraction seldom takes
place except when the relative should stand in the accusative
(Kiihner, 787, Annierk 4; Jelf, 822), so that, with the
more modern interpreters, we take 175 as the substitute of the
accusative, and prefer the transitive sense of the verb. Such
a Hiphil signification belongs to the word in I Thess. iii. 1 2 ;
2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8. The relative does not denote the mode
of abundance, but the matter of it. It has been suggested
Ellicott, p. 164 that, as verba faciendi, like Trepio-crevco, may
have an appended accusative elicited from the verb, " make
an abundance of," so the principle of attraction need not be
applied to ^?. Beza gives it, qua redundavit. The riches of
His grace are not given us in pinched exactness, or limited
and scanty measurement where sin abounds, grace super-
abounds, Rom. v. 20. God knows that He cannot exhaust
the wealth of His grace, and therefore He lavishes it with
unstinted generosity upon us. Theophylact explains the
clause thus : a&lt;/&gt;#oVo&gt;? e^e-^eev " He hath poured it upon us
unsparingly." And the apostle, having spoken of forgiveness
as an immediate blessing, adds

ev irdo Tf &lt;ro(f)ia Kai (fipovycret, " in all wisdom and pru
dence." The preliminary question refers to the position of
this clause. Should it be joined to the preceding lirepicr-
&lt;rev&lt;rev, or does it belong to the following verse, and qualify
the participle yvcopia-as 1 If it stand in connection with the
foregoing verb, it may be variously interpreted. Four forms
of exegesis have been proposed :

1. Calvin, Baldtiin, and Beza understand the phrase as a
general name for the gospel, and their meaning is, that the
vocation of men, by the perfectly wise plan of the gospel, is
to be ascribed to grace as really as is their election.

2. Others understand it as referring to the gifts of wisdom

EPHESIAXS I. 8. 45

ami prudence which accompany the reception of divine for
giveness. So Aretius, Calixtus, Wolf, liengel, Moms, Flatt,
Meyer, Meier, Matthies, Bisping, Baumgarten-Crusius, ami
virtually Harless "According to the riches of His grace,
which He made to abound toward us, almuj with the gifts of
wisdom and prudence." Or as Ellicott says " It may mark
out the sphere and element in which the -rrepiaa-tvfffv is
evinced and realized." But the clause so interpreted may l&gt;e
either logically connected with eVe/jtWeiKrev or 71/0) pi o-as, ami
may mean either " He hath abounded toward us," and one
proof and result of such abundance is the bestowment of these
graces ; or He hath made us wise and prudent, because lit?
hath made known to us the mystery of His will. Thus (Ecu-
niL iiiu.s, who joins the words with the following verse &lt;ro$oi
teal (frpoi ifiovs Troirjaas O{/TO&gt;&lt;? eyvwpurev TO fjLvari]piov. If we
preferred this exegesis, we should adopt the latter modifica
tion, which some of these critics also esjxiuse, namely, that
the wisdom and prudence are neither the proof nor the sphere
of grace abounding toward us, but are the effects of God s
disclosure of the mystery of His will.

3. Some, again, refer the words to God, as if they were
descriptive of the manner in which He has caused His grace
to abound toward us. God in all wisdom and prudence has
made all grace to abound toward us. So Castalio, Kuckert,
de Wutte, Grotius (in one of his explanations), Bauingarten-
Crusius, and Alford a connection which Ellicott stigmatizes
" as in the highest degree unsatisfactory."

4. The opinion of Olshausen, endorsed by Stier, is quite
arbitrary and peculiar "that we should walk in all wisdom
and prudence;" a paraphrase which would indicate an un
wonted and fatal elasticity in the a]M&gt;stle s diction.

We propose to join the words with the participle, yvupiffa*
" Having in all wisdom and prudence made known to u
the mystery of His will." The construction is similar to that
vindicated in ver. . r &gt;, with regard to lv uyairij, and is not
unusual in the Pauline writings. The idea is homogeneous,
if the words are thus connected. Wisdom and prudence have
no natural connection with the alxmnding of grace. Gnu-&lt; in
it&gt; wealth or profusion does not suggest the notions of wisdom
and prudence. The two circles of thought are uot (

46 EPHESIANS I. 8.

in any of the hypotheses we have referred to. For if the
words " in all wisdom and prudence " be referred to God, as
descriptive of His mode of operation, they are scarcely in
harmony with the leading idea of the verse ; at least there
would be a want of consecutive unity. For it is not so much
His wisdom as His love, not so much His intelligence as His
generosity, which marks and glorifies the method of His pro
cedure. The same remarks equally apply to the theory which
looks upon the clause in dispute as a formal description of the
scheme of the gospel.

Nor, if the words be referred to gifts of " wisdom and
prudence," conferred along with grace, or be regarded as the
sphere of its operation, is the harmony any better preserved.
Wisdom and prudence are not the ideas you would expect to
find in such a connection. But, on the other hand, " wisdom
and prudence " are essentially connected with the disclosure
of a mystery. A mystery is not to be flung abroad without
due discrimination. The revealer of it wisely selects his
audience, and prudently chooses the proper time, place, and
method for his disclosure. To make it known to minds not
prepared to receive it, to flash it upon his attendants in full
force and without previous and gradual training, might defeat
the very purpose which the initiator has in view. The quali
ties referred to are therefore indispensable requisites to the
publication of a mystery.

An objection, however, is stated against this exegesis by
Harless, and the objection is also adopted by Meyer, Matthies,
and Olshausen. Harless boldly affirms that &lt;f&gt;p6vr)(n,&lt;t cannot
be predicted of God. It is true that this intellectual quality
is not ascribed to God in the New Testament, the word
occurring only in another place. But in the Septuagint, on
which the linguistic usage of the New Testament is based, it is
applied to God as Creator (Prov. iii. 19), and in a similar pas
sage, Jer. x. 1 2 ; and the Divine attribute of wisdom personified
in Prov. viii. 14, exclaims, /j,rj &lt;J&gt;povr](ri&lt;; "intelligence is
mine." Why should (ppovrja-it be less applicable than yi/oao-t?
to God 1 Prudence, indeed, in its common acceptation, can
scarcely be ascribed to the Omniscient. Still, if God in any
action displays those qualities which in a man might be
called prudence, then such a property may be ascribed to

EFHESIAKS I. 8. 47

him in perfect analogy with the common anthropomorphism
of Scripture. But &lt;J&gt;p6vr)&lt;ri&lt;; may not signify prudence in its
usual acceptation. It is the action of the &lt;f&gt;pi?v or mind.
Wisdom is often ascribed to God, and 4&gt;p6mi&lt;ri&lt;; is the action
of His wise mind its intuitive formation of purposes and
resolutions in His infinite wisdom. To refer &lt;f&gt;p6i&gt;T)&lt;rt&lt;; always
to practical discretion, as Estius, Bengel, and Krebs do, is
unwarranted. 2o(f&gt;ia is not simply and always scicntia thto-
retica, nor &lt;f&gt;p6vrjo-i&lt;; scicntia practica. The words are so
explained, indeed, by Cicero &lt;f&gt;pcvi](Ti$, qua cst rerun expc-
tendarum fugiendarumque scicntia. l)t Offic. i. 43. In the pas
sages adduced by Krebs * and Loesner * from Josephus and
I liilo, the word does not certainly bear out Cicero s definition,
but in some of them rather signifies insight, or perspicacity.
In the classics it often denotes that practical wisdom which is
indispensable to civil government. The term occurs only in
another place in the New Testament, Luke i. 17, where it is
rendered " the wisdom of the just," and where it certainly
does not refer to prudence. It stands in the Septuagint as
the representative of no less than nine different Hebrew
words. That it is referred to God in the Seventy, shows
that it may be predicated of Him in the New Testament.
2o(j)ui is the attribute of wisdom, and &lt;f&gt;poinjcri&lt;; is its special
aspect, or the sphere of operation in which it developes itself.
Thus, in Prov. x. 23, 77 Be &lt;ro&lt;j)ia avBpl riVra $povr](nv. Com
pare also in Septuagint 1 Kings iv. 29 ; Dan. ii. 21 ; Joseph.
Antiq. ii. 5, 7, viii. 7, 5. It is not so much the result of
wisdom, as a peculiar phase of its action. Intellectual action
under the guidance of &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;ia is &lt;^pom]a-i&lt;; intelligence. Ilrza s
view is not very different from this. The word, therefor-,
may signify in this clause that sagacity which an initiator
manifests in the disclosure of a mystery a quality which,
after the manner of men, is ascribed to (lod.

It is objected, again, that the adjective iraey, added to &lt;ro0.
Ka\ &lt;ppov., forbids the application of the terms to (!&lt;&lt;!. Meyer
admits that &lt;}&gt;p6v7)&lt;rt&lt;; may be applied to God, but denic.-
that Tra&a &lt;f&gt;povrj&lt;Ti&lt;f am l&gt;e so applied. We ran say &lt;&gt;f &lt;"
Harless remarks, " in Him is all wisdom, but not He has &lt;

1 Obnrrvatianr* in Novum Ttit. e Fl. Jar/&gt;ho, j.. 325.

1 Ubtcrvatiunet in JVoruro Tc*t. e 1 hilvne AUzamlrino, p. 338.

48 El IIESIAXS I. 3.

this or that in all wisdom." Olshausen homologates the
statement, his argument being, that God possesses all attri
butes absolutely. De Wette, who, however, joins the words
to the preceding clause, but applies them to God, answers,
that the Divine wisdom, in reaching its end by every service
able means, appears not as absolute, but only as relative, and
he explains the clause, in oiler dazu dienlicher Weisheit und
Einsicht. But what hinders that the word should be ren
dered " in all," which though it may be literally " every kind,"
yet virtually signifies highest, or absolute wisdom and
discretion ? Harless again withstands this, and says, es
bezeichnet nie die Intension sondern nur die Extension. Let the
following examples suffice for our purpose: Matt, xxviii. 18,
Trdcra tfoucr/a all power absolute power; Acts v. 23, the
prison was shut, kv irda-rj acr(pa\ia " with all safety," in
their opinion, with absolute security; 1 Tim. i. 15, Trac-T/?
aTroSo^r}? afio? worthy of all or of absolute credit and
welcome ; and in many other places. Nor is this sense
unknown to the classics : TTCLVT eV^T^/iT?? absolute know
ledge; 1 Traa-a dvdy/cr) utmost or absolute necessity; 2 e?
irav KCIKOV into extreme distress ; 3 et? iravra /ctvSuvov into
extreme danger ; 4 et? iraaav aTropiav to the utmost embar
rassment. 5 So that in Tra? the idea of intension is at least
inferentially bound up with that of extension. Such appear
to us sufficient reasons for connecting the words with
yvcopi&lt;ras, and regarding them as qualifying it, or defining the
method in which the mystery has been disclosed.

But among those who connect the words with yvcoplcras,
there are some forms of interpretation adopted which may be
noticed and set aside. The first is that of Chrysostom, who,
in one of his expositions, refers the " wisdom and prudence "
to the mystery, as if they were descriptive of its qualities :
rovro yap eVrt TO fjLvaTijpiov TO Trdcrrjs cro&lt;ta? re ye/zov KOI
(f)povrj(re(i)s " for this mystery is marked by its fulness of
wisdom and prudence." He is followed by Koppe, who, as
is common with him, suggests this metaphrase : TO pvo-Tijpiov
(ro(f&gt;wTaTov KOI (j&gt;povL^rarov. These interpretations are not

1 Sophocles, Antig. 721. * Plato, Phcpdr. 235.

8 Herod, vii. 118 ; ix. 118. 4 Xcnophon, Cyr. vii. 2, 22.

s Pulybius, iii. 77, 4. See also Pape and Passow iii their respective Lexicons.

KPHESIANS I. 9. 49

warranted by the syntax. Reverting, then, to the view we
have already stated, we are of opinion that the words qualify
yvcapio-as. For this purpose there is no need that they be
placed after it. The participle is at the same time intimately
connected with the verb e7re/&gt;tWei/&lt;rei&gt;. It contains one of
the elements of the " p* ? &gt; which God has made to abound.
His having made known of His goodwill this higher aspect of
Christ s work, is ascribed to that grace which, in this way and
for this purpose, He hath caused to abound towards us. It is
also one of the elements of aTroXi/rp&xrt?, and one of the fruits
of that death which secured it. This connection is approved
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Homberg, JSaumgarten-
Crusius, Koppe, Sender, and Holzhausen, by the editors
Griesbach and Scholz, and by Conybeare. The verses are left
undivided by Lachmann and Tischendorf.

(Ver. 9.) Tvwpicras i]fuv TO p.vcfri]pLov rou $eX;;/xaTo? avrov
" Having in all wisdom and prudence made known to us
the mystery of His will." Fvtapiaa^ stands to t-xcpicraevacv
much in the same way as Trpooptaa? did to efeXe faro.
Bernhardy, p. 383. And so in iii. 10, when the apostle
speaks of God unveiling a great mystery, he adds that by such
a disclosure His " manifold wisdom " is made known to the
principalities and powers. The essential idea of fiver rjpiov,
whatever may be the application, is, something into the know
ledge of which one must be initiated, ere he comprehend it.
In such a passage as this, it is not something unknowable, but
something unknown till fitting disclosure luus l&gt;een made of it;
something long hid, but at length discovered to us by God,
and therefore a matter of pure revelation. The mystery itself
is unfolded in the following verse. It is not the gospel or
salvation generally, but a special purpose of God in reference
to His universe. And it is willed the mystery of "His will"
rov 0e\7J/taT09 the genitive l&gt;eing either subjective,
because it has its origin in His own inscrutable purpose;
or rather, the genitive being that of object, because His will i.s
its theme

Kara TIJV ev&OKiav avrov " according to His g&lt;Mxl pleasure.
EuooKia has been already explained under ver. 5. I hough
the mystery be His will, yet in His Iwnevolent regard* He
has disclosed it. We preferred in the previous edition joining

50 EPHESIANS I. 10.

the phrase with the following clause and verse, but the similar
use of Kara and its model clause in ver. 5 induces us, with
Meyer, Eiickert, and Olshausen, to connect it with yvwpla-as :

rfv irpoeOero ev avTw " which He purposed in Himself."
The verb occurs only in two other places, Rom. i. 13, iii.
25 and there may be here a quasi-temporal sense in Trpo.
The meaning implied in the reflexive form avra&gt;, which Hahn
rightly prints in opposition to Tischendorf and Lachmann, is
correct. Luther and Bengel refer it to Christ, but the recur
rence of the proper name in the next clause forbids such a
reference in the pronoun here. The purpose takes effect in
Christ, but it is conceived in God s own heart. " In Himself "
He formed this design, for He is surrounded by no co-ordinate
wisdom " With whom took He counsel ? " This and the
next verse are intimately connected. Some, such as Bengel,
suppose the verb avaK,.$akaiu&gt;va&lt;jQai to be connected with
yvwpia-as, and others unite it with irpoeOero, but it stands out
as the object to which the whole previous verse points, and of
which it is an explanation.

(Ver. 10.) Els oltcovofuav rov TrXrjpd) paras rwv icaipwv
" In reference to the dispensation of the fulness of the times."
Winer, 49, a, c (8). The article is absent before oltcovo/jLLav, as
the term is so well defined by the following genitives. Winer,
19, 2, b. Els does not signify " until," as Bullinger,
Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Bucer, Zanchius, and Grotius have
supposed ; as if the sense were that the mystery had been
kept concealed until this dispensation was introduced. This
gives an emphasis and intensity of meaning to TrpoeOero, which
the word cannot well bear. Nor can els be rightly taken for
ev, as is done by Jerome, Pelagius, Anselm, Beza, Piscator,
and the Vulgate, for the meaning would be vague and diluted.
Els is "in reference to." Olnovo^ia signifies house-arrangement,
or dispensation, and is rendered by Theophylact, ^LOIKTJCIS,
/carda-rao-is. The word in the New Testament occurs in
Luke xvi. 2, 3, 4, in the general sense of stewardship, either
the administration itself or the office, and the corresponding
noun, olicoi&gt;6fjLOs, is found in the same chapter, and in Rom.
xvi. 23. Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 403. OiKovopia is also
used with special reference to the gospel, and sometimes
describes it as an arrangement or dispensation under charge

EPHESIAXS I. 10. 5\

of the apostles as its "stewards." 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, ix. 17;
Eph. iii. 2; Col. i. 25; Tit. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. iv. 10. Luther ,
led away by this idea, and by the " disjieiisatin " of the
Vulgate, refers the term to preaching, and to the disclosure
of the mystery dass es gcpredigct wiirdc. The noun does
not signify specifically and of itself, the dis]&gt;ensatioii of grace,
though the context leaves us in no doubt that such is the
allusion here ; but it characterizes it as an arrangement
organized and secured in all its parts. Eph. iii. 2, 1) ; 1 Tim.
i. 4. It is not made up of a series of disconnected truths
and events, but it is a compact and symmetrical system of
perfect harmony in all its reciprocal bearings ami adaptations.
The adjustment is exact, so that each truth shines and is
shone upon ; each fact is a cause and a consequent, is like a
link in a chain, which holds and is held. It is a plan of
infinite wisdom, where nothing is out of place, or hapi^ns
either within or beyond its time.

And the scheme is characterized as being rov 7r\ijpoofuiro&lt;y
rv KdLpwv the genitive having its characterizing sense.
Scheuerlein, 1C, 3. Into the sense of TrXrjpw/za we shall
inquire at some length under the last verse of this chapter.
The phrase marks the period of the dispensation. It cannot
be the genitive of object adminixtratw corum qucr rest ant
tcmporum, as Storr supposes, taking TrXrJpw/za in an active sense;
nor can we say with Koppe, that there is any reference to
cxtrcma tempera the last day ; nor with Baumgarten-Cmsiup,
that the time specified is the remaining duration of the world.
Harless gives, perhaps too narrowly, an exegetical sense to
the words, as if they explained what was meant by the
economy, to wit, a period when the mystery might l&gt;e safely
revealed making the genitive that of identity. Xr can we
suppose, with Slier, that these "times are parallel to the
economy, and of equal duration," that they comprehend die
ganzc Zeitdauer dirsrr Amtalt "for it developes and com
pletes itself through adjusted times and peri&lt;ids." This view
is adopted and eulogized by Alford. It seems to us, however,
to l&gt;e putting more into the words than of themselves they
will bear. The genitive Kaipvv presents a temporal i
fr\^pa)fjuiroff may be that of characterization. Winer, . 1
or as in Jude, tcpi&lt;w /-w^/aX*;? }/xe&gt;a?. It is an economy c.luirac-

52 EPHESIAXS I. 10.

terized by the fulness of the times that is, introduced at the
fulness of the times. The passages adduced by Alford are
not at all analogous, for they have different contextual rela
tions, and all of them want the element of thought contained
in TrXijpaifjLa. True, there are under the gospel /caipol
Luke xvi. 24; /caipol ava^rv^ew^, Acts iii. 19 ; tcaipols
1 Tim. ii. 6 each of these phrases having a special and
absolute reference. But TrX^pw/za is relative, and implies a
period which gradually, and in course of ages, has become
filled up ; and as the coming of Christ was preceded both by
expectancy and preparation so we have ra re\r) rwv alwvwv
(1 Cor. x. 11), eV ea-^drcov rwv rjpepwv (Heb. i. 1), in the
New Testament ; and again and again in the Old Testament,
" the latter days " " days to come : " therefore the phrase
here may define the economy by its marked temporal charac
teristic, as being full-timed and right-timed. Our view may
be thus expressed : The time prior to the dispensation is at
length filled up, for we take 7r\ijpa)jjia in its passive sense.
The 7r\Tjp(i)fjia is regarded as a vast receptacle into which
centuries and millenniums had been falling, but it was now
filled. Thus, Herodotus iii. 22, fro?;? irXrjpw^a ^aKporarov
the longest fulness of life the sense of the clause being,
The longest period for a person to live is eighty years. Schott,
in Ep. ad Galatas, chap. iv. 4, p. 488; Winer, ibid.; Mark
i. 15 ; Luke xxi. 24 ; John vii. 8 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; also in Septua-
gint, Gen. xxv. 24, xxix. 21 ; Dan. x. 3. It is not TOV
Xpovov, as in Gal. iv. 4 in which past time is regarded as
a unity but rwv Kaipa&gt;v, time being imaged under successive
periods. 1 Theodoret has somewhat vaguely TOV opia-Oevra
Trapd TOV Seov Kaipov. This is one aspect, and that of
Calovius dispensatio propria plcnitudini temporis is another
aspect, both of which seem to be comprehended in the phrase.
The economy commenced at a period which implies that the
times destined to precede it were filled up. Two ideas seem
to be contained. 1. It marks God s time the time pre
arranged and set apart by Him ; a time which can neither be
anticipated nor delayed. 2. It specifies the best time in the
world s history for the occurrence to take place. Being God s

1 The noun x*ipc( is allied to *iip*, and 13 often a synonym of n lrpoi. Donald
son s Ntw Crutylut, 191.

EPHESIAXS I. 10. 53

time, it must be the best time. The epoch is marked by God
in His own calendar, and years roll on till their complement
is numbered, while the opportuneness of the period in the
world s annals proves and ratifies divine wisdom and fore
sight. That fulness of the time in which the economy was
founded, is the precise period, for the Lord has appointed it;
and the best period, for the age was ripe for the event We
cannot, however, with Usteri, place the entire emphasis of the
phrase on this latter idea, Paul in. Lehrbegrtf, p. 81. The
Grecian arms extended the Hellenic tongue, and prepared the
nations for receiving the oracles of the New Testament in a
language so rich ami so exact, so powerful in description and
delicate in shades of expression. lioinan ambition had also
welded the various states of the civilised world into one
mighty kingdom, so that the heralds of the cross might not
lie impeded in their progress by the jealousy of rival states,
but might move freely on their mission under the protection
of one general sovereignty. Awakened longing had been
created over the Kast, and in the West the old superstitions
had lost their hold &lt;m thinking minds. 1 The apostle utters
this thought virtually in 1 Cor. i. 21. The world was allowed
full time to discover by prolonged experiment the insuffi
ciency of its own wisdom to instruct and save it. It was
si"hin deeplv for deliverance, and in the maturity of this

f* J I V

crisis there suddenly appeared in Juda-a "the Desire of all
nations." The Hebrew seer who looked forward to it, re
garded it as the "latter day" or "last time;" the nations
who were forewarned of it were in fevered anticipation of its
advent, for it was to them, as Cappell says, complement um
prop/u tarum, and, as Heza paraphrases, " h-nipti* tarn dm
cj pcctatum." Hut we, " on whom the ends of the world have
come," look back upon it, and feel it to be a period which
took its rise after the former cycles had fulfilled their course,
and all preparations for it had been duly complete*!, ^e do
not deny to Alford that what characterized the introduction
of the economy characterizes all its ei&gt;ochs, and that this may
be implied in the remarkable phrase. Hut in the third rlia|.l-r

1 D&lt;T Kroislauf, in welchom i&lt;-h &lt;li&lt;- BeatimmunK un&lt;l H" -1" Heidenthunw,
iui.1 Ju.l.-nthnms vollpndi-te, musste ert *ein Zicl nrricht hal*
J liii .in. Lehrlift/riff", j.. bS.

54 EPHESIANS I. 10.

the apostle unfolds a portion of the mystery, and as if in
reference to this phrase, he says of it " "Which in other ages
was not made known to the sons of men ;" to wit, it was first
revealed in the fulness of the times. The mystery of this
full-timed dispensation is now described

dvaK(f&gt;a,\cuo!)(7acr6ai, ra jrdvTa eV ru&gt; XpLary " to gather
together all things in Christ." The infinitive does not need
the article, being explanatory in its nature. Winer, 44, 2 ;
Madvig, 144. The signification of the verb has been
variously understood. 1. Some give it the sense of renew, as
Suidas in his Lexicon. Theodoret explains it by fj,eTa{3d\\eiv,
and refers to this change TO&gt;V dvOpa&gt;Trwv 1} (frvais aviaTaTai
teal Trjv a&lt;f)0apa-iav evbverai. Tertulliun renders it ad
initium reciprocare (De Monogam. 5), and the Syriac and
Vulgate correspond. And this was a general opinion in the
ancient church. Augustine, Enchiridion, 62 ; Op. vol. vi. p.
377, ed. 1837. The Gothic has aftra usfidljan, again to fill
up. It would, however, be difficult to vindicate such an
exposition on philological grounds. 2. It has been supposed to
signify to collect again under one head K&lt;f&gt;d\aiov, or /ce^aX?;.
Such is the general critical opinion of Chrysostom, (Ecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, H. Stephens, Piscator, Calovius, Bengel,
Matthies, Meier, de Wette, Olshauseu, and Stier. " What,"
asks Chrysostom, " is the meaning of the word dvaKecf).! It is,
to knit together, avvdtyai. It has another signification To set
over one and all the same Head, Christ, according to the flesh
/jLiav Ke(f)d\rjv eTriOeivai." Beza insists against this meaning,
that the word comes from Ke&lt;f)d\ai,oi&gt;, not from K&lt;f&gt;a\ij.
Besides, the Headship of Christ is not formally introduced till
the 22nd verse. The meaning of ava in composition must not
be overlooked. Though it have only a faint signification, as
compound words abound in the later age of a language, it
does not quite lose that significance. It signifies here,
apparently, " again " as if there now existed, under the
God-man as Redeemer, that state of things which had, prior
to the introduction of evil, originally existed under the Logos,
the Creator and Governor. 3. The word is supposed to signify,
as in our version, " to gather together in one ; " so Beza, Meyer,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Harless, and others. Eom. xiii. 9. The
summing up of the data, rerum repdiiio ct congreyatio, was

EPHF.SIANS I. 10. 55

called, as Quintiliiin avers, dra/ce^&gt;aXa/a)(7&lt;s". De In&tit. Orator.
vi. 1. Tlie simple verb is found with such a meaning in
Thueydidt s, vi. 91, viii. 53; and compounded with avv it
occurs in Polybius iii. 3, 1. Xen. Cyr. viii. 1,15. Such a
summation appears to Grotius and Hammond under the figure
of the reunion of a dispersed army, but Jerome and Cameron
view it as the addition of arithmetical sums. This third
meaning is the most natural there is a re-collection of
all tilings in Christ as Centre, and the immediate relation of
this re-gathering to God Himself is expressed by the middle
voice. The objects of this re-union are

ra ev rot? ovpavols teal rd eVl rf;&lt;? yip " the things in
heaven and the things on earth." This is a mode of expres
sion designed to l&gt;e general, as the employment of the neuter
indicates. Some few MSS. supply the particle re after the
rd of the first clause, and 15, I), E, L, read errl for eV in the
same clause, a reading which cannot be sustained. Critical
opinions on the meaning of the phrase are very varied.
According to Morus, it denotes God and man ; according
to Schoettgen, Baumgarten-Cnisius, Ernest i, Macknight,
Schleusner, and Koppe Jews and Gentiles; according to
"Beza, 1 iscator, Bodius, Kollock, Mohk-nhauer, Flatt. and
peile tlie spirits of good men, especially under the Old
Testament and the present church ; and according to the great
majority, the phrase signifies the union of spirits in heaven,
angels or otherwise, with men on earth. So the Scholium
preserved by Matthiae o^a/ce^aXa/wcrtj/ /caXft TJJV ei&lt;? fjn av
K&lt;f&gt;a\r/i&gt; evwviv, OK T&V d*fy\(i)i&gt; Bta Xptarov TOA? dvOpo&gt;r?OLS
avva$Qkin(*v. With these interpretations we agree, so far
as they contain truth. But they have the trutli in fragments,
like broken pieces of a mirror. We take the rd mivra hm* to
be co-equal in extent of meaning with the phrase, Col. i. 1C,
" By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 1&gt;e thrum*, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things wen* creatf
by Him and for Him." These rd rcdvra are said in vrr.
to KJ reconciled to Him. See under Col. i. 20. Tim ph
"things in heaven" denotes the higher and more di*
spheres of creation, and these, along with " things on earth
may comprehend the universe ra rrdvra including, according

56 EPHESIAXS I. 10.

to Meyer, all things and beings, while Harless gives the words
the general sense of the universe. So do von Gerlach,
Olshausen, and Stier. The neuter has a generalizing mean
ing. Winer, 27, 5 ; Poppo, Thucydides, i. 104. It cannot
be supposed to be used for the masculine, as no masculine is
implied in the verse. Hodge limits ra irdvra to the church
in heaven and earth because, he says, the union effected is
by the redemption of Christ. This " union," as he names it,
is indeed a result of redemption ; but the gathering together
described here is a consequence above and beyond human
salvation a consequence connected with it, but held out
apart from it as a mystery disclosed according to His good
pleasure. The sense is weakened altogether by the notion of
Turner, that the infinitive may express a divine intention
which may yet be thwarted. The idea seems then to be that
heaven and earth are now united under one government.
Christ as Creator was rightfully the Governor of all things,
and till the introduction of sin, that government was one and
undivided. But rebellion produced disorder, the unity of the
kingdom was broken. Earth was morally severed from
heaven, and from the worlds which retained their pristine
integrity. But Jesus has effected a blessed change, for an
amnesty has been proclaimed to earth. Man is reconciled to
God, and all who bear God s image are reconciled to man.
Angels are " ministering spirits " to him 7 and all holy intelli
gences delight in him. Not only has harmony been restored
to the universe, and the rupture occasioned by sin repaired,
but beings still in rebellion are placed under Christ s control,
as well as the unconscious elements and spheres of nature.
This summation is seen in the form of government ; Jesus
is universal Regent. Not only do angels and the unfallen
universe worship the same Governor with the redeemed, but
all things and beings are under the same administration. The
anthem to God and the Lamb begins with saints, is taken up
by angels, and re-echoed by the wide creation. Rev. v. 9, 14.
The death of Jesus is described in this paragraph both in
its primary and ultimate results. First, by it " we have
redemption the forgiveness of sins." And, secondly, by
the same event, the universe is gathered together in Christ.
The language, by its very terms, denotes far more than the

EPHESIASS I. 10. 57

union of the church in Him. Now the revelation of this
great truth, as to the ultimate effect of Christ s mediation, is
called a " mystery." Man could not have discovered it the
knowledge of it was not essential to his salvation. But it
has been disclosed with peculiar wisdom and delicacy. It
was not revealed in former times, when it could not have
}&gt;een appreciated ; nay, it was not published till the means
of it were visibly realized, till Jesus died and rose again,
and on the right hand of God assumed this harmonizing
presidency.

Since the days of Origen, the advocates of the doc-trine of
universal restoration have sought a proof-text in this passage.
But restoration is not predicated it is simply re-summation.
Unredeemed humanity, though doomed to everlasting punish
ment, and fallen spirits for whom everlasting fire is prewired,
may be comprised in this summation subjugated even
against their will. But the punishment of the impenitent
affects not the unity of Christ s government Evil lias lost
its power of creating disorder, for it is punished, confined, and
held as a very feeble thing in the grasp of the Almighty
Avenger. In fine, it is going beyond the record to deduce
from this passage a proof of the doctrine of the confirmation
of angels by the death of Christ ut perpetuum staturn rdinc-
ant. Sucli are the words of Calvin. Were such a d -trine
contained or clearly revealed in Scripture, we might imagine
that the new relation of angels to Christ the Mediator might
exercise such an influence over them as to preclude the
possibility of their apostasy ; or that their pure and suscep
tible spirits were so deeply struck witli the malignity of sin
as exhibited in the blood of the Son of God, that the
sensation and recoil produced by the awful spectacle for ever
operate as an infallible preservative.

And this re-capitulation of all things is declared a second
time to be in Christ i&gt; avr$ a solemn and emphatic re-
assertion, Kiihner, 632. His mediative work has i
and His mediatorial jKjrson is the one centre of the universe.
As the stone dropped into the lake creates those wid
and concentric circles, which ultimately reach tin* farthest
shore, so the deed done on Calvary has sent its urn
through the distant spheres and realms of Clod s great

58 EPHESIANS I. 11.

But eV avrw is the connecting link also with the following
verse. Kiihner, G32. See also Col. i. 19, 20.

(Ver. 11.) Ev o&gt; KOI efcXrjpctiOyfjLev. For eic^pwOrjfjLev some
read e/cX^^e^, supported by A, I), E, F, G, and the vetus
Itala. Lachmann, following Griesbach, prefers the latter ;
but Tischendorf rightly advocates the former reading, on
what we reckon preponderant authority. Still is the con
nection marked as usual, " in Christ," and by the ever-recurring
formula ev w. E/c\r}pwdr)ijLev has its foundation in the usage
of the Old Testament, in the theocratic inheritance n ?n 3 -, as
in Deut. iv. 20, and in numerous other places. The K\rjpos,
K\rjpov6[j,os, and K\,rjpovo/jila are also familiar epithets in the
apostolical writings. The inheritance was the characteristic
blessing of the theocratic charter, and it associated itself with
all the popular religious feelings and hopes. The ideas which
some attach to the term, but which refer not to this source
and idiom, are therefore to be rejected. 1. The notion of
Koppe, and of the lexicographers Wahl, Bretschneider, and
Wilke, is peculiar. According to them, it denotes simply to
obtain, and the object obtained is, or, " it has kindly happened
to us," that we should be to the praise of His glory. The
passages selected by Eisner (Obscrv. Sacroc, p. 204) out of
^Elian and Alciphron, are foreign to the purpose, for the verb
is there regularly construed with the accusative of the object,
and it is not from classic usage that the apostolic term has
been taken. 2. Nor is another common interpretation much
better supported, according to which the verb signifies to
" obtain by lot " the opinion of Chrysostom and his Greek
imitators, and of the Vulgate, Augustine, Ambrosiaster,
Aquinas, Erasmus, Estius, and a- Lapide. Chrysostom
explains the word thus K\r)pov yevopevov Ty/i-a? efeXefaro.
Still this explanation does not come up to our idea of the
Pauline tcKfjpos, which refers not to the manner of our getting
the possession, but to the possession itself not to the lot, but
to the allotment. 3. Bengel, Flatt, Holzhausen, Bisping, de
Wette, and Stier take it, that we have become the K\rjpo&lt;;
the peculiar people of God. This, no doubt, yields a good
sense. The Jews are also called by this name the noun,
however, being employed as the epithet, and not the verb
as affirming the condition. Besides, the K\f)po&lt;; in Col.

KPHESIANS I. 11. 59

i. 12, and in ver. 18, is not our subjective condition, a.s this
exegesis implies, but our objective possession in which we
participate, and in the hope of which we now rejoice. 4. Si
that with Valla, with Luther, Calvin, and Beza among the
reformers, and with Wolf, Roseumiiller, Harless, Matthies.
Meyer, Scholz, and Meier, we take the passive verb to signify
" we have been brought into possession " zuni Erbthtil ytkom-
mcn as Luther has it. In whom we have U*eii enfeoflfed,
in whom we have had it allotted to us. Deut. iv. 20, ix. 2 J.
xxxii. 9. The verb may certainly l&gt;ear this meaning ; K\ijpo&lt;*&gt;
"I assign an inheritance to some one;" in the ]*assive
" 1 have an inheritance assigned to me," as verbs which
in the active govern the genitive or dative of a JKTSOII have
it as a nominative in the passive. Winer, 3 J ; Bernhartly,
j. o41 ; Horn. iii. 2; Ual. ii. 7, iv. 20. We see no force
in Stier s olijection that such a meaning should le followed
by et? TO %ii&gt; 7;/xa?, whereas it is followed by et? TO tti-ai
?;/Aa?, for the inheritance is got that the inheritors may I*, in
the mode of their introduction to it and their enjoyment of
it, to the praise of His glory. The icai might, if connected
with the unexpressed pronoun, signify "indeed;" but it may
be better to connect it with the verb " in whom we have
also obtained an inheritance." Hartung, Kap. ii. 7 ; Devarius-
Klotz, p. o :3G ; Matthiae, G20. That which is spiritual and
imperishable is not, like money, the symbol of wealth, but
it is something which one feels to be his own an inheritance.
It is not exhausted with the using, and it comes to us not as a
hereditary possession. " Corruption runs in the blood, grace
does not." It is God s gift to the believers in Christ, conferred
on them in harmony with His own eternal pur^e. The nomi
native to the verb, indicated by " we," does not refer specially
to Jewish Christians in this verse, a.s even Harless sup|o* H ;
far less does it denote the ajx&gt;stles, or ministers of religion, U.H
Barnes imagines. The writer, under the term " we,
speaks primarily of himself and the saints and faithful in the
Ephesian church, as l&gt;eing

rrpoopi&lt;T0vr&lt;{ Kara 7rpo0&lt;nv rov ra iraina tVe/yyotoro?
icara r^v ftovX^v rov 0e\/;/iaTo&lt;? a6rou " being predestinated
according to the purpose of Him who worketh all tin
the counsel of His wiR" The general significance &lt;

GO EPIIESIAXS I. 12.

terms has been already given under previous verses. $ov\r)
and Oe\rjfia are here connected " the counsel of His will."
The correspondent verbs, /SouXo/iat and edeXay, are distinguished
by Buttmann thus : the latter is the more general expression,
containing the idea that the purpose formed lies within the
power of the person who formed it (Lexilogus, p. 35) ; while
Tittmann adds, that 6e\^fia is an expression of will, but
(3ov\r) has in it the further idea of propension or inclination.
De Synon. p. 124. But the distinction is vague. The words
occur with marked distinction in 1 Sam. xviii. ; for in ver.
22, Oe\i v signifies "he has pleasure in;" while in ver. 25,
fiov\Tat, ev denotes desire consequent upon a previous reso
lution. Compare also 2 Sam. xxiv. 3 ; 1 Chron. xxviii. 4.
0\rjfjLa, therefore, is will, the result of desire voluntas ;
ftov\r) is counsel, the result of a formal decision propositum.
Donaldson s New Cratylus, 463, 464. Here fiov\r) is
the ratified expression of will the decision to which His
will has come. The Divine mind is not in a state of in
difference, it has exercised tfeXi^a will ; and that will is
not a lethargic velleity, for it has formed a defined purpose,
ftov\ij, which it determines to carry out. His desire and His
decrees are not at variance, but every resolution embodies His
imthwarted pleasure. This divine fore-resolve is universal in
its sweep " He worketh all things after the counsel of His
own will" The plan of the universe lies in the omniscient
mind, and all events are in harmony with it. Power in unison
with infinite wisdom and independent and undeviating pur
pose, is seen alike whether He create a seraph or form a gnat
fashion a world or round a grain of sand prescribe the
orbit of a planet or the gyration of an atom. The extinction
of a world and the fall of a sparrow are equally the result of a
free pre-arrangement Our " inheritance " in Christ springs
not from merit, nor is it an accidental gift bestowed from
casual motive or in fortuitous circumstances, but it comes from
God s fore-appointment, conceived in the same independence
and sovereignty which guide and control the universe.

(Ver. 12.) Els TO elvau rjfjias et? eiraivov Sog^s avrov, TOV?
7rpor)\7ri,KOTa&lt;; ev TO&gt; Xpicrrq) " That we should be to the
praise of His glory we who have before hoped in Christ."
The critical opinions on this verse, and on its connection with

EPHKS1ANS 1. 12. (\\

the preceding one, are very contradictory. Meyer and Ellicott
join it to K\jjpu)0rjfjLv " we have been brought into the
inheritance, in order that we should be to the praise of His
glory." Others, as Calovius, Flatt, and Harless, take ct? tV
as the final cause of the predestination, and read thus, " that
we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of
His glory." Harless would render die icir vorher bcstimmt
waren u.s.w., diejenigen zu scyn zum Ruhme seiner Iferrlichkeit,
die schon vorhcr cntf Christm hofftcn thus making this fore-
hope the blessing to which they were predestinated. But the
blessings to which men are predestinated are not pre-Messianic,
but actual Christian blessings. Besides, such a construction
is needlessly involved, and in verses 5 and 14 the blessings
which believers enjoy are specified, and the phrase " to the
praise of His glory" follows as a general conclusion. Ei*
Traii&gt;ov TI}? df/;? is therefore not the proximate pin-pose, but
the ultimate result.

The main struggle has been to determine who are meant
by the ?;/Lia? TOL&gt;? 7rpor)\7riK6ra&lt;f. Koppe, followed by
Holzhausen, understands the apostle to use the style royal,
and to mean himself. The majority of commentators suppose
the words to denote the believing Jews, so called, in the
opinion of Beza, Grotius, Kstius, Bodius, Bengel, Flatt.
Olshausen, and Stier, because their faith in Christ preceded
in point of time that of the Gentiles. This exegesis admits
of various modifications. The hope of the Jews in Christ
preceded that of the Gentiles, either, as Harless imagines,
because they had heard of Him earlier; or, as Rosenmuller,
Meyer, Olshausen, Chandler, and others affirm, because they
possessed the Old Testament prophecies, and so had the hop*-
of Him before He came into the world. But it may !
replied, that this sudden change of meaning in wels,
different from all the preceding verses, is a gratuitous
assumption; for the "we" and the "us" in the preceding
context denote the community of In-lievers with whom the
apostle identifies himself, and why should he so sharply and
abruptly contract the signification, and confine it to himself
and his believing countrymen ? There is no hint that .surl,
partieularization is intended, and there is nothing to jM.int out
the Jews as its object. Were this the idea, that the Chrwi

G2 EPIIKSIANS I. 12.

Jews were distinguished from the Gentiles by the forehope of
a Messiah, as the great object of their nation s anticipations
and desires, then we might have expected that the phrase
would have been Trporj\irLKOTes et? TOV Xpt,&lt;rr6v. Nor do we
apprehend that there is anything in the participle to limit its
meaning to the Hebrew portion of the church. The TT/JO may
not signify before or earlier in comparison with others, but,
as de Wette maintains, it may simply mean " already "-
prior to the time at which the apostle writes. Many con
firmatory examples occur : Eph. iii. 3, *a#o&gt;? irpoeypa-fya as
I have already written ; Col. i. 5, e\7riSa fjv irpor)Koi&gt;crare
the hope of which ye have already heard; Acts xxvi. 5,
who have already known; Gal. v. 21, a
which I have already told you; Bom. iii. 25, TWV
afjiaprrj^uircov of sins already committed ;
1 Thess. ii. 2, d\\a TrpoTraOovres but having already
suffered ; and so in many other cases. The preposition
indeed has often a more distinctive meaning, but there is
thus no necessity caused by the words of the clause to refer
it to Jews. The use of ty-teZ? in the following verse might be
said to be a direct transition, natural in writing a letter, when
the composer of it passes from general to more special
allusions and circumstances. The verb eX-Tnfa) also is used in
reference to the Gentiles, Matt. xii. 21, Rom. xv. 12 ; and it
might here denote that species of trust which gives the mind
a firm persuasion that all promises and expectations shall be
fully realized. But while these difficulties stand in the way,
still, on a careful review of the passage, we are rather inclined
from the pointed nature of the context to refer the r/ia? to
believing Jews. The participle may certainly bear the
meaning of having hoped beforehand that is, before the
object of that hope appeared; or it may mean before in
comparison with others, Acts xx. 13. Thus the u/zet? of the
following verse forms a sharp contrast to the expressed 77^0,9
and the rot/? Tr/x^XTrt/cora?, which is a limiting predication,
with emphasis upon it, as indicated by its position and by the
specifying article. Donaldson, 492. So understood, the
claim describes the privilege of believing Jews in contrast
with Gentiles. Light foot on Luke, ii. 34. The article TT}?
before Bofys is omitted by many MSS., and is justly cancelled

EPIIESIASS I. 13. 63

by Tischendorf and Lachmann. The clause iUelf has been

explained under ver. 6.

(Ver. 13.) Ev &&amp;gt; ieal tyxr&lt;?. This clause is variously con
strued. Morus harshly renders v w " therefore," making it
to correspond U) the Hebrew leva. Meyer, Peile, and Alford
supply the verb of existence " in whom are ye." Hut this
appears tame in contrast with the other significant verbs of
the paragraph. Far better, if a verb is to be supplied to the
clause at all, either to take r)\Tritcar, with lieza, Calvin, and
Estius ; or K\rjpw6rjr, with Zanchius, a-Lapide, Kodius,
Koppe, Meier, Harless, and Olshausen. But tlie clause pre
sents only one compacted sentence " In wliom also ye,
having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation ;
in whom (I rejHjat) ye, having l&gt;elieved, were sealed." Ev u&gt;
teal ty^ei? refers to the verb &lt;r(f&gt;payicrdj)T in Christ ye too
have l&gt;een sealed ; and the second fv w icai resumes and
intensifies the declaration, for it refers to Christ, as Harless,
Olshausen, and Stier rightly think, and not as Piscator,
Grotius, and Rosemniiller affirm to \6yos, or as Castalio,
Calvin, Beza, and Meyer aver to evayyeXiov. The aj&gt;ostlr,
in assuring the Gentile converts that their interest in Christ,
though more recent, was not less secure than that of believing
Jews, first of all turns to their initial privilege as having
heard the gospel, and then he cannot but refer to tln-ir
faith ; and this second reference, so important, suspends
the construction for a moment. The apostle describes their
privilege

atcoiKTavres rov \oyov TT}? (i\ij0ui$ " having heard the
word of the truth." The aorist has its proper meaning,
though rendered " having heard," and points to the period
when their privilege commenced. The genitive is that of
contents or substance. Scheuerlein, 12, 1. This clause
describes the revealed system of mercy. That word has
truth, aksolute truth, for its essence. There is no occasion to
suppose any allusion to the types of the Old Testament, with
Chrysostom, or to the lying vanities and ambiguous oracles
of Heathendom, with liaumgarten-Crusius and a-Lipil
The idea was familiar to the mind of Paul, limn. i. 1
(J 1. i. 5 ,} u\7)0ia\ 2 Thess. ii. 12. This sjH-c-ial truth i&gt;
adapted to man s spiritual state. It is a truth that there w a

64 EPHESIANS I. 13.

God, but the truth that this God is the Saviour ; a truth that
God is benevolent, but the truth that grace is in His heart
toward sinners ; a truth that there is a future world, but the
truth that heaven is the home of the redeemed. The gospel
is wholly truth, and that very truth which is indispensable to
a guilty world. And it comes as a word, by special oral
revelation, for it is not gleaned and gathered : there is a kind
and faithful oracle.

It is further characterized as TO evayye\iov rfjs a-corrjpia^
VIJLMV " the gospel of your salvation." But what is the
precise form of the genitive ? We cannot regard it, with
Harless, as merely a peculiar form of apposition ; nor can we
make it, with other critics, the gospel which secures your
salvation. Eom. i. 16. For the occurrence of aKovaavres, as
explaining their relation to the gospel, would suggest the
explanation the gospel which reveals salvation, because it
contains it. Bernhardy, p. 161 ; Winer, 30, 2, ~b. The
gospel is good news, and that good news is our salvation
the best of all news to a sinful and dying world. Salvation
makes safe from all the elements of that penalty which their
sin brought down upon transgressors, and possession to the
inheritance of the highest good the enjoyment of the Divine
favour, and the possession of the Divine image. This
truthful and cheering revelation they had heard, and that at
two several periods, from the lips of the apostle himself.
Having heard the gospel, they believed it : " Faith cometh by
hearing." They heard so as that they believed, for they had
heard with candour, docility, and attention. While others
might criticise the terms of the message, or scoff at it, they
believed it, they took it for what it professed to be. They
gave it credit, received its statements as truths, and felt its
blessings to be realities.

eV u&gt; Ka\ TTUJTeva-avres " in whom also having believed."
The pronoun has Xpto-rbs for its antecedent, and it is in close
connection with the verb. The verb Trio-reva) is found with ev
in Mark i. 15, but not in the writings of the apostle. The
aorist marks a time antecedent to the following verb. They
not only heard, but they also believed the word of truth.

e&lt;T(f)pa yio 07}T rtZ HvevpaTi r/y? eTrayyeXias TO&gt; aylw " ye
were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." The dative is

EPHKSIASS I. 13. 65

that of instrument, and the position of T&&amp;gt; 071 ^ gives a signal
solemnity to the epithet. This Divine Being is termed
IIvevfjM, not on account of His essence, since the whole
Godhead is Spirit, but because of His relation to the universe
as its Life, and to the believing soul as its Quickener. And
He is the HOLY Spirit, not as if the sanctity of His character
were more brilliant than that of Father and Son, but because
of His economic function as the Sanctifier. The genitive
7ra77e\ta&lt;? is supposed by Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, and the
early church, to have an active sense, and to mean the Spirit
who confirms the promise. Better is the idea which makes
the genitive denote quality, as in the Syriac version tin-
Spirit which was promised. The genitive is almost that of
ablation, as Theophylact in his first explanation gives it
on ef 7rayye\ias eBudrj. The Spirit is a prominent and
pervading promise in the Old Testament. ISA. xxxii. lf&gt;.
xliv. 3 ; Kzek. xxxvi. 27, xxxix. 29 ; Joel ii. 28 ; Zeeh. xii.
10. The Spirit was also the leading promise which Christ
left to His disciples, as recorded in John, referred to in Acts
i. 4-8, and in Gal. iii. 14. See Luke xxiv. 49. The fact is,
that up to the period of our Lord s ascension, the Spirit stood
to the church in the relation and attitude of a promised gift.
John vii. 39. "Holy Ghost was not yet" in plenary
possession and enjoyment, " because Jesus was not yet
glorified." The same truth was taught by the. ajiostle at
Kphesus. Acts xix. 2. Paul said to certain disciples there
who had been baptized into John s baptism, "Did ye receive
the Holy Ghost when ye believed ? And they said unto
him, We did not so much as hear whether there be any Holy
Ghost." Surely such ignorance referred not to the person of
the Holy Ghost, for these men were Jews; hut the reply
seems to be, "We did not bear whether His promised
outjxjuring has l&gt;een vouchsafed." And when they were
rebaptized, the blessing came u^m them. To ci church
where such a scene occurred, where men had waited for the
Spirit, and felt that His descent did not follow John *
baptism for it was the prerogative of the Messiah to Imptizr
with the Holy Ghost no wonder that Paul designate this
Divine Agent by the name of the Spirit of promi.s
though the church now possess Him, still, in reference to

66 EPHESIANS I. 14.

enlarged operation and reviving energy, He is the Spirit of
promise.

By this Spirit they were sealed. 2 Cor. i. 22. The sealing
followed the believing, and is not coincident with it, as Har-
less argues. This sealing is a peculiar work of the Spirit.
2 Tim. ii. 19. Various ideas may be contained in the general
figure. It seems to have, in fact, both an objective and a
subjective reference. There are the seal, the sealer, and the
sealed. The Holy Ghost is the seal, God the sealer.
2(j)payl&lt;; {3acri\iKr) CLKWV kvri l the Divine image in the
possession of the Spirit is impressed on the heart, and the
conscious enjoyment of it assures the believer of perfection
and glory Kom. viii. 16 or, as Theodore of Mopsuestia
says, Tr]v pefSaiw(nv eSefa&lt;r#e. He who seals feels a special
interest in what is so sealed it is marked out as His : " The
Lord knoweth them that are His." He recognizes His own
image. So Chrysostom KaOdrrep jap CL rt? roi)? Xa^oz/ra?
avra) SjjXou? Troirjo-eiev, just as if one were to make manifest
such as have fallen to his lot. The notion of Theophylact is
similar. But the idea that the sealing proves our security to
others, or is meant to do so, is foreign to the meaning. That
seal unbroken remains a token of safety. Rev. vii. 3. Whatever
bears God s image will be safely carried home to His bosom.
The sealed ones feel the assurance of this within themselves.
That there may be an allusion in the phrase to the miraculous
gifts of the early ages, is not to be entirely denied, though
certainly all who possessed those charismata were not con
verted men. Baptism was named " a seal " in early times,
&lt;r(f&gt;payi&lt;; signaculum. Greg. Naz. Or. xl. De Bapt. ; Tertull.
Apol. xxi. The reason of the name is obvious, but there is no
allusion to it here. Augusti, Handb. dcr Christ. Archceologie,
vol. ii. p. 315, 16.

(Ver. 1 4.) "O? ea"nv appa/3a)v rrjs KXrjpovofjilas rjfjLwv
" Who is the earnest of our inheritance." The reading o is
found in A, B, F, G, L, but appears to be a correction. The
relative does not agree with its antecedent in gender, not that,
as Bloomfield imagines, such a change is any argument in
favour of the personality of the irvev^a, for it only assumes
the gender of the following definitive predicate. So Mark

1 Polyaenus, p. 763.

KPUKSIAN8 I. 14. f,7

xv. 16; Gal. iii. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 13, etc. Winer, 24, 3;
Kiihner, 786, 3 ; Madvig, 98. From not perceiving this
idiom, some refer to Christ as the antecedent Appafitov
earnest, is but the Oriental P3iy in Greek letters. 2 Cor. i. 22,
v. 5. The earnest is not, properly speaking, a more pledge,
pignus, as the Vulgate has it The pledge is restored when
the contract has been performed, but the earnest is a jx&gt;rtion
of the purchase money. Isidore, lib. v. 25 ; (Jaius, iii. 13!) ;
Suicer, sub voct. The master gives the servant a small coin
when the paction is agreed on, and this handgclt, or earnest,
TrpoSo^r, as Hesychius defines it, is the token that the whole
sum stipulated for will be given when the term of service
expires. The earnest is not withdrawn, but is supplemented
at the appointed period, for it is only, as Chrysostom explains
it, fiepos rov Trot/rd?. Irenti us also says " Quod tt pignn*
dixit Apostoliis, hoc f&t partein tjits twiwris qui a Deo nobis pro-
missus est, in epistola qucc ail Eplicsios cst" Adv. Hcrres. lib.
v. cap. 11. The inheritance, tc\T)povofju a t is that glorious
blessing which awaits us, which is in reserve for us, and held
by Christ in our name that inheritance in which we have
been erifeoffed (ver. 11), and which belonged to the vio6t&lt;ria\
and r]ptov is resumed, for it belonged alike to believing Jew
and Gentile.

The enjoyment of the earnest is a proof that the soul has
been brought by faith into union with God. It has said to
the Lord, " Thou art my Lord." This covenant of " God s
peace" is ratified by the earnest given. The earnest is less
than the future inheritance, a mere fraction of it ex dfrcm
solvlis centum solulurum mill in, as Jerome illustrates. The
work of God s Spirit is never to be undervalued, yet it is only
a small thing in relation to future blessedness. That know
ledge which the Spirit implants is but limited the dawn,
faint in itself, and struggling with the gloom of departing
night, compared to the broud effulgence of mid-day. Tin*
holiness He creates is still imjierfect, and is surrounded and
often oppressed with remaining infirmities in " this Ixxly of
death," and the happiness He infuses is often like gleams of
sunshine on a " dark and cloudy day," faint, few, ami evanes
cent. But the earnest, though it differ in degree, is the same
in kind with the prospective inheritance. The earnest

C8 EPHESIAXS I. 14.

withdrawn, nor a totally new circle of possessions substituted.
Heaven is but an addition to present enjoyments. Know
ledge in heaven is but a development of what is enjoyed on
earth ; its holiness is but the purity of time elevated and
perfected ; and its happiness is no new fountain opened in the
sanctified bosom, but only the expansion and refinement of
those susceptibilities which were first awakened on earth by
confidence in the Divine Kedeemer. The " earnest," in short,
is the " inheritance " in miniature, and it is also a pledge that
the inheritance shall be ultimately and fully enjoyed. God
will not resile from His promise, the Spirit conferred will
perfect the enterprise. To give believers a foretasting, and
then withhold the full enjoyment, would be a fearful torture.
The prelibatiou will be followed by the banquet. As an
earnest of the inheritance, the Holy Ghost is its pledge and
foretaste, giving to believers the incipient experience of what
it is, and imparting the blissful assurance of its ultimate and
undisturbed possession. And all this

avrov " till the redemption of the purchased possession, to
the praise of His glory." " The expression is idiomatic and
somewhat difficult." 1. Some suppose Trepnroi ri&is to mean
salus, conservatio, deliverance and life. The allied verb some
times signifies in the Septuagint " to save alive," and so
"Wliitby renders the phrase " the redemption of life," and
Bretschneider, redemptio qua mice ceternce servamur. Wetstein,
Bengel, and Bos have virtually the same explanation. Holz-
hausen justifies this criticism at some length, and resolves the
clause is aTroX. /cal TrepnToi^iv. 2. Others take the noun in
the sense of possession. In 2 Chron. xiv. 13, the noun seems
to signify " a remnant preserved," /cal eTrecrov AWloires ware
prj elvai, ev avrols Trepirroirjo-iv. 3. Some connect the two
substantives as cause and effect. Luther renders zu unserer
Erlosung, class wir sein Eigenthum warden to our redemption,
that we should be His possession. In this view Luther was
preceded by Theodoret and Pelagius, and has been followed
by Homberg and von Gerlach. Bucer has redemptio qua con-
tingat certa vitce possessio. But witli an active sense the noun,
as may be seen under ver. 7, is followed by a genitive. 4.
Yatublus, Koppe, and "NVahl give the noun a participial ren-

EPJ1ESIA.VS I. 14. 69

(Jering the redemption which has been secured or purc-hutti
for us. Koppe also gives it another turn, " which we have
already possessed," in allusion to ver. 7. 5. Others change
this aspect, and give it this rendering, ad obtiiicndam rtdtmp-
tioncm. Beza translates, dum in libertatcm vindicrmur a
rendering which would require the words to IHJ reversed. G.
Another party, H. Stephanus, Hugenhagen, Calovius, and
liatthies, preceded by Ambrosiaster and Augustine, who seem
to have understood it in the same sense, take the word in the
general sense of possession haredita* acqvixita. Hut the
inheritance needs not to IKJ redeemed ; the redemption certainly
applies to us, and not to the blessedness prepared for us. 7.
The verb denotes to acquire for oneself: (Ion. xxxvi. 6.
xxxi. 18 ; Prov. vii. 4; Isa, xliii. 21, Xac? fjMv ov Trepierroirj-
cdfiriv ; Acts xx. 28, eicic\i)ata, $)v trcp^rro^aaro Bia rov
aip.aro&lt;; rov IBiov] 1 Tim. iii. 13 , fta6 p.ov eairrot? KO\OV rrpi-
TTOIOVVTCLI. Similar instances occur in the Apocrypha, and the
same meaning is found in the classics. IMdymus defines it,
. yap tear %aipcrov v Trepiowria fcal KT^fjuiri \c\oyur-
, that is Trepnr., which is emphatically reckoned as jnirticn
of our substance and possession. Theophylact explains the
words by the same terms, and CEcumenius defines it )&gt;y itself,
TrepiTT. r}^ta? xaXfi Bid TO Trcpnrotrfaaffdai r)p a? rov Oeov. 1 In
this way the noun is used in 1 Tliess. v. 9, ei? Trtpw.
; 2 Thess. ii. 14, t? Trcpnr. Bo frjt ; Heb. x. 39, et?

In all these wises there is the idea of acquisition for
oneself, and the noun followed by a genitive has an active
significance, which it cannot have here, and Meyer s connection
with avrov is strained. The idea of life, vitality, or safety,
found in the term so often when it stands in the Old Testa
ment as the representative of f^n, and on which some exegete.s
lay such stress, is evidently a secondary use. The central idea
is to preserve for oneself, and as life is the most valuable
of possessions, so the word was employed tear &lt;fo^r; to
preserve it. The great majority of critics understand irtpt-
in the abstract the possession, i.e. the people pos-

1 Such a meaning belongs to the verb in the Greek classic*, o/ IIA/***H **
,;,. T. x * f ln. Thucyd. 3, 102. Tif 4**i f " i - /l - Xrn "
4, 4. 3. H 2i ri^n . )&lt;&gt;t wtfavtlnrt. Hirodun, 8, 8.
Lcricous of Paow, Tape, and Liddell and Scott, tub roft.

70 EPIIESIANS I. 14.

sessed 7repnrotrj0evT&lt;s. As a collective noun to denote a
body of people, irepLTo^r} is employed in Phil. iii. 3, and so
6*1X0777 stands in Kom. xi. 7 for oi e/cXe/croi. The word thus
corresponds to the Hebrew !"fep ? often rendered by a similar
term- Trepiova-ios. Compare Ex. xix. 5 ; Deut. vii. 6,
xiv. 2, xxvi. 18; Isa. xliii. 21 ; or Mai. iii. 17, ea-ovrat fj-ot,
et? TreptTTotrja-iv. The Tre/HTrot ^o-t? in the Old Testament refers
not to any possession held by the people, but to the people
themselves held in possession by God. Titus ii. 14 ; and Xao&lt;?
et? TrepiTrofyo-iv, 1 Pet. ii. 9. The collective people of God
are His TrepiTroiija-is the body of the faithful whom He has
taken to be His tempos. They are His by the blood paid for
their ransom. Om^e?, says Theophylact, ecrpev TrepTrot ^crt?
KOI K\rj&lt;ns KOL Trepiovo-ia Oeov. And the redemption which is
here referred to, is their complete and final deliverance from
all evil. The people who form the "possession" become
God s by redemption, and shall fully realize themselves as
God s when that redemption shall be completed.

Olshausen, Meyer, and Stier understand t? to denote the
final cause " for the redemption of the purchased possession."
Still in this case " for " would have virtually a subtemporal
sense. De Wette and Elickert render it "until;" iv. 30.
Whether the words be joined with e&lt;7(f&gt;payLcrdrjr or with the
immediately preceding clause, it matters not, for the meaning
is much the same. The sealing and earnest are alike inter
mediate, and point to a future result et? implying a future
purpose and period, when both shall be superseded. The
earnest is enjoyed up till the inheritance be received, when it
is absorbed in its fulness. The idea is common in the Old
Testament, as showing the relation which the ancient Israel
bore to God as His " inheritance " His, and His by a special
tie, for He had redeemed them out of Egypt. Triune divine
operation is again developed ; the Eather seals believers, and
His glory is the last end ; in the Son are they sealed, and
their redemption is His work ; while the Spirit " which pro-
ceedeth " from the Eather, and is sent by the Son is the
Seal and the Earnest.

And this cm O\VT payo-is is our absolute redemption, as
Chrysostom terms it. Wilke understands by diro\vTpu)&lt;Ti&lt;s
the liberation of the minor on his majority, comparing this

FPUESJAX3 I. 14. 71

passage with one .somewhat similar in Galatians. Rut aVoXi/-
rp(D(Tt&lt;f seems, in the apostle s idea of it, to be a long process,
including not a single and solitary blessing, but a complete
series of spiritual gifts, beginning with the pardon of sin, and
stretching on to the ultimate bestowment of perfection and
felicity, for it rescues and blesses our entire humanity. In
Jesus " we are having redemption ; " and pardon, enlighten
ment, and inheritance, with the Spirit as the signet and the
earnest, are but its present elements, given us partially and
by instalments in the meanwhile : for though it begin when
sin is forgiven, yet it terminates only when we are put in
possession of that totality of blessing which our lord s obe
dience and death have secured. Horn, viii. 23 ; 1 Cor. L 30.
" We have redemption " so soon as we believe ; we are ever
having it so long as we are on earth ; and when Jesus comes
again to finish the economy of grace, we shall have it in ita
full and final completion. Thus the redemption iii ver. 7 is
incipient, and in ver. 14 is final the first and last stages of
the same aTroXvrpacris.

And all issues et? eiratvov TT}? Sof r;? aurov " to the praise
of His glory " His grace having now done its work. As in
verses 5th and 6th, ei? with the proximate end is followed
by et? with the ultimate purpose. The Trepnroiija-is " the
LORD S OWN," " the Holy Catholic Church " in heaven, praises
Him with rapturous emotion, for His glory is seen and felt in
every blessing and hope, and this perpetual and universal
consciousness of redemption is ever jubilant in its anthems
and halleluiahs. See under ver. 6.

The period of redemption expires with the rrapovda. No
more is redemption to be offered, for the human race has run
its cycle ; and no more is it to be partially enjoyed, for the
redeemed are to be clothed with perfection : so tliat the perio
of perfection in blessing harmonizes with that of perfection in
nuinlKjrs. As long as the process of redemption is incomplete,
the collection of recipients is incomplete too. The clu
receives its complement in extent at the very same epoch at
which it is crowned with fulness of purity and Mum
" May it please Thee of Thy gracious goodness i
accomplish the number of Thy elect, and to hasten 7
dom," is an appropriate petition on the part of all saiuta

72 EPHESIASS I. 15.

(Ver. 15.) This verse begins a new section. After praise
comes prayer. The apostle having given thanks to God for
the Ephesian converts, offers a fervent and comprehensive
prayer on their behalf, that they may enjoy a deeper insight,
so as to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His future
glory, and His transcendent vivifying and exalting power, as
seen in the resurrection and glorification of Christ.

Aia rovro " Wherefore," not, as Grotius says, and in which
saying he is joined by Riickert and Matthies, " because we
are bound to thank God for benefits," for the words have
a wider retrospective connection than merely with the last
clause of the preceding paragraph. Nor, on the other hand,
is it natural, with Chrysostoni, (Ecumenius, and Harless, to
give them a reference to the whole previous section. It is
better, with Theophylact and Meyer, to join them to the 13th
and 1 4th verses. For in these verses the apostle turns to the
believing Ephesians, and, directly addressing them, describes
briefly the process of their salvation, and then, and for that
reason, prays for them. The prayer is not for " us," but for
" you," and for you, because ye heard and believed, and were
sealed.

Kayo), rendered " I also." But such a translation suggests
the idea of others, tacitly and mentally alluded to, besides
the apostle. Who then can be referred to in the word "also"?
Is it, " Others thank God for you, so do I " ? or is it, " Ye
thank God yourselves, I do it also for you"? thus, as Meyer
says, (zusammenwirkt) he co-operates with them. These sup
positions seem foreign to the context, since there is no allusion
to any others beside the writer, nor is there any reference
to the Ephesians as praying or giving thanks for themselves.
Kai may be merely continuative, as it often is in the New
Testament ; it may merely mark transition to another topic ;
or it may indicate the transition from the second person to
the first. Stuart, 185. Kdyw 1 may signify "indeed,"
quidem; or it may have the first of those meanings in the
Pauline diction. Compare Acts xxvi. 29 ; Kom. iii. 7 ; 1
Cor. vii. 8, 40, x. 33, xi. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 16; Gal. iv. 12;
Phil. ii. 19; 1 Thess. iii. 5. The word would thus mean

1 Buttmann pronounces it to be an error to write Kay* with iota subscribed,
29, n. 2; Jelf, 14.

EPHESIAXS I. 15. 73

" Wherefore I indeed " the apostle who first preached to
you, and who has never ceased to yearn over you

aKovtras TJJV Ka6* vpas triariv (V TOJ Kvpiw Jr;&lt;roO "having
heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus." It is wrong to argue
from this expression, with Olshausen and de Wette, that the
apostle had no personal knowledge of the persons whom In-
addressed. This was an early surmise, for it is referred to by
Theodoret. Some, says lie, have supposed that the apostle
wrote to the Ephesians, o&gt;? /ATjStVa) #ea&lt;ru /m o&lt;? auTou?. 1 As
we have seen in the Introduction, those who wish to regard
this epistle as a circular letter, lay stress on the same term.
But some years had elapsed since the apostle had visited
Ephesus, and seen the Ephesian church, and might he not
therefore refer to reports of their Christian stedfastness which
had reached him 1 Nay, his use of the aorist may signify
that such intelligence had been repeatedly brought to him.
Kiihner, 442, 1; Buttmann, 137, 8, Obs. 5. But thin
frequentive sense, however, is denied to aorists in the New
Testament. Winer, 40, 5, b, l. a The verb iravo^ai, connected
with this aorist, is in the present tense, as if the apostle meant
to say, that such tidings from Ephesus were so satisfactory,
that he could not cease to thank God for them. His thanks
giving was never allowed to flag, for it sprang from information
as to the state of the church in Ephesus, and especially of what
the apostle emphatically names

TTJV *a# 17x05 TTta-riv. The expression is peculiar. Winer,
22, 7, renders it fidem qnoc ad vos pcrliiict, but in such a
version the phrase expresses no other than the common form
of the pronoun tyzerepa Trurrt?. Harless and lluckrrt tnm.H-
1 The criticism of Hammond upon * &lt; is ingenious, but not satisfactory.
He renders it here rum scirfrim, for ****, he adds, often nigtiifira to know or
to understand. (Jen. xi. 7, xlii. 23 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 2. He that j*-krth in an
unknown tongue sjeaketu not to man tiitit y*f i*iu for no one umlrmUii ln
him. The use of the verb \% nimilarly idiomatir in the other jilacri cited,
signifies, to hear so as to understand. These phrases refer, however, to j-rm.nal
conference, where difference of language rendi-rvd convtrnation onintlli|riUa.
But in thin clause it refers to n-i&lt;.rt by third jwrtie*, and thrrrfure rnuui
HO used. The idiom is one easily undertsto&lt;d, for it occur* in many inular
phrases. Thus, to hear prayer is to comply with the n-.|ut ; to hear on- in
dangt-r, is to help him. With us in Scotland the ordrr i invrrtr*
to his friend, "Speak for a moment," which means, " Hear me
moment."

1 See Moulton s Winer, p. 347, n. 2.

74 EPHESIAN8 I. 15.

late, den Glauben lei euch "the faith which is among you;"
Riickert holding that a species of local meaning is implied in
the idiom, and Harless maintaining that if the adjective pro
noun had been used, the subjective view of their faith would
have been given faith as theirs ; whereas by this idiom,
their faith in its objective aspect is depicted faith as it exists
among them. Though this mode of expressing relation came
to be common in later Greek, as Meyer has shown, still we
are inclined to think that there was something emphatic in
the form. Bernhardy, p. 241. Acts xvii. 28, rives rwv K.a&
upas Tronjrwv " certain of the poets among you " some of
your poets, not ours not Jewish or Christian bards, but
Greek ones, whom ye claim and recognize as your national
minstrels. Acts xviii. 15, the Roman proconsul says, " If it
be a question of your law," vopov rov fcad* uyu-a? your law ;
the law that obtains among you, not the Roman law your
Jewish law, to which you cling, and the possession and ob
servance of which mark and characterize you as a people. So
in Acts xxvi. 3 rwv Kara louSa/ou? eOwv customs among
Jews specially Jewish ; the very thing under discussion,
and spoken of by one who had been educated at Rome. The
ordinary phrase, 77 irians vpwv, is used seventeen times, and
this form seems to denote not simply possession, as the genitive
v/jLwv or pronoun vperepa \vould imply, but also characteristic
possession. It is that faith which not only is among you,
but which you claim and recognize as your peculiar posses
sion that faith which gave them the appellation of iriaroi in
the first verse, and which is said in ver. 13 to have secured
for them the sealing influences of the Holy Spirit. At all
events, the instance adduced by Ellicott and Alford as against
us, is not parallel. The phrase "your law," John viii. 17, TO&gt;
vcfjiw ra&gt; v/jLtrepw, is not parallel to Acts xviii. 15, for the first
was spoken by a Jew to Jews it was His law as well as
theirs (Gal. iv. 4) ; but not so in the case of the Roman deputy
in Achaia. It seems foreign to the phrase to bring out of it,
as Alford does after Stier, " the possibility of some not having
this faith." He had named them Trio-rot already, and will
Kara, with the partitive meaning imply that some might not
have this faith ? That faith reposed

ev r&lt;t) Kvpui) I^croO. The usage and meaning of Kvpios are

EPHESIANS I. 15. 75

fully referred to under ver. 2. Such a characteristic faith wn*
in Christ. "Winzer l indeed proposes to connect tyui? with
this clause fidcm, qua, robis Doniino Jcsu vclnti instil*, intxt.
The position of the words excludes such a connection. Their
faith lay immoveable in Jesus, and the same idea, expressed
by eV, is very frequent in the preceding verses. Sec under
ver. 1. ILVTt? followed by ev is not common; yet &lt;, Trpot.
firi occur often in such connection in the Septuagint ; IV
Ixxviii. 22 ; Jer. xii. 6 ; C.al. iii. 26 ; Col. i. 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 14.
iii. 1, S; 2 Tim. i. 13, iii. lf&gt;. See under the first verse.
The TTt o-rt?, so well defined by KaQ* t/xa?, and so closely allied
to xvpios, needs not the article after it, and the want of the
article indicates the unity of conception. The article i*
similarly omitted in (lal. iii. 26, and in CoL i. 4 ; Winer,
20, 2. That faith wrought by love

teal ri]v a.yaTTTji rr]v ei? Tnii Tas rov-t dyiovs "and your love to
all the saints." Some MSS. such as A, B, etc., omit TIJV dyd-rrrji ,
and Lachmann, true to his critical principles, leaves them out
in his edition. But the omission is an evident blunder.
The Syriac version, older than any of these MSS., has the
words, and without them no sense could be made of the verse.
Chrysostom also reads the words, and says that the ajwwtle
always knits and combines faith and love, a glorious j&gt;air
6av^aa"T&gt;]v Tira ^vvcopt&a :

^7109 is explained under ver. 1. Faith and love are often
associated by the apostle. Col. i. 4 ; Philem. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. :V
The article is repeated after uydTrr)v, because the relation
expressed by et? is not so intimate as that denoted by cr,
because it h;is not the well- understood foundation of TrurrK.
and it may also signalize the difference of allusion dyi nrr), not
to Christ, but -rrjv els TTuvras TOV&lt;? dyioix;. This conception,
therefore, has not the unity of the preceding : it i* lvi\ but
love further defined by a special object "to all the saint*.
It is not philanthropy love of man as man but the 1
the brethren, yea, "all" the brethren " the household of
faith." Community of faith begets community of fn-ling, and
this brother-love is an instinctive emotion, as well
earnest obligation. In that spiritual temple whirl
is rearing in the sanctified bosom, faith ami love

&gt; Comrruntatio in Kph. cap. i. r. 19. m Letn. 1

76 EPHESIANS I. 16.

Jachin and Boaz, the twin pillars that grace and support the
structure.

(Ver. 16.) Ov TravofjLcu ev^apiarwv virep V/JLWV " I cease
not giving thanks for you." Tirep is thus used, v. 20 ; 1 Tim.
ii. 1. Ev^apta-relv, in the sense of "to give thanks," belongs
to the later Greek, for, prior to the age of Polybius, it signified
to please or to gratify. Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 18. Instead
of a participle the infinitive is sometimes employed, but there
is a difference of meaning. The participle expresses an action
which already exists, and this form of construction prevails in
the New Testament. "As one giving thanks for you I cease
riot." The infinitive ev^apccrrelv would mean, " I cease not
from a supposed period to give thanks." Winer, 45, 4 ;
Stuart, 167; Scheuerlein, 45, 5 ; Hermann, Ad Viger. p.
771 ; Bernhardy, p. 477. 1 The Gothic version of Ulphilas
lias preserved the peculiar point of the expression " unsvei-
bands aviliudo," non-cessans yratias dico. The apostle,
though he had visited them, does not felicitate himself on his
pastoral success among them, but gives thanks on this account
to God, for His grace had changed them, and had sustained
them in their Christian profession.

fjLveiav vpwv iroiov^evo^ eirl rwv Trpoa-ev^wif fiov " making
mention of you in my prayers." Eom. i. 9 ; Phil. i. 3 ; 1
Thess. i. 2, 3. Some MSS., as A, B, and D, omit vfjiwv, and it
is rejected by Lachmann ; but there is no good reason for its
exclusion, for it may have been omitted because of the
previous vpwv so close upon it, for A and B have the same
omission in 1 Thess. i. 2. F and G place the pronoun after
the participle. The terms ev-^apiarwv and ^iveiav Trotoi^iei/o?
are not to be identified. The apostle gave thanks, and his
thanks ended in prayer. As he blessed God for what they
had enjoyed, he implored that they should enjoy more. He
tJuinked for their faith and hope, and he prayed as he glanced
into the future. And he made special mention of the Ephe-
sian church ; Trenov/zez/o? in the middle voice implying " for
himself " eirl rwv Trpoa-ev^wif fj,ov. The preposition has a
temporal meaning with a sub-local reference. Bernhardy, p.

1 Kiihner occupies no less than seven sections in enumerating and defining
the different classes of verbs which are followed by a participle rather than an
infinitive ( 657-664).

EPIIESIAXS I. 17. 77

246 ; Winer, 47, g, d; Stallbaum s Plato, df Rep. p. 460.
He did it as his usual work and pleasure, and perhaps tin*
language implies that he made formal mention of them when
ever and wherever he prayed. He yearned over them as his
children in Christ, and he bore their names on his heart
before the Lord in fervent, repeated, and effectual intercession.
(Ver. 17.) "Iva 6 Seas rov Kvpiov }/io&gt;i/ Iijaov Xpurrov
Swj " That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would give."
Making mention of you in my prayers, offering this prayer
for you, that the God, etc. His prayer for them had this
special petition that. "Iva is thus used with the optative,
and that telically to denote the object of desire, the blessing
wished for. Bernhardy, p. 407. We see no reason to agree
with Harless, Olshausen, Winer, Robinson, Ruekert, and
others, in denying the projHT telic use of Iva in such a con
nection, or after verbs of entreaty. Ellicott also gives it a
sub-final meaning the puq&gt;ort of the prayer being blended
with the purpose. Winer, 41, b, 1. On the other hand, to
deny with Fritzsche the ecbatic sense of Iva, is an extreme
quite opposed to many passages of the New Testament, ami as
wrong as to give it too often this softened meaning. Harles*
says, that the optative is here used for distinctness, liecause a
verb expressing desire is omitted. But the final cause of
entreaty is "in order that" something may lx given. Tin-
object of the apostle s prayer was, that God would give the
Ephesians the spirit of wisdom. He prayed for this end
this final purpose was present to his mind ; he prayed with
this avowed intent iva. Ellicott s statement is after all but
a truism : if a man tell you to what end lie prays, he surely
tells you the substance of his prayers. Disclosure of the pur
pose must express the pur{*ort, and Iva, pointing out the first,
also of necessity introduces the last. But the Iva in such an
iiliom contains in itself the idea of previous desire, and the
optative is used, not as if there were any doubt in the a^tle s
mind that his prayer might not be granted, or as if the answer
might be only a probable result, but that God s giving tin-
object prayed for would be the hoped-for realization of tin-
intention which he had, when he bogft" to offer the petition*
which he was still continuing. Jelf, 807,7 ; Devtnus-Kloti.
p. C22. Had the wish that God would confer blwwing Uun

78 EFHESIANS I. 17.

merely when the apostle wrote the words, had the whole aim
of the prayer been regarded as future to that point of time, the
subjunctive would have been used. ^0^7 is a later form for
Soirj. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, pp. 345, 346 ; Sturz, De dialecto
Alcxandrino, p. 52. Lachmann, however, reads Bevy in the
Ionic subjunctive form, but without sufficient ground. The
Divine Being to whom Paul presented intercessory prayer for
the Ephesians, is referred to under two peculiar and unusual
epithets

O 0eo9 rov Kvpi ov rj/jLwv Irjaov Xpiarov " The God of
our Lord Jesus Christ." He is elsewhere called the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but only in this place, simply,
" the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." The language has need
lessly startled many commentators, and obliged them to make
defence against Arian critics. Suicer, sub voce. The dangerous
liberties taken with the words in the capricious use of hyper-
baton and parenthesis by Menochius, Vatablus, Estius, and
a-Lapide, do not gain the end which they were intended to
serve. It is with some of them " the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the God of glory," or " the God (of our Lord
Jesus Christ the Father) of glory." The criticism of Theo-
doret is more rational, though not strictly correct, for he thus
distinguishes the two divine appellations in reference to Christ,
Seov pep o&gt;&lt;? avdpdnrov, irarepa 8e &&amp;gt;? eov. The reader
will find an explanation of the phrase under the first clause of
the 3rd verse. The exposition of Harless is somewhat loose.
His explanation is the God by whom Christ was sent to
earth, from whom He received attestation in word and deed,
and to whom He at length returned. But more special ideas
are included 1. To be His God is to be the object of His
worship my God is the divinity whom I adore. As a man
Jesus worshipped God, often prayed to Him, often consulted
Him, enjoyed His presence, and complained on the cross
of His desertion, saying " My God, my God." 2. The
language implies that God blessed Him my God is He who
blesses me. Gen. xxviii. 21. He prepared for Him His body,
sustained His physical life, bestowed upon Him the Spirit,
protected Him from danger, " gave His angels charge concern
ing Him," raised Him from the dead, and exalted Him to
glory. 1 Cor. xi. 3, xv. 27; 1 Pet. i. 21. Especially, as

KPUESIANS I. 17. 79

Harlees intimates, did He as Messiah come from God and do
the will of God, and He is now enjoying the reward of God.
Possessed Himself of supreme divinity, He sulxmlinaUxl Him
self to God, in order by such an economy to work out the
glorious design of man s salvation. The immanent distinctions
of the one Godhead are illustrated in their nature and necessity
from the scheme of redemption. And the reason why Paul
refers to God in this relation to Jesus is, that having sent His
Son and qualified and commissioned Him, having accepted
from Him that atonement of infinite value, and having in proof
of this acceptance raised Him to His own right hand, it is now
His divine function and prerogative to award the blessings of
the mediatorial reign to humble and believing suppliants.

At the same time we cannot fully acquiesce in many inter
pretations of the Nicene Creed, even as illustrated by Petaviu.s, 1
and adopted by such acute defenders as Cudworth * and Hull. 2
To admit the divinity of the Son, and yet to deny Him
to be avroQeos as well as the Father, seems to us really to
modify and impugn the Saviour s Godhead by a self-contra
dictory assertion. We cannot but regard self -existence as
essential to divinity. P&gt;ishop Bull says, however " Pater
solus naturam illam a sc habet." The Creed of Nice declares,
"We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the Essence of the
Father, God of God, IJght of Light, very God of very God,
begotten, not made, of one Essence with the Father." These
sentiments have been the faith of the church in every age, but
they have been in many instances explained by unjustifiable
imagery and language, often taken in the earlier centuries from
the Platonic ontology, and drawn in later times from material
sources. The arguments against what is called the eternal
sonship, by Koell, Drew, Moses Stuart, Adam Clarke, and
others, are, with all their show of argument, without founda
tion in Scripture, for a sonship in the Divine nature apj&gt;ears
to be plainly taught and implied in it. J .tit a sonship which
affirms the Divine nature of the Son to be derived from the
Father, makes that Son only Sevrepos &o&lt;; a secondary Deit
Not only is the Son o/*oou&lt;no&lt;? rrp -rrarpi of the same essence

1 Dt Trinitatt, i. 5. Intrltectual f&gt;y*trm, vol. ii. 40&lt;J, rd. 1845, London.

1 De/entio Fidel Xitance. Work*, vol. r. cd. lb 27, Oxford.

80 EPHESIANS I. 17.

with the Father, but He is also avroOeos God in and from
Himself. Souship appears to refer not to essence, but to
existence not to being in itself, but to being in its relations,
and does not characterize nature so much as personality.
But such difference of position is not inequality of essence,
and when rightly understood will be found as remote from
the calumnious imputation of Tritheism, as from the heresy
of Modalism or Sabellianism. 1

o Harrip rrjs 80^779 " the Father of glory " is a unique
phrase, having no real parallel in Scripture. It has some
resemblance to the following phrases " King of glory " in
Ps. xxiv. 7 ; " Lord of glory," 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; " God of glory,"
Ps. xxix. 3, quoted in Acts vii. 2 ; Ilarrjp TWV (fx^rwv, Jas.
i. 17; 6 Harrip rwv olKTipuwv, 2 Cor. i. 3 ; and ^epov/Blfi Sof?;?,
Heb. ix. 5. Jof?;? is the genitive of characterizing quality.
Winer, 30, 2. The notion of Theodoret is, that Sofa signifies
the Divine nature of Christ, and many of the Fathers held a
similar view. Athanasius remarks on this passage, that the
apostle distinguishes the economy /eat &o%av yuez&gt; TOP p,ovo&lt;yevfi
Ka\el, referring to the phrase in John i. 14," the glory of the
only-begotten of the Father " an idea also repeated by Alford.
Theophylact quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as giving the same
view teal 6ov /cal Tlarepa ; XpLcrrov [i,ev rjyovv TOV avOpw-
TTLVOV, eov TT}? Be Sof?;?, ijyovv T/}? OeorrjTOs, Ilcnepa. Cyril
also (De Adoratione, lib. xi.), Jerome, and Bengel adopt the
same hypothesis. Suicer, Thesaurus, i. 944, 5. These views
are strained and moulded by polemical feelings, and the use
of Sofa in reference to Jesus in other parts of the New
Testament will not warrant such a meaning here. While
this special and personal application is without ground on the
one hand, it is a vague and pointless exegesis on the other,
which resolves the phrase into Tlarr^p eVSofo?. De Wette

1 See also Schleiermacher, der Christl Glaube, 170-190 ; Twesten, Varies-
ungen iiber die Dogmatlk, 41 ; Hase, Hutteru* Redivivus, 72 ; Treffry, On
the Eternal Sonship of Christ, London, 1839. It is a pity that so many non-
biblical terms have been found necessary in the treatment of this awful subject,
but sad and fatal errors seem to have made the coinage of them indispensable.
One is disposed to say of them with Calvin " Utinam quidem sepulta essent,
constaret modo hsec inter omnes fides, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum esse unum
Deutn : nee tamen aut Filium esse Patrem, aut Spiritum Filium, sed proprietate
quadam esse distiiictos. " Inslitutio Christ. Reliyionis, vol. i. p. 89, ed. Berolini,
1834.

EPHESIAN.3 I. 17. gj

renders The Father with whom glory is ever present ; refer
ring to the last clause of ver. 18 the glory of the inherit-
ance. Others find in trartjp the sense of origination source
of glory aurtor, funs. So Erasmus, Fesselius, 1 a-Lapide,
Grotius, and Olshausen, though with varying applications of
the general exegesis. This explanation is at least admissible.
Did we, with some, regard Sofa as the immanent or essential
glory of God, it would be impossible. Such glory is coeval
with the l)ivine nature, the Essence and Effulgence are
coeternal. i )r did we, with others, regard Sofa as moaning
glorious gifts conferred upon us, then such a notion would not
be in harmony with the context. That Uar/jp may signify
originator is plain, though Harless expressly denies it. What
is TIarrjp rwv Trvevfjuirajv but their Creator ? (Heb. xii. 0" ; or
IlaTrjp rwv fyarrwv (Jas. i. 17) but their Producer ? or Flarrjp
TMV oiKTippwv (2 Cor. i. 3) but their Originator? Harless
refers the Sofa very much to the epithets of the following
verses, while Stier and Alford virtually maintain an allusion
to the God-man, in whom God s glory is revealed, by whom
it dwells in humanity, and in whom all His people are glorified.
On the other hand, and more in harmony with the course of
thought, Sofa appears to us to be that glory so often already
referred to, and throwing its radiance over this paragraph. Men
are elected, predestinated, sanctified, and adopted V ciratvov
So fr;? ; enlightened, enfeofled in an inheritance according to
eternal purpose ei? (braivov Sof?/? avrov ; and they hear,
believe, are sealed, and enjoy the earnest of the Spirit iV
etraivov T/}? Sof?;? avrov. The three preceding paragraphs
are thus each wound up with a declaration of the final result
and purpose the glory of God. And now, when the apo&gt;tlo
refers to God, what more natural than to ascriln* to Him that
glory which is His own chief end, and His own prime harvest
in man s redemption ? Here stand, as repeated and leading
ideas, ver. G, Sof^? ver. 12, Sofr;? -ver. 14, Sof &gt;v ; so that
in ver. 17 He is saluted with the title, Uarijp T;S- Sofi/s-. Tin
glory is not His essential glory as Jehovah, but the glry which
He has gathered for Himself as the: God of our Ird
Christ. The clause is in close union with the pre&lt;-
This Saviour-God, the God of our Ird Jesus Chrbt, ia in thU

1 Adrtrtar ut Sncra, i. 3. 0.
V

82 EPHESIANS I. 17.

very character the possessor and thus the exhibiter of glory.
It is then wholly vrpo? TO irpoKei^vov, as (Ecumenius says,
that such a title as this is given to God, that is, because of
the contextual allusions, but not simply because the gifts
prayed for are manifestations of this glory, as Olshausen
supposes ; nor merely, as Cocceius and Meyer argue, because
He will do that in answer to prayer which serves to promote
His own glory.

The gift prayed for is that He would give " you " vfjuv
irvev/jLa aortas /cal aTroKa\v-^rew^ iv eirvyvobcrei, avrov " the
Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him."
Though TTvevfjia wants the article, there is no reason, with
Middleton, Chandler, Crellius, and Locke, to deny its reference
to the Holy Spirit, and to make it signify " a wise disposition,"
for the word came to be regarded very much as a proper name. 1
Thus, Matt. xii. 28, eV irvevfjuiTi eov "by the Spirit of
God ; " Rom. i. 4, Kara Trvevpa dyiuxrvvrjs ; 1 Pet. i. 2, ev
ayiao-fia) irvev paras , and in Mark i. 8; Luke i. 15, 35, 41,
67. The reference in these cases is plainly to the Holy Spirit,
in some peculiar phases and manifestations of His divine
influence. The canon of Middleton is not borne out by
usage. On Greek Art., pp. 125, 126. The genitives are not
wholly those of possession, but perhaps also of character.
Horn. viii. 2, 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; 2 Tim. i. 7. The Ephesians
had possessed the Spirit as an earnest and seal, and now the
apostle implores His influence in other modes of it to descend
upon them. This " revelation " is His mode of operation, and
the enlightened eye is the fruit of His presence. Indeed,
Chrysostom and Theodoret use crocfrta irvevfjiariicr] spiritual
wisdom in explanation of irvevpa o-o^ta?, but Chrysostom
distinctly acknowledges the influence of the Spirit. Theo-
phylact plainly specifies the gift of the Divine Spirit, " That
He may supply you with spiritual gifts, so that by the Spirit
you may be enlightened u&gt;are Sia rov TTVCV/JUITO^ &lt;/&gt;&mo-#;}i/at."
The Reformers supposed that the Spirit of grace and revela
tion is taken for the grace itself, as Calvin explains spiritus
sapientice et revdationis pro ipsa gratia capitur. We prefer a
clear and formal reference to the Holy Spirit the gift of God

1 Compare Gersdorf, Beitrafje zur Sprach- Character istik der Schrifteldler de*
Tost., Kap. iv.

EI IIESIAXS I. 17. 83

through Christ. So&lt;f&gt;ia and uTroKu\vtyi&lt;t are intimately joined,
but not, as Meyer thinks, by the union of a general and social
idea. Nor can we, with Olshausen, refer the words to the
ancient charismata, and make a.7roicd\v\fri&lt;: mean the ca juicily
for receiving revelation, or for being a prophet. These super
natural endowments cannot be alluded to, localise the ajmstle
prays for the bestowment of wisdom and revelation to enable
the Ephesians to know those blessings in the knowledge of
which every Christian is interested, and which all Christians
through all time receive in a greater or less degree from the
Holy Ghost.

The Ephesians had already enjoyed spiritual blessings, and
they had been sealed by the Holy Spirit. Xow the ajMistle
prays that they may enjoy Him as a Spirit of wisdom and
revelation. 5*o&lt;/&gt;i a is wisdom, higher intelligence, rising at
length into the " riches of the full assurance of understanding."
It is connected with a7ro*u\i/*Ja?, for the Spirit of wisdom is
the Spirit of revelation, and by such revelation that wisdom
is imparted. The oracles of the Xew Testament had not
then been collected, and therefore truth in its higher osjHvts
might be imparted or extraordinarily revealed by the Holy
Ghost. Such generally is the view also of Harless, aofyia,
however, being, according to him, the subjective condition,
and aTro/caXir^t? the objective medium. The clause is no
hendiadys. It resembles Horn. i. 5, "This grace and ajM.stle-
ship," that is, grace, and the form in which the grare was
given that of the apostolate ; Horn. xi. 1M, "The gifts ami
calling of God," that is, the gifts and the medium of their
conferment the Divine calling. Here we have the gift of
wisdom along with the mode of its bestowment revelation.
We cannot say, with Ellicott, that aofyia is the general ami
aTTOKaXirty-LS the more special gift, for the last U-rm carries
in it the notion of mode as well as result insight commu
nicated so as to impart wisdom. Nor can we set* how it in
illogical to mention the gift, and then refer to the vehicle of
its bestowment.

And still all spiritual truth is His revelation. The Ilible
is His gift, and it is only when the prayerful stu.lv
Bible is blessed by spiritual influence that v
Solemn invocation of the Holy Spirit must precede, i

84 EPHESIANS I. 17.

presence accompany, all faithful interpretation of the word of
God. As we contemplate the holiness and veracity of its
Author, the grace and truth of all His statements, and the
benevolent purpose of His revelation, the heart will be soft
ened into that pure sensibility which the Holy Ghost delights
in, as of old the strains of music in the schools of the prophets
soothed and prepared the rapt spirit of the seer for the illapse
of his supernatural visitant. Earthly passions and turbulent
emotions must be repressed, for the " dew " descends not
amidst the storm ; the conflicting sensations of a false and
ungodly heart forbid His presence, as the " dove " alights not
amidst the tossings of the earthquake. The serenity resulting
from "that peace which passeth all understanding," not only
draws down the Spirit of God, not only imparts a freer scope
to the intellectual powers, a purer atmosphere to the spiritual
vision, and a new relish to the pursuits of biblical study, but
also refines and strengthens those faculties which unite in
discovering, perceiving, and feeling the truths and beauties of
inspiration.

ev 7riyva)&lt;7i, avrov. The avrov refers to God, and not to
Christ, as Calvin, Beza, Bodius, Calovius, Flatt, and Baum-
garten suppose. Ev does not signify e/? in reference to, or
in order to, as Jerome, Anselm, Luther, a-Lapide, Grotius,
Bengel, and von Gerlach erroneously argue. The spirit of this
exegesis may be seen in the note of Piscator " Ut eum in dies
magis inagisque, cognoscatis" Such an unusual meaning is
unnecessary. The versions, " through " the knowledge of God,
as Eollock renders, or " along with " it, as Hodge makes it, are
foreign to the context. Tyndale cuts the knot by translating
" That he myght geve vnto you the Sprete of wisdom, and
open to you the knowledge of him silfe." Meyer, Harless, and
Matthies suppose that ev marks out the sphere of operation
die Geistige Tkcitiylccits-Sphcire. Connecting the words
especially with airoKa\irfye(D&lt;$, we suppose them, while they
formally denote the sphere, virtually to indicate the material
of the revelation. In the last view they are taken by Homberg,
lUickert, and Stier. If the knowledge of God be the sphere in
which the Spirit of revelation operates, it is that He may deepen
or widen it in our possession of it. In what aspect is the
Spirit prayed for ? It is as a Spirit of wisdom. How is this

El IIESlANS I. 17. $5

wisdom communicated by Him ? Hy revelation. "What is
the central sphere, and the characteristic type, of tliis revela
tion ? It is the knowledge of God, not agnitw, as the
Vulgate has it, ami Beza and Bodius cx]xniml it, but cvgnitiv
not the acknowledgment, but the knowledge of God. The
knowledge of God stands out objectively to us as the first and
best of the sciences ; and when the Spirit iiujMirts it, and gives
the mind a subjective or experimental acquaintance with it,
that mind has genuine wisdom. 1 Eiriyvwais Beoy is the
science, and cru&lt;pui is the result induced by the Spirit of reve
lation. The preposition eVt, in eVi -Tvoxrw, contains probably
the idea of the " additional" as the image of intensive. Such
a preposition sometimes loses its full original force in com
position, but it would be wrong to say with Olshaiisen, that
here such a meaning is wholly obliterated. Tittmann, DC Syno-
nymis, etc., p. 217; Wilke, Appendix, p. 5 GO. E-rriy voter is
is not ascribed to God in the New Testament, neither could
it with propriety. His knowledge admits of no improvement
either in accuracy or extent. Thavorinus defines the term
17 ficrd Trjv 7rpa)Trji/ yvaxriv rov rrpay^aro&lt;; Kara bui-a^iv
Traz/reX?;? /caravoTja-Kt. The simple verb and its compound are
used with beautiful distinction in 1 Cor. xiii. I2,up-Tt 741/0x7*0)
tc nepovs, Tore Be 7riyi&gt;a&gt;&lt;TOfuzi,. That knowledge of God in
which the Spirit of revelation works, and which He thereby
imparts, is a fuller and juster comprehension of the Divine
Being than they had already enjoyed. The subsequent
verses show that this additional knowledge of God concerns
not the works of His creation, which is but the " time vesture "
of the Eternal, but the grace and the pur] Rises of His heart,
His possession and exhibition of love and power, His rich
array of blessings which are kept in reserve for His people,
and that peculiar influence which He exercises over them in
giving them spiritual ami permanent vitality. Harlesa nay*
that eiriyvoHW signifies the knowledge of exj^erience, because

1 Stier quotcft a remark "ftfir naiv" from one of Kmnrkr fmt Srrmoni.
illustrating at once the spirit of the good old man s i*vuliar |&gt;irtUm, a* *rll a*
his opinion uf the godleaa and Christlca teaching bt-ginninu to prrrail in the
colli-Kcn of Germany: "The aj&gt;OHtle doea not aay he wiahfl that a uiiircniity
Hhould be foundi-d in the city of Ej.hoirui, to which houM t* apjwit.trd a bo.t
of profi-Mors by whom the people should lx made wic. O DO : b implurrd tb
Spirit of wiwlom."

86 EPHESIANS I. 18.

stands as its object. This view, however, is defective,
for SvvafjLis is not the only object there is also the " in
heritance," which is future, and therefore so far external to
believers.

Some, however, join the clause with the following verse
" In the knowledge of Him the eyes of your heart
being enlightened." Thus construe Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Zachariae, Olshausen, Lachmann, and Halm. Such a con
struction is warped and unnatural. Olshausen s reason is
connected with his notion that cofyia and airoKd\\rfy-i&lt;s are
charismata or extraordinary gifts, and could not be followed
up and explained by such a phrase as the " knowledge of
God." But the verb &lt;/&gt;&m&&amp;gt; is nowhere accompanied by eV ;
in Rev. xviii. 1 it is followed by e /c. The Syriac renders,
" And would enlighten the eyes of your hearts to know what
is," etc.

(Ver. 18.) HefywricriJLevovs TOI&gt;? o(f)0a\[4ov&lt;; TT)? /capBias
VJMWV " The eyes of your heart having been enlightened ; "
that is, by the gifts or process just described. Kapblas is
now generally preferred to Siavotas, as it has preponderant
authority, such as MSS. A, B, D, E, F, G, etc, with the Syriac,
Coptic, and Vulgate, etc. Thus, too, Clemens Eomanus
ol 6(f)0a\fjLol TT}? Kapclas. Ep. ad Corinth. 36. Various
forms of construction have been proposed. 1. Some under
stand the clause to be the accusative governed by cwrj. The
words are so taken by Zanchius, Matthies, Iliickert, Meier,
Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, Stier, and Turner. This con
struction, however, seems awkward. Bengel remarks that
the presence of the article before 6cf&gt;0a\pov$ is against such a
construction. For the eyes were, not precisely a portion of the
gift, but only the enlightenment of them ; whereas, according to
this construction, if rov? o^OaK^ov^ be governed by cwr), both
the eyes and their illumination would be described as alike
the Divine donation. This, however, is not the apostle s mean
ing. The eyes of the heart needed both a quicker perception
and a purer medium in order to distinguish those glorious
objects which were presented to them. The words, as placed
by the apostle, are different from a prayer for " enlightened
eyes ; " and the clause is not parallel with those of the pre
ceding verse, but describes the result. 2. Tle^wncr^vov^ may

EPHESIAN8 I. 11 87

be supposed to agree by anticipation with the following ipa*
" that you, enlightened as to the eyes of your heart," 3.
Ellieott takes it as a lax construction of the participle ircfaaTHT-
Htvov? referring to iyui&gt;, with row o^aX/iou? as the accusative of
limiting reference. But in a broken construction the participle
usually reverts to the nominative. See Buttiiiann, Gram, der
Hottest. Sprach. 145, 4. 6. 7. The clause may IHJ a species
of accusative absolute " the eyes of your heart having U-en
enlightened," and it expresses the result of the gift of the
" Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him."
Such is the view of Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Kiittner, and Kopj&gt;e.
Ktihner, 682; Bernhardy, p. 133. But we cannot adopt
the hint of Heinsius, that the participle has elvai understood,
and that the formula is then equivalent to &lt;f&gt;a)ri^ff0ai. Exercit.
Sac. p. 459. The "heart" belongs to the " inner man/ is the
organ of perception as well as of emotion ; the centre of
spiritual as it is physically of animal life. Delitzsch, System
der Bill. Psychol. 12 ; Beck, Umriss der Bib. XxlcnUhre, 26.
The verb &lt;f&gt;a)Tia), used in such a relation, has a deep ethical
meaning. Light and life seem to be associate! in it as, on
the other liand, darkness and death are in Hebrew modes of
conception. Thus Ps. xiii. 3, xxxvi. 9; John i. 4, viii. 12.
The light that falls upon the eyes of the heart is the light of
spiritual life there being appreciation as well as perception,
experience along with apprehension. Suicer, sub rorr &lt;/&gt;OK.
Matt. xiii. 15; Mark vi. 52; John xii. 40. 1 The figure is
common too among classical writers. If the spirit of wisdom
and revelation in the knowledge of God Ix? conferred, then the
scales fall from the moral vision, and the cloudy haze that
hovers around it melts away. It is as if a man were tnkeii
during night to a lofty eminence shrouded in vajnuir and dark
ness, but morning breaks, the sun rises, the mist disparts,
rolls into curling wreaths and disappears, and the bright
landscape unfolds itself. Such is the result, and the design,
is that they may obtain a view of three special truths. And
first-

e/s- TO ctitvai iyia&lt;?, Ti? &lt;rrtv 1} (\iris T;";? *Xr;&lt;rroK airrov
"that ye may know what is the hope of His culling

i Olslmuscn s virtual denial of any refewnr* in the (.bra* t th |--rrr|.li
faculty, u contrary to the pawa^ S .quoted. Sw alo

88 EPHESIANS I. 18.

infinitive of aim with ei? and the article, Winer, 44, 6 ; and
the genitive being that of origin or possession the hope asso
ciated with or the hope springing out of His calling. KXrjo-t?
is a favourite Pauline word. It describes Christian privilege
in its inner power and source, for the " calling" is that Divine
summons or invitation to men which ensures compliance with
itself. The term seems to have originated in the historical
fact of Abraham s call, and the fact gives name and illustra
tion to the spiritual doctrine. It is His calling man s
calling is often slighted, but God s is " effectual calling." The
K\f]a-i&lt;i is the incipient realization of the K\OJJJ. Calovius
and Goodwin take eXirt? wrongly as the ground of hope.
Zanchius, Calovius, Flatt, Meyer, Harless, and Baumgarten-
Crusius maintain it to be the subjective hope which His call
ing creates, but the reference seems rather to be to the object
of that hope the inheritance of the following clause. \7rt9
is TO eKin^ofLevov res spcrata, in the opinion of Meier,
Olshausen, and Stier ; but of course the knowledge of the thing-
hoped for sustains the emotion of hope, so that the two ideas
are closely allied. The apostle seems to refer rather to what
the hope embraces, than either to its basis or to its character.
Col. i. 5 ; Tit. ii. 13. It needs no special grace to know the
emotion of hope within us ; it can be gauged in its depth,
and analyzed in its character ; but it does need special en
lightenment to comprehend in their reality and glory what
are the objects hoped for in connection with God s calling.
We give -n? its ordinary meaning, " what " not making it
mean qualis vel cujusnam naturce, with Harless ; nor quanta,
TroraTTrj, with Baumgarten-Crusius and Stier. That it may
occasionally bear such a sense we deny not ; but the simple
signification is enough in the clause before us, though indeed
it involves the others. What, then, is the hope of His call
ing? Abraham s calling had hope, and not immediate
possession attached to it, for not he, but his seed, were to in
herit in future years. Salvation is partially enjoyed by " the
called" on earth, but much of it is in reserve for them in
heaven. Therefore all that lies over for us creates hope, and
this rich reversion is here connected, not with our election
the reality of which prior to our calling we knew not but
with the calling itself, and the conscious response of the heart

CriIESIAXS I. 18. gij

to the influence of the truth and the Spirit The apostle also
specifies a second design

fcal T/9 o TrXouTO? Tf}? Sofr;? TT}&lt;? K\rjpoi&gt;ofu a&lt;; avrov (v TOK
ayiois " and what the wealth of the glory of His inheritance
among the saints." The icai is omitted by some MSS., such
as A, B, D f , K, G, and by Lachmanu ; but it is found in
I) 8 , E, K, L, and is rightly retained by Tischendorf.
The repetition of icai in the next verse might have led to it-s
omission. 7Y&lt;? is repeated to bring out the emphatic thought.
" The riches of the glory of His inheritance " is a phrase to
be resolved neither, with some, into the rich glory of the
inheritance, nor the riches of the glorious inheritance. Tin-
words represent, as they stand, distinct but connected idea. *.
It was the riches of His grace in ver. 7 the norm according
to which blessing is enjoyed now ; here it is the riches of
glory to be enjoyed in the future, the genitives being those of
possession. K\rjpovopia has been already explained under
ver. 11, in connection with the verb ic\rjpa)6rj^v.

The phrase eV rot? dyi ou; is attended with some difficulty.
1. Winer and others insert the verb eVrt, and suppose, it to
signify " which is in the possession of the saints." The
strain of the context forbids the exegesis it is future, and
not present blessing, which the apostle refers to. 2. It is
taken by Hoiuberg and Calovius in the neuter gender as a
local epithet "in the holy places." Such an idea is not
found in the epistles, and is not of Pauline usage. 3. Others
assume the meaning of " for," " prepared for the saints,"
such as Vatablus, Bulliuger, and Baumgarten ; but this gives
an unwarranted meaning to the preposition tv. 4. Slier
understands the words with special reference to his own
interpretation of ver. 11, which he renders "in whom \N*
have become God s inheritance " so that God s inheritance
is the saints ; and as they form it, it j&gt;ossesses a peculiar
glory. But the inheritance, as we understand it, is something
external to the saints something yet to IHJ fully enjoyed by
them, and of which in the interval the Holy Spirit is declarid
to be the earnest 5. The better opinion, then. i, will
Kiickert, Harleas, Winzer, Meier, Olshauaen. Ell
Alford, to take tv in the sense of " among,"- -" among the
saints." Job xlii 15. Of Job s daughter it w said, their

90 F.PHESIANS I. 18.

father gave them K^povop.iav ev rot? a&e\&lt;f)ol&lt;; " among their
brethren." So Acts xx. 32, K\rjpovon,iav ev rot? r)yiacrfjLvois
"inheritance among the sanctified." Also Acts xxvi. 18.
Perhaps the full formula may be seen in Num. xviii. 23,
ev peato viwv ^laparfK K\rjpovopLav. There seems no need to
supply co-riv, as is done by Ellicott after Meyer nor does
the article need to be repeated. "Ayios has been explained
under the first verse, and means here, those possessed of
completed holiness, or as Cameron TOU? rereXeLw/jLevovs.
Myrothecium, p. 248. The inheritance is meant for the
possession of the saints. It is their common property. And
the consecrated ones are not merely, as Baumgarten-Crusius
says, those of the former dispensation who first were called
" holy," though saints alone enjoy the gift. It is " His," and
they are His. The possession of holiness is the prerequisite
for heaven. Such a character is in harmony with the
pursuits, enjoyments, and scenes of the celestial world.
Saints have now the incipient heritage, but not in its full
fruition. It is not here presented to us as a rich blessing of
Christ s present kingdom ; but it is the blessing in prospect.
The two clauses are thus nearly related. The prayer is, that
the Ephesians might first know the reality of the future
blessing; and, secondly, might comprehend its character.
What, then, are the riches of its glory? There is the
" glory " of the inheritance itself, and that glory is not a mere
gilding glitter without value ; for there are also " the
riches " of the glory. There is glory, for the inheritance in
its subjective aspect is the perfection of the " saints." But
there are also "riches of glory," for that perfection is
complete in the sweep and circle of its enjoyments, and is not
restricted to one portion of our nature the mind being filled
with truth, and the heart ruled in all its pulsations by
undivided love. There is "glory," in that the inheritance is
God s, and they who receive it shall hold fellowship with
Him ; but there are in addition " riches of glory," inasmuch
as this fellowship is uninterrupted, the harmony of thought
and emotion never disturbed, and the face of God never
eclipsed, but shedding a new lustre on the image of Himself
reflected in every bosom. There is " glory," in that the
inheritance yields satisfaction, for a perfect spirit in perfect

EPHESIAXS I. 19. 91

communion with God must be a happy spirit ; but there are
likewise "riches of glory," since that blessedness is un
changing, has no pause and no end; all, both in scene and
society, being in unison with it, while it excites the purest
susceptibilities, and occupies the noblest powers of our nature,
giving us eternity for our lifetime and infinitude for our
home.

The third thing which the apostle wished them to know,
was the nature of that power which God had exerted UJMHJ
them in their conversion. The calling of God had glorious
hopes attached to it or rising out of it. The wealthy inherit
ance lay before them, and the apostle wished them to know
how or by what spiritual change they had bern brought
into these peculiar privileges, and how they were to !*
sustained till their ho]&gt;es were realized. Not only had tln-y
been the objects of God s affection, as is told them in the
first paragraph but also, and esj&gt;ecially, of God s ]*&gt;wcr.
Infinite love prompted into operation omnijmtent strength.
And that power is exercised in a certain normal direction,
for it works on believers as it wrought in Christ, and, as the
apostle shows in the second chapter, it does to them what it
did to their great Prototype. The same kind of ]&gt;ow-r
manifested in the resurrection and glorification of Je.sus, M
exhibited in the quickening of sinners from death. The 20th
verse of this chapter is illustrated by the Cth of the following
chapter, and all l&gt;etween is a virtual digression, or suspension
of the principal idea in the analogy. The power which tin-
apostle wishes them to comprehend was the power which
quickened Jesus, and had in like manner quickened them ;
which raised Jesus, and had in the same way raised them ;
which had elevated Jesus to God s right hand in the heavenly
places, and had also raised them with Christ, and nmdo them
sit with Christ in the heavenly places. Such is the general
idea. He says

(Ver. 19.) Kal rt TO vTT(pfid\\oi&gt; ptyeBos rfj&lt;! Ivvii^w^
avTov ei? TjfjMS TOIN TTitrrfvoi Ta^ " And what is the i-xceoi
ing greatness of His power to us- ward who believe"
xiii. 4. The apostle writes TI? ... rt? ... rf repeating
the adjective in his emphatic and distinct enumeration E&lt;V

fc " in the direction of us " is most naturally conne&lt;

92 -EPIIESIANS I. 19.

with Swd/jLews, and not with an understood ea-n power
exercised upon us believers. Winer, 49, c, B. The greatness
of that power is not to be measured; it is "exceeding," for it
stretches beyond the compass of human calculation. It is
the power of giving life to the dead in trespasses and sins
a prerogative alone of Him who is " Life." Compounds with
vtrep are great favourites with the, apostle, and this word is
used by him alone. Speaking of those who are to enjoy the
future glorious inheritance, he calls them absolutely ol 0,7101,
but those on whom rests this power in the meantime are only
ol trier evovres ; and while in recording his prayer he naturally
says "you," he now as naturally includes himself fi/xa?.

The connection of this with the following clause is im
portant Kara rrjv evepyeiav. Some join the words with the
immediately preceding Tria-rGvovras an exegesis followed by
Chrysostom, Meier, Matthies, and Hodge. On the other
hand, the words are joined to ovvduews by CEcumenius, in
one of his explanations, by Calvin, Olshausen, Meyer, Alfon 1 ,
Ellicott, and Stier. The last appears to be preferable. It
is indeed true, that in consequence of God s mighty power
men believe. See under Col. ii. 12. But the adoption of
such a meaning, advocated also by Crellius, Griesbach, 1 and
Jimkheim, would be almost tantamount to making the apostle
say that they might know the greatness of His power on
them who believe in virtue of His power. Some of the older
divines adopted this view as a mode of defence against Armi-
nian or Pelagian views of human ability, and as a proof of the
necessity and the invincibility of Divine grace. But Kara
rarely signifies " in virtue of," and even then the idea of
conformity is implied. Certainly the weak faith of man is
not in conformity with the mighty power of God. Nor can
Kara point out the object of faith in such a construction as
this, and it never occurs with Tno-reuw to denote the cause of
faith. Besides, and especially, it is not to show either the
origin or measure of faith that the apostle writes, but to illus
trate the power of God in them who already believe. Kara,
therefore, signifies "after the model of." It points out how
the power to us-ward operates; Kara after the model of that
power which operated in Christ.

1 Oputcnln, ii. 9 ; Brev u Commtntatio in E^ict. i. 19.

EPHKS1ANS I. 19. 93

It weakens the point of the apostle s argument to take the
clause followed by Kara merely as an amplification, as Chry-
sostom, Calvin, Calixtus, Estius, Grotius, Meier, and Win/er
have done. It is not the apostle s design to illustrate the
mere \nrepfia\\ov the mere vastness of the j&gt;ower, but to
define its nature and mode of operation. Nor can we agree
with Harless, after Ambrosiaster, Bucer, and Zanchius, in
making this clause and those which follow it belong equally
to the e\7n? and K\rjpovofita, and in regarding the paragraph
as a general illustration of the nature of the hope, ami the

wealth and glory of the inheritance. Thus Ambrosiaster:

Exfinplum salutis credent ium d gloria in resurrection* Sulva-
toris consistere profitctur, ut ex ea cognoAcant fuleles quid rr&lt;
promi&um cst. This explanation is too vague, for cVe /yyua
and the allied words are connected with Svvapis natunillv, but
not with the hoj&gt;es or tin- inheritance. The exegesis of
Harless would imply, that the blessings descriled in the
paragraph are future blessings, whereas, as himself virtually
admits, they are blessings already enjoyed by Christians (ii. C).
Ellicott errs in the same way when he says, that the reference
is "primarily to the j&gt;ower of God, which shall licrccftcr
quicken us even as it did Christ." What he calls primary
the context places as secondary, for it is present jower which
is causing itself to be felt on present believers. The order -f
thought is not, the hope then the inheritance and then the
power which shall confer it; but, the hoj&gt;e the inheritance
and the jxnver which sustains and prepares us for its
possession. Meyer s notion is similar to Kllicott s.

Nor does Kara, as in the opinion of Kopj&gt;e and Holzhausen,
signify mere similitude. For if the resurrection of Jesus be
the normal exhibition of Divine j&gt;ower, the implication is, that
other similar exhibitions are pledged to Christ s people. That
power has oj&gt;eratcd, teara after the model of that energy
which God wrought in Christ. (Kcumenius has the right idea
to some extent when he compares the two arts TO avturrfjtxu
T}/Z? ToO -^rir^iKov Oai tirov ical TO avaGTi)vat, TOV ff^fiarticov
TOI&gt; Xpia-rov. The objection of Matthie.s that, had the ajnwtle.
meant to show the corresjxindence between the jMiwer exerted
on us and that on Christ in His resurrection, he would have
said ev vplv, as he has said ev TO&gt; Xpi&lt;T7(y, is witliout fountia-

94 EPHESIANS I. 19.

tion, because the power put forth on Christ was an act long
past and perfect, whereas the power put forth on believers is
of present and continuous operation, and a stream of that
divine influence is ever coming et? ^//a? TOI&gt;? iria-TevovTas.
This use of the article and participle, instead of a simple
adjective, is emphatic in its nature. The participial meaning
is brought into prominence "on us who are believing," on us
in the act or condition of exercising faith. Nor is the
objection of de Wette more consistent. It is illogical, he
affirms, to speak of applying a norm or scale to exceeding
greatness. But the apostle does not use a scale to mete out
and measure the exceeding greatness of God s power, he
merely presents a striking example to enable us to know
something of its mode of operation. The sacred writer
illustrates his meaning by the presentation of a fact, and that
meaning will be best brought out after we have examined the
phraseology. For God puts forth that power

Kara rrjv evepyeiav TOV Kpdrovs TT}? la^yo^ avrov "accord
ing to the working of the force of His might." To suppose
that the apostle used these three terms without distinction,
and for no other purpose than to give intensity of idea by the
mere accumulation of synonyms, would indeed be a slovenly
exegesis. Nor is it better to reduce the phrase to a Hebraism,
connecting TOU /cpdrovs, as Peile proposes, with evepyeiav,
as if it were equivalent to Trjv Kparovaav ; or, on the other
hand, resolving it either into icpdros la^ypov, or la"%v$ /cpa-
repd, as is recommended by Koppe and the lexicographers
Bretschneider, Eobinson, and Wahl. I&lt;r\;v?, connected with
To-^o), another form of e^w, is power in possession, ability,
or latent power, strength which one has, but which he may or
may not put forth. Mark xii. 30; Luke x. 27; 2 Pet. ii.
11. Kpdros, from tcpd?, the head, is that power excited into
action might. Luke i. 51; Acts xix. 20; Heb. ii. 14.
Icr^u?, viewed or evinced in relation to result, is /cpdros.
Hence it is used with the verb iroizlv. The words occur
together, Eph. vi. 10; Isa. xl. 26; Dan. iv. 27; Sophocles,
Phil. 594. Evepyeia, as its composition implies, is power
in actual operation. lo-^ifc, to take a familiar illustration, is
the power lodged in the arm, Kpdros is that arm stretched
out or uplifted with conscious aim, while evepyeia is the same

EI IIKSIANS I. 20. 95

ami at actual work, accomplishing the designed result Calvin
compares them thus : iV^v? radix ; Kpdro&lt;; arbor ; o/&gt;yeu
fructus. The connection of words similarly allied is not
uncommon. Lobeck, J \iralipomena, Diss, viii. 13, p. 534
The language is meant to exalt our ideas of Divine power.
That might exercised upon believers is not only great, but
exceeding great, and therefore the apostle pauses to describe
it slowly and analytically ; first in actual operation cvepyeta ;
then he looks beyond that working and sees the motive power
Kpdros ; and still beneath this he discerns the original
unexhausted might tV^u?. The use of so many terms
arises from a de.sire to survey the power of Hod in all its
phases ; for the spectacle is so magnificent, that the aj&gt;ostle
lingers to admire and contemplate it. Epithet is not heajK-d
on epithet at random, but for a specific object. The mental
emotion of the writer is anxious to embody itself in words,
and, after all its efforts, it laments the poverty of exhausted
language. The apostle now specifies one mode of operation

(Ver. 20.) *H.v tvtjpyTjo-fv tv TOJ Xpuna), tyetpas ainov tic
vftpuv " Which He wrought in Christ, having raised Him
from the dead" in Christ our Head and Representative, cV
denoting the substratum, or ground, or range, ius Winer calls it,
on or in which the action takes effect, 48, a, 3. The use of a
verb with its correlate noun has been noticed already, chap. i.
3, 6. In such cuses there is some intensification of meaning.
Bernhardy, p. 106. The participle is contemporaneous with
the verb. That manifestation of j&gt;ower is now described in its
results, to wit, in the resurrection and glorification of Christ.
He raised Him from the dead. It was the work of the Father
having sent His Son, and having received the atonement
from Him to demonstrate its perfection, and His own accept
ance of it, by calling Jesus from the grave.

In the meantime, we may briefly illustrate this third section
of the apostle s prayer " that ye may know the exceeding
greatness of His power to us- ward who Ixilievc, according U&gt;
the working of the might of His j&gt;ower which He wrought in
Christ, when He raised Him from the dead." Our general
view has been already indicated. The Bjwcinicn and pit-dp;
of that jK)Wer displayed in quickening us, is Christ 1
rection. Now, 1. It is transcendent power \nrip(la\\Qv

96 EPHESIANS I. 20.

fjL^/e6o^. The body of Jesus was not only lifeless, but its
organization had been partially destroyed. The spear had
pierced the pericardium, and blood and water blood fast
resolving itself into serum and crassamentum, issued imme
diately from the gash. To restore the organization and to
give life, not as the result of convalescence, but immediate
and perfect life, was a sublime act of omnipotence. To vivify
a dead heart is not less wonderful, and the life originally
given is the life restored. But created effort is unequal to the
enterprise. The vision of Ezekiel is on this point full of
meaning. The valley lay before the mind s eye of the prophet,
full of bones, dry and bleached, not only without muscle and
integument, but the very form of the skeleton had disappeared.
Its vertebne and limbs had been separated, and the mass
was lying in confusion. The seer uttered the oracle of life,
and at once there was a shaking the various pieces and
organs came together " bone to his bone." The osseous
framework was restored in its integrity, nay, sinew and flesh
came upon it, and " the skin covered them above." But there
was no breath in them. The organization was complete, but
the vital power the direct gift of God was absent. The
prophet invoked the " breath of Jehovah." It descended and
enveloped the host, and at the first throb of their heart they
started to their feet, " an exceeding great army." The restora
tion of spiritual life to the dead soul results immediately
from the working of the might of His power. Conviction,
impression, penitence, and reformation, may be to some extent
produced by human prophesying; but life comes as God s
own gift a Divine operation of the power of His might,
analogous to the act of our Lord s resurrection.

2. It is power already experienced by believers power
et? " to us-ward." They had felt it in prior time. It is not
some mighty influence to be enjoyed by them in some future
scene of being, or, as Chandler and others suppose, at the
resurrection. " You did He quicken" raise up, and enthrone
with Christ.

3. It is resurrectionary power power displayed in restor
ing life, for it has its glorious prototype in the resurrection
of Jesus. Divine power restored physical life to Jesus, and
that same power restored spiritual life to those who "were dead

EPHKSIASS I. 20. 07

in trespasses and sins." The context shows plainly that thU
is the meaning of the reference, for the subject is resumed at
ver. 5 of the succeeding chapter. There was spiritual life
once in man in his great progenitor ; but it left him and
lie died ; and the great purpose of the gospel is to uiiiu-
him to God, and to give back to him, through union with
" Christ our life," this life which lie originally enjoyed. See
chap. ii. 5, 6.

4. The resurrection of Jesus is in this respect not merely a
specimen or illustration it is also a pledge. Some regard it
as a mere comparison. Morns defines Kara merely simili
modo. Koppe says the power in us is non minor " not less"
than that in Christ; and (irotius looks upon it as a proof of
God s ability quod factum apparct, id itcruvi fieri potfst.
Chrysostom, on the first verse of the next chapter, says or*
ToO ve/cpovs dvurrav TO "fyvyiiv vcveKpw^mjv laaaaOai TroXXoi
fiel^ov &lt;TTI " to heal a dead soul is a far greater thing than to
raise the dead." But when God raised His Son the repre
sentative of redeemed humanity the deed itself was not only
an illustration of the mode, but also a pledge of the fart, that
all His constituents should be quickened, and should have
this higher life restored to them. For the man Jesus died,
that men who were dead might live, and the revivification of
His dead body was at once a proof that the enterprise had
been accomplished, and a pledge that all united to Him
should live in spirit, and live at length like Himself in nn
entire and glorified humanity. The nobler life of soul, and
the reunion of that quickened spirit with a spiritualized body,
are covenanted blessings. Olshausen makes the general resur
rection of believers from the dead the prinicipal reference of
the passage. But this, as we have seen, is a mistaken view.
Still, as this new life cannot be fully matured in the present
body, for its powers are cramped and its enjoyments curtailed,
so it follows that a frame suited to it will be preened for it,
in which all its faculties and susceptibilities will be. completely
and for ever developed and ixjrfcctcd. Present spiritual life
and future resurrection are therefore both involved H-
raised Him

teal fKu6t(7v ev Sefta ainov V rot? t-JTovpaviois "and Ho
set Him at His own* right hand in the heavenly plu

98 EPHESIAXS I. 20.

Lachmann reads KaOia-as, after A, B, and some other MSS.,
but the common reading is the best sustained, and the other
lias the plausibility of an emendation, like the reading /?/&gt;-
yr)Kv in the previous clause. This recurrence to the aorist
forms, therefore, an anacolouthon or inconsequent construc
tion. These anacoloutha only occur when the mind, in its
fervour and hurry, overlooks the formal nexus of grammatical
arrangement, or when the writer wishes to lay emphasis on
special ideas or turns of thought. Winer, 63, 2, b. The
transition is sometimes marked by Be. In similar cases it
appears as if the writer wished to indicate a change in the train
of illustration, his immediate purpose being served. John v.
44 \a^(3dvovT6(; teal ou f^retre ; 2 John 2 rrjv ^vovaav
KCU. ecrrat. So in the present passage. The sense is com
plete eyetpas avrbv etc ve/cpwv ; the principal, essential, and
prominent idea illustrative of Divine power is brought out.
But, changing the construction as if to indicate this, the
apostle adds, not KOI KaOiaas, but eKaQiaev his mind fondly
carrying out the associated truths. The chief object of the
apostle is to show the nature of that power which God has
exercised upon believers. It is power which operates after
the model of that which He wrought in Christ. Power was
manifested in Christ s resurrection, visibly and impressively,
but not in the same form in His glorification. Might is seen
in the one and honour in the other. In the sixth verse of the
following chapter the principal thought is that of revivification
or spiritual resurrection, though the other idea of glorification
is also annexed ; but it is still a minor idea, for though we are
spiritually brought into a new life as really as Christ was
physically quickened, yet we are not ev rot? 7rovpavioi$, in
the very same sense as Christ personally is, but only as being
in Him members of the body of which He is the ever-living
and glorified Head.

The verb eKadivev has a hiphil signification, and like some
other verbs of pregnant meaning, seems here as if to contain
its object in itself. It is not therefore followed by a formal
accusative. So the corresponding Hebrew verb, yw\rb t wants
the personal pronoun as its accusative in 1 Sam. ii. 8.

cv Sef ta avrov " at His own right hand." Mark xvi. 1 9
Heb. viii. 1, x. 12, xii. 2. The language refers us to Ps. ex.

KPIIESIAXS I. 20. 99

eV rot? crrovpaviots. The phrase has been explained under
ver. 3. Lachmann reads v rot? ovpavois, without any emi
nent authority. We cannot say with Matthies, and Hunniu*
quoted and approved by Harless, that the expression has u
special reference to things and not to places, and denotes the
status cujcutis. For the idea of place does not necessarily
imply loeal and limited conceptions of the Divine essence.
Our Master taught us to pray, " Our Father which art in
heaven." The distressed mind instinctively looks upward to
the throne of God. The phrase T eirovpavta does not signifv
heaven in its special and ordinary sense, but the heavenly
provinces. In the highest province Jesus is at the right
hand of Clod, and in the lowest province of the same region
the church is located, as we have seen under i. 3, and shall
see again under ii. 5, 0.

Jesus was not only raised from the dead, but placed at the
Father s " right hand." Three ideas, at least, are included in
the formula, as explained in Scripture. 1. It is the place of
honour. Jesus is above all created dignities, whatever their
position and rank. Ver. 21.

2. It is the place of power. He sits " on the right hand of
power." Matt. xxvi. G4. "All tilings are under His feet."
He wields a sceptre of universal sovereignty. Ver. 22.

3. It is the place of happiness happiness possessed, and
happiness communicated. " At Thy right hand there are
pleasures for evermore." Ps. xvi. 11. The crowned Jcsu*
possesses all the joy which was once set before Him. But Hi*;
humanity, though glorified, is not deified is not endowed
with any of the essential attributes of divinity. Whatever
the other results of the CVUHJLS na& viruGTaaiv, or the com in n -
nicatio idioinatum, may be, we believe that the inferior nature
of Jesus remains a distinct, perfect, ami unmixed humanity.
The &edv0pa&gt;7ro* is in heaven, was s

whence we look for Him," and the saints are to In- caught up
to meet their Lord in the air. 1 Augustine says wel

1 In tho Formula Cnnrnnli*. ii. .". /&gt; /Vniomi fhritti,
hesitation rhime.! for Christ s humanity- -" I t ri/Mivf flinm ~eun.iu
miam &lt;u*umt im tuituram, et rum nl jir&lt;r*fn* &lt;/* j**H, ft //"n yrn
uhifini /ne r,lit."Dif. *jmltoli*chrn Hitchrr &lt;l r evaHgrli*-*-!*
Kirrltf, ol. Miillcr, StuttRiirt, 1S48. p. 674 ct *,. }lw, Jlutt
| 105. Schmidt, Doymntik dtr Evmg.-Luth. Kirch , p. 243, etc.

100 KI IIKSIAXS I. 21.

Cavendum est, nc ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut
veritatem corporis auferamus.

(Ver. 21.) TTrepdvw Tracr^? apx*js Kal etfovcrias real Bui/a^eo)?
Kal KvpioTijros " .Far above all principality, and power, and
might, and lordship." The clauses to the end of the chapter
explain and illustrate, as we have now hinted, the session at
the right hand of God. These various appellations are used
as the abstract for the concrete, as if for sweeping significance.
The highest position in creation is yet beneath Christ. Some
of the beings that occupy those stations have specific and
appropriate names, but not only above these, but above every
conceivable office and being, Jesus is immeasurably exalted.
There is no exception ; He has no equal and no superior, not
simply among those with whose titles we are so far acquainted,
but in the wide universe there is no name so high as His,
and among all its spheres, there is no renown that matches
His. These principalities stand around and beneath the
throne, but Jesus sits at its right hand. It is a strange whim
of Schoettgen, on the one hand, to refer these names to the
Jewish hierarchy, and of van Til, on the other hand, to
regard them as descriptive of heathen dignities.

To attempt to define these terms would serve little purpose,
and those definitions given by the pseudo-Dionysius, and
others even of the more sober and intelligent Greek fathers,
are but truisms. For example : dp-^ai are defined by Diony-
sins o&gt;? e/ceivrjv rrjv (ip^v dvafyaivovaaL ; Swd/jLeis are pro
nounced by Theodoret a&gt;? TrKripovv ra Ke\evofj,eva
and the KupiorrjTe^ are stated by Phavorinus to be
ayiai \eiTovpyifcal Kvpiov. The first two of these four terms
are used of human magistracy, Tit. iii. 1 ; in this epistle, of
the hostile powers of darkness, vi. 12; of the celestial hier
archy, in iii. 1 ; and they are spoken of as distinct from
angels, in Rom. viii. 38, and 1 Pet. iii. 22. Jesus is described
as at the right hand of the Father eV rot? eirovpavLois, and
perhaps the beings referred to under these four designations
are the loftiest and most dignified in heaven. To restrict the
word solely to angels, with Meyer, or good angels, with
Ellicott, might be too narrow ; and it would be too vague,
with Erasmus, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, and Olshausen, to
refer it to any kind of dignity or honour. These dignities

EIMIESIAXS I. 21. 101

an 1 honours are at least heavenly in their position, an&lt;!
belong, though perhaps not exclusively, to the creatures who,
from their office, are termed angels. To say that He who is
at the right hand is raised above human dignitaries, would !*
pointless and meaningless ; and to affirm that He occupies
a station sujwrior to any on which a fiend may sit in lurid
majesty, would not be a fitting illustration of His exalted
merit and proportionate reward. Yet both are really included.
Human princedoms and hellish potentates must hold a posi
tion beneath the powers and principalities of heaven, above
which the Son of God is so loftily exalted.

What the distinction of the words among themselves is,
and what degrees of celestial heraldry they describe, it is
impossible for us to define. We are obliged to say, with
Chrysostom, that the names are to us aa-ijfjui /cat ov jvtapt^o-
fj.va] and, with Augustine dicant, qiii possunt, si tamfii
pnssunt probarc quod dicunt ; ego me ista ignorarc confitcor.
Hofmann denies that the words indicate any gradations of
angelic rank, but only indicate the man if old ness of which
their relation to Clod and to the world is capable. This may
be true so far, but the relation so held may indicate of itself
the rank of him who holds it. Schriftb. vol. i. p. 347. The
four terms form neither climax nor anticlimax ; the two first
of them here are the two last in Col. L 1 6, and the last tenn
here, KvpiorrjTes, stands second in the twin epistle. The first
and last have special reference to government, princedom, or
lordship, and the intervening two may refer more to preroga
tive and command. And they may be thus connected : Who
ever possesses the ripx 1 ) enjoys and displays %ovata ; and
whoever is invested with the vj a/-u?, wields it in his ap
pointed KvptoTTjs. Speculations on the angelic world, its
number, rank, and gradations, were frequent in the earlier
centuries. Basil and Gregory of Xazianzus set the example,
but the pseudo-Dionysius mustered the whole angelic band
under his review, and arranged them in trinary divisions :

II. Kvpionrres, K^oixri at, A
III. Ap\at, Ap^ayyeAoc, " AyyXoi.
1 Enchir nlion, rap. 58.

102 EPHESIANS I. 21.

The Jewish theology also held that there were different ranks
of angels, and amused itself with many fantastic reveries as
to their power and position. 1 All that we know is, that there
is foundation for the main idea that there is no dull and
sating uniformity among the inhabitants of heaven that
order and freedom are not inconsistent with gradation of rank
that there are glory and a higher glory power and a
nobler power rank and a loftier rank, to be witnessed in the
mighty scale. 2 As there are orbs of dazzling radiance amidst
the paler and humbler stars of the sky, so there are bright
and majestic chieftains among the hosts of God, nearer God
in position, and liker God in majesty, possessing and reflecting
more of the Divine splendour, than their lustrous brethren
around them. But above all Jesus is enthroned the highest
position in the universe is His. The seraph who adores and
burns nearest the eternal throne is only proximus Huic

" Longo sed proximus intervallo."

virepdvo) " over above ; " not reigning over, as Bengel has
it, but simply in a position high above them. The majority
of cases where the word is used in the Septuagint would seem
to show that it may intensify the idea of the simple avw.
We cannot agree with Ellicott s denial of this. It is true
that compounds are numerous in Alexandrian Greek, and
cease from use to have all their force ; yet in the Septuagint
the passages referred to and others, from the spirit of them or
the suggested contrast to the position of the observer, point to
a full sense of the compound term. Deut. xxvi. 19, xxviii. 1 ;
Ezek. i. 25, x. 19, xi. 22.

The second clause expands and rivets the idea of the first,
and corresponds, as Stier well remarks, to the ovre rt? /eriVts
erepa, in Eom. viii. 39. Tor the apostle subjoins

teal Travros oro/zaro? QvoyM^o^kvov " and every name that
is named." Kai introduces a final and comprehensive asser
tion, " and in a word " (Ellicott) et omnino. Fritzsche on
Matt., p. 786. Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Meier, and

1 Hierarchia Ccelestix, cap. vi.

1 Eisenmenger, Entdecktea Judenthum, ii. p. 374 ; Boehmer, Isagoge in Ep.
ad Col. p. 292 ; Petavius, Dogmata Theol. toui. iii. p. 101 ; Tvvesten, Dog-
matik, vol. ii. p. 305.

RPHESIAXS I. 21. 103

Bloom field, take ovofia here as a name or title of honour,
referring to Phil. ii. 9 ; John xii. 28 ; Acts iv. 12 ; 2 Tim. \\.
19 ; and to the verb in Rom. xv. 20. To this we see no great
objection, especially in such a context, lint as the following
participle has its usual meaning, ovo^a may be taken in its
common signification an exegesis certainly preferable to that
of Morus, Harless, and Kiiekert, who qualify it by its position,
and make it denote every name of such a kind as those just
rehearsed. To show the height of Christ s exaltation, the
apostle affirms that He sits above all

" Thrones, dominations, princedoms, kingdoms, powers ; "

but to enlarge the sweep of his statement he now adds and
also above every name of being or of rank that the universe
contains. Bodius, Meyer, and de Wette say irav oi/o/xa is
simply for TTO.V ; Beza renders quicquid existit. (Ecumenius
makes it equivalent to TTUV pijrov teal ovop.a jTov which is
preferable.

ov IJLOVOV V T(Z alawi TOVTM, u\\a Kal ev rro /xe XXoim
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."
This clause does not belong to the preceding efcddia-ev, as
Calvin, Beza, Bodius, Koppe, Holzhausen, Kiittner, and
Burton suppose ; for they regard it as expressing the j&gt;erma-
nency of Christ s dominion. The intervening sentences show
that this exegesis is unfounded, and that the words must IH
construed with m&gt;ofia^o^.evov " every name named, not only
in this world, but also in that which is to come." What, then,
is meant by altav OUTO? and ala)v peXXaiv 1 The phrase cannot
have its Jewish acceptation the period before Messiah ami
:he period of Messiah, as Cocceius and others hold The.
.lain meaning is the present life and the life to come, 1 with
the attached idea of the region where each life is respectively
spent earth and heaven, but without any marked ethical
vft-rcnce. "The future," as Olshausen remarks, "is in tin-
hrase opposed to the present." Over all the beings wo ran
name now, or shall ever l&gt;e able to name, Jesus is exalted -
v. T all that God has brought, or will bring, into exi*Un&lt;v.
Whether, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Bengcl fluppom*
Tom this verse, we shall have our knowledge of the ccle
1 Vid Koppe, Excurnu I. ; Witsiua, MiKttlanta Sufra, roL L 618.

104 EPHESIANS I. 22.

powers extended, is a question which it does not directly
solve. Lest, however, there should be any imagined excep
tion to Christ s supremacy, or any possible limitation of it
any power or principality anywhere left uncompared or out
of view, the apostle says, Jesus is exalted not only above
such of them as men now and on earth are in the habit of
familiarly naming, but also above every name of existence or
rank in every sphere and section of the universe. Nikil est, says
Calvin, tarn sublime aut excellens quocunque nomine censeatur,
quod non subjectum sit Christi majcstati. There seems to be no
immediate polemical reference in this extraordinary paragraph.
Not only is there exaltation, but there is also authority

(Ver. 22.) Kal iravra VTreragev VTTO rovs TroSa? avrov
" And put all things under His feet." The allusion is clearly
to the language of the 8th Psalm. In the 110th Psalm the
enemies of Messiah are specially referred to, and their sub
jugation is pictured out by their being declared to be His foot
stool. The allusion is not, however, in this clause, to enemies
defeated and humbled, as Grotius, Piosenmuller, Holzhausen,
and Olshausen, to some extent, suppose. The apostle is de
scribing the authority of the Saviour by this peculiar figure.
It is no repetition of the idea in the preceding verse. That
exhibits His honour, but this proclaims His imperial preroga
tive. Heb. ii. 8. The irdv-ra not only contains what has
been specified, but leaves nothing excluded. The brow once
crowned with thorns now wears the diadem of universal sove
reignty ; and that hand, once nailed to the cross, now holds in
it the sceptre of unlimited dominion. He who lay in the
tomb has ascended the throne of unbounded empire. Jesus,
the brother-man, is Lord of all : He has had all things put
under His feet the true apotheosis of humanity. This
quotation from the Psalms Theodoret names rrjv Trpo^rjriKrjv
liapTvpiav, for this old Hebrew ode plainly refers to man s
original dignity and supremacy to the race viewed in
unfallen Adam (Gen. i. 26-28) ; but it also, as interpreted in
Heb. ii. 6, 7, as plainly refers to the Second Adam, or to
humanity restored and elevated in Him in Christ as its
Representative and Crown.

/ecu avrov e&o)K K(j)aX.r)v virep iravra rfj KK\i)&lt;Tia " and
gave Him to be Head over all things to the church." There

EI Iir.3lAS8 I. 22. 105

s no reason for changing the ordinary meaning of ea&gt;*e, nnd
rendering it " appointed " 0rjK as is suggested by Calvin,
Iteza, Hurless, Meier, and Olshausen. In chap. iv. 11 wo
lave the same verb. His occupancy of this exalted position
s a Divine benefaction to the church ; His apj&gt;ointment is the
result of love, which gives with wise and willing generosity.
N^ay more, and with emphasis /cat CLVTOV e&u/ce "and Him
tie gave." The natural meaning of t8o&gt;*e is thus sustained
&gt;y the prefixing of the pronoun, and it governs the dative,
KtcXrjcria, after it. This repetition of the pronoun intensifies
the idea, and its position in this clause is emphatic " ami
tfim, so exalted and invested, so rich in glory and power
Bven Him and none other, has He given as Head."

The most dillicult phrase is tcefaXrjv irrrtp Tama. The
Vulgate merely evades the difficulty by its translation supra
unntm ccclcsiam. The Syriac rendering is preferable:
Him who is over all hath He given to be Head," transposing
:he order of the words, a rendering followed by Chrysostom
rov ovra vTrep Trdvra Xpiarov ; and the same idea is adopted
by Erasmus, Camerarius, Estius, and a-Lapide. The position
)f the words shows that \nrep Trdvra qualifies KffaXijv. l&gt;ut
n what sense ? Not

1. Jn the vague sense of "special." E-rrl Tract in "pre
ference to all," as it is explained by Uodius and Baumgarten.
Bodius thus paraphrases Super omnia, ncmpt ca-tcra supcrius
iiuincrata, hoc cst, prcc aliis umnibus crcaturix. Nor

2. In the general sense of " Supreme Head," as is ad
vocated by lieza, liiickert, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Olshausen, Conybeare, liisping, and de Wette. This exegesis
Ljives vTrep the sense of " above," as the highest head is th
Head above all other heads. Koppe resolves it by v7rp&lt;x ol ffa

inwv "overtopping all;" but no comparison of this natun*
seems to be in the apostle s mind. Olshausen says, tlio
apostles and prophets were also in a certain sense la-ads of
the church, while Christ was ice(f&gt;a\rj (nrip Trdwa. J ut the

vTa has no such implied contrast in itself, and it naturally
turns our attention to the previous verses, where the princi
palities and powers are not only pronounced to be inferior to
Christ, but are affirmed to be under His special jurisdiction.

o. The words may mean " He gave Him as Head

EPIIESIANS I. 22.

all things to the church," or " He gave Him wlio is Head over
all things to be Head to the church." The former of these j
renderings is expressed by Harless, Alford, and Ellicott in
his second edition, the latter by Stier and Meyer. The dif
ference is not very material. Meyer supposes that by a
figure of speech called Brachyology, a second K$a\r} is
understood. Matthiae, 634; Kiihncr, 852; Jelf, 893.
But there is no need of this shift and the first exegesis
is preferable (Madvig, 24, a) ; the noun being a species of
what Donaldson calls "tertiary predicates" 489. New
Cratylus, 302. Christ is already declared by the apostle to
be above all in position and power, virep irav-ra ; but besides,
He is by the Father s gift Ke&lt;f&gt;a\rj to the church. The Trdvra
are not connected with Him as their Ke^&gt;a\Tj } their relation to
Him being merely denoted by virep ; but the church claims
Him as its Head, yea, claims as its Head Him who is over
all. Were the virep to be taken in the active sense of super
intendence, the genitive would be employed, as Harless
intimates ; but it denotes here, above or beyond all in honour
and prerogative, for virep in the Xew Testament with the
accusative, has always this tropical meaning. Matt. x. 24 ;
Luke xvi. 8; Acts xxvi. 13; Phil. ii. 9; Philem. 16. The
signification, therefore, is This glorious Being, above all
angelic essences, and having the universe at His feet, is, by
Divine generosity, Head to the church, for the Travra refers
not to members of the church, as Jerome and Wahl argue and
as Harless favours, but to things beyond the church, being
equivalent to irdvra in the preceding clauses ; nor is the word
to be restricted to good angels, as Theophylact and (Ecumenius
seem to suppose.

The noun eKK\rja-ia is the name of the holy and believing
community under the New Testament. Its meaning is obvious
the one company ^n|5, who have been called or summoned
together to salvation. The church here spoken of is specially
the church on earth, which stands in need of protection, though
the church in heaven be equally related to Jesus, and equally
enjoy the blessings of His Headship. Jerome, Nosselt, Koppe,
and Eosenmuller extend it to all good beings an extension
not warranted by the name or the context. The dative is not,
as de Wette takes it, a dativus commodi, nor is it connected

EPHESIAXS I. 23. 107

with the Ke$a\r)v immediately preceding as its complement,
but it belongs naturally to the verb e&cofcev. The relation of
Christ to the church is not that of austere government, or lofty
and distant patronage. He is not to it merely inrtp Tni^a
a glorious being to contemplate and worship, but He is its
Head, in a near, tender, necessary, and indissoluble relation.
And that Head is at the same time " Head over all." His
intelligence, His love, and His power, therefore, secure to Un
church that the Trdvra will " work together for good." Under
His " over all " Headship, everything that happens benefits
His people discoveries in science, inventions in art, and
revolutions in government all that is prosperous and all that
is adverse. The history of the church is a proof extending
through eighteen centuries; a proof so often tested, and by
such opposite processes, as to gather irresistible strength with
its age; a proof varied, ramified, prolonged, and unique, that
the exalted Jesus is Head over all things to the church.
And the idea contained in this appellation is carried out to its
correlative complement in the following verse, and in the.se
remarkable words

(Ver. 23.)"HTt&lt;? eVrtr TO aw^a aurov "which indeed is
His body." "Hrt? welcheja, as it is rendered by de Wette.
Kulmer, 781, 4, 5. Of this meaning of o&lt;r-n? there are many
examples in the New Testament, though it has also other
significations. "Head over all things to the church, which in
truth is His body." The mode of expression is not uncommon.
Chap. ii. 1C, iv. 4, 12, 1C, v. 2: ? ., 30 ; 1 Cor. xii. 15 ; Col. i.
18, 24, ii. 19, iii. 15, etc. Head and body are correlative,
and are organically connected. The body is no dull lump &lt;&gt;f
clay, no loose coherence of hostile particles ; but bone, nerve,
and vessel give it distinctive form, proportion, and adaptation.
The church is not a fortuitous collection of believers, but a
society, shaped, prepared, and life-endowed, to correspond to
its Head. The Head is one, and though the corporeal members
are many, yet all is marked out and " curiously wrought "
with symmetry and grace to serve the one design ; there
being organization, and not merely juxtaposition. 1 he-re is
first a connection of life : if the head be dissevered, the 1
dies. The life of the church springs from its union t&lt;
by the Spirit, and if any member or community be separated

108 EPIIESIANS I. 23.

from Christ, it dies. There is also a connection of mind : the
purposes of the head are wrought out by the corporeal organs
the tongue that speaks, or the foot that moves. The church
should have no purpose but Christ s glory, and no work but the
performance of His commands. There is at the same time a
connection of power: the organs have no faculty of self-motion,
but move as they are directed by the governing principle
within. The corpse lies stiff and motionless. Energy to do
good, to move forward in spiritual contest and victory, and to
exhibit aggressive influence against evil, is all derived from
union with Christ. There is, in fine, a connection of sympathy.
The pain or disorder of the smallest nerve or fibre vibrates
to the Head, and there it is felt. Jesus has not only cogniz
ance of us, but He has a fellow-feeling with us in all our
infirmities and trials. And the members of the body are at
the same time reciprocally connected, and placed in living
affinity, so that mutual sympathy, unity of action, co-opera
tion, and support are anticipated and provided for. No
organ is superfluous, and none can defy or challenge its fellow.
Similar fulness and adjustment reign in the church. See under
iv. 15, 16. Not only is the church His body, but also

TO 7r\ijpa)/jLa rov ra iravra ev Traai &gt; jr\rjpovfjLei&gt;ov " the
fulness of Him that filleth all in all."

1. The term irX^pwfia is in apposition to orw/wi, and is not
governed by e&oorce, as is the strange view of Homberg, Cas-
talio, arid Erasmus, who says TO ir\rjpw^a vidctur accusandi
casu Icgendum, ut rcfcratur ad Christum. Meier holds a
similar view, making the words r/Tt? e &lt;rrt TO crw/xa avrou a
parenthesis, and supposing that TrXrjpw/jia stands in apposition
to avrcv. This arrangement not only does violence to the
natural and obvious syntax, but, as Olshausen well observes,
God cannot make Christ to be the TrX^pw^a, for Christ pos
sesses the fulness of the Godhead, not through an act of the
Father s will, but by the necessity of His nature. Beugel
regards 7r\i]pa)fia as neither referring to the church, nor as
governed by e&wtce. It stands, in his opinion, as a species of
accusative absolute, like paprvpiov in 1 Tim. ii. 6, and forms
an epiphonema a quod erat demonstrandum. The violence
resorted to in such an exegesis is not less objectionable than
that seen in the opposite opinion of Storr, who imagines that

BPIIKSIANS I. 28. 109

it signifies that " which is in God abundantly," and that it is
employed as a species of nominative in apposition to o &eo*

TrXoMTIO?, li. 4.

2. Many understand the noun in the general sense of mul
titude copia, ccctus nioncrosus, making TrXr/ pto/za equivalent to
7rX}0o9. Such is the view which Storr calls probable, and it is
that of Wetstein, Koppe, Kiittner, Walil, and even Fritzsche. 1
Hesychius and Phavorinus define TrXrJpw/za by 7rXf;#o?, and
Schoettgen renders, Multitude cut Christus prcrcst. This notion
is plainly unwarranted by the philology of the term. TI\rj6o^
has always a reference to abundance, but such an idea is oidv
secondary in iT\i]pwp.a fulness being merely a relative term,
in application either to a basket (Mark viii. 20), or to the
globe (Ps. xxiv. 1), and its quantity is determined by the
subject. "What meaning in such a case would be borne hv
the homogeneous TrXrjpovpevov 1 Besides, the idea of unity in

would ill correspond with that of multiplicity given to
Cameron and PXJS render 7r\ijpa)fia "the full body,"
plcnitudo ilia qucc cst in corpore a meaning which the simple
word cannot bear, and which is borrowed from iv. 1C, where
other terms are joined with the substantives.

3. Some refer the use of the term to the familiar employ
ment of the "U 3w* 2 the divine glory, or visible manifestation
of God, which some, such as Harless, identify with ir\ijpu&gt;^ia.
But the church cannot stand in such a relation to God the
Sheehinah is the highest personal manifestation of His own
infinite fulness, the glory of which is reflected by the church,
as shone the face of Moses when even a few straggling rays
of the divine radiance fell upon it.

4. Allied to this last view is the more general one of tlios.
who regard the -rr\r)pw^a in the light of a temple in which
the glory of God resides, and who refer it in this sense to the
church. Michaelis and Bretschneider espouse this notion, tin
latter of whom paraphrases TrXv/Jw/za &lt;juasi tempi urn. in yu&lt;
habitat, quod occupat ct rcf/it, ut anima mr])us. The idea of
Harless, found originally in Hackspann, is very similar.

s he, "the apostle employs the same term to denote the
church, which he uses to represent the richness of that gluiy

1 Comment, in Horn. vol. ii. 4W.

Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. 231M ; Wagcnacil, Sota, p. 83.

110 EPHESIANS I. 23.

which dwells in God and Christ, and emanates from them,
so the church may be called the fulness of Christ, not
because it is the glory which dwells in Him, but because it is
the glory which He makes to dwell in her as in everything
else. It is the glory not of One, who without it suffers want,
but of One who fills all das All in all places The whole
earth is full of His glory/ In fact, the church is the glory
of Christ, because He is united to it alone as the head with
its body." This is also the view of von Gerlach : " the church
is His fulness seine Herrlichkeit, that is, His glory. All
His Divine perfections are manifest in it. It is His visible
appearance upon the earth." This exegesis, however, gives
the word a peculiar conventional meaning, not warranted by
its derivation, but drawn from expressions in Colossians which
have no affinity with the place under review ; and such a sense,
moreover, is so recondite and technical, that we can scarce
suppose the apostle to give it to the word without previous
warning or peculiar hint and allusion. No traces of hostility
to Gnosticism and its technical Kevw/xa and ifk^^w^a are
found in the context, and there is no ground for such a con
jecture on the part of Trollope, Burton, and Conybeare. The
fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ (jw^ariKw^, says the
apostle in a letter which formally opposes a false philosophy.
Col. ii. 9. Here he says, on the other hand, the church is
Christ s body, His fulness. Passing by those forms of inter
pretation which are not supported either by analogy or by the
nature of the context, we proceed to such as have higher
ground of probability.

The grammatical theory in the case of verbal nouns is,
that those ending in ^05 embody the intransitive notion of
the verb, while those in 0-49 have an active, and those in p&gt;a
have a passive sense, or express the result of the transitive
idea contained in the verb. Kiihner, 370. The theory,
however, is often modified by usage. According to it and
in this case it is verified by many examples rr^pw^a will
be equivalent to TO ire7r\r]pwiJievov the thing filled, just as
Trpajfjia is TO TreTrpay/jievov the thing done ; or the word may
be taken in an abstract sense, as K\da-/jui not the thing
broken, but the fragment itself. Thus the meaning may pass
to that by which the effect is produced, and this is virtually

EPHESIAXS I. 23. Hi

the so-called active sense of such nouns ; not, as Alfoni
observes, "an active sense properly at all, but a logical
transference from the effect to that which exemplifies the
effect." In fact, those aspects of active and passive meanings
depend on the view assumed whether one thinks first of the
container, and then of the contained, or the reverse. Thus,
Ps. xxiv. 1 ; 1 Cur. x. 26, 7} 77} KCL\ TO TrXt jpwua avr^ -
" the earth and its fulness." So the noun is used of the in
habitants of a city, as its complement of population ; of the
manning of a ship ; the armed crew in the Trojan horse ; and
the animals in Xoah s ark. 1 In such examples the idea is
scarcely that of complement, but rather the city, ark, and
ship are represented as in a state of fulness. What they
contain is not regarded as filling them up TrXj jpwo-is, but
they are looked upon simply as being already filled up.

The great question has been, whether irXi jpw^a has an
active or a passive sense. Critics are divided. Ilarless 2 ailirms,
with lahr, that the word is used only in an active s&lt;-nse,
while Baumgarten-Ousius 8 as stoutly maintains on the other
side, that the noun occurs with only a passive signification.
The truth seems to lie between the two extremes. The word
sometimes occurs in the so-called active sense, denoting that
which fills up (Matt. ix. 1C), where TrX/jp&j/ia is equivalent to
7ri@\T)(j.a the piece of new cloth designed to fill up the ivnt.
Mark ii. 21. J&gt;ut it is often used in a passive sense to denote
fulness the state of fulness : Mark viii. 20, Tloawv cnrvpicwv
7r\T]po)fiara " the fulnesses of how many baskets "-
many filled baskets of fragments ?" So IJoin. xiii. 10, 7rX;-
pwfjM vofjiov " fulfilment or full obedience of the law." The
idea of amplitude is sometimes involved, as Horn. xv. L".&gt;,
eV TrXrjpajfian evXoytas " in the fulness of the blessing;" and
in Horn. xi. 25, TrXijpcD^a TWV tOvwv " the fulness of tho
Gentiles," where it is opposed to UTTO pepovs, and in the 12th
verse is contrasted with ijrrrjfjia. As applied to time v &lt;i.d.

1 Robinson, Passow, Liddcll and Scott, .&lt;/&gt; rnrt.

" Irh iM-trachtu cs nun mil liahr al.s i-in uiixw.-if.-lhaft.-ii Kesultat d.-r p-fi
, dass os im N. T. nur iui activcn Minnc p?brucht w-r&lt;

p. 122.

C,(.\vi. a)x?r hat ^Xr. nuch in N. T., wi.- in dem jjcsamml

gebrauche dtirchaiis passive Ikdeutung, nur den Schc.n
Iiitniat cs," etc., p. 50.

112 EPHESIANS I. 23.

iv. 4; Eph. i. 10), it signifies that the time prior to the
appointed epoch is regarded as filled up, and therefore full.
See under i. 10.

1. An active signification, however, is preferred by Chrysos-
tom, (Ecumenius, Anibrosiaster, Theophylact, Anselra, Thomas
Aquinas, Calvin, 1 Beza, 2 Bollock, Zanchius, Hammond, Cro-
cius, Zegerus, Calovius, Estius, Bodius, Passavant, Richter,
von Gerlach, Bisping, and Hofmann. The words of Chrysos-
tom are " The head is in a manner filled up by the body,
because the body is composed of all its parts, and needs every
one of them. It is by all indeed that His body is filled up.
Then the head is filled up, then is the body made perfect,
where we all together are knit to one another and united." 3
The notion involved in this exegesis, which is also beautifully
illustrated by Du Bosc in his French sermons on this epistle,
is the following : The church is His body ; without that body
the head feels itself incomplete the body is its complement.
The idea is a striking, but a fallacious one. It is not in
accordance with the prevailing usage of 7r\ripw^a in the New
Testament, and it stretches the figure to an undue extent.
Besides, where nrXr^pw^a has such an active sense, it is
followed by the genitive of what it fills up, as TrX^oyiara
/cXao-^ara)!/. How, then, would it read here the filling up
of Him who fills all in all ? But if He fill all in all already,
what addition can be made to this infinitude ? Or, if the
participle be passive the filling up of Him who is filled as
to all in all ; then, if He be already filled, no other supple
ment is required. We are not warranted to use language as
to the person of Christ, as if either absolute or relative im
perfection marked it. According to this hypothesis also, that

1 " Hie vero," says Calvin, " summus honor cat Ecclesijc, quod se Filius Dei
quodammodo imperfectum reputat, nisi nobis sit conjunctus."

* Beza says : " Complementum sive supplementum. Is enim est Christi amor
ut quum ornnia omnibus ad plenum pra;stet, tamen sese veluti mancum et
mernbris mutilum caput existimet, nisi ecelesiam habeat sibi instar corporis
adjuuctam."

3 \l\r,oti&gt;fj.a. (ptiffi, rtvriffTii, OIOY xi^acXri ir)^ngaura.i fa^a. rov ff&&amp;gt;fj.ttres 3; y ?ravT
fjt-ifui &lt;ro ffu/AO, ffuviffrnxi xetl ioj \x.a.ffnv ?" "Ooet Tu; aura* x.atvrj trci*-uv
XP^wf* llfti yti, *A yj jUrj p,&lt;* weXXaJ xeci o flit U V , 5i vrous, o 5i ocXAa &lt;ri ftiai;,
aii x Xnpeura.i &gt;. ra fufjLot. Atct "jraiTut ot/v -r^-fi^^vTCti TO fuftct (tvrou. Ten "rZ-vgovrai
v( xafiaXn, rori rikuet rvfia y tvirat tr&lt;tt opau -rctirt; up

EPHESIANS I. 23. 113

mystical body will be gradually growing, and will not U
complete until the second coining. Moreover, in other paru
of the Xew Testament, the word, when used in a religious
sense, expresses not any fulness which passes from us to
Christ, but, as we shall see in the next paragraph, that fulness
which passes from Christ to us. We need scarcely allude to
the view of liiickert, that TrX/jpw/xa is the means by which tho
TrXrjpovif is to be realized, or by which Christ fulfils all things
the means of His fulfilling the great destiny which has
devolved upon Him of restoring the world to God. Hut ra
irdina cannot be restricted to the Divine plan of that redemp
tion, which the church is Christ s means of working out,
neither can TrX^w/xa signify means of fulfilment, IMF docs
the verse contain any hint of universal restoration. l.ittcrlv
does Stier say, " We venture to wish in truth and in love,
that such an interpreter might learn to read the writing ere he
interpret it."

"2. The word, we apprehend, is rightly taken in a passive
sense that which is filled up. This is the view of Theo-
doret, 1 Cocceius, Grotius, Heidi, Wolf, Flatt, Cramer, Olshauseu,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Matthies, de Wette, Meyer, Holzhausen,
Stier, Alford, and Ellicott. This exegesis is certainly more
in unison with the formation, and general use of the term
in the Xew Testament, and with the present context. So
7r\) jpd)fj,a is employed, Lucian, Jin-inn ][i$t. ii. . &gt;7, Airo &vo
7T\r)p(t)fj,dTO)v fjL(i%oi&gt;To they fought from two filled vessels ;
and so, 38 Trevre yap el^ov TrXrjpaj/jiaTa the ship being named
7r\i }p(i)/Mi from its full equipment. So the church is named
7r\t ipct)fj,a, or fulness, because it holds or contains the fulness
of Christ. It is the filled-up receptacle of spiritual blessing,
from Him, and thus it is His TrXijpvfjLa, for He ascended
Tr\rjpu)arj ra Truvra. Again, Col. ii. 1&lt;&gt; Kai tVn? tV avry
iT7r\rjp( t )fj.voi "in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhen
bodily, and in Him ye are filled," ye have
7r\} )pa&gt;fj,a or fulness. John i. 1G "Of His fulm-^ have all
we received, and so we become His fulness."

1 Thi-odorct thus explains it iXitr/F. . .rfirny. fii/n TV ft\t X(itr ,
ruii UitTtot v&gt;.*i*u.*- lr&gt;.ntri y*( mirnt -.T.5c X** "** *" * Jt
mirr, **i iu-ri, t -r*Til ri r ( .f,T,*n, $*,. Tbw iiiUTprcUtiou i *rong u uttc
piirticular, but it rightly explains wXrfwua.

114 EPIIESIAXS I. 23.

filled with all the fulness of God that fulness which dwells
in Him, iii. 19.

The rov which follows TrX^pcofia I refer to Jesus ; not to
God, as do Theodoret, Koppe, Winer, Wetstein, Meier, Alford,
Turner, and Stier. It is Jesus, the Head, who is spoken of ;
the church is His body, and the next clause stands in apposi
tion " which is also His fulness "

ra Trdvra ev iracriv TrXTjpovfjLevov. Td is not found in the
Textus Keceptus, but on the testimony of A, B, D, E, F, G-, J,
K the majority of minuscules, etc., and the Greek fathers, it
is rightly received into the text. 1 Many take 7r\Tjpov/jLevov as
a passive, such as Chrysostom, Jerome, 2 Anselm, Wetstein,
Winer, and Holzhausen. So the Vulgate reads adimpletur.
Estius has a similar explanation, and also Bisping, who finds
it a proof-text for the dogma of the merit of the saints. The
exegesis of these critics almost necessitated such a view of
the participle. The idea of Beza, adopted by Dickson, is
better, viz., that the phrase is added to show that Jesus does
not stand in need of this supplement ut qni effidat omnia in
omnibus rcverd. If the participle be taken as a passive form,
the words TO. iravra ev iracrt, present a solecistic difficulty, and
we are therefore inclined, with the majority of interpreters, to
regard the participle as of the middle voice. Winer, 38, 6. 1
Similar usage occurs in Xenophon, 4 Plato, 5 and Pollux. 6 The
force of the middle voice is " who fills for himself," all in
all. The Gothic version has usfidljaiidins " filling ; " and
the Syriac also has the active. Holzhausen capriciously
makes the phrase equivalent to das Eiuige the Eternal, that
is, Christ carries in Himself the fulness of eternal blessings.
Both nouns rravra and iracri seem to be neuter, and are
therefore to be taken in their broadest significance " who
fills the universe with all blessings." In Col. i. 16, ra
Travra is used as the appellation of the universe which the
Son of God has created. 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Eph. iii. 9. It
narrows the sense of the idiom to inve ITO.O-L a masculine

1 IJeiche, Comment. Criticu* In N. T., vol. ii. p. 144 ; Gottingae, 1859.

2 Sicut adimpletur impcrator, si quotidie ejus augeatur exercitus, et fiant nov. e
proviucire, et populorum multitude succrescat, ita et Christus in eo quod sibi
credunt omnia ipse adimpletur in omnibus."

Moulton, p. 323. 4 Hdlen. 6, 2, 14. * Gory. 493. 6 Onomast. 164-175.

EPIIE.SIAX3 I. 23. H5

signification, and confine it, with Grotius, Matthies, and Stier,
to members of the clmrch His body ; or, with Michaelis, to
give it the sense of "in all places;" or, with Harless and
de Wette, to translate it "in different ways and forms;" or,
with Cramer, to interpret it as meaning, that religious bless
ings are no longer nationally restricted, but may be enjoyed
by all ! The preposition is instrumental, v. 1 8. Winer,
48, a, 3, d. The true meaning is " in all things," as
Fritzsche rightly maintains. Comment, in Horn. xi. 12. The
idiom occurs, 1 Cor. xv. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. G ; 1 Tim. iii. 1 1 ;
Tit. ii. 9. Macknight, preceded by Whitby, takes Trdma as a
masculine " who tills all his members with all blessings."
But why should the adjective dwindle in meaning ? Why
should TO, irdvra be less comprehensive here than the repeated
indefinite irdvra of the preceding verse ? On the one hand
the verse speaks nothing for the ubiquity of Christ s body,
nor does it bear such a reference to Gnostic philosophy and
nomenclature as betokens a post-apostolical origin, as Baur
conjectures. Ebrard, Christ. Dogmatik, ii. p. 130 ; Martonsen,
ibid. 17G, etc. But see also Thoinasius, Christ i Person nnd
Wcrk, vol. ii. 45 ; Schmid, Die Dogmatik dcr Emng. Luth.
Kirche, 31,"32, 33.

The church, then, is the irX^pw^a the glorious receptacle
of suc-li spiritual blessings. And as these are bestowed in
no scanty or shrivelled dimensions for the church is filled,
so loaded and enriched, that it becomes fulness itself and
as that fulness is so vitally connected with its origin, it is
lovingly and truly named " the fulness of Christ." The store
house, " filled with the finest of the wheat," is the fanner s
fulness. The blessings which constitute this fulness, and
warrant such a name to the church for they fill it to over
flowing, " good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and
running over" are those detailed in the previous verses of
the chapter. "All spiritual blessings," the Divine purpose
realizing itself in perfect holiness ; filial character and preroga
tive ; redemption rooting itself in the pardon of sin; gruco
exhibited richly and without reserve ; the sealing and earnest
of the Spirit till the inheritance IK; fully enjoyed the result*
of the apostle s prayer Divine illumination ; the kn&lt;
and hope of future blessedness, and of the depth and vastness

116 EPIIESIANS I. 23.

of that Divine power by which the new life is given and sus
tained, union to Jesus as the Body with the Head, the source
of vitality and protection all these benefactions, conferred
upon the church and enjoyed by it, constitute it a filled
church, and being so filled by Christ, it is aptly and emphati
cally called His FULNESS.

And the exalted goodness of the Mediator is not confined
to filling the church. His benign influence extends through
the universe ra Trdvra, as gathered together in Him. As
all ranks of unfallen beings are beneath Him, they receive
their means of happiness from Him ; and as all tilings are
beneath His feet, they share in the results of His Mediatorial
reign. The Head of the church is at the same time Lord
of the universe. While He fills the church fully with those
blessings which have been won for it and are adapted to it,
He also fills the universe with all such gifts as are appropriate
to its welfare gifts which it is now His exalted prerogative
to bestow.

CHAPTER II.

THE apostle resumes the thought which he had broken off in
ver. 20. He wished the Ephesian saints to know what was
the exceeding greatness of God s power toward tlio.se who
believe a species of power exemplified and pledged in tin-
resurrection of Jesus. That power, he virtually intimates,
you have experienced, for he who gave life to Jesus gave life
to you, when you were dead in trespasses and sins.

(Ver. 1.) Kal v^as oj/ra? ye/cpou? rot* 7rapa7rru)fjLa(ri xal
rat? afjuipTiais " And you being dead in trespasses and sins."
We do not connect the words grammatically with ver. 20,
and we hold it to be a loose interpretation which Calvin.
Hyperius, Bloomfield, and Peile express, when they say that
this verse is a special exemplification of the general act of
Divine grace expressed in the last clause of the former chap
ter. The connection, as we have stated it, is more precise
and definite, for it is the resumption of a previous train of
thought. The verb which governs tyui? is not vTrerafa , nor
7r\i )pa)(T mentally supplied, nor the ir\rjpovft&gt;vov of tin;
preceding verse, as is supposed by Culovius, Cramer, Kopnt*.
Kosennniller, and Chandler, for " filling " and death are not
homogeneous ideas. The governing verb is cvi f^wo-rroirjffe
in ver. 5, as Jerome and (Ecumenius rightly nflirm, though
the former blames Paul for a loose construction there
conjunct iojicm rcro causalcm arbitramur, ant ab indocti*
scriptoribus additam, ct vitium inolcvissc paulatim, ant al ij).&gt;
Paulo, qui erat imperil us scrnwne s?d mm scitntia, supcrflue
usurpatam. The thought is again interrupted betwevn vers.
and 4, as it had been letween the previous ver. 20 and
ver. 1 of this chapter. The ajMistle s mind w;is cmim-ntly
suggestive, influenced by powerful laws of mental association,
and prone to interpolate subsidiary ideas but ho resume* by
Be in ver. 4. Bengel, Lachmann. and Harless 84-paruUJ I

117

118 EPHESIANS II. 1.

two chapters only by a comma, but the sense is complete at
the termination of the first chapter, and the ical giving
emphasis, however, to the following v/xa? continues the
discourse, signifying not " even," but simply " and."

The MSS. B, D, E, F, G, etc., the Syriac, Coptic, Arabic,
and Latin versions, with Jerome, Theodoret, and Ambrosi-
aster, place vfiwv at the end of the verse. Lachmann has
received it into the text, so has Tischendorf in his seventh
edition, with Hahn and Meyer. A has eavrcov, showing
emendation at work. It is long since attempts were made to
show a distinction between TrapaTrrco^ara and dpapricu.
Augustine, in his twentieth question on Leviticus, says
Potest etiam videri illud esse delictum, quod imprudcnter, illud
peccatum quod ab sciente committitur. Jerome says that the
former is quasi initia peccatorum, and the latter cum quid
opere consummatum pervenit ad fincm. These definitions are
visionary and unsupported. On the other hand, Olshausen
regards irapaTrrcafiara as denoting sinful actions, and d/jLaprtai
as indicating more the sinful movements of the soul in inclina
tions and words. Meier, again, supposes the words to be
synonymous, but yet to be distinguished wic Handlung und
Zustand as action and condition. The opinion of Baum-
garten-Crusius is akin. Bengel imagines that the first term
had an emphatic ^reference to Jewish, and the last term to
Gentile transgressions an opinion in which Stier virtually
concurs ; while Matthies characterizes TrapaTrrco^ara as spi
ritual errors and obscurations, and d/jLaprlat, as moral sins and
faults. Tittmann says that the first substantive refers to sin
as if rashly committed, and is therefore a milder term than
ufiaprlaL, which denotes a willing act. De Synonymis, etc.,
p. 45. Lastly, Harless gives it as his view, that
denotes the concrete lapse the act, while the term
as the forcible plural of an abstract noun, signifies the mani
festations of sin, without distinguishing whether it be in
word, deed, or any other form. Crocius, Calovius, Flatt,
Meyer, and Eiickert regard the two words as synonymous.
(TlapaTTTw^a has been explained under i. 7.) Perhaps while
the first term refers to violations of God s law as separate and
repeated acts, the last, as de "\Vette supposes, may represent
all kinds of sin, all forms and developments of a sinful nature.

EPI1ESIANS II. 1. 119

Thus TrapaTTTupaTa, under tlie image of " falling," may carry
an allusion to the desires of the flesh, oi&gt;en, gross, and pulp-
able, while dfiapriat, under the image " missing the mark,"
may designate more the desires of the mind, sins of thought
and idea, of purpose and inclination. Muller, Ishrt ron tUr
Sunde, vol. i. p. 118; Buttmann, Lexil. p. 7 ( J, ed. Fishlake ;
Pritsche, in Rom. v. 12. The two words in close connection
must denote sin of every species, form, and manifestation, of
intent as well as act, of resolve as well as execution, of
inner meditation as well as outer result. In Ts. xix. 13,
14, there is apparently a contrast between the terms the
last being the stronger term TrapaTrrw^ara ris avvi^i, and
then Ka6api&lt;r0/]cro/juiL UTTO upapTias peydX-rj?. The article
before each of the nouns has, according to Ulshausen
and Stier, this force Sins, " which you are conscious of
having committed." AVe prefer this emphasis Sins, which
are well known to have characterized your unconverted
state.

In the corresponding passage in Col. ii. 13, eV precedes the
substantives, and denotes the state or condition of death.
Compare also, for the use and omission of cV in a similar
clause, Eph. ii. 15 with Col. ii. 14. Though that preposition
be wanting here, the meaning, in our apprehension, is not
very different, as indeed is indicated by the phraseology of
ver. 2 " in which ye walked." The " trespasses and sins "
do not merely indicate the cause of death, a.s Zanchius, Meier,
Ellicott, and Hurless maintain, but they are descriptive also
of the state of death. They represent not simply the in
strument, but at the same time the condition of death.
The dative may signify sphere. Winer, 31, 0; Donaldson,
45G. The very illustration used by Alford, " sick in a fever,"
represents a condition, while it points to a cause. Sin has
killed men, and they remain in that dead state, which is a
criminal one ey/cX^/ia e^et, as adds Chrysostom. Quite
foreign to the meaning of the context is the opinion of Cajutan
and Harrington, who would render the phra.se neither dead by
nor dead in trespasses and sins, but dead to trespasses ami
sins. Appeals to clauses and modes of expression in the
Epistle to the Romans are out of place here, the object of
illustration being so different in the two epistles. Such u

120 EPHESIANS II. 1.

sense, moreover, would not harmonize with the vivificatiou
described in ver. 5.

The participle ovras points to their previous state that
state in which they were when God quickened them and is
repeated emphatically in ver. 5. The adjective veicpos is
usually and rightly taken in a spiritual sense. 1. But Meyer
contends for a physical sense, as if it were equivalent to ccrto
morituri, and Bretschneider vaguely renders it by morti
obnoxii. This exegesis not only does violence to the terms, but
it is plainly contradicted by the past tense of the verb
&lt;rvv%a)07roiT)cr6. The life was in the meantime enjoyed, and
the death was already past. (The reader may consult what is
said under i. 19.) Meyer s opinion is modified in his last
edition, and he speaks now of eternal death dcr ewigc Tod.
But this is not the apostle s meaning, for he refers to a past,
not a future death. 2. Some, such as Koppe and Eosenmliller,
give the words a mere figurative meaning ; wretched, miser
able miseri, infelices. Such an idea is indeed involved in
the word, but the exegesis does not express the full meaning,
does not exhaust the term. The term, it is true, was often
employed both by the rabbinical l and classical writers 2 in a
sense similar to its use before us. But the biblical phrase is
more expressive than the D no of the Jewish doctors, or the
satirical epithets of Pythagorean or Platonic preceptors. 3
Without putting any polemical pressure on the phrase, we
may regard it as spiritual death, not liability to death, but
actual death veKpwais "fyvyiKr), as Theophylact terms it.
The epithet implies: 1. Previous life, for death is but the
cessation of life. The Spirit of life fled from Adam s dis
obedient heart, and it died in being severed from God. 2. It
implies insensibility. The dead, which are as insusceptible as

1 Talmud, Berachoth, 3 ; Levi Gerson, Comment, in Pentat. p. 192; Schoettgcn,
Horce Hebraicce, 1 Tim. v. 6 ; Pococke, Porta Afosift, p. 185.

2 Clemens Alexandriuus, Strom, lib. v. ; Arrian, Dins. 43; Epictet. Anton.
4, 41.

3 Eaphelius, Annotat. Philol. p. 469. Clement of Alexandria remarks, that
in the barbaric philosophy, apostates were called dead tixpaus xctiouo-i rolf
Ix-rurovrKf Tuy boyp.a.ruv Strom, v. p. 574. Jamblichus (De Vita Pythay.
xxxiv.) says, that for rejected apostates a cenotaph was built by their former
fellow-pupils. Origen, Contra Cel.sum, lib. iii. See also Brucker, Disscrtat.
xeget. in ioc. in the Tempc Helvetica, ii. 58.

EPIIESIAN3 II. 2. 121

their kindred clay, can be neither wooed nor won back to
existence. The beauties of holiness do not attract man in his
spiritual insensibility, nor do the miseries of hell deter him.
God s love, Christ s sufferings, earnest conjurations by all that
is tender and by all that is terrible, do not affect him. Alas I
there are myriads of examples. 3. It implies inability. The
corpse cannot raise itself from the tomb and come back to the
scenes and society of the living world. The peal of the last
trump alone can start it from its dark and dreamless sleep.
Inability characterizes fallen man. Netcpol, says Photius,
6&lt;rov trpos evepyeiav ayaOov TLVOS. And this is not natural
but moral inability, such inability as not only is no palliation,
but even forms the very aggravation of his crime. He
cannot, simply because he will not, and therefore he is justly
responsible. Such being man s natural state, the apostle
characterizes it by one awful and terrific appellation " being
dead in trespasses and sins."

(Ver. 2.) *Ev al? TTOTC TrepieTrarijcraTe " In which ye once
walked." This use of the verb originated in the similar
employment of the Hebrew ifcn, especially in its hithpahel
conjugation, in which it denotes " course of life." The alt
agrees in gender with the nearest antecedent afiapriais, but
refers, at the same time, to both substantives. Kiihner,
786, 2 ; Matthiac, 441, 2, c. The eV marks out the sphere
or walk which they usually and continually trod, for in this
sleep of death there is a strange somnambulism. C&lt;1. iii. 7.
The figure in 7Tpt7raTeiv has been supposed to disapjn-ar and
leave only the general sense of riven; as Fritzsche maintains
on Rom. xiii. 13, yet the idea of something more than men-
existence seems to be preserved. It is life, not in itself, but
in its manifestations. Thus living ami walking are placet
logical connection Trvevfj-ari TrepiTrartlre is different plainly
from fancv TrvevfjLdTi. Gal. v. 10, 2f&gt;. Though there
spiritual death, there was yet activity in a circuit of sin. for
physical incapacity and intellectual energy were not
Yea, "the dead," unconscious of their spiritual mor
often place up, as their motto of a lower lift
vivamw." l But this sad period of death-walking u
Their previous conduct is next described an
" Mori wo in jxccali*, tt jxccati* eivere." Kol

122 EPIIESIANS II. 2.

Kara rov alwva rov KOO-^OV rovrov " according to the
course of this world " Kara, as usual, expressing conformity.
Semler, Beausobre, Brucker, Michaelis, and Baur (Paulus, p.
433) take the alav as a Gnostic term, and as all but identical
with the Being described in the following clauses the evil
genius of the world. Such a sense is non-biblical and very
unlikely, yea rather, impossible. Others, such as Estius,
Koppe, and Flatt, regard aiwv and #007*0? as synonymous,
and understand the phrase as a species of pleonasm. The
translation of the Syriac is alliterative rn7n Vn\v
IJCTI lloXlj "the worldliness of this world," or the
" secularity of this seculum." But the alwv defines some
quality, element, or character of the /eooy-tc?. It is a rash
and useless disturbance of the phraseology which Eiickert
on the one hand suggests Kara rov alwva rovrov rov
KOO-/JLOV ; or which is proposed by Bretsclmeider on the other
o KOO-JJLOS rov alwvos rovrov, meaning homines prari, ut
nunc sunt. Aiu&gt;v sometimes signifies in the New Testament
" this or the present time " certain aspects underlying it.
Gal. i. 4. Anselm and Beza would render it simply " the
men of the present generation ;" but in the connection before us
it seems to denote mores, vivcndi ratio not simply, however,
external manifestations of character, but, as Ilarless argues,
the inner principle which regulates it Wcltleben in yeistiger,
dhischer Beziehung " world-life in a spiritual, ethical rela
tion." It is its " course," viewed not so much as composed
of a series of superficial manifestations, but in the moving
principles which give it shape and distinction. It is, in short,
nearly tantamount to what is called in popular modern phrase,
" the spirit of the age " rrjv irapovaav farjv, as Theodoret
explains it. The word has not essentially, and in itself, a bad
sense, though the context plainly and frequently gives it one.
KOO-/AO?, especially as here, and followed by euro?, means the
world as fallen away from God unholy and opposed to God.
John xii. 31, xviii. 36 ; 1 Cor. i. 20, iii. 19, v. 10 ; Gal. iv. 3.
None of the terms has a bad meaning in or by itself ; nor does
the apostle here add any epithet to point out their wickedness.
But this use of the simple words shows his opinion of the
world, and he condemns it by his simple mention of it, while
the demonstrative ovros confines the special reference to the

EPHESIAXS II. 2. 123

time then current. The meaning therefore is, that the Kphe-
sians, in the period of their irregeneracy, had lived, not
generally like other men of unholy heart, but specifically like
the contemporaneous world around them, and in the practice of
such vices and follies as gave hue and character to their own
era. They did not pursue indulgences fashionable at a former
epoch, but now obsolete and forgotten. Theirs wore not the
idolatries and impurities of other centuries. Xo ; they lived
as the age on all sides of them lived in its popular ami
universal errors and delusions ; they walked in entire con
formity to the reigning sins of the times.

The world and the church are now tacitly brought into
contrast as antagonistic societies ; and as the church has its
own exalted and glorious Head, so the world is under the
control of an active and powerful master, thus characterized

Kara rov ap-^ovra T/}&lt;&gt; eoiWa? rov atpo&lt;? " According to
the prince of the power of the air" Kara being emphatically
repeated. The prince of darkness is not only called ap^tav,
but 6 0os TOV atctJfo? rovrov, 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; and his t^oveia is
mentioned Acts xxvi. IS. Again, he is styled o ap^cnv rov
Koo-fjiov rovrov. John xii. 151, xiv. DO, xvi. 11. His princi
pality is spoiled, Col. ii. 15, and Jesus came to destroy his
works. 1 John iii. 8. Believers are freed from his power.
1 John v. 18 ; Col. i. 13. The language here is unusual,
and therefore dillicult of apprehension, and the modes of
explanation are numerous, as might be expected.

Flatt is inclined to take efoucn a? in apposition with tip^ovra
qui cat princcj)s, or, as Clarius and liosenmuller render it
princcps potentwsimus. There is no occasion to resort to this
syntactic violence. \Efouo-&lt; a does not seem to signify simply
" might," as Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, and Theophyluct
hold ; but it is rather a term describing the empire of spirit:
over whom Satan presides spirits, so called, either as IMU
sessed of power, as Kiickert and Harless think, or rather,
because they collectively form the principality of SaUn, us
Zanchius and Baumgarten-Crusius imagine a meaning
nouns similarly formed, as Sov\ia, ffvppaxi a, frequently have,
Bernhardy, p. 47. Such passages as Luke xxii. i
i. l:j show that the opinion which joins both vie
by biblical uuage.

124 EPHESIANS II. 2.

Arjp does not denote that which the efoi/&lt;rta commands or
controls, as Erasmus, Beza, Flacius, and Piscator suppose, but
it points out the seat or place of dominion ; not, however, in
the sense of Robinson, von Gerlach, Barnes, and Doddridge.
Holzhausen propounds the novel interpretation, that the
apostle understands by the " power of the air " die heid-
nische Gotterwelt, " the heathen world of gods." That drjp of
itself should signify darkness, is an opinion which cannot be
sustained. Heinsius, 1 Estius, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, Bisping,
and Hodge identify the term with O-KOTOS, in ver. 12 of the
Cth chapter, or in Col. i. 13. The passages adduced from the
ancient writers, such as Homer, 2 Hesiod, and Plutarch, in
support of this rendering, can scarcely be appealed to for the
usage of the term in the days of the apostle. The word in a
feminine form signified fog or haze, and is derived from da),
arj^i " I breathe or blow," and is used in opposition to aWijp
"the clear upper air;" and it has been conjectured that
the original meaning of the term may have suggested its use
to the apostle in the clause before us.

But more specially, 1. Some of the Greek fathers take the
genitive as a noun of quality " prince of the aerial powers "
aa-w/jLarot, SiW/xe^?. Thus Chrysostom TOVTO iraK.iv (f)7jcrl
on TLV vTTOvpaviov G^eL TOTTOV, KOL Trvev/jLara TraXtv aepia ai
do-Mfjiaroi Svvdfjieis eialv avrou evepyovvros " Again he says
this, that Satan possesses the sub-celestial places, and again,
that the bodiless powers are aerial spirits under his operation."
CEcumenius quaintly reasons of this mysterious ap^wv, " that
his dp-^rj is under heaven, and not above it; and if under
heaven, it must be either on earth or in the air. Being a
spirit, it is in the air, for they have an aerial nature." With
more exactness, Cajetan describes this host as having subtile
corpus nostris sensibus ignotum, corpus simplex ac incorruptibile.
Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, refers also to the
depiwv Trvev^drayv. The opinion of Harless is much the same
as that of Olshausen " These evil powers are certainly not
earthly, and as certainly they are not heavenly," and they are
therefore named by an epithet which defines neither the one
nor the other quality. This is substantially the interpretation

1 Exercitat. sac. p. 459.

1 Damm, Lexicon, tubvoce; Buttmann, Lexilorjus, ibid.

EPIIESIANS II. 2. 125

of CEcumenius, of Halm, and of Hofmann, Schriftb. p. 455.
The interpretation of Moses Stuart is virtually identical, 1 and
the notion of Stier is not altogether different, but it is some
what mystically expressed. The view of a-Lapide and
Calixtus, that those " aerial " imps could and did raise storms
and hurricanes, is as puerile on the one side, as that of Calvin
and Beza is vaguely figurative on the other that man is in
as great and constant danger from those fiends, as if they
actually inhabited the air. Thomas Aquinas and Krasrnus
take " air " by a metonymy as meaning earth and air together,
or the earth surrounded by the air an opinion connected
with the reading of F, G aepos TOVTOV and of the Vulgate,
aeris hujus. Others, not satisfied with these fanciful opinions,
give the epithet "aerial" a figurative signification. So
Kieger alleges, that the power of these evil spirits resembles
that of the atmosphere swift, mighty, and invisible.
Cocceius also takes the term metaphorically, as if it descriU-d
that darkness, blindness, and danger on " slipj&gt;ery places,"
which Satan inflicts on wicked men. liucer says indeed, that
the apostle describes the air as the habitation of fallen and
\vicked spirits ex pcculiari revelation*. lint, 2. There are
others who argue, that the apostle borrowed the notion either
from the Pythagorean or (Inostic demonology. Wetstein
affirms Paulus it a loquitur, ex principiis philo&uplntr
Pt/thagorccc, quibus illi ad quos scribit imbuti cntnt. Tin
Pythagorean philosophy, it is true, had opinions not unli
that supposed to be expressed by the apostle. Plutarch says
inrai&pov depa teal TOV vTroupuviov oma tcai Ot&v teal
baLiLovwv fi(TTov? Diogenes Laertius records, that according
to Pythagoras, the air was full of spirits -navia TOV acpa
^TV-^MV fMTT\eov. Apuleius, Maxinius Tyrius, Manil
Chalcidius, and others, make similar avowals, as may IK- found
at length in the quotations adduced by Wetstein, Klsner/ and
Dougta-us. 4 The same sentiments are also found in
in his treatises DC Giyantilus* and De Plant

1 Blbliothfca Sacra t 1843, p. 140 ; Mnimonides, Morrh Xerochitn, in.
Buxtorf, Lfxic. Talmtul, tub voec ?X~p.

*Qv(Mt. Rum. i. p. 274, also in lib Dt /&lt;/&lt; tt O iriJr. p. 3
*&lt;tb$trvat. p. 20H. * Annlffla, p. 1

0;&gt;cra, cura ricilfc-r, ii. p. 369.

. -

126 EPHESIANS II. 2.

Augustine held that the demons were penally confined to the
air damnatum ad aerem tanquam ad carcerem. Comment, on
Ps. cxliii. And Boyd (Bodius), as if dreaming of a Scottish
fairy-land, thinks that the devil got the principality of the air
from its connection with us, who live partly on earth and
partly in air, and that his relation to sinful man is seen in
his union with that element which is so essential to human
life. But is it at all likely that the inspired apostle gave
currency to the tenets of a vain philosophy to the dreams
and delusions of fantastic speculation ? Besides, there is no
polemical tendency in this epistle, and there was no motive to
such doctrinal accommodation. Gnosticism is always refuted,
not flattered, by the apostle of the Gentiles. 3. Others, again,
such as Meyer and Conybeare, suppose that the language of
the rabbinical schools is here employed. Harless has
carefully shown the falsity of such a hypothesis. A passage
in Eabbi Bechai, in Penta. p. 9 0, has been often quoted, but
the Eabbi says " The demons which excite dreams dwell in
the air, but those which tempt to evil inhabit the depths
of the sea," whereas these submarine fiends are the very class
which the apostle terms the principality of the air. 1 Some of
the other quotations adduced from the same sources are based
upon the idea that angels are furnished with wings, with
which, of course, they flutter in the atmosphere, as they
approach, or leave, or hasten through our world. Sciendum,
says the Munus Novum, as quoted hy Drusius, a terra usque
ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et prcefectis, omnesqiic
stare et volitare in aere. These notions are so puerile, that the
apostle could not for a moment have made them the basis of
his language. 2 The other six places in which arjp occurs
throw no light on this passage, as it is there used in its
ordinary physical acceptation.

In none of these various opinions can we fully acquiesce.
That the physical atmosphere is in any sense the abode of
demons, or is in any way allied to their essential nature,
appears to us to be a strange statement. 3 When fiends move
from place to place, they need not make the atmosphere the

1 Eisenmengcr, Entdecktft Judcn. p. 437.

s Bartolocci, i. p. 320. Testament, xii. Patr. p. 729.

3 But see Cudworth, Intellectual System, vol. ii. p. 6G4, ed. Lond. 1845.

KPIIESIAXS II. 2. 127

chief medium of transition, for many of the subtler fluids of
nature are not restricted to such a conductor, but penetrate
the harder forms of matter as an ordinary pathway. There
is certainly no scriptural hint that demons are either compiled
to confinement in the air as a prison, or that they have chosen
it as a congenial abode, either in harmony with their own
nature, or as a spot adapted to ambush and attack ujx)ii men,
into whose spirit they may creep with as much secrecy and
subtlety as a poisonous miasma steals into their lungs during
their necessary and unguarded respiration. We think,
therefore, that the ai]p and /focr/zo? must correspond in relation.
Just as there is an atmosphere round the physical glolie, s&lt;
an ai]p envelopes this /coV/xo?. Now, the /cooyxo? is a spiritual
world the region of sinful desires the sphere in which live
and move all the ungodly. "We often use similar phraseology
when we say "the gay world," "the musical world," "the
literary world," or " the religious world;" and each of these
expressive phrases is easily understood. So the Kocrpo* of the
New Testament is opposed to God, for it hates Christianity ;
the believer does not belong to it, for it is crucified to him
and he to it. That same world may be an ideal sphere,
comprehending all that is sinful in thought and pursuit a
region on the actual physical globe, but without geographical
boundary all that out-field which lies beyond the living
church of Christ. And, like the material globe, this world of
death-walkers has its own atmosphere, corresponding to it in
character an atmosphere in which it breathes and moves.
All that animates it, gives it community of sentiment, con
tributes to sustain its life in death, and enables it to breathe
and be, may be termed its atmosphere. Such an air or
atmosphere belting a death-world, whose inhabitants are
veKpol rot? TrapaTTTWfjuKTi *al Tcu? afJMpTicus, is really Satan s
seat. His chosen abode is the dark nebulous zone which
canopies such a region of spiritual mortality, close uf&gt;on iu
inhabitants, ever near and ever active, unseen and yet real,
unfelt and yet mighty, giving to the KM^O* that "form and
pressure" that aloov which the ajM)stle here describes II.H
its characteristic element. Jf this interpretation lie ret-
too ingenious and interpretations are generally false
proportion to their ingenuity then we can only say, that

128 EPIIESIANS II. 2.

either the apostle used current language which did not convey
error, as Satan is called Beelzebub without reference to
the meaning of the term " Lord of flies ; " or that lie meant
to convey the idea of what Ellicott calls " near propinquity,"
for air is nigh the earth ; or that he embodies in the clause
some allusions which he may have more fully explained
during his abode at Ephesus.

In their trespasses and sins they walked Kara " according
to " the prince of the power of the air. This preposition used
in reference to a person, as here, signifies " according to the
will," or " conformably to the example." This dark prince
dom is further identified as

rov TTvev/jLdTos Tov vvv i&gt;epyovvTos ev rot? VIOLS T??
" of the spirit which now worketh in the children of dis
obedience." The connection with the preceding clause is
somewhat difficult of explanation. Flatt supposes it, though it
is in the genitive, to be in apposition to the accusative ap%ovra.
So, apparently, Ainbrosiaster, who has the translation spiri-
tum. Bullinger cuts the knot by rendering qui est spiritus,
and so Luther by his ndmlich nach dcm Gcist. Others, as
Piscator, Crocius, Eiickert, and de Wette, suppose a deviation
from the right construction in the use of the genitive for the
accusative. Some, again, take Tryei^uaro? in a collective sense,
as Vatablus, Grotius, Estius, and Holzhausen. Governed by
ap-^ovra, the meaning would then be " the prince of that
spirit-world," the members of which work in the children of
disobedience. Winer, 67, 3. Meier and Ellicott take irvev-
jjLaTos as governed by ap^ovra, and they understand by TrvevjjLa
that spirit or disposition which reigns in worldly and ungodly
men, of which Satan may be considered the master. Meyer,
adopting the same construction, defines Trvevfia as a principle
emanating from Satan as its lord, and working in men. Har-
less, Olshausen, Matthies, and Stier take the word in apposition
with efofo-ta?, and governed by ap^pvra, and suppose it to
mean that influence which Satan exercises over the disobedient;
or, as Harless names it wirksame tcuflische Versuchung
" actual devilish temptation ;" or, as Stier characterizes it
eine verfinstemde todtcnde Inspiration " a darkening and killing
inspiration." But how does this view harmonize with the
phraseology ? Surely an influence, or principle, or inspiration

EPIIESIAXS II. 2. 120

is not exactly in unison with ap-^wv. We cannot well say-
prince of an influence or disposition. We would therefore
take TrvevnaTos in apposition with tfoucrta?, but refer it to the
essential nature of the e fof&lt;r/a. It is a spiritual kingdom
which the devil governs, an empire of spirits over which he
presides. And the singular is used with emphasis. The
entire objective e^ovaui, no matter what are its numbers and
varied ranks, acts as one spirit on the children of disobedience,
is thought of as one spirit, in perfect unity of operation and
purpose with its malignant ap-^wv. Nay, the prince and all
his powers are so combined, so identified in essence and aim,
that to a terrified and enslaved world they stand out as one
In Luke iv. 33 occurs the phrase rrvevfja caifMoviov
This " spirit " is in its subjective form called TO
TOV KoafjLov. 1 Cor. ii. 1 2. And it is a busy spirit-world
TOU vvv evepyovvTos.

ATreiQeia is not specially unbelief of the gospel, as Luther,
Eengel, Scholz, and Harless supixxse, but disobedience, as the
Syriac renders it. It characterizes the world not as in direct
antagonism to the gospel, but as it is by nature hostile to
the will and government of God, and daringly and wantonly
violating that law which is written in their hearts. Bent. ix.
23, 24 ; Heb. iv. G. The phrase viol T/}? arrctOtias is a species
of Hebraism, and is found v. G ; Col. iii. 6, etc. Compare Horn,
ii. 1C, and Fritzsche s remarks on it. The idiom shows the
close relation and dependence of the two substantives. As its
" children," they have their inner being and its sustenance from
" disobedience ;" or, as Winer says, they are " those in whom
disobedience has become a predominant and second nature."
34, 3, 5, 2. The adverb vvv denotes "at the present time
the spirit which at the present moment is working in the
disobedient. Meier, not Meyer as Olshauseii quotes, gives
the adverb this peculiar but faulty reference- " The spirit
which yet reigns, though the gospel be powerfully counter
working it;" and Olshausen as basclessly supjioses it to mark
that the working of the devil is restricted, in contrast to the
eternal working of the Holy Gho.4. The vvv appears to si
in contrast to the 7roT " Ye, the readers of this epistle, wens
once in such a condition, and those whom you left
when you became the children of God, are in the 8

130 EPHESIAKS II. 3.

dition still." There is, accordingly, no reason to render the
word nunc maxime, as if, as Stier argues, there was more than
usual energy on the part of Satan. As little ground have
Eiickert and Holzhausen to suppose, that the clause denotes
some extraordinary manifestation of evil influence. The verse
is but a vivid description of the usual condition of the uncon
verted and disobedient world. The world and the church are
thus marked in distinct and telling contrast. The church has
its head K6(pa\TJ ; the world has its ap%a)v. That Head is
a man, allied by blood to the community over which He pre
sides ; that other prince is an unembodied spirit an alien as
well as a usurper. The one so blesses the church that it
becomes His " fulness," the other sheds darkness and distress
all around Him. The one has His Spirit dwelling in the
church, leading it to holiness ; the other, himself the darkest,
most malignant, and unlovely being in the universe, exercises
a subtile and debasing influence over the minds of his vassals,
who are " children of disobedience." Matt. xiii. 3 8 ; John
viii. 44; Acts xxvi. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4. The apostle honestly
describes their former spiritual state, for he adds including
himself crvvrdrrei, /cal eavrov as Theodoret says

(Ver. 3.) *Ev 049 teal ?J//,et9 Trai/re? aveaTpd^Tj/jLtv Trore eV
" Among whom also we all had our conversation once in . . ."
The ol? does not refer to TrapaTrrw/Aacri, as is supposed by
the paraphrase of the Syriac version, and as is imagined by
Jerome, Estius, Cocceius, Koppe, Baumgarten, and Stier ; but
it agrees with viols, as is argued by de "Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Meyer, Harless, Meier, Matthies, and Eiickert. The
first ev refers to persons, " among whom " as a portion of
them ; and the second, in immediate connection with the
verb, to things. It appears altogether too refined to suppose,
with Stier, that in ver. 2, and in connection with the a/j.aprlai,
of ver. 1, the apostle refers to the heathen world, and that in
this verse, and in connection with irapaTrTw^a, he character
izes the Jewish world. Least of all can the change from
" you " to " we " vindicate such a meaning. We wait till the
apostle, in a subsequent verse, makes the distinction himself.
The rj^els Traz/re? is we all, Jew and Gentile alike. See also
Eom. iv. 16, viii. 32 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18. There
is not in this section such a characteristic definition of sins, as

EPIIESIANS II. 3. 131

should warrant us to refer the one verse to Jews, and the other
to Gentiles. We cannot accede to such a view, though it is
advocated by Harless and Olshausen, and almost all the modern
commentators, with the exception of de Wette; advocated, too,
in former times by no less names than IVlagius and Calvin,
Zanchius and Grotius, Clarius and Bengel. As much ground is
there for Hammond s strange idea, that the Christians of Koine
are here described. Nor is there in the verse any feature of
criminality, such as should lead us to say that the apostle classes
himself among these sinners, simply, as some would have it, by
a common figure of speech. There is nothing here of which the
apostle does not accuse himself in other places. 1 Tim. i. 1 3.

dvecrTpd&lt;f)TifjLv TTore. 2 Cor. i. 1 2 ; Gal. i. 13; 1 Tim. iii.
15. This has much the same meaning with the similar
terms of the preceding verse, perhaps with the additional idea
if greater attachment to the scene or haunt ; sjwwsiu,* qunm
iint iil irc, says Bengel. All we all of us Jew and Gentile,
once so distinguished. For we walked

ev rat? 7Ti0v/j,iais TJ}? crap/cos TUJLWV " in the lusts of our
lesh." This clause marks out the sphere of activity. "pf
signifies man s fallen and corrupted nature, in its antagonism
to the Spirit of God, and it probably has received such a
lame because of its servitude to what is material and sensuous.
Not that we at all espouse the notion that sin has no other
&gt;rigin than sensuousness, or that it is but the predominance
of sensuous impulse over the intellect and will. This theory,
befriended in some of its aspects by Kant and Schleiermacher,
has been overthrown with able argument by Muller ; and tin-
reply of de Wette, who had also adopted it, is a failure as a
defence. But though crdpi;, in apostolic, language, include tin-
will, and have a meaning which neither aw/za nr */3t a&lt;? has,
the question still recurs, I low has our whole nature c-.me t
be represented by a term which truly and properly di-imi
mly one part of it 1 Delitzsch, J!i!&gt;. Payc)
5dpi; does sometimes stand in opposition to the huiuai
as 1 Cor. v. 5, Col. ii. 5 ; but in such place
restricted by the antithesis. Gen. vi. 3. If what properly
signifies a portion of our nature come to signify the whole &lt;
it under a certain aspect, there must be some cornier
What is material, as vdpg naturally is, may represent

132 EPHESIAXS II. 3.

external and so far unspiritual ; while what is non-spiritual is
sinful, as being opposed to the Spirit of God. See Ebrard,
Christliche Dogmatik, 323, vol. i. p. 463 ; Messner, Die
Lehre der Apostel, p. 207. ^EirtOvfJLia in such a connection,
has a stignm upon it, for it represents desires or appetites
which are irregular and sinful such inclinations as are
formed and pursued by unregenerate humanity. The spiritual
life is dead, and therefore the &lt;rdpj; is unchecked in all its
impulses and desires. And the apostle adds

TTOiovvres ra Be\ijfjLara TT}? aaptcos KOI TU&gt;V Siavoiwv
" doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts." The
principal differences of interpretation respect the word biavoi&v,
which has a good sense in the classics. The exegesis of the
Greek fathers is too vague. Chrysostom sums up the mean
ing by saying Tovrecmv, ov&ev TrvevparL/cbv (ppovovvres.
Stier denies that by craprcos and Siavoiwv different species of
sin are indicated, but adds that the last term refers to reasons
or arguments denJcerei which check or guide the flesh in
its sinful propensities. The view of Bengel is coincident.
This interpretation does not bring out the distinction between
the two terms a distinction which the article before each
seems to intimate. The exegesis of Flatt is his usual hen-
diadys : " flesh and thoughts " stands for fleshly thoughts ; or,
as Crellius also latinizes it coyitationcs carnales. Some under
stand by the terms " depraved fancies," as Hase ; others, like
Olshausen, " sinful thoughts, which have no sensual lust for
their basis;" and others, like Harless, " unresolute, shifting
thoughts, which determine the will." Paickert and Meier
make it "immoral thoughts." Aiavoiai in the plural is
found only here, and in the singular it stands often in the
Septuagint for the Hebrew 27. In the plural, as if for Sta-
vor)fj.ara, it apparently denotes thoughts or sentiments, ideal
fancies and resolves. See Num. xv. 39; Isa. Iv. 9. 2(ip%
in the first clause may signify humanity as it is fallen and
debased by sin ; while here the meaning is more defined and
restricted to our fleshly nature. The general " conversation "
of disobedient men may be said to be " in the lusts of the
flesh," but when their positive activity is described TTOIOVVTCS,
and when these 7ri6vfitat become actually 6e\rjfiaTa when
inclinations become resolves, a distinction at once arises, and

EPUESIANS II. 3. 133

sins of a grosser are marked out from those of a more spiritual
nature. Such is the view of Jerome. The " desires of the
flesh " are those grosser gratifications of appetite which are
palpable and easily recognized ; and the " desires of the
thoughts," those mental trespasses which may or may not bo
connected witli sensuous indulgences. Matt. xv. 1 U ; Luke
xi. 17. Our Lord has exposed such "thoughts" as violations
of the Divine law. The crdp% is one, all its appetences are
like ; but the word Sidvoiat is plural, for it describes what is
complex and multiform. See arofyiat,, Aristoph. lluna-, v. G88 ;
and Sapientice, Cicero, T-usc. ii. 18. Thought follows thought,
as the shadows flit across the field on a cloudy summer day.
Men may scorn intemperance as a degrading vice, and slum it,
and yet cherish within them pride high as Lucifer s, and
wrath foul and fierce as Tophet. Under the single head of
ffdpf (Gal. v. 19, 20) the apostle includes both classes of
sins " hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies," as well as " adultery, fornication, murder, drunken
ness, and revellings." The historian Polybius describes men
sinning, as many of them, Sta rijv d\oyi&lt;niav from want of
thought, as Sia rtjv &lt;j&gt;v&lt;riv, by nature. Lib. xvii. cap. viii.
apud llaphcl. But there is an awful and additional clause-
Aral 7//iei/ rexva (frixrei opytjs "and we were by nature
children of wrath." This common reading is retained by
Tischendorf, followed by Iliickert. Lachmann, however,
after A, D, E, F, G, J, bus &lt;/&gt;u&lt;rei rexva opy^. But there
appears no good ground for departing from the order of the
Textus Ileceptus, the changed order wearing the aspect of an
emendation. O/ry/j is not simply " punishment," but that
just indignation which embodies itself in punishment The
word is often so used in the New Testament. TtVw* opyfc
resembles the previous viol rtfr diretOetas, but implying, as
Alford says, "closer relation." That phrase does not denote,
liable to disobedience, but involved in it ; and therefore -rticva
opyfc does not signify liable to wrath, but actually under it.
Thus, Dent. xxv. 2, rrizn ;a a son of stripes not liable to b
scourged, but actually scourged. The idiom, th.-n, does not
mean "worthy of wrath," as the Greek fathers, when t
render it opw&lt;s tot, and as Grotius, Koppo, Huumgart&lt;
others have understood it; but it describes a present and

134 EPHESIAXS II. 3.

actual condition. The awful wrath of God is upon sinners, for
sin is so contrary to His nature and law, that His pure anger
is kindled against it. Nor is this opyrj to be explained away
after the example of the early Fathers, 1 as if it were simply
chastisement, /c6\acris not judicial infliction, but benignant
castigation ; for as Alford well says then the phrase would,
from its nature, imply that they had been "actually punished."
Opyjj is God s holy anger against sin, which leads Him justly
to punish it. Rom. i. 1 8. But God s manifestation of wrath is
not inconsistent with His manifestation of love ; for, to repeat
the oft-quoted words of Lactantius Si Deus non irascitur
impiis et injustis, nee pios justosque diligit.

The apostle says further, reicva &lt;f)v&lt;rei " children by nature ;"
the dative, as Madvig says, defining " the side, aspect, regard,
or property on and in which the predicate shows itself," 40.
See also Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 688; Klihner, 585,
Anmerk 1. 3&gt;v&lt;ris "nature" in such an idiom, signifies
what is essential as opposed to what is accidental, what is
innate in contrast with what is acquired ; as Harless puts the
antithesis das Geivordene im Gcgensatz zum GemacJiten. This
is its general sense, whatever its specific application. Thus
(frappdtcov &lt;/&gt;ucr/.9 2 is the nature of a drug, its colour, growth,
and potency. &lt;UOY? rov ALJUTTTOV* is the nature of the land
of Egypt a phrase referring to no artificial peculiarity, but to
results which follow from its physical conformation. It stands
opposed to vofjios or dvdy/crj, as marking what is spontaneous,
in contrast to what is enjoined or is inevitable. Thus Plato,
De Leg. lib. x. Some say that the gods are ou (frvo-et, d\\d
Tio-l vopois. Again, the noun is often used in the dative, or
in the accusative with /card or Trapd in descriptions of condi
tion or action, and then its signification is still the same:
&lt;t&gt;vcrei TV(f)\6s " blind by nature," not by disease ; 4 TOV (f&gt;i&gt;(rei
SovXov " the slave by nature," that is, from birth, and not
by subjugation ; 5 ol (frva-ei, TroXe/uot " warriors by nature,"
by constitutional tendency, and not by force of circumstances. 6
And so in such phrases as, Kara (pvcnv " agreeably to nature,"
not simply to education or habit ; irapa &lt;j&gt;va- iv contrary not

1 Suicer, Tlicsauru*, sub voce. 2 Odyx*. x. 303.

3 Herodot. ii. 5. 4 Aristot. Nicomach. iii. 7.

Dio Chryaost. xv. p. 239. c ^Elian, Far. Hist. iii. 22.

EFIIESIAXS II. 3. 135

to mere conventional propriety, but to general or ordinary
instinctive development ; thus 6 xard &lt;f&gt;v&lt;Tiv u/o? " the
natural," not the adopted "son." The usage is similar in
the Hellenistic writers. Wisdom vii. 20, &lt;/&gt;u&lt;m&lt;? &gt;&&amp;gt;/ " tin-
natures of animals," not the habits induced by training.
$i (Ti, Traj/re? eialv (friXavroi "all are by nature," not by
training, "self-lovers." 1 QvaeL 7romjpo&lt;; &v. "being evil by
nature," 2 and not simply by education. So also in the same
author of the constitutional clemency of the Pharisees
(f&gt;v&lt;ri iTrteiKws c^ova-tv;* Likewise in Philo, eipiji aloi &lt;f&gt;v&lt;Ti
"peaceful by nature," not from compulsion; 4 and in many
other places, some of which have been collected by Loesner.
The usage of the New Testament is not different. Save
in Jas. iii. 7 and 2 Pet. i. 4, where the word has a significa
tion peculiar to these passages, the meaning is the same
with that which we have traced through classical and
Hellenistic literature. If the term characterize the branches
of a tree, those which it produces are contrasted with such as
are engrafted (Rom. xi. 21-24); if it describe action or
character, it marks its harmony with or its opposition to
instinctive feeling or sense of obligation (Rom. i. 26, ii. 14 ;
1 Cor. xi. 14) ; if it point out nationality, it is that of descent
or blood. Rom. ii. 27; Gal. ii. 15. See Frit/sche on tin-
references to Romans. And when the apostle (Gal. iv.
speaks of idols as being &lt;j&gt;vcri " not Gods," he means that
idols become objects of worship from no inherent claim or
quality, but simply by " art and man s device." Ami so " we
are children of wrath," not accidentally, not by a fortuitous
combination of circumstances, not even by individual sin and
actual transgression, but " by nature " by an exposure which
preceded personal disobedience, and was not first created by il
an exposure which is inherent, hereditary, and common to nil
the race by the very condition of its present existence, f
they are " so born " children of wrath. For &lt;iW do*s not
refer to developed character, but to its hidden and instinrl
sources. We are therefore not atomically, but organic
children of wrath ; not each simply by personal guilt, but 1
entire race as a whole ; not on account of nature,

1 Joseph. Antvj. iii. 8, 1. /*" 2 - -

Ibid. xiii. 10, 6. 4 /* Corfu** Li*. ^

136 EPIIESIANS II. 3.

nature. Wholly contrary, therefore, to usage and philology
is the translation of the Syriac A_i \^\.&plcnc ; that of Theo-
phylact, (Ecuinenius, and Cyril, aX^oo? or yvrja-iw*; "really"
or " truly ; " that of Julian, prorsus, and that even of Suidas
" a constant and very bad disposition and long and evil
habits " aXXa TTJV efji^ovov Kal Ka/cia-rrjv BidOeo-w KOI yjpoviav
Kal Trovrjpav a-vvrjdeLav, for on the contrary, (pvcris and avvr)-
6eia are placed by the Greek ethical writers in contrast.
Harless adduces apt quotations from Plutarch and Aristotle.
Pelagius, as may be expected, thus guards his exegesis Nos
paternce traditionis consuctudo possedcrat, ut omnes ad damna-
tionem nasci VIDEREMUR. Erasmus, Bengel, Koppe, Morus,
Flatt, de Wette, Reiche, and others, take the word as descrip
tive of the state of the Ephesian converts prior to their con
version, or, as Bengel phrases it citra gratiam Dei in Christo.
But, as Meyer observes, the statm naturalis is depicted in the
whole description, and not merely by ^VO-CL Such an inter
pretation is also unsatisfactory, for it leaves untouched the
real meaning of the word under dispute. That the term may
signify that second nature which springs from habit, we deny
not. Natura had such a sense among the Latins 1 quod con-
suetudo in naturam vcrtit but in many places where it may
bear this meaning, it still implies that the habit is in accord
ance with original inclination, that the disposition or character
has its origin in innate tendencies and impulses. When Le
Clerc 2 says that the word, when applied to a nation, signifies
indolcs gcntis, he only begs the question ; for that indolcs or
(f)vcr^ in the quotations adduced by him, and by Wetstein
and Koppe, from Isocrates, the so-called Demetrius Phalereus,
Polyamus, Jamblichus, Cicero, and Sallust, is not something
adventitious, but constitutional an element of character
which, though matured by discipline, sprang originally from
connate peculiarities. The same may be said of Meyer s
interpretation durch Entwickclung naturlicher Disposition
:&lt; through the development of natural disposition ; " for if that
disposition was natural, its very germs must have been in us
at our birth, and what is that but innate depravity ? And
yet he argues that &lt;f)vo-i$ cannot refer to original sin, because

1 Quintilian, i. 2; Sallust, Juyurtha, 87 ; Freund, Latein. Worterbuch, sub voce.
s Ars Critica, Londini, 1698, p. 194.

KPIIESIANS II. 3. 137

the church doctrine on that subject is not the doctrine of Paul,
and one reason why Koppe will not take even the interpreta
tion of Le Clerc is, that it necessarily leads to the doctrine of
original sin. Grotius, Meyer, do Wette, and Usteri (Paul in.
Lchrlcgri/, p. 30) object that the word cannot refer to original
depravity, because it is only of actual sin that the apostle
speaks in the preceding clauses. So little has Grotius gone
into the spirit of the passage, that he says that it cannot
refer to original sin, as the preceding verses show, in which
vices are described from which many of the ancients were free
a quibus multi veterum fuerc immuncs. Usteri is disposed
to cancel (f&gt;vo-ei altogether, and Keiche (Comment. CriticuA t
1859) dilutes it to a halitus naturalis connatus quasi, p. 147.
See also Episcopius, Inatit. ii. 5, 2 ; Limborch, Thclcxj. Christ.
iii. 4, 17, p. 193 ; Amstelaxlami, 1G8G. We may reply with
Olshausen, that in this clause actual sins are naturally pointed
out in their ultimate foundation " in the inborn sinfulness of
each individual by his connection with Adam." Besides, the
apostle means to say that by natural condition, as well as by
actual personal guilt, men are children of wrath. Had he
written KOL oi/re?, as following out of the idea of vroiovvrfs,
there might have been a plea against our view of innate
depravity "fulfilling the desires of the ilesh and of the
mind, and being, or so being, children of wrath." But the
apostle says, KCU i^ev " and we were," at a point of time
prior to that indicated in TrotoOire?. This exegesis is also
supported by the following clause

&&amp;gt;9 Kal 01 \oi7Toi "as also are the rest of mankind ;" n t
Gentiles simply, nor the remainder of the unbelieving Jews,
as is held by Stier and Bisping. Turner apparently impute:
our exegesis, which is simply and plainly grammatical, to want
of candour and to a desire to support a "preconceived doctrinal
theory."

Having described the character of unregenerate men, t
apostle adverts to their previous condition. Wf ( l
entire human family are by nature children of wrath, evei
Crellius himself is obliged to paraphrase it rclut Jurr,
jure. Those who hold that ^el? refers to the .
their interpretation, and Harless and Olshauscri unncc
suppose that the apostle contrasts the natural state &lt;

138 EPHESIANS II. 3.

Jews with their condition as the called of God, though they
do not, like Hofmann, join &lt;f)va-ei, to 0/377}?, as if the allusion
were to the Jews, and the meaning were objects of God s
love as the children of Abraham, but of His anger as
children of Adam. Sckriftb. i. p. 564. Thus Estius opposes
filii naturd to filii adoptione ; and Holzhausen s idea is that
they were children of wrath " which rises from the ungodly
natural life." To get such a meaning the article must be
repeated, as Harless says TT}? fyvcrei opyr}? ; or as Meyer, TT}?
rfj fyvcrei, or, etc rfjs &lt;vcreo&gt;? opyfjs. We do not imagine,
with many commentators, that &lt;/&gt;u&lt;ret stands in contrast with
%a/om. The former denotes a condition, and cannot well be
contrasted with an act or operation of God. Death by or in
sin, walk in lust, vassalage to Satan, indulgence of the dis
orderly appetites of a corrupted nature, and the fulfilling of
the desires of the flesh and of the mind these form a visible
and complex unity of crime, palpable and terrific. But that
is not all ; there is something deeper still ; even by nature, and
prior to actual transgression, we were " the children of wrath."
The apostle had just referred to the &lt;rdp% feeble and depraved
humanity, and knowing that " that which is lorn of the flesh
is flesh," and that the taint and corruption are thus hereditary,
he adds, " and we were by nature," through our very birth,
" children of wrath ;" that is, we have not become so by any
process of development. Thus also Miiller (Die Lelire wn
dcr Sunde, ii. p. 378) says "that they, that is, Christians,
from among the Jews as well as others, had been objects of
Divine punitive justice " nach Hirer naturlichen anyclornen
Bcscliaffenlieit Gegenstande ; and Lechler also calls man s
natural condition cine angclorne Zorncskindschaft d. h. eine
angcborne Verdcrbniss der Menschcnnatur. Das Apost. und das
nachap. Zeitaltcr, etc., p. 107. Barnes and Stuart 1 deny,
indeed, that the use of this term can prove what is usually
called the doctrine of original sin. It is true that the apostle
does not speak of Adam and his sin, nor does he describe the
germs and incipient workings of depravity. It is not a
formal theological assertion, for cfrvo-ei is unemphatic in posi
tion ; but what is more convincing, it is an incidental allusion
as if no proof were needed of the awful truth. How and

1 Biblical Repository, 2nd ser. vol. ii. 38.

EI HESIANS II. 3. 139

when sin commences is not the present question. Still the
term surely means, that in consequence of some element of
relation or character, an element inborn and not infused, men
are exposed to the Divine wrath. The clause does not, as
these critics hold, simply mean that men in an unconverted
state are obnoxious to punishment, but that men, apart from
all that is extrinsic and accidental, all that time or circum
stance may create or modify, are " children of wrath." As
Calvin says Hoc uno vcrbo quasi fid mine tot us homo quant us-
quantus cst prostcmitur. It would be, at the same time,
wholly contrary to Scripture and reason to maintain, with
Flacius, that sin is a part of the very essence and substance f
our nature. The language of this clause does not imply it.
Sin is a foreign element an accident whatever be the
deptli of human depravity.

It belongs not to the province of interpretation to enter into
any illustration of the doctrine expressed or implied in the
clause under review. The origin of evil is an inscrutable
mystery, and has afforded matter of subtle speculation from
Plato down to Kant and Schelling, while, in the interval,
Aquinas bent his keen vision upon the problem, and felt his
gaze dazzled and blunted. Ideas of the actual nature of sin
naturally modify our conceptions of its moral character, a.s
may be seen in the theories which have been entertained from
those of ManicluT an dualism and mystic pro-existence, 1 to
those of privation, 2 sensuousness, 8 antagonism, 4 iropreventi-
bility, 6 and the subtle distinction between formal and real
liberty developed in the hypothesis of Miiller. 8 While admit
ting the scriptural account of the introduction of sin, many
have shaped their views of it from the connection in which
they place it in reference to Divine foreknowledge, and so have
sprung up the Supralapsarian and Sublnpsarian hypotheses.

1 Miiller, Die Chrittliche Lchrc von der Sdndf, vol. ii. p. 495, 3nl e.L :
abo Ifc echer s Conflict of A ym.

Leibnitz, Euais de TModictc sur la Bontt dt Difu, etc., pp. s
Amsterdam, 1720.

3 Do Wettc, Christlkhc Sittrnlrhrf, 10, nnd Rtwl rn vnd Krit
Rothe, Ethik, vol. i. pp. 98, 99 ; Schleit-rmarhor, Drr CHr

Lactantius, Irutit. DMn. lib. ii. cap. 8, 9 ; Hegel, PhUovpU* *
| 139.

4 Thf Myntrry, or Evil and G&lt;xl. By John Young, LL D. Londoi
Muller, vol. ii. pp. 6-48.

140 EPIIESIANS II. 4.

Attempts to form a perfect scheme of Theodicy, or a full
vindication of the Divinity, have occupied many other minds
than that of Leibnitz. The relation of the race to its Pro
genitor has been viewed in various lights, and analogies
physical, political, and metaphysical, with theories of Crea-
tionism and Traducianism, have been employed in illustration,
from the days of Augustine and Pelagius l to those of Eras
mus and Luther, Calvin and Arminius, Taylor and President
Edwards. Questions about the origin of evil, transmission of
depravity, imputation of guilt, federal or representative posi
tion on the part of Adam, and physical and spiritual death as
elements of the curse, have given rise to long and laboured
argumentation, because men have looked at them from very
different standpoints, and have been influenced in their treat
ment of the problem by their philosophical conceptions of the
Divine character, the nature of sin, and that moral freedom
and power which belong to responsible humanity. The modus
may be and is among " the deep things of God," but the res
is palpable ; for experience confirms the Divine testimony that
we are by nature " children of wrath," per gcnerationem, not
per imitationem.

(Ver. 4.) O Be @eo?, ifKovaw &v ev eXeet " But God,
being rich in mercy." The apostle resumes the thought
started in ver. 1. The Be not only intimates this, but shows
also that the thought about to be expressed is in contrast with
that which occupies the immediately preceding verses. The
fact of God s mercy succeeds a description of man s guilt and
misery, and the transition from the one to the other is indi
cated by the particle Be. Hartung, vol. i. p. 173 ; Jelf, 767.
Jerome rashly condemns the use of Be ; but Bodius stigma
tizes the patristic critic as judging nimisprofecto audacter et
hypcrcriticc. "E\eo&lt;? signifies " mercy," and is a term stronger
and more practical than ol /triplex;. It is not mere emotion,
but emotion creating actual assistance sympathy leading to
succour. The participle wv does not seem to have here a
causal significance, as such an idea is expressed by the follow
ing Sid. And in this mercy God is rich. It has no scanty
foothold in His bosom, for it fills it. Though mercy has been
expended by God for six millenniums, and myriads of myriads
1 Wiggers, August, und Pelng. Kap. 20 ; Nitzsch, 105, 107.

EPUESIANS II. 5. 141

have been partakers of it, it is still an unexhausted mine of
wealth

Sia TIJV 7ro\\r)i&gt; ayuTrrjv avrov, i)v i}yd7rr)&lt;Ti/ r;/ui? " on

account of His great love with which He loved us." The
former clause describes the general source of blcssiii" ; this
marks out a direct and special manifestation, and is in im
mediate connection with the following verb. On the use of
a verb with its cognate noun carrying with it an intensity of
meaning, the reader may turn to i. 3, 6, 20 ; Winer, $ 32, L ;
Kiiliner, 547. The ^/xa? are Paul and his contemporary
believers, and, of course, all possessing similar faith. That
love is TroXXr; great indeed ; for a great God is its possessor,
and great sinners are its objects. The adjective probably
marks the quality of intensity ; indeed, while its generic
meaning remains, its specific allusion depends upon iu
adjuncts. The idea of frequency may thus be included, as
it seems to be in some uses of the word ! number being
its radical meaning. /ToXX?; uyaTnj, therefore, is love, the
intensity of which has been shown in the fervour and
frequency of its developments. See under i. 5. And what
can be higher proof than this

(Ver. 5.) Kal 6Wa? r^us veicpovs TO?? TrapaTTTvpaeiv " Us
being even dead in trespasses." The /cat does more than
mark the connection. It does not, however, signify " also,"
as Meier supposes " us, too, along with you ;" nor, as Flutt,
Kiickert, Matthies, and Ilol/hausen think, does it merely
show the connection of the vfids of ver. 1 with this r;/^/? f
ver. 5. Nor does it mean " yet," " although," as Koppe
takes it. In this view, to give any good sense, it must bo
joined to the preceding verb " He loved us, even though
we were dead in sins." T&gt;ut such a construction destroys
the unity of meaning. With Meyer and Harluss, we preu-r
joining the icai to the participle oVra?, and making it signify
" indeed," or when we " were truly " dead in sins. Hurtling,
vol. i. p. 132. See chap. i. 11, 15.

avi&gt;a&gt;o7roiT]ai&gt; T(O Xpt(TT&lt;o " (piickciicd together with
Christ." Some MSS. and texts have the preposition tv
before r&lt;Z Xpio-ry, but for this there is no authority, as the
dative is governed by the aw- in composition with the verb.

1 Passow, Pai&gt;o, Lex. *ul&gt; inxre.

142 EPHESIANS II. 5.

The GVV is repeated before the dative in Col. ii. 13. The
entire passage, and the aorist form of the three verbs, show
that this vivification is a past, and not a future blessing. It
is a life enjoyed already, not one merely secured to us by our
ideal resurrection with Christ. The remark of Jerome is
foreign to the purpose, that the aorist is used with reference to
the Divine prescience id quod futurum est, quasi fadum esse
jam dixerit. We have already exhibited the validity of our
objection under i. 19. Theodoret s interpretation is out of
place, eicefoov &lt;yap avaGrdvros, Kal ^/xet? e\7r/fo/ii/ avavTYj-
a-evOaL. Meyer s view has been already rejected under the
1st verse of this chapter; for as the death there described is
not a physical death to come upon us, but a death already
experienced, so this is not a physical resurrection to be enjoyed
at some distant epoch, but one in which, even now, we who
were dead have participated. Therefore, with the majority of
interpreters, we hold that it is spiritual life to which the apostle
refers. The exegesis of Harless, found also in the old Scottish
commentator Dickson, though it be cleverly maintained, is too
refined, and is not in accordance with the literal and sincere
appeal of the apostle to present Christian experience, for in his
opinion, life, resurrection, and glorification are said to be ours,
not because we actually enjoy them, but because Jesus has
experienced them, and they are ours in Him, or ours because
they are His. Olshausen advocates a similar view, though not
so broadly. Slichtiugius and Crellius suppose that the verb
refers to the jus, not the ipsum fadum ; and it is of necessity
the theory of all who, like Bollock and Bodius, maintain that
the resurrection and enthronement described are specially con
nected with the body and its final ascension and blessedness.
The interpretation of Chrysostoin el jap 77 uirap^rj %$, Kal
libels "if the first-fruits live, so do we," does not wholly
bring out the meaning. Theophylact s exposition, which is
shared in by Augustine and Erasmus, is more acute. God
raised up Christ, CKCLVOV evepyeta Him in fact, but us Swa^ei
vvv potentially now, but afterwards in fact also. Harless
compares the language with that in Rom. viii. 30, which Meyer
also quotes, where the verbs are all aorists, and where the last
verb refers to future but certain glory. But the apostle in
that verse describes, by the aorists, God s normal method of

EPHESIAXS II.

143

procedure viewed as from the past the call, justification, and
glorification being contained in a past predestination, and
regarded as coincident with it. The apostle is not appealing
to the Roman Christians, and saying, " God has called and
glorified you;" he is only describing God s general and
invariable method of procedure in man s salvation. But here
he speaks to the Ephesian converts, and tells them that God
quickened them, raised them up, and gave them a seat with
Jesus. He is not unfolding principles of divine government ;
but analyzing human experience, and verifying that analysis
by an appeal to living consciousness. Were no more intended
by the words than Harless imagines, then they would be quite
as true of Christians still unborn as they were of Kphesiun
believers at that time in existence, since all who shall believe
to the end of time were spiritually comprised in the risen
Saviour. Xay more, the sentiment would be true of men in
an unconverted state who were afterwards to believe, lint
here the apostle speaks of union with Jesus not only as a
realized fact, but of its blessed and personal results. The
death was a personal state, and the life corresponds in cha
racter. It is not a theoretic abstraction, but as really an
individual blessing as the death was an individual curse. The
life and resurrection spoken of are now possessed, and their
connection with Christ seems to be of the following nature.
"When God quickened and raised Christ, this process, as we
have seen, was the example and pledge of our spiritual vivi-
fication. When He was raised physically, all His people
were ideally raised in Him ; and in consequence of this con
nection with Him, they are, through faith, actually quickened
and raised, i. 19, 20. The object of the ajiostle, however, id
not merely to affirm that spiritual life and resurrection have
been secured by such a connection with Jesus, but that, having
been so provided, they are also really possessed The writer
tells the Ephesians that they had been dead, and he as-smxv*
them that life in connection with Christ had been given them,
and not merely through Christ potentially secured for them,
and reserved for a full but future enjoyment. The verb
avvetcuOivev, on which Olshausen and Harless lay sin-as 0.1
supporting their view, does not, as we shall see, at all supj&gt;ort
their exegesis. In a word, the apostle opi^ara to iniimalo

144 KPIIESIAXS II. 5.

not only that the mediatorial person of Jesus had a peculiar
and all-comprehending relation to His whole people, so that,
as Olshausen says, " Christ is the real type for every form of
life among them," but that the Ephesian believers possessed
really and now these blessings, which had their origin and
symbol in Jesus, the Saviour and Representative. And there
fore the notion of Beza and Bloomfield, that aw- in the
verb glances at a union of Jew and Gentile, is as wide of the
truth on the one side, as is on the other the opinion that it
means "after the example of" the opinion of Anselm,
Marloratus, Koppe, Grotius, a-Lapide, and Iiosenmiiller. See
on Kara in i. 19. Calvin limits the possession too much to
objective happiness and glory laid up for us in Christ. The
language of Crocius is better nos cxcitatos cssc in Ckristo, id
in capite membra ; idqiie non potentia, non spc, scd actu et re
ipsa.

Now, the life given corresponds in nature to the death
suffered. It is therefore spiritual life, such as is needed for
man s dead spirit. The soul restored to the divine favour
lives again, and its new pulsations are vigorous and healthful.
As every form of life is full of conscious enjoyment, this
too 1ms its higher gladness ; truth, peace, thankfulness, and
hope swelling the bosom, while it displays its vital powers in
sanctified activity : for all its functions are the gift of the
Vivifier, and they are dedicated to His service. That life may
be feeble at first, but " the sincere milk of the word " is
imbibed, and the expected maturity is at length reached.
Its first moment may not indeed be registered in the con
sciousness, as it may be awakened within us by a varying
process, in harmony with the quickness or the slowness of
mental perception, and the dulness or the delicacy of the moral
temperament. The sun rises in our latitude preceded by a
long twilight, which gradually brightens into morning ; but
within the tropics he ascends at once above the horizon with
sudden and exuberant glory. (For an illustration of God s
power in giving this life, the reader may consult under verses
1 9 and 2 of the previous chapter.) Then follows the inter
jected thought

%dpiTi eare cecrwv /j.evoi " by grace have ye been saved."
The Be or jap found in some MSS. is a clumsy addition, and

EPIIKSIANS II. 6. 145

ov, the genitive of the relative pronoun, occurring in I)t,
F, G (ov ri) x"P iTl &gt; or ov X"P LTi )&gt; a d plainly followed by the
Vulgate and Ambrosiaster, is rejected alike by Lachmann and
Tischendorf. The grace referred to is that of God, not of
Christ as Beza supposes. The thought is suddenly and
briefly thrown in, as it rose to the apostle s mind, for it
is a natural suggestion ; and so powerfully did it fill and
move his soul, that he suddenly writes it, but continues the
illustration, and then fondly returns to it in ver. 8. This
mental association shows how closely Paul connected life
with safety how mercy and love, uniting us to Christ, and
vivifying us with Him, are elements of this grace, and how
this union with Jesus and the life springing from it are iden
tical with salvation. lut he proceeds

(Ver. 0.) Kal o-vvj ryeiptv " And raised us up with." The
meaning of aw- is of course the same as in the preceding
a-vve^fiyoTTOLTjae. Believers are not only quickened, but they
are also raised up ; they not only receive life, but they ex
perience a resurrection. The dead, on being quickened, do
not lie in their graves ; they come forth, cast from them the
cerements of mortality, and re-enter the haunts of living
humanity. Jesus rose on being vivified, and left His sepulchre
with the grave-clothes in it. His people enjoy the activities
as well as the elements of vitality, for they are raised out of
the spiritual death-world, and are not found " the living
among the dead." It is a violation of the harmony of sense
to understand the first verb of spiritual life, and the second of
physical resurrection, or the hope of it, as do Menochius,
Bodius, Estius, and Grotius. Still more

teal &lt;TWtcdOi(Tv " and seated us together with." This
verb is to be understood in a spiritual sense as well as the two
preceding ones. It is the spirit which is quickened, raised,
and co-enthroned with Christ. And the place of honour and
dignity is

v rot? cirovpaviois tV Xpiarw Irjaov " in the heavenly
places in Christ Jesus." This idiom has l*jen already con
sidered both under ver. 3 and ver. L O of the l.nt chapter.
It does not denote heaven proper, but is the ideal locality
of the church on the earth, as "the kingdom of heaven "-
above the woild in its sphere of occupation and enjoyment

146 EPHESIAXS II. 6.

The addition of ev Xpiarw Irjaov occurs also i. 3 ; and in
both places the epithet ra eTrovpdvia points out the exalted
position of the church. Union to Christ brings us into them.
His glory is their bright canopy, and His presence diffuses
joy and hope. The eV before Xpia-Tw Irjo-ov has perplexed
commentators, for cvv- is also in composition with the verb,
and would have been supposed to govern these nouns, had
not ev been expressed. But eV again, as frequently in the
previous portion of the epistle, defines the sphere, and refers
to the three aorists so anxious is the apostle to show that
union to Christ is the one source of spiritual honour and
enjoyment. This spiritual enthronement with Jesus is not
more difficult to comprehend than our " royal priesthood."
The loose interpretations of it by Koppe and Bosenmuller rob
it of its point and beauty. Nor is the mere " arousing of the
heavenly consciousness" all that is meant, as Olshausen
supposes. Indeed, Elickert, Meier, Matthies, and Conybeare
are nearer the truth. Our view is simply as follows Our
life, resurrection, and enthronement follow one another, as in
the actual history of the great Prototype. But this " sitting
with Jesus " is as spiritual as the life, and it indicates the
calmness and dignity of the new existence. The quickened
soul is not merely made aware that in Christ, as containing
it and all similar souls, it is enlivened, and raised up, and
elevated, but along with this it enjoys individually a con
scious life, resurrection, and session with Jesus. It feels
these blessings in itself, and through its union with Him. It
lives, and it is conscious of this life ; it has been raised, and it
is aware of its change of spiritual position. It is more than
Augustine allows Nondum in nobis, sed jam in Illo for it
feels itself in the meantime sitting with Jesus, not solely
because of its relation to Him in His representative character,
but because of its own joyous and personal possession of royal
elevation, purity, and honour. " He hath made us kings."
Rev. i. 6. What is more peculiar to the spirit in this series
of present and beatific gifts, shall at length be shared in by
the entire humanity. The body shall be quickened, raised,
and glorified, and the redeemed man shall, in the fulness of
his nature, enjoy the happiness of heaven. The divine
purpose is

EPHESIANS II. 7. 147

(Ver. 7.) H lva cv&fifrjrai eV TO?? aiwviv TOI? eircpxonivot?

" In order that He might show forth in the ages which are
coining " t va indicating design. The meaning of this verse
depends on the sense attached to the last word. Hurl ess,
Meyer, Olshausen, de "Wette, and Bisping, take them as
descriptive of the future world. Thus Theophylact also Nvv

flV jap 7TO\\ol a.TTKTTOVO lV, V 8t TO) ^XXoi Tt dlMl l TTUVT&lt;:

yvwcrovrai rt rjplv f^apiaaro, opwvrcs tv dfairp 0^17 TOVS
07/01*? ; tlie idea being that the blessings of life, resurrection,
and elevation with Christ now bestowed upon believers, may
be hidden in the meantime, but that in the kingdom of glory
they shall be seen in their peculiar lustre and pre-eminence.
Thus Wycliffe also "in the worldlis above comving." Rut
the language of this verse is too full and peculiar to have
only in it this general thought. Why should the greatness of
the grace that quickened and elevated such sinners as these
Ephesians, not be displayed till the realms of glory be reached ?
Or might not (rod intend in their salvation at that early age
to show to coming ages, as vicious as they, what were the
riches of His grace ? The verb wBeifarcu, which in the New
Testament is always used in the middle voice, means to show
for oneself for His own glory. Jelf, 303, 1. Still,
the language of the verse suggests the idea of sample or
specimen. Paul, who classes himself with the Ephesians in
the rj^at, makes this use of his own conversion. 1 Tim. i. lo .
The peculiar plural phrase aiowc?, witli the participle

px&lt;j(jLvoi, denotes " coming or impending ages.
26, 37; Jas. v. 1. The aiu&gt;v is an age or period of time,
and these eu wi/e? form a series of such ages, which were to
commence immediately. These ages began at the period of th
apostle s writing, and are still rolling on till the second advent.
The salvation of such men as these Kpliesians at that early
period of Christianity, was intended by (id t&gt; stand out a-s a
choice monument to succeeding generations of " the exceeding
riches of His grace "-

TO VTTpfid\\ov TrXoOro? rf/&lt; ^aptro? avrov. The neuter nil
is preferred by Tischendurf and Larhinann on the fiulh
of A, M, I) 1 , F, (i. Gersdorf, Jbitw/c, p. US 2 ; Winer, j
note 2. The participle inrp#ti\\ov has
explained i. 1 J. The conversion of the KphcMuns

148 EPHESIANS II. 7.

manifestation of the grace of God of its riches, of its over
flowing riches. That was not restricted grace grace to a few,
or grace to the more deserving, or grace to the milder forms
of apostasy. No ; it has proved its wealth in the salvation of
such sinners as are delineated in the melancholy picture of
the preceding verses. Nay, it is couched

lv ^pijarorrjri, e&lt;j) T)/J&gt;a&lt;&gt; ev Xpiarq) lyvov " in kindness
toward us in Christ Jesus." Four terms are already employed
by the apostle to exhibit the source of salvation e Xeo?, ay airy,
X^P^ XP 7 ? " "^;? conveying the same blessed truth in differ
ent aspects. The first respects our misery ; the second defines
the co-essential form of this eXeo? ; the third characterizes
its free outgoing, and the last points to its palpable and
experienced embodiment. Trench, Syn. p. 192. Winer
suggests that &lt; ^a? is connected with v7rep@d\\ov, 20, 2, b.
But the structure of the sentence forbids altogether such a
connection, and the construction proposed by Homberg and
Koppe is as violent TT}S xdpLros K-OL X^O-TOTTJTO?, supplying
6Wa? also to the phrase ev Xpiara) Irjcrov. The noun
Xpijo-TOTrjs may be followed itself by eirl, as in Eom. xi. 22, or
as when the adjective occurs, Luke vi. 35. We do not under
stand, with Olshausen, that ev ^PTJO-TOT^TI, is a closer
definition of the more general %a /n?. Nor is there any need
of a metonymy, and of taking the term to denote a benefit or
the result of a kindness. This kindness is true generosity, for
it contains saving grace. It is not common providential
kindness, but special " kindness in Christ Jesus," no article
being inserted to show the closeness of the connection, and the
preposition ev again, as so often before, marking Christ Jesus
as the only sphere of blessing. See under i. 16. There is
an evident alliteration in %/3t?, X^O-TOTT;?, Xpiaros. The
kindness of God in Christ Jesus is a phrase expressive of the
manner in which grace operates. His grace is in His goodness.
Grace may be shown among men in a very ungracious way,
but God s grace clothes itself in kindness, as well in the time
as in the mode of its bestowment. What kindness in sending
His grace so early to Ephesus, and in converting such men as
now formed its church ! 0, He is so kind in giving grace, and
such grace, to so many men, and of such spiritual demerit and
degradation ; so kind as not only to forgive sin, but even to

EPHESIANS II. 8. \^

forget it (Heb. viii. 12); so kind, in short, as not only by HU
grace to quicken us, but in the riches of His grace to raise us
up, and in its exceeding riclies to enthrone us in the heavenly
places in Christ ! And all the grace in this kindness shown
in the first century is a lesson even to the nineteenth century.
What God did then, He can do now and will do MOW; and
one reason why He did it then was, to teach the men of the
present age His ability and desire to repeat in them the same
blessed process of salvation and life.

(Ver. 8.) Tfj yap %pm eVre dcaaxr^ifoi Bia rfc Tr/aTew?
" For by grace ye have been saved, through your faith." The
particle yap explains why the apostle has said that the exceed
ing riches of God s grace are shown forth in man s salvation,
and glances back to the interjectional clause at the end of
ver. 5. Salvation must display grace, for it is wholly of grace.
The dative %dpiTi, on which from its position the emphasis
lies, expresses the source of our salvation, and the genitive
7ri &lt;TTo&gt;9 with Bid denotes its subjective means or instrument
Salvation is of grace by faitli the one being the eflicient, the
other the modal cause ; the former the origin, the latter the
method, of its operation. The grace of God which exists
without us, takes its place as an active principle within us,
being introduced into the heart and kept there by the connect
ing or conducting instrumentality of faith.

Xiipis " favour," is opposed to necessity on the part of
God, and to merit on the part of man. God was under no
obligation to save man, for His law might have taken its
natural course, and the penalty menaced and deserved might
have been fully inflicted. Grace springs from His sovereign
will, not from His essential nature. It is not an attribute
which must always manifest itself, but a prerogative that may
either be exercised or held in abeyance. Salvation is an
abnormal process, and " grace is no more grace " if it in of
necessary exhibition. Grace is also opposed to merit on mans
part. Had he any title, salvation would be " of d
two following verses an; meant to state and prove that salva
tion is not and cannot be of human merit. In short, the human
race had no plea with God, but God s Justin
holy claim on them. The conditions of the first IT&lt;
been violated, and the guilty transgressor hud only to antic

150 EPHESIANS II. 8.

pate the infliction of the penalty which he had so wantonly
incurred. The failure of the first covenant did not either
naturally or necessarily lead to a new experiment. While man
had no right to expect, God was under no necessity to provide
salvation. It is " by grace." l

But this grace does not operate immediately and univer
sally. Its medium is faith Sia rr}? Trio-Tews. The two
nouns " grace " and " faith " have each the article, as they
express ideas which are at once familiar, distinctive, and
monadic in their nature ; the article before %pm, referring
us at the same time to the anarthrous term at the close of the
fifth verse, and that before Tr/crreo)?, giving it a subjective
reference, is best rendered, as Alford says, by a possessive.
Lachmann, after B, D 1 , F, G, omits the second article, but
the majority of MSS. are in its favour. It is the uniform
doctrine of the New Testament, that no man is saved against
his will ; and his desire to be saved is proved by his belief of
the Divine testimony. Salvation by grace is not arbitrarily
attached to faith by the mere sovereign dictate of the Most
High, for man s willing acceptance of salvation is essential to
his possession of it, and the operation of faith is just the
sinner s appreciation of the Divine mercy, and his acquies
cence in the goodness and wisdom of the plan of recovery,
followed by a cordial appropriation of its needed and adapted
blessings, or, as Augustine tersely and quaintly phrases it
Qui creavit te sine te, non salvabit te sine te. Justification by
faith alone, is simply pardon enjoyed on the one condition of
taking it.

And thus " ye have been saved ; " not ye will be finally
saved ; not ye are brought into a state in which salvation is
possible, or put into a condition in which you might " work
and win" for yourselves, but ye are actually saved. The
words denote a present state, and not merely " an established
process." Green s Gram, of New Test. 317. Thus Tyndale
translates " By grace ye are made safe thorowe faith." The

1 This generic meaning of the word is the true one here, and it is not to be
regarded specially and technically as in the scholastic theology, and divided
into gratia prceveniens, operand, co-operans ; the first having for its object
homo convertendun ; the second, homo, qui convertitur ; and the third, homo
conversus std sanctificandus.

EPHESIANS II. 8. \^\

context shows the truth of this interpretation, and that the
verb denotes a terminated action. If men have been spiritually
dead, and if they now enjoy spiritual life, then surely they
are saved. So soon as a man is out of danger, he is safe or
" saved." Salvation is a present blessing, though it may not
be fully realized. The man who has escaped from the wreck,
and has been taken into the lifeboat, is from that moment a
saved man. Even though he scarce feel his safety or be
relieved from his tremor, he is still a saved man ; yea, though
the angry winds may howl around him, and though hours may
elapse ere he set his feet on the firm land. The apostle add.s
more precisely and fully

Kal TOVTO OVK ef vpuv " and that not of yourselves " i* t
as it often does, referring to source or cause. Winer, 47, b.
The pronoun TOVTO does not grammatically agree with iri&lt;rrtvs t
the nearest preceding noun, and this discrepancy has origin
ated various interpretations. The words xal TOVTO are
rendered "and indeed" by Wahl, Iliickert, and Matthies.
This emphatic sense belongs to the word in certain connec
tions. Kom. xiii. 11 ; 1 Cor. vi. 6 ; Phil. i. 28. The plural
is also similarly used. 1 Cor. vi. 8 ; Heb. xi. 12 ; Matthiue,
470, G. The meaning of the idiom may here be " Ay, and
this " is not of yourselves. P&gt;ut what is the point of reference ?

Many refer it directly to TT HTTIS "And this faith is not of
yourselves." Such is the interpretation of the fathers Chry-
sostora, Theodoret, and Jerome. Chrysostom says ovot fj
Tn trn? ef ^wv, el jap OVK ?)\0i&gt;, el yap /xr; ticaXecre, TTOK
rj^wdfieda TriaTvcrai. Jerome thus explains El Jure ipsn fides
non cst ex vobis, scd ex eo qni voctivit vos. The same view is
taken by Erasmus, lieza, Crocius, Cocceius, Grotius, Kstius,
Bengel, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Uisping, and Hodge.
Bloomfield says that " all the Calvinistic commentators
this view," and yet Calvin himself was an exception. There
are several objections to this, not as a point of doctrine, but
of exegesis. 1. If the apostle meant to refer to faitl
why change the gender ? why not write xal OUTTJ i To say,
with some, that faith is viewed in the abstract as TO TTT-
reveiv, does not, as we shall see, relievo us of the clif
2. Granting that xal TOVTO is an idiomatic expression, and
that its "ender is not to be strictly taken into account, still

152 EPHESIANS II. 8.

the question recurs, What is the precise reference of
3. Again, TTICTTIS does not seem to be the immediate reference,
as the following verse indicates. You may say " And this
faith is not of yourselves: it is God s gift;" but you cannot
say " And this faith is not of yourselves, but it is God s gift ;
not of works, lest any man should boast." You would thus
be obliged, without any cause, to change the reference in
ver. 9, for you may declare that salvation is not of works, but
cannot with propriety say that faith is not of works. The
phrase ovtc ef epywv must have salvation, and not faith, as its
reference. The words from Kal TOVTO to the end of the verse
may be read parenthetically " By grace are ye saved, through
faith (and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God), not of
works ; " that is, " By grace ye are saved, through faith,"
" not of works." Even with this understanding of the para
graph, the difficulty still remains, and the idea of such a
parenthesis cannot be well entertained, for the ef vp&v corre
sponds to the e f epywv. Baumgarten-Crusius argues that the
allusion is to TT/O-?, because the word Swpov proves that the
reference must be to something internal avf Innerliches.
But is not salvation as internal as faith ? So that we adopt
the opinion of Calvin, Zachariae, Eiickert, Harless, Matthies,
Meyer, Scholz, de Wette, Stier, Alford, and Ellicott, who
make Kal TOVTO refer to eVre aeawa^evoi " and this state of
safety is not of yourselves." This exegesis is presented in a
modified form by Theophylact, Zanchius, Holzhausen, Chandler,
and Macknight, who refer KOI TOVTO to the entire clause
" this salvation by faitli is not of yourselves." Theophylact
says ov Tr)v TTLO TLV \eyet Swpov 0eov, a\\a TO Sia Tr/areo)?
au&gt;Qr)vai, TOVTO Swpov eo-n, 0ov. But some of the difficulties
of the first method of interpretation attach to this. The Kal
TOVTO refers to the idea contained in the verb, and presents
that idea in an abstract form. At the same time, as Ellicott
shrewdly remarks, " the clause Kal TOVTO, etc., was suggested
by the mention of the subjective medium TTLCTTIS, which
might be thought to imply some independent action on the
part of the subject." This condition of safety is not of your
selves is not of your own origination or procurement, though
it be of your reception. It did not spring from you, nor did
you suggest it to God ; but

Kl HESIAXS II. 9. l.r )3

Stov TO lupov " God s is the gift." God s gift is the gift
the genitive 0eoO being the emphatic predicate in opposition
to v^v. Hernhardy, p. 315. Laehmann and Harless place
this clause in a parenthesis. The only objection against the
general view of the passage which we have taken is, that it is
somewhat tautological. The apostle says " P.y grace ye arc
saved," and then " It is the gift of God ; " the same idea
being virtually repeated. True so far, but the insertion of the
contrasted ovtc cf vpwv suggested the repetition. And there
is really no tautology. In chap. iii. 7 occur the words
rr)i&gt; Svpeav rr^ ^a /nxo? rov &ov ; X"P l * ^ing tM
given, and Swpedv Dinting out its mode of bestow mem. Men
are saved by grace TT; x"P iTL I ;ID( 1 that salvation which has
its origin in grace is not won from God, nor is it wrung from
Him; "His is the gift." Look at salvation in its origin it
is " by grace." Look at it in its reception it is " through
faith." Look at it in its manner of conferment it is a "gift"
For faith, though an indispensable instrument, does not merit
salvation as a reward ; and grace operating only through faith,
does not suit itself to congruous worth, nor single it out as its
sole recipient. Salvation, in its broadest sense, is God s gift.
While, then, KOI rovro seems to refer to the idea contained in
the participle only, it would seem that in &toO TO owpov there
is allusion to the entire clause God s is the whole gift. The
complex idea of the verse is compressed into this brief ejacu
lation. The three clauses, as Meyer has remarked, form a
species of asyndeton that is, the connecting particles are
omitted, and the style acquires greater liveliness and fnm 1 .
Dissen, Etc. ii. ad rind. p. 273; Stullbaum, J l tto Cut.
p. 144.

Griesbach places in a parenthesis the entire clause from KU\
rovro to * f cpyw, connecting the words iva y^r] ns Kavxrjffijreu
with Bia T/;? rricrrebx;, but the words OVK e| tp*fn&gt;v have an
immediate connection with the iva a connection which can
not be set aside. Matthies again joins OVK cf fpyvv t
foregoing clause " and that not of yourselves ; the gift of
God is not of works." Such an arrangement is artificial and
inexact. The apostle now presents the truth in negative
contrast

(Ver. 0.) OVK ef epyuv " Not of works "the explanation

154 EPHESIANS II. 9.

of OVK e f vfjiwv. The apostle uses Bid with the article before
Trto-reo)? in the previous verse, but here e without the article
before epycov the former referring to the subjective instru
ment, or causa apprehendens ; the latter to the source, and
excluding works of every kind and character. Etc again refers
to source or cause. Schweighaiiser, Lex. Hcrodot. p. 192. Sal
vation is by grace, and therefore not of us ; it is through faith,
and therefore not of works ; it is God s gift, and therefore not
of man s origination. Such works belong not to fallen and
condemned humanity. It has not, and by no possibility can
it have any of them, for it has failed to render prescribed
obedience ; and though it should now or from this time be
perfect in action, such conformity could only suffice for
present acceptance. How, then, shall it atone for former
delinquencies 1 The first duty of a sinner is faith, and what
merit can there be where there is no confidence in God ?
" Without faith it is impossible to please Him." The theory
that represents God as having for Christ s sake lowered the
terms of His law so as to accept of sincere endeavours for
perfect obedience, is surely inconsistent in its commixture of
merit and grace. For if God dispense with the claims of His
law now, why not for ever if to one point, why not altogether
if to one class of creatures, why not to all ? On such a
theory, the moral bonds of the universe would be dissolved.
The distinction made by Thomas Aquinas between meritum
ex concjruo and meritum ex condigno, was too subtle to be
popularly apprehended, and it did not arrest the Pelagian
tendencies of the medieval church.

iva ft?? rt? Kav^qorTjrai " lest any one should boast."
According to the just view of Kiickert, Harless, Meyer, and
Stier, the conjunction marks design, or is telic ; according
to others, such as Koppe, Flatt, Holzhausen, Macknight,
Chandler, and Bloomfield, it indicates result " so as that no
one may boast." So also Theophylact TO, &lt;yap, iva, OVK
alnoXoyiKov ecrrt, aX\ K TT}? a7ro/3acre&)9 TOV Trpdyparos ;
that is, the iva is not causal, but eventual in its meaning.
Koppe suggests as an alternative to give the words an im
perative sense " Not of works : beware then of boasting."
Stier proposes that the iva be viewed from a human stand
point, and as indicative of the writer s own purpose ; as if the

EPHESIAXS II. 10. 155

apostle had said " Xot of works, I repeat it, lest any one
should boast." This exegesis is certainly original, as iu
author hits indeed mentioned ; but it is as certainly unnatural
and fur-fetched. Macknight has argued that a/a cannot have
its telic force, for it would represent God as appointing our
salvation to be by faith, merely to prevent men s boasting,
"which certainly is an end unworthy of God in so great an
affair ;" but this is not a full view of the matter, for the apostle
does not characterize the prevention of boasting as God s only
end, but as one of His purposes. For what would boosting
imply ? Would it not imply fancied merit, indej&gt;endence of
God, and that self-deiticatioii which is the very essence of sin i
A pure and perfect creature has nothing to boast of; for what
has he that he has not received ? " Now, if thou didst receive
it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it ? "
When God purposes to preclude boasting, or even the jxjssi-
bility of it, He resolves to effect His design in this one way,
by filling the mind with such emotions as shall infallibly
banish it. He furnishes the redeemed spirit with humility
and gratitude such humility as ever induces man to confess
his emptiness, and such gratitude as ever impels him to ascribe
every blessing to the one source of Divine generosity. W
see no reason, therefore, to withhold from tva its natural and
primary sense, especially as in the mind and theology of the
apostle, event is so often viewed in unison with its source, and
result is traced to its original design, in the Divine idea and
motive. And truly boasting is effectually stopped. For if
man be guilty, and being unable to win a pardon, simply
receive it ; if, being dead, he get life only as a Divine endow
ment ; if favour, and nothing but favour, have originated
his safety, and the only possible act on his part be that &lt;&gt;t
reception ; if what he has be but a gift to him in his wen
and meritless state then surely nothing can be further fnm
him than boasting, for he will glorify God for all. 1 Cor. i.
29-31. Ambrosiaster truly remarks-

peccato nocentior omni gcnerc est elatwni* ituaniur. Am:
further, salvation cannot be of ourselves or of works-

(Ver. 10.) Avrov yap &lt;rpv Troirjpa
workmanship." The yap has its common meaning,
ders the reason for the statement in the two previous verse*.

156 EPHESIANS II. 10.

It does not signifiy "yet," as Macknight has it. Others care
lessly overlook it altogether. Nor can we accede to the opinion
of Theophylact, Photius, and Bloomfield, that this verse is
introduced to prevent misconception, as if the meaning were
" Salvation is not of works," yet do them we must, " for we
are His workmanship." This notion does not tally with the
simple reasoning of the apostle, and helps itself out by an
unwarranted assumption. Kiickert and Meier join this verse
in thought to the last clause of the preceding one " No man
who works can boast, for the man himself is God s workman
ship." But the apostle has affirmed that salvation is not of
works, so that such works are not supposed to exist at all ;
and therefore there is no ground for boasting. Nor can we,
with Harless, view the verse as connected simply with the
phrase Seov TO &pov. We regard it, with Meyer, as designed
to prove and illustrate the great truth of the 9th verse, that
salvation is not of works. " By grace ye are saved, through
faith, and that not of yourselves not of works, for we are
His workmanship." Hooker, vol. ii. 601 ; Oxford, 1841.

But the terms may be first explained. The apostle changes
from the second to the first person without any other apparent
reason than the varied momentary impulse one yields to in
writing a letter. The noun Trofy/za, as the following clause
shows, plainly refers to the spiritual re-formation of believers,
and it is as plainly contrary to the course of thought to give
it a physical reference, as did Gregory of Nazianzus, Tertullian,
Basil, Photius, and Jerome. The same opinion, modified by
including also the notion of spiritual creation, is followed by
Pelagius, Erasmus, Bullinger, Eiickert, and Matthies. The
process of workmanship is next pointed out

KTicrOevres ev XpLara) Irjaov " created in Christ Jesus."
This added phrase explains and bounds the meaning of
TTolrj/jLa. The reference here is to the naivr) KTIVIS (2 Cor.
v. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15), and the form of expression carries us back
to many portions of the Hebrew prophets, and to the use of
K"J3 in Ps. li. 10, and in Ps. cii. 18 (Schoettgen, Horcc Hebraicce,
i. p. 328). See also verse 15 of this chapter. Chrysostom
adds, with peculiar and appropriate emphasis etc rov /HT) 6Wo?,
ets TO elvai Trap-ifyOrjfjiev. Again is it tv Xpiarw Irjaov, for
Christ Jesus is ever the sphere of creation, or, through their

KI HK.SIAXS II. 10 1.-.7

vital union with Him, men are formed anew, and the spiritual
change that passes over them has its best emblem and most
expressive name in the physical creation, when out of chaos
sprang light, harmony, beauty, and lite. The object of this
spiritual creation in Christ is declared to be

eVt epyois dya0ol&lt;t " in order to," or " for good works."
This meaning of eVt may be seen in Gal. v. 1 3 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7.
Winer, 48, c; Kiihner 612, 3, c; 1 hrynichus, ed. Lobeck,
p. 474. 1 alairet, in his Obscrvat. Sac. in loc. t lias given several
good examples of eVi with such a sense. Our entire renova
tion, while it is of God in its origin, and in Christ its its
medium, has good works for its object.

Now, as already intimated, we understand this verse as a
proof that salvation is not of works. For, 1. The statement
that salvation is of works involves an anachronism. Works,
in order to procure salvation, must precede it, but the good
works described by the apostle come after it, for they only
appear after a man is in Christ, believes and lives. 2. The
statement that salvation is of works involves the fallacy of
mistaking the effect for the cause. Good works are not the
cause of salvation ; they are only the result of it. Salvation
causes them ; they do not cause it. This workmanship of
God this creation in Christ Jesus is their true source,
implying a previous salvation. Thus runs the well-known
confessional formula Mono, opera nonprcccfduntjiistificandum,
sed srquuntur justification. The law says "Do this and
live;" but the gospel says "Live and do this." 3. And
even such good works can have in them no saving merit,
for we are His workmanship. Talia nan. nun rjpciinun, says
Bugenhagen, scd tfpiritus Dei in MM* ; or, as Augustine puts
it ipso in nobis et per nos operante,incrita tiui nusquam jac
quia et ipsa tua merita Dei dona mint. Comment, in Ks. cxliv.
The power and the desire to perform good works are alii
from God, for they are only fruits and manifestations of Divine
grace in man ; and as they arc not self-produced, tln-y cannot
entitle us to reward. Such, we apprehend, is the ajM
argument. Salvation is not &lt;?f l/rywv ; yet it in &lt;Vi ipyom

0700019 " in order to good works the fruits of .salvation

and acceptance with God, proofs of holy oU dic-nce, tokens of
the possession of Christ s image, elements of the imitation o

158 EPHESIANS II. 10.

Christ s example, and the indices of that holiness which
adorns the new creation, and " without which no man can see
the Lord." Peter Lombard says well Sola bona opera dicenda
sunt, quce fiunt per dilcciionem Dei. But there can be no
productive love of God where there is no faith in His Son,
and where that faith does exist, salvation is already possessed.
The disputes on this point at the period of the Eeformation
were truly lamentable ; Solitidians and Synergists battled with
mischievous fury : Major arguing that salvation was dependent
on good works, and Amsdorf reprobating them as prejudicial to
it ; while Agricola maintained the Antinomian absurdity, that
the law itself was abolished, and no longer claimed obedience
from believers. And these " good " works are 110 novelty nor
accident

ol? TrpoijTotfjiao ev o @eo?, "va ev aurot? TrepiiraTijaw^ev
" which God before prepared that we should walk in them."
The interpretation of this sentence depends upon the opinion
formed as to the regimen of the pronoun 0*9.

1. Some, taking the word as a dative,render "To which God
hath afore ordained us, in order that we should walk in them."
Such is the view of Luther, Semler, Zachariae, Morus, Flatt,
Meier, Bretschneider, and virtually of Fritzsche, 1 Alt, 2 and
Wahl. But the omission of the pronoun ^/-ta? is fatal to this
opinion. The idea, too, which in such a connection is here
expressed by a dative, is usually expressed by the accusative
with etV Eom. ix. 23 ; 2 Tim. ii. 21 ; Rev. ix. 7.

2. Valla, Erasmus, Er. Schmidt, and Riickert give ols a
personal reference, as if it stood for 6Vot? ^MV " among
whom God before prepared us." But the antecedent qpeus
is too remote, and the ol? appears to agree in gender with
ev avrois.

3. Bengel, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and Baumgarten-Crusius
take the phrase as a kind of Hebraism, or as a special idiom, in
which, along with the relative pronoun, there is also repeated
the personal pronoun and the preposition 03 ~&gt; j ; N v &lt;H? iva
7repi7rarr)(j o)/jiV ev avrols, TrporjTOi/ACKTev o eo?. But this
exegesis is about as intricate as the original clause.

4. The large body of interpreters take the ot? for a by
attraction. Winer, 24, 1. This opinion is simple, the

1 Comment, iu Matt. iii. 12. *Gram. Liny. Grac. N. T. p. 229.

EI RESIAXS II. 10.

159

change of case by attraction is common, and a similar ue
of a/a is found in John v. 3G. So the Vulgate Qwa
prceparamt.

5. Acting upon a hint of Bengel s, Stier suggests that the
verb may be taken in a neuter or intransitive sense, as the
simple verb thus occurs in 2 Chron. i. 4, and in Luke ix. 52.
Could this exegesis be fully justified, we should be inclined
to adopt it " For which God has made previous preparation,
that we should walk in them." The fourth opinion supposes
the preparation to belong to the works also, but in a more
direct form the works being prepared for our performance of
them. In this last view, the preparation refers more to the
persons preparation to enable them to walk in the works.
The fourth interpretation is the best grammatically, and the
meaning of the phrase, " which God has before prepared,"
seems to be " in order that we should walk in those works,"
they have been prescribed, defined, and adapted to us.

It is wrong to ignore the TT/JO in 7rpoT)-roi p,a&lt;Ti&gt;, as is done
by Flatt and Baumgarten-Crusius. Wisdom ix. ; Philo, DC
Opif. 25. Nor can we, with Augustine, de Wette, and
Harless, give the verb the same meaning as Trpoopifyw, or
assign it, with Koppe and Kosenmuller, the sense of rtllr. or
jui:re; Harless saying that it is used of things as the verb
last referred to is used of persons, but without sufficient proof;
and Olshausen supposing that the two verbs differ thus that
n-poToifj,d%iv refers to a working of the IHvine eternal will
which is occupied more with details. Perhaps the difference
is more accurately brought out in this way : rrpoopi^fiv marks
appointment or destination, in which the end is primarily kept
in view, while in TrpotToipd^tiv the means by which the end
is secured are specially regarded as of Divine arrangement, the
"rrpo referring to a period anterior to that implied in tcnffQivrts.
We could not walk in these works unless they had IK.-CII pre
pared for us. And, therefore, by prearranging the work*
their sphere, character, and suitability, and also by preordaining
the law which commands, the inducement or appliances which
impel, and the creation in Christ which qualifies and einjx.weru
us, God hath .shown it to )&gt;e His purjK^e that " we should
walk in them." Tersely does Pengel say, &gt;/&lt;
salcarcmur ant vice remits. These good works, though they

160 EI HESIAXS II. 11.

do not secure salvation, are by God s eternal purpose essen
tially connected with it, and are not a mere offshoot accident
ally united to it. Nor are they only joined to it correctionally,
as if to counteract the abuses of the doctrine that it is not of
works. The figure in the verb rrepiTrar^a-w^ev is a Hebraism
occurring also in ver. 2. See under it. Tit. ii. 14, iii. 8.
Though in such works there be no merit, yet faith shows its
genuineness by them. In direct antagonism to the Pauline
theology is the strange remark of Whitby " that these works
of righteousness God hath prepared us to walk in, are con
ditions requisite to make faith saving." The same view in
substance has been elaborately maintained by Bishop Bull in
his Harmonia Apostolica. Works, vol. iii. ed. Oxford, 1827.
Nor is the expression less unphilosophical. Works cannot
impart any element to faith, as they are not of the same nature
with it. The saving power of faith consists in its acceptance
and continued possession of God s salvation. Works only
prove that the faith we have is a saving faith. And while
Christians are to abound in works, such works are merely
demonstrative, not in any sense supplemental in their nature.
Kal KTia-dr)s OVK iva dpyfjs, aXX, iva epya^rj (Theophylact).
But the Council of Trent Sess. vi. cap. 16 declares "that
the Lord s goodness to all men is so great that He will have
the things which are His own gifts to be their merits " ut
eorum velit esse merita quce sunt ipsius dona. See Hare, Mission
of the Comforter, i. 359.

(Ver. 11.) The second part of the epistle now commences,
in a strain of animated address to the Gentile portion of the
church of Christ in Ephesus, bidding them remember what
they had been, and realize what by the mediation of Christ
they had now become

A Co pvrj/jLovevere "Wherefore remember." The reference
has a further aspect than to the preceding verse 816 com
mencing the paragraph, as in Horn. ii. 1, and in this epistle,
iii. 13, iv. 25; though in some other places it winds up a
paragraph, as in 2 Cor. xii. 10; Gal. iv. 31. These things
being so, and such being the blessings now enjoyed by them,
lest any feeling of self-satisfaction should spring up within
them, they were not to forget their previous state and character.
This exercise of memory would deepen their humility, elevate

EPHESIAXS II. 11. Id

their ideas of Divine grace, and incite them to ardent and
continued thankfulness. The apostle honestly refers them to
their previous Gentilism. Remember

on Trore vpcls ra edvr] eV &lt;rapK\ " that ye, once Gentiles
in the flesh." "Oi/re? is understood by some, and ;T by
others ; but of such a supplement there is no absolute need
the construction being repeated emphatically afterwards.
The article rd before eOvr) signifies a class, and it is omitted
before ev vapid to indicate the closeness of idea. "EOmj
D^i3 has a special meaning attached to it. Not only were
they foreigners, but they were ignorant and irreligious. Malt,
xviii. 1 7. If ZQvr] simply signified non-Israelites, then they
were so still, for Christianity does not obliterate difference of
race ; but the word denotes men without religious privilege,
and in this sense they were TTOTC once heathen. Ilut their
ethnical state no longer existed. Some render v &lt;raptci
"by natural descent," as Bucer, Grotius, Kstius, Stolz, and
Kistmacher. This meaning is a good one, but the last clause
of the verse points to a more distinct contrast. Ambrosiaster,
Zanchius, Crocius, Wolf, and Holzhausen take the term in its
theological sense, as if it signified corrupted nature ; but tca-ra

pKa would have been in that case the more appropriate
idiom. Jerome supposes the phrase to stand in opposition to
an implied ev Trvevpart. lint the verse itself decides the
meaning, as Drusius, Calvin, Iteza, Rollock, liengel, Itiickert,
Earless, Olshausen, Meyer, de Wette, and Stier rightly sup
pose. Natural Israel was so V aapici; the Gentiles were
also so i&gt; trapKi. Col. ii. 1 3. Both phrases have, therefore,
the same meaning, and denote neither physical descent nor
corrupted nature, but simply and literally " in jlf*h."
absence of the "seal" in their flesh proved them to lw Gen
tiles, as the presence of it showed the Jews to 1* the seed of
Abraham. If eV aapici denoted natural descent, then the
fact of it could not be changed. Heathens, and lorn o,
they must be so still, but they had ceased to be heathen c
their introduction into the kingdom of God. The world
beyond them, whose flesh had been unmarked, was on t
account looked down upon by the Jews, and characteriwsd M
ra MVTI. The apostle now explains his meaning more !

ol X^O^VOL AtpopvoTia" who are called the Uncn

162 EPHESIANS II. 12.

cision." The noun aKpoftva-ria is, according to Fritzsche (on
Rom. ii. 26), an Alexandrian corruption for a/cpoTroaOia.
This term has all the force of a proper name, and no article
precedes it. Middleton, Greek Art. p. 43. It was, on the part
of the Jews, the collective designation of the heathen world,
and it sigmatized it as beyond the pale of religious privilege,
Gen. xxxiv. 14; Lev. xix. 23 ; Judg. xiv. 3 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 6 ;
Isa. lii. 1 ; Ezek. xxviii. 10. And the Gentiles were so
named ,ny

VTTO T?}9 \eyo pew?)? IIepLrofirj&lt;s " by the so-called Circum
cision " this last also a collective epithet. This was the
national distinction on which the Jews flattered themselves.
Other Abrahamic tribes, indeed, were circumcised, but the
special promise was " In Isaac shall thy seed be called."
The next words eV aapicl xeipoTronjTov " hand-made in the
flesh," as a tertiary predicate, do not belong to Xeyo^e z^?. " In
the flesh made by hands " was no portion of their boasted
name, but the phrase is added by the apostle, and the Syriac

rightly renders it ];m^o (-?- 1 t ^ v cn_A_ |o " and it is

a work of the hands in the flesh." He cannot, as Harless and
Olshausen remark, be supposed to undervalue the right of cir
cumcision, for it was signum sanctitatis. Indeed, his object in
the next verses is to show, that the deplorable condition of the
Gentiles was owing to their want of such blessings as were
enjoyed by the chosen seed. Still, the apostle, by the words
now referred to, seems to intimate that in itself the rite is
nothing that it is only a symbol of purity, a mere chirurgical
process, which did not and could not secure for them eternal
life. Rom. ii. 28, 29 ; Gal. v. 6 ; Philip, iii. 3 ; Col. ii. 11,
iii. 11. The word is used in a good sense in Acts x. 45,
xi. 2 ; Rom. xv. 8 ; Gal. ii. 7, 8, 9 ; Col. iv. 11 ; Tit. i. 10.
The apostle alludes mentally to the " true circumcision " made
without hands, which is not " outward in the flesh," and which
alone is of genuine and permanent value. Remember

(Yer. 12.) "On r^re ra&gt; Kaipaj etceivcp %/H? Xpiarov " That
at that same time ye were without Christ." The preposition eV
is of doubtful authority, and is rejected by Lachmaim and
Tischendorf. Kiihner, 569; Winer, 31, 9, 5. External
authority, such as that of A, B, D 1 , F, G, is against it, though

KI HESIANS II. 12. 1C3

the Pauline usage, as found in Kom. iii. 2G, xi. 5, 1 Cor.
xi. 23, 2 Cor. viii. 13, etc., seems to be in its favour. The
reference in the phrase " at that time," is to the period of
previous Gentilisrn. The conjunction on resumes the thought
with which the preceding verse started, and T$ teaipto points
back to Trore. The verb j/re, as de Wette suggests, and
as Lachmann points, may be connected with the participle
aTrr)\\oTpia)p.ei&gt;oi " that at that time, l&gt;eing without Christ,
ye were excluded from theocratic privileges." Ellicott and
Alford call this construction harsh, and make v XpHTrai a
predicate. We will not contend for the construction, but we
do not see such harshness in it. In this syntactic arrange-
inrnt, x^pls XpKTrov would give the reason why they were
aliens from the Hebrew commonwealth. XcopI? Xpic-rov
corresponds to eV XpLa-r(o^Ir]a-ou in ver. Iii. 1 Jiut in what
sense was the Gentile world without Christ ? According to
Anselrn, Calovius, Flatt, and Baumgarten-Crusius, the phruso
means "without the knowledge of Christ" Olshausen,
Matthies, and liiickert connect with the words the idea of the
actual manifestation and energy of the Son of God, who dwelt
among the ancient people prior to His incarnation. Koppc,
Meyer, and Meier give this thought prominence in their
interpretation " without any connection with Christ," an
exegesis, in an enlarged form, adopted by Slier. Pe \\ette
rightly gives it "without the promise of Christ," and in this
he has followed Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, and Grotius. Harless
takes it as a phrase concentrating in its two words the fuller
exposition of itself given in the remaining clauses of the verse.
Now it is to be borne in mind, that the apostle s object is to
describe the wretched state of Gentilism, especially in contrast
with Hebrew theocratic privilege. The Jewish nation had
Christ in some sense in which the Gentiles had Him not

1 According to Tittmann (De Synon. p. 94,, &gt;&gt; *(&lt;" *"uM l * only-drial
was not with you ; but X v ( ; ( \^ r Z U ye w.-rc far from Christ
to the- subject as separate from the obj.-rt. Not to contra.

might add that i,iv, allied to in, tin, ohn , might, in a grncr.l
].riv.ition; but x ~ ( , f marks that privation as cau*l I-
Gentile are viewed as being not nn-r.-ly without Him, but far a*4jr fi
Their relation to Him in marked by a gr.-at intrmil -ffi.
ay, "thiadiatinctioninuat be applied with caution, whm it
that X "C ; " "^ folt y timc- iu the Ncw Tc*Umcnt, and in. only U

164 EPHESIANS II. 12.

had the Messiah not Jesus indeed but the Christ in promise.
He was the great subject the one glowing, pervading promise
of their inspired oracles. But the Gentiles were "without
Christ." No such hopes or promises were made known to
them. No such predictions were given to them, so that they
were in contrast to the chosen seed " without Christ." The
rites, blessings, common wealth, and covenants of old Israel
had their origin in this promise of Messiah. On the other
hand, the Gentiles being without Messiah, were of necessity
destitute of such theocratic blessings and institutions. Such
seems to be the contrast intended by the apostle. In this
verse he says X^P^ Xpio-rov, as Xpiaros was the official
designation embalmed in promise; but he says in ver. 13
ev Xpi&lt;rTa) Irjcrov, for the Messiah had appeared and had
actually become Jesus.

aTTT/XXor/Hw/zeWi Try? TroXtre/a? TOU Io-par]\ " being aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel." The first thing to be
examined is, what is meant by the iroXirela rou la-paijX. The
convcrsatio (referring, it may be, to citizen-life) of the Vulgate,
Jerome, Theophylact, Vatablus, and Estius, is not to be
thought of. As Israel was the theocratic appellation of
the people, the iroXireia is so far defined in its meaning.
It does not signify mere political right, as Grotius and
Rosenmiiller secularize it ; nor does it denote citizenship,
or the right of citizenship, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger,
Beza, and Michaelis understand it. Though Aristotle defines
the word TWV TTJV iroikiv OLKOVVTGOV ra^t? rt?, yet it often
denotes the state or commonwealth itself, especially when
followed, as here, by a possessive or synonymous genitive
containing the people s name. Polit. iii. 1 ; Xenophon, Memo
rabilia, ii. 1, 13; 2 Mace. iv. 11, viii. 17, etc. "The
commonwealth of Israel" is that government framed by God,
in which religion and polity were so conjoined, that piety
and loyalty were synonymous, and to fear God and honour
the king were the same obligation. The nation was, at the
same time, the only church of God, and the archives of the
country were also the records of its faith. Civil and sacred
were not distinguished ; municipal immunity was identical
with religious privilege ; and a spiritual meaning was attached
to dress and diet, as well as to altar and temple. And this

EPHESIAXS II. 12. 16.S

entire arrangement had its origin and its form in the grand
national characteristic the promise of Messiah. The Gen
tiles had not the Messiah, and therefore were not included in
such a commonwealth. This negation is expressed by the
strong term aTrijXXoTpiw^voi. Kph. iv. 18 ; Col. i. 21 ; E/ek.
xiv. 7; Hos. ix. 10; Homberg, Parerga, p. 291; Krebs, Ub~
servat. p. H26. The contrast is o-u/zTroXTrat in the 1 Jth verse.
The verb itself is used by Josephus to denote a sentence of
expatriation or outlawry. Antiq. xi. 4. May not the term
imply a previous condition or privilege, from which there
has been subsequent exclusion ? Harless and Stier, led by
Bengel in his note on iv. 18, hold this view. Historically,
this interpretation cannot be maintained indeed, as the (Jen-
tiles never were united with the actual theocracy. Imt if the
term TroXire/a be used in an ideal sense, as liuckert thinkn,
meaning eine walirlw.fl gnttliche llfgicning " a true Divine
government " then tlie exegesis may be adopted. Olshausen
finds this notion in the form of the word itself, for the heathen
are not simply a\\6rpiot but &lt;i7nj\\orput)f^i oi men who hail
been excluded from the Hebrew commonwealth. Chrysostom
notices the word, and ascribes to it TroXXr; epQcuris. National
distinction did not, indeed, exist in patriarchal times, but by
the formation of the theocracy the other races of men were
formally abalienated from Israel, and no doubt their own
vices and idolatry justified their exclusion. And therefore
they were destitute of religious privilege, knowledge of Clod,
modes of accepted worship, enjoyment of Divine patronage
and protection, oracle and prophet, priest and sacrifice. Ami
still more awful

teal gevot, -ro)v &ia0T)KO)v rf]&lt;; eVay-yeX/a? " and strangers
from the covenants of the promise " covenants having tho
promise as their distinctive possession, and characterized
it. The collocation of the words forbids the exegc
Anselm, Ambrosiaster, a-Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, and (irau-
ville 1 enn, 1 who join the two last terms to the folio v
" having no hope of the promise." The term Smtfv*&lt;u in
used in the plural, not to show that there wore distinct cove
nants, but to indicate covenants often renewed with the cho**en
people the Mosaic covenant being a re-ratification &lt;

1 Annotation* to the Book* of th&lt; Xrtc &lt;Jovtn&lt;i*t, M toe.

166 EPHESIANS II. 12.

Abrahamic. Rom. ix. 4. It is erroneous, then, either to say,
with Eisner and Wolf, that the plural merely stands for the
singular ; or to affirm that the two tables of the law are referred
to ; or to suppose, with Harless and Olshausen, that the cove
nant made with the Jewish people by Moses is alone the
point of allusion. The covenant founded with Abraham,
their great progenitor, and repeated to his children and their
offspring, was at length solemnly confirmed at Mount Sinai.
That vofJLoOeaLd succeeds Sia0f)tcai, in Eom. ix. 4, is no
argument against the idea that there was a covenant in the
Mosaic law. Stier restricts the covenants to those made
with the fathers, and denies that the transactions at Mount
Sinai were of the nature of a covenant. But the covenant
was bound up in the Sinaitic code, and ratified by the blood
of sacrifice, when Moses formally sprinkled " the book and all
the people." The covenant was made with Abraham, Gen.
xii. 3, xxii. 18 ; with Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 3 ; with Jacob, Gen.
xxviii. 13 ; with the people, Ex. xxiv. 8 ; and with David,
2 Sam. vii. 12. See also Jer. xxxi. 31-34; Mai. iii. 1;
Rom. xi. 27. The use of the plural was common. Sirach
xliv. 11; Wisd. xviii. 22 ; 2 Mace. viii. 15. And when we
look to this covenant in its numerous repetitions, we are at
no loss to understand what is meant by " the promise " the
article being prefixed. The central promise here marked out
by the article was the Messiah, and blessing by Him. That
promise gave to these covenants all their beauty, appropriate
ness, and power. " Covenants of the promise " are therefore
covenants containing that signal and specific announcement of
an incarnate and triumphant Redeemer. To such covenants
the heathen were strangers gevoi. This adjective is followed
by a genitive, not as one of quality, but as one of negative
possession. Bernhardy, p. 171. Or see Matthiae, 337;
Scheuerlein, 18, 3, a. Thus Sophocles, (Edip. Tyr. 219
feVo? rou \6you. This second clause represents the effect of
the condition noted in the former clause not only gives a
more special view of it, as Harless too restrictedly says, but
it also depicts the result. Being aliens from the theocracy,
they were, eo ipso, strangers to its glorious covenants and their
unique promise. The various readings in the MSS. are futile
efforts to solve apparent difficulties. Another feature was

EPHKSIANS II. 12. 107

r] e^oi/re* "not having hope." The subjective
negative particle fj,ij, so often employed with & participle,
shows the dependence of this clause on those preceding it.
Winer, 55, 5; 1 Kiilmer, 715; Hartung, vol. ii. pp. 105-130;
Gayler. It is an erroneous and excessive restriction to confine
this hope to that of the resurrection, as is done by TheophyUct,
from a slight resemblance to 1 Thess. iv. i:&gt;. Neither can
we limit it to eternal blessing, with liullinger, Grotius, and
Meier ; nor to promised good, with E-stius ; nor to the redemp
tion, with Harless. JSXTr/?, having the emphasis from its
position and without the article, has the wide and usual sig
nificance which belongs to it in the Pauline epistles. Tims
Wycliffe " not having hope of biheest." The Kphesians
had no hope of any blessing which cheers and comforts, no
hope of any good either to satisfy them here, or to yiM
them eternal happiness. They had hope of nothing a sinner
should hope for, of nothing a fallen and guilty spirit writhes
to get a glimpse of, of nothing which the " Israel of God " so
confidently expected. Their future was a night without a star.
/cal adeoL "and without God" not "atheists" in the
modern sense of the term, for they held some belief in a supe
rior power ; nor yet antitheists, for many were " feeling after
the Lord," and their religion, even in its polytheism, was
proof of an instinctive devotion. The word is indeed used of
such as denied the gods of the state, by Cicero and by Plato
DC Nat. Dcor. i. 2:]; Optra, vol. ii. p. 311, ed. Bekker.
Loud. ; but it is also employed by the Greek tragedians as an
epithet of impious, or, as we might say, "godless" men. It
occurs also in the sense " without God s help," as in Sophocles,
CEdipus Tyrannus, GG1 :

Eire! a.0fo&lt;; d&lt;iAo&lt; o, TI

"Since I wwh to die godless, friondlcjw," eU.

Perhaps the apostle uses the term in this last
much without belief in God, as without any help from Him.
Though the apostle has proved the grovelling ulwunli
theism and idolatry, and that the Gentiles sacrificed
and not to God, he never brands su&lt;-h blind wonhippci
1 Moulton, p. 000.

168 KPHESIANS II. 12.

atheists. Acts xvii. 23; Rom. i. 20-25; 1 Cor. x. 20. Theo-
doret understands by the phrase epi^ai 0oyva&gt;cria&lt;; " devoid
of the knowledge of God ; " and the apostle himself uses the
phrase OVK eiSore? Oeov, Gal. iv. 8. Compare 1 Thess. iv. 5 ;
2 John 9. The Gentile world were without God to counsel,
befriend, guide, bless, and save them. In this sense they were
godless, having no one to cry to, to trust in, to love, praise,
and serve ; whereas Jehovah, in His glory, unity, spirituality,
condescension, wisdom, power, and grace, was ever present
to the thinking mind and the pious heart in the Israelitish
theocracy, and the idea of God combined itself with daily duty
as well as with solemn and Sabbatic service.

cv ru&gt; KOO-/JLO) " in the world." The connection of this
clause has been variously understood. Koppe refers it to the
entire verse ; and the view of Calovius is similar. Such an
interpretation is a mere nihility, and utters no additional
idea. Storr (Opuscula Academica, iii. p. 304) paraphrases
In his terris versabamini ; and Flatt renders "Ye were
occupied with earthly things, and had mere earthly hopes."
(Ecumenius, Matthies, and Meier understand the clause of
an ungodly life. Olshausen and Stier explain " in this
wicked world in which we have so pressing need of a sure
hope, and of a firm hold on the living God." Eiickert wan
ders far away in his ingenuity " In the world, of which the
earth is a part, and which is under God s government, ye
lived without God, separated from God." Bloomfield takes
the phrase as an aggravation of their offence " to live in
a world made by God, and yet not to know Him." But
we are inclined to take ev TOJ KOO-^W as a separate epithet, and
we would not regard it simply as inter ccctcros homines
pravos. According to Stier and Passavant, these terms crown
the description with the blackness of darkness " the sin of
sins, death in death," and they regard it as in apposition with
ev craptci. Schutze intensifies it by his translation in per-
ditorum hominum scntind. "With Harless and Calovius, we
regard ev TU&gt; KOO-^LW as standing in contrast to the TroXireia.
The #0071,09 is the entire region beyond the TroXtre/a, and, as
such, is dark, hostile, and under Satan s dominion, and, as the
next verse mentions, it is " far off." The phrase then may
not qualify the clause immediately before it, but refer to the

EPHBSIANS II. 13. 1C9

whole description, and mark out the sad position of ancient
Heathendom, ii. 2. And nil their miser} sprung from their
being " without Christ." Being Chriatless, they are described
in regular gradation as being churchlesa, hornless, godless, and
homeless.

(Ver. 13.) Nvvi &, cV XpHrroJ Itjaov " But now, in Christ
Jesus." The apostle now reverses the picture, and exhibit*
a fresh and glowing contrast. Nwi is in contrast to cv r&lt;o
tcaipoj ctcetvco. The present stands in opposition to the past
Be. Ev Xpto-Tw Irja-ov is also tlie joyous contrast to the
previous dark and melancholy %(t)pl&lt;; Xpurrov. Once apart
from Messiah, from the very idea and hope of Him, they were
now in Him in Him, not only as Messiah, but as Messiah
embodied in the actual Jesus of Nazareth. And the phrase
stands to this entire verse as ^wpt? Xpt&lt;nov does to the verse
in which it occurs. It states adverbially the prime ground or
reason of the subsequent declaration. Hut " now in Christ
Jesus," that is, ye being in Christ Jesus ; though there is no
reason to espouse the opinion of Luther, Calvin, Harless, and
Stier, and supply ot/re? to supplement the construction. "We
understand the apostle thus : But now through your union
to Christ Jesus

u/xet? 01 TTore OJ/TC? paKpav, 771/9 yi )0rjTe " ye, who
sometime were far off, became nigh." Lachmann reads
cyevrjQrjTe eyyvs, but without sufficient authority. The adverbs,
fiatcpav and 6771^, had a literal and geographical meaning
under the old dispensation. Isa, Ivii. 1 ( J ; Dan. ix. 7; Acts
ii. 39. The presence of Jehovah was enjoyed in His temple,
and that temple was in the heart of Juda-a, but the extru-
Palestinian nations were "far off" from it, and this actual
measurement of space naturally In-came the symbol of moral
distance. 1 Israel was near, but non- Israel wiw rcinot&lt;
would have remained so but for Jesus. Ills advent and &lt;k-ath
changed the scene, and destroyed the wide interval,
apostle shows in the subsequent verses. They who had Uvn

1 Wctstcin (In loco) and 3cWtt K en (p. 761) bvo illui.tniU.1 .;
examples the modi* of Jewish speech on tliii nubj:t. The Jr
gpt-ak of themselves a* near, and of the hrathrn rrmolr, and
made a proselyte he was said " to be brought near ; " thus, prep***
e&lt;[uivaU-nt to ]&gt;rut&lt;tly(uin futfre.

170 EPIIESIANS II. 14.

" aliens from the commonwealth of Israel," were now incor
porated into the spiritual community, were partakers of " a
better covenant established on better promises," were filled
with " good hope through grace," knew God, or rather " were
known of God," and were no longer " in the world," but of
the " household of God." The Gentile Christians enjoyed
spiritually all that was characteristic of the Hebrew theocracy.
As the " true circumcision," they were " near," spiritually as
near as the Israelites whom a few steps brought to the temple,
altar, and Shechinah. The apostle, having described the
position of the Ephesian converts as being in Christ Jesus,
next alludes to the means by which this nearness was secured,
and the previous distance changed into blessed propinquity

ev rat OLJJMTI rov XpLcrrov " in the blood of Christ."
Compare i. 7, where Sid is employed with a difference of view.
The proper name, more emphatic than the simple pronoun, is
repeated. The preposition ev is sometimes used instrument-
ally. Winer, 48, a, d. Still, in such a usage, the power to
produce the effect is supposed to dwell in the cause. That
power which has changed farness into nearness, resides in the
blood of Christ, or as Alford says, but not very precisely
" the blood is the symbol of a faith in which your nearness to
God consists." Their being in Jesus was, moreover, the
reason why the blood of Christ had produced such an effect
on them. How it does so is explained in the next verses.
The apostle s object is to show that by the death of Christ
the exclusiveness of the theocracy was abolished, that Jew
and Gentile, by the abrogation of the Mosaic law, are placed
on the same level, and that both, in the blood of Christ, are
reconciled to God.

The following passage is magnificent in style as well as
idea. No wonder that the pious taste of Bengel has written
Ipso verborum tenore et quasi rhythmo canticum imitatur :

(Ver. 14.) AVTOS yap earriv 77 elprjvrj rjpwv "For He is our
peace." Tap introduces the reason of the previous statement.
There is peculiar force in the auro?. It is not simply " He,"
but " He Himself " " He truly," or " He and none other."
Winer, 22, 4, b. The rjpwv cannot, as Locke supposes, refer
to converted Gentiles, but to Jew and Gentile alike. In its
widest sense, as this paragraph teaches, " Christ is the peace,"

EPHESIAN S II. II. 171

and not merely the peacemaker ; the Author of it, for He " makes
both one," and " reconciles them to God ; " the Basis of it, for
He has " abolished the enmity in His flesh," and " by Hi*
cross;" the Medium of it, for "through Him we both have
access to the Father;" and the Proclaimer of it, for "He
came and preached peace." For such reasons Paul may have
used the abstract personified form clprjvrj. " He Himself."
says Olshausen, followed by Stier, " in His essence is peace."
Yet we question if this be the apostolic idea, for the ajx)stle
illustrates in the following verses, not the essence, but the
operations of Christ. This peace is now stated by the inspired
writer to be peace between Jew and Gentile viewed as anta
gonist races, and peace between them both united and God.
The first receives fullest illustration, as it fell more imme
diately within the scope of the apostle s design. Gentiles ure
no longer formally excluded from religious privilege and
blessing, and Jewish monopoly is for ever overthrown. And
it is Christ

o Troirjcras ra apfyoTcpa ev " who made l&gt;oth one." The
participle is modal in sense, and ra afi(f&gt;orpa are clearly the
two races, Jew and Gentile, and not, as Stier and others
maintain, man and God also. The words are the abstract
neuter (Winer, 27, 5), and in keeping also is the following
adjective cv. Jew and Gentile are not changed in race, nor
amalgamated in blood, but they are " one " in joint of
privilege and position toward God. The figure employed by
Chrysostom is very striking : "He does not mean that He
has elevated us to that high dignity of theirs, but He
raised both us and them to one still higher,
you an illustration. Ixjt us imagine that there are two statue. *,
one of silver and the other of lead, and then that both shall
be melted down, and the two shall come out gold.
He has made the two one." And this harmony is &lt;
the following way

Kal TO fjLeaoroi^ov rov &lt;f&gt;paypov \v&lt;ra&lt;; " ami
the middle wall of partition " parit* inttryrrinu*.
explanatory of the foregoing clause, and precede* a !
tion of the mode in which " both were made one."
53, 3, ols 1 We see no reason to take the genitii
! MoultoD, p. SH

172 EPHESIANS II. 14.

&lt;j)payfjiov as that of apposition ; nor could we, with Piscator,
change the clause into TOV &lt;f&gt;payfj,ov rov ^eaoroi-^ov. It is, as
de Wette calls it, the genitive of subject or possession the
middle wall which belonged to the fence or was an essential
part of it. Donaldson, 454, aa. Qpaypos does not, however,
signify " partition ; " it rather denotes inclosure. The Mosaic
law was often named by the Rabbins a hedge 3*p. Buxtorf,
Lex. Talmud. su~b voce. What allusion the apostle had in
l^eaoTOi^ov has been much disputed. Dismissing the opinion
of Wageriseil, that it refers to the vail hung up before a royal
or a bridal chamber ; and that of Gronovius, that it signifies
such partitions as in a large city, inhabited by persons of
different nations, divide their respective boundaries, very much
as the Jewish Ghetto is walled off in European capitals we
may mention the popular view of many interpreters, that the
allusion is to the wall or parapet which in Herod s temple
severed the court of the Jews from that of the Gentiles. The
Jewish historian records that on this wall was inscribed the
prohibition //,?) Selv a\\6(f)v\ov evrb? rov aylov Trapelvai.
Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11 ; Helium Jud. v. 2. Such is the idea
of Anselra, Wetstein, Holzhausen, Bengel, and Olshausen.
Tyndale translates " The wall that was a stop bitwene vs."
The notion is quite plausible, but nothing more; for, 1. There
is no proof that such a wall ever received this appellation.

2. That wall described by Josephus was an unauthorized
fence or separation. There was another wall that separated
even the Jewish worshippers from the court of the priests.

3. Nor could the heathen party in the Ephesian church be
supposed to be conversant with the plan of the sacred fane in
Jerusalem. 4. And the allusion must have been very inap
posite, because at the time the epistle was written, that wall
was still standing, and was not broken down till eight years
afterwards. So that, with many expositors, we are inclined
to think that the apostle used a graphic and intelligible figure,
without special allusion to any part of the architecture of the
temple, unless perhaps to the vail. P&gt;ut such a primary
allusion to the vail as Alford supposes is not in harmony at
all witli the course of thought, for it was not a bar between
Jew and Gentile, but equally one between them both and
God, and could not be identified with the enmity of race

EI HKSIAXS II. 15. 173

which sprang from the ceremonial law, as described in the
next verse. Any social usage, national i&gt;eculiarity, or religious
exclusiveness, which hedges round one race and shut.s out all
others from its fellowship, may be called a "middle wall of
partition ;" and such was the Mosaic law. Avaas " Having
pulled down," is a term quite in unison with the figure.
John ii. 19. Having pulled down

(Ver. 15.) Trjv fyBpav "To wit, the enmity." These
words might be governed by XiW&lt;? without incongruity, a.s
Wetstein has abundantly shown. And perhaps we may say
with Stier, they are so; for if they be taken as governed
by Kara/xyrjo-a?, as in our version and that of Luther,
the sentence is intricate and confused. Trjv e^par -" the
enmity," proverbial and well known, is in apposition to
^aoToi-^ov ; "having broken down what formed the wall of
separation, to wit, the hatred." This e^Opa is not in any
direct or prominent sense hatred toward God, as Chrysostom,
Theophylact, CEcumenius, and Harless suppose, for it is not
the apostle s present design to sj&gt;eak of this enmity. His
object is to show first how Jew and Gentile are reconciled.
Some again, like Photius and Cocceius, imagine that hatred
between Jew and Gentile, and also hatred of man to God, are
contained in the word. This hypothesis only complicate* the
apostle s argument, which is marked by precision and simplicity.
The arguments advanced by Kllicott in defence of this hyjM&gt;-
thesis are not satisfactory ; for the phrases " who hath made
both one," "wall of partition," "law of commandments," or
Mosaic code plainly refer to the ]&gt;osition of Jew and Gentile,
and reconciliation with (lod is afterwards and formally intro
duced. At the same time, the idea of enmity towards (Ind
could not be absent from the aj&gt;ostle s mind, for this enmity
of race had its origin and tincture from enmity towards God.
Nor can we accede to the interpretation of Theodorvt, Calvin,
Bucer, Grotius, Meier, Hol/hausen, Olshauseii, and CoiiyU-are,
who understand by the c^Opa the ceremonial law, ILS t
of the enmity between Jew and (lentile. The objection of
Stier, however, that to represent law a.s the cause of enmity w
saying too much, as it leaves nothing for the other factor th
flesh is, as Turner says, not very forcible. We prvf&lt;
Erasmus, Vatablus, Kstiiw, Ruekert, and Me\vr, to

174 EPIIESIANS II. 15.

term in its plain significance, as the contrast of eipqwj, and as
denoting the actual, existing enmity of Israel and non-Israel
an enmity of which the ceremonial law was the virtual but
innocent occasion. It was this hatred which rose like a party
wall, and kept both races at a distance. Deep hostility lay in
their bosoms ; the Jew looked down with supercilious contempt
upon the Gentile, and the Gentile reciprocated and scowled
upon the Jew as a haughty and heartless bigot. Ample
evidence is afforded of this mutual alienation. Insolent scorn
of the Gentiles breaks out in many parts of the Xew Testament
(Acts xi. 3, xxii. 22; 1 Thess. ii. 15), while the pages of
classic literature show how fully the feeling was repaid. 1 This
rancour formed of necessity a middle wall of partition, but
Jesus, who is our peace, hath broken it down. The next
sentence gives the requisite explanation

v rfj aapicl avrov rov vopov rwv evro\wv ev Soy/jiacriv /carap-
7770-09 " having abolished in His flesh the law of command
ments in ordinances." The course of thought runs thus :
Christ is our peace. Then there follows first a statement of
the fact, Jew and Gentile are made one ; the mode of operation
is next described, for He has quenched their mutual hatred,
and He has done this in the only effectual way, by removing
its cause the Mosaic law. The words Iv rfj crapKl avrov
cannot refer to e^dpa, as the clause is pointed by Lachmann,
as Chrysostom and Ambrose quote, and as Bugenhagen and
Sclmlthess argue, giving crdp% the sense of kinsfolk hatred
existing among his own people ; or as Cocceius, who adopts
that view of the connection, renders donee appareret in
carne. Such a construction would require the insertion of
the article rrjv. 2dpi; cannot bear sucli a meaning here, and

1 When Hainan wished to destroy the Jews, he impeached them as a strange
people whose " laws are diverse from all people." (Esth. iii. 8.) Tacitus says:
" Moyses, quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus contrariosque ceteris
rnortalibus indidit. Profana illic omnia quae apud nos sacra. . . . Cetera
instituta sinistra, fceda, pravitate valuere. . . . Apud ipsos fides obstinata,
niisericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios odium. . . . Projectis-
sima ad libidinem gens, alienarum concubitu abstinent, inter se nihil illicitum.
Juduiorum mos absurdus sordidusque. " (Ifistor. v. 4, 5.)

And Juvenal sings :

" Nil prseter nubes, et coeli numen aclnrant
Nee dibUire putant humana carne suillaiu," etc.

EPHB8IANS IL l\ 175

the enmity, moreover, was not confined to the Jews ; it was
not all on their side. 1 Nor can we, with Theodorct, (Kcumc*-
nius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Ik-za, Estius, liuckert,
and Matthies, join the phrase to Xvo-a?, as it is more natural,
and in better harmony with the course of thought, to annex
them to Karapyija-as, as explanatory of the means or manner
of the abolition. This hist opinion is that of Harless,
Qlshausen, Meier, Meyer, and de "Wette. Spl; is Christ s
humanity, but not that humanity specially in its Jewish
blood and lineage, as Hofmann contends as if because He
died as a Jew, His death secured that participation in His
kingdom did not depend on Israelitism. Kara/yy^ o-a? means
"having made void" "having superseded. Kom. iii. 31.

The phrase TOV vop.ov rwv eVroXwi/ v &oyfuz&lt;Ti is a graphic
description of the ceremonial law. P&gt;ut the meaning and
connection of eV Bujfiacri have been disputed : I. It has been
regarded as the means by which the law has been abolished,
to wit, " by doctrines " Christian doctrines or precepts. Such
is the reading of the Arabic and Vulgate, the Syriac being
doubtful ; and such is the view of Chrysostom, Theoduret,
Theophylact, Estius, Zeger, a-Lapide, Kengel, Hoi
Scholz, and Fritzsche Diner, ad 2 Cur. p. 108. Winer in his
third edition proposed this view, but renounced it in the fourth.
Thus Chrysostom says ^oy^a-ra yap Ka\i rrjv 7ri&lt;TTii&gt;. 1\n
doret and Theophylact as usual follow him, while (Ecumenius
vindicates the use of the word as applied to Christ s teaching,
by quoting from the Sermon on the Mount such phrases as
say unto you," these being proofs of authoritative diction, and
warranting the truth propounded to be called Sc/yjuz. To
theory there are insuperable objections 1. The participle
this case would have two connected words introduced ahl
v. 2. The sense given to Soypa is wholly unbiblicul. J&lt;r//ia
is equivalent to the participial form TO SfCoypii oi . and

1 Horace sueers at them, too :

" H.-Ilo tnr&lt;-siin *bUU, rlrT lu
~ Curtis JiKln-U oi-jK-nk-re." (iaKr. Ub. I. U. 70.)

Diodonis Siculus speaks of their institutions ri ^r..V,--
(Lib. zxxiv.) Shake.,*.!. . "Shylocl
times not very far di*taut from our own, aud .till, ai
and a proverb."

176 EPHKSIANS II. 15.

its apparent origin in the common phrase which prefaced a
proclamation or statute e Sofe TO&gt; \aa&gt; KOI ry fiov\fj. In the
New Testament it signifies decree, and is applied, Luke ii. 1,
to the edict of Caesar, and in Acts xvii. 7 it occurs with
a similar reference. But not only does it signify imperial
statute, it is also the name given to the decrees of the eccle
siastical council in Jerusalem. Acts xvi. 4. It is found, too,
in the parallel passage in CoL ii. 14. In the Septuagint its
meaning is the same ; and in the sense first quoted, that of
royal mandate, it is frequently used in the book of Daniel.
To give the term here the meaning of Christian doctrine or
precept, is to annex a signification which it did not bear till
long after the age of the apostles. It is finical and out of
place on the part of Grotius to suppose that Paul used a philo
sophical term to describe the tuition of the great Teacher,
because he might be writing to persons skilled in the idiom
of philosophical speech. 3. It is not the testimony of Scrip
ture that Jesus by His teaching abolished the ceremonial law,
but the uniform declaration is, that the shadowy economy was
abrogated in His death. 4. The phrase ev Boyfiaai is too
general to have in itself such a direct meaning, and avrov, or
some distinctive appendage, must have been added, did the
words bear the sense we are attempting to refute.

II. Harless, Olshausen, and von Gerlach connect ev Boj^ao-i
with Karapyija-cK;, but in a different way. They understand
ev &o&lt;y[j,ao-i as describing one peculiar phase of the Mosaic law,
in which phase Jesus abolished it. The phrase is supposed
by them to represent the commanding aspect of the law, and
so far as these Boj^ara are concerned, the law has been abro
gated. " Having abolished as to its ordinances Satzungen
the law of commandments," that is, the law of commandments
is still in force, but its Boy^ara are set aside. In this view
those scholars were preceded by Crellius non de tota lege scd
ejus parte quce dogmata contincbat. Yon Gerlach understands
the " condemning power " of the law to be abolished. But it
is rather of the Levitical than of the moral law that the
apostle is speaking. But, surely, to show us that Boj^iara is
a part of the z o/io?, the article T&lt;H? should have been prefixed,
or an adjective should have been added. Besides, the spirit
of the apostle s doctrine is, that the entire law is abrogated,

EPHESIAN3 II. 15. 177

and not a mere section of it. The whole Mosaic institute *as
fulfilled in the death of Jesus. Hofmann s idea, somewhat
similar that Christ has put an end to Soy para, statutes,
Satzuivjcn is, as Meyer says, contradicted by many parts
of the New Testament. Hoin. iii. 27 ; Gal. vi. l&gt;. Nay, out
of it might be developed an antinomian theory. Gal. iii. IS ;
Col. ii. 14.

III. The correct junction of the phrase eV Soypaet is with
vop.ov ra)i&gt; VTO\WV. Had it referred to i&gt;o/*os alone, one would
have expected the article to be repeated vvpov TWV tVroXwi/ rov
eV Soypaai. This is in general the view of Krasmus, t ulvin.
]&gt;e/a, Kollock, Bodius, Crocius, and Zanchius in former times,
and in more recent times of Theile, Tholuck, Iliickert. Mru-r.
de Wette, Meyer, Baumgarten-Cnisius, and Matthies. Winer.
31, 10, note I. 1 The ceremonial institute is named PO^IO?, as
it was a code sanctioned by supreme legislative authority.
But, as a code, it comprised a prodigious number of minute,
varied, and formal regulations or prescriptions ciroXai, the
genitive being that of contents; while the phrase tv
defines the nature of these eVroXa/, for they were
issued under Divine sanction, and resting on the immediate
will of God ; and they had constant reference to health,
business, and pleasure, as well as to Divine sen-ice. They
were ordonnancrs proclamations in the name of God. In an
especial sense, the ceremonial institute seemed good to God-
&OKI, and it became a Boy^a. It was not a moral law, having
its origin and basis in the Divine nature, and therefore un
changed and unchangeable, binding the loftiest creatures and
most distant worlds ; but a positive law, having its foundation
simply in the Divine will, established for a period among one
people, and then, its purpose being served among them, t
Bet aside. Viewed as an organic whole, the Mosaic in.st
was 1/6/^09 a law ; analyzed and looked upon in it* -|aratr
constituents, it was i/o/io? tVroXwi ; and when the*- rro\tn
are inspected in their essence and authority, they an-
be 5o7/xara to be obeyed, because the Divinr J &gt;u
pleased to enjoin them. * The article, then* -re, is not j.relixwl
to 5o 7 /za(7t, which is descriptive of the form and
of those statutory regulations, the phrase rcprcscntu

1 Moulton, p. 275.
II

178 EPHESIANS II. 15.

connected idea. Winer, 20, 2. The ev is not to be taken
for GUV, as Heinsius and Flatt take it, nor can it signify
propter, as Morus renders it. Now, this legal apparatus was
abolished "in His flesh," that is, in His incarnate state,
especially by the death which in that state He endured. The
language of Ambrosiaster is appropriate legem quce data erat
Judceis in circumcisione et in neomeniis et in escis et in sacrificiis
et in sdbbatis evacuavit. By the abrogation of the Mosaic
institute, the e%6pa was destroyed, and the party wall, which
separated Palestine from the great outfield of the world, laid
low. Difference of race no longer exists, and Abrahainic
distinction is lost in the wider and earlier Adamic descent.

The apostle now states more fully the purpose of the abro
gation of the old law

wa TOU9 Suo KTicrrj ev eavru&gt; et9 eva KCLIVQV avOpwrrov
" that He might create the two in Himself into one new
man." This clause is no mere repetition of the preceding
declaration " Who hath made both one." It is more special
and distinctive in its description. The two races are per
sonified, and they are formed not into one man, but into one
new man. Kaivos avOpwiros is found elsewhere as an epithet
descriptive of spiritual change, as in iv. 24; 2 Cor. v. 17 ;
Gal. vi. 15; Col. iii. 10. The phrase is very different from
the novus homo of the Latins, and therefore Wetsteiu s learned
array of quotations from Roman authors is wholly useless.
And the idea of moral renovation is not to be so wholly
excluded here as some critics argue. One new man both
races being now enabled to realize the true end of humanity ;
Gentile and Jew not so joined that old privilege is merely
divided among them. The Gentile is not elevated to the
position of the Jew a position which he might have obtained
by becoming a proselyte under the law ; but Jew and Gentile
together are both raised to a higher platform than the circum
cision ever enjoyed. The Jew profits by the repeal of the
law, as well as the Gentile. Now he needs to provide no
sacrifice, for the One victim has bled ; the fires of the altar
may be smothered, for the Lamb of God has been offered ; the
priest, throwing off his sacred vestments, may retire to weep
over a torn vail and shattered temple, for Jesus has passed
through the heaven " into the presence of God for us ; " the

EPIIKSIAX8 II. 18. 179

water of the " brazen sea " may be poured out, for believer*
enjoy the washing of regeneration ; and the lamps of the
golden candelabrum have flickered and died, for the church
enjoys the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit Spi
ritual blessing in itself, and not merely pictured in type, is
possessed by the Jew as well as the Gentile. The Jew gains
by the abolition of a law that so restricted him to time, place,
and typical ceremony in the worship of God. As unity of
privilege distinguishes both races, and that alike, they are
formed into one man, and as that unity and privilege are to
both a novelty, they are shaped into one nnv man. And this
metamorphosis is effected ev eai/rw (A, B, F have airraJj not
Si kairrov, as (Ecumenius has it; nor per doctrinam fuam, as
Grotius para] &gt;h rases it ; nor is the phrase synonymous with
in His flesh." It signifies in union with Himself, or, as
2hrysostoni illustrates " laying one hand on the Jew and
:he other on the Gentile, and Himself being in the midst."
This harmony of race is effected by the union of both with
Christ; that is to say, the unconverted Jew and the unbe
lieving Gentile may be, and are, at enmity still, but when
they are united to Christ, they both feel the high and novel
place which His abrogation of the law has secured for them.
Both are elevated to loftier and purer privilege than the old
theocracv could ever have conferred.

tipi jvrjv " making peace." This etpijivj must le the
peace described peace with Jew and Gentile; not, as Harlew
holds, " peace with God," nor, as Chrysostorn takes it, with
Alford and Ellicott, " peace with God and with one another "
?rpo? TOV 6elv teal TT/JO? aXXT/Xou?, for peace with God is in
the order of thought, the formal theme of the next verse,
although both results spring together from the same work of
Christ. The present participle, referring back to atrcK, is
used, localise it does not, like the aorist in the next clause,
express a reason for the result contained in the miay, hut it
is contemporaneous with it. The particij le covers the ontiro
process abolition of enmity, abrogation of law, and creation
of the new person ; for in the whole of it Jems is " making
peace." Scheuerlein, 31, 2, a. There is yet a higher aim-
(\Yr. 10.) Kai aTro^araXXafi; TOI* aptfroTtpov* tv m
T & &lt;Z And that He might reconcile the twain in

180 EPHESIANS II. 16.

one body to God." This verse indicates another and separate
purpose of the annulment of the law. Not only are Jew and
Gentile to be incorporated, but both are to be united to God.
This idea is not, as Olshausen intimates, virtually identical
with that of the preceding clause. It is a thought specifically
different, and yet closely united. Indeed, the idea of the
preceding clause to some extent presupposes it. The two acts,
mutual union and Divine reconciliation, are contemporaneous.
The principal difference of opinion regards the phrase
ev evl acti/jian ; viz. whether it refer to united Jew and Gentile,
or to the one humanity of Christ. The latter opinion is held
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Crocius, Bengel, Eiickert,
Harless, Matthies, and Hofmann, Schrifib. ii. 379; but it is
untenable. For, 1. The order of the words would indicate
another meaning rov? d^orepovs ev evl o-co/zart " the two
in one body," the very truth which the apostle had been
illustrating and enforcing. He views the union as effected
does not now say rou? Bvo, but names the united races the
twain in one body. The et? KCLIVOS avOpwiros is viewed as ev
aw/jLa. Photius explains it Bia JJLCV rov ev evl crayicm, rrjv
7T/30? d\\r]\ov&lt;s efjL(f)aivei Kara\\ayrjv. 2. If the phrase refer
to Christ s humanity, then the words must be understood of
that humanity offered as an oblation. The meaning would be
much the same as that of Sia rov a-ravpov, and the same idea
would be again and again repeated in the paragraph. But, 3.
Why should Christ s body be called His one body ? why
attach such an epithet to His single humanity ? and we
should have expected an CLVTOV to have specified the possessor
of the body, even though the idea should be " one body "
they in Him enjoying fellowship with God. It appears
better, then, to adopt the other exegesis, and to take the phrase
as meaning Jew and Gentile incorporated. Such is the view
of GEcumenius, Pelagius, Anselm, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius,
Meier, Meyer, Olshausen, de Wette, and Baumgarten-Crusius.
Besides what we have said in its favour, this idea is in)
harmony with the context, and with what is advanced in thei
next chapter. 1 Cor. xii. 12, 20, 27 ; Col. iii. 15. In the
apostle s idiom the phrase is confined to the church ; for the
church in the preceding chapter is affirmed to be His body
In that body there is no schism, and though it is made up o

EPHRSIANS II. 16. Jgl

two different races, it is yet but one body. So that the tv tvl
trtopan of this verse is in agreement with eV ei/i irwvpaTt of
the 18th verse.

The action is defined by the verb uTroKaraXXafc). The
double compound is found only in Col. i. 20, 21. The a-rro in
composition with the verb may either signify " again," as Pas-
sow, Harless, Olshauscn, and Kllicott uflirin, which is perhaps
doubtful ; or it may strengthen the original signification, O.H
seen in such words as direfrydfojjuu, uTTodvi ivKv, UTTC^M.
Much has been written on the difference between 5uzXXa&lt;r&lt;7a&gt;
and KaTa\\d(T&lt;Ta&gt;. Verbs compounded with Bid have often a
mutuality of signification, but they cease in many instances
to bear such a distinction. Kara\\d&lt;T(Tta is not practically
different from Sia\&gt;uicr&lt;Ta), and so Passow holds (sub ivxv) that
KaraXXdaa a) in the middle voice signifies .viV7t nnter cinandtr
rerstihnen " to effect a mutual reconciliation" 1 The radical
idea is to cause enmity to cease to make up friendship again ;
but the mode, time, and form of reconciliation must be learned
from the context. The meaning of the apostle is not that
Jew and Gentile have been reconciled into one body by the
cross. Such, indeed, is the view of (Kcumenius, Photius,
Anselm, Calvin, a-Lapide, and Grotius, but it gives the eV the
sense of et?, and takes away the full force of the dative TO&gt;
Sew, making it mean vt Deo scrriant. P&gt;ut TV &$, as in
other passages where the words occur, defines the person with

Tittmann has entered at length into the discussion in his hook on the
Synonyms of the New Testament. According to him, JxxW* refer* to the
cessation of mutual enmity, and *T&gt;.xrr* is employed in COM-JI where the
enmity has existed only on one Hide. The passage which lie refer* to in
Matthew will not bear out such a distinction as he enforce*. Matt, T. 23, 2&lt;
* If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remembem&lt;t that thy brother An/A
ouijht cujdinxt thee, leave there thy fcift l&gt;efore the altar, and go thy way ; firt
be reconciled to thy brother " i.xx.yn/i r )iXff. Hut " \-c rv...n.-i]
thy brother " is jilainly not (Vase to be at enmity with him, a* if y&gt;ti h
hated him, and need your own ill-will also to 1* quenched ; for the iuppo.1
is not "Thou hast ought against thy brother," but it i " If thy hi
ought against thee." Be reconciled to him, that is, indue* Aim 1
/tw cpiarrcl against thee. At the same tiim-, wliilfl mirh a philolo^rt
may be maintained, it is not the less true that mutual agreement i
The phrase "Thy brother hath ought against the*," iinplie* that
had been doue justly to offend him, and that, uj*m explanaUo
good-will was to be restored. Thnlwk (Bfrgprrdigt, p. 1
the futility of Tittmann s subtle distinction. Ustcri, Lthrl. p. K2 ;
Ad Itom. i. p. 27C.

182 EPIIESIANS II. 16.

whom tho reconciliation has been secured, while eV evi
describes the result of a contemporaneous but minor unity
between the two races. Winer, 50, 5. It is probable, how
ever, that eV and e/? were originally one ez/?, like yuei? JAW.
Donaldson s New Cratylus, 170.

Reconciliation to God is not the removal in the first
instance of man s enmity toward God, but Jesus reconciles
us to God by turning away the Divine anger from us. As,
in 1 Sam. xxix. 4, David was supposed to " reconcile himself "
to his master by doing some feat to secure his favour, so Jesus
reconciles us to God by the propitiation which He presented
to God, and through which He is enabled even as a righteous
God to justify the ungodly. This statement is proved by the
phrase Bta rov a-ravpov for the cross has reconciliation to
God for its immediate object. Restoration to the Divine favour
is the primary and peculiar work of the great High Priest,
" who offered Himself without spot to God." A sacrifice had
always reference to the guilt of the offerer, and it averted that
penalty which a righteous governor might justly inflict. Another
proof of our position is found in ver. 18, in which the result
of this peace is declared to be " access to the Father," which
has been created by the blood of the atonement. True, indeed,
God is love, but the provision of an atonement is the glorious
expression of it. And His government must be upheld in its
majesty ; for the pardon, without any peculiar provision, of all
who break a law, is tantamount to its repeal. The fact of an
atonement seems to prove its own necessity. God has shown
infinite love to the sinner, and infinite hatred to his sin, in the
sufferings of the cross, so that we tremble at His severity,
while we are in the arms of His mercy. The justice of the
great Lawgiver is of unchanging claim and perpetuity. The
reader will find in Dr. Owen s dissertation on "Divine Justice" 1
many striking remarks on the theory that sin might be pardoned
by a mere act of grace on God s part, apart from any satisfaction
to His justice a theory vindicated even by Samuel Rutherford
and Mr. Prolocutor Twisse. Jew and Gentile are thus recon
ciled to God, and the same act which gives them social unity,
confers upon them oneness with God, for the abrogation of the
ceremonial law was in itself the glorification of the moral law,
1 Works, vol. x. p. 495. Edin. 1853.

EPHE.SIAXS II. 1. Jg3

in the presentation of a perfect obedience to it, and in tho
endurance of its penalty.

airoK-reivas rrjv ^P av sv avrut " having slain the enmity
in it." The enmity referred to has been variously understood.
But exBpa cannot exist on God s part, for what He feels toward
sin is opyjj. That it signifies human enmity towards God, is
the opinion of many, while others connect with this idea also
hatred between Jew and Gentile. But if our view of the nature
of reconciliation be correct, and we agree with Meyer, Olshausen,
and de Wette, this last can hardly be meant. It is not of
man s hatred the apostle speaks, but of God propitiated.
Besides, the participle aTroAcretW? descriles an action which
precedes that of its verb a7roKara\\d^rj " and that, having
slain the enmity, He might reconcile both in one body to Hod."
Bernhardy, p. 08 2. The occurrence of the word c^pa here in
one of Alford s principal arguments for giving it the extended
sense of enmity toward God, as well as enmity Mween the
two races. But the argument will not hold, for 1. The
slaying of the enmity being an act prior to the reconciliation,
refers to the sentiments of the preceding verses the enmity
between Jew and Gentile. 2. The word \^P a na - s I*-*ciiil
reference to the phrase eV kv\ &lt;7w/zart " ami having slain
the enmity between them, He might reconcile them l*th in
one body unto God." 3. The stress lies on TOI/V /i&lt;/&gt;oTt /H&gt;u? lv ivl
^ari the twain are in one body as they are in the act of
being reconciled the previous enmity between them leing
subdued. 4. The idea of union between the races fills the
apostle s mind, as is plain from the first half of the following
chapter that is, by the abrogation of the Levitieal law the
Gentiles come into a new relationship and new privilege.*
These the apostle dwells on and glories in.

The Vulgate renders cV avra&gt; in scmrt ip*o, and Luther
4n sick wlbst, with which the reading eV eat/rc/i coincides,
and which is naturally vindicated by such exegetes a.s Bengel,
Semler, Hofmann, and others, who refer to o-w/iar*
antecedent, and understand by aoyxa Christ s humanity. But
the more natural interpretation is to refer the pronoun to
TOU aravpov. The Syriac reads " and by II w cros
the enmity." The word a-rroKrciva^, a* CJrotius
seeing to have been employed because the crass referred

184 EPHESIANS II. 17.

was an instrument of death. The cross which slew Jesus
slew this hostility ; His death was the death of that animosity
which rose up between Israel and non-Israel like a wall of
separation.

(Ver. 1 7.) Kal e\0cov evayye\iaaro eiptjvrjv " And having
come He preached peace." " Peace," in this clause, is to be
taken in its widest acceptation ; that peace which had just
been described peace between Jew and Gentile, and peace
between both and God. It is an error in Chrysostom to
restrict it to peace with God, and in Meyer, de Wette, and
Olshausen apparently, to confine it to peace between the two
races. The clause plainly carries us back to ver. 14 "for
He Himself is our peace," and the apostle then proceeds to
explain the two kinds of peace. The following verse also
proves our view. " For," says the apostle, " we both have
access to the Father." And that peace was good tidings, as
the verb implies. The middle voice was used also by the
earlier writers. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 266. Kal does
not simply indicate that this clause follows in idea the
announcement avrbs jdp eanv rj elpyvrj TULWV, as if the
intervening verses were parenthetical in their nature. For
these intermediate verses expound the starting proposition,
and the verse before us continues the illustration. Peace
was first secured, and then peace was proclaimed. The
publication of the peace is ascribed to Jesus equally with its
procurement KOI e\6u&gt;v. The notion of Eaphelius, Grotius,
Koppe, and others, that these words are superfluous, is alto
gether an inaccurate and negligent exegesis. The " coming "
referred to is plainly not to be restricted to His personal
manifestation in flesh, as Chrysostom, Anselm, Estius, Holz-
hausen, Matthies, and Harless argue, for here it is an event
posterior to the crucifixion ; as it is a coming to proclaim
what the death on the cross had secured. Nor can we, with
lliickert and Bengel, restrict the coming to the resurrection
of Jesus. As little can we hold the sense realized in our
Lord s personal preaching, as is the hypothesis of Beza and
Oalovius, for " Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision
only." He illustrated this truth to the Syrophenician woman,
and His instructions during His life to His apostles were
" Go not into the way of the Gentiles." We would not confine

EPHESIANS II. 17. 185

the " coming," with Olshausen and Meyer, to His advent by the
Spirit ; nor, with Calvin, identify it wholly with the mission
of the apostles, for both these are included. Christ brought
peace to the Kphesian Christians by means of this Spirit in
the apostles qui facit per alium,facit per se. The preaching
of the apostles having the truth of Christ for its theme, the
commission of Christ for its authority, and the Spirit of Christ
for its seal and crowning distinction, may surely in its doc
trines and triumphs be ascribed to the exalted Lord and
King of the church, the one origin and sole dispenser of
" PEACE." The apostle felt that his gifts and graces were of
Christ s bestowment that all his opportunities and successes
were the results of Christ s presence and power that his
whole message was from Christ and alout Him that not
only was the peace which he announced secured in Christ s
mediation and death, but that also his very journeys to pro
claim it were prompted and shaped by Him ; and therefore
all being Christ s, from the inspiration that moved his heart
to the secret and irresistible influence that prescribed his
missionary tours ; his whole work in its every element Wing
so truly identified with Christ he humbly retired into the
shade, that Christ might have all the glory : and therefore he
writes "and He came and preached peace to you." Tliis
interpretation appears to us more direct and harmonious than
that of Harless, who regards this verse as a parallel to ver. 14,
as if the meaning were " Christ is peace in deed 1 (vcr. 14),
and also in word " (ver. 17). This would be an anti-climax,
for surely the creation of j&gt;eace was a greater work than it*
disclosure. And then the two ideas are not parallel In the
former case, Jesus personally and immediately secured peace ;
in the latter case it was only mediately, and by others, that
he proclaimed it. Harless, indeed, regards f\0a&gt;i&gt; generally
as denoting Christ s appearance upon earth, as in .John i. 1*.
11, iii. 19, etc. Our objection to such a view is, that Christ s
appearance on earth was as necessary to the making f |x. nce
as to its proclamation, and more so, as is implied in the
phrases " in His flesh," and " by the cross," nay,
were nigh," or those who heard Christ in person, nro pliuvd
last in the enumeration. Jesus, too, had left the earth en*
peace was formally published by His heralds. Moreover, the

186 EPHESIANS II. 18.

coming is plainly marked as posterior to the effecting of peace.
As the preaching to the Ephesians is here as distinctly ascribed
to Jesus as the coming, both must be understood in a similar
way. Similar phraseology is found in Acts xxvi. 23 ; John
x. 16. And the peace was preached

vplv rot? fjLaicpav teal elpqvrjv rot? eyyvs " to you who were
far off, and peace to them who were nigh." The dative is
governed by the previous verb, and the second elpijvrjv has,
on the authority of A, B, E, F, G, and of several versions and
fathers, been received by Lachmann and Tischendorf into the
text. Isa. Ivii. 19. The repetition is emphatic, liom. iii. 31,
viii. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 16. The idea contained in paicpdv has
been already explained under ver. 13. The Gentiles are here
placed first ; the apostle of the Gentiles magnified his office.
Though those " who were nigh " were the first who heard the
proclamation based on the commission " beginning at Jeru
salem," yet those " who were afar off " are mentioned first, as
they had so deep an interest in the tidings, and as the invita
tion of Gentiles into the church a theme the apostle delighted
in, proving, as it did, the abolition of class privileges, and the
commencement of an unrestricted economy was the result
and proof of the truths illustrated in this paragraph.

(Ver. 18.) r/ Ort Si? avrov e%o/jL6v Trjv irpoaaywy^v ol a/K^o-
repoi " For by Him we both have access " access specially
theirs, as the article intimates. The QTL does not mark the
contents of the message of peace, as Morns, Baumgarten,
Koppe, and Flatt imagine ; nor yet its essence, as Eiickert
maintains : but it points out its proof and result. Peace has
been made, and has also been proclaimed, for, as the effect of
it, and as the demonstration of its reality " by Him we both
have access." Calvin well explains it probatio est db effectu.
Tlpoaaywyr), formed with the Attic reduplication from ayco, is
" introduction," entrance into the Divine presence an allusion,
according to some, to approach into the presence of a king by
the medium of a Trpocraywyevs sequester (Bos, Obscrvat. p.
149) ; according to others, to the entrance of the priest into
the presence of God. Herodotus, ii. 58. Rom. v. 2 ; and
see under iii. 12. Whichever of these allusions be adopted,
or whether the word be used in its proper signification, the
meaning is apparent, the word being used probably in its

EPHK.SIAX3 II. IS. 187

original and transitive sense not access secured, but intro
duction enjoyed, and which we are having, that is, have and
keep. It is something more than 6vpa, John x. 9. Free
approach to God is the result of reconciliation. 1 iVt. iii. 1 8.
Those who were "far off" can now draw " nigh." The liivine
Being is not clothed in thunder no harrier stands between
Him and us, for all legal obstacles are removed ; so that the
soul which feels peace with God can come into His sacred
presence without shrinking or tremor. It approaches by
Christ Si avrov ; and the emphasis from their position lies
on these words. Our frail humanity realizes His humanity,
and by Him enters into the presence of Jehovah. John
xiv. G. Thus Clirysostom says OVK elrrv rrpovo&ov u\\a
tjv, ov yap a$&gt; kavrwv rrpoai}\t)op.v, a\\ vri avrov
And this access is

?rpo? rov Uarepa "unto the Father;" 7rpo&lt;? into His
presence. Christians do not approach some dark and spectral
phantom, nor a grim and terrible avenger. It is not Jehovah
in the awful attitude of Judge and Governor, but Jehovah as
Father who has a father s heart to compassionate and a
father s hand to bestow. And His paternity is no abstraction.
He Is Christ s Father and our Father. Nay more, and esj&gt;e-
cially, this privilege is enjoyed by Jew and Gentile alike :
01 a/jL&lt;f)6rpoi the twain have it. It belonged to the theo
cracy in one form of it, when the high priest, the representa
tive of the people, passed beyond the vail and sprinkled the
mercy-seat. I&gt;ut now the most distant Gentile who is in
Christ really and continuously enjoys that august spiritual
privilege, which the one man of the one family of the one
tribe of the one nation, on the one day of the year, only
typically and periodically possessed. We have seen the o
u^urepoi forming ev (ra&gt;pa (ver. 10) now they art- having
access to the Father

eV cvi TTvevpan " in one Spirit." The collocation o&lt;
u^orepoL o&gt; tvi TrvevfULTi again brings out &gt;
emphatically the leading thought in the passage. Tin- cV i
not to be identified with Bui, as Chrysostoin and Theophylart
hint; as if the apostle meant to .say, by Him and
Spirit we approach. The rrvcv^a i.s not li^sitiori
is $i/ Tn/eO/ia only " unanimity," uud so synonymous with

188 EPHESIANS II. 19.

6/jLo6v/jLa&6v, as is the baseless view of Anselm, Homberg,
Zachariae, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius. That the words
refer to the Holy Spirit, is the correct opinion of (Ecumenius,
Cocceius, Bodius, Meyer, Harless, de Wette, and Stier. The
Spirit that dwells in the one body is the one Divine Spirit
(iv. 4) "one and the self-same Spirit." 1 Cor. xii. 11. The
one Holy Ghost inhabits the church, and in Him and by
Christ believers have access to God. He prompts them to
approach, " helpeth their infirmities," deepens their conscious
ness of sonship as they come to the Father, nay, " makes
intercession for them," imparts such intenseness to their
aspirations that they cannot be formed into language, but
escape from the surcharged bosom in unutterable groanings
crrevay/jiols d\a\iJTois. Rom. viii. 26. As again and again
in previous sections, the Triune relation is brought out: we
are having access TT/JO? unto the Father, whom we worship
as we gaze upon His tenderness and majesty ; and this Bid
by Jesus, through whom we approach in confidence His
Father and our Father ; but also eV in the Spirit, who fills
and lifts the heart, and is closely united with Father and Son.

The need of a Trpoo-ayayevs has been extensively felt by
our sinful race. And yet, after the Man-God has been re
vealed He of the double nature whom the Divine Sovereign
appointed and man confides in, there are philosophers who
deify themselves, and depose the one Mediator. M. Cousin,
in the preface to his Fragm. Pkilos., says, for example, in
eulogizing the reason as a higher power than the understand
ing : La raison est le mddiateur ndcessaire entre Dieu et
I homme, ce XOYO? de Pythagore et de Platon, ce Vcrbe fait
cJuiir qui sert d interprete a Dieu et de prfccpteur de I homme.
But we have a Mediator, not our own " reason " even absolute
and transcendental ; for it strays and wavers and quakes, as
Moses on Sinai, and cannot reassure itself; and we have a
^0709, not la raison, but One " in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge " One who reveals God
unerringly, for He lay in His Father s bosom One who
instructs men perfectly, for " grace has been poured into His
lips," as He stoops to the senses and speaks to the heart of
humanity.

(Ver. 19.) "Apa oiv ovKen fare feVot KOI TrdpoiKOt, "Xow

EPHESIANS II. 19. 199

therefore, ye are no longer strangers and sojournere." The
first two words are a favourite idiom of the apostle. Horn.
v. 18, vii. 3, 25, viii. 12, etc.; Gal. VL 10; 1 Thess. v. G.
The formula apa ovv is not used in Attic Greek, save in the
case of the interrogative apa. Hermann, Viyenis, 292. The
particle apa marks progress in the argument, as if equivalent
to Ka\ a-Tr etceivov. Tluicyd. vi. 80 ; Donaldson s Xcw t ratylus.
192. The particle ovv allied to the substantive verb, and
not to avros as Hartung wrongly supposes has a stronger
ratiocinative force than apa (Klotz-Devar. ii. 717), and occurs
far more frequently ; and the combined use of both introduces
a conclusion based on previous reasoning, equivalent to " these
things being so," or the well-known Ciceronian formula tjiur
cum ita si)it. A double image is, or two pairs of figures are.
employed by the writer the one referring to civil franchise,
and the other to domestic privilege. Et i&gt;oi " strangers "-
they had been so while the old theocracy stood, the Jews
being the children, but they miserable outcasts. Once, too,
they were Trdpoifcot, literally " by-dwellers," men who sojourn
in a house without the rights of the resident family. This is
the only instance in which the apostle uses the term, but it
occurs Acts vii. 6, 29 ; also in many places in the Septuagint,
as the representative of the Hebrew 13, and also of 2l?in. Tin*
two words are found together many times, as in Ix-v. xx\ ,
etc. It is natural here to view the otVetot of the last clause
as the contrast of TrupotKot, so that the significations of the
word usually given are too vague to sustain this antithesis.
In Lev. xxii. 10, the noun denotes an inmate of tin-
family, but without its domestic rights ; Trapoucos iVpc o* there
signifies a guest witli the priest, and stands along with ;
fi(o-0am&gt;9 or a hired servant. Sirach xxix. 2G. The prie;
guest, though living in his house, was not to eat the holy
things. May not the word bear such a meaning in this place,
especially as we are pointed to it by the spiritual aiitagouiMu
of oiKtlot ? De Wette will not allow it, and says
Bengel, Flatt, Harless, and Olshauscii t///
His idea is, that the two terms &lt;?Vo&lt; and irapoi*ot expn
generally the thought nicht-liirycr "non-citizens." Kllii
and Alford hold a similar view, regarding TTU&gt;OI&lt;K as t
same with ptToiKOs, ita classic equivalent a form which

190 EPHESIANS II. 19.

occurs only once in the Septuagint. But it is natural to sup
pose that the apostle used it in the Septuagint sense that
most familiar to him. The pair of terms in the two clauses
suggests also a double contrast. That there is any allusion
in the epithet irdpoucoi to the equivocal relation of proselytes,
such as is contended for by Anselm, Whitby, Calixtus, Baum-
garten, and Baumgarten-Crusius, is out of the question ; for
if the proselytes feared God, they could not be described as
are those Ephesian Gentiles in the context. The theocracy
excluded all but Israel from its pale the world beyond it were
foreigners. Under the idea of its being God s house, it arro
gated to itself a spiritual supremacy over all the nations, and
so the heathen were regarded as simple sojourners on God s
world. But this character of tolerated aliens no longer
marked out the Gentile converts in Ephesus. No longer were
they strangers to be frowned on, or foreigners to be excluded
from domestic privileges ; they were now naturalized

a\V eVre c-WTroXmu ra)v dytccv " but fellow-citizens with
the saints." The spelling o-vvTroXlrai, instead of cru/iTroXtrcu,
lias the authority of A, B 1 , C, D, E, F, G. Instead of the
simple d\\d of the Received Text, the best MSS., such as A,
B, C, D 1 , G, warrant the reading d\\ co-re, which has been
adopted by the editors Hahn, Lachmann, and Tischendorf.
It gives a vivid solemnity to the contrast : the mind of the
apostle dwells on the blessed and present reality of their
spiritual state, which he is about to depict. ^vvirdXir^, a
word occurring both in ^Elian, Var. Hist. 3, 44, and Josephus,
Antiq. 19, 2, 2, belongs chiefly, however, like other similar
compound words, to the later and inferior Greek. Phrynichus,
ed. Lobeck, p. 172, says, with characteristic affectation
TToXn-??? Xe 76, IJLTJ av/jL7ro\LTrj&lt;f. In the declining period of a
language, when its first freshness is gone, and its simple terms
are not felt in their original power, compound words are
brought into use without any proportionate increase of sense.
These ayioi are God s people ; and there is no occasion to
add, with Calvin ct cum ipsis angclis. The reader may turn
to the first verse of the epistle for the meaning of aytos. 1 The

1 " In what an awful state is the Protestant church, when there are so many
thousands, nay, tens, hundreds of thousands belonging to it, who, in their
blindness and ignorance, take the very name of God s servants the very name

EPHESIAN8 II. 19. 191

" saiuts " are not the Jews as a race, as is supposed by Vor-
stius, Hammond, Morus, Beugel, and Adam Clarke ; nor yet
only contemporary Christians, as Harless and Meyer argue ;
nor yet simply saints of the Old Testament, as (Kcumenius
and Theodoret descrita the alliance. Chrysostom exclaims
Opa&lt;r on o\&gt;x aTrXoj? TOW lov&aiwv aXXa TWI/ uyivv KOI

t? rrjv avrrjv TTO\IV d7T r ypu(f)7jfjLi&gt;. These ayioi are viewed as
forming a TroXi? a spiritual organization. It was so under
the old law it is so still; for the theocracy is only fully
realized under Christianity. To take an illustration fn.m
Athenian citizenship they live no longer, as foreigners did
in many Greek states, in the Trav&otcelov, nor as the
at Athens are they degraded by the symbolical v&
but they possess the coveted iVore Xeui. "With all, then, who
belong to this TroXtre/a, Christians are now fellow-citizens.
They are under that form of government which specially
belongs to the saints. These are, therefore, not saints of any
time or any class, but saints of all times and all lands, of
which the community then existing was the living represen
tative ; and in this commonwealth they were now enfranchised.
Their names are engraven on the same civic roll with all
whom " the Lord shall count, when He writeth up the people."
It is as if they who had dwelt " in the waste and howling
wilderness," scattered, defenceless, and in melancholy isola
tion, had been transplanted not only into Palestine, but had
been appointed to domiciles on Mount Zion, and were located
in the metropolis not to admire its architecture, or gaze upon
its battlements, or envy the tribes who had come up to worship
in the city which is "compact together;" but to claim iu
municipal immunities, experience its protection, obey its law?,
live and love in its happy society, and hold communion with
its glorious Founder and Guardian.

xal oiKioi rou Scov " and of the household of (Jo
The church is often likened to a family or hou

of those, of whom tome serve Him here on earth, tnd K&gt;n&gt; urmu:
Throne of His plory to b fellow-citizen* with whom tie hi*het j.m
of man and make it a nickname to mock at AIXT ! !
multitudes is a name of scorn. " M Ohce i Lteturtt on &gt;A&lt;WJM, tt
823 ; London, 1848.

192 EPHESIANS II. 20.

xii. 7 ; Hos. viii. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Heb. iii. 2, 5, 6 ; 1 Pet.
iv. 17. When Harless thinks that Christians receive this
designation, because they are stones in the house, the con
clusion is not only a needless anticipation of the figure in the
following verse, but is also contrary to the usual meaning of
the term, and destructive of the contrast between the terms
OLKCLOI, and TrdpoiKoi. True, as Ellicott says under Gal. vi. 10,
ot/ceto? is often used with abstract nouns, as ol/ceioi &lt;/&gt;tAo-
o~o(f)la^, etc., and in such cases the idea proper of family is
dropped. But the contrasts in this paragraph are too vivid
to allow any dilution of the term. These olrcelot, rov Seou are
God s family ; they form His household. They are not guests
here to-day and away to-morrow ; treated with courtesy,
but still kept without the hallowed circle of domestic sociality,
and strangers as well to the paternal protection as to the
brotherly harmony which the family enjoys. The members
of that " house which is the church of the living God," can
call the oiKo&eo-n-orrjs their father ; for they are " begotten of
God," and they have access to Him, enjoy His love, and hold
daily and delightful fellowship not only with Him, but with
one another as " heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ."

(Ver. 20.) E7roLKo&ofJir]6evTes 7ri rat 6efjLe\iq&gt; rwv aTro&ToXcov
KOI 7rpo(f)7jTMv " built up upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets." The preposition CTTL in composition is not, as
Koppe affirms, without additional meaning, nor can it, as in
Theophylact s exegesis, have the sense of " again ; " but it
gives prominence to the idea of the foundation on which the
structure rests. Not the form or purpose, but the basis of the
building, was the special thought in the writer s mind
supercedificati, as in the Vulgate. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14; Col.
ii. 7. This architectural allusion is a change of figure, or
rather, it is the employment of a term in a double meaning.
" House " has a similar twofold signification with us, as the
" House of Bourbon " or " House of Stuart " phrases in
which the word is employed in a secondary and emphatic
signification. We speak too of such houses being " built up "
by the wisdom or valour of their founders. In such cases,
as Alford says, there is a transition from a political and social
to a material image. Having described the believers as
i, the apostle enlarges the metaphor, by explaining on

EPHK8IANS II. 20. 193

what the 01*09 rests, what its symmetry is, and what iU gloriou*
mrpose. That " house " is composed of the oUdoi, and each
f them is a living stone, resting on the one foundation.

What the writer means by d-rroffroXwv is plain ; but what
s meant by the subjoined Trpo^Ttuz/ ? With every wish,
irising from the usage of quotation, to refer the term to the
nspired messengers of the Old Testament, we feel that the
orce of evidence precludes us. The Greek fathers and critics,
dong with Erasmus, Calvin, Be/a, Calovius, Estius, Baum-
jarten, Michaelis, lliickert, Bisping, and Barnes, hold the
riew which we are obliged to abandon. Ambrosiaster also
xplains hoc cst, sujn a Xovum ct Veins Testament urn colloeati.
?ertullian says that Marcion, believing the reference to be to
&gt;rophets of tlie Old Testament, expunged the words ft pro-
jhftarum. Contra Marc. v. 17; Opera, vol. ii. p. 3 26, ed.
)ehler. The apostle often refers to the prophets of the Old
Testament ; but in such places as Kom. i. li the reference
s at once recognized. We prefer, then, with the great body
)f interpreters, to understand " the prophets " of the New
Testament. Our reasons are these

1. The apostles are placed before the prophets, whereas, in
&gt;oint of time and position, the prime place should 1* assigned

the prophets. 1 Estius says that the two classes are ranged
diynitatis habita ratiojie, as the apostles had seen and heard
Christ, enjoyed more endowments than the old prophets,
and were immediately instrumental in founding these early
churches. Did the phrase occur nowhere else, these ingenious
irguments might be of some weight ; though still, if the church
&gt;e regarded as an edifice, the prophets laid the foundation
earlier than the apostles, and should have been mentioned
first in order. The dignity of Moses, Samuel, David, and
Isaiah, under the old dispensation, was not behind that i

My four Scottish predecessors have here shown somewhat of our natio
nnincss. " They do not recognize any difficulty at all, or
quietly relieve themselves of it, by the simple and apparmtly u
eversal of the order of the terms. FerRUJwon and Di.-kson briefly p*
n this way, but Principal Rollork no less than six time* quoloa th
&gt;aul had written "prophets and apoatlea." rrindpal I toy. I
Comment, exhibits the same transparent in^nuity, as well M in hi*l
iequmt references, nay, even in his Utin notation of the ifl-piml
fundamento pro^httarum et apottolorvm.

104 : EPHESIANS II. 20.

apostolical college. The ruddy tints of the morning, ere the
sun rises, are as fresh and glowing as the softened splendours
of the evening, after he has set. And the argument that the
apostles are named first because they personally founded the
churches, is precisely the reason why we believe that prophets
of an earlier time, and living under a different economy, are
not meant at all.

2. Other portions of this epistle are explanatory of the
apostle s meaning. In iii. 5 he speaks of a mystery, " which
was in other ages not made known to the sons of men, as it
is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit " roc? a&lt;ytoL&lt;i avrocrroXot? avrov teal TrpotytjTais. In
this declaration, the prophets are plainly perceived to be the
inspired contemporaries of the apostles, enjoying similar reve
lations of truth from the same Spirit. What more natural than
to suppose, that the apostle means the same persons by the
very same names in a previous section 3 This opinion is the
more likely, when we consider that the mystery declared to
" apostles and prophets " is the union of Jew and Gentile.
Again, iv. 11, "And He gave some apostles, and some pro
phets " TOU? [Lev aTTocrroXou?, TOVS Be Trpo^ra?. So that
the prophets are a special class of functionaries, and rank
next to the apostles, personally instrumental as they were in
founding and building up the churches. Why may not the
allusion be to them in this verse, as they are twice named in
combination by the writer in the same epistle 1 The pre
sumption is, that in the three places the same high office
bearers are described.

3. We deny not the relation of the prophets of the Old
Testament to the church of the New Testament. They pre
ceded, the apostles followed, and Jesus was in the midst.
But in writing to persons who had been Gentiles, who were
strangers to the Hebrew oracles, and had enjoyed none of their
prophetic intimations persons whose faith in Christ rested
not on old prediction realized in Him, but on apostolic procla
mation of His obedience and death a reference to the seers ofj
the Hebrew nation would not have been very intelligible and
appropriate. To Jews with whom the apostle had " reasoned

&lt; out of the Scripture," and whom he thus had convinced that i
Jesus was the Christ, the reference would have been natural

EI MESIANS IL 20. 195

and stirring ; but not so in an address to the Gentile portion
of a church situated in the city of Diana.

The prophets of the New Testament were a class of BuflFi-
ent importance and rank to be designated along with the
wstles. The passages quoted from this epistle show this,
nd there are many other references. Acts xix. 6 ; Kom. xii.
; 1 Cor. xii. 10, xiii. 8; the greater portion of the 14th
lapter ; and 1 Thess. v. 20. These ]&gt;assages prove that the
Bee was next in order and dignity to the aj&gt;ostolaU . The
rophets spoke from immediate revelation " with dt-monstra-
on of the Spirit and with power ; " and prior to the eoin-
etion of the canon they stood to those early churches in such
relation as the written oracles stand to us. They were the
al law and testimony, and their work was not simply a dis-
osure of future events. (For illustration of the office of New
estament prophets, see under iv. 11.)

4. Had the apostle meant to distinguish the prophets

the Old Testament as a separate class, the article would
robably have preceded the noun. Winer, 19, 4; KiihiuT,
493, 9; Matthiae, 2GS, Anm. i. ; Middleton, p. 65, ed.
ose. Comp. Matt. iii. 7, xv. 1 ; Luke xiv. 3, in which
iaces different classes of men, but leagued together, are
escribed. See also Col. ii. 19; 2 Thess. iii. 2; Tit. i. 15;
eb. iii. 1. Not that, as Ifarless, llurkcrt, Hofumiin
Vchr-iftb. vol. ii. p. 103), and Stier seem to say, apostles ami
rophets are identical or that ajMistles were also prophets, us
ring men inspired. The want of the article clearly shows
lat both classes of office-bearers are viewed in one category
i one in duty and object one incorjMjrated band. Jhis

mbination of function and labour shows, that these "pro-
were those of the church of the New Testament

The relation in which apostles and prophets s
lurch is defined by the words eVl TO&gt; OcpeXitp. The pivpoM
on describes the building as resting on the foundation with the
lea of close proximity. Kiihner, 012, !,,#; Bfnihanly, p.
49 the dative signifying " absolute superposition."
Ml, Or. Grain. 483, b. The stones are ri-pn sent-d nl u*
1 the act of being brought, but as already laid, and
fttive is employed rather than the accusative, which occurt
i 1 Cor. iii. 12.

106 EPIIESIANS II. 20.

But what is the exact relation indicated by the genitive
TWV dTroa-ToXayv icai TrpofyyTtov ? It has been supposed to
mean, 1. The foundation on which the apostles themselves
have built the apostles and prophets foundation the
genitive being that of possession. Such is the view of Anselm,
Bucer, Aretius, Cocceius, Piscator, Alford, and Beza, the last
of whom thus paraphrases it Supra Christum qui est apos-
tolicce et propheticce structures fundamentum. But the object of
the apostle is not to show the identity of the foundation on
which the Ephesian church rested with that of prophets and
apostles, and Christ is here represented, not as the foundation,
but as the chief corner-stone. Thus, as Ellicott says, this
exegesis tacitly mixes up #e//,eX*o9 and the aKpoyaivialos.

2. In the phrase " foundation of the apostles and pro
phets " the genitive has been thought to be that of apposi
tion, that is, these apostles and prophets are themselves the
foundation. Winer, 59, 8, a. Such is the opinion of
Chrysostom and his imitators, Theophylact and (Ecumenius,
of a-Lapide, Estius, Zanchius, Morus, de Wette, Baumgar-
ten-Crusius, Meier, von Gerlach, Turner, Hofmann, and
Olshausen. eyu-eXto? vTroKeivrai, says Theophylact, ol Trpo-
(j&gt;ijrai KOL ol aTroaroXoi, uyLtet? Se TTJV \onrrjv otVo&o/z^i/
avaTrXriptoaa-re. This view is supposed to be confirmed by a
passage in the Apocalypse (xxi. 14) "The wall of the city
had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve
apostles of the Lamb." But these foundations belong to a
wall, a symbol of defence, not to the great Christian temple ;
and unless Judas be regarded as deposed, and Matthias as
prematurely chosen and never divinely sanctioned, Paul, the
founder of the Ephesian church, cannot be reckoned among
these twelve. It does not matter for the interpretation
whether OcpeKiw be masculine or neuter, nor is the argument
of Hofmann (Schriftb. vol. ii. sec. part, p. 101) of any avail,
that as the last clause has a personal reference this must have
the same. In one sense the apostles, in their personal teaching
and labours, may be reckoned the foundation ; but should such
a sense be adopted here, Christ would be brought into com
parison with them. Hofmann (I.e.) gets out of this objection
by taking the following avrov as referring to #e/ze\i&; " Jesus
Christ being its chief corner-stone " that is, if He is the

KPHESIANS II. liO. ](|7

corner-stone of the foundation, the language prevents Him
being regarded as primus inter pares. Hut, as wo shall see,
the exegesis is not tenable. The whole passage, however, gives
Jesus peculiar prominence, and the apostle never wearies of
extolling His dignity and glory. Still, there is nothing doc-
trinally wrong in this interpretation, for, personally, prophets
and apostles are but living stones in the temple, the next tier
above the " corner-stone ; " but officially they were not the
foundation they rather laid it. And therefore

3. The phrase " foundation of the apostles and prophets,"
means the foundation laid by them, the genitive being sub
jective, or that of originating agency dcr thiitigcn Person odsr
Kraft. Scheuerlein, 17, 1 ; Winer, 30, 1 ; Hurtling, Ctutu*.
p. 12. Such is the exegesis of Ambrosiaster, Kullinger,
Bodius, Calvin, Calovius, 1 iscator, Calixtus, Wolf, Baum-
garten, Musculus, Rb ell, Zanchius, (Jrotius, Bengel, Koppe,
Flatt, Riickert, Harless, Matthies, Meyer, Hol/hausen, and
Kllicott. The apostles and prophets laid the foundation broad
and deep in their official labours. In speaking of the founda
tion in other epistles, the apostle never conceives of himself
as being that foundation, but only as laying it. He stands, in
his own idea, as external to it. Referring to his masonic
operations, he designates himself " a wise master-builder,"
and adds " Other foundation can no man lay, than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ." Similar phraseology occurs in
Rom. xv. 20. In this laying of the foundation, ai&gt;ostles and
prophets were alike employed, when they preached Jesus and
organized into communities such as received their message.
The foundation alluded to here is elpijirrj not so much Christ
in person, as Christ " our peace " a gospel, therefore, having
no restrictive peculiarity of blood or lineage, and by accepting
which men come into union with God. And no other foun
dation can suflice. When philosophical speculation or critical
erudition, political affinity or human enactment, supplants it.
the structure topples and is about to fall. The opinions of
Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, Knox, or Krskine (and
these were all " pillars "), are not the foundation ; nor are the
edicts and creeds of Trent, Augsburg, Dort, or Westminster
Such writings may originate sectional distinctions, and give
peculiar shape to column or portico, shaft or capital, on the

198 EPHESIANS II. 20.

great edifice, but they can never be substituted for the one
foundation. Yea and further

ot/ro? dfcpoyajvtatov avrou Irjcrov Xptcrrov " Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief corner-stone." A and B, with the
Vulgate, Gothic, and Coptic, reverse the position of the proper
names, and their authority is followed by Lachmann, Tischen-
dorf, and Alford ; but the majority of uncial MSS. are in
favour of the present reading. The pronoun is, by Bengel,
Cramer, Koppe, and Holzhausen, referred to the preceding
6epe\iov " Jesus Christ being its chief corner-stone." That
the translation of our English version may be maintained, it
is not necessary, as these critics affirm, that the article should
precede the proper name. Fritzsche, Comment, in Matt. iii. 4 ;
Luke x. 42; John iv. 44. It is, besides, not of the foundation,
but of the temple that He is the chief corner-stone. The
avrov contrasts Christ with apostles and prophets. They lay
the foundation, but Jesus Himself in person is the chief
corner-stone O^TO?, " being all the while " aKpoyooviaiov
scilicet \iOov. The reference in the apostle s mind seems to
be to Ps. cxviii. 22 ; Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Jer. li. 26. These pas
sages suggested the figure which occurs also in Matt. xxi. 42 ;
Acts iv. 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 4-6. There are two different Hebrew
phrases naa K^V K(pa\rj T?}? ywvias (Ps. cxviii. 22), whereas
in Isa. xxviii. 16 the words are i^Q JIN, rendered by the Seventy
\i6ov aKpo^wvicuov. The first expression certainly denotes
not the copestone, nor yet the head or point where two walls
meet, but the most prominent stone in the corner. In the
latter phrase the reference is to a stone specially employed at
the angle or junction of two walls, to connect them, as well as
to bear their weight. In the first formula, allusion is made
more to the position than to the purpose of the block. In
Jer. li. 26, the corner-stone and the foundations seem to be
distinguished. The corner-stone, placed at the angle of the
building, seems to have been reckoned in Oriental architecture
of more importance than the foundation-stone. The foundation-
stones, OepeXioi plural, were first laid, and indicated the
plan of the structure ; but the corner-stone that is, the foun
dation-stone placed at the corner required peculiar size and
strength. In short, the " chief corner-stone " is that principal
1 Gesenius, Thesaurus, sub voce.

EPHESIAXS II. 20. 199

foundation which was carefully laid at the angle of the
building, and 011 which the connected walls rested. From
its position and design it was styled " the head of the corner."
While the apostles and prophets generally placed the founda
tion, the primary stone on which, in Hebrew idea or image,
the structure mainly rests, and by which its unity is upheld
was Jesus Christ. Without this its walls would not have
been connected, but there must have been a fissure. As
Theodoret, Menochius, Kstius, and Holzhausen think, there
may be a reference to Jew and Gentile united on the one rock.
The laying of the foundation prepares for the setting down of
the corner-stone, which connects and concentrates upon itself
the weight of the building. That man, " Jesu.s," who was
" Christ," the divinely - appointed, qualified, and accepted
Saviour, unites and sustains the church. Saving knowledge
is the apprehension of that truth about Him which Himself
has announced saving faith is dependence on the atoning
work which He has done hope rests in His intercession
the sanctifying Spirit is His gift tin; unity of the church
has its spiritual centre in Him its government is from Him
as its King and its safety is in Him its exalted Protector.
Whether, therefore, we regard creed or practice, worship &lt;r
discipline, faith or government, union or extension, is He not
in His truth, His blood, His power, His legislation, and His
presence to His church, " Himself the chief corner-stone " ? In
short, He is " the Alpha and the Omega," and combined at the
same time with every evangelical theme. Should we de.scril*;
the glories of creation, He is Creator; or enlarge on the wisdom
and benignity of Providence, He is Preserver and lluler. Is
the Divine Law the theme of exposition ? He not only enacted
it, but exemplified its precepts and endured its penalty. Are
we summoned to speak of death ? He has " abolished it;"
or if we wander among the tombs, He lay in the sepulchre
and rose from it " the first-fruits of them that sleep."
ministers preach, Christ crucified is their text; and il churrm*
" grow in grace," such holiness is conformity to tin- life of
their Lord. He is, moreover, " all in all " in the entii
of the operations of the Spirit, who applies His truth to the
mind, sprinkles His blood on the heart, and .scab t
man with His blessed image.

200 EPHESIANS II. 21.

(Ver. 21.) Ev u&gt; Traa-a oiKoSofir) a-vvapfjLO\oyov/jLi&gt;r) avj;i
" In whom the whole building, being fitly framed together, is
growing." The relative agrees with the nearest substantive,
Irjcrov XpLvrov not with TO&gt; Oepekiw, as is the opinion of
Holzhausen ; nor with dfcpoycoviaiov, and meaning " on which,"
as is asserted by Theophylact, Luther, Beza, Koppe, and
Scholz. Nor can the words signify "through whom," as is
held by Castalio, Vatablus, Menochius, Morus, and Flatt.
" In whom," that is, in Christ Jesus ; the building being fitly
framed together in Him. Its unity and symmetry are origi
nated and maintained in Him. The article 77 before Tratra in A
and C, and in the Textus Keceptus, appears to be spurious ; it
is not found in B, D, E, F, G, I, K, and is rejected by the latest
editors, Lachmann and Tischendorf. Middleton and Trollope,
for mere grammatical reasons, affirm that Traca rj is the right
reading. Eeiche says Paulum scripsisse iraaa rj ol/coSofni cum
articulo nullus dubito, and he ascribes the omission to the
homoioteleuton oltco&otirjr). Comment. Crit. p. 149 ; Getting.
1859. Hofmann, I.e., renders, " all which is built" was gebaut
wird. Must, then, iraca otVoSo/z?; be rendered " every build
ing," as is the opinion of Chrysostom, Beza, Zanchius, and
Meyer, or as Wycliffe renders "eche bildynge," and Tyn-
dale "every bildynge"? We think not: For, 1. The
object of the apostle is to describe the one temple, which has
its foundation laid by apostles and prophets. It is of this one
structure, so founded, so united, so raised, and consisting of
such materials for in it the Ephesians were inbuilt that he
speaks. 2. In the later Greek as in the earlier, 7ra9, without
the article, sometimes bore the sense of " whole." Bernhardy,
p. 323; Gersdorf, p. 376; Scott and Liddell, Pape, Passow,
sub voce. So in the New Testament, Matt. ii. 3 ; Luke iv. 13 ;
Acts vii. 22 ; or Acts ii. 36 JIa? ot/co? I&lt;rpaij\ phraseology
based upon the usage of the Septuagint, 1 Sam. vii. 2, 3 ;
Neh. iv. 16 ; Col. i. 15. If, as Ellicott says, these examples are
not in point, as being proper names or abstract substantives,
they at least show the transition from an earlier and stricter
to a laxer and later use, in which other nouns besides proper
names and very familiar or monadic terms may dispense with
the articles. Winer, 18, 4, 19. So in Josephus, Antiq.
iv. 5, 1 JJoraao? Sta irtiar)? epfaov pewv " a river flowing

KPHES1AXS II. 21. 201

through the whole desert;" Thucydides, ii. 43 iraaa 71"; and
also in 38 etc TTOCTT;? 77/9 ; Iliad, xxiv. 407 -naaav uXijfairjv ;
Hesiod, Op. et Dies, 510 -rraa-a v\rj ; T/uog. 874 x6u&gt;v
7ra&lt;ra. Also Sia TTUO-TJ^ vvrcrof ; Passow, sub roct ; Thiersch,
De Penta. vcrsionc Alcxundrina, p. 121, in which are some
examples, though perhaps not all of them strictly analogous.

The Syriac has . ] \ \ in 01^2 " tlie whole building."

ij, a term of the later Greek, as is shown hy Ixilwk
in his Parerga to the Eclogie of Phrynichus. signifies pro
perly " the art or process of building," and is originally
equivalent to oltco&dfjLTja-is, but has also the same meaning as
olfco&opTjfia pp. 421, 487, 490. The structure named has not
yet been completed, and iraca ot/co^o/^?; signifies the entire
structure the structure in every part of it. The edifice in
course of erection, being fitly framed together in all its parts,
groweth into a holy temple. Such is the opinion of Chrysos-
tom, which Harless sets aside without sufficient evidence. For
of what is the " growth " specified ? Is the structure complete,
and is the growth supposed to be not of it as an edifice in
itself, but of its purpose " into a holy temple "? Does the
edifice wax in size, or only grow in destination and object ?
If you suppose the latter, then you also suppose that the living
stones are placed in the temple before its design is realized ;
or that these stones are themselves changed after they are laid
in their places. The growth, therefore, belongs to the edifice
itself. It increases in size and height. Even in its unfinished
state, the purpose of the fabric may be detected ; and when it
is completed, that purpose, apparent at every stage of its pro
gress, shall be manifest, fully and for ever " a holy temple
in the Lord."

The present participle o-vi/ap/xoXo^/ou/xe i^;, is a rare term
occurring only once more, in iv. 1C vwapiiofav In-ing the
classic form and denotes " being jointed together," or com
posed of parts fitted closely to each other. Tin* wh
ture is compact and firm ; not loose and ill-arranged masonry.
which is as unstable in itself as it is offensive to tho eye.
But every stone is in its place, and fits its place.
mutual adaptation there is no useless projection, no un
chasm. Neither excrescence nor defect mare the beauty of

202 EPHESIAXS II. 21.

the structure " in Christ " it is fitly framed together. There
is no superfluous doctrine, and no forgotten precept; grace
does not clash with statute or service ; promises " are yea
and amen in Him ; " pardon, peace, purity, and hope are
linked into one another, because they are closely united to
Him; and the members of the true church are so firmly
allied, that the gifts and graces of one are supplementary
to the gifts and graces of another. Ko qualification is lost,
and none can be dispensed with. One s ingenuity devises
what another s activity works out. While conquests are made
in distant climes, " she that tarries at home divides the
spoil." The huge walls built round the Peiroeus by the
Athenians under Themistocles, are described by the historian 1
as composed of large stones, square-hewn, and built together,
being fixed to one another, on the outside, with iron and lead.
But such cumbrous ligatures do not disfigure those spiritual
walls ; for that magnetic influence which binds all the living
stones to the chief Corner-stone, cements them, at the same
time and by the same power, to one another in cordial sym
pathy and reciprocal coherence and support. As Fergusson
says " By taking band with Christ the foundation, they are
fastened one to another."

Av^ei is for the more usual av^dvei. It occurs Col. ii. 19,
and also in the Greek poets. The present marks actual
growth certainly, and may describe normal condition. Even
in its immature state, and with so much that is undeveloped,
one may admire its beauty of outline, and its graceful form
and proportions. Vast augmentations may be certainly anti
cipated ; but its increase does not destroy its adaptations, for
it grows as " being fitly framed together." A structure not
firm and compact, is in the greater danger of falling the higher
it is carried ; and " if it topple on our heads, what matters it
whether we are crushed by a Corinthian or a Doric ruin ? "
But this fabric, with walls of more than Cyclopean or Pelas-
gian strength and vastness, secures its own continuous and
illimitable elevation and increase. The design of the edifice
is next stated

lfXotf ravf \iavs ifrtyw. Evraf t tun %\i aurt w
ai \ltai niti iv Tap* \untt &lt;rt$rieto-ra!&gt;i iXAflXsnf TO. t

ia&lt; Thucydides, i. 93.

EPIIESIANS II. 21. 203

ct? vaov ayiov eV Kvpiw groweth " into a holy temple in
the Lord." It was a temple a sacred edifice. The words
v Kvpiro belong to aytov, or rather to vaov Zyiov ; not, as
(Ecuiuenius, Grotius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Wolf, and
Meyer suppose, to aufet ; for these critics, with the exception
of the last, give eV the sense of Bid it groweth " by means of"
the Lord. Nor does Kvpio? refer to God, as Michaelis, Koppf.
liosenmiiller, and Baumgarten-Crusius suppose, but, as in
Pauline usage, to Christ. (See chap. i. 2, 3.) Neither are we,
with Beza, Koppe, Macknight, and others, to rob the eV of its
own significance, making the phrase ev Kvptto equivalent to a
dative, and joining it with vaov ; nor, with Drusius and
a-Lapide, to give it the meaning of a genitive. These are
rash and ungrammatical modes of interpretation. It has no
boliness but from the Lord, neither is it a temple but from its
connection witb Him. For the meaning of aytos, see i. 1.
The signification of the simple dative " a temple dedicated
to the Lord," 1 cannot be admitted for another reason that
Jesus is represented as the chief corner-stone, and cannot be
also depicted as the God of the temple, or its officiating priest.
But the chief corner-stone, solid and massive, gives firmness
and sanctity to the structure. The term i/ao&lt;? is apparently
used of individual believers (1 Cor. iii. 1C, 17, vi. 10 ; 2 Cor.

1 The vivacious fancy of a Frenchman in seen in the following description :
41 Quelle sagesse encore ne remargin t-on point duns la diverse dispensation dm
graces &lt;jue I Kglise recoit de Dieu 1 In il employe Tor brilliant d une f&lt;&gt; rxtra&gt;r-
dinairement edairee ; la 1 argent secourable d une chnrite liberale ; la le for dur
et ferme d une patience invincible ; la le cedre incorruptible d une vie purr, -t
6loigne"e des corruptions du munde ; la la hauteur dra colonnes qui paroiaMnt do
loin, pour mt-ttre la veritt: dans une belle vile ; la la forr6 des soubn*iwmrM qui
la soutiennent et raffennissent ; afin que par ce moyen son Kglisc oit un
Edifice bien ajust^ et bien assorti, a qui rien no manque p&lt;&gt;ur u subMtftnc&lt;-.
e sort meme de la contrariety des humcura et d-s rspriU, pour n-ndrc crt
ijiifttemcnt plus parfait. Car par la promptitiula et la veh&lt; l nienc drs un, il
excite la lenteur des autres : ct par la h-ntt-ur dc reux-ci il modW et rrtie
promptitude de ceux-la. Par leH luniit-rcs des clairvoyant il intniit
et par la sainte simplicite des idiots, il sanctifu- l-s lumi-res dr clairvoyant,
tous etoieut bouillans dans leur humcur, il y auroit le IVmiwrtrmcnt ;
^toient froids, il y auroit de la n.-gli K ,-nco : mais i*r la violrnc* dm i
eohaufTe la froideur do temrH ; ramcnt des autres ; et par la froiii
il tem^rd la tro]&gt; grande ardeur dea premiers ; fai.sant .-t ciitrelrna
heurcux ajustenu-nt, tt une salutaire hannonie dans -ion KglU
fEpitrr de St. Paul aux Ephuien*, par feu M. Du lU&gt;r, tomo
800. 1 J j J.

204 EFHESIAXS II. 22.

vi. 16. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 3, 4), and its peculiar and specific
meaning is given in the next clause, by the words KaToiicr)-
Trjpiov TOV eov "habitation of God;" for vaos, from vaiw,
like the Latin aedes, is the dwelling of the Divinity. Ex.
xxv. 8, 22 ; 1 Kings vi. 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. vi. 19. The illustra
tion of the word is naturally postponed to the following verse.

(Ver. 22.) *Ev &&amp;gt; KOI u/xet? a-vvoiKO^o^dcrOe "In which
also you are built together." To translate KOI tyiei? by " you
even " may be too broad, but some comparison is involved.
Some refer eV &&amp;gt; to Kvpiw, " in whom." Such is the opinion
of Olshausen, Harless, de Wette, Meyer, Stier, Alford, and
Ellicott. Others, like Zanchius, Grotius, and Koppe, go back
with needless travel to aKpoywviaiov for an antecedent. We
prefer, with Calixtus, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten, and Matthies,
taking vaov ayiov ev Kvpiw as the antecedent. If it be said,
on the one hand, that eV c5 usually in such connections refers
to Christ, then it may be said, on the other hand, that to be
built in or into a temple keeps the figure homogeneous. The
entire structure compacted in Jesus groweth into a temple,
" in which ye also are built " as living stones. The i^et?
may specially refer to the Gentile Christians, as they are
peculiarly addressed and reminded of their privileges, for this
verse is the conclusion of the paragraph which began with the
congratulation " Ye are no more strangers and foreigners."

The intense signification of magis magisque which Bucer
gives to the &lt;rvv- in composition with the o-vvoiKoSofjieia-fa, is
wholly unwarranted, save by this implication, that the placing
of those stones from the Ephesian quarry on the rising struc
ture added considerably to its size. Nor can we, with Calvin
and Meier, look upon the verb as an imperative ; for the entire
previous context is a recital of privilege, and the same form
of syntactic connection is maintained throughout. The idea
that seems to be entertained by Harless and Grotius is As
the whole building fitly framed together groweth into a holy
temple in the Lord, so ye, individually or socially, are built
up in like manner for a habitation of God in the Spirit. This
opinion destroys as well the unity of the figure as the connec
tion of the verses. It is one temple which the apostle describes,
and he concludes his delineation by telling the Ephesians that
they formed part of its living materials and masonry. In

EI IIESIAXS II. 22. 205

1 Esdr. v. 68, o-vi&gt;oiKo&ofjLi]a-ofjiv vfuv means " we will build
along with you." The dative is, however, in that clause
formally expressed, while in the passage before us no other
party is referred to. The vp.el&lt;s of this verse are the vptls of
ver. 19. The &lt;rvv- may not, therefore, expressly denote
" along with others," but rather " Ye are built together in
mutual contact or union among yourselves, or rather with all
built in along with you." The verb is thus of similar refer
ence with avvapnoXoyovpevr). The stones of that building are
not thrown together without choice or order, but they adhere
with a happy and unchanging union. Christians who have
personal knowledge of one another have a closer intimacy,
and so they are not wantonly separated in this structure, but,
like the Ephesian church, are " built together."

eiV KarotKTjTijpLov rou Geov tv IJvevfjuni " for an habitation
of God in the Spirit." \Ve regard these words as explanatory
of the vaos 0740? of the preceding verse, to the explanation of
which the reader may turn. We cannot, with Harless, refer
them to individual Christians, for such an idea mars the unity
and completeness of the figure. As Stier remarks, too, all the
nouns are in the singular, and refer to one structure. The
purpose of the holy temple is defined. It is, as we have seen
from several portions of the Old Testament, the dwelling of
God. 1 " This is my rest " " here will I stay." Now Jehovah
dwelt in His temple for two purposes: 1. To instruct His
people by His oracles and cheer them with His presence.
"God is in the midst of her" "Shine forth, Thou that
dwellest between the cherubim " " I will meet thee, and 1
will commune with thee." Moses brought the causes of the
people " before the Lord." God inhabits this spiritual fane
for spiritual ends to teach and prompt, to guide and bless,
to lead and comfort. His presence diffuses a light and jin
of which the lustre of the Shechinah was only a faint rullw-
tion and emblem. 2. Jehovah dwelt in the tempi. to aerept
the services of His j&gt;eople. The offerings were pr ntl
the courts of the house to the God of the hou.su. Spiritual

1 Josephus records among the omens which preceded the fall of Jrrualrm. that
a mysterious voice waa heard in the temple to utter the awful won
go hence," aa if ita Divine inhabitant had bcm bidding it fr
it to ita fate.

206 EPIIESIANS II. 22.

sacrifices" are still laid on the altar to God, and the odour of
such oblations is a " sweet savour," rising with fresh and un-
dispersed perfume to Him who is enshrined in His sanctuary.

Three interpretations have be3n proposed of the concluding
words cv HvevpaTi. 1. Some, such as Chrysostom, Riickert,
Olshausen, and Holzhausen, as also Erasmus, Homberg, Koppe,
Flatt, and others, give the words an adjectival sense, as if
they merely meant " spiritually," and characterized this edifice,
in contrast with the Jewish temple " made with hands." But
such an exposition is baseless. There is no contrast intended
between a material and a spiritual temple, nor is there any
thing implying it. Nor could the two words, placed as they
are by the apostle, naturally bear such a signification. That
the article is not necessary to give the words a personal
reference, as some, such as Riickert, affirm, is plain from many
similar passages, as may be seen in our remarks on i. 1 7, and
in the following paragraph.

2. Some join ev Hvevpart, to the verb a-vvuiKoSofAeia-Oe, and
then the words denote " built together by means of the
Spirit." This is the view of Theophylact, CEcumenius, Meyer,
and Hodge. Calvin combines both this and the preceding
interpretation. To such an exegesis we might object, with
Harless, that it is strange that words of such importance,
denoting the medium of erection, should be found in the para
graph as a species of afterthought. Harless indeed adds, that
Hvevjjia, denoting the Spirit objectively, should have the article.
But surely the article is not required any more than with the
ev Kvpla) of the preceding verse. The reader may turn for
proof to this epistle, iii. 5, vi. 18 ; and Matt. xxii. 43 ; Rom.
viii. 4; 1 Cor. xiv. 2 ; Gal. iv. 29, v. 5 ; in all which places
the Holy Ghost is referred to, and the noun wants the article.
See under i. 17. Where the Holy Spirit in distinct and ex
ternal personality is spoken of, or His influences are regarded
as coming from without, the noun has the article ; but in many
places where He is conceived of in His subjective operations,
the article is either inserted or omitted. It is omitted Matt,
i. 18-20, iii. 11, and inserted Luke ii. 27, iv. 1, 14. Perhaps
the idea of Divine power exerted ab extra is intended in these
last passages. When the epithet ayiov is employed, the article
is sometimes used and sometimes not, though the cases of

EPHESIAXS II. 22. 1&gt;07

omission are rather more frequent. But no ]&gt;ossiMc difference
of meaning can in many places be detected. Harless instances
1 Cor. ii. 4, 13, compared with ver. 10, in which last verse
the Spirit is conceived of as God s, and has the article. In
the phrases in which the Spirit s relation to the Father is
kept in view, the article is used. But revelation is as clearly
ascribed to the Spirit in this epistle, iii. 5, a.s in 1 Cor. ii. 10,
and yet in the former place it has no article. The article,
without difference of view, is employed and rejected in con
tiguous verses. Acts viii. 17, 18, 19, xix. 2, C ; John iii. o, C.
The cases of insertion in these quotations may be accounted
for on other and mere grammatical principles. Fritzsche, ad
Rom. viii. 4.

3. The third interpretation is that supported virtually by
Stier, de Wette, and Matthies. God dwells in this temple,
as in individual believers, "by or in His Spirit." Christians
are the temple of God, because the Spirit of God dwelletb in
them. 1 Cor. iii. 1C. AVliat is true of them separately is also
true of them collectively they are the residence of God in
the Spirit. *Ev IL eu/zari defines the mode of inhabitation.
That temple, from its connection with the Spirit inasmuch
as the Spirit has fashioned, quickened, and laid its living
stones, and dwells within them is "a habitation of Gtxl."
The God who resides in the church is the enlightening, puri
fying, elevating, comforting Spirit. The apostle s own defini
tion of the formula is " Ye are eV JTrcu/zaTt in the Spirit, if
so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." lloiu. viii. J.
And thus again, as often before, the Trinity or the triune rela
tion of God to His people is brought out. The Father dwell:
in the Spirit in that temple of which the Sun is the chief
corner-stone. The church is one, holy and Divine; it n^t
on Christ is possessed by God filled with the Spirit and
is ever increasing.

CHAPTER III.

HAVING illustrated with such cordial satisfaction and impres
sive imagery the high privileges of the Gentile converts, the
apostle, as his manner is, resolves to present a prayer for
them. But other thoughts rush into his mind, suggested by
his own personal condition. 1 He was a prisoner ; and as he
was now writing to Gentiles, at least was at that moment
addressing the Gentile portion of the Ephesian church, an
allusion to his bonds was natural, and seems to have been
introduced at once as a proof of the honesty of his congratu
lations, and as a circumstance that must have prepared his
readers to enter into the spirit of the earnest and comprehen
sive supplication to be offered on their behalf. But the
impressive theme on which he had been dilating with such
ecstasy still vibrated in his heart, and the mention of his
imprisonment, originating in his attachment to the Gentiles,
suggested a reference to his special functions as the apostle of
heathendom. These ideas came upon him with such force,
and brought with them such associations, that he could not
easily pass from them. The clank of his chain at length
awakens him to present reality, and he concludes the paren
thesis with a request that his readers would not mope and
despond over his sufferings, endured for a cause in which they
had so tender and blessed interest. The 1st and 13th verses
are thus in close connection, and the apostle, as if describing
a circle, comes round at length to the point from which he
originally started. The connection is " For this cause, I
Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles " " bow
my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

(Ver. 1.) Tovrov %dpiv "For this cause;" the reference

1 The accusers of the apostle had not yet come to Rome, and he might
therefore be detained for an indefinite period. This law was afterwards
altered, and the suspension of a process for a year was held to be tantamount
to its abandonment.

EPHES1ANS III. 1. 209

being not to any special element in the previous illustration,
but to the whole of it inasmuch as Gentile believers arc
raised along witli believing Jews to those high privileges and
honours now common to both of them. The remarks we have
made will show that we regard the construction as broken
by a long parenthesis, and resumed in ver. 14, not at ver. 8,
as (Ecumenius and Grotius suppose, nor yet at ver. 13, as
Zanchius, Cramer, and Holzhausen maintain. In the former
hypothesis, the connection thus stands " I Paul, the prisoner
of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles" "even to me, less than
the least of all saints, is this grace given." I&gt;ut here there is
no natural contact of ideas, and the change of case from the
nominative to the dative, though vindicated by (Ecuinenius
from examples in Thucydides and Demosthenes, is, JLS Origen
affirms, a solecism, and is fatal to the hypothesis. Catena in
foe. ed. Cramer. Oxford, 1842. The 8th verse is insepar
ably connected also with the Cth and 7th verses. The
other opinion, that the course of thought is resumed in
ver. 13, is proved to be untenable as well by the occurrence
of the simple 816 in that verse, as by the fact that the
repeated TOVTOV \apiv of the following verse has no founda
tion in the sentiment of the 13th. The idea expressed in the
13th verse is a subordinate and natural conclusion of the
digression. Erasmus, Schmid, Michaelis, and Hammond
would consider the whole chapter a parenthesis, but such an
opinion makes the digression altogether too long, ami over
looks the connecting link in ver. 14. The majority of ex
positors adopt the view we have given, to wit, that ver.
resumes the interrupted sentiment. Theodoret says-
irdvTa (vers. 1 13) ev pecra) reOeiKux; ava\appdvci TUV Trepl
Trpocrevx ls \uyov. This opinion plainly harmoni/
scope and construction of the chapter. Winer, GJ, 4.

But there are some commentators who deny that any pal
enthesis or digression occurs, and for this pur] KIMS various
supplements have been proposed for the 1st verso,
supply the verb ei/u " For this cause I Paul nm tl pri
of Jesus Christ." This conjecture has for its oul
Peschito, which is followed by Chrys
Anselm, Erasmus, Aretius, Cajctan, Hwai, will
Of modern critics, the version of Tyndalc, and Geneva.

210 EPHESIANS III. 1.

paraphrase of Chrysostom is Sia TOVTO ical tyco Se Seyuat; and
he adds in explanation of the phrase "if my Master was
crucified for you, much more am I bound." But our objection
is, first, that Secr/uo? has the article I am the prisoner, whereas
Paul may be supposed to say, " I am a prisoner." It is
alleged by Beza, Eollock, and Meyer, that the notoriety of
Paul as a prisoner might have prompted him to use the article.
But such a supposition is not in harmony with the apostle s
character. Under such an exegesis also, as has been often
remarked, rovrov xdpiv and virep vfjbwv would form a tautology.
The apostle does not mean to magnify the fact of his imprison
ment : he merely hints in passing that it originated in the
proclamation of those very truths which he had been discuss
ing. Middleton on Greek Article, p. 358. Others, again,
such as the Codices I), E, supply Trpeaftevco a spurious
insertion borrowed from vi. 20, and adopted by Ambrosiaster
and Castalio, as well as by Calvin in his Latin rendering
leyatione funyor. Another MS. has the verb Ke/cav^/jLai,
taken from Phil. ii. 16. Jerome supplies coynovi mysterium,
and Camerarius gives us hoc scribo. Meyer s rendering is
peculiar deshall that you may be built zu diesem Behufe
bin Ich Paulus, der Gefessclte Christi Jesu urn euret, dcr Heiden
willen. But the plain supposition of a long parenthesis ren
ders all such supplements superfluous.

Eya) ITaOXo? " I Paul," his own name being inserted to
give distinctness, personality, and authority to the statement,
as in 1 Cor. i. 12, 13, iii. 4, 5, 22 ; 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. v. 2 ;
Col. i. 23 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; Philem. 9. That name was vene
rated in those churches, and its formal mention must have
struck a deep and tender chord in their bosom. Once Saul,
the synonym of antichristian intolerance, it was now Paul,
not merely a disciple or a servant, but

o $6074109 TovXpiarov Irjaov "the prisoner of Christ Jesus."
2 Tim. i. 8 ; Philem. 9. The genitive, as that of originating
cause, signifies not merely " a prisoner belonging to Christ,"
but one whom Christ, that is, Christ s cause, and not Caesar,
had imprisoned. Winer, 30, 2, (3 ; Acts xxiii. 11. His loss
of liberty arose from no violation of law on his part : it was
solely in prosecuting his mission that he was apprehended and
confined ; for he was in fetters

EPHESIANS III. 2. 21 \

vpwv -T&v c0i&gt;wi&gt; " on behalf of you Gentiles," ti
common sense of the preposition, which is related in ver. 12.
It was his office as apostle of the Gentiles which exposed
him to persecution, anil led to his present incarceration.
Acts xxi. 22, xxv. 11, xxviii. 1C. His vindication of such
truths as formed the last paragraph of the preceding chapter,
roused Jewish jealousy and indignation. Nay, in writing t&lt;
the Ephesians he could not forget tliat the suspicion of his
having taken an Ephesian named Trophimus into tlie templr
with him, credited the popular disturbance that led to his
capture and his final appeal to Caesar, his journey to Home,
and his imprisonment in the imperial city. The ajostle
proceeds to explain more fully the meaning of this clause

(Ver. 2.) Eiye rjKovaare TTJV oltcovofjiiav " If indeed ye have
heard of the dispensation." As the translation " if ye have
heard " seems to imply that 1 aul was a stranger to the
Ephesian church, various attempts have been made to give
the words another rendering. (See Introduction.) That efye
may bear the meaning "since," is undeniable (iv. 21 ; Col. i.
23); or, " if indeed, as I take for granted, ye have heard;"
or, as Estius and Wiggers translate " if, as is indeed the
case, ye have heard." Hermann, ad Vujcr. p. 834. Tin-
particle ye is used in suppletive sentences (Hartung, Partik.
i. 391), and may be rendered und zwar "and indeed."
Harless is inclined to take the words as hypothetical, 1 as
indicating want of personal acquaintance with his readers ;
but Hartung (ii. 212) lays it down, that in cases where the
contents of the sentence are adduced as proof of a preceding
Statement, the meaning of etye approaches that "f on and

Hoogeveen also states the same canon. 3 The apo&gt;
Says I am a prisoner for you Gentiles; and he now gives
reason of his assertion Ye must surely have heard of the dis
pensation committed to me a dispensation whose prominent
and distinctive element it is to preach among the Gentilea.

1! ( kless efforts have been made upon the verb rjicoiKrare
as when 1 elagius renders it firmitcr tcnfti*. So Ans,
tin -, and Einck, Scndschrcib. dcs Korinth. p. f&gt;0.

apostle has been supposed by Musculus, Crocius, Flu

1 Stud, und Kritik. 1841, p. 432.

Doctrina Particularum, etc., p. 158, cd. SchuU ; KloU-Dcrar, p. 3

212 EPIIESIANS III. 2.

and de Wette, to mean " hearing by report of others." There
is no proof of this in the language, nor of the other version
" hearing, and also attending and understanding." The writer
may refer to his own sermons, for we cannot say with Calvin
credibile est, quum agerct Epkesi, eum tacuisse de his rebus.
The apostle may, in this quiet form, stir up their memory of
the truth, that mission to the heathen was his special work
not his work by accident, but by fixed Divine arrangement.
He preached in Ephesus to both Jew and Gentile ; and his
precise vocation, as the apostle of the Gentiles, might not have
been very fully or formally discussed. Still it was a theme
which could not have been kept in abeyance. They surely
had heard it from his lips ; and this et-ye, rather than on,, is
the expression of a gentle hope that they had not forgotten
the lesson. Yet there is no reprehension in the phrase, as is
supposed by Vitringa and Holzhausen.

The term olfcovopla does not signify the apostolical office,
as is the opinion of Luther, Musculus, Bollock, Aretius,
Crocius, Wieseler, and others, for it is explained by the
apostle himself in the following verse ; and it cannot denote
dispensatio doctrincc, as Pelagius translates it ; not offwium
dispcnsandoc graticc Dei, as Anselm explains it. See under
i. 10. Its meaning is arrangement or plan; and the apostle
employs it to describe the mode in which he had been selected
and qualified to preach faith and privilege to the Gentiles.
Chrysostom identifies the oltcovofita with the airoKaXv^n^ of
the following verse " As much as to say, I learned it not
from man." How came it that a person like Paul a staunch
Pharisee, a scholar of Gamaliel, attached to rabbinical studies,
and a zealot in defence of the law how came it that he, with
antecedents so notorious in their contrast, should be the man
to preach, as his special mission, the entrance of Gentiles into
Christian privilege ? The method of his initiation was of
God ; and that " economy " is described as being

rr}? "xapiTOS rov Oeov TT}&lt;? Bodeia-rjs /zot a? Ly^a? " of the
grace of God which is given me to you-ward." This %a/ot? is
not, as Grotius and Elickert imagine, the apostolical office,
but the source or contents of it. We see no ground to identify
X&lt;ipis with the following fjLvarrjpiov, though it includes it. The
idea is either that the olKovofiia had its origin in that %api$, or

EPIIKSIANS III. 3. 213

rather that the ^apt? was its characteristic element. Winer.
30, 2. That grace was given him, not that he might enjoy
it as a private luxury, but that he by its assistance might
impart it to others et&lt;? vuas " to you," not inter ros, as Storr
makes it. Gal. i. 1"&gt;, ii. 9; Acts xxii. 21. There may, as
Stier suggests, be an allusion in the oixovouta to the otVaBo/ivj
of ver. 21 in the previous chapter. In the house-arrangement
and distribution of offices, the building of the Gentile portion
of the structure was Paul s special function. The ajxistle now
becomes more special in his description

(Ver. 3.)"Ort Kara a7roKu\v^ni&gt; tyvwpt o-flTj uoi TO uv&lt;m]piov
"How that by revelation was the mystery made known t&lt;
me." Eyvwptcre is the reading of the lieceived Text, on the
authority of I) 111 , E, J, K, and many minuscules, and is
received by Knapp and Tittmann ; but tyi&gt;a)pia-0Tj has the pre
ponderant authority of A, Ii, C, I) 1 , F, G, etc., the Syriac and
Vulgate, and is adopted by Lachmann, Halm, and Tischemlorf.
The " relative particle on, as the correlative of ri t introduces
an objective sentence." Donaldson, Greek Gram. 584. It
leads to further explanation, and the clause is a supplementary
accusative connected with the previous verb. The mystery
itself is unfolded in ver. G ; for, a.s we have seen under i. l,
"mystery" is not something in itself incomprehensible, but
merely something unknown till God please to reveal it
something undiscoverable by man, and to the knowledge of
which he conies by Divine disclosure Kara airoKuXirty-ii , the
emphasis lying on the phni.se, as is indicated by its position.
Gal. ii. 2. In Gal. i. 12, the genitive with Bid is employed.
Grammarians, as Bernhardy (p. 241) and Winer ( 51), show
that Kara, with the accusative, has sometimes an adverbial
signification; so Meyer renders offenbarungguxw. The differ
ence is not material; but 5t aTrotcaXv^ew would refrr to the
means or method of disclosure, whereas Kara arroKuXv^fiv may
describe the shape which it assumed. The general spirit of
the statement is, that his mission to the Gentiles was not
created by the expansive philanthropy of his own Nsojn,
was it any sourness of temper against his countrymen t
prompted him to select, as his favourite sphere of laUmr,
outfield of heathendom. He might have been a beli.
still, like many thousands of the Jews " zealous of the law."

214 EPHESIANS III. 4.

It was by special instruction that he comprehended the world
wide adaptations of the gospel, and gave himself to the work of
evangelizing the heathen the mystery being their admission
to church fellowship equally with the Jews. He alludes, not
perhaps so much to the first instructions of the Divine will at
his conversion (Acts ix. 15), as to subsequent revelations.
Acts xxii. 21 ; Gal. i. 16. And he adds

icadu&gt;s Trpoeypaifra ev 0X176) " as I have just written in
brief ; " or, as Tyndale renders " as I wrote above, in feawe
wordes;" i. 9, ii. 13. The parenthetical marking of some
editors commencing with this clause, and extending to the
end of ver. 4, is useless ; and the relative o in ver. 5 belongs
to the antecedent pvcmlpiov in ver. 4. There is no occasion,
with Hunnius, Marloratus, Chrysostom, and Calvin, to make
the reference in the verb to some earlier epistle. Theodoret
says well oi&gt;% to? rti e? V7re\a/3ov } ori krepav eiricrroKrjv
yeypafav. See under i. 12. Such is the view of the great
body of interpreters. The apostle refers to what he had now
written in the preceding paragraph from ver. 1 3 to the end
of the second chapter and apparently not, as Alford says, to
i. 9 ; nor, as Ellicott says, to the fact contained in the imme
diately preceding clause.

And he had written kv 6X/y&&amp;gt; in Irevi (Vulgate), " in brief"
in a few words. See Kypke, Observat. ii. p. 293, in which
examples are given from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Aristotle.
Theodoret followed by Erasmus, Camerarius, Calvin, Grotius,
Estius, Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius, and many others pro
poses that eV o\lyep should be taken as explanatory of the
7T/30- in irpoeypatya, and that the phrase signifies vvv, Qipaulo
ante. Bodius conveniently combines both views. But such
a construction cannot be admitted ; to express such an idea
Trpo o\lyov would have been employed. And the apostle has
not intimated simply that such a mystery was disclosed to
him, but that he has also noted down the results or contents
of the disclosure, and for this purpose

(Ver. 4.) IT/30? o. JTpo? o cannot be identified, as Tlieo-
phylact does, with e wv. It may mean, as Harless and de
Wette translate, " in consequence of which ; " or, as in our
version, " whereby." We question, however, whether this
meaning can be sustained. It may be the ultimate, but it is

EPHESIANS III. 4. 215

not the immediate sense. Its more usual signification " in
reference to which" is as appropriate. "Winer, 49, h. Such
is also the rendering of Peile " referring to which." Herodot,
iii. 52; Jelf, C38 ; Matthiae, 591; liernhardy, p. 205;
Vigerus, DC Idiotistiiis, ii. p. G94, bunion, 1824. The
reference is subjective "as I have already written in brief,
in reference to which portion tanqnam ad sjxcitm n, when
ye read it, ye may understand my knowledge." In the- phrase
TTpo? o, the apostle quietly claims their special attention to the
passage on which such notoriety is bestowed, and adds-

vayivcoarKOvre^ voijcrai rijv avvecriv pov ev TO&gt;
ui) rov Xpicrrov " you can while reading perceive my
insight in the mystery of Christ." "When this epistle n-achcd
them it was presumed that they would read it ; and as they
read it, they would feel their competence. The present parti
ciple expresses contemporaneous action the reading being
parallel in time to the perception; though the latter is expressed
by the aorist infinitive, which form, according to Donaldson,
" describes a single act either as the completion or as the com
mencement of a continuity." (!rcck (iram. 427, d. If this
be supposed to be too refined, it may be added that several
verbs, as SiW/zeu, are in (Jivek idiom followed by the aorist
rather than the present. Winer, 44, 7. The verb voijeai
means to perceive come to the knowledge of to mark ;
whereas &lt;TVVC&lt;TIS is intelligence or insight, and does not require
the repetition of the article before eV TO) ^vffrtjpiy, as one idea
is conveyed. Josh. i. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; l&gt;an. i. 17;
3 Esdr. i. 3. "Winer, 20, 2 ; Tittmann s . p. 191.

If ye read what I have written, ye shall perceive what grasp
I have of the mystery; and my knowledge of it is basc&lt;
immediate revelation. True, the apostle had written 1
briefly, yet these hints were the index of a fuller familiarity
with the theme. The genitive, rov Xpivrov, is proUibl,
of object. Kllicott, following Stier, inclines to niak
material or identity, which appears too refined and strained
Col. i. 27 not being exactly parallel, but Wing a s

1 "Here hi- confutah the papist* on a. count of tlu-ir &lt;-urwd j.rmrti
way the key of knowK,l K t the- fading of tin- Sori|.turc ; in l
tn? like the Philistines putting out tl- ryn of 8ni*.n, and
oniths, not leaving a weaion in Israel." IJaynr, on Kf&gt;h. in lo&gt;

216 EPHESIANS III. 5.

phase of the same great truth. But why should the apostle
solemnly profess such knowledge of the mystery ? We can
scarcely suppose, with Olshausen, Harless, and de Wette, that
Paul had in his eye other persons who were strangers to him,
or who were hostile to his claims ; nor can we imagine, with
Wiggers, that he wrote to the Ephesians as representatives of
the heathen world. Stud, und Kritik. p. 433 ; 1841. It
could be no vulgar self-assertion that prompted the reference.
Possibly he was afraid of coming evils from Judaizing teachers
and haughty zealots, and therefore, having illustrated the
equality of Gentile privilege, he next vindicates it by the
solemn interposition of his apostolical authority.

(Ver. 5.) |X O erepais yeveals OVK dyvcopiaOr) rot? mot? TWV
avOpMirwv " Which in other ages was not made known to the
sons of men." The antecedent to o is fjLvarrjpLov, the relative
forming a frequent link of connection. The ev which is found
in the E ceived Text is condemned by the evidence of MSS.,
such as A, C, D, E, E, G, I, K. The dative as a designation
of the time in which an action took place may stand by itself
without a preposition, as in ii. 12, though in poetry the pre
position is frequently prefixed. Kiihner, 569 ; Stuart, 106 ;
Winer, 31, 9. According to some, &lt;yeveals is a species of
ablative, with an ellipse of the preposition, and, as usually
happens in such a case, MSS. vary in their readings. Bos,
Ellipses Grcccoc, ed. Schrefer, p. 437. Teved, corresponding to
the Hebrew "in, signifies here the time occupied by a genera
tion an age measured by the average length of human life.
Acts xiv. 16, xv. 21 ; Col. i. 26. There is no reason to
adopt the opinion of Meyer and Hodge, and take the term to
signify men, having, in epexegetical apposition with it, the
phrase TO?? u/ot? TWV avOpanrwv. Such a construction is
clumsy, and it is far better to give the two datives a differ
ential signification. The formula erepai, yeveai, so used with
the past tense, refers to past ages, and stands in contrast with
vvv.

That the phrase " sons of men " should, as Bengel supposes,
mean the prophets of the Old Testament, is wholly out of the
question. Ezekiel was often named D"]&n? " son of man," but
the prophets never as a body received the cognomen " sons of
men." We can scarcely say, with Harless, Matthies, and

EPHESIANS III. & 217

Stier, that there is studied emphasis in the words, as if to
bring out the need which such generations had of this know
ledge, since they were men sprung of men, and were in want
of that Spirit so plentifully conferred in these recent times.
Mark iii. 28, compared with Mutt. xii. 31. The words so
familiar to a Hebrew ear, seem to have been suggested by th-
^eved to the apostolic mind. As age after age passed away,
successive generations of mortal men apj&gt;eared. Sons suc
ceeded fathers, and their sons succeeded them ; so that by
" sons of men " is signified the successive band of contem
poraries whose lives measured these fleeting yevcat. The
meaning of the apostle, however, is not that the mystery was
unknown to all men, for it was known to a few ; but he intends
to say, that in the minds of men generally it did not JKISSI-SH
that prominence and clearness which it did in apostolic times.
And he tills up the contrast, thus

&)? vvv aTrKa\v$&gt;6r) rot? ayiois aTTocrrcXot? aurou " as it
has been now revealed to His holy apostles." The aorisl is
connected with vvv a connection possible in Greek, but im
possible in English, llevelation is the mode by which the
apostles gained an insight into the mystery which in previous
ages had not been divulged. Bengel says notificatio ]T
rcvdationem est fans notijicationis per prccconium. The points
of comparison introduced by o&gt;? are various: 1. In point of
ti J1R . vv v . Only since the advent of Jesus has the shadow
been dispelled. 2. In breadth of communication. The apostle
speaks of the general intimation which the ancient world had
of the mystery, and compares it with those full and exact
conceptions of it which these recent revelations by the Spirit
had imparted. 3. In medium and object. The
men " are opposed to holy apostles and prophets. The njKwtlc fl
meaning fully brought out is As it has U&gt;en now revealed
unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, and
made known to the present age. If the mystery needed
be revealed by the Spirit, and to minds of such preparat
and susceptibility as those of apostles and prophets
disclosure required such supernatural influence and
selected class of recipients then it is plain that very iimd
quate and glimmering notions of it must have been eni
by past generations. The "prophets" have been du

218 EPHESIANS III. 5.

under ii. 20, and "apostles and prophets " will be more fully
illustrated under iv. 11. The epithet ayioi is unusual in this
application, though it is given to the old prophets. 2 Kings
iv. 9 ; Luke i. 70 ; 2 Pet. i. 21. The term has been explained
under i. 1, and in this place its sense is brought out by the
following aurov. They were His in a special sense, selected,
endowed, commissioned, inspired, sustained, and acknowledged
by Him, and so they were " holy." Not only were they so
officially, but their character was in harmony with their awful
functions. They were not indeed holier than others ; no such
comparison is intended. The Ephesian church was " holy " as
well as the apostles ; but they are called holy in this special
sense and in their collective capacity, from the nearness and
peculiarity of their relation to God. The Jewish people were
a " holy nation," but on the " forefront of the mitre " of the
high priest, of him who stood within the vail and before the
mercy-seat, there was a golden plate with the significant
inscription " HOLINESS TO JEHOVAH."

KOI 7rpo(f)r}Tais ev Hvev^arL " and prophets in the Spirit."
Lachmann, followed by Bisping, places a comma after ayiois,
and regards the next words as in apposition. Tlvevfia has not
the article. See under i. 17; see also under ii. 22. Ambro-
siaster and Erasmus connect ev Hvev^aTi with the following
verse, a supposition which the structure of the succeeding
sentence forbids ; and Meier joins the same phrase to aytoi? t
as if ev Hvev^an explained the term a hypothesis which is
also set aside by the order of the words. The majority of
expositors, from Jerome and Anselm to Stier and Conybeare,
join the words to the previous verb " revealed in " or " by
the Spirit." The clause will certainly bear this interpretation,
and the sense is apparent. Winer, 20, 4. But the phrase
ology is peculiar. Peile translates " apostles and inspired
interpreters," but he erroneously thinks that prophets and
apostles are the same. See under ii. 20. It might be said
that the pronoun seems to qualify aTroo-roXot? rot? dyiois
aTTocrroXot? avTov to His holy apostles, while the prophets
have no distinctive character given them, unless it be by the
words ev Tlvevnari, for they were prophets, and had become
so, or had a right to the title, ev UvevfiarL 2 Pet. i. 21. This
interpretation was before the mind of Chrysostom, though he

EPHESIANS III. 5. 219

did not adopt it, and Koppe and Holzhauseu have formally
maintained it. The construction would then resemble that of
the same formula in the last verse of the preceding e-hupUT.
Similar construction is found Rom. viiL 9, xiv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xii.
3 ; Col. i. 8 ; Uev. i. 10. The epithet is not superfluous, as these
men became prophets only "in the Spirit." The apostles them
selves stand in the room of the Old Testament prophets, and
their possession of the Spirit was a prominent and functional
distinction. But the prophets so called under the New Testa
ment were not to be undervalued ; they, too, were " in the
Spirit." l)e Wette objects that such an epithet for the prophets
would be too distinctive. But why so ? The aj*&gt;stles were
God s avrov in a special sense, and they were uyiot in con
sequence. But Paul does not give the "prophets " either one
or other of these lofty designations. The apostles hail high
office and prerogatives, but the possession of the Spirit was
the solitary distinction of the prophets, and by it the sacred
writer seems to characterize them. At the same time, the
ordinary construction of eV Hvtvpa-ri with the verb gives so
good a meaning, that we could not justify ourselves in depart
ing from it.

The general sense of the verse is evident. The apostle doc
not seem to deny all knowledge of the mystery to the ancient
world, but he only compares their knowledge of it, which at
best was a species of perplexed clairvoyance, with the fuller
revelation of its terms and contents given to modern apostles
and prophets; or as Theodoret contrasts it ov yap -ra
irpdy/jLara el&ov, ii\\a rovs Trepi ruv -rrpayfjuirtDv Trpotypa^av
\6yovs. In Vcterc Tcstaincnto Novum latet, d in .\ &lt;/r
patet. The scholium in Matthiic- -" that the men of
that the Gentiles should be called, but not that they s
be fellow-heirs," contains a distinction too acute and refined
The intimations in the Old Testament of the calling
Gentiles are frequent, but not full; disclosing the
keeping the method in shade. The ajxistlu Jaiuw
this in Acts xv. 14. But after the death of Chrisl
its rciKjal of the ceremonial code, was the grand me
Judieo-Gentile union, a church, without reference t
fully organized. The salvation of guilty men
became a distinctive feature of the gospel, antl therefore thu

220 EPIIESIANS III. 6.

incorporation of non-Israel into the church, revealed to Peter
and Paul by the Spirit, was more clearly understood from the
results of daily experience and the fruits of missionary enter
prise. Acts xi. 17, 18, xv. 7, 13.

(Ver. 6.) This verse explains the mystery. The infinitive
elvai contains the idea of design if viewed from one point, and
of fact if viewed from another the purpose seen or realized
in the purport or contents. It does not depend upon the last
verse, but unfolds the unimagined contents of the revelation

etvai TCL eQvr) o-ir/KXypovo/jLa " that the Gentiles are fel
low-heirs." Eom. viii. 17. Remarks have been made on the
K\T]povo^ia, under i. 14, 18. The Gentiles were to be co-heirs
with the believing Jews, without modification or diminution
of privilege. Their heirship was based on the same charter,
and referred to the same inheritance. Nor, though that heir-
ship was very recent in date, were they only residuary lega
tees, bound to be content with any contingent remainder that
satiated Israel might happen to leave. No ; they inherited
equally with the earlier sons. Theirs was neither an uncertain
nor a minor portion. And not only were they joint-heirs,
but even

KOI avvaw^a " and of the same body," concorporcdcs
a more intimate union still. The form of spelling crvva-cofia
is found in A, B 1 , D, E, F, G. The Gentiles were of the
same body not attached like an excrescence, not incorpo
rated like a foreign substance, but concorporated so that the
additional were not to be distinguished from the original mem
bers in such a perfect amalgamation. The body is the one
church under the one Head, and believing Jew and Gentile
form that one body, without schism or the detection of national
variety or of previous condition. Thus Theophylact ev yap
crwfjia ryeyovacriv ol eOviKol Trpos TOVS lapa^Xlra^ fjaa K6(j)a\fj
ev XpicrTw (rvytcparov/jLevoL Comp. ii. 16. Still further

fcal crvrfjiero^a TT}? 7rajye\la&lt;; " and fellow-partakers of
the promise." The pronoun avrov of the Received Text is
not found in the more important MSS. and versions, and is
rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf, though it occurs in
D 2 , D 3 , E, F, G, K, L. The spelling aw^t-roya is found
in A, B 1 , C, D 1 , F, G. It has been thought by many to
be too narrow a view to restrict the promise to the Holy

EPHESIANS III. 6. 221

Spirit. But many things favour such an opinion. He is
the prominent gift or promise of the new covenant, as Paul
hints in his comprehensive question, Gal. iii. 2 ; while again,
in ver. 14 of the same chapter, he adds, as descriptive
of the blessing of Abraham coming on the Gentiles " that
we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
Joel ii. 28, 29. Peter, vindicating his mission to Cornelius,
refers also as a conclusive demonstration of its heavenly origin
to the fuct, that " the Holy Ghost fell on them a.s on us."
He repeats the same evidence on another occasion. Acts xv. 8.
The promise is here singled out by the article ; and in the
mind of the apostle, who had already referred to the Holy
Ghost under a similar designation and in connection with the
inheritance (i. 13), the one grand distinctive and disj&gt;ensa-
tional promise was that of the Spirit. And if the avtov IHJ
spurious, the naked emphasis laid on the term itself shows
that to Paul it had a simple, well-known, and unmistakeable
meaning. Ellicott says that this view is scarcely consonant
with &lt;nr^K\ripovofia fellow-heirs. But the theology of the
apostle shows the perfect consonance. Rom. viii. 14-17.
They alone are heirs who are sons, and they alone are sons
who are led by the Spirit of God. Then is added

v XpiaTaj Irjcrou in Christ Jesus as A, B, C, followed by
the Coptic and Vulgate, read. "We would not, with Yatahlus,
Koppe, Meier, Hol/hausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius, restrict
fv Xpta-Ta) I-qaov to the preceding noun errayyc\ia
"promise in Christ" for then we might have expected a
repetition of the article; but, with the majority of critic*, we
regard it as a qualifying the whole three adjectives, a.s the inner
sphere of union, while the medium or instrumental cause in
next stated

But rov cvayye\iov not, a.s Locke translates, " in tin- time
of the gospel ; " but " by means of the gospel." The prejM,-
sitions tV and Bid stand in a similar relation, as in i. 7.
"Christ," were the Gentiles co-heirs, co-incorjM.ratcd,
co-partakers of the promise with believing Israel, enjoying
union in Him, "through that gospel" which wa* preached
them ; for its object was to proclaim Christ-
How, then, do the three epithets stand conn-
seems to be no climax, as Jerome, Pulagius, and BaumgarUm-

999

EPIIESIANS III. 7.

Crusius suppose ; nor an anticlimax, as is the opinion of
Zanchius : yet we cannot adopt the idea of Valpy and others,
that the series of terms is loosely thrown together without
discrimination. 1 We apprehend that the apostle employs the
three terms, in the fulness of his heart, at once to magnify the
mystery, and to prevent mistake. The GVV- is thrice repeated,
and dvvawfjLa and a-vv/jLero^a, are terms coined for the occa
sion, though the verb o-f/i/xere^o) occurs in classic Greek, as
in Euripides, Supp. 648 o-iy^eracr^oi/Te? ; Xenophon, Ana
basis, vii. 8, 17 ; Plat. TJiecet., Opera, vol. iii. p. 495, ed. Bekker.
The Gentiles are fellow-heirs. But such a fellowship might
be external to a great extent Esau might inherit though he
severed himself from Jacob s society. The apostle intensifies
his meaning, and declares that they are not only fellow-heirs,
but of the same body the closest union ; not like Abraham s
sons by Keturah, each of whom received his portion and his
dismissal in the same act. But while they might be co-heirs,
and embodied in one personality, might there not be a differ
ence in the amount of blessing enjoyed and promised ? Or
with sameness of right, might there not be diversity of gift ?
Will the Israelite have no higher donation as a memento of
his descent, and a tribute of honour to his ancestral glories ?
!N"o ; the Gentiles are also fellow-partakers of that one pro
mise. By this means the apostle shows the amount of
Gentile privilege which comes to them in Christ, not by sub
mission to the law, as so many had fondly imagined, but by
the gospel. The next verse shows his relation to that
gospel

(Ver. 7.) Ov eyevrjOrjv Sid/covo? " of which I became a
minister." Col. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6. This reading is supported
by A, B, I) 1 , F, G ; while e^evo^v is used in C, D 3 , E, K, L.
The use of the passive might show that he had no concur
rence in the act. But Buttmann says that eyevrjOrjv is used in
Doric for eyevofjbrjv, ytyvea-Ocu being in that dialect a deponent

1 Jerome affirms on this place, and in apology for the barbarous Latin in
which the translation of the three terms was couched et singuli scrmones,
apices, puncta, in Divinis Scripturis plena sunt senslbus. Stier, as is his wont,
and according to the artificial view which he has formed of the epistle and its
various sections, finds his three favourite ideas of Grund, Wcg, und Zld basis,
manner, and end, with a correspondent reference to Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.

a .s

KPHKSIAXS III. 7.

passive. Phryn. eel. Lobec-k, pp. 108, 109. AuiKovo* (n,,t,
often said, from Sia and KOVIS " one covered with dust," but
from an old root t/co&gt; signifying " I hasten ") is a servant
in a general sense, and in relation to a master, as in 2 Cor.
vi. 4, xi. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 6. Uuttmaim has shown that the
preposition Sid cannot enter into the composition of Sidtcovos,
as the a is long. The a in Bid may, from the necessities of
metre, be sometimes long in poetry, but never in prose ; while
the Ionic form of the word under review is Birjtcovo^ Lcxihyu*,
sub wee Sidtcropo?. As an apostle he did not merely enjoy
the dignity of omce, or the admiration created by the display
of miraculous gifts. He busied himself ; he served with eager
cordiality and unwearied zeal

Kara rrjv Swpedv T;)? %dpiro&lt;; rov Seov rrjv SoOeladv pot
" according to the gift of the grace of God which was given
to me." duped is the gift, and \dp^ is that of which the
gift is composed (ii. 8), the genitive being that of apjusitiou
Instead of TTJV Sodei&av in the next clause of the Keceived
Text, some modern editors read T/)? boOtlaii?, which has the
authority of the old MSS. A, B, C, J) 1 , F, G, but which may
be borrowed from ver. 2. The Syriac and the Greek fathers
are in favour of the first reading, which is retained by Tischen-
dorf, being found in U 3 , E, K, L. The sense is not affected
"The gift made up of this grace is given, or the grace of
which the gift consists is given." The x^P l&lt;t ls n t tne P^
of tongues, as Grotius dreams; nor specially the Holy (llmst,
as a-Ljii)ide imagines. The term, resembling that of the Litin
munus, refers not to the apostolical office conferred out of the
pure and sovereign favour of God, as in ver. 2 of this chapter,
but it refers here to that office in its characteristic function of
preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. It was given

Kara Ti]v evtpyeiav TJ}? ut&gt;a/Aa&gt;9 ainov " according to the
working of His power." Kara refers us t&lt;&gt; boOtlaav. The
gift of grace is conferred in accordance with the working of
His power. See i. 1 ( J. Evepyeia and Siivapis are i Xplainc&lt;
under i. 19. "NVhitby unnecessarily and falsely restricLs this
power to that of miraculous agency conferred UJK.II the ujiostle.
But he refers in this place to the " grace
Ins apostleship, wrought mightily in him when the oflic
Of the apostle of heathendom, with all its varied quuli

224 EPIIESIANS III. 8.

tions, was conferred upon him. Unworthy of it he was ;
and had not the gift been accompanied by a striking mani
festation of God s power, he could not have enjoyed it. And
he served in harmony with his office Kara rr)v Scopedv ; and
that office was conferred upon him in unison with Kara ryv
evepyeiav such a spiritual change, induced by the Divine
might, as changed a Jew into a Christian, a blasphemer into
a saint, a Pharisee into an apostle, and a persecutor into a
missionary. Calvin remarks hccc cst potential cjus cfficacia ex
nihilo grande aliquid cfficcre. Chrysostom says truly " The
gift would not have been enough, if it had not implanted
within him the power." That grace was bestowed very freely
?; $a)pea TT}? ^aptro? ; and that power wrought very effec
tually 77 evepyeia 777? Swa^eus. Gul. ii. 8. The apostle
becomes more minute

(Ver. 8.) Efjiol ru&gt; tXa^to-rore/DO) irdvrwv dyiojv " To me,
who am less than the least of all saints." There is no good
reason adduced by Harless for making the first clause of this
verse a parenthesis, and joining ev rot? Wveaiv to the Scopedv of
the preceding verse. The apostle prolongs the thought, and
dwells upon it. He was a minister of the gospel through the
gracious power of God. This reflection ever produced within
him profound wonder and humility ; and though in one sense
he was greater than the greatest of all saints, yet the
consciousness of his own demerit stood out in such striking
contrast with the high function to which he had been called,
that he exclaims "To me, who am less than the least of
all saints " ] e/W being emphatic from its position. EXa^to--

i The following note describes with peculiar terseness and pungency a feeling
which is the very opposite of the apostle s humility. It is taken from Baxter s
Reformed Pastor, a work which, from its honest exposures, many imagined
should have been written in Latin. But the author makes this quaint and
telling apology: "If the ministers of England had sinned only in Latin, I
would have made shift to admonish them in Latin, or else have said nothing to
them. But if they will sin in English, they must hear of it in English." The
vice of pride in ministers is thus described and scorned: "One of our most
heinous and palpable sins is pride a sin that hath too much interest in the
best, but is more hateful and inexcusable in us than in any men. Yet is it so
prevalent in some of us, that it inditeth our discourses for us ; it chooseth us our
company, it formeth our countenances, it putteth the accents and emphasis upon,
our words : when we reason, it i& the determiner and exciter of our cogitations ;
it fills some men s minds with aspiring desires and designs ; it possesseth them
with envious and bitter thoughts against those that stand in their light, or by

EPHESIANS III. 3. OJ5

rorepip is a comparative, founded on the superlative eXJ x &lt;rr&lt;K
-"less than the least;" a form designed to express the
deepest self-abasement. Similar anomalous forms occur in
the later Greek, and even occasionally in the earlier, esj
among the poets. 3 John 4; 1 hryn. ed. LoWk, p
Wetstein lias collected a few examples. EX
is found in Scslus Empir. ix. p. 027. The English trrm
" lesser" is akin. Matthia-, 1 3G ; Winer, 1 1, i&gt; ; liuttmann.
GO, note 3. Havres uyioi are not the apostles and prophets
merely, but saints generally. Theophylact says justly *a\a

OV TWV aTTOGToXdiV, &lt;i\\a TUVTWV TMV dyi (i)l&gt;, TOVTtffTl Tail

Trio-rui*. In 1 Cor. xv. 9, where he says, "I am the least of
the apostles," he brings himself into direct contrast with his

ministerial colleagues. 1 Tim. i. 13 ; Phil. iii. (I. To him

&o0r] /} X l L P^ a ^ T? ? " W;IH tlw grace given." Kaput, in
this aspect, has been already explained both uiul.-r verses U
and 7. That special branch of the apostnlate which was
entrusted to Taul had the following end in view-
any moans do eclipse their glory, or hinder the progress of their idolize*!
reputation. . . . How often doth it choose our sulject, and more ofu-n choose
our words and ornaments ! (Jod biddeth us be as plain as we can, for the inform
ing of the ignorant, and as convincing and serious as we are able, fur tin-
melting and changing of unchanged hearts ; but pride stands by and contra
dicteth all ; and sometimes it puts in toys and trifles, and polluteth rnthi-r
than polisheth, and under pretence of laudable ornaments, it duhonourcth mir
sermons with childish gauds : as if a prince were to lw decked in the habit of a
stage-player or a painted fool. It persuadeth us to paint the window that it
may dim the light ; and to speak to our people that which they cannot undt-r
stand, to acquaint them that we are able to spfak unprofitably. It taketh off
the edge, and dulls the life of all our teachings, under the pretence of filing off the
roughness, uneveuness, and superfluity. If we have a plain and cutting j.A4j?r,
it throws it away as too rustical and ungrateful. . . . And when pride hath
made the sermon, it goes with them into the pulpit ; it formeth their tone, it
animateth them in the delivery, it takes them off from that hi--h may be
displeasing, how necessary hoever, and setU-th them in a pursuit of vam
applause ; and the sum of all this is, thut it nuiketh men, Ix.th in htu.lying nd
preaching, to seek themselves and deny (iod, when they hLould *e*k &lt;;&lt;*! glory
and deny themselves. When they should ask, What nhould I MV, and ho*
hould I say it, to please CJod bent, and do most good? it mak them k,
What shall I say, and how shall I deliver it, to U- thought a learm-d, ab!
preacher, and to be applauded by all that hear me

pride, gocth home with them, ami maketh them morv eager to know whether
they were applauded, than whether they did pnv.iil for the wring change of
aouis ! They could find in their heart*, but for *lmmr, to ojik folk* how thry
liked them, and to draw out their commendation." 7*A&lt; R /vrmr,l Pa#vr, tr ,
pp. 154, 155, Baxter s Works, voL xiv. ; Ix&gt;ndon, 1

226 EPHESIANS III. 8.

eV TO?? eOvecrw eva^ekiaacrOai " to preach among the
Gentiles." Lachmann omits eV, following A, B, C, and so
does Alford. But the majority of MSS., and the Syriac,
Vulgate, and Gothic versions have the preposition. The phrase
ev rot? eOvecriv, emphatic from its position, describes the
special or characteristic sphere of the apostle s labours. The
apostle, however, never forgot his own countrymen. His love
to his nation was not interdicted by his special vocation as a
missionary to the heathen world. And the staple of that
good news which he proclaimed was

TO ave^L^viacrTov TrXoOro? rov Xpiarov " the unsearchable
riches of Christ." ITXouro? is rightly read in the neuter.
See under i. 7 and ii. 7. The adjective occurs in Eom. xi.
33, and has its origin in the Septuagint, where it represents
the Hebrew formula ipn ptf, in Job v. 9, ix. 10 and
" | i?JJ"N J , in Job xxxiv. 24. The riches of Christ are not
simply " riches of grace " " riches of glory " " riches of
inheritance," as Pelagius, Grotius, and Koppe are inclined to
restrict them, but that treasury of spiritual blessing which is
Christ s so vast that the comprehension of its limits and the
exhaustion of its contents are alike impossible. What the
apostle wishes to characterize as grand in itself, or in its
abundance, adaptation, and substantial permanence, he terms
" riches." The riches of Christ are the true wealth of men
and nations. And those riches are " unsearchable." Even
the value of the portion already possessed cannot be told by
any symbols of numeration, for such riches can have no
adequate exponent or representative. Their source was in
eternity, and in a love whose fervour and origin are above our
ken, and whose duration shall be for ages of ages beyond
compute. Their extent is boundless, and the mode in which
they have been wrought out reveals a spiritual process whose
results astonish and satisfy us, but whose inner springs and
movements lie beyond our keenest inspection. And our
appropriation of those riches, though it be a matter of con
sciousness, shrouds itself from our scrutiny, for it indicates
the presence of the Divine Spirit in His power a power
exerted upon man, beyond resistance, but without compulsion ;
and in its mighty and gracious operation neither wounding his
moral freedom nor impinging on his perfect and undeniable

EPIIESIANS III. 9. 227

responsibility. The latest periods of time shall find thcso
riches unimpaired, and eternity shall behold the same wealth
neither worn by use nor dimmed by age, nor yet diminished by
the myriads of its happy participants. Still further

(Ver. 9.) Kal (f&gt;a)Tiaai irdvTas "And to make all men
see." Lachmann has assigned no valid reason for throwing
suspicion upon TraVra?. To restrict the meaning of the adjec
tive to the heathen, as Meyer and Baumgarten-Crusius do, is
without any warrant, though Tarra? is not emphatic in IKKSI-
tion. We lay no stress on the fact that wain-a? and Win) do not
agree in gender, for such a form of concord is not uncommon,
and a separate idea is also introduced. The apostle preached
to the Gentiles "the unsearchable riches of Christ," but in hi*
discharge of this duty he taught not Gentiles only, but all
Jew and Gentile alike what is the dispensation of the
mystery. The verb &lt;/&gt;&m o&gt;, followed by the accusative of
the thing, denotes to bring it into light; but followed by the
accusative of the person, it signifies to throw light upon him
not only to teach, SiSugai, but to enlighten inwardly to
give spiritual apprehension faarfoai. See under i. 18. If
one gaze upon a landscape as the rising sun strikes successive
points, and brings them into view in every variety of tint and
shade, both subjective and objective illumination is enjoyed.
No wonder that in so many languages light is the emblem of
knowledge. That mystery which was now placed in cK-ar
light was not discerned by the Jew, and could not have been
perceived by the Gentile for the shadow which lay both on
him and it, lint the result of Paul s mission was, that the
Jew at once saw it, and the Gentile plainly understood it*
scope. They were enlightened were enabled to make a sud-
deii discovery by the lucid and full demonstration srt before
them. The point on which they were instructed wa.s thi.s-

n &lt;? T) oiKovo^ia TOV pvo-TTjptov " what is the economy of
the mystery." That oiKovofiia should superse

ivuvia of the Elzevir text is established by the concurrent
authority of A, 15, C, I), E, F, G, J, supported by a 1
the Fathers and by the early versions. Tho prcn
Paul enabled all to see " what is the arrangement or organiza
tion of that mystery which, from the beginning of the
had been hid in God." The terms oiKovopia and

228 EPIIESIAXS III. 9.

have been already explained i. 9, 10, and iii. 2, 3. The
mystery must be the same as that described in ver. 6, for the
same course of thought is still pursued, and varied only by
the repetition. That mystery now so open had been long
sealed

TOU aTroKeKpv^fjievov airo T&V aitovwv ev TO&gt; 0e " which
from of old has been hid in God." Col. i. 2 6 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ;
Eom. xvi. 25. Airo TWV aldovwv "from the ages in a
temporal sense ; " not concealed from the ages, in the sense of
Macknight, but hid from of old ; not, perhaps, strictly from
before all time, but since the commencement of time up to the
period of the apostle s commission. During this interval of
four thousand years God s purpose to found a religion of uni
versal offer, adaptation, and enjoyment, lay unrevealed in His
own bosom. Glimpses of that sublime purpose might be occa
sionally caught, but no open or formal organization of it was
made. There were hints and pre-intimations, oracles that spoke
sometimes in cautious, and sometimes in bolder phrase ; but
till the death of Jesus, the means were not provided by which
Judaism should be superseded and a world-wide system intro
duced. Then the Divine Hierophant disclosed the mystery,
after His Son had offered an atonement whose saving value
had no national restrictions, and acknowledged no ethno
graphical impediment, and when He poured out His Spirit on
believing Gentiles, and commissioned Saul of Tarsus to go far
from Palestine and reclaim the heathen outcasts. In God

T&&amp;gt; TO, Trdvra KTiaavri " who created all things." The
additional words Bia Irjcrov Xpia-rov of the Received Text
are at least doubtful, and are omitted by recent editors. They
are not found in the Codices A, 13, C, D 1 , F, G, nor in the
Syriac, Vulgate, and Coptic versions, nor in the quotations of
the Latin fathers. They occur, however, in the Greek fathers,
such as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius. The
emphasis lies on ra nravra, but the meaning of Kriaavn has
been much disputed : 1. Chrysostom, guided by the words
which he admitted into the text, Sid Irja-ov Xpiarov ex
plains thus " He who created all things by Him, revealeth
also this by Him." But if the phrase Sia ^Irjaov XpiaTov
be spurious, this interpretation, if it can be called one, is
at once set aside. 2. Olshausen says, that the term is

KPHESIAXS III. 9. 220

employed to show that the institution of redemption is a
creative act of God, and could proceed from Him alone who
created all things. The view of von Cierlach is similar.
Aryumcntum cst, says Zanchius, a crcatione ad recrcatwntm.
Bengel suggests this idea Jb rum omnium, crcatio fnnda-
mcntum cst omnis rcliqucc ceconomice. But this exposition
is not in harmony with the course of thought. It is of the
concealment of a mystery in God the universal Creator
that Paul speaks, not of the actual provision of salvation
for men. 3. Many understand the reference to be to the
spiritual creation, such as Calvin, Zanchius, Calixtus, Grotius,
Usteri, Meier, and Baumgartcn-Crusius. The deletion of the
words "by Jesus Christ," and the want of some other quali
fying term, militates against this view. In ii. 10, 1"&gt;, and
in iv. 24, there are accompanying phrases which leave no
doubt as to the meaning. But the aorist, and the occurrence
of the term here without any explanatory adjunct, seem to
prove that it must bear its most usual and simple significa
tion. 4. Beza, Piscator, Flatt, and others, refer ra irdira to
men, abridging by this tame exegesis the limitless meaning
of the terms.

The real question is, What is meant by thi* allusion to tho
creation what is the relation between the creative work of
God and the concealment of this mystery in Himself? Had
the apostle said hid in God who arranges all things, or fore
sees all things, the meaning would have been apparent. But
it is not so easy to perceive the connection between creation
and the seclusion of a mystery. The fact that God created all
things cannot, as in Kuckert s suggestion, afl oid any reason
why he concealed a portion of his plan; nor can we discover,
with others, that the additional clause is meant to s
sovereign freeness and power of God in such concealment
Our own view may be thus expressed: Tin- jH-rio.
which the mystery was hid dates from the age
with creation, for creation built up the platform on which
the strange; mystery of redemption was disc
Creator of the universe, has of necessity a plan ace
Which all arrangements take place, for creation impli
Vidence or government the gradual evolution c
which had lain folded up with unfathomable sccrc-c-y.

230 EPHESIANS III. 10.

those counsels are not disclosed with simultaneous and con
fusing haste : the Almighty Mind retains them in itself till
the fitting period when they may be unveiled. Now, the
mystery of the inbringing of the Gentiles was secreted in the
Divine bosom for four thousand years, that is, from the epoch
of the creation the origin of time. And it has not come
to light by accident, but by a prearranged determination.
When God created the world, it was a portion of His plan as
its Creator that the Gentile nations, after the call of Abraham,
should be without the pale of His visible church ; but that
after His Son died, and the gospel with universal adaptations
was established, they should be admitted into covenant. At
the fittest time, not prematurely, but with leisurely exactness,
were created both the human materials on which redemption
was to work, and that peculiar and varied mechanism by
which its designs were to be accomplished. And one grand
purpose is declared to be

(Ver. IQ.y Iva yvwpiaOfj vvv "In order that there might
now be made known." r/ Iva yvfopiaOy stands connected as a
climax with evayyeXiaaaOai, of ver. 8, and (pwrlaai of ver. 9.
Nvv is opposed to airo r&v aicovcov. We cannot here regard
iva as ecbatic in sense, though this signification has been
accepted by Bodius, Estius, Meier, Holzhausen, and Thomas
Aquinas, who takes the particle consecutive, non causaliter.
We prefer to give iva its usual sense " in order that." It
indicates a final purpose ; not the grand object, but still an
important though minor design. We cannot, however, accede
to the opinion of Harless, who connects this verse solely
with the clause immediately preceding it. His idea is, that
God created all things for the purpose of showing by the
church His wisdom to the angelic hosts. We regard such an
exegesis as limiting the reference of the apostle. This verse,
commencing with iva, winds up, as we think, the entire pre
ceding paragraph, and discloses a grand reason for God s
method of procedure. Nor is the notion of Harless tenable
on other grounds ; because the wisdom of God in creation is
made known to the heavenly hierarchy, apart altogether from
the church, and has been revealed to them, not simply now
and for the first time, but ever since " the morning stars sang
together and all the sons of God shouted for joy." Why

EPHESIAX3 III. 10. 231

then, too, should the church be selected as the medium of
manifestation ? And why should wisdom be singled out as
the only attribute which creation exhibits by the church to
the higher intelligences ? But when we look at the contents
of the paragraph, the meaning is apparent. The aj&gt;ostlc
speaks of a mystery a mystery long hid, and at length
disclosed a mystery connected with the enlargement and
glory of the church and he adds, this long concealment from
other ages, yea, from the beginning of the world, and this
present revelation, have for their object to instruct the celes
tial ranks in God s multiform wisdom. It is the attribute of
wisdom which binds itself up with the hiding and the opening
of a mystery, and as that wisdom concerns the organization
and extension of the church, the church naturally becomes
the scene of instruction to celestial spectators. On the con
nection of Divine wisdom with the disclosure of a mystery,
some remarks may be seen under i. 8, J " God in all wisdom
and prudence made known to us the mystery of His will."
That mystery being now disclosed, the princedoms and powers
were instructed. In itself, in its concealment, and in the time,
place, method, and results of its disclosure, it now exhibited
the Divine wisdom in a novel and striking light

Tal* appals teal Tat? tfofcr/at? eV rot? cirovpaviots
principalities and the powers in heavenly places " the articU
being prefixed to each noun, ami giving prominence to each in
the statement. These terms have been explained under i. L l,
and the following phrase V TO!? eVoiyxxWot?, which designates
abode or locality, has been considered under i. 3, 20, ii.
The following hypotheses are the whimsical devices of erratic
ingenuity, viz. : that sucli principalities and powers are, as ;
the opinion of Zornius, Locke, and Schoettgen, the leader*
and chiefs of the Jewish nation ; or, as Van Til imagined,
heathen magistrates ; or, as Zegerus dreamed, worldly &lt;
nities ; or, as is held by Telagius, the rulers of the Christian
church. Nor can these principalities and JOWITS
and bad angels alike, as lieiigel, Obhausen, and Hofi
(Schriftb. i. pp. 360-362) hold: nor can they be^ wh&lt;
impure fiends, as is supposed by AmbrosiaMer and YaUibl
As little can we say, with Matthies, that these principal
" dwell on the earth, and disport on it in an invisible spiritual

232 EPHESIANS III. 10.

form, and arc taught by the foundation and extension of the
church their own weakness." Nor can we agree with the
opinion of Van Til, Knatchbull, and Baumgarten, that the
words eV rot? eTrovpavLois signify " in heavenly things," and
are to be connected with yvwpLaOf], so as to mean, that the
principalities and powers are instructed by the church in
celestial themes. And the lesson is given

Sia TT)? KK\r)crias " by the church " the community of
the faithful in Christ being the instructress of angels in heaven.
That lesson is

77 TroXfTToi/aXo? &lt;ro(f&gt;ia TOV Geov " the manifold wisdom
of God." The adjective, one of the very numerous compounds
of TroXu?, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. But
it occurs in a fragment of Eubulus, Athcn. xv. 7, applied
to the manifold hues of a garland of flowers are&lt;f&gt;avov
r rro\v r JTOiKL\ov avOeoDV and in Euripides, Iphig. Taur. 1149,
it describes the variegated colours of a robe iroKvjroiKLX.a
&lt;&gt;dpea ; while in a figurative sense it is joined in the Orphic
Hymns to the nouns reXer?/ and Xcfyo?, v. 11, Ix. 4. The
term, as Chrysostom notes, is not simply " varied," but
" much varied." The wisdom described by the remarkable
epithet is not merely deep or great wisdom, but wisdom
illustrious for its very numerous forms, and for the strange
diversity yet perfect harmony of its myriads of aspects and
methods of operation.

Such is generally the meaning of the verse, but its specific
reference is not so easily ascertained. What peculiar mani
festation of Divine wisdom is referred to ? We cannot vaguely
say that it is God s wisdom in the general plan of redemption,
or, as Olshausen remarks, " the marvellous procedure of God
in the pardon of the sinner, and the settlement in him of the
antagonism between righteousness and grace." Such an idea
is scarcely in keeping with the context, which speaks not of
the general scheme of mercy, but of one of its distinctive and
modern aspects. Nor is the view of some of the Greek fathers
more in unison with the spirit of the paragraph. Gregory of
Nyssa, whose opinion has been preserved by Theophylact and
(Ecumenius, thus illustrates " That the angels prior to the
incarnation had seen the Divine wisdom in a simple form
without variation ; but now they see it in a composite form,

EPIIESIAXS III. 10.

working by contraries, educing life from death, glory from
shame, trophies from the cross, and God-becoming things from
all that was vile and ignoble." 1 The leading idea in this
opinion does not fully develop the apostle s meaning as con
tained in the paragraph ; nor could wisdom, acting simply nnd
uniformly in this method, be denominated " manifold wisdom,"
though it might be deep, benignant, and powerful skill. The
idea brought out in the interpretations of C occeius, /anchius,
Grotius, and Harless, to wit, that reference is had to the modes
and series of past Divine revelations, approximates the truth,
and Meyer and Calvin are right in attempting to find the.
meaning within the bounds of the preceding section. The
wisdom is connected with the mystery and its opening, and
that mystery is the introduction of the Gentiles into the king
dom of God. Once the world at large was in enjoyment of
oracle and sacrifice without distinction and tribe, and Melchi-
sedec, a Hamite prince, was " priest of the most high God."
Then one nation was selected, and continued in that solitary
enjoyment for two thousand years, lint now again the human
race, without discrimination, have been reinstated in religious
privilege. This last and liberal offer of mercy was a mystery
long hid, and it might be cause of wonder why infinite love
tarried so long in its schemes. But wisdom is conspicuous in
the whole arrangement. Not till Jesus died and ceremonial
distinctions were laid aside, was such an unconditional salva
tion presented to the world. The glory of unrestricted dis
semination was postponed till the Kedeenier s victory had
been won, and His heralds were enabled to proclaim, not
gorgeous symbols of a coming, but the blessed realities of
an accomplished redemption ; not the types and ceremonial
apparatus of Moses, but " the unsearchable riches of Chri.sl
There was indeed slow progress, but sure development
Bional interruption, but steady advancement. Divine wis&lt;
was manifold, for it never put forth any tentative proof**
nor was it ever affronted by any abandoned exjenim-nl

1 Ilfi T* rr.f i, {TrVif rZ tt&gt;rr(, t r/t^t ( &gt; &gt; ""
iwfti.l rn, *?; *n (* / /M " T.f/.M."...

r*i,, I, mr.^i 3.$., ). ,***(? T^-.., *- -" "

Sec also Aquinas, Summ. Thfd. p. 1 ; ^&lt;" .

234 EPIIESIANS III. 10.

It was under no necessity of repeating its plans, for it is
not feebly confined to a uniform method, while in its omni
scient forecast a solitary agency often surrounds itself with
various, opposite, and multiplied effects ; temporary antagon
ism issuing in ultimate combination, and apparent intricacy
of movement securing final simplicity of result ; antecedent
improbability changing into felicitous certainty, and feeble
instruments standing out in impressive contrast with the
gigantic exploits which they have achieved. Every occur
rence is laid under tribute, and hostile influence bows
at length in auxiliary homage. " Out of the eater came
forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness."
Times of forbidding aspect have brightened into propitious
opportunities, and " the foolishness of preaching " has proved
itself to be the means of the world s regeneration. And the
mystery was published not by angels, but by men ; not by
the prudent and powerful of the world, by those who wore a
coronet or had studied in the Portico or the Academy, but
by one " whose bodily presence was weak and his speech
contemptible " a stranger to " the enticing words of man s
wisdom." The initiation of the Gentile world was by the
preaching of the cross that instrument of lingering and
unspeakable torture ; while He that hung upon it, born of a
village maiden, and apprenticed as a Galilean mechanic, was
condemned to a public execution as the penalty of alleged
treason and blasphemy. The church, which is the scene of
these preplexing wonders, teaches the angelic hosts. They
have seen much of God s working many a sun lighted up,
and many a world launched into its orbit. They have been
delighted with the solution of many a problem, and the
development of many a mystery. But in the proclamation of
the Gospel to the Gentiles, with its strange preparations,
various agencies, and stupendous effects involving the origi
nation and extinction of Judaism, the incarnation and the
atonement, the manger and the cross, the spread of the Greek
language and the triumph of the Roman arms " these prin
cipalities and powers in heavenly places " beheld with rapture
other and brighter phases of a wisdom which had often
dazzled them by its brilliant and profuse versatility, and
surprised and entranced them by the infinite fulness of the

EPHESIANS III. 11. 235

love which prompts it, ami of the power which itself direct*
and controls. The events that have transpired in the church
on earth are the means of augmenting the information of those
pure and exalted beings who encircle the throne of God.
1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Pet. i. 12. The entire drama is at length
laid bare before them

" Like some bright river, that from fall to fall
In many a maze descending, bright through all,
Finds some fair region, where, each lal.yriuth j.Mt,
In one full lake of light it rests at last."

Kal 7TW? KypVTTt&lt;&gt;, *L7Tp O 7T\OVTOS dl&gt;% ^rm&lt;77O? ? a.sk S TllCO-

doret, TOL/TO yap avru, fajGi, KiipvrTO) ort dv%i%vui&lt;rros.

The whole lias been arranged

(Ver. 11.) Kara Trputftaiv ra)v alwvcav "according to the
eternal purpose." The connection of these words is nut
with the adjective or substantive of the preceding clause :
neither with TroXirrrotVaXo?, as is supposed by Anselm and
Holzhausen, nor with aofyia, as Koppe conjectures ; but with
ryvtopicdfj. This revelation of God s multifarious wisdom now
and by the church has happened according to His eternal
purpose the purpose of ages, or the purpose of those
periods which are so distant, as to be to us identical with
eternity. Theodoret thus explains it trpo TU&gt;V alwuv -rrpo-
tOero. I Cor. ii. 7 ; 2 Tim. i. ( J. On the other hand, Anselm,
a-Lapide, Estius, Baumgarten, Schoettgen, and Holzhauseu,
take the genitive as that of object, and render the clau.se
" purpose about the ages." Such is virtually the view of
Chandler and Macknight, who make the word " ages
the religious dispensations, and regard 7rpo0ris as meaning
fore-arrangement. The simplest view, and that nn?
accordance with grammatical usage, is, as we have said,
take the genitive as one of quality as equivalent to it.s own
adjective at omo? or of possession, with Kllicott ; and
the opinion of Harless, Olshausen, and Meyer. Winer, 3
So in Hebrew, C C^ny "KV everlasting streiigth,
See also Dan. ix. 24. It was a puq^se-

fy 7roir]&lt;Tv tv T$ Xpiary Irj^ov rp Kvpitp ijpuv-
He wrought in Christ Jesus our Lord. The arti&lt;
Xpt&lt;TTa&gt; is doubtful, though Tischendorf inserta it,
cedeut to ty is not rofr a, as Theophylact, Jerome, and

236 EPIIESIANS III. 12.

construe, but TrpoOeais. Two classes of meanings have been
attached to eiroirjo-ev :

1. According to Calvin, Beza, Estius, Bengel, Riickert,
]\Ieier, Harless, and Baumgarten-Crusius, its meaning is,
" Which He made," that is, " formed in Christ." The verb is
so used Mark iii. 6, xv. 1, and the idea is scriptural. See i. 3.
See for one view of the relation of Christ to the Father in
such an expression, Hofinann, Schriftb. vol. i. p. 230 ; and for
another, Thomasius, Christi Person, vol. i. p. 453.

2. But in the view of Theodoret, Vatablus, Grotius, Koppe,
Matthies, Olshausen, Scholz, Meyer, de Wette, Stier, and
Conybeare, it denotes, "Which He executed or fulfilled in
Christ Jesus." This last interpretation is on the whole pre
ferable, for iroLeiv may bear such a sense, as in ii. 3 ; Matt.
xxi. 31; John vi. 38 ; 1 Thess. v. 24. Olshausen suggests
that Jesus Christ is the historical name, so that the verb refers
to the realization of God s decree in Him, and not to the
inner act of the Divine will. The words eV Xpiaru) Irjcrov
signify not " on account of," nor " by," but " in " Christ
Jesus, as the sphere or element in which the action of the
verb takes effect. The meaning of the three names has been
given under i. 2, etc. The lessons of manifold wisdom given
to principalities and powers, in connection with the introduc
tion of the Gentiles into the church, are not an accidental
denouement, nor an undesigned betrayal of a Divine secret on
the part of the church. Nor was the disclosure of the mys
tery forced on God by the power of circumstances, or the
pressure of unforeseen necessities, for, in its period and instru
ments, it was in unison with His own eternal plan, which has
been wrought out in Christ in His incarnation and death,
His ascension and glorification. The lesson to the principali
ties was intended for them ; they have not profanely intruded
into the sacred precincts, and stolen away the guarded science.
In all this procedure, which reveals to princedoms and powers
God s manifold wisdom, the Divine eternal plan is consistently
and systematically developed in Christ. And, as their own
experience tells them, He is the same Christ

(Ver. 12.) Ev o&gt; e%ofj,6v rrjv Trapped lav KOL rrjv IT pocray wyrjv
"In whom we have boldness and access" the eV again
connected with Christ as the sphere. Lachmann, following

EPHESIANS III. 12. 237

A and ?&gt;, omits tlie second article, and there are other but
minor variations. IIappi)&lt;n a is originally " free sfivecli "-
the speaking of all. There is no ground for the opinion of
Cardinal Hugo and Peter Lombard, that it means sjx$ hope.
Its secondary and usual signification is boldness that self-
possession which such liberty implies. It cannot mean free-
spokenness towards the world, as is erroneously supjiosed by
Olsliausen, for such an idea is totally foreign to the train
of thought. This boldness is toward (lod generally, hut
especially in prayer, as is indicated by the following term
TTpoa-ayayjtj. Heb. iii. G, x. 1 J, 35 ; 1 John ii. 2S, iii. L l. L 2.
iv. 17, v. 14, 15. In Christ we are ever having this blessing
boldness and access at all times and in every emergency.
1 John ii. 28, iv. 17. That tremor, doubt, and oppression of
spirit which sin produces, are absent from believers when they
enjoy access to God. Heb. iii. G ; 1 John ii. 2S. JJpoo-ayoxyv
has been already explained under ii. 18. The use of the
article before both nouns signalizes them both as the elements
of a distinctive and a possessed privilege. And all this

v 7r7roi6ij(Ti " in confidence." 2 Cor. i. lf&gt;, iii. 4, viii. 22,
x. 2 ; Phil. iii. 4. This summing up is similar to the
previous summing up in ii. 18, as boldness and anvss in
prayer are the highest and conclusive proof the richest and
noblest elements of spiritual experience. This is a word of
the later Greek, and in the New Testament is only used
Paul. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 204 ; Thorn. Mag. p. 27
It seems to point out the manner or frame of soul in which
the Trpoarayar/i] is enjoyed, and it is involved in the \vry i
of Trapprjaia. This is no timorous approach. It is not
access of a distracted or indifferent spirit, but one filled with
the assurance that it will not be repulsed, or dismiss
unanswered petition, for though unworthy it is not unwelc
This state has faith for its medium

&ia TT)V 7rur7e&&amp;gt;9 avrov " by the faith of Him ;" th
rive being that of object. The genitive is similarly .-mj.l..
Horn. iii. 22, 2G ; Gal. ii. 1 G, 20; Phil. iii.
Kev. ii. 13, xiv. 12. This clause belong* to the
and not merely, as some suppose, to 7rr7roi tf7&lt;m-
in Him is the instrument, and tv and Bid are &lt;
in i. 7. The means by which our union to Christ

238 EPIIESIANS III. 13.

those privileges is faith. That faith whose object is Jesus is
the means to all who are Christ s, first, of " boldness," for
their belief in the Divine Mediator gives them courage ;
secondly, of " access," for their realization of His glorified
humanity warrants and enables them to approach the throne
of grace ; and, thirdly, these blessings are possessed " in con
fidence," for they feel that for Christ s sake their persons and
services will be accepted by the Father.

(Ver. 13.) A 10 alrovfjiai yJrf eyKaiceiv " Wherefore I entreat
you that ye faint not." A to "wherefore," since these
things are so, referring us back to the sentiments of the five
preceding verses. Lachmann and Tischendorf, after A,
B, D 1 , E, prefer eyKaicelv to the common reading e/cKatcelv,
which has in its favour C, D 3 , F, G-, I, K. It is doubtful,
indeed, whether there be such a word. With all its apparent
simplicity of style and construction, this verse is open to
various interpretations. And, first, as to the accusative,
which must be supplied before the infinitive, some prefer e /ue
and others u/^a?. In the former case the meaning is, " Where
fore I desire God that I faint not," and in the latter case it is,
" Wherefore I entreat you that you lose not heart." The
first is that adopted by the Syriac version, by Theodoret,
Jerome, Bengel, Vater, Eiickert, Harless, Olshausen, and
Baumgarten-Crusius. Our objection to such an exposition is,
that there is in the clause no formal or implied reference to
God ; that it is awkward to interpose a new subject, or make
the object of the verb and the subject of the infinitive differ
ent 2 Cor. v. 20, vi. 1, x. 2 ; Heb. xiii. 19 ; and that the
apostle possessed little indeed of that faint-heartedness against
which he is supposed to guard himself by prayer. Turner s
objection to this last statement is only a misconception of it.
Besides, as the last clause of the verse is plainly an argument
to sustain the request, the connection is destroyed if the
apostle be imagined to make petition for himself ; while the
meaning is clear and pertinent if the request be for them
" Let not my sufferings for you distress you ; they are your
glory." The proposal of Harless to join v-jrep V/IMV to alrovfiai
" I pray on your account," has little to recommend it. Our
view is that of Chrysostom and the majority of interpreters.
" That ye faint not "

EPHESIANS III. 13. 239

eV rait ffKi-fyeaiv pov v-rrep v^wv " in my tribulations for
you." Xo article is needed before vrrcp. 2 "Cor. i. C. *Ev ia
not properly " on account of," as many render it, but it rather
represents the close and sympathizing relation in which Paul
and his readers stood. His alllictions had Wome theirs ;
they were in them as really as he was. Their sympathy with
him had made his afflictions their own, and he implored them
not to be dispirited or cowardly under such a pressure, and
for this reason

7/Tt? ea-rl 8ofa v^wv "which is your glory." "Hm is
used by attraction with the following predicate Sofa, and
signifies "inasmuch as they are," utpotc qua-. Winer, 24, 3.
But what is its antecedent? Theodoret, Zanchius, Harless,
and Olshausen suppose it to be the thought contained in
firj eyfcatceiv, as if the apostle s self-support in such sufferings
were their glory. This exegesis proceeds upon an opinion
which we have already gainsaid, viz., that Paul offers hero
a prayer for himself. liiickert exhales the meanings of
the clause by finding in it only the vague indistinctness of
oratorical declamation. The general opinion ap]Hars to be the
correct one, that these Bufferings of Paul, which came on him
simply because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, were the
"glory" of the Gentile believers, and not their disgrace,
inasmuch as such persecutions not only proved the success of
his ministerial labours, but were at the same time collateral
evidence of the lofty and unfettered privileges which K-lieviug
heathendom now possessed and retained, and which, by the
apostle s firmness, were at length placed beyond the reach of
Jewish fanaticism to annul or even to curtail. As you may
measure the pyramid by its shadow, so these nfllirtioiw of
Paul afforded a similar means of arriving at a relative or a
theticul estimate of the spiritual lilcrty and prerogative of
Gentile churches. The apostle lx&gt;gan the chapter by an allu
sion to the fact that he was a prisoner for the Genti
he now concludes the digression by this natural
His tribulations, the evidence of his official c
their unconditioned exemption from ceremonial Uimln
their glory, and therefore they were not to sink into f aim HOB
and lassitude, 05 if by his "chain" they had been affronted
and their apostle disgraced.

240 EPHESIANS III. 14.

The apostle now resumes the thought broken off in ver. 1,
and we are carried back at once to the magnificent imagery
of a spiritual temple in the concluding section of the second
chapter. The prayer must be regarded as immediately fol
lowing that section, and its architectural terms and allusions
will thus be more clearly understood. This connection with
the closing paragraph of the former chapter, we take as
affording the key to the correct exegesis of the following
supplication.

(Ver. 14.) Tovrov %dpiv Kafjirrrw ra ryovard fiov " For
this cause I bow my knees." The attitude, which Kant has
ventured to call einen kncclitischcn (servile) Orientalismus, is
described instead of the act, or, as Calvin says a siyno rem
denotat. The phrase is followed here by rrpos but by a
simple dative in Eorn. xi. 4 ; while yovvTrerelv has an accusa
tive in Matt. xvii. 14; Mark i. 40, x. 17. This compound
and ryovvicKivelv represent in the Septuagint the Hebrew JH3.
The posture is the instinctive expression of homage, humility,
and petition : the suppliant offers his worship and entreaty on
bended knee. 2 Cliron. vi. 1 3 ; Ps. xcv. 6 ; Luke xxii. 4 1 ;
Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, xxi. 5. See Suicer s Thesaurus,
sub voce &lt;yovvK\icria. He does not simply say, " I pray,"
adds Chrysostom a\\a rrjv KaraveviryiJLevriv %er)cnv ^]\waev.
Tovrov *x,dpiv is repeated from ver. 1, " Because ye are inbuilt
in the spiritual temple." I bow my knees

TT^O? TOV Trarepa "toward the Father." Winer, 49, h.
The genitives, rov Kvplov ?;/zwi&gt; J^ou Xpivrov, of the common
text are pronounced by many critics to be spurious. That
there was an early variation of reading is evident from Jerome s
note non ut in Latinis codicibus additum cst, ad Pat rem
Domini nostri Jesu Ckristi, scd simpliciter ad Patrem, Icgendum.
The words are wanting in A, B, C, and some of the Patristic
citations, are omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, and
rejected by Eiickert, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, Stier, Ellicott,
and Alford. In this opinion we are now inclined to concur.
Still the words are found in other Codices, and those of no
mean authority, such as D, E, F, G, I, K, etc. They occur,
too, in the Syriac and Vulgate, are not disowned by the Greek
fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret, and they are retained by
Knapp, Scholz, Tittmaim, and Halm, and vindicated by de

EPHP.SIAXS III. 15. 241

Wette. The evidence for them is strong, hut not conclusive
They may have been interpolated from the common formula,
and their insertion weakens the rhythmical connection between
Trarepa and the following irarpid. The question is yet
somewhat doubtful. The object of Paul s prayer is the
Father the universal Father

(Ver. 15.) * ov Trdcra Trarpia eV ovpavois /cat cVt 77?
ovofjL(i%Tai " Of whom every family in heaven and on earth
is named." Calvin, Peza, Musculus, Zanchius, and lieiche
refer to Christ as the antecedent. Put even if the former
clause be genuine, this interpretation cannot be sustained. It
is the relation of the -rrarpid to the Trarrjp which the apostle,
evidently characterizes, and not the relation of the family to
its elder brother. The classes of l&gt;eings referred to by the
apostle have become each a Tlarpiu, from their relation to
the flarr/p. These words admit of a variety of interpreta
tions. Uarpid, it is plain, cannot be equivalent to -jra-rpo-n^.
and denote fatherhood jwtcrnitas, as Jerome translates.
Yet this view is held by Theodoret, Theophylact, (Kciune-
nius, Anselm, a-Lapide, Allioli, and Nitzsrh, Prakt. Thfolojif.
i. 269. The Syriac also translates U3lT&gt;| "paternity,"
the Gothic version has all fadreinis omne patfrnitatii, and
Wycliffe eche fadirheid. Such a sense the word does not
bear, and no tolerable exegesis could be extracted from it.
The Greek fathers are even obliged to admit that among the
celestial orders no proper fatherhood can exist. E-rrel, as
Theophylact confesses, e/cet ouSel? ef o)8ei&gt;o? yewartu ; or, us
Theodoret adds ovpaviovs Tra-repas rov* Tri fVfjLarifcov^ xaXfl
Jerome is also obliged to say ita putu ft (ingflo tfrasqut
virtutes habcre prinriprs xui (fnicris qnos patrcs gaudeanl appl
tare. Yet Stier would find no difficulty in defending
phraseology. Giving -rrarpid the sense of fatherhood
meaning might be extracted all paternity has the origin o
its name in God the Father of all. Fatherhood takes
from Father-God alle Vatcrarhnft hat i
ffi Vatcrgott. Somewhat similar is the opinion o
" God, as Father of the Son, is the only true 1
all created paternity is a shadow of the true."
i. 24. Put an idea of this abstract nature
apostle s modes of thought.

242 EPHESIAXS III. 15.

UarpLa, while it denotes sometimes lineage by the father s
side, signifies also a family, or the individuals that claim a
common father and a common descent what may be called a
house or clan. Herodot. ii. 143, iii. 75, i. 200; Luke ii. 4; Acts
iii. 25. The Seventy represent by it the common Hebrew
phrase ntax JV2. We cannot acquiesce in the view of Estius,
Grotius, Wetstein, and Holzhausen, who look upon the clause
as a Jewish mode of expressing the idea that God has two
families, that of angels in heaven and men upon earth.
Schoettgen, Horce Heb. p. 1237; Buxtorf, Lex. Tal p. 1750;
"Wetstein, in loc. Some, again, such as Chrysostom, Bucer,
Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, Michaelis, Klittner, and Peile, find a
polemical allusion in the term to the union of Jew and
Gentile ; and a view somewhat similar is taken by Hunnius,
Crocius, Calovius, and Wolf, who regard it as synonymous
with tota ecclesia. Reiche needlessly supposes the allusion to
be to the Gnostic aeons in some prevalent false philosophy.
Bodius shows peculiar keenness in excluding any reference to
angels, the allusion under the phrase " family in heaven "
being, as he contends, only to the church triumphant. Hodge
follows him, and Theodore of Mopsuestia generalizes away
the sense when he renders it ov airav o-varrj^a.

The verb ovo^a^erai, " is named," that is, involves the name,
of Trarpid. But Bullinger, Bucer, Estius, Riickert, Matthies,
and Holzhausen take the verb in the sense of " exists."
Ka\e o&gt; in its passive voice may sometimes indirectly bear
such a meaning, but the verb before us never has such a
signification. It signifies to bear the ovofjui. .Ef ov
" from whom," or, as we say, " after whom " every family in
heaven and earth is named. Homer, Iliad, x. 6 8 ; Xenophon,
Mem. iv. 5, 12; Sophocles, (Edip. Tyr. 1036. The meaning
seems to be : every circle of holy and intelligent creatures
having the name of Trarpid takes that name from God as
TLarrip. The reference is certainly not to the physical
creation, or creation as a whole and in all its parts, as is
the groundless opinion of Theophylact, (Ecunieiiius, Estius,
Riickert, Matthies, and Bretschneider. The apostle speaks of
classes of intelligent creatures, each named irarpLa simply
after God, for He is UaTjjp. It follows as a natural conse
quence, though Meyer and de Wette object to such a conclu-

EPIIESIANS III. 16. 043

sion, that if angels and " spirits of just men " in heaven, and
holy men on earth, receive the name of -rrarpui from the
Divine Father, then they are Ills children, as is contended
for by many interpreters, from Beza and Piscator down to
Olshausen. They lose the cold and official name of subject*
in the familiar and endearing appellation of sons, and they
are united to one another not dimly and unconsciously, as
different products of the same Divine workmanship, but they
merge into one family " all they are brethren." Every
Trarpid must surely possess unbounded confidence in the
benignity and protection of the Uarjjp, and to Him, there
fore, the prayer of the apostle is directed

(Ver. 16.) "Iva Banj vplv Kara TO TrXoOro? rf;&lt;? Soft;? ainov
"That He would give you according to the riches of His
glory." A, B, C, F, G, rend 8o&gt;, and the reading has IH-CII
adopted by Lachmaim, Kiickert, and Meyer. Others prefer
the reading of the Textus Keceptus, which is sustained by
D, E, K, L, and most MSS., o&gt; being regarded as a gram
matical emendation. For the connection of a/a with tlie
optative, the reader may turn to the remarks made under i. 1 7.
In this case there is no word signifying " to ask or suppli
cate," for the phrase " I bow my knees" is a pregnant ellipse
the understood posture and symbol of earnest entreaty. The
neuter form, TT\OVTO^, is preferred to the masculine on the
ncontestable authority of A, B, C, D 1 , E, F, G, etc. The
nasculine has but D 3 , I, K, etc., in its favour. See under
. 7, ii. 7, iii. 8, where both the form of the word and its
meaning have been referred to. The phrase is connected nut
ffith KparaLw6?]vai, but with Banj, and it illustrates the projuir-
ion or measurement of the gift, nay, of all the gifts that ure
SOmprehended in the apostle s prayer. And it is no exaggera-
ion, for He gives like Himself, not grudgingly or in tiny
XHtions, as if He were afraid to exhaust His riches, or even
inspected them to be limited in their contents. Then- in no
ABtidious scrupulosity or anxious frugality on the part of

Hvine Benefactor. * His bounty proclaims Hi*
XMsession of immeasurable resources. H- 1
o the riches of His glory His own infinite fulne.sj

Ie would give you "

Kparaio)6t]vat. Bta rov IIvfv^aTo^ avrou iV rov ttru

244 EPHESIAXS III. 16.

" to bo strengthened witli might by His Spirit in
the inner man." We need not, with Beza, Kiickert, Ols-
hausen, Matthies, Robinson, and others, regard the substan
tive Bvvd/jLei, as an adverb, nor, with Koppe, identify it with
SwaTus. Rather, with Meyer, would we take it as the dative
of instrument, by which the action of the verb is communi
cated. Winer, 31,7. It is by the infusion of power into the
man within, that the process described by KparaicoOrjvai is
secured. The verb Kparaioa) belongs to the later and espe
cially the Hellenistic Greek ; Kparvvw being the earlier form.
Meyer supposes a reference to the eyrca/tew of a former clause,
but such a supposition can hardly be admitted, for the
" fainting " referred to by the apostle was connected solely
with his own personal wrongs, while this prayer for strength
is of a wider and deeper nature. Nor can we assume, with the
Greek commentators, that the reference is merely to " temp
tations," to surmount which the apostle craves upon them
the bestowment of might. We conceive the form of expres
sion to be in unison with the figure which the apostle had
introduced into the conclusion of the second chapter. He
had likened the Ephesian Christians to a temple, and in har
mony with such a thought he prays that the living stones in
that fabric may be strengthened, so that the building may be
compact and solid.

Sia rov HVeu/mro? avrov " by His Spirit." The Spirit
of God is the agent in this process of invigoration. That
Spirit is God s, as He bears God s commission and does His
work. He has free access to man s spirit to move it as He
may, and it is His peculiar function in the scheme of mercy
to apply to the heart the spiritual blessings provided by
Christ. The direction of the gift is declared to be

et? TOV ecro) avOpwirov " into the inner man." JEt? cannot
be said to stand for eV, but it marks out the destination of the
gift. Winer, 49, a; Kiihner, GO 3. It is not simply " in
reference to," as Winer and de Wette render, nor " for," as
Green translates it (Greek Gram. p. 292); but it denotes on
implies that the SiW/u? comes from an external source, and ,
enters into the inner man. The phrase 6 eao) avQpwrros is
identical with the parallel expression o icpvirros TT)? KapSias
, which the Apostle Peter, without sexual distinction,

EPIIKSIAXS III. 16. 245

applies to women. 1 Pet. iii. 4. The formula occurs in Rom.
vii. 22, and with some variation in 2 Cor. iv. 16. The
" inner man " is that portion of our nature which is not cog
nizable by the senses, and does not consist of nerve, muscle,
and organic form, as does the outer man. In the physiology
of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it is IK it
the soul ^i^r/ in its special aspect of vital consciousness
but it is more connected with mind pot;?, and stands in con
trast not exactly to o"apf, as representing generally depraved
humanity, but to that sensuous nature which lias action and
reaction in and from the members ftc Xi?. Delit/sch, Xyntfm
ckr Jtib. PsycM. p. 331 ; Reuss, Thtol. C/m t. vol. ii. p. 5C.
But " the inner man " is not identical with " the new man "-

Kaivos avOpwiros ; it is rather the sphere in which such
renewal takes effect our intellectual and spiritual nature per
sonified. We cannot agree with Grotius, Wetstein, Frit/sche,

ind Meyer in supposing that there is any imitation of Platonic
ihra.se in this peculiar diction. The sage of the Athenian
icademy did indeed use similar phraseology, for he speaks of
,he mind as o eVro? avdpa)7ros, and Plotinus and Philo adopted

1 like idiom. In some of the Jewish books occur also modes

expression not unlike. Hut the phrase is indeed a natural
ane one that is not the coinage of any system of psychology,
nit which occurs at once to any one who wishes to distinguish
jasily and broadly between what is corporeal and external, and
what is mental and internal, in his own constitution. Still, its
theological meaning in the apostle s writings is different from
ts philosophical uses and applications. And this strength is
imparted to the " inner man " by the Spirit s application of
ihose truths which have a special tendency to cheer and SUH-
tain. He impresses the mind with the idea of the changel
ove of Christ, and the indissoluble union &gt;f the believing
soul to Him; with the necessity of decision, coiisi*
perseverance ; with the assurance that all grace needed will
be fully and cheerfully afforded; and with the ho]* that the
victory shall be ultimately obtained. Rom. xv. U ; 2 Tim.
L 7. This operation of the Spirit imparts such
energy as appear like a species of spiritual oinnip

The Syriac version, the Greek fathers,

ttors Ambrosiastcr and Pelagius. join this liust chiUM.

246 EPHESIANS III. 17.

et? TOV e&lt;r&) avOpanrov, with the following verse, and with the
verb KaToitcijcrai " In order that Christ may inhabit the
inner man by the faith which is in your hearts." It has been
rightly objected by Harless and others, that Sia TT}? Trio-Tews
cannot well be joined to ev TCU&lt;? Kapbiais, and that there would
be a glaring pleonasm in the occurrence in the same verse of
6 &lt;r(o avOpwrros and 77 Kap(a vfiwv. The ordinary division
is a natural one, and we accordingly follow it.

(Ver. 17.) KarotK-fjaaL TOV Xpiarov " That Christ may
dwell." The first point of inquiry is the connection of this
infinitive with the previous sentence. Does it depend on Syr),
and is the meaning " that he would grant that Christ may
dwell in your hearts " 1 or is it dependent on KparaicoO^vai,,
and is the meaning "that he would grant you to be
strengthened in the inner man, so that, being thus strength
ened, Christ may dwell in your hearts " I The first view is
held by Theophylact, Zanchius, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Flatt,
Koppe, Eiickert, Holzhausen, Stier, and Baumgarten-Crusius.
The connection, however, has been explained differently.
Some, as Theophylact and Zanchius, regard the clause as a
new petition giving speciality to the first, or, as the Greek
father characterizes it, KOI TO p,el%ov KO,\ irepLaaorepov. Meier
adopts the view of Calvin, dedarat, quale sit interioris
hominis robur. A similar exegesis is maintained by Harless
and Matthies, while Olshausen looks upon the clause as a
subordinate definition of the phrase "to be strengthened.",
He maintains that Paul could not pray that Christ woulc
dwell in their hearts, for He already dwelt there. As wel
might he argue that Paul could not pray for spiritual invi-
goration, since they already possessed it. When believers
pray for a gift in general terms, they emphatically supplicate
an enlargement of what of it is already in their possession
Would Olshausen apply his criterion to the prayer contained
in the 1st chapter, and affirm that the fact of such gifts being
asked for implied the total want of them on the part of the
Ephesian church ? De Wette takes /caToucfjaai as an infini
tive of purpose or design, and regards the clause as describing
the completion of " the strengthening." Bernhardy, p. 365.
See on Col. i. 1 1. We now look upon it as pointing out rather
the result of the process of invigoration prayed for. The

EPIIESIAXS III. 17. 247

inspired petitioner solicited spiritual strength for them securing
this result that Christ might dwell in their hearts. The
infinitive is connected with the more distant Byrj, and more
closely with the preceding infinitive; Winer, 44, 1. There
is little doubt that in the verb KaroiK^aai, emphatic in iu
position, the reference is to the last clause of the 2nd chapter
tcaroLKTjTripiov TOV Seov " a dwelling of G&lt;xl." The apostle
applies in this prayer the architectural allusion directly to the
believing Ephesians themselves, and therefore the figure is not
preserved in its rhetorical integrity. Ye are built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ being the
Head-stone of the corner ; that spiritual building fitly framed
together groweth unto a holy temple, for a habitation of God :
and the prayer now is, that compactness and solidity may be
granted to them by the Spirit, so as that in them the primary
design of such a temple may be realized, and " Christ may
dwell in their hearts " Christ by His Spirit, and not ad
Fritzsche coldly and tastelessly describes it mcns quamChrwtns
postidat. Kpdros, not 5iW/u?, may be applied to the qualities
of physical objects, and so with propriety its derivative verb
is here employed. In a temple that was crazy, or was built
of loose and incongruous materials, the Divine guest could not
be expected to dwell.

The /carotKr/a-aL of this verse has, as we have said, its origin
in the Ka-roLKrjrrjpLov of ii. 22. The language is of common
usage, and has its basis in the Old Testament, and in the
employment of pe 5 and kindred words to dcscrilw Jehovah s
relation to His house. And as the design of a temple is that
its god may inhabit it, so Christ dwells in the heart. This
inhabitation is not to be explained away as a mere reception
of Christian doctrine, nor is it to be regarded as a mystical
exaggeration. 1 Col. i. 27; John xiv. 23; IJoin. viii. 0. 1 1 ;
Gal. ii. 20 ; Jas. iv. 5. The meaning of His dwelling is

M rfc inVrre9 "by faith "your faith. Faith induces
and also realizes His presence. And His atxule i
vestibule, but

v rait tcap&iats vp&v" in your hearts."

} When Ignatius waa ask.-.!, on his trial, by the emperor what WM t . maw-
ing of his name-Theophorus -he promptly replied, "
his breast."

248 EPHESIAXS III. 18

centre of the spiritual life, is His temple the inner shrine of
emotion and power Centrum des sittlichen Lebens. Delitzsch,
System der Bib. Psychol. p. 206 ; Beck, Seelenlehre, p. 69.
Christ dwells there not as a sojourner, or " as a wayfaring
man that turneth aside to tarry for a night," but as a perma
nent resident. The intercessor continues

(Ver. 18.) Ev ayaTrrj eppt^co^evoi, Kal reOe/jieXico/jievoi, iva
" Ye having been rooted and grounded in love, in order that."
Some solve the difficulty felt about the connection of this
clause by proposing to transfer iva to its commencement.
This metathesis was suggested by Photius, and has been
followed by Beza, Heinsius, Grotius, Crocius, and the Authorized
Version. There is no necessity for such a change, even though
the clause be joined, as by Knapp and Lachmann, to that
which begins with tva ; and the passages usually adduced to
justify such an alteration are not precisely parallel, as is
acutely shown by Piscator. John xiii. 39 ; Acts xix. 4 ; Gal.
ii. 10. The clause is, however, connected by some with the
preceding one. Theophylact makes it the condition of Christ s
dwelling in their hearts. The exegesis of Chrysostom is
similar " He dwelleth only in hearts rooted in His love "-
rat? KapSiaLs TCU? TrtaTaZ?, rat? e/3/3tb/zef at?. This connection
is also advocated by many, including Erasmus, Luther, Harless,
Olshausen, and de Wette. But the change of construction is
not so easily accounted for, if this view of the connection be
adopted. Harless says, indeed, that as the predicate applies
both to KapSlais and to u/zwi/, it could not with propriety be
joined exclusively to any of them. Such a view of grammatical
propriety was, however, based on a foregone conclusion, for
either the genitive or dative could have been used with equal
correctness. On the other hand, the change of syntax indi
cates a change of connection, and the use of the irregular
nominative makes the transition easy to the form adopted with
Iva. Kriiger, 56, 9, 4 ; Winer, 63, 2. Harless adopts the
view of Chrysostom and Theophylact, and regards the clause
as a condition " Christ dwells in their heart, since they had
been rooted in love." But the clause, so changed, becomes
a species of independent proposition, giving a marked promi
nence to the sense, and connected at once with the preceding
context as its result, and with the following context as its

KPIIBSIANS in. is. 240

starting idea the perfect being used with propriety, and not
the present. Christ dwelling in their hearts they are
supposed, as the effect of this inhabitation, to have been now
rooted and grounded in love ; and as the design of thi
confirmation ill love they are then and thus qualified to
comprehend with all saints, etc. " Having thus become rooted
and grounded in love, in order that ye may be able to
comprehend."

The t\vo participles (ppifrpfvot and rede^Xwfifi oi, are
usually said to express the same idea by different figures the
one borrowed from botany and the other from architecture.
But it is more natural to refer both words to the same general
symbol, and indeed, the former term is applied to a building.
Thus, Herodot. i. 64 H eiaiar paras eppi^axre Ti]v rvpavviBa t
riuturch, De Fortun, Hum. pi^uxraL tca\ Karaa-T^aai rijv
TTO\IV\ Sophocles, CEdip. Cul. 1501, 0801; yijdev tpptfaptvov,
also Plutarch, De Lib. Educ. 9, etc. The verb is thus used in
a general sense, and coupled with Te#e/xXio&gt;fii&gt;oi may have no
specific reference to plantation. The allusion is again to the
solid basement of the spiritual temple described in chap. ii.

But to what do the words cV ayd-Try describing the founda
tion refer ? Some understand the love of Christ or CUM! to us.
Such is the view of Chrysostom and Theophylact, of llezii,
Calovius, Aretius, Wolf, Bengel, Storr, Kopje, and Flatt.
We ctinnot lay any stress on the dictum of Harless, that
omission of the article before the substantive proves it to be
used in a subjective sense, and to signify our love to Christ
Winer, 10, I. 1 Nor can we say, with Meyer, that the sub
stantive standing without the article has almost the force of
a participle " in amaiulo" But the entire context prove*
that the love referred to is the grace of love. One would
expected a genitive of possession, if dyd-rrrj were not predi
of the persons themselves if it were not a fueling in tl
hearts. It is a clumsy and equivocal exegesis
under the term both Christ s love to us and our 1.
as is done by Bucer, Anselm, ZanchiuM, Crocii
and Stier. Nor can we accede to Meyer, who SWIIIH i
it to brother- love ; for if it be the grace of love whi
specified, then it is love to Christ, and U&gt; every

1 Moulton, I . 148.

250 EFHESIAXS III. 18.

bears His image. Col. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. Now, as the
apostle intimates, this love is the root and foundation of
Christian character, as all advancement is connected with its
existence and exercise. " He prayeth well who loveth well."
Love is the fundamental grace. As love keeps its object
enshrined in the imagination, and allows it never to be absent
from the thoughts ; so love to Jesus gives Him such a cheer
ful and continued presence in the mind, that as it gazes ever
upon the image, it is changed into its likeness, for it strives to
realize the life of Christ. It deepens also that consecration to
the Lord which is essential to spiritual progress, for it sways
all the motives, and moves and guides the inner man by its
hallowed and powerful instincts. And it gives life and
symmetry to all the other graces, for confidence and hope in a
being to whom you are indifferent, cannot have such vigour
and permanence as they have in one to whom the spirit is
intelligently and engrossingly attached. When the lawgiver
is loved, his statutes are obeyed with promptitude and
uniformity. Thus resemblance to Jesus, devotion to Him,
and growth in grace, as the elements and means of spiritual
advancement, are intimately connected with love as their
living basis. The entire structure of the holy fane is fitly
framed and firmly held together, for it is "rooted and
grounded in love."

(Ver. 18.) "Iva e^icr^vcrrjre KardXa/SecrOat, &lt;rvv irdcn rot?
ayiois " That ye may be able to comprehend with all the
saints." The conjunction expresses the design which these
previous petitions had in view. Their being strengthened, their
being inhabited by Christ, and their " having been rooted and
grounded in love," not only prepared them for this special
study, but had made it their grand object. By a prior
invigoration they were disciplined to it, and braced up for
it " that ye may be fully able " fully matched to the
enterprise.

On ayios, see i. 2. The verb KarakafttaOai, used in the
middle voice, has in the New Testament the meaning of " to
comprehend," or to make a mental seizure. Such a middle
voice according to Kriiger, 52, 8, 4 differs from the active
only in so far as it exhibits the idea des geschdftlichen odcr
geistigen Kraftaufvmndes of earnest or spiritual energy.

EPHESIAXS III. IS, 251

The aorist expresses the rapid passing of the act. Winer,
44, 7, b. In the only other passages where it occurs, a in
Acts iv. 13, x. 34, xxv. 25, the verb signifies to come to a
decided conclusion from facts vividly presented to the attention.
And they were to engage in this study along with the
universal church of Christ not angels, or glorified spirits, or
office-bearers in the church exclusively, as some have main
tained. The design is to comprehend

ri TO TrXaro? teal pijtcos teal fidQos /cat ftyo? " what is the
breadth, and length, and depth, and height." This order of
the last two nouns is supported by A, K, L, or J, and tin-
Received Text reversing it is apparently a correction intended
to give the more natural order, and has in its favour H, ( ,
I), E, F, G, with the Vulgate, Gothic, ami Coptic. Hut to
what do these terms of measurement apply 1 Many endea
vours have been made to supplement the clause with a
genitive, and it is certain that " many wits run riot in their
geometrical and moral discourse upon these dimensions."
Assembly 8 Annotations, in loc.

1. We may allude in passing to the supposition of Kypke,
that the verb may signify to occupy or fill, and that rt may
be used with change of accent in an indefinite sense

ye may be able in the company of all saints to occupy the
breadth, whatever it is," etc. This exegesis is both violent
and unnatural, puts an unusual sense upon KaraXafiiatiat,
and treats ri TO TrXaro? as if it were TO TrXaTo? n.

2. Nor need we be detained by the opinion of Srhrader,
who regards the words ri TO -TrXaro?, etc., as only the para
phrastic complement of the verb tcara\a{3iff0ai. and as indi
eating the depth and thoroughness of the comprehension.

3. Nor can we suppose, with Heza and Gmtius, that there
is any allusion in these terms to the quarters of the heavens
pointed to in the priestly gestures that gave name to the
heave-offering and wave-offering. K.x. xxix. LV

4. Some of the Fathers referred the*.

mystery of the cross TOU &lt;rravpov QIHTIS, 0.1 Sevenam;
it. This view was held by Gregory of Nywui. J
Augustine, and has been adopted by Anselrn, Thomas Aqi
and Estius. This quadriform myHtery-
was explained by Augustine as signifying love in it

252 EPHESIANS III. 18.

hope in its height, patience in its length, and humility in its
depth. Ep. cxii.; De Vidcndo Deo, cap. 14 ; Ep. cxx. cap. 26.
Well does Calvin add hcec siibtilitate sua placent, sed quid ad
Pauli mentem ? Estius is more full and precise. He explains
how the terms can be applied to the shape and beams of a
cross, and adds lonyitudo, temporum est, latitude locorum,
altitude gloricc, profunditas discretionis, etc. the reference
being to the signum T in frontibus inscription. So remote
from the train of thought is this recondite mysticism, that it
needs and merits no formal refutation.

5. Some refer the nouns sacra ilia Pauli mathcmatica, as
Glassius calls them to the Divine plan of redemption the
mystery of grace. Such is the view of Chrysostom, who calls
it TO (jLvarrfpiov TO virep r)fj,a)v ol/covofjiijOev, and Theodoret,
who describes it as rr}? oiKovopias TO fikyeOos. It is also
the view of Theophylact and (Ecumenius, followed by Beza,
Bullinger, Piscator, Zanchius, Crocius, Crellius, Calovius,
Ptiickert, Meier, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Olshausen.
The supplement in this case appears to be far-fetched, and
there is no allusion in the context to any such theme ; the
mystery referred to in verses 410 being the admission of the
Gentiles into the church, and not the scheme of grace in its
wide and glorious aspects. As little ground is there to go
back to ver. 8, to " the unsearchable riches of Christ," and
refer such terms to them. Whatever the allusion is, it must
be something immediately present to his own mind, and
something that he supposed very present to the mind of his
readers, the dimensions of which are thus characterized.

6. We might almost pass over the fancy of those who sup
pose the apostle to take a survey of the Divine nature. Such
is the opinion of Ambrosiaster, who believes the apostle to
describe a sphere or cube equal in length, breadth, and thick
ness, and imagines that such a figure represents the perfection
and all including infinity of God. 1 Matthies holds the same

1 " Ut sicut in sphtwa tanta longitude est, quanta latitude, et tanta altitude,
quantum et profundum ; ita et in Deo omnia &lt;equalia sunt immensitate
infinitatis. Sphtera enim definite mode coneluditur : Deus autem non solum
implet omnia, sed et excedit ; nee enim clauditur, sed omnia intra se habot, ut
solus inefiabilis et infinitus haheatur : et gratise huic insufficienter agantur, quia
cum tantus sit, dignatus est per Christum homincm visitare peccatis et morti
Kubjectum." Ambrosius, Opera, torn. vii. pp. 280, 281, Venetiis, 1781.

El liRSlANS III. 13. 2- r .3

allusion, hut refers it to the moral perfections of God.
has led to this view seems to he the .similarity of thus verse
to a passage in Job xi. 8, in which the unfuthoiniible mystery
of the Divine nature is described " It is high ;is heaven."
etc. But there is nothing to warrant sur.h an allusion here,
or even to give it a mere probability.

7. That the terms indicate the measurement of God s love
to men, is the view advocated partly by Chrysostom, and l&gt;v
Erasmus, Bodius, Vatablus, Grotius, Bollock, Dickson, Baum-
garten, Flatt, and von Gerlach. " God s love," as is noted
in the paraphrase of Erasmus, "reaches in its height to the
angels, and in its depth into hell, and stretches in its length
and breadth to all the climates of the world." Or, lus Grotius
explains it " The Divine goodness in its breadth afreets all
men, and in its length endures through all ages ; in its depth
it reaches to man s lowest depression, and in its height it
carries him to highest glory." But this explanation, too, the
context abjures, unless such were the sense of the previous
dydTrr), which, however, means love possessed by us.

8. With greater plausibility, Christ s love to us is supposed
to be the theme of allusion, by Calvin, Calixtus, Zanchiu.s
Aretius, Sender, Zachariae, Storr, Bisping, Meyer, Hoi/-
hausen, Hodge, Peile, and Ellic-ott. Neither, however, can
this opinion be sustained. The previous ayuTrrj could not
suggest the thought, for there it is subjective. We apprehend
that this exegesis has been borrowed from the following
clause " and to know the love of Christ," which Ellicutt
says is practically the genitive. But that clause is not
epexegetical of the preceding, as is manifest in the use of
T instead of /cat, for this particle does not conjoin dependent
sentences it only adjoins collateral or indej&gt;endent pnj&gt;osi-
tions. Besides, the phrases " length and breadth " are unu.su
measurements of love.

9. De Wette, looking to Col. ii. and comparing
ology with the second and third ver** of that &lt;

gino the apostle to refer to the Divine wisdom. There, limy
be in Job xi. 8 a reference to the Divine wisdom, but t
language specially affirms the mystery of the Divine natu
Schliohtintf also refers to Col. ii.*2 to " th roysUTy of Owl
the Father and of Christ/ as if that were the allusion here.

254 EPIIESIANS III. 18.

Such a view is quite as capricious as any of the preceding,
for the wisdom of God is not a prominent topic either in this
prayer or in the preceding context, where it is only once, though
vividly, introduced. Alford somewhat similarly supposes
that the genitive is left indefinite " every dimension of all
that God has revealed or done in or for us." This is certainly
better than any of the previous explanations.

10. Heinsius, Homberg, Wolf, Michaelis, Cramer, Eoell,
Bengel, Koppe, Stier, Burton, Trollope, and Dr. Featley in
the Assembly s Annotations, suppose the allusion to be to the
Christian temple ; not to the fane of the Ephesian Artemis,
as is maintained by Chandler and Macknight. This appears
to us to be the most probable exegesis, the genitive being
still before the apostle s mind from the end of the previous
chapter. We have seen how the previous language of the
prayer is moulded by such an allusion ; that the invigoration
of the inner man, the indwelling of Christ, and the substruc
ture in love, have all distinct reference to the glorious spiritual
edifice. This idea was present, and so present to the apostle s
imagination, that he feels no need to make formal mention of
it. Besides, these architectural terms lead us to the same
conclusion, as they are so applicable to a building. The
magnificent fabric is described in the end of chap, ii., and the
intervening verses which precede the prayer are, as already
stated, a parenthesis. That figure of a temple still loomed
before the writer s fancy, and naturally supplied the distinctive
imagery of the prayer. For this reason, too, he does not
insert a genitive, as the substantive is so remote, nor did he
reckon it necessary to repeat the noun itself. Yet, to sustain
the point and emphasis, he repeats the article before each of
the substantives. In explaining these terms of mensuration
we would not say with an old commentator quoted by Wolf
" The church has length, that is, it stretches from east to
west ; and it has breadth, that is, it reaches from the equator
to the poles. In its depth it descends to Christ, its corner
stone and basis, and in its height it is exalted to heaven."
There is a measurement of area breadth and length, and a
measurement of altitude height and depth. May not the
former refer to its size and growing vastness, embracing, as it
will do, so many myriads of so many nations, and spanning

EPHKSIAXS III. 19. 255

the globe ? And may not the latter depict its glory ? for the
plan, structure, and materials alike illustrate the fame and
character of its Divine Builder and Occupant, while iu lofty
turrets are bathed and liidden from view in the radiant Hplen-
dour of heaven. And with what reed shall we measure this
stately building ? How shall we grasp its breadth, compute
its length, explore its depth, and scan its height ? Only by
the discipline described in the previous context by being
strengthened by the Spirit, by having Christ within us, and
by being thus " rooted and grounded in love." This ability
to measure the church needs the assistance of the Divine
Spirit of Him who forms this " habitation of God " so that
we may understand its nature, feel its self-expansion, and
believe the " glorious things spoken " of it. It requires also
the indwelling of Jesus of Him iu whom the whole building
groweth unto a holy temple, in order to appreciate its con
nection with Him as its chief corner-stone, the source of
its stability and symmetry. And they who feel themselves
" rooted and grounded in love " need no incitement to this
survey and measurement, for He whom they love is its foun
dation, while His Father dwells in it, and His Spirit builds it
up with generation after generation of believers. None have
either the disposition or the skill to comprehend the vastnens
and glory of the spiritual temple, save they who arc in it
themselves, and who, being individual and separate shrine*,
can reason from their own enjoyment to the dignity and
splendour of the universal edifice. And not only so, but the
apostle also prayed for ability

(Ver. 1 ( J.) Tvuvai re rrji&gt; v-jrepfiaXXoveav n~)&lt;; yi&gt;&lt;*Tfa&gt;&lt;*
ay(i7TJ]v TOU Xpia-Tov " And to know the knowle
passing love of Christ." Tvuvai is not dependent on icara-
\aftea6ai, but is in unison with, or rather parallel to it, Ix-in
also a similar exercise of mind. The particle rt, not unliko
the Latin quc, does not couple ; it rather annex
clause which is not necessarily de^ndi-nt on the prm-ding.
Kuhner, 722; Hartung, i. p. 105; Hand, Tin
de Particulis Ldtinis Comvitntarii, lib. ii. p. 407.
remarks, that in the clause adjoined by re the more proi
idea of the sentence may be found. 53,

1 Moulton, j.. 542.

256 KPHESIANS III. 19.

ayaTnyv rov Xpi&Tov, Xpia-rov is the genitive of possession or
subject the love of Christ to us. The genitive yvoMrea)? is
governed by the participle virepfia\\ovcrav, and not by the
substantive dyaTrrjv, the last a misconstruction, which may
have originated the reading of Codex A and of Jerome
scientice caritatem ; a reading adopted also by Grotius and
Homberg. The participle, from its comparative sense, governs
the genitive. Klihner, 539; Bernhardy, p. 1 6 9 ; Vigerus, de
Idiotismis, ii. p. 667, Londini, 1824. Two different meanings
have been ascribed to the participle

1. That adopted by Luther 1 in one version " the love of
Christ, which is more excellent than knowledge." Similar is
the view of Wetstein and Wilke. Lexicon, sub voce. Such a
rendering appears to stultify itself. If the apostle prayed
them to know a love which was better than knowledge, the
verb, it is plain, is used with a different signification from its
cognate substantive. To know such a love must in that case
signify to possess or feel it, and there is no occasion to take
yvwa-is in any technical and inferior sense. Nor can we sup
pose the apostle to use such a truism in the form of a contrast,
and to say, " I pray that you may know that love to Christ is
better than mere knowledge about Him " a position which no
body could dispute. Nor did there need a request for spiritual
strength to enable them to come to the conclusion which
Augustine gathers from the clause scientia siibdita caritati.
DC Gratia et Lib. Arbit. cap. 19. Far more point and con
sistency are found in the second form of exegesis, which

2. Supposes the apostle to say, that the love of Christ the
love which He bears to us transcends knowledge, or goes
beyond our fullest conceptions. " I pray that you may be
able to know the love of Christ, which yet in itself is above
knowledge." This figure of speech, which rhetoricians call
an oxymoron or a paradox, consists in the statement of an
apparent inconsistency, and is one which occurs elsewhere in
the writings of the apostle. Rom. i. 20; 1 Cor. i. 21-25;
2 Cor. viii. 2; Gal. ii. 19 ; 1 Tim. v. 6. The apostle does
not mean that Christ s love is in every sense incompre-

1 His first translation was die Liebe Chriifi, die dock alle Erkentniss ubertriffl,
but in the year 1545 he rendered doss Christum lieb haben viel beater ist, denn
alien

EPIIESIAXS III. 19. 257

hensible, nor does he pray that his readers may come to know
the fact that His love is unknowable in its essence. This
latter view, which is that of Harless and Olshauseu, limits the
inspired prayer, and is not warranted by the language employ ed.
But in this verse the position of the participle between the

article and its substantive, proves it to be only an epithet

"to know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ." Winer,
45, 4, note. The incomprehensibility of tin; love of Christ
is not that special element of it which the apostle prayed that
the Ephesians might come to the knowledge of, but he asks
that they might be strengthened to cherish enlarged concep
tions of a love which yet, in its higher aspect and properties,
was beyond knowledge. So write (Ecumenius and Theophy-
lact, rrjv ayuTTTjv TIJV V7rpt%ovaai&gt; Tniffrj^ yi&gt;u)(T(i)&lt;i. The
apostle wishes them to possess a relative acquaintance with
the love of Christ, while he felt that the absolute understanding
of it was far beyond their reach. To know it to l&gt;e the fact,
that it is a love which passeth knowledge, is different from
saying to know it experimentally, though it U- a love which
in the highest sense passeth knowledge. Thus Theodore of
liopsuestia says TO yvwvai dvrl rov i\7ro\avcrai \tyet. It may
be known in some features and to some extent, but at the same
time it stretches away into infinitude, far U-yond tin; ken of
human discovery and analysis. As a fact manifested in tinn-
and embodied in the incarnation, life, teaching, and death of
the Son of (Jod, it may be understood, for it assumed a nature
of clay, bled on the cross, and lay prostrate in the tomb; but
in its unbeginning existence as an eternal passion, antedating
alike the Creation and the Fall, it " posset h knowledge." In
the blessings which it confers the pardon, grace, and glory
which it provides it may be seen in palpable exhibition, ami
experienced in happy consciousness ; but in its limitless |ower
and endless resources it bailies thought and description. In
the terrible sufferings and death to which it led, u
Self-denial and sacrifices which it involved, it may 1
80 far by the application of human instincts and uiml
but the fathomless fervour of a Divine afl crtion surpass.
measurements of created intellect. As the atta F u

man, it may be gauged ; but as the love of a liod, who can
irching find it out ? Uncaused itself, it originated
u

258 EPIIESIANS III. 19.

vation ; unresponded to amidst the " contradiction of sinners,"
it neither pined nor collapsed. It led from Divine immor
tality to human agonies and dissolution, for the victim was
bound to the cross not by the nails of the military executioner,
but by the " cords of love." It loved repulsive unloveliness,
and, unnourished by reciprocated attachment, its ardour was
unquenched, nay, is unquenchable, for it is changeless as the
bosom in which it dwells. Thus it may be known, while yet
it " passeth knowledge ; " thus it may be experimentally
known, while still in its origin and glory it surpassses compre
hension, and presents new and newer phases to the loving and
inquiring spirit. For one may drink of the spring and be
refreshed, and his eye may take in at one view its extent and
circuit, while he may be able neither to fathom the depth nor
mete out the volume of the ocean whence it has its origin.

This prayer, that the Ephesians might know the love of
Christ, is parallel to the preceding one, and was suggested by
it. That temple of such glory and vastness which has Christ
for its corner-stone, suggests the love of its illustrious Founder.
While the apostle prayed that his converts in Epbesus might
comprehend the stability and magnificence of the one, he could
not but add that they might also know the intensity and ten
derness of the other might understand in its history and
results a love that defied their familiar cognizance and pene
tration in its essence and circuit. From what the church is,
and is to be, you infer the love of Christ. And the being
"rooted and grounded in love" is the one preparative to know
the love of Christ, for love appreciates love, and responds in
cordial pulsation. And all this for the ultimate end

iva TrXrjpcoOtjre et? TTOV TO 7rX?;pco/aa rov Qeov " that ye may
be filled up to all the fulness of God." This clause depicts
the grand purpose and result. "Iva "in order that," is con
nected with the preceding clauses of the prayer, and is the
third instance of its use in the paragraph iva Byrj iva gi&lt;r-
XVGTjTe iva 7r\r)p(i)6iJTe this last being climactic, or the great
end of the whole supplication. (For the meaning of 7rX?/p&&amp;gt;/ta,
the reader may turn to i. 10, 23.) Tov Seov is in the genitive
of subject or possession. " All the fulness of God " is all the
fulness which God possesses, or by which He is characterized.
Chrysostom is right in the main when he paraphrases it, ,

KI HESIAXS III. 19. 259

Tr\7)pov&lt;T0ai Trdo-rjs uperq? fy 7r\r )prj&lt;t cariv o 0eo?. Some, like
Harless, refer the fulness to the Divine Sofa ; others, like Hok-
hausen, Baumgarten, and Michaelis, think the allusion Is to a
temple inhabited or filled with Divinity, or the Shechinah ; ami
others, again, as Vatablus and Schoettgen, dilate the meaning
into a full knowledge of God or of Divine doctrine. Many com
mentators, including Calovius, Zachariae, Wolf, Beza, Kstius,
Grotius, and Meyer, break down the term by a rash analysis,
and make it refer to this or that species of spiritual gifts.
Bodins and Olshansen keep the word in its undivided signi
ficance, but Conybeare inserts an unwarranted supplement
when he renders " filleth therewith " (with Christ s love)
"even to the measure of the fulness of God." Koppe, adopt
ing the idea of Aretius and Kiittner, and most unwarrantably
referring it to the church, supposes the clause to l&gt;e adduced
as a proof of the preceding statement, that Christ s love sur
passes knowledge, and this is seen " in the fact of your admis
sion to the church," thus diluting the words into ev r&lt;p
tr\r}pd)d^i&gt;aL i pa*. Schleusner has a similar view. Codex B
ads "va 7r\r)pa)6fj TTO.V ru 7r\7Jpa&gt;/za, an exegetical variation,
he 7r\y )pCi)fjia that with which He is tilled appears to IKJ the
ntire moral excellence of God the fulness and lustre of His
iritual perfections. Such is the climax of the prayer. It is
lainly contrary to fact and experience to understand the term
f the uncreated essence of God, for such an idea would involve
UB in a species of pantheism.

The preposition t? is used with special caution,
mple dative is not employed, nor does t? stand for tv. as
rrotius, Estius, and Whitby imagine, and as it is rendered in
tie Syriac and English versions. It does not denote " with,"
Ut "for" or "into" filled up to or unto " an end 4111111-
itatively considered." The whole fulness of God ran never
Ontract itself so a.s to lodge in any created heart. But the
mailer vessel may have its own fulness poured into
ne of larger dimensions. The communicable fulness of God
ill in every element of it impart iUself to the rajKii
nd exalted bosom, for Christ dwells in their hrurU
ifference between God and the saint will I* not in kind,
,ut in degree and extent. His fulness is infinite ; th
united by the essential conditions of a created

2GO EPHESIANS III. 20.

Theirs is the correspondence of a miniature to the full face
and form which it represents. Stier s version is, " Until you
be what as the body of Christ you can and should be,
the whole fulness of God." But this proceeds on a wrong
idea of irXripw^a as if it here signified the church as
divinely filled. (See the illustrations of 7r\ripw^a under i. 23.)
The apostle prays for strength, for the indwelling of Jesus, for
unmoveable foundation in love, for a comprehension of the
size and vastness of the spiritual temple, and for a knowledge
of the love of Christ ; and when such blessings are conferred
and enjoyed, they are the means of bringing into the heart
this Divine fulness. Col. ii. 19. There seems to be a
close concatenation of thought. The " strength " prayed for
is needed to qualify " the inner man " to bear and retain that
" fulness." The implored inhabitation of Him in whom
" dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," is this fulness
in its formal aspect ; and that love which founds and confirms
the Christian character, and instinctively enables it to com
prehend the vast designs of God in His church, and to know
the unimaginable love of Christ, is of the same fulness an
index and accompaniment. This blessed result may not be
completely realized on earth, where so many disturbing influ
ences are in constant operation, but it shall be reached in
heaven, where the spirit shall be sated witli " all the fulness
of God."

(Ver. 20.) To&gt; Be Bwa/JLevw virep Travra iroirja-ai vtrepeK-
Trepia-a-ov wv alrov/jieOa ?; VOOV/JLCV " Now to Him who is
able to do beyond all things superabundantly beyond what
we ask or think." The apostle supposes his prayer to be
answered, and all its requests conferred. The Divine Given
of such munificent donations is surely worthy of all homage,
and especially worthy of all homage in the character of tho
answerer of prayer. By Be he passes to a different subject
from recipients to the Giver. Praise succeeds prayer tho
anthem is its fitting conclusion.

The construction is idiomatic, as if the apostle s mind
laboured for terms of sufficient intensity. Words compounded
with inrep are often employed by the full mind of the apostle,
and are the favourite characteristics of his style, i. 21, iv. 10;
Eom. v. 20, viii. 37; 2 Cor. vii. 4, xi. 5, 23 ; Phil. ii. 9;

EI IIESIANS III. 20. 261

1 Thess. iii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 3 ; 1 Tim. i. 14. Compare

Fritzsche, ad Roman, vol. i. 351. The general idea is God s

infinite ability to grant spiritual blessing. IVep is twice
expressed ; before irdvra, and in the double compound term
V7TpK7rpLcraov. Mark vii. 37 ; 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 13. This
repetition shows the ardour of the apostle s soul, and his
anxiety to body forth the idea of the incomparable power of
God to answer petition. The iirst train of thought seems to

lave been \nrep Trdma Troi^a-ai a alrov^Oa " to do leyond
what we ask or think." Hut this description did not exhaust
e apostle s conception, and so he inserts vTrepcfcrrepiaaov
airovfieOa "more than abundantly," or abundantly far
yond what we ask or think. Nor is there any tautology.
nep Trdvra Troiijaat, expresses merely the fact of God s SUJHT-
abundant power, but the subjoined v7TpK7r&lt;;pi&lt;r&lt;rov defines
mode in which this illimitable power displays itself, and
that is, by conferring spiritual gifts in superabundance in
much more than simple abundance, llarless places the two
clauses in apposition, but their union appears to l&gt;e closer, as
our exegesis intimates, ndvra is closely connected with wr,
which is governed in the genitive by the virep in vTrepctc-
n-epicra-ov. Bernhardy, p. 139. And we do not say with
Harless that there is any hyperbole, for omnipotence has never
jxhausted its resources. While omniscience is the actual
cuowledge of all, omnipotence is the ability to do all, and all
that it am do has never been achieved.

God is able to do far "above what we ask," for our asking

s limited and feeble. John xvi. 24. lint there may be
thoughts too sweeping for expression, there may be unutterable
groaiiings prompted by the Spirit (Horn. viii. 2G) ; yet alwve
and beyond our widest conceptions and most daring i X|erta-
tions is God "able to do." God s ability to answer prayer
transcends not only our spoken petitions, but far surpassed
pven such thoughts as are too big for words, and too deep for
Utterance. And still those desires which are dumb from their
very vastness, and amazing from their very Ultimo
nsignificant requests compared with the power of God
we know so little of His promises, and so weak in our f
them, that we ask not, as we should, for their i
fulfilment; and though we did understand their deptl

262 EPHESIAKS III. 21.

power, our loftiest imaginations of possible blessing would
come infinitely short of the power and resources of the
Hearer of prayer. Bcati qui csuriunt, says Bernard, et sitiunt
justitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. Qui esurit, esuriat
amplius, et qui desiderat, abundantius adhuc desideret, quoniam
quantumcunqiie desiderare potuerit, tantum est acceptwus :

Kar^L TT)I/ Svva/jLLV rrjv evep yov/jLevrjv ev rjfuv " according
to the power which worketh in us." These words are not to
l)e joined to voov/j,ev, as if they qualified it, and as if the
apostle meant to say, that God can do more for us than we
can think, even when our thoughts are excited and enlarged
by His own " power putting itself forth in us." This
participle is here, as in many other places, in the middle
voice, the active voice being used by Paul in reference to a
personal agent, and the middle employed when, as in this
case, the idea of personality is sunk. "According to His
power that proves or shows itself at work in us." Winer,
38, 6. That power has been again and again referred to in
itself and in its results by the apostle, (i. 19, iii. 16.) From
our own blissful experience of what it has already achieved
in us, we may gather that its Divine possessor and wielder
can do for us " far beyond what we ask or think." That
might being God s, can achieve in us results which the boldest
have not ventured to anticipate. So that, as is meet

(Ver. 21.) Avrw rj &6a ev rfj KK\rjcria ev Xpiarw Irjaov
" To Him be glory in the church in Christ Jesus." Such a
pronoun, emphatic in position and from repetition, occurs
in common Hebrew usage a usage, however, not wholly
Hebraistic, but often found in classic Greek, and very often in
the Septuagint. Bernhardy, p. 290 ; Winer, 22, 4. Ad%a
may, as an abstract noun, have the article prefixed ; or the
article may be used in what Bernhardy calls its " rhetorische
form," signifying the glory which is His especially, and due to
Him confessedly, p. 315. The difference of reading is not of
essential moment. Some MSS., such as A, B, and C, with
the Coptic and Vulgate, supply KCLI before eV X. I., and this
reading is preferred by Lachmann, Eiickert, and Matthies, but,
refused by Tischendorf, while D 1 , F, G, with Ambrosiaster,
reverse the order of the clauses, and read ev Xpi&lt;TTa) I^cr
xal ry KK\rjcta. Koppe, on the authority of one MS., 46, is

EPHESIANS III. 21. 263

inclined to reject as spurious the whole clause cV rfj IKK\T)&lt;TM.
Harless and Olshausen show that these various readings have
their sources in dogmatic views. It could not l&gt;e tarne by
some that the church should stand before Christ, and the *ai,
without which there would IK; an asyndeton, was inserted in
consequence of certain opinions as to the connection and
meaning of the clause which follows it. Hofmann, frhri/lb.
vol. ii. part 2, p. 108, pleads for teat, and connects cV Xpi&lt;ntZ
rjo-ov with the following words, et? Traaa? ra? yeveds, etc.
The relation of the two clauses v rfj KK\ij&lt;ria and cV Xpt&lt;TT&lt;u
Irjcrov has been variously understood :

1. Luther, Michaelis, Koppe, Uosenmiiller, Flatt, Meier,
Holzhausen, Olshausen, and Stier, connect the words thus
" In the church which is in Christ Jesus." Not to say that
a second TTJ is wanting (Gal. i. 22), which, however, in such

connection is not always repeated, the meaning does not
appear to be appropriate. The second clause ha.s no immediate
union with the one before it, but bears a relation to Sofa.

2. Some render eV XpicrT(o by the words "through Christ "
8ta, as in the interpretation of Theophylact ; &lt;rvv, as in that
of (Ecumenius; per Christum, us in the paraphrase of Grotius,
and the exegesis of Calvin and IVza, Kollock and Itiie.kert.
Such a translation is not in accordance with the usual mean
ing of the preposition. The passages adduced by Turner in
denial of this are no proof, for in them eV, though instrumental,
retains its distinctive meaning, and is not to be superficially
confounded with Bid.

3. The words seem to define the inner sphere or spirit in
which the glory is presented to God. It is offered in the
church, but it is, at the same time, offered " in Christ Jesus,"
or presented by the members of the sacred community in the
consciousness of union with Him, and by consequence in a
spirit of dependence on Him. So generally Harle:

de Wette, Alford, and Ellicott. The place of doxology i
the church, and the glory is hymned by its memlwrs, but the
spirit of the song is inspired by oneness with Jesus. Jofa |.
the splendour of moral excellence, and in what plare
such glory be ascribed but in the church, which I
nessed so much of it, and whose origination, life, bleu
hopes are so many samples and outbursts c

264 EPHESIANS III. 21.

Dog. 467. And how should it be presented? Not apart
from Christ, or simply for His sake, but in Him in thrilling
fellowship with Him ; for no other consciousness can inspire
us with the sacred impulse, and praise of no other origin and
character can be accepted by that God who is Himself in
Christ. The glory is to be offered

ei? TraVa? Ta? &lt;yevea&lt;; rov euw^o? TWV alaivwv. ^A^i]V
" to all the generations of the ages of the ages. Amen."
This remarkable accumulation of terms is an intensive for
mula denoting eternity. The apostle combines two phrases,
both of which are used in the New Testament. El? ryeveas
yevewv Luke i. 50 is phraseology based upon the Hebrew
Dnvn -in. p s . Ixxii. 5, cii. 24. The other portion of the
phrase occurs as in Gal. i. 5 et9 TOL&gt;? alwvas TWV alwvwv
(1 Pet. i. 25), et9 rov al&va. Heb. v. 6, vi. 20. AVe have
also ei? Tou9 alwvas in many places ; and in the Septuagint,
et? ryeveav KOL &lt;yevedv, eW &lt;yeveas KCLI &gt;yveas, etc &lt;yevea&lt;; ei? yevedv,
et9 yeveas &lt;yevewv. So eW alwvos rwv aluvwv stands in Dan.
vii. 1 8 for the Chaldee wzby thy njn xzby ny. This language,
borrowed from the changes and succession of time, is employed
to picture out eternity. It is a period of successive genera
tions filling up the age, which again is an age of ages or
made up of a series of ages a period composed of many
periods ; and through the cycles of such a period of periods,
glory is to be ascribed to God. It is needless, with Meyer,
to take ^eveal in a literal sense, or in reference to successive
generations of living believers, for jeved often simply means
a period of time measured by the average life of man. Acts
xiv. 16, xv. 21. The entire phrase is a temporal image of
eternity. One wonders at de Wette s question " "Was the
apostle warranted to expect such a long duration for the
church ? " For is not the church to be gathered into the
heavens ?

The obligation to glorify God lasts through eternity, and
the glorified church will ever delight in rendering praise, " as
is most due." Eternal perfection will sustain an eternal
anthem. The Trinity is here again brought out to view. The
power within us is that of the Spirit, and glory in Christ is
presented to the Father who answers prayer through the Son,
and by the Spirit ; and, therefore, to the Father, in the Son,

Kl Iin-SlAXS III. 21. 265

and by the Spirit, is offered this glorious miiihtrclKy " UN it
was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without
end. Amen."

" To Father, Son, ami Holy Ghost,
The God whom ht&lt;aven triumjihant hot

And saint* on earth adoru,
Be glory as in ngea jwwt,
As now it is, and so bluill last
When time shall be no more."

CHAPTER IV.

THE practical portion of the Epistle now commences, or as
Theodoret says eirl ra etSrj TrpoTpeiret, TT}? dperrjs. But doc
trine has been expounded ere duty is enforced. Instructions
as to change of spiritual relation precede exhortations as to
change of life. It is in vain to tell the dead man to rise and
walk, till the principle of animation be restored. One must
be a child of God before he can be a servant of God. Pardon
and purity, faith and holiness, are indissolubly united. Ethics
therefore follow theology. And now the apostle first proceeds
to enjoin the possession of such graces as promote and sus
tain the unity of the church, the members of which are
" rooted and grounded in love " a unity which, as he is
anxious to show, is quite compatible with variety of gift,
office, and station. Then he dwells on the nature, design, and
results of the ministerial functions belonging to the church,
points out its special and divine organization, and goes on to
the reprobation of certain vices, and the inculcation of opposite
graces.

(Ver. 1.) HapciKakw ovv v/^a? eyco 6 Seoyuo? ev Kvpiw
" I exhort you then, I the prisoner in the Lord." The
retrospective ovv refers us to the preceding paragraph
Christian privilege or calling being so rich and full, and his
prayer for them being so fervent and extensive. The person
ality of the writer is distinctly brought out " I the prisoner,"
eya). iii. 1. ^The phrase ev Kvpiw is closely connected with
6 Se oyuo?, as the want of the article between the words also
shows. Some, indeed, prefer to join it to the verb TrapaicaXw
" I exhort you in the Lord." Such was the view of Semler,
and Koppe does not express a decided opinion. But the
position of the words is plainly against such a construction.
Winer, 20, 2. The verb Trapa/mXw is not used in its original
sense, but signifies " I exhort," as if equivalent to

EPHKSIAXS IV. 1. 267

It has, however, various shades of meaning in the Pauline
writing. See Kuapp s Scrip. Var. p. 125 et seq. Nor can
ev Kvpitp signify " for Christ s sake," as is the opinion t ,f
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Koppe, and Flatt. "When we turn
to similar expressions, such as TOI*? 6Vra? eV Kvpip (Horn,
xvi. 11) dyaTrTjrbv eV Kvpty (Philem. 1C)
povov eV Kvpio) (1 Cor. vii. 39) r&v dyainjTov pov tv
(Koin. xvi. 8) the meaning of the idiom cannot be doubted.
It characterizes Paul as a Christian prisoner one who not
only was imprisoned for Christ s sake, hut who was and
still is in union with the Lord, as a servant and sufferer.
See on Kvpios, ch. i. 1 , 3. The apostle in iii. 1 uses the
genitive which indicates one aspect of relationship that
of possession ; but here he employs the dative as denoting
that his incarceration has its element or characteristic, jH-rhaps
origin too, from his union with Christ. Hut why again
allude to his bondage in these terms ? Xot simply to excite
sympathy, and claim a hearing for his counsels, nor solely, as
Olshausen and Harless maintain, to represent his absolute
obedience to the Lord as an example to his readers. All
these ideas might be in his mind, but none of them engross-
ingly, else some more distinctive allusion might Iw expected
in his language. Nor can we accede to Meyer and the Greek
fathers, that there is in the phrase any high exultation in the
glory of a confessor or a martyr as if, as Theodoret says, ho
gloried more in his chains, 17 ^acrtXei/? Bia^/jfuni. lUit his
writing to them while he was in chains proved the deep
interest he took in them and in their spiritual welfare
them that his faith in Jesus, and his love to His cans,-, were
not shaken by persecution that the iron which lay upon his
limb had not entered into his soul and that his ajm.st
prerogative was as intact, his pastoral anxiety as \**
and his relation to the Lord as close and tender as when on
his visit to them he disputed in the school of Tyrniiiius
uttered his solemn and pathetic valediction to t
at Miletus. Letters inspired by love in a dungeon
also have a greater charm than his oral adIrfH
Gal. vi. 17. "I exhort you "-

aftW Trepnran jfTai -n^ K\IJ&lt;T(^ fa fVXrj^T/Tf-
valk worthy of the calling with which ye were

2G8 EPHESIANS IV. 2.

is the Christian vocation the summons " to glory
and virtue." See under i. 18; Rom. xi. 29; Phil. iii. 14;
2 Tim. i. 9 ; Heb. iii. 1, etc. In ^? eKXrjdrjre is a common
idiom ^? being probably by attraction or assimilation, as
Kriiger, 51, 10, prefers to call it, for fj, but perhaps for fy
(Arrian, Epict. p. 122), and the verb being used with its cog
nate noun. Winer, 24, 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; 1 Cor. vii. 20. See
also under i. 8, 19, 20, ii. 4. "Agio? in the sense of " in har
mony with," is often thus used. Matt. iii. 8 ; Phil. i. 27 ; Col.
i. 10 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. i. 11. On the peculiar meaning
of irepiirariw see under ii. 2, 10. It is a stroke of very
miserable wit which Adam Clarke ascribes to the apostle,
when he represents him as saying, " Ye have your liberty
and may walk, I am deprived of mine and cannot." Their
calling, so high, so holy, and so authoritative, and which had
come to them in such power, was to be honoured by a walk
in perfect correspondence with its origin and spirit, its claims
and destiny. See also under ver. 4.

The apostle now enforces the cultivation of those graces, the
possession of which is indispensable to the harmony of the
church : for the opposite vices pride, irascibility, impatient
querulousness all tend to strife and disruption. On union
the apostle had already dwelt in the second chapter as a
matter of doctrine here he introduces it as one of practice.

(Ver. 2.) Mera 7rd&lt;nj&lt;; TaTreivotfrpoiTVvrjs /cat irpavTrjro^, pera
fjLaKpodvfMias, dvexo/jLevoi d\\ij\(0v ev dydirrj " With all low
liness and meekness, with long - suffering, forbearing one
another in love." Col. iii. 12. Merd is with accompanied
with visible manifestation. Winer, S 47, h. On iracr^
see i. 8. Some suppose the various nouns in the verse to be
connected with ave^o^evoi, but such a connection mars the
harmony and development of thought, as it rises from general
to special counsel.

TaTreivocppoavvrj is lowliness of mind, opposed to TOL v^rrj\a
fypovovvres. Rom. xii. 16. It is that profound humility which
stands at the extremest distance from haughtiness, arrogance,
and conceit, and which is produced by a right view of our
selves, and of our relation to Christ and to that glory to which
we are called. It is ascribed by the apostle to himself in Acts
xx. 19. It is not any one s making himself small orav rt9

EI HKSIANS IV. 3. Oft)

wv as Chrysostom supposes, for such would be mere
simulation. Ever}- blessing we possess or hope to enjoy is
from God. Nothing is self-procured, and therefore no room i*
left for self-importance. This modesty of mind, says Chry-
sostom, is the foundation of all virtue Trdoys pm}&lt;? vTroOfcis.
Trench, Fynon. 43 ; Tittmann, DC Syn. p. 140.

npaiTTjs is meekness of spirit in all relations, loth toward
God and toward man which never rises in insuliordinatioii
against God nor in resentment against man. It is a grace
ascribed by the Saviour to Himself (Matt. xi. 20), and nscriljetl
to him by the apostle. 2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. v. 23. It is not
merely that meekness which is not provoked and angered bv
the reception of injury, but that entire subduedness of tem
perament which strives to be in harmony with God s will, U&gt;
it what it may, and, in reference to men, thinks with candour,
suffers in self-composure, and speaks in the "soft answer"
which " turneth away wrath." For some differences in sjR ll-
ing the word, see Passow, sub rocr, and Lobeck, (id Fhrynieh.
p. 403. The form adopted is found only in I and E, but it
seems supported by the analogy of the Alexandrian spelling.

The preposition /xera is repeated before the next noun,
paKpo0vfjiias, and this repetition has led Estius, IlUckert,
Harless, Olshausen, and Stier to connect it with uveyopd oi
in the following clause. "We see no good ground for thi*
construction. On the contrary, ui&gt;-)(o^voi has eV ayd-ny to
qualify it, and needs not /iera paKpoOvpias, which, from in
position, would then be emphatic. Some, like Lichmnnn ninl
Olshausen, feeling this, join eV dyaTrrj as unwarrantably to tin
following verse. The first two nouns are governed by one
preposition, for they are closely associated in meaning. tln
"meekness" being after all only a phrase &lt;&gt;f tin; " lowliness of
mind," and resting on it. P.ut the third noun is introduc,-
with the preposition repeated, as it is a sj* cial and distinct
virtue a peculiar result of the former two ami much, nt
the same time, before the mind of the ajHistlf, that ho explain*
it in the following clause.

Matcpo0vfAM" long-suffering." w opjioswl
or to what we familiarly name shortness of U liifH-r (.ToA.
19), and is that patient self -possession which enabl
to Ix ar with those who oppose him, or who in any way do him

270 EPIIESIANS IV. 3.

injustice. He can afford to wait till better judgment and
feeling on their part prevail. 2 Cor. vi. 6 ; Gal. v. 2 2 ; 1 Tim.
i. 16 ; 2 Tim. iv. 2. In its high .sense of bearing with evil,
and postponing the punishment of it, it is ascribed to God,
Eom. ii. 4, ix. 22. The participle av^o^voi is in the
nominative, and the anacolouthon is easily explained from the
connection with the first verse. An example of a similar
change is found in iii. 18. Winer, 63, 2. It is useless,
with Heinsius and Homberg, to attempt to supply the impera
tive mood of the verb of existence " Be ye forbearing one
another." * Avkyo^ai, in the middle voice, is to have patience
with, that is, " to hold oneself up " till the provocation is
past. Col. iii. 13. Verbs of its class govern the genitive.
Kiihner, 539. 3 Ev ay airy describes the spirit in which such
forbearance was to be exercised. Retaliation was not to be
allowed ; all occasionally needed forbearance, and all were uni
formly to exercise it. No acerbity of temper, sharp retort, or
satirical reply was to be admitted. As it is the second word
which really begins the strife, so, where mutual forbearance is
exercised, even the first angry word would never be spoken.
And this mutual forbearance must not be affected coolness or
studied courtesy ; it must have its origin, sphere, and nutri
ment "in love" in the genuine attachment that ought to
prevail among Christian disciples. QEcumenius justly observes
evOa yap eaTiv dyaTrij, iravra eaTiv dveKra.

(Ver. 3.) ^TrovSafrvres rrjpelv rr]v vorr)Ta rov HVeuyuaro?
" endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit." This
clause is parallel to the preceding, and indicates not so much,
as Meyer says, the inward feelings by which the dve-^ecrOai is
to be characterized, as rather the motive to it, and the accom
panying or simultaneous effort. Tlvev^a cannot surely mean
the mere human spirit, as the following verse plainly proves.
Yet such is the view of Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Erasmus,
Calvin, Estius, Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bloomfield.
Calvin also says Ego simplicius interpreter de animorum
concordia ; and Ambrosiaster quietly changes the terms, and
renders unitatis spiritum. Others, again, take the phrase to
denote that unity of which the Spirit is the bond. Chrysos-
tom says Bta &lt;ydp rovro rb Trvev^a e&oOr), Lva TOVS &lt;yevei Kal

evcoo-g. This view is perhaps

EPHESIAKS IV. 3. 07 1

not sufficiently distinctive. The reference is to the Spirit of
God, but, as the next verse shows, to that Spirit as inhabiting
the church " one body " and " one Spirit" Tin; " unity of
the Spirit " is not, as Grotius says, unitas fectfsur, qua- fjst
corpus spiritualc, but it is the unity which dwells within the
church, and which results from the one Spirit the originating
cause being in the genitive. Hurtling, dunis, p. 1 J. Tin*
apostle has in view what he afterwards advances alxmt diflVr-
eiit functions and offices in the church in verses 7 and 11.
Separate communities are not to rally round social gifts and
offices, as if each gift proceeded from, and was organized by, a
separate and rival Spirit. 1 Cor. xii. 4, etc. And this unity
of the Spirit was not so completely in their ]w&gt;ssessicin, that
its existence depended wholly on their guardianship. For it
exists independently of human vigilance or fidelity, 1 but ita
manifestations may be thwarted and checked. They were
therefore to keep it safe from all disturbance and infraction.
And in this duty they were to be earnest and forward O-T-OV-
SaoyT69, using diligence, " bisie to kejH ," as WydifTe renders ;
for if they cherished humility, meekness, and universal toler
ance in love, as the apostle hath enjoined them, it would l&gt;e
no difficult Uusk to preserve the " unity of the Spirit" And
that unity is to be kept

v T(Z auv^fffjui) TI"^ ciprjVTjs "in the I mini &lt; f JHWC.
Some understand the apostle to affirm that the unity is kept
by that which forms the bond of |&gt;caee, vi/. love. Such an
opinion lias advocates in Theophylact, Calovius, Hvngi*!,
Ruckert, Meier, Harless, Stier, and Winzer, 1 who tali
genitive as that of object. Such an idea may IK; implied, but
it is not the immediate statement of the ajMistle. I In- derluru-
tion here is different from that in Ol. iii. M. wlu-rv lve
is termed "a bond." See on the place. Eipi w apjH-ar*
to be the genitive of apposition, as Flatt, Meyer, Muttl
Olshausen, Alfonl, and Kllicott take it. Winer, -"
viii. 23. "Tin; bond of peace" is that Uml whirl is |n-a&lt;v.
*Ev does not denote that the unity of the Spirit spring
"Uie bond of peace," as if unity were tin- pnnluct .f \w, or

" EiiiiKkc-it im Geiht Jiirfcn und k-nnm wir nuht nimchm, i
dahibcr halU-n." Ki?gcr, iuoUii by Stit-r.

nt, in Ei-h. iv. 1 0. Li^iu; li?3fl.

272 EPHESIANS IV. 4.

simply consisted of peace, but that the unity is preserved and
manifested in the bond of peace as its element. Winer,
48, a. " Peace " is that tranquillity which ought to reign in
the church, and by the maintenance of which its essential
spiritual unity is developed and " bodied forth." This unity
is something far higher than peace ; but it is by the preserva
tion of peace as a bond among church members that such
unity is realized and made perceptible to the world. John xvii.
The outer becomes the symbol and expression of the inner
union is the visible sign of unity. When believers universally
and mutually recognize the image of Christ in one another,
and, loving one another instinctively and in spite of minor
differences, feel themselves composing the one church of
Christ, then do they endeavour to keep " the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace." The meaning of the English verb
" endeavour " has been somewhat attenuated in the course
of its descent to us. Trench on Authorized Version, p. 17.
Unity and peace are therefore surely more than mere alliance
between Jew and Gentile, though the apostle s previous illus
trations of that truth may have suggested this argument.

(Ver. 4.) *Ev awfia real ev Ilvevpa " One body and one
Spirit." The connection is not, as is indicated in the Syriac
version Keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace, in order that you may be in one body and one spirit.
Others construe as if the verse formed part of an exhortation
" Be ye, or ye ought to be, one body," or keeping the
unity of the Spirit as being one body, etc. But such a supple
ment is too great, and the simple explanation of the ellipsis is
preferable. Conybeare indeed renders " You are one body,"
but the common and correct supplement is the verb ecrn.
Kiihner, indeed ( 760, c), says that such an asyndeton as
this frequently happens in classic Greek, when such a particle
as yap is understood. Bernhardy, p. 448. But the verse
abruptly introduces an assertatory illustration of the previous
statement, and in the fervent style of the apostle any con
necting particle is omitted. " One body there is, and one
Spirit." And after all that Ellicott and Alford have said, the
assertatory (rein assertorisch, Meyer) clause logically contains
an argument though grammatically the resolution by yap
be really superfluous. Ellicott, after Hofmann, gives it as

EPHESIAN3 IV. 4. 273

" Remember there is one body," which i an argument survly
to maintain the unity of the Spirit. The idea contained in
o-w/ia the body or the church has been already introduced
and explained (i. 23, ii. 16), to the explanations of which th-
reader may turn. The church is described in the second
chapter as one body and one Spirit tv evl (Taiwan tv eri
TIvev^arL ; and the apostle here implies that this unity ought
to be guarded. Horn. xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. \\ ; Col. i. 24. Un
church or body is one, though its members are 01 trama^ov rr/s-
oiicovfUvT)? TTiffToi. (Chrvsostoin.) There are not two rival
communities. The body with its many memlers, and com
plex array of organs of very different position, functions, and
honour, is yet one. The church, no matter where it is situated,
or in what age of the world it exists no matter of what ni -e,
blood, or colour are its members, or how various the tongues
in which its services are presented is one, and remains so,
unaffected by distance or time, or physical, intellectual, ami
social distinctions. And as in the body there is only one spirit,
one living principle no double consciousness, no dualism &lt;f
intelligence, motive, and action so the one Spirit of (Jod
iwells in the one church, ami there are therefore neither rivalry
uf administration nor conflicting claims. Ami whatever the
gifts and graces conferred, whatever variety of aspect they
may assume, all possess a delicate self-adaptation t&lt; times
and circumstances, for they are all from the "one Spirit."
having oneness of origin, design, and result. (See on ver.
16.) The apostle now adds an appeal to their own eX|K-

rience

T/;v K -

US also vr wen? called in one hope of your calling."
icai introduces illustrative- proof of the statement just made
The meaning of this clause depends very niu.-h on the *
assigned to ev. Some, as Meyer, would make it instrument*
and render it "by;" others, as (Jrotius, Flatt. Ku
Valpy, would give it the meaning of v, and Chryn
that of iri. Ilarless adopts the view express
1 Thess. iv. 7, and thinks that it signifies an el
of the calling. We prefer to regard it n.s In-aring in coin-
rnon signification as pointing to the element in whi.-l
calling took place in uiia sp, as the Vulgate. 1 Cor. vii.

274 EPUESIANS IV. 5.

1 Tlicss. iv. 7 ; Winer, 50, 5. Sometimes the verb is
simply used, both in the present and aorist (Rom. viii. 30,
ix. 11; Gal. v. 8), and often with various prepositions.
While ev represents the element in which the calling takes
effect, ev elpijvy, 1 Cor. vii. 15; ev %dpiTi, Gal. i. 6 ; ev dyia-
c-/j,o), 1 Thess. iv. 7 : eirL represents the proximate end, e?r
e\ev0epia, Gal. v. 13 ; OVK, eVt aicaOapa-ia, 1 Thess. iv. 7 : et?
depicts another aspect, et? Koivwviav, 1 Cor. i. 9 ; elprjvrj
els TJV, Col. iii. 1 5 ; et? TO Oavfiaarov avrov c/&gt;a&gt;?, 1 Pet. ii. 9
and apparently also the ultimate purpose, 619 TrepiTrolija-w Sof?;?,

2 Thess. ii. 14; ei9 ftacri\eiav Kal Sogav, 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; rr}?
alcovlov 0)779 et9 ?;z&gt;, 1 Tim. vi. 12 ; et? Tr)i&gt; aic oviov avrov
Sogav, 1 Pet. v. 10; other forms being et9 TOVTO, 1 Pet, ii. 21;
et? TOUTO iVa, 1 Pet. iii. 9 while the instrumental cause is
given by Bid ; the inner, Sm ^aptro?, Gal. i. 15; and the
outer, Sid TOV evayye\tov, 2 Thess. ii. 14. The follow
ing genitive, AcXrJo-eo)?, is that of possession " in one hope
belonging to your calling." See under i. 18, on similar
phraseology. The genitive of originating cause preferred by
Ellicott is not so appropriate, on account of the preceding
verb K\TJdr}re, the genitive of the correlative noun sug
gesting what belongs to the call and characterized it, when
they received it. The " hope " is " one," for it has one
object, and that is glory ; one foundation, and that is Christ.
Their call 77 avw Kkrjcns (Phil. iii. 14), had brought them
into the possession of this hope. See Nitzsch, System. 210;
Reuss, TMol. Chrtt. vol. ii. p. 219. "There is one body and
one Spirit," and the Ephesian converts had experience of this
unity, for the hope which they possessed as their calling was
also " one," and in connection with

(Ver. 5.) .El? Kvpios, fila Tricms, ev fidTTTio-fjia "One
Lord, one faith, one baptism." Further and conclusive argu
ment. For the meaning of Kvpios in its reference to Christ,
the reader may turn to i. 2. Had Iren^us attended to the
common, if not invariable Pauline usage, he would not have said
that the father only is to be called Lord Patrem tantum Dcum
et Dominum. Opera, torn. i. 443, ed. Stieren, Lipsiae,1849-50.
There is only one supreme Governor over the church. He is
the one Head of the one body, and the Giver of its one Spirit.
This being the case, there can therefore be only

FTHESIANS IV. 6. 275

" One faith." Faith does not signify creed, or truth be
lieved, but it signifies confidence in the one Lord faith, the
subjective oneness of which is created and sustained by tin-
unity of its object. 1 steri, J aulin. L&lt;hrl&gt;. p. ;iOO. The one
faith may be embodied in an objective profession. There
being only one faith, there can be only

" One baptism." Baptism is consecration to Christ one
dedication to the one Ixml Acts xix. o; Kom. vi. 3; Gal.
iii. 27. "One baptism " is the result and expression of the
" one faith " in the "one Lord," and, at the same time, the
one mode of initiation by tin- "one Spirit" into the "one
l)ody." Tertullian argues from this expression against the
repetition of baptism fdix aqua quod senul uffluit. Dt Ihip.
xv. Among the many reasons given for the omission of the
Lord s Supper in this catalogue of unity, this jn-rhaps is the
most conclusive that the Lord s Supj&gt;er is only the demon
stration of a recognized unity in the church, whereas faith and
baptism are the initial and essential elements of it. These
last are also individually possessed, whereas the lord s Supjier
is a social observance on the part of those who, in oneness of
faith and fellowship, honour the " one Lord." Still farther
and deeper

(Ver. G.) Els &o$ teal flarijp irdvTWv " One God and
Father of all " ultimate, highest, and truest unity. Seven
times does he use the epithet " One." The church is one
txxly, having one Spirit in it, and one Lord over it; then its
inner relations and outer ordinances are one too ; its calling
has attached to it one hope; its means of union to Him is
one faith ; its dedication is one baptism : and all this unity in
but the impress of the great primal unity one (Jod. His
unity stamps an image of itself on that scheme which origin
ated in Him, and issues in His glory. Christians nerve one
God, are not distracted by a multiplicity of divinities, and
need not fear the revenge of one while they are doing
to his rival. Oneness of spirit ought to characterize
worship. " One God and Father of all," that is, nil Christian*,
for the reference is not to the wide universe, or to nil men,
88 Hol/hausen, with Musculus and Matthies, nrgtio-
the church. Jew and Gentile forming the mie &lt;
one God and father. (An illustration of the filial relatio

276 KPHESIANS IV. C.

of believers to God will be found under i. 5.) The three
following clauses mark a peculiarity of the apostle s style, viz.
his manner of indicating different relations of the same word
by connecting it with various prepositions. Gal. i. 1 ; lioin.
iii. 22, xi. 36 ; Col. i. 16 ; Winer, 50, 6. It is altogether
a vicious and feeble exegesis on the part of Koppe to say
that these three clauses are synonymous sententia vidctur
una, tantum variis formulis synonymis expressa. A triple
relationship of the one God to the " all " is now pointed out,
and the first is thus expressed

6 eTrl irdvrwv " who is over all." These adjectives,
TrdvTcov and Trdai, are clearly to be taken in the masculine
gender, as the epithet Trartfp would also suggest. Erasmus,
Michaelis, Morns, and Baumgarten-Crusius take them in eVl
Trdvrcov and Sta Trdvrwv as neuter, while the Vulgate, Zacha-
riae, and Koppe accept the neuter only in the second phrase.
O eirl irdvrwv is rendered by Chrysostom 6 eirdixt) nrdvTwv.
The great God is high over all, robed in unsurpassable
glory. There is, and can be, no superior no co-ordinate
sovereignty. The universe, no less than the church, lies
beneath, and far beneath, His throne, and the jurisdiction
of that throne, " high and lifted up," is paramount and
unchallenged.

Kal &t,d TrdvrcDv " and through all." The strange inter
pretation of Thomas Aquinas has found some supporters. He
explains the first clause of God the .Father, who is over all
fontale principium divinitatis ; and the clause before us he
refers to the Son per quern omnia facta sunt. But this
exegesis, which is adopted by Estius and Olshausen, reverses
the idea of the apostle. It is one thing to say, All things are
through God, and quite another to say, God is through all
things. The latter, and not the former, is the express thought
of the inspired writer. Jerome also refers the phrase to the
Son quid per jilium creata sunt omnia ; while Calvin under
stands by it the third Person of the Trinity Deus Spiritu
sanctificationis diffusus per omnia ecclcsicc membra. Meyer
holds a similar view. Chrysostom and his patristic followers,
along with Beza, Zanchius, Crocius, and Grotius, refer it to
God providing for all, and ordering all rfj Trpovoia Kal
-ei. Bengel, Flatt, and Winer understand it as

EPIIESIANS IV. 6. 277

signifying " through all acting." Winer, 50, 6. Harles*
explains it as miming " works through all, us the head
through the members." It is plain that .some of these view*
do not make any real distinction between the Bui of this
clause and the eV of the following. The idea of simple
diffusion "through all," is not far from the idea of " in all."
But the notion of providence, if taken in a general sense.
comes nearer the truth. The thought seems to !* that of a
j&gt;ervading, and thus a sustaining and working presence.
Though He is " over all," yet He lives not in remote splendour
and indifference, for He is " through all ;" His influence l&gt;eing
everywhere felt in its upholding energies.

KOL V Trdcriv " and in all." The Elzevir Text adds tyiTr.
as Chrysostom does in his commentary. Others have adopted
fifjuv, on the authority &lt;&gt;f I&gt;, K, F, G, K, L, the Syriac and
Vulgate, Theodoret, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster a residing
admitted by Griesbach, Knap}), Scholz, and Hahn. Hut the
higher witness of A, H. C, the Coptic and /Kthiopie, and
the text of Ignatius, Kusebius, Cyril, Kpi])hanius, Gregory,
Clirysostom, and Jerome, exclude such a pronoun altogether,
and leave us simply eV -rraaiv. Accordingly, Lichmann and
Tischendorf strike out the word as an evident gloss,
pronoun would modify the universality predicated in the two
preceding clauses. He is " in all." dwelling in them, fillinu
them witli the light and love of His gracious presence. The
idea conveyed by Bui is more external and general in it*
nature acting through or sustaining; while that expressed
by eV is intimate and special union and inhabitation. Ven
different is such a conception from either ancient or modern
pantheism ; from that of Xeno or that of Hegel, or t
poetical mysticism of Pope

" All arc but parts of on.- Ktiiprn&lt;l&lt;&gt;u" wliol*-
Whose txxly iiatun- is, nn.l (I-nl tlio BOH!."

Whether tlu-re be any reference to the Trinity in thi
able declaration, it is impossible to uttirin with .
While Tlieophylact seems to deny it, In-cause
were based upon it, Jerome on the other hand maim
and it was held by Iren;eus ami HipHytU"
whom explains the first clause of the Father-

278 EPHESIANS IV. 6.

the second of the Son caput ecclesice ; and the third of the
Holy Spirit in us aqua viva. Harless, Olshausen, Stier,
de Wette, von Gerlach, Ellicott, and Alford are of the same
opinion. It has been said in proof, that most certainly in the
third clause " in all " the reference is to the Holy Ghost,
by whom alone God dwells in believers ; so that in the second
clause, and in the words " through all," there may be an
allusion to Him who is now on the throne of the universe,
and " by whom all things consist ; " * and in the first clause to
the Eternal Father. In previous portions of the Epistle,
triune relation has been distinctly brought out ; only here the
representation is different, for unity is the idea dwelt on, and
it is the One God and Father Himself who works through all
and dwells in all.

All these elements of oneness enumerated in verses 4, 5,
and 6, are really inducements for Christians to be forward to
preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It is
plainly of the one holy catholic church that the apostle has
been speaking ; not of the visible church, which has in it a
mixed company, many whom Augustine characterizes as being
in fellowship cum ccclcsia " with the church," but who are
not in ecclesia " in the church." " All are not Israel who
are of Israel." But the real spiritual church of the Redeemer
is one body. All the members of that church partake of the
same grace, adhere to the same faith, are washed in the same
blood, are filled with the same hopes, and shall dwell at
length in the same blessed inheritance. Heretics and ungodly
men may find their way into the church, but they remain
really separated from its "invisible conjunction of charity."
There may be variations in "lesser matters of ceremony
or discipline," and yet this essential unity is preserved.
Clement of Alexandria compares the church so constituted to
the various chords of a musical instrument, " for in the midst
of apparent schisms there is substantial unity." Barrow
again remarks, that the apostle says "one Lord, one faith,
one baptism ; not one monarch, or one senate or sanhedrim."

1 The suspicious and fantastic extremes to which the idea of Jehovah s triune
being and operations may be carried, will be seen in such a work as that of the
Danish theologian Martensen, Die Christliche Doymatik, 2 vols., Kiel, 1850.
Compare also Marheineke, Christl. Doym. 426 ; Schleiermacher,
Glaube, ii. 170, 3rd ed., Berlin, 1835.

EPHESIAX3 IV. 7. 0?J

He does not insist on unity " under one singular, visible
government or polity." 1 How sad to think that the passions
of even sanctified men have often produced feuds and
alienations, and led them to forget the apostolic mandate !
Christ s claim for the preservation of unity is uj&gt;on all Un
churches a unity of present connection and actual enjoy
ment not a truce, but an alliance, with one liverv und
cognizance not a compromise, but a veritable iiu urjKiration
among "all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord, both their Lord and ours." " I will give
them one heart and one way " a promise the realization of
which is surely not to be deferred till the whole church
assemble in that world where there can be no misunderstand
ing. The great father of the western church tersely says
Contra rationcru, nemo sobrius ; contra Scripturaa nano
Christ ianus ; contra Eccli-siam nfiiw pacificus sciucrit.

(Vur. 7.) Evl 5e e/cda-ry ;}/ioiz/ fdodrj i] ^dpis- " liut to each
of us was given grace." Unity is not uniformity, for it is
quite consistent with variety of gifts and oflices in the church.
The &e murks a transitional contrast, as the writer passes on
to individual varieties. Still along with this unity there i.s
variety of gifts. In the addition of kvi to ktcdartf, the idea of
distribution is expressed more distinctly than by the .simple
term. Luke iv. 40 ; Acts ii. 3, xx. 31. 1;, D 1 , F. (J, L. omit
the article 77 before x tl P L&lt; *&gt; ullt there is no valid reason to rejec
it ; the preceding y of too#r; may have led to its omission
This X"P iif l * "ift not/ lm lv ly i 1 connection with prrson.-il
privilege or labour, lut, as the sequel shows, gift in ominv
tion with oflicial rank and function. EbuOrj in this verse is
explained Ijy ea&gt;*2 in verse 8. AVhile grace has been ji\rii

1 Muhlcr, in his Symlmlik, 4, one of the ablt l-f. -n- r of i:r.mnii
treats Lutheranisni an. I CatlioliciHtn thus -"Tho latU-r tra&gt;-lim that them i
the visible church, and then oorm-s tin- invisible, wh.-r.-ai J rotriUntum ffinn
that out of the invisible comes the visible church, and the lirt u the jjrwund t
the la-st." Sixth ed., Main/, 1843.

It is on.- of the many instanc.-s in whirh Hnthe RI-U him*
established modes of thought and pxpmwion, whi-n he tUrk. th- fhrw
"vwible church," o-s In-ing d-ej,tive and unphUcwophicaL H "
however, comi.elled Hagenb^h to coin a new phnuw to rij.rrM
idea, and with the facility of the Teutonic languap- fr mni|.u
the untranslatable epithets AMonVA mi^irwcA. ktrawitrftoitdf,
Lehrbuch der Dogmengwchichte, 71.

280 EPHESIANS IV. 7.

to every individual, and no one is omitted, that grace differs
in form, amount, and aspect in every instance of its bestow-
ment; and as a peculiar sample and illustration of such
variety in unity, the apostle appeals to the offices and dig
nities in the church. For this grace is described as being
conferred

tcara TO /jberpov TT}? 8&&amp;gt;/3ea? TOV Xpiarov " according to the
measure of the gift of Christ." The first genitive is subjec
tive, and the second that of possession or of agent. The gift
is measured ; and while each individual receives, he receives
according to the will of the sovereign Distributor. And
whether the measure be great or small, whether its contents be
of more brilliant endowment or of humbler and unnoticed
talent, all is equally Christ s gift, and of Christ s adjustment ;
all is equally indispensable to the union and edification of that
body in which there is " no schism," and forms an argument
why each one gifted with such grace should keep the unity of
the Spirit. The law of the church is essential unity in the
midst of circumstantial variety. Differences of faculty or tem
perament, education or susceptibility, are not superseded. Each
gift in its own place completes the unity. "What one devises
another may plead for, while a third may act out the scheme;
so that sagacity, eloquence, and enterprise form a " threefold
cord, not easily broken." It is so in the material creation
the little is as essential to symmetry as the great the star as
well as the sun the rain-drop equally with the ocean, and the
hyssop no less than the cedar. The pebble has its place as
fittingly as the mountain, and colossal forms of life are sur
rounded by the tiny insect whose term of existence is limited
to a summer s twilight. Why should the possession of this
grace lead to self-inflation 1 It is simply Christ s gift to each
one, and its amount and character as possessed by others
ought surely to create no uneasiness nor jealousy, for it is
of Christ s measurement as well as of His bestowment, and
every form and quantity of it, as it descends from the one
source, is indispensable to the harmony of the church. No
one is overlooked, and the one Lord will not bestow conflict
ing graces, nor mar nor disturb, by the repulsive antipathy of
His gifts, that unity the preservation of which here and in
this way is enjoined on all the members of His church.

CI HESIANS IV. 8. 281

(Ver. 8.) ACo \eyci-" Wherefore He saith." This quotation
is no parenthesis, as many take it, nor is it any offshoot from
the main hody of thought, but a direct proof of previous a&svr-
tion. And it proves those truths that the ascended Ixrd
confers gifts various gifts that men are the recipients, and
that these facts had been presented to the faith and hope of
the ancient Jewish church. The apostle, ton, must have felt
that the Jewish portion of the Kphesian church would acknow
ledge his quotation as referring to Jesus. If they disputed the
sense or reference of the quotation, then the proof contained in
it could not affect them. The citation is taken fnm the 18th
verse of the 68th Psalm. It is vain to allege, with Storr and
Flatt, that the apostle refers to some Christian hymn in use at
Kphesus quod ab Ephcsii* cantitari ncirtt. Opusruln. iii. IJU J.
The formula \eyet is not uncommon a pregnant verb, con
taining in itself its own nominative, though q ypa&lt;pi) often
occurs, as in Koni. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 1 1 ; (ial. iv. IU) ; Suren-
liusius, Hill. K(it(dl. 9. There are two {mints which require
discussion lirst, the difference of reading U-twcen tin-
apostle s citation and tlie original Hebrew and the Septuagint
version ; and, secondly, the meaning and reference of tin-
quotation itself.

The change of person from the second to the third needs
scarcely be noticed. The principal difference is in the last clause.

The Hebrew reads Dixa ni:no nnp} w rrrf timsb n^y.

and the Septuagint ha.s in the last clause tXtf/^e? Supara ci*
uvdpajTTM, or avd PMTTOIS ; but the apostle s quotation read*
*ai H&(i)Kv Bupara TOI? av6parrroi&lt;; " and He gave gift- 1 * to
men." Various attempts have been made to explain tin
remarkable variation, none of them perhaps beyond all doubt.
It may be generally said that the inspired ajK.stle give*
quotation in substance, and as it IK ire UJHUI his argument.
Winston maintained, indeed, that hull s reading was corrvrt
and that the Hebrew and Seventy had b..th U-.-n rorrupU 1
Carrovius, 6V//. Ktrr. ]&gt;. u. On tin; other hand, .
of the Targums, the Syriac, and Arabic,
given gifts to the sons of men." .Jerome, followed by Knumiu&lt;
relieves himself of the difficulty by alleging that, iw the work
Christ was not over in the Psalmist s time, the.se j.
only promised as future, and He may be

282 EPIIESIANS IV. 8.

them or received them. But the giving and taking were alike
future on the part of the Messiah in the age of David. More
acute than this figment of his Eastern contemporary is the
remark of Augustine, that the Psalmist uses the word
"received" inasmuch as Christ in His members receives the
gifts, whereas Paul employs the term " yavc," because He,
along with the Father, divides the gifts. The idea is too
subtle to be the right one. Some, again, identify the two
verbs, and declare them to have the same significance. Such
is the view of Ambrosiaster, Beza, Zancliius, Piscator, Ham
mond, Bengel, and a host of others. " The one word," says
Chrysostom, " is the same as the other." His Greek followers
held generally the same view. Theodore of Mopsuestia simply
says, " that to suit the connection the apostle has altered the
terms," and the opinion of Harless is much the same. Theo-
doret says \apftavwv jap rijv TTIO-TLV avTi$iB(o&lt;ri, TIJV ^apw,
a mere Spielerei as Harless terms it. We agree with Meyer,
that the Hebrew word nj^ has often a proleptic signification.
" The giving," says Hengstenberg, " presupposes the taking ;
the taking is succeeded by the giving as its consequence."
The verb seems often to have the peculiar meaning of danda
sumere Gen. xv. 9 " Take for me," that is, take and give
to me; xviii. o "And I will take you a morsel of bread,"
i.e. take and give it you; xxvii. 13 "Go, take them," i.e.
take them and give me them; xlii. 1C "Let him take your
brother," i.e. let him take and bring him; Ex. xxvii. 20
" That they take thee pure oil," i.e. take and present it to
thee; so Lev. xxiv. 2 ; 1 Kings xvii. 10 " Take me a little
water," i.e. take and offer it me; 2 Kings ii. 20 ; Hos. xiv. 2 ;
and so in other places; Glassius, Pliilol. Sacra, p. 185;
Buxtorf, Catalecta Philol-Tkcol p. 39. This interpretation is,
therefore, not so capricious as de Wette affirms. Such is the
idiomatic usage of the verb, and the apostle, as it especially
suited his purpose, seizes on the latter portion of the sense,
and renders e Sw/ee. The phraseology of Acts ii. 33 is
corroborative of our view " Being exalted to the right hand
of God, and having received Xafivv from the Father the
promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this " be
stowed upon the church such gifts of the Spirit. It is of the
gifts of the Spirit, especially in the administration of the

EPHESIAXS IV. g- 2-S3

church, that the apostle speaks in this paragraph ; ana Peter,
in the style of the Psalmist, describes Messiah as rxTeivin-
them ere He distributes them. The Mediator wins them by
His blood, receives them from the Father who has apjM.inteil
and accepted the sacrifice, and holds them for the very purito.se
of conferring them on His church. The Psalmist looks on the
gifts in Christ s possession as taken and held by Him fur men ;
but the time of bestowment had fully come, what W;LS so hell
had now been communicated, and so the apostle from his own
point of view says " He, jao- gifts to man." Still, in Un
original psalm the taking appears to he taking by force of
spoil from the conquered foes, litit the martial figure of the
Hebrew psalmist is not to IKJ strained.

Our attention must now be turned to the general meaning
of the quotation. The G8th Psalm is evidently a hymn !
victory. The inspired bard praises God for deliverance
vouchsafed deliverance resulting from battle and triumph
This is also the view of Delitzseh in his Cvmincnttu* itlx-r dut
Psalter, published last year (1859). The image of a prtn-es-
sion also appears in some parts of the ode. Very many e.\jH-
sitors, among them Slier and Hofmann, have adopted the view
that it was composed on occasion of the removal of the ark t-
Mount Zion, and the view of Alford is the same in substance
But the frequent introduction of martial imagery forbids su&lt; h
a hypothesis. What the campaign was at the issue of whirh
this piean was composed, we cannot ascertain. Hit/ig refers
it to the campaign of Jorarn and Jehoshaphat against tin-
Moabites (2 Kings iii.), and von Ix?ngerke refers it to SIIH-
period of Pharaoh Necho s reign. Hengstenber^ thinks tin
occasion was the termination of the Ammonitic war&gt;, and th
capture of Kabbah. 2 Sam. xii. ! ;. One of his argument*
is at best only a probability. He says, there is refctxm.-
to the ark twice in Ps. lx\iii. in \vrses 1 and 1M, nml
that the ark was with the army during the warfare
Ammon. But the. words in verses 1 and 24 "ft .- pnalm
do not necessarily contain a reference to tin? ark, and the
language of Joab to David, in 2 Sam. xi. 1 1, do,-
the presence of the ark in the Jsraditish camp, but limy I
explained by the words of 2 Sam. vii. 2. That t!.- p-suhu
is one of David s times and composition may be proved,

284 EFHESIANS IV. 8.

against Ewald, de Wette, and Hupfeld, from its style and
diction. The last writer, in his recent commentary (Die
Psalmen, Dritter Band, Gotha, 1860), refers it to the return
from Babylon, and supposes that it is perhaps the composition
of the so-called pseudo-Isaiah, that is, the author of the latter
half of Isaiah s prophecies. lieuss, in a treatise full of " per
siflage," as Hupfeld says, and which Delitzsch truly calls a
" Pasquill " a " Harlekinanzug " brings the psalm down
to the period between Alexander the Great and the Macca
bees. One of the Targums refers the passage to Moses and
the giving of the law. 1 Its pervading idea probably without
reference to any special campaign, but combining what had
happened many times when the Lord had shown Himself
" mighty in battle " is, that He, as of old, had come down
for His people s deliverance, and had achieved it ; had van
quished their foes, and given them a signal victory, and that,
the combat being over, and captivity led captive, He had
left the camp and gone up again to heaven. This portion of
the psalm seems to have been chanted as the procession wound
its way up Mount Zion to surround the symbols of the Divine
majesty.

" Thou hast ascended on high." The word Drift? " on
high " in such a connection refers to heaven, in contrast
with earth, where the victory had been won. Ps. xviii. 16 ;
Isa. xxiv. 18, xl. 26 ; Jer. xxv. 30.

" Thou hast led captivity captive " r)^jjLa\(iyrevaa^ al^/jLa-
\wffiav. The meaning of this idiom seems simply to be
Thou hast mustered or reviewed Thy captives. Judg. v. 1 2 ;
Gesenius, sub voce. The allusion is to a triumphal procession
in which marched the persons taken in war.

" Thou hast received gifts for men." There is no need,
with de Wette and others, to translate 2 in, and to regard this

1 The following note is translated from the Rabbinical Commentary of
Mendelssohn : "As he mentions (v. 8, 18) the consecration of Simii, he adds
the act by which it was inaugurated, and says, Thou hast ascended and sat on
high, after giving Thy law, and there Thou hast led captives, viz., the hearts
of the men who said, We shall act and be obedient ; Thou hast taken gifts from
amongst men ; Thou hast taken and chosen some of them as a present, viz., Thy
jM-ople, whom Thou hast purchased with Thy mighty hand, who arc given to Thee
uiid are obedient. Though they are at times disobedient, still hast Thou taken
them to dwell amongst them, to forgive their sins. "

EPHE3IANS IV. 8. 285

as the meaning - Thou hast received gifts in men," that is.
men constituted the gifts, the vanquished vassals or prose
lytes formed the acquisition of the conqueror. Commentar
iiber die Psalmen, p. 412 ; Boettcher, Prolen, etc. G2;
Schnurrer, Disscrtat. p. 303. The preposition 3 often signifies
"for" or "on account of." Gen. xviii. 28, xxix. 18 ; li
Kings xiv. 6; Jonah i. 14; Lam. ii. 11 ; Kxek. iv. 17, etc.;
Noldius, Concord. Part. Jfcb. p. 158. llafniu , 1C 70. "Thou
hast received gifts on account of men " to heneiit and bless
them ; or the preposition may signify " among," as in 2 Sam.
xxiii. 3 ; Prov. xxiil 28 ; Jer. xlix. 15 ; Ewald, Gram, dcr Jfcb.
Spmchc, 521, and Delitzsch. These gifts are the results of
His victory, and they are conferred by Him after He has gone
up from the battle-field. To obtain such a sense, however, it
is out of the question, on the part of Bloomfield. to disturb
the Septuagint reading and change the eV into eirt. But how
can v av6 pairy denote "after the fashion of a man," and how
can D"iX3 in this connection mean, as Adam Clarke and Words
worth conjecture, " in man " that is, by virtue of His incar
nation as the head of redeemed humanity ?

In what sense, then, are those words applicable to the
ascended Redeemer ? They are not introduced simply as an
illustration, for the apostle reasons from them in the following
verses. This bare idea of accommodation, vindicated by such
exegetes as Morus and even by Doddridge, can therefore have
no place here. Xor can we agree with Calvin, that Paul has
somewhat twisted the words from their original meaning
" nonnihil a yoiuijw scnsu hoc testinionium dctorsU Paul us "-
an opinion which wins suspicious praise from lliickert. The
argument of the next verse would in that case be without
solid foundation. Xor does Olshausen, in our apprehension,
fix upon the prominent point of illustration. That point is in
his view not the proof that Christ dispenses gifts, but that
men receive them, so that (lentiles, as partakers of humanity,
have equal right to them with Jews. While the statement in
the latter part is true, it seems to be only a subordinate infer
ence, not the main matter of argument. That men had the
gift was a palpable fact ; but the questions were Who gave
them ? and does their diversity interfere with the oneness of
the church ? Besides, it is the term avafia* on which the

28G F.PHESIANS IV. S.

apostle comments. Nor can we bring ourselves to the notion
of a typical allusion, or " emblem " as Barnes terms it, as if
the ark carried up to Zion was typical of Christ s ascent to
heaven ; for we cannot convince ourselves that the ark is, so
formally at least, referred to in the psalm at all. Nor will it
do merely to say, with Ilarless, that the psalm is applicable to
Christ, because one and the same God is the revealer both of
the Old and New Testaments. Still wider from the tenor of
the apostle s argument is one portion of the notion of Locke,
that Paul s object is to prove to unconverted Jews out of
their own scriptures that Jesus must die and be buried. Our
position is, that the same God is revealed as Piedeemer both
under the Old and New Testament, that the Jehovah of the
one is the Jesus of the other, that Ps. Ixviii. is filled with
imagery which was naturally based on incidents in Jewish
history, and that the inspired poet, while describing the
interposition of Jehovah, has used language which was fully
realized only in the victory and exaltation of Christ. Not
that there is a double sense, but the Jehovah of the theocracy
was He who, in the fulness of the time, assumed humanity,
and what He did among His people prior to the incarnation
was anticipative of nobler achievements in the nature of man.
John xii. 41 ; Rom. xiv 10, 11 ; 1 Cor. x. 4; Heb. i. 10.
The Psalmist felt this, and under the influence of such emo
tions, rapt into future times, and beholding salvation com
pleted, enemies defeated, and gifts conferred, thus addressed
the laurelled Conqueror " Thou hast ascended on high."
Such a quotation was therefore to the apostle s purpose. There
are gifts in the church not one donation but many gifts the
result of warfare and victory gifts the number and variety
of which are not inconsistent with unity. Such blessings are
no novelty ; they are in accordance with the earnest expecta
tions of ancient ages ; for it was predicted that Jesus should
ascend on high, lead captivity captive, and give gifts to men.
But those gifts, whatever their character and extent, are
bestowed according to Christ s measurement ; for it was He
who then and now ennobles men with these spiritual endow
ments. Nor has there been any change of administration.
Gifts and graces have descended from the same Lord. Under
the old theocracy, which had a civil organization, these gifts

KPIIKSIANS IV. 8. 287

might be sometimes temporal in their nature; still, no matter
what was their character, they came from the one Divine
Dispenser, who is still the Supreme and Sovereign Benefactor.
The apostle says

avaflas ft? ity-o? yxfiaXwrcvvev al^fia\(o&lt;riav " having
ascended on high, He led captivity captive." The reference
in the aorist participle is to our Lord s ascension, an act pre
ceding that of the finite verb. Winer, 45, G ; Kniger, 5G,
10; Acts i. 0. The meaning of the Hebrew phrase corre
sponding to the last two words has been already given. Such
a use of a verb with its cognate substantive is, as we have
seen again and again, a common occurrence. Lobeck, Parali-
pomena, Dissert, viii., De figura ctymoloyica, p. 4 ( J9, has given
many examples from the classics. The verb, as well as the
kindred form al-^jj^Xwri^w, belongs to the later Greek extrcma
Gr&cicc scncctns novum palmitt in promisit. Lobeck, ad riinj-
niclnw, p. 442. The noun seems to be used as the abstract
for the concrete. Kiihner, ii. 40 G ; Jelf, 353 ; Diodorus
Siculus, xvii. 7G ; Num. xxxi. 12; Judg. v. 12; 2 Chron.
xxviii. 11-13 ; Amos i. G ; 1 Mace. ix. 70, 72, xiv. 7. The
prisoners plainly belong to the enemy whom lie had defeated,
and by whom His people had long been subjugated. This is
the natural order of ideas having beaten His foes, He makes
captives of them. The earlier fathers viewed the captives
as persons who had been enslaved by Satan as Satan s
prisoners, whom Jesus restored to liberty. Such is the view
of Justin Martyr, 1 of Theodoret and (Ecumenius in the Greek
church, of Jerome and Pelagius in the Litin church, of
Thomas Aquinas in mediaeval times, of Erasmus, and in
later days, of Meier, Harless, and Olshausen. I Jut such an
idea is not in harmony with the imagery employed, nor can it
be defended by any philological instances or analogies. On
the contrary, Christ s subjugation of His enemies has a
peculiar prominence in the Messianic oracles ; Ts. ex. 1 ;
Isa. Hii. 12; I Cor. xv. 25; Col. ii. 15; and in many
other places.

What, then, are the enemies of Messiah 1 Not simply as in
the miserable rationalism of Grotius, the vices and idolatries

1 Dial, mm Try/th. p. 129, ed. Otto, Jensc, 1843. Tin- genuineoM of thi
Dialogue has, however, been disputed.

288 EPHESIANS IV. 8.

of heathendom, nor yet as in the equally shallow opinion of
Flatt, the hindrances to the spread and propagation of the
gospel. Quite peculiar is the strange notion of Pierce, that
the " captives " were the good angels, who, prior to Christ s
advent, had been local presidents in every part of the world,
but who were now deprived of this delegated power at Christ s
resurrection, and led in triumph by Him as He ascended
to glory. Notes on Cohssians, appendix. The enemies of
Messiah are Satan and his allies every hostile power which
Satan originates, controls, and directs against Jesus and His
kingdom. The captives, therefore, are not merely Satan, as
Vorstius and Bodius imagine ; nor simply death, as is the
view of Anselm ; nor the devil and sin, as is the opinion of
Beza, Bullinger, and Vatablus ; but, as Chrysostom, Calvin,
Calixtus, Theophylact, Bengel, Meyer, and Stier show, they
include Satan, sin, and death. " He took the tyrant captive,
the devil I mean, and death, and the curse, and sin " such
is the language of Chrysostom. The psalm was fulfilled, says
Calvin qnum Christus, devicto peccato, sulacta morte, Satand
profliyato, in ccelum maynifice sublatus cst. Christ s work on
earth was a combat a terrible struggle with the hosts of
darkness whose fiercest onsets were in the garden and on the
cross when hell and death combined against Him those
efforts which repeated failures had roused into desperation.
And in dying He conquered, and at length ascended in vic
tory, no enemy daring to dispute His right or challenge His
march ; nay, He exhibited His foes in open triumph. He
bruised the head of the Serpent, though His own heel was
bruised in the conflict. As the conqueror returning to his
capital makes a show of his beaten foes, so Jesus having gone
up to glory exposed His vanquished antagonists whom He
had defeated in His agony and death.

[fcal] e&coKcv B6fj,ara TCH? avOpwirois " and He " (that is, the
exalted Saviour) "gave gifts to men." Acts ii. 33. There is
no KCLI in the Septuagint, and it is omitted by A, C 2 , D 1 , E,
F, G, the Vulgate, and other authorities ; while it is found in
B, C 1 (C 3 ), D 3 , I, K, L, and a host of others. Lachmaim
omits it; Tischendorf omitted it in his second edition, but
inserts it in his seventh ; Alford inserts and Ellicott rejects it.
The Septuagint has eV avOwpirw, which Peile would harshly

EPHESIANS IV. 9. 289

render " after the fashion of a man." 1 In their exegesis
upon their translation of the Hebrew text, Harless, Olshausen,
ami von Gerlach understand these gifts to be men set apart
to God as sacred offerings. "Thou hast taken to Thyself
gifts among men that is, Thou hast chosen to Thyself the
redeemed for sacrifices," so says Olshausen with especial refer
ence to the Gentiles. According to Harless, the apostle alters
the form of the clause from the original to bring out tin-
idea " that the captives are the redeemed, who by the grace
of God are made what they are." But men are the receivers
of the gift not the gift itself. Comment, in Vet. Test. vol.
iii. p. 178. Lipsiie, 1838 ; Ucbcrsetz. imd Aush y. dcr J sdlmcn,
p. :&gt;05. Hofmann understands it thus that the conquered
won by Him get gifts from Him to make them capable
if service, and so to do Him honour. Kdiriftb. ii. part 1,
p. 488. See also his Weissagung und ErfiiUung, i. 1 G8, ii. 199.
Stier says rightly, that these Sahara are the gifts of the
Holy Spirit die Geistes-gaben Christi. These gifts are
plainly defined by the context, and by the following teal
avTos Z&aiKcv. Whatever they are a " free Spirit," a perfect
salvation, and a completed Bible it is plain that the oftiee
of the Christian ministry is here prominent among them.
Tlit; apostle has now proved that Jesus dispenses gifts, and
has made good his assertion that grace is conferred " according
to the measure of the gift of Christ."

(Ver. 9.) To Se, live/By, ri eariv " Xow that he ascended,
what is it ? " Now this predicate, dve^rj, what does it mean or
imply ? The particle e introduces a transitional explanation
or inference. The apostle does not repeat the participle, but
takes the idea as expressed by the verb and as placed in con
trast with

c H.TI OTI tea KaTer) et? ia
" unless that He also descended to the lower parts of the
emtli." The word Trpwrov found in the Textus Receptus
before et&lt;? has no great authority, but IJeiche vindicates it
(Com. ( fit. p. 173); and pfprj is not found in I), K, F, G.
Tischendorf rejects it, but Scholx, Laclmiann, Tittnmnn,
Halm, and lieiche retain it, as it has A, B, C, !&gt; , K, L, and

1 Illooinfifld has well remarked, that Peile s ingrniou* rvadiiig of thin clau
in the Septungint virtually amounta to a re-writing of it.

290 EPIIESIANS IV. 9.

the Vulgate in its favour. The Divinity and heavenly abode
of Christ are clearly presupposed. His ascension implies a
previous descent. He could never be said to go up unless He
had formerly come down. If He go up after the victory, we
infer that he had already come down to win it. But how
does this bear upon the apostle s argument ? We can scarcely
agree with Chrysostom, Olshausen, Hofmann, and Stier,
that the condescension of Christ is here proposed as an
example of those virtues inculcated in the first verse, though
such a lesson may be inferred. Nor can we take it as being
the apostle s formal proof, that the psalm is a Messianic one
as if the argument were, descent and ascent cannot be
predicated of God the Omnipresent ; therefore the sacred ode
can refer only to Christ who came down to earth and again
ascended to glory. But the ascension described implies such
a descent, warfare, and victory, as belong only to the incarnate
Redeemer.

et? ra Karatrepa TT}? 7/}? " to the lower parts of the earth."
Compare in Septuagint such places as Deut. xxxii. 22 ; Neh.
iv. 13; Ps. Ixiii. 9, 10, Ixxxvi. 13, cxxxix. 15; Lam.
iii. 55, and the prayer of Manasseh in the Apocrypha. The
phrase represents the Hebrew formula HKH ^ ^01?, the super
lative being commonly employed /carcuraro^. The rabbins
called the earth sometimes generally D^innnn. Bartolocci, Bib.
Rah i. }&gt;. 320.

1. Some suppose the reference to be to the conception of
Jesus, basing their opinion on Ps. cxxxix. 15, where the
psalmist describes his substance as not hid from God, when
lie was " made in secret," and " curiously wrought in the
lower parts of the earth." Such is the opinion of scholars
no less distinguished than Colomesius, Olscrvat. Sacrcc, p. 36,
Cameron, Myrothecium Evang. p. 251, Witsius, Piscator, and
Calixtus. But the mere poetical figure in the psalm denoting
secret and undiscoverable operation, can scarcely be placed in
contrast to the highest heaven.

2. Chrysostom, with Theophylact and (Ecumenius, Bui-
linger, Phavorinus, and Macknight, refer it to the death
of Christ ; while Vorstius, Baumgarten, Drusius, Cocceius,
Whitby, Wilke, and Crellius, see a special reference to the
grave. But there is no proof that the words can bear such

EPHESIAXS IV. 9. 291

a meaning. Certainly the descent described in the psalm
quoted from did not involve such humiliation.

3. Many refer the phrase to our Lord s so-called descent
into hell desccnsus ad inferos. Such was the view of Ter-
tullian, Iremeus, Jerome, Pelagius, and Ambrosiaster among
the Fathers ; of Erasmus, Estius, and the majority of Popish
expositors; of Calovius, Bengel, Riickert, Bretschneider,
OLshausen, Stier, Turner, Meyer in his third edition, Alford,
and Ellicott. See also Lechler, das Apost. Zeit. p. 84, 2nd
ed. 1857; Ada Tlwmcr, xvi. p. 199, ed. Tischendorf,
1851. Thus Tertullian says, that Jesus did not ascend in
sublimiora coslorum, until He went down in infcriura tcr-
raruin, ut illic patriarcJias ct prophetas compotes Sui faccret.
De Anitiid, 55 ; Opera, vol. ii. p. G42, ed. (Elder. Catholic
writers propose a special errand to our I^ord in His descent
into hell, viz., to liberate the old dead from torment or a
peculiar custody in the limlus pat rum, or Abraham s bosom.
Catechismus Roman. 104. These doctrines are, however,
superinduced upon this passage, and in many parts are con
trary to Scripture. Pearson on the Creed, p. 292, ed. 1847.
Stier admits that Christ could suffer no agony in Hades.
Olshausen s tamer idea is, that Jesus went down to Sheol, not
to liberate souls confined in it, but that this descent is the
natural consequence of His death. The author shrinks from
the results of his theory, and at length attenuates his opinion
to this "That in His descent Jesus partook of the misery of
those fettered by sin even unto death, that is, even unto the
depths of Hades." Such is also the view of Robinson (sub
vocc}. 1 lint the language of the apostle, taken by itself, will
not warrant those hypotheses. For, 1. Whatever the view
taken of the "descent into hell," or of the language in
1 Pet. iii. 19, the natural interpretation of which seems to
imply it, it may be said, that though the .sujerlutiv
/earon-aTo? may be the epithet of Sheol in the Old
Testament, v/hy should the comparative in the Xew Testament

1 In Pott s b xciirini*, in connection with his interpretation of 1 IVt. iii. IS,
19, will be found a good account ol the various opinions on tin- " l-*ront into
hell," a.s also in Dittelmeier, //i*tvria Dvywnti* dr //*rr 11*11 ( ., rU\, Altorf,
17fil. Hut a more complete treatise on tli- same dogma in its vuri-uH Mi
b the more recent one of Guder Die Lefire run &lt;/r Ertcltetnttng J?*u
vnttr den Todlfn, el-:., 18W.

202 EPIIESIANS IV. 9.

be thought to have the same reference ? Is it in accordance
with Scripture to call Hades, in this special sense, a lower
portion of the earth, and is the expression analogous to Phil,
ii. 10 ; Matt. xii. 40 ? 2. The ascension of Jesus, moreover,
as lias been remarked, is always represented as being not
from Hades but from the earth. John iii. 13, xvi. 28, etc.
3. Nor is there any force in Ellicott s remark, that the use of
the specific term aS^? " would have marred the antithesis,"
for we find the same antithesis virtually in Isa. xiv. 13,
15, and expressly in Matt. xi. 23, while vTrepdvco and
/carcorepa are in sharp contrast on our hypothesis. But
heaven and earth are the usual contrast. John viii. 23 ;
Acts ii. 19. And the phrase, "that He might fill all things,"
depends not on the descent, but on the ascension and its
character. 4. Those who suppose the captives to be human
spirits emancipated from thraldom by Jesus, may hold the
view that Christ went to hell to free them, but we have seen
that the captives are enemies made prisoners on the field of
battle. 5. Nor can it be alleged, that if Satan and his fiends
are the captives, Jesus went down to his dark domain and
conquered him ; for the great struggle was upon the cross,
and on it " through death He destroyed him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil." When He cried, " It is
finished," the combat was over. He commended His spirit
into the hands of His Father, and promised that the thief
should be with Himself in paradise certainly not the scene
of contention and turmoil. But if we adopt Hebrew imagery,
and consider the region of death as a vast ideal underworld,
into which Jesus like every dead man descends, there would
then be less objection to the hypothesis under review. 6. If
we suppose the apostle to have had any reference to the
Septuagint in his mind, then, had he desired to express the
idea of Christ s descent into Hades, there were two phrases,
any of which he might have imitated ef a&ov Karwrdrov
(Ps. Ixxxvi. 13); or more pointed still, eccs aSov Karwrdrov.
Pent, xxxii. 22. See Trom. Concord. Why not use 08179,
when it had been so markedly employed before, had he wished
to give it prominence ? Unmistakeable phraseology was
provided for him, and sanctioned by previous usage. But the
apostle employs yfj with the comparative, and it is therefore to

EPHESIAXS IV. 9. 293

be questioned whether he had the Alexandrian version in hi.s
mind at all. And if he had, it is hard to think how he could
attach the meaning of Hades to the words eV TOI* /careoTarw
rr}? 7*79 ; for in the one place where they occur (Ps. cxxxix.
15), they describe the scene of the formation of the human
embryo, and in the only other place where they are used (Ps.
Ixiii. 9), they mark out the disastrous fate of David s enemies,
a fate delineated in the following verse as deatli by the
sword, while the unburied corpses were exposed to the ravages
of the jackal. Delitzsch in loc. Nor is there even sure
ground for supposing that in such places as Isa. xliv. 2:*,
Kzek. xx vi. 20, xxxii. 18-24, the similar Hebrew phrase
which occurs, but which is not rendered 08^9 in the
Septuagint, means Sheol or Hades. In Isa. xliv. 23, it is as
here, earth in contrast with heaven, and perhaps the foun
dations of the globe are meant, as Ewald, the Chaldee, and the
Septuagint understand the formula. In Ezek. xxvi. 20 "the
low parts of the earth " are " places desolate of old ; " and in
K/ek. xxxii. 18-24 the "nether parts of the earth" are
associated with the " pit," and " graves set in the sides of the
pit " scenes of desolation and massacre. The phrase may
be a poetical figure for a dark and awful destiny. It is very
doubtful whether Manasseh in the prayer referred to
deprecates punishment in the other world, for he was in a
dungeon and afraid of execution, and, according to theocratic
principles, might hope to gain life and liberty by his
penitence ; for, should such deliverance be vouchsafed, h i
adds, " I will praise Thee for ever, all the days of my life."
It is to be borne in mind, too, that in all these places of the
Old Testament, the phraseology occurs in poetical com
positions, and as a portion of Oriental imagery. But in the
verse before us, the words are a simple statement of facts in
connection with an argument, which shows that Jesus must
have come down to earth before it could be said of Him that
He had gone up to heaven.

4. So that we agree with the majority of exj&gt;osiU)rs who
understand the words as simply denoting the earth. Such is
tin view of Thomas Aquinas, Beza, 1 Aretius, Boding, Rollock,
Calvin, Cajetan, Piscator, Crocius, Grotius, Marlonitua,

1 Beza refers his reader with a query to the first opinion we lure noted. Nor

204 EPHESIANS IV. 9.

gen, Michaelis, Bengel, Loesner, Vitringa, Cramer, Storr, HoLz-
hausen, Meier, Matthies, Harless, Walil, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Scholz, de Wette, Raebiger, Bisping, Hofmann, Chandler,
Hodge, and Winer, 59, 8, a. A word in apposition is some
times placed in the genitive, as 2 Cor. v. 5, TOV appapwva rov
TTvev/juiTos the earnest of the Spirit the Spirit which is the
earnest; Rom. viii. 23, iv. 11, Grmelov Tre/ytro/A?}? the sign
of circumcision, that is, the sign, to wit, circumcision. Acts
iv. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 7; Col. iii. 24; Rom. viii. 21, etc. The
same mode of expression occurs in Hebrew Stuart s IIcl.
Gram. 422 ; Nordheimer s do. 815. So, too, we have in
Latin Urbs Romce the city of Rome ; fluvius Euphfatis
or as we say in English, " the Frith of Clyde," or " Frith of
Forth." Thus, in the phrase before us, " the lower parts of
the earth " mean those lower parts which the earth forms or
presents in contrast with heaven, as we often say heaven
above and earth beneath. The tn/ro? of the former verse
plainly suggested the /carutrepa in this verse, and vTrepdvw
stands also in correspondence with it. So the world is called
f) 77} KCL-TW. Acts ii. 19. When our Lord speaks Himself of
His descent and ascension, heaven and earth are uniformly the
termini of comparison. Thus in John iii. 13, and no less than
seven times in the sixth chapter of the same gospel. Com*
parantur, says Calvin, non una pars terrce cum altcra, sed tota
terra cum ccelo. Reiche takes the genitive, as signifying terra
tanquam univcrsi pars inferior. Christ s ascension to heaven
plainly implies a previous descent to this nether world. And
it is truly a nether or lower world when compared with high
heaven. May not the use of the comparative indicate that
the descent of Christ was not simply to rj 7?? /edr&&amp;gt;, but et? ra
tcaTatTepa? Not that with Zanchius, Bochart (Opera, i. 985,
ed. Yillemandy, 1692), Fesselius (Apud Wolf., in he.), Kutt-
ner, Barnes, and others, we regard the phrase as signifying, in
general, lowliness or humiliation status exinanitionis. Theo
logically, the use of the comparative is suggestive. He was
born into the world, and that in a low condition ; born not
under fretted roofs and amidst marble halls, but He drew His
first breath in a stable, and enjoyed His first sleep in a

nre we sure whether by " terra " he does not mean the grave, when he defines it
as pars rnundi injima.

EPIIESIANS IV. 10. 295

manger. As a man, He earned His bread by the sweat of
His brow, at a manual occupation with hammer and hatchet,
" going forth to His work and to His labour until the evening."
The creatures He had formed had their house and haunt after
their kind, but the Heir of all things had no domicile by legal
right ; for " the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay His
head." Reproach, and scorn, and contumely followed Him as
a dark shadow. Persecution at length apprehended Him,
accused Him, calumniated Him, scourged Him, mocked Him,
and doomed the " man of sorrows " to an ignominious torture
and a felon s death. His funeral was extemporized and hasty;
nay, the grave He lay in was a borrowed one. He came truly
" to the lower parts of the earth."

(Ver. 10.) O /cara/3a?, (IVTOS tVrti/ teal o ai&gt;a/3a? vrrepuvii)
TTCLVTWV ra&gt;v ovpav&v " He that descended, He it is also who
ascended high above all the heavens." O Kara/Sets is emphatic,
and ai)ro9 is He and none other. Winer, 22, 4, note. Ov
yap aXXo? /care\ij\v0, says Theodoret, teal aXXo? ave\i]\v6ev.
The identity of His person is not to be disputed. Change of
position has not transmuted His humanity. It may be refined
and clothed in lustre, but the manhood is unaltered. That
Jesus

" Who laid His groat dominion by,
On a poor virgin s breast to lie ; "

who, to escape assassination, was snatched in His infancy into
Egypt; who passed through childhood into maturity, growing
in wisdom and stature who spoke those tender and impres
sive parables, for He had "compassion on the ignorant, and
on them that were out of the way " who fed the hungry,
relieved the afllictcd, calmed the demoniac, touched the leper,
raised the dead, and wept by the sepulchre, for to Him no
form of human misery ever appealed in vain He who in
hunger hasted to gather from a fig-tree who lay weary and
wayworn on the well of Jacob who, with burning lips, upon
the cross exclaimed "I thirst" He whose filial affection in
the hour of death commended his widowed mother to the
care of His beloved disciple HE it is who has gone up. No
wonder that a heart which proved itself to be HO rich with
every tender, noble, and sympathetic impulse, should rejoice

296 EPHESIANS IV. 10.

in expending its spiritual treasures, and giving gifts to men.
Xay, more, He who provided spiritual gifts in His death, is
He who bestows them in His ascension on each one, and all
of them are essential to the unity of His church. But as His
descent was to a point so deep, His ascent is to a point as
high, for He rose

vtrepavoy iravrw TWV ovpav&v " above all the heavens."
John iii. 13 ; Heb. vii. 26. See under i. 21. Ol ovpavoi are
those regions above us through which Jesus passed to the
heaven of heavens to the right hand of God. The apostle
himself speaks of the third heaven. 2 Cor. xii. 2. It is needless
to argue whether the apostle refers to the third heaven, as
Harless supposes, or to the seventh heaven, as "Wetstein and
Meyer argue. There was an arjp, an alOrjp, and rpiros ovpavos
(Schoettgen, 773; Wetstein under 2 Cor. xii. 2); but the
apostle seems to employ the general language of the Old
Testament, as in Dent. x. 14, 1 Kings viii. 27, where we have
"the heaven, and the heaven of heavens;" or Ps. Ixviii. 33,
cxlviii. 4, in which the phrase occurs " heavens of heavens."
We find the apostle in Heb. iv. 14 saying of Jesus St,e\r)-
\v6ora rovs ovpavovs that He has " passed through the
heavens," not " into the heavens," as our version renders it.
Whatever regions are termed heavens, Jesus is exalted far
above them, yea, to the heaven of heavens. The loftiest
exaltation is predicated of Him. As His humiliation was so
low, His exaltation is proportionately high. Theophylact says
He descended into the lowest parts fieO* a ovrc ecmv erepov ri,
and He ascended above all vjrep a OVK ea-rtv erepa. His
position is the highest in the universe, being " far above all
heavens" all things are under His feet. See under i. 20,
21, 22. And He is there

f iva 7r\rjpct)aTj ra Trdvra " that He might fill all things."
The subjunctive with f iva, and after the aorist participle, repre
sents an act which still endures. Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 618.
The ascension is past, but this purpose of it still remains, or
is still a present result. The translation of Anselm, Koppe,
and others, " that He might fulfil all things," that is, all the
prophecies, is as remote from the truth as the exegesis of
Matthies and Riickert, " that He might complete the work of
redemption." Nor is the view of Zanchius more tenable,

KPHESIANS IV. 11. 207

" that he might discharge all his functions." The versions
of Tymlale and Cranmer, and that of Geneva, use the term
"fulfil," but Wickliflfe rightly renders, "that he schulde till
alle thingis." Jer. xxiii. 24. The bearing of this clause on
the meaning of the term 7r\rjpco/j.a, the connection of Christ s
fulness with the church and the universe, and the relation of
the passage to the Lutheran dogma of the ubiquity of tin;
Itedeemer, will be found in our exegesis of the last verse of
the first chapter, and need not therefore be repeated here. "We
are not inclined to limit ra iravra to the church, as is done
by Beza, Grotins, and Meier, for reasons assigned under the
last clause of the iirst chapter. The church filled by Him
becomes " His fulness," but that fulness is not limited by
such a boundary. The explanation of Calvin, that Jesus fills
all, Spiritus sid virtutc ; and of Harless, mit seiner Gnadcn-
ycyenwart appears to be too limited. Chrysostom s view is
better T/}S eVe/xyewt? avrov teal TT}&lt;? Seo-rroTeiW Stier
compares the phrase with the last clause of the verse quoted
from Ps. Ixviii., that " God the Lord might dwell among
them," to which corresponds the meaning given by Bengel
Sc Ipso.

(Ver. 11.) The apostle resumes the thought that seems to
have been ripe for utterance at the conclusion of ver. 7.

Kal avros eSo&gt;/ce "And Himself gave" airro? emphatic,
and connected witli the auro? of the preceding verse, while at
the same time the apostle recurs to the aorist. This Jesus who
ascended this, and none other, is the sovereign donor. Tln
provider and bestower are one and the same ; and such gifts,
though they vary, cannot therefore mar the blessed unity of
the spiritual society. There is no reason, with Theophylact,
Harless, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bisping, to call e8o&gt;/te
a Hebraism, as if it were equivalent to e#ero the term which
is used in 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Acts xx. 28. See under chap. i. 1
"ESwtce is evidently in unison with eSu0rj and Suped in ver. 7,
and with eSo&gt;*e SojuLTa in ver. 8. The object of the apostle,
in harmony with the quotation which he has introduced, is
not simply to aflirm the fact that there are various offices in
the church, or that they are of divine institution ; but also to
show that they exist in the form of donations, and are among
the peculiar and distinctive gifts which the exalted Lord

298 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

has bequeathed. The writer wishes his readers to contem
plate them more as gifts than as functions. Had they
sprung up in the church by a process of natural development,
they might perchance have clashed with one another; but
being the gifts of the one Lord and Benefactor, they must
possess a mutual harmony in virtue of their origin and object.
He gave

rovs /j,ev aTToo-ToXou? " some as, or to be, apostles." On
the particle fiev, which cannot well be rendered into English,
and on its connection with fiia see Donaldson s New Craty-
lus, 154, and his Greek Grammar, 548, 24, and 559.
The official gifts conferred upon the church are viewed not in
the abstract, but as personal embodiments or appellations.
Instead of saying " He founded the apostolate," he says
" He gave some to be apostles." The idea is, that the men
who filled the office, no less than the office itself, were a
Divine gift.

The apostles were the first and highest order of office
bearers those " twelve whom also He named apostles."
Luke vi. 13. Judas fell; Matthias was appointed his suc
cessor and substitute (if a human appointment, and one prior
to Pentecost, be valid) ; and Saul of Tarsus was afterwards
added to the number. The essential elements of the apostolate
were

1. That the apostles should receive their commission
immediately from the living lips of Christ. Matt. x. 5 ;
Mark vi. 7 ; Gal. i. 1. In the highest sense, they held a
charge as " ambassadors for Christ ; " they spoke " in Christ s
stead." Matt, xxviii. 19; John xx. 21, 23; Hase, Leben
Jcsu, 64.

2. That having seen the Saviour after He rose again, they
should be qualified to attest the truth of His resurrection.
So Peter defines it, Acts i. 21, 22 ; so Paul asserts his claim,
1 Cor. ix. 1, 5, 8 ; so Peter states it, Acts ii. 32 ; and so the
historian records, Acts iv. 33. The assertion of this crowning
fact was fittingly assumed as the work of those " chosen wit
nesses to whom He showed Himself alive after His passion,
by many infallible proofs."

3. They enjoyed a special inspiration. Such was the pro
mise, John xiv. 26, xvi. 13; and such was the possession,

EPHESIAXS IV. 11. 299

1 Cor. ii. 10; Gal. i. 11, 12; 1 Thess. ii. 13. Infallible
exposition of Divine truth was their work ; and their qualifi
cation lay in their possession of the inspiring influences of the
Holy Ghost.

4. Their authority was therefore supreme. The church
was under their unrestricted administration. Their word was
law, and their directions and precepts are of permanent obliga
tion. Matt, xviii. 18, 20 ; John xx. 22, 23 ; 1 Cor. v. 3-G ;

2 Cor. x. 8.

5. In proof of their commission and inspiration, they weiv
furnished with ample credentials. They enjoyed the power
of working miracles. It was pledged to them, Mark xvi. 15 ;
and they wielded it, Acts ii. 43, v. 15 ; and 2 Cor. xii. 12.
Paul calls these manifestations " the signs of an apostle ;"
and again in Heb. ii. 4, he signalizes the process as that
of " God also bearing them witness." They had the gift of
tongues themselves, and they had also the power of imparting
spiritual gifts to others. Horn. i. 1 1 ; Acts viii. 17, xix. G.

6. And lastly, their commission to preach and found churches
was universal, and in no sense limited. 2 Cor. xi. 28.

This is not the place to discuss other points in reference
to the office. The title seems to be applied to Barnabas,
Acts xiv. 4, 14, as being in company with Paul; and in an
inferior sense to ecclesiastical delegates. llom. xvi. 7 ;
2 Cor. viii. 23; Phil. ii. 25; Winer, Kcal-Wurttrlucli, art.
Apostel ; Kitto s Bil. Cycl. do.; M Lean s Apostolical Com
mission, Works, i. p. 8 ; Spanhemius, tie Apostolatu, etc.,
Leyden, 1679.

TOI&gt;&lt;? Be 7rpo(f&gt;7jTa&lt;; " and some to be prophets." Ae looks
back to fteV and introduces a different class. We have already
had occasion to refer especially to this office under ii. 20 and
iii. 5. The prophets ranked next in order to the apostles, but
wanted some of their peculiar qualifications. They sjoki!
under the influence of the Spirit ; and as their instructions
were infallible, so the church was built on their foundation as
well as that of the apostles ; ii. 20. Prophecy is marked out
as one of the special endowments of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor.
xii. 10), where it stands after the apostolic prerogative of
working miracles. The revelation enjoyed by apostles was
communicated also to prophets, iii. o. The name has its

300 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

origin in the peculiar usages of the Old Testament. The
Hebrew term K M has reference, in its etymology, to the
excitement and rhapsody which were so visible under the Divine
afflatus ; and the cognate verb is therefore used in the niphal
and hithpael conjugations. Gesenius, sub voce ; Knobel,
Prophet ismus, i. 127. The furor was sometimes so vehement
that, in imitation of it, the frantic ravings of insanity received a
similar appellation. 1 Sam. xviii. 10; 1 Kings xviii. 29. As
the prophet s impulse came from God, and denoted close alliance
with Him, so any man who enjoyed special and repeated Divine
communications was called a prophet, as Abraham, Gen. xx. 7.
Because the prophet was God s messenger, and spoke in
God s name, this idea was sometimes seized on, and a
common internuncius was dignified with the title. Ex. vii. 1.
This is the radical signification of TT/XX^TT?? one who speaks
TT/OO for, or in name of another. In the Old Testament,
prophecy in its strict sense is therefore not identical with
prediction ; but it often denotes the delivery of a Divine
message. Ezra v. 1. Prediction was a strange and sublime
province of the prophet s labour ; but he was historian and
bard as well as seer. Again, as the office of a prophet was
sacred, and was held in connection with the Divine service,
lyric effusions and musical accompaniments are termed pro
phesying, as in the case of Miriam (Ex. xv. 20), and of the
sons of the prophets, 1 Sam. x. 5. So it is too in Num. xi.
26; Tit. i. 12. In 1 Chron. xxv. 1, similar language
occurs the orchestra " prophesied with a harp to give thanks
und to praise the Lord." Koppe, Excursus iii. ad Comment,
in Epist. ad Eplicsios. Thus, besides the special and technical
sense of the word, prophesying in a wider and looser signifi
cation means to pour forth rapturous praises, in measured
tone and cadence, to the accompaniment of wild and stirring
music. Similar is the usage of the New Testament in refer
ence to Anna in Luke ii. 36, and to the ebullition of Zachariah
in Luke i. 67. While in the New Testament TrpotyiJTijs is
sometimes used in its rigid sense of the prophets of the Old
Testament, it is often employed in the general meaning of
one acting under a Divine commission. Foundation is thus
laid for the appellation before us. Once, indeed (Acts xi. 28),
prediction is ascribed to a prophet ; but instruction of a pecu-

EHIKSIANS IV. 11. 301

liar nature so sudden and thrilling, so lofty and penetrating
merits and receives the generic term of prophecy. Females
sometimes had the gift, but they were not allowed to exercise
it in the church. This subordinate office differed from that of
the Old Testament prophets, who were highest in station in
their church, and many of whose inspired writings have been
preserved as of canonical authority. Hut no utterances of the
prophets under the New Testament have been so highly
honoured.

Thus the prophets of the Xew Testament were men who
were peculiarly susceptible of Divine influence, and on whom
that afflatus powerfully rested. Chrysostom, on 1 Cor. xii. 28,
says of them o y^.v TrpcxfrTjTcvwv iravra airo TOV vrvcvfjMTos
(f&gt;0jjrat. They were inspired improvisaiori in the Christian
assemblies who, in animated style and under irresistible
impulse, taught the church, and supplemented the lessons of
the apostles, who, in their constant itinerations, could not
remain long in one locality. Apostles planted and prophets
wittered ; the germs engrafted by the one were nurtured and
matured by the other. What the churches gain now by the
spiritual study of Scripture, they obtained in those days by
such prophetical expositions of apostolical truth. The work
of these prophets was in the church, and principally witli such
as had the semina of apostolical teaching ; for the apostle says
"He that prophesieth speaketh unto men, to edification,
and exhortation, and comfort" (1 Cor. xiv. 3); and again,
" prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but fT
them that believe," though not for unbelievers wholly useless,
as the sudden and vivid revelation of their spiritual wants
and belongings often produced a mighty and irresistible impres
sion. 1 Cor. xiv. 22, 24, 25 ; Neander, (f which
Pflanzung der Christ 1. K. p. 234, 4th ed. Though tin- man
who spake with tongues might be thrown out of self-control,
this ecstasy did not fall so impetuously upon the prophets;
they resembled not the Greek /xzm?, for "the spirits of the
prophets are subject to the prophets." One would IKJ apt to
infer from the description of the effect of prophecy on the
mind of an unbeliever, in laying bare the secrets of his heart,
that the prophets concerned themselves specially with the sub
jective side of Christianity with its power and adaptations ;

302 EPIIESIANS IV. 11.

that they appealed to the consciousness, and that they showed
the higher bearings and relations of those great facts which had
already been learned on apostolical authority. 1 Cor. xiv. 25.
This gift had an intimate connection with that of tongues
(Acts xix. 6), but is declared by the apostle to be superior to
it. Though these important functions were superseded when a
written revelation became the instrument of the Spirit s opera
tion upon the heart, yet the prophets, having so much in common
with the apostles, are placed next to them, and are subordinate
to them only in dignity and position. Rom. xii. 6. Whether
all the churches enjoyed the ministrations of these prophets
we know not. They were found in Corinth, Rome, Antioch,
Ephesus, and Thessalonica. If our account, drawn from the
general statements of Scripture, be correct, then it is wrong
on the part of Noesselt, Ruckert, and Baumgarten-Crusius to
compare this office with that of modern preaching ; and it is
too narrow a view of it to restrict it to prediction ; or to the
interpretation of Old Testament vaticinations, like Macknight;
or to suppose, with Mr. M Leod, that it had its special field
of labour in composing and conducting the psalmody of the
primitive church. Divine Inspiration, by E. Henderson, D.D.,
]&gt;. 207 : London, 1836 ; A View of Inspiration, etc., by
Alexander M Leod, p. 133 : Glasgow, 1831. Most improbable
of all is the conjecture of Schrader, that the apostle here refers
to the prophets of the Old Testament.

TOU? 8e euayyeXia-rds " and some to be evangelists."
That those evangelists were the composers of our historical
gospels is an untenable opinion, which Chrysostom deemed
possible, and which (Ecumemus stoutly asserts. On the other
luind, Theodoret is more correct in his description Trepuovres
erojpvTTov " going about they preached." Eusebius, Historia
Ecdcs. iii. 37. The word is used only thrice in the New
Testament as the designation of Philip in Acts xxi. 8,
and as descriptive of one element of the vocation of Timothy.
2 Tim. iv. 5. In one sense apostles and prophets were evan
gelists, for they all preached the same holy evangel. 1 Cor.
i. 17, But this official title implies something special in their
function, inasmuch as they are distinguished also from
" teachers." These gospellers may have been auxiliaries of
the apostles, not endowed as they were, but furnished with

EPIIESIAXS IV. 11. 303

clear perceptions of saving truth, and possessed of wondrous
power in recommending it to others. Inasmuch a.s they
itinerated, they might thus differ from stationary teachers.
Neander, Gcschichte dcr Pjlanzung, etc., 259, 4th ed. While
the prophets spoke only as occasion required, and their language
was an excited outpouring of brilliant and piercing thoughts,
the evangelists might be more calm and continuous in their
work Passing from place to place with the wondrous story
of salvation and the cross, they pressed Christ on men s
acceptance, their hands being freed all the while from matters
of detail in reference to organization, ritual, and discipline.
The prophet had an aTro/oiXtn/rt? as the immediate basis of
his oracle, and the evangelist had " the word of knowledge "
as the ultimate foundation of his lesson. Were nut the
seventy sent forth by our Lord a species of evangelists, and
might not Mark, Luke, Silas, Apollos, Tychicus, and Tro-
phimus merit such a designation ? The evangelist Timothy
was commended by Paul to the church in Corinth. 1 Cor. iv.
17, xvi. 10. Mr. M Leod s notions of the work of an evan
gelist are clearly wrong, as he mistakes addresses given to
Timothy as a pastor for charges laid upon him in the character
of an evangelist. A View of Inspiration, f&gt;. 481. The com
mand to " do the work of an evangelist," if not used in a
generic sense, is something distinct from the surrounding
admonitions, and characterizes a special sphere of labour.

TOI&gt;? t TToi/jLtvas /cat &i$aa tcu\ov&lt;t " and some to be.
pastors and teachers." Critical authorities are divided on the
question as to whether these two terms point out two different
classes of office-bearers, or merely describe one class by two
combined characteristics. The former opinion is held by
Theophylact, Ambrose, Pelagius, Calvin, JUv.a, Xaiu-hius,
Calixtus, Crocius, Cirotius, Meier, Matthics, de Wette,
Neander, and Stier ; and the latter by Augustine, Jerome,
(Ecumenius, Erasmus, Piscator, Musculus, IJengel, Kiickert,
Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, and Davidson.
Polity, p. 15G.

Those who make a distinction between pastors and
teachers vary greatly in their definitions. Thus Theodoret,
followed by liloomfield and Stier, notices the difference, a.s if
it were only local TOU? tcard TTO\II&gt; ical tcuprjv " town and

304 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

country clergy." Theophylact understands by " pastors "
bishops and presbyters, and deacons by " teachers," while
Ambrosiaster identifies the same teachers with exorcists.
According to Calixtus, \vitli whom Meier seems to agree, the
" pastors " were the working class of spiritual guides, and the
" teachers " were a species of superintendents and professors
of theology, or, according to Grotius, metropolitans.
Neander s view is, that the "pastors" were rulers, and the
" teachers " persons possessed of special edifying gifts, which
were exerted for the instruction of the church. The West
minster Divines also made a distinction " The teacher or
doctor is also a minister of the Word as well as the pastor ; "
" He that doth more excel in exposition of Scripture, in
teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than
he doth in application, and is accordingly employed therein,
may be called a teacher or doctor ; " "A teacher or doctor is
of most excellent use in schools and universities," etc.
Stier remarks that " each pastor should, to a certain extent at
least, be a teacher, but every teacher is not therefore a
pastor." By some reference is made for illustration to the
school of divinity in Alexandria, over which such men as
Didymus, Clement, and Origen presided. 1 None of these
distinctions can be scripturally and historically sustained.

We agree with those who hold that one office is described
by the two terms. Jerome says Non enim ait ; alios autem
pastores d alios magistros, scd alios pastores ct magistros, ut qui
pastor cst, csse debcat ct magister ; and again Nemo pastoris
sibi nomcn assumcre debct, nisi possit doccre quos pascit. The
view of Bengel is similar. The language indicates this,
for the recurring rou? Se is omitted before StSao-tfaXou?, and
a simple KCLI connects it with iroi^eva^. The two offices seem
to have had this in common, that they were stationary
7re/H eva TOTTOV -)}o-^o\TjfjL6uoi,, as Chrysostom describes them.
Grotius, de Wette, and others, refer us to the functional
vocabulary of the Jewish synagogue, in which a certain class
of officers were styled pwiD, after which Christian pastors
were named eVtWoTroi and 7rpecr{3vTpoi. Vitringa, De

1 But Bodius compares " teachers" to titular doctors of divinity, a title, he
adds, which is not without its value si ah-tit hinc yuidem omnis ambitus, et
vanua titulorum hujusmodi affectu.8.

EPHESIANS IV. 11. 30!

Synagoy. Vet. p. 621; Selden, De Syncdriis Vet. Heb. lib. i.
cap. 14.

The idea contained in TTOLHTJV is common in the Old Testa
ment. The image of a shepherd with his flock, picturing out
the relation of a spiritual ruler and those committed to his
charge, often occurs. Ps. xxiii. 1, Ixxx. 1 ; Jer. ii. 8, iii. 15,
and in many other places; Isa. Ivi. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 2,
xxx vii. 24 ; Zech. x. 3 ; John x. 14, xxi. 15 ; Acts xx. 28 ;
1 Pet. v. 2. Such pastors and guides rule as well as feed the
flock, for the keeping or tending is essential to the successful
feeding. The prominent idea in Ps. xxiii. is protection
and guidance in order to pasture. The same notion is
involved in the Homeric and classic usage of TTOI^V as
governor and captain. " The idea of administration is,"
Olshausen remarks, " prominent in this term." It implies
careful, tender, vigilant superintendence and government, being
the function of an overseer or elder. The official name
eVfWoTro? is used by the apostle in addressing churches
formed principally out of the heathen world as at Ephesus,
Philippi, and the island of Crete (Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1 ;
1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7); while Trpeaftvrcpos, the term of
honour, is more Jewish in its tinge, as may be found in many
portions of the Acts of the Apostles, and in the writings of
James, Peter, and John. Speaking to Timothy and Titus, the
apostle styles them elders (and so does the compiler of the
Acts, in referring to spiritual rulers) ; but describing the
duties of the oflice itself, he calls the holder of it tVur/coTro?.
See under Phil. i. 1.

The SicdcTKaXoi, placed in the third rank by the apostle in
1 Cor. xii. 28, were persons whose peculiar function it was
to expound the truths of Christianity. While teaching wan
the main characteristic of this office, yet, from the mode of
discharging it, it might be called a pastorate. The S&lt;Sa&lt;r*a\o?
in teaching, did the duty of a TTOI^V, for he fed witli know
ledge ; and the TTOUJL^V in guiding and governing, prepared
the flock for the nutriment of the &iSa&lt;rtca\o&lt;;. It is declared
in 1 Tim. iii. 2 that a Christian overs.-er &lt;&gt;r pastor must be
" apt to teach " 8iSa*Tt*o&lt;? ; and in Tit. i. it is said that,
in virtue of his office, he must be able " by sound do. trine
both to exhort and convince the gainsayers." Again, in lleb.

306 EPHESIANS IV. 11.

xiii. 7, thqse who had governed the church are further
characterized thus omz&gt;e? eXaX^cray V/MV rbv \6yov rov Seov.
The one office is thus honoured appropriately with the two
appellations. It comprised government and instruction, and
the former being subordinate to the latter, 8t,$daKd\oi, are
alone mentioned in the Epistle to the Eomans, but there the
evangelists are formally omitted ; while the apostle by a
sudden change uses the abstract, and the " helps " and " govern
ments " then referred to are, like " healing " and " tongues,"
not distinct offices possessed by various individuals, but
associated with those previously named. The evangelists
and deacons were indeed helps, but government devolved
upon the teachers and elders. See Henderson, Divine Inspira
tion, Lect. iv. p. 184 ; Eiickert, 2nd Beilage Komment. uber
CorintJi-B. ; Davidson, Ecclesiastical Polity, 178. We are
ignorant to a very great extent of the government of the
primitive church, and much that has been written upon it is
but surmise and conjecture. The church represented in the
Acts was only in process of development, and there seem to
have been differences of organization in various Christian
communities, as may be seen by comparing the portion of
the epistle before us with allusions in the three letters
to Rome, Corinth, and Philippi. Offices seem to be mentioned
in one which are not referred to in others. It would appear,
in fine, that this last office of government and instruction was
distinct in two elements from those previously enumerated ;
inasmuch as it was the special privilege of each Christian
community not a ministerium vagum, and was designed also
to be a perpetual institute in the church of Christ. The
apostle says nothing of the modes of human appointment or
ordination to these various offices. He descends not to law,
order, or form, but his great thought is, that though the
ascended Lord gave such gifts to men, yet their variety and
number interfere not with the unity of the church, as he also
conclusively argues in the twelfth chapter of his first epistle
to the church in Corinth. 1

1 How a learned Irvingite of the Continent labours to find in such a passage
the kind of intricate hierarchy which his so-called apostolic church delights in,
may be seen in the work of Thiersch Die Kirch? indem Apostolischen Zeitalter,
etc. Frankfurt, 1852.

EPHESIANS IV. 12. 307

(Ver. 12.) I7/3O? rov Karapncrpov rwv uyicov, etV Hpyov
, et? oifcooopiiv rov o-co/iaro? rov Xpurrov " In order
to the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ." The meaning of this
verse depends upon its punctuation. There are three clauses,
and the question is how are they connected ?

1. Some regard the three clauses as parallel or co-ordinate.
He gave all these gifts " for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ." Such is the rendering of the English version, as if
each clause contained a distinct purpose, and eacli of the three
purposes related with equal independence to the divine gift of
the Christian ministry. This mode of interpretation claims
the authority of Chrysostom, Zanchius, Bengel, von Oerlach,
Holzhausen, and Baumgarten - Crusius. But the apostle
changes the preposition, using 71730? before the first clause,
while et? stands before the other two members of the verse,
so that, if they are all co-ordinate, a different relation at least
is indicated.

2. A meaning is invented by Grotius, Calovius, Rollock,
Michaelis, Koppe, and Cramer, through the violent and unwar
ranted transposition of the clauses, as if Paul had written
" for the work of the ministry, in order to the perfecting of the
saints, in order to the edifying of the body of Christ." Simi
larly Tyndale "that the sainctes might have all things
necessarie to work and minister withall."

3. Harless and Olshausen suppose the prime object to be
described in the first clause which begins with 717)09, and the
other clauses, each commencing with et?, to be subdivisions
of the main idea, and dependent upon it, as if the meaning
were the saints are prepared some of them to teach, and
others, or the great body of the church, to be edified. Our
objection to such an exegesis is, that it introduces a division
where the apostle himself gives no hint, and which the lan
guage cannot warrant. For all the ayioi are described as
enjoying the " perfecting," and they are identical with "the
body of Christ" which is to be edified. The opinion of
Zachariao is not very different, as he makes the second ft?
I- 1 nd upon the first" For the work of the ministry insti
tuted in order to the edifying of the body of Christ,"

308 EfHESIANS IV. 12.

4. Meier, Schott, Kiickert, and Erasmus also regard the two
clauses introduced by et? as dependent upon that beginning
with 7T/30?. Their opinion is that the apostle meant to say,
" for the perfecting of the saints unto all that variety of
service which is essential unto the edification of the church."
This interpretation we preferred in our first edition. But
Meyer argues that Biaxovla, in such a connection, never signi
fies service in general, but official service ; and his objection
therefore is, that the saints, as a body, are not invested with
official prerogative.

5. Meyer s own view is, that the two last clauses are co-ordi
nate, and that both depend on eSwtce, while the first clause
contains the ultimate reason for which Christ gave teachers.
He has given teachers et? " for the work of the ministry,
and et? for the edifying of His body trpos in order to
the perfecting of His saints." Ellicott and Alford follow
Meyer, and we incline now to concur in this opinion, though
the order of thought appears somewhat inverted. Jelf, 625,3.
It is amusing to notice the critical manoeuvre of Piscator
t9 epyov, says he, stands for ev epytp, and that again means
&i epjov the perfecting of the saints by means of the work of
the ministry.

The verbal noun KarapTLa^ is not, as Pelagius and Vata-
blus take it, the filling up of the number of the elect, but as
Theodoret paraphrases the participle reXeto? ev Travi Trpay/jLacri.
The verb KarapTi^eLv to put in order again is used materially
in the classics, as to refit a ship (Polyb. i. 24, 4 ; Diodorus Sic.
xiii. 70) or reset a bone (Galen) ; also in Matt. iv. 21 ; Mark i.
19 ; Heb. x. 5, xi. 3. In its ethical sense it is used properly,
Gal. vi. 1 ; and in its secondary sense of completing, perfect
ing, it is found in the other passages where it occurs, as here.
Luke vi. 40 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. The meaning of ayios has been
explained under i. 1. The Christian ministry is designed to
mature the saints, to bring them nearer the Divine law in
obedience, and the Lord s example in conformity.

et? epjov iaKovia&lt;; " for work of service." For the ety
mology of the second term, see under iii. 7. These various
office-bearers have been given for, or their destination is, the
work of service. "Epyov is not superfluous ; as Koppe says,
it is that work in which the Biaicovta busies itself. Winer,

EPHE3IANS IV. 13. 309

65, 7 ; Acts vi. 4, XL 29 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; 2 Cor. ix. 12, 13.
xi. 8 ; 2 Tim. iv. 5, iv. 11. Neither noun has the article;
for SiaKovLas being indefinite, the governing noun becomes
also anarthrous. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 48.

ei&lt;? OIKO&OHTJV rov o-oj/iaro? rov Xpiarov " for the building
up of the body of Christ." This second parallel clause is a
more specific way of describing the business or use of the
Christian ministry a second purpose to which the office
bearers are given. In ii. 21, olxocofiij signified the edifice
here it denotes the process of erection. The ideas involved
in this term have been illustrated under ii. 22, and those in
aa)pa Xpiarov have been given under i. 23. The spiritual
advancement of the church is the ultimate design of the
Christian pastorate. It labours to increase the members of
the church, and to prompt and confirm their spiritual pro
gress. The ministry preaches and rules to secure this, which
is at the same time the purpose of Him who appointed and
who blesses it. So that the more the knowledge of the sainU
grows and their piety ripens ; the more vigorous their faith,
the more ardent their love, and the more serene and heavenly
their temperament ; the more of such perfecting they gather to
them and enjoy under the ordinances of grace then the more
do they contribute in their personal holiness and influence to
the extension and revival of the church of Christ.

(Ver. 13.) Mexpi Ka-rav-n^aai^ev ol rrdvres "Until wt
all come." Me%pi measures the time during which this
arrangement and ministry are to last, and it is here used,
without dv, 1 with a subjunctive, a usage common in the later
writers and in the New Testament. Winer, 41, 3, b ; Stall-
baum, Plato, Philebux, p. 61 ; Schmalfeld on "Eo&gt;?, 128.
Kiihner, 808, 2. This formula occurs only in this place;
axpis ov being the apostle s common expression,
insertion of the particle av would have given such an idea a*
this, "till we come (if ever we come)." Hartung, ii. p. 291 ;
Bernhardy, p. 400. The subjunctive is employed not merely
to express a future aim, as Harless says, but it also connects
this futurity with the principal verb eouxc as its impeded
purpose. Jelf, 842, 2; Scheuerlein, 36, 1. "We all,"

1 On iw and ^i K(t&gt; see Tittmann, &lt;fc Synon. p. 33 ; and on the yarious form*
of the words, Phryuichus, ed Lobeck, p. 14 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. i. p. 3

310 EPHESIANS IV. 13.

the apostle includes himself among all Christians, for he
stood not apart from the church, but in it, the article
specifying them as one class. Karavrdo) needs not to be
taken in any such sense as to intimate that believers of
different nations meet together ; nor can Trdvres denote all
men, as Jerome, Moms, and Allioli understand it, but only all
the saints ayioi. The meaning is, that not only is there a
blessed point in spiritual advancement set before the church,
and that till such a point be gained the Christian ministry
will be continued, but also and primarily, that the grand
purpose of a continued pastorate in the church is to enable
the church to gain a climax which it will certainly reach ; for
that climax is neither indefinite in its nature nor contingent
in its futurity. And the apostle now characterizes it by a
triple description, each member beginning with et?

6i? Ti)V evoTTjTa Tr}9 Tricrreo)? Kal TT}? 7riyvco(rca)&lt;; TOV vlov
TOV Geov " to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of
the Son of God." Karavrda) is followed by et? in a literal
sense, as often in Acts, and here also in a tropical sense. See
under Phil. iii. 11. Very different is the sense from that
involved in the view of Pelagius ejus plenitudincm imitari.
Every noun in the clause has the article prefixed. We take
the genitive TOV vlov TOV eov as that of object, and as
governed both by Trto-reco? and eVryyaxrea)? " the faith of the
Son of God, and the knowledge of the Son of God." Winer,
30. But we cannot adopt the view of Calvin, Calovius,
Bullinger, and Crocius, that TT}? eiriyvaxrea)? is epexegetical of
Tr}? Tn o-Teox?, for it expresses a different idea. Nor can we
with Grotius regard et? as meaning eV the rendering also of
the English version, while Chandler gives it the sense of " by
means of," and Wycliffe renders " into unyte of faith." The
preposition marks the terminus ad qucm.. The apostle has
already in this chapter introduced the idea of unity, and has
shown that difference of gifts and office is not incompatible
with it ; and now he shows that the variety of offices in the
church of Christ is intended to secure it. For the meaning
of the term Son, the reader may go back to what is said under
i. 3. The apostle uses this high appellation here, for Jesus as
God s Son a Divine Saviour, is the central object of faith.
Christians are all to attain to oneness of faith, that is, all of

EI HKSIANS IV. 13. 311

them shall be filled with the same ennobling and vivifying
confidence in this Divine Kedeemer not some leaning more
to His humanity, and others showing an equally partial ami
defective preference for His divinity not some regarding
Him rather as an instructor and example, and others drawn
to Him more as an atonement not some fixing an exclusive
gaze on Christ without them, and others cherishing an intense
and one-sided aspiration for Christ within them but all
reposing a united confidence in Him " the Son of God." It
would be too much to say that subjectively all shall have the
same faith so far as vigour is concerned, but a unity in
essence and permanence, as well as in object, is an attainable
blessing.

Unity of knowledge is also specified by the apostle.
ETTiyvaxTis is a term we have considered under i. 1 7. Chris
tians are not to be, as in times past, some fully informed in
one section of truth, but erring through defective information
on other points concerning the Saviour some with a superior
knowledge of the merits of His death, and others with a
quicker perception of the beauties of His life ; His glory the
theme of correct meditation with one, and His condescen
sion the subject of lucid reflection with another but they
are to be characterized by the completeness and harmony
of their ideas of the power, the work, the history, the
love, and the glory of the " Son of God." OLshausen
thinks that the unity to which the apostle refers, is a unity
subsisting between faith and knowledge, or, as Bisping
technically words it fides implicita developing into jitfa
explicita. This idea does not appear to be the prominent
one, but it is virtually implied, since knowledge and faith
are so closely associated faith not only embracing all that
is known about the Saviour, and its circuit enlarging with
the extent of information, but also being itself a source of
knowledge. The hypothesis of Stier is at once mystical
and peculiar. The phrase rov viov rov Seov is, ho says,
" the genitive of subject or {tosscssion ;" and the meaning
then is, till we possess that oneness of faith and knowledge
which the Son of God Himself possessed in His incarnate
state, till the whole community become a son of God in such
respects. Now, one great aim of preaching and ecclesiastical

312 EPHESIANS IV. 13.

organization, is to bring about such a unity. There is no
doubt, therefore, that it is attainable ; but whether here or
hereafter has perplexed many commentators. The opinion of
Theodoret TT}? 8e TeXctor^ro? ev ra&gt; peXkovn &iu&gt; rev^o^eOa
has been adopted by Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, and Holz-
hausen. On the other hand, the belief that such perfection is
attainable here, is a view held by Chrysostom, Theophylact,
and (Ecumenius, by Jerome and Ambrosiaster, by Thomas
Aquinas and Estius, by Luther, Calovius, Crocius, and
Cameron, and by the more modern expositors, Kiickert, Meier,
Matthies, de Wette, Meyer, Delitzsch, and Stier. Perfection,
indeed, in an absolute sense, cannot be enjoyed on earth,
either personally or socially. But the apostle speaks of the
results of the Christian ministry as exercised in the church
below ; for that faith to which Christians are to come exists
not in its present phase in heaven, but is swallowed up in
vision. Had faith been described only as a means, the
heavenly state might have been formally referred to. Still
the terms employed indicate a state of perfection that has
never been realized, either by the apostolic or by any other
church. Phil. iii. 13. Our own view is not materially dif
ferent from that of Harless, viz., that the apostle places this
destiny of the church on earth, but does not say whether on
earth that destiny is to be realized. Olshausen says, that Paul
did not in his own mind conceive any antithesis between this
world and that to come, and he gives the true reason, that
" the church was to the apostle one and only one." For the
church on earth gradually passes into the church in heaven,
and when it reaches perfection, the Christian ministry, which
remains till we come to this unity, will be superseded. In
such sketches the apostle holds up an ideal which, by the aim
and labour of the Christian pastorate, is partially realized on
earth, and ought to be more vividly manifested ; but which
will be fully developed in heaven, when, the effect being
secured, the instrumentality may be dispensed with.

ei? avBpa T\iov "to a perfect man." 1 This expres
sive figure was perhaps suggested by the previous

1 Augustine says, Nonnulli proptfr hoc quod dictum est donee occurramus
omncs in virum perfectum, nee in sexu femineo resurrecturas feminas crtdunt
ted in virili.De Civitate, xxvii. 16. See also Aquinas and Anselm.

EPHESIANS IV. 13. 313

The singular appears to be employed as the con
crete representative of that unity of which the apostle has
been speaking. Avijp reXetos is opposed to irJTrto? in the
following verse, which probably it also suggested, and is used
in such a sense by the classics. Te Xeto? is tropically con
trasted with z/TJTno? in 1 Cor. ii. 6 and iii. 1, and it stands
opposed to TO K /ie/)oi/9. 1 Cor. xiii. 1 0. Other examples
may be seen from Arrianus and Polybius in Haphelius,
Annotat. Sac. ii. p. 477. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 7, 6. Hof-
mann, Schriftb. ii. part 2, p. Ill, proposes to begin a new
period with this clause, connecting it with auf;;Va&gt;/zei/ of the
15th verse, thus separating it from any connection with the
previous tva, and giving it the sense of " let us grow." Such
a construction is needlessly involved, and mars the rapid
simplicity of the passage. The Christian church is not full-
grown, but it is advancing to perfect age. "What the apostle
means by a perfect manhood, he explains by a parallt-1
expression

ft? ptrpov Tj\iKia&lt;; rov TrX^pco/zaro? rov Xpiarov " to the
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The im
portant term fai/cia is rendered " full age " cctas virilis by
Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Meier, Matthies, Holzhatisen, and liar-
less. "It is," says Harless, "the ripeness of years in con
trast with the minority of youth." Meyer takes it simply ns
age age defined by the following words. Chrysostom says,
" by stature here he means perfect knowledge." It may sig
nify age, John ix. 21, or stature, Luke xix. 3. The last is
the view of Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Iliickert, Stier,
Ellicott, Alford, and the Syriac version. And to this view we
are inclined, first, because avrjp re Xeto? is literally a full-grown
man a man of mature stature ; and, secondly, because the
apostle gives the idea of growth, and not of age, very peculiar
prominence in the subsequent illustrations, and particularly in
the sixteenth verse. Though perpov, as in the well-known
phrase, rjftw ^rpov (Homer, Od. xviii. 217), bears a general
signification, there is no reason why it should not have its
original meaning in the clause before us, for the literal sense
is homogeneous " measure of stature." Lucian, Imag. p. 8,
Opera, vol. vi. ed. Bipont. The words are but an appro
priate and striking image of spiritual advancement.

314 EPHESIAXS IV. 13.

stature referred to is characterized as that of " the fulness of
Christ." This phrase, which has occurred already in the
epistle, has been here most capriciously interpreted even by
some of those who give rjKLKia the sense of stature. Luther,
Calvin, Beza, Morus, and others, take TrX^pw/jia as an adjec
tive fjXiKia 7rTr\r)ptofjLvrj or r)\i-Kia TrXrjpcoOevTOS Xpicrrov.
Luther renders in der masse dcs vollkommenen Alters Christi
" the measure of the full age of Christ." Calvin gives it,
cctas justa vel matura ; Beza has it, ad mensuram staturce
adulti Christi. Such an exegesis does violence to the lan
guage, and is not in accordance with the usual meaning of
irXrjpw^a. It is completely out of place on the part of Storr,
Koppe, and Baurngarten-Crusius, to understand TrA^poywi of
the church, for the phrase qualifies ^Xt/aa, and is not in simple
apposition. Nor is the attempt of (Ecumenius and Grotius at
all more successful, to resolve irKripw^a into the knowledge of
Christ. For ir\rjpo3^a see under i. 10, 23. Xpivrov is the
genitive of subject, and irXripuparos that of possession ; the
connection of so many genitives indicating a varied but linked
relationship characterizing the apostle s style. Winer, 30, 3,
Obs. i.; Eph. i. 6, 19. The church, as we have seen, is
Christ s fulness as filled up by Him, and so this " stature "
is of His " fulness " filled up by Him, and deriving from this
imparted fulness all its height and symmetry. Such is
the general view of Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, Meier, and
Holzhausen, save that they do not take fatcta in the sense
of stature. But this translation of " stature " appears, as
we have said, more in harmony with the imagery employed,
for he says, " we grow up " " and the whole body maketh
increase of the body." This stature grows just as it receives
of Christ s fulness ; and when that fulness is wholly enjoyed,
it will be that of a " perfect man." The idea conveyed by
the figure cannot be misunderstood. The Christian ministry
is appointed to labour for the perfection of the church of
Christ, a perfection which is no romantic anticipation, but
which consists of the communicated fulness of Christ. We
need scarcely notice the hallucinations of some of the Fathers
that man shall rise from the grave in the perfect age of
Christ that is, each man s constitution shall have the form
and aspect of thirty-three years of age, the age of Christ at

EPHESIAKS IV. 14. 315

His death. Augustine, De Civit. lib. xxii. cap. 15. Another
purpose is

(Ver. 14.) "Ira firjKe-n a)fiev IUJTTIOI " In order that we may
be no longer children." This and the following verse are
illustrative of the preceding one, and show the peculiar weak
ness and dangers to which believers in an imperfect state are
exposed. "Iva points to a negative and intermediate purpose
resulting from that of the preceding verses, but not as if that
were taken as realized, for he immediately adds av%i]&lt;ra&gt;pv
implying that reXetoTT?? has not been attained. The period of
maturity is, indeed, future; but meantime, in the hope of it,
and with the assistance of the Christian ministry, believers
are to be " no longer children ; " ceasing to be children is
meanwhile our duty. The ministry is instituted, and this
glorious destiny is portrayed, in order that in the meantime
we may be no longer children. N/yVfo? is opposed to dvrjp
re Xejo?. Polybius, Hint. v. 29, 2. M-rjfceri is employed after
tva. Gayler, Part. Grccc. Xeg., cap. vii. A, 1-/9, p. 1G8. We
have been children long enough let us " put away childish
things."

The apostle now refers to two characteristics of childhood
its fickleness, and its liability to be imposed upon. Child
hood has a peculiar facility of impression

K\v$a)i i6fj.evoi Kal Treptfapo/Aevoi Travri u.vfj.(p TT}? Si&ao -
*aXta? " tossed and driven about with every wind of
teaching." K.\V^&gt;WVL^O^VOL tossed about as a surge ; K\V&O)-
vi^o^evoi is passive ; instances may be found in Krebs and
Wetstein. Heb. xiii. 9 ; Jas. i. G. The billow does not
swell and fall on the same spot, but it is carried about by the
wind, driven hither and thither before it the sport of the
tempest. The term avepp, dative of cause (Kruger, 48,
15), is applied to Si&aatcaXia not to show its emptiness, as
Matthies explains it by windiy-leerc Einfdllc, but to describe
its impulsive power. The article TT}? before SiSao-fcaXias gives
definitive prominence to " the teaching," which, iw a high
function respected and implicitly obeyed, w.us very capable of
seducing, since whatever false phases it assumed, it might find
and secure followers. Such wind, not from thi.s or that
direction only, but blowing from any or " every " quarter,
causes the imperfect and inexperienced to surge alnmt in

316 EPHESIANS IV. 14.

fruitless commotion. The moral phenomenon is common.
Some men have just enough of Christian intelligence to
unsettle them, and make them the prey of every idle
suggestion, the sport of every religious novelty. How many
go the round of all sects, parties, and creeds, and never
receive satisfaction ! If in the pride of reason they fall into
rationalism, then if they recover they rebound into mysticism.
From the one extreme of legalism they recoil to the farthest
verge of antinomianism, having travelled at easy stages all the
intermediate distances. Men like Priestley and Channing
have gradually descended from Calvinism to Unitarianism ;
others, like Schlegel and the Countess Ida Hahn-Hahn,
make a swift transition from Protestant nihilism to Popish
pietism and superstition. Decision and firmness are indis
pensable to spiritual improvement. Only one form of teach
ing is beneficial, and all deviations are pernicious. More
pointedly

ev rfj Kvfteia rwv avQpooTrwv " in the sleight of men."
Kvfteta from KvjSos a cube, or one of the dice signifies
gambling, and then by an easy and well-known process, the
common accompaniment and result of gambling fraud and
imposition. Suicer, sub voce. The rabbins have the word
also in the form of K;:wp. Schoettgen, Horce Heb. p. 775 ;
Buxtorf, Lex. Tal. p. 1984. Salmasius renders the term actio
temcraria ; Beza, varice et ineptce subtilitates ; and Matthies,
geioinnsuchtiges Spiel " play for the greed of winning."
These meanings are inferior to the ordinary translation of
fallacia by Jerome, the nequitia of the Vulgate, and " sleight "
of the English version. Theodoret renders the noun by
iravovpyfa. The opinion of Meyer and de Wette, that eV
denotes the instrumental cause, is scarce to be preferred to
that of Harless, Matthies, Olshausen, and Ellicott, who suppose
that the preposition signifies the element in which the false
doctrine works. The apostle shows how the false teaching
wields its peculiar power acting like a wary and dexterous
gambler, and winning by dishonesty without being suspected
of it. Ot avOpwTTOL are men, in contrast not with Christ s
office-bearers, but with the " Son of God." The next clause
is parallel and explanative

v Travovpyia Trpo? rrjv fJLeOo&elav rfjs 7r\dvrjs " in craft

EPHESIANS IV. 15. 317

with a view to a system of error." Codex A adds rov
&iaj3o\ov. " Craft " is the meaning which is uniformly
attached to the first noun in the Xew Testament 1 Cor. iii.
1 9 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3. 77/jo? indicates the purpose of the
Trai ovpyia which is not followed by any article. The craft
is exercised in order to carry out the tricks of error ; 7r\dvij&lt;i
being genitive of subject and defined by the article,
is rendered by Hesychius re^vrj, and by Theodoret
7; , plan or settled system. Aquila renders nTY, " to lie
in wait" (Ex. xxi. 13), by peOoSevae. The Greek verb
originally had a good meaning, " to pursue a settled plan," but
the bad meaning soon came its history and use, as in the
case of such English words as " prevent " and " resent,"
showing man s evil nature. This false teaching, ; 7r\uiij t
has a systematic process of deception peculiar to itself
r) fjieQo&eia ; and that this mechanism may not fail or scare
away its victims by unguarded revelations of its nature and
purpose, it is wrought with special manoeuvre iravovpyfa.
There is, however, no distinct declaration that such seduction
and mischievous errors were actually in the church at
Ephesus, though the language before us seems to imply it,
and the apostle s valedictory address plainly anticipated it.
Acts xx. 29. \Ve may allude, in fine, to the strange remark
of iliickert, that this severe language of Paul against false
teachers, sprang from a dogmatical defiance, and was the weak
side in him as in many other great characters. IUit the
apostle s attachment to the truth originated in his experience
of its saving power, and he knew that its adulteration often
robbed it of its healing virtue. Love to men, fidelity to
Christ, and zeal for the purity and glory of the church,
demanded of him this severe condemnation of errorists and
heresiarchs. The spiritual vehemence and truth-love of such
a heart are not to be estimated by a common criterion, and
when such puerile estimates of Paul s profound nature arc
formed, we are inclined to ascribe it to moral incompetence
of judgment, and to say to Heir Ruckert "Sir, thoii hast
nothing to draw with, and the well is deep."

(Ver. 15.) A\r)0vovT&lt;; Be, i&gt; dyuTrrj aui i&lt;ra&gt;ptv et\ avrw
ra Travra " But imbued with truth, that in love wr should
grow up to or into Him in all things." The construction still

318 EPHESIANS IV. 15.

depends upon iva in ver. 14, Se placing the following positive
clauses in opposition to the preceding negative ones. We
must hold, against Meyer, that the context requires a\.r)0evcov
to be understood as meaning not " speaking the truth," which
it often or usually means, but " having and holding the
truth/ " truthing it ; " for it is plainly opposed to such
vacillation, error, and impositions as are sketched in the pre
ceding verse. Had the false teachers been referred to, speak
ing truth would have been the virtue enjoined on them ; but
as their victims, real or possible, are addressed, holding the
truth is naturally inculcated on them. We cannot say with
Pelagius and others, that it is truth in general to which
the apostle refers ; but we agree with Theophylact, that the
allusion is to ^evSrj Soy/iara, though we cannot accede to his
additional statement, that it specially regards and inculcates
sincerity of life. Nor can we adopt the translation of the

7 &gt; r

Syriac _OQ_KK^&gt; __;_;_* being "confirmed in love." The
^ . ii

Gothic renders sunja taujandctns " doing truth," and the
Vulgate veritatem facientcs. Many of the professed inter
pretations of the words are, therefore, inferential rather than
exegetical. So far from being children tossed, wandering,
and deluded with error, let us be possessing and professing
the truth.

Many expositors join eV aya-Try to the participle, and impute
very various meanings to the phrase. Perhaps the majority
understand it as signifying " striving after the truth in love "
and such is in general the view of Erasmus, Calvin, Koppe,
Flatt, Eiickert, de Wette, and Alford. Some refer it to
studium mutuff communicationis ; others regard it as meaning
a species of indulgence to the weaker and the erring brethren ;
while others, such as Luther, Bucer, and Grotius, take the
participle as pointing out the sincerity and truthful quality
of this ayaTrr) sincere alios diligcntcs. Conybeare s version
is very bald " living in truth and love." But while it is
evident that truth and love are radically connected, and that
there can be no truth that lives not in love, and no love
that has not its birth in truth, still we prefer, with Harless,
Meyer, Passavant, Olshausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to join
ev uaTTTj to the verb avawev for the words in the con-

EPHKSIAXS IV. 15. 319

elusion of the following verse have plainly such a connection.
Besides, in Pauline style, though Alford denies it, qualifying
clauses may precede the verb. See under i. 4. The chief
element of spiritual growth is love eV ayuTrrj being repeated.

Av^i ](T(Dfiv is used not in an active, but in an intransitive
sense, as CKcumenius, Theophylact, and Jerome understood it.
The verb has reference at once to the condition of the irj-rrtot
children immature and ungrown, and to the perpov i)\itcta&lt;?
the full stature of perfect manhood. Our growth should
be ever advancing spiritual dwarfhood is a misshapen and
shameful state. Besides, as believers grow, their spiritual
power developes, and their spiritual senses are exercised, so
that they are more able to repel the seductions of false and
crafty teachers.

Harless connects et? avrov with eV aydirrj " in love to
Him." But the position of the words forbids such a connec
tion ; and though the hyperbaton were allowable, the idea
brought ought by such an exegesis is wholly out of harmony
with the train of thought. KUhner, S 865. The idea of Har-

less is, that the spiritual growth here referred to, is growth
toward the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of
God, and that this depends on love to Christ. Now, we
know that love to Christ rules and governs the believing
spirit, and that it contributes to spiritual advancement ; but in
the passage before us such a connection would limit the opera
tion of this grace, for here, as in the following verse, it stand*
absolutely. *Ev a^cnrrj describes the sphere of growth, and
the meaning is, not that we are to grow in love, as if love
were the virtue in which progress was to be made, but that
in love we are to grow in reference to all things nil the
elements essential to perfection ; love being the means and the
sphere of our advancement. The phrase et&lt;? avrov does not
mean "in Him," according to the erroneous rendering of
Jerome, Pelagius, Grotius, and liiickert ; nor yet "like Him,"
as is the paraphrase of Zanchius ; but "to Him," to Him as
the end or aim of this growth, as is held by Crocius, Kstitis,
Holzhausen, Meyer, Olshausen, and de Wettc ; or " into Him,"
into closer union with Him, as the centre and support of life
and growth. Buttmann, Ncutcst. Spmrh. \\ 1

It is almost superfluous to remark, that the syntax of

320 EPHESIANS IV. 15.

Wahl, Holzhausen, Koppe, and Schrader, in making ra Trdvra
equivalent to ol Trdvres, cannot be received. The words
mean " as to all " Kara being the supplement, if one were
needed ; but such an accusative denoting " contents or com
pass " often follows verbs which cannot govern the accusative
of object. Madvig, 25. And the phrase is not simply
Trdvra, but ra Trdvra. We cannot acquiesce in the view of
Haiiess, who restricts the words to the evorys of ver. 13.
Stier, giving the article the same retrospective reference,
includes faith, knowledge, truth, and love. That ra Trdvra
has often a special contextual reference, the passages adduced
by Harless are sufficient proof. But it is often used in an
absolute sense (Rom. xi. 36 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6); or if these, from
their peculiarity of meaning, be not reckoned apposite refer
ences, we have in addition 1 Cor. xv. 28 ; Mark iv. 11 ; Acts
xvii. 25 ; Bom. viii. 32. Besides, " the unity of the faith and
of the knowledge of the Son of God," is the end to which
Christians are to come, and cannot therefore be well reckoned
also among the elements of growth. Meyer s idea is, that
ra Trdvra denotes " all in which we grow," and he supposes the
apostle to mean, that all things in which we grow should have
reference to Christ. Luther, Beza, Riickert, and Matthies,
render pro omnia, or prorsus. The article gives Trdvra an
emphatic sense " the whole ; " and as the reference of the
apostle is to a growing body, ra Trdvra may signify all that
properly belongs to it ; or, as Olshausen phrases it, " we are
to grow in all those things in which the Christian must
advance." The apostle first lays down the primary and per
manent means of growth, holding the truth d\ri6evovre &lt; $ ;
then he describes the peculiar temperament in which this
growth is secured and accelerated ev dydTry ; then he speci
fies its aim and end els avrov ; and, lastly, he marks its
amount and harmony ra Trdvra. The body becomes mon
strous by the undue development of any part or organ, and
the portion that does not grow is both unsightly and weak,
and not fitted to honour or serve the head. The apostle thus
inculcates the duty of symmetrical growth, each grace ad
vancing in its own place, and in perfect unison with all
around it. That character is nearest perfection in which the
excessive prominence of no grace throws such a withering

EPHKSIANS IV. 16. 321

shadow upon the rest, as to signalize or perpetuate their
defect, but in which all is healthfully balanced in just and
delicate adaptation. Into Him

o? ea-riv i] K&lt;f&gt;a\rj, Xpicrros " who is the head Christ."
D, E, F, G, K, L, prefix the article to X/SKTTO?, but A, 15,
and C, with other authorities, read Xpio-rcx; without the
article, perhaps rightly. The article in the New Testament is
oftener omitted than inserted. When Alford warns against
our former rendering "the Christ" he evidently puts a
polemic meaning into the phrase which is not necessarily in
it. The meaning of Ke&lt;f&gt;a\jj in such a connection has been
already explained ; i. 22. That Head is Christ Xpia-ros
being placed with solemn emphasis at the end of the verse
being in the nominative and in assimilation with the preceding
relative. Stallbaum, Plato Apol p. 41 ; Winer, 59, 7. The
Head is Christ one set apart, commissioned, and qualified as
Redeemer, and who by His glorious and successful inter
position has won for Himself this illustrious pre-eminence.

(Ver. 16.) We would not say with Chrysostom, that "the
apostle expresses himself here with great obscurity, from his
wish to utter all at once TO&gt; irdv-ra o/^oO #eX?}o-cu ci-rreiv ; "
but we may say that the language of this verse is as com
pacted as the body which it describes.

ef ov from whom," that is, from Christ as the Head.
This phrase does not and cannot mean " to whom," as Koppe
gives it, nor " by whom," as Morns, Holzhausen, and Flatt
maintain. The preposition etc marks the source. " From
whom," as its source of growth, " the body maketli increase."
The body without the head is but a lifeless trunk. It was
et? avrov in the previous verse, and now it is tf ov. The
growtli is to Him, and the growth is from Him Himself its
origin and Himself its end. The life that springs from Him
as the source of its existence, is ever seeking and flowing
back to Him as the source of its enjoyment. The anatomical
figure is as follows

irav TO croyui crvi&gt;apfjLo\oyovpVov Kal av/jfiifta&pfvoi
"all the body being fitly framed together ami put together."
The verb connected with o-w/za as its nominative is Troiflrai.
The first participle occurs at ii. 21, and is there explained It
denotes " being composed of parts litted clo.sely to each

322 EPHESIANS IV. 1C.

other." The second participle is used in a tropical sense in
the New Testament (Acts ix. 22, xvi. 10 ; 1 Cor. ii. 16), but
here it has its original signification "brought and held
together." The two participles express the idea that the
body is of many parts, which have such mutual adaptation in
position and function, that it is a firm and solid structure

&ia iraa-ris a(/&gt;??9 TT}? eTn,%oprjytas " by means of every
joint of the supply." This clause has originated no little
difference of opinion. We take it as closely connected by Sid
with the two preceding participles, and as expressing the
instrumentality by which this symmetry and compactness are
secured. Meyer, Stier, and Alford, following Bengel, and
contrary to its position, join the phrase to the verb Troieirai,.
The Greek fathers, followed by Meyer, render a^rj by
atffdrja-i^ touch, sense of touch ; tactum subministrationis is
found in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xxii. 18, and similarly
Wycliffe " bi eche joynture of undir seruynge." But, with
the majority of expositors, we take the word as explained
by the parallel passage in Col. ii. 19, and as the Vulgate
renders it junctura. Eirvxppijyla denotes aid or assistance,
and is taken by Flatt, Kiickert, Earless, and Olshausen, as
the genitive of apposition, and as referring to the Holy Spirit.
The Greek fathers, and Meyer, render " through our feeling
of divine assistance." Chrysostom says " that spirit which
is supplied to the members from the head, touches, or com
municates itself to each single member, and thus actuates it."
Their idea is, through the joint or bond of union, which is
the supply or aid of the Holy Spirit. We prefer taking
eVt^opyYta? as the genitive of use compacted together by
every joint which serves for supply. John v. 29 ; Heb. ix. 21;
Winer, 30, 2 /& Eirixoprjyla is thus the assistance which
the joints give in compacting and organizing the body. So
in Col. ii. 19 8ta raJv a&lt;a&gt;i&gt; KOI avv&ea iLwv 7ri%opr] yovfjLvov.
Such is also the general view of Grotius, Zanchius, Calvin,
Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Ellicott. We understand
it thus From whom all the body, mutually adapted in all its
parts, and closely compacted by means of every joint whose
function it is to afford such aid

KCLT evep*/eiav ev fierpw ei&gt;o? efcdarov /xepou? " according
to energy in the measure of each individual part." The MSS.

EPHKSIAXS IV. 1C. 3 J3

A and C, with others of less note, along with the Vulgate,
Coptic, and Syriac versions, and Chrysostom, Jerome, and
Telagius, read fwfXov?, which fits the passage so well as an
explanation of pepovs, that we can easily conceive how it was
introduced. Kuckert and I&gt;retschneider take rear eWpyaai;
as an adverbial phrase, but without any real ground. The
noun has been explained under i. 19, iii. 7. It signifies
" inworking" effectual influence or operation, and is a modal
explanation attached to the following verb. No article is
between it and the following noun indicating unity of con
ception. Ev fj,erpro " in the measure of every one part," a
plain reference to ver. 7. Bernhardy, p. 211. The connection
has been variously supposed: 1. Harless takes the phrase in
connection with the participle av^i^a^^vov. Such a con
nection is, we think, fallacious, for the compactness and the
union of the body depend upon the functional assistance of the
joints, not merely on the energy which pervades eacli part of
the body, and which to each part is apportioned. But the
growth depends on this cvepyeta, or distributed vital power,
and so we prefer to connect the clause with the following
verb " maketh increase." And it puzzles us to discover any
reason why Harless should understand by the " parts" of the
body, the pastors and teachers mentioned in ver. 11. Such
an idea wholly mars the unity of the figure. 2. Others,
among whom are Stier, Flatt, and Matthies, join the phrase
to tTrixoprryias, as if the assistance given by the joints were
according to this energy. To this we have similar objection,
and we would naturally have expected the repetition of the
article, though it is not indispensable. " Energy," " measure,"
"part," belong rather to the idea of growth than to stability.
This energy is supposed by some, such as Theophylact, Gro-
tius, and Beza, to be that of Christ, and /anchius takes along
with this the reflex operation of grace among the members of
the church. The whole body

TIIV av^Tjatv TOV 0"a&gt;^uiTo? 7roiiTai " carries on the increase
of the body." Col. ii. 19. Though crayta was the nominative,
0-tofj.aTos is repeated in the genitive the body maketh increase
of the body, even of itself. Luke iii. 1 9 ; John ix. 5 ; Winer,
22, 2 ; Bornemann, Scholia in Luc. xxx. p. 5. The ftent. nce
being so long, the noun is repeated, especially as tavrov occurs

324 EPHESIAXS IV. 16.

in the subsequent clause. The use of the middle voice
indicates either that the growth is of internal origin, and is
especially its own it makes growth " for itself," or a special
intensity of idea is intended. See under iii. 18; Kriiger,
52, 8, 4. The middle voice in this verb often seems to
have little more than the active signification (Passow, sub
voce), but the proper sense of the middle is here to be acknow
ledged, signifying either that the growth is produced from vital
power within the body, or denoting the spiritual energy with
which the process is carried on. Winer, 38, 5, note. The
body, so organized and compacted, developes the body s growth
according to the vital energy which is measured out to each
one of its parts. The purpose of this growth is now stated

et? OLKO^O^V eavrov ev aydirrj " for the building up of
itself in love." The phrase ev ayaTry, however, plainly
connects this verse with the preceding one. Meyer errs in
connecting ev ayd-rrrj with the verb or the whole clause. The
words are the solemn close, and the verb has been twice
conditioned already. Love is regarded still as the element in
which growth is made. And it is not to be taken here in any
restricted aspect, for it is the Christian grace viewed in its
widest relations the fulfilment of the law. Such we conceive
to be the general meaning of the verse.

The figure is a striking one. The body derives its vitality
and power of development from the head. See under i. 22,
23. The church has a living connection with its living Head,
and were such a union dissolved, spiritual death would be the
immediate result. The body is fitly framed together and
compacted by the functional assistance of the joints. Its
various members are not in mere juxtaposition, like the
several pieces of a marble statue. No portion is superfluous ;
each is in its fittest place, and the position and relations of
none could be altered without positive injury. " Fearfully
and wonderfully made," it has its hard framework of bone so
formed as to protect its vital organs in the thorax and skull,
and yet so united by " curiously wrought " joints, as to
possess freedom of motion botli in its vertebral column and
limbs. But it is no ghastly and repulsive skeleton, for it is
clothed with flesh and fibre, which are fed from ubiquitous
vessels, and interpenetrated with nerves the Spirit s own

EPHESIAXS IV. 16. 325

sensational agents and messengers. It is a mechanism in
which all is so finely adjusted, that every part helps and is
helped, strengthens and is strengthened, the invisible action of
the pores being as indispensable as the mass of the brain and
the pulsations of the heart When the commissioned nerve
moves the muscle, the hand and foot need the vision to guide
them, and the eye, therefore, occupies the elevated position of
a sentinel. How this figure is applicable to the church may
be seen under a different image at ii. 21. The church enjoys
a similar compacted organization all about her, in doctrine,
discipline, ordinance, and enterprise, possessing mutual adaj&gt;-
tation, and showing harmony of structure and power of
increase.

" The body maketh increase of the body " according to the
energy which is distributed to every part in its own pro
portion. Corporeal growth is not effected by additions from
without. The body itself elaborates the materials of its own
development. Its stomach digests the food, and the numerous
absorbents extract and assimilate its nourishment. It grows,
each part according to its nature and uses. The head does
not swell into the dimensions of the trunk, nor does the
"little finger" become " thicker than the loins." Each has
the size that adapts it to its uses, and brings it into symmetry
with the entire living organism. And every part grows.
The sculptor works upon a portion only of the block at a
time, and, with laborious effort, brings out in slow succession
the likeness of a feature or a limb, till the statue assumes its
intended aspect and attitude. Hut the plastic energy of
nature presents no such graduated forms of operation, and
needs no supplement of previous defects. Kven in the
embryo the organization is perfect, though it is in miniature,
and harmonious growth only is required. For the " cmTgy "
is in every part at once, but in every part in dm- apportion
ment. So the church universal has in it a Divine energy,
and that in all its parts, by which its spiritual development
is secured. In pastors and people, in missionaries and
catechists, in instructors of youth and in the youth them
selves, this Divine principle has diffused itself, and produces
everywhere proportionate advancement And no ordinance
or member is superfluous. Blessing is invoked on the word

326 EPIIESIANS IV. 17.

preached, and the eucharist is the complement of baptism.
Praise is the result of prayer, and the " keys " are made alike
to open and to shut. Of old the princes and heroes went to
the field, and "wise-hearted women did spin." While Joshua
fought, Moses prayed. The snuffers and trays were as
necessary as the magnificent lamp-stand. The rustic style of
Amos the herdsman has its place in Scripture, as well as the
polished paragraphs of the royal preacher. The widow s mite
was commended by Him who sat over against the treasury.
Solomon built a temple. Joseph provided a tomb. Mary
the mother gave birth to the child, and the other Maries
wrapt the corpse in spices. Lydia entertained the apostle,
and Phoebe carried an epistle. A basket was as necessary
for Paul s safety at one time as his burgess ticket and a troop
of cavalry at another. And the result is, that the church is
built up, for love is the element of spiritual progress. That
love fills the renewed nature, and possesses peculiar facilities
of action in " edifying " the mystical body of Christ. And,
lastly, the figure is intimately connected with the leading idea
of the preceding paragraph, and presents a final argument on
behalf of the unity of the church. The apostle speaks of but
one body irav TO aco^a. Whatever parts it may have,
whatever their form, uses, and position, whatever the amount
of energy resident in them, still, from their connection with
the one living Head, and from their own compacted union and
mutual adjustment, they compose but one growing structure
" in love : "

"I m apt to think, the man
That could surround the sum of things, and spy
The heart of God and secrets of His empire,
Would speak but love. With him the bright result
Would change the hue of intermediate scenes,
And make one thing of all theology."

(Ver. 17.) Tovro ovv \eya&gt; "This, then, I say." The
apostle now recurs to the inculcation of many special and
important duties, or as Theodoret writes iraKw dve\a{3e ; and
he begins with the statement of some general principles. The
singular TOVTO gives a species of unity and emphasis to the
following admonitions, for it here refers to succeeding state
ments, as in 1 Cor. vii. 29; 1 Thess. iv. 15. Other

EPIIESIANS IV. 17. 327

examples may be seen in Winer, 23, 5. Ovv is not merely
resumptive of the ethical tuition begun in ver. 1 (Donaldson,
548, 31), but it has reference also to the previous paragraph
from vers. 4 to 16, which, thrown out as a digression from

* * O

ver. 3, runs at length into an argument for the exhortations
which follow. Granting, as Ellicott contends, that gram
matically ovv is only resumptive, it may be admitted that
such a resumption is modified by the sentiment of the
intervening verses. The apostle in resuming cannot forget
the statements just made by him the destined perfection of
the church, its present advancement, with truth for its
nutriment and love for its sphere, and its close and living
connection with its glorified Head. How emphatic is his
warning to forsake the sins and sensualities of surrounding
heathendom ! Kom. xii. 3.

Xeyo&gt; Kal ^.ap"rvpop.aL ev Kvpico " I say and testify in the
Lord." Kom. ix. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim.
ii 14, iv. 1. The apostle does not mean to call the Lord to
witness, as if eV Kvpiw could mean "by the Lord," as Theodoret
and some of his imitators render it ; but he solemnly charges
" in the Lord " the Lord being the element in which the
charge is delivered

fijLTjKtTi v/xa? TrepLircLTelv /ca$a&gt;? Kal TO. \onra 0vrj TreptTraTti
" that ye walk no longer as also the other Gentiles w;ilk."
1 Put. iv. 3. It is to the Gentile portion of the church that
the apostle addresses himself. The adverb p.rjfcri, " no longer,"
is here used with the infinitive, though often with u/a and tlm
subjunctive. The infinitive, which grammatically is the object
of Xeyo), expresses not so much what is, as what ought to be.
Bernhardy, p. 371 ; Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 371 ; Winer, 44,
3, b; Donaldson, 584. They once walked as Gentile*, but
they were to walk so no longer. The verb Trcpnrarclv, in iu
reference to habits of life, has been explained under ii. 1
/eat after Kadax; means "also." Hartung, i. p. 12G. In some
such cases tcai occurs twice, as in Kom. i. 13, on which see
the remarks of Fritzsche in his Comment. A, B, D, F, G,
the Coptic, the Vulgate, and most of the Latin fathers omit
\onrd. But the great majority of MSS. retain it, such as D J ,
I) 3 , E, K, L, and the Greek fathers, with the old Syriac version.
We therefore prefer, with Tischendorf, to keep it, and we

328 EPHESIANS IV. 17.

can easily imagine a finical reason for its being left out by
early copyists, as the Ephesian Christians seem by \onrd to be
reckoned among Gentiles yet. But being Gentiles by extrac
tion, they are exhorted not to walk as the rest of the Gentiles
such as still remain unconverted or are in the state in which
they always have been. Just as a modern missionary might
say to his congregation in Southern Africa, Walk not as the
other Kaffirs around you. The other Gentiles walked

ev fjLaraLOTTjri, rov 1/005 avr&v " in the vanity of their
mind." The sphere in which they walk is described by eV.
Rom. i. 21. Now is not intellect simply, but in the case of
believers it signifies that portion of the spiritual nature whose
function is to comprehend and relish Divine truth. Usteri,
Lehrb. p. 35. It is the region of thought, will, and suscepti
bility the mind with its emotional capabilities. Beck, Seelenl.
p. 49, etc.; Delitzsch, Psych, p. 244. In the Hebrew psycho
logy the intellect and heart were felt to act and react on one
another, so that we have such phrases as " an understanding
heart," 1 Kings iii. 9 ; " hid their heart from understanding,"
Job xvii. 4 ; " the desires of the mind," Eph. ii. 3, etc.
That mind was characterized by " vanity." Its ideas and
impulses were perverse and fruitless. We do not, with some
exegetes, restrict this vanity to the Hebrew sense of idolatry
/sri or as Theodoret thus defines it ra yu?) ovra OeoTroiovvra.
The meaning seems to be, that all the efforts and operations
of their spiritual nature ended in dreams and disappointment.
Speculation on the great First Cause, issued in atheism,
polytheism, and pantheism ; and discussions on the supreme
good failed to elicit either correct views of man s intellectual
nature in its structure, or to train its moral nature to a right
perception of its capabilities, obligations, and destiny ; while
the future was either denied in a hopeless grave without a
resurrection, or was pictured out as the dreary circuit of an
eternal series of transmigrations, or had its locality in a
shadowy elysium, which, though a scene of classical retire
ment, was " earthly, sensual, devilish " the passions unsub
dued, and the heart unsanctified. The ethical and religious
element of their life was unsatisfactory and cheerless, alike in
worship and in practice, the same as to present happiness as
to future prospect, for they knew not " man s chief end."

EPHESIAXS iv. is. 329

(Ver. 18.) Ea-Kona-^vot rfj Siavota, tfi/re? uTrrjXXo-rptw^i Oi
T7/9 0)7)9 ToO Seov " Darkened in tlieir understanding, and
being alienated from the life of God." Critics have differed
as to which of the two leading perfect participles the participle
oire? should be joined. Many attach it to the first of them,
such as Clement (Protrcpt. ix. p. 69), Theodoret, Bengel,
Harless, Meyer, Stier, de Wette, and the editors Knupp,
Lachmann, and Tischeudorf. In the New Testament, when
any part of the verb et/u is joined to a participle, it usually
precedes that participle. Besides, in the twin epistle (Col. i.
21) the very expression occurs, the second participle being
regarded as a species of adjective. Nor by such a connection
is the force of the sentence broken, as Alford contends. For
the first participle, eo-Koncrpevoi, assigns a reason for the pre
vious clause " darkened, inasmuch as they are darkened ; "
and the second, a7rrj\\orpt(t)^oi, parallel to the first, adjoins
another reason and yet more emphatically ovres being
alienated and remaining so. Winer, 45, 5. The gender is
changed to the masculine, agreeing in meaning but not in form
with rd \onrd eOvrj, and the entire sense is often said to be a
species of parallelism, which might be thus arranged

Having been darkened in their understanding,

By the ignorance that is in them,

Forasmuch as they have been alienated from the life of God,

By the hardness of their hearts.

Bengel and Olshausen arrange the verse thus, and Jebb
calls it an "alternate quatrain." Sacred Literature, p. 192,
ed. London, 1831. Forbes, Symmetrical Structure of Scripture,
p. 21. But such an artificial construction, though it may
happen in Hebrew poetry, can scarcely be exacted to bo
found in a letter. Nor does it, as Meyer well argues, yield a
good sense. According to such a construction, " the ignorance
that is in them " must be regarded as the cause or instrument
of their being darkened in their understanding. Hut this
reverses the process described by the aj&gt;ostle, for ignorance is
the effect, and not the cause, of the obscuration,
results from darkening or the interception of light. De WetUs
tries to escape the difficulty by saying that ayvoia in rather
theoretic ignorance, while the first clause has closer reference

330 EPHESIANS IV. 18.

to what is practical ; but it is impossible to establish such a
distinction on sufficient authority. We therefore take the
clauses as the apostle has placed them. Aiavoia, explained
under ii. 3 and i. 18, is the dative expressive of sphere.
Winer, 31, 3. The word here, both from the figurative
term joined with it, and from the language of the following
clause, seems to refer more to man s intellectual nature, and is
so far distinguished from vovs before it and icapSia coining
after it. See Eom. i. 21, and xi. 10. Other instances of
similar usage among the classics may be seen in the lexicons.
Deep shadow lay upon the Gentile mind, unrelieved save by
some fitful gleams which genius occasionally threw across it,
and which were succeeded only by profounder darkness. A
child in the lowest form of a Sunday school, will answer
questions with which the greatest minds of the old heathen
world grappled in vain.

And that darkness of mind was associated with spiritual
apostasy. The participle airri\\oTpLwpevoi has been explained
in our remarks on ii. 12, and there it occurs also in a
description of Gentile condition. ZMJJ rov Qeov is not a life
according to God rj Kara Qeov 0)77, or a virtuous life, as
Theodoret, Theophylact, and others describe it ; nor is it
merely " a life which God approves," as is held by Koppe,
Wahl, Moras, Scholz, Whitby, and Chandler. The term does
not refer to course or tenor of conduct filos but to the
element or principle of Divine life within us. Vomel, Synon.
Worterb. p. 168. Nor has the opinion of Erasmus any
warrant, that the genitive is in apposition vera vita, qui est
Deus. The genitive Seov is genitivus audoris that of origin,
as is rightly held by Meyer, de Wette, Harless, Riickert, and
Olshausen. It is that life from God which existed in unfallen
man, and re-exists in all believers who are in fellowship with
God the life which results from the operation and indwelling
of the Holy Ghost. Compare ii. 1-5 ; Trench, Syn. xxviii.
Harless will not admit any allusion to regeneration in this life,
but refers us to the Logos in whom is "the life of men."
Granted ; but that light only penetrates, and that life only
pulsates, through the applying energies of the Holy Ghost.
The Gentile world having severed itself from this life was
spiritually dead, and therefore a sepulchral pall was thrown

EPHESIAXS IV. 19. 331

over its intellect. There could be no light in their mind,
because there was no life in their hearts, for the life in the
Logos is the light of men. The heart reacts on the intellect.
And the apostle now gives the reason

Oia TT)i&gt; ayvoiav rrjv ovcrav tv avrols, Bid TIJV irujpaxriv TT}V
s avrwv "through the ignorance which is in them,
through the hardness of their hearts." These clauses assign
the reason for their alienation from the Divine life first,
ignorance of God, His character, and dispensations ; this
ignorance being " in them " r^v ova-av (oWe? being already
employed) as a deep-seated element of their moral condition.
In reference to immortality, for example, how sad their igno
rance ! Thus Moschus sighs

" One rest we keep,
One long, eternal, una wakened sleep."

Nox cst perpctua, una, dormienda, sobs Catullus. Tlie second
clause commencing with Bid assigns a co-ordinate and expla
natory second reason for their alienation from the life of
God the hardness of their hearts. IIwpaHTis obtuseness or
callousness, not blindness, as if from 7ro&gt;po&lt;? (Fritzsche, ad
Rom. xi. 7), is a very significant term their 7ra&gt;/?a&gt;o-t? having,
as Theodoret says, no feeling Bid TO Trai/reXw? vevetcpaxrOai.
The unsusceptibility of an indurated heart was the ultimate
cause of their lifeless and ignorant state. The disease began
in the callous heart. It hardened itself against impression
and warning, left the mind uninformed and indifferent, alien
ated itself from the life of God, and was at last shrouded
in the shadow of death. Surely the Ephesians were not
to walk as the other Gentiles placed in this hapless and
degraded state. This view of the Gentile world differs from
that given in chap. ii. This has more reference to inner
condition, while that in the preceding chapter characterizes
principally the want of external privilege with its sad results.
(Ver. 19.) OiVti/e? u7rrj\yrjKor&lt;; eai/roiN -rraptBuicav rfi
da-\yeia " Who as being past feeling have given themselves
over to uncleanness." For 077^7X777*0?, the Codices J&gt;, 1
read aTr^XTrt/coVe?, and F, G a^r/XTrtAcore? ; the Vulgate with

its dcsperantcs, and the Syriac with its X/-n.~rn

332 EPHESIANS IV. 19.

follow such a reading. But the preponderance of evidence is
on the side of the Textus Eeceptus, which is also vindicated
by Jerome, who, following out the etymology of the word,
defines it in the following terms hi sunt, qui,postquampecca-
verint, non dolent. The heathen sinners are described as being
a class omz/69 beyond shame, or the sensation of regret.
Kiihner, 781, 4, 5. The apathy which characterized them
only induced a deeper recklessness, for they abandoned them
selves to lasciviousness ; eavrous being placed, as Meyer says,
mit dbsclireckendcm Naehdwick with terrific emphasis. Sub
jection to this species of vice is represented as a Divine
punishment in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
" God gave them up to it." But here their own conscious
self-abandonment is brought out they gave themselves up to
lasciviousness. Self-abandonment to deeper sin is the Divine
judicial penalty of sin. Aae^yela is insolence (Joseph. Antiq.
iv. 612, xviii. 13, 1; Plutarch, Alcibiades, viii.), and then
lust, open and unrestrained. Trench, Syn. xvi. Lobeck, ad
Pliryn. p. 184. This form of vice was predominant in the
old heathen world, and was indulged in without scruple or
reserve. Horn. i. 24, xiii. 13 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; Gal. v. 19. The
apostle introduces it here as a special instance of that degraded
spiritual state which he had just described in the former verse.
ei&lt;? epyacruiv dfcadapo-ia? Trd&lt;rri&lt;s " to the working of all
uncleanness." Els denotes purpose, " in order to " Traces
being placed after the noun, and not, as more usually, before
it. Epyacria is not a trade, as in Acts xix. 25, nor the gain
of traffic, but as in Septuagint, Ex. xxvi. 1 ; 1 Chron. vi.
49. AfcaOapcrui in Matt, xxiii. 27 signifies the loathsome
impurity of a sepulchre ; but otherwise in the New Testament,
and the instances are numerous, it usually denotes the special
sin of lewdness or unchastity. The vice generally is named
lasciviousness, but there were many shapes of it, and they
wrought it in all its forms. Even its most brutal modes were
famous among them, as the apostle has elsewhere indicated.
The refinements of art too often ministered to such grovelling
pursuits. The naked statues of the goddesses were not
exempted from rape (Lucian, Amorcs, 15, p. 272, vol. v. ed.
liipont), and many pictures of their divinities were but the
excitements of sensual gratifications. The most honoured

EPIIESIANS IV. 19. 333

symbols in their possessions and worship were the obscenest,
and thus it was in India, Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, and
Etniria. There was a brisk female trade in potions to
induce sterility or barrenness. In fact, one dares not describe
the forms, and scenes, and temptations of impurity, or even
translate what classical poets and historians have revealed
without a blush. The relics preserved from Herculaneum and
Pompeii tell a similar tale, and are so gross that they cannot
meet the public eye. The reader will see some awful revela
tions in Tholuck s Tract on Heathenism, published in Xeander s
Denkwiirdigkeiten, and translated in the 2nd vol. of the
American Bib. Repository. Who can forget the sixth satire of
Juvenal ?

*Ev TrXeovegia " in greediness " the spirit in which they
gave themselves up to wantonness. The explanation of this
word is attended with difficulty: 1. Many refer the term to
the greed of gain derived from prostitution, and both sexes
were guilty of this abomination. Such is the view of Grotius,
Bengel, Koppe, Chandler, Stolz, Flatt, Meier, and Blihr.
2. The Greek commentators educe the sense of djju-rpia in-
satiableness ; and also Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Roell,
Crocius, Harless, Stier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and
Trench, Syn. xxiv. Suicer, in his Thesaurus, says, " that
such a meaning was no uncommon one among the Greek
fathers," but they seem to have got it from the earlier inter
pretations of this very verse. The meaning assigned it by
the Greek fathers cannot be sustained by the scriptural usage
to which appeal is made, as 1 Cor. v. 10, Eph. v. 3 a.s in
the first instance it is disjoined by rj from Tropvos, but joined
by Kai to the following ap-jra^v according to preponderant
authority. In this epistle, v. 2, -rropveia and axaOapcrta
are joined by icai, but dissociated from 7r\oz&gt;e&lt;a by / and
in v. 5, TrXeoz/eKT?;? is termed an idolater. See under Col.
iii. o. See Ellicott. 3. Olshausen takes it its meaning
" physical avidity, pampering oneself with meat and drink,
or that luxury and high feeding by which lust is provoked."
This last meaning suits well, and embodies a terrible and
disgusting truth, but it takes TrXeoi/efux in a sense which can
not be borne out. lieza and Aretius render it cerfa im, as if
the heathen outvied one another in impurity. 4. We prefer

334 EHIESIAXS IV. 20, 21.

the common meaning of the noun "greediness." This
spirit of covetous extortion was an accompaniment of their
sensual indulgences. Self was the prevailing power the
gathering in of all possible objects and enjoyments on one
self was the absorbing occupation. This accompaniment of
sensualism sprang from the same root with itself, and was but
another form of its development. The heathen world mani
fested the intensest spirit of acquisition. It showed itself in
its unbounded licentiousness, and its irrepressible thirst of
gold. There might be reckless and profligate expenditure on
wantonness and debauchery, but it was combined with insati
able cupidity. Its sensuality was equalled by its sordid greed
7T\eov, more ; that point gained, irXtov more still. Self
in everything, God in nothing.

(Ver. 20.) Tyiiet? Se ov% ovrcos efidOere rov Xpiarov "But
ye did not thus learn Christ." Ak is adversative, and v^els
is placed emphatically. Xpiaros is not simply the doctrine
or religion of Christ, as is the view of Crellius and Schlich-
ting, nor is it merely dperrj virtue, as Origen conceives it
(Catena, ed. Cramer, Oxford, 1842), but Christ Himself. Col.
ii. 6. See also Phil. iii. 10. Harless even, Eiickert, Meier,
and Matthies, take the verb navOdvw in the sense of " to
learn to know " " ye have not thus learned to know Christ."
But this would elevate a mere result or reference to be part
of the translation. The knowledge of Christ is the effect of
learning Christ ; but it is of the process, not of its effect, that
the apostle here speaks. Christ was preached, and Christ was
learned by the audience oi/rw?. The manner of their learning
is indicated " Ye have not learned Christ so as to walk any
more like the rest of the Gentiles." Your lessons have not
been of such a character they have been given in a very
different form, and accompanied with a very different result.
Once dark, dead, dissolute, and apathetic, they had learned
Christ as the light and the life as the purifier and perfecter
of His pupils. The following division of this clause is a vain
attempt u/iet? Se ov% OL/TW? [eVre] " but ye are not so ; "
ye have learned Christ. Yet such an exegesis has the great
names of Beza and Gataker in its support. Adversaria Sacra,
p. 158.

(Ver. 21.) Erye avrov rjKovcrare "If indeed Him ye have

EPHESIAN S IV. 21. 335

heard ; " not in living person, but embodied and presented in
the apostolical preaching. 1 Cor. i. 23. The particle efye
does not directly assert, but rather takes for granted that
what is assumed is true. See under iii. 2.

KOI v avrco eSiBd-^drjrc " and in Him were taught." Ki&gt;
avTfZ signifies, as in other previous portions of the epistle
"in Him," that is, "in union with Him;" i. 7, etc. It does
not mean " by Him," as is the rendering of the English ver
sion, and of Castalio, who translates ab eo, and of I5eza, one
of whose versions is per cum. Still less can the words bear
the translation about Him. It denotes, as is proved by
Hiirless, Olshausen, and Matthies, preceded by Bucer " in
Him." Winer, 48, a. It is the spiritual sphere or
condition in which they were taught They had not received
a mere theoretic tuition. The hearing is so far only external,
but being " in Him," they were effectually taught. One with
Him in spirit, they were fitted to become one with Him in
mind. The interpretation of Olshausen gives the words a
doctrinal emphasis and esoterism of meaning which they
cannot by any means bear. The hearing Christ and in Him
being taught, are equivalent to learning Christ, in the pre
vious verse are rather the two stages of instruction.

The connection of this clause with the next clause, and
with the following verse, has originated a great variety &lt;&gt;f
criticisms. The most probable interpretation is that of Reza,
Kop{&gt;e, Flatt, Harless, Olshausen, de Wette, and Winer, and
may be thus expressed: "If indeed ye heard Him, and in
Him were taught, as there is truth in Jesus taught that ye
put off the old man." This appears to be the simplest and
most natural construction. The apostle had been describing
the gloom, death, and impurity of surrounding heathenism.
His counsel is, that the Ephcsian converts were not t&lt; walk
in such a sphere; and his argument is, they had been K-tUT
tutored, for they learned Christ, had heard Him, and in Him
had been taught that they should cast off the old man, the
governing principle in the period of their inregeneracy, when
they did walk as the other Gentiles walked. M-yer and
Baumgarten - Crusius, preceded by Anselin, Vatablus, and
Bullinger, however, connect airoOtaOcu in the fol
with u\t ]0ia it is " the truth in Jesus, that ye put off the

336 EPHESIAXS IV. 21.

old man ; " thus making it the subject of the sentence. The
instances adduced by Raphelius of such a construction in
Herodotus are scarcely to the point, and presuppose that
aX^Oeia has the same signification as the term I/O/MO?
employed by the historian. Meyer lays stress on the vpas,
but it is added to mark the antithesis between their present
and former state. It is certainly more natural to connect it
with the preceding verb, but we cannot accede to the view of
Bengel, a-Lapide, Stier, and Zachariae, who join it with
jjiaprvpo/jLcu in ver. 17, for in that case there would be a long
and awkward species of parenthesis. " Taught "

KaOtos e&Tiv a\r)6eia ev rut Irjaov " as there is truth in
Jesus." We cannot but regard the opinion of de Wette,
Harless, and Olshausen as defective, in so far as it restricts
the meaning of aXrj^eta too much to moral truth or holiness.
" What in Jesus," says Olshausen, " is truth and not sem
blance, is to become truth also in believers." The idea of
Harless is, " As there is truth in Jesus, so on your part put
off the old man ; " implying a peculiar comparison between
Jesus and the Ephesian believers addressed. This is not very
different from the paraphrase of Jerome Quomodo est veritas
in Jesu sic erit et in vobis qui didicistis Christum ; nor is the
paraphrase of Estius greatly dissimilar. The notions of the
Greek fathers are narrower still. (Ecumenius makes it the
same as ^ucaiovvvr]. It means TO opOws ftiovv, says Chry-
sostom ; and the same view, with some unessential variety, is
expressed by Luther, Camerarius, Raphelius, Wolf, Storr,
Flatt, Eiickert, Meier, and Holzhausen. But the noun
a\r)6eLa does not usually bear such a meaning in the New
Testament, nor does the context necessarily restrict it here.
It is directly in contrast not only with aTrar^? in the next
verse, but with fv /JLaraiorrjrL evKOTLcrpevoi ayvoia in vers.
17, 18. Nor can the word bear the meaning assigned to it
by those who make atroOecrOai depend upon it their render
ing being, " If indeed ye heard Him, and in Him were taught,
as it is truth in Jesus for you to put off the old man." The
meaning held by Meyer is, that unless the old man is laid
off, there is no true fellowship in Jesus. But this notion
elevates an inference to the rank of a fully expressed idea.
We take a\7J6eta in its common meaning of spiritual truth,

EFHESIANS IV. 21. 337

that truth which the mediatorial scheme embodies truth in
all its own fulness and circuit ; that truth especially which
lodged in the man Jesus dXtjOeia and eV TV I^aoO being one
conception. The words eV TO&gt; Iijo-ov express the relation of
the truth to Christ, not in any sense the fellowship of
believers with Him. The historical name of the Saviour is
employed, as if to show that this truth had dwelt with
humanity, and in Him whom, as Christ, the apostles preached,
and whom these Ephesians had heard and learned. We find
the apostle commencing his hideous portraiture of the heathen
world by an assertion that they were the victims of mental
vanity, that they had darkened intellects, and that there was
ignorance in them. But those believers, who had been
brought over from among them into the fold of Christ, were
enlightened by the truth as well as guided by it, and must
have felt the power and presence of that truth in the
illumination of their minds as well as in the renewal of their
hearts and the direction of their lives. Why, then, should
this same a\i j0ia be taken here in a limited and merely
ethical sense ? It wants the article, indeed, but still it may
bear the meaning we have assigned it. The article is in F,
G, but with no authority.

The phrase, Kadoos eo-riv dXrjOeia tv ry Irjcrov, points out
the mode of tuition which they had enjoyed. The meaning
of /cafloj? may be seen under i. 4, and here it is a predicate of
manner attached to the preceding verb. It stands in contrast
to ov% OUTOD? in ver. 20 "ye have not so learned "-
not learned Him in such a way ou% OVTCOS as to feel a licence
to walk like the other Gentiles, but ye heard Him, and in Him
were taught in this way *a#ok as there is truth in Him.
It tells the kind of teaching which they had enjoyed, and the
next verse contains its substance. Their teaching was not
according to falsehood, nor according to human invention, but
according to truth, brought down to men, fitted to men, and
communicated to men, by its being lodged in the man Jesus.
They were in Him the Christ and so came into living
contact with that truth which was ami is in Jesus. This
appears on the whole to be a natural and harmonious inter
pretation, and greatly preferable to that of (. .ilixtus, Vat
Piscator, Wolf, and others, who give rcaOw the sense of " that "

338 EPHESIAXS IV. 22.

quod ; ye have been taught that there is truth in Jesus, or
what the truth in Jesus really is. Such a version breaks up
the continuity both of thought and syntax, and is not equal
to that of Flatt and Paickert, who give the KaOtos an argu
mentative sense "And ye in Him have been taught, for
there is truth in Him." Calvin, Rollock, Zanchius, Mac-
knight, Rosenrn tiller, and others, falsely suppose the apostle
to refer in this verse to two kinds of religious knowledge
one vain and allied still to carnality, and the other genuine
and sanctifying in its nature. Credner s opinion is yet wider
of the mark, for he supposes that the apostle refers to the
notion of an ideal Messiah, and shows its nullity by naming
him Jesus. " Taught "

(Ver. 22.) A-xoGtaQai fyia? "That you put off." The
infinitive, denoting the substance of what they had been thus
taught (Donaldson, 584; Winer, 44, 3), is falsely rendered
as a formal imperative by Luther, Zeger, and the Vulgate.
Bernhardy, p. 358. Our previous version, "have put," is
not, as Alford says of it, "inconsistent with the context,
as in ver. 25," for perfect change is not inconsistent with
imperfect development. But as Madvig, to whom Ellicott
refers, says, 171, & the aorist infinitive in such a case
" differs from the present only as denoting a single transient
action." See on Phil. iii. 1G. It is contrary alike to sense
and syntax on the part of Storr and Flatt, to take v^as
as governed by a-noBkaQai "that you put off yourselves!"
and it is a dilution of the meaning to supply Seiv, with
Piscator. *A7ro6ea-6ai and eVSucracr&u are figurative terms
placed in vivid contrast. ATroOea-Oat, is to put off, as one puts
off clothes. Rom. xiii. 12-14; Col. iii. 8; Jas. i. 21. Wet-
stein adduces examples of similar imagery from the classics,
and the Hebrew has an analogous usage. The figure has its
origin in daily life, and not, as some fanciful critics allege, in
any special instances of change of raiment at baptism, the
racecourse, or the initiation of proselytes. Selden, dc Jiire
Gentium, etc., lib. ii. 5 ; Vitringa, Obscrvat. Sac. 139. "That
you put off"

Kara rrjv Trporcpav avao-rpo^rjv rov 7ra\aiov avQpwirov
" as regards your former conversation, the old man." It is
contrary to the ordinary laws of language to translate these

EPHKSIAXS IV. 22. 339

words as if the apostle had written TOV TraXatov avOpv-jrov
TOV Kara rrporepav avaaTpo^jv. Yet this has been done by
Jerome and (Ecumenius, CJrotius and Estius, Koppc, liosen-
m tiller, and Bloomfield. Avavrpefyw occurs under ii. ;&gt;. tiiil.
113; 1 Tim. iv. 12 ; Suicer, sub race. This former conver
sation is plainly their previous heathen or unconverted state.
The apostle says, they were not now to live like the rest of
heathendom, for they had been instructed to put off as regards
their manner of life, " the old man " TOV Tra\aiov avtipcDrrov.
Horn. vi. G ; Col. iii. 9. The meaning of a somewhat similar
idiom o e&lt;7o&gt; avQpwiros may be seen under iii. 10. Jloni.
vii. 22. It is needless to seek the origin of this peculiar phrase
in any recondite or metaphysical conceptions. It has its
foundation in our own consciousness, and in our own attempts
to describe or contrast its different states, and is similar to our
current usage, as when we speak of our "former self" and
our " present self," or when we speak of a man s being
"beside himself" or coming "to himself." It does not sur
prise us to find similar language in the Talmud, such as
"the old Adam," etc. Schoettgen, Ifor. Jf&lt;b. 510; Tr. Jova-
moth, G2. Phraseology not unlike occurs also among the
classics. Diogenes Laertius, 9, GG. The words are, therefore,
a bold and vivid personification of the old nature we inherit
from Adam, the source and seat of original and actual trans
gression. The exegesis of many of the older commentators does
not come up to the full idea. This "self" or man is "old,"
not simply old in sin, as Jerome and Photius imagine
v rat? afj.apTiai&lt;; rraXaivOeis but as existing prior to our con
verted state, and as Athanasius says TOV drro TI;? TrraWoK
TOV Aoafj, yeyevvrjfjLevov yet not simply original sin. This
old man within us is a usurper, and is to be expelled. As
the Greek scholiast says, the old man is not &lt;pv&lt;n&lt;: in its
essential meaning, but T/}&lt;? (ipapTias tW/ryna. \N ith all
his instincts and principles, he is to be cast off, for he is
described as

TOV &lt;f&gt;6tipo{jici&gt;ov Kara ra? tVtfliyzi a? TI/V airaTrfi
corrupt according to the lusts of deceit. Kara ra? tm-
dvfjiias stands in contrast with *ara 6eoi in ver. 24. and TT";?
aTTaTT/? with T;")? aX^^e/a? of the same verse. The old man is
growing corrupt, and this being his coubtant condition and

340 EPIIESIANS IV. 22.

characteristic, the present tense is employed the corruption
is becoming more corrupt. And this corruption does not
describe merely the unhappy state of the old man, for, as
Olshausen remarks, this opinion of Harless is superficial.
The old man is " corrupt," filled with that sin which contains
in it the elements of its own punishment, and he is unfitted
by this condition for serving God, possessing the Divine life,
or enjoying happiness. That corruption is described in some
of its features in vers. 17 and 18. But the apostle adds more
specifically " according to the lusts of deceit." The pre
position Kara does not seem to have a causal significance.
Harless indeed ascribes to it a causal relation, but it seems to
have simply its common meaning of " according to " or " in
accordance with." Winer, 49, d. ^EiriOv/jiia is irregular and
excessive desire. Olshausen is wrong in confining the term
to sensual excesses, for he is obliged to modify the apostle s
statement, and say, that " from such forms of sin individual
Gentiles were free, and so were the mass of the Jewish
nation." But e-jriOv^ia is not necessarily sensual desire.
Where it has such a meaning as in liom. i. 24, 1 Thess.
iv. 5 the signification is determined by the context. The
" lusts of the flesh " are not restricted to fleshly longings.
Gal. v. 16, 24. The term is a general one, and signifies those
strong and self-willed desires and appetites which distinguish
unrenewed humanity. Eom. vi. 12, vii. 7; 1 Tim. vi. 9;
Tit. iii. 3. The genitive T?}? aTrurr)^ may be, as Meyer
takes it, the genitive of subject, airdrr) being personified.
Though it is a noun of quality, it is not to be looked on as
the mere genitive of quality. These lusts are all connected
with that deceit which is characteristic of sin ; a deceit which
it has lodged in man s fallen nature the offspring of that first
and fatal lie which

r " Brought death into the world and all our woe."

Heb. iii. 13; 2 Cor. xi. 3. This "deceit" which tyrannizes
over the old man, as the truth guides and governs the new
man (ver. 24), is something deeper than the erroneous and
seductive teaching of heathen priests and philosophers. These
" lusts of deceit " seduce and ensnare under false pretensions.
There is the lust of gain, sinking into avarice ; of power swell-

EPHESIANS IV. 2a 341

ing into ruthless and cruel tyranny ; of pleasure falling into
beastly sensualism. Nay, every strong passion that fills the
spirit to the exclusion of God is a " lust." Alas ! this deceit
is not simply error. It has assumed many guises. It gives
a refined name to grossness, calls sensualism gallantry, and
it hails drunkenness as good cheer. It promises fame and
renown to one class, wealth and power to another, and tempts
a third onward by the prospect of brilliant discovery. But
genuine satisfaction is never gained, for God is forgotten, and
these desires and pursuits leave their victim in disappointment
and chagrin. " Vanity of vanities," cried Solomon in vexation,
after all his experiments on the summum lomnn. " I will pull
down my barns, and build greater," said another in the idea
that he had " much goods laid up for many years ; " and yet, in
the very night of his fond imaginings, " his soul was required
of him." Belshazzar drank wine with his grandees, and
perished in his revelry. The prodigal son, who for pleasure
and independence had left his father s house, sank into penury
and degradation, and he, a child of Abraham, fed swine to a
heathen master.

(Ver. 23.) Avaveovadai Be ru&gt; Trvevpari TOV 1/009 vpwv
" And be renewing in the spirit of your mind." This passive
(not middle) infinitive present still depends on ^Bica^d^reBe
being adversative, as the apostle passes from the negative to
the positive aspect. As Olshausen has observed, all attempts
to distinguish between uvaveovcrdaL and ui&gt;aKaivova6at are

needless for the interpretation of this verse. See Trench,
Syn. xviii. ; Col. iii. 10; Tittmann, p. GO. The ava, in com
position, denotes " again " or " back " restoration to some
previous state renovation. See on following verse. Such
moral renovation had its special seat " in the spirit of their
mind." This very peculiar phrase has been in various ways
misunderstood. (Kcumenius, Theophylact, Hyperius, Hull,
and Ellicott understand TrvevfJM of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit
renewing the mind by dwelling within it oia TOV iriw paTos TOV
cv Tw vol i}pwv KCLTOIKOVVTOS. See Krit/.sclu , (id Jitun. vol. ii.
p. 2. But, 1. The TTvtvua belongs to ourselves -is a jiortioii
of us language that can scarcely in such terms be applied
to the Spirit of God. 2. Nor does Kllicott remove the
objection by saying that -rrvev^a is not " the Holy Spirit

342 EPHESIAXS IV. 23.

exclusively, or per se, but as in a gracious union with the
human spirit." This idea is in certain aspects theologically
correct, but is not conveyed by these words irvev^a in
such a case cannot mean God s Spirit, for it is called
rov i/oo? vfjiwv ; it is only man s spirit though it be filled
with God s. In Horn. viii. 6, the apostle makes a formal
distinction. 3. There is no analogous expression. None
of the genitives following irvzlpa are like this, but often
denote possession or character as Spirit of God Spirit of
holiness Spirit of adoption. 4. Nor can we give it the
meaning which Robinson has assigned it, of " disposition or
temper." Quite like himself is the notion of Gfrorer, that
TTvev^a is but the rabbinical figment of a n^, founded on a
misinterpretation of Gen. ii. 7, and denoting a kind of Divine
" breathing " or gift conferred on man about his twentieth
year. Urchrist. ii. p. 257. 5. Augustine, failing in his usual
acuteness, identifies irvev^a. and vovs quia omnis mens
spiritus est, non autem omnis spiritus mens est, spiritual mentis
dicere voluit eum spiritum, quce mens vocatur. De Trinitate, lib.
xiv. cap. 16. Estius follows the Latin father. Grotius and
Crellius hold a similar view, joined by Koppe and Kiittner,
who idly make the unusual combination a mere periphrasis.
6. Ilvevpa is not loosely, as Eiickert and Baumgarten-Crusius
take it, the better part of the mind, or vovs ; nor can we by
any means agree with Olshausen, who puts forth the following
opinion with a peculiar consciousness of its originality and
appropriateness " that irvev^a is the substance and vovs the
power of the substance." Such a notion is not supported by
the biblical psychology. 7. Tlvev^a is the highest part of that
inner nature, which, in its aspect of thought and emotion, is
termed vovs. So the apostle speaks of " soul " and " spirit "
~~ty v xtf ften standing to crw/za as nrvev^a to you?. It is not
merely the inmost principle, or as Chrysostom phrases it,
" the spirit which is in the mind," but it is the governing
principle, as Theodoret explains it TT)I/ 6p/j.rjv rov yoo? irvev-
p,a,TLKi]v etpriice. This generally is the idea of Koell, Harless,
de Wette, Meier, and Turner. Meyer in his last edition
retracts his opinion in the second, and says that the usual
interpretation is correct, according to which das Trvev^a das
menschliche ist that irv^i&gt;p.a being das Hohere Lcbensprincip.

EPIIESIANS IV. 24. 343

Delitzsch, Bib. Psych. p. 144. The renewal takes place nut
simply in the mind, but in the spirit of it. The dative points
out the special seat of renewal Winer, 3 1, G, a; Matt. xi. 20 ;
Acts vii. 51 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 20. The mind remains as before,
both in its intellectual and emotional structure in its memory
and judgment, imagination and perception. These powers do
not in themselves need renewal, and regeneration brings no
new faculties. The organism of the mind survives as it was,
but the spirit, its highest part, the possession of which distin
guishes man from the inferior animals, and Jits him for receiv
ing the Spirit of God, is being renovated. The memory, for
example, still exercises its former functions, but on a very
different class of subjects ; the judgment still discharging its
old office, is occupied among a new set of themes and ideas ;
and love, retaining all its ardour, attaches itself to objects quite
in contrast with those of its earlier preference and pursuit.
The change is not in mind psychologically, either in its
essence or in its operation ; neither is it in mind, as if it were
a superficial change of opinion, either on points of doctrine or
of practice ; but it is " in the spirit of the mind," in that
which gives mind both its bent and its materials of thought.
It is not simply in the spirit, as if it lay there in dim and
mystic quietude ; but it is " in the spirit of the mind," in the
power which, when changed itself, radically alters the t-ntire
sphere and business of the inner mechanism.

(Ver. 24.) Kal ev%vaua6ai TOV xaivov avOpwirov "And
put on the new man." Col. iii. 10. The renewal, as Meyer
remarks, was expressed in the present tense, as if the moment
of its completion were realized in the putting on of the new
man, expressed by the aorist. The verb also is middle,
denoting a reflexive act. Trollop*; and JJurton discover, wo
know not by what divination, a reference in this phraseology
to baptism. The putting on of the IH-W man presuppose* th
laying ofT of the old man, and is tin; result or accompaniment
of this renewal ; nay, it is but another representation of it.
This renewal in the spirit, and this on-putting of t
man, may thus stand to each other as in our systems f theo
logy regeneration stands to sanctificati.n. The " new man M
is *ati/o9, not Wo? recent. The apostle, in r.,1. iii. 1
TOV viov TOV uvaKawovnevov ; here he joins di&gt;avov&lt;r6ai with

344 EPHESIANS IV. 24.

TOV Kaivlv avOpwrrov. In the other epistle the verbal term
from /caivc? is preceded by z/e o? ; in the place before us the
verbal term from veo&lt;; is followed by tcaivos. JVeo9 generally
is recent oivov veov, wine recently made, opposed to rraXatov,
made long ago ; UGKOVS KCLLVOVS fresh skins opposed to
which had long been in use. Matt. ix. 17. So
i] BtaOijicr) is opposed to the economy so long in existence
(Heb. viii. 8), but once it is termed vea (Heb. xii. 24) as
being of recent origin. Compare Horn. xii. 2 ; 2 Cor. iv. 1C,
v. 15, 17; Gal. vi. 15. Hence also, John xix. 41, fivrj^etov
icaivov not a tomb of recent excavation, but one unused, and
thus explained, ev o&gt; ovSeirco ovSel? ereOrj. Pillon, Syn. Grccs.
332. The "new man" is in contrast with the "old man,"
and represents that new assemblage of holy principles and
desires which have a unity of origin, and a common result of
operation. The " new man " is not, therefore, Christ Himself,
as is the fancy of Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and Hilary, De Trini-
tate, lib. xii. The origin of the " new man " is next shown

TOV Kara Seov Knadevra " who was created after God."
Winer, 49, d. What the apostle affirms is not that creation
is God s work and prerogative and His alone, but that as the
iirst man bore His image, so does the new man, for he is
created Kara eov, "according to God," or in the likeness
of God; or, as the apostle writes in Col. iii. 10, icar eixova
rov KTiaavTos avrov. Hofmann s exegesis is feeble and
incorrect wn dcm gottliclicr Wcisc geschaffenen Mcnschcn.
The allusion is to Gen. i. 27. What God created, man
assumes. The newness of this man is no absolute novelty,
for it is the recovery of original holiness. As the Creator
stamps an image of Himself on all His workmanship, so the
first man was made in His similitude, and this new man, the
result also of His plastic energy, bears upon him the same
test and token of his Divine origin ; for the moral image of
God reproduces itself in him. It is no part of our present
task to inquire what were the features of that Divine image
which Adam enjoyed. See under Col. iii. 10 ; Miiller, Lchre
von dcr Siinde, vol. ii. p. 482, 3rd ed. The apostle characterizes
the new man as being created

ev Sucaiocrvvr) /cal ocriorrjTi TT}? a\r)0eia&lt;; " in the right
eousness and holiness of the truth " the elements in which

EPHESIAXS IV. 34. 045

this creation manifests itself. Morus and Flatt, on the one
hand, are in error when they regard eV as instrumental, for
the preposition points to the manifestation or development
of the new man ; and Koppe and Beza blunder also in sup
posing that v may stand for et?, and denote the result of the
new creation. In Col. iii. 10, as Olshausen remarks, "the
intellectual aspect of the Divine image is described, whereas
in the passage before us prominence is given to its ethical
aspect." In Wisdom ii. 23, the physical aspect is sketched.
AiKaioavvr) is that moral rectitude which guides the new man
in all relationships. It is not bare equity or probity, but it
leads its possessor to be what he ought to be to every other
creature in the universe. The vices reprobated by the apostle-
in the following verses, are manifest violations of this right
eousness. It follows what is right, and does what is right,
in all given circumstances. See under v. \). Oatcr???, on
the other hand, is piety or holiness Ta 77/309 TOL&gt;? uvOpw-rrovs
Sitcaia KOI ra irpos roi&gt;s 0ov&lt;&gt; oaia. Scholium, Ilccula, v. 788.
The two terms occur in inverted order in Luke i. 75, and the
adverbs are found in 1 Thess. ii. 10; Tit. i. 8. The new
man has affinities not only with created beings, but he has a
primary relationship to the God who made him, and who
surely has the first claim on his affection and duty. "Whatever
feelings arise out of the relation which a redeemed creature
bears to Jehovah, this piety leads him to possess such as
veneration, confidence, and purity. Both righteousness and
holiness are

ny? dX^QeuK; "of the truth." John i. 17; Hum i. 25,
iii. 7. This subjective genitive is not to be resolved into an
adjective, after the example of Luther, Calvin, Be/.a, Bodius,
Grotius, Holzhausen, and the English version, as if the mean
ing were true righteousness and holiness; nor can it be
regarded as joining to the list a distinct and additional virtue
an opinion advanced by Telagius, and found in the reading
of I) 1 , F, G KCU d\T)0eia. Those critics referred to who give
the genitive the simple sense of an adjective, think the meaning
to be "true," in opposition to what is assumed or counterfeit;
while the Greek fathers imagine the epithet to be opposed to
the typical holiness of the ancient Israel. The exegesis of
Witsius, that the phrase means such a desire to pie

346 EPHESIANS IV. 25.

in harmony with truth (De (Economia Fwderum, p. 15), is as
truly against all philology as that of Cocceius, that it denotes
the studious pursuit of truth. H a\ij9eia in connection with
the new man, stands opposed to 77 aird-rri in connection with
the old man, and is truth in Jesus. While this spiritual
creation is God s peculiar work for He who creates can
alone re-create this truth in Jesus has a living influence
upon the heart, producing, fostering, and sustaining such
rectitude and piety.

The question of natural and moral ability does not come
fairly within the compass of discussion in this place. The
apostle only says, they had been taught the doctrine of a
decided and profound spiritual change, which had developed
its breadth and power in a corresponding alteration of cha
racter. He merely states the fact that the Ephesians had
been so taught, but how they had been taught the doctrine,
in what connections, and with what appliances and argu
ments, he says not. Its connection with the doctrine of
spiritual influence is not insisted on. " Whatever," says Dr.
Owen, " God worketh in us in a way of grace, He presenteth
unto us in a way of duty, and that, because although He do
it in us, yet He also doth it by us, so as that the same work is
an act of His Spirit, and of our own will as acted thereby."
On the Holy Spirit, Works, iii. p. 432; Edinburgh, 1852.
See under ii. 1.

The apostle descends now from general remarks to special
sins, such sins as were common in the Gentile world, and to
which Christian converts were, from the force of habit and
surrounding temptation, most easily and powerfully seduced.

(Ver. 25.) Aio airoQ^^voi TO i|reOSo? " Wherefore, having
put away lying." By $16 "wherefore" he passes to a deduc
tion in the form of an application. See under ii. 11. Since the
old man and all his lusts are to be abandoned, and the new
man assumed who is created in the righteousness and holiness
of the truth uXqdeia-, the vice and habit of falsehood i/reDSo?
are to be dropt. Col. iii. 9. It might be a crime palliated
among their neighbours in the world, but it was to have no
place in the church, being utterly inconsistent with spiritual
renovation. The counsel then is

\a\LT6 a\i ]6eiav } e/cacrro? pera rov TrXrjaiov avrou " speak

EPIIE8IAN3 IV. 25. 347

yc truth every one with his neighbour." The clause is found
in Xcch. viii. 1G, with this variation, that the apostle uses perd
for the 7T/3C? of the Septuagint which represents the particle in
n JTr n ?. The " neighbour," as the following clause shows, is
not men generally, as Jerome, Augustine, Estius, and Grotius
suppose, but specially Christian brethren. Christians are to
speak the whole truth, without distortion, diminution, or
exaggeration. No promise is to be falsified no mutual
understanding violated. The word of a Christian ought to be
as his bond, every syllable being hut the expression of " truth
in the inward parts." The sacred majesty of truth is ever
to characterize and hallow all his communications. It is
of course to wilful falsehood that the apostle refers for a
man may be imposed upon himself, and unconsciously deceive
others to what Augustine defines as falsa siynijinilio cum
I oluntate fallcndi. As may be seen from the quotations
made by Whitby and other expositors, some of the heathen
philosophers were not very scrupulous in adherence to truth,
and the vice of falsehood was not branded with the stigma
which it merited. And the apostle adds as a cogent reason
on (Tfjt,v u\\i)\a)v fit\ri " for we are members one of
another." Rom. xii. f&gt;; 1 Cor. xii. 12-27. Christians are bound
up together by reciprocal ties and obligations as members of
the one body of which Christ is the one Head the apostle
glancing back to the image of the ICth verso. Their being
members one of another springs from their living union with
Christ. Trusting in one (Jod, they should therefore not creato
distrust of one another ; seeking to be saved by one faith, they
should not prove faithless to their fellows ; and professing to
be freed by the truth, they ought not to attempt to enslave their
brethren by falsehood. Truthfulness is an essential and pri
mary virtue. Chrysostom, taking the figure in its mere applica
tion to the body, draws out a long and striking analogy-
Dot the eye lie to the foot, nor the foot to the eye. It there be a
deep pit, and its mouth covered with reeds shall present to the
eye the appearance of solid ground, will not the eye use the
foot to ascertain whether it is hollow underneath, or whether
it is firm and resists ? Will the foot tell a li&lt;\ and not
truth as it is ? And what again if the eye were 1 spy a
serpent or a wild beast, will it lie to the foot ? " etc.

348 EPHESIANS IV. 26.

(Ver. 26.) Opyieade /ecu firj a/jLaprdvere "Be ye angry
and sin not." This language is the same as the Septuagint
translation of Ps. iv. 4. The verb ttJ"| may bear such a
sense, as Hengstenberg maintains, Prov. xxix. 9 ; Isa. xxviii.
21 ; Ezek. xvi. 43, though Gesenius, Hupfeld, Ewald, and
Phillips maintain that the meaning is " tremble," or " stand
in awe," as in the English version. Delitzsch also renders
Belet " quake," Tholuck, Erzittert, and J. Olsliausen, Zittert.
The Hebrew verb is of the same stock with the Greek 0/37/7
and the Saxon " rage," and denotes strong emotion. The
peculiar idiom has been variously understood : 1. Some under
stand it thus " If ye should be angry, see that ye do not sin."
Such is the view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, (Ecurnenius,
Piscator, Wolf, Koppe, Elatt, Iliickert, Olsliausen, Holz-
hausen, Meier, and Bishop Butler; while Harless supposes
the meaning to be ziirnct in dcr rcchtcn Wcise be angry in
the right way. Hitzig renders it grollet, alter verfchlt euch
nicht. 2. Beza, Grotius, Clarius, and Zeltner take the first
verb in an interrogative sense Are ye angry ? It is plain
that the simple construction of the second clause forbids such
a supposition. The opinion of the Greek fathers has been
defended by a reference to Hebrew syntax, in which, when
two imperatives are joined, the first expresses a condition, and
the second a result. Gesenius, 127, 2 ; Nordheimer, 1008.
This clause does not, however, come under such a category,
for its fair interpretation under such a law would be " Be
angry, and so ye shall not sin," or, as in the common phrase
divide et impera "divide, and thou shalt conquer." The
second imperative does not express result, but contemporaneous
feeling. 3. Nor do we see any good grounds for adopting the
notion of a permissive imperative, as is argued for by Winer,
43, 2 l " Be angry " (I cannot prevent it). 1 Cor. vii.
13. As Meyer has remarked, there is no reason why the one
imperative should be permissive and the other jussive, when
both are connected by the simple KaL 4. The phrase is idio
matic "Be angry "-(when occasion requires), "but sin
not ; " the main force being on the second imperative with prf.
It is objected to this view by Olsliausen and others, that anger
is forbidden in the 31st verse. But the anger there repro-

1 Moulton, p. 392.

EPHESIAX3 IV. 26. 349

bated is associated with dark malevolence, and regarded as the
offspring of it. Anger is not wholly forbidden, as Olshausen
imagines it is. It is an instinctive principle a species of
thorny hedge encircling our birthright. But in the indulgence
of it, men are very apt to sin, and therefore they are cautioned
against it. If a mere trifle put them into a storm of fury _ if
they are so excitable as to fall into frequent fits of ungovern
able passion, and lose control of speech or action if urued
by an irascible temper they are ever resenting fancied affronts
and injuries, then do they sin. Matt. v. 21, 22. But specially
do they sin, and herein lies the danger, if they indulge an^er
for an improper length of time :

o 7;X*o? firj cinSveTQ) eVt Tto 7rapopyi(T^(o vpwv " let not
the sun go down upon your indignation." Similar phrase
ology occurs in Dent. xxiv. 1 f&gt; ; in Philo, and in Plutarch.
See "Wetstein, in lor. Tlapop^ia^, a term peculiar to
biblical Greek, is a fit of indignation or exasperation ; Trapd
referring to the cause or occasion ; while the opyrj, to le
put away from Christians, is the habitual indulgence of anger.
1 Kings xv. 30; 2 Kings xxiii. 2$ ; Xeh. ix. IS. Ilapop-
7i&lt;r/zo9 is not in this clause absolutely forbidden, as Trench
wrongly supposes (ftynon. p. 141), but it is to cease by
sunset. The day of anger should be the day of reconciliation.
It is to be but a brief emotion, slowly excited and very soon
dismissed. If it be allowed to lie in the mind, it degenerates
into enmity, hatred, or revenge, all of which are positively
arid in all circumstances sinful. To harbour ill-will ; to feed
a grudge, and keep it rankling in the bosom ; or to wait a
fitting opportunity for successful retaliation, is inconsistent
with Christian discipleship " Let not the sun go down upon
your wrath." Augustine understands by sun, " the Sun &lt;&gt;f
righteousness" (on Ps. xxv.; Op. vol. iv. p. 1."., ed. Paris), and
Anselm "the sun of reason." Theodoret well says pl-rpov
cSa)K no 6vp,(Z TT}? i)fj.pa&lt;; TO pt-Tpov. The Pythagorean
disciple- was to be placated, and to shake hands with his foe
Trp\v 7} TOV i")\iov Bvi ai. Plutarch, &lt;l&lt; Am. Frat. 4SS, b. 1

1 The exegesis of the witty Thomas Fuller may be mil.joimvl : "St. Paul &lt;with
Let not the Kim go clown upon your wrath ; to carry H -wn to the nti|milM
in another world of thy revengeful nature. Yet l-t m take the aixMtle i
meaning rather than hia words with all possible i&gt;eeU to d-po our p&lt;uiou ;

6i)0 EFHESIAXS IV. 27, 28.

(Ver. 27.) Mr}$ BlBore TOTTOV rat &ia/3o\w "Also give
no place to the devil." MrjSe, not pyre, is the true reading,
upon preponderant authority, and closely connects this clause
with the preceding exhortation, not certainly logically or as a
developed thought, but numerically as an allied injunction,
more closely than what Klotz calls fortuitus concursus. Ad
Devar. ii. p. 6. Hartung, i. 210 ; Buttmann, 149 ; Winer,
55, 6 ; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 157. O Std@o\o&lt;: is plainly
the Evil One, not viewed simply in his being, but in some
special element of his character. It is wrong to render it
here the accuser or calumniator, though the Syriac version,
Luther, Er. Schmid, Baumgarten-Crusius, arid others, have so
rendered it. The notion of Harless appears to be too
restricted, namely, that the reference is to Satan as endanger
ing the life and peace of the Christian church, not as gaining
the ascendency over individuals. To " give place to," is to
yield room for, dare locum. Luke xiv. 9; Horn. xii. 19;
Cicero, de Natura Deorum, ii. 33. See also Wetstein, in loc.
The idea indicated by the connection is, that anger nursed in
the heart affords opportunity to Satan. Satan has sympathy
with a spiteful and malignant spirit, it is so like his own.
Envy, cunning, and malice are the pre-eminent feelings of the
devil, and if wrath gain the empire of the heart, it lays it
open to him, and to those fiendish passions which are
identified with his presence and operations. Christians are
not, by the indulgence of angry feeling, to give place to him ;
for if he have any place, how soon may he have all place !
Give him " place " but in a point, and he may speedily cover
the whole platform of the soul.

(Ver. 28.) O /cXeTrrcov fjirj/ceTi KXeTrrerco "Let the stealer
steal no more." We cannot say that the present participle is
here used for the past, as is done by the Vulgate in its qiii
furabatur, by Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Cramer, and others.
Even some MSS. have o /tXei/ra?. O tcXeTrrwv is the thief,

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. And
as the English, by command from William the Conqueror, always raked up
their fire ami put out their candles when the curfew-bell was rung, let us then
also quench all sparks of anger and heat of passion." Holy and Profane State,
p. 161 ; London, 1841.

EPHKSIANS IV. 28. 351

one given to the vice of thieving, or, as Peile renders it, " the
thievish person." Winer, 45, 7; Bernharcly, p. 318; l!al. i. J3.
It is something, as Stier says, between *XeSfra9 and K\7rrrj&lt;;.
Some, again, shocked at the idea that any connected with the
Ephesian church should be committing such a sin, have
attempted to attenuate the meaning of the term. Jerome set
the example, and he has been followed by Calvin, liullinger,
Estius, Zunchius, Holzhausen, and partially by I lodge. Hut
the apostle condemns theft in every form, and in all probability
he alludes to some peculiar aspect of it practised by a section
of the idle population of Ephesus. According to the testimony
of Eusebius, in the tenth chapter of the sixth book of his
Prcrparatio Evanydica, throughout the Eastern world few
persons were much affronted by being convicted of theft
6 \oi$opovfjLvo&lt;; o&gt;? /cXeTTTT;? ov TTUVU ayavatcTfl. See 1 Cor.
v. 1, and li Cor. xii. 21, for another class of sinners in the
early church. The apostle s immediate remedy for the vice is
honourable industry, with a view to generosity

fjia\\ov Se KOTTidrw eyyya^o/zeyo? rat? toYat? ^epalv TO dyaduv
" but rather let him labour, working with his own hands
that which is good." The differences of reading are numerous
in this brief clause. In some MSS. rat? x P cr ^ * s o m itted,
and in others TO dyaOov. Clement reads simply TO dyaduv,
and Tertullian only TCLLS x P^ v - Some insert t Suus before
%p(Tii&gt;, and others affix avrov after it. Several important
MSS, such as A, I) 1 , E F, C ; the Vulgate, (iothic, Coptic,
and Ethiopia Armenian ; Basil, Gregory Naziaii7.cn, Epi-
phanius, Jerome, Augustine, and Telagius read Tat* IBiatt
Xepviv TO dyaOov. Ljichmann adopts this reading; K inverts
this order, TO dyaOov rats t8t at? ^paiv ; but Tischeiidorf, Ilahn,
and Alford read TO dya66v Tat* X P^ 1 witlt L ;lll(l tlle ^ ru:lL
majority of mss, Chrysostom, Theopliylact, (Kcumenius,
and the Received Version. U has Ta? x P ffllf &lt;i 7 a ^* / -
We agree with Stier in saying that Hark-as and Olshauseii
overlook the proof, when at once they prefer the shortest
reading, and treat TO uyaOov as an interpolation taken from
Gal. vi. 10. Md\\ov Se but " rather or in preference
him work, and witli his own hands, rats- /Sum x ( P ff ^-
like proprim in I^itin instead of *
with distinct force. Matt. xxv. 15 ; John x. 3 ; KOIII. viii. i li ;

352 EPHESIANS IV. 29.

Winer, 22, 7. Manual employment was the most common
in these times. Acts xx. 34; 1 Thess. iv. 11. To ayaOov is
something useful and profitable. His hands had done what
was evil, and now these same were to be employed in what
was good. If a man have no industrious calling, if he cannot
dig, and if to beg he is ashamed, his resort is to plunder for
self-support :

"Now goes the nightly thief, prowling abroad
For plunder ; much solicitous how best
He may compensate for a day of sloth
By works of darkness and nocturnal wrong."

But if a man be active and thrifty, then he may have not only
enough for himself, but even enjoy a surplus out of which he
may relieve the wants of his destitute brethren

iv a %r) peraSiSovai ra&gt; xpetav %OVTI " that he may have
to give to him who hath need." This is a higher motive than
mere self-support, and is, as Olshausen remarks, a specifically
Christian object. Not only is the thief to work for his own
maintenance, but Christian sympathy will cheer him in his
manual toil, for the benefit of others. Already in the days of
his indolence had he stolen from others, and now others were
to share in the fruits of his honest labour truest restitution.
" It is more blessed to give than to receive."

(Ver. 29.) Ua? \6yo&lt;$ aaTrpos K rov &lt;7To//.aro? v/j,wv /JLTJ
K7ropevea6(i) " Let no filthy word come out of your mouth."
This strong negation contained in the use of Tra? with /zrj, is a
species of Hebraism. Winer, 26, 1 ; Ewald, Ifeb. Gram.
576. The general meaning of a-a-rrpos is foul, rotten, use
less, though sometimes, from the idea of decay old, obsolete,
ugly, or worthless. Phrynich. ed. Lobeck, p. 337. In Matt,
vii. 17, 18, xii. 33, and in Luke vi. 43, the epithet charac
terizes trees and their fruit, and in the Vulgate is rendered
simply mains. In Matt. xiii. 48, it is applied to fishes. In
all these places the contrasted adjective is ay ados. Locke in
his paraphrase has, " no misbecoming word." The term is of
course used here in a tropical sense, but its meaning is not to
be restricted, as Grotius advocates, to unchaste or obscene
conversation, which is afterwards and specially forbidden. It
signifies what is noxious, offensive, or useless, and refers to
language which, so far from yielding " grace " or benefit, has a

EPHESIANS IV. 29. 353

tendency to corrupt the hearer. 1 Cor. xv. 33; Col. iv. 6.
Chrysostom, deriving his idea from the contrast of the follow
ing clause, defines the term thus o ^ rrjv l&iav -^petav
7r\ijpoi; and several vices of the tongue are also named hv
him, with evident reference to Col. iii. 8. Meier narrows its
meaning, when he regards it as equivalent to dpyo&lt;; in Matt,
xii. 36. May there not he reference to sins already con
demned ? All falsehoods and equivocations ; all spiteful
epithets and vituperation ; all envious and vengeful detrac
tion ; all phrases which form a cover for fraud and chicanery
are filthy speech, and with such language a Christian s
mouth ought never to be defiled. " Nothing "-

&lt;/\\ ei rt? ayaflo? 7rpo&lt;f olfCoSofjLrjv TT}? ^/&gt;euz? " hut that
which is good for edification of the need." Instead of ^/&gt;e/a?,
some MSS., as D 1 , E 1 , F, G, and some of the Latin fathers,
read Tr/o-rew?, which is evidently an emendation, as Jerome
has hinted. AyaOos, followed by TT^O?, signifies " good," in
the sense of "suitable," or rather serviceable for, examples of
which may be found in Kvpke, Obsrrvat. ii. 298 ; 1 a.ssow,
sub voce ; Rom. xv. 2. Our version, following Bcza, inverts
the order and connection of the two nouns, and renders, " for
the use of edifying," whereas Paul says, " for edification of the
need " X/^e/a?, as the genitive of object, is almost personified.
To make it the genitive of " point of view," with Ellicott, is a
needless refinement. The paraphrase of Erasmus, qua Kit opus
and that of Casaubon, quoticx opus cst. are defective, inasmuch
as they suppose the need to be only incidental or occasional,
whereas the apostle regards it as a pressing and continuous
fact. The precious hour should never be polluted with corrupt
speech, nor should it be wasted in idle and frivolous dialogue.
We are not indeed to " give that which is holy to dogs " a
due and delicate appreciation of time and circumstance must
govern the tongue. Jurta, says Jerome, juxtn opportunitatcm
loci, temporis, ft pcnumm a-dificnre audinitfs. Conversation
should always exercise a salutary influence, regulated by tho
special need. Words so spoken may fall like winged seeds
upon a neglected soil, and there may be future germination
and fruit. Trench on Authorized Version, p. 120.

Iva So, x^P iv T0 ^ UKOVOWTIV " that it may give grace to
the hearers." Xdpts is taken by some to signify what is

354 EPIIESIANS IV. 30.

agreeable or acceptable. Theodoret thus explains it iva.
&lt;f&gt;avfj Se/ero? rot? d/covova-i " that it may seem pleasant to
the hearer ; " and the same view has been held by Luther,
Kiickert, Meier, Matthies, Burton, and the lexicographers
Robinson, Bretschneider, Wilke, \Vahl, and Schleusner. One
of the opinions of Chrysostom is not dissimilar, since he
compares such speech to the grateful effect of ointment or
perfume on the person. That xdpts may bear such a meaning
is well known, but does it bear such a sense in such a phrase
as x ( *P iv StSowu ? In Pint. Agis. c. 18 SeScoKora yu-pw \
Euripides, Medea, v. 702 r^ySe aoi Sovvai yapiv ; Sophocles,
Ajax, 1354 ^e^v^a OTTOLW &lt;&m TIJV yapiv 8t&? ; and in
other quotations adduced by Harless, %apt^ &ovvai is " to
confer a favour to bestow a gift." Ast, Lex Platon. sub voce.
So we have the phrase in Jas. iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. v. 5 ; and it is
found also in the Septuagint, Ex. iii. 21 ; Ps. Ixxxiv. 12.
And such is the view of Olshausen, Harless, Meyer, de Wette,
and in former times of Bullinger, Zanchius, and virtually of
Beza, Grotius, Eisner, and Calvin. Speech good to the edifi
cation of need brings spiritual benefit to the hearer ; it may
excite, or deter, or counsel stir him to reflection or afford
materials of thought. " A word spoken in season, how good
is it ! like apples of gold in pictures of silver." Prov.
xxv. 11.

Ver. 30. Kal /LIT) \VTreiT TO Ilvev^a TO ayiov TOV Oeou
" And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." The term Trvev^a,
and the epithet ayiov, have been already explained under
i. 13, and solemnly and emphatically is the article repeated.
He is called the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit of God,
each term having a distinct and suggestive significance. This
sentence is plainly connected with the previous exhortations,
and specially by icai, with the preceding counsel. And the
connection appears to be this : Obey those injunctions as to
abstinence from falsehood, malice, dishonesty, and especially
corrupt speech, and grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.
True, indeed, the Godhead is unruffled in its calm, yet there
are feelings in it so analogous to those excited in men, that
they are named after such human emotions. The Holy Spirit
represents Himself as susceptible of affront and of sorrow.
IIapo%uv(:iv is used in a similar passage in Isa. Ixiii. 10

El HESIANS IV. 80. 355

by the Seventy, but it is not a perfect representation of the
original Hebrew 3&gt;7. We regard it as wrong to dilute the
meaning of the apostle, explaining it either with Bengt-1
contrittatur Spiritus Sanctus nun in sc sed in nub is ; or rashly
affirming with Baumgarten-Crusius, that the personality of
the Holy Spirit is only a form of representation, and no
proof of what Harless calls objective reality ; or still further
declaring with Kieger, that the term Spirit may be referred
to dcs Men&chen neugesclutffencn Gcist " the renewed spirit
of man ; " or, in line, so attenuating the meaning with de
Wetle as to say, that by the Holy Spirit is to be understood
moral sentiment, as depicted from the Christian point of view.
It is the Holy Spirit of God within us (not in others, as
Thomas Aquinas imagines), that believers grieve not the
Father, nor the Son, but the blessed Spirit, who, as the applier
of salvation, dwells in believers, and consecrates their very
bodies as His temple. Kph. ii. 2 2 ; 1 Cor. vi. 10 ; Uoin. viii.
26, 11. According to our view, the verse is a summation
of the argument the climax of appeal. If Christians shall
persist in falsehood and deviation from the truth if they
shall indulge in fitful rage or cherish sullen and malignant
dislikes if they shall be characterized by dishonesty, or
idle and corrupt language then, though they may not grieve
man, do they grieve the Holy Spirit of God, lor all this per
verse insubordination is in utter antagonism to the essence
and operations of Him who is the Spirit of truth, and inspires
the love of it ; who assumed, as a fitting symbol, the form
of a dove, and creates meekness and forbearance; and wh&gt;
as the Spirit of holiness, leads to the appreciation of all
that is just in action, noble in sentiment, and healthful and
edifying in speech. What can be more grieving to the Holy
Ghost than our thwarting the very purpose for which He
dwells within us, and contravening all the promptings and
suggestions with which He warns and instructs us ? Since it
is His special function to renew the heart, to train it to the
abandonment of sin, ar.J to the cultivation of holiness and
since for this purpose Ho has inlleshed Himself and dwells in
us as a tender, watchful, and earneM guard inn, is He not
grieved with the contuuacy and rebellion so often manifested
against Him ? Nay mo. e

356 EPHESIANS IV. 30.

V eo (T(f)payia-dr)T et? r^^epav aTroXurpoocrect)? " in whom
ye were sealed for the day of redemption." Els is " for "
reserved for, implying the idea of " until ; " the genitive being
a designation of time by its characteristic event. Winer, 30,
2, a. For the meaning of the verb ea-cfrpayla-OijTe, the explana
tion already given under i. 14 may be consulted. It is a
grave error of Chandler and Le Clerc to refer this sealing to
the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit ; for surely these were not
possessed by all the members of the church, nor could we
limit the sin of grieving the Spirit to the abuse of the gift of
prophecy, which the second of these expositors supposes to
be specially intended in the preceding verse. In i. 14, the
apostle speaks of the redemption of the purchased posses
sion, and that period is here named " the day of redemp
tion." The noun aTro\vTpa&gt;a-Ls has already occupied us under
i. 14, and the comment needs not be repeated. This clause
is evidently an argument, or the motive why believers should
not grieve the Holy Spirit. If He seal you, and so confirm
your faith, and preserve you to eternal glory if your hope of
glory, your preparation for it, and especially your security as
to its possession, be the work of God s blessed Spirit, why
will you thus grieve Him ? There is no formal mention
made of the possibility of apostasy, or of the departure of the
Spirit. Nor does it seem to be implied, as the verb " sealed "
intimates. They who are sealed are preserved the seal is
not to be shivered or effaced. A security that may be broken
at any time, or the value of which depends on man s own
fidelity and guardianship, is no security at all. Not only
does the Socinian Slichtingius hold that the seal may be
broken, but we find even the Calvinist Zanchius speaking
of the possibility of so losing the seal as to lose salvation :
and in such an opinion some of the divines of the Ileforma-
tion, such an Aretius, join him. The Fathers held a similar
view. Theophylact warns ^ \va-rjs rrjv cr^paylSa. See
also the Shepherd of Herman, ii. 1 0, where the phrase occurs
fjirjTrore evrev^Tjrai TOO Oe(o KOI aTroarfj CLTTO aov. Arnbrosi-
aster says Quia dcserit nos, eo quod Iccscrimus cum. Harless
admits that the phrase may teach the possibility of the loss of
the seal ; while Stier displays peculiar keenness against those
who held the opposite doctrine, or what he calls prcedcstina-

EPHESiANS IV. 31. 357

tionischcs Missverstdndniss. Were the apostle speaking of
the striving of the Spirit, or of His ordinary influences, the
possibility of His departure might be thus admitted. Gen.
vi. 3 ; Isa. Ixiii. 10 ; Acts vii. 51. Or if he had said grieve
not the Holy Spirit, by whom men are sealed, or whose func
tion it is to seal men, the hypothesis of Stier would not be
denied. But the inspired writer says " by whom ye were
sealed." They had been sealed, set apart, and secured, for
perseverance is the crowning blessing and prerogative of the
saints ; not to say, with Meyer, that if the view of Harless
were correct TrapofiWre would have been the more natural
expression. The apostle appeals not to their fears, lest the
Spirit should leave them ; but he appeals to their sense of
gratitude, and entreats them not to wound this tender, con
tinuous, and resident Benefactor. 2 Cor. i. L l. It may be
said to a prodigal son grieve not your father lest he cast
you off; or grieve not your mother lest you break her heart.
Which of the twain is the stronger appeal ? and this is the
question we put as our reply to Alford and Turner. In hue,
the patristic and popish phraseology, in which this seal is
applied to the imposition of hands, to baptism, or the sacra
ment of confirmation, is wholly foreign from the sense and
purpose of the passage before us, though its clauses have been
often adduced in proof. Catechisinus Human. 311 ; Suicer,
8uh vocc a&lt;f&gt;payi&lt;;.

Ver. 31. HUGO. iriKpia, Kai 6vfj,os, &lt;ai opyij, Kai tcpair/T), teal
fiXacrfamia, upOi /7(o u&lt;$&gt; vpwv, avv TTUCTTJ KUKIO. " Let all bit
terness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking
be put away from you, with all malice;" all feelings incon
sistent with love all emotions opposed to the benign influence
and presence of the Divine Spirit were to be abandoned.

IIiKpia " bitterness " is a figurative term denoting that
fretted and irritable state of mind that keeps a man in per
petual animosity that inclines him to harsh and uncharitabl
opinions of men and things that makes him sour, crabbed,
and repulsive in his general demeanour that brings a scowl
over his face, and infuses venom into the words of his tongue.
Rom. iii. 14; Jas. iiii. 14. Wetstein, under Kuin. iii. 14,
has adduced several examples of the .similar use &lt;
from the classical writers. Aristotle justly says o &

358 EPHESIANS IV. 31.

&gt;va${,a\VTOL, KOL TTO\VV ^povov opyifovTai, /care^ovcn yap TOV
Ovfiov. Loesner has also brought some apposite instances
from Philo, Observed, ad N. T. p. 345. 17*09 is that mental
excitement to which such bitterness gives rise the commo
tion or tempest that heaves and infuriates within. Donaldson,
New Crcdylus, 476. Opyrj (Deut. ix. 19) is resentment,
settled and dark hostility, and is therefore condemned. See
under iv. 26. O 6v^o^ yevvrjTitcd*} ecm TT}? opyfjs is the
remark of (Ecumenius. See Trench, Synon. 37; Tittmann,
de Synon. p. 132; Donaldson, New Crcdylus, 477. Kpavyrj
"clamour," is the expression of this anger hoarse reproach,
the high language of scorn and scolding, the yelling tones,
the loud and boisterous recrimination, and the fierce and
impetuous invective that mark a man in a towering rage. Ira
furor brevis est. " Let women," adds Chrysostom, " especially
attend to this, as they on every occasion cry out and brawl.
There is but one thing in which it is needful to cry aloud, and
that is in teaching and preaching." B\a&lt;r(fyr)fj,la signifies
what is hurtful to the reputation of others, and sometimes
is applied to the sin of impious speech toward God. It is
the result or one phase of the clamour implied in Kpavyrj, for
anger leads not only to vituperation, but to calumny and
scandal. In the intensity of passion, hot and hasty rebuke
easily and frequently passes into foulest slander. The wrathful
denouncer exhausts his rage by becoming a re viler. Col. iii.
8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4. All these vicious emotions are to be put
away. Ka/cta is a generic term, and seems to signify what
we sometimes call in common speech bad-heartedness, the
root of all those vices. 1 Pet. ii. 1. Let all these vices be
abandoned, with every form and aspect of that condition of
mind in which they have their origin, and of that residuum
which the indulgence of them leaves behind it. The word is
in contrast with the epithet, " tender-hearted," in the follow
ing verse. Now this verse contains not only a catalogue, but
a melancholy genealogy of bad passions acerbity of temper
exciting passion that passion heated into indignation that
indignation throwing itself off in indecent brawling, and that
brawling darkening into libel and abuse a malicious element
lying all the while at the basis of these enormities. And
such unamiable feeling and language are not to be allowed

EPIIF.SIANS IV. 3?. 359

any apology or indulgence. The adjective -rraaa belongs to
tlie five sins first mentioned, and TTMO-I; to the last. Indeed, the
Coptic version formally prefixes to all the nouns the adjective
meff "all." They are to be put away in every kind
and degree in germ as well as maturity without re&gt;-rve
and without compromise. 1

(Ver. 32.) TivevOe Be etV d\\*)\ov&lt;; -^prja-roi " P.ut become
ye kind to one another." The 5e has been excluded l.y Lich-
inann, on the authority of 15, but rightly retained l.y Tischen-
dorf. Jt " ] Jut " passing to the contrast in his exhortation,
he says " become ye kind to one another" xprjtnoi full
of benign courtesy, distinguished by mutual attachment, the
Maud and generous interchange of good deeds, and the earnest
desire to confer reciprocal obligations. ( ,.!. iii. } 2. limit-ness

1 Wetstein on Rom. iii. 14. We cannot but quote, from Jen-my Taylor, the
following paragraph, unequalled in its imagery and magnified!. -,- : " An-.-r vts
the house on lire, and all the spirits an- busy upon trouble, and intend propulsion,
defence, displeasure, or revenge ; it is a short madness, and an eternal enemy to
discourse, and sober counsels, and fair conversation ; it intends its own object
with all the earnestness of perception, or activity of design, and a &lt;|iii&lt; ker motion
of a too warm and distempered blood ; it is a fever in tin- heart, and a cal&lt;-nture
in the head, and a fire in the face, and a sword in the hand, and a fury all over;
and therefore can never suffer a man to be in a disposition to pray. . . . Anger
is a perfect alienation of the mind from prayer, and therefore is contrary to that
attention which presents our prayers in a right line to (lod. For so have I Keen
a lark rising from his bed of grass, and soaring upwards, ringing as he rises, and
hopes to get to heaven, and climb above the clouds ; but the poor bird was
beaten back with the loud sighings of an eastern \\ind, and his motimi made
irregular and inconstant, descending more at every breath of the temp-M, than
it could recover by the libration ami frequent weighing of his wings ; till the
little creature was forced to sit down ami pant, and stay till the storm wa.s over ;
and then it made a prosperous flight, and did rise and sing, as if it had learned
music and motion from an angel, as he passed sometimes through the air n -ut
his ministries here below. So is the prayer of a good man : win n bin Affair*
have required business, and his business was matter of discipline, mid bin
discipline was to pa.ss ujion a shining person, or had a design of rlmrity, hi* duty
met with infirmities of a man, and anger was its instrument, and the iimtnitnrut
became stronger than the prime agent, and raised a temjH-st, nnd overnili-d tho
man ; and then his prayer was broken, and his thought* were tn.u
words went up towards a cloud, and his thoughts pulled them hm k again, and
made them without intention ; and the good man high* for hi* infirmity, but
must be content to lose the prayer, and he must re.-over it when l.i- ngT i
removed, and his spirit is Ix-cnlmrd, made even ns the brow of .I.-ti and nj.K&gt;th
like the heart of (lod ; and then it ascends to heaven ujmn the wing* of the
holy dove, and dwells with (Io&lt;l, till it return*, like the uwful I*-*, ld-n with
a blessing and the dew of heaven." Works, 7V.&lt; lt&gt;t*rn &lt;j / niyrr*. vol. v.
pp. 67, 70. London, 182 2.

360 EPIIESIANS IV. 32.

and censoriousness are opposed to this plain injunction. That
there should be any allusion in X/^CTTO? to the sacred name
X/no-To?, is wholly incredible.

Eva-7T\ay^oi (1 Pet. iii. 8; Col. iii. 12) " tender-hearted"
the word being based upon the common and similar use
of crprn in the Old Testament. The epithet is found, as in
Hippocrates, with a literal sense. See Kypke. So far from
being churlish or waspish, Christians are to be noted for their
tenderness of heart. They are to be full of deep and mellow
affection, in opposition to that \vrath and anger which they
are summoned to abandon. A rich and genial sympathy
should ever characterize all their intercourse

^api^o/jievoL eaurot? "forgiving one another." Eawrols
is used for a\\rj\o^. This use of the reflexive for the re
ciprocal pronoun has sometimes an emphatic significance
forgiving one another, you forgive yourselves and occurs in
Mark x. 26 ; John xii. 19 ; Col. iii. 13, 16 ; and also among
classical w T riters. Kiihner, 628, 3; Jelf, 654, 3; Bernhardy,
p. 273 ; Matthise, 489, 6. May not the use of eavrois also
point, as Stier says, to that peculiar unity which subsists among
Christ s disciples 1 The meaning of the participle, which is
contemporaneous with the previous verb, is plainly determined
by the following clause. It does not mean being gracious or
agreeable, as Bretschneider thinks, nor yet does it signify, as
the Vulgate reads donantes, but condonantes. Luke vii. 42,
43 ; 2 Cor..ii. 10 ; Col. ii. 13, iii. 13. Instead of resentment
and retaliation, railing and vindictive objurgation, Christians
are to pardon offences to forgive one another in reciprocal
generosity. Faults will be committed and offences must come,
but believers are to forgive them, are not to exaggerate them,
but to cover them up from view, by throwing over them the
mantle of universal charity. And the rule, measure, and
motive of this universal forgiveness are stated in the last
clause

/ca#o&gt;? /cal 6 0eo? eV Xpia-Ta&gt; e^apidaro vplv " as also God
in Christ forgave you." Some MSS., as B 2 , D, E, K, L, the
Syriac, and Theodoret read r^lv ; others, as A, F, G, I, and
Chrysostom in his text, read vjuv. The latter appears the
better reading, while the other may have been suggested by
v. 2. Ka#o&gt;? icai " as also " an example with an implied

EPHESIAX3 IV. 32. 301

comparison. Klotz, ad Uciar. ii. 635. But the presentation
of the example contains an argument. It is an example which
Christians are bound to imitate. They were to forgive becaute
God had forgiven them, and they were to forgive in resem
blance of His procedure. In the exercise of Christian forgive
ness, His authority was their rule, and His example their
model They were to obey and also to imitate, nay, their
obedience consisted in imitation. *Ev Xpiarw is " in Christ "
as the element or sphere, and signifies nut " on account of, or
by means of Christ," but o Beo? tv Xpia-TO) is God revealed in
Christ, acting in Him, speaking in Him, and fulfilling His
gracious purposes by Him as the one Mediator. 2 Cor. v. 1 J.
For the pardon of human guilt is no summary act of paternal
regard, but sin was punished, government vindicated, and the
moral interests of the universe were guarded by the atonement
which Christ presented. The nature of that forgiveness which
God in Christ confers on sinners, has been already illustrated
under i. 7. That pardon is full and free and irreversible all
sin forgiven ; forgiven, not because we deserve it ; forgiven
every day of our lives ; and, when once forgiven, never again
to rise up and condemn us. Now, because God has pardoned
us, we should be ready to pardon others. His example at
once enjoins imitation, and furnishes the pattern. God is
presented, as Theophylact says ei? vTroBetyna. And thus
the offences of others are to be pardoned by us fully, without
retaining a grudge ; and freely, without any exorbitant equi
valent ; forgiven not only seven times, but seventy and seven
times ; and when pardoned, they are not to be raked out of
oblivion, and again made the theme of collision and quarrel.
According to the imagery of our Lord s parable, our sins
toward God are weighty as talents, nay, weighty and nume
rous as ten thousand talents ; while the offences of our fellows
toward ourselves are trivial as pence, nay, a.s trivial ami as few
as a hundred pence. If the master forgive such an immen.so
amount to the servant so far beneath Him, will not the forgiven
servant be prompted, by the generous example, to absolve
his own fellow-servant and equal from hU smaller debt ?
Matt, xviii. 23-35.

CHAPTER V.

(Ver. 1.) TivevOe ovv fjLLarjral TOV Seov "Do ye then
become followers of God." The collective ovv connects this
verse with the preceding exhortation, and its ylveade Be
indeed /LU/Z^T??? is usually accompanied with &lt;ylvo/j,ai. The
example of God s forgiving generosity is set before them, and
they are solicited to copy it. God for Christ s sake has for
given you ; " become ye then imitators of God," and cherish a
forgiving spirit towards one another. God s example has an
authoritative power. The imitation of God is here limited to
this peculiar duty, and cannot, as Stier thinks, have connection
with the long paragraph which precedes, especially as the
verb 7rpLTraT6LT, which is so commonly employed, need not
be taken as resumptive of TrepiTrarrja-cu in iv. 1. The words
fjLifirjral TOV Seov are peculiar, and occur only in this place,
though the terms, in an ethical sense, and with reference to
a human model, are to be found in 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1 ;
1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14; Heb. vi. 12. Ye should forgive, as God
forgives, and thus be imitators of Him, or, as Theodoret says
&\w(raT rrjv crirfyweiav. And they are enjoined to study
and perfect this moral resemblance by the blessed thought
that, in doing so, they feel and act

to? Teicva ayaTnjrd " as children beloved ; " as children
who, in their adoption, have enjoyed so much of a father s
affection. They cannot be imitators of God as Creator. They
may resemble Him as the God of Providence, in feeding and
clothing the indigent ; but especially can they copy Him in
His highest character as Redeemer, when, like Him, they
pardon offenders, and so imitate His royal and lofty preroga
tive. Disinterested love is a high element of perfection, as
described by the great Teacher Himself. Matt. v. 45-48.
Tholuck, Berypredigt, Matt. v. 45. This duty of imitation
on the part of God s children is well expressed by Photius

KPHESIAXS V. 2. 303

"To institute an action against one who has injured us is
human ; not to take revenge on him is the part of a philoso
pher: but to compensate him with benefit is Divine, and
shows men of earth to be followers of the Father who is in
heaven." 1

(Ver. 2.) Kal TrepnrareiTe eV ayaTrrj " And walk in love."
The same admonition under another and closer aspect is con
tinued in this verse. The love in which we are to walk is
such a love in kind as Christ displayed in dying for us. The
apostle had just spoken of " God in Christ " forgiving men,
and now, and very naturally, that Christ in the plenitude and
glory of His love is also introduced

Ka0a&gt;&lt;t Kal 6 Xpiaros rjydinjo ev ?}/za? " as also, or even as,
Christ loved us." Tischendorf, after A and 15, reads u/ias ,
and on the authority of B reads also v^wv in the following
clause ; but the ordinary reading is preferable, as the direct
form of address may have suggested the emendation. The
immeasurable fervour of Christ s love is beyond description.
See under iii. 19. That love which is set l&gt;efore us was
noble, ardent, and self-sacrificing; eternal, boundless, and
unchanging as its possessor more to Him than the possession
of visible equality with God, for He veiled the splendours of
divinity ; more to Him than heaven, for He left it ; more to
Him than the conscious enjoyment of His Father s coun
tenance, for on the cross He suffered the horrors of a spiritual
eclipse, and cried, " Why hast Thou forsaken me ? " more to
Him, in fine, than His life, for He freely surrendered it.
That love was embodied in Christ as He walked on earth,
and especially as He bled on the cross; for He loved us-

tcai Trape&wKev eavrov vjrep rj^iaiv " and gave Himself
us" in proof and manifestation of His love tcai being
exegetical. The verb implies full surrender, and the prepo
sition vTTtp points out those over whom or in room of whom
such self-tradition is made. Usteri, Lchrb. p. 117
on Rom. v. G ; Kllicott on Gal. iii. U. John x
v. 8 ; Gal. ii. 20. The general idea is. that Christ s

1 Ti ^ J.W i-r,r,r, TO c),..,.;r. i./f *.., ri n pi iu^ t... f, *."*.., r

J, ; ,;, f&gt; ,,;,, i*,;3,r/, A,,*-., fl* /: ... ^*" &lt; "-v

*&gt;,:, .p7..,-Kp. 19- ?. Soc also the Ki Utlf to ]
Ifartyr, Optra, vol. ii. p. 496 ; cd. Otto, Jenn-, 1S43.

364 EPHESIAXS V. 2.

to His self - surrender as a sacrifice. He was no passive
victim of circumstances, but in active and spontaneous
attachment He gave up Himself to death, and for such as we
are His poor, guilty, and ungrateful murderers. The context
and not simply vjrep shows that this is the meaning. The
manner of His self-sacrifice is defined in the next words

Trpoafyopav ical 6vaiav "an offering and a sacrifice " obla-
tionem et hostiam. Vulgate. The words are in the accusative,
and in apposition with eavrov, forming its predicate nouns.
Madvig, 24. A similar combination of terms occurs in Heb.
x. 5, 8, while Swpa, a noun of kindred meaning, is used with
Bvala in Heb. v. 1, viii. 3, ix. 9. Awpov usually represents
in Leviticus and Numbers the Hebrew if}!?, and is not in sense
different from irpocr^opd. Deyling, Observ. i. 352. The first
substantive, Trpoafopd, represents only the Hebrew nmo, once
in the Septuagint, though oftener in the Apocrypha. It may
mean a bloodless oblation, though sometimes in a wider sig
nification it denotes an oblation of any kind, and even one of
slain victims. Acts xxi. 26 ; Heb. x. 10, 18. Svarla, as its
derivation imports, is the slaying of a victim the shedding
of its blood, and the burning of its carcase, and frequently
represents rQT in the Septuagint ; Ex. xxxiv. 1 5 ; Lev. ii.
and iii. passim, vii. 29; Deut. xii. 6, 27; 1 Sam. ii. 14;
Matt. ix. 13; Mark xii. 33; Luke ii. 24, xiii. 1; Acts vii.
41, 42; 1 Cor. x. 18; Heb. vii. 27, ix. 23, 26, x. 12. It
sometimes in the Septuagint represents n^Bn, sin-offering, and
often in representing nmp ft means a victim. See Tromm.
Concord. We do not apprehend that the apostle, in the use
of these terms, meant to express any such precise distinction
as that now described. We cannot say with Harless, " that
Jesus, in reference to Himself and His own free-will, was an
offering, but in reference to others was a sacrifice." On the
other hand, "the last term," says Meyer, "is a nearer definition
of the former." We prefer the opinion, that both terms con
vey, and are meant to convey, the full idea of a sacrifice. It
is a gift, and the gift is a victim ; or the victim slain is laid
on the altar an offering to God. Not only is the animal slain,
but it is presented to God. Sacrifice is the offering of a victim.
The idea contained in Trpoafyopd covers the whole transaction,
while that contained in Ovcria is a distinct and characteristic

EPHESIANS V. 2. 3G5

portion of the process. Jesus gave Himself as a sacrifice in
its completest sense a holy victim, whose blood was poured
out in His presentation to God. In the meantime it may
be remarked, that the suffering involved in sacrifice, such
unparalleled suffering as Christ endured as our sacrifice, proves
the depth and fervour of His affection, and brightens that
example of love which the apostle sets before the Ephesian
church.

T(O Sew (* ocfjiriv v(o&ia&lt;; " to God for the savour of a
sweet smell " the genitive being that of characterizing qua
lity. Winer, 30, 2; Scheuerlein, 16, 3. Some, such as
Meyer and Holzhausen, join T&&amp;gt; Oeo&gt; to the verb Trap&vKfv,
but the majority connect them with the following phrase :
1. They may stand in close connection with the nouns trpoa-
&lt;f&gt;opav Kal Bvffiav, with which they may be joined as an ethical
dative. Harless says indeed, that ei? ddvarov is the proper
supplement after trape^u&gt;K, but Qvaia here implies it. JEiV
Odvarov may be implied in such places as Kom. iv. 25, viii. 32,
but here we have the same preposition in the phrase ft? oa^v.
The preposition ei? occurring with the verb denotes the pur
pose, as in Matt. xxiv. 9 ; Acts xiii. 2. Winer, 4 ( J ; IV-ni-
hardy, p. 218. In those portions of the Septuagint where
the phraseology occurs, Kvpiw follows eu&&amp;gt;8/a?, so that the
connection cannot be mistaken. 2. Or the words TO&gt; Beoi may
occupy their present position because of their close connection
with 007x77, and we may read " He gave Himself an offering
and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour." It is
not easy to say which is preferable, TO* &&amp;lt;j&gt; being peculiarly
placed in reference both to the beginning and the end of the
verse. The phrase is based on the peculiar sacrificial idiom
of the Old Testament nta rrn. (J ( ;n. viii. 21 ; Lev. i. i), 13,
17, ii. ( J, 12, iii. f&gt;. It is used tropically in 2 Cor. ii. 14, and
is explained and expanded in 1 hil. iv. IK -"a sacrifice
acceptable, well-pleasing to God." The burning of spires or
incense, so fragrant to the Oriental senses, is figuratively
applied to God. Not that He has pleasure in suffering for its
own sake. Nor can we say, with Olslmuwn, that the Divino
pleasure arises wholly from the love and obedienco whicli
Jesus exhibited in His sufferings and death. This idea of
Olshausen is to some extent similar to that of several recent

366 EHIESIANS V. 2.

writers, who do not give its own prominence to the vicarious
suffering of our Lord, but, as we think, lay undue stress on
several minor concomitants.

Now the radical idea of sacrifice is violent and vicarious
suffering and death. But the theory referred to seems to
place the value of Christ s sufferings not in their substitu-
tionary nature, but in the moral excellence of Him who
endured them. This is a onesided view. That Jehovah
rejoiced in the devoted and self-sacrificing spirit of His Son
in His meekness, heroism, and love, is most surely believed
by us. And we maintain, that the sufferings of Christ gave
occasion for the exhibition of those qualities and graces, and
that without such sufferings as a dark setting, they could
never have been so brilliantly displayed. The sacrifice must
be voluntary, for forced suffering can have no merit, and an
unwilling death no expiatory virtue. But we cannot say
with Dr. Halley " that the sufferings, indirectly, as giving
occasion to these acts, feelings, and thoughts of the holy
Sufferer, procured our redemption." Congregational Lecture
The Sacraments, part ii. p. 271, Lond. 1852. The virtues of
the holy Sufferer are subordinate, although indispensable
elements in the work of atonement, which consisted in His
obedience unto the death. That death was an act of obedi
ence beyond parallel ; yet it was also, and in itself not
simply, as Grotius held, a great penal example but a propi
tiatory oblation. The endurance of the law by our Surety is
as necessary to us as His perfect submission to its statutes.
The sufferings of the Son of God, viewed as a vicarious
endurance of the penalty we had incurred, were therefore the
direct means of our redemption. In insisting on the neces
sity of Christ s obedience, the equal necessity of His expiatory
death must not be overlooked. That Jesus did suffer and die
in our room is the fact of atonement ; and the mode in which
He bore those sufferings is the proof of His holy obedience,
which was made " perfect through suffering." But if the
manifestation of Christ s personal virtues, and not the satisfac
tion of law, is said to be the prime end of those sufferings,
then do we reckon such an opinion subversive of the great
doctrine of our Lord s propitiation, and in direct antagonism
to the theology taught us in the inspired oracles. "It pleased

EPHESIANS V. 2. 3G7

the Lord to bruise him " " Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain " " He suffered once for sins," etc. The uniform
testimony of the word of God is, that the sufferings of Jesus
were expiatory that is, so borne in the room of guilty men,
that they might not suffer themselves and that this expia
tory merit lies in the sufferings themselves, and is not merely
or mainly dependent on those personal virtues of love, faith,
and submission, which such anguish evoked and glorified.
True, indeed, the victim must be sinless pure as the tire
from heaven by which it is consumed ; but its atoning virtue
is not to be referred to the bright display of innocence and
love in the agonies of immolation, as if all the purposes of
sacrifice had been to exhibit unoffending goodness, and bring
out affection in bold relief. No ; in the sufferings of the
" Holy One," God was glorified, the law magnified, the curse
borne away, and salvation secured to believers.

Xor do we deem it correct on the part of Abelard and Peter
Lombard in the olden time, or of Maurice recently, 1 to regard
the love of Christ alone as the redeeming element of the
atonement, overlooking the merit of all that spontaneous and
indescribable anguish to which it conducted. Such a hypo
thesis places the motive in the room of the act. It is true,
as Maurice remarks, that we usually turn the mind of sinners
to the love of Christ, and that this truth comforts and sustains
the heart of the afllicted and dying ; but he forgets that thi.s
love evolved its ardour in suffering for human transgressors,
and derives all its charm from the thought that the agony
which it sustained was the endurance of a penalty which a
guilty world has righteously incurred. The love on which
sinners lean is a love that not only did not shrink from
assuming their nature, but that feared not to die for them.
The justice of God in exacting a satisfaction is not our first
consolation, but the fact, that what justice deemed iiulispens-
able, love nobly presented. If love alone was needed to save,
why should death have been endured &gt; or would a love that
fainted not in a mere martyrdom and tragedy be a stay for a
convicted spirit? No; it is atoning love that soothes ami
blesses, and the objective or legal asj&gt;ect of the work of
Christ is not to be merged in any subjective or moral phases

1 Theological L tHiy*, p. !. Cambridge, 18S3.

3G8 EPHESIANS V. 2.

of it ; for both are presented and illustrated in the inspired
pages. Even in the first ages of the church this cardinal
doctrine was damaged by the place assigned in it to the devil,
and the notion of a price or a ransom was carried often to
absurd extremes, as it has also been in some theories of Pro
testant theology, in which absolute goodness and absolute jus
tice appear to neutralize one another. 1 But still, to warrant the
application of the term " sacrifice " to the death of Christ, it
must have been something more than the natural, fitting, and
graceful conclusion of a self-denied life it must have been a
violent and vicarious decease and a voluntary presentation.
Many questions as to the kind and amount of suffering, its
necessity, its merits as satisfactio vicaria, and its connection
with salvation, come not within our province.

Harless and Meyer have well shown the nullity of the
Socinian view first propounded by Slichting, and advocated
by Usteri (Paulin. Lchrlcgriff, p. 112) and Eiickert, that the
language of this verse does not represent the death of Christ
as a sin-offering. But the Pauline theology always holds out
that death as a sacrifice. He died for our sins vTrep 1 Cor.
xv. 3; died for us VTrep 1 Thess. v. 10; gave Himself
for our sins irepi Gal. i. 4 ; died for the ungodly vTrep
daejB&v Rom. v. 6 ; died for all virep Trdvrwv 2 Cor. v.
14 ; and a brother is one on whose behalf Christ died Si ov
Xpi&lt;TTos aTreOavev 1 Cor. viii. 11. His death is an offering
for sin 7rpoa&lt;f)opa irept Heb. x. 18 ; one sacrifice for sin
fjiiav vTrep dfjLapnwv Ovaiav Heb. x. 12; the blood of Him
who offered Himself TO al^a, 09 eavrov Trpo&rjvejKev Heb. ix.
14 ; the offering of His body once for all 8m TT}? Trpoafopas
rov (TwfjiaTos ecpaTraj; Heb. x. 10. His death makes expiation
et? TO i\d&lt;TKe&lt;r6ai Heb. ii. 17; there is propitiation in His
blood i\acrTr)piov Rom. iii. 25 ; we are justified in His
blood biKCLiwOevTes eV rat ai i^ari avrov Rom. v. 9 ; and we
are reconciled by His death Ka-rrjXkd y^^ev Rom. v. 10.
He gave Himself a ransom avri\vrpov 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; He
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
vTrep TJ/JLUV icardpa Gal. iii. 13 ; Christ our

1 Baur, Gettchichte der Versdknungslehre, p. 30. Compare, too, some expres
sions of Gregory of Nyssa with those of Athauasius and Augustine, and Gregory
the Great.

EHIESIANS V. 2. 3C9

passover was sacrificed for us \nrep TJ^MV rv6rj 1 Cor. v. 7.
So too in Matt. xx. 28 ; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. The view of Hof-
marm, which is not that commonly received as orthodox, is
defended at length by him against Ebrard and 1 hilippi in his
Schriftl. ii. 329. See Ebrard, Lchrc von dcr stcllivrtrctcmlcn
Geinujthuung, Konigsberg, 1857, or a note in his Commen
tary on 1 John i. 9, in which some important points in the
previous treatise are condensed; Thomasius, Christ i /Vrsaw
und Werk, 57, drittcr Thcil ; and Bodemeyer, Zur Jshre
von dcr Versbhnung und Rechtfertiyung , mit Ikzichunij auf
den Hofmann-Philippisclicn Strcit iibcr die Vcrsuhnungs-lchre,
Gottingen, 1859 ; Lcchler, das Apost. Zdt. p. 77. The death
of Christ was a sacrifice which had in it all the elements of
acceptance, as the death of one who hud assumed the .sin
ning nature, and was yet possessed of Divinity who could
therefore place Himself in man s room, and assume his legal
liabilities who voluntarily obeyed and suffered in our stead,
in unison with God s will and in furtherance of His gracious
purposes. What love on Christ s part ! And what an induce
ment to obey the injunction "walk in love" in that love
the possession of which the apostle inculcates and commends
by the example of Christ! And, first, their love must be like
their Lord s love, ardent in its nature and unconquerable in
its attachment ; no cool and transient friendship which but
evaporates in words, and only fawns upon and fondles the
creatures of its capricious selection ; but a genuine, vehement,
and universal emotion. Secondly, it must be a self-sacrificing
love, in imitation of Christ s, that is, in its own place and on its
own limited scale, denying itself to secure Ixmciits to others ;
stooping and suffering in order to convey spiritual blessing
to the objects of its affection. Matt. xx. L G -2S. Such a love
is at once the proof of discipleship, and the U&gt;t and fruit of u
spiritual change. John xiii. . )"&gt; ; 1 John iii- 14.

In a word, we can see no ground at all for adopting the
exegesis of Stier, that the last clause of the verse stands in
close connection witli the first, as if the apostle had said
"Walk in love, that ye may be an odour of a sweet smell to
God." Such an exegesis is violent, though tin
ally implied, for Christian love in the act of self-tie votin i*
pleasing to God.

2 A

370 EPHESIANS V. 3.

(Ver. 3.) Hopveia Se, Kal Traaa aKadapaia, 77 7r\eovet;la
" But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness." Again
the apostle recurs by Be, which is not without a distinct
adversative force, to vices prevalent in the heathen world.
Ilopveia " fornication," a sin which had eaten deep into the
Gentile world (Acts xv. 20, 29) KOI aKaOapa-ia "and
uncleanness " iraa-a in every form and aspect of it. ITXeo-
ve^ia is not insatiable lust, as many maintain, but " covetous-
ness." See iv. 19. The word was the matter of a sharp
encounter between Heinsius (Excrcitat. Sac. 467) and Sal-
masius (De Fcenere Trapezitico, 121), the latter inflicting on
the former a castigation of characteristic severity, because he
held that TrKeove^ia denoted inordinate concupiscence. The
apostle uses the noun in Col. iii. 5, and in all other passages
it denotes avaricious greed. Luke xii. 1 5 ; Rom. i. 2 9 ; 2 Cor.
ix. 5. And it is joined to these preceding words, as it springs
from the same selfishness, and is but a different form of develop
ment from the same unholy root. It is a dreadful scourge
sceva cupido, as the Latin satirist names it. More and
more yet, as the word denotes ; more may be possessed, but
more is still desired, without limit or termination. Yet Cony-
beare affirms that 7rXeoz/e/a in the meaning of covetousness
" yields no intelligible sense." But, as de Wette and Meyer
remark, the disjunctive r/ shows it to belong to a different
class of vices from those just mentioned. It is greed, avarice,
unconquerable love of appropriation, morbid lust of acquisition,
carrying in itself a violation of almost every precept of the
decalogue. See Harris Mammon. As for each of those sins

yu-T/Se ovofjia^eaOw ev vplv " let it not be named even among
you." M??Se " not even." Mark ii. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 11;
Herodotus, i. 138 troieeiv OVK efecrrt, ravra ov&e \eyeus
egeo-Tiv. Not only were these sins to be avoided in fact, but
to be shunned in their very name. Their absence should be
so universal, that there should be no occasion to refer to them,
or make any mention of them. Indelicate allusion to such
sins should not soil Christian lips. For the apostle assigns a
reason

Aca&!b$ TrpeVet aylois "as becometh saints." Were the
apostle to say, Let despondency be banished, he might add,
as becometh believers, or, Let enmity be suppressed, he might

EPHESIAXS V. 4. 371

subjoin, as becoraeth brethren ; but he pointedly says in this
place, " as becometh saints." " Saints " are not a higher class
of Christians who possess a rare and transcendental morality
all genuine believers are "saints." See under i. 1. The
inconsistency is marked and degrading between the purity
and self-consecration of the Christian life and indulgence in
or the naming of those sensual and selfish gratifications. " Let
their memorial perish with them."

(Ver. 4.) Kal aia-^porrj^ "And filthiness "
Vulgate. Some MSS., such as A, I) 1 , K 1 , F, G, read ?}
and there are other variations which need not be noted.
Tischendorf retains the Textus lleceptus, on the authoritv
of ]), 1) J , E 2 , K, L, and almost all mss. Some, such as
CEcumenius, imitated by Olshausen, Kiickert, Meier, and
Baumgarten-Crusius, regard, without foundation, ala-^or^ as
equivalent to ai(rxpo\oyia. Col. iii. 8. Aia-^puTi)To^yfj.ovcrav
TTJV ^v-^t-jv elSev Plato, Gory. ; Op. vol. ii. j&gt;. 3 GO, ed. llekker.
The noun denotes indecency, obscenity, or wantonness ; what
ever, not merely in speech but in anything, is opposed to
purity.

Kal fjLCi)po\oyi a " and foolish talking." The MSS. just
quoted insert ?; before this noun too, but KCLI is found in the
majority, and in those already named. Not mere gossip or
tattle, but speech wretched in itself and offensive to Christian
decency and sobriety is condemned. The noun occurs only
here, but we have not only the Lutin compound stultiloquium
in riautus (Miles d lorioxitx, ii. 3, 25, tin; scene of which
drama is laid at Kphesus), but also the Litin form inoro-
loyn* in the same dramatist. YVw/, i. 1, 50. The Kmperor
Hadrian, in his well-known address to his departing spirit,
ends the melancholy ode with these words

" Xcr, ut soles, dabis JOTOH. "

The term may look back to iv. 20, and is, as Trench

talk of fools, which is folly and sin together. Rynon. 34.

rj UTpa7T\ia "or jesting " - the disjunctive being
employed. This noun is a a?raf \eyo^vov as well as the
preceding. It denotes urbanity - and as it?

derivation implies, dexterity of turning a discourse irapa TO
ev rptTrecOai rov \oyov ; then wit or humour; and lastly

372 EPIIESIANS V. 4.

deceptive speech, so formed that the speaker easily contrives
to wriggle out of its meaning or engagements. Josephus,
Antiq. xii. 4, 3 ; Thucyd. ii. 41 ; Plato, Pol. viii. 563 ; Arist.
Ethic. Nicom. iv. 8; Pindar, Pythia, Carmen i. 176, iv. 186 ;
Cicero, Ep.ad Div. vii. 32, Opera, p. 716, ed. Kobbe, 1850.
It is defined in the Etytnologicon Magnum 77 fjLwpo\oyia,
KovQoTiji; , cLTraiSevcria levity, or grossness. Chrysostoni s
amplified definition is o Trcu/aXo?, 6 TrayroSaTro?, o acrra/cTO?,
6 ei5roXo?, o Trdvra yivGjjievos " the man called eurpavreXo? is
the man who is versatile, of all complexions, the restless one,
the fickle one, the man who is everything or anything."
Jerome also says of it vcl urbana vcrba, vcl rustica, xd
turpia, vcl faccta. It is here used evidently in a bad sense,
almost equivalent to /3w/xo\o^o?, from which Aristotle
distinguishes it, and denotes that ribaldry, studied artifice,
and polite equivoque, which are worse in many cases than
open foulness of tongue. The distinction which Jerome
makes between fi^poXoyia and cvrpaireXla is indicated by the
Latin terms, stultiloquium and scurrilitas. Pleasantry of
every sort is not condemned by the apostle. lie seems to
refer to wit in connection with lewdness double entendre.
See Trench on the history of the word. Synon. 34. The
vices here mentioned are severely reprobated by Clement in
the sixth chapter of the second book of his Ilai&aywyos.
Allusions to such " jestings " are not unfrequent in the
classics. Even the author of the " Ars Amoris" pleads with
Augustus, that his writings are not so bad as others referred
to

" Quid si scripsisscm Mimos obsccena jocantes,
Qui vetiti semper crimen amoris liabent," etc.

ra OVK avijKOvra " which are not becoming things "
in opposition to the concluding clause in the previous verse.
Another reading a OVK avijicev is supported by A, B, and
C, while Chrysostom and Theodoret, following the reading in
lloni. i. 28, read ra fj.rj KaOrjKovra but wrongly; for here
the apostle refers to an objective reality. Winer, 55, 5.
Buttmann, Gram, dcs Ncutcst. Sprach. 148, 7. Suidas
defines avrjKov by irpeTrov. The Vulgate confines the
connection of this clause to the term immediately preceding
scurrilitas qua ad rem non pcrtinct. All the three vices

EPHESIAXS V. 4. 373

but certainly, from the contrast in the following clause, the
two previous ones may be included. Such sins of the
tongue are to be superseded by thanksgiving 1

u\\d /zaXXoi/ evxapia-Tia, " but rather giving o f thanks."
There is a meaning which may attach to vxapi&lt;rTta, which is
plausible, but appears to be wholly contrary to Pauline usage.
It signifies, in the opinion of some, pleasant and grateful dis
course, as opposed to that foolish and indecorous levity which
the apostle condemns. Jerome says Fursitun i&lt;jitur fjratm-
rinn ad in in hoc loco non ista nominata juxtn qwim gratia*
agimus Deo, sed jiixta quam grati, sire ymtioti ct salai ujmd
homines appellamur. So Clement of Alexandria x a P iv
Tia-reov re ov ye\a)ToiroiT]Tov. This opinion has been
followed by Calvin, Cajetan, Heinsius, Salmasius, Hammond,
Semler, Michaelis, Meier, and by Walil, Wilke, and Uret-
Bchneider. However consonant to the context this interpreta-
tion may appear, it cannot be sustained by any analogies.
Such examples as 71/1/7; xdpiros or yvwj e^upto-ros In-long not
to Xew Testament usage. We therefore prefer the ordinary
signification, "thanksgiving," and it is contrary to sound
hermeneutical discipline on the part of liullinger, Musculus,

rcrgusson says, "honest aii l sometimes piercing ironies were used by holy
men in Scripture." One of the best descriptions of wit ever written is that of
Barrow, in his sermon on this text. "It is," lie says, " indeed a tiling no
versatile and multiform, appearing in so many shapes, so many ^mtur^. &gt;
many garbs, so variously apprehended by several eyes and judgments that it
seemeth no less hard to settle a clear and certain notion thereof, than to make a
portrait of Proteus, or to define the figure of the fleeting air. Sometime* it
lieth in pat allusion to a known story, or in seasonable application of a trivial
Baying, or in forging an apposite tale : sometimes it playeth in word* nmi
phrases, taking advantage from the ambiguity of their m-n*e, or the affinity &gt;f
their sound : sometimes it is wrapped in a dress of humorous expression : notnc
times it lurketh under an odd similitude ; nometimc.i it i* lodged in a ily
question, in a smart answer, in a quirk ish reason, in n shrewd intimation, in
cunningly diverting or cleverly retorting an objection : sometime* it is courhod
in a bold scheme of speech, in a tart irony, in a lusty hvjK-rbole, in a Mtartling
metaphor, in a plausible reconciling of contradiction*, or in acut- non*Mi* :
sometimes a scenical representation of JMTHOFIH or thing 1 *, a counterfeit Hpc^-h,
mimical look or gesture passeth for it : sometime* an affected simplicity, iome-
times a ireRuinptuou.H bluntness givcth it Ix-ing : noim-timon it rirth fr&gt;ui
lucky hitting upon what is Htrange, sometimes from a crafty wn-tinj? obviotw
matter to the purpose : often it consiteth in one known not what, and npringrth
up one can hardly tell how. Its ways are unaccountable and inexplicable, bring
answerable to the numberless roving^ of fancy and winding* of
"W orks, vol. i. p. 131, Kdin. 1841.

374 EPHESIANS V. 5.

and Zanchius, to take the term in Loth acceptations. The
verb usually supplied is ecrro) "but let there be rather
thanksgiving." Examples of such brachylogy are numerous.
Kuhner, 852, i.; Jelf, 895; Winer, 66, 1, 2. But
why may not ovopa^ea-Oco still guide the construction ?
"Rather let thanksgiving be named" let there be vocal
expression to your grateful emotions. Bengel, justified by
Stier, supplies avrjicei, which is not a probable supplement.
For the apostolic idea of the duty of thanksgiving, the reader
may compare v. 20; Col. ii. 7, iv. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 18. The
Christian life is one of continuous reception, which should
prompt to continuous praise. Were this the ruling emotion,
an effectual check should be given to such sins of the tongue
as are here condemned.

(Ver. 5.) Tovro yap tare yiva)(TKOVTe$, " For this ye know-
being as you are aware." Winer, 45, 8. Tup states a
reason, and an awful and solemn one it is. For the eVre of the
Textus Keceptus, found in D 3 , E, H, L, and the Syriac, fa-re
is now generally acknowledged to be the genuine reading, as
having the preponderance of authority, as A, B, D \ F, G,
the Vulgate (scitote intelligentes), Coptic, and several of the
Fathers. "Jo-re ^ivwaKovre^ is a peculiar construction, and
is not wholly identical with the Hebrew usage of connecting
two parts of the same Hebrew verb together, or with the
similar usage in Greek. Kuhner, 675, 3; Jelf, 708, 3.
The instances adduced from the Septuagint, Gen. xv. 13
yivwo Kwi ryvoncrrj, and Jer. xlii. 19 1 yvovres f yvwcreo 0, are
therefore not in point, as ta-re is the second person plural of
olSa. We take the phrase to be in the indicative as is done
by Calvin, Harless, Meyer, and de Wette, for the appeal in the
participle is to a matter of fact and not in the imperative, as
is found in the Vulgate, and is thought by Estius, Bengel,
liiickert, Matthies, and Stier. Wickliffe renders " Wite ye
this and vndirstonde " (see under verse 3). Ye know

OTI Tra? tropvos, rj aKaOapros, ?} TrXeoveKTrjs, 09 eariv el$a)\o-
\drpris "that every whoremonger or unclean person, or
covetous man who is an idolater." Col. iii. 5. UXeoi/e/c-ny?
is explained under the preceding verse. See under iv. 19.
The differences of reading are these : Griesbach, Lach-

1 la Jer. xlii. 19, Theodotion reads "KTTI

EPHESIANS V. 5. 37j

mann, and Alford read o after B and Jerome who has quod.
Other MSS., such as F, G, have elBa)\o\arpia, which read
ing is found in the Vulgate, Cyprian, and Ainbrosiaster.
The first reading, found in A, 1), K, K, L, the Syriac, and
Coptic, seems to be the correct one the others are merely
emendations. Harless, Meier, von Gerlach, and Stier, suppose
the relative to refer to the three antecedents. Harless can
adduce no reason for this opinion save his own view of the
meaning of TrXeoz/e^ a. As in Col. iii. 5, the apostle particu
larizes covetousness as idolatry. Wetstein and Schoettgen
adduce rabbinical citations in proof that some sins were named
by the Jews idolatry, but to little purpose in the present
instance. The covetous man makes a god of his possessions,
and offers to them the entire homage of his heart. That world
of which the love and worship till his nature, is his god, for
whose sake he rises up early and sits up late. The phrase is
not to be diluted into this " who is as bad as an heathen," a-s
in the loose paraphrase of liarlee but it means, that the
covetous man deifying the world rejects the true Jehovi.h.
Job viii. 13 ; Matt. vi. 24. Every one of them

OVK t^et K\ijpovofj,Lav " lias no inheritance," and shall or
can have none ; the present stating a fact, or law unalterably
determined. Winer, 40, 2. Ha? . . . OVK. Winer, 20;
see under iv. 29 and for tcXripovou-ia, see under i. 1 1 , iii. o.
And the very name of the inheritance vindicates this exclu
sion ; for it is

cv TTJ fiaa-i\La rov Xpiffrov fcal &ov " in the kingdom of
Christ and God." 1 liil. iii. 111. F and (i ivad ei\- rijv fiaaiXdav
rov Seov KOL Xpiarov an evident emendation. The geni
tive Xpia-rov has its analogy in the expressions used Matt,
xvi. 28; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 18. Pa&lt;rt\eia and txK\rj&lt;ria have U cii
sometimes distinguished, as if the first referred to tin* church
in heaven, and the other to the church on earth, while other*
reverse this opinion. UsU-ri, 1 iinli/i. /,&lt;/&lt;
Excursus I. ad Tlu-wilon. Jiut such a distinction cannot
sustained. paaiXa a is used with perfect propriety la-re;
CKKXrjvla is the church ealled and collected together, into
which one of these bad characters may intrude himslf
ao-i\e/a is the kingdom under the special jurisdiction
and no one can or dare enter without Ilia

376 EPHESIANS V. 5.

for it is, as Driven calls it, TroXt? evvo/jLovpevr). Tliat king
dom which begins here, but is fully developed in the heavens,
is that of Christ and God, the second noun wanting the article.
Winer, 19, 4. We do not apprehend that the apostle means
to identify Christ and God, though the latter noun wants the
article. Though Christ is possessed of Divinity, yet He is
distinct from God. Jerome, indeed, says ipsum Deum d
Christum intelligamus . . . ubi autem Deus est, tarn Pater quam
fili-us intelligi potest. Such is the general view of Beza, Zan-
chius, Glassius, Bengel, Eiickert, Harless, Hodge, and Middle-
ton. Others, such as Meyer, Stier, Olshausen, and Ellicott,
suppose the apostle to mean that the kingdom of Christ is
also the kingdom God " in the kingdom which is Christ s
and God s." )eo? often wants the article, and the use of it
here would have seemed to deny the real Divinity of Christ.
Christ is called God in other places of Paul s writings ; but
the idea here is, that the inheritance is common to Christ and
God. The identity of the kingdom is the principal thought,
and the apostle does not formally say KOL rfj TOV Qeov, as
such phraseology might imply that there were two kingdoms ;
nor, as Stier remarks, does he even say TOV &eov, as lie wishes
to show the close connection, or place both nouns in a single
conception. Bishop Middleton s canon does not therefore
apply, whatever may be thought of its application to such
passages as Tit. ii. 13, 2 Pet. i. 1, Jude 4, in all of which
the pronoun fySw is inserted, while in two of them a-wTrjp is
an attributive, and in one of them Sea-Trorr)? has a similar
meaning. Seov appears to be added, not merely to exhibit
the authority by which the exclusion of selfish and covetous
men is warranted, but principally to show the righteous doom
of the idolater who has chosen a different deity. It is base
less to say, with Grotius, Vatablus, Gerhardt, Moldenhauer,
and Baumgarten, that Christ s kingdom exists on earth and
God s in heaven. The kingdom is named Christ s inasmuch
as He secures it, prepares it, holds it for us, and at length
conveys us to it ; and it is God s as it is His originally, and
would have remained His though Christ had never come ;
for He is in Christ, and Christ s mediation is only the work
ing out of His gracious purposes God having committed the
administration of this kingdom into His hands. Into Christ s

EPIIESIANS v. c. 377

kingdom the fornicator and sensualist cannot come; for, un-
sanctificd ami unprepared, tliey are not susceptible of its
spiritual enjoyments, and are filled with antipathy to its
unfleshly occupations; and specially into God s kingdom "the
covetous man, who is an idolater," cannot come, for that God
is not his god, ami disowning the God of the kingdom, he is
self-excluded. As his treasure is not there, so neither there
could his heart find satisfaction and repose.

(Ver. 0.) Mrj&eis Lyxa? aTraTaraj Kevoi* \6yois " Ix?t no one
deceive you with vain words." Whatever apologies wen; made
for such sensual indulgences were vain words, or sophistry
words without truth, pernicious in their tendency, and
tending to mislead. See examples from Kypkc, in loc. ; Septua-
gint Ex. v. 9 ; IIos. xii. 1. The Gothic reads ntlusto,
concupiscat. It is a refinement on the part of Olshausen to
refer such opinions to antinomian teachers, and on that of
Meier to confine them to heathen philosophers. Harless
admits that the precise class of persons referred to by the
apostle cannot now be defined ; hut we agree with Meyer
in the idea, that they appear to he their heathen neighbours ;
for they were not to asswiate with them (ver. 7), and they
were to remember that their present profession placed them
in a state of perfect separation from old habits and confede
rates (ver. 8). Such vices have not wanted apologists in
every age. The language of Hullinger, quoted also by liar-
less, has a peculiar power ami terseness Erant apud Ephcsios
homincx corrupti, ut kodic ft pud nos plurinii aunt, f/ui hirr S&lt;I/H-
taria Dei prcccepta cachinno cxcipitntcs olxlrepunt : humanum
e&w quod facia ?it amatorcs, utilc quod fceneratorcs, facctum yuod
joculatores, ct ircirco Dnnn nmi n*qne ado ijraritfr aniin-
ttdvertere i)i istiusmodi lapsus) They were to be on their
guard

1 Whit by says too -"That the Kphc.sinns stool in mv.l of th-sc inntrurtinn*
we loarn from Dcmocritus Kphcsius, who, speaking of tlu- ti-mpli- of tin- Kphrun
Diana, hath intn-h rtfi r* ( ^X^t mT*~ of the Hoftii"Hi anl luxury of tho
Kpln sians ; ami from Kuaclea in hw book dr Ki&gt;hr*id&lt; ii, who uith i ^i^

ilfa. Hf^r*ffri ir*t(&lt;* Afr^irri - In Kphcsu.s tlu-y built t&lt; in| lr to VrntW, th^
miHtn-ss of the whon;s ; and from Stmlo, who informn IIH that in tln ir anrirnt
templf-s tin-re were old image*, but in their new, r.x. l(t* vile w..rki wrr*
done. (Lib. xiv. p. &gt;J40.) Among the heathen*, ninipl fornirmtinn WM held
a thing indifferent ; the laws allowed and provided for it in many nttionn ;
whence the gruvo Kpictctus counsels 1m scholar.*, only to whore *&lt; .. ^..

378 EFIIESIAXS V. 6.

Sia ravra yap ep%erai 77 opyrj rov Oeov eVt TOU? vtovs r/}?
aTreideias " for because of these tilings cometh the wrath of
God on the sons of disobedience." The phrase Sia ravra,
emphatic in position, refers not to the " vain words," but more
naturally to the vices specified " on account of these sins."
Col. iii. 6. The Greek commentators, followed by Stier,
combine both opinions, but without any necessity. The noun
stands between two warnings against certain classes of sins and
sinners, and naturally refers to them by ravra. O/r/j; has
been illustrated, and so has viol aireiOelas, under ii. 2, 3.
Suicer, sub voce. Many, such as Meyer, restrict the mani
festation of the Divine anger to the other world. His argu
ment is, that 0/977) Oeov is in contrast with ySacrtXeia Oeov.
Granted, but we find the verb e^et in the present tense, as
indicating a present exclusion an exclusion which, though
specially to be felt in the future, was yet ordained when the
apostle wrote. So this anger, though it is to be signally
poured out at the Second Coming, is descending at this very
time p%rat. It is - thus, on the other hand, too narrow a
view of Calvin, Meier, and Baumgarten-Crusius, to confine
this opyrf to the present life. It begins here the dark cloud
pours out a few drops, but does not discharge all its terrible
contents. Such sins especially incur it, and such sinners

t&lt;r&lt;r&lt; according to law ; and in all places they connived at it. lie that blames
young men for their meretricious amours, saith Cicero, does what is repugnant
to the customs and concessions of our ancestors, for when was not this done ?
when was it not permitted ? This was suitable both to the principles and
practices of many of their grave philosophers, especially of the Stoics, who
held it lawful for others to use whores, and for them to get their living by
such practices. Hence even in the church of Corinth some had taught this
doctrine."

" Prenons garde surtout a I avarice. Elle ne s annonce pas sous des dehors
aussi degoutants que I impudicite et la fornication ; on la deguise sous de beaux
noms, tels que ceux d economie severe, d esprit d ordre, de pre"voyance ou de
sagesse, et, par ce moyen, elle e"tablit plus facilement son empire sur le cosur
des homines. Mais considerons attentivement la qualification que lui donne ici
saint Paul. II declare qu elle est une idoldtrie. Qu importe, en etfet, qu on
n adore pas des idoles d or et d argent, cornme les paiens, si Ton adore 1 or et
1 argcnt eux-memes, si ce sont eux que 1 on recherche pardessus tout, si Ton met
son bonheur a les posseder et si c est en eux que 1 on espere ? Helas ! la graude
idole du siecle est encore la statue d or, comme du temps de Ne bucadnezar ;
c est vers sa figure tfblouissante que se tournent les regards et les ccvurs des
peuples, et c est d elle que 1 on attend la joie et la dc"livrance. " Gauthey,
Affiliations sur VEpitre de S. Paul aux Ephdsiens, p. 124. Paris, 1852.

KP11ESIANS V. 7, B. 37&lt;J

receive in themselves " that recomi&gt;ense of their error which
is meet." Rom. i. 27. The wrath of God is also poured out
on impenitent offenders in the other world. Rev. xxi. 8.

(Ver. 7.) MIJ ovv */ive&lt;jOe &lt;rvvpTo%oi avruv " Become not
then partakers with them." The spelling avvpcroxot has the
authority of A, B 1 , I) 1 , F, G ; see also under iii. 0. The
meaning is not, as Koppe paraphrases, " Take care lest their
fate befall you," but, " become not partakers with them in their
sins;" ver. 11. ]&gt;o not through any temptation fall into
their wicked courses. Ovv is collective : because they are
addicted to those sins on which J)ivine judgment now falls,
and continued indulgence in which bars a man out of heaven
become not ye their associates.

(Ver. 8.) Mfre yap jrore CT/COTO? " For ye were once dark
ness." As Chrysostom says, he reminds them T;S* TrpoTepa*;
KaKi