A commentary, critical and grammatical, on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians : with a revised translation

ΦΡΑ τες ΑΣΕῊ
CES.

Sesstiie Sat

ἜΣ Ξ το τς τον τ eres bs notres tect eres ete

στ στον

sry a tesatihianeiee ines
oes ASH ease eat on feoe eter tebe
Senet eareten τεντετεῖτ τε σεέξεεε

CERRY OF PRINCE

BS2695 .E46

Ellicott, Charles J.

A commentary, critical and
grammatical, on St. Paul's

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library

http://www.archive.org/details/commentarycrit00elll

ἮΝ i i

Phuket
Th ae ἍΝ
Ai ἡ"

᾿

=,

Ξ-
a ςυ
Ὡ. νυ —
᾿ a i
ine
a
ane a
——~ - —-
=
ii han ee
= aa
«αὐ ae
ee
a

᾿ i] iy '
he) Qe
ΤῊΝ ty Ne ; Wh ᾿ 4
1 ae) he

ν΄ ᾿-

᾿ ha ᾿ ᾿
"8 it ‘7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿
᾿ oy ᾿ .
A a AAS
᾿ T ἽΝ
AT
πὴ
Ι
fj
᾿ Ϊ
j ᾿
i} ἱ
a
ae Ἰ
a '

Ν i ea
. PAT AKL. |. Cher hie
ὃ ιν "7. ' af Ἃ Ry

ay . |

CRY OF Ρἢν

MAR 161910:
a;

COMMENTARY,

GChili¢“l AND GRAMMATICAL,

ON ST. PAUL'S

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

WITH A

REVISED TRANSLATION.

BY

CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, B.D.

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON, AND LATE FELLOW
OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

ANDOVER:

WARE EN DRAPER.

BOS LON] - G Oi Dp, ANID IotN CORN.
NEW YORK: JOHN WILEY.
PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH & CO.

18638.

i Ὁ-

oT, a parietln ot)
¥ ἴω τοῦ ae!
Tae De Ἢ aly
s 24h
τ: ry vam a
wrong, τ Fo warnltee

Andover: ἊΨ ν aa Ἢ va
Ww i Cor sie ee
Bick protuped and Printed by W. F. Draper. > pe

Ὁ ΒΟ acy
ἐξ ΜΡ

ὩΣ pil εὐπαδ αβϑ,
ENN eee add
ae

1 VER eee agit!

nibs 2sbaeisl ede bhe
btn <li ψάρι ποσῶι,
ὗν γάδο ἡ Bek KANDI ὁ

ὌΠ ΤῊΝ εὖ οἷα

Te abos ag: weikiae τὴ ro

Le!

ΔΜ ιν ὦ 47 hate = fecareyei Sere πὴ ᾿

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

Tue following pages form the second part of a commentary on St. Paul’s
Epistles, founded on the same principles and constructed on the same plan as
that of the Epistle to the Galatians.

As I explained, somewhat at length, in the preface to that Epistle, the
general principles, critical, grammatical, and exegetical, upon which this
commentary has been attempted, I will now only make a few special obser-
vations on this present portion of the work, and record my obligations to
those expositors who have more particularly devoted themselves to this
Epistle. “"

With regard to the present commentary, I will only remind the reader,
that as in style, matter, and logical connection, this sublime Epistle differs
considerably from that to the Galatians, so the commentary must necessarily,
in many respects, reflect these differences and distinctions. Several points
of grammatical interest which particularly characterized the former Epistle
are scarcely perceptible in the present ; while difficulties which made them-
selves but slightly felt in the vivid, argumentative, expostulatory language of
the Epistle to the Galatians, are here, amidst the earnest hortatory comments,
the deeper doctrinal expositions, and the more profound enarrations of the
primal counsels of God, ever maintaining a distinct and visible prominence.
In the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, the explanation of the uses of
the cases did not commonly involve many points of interest: in this Epistle,
the cases, especially the genitive, present almost every phase and form of diffi-
culty ; the uses are most various, the combinations most subtle and significant.
In the Epistle to the Galatians, again, the particles, causal, illative, or adver-
sative, which connected the clauses were constantly claiming the reader’s
attention, while the subordination or codrdination of the clauses themselves
and the inter-dependence of the different members and factors of the sen-
tence were generally simple and perspicuous. In the present Epistle these
difficulties are exactly reversed; the use of the particles is more simple,
while the intertexture of sentences and the connection of clauses, especially
in the earlier portions of the Epistle, try the powers and principles of gram-
matical and logical analysis to the very uttermost.

ἵν PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

In the first chapter more particularly, when we are permitted, as it were,
to gaze upon the evolution of the archetypal dispensation of God, amidst
those linked and blended clauses that, like the enwreathed smoke of some
sweet-smelling sacrifice, mount and mount upwards to the very heaven of
heavens, in that group of sentences of rarest harmony and more than mortal
eloquence, these difficulties are so great and so deep, that the most exact
language and the most discriminating analysis seem, as they truly are, too
poor and too weak to convey the force or connection of expressions so
august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound.

It is in this part that I have been deeply conscious that the system of ex-
position which I have adopted has passed through its sorest and severest trial,
and though I have labored with anxious and unremitting industry, though I
have spared neither toil nor time, but with fear and trembling, and not with-
out many prayers have devoted every power to the endeavor to develop the
outward meaning and connection of this stupendous revelation, I yet feel,
from my very heart, how feeble that effort has been, how inexpressive my
words, how powerless my grasp, how imperfect my delineation.

Still, in other portions of this Epistle, I trust I am not presumptuous in
saying that I have been more cheered and hopeful, and that I have felt
increased confidence in the system of exposition I was enabled to pursue in
the commentary on the preceding Epistle. I have thus (especially after the
kind notices my former work has received) studiously maintained in the
present notes the same critical and grammatical characteristics which marked
the former commentary. The only difference that I am aware of will be
found in the still greater attention I have paid to the Greek Expositors, a
slight decrease in the references to some modern commentators in whom I
have felt a diminishing confidence, a slight increase in the references to our
best English Divines which the nature of this profound Epistle has seemed to
require. I deeply regret that the limits which I have prescribed to myself in
this commentary have prevented my embodying the substance of these refer-
ences in the notes, as I well know the disinclination to pause and consult
other authors which every reader, save the most earnest and truth-seeking, is
certain to feel. Yet this I will say, that I think the student will not often
regret the trouble he may have to take in reading those few portions of our
great English Divines to which I have directed his attention, and which, for
his sake, I could wish had been more numerous. Such as they are, they are
the results of my own private reading and observation.

In the grammatical portion of the commentary I must entreat the reader
to bear with me, if for the sake of brevity, and, I might even say, perspicuity,
I have been forced to avail myself of the current forms of expression adopted
by modern grammatical writers. They will all be found elucidated in the
treatises to which I have referred, and of these, every one, to the best of my

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. iV

belief, is well known and accessible, and will probably occupy a place in the
library of most scholars.

I must now briefly notice the authors to whom, in addition to those men-
tioned in the preface to the Galatians, I am indebted in the present Epistle.

Of the patristic commentators I have derived great benefit from some
exceedingly valuable annotations of Origen, which are to be found in Cramer’s
Catene, and which have hitherto scarcely received any notice from recent
expositors, though they most eminently deserve it.

Of modern commentators on this Epistle, 1 am deeply indebted to the
admirable exposition of Harless, which, for accurate scholarship, learning,
candor, and ability, may be pronounced one of the best, if not the very best
commentary that has ever yet appeared on any single portion of Holy Scrip-
ture. A second edition has long been promised, but, as far as I could learn
from catalogues, and the foreign booksellers in this country, it had not made
its appearance when I commenced this Epistle, nor, up to the present time,
have I seen any notice of its publication.

The exposition of this Epistle by Dr. Stier, under the title of Die Gemeinde
in Christo Jesu, is very complete and comprehensive, but so depressingly
voluminous as to weary out the patience of the most devoted reader. When
I mention that it extends to upwards of 1050 closely printed pages, and that
some single verses (e. g. ch. 1. 28, il. 15) are commented on to the extent of
nearly thirty pages, I may be excused if I express my regret that a writer so
earnest, so reverential, and so favorably known to the world as Dr. Rudolph
Stier, should not have endeavored to have confined his commentary to some-
what more moderate dimensions. The chief fault I venture to find with Dr.
Stier’s system of interpretation is his constant and (in this work) charac-
teristic endeavor to blend together two or more explanations, and, in his
earnest and most praiseworthy attempt to exhibit the many deeper meanings
which a passage may involve, to unite what is often dissimilar and inharmo-
nious. Still his commentary is the production of a learned and devout mind,
and no reader will consult it in vain. A review of it may be found in the
seventy-ninth volume of Reuter’s Repertorium.

The third special commentary I desire to mention, is the full and laborious
commentary of Professor Eadie. I have derived from it little directly, as it
is, to a great degree, confessedly a compilation from existing materials, and
these I have, in all cases, thought it my duty to examine and to use for
myself; still I have never failed to give Professor Eadie’s decisions my best
consideration, and have in many cases felt myself edified by the devoutness,
and, not unfrequently, the eloquence of his expositions. I trust, however,
the learned author will excuse me when I say that I do not think the gram-
matical portion of the commentary is by any means so well executed as the
exegetical, and that I cannot but regard this otherwise able work, as, to a

VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

certain extent, an example of the truth of an opinion which I ventured to
express in the preface to the Galatians, viz., that theological as well as
grammatical learning is now so much increased, that it is hard to find a com-
mentator who is able satisfactorily to undertake, at one and the same time, a
critical, grammatical, exegetical, and dogmatical exposition of any portion of
the New Testament. In his cumulative representation of the opinions of
other commentators, as my notes will occasionally testify, Professor Eadie is
also not always exact: with these abatements, however, which candor compels
me to make, I can heartily and conscientiously recommend this commentary
as both judicious and comprehensive, and as a great and important addition
to the exegetical labors of this country.

I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous,
and learned commentary of Dr. Meyer, has been most carefully consulted
throughout, and I must again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my
great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned editor. In
many doctrinal questions I differ widely from Dr. Meyer, but, as a critical
and grammatical expositor, I entertain for him a very great respect.

I have now only to commit my work to the reader, with the humble prayer
to Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, that it may receive a blessing from
above, and, though feebly and imperfectly, may still be permitted to minister
somewhat to the more accurate knowledge of His blessed Word, and to the
clearer perception of the outward forms and expressions of His everlasting

Truth.
C. J. ELLICOTT.
CAMBRIDGE, JUNE 1855.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Tue second edition of the present Epistle is in all respects similar to the .
second edition of the Epistle to the Galatians, which appeared a few months
since, and is brought up, I sincerely hope, fully to the same standard.

It is perhaps right to say that little has been substantially altered, and that
the reader of the first edition will scarcely find more than half a dozen pas-
sages! where the opinions formerly maintained are either retracted or modi-
fied; still the additions are great, and the number of notes that have been
recast or re-written by no means inconsiderable. By this means space has
been obtained for the introduction of new matter; weaker arguments in con-
tested passages have been made to give place to what might seem to put ina
clearer light the stronger argument ; logical and grammatical observations
have been more grouped, and the links of thought that connect clause with
clause or sentence with sentence, more studiously exhibited. In this last
respect the additions will be found great, and will, I trust, by the blessing of
God, be of no little use to the reader in properly pursuing the train of sub-
lime thought that runs through this transcendent Epistle. This, alas! is the
point most commonly neglected in our general study of Scripture: we trust
to general impressions, and carry away general ideas, but the exact sequence
of thought in the mind of the inspired writer is what, I fear, is only too fre-
quently neglected. It is useless to disguise that this close analysis of the
sacred text is very difficult,—that it requires a calm judgment, and a dis-
ciplined mind no less than a loving and teachable heart,—that it is not a
power we can acquire in a week or in a month,— yet if Scripture be, what
I for one believe it to be, the writing of men inspired by the third Person of
the adorable Trinity, then we may well conceive no labor in this direction
can be too severe, no exercise of thought too close or persistent. Let it also
be not forgotten that no intelligent reader can now fairly say that he is with-
out proper assistance ; that the well is deep and he has nothing to draw with.

Setting aside all mention of the general improvement in the Commentaries
of the day, and supposing the tacit objector to be either unable or unwilling

11 may specify for the sake of those who have the first edition, ch. i. 10, 12, 22; ii. 15;
iy. 6; iv. 23 (amplified view); v. 25 (critical note).

Vill PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

to face the labor of reading the great patristic expositors, let him still re-
member that the science of grammar is now so much advanced,’ that syntax
and logic are now so well and so happily combined, that no one who is really
in earnest, and to whom God has given a fair measure of ability, can for a
moment justly plead that an accurate knowledge of the Greek of the New
Testament is beyond his grasp, and a power of analyzing the connection of
its weighty sentences not abundantly ministered to him. I studiously limit
myself to saying the Greek of the New Testament: individual industry, how-
ever steadily exercised, may sometimes fail in making a student a good general
Greek scholar ; he may have no natural power of appreciating those felicities
of expression, no ready ability for discriminating between those subtle uses
of particles which mark the best age of Attic Greek ; but the language of the
New Testament, its plain, hearty, truly simple, but truly Greek diction, is, I
am confident, above the reach of no one who will soundly study the general
rules of thought and language, as they are now put before us by the gram-
marians of our own time. And this I say, partly to encourage the humbler
reader who might have thought such acquirements decidedly out of his reach,
partly for the sake of augmenting that kind and considerate company of stu-
dents that have given these commentaries a hearing, and have borne patiently
with the constant notice and repetition of grammatical details. I venture
thus to dwell upon this topic, —a topic in part alluded to in the preface to
the first edition, as four years of hard study since that was written, and,
what is more valuable for testing opinions, one year of responsible teaching
have convinced me that a really accurate knowledge of the language of the
Greek Testament may be acquired far more easily than might at first have
been imagined; and have further confirmed me in the belief that it is by
these accurate investigations of the language of the Inspired Volume that
we are enabled really to penetrate into its deeper mysteries, and thence to
learn to appreciate the more convincing certainty of our highest hopes, and
the more assured reality of our truest consolations.

But to return to the present volume. The student will find a great, and,
I trust, a weleome addition in the constant citations from nine ancient ver-
sions, viz., the Old Latin, the two Syriac Versions, the Vulgate, the Coptic,
the Gothic, the two Ethiopie Versions, and the Armenian.* All these have

1 I may here remark that the Greek Grammar of Dr. Donaldson, noticed in the Preface
to the Galatians, has now reached a second and enlarged edition, and is so complete in all
its parts, and so felicitous in its combination of logic with grammar, as to form a most im-
portant contribution to the accurate study of the Greek language.

21 may take this opportunity of noticing, for the benefit of those who may be disposed
to study this interesting and not very difficult language, that I have derived much useful
assistance from the Brevis Lingue Armeniace Grammatica (Ber). 1841) of J. H. Petermann.
It is furnished with a good Chrestomathy and a useful glossary, and has the great ad-
vantage of being perspicuous and brief.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ΙΧ

been carefully studied, their opmions maturely considered, and their views
of debated passages exhibited in brief and unpretending, but (if labor may
be allowed to make me hopeful) in correct and trustworthy enumerations.

Considerable additions have been made in the way of short critical notes,
especially in those cases in which the Received Text differs from the reading
which I have thought it right to follow. Here I have received some welcome
assistance from the last, the so-called seventh edition of Dr. Tischendorf’s
New Testament,’ though I regret to say I am still obliged to reiterate the
opinion which I have formerly expressed, that at any rate in the citations
from the Ancient Versions, Dr. Tischendorf is not always to be depended
upon. Huis own preface, though marked by great assumption of tone, will
indeed itself confirm this; as he has, by his own admissions, depended nearly
entirely on Leusden and Schaaf for the Peshito-Syriac, — on the incorrect
edition of Wilkins for the Coptic Version of the Epistles, to the complete
neglect of the more recent edition of Botticher,—on a collator for Platt’s
Ethiopic, — and for the Armenian, on the edition of a man whose general
inaccuracies he has unsparinely denounced, Dr. Scholz. The subjective
criticisms mixed up in the notes, cannot be pronounced as either very useful
or very satisfactory, and will serve to show how hard it is to find in one and
the same person the patient and laborious paleographer and the sound and
sagacious. critic. Still we owe much to Dr. Tischendorf, and it is probable
shall have to owe much more ;? his unwearied labors command our highest
respect, and may only the more make us regret that they are not set off by a
greater Christian courtesy in his general tone, and by more forbearance
towards those who feel it their duty to differ from him.

The last addition to the present edition which it is here necessary to specify
is, perhaps, the most: important, — systematic reference to the sermons and
treatises of our best English divines. This, it will be remembered, appeared
to some extent in the first edition, and has always formed a feature of these
commentaries ; still Iam now enabled to give to the reader the results of a
wider reading, and to entertain the hope that he will find but few really
valuable illustrations from our best divines overlooked in the present volume.
All I have done, however, is only in the way of reference. Much I regret
that neither space, nor the general character of the commentary, enable me to
make long quotations: I will repeat, however, what I have said elsewhere, that,
as the references have been made with great care and consideration, I venture
to think that the reader who will take the trouble of consulting the writers in
the places referred to, will find himself abundantly rewarded for his labor.

1 In deference to the opinion and present usage of this critic, I now designate the MS. of
St. Paul’s Epp. formerly marked J. in the critical editions, by the new mark L.

2 For a brief notice of the discovery by Dr. Tischendorf of a MS. of the whole New Test.
of an antiquity said to be as great as that of B, see the Literary Churchman for July 16, 1859,
Ρ. 258; Bib. Sacra, vol. xvi. 639. 2

Χ PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

I have already received many kind recognitions of the use which this class
of references has proved to students in Theology ; and I now continue them
with renewed interest, feeling day by day more assured that in these latter
times it is to our own great divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
we must go for our Theology; and that it is from them alone that we can
provide ourselves with preservatives against the unsound, vaunting, and
humanitarian theosophy that is such a melancholy and yet such a popular
characteristic of our own times.

Nothing now remains for me, except to notice briefly the works of fellow-
laborers that have appeared since the publication of the first edition.

A new edition has recently appeared by Harless, but, as the author him-
self apprizes us, too little changed to need any further notice than what has
already appeared in the original Preface to this work. A very useful edition
for the general reader has also appeared in America, from the pen of the
estimable Dr. Turner, but is too different in its principles of interpretation
to have been of much use to me in a critical and grammatical commentary
such as the present. To two commentaries, however, which have appeared
in this country, during the interval I have alluded to, I have paid very great
attention. The first is the Third Volume of my friend Dean Alford’s Com-
mentary; the second is the Third Part of Canon Wordsworth’s Commentary,
— works which both deserve and have received the high approbation of all
biblical students ; the former for its able and attractive exegesis, the latter
for its valuable citations from Patristic and English Divinity, and both for
their accurate scholarship, and sound and intelligent criticism.

I now commend myself to the kind judgment of my readers ; and with the
hope, that some time in the course of the following year, if God be pleased
to give me health and strength, I may be able to complete another portion of
my laborious undertaking, I here bring to its close a work that has claimed
my incessant attention for some months.

May the blessing of God rest on this reiippearance of a lowly tribute to His
Honor and Glory; — may its errors and shortcomings be forgiven, and its
broken and partial glimpses of Divine Truth be permitted to excite in others
a deeper reverence for the Eternal Word, and a more earnest longing for
the full and perfect Day.

CAMBRIDGE, AUGUST, 1859.

INTRODUCTION.

THE sublime epistle to the Ephesians was written by St. Paul during his
first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), and stands second or more probably
third in the third of the four groups into which the Epistles of St. Paul may
be conveniently divided. The Ep. to the Colossians (Meyer Linleit. p. 18,
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 450 sq.), and also that to Philemon, appear to have
immediately preceded, while that to the Philippians seems to have succeeded
after an interval of perhaps a year, when the Apostle’s confinement assumed
a harsher character, and his prospects seemed in some measure more cheerless
(Phil. i. 20).

It was thus written about the year A. Ρ. 62, and was conveyed to the
Church of Ephesus by Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21), either while on his way to
deliver the Epistles addressed respectively to the Colossians and to Philemon,
or, as has been thought more probable (Meyer LEinleit. p. 17), on his return
after having performed that duty.

That the Epistle was addressed to the Christians of the important city of
Ephesus seems scarcely open to serious doubt. Both the critical arguments
(see note on ch. i. 1) and the nearly unanimous consent of the early Church
(Iren. Her. v. 2, 3, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 8, Vol. I. p. 592, ed. Pott., Orig.
Cels. Vol. I. p. 458, ed. Bened.) are so decidedly in favor of such a destina-
tion, that we scarcely seem warranted in calling in question a statement so
strongly supported. Still the omission of greetings and personal notices in
an Epistle sent from the founder of the Church of Ephesus (Acts xix. i. sq.,
comp. xviii. 19) to converts with whom he had abode nearly three years
(Acts xx. 31) seems so very striking and noticeable, that we may perhaps
so far adopt the opinion of Usher (Annal. ann. 4068) and of several recent
expositors, that this Epistle, though addressed to the Christians at Ephesus,
was still designed for circulation in all the churches conterminous to or de-
pendent on that city, and was thus left studiously general in form, and free

XI INTRODUCTION.

from distinctive notices. Individual greetings and other messages of affec-
tion might well have been entrusted to a bearer who was specially commis-
sioned to inform the receivers of the Epistle upon all points connected with
the personal state of the Apostle (ch. vi. 21).

The Epistle does not appear to have been called forth by any particular
circumstances, nor to have involved any warning against the peculiarities of
Jewish or Eastern Philosophy, but was designed to set forth the origin and
development of the Church of Christ, and to display to the Christian dweller
under the shadow of the great temple of Diana the unity and beauty of that
transcendently more glorious spiritual temple (ch. ii. 20) of which Christ
Himself was the head corner-stone, and the saints portions of the superstrue-
ture. That it should also contain many thoughts nearly identical with those
expressed in the Epistle to the Colossians is readily accounted for by the
fact that both were written nearly at the same time, and both addressed to
Churches which were sufficiently near to each other to have had many things
in common, especially in the relations of social and domestic life.

The genuineness and authenticity admit of no reasonable doubt. The tes-
timonies of the Early Church are unusually strong and persistent (see reff.
above, and add Tertull. de Prescr. ch. xxxvi., Hippol. Refut. Her. p. 198,
ed. Oxf.), and have never been called in question till comparatively recent
times. The objections are purely of a subjective character, being mainly
founded on imaginary weaknesses in style or equally imaginary references
to early Gnosticism, and have been so fairly and fully confuted that they
can no longer be considered to deserve any serious attention; see esp.
Meyer, Einleit. p. 19 sq., Davidson, Introd. Vol. II. p. 352 sq., Alford, Pro-
legom. p. 8.

The arguments in favor of the Epistle having been written at Caesarea
will be found in Meyer, Einlcit. § 2, but are far from convincing.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER I.1.

Apostolic
salutation.

ioe ον hegeneteen ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ

δελήματος Θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς

1. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] Tisch. and A/f. have enclosed these words in brackets, but scarcely
with sufficient reason. Without entering into detailed arguments, it may be suffi-
cient to remark, that the facts about which all now seem agreed are as follows : —
(1) As far as our present collations can be depended upon, all the MSS., mss,, and
Vv., are unanimous in favor of the insertion, except B, where the words are sup-
plied on the margin by a second hand (Tisch.), and 67, where they appear in the
text, but with diacritical marks indicative of suspicion: — (2) Basil of Cappad.
certainly did not find the words ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν, Hunom. τι. 19.
Bp. Middleton supposes Basil only appeals to the ancient MSS. as containing
τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν E®., not simply τοῖς ἐν ἜΦ. ; comp. Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 1841,
p- 423: this opinion, however, has no diplomatic support of any kind, and cannot
fairly and logically be deduced from the words of Basil; see Meyer, Hinleit. p. 2,
note :— (3) Tertullian (Mare. v. 11.17) possibly was not aware of their existence ;
it is uncritical to say more. His words, ‘veritas Ecclesix,’ do not necessarily
imply an absence of diplomatic evidence, nor can ‘interpolare’ (comp. JJare. rv,
1, v. 21) be pressed : —(4) Origen (Caten. Vol. 11. p. 102) appears to have ac-
cepted the omission, as he comments on the peculiarity of the expression τοῖς ἁγίοις
τοῖς οὖσι; see Tisch. (ed. 7). The internal evidence, such as absence of greetings
and personal notices, is of more importance. Still, both combined cannot be con-
sidered sufficient to overthrow the vast preponderance of external authority, and
the appy. unanimous tradition of the early Church, that this Ep. was addressed to

Crap. I. 1. δοῦλος X.1.] ‘a servant
of Jesus Christ:’ gen. not of ablation
(the source from which his commission

Acts xxvii. 23, οὗ εἰμί, Rom. i. 1, δοῦλος
*I. X., and comp. notes on Phil.i.1. The
distinction between these forms of the

proceeded ; comp. Stier zn /oc.), but sim-
ply of possession, in ref. to the Master
whose servant and minister he was ; see

gen. (which Eadie appears not to have
fully felt) is often faintly marked (com-
pare Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 16, 17); still

EPHESIANS. Cuap. I. 1.

14

οὖν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ πιστος ἐν Χριστῷ Inood.
the Ephesians (Iren. Her, ν. 2, 8, Clem. Al. Strom. τν. 8, Tertull. J. c., Origen,
Cels. 111. p. 458, ed. Ben.). We therefore retain the words as genuine, and ascribe
their omission in B to an early exercise of criticism founded on supposed internal
evidence, traces of which are found in Theodoret, Praf. in Eph.: comp. Wieseler,
Chronol. p. 442 sq. The different theories and attempts to reconcile conflicting
evidence will be found in Meyer, Finleit. § 1, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 432 sq., and
Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 328 sq. Of the many hypotheses, that of Harless
(Linleit. p. 57) —that the Ep. was designed not only for the Ephesians, but for the

Churches dependent on Ephesus, or the Christians who had already been converted

there — is perhaps the most plausible.

Harless seems quite correct in saying
that the idea of authorization does not
depend simply on the gen., but on the
modal clauses κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, 1 Tim. i. 1,
which are commonly attached: comp,
Gal. i. 1, where the nature of the rela-
tions between the Apostle and his con-
verts suggests language of unusual pre-
cision. διὰ ϑελήματο»κ) ‘by
the will of God ;’ modal clause appended
to the preceding words, not so much to
enhance his apostolic authority (comp.
Alf.), as in that thankful remembrance
of God’s power and grace, which any
allusion to his ministerial office was sure
to awaken in the Apostle’s heart: comp.
1 Cor. xv. 10, Gal. i. 15. These and
the preceding words occur in the same
order and connection in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col.
ioe 2) Dima le compare i) Corie:
Though it is not possible to doubt that
the Apostle, in addressing different
Churches or individuals, designedly
adopted the same or different modes of
salutation, still it is not in all cases easy
to trace, from external considerations,
the reasons for the choice ; comp. notes
on’ Col. i. 1. Riickert, who has slightly
touched on the subject (on Gal. i. 1),
refers the Apostle’s present specification
of his authority, διὰ ded. ©., to the en-
cyclical character of the Epistle. As
this character, though probable (see crit.
note), is merely hypothetical, it will be
safer, and perhaps more natural, to
adopt the more general explanation

above alluded to; see Meyer on 1 Cor.
AMINE τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘to the
Saints.’ Christians are appy. called
ἅγιοι in the N. T. in three senses; (a)
generally, as members of a visible and
local community devoted to God’s ser-
vice (Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10, Rom. xv.
20), and, as such,.united in a common
outward profession of faith (1 Cor. i. 2;
see Chrys. on Rom. i. 7); (b) more spe-
cifically, as members of a spiritual com-
munity (Col. iii. 12,1 Pet. ii. 9); and
(c) as also in many cases having per-
sonal and individual sanctity; comp.
ver. 4, see Fell, in/oc. The context will
generally show which of these ideas pre-
dominates. In salutations like the pres-
ent, ἅγιος appears used in its most com-
prehensive sense, as involving the idea
of a visible (hence the local predicate),
and also (as the complementary clause
καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Xp. Ἴ. suggests) that of a
spiritual and holy community ; see Col.
i. 1, and esp. 1 Cor. i. 2, where defining
clauses involving these different ideas
are grouped round κλητοῖς ἁγίοις : comp.
Thorndike, Review, 1. 33, Vol. 1. p. 656
(A. C. Libr.), and Davenant on Col. i. 2.
πιστοῖς ἐν X. Ἴ.] ‘faithful, sc. believing,
in Jesus Christ.’ Πιστός is not here in
its general and classical sense, ‘qui
fidem prestat’ (Grot., Alf.), but its par-
ticular and theological sense, ‘ qui fidem
habet’ comp. Syr.), a meaning which it
indisputably bears in several passages in
the N. T.; e.g. John’ xx. 27, 2 Cor. vi.

Cuap. I. 2, 8.

* χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Blessed be God who has
predestinated us to the

EPHESIANS.

15

see aee XN a \ e ~ \ ͵
εὑρηνή ΟἼΤΟῸ Θεοῦ TAT pos μων Kal Κυρίου

ὃ Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου

adoption of sons, redeemed us by Christ’s blood, revealed to us His eternal purpose of uniting all in Him, and
has commenced its fulfilment by sealing with his Spirit both Jew and Gentile.

15, Gal. iii. 9, 1 Tim. iv. 3 (not 1 Tim.
i. 12, Eadie), Titus i. 6, etc.; compare
Wisdom i. 14, Psalm ec. 6, and see Sui-
cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 741.

ἐν Χριστῷ implies union, fellowship,
with Christ (see notes on Gal. ii. 17), and
qualifies only the more restricted term,
πιστός, not ἅγιος (Phil. i. 1.) and πιστός
(Harl., Meier). The clause is not, how-
ever, on the one hand, a mere epexegesis
of aylos (Beza), nor, on the other, a
specification of anether and separate
class (Stier), but completes the descrip-
tion of the ἅγιοι, by the addition of a
second and more distinctive predication ;
see Meyer in loc. Πιστὸς ἐν Xp. thus
approximates in meaning to πιστεύων εἰς
Xp. (Gal. ii. 16), except that the latter
involves a closer connection of the verb
and the prep. (mor. εἰς --- Xp.), and
points rather to an act of the will, while
the former involves a closer connection
of the prep. and the noun (mor. — ἐν
Xp.), and marks a state and condition :
see Fritz. Marc. p. 175, and Eadie zn loc ,
where the full force of the preposition is
eloquently expanded.

2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη] ‘Grace
to you and peace;’ scil. εἴη not ἔστω
(Meier, Holzh.), which, though not un-
tenable (Bernhardy, Synt. xi. 5, p. 392:
comp. 2 Chron. ix. 8), is far less suitable
and even less usual than the optative ;
see 1 Pet. i..2,2 Pet. i. 2; Jude 2, and
comp. 2 John 3, where, however, ἔσται
gives the wish the character of a definite
expectation. The suggestion of Stier
that χάρις and εἰρήνη refer respectively to
the ἅγιοι and πιστοί does not seem tena-
ble, as the formula is so common with-
out any such antecedents (Rom. i. 7, 1
Cor. i. 3, 2 Cor. i. 2, al.); still they
must not be diluted into mere equiva-

lents of the ordinary forms of salutation
(Fritz. Rom. i. 7, Vol. 1. p. 98): Xapis
expresses God’s love toward man; εἰ-
ρήνη, the state of peace and blessedness
which results from it; εἰρηνεύει yap πρὸς
τὸν Θεὸν ὃ Thy εὐαγγελικὴν ἀσπασάμενος
πολιτείαν, Theodoret, Rom. i. 8: sce
notes on Gal. i. 3. It may be observed
that as this form is regularly maintained
in all St. Paul’s Epp. to Churches (Phi-
lem. 3 is no exception, being addressed
also τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον ἐκκλησίᾳ), while in 1
Rima ἂς 25 ΘΟ Time 1.9. ὙΠ}: ε1.} 45 (eck
Lachm.), the more personal term ἔλεος is
added, the latter might seem the form
addressed to individuals, the former to
communities ; comp. too Rev. i. 4, 2 John
3, but consider Jude 2, Gal. vi. 16, and
observe that in Tit. /. c. the longer read-
ing is more than doubtful. St. James
alone adopts the usual formula, χαίρειν :
in 3 John i. 2 the salutation passes into
a prayer. καὶ Κυρίου] Scil.
καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου k. τ. A., SO expressly Syr.,
Arm., both of which repeat the preposi-
tion. The Socinian interpretation, καὶ
(πατρὸς) Kup., is grammatically admissi-
ble, but m a high degree forced and
improbable: see esp. Tit. i. 4, and com-
pare 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess. il. 16.

3. εὐλογητ 46s) ‘Blessed,—scil. ἔστω
(2 Chron. ix. 8), or εἴη (Job i. 21, Psalm
exii. 2): the verb is, however, commonly
omitted in this and similar forms of dox-
ology ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 3. In this sol-
emn ascription of praise εὐλογητός (ἐπαι-
νεῖσϑαι καὶ ϑαυμάζεσϑαι ἄξιος, Theod.-
Mops.), as its position shows, has the
principal emphasis, the rule of Fritz.
(Mom. ix. 5, Vol. 11. 274) being appy.
reasonable — that εὐλογητός or εὐλογη-
μένος will occupy the first or some suc-
ceeding place in the sentence, according

10

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. I. 3.

5 A ἘΠ lol xX lal € ὖλ, ς a ’ , A, ΄
ἡμῶν ]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ εὐλογῆσας ἡμᾶς εν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευ-

as the emphasis rests on the predicate
(as it commonly does), or on the substan-
tive; comp. 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ἰ. ¢.,
Job /. c., and esp. Psalm /. ¢., which are
thus more satisfactorily explained than
by a supposed limitation of position in
consequence of the inserted copula (Alf.
on Rom. ix. 5). It has been re-
marked by Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 3 (comp.
Harless), that in the N. T. εὐλογητός is
only applied to God, εὐλογημένος to
man: it may be added that in the LXX,
the latter is occasionally applied to God,
but never the former to man. For a
good analysis of the present paragraph,
in which the relations of the Church to
the three persons of the blessed Trinity
‘are distinctly unfolded, see Alford in oc.
Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘God and
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ It
is doubtful whether in this formula (which
Riick. needlessly terms ‘paulinisch,’ see
1 Pet. i. 3) the gen. depends (a) on both
(Theoph.), or (b) only on the latter
(Syr., 4eth., Theod.-Mops. 1, Theodoret)
of the two nominatives.
it undecided.

Chrys. leaves
Grammatical considera-
tions do not assist us; for, on the one
hand, the position of the article before
Θεὸς rather than Πατὴρ (Olsh.) does not
invalidate the latter interpretation (com-
pare Winer. Gr. § 19. 3, p. 115 note),
nor the omission of τέ before καὶ (Har-
less) the former; the usual ‘ preparative
force of τὲ (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p.
98, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 730) being
here obviously out of place. To the
former interpretation, Θεὸς μέν, ὧς capKw-
ϑέντος, πατὴρ δέ, ws Θεοῦ λόγου, there
ean be no doctrinal objections (see verse
17, John xx. 17, and compare Olsh. on
Matth. xxi. 31, 32), but from the consid-
erations suggested on Gal. 1. 4, as well
as from the fact that, except in ver. 17,
St. Paul has not elsewhere so designated
the Father, the latter construction seems

decidedly preferable. On the
most suitable translation, see notes on
Gal. i. 4. (Transl.).
σας nuas| ‘who blessed us;’ ‘antanac-
lasis ; aliter nobis benedixit Deus, aliter
nos benedicimus Illi, Bengel. The
aorist participle (where the aoristic force
is always least obscure, Bernhardy, Synt.
x. 9, p. 383) refers to the counsels of the
Father as graciously completed in the
Redemption, and is thus neither used (a)
for a pres. (Holzh.) — an untenable posi-
tion, except in a sense and under limita-
tions (Scheuerl. Syntax, § 32. 2, p. 331)
which would here be doctrinally unsuita-
ble; nor (δ) as marking ‘a customary
or repeated act’ (Eadie) —a meaning
which the aorist never appears to bear in
the N. T.; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 40. 4. 1. p.
248. The reference of ἡμᾶς can scarcely
be doubtful: it cannot refer to St. Paul
(Koppe), — for comp. κἀγώ, ver. 15, —
but, as the inclusive nature of the con-
text (ver. 14, 11, 12) distinctly implies,
must be extended to Christians gener-
rally. No fixed rules can be laid down
as to the reference of the plural pro-
snoun: this must always be determined
by the context.

ὁ evAoyn-

ἐν πάσῃ εὖλο-
γίᾳ πνευματικῇ] ‘with every blessing
of the Spirit ; agency by which the bless-
ing was imparted, ἐν here being appy-.
instrumental (see notes on 1 Thess, iv.
18), and perhaps not without some par-
allelism to the Hebrew 2 5-2; comp. the
analogous construction, Tobit viii. 15,
and James iii. 9, where, however, the
instrumental sense is much more dis-
tinct. The meaning and force of πνεὺ-
ματικῇ is slightly doubtful. Chrys. and
Theod.-Mops. find in it an antithesis to
the blessings of the Old Covenant (τὴν
᾿Ιουδαϊκὴν ἐνταῦϑα αἰνίττεται: εὐλογία μὲν
γὰρ ἣν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πνευματική; Chrys. ;
comp. Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 756) ; so
distinctly Syr., Eth., and with a detailed

Υ,

Cuap. I. 4.

EPHESIANS. 17

ματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, * καὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν

enumeration of the blessings, Theodoret,
in loc. It seems, however, much
more in accordance both with the pres-
ent context and with the prevailing
usage of the N. T. (see Rom. i. 11,
χάρισμα πνευματικόν, and 1 Cor. xii. 1
τῶν πνευματικῶν, compared with ver.
11), to refer the epithet directly to the
Holy Spirit (Joel iii. 1 sq., Acts ii. 16).
Bengel has not failed to notice the allu-
sion to the Trinity, which, as Stier (Vol.
τ. p. 57) has clearly shown, pervades the
whole of this sublime Epistle. ἐν
τοῖς ἐπουρανίοι 9] ‘inheavenly regions ;

ony, LA oe > H
Ladoms [in colo], Syr., ‘in ceelis,’

‘Eth. The exact meaning of these
words is doubtful. Many of the ancient,
and several modern expositors, explain
τὰ ἐπουράνια, as ‘heavenly blessings ἡ
(ἐπουράνια yap τὰ δῶρα ταῦτα, Theo-
doret), ‘heavenly institutions’ (J. John-
son, Unbl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 198, A. C.
Libr.), and thus, as in ethical contrast to
τὰ ἐπίγεια (Chrys.); see John iii. 12, but
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40, where the same
words are in physical contrast. This is
not grammatically untenable, and would
not require the omission of τοῖς (Riick.,
Eadie, al.), as the article would thus
only correctly designate the class; see
Middleton, Greek Art. m1. 2. 2, p. 40,
and comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 3, p. 99.
As, however, such a specification of the
sphere, and thence of the spiritual char-
acter of the action would seem superflu-
ous after the definite words immediately
preceding, —as in the four other pas-
sages in this Ep. (i. 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, and
vi. 12, but contr. Chrys.) the expression
seems obviously local, and lastly, —as
throughout St. Paul’s Epp. (even 2 Tim.
iv. 18) ἐπουράνιος has that local or phys-
ical force which the preposition ἐπὶ (Har-
less) would also seem further to suggest,
it will be best, both from contextual and

lexical reasons to retain that meaning in
the present case. Ἔν τοῖς ἐπουρ. must
then here be referred as a local predica-
tion to εὐλογ. mvevu., defining, broadly
and comprehensively the region and
sphere where our true home is (Phil. iii.
20), where our hope is laid up (Col. i.
5), and whence the blessings of the
Spirit, the δωρεὰ ἣ ἐπουράνιος (Heb. vi.
4), truly come: see notes to Transl.

ἐν Χριστῷ) Not for διὰ Xp. (Chrys.,
Hamm.), but, as in ver. 1, ‘in Christ ;’
“in quo uno spirituali et sanctifica bene-
dictione donamur,’ Beza. Thus εὐλογή-
σας contains the predication of time
(Donalds. Gr. ὃ 574 sq), ἐν εὐλογ.
πνευμ. the predication of manner, more
exactly defined by the local predication
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ., while ἐν Xp. is that mys-
tical predication which, as Stier well ob-
serves, ‘is the very soul of this Epistle,’
and involves all other conceptions in
itself. For a good example of this spe-
cies of analysis of clauses and sentences,
see Donalds. Crat. § 304.

4. kadds] ‘even as,’ ‘sicut’ Clarom,
Vulg., Copt., al.; explanation and ex-
pansion of the preceding εὐλογήσας κ. τ.
A., the particle καϑώς, which in most
cases has a purely modal, appearing here
to have also a slightly explanatory or
even casual force (‘inasmuch as’), and
to mark not only the accordance, but
the necessary connection of the εὐλογία
with the ἐκλογή ; see Rom. i. 28, 1 Cor.
i. 6, and compare καϑότε (used only by
St. Luke), which has both a modal
(Acts ii. 45, iv. 35) and a causal (Acts
ii. 24) meaning. The form καϑώς is not
found in the older Attic writers, or in
Lucian ; see Lobeck, Phyrn. p. 426, and
notes on Gal. ili. 6. ἐξελέξατο
ἡ μᾷᾶ 9] ‘chose us out for Himself;’ ‘ele-
git, Clarom., Vulg., al., — but with some
sacrifice of the fullest meaning. With-
out entering into the profound dogmat-

18

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. I. 4.

> A ἣν Β λῆ , - « - e / \ BJ ,
αὐτῷ “Προ καταβολῆς κοσμου, ELVAL ἡμᾶς AYLOUS καὶ ἀμωμοὺῦυς

ical questions connected with the mean-
ing of this verb (only used by St. Paul,
here and 1 Cor. i. 27), it may be simply
observed that in ἐξελέξατο three ideas
are suggested ; — (a) selection (not ne-
cessarily of individuals; see Ebrard,
Dogm. ὃ 560), from, out of, others not
chosen (ἐκ tod κόσμου, John xv. 19;
contr. Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 198),
suggested by the plain meaning of the
word ; — (Ὁ) simple unrestricted preteri-
tion of the act (alike irrespective of du-
ration or relation, Bernhardy, Syntax, x.
8, p. 380, and esp. Fritz. de Aor. p. 17
sq.), conveyed by the tense, and further
heightened by the ‘timelessness ’ (Olsh.)
of the quasi-temporal predication πρὸ
καταβολῆς; compare 2 Thess. ii. 13,
εἵλατο am ἀρχῆς: God is 6 καλῶν (1
Thess. ii. 2), as well as 6 καλέσας (Gal.
i. 6), but not ὁ ἐκλεγόμενοπ; —(c) re-
flexive action (for Himself; comp. Eph.
v. 27, Rev. xxi. 2), implied by the
voice. While the primary mean-
ing of ἐκλέγ. and similar words is un-
doubtedly to be looked for in their gen-
eral and national references in the O. T.
(Usteri Lehrbegr. 11. 2. 2, p. 271, Knapp,
Script. Var. Arg. p. 556), the modal
clauses with which they are combined
show the deeper and more distinctive
sense in which they are used in the New
Testament. On this profound subject,
and on the estates of man (the estate of
wrath, of reconciliation, and of election)
see esp. Jackson, Creed, x. 37, 11 56.»
Vol. 1x. p. 312 sq., and comp. Ham-
mond on God’s Grace, Vol. τ. p. 667 sq.
(Lond. 1674), and Laurence, Bampt.
Lect. for 1804. ἐν αὐτῷ] Not
for δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, scil. διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίσ-
tews (Chrys., Hamm.), nor for εἰς αὐτὸν
(comp. A®th.), nor yet with an instru-
mental foree (Arm.), but, as Olsh. cor-
rectly and profoundly explains it, ‘in
Him, —in Christ, as the head and repre-

sentative of spiritual, as Adam was the
representative of natural humanity ;
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22. πρό
καταβολῆς κόσμου] This expres-
sion, used three times in the N. T. (John
Xvii, 24, 1 Pet. i. 20), here serves to de-
fine the archetypal character of the New
Dispensation, and the wide gulf that
separated the πρόϑεσις πρὸ χρόνων aiw-
νίων (2 Tim. i. 9) of God with respect to
Christians, from His temporal ἐκλογὴ of
the Jews; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1.
Ρ. 522 (Bohn). εἶναι ἡμᾶς kK.
τ. A.| ‘that we should be holy and blame-
less ;’ object contemplated by God in
His gracious éxAoyh, the infin. being
that of intention; scil. ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἵνα
ἅγιοι ὦμεν καὶ ἄμωμοι, Chrys.; comp. 2
Cor. xi. 2, Col. i. 22, and see Winer, Gr.
§ 45.1, p. 284, Donalds. Gr. § 607. a,
p. 598. ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους
‘holy and blameless ;’ positive and nega-
tive aspects of true Christian life. The
meaning of ἄμωμος (ἄμεμπτος: καϑαρόΞ"
ἄψεκτος, Hesych.) is slightly doubtful ;
it may be (a) ‘inculpatus,’ ὁ ἀνεπίληπτον
βίον ἔχων, Chrys., in accordance with its
derivation (μῶμος μέμφομαι), or (b) “πι-
maculatus’ (Vulg., Clarom., Arm. ;
comp. Syr., Goth.), with possible refer-
ence to its application in the LXX to
victims, Lev. i. 10, xxii. 19; comp. 1
Mace. iv. 42, ἱερεῖς ἀμώμους, and see
Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The latter mean-
ing is strongly supported by 1 Pet. i. 19,
ἀμνοῦ ἂμώμου και ἀσπίλου, and Heb. ix.
14: still, as there is here no sacrificial
allusion directly or indirectly (comp. ch.
y. 27), it seems best to retain the simple
etymological meaning; see Col. i. 22,
ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους, and compare
Wisd χ. 15, λαὸν ὅσιον καὶ σπέρμα ἄμεμπ-
τον. It is more doubtful whether
these epithets point to a moral condition,
i. e. to the righteousness of sanctification
(Chrys, Hamm.), or to the imputed

Cnap. I. 5.

EPHESIANS.

19

, > a 2 Ske? Be / enean > ¢ ΄, Ὗ
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ " προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς vioSeciav διὰ

righteousness of Christ, (Olsh., Mey.)
The former reference seems most conso-
nant both with St. Paul's general teach-
ing (1 Thess. iv. 7) and the obvious
inferences that may be drawn from other
passages in the N. T., 1 Pet. i. 16, Rey.
xxii. 11; see Stier zn loc., and on the
distinction between sanctifying and justi-
fying righteousness, the excellent re-
marks of Hooker, Serm. 11. 6. Vol. 111.
p- 611.
‘before Him;’ ‘id est vere, sincere,’
Beza; not what men, but what God
esteems as such.

κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ]

ἁγιωσύνην ζητεῖ ἣν 6
τοῦ Θεοῦ ὕφϑαλμος ὁρᾷ Chrys. The form
αὐτοῦ is here to be preferred, as the refer-
ence to the subject is obviously remote
and unemphatic; comp. Bremi, Jahrb.
der Philol. ix. p. 171 (Winer). The dis-
tinction, however, between the proper
use of these two forms cannot be rigor-
ously defined ; see Buttm. Mid. (Excurs.
x) p. 140, and Tisch. Prolegom. p.
LVIII. ἐν ἀγάπῃ may be joined with
ἐξελέξατο ; more probably with ay. καὶ
ἀμώμ. (Vulg., Copt.); but appy. most
probably with προορίσας (Syr., Chrys.,
Theod.), as St Paul’s object seems here
not so much to define the nature of the
required ἁγιωσύνη and dueudia on the
part of man, as to reveal the transcen-
dent principle of Love which informed
the προορισμὸς of God; καὶ προεῖδεν ἡμᾶς
καὶ ἠγάπησε, Theod., compare Theod.-
Mops. The arguments derived from
the collocation of the words are not deci-
sive, for ἐν ἀγάπῃ could as well be joined
with Gy. καὶ du. here, as ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ with
ἀμέμπτους, 1 Thess. iii. 13; and again
could as easily precede (emphatically)
mpoopicas here, as it does ἐῤῥιζωμένοι ch.
iii. 18. Lastly, it cannot be said that
the second modal clause, κατὰ τὴν εὐδ.
is thus superfluous (Meier): the two
clauses point to two different attributes ;
ἐν ἀγάπῃ to the loving Mercy, κατὰ τὴν

evs. to the sovereign Power of God.
For a good defence of the second form
of connection see Alford in loc.

5. προορίσας pas] ‘having fore-

? 7. 6. not ‘predestinans,

ordained us:
Beng., but ‘quum predestinasset, Syr.-
Phil., the participle being most naturally
regarded as temporal, not modal, and its
action as prior to, not synchronous with
(as in ver. 9) that of é&eA.; comp. Rom.
viii. 29, 30, and see Bernhardy, Synt. 111.
9, p. 383, Donalds. Gr. ὃ 574 sq. With
regard to the prep. it would certainly
seem that πρὸ does not refer to others
(Baumg.), nor, appy., to existence be-
fore time (Eadie), but simply to the
realization of the event: the decree ex-
isted before the object of it came into
outward manifestation; comp. προηλπι-
κότας, ver. 12, and see Olsh. on Rom. ix.
1. The distinction between ἐκλογὴ and
προορισμὸς is thus drawn by Scherzer
(cited by Wolf); ‘differunt tantum ra-
tione ordinativa et objectiva,’—the ἐκ of
the former referring to the mass from
whom the selection was made, the πρὸ
of the latter to the preéxistence and pri-
ority of the decree. On προορισμός, ete.,
see Petavius, Theol. Dogm. ix. 1, Vol. 1.
p- 565 sq., and Laurence, Bampt. Lect.
Vill. p. 169 sq. eis viodsedla|
‘ for adoption,’ scil. ἵνα αὐτοῦ υἱοὶ Aeyol[w]
peda καὶ χρηματίζωμεν, Theod.-Mops. ;
υἱοϑεσία, however, not being merely son-
ship (Ust. Lehrb. 11. 1, 2, p. 186), but as
usual, ‘adoptionem filiorum, Vulg.; see
notes on Gal. iv. 5, and Neander, Plant-
ing, Vol. τ. p. 477 (Bohn).
αὐτόν], ‘unto Him;’ comp. Col. i. 20,
ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα eis αὐτόν. As
the exact meaning of these words is
slightly obscure, it will be best to pre-
mise the following statements. (a) Eis
υἱοῦ. . . . εἰς αὐτὸν must be regarded as a
single compound clause expressive of
the manner and nature of the mpoopic-

᾽
eis

20 EPHESIANS.

Cuap. I. ὁ.

’ a fol \ \ a
]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ δελήματος

> la 5 al fal fe 7
οὐτοῦ, “els ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἣ ἐχαρίτωσεν

6. ἐν ἡ] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with DEF (om. ἢ) GKL; great majority of mss. ;
Clarom., Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Phil., Arm., al.; Bas., Chrys., Theod., al. and rightly ;
for ἧς, though found in AB; mss.; Syr., AZth.; Orig. (Cat.), Chrys. (1), al.
(Lachm., Mey., Alf.), has weaker external support ; and on internal grounds, as a
grammatical correction, seems very suspicious. The statement of Alf, that ‘a
relative following a substantive is as often in a different case as the same, certainly
cannot be substantiated ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. 1, p. 197.

μός; δι “Ino. and eis adr. being separate
sub-clauses further defining the promi-
nent idea eis υἱοϑεσίαν. (ὁ) Αὐτὸν (not
αὑτὸν) is not to be referred to Christ (De
W.), but, with the Greek expositors, to
God. (c) Eis αὐτὸν is not merely equiv-
alent to ἐν αὐτῷ (Beza), or 45, scil.
jntn:> (Holzh.); nor is the favorite
transl. of Meyer, ‘in reference to Him’
(comp. Rick), though, grammatically
tenable (Winer, G7. ὃ 49. a, p. 354), by
any means sufficient. In these deeper
theological passages the prep. seems to
bear its primary ( εἰς = evs Donalds. Crat.
§ 170) and most comprehensive sense of
‘to and znto’ (see Rost u. Palm, Lez.
s.v.); the idea of approach (τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν
ἀνάγουσαν, Theoph.) being also blended
with, and heightened by, that of inward
union; comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27.

We may thus paraphrase, ‘ God predes-
tinated us to be adopted as His sons;
and that adoption came to us through
Christ, and was to lead us unto, and
unite us to God.’ Stier compares what
he terms the bold expression, 2 Pet. i. 4.
κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν κ. τ. A.] ‘accord-
ing to the good pleasure of His will,’ “86-
cundum placitum (propositum, Vulg.)
voluntatis sus,’ Clarom.; the prep.
κατά, as usual, marking ‘rule, measure,
accordance to,’ Winer, Gr. ὃ 49 ἃ, p.
357. The exact meaning of εὐδοκία is
here doubtful. The Greek expositors
(not Chrys.) refer it to the benevolentia
(ἡ ἐπ᾽ εὐεργεσίᾳ βούλησις Cicum.), the
Vulg., Syr, Goth. (‘leikainai’), al. to

the voluntas liberrima of God. The lIat-
ter meaning rarely, if ever (not even
Ecclus. i. 27, xxxii. 5), occurs in the
EXX; in the N. 7., however, though
there are decided instances of the for-
mer meaning, 6. g. Luke ii. 14 (not ‘le-
titia,’ Fritz.), Phil. i. 15 (δι᾽ €d8. opp. to
διὰ φϑόνον), still there is no reason to
doubt (Harl.) that the latter occurs in
Matth. xi. 26 (ϑέλησις καὶ ἀρέσκεια,
Theoph.) Luke x. 21, and, probably,
Phil. ii. 13. Thus the context must
decide. As here and ver. 9 εὐδοκία
seems to refer exclusively to the actor
(προορίσας, γνωρίσα5), not to the objects
of the action; it seems best with De
Wette (mis-cited by Eadie) to adopt the
latter meaning, though not in the ex-
treme sense, τὸ σφοδρὸν ϑέλημα, as advo-
cated by Chrys. In this the idea of good-
ness (ἢ ἀρίστη καὶ καλλίστη τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἑκούσιος ϑέλησις, Etym. M.) is of course
necessarily involved, but it does not
form the prominent idea. For further
details, see esp. Fritz. on Rom. x. 1, Vol.
11. p. 369 sq., and Wordsw. zn loc.

6. eis ἔπαινον xk. τ. A.| ‘for the
praise of the glory of His grace, ‘in or
rather ‘ad [Clarom.; see Madvig, Opusc.
Acad. p. 167 sq.; comp. Hand, Tursell.
Vol. 111. p. 317] laudem glorix gratize
sux,’ Vulg.; ἵνα ἣ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ δόξα
decx97, Chrys.: divine purpose of the
προορισμός ; eis here denoting the ‘finis
primarius ’ (Phil, i. 11), not ‘ consequens
aliquid’ Grot., as in 1 Pet. i. 7. It is
scarcely necessary to say that neither is

δι

Guar, J. 7:

EPHESIANS. 91

~

« “ > A 3 , 5 e ow» \ 9 λύ ὃ Ν “
ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἡγαπημενῳ, ᾿εν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ὠπολυτρωσιν OLA τοῦ

ἔπαινος δόξης for ἔπαινος évdotos (Grot.),
nor δόξα τῆς χάριτος for ἔνδοξος χάρις
(Beza),— both of them weak, and, here
especially, wholly inadmissible solutions.
As Chrys. appears rightly to have felt,
δόξης is a pure subst., and serves to
specify that peculiar quality or attribute
of the χάρις which forms the subject of
praise; comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. obs.
p. 211. Thus, then, of the three geni-
tives, the first is that ‘of the object,’ or,
more strictly speaking, ‘of the point of
view’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129),
while the two last are united (Winer,
Gr. ὃ 30. 8.1, p. 172), and form a com-
mon possessive genitive. Owing to the
defining gen., the article is not indis-
pensable ; see Winer, Gir. § 19. 2. ἢ, p.
113, and compare Madvig, Synt., § 10.
2. ἐν Al ‘inqué,’ Vulg., Clarom.,
not ‘e qua,’ Beza, or ‘qua,’ Arm. (in-
strum. case); the antecedent here much
more naturally marking the state in
which, than the means by which God
showed us His favor. ἐχαρίτω-
σ εν] ‘He imparted His grace to us,’ ‘grat-
iticavit,’ Clarom., Vulg., ‘largitus est,’
/Kth. The exact meaning of xapitdw is
doubtful. From the analogy of verbs in
éw, whether in reference to what is mate-
rial (6. g. χρυσόω, etc.) or what is imma-
terial (6. g. ϑανατόω, etc., see Harless),
xapitéw must mean " χάριτι aliquem affi-
cio.” As, however, χάρις is indetermi-
nate, and may mean either the subjective
state of the individual or the objective
grace of God, ἐχαρίτωσε may still have
two meanings ;—(a) ἐπεράστους ἐποίησε,
Chrys., ‘gratis 5181 acceptos effecit,
Beza; comp. Ecclus. ix. 8 (Alez.), appy.
xviii. 17, Symm. Psalm xvii. 28, and
see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p.
1504 ; — or (b) gratid amplerus est, Beng.,
sim. Syr., ‘gratiz#, quam effudit:’ comp.
Yuke i, 28. Both the context (comp.
Alf.) and the prevailing meaning of

χάρις in St. Paul’s Epp seem distinctly
in favor of the latter meaning. On the
use of the aor., comp. note on ἐξελέξατυ,
ver. 4. ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημέν ῳ] ‘in
the Beloved ;’ see Matth. iii. 17, John iii.
16, and comp. Col. i. 13. Ἔν is not here
interchangeable with διά (comp. Chrys.),
or equivalent to propter (Grot., Locke),
but retains its full primary meaning.
Christ, as Olsh. well observes, 15. re-
garded not only as the mediator, but as
the true representative of mankind.

7. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom;’ further illustra-
tion and expansion of the preceding
exapitwoev. Here again ἐν is neither
instrumental (Arm.), nor identical im
meaning with διά (Vatabl.).
deed (Opuse. p. 184), adduces this pas-
sage as an instance of this identity, and
regards διὰ Tod atu. as a sort of epexege-
sis of ἐν ὦ, ‘per quem,’ 7. e., eo quod
sanguinem effudit,’ but such an explana-
tion falls greatly short of the true mean-
As usual, ἐν has here its primary
it im-

Fritz, in-

ing.
and fullest theological meaning :
plies more than wnion with (Riick., Eadie);
it points to Christ as the living sphere
of redemption, while διὰ «. τ. A. refers
to the outward means of it; comp. Rom.
iii. 24. As Olsh. profoundly observes :
‘we have not redemption in His work
without His person, but in His person,
with which His work forms a living
unity ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347
note. ἔχομεν] ‘are having;’
present, and not without emphasis ; ‘ we
are ever nceding and are ever having it,’
Eadie.
(not our, Conyb.) redemption ;* scil. the
long-promised, and now known and real-
ized redemption. The use of this word
is thus briefly but perspicuously eluci-
dated by Usteri in Joc.: ‘Who is ran-
somed? Men, from the punishment
they deserved. What is the λύτρον
(Matth. xx. 28, Mark x. 45,1 Tim. ii.

τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν] ‘the

22

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. I. 8.

“, A \ a
αἵματος αὐτοῦ, THY ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ TO πλοῦτος

A ΄, a e ΄ ᾽ aA
τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, * ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ Kai

6)? The blood of Christ. Τὸ whom is
it paid? To God. Who pays it?
Christ in the first place; though strictly
God who sent Him; so, God through
Christ ;’ Zehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 107; see col-
lection of texts, Waterl. Doctrine of
Euch. 1v. 8, Vol. tv. p. 513. We must
not, however, too much limit the appli-
cation of this important word. As the
art. renders it impossible to explain it
merely metonymice, ‘a redeemed state’
(comp. Corn. a Lap.), so it presents to
us the conception of ‘redemption’ in its
most general and abstract sense, alike
from Satan, sin, and death; comp. Mid-
dleton, Greek Art. v. 1., p. 90 (ed. Bose).
διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ] ‘through
His blood ;’ closer definition of the ἐν ᾧ,
by a notice of the ‘causa medians,’ the
blood of Christ, —that, without which
there could have been no ἄφεσις : comp.
Heb. x. 22, and see the sound remarks
of Alf. and Wordsw. in A. ἰ. Thy
ἄφεσιν κ. τ. λ. | ‘the forgiveness of our
transgressions ;’ apposition to, and speci-
fication of the essential character of the
The distinction
between ἄφεσις (condonatio) and πάρεσις
(preetermissio, Rom iii. 25) is noticed by
Trench, Synonym. § 33; more briefly
but most acutely by Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1.
p. 199. Too much stress need not here
be laid on the distinction between παρατπ-

preceding ἀπολύτρωσις.

τώματα and ἁμαρτίαι, for compare Col. i.
14. Still the former so naturally point
to sins on the side of commission, sinful
acts, the latter to sins as the result of a
state, sinful conditions, that it seems best
(with Beza) to preserve the distinction
in translation ; comp. notes on ch. ii. 1.

χάριτος) ‘the
certainly not per
Hebraismum, for ‘abundans_ bonitas,’
(Grot.), but, with the usual meaning of
the possessive gen., the riches which ap-

τὸ πλοῦτος TIS

3

riches of His grace ;

pertain to, are the property of His χάρι5.
On the form πλοῦτος, here rightly re-
tained by Tisch., see Winer, Gr. ὃ 9. 2.
2, p. 61. It occurs again, Col. i. 27
(strongly supported), Eph. iii. 8, 16
(well supported), Eph. ii. 7, Phil. iv. 19,
Col. ii. 2 (fairly), 2 Cor. viii. 2 (doubt-
fully); comp. Tisch. Prolegom. p. Lv.

8. ἧς ἐπερίσσευσ ε] ‘which He
made to abound ;’ ‘ufarassau ganohida’
{abundanter concessit], Goth., ‘abundare
fecit,’ Eth. Though περισσεύω is used
intransitively by St. Paul, no less than
twenty-two times, yet as it is certainly
transitive in 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8,1 Thess.
iii. 12 (comp. Athen. Dezpn. 11. 16 (42),
περιττεύει Tas pas), and as there is no
satisfactory instance in the N. T. of at-
traction in the case of a verb joined with
a dat. (Fritzsche’s explanation of Rom.
iv. 17 is more than doubtful, and 1 Tim.
iv. 6. ἧς (Lachn.) is only supported by
A in opp. to CDFGKL), it seems better
to adopt the latter meaning with Theod.
(ἡμᾶς περικλύζει) and the Vy. above
cited, than the intrans., with Syr., Vulg.,
Arm., and appy. Chrys. in loc. On the
apparent violations of the law of attrac-
tion in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. § 24.
1, p. 148.
φρονήσει] ‘in all wisdom and intelli-
gence ;’? sphere and element in which the
περίσσευσεν is evinced and realized. As
there is some difficulty in (1) the mean-
ing, (2) reference, and (3) connection of
these words, it will be best to consider
these points separately. (1) Πᾶσα σοφία
can only mean ‘all wisdom,’ i. e., “every
kind of,’ ‘all possible wisdom,’ not
‘summa sapientia’ (Rosenm., Eadie),
mas, as Harless correctly observes, al-
ways denoting extension rather than in-
tension, and thus often giving a concrete
application to abstract nouns; comp. Col.
iv. 12, and see Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p.

ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ

Cuap. I. 9.

EPHESIANS. 93

φρονήσει, “γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Δελήματος αὐτοῦ,

101. The examples adduced by Eadie
(Matth. xxviii. 18, Acts v. 25 (23), 1
Tim. i. 15), do not in any way invyali-
date this principle. Σοφία and φρόνησις
are not synonymous (Homb.; compare
Plato, Symp. 202 a) but may be thus
distinguished: σοφία (cognate with σά-
ons, sapio) denotes ‘ wisdom’ in its gen-
eral sense, κοενῶς ἁπάντων μάϑησιν, Suid.
(see 4 Mace. i. 16); φρόνησις is
rather ‘intelligentia,’ ‘a right applica-
tion of the φρήν᾽ (τὸ δύνασϑαι καλῶς Bov-
λεύσασϑαι περὶ τὰ αὑτῷ ἀγαϑὰ καὶ συμφέ-
ροντα, Aristot.),—in a word, an attribute
or result of σοφία (ἡ δὲ σοφία ἀνδρὶ τίκτει
φρόνησιν, Prov. x. 23), thus serving here
(like ἀποκάλυψις ver. 17, σύνεσις Col. i.
9) to define and limit the reference of the
more general and comprehensive word.
That σοφία is theoretical, φρόνησις prac-
tical (Krebs ; comp. Aristot. Wthic. vi. 5,
7, Cicero, Off. 11. 2), is too bald a dis-
tinction ; for σοφία in its Christian appli-
cation necessarily wears a practical as-
pect, and may, in this respect, be as
much contrasted with γνῶσις (1 Cor.
viii. 1), as φρόνησις with the more nearly
synonymous, σύνεσις, (Col i. 9); see notes
to Transl., and comp. Beck, Seelent. 11.
WOE yas (alt, (2) The reference is to
man, not God (Alf.), for though φρόνη-
ois might be applied to God (see Prov.
iii. 19, Jer. x. 12, 1 Kings iii. 28), and
ἐν cop. καὶ pov. might, symmetrically
with ἐν ἀγάπῃ ver. 4, denote the princi-
ple in which God was pleased to act, yet,
(a) πάσῃ seems incompatible with such
a reference; (0) the introduction of these
attributes in reference to God disturbs
the pervading reference to the Divine
χάρις; (c) the analogy of Col. i. 9
(urged by Olsh.) forcibly suggests the
reference to man. (8) The connection
(left undecided by Lachm., Tisch.) must,
then, be that of the text. If the argu-
ments, a, b, c, be not considered valid, ἐν

πάσῃ κ. τ. A. must be joined with γνωρί-
cas, as Theod. (μετὰ πολλῆς σοφίας
ἐγνώρισεν) Griesb., al. The reference to
God, combined with the ordinary pune-
tuation (De Wette), is in the highest
degree unsatisfactory.

9. yvwpiaas| ‘having made known ;’
participle explanatory of the preceding
ἐπερίσσευσεν --- ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ ppov.,
esp. of the latter words, and appy. de-
noting an act coincident, and terminat-
ing synchronously, with the finite verb ;
see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 883, Don-
alds. Gr. § 576, and esp. Herm. Viger,
No 224, Stalbaum, Plato, Phedo, 62 ν.
The ‘ut notum faceret’ of Vulg. (comp.
Clarom., Goth.) is due to the reading
γνωῤίσαι found in FG; 76; Hil., and
some Latin Ff. τὸ μυστήριον
k. τ. λ.] ‘the mystery of His will ;’ not
‘Hebreo loquendi genere’ for consilium
arcanum, Grot., but ‘the mystery pertain-
ing to it,’ τοῦ δελήμ. being neither a gen.
of apposition (τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον αὐτοῦ
ϑέλημα καὶ ἄδηλον τοῖς πᾶσι μυστήριον
αὐτὸ καλῶν, Theod.-Mops.), nor a gen.
subjecti (‘as it has its origin in,’ Eadie),
but simply a gen. objectz (‘concerning
His will,’ Meyer), marking that to which
the mystery was referred, and on which
it turned ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 47. 7.
1, Scheuerl. Synt., ὃ 17.1, p. 127. The
incarnation of Christ and the redemption
He wrought for us, though an actual rev-
elation considered as a matter of fact,
was a μυστήριον considered with refer-
ence to the depths of the divine will: see
above Theod.-Mops., and comp. Olsh. in
κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν] ‘ac-
” specifica-

loc.
cording to His good pleasure ;
tion of the γνωρίσας as having taken
place in strict dependence both in time
and manner on the will of God ; comp.
ver. 56. To refer this to what follows
(‘to wit, His intention according to his
good pleasure to gather,’ Eadie) seems

24

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. I. 10.

\ \ 1) / > a A Ὁ > Cente 10 > t
KATA τὴν EVOOKLAY AUTOV, ἣν TTPOESETO EV αὐτῷ ELS OLKOVOMLLAV

10. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] Tisch. is‘ undoubtedly right in maintaining this reading with
AFGK ; appy. majority of mss.; Copt.; Chrys., Theodoret (1) Theophyl. al. (Ree.
Griesb., Scholz., Harless, De W.) against ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς with BDEL; about 40
mss.; Goth.; Theodoret (1), Dam., Cc., al. (Lachm., Riick., Meyer, Alf,): tor,
conceding that it may be grammatically correct (comp. exx. Rost u. Palm, Ler.
ἐπί, 11. 1, Vol. 1. p. 1035), it must be said that the internal objections, — that ἐπὶ
is never joined in the N. T. with οὐρανὸς or οὐρανοί, and that ἐν οὐρανῷ and ἐπὶ γῆς
(probably not without significance) are invariably found in antithesis, — are deci-

sive: see Harless in loc.

obviously incorrect, involved, and out of
harmony with ver. 5; as κατὰ κ. τ. A.
formed a modal clause to mpoopicas there,
80 it naturally qualifies γνωρίσας here.
προέϑετο), ‘purposed;’ ‘proposuit,’
Vulg., not ‘preestituerat,’ Beza. The
verb προτίϑεσϑαι only occurs in the N.
T. in two other passages, viz., Rom. i.
13 (ethical, as here), and Rom. iii. 25
(quasi-local, ‘set forth’); the force of
the prep. in both cases being /ocal rather
than temporal (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p.
20), and analogous to the use of the
prep. in προαιρεῖσϑαι (2 Cor. ix. 7) and
προχειρίζεσϑαι (Acts iii. 20). It may
indeed be doubted whether any instance
can be found of προτίϑεσδϑαι in a purely
temporal sense: Polyb. Hist. σαι. 13.
1. is not in point. ἐν αὑτῷ] ‘in
Himself; not αὐτῷ as Tisch, (ed. 2, 7).
Though it is often difficult to decide be-
tween the reflexive and non-reflexive
pronoun (see Buttm. Mid. Excurs. x. p.
140), yet as a general rule, where the
attention is principally directed to the
subject, the former is most natural ;
where it is diverted by the importance of
the details, the latter.
vioYecia is so distinctly the important
word that αὐτὸν is sufficiently explicit ;
here, the connection with προέϑετο is so
immediate that the reflexive form alone
seems admissible.

10. εἰς οἰκονομίαν, ‘for with a
view to, the dispensation ;’ eis being not
for ἐν (Vulg., Auth.), or temporal, ‘us-

Thus, in ver. 5,

que ad,’ Erasm. (a more justifiable trans-
lation), but simply indicative of the pur-
pose, intention, of the mpdSeots ; compare
Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. a, p. 354. The
meaning of οἰκονομία has been much de-
bated. It occurs nine times in the N.
T.; (a) in the simple sense of steward-
ship Luke xvi. 2 sq.), ἃ meaning which
Wieseler (Chron. p. 448) maintains even
in this place; (b) in reference to the
apostolic office, to the οἶκος Θεοῦ, 1 Cor.
ix. 17, Col. i. 25, and (more remotely) 1
Tim. i. 4; (c) in reference to the Divine
government of the world, disposition, dis-
pensation, — here, and ch. ili. 2, 9; see
exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. 11.
Ρ. 417, and esp. Schweigh. Lez. Polyb.
s.v. The special meanings ‘ dispensatio
gratie,’ ‘redemptionis mysterium,” 861],
Christi ἀνανϑρώπησις (Suicer, Thesaur.
8. v.; comp. Valesius, Euseb. Hist. 1. 1,
Petay. de Incarn. 11.1, Vol. tv. p. 110),
which was probably deduced from the
whole clause, cannot be admitted as ex-
planations of the simple word. The
article is not required, as the governing
substantive is sufficiently defined by the
gen. which follows; see Winer, Gr. §
19. 2. b, p. 113 sq.
ματος τῶν καιρῶν] ‘of the fulness
of the seasons ;’ scil that moment which
completes, and, as it were, fills up the
ordained καιροὶ (time estimated in refer-
ence to the epochs in the Divine govern-
ment), of the Gospel dispensation : com-
pare the somewhat similar expression,

τοῦ πληρώ-

Cnavp. I. 10.

EPHESIANS.

25

a ΄ al [ον ’ , \ 4 τὰ
τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασϑαι τὰ πάντα ἐν

πλήρωσις ἡμερῶν (Dan. x. 3, Ezek. v. 3),
where, however, the completion is esti-
mated relatively to the act, rather than to
the exact moment that made the remaining
temporal void full; see notes on Gul. iv.
4. ‘The genitival relation of these words
to οἰκονομία is very obscure. It would
certainly seem that πληρώματος Κ. τ. A.
cannot be (a) a gen. of the object (The-
od.-Mops.), for, as Meyer justly observes,
the πλήρωμα may be said ἐλϑεῖν (Gal. Us
c.), but not οἰκονομεῖσϑαι : nor again ()
can it be an explanatory gen. or gen. of
identity (Harless ; comp. Scheuerl. Synt.
§ 12.1, p. 82), for an essentially tempo-
ral conception can scarcely be used in
explanation of an ethical notion. It
may, however, be plausibly considered
as (c) a gen. of the characterizing quality
(Scheuerl. § 16.3, p. 115), which, espe-
cially in local and temporal reference,
admits considerable latitude of applica-
tion ; comp. Jude 6, κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέ-
pas, and sce exx. in Winer, ‘Gr. ὃ 30. 2,
p- 168 sq.; and in Hartung, Casus, p. 27.
The difficult expression οἶκον. τοῦ πληρ.
x. τ. A. will thus seem to imply not
merely the ‘full-timed dispensation,’
(Eadie), but more exactly, ‘the dispen-
sation that was characterized by, that was
to be set forth in, the fulness of time’
(‘propria plenitudini temp.’ Caloy.), and
must be referred not only to the period
of the coming of Christ (ed. 1, Ust.
Lehrb. 11. 1, p. 83; comp. Chrys. πλή-
ρωμα τῶν καιρῶν ἣ παρουσία αὐτοῦ ἦν),
but, appy., as the more extended ref. of
the context seems to suggest, the whole
duration of the Gospel dispensation
(Alf.) ; Stier in loc. (p. 96), and contrast
Gal. iv. 4, where, as the context shows,
the reference is more restricted. The
use and meaning of the term is noticed
by Hall, Bampt. Lect. for 1797.

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασϑαιἶ, ‘to sum up
again together,’ ‘restaurare,’ Clarom.,

4

‘summatim recolligere,’ Beza; not de-
pendent on προέϑετο, but explanatory
infinitive, defining the nature and pur-
pose of the πρόϑεσις ; comp, 1 Thess.
iv. 4, and see notes on Col. i. 22. The
article is not necessary, see Winer, Gr.
§ 44. 2. obs. p. 286, notes on 1 Thess.
iii. 8, and comp. Madvig, Syntax § 144.
The meaning of this word, connected as
it here is with the counsels of Omnipo-
tence, must be investigated with the
most anxious care. Viewed simply,
κεφαλαιῶσαι (συντομῶς συναγαγεῖν, He-
sych. means ‘summatim colligere,’ Thu-
cyd. 111. 67, vi. 91, VIII. 53; avakepa-
λαιώσασϑαι ‘summatim (sibi) recolligere ;"
comp. συγκεφαλαιοῦσϑαι (‘in brevem
summam contrahere’), Polyb. Hist. 111-
3. 1, 1. 66. 11, ete.; see Schweigh. Lez.
Polyb., and Raphel in loc. Viewed in
connection with the context, two impor-
tant questions arise. (1) Is there any al-
lusion to Christ as the κεφαλή (Chrys.) 3
In a writer so profound as St. Paul this
is far from impossible. The derivation
of the word, however (κεφάλαιον not
κεφαλή), --- St. Paul’s use of it in its
common meaning, Rom. xiii. 9, — and
most of all the context, which points to
a union ‘in Christo,’ not ‘sub Christo’
(Beng.), to His atonement rather than
His sovereignty (Col. ii. 10), render it
improbable. (2) What is the force of
ava? From Rom. ἰ. c. (see Fritz.) it
has plausibly been considered latent ;
still, as even there this is very doubtful
(see Meyer in loc.), it must not here be
lightly passed over. What, then, is this
force? Obviously not simple repetition ;
nor again (from reasons above) summa-
tion upwards, in reference to Christ as
the Head (σύνδεσμον ἄνωδεν ἐπικειμένον,
Chrys.), but re-union, re-collection, a * par-
tium divulsarum conjunctio’ in reference
to a state of previous and primal unity ;
so far, then, but so far ouly, a ‘restora-

to

26

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. I. 11.

fal A \ ᾽ A > A \ \ > \ lol an > > na
τῷ Χριστῷ, Ta ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐν αὐτῷ, " ἐν

tion’ (Syr., Vulg.) to that state ; comp.
Beng. in loc. University Sermons, p. 162,
and see an excellent discussion on the
word in Andrewes, Serm. xvi. Vol. 1. p.
265, 270 (A. C. Libr.). The force of
the middle voice must also, appy., not
be overlooked.
imply ‘all intelligent beings’ (compare
notes on Gal. iii. 22), but, on account of
the clauses which follow, is best taken in
its widest sense, ‘all things and beings,’
Meyer; comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 1.
p- 269.
κι τ᾿ A.] ‘the things in heaven and the
things upon earth ;’ widest expression of
universality designed to show the extent
of the preceding τὰ πάντα (Andr.) ;
comp. Col. i. 20, and see notes in loc.
Without entering into the profound
questions which haye been connected
with these words, it may be said, — that
as on the one hand all limiting inter-
pretations —e. g. Jews and Gentiles
(Schoettg.), ἀγγέλους
(Chrys.), the world of spirits and the
race of men (Meier), — are opposed to
the generalizing neuter (Winer, Gr. §
27. 5, p. 160), and the comprehensive-
ness of the expressions ; so, on the other
hand, any reference to the redemption
or restoration of those spirits (Crellius),
for whom our Lord Himself said τὸ πῦρ
τὸ αἰώνιον (Matth. xxv. 4) was prepared,
must be pronounced fundamentally im-
possible : comp. Bramhall, Custigations,
ete., Disc. 11. Vol. rv. p. 354 (Angl.
Cath. Lib.), Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1.
p- 192 and University Sermons p. 91 sq.
The reading ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρ. (Lachm. Alf.),
though fairly supported [BDEL], is
scarcely probable ; see crit note.

ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him;’ not added merely
‘explicationis causi (Herm. Viger. 123
b. 5), but as re-asseverating with great
solemnity and emphasis (see Jelf, Gr. §
658), the only blessed sphere zn which

τὰ πάντα May

τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

καὶ avdpwrous,

this ἀνακεφαλαίωσις can be regarded as
operative, and apart from which and
without which, its energies cannot be
conceived as acting; see Univ. Serm. p.
89, 90. It forms also an easy transition
to the following relative.

11. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώϑ.] ‘in whom
we were also chosen as His inheritance ;’
kal obviously qualifying ékAnp., not the
unexpressed pronoun (Auth.), and speci-
fying the gracious carrying out and
realization of the divine πρόϑεσις, v. 9.
This ascensive foree may sometimes be
expressed by ‘really,’ see Hartung, Par-
tik. καὶ, 2.7, p. 132 sq.; the exact shade
of meaning, however, will be best de-
fined by a consideration of the exact
tenor and tacit comparisons of the con-
text; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636.
The exact meaning of ἐκληρώδ. is very

doubtful. Passing over the more ob-
viously untenable interpretations of

Bretsch., Wahl, Koppe, and others, we
find four translations which deserve at-
tention: (a) Pass. for middle; ‘we have
obtained an inheritance,’ Auth., Conyb.;
comp. Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 204: this,
however, is not fairly substantiated by
the citations adduced, and is distinetly
at variance with the significant passives
which preyail throughout this profound
paragraph in reference to man. Even
προσεκληρώϑησαν, Acts xvii. 4, is best
taken passively; see Winer, Gr. § 39.
2, p. 234. (b) Simple pass. ; ‘sorte
vocati sumus,’ Vulg., Syr., Goth. (1 Sam.
xiv. 41, see exx. in Elsner, /. ¢.), 2. 6. Sas
though by lot,’ in allusion to the sove-
reign freedom of God’s choice; κλήρου
γενομένου ἡμᾶς ἐξελέξατο, Chrys.: this,
however, is seriously at variance with
St. Paul’s modes of thought and the
regular forms of expression (καλεῖν, ἐκ-
λέγεσϑαι) which he uses on this subject :
see Harless and Meyer in loc. (6) Pas-
sive, used like πιστεύομαι, μαρτυροῦμαι

Cuap. I. 19.

EPHESIANS.

27

? \ > δι by Qt \ ay a Ν ,
ῳ Kab εκ po μεν Tr POOplo SEVTES KaTa “ρο €OlY του τὰ TaVTa

᾽ rn

\ \ \ rn / > an
ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ δελήματος αὐτοῦ
?

(comp. ἀποροῦμαι, Gal. iv. 20, and see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 39. 1, p. 233), with an im-
plied accus., scil. ‘in hereditatem adsciti
sumus,’ Grot. 2, Harl., Meyer (‘ were en-
feoffed,’ Eadie), — with allusion to Josh.
xiv. 1 sq. and reference to the κλῆρος
τῶν ἁγίων, Col. i. 12. (d) Pass., in
a special sense; ‘eramus facti hereditas
(Dominz),’ Beng., Hamm. [mis-cited by
De W.], ἢ. e. λαὸς ἔγκληρος, Deut. iv.
20; see ch. ix. 29, xxxii. 6. Between
(c) and (d) it is somewhat hard to de-
cide. While both present some difficul-
ties, (6) in point of structure, (d) in the
special character of its meaning, both
harmonize well with the context, the
former in its allusion to κληρονομία, ver.
14, the latter with reference to περιποίη-
ots, ver. ib. As however (6) is doubtful
in point of usage, and as the force of
kal is well maintained by (d) in the gen-
tle contrast it suggests between the gen-
eral ἐκλογὴ and the more specially gra-
cious KAnpwols, this latter interpretation
is certainly to be preferred; ‘we were
not only chosen out, but chosen out as a
λαὸς ἔγκληρος ;᾿ εἶπεν, ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς,
ἀνωτέρω: ἐνταῦδά φησιν, ἐκληρώϑημεν,
Chrys. The reading ἐκλήϑημεν
though found in ADEFG; Clarom.,
Sang., Boern, al. (Lachm.) seems almost
certainly a sort of gloss for the more
difficult and appy. ill-understood ἐκληρώ-
βουλὴν τοῦ ϑελήμα-
tos] ‘the counsel of His will, <consilium
yoluntatis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; assertion of
the unconditioned and sovereign will of
God appropriately introduced after ἐκλη-
ρώϑημεν; ὥστε οὐκ ἐπειδή ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ov
προσεῖχον, διὰ τοῦτο τὰ ἔϑνη ἐκαλεσεν,
The expres-
sion βουλὴ ϑελήματος is not either ple-
onastic, or expressive of ‘ consilium
liberrimum’ (Beng.), but solemnly rep-
resents the Almighty Will as displaying

Onmev.

οὐδὲ ἀναγκασδϑείς, Chrys.

19 ᾽ Ν “
εἰς TO ELVAL

itself in action ; ϑέλημα designating the
will generally, βουλὴ the more special
expression of it. The distinction of
Buttmann (ZLevzil. s. v. ὃ 35, compare
Tittm. Synon. p. 124 sq.), that ‘BovAoua
is confined to the inclination, éSéAw to
that kind of wish in which there lies a
purpose or design, does not seem gen-
erally applicable to the N. T. (see Matt.
i. 19, and comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5 with Eph.
ii. 3), and probably not always to classi-
cal Greek; see Pape, Lex. s. v. βούλομαι,
Vol. 1. p. 883, Donalds. Crat. § 463.
For further illustrations see notes on 1
Tim. v. 14.

12. εἰς τὸ εἶναι x. τ. λ.] ‘that we
should be to the praise of His glory ;’ final
cause of the κλήρωσις on the part of God
mentioned in the preceding verse, εἰς τὸ
κι τ. A. depending on exAnp., and τοῦς
προηλπικ. forming an opposition to ἡμᾶς.
To refer this clause to προορισϑέντες,
and to connect εἶναι with προηλπικότας
(Harl.) is highly involved and artificial ;
see Meyer zn loc. The reference of
the pronoun is somewhat doubtful. Up
to the present verse, ἡμεῖς has designated
the community of believers, Jews and
Gentiles. It would seem most natural
to continue it in the same sense; the
meaning, however, assigned to e«Anp.,
that of mponAm., and most of all the op-
position καὶ ὑμεῖς (which De Wette does
not invalidate by ref. to ch. ii. 1, Col. i.
8), seem convincingly to prove that ἡμεῖς
refers especially to Jewish Christians,
ὑμεῖς to Gentile Christians. Chrys. has
not expressed this, but the citation above
(on ékAnp.) would seem to imply dis-
tinctly that he felt it. It may be
observed that the insertion of the art.
τῆς before δόξης, with A; many mss. ;
Chrys., al. (Ree.), is opposed to the bulk
of Mss. and rejected by all recent edi-
tors. τοὺς προηλπικ,) ‘we, Lf

28

EPHESIANS.

Cuapsi,A3.

€ a > » , 5 lal \ δ᾿ >’ a “
ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ, τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ:

132 τ NG ne a 5) , , λό n x; % / SUS aN
ἐν ᾧ Kal ὑμεῖς, ἀκούσαντες TOV λογον τῆς ahynAELAS, TO εὐαγγεὰλ-

say, who have before hoped :᾿ Pai faura
venjandans [hi ante sperantes], Goth. ;
the article with the part. standing in dis-
tinct and emphatic apposition to ἡμᾶς,
and defining more fully their spiritual
attitude; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 1. ¢, p.
121, but observe that the transl. ‘ quippe
qui speravimus’ (ed. 1, Winer, Meyer,
al.) is inexact, as this would imply a
part. without, not as here with the article ;
on these distinctions of predication, see
esp. Donalds. Crat. ὃ 304 sq, Gr. § 492
sq- The prep. πρὸ has received many
different explanations, several of which,
6. g. πρὶν ἢ ἐπιστῇ ὁ μέλλων αἰών, The-
oph., ‘qui priores speravimus,’ Beza,
‘already, prior to the time of writing,’
Eadie — appear to have resulted rather
from preconceived opinions of the refer-
ence of ἡμεῖς, than from a simple invyes-
tigation of the word. As mpoopiCw, ver.
5, implies an ὁρισμὸς before the object of
it appeared, so προελπίζω seems to imply
an exercise of ἐλπὶς before the object of
it, i.e. Christ, appeared. The perf part.,
as usual, indicates that the action which
is described as past still continues, see
exx. Winer, Gr. § 40. 4. a, p. 244.
ἐν Χριστῷ denotes the object in whom
the hope was placed; compare 1 Cor.
xv. 9, and see notes on 1 Tim. iv.
10, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11.
p. 222. The preceding reference of the
fore-hope in the Messiah to the Jews
(comp. Acts xxviii. 20) is in no way in-
compatible with the use of ἐν Χριστῷ
rather than of εἰς Χριστόν (Holzh., Ea-
die): to have hoped in Christ was a
higher characteristic than to have di-
rected hope towards Christ, and desig-
nated them as more worthy exponents
of the praise of God’s glory; compare
Stier in loc. p. 112, 114.

13. év 6 kal bets x. 7. A] The
construction of this verse is somewhat

doubtful. <A finite verb is commonly
supposed, either from ἐκληρώϑημεν, ver.
11, or προηλπικότας. If from the former
(Harless), it would now limit ἐκληρ. to
the Gentile Christians, which formerly
referred to both them and Jewish Chris-
tians: the regression, too, would seem
unduly great. If from the latter, mp o-
nAtikate (not ἠλπίκατε, Beza) must be
supplied, which would imply what was
contrary to the fact. Others (Meyer,
Alf., al.) supply the verb subst,
whom ye are,’ but thus introduce a
statement singularly frigid and out of
harmony with the linked and ever-rising
character of the context. It can scarcely
then be doubted that we have here a
form of the ‘oratio suspensa’ (Beng.),
according to which the second ἐν @ does
not refer to a fresh subject (Mey.), but is
simply resumptive of the first. The full
force and meaning of this anacoluthon
have scarcely been sufficiently expanded.
Kal ὑμεῖς [ἡμεῖς, A K L; mss., but with
no probability] directs the attention to
the contrast between the pronouns; ἀκού-
σαντες k. T.A. Suggests a further reference
to those who had hoped on less conyine-
ing evidence. This might have been
followed at once by the finite verb éo-
pay. kK. τ. A.: but was so important ἃ
clause to follow at once on ἀκούσαντες *
Surely ἀκοὴ must be expanded into
something more vital before it could be
so blessed. Kal mov. is thus interca-
lated with all the ascensive force of καὶ

‘in

(οὐ yap μόνον ἠκούσατε ἀλλὰ Kal ἐπιστεύ-
care, Theod.), and thus, far from be-
coming superfluous (Meyer), is truly a
necessary and vital member of the sen-
tence. So appy. Syr., Copt., Goth.,
ZEth., which though suppressing the καί,
and converting the participles into finite
verbs retain substantially the correct
structure. Ἔν @ may be joined with

Cuap. I. 18

EPHESIANS. 29

"-

an / e A ΗΝ \ a
Lov τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσϑϑητε TO

πιστεύσαντες (Mark i. 15) as well as ἐσ-
φραγ. (Scholef.), but as πιστεύειν ἔν τινι
is not used by St. Paul, and as ἐν ᾧ in
ver. 11 is not joined with the participle
but the finite verb, it seems best, in this
somewhat parallel verse, to preserve the
same construction ; see Riick, and Harl.
in loc. τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀλη-
ὃ εία 5] ‘the word of the truth;’ not the
gen. of apposition (Harless), but the gen.
substantia ; sce Scheuerl. Synt. 12. 1, p.
82, Hartung, Casus, p. 21. The truth
did not only form the subject (Meyer),
but was its very substance and essence.
The remark of Chrys. is thus perfectly
in point, — τῆς ἀληϑείας, οὐκέτι τὸν τοῦ
τύπου, οὐδὲ τὺν τῆς εἰκόνος ; 506 NOtes on
δ]: π| a:
awtnp.| ‘the Gospel of your salvation ;’
not a gen. of apposition, nor exactly, as
above, a gen. of the substance, but rather
a gen. of the (spiritual) contents or sub-
ject-matter (Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, p.
161, Scheuerl, Synt. § 17, 1, p. 126),
scil. ‘the Gospel (τὸ κήρυγμα, Chrys.)
which turns upon, which reveals salva-
tion;’ thus forming one of that large
class of genitives of remoter reference
(see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 2. B, p.
169 sq.), and belonging appy. to the
general category of the genitive of rela-
tion; see Donalds. Gr. § 453, p. 475 sq.
For a list of the various substantives
with which εὐαγγέλιον is associated (Θεοῦ͵
Rom. i. 1, xv. 16, al., Χριστοῦ, Rom. xv.
19, Gal. i. 7, al, τῆς χάριτος, Acts xx.
24, τῆς εἰρήνης, Eph. vi. 19), see esp.
Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 8, Vol. 11. p.
81. πιστεύσαντες is not pres-
ent (Eadie), and contemporaneous with
ἐσφραγ. (Larl.), but antecedent; comp.
Acts xix. 2, and see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2.
2, p. 267; the ordinary sequence, as
Meyer observes, is (a) Hearing; (ὁ)
Faith, which of course implies prevent-
ing grace; (c) Baptism ; (d) Communi-

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Tis

cation of the Holy Spirit; compare to-
gether, esp. Acts ii. 37 (a, c, d) ; viii. 6,
ΤΣ (αὐ; end) ine xia O(c.) Acts
x. 44 (d,c) and perhaps ix. 17 are excep-
tional cases. On the divine order or
method mercifully used by God in our
salvation, see the brief but weighty re-
marks of Hammond, Pract. Catech. 1. 4,
p. 83 (A. C. Libr.). ἐσφραγίσ-
Snte| ‘were sealed;’ τὴν βεβαίωσιν
ἐδέξασϑε, Theodor.-Mops.: see Suicer,
Thesaurus, s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1197. The
seal of the Spirit is that blessed hope
and assurance which the Holy Spirit
imparts to our spirit, ὅτε ἐσμὲν τέκνα
Θεοῦ, Rom. viii. 16: see esp. Bull, Disc.
111. p. 897 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844).
Any purely objective meaning in refer-
ence to heathen (Grot.), or even to Jew-
ish customs (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 11. p.
508, compare Chrys.), seems here very
doubtful : ἡ σφραγὶς is undoubtedly used
by ecclesiastical writers simply for Bap-
tism (Grabe, Spicil. Vol. 1. p. 331 56.»
comp. Rom. iy. 11), but any special ref-
erence of this nature would not appear
in harmony with the present context.

τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελία:]

‘the Spirit of promise,’ eo Lowes
Om 9x A

[qui promissus erat], Syr., ‘quem promi-
sit, ith. The genitival relation has
here again received different explana-
tions. The simple meaning derived
from the most general use of the gen.,
as the case of ablation (Donalds. Gr. §
451), the ‘whence-case’ (Hartung, Casus,
p- 12) requires but little modification.
Td Πν. τῆς ἐπ. is ‘ the Spirit which came
from, 7. 6. was announced by, promise ;’”
ὅτι κατὰ ἐπαγγ. αὐτὸ ἐλάβομεν, Chrys.,
or as Theoph. 1, still more literally, ὅτε
ἐξ ἐπαγγ. ἐδόϑη : so in effect Syr. The
active sense, ὅτε βεβαιοῖ τὴν ἐπαγγελ.
(Theoph. 2), is grammatically doubtfal
(as there is no such verbal basis in

80

EPHESIANS.

Guar. 1. 14.

, a 5) , AL ΕΣ τὴ we 5 »γε \ a
Πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ, "Os ἐστιν ἀῤῥαβὼν τῆς κλη-

“- Ἃ an n
ρονομίας ἡμῶν, εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως, εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς

δόξης αὐτοῦ.

Πνεῦμα; compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 17.
1, p. 126), and is exegetically unneces-
sary, as the idea of BeBatwors lies in ἐσ-
φραγίσϑητε. See Suicer, Thesaur. Vol.
11. p. 1767, and comp. notes on Gal. iii.
14. τῳ ἁγίῳ marks, with solemn
emphasis, Him by whom they were
sealed — Him whose essence was _holi-
ness — the personal Holy Spirit of God.
For a weighty and practical sermon on
this verse, see Usher, Serm. x11. Vol.
x11. p. 175 (ed. Elringt.), and for three
discourses of a more general character
Barrow, Serm. x111. x1v. xv. Vol. 1. p.
1—59 (Oxf. 1830).

14. ὅ 9] As the noun in the explanatory
clause (6s — ἐστί) gains a prominence
by being not only an elucidation or am-
plification (chap. i. 23), but a definition
and specification of that in the antece-
dent, the relative agrees with it in gen-
der: see esp. Winer, Gr. § 24. 8, p. 192,
Madvig, Synt. ὃ 98. b. “Os need not
therefore be referred to Christ (Poly-
earp. Phil. § 8), nor indeed to the per-
sonal nature of the Holy Spirit (John
xiv. 26), as τὸ Πν. in its most distinct
personal sense is invariably used with
the neuter relative; compare the collec-
tion of exx. in Bruder, Concord. s. v. ὅς,
11. p. 619. The reading 6, adopted by
Lachm. with ABFGL; 15 mss.; Athan.
(2), al., seems clearly a grammatical
gloss, and is rejected by most recent ed-
itors. ἀ ῥῥα βὼ ν] ‘earnest, Auth,
Arm.; a word used in the N. T. only
here and 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, comp. 74273
Gen xxviii. 17 sq. ‘arrhabo,’ Plaut. AZost.
11. 1. 3, Rud. Prol. 45. It is a term
probably of Phoenician origin (Gesen.
Lex. s. y.) and denotes (1) a portion of
the purchase money, an earnest of future
payment, πρόδομα, Hesych., ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς
ὠναῖς παρὰ τῶν ὠνουμένων διδομένη προ-

καταβολή, tym. M.; (2) pignus, Cla-
rom., Vulg., ‘vadi,’ Goth.; see esp.
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 239. The word
has here its primary meaning: the gifts
and υἱοϑεσία, of which the Spirit assures
us now, are the earnest, the ἀπαρχὴ (Ba-
sil) of the κληρονομία (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ
Xp. καὶ Θεοῦ, ch. v. 5) hereafter: see
Rom. viii. 23, and comp. Reuss, Theol.
Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 248. Christ,
somewhat similarly, is termed the agp.
τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἡμῶν, Constit. Apost. ν.
6: Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p 512.
eis ἀπολύτρωσιν x. τ. A.| ‘for the
redemption of the purchased possession,’

le» dal? LisseaS [eorum

qui vivunt, se. servantur] Syr, ‘in re-
demptionem adquisitionis’ Vulg.; first
of the two final clauses, expressive of
the divine purpose inyolved in the ἐσ-
φραγίσϑητε x. τ. A.3 see below (2).
The explanations of these difficult
clauses are very varied. Passing over
those founded on questionable construc-
tions, whether by participial solution
(Koppe, Wahl), apposition (ἀπολύτρ.
scil. περιπ., comp. Chrys., Theophl. 1,),
conjunction (ἄπολ. καὶ mepim., compare
Holzh.), or virtual interchange {(περιπ.
τῆς amoA. Beza, Steph. Thesaur. s. v.
mepim.), we will notice (1) the probable
meaning of the words, (2) the probable
connection of the clause with the sen-
tence. (1) ἀπολύτρωσις, a
word always (6. g. ch. iv. 30, Rom. viii.
23), and here especially, modified by
the context, appears to denote the final
and complete redemption (ἢ καϑαρὰ
amo. Chrys.) from sufferings and sins,
from Satan and from death ; see Usteri,
Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 106, Neand. Planting,
Vol. τ. p. 456, and comp. Reuss, Theol.
Chrét. 1v. 17, Vol. 11. p. 183 sq. who,

Cuap. I. 15.

I ever give thanks and
pray that ye may be en-

EPHESIANS.

31

fa , 5 te ’ r
15 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγώ, ἀκούσας τὴν καὶ ὑμᾶς

lightened to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the greatness of His power,
which was especially displayed in the resurrection and supreme exaltation of Christ.

however, is appy. unduly restrictive.
περιποίησις is much more obscure ;
while its etymological form and syntac-
tic use (comp. 1 Thess. ν. 9, 2 Thess. ii.
14, Heb. x. 39) suggest an active and
abstract interpretation (Beng.), the gen-
itival relation with ἀπολύτρ. renders this
in the present case wholly untenable.
The same may be said of the concrete
passive explanation ‘hzreditas acquis-
ita’ (Caloy.) even if that explanation be
lexically demonstrable. The most an-
cient interpretation (Syr.), according to
which 4 περιπ. = of περιποιηϑέντες, scil.
λαὸς εἰς περίπ. 1 Pet. ii. 9 (comp. Isaiah
xliii. 21, and esp. Mal. iii. 7), and is a
Christian application of the τῆλ 7230,
the λαὸς περιούσιος LXX, of the Old
Testament, is on the whole most satis-
factory. The objection that περιπ. is
never absolutely so used is of weight, and
is not to be diluted by a forced reference
to αὐτοῦ (Mey.); still, while the exx.
adduced show such a meaning to be pos-
sible, the context, and esp. the genitival
relation, render it in a high degree prob-
able. The discussions of the other in-
terpretations by Harless and the com-
ments of Stier (p. 129) on ἀπολύτρ. will
repay perusal. (2) Connection: εἰς may
be joined with ὅς ἐστιν κ. τ. A. (Tisch,
Riick.) in a temporal sense, ‘until,’
Auth. Ver., but much more probably
belongs to ἐσφραγίσϑητε. Eis ἀπολ. is
thus a clause coordinate with εἰς ἔπαινον
k. τ. A., the former expressing the final
clause in reference to man, the latter in
more especial and ultimate reference to
God.

15. διὰ τοῦτο Kaya] ‘On this ac-
count I also ;’ ref. to the preceding verses
as a reason for thanks to God for the
spiritual state of the Ephesians, with a
prayer (ver. 17) for their further enlight-
enment. The exact reference of these

words is doubtful. Harless (after Chrys.)
refers διὰ τοῦτο to the whole paragraph ;
as, however, the Ephesians are first spe-
cially addressed in ver. 13 (καὶ ὑμεῖς), it
seems best, with Theophyl., to connect
διὰ τοῦτο only with ver. 13, 14; ‘on ac-
count of thus having heard, believed,
and having been sealed in Christ.” Κἀγὼ
(‘I also, I too,’ not “1 indeed,’ Eadie) is
thus faintly corresponsive with καὶ ὑμεῖς,
and hints at the union in prayer and
praise which subsisted between the
Apostle and his converts. De Wette
refers καὶ to διὰ τοῦτο, adducing Col. i.
9, but this example (comp. verse 4 with
yerse 9) certainly confirms the strict
union of particle and pronoun; see
notes 7m loc. Eadie and Bretschneider
cite Rom. iii. 7, 1 Cor. vii. 8, xi. 1, Gal.
iv. 12, 1 Thess. iii. 5, al., but in all these
instances καὶ has its full and proper
comparative force: see Klotz, Devar.
Vol. 11. p. 635. &kovaas| ‘having
heard? All historical arguments (ὡς
μηδέπω Seacduevos αὐτούς, --- noticed, but
rejected by Theodoret) derived, on the
one hand, from pressing the meaning of
the verb (D. W.) or, on the other, the
improbable (see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. b.
1, comp. on Gal. vy. 24) frequentative
force of the tense (Eadie), must be pro-
nounced extremely precarious. St. Paul
certainly uses ἀκούσας, Col. i. 4, in refer-
ence to converts he had not seen; but
this alone would not have proved it, and
thus does not prevent our here referring
ἀκούσας to the progress the Ephesians
had made in the four or five years since
he had last seen them; see Wieseler,
Chronol., p. 445, Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit.
1841, p. 431 sq. τὴν Kad ὑμῶς
πίστιν is commonly regarded as a
mere periphrasis for τὴν ὑμετέραν m-, or
rather τὴν π. ὑμῶν, the possessive ὑμέτε-
pos (comp. ἡμέτ.) being used sparingly

32 EPHESIANS. Cuap. I. 16.

7 / ’ a K t eli la) \ \ ’ is \ > ΄ a3

ίστιν ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς
, ‘4 lal lal ‘ lal

ἁγίους, ™ ov παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιού-

10. μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιούμενος] So Tisch. with ΟΡ ΕΚΤ, (FG; Boern. transpose ὑμῶν
and ποιούμ.) great majority of mss.; Sangerm., Aug., Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt.,
al.; Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Rec., Griesb., De W. (e sil.), Wordsw.). The
omission of ὑμῶν is well supported by external evidence, viz. ABD! (not C, Eadie ;
this is one of its lacunz); about 10 mss.; Clarom., Goth.; Hil. (Rick. Lachm.,
Mey., approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 144 1), but is perhaps slightly less probable ;
esp. as an omission of ὑμῶν owing to the preceding ὑμῶν is more likely than an
explanatory insertion, where the meaning is so obvious, and as 1 Thess. i, 2 (where

AB similarly omit ὑμῶν) is appy. an instructive parallel.

(only 4 times) in St. Paul’s Epp. It
must be admitted that later writers ap-
pear to use κατὰ with acc. as equivalent
to possess. pronoun or gen. (see Bern-
hardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 241, Winer, Gr.
§ 22. 7, obs. Ρ. 178), still, as St. Paul
uses 7 πίστ. ὑμῶν at least 17 times, and
ἡ Kad bu. π. Only once, there would seem
to be a distinction; the latter (κατὰ dis-
tributive) probably denoting the faith of
the community viewed objectively, ‘the
faith which is among you,’ the former the
subjective faith of individuals : see Har-
less and Stier in loc., and comp. John
Vili. 17, τῷ νόμῳ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ (addressed
to Pharisees), with Acts xviil. 15, νομοῦ
τοῦ Kad ὑμᾶς (in reference to Jews in
Achaia), which seem to convey a par-
allel distinction, and at any rate to in-
vert the supposition of Eadie, that ἡ kav’
ju. m. denotes more distinctive, charac-
teristic possession than the former,

ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ) ‘in the Lord;’ defini-
tion of the holy sphere and object of the
πίστις; the omission of the article giv-
ing a more complete unity to the con-
ception, as it were, ‘ Christ-centred faith,’
‘ fidem erga Deum in Domino Jesu,’ Beng. ;
see notes on Gal. iii. 26. It is instructive
to compare with this the subsequent
clause, τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν k. τ. Δ.» where
the second article [Lachm. omits with
AB; 17 al.] seems inserted to convey
two momenta of thought, love generally,
further defined by that amplitude (οὐ

τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους, φησί, μόνον, Chrys.)
which is its true Christian characteris-
tic; see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p.
195. As a general rule, it may be ob-
served, that when the defining preposi-
tional clause is so incorporated with (e.
g. ch. ii. 11), — appended to (Col. iv. 8),
—or, as here, structurally assimilated
πίστις (πιστεύω) ἐν, compare ch. 11]. 13,
Rom. vi. 4) with the subst. it defines as
to form only a single conception, the ar-
ticle is correctly omitted ; see Harless in
loc., and Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, p. 128.

eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίου 5] ‘towards
all the ϑαϊπιδ; objects towards whom
the love was directed ; omnes character
Christianismi,’ Bengel: compare ch. vi.
18, Philem. 5. On the meaning of ayi-
ous, see notes on ch. i. 1.

16. οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν)
‘I cease not giving thanks.’ In this sim-
ple and well-known formula the partici-
ple points to a state supposed to be al-
ready in existence ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45.
4, p. 308 sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 45. 5, p.
481. In many verbs 6. g. αἰσχύνομαι,
Luke xvi. 8) this distinction between
part. and inf. may be made palpable ; in
others, as in the present case, the verb
is such as rarely to admit any other idio-
matic structure; see Herm. Viger, No.
218, Donalds. Gr. § 591, and for a good
paper on the general distinction between
the uses of the participle and of the
infin., Weller, Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt.

4

Cuap. J. 17.
μενος ἐπὶ TOV προσευχῶν μου,

μνείαν motovm.| ‘making
mention of you;’ limitation, or rather
specification of the further direction of
the εὐχαριστία : comp. 1 Thess. 1. 2, Phi-
lem. 4, and see notes zn loce. ἐπὶ
τῶν προσευχ. μου] ‘in my prayers,’
‘in orationibus,’ Clarom., Vulg., Goth. ;
ἐπὶ here being not simply and crudely
temporal, ‘at the time of my prayers’
(adie), but retaining also that shade of
local reference of which even the more
distinctly temporal examples are not
wholly divested: see Bernhardy, Synt.
v. 23. a, p. 246, and notes on 1 Thess. i.
2. The prep. thus serves to express the
concurrent circumstances and relations
in which, and under which an event took
place; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 47, g, p. 336.
17. ἵνα 6 Θεὸς κ. τ. λ.] ‘that God
εἰς. ; ᾿ subject of the prayer blended with
the purpose of making it. The exact
meaning of this particle both here and in
similar passages requires a brief notice.
The uses of ἵνα in the N. T. appear to
be three, — (1) Final, or indicative of
the end, purpose, or object of the action,
—the primary and principal meaning,
and never to be given up except on the
most distinct counter-arguments. (2)
Sub-final, — occasionally, especially after
verbs of entreaty (not of command), the
subject of the prayer being blended with,
and even in some cases obscuring the
purpose of making it; see esp. Winer,
Gr. § 44. 8, p. 299, and notes on Phil. i.
9. (3) Eventual, or indicative of result,
—appy. in a few cases, and due, per-
haps, more to what is called ‘Hebrew
teleology’ (1. 6. the reverential aspect
under which the Jews regarded prophecy
and its fulfilment) than grammatical de-
pravation ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 6, p.
406 sq. After maturely weighing the
2vidence adduced by Winer and others,
few, perhaps, will hesitate to character-
ize Fritzsche’s and Meyer’s strenuous

ὑμῶν

EPHESIANS.

33

17 &%

ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

denial of (2) and (3) as perverse, and
the criticism of Eadie, who admitting
(3), denies (2) after verbs of entreaty,
as somewhat illogical. In the pres-
ent case, independent of the parallelism
afforded by numerous similar passages
(ch. iii. 16, Phil. i. 9, Col. i. 9, iv. 3, 1
Thess. iv. 1,2 Thess. i. 11), the presence
of the opt. δῴη after the pres. (hoped for,
dependent realization, Klotz, Devar. Vol.
11. p. 622, Bernhardy, Synt. xi. 11, p.
407) inclines us distinctly to this sub-
Jinal or secondary telic use; compare
Winer, § 41. 1. obs. p. 260. On the
late and incorrect form δῴη for δοίη, see
Lobeck, Phyrn. p. 845, Sturz, de Dial.
Maced. p. 52. ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Kv-
ρίου] ‘the God of our Lord ;’ see John
xx. 17, Matth. xxvii. 46. ‘Deus ejus est
qua ex eo natus in Deum est,’ Hilar. de
Trin. τν. 35, p. 96. The somewhat con-
torted explanations of this and the fol-
lowing clause, cited by Suicer (Thes.
Vol. 1. p. 944), may be dispensed with
if this only be observed, that ‘the word
God was never looked upon as a word of
office or dominion, but of nature and sub-
stance,’ Waterland, Sec. Def. Qu. 11. Vol.
11. p. 399. The admirably perspicuous
distinctions of the same author, in Ans.
to Pref. Vol. 11. p. 415, deserve perusal.
ὁ πατὴρ τῆς SdEnS| ‘the Father of
glory ;? comp. Psalm xxviii. 8, Acts vii.
Ql Cor ies) ΕἸΘΌΣ τσ ρθη; ΟΕ
characteristic quality, see Scheuerl. Synt.
§ 16. 3, p. 115, Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 2. b, p.
211. It is singular that a mere adjec-
tival resolution (Riickert), or a poetical
and less usual meaning of πατὴρ (sc.
‘auctor,’ Job xxxviii. 28, probably Jas.
i. 17, and perhaps Heb. xii. 9, but see
context; not 2 Cor. i. 8 [Eadie], see De
W., and Mey.), should so generally have
been adopted instead of this simple and
grammatical explanation. The use of
πατὴρ was probably suggested by the

94

EPHESIANS.

Cnap. I. 18.

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 6 πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, δῴη ὑμῖν Πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ

ΜΨ va: > 5 ¥ > an
ἀποκαλύψεως, EV ἐπιγνώσει αὑτοῦ),

foregoing mention of our Lord, while the
qualifying gen. δόξης serves appropriately
to carry on the ref. to the eternal glory
of God which pervades the whole of the
The reference, then, of
δόξα to the glorified humanity (Stier), or
to the divine nature of Christ (Athan ,
Greg -Naz., see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1.
p- 944) is by no means necessary.

first paragraph.

Πνεῦμα σοφίας κ. τ. A] ‘the Spirit
of wisdom and revelation ; the character-
izing genitives denoting the special forms
and peculiar manifestations in which the
Apostle prayed for the gift of the Spirit
to his converts; compare Rom. i. 4, 2
Cor. iy. 18, 2 Tim. i. 7, see notes on Gal.
yi. 1, and on the omission of the article
with Πνεῦμα, notes on zb., ch. v. 5. The
favorite subjective and objective distinc-
tions of Harl., viz. that cop. is the sub-
jective state, ἀποκάλ. the objective me-
dium, are not necessary, nor eyen, as
the order (state to means, not vice versa)
suggests, logically satisfactory ; copia is
simply the general gift of illumination ;
ἀποκάλ. the more special gift of insight
into the divine mysteries; see further
remarks in notes on 1 Zim. ii. 7.

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει avtod| ‘in the (full)
‘knowledge of Him, ‘in agnitione [or
rather cognitione| ejus,’ Clarom., Vulg. ;
ev not being for eis (Grot., Wolf) or διά
(Beza), but, as usual, marking the sphere
or element in which the action takes
place; the knowledge of God (not
Christ, Calv., to whom the first ref. is in
ver. 20) was to be the sphere, the circum-
ambient element in which they were to
receive wisdom and revelation; compare
2 Pet. i. 2, and see esp. Winer, Gr. §
48. a, p. 345. Ἔν ἐπιγν. thus belongs to
the whole preceding clause, not specially
to ἀποκάλ., still less to what follows
(Chrys. Zachm., al.), both of which con-
nections would interfere with the paral-

/
* πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφ-

lelism of ver. 15 and 16; πνεῦμα x. τ. A.
being symmetrical with πεφωτ. κ. τ. Δ.»
- ἐν ἐπιγν. with εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι.
The ἐπὶ in ἐπίγνωσις may be either addi-
tive (Eadie), in ref. to the increments of
knowledge continually received, or, more
probably, simply zntens7ve, scil. ‘cognitio
accurata et certa,’ Bretschn., erkennt-
niss; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12, see Rost τι.
Palm, Lex. s. v. ἐπὶ, iv. c. 5, and De-
litasch. on Heb. x. 26.

18.
ϑαλμοὺ 9] ‘having the eyes of your heart
enlightened.’

πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὃφ-
Three constructions are
here possible: (a) Accus. absolute, πε-
φωτισμένους agreeing with ὀφϑαλμούς,
Peile, Eadie. (0) Accusatival clause
after, δῴη, καὶ being omitted to give the
clause an emphatically appositional as-
pect; see Harless and Stier. (c) Lax
construction of part.; πεφωτ. referring
to duty, and τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς being accus.
of limiting reference; Winer, Gir. § 32.
5. 6, p. 205, Madvig, Synt. § 31, comp.
Hartung, Of these (a) is
grammatically doubtful, for though such
accusatives undoubtedly do exist, esp. in
later writers, — see Wannowski's elabo-
rate treatise de Construct. Abs. 1v. 5, p.
146 sq.,—still they far more generally
admit of an explanation from the con-
text; see Winer, § 82. 7, p. 206, comp.
Bernh Synt. 111. 30, p. 133. Again (0d),
is somewhat grammatically doubtful, on
account of the article (see Beng-), and
certainly exegetically unsatisfactory, ‘en-
lightened eyes’ rather defining the effect
of the Spirit than forming any sort of
apposition to It; see Meyer in loc. In
(c) the connection of the accusatives is
less simple, but the other syntactic diffi-
culties are but slight, as a permutation
of case, esp. in participial clauses, is not
uncommon in the N. T. (e. g. Acts xy.
22, Winer, ὁ 63. 1. 1, p. 500), nor with-

‘asus, p. 62.

Cuap. I. 18,

EPHESIANS. 35

v

Sarpods τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, εἰς TO εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς

out distinct parallel in classical Greek ;
see exx. in Wannowski, Iv. 6, p. 169
sq., Jelf, Gr. ὃ 711. ‘This then seems
the most probable constr.: πεφώτ. k. τ.
A. serves to define the result of the gift
of the Spirit (comp. Phil. iii. 15, 1
Thess. iii. 13, Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p.
549 sq), and owing to the subsequent
inf. (εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι) which expresses the
purpose of the illumination, not unnatu-
rally lapses into the accusative.

τοὺς Oo. τῆς καρδίας] ‘the eyes
of your heart; a somewhat unusual and
figurative expression denoting the in-
ward intelligence of that portion of our
immaterial nature (the ψυχή), of which
the καρδία is the imaginary seat; comp.
Acta Thom. ὃ 28, τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφϑαλ-
μούς, and see esp. Beck, Seelen/. 111. 24.
3, p. 94 sq., and notes on 1 Tim. i. 5.
On the use and meaning of φωτίζειν,
here, to illuminate with the brightness of
inner light, see esp. Harl. in loc., and
contrast Eph. ili. 9, where, as the con-
text shows, the illumination is of a na-
ture less inward and vital; comp. Beck,
Seelenl. 11. 13. 2, p. 37. The read-
ing of Rec., 6p3. τῆς διανοίας, has only
the support of some cursive mss. :
Theod., QCicum. al. tls] ‘what.’
There appears no reason to adopt in
this verse either a qualitative (‘ cujus-
nam nature, Wahl, Harl.), or, what is
appy. more questionable, a quantitative
(ποταπήῇ, πόση, Holzh, Stier) transla-
tion; the ordinary meaning ‘what’
(‘que spes,’ Vulg.), is fully sufficient,
and includes all more special interpreta-
tions. The articles with ἐλπὶς and πλοῦ-
tos only serve to point them out as well-
known and recognized, and as indirectly
alluded to throughout the preceding par-
agraph; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 27,
p- 324, Stalb. Plato, Crit. 43 c.

n ἐλπὶς x. τ. A.] ‘the hope of His call-
ing,’ i. 6. the hope which the calling

works in the heart; κλήσεως being the
gen. of the causa efficiens, Scheuerl.
Synt. ὃ 17, p. 125. Ἐλπὶς is thus not
objective, τὸ ἐλπιζόμενον (Olsh., Eadie),
a meaning scarcely fully substantiated
even in Col. i. 5 (comp. notes zn loc.),
and here certainly unnecessary, but as
usual subjective; ἐπὶ ποίαις ἐλπίσι κεκ-
λήμεϑα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, Theod. Like πίστις,
it is probably occasionally used in an
objective aspect (‘objectivirt’), as ‘the
grounds, the state of hope,’ but just as
πίστις is not used in the N. T. for ‘re-
ligio Christiana’ (see on Gal. i. 23), so
it is very doubtful whether ἐλπὶς ever
fully amounts to ‘res sperata,’ as as-
serted by Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p.
1095. Tis 6 πλοῦτον K.T. A.
‘what the riches of the glory of His inher-
itance;’ a noble accumulation of (pos-
sessive) genitives, setting forth the κλη-
povoula on the side of its glory, and that
glory on the side of its riches. All ad-
jectival solutions, it need scarcely be
said, are wholly inadmissible ; see notes
on ver. 6, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 3.1, p.
171 sq. The prefixed καὶ is omitted
by Lachm. with ABDIFG; 59: Cla-
rom., Sangerm., Amit., Goth., al., but
appy. rightly retained by Tisch., Mey.,
al., with D8EKL; nearly all mss.;
Copt., Syr. (both), al.; Orig. (Cat.),
Chrys., Theod., — as the καὶ in the third
member (ver. 19) might have so easily
suggested an omission in the second.

ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘among the saints ;’
a semi-local clause appended to τίς (ἐσ-
tw) ὃ “πλοῦτος k. τ. A. defining the
sphere (the whole community of the
faithful, comp. Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18) in
which the πλοῦτος τῆς δόξ. τῆς KAnp. is
peculiarly found, felt, and realized: com-
pare Col. i. 27, and see Meyer, h. J.
Harless connects ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις with KAn-
ρον. αὐτοῦ, an interpretation exegetically
tenable (see Stier in loc. p. 161 sq.), but,

36

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. I. 19.

an / > fa) \ if « a an ie an ͵΄
τῆς κλήσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας

αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις,

on account of the omission of the arti-
cle, by no means so grammatically ad-
missible, even in Hellenistic Greek, as
the somewhat sweeping language of Alf.
in loc. would lead us to conclude. For
as the former clause contains a defined
and self-subsistent idea (not merely κλη-
pov. évk.7.A. Job xiii. 15, ete., but κλη-
pov. αὐτοῦ, SC. Θεοῦ, a very distinct
expression), the latter cannot easily be
regarded as supplemental, and thus, as
legitimately anarthrous; see notes on
ver. 15. If, however, ἐν tots ay. be
immediately connected with the unex-
pressed ἐστί, the omission of the article
will be less sensibly felt (comp. Winer,
Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 155), and the harmony
in the three clauses fully preserved ; the
first, ἐλπὶς x. τ. A. being stated generally,
the second, πλοῦτος x. T. Δ.» more nearly
specialized by ἐν τοῖς ay., the sphere in
which it is found; the third, τὸ ὑπερβάλ-
Aov k. T. A., by eis ἡμᾶς, the living
objects towards whom it is, and will be,
exercised.

19. καὶ τί τὸ ὕπερβ. κ. τ. Χ.]
‘and what (is) the exceeding greatness of
His power ;’ specification of that by
which hope becomes quickened and real-
ized; ὅση τὶς περίεσται κτῆσις ayadav
τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁγίοις ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος
αἰῶνος, Theodorus, Chrys., Theoph., and
Cécum. refer this clause simply to the
present life. This is doubtful, as the
foregoing expressions, ἐλπὶς and KAnpo-
vouia (ch. v. 5, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9, Gal.
y. 21), and the reference in the following
verse seem to point primarily to the
power of God which shall hereafter
quicken us even as it did Christ, and
shall install us in our inheritance as it
enthroned Him on the right hand of
God. There is thus a kind of climax,
— the hope which the calling awakens,
—the exhaustless and inexpressible

"Ὁ καὶ τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεδος τῆς δυνά-

glory (Chrys.) of that inheritance to
which hope is directed, — the limitless
power that shall bestow it. Still the in-
dividualizing εἰς ἡμᾶς seems to show
that a secondary reference to the present
quickening power in the hearts of be-
lievers (ch. ii. 1, 5) is by no means to be
excluded. ἡμᾶς
πιστ.}] ‘to us-ward who are believing ;’
objects towards whom the exceeding
greatness of the power is displayed; the
eis ἡμᾶς not being dependent on τῆς δυ-
νάμ. αὐτοῦ (Harl., citing 2 Cor. xiii. 4,
where however eis ὑμᾶς is most probably
to be joined with ζήσομεν ; see Meyer in
loc.) but, as in the preceding member,
on τί (ἐστί) and eis having its regular
and primary sense of ethical direction,
admirably expressed by ‘to us-ward,’
Auth. Ver.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. c.
5, p- 353. The second and third clauses
τίς 6 πλοῦτος κ. τ. λ., aNd τί τὸ ὕπερβ. kK.
τ. A., are thus perfectly symmetrical, the
substantival sub-clauses forming a paral-
lelism to each other, and the preposi-
tional sub-clause eis ἡμᾶς being struc-
turally parallel to the preceding ἐν τοῖς
ἁγίοις, while at the same time it prepares
us for the latent apposition suggested by
the ἐν Xp. which follows; see Stier in
loc., p. 155. κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ-
γειαν does not refer to all three clauses
(Harl.), but, as the correspondence of
ideas and language distinctly suggests,
to that immediately preceding ; not,
however, especially to πιστεύοντας
(Riick.), for such a connection, though
doctrinally unexceptionable (see Col. ii.
12), is eregetically unsatisfactory from its
interpolation of an unlooked-for idea, —
viz., the origin and antecedents of faith.
The reference, then, is simply to the
whole clause, not, however, as an expla-
nation (Chrys.) or amplification (Calv.)
of this power, but, in accordance with

> \
ers TOUS

Crap. I. 20.

EPHESIANS. 37

fa) ’ a Ν \ , rn ΄
μεως αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας KATA τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Kpa-

τους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, “ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἐγείρας

the full ethical force of κατά (“ measure,’
‘proportion,’ Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b,
p- 239), as a definition of its mode of
operation (Eadie), a mighty measure, a
stupendous exemplar by which its infinite
powers towards the believing, in its fu-
ture, yea, and its present manifestations,
might be felt, acknowledged, estimated,
and realized; comp. Ignat. Trall. 9,
where, however, the ὁμοίωμα of the ἔγερ-
ots is more alluded to than in the pres-
ent passage. As the meaning of κατὰ
here falls short of ‘propter’ (compare
Griesb. Opuscula, 11. 5), so it certainly
transcends that of mere similitude.

τῆς ἰσχύος] ‘the
strength of His might, ‘robur potentix,’
Aith., scil. the strength which appertains
to, is evinced by His ἴσχυς ; neither a
Hebraism (Holzh.), nor a mere cumula-
tive form of expression (Kiittn.), but a
specification of the outcoming and exhi-
bition of that power which is the divine
attribute ; see ch. vi. 10, Dan. iv. 27.
Each word has thus its distinct and
proper force; ἔσχυς, as its derivation
(toxw, ἔχω) implies, refers rather to pas-
sive, inherent power (Mark xii. 30) ; κρά-
τος (KPA, KAP, cogn. with κάρα, comp.
Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. 178) to
power evinced in action ; see Luke i. 51.
The striking force of the expressions
here used to specify this ‘eminent act of
God’s omnipotency’ is well illustrated
by Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 11. p.
222 (ed. Burt.).

20. ἣν ἐνήργησεν) ‘which He
wrought,’ scil. ἣν évépyeay,—which act
of omnipotence God, as the principal
cause (see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol.
I. p. 301, ed. Burt.), displayed in Christ,
and in Him in us (‘innuit efficaciam Dei
in credentibus,’ Cocc.) who share the
humanity He vouchsafed to take, and
are spiritually risen with our risen Lord;

τοῦ κράτους-

see Stier in loc. p. 172. The read-
ing ἐνήργηκεν (AB; Cyr., Procop.) is
adopted by Lachm., Mey., but, as nearly
the same authorities [AB ; mss.; Aug.,
Vulg.; Eus., al.| also read καδίσας, must
be regarded as very suspicious, and as a
not unlikely emendation of style.

ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ] ‘in Christ, in Him
as our spiritual Head ; ἐν here being no
mere ‘nota dativi,’ a construction now
exploded in the N. T. (see Winer, Gir. ὃ
31. 8, p. 195), but correctly indicating
the substratum of the action; see notes
on Gal. i. 24. It is scarcely necessary
to recapitulate the caution of Theodoret
and Theophyl., δῆλον δέ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα
ὡς περὶ ἀνδρώπου τέϑεικε (Theod.), τὸ
γὰρ ἀναστὰν ἄνϑρωπος, εἰ καὶ Θεῷ ἥνωτο
(Theophyl.). In this passage, Phil. ii.
6—11, and Col. i. 14—19, as Olsh. well
observes, we find the entire Christology
of St. Paul. ἐγείρα 5] ‘when He
raised Him, Auth., or perhaps better ‘in
that He raised Him, Arm. ; contempora-
neous act with ἐνήργησεν, sce notes on
γνωρίσας, ver. 9. καὶ ἐκάδισεν)
‘and He set Him ;’ change from the par-
ticipial structure to the finite verb, espe-
cially designed to enhance the impor-
tance of the truth conveyed by the
participle ; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63.
2. b, p. 505 sq. The distinctive and
emphatic mention of the consequent and
connected acts heightens the conception
of the almighty ἐνέργεια of God (Father,
Son, and Spirit, Pearson on Creed, Art.
v. Vol. 1. p. 302), displayed in the res-
urrection of Christ from the dead. On
the session of Christ at the right hand of
God, see Knapp, Scripta Var. Argun.
Art. 11.; let these words of Bp. Pear-
son’s, however, never be forgotten, ‘He
shall reign for ever and ever, not only to
the modificated eternity of His mediator-
ship, but also to the complete eternity

38

EPHESIANS.

Cap. 1910

. πὸ Σ A \ ’ ΄ι 5 A ’ Coeur aA ’ /
QUTOV εκ VEKPWV, Kab ἐκάδισεν εν δεξιᾷ QUTOU €V τοις ETTOUPAVLOLS

Ἵ ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότη-

of the duration of His humanity, which
for the future is coéternal to His Di-
vinity,’ Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 335.

ἐν tots émovpaviors] ‘in the heav-

ρ Vv 4
enly places’ Losows [in clo] Syr.,

Goth., 7Eth.; see notes on ver. 3. It is
scarcely possible to doubt that these
The
distinctly local expressions, ἐκάϑισεν, ἐν
defi, —the Scripture doctrine of Christ’s
literal and local ascent (Mark xvi. 19,
al.), — His regal session in heayen in his
glorified had resplendent Body (Acts vii.
56, ἑστῶτα ἐκ Setiwy, al., see Phil. iii.
20), — His future literal and local judi-
ciary descent (Acts i. 11, ὃν τρόπον

words have here a local reference.

ededoacde αὐτὸν πορευόμενον), --- all tend
to invalidate the vague and idealistic
‘status celestis” urged by Harless in Joc.
The choice of the more general expres-
sion, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ., ‘in the heavenly re-
gions’ (comp. ch. iy. 10), rather than the
more specific ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς was perhaps
suggested by the nature of the details in
Welw le The reading οὐρανοῖς
(Zachm. with B; al.; Victorin., Hil.),
has weak external support, and seems
an almost self-evident gloss.

21. ὑπεράν ὦ] ‘over above,’ ‘supra,’
Clarom., Vulg., ‘ufaro,’ Goth.; not
‘longe supra,’ Beza, Auth., Alf., al.:
specification of the nature and extent
of the exaltation. The intensive force
which Chrys. and Theophyl. find in this
word, ἵνα τὸ ἀκρότατον ὕψος δηλώσῃ, and
which has recently been adopted by Stier
and Eadie, is very doubtful; as is also
the assertion (Eadie) that this prevails
‘in the majority of passages’ in the
ΤΟΝ SECOnS ZK. 1.9265, ‘Vall 12; xe 19,
Xi. 22, xiii. 15, and even Deut. xxvi. 19,
xxviii. 1. Such distinct instances as
Ezek. xliii..15, and in the N. T., Heb.
ix. 5, — the similarly unemphatic use of

the antitheton ὑποκάτω, John i. 51, Luke
viii. 10,— and the tendencies of Alex-
andrian and later Greek to form dupli-
cated compounds (see Peyron, ad Pap.
Taurin. Vol. 1. p. 89) make it highly
probable that ὑπεράνω, both here and ch.
iv. 10, implies little more than simple
local elevation. So too Syr. and appy.
all the ancient Vv. πάσης" ἀρχῆς
κι τ. λ.] ‘all (every) rule and authority
and power and lordship ;’ no parenthesis,
but a fuller explanation of ἐν τοῖς ἐπου-
paviors; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 64, 1. 2, p.
614 (ed. 5). The context and the illus-
trations afforded by ch. iii. 10, Col. i. 16,
and 1 Pet. iii. 22, seem to preclude any
mere generic reference to all forms of
power and dominion (Olsh.), or any
specific reference to the orders of the
Jewish hierarchy (Schoettg.), or the
grades of authority among men (see ap.
Pol. Syn.). The abstract words (δυνά-
μεών τινων ὀνόματα ἡμῖν ἄσημα, Chrys.)
seem to be designations of the orders of
heavenly Intelligences, and are used by
St. Paul in preference to any concrete
terms (ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων κ. τ. A.) tO
express with the greatest aptitude and
comprehensiveness the sovereign power
and majesty of Christ; εἴ τι ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ
οὐρανῷ, πάντων ἀνώτερος γέγονε, Chrys.,
see Caly. in loc. As this verse relates to
Christ’s exaltation in heaven rather than
His victory over the powers of hell (1
Cor. xv. 24, comp. Rom. viii. 38), the
reference is, probably, exclusively to
good Angels and Intelligences, 1 Tim. v.
21, Any attempt to define more closely
(see authors cited in Hagenbach, 715]. of
Doctr. ὃ 131, Petavius, de Angelis, 11. 1,
Vol. 111. ps 101 sq.) is alike presumptu-
ous and precarious: see the excellen
remarks of Bp. Hall, Invisible World,
Book 1. ὃ 7. On the nature of Angels,
consult the able treatise by Twesten,

ἄρ᾿ I. 22.

EPHESIANS.

39

\ Ν 3 , ’ , / lal al
τος, καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῳ μέλλοντι,

Dogmatik, Vol. 11. esp. § 1. 4, the essay
by Stuart, Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843,
pp. 88—154, Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 228
sq. Vol. 1. p. 276, and the remarks of
Lange, Leb. Jes. Part. 11. p. 41 sq.

καὶ παντὺς dvdpatos| ‘and, in a
word, every name named ;’ concluding
and comprehensive
having here that species of adjunctive

designation ; καὶ
force according to which a general term
is appended to foregoing details; see
Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388, notes on
Phil. iv. 12, Fritz. Matth. p. 786. Πᾶν
ὄνομα is not ‘every title of honor,’
(Grinf. Scholl. Hell.), a particular expla-
nation to which ὀνομαζ. (which has al-
ways its simple meaning in the N. T.,
even in Rom. xy. 20, see Fritz.) is dis-
tinctly opposed, — nor again, in refer-
ence to Heavenly Powers which are
ἀκατονόμαστοι (Theophyl.),—nor even
as a generic representation of the fore-
going abstract nouns (Wahl, Harless),
—pbut simply with reference to every-
thing in existence (‘quicquid existit,’
Beza), personal or impersonal, ‘every-
thing bearing a name and admitting
designation ;’ comp. Col. i. 16, where a
similar latitude is implied by the four
times repeated εἴτε, and see notes in
loc. ov μόνον k.7.A.] clause
appended not to ἐκάϑισεν (Beza Koppe),
but to παντὸς ὀνόμ. dvouat., to which it
gives a still further expansion, both in
respect of time and locality, — every-
thing named, whether now or hereafier,
in the present state of things or the

world to come; παντὸς ῥητοῦ καὶ ὄνυμασ-
τοῦ, οὐ μόνον τοῦ ἐνταῦδα ὀνομαζομένου,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἐκεῖϑεν δυναμένου ῥηδῆναι
τῷ
αἰῶνι τούτῳ] ‘this world,’ scil. ‘this
present state of things,’ ‘systema rerum,’
Beng. With regard to the meaning of
αἰὼν it may be observed that in all pas-

kal ὀνομασϑῆναι, Cicum.

92 ἊΝ / e f ἕξ (< Ἂς \ 46
καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺυς TOOaS

sages where it occurs, a temporal notion
To this, in
the majority, an ethical idea is united, so

is more or less apparent.

that αἰὼν οὗτος, as Olsh. has observed, is
‘the temporary and terrestrial order of
things, in which sin predominates (comp.
Gesen. Ler. s. v. o>4z, B), to which
αἰὼν μέλλων (= BantActe Θεοῦ), the holy
state of things founded by Christ, is the
exact contrast; see Comment. on Matth.
xii. 31, 32, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p.
500, 501 (Bohn). In a few passages,
like the present, a semi-local meaning
seems also superadded, causing αἰὼν to
approach in meaning to κόσμος, though
it still may be always distinguished from
it by the temporal and commonly ethical
notions which ever form its background ;
see notes, ch. ii. 2.

22. καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν] Sand
put all things under His feet ;’ further
specification of the majesty of Christ, —
not only the highest conceivable exal-
tation (ver. 21), but the most unbounded
sovereignty. The strong similarity of
the language scarcely leaves a doubt
that here and Heb. ii. 8, there is a dis-
tinct allusion to Psalm viii. 7, πάντα
imératas ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ ;
comp. Gen. i. 38, Nor is this due to
any ‘rabbinischtypischer Interpretation-
sweise,’ (Mey.) on the part of St. Paul,
but to a direct reference under the guid-
ance of the Spirit, to a passage in the O.
T., which, in its primary application to
man, involves a secondary and more
profound application to Christ. In the
grant of terrestrial sovereignty the
Psalmist saw and felt the antitypical
mystery of man’s future exaltation in
Christ, even more fully than Tholuck
and even Hengstenberg in loc. appear to
admit. The reference thus seems less to
the subjugation of foes, as in 1 Cor. xv.
27 (Hamm., Stier), than to the limitless

40

EPHESIANS.

Cxap. I; 95

A \ \ / Lowe J δ
αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, “ἥτις

nature of Christ’s sovereignty, which
the words ὑπὸ τοὺς Kk. τ. A. (ἡ ἐσχάτη
ὑποταγή, Chrys.) still more heighten and
enhance. On this and the next verse
see a sound sermon by Beveridge, in
which the three points, Christ’s headship
over all things, His headship to the
Church, and His relation to it as His
body, are well discussed, Serm. xxx11.
Vol. 11. p. 124 sq. (A. C. Libr.)

ἔδωκεν is not synonymous with 4hn:,
ἔϑηκεν, ἔστησεν (Wolf, Holzh., and even
Harl.), either here or ch. ivy. 11, but (as
the dat. ἐκκλησίᾳ and the emphatic posi-
tion of αὐτὸν seem to suggest) retains its
primary and proper sense. The mean-
ing then seems to be, though so exalted
and so glorified, yet even Hrm did God,
out of his boundless mercy and _benefi-
cence, give to the Church to be its head.
κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα] ‘head over
all things.’ The exact construction and
immediate reference of these words is
not perfectly clear.
dently qualifies kep., not, however, an
immediate and adjectival epithet (‘sum-
mum caput,’ Beza, Conyb.), but as an
accessory and quasi-participial definition,

Ὑπὲρ πάντα eyi-

2. 6. ὑπερέχουσαν πάντων ; πάντα being
used in exactly the same general sense
as before, without any limiting reference
to τῇ ἐκκλ. (Harl.), or any implied con-
trast to other subordinate heads, apos-
tles, prophets, etc. (Olsh.).
κεφ. may be regarded either as (a) a sim-
ple appositional accus. to the preceding
αὐτόν, a second κεφ. being supplied (per
brachylogiam) before τῇ éxkKa., —‘ He
gave Him, Head over all, (as Head) to
his Church ;’ comp. Jelf, Gr. § 893. ¢.;
or (b) as an accus. of further predica-
tion, serving to complete the notion of
the verb, and forming a species of ter-
tiary predicate (Donalds. Gr. § 489), —
‘He gave Him as head over all,’ 7. 6. ‘in
the capacity of head over all; compare

The accus.

Madvig, Synt. § 24. a, and see the vari-
ous exx. in Donalds. Gr. § 490. Of
these (a) was adopted in ed. 1 (so also
Stier, Mey.), and coincides in meaning
with the ungrammatical order (ἔδωκεν
αὐτὸν [ὄντα] ὑπὲρ πάντα κεφ. TH ἐκκλ.)
of Syr., ἀὐῃ.-Ρ] αἴ, Chrys., al., but is,
grammatically considered, less simple
than (b), and, considered exegetically,
but little different in meaning: if God
gives Christ to the Church, and Christ
at the same time is Head over all things
(tertiary predication) He becomes neces-
sarily head to the Church. It seems
best, then, with (appy.) Syr.-Phil.,
Vulg., Clarom., Arm., to adopt the lat-
ter view; comp. Alf. in loc.

23. ἥτι 5] ‘which indeed ;’ not exactly
‘ut que,’ Meyer, but ‘que quidem,’ the
force of the indef. relative being here
rather explanatory than causal, and sery-
ing to elucidate the use and meaning of
κεφαλὴ by the introduction of the cor-
On the uses of
ὕστις, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. τὸ
σῶμα αὐτοῦ] ‘His hody;’ not in any
merely figurative sense, but really and
truly; the Church is the veritable body
of Christ mystical (ch. iv. 12, 16, esp. v.
30), no mere institution subject to Him
as to a κεφαλὴ used in any ethical sense,
but united to Him as to a κεφαλὴ used
in its simple and literal sense; ἵνα yap

responding term σῶμα.

>

μὴ, ἀκούσας κεφαλὴν, ἀρχήν τινα καὶ ἐξου-
σίαν νομίσῃς, σωματικῶς φησίν, ἡμῶν ἐστί
κεφαλή, (ει. This great and vital
truth, and the nature of our union with
Christ which it involves and implies, is
well illustrated in the beautiful treatise
of Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, esp. ch.
VII. τὸ πλήρωμα κ. τ. λ.] ‘the
fulness of Him that jilleth all things with
all things;’ apposition to the preceding
τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ designed still more to
expand the full meaning of the pre-
ceding identification of the Church with

Cnap. I. 23.

EPHESIANS.

41

3 \ \ A 5 A \ / rn \ A
ἐστὶν TO σῶμα αὐτοῦ, TO πλήρωμα τοῦ Ta πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν

πληρουμένου.

the Lord’s body, the general truth con-
veyed being τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ 7
ἐκκλησία, Chrys. The special meaning
and reference of these mysterious words
has been greatly contested. This, how-
ever, seems clear (esp. after the long
and careful note of Fritz. on Rom. xi.
12, Vol ir. p. 469), that πλήρωμα is here
used passively, and that of its two pas-
sive meanings, (a) 7d quod impletum est,
and (b) 7d quo res impletur (see notes on
Gal. iv. 4), the former, sc. τὸ πεπληρω-
μένων, though less common (compare
Lucian, Ver. Hist. 11. 37, δύο πληρωμά-
των, ‘manned ships’), is here alone
applicable. The Church, then, is τὸ
TeTAnpwuevovy, —not, however, in the
sense ‘plenum Christi agmen,’ ‘homi-
num a Christo impletorum caterva,’ as
Fritz. paraphrases, but in a simple and
almost local sense, ‘that which is filled
up by Christ,’ ‘the receptacle’ (Eadie),
as it were, of all the gifts, graces, and
blessings of Christ; comp. Philo, de
Prem. εἰ Pen. p. 920, where the soul is
called a πλήρωμα ἀρετῶν, and contrast
the opposed κένωμα, as used by the
Gnostics to express the void world of
sense; Baur Gnosis, p. 157, 462 (cited
by Mey.). ἐν πᾶσιν πλη-
ρουμ.] ‘Of Him who filleth all things
with all things,’ ‘ qui rerum universitatem
omnibus rebus [5101] implet,’ Fritz.; ἐν
being here used in its instrumental sense
(see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18), as serving
to specify that with which the filling
takes place (see ch. v. 18), and πᾶσιν
being used with an equal latitude to τὰ
πάντα (ver. 22) as implying, not only
‘all blessings’ (Eadie), but ‘all things’
unrestrictedly ; for by Christ was the
whole Universe made, and all things
therein ;: see Col. i. 16, and comp. in ref.
generally to the terms of the expression,
Philo, Sacrif. Cain, § 18, Vol. 1. p. 175
(ed. Mang.), πεπληρωκὼς πάντα διὰ πάν-

6

των. It has been doubted whether πλη-
ροῦσϑαι is (a) passive as Vule,, Clarom.,
Chrys., al., or (Ὁ) middle, as Syr., Copt.,
Goth., Arm., whether in a purely active
sense (Xen. Hell. v1. 2. 14, 35, see exx.
in Rost πὶ. Palm, Lex. 5. v. Vol. 11. p.
956), or perhaps, as this unique use of
the middle in the N. T. suggests, in a
specially reciprocal sense ‘sibi implere.’
Of these the latter alone seems admissi-
ble, as the idea of Christ receiving com-
pletion in His members (Est., compare
Harl.) implies restrictions little accord-
ant with the inclusive τὰ πάντα. ‘The
meaning of the whole then would seem
to be, —that the Church is the veritable
mystical Body of Christ, yea the recipi-
ent of the plenitudes of Him who filleth
all things, whether in heaven or in earth,
with all the things, elements, and enti-
ties of which they are composed. And
this, as both the parallelism of τὸ σῶμα
αὐτοῦ and τὸ mAnp. k. τ. A. and the ab-
sence of any hint of a change of per-
son seem distinctly to suggest, must be
referred, not to God (Theod. Alf.) but
to Christ ; see esp. ch. iv. 10. On
the doctrine of the omnipresence of
Christ, an eternal truth of vital impor-
tance (Bull, Def. Fid. Mic. §4.3.1 sq.,
Waterland, Sermon vit. 3, Vol. 11. p.
164), to which this verse seems to al-
lude, see notes on ch. iv. 10, Jackson,
Creed, Book xt. 8, 10 sq, and the calm
and conciliatory observations of Marten-
sen, Dogmatik, ὃ 177 sq. Well and
clearly has it been said by Andrews,
‘Christ is both in Heayen and earth: as
He is called the Head of His Church,
He is in Heaven, but in respect of
His body which is called Christ He is
on earth,’ Serm. x11. Vol ν. p. 407.

The omission of τὰ (Rec.) is opposed
to all the MSS. and to the majority of
mss., and adopted by none of the best
recent editors.

42

You too who were dead in
sin He hath quickened,

Il.

vation is by grace, not works.

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. II. 1.

\ e a , \ a
Kai ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώ-

raised, and even enthroned with and in Christ, to show all ages the riches of His grace and love.

Your sal-

1. ὑμῶν] This word was omitted in ed. 1 with Rec. and Tisch. (ed. 2) on the
authority of KL; great majority of mss.; Chrys. Dam., al.,—but, though some-
what doubtful on account of the variation of A (ἑαυτῶν), is appy. to be restored on
the greatly preponderating authority of BDEFG; 15 mss.: nearly all Vv.;

Theod., al.

Cuaprer II. 1. καὶ twas] ‘And
you also,’ ‘you too;’ special address and
application of the foregoing to the case
of the readers; καὶ neither (a) simply
connecting the verse with what precedes,

?

sc. καὶ ὑπέταξεν, καὶ ἔδωκεν, kal ὑμᾶς K.
τ. A. (Lachm.), — as ver. 23 is plainly a
conclusion of the foregoing clause, nor
(0) serving to introduce a special exem-
plification of the general act of grace in
ver. 23 (Peile),— as the force of the
correlation between νεκροὺς and ouve wr.
is thus seriously impaired, but ratber (c)
applying what has been said to the ὑμᾶς,
to which word it gives emphasis and
prominence. The Ephesians are re-
minded how they also had experienced
in their moral death the energy of the
same quickening power which raised
Christ from physical death (ch. i. 20),
the ascensive force of καὶ being just per-
ceptible in the implied parallelism be-
tween the νέκρωσις ψυχικὴ in the case of
the Ephesians (see next note), and the
νέκρωσις σωματικὴ on the part of Christ
(ch. i. 20); comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11.
p. 636. The connection has also its
difficulties. According to the most sim-
ple view, ver. 1, after having its struc-
ture interrupted by the two relatival sen-
tences, ver. 2, 8, is renewed in ver. 4
(not ver. 5, Schott.), by means of δὲ
resumptive (Herm. Viger, No. 544), and
there further elucidated by the inter-
polated nominat. Θεός, expanded in ap-
plication by the more comprehensive
ἡμᾶς, and concluded in yer. 5; see The-
ophyl. in loc. ὄντας νεκροῦ]
‘being dead,’ se. spiritually ; νέκρωσις οὐκ

So Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 1 and 3.)

3

ἡἣ σωματική, ἣ ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ ἀρξαμένη,

5)

ἀλλὰ ἡ ψυχική, ἡ ἐξ ἡμῶν συνισταμένη,
Theophyl. ; compare Bramhall, (δέν.
111. 2, Vol. rv. 233 (Angl. Cath. Lib.).
The proleptic reference to physical
death, scil. ‘certo (Mey-),
seems irreconcilable with the context.
The πλούσιος dy ἔν ἐλέει, which seems
to specify God's mercy in extending the
exercise of His resurrectionary power,
would thus lose much of its appropriate-
ness, and the particle καὶ (ver. 5) its
proper ascensive force. On this and the
two following verses, see a good prac-
tical sermon by Usher, Serm. 1v. Vol.
xl. p. 45 (ed. Elringt.)
παραπτώμασιν κ. τ. A.) ‘by the tres-

morituri’

τοῖς

passes and sins which ye had committed,’
‘delictis et peccatis,’ Vulg., Goth.; not
‘in delictis,’ ete., Arm.; the dat. being
appy. that of the causa instrumentalis ;
see Hartung, Casus, p. 79, Winer, Gr. §
31. 7, p. 194. In the closely parallel
passage Col ii. 13, νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς
παραπτώμασιν, the same general senti-
ment is expressed under slightly differ-
ent relations; here sin is conceived as
that which kills (Olsh.); there it is de-
scribed as the element or state in which
the νέκρωσις shows and reveals itself;
comp. notes in loc. It is doubtful
whether the distinction drawn by Titt-
mann (Synon, p. 45) between παραπτ.,
sins rashly (‘a nolente facere injuriam ἢ),
and ἁμαρτίαι sins designedly committed,
can be fully substantiated ; both equally
referring to ‘peccata actualia,’ whether
in thought, word, or deed, and differing
more in the images (‘ missing,’ ‘ stum-

Cuap. II. 2.

EPHESIANS.

43

\ - - / fal -
μασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, "ἐν αἷς ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε

bling’) under which they are presented
to our conception, than in the degree of
intention ascribed to the perpetrator ;
see Fritz. Rom. v. 15, Vol. 1. p. 324,
comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 2,
Vol. 1. p. 92 (Clark). Perhaps we may
say generally, that παραπτώματα, as its
derivation suggests, is the more limited
term, viz. particular, special acts of sin ;
ἁμαρτίαι [a pepos, μείρω, Buttm. Lexil.
No. 15, note], the more inclusive and
abstract, viz. all forms, phases and
movements of sin, whether entertained
in thought or consummated in act ; com-
pare notes on Col. ii. 16.

2. ἐν ais] ‘in which;’ not so much
with ref. to the prevailing direction (De
Weitc), as the sphere in which they
habitually moved. It does not, how-
ever, seem necessary to press the mean-
ing of περιπατεῖν (‘sphere in which they
trod,’ Eadie) this being one of those
words in the N. T. which are used with
so strong a Hebraistic coloring (see the
list, Winer, Gr. ὃ 3, p. 81), that in sey-
eral passages it denotes little more than
‘vivere ;’ see Fritz. Rom. xiii. 12, Vol.
111. p. 141, Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol.
Tepe «679: τὸν αἰῶνα κ. τ. A.|
‘according to the course of this world,’

oo 2 ο > ρ °
Auth. Lior ἰδοῦν.» oZostaSs
[mundanitatem mundi hujus] Syr.; the
ethical meaning of αἰὼν here appy. pre-
dominating; see on ch. i. 22. In such
cases as the present the meaning seems
to approach that of ‘ tendency, spirit, of
the age’ (Olsh.), yet still not without
distinct trace of the regular temporal
notion, which, even in those passages
where αἰὼν seems to imply little more
than our ‘world’ (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10),
may still be felt in the idea of the (evil)
course, development, and progress (‘ ubi
xtas mala malam excipit’) that is tac-
itly associated with the term ; see Beng.

in loc., and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chret.
Iv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 228. Any Gnostic
reference (Baur, Paulus, p. 433), as St.
Paul’s frequent use of the word satisfac-
torily proves, is completely out of the
question. κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα
k. τ. A.| ‘according to the prince of the
power or empire of the air,’ scil. the
devil; climax to the foregoing member,
the contrast being κατὰ Θεόν, ch. iv. 24.
Without entering into the various inter-
pretations these difficult words have re-
ceived, we will here only notice briefly,
(1) the simple meaning of the words ;
(2) (3)
their probable explanation. (1) the
two cardinal words are ἐξουσία and ἀήρ.
The former, like many words in --ἰία
(Bernhardy, Synt. 1. 2, p. 47), appears
used, not exactly for ἐξουσίαι, scil. as an
abstract implying the concrete posses-
sors of the ἐξουσία (comp. Dionys. Hal.
vil. 44), but as a collective designation
of their empire and sovereignty, see esp.
Lobeck Phryn. p. 469. ᾿Αὴρ is used
thrice by St. Paul besides this place,
thrice in the rest of the N. T., — (a)
‘the air’ simply and generally, Acts
xxii 23,1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9, and appy.
Rev. ix. 2,— (8) as ‘the
probably, strict physical reference, Rey.
xvi. 17, — (y) as ‘the air or sky,’ appy.
tacitly correlative to γῆ (the seat of the
περιλειπόμενοι), 1 Thess. iv. 17. We
seem, then, bound to reject all partial
interpretations, 6. g. σκότος (Heinsius,
Kuttn. ap. Peile), πνεῦμα (Hofmann
Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 403), and to leave
the context to define the specific mean-
ing and application of the word. (2)
The gen. ἀέρος is not a gen. objecti, ‘cui
potestas est aeris,’ Beza; nor qualitatis,
scil. ἀέριος, ἀσώματος (so Phrys., appy.,
but not the Greek Fathers generally),
but a gen. of place, denoting their évaé-
ριον διατριβήν (Cacum.), the seat of their

their grammatical connection ;

air,’ with,

44

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. 11. 2.

κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ TOV ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξου-

σίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς

spiritual empire; οὐχ ὡς τοῦ ἀέρος δεσ-
πόζντα, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς αὐτῷ ἐμφιλοχωρουντα,
Theophyl.; compare Bernhardy, Synt.
ὙΠ 33. a, p. 137. (3) The explana-
tion really turns on the latitude of mean-
ing assigned to ἀήρ. Without venturing
to deny that the word may mysteriously
intimate a near propinquity of the spirits
of evil, it may still be said that the lim-
itation to the physical atmosphere (Mey.)
is as precarious in doctrine as the refer-
ence to some ideal ‘atmosphere belting
a death-world’ (Eadie), or to the com-
mon parlance of mankind (Alf.), is too
vague and undefined. The natural ex-
planation seems to be this, — that as
οὐρανὸς is used in a limited and partial
(Matt. vi. 26), as well as an uncircum-
scribed meaning, so conversely ἀήρ, which
is commonly confined to the region of
the air or atmosphere, may be extended
to all that supra-terrestrial but sub-celes-
tial region (6 ὑπουράνιος τύπος, Chrys.)
which seems to be, if not the abode, yet
the haunt of evil spirits; see esp. LXX.,
Job i. 7, ἐμπεριπατήσας τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν ;
compare Olsh. in loc., and Stuart, Bibl.
Sacra for 1848, p. 139; see also Hagen-
bach, Stud. τι. Krit. Vol. 1. 479. Quo-
tations out of Rabbinical writings and
Greek philsophers will be found in
Wetst., and Harl. zn /oc., but that St.
Paul drew his conceptions from the for-
mer (Mey.) or the latter (Wetst.), we
are slow indeed to believe; see the re-
marks on Gal. ch. iv. 24. τοῦ
mvevpatos| ‘the spirit;’ scil. the evil
principle of action, more specially de-
fined by the succeeding words. The
explanation of this gen. is not easy, as
exegesis appears to suggest one construc-
tion, grammar another. The most con-
venient assumption, an anomaly of case
(gen. for accus. in apposition to τὸν apx.
x. T.A., Heinichen, Euseb. JZist. Eccl. y.

᾽

20, Vol. ii. p. 99), is so doubtful, that it
seems best, with Winer (Gr. 67. 3, p.
558), to regard the gen. as dependent on
τὸν ἄρχοντα, and in apposition with ἐξου-
σίας ; πμεῦμα not referring, like ἐξουσία,
to the aggregate of individual πνεύματα
(πάντος évaepiov πνεύματος, Theophyl.,
compare Eadie, Alf.), a very doubtful
meaning, owing to the difference of ter-
mination, but to the evil principle which
animated the empire, and emanated from
Satan, the ruler of it. There is con-
fessedly an exegetical difficulty in the
expression τὸν ἄρχ. τοῦ πνεύμ. ; this,
however, may be removed either by sup-
plying a similar but more appropriate
substantive out of τὸν a&x., or (what is
in effect the same) by observing that τοῦ
πνεύματος has a species of objective
meaning reflected on it from the words
with which it is in apposition. There is
probably, as Harless and Meyer suggest,
a tacit antithesis in τοῦ πν. to the Πνεῦμα
τὸ ἐκ Θεοῦ; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 12.

νῦν is commonly referred to the period
since the redemption, the time of in-
creased satanic energy and of hottest
strife (De Wette); comp. Rey. xii. 12.
This, however, is more than the words
seem intended to convey. As ποτέ, ver.
1, is again repeated ver. 3, the natural
antithesis appears νῦν---ποτέ; the Apos-
tle specifies the still active existence in
one class, the children of disobedience,
of the same spirit which formerly wrought
not only in his readers, but in all; sim.
Hammond and Harless in doc.
υἱοῖς τῆς a&metd.| ‘the sons of diso-
bedience;’ a Hebraistic circumlocution
nearly equivalent to οἱ ἐξ ἀπειϑείας
(compare Fritz. Rom. ii. 16, Vol. i. p.
105), and serving to mark more vividly
than the adjectival construction the essen-
tial and innate disobedience of the sub-
jects, —a disobedience to which they

τοῖς

Cuap. II. 3.

EPHESIANS.

45

» t 3 3 e Nore a ΄ ᾽ , t 3 a
ἀπειδείας, εν OLS και NMELS παντες ἀνεστράφημεέν TTOTE ἐν TALS

ἐπιϑυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν, ποιοῦντες τὰ ϑελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς

belong as chidren to a parent; comp. ch.
v. 6, Col. iii. 6 (notes), 1 Thess. v. 5
(notes), 2 Thess. ii. 3, and see Winer,
Gr. § 34. 3.b, 2, p. 153, and Gurlitt,
Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 728. ᾿Απειϑεία,
as in Col. iii. 6 (see critical note zn /oc.),
is obviously neither ‘diffidentia’ (Vulg.,
Clarom., ‘ungalaubeinais,’ Goth. ; com-
pare /Eth.), nor ἀπάτη (Chrysost.), but

‘ disobedience,’ [ZotmsasAte ts
3 Ο o == w ae

[inobedientize] (Syr., Arm.), whether to
the message of the Gospel or the man-
dates of the conscience, — sin, in fact, in
its most enhanced form, the violation of
the dependence of the creature on the
Creator; see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1.
2, Vol. 1. p. 91 (Clark).

3. ἐν ois] ‘among whom,’ Auth.,
scil. ὧν καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες, Riick.; not ἐν ois
SC. παραπτώμασιν (Syr., Hier.), in which
case ver. 2 would illustrate the ἅμαρτ.,
ver. 3 the maparr. The parallelism (ἐν
αἷς----ν ois) is a specious argument for
such a reference (see Stier in loc., p.
252); still, grammatical perspicuity, the
studied change to ἀνεστράφ., and still
more the very general nature of the dis-
tinction between παραπτώματα and ἅμαρ-
tia are seriously opposed to it; comp.
2 Cor. i. 12, where ἄνεστρ. is similarly
used with a double ἔν, the first (semi-
local) referring to the surrounding ob-
jects, 1 Tim. iii. 15, the second (ethical)
to the element in which they moved, 2
Pet. ii. 18. kal ἡμεῖς πάντ εΞ9]
‘even we all;’ Jews and Gentiles, not
Jews alone (Mey.). As ὑμεῖς (ver. 1, 2)
denotes the Gentile world, so it might be
argued ἡμεῖς would seem naturally to
refer to the Jews. To this, however,
the addition of πάντες presents an insu-
perable objection, as almost obviously
designed to preclude any such _limita-
tion, and to expand the reference to both

classes (σὺν τάττει καὶ ἑαυτόν, Theod.) ;
we all, called and reclaimed Jews and
converted Gentiles, were once members
of that fearful company, the viol τῆς
amewelas; comp. Alf. in loc.
ϑελήματα τῆς σαρκός] ‘the (va-
rious) desires of the flesh.’ The plural
is not elsewhere found in the N. T. (Acts
xiii. 22 is a quotation), though not un-
usual in the LXX; Psalm. cx. 2, 2
Chron. ix. 12, Isaiah xliv. 28, lviii. 13,
al. It here probably denotes the various
exhibitions and manifestations of the
will, and is thus symmetrical with, but a
fuller expansion of ἐπιϑυμίαις. On the
true meaning of σάρξ, ‘the life and
movement of man in the things of the
world of sense,’ see Miiller, Doctr. of
Sin, τι. 2, Vol. 1. p. 352 sq., and esp.
notes on Gal.v.16. τῶν διανοιῶν]
‘of the thoughts,’ scil. ‘ of the evil thoughts’
(compare διαλογισμοὶ, πονηροί Matth. xv.
19); the ethical meaning, however, not
being due to the plural (‘die schwan-
kenden wechselnden Meinungen,’ Harl.),
but, as Mey. justly observes, to the con-
text; comp. τὰ διανοήματα, Luke xi. 17.
It is added, not to strengthen the mean-
ing of σάρξ (Holzh.), but to include
both sources whence our evil desires
emanate, the worldly (sensual) tendency
of our life on the one hand, and the spir-
itual sins of our thoughts and intentions
on the other; so Theod. in loc., except
that he too much limits the meaning of
σάρξ. On the meaning of διανοίαι, as
usually marking the motions of the
thoughts and will on the side of their
outward manifestations, see Beck, Seelent.
11. 19, p. 58. ἢ μεν] ‘and we
were ;’ with great definiteness as to the
relation of time, the change of construc-
tion from the (present) part. to the oratio
directa being intended to give emphasis
to the weighty clause which follows (see

x
τα

καὶ

40

\ aA a
καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ
*6 δὲ Θεὸς, πλούσιος

notes, ch. i. 20), and also to disconnect
it from any possible relation to the pres-
ent; ‘we were children of wrath by na-
ture, —it was once our state and condi-
tion, it is now so no longer.’

τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆ 5] ‘children by
nature — of wrath. This important
clause can only be properly investi-
gated by noticing separately (1) the
simple meaning of the words; (2) their
grammatical connection; (3) their proba-
(1) We
begin with (a) τέκνα, which is not simply
identical with the Hebraistic υἱοί, ver. 2,
but, as Bengel obviously felt, is more
significant and suggestive; see Steiger
on 1 Pet. i. 14. The word arouses the
attention; ‘we were téxva,’—that be-
speaks a near and close relation, — but
of what? Of God? No, —‘of wrath ;’
its actual and definite objects; see Stier
in loc. p. 256, and comp. Hofm. Schrifib.
Vol. τ. p. 497. (b) ᾿Οργὴ has its proper
meaning, and denotes, not τιμωρία or
κόλασις itself (Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol.
11. p. 505), but the moving principle of
it, God’s holy hatred of sin, which re-
veals itself in His punitive justice ; com-
pare Rom. i. 18. (c) The meaning of
φύσει has been much contested. The
general distinction of Waterland (Second
Defence Qu. xx1v. Vol. 11. p. 723) seems
perfectly satisfactory that φύσει in Scrip-
ture relates to something inherent, in-
nate, fixed, and implanted from the first,
and is in opposition to something acces-
sional, superinduced, accidental; or, as
Harl. more briefly expresses it, ‘das
Gewordene in Gegensatz zum Gemach-
ten;’ compare Thorndike, Covenant of
Guin, απ 1.0. ΟἹ] rate joy 170 (WANG (CE
Libr.).
be determined by the context: compare
Gal. ii. 15, Rom. ii. 14, Gal. iv. 8, where
φύσει respectively means, (a) transmit-

ble dogmatical application.

The more exact meaning must

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. II. 4.

5 , , > a ε \ c ΄,
ἣμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί
BY ’ 5 / Ν \ \ 5 ΄ > nr
ὧν ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ

ted, inborn nature ; (β) inherent nature ;
(y) essential nature. The connection
must here guide us. (2) Connection.
Φύσει is to be joined with τέκνα, not
ὀργῆς (Holzh., Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. τ. p.
497), and defines the aspect under which
the predicate shows itself (see Madvig,
Synt.§ 40); the unusual order [ADEFGL
reverse it but appy. by way of emenda-
tion] appearing to have arisen from a
limitation of a judgment which St.
Paul was about to express unlimitedly ;
the Jews were the covenant people of
God; Jews and Gentiles (ἡμεῖς) could
not then equally and unrestrictedly be
called τέκνα ὀργῆς; see Miiller, Doctr.
of Sin, 1v. 2, Vol. 11. p. 306. (3) The
doctrinal reference turns on the meaning
of φύσει. This the limiting connection
seems to show must imply what is ¢nnate ;
for if it implied ‘habitual or developed
character’ (e. g. ZBlian, Var. Hist. 1x. 1,
φύσει φιλάργυρος ; see exx. in Wetst.,
and compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. τ. p. 116),
there would be little need of the limita-
tion, and little meaning in the assumed
contrast, ‘filii adoptione,’ Estius ap. Poli
Syn. This is further confirmed by the
tense (see above) and the argument ‘ex
simili’ in ὡς Kal of λοιποί (ἦσαν), for it
must have been some universal state to
have applied to all the rest of mankind.
Still it must fairly be said the unem-
phatic position of φύσει renders it doubt-
ful whether there is any special contrast
to χάριτι, or any direct assertion of the
doctrine of Original Sin; but that the
clause contains an indirect, and therefore
even more convincing assertion of that
profound truth, it seems impossible to
deny. The very long but instructive
note of Harless in loc. may be consulted
with profit.

4. ὃ δὲ eds] ‘but God.’
tion of ver. 1

Resump-
after the two relatival

πα. EGY

EPHESIANS. AG

ἃ » / id a 5 wt) rn “-
ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, ° καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν

sentences, ἐν ais ver. 2, and ἐν οἷς ver. 3;
δέ being correctly used rather than οὖν,
as the resumption also involves a con-
trast to the preceding verse. The decla-
ration of the ἔλεος of God forms an
assuring and consoling antithesis to the
foregoing statement that by nature all
were the subjects of His ὀργή. On the
use of δὲ after a parenthesis, see Motz,
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 877, Hartung, Partik.
δὲ, 3. 2, Vol. p. 173; the use of ‘autem’
in Latin is exactly similar, see esp.
Hand, Tursell. s. v. § 9, Vol. 1. p. 569;
Beza’s correction of the Vulg., ‘sed’
instead of ‘autem’ is therefore not neces-
sary. πλούσιος ὧν k. τ. A.J
“being rich in mercy,’ scarcely ‘ut qui
dives sit,’ Beza (comp. Madvig, Lat.
Gramm. ὃ 366. 2), as the participial
clause does not here so much assign the
reason, as characterize, in the form of a
secondary predicate of time, ‘being as
He is’ (compare Donalds. Gr. § 442. a)
the general principle under which the
divine compassion was exhibited. The
more particulur motive (De W.) is stated
in the succeeding clause. The expres-
sion πλούσιος ἐν (οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἐλεήμων,
Chrys.) occurs James ii. 5, and points to
the object or sphere in which the rich-
ness is apparent; compare 1 Cor. i. 5.
On the distinction between ἔλεος (‘ipsum
miseris succurrere studium’) and οἰκτιρ-
pos (‘ipsa tantum misericordia’), see
Tittm. Synon. p. 69 sq. ἣν nya-
πησεν ἣ μᾶ 5] ‘wherewith He loved us ;’
cognate accus., serving to add force and
emphasis to the meaning of the verb;
see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 200,
and in Donalds. Gr. § 466. The pro-
noun ἡμᾶς obviously includes both Jew-
ish and Gentile Christians, and is codx-
tensive with ἡμεῖς πάντες, ver. 3.

5. καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς vexp.| ‘even
while we were dead ;’ καὶ not being otiose
(comp. Syr., th.), nor simple copula

(Mey.), nor as a mere repetition of καί,
ver. 1, but qualifying ὄντας (Syr.-Phil.),
and suggesting more forciply than in
ver. 1 (where it qualifies ὑμᾶς) the might
of the quickening power of God which
extended even to a state of moral death.
Kal νεκροὺς x. τ. A. would certainly seem
a more natural order (Fritz. Conject. in
N. T. p. 45; comp. Chrys. τοὺς νεκρούς
ον τούτους ἐζωοπ.), but as St. Paul seems
to wish to make their state of death its
permanence and its endurance, more felt
than the mere fuct of it, the ascensive
particle is joined with the participle
rather than with the predicate; see
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 638.
συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Xp.| ‘He to-
gether quickened with Christ, not ‘in
Christ,’ Copt., Arm. (perhaps following
the reading συνεζ. ἐν, B; 17, al), but

‘with Christ,’ δ SeXS Syr. al.;
4

ἐζωοποίησε κἀκεῖνον καὶ ἡμᾶς, Chrysost.
The previous statement of the spiritual
nature of their death, and the similar
(but, owing to the mention of baptism,
not wholly parallel) passage, Col. ii. 19,
seem to show that συνεζ. has reference to
spiritual life, the life of grace. It is thus
not necessary to consider the realization
as future (Theod.), nor even with The-
ophyl. (ἡμᾶς δυνάμει viv μετ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ
καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ), to limit the present degree
of it: the aorist has its proper and char-
acteristic force; what God wrought in
Christ he wrought ‘ipso facto’ in all
who are united with Him. Meyer aptly
cites Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 206, ‘ponitur
aoristus de re, que quamvis futura sit,
tamen pro peracta recte censeatur....
cum alia re jam facta contineatur.’ It is
then just possible that cvve¢. may include
also a future and physical refcrence
(Rom. viii. 10, 11, see notes ver. 6), but
that its primary reference is to an actu-
ally existent and spiritual state, it seems

48 EPHESIANS.

Cuap. II. 6, 7.

' a a / ih mies , 6 ᾿
συνεζωοποιησεν τῷ Χριστῷ (χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι), καὶ

΄ \ / ? lal >? t > a? rn
συνηγειρεν, καὶ TUVEKUSLTEV EV τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν “Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ,

Zot. > s ? a bial a > ΄ ΑΝ ἘΠῚ ΄ὔ
ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένους TO ὑπερβάλλον

very difficult to deny. Χάριτί
ἐστε σεσωσμένοι] ‘by grace have ye
been (and are ye) saved;’ see notes on
ver. 8. This emphatic mention of grace
(grace, not works) is to make the readers
fecl what their own hearts might other-
wise have caused them to doubt, — the
real and vital truth, that they have pres-
ent and actual fellowship with Christ in
the quickening, — yea, and even in the
resurrectionary and glorifying power of
God; see esp. Origen (Cram. Caten.),
and comp. Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch.
y. 1 (ad. init.).

6. cuyHyetpev.... συνεκάδι-
σεν] ‘He raised us with (Him), He en-
throned us with (Him). The simple
meaning of these verbs, and esp. of the
latter, seems to confine the reference to
what is future and objective. Still, as
συνεζωοποίησεν, though primarily spirit-
ual and present, may have a physical
and future reference, — so here con-
versely, a present spiritual resurrection
and enthronement may also be alluded
to; as Andrewes truly says, ‘even now
we sit there in Him, and shall sit with
Him in the end,’ Serm. vit. in Vol. 1. p.
115 (A. C. Libr.). This may be referred
(a) to the close nature of our union with
Christ, so that His resurrection and ex-
altation may be said, in Him, to be actu-
ally ours (κεφαλὴ γὰρ ἡμῶν 6 συνεδρεύων,
ἀπαρχὴ ἡμῶν 6 συμβασιλεύων, Theod.),
or, more simply, ()) to that divine effi-
cacy of the quickening power of God
which extends itself to issues spiritually
indeed present (Phil. iii. 20, Rev. i. 6),
but, strictly speaking, future and contin-
gent; comp. esp. Rom. viii. 30, where the
aorists are used with equal significance
and effect. ἐν Tots ἐπουρανί-
οι5] ‘in the heavenly places ;’ see notes,
ch. 1, 8, 20, Bengel has noticed how

appropriately St. Paul omits the specific
ev δεξιᾷ, of ch. i. 20; ‘non dicit in dex-
trad; Christo sua manet excellentia ;’
comp. Hst. in loc. ἐν Xp. Ἰησοῦ
must not be connected simply with ἐν
τοῖς ἐπουρ. (Peile, Eadie), but with συνή-
γειρεν and συνεκάϑισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ. ;
comp. ch.i.38. At first sight the clause
might seem superfluous, but more atten-
tively considered, it will be found to
define the deep, mystical nature of the
union; God ἤγειρεν, ἐκάϑίσεν, ἡμᾶς, not
only σὺν Xp., but ἐν Xp.; not only with
Christ by virtue of our fellowship, but
in Christ by virtue of our mystical, cen-
tral, and organic union with Him. On
the nature of this union, see Hooker,
Serm. 111. Vol. iii. p. 762 (ed Keble),
Ebrard, Dogmatik, ὁ 445, Vol. 11. p. 823,
Martensen, Dogmatik, § 176. obs.

7. ἵνα ἐνδείξηται) ‘in order that
He might show forth ;’ divine purpose of
the gracious acts specified in ver. 5, 6.
The middle voice ἐνδείξασϑαι is not used
(either here or Rom. ii. 15, ix. 17, 22, 2
Cor. viii. 24) with any reference to ‘a
sample or specimen of what belonged to
Him’ (Riick., Eadie), but either simply
implies ‘for Himself,’ 7. 6.,) ‘for His
glory’ (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 363.1), ‘let be
seen, (Peile), or, still more probably, is
used with only that general subjective
reference, ‘show forth his, ete.’ (the
‘dynamic’ middle of Kriiger, Sprachil.
ὁ δῶ. 8. 5; see Kuster de Verb. Med. ὁ
58, and exx. in Rost. u. Palm. Lez. s.
y.), which, owing to the following αὐτοῦ,
can hardly be retained in translation.
The word occurs eleven times in the N.
T. (only in St. Paul’s Epp. and Heb.),
always in the middle voice. In fact, as
δείκνυμι is but rarely used in the middle
voice, though in a few formule (see Ast,
Lex, Plat. s. y.) it involves a middle

Cuap. II. 8.

EPHESIANS.

49

A a / ’ a > , JE ke ς a 5) ΄ a
πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ

᾿Ιησοῦ.

sense; so ἐνδείκνυμαι, Which is not com-
mon in the act., except in legal forms,
may in the middle inyolve little more
than an active meaning; comp. Donalds.
Gr. § 484, p. 447. τοῖς αἰῶσιν
τοῖς ἐπερχ.] ‘to the ages which are
coming.’ ‘These words have been unduly
limited. Any special reference to the
then present and immediately coming
age (‘per omne vestrum tempus,’ Mor.),
or to the still future kingdom of Christ,
the αἰὼν 6 μέλλων, ch. i. 21 (Harl., Olsh.),
seems precluded respectively by the use
of the plural and the appended pres.
part. érepxou. The most simple mean-
ing appears to be ‘the successively ar-
riving ages and gencrations from that
time to the sccond coming of Christ,’
‘tempora inde ab apostolicis illis ad
finem mundi secutura,’ Wolf. Such
expressions as the present deserve espe-
cial notice, as they incidentally prove
how very ill-founded is the popular opin-
ion adopted by Meyer and others, that
St. Paul believed the Advent of the
Lord to be close at hand; see on 1 Thess.
iv. 15. τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦ-
το 5] ‘the exceeding riches ;’ an especially
and studiedly strong expression designed
to mark the ‘satis superque’ of God’s
grace in our redemption by Christ ;
comp. ch. iii. 20,1 Tim. i. 14, and see
Andrewes, Serm. 1. Vol. 11. p. 197 (A.
C. Libr.). The neuter πλοῦτος is adopted
with ABD!FG; 17 67**: Orig. (1), and
by Lachm., Tisch., and most recent ed-
itors. ἐν χρηστότητι ep
ἡμᾶς ἐν Χρ. Ἰησ᾿Ἶ ‘in goodness towards
us in Christ Jesus ;’ a single compound
modal clause appended to ἐνδειξ. ; ἐν xp.
ἐφ᾽ ju. being closely connected (comp.
Luke vi. 35; the art. is not necessary,
see notes, ch. i. 6), and defining accu-
rately the manner in which God displays
‘the riches of His grace,’ while ἐν X. Ἴ.

7

A \ a
“Th γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως: Kal

(‘in,’ not ‘through Christ Jesus,’ Auth. ;
see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 note)
specifies, as it were, the ever-blessed
sphere to which its manifestations are
confined, and in which alone its opera-
tions are felt. Well do Calvin and Stier
call attention to this ‘notanda repetitio
nominis Christi’ (contrast the melan-
choly want of appreciation of this in
De W.), and the reiteration of that eter-
nal truth which pervades this divine
epistle, — ‘nur in Christo Jesu das alles,
und anders nicht,’ Stier, p. 273; see
notes on ch, i. 3. On the meaning
of χρηστότης see notes on Gal. ν. 22.

8. τῇ yap χάριτί[] ‘For by grace ;’
confirmatory explanation of the truth
and justice of the expression τὸ ὑπερβ.
κι τ. A., by a recurrence to statement
made parenthetically in ver. 5. The
article is thus not added merely because
χάρις ‘expresses an idea which is famil-
iar, distinctive, and monadic in its na-
ture’ (1416), but because there a retro-
spective reference to χάριτι, ver. 5, where
the noun, being used adverbially, is
properly anarthrous; see Middleton,
Greek Art. v. 2, p. 96 (ed. Rose). It
may be observed that the emphasis rests
on τῇ χάριτι, the further member διὰ τῆς
πίστεως being added to define the weighty
ἐστε σεσωσμένοι: χάρις is the objective,
operating and instrumental cause of sal-
vation, πίστις the subjective medium by
which it is received, the causa apprehen-
dens, or to use the language of Hooker,
‘the hand which putteth on Christ to
justification,’ Serm. 11. 31; comp. Water-
land, Justif. Vol. v1. p. 22, and a good
sermon by Sherlock, Vol. 1. p. 323 sq-
(ed. Oxf.). ἐστε σεσωσμένοιἶ]
‘ye have been (and are) saved.’ It is
highly improper to attempt to dilute
either the normal meaning of the verb
(‘salyum facio,’ ‘ad cternam yitam per-

50

EPHESIANS.

Crap. II. 9.

a > 5) ea A \ A Ὁ, 05 2 Ὁ “ ΄
τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον: ὅ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις

duco,’ see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v.) or the
proper force of the tense. The perfect
indicates ‘actionem plane preteritam,
que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est,
aut per effectus suos durat’ (Poppo, Progr.
de emend. Matth. Gramm. p. 6), and, in a
word, serves to connect the past and the
present, while the aorist leaves such a
connection wholly unnoticed; see esp.
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 56, and compare
Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 32. 5, p. 342. Thus,
then, ἐστὲ σεσωσμ. denotes a present
state as well as a terminated action; for,
as Eadie justly observes, ‘Salvation is a
present blessing, though it may not be
fully realized.’ On the other hand, ἐσώ-
Snuev (Rom. viii. 24) is not ἐν τοῖς
σωζομένοις ἐσμέν (Peile), but simply ‘we
were saved,’ the context (ἐλπίδι) supply-
διὰ
τῆς πίστεω 5] ‘through your faith;’
subjective medium and condition; see
above, and compare Hammond, Pract.
Catech. p. 42 (A.C. Libr.). The modi-
fication suggested by Bull (‘per fidem
hic intelligit obedientiam evangelio przs-
titam cujus fides specialiter sic dicta non
tantum initium est sed et radix et funda-
mentum,’ Harm. Apost. τ. 12.8) is here
not necessary. The contrast with ἐξ
ἔργων and connection with χάριτι, seem
to show that πίστις is ‘reliance on the
divine grace’ (Waterland, Just?f. Vol.
ΥἹ p. 87), ‘the living capacity,’ as it is
termed by Olsh., ‘for receiving the pow-
ers of a higher world;’ xdpis being thus
identical with imparting, πίστις with re-
ceiving love; see Olshaus. on Rom. iii.
21, and comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p.
tole Lachm. omits the article with
BD!IFG; 4 mss.; Chrys., al.; the ex-
ternal authority, however [AD°EKL;
nearly all mss.; Theod., Dam., al.],
seems slightly in favor of the text.

καὶ τοῦτο] ‘and this, sc. τὸ σεσωσμ.
εἶναι (Theoph. 2), not ‘nempe hoe quod

ing the necessary explanation.

credidistis,’ Bull, loc. cit., with Chrys.,
Theod., Theoph. 1, al.; see Suicer,
Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 728. Grammat-
ically considered, καὶ τοῦτο (= καὶ ταῦτα,
Rost u. Palm, Lez. 5. v. οὗτος, Vol. 11.
p- 599) might be referred to a verbal
notion (τὸ πιστεύειν) derived from πίσ-
τις, but the logical difficulty of such a
connection with ἐξ ἔργων (parallel and
explanatory to ἔξ ὑμῶν) seems insupera-
ble. Still it may be said that the clause
καὶ τοῦτο K. τ. A. was suggested by the
mention of the subjective medium πίστις,
which might be thought to imply some
independent action on the part of the
subject (compare Theod.); to prevent
even this supposition, the Apostle has
recourse to language still more rigor-
ously exclusive. Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον]
‘of God is the gift, scil. Θεοῦ δῶρον τὸ
δῶρον ἐστί; the gen. Θεοῦ (emphatic, on
account of antithesis to ὑμῶν) being thus
the predicate, τὺ δῶρον (‘the peculiar
gift in question,’ τὸ σεσωσμ. εἶναι διὰ τῆς
πίστ.), the subject of the clause; see
Riickert zn loc. Harl., Lachm., and De
W. inclose these words in a parenthesis,
but certainly without reason ; the slight
want of connection seems designed to
add force and emphasis.

9. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων] ‘not of works;’
more exact explanation of the preced-
ing οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, and thus standing more
naturally in connection with καὶ τοῦτο
than with τὸ δῶρον ἐστί (Meyer). The
sense,- héwever, in either case is the
The grammatical meaning of ἐξ
ἔργων is investigated in notes on Gal. ii.
16; its doctrinal applications are noticed
by Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 419
(Bohn). ἵνα μή τις Kavx.]
‘that no man should boast ;’ purpose of
God, involved in and included in the
‘lex suprema’ alluded to in the fore-

same.

going οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ; comp. Rom. iii. 27.
The repression of boasting was not the

Cuap. IT. 10.
καυχήσηται

primary and special object of God’s ap-
pointment of salvation by grace through
faith (compare Mackn.), still less was it
merely the result (Peile), but was a pur-
pose (ἵνα εὐγνώμονας περὶ τὴν χάριν ποιήσῃ,
Chrys.), that was necessarily inseparable
from His gracious plan of man’s salva-
On the force and use of ἵνα, see
notes on ch. i. 17.

10. αὐτοῦ yap x. τ. A.] ‘for we are
His handiwork, ‘ipsius enim sumus fac-
tura,’ Vulg.; proof of the foregoing sen-

tion.

tences καὶ τοῦτο---δῶρον and οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων;
the emphatic αὐτοῦ pointing to the posi-
tive statement that the gift of salvation
comes from God, and the assertion of
our being His (spiritual) ποίημα, to the
negative statement that salvation is not
ef ὑμῶν, or as further explained, οὐκ ἐξ
ἔργων. If we are God’s ποίημα, our sal-
vation, our all must be due to Him
(comp. Bramhall, Castig. Vol. 1v. 232,
A. C. Libr.) ; if we are a spiritual ποίημα
αἰνίττεται,
Chrys.), spiritually formed and designed
for good works, our salvation can never
be ἐξ ἔργων (whether of the natural,
moral, or ritual law which preceded that
ἀνάκτισι5).; see Neander, Planting, Vol.
I. p. 476 note (ed. Bohn). κτισ-
ϑέντες ἐν Χρ. Ἴη σ.] ‘created in Christ
Jesus ;’ defining clause, explaining the
true application and meaning of the pre-
ceding ποίημα ; compare ver. 15, the ex-
pression καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor. ν. 17, Gal.
vi. 15, and notes in loc. That the refer-
ence of ποίημα is not to the physical, and
that of κτισῶ. to the spiritual creation
(‘quantum ad substantiam fecit, quan-
tum ad gratiam condidit,’ Tertull. Mare.
v.17), but that both refer to the spiritual
ἀνάκτισις, seems contextually necessary,
and is asserted by the best ancient (od
κατὰ τὴν πρώτην λέγει δημιουργίαν, ἀλλὰ
κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν, Theod., compare
(ξσαμ.), and accepted by the best mod-

‘ 2 / 9 σι
(τὴν ἀναγέννησιν ἐνταῦϑα

EPHESIANS.

51

105.982 α 2 2 , δέ 2 x a
αὐτου yap EO MEV ποίημα, KTLOJEVTES EV βίστῳ

ern commentators ; still it does not seem
improbable that the more general and
inclusive word ποίημα was designed to
suggest the analogy (Harl.) between the
physical creation and the spiritual re-cre-
ation of man. For a sound sermon on
this text see Beveridge, Serm. 1v. Vol.
11. p. 417 sq. (A. C. Libr.). ἐπὶ
ἔργοις ἀγάϑοι5)] ‘for good works,’
ἢ. e., ‘to do good works ;’ ἐπὶ denoting
the object or purpose for which they
were created ; see Winer, Gi. § 48. ¢, p.
351, notes on Gal. v. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 7,
and exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p.
546. On the doctrinal and _ practical
aspects of the clause, see Beveridge, Serm.
1. Vol. 11. p. 418. ois προητοί-
μασεν] ‘which God afore prepared,

aa} Seo — [ab initio pa-

ravit] Syr., ‘prius paravit,’ Copt. /£th.,
‘preparavit, Vulg., Clarom. The con-
struction, meaning, and doctrinal signifi-
cance of these words has been much dis-
cussed. We may remark briefly, (1)
that owing to the absence of the usual
accus. after προητοίμ. (Isaiah xxviii. 24,
Wisdom ix. 8, Rom. ix. 23), οἷς cannot
be ‘the dative of the object,’ ‘for which
God hath from the first provided,’ Peile,
but is simply (by the usual attraction)
for ἅ; Winer, Gir. § 24.1, p. 188, and ὃ
22 4S obs. ps lids Son Vulos Syn,
Copt., al., and the majority of commen-
tators. (2) Προητοίμ. is not neuter
(Beng., Stier); the simple verb is so
used Luke ix. 52, 2 Chron. i. 4 (1), but
there is no evidence of a similar use of
the compound. Nor is it equivalent (in
regard to things) with προορίζω (in re-
gard to persons), Harl., a paraphrastic
translation rightly condemned by Fritz.
Rom. ix. 23, ‘aliud est enim parare, ἕτοι-
μάζειν [to make ἕτοιμα, ἕτ a, see Rost u.
Palm, Lex. 5. v. ἕτοιμος], aliud definire,
‘dépiCev, Vol. 11. p. 339. Lastly, neither

52

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IL. 11.

᾽ πὰ ὧν » -“ Ὁ Ud e \ “ > > a
Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαδοῖς, ois προητοίμασεν ὁ Θεὸς iva ἐν αὐτοῖς

περιπατήσωμεν.

Remember that ye were
once aliens, but have now
been brought nigh.

here nor Rom. /. 6. must the force of
πρὸ be neglected; comp. Philo, de Opif.
§ 25, Vol. 1. p. 18 (ed. Mang.), as
OikewoTaTw . . . (dw τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πάντα
rightly translated by
Fritz., ‘ante paravit quam conderet.’
(3) Thus, then, we adhere to the sim-
plest meaning of the words, using the
latter part of the clause to explain any
ambiguity of expression in the former:
“God, before we were created in Christ,
made ready for us, pre-arranged, prepared
a sphere of moral action, or (to use the
simile of Chrys.) a road, with the intent
that we should walk in it, and not leave
it; this sphere, this road was ἔργα ἀγαϑά;
comp. Beveridge, Serm. ἰ. c. p. 428. On
the important doctrinal statement fairly
deducible from this text, —‘bona opera
sequuntur hominem justificatum, non
precedunt in homine justificando,’ see
Jackson, Creed, x1. 30. 6.

11. διό] ‘ Wherefore, ‘since God has
youchsafed such blessings to you and to
all of us;’ not in exclusive reference to

προητοιμάσατο,

ver. 10, ὅτι ἐκτίσϑημεν ἐπ᾽ ἔργοις ἀγαδοῖς,
Chrys., nor alone to ver. 4—10 (Meyer),
but, as the use of ὑμεῖς (compare ver.
1) suggests, to the whole, or rather to
the declaratory portion of the foregoing
paragraph, ver. 1—7; ver. 7—10 being
an argumentative and explanatory addi-
tion. On St. Paul’s use of διό, comp.
notes on (ral. iy. 31. The construc-
tion, which is not perfectly clear, is com-
monly explained by the introduction of
ὄντες before τὰ ἔϑνη (Fuld.), or ἦτε be-
fore (Syr.), or after (Goth.) ἐν σαρκί.
This is not necessary; the position of
ποτὲ (as rightly maintained by Lachm.
Tisch., with ABD!E; Clarom., Sang.,
Aug., Vulg., al.) seem to suggest that
τὰ ἔϑνη K. τ. A. is simply in apposition to

ll \ ΄ Ψ N Jet ΟΣ a, 2
Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔδνη ἐν
σαρκί, οἱ Χλεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομέ-

ὑμεῖς. Ὅτι and ποτὲ are then respec-
tively resumed by ὅτι and τῷ καιρῷ
ἐκείνῳ in ver. 12; see Meyer zn loc.

τὰ €dvn ἐν σαρκί] ‘Gentiles in the
flesh.” On the correct insertion of the
article before ἔϑνη (to denote class, cate-
gory), see Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 2. 2, p.
40 (Rose); and on its equally correct
omission before ἐν (τὰ ἔν. ἐν o. forming
only one idea), see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2,
p- 128, notes ch. i. 15, and Fritz. Rom.
111, 25, Vol. 1. p. 195. Ἔν σαρκὶ is not
in reference ‘to their natural descent’
(Hamm.), nor to their corrupted state
(οὐκ ἐν πνεύματι, Theoph., ‘ unregenerate
Gentiles,’ Peile; compare Syr.), but, az
the use of the word below distinctly sug,
gests, to the corporeal mark: ‘ preeputium
profani hominis indicium erat,’ Caly.
They bore the proof of their Gentilism
in their flesh and on their bodies.

of λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία K.TA.]
‘who are called (contemptuously) the Un-
circumcision by the so-called Circumcision.’
Both ἀκροβ. and wepit. are used as the
distinctive names or titles of the two
classes, Gentiles and Jews. On the
omission of the art. before ἀκροβυστ. (a
verb ‘yocandi’ having preceded), see
Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3. 2, p. 43 (Rose),
and on the derivation of the word (an
Alexandrian corruption of ἀκροποσδία),
Fritz. Rom. ii. 26, Vol. 1. p. 186.

ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήῆ του ‘wrought
by hand in the flesh, ‘et est opus manuum
in carne,’ Syr.; a tertiary predication
(see Donalds. Gr. § 479 sq., and observe
the idiomatically exact transl. of Syr.),
added by the Apostle reflectively rather
than descriptively ; ‘the circumcision, —
yes, hand-wrought in the flesh, only a
visible manual operation on the flesh,
when it ought to be a secret spiritual

Cuap. II. 12.

EPHESIANS. 53

an “ \ Ω δ 3 - “-
UNS περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου, "" OTL ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ

process in the heart, only κατατομή, not
περιτομή ;” comp. Rom. ii. 28, 29, Phil.
iii. 8, Col. ii. 11. Thus, then, as Calvin
rightly felt, the Apostle expresses no
contempt for the outward rite, which he
himself calls a σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης,
Rom. iv. 11, but only (as the present
words suggest) at the assumption of
such a title (observe τῆς λεγομ., not τῶν
Aeyou.) by a people who had no concep-
tion of its true and deep significance.
The Gentiles were called, and were the
ἀκροβυστία ; the Jews were called, but
were not truly the περιτομή.

12. ὅτε ἦτ ε] ‘that ye were ;’ resump-
tion of the ὅτι in ver. 11, and continua-
tion of the suspended sentence; see
notes on ver. 11. τῷ καιρῷ
ἐκείν ῳ] ‘at that time;’ ‘in your hea-
then state.” The prep. ἐν (here rightly
omitted by Lachm., Tisch., with ABD!
FG; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Aug.; al.;
Chrys.), though occasionally omitted (2
Cor. vi. 2 quotation, Gal. vi. 9), is more
commonly, and indeed more correctly
inserted in this and similar forms ; com-
pare Rom. iii. 26, xi. 5, 2 Cor. viii. 13,
2 Thess. ii. 6, and see Wannowski,
Constr. Abs. 111. 1, p. 88, Madvig, Synt.
§ 39, and comp. ib. Lat. Gr. § 276.
ἦτε.... χωρὶς Χριστοῦ) ‘ye were
-... without Christ ;’ χωρὶς Xp. forming
a predicate (Syr.; ‘et nesciebatis Chris-
tum,’ Aith.), not a limiting clause to ἦτε
ἀπηλλοτρ. (De W., Eadie), —a singu-
larly harsh construction. The Ephe-
sians, whom St Paul here views as the
representatives of Gentilism (Olshaus.),
were, in their heathen ante-Christian
state, truly χωρὶς Xp., without the Messiah,
without the promised Seed (contrast
Rom. ix. 4 sq.); now, however, ‘eum
possidetis non minus quam ii quibus
promissus fuerat,’ Grot. in loc. The two
following clauses, each of two parts,
then more exactly elucidate the signifi-

cance of the expression. On the
distinction between ἄνευ (‘absence of
object from subject’) and χωρὶς (‘separa-
tion of subject from object’), see Tittm.,
Synon. p. 94. This distinction, however,
does not appear perfectly certain (comp.
Phil. ii. 14, with 1 Pet. iv. 9), and must,
at all events, be applied with caution,
when it is remembered that χωρὶς is used
forty times in the N. T., and ἄνευ only
three times, viz., Matt. x. 29, 1 Pet. iii.
1, iv. 9. Where, in any given writer or
writers, there is such a marked preference
for one rather than another of two per-
fectly simple words, it is well not to be
hypercritical. ἀπηλλοτρεωμέ.
νοι «. τ. A.] ‘being aliens, or in a state
of alienation, from the commonwealth of
Israel ;’ in opp. to συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων,
ver. 19. There is a slight difficulty in
the exact meaning and application of
the words. Reversing the order, for the
sake of making the simpler word define
the more doubtful, we may observe that
Ἰσραὴλ is clearly the theocratic name
of the Jewish people, the title which
marks their re/igious and spiritual, rather
than their national or political distine-
tions; see Rom. ix. 6.1 Cor, x. 18, Gal.
vi. 16. From this it would seem to fol-
low that πολιτεία, which may be
either {a) ‘reipublice forma, status, τῶν
τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων τάξις τις, Aristot.
Pol. 111. 1.1 (compare 2 Mace. iv. 11,
νομίμους πολιτείας Opp. tO παρανόμους
ἐδισμούς, Vill. 17, προγονική πολιτεία), ---
or (b) ‘jus civitatis’ (compare Acts xxii.
28, 3 Mace. iii. 21),—or (c) ‘vivendi
ratio’ (comp. Vulg., Clarom., ‘ conversa-
tione’—; see Theoph. on ver. 13, and
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 795), is
here used only in the first sense, and
with a distinctly spiritual application; so
/#th.-Platt, Arm., and most modern .
commentators. The gen. is thus, not
that of the ‘identical motion,’ 6. g. ἄστυ

δ4

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. II. 12.

χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, ἀπηχλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ

᾿Αϑηνῶν (Harl.), but a simple possessive
gen., — the ‘reipublice status’ which
belonged to Israel. ἀπηλλοτρι-
wuévot, a noticeable and emphatic
word (οὐκ εἶπε κεχωρισμένοι .. .. πολλὴ
τῶν ῥημάτων ἡ ἔμφασις πολὺν δεικνῦσα
τὸν χωρισμόν, Chrys.), seems to hint at
a state of former unity and fellowship,
and a lapse or separation (ἀπὸ) from it ;
comp. ch. iv. 18, Col. 1. 21, Ecclus. xi.
34, 3 Mace. i. 3, Joseph. Antig. x1. 5. 4,
and exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 295,
and Schweigh. Polyb. Lex. 5. v. This
union, though not historically demon-
strable, is no less spiritually true. Jew
and Gentile were once under one spirit-
ual πολιτεία, of which the Jewish was a
subsequent visible manifestation. The
Gentile lapsed from it, the Jew made it
invalid (Matt. xv. 6, compare Chrys.) ;
and they parted, only to unite again,
ἔϑνη καὶ λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ (Acts iv. 27), in
one act of uttermost rebellion, and vet,
through the mystery of redeeming Love,
to remain thereby (ver. 15, 16) united in
Christ forever. ξένοι τῶν δια-
ϑη κῶν] ‘strangers from the covenants ;’
second and more specializing part of the
first explanatory clause. The gen. after
ξένος is not due to any quasi-participial
power (Eadie), but belongs to the cate-
gory of the (inverted) possessive gen.
(Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 49, p. 171), or
perhaps rather to the gen. of ‘the point
of view’ (‘extraneos quod ad pactoruam
promissiones attinet,’ Beza) ; see Scheu-
erl. Synt. § 18. 8, a, p. 135. The use of
the plural διαϑῆκαι must not be limited,
either here or Rom. ix. 4, to the two
tables of the law (Elsn., Wolf), nor again
unnecessarily extended to God’s various
covenant promises to Dayid and the peo-
ple (comp. De W.), but appears simply
to refer to the several renewals of the
covenant with the patriarchs; see esp.
Wisdom xviii. 22, ὅρκους πατέρων καὶ

διαϑήκας, 2 Macc. viii. 15, τὰς πρὸς τοὺς
πατέρας αὐτῶν διαϑήκας ; compare Rom.
xy. 8. The great Messianic promise
(Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8; Chrys.
Theophyl.) was the subject and substra-
tum of all. ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχον-
τες] ‘not having hope,’ Auth., ‘spem non
habentes,’ Vulg., Clarom., comp. Syr. ;
general consequence of the alienation
mentioned in the preceding member ;
not however with any special dependence
on that clause, scil. ὥστε μὴ ἔχειν ἐλπίδα,
‘so that you had no (covenanted) ‘hope,’
‘spem promissioni respondentem,’ (Ben-
gel, comp. Harl.),— for (a) the absence
of the article shows that ἐλπίδα cannot
here be in any way limited, but is simply
‘hope’ in its most general meaning, and
(0) μὴ can be no further pressed than as
simply referring to the thought and feel-
ing of the subject introduced by μνημο-
vevere, ver. 11, ‘having (as you must have
felt) no hope;’ comp. Winer, Gr. § 55.
5, p. 428, Herm. Viger, No. 267, and the
good collection of exx. in Gayler, Par-
tic. Neg. ch. 1x. p. 275 sq. On the gen-
eral use in the N. T. of μὴ with partici-
ples, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 15.

ἄϑεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] ‘without God
in the world ;’ objective negation (ἀ being
here equivalent to ov with an adjective,
Harl.; see, however, Gayler, Partie. Neg.
p- 85), forming the climax and acecumu-
lation of the misery involved in χωρὶς
Χριστοῦ ; they were without church and
without promise, without hope, and, in
the profane wicked world (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ
being in contrast to πολιτ. τοῦ “Iop., and
like it ethical in its reference), — without
God. *ASeos may be taken either with
active, neuter, or passive reference, 7. e.,
either denying (see exx. Suicer, Thes.
s. y.), ignorant of (Gal. iv. 8; ‘nescie-
batis Deum,’ A®th., ἔρημοι τῆς ϑεογνω-
σίας, Theod., comp. Clem. Alex, Pro-
trept. 14), or forsaken by God (Soph.

=!

Cnap. 11. 13, 14.

EPHESIANS. ΓΓ

ξένοι τῶν διαδηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ ἄδεοι

> A Ul 13 \ \ τὶ an? lal - lal "“ v
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ “᾿ νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὑμεῖς ov ποτε ὄντες

\ » \ 5 Ay 2 eee 4 n xX a Was: τ στον ,
μακρὰν ἐγγὺς Eyer NTE EV TH αἰματι TOU Δριστου. αὑτὸς yap

(Ed. Rex, 661, ἄϑεος, ἄφιλος) ; the last
meaning seems best to suit the passive
tenor of the passage, and to enhance the
dreariness and gloom of the picture.
On the religious aspects of heathenism,
see the good note of Harless in loc.

13. νυνὶ δέ] ‘ But now;’ in antithe-
sis 10 τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῷ, ver. 12, ἐν
Xp. Ἰησοῦ] ‘in Christ Jesus ;’ promi-
nent and emphatic; standing in imme-
diate connection with νυνί (not ἐγενή-
ϑητε, Mey.), which it both qualifies and
characterizes, and forming a contrast to
χωρὶς Xp., ver. 12, The addition of
᾿Ιησοῦ, far from being an argument
against such a contrast (Mey.), is, in
fact, almost confirmatory of it. Such
an addition was necessary to make the
circumstances of the contrast fully felt.
Then, they were xwpls Xp., separate
from and without part in the Messiah, —
now they were not only ἐν Χριστῷ but
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, in a personal Saviour,
—in One who was no longer their future
hope, but their present salvation. The
personal reference is appropriately con-
tinued by ἐν τῷ αἵματι, --- πού merely
αὐτοῦ, but τοῦ Xp.; He who poured out
His blood, Jesus of Nazareth, was truly
Christ. ἐγγὺς ἐγενήϑητ εἶ
‘became nigh, were brought nigh to God’s
holy and spiritual πολιτεία ; οἱ μακρὰν
ὄντες τῆς πολιτ. τοῦ Ἴσρ., τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν
ἐγγὺς ἐγενήϑητε, Gicum. On the pas-
sive form éyevns. see notes on ch. 11]. 7,
and on the use of the words μακράν and
ἐγγὺς in designating Gentiles and Jews
(comp. the term προσήλυτοι), see the very
good illustrations of Schoettgen, Hor.
Heb. Vol. τ. p. 761 sq. and of Wetst. in
loc. ; comp. also Isaiah lvii. 19, Dan. ix.
7, and Valck. on Acts. ii. 39 (cited by
Grinfield, Schol. Hell.). The order
eyev. ἐγγὺς is adopted by Lachm. with

AB; mss.; Aug, Vulg., Goth., al. but
seems due to a mistaken correction of
the emphatic juxtaposition μακρὰν ἐγγύς.
ἐν τῷ αἵματι] ‘by the blood;’ ἐν hay-
ing here appy. its instrumental force ;
see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346. No very
precise distinction can be drawn between
this use and διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. ch. i. 7. We
may perhaps say the latter implies medi-
ate and more simple, the former, zmma-
nent instrumentality ; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ
622. 3, Winer, /. c. p. 347 note, and notes
on 1 Thess. iv. 418.

14. αὐτὸς γάρ] ‘For He—and
none other than He;’ confirmatory ex-
planation of ver. 13, the emphasis rest-
ing, not on εἰρήνη ἡμῶν (De W.), but, as
the prominent position of ἐν Xp. Ἴησ.
and repetition of Χριστοῦ, ver. 13, seem
decisively to show, — on αὐτός, which is
thus no mere otiose pronoun (compare
Thiersch, de Pentat. p. 98), but is used
with its regular and classical signifi-
cance; see Winer, Gr. § 22. 4, obs. p.
135, and comp. Herm de Pronom. αὐτός,
ἘΠ ΟΣ: εἰρήνη ἡμῶν] ‘our
Peace.’ Though the context, and parti-
ciple defining 6 ποιήσας scem very dis-
tinctly to prove that εἰρήνη is here used
in some degree ‘ per metonymiam ’ (com-
pare 1 Cor. i. 30, Col. i. 27), and so ina
sense but little differing from εἰρηνοποιός
(Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 253), the abstract
subst still has and admits of a fuller
and more general application. Not only
was Christ our ‘ Pacificator,’ but our
‘Pax,’ the true ch+v ay (Isaiah ix. 5),
the very essence as well as the cause of
it; comp. Olsh. in loc. Thus considered,
εἰρήνη seems to have here its widest
meaning, — not only peace between Jew
and Gentile, but also between both and
God. In ver. 15 the context limits it to
the former reference; in ver. 17 it reverts

56

EPHESIANS.

Crxe. 11.015.

2 e 2 / « lal e 4 ἣν » + Δ \ \ ,
ἐστιν ἢ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα EV καὶ τὸ μεσότοίχον

τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας,

to its present and more inclusive refer-
ence. τὰ aupotepal ‘both,’
Jews and Gentiles; explained by τοὺς
δύο and τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους, ver. 15, 16.
We have here no ellipsis of γένη, vn
κι τ. A., but only the abstract and gener-
alizing neuter; see exx. in Winer, Gr. §
27. δ; p. 160: καί] ‘and,’ se.
‘namely ;’ the particle having here its
explanatory force; see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23,
Vol. 11. p. 339, Winer, Gr. § 53. 3. obs.
p- 388, and notes on Phil. iv. 11.

τὸ μεσότοιχον φραγμοῦ)
‘the middle wall of the fence or partition,’
scil. between Jew and Gentile. The
genitival relation has been differently
explained. There is of course no real
(Pisc.) or virtual (Beza) interchange of
words for τὸν φρ. Tod μεσοτ.; nor does
τοῦ φραγμοῦ appear to be here either (a)
a gen. of the characterizing quality, scil.
τὸ διαφράσσον, τὸ διατειχίζον (Chrys. 1.,
Harl.; comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. v1. 18,
p- 793, τὸ μεσότοιχον τὸ διορίζον) or ()
a gen. of identity, ‘the middle wall which
was or formed the φραγμός (Mey.), but
either (c) a gen. of origin, τὸ ἀπὸ φραγ-
pov (Chrys. 2), or still more simply (d)
a common possessive gen., ‘the wall
which pertained to, belonged to the
fence,’ — a use of the case which is far
from uncommon in the N. T., and ad-
mits of some latitude of application;
comp. Donalds. Gr. § 454. aa, p. 481 sq.
The exact reference of the φραγμὸς (372
Buxtorf Lex. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1447) is
also somewhat difficult to fix, as both
εἰρήνη and ἔχϑρα (ver. 15) and indeed
the whole tenor of the passage seem to
imply something more than the relations
of Jews and Gentiles to each other, and
must include the relations of both to
God; comp. Alf. in loc. If this be so,
the φραγμὸς would seem to mean the
Law generally (Zonaras, Ler. p. 1822),

τοῦ

5 ΕΣ) ~ A , -“ Ν ,
1 σὴν ἔχϑραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον

not merely the ceremonial law (Neander,
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 49, ed. Bohn), nor
the ‘discrimen prputii’ (Beng.) but
the whole Mosaic Law, esp. in its aspects
as a system of separation ; comp. Chrys.
in loc., who appositely cites Isaiah v. 2.
Whether there is any direct reference to
the ἑρκίον δρυφράκτου AwWivov (Joseph.
Antiq. XV. 11.6) between the courts of
the Jews and Gentiles (Hamm.) is per-
haps doubtful; see Meyer. We may
well admit, however, as indeed the spe-
cific and so to say localizing φραγμὸς
seems to suggest, an allusion both to
this and to the veil which was rent
(Matth. xxvii. 51) at our Lord’s cruci-
fixion ; the former illustrating the sepa-
ration between Jew and Gentile, the lat-
ter between both and God. As it has
been well remarked, the temple was, as
it were, a material embodiment of the
law, and in its very outward structure
was a symbol of spiritual distinctions ;
see Stier in loc. p. 322, 323.

15. τὴν ἔχϑραν) ‘the enmity ;’
‘ponenda hic ὑποστιγμή, Grot.; in ap-
position to, and a further explanation of
τὸ μεσ. τοῦ φρ., ‘to wit, the root of the
enmity (‘parietem, qui est odium,’ ΖΕ 1.)
between Jew and Gentile, and between
both and God. The exact reference of
ἔχϑραν has been greatly debated. That
it cannot imply exclusively (a) ‘the
enmity of Jews and Gentiles against
God’ (Chrys.), seems clear from the
foregoing context (compare 6 ποιῆσας τὰ
ἀμφότερα ἕν, ver. 14), in which the en-
mity between Jew and Gentile is dis-
tinctly alluded to. That it also cannot
denote simply (Ὁ) ‘the reciprocal enmity
of Jew and Gentile’ (Meyer, compare
Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 2. 1, p. 253), seems
also clear from its appositional relation
to μεσ. τοῦ φρ., from the preceding term
εἰρήνη, and from the subsequent explana-

Cuap. II. 15.

EPHESIANS. 57

la) > in’ > , ΤᾺ t/ NX ὃ 7 / ’ e a
τῶν ἐντολῶν EV δόγμασιν KaTapynoas, νῷ TOVS OVO KTLO7 EV εαυτῷ

tion afforded by τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντ. κι τ. A.
The reference then must be to both, sc.
to the @y3pa which was the result and
working of the law regarded as a system
of separation, — the enmity due not only
to Judaical limitations and antagonisms,
but also and, as the widening context
shows, more especially to the alienation
of both Jew and Gentile from God;
ἑκατέραν ἔχϑραν καὶ ἑκάτερον μεσότοιχον
ἔλυσε Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, Phot. ap.
cum. This, though not distinctly put
forward in ed. 1, and peremptorily re-
jected by De W. and Meyer, seems, on
reconsideration, the only explanation
that satisfies the strong term ἔχῶρα, and
the very inclusive context. ἐν τῇ
σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ] ‘in His crucified flesh ;’
comp. Col. i. 22, ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρ-
Kos αὐτοῦ, διὰ τοῦ ϑανάτου. These words
cannot be connected with τὴν ἔχϑραν
(Arm., Chrys., Cocc.), as in such a case
the article could not be dispensed with
even in the dialect of the N. T., but
must be joined as a specification of the
manner, or perhaps rather of the instru-
ment — either (a) with καταργήσας, to
which this clause is emphatically pre-
fixed (ed. 1, De W., Mey.), or perhaps
more naturally (b) with λύσας (Syr.
/Eth., Theod., Theoph., G&cum.), to
which it subjoins an equally emphatic
specification. Stier (compare Chrys.)
extends the ref. of σὰρξ to Christ’s incar-
nate state and the whole tenor of His
earthly life (‘ Fleisches-lebens’); comp.
Schulz, Abendm. p. 95 sq. This is doubt-
ful; the context appears to refer alone
to His death; compare ver. 13, ἐν τῷ
αἵματι, ver. 16, διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. On the
distinction between the σὰρξ and the
σῶμα (the σὰρξ δοϑεῖσα) of Christ, com-
pare Liicke on John vi. 51, Vol. 11.
Ρ. 149 sq.
évt. ἐν δόγμ.] ‘the law of ordinances
expressed in decrees,’ scil. ‘the law of

τὸν νόμον τῶν

decretory ordinances ;’ compare Col. u.
14. The Greek commentators join ev
δόγμ. with karapy., referring δόγματα
(scil. τὴν πίστιν, Chrys. τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν
διδασκαλίαν, Theod.) to Christian doc-
trines; this meaning of δόγμα in the
N. T. is, however, untenable. Harless
(comp. Syr.) retains the same construc-
tion, but regards ἐν δόγμ. as defining the
sphere in which the action of Christ’s
death was manifested, ‘on the side of,
in the matter of decrees.’ This is plaus-
ible, and much to be preferred to Fritz-
sche’s expl. ‘nova pracepta stabiliendo ’
(Dissert. ad 2 Cor. p. 168); still the
article {τοῖς δόγμ.) seems indispensable,
for, as Winer observes (Gr. p. 250, ed.
5) both the law and the side or aspect
under which it is viewed are fairly defi-
nite. We retain, therefore, the ordinary
explanation, according to which ἐν δόγμ.
is closely united with τῶν ἐντολῶν, and
therefore correctly anarthrous ; see Winer,
Gr. § 20. 2; and’ notes ch.1.15. ‘The
gen. ἐντολ. thus serves to express the
contents (Bernhardy. Synt. 111. 45, p.
163), ἐν δόγμ. the definite mandatory
form (‘legem imperiosam,’ Erasm.) in
which the ἐντολαὶ were expressed; see
Tholuck, Beitrége, p. 93 sq., and esp.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 31.10. obs. 1. p. 196 (ed.
6), but more fully in ed. 5, p. 250.

ἵνα τοὺς δύο κ. τ. λ.] ‘that He might
make the two in Himself into one new
man ;’ purpose of the abrogation ; peace
between Jew and Gentile by making
them (οὐκ εἶπε, “μεταβάλῃ᾽ ἵνα δείξῃ τὸ
ἐνεργὲς τοῦ γενομένου, Chrys.) in Him-
self, in His person (not δι’ ἑαυτοῦ,
Chrys.), into—not merely one man,
but one new man; ἕνα ἀνήνεγκε ϑαυμασ-
τόν, αὐτὸς τοῦτο πρῶτον γενόμενος, Chrys.
Meier’s assertion that καινὸς has here no
moral significance is obviously untena-
ble; comp. ch. iv. 24, and-notes in oe.
The reading is slightly doubtful. Lachm.

58

_EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IIL. 16.

, wo Ν » lal > , 16 \ ᾽ /
εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνδρωπον, ποιῶν εἰρήνην, καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ

adopts αὐτῷ with ABF; ten mss.; Pro-
cop..—a more difficult reading, but
appy. less strongly attested than ἑαυτῷ
[DEGKL; bulk of mss.], and not im-
probably due to the frequent confusion
between the oblique cases of αὐτὸς and
those of the reflexive pronoun.

ποιῶν εἰρήνην} ‘so making peace,’
5011. between Jews and Gentiles, and
between both and God, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,
kal πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Chrys.; contrast τὴν
ἔχϑραν, ver. 15. It may be observed
that the aorist is not used (as in ver. 16),
but the present; the ‘pacificatio’ is not
mentioned as in modal or causal depend-
ence on the ‘creatio,’ but simply as
extending over, and contemporaneous
with, the whole process of it; compare
Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 31, 2. a, p. 310.

16. ἀποκαταλλάξῃ] ‘and
might reconcile us; parallel purpose to
the foregoing, and stated second in
order, though really from the nature of
the case the first; the divine procedure
being, as De W. observes, stated regres-

καὶ

. ἵνα ἀποκατ. .- --
The double compound ἀπο-
κατ. is used only here and Col, i. 20, 21.
In both cases ἀπὸ does not simply
strengthen (6. g. ἀποϑαυμάζω, ἀπεργάζο-
μαι. Meyer, Eadie), but hints at a res-
toration to a primal unity, ‘reduxerit in
unum gregem,’ Caly.; compare ver. 13,
and Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 7, 8.
Chrys. gives rather a different and per-
haps doubtful turn, δεικνὺς ὅτι πρὸ τού-

sively, ἵνα κτίσῃ... ...
ἀποκτείνας.

Tov ἡ ἀνδρωπίνη φύσις εὐκατάλλακτος ἦν,
οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου.

The profound dogmatical considerations
connected with καταλλαγὴ (alike active
and objective, and passive and subjec-
tive, comp. 2 Cor. vy. 18 with ib. 20) are
treated perspicuously by Usteri, Lehrb.
11. 1. 1, p. 102 sq.; sce also Jackson,
Creed, Book x. 49. 8, Pearson, zbid.

Vol. 1. p. 430 sq. (Burton). ἐν

ἑνὶ σώματι] ‘in one (corporate) body,’
scil. in the Church. The reference to
the human σῶμα τοῦ Xp. (Chrys.) is
plausible, but on nearer examination not
tenable. Had this been intended, the
order (comp. the position of ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ
αὐτοῦ) would surely have been different,
if only to prevent this very connection
of τοὺς ἄμφοτ. and év ody. which their
present juxtaposition so obviously sug-
gests. Moreover, the query of B. Crus.,
why Christ’s human body should be
here designated ὃν σῶμα, has not been
satisfactorily answered, even by Stier;
the application of it to the mystical body
is intelligible and appropriate, comp. ch.
iv. 4. Ἔν does not thus become equiva-
lent to evs, but preserves its proper mean-
ing; they were κτισϑέντας eis ἕνα ἄνῶρ. ;
thus κτισϑέντας, Christ reconciles them
both ἐν é σώμ. (scil. ὄντας, Olsh.) to
God; see Winer, Gr. § 50 5, p. 370.
amoKktetvas| ‘having slain,’ ἃ. e., ‘after
He had slain ;’ temporal participle, stand-
ing in contrast with ποιῶν, ver. 15. The
use of the particular word has evidently
been suggested by διὰ σταυροῦ; not
λύσας, not ἀνελών, but ἀποκτείνας, ‘quia
crux mortem adfert,’ Grot.; and thus in
the words, though not the application
of Chrys., ὥστε μηκέτι αὑτὴν ἀναστῆναι.
The ἔχϑρα here specified is not merely
and exclusively the enmity between Jew
and Gentile (comp. ed. 1), but a/so, as
in ver. 15, and here even still more dis-
tinctly and primarily, the enmity be-
tween both and God ; μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸν
Θεόν: τὸ yap ἑξῆς τῦυτο δηλοῖ, Chrys.
comp. Alf. in oc. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in
it,’ scil. ‘upon it,” Hamm. —not ‘in cor-
pore suo,’ Bengel; see Col. ii. 15 and
notes in loc. In FG; Vulg. (‘in semet
ipso’) Syr.-Philox., and several Latin
ἘΠ, we find ἐν ἑαυτῷ ; the reading prob-
ably owes its origin and support to the
reference ἕν σῶμα to Christ.

Canela i718.

EPHESIANS. 59

\ ’ U >’ roo , a A \ a A > ,
TOUS ἀμφοτέρους εν EVL σώματι τῷ Θεῷ διὰ του σταῦρου, ATTOKTEL-

i »Μ > > lal 17 ὯΝ bs \ > / τὸ 4 ce! “-“
vas τὴν ἔχϑδραν ἐν αὐτῷ. καὶ ἐλὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν

a > a ΄ ῳ Ψ > Anal
τοῖς μακρὰν Kal εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς. OTL δι’ αὐτοῦ ἔγομεν τὴν
ἢ μ

17. καὶ ἐλχὃ ὦν] ‘And having come,
etc.;’ not ‘and came’ (Auth.), as_ this
obscures the commencement of the new
sentence (see Scholef. Hints, p. 100),
nor ‘and coming’ (Eadie), as the action
described by ἐλϑὼν is not here contem-
poraneous with, but prior to that of εὐηγ-
γελίσατο ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9,
p. 382. This verse seems clearly to
refer back to ver. 14, αὐτὸς γάρ κ. τ. λ.,
there being, as B. Crus. suggests, a faint
apposition between Xp. ἐστιν εἰρήνη, ver.
14, and εὐηγγελ. εἰρήνην, ver. 17; still, as
ver. 15 and 16 cannot be considered
parenthetical, the connection is carried
on by καί, and the verse is linked with
what immediately precedes. *“EASa@y thus
following ἀποκτείνας will more naturally
refer to a spiritual advent (see esp. Acts
Xxvi. 23), or a mediate advent in the
person of His Apostles, than to our
Lord’s preaching when on earth. ; com-
pare Acts xxvi. 23. The participle
ἐλϑὼν (no mere redundancy, Raphel,
Annot. Vol. 11. p. 471) in fact serves to
give a realistic touch to the whole group
of clauses; ‘Christ is our peace; yes,
and He came and by His Spirit and the
mouths of His Apostles He preached it ;’
see Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 338.
εἰρήνην] ‘peace, not only τὴν πρὸς τὸν
Θεόν (Chrys), but also τὴν πρὸς ἀλλή-
λους; see notes ver. 14, The repetition
of εἰρήνην is rightly maintained by Tisch.
with ABDEFG; mss.; Vulg., Clarom.,
Goth., Copt., /&th., Arm., and many
Ff. It gives an emphasis and solemnity
to the passage, which is here (though
denied by Stier, p. 370, comp. Bengel)
especially appropriate. Meyer compares
Rom. iii. 31, viii. 15.

18. ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] ‘seeing that
through Him,’ not merely explanatory,
‘to wit, that we have,’ (Baumg.), nor yet

strongly causal, ‘because we have, (Ben-
gel), but with somewhat more of a de-
monstrative or confirmatory force, ‘as it
is a fact that, etc.;’ compare 2 Cor i. 5,
and see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 7. The
‘probatio,’ as Calvin observes, is ‘ab
effectu ;’ the principal moment of
thought, however, does not rest on ἔχο-
μεν, on the reality of the possession
(Harl.), or on any appeal to inward
experience, ‘for — is it not so?’ (Stier),
but, as the order suggests, on δι᾽ αὐτοῦ,
on the matter of fact that it was ‘through
Him, and none but Him’ that we haye
this mpocaywyn. For a sound sermon
on this text, see Sherlock, Serm. xvt.
Vol. 1. p. 288 sq. (ed. Hughes).

ἔχομεν ‘we are having,’ present; the
action is still going on; contrast ἐσχήκα-
μεν, Rom. vy. 2, where the reference is to
the period when they became Christians,
and where, consequently, the mpocaywy)
is spoken of as a thing past. Thy
Tpoctaywyny| ‘our introduction, admis-
sion, ‘quia ipse adduxit,’ /Eth.; not intran-
sitively, either here or Rom. v. 2, scil.
‘access,’ Auth, ‘accessum,’ Vulg., ad-
ventum (dshini), Copt, ‘atgagg,’ Goth.,
—but transitively, ‘adeundi copiam,’
‘admissionem,’ the latter being the pri-
mary and proper meaning of the word ;
see Meyer on Rom. y. 2, and compare
(appy-) Xen. Cyrop. vit. 5. 45, τοὺς
ἐμοὺς φίλους δεομένους προσαγωγῇῆ, ib. τ.
3. 8, and the various applications of the
word in Polybius, 6. g. Hist. 1. 48. 2, τῶν
μηχανημάτων mp., XIV. 10. 9, τῶν dpyd-
νων. Christ is thus our προσαγωγεὺς to
the Father; οὐκ εἶπεν “πρόσοδον᾽ ἀλλὰ
«“προσαγωγήν,᾽ οὐ γὰρ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν προσήλ-
ϑόμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ αὐτοῦ προσήχϑημεν,
Chrys. on ver. 21; see 1 Pet. iii. 18, tva
ἡμᾶς mpooayayn τῷ Θεῷ. There may
possibly be here (less probably, however,

60 EPHESIANS.

Cnap. II. 19.

\ 4 > Ld 3 eX / \ x /
προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ Πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.

19.»

Rom. y. 2) an allusion to the προσαγω-
γεὺς (‘admissionalis,’ Lampridius, Sever.
4) at oriental courts, Tholuck, Rom. ἰ. c.,
and Usteri, Lelrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 101; at
any rate, the supposition does not merit
the contempt with which it has been
treated by Riickert. The uses of προσα-
yoy) are well illustrated by Wakefield,
in Steph. Thes. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 86 (ed.
Valpy), and by Bos, Obs. Mise. 35, p.
149 sq. “in
one Spirit, common to Jew and Gentile ;’
not for διά, (Chrys.; compare Cicum.,
Calv., al.), but, as usual, ‘united in’
(Olsh.); compare 1 Cor. xii. 13. The
Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital
sphere or element in which both parties
have their common προσαγωγὴ to the
Father. The mention of the three Per-
sons in the blessed Trinity, with the
three prepp. διά, ἐν, πρός, is especially
noticeable and distinct.

19. apa οὖν] ‘ Accordingly then,’ ‘so

ἐν ἕνι Πνεύματι]

’

then ;’ ‘rebus ita comparatis igitur ;’ con-
clusion and consequence from the decla-
rations of ver. 14—18, with a further
expansion of the ideas of ver. 13. On
the use of ἄρα οὖν, see notes on Gal. vi.
10, and compare Rom. vy. 18, vii. 3, 25,
vill. 12, ix. 16, 18; in all these cases the
weaker ratiocinative force of ἄρα is sup-
ported by the collective οὖν. This union
of the two particles is not found in clas-
sical Greek, except in the case of the
interrogative form apa; see Herm. Viger,
No. 292.
“strangers and sojourners;’ ‘peregrini
atque incole,’ Cic. Offic. 1. 84. The
two expressions seem to constitute a full
antithesis to συνπολῖται, and to include
all who, whether by national and territo-
rial demarcation, or by the absence of
civic privileges, were not citizens.’ Πά-
ροικος then is here (compare Acts vii. 6,
29, 1 Pet. ii. 11) simply the same as the

΄ \ jf
ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι]

S > / 2) \ / \ / 5 3. 3: \ nr
ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, ANA ἐστε συνπολῖται

classical μέτοικος (a form which does not
occur in the N. T., and only once, Jer.
xx. 3, in the LXX), and was probably
its Alexandrian equivalent. It is used
frequently in the LXX, in eleven pas-
sages as a translation of 44, and in nine
of asim: ‘accolas fuisse dicit gentiles
quatenus multi ex illis morabantur inter
Judxos,....non tamen iisdem legibus
aut moribus aut religione utentes,’ Es-
tius. Harless (after Beng.) regards πάρ.
as in antithesis to οἰκεῖοι, ξένοι to συνπο-
Aira, the former relating to domestic, the
latter to civic privileges; this is plausi-
ble, —see Lev. xxii. 10 sq., Ecclus.
Xxix. 26 sq.,—but owing to the fre-
quent use of πάροικος simply for μέτοικος,
not completely demonstrable. An
allusion to proselytes (Whitby) is cer-
tainly contrary to the context; see ver.
11 sq. συνπολῖται, though par-
tially vindicated by Raphelius, Anmnot.
Vol. 11. p. 472, belongs principally to
later Greek, e. g. lian, Var. Hist. 111.
44, Joseph. Antig. x1x. 2. 2; but also
Eur. Heracl. 826; see Lobeck, Phryn. p.
172. The tendency to compound forms
without an adequate increase of meaning
is appy. ἃ very distinct characteristic of
‘fatiscens Greecitas ;’ comp. Thiersch, de
Pentat. 11. 1, p. 83. With regard
to the orthography we may observe that
the form συνπολ. is adopted by Tisch.
(ed. 7) with AB'CDEFG, and must
appy. be adopted, as supported by such
very distinctly preponderating uncial au-
thority ; see Tisch. Prolegom. p. XLv1t.

τῶν ἁγίων] ‘the saints:’ not inclu-
sively the holy ‘of all times and lands’
(Eadie), for the mention of the πολιτεία
τοῦ “Iop., ver. 12, is distinct and specific ;
nor exclusively the Jews as a nation
(Hamm.), or the saints of the Old Tes-
tament (Chrys.), for this the nature of
the argument seems to preclude, — but,

Crap. II. 90.

A \ 5 A A A
τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι TOD Θεοῦ,

20. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So CDEFGKL;
Chrys. (text) omits "Ino. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer).

EPHESIANS. 61

20 2 L SEN IER
ἐποικοδομηϑέντες ἐπὶ τῷ Sepe-

many ν.; Orig. (1) and many Ff.;
Tisch. inverts the

order with AB; Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Orig. (2), Theophyl.; Ambrosiast., August.

(frequently), and many others (Liick., Lachm., Alf.).

uncial MSS. seems to preponderate.

the members of that spiritual commu-
nity in which Jew and Gentile Christians
were now united and incorporated, and
to which the external theocracy formed
a typical and preparatory institution.
The expression is further heightened
and defined by οἰκεῖοι rod Θεοῦ. On this
use of οἰκεῖος, see notes on Gal. vi. 10,
and for a good sermon on this text, Bev-
eridge, Serm. xtv1i1. Vol. 11. p. 381 sq.

20. €motkodoundévres| ‘built up,
‘supereedificati, Vulg.; the preposition
being not otiose, but correctly marking
the super-position, superstructure ; comp.
1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14, Gol. ii. 7. The
accus. is not used here (as in 1 Cor. iii.
12) because the idea of rest predominates
over that of motion or direction. That
the dat. rather than the gen. of rest is
here used, can hardly be said to be
‘purely accidental’ (Meyer), as the for-
mer denotes absolute and less separable,
the latter partial and more separable
super-position ; see esp. Donalds. Gr. §
483. a, Kriiger, Sprachl. 11. § 68. 41. 1.
Though this distinction must not be
over-pressed in the N. T. (see Luke iv.
29), or even in classical writers (see
exx. in Rost τι. Palm, Lez. s. v. ἐπί, 11.
Vol. 1. p. 1035), it still appears to have
been correctly observed by St. Paul.
The reading ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ch. i. 10
(Zachm.), which would apparently form
an exception in this very Ep., is of
doubtful authority. τῶν ἂἄποσ-
τόλων καὶ προφητῶν] ‘of the Apos-
tles and Prophets.’ Two questions of
some interest present themselves, (1)
the nature of the gen.; (2) the meaning
of προφητῶν. With regard to (1) it may

The evidence of the seven

be said, that though the gen. of apposi-
tion (ϑεμέλιος of ἀπόστ. καὶ of προφ.,
Chrys., comp. Theoph., GEcum.) is per-
fectly tenable on grammatical grounds,
{compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, p. 470),
and supported by the best ancient com-
mentators, all exegetical considerations
seem opposed to it. The Apostles were
not the foundations (Rev. xxi. 14 is not,
like the present, a dogmatical passage,
see Harl.), but laid them ; see 1 Cor. iii.
10. The gen. will therefore more prob-
ably be a gen. subject, not however in a
possessive sense (Calv. 2, Coce., Alf.), as
this seems tacitly to mix up the ϑεμέλιος
and the axpoywy. (comp. Jackson, Creed,
x1. 5. 2), but simply as a gen. of the
agent or originating cause (Scheul. Synt.
§ 17. 1, p. 125; see on Thess. i. 6); what
the Apostles and prophets preached
formed the ϑεμέλιος ; compare Rom. xv.
20, Heb. vi. 1. Thus all seems consis-
tent, and in accordance with the analogy
of other passages; the doctrine of the
Apostles, i. e., Christ preached, is the
SeueAtos; Christ personal (ait. >Ino.
Xp.) the ἀκρογωνιαῖος ; Christ mystical
the πλήρωμα; comp. ch. i. 23. (2)
That the prophets of the New (Grot. al.)
and not of the Old Testament (Chrys.,
Theod.) are now alluded to, seems here
rendered highly probable by the order of
the two classes (arbitrarily inverted by
Calv., and insufficiently accounted for by
Theod.), — by the analogous passages,
ch. iii. 5, iv. 11,—by the known pro-
phetic gifts in the early Church, 1 Cor.
xii. 19, al., —and still more by the ap-
parent nature of the gen. subjecti; see
above. No great stress can be laid on

62 EPHESIANS.

~_

Cuap. II. 21.

aw a 5 " \ a y 5) , δι ἃ
ῳ των ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, οντος ακΚρογωνίαιοῦυ αὐτου

wilt la Xi rn 21 93 «e a 2 ὃ \ 7 hy i »
ησου βίστου, εν @ TAGA οὐἰκοοομῇ συναρμο OYOUMLEV?) αὔξει

the absence of the article; this only
shows that the Apostles and Prophets
were regarded as one class (Winer, Gr.
§ 19. 4. d, p. 116), not that they were
identical (Harl.); Sharp’s rule cannot
be regularly applied to plurals; see
Middleton, Art. 111. 4. 2, p. 65 (ed.
Rose). This prominence of ‘ prophets’
has been urged by Baur (Paulus. p. 438)
as a proof of the later and Montanist
origin of this Ep.; surely δεύτερον mpo-
φήτας, 1 Cor. xii. 20? is an indisputable
proof that such a distinct order existed
in the time of St. Paul. On the nature
of their office, see notes on ch. iv. 11.

akpoywviatov| ‘head-corner stone ;’
ἀκρογων. scil. λίϑου ; ‘summus angularis
lapis is dicitur qui, in extremo angulo
fundamenti positus, duos parietes ex
diverso venientes conjungit et continet,’
Estius ; comp. Psalm exviii. 22, Jer. li.
26 (Heb.), Isaiah xxviii. 16, Matth. xxi.
42,1 Pet. ii. 6. In 1 Cor. iii. 11, Christ
is represented as the ϑεμέλιος ; the image
is slightly changed, but the idea is the
same, — Christ is in one sense the sub-
stratum and in another the binding-stone
of the building ; ὁ λίϑος 6 ἀκρ. καὶ τοὺς
τοίχους συνέχει καὶ τοῦς δεμελίους,
Chrys.; see Suicer, Zhes. s. ν. and Vol.
11. p. 242. On the doctrinal meaning
and application of this attribute of
Christ, see the excellent discussion of
Jackson, Creed, xt. 51 sq. αὐτοῦ
"Ino. Χρ.] ‘Jesus Christ Himself, no
human teachers; the pronoun being ob-
viously referred not to ϑεμελίῳ (‘angu-
lari ejus,’ Beng.) or to axpoywy., as pos-
sibly Vulg. (‘ipso summo_ angulari
lapide Chr. Jesu’), but to Christ; so
rightly Auth., Syr., Clarom., and appy.
Goth.; Copt., Aith., Arm. omit. The
art. before “Ino. Xp. (the absence of
which is pressed by Beng.) may not only
be dispensed with (see Luke xx. 42),

but would even, as Harl. suggests, be
here incorrect ; it would strictly then be
‘He Himself, viz. Christ’ (see Fritz.
Matth. iii. 4, p. 117), and would imply a
previous mention of Christ; whereas
Christ is mentioned for the first time in
the clause, and as in emphatic contrast
with those who laid the foundations ; see
Stier in loc., p. 394.

21. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom;’ further and
more specific explanation of the preced-
ing clause; the pronoun referring, not
to ἀκρογωνιαίῳ (Cicum.), but to “Inc.
Xp.; ὁ τὸ πᾶν συνέχων ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός,
Chrysost.

>
the building ;’ 12 al> ous [totum
go τὰ ἜΝ

wedificium] Syr., ‘omne illud zed.,’ Copt.,
Arm. (with the distinctive n), Syr.-Phil.
There is here some difficulty owing to
the omission of the article; the strictly
grammatical translation of πᾶσα οἰκοδ.
(scil. ‘every building’) being wholly
irreconcilable with the context, which
clearly implies a reference to one single
building. Nor can it be readily ex-
plained away; for πᾶσα oix. can never
mean ‘every part of the building’
(Chrys.), nor can oikod. (per se) be
regarded as implying ‘a church’ (Mey.).
We seem, therefore, compelled either to
adopt the reading of ec., and insert ἡ
[with AC; many mss.; Chrys. (text),
Theoph., but opp. to BDEFGKL; ma-
jority of mss.; Clem., al.J], or, with
more probability, to class οἰκοδομὴ in the
present case with those numerous nouns
(see the list in Winer, G'r. § 19), which,
from referring to what is well known
and defined (6. g. πᾶσα γῆ, Thucyd. 11.
43, see Poppo in loc. p. 233) can, like
proper names, dispense with the art.
comp. πᾶσα ἐπιστολή, Ignat. Eph. § 12,
Pearson, Vind. Jgnat. 11. 10. 1, and
Winer, Gr. § 18. 4. p. 101. It must be

πᾶσα oikodoun| fall

Cuap. II. 22.

EPHESTANS.

63

» Ν ee ’ , Φ 9 Le \ id lal lal »
εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Κυρίῳ, “ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς cuvoixodopeioSe εἰς

/ lal lal "ἢ Ἁ
κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Πνεύματι.

admitted that there appears no other
equally distinct instance in the N. T.
(Matth. ii. 8, Luke iv. 18, Acts ii. 36,
vii. 22, cited by Eadie, are not in point,
as being either exx. of proper names or
abstract substt.), nor appy. even in the
Greek Pentateuch (most of the exx. of
Thiersch. Pentat. 111. 2, p. 121, admit
of other explanations) ; still in the pres-
ent case this partial laxity of usage can
scarcely be denied. The late and non-
Attic form οἰκοδομή (Lobeck, Phryn. p-
421, 487), used both for οἰκοδόμημα and
οἰκοδόμησις (Rost τι. Palm, Lez. s. y.), is
here perhaps adopted in preference to
οἶκος as less distinctly implying the
notion of a completed building; sce
Harl, zn loc. συναρμολογου-
μένη] ‘fitly framed together, Auth.,
“compaginata,’ Jerome; present part.;
the process was still going on. The
rare verb συναρμολογ. (= συναρμόζειν) is
only found here and iv. 16. Wetst. cites
Anthol. 111. 32. 4, ἡρμολόγησε τάφον.

αὔ ξ εἰ] ‘groweth;’ the present marking
not only the actual progress, but the
normal, perpetual, unconditioned nature
of the organic increase ; see Scheuerl.
Synt. § 32. p. 339, 340. This increase
must undoubtedly be understood as ex-
tensive (opp. to Harl.) as well as inten-
sive, and as referring to the enlarge-
ment and development of the Church,
as well as to its purity or holiness ; com-
pare Thiersch, Apostol. Church, p. 52 sq.
(Transl.). The pres. αὔξω (more com-
mon in poetry) is not found in the LXX,
and in the N. T. only here and Col. ii.
19. ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘in the Lord
(Jesus Christ),’ the usual meaning of
Kup. in St. Paul’s Epp.; see Winer, Gr.
§19.1,p.113. It is difficult to decide
how these words are to be connected;
whether (a) with αὔξει, Meyer; (b) with
ἅγιον, Harl., Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1, p. 249,

or (6) with ναὸν ἅγιον (comp. Stier), to
which it is to be regarded as a kind of
tertiary predicate ; comp. Donalds. Gr. §
489 sq. Of these, (a) seems tautologous ;
(Ὁ) gives perhaps a greater prominence
to the special nature of the holiness than
the context requires; (6) on the con-
trary, as the order shows (ναὸν ἅγ., not
ἅγ. ναόν ; comp. Gersdorf, Beitrége, v. p.
334 sq.), gives no special prominence to
the idea of holiness, but defines almost,
as a further predication of manner, how
the whole subsists and is realized, —
‘and it is a holy temple in the Lord, and
in Him alone;’ comp. notes on ver. 11.
On this account, and from the harmony
with ἐν Πνεύματι, ver. 22, (c) is to be

preferred.
22. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘in whom ye
also;’ further specification in ref. to

those whom the Apostle is addressing ; ἐν
@ not being temporal (‘dum,’ Syr., but
not Philox.), nor referring to the more
remote ναὸν ἐν Kup. (Eadie), but, as in
ver. 21, to the preceding ἐν Κυρίῳ, and
kal with its ascensive and slightly con-
trasting force (comp. notes on Phil. iv.
12) marking the exalted nature of the
association in which the Ephesians
shared ; they also were living stones of
the great building ; comp. Alf. in loc.

συνοικοδομεῖσϑ εἶ ‘are builded to-
gether ;’ clearly not imperative (Caly.),
as St. Paul is evidently impressing on
his readers what they are, the mystical
body they actually belong to, not what
they ought to be. The force of σὺν ap-
pears similar to that in συνέκλεισεν, Gal.
iii. 22 (see notes), and to refer to the close
and compact union of the component
parts of the building. Meyer aptly cites
Philo, de Prem. § 20, Vol. 11. p. 427
(ed. Mang.), οἰκίαν εὖ συνῳκοδομημένην
καὶ συνηρμοσμένην. The comma after
συνοικοδ. { Griesb.) which would refer εἰς

64 EPHESIANS.

So I pray for you, believing 11
ye know how God revealed Σ

Cuap; Il, 1.

Τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος 6 δέσμιος

to me the mystery of the call of the Gentiles, and gave me grace to preach it, that men and angels might learn
Gou's manifold wisdom. Fuint uot then at my troubles.

Kato. to αὔξει, does not scem necessary.
ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘in the Spirit;’ tertiary
predication (‘and it is in the Spirit’)
exactly similar and parallel to ἐν Κυρίῳ,
ver. 21. Two other translations haye
been proposed: (a) ‘through the spirit,’
Auth., Theophyl., Meyer; (0) ‘in a spir-
itual manner,’ opp. to ἐν σαρκί ; 1. e., the
κατοιις. iS πνευματικόν, NOt a ναὸς χειρο-
ποίητος, Acts vii. 48 (Olsh.). Of these
(a) violates the apparent parallelism
with ἐν Kup., and presupposes, in order
to account for the position of ἐν Πν., an
emphasis in it which does not seem to
exist, while again (0) introduces an idea
not hinted at in the context, and ob-
scures the reference to the Holy Trinity,
which here can scarcely be pronounced
doubtful. It has been urged by Meyer,
that in the interpr. here adopted, the
‘continens’ and ‘contentum’ are con-
founded together; but see Rom. viii. 9,
and observe that the second ἐν refers
rather to the act of κατοικεῖν involved in
the verbal subst.; ‘we are built in Christ,
form a habitation of God, and are so
inhabited in and by the influence of the
Spirit;’ see Alf. in loc., and compare
Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 105 sq.
Lastly, no argument in favor of (b) can
be founded on the absence of the article,
as Πνεῦμα is used with the same latitude
as proper names ; see notes on Gal. y. 5,
p- 83. The opinion also there expressed
against the distinction of Harless (A. ἰ.),
between the ‘subjective’ and ‘ objective’
Holy Spirit, seems perfectly valid. For
a practical sermon on this verse (‘the
essence of religion a disposition to
God’), see Whichcote, Serm, xtviit.
Vol. 11. p. 383.

CuarTer III. 1. τούτου xdpir|
‘For this reason,’ ‘hujus rei gratia,’
Vulg., Clarom.; sc. ‘because ye are so

called and so built together in Christ.
The exact meaning of these words will
of course be modified by the view taken
of the construction. Out of the many
explanations of this passage, two deserve
attention. (a) That of Syr. and Chrys.,
according to which εἰμὲ is supplied after
ὁ δέσμ. Ἴ. X., 6 δέσμιος being the predi-
cate, —‘I am the prisoner of the Lord,’
the prisoner κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (‘multa enim
erat istius captivitatis celebritas,’ Beza) ;
τούτου χάριν then being ‘for the sake of
this edification of yours,’ ch. ii, 22: (ὁ)
that of Theodoret, al., according to
which 6 δέσμιος is in apposition, and the
construction resumed, ver. 14; τούτου
χάριν then implying on this account,
‘because ye are so built together’ (De
W.), or, more probably, as above, with
a wider ref. to the whole foregoing sub-
ject; ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενος, καί τινες ἦτε,
καὶ πῶς ἐκλήϑητε, καὶ ἐπὶ τίσιν ἐκλήϑητε,
δέομαι καὶ ἱκετεύω τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν
βεβαιῶσαι ὑμᾶς τῇ πίστει, Theodorct.
The interpretation ‘per brachylogiam,’
according to which, δέσμ. εἰμι is to be
supplied (Wiggers, Stud. u. Avit. p. 841.
Ῥ. 431 note, Meyer, ed. 1), is so clearly
untenable, that Meyer (ed. 2) has now
given it up in favor of (a). This former
interpr. deserves consideration, but on
account of the virtual tautology in tour.
xdp. and ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, --- the analogy of ch.
iv. 1,— and still more the improbability
that St. Paul would style himself ὁ δέσ-
pos, when he so well knew others were
suffering like himself (1 Cor. iv. 9 sq.),
the latter is to be preferred; see Winer,
Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499. The recent expla-
nation of Wieseler, which makes ὁ δέσ-
μιος to be in apposition, but dispenses
with all assumption of a parenthesis, or
of an abbreviated structure is not very
satisfactory or intelligible ; see Chron.
Synops. p. 446. τοῦ Xp. Ἰησϑδυ)

Οὐ: IIT. 2) 3.

EPHESIANS.

65

A an? ΤΉ ἃ ἘΠΕῚ ΘΟ Nal a 3 fal 29 ’ ΄ \
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν eSvaV — ~ εἰγε ἠκούσατε THY

οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς doSelons μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς,

‘Of Jesus Christ,’ scil. ‘whom Christ
and His cause have made a prisoner,’
Olsh.; gen. of the author or originating
cause of the captivity ; compare Philem.
13, δεσμοὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, and see Winer,
Gr. § 30. 20, obs. p. 170, Hartung,
Casus, p. 17, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 6.
ὑπὲρ tu. τῶν ἐδ νῶν] ‘in behalf of
you Gentiles ;’ introductory of the subject
of the Apostle’s calling as an Apostle of
the Gentiles, and resumed ver. 12.

2. εἴγε] ‘if indeed, ‘as I may sup-
pose,’ ‘on the assumption that;’ gentle
appeal, expressed in a hypothetical form,
and conveying the hope that his words
had not been quite forgotten. Evzye is
properly ‘si quidem, and if resolved,
‘tum certe si, (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11.
p- 308); it does not zn ztself imply the
rectitude of the assumption made (‘ εἴγε
usurpatur de re quz jure sumpta credi-
tur,’ Herm. Viger, No. 310), but derives
that shade of meaning from the context ;
see notes on Gal. iii. 4. In the present
case there could be no real doubt ; ‘ neque
enim ignorare, quod hic dicitur, poterant
Ephesii, quibus Paulus ipse evangelium
plusquam biennio praedicaverat,’ Estius ;
comp. ch. iv. 21, 2 Cor. v. 3, Col. i. 23.
No argument, then, can be fairly de-
duced from these words against the
inscription of this Ep. to the Ephesians
(Mill, Prolegom. p. 9, De Wette), nor
can the hypothetical form be urged as
implying that the Apostle was personally
unknown to his readers. Thy
οἰκονομίαν κ. τ. λ.} ‘the dispensation
of the grace of God which was given to me,
etc.’ In this passage two errors must be
avoided : first, τῆς δοϑείσης must not be
taken, virtually or expressly (‘ per hypal-
lagen’), for τὴν δοϑεῖσαν, comp. Col. i.
25; secondly, no special meanings must
be assigned either to οἰκονομία or χάρις.
Oikovoula is not ‘the apostolic office’

9

5 ὅτι

(Wieseler, Synops. p. 448), but, as in ch.
i. 10 (see notes), ‘ disposition,’ ‘ dispensa-
tion ;’ τῆς xapiros being the gen., — not
subjecti, Gacum. (who reads ἐγνώρισε, as
in Rec.), but, as the pass. ἐγνωρίσδε
seems rather to suggest, — objecti, or
rather the gen. of ‘the point of view,’
which serves to complete the conception,
sc. ‘the dispensation in respect of the
grace of God, ete.,’ see Scheuerl. Synt.
§ 18, p. 129, comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2,
p- 175. This is further explained by
ὅτι κατὰ amor. ver. 33; οἰκονομίαν χάριτός
There is
thus no need to depart from the strict
meaning of χάρις ; it is not ‘munus
Apostolicum’ (Estius), but the assisting
and qualifying grace of God for the per-
formance of it. εἰς ὑμᾶς is well
translated ‘to youward, Auth.; it is not
‘in vobis,’ Vulg., or even ‘for you’ (dat.
commodi), but with the proper force of
eis (ethical direction), ‘toward you,’ ‘to
work in you;’ compare ch. i. 19, and
Winer, Gr. § 49. a. p. 354.

3. ὅτι x. τ. A.] ‘that by way of revela-
tion;’ objective sentence (Donalds. Gr.
§ 584) dependent on the preceding ἠκού-
cate x. T. A. and explanatory of the
nature and peculiarity of the οἰκονομ. ;
the emphasis obviously falling on the
predication of manner κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν.
These latter words are used in a very
similar, though not perfectly identical
manner, Gal. ii. 2 (comp. 2 Cor. vill. 8,
Gal. iv. 29, see note, Phil. ii. 2); there,
however, the allusion is rather to the
norma or rule, here to the manner, ‘by
way of revelation,’ ‘revelation-wise ;’
comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 239.
τὸ μυστήριον) ‘the mystery,’ not of
redemption generally, nor of St. Paul’s
special call, but, in accordance with the
context, of that which is the evident sub-
ject of the passage, — the admission of

φησι thy ἀποκάλυψιν, Chrys.

66 ᾿ EPHESIANS.

Cnap. IIL. 3, 4.

κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ἐγνωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστήριον, KAY@S προέγραψα

5 ’ , 4 Ν ὰ 4 ’ , n Ἂς ΄ ie
ἐν ὀλίγῳ, πρὸς ὃ Suvace ἀναγινώσκοντες νοῆσαι τὴν σύνεσίν

the Gentiles to fellowship and heirship
with Christ in common with the Jews;
μυστήριον γάρ ἐστι τὸ τὰ ἔϑνη ἐξαίφνης
εἰς μείζονα τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εὐγένειαν ἀναγα-
γεῖν, Chrys. ; see Usteri, Lehrb. p. 252.
On the use and meaning of the word
μυστήριον see notes on ch. ν. 82.

The reading ἐγνώρισε [Rec. with D?E
KL; many mss.; Eth. (both); Dam.,
Theoph., al.] is distinctly inferior to the
text [ABCD!FG; many mss.; Syr.
(both), Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt.,
al.] in external authority, and seems to
have been an intended emendation of
structure. προέγραψ αἹ ‘have
afore written, Hamm.; ἃ translation
here preferable to the aoristic ‘afore
wrote’ (Auth.), as serving better to de-
fine the reference, as not being to any
earlier (Chrys., but not Theod., The-
oph.), but simply to the present Epistle ;
comp. ch. 1. 9 sq., ii. 13 sq. The clause
seems introduced to confirm the readers,
the ref. being, as ver. 4 clearly shows,
neither to κατὰ ἀποκαλ. nor to μυστήρ.
but to ἐγνωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστ. ; it was
the fact of this knowledge having been
imparted, not the manner in which he
attained it, or the precise nature of it
that the Apostle desires to specify and
reiterate. To enclose this clause and
ver. 4 in a parenthesis ( Wetst., Griesb.),
is thus obviously unsatisfactory. ἐν

Oo. >
ὀλίγῳ] 1Δ..5.5.}5 [in paucis] Syr.,
Ὁ Δ

‘in brevi,’ Vulg., διὰ βραχέων, Chrys. ;
see Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 293. The
meaning, ‘a short time before,’ ‘just
now,’ (comp. Theod.) is distinctly un-
tenable: this would be πρὸ ὀλίγου: ἐν
ὀλίγῳ in a temporal sense can only
mean, as Mey. and Harl. correctly ob-
serve, ‘in a short space of time:’ see
Acts xxvi. 28, where, howeyer, as in the
present case, the meaning, ‘briefly,’

‘with a compendious form of argument’
(not ‘lightly,’ Alf.; see Meyer in loc.),
is appy. more tenable. Stier alludes to
the common epistolary expression, ‘a
few lines.’

4. πρὸς 8] ‘in accordance to which,’
‘agreeably to which,’ scil. the mpoyeypap-
μένον, not ἐν ὀλίγω (Kypke): from what
the Apostle had written in this Epistle
his insight into the mystery of Christ
was to be inferred by his readers; ‘ex
ungue leonem,’ Beng. The remark of
Harl. that πρὸς (with ace.) in its ethical
use denotes the relation of conformity
to, seems correct and comprehensive.
Whether this be in reference to cause
and effect (‘owing to,’ Herod. ry. 161,
comp. Matth. xix. 8; see exx. in Palm
u.;, Rost, Lex. Ss» ¥.-b., aa, Vol. 1a
1157), design and execution (‘in order
to,’ 1 Cor. xii. 7, al.), simple comparison
(Rom. viii. 18; Herod. 111. 34, cited by
Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 265, or, as
here rule and measure (see notes on Gal.
ii. 14) must be determined by the con-
text. If we add to these the indication
of simple mental direction (‘in regard
to,’ ‘in reference to,’ Heb. i. 7, see
Winer, Gr. § 48. ἢ. p. 360, comp. notes
on ch. iv. 12), the ethical uses of πρὸς
with ace. will be sufficiently delineated.
For a good and comprehensive list of
exx. see Rost and Palm, Lez. 5. v. Vol.
1. Ὁ» 1150. 5η:
ἀναγιν. νοῆσαι] ‘you can while read-
ing, or as you read, perceive ;’ the tem-
poral participle expressing the contem-
porary act, comp. Donalds. Gr. § 576.
The aor. νοῆσαι is appy. here used as
marking, not exactly the sudden and
transitory nature of the act (AIf.; con-
trast Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383), but
the distinct manifestations of it, the
single act being regarded, as it were,
the commencement of a continuity ; see

δύνασϑε

πὰρ. III. 5.

EPHESIANS.

67

> a 7, a ews Bade heck im 5) 3
μου ἐν τῷ μυστηριῳ του “Χριστοῦ, ο ετέραις YEVEALS οὐκ EYVO-

ρίσϑη τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀν) ρώπων, ὡς νῦν ἀπεκαλύφϑη τοῖς ἁγίοις

esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 173. 4, Donalds.
Gr. § 427. d. The student must be
careful in pressing the aor. in this mood,
as so much depends on the context and
the mode in which the action is contem-
plated by the writer; see Bernhardy,
Synt. ἰ. c., Kriiger, Sprachl. 53. 6. 9, and
observe that δύναμαι and similar verbs,
ἔχω, δυνατός εἶμι, SéAw, are often idi-
omatically followed by the aor. rather
than the present; see Winer, § 44. 7,
p. 298, and the note of Matzner in his
ed. of Antiph. p. 153 sq. τὴν
σύνεσίν μον κ. τ. λ.} ‘my insight, my
understanding in the mystery of Christ.’
The article is not needed before the
prep., as σύνεσις ἐν τῷ μυστ. forms a
single composite idea; comp. 3 Esdr. 1.
3, τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Κυρίου
(Harl.), and see notes on ch. i. 15.
The formula, συνιέναι ἐν (and εἰς) oc-
curs several times in the LXX, 2 Chron.
xxxiv. 12, Nehem. xiii. 7, al., and thus
justifies the omission of the article with
the derivative subst.: see Winer, § 20.
2, p. 123. The distinction between
συνιέναι (‘to understand,’ ‘verstehn’),
and νοεῖν (‘to perceive,’ ‘merken’), is
noticed by Tittmann, Synon. p. 191.
τοῦ Χριστοῦ is commonly taken as
a gen. objecti, ‘the mystery relating to
Christ,’ se. of which His reconciliation,
and union of the Jews and Gentiles in
Himself formed the subject; compare
Theophyl. in loc. By comparing, how-
ever, the somewhat difficult passage,
Col. i. 27, tov pvornp....
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, it would certainly seem
that it is rather a species of gen. materic,
or of identity: ‘Christus selbst ist das
Concretum des gottlichen Geheimnisses,’
Meyer; comp. Stier zn loc., and see exx.
in Scheuerlein, Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82, 83.
5. 6] ‘which,’ scil. which μυστήριον
τοῦ Xp. ver. 4; there being no parenthe-

. ὅς ἐστιν

sis (see above), but that simple linked
connection by means of relatives which
is so characteristic of this Epistle.

« / a «
ἑτέραις yevears]

in other genera-
tions, ages,’ ‘anparaim aldim,’ Goth. ;
dative of time ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 9,
p- 195; comp. notes, ch. ii. 11. Meyer,
maintaining the usual meaning of γενεά,
explains the dat. as a simple dat. com-
modi, and τοῖς υἱοῖς as a further explana-
tion. ‘This is unnecessary precision, as
in Col. i. 26, ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν
γενεῶν, the less usual meaning, ‘ age,’
can scarcely be denied: see Acts xiv.
16, and, probably, Luke i. 50. In the
LXX, γενεὰ is the usual translation of
sis, which certainly (see Gesen. Lex.
s. v.), admits both meanings. In one
instance, Isaiah xxiv. 22, even m7
is so translated. The insertion of ἐν
before ἑτέραις (Rec.) rests only on the
authority of a few mss.; Copt., and
Syr.-Phil.
ἂν δ ρ.] ‘to the sons of men;’ ‘latissima
appellatio, causam exprimens ignoran-
tix, ortum naturalem;’ so Beng., who,
however, proceeds less felicitously to
refer the expression to the ancient
prophets. ‘This is neither fairly demon-
strable from the use of f=s—43, (Ezek.
vii. 1, al.), nor by any means consonant
with the present passage, where no com-
parison is instituted between the prophets
of the Old and of the New Test., but
between the times,—the then and the
The expression, viol τῶν ἀνῶρ.
seems ehosen to make the contrast with
the ἅγιοι ἀπόστ. αὐτοῦ καὶ προφ., the
ον 91 Ἰθευΐ-:
xxxiii. 1) more fully felt. ὦ 95]
Observe the comparison which the par-
ticle introduces and suggests : ἐγνωρίσϑη
μὲν τοῖς πάλαι προφήταις, GAN οὐχ ws νῦν"

τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν

now.

Θεοῦ ἄνϑρωποι

ov γὰρ τὰ πράγματα εἶδον [comp. 1 John
i. 1] ἀλλὰ τοὺς περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων προέ-

68 EPHESIANS.

Cuap. III. 6.

- \
ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις ἐν Πνεύματι, 5 εἶναι, τὰ ἔδνη

ραψαν λόγους, Theodoret. τοῖς
ἁγίοις ἀποστ.] ‘to [His holy Apostles.’
The epithet ἁγίοις has been very unrea-
sonably urged by De Wette as a mark
of the post-apostolic age of the epistle.
It is obviously used to support and
strengthen the antithesis to the viol τῶν
ἄνδρ. The Apostles were ἅγιοι in their
office as God’s chosen messengers, ἅγιοι
in their personal character as the in-
spired preachers of Christ; compare
Luke i. 70, Acts ili. 21, 2 Pet. i. 21
(Lachm.), where the prophets are so
designated. The meaning of προφῆται
is here the same as in ch. ii. 20, the
‘N. T. prophets ;” see notes on ch. iv.
ΕἸ. ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘by the
Spirit;’? Auth., Arm. (instrumental
case) ; Holy Agent by whom the ἀποκά-
Avis was given, ἐν having here more of
its instrumental force; εἰ μὴ yap τὸ
Πνεῦμα ἐδίδαξε τὸν Πέτρον, οὐκ ἂν τὸν
ἐωνικὸν Κορνήλιον μετὰ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ
παρεδέξατο, Theophyl.; comp. Chrys.,
who certainly appears erroneously cited
(De W., Eadie) as joining ἐν Mv. with
mpop., ‘prophets in the Spirit,’ sc. Seo-
πνεύστους-. This latter construction,
though fairly admissible (comp. Winer,
Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), is open to the deci-
sive exegetical objection that it is an
‘idem per idem;’ if prophets were not
divinely inspired, ‘ prophets in the Spirit,’
the name would be misapplied. On the
omission of the art. see ch. ii. 22. The
traces of Montanism which Baur
(Paulus, p. 440) finds in these words,
are so purely imaginary as not to de-
serve serious notice or confutation.

6. εἶναι τὰ Edy] ‘to wit, that the
Gentiles are,’ ‘esse gentes,’ Clarom.,
Vulg., Goth., not ‘should be,’ Auth.,
Eadie, the objective infin. here expres-
sing not the design but the subject and
purport of the mystery: τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ
μυστήριον τὸ εἶναι τὰ ἔϑνη συγκληρονόμα

τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, καὶ συμμέ-
τοχα, Theoph.; compare Donalds. Gr.
§ 584. συνκληρονόμα k.T.A.]
‘fellow-heirs and fellow-members, and fel-
low-partakers of the promise.’ It does not
seem correct to regard these three epi-
thets, on the one hand, as merely cumu-
lative and oratorical, or on the other as
studiedly mystical and significant (com-
pare Stier, who here finds a special allu-
sion to the Trinity). The general fact
of the συνκληρονομία is reasserted, in
accordance with the Apostle’s previous
expressions, both in its outward and in-
ward relations. The Gentiles were fel-
low-heirs with the believing Jews in the
most unrestricted sense; they belonged
to the same corporate body, the faithful ;
they shared to the full in the same spir-
itual blessings, the ἐπαγγελία ; see Theod.
in loc. The compounds σύνσωμος (‘con-
corporalis,’ see Suicer, 765. s. ν. Vol.
11. 1191) and συνμέτοχος (‘ comparti-
ceps,’ ch. v. 7) appear to have been both
formed by St. Paul, being only found in
this Ep. and the KEcclesiast. writers.
The verb συμμετέχω occurs in classical
Greek, 6. g. Eurip. Suppl. 648, Plato,
Theet. 181 c, Xenoph. Anab. vit. 8. 17.
Tisch. (ed. 7) now adopts the forms σὺν-
kAnp. and συνσωμ. with AB'DEFG, and
συνμετ. with ABICDIFG, — appy. on
right principles ; see Prolegom. p. XLVII.
τῆς ἐπαγγελία] ‘the promise of sal-
vation,’ not merely of the Holy Spirit
(Eadie) ; for though the promise of the
Spirit was one of the prominent gifts of
the New Covenant (Gal. iii. 14), it
would here be not only too restricted,
but even scarcely consonant with the
foregoing συνκληρονόμα. The addi-
tion of αὐτοῦ after τῆς ἐπαγγ. (Mec.) is
fairly supported [D?D®°EFGKL; many
mss.; Vulg. (some edd.), Goth., Syr.-
Philox. ; Theod., al.], but not found in
ABCD!; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Amit.,

Cuap. III. 7, 8.

EPHESIANS.

69

, \ ,ὔ A
συνκληρονόμα καὶ σύνσωμα Kal συνμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν

Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,

“ov ἐγενήδην διάκονος κατὰ

τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοϑεῖσάν μοι κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ-

n / ? la $3 \ a 3 / Hf
γείαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. * ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων

Copt., Syr., and thus rightly rejected by
the best recent editors. ἐν Xp.
and διὰ τοῦ evayy. both refer to the
three foregoing epithets. The former
points to the objective ground of the
salvation, Him zx whom it centred, the
latter the medium by which it was to be
subjectively applied (Mey.): τῷ πεμφϑῆ-
vat καὶ πρὸς αὐτούς, καὶ τῷ πιστεῦσαι" οὐ
γὰρ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
Chrysost. On the distinction between
ἐν and διὰ in the same sentence, see
Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 note, and
comp. ch. i. 7. The reading of
Rec. ἐν τῷ Xp. [DEFGKL; most mss. ;
Clarom., Sang., Boern.; Orig. (3), al.]
is rejected by most recent editors in
favor of the text which is found in
ABC; some mss., and supported by
Aug., Vulg., Goth., Copt., al.

7. éyevhdsny] “1 became;’ this less
usual form is rightly adopted by Tisch.,
Lachm., al., on the authority of ABD}
FG against CD?EKL, which read ἐγενό-
unv. The passive form, however, implies
no corresponding difference of meaning
(Riick., Waddie); γίγνομαι in the Doric
dialect was a deponent pass.; ἐγενήϑην
was thus used in it for ἐγενόμην, and
from thence occasionally crept into the
language of later writers ; see Buttmann,
Irreg. Verbs, 5. v. TEN—, Lobeck, Phryn.
p- 108, 109, and comp. notes on Col. iv.
11. διάκονο 5] ‘a minister,’ Col.
i. 23, 2 Cor. iii. 6. Meyer rightly im-
pugns the distinction of Harless, that
didk. points more to activity in relation
to the service, ὑπηρέτης to activity in rela-
tion to the master. ‘This certainly cannot
be substantiated by the exx. in the N.
Teisee! 2) Cor. vin 4,.xi6 95. 1 Tim, ive ας
where did. is simply used in reference to

the master, and Luke i. 2, where ὑπηρέτης
refers to the service. On the derivation
of bide. (διήκω), see Buttm. Lezil. s. v.
διάκτορος, ὃ 40.3; for its more remote
affinities [AK-ATK- ‘hbend’], Benfey,
Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 22.
dwp. τῆς xXapiTos| ‘the gift of the
grace ;” gen. of identity; that of which
the gift (the apostolic office, the office of
preaching to the Gentiles) consisted ;
compare Plato, Leg. vi11. 844, διττὰς
δωρεὰς χάριτος, and see Scheuerl. Synt.
δ 12, 1, py 82; Winer, Gr: § 50. 8, p:
470. τὴν δοδϑεῖσάν μοι] ‘which
was given to me;’ not a mere reiteration
of the preceding δωρεάν, but associated
closely with the following words which
detine the manner of the δόσις. The
reading τῆς δοϑείσης (Lachm.) is sup-
ported by strong external authority
[ABCD!FG; 10 mss.; Vulg. Clarom.,
Copt.] but appears very likely to have
arisen from a conformation to ver. 2.
The accus. is found in D?EKL; major-
ity of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth., al.;
Chrys., Theod.. al., and is adopted by
Tisch., and most recent critics.

Thy

κατὰ τὴν evepy.| ‘according to the
working or operation of his power ;’ defin-
ing preposit. clause, dependent, not on
ἐγενόμην (Mey.) but on τὴν dodeiody μοι»,
which would otherwise seem an unneces-
sary addition: ‘the mention of the power
of God is founded on the circumstance
that St. Paul sees in his change of heart,
from a foe toa friend of Christ, an act
of omnipotence,’ Olsh. On the proper
force of κατά, sce notes, ch. i. 19.

8. ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ)ὔ ‘To
me who am less than the least,’ Auth.; a
most felicitous translation. No addition
was required to the former period ; the

70

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. III. 5,

δ. ἡ ς ΄ὔ ev ’ a mm > ie ἂν 3 /
ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις αὕτη, ἐν τοῖς ἔδνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασδαι τὸ aveEvyviac-

τον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ,

great Apostle, however, so truly, so ear-
nestly felt his own weakness and nothing-
ness (εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι, 2 Cor. xv. 15),
that the mention of God’s grace towards
him awakens within, by the forcible con-
trast it suggests, not only the remem-
brance of his former persecutions of the
church (1 Cor. xv. 10), but of his own
sinful nature (1 Tim. i. 15, εἰμί, not ἦν),
and unworthiness for so high an office.
Calvin and Harl. here expound with far
more vitality than Est., who refers this
ταπεινοφροσύνης ὑπερβολὴν (Chrysost.)
solely to the memory of his former per-
secutions. It is perfectly incredible how,
in such passages as these, which reveal
the truest depths of Christian experience,
Baur (Paulus, p. 447) can only see con-
tradictions and arguments against the
apostolic origin of the Epistle. On the
form ἐλαχιστ. see Winer, Gr. § 11. 2, p.
65, and the exx. collected by Wetst. in
luc., out of which, however, remove
Thucyd. 1v. 118, as the true reading is
κάλλιον. ἐν τοῖς ἔδϑν. εὐαγ-
γὙελ.] ‘to preach among the Gentiles ;’
explanatory and partly appositional
clause, the emphatic ἐν τοῖς ἔῶνεσιν
marking the Apostle’s distinctive sphere
of action, and, the inf. defining the pre-
ceding 7 χάρις αὕτη ; see Kritger, Sprachl.
§ 57. 10. 6, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 192,
Winer, Gr. ὁ 44.1, p. 284. To make
this clause dependent on δωρεάν, ver. 7,
and to regard ἐμοὶ --- αὕτη as parenthet-
ical (Harl.) seems a very improbable
connection, and is required neither by
grammar nor by the tenor of the pas-
sage. Lachm. omits ἐν with ABC ;
3 mss.; Copt. (A/f.), but the authority
for retaining it [DEFGKL; nearly all
mss.; Syr. (both), Clarom., Vulgate,
Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al.] seems
fairly to preponderate. πλοῦτος
τοῦ Χρ.] ‘riches of Christ, i. e. the

9 \ » ΄, ΄ὔ e ’ /
Kab φωτίσαι παντὰᾶς τις ἢ οὐκονομια

exhaustless blessings of salvation ; com-
pare Rom. xi. 53. It is ἀνεξιχνίαστον
("En Ws Job v. 9, ix. 10) both in its
nature, extent, and application.

9. Kar

φωτίσαι πάντας) ‘and

Y aaa
to illuminate all, make all see ;’ santo

o>
#12 [et in lucem proferam omni

homini] Syr.; expansion of the forego-
ing clause as to the process (the Apostle
had grace given not only outwardly to
preach the Gospel, but inwardly to en-
lighten), though appy. not as to the per-
sons (ed. 1); as owing to its unemphatic
position the πάντας can scarcely be re-
garded more inclusive than the foregoing
τὰ ἐδνη; see Meyer. The significant
verb φωτίσαι must not be explained away
as synonymous with διδάξαι (De W.);
this derivative meaning is found in the
LXX, see Judges xiii. 8 (Alex.), 2 Kings
iv. 2, xvii. 27, 28, but not in the N. T.,
— where the reference is always to light,
either physical (Luke x., xi., 36), meta-
phorical (1 Cor. iv. 5), or spiritual (Heb.
vi. 4, al.); comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét,
Iv. 15, Vol. 11. p. 156, note. Christ is
properly ὁ φωτίζων (John i.9); His apos-
tles illuminate ‘participatione ac minis-
terio,’ Estius. On the use of the word
in ref. to baptism, see Suicer, Thesaur.
Vol. 11. p. 1491. Lachm. brackets
πάντας as being omitted by A; some
mss.; Cyr., Hill., al., but without suffi-
cient authority.
μυστ.] ‘the dispensation of the mystery,’
‘dispositio sacramenti absconditi,’ Cla-
rom., — 5011. the dispensation (arrange-
ment, regulation) of the mystery (the
union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ,
ver. 6), which was to be humbly traced
and acknowledged in the fact of its hay-
ing secretly existed in the primal coun-
sels of God, and now having been re-

οἰκονομία τοῦ

Cuap. III. 10. "

EPHESIANS.

TL

a 4 La 3 4 lal ο “
τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ Θεῷ

A Ν , ! ivf a “ rn a =
τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι, ” ἵνα γνωρισ'δῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς

vealed to the heavenly powers by means
of the Church. On the meaning of
οἰκονομία, see notes on ch. i. 10.

The reading κοινωνία (Rec.) has only
the support of cursive mss., and is a
mere explanatory gloss. ᾿ἀπὸ
τῶν αἰώνων] ‘from the ages,’ scil.
“since the ages of the world began ;’ comp.
Ἐ 515, Gen. vi. 4: terminus a quo of the
concealment. The counsel itself was
formed mpd τῶν αἰώνων, Cor. il. 7;
the concealment of it dated ἀπὸ τῶν
aidvewv,—from the commencement of
the ages when intelligent beings, from
whom it could be concealed, were called
into existence; compare Rom. xvi. 25,
μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου.
τῳ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι] ‘who cre-
ated all things,’ ‘qui omnia creavit,’
Clarom., Vulg., certainly not, ‘quippe
qui omnia creavit,’ Meyer, —a transla-
tion which would require the absence of
the article; compare notes on ch. 1. 12,
and see esp. Donalds. Crat. § 306. The
exact reason for this particular designa-
tion being here appended to τῷ Θεῷ has
been somewhat differently estimated.
The most simple explanation would
seem to be that it is added to enhance
the idea of God’s omnipotence; the
emphatic position of τὰ πάντα (‘nulla
re prorsus excepta,’ Est.) being designed
to give to the idea its widest extent and
application, — ‘who created all things,’
and so, with His undoubted prerogative
of sovereign and creative power, or-
dained the very μυστήριον itself. A
reference to God’s
more suitably have justified the conceal-
ment, the reference to His omnipotence

omniscience would

more convincingly vindicates the εὐδοκία
according to which it was included in,
and formed part of his primal counsels.
It is not necessary to limit τὰ πάντα, but
the tense seems to show that it is rather

to the physical (οὐδὲν yap χωρὶς αὐτοῦ
πεποίηκε, Chrys.), than to the spiritual
creation (Calv.)
perhaps suggested by the longer reading
κτίσ. διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xp. [Ree. with D®EJK ;
most Syr-Phil. with asterisk ;
Chrys., Theod., al.], which, however, is
rightly rejected by most recent editors
with ABCDIFG; a few mss.; Syr.,
Vulg., Goth., al; Basil, Cyr., and
many Ff.

10. ἵνα γνωρισϑῇ νῦν] ‘in order

This latter view was

MSs. ;

that there might be made known now ;”
divine object and purpose,—not of
either the acts specified in the partici-
pial clauses immediately preceding, for
neither the concealment of the mystery
(Meyer), nor the past act of material
creation (Harl.) could be properly said
to have had as its purpose and design
the present (viv opp. to ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων)
exhibition of God’s wisdom to angels,
—but of the general dispensation de-
scribed in the two foregoing verses.
The Apostle (as Olsh. well remarks),
in contrasting the greatness of his call
with the nothingness of his personal self,
pursues the theme of his labor through
all its stages: the ἐλαχιστότερος has
grace given him evayy. k. 7. Δ.» nay
more, φωτίσαι πάντας x.7T.A., and that,
too, that heaven might see and acknowl-
edge the πολυποίκιλος σοφία of God;
see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 518
(Bohn). ταῖς ἀρχαῖς K.T.A.J
‘to the principalities and to the powers in
the heavenly regions,’ sc. to the good angels
and intelligences ; a ref. to both classes
(Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. τ. p. 315) being
excluded, not so much by ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ.
(Alf., for compare ch. vi. 12), as by the
general tenor of the passage ; evil angels
more naturally recognize the power, good
angels the wisdom of God. On the term
ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσ. (here to add weight to

12

EPHESIANS. 3:

Cuap. III. 11.

A \ A 3 t e
ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος

σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ,

the enumeration each with the art.), see
notes ch. i. 21, and on τοῖς ἐπουρ. notes
on ch. i. 3, 20. διὰ τῆς ἐκκλη-
σίας] ‘through the Church,’ scil. ‘by
means of,’ the Church; διὰ τῆς περὶ
τῆν ἐκκλησίαν οἰκονομίας, Theod. The
Church, the community of believers in
Christ (Col. i. 24), was the means by
which these ministering spirits were to
behold and contemplate God’s wisdom :
comp. Calvin, in loc.,— ‘ecclesia ...
quasi speculum sit in quo contemplantur
Angeli mirificam Dei sapientiam ;’ ὅτε
ἡμεῖς ἐμάϑομεν, τότε κἀκεῖνοι OL ἡμῶν,
Chrys. That the holy angels are capable
of a specific increase of knowledge, and
of a deepening insight into God’s wis-
dom, seems from this passage clear and
incontrovertible ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 12, eis
ἃ emidupovow ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι, and see
Petavius, Theol. Dogm. Vol. 111. p. 44
sq., Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. i. p. 46.
moAutmolKidos| * manifold,’ ‘ multi-
formis, Clarom., VWulg.; see Orph.
Hymn. vt. 11, uxt. 4. This character-
istic of God’s wisdom is to be traced,
not in the παράδοξον, by which issues
were brought about by unlooked-for
means (διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων τὰ ἐναντία
κατωρϑώϑη, διὰ ϑανάτου ζωή, δι’ ἀσϑε-
νείας δύναμις, δι ἀτιμίας δόξα, Greg.
Nyss. ap. Theoph.), but in the πολύτεχ-
νον (Theoph.), the variety of the divine
counsels, which nevertheless all mysteri-
ously cooperated toward a single end, —
the call of the Gentiles, and salvation of
mankind by faith in Jesus Christ. The
use of πολυποίκ. in reference to Gnosti-
cism (Ireneeus, Her. 1. 4. 1) does not
give the slightest reason for supposing
(Baur, Paulus, p. 429) that the use of the
word here arose from any such allusions.
11. κατὰ mpds. τῶν αἰώνων)
‘according to the purpose of the ages ;’
modal clause dependent on ἵνα γνωρισϑῇ,

ll \ r a LA ἃ 5) ἢ >
KATA TPOSETLW τῶν αἰώνων, ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν

specifying the accordance of the revela-
tion of the divine wisdom with God’s
eternal purpose ; viv μὲν, φησί, γέγονεν,
οὐ νῦν δὲ ὥριστο, ἀλλ᾽ vwdsev προτετύ-
πωτο, Chrys. The gen. αἰώνων is some-
what obscure; it can scarcely be (a) a
gen. objecti (‘the foreordering of the
ages,’ Whitby, comp. Peile), or even (ὁ)
a gen. of the point of view (Scheuerl.
Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129), —for the Apostle
is not speaking of God’s purpose in re-
gard to different times or dispensations,
but of His single purpose of uniting and
saving mankind in Christ, — but will be
most naturally regarded as (c) belonging
to the general category of the gen. of
possession (‘the purpose which pertained
to, existed in, was determined on in the
ages’), and as serving to define the gen-
eral relation of time; compare Jude 6,
κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας, and see Winer,
Gr. § 30. 2, p. 169. The meaning is
thus nearly equivalent to that of the
similar expression 2 Tim. i. 9, πρόϑεσιν
πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ; God's pur-
pose existed in His eternal being and
was formed in the primal ages (‘a seecu-
lis,’ Syr.) before the foundation of the
world; comp. ch. i. 4. ἣν ἐποίη-
σεν] ‘which he wrought, ‘quam fecit,’
Clarom., Vulg., Copt., ‘gatavida,’ Goth.
The exact meaning of ἐποίησεν is doubt-
ful. The mention of the eternal purpose
would seem to imply rather ‘constituit’
(Harl., Alf.), than ‘ersecutus est’? (De
W., Mey.), as the general reference
seems more to the appointment of the
decree than to its historical realization
(see Calv., Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1. p.
204); still the words ἐν Xp. Ino. τῷ
Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν seem so clearly to point
to the realization, the carrying out of the
purpose in Jesus Christ,—the Word
made flesh (compare Olsh.),— that the
latter (Matth. xxi. 31, John vi. 38, 1

re

Cuap. III. 12.

ΓΕ. A a 7 ς a 12
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, εν ᾧ

Kings v. 8, Isaiah xliv. 28) must be
considered preferable. As, however, St.
Paul has used a middle term, neither
προέϑετο nor ἐπετέλεσε, a middle term
(e. g. ‘wrought,’ ‘made,’—not ‘ful-
filled,’ Conyb.) should be retained in
translation. The reading is slightly
doubtful. Tisch. (ed. 1 and 7) inserts
τῷ before Xp. with ABC!; 37. 116. al ;
as, however, the title 6 Xp. Inc. 6 Kup.
ἡμῶν does not appy. occur elsewhere
(Col. ii. 6 is the nearest approach to it ;
see Middl. Gr. Art. Append. 11. p. 495,
ed. Rose) and the omission is well sup-
ported [C3DEKL; most mss.; Ath.,
Chrys., Theod.] we still retain the read-
ing of Rec., Lachm., Tisch. (ed. 2), and
the majority of editors.

12. Exouev] Sin whom
(grounded in whom) we have ;’ appeal
to, and proof drawn from their Christian
experience, the relative @ having here a
slightly demonstrative and explanatory

5 a
ἐν @

force (ὅτι δὲ διὰ τοῦ Xp. γέγονεν ἅπαν,
«ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν φησί x. τ. A. Chrys., com-
pare Theod.), and being nearly equiva-
lent to ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ; sce Jelf, Gr. § 834.
2, Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 12, p. 293, and
notes on Col. i. 27. τὴν wappn-
σίαν] ‘our boldness,’ ‘fiduciam,’ Cla-
rom., Vulg.; not here ‘libertatem oris,’
whether in ref. to prayer (Beng.) or to
preaching the Gospel (Vatabl.), as in
many instances (Lev. xxvi. 13, μετὰ
mapp. raat, 1 Mace. iv. 18, Heb. ii.
6, 1 John ii. 28, al.) the primitive mean-
ing has merged into that of ‘cheerful
boldness.’ (Sdppos, Zonar. Lea. p. 1508,
‘Freudigkeit,’ Luth.); that ‘freedom of
spirit’ (‘freihals,’ Goth.), which becomes
those who are conscious of the redeeming

,

love of Christ; ἁγιάσας yap ἡμᾶς διὰ
τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος προσήγαγε ϑαῤῥοῦντας,
(Ecum.; see notes on 1 Lim. iii. 13.

τὴν προσαγω γῆ ν] ‘our admission; ἢ
οὐχ ὡς αἰχμάλωτοι, φησί, TpoTHXAN-

EPHESIANS.

19

’ Ke

ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν

μεν, GAN ὡς συγγνώμης ἀξιούμενοι,
Chrys. and sim. the other Greek com-
mentators ; comp. Avth. ‘ ductorem nos-
trum,’ and see notes on ch. ii. 18. The
transitive meaning there advocated is
appy- a little less certain in the present
case, on account of the union with the
intrans. παρῥ. ; still both lexical authority
and the preceding ref. to our Lord seem
to require and justify it; comp. Suicer,
Vol. 11. p. 850. How
‘the use of the article before both nouns
signalizes them as the éwin elements of
an unique privilege’ (Eadie), is not
clear; see, on the contrary, Winer, Gr.
19. δὲ». 117: Lachm. omits the
second art., with AB; 2 mss.; but in
opp. to CDE (DIE τὴν προσ. «. τ. παῤῥ.)
FG (FG τὴν προσ. εἰς τ. app.) KL;
nearly all mss.; Ath., Chrys., Theod.,
al, — authority distinctly preponderant.
ἐν πεποιϑήσει) ‘in confidence, μετὰ

Thesaur. 5. v.

τοῦ Sappetv, Chrys., —a noble example
of which is afforded by St. Paul himself
in the sublime words of Rom. viii. 38,
39 (Mey.). The present clause does
not qualify mpocaywyn (‘no timorous
approach,’ Eadie), but the predication of
manner, and defines the tone and frame
of mind (‘alacriter libenterque, Calv.)
in which the προσαγωγὴ is enjoyed and
realized. Thus, then, ἐν Xp. marks the
objective ground of the possession, διὰ
τῆς πίστ. the subjective medium by which,
and ἐν memow. the subjective state in
which it is apprehended; ‘tres itaque
gradus sunt faciendi, nam primum Dei
promissionibus credimus, deinde his ac-
quiescentes concipimus fiduciam ut bono
simus tranquilloque animo: hinc sequi-
tur audacia, que facit, ut, profligato
metu, intrepide et constanter nos Deo
commendemus,’ Caly. Πεποίϑησις (2
Kings xviii. 19) is only used in the N.
T. by St. Paul (2 Cor. i. 15, iii. 4, viii.
22, x. 2, Phil. iii. 4), and is a word of

10

T4

\ \ \ / \ a 7 fa]
καὶ THY προσωγωγὴν ἐν πεποιδήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ.

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. III. 13.

® 610

3 “ in 2 lal 5 a / / id \ ς lal v4 > \
αὐτουμᾶν [47) EYKAKESY EV TALS λώμεσίν μου ὕπερ ULWV, TLS ἐστιν

δόξα ὑμῶν.

later Greek; see Eustath. on Odyss. 111.
p- 114. 41, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 294 sq.
πίστεως ‘faith on Him;’
gen. objecti, virtually equivalent to πίστ.
eis αὐτόν; see Rom. iii. 22, Gal. ii. 16,
and compare notes in loc. It is doubtful
whether the deeper meaning which Stier
(compare Matth.) finds in the words, se.
‘faith of whichs Christ is not only the
object, but the ground,’ can here be fully
substantiated. On the whole verse, see
three posthumous sermons of South,
Serm, xx1x. sq. Vol. Iv. p. 413 sq.
(Tegg).

13. 846] ‘On which account, ‘ where-
Jore,’ sc., since my charge is so im-
portant and our spiritual privileges so

αὐτοῦ]

great ; διότι μέγα τὸ μυστήριον τῆς κλή-
σεως ἡμῶν, καὶ μεγάλα ἃ ἐνεπιστεύϑην
ἔγω, Theoph. The reference of this
particle has been very differently ex-
plained. Estius and Meyer, with some
plausibility, connect it simply with the
preceding verse, —‘cum igitur, ad tan-
tam dignitatem vocati sitis, ejusque con-
sequend fiduciam habeatis per Chris-
tum; rogo vos, etc.,’ Est. As, however,
ver. 8—11 contain the principal thought
to which ver. 12 is only subordinate and
supplementary, the former alluding to
the nature and dignity of the Apostle’s
commission, the latter to its effects
and results, in which both he and his
converts (ἔχομεν) share, the particle
will much more naturally refer to the
The union of the
Apostle’s own interests and those of his
converts in the following words then
The
use of διὸ by St. Paul is too varied to
enable us safely to adduce any grammat-
ical considerations ; see notes on Gal. iy.

whole paragraph.

becomes natural and appropriate.

2
ob.

αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν)
‘I entreat you not to lose heart;’ ὑμᾶς

(Eth.) not τὸν Θεόν (Theod.) being sup-
plied after the verb; comp. 2 Cor. v. 20,
Heb. xiii. 19 (2 Cor. vi. 1, x. 2, cited by
De W., are less appropriate), where a
similar supplement is required. Such
constructions as ‘I pray (God) that ye
lose not heart,’ or ‘that I lose not heart’
(Syr.), are both open to the objection
that the object of the verb and subject of
the inf. (both unexpressed) are thus
made different without sufficient reason.
Moreover, such a prayer as that in the
latter interpretation would here fall
strangely indeed from the lips of the
great Apostle who had learnt in his suf-
ferings to rejoice (Col. i. 24), and in his
very weakness to find ground for boast-
ing; compare 2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 5. On
the form ἐγκακεῖν, not ἐκκακεῖν, see notes
on Gal. vi. 9. ἐν ταῖς δ ,λίψε-
σιν κι τ. λ.] ‘in my tribulations for you,’
“in (not ‘ob, Beza) tribulationibus meis,’
Clarom., Vulg.; ἐν as usual denoting
the sphere, as it were, in which the faint-
heartedness of the Ephesians might pos-
sibly be shown; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a,
p- 345. So close was their bond of
union in Christ, that the Apostle felt his
afflictions were theirs; they might be
faint-hearted in his, as if they were their
own. The article is not necessary before
ὑπέρ, aS ὥλίψεσι can be considered in
structural union with ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ; comp.
λίβεσϑαι ὑπέρ twos, 2 Cor. 1. 6; see
notes, ch. 1. 15. ἥτις ἐστὶ δόξα
ὑ μῶ ν] ‘inasmuch as it is your glory;’
reason (ὑμετέρα yap δόξα x. τ. A. Theod.)
or rather explanation why they were not
to be faint-hearted ; the indef. relative
being here explanatory (compare i. 23,
notes on Gal. iv. 24, and Hartung, Casus,
p. 286), and referring to λίψεσιν on the
common principle of attraction by which
the relative assumes the gender of the

Crap. IIT. 14, 15.

On this account (I say) I
pray to God the Father to
give you strength within,
and teach you the incom-

tov Πατέρα,

EPHESIANS. "5

1: T 4 / / \ U , \
OUTOU χάριν κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά μου πρὸς

5 e on a

"ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς

prehensible love of Christ, and fill you with God’s fulness.

predicate ; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 24. 8, p.
150, Madvig, Synt. § 98. The way in
which St. Paul’s tribulations could be
said to tend to the glory of the Ephe-
sians is simply but. satisfactorily ex-
plained by Chrys.; ὅτι οὕτως αὐτοὺς
ἠγάπησεν ὁ Ocds, ὥστε καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὑπὲρ
αὐτῶν δοῦναι καὶ τοὺς δούλους κακοῦν. ἵνα
γὰρ οὗτοι τύχωσι τοσούτων ἀγαδϑῶν [see
ver. 8] Παῦλος ἐδεσμεῖτο. The personal
reason, ‘quod doctorem habetis qui nul-
lis calamitatibus frangitur’ Calixt. (com-
pare Theod.), in which case ἥτις must
refer to μὴ ἐκκακεῖν, seems wholly out of
the question. Glory accrued to the
Ephesians from the official dignity, not
the personal fortitude (καρτερία, Theod.)
of the sufferer.

14. τούτου χάριν] ‘On this account,
sc., ‘because ye are so called and so
built together in Christ,’ resumption of
ver. 1 (ταῦτα πάντα ἐν μέσῳ τεϑεικώς,
ἀναλαμβάνει τὸν περὶ προσευχῆς λόγον,
Theod.); τούτου χάριν referring to the
train of thought at the end of ch. ii.,
and to the ideas parallel to it in the
digression ; in brief, ἐπειδὴ οὕτως ἠγαπή-
ϑητε παρὰ Θεοῦ, Gicum. κάμπτω
τὰ γόνατα κ. τ. λ.] “1 bend my knees
(in prayer ) to;’
the earnestness and fervency of his

expression indicative of

prayer; τὴν μετὰ κατανύξεως δέησιν ἐσή-
pave, Theoph., comp. Chrys. Κάμπτειν
γόνυ (usually κ. ἐπὶ γόνυ in the LXX) is
joined with the dat. in its simple sense
(Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11, both quotations),
but here, in the metaphorical sense of
προσεύχεσϑαι, is appropriately joined
with πρὸς to denote the object towards
whom (as it were) the knees were bowed,
—the mental direction of the prayer ;
see Winer, Gr. ὁ 49. ἢ, p. 360. On the
posture of kneeling in prayer, see Bing-
ham, Antig. x11, 8. 4, and esp. Suicer,

Thesaur, Vol. τ. p. 777. The inter-
polation, after πατέρα, of the words τοῦ
Κυρίου ἡμῶν 71. X., though undoubtedly
ancient, and well supported [DEFGKL ;
nearly all mss.; Syr., Vulg., Goth., al. ;
Chrys., Theod., al.|, is rightly rejected
in favor of the text [ABC; 2 mss.;
Demid., Copt., Aith. (both), al.; Orig.,
Cyr., al.] by nearly all modern editors
except De Wette and Eadie.

15. ἐξ οὗ] ‘from whom,’ ‘after whom ΠῚ
éx pointing to the origin or source whence
the name was derived ; see notes on Gal.
ii. 16, and compare Xen. Mem. tv. 5. 8,
ἔφη δὲ καὶ τὸ διαλέγεσϑαι ὀνομασϑῆναι etc
τοῦ συνιόντας κοινῇ βουλεῦεσϑαι, Hom.
Il. x. 08, πατρόδεν ἐκ γενεῆς ὀνομάζων.
Less direct origination is expressed by
ἀπό; comp. ὀνομαζ. ἀπό, Herod. νι. 129.
πᾶσα πατριά)]) ‘every race, fumily,’
not ‘the whole family,’ Auth.; see Mid-
dleton in loc., p. 361 (ed. Rose). The
use of the particular term πατριὰ is evi-
dently suggested by the preceding πατέρα
(mar. ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριά), its exact mean-
ing, however, and still more its present
reference, are both very debatable. With
regard to the first it may be said that
πατριὰ does not imply (a) ‘paternitas,’
Syr., Vulg., al. (κυρίως πατήρ, καὶ ἀλη-
Sas πατὴρ 6 Θεός, Theod., compare Tho-
luck, Bergpr. p. 894), a translation nei-
ther defensible in point of etymology or
exegesis, but is either used in (0) the
more limited sense of ‘familia’ (metiot,
Copt., comp. Arm.), or more probably
(c) that of the more inclusive ‘gens’
(Heb. τπῖτ 2, less commonly rass ro2,
compare Gesen, Lex. s. v. m2, 10); see
Herod. 1, 200, εἰσί τῶν Βαβυλωνίων πατ-
ριαὶ τρεῖς, and compare Acts iii. 25 with
Gen. xii, 8, where πατριὰ and φυλὴ are
interchanged. If, then, as seems most
correct, we adopt this more inclusive

76

16 7

‘ BLN Lal ’ /
καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται, * wa

meaning, the reference must be to those
larger and communities into
which, as we may also infer from other
passages (comp. ch. i. 21, notes, Col. i.
16, notes), the celestial hosts appear to
be divided, and to the races and tribes
of men (‘queeque regionum,’ /&th.),
every one of which owes the very title
of πατριὰ, by which it is defined, to the
great Πατὴρ of all the πατριαὶ both of
angels and men; this title οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν

classes

ἀνῆλϑεν ἄνω, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνωϑεν ἦλϑεν εἰς ἡμᾶς,
Severian ap. Cramer, Caten. (in loc.) ;
see Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 1238,
and Suicer, Thesaur. s. ν. Vol. 11. p.
637. ὀνομάζεται is thus taken in its
simple etymological sense, ‘7s named,
bears the name,’ scil. of matpia; “ dicitur,’
Copt., al., ‘namnajada,’ Goth. ; see Mey.
All special interpolations, e. g.
‘nominantur jfiliz Dei, (Beng., compare
Beza), or arbitrary interpretations, of
ὀνομαζ, 6. g., ‘existit, originem accipit’
(Estius, al.; comp. Riick.), — meanings
which even καλεῖσϑαι (Eadie) never di-
rectly bears, — are wholly inadmissible.
16. ἵνα δῴη] ‘that He would give to
you;’ subject of the prayer being blended
with the purpose of making it; see
notes on ch. i. 17, where the unusual
form δῴη is also briefly discussed. The
reading is here somewhat doubtful.
Lachm. adopts δῷ with ABCFG; 3
mss.; Orig. (Cat.), Bas., Method., al.
(Tisch. ed. 1, Riick., Mey.), but perhaps
not rightly, as it seems much more
probable that δῷ was a grammatical cor-
rection of δῴη, than that δῴη was a cor-
rection of δῷ arising from a remem-
brance of ch. 1. 17. We retain then the
rarer form, δῴη, with DEJK; great ma-
jority of mss.; Ath., Mac., Chrysost.,
Theod., al. So Rec., Tisch., (ed. 2, 7),
Harl., De W., and most recent editors.
κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος kK. τ. A.| Saccord-
ing to the riches of His glory,’ according

in loc.

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. III. 16.
δῴη ὑμῖν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς

to the abundance and plenitude of His
own perfections ; see notes on ch. i. 7.

δυνάμει] ‘with power,’ ‘with (infused)
strength ;’ ‘ut virtute seu fortitudine ab
eo accepta corroboremini,’ Estius. This
dative has been differently explained ; it
cannot be (a) the dat. of " reference to’
or, more correctly speaking, of ‘ ethical
locality’ (see notes on Gal. i. 22, and
exx. in Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 48.15, 6. g.
χρήμασι δυνατοὶ εἶναι, ete.), for it was
not one particular faculty, power as opp.
to knowledge, ete., but the whole ‘inner
man,’ which was to be strengthened.
Harl. cites Acts iv. 33, but the exampie
is inapplicable. Nor again (b) does it
appear used adverbially (dat. of manner,
Jelf, Gr. § 603. 2), for this, though a
more plausible interpr. (see Riick.), is
open to the objection of directing the
thought to the strengthener rather than
to the subject in whom strength is to be
infused ; see Meyer in loc. It is thus
more correctly regarded as (c) the simple
instrumental dat. (Arm.) detining the ele-
ment or influence of which the Spirit is
the ‘causa medians ;’
Col. i. 11,
&pwovr]| ‘into the inner man ;’ direction
and destination of the prayed-for gift of
infused strength; the clause being obvi-
ously connected with kparaws. (Vulg.,
Goth.,—appy.) not with κατοικῆσαι
(Syr., Copt., /ith., and Gr. Ff.), and
eis not being for ἐν (Beza), nor even in
its more lax sense, ‘in regard of’ (Mey.;
comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354), but in
its more literal and expressive sense of
‘to and into;’ ‘the inner man’ is the
recipient of it (6 χωρῶν, Schol. ap.
Cram. Caten.), the subject ‘into whom’
the δύναμις is infused ; compare notes on
Gal. 27. The expression ὁ ἔσω
ἄνδρ. (Rom. vii. 22) is nearly identical
with, but somewhat more inclusive than

comp. ἐν δυνάμει,
, yv v
εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄν-

iii.

ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνϑρωπος (1 Pet.

Cuap. III. 17.

EPHESIANS. 17

δόξης αὐτοῦ δυνάμει κραταιωδῆναι διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ εἰς
τὸν ἔσω avSpwrov, “ κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως

ill. 4), and stands in antithesis to ὁ ἔξω
ἄνϑρωπος (2 Cor. iv. 16); the former
being practically equivalent to the νοῦς,
or higher nature of man (Rom. vii. 23),
the latter to the σὰρξ or the μέλη ; see
Beck, Seelen/. 111. 21. 3, p. 68. It is
within this ἔσω ἄνϑρωπος that the powers
of regeneration are exercised (Harless,
Christl. Ethik, § 22. a), and it is from
their operation in this province that the
whole man (‘secundum interna specta-
tus,’ Beng.) becomes a νέος ἄνϑρωπος (as
opp. to a former state), or a καινὸς ἄν-
Spwmos (as opp. to a former corrupt
state, ch. iv. 24), and is either 6 κατὰ
Θεὸν κτισἣὃ εἰς (ch. iy. 24), or ὁ ava-
καινούμενος" εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα
τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (Col. iii. 10), accord-
ing to the point of view under which
regeneration is regarded; see Harless,
Ethik, § 24. ς. The distinction between
this and the partially synonymous terms
πνεῦμα, and vovs, may perhaps be thus
roughly stated: πνεῦμα is simply the
highest of the three parts of which man
is composed (see notes on 1 Thess. y.
23); νοῦς the πνεῦμα regarded more in
its moral and intellectual aspects, ‘ quate-
nus intelligit, cogitat, et vult’ (see notes
on Phil. iv. 7); ὁ ἔσω tv&p., the πνεῦμα,
or rather the whole immaterial portion,
considered in its theological aspects, and
as the seat of the inworking powers of
grace; compare Olsh. on Rom. vii. 22,
Opusc. Theol. p. 143 sq., Beck, Seelenl.
11. 13, p. 35, and on the threefold nature
of man generally, University Serm. v. p.
99—120. The attempt to connect
St. Paul’s inspired definitions with the
terminology of earlier (6 ἐντὸς ἄνδρ.
Plato, Republ. 1x. 589), or of later Pla-
tonism (6 ἔνδον &ydp. Plot. Ennead. τ. 1.
10), as in Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. 63, will
be found on examination to be untena-

ble. The dissimilarities are marked, the
supposed parallelisms illusory.

17. κατοικῆσαι τὸν Xp. ‘that
Christ may dwell in your hearts ;’ issue
and result (ὥστε κατοικῆσαι, Orig.), not
purpose (Eadie), of the inward strength-
ening ; the present clause not being par-
allel to δυνάμει κραταιωδ. (Mey.), and
dependent on δῴη, but as the emphatic
position of κατοικῆσαι seems clearly to
show, appended to κραταιωϑῆναι with a
partially climactic force, but a somewhat
lax grammatical connection ; see Winer,
Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 284, compare Madvig,
Synt. § 153. The meaning is thus per-
fectly clear and simple; the indwelling
of Christ, the taking up of His abode
[κατ οικῆσαι, Matth. xii. 45, Luke xi.
26, Col. i. 19 (see notes), 2 Pet. iii. 13;
the simple form is, however, used, Rom.
vill. 9, 1 Cor. iii. 16] is the result of the
working of the Holy Spirit on the one
side, and the subjective reception of man
(διὰ τῆς πίστ.) on the other; ‘non procul
intuendum esse Christum fide, sed recip-
iendum esse animz nostre complexu,’
Calv. τὸν Χριστόν] The at-
tempt of Fritz. (Rom. viii. 10, Vol. 11.
p- 118) to show that Χριστὸς is here
merely ‘mens quam Christus postulat,’
by comparing such passages as Arist.
Acharn. 484, καταπιὼν Εὐριπίδην, is as
painful as it is unconvincing. What a
contrast is the vital exegesis of Chrys.,
πῶς δὲ ὁ Xp. κατοικεῖ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις,
ἄκουε αὐτοῦ λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἔλευ-
σόμεϑα ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατήρ, καὶ μονὴν παρ᾽
αὐτῷ ποιήσομεν.
ats] ‘in your hearts;’ ‘partem etiam
designat ubi legitima est Christi sedes,
nempe cor: ut sciamus non satis esse si
in lingua versetur, aut in cerebro voli-
tet,’ Calv. On the meaning of καρδία
(properly the imaginary seat of the

ἐν ταῖς καρδί-

78

ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν,

ψυχή, and thence the seat and centre of
the moral life viewed on the side of the
affections), see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol.
Iv. ll, p. 203 sq., and notes on Phil.
iv. 7.

18. ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥ. καὶ τεϑ.] ‘ye
having been rooted and grounded in love ;’
state consequent on the indwelling of
Christ, viz., one of fixedness and founda-
tion in love, the participle reverting
irregularly to the nominative for the
sake of making the transition to the fol-
lowing clause more easy and natural:
δοκεῖ μοι σαφῶς τὰ ἑξῆς ἐν σολοικίῳ
εἰρήσϑαι, ὡς πρὸς τὴν φράσιν. πρὸς γὰρ τὸ
“δῴη ὑμῖν, ἀκόλουϑον ἦν εἰπεῖν ἐῤῥιζωμέ-
. 6 δὲ ϑέλων

ἀποκαταστῆσα! τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον χωρὶς

νοις καὶ τεδεμελιοι μένοις. ..

coAotkias, σκέψαι εἰ μὴ βιάσεται οὕτω τὴν
φράσιν ἀποκοταστάς, Origen ap. Cramer,
Caten. The assumed transposition of
ἵνα (ἵνα ἐῤῥ. καὶ red. ἐξισχ., Auth., Mey.,
—but adopted by none of the ancient
Vy. except Goth.), which Origen thus
properly rejects, cannot be justified by
any necessity for emphasis, or by the
passages adduced by Fritz (Rom. xi-31,
Vol. 11. p. 541), viz. Acts xix. 4, John
παῖ, 2951 (@orix 15; 21Corsi. 4a Gal.
ii. 10, 2 Thess. ii. 7, as in all of them
(except Thess. J. c., which is not analo-
gous) the premised words are not, as
here, connected with the subject, but
form the objective factor of the sentence.
The only argument of any real weight
against the proposed interpr. is not so
much syntuctic (for see the numerous
exx. of similar irregularities in Winer,
Gr. ὃ 63. 2, p. 620, Kriiger, Sprachil.
§ 56. 9.4) as ereg tical, it being urged
that the perf. part. which points to a
completed state is inconsistent with a
prayer which seems to refer to a state of
progress, and to require the present part.
(see Meyer). The answer, however,
seems satisfactory, — that the clause does

EPHESIANS.

Cnap. III. 18.

> SJ / : Ἦν δ᾽ Ἂ i A
* ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεδεμελιωμέ-

express the state which must ensue upon
the indwelling of Christ, before what is
expressed in the next clause (ἵνα ἐξισχ.)
can in any way be realized, and that
therefore the perf. part. is perfectly cor-
rect. The Apostle prays that they may
be strengthened, that the resu/t of it may
be the indwelling of Christ, the state
naturally consequent on which would be
fixedness in the principle of Christian
love. We now notice the separate
words. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] ‘in love, —
not either of Christ (compare Chrysost.
ἀγάπη avtov) or of God (Wolf), either
of which references would certainly have
required some defining gen., but the
Christian principle of love, — love, ἥτις
ἐστὶ σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος, Col. iii.
4. This was to be their basis and foun-
dation, in which alone they were to be
fully enabled to realize all the majestic
proportions of Christ’s surpassing love
to man; comp. 1 John iy. 7 sq.

The absence of the article is unduly
pressed both by Meyer (= ‘in amando’)
and Harl. (‘subjective love,’ ‘man’s love
to Christ’), such omissions in the case
of abstract nouns, esp. when preceded
by prepp., being not uncommon in the
ΝΕ Sisco ἜΣ ΣΧ SVAner Ὑ. δ᾽ 10..}
109, and comp. Middleton, Greek Art.
vi. 1, p. 98 (ed. Rose). ep pre.
καὶ redeu.| It has been said that
there is here a mixture of metaphors ;
compare Olsh., Meyer, al. This is not
strictly true; ῥιζόω is abundantly used
both with an ethical (Herod. 1. 64, Plu-
tarch, Mfor. 6 ©) and a physical (Hom.
Od. x111. 163) reference, without any
other allusion to its primitive meaning,
than that of jfixedness, firmness, at the
base or foundation; see exx. in Rost. τι.
Palm, Ler. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1837, and
Wetst. in loc. ἵνα ἐξισχύσητ ε)
‘in order that ye may be fully able ;’ object
contemplated in the prayer for Christ’s

απαν- III. 19.

EPHESIANS. 79

ey ’ , / \ aA “ e / r x
vot, va ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσϑαι σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις, TL TO

x ~ A ΄, \ ΄
πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάδος καὶ ὕψος, ” γνῶναί τε τὴν ὑπερβάλ-

indwelling in their hearts, and their con-
sequent fixedness in love; Ἅ“ἨὨ:ἐξισχύσ.᾽
φησίν: ὥστε ἰσχύος πολλῆς δεῖ, Chrys. ;
comp. Ecclus. vii. 6, μὴ οὐκ ἐξισχύσεις
ἐξᾶραι ἀδικίας. καταλαβέσϑαι
‘to comprehend ;’ the tense perhaps imply-
ing the singleness of the act (see exx.
Winer, Gr. § 44. 7, p. 296, but see notes
on ver. 4), and the voice the exercise
of the mental power; see esp. Donalds.
Gr. § 432. bb, where this is termed
the appropriative middle, and Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq., where it is termed
the dynamic middle, as indicating the
earnestness or spiritual energy with
which the action is performed. The
meaning of the verb (κατανοεῖσϑαι He-
sych.) can scarcely be doubtful; the
meaning ‘occupare’ (compare Goth.
‘gafahan,’ Coptic taho) adopted by
Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 294), and sup-
ported only by one proper example, is
here plainly untenable, as the middle
yoice only occurs in the N. T. in refer-
ence to the mental powers ; comp. Acts
LV. WSs XK. B94, xxv 25. τί τὸ
πλάτος κ. τ. A.] ‘what is the breadth,
and length, and depth, and height ;’ cer-
tainly not ‘latitudinem quandam, ete.’
Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 294), such a
use of τί implying a transposition, and
assigning a meaning here singularly
improbable. The exact force and appli-
cation of these words is somewhat doubt-
ful. Without noticing the various spir-
itual applications (sce Corn. a Lap., and
Pol. Syn. in loc.) all of which seem more
or less arbitrary, it may be said (1) that
St. Paul is here expressing the idea of
greatness, metaphysically considered, by
the ordinary dimensions of space; διὰ
yap τοῦ μήκ. καὶ TA. καὶ Bad. καὶ ὕψ. τὸ
μέγεϑος παρεδήλωσεν" ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα μεγέ-
Sous δηλωτικά, Theod. It is, however,
more difficult (2) to specify what it is of

which this greatness and dimensions are
predicated. Setting again aside all arbi-
trary references (ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ φύσις,
Orig., Sever., ‘contemplatio Ecclesiz,’
Beng., Eadie), we seem left to a choice
between a reference to (a) ἣ ἀγάπη τοῦ
Θεοῦ πῶς πανταχοῦ ἐκτέταται, Chrysost.,
τῆς χάριτος τὸ μέγεδος, Theod.-Mops. ;
or (0) ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Xp., Caly., Mey. If
the preceding ἀγάπη had referred to the
love of God, (a) would have seemed
most probable; as it does not, and as its
general meaning there would be inappli-
cable here, (b) seems the most natural
explanation. Thus then the consequent
clause, without being dependent or ex-
planatory, still practically supplies the
defining gen.: St. Paul pauses on the
word ὕψος, and then, perhaps feeling it
the most apprepriate characteristic of
Christ’s love, he appends, without finish-
ing the construction, a parallel thought
which hints at the same conception
(ὑπερβάλλουσαν), and suggests the re-
quired genitive. The order BaSos
x. ὕψος, has only the support of AKL ;
most’ mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Orig., Chrys.,
Theod., al. (Tisch., Meyer, Alf.) ; but is
appy. rightly maintained, even in opp.
to BCDEFG; mss.; Vulg., Clarom.,
Syr., Goth., Copt.; Ath., Maced. (Rec.,
Lachm.) which adopt the more natural,
and for this very reason, the more suspi-
cious order.

19. γνῶναί te] ‘and to know ;’ sup-
plemental clause to καταλαβέσϑαι κ. τ. A.,
the former referring to the comprehensive
knowledge of essentia!s (Olsh.), the lat-
ter further specifying the practical knowl-
edge arising from religious experience.
It may be remarked, that though the
union of sentences by te is characteristic
of later Greek, (Bernhardy, Synt. xx-
17, p. 483), it is comparatively rare in
the Gospels. In the Epistles, but most

80

λουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ
τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ.

especially in the Acts, it is of more
Te is to be dis-
tinguished from καὶ as being adjunctive
rather than conjunctive; like ‘que,’ it
appends to the foregoing clause (which
is to be conceived as haying a separate
and independent existence, Jelf, Gr. §
754. 6), an additional, and, very fre-
quently, a new thought ;—a thought
which, though not necessary to (Herm.
Viger, No. 315), is yet often supple-
mental to, and partially involved in the
first clause; comp. Acts ii. 23, Heb. 1. 3,
and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 57. 8, p. 517
(ed. 5).
γνώσεως ay.| ‘the knowledye-surpass-
ing love ;’ the gen. γνώσεως being due to
the notion of comparison involved in
ὑπερβάλλειν ; comp. Ausch. Prom. 944,
βροντῆς ὑπερβάλλοντα κτύπον, Arist. Pol.
111. 9, and see Jelf, Gr. § 504, Bern-
hardy, Synt. 111. 48. Ὁ, p. 169. The
words can scarcely be twisted into mean-
ing ‘the exceeding love of God in be-
stowing on us the knowledge of Christ’
(Dobree, Advers. Vol. 1. p. 573), nor
can the participle ὕπερβ. be explained in
an infinitival sense,‘ to know that the
love of Christ is ἀνεξιχνίαστον (comp.
Harl.),—a translation untenable in point
of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, note,
Ῥ. 309), and unsatisfactory in exegesis,
— but, as its position shows, must be
regarded as simply adjectival. The sen-
tence then contains an oxymoron or
apparent paradox (comp. 1 Cor. i. 21,
Die Or vill. Ὁ. (Gall. nil- 19}Ὲ1 em: ave,
6), thus simply and satisfactorily ex-
plained by Chrysost. (ed. Savile) and
Cicum , ef καὶ ὑπερκεῖται πάσης γνώσεως

common occurrence.

τὴν ὑπερβάλλ. THS

avSpwrivns [this is too restricted] 7 ἀγάπη
τοῦ Xp. duws ὑμεῖς γνώσεσϑε εἰ τὸν Xp.
σχοίητε ἐνοικοῦντα : comp. Theophylact.
Γνῶναι is thus contrasted with γνώσις ;
the former being that knowledge which

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. III. 19.

Χριστοῦ, ἵνα πληρωϑδῆτε εἰς πᾶν

arises from the depths of religious expe-
rience (τὸ γνῶναι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπολαῦσαι
λέγει, Theod.-Mops.), the knowledge
that is ever allied with love (Phil. i. 9) ;
the latter abstract knowledge, not merely
ἀνδρωπίνη (Chrys.), and most certainly
not ψευδώνυμος (Holzh.), but knowledge
without reference to religious conscious-
ness or Christian love; comp. 1 Cor.
viii. 1 sq., xiii. 8. ἀγάπην τοῦ
Χρ.] ‘love of Christ towards us ;’ gen.
subjecti ; not ‘love for Christ,’ 1 John ii.
δ..:1Ὁ. ἵνα πληρώϑητε κ. τ. λ.]
‘that ye may be filled to all the fulness of
God ;’ object and purpose of ἐξισχύειν
καταλαβέσϑαι : ὥστε πληροῦσϑαι πάσης
ἀρετῆς hs πλήρης ἐστίν ὃ Θεός, Chrysost.
(ed. Sav.). There is some little diffi-
culty in these words, arising from the
ambiguity of the meaning of πλήρωμα.
If we adhere (a) to the more strict mean-
ing, ‘id quo res impletur’ (see Fritz.
Rom. Vol, 11. p. 469 sq., notes on Gal.
iv. 4), the words must imply ‘that ye
may be so filled as God is filled’ (Olsh.),
τοῦ Θεοῦ being the possessive gen , and τὸ
mAnp. referring, not to the essence, still
less to the δόξα (Harl.), but to the spirit-
ual perfections of God. Owing to the
somewhat obvious objection, that such a
fulness could never be completely real-
ized in this present state of human im-
perfection (1 Cor. xiii. 10 sq.), De W.
and Mey. adopt (δ) the secondary mean-
ing of πλήρωμα, scil. πλοῦτος, πλῆϑος
(see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 471), the
translation being either, ‘ut pleni fiatis
usque eo ut omnes Dei opes animis ves-
tris recipiatis’ (Fritz. 7b.), or ‘ut omni-
bus Dei donis abundetis’ (Est.), accord-
ing as Θεοῦ is regarded more as a
possessive gen.; or as a gen. of the orig-
inating cause (notes on 1 Thess. i. 6).
Both these latter interpretations are,
however so frigid and so little in har-

3

Cuap. III. 20, 21.

Doxology.

EPHESIANS, 81

20 Us peat δὲ ὃ δ ωπον , a €
f (= VUVALEV® UTrEp TAVTA “ποίησαι υπερ-

ἴων i ’ 3 ἴω ΄
εκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεγα ἢ νοοῦμεν, κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνερ-
ουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, “᾿ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία ἐν X 5
γουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, ῷ ἡ 2 ἐκκλησίᾳ ριστῷ

mony with the climactic character of the
passage (Suv. κρατ. διὰ τοῦ Πν......
H@TOLK ρινς «ἐς ἵνα πληρωῦ. εἰς πᾶν τὸ
πλήρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ), and the apparently well
considered use of εἰς (not ἐν instrumental
or an ablatival dat.), that we do not hes-
itate to adopt (a), and urge, with Olsh.,
that where Christ the living Son of God
dwells, there surely πᾶν τὸ πλήρ. τοῦ
Θεοῦ is already; comp. Col. ii. 19.

εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρ!] ‘to all the fulness;’
‘in omnem plenitudinem,’ Clarom., Vul-
gate; εἰς not implying ‘accordance to’
(Eadie), but with its usual and proper
force, denoting the end (here quantita-
tively considered ), or limit of the πλήρω-
ats; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. 5. v. εἰς,
111., Vol. 1. p. 803, compare Bernhardy,
Synt. vy. 11. b, p. 218.

20. τῷ δὲ δυναμ έν ῳ] ‘Now to Him
that is able ;’ concluding doxology, not
without some antithesis (δὲ) between
Him who is the subject of the present
verse, and the finite beings who are the
subjects of the preceding verses.
ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι] ‘to do (effect,
complete) beyond all things ;’ ‘ periphrasis
Dei Patris emphatica,’ Vorst. That
ὑπὲρ cannot here be taken adverbially
seems almost self-evident; the order
would thus be needlessly artificial and
the sentence tautologous; comp. Winer,
Gr. § 50. 7. 2, p. 376.
περισσοῦ ὧν κ. τ. λ.] ‘superabun-
dantly byond what we ask or think ;’
second member explanatory of the pre-
ceding, ὧν not referring to πάντα, but
forming with αἰτούμ. and νοοῦμ. a fresh
and more specific subject: ὅρα δὲ δύο
ὑπερβολάς. τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι τὰ εἰρη-

ὑὕπερεκ-

μένα, καὶ ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ποιῆσαι ἃ ποιεῖ,
ἔνι γὰρ καὶ πλείονα ποιοῦντα τῶν αἰτηϑέν-
τῶν κεφάλαια, μὴ πλουσίως μήτε δαψιλῶς
ἕκαστον ποιῆσαι, (οι, The cumula-

tive compound ὑὕπερεκ. occurs 1 Thess.
iii. 10 (comp. notes) v. 13, and belongs
to a class of compounds (those with
ὑπέρ), for which the Apostle seems to
have had a somewhat marked predilec-
tion ; compare ὑπερνικάω, Rom. viii. 37 ;
ὑπερπερισσεύω, Rom. vy. 20, 2 Cor. vii.
4; ὑπερλίαν, ib. xi. 5; ὑπερυψόω, Phil.
ll. 9; ὑπεραυξάνω, 2 Thess. i. 3 ὑπερ-
πλεονάζω, 1 Tim. i. 14; and see Fritz.
Rom. ν. 20, Vol. 1. p. 351. It is notice-
able that ὑπὲρ occurs nearly thrice as
many times in St. Paul’s Epp. and the
Ep. to the Heb. as in the rest of the N.
T., and that, with a few exceptions
(Mark vii. 37, Luke vi. 38, etc.), the
compounds of ὑπὲρ are all found in St.
Paul’s Epp. The gen. ὧν is governed
by ὑπερεκπ. as γνώσεως by ὑπερβάλλου-
σαν, ver. 19; comp. Bernh. Synt. 111. 34,
p- 139 sq. αἰτούμεϑα i) νοοῦ-
μεν] ‘we ask or think;’ not only the
requests we actually prefer, but all that
it might enter into the mind to conceive;
“cogitatio latius patet quam preces’ Ben-
gel; comp. Phil. iv. 7. THY
ἐνεργΎ. ἐν ἡ μῖν] ‘which worketh in us,
se. in our souls’, ‘que operatur in nobis,’
Clarom., Vulg.; ἐνεργ. not being here
passive (Hamm., Bull, Exam. 11. 3), but
middle (Syr., Goth., ASth., Arm.), as in
Gal. v. 6, where see notes. On the con-
structions of évepyéw, see notes on Gal.
ii. 8, and on the distinction between the
uses of act. (mainly in personal ref.)
and middle (mainly in non-personal
ref.), Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 231. The
δύναμις, which so energizes, is the power
of the Holy Ghost; comp. ver. 16, Rom.
viii. 26.

21. αὐτῷ] ‘to Him;’ rhetorical repe-
tition of the pronoun, — not, however,
in accordance with ‘Hebrew usage’
(Eadie), but in agreement with the sim-

11

82 EPHESIANS. Cuap. ITI, 21.

3 a N lo) A a
Inood, εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων: ἀμήν.

91. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7), Harl, De Wette, Mey.,
al., with D2 [E, Χρ. Ἰ ἐν τῇ éxx.] KL; great majority of mss.; Goth., Syr. (both),
al.; Chrys., Theod., Dam. (text), Theoph., Gicum.; Vig. The variations can be
so satisfactorily accounted for that there seems little doubt that this is the true read-
Assuming it to be so, the preéminence due to Christ would first have sug-
gested a change of order (compare E): the insertion of καὶ would have easily fol-
lowed, as in D1FG; Clarom., Sang., Aug., Boern.; Ambrst.; it would thus have
acquired such a footing in the text, as to be maintained even when the right order

ing.

was observed.

We have hence the fairly attested, though appy. spurious, reading,

ἐν τῇ ex. καὶ ἐν Xp. I. in ABC; 73, 80, 213; Vulg., Copt., Arm.; Dam. (comm.) ;

Hier., Pel. (Lachm., Riickert.).

ple principles of emphasis ; see Bernh.,
Synt. vi. 11. ¢, p. 290. ἡ δόξα]
‘the glory that is due to Him, and re-
dounds to Him from such gracious deal-
ings towards us;’ see notes on Gal. i. 5.
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. ἐν Xp. “Ina.] ‘in the
Church, in Christ Jesus ;’ the first mem-
ber denoting the outward province, the
second the inward and spiritual sphere
in which God was to be praised. The
second member ἐν Xp. Inc. is thus not
for διὰ Xp. (Theoph.), nor for σὺν Xp.
(Cicum.), but retains its proper mean-
ing, specifying, not exactly the manner
(De W.), but the true element in which
alone praise was duly to be ascribed to
God; ‘if any glory come from us to
God it is by [in] Christ,’ Sanders (cited
by Wordsw. in loc.). The ordinary ex-
planation, ‘the Church (which is) in
Christ Jesus,’ is objectionable, not so
much on account of the absence of the
article (for comp. 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess.
i. 1), as on account of the then appy.
superfluous character of the words (the
exxA. here mentioned could only be the
Christian Church), which in our present
interpr. echo the preceding τοῦ Χριστοῦ
(ver. 19) with special and appropriate
force; contrast Alf zn loc., who still par-
tially connects the two members; but
comp. Syr., which by its omission of the
relative here, and its insertion in Thess.
Il. cc., seems not obscurely to fayor our

present view. Lachm. and Riick.
insert καὶ (καὶ ἐν Xp. Ino.) with a fair
amount of authority (see crit. note), —
but contrary to critical probability; as
the insertion of the copula seems more
naturally due to emendation (observe
the variations zm loc.), than its omission
to an error in transcription. eis
πάσας γενεάς κ. τ. λ.] ‘to all the gen-
erations of the age of the ages ;’ compare
Dan. vii. 18, ἕως αἰῶνος τῶν αἰῶνων, 3
Esdr. iv. 38, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,
and see notes on (ταί. i. ὅ. The cumu-
lative expression is somewhat peculiar,
It is not improbable, as Grotius suggests,
that the two formulz expressive of end-
less continuity, γενεαὶ γενεῶν, Luke 1. 50,
and αἰῶνες τῶν aidvwy, are here blended
together. The use of γενεαὶ suggests
the use of the singular αἰών, as the con-
ception of the successive generations
composing the entirety of the aidy is
thus more clearly presented, while again
the subjoined plural marks that αἰὼν as
also composed of a series of αἰῶνες (gen.
of the content) of which it is the sum
and aggregation. Harless finds a differ-
ence between the two expressions αἰῶνες
τῶν αἰώνων and αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων, the for-
mer being rather eatensive, and convey-
ing the idea of πάντες αἰῶνες, the latter
being rather intensive, ‘ seeculum szeculo-
rum, quod omnia szcula in se continet’
(Drus.), and more strictly in accordance

ΘῊΡ iV 1:

Walk worthy of your voca-
tion in lowliness, in love,
and especially in unity;
there is but one body, one
Spirit, one Lord, and one God.

with the Hebrew superlative. This is in-
genious, but appy. of doubtful application,
as in actual practice the difference between
the two expressions is hardly apprecia-
ble. Baur (Paulus, p. 433) finds in this
expression distinct traces of Gnosticism :
it is unnecessary to refute such utterly
foregone conclusions.

CuarTer IV. 1. παρακαλῶ οὖν)
“1 exhort you then;’ commencement of
the practical portion of the Epistle
(comp. Rom. xii. 1), following naturally
and with an appropriate retrospective
reference (οὖν) to what has preceded ;
οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἐπιδείξας τῆς elas evepye-
σίας τὸν πλοῦτον, ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδη προτρέπει
τῆς ἀρετῆς, Theod. The meaning of
mapakad@ will thus be both here and in
Rom. /. 6. more naturally ‘hortor’
(παρακ. τὸ προτρέπω, ws ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ,
Thom. M. p. 684, ed. Bern.) than ‘ obse-
cro,’ (Clarom., Vulg., Arm., and most
Vy.),—a meaning which it sometimes
bears, but which would seem inapplicable
in the present context; see Fritz. Rom.
Vol. 111. p. 4, and, for a general notice
of the word, Knapp, Script. Var. Arg.
Ρ. 127 sq.; comp. also notes on 1 Thess.
Ver lilte The evract reference of οὖν
is more doubtful; Meyer refers it to the
verse immediately preceding, Winzer
and Alford (Rom. ἰ. ce.) to the whole
doctrinal portion of the Ep.; the former
view, however, seems too narrow, the
latter too vague. The more natural ref.
is appy. to those passages in the preced-
ing chap. which relate to the spiritual
privileges and calling of the Ephesians,
e. g. ver. 6, 12, but especially to 14 sq.,
in which the tenor of the prayer inci-
dentally discloses how high and how
great that calling really was. On the
true force of this particle, see Klotz,

EPHESIANS. 83

IV. Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν
Κυρίῳ, ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς

Devar. Vol. 11. p. 117, Donalds. Gr., ὃ
548. 31, and comp. notes on Piil. ii. 1.

6 δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘the prisoner
in the Lord,’ i. e., as paraphrased by
Fritz., ‘ego vinctus in Christi castris ;’
not παρακ. ἐν Kup., a construction at
variance both with the grammatical
order of the words, and the apparent
force of the exhortation; see Winer, Gr.
§ 20. 2, p. 123. St. Paul exhorts not
merely as the prisoner, but as the pris-
oner in the Lord; ‘a vinculis majorem
5101 auctoritatem vindicat,’ Calv.; comp.
Gal. vi. 17. Thus ἐν Kup. is not for διὰ
Kup. (Chrysost., Theod.), or σὺν Kup.
(CEcum.), but denotes the sphere in
which captivity existed, and out of which
it did not exist; ‘in Domini enim vincu-
lis constrictus est, qui ἐν Κυρίῳ ay vinc-
tus est,’ Fritz. Rom. viii. 1, Vol. 11. p.
82 sq.; comp. notes on Gal. i. 34. The
distinction between this and 6 δέσμ. τοῦ
Xp., ch. iii. 1, seems to be that in the lat-
ter the captivity is referred immediately
to Christ as its author and originator, in
the former to the union with Him and
devotion to His service. It must be
conceded, that occasionally ἐν Κυρίῳ
appears little more than a kind of quali-
tative definition (comp. Rom. xvi. 8, 13,
1 Cor. iv. 17, Phil. i. 14, al.) ; still the
student cannot be too much put on his
guard against the frigid and even unspir-
itual interpretations into which Fritz.
has been betrayed in his elaborate note
(Rom. /. c. Vol. 11. p. 82 sq.) on this
and the similar formula ἐν Χριστῷ.
On the nature of this union with
Christ compare Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol.
1πτι p. 702. ἧς ἐκλήϑητεϊ
‘wherewith ye were called,’ ‘qua vocati
estis,’ Clarom., Vulg., Goth.; ἧς here
appy. standing for 7 (comp. 2 Tim. i. 9,
but not 1 Cor. vii. 20 [De W.], as there

84

ἐκλήδητε,

ἐν precedes), and so slightly violating
the usual law of attraction, unless, fol-
lowing the analogy of such phrases as
κλῆσιν καλεῖν, TapakAnow mapak., We
suppose the relative standing as usual
for the accus. ἤν; compare Winer, Gr. §
24.1, p. 189. De W. indeed denies the
existence of such a phrase as κλῆσιν
καλεῖν, but see Arrian, pict. p. 122
(Raphel), καταισχύνειν τὴν κλῆσιν ἣν
κέκληκεν.

2. μετὰ πάσης ταπ.] ‘with all
lowliness ;’ dispositions with which their
moral walk was to be associated (comp.
Col. iii. 12), μετὰ (‘ with, Vulg., Goth.,
not ‘in,’ Copt.) being used with ref. to
the mental powers and dispositions with
which an action is, as it were, accompa-
nied; comp. Luke i. 39, 2 Cor. vii. 15,
and see Winer, Gr. § 47. h. p. 337. Σὺν
denotes rather coherence (Kriiger, Sprachl.
§ 68. 13, 1), not uncommonly with some
collateral idea of assistance ; compare 1
Cor. v. 4. On the use of πάσης,
comp. notes, ch. i. 8; and on the mean-
ing of the late word ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘the
esteeming of ourselves small, because we
are so,’ ‘the thinking truly, and, because
truly, therefore lowlily of ourselves,’ see
Trench, Synon. ὃ xuit., and Suicer,
Thesaur. s. v., where several definitions
of Chrysostom are cited. Most of these
openly or tacitly ascribe to the ταπει-
voppwy a consciousness of greatness
(tam. ἐστίν, ὅταν μεγάλα Tis ἑαυτῷ

᾽

συνειδὼς μηδὲν μέγα περὶ αὑτοῦ φαν-
τάζηται); this, however, as Trench ob-
serves, is alien to the true sense and
spirit of the word. πρᾳύτητοΞ])
“meekness,’ in respect of God, and in the
face of men; see Trench, Synon, ὃ
xuit., Tholuck, Bergpr. (Matth. v. 5),
p- 82 sq., and notes on Gal. vy. 23. The
less definite meaning of ‘gentleness’ is
appy. maintained by some of the Vy.
(Vulg. ‘mansuetudine’ Goth. ‘qairrein’

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 2.

2 \ / , \ sl. \
μετα TAGNS ταπεινοφροσύνης και πρᾳυτήῆτος, μετὰ

[comp. Lat. cicur], Arm., al.), and also
by the Greek commentators (ἔσο ταπει-
νὸς ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πρᾳος, ἔστι γὰρ ταπεινὸν
μὲν εἶναι, ὀξὺν δὲ καὶ ὀργίλον, Chrysost. ;
compare Theophyl. on Gal. v. 3); the
deeper and more biblical sense is, how-
ever, distinctly to be preferred. A
good general definition will be found in
Stobeeus, Floril. 1. 1 (18). The
reading πρᾳύτητος, though only sup-
ported by BC; mss., is appy. to be pre-
ferred to πραότητος (Rec., Lachm. with
ADEFGL; majority of mss.), as the
best attested form in the dialect of the
New Test. see Tischend. Prolegom. p. L.
μετὰ pakpodsupmtas] ‘with long suf-
fering ;’ separate clause more fully elu-
cidated by the following words, ἀνεχόμε-
vot x. τ᾿ A. Two other constructions
have been proposed; (a) the connection
of μετὰ μακρ. with avex. (Est. Harl.) so
as to form a single clause ; (>) the union
of all the clauses in one single sentence.
The objections to (a) are, (1) that avex.
is the natural expansion of μετὰ μακρ.,
—(2) that undue emphasis must thus
(owing to the position) be ascribed to
μετὰ wakp.,— (3) that the parallelism of
the participial clauses would be need-
lessly violated; to the latter that the
passage of the general ἀξίως περιπ.) into
the special ἀνεχόμ. ἀλλ.) becomes sudden
and abrupt, instead of being made easy
and gradational by means of the inter-
posed prepositional clauses ; comp. Mey.
The fine word μακροϑυμία
(‘ long-suffering,’ ‘forbearance,’ Goth.
‘usbeisnai’), implies the reverse of ὀξυ-
ϑυμία (James i. 19), and is well defined
by Fritz. (Rom. τι. 4, Vol. 1. p. 98) as
‘clementid, qua ire temperans, delictum
non statim vindices, sed ei qui peccaverit
peenitendi locum relinquas.’ The gloss
of Chrys. (on Cor. xiii. 4), μακρόϑυμος
διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται, ἔπειδὴ μακράν τινα καὶ
μεγάλην ἔχει ψυχήν (compare Clarom.

in loc.

Cuap. IV. 3.

EPHESIANS. 85

μακροδυμίας, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγώπῃ, ἣἧ σπουδάζοντες

‘magnanimitate’), is too inclusive and
general; that of Beza, ‘irz cohibitione,’
too limited and special. ave x d-
μενοι x. τ. A.| ‘forbearing one another
in love;’ manifestation and exhibition of
the μακροϑυμία; compare Col. iii. 13.

. The relapse of the participle from its

proper case into the nom. is here so per-
fectly intelligible, and natural, that any
supplement of ἐστὲ or γίνεσϑε (Heins.,
al.) must be regarded as wholly unneces-
sary; see notes on ch. iii. 18, and Elsner,
Obs. Vol. 11. p. 211 sq. ἐν ἀγάπῃ
is referred by Lachm. and Olsh. to σπου-
da¢ovres. Such a punctuation, though
supported by Origen (Caten.), seems
wholly inadmissible, as disturbing the
symmetry of the two participial clauses,
and throwing a false emphasis on ἐν
ἀγάπῃ.

3. σπουδάς. τηρεῖν] ‘using dili-
gence to keep ;’ participial member paral-
lel to the foregoing, specifying the inward
feelings (Mey.) by which the ἀνέχεσϑαι
is to be characterized, and the inward
efforts by which it is to be promoted ;
οὐκ ἀπόνως ἰσχύσομεν εἰρηνεύειν, Theoph.
For two good discussions of this verse,
though from somewhat different points
of view, see Laud, Serm. νι. Vol. 1. p.
155 sq. (A. C. Libr.), and Baxter,
Works, Vol. xvi. p. 879 (ed. Orme).
τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ Πν.] ‘the unity of
the Spirit,’ scil. ‘wrought by the Spirit’
(τὴν ἑνότ., ἣν τὸ Πνεῦμα ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν,
Theoph., comp. Chrysost., GQicum.), τοῦ
Πν. being the gen. of the originating
cause (Scheuerl. Synt., § 17.1, p. 125),
not the possessive gen. (as appy. Origen,
Caten.), or both united (as Stier, see
Vol. 11. p. 18), neither of which seem
here so pertinent; see notes on 1 Thess.
i. 6, and on Col. i. 23. That the ref. is
to the personal Holy Spirit, seems so
clear that we may wonder how such
able commentators as Calvin and Estius

could regard τὸ Πν. as the human spirit,
and acquiesce in an interpr. so frigid as
‘animorum concordia,’ ‘animorum inter
vos conjunctio.” De Wette, — whose
own interpr. ‘die Einheit des kirchlichen
Gemeingeistes’ (comp. Theod.-Mops.,
Πνεῦμ., τὸ ἀναγεννῆσαν σῶμα), is very
far from satisfactory, urges ἑνότης πίσ-
Tews, ver. 13 (compare Origen), but the
two passages are by no means so closely
analogous as to suggest any modifica-
tion of the simple personal meaning here
assigned to Πνεῦμα; see Laud, Serm. vt.
Vol. 1. p. 162 (A. C. Libr.). ἐν
Tw συνδέσμῳ THs εἰρήνη] ‘in
the bond of peace;’ element or principle
in which the unity is maintained, viz.
‘peace ;’ τῆς εἰρήν. being not the gen.
objecti (‘that which binds together, main-
tains, peace,’ Riickert, ‘vinculum quo
pax retinetur,’ Beng., scil. ἀγάπη, Col.
iii. 14), but the gen. of identity or apposi-
tion; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82,
Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, p.470. The former
interpretation is plausible, and appy. as
ancient as the time of Origen (τῆς aya-
ms auvdcovons κατὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἑνουμέ-
vous, ap. Cram. Caten. p. 165), but de-
rives very doubtful support from Col.
l.c., where ἀγάπη is specified, and was
perhaps only due to the assumption that
ἐν was here instrumental (διά Cicum.),
and that συνδ τῆς εἰρ. was a periphrasis
for the agent (ἀγάπη) supposed to be
referred to. Ἔν, however, correctly de-
notes the sphere, the element in which the
ἑνότης is to be kept and manifested (see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 845), thus pre-
serving its parallelism with ἐν in ver. 2,
and conveying a very simple and _per-
spicuous meaning: the Ephesians were
to evince their forbearance in love, and
to preserve the Spirit-given unity in the
true bond of union, the ‘irrupta copula’
of peace. The etymological identity
of σύνδεσμος and εἰρήνη must not be

86 EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 4, 5.

A U fa 3 A ’ an 5
τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης.

ἐὲν σῶμα καὶ ἕν Πνεῦμα, casas καὶ ἐκλήϑδητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι

τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν'

pressed (Reiners, ap. Wolf) as the deri-
vation of εἰρήνη from EIPQ ‘necto’ is
less probable than from EIPQ ‘dico;’
see Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 7,
Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 799.
4. ἐν σῶμα] ‘There is one body ;’
assertory declaration of the unity per-
vading the Christian dispensation, de-
signed to illustrate and enhance the fore-
going exhortation; the simple verb ἐστί,
not γίνεσϑε or ἐστέ (οἵπερ ἐστέ, Camer.),
being appy. the correct supplement; see
Winer, Gr., ὃ 64. 2, p. 546. The con-
nection of thought between ver. 3 and 4
is somewhat doubtful. That the verse
is not directly hortatory, and connected
with (Zachm.), dependent on (‘ut sitis,’
Syr. Est. 2), or in apposition to (‘exis-
tentes,’ Est. 1) what precedes, seems
clear from the parallelism with ver. 5
and 6; still less does it introduce a
reason for the previous statement by an
ellipse of γάρ (Eadie), all such ellipses
being wholly indemonstrable; ‘nulla in
re magis pejusque errari quam in ellipsi
particularum § solet,’ Herm. Viger Ap-
pend 11. p. 701 (ed. Valpy). It seems
then only to contain a simple assertion,
the very unconnectedness of which adds
weight and impressiveness, and seems
designed to convey an echo of the former
warning ; ‘remember,— there is one
body, ete.;’ comp. Hofm. Sehrift. Vol.
11. p. 108. In the explanation of
the sentiment, the Greek commentators
somewhat vacillate; we can, however,
scarcely doubt that the σῶμα implies the
whole community of Christians, the
mystical body of Christ (ch. ii. 16, Rom.
xii. 5, Col. i. 24, al.), and that the
Πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit which dwells
in the Church (Eadie), and by which
the σῶμα is moved and vivified (1 Cor.
xii, 13) ; comp. Jackson, Creed, xii. 3.

διε ΄, ! ἢ ἃ ΄
εἷς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα:

4, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 1, p. 249, and
Wordsw. in loc. On this text, see a
good treatise by Barrow, Works, Vol.
Vil. p. 626 sq. καὺ ὦ 9] ‘evenas;’
illustration and proof of the unity, as
more especially afforded by the unity of
the hope in which they were called. On
the later form καϑώς, see notes on Gal.
lii. 6. καὶ ἐκλήϑητε ἐν μιᾷ
ἐλπ.] ‘ye were also called in one hope,’
‘vocati estis in una spe,’ Clarom.,
Vulg., Arm.; καὶ marking the accord-
ance of the calling with the previously-
stated unity (‘unitas spiritus ex unitate

spei noscitur,’ Cocc.), and ἐν being nei- _

ther equiv. to ἐπὶ (Chrys.) or eis (Riick.),
nor even instrumental, but simply speci-
fying the moral element in which as it
were the κλῆσις took place; compare
Winer, Gr., § 50. 5, p. 370. Meyer
adopts the instrumental sense; as, how-
ever, there are not here, as in Gal. i. 6
(see notes), any prevailing dogmatical
reasons for such an interpretation, and
as the two remaining passages in which
καλεῖν is joined with ἐν (1 Cor. vii. 15, 1
Thess. iv. 7) admit a similar explana-
tion, it seems most correct to adhere to
the strict, and so to say, theological mean-
ing of this important preposition; we
were called ἐπ᾽ ἐλευϑερίᾳ (Gal. v. 13),
and εἰς ζωήν αἰώνιον (1 Tim. vi. 12),
but ἐν εἰρήνῃ (1 Cor. vii. 15), ἐν aye
ασμῷ (1 Thess. iv. 7) and ἐν ἐλπίδι ;
compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 15, p.
146. τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν] ‘of
your calling, sc. arising from your call-
ing; κλήσεως being not the gen. of pos-
session (Eadie, Alf.), but of the origin or
originating cause; κοινὴ ἐστὶν ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς
ἐκ τῆς κλήσεως γενομένη, Cicum.; see
notes on 1 Thess. i. 6.

5. εἷς Κύριο 95] ‘one Lord,’ se. Christ ;
placed prominently forward, as the Head

»

ΓΑ

Cuap. IV. 6.

>

EPHESIANS. ST

\ A.

6? Θ \ \ ‘ , ς \ ὃ \ ΄ ae)
εἰς εος Και TAT) P πάντων, ὁ ETL TAUVTWMV καὶ OLA TTAVT@MV καὶ EV

of His one body, the Church, and the
one divine object toward whom faith is
directed, and into whom all Christians
are baptized ; comp. Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii.
27, and for a good sermon on this text
Barrow, Serm. xx11. Vol. v. p. 261 sq.

"μία mlortes] ‘one faith;’ not the

‘fides que creditur,’ and still less the
‘regula fidei,’ Grot., —this meaning in
the N. T. being extremely doubtful, see
notes on Gal. i. 23, — but the ‘ fides qua
creditur,’ the ‘fides salvifica,’ which was
the same in its essence and qualities for
all Christians (Mey.). That this, how-
ever, must not be unduly limited to the
feeling of the individual, sc. to faith in
its utterly subjective aspect, seems clear
from the use of μία, and the general
context. As there is one Lord, so the
μία πίστις is not only a subjective recog-
nition of this eternal truth (Usteri, Lehrb.
11. 1. 4, p. 238), but also necessarily
involves a common objective profession
of it; comp. Rom. x. 10; and see Stier,
Vol. 1. p. 33, Pearson, Creed, Art. Iv.
Vol. 1. p. 399 (ed. Burt.). év
βάπτισμα] ‘one baptism;’ a still fur-
ther ‘consequentia’ to εἷς Κύριος ; as
there was one Lord and one faith in
Him, so was there one and one only
baptism into Him (Gal. iii. 27), one and
one only inward element, one and one
only outward seal. Commentators have
dwelt, perhaps somewhat unprofitably,
upon the reasons why no mention is
made of the other sacrament, the εἷς
ἄρτος (1 Cor. x. 17) of the Holy Com-
munion. If it be thought necessary to
assign any reason, it must certainly not
be sought for in the mere historical fact
(Mey.), that the Holy Communion was
not at that time so separate and distinct
in its administration (compare Bingham
Antiq. xv. 7.6, 7, Waterland, Hucharist,
Ch. τ. Vol. 1v. p. 475) as Holy Baptism,
for the words of inspiration are for all

times, but must be referred to the funda-
mental difference between the two sacra-
ments. The one is rather the symbol of
union (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 284); the
other, from its single celebration and
marked individual reference, presents
more clearly the idea of unity, — the idea
most in harmony with the context; see
Kahnis, Abend. p. 276, 249.

6. εἷς Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ] ‘one God
and Father ;’ climactic reference to the
eternal Father (observe the distinct men-
tion of the three Persons of the blessed
Trinity, ver. 4, 5, 6) in whom unity finds
its highest exemplification ; ‘etiamsi bap-
tizamur in nomen Patris, Filii, et Spiritus
Sancti, et filium unum Dominum nomi-
namus, tamen non credimus nisi in unum
Deum,’ Coce. On this solemn designa-
tion, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and for a dis-
cussion of the title ‘Father,’ Pearson,
Creed, Art. 1. Vol. 1. p. 35 sq. (ed.
Burt.), Barrow, Creed, Serm. x. Vol.
Ivy. p. 493 sq. 6 ἐπὶ πάντων͵
‘who is over all;’ 6 κύριος καὶ ἐπάνω πάν-
των, Chrysost.; the relation expressed
seems that of simple sovereignty, not
only spiritual (Calv.), but general and
universal (δεσποτείαν σημαίνει, 'Theod.) ;
comp. Rom. ix. 5, and see Winer, Gr.
§ 50. 6, p. 370, where the associated
reference to ‘protection’ (ed. 5), is now
rightly excluded ; this would have been
more naturally expressed by ὑπέρ; see
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 28. It is unne-
cessary to remark that the three clauses
are no synonymous formule (Koppe),
but that the prepositions mark with scru-
pulous accuracy the threefold relation in
which God stands to his creatures; see
notes on Gal. i. 1, and Winer, Gr. l. c.,
and Stier, Vol. 1. p. 44. The gen-
der of πάντων is doubtful. It seems
arbitrary (Clarom., Vulg.) to regard the
first πάντων and πᾶσιν as masc., the sec-
ond πάντων as neuter, as there is nothing

88

Further, Christ gives His
grace in measure to each,
as the Scripture testifies.

in the context or in the meaning of the
prepp. to require such a limitation ; the
gender of one may with propriety fix
that of the
tainly seems masculine, πάντων may be
assumed of the same gender; so Copt.,
which by the omission of hob seems here
to express a definite opinion. In Rom.
ix. 5, πάντων is commonly (and prop-
erly) interpreted as neuter (opp. to Fritz.
in loc. Vol. 11. 272), there being no lim-
itation or restriction implied in the con-
text. The reading is very doubtful ;
ἡμῖν (Rec. duty with mss.; Chrys. com-
ment., al.) is added to πᾶσιν with DEF
GKL; mss.; Clarom, Vulgate, Syr.
(both), Goth.; Did., Dam., al.,— but
seems more rightly omitted with ABC ;
10 mss.; Copt., ith. (both); Ath.,
Greg.-Naz., Chrys. (text), al., as a not
improbable gloss; so Lachm., Tisch.,
and appy. the majority of recent edi-
tors.

rest. As πᾶσιν then cer-

διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν)
‘through all and in all” These two last
clauses are less easy to interpret, on ac-
count of the approximation in meaning
Of these διὰ is
referred (a) by the Greek expositors to
God (the Father), in respect of his provi-

of the two prepositions.

dence (ὁ προνοῶν καὶ διοικῶν, Chrysost.) ;
(b) by Aquinas (ap. Est.), al, to God
the Son, ‘per quem omnia facta sunt,’
comp. Olsh., — a very inverted interpre-
tation; (6) by Calvin, Meyer, al. ‘to
the pervading charismatic influence and
presence of God by means of the Holy
Spirit’ This last interpretation seems
at first sight most in unison with the
strict meaning of both prepp , διὰ point-
ing to the influence of the Spirit which
passes through (‘transcurrit,’ Jerome) and
pervades all hearts [operative motion], ἐν
His indwelling (6 οἰκῶν, Chrysost.) and
informing influence [operative rest] ; see
ed. 1; still as the three Persons of the
blessed Trinity have been so lately spec-

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 7.

πᾶσιν. ‘Evi δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις

ified, as references to this holy Truth
seem very noticeably to pervade this Ep.
(see Stier, Eph. Vol. 1. p. 35), and as
the ancient interpr. of Irenzeus (‘super
omnia (1) quidem Pater, ... . per omnia
(4) autem Verbum,.....in omnibus
autem nobis Spiritus,’ Her. v. 18; com-
pare Athan. ad. Serap. ὃ 28, Vol. 1. p.
677, ed. Bened.), seems to have a just
claim on our attention, it seems best and
safest to maintain that allusion in the
present case (opp. to Hofm. Schriftb.
Vol. 1. p. 184), and to refer διὰ πάντων
to the redeeming and reconciling influ-
ences of the Eternal Son which pervade
all hearts, while ἐν πᾶσιν, as above,
marks the indwelling Spirit; see Stier
in loc., and comp. Waterl. Def. of Que-
ries, Vol. 1. p. 280.

7. ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ judy] ‘ But to
each of us,’ ‘to each one individually ;’
further inculeation of this unity in what
might at first sight have seemed to mili-
tate against it: δὲ neither being transi-
tional (comp. Eadie), nor encountering
any objection (Grot., comp. Theoph.),
but merely suggesting the contrast be-
tween the individual and the πάντες pre-
viously mentioned (ver. 6). In the
general distribution of gifts (implied
in the 6 Θεὸς ἐν πᾶσιν), no single
individual is (1 Cor. xii.
11, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ) ; each has his
peculiar gift, each can and ought to
contribute his share to preserving ‘the
unity of the Spirit; ἡ so in effect Chrys.,
who in the main has rightly felt and
explained the connection, τὰ πάντων

overlooked

κεφαλαιωδέστερα, φησί, κοινὰ πάντων ἐστί,
τὸ βάπτισμα κ. τ. A. εἰ δέ τι ὁ δεῖνα
πλέον ἔχει ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι, μὴ ἄλγει;
see also Theod.-Mops. in (oc.

ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρι] ‘the grace was given,’
se. by our Lord after His ascension ;
χάρις, however, not being simply equiv-
alent to χάρισμα (= " gift of grace, Peile),

σαι ΕΝ 8.

EPHESIANS. 89

κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. "“ διὸ λέγει ᾿Δναβὰς

but, as De W. rightly observes, retaining
some shade of a transitive force, and
denoting the energizing grace which
manifests itself in the peculiar gift;
comp. Rom. xii. 6. The omission
of the art. (Lachm. with BDIFGL; 5
mss.; Dam.) is due appy. to an error in
transcription, caused by the preceding ἡ,
by which it became absorbed, and is
retained by Tisch. (with ACD3EK;
great majority of mss.; Chrys., Theod.,
al.), and most recent editors.

κατὰ τὸ μέτρον k. τ. λ.7 ‘according
to the measure of the gift of Christ, scil.
‘in proportion to the amount of the gift
which Christ gives,’ καϑὼς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
δωρεὰν ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν 6 δεσπότης ἐπεμέ-
τρῆσε Χριστός, Theod.-Mops.; δωρεᾶς
being thus a simple possessive gen. (the
measure which the gift has, which be-
longs to and defines the gift), and Χρισ-
τοῦ the gen. of ablation (Donalds. Gr. ὃ
451), or, more specifically, of the agent,
the giver (comp. δωρεὰς χάριτος, Plato,
Leg. vi11. 844 D, and see notes on 1
Thess. i. 6) not of the receiver (Oeder
ap. Wolf),— an idea which is in no sort
of harmony with the context, ἔδωκεν
δόματα, ver. 8; see 2 Cor. ix. 15. Stier
very infelicitously (in point of grammar)
endeavors to unite both.

8. διὸ λέγει] ‘ On which account He
saith ;? on account of this bestowal of
the gift of Christ, and that in differing
measures, — ὅτι, φησίν, ἣ χάρις δωρεά
ἐστι τοῦ Χρ. καὶ αὐτὸς μετρήσας ἔδωκεν,
ἄκουε, φησί, τοῦ Δαυίδ, (οπιπι. The
difficulties of this verse, both in regard
to the connection, the source, and the
form of the citation, are very great, and
must be separately, though briefly no-
ticed. (1) Connection. There is clearly
no parenthesis; verse 8 is to be closely
connected with verse 7, and regarded as
a scriptural confirmation of its asser-
tions. These assertions involve two

12

separate moments of thought, (a) the
primary, that each individual has his
peculiar and appropriate gifts, further
elucidated and exemplified, ver. 11; (2)
the secondary, that these gifts are con-
Jerred by Christ. The intrinsic, though
not so much contextual importance of
(Ὁ) induces the Apostle to pause and
add a special confirmation from Scrip-
ture. The cardinal words are thus so
obviously ἐδόϑη, δωρεά, ἔδωκε δόματα,
that it is singular how so good a com-
mentator as Olsh. could have supposed
the stress of the citation to be on τοῖς
ἄνῶρ. (2) The source of the cita-
tion is not any Christian hymn (Storr,
Opusc. 111. p. 809), but Psalm Ixvii.,
—a psalm of which the style, age, pur-
port, and allusions have been most dif-
ferently estimated and explained (for
details see Reuss, /eviti. Psalm), but
which may, with high probability, be
deemed a hymn of victory in honor of
Jchova, the God of Battles (Hengst.
opp. to J. Olsh.), of high originality
(Hitzig opp. to Ewald), and composed
by David on the taking of Rabbah
(Hengst. opp. to Reuss, J. Olsh.). We
have therefore no reason whatever to
entertain any doubt of its inspired and
prophetic character; compare Phillips,
Psal.ns, Vol. 11. p. 79. (3) The
form of citation is the real difficulty ;
the words of the Psalm are anpd
DIS2 rhs, in LXX, ἔλαβες δόματα
ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ [-ποις, Alex., Compl., Ald 1.
The difference in St. Paul’s citation is
palpable, and, we are bound in candor
to say, does not appear diminished by
any of the proposed reconciliations ; for
even assuming that -7> = ‘danda sum-
sit,’ ‘he took only to give’ (comp. Gen.
xvi. 9, xviii. 5, xxvii. 13, xlii 16, and
see Surenhus. BiBA. Καταλλ., p. 585),
still the nature of the gifts, which in one
case were reluctant (see Hengst.), in the

90

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. LY. 8.

els ὕψος ἡχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς avSpo-

other spontaneous, appears essentially dif-
ferent. We admit, then, frankly
and freely, the verbal difference, but
remembering that the Apostle wrote
under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
we neither imperfect
memory, precipitation (Riick.), arbitrary
change (Calv., compare Theod.-Mops.),
accommodation (Morus), nor Rabbinical
interpretation (Meyer), but simply the
fact, that the Psalm, and esp. ver. 18,
had a Messianic reference, and bore
within it a further, fuller, and deeper
meaning. This meaning the inspired
Apostle, by a slight change of language,
and substitution of ἔδωκε for the more
dubious -p> succinctly, suggestively,
and authoritatively unfolds; comp. notes
on Gal. iii. 16. We now proceed to the
grammatical details. λέγει] ‘He
saith,’ sc. 6 Θεός, not ἣ ypaph. This lat-
ter nominative is several times inserted
by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3, 1x. 17, x. 11,
Gal. iv. 30, 1 Tim. v. 18), but is not
therefore to be regularly supplied when-
ever there is an ellipsis (Bos, £llips.
p- 54), without reference to the nature
of the passage. The surest, and in fact
only guide, is the context; where that
affords no certain hint, we fall back upon
the natural subject, 6 Θεός, whose words
the Scriptures are; see notes on Gal. iii.
16. ἀναβὰς eis bwWos| ‘ Having
ascended on hiyh;’? not ‘ascendens,’ Cla-
rom., Vulgate, but ‘quum ascendisset,’
Beza, — the reference being obviously to
Christ’s ascent into heaven (Barrow,
Creed, Vol. v1. p. 358, Pearson, Creed,
Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 323, ed. Burt.), and
the aor. part. here being temporal, and,
according to its more common use, de-
noting an action preceding [never, in the
N. T. subsequent to, see Winer, Gr. § 45.
6. b, p. 816] that of the finite verb; see
Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 56.10. 1. Our Lord, it may

recognize here

be urged, gave the Holy Spirit before
his ascension (John xx. 22); but this
was only an ‘arrha Pentecostes,’ Beng.,
a limited (Alford), and preparatory gift
of the Holy Spirit; see Liicke in Joc.
On this text, as cited from Psalm Ixviii.,
see a good sermon by Andrewes, Serm.
vir. Vol. 111. p. 221 (A. C. Libr.).

ἠχμαλώτ. αἰχμαλωσίαν) ‘He led
captivity captive, ‘captivam duxit capti-
vitatem,’ Clarom., Vulg.; the abstract,
aixuadwo. being used for the concrete
αἰχμαλώτους (comp. Numbers xxxi. 12,
9. Chron’ xxvilis 11.189; and see vex
Jelf, Gr. ὃ 353), and serving by its con-
nection with the cognate verb to enhance
and slightly intensify ; compare Winer,
Gr. § 32. 2. p. 201, and see the copious
list of exx. in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 498
sq. Who constituted this αἰχμαλωσία
has been much discussed. That the
captives were not (a) Satan’s prisoners
(ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ διαβόλου τυραν-
vida κατεχομένους, Theod.-Mops., comp.
Just. Mart. Trypho, ὃ 39, p. 128, ed.
Otto, and Theod. zn loc.) seems clear
from the subsequent mention of ἀνϑρώ-
mots, Which (though not so in the origi-
nal) seems here to refer to a different
class to the captives. Nor (b) can they
be the souls of the righteous in Hades
(Estius, compare Evang. Nicod. § 24, in
Thilo, Codex Apocryph. p. 747), as, set-
ting aside other reasons (‘captivos non
duci in libertatem, sed hostes, in captivi-
tatem,’ Calov.), the above interpr. of the
part. ἀναβὰς seems seriously opposed to
such a view. If, however, (c) we regard
‘the captivity’ as captive and subjugated
enemies (Meyer, De W.), the enemies
of Christ,— Satan, Sin, and Death, —
we preserve the analogy of the compari-
son (compare Alf.), and gain a full and
forcible meaning: so rightly Chrysost.,
αἰχμάλωτον yap τὸν τύραννον ἔλαβε [not
κατήργησε, Which with regard to Death

Cuap. IV. 9.

EPHESIANS. 91

9 Ν δὲ ’ E ἌΣ 5 Ψ Nae, \ , ’ \ /
ποις. ὃ τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ OTL καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατωτερα

is yet future, 1 Cor. xv. 26] τὸν διάβολον
λέγω καὶ τὸν ϑάνατον, kal Thy ἀράν, καὶ
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ; comp. Cicum, 3, Theoph.
ἔδωκεν δόματα] ‘He gave gifts,’ sc.
spiritual gifts; comp. ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις, ver.
7, and as a special and particular illus-
tration, Acts ii. 33. The reading is
very doubtful. Tisch. (ed. 7) prefixes
καὶ with BC!(C?)D3KL; nearly all mss. ;
Goth., Syr. (both), al.; Orig., Chrys.,
Theod., al. Ree., Alf.; Lachm. on the
contrary omits with AC?D!EFG; mss.;
Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; Iren. (interpr.),
Tertull., al. (Tisch. ed. 2); and appy.
rightly, as an insertion for the sake of
keeping up the connection seems more
probable than a conformation to the
LXX. where the καὶ is omitted.

9. τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη) ‘Now (δὲ here
marking a slight explanatory transition,
Hartung, Partik., δέ, 2. 8, Vol. 1. p.
165) that He ascended,’ scil. ‘now the
predication of His ascent;’ not ‘the
word ἀνέβη, —as ἀναβάς, not ἀνέβη, pre-
cedes. ΤῸ evince still more clearly the
truth and correctness of the Messianic
application of the words just cited, St.
Paul urges the antithesis implied by
ἀνέβη, Viz. κατέβη, a predication only
applicable to Christ; compare Hofm.
Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 344, where this
and the preceding verses are fully inves-
tigated. τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ κ.τ.λ.]
‘what is τὲ (‘what does it imply,’ Matth.
ix. 13, John xvi. 17, comp. notes on Gal.
iii. 19), except that He also (as well as
ἀνέβη) descended ;’ the tacit assumption,
as Meyer observes, being clearly this, —
that He who is the subject of the cita-
tion is One whose seat was heaven, — no
man, but a giver of gifts to men; espe-
cially comp. John iii. 13. The
insertion of πρῶτον after κατέβη (Rec.
with BC?KL; most mss.; Aug., Vulg.,
Goth.; Theod., al.) seems clearly to
have arisen from an explanatory gloss,

and that of μέρη after κατώτερα, though
better supported (Rec., Lachm., with
ABCD°KL; nearly all mss.; Vulg.,
al.) to be still fairly attributable to the
same origin. eis τὰ κατώτερα
τῆς γῆ 5] ‘to the lower (parts) of the
earth, ‘in loca que subter terram,’ Copt.,
‘subter terram,’ ith. This celebrated
passage has received several different
interpretations, two only of which, how-
ever, deserve serious consideration, and
between which it is extremely difficult to
decide; (a) the ancient explanation,
according to which τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς
ΞΞ- τὰ καταχϑόνια, and imply ‘Hades’
(ποῦ δὲ κατέβη ; εἰς τὸν ἅδην: τοῦτον γὰρ
κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς λέγει, κατὰ τὴν
κοινὴν ὑπόνοιαν, Theoph.), the gen. not
being dependent on the comparative
(Riick., — still less compatible with his
insertion of μέρη), but being the regular
possessive gen.; (b) the more modern
interpretation, adopted by the majority
of recent commentators, according to
which τῆς γῆς is regarded as the gen. of
apposition (see esp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8,
p: 410), and the expression as equivalent
to εἰς τὴν Katwtépay ynv. Both sides
claim the comparative κατώτερα, --- (the
VaN1 ΠῚ pressed by Olshaus. is
appy- equally indeterminate with the
Greek), — the one as suggesting a com-
parison with the earth, ‘a lower depth
than the earth;’ the other as suggested
by the comparison with the heaven (Acts
li. 19, John viii. 23, — but in this latter
passage κάτω reaches lower than the
earth, Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. 1v. p. 447
sq.); comp. Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p.
345. These arguments must be nearly
set off against one another, as the posi-
tive would have been most natural in
the latter case, the superlative perhaps
in the former. As, however, the superl.
would have tended to fix the locality
(comp. Nehem. iv. 13) more detinitely

92

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 10.

a (oe ἘΝ 1 & / awh 2 Ἀν ed \ ς ΄ δι
τῆς γῆς: ὁ καταβάς, αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πὰν-

than was suitable to the present context,
and as the use of the term ᾷδης would
have marred the antithesis (γῆ opp. to
οὐρανός), it does not seem improbable
that the more vague comparative was
expressly chosen, and that thus its use is
more in favor of (a) than (b). When to
this we add the full antithesis that seems
to lie in ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν, ver. 10
(‘sublimiora cxelorum’ opp. to ‘ inferiora
terrarum,’ Tertull.), surely more than a
mere expansion of eis ὕψος (Winer,
Mey.), and also observe the sort of
exegetical necessity which ἵνα πληρώσῃ
τὰ πάντα (ver. 10) seems to impose
on us of giving the fullest amplitude to
every expression, we still more incline
to (a), and with Ireneus (Her. v. 31,
comp. Iv. 22), Tertullian (de Animd, c.
55), and the principal ancient writers
(see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 1. p.
269, and ref. on Vol. 11. p. 195, ed.
Burt.), recognize in these words an allu-
sion, not to Christ’s death and _ burial
(Chrys., Theod.), but definitely to His
descent into hell; so also Olsh., Stier,
Alf., Wordsw., and Baur (Paulus, p.
431), but it is to be feared that the judg-
ment of the last writer is not unbiassed,
as he urges the ref. as a proof of the
gnostic origin of the Epistle. On
this clause and on ver. 10 see a good
sermon by South, Serm. (Posth.) 1. Vol.
111. p. 169 sq. (Lond. 1843), and for a
general investigation of the doctrine of
Christ’s descent into hell, aud its connec-
tion with the last things, Guder, Lehre
von der Erscheinung J. C. unter den Tod-
ten, Bern, 1853.

10.6 tataBdas| ‘ He that descended ;’
emphatic, as its position shows; the ab-
sence of any connecting or illative parti-
cle gives a greater force and vigor to the
conclusion. It may be observed that
αὐτὸς is not ‘the same,’ Auth.,—as no
instance of an omission of the article,

though occasionally found in the earlier
(Herm. Opusec. Vol. 1. p. 332), and fre-
quently in Byzantine authors, occurs in
the N. T., but is simply the emphatic
‘ He,’ — od γὰρ ἄλλος κατελήλυϑε καὶ
ἄλλος ἀνελήλυϑεν, Theod.; see Winer,
Gr. § 22. 4. obs. p. 135. πάντων
τῶν οὐραν ὧν] ‘all the heavens,’ ‘ clos
omnes penetravit ascendendo, usque ad
summum cxlum,’ Est.; ὑψηλότερος τῶν
οὐρανῶν, Heb. vii. 26, compare ib. iv. 4.
There is no necessity whatever to con-
nect this expression with the ‘seven
heavens’ of the Jews (comp. Wetst. on
2 Cor. xii. 2, Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1,
p- 387); the words, both here and in
Heb. Ul. cc., have only a simple and gen-
eral meaning, and are well paraphrased
by Bp. Pearson, —‘ whatsoever heaven
is higher than all the rest which are
called heavens, into that place did He
ascend,’ Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 320
(ed. Burton). ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ
πάντα] ‘in order that He miyht fill all
> more general purpose involved
in the more special ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς
avspwmos (ver. 8), though structurally
dependent on the preceding participle.
The subjunctive with ἵνα, after a past
tense, is correctly used in the present
case, to denote an act that still contin-
ues ; see Herm. Viger, No. 350, and esp.
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 618, who has
treated this and similar uses of the subj.
with ἵνα after preterites, with considera-
ble acumen; for exx. see Gayler, Partic.
Neg. p. 176, who has also correctly seized
the general principle, ‘subjunctivum usur-
pari si preevalet consilium, aut respectus
ad eventum habendus,’ p. 165. Great
caution, however, must be used in apply-
ing these principles to the N. T., as the
general and prevailing use of the subj.
both in the N. T. and in later writers
makes it very doubtful whether the finer
distinction of mood was in all such cases

things ;

Cuap. IV. 11.

[οἷ > A “
των τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα.

He appointed divers min-

EPHESIANS. 93

A
1 Καὶ αὐτὸς

ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν a ἮΝ ὺς δὲ
istering orders, till we all ν TOUS μεν ATTOOTOAOUS, TOUS OE προφήτας,
come to the unity of faith, and in truth and love grow up into Christ, the head of the living body, the

Church.

as the present distinctly felt and in-
tended.
to limit πᾶντα πληροῦν, the solemn predi-
cate of the Deity (Jerem. xxiii. 22, see
Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. 775), to
the gift of redemption (Riick.), or to
confine the comprehensive τὰ πάντα to
the faithful (Grot.), or to the church of
Jews and Gentiles (Meier) ; the expres-
sion is perfectly unrestricted, and refers
not only to the sustaining and ruling
power (τῆς δεσποτείας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνεργείας,
Chrys.), but also to the divine presence
(‘praesentia et operatione sua se ipso,’
Beng.) of Christ. The doctrine of the
ubiquity of Christ’s Body derives no
support from this passage (Form. Con-
cord. p. 767), as there is here no reference
to a diffused and ubiquitous corporeity,
but to a pervading and energizing omni-
presence ; compare Ebrard, Dogmatik, §
390, Vol. 11. p. 139, and notes on ch. i.
20. The true doctrine may perhaps be
thus briefly stated :— Christ is perfect
God, and perfect and glorified man; as
the former he is present everywhere, as
the latter he can be present anywhere ;
see Jackson, Creed, Book x1. 3, and
comp. Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. vi. p. 164-

1l. «kat ἰοῦ τ 65] ‘and He,’ ‘jah
silba,’ Gothic; ἐμφατικῶς δὲ εἶπε τὸ,
αὐτός, Theophyl. There is here no αἱ-
rect resumption of the subject of ver. 7,
as if ver. 8—10 were merely parenthet-
ical, but a regression to it, while at the
same time the αὐτὸς is naturally and
emphatically linked on to the αὐτὸς in
the preceding verse. This return to a
subject, without disturbing the harmony
of the immediate connection or the nat-
ural sequence of thought, constitutes one
of the high excellences, but at the same
time one of the difficulties in the style of
the great Apostle. ἔδωκ εν] ‘gave,’

It is not necessary either

‘dedit,’ Clarom., Vulg., al.; not merely
Hebraistic (3742, Olsh.), and equivalent
to ἔϑετο (Acts xx. 28, 1 Cor. xii. 28),
‘dedit Ecclesi id est posuit in Eccl.’
(Est.), but in the ordinary and regular
meaning of the word, and in harmony
with ἔδόϑη, ver. 7, δόματα, ver. 8; comp.
notes on ch, ii. 22. ἀποστόλου 5]
‘ Apostles, —in the highest and most
special sense ; comp. notes on Gal. i. 1.
The chief characteristics of an Apostle
were an immediate call from Christ
(compare Gal. i. 1), a destination for all
lands (Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xi. 28),
and a special power of working miracles
(2 Cor. xii. 12); see Eadie zn loc., who
has grouped together, with proof texts,
the essential elements of the Apostolate.
mpoontas| ‘Prophets,’ —not only in
the more special sense (as Agabus, Acts
xi. 27), but in the more general one of
preachers and expounders, who spoke
under the zmmedzate impulse and influ-
ence of the Holy Spirit, and were thus
to be distinguished from the δίδάσκαλοι ;
ὃ μὲν προφητεύων πάντα ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύμα-
τος φϑέγγεται: 6 δὲ διδάσκων ἐστὶν ὅπου
καὶ ἐξ οἰκείας διανοίας διαλέγεται, Chrys.
on 1 Cor. ν. 28; see Thorndike, Relig.
Assemblies, ch. v. 1 sq. Vol. 1. p. 182 sq.
(A. C. Libr.), and comp. notes on ch. ii.
20. εὐαγγελιστάΞ]) ‘ Evange-
lists,’ —not τοὺς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γραψάντας
(Cicum., Chrys. 2), but τοὺς εὐαγγελι-
(ouévous (Chrys. 1), preachers of the Gos-
pel who περιϊόντες ἐκήρυττον (Theod.),
and yet, as μὴ περιϊόντες πανταχοῦ
(Chrys.), were distinguished from the
Apostles, to whom they acted as subor-
dinates and missionaries ; compare Acts
viii. 14, and see Thorndike, Relig. As-
sembl. 1v. 87, Vol. 1. p. 176, ib. Right of
Church, 11. 30, Vol. 1. p. 451, Hofim.
Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 249.

94

\ \ 5 7 \ \ / oN 7
τοὺς δὲ evayyertaTas, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας Kal διδασκάλους,

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 12.

12 ΑΝ
σρος

a e ’ ” / > > Ν a
τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν TOD

ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλου 5] ‘Pas-
tors and Teachers.’ It has been doubted
whether these words denote different
classes, or are different names of the
same class. The absence of the disjunc-
tive τοὺς δὲ (arbitrarily inserted in Syr.
but altered in Syr.-Phil.) seems clearly
to show that both mom. and διδάσκ. had
some common distinctions, — probably
that of being stationary rather than mis-
sionary, οἱ καϑήμενοι καὶ περὶ Eva τόπον
ἠσχολημένοι, Chrysost. — which plainly
separated them from each of the preced-
ing classes. Thus far they might be said
to form one class; but that the individu-
als who composed it bore either or both
names indifferently, is very doubtful.
The ποιμένες (a term probably including
ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι, Fritz. Fritzsch.
Opusc. p. 43 sq.) might be, and perhaps
always were διδάσκαλοι (comp. 1 Tim.
ill. 2, Tit. i. 9, Martyr. Polyc. § 16, see
Thorndike, Selig. Assembl. 1v. 40, Vol.
I. p. 170), but it does not follow that the
converse was true. The χάρισμα of
κυβέρνησις is so distinct from that of
διδασκαλία, that it seems necessary to
recognize in the dddon. a body of men
(searcely a distinct class) who had the
gift of διδαχή, but who were not invested
with any administrative powers and au-
thority ; see esp. Hooker, Hecl. Pol. v.
78. 8, and compare Neander, Planting,
Vol. 1. p. 149 (Bohn).

12. πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν κ.
τ. Δ.} ‘with a view to the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of ministration, for the
building up of the body of Christ ;’ more
ultimate and more immediate end of the
gifts specified in the preceding verse. It
is extremely difficult to fix the exact
shade of meaning which these prepp.
are intended to convey. It seems clear,
however, (a) that there is no ‘ trajection,’
Grot.;— nor again (b) that the three

members are to be regarded as merely
parallel, and codrdinately dependent on
ἔδωκε (ἕκαστος οἰκοδομεῖ, Exact. καταρ-
τίζει, ἕκαστ. διακονεῖ, Chrys.), for πρὸς
and εἰς must thus be regarded as synony-
mous (Syr., Goth, Arm); and though
St. Paul studied prepositional variations
(see Winer, Gr. § 50. 6, p. 372), it still
does not appear from the exx. usually
cited that he did so except for the sake
of definition, limitation, or presentation
of the subject in a fresh point of view;
see notes on Gal. i. 1. Moreover, as
Mey. justly observes, the second mem-
ber, εἰς ἔργον κ. τ. A., would thus much
more naturally and logically stand first.
It also seems (c) nearly equally unsatis-
factory, with /Eth. (expressly; Vulg.,
Clarom., Copt. are equally ambiguous
with the Greek), De W., al., to connect
eis—eis closely with πρός, as we are
thus compelled to give διακονία the less
usual, and here (after the previous ac-
curate definitions) extremely doubtful
meaning of ‘christliche Dienstleitung,’
De W., ‘genus omnium functionum in
Ecclesia,’ Aret.; see below. It seems,
then (d) best and most consonant with
the fundamental (ethical) meaning of
the prepositions to connect eis—els with
ἔδωκε, and,—as eis, with the idea of
destination, frequently involves that of
attainment (see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 625. 3, Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 68. 21.5, and comp. Hand,
Tursell. ‘in, 111. 28, Vol. 111. 23), — to
regard eis—eis as two parallel members
referring to the more immediate, πρὸς to
the more ultimate and final purpose of
the action ; comp. Rom. xv. 2, ἀρεσκέτω
εἰς τὸ ἀγαϑὸν πρὸς οἰκοδομήν, Which seems
to admit a similar explanation, and see
notes on Philem. 5. For distinctions
between eis, πρός, and ἐπί see notes on 2
Thess. ii. 4, and between εἰς, πρός, and
κατά, notes on Tit. 1.1. We may thus

Cnap. IV. 13.

EPHESIANS. 95

7 A , A 3 , [ ,
σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ™ μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς

\ € td fol , rn la r la) la)
τὴν EVOTHTA τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως TOD υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ,
a

paraphrase: ‘He gave apostles, etc., to
fulfil the work of the ministry and to
build up the body of Christ, His object
being to perfect his. saints;’ compare
Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 109, where
the same view is practically maintained.
τὸν καταρτισμόν] ‘the perfecting,’
τὴν τελείωσιν, Theophyl.; comp. κατάρ-
τισι, 2 Cor. xiii. 9; the nature of this
(definite) perfecting is explained ver. 13.
The primary (ethical) meaning of καταρ-
τίζειν, ‘reconcinnare’ (Rost τι. Palm,
Lex. s. v.}, appears only in Gal. vi. 1
(comp. notes) ; in all other passages in
the N. T. of ethical reference (e. g. Luke
vi. 40, 1 Cor. i. 10, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Heb.
xiii. 21, 1 Pet. vy. 10), the secondary
meaning, ‘to make &ptuos,’ ‘to make
perfect, complete’ (τελειοῦν, Hesych.),
appears to be the prevailing meaning ;
compare καταρτίζειν τριήρεις, Diod. Sic.
XII. 70, see exx. in Schweigh, Lez.
Polyb. s. vy. Any allusion to ‘the ac-
complishment of the number of the
elect,’ Pelag. (compare Burial Service),
would here be wholly out of place.

ἔργον διακονία 5] ‘the work of (the)
ministry ;’ scil. ‘for the duties and func-
tions of διάκονοι in the Church.’ As the
meaning of both these words has been
unduly strained, we may remark briefly
that ἔργον is not pleonastic (see Winer,
Gr. § 65.7, p. 541), or in the special
sense of ‘building’ (compare 1 Cor. iii.
13), but has the simple meaning of ‘ busi-
ness,’ ‘function’ (1 Tim. iii. 1), — not
‘res perfecta,’ but ‘res gerenda,’ in exact
parallelism with the use of οἰκοδομή.
Again, διακονία is not ‘service’ gen-
erally, but, as its prevailing usage in the
N. T.. (Rom. xi..13, 2. Cor. iv. 1, al.)
and especially the present context sug-
gest, “spiritual service of an official na-
ture ;’ see Meyer in loc., Hofm. Schrifib.
Vol. 11. 2, p. 109. The absence of both

articles has been pressed (Eadie, Peile),
but appy. unduly ; διακονία may possibly
have been left studiedly anarthrous in
reference to the ditferent modes of exer-
cising it alluded to in ver. 11, and the
various spiritual wants of the Church
(Hamm.); ἔργον, however, seems clearly
definite in meaning, though by the prin-
ciple of correlation (Middleton, Art. 111.
3, 6) it is necessarily anarthrous in form.
οἰκοδ. τοῦ σώματοϑ»])] ‘building up
of the body,’ parallel to, but at the same
time more nearly defining the nature of
the ἔργον. The article is not required
(as with καταρτ.), as it was not any abso-
lute, definite process of edifying, but
edifying generally that was the object.
The observation which some commenta-
tors make on ‘the confusion of meta-
phors’ is nugatory ; as τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Xp.
has a distinct metaphorical sense, so has
oikodouyn. On the nature of Christian
οἰκοδομή, see Nitzsch, Theologie, § 39,
Vol. 1. p. 205.

15. μέχρι καταντήσωμ εν] ‘until
we come to, arrive at;’ specification of
the time up to which this spiritual con-
stitution was designed to last. Several
recent commentators (Harl., Meyer, al.)
notice the omission of ἂν as giving an
air of less uncertainty to the subj.; see
notes on Gal. iii. 19. As a general prin-
ciple this is of course right (see Herm.
Partic. ἄν, 11. 9, p. 109 sq., Hartung,
Partik. ty, 3, Vol. 11. p. 291 sq.); we
must be cautious, however, in applying
the rule in the N. 'T., as the tendency of
latter Greek to the nearly exclusive use
of the subj., and esp. to the use of these
temporal particles with that tense, with-
out ἄν, is very discernible; see Winer,
Gr. § 41. 3, p. 265. The use of the
subj. (the mood of conditioned but ob-
jective possibility), not fut. (as Chrys.),
shows that the καταντᾶν is represented

90

EPHESIANS.

Crip sryes:

εἰς ἄνδρω τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας TOD πληρώματος Tod, Χρισ-

not only as the eventual, but as the ez-
pected and contemplated result of the
ἔδωκε; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 36. 1, p.
393, Jelf, Gr. § 842. 2, and compare
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 128, p. 280. This
use of the subj. deserves observation.

The meaning of καταντᾶν with ἐπὶ or eis
(only the latter in the N. T.) has been
unduly pressed; it has no necessary
reference to former wanderings or di-
verse starting-points (Zanch., Vatabl. ap.
Poli Syn.), but simply implies ‘ pervenire
ad’ (‘occurrere,’ Vulg., Clarom.), with
ref. only to the place, person, or point
arrived at ; see notes on Phil. iii. 11, and
compare exx. in Schweigh. Lex, Polyb.
S. V.

whole of us ;

οἱ πάντ ες] ‘weall, ‘the
scil. all Christians, implied
in the τῶν ἁγίων, ver. 12. It is difficult
to agree with Ellendt (Lex. Soph. s. v.
mas, 111. 1, Vol. 11. p. 519) in the asser-
tion that in the plural the addition or
omission of the article, ‘cum sensus
fert,’ makes no difference. The distine-
tion is not always obvious (see Middle-
ton, Art. v11.1), but may generally be
deduced from the fundamental laws of
the article. εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα
τῆς πίστ.] ‘to the unity of the faith ;’
‘that oneness of faith’ (Peile, see
Wordsw.), which was the aim and ob-
ject towards which the spiritual efforts of
the various forms of ministry were all

3,

directed ; ἕως ἂν δειχϑῶμεν πάντες μίαν
[rather, τὴν μίαν] πίστιν ἔχοντες: τοῦτο
γάρ ἐστιν ἑνότης πίστεως ὅταν πάντες ἕν
ὦμεν, ὅταν πάντες ὁμοίως τὸν σύνδεσμον
καὶ τῆ"
ἐπιγνώσεως κ. τ. λ.] ‘and of the
(true) knowledge of the Son of God ;’
further development, — not only faith in
the Son, but saving knowledge of Him;
the gen. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ being the gen.
objecti (Winer, Gr. § 30. obs. p. 168),
and
The καὶ is thus not ‘ exegetice positum ’

ἔπιγινώσκωμεν, Chrys.

belonging to both substantives.

(Caly.), but simply copulative ; the for-
mer interpr. though grammatically ad-
missible (see on Gal. vi. 16), would here
be contextually untenable, as πίστις and
ἐπίγνωσις (see notes on ch. 1. 17) obvi-
ously convey different ideas (Mey.), and
are terms by no means mutually explan-
atory ; ‘cognitio perfectius quiddam fide
sonat,’ Beng. Such sentences as
the present may serve to make us care-
ful in obtruding too hastily on every
passage the meaning of πίστις ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp.
alluded to on ch. ili. 12, and noticed in
notes'on Gal. ii. 16.
τέλειον] ‘to a perfect, full-grown, man ;’
metaphorical apposition to the forego-
ing member, the concrete term being
probably selected rather than any ab-

eis ἄνδρα

stract term (ἡ τελειοτέρα Tay δογμάτων
[better τοῦ Χριστοῦ] γνῶσις, Theoph.),
as forming a good contrast to the follow-
ing νήπιοι (ver. 14, compare 1 Cor, xiii.
9), and as suggesting by its singular the
idea of the complete unity of the holy
personality further explained in the next
clause, into which they were united and
consummated. Instances of a similar
use of τέλειος are cited by Raphel, Annot.
Vol. 11. p. 447; see esp. Polyb. Hist. v.
29.2, where παιδίον νήπιον and τέλειον
ἄνδρα stand in studied contrast to each
other. eis μέτρον k.T.A.] ‘to
the measure of the stature of Christ’s ful-
ness,’ 7. e., ‘of the fulness which Christ
has,’ τοῦ Xp. being the gen. subjecti ;
see esp. notes ch. iii. 19, and on the ac-
cumulation of genitives, Winer, Gr. §
30. 3, obs. 1, p. 172; comp. 2 Cor, iv. 4.
Tt is doubtful whether ἡλικία is to be re-
ferred (a) to age (John ix. 21, so clearly
Matth. vi. 27), or (b) to stature (Luke
xix. 3), both being explanations here
equally admissible; see Bos, Everett. p.
183. In the former case, τοῦ πληρ. τ.
Xp. will be the qualifying, or rather char-
acterizing gen. (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16, 3,

Cuap. IV. 14.

EPHESIANS. 97

A 4% / 5 ΄ , \ t
TOU, ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι, κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι

Ῥ. 115, and notes on ch. i. 10), and will
more nearly define τῆς jAu., — ‘the age
when the fulness of Christ is received ; ’
in the latter the gen. is purely possessive.
The antithesis (τέλειοι---νήπιοι) seems in
fayor of (a); still, — as both words are
metaphorical, — as μέτρον is appropri-
ately used in reference to ‘stature’ (see
esp. Lucian, Jmag. 6, cited by Wetst. ;
even in Hom. Od. xviii. 217, ἥβης μέτρ.
is associated with the idea of size), and
still more, as the separate words πλή-
ρωμα, αὐξήσωμεν, etc., no less than the
context ver. 16, all suggest ideas of
matured growth in respect of magnitude,
—the latter interpr. (0) seems most
probable and satisfactory; so Syr., Goth.
(‘vahstaus’), Copt. (maze), appy. Zth.,
and our own Auth. Version. It
has been considered a question whether
the Apostle is here referring solely to
present (Chrysost.), or to future life
(Theod.). The mention of πίστις, and
the tenor of ver. 14, 15, incline us to the
former view; still it is probable (see
Olsh.) that no special distinction was
intended. St. Paul regards the Church
as one; he declares its issue and destina-
tion as ἑνότης and τελειότης; on the
realization of this, whensoeyer and where-
soever, the functions of the Christian
ministry will cease.

14. ἵνα μηκέτι κ. τ. A.] ‘in order
that we may be no longer children ;’ pur-
pose contemplated in the limitation as
to duration of the gifts specified in ver.
11 sq. The connection is not perfectly
clear. Is this verse (a) codrdinate with
ver. 13, and immediately dependent on
11, 12 (Harl.), or (6) is it subordinate to
it, and remotely dependent on ver. 11,
12% The latter seems most probable ;
ver. 13 thus defines the ‘terminus ad
quem’ which characterizes the functions
of the Christian ministry; ver. 14 ex-
plains the object, viz., our ceasing to be

νήπιοι, contemplated in the appointment
of such a ‘terminus,’ and thence more
remotely in the bestowal of a ministry
so characterized ; see Meyer in loc., who
has ably elucidated the connection.

For a sound sermon on this text in ref-
erence to the case of ‘ Deceivers and
Deceived,’ see Waterl. Serm. xx1x. Vol.
V. p. 717 sq. μηκέτι] ‘no longer ;’
τὸ “μηκέτι᾽ δείκνυσι πάλαι τοῦτο παϑόν-
τας, Chrys. This is not, however, said in
reference to Ephesians only, but as the
context (πάντες, ver. 13) suggests, in
ref. to Christians generally. Eadie some-
what singularly stops to comment on
the use of ‘ μηκέτι not οὐκέτι ;’ surely to
ἵνα in its present sense, ‘ particula μὴ
consentanea est,’ Gayler, Partik. Neg. p.
168. KAvOwyiCdpevor| ‘tossed
about like waves’ (‘usvagidai’ Goth.,
compare Syr., Arm.),—not ‘by the
waves.’ Stier, assuming the latter to be
the true meaning of the pass. (‘meta-
phor from a ship lying at hull,’ Bramh.
Catching Lev. ch. 3, Vol. tv. p. 592),
adopts the middle (comp. ‘ fluctuantes,’
Vulg.) to avoid the then incongruous
κλυδ. ἀνέμῳ. The exx. however, ad-
duced by Wetst. and Krebs, viz., Aris-
ten. Hpist. 1. 27, κλυδωνίζεσϑαι ἐκ τοῦ
πόδου, Joseph. Antig. 1x. 11. 3, ταρασ-
σόμενος καὶ κλυδωνιζόμενος, confirm the
passive use and the former meaning ;
comp. James i. 6. ἀνέμῳ τῆς
διδασκαλία 5] ‘wave of doctrine.” The
article does not show ‘the prominence
which teaching possessed in the Church’
(Eadie), but specifies διδασκαλία in the
abstract, every kind and degree of it;
see Middleton, Art. v. 1, p. 89 sq. (ed.
Rose). On the apparent distinction be-
tween διδασκαλία and διδαχή, see on 2
Tim. iv. 2. ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ
k. τ. A.] ‘in the sleight of men,’ ---- of men,
not the faith and knowledge of the Son
of God, ver. 13. Ἔν may be plausibly

13

98

EPHESIANS.

Cnap. IV. 14.

\ > ey 2 A / 2 A ΄ lal ’ , 5
παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνδρώπων, ἐν

considered instrumental (Arm., Mey.) ;
as, however, this would seem pleonastic
after the instrumental, or what Kriiger
(Sprachl. § 48. 151 sq.) more inclusively
terms the dynamic dat. ἀνέμῳ (see Heb.
xiii. 9), and would mar the seeming
parallelism with ἐν ἀγάπῃ (ver. 15), the
prep. appears rather to denote the ele-
ment, the evil atmosphere, as it were, in
which the varying currents of doctrine
exist and exert their force ; so Clarom.,
Vulg., Copt., /£th.-Pol., and perhaps
Goth., but see De Gabel. in loc.

The term κυβεία (ἈΞ Ὁ} Heb.), properly
denotes ‘playing with dice’ (Plato,
Phedr. 274 D, πεττείας καὶ κυβείας, see
Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2), and thence, by an
easy transition, ‘sleight of hand,’ ‘fraud’
(πανουργία, Suid.; comp. κυβεύειν, Ar-
rian, pict. 11. 19, 111. 21, cited by
Wetst.) ;
τῇδε κἀκεῖσε μεταφέρειν τοὺς ψήφους καὶ
πανούργως τοῦτο ποιεῖν, Theod.; see
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 181,
Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. 775.

ἐν πανουργίᾳ πρὸς k. τ: A] ‘in

ἴδιον δὲ τῶν κυβευόντων τὸ

craftiness tending to the deliberate system
of error, ‘in astutia ad cireumyentionem
erroris,’ Vulg.; appositional and partly
explanatory clause to the foregoing.
The Auth. Ver. (comp. Syr.) is here too
paraphrastic, and obscures the meaning
of both πρὸς and peSodefa. The former
is not equivalent to κατά, Riick., ‘with,’
Peile, but denotes the aim, the natural
tendency, of πανουργία (compare notes on
Tit.i. 1); the pedsodeta τῆς mA. is that
which πανουργία has in view (compare
πρὸς τὸν καταρτ. ver. 12), and to which
it is readily and naturally disposed. As
πανουργία is anarthrous, the omission of
the art. before πρὸς (which induces Rick.
incorrectly to refer the clause to pepépe-
vot) is perfectly regular ; see Winer, Gr.
§ 20. 4, p. 126. The somewhat
rare term μέϑοδεία, a δὶς λεγόμ. in the

N. T. (see ch. vi. 11), must have its
meaning fixed by μεϑοδεύω. This verb
denotes, ‘the pursuit, etc., of a settled
plan’ — (a) honestly (Diod. Sic. 1. 81,
μ- Thy ἀληϑείαν ἐκ τῆς ἐμπειρίας), or ()
dishonestly (Polyb. Fr. Hist. ΧΧΧΥΤΙΙ.
4.10), and hence comes to imply ‘decep-
tion,’ ‘fraud,’ with more or less of plan
(2 Sam. xix. 27); comp. Chrys. on Eph.
vi. 11, μεϑοδεῦσαί ἐστι τὸ ἀπατῆσαι καὶ
διὰ συντόμου (μηχανῆς Sav.) ἑλέιν ; see
also Miinthe, Obs. p. 367. Thus then
μεϑοδεία is ‘a deliberate planning or sys-
tem,’ (Peile; τὴν μηχανὴν ἐκάλεσεν,
Theod.),’ the further idea of ‘fraud’
(τέχνη ἢ δόλος, Suid., ἐπιβουλή, Zonar.)
being here expressed in πλάνης; see
Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 11. p. 329.
The reading is doubtful; Tisch. (ed. 7)
adopts the form μεϑοδίαν with BIDIFG
KL; and several mss., but appy. on
insufficient authority ; changes in orthog-
raphy which may be accounted for by
itacism or some mode of erroneous tran-
scription must always be received with
caution ; comp. Winer, Gir. ὃ 5. 4, p. 47.
πλάνη 5 has not here (nor Matth. xxvii.
64, 2 Thess. ii. 11) the active mean-
ing of ‘misleading’ (De W., compare

> y
Syr. ead? [ut seducant], nor even

necessarily that of ‘delusion’ (Harl.),
but its simple, classical, and regular
meaning, ‘error’ — ‘erroris,’ Vulgate,
‘airzeins,’ Goth. The gen. is obviously
not the gen. objecti (Riick.), but subjecti,
— it is the πλάνη which pedsodever, — and
thus stands in grammatical parallelism
with the preceding gen. τῶν av3p. The
use of the article must not be over-
looked; it serves almost to personify
πλάνη, not, however, as metonymically
for ‘Satan’ (Bengel), but as ‘ Error’ in
its most abstract nature, and thus renders
the contrast to 7 ἀλήϑεια implied in ἀλη-
Sevovtes, more forcible and significant.

Cuap. IV. 15.

“ \ \ / a /
πανουργίᾳ πρὸς τὴν μεδοδείαν τῆς πλάνης,

1ὅ. ἀληϑεύοντες δέ] ‘but holding
the truth, walking truthfully ;? participial
member attached to αὐξήσωμεν, and with
it grammatically dependent on ἵνα (ver.
14),—the whole clause, as the use of
δὲ (after a negative sentence) seems dis-
tinctly to suggest (comp. Hartung, Par-
tuk. δέ, 2. 11, Vol. 1. p. 171), standing
in simple and direct opposition to the
whole preceding verse (esp. to the con-
eluding πλανή, De W.), without, how-
ever, any reference to the preceding ne-
gation, which would rather have required
ἀλλά; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p.

8, 361, Donalds. Cratyl. § 201. The
meaning of ἀληϑεύειν is somewhat
doubtful. On the one hand, such trans-

Jations as ‘ yeritati operam dare’ (Calv.)
and even ‘ Wahrheit /esthalten’ (Riick.)
are lexically untenable (see Rost u.
Palm, Ler. 8. v. &And. Vol. 1. p. 97);
on the other, the common meaning,
‘veritatem dicere’ (Gal. iv. 16), seems
clearly exegetically unsatisfactory. It
is best then to preseve an intermediate
sense, ‘walking in truth’ (Olsh.) or (to
preserve an antithesis in transl. between
πλάνης and ἀληδ.) ‘holding the truth,’
Scholef. (Hints, p. 100), — which latter
interpr., if ‘holding’ be not unduly
pressed, is almost justified by Plato,
Theet. 202 B, ἀληϑεύειν τὴν ψυχὴν
[‘verum sentire,’ Ast] περὶ αὐτό; so in
effect, but somewhat too strongly, Vulg.,
Clarom., Goth., ‘veritatem facientes,’
and sim. Copt.
connection of these words has been much
discussed. Are they to be joined — (a)
with the participle (Syr., 4Zth., Theoph.,
G&cum.), or — (Ὁ) with the finite verb
(Theod., — who, however, omits ἀληδ.
and appy. Chrys., τῇ ἀγάπῃ συνδεδεμέ-
vot)? It must fairly be conceded that
the order, the parallelism of structure with
that of ver. 14, and still more the vital
association between love and the truest

ἐν ἀγάπῃ] The

EPHESIANS. 9009

u

© adySevovtes δὲ ἐν

form of truth (see Stier in /oc.), are argu-
ments of some weight in favor of (a) ;
still the absence of any clear antithesis
between ἐν ἀγ. and either of the preposit.
clauses in ver. 14 forms a negative argu-
ment, and the concluding words of ver.
16 (whether ἐν ay. be joined immediately
with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται Mey., or with οἶκο-
dounv) supply a positive argument in
favor of (b), of such force, that this lat-
ter connection must be pronounced the
more probable, and certainly .the one
most in harmony with the context;
compare ch. i. 4. The order may have
arisen from a desire to keep αὐτὸν as
near as possible to its relative.
αὐτόν] ‘into Him,’ Auth. Ver.; εἰς not
implying merely ‘in reference to’ (Mey.);
—a frigid and unsatisfactory interpreta-
tion of which that expositor is too fond
(comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27), nor ‘for’
(Eadie), nor even simply ‘unto,’ ‘to the
standard of’ (Conyb.; comp. εἰς ἄνδρα
τέλειον, ver. 13), but retaining its fuller
and deeper theological sense ‘into,’ so
that avg. with εἰς conveys both ideas,
‘unto and into. The growth of Chris-
tians bears relation to Christ both as its
centre and standard ; while the limits of
that growth are defined by ‘the stature
of the fulness of Christ,’ its centre is
also, and must be, in Him; comp. some
profound remarks in Ebrard, Dogmatik,
§ 445 sq. τὰ πάντα] ‘in all the
parts in which we grow’ (Mey.), ‘in all
the elements of our growth ;’ the article
being thus most simply explained by
the context. It now need scarcely be
said that no ‘supplement of kata’
(Eadie, Stier) is required ; τὰ πάντα is
the regular accus. of what is termed the
quantitative object (Hartung, Casus, p.
46), and serves to characterize the extent
of the action; see Madvig, Gr. § 27,
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 5. 4. ὅς
ἐστιν κ' τ. λ.} ‘who ts the Head, even

>
ees

100 EPHESIANS.

Cuar. LV. 16.

> / ᾽ fe ’ τ \ \ 4 “ ’ ς /
ἀγάπῃ αὐξήσωμεν εἰς αὐτὸν Ta πάντα, Os ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χρισ-

. - a - ΄ \ ΄
τός, " ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμε-

Christ.’ There is here neither transpo-
sition (Grot., comp. Syr.), nor careless-
ness of construct. for εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν Xp.
(Pise.). Instead of the ordinary form
of simple, or what is termed parenthetic
apposition (see exx. Kriiger, Sprachil.
ὁ 57. 9), the Apostle, not improbably for
the sake of making ἐξ οὗ, ver 16, per-
fectly perspicuous (De W.), adopts the
relatival sentence, with the structure of
which the apposition is assimilated ; see
exx. Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. 4, p. 424 (ed. 5),
and Stalb. Plat. Apol. 41 a. The
reading is somewhat doubtful ; Rec. pre-
fixes the art. to Xp. with DEFGKL;
most mss.; Chrys., Theod. (De Wette,
Mey.), — but appy. on authority inferior
to that for its omission, viz. ABC, 3
mss.; Did., Bas., Cyr., al. (Zachm.,
Tisch., Alf.). Internal arguments can-
not safely be urged, as the preponder-
ance of instances of real omission (58)
over those of insertion (31) is not very
decided; see the table drawn up by
Rose in his ed. of Middleton, Gr. Art.
Append. 11. p. 490 sq., and Gersdorf,
Beitrége, 111. p. 272 sq. Under any cir-
cumstances the position of the word at
the end of the verse gives it both force
and emphasis.

16. ἐξ οὗ] ‘from whom,’ Auth., ‘ex
quo,’ Syr., Vulgate, Clarom., — not ‘in
quo,’ Eth. (both) ; ἐξ οὗ, as the instruc-
tive parallel, Col. ii. 19, clearly suggests,
being joined with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, and
ἐκ, with its proper and primary force of
origin, source, denoting the origin, the
‘fons augmentationis,’ Beng. ; see notes
on Gal. ii. 16. It is not wholly uninter-
esting to remark that the force of the
metaphor is enhanced by the apparent
physiological truth, that the energy of
vital power varies with the distance from
the head ; see Schubert, G'esch. der Seele,

§ 22, p.. 270 (ed,.1). συναρμο-

λογούμενον) ‘being fitly framed to-
gether ;’ pres. part., the action still going
on; see notes ch, ii. 21. συνβι-

G a Me
βαζόμεν ον] ‘compacted, ἐἰιρδαο
[et colligatur] Syr., ‘connexum,’ Vulg.,
Clarom., ‘gagahaflib,’ Goth., — or more
literally and with more special reference
to derivation [BA-, Batvw], ‘put together ;’
compare Col. ii. 19, and in a figurative
sense, Acts ix. 22, xvi. 10. The differ-
ence of meaning between συναρμ. and
συνβ. has been differently stated. <Ac-
cording to Bengel, the first denotes the
harmony, the second the solidity and firm-
ness of the structure. Perhaps the
more exact view is that which the sim-
ple meanings of the words suggest, viz.,
that συνβ. refers to the aggregation, ov-
vapu. to the inter-adaptation of the com-
ponent parts. The external author-
ity for the form συνβιβ. [AB(?)CD!IFG]
is appy. sufficient to warrant the adop-
tion of this less usual form; see Tisch.
Prolegom. p. XLv1t. διὰ Taons
apis] ‘by means of every joint,’ ‘per
omnem juncturam,’ Vulg., Clarom., and
sim. all the ancient Vy. Meyer still
retains the interpr. of Chrys., Theod.,
ἁφὴ = αἴσϑησις, and connects the clause
with αὔξ. ποιεῖται; but the parallel pas-
sage, Col. ii. 19, τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων
(observe esp. the omission of the 2d arti-
cle, Winer, § 19. 4) leaves it scarcely
doubtful that the meaning usually as-
signed (comp. Athen. 111. 202 τ, Plat.

Anton. 27) is correct, and that the clause

is to be connected with the participles.

τῆς ἐπιχορηγίαΞ5] ‘of the (spiritual )
supply ;’ the article implying the specific
émixop. which Christ supplies, τῆς χορη-
ylas τῶν χαρισμάτων, Chrysost.; on the
meaning of the word compare notes on
Gal. iii. 5. The gen. is not the gen. of
apposition (Riick., Harl.), nor a mere

Cuap. IV. 16.

EPHESIANS.

101

νον dia πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς

/ ἴω “-“
ἑκάστου μέρους τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν

n 3
ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη.

Hebraistic genitive of quality, ‘joint of
ministry ’ = ‘ministering joint’ (Peile,
Green, Gramm. N. T. p. 264; compare
Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b), but a kind of
gen. definitivus, by which the predom-
inant use, purpose, or destination of the
ἁφὴ is specified and characterized ; see
Heb. ix. 21, σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας, and
compare the exx. cited by Winer, Gir. §
30. 2, B, p. 170. The suggestion of
Dobree (Advers. Vol. τ. p. 573), partly
adopted by Scholef., that ἐπιχ. may be
‘materia suppeditata,’ is not very satis-
factory or tenable; see Phil. i. 19.

kat’ ἐνέργειαν k. τ. λ.] ‘according
to energy in the measure of (sc. commen-
surate with) each individual part ;’ τῷ μὲν
δυναμένῳ πλέον δέξασϑαι, πλέον, τῷ δὲ
These words
may be connected either (a) with émyo-
pnylas, —the omission of the art. is no
objection (Riick.), as ἡ ἐπιχ. κατ᾽ ἐνέργ.
may form one idea (Winer, Gr. § 20, 2,
p- 123), or (0) with the participles, or
yet again (c) with the finite verb. As
the expressions of the clause far more
appropriately describe the nature of the
growth than either the mode of compac-
tion or the degree of the supply, the lat-
ter construction is to be preferred. Kat’
évépy. is then a modal predication, ap-
pended to ποιεῖται, defining the nature of
the αὔξησις ; this growth is neither abnor-
mal nor proportionless, but is regulated
by a vital power which is proportioned
to the nature and extext of the separate
parts. Dobree (Advers. Vol. 1. p. 573)
strongly condemns this translation, but,
as it would seem, without sufficient rea-
son. His own translation, which con-
nects κατ᾽ évépy. with ἑνὸς ἑκ. μέρ. and

ἐλάττω, ἔλαττον, Chrys.

isolates ἐν μέτρῳ, impairs the force of the
deep and consolatory truths which the
ordinary connection suggests. For a

good practical application see Eadie in
loc. The reading μέλους is fairly
supported [AC; Vulg., Copt., Syr., al. ;
Cyr., Chrys., al.], but is appy. rightly
rejected by most recent editors, as a
gloss on μέρους suggested by the preced-
ing σῶμα and the succeeding σώματος.

τὴν αὔξ. τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται]
‘promotes, carries on, the growth of the
body,’ — σώματος being probably added
for the sake of perspicuity, and so prac-
tically taking the place of the reciprocal
pronoun ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 22. 2, p.
130, Kriiger, Xenoph. Anab. p. 27.
Stier, perhaps not incorrectly, finds in
the repetition of the noun an enuncia-
tion of a spiritual truth, echoed by éav-
Tod, — that the body makes increase of
the body, and so is a living organism ; —
that its growth is not due
tions from without, but to
from within; comp. Harless.

to agerega-
vital forces

The
not to he
insisted on as confirming this (Alf.), this
form appy. being not so much reflexive
(Wordsw.), as dntensive and indicative
of the energy with which the process
is carried on; see Kriiger, Spruchl. §
compare Donalds. Gr. 432.

middle ποιεῖται is perhaps

BD: ν ΤῸ
2

ἃ εἰς οἰκοδομήν ἐν ἀγ.}
‘for building up of itself in love ;’
o o> Me
σιλ..λ5 SoS) od Loomu59
wv wv Δ » 2

[ut in caritate perficiatur adificium ¢jus|
Syr. end and object of the αὔξησιν ποιεῖ-
ται; love is the element in which the
edification takes place. Meyer connects
ἐν ἀγάπῃ with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, to har-
monize with ver. 15, but without suffi-
cient reason, and in opp. to the obvious
objection that αὔξησιν ποιεῖται is thus
associated with two limiting prepositional
clauses, and the unity of thought propor-
tionately impaired ; comp. Alf. in loc.

102

Do not walk as darkened,
hardened, and feelingless
heathens. Put off the old,
and put on the new man.

17. τοῦτο οὖν λεγω] ‘ This, I say
then ;’ this, sc. what follows ; connecting
the verse with the hortatory portion
commenced ver. 1—3, by resumption on
the negative side (μηκέτι περιπατεῖν) of
the exhortation previously expressed on
the positive side, ver. 1—3 (aapak. ἀξίως
περιπατῆσαι), but interrupted by the di-
gression, ver. 4—16; πάλιν ἀνέλαβε τῆς
On
this resumptive force of οὖν, see Klotz,
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, and notes on Gal.
iii. 5. The illative force advocated by
Eadie after Meyer (ed. 1), is here im-
probable, and rightly retracted by Meyer
(ed. 2); comp. Donalds. Gr. § 548. 31.
μαρτύρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘testify, sol-
emnly declare, (‘quasi testibus adhibitis ’)
in the Lord, —not‘ per Dominum,’ (μάρ-
τυρα δὲ τὸν Κύριον καλῶ, Chrysost. ; see
Fritz.-Rom. ix. 1, Vol. 11. p. 241), nor
even as specifying the authority upon
(‘tanquam Christi discipulus,’
Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 84), but, as usual,
defining the element or sphere in which
the declaration is made; compare Rom.
ix. 1, ἀλήϑειαν λέγω ἐν Xp.; 2 Cor. ii.
17, ἐν Xp. λαλοῦμεν (scarcely correctly
translated by Fritz. ‘ut homines cum
Christo nexi’), 1 Thess. iv. 1, παρακα-
λοῦμεν ἐν Κυρίῳ, and see notes in loc.
By thus sinking his own personality, the
solemnity of the Apostle’s declaration is
greatly enhanced.
see notes on Gal. vy. 8, and compare
Raphel. Annot. Vol. 11. p. 478, 595.
μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν) ‘that ye
subject and sub-
stance of the hortatory declaration ; see

παραινέσεως τὸ προοίμιον, Theod.

which

On this use of papr.

9

no longer (must ) walk :

Acts xxi. 21, λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς
τὰ τέκνα. In objective sentences of this
nature (see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.)
the infinitive frequently involves the
same conception that would have been
expressed in the direct sentence by the

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 17.

Ἂν A 5 , \
“ Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ μαρτύρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ,

/ ς a al
μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν KaS@S Kal τὰ λουπὰ

imperative, and is usually (but incor-
rectly) explained by an ellipsis of δεῖν ;
see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, p. 371, Lobeck,
Phryn. 753 sq., and compare Heindorf
on Plato, Protag. 346 B. kal τὰ
λοιπὰ ἔϑνη])] ‘the rest of the Gentiles
> with tacit reference to their own
former state when unconverted ; the καὶ
introducing a comparison or gentle con-
trast between the emphatically expressed
ὑμᾶς and the ἔϑνη, of which but lately
they formed a part; see notes on verses
4, 32, and on Phil. iv. 12. The term
λοιπὰ is here rightly used, as the Ephe-
sians, though Christians, still fell under
the general denomination of Gentiles ;
it serves also to convey a hint reminding
them what they once were, and what
they now ought not to be; see Wolf in
loc. The external authority for striking
this last word (λοιπὰ) out of the text
[Lachm. with ABDIFG; 5 mss., Cla-
rom., Sang., Aug., Boern., Vulg., Copt.,
Sahid., Ath. (both); Clem., Cyr., al.]
is rather strong; still as the probability
of its being left out from being imper-
fectly understood, seems so much greater
than the probability of its being a con-
formation to ch. ii. 3 (Mill, zn loc., and
Prolegom. p. LX), we may perhaps safely
retain the adject. with D?D°EKL; great
majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth.,
al.; Chrys., Theod. (Zisch. ed. 2 and 7,
ΑΓ, al.).
A.] ‘in the vanity of their mind ;’ sphere
of their moral walk ; comp. Rom. i. 21,

also ;

ἐν ματαιότητι K.T.

ἐματαιώϑησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν.
Chrys. rightly explains the words by τὸ
περὶ τὰ μάταια ἠσχολῆσϑαι, but is prob-
ably not correct in restricting them to
idolatry, as μάταιος and ματαιόω do not
necessarily involve any such reference ;
compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. 65. The
reference seems rather to that general
nothingness and deprayation of the νοῦς

Cuap. IV. 18.

NK A 3 , a lal
ἔϑνη περυπατεῖ EV ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν,

EPHESIANS.

103

5.3 A
* ἐσκοτισμένοι TH

διανοίᾳ ὄντες, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς TOD Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν a
avoia S$, ἀπὴ ριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ THY ἄγνοιαν

(the higher moral and intellectual ele-
ment), which was the universal charac-
teristic of heathenism ; see Usteri, Lehrb.
1. 3, p. 85 sq., and notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5,
2 Tim. iii. 8.

18. ἐσκοτισμένοι bytes] ‘being
darkened:’ participial clause defining
their state, and accounting for the pre-
ceding assertion (see Donalds. Gr. §
616); ἐσκοτ. (opp. to πεφωτισμένοι, ch.
i. 18; comp. Rom. i. 21, xi. 10, 1 Thess.
y. 4) referring to their state of moral
darkness, and ὄντες (rightly referred by
Tisch., Lachm., to ἐσκοτ., not to ἀπηλλ.
[Eadie], — a punctuation which mars
the emphatic parallelism of the initial
perf. participles) marking, somewhat
pleonastically after the perf. part., its
permanent and enduring state; comp.
Winer. Gr. § 45. 5. p. 311. The ap-
parently conjugate nature of the clauses
(comp. ὄντες5---οὖσαν) has led Olsh. and
others to couple together ἐσκοτ. κ. τ. A.
and διὰ τὴν ἄγν. as relating to the intel-
lect, ἀπηλλ. xk. τ. A. and διὰ τὴν πώρ. as
relating to the feelings. This, however,
though at first sight plausible, will not
be found logically satisfactory. The
being ἐσκοτ. x. τ. A. could scarcely be
said to be the consequence of their ἄγ-
voia (‘ignorance’ simply, Acts iii. 17,
xvii. 30. and appy. 1 Pet. 1.14), but ra-
ther vice versa, whereas it seems perfectly
consistent to say that their alienation
was caused by their ignorance, and still
more by the ensuing mépwors. Hence
the punctuation of the text. The
reading ἐσκοτισμένοι is not perfectly cer-
tain; the more classical ἐσκοτωμένοι is
found in AB; Ath. (Zachm., Tisch. ed.
7), but has not sufficient support to war-
rant its being received in the text.

TH διανοίᾳ) ‘in their understanding,’
‘in their higher intellectual nature,’
διέξοδος λογική (Orig.; comp. Beck,

Seelenl. 11. 19, p. 58); see ch. i. 18, ii.
3, and Joseph. Antig. 1x. 4. 8, thy διά-
νοιαν ἐπεσκοτισμένου. The dat. (‘of
reference to’) denotes the particular
sphere to which the ‘darkness’ is lim-
ited ; see notes on Gal. i. 22, Winer, Gr.
§ 31.3, p. 244. The distinction between
this dat. and the ace., as in Joseph. J. c.,
is not very easy to define, as such an
accus. has clearly some of the limiting
character which we properly assign to
the dat.; see Hartung, Casus, p. 62.
Perhaps the acc. might denote that the
darkness extended over the mind, the dat.
that it has its seat in the mind; see
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4.1.
ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι] ‘being alienated
from, ἀλλότριοι καδεστῶτες, Theod.-
Mops. ; see notes on ch. ii. 12.

τῆς ζωῆς TOD Θεοῦ] ‘from the life
of God.’ This is one of the many cases
(see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. obs. p. 168)
where the nature of the gen., whether
objecti or subjecti, must be determined
solely from exegetical considerations.
As ζωὴ appears never to denote ‘ course
of life’ (e. 9. τὴν ἐν ἀρετῇ ζωὴν Theod.)
in the N. T., but ‘the principle of life’
as opp. to Sdvatos (comp. Trench, Syn.
ὃ XXv11), Tod Θεοῦ will more naturally
be the gen. subj. or auctoris, ‘the life
which God gives:’ comp. δικαιοσύνη
Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 17 with δικ. ἐκ. ©., Phil.
iii. 9. It is, however, probable that we
must advance a step farther, and regard
the gen. as possessive. This (unique)
expression will then denote not merely
the παλιγγενεσία, but in the widest doc-
trinal application, ‘the life of God’ in
the soul of man; comp. Olsh. and Stier
an loc., and see esp. the good treatise on
(wh in Olsh. Opuse.
ἐν αὐτοῖς seems intended to point out
the indwelling, deep-seated nature of the
ἄγνοια, and to form a sort of parallelism

Thy οὖσαν

104

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. LY. 19.

5 aA \ WV , a y a
τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, διὰ THY πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, "5 οἵτι-

νες ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν

to τῆς καρδ. αὐτῶν. Meyer (compare
Peile) conceiving that the words indicate
the subordination of διὰ τὴν map. to διὰ
τὴν ἄγν. removes the comma after αὐὖ-
τοῖς. This is certainly awkward: St.
Paul’s more than occasional use of co-
ordinate clauses (e. g. Gal. iv. 4) leads
us to regard both members as dependent
on ἀπηλλ. (Orig.), and structurally in-
dependent of each other, though, as the
context seems to suggest, the latter may
be considered slightly explanatory of the
former, and (like ἀπηλλ.) expressive of
a state naturally consequent; sec esp.
Orig. in Cram. Caten. p. 175. π ώ-
ρωσιν]} ‘callousness,’ ‘hardness,’ — not
‘cxcitatem,’ Syr. (both), Clarom., Vuig.,
τη. (both), Arm. (Suid. πώρωσις, ἣ τυ-
φλωσις), but ‘obdurationem’ Copt. (thom,
— which however includes both signifi-
cations), ‘daubipos,’ Goth.,—7 ἐσχάτη
ἀναλγησία, Theod. The word πώρωσις
is not derived from πωρός ‘cxecus’ (‘ vox,
ut videtur, a grammaticis ficta,’ Fritz.
Rom. xi.7, Vol. 11. p. 452), and certainly
not from πόρος (διαφράττειν), as appy.
Chrys., but from πῶρος, ‘tuffstone,’ and
thence from the similarity of appearance,
a ‘morbid swelling’ (Aristot. Hist. An.
111. 19), the ‘callus’ at the extremity of
fractured bones (Med. Writers). The
adject. πωρός, in the sense of ταλαίπωρος
(Hesych.), is cognate with πηρός, and
derived from TAQ, πάσχω ; comp. Pha-
yor. Helog. 150. b, p. 396 (ed. Dind.).
19. οἵτιν ε5]} ‘who as men;’ explana-
tory force of ὕστις ; see notes on Gal. ii.
4, iv. 24. ἀπηλγηκ ότ ες] ‘being
past feeling,’ Auth.,— an admirable trans-
lation. The use of the semi-technical
term mépwots, suggests this appropriate
continuation of the metaphor. There is
then no reference to mere ‘ desperatio,’
comp. Polyb. Hist. 1x. 40. 9, ἀπαλγοῦν-
Tes ταῖς ἐλπίσι, and exx. in Raphel, An-

᾽

not. Vol. 11. p. 479), as Syr., Vulg.,
Goth., — but possibly with the reading of
1) E, al. ἀπηλπικότες, -τ-- nor even to that
feelingless state which is the result of it
(Cicero, Kpist. Fam. 11. 3, ‘desperatione
obduruisse ad dolorem,’ aptly cited by
Beng.), but, as the context shows, to
that moral apathy and deadness which
supervenes when the heart has ceased to
be sensible of the ‘stimuli’ of the con-
science ; τὸ δὲ ἀπηλγηκότες ὥσπερ τῶν
ἀπὸ πάϑους Tivds μέρη πολλάκις τοῦ σώμα-
TOS νενεκρωμένων, οἷς ἄλγος οὐδὲν ἐκεῖ-
sev ἐγγίνεται, Theod.-Mops. The gloss
of Theoph. κατεῤῥαϑυμηκότες (compare
Chrys.), adopted by Hamm. on Rom. i.
29, but here appy. retracted, is untenable,
as it needlessly interrupts the continuity
of the metaphor.
selves,’ as Meyer well says, with frightful
It has been observed by
Chrys. and others that there is no oppo-
sition here with Rom. i. 26, παρέδωκεν
The progress of sin is
represented under two aspects, or rather
two stages of its fearful course. By a
perverted exercise of his free-will, man
plunges himself into sin; the deeper de-
mersion in it is the judicial act (no mere
συγχώρησις, Chrys.) of God; compare
Wordsw. in loc. τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ)
‘Wantonness.’ On the meaning and der-
ivation of this word, see notes on Gal. v.
19, and comp. Trench, Synon. ὃ xv.

eis ἐργασίαν] ‘to working;’ consci-
ous object of the fearful self-abandon-
ment: épyac., φησίν, ἔϑεντο TO πρᾶγμα.
... Opas πῶς αὐτοὺς ἀποστερεῖ συγγνώμης,
Chrys. πάση 9] ‘of every kind,
whether natural or unnatural ; μοιχεία,
πορνεία, παιδεραστία, Chrys. As St.
Paul most commonly places πᾶς before,
and not, as here, after the abstract (an-
arthrous) subst., it seems proper to ex-
press in transl. the full force of πάσης:

éautovs| ‘them-

emphasis.

αὐτοὺς 6 Θεός.

Cuap. IV. 20, 21.

EPHESIANS.

105

> / / 3, / 20 ς fal \ by e/ ’ A
ἀκαδαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάδετε

\ , 2] " ᾿ἣς ἐν b] 4 \ 5 > a b) /
TOV Χριστόν, ΕεἰὙΥΕ AUTOV ἠκούσατε και EV avT@ ἐδιδάχϑητε

comp. notes ch. i. 8. ἐν πλεο-
νεξίᾳ] ‘in (not ‘with’) covetousness ;’
ἐν marking the condition, the prevailing
state or frame of mind in which they
wrought the ἀκαῦ. The word πλεονεξία
(‘amor habendi,’ Fritz., ‘boni alieni ad
se redactio,’ Beng. on Rom. i. 29), is
here explained by Chrysostom and sey-
eral Greek Ff. (see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol.
11. p. 750), followed by Hammond (in a
valuable note on Rom. i. 29) and by
Trench, Synon. XX1v., as ἀμετρία, ‘im-
moderate, inordinate desire.’ In sup-
port of this extended meaning the recital
of πλεονεξία with sins of the flesh, 1
Cor. v. 11, Eph. v. 3, Col. iii. 5, is pop-
ularly urged by Trench and others, but
appy-, as a critical examination of the
passages will show, without full conclu-
siveness. For example, in 1 Cor. v. 10,
τοῖς πόρνοις ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρ-
παξιν (Tisch., Lachm.), the use of the dis-
junct. ἢ between πόρν. and πλεον. opp. to
the conjunct. καὶ between πλεον. and apr.,
and esp. the omission of the art. before
(Winer, Gr. § 19. 4. d, p. 116)
tend to prove the very reverse. Again,
in Eph. v. 3, πορνεία is joined with ἄκα-
ϑαρσία by καί, while πλεονεξ. is disjoined
from them by #; see notes. Lastly, in
Col. iii. 5, the preceding anarthrous,
unconnected nouns, πορν., ἀκαῦ., mdd.,
have no very close union with καὶ τὴν
πλεονεξίαν κ. τ. X., from which, too, they
are separated by ἐπιϑυμίαν κακήν; see
notes in loc. While, therefore, we may
admit the deep significance of the spir-
itual fact that this sin is mentioned in
connection with strictly carnal sins, we
must also deny that there are grammat-
ical or contextual reasons for obliterat-
ing the idea of covetousness and self-seek-
tng, Which seems bound up in the word ;
see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 3. 2,
Vol. 1. p. 169 (Clark).

e
apt.

20. ὑμεῖς δέ] ‘But you;’ with dis-
tinct and emphatic contrast to these
unconverted and feelingless heathen.
οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάδετεϊ ‘did not thus
learn Christ ;?—but on principles very
different ; the οὕτως obviously implying
much more than is expressed (‘litotes’ );
τὰ τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ παντάπασιν evay-
tia, Theodoret. This use of μανῷ. with
an accus. persone is somewhat difficult to
explain, and is probably unique. Raphel
(Annot. Vol. τι. p. 480) cites Xenoph.
Hell. 11.1.1, but the example is illusory.
The common interpr. Χριστὸς = ‘ doc-
trina Christi’ (Grot., Turner) is frigid
and inadmissible, and the use of éudSere
in the sense of ‘learnt to know,’ scil.
‘who He is and what He desires’
(Riick.), has not appy. any lexical au-
thority. We can only then regard Xp.
as the object which is learnt (or heard,
ver. 21), the content of the preaching, so
that the hearer, as it were, ‘takes up into
himself and appropriates the person of
Christ Himself’ (Olsh.) ; comp. the sim-
ilar but not identical expression, παρα-
λαμβάνειν τὸν Χριστὸν Ἴησ., Col. ii. 6;
see notes in loc.

21. εἴγε] ‘if indeed, ‘tum certe si;’
not ‘since,’ Eadie; see notes, ch. ii. 2,
Hartung, Partitk. Vol. 1, p. 407 sq.
The explanation of Chrysost. ov ἀμφι-
βάλλοντος ἐστί, ἀλλὰ καὶ σφόδρα διαβε-
βαιουμένου, is improved on by Cicum.,
ὡσεὶ εἶπεν, ἀμφιβάλλω γὰρ ef τις τὸν Xp.
ἀκούσας καὶ διδαχϑεὶς ἐν αὐτῷ τοιαῦτα
πράττει. αὐτὸν ἠκούσατ ε] ‘ye
heard Him ;’ αὐτὸν being put forward
with emphasis ; —‘if indeed it was Him,
His divine voice and divine Self that
you really heard ;’ Alf. pertinently com-
pares John x. 27, but obs. that the αὐτὸν
is here used in the same sort of inclusive
way as τὸν Χριστόν, ver. 20. No argu-
ment can fairly be deduced from this
14

100

y a? la)
Kaos ἐστιν ἀλήδεια ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ,

that St. Paul had not himself instructed
the readers (De W.); see on,ch. iii. 2.
ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him;’ not ‘by Hin,’
Arm., Auth., or ‘illius nomine,’ Beng.,
but, as usual, ‘in union with Him;’ see
Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. Meyer calls
attention to the precision of the lan-
guage, αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε pointing to the
first reception, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχ. to the fur-
ther instruction which they had received
as Christians. Both are included in the
foregoing ἐμάϑετε τὸν Χριστόν.

καϑώς ἐστιν GANS. kK. τ. λ.] ‘as,
or according as, is truth in Jesus.’ The
meaning and connection of this clause
are both obscure, and have received
many different interpretations, most of
which involve errors affecting one or
more of the following particulars, — the
meaning of καϑώς (Riick.), the position
of ἐστίν (Olsh.), the meaning of aandera
(Harl.), the absence of the art. before it
(Auth.), the designation of Christ by
His historical rather than official name
(Mey.), and finally the insertion of ὑμᾶς
(De W.). It is extremely difficult to
assign an interpretation that shall ac-
count for and harmonize all of these
somewhat conflicting details. Perhaps
the following will be found least open to
exception. The Apostle, having men-
tioned the teaching the Ephesians had
received (ἐδιδάχϑ.), notices first (not
parenthetically, Beza) the form and
manner, and then the substance of it.
Kadws x. τ. A., is thus a predication of
manner attached to ἐδιδ., and implies,
not ‘as truth is in Jesus’ (Olsh.), which
departs from the order and involves a
modification of the simple meaning of
ἀλήδ.; nor (as it might have been ex-
pressed) ‘as is truth,’ abstractedly, —
but, ‘as is truth —in Jusus,’ embodied,
as it were, in a personal Saviour and in
the preaching of His cross. The sub-
stance of what they were taught is then

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. LY. 22.

99 5 , e A SN \
“ ATOSETSAL ὑμᾶς, KATA τὴν

specified, not without a faint imperative
force, by the infin. with ὑμᾶς; the pro-
noun being added on account of the
introduction of the new subject Ἰησοῦ
(Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 288), or more
probably to mark their contrast, not
only with the Gentiles before mentioned,
but with their own former state as im-
plied in τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφήν. Mey,
following QCEcum. 2, connects the inf.
with ἐστὶν ἀλήδ., a construction not
grammatically untenable (Jelf, Gr. ὁ
669, comp. Madvig. Synt. ὃ 164. 3), but
somewhat forced unsatisfactory.
Stier, after Beng., regards aod. a re-
sumption of unex. περιπ. ver. 17, but yet
is obliged to admit a kind of connection
with e616. «. τ. A.

and

22. ἀποϑέσϑαι twas] ‘that ye put
off ;’ objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. ὁ
584) dependent on ἐδιδ., and specifying
the purport and substance of the teach-
ing; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 48. a. obs. p. 349,
and compare Orig. in Cramer Caten.
The metaphor is obviously ‘a vestibus
sumpta,’ Beza (Rom. xiii. 12, Col. iil,
12), and stands in contrast to ἐνδύσ. ver.
24; see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 8, p. 220.
The translation of Peile, ‘that you have
put off,’ is very questionable, as the aor.
is here only used in accordance with the
common law of succession of tenses
(Madvig, Synt. § 171, sq.), and perhaps
with reference [comp. ἐνδύσασϑαι ver. 24,
as opp. to ἀνανεοῦσϑαι] to the speedy,
single nature of the act; but compare
notes on ch. iii. 4, and on 1 Thess. v. 27.
Equally untenable is the supposition
that the inf. is equivalent to the imper.
(Luther, Wolf); not, however, because
ὑμᾶς is attached to it (Eadie, for see
Winer, Gr. § 44. 3), but because this
usage is only found (excluding Epic
Greek) in laws, oracles, ete., or in
clauses marked by an especial warmth
or earnestness ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt.

CHap. ΤΥ. 22; 98.

EPHESIANS.

107

προτέραν ἀναστροφήν, τὸν παλαιὸν avSpwrov τὸν φδειρόμενον
\ > δ a > 9° rn lal ΄
κατὰ τὰς ἐπιδυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης, “ὃ ἀνανεοῦσϑαι δὲ τῷ Πνεύματι

1χ. 9, p. 358. But few certain instances,
é.g. Phil. iii. 16 (see notes in loc.), are
found in the language of the N. T.
κατὰ τὴν προτ. ἀναστρ.] ‘as con-
cerns your former conversation,’ ‘quoad
pristinam vivendi, concupiscendi, et pec-
candi consuetudinem,’ Corn. a Lap. ;
specification of that with regard to
which the ἀποϑέσϑαι τὸν παλ. ἄνϑρ. was
especially carried out; κατὰ here not
haying its more usual sense of measure,
but, as the context seems to require, the
less definite one of reference to ; compare
Rom. ix. 5, and see Rost τι. Palm, Lez.
s. vy. Vol. 1. p. 1599. The construction
τὸν Tad. avdp. κατὰ κ. τ. A. (Jerome,
(icum.) is opposed to the order, and to
all principles of perspicuity, — not, how-
ever, positively to ‘the laws of language,’
Eadie, for compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 19,
2,— and is distinctly untenable. The
expressive word ἀναστροφὴ is confined
(in its present sense) to the N. T. (Gal.
i. 15, 1 Tim. iy. 12, al.), to the Apocry-
pha (Job. iv. 14, 2 Mace. ν. 8), and to
later Greek (Polyb. Hist. rv. 82, Arrian,
Epict. τ. 9); compare Suicer, Thes. Vol.
11. p-.522- τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνϑρω-
πον] ‘the old man,’ i. 6. our former
unconverted self; personification of our
whole sinful condition before regenera-
tion (Rom. vi, 6, Col. iii. 9), and op-
posed to the καινὸς or νέος ἄνϑρωπος
(ver. 24, Col. iii. 10), the καινὴ κτίσις
(Gal. vi. 15), or, if regarded in another
point of view (compare Chrys.), to the
ἔσω ἄνδρ. ch. iii. 16, Rom. vii. 22; see
Harless, Hthik. § 22, p. 97, and compare
Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 352.
φϑειρόμενον)]Ἵ ‘which waxeth
corrupt,’ del φϑείρεται, Origen (Cram.
Caten.) ; further definition and specifica-
tion of the progressive condition of the
παλαιὸς ἄνῶρ., ---- πού however with any
causal force (ed. 1), as this would be

τὸν

expressed either by a relative clause (see
on 1 Tim. ii. 4), or a part. without the
article. The tense of the part. (pres., —
not imperf., Beng.) must here be no-
ticed and pressed, as marking that inner
process of corruption and moral disinte-
gration which is not only the character-
istic (Auth ) but the steadily progressive
condition of the mad. ἄνϑρ.; contrast
κτισϑέντα ver. 24, Meyer refers φϑειρ.
to ‘eternal destruction’ (comp. Hows.),
regarding the pres. as involving a future
meaning. This is tenable (see Bern-
hardy, Synt. x. 2, p. 371), but seems
inferior to the foregoing, as drawing off
attention from the true, present nature
of the progressive @Sopd; compare Gal.
vi. 8, and see notes zn loc. κατὰ
has here no direct reference to instru-
mentality (sc. = διά, Gicum., ὑπό, The-
oph., compare Syr.), but, as the partial
antithesis κατὰ Θεὸν (ver. 24) suggests,
its usual meaning of ‘ accordance τὸ ;’ in
which, indeed, a faint reference to the
occasion or circumstances connected
with, or arising from the accordance
may sometimes be traced; see notes on
Phil. ii. 8, and on Tit. iii. 5. Κατὰ τὰς
ἐπιὸ. 1s, however, here simply ‘in accord-
ance with the lusts,’ ‘secundum desid-

aes - f
eria,’ Vulg., Ἰδιρας ναὶ [secundum
concupiscentias] Syr.-Phil., 7. e. just as
the nature and existence of such lusts
imply and necessitate ; compare Winer,
Gr. § 49. d, p. 358.
ΤΉ 5] ‘of Deceit ;’ gen. subjecti, ἣ ἀπάτη
being taken so abstractedly (Middleton,
Gr. Art. ν. 1, 2) as to be nearly personi-
fied (Mey.). The paraphrase ἐπιϑυμίαι
ἀπατηλαί (Beza, Auth.) is very unsatis-
factory, and mars the chbvious antithesis
tO τῆς ἀληϑείας ver. 24.

23. ἀνανεοῦσϑαι δέ] ‘and that ye
be renewed ;’ contrasted statement on the

a /
τῆς ἀπά-

108

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV, 23, 24.

a ‘ « lal 94 Ἂς 5 δύ 4 ‘ \ ” Ν
του VOOS υμῶὼν και €voucadsab TOV Καίνον ἄνδρωπον τον

positive side (‘dé alii rei aliam adjicit, ut
tamen ubivis quedam oppositio declar-
etur,’ Klotz, Devar., Vol. 11. p. 362) of
the substance of what they had been
taught, previously specified on its nega-
tive side (ver. 22). It has been doubted
whether dvaveodoSa is pass. or middle.
The act. is certainly rare (Thom. M. p.
52, ed. Bern.; comp. Aq. Psalm. xxix.
2); still, as Harless satisfactorily shows,
the middle, both in its simple and meta-
phorical sense, is so completely devoid
of any reflexive force (comp. even avav-
gov σεαυτόν, Antonin. 1v. 3), and is prac-
tically so purely active in meaning, that
no other form than the passive (opp. to
Stier), can possibly harmonize with the
context ; comp. ἀνακαινοῦσϑαι 2 Cor. iv.
16, Col. iii. 10, and see Hofm. Schriftb.
Vol. 11. 2,p. 269. The meaning of ἀνά,
restoration to a former, not necessarily a
primal state, is noticed by Winer (de Verb.
c. Prep. 111. p. 10), and the distinction
between ἀνανεοῦσϑαι (‘recentare, — more
subjective, and perhaps with prevailing
ref. to renovation,) and ἀνακαινοῦσδαι
(‘renovare,’ — more objective, and per-
haps with prevailing ref. to regeneration)
by Tittmann, Synon. p. 60; comp.
Trench, Synon. ὃ Xv11I., and see notes
on Col. iii. 10. τῷ Πνεύματι
τοῦ νοός] ‘by the Spirit of your mind.’
Tn this unique and somewhat ambiguous
expression, the gen. vods may be ex-
plained either as (a) appositive, ‘ spiritus
qu mens vocatur’ August. de Trin.
xiv. 16; so appy. Taylor, Duct. Dub. τ.
1. 7, comp. ib. on Repent. 11. 2. 12 : — (δ)
partitive, ‘the governing spirit of the
mind’ De W., Eadie, τὴν ὁρμὴν τοῦ νόος
πνευματικήν, Theodoret ;— or (6) pos-
sessive, ‘the (Divine) Spirit, united with
the human πνεῦμα (comp. Hooker, Hcl.
Pol. τ. 7.1), with which the νοῦς, as sub-
ject, is endued, and of which it is the
receptaculum ;’ τῷ Πν. τῷ ἐν TE νῷ,

Chrysost. Of these (a) is manifestly,
as Bp. Bull designates it, ‘a flat and
dull interpretation ;’ (0), even if not
metaphysically or psychologically doubt-
ful, is exegetically unsatisfactory ; (c) on
the contrary, now adopted by Mey., has
a full scriptural significance; τὸ Tv. is
the Holy Spirit, which by its union with
the human πνεῦμα, becomes the agent
of the ἀνακαίνωσις τοῦ νοός Rom. xii. 2,
and the νοῦς is the seat of His working,
—where ματαιότης (ver. 17) once was,
but now καινότης. The dat. is thus not,
as in (a) and (0) a mere dat. ‘ of refer-
ence to’ (ver. 17), but a dat. znstrumenti,
—scil. διὰ Πν. ἐστι ἀνακαίνισις, Gicum.,
ὅπερ avaveot ἡμᾶς, Origen (ap. Cram.
Caten.) ; see Tit. iii. 5, and comp. Col-
lect for Christmas Day. This
interpr. is ably defended by Bull, Disc.
V. p. 477 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844) ;
see also Waterl. Regen. Vol. v. p. 434,
Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 8, p. 227, and Fritz.

Nov. Opuse. Acad. p. 224. The only
modification, or rather explanation

which it has seemed necessary to add to
the view in ed. 1, is that τῷ Tv. (as
above stated) is not the Holy Spirit
regarded exclusively and per se, but as
in a gracious union with the human
spirit. With this slight rectification, the
third interpr. seems to have a very strong
claim on our attention; contr. Wordsw.
in loc. ; comp. also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy-
chol. 1v. 5, p. 144.

24. καὶ ἐνδύσασϑαι] ‘and put
on;’ further and more distinct state-
ment on the positive side corresponding
to the ἀποϑέσϑαι on the negative; the
change of tense (aor.) being appy. in-
tentional; see notes on ver. 22. The
arguments of Anabaptists based on this
verse are answered by Taylor, Liberty
of Proph. § 18. ad. 31. It is very im-
probable that there is here any allusion
to baptism: the ‘putting on the new

Crap. IV. 24,

EPHESIANS.

109

\ \ / > , \ e / a > /
κατὰ Θεὸν κτισϑέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληδείας.

man.’ refers to the renovation of the heart
afterwards ; comp. Waterl. Regen. Vol.
vy. p. 434. The metaphorical and dog-
matical meaning is investigated in Sui-
cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 11138.
τὸν καινὸν ἄνϑρ.] ‘the new man.’
It is scarcely necessary to observe that
the kaw. ἄνῶρ. is not Christ (Zanch. ap.
Pol. Syn.), but is in direct contrast to
τὸν mad. ἄνῶρ., and denotes ‘the holy
form of human life which results from
redemption,’ Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1v. 3.
ad. fin., Vol. 11. p. 392 (Clark) ; comp.
Jol. iii. 10, where νέος ἄνῶρ. stands in
contrast to a former state (Wordsw. aptly
compares Matt. ix. 17, Mark 11. 22, Luke
v. 38), as καινὸς here to one needing re-
newal ; see notes in loc., and Harl. Ethik,
ὁ 22, p.97. The patristic interpretations
are given in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p.
352. τὸν κατὰ © κτισϑὃ.]
‘which after God hath been created,’ — not
‘is created,’ Auth., but ‘ qui creatus est,’
Clarom., Vulg., sim. Copt., with the
proper force of the aor. in ref. to the
past creation in Christ: the new man is,
as it were, a holy garb or personality not
created in the case of each individual be-
liever, but created once for all (‘initio rei
Christian,’ Beng.), and then individu-
ally assumed. The key to this impor-
tant passage is undoubtedly the striking
parallel, Col. iii. 10, τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαι-
νούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ KTI-
σαντος αὐτόν; from which it would al-
most seem certain (1) that κτισϑέντα
in our present passage contains an al-
lusion to Gen. i. 27, and suggests a spir-
itual connection between the first crea-
tion of man in Adam and the second
new creation in Christ; and (2) that
κατὰ Θεόν, as illustrated by κατ᾽ εἰκ.
k. τ. A. Col. l.c., is rightly explained as
‘ad exemplum Dei:’ comp. Gal. iv. 28,
Gen. i. 27, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. ἃ,
p- 358. Thus, then, from this passage,

compared with that from Col. we may
appy. deduce the great dogmatic truth,
— ‘ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id
est, secundum imaginem et similitudi-
nem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu re-
ciperemus,’ Ireneus, Her. 111. 20, p.
245 (ed. Grabe) ; see notes on Ool. l. c.
The justice of this deduction is doubted
by Miiller (Doctr. of Sin, 1v. 8, Vol. τι.
p- 392), but without sufficient reason ;
see esp. the admirable treatise of Bp.
Bull, State of Man, etc., p. 445 sq. (Eng-
lish Works, Oxf. 1844), and Delitzsch,
Bibl. Psychol. 11. 2, p.51. On the na-
ture and process of this revival of the
image of God, see Jackson, Creed, Book
vill. 35. 1.
6o0167.| ‘in righteousness and holiness ;’
tokens and characteristics of the divine
image ; ἐν defining the state in which a
similitude to that image consists and ex-
hibits itself (Olsh.). The usual distine-
tion between these two substantives, ὅσι-
ὀτης μὲν πρὸς Θεόν, δικαιοσύνη δὲ πρὸς av-
ϑρώπους Sewpeitat, Philo, de Abrah. Vol.
11. p. 30, ed. Mang. (comp. Tittm.
Synon. p. 25), is not here wholly appli-
cable; as Harless shows from 1 Tim. ii.
8, Heb. vii. 7, the term ὁσιότης [on the
doubtful derivation, see Pott, Ht. lorsch.
Vol. 1. p. 126, contrasted with Benfey,
Wurzellex. Vol. τ. p. 436] involves not
merely the idea of ‘ piety,’ but of ‘holy
purity,’ τὸ καϑαρόν, Chrys. There is
thus a faint contrast suggested between
Six. and πλεονεξία in ver. 19, and ὁσιότ.
and ἀκαϑαρσία in the present verse. Ol-
shausen (in an excellent note on this
verse) contrasts this passage, Col. iii. 10,
and Wisdom, ii. 23 (noticed also by
Bull), as respectively alluding to the
Divine image under its ethical, intellec-
tual, and physical aspects. τῆς
ἀλη εἰα 5] ‘of Truth;’ exactly opp. to
τῆς ἀπάτης ver. 22, and of course to be
connected with both preceding nouns.

ἐν δικαιοσ. καὶ

110

Speak the truth, do not
cherish anger, or practise
theft: utter no corrupt
speech; be not bitter.

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 25, 26.

Ὁ Avo ἀποϑέμενοι TO ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήδειαν

\ a ͵ ας
ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσμὲν

ἀλλήλων μέλη. “᾿Οργίζεσδε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε: ὁ ἥλιος μὴ

The adjectival solution (Beza, Auth.)
wholly destroys the obvious and forcible
antithesis, and the reading καὶ ἀληδϑείᾳ
[DIFG; Clar.; Cypr., Hil., al.] has no
claims on our attention.

25. διό] ‘Wherefore ;’ in reference to
the truths expressed in the verses imme-
diately preceding: εἰπὼν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄν-
ϑρωπον καϑολικῶς, λοιπὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ὕπο-
γράφει κατὰ μέρος, Chrys. The previous
mention of ἀλήϑεια seems to have sug-
gested the first exhortation. On the use
of διὸ in the N. T., see notes on Gal. iv.
31. ἀποδέμενοι TO Wevdos|
“having put off’ (aor., with ref. to the
priority of the act; comp. notes on ver.
8) lying, or rather ‘falsehood, in a fully
abstract sense (John viii. 44), — not
merely τὸ ψεύδεσϑαι, scil. τὸ λαλεῖν
ψευδῆ: falsehood in every form is a
chief characteristic of the παλαιὸς ἄν-
Spwmos, and, as Miiller well shows,
comes naturally from that selfishness
which is the essence of all sin; see
Doctr. of Sin. The positive exhortation
‘which follows is considered by Jerome
not improbably a reminiscence of Za-
char. viii. 16, λαλεῖτε ἀλήϑειαν ἕκαστος
πρὸς [is the change to μετὰ intentional,
as better denoting ‘inter-communion,’
ete. 1] τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ. For a short
sermon on this text see August. Serm.
ctvi. Vol. v. p. 907 (ed. Migne).
ὅτι ἐσμέν x. 7.A.] ‘because we are
members one of another. The force of
the exhortation does not rest on any
mere ethical considerations of our obli-
gations to society, or on any analogy
that may be derived from the body
(Chrys.), but on the deeper truth, that
in being members of one another we
are members of the body of Christ
(Rom. xii. 5), of Him who was ἡ ἀλή-
Sea καὶ ἡ ζωή ; see Harl. in loc.

26. ὀργίζεσϑε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτά.-
νετε] ‘Be angry, and sin not;’ a direct
citation from the LXX, Psalm iv. 5.
The original words are 380 mats Tara
which, though appy. more correctly trans-
lated ‘tremble and, ete.’ [Gesen., Ewald,
J. Olsh. opp. to Hengst. and Hirzig},
are adduced by St. Paul from the Greek
version, as best embodying a salutary
and practical precept; comp. ver. 25.
The command itself has received many
different, though nearly all ultimately
coincident explanations. (1) The usual
interpretation ‘si contingat vos irasci’
(‘though ye be angry,’ Butler, Serm.
vitt.; still maintained by Zyro, Stud. u.
Krit. 1841, p. 681 sq.), is founded on the
union of two imperatives in Hebrew
(Gen. xlii. 18, Prov. xx. 13, Gesen. Gr.
§ 127. 2), and, in fact, any cultivated
language, to denote condition and result.
This, however, is here inapplicable, for
the solution would thus be not ὀργιζόμε-
vot μὴ Guap., but ἐὰν ὀργιζήσϑε, οὐκ auap-
τήσετε [not -cecde in N. T.], which can-
not be intended. (2) Winer (Gr. ὃ 43,
1. obs. p. 360 sq.) far more plausibly con-
ceives the first imper. permissive, the
second jussive: comp. the yersion of
Symm. ὀργ. ἀλλὰ μὴ auapt. It is true
that a permissive imper. is found occa-
sionally in the N. T. (1 Cor. vii. 15,
perhaps Matt. xxvi. 45), but the close
union by καὶ of two imperatives of simi-
lar tense, but with a dissimilar imperati-
val force, is, as Meyer has observed, logi-
cally unsatisfactory. (3) The fol-
lowing interpr. seems most simple : both
imperatives are jussive ; as, however, the
second imper. is used with μή, its jussive
force is thereby enhanced, while the affir-
mative command is, by juxta-position,
so much obscured as to be in effect little
more than a participial member, though

CuHap. IV. 27.
’ , ’ \
ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ

its intrinsic jussive force is not to be
denied. There is undoubtedly an anger
against sin, for instance, against deliber-
ate falsehood, as the context appy. sug-
gests (see Chrys.), which a good man
not only may, but .ought to feel (see
Suicer, Zhesaur., Vol. 11. p. 504), and
which is very different from the ὀργὴ for-
bidden in yer. 31: compare Trench,
Synon. ὃ xxxvuii. and on the subject of
resentment generally, Butler, Serm. v111.
and the good note of Wordsw. zn loc.

ὁ ἥλιος x. T.A.] ‘let not the sun go
down on your irritation.” The command
is the Christian parallel of the Pythago-
rean custom cited by Hammond, Wetst.,
and others, εἴποτε προαχϑεῖεν eis λοιδο-
ρίας tm ὀργῆς, πρὶν ἢ τὸν ἥλιον δῦναι, Tas
δεξιὰς ἐμβάλλοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἀσπασάμ-
evot διελύοντο, Plutarch, de Am. Frat.
488 Β [ὃ 17]. There does not appear
any allusion to the possible effect of
night upon anger, μήπως ἡ νὺξ πλέον ἀν-
ακαύσῃ Td πῦρ διὰ τῶν ἐννοιῶν, Theophyl.
(see Suicer, Thes. 8. v. ἥλιος 111. 2), but
to the fact that the day ended with the
sunlight: ‘quare si quem irascentem nox
occuparet, is iram retinebat in proximum
diem,’ Estius. τῷ παροργισμῷ]
‘irritation,’ ‘exasperation, and therefore
to be distinguished from ὀργή, which
expresses the more permanent state.
The word is non-classical and rare, but
is found 1 Kings xy. 30, 2 Kings xix. 3,
where it is joined with ϑλίψις and ἐλεγ-
μός, ib. xxiii. 26, Nehem. ix. 18, and
Jerem, xxi. 5 (Alex.), where it is joined
with ϑυμὸς and ὀργή. The mapa is not
merely intensive (Mey.), nor even indic-
ative of a deflection from a right rule
(Wordsw.), but probably points to the
irritating circumstance or object which
provoked the ὀργή ; comp. παροξύνω, and
Rost u. Palm, Lex. 5. v. 1v. 1, Vol. 11.
p. 670. The article before παρορ-
γισμῷ is omitted by Lachm. with AB;

EPHESIANS.

111

τῷ παρο Dd ὑμῶ 7 μηδὲ Ovo j 2
( ροργισμῷ ὑμῶν, μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ

al., —but appy. incorrectly, as the exter-
nal authority is not strong, and the omis-
sion easy to be accounted for before the
sufficiently definite ὑμῶν.

27. μηδέ] ‘nor yet;’ ‘also do not ;’
μηδὲ here serving to connect a new clause
with the preceding (Jelf, Gr. § 776), on
the principle that δὲ in negative sen-
tences has often practically much of the
conjunctive force which καὶ has in affirm-
ative sentences; see Wex, Antig. Vol.
11. p. 157. It must, however, be surely
very incorrect to say that the clauses ‘are
closely connected, and that μηδὲ indi-
cates this sequence,’ (Eadie); there is a
connection between the clauses, and μηδὲ
has practically a conjunctive force (per
enumerationem), but it is always of such
a nature as δὲ would lead us to expect,
‘sequentia adjungit prioribus, non apte
connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu
accedentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p.
707; see esp. Franke, de Part. Neg.
Part 11. 2, p.6. On the most appropriate
translation of μὴ---μηδὲ, see notes on 1
Thess. ii. 8. (Transl.). The reading
μήτε (Rec. with a few mss. ; Chrys. (1),
Theod.) seems clearly to be rejected
(opp. to Matth.), not only on critical,
but even on grammatical grounds, as the
position of μὴ in the previous clause
shows that it cannot be regarded as
equivalent to μήτε, which supposition, or
the strictest union of the clauses (Franke,
§ 25, p. 27) can alone justify the abnor-
mal sequence; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 6,
p- 433, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 709.
δίδοτε τόπον] ‘give room,’ ‘ne detis
viam’ ( fénot), /Eth.; scil. ‘give no room
or opportunity to the Evil One to be
active and operative ;’ comp. Rom. xii.
19, and see exx. of this use of τόπον
διδόναι in West. Rom. 1. c., Loesner, Obs.
p. 263. τῷ διαβόλῳᾳ)] ‘to the
Devil’ (ch. vi. 11); the constant and
regular meaning of 6 διαβ. (subst.) in

119 EPHESIANS. Cuap. IV. 28.

S / id a
διαβόλῳ. *‘O κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω

28. ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ayaddv| The variations of reading in this passage are
great, and, considering the simplicity of the passage, difficult to account for. The
choice appears to lie between four. (a) That in the text with AD'EFG ; 37. 57.
73. 116; Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., Sahid., th., Arm.; Bas., Naz., Epiph. ;
Hier., Aug., Pel. (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 1, Riick., Wordsw.) (b) Td ay. ταῖς id. xep.
with K; mss. (10); Syr. (Philox.); Theodoret. (6) Tats yep. τὸ ay. with B:
Amit.; Ambrosiaster (Meyer). (4) Td ay. τ. xep. with L; great majority of mss. ;
Slavy.; Chrys., Dam., Theophyl, Gicum. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. 2 and 7,
Alf.) Harless and Olshausen (see Mill, Prolegom. p. 168) favor a 5th and shorter
reading épy. τ. xep., after Tertull. de Resurr. 45, urging the probability of ἰδ. being
interpolated from 1 Cor. iv. 12, and τὸ @y. from Gal. vi. 10. It will be seen, how-
ever, that Gal. vi. 10 contains no such allusion to manual labor as might have sug-
gested a ref. to it; and if ἰδίαις (see notes) is maturely considered, it will seem to
have a proper force in this place, though not at first sight apparent. As it seems,
then, more likely that ἰδίαις was an intentional omission (its force not being per-
ceived) than an interpolation from 1 Cor. iv. 12, we retain (a) as not improbable
on internal grounds, and as supported by a preponderance of external evidence,
which the internal objections hitherto adduced do not seem sufficient to invalidate.

the N. T.; not excluding John vi. 70,
and 1 Tim. iii. 6; see esp. Stier, Red.
Jesu, Vol. 1v. p. 845. It is obvious that
Σατανᾶς (AMth.) is more a personal appel-

° »
lation; 6 διαβ. (epost [calumnia-

tori] Syr.) a name derived from the fear-
ful nature and, so to say, office of the
Evil One; the usage, however, of the
N. T. writers is by no means uniform.
St. John (in Gosp. and Epp.) once only
uses the former; St. Mark never the lat-
ter; St. Paul more frequently the for-
mer, the latter being only found in this
and the pastoral Epp. (and once in

Heb.). The subject deserves fuller in-
vestigation. On the nature of this Evil

Spirit generally, see the curious and
Jearned work of Mayer, Historia Diaboli
(ed. 2, Tubing, 1780), and in ref. to the
question of his real personal nature, the
sound remarks on p. 130 sq.; compare
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 18.

28. ὁ κλέπτων] ‘He who steals, the
stealer ;? not imperf. ‘qui furabatur,’
Clarom., Vulg., nor for 6 κλέψας, but a
participial substantive ; see Winer, Gr.

§ 57, p. 317, and notes on Gal. i. 23.
All attempts to dilute the proper force
of this word are wholly untenable; 6
κλέπτων (not 6 κλέπτης on the one hand,
nor 6 κλέψας on the other) points to ‘ the
thievish character’ (‘qui furatur,’ Copt.),
whether displayed in more coarse and
open, or more refined and hidden prac-
tices of the sin. Theft, though gener-
ally, was not universally condemned by
Paganism ; see the curious and valuable
work of Pfanner, Theol. Gentilis, x1. 25,
p- 336. For a sermon on this text, see
Sherlock, Serm. xxxvir. Vol. 11. p. 227
(ed. Hughes). μᾶλλον Sel ‘but
(on the contrary) rather ;’ οὐ γὰρ apket
παύσασϑαι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ Kal τὴν
ἐναντίαν αὐτῆς ὁδὸν μετελϑεῖν, Theoph. ;
see also Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 111. 13. 6,
and notes on Gal. iv. 9, where, however,
the corrective force is more strongly
marked. ταῖς ἰδίαις χέρσινΪ]
«with his own hands. The pronominal
adjective ἴδιος (Donalds. Crat. § 139),
like οἰκεῖος in the Byzantine writers,
and ‘ proprius’ in later Latin (see Krebs,
Antibarb, p. 646), appears sometimes in

Cuap. IV. 29. EPHES

IANS. 9

9

11

ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ὠγαϑόν, va ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ
χρείαν ἔχοντι. ™ Πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ

the N. T. to be nearly pleonastie (sec
exx. in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7, p. 139);
here, however, there appears an inten-
tional force in the use of the word. The
thievish man lives by the labors and
hands of others; he is now himself to
labor, and with his own hands, — those
very hands that robbed others (Beng.),
to work, not at τὸ κακόν, but at τὸ ἀγα-
ὃόν; see Riick. in loc. τὸ aya-
Sy] ‘that which is good, ‘that which
belongs to the category of what is good
and honest,’ τὸν δίκαιον πορισμόν, Schol.
ap. Cramer, Caten. ; “τὸ &ya%. antitheton
ad furtum, prius manu piceata male
commissum,’ Beng. There may perhaps
be also involved in τὸ &y. the notion of
what is beneficial instead of detrimental
to others ; comp. notes on Gal. vi. 10.
ἵνα x. 7. λ.] ‘in order that he may have,’
—not merely ‘what is enough for his
own wants,’ but ‘to give to him that need-
eth ;’ the true specific object of all Chris-
tian labor (Olsh.); comp. Schoettg. Hor.
Vol sre iu 78:

29. Πᾶς.... μή] The negation must
be joined with the verb; what is com-
manded is the non-utterance of every
campos λόγος. On this Hebraistic struc-
ture, see Winer, Gr. ὁ 26. 1, p. 155, and
notes on Gal. ii. 16. σαπρός
λόγο 5] ‘corrupt, worthless speech,’ ‘sermo
malus,’ Clarom., Vulg., Copt., sim.
Goth., — not necessarily ‘filthy,’ Hows.
(comp. Bp. Taylor, Serm. xx11., though
he also admits the more general mean-
ing), as this is specially forbidden in ch.
v. 4, nor again quite so strong as ‘ detes-
tabilis,’ Syr., but rather ‘pravus,’ /Eth.,
esp. in ref. to whatever is profitless and
unedifying (Chrys.), e.g. αἰσχρολογία, λοι-
δορία, συκοφαντία, βλασφημία, ψευδολογία,
καὶ τὰ τούτοις προσόμοια, Theod. The
exact shade of meaning will always be
best determined by the context. Here

15

σαπρὸς is clearly opposed, not τῷ διδόντι
χάριν (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298), but
to ἀγαϑὸς πρὸς oikod. τῆς χρείας ; Wetst.
cites Arrian, Hpict. 11. 15, ὑγιὲς opp. to
σαπρὸν kal καταπίπτον. On the general
metaphorical use, see Lobeck, Phryn. p.
377, and the exx. collected by Kypke,
loc. cit. a&ya%ds| ‘good,’ τ. 6. ‘suit-
able for,’ ὅπερ οἰκοδομεῖ τὸν πλησίον,
Chrys. ; instances of this use of ἀγαϑός,
with eis πρός, and the inf., are of suffi-
ciently common occurrence ; see Rost u.
Palm, Zer. s. v., exx. in Kypke, Obs.
Vol. 11.*p. 298, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11.
Ῥ-. 2319. πρὸς οἰκοδ. τῆς χρε-
tas] ‘for edification in respect of the need,’
‘ad adificationem opportunitatis,’ Vulg.
(Amit.). Neither the article nor the
exact nature of the genitive has been
sufficiently explained. It seems clear
that τῆ ς χρείας cannot be merely ‘qua
sit opus’ (Erasm.), but must specify the
peculiar need in question (observe εἴ
tis), the χρεία which immediately presses,
— τῆς παρούσης χρείας, Cicum. ΤΊ
would seem to follow then that the gen.
xpelas is not a mere gen. of quality
(‘seasonable edification,’ Peile) nor in
any way an abstr. for concr. (‘those who
have need,’ Riick., Olsh., comp. Eadie),
nor, by inversion, for an accus. (‘use of
edifying, Auth., compare Syr.), but is
simply a gen. of ‘remote reference’ (see
Winer, Gr. 30. 2, p. 169), or, as it has
been termed, of ‘the point of view’
(comp. Scheuerl. Syn. § 18, p. 129) —
‘edifying as regards the need,’ 7. e. which
satisfies the need, ἀναγκαῖον ὄν τῇ προκει-
μένῃ χρείᾳ as rightly paraphrased by
Theoph¥l. On the practical bearing of
this passage, see esp. 4 sermons by Bp.
Taylor, Serm. xx11.—xxy. Vol. 1. p.
734 sq. (Lond. 1836), and Harl., Ethik,
§ 50, p. 261. The reading πίστεως,
though found in DIE1FG ; Vulg. (not

114

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 30.

5 / 2 » "᾽ od \ Ν ’ \ a / ied
EKTTOPEVET YW, GAN εἴ TLS ἀγαδδὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, ἵνα

δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν,

” καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον

ῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσϑητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀποχλυτρώσεω
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσϑητε εἰς ἡμέρ ρ ς.

Amit., Fuld.) and some Latin Vvy.,
Goth.; Bas., Naz., al. (partially ap-
proved of by Griesb.), is still certainly
to be rejected both as inferior in external
authority to χρείας, and as an almost self-
evident correction. δῷ χάριν] ‘may
impart a blessing.” The ambiguous term
χάρις has been explained (a) as χάρις
Θεοῦ, Gicum. (who, however, does not
refer to Rom. 1. 11 for a proof, as Eadie
singularly asserts), ‘salutis adminicula,’
Caly.; (b) as little more than ϑυμηδία ;
801. ἵνα φανῇ δεκτός τοῖς ἀκούουσι,
Theod., ‘ut invenietis gratiam,’ ΖΡ 1}.-
Pol., comp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298,
—but remove the ref. to Eur. Suppl.
414, which is not in point; (c) as retain-
ing its simple and regular meaning in
connection with διδόναι, ‘favor, benefit’
{(Harl, Olsh., Meyer). Of these, (c) is
much the most probable (see Exod. iii.
21, Psalm Ixxxiii. 12 compared with
ver. 13; and perhaps James iv. 6, 1 Pet.
v. 5); still, as χάρις has so notably
changed its meaning in the N. T., it
seems uncritical, even in this phrase, to
deny the reference of χάρις to a spiritual
‘benefit ;’ see Stier zn loc. The most
exact transl. then, here seems ‘ blessing’
(‘minister grace,’ Auth., is ambiguous),
as it hints at the theological meaning,
and also does not wholly obscure the
classical and idiomatic meaning of the
phrase.

30. καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε κ. τ. λ.] ‘and
grieve not the Holy Spirit of God ;’ not a
new, unconnected exhortation (Lachm.),
but a continued warning against the use
of mas λόγος σαπρὸς by showing its fear-
ful results; ἐὰν εἰπῇς ῥῆμα σαπρόν, καὶ
ἀνάξιον τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ στόματος, οὐκ
ἄνϑρωπον ἐλύπησας, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πν. τοῦ
Θεοῦ, Theoph. The tacit assumption
clearly is that the Spirit dwelt within

them (see Basil, Spir. Sanct. x1x. 50,
Hermas, Past. Mand. 10), and that,
too, as the solemn and emphatic title
τὸ Πν. τὸ ἅγιον tov Θεοῦ and the
peculiar term λυπεῖτε, further suggest,
in His true holy personality; compare
Peason, Creed, Art. vir. Vol. 1. p.
366 (ed. Burt.), and for an excellent
sermon on this text, see Andrewes,
Serm. v1. Vol. 111. p. 201 sq. (A. C.
Libr.) ; see also a very good practical
sermon by Bp. Hall, Serm. xxxvt. Vol.

v. p. 489 sq. (Talboys). ἐν &
ἐσφραγίσϑητε) ‘in whom ye were

sealed,’ — not ‘quo,’ Goth., Arm. (com-
pare ‘per quem,’ Beza), but ‘in quo,’
Clarom., Vulg., ‘in whom, as the holy
sphere and element of the sealing.’
This clause seems intended to enhance
still more the warning by an appeal to
the blessings they had received from the
Holy Spirit; εἶτα καὶ 7 προσϑήκη τῆς
εὐεργεσίας, ἵνα μείζων γένηται ἣ κατηγο-
pia, Chrysost. There does not appear,
then, here any reminiscence of Isaiah
Ixiil. 10, παρώξυναν τὸ Πν. τὸ Gy. (cited
by Harl.), which would have given the
warning a different tone. For the ex-
planation of these words, see notes on
ch. i. 13, and for the doctrinal applica-
tions, Hammond in loc., Petayv. de Trin.
viii. 5. 3, Vol. 11. 823 sq., and notes on
ch. i. 13. For some comments on this
clause, see Andrewes, Serm. vi. pre-
viously cited, and another serm. by Bp.
Hall, Serm. xxxvit. Vol. y. p. 504
(Talboys).
λυτρώσεω 5] ‘for the day of redemp-
tion,’ for the day on which the redemp-
tion will be fully realized ; see exx. of
this use of the gen. in definitions of time
in Winer, Gir. § 30. 2, p. 169. On the
meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις, see notes on
ch. i, 14, and on ‘final perseverance,’ of

> c / 5
εἰς ἡμέραν amro-

Cuap. IV. 31, 32.

EPHESIANS.

115

Ἵ Πᾶσα πικρία καὶ Supos καὶ ὀργὴ καὶ κραυγὴ καὶ βλασφημία

2 ’ a ‘ , 5
aprnto ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ: ™ yiveoSe δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους

which Eadie here finds an affirmation
(comp. Coce. in loc.), see Thorndike, Cov.
of Grace, ch. xxx1. Vol. 111. p. 615 sq.
(A. C. Libr.).

31. πᾶσα πικρία] ‘all bitterness,’
i. €., ‘every form of it’ (see notes on ch.
i. 8), and that not merely as shown in
expressions, ‘sermo mordax,’ but, as the
context suggests, in feeling and disposi-
tion (see Acts viii. 23, Heb. xii. 15),
πικρία marking the prevailing tempera-
ment and frame of mind; ὁ τοιοῦτος καί
βαρύϑυμός ἐστι καὶ οὐδέποτε ἀνίησι τὴν
ψυχήν, ἀεὶ σύννους dv καὶ σκυϑρωπός,
Chrys. The contrast is not merely γλυ-
κύτης (comp. Orig. ap. Cram. Cat.), but
χρηστότης ; see Wetst. on Rom. iii. 14,
and for an able sermon on this text (the
obligations and advantages of good-
will), Whichcote, Serm, txxx11. Vol.
Iv. p. 198 sq. ϑυμὸς καὶ ὀργή)
‘wrath and anger ;’ the emanations from,
and products of the πικρία; ῥίζα ϑυμοῦ
καὶ ὀργῆς πικρία, Chrys. With regard
to the distinction between these two
words, it may be observed that ϑυμὸς is
properly the agitation and commotion to
which πικρία gives rise (ἣ ἐναρχομένη ἐπί
τινα γενέσϑαι ὀργή, Orig. Cram. Cat.,
comp. Diog. Laert. vir. 1. 63.114), ὀργὴ
the more settled habit of the mind (4
ἑτοίμη καὶ ἐνεργητικὴ πρὸς τὴν τιμωρίαν
τοῦ ἠδικηκέναι νομιζομένου, Origen, ib.) ;
see Tittm. Synon. p. 132, Trench, Synon.
5. v., and notes on Gal. vy. 20.
κραυγή καὶ βλασφημία] ‘clamor
and evil speaking ;’ outward manifesta-
tions of the foregoing vices ; ἵππος γάρ
ἐστι ἀναβάτην φέρων ἣ κραυγὴ τὴν ὀργήν,
Chrys. The distinction between the two
words is sufficiently obvious. Kpavyi) is
the cry of strife (‘in quem erumpunt
homines irati,’ Est.) ; βλασφημία, a more
enduring manifestation of inward anger,

that shows itself in reviling, — not, in
the present case, God, but our brethren
(λοιδορίαι, Chrys.) ; it has thus nearly
the same relation to xp. that ὀργὴ has to
Suuds ; see Col. iii. 8, 1 Tim. vi. 4, and
comp. Rom. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 2. For a good
practical sermon against evil speaking
see Barrow, Serm. xvi. Vol. τ. p. 447.
κακίᾳ] ‘malice ;’ the genus to which all
the above-mentioned vices belong, or
rather the active principle to which they
are all due (comp. ch. vi. 23), — unchar-
itableness in all its forms, ‘animi pravi-
tas, humanitati et squitati opposita,’
Caly. ; comp. Rom. i. 28, Col. iii. 8, and
on the difference between this word and
πονηρία (its outcoming and manifesta-
tion), see Trench, Synon. § x1.

32. γίνεσϑε δὲ] ‘but become ye;’
contrasted exhortation: not ‘be ye,’
Auth., Alf, but ‘vairpaiduh’ ffiatis]
Goth., — there were evil elements among
them that were yet to be taken away;
SeerChavienle Lachm, omits δὲ with
B; 4 mss.; Clem., Dam., al.; but this
omission as well as the variation οὖν [Dt
FG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Boern. |
seems due to a corrector who did not
perceive the antithesis between the com-
mands in the two verses. χρηστοί,
εὔσπλαγχνοι) ‘kind, tender-hearted.’
On the former of these words (‘sweet in
disposition’), comp. notes on Gal. y. 22,
and Tittmann, Synon. p. 140. The lat-
ter εὔσπλαγχνος occurs Orat. Manass. 6,
1 Pet. iii. 8, and designates the exhibi-
tion of that merciful feeling, of which
the σπλάγχνα were the imaginary seat ;
comp. Col. iii. 12, and notes zn Joc., and
for additional exx., see Polyc. Phil. 5, 6,
Clem. Rom. Cor. i. 54, Test. XII. Patr.
p- 537. The substantive εὐσπλαγχνία
is found in classical Greek, in the sense
of ‘good heart,’ ‘courage’ (comp. Eurip.

110

EPHESIANS.

CHAP Vee

, ν "ἢ € a \ \ e X\ "ἃ
χρηστοί, εὔσπλαγχνοι, χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς καδὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν

Ὁ ! δὰ τὰν
Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο υμιν.
Strive then to imitate God,

and, like Christ, to walk in
love.

Rhesus, 192), and also in the primary
and physical sense (comp. Hippocr. 89,
ed. Foes.), but the adjective is appy. rare.
χαριζόμενοι ‘ forgiving
each other ;’ participle of concomitant
act, specifying the manner in which the
χρηστότης x. τ. A. were to be manifested ;
comp. Col. iii. 13 and notes in loc. Ori-
gen (Cram. Caten.) calls attention to the
use of ἑαυτοῖς (what was done to another
was really done to themselves), but this
appears here somewhat doubtful; see
notes on Col./.c., and for exx. of the
use of ἑαυτοῖς for the personal pronoun,
Jelf, Gr. ὃ 54, 2. καδὼς καὶ ὃ
Θεός] ‘even as God,’ ‘as God also;’
καϑὼς (as in ch. i. 4) having a slightly
argumentative force, while καὶ introduces
a tacit comparison; see Klotz, Devar.
Vol. 11. p. 635 sq., and notes on Phil. iv.
12. The two combined do not then
simply compare, but argue from an ex-
ample (Harl.),— τὸν Θεὸν παράγει eis
ὑπόδειγμα, Theophyl.; comp. ch. v. 2,
25, 29. The context seems clearly to
show that the meaning of χαριζόμενοι
(and hence of ἐχαρίσατο) is not ‘donan-
tes,’ Clarom., Vulg., ‘largientes, libenter
dantes,’ Erasm. (comp. Orig. 1. ap.
Cram. Cat.), but ‘condonantes,’ Copt.,
Syr., Goth., συγγνωμικοί, Chrys.: they
were not only to be χρηστοὶ and εὔσ-
πλαγχνοι but also merciful and forgiving,
following the example of Him who ‘ pree-
buit se benignum, misericordem, — con-
donantem,’ Beng. The reading is
doubtful: Zachm. reads ἡμῖν with B?D
EKL; 25 mss.; Amit., Syr. (both), al. ;
Orig. (Cram. Cat.). Chrys. (Comm.),
Theod., al., — but scarcely on sufficient
authority, as the pronoun of the first
person might have been probably sug-

éauTots|

V. Γίνεσδε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς τέκνα

gested by the ἡμᾶς in ch. v. 2: see crit.
note in loc. ἐν Χριστῷ) ‘in
Christ ;’ not ‘for the sake of,’ Auth., nor
‘per Christum,’ Caly., but ‘in Him,’
7. e., in giving Him to be a propitiation
for our sins, μετὰ τοῦ κινδύνου τοῦ υἱοῦ
αὑτοῦ καὶ τῆς σφαγῆς αὐτοῦ, Theoph.;
comp. 2 Cor. y. 19.

CuarTtEeR V. 1. γίνεσϑε οὖν
κι τ᾿ A.| ‘Become then followers (imitators )
of God ;’ resumption of the previous
γίνεσϑε, ch. v. 32, the οὖν deriving its
force and propriety from the concluding
words of the last verse. Stier, on rather
insufficient grounds, argues against the
connection of these verses, referring οὖν
to the whole foregoing subject, the new
man in Christ. In this latter case, οὖν
would have more of what has been
called its reflexive force (‘lectorem re-
yocat ad id ipsum quod nunc agitur,’
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717) ; that it is,
however, here rather collective (‘ad ea
qu antea revera posita sunt lectorem
revocat,’ Klotz, 2b.) seems much more
probable ; comp. Hartung, Partik. οὖν,
3:5, ViOl. ΠΤ Ρ- 22 ἀγαπητά]
“beloved;’ not ‘liebe Kinder,’ Riick.
(compare Chrys.), but ‘geliebte.” The
reason is given by Gicumen., who, how-
ever, does not appear to have felt the
full force of the word ; τοῖς yap τοιούτοις
(ἀγαπητοῖς) ἐξ ἀνάγκης τινὸς 7 μίμησι».
The ἀνάγκη consisted in the fact of God
having loved them; love must be re-
turned by love; and in love alone can
man imitate God: see 1 John iy. 10, and
comp. Charnock, Attrib. p. 618 (Bohn).
For two practical sermons on this text,
see Farindon, Sermon txxxvit. (two
Parts), Vol. 111. p. 494 sq. (ed. Jackson).

Guar. V.2 EPHESIANS.

Py

9. / 9 \ A ’ » f. \ \ € \
ἀγαπητά, ὅ καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, KaSw@s καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς
» / e a \ a

ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ
ϑυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας.

2. mas... ἡμῖν] Tisch. ὑμᾶς... ὑμῖν, but his authorities [AB; 8 mss.; San.,
4Eth., Clem. (2), Theophyl., al.] do not appear sufficient to substantiate a reading
which seems so very probably to have arisen from a conformation of the text to the

second person.
Alf., and Wordsw.

We therefore retain the Rec. with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Meyer,
In ver. 3 the order of πᾶσα is reversed (with Tisch.) on nearly

the same anthority, but there Rec. adopts the more easy reading.

2.xal περιπ. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] ‘and
walk in love;’ continuation of the fore-
going precept, καὶ serving to append
closely a specification of that in which
the imitation of God must consist.
kados καὶ 6 Xp. x.7.A.| ‘even as
Christ also loved,’ —not ‘has loved ;’ the
pure aoristic sense is more appropriate
and more in accordance with the historic
aor. which follows.
κεν ἑἕαυτ.] ‘and gave up Himself ;’
specification of that wherein (‘non tan-
tum ut Deus sed etiam ut homo, Est’)
this love was preéminently shown, καὶ
having a slightly explanatory force; see
Gal. ii. 20, and comp. notes on Phil. iv.
12. The supplementary idea to παρέδ.
must surely be eis ϑάνατον (Harl.), as in
every case where παραδ. is used by St.
Paul in ref. to Christ, εἰς Sav. or some
similar idea, seems naturally included in
the verb: see esp. Rom. iv. 25, where
παρεδόϑη is followed by ἠγέρϑη ; comp.
Rom. viii. 32, Gal. ii. 20, Eph. v. 25.
For a sound and clear sermon on this
text {Christ’s sacrifice of Himself), see
Waterl. Serm. xxxt. Vol. v. p. 737 sq.
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) ‘for us,’ —and also, as
the context indisputably shows, ‘in our
stead ;’”
connection, see Usteri, LeArb. 11. 1. 1, p.
115 sq., and notes on Gal. iii. 13 ; comp.
ab. ch. i. 4, προσφορὰν καὶ
ϑυσίαν] ‘an offering and sacrifice ;’
not ‘a sacrifice offered up,’ sc. ϑυσίαν
προσφερομένην, Conyb.,—a mode of

καὶ παρέδω-

on the meaning of ὑπὲρ in this

translation ever precarious and insuffi-
cient. It may be doubtful whether Svc.
and προσφ. are intended to specify respec-
tively bloody and unbloody sacrifices, for
προσφ. is elsewhere used in ref. to bloody
(Heb. x. 10), and Suc. to unbloody of-
ferings (Heb. xi. 4), and further, the
rough definition that Svoia implies ‘the
slaying of a victim’ (Eadie) is by no
means of universal application ; see esp.
John Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. 1.1, p. 73 sq.
(A. C. Libr.). Equally doubtful, esp.
in reference to Christ, is the definition
that a ϑυσία is ἃ “προσφ. rite consumpta,’
Outram, de Sacrif. vi11. 1, p. 182 (ed.
1677). Still it is probable that a distine-
tion was here intended by St. Paul, and
that mpocp. as the more general term, re-
lates not only to the death, but to the life
of obedience of our blessed Lord (comp.
Heb. v. 8), His ϑυσία ζῶσα (Rom. xii.
1); ϑυσία, as the more special, more par-
ticularly to His atoning death. On this
accus., which in its apposition to the
foregoing is also practically predicative,
and serves to complete the notion of the
verb, see Madvig, Synt. § 24.
Θεῷ is commonly explained cither (a)
as the ordinary transmissive dative, sc.
taped. τῷ Θεῷ (Mey.; so appy. J. Johns.
Vol. 1. p. 161), or (0) as a dat. of limi-
tation to εἰς ὅσμ. answering to the Heb.
Bint mins fs (Stier). As, how-
ever, the meaning of παρέδωκεν (see
above) and the distance of the dat. (De
W. compares Rom. xii. 1, but there τῷ

ae

118

Avoid fornication, covet-
ousness, and all forms of
impurity, foron such comes
the wrath of God. Ye
were once in heathen dark- NG

ness, but now are light; ayLols,
reprove the words of darkness, awake and arise.

“

4

Θεῷ is not joined with the verb) do not
harmonize with the former, and the
prominent position of τῷ Θεῷ is difficult
to be explained on the latter hypothesis,
it seems more simple to regard τῷ Θεῴ
ethical dative or dat. commodi
appended to the two substantives; so
Beng. and appy., by their studied adher-
ence to the order of the original, all the
ancient Vy.; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 23.1,
Ρ. 186.
‘for, sc. to become a savor of sweet smell ;’

as an

eis dom. evwdlas|

— sc. a ϑυσία εὐπρόσδεκτος, Chrys.; see
ἘΠῚ: ahs EI LEA 1: 95 15. Uli. aig I, i
5, comp. Gen. viii. 21. The authors of
the Racov. Catech. (§ v1i1.) have cor-
rectly explained the constr., but have
erroneously asserted that these words
(‘quae de pacificis creberrime ; de expia-
toriis autem vix uspiam usurpantur,’ —
but see Deyling, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 315, No.
65) do not represent Christ’s death as
an expiutory sacrifice; comp. even Ust.
Lehrb. 11.1.1, p. 113. To this, without
needlessly pressing ὕπέρ, we may simply
say with Waterland, that the contrary
‘is as plain from the N. T. as words can
make it,’ and that St. Paul’s perpetual
teaching is that Christ’s death was ‘a
true and proper expiatory sacrifice for the
sins of mankind ;’ see proof texts, Vol.
Iv. p. 513, and esp. Jackson, Creed, Book
1x. 55, Vol. 1x. p. 589 sq. (Oxf. 1844).
The nature of the gen. εὐωδίας is rightly
explained by Wordsw. as that of the
characterizing quality ; see notes on Phil.
iv. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 2, p.
211.

3 πορνεία δέ] ‘But fornication ;’
gentle transition to another portion of
the exhortation, with a resumption of
the negative and prohibitive form of
address (ch. iv. 31); the δὲ being mainly

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V. 8, 4.

° Πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαδαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεο-

/ ND , 5. eR in \ ,
veEia μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσδω ἐν ὑμῖν, KaS@s πρέπει
καὶ aloypoTns καὶ μωρολογία ἢ

μεταβατικόν (see on Gal. i. 11), though
perhaps not without some slight indica-
tion of contrast to what has preceded.
On the Apostle’s constant and emphatic
condemnation of the deadly sin of πορ-
νεία, as one of the things which the old
Pagan world deemed ἀδιάφορα, compare
Mey. on Acts xv.20. # πλεονεξια)
‘or covetousness ;’ the # is not explana-
tory (Heins. Exercit. p. 467), but has its
full and proper disjunctive force, serving
to distinguish πλεὺν. from more special
sins of the flesh ; see notes on ch. iy. 19.
μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσϑ ὦ] ‘let it not be even
named, — not, ‘ut facta’ (Beng. 1), a
meaning which ὀνομαζ. will scarcely
justify ; but, ‘let it not be even men-
tioned by name’ (Beng. 2), of yap Adyat
τῶν πραγμάτων εἰσιν ὅδοί, Chrys.; see
ver. 12, and comp. Psalm xy. 4. Mey.
cites Dio Chrys. 360 b, στάσιν δὲ οὐδὲ
ὀνομάζειν ἄξιον map’ ὑμῖν. καδὼς
πρέπει ἁγίοις] ‘as becometh saints,
—sc. to thus avoid all mention by name
even of these sins, ἱκανῶς τὸ μυσαρὸν
τῶν εἰρημένων ὑπέδειξε, καὶ αὐτὰς αὐτῶν
προσηγορίας τῆς μνήμης ἐξορίσαι κελεύσας,
Theod.

4. καὶ aioxporns| ‘and filthiness,’
not merely in words (/Eth., Theoph.,
CEcum.), which would be αἰσχρολογία
(Col. iii. 8), but, as the abstract form
suggests, τὸ αἰσχρόν, whether actively
exhibited or passively approved, in word,
gesture, or deed. The context obviously
limits its reference to ἀκαῦ. and sins of
the flesh; αἰσχρότης δὲ tis ἐστιν Kas
ἕκαστον εἶδος ἀκολασίας, Origen (Cram.
Caten.). Lachm. reads ἤ aisxp. ἤ
μωρολ. with ADIEIFG; mss.; Clarom.,
Vulg., Sahid.; Bas., al. (Meyer), but in
opp. to good external authority [BD?®E?
KL; nearly all mss.; Copt., Ath.-Platt,

παν. V. 5.

EPHESIANS.

119

> ἢ \ 5) Spas: κ : 5 a
εὐτραπελία, τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία. ἢ τοῦτο

al.; Clem., Chrysost., al.], and to the
internal probability of a conformation to
the following 7. μωρολογία)
‘foolish talking,’ stultiloquium, Clarom.,

Vulg., |2ouguas ΠᾺΡ [sermones

stultitie] Syriac; an ἅπαξ Aeyou. in
the N. T. of which the exact meaning
must be defined by the context. Of the
two definitions of Origen, the first, 7
ἀσκουμένη ὑπὸ τῶν μωρολόγων Kal γελω-
τοποίων, is too lax ; the second, τὸ μωρὸν
εἶναι ἐν τοῖς δογματι(ζομένοις, too re-
strictive. The terms with which it
stands in connection seem certainly to
preclude any reference to positive pro-
fanity (compare Caly.), still Trench is
probably right in here superadding to
the ordinary meaning of idle, aimless,
and foolish talk, a ref. to that sin and
vanity of spirit which the talk of fools is
certain to bewray ; see Synon. § XXXIV.,
and Wordsw. in loc,
<jesting,’

εὐτραπελία)

second ἅπαξ
λεγόμ. : ἔνϑα γέλως ἄκαιρος ἐκεῖ ἡ εὐτρα-
πελία, Chrysost. The word, as its deri-
vation suggests, properly means versatil-
ity, Whether in motion, manners, or talk
(Dissen, Pind. Pyth. 1. 93); from which
a more unfavorable signification, ‘ pol-
ished jesting,’ (εὐτράπελος: ὃ δυνάμενος
σκῶψαι ἐμμελῶς, Aristot. Moral. 1. 81),
‘use of witty equivyoque’ (ingenio niti-
tur,’ Beng.), is easily and naturally
derived; see Trench, Synon. xxxIv.,
and the excellent sermon by Barrow on
this text, Serm. xiv. Vol. 1. p. 383 sq.
The disjunctive (surely not ‘conjune-
tive, Bp. Taylor, Serm. xx111.) ἢ marks
it-as a different vice to μωρολ., and thus
appy. as not only a sin of the tongue
(Trench), but as including the eyil ‘ur-
banitas’ (in manners or words) of the
witty, godless man of the world. The
practical application may be found in
Taylor, Serm. xx111. (Gold. Grove),

‘wittiness;’ ἃ

and esp. in the latter part of Chrysost.
Hom. xvit. τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα)
‘things which are not convenient ;’ in
apposition to the last two words, to
which both edx., as denoting oral expres-
sion yet implying inward feeling, forms a
clear contrast. It is instructive to com-
pare Rom. i. 28, τὰ μὴ καϑήκοντα, there
the subjective denial seems appropriately
introduced (‘facere que (si qui) essent
indecora,’ Winer, Gr. § 59. 4, p. 564, ed.
5); here is a plain objective fact that
Such indeed
(ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν) is the reading of AB; 3
mss.; Clem., al. (Lachm.), — authority,
however, too weak to justify a change in
the present text. On the use of ov and
μὴ with participp., see Gayler, Partic
Neg. p. 287, but observe the caution
suggested in notes on 1 Thess. ii. 15,
iii. 1. εὐχαριστία) ‘gwing of
the meaning of this word,
adopted by Hammond, several of the
older, and some later expositors, ‘ edify-
ing discourse,’ ‘devoutness,’ cannot be
justified by St. Paul’s use either of the
verb or the subst. ; comp. Petay. Dissert.
Eccl. 11. 10. 4, 5, and on the true force
of the ethical connection, see Harl. Lihik,
ὁ 32.a. On the duty generally, so fre-
quently inculcated by St. Paul, see notes
and reff. on Phil. iv. 6, and on Col. iii.
15. The verb here omitted, ‘per brachy-
logiam’ (Jelf, Gr. § 895), is differently
supplied ; perhaps γινέσϑω ἐν ὑμῖν is the
supplement most natural, ἀνήκει (Beng.)
that least so.

such things — οὐκ ἀνῆκεν.

thanks ;’

5. τοῦτο ἴστε yiveck.|

yap
‘For this ye know, being aware, or, as ye
are aware ;’ confirmation of the preced-
ing prohibitions, by an appeal to their
own knowledge of the judgment against
those who practise them. It is scarcely
critically exact to connect this with the
Hebraistic (but compare also Jelf, Gr. §
705. 3) mode of expression, γινώσκων

?

190 EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V.5.

\ be a DY
γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ akaSapTos ἢ πλεονέκτης,

cid > » / 5 ” f 5» a ἣν. lol
ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, οὐκ EXEL κληρονομίαν ἐν TH βασιλείᾳ τοῦ

γνώσῃ, Gen, xv. 18, ‘thou shalt know
full well,’ ete. (Stier), as ἴστε and
γινώσκ. are not portions of the same
verb. The part. must be joined more
immediately with ὅτι, and seems used
with a slightly causal force which serves
to elucidate and justify the appeal; see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 8, p. 318. Whether
tote be taken as imperative or indicative
must be left to individual judgment.
The former interpr. is adopted by Cla-
rom., Vulg., Arm. (comp.,— but with
different reading, Syr., Auth.), and by
some Ff., 6. g. appy. Clem. Alex. (Pe-
dag. 111. 4), but seems scarcely so im-
pressive as the latter (Copt.), and some-
what tends to diminish the force of the
now isolated and emphatic imperative in
ver. 6; comp. Alf. zz loc. The reading
ἐστε γιν. (fec.) is supported by Π 510
KL; mss.; Syr. (both), al.; Theod.,
Dam., but is distinctly inferior to ἔστε
in external authority [ABDIFG; 30
mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., al.; Clem.,
al.], and is rejected by nearly all recent
editors. πᾶς ---οὐ κ] On this Hebra-
istic mode of expression, see notes on
ch. iv. 29. ὅς ἐστιν refers im-
mediately to πλεονέκτης, not to the three
preceding substantives; comp. Col. iii.
5, Thy πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστιν εἰδωλολατ-
pela. Covetousness is truly a definite
form of idolatry, it is the worship of
Mammon (Matth. vi. 24) instead of
God; comp. Theodoret. To this, there-
fore, rather than to the other sins, which
are veritable, but more subtle forms of
the same sin, the Apostle gives the above
specific designation. The passages ad-
duced by Wetst. and Schoettg. illustrate
the form of expression, but nothing
more. The reading ὅ adopted by
Lachm., Alf, is only found in B.; 3.
67**, al.; Cyr., Jerome, — and has no
claim to be received in the text on such

weak external authority. οὐκ
ἔχει κληρον.] ‘hath no inheritance ;’
a weighty present, involving an indirect
reference to the eternal and enduring
principles by which God governs the
world, — not so much, ‘has no inheri-
tance, and shall have none’ (Eadie), as
‘has, etc., and can have none ;” compare
ver. 6, and Col. iii. 6, δι᾽ ἃ ἔρχεται ἣ ὀργὴ
τοῦ Θεοῦ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 40. 2, p.
237. τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ]
‘of Christ and God,’ --- ποῦ ‘of God,’
Auth. This is the first decided instance
(the reading being doubtful in Acts xx.
28) adduced by Granville Sharp, to
prove that the same Person in Scripture
is called Christ and God, see Middleton,
Greek Art. p. 862 sq. (ed. Rose), and
ch. 111. 4. 2, p. 57 sq. When, however,
we maturely weigh the context, in which
no dogmatic assertions relative to Christ
find a place (as in Tit. ii. 13, 14), when
we recall the frequent use of Θεὸς with-
out an article, even where it might have
been expected (compare Winer, Gr. §
19. 1, p. 110),—and lastly, when we
observe that the presence of the art. τοῦ
Θεοῦ would really have even suggested a
thought of subordination (as if it were
necessary to specify that the kindom of
Christ was also the kingdom of God, —
the inadvertence of the Auth.), we seem
forced to the conviction that Sharp’s
rule does not apply here. Christ and
God are united together in the closest
way, and presented under a single con-
ception (compare Winer, Gr. § 19. 4, p.
116), — an indirect evidence of Christ’s
divinity of no slight value,—still the
identity of the two substantives (‘of
Him who is Christ and God,’ Wordsw.)
cannot be safely or certainly maintained
from this passage. On the meaning of
the term βασιλεία Θεοῦ, see notes and
reff. on Gal. vy. 21.

Cap. V. 6, 7.

EPHESIANS. 121

-~_

fo) \ a \ a a
Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ. © μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς λόγοις: διὰ

n Ny 05d Om) \ a Pup San \ e n 5) /
ταυτὰ yap EPNETAL 1) opy” TOU Θεοῦ €77L TOUS VLOUS τῆς ἀπειδε είας.

7 VES ’ a
μὴ οὖν γίνεσσε συνμέτοχοι αὐτῶν.

6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς κ. τ. λ.} ‘Let no one
deceive you with vain words, sophistries ;’
emphatic warning (without any particle)
against all who sought to deceive them
as to the real nature of the sins con-
demned. It does not seem necessary to
limit the regular meaning of κενός
(‘empty,’ οὐδαμῶς ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων δεικνύ-
μενοι, Chrys., — hence ‘a veritate alieni,’
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 299), and to re-
fer the κενοὶ λόγοι specially to heathen
philosophers (Grot.), to Judaizers
(Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 184, note,
Bohn), or to Christian Antinomians
(Olsh.). The Apostle generally con-
demns all apologists for vice, whoever
they might be. ‘These would of course
be most commonly found among the
heathens, and to them the passage most
naturally points. The palliation or tacit
toleration of vice, especially sensuality,
was one of the most fearful and repul-
sive features of heathenism; see esp.
Tholuck, Influence of Heathenism, Part
ἐν: 2. διὰ ταῦτα γάρ] ‘for on
account of these sins :’ confirmation of the
preceding warning; it is on account of
these things (obs. the emphasis on διὰ
ταῦταὶ, that God’s wrath and vengeance
is directed against the perpetrators. The
reference of ταῦτα is clearly to the sins
above mentioned (τούτων ἕκαστον ἔδρων,
Theodoret) ; comp. Col. iii. 6, &
in reference to a foregoing list of vices,
and Gal. ν. 21, ἅ προλέγω ὑμῖν. The
pronoun has been referred to the ἀπάτη
of the κενοὶ λόγοι (Theoph. 2), or to the
ἀπάτη and the foregoing vices. The
first interpr. is not grammatically unten-
able, as the plural ταῦτα may be idiomat-
ically used to denote a single object, etc.,
in its different manifestations (see Bern-
hardy, Synt. v1. 8. d, p. 282, Winer, Gr.

yo ef.

a@,—

§ 23. 5, p. 146), but, equally with the
second, is open to the contextual objec-
tion, that ver. 7 seems a general warning
against Gentile sins, to which conse-
quently the present verse will be more
naturally referred. ἢ ὀργὴ τοῦ
Θεοῦ] ‘the wrath of God ;’ certainly not
to be restricted to this life, ‘ ordinaria
Dei judicia,’ Calv., but as the solemn
present (see last verse) indicates, to be ex-
tended also, and perhaps more especially,
to the judgments ἐν τῇ Bao. τοῦ Xp. καὶ
Θεοῦ. υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειδ.] ‘Sons
of disobedience ;’ scil., in effect, τοὺς σφό-
dpa ἀπειϑεῖς, Chrys., ἔχοντες τὸν τῆς μη-
τρὸς χαρακτῆρα, Origen; see esp. notes
on ch. ii. 2, and Suicer, Thes. Vol. 11. p.
1357. The aed. here is disobedience
to the principles and practice of the
Gospel ; see more on ch. ii. 2.

7. μὴ οὖν γίνεσδ εἶ ‘Do not then
become ;’ οὖν having its full collective
force (see on ver. 1), and referring to
the previous statement that the wrath of
God certainly does come on all such.
The yiveode (Clarom., ‘nolite fier,’
Vulg., ‘nolite effici,’ — perhaps some-
what too strongly) is not to be explained
away: the Apostle does not warn them
only against being (Alf.), but against be-
coming (‘ni vairpaip, Goth.) partakers
with them, against allowing themselves
to /apse into any of their prevailing sins
and depravities.
αὐτῶν] ‘partakers with them ;’ not in
their punishment (Holzh.), nor their
punishment and sins (Stier), but, as the
context, esp. ver. 11, obviously suggests,
their sins; ‘nolite similia facere,’ Estius.
On συνμέτοχος, see notes ch. iii. 6, and
on the orthography (which has here
the authority of AB!D!FG) comp. Tisch.
Prolegom. p. XLVI.

16

συνμέτοχοι
)

122

EPHESIANS.

Crap. V. 8, 9.

8 4 , r a \ an > ! e , \
ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ' ws τέκνα φωτὸς περ-

LITATELTE,

8. ἦτε γάρ] ‘For ye WERE;’ em-
phatic, the time is now past, Rom. vi. 17.
It is this very difference between the past
and present state that confirms and proves
(yap) the propriety of the preceding
warning ; ‘as that state is past, do not
recur to it, —do not lapse again into a
participation in vices which you have
now turned away from ;’ comp. note on
γίνεσϑε (ver. 7), of which the present
verse seems tacitly confirmatory.

The assertion of Riick. that in this and
several other passages in St. Paul’s Epp.
(6. g. Rom. v. 18, vi. 17, 1 Cor. iii. 12, 21,
Gal. ii. 6, 15, vi. 8) μὲν ought to be in-
serted is sufficiently refuted by Harless.
The rule is simple, — if the first clause
is intended to stand in connection with
and prepare the reader for the opposition
in the second, μὲν is inserted; if not,
not: see the excellent remarks of Klotz,
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356 sq., Fritz. Rom. x.
19, Vol. 11. p. 423, and notes on Gal. ii.
15: σκότοϑ»]) ‘darkness ;’ not
merely living or abiding in it (comp.
Rom. ii. 19, 1 Thess. v. 4), but them-
selves actual and veritable darkness ; for
examples of this vigorous and appropri-
ate use of the abstract term, see Jelf, Gr.
§ 353. 1: φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘light
in the Lord ;’ not διὰ τῆς ϑείας χάριτος,
Theoph., but ‘in fellowship with the
Lord ;’ extra Christum Satan omnia
occupat,’ Caly. The continued and cor-
responding use of the abstr. for concr.
(see above) suitably prepares for the en-
ergetic exhortation (without οὖν) which
follows. They were φῶς, not only in
themselves (πεφωτισμένοι), but to others
(comp. Matth. vy. 14), and were to pur-
sue their moral walk in accordance with
such a state of privilege. On the use of
the terms φῶς and σκότος, see Usteri,
Lehrb. 11. 1, 3, p. 229.
φωτὺς περιπ.] ‘walk as children of

ε Ψ
WS τεκνα

Spee N \ a \ > , > , \
ὁ yap καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ayaswouvyn καὶ

liyht,’ as those who stand in nearest and
truest connection with it; see notes on
ch. ii. 3. The absence of the article can
hardly be pressed (Alf.), as it appears
due only to that common principle of
correlation, by which, if the governing
noun is without the article, the governed
will be equally so; see Middleton, Art.
111. 3, 7, p.49 (ed Rose). On the mean-
ing of περιπατεῖν, which, however, must
not always be too strongly pressed, see
notes on Phil. iii. 18, and on 1 Thess. iv.
12.

9. ὃ γὰρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘For the fruit of the
light ;’ parenthetic confirmation of the
foregoing command, and incitement to
follow it. Tap is thus not simply ex-
planatory (ὥσπερ ἐφερμηνεύει τί ἐστι τὸ
τέκνα τοῦ φωτός, Theoph.), but, as the
order seems to suggest, confirms the pro-
priety of using the term περιπατεῖτε, and
also supplies its fuller explanation ; ‘ As
children of the light walk ye, for the
fruit of light is shown in a moral walk,
in practical instances of ἀγαϑωσύνη.᾽
The modal participle δοκιμάζοντες (see
below) is thus closely joined with περι-
πατεῖτε, and ver. 9, though not fully so
in form, is clearly parenthetical in sense :
contra Stier, who, however, fails properly
and grammatically to explain the use of
the participle. The reading πνεύμα-
τος [Rec. with D°E*KL; great majority
of mss.; Syr.-Phil., al.; Chrys., Theod].
seems clearly a gloss from Gal. v. 25,
and is rightly rejected by nearly all re-
cent editors. ἐν] ‘consistit in,’
Beng., or, more exactly, ‘ continetur,
ponitur in:’ the assertion that ἐν is here
the ‘Beth essentix’ (compare Gesen. ὃ
151. 8. a) is distinctly untenable; see
Winer, Gr. § 47. 3. obs. p. 420.
πάσῃ ἀγαδωσύν ῃ] ‘all goodness,’ 1.6.
all forms and instances of it ; see notes
ch. i. 8. On the meaning of ayas. see

Cuap. V. 10, 11, 12.

EPHESIANS.

123

, ἊΝ > if A
δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληδείᾳ, ™ δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν εὐάρεστον τῷ

Κυρίῳ:

ll \ Ss lal ἴω 7 lal lal
καὶ μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ

σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε. " τὰ γὰρ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽

notes on Gal. ν. 32. The special appo-
sitions which Chrys. finds in these three
nouns, πρὸς τοὺς ὀργιζομένους, πρὸς τοὺς
πλεονεκτοῦντας, πρὸς τὴν ψευδῆ ἡδονήν,
are too limited. As Meyer correctly
observes, the whole of Christian moral-
ity is presented under its three great
aspects, the good, the right, the true ;
ἀνίστοιχα are κακία, ἀδικία, ψεῦδος ; Com-
pare Harl. zz oc., and for a sermon on
this text, see Tillotson, Serm. CXLVIII.
Vol. τι. p. 311 (Lond. 1717).

10. δοκιμάζοντ ε5] ‘proving,’ ‘test-
ing ;’ predication of manner appended
to περιπατεῖτε, defining its character and
distinctive features. The verb δοκιμάζειν
is not ‘to have a just conception of,’
Peile, nor ‘examinando cognitum ha-
bere,’ Borger, ad Rom. p. 12 (cited by
Fritz.), but, in its simple and primary
sense, ‘to prove, to try,’ the word mark-
ing the activity and experimental energy
that should characterize the Christian
life; see Rom. xii. 2, and Fritz. in loc.,
and notes on Phil. i. 10, where the mean-
ings of this word are briefly discussed.
The sense then is well expressed by
Eadie ; ‘the one point of the Christian’s
ethical investigation is, Is it well pleas-
ing to the Lord?’ ἄρα ἀδοκίμου καὶ παιδι-
κῆς διανοίας Ta ἀλλά, CEcum.

ll. μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε) ‘have no

fellowship with,’ Auth.—a good and accu-
rate t lation ; ;
rate translation ; comp wee coo

[commercium habentes] ‘ gadailans,’
Goth. The version of Eadie and De
W.., ‘take no part in,’ is questionable,
if not erroneous, as this would imply a
genitive; comp. Rom. xi. 17, 1 Cor. ix.
23, Phil. i. 7. Though the sense is
nearly the same, there is still no reason,
either here, Phil. iv. 4, or Rev. xviii. 4,
for departing from the exact translation.

The form συνκοιν. is found AB!D!IFGL,
and on such evidence is appy. rightly
adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7); see Prolegom.
p. XLVII. τοῖς ἔργοις Tots
ἀκάρπ.] ‘the unfruitful works ;’? comp.
Gal. v. 19, 22, where there is a similar
opposition between καρπὸς and ἔργα.
The comment of Jerome (cited by Har-
less) is very good, ‘vitia in semet ipsa
finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes
pullulant et redundant ;’ see
Gal. v. 22. μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ can-
not be correctly considered as a single
formula, ‘yea, much more,’ Eadie: μᾶλ-
λον δὲ is corrective (see notes on Gal. iv.
9), while καὶ is closely connected with
the verb, preserving its full ascensive
force, ‘not only μὴ cvyx., but rather even
ἐλέγχετε;᾽ ‘non satis abstinere est,’
Bengel ; comp. Fritz. Rom. viii. 34, Vol.
II. p. 216. ἐλέγχετ Ee] ‘reprove
them,’ ‘redarguite,’ Clarom., Vulg.,—
not by the passive, virtual reproof of
your holy lives and conversation (Peile),
but, as St. Paul’s use of the word (see
esp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24,2 Tim. iv. 2, Tit. i.
9, 13, ii. 15), and still more the context,
suggest, — by active and oral reproba-
tion. The antithesis is thus most fully
marked; ‘do not connive at them or
pass them over unnoticed, but take
aggressive measures against them; try
and raise the Gentiles to your own
Christian standard ;’ see Olsh. in loc.

12. τὰ yap κ. τ. λ.] ‘For the things,
etc.;’ confirmatory reason for the com-
mand in the preceding clause. The
connection of this verse with the preced-
ing has been differently explained. If
the correct meaning of ἐλέγχ. (see
above) be retained, there seems but little
difficulty ; yap then gives the reason for
the καὶ ἐλέγχετε; ‘reproof is indeed
necessary, for some of their sins, their

frugibus
notes on

124

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V. 13.

2. A > r 9 \ ΄ 19. Sea δὲ Ve ἐν, 2), ΄ ey
αὐτῶν αισχρον εστιν Kab λέγειν" τὰ O€ TTAVTA ε εγχόμενα UTrO

secret vices for instance, are such that it
is a shame even to speak of them, much
less connive at them or join in them.’
Harl. refers yap more to μὴ συγκ.; ‘do
not commit these sins, for they are too
bad even to mention.” This, however,
assumes a perfect identity between τὰ
ἔργ. Tod ok. and τὰ κρυφῆ γιν., which
(see below) is highly doubtful ; and also
gives to the negative part of the com-
mand (which, as the corrective μᾶλλον δὲ
suggests, is obscured by the positive) an
undue and untenable prominence.

τὰ κρυφῆ γιν.] ‘the things which are
done in secret by them, sc. by the υἱοῖς τῆς
ἀπειϑείας. There is not enough in the
context to substantiate a reference to the
mysteries and orgies of heathenism (Els-
ner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 223). The use of
κρυφῇ (which obviously has here a sim-
ple, and not an ethical meaning like
σκότος) and its emphatic position seem
alike to show that τὰ κρυφῆ yw. are sins,
not simply identical with τὰ ἔργα τ. σκό-
τους, ver. 11 (Harl.), but a specific class
of the genus. These ‘deeds done in
secret, then, were all those ‘peccata
occulta’ which presented the worst fea-
tures of the genus, and which, from their
nature and infamy, shunned the light of
day and of judgment. καὶ
λέγειν] ‘even to speak of,’ ‘only to men-
This is an instance of what may
be termed the descensive force of καί ; see
exx. in Hartung, Partik. καί, 2.9, Vol.
1. p. 136; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι.
Ῥ. 364, and notes on Gal. iii. 4.

tion.’

Elsner
compares, not inappropriately, Tsoer.
Demon. p. 6, ἃ ποιεῖν αἰσχρόν, ταῦτα
νόμιζε μηδὲ λέγειν εἶναι κάλον.

13. τὰ δὲ πάντα] ‘ But all of them,’

‘they all’ ots

nia] Syr.-Phil.; continuation of the rea-
son for the command μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ
éAéyx-., — with antithetical reference to

σι [illa om-

the κρυφῆ γινόμενα, δὲ retaining its
proper force in the opposition it suggests
to any inference that might have been
deduced from ver. 12; ‘it is true these
deeds are done in secret, but all of
them, ete. ;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p.
363, 365. Τὰ πάντα is not ‘all things,’
taken generally (Riick., Alf.), but, as
the antithesis between κρυφῆ and φανερ.
(compare Mark iy. 22) clearly suggests,
‘all the κρυφῆ γινόμ.,᾽ “haud dubie quin
ea quie occulte fiunt,’ Hieron.; so rightly
De W. and Meyer in loc.

χόμενα)
-πϑῶξος ἐξ [dum redarguuntur]

Syr.-Phil.; predication of manner or
perhaps rather of time appended to τὰ
The absence of the art. before
ἐλεγχ. distinctly precludes the transla-
tion ‘que arguuntur’ (Clarom., Vulg.,
Auth., — comp. Copt.), and shows that
the participle is not an epithet but a
secondary predicate ; see Scholef. Hints,
p- 108. ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανε-
ροῦται] ‘are made manifest by light.’ It
is somewhat difficult to decide whether
these words are to be connected with the
part. (Svr., Copt.), or with the finite
verb (Aith., Syr.-Phil., — appy.); a con-
nection with both (Scholef, comp. Stier)
is an evasion, but not an explanation,
of the difficulties. The following posi-
tions will perhaps serve to narrow the
discussion. (a) ’EAeyxéueva, both in
tense as well as meaning (contr. Hamm.,
Peile), must stand in closest reference to
ἐλέγχετε; it may still be said, however,
that the secondary meaning of the word
(compare Clem. Al. Protrept. 11. p. 19,
ἐλέγχει τὸν Ἴακχον τὸ φῶς) may have
suggested the metaphorical language
which follows. (b) Φῶς (φάος, φανερός)
and gavepéw are closely allied terms ;
the one so obviously explains. elucidates,
and implies the other, that the connec-

ἐλεγ-

‘when they are reproved’

J
TAVTQ.

@uxr. Υ. 14.

EPHESIANS.

125

A Ν la) A \ \ 7, -“ ’

τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται: πᾶν yap τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστιν'

14 ς / ΕΣ « 7 ἐν >’ / 4 an rn \
διὸ λέγει "Hyeipe ὁ καϑεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ

ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός.

tion of the two in the same clause seems
in a high degree natural and probable.
(c) Φῶς must have the same meaning in
both clauses ; if simply metaphorical in
the latter clause, then also simply meta-
phorical (not ethical, as in τέκνα φωτός)
in the former. (d) The voice of φανε-
péw must be the same in both clauses,
and is certainly passive ; the verb occurs
nearly fifty times in the N. T., and never
in a middle sense ; see Winer, Gr. § 38.
6, p. 231. Applying these premises,
it seems clear that if we adopt the first-
mentioned connection, ἐλεγχ. ὑπὸ φωτ.
(Chrys , al.), conditions (a) and (c) can-
not be fully satisfied; for either éAeyx.
must be taken as nearly synonymous
with φανερ. (De W.), or φῶς must have
an ethical reference (‘lux yerbi,’ Croc.)
in the former clause, which it can
scarcely bear in the latter; and further,
ἐλεγχόμ. will thus have a specification
attached to it, which is not in harmony
with ver. 12, where the act alone is
enjoined without any special concomitant
mention of the agent. It would thus
seem to be almost certain that ὑπὸ φωτός
must be joined with φανεροῦται, which it
somewhat emphatically precedes. We
translate then, in accordance with (a),
(5), (6), (d), as follows: ‘but all things
(though so κρυφῆ yw.) when reproved are
made manifest by the light (thus shed
upon them), for everything that is made
manifest is light (becomes daylight, is of
the nature of light); compare Scholef.
l. c., and Wordsw. in loc. In a word,
the reasoning depends on the logical
proposition which Meyer has adduced, —
“quod est in effectu (φῶς ἐστί), id debet
esse in causa (ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός).

That this φανέρωσις, however, does not
necessarily imply or involve a ‘ mutatio
in melius’ (Jerome, comp. Wordsw.),

seems clear from (6). All that is as-
serted is, that ‘whatever is illumined is
light ;’ whether that tend to condemna-
tion or the contrary, depends upon the
nature of the case, and the inward opera-
tion of the outwardly illuminating influ-
ence ; see Alf. in loc.

14. διό] ‘On which account ;’ since
this ἔλεγξις is so urgent and necessary a
duty, and its nature such as described.
On the use of διό, see notes on Gal. iv.
51 λέγει] ‘He saith;’ scil. 6
Θεός, according to the usual form of St.
Paul’s quotations ; see notes on ch. iv.
8, and on Gal. iii.16. The words here
quoted are not found exactly in the
same form in the O. T., but certainly
occur in substance in Isaiah Ix. 1 sq.
Meyer represents it as a quotation from
an apocryphal writing which the Apostle
introduces by a lapse of memory; De
W., as an application from a passage in
the O. T., which he had so constantly
used as at last to mistake for the original
text. Alii alia. It seems much more
reverent, as well as much more satisfac-
tory, to say that St. Paul, speaking
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
is expressing, in a condensed and sum-
mary form, the spiritual meaning of the
passage. The prophet’s immediate words
supply, in substance, the first part of the
quotation, FNS Sa 7D “HAN MExp; the
concluding part is the spiritual applica-
tion of the remainder of the verse, viz.
mat 779 mine thas, and of the gen-
eral tenor of the prophecy; see esp. ver.
19, and comp. Surenhus, BiBA. Καταλλ.
p- 588. Any attempt to explain λέγει
impersonally (‘one may say,’ Bornem.
Schol. in Luc. p. xuvi11.) is not only
opposed to St. Paul’s constant use of
λέγει, but is grammatically unsupported :
φησὶ (compare Lat. ‘inquit’) is so used

120

Walk strictly: avoid ex-
cess, but be filled with the

EPHESIANS.

Car. V. 15:

© Βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖτε, μὴ

Spirit; sing psalms outwardly with your lips, and make melody with thankfulness in your hearts within.

especially in later writers, but no in-
stances have been adduced of a similar
use of λέγει : comp. Bernhardy, Synt.
X11. 4, p. 419. ἔγειρε] ‘Awake,’
‘Up!’ This expression is now generally
correctly explained : it is not an instance
of an ‘act. pro medio’ (Porson, Eurip.
Orest. 288), or of an ellipsis of σεαυτόν,
but simply a ‘formula excitandi ;’ con-
sult the excellent note of Fritz. Mark ii.
9, p. 55. The reading of the Rec. ἔγει-
pat, found only in some cursive mss., is
undoubtedly a correction, and is rejected
by all the best editors. ἀν ἀστα)
This shortened form occurs
Acts xii. 7, and may be compared with
κατάβα (Lec.), Mark xv. 30, ἀνάβα, Rev.
ive seseesWiner, .GneSl4s Ips ϑὲ
‘and Christ shall
shine upon thee,’ — obviously ποῦν ἴῃ the
derivative sense, ‘ Christus tibi propitius
erit’ (Bretsch.), but simply, ‘illucescet
tanquam sol’ (Beng.), ‘per gratiam te
illuminabit’ (Est.): ὅταν οὖν ἐγερϑῆ τις

‘arise.’

καὶ ἐπιφαύσ ει

On

> = c ἢ 4 >, , ter
ἀπὸ TNS ALAPT LAS, TOTE ἐπιφαύσει QuT@

On

Χριστός, τουτέστιν, ἐπιλάμψει ὥσπερ καὶ
ἥλιος τοῖς ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερϑεῖσιν, Theoph.

15. βλέπετε οὖν] ‘Take heed then;’
resumption of the preceding exhortations
(ver. 8) after the digression caused by
the latter part of ver. 11. It is quite
unnecessary to attempt to connect closely
this with the preceding verse (Harless,
Eadie) ; this resumptive use of ody being
by no means of rare occurrence (see
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, notes on
Gal. iii. 5), and indeed involved in the
nature of the particle, which nearly al-
ways implies retrospective reference rather
than direct inference ; see Donalds. Gr.
§ 548. 31, p. 571. It is scarcely neces-
sary to add that βλέπετε has no reference
whatever to the φῶς previously alluded
to (comp. Est.), but simply implies
‘take heed ;’ see 1 Cor. xvi. 10, Col.

iv. 17, and notes in oc. πῶς ἀκ-

ριβῶς περιπατεῖτε ‘how ye walk
exactly, or, with strictness,’ scil. ‘quomodo
illud efficiatis ut provide vivatis? (πῶς τὸ
ἀκριβῶς ἐργάζεσϑε), Fritz. Fritz. Opuse.
p- 208, 209, note, — where this passage
is carefully investigated ; see also Winer,
Gr. § 41. 4. c. obs. p. 268, who has long
since given up the assumption that the
text is an abbreviated expression for
βλέπετε οὖν πῶς περιπατεῖτε, δεῖ δὲ ὑμᾶς
ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν, though still referred
to by Meyer (ed. 2, 1853), as retaining
it. Thus then the indic. is not used for
the subj. (Grot.), which (if an admissible
structure) would be ‘ quomodo provide
vivere possitis,’ nor for the future, which
would be ‘quomodo provide vitam sitis
acturi,’ but simply calls attention to that
in which τὸ ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν finds its
present manifestation, and which is spe-
cified more precisely in the clause which
follows. As περιπ. appy. here implies
little more than (jy (see Fritz. Rom. xiii.
13, Vol. 111. p. 141, comp. notes on ver.
8), there is no necessity to depart from
the literal meaning of ἀκριβῶς, --- not
‘eaute,’ Vulg., Syr., still less, ‘ without
stumbling,’ Conyb., but ‘ eaactly,’ ‘ accu-
rate,’ Beza, ‘tanquam ad regulam et
amussim,’ Fritz. Opuse. 1. c.; see Nean-
der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 486 (Bohn).

μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι κ. τ. λ.] ‘to wit, not as
” more exact specifi-
cation of the terms of the preceding
clause. It is thus not necessary to sup-
ply either περιπατοῦντες to this clause
(Harl.), or περιπατῆτε to its second mem-
ber (as, in effect, Fritz., ‘sed ut homines
sapientes [vitam instituatis ’], /oc. cit., p.
209): the clause is simply dependent on
περιπατεῖτε, explaining first on the neg-
ative, and then on the affirmative side
the foregoing adverbs; both the strict-
ness of their walk and the way in which
that strictness was to be shown were to
reflect the spirit of wise men and not of

unwise but as wise;

Cuap. V. 16, 17.

ὡς ἄσοφοι adr ὡς σοφοί,
αἱ ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν.

fools: comp. Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 63,
where similar positions of the neg.
clause are incidentally cited.

16. ἐξαγοραζόμενοι και-
ρόν] ‘buying up for yourselves (making
your own) the opportunity, the fitting sea-
son;’ part. of manner exemplifying the
wise spirit of action specified in the fore-
going member. This expression occurs
twice in the N. T.; here with, and in
Col. iv. 5, without an appended causal
sentence ; compare also Dan. ii. 8, καιρὸν

τὸν

ἐξαγοράζετε (appy. ‘hance opportunitatem
capiatis,’ see Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 780,
not ‘dilationem quzritis,’ Schleusn.).
The numerous, and, in most cases, arti-
ficial explanations of this passage arise
from the attempts to specify (a) those
from whom (‘mali homines,’ Beng.,
‘Diabolus,’ Calv., ete.) the καιρὸς is to
be purchased, or (Ὁ) the price (all worldly
things, τὰ πάντα, Chrys., Theophyl.,
Schrader) paid for it; both of which are
left wholly undefined. The force of ex
does not appear intensive (Mey., comp.
Plutarch, Crass. § 2), or simply latent (a
Lap.), but directs the thoughts to the un-
defined time or circumstances out of
which, in each particular case, the καιρὸς
was to be bought ; comp. Gal. iii. 13, iv.
5, where however the meaning is more
special, and the reference of the preposi-
tion better defined by the context. The
expression then seems simply to denote
that we are to make a wise use of cir-
cumstances for our own good or that of
others, and, as it were, like prudent mer-
chants (comp. Beza, Corn. a Lap.) to
‘by up the fitting season’ for so doing ;
‘diligenter observare tempus, ut id tuum
facias, eique ut dominus imperes,’ Tittm.
Synon. p. 42; so Sever. (ap. Cram.
Caten.), and in effect Origen (ib.),
though he has too much mixed up the
ideas of a right purchase of the time and

16

EPHESIANS. 127

od

3 , \ , cA
ἐξαγοραζόμενοιν τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι

" διὰ τοῦτο μὴ γίνεσϑε ἄφρονες, ἀλλὰ

aright expenditure of it. For sermons
on this text see August. Serm. CLXVIII.
Vol. v. p. 909 sq. (ed Migne).
τὸν καιρόν) ‘the opportunity;’ not
‘hoc tempus, scil. tempus breve quod
restat huic zvo,’ Bretsch. (Sever. 6 και-
pos ὁ παρών, comp. Stier), but, as rightly
explained by Cornel. a Lap., ‘ occasio-
nem et opportunitatem 501]. mercandi.’
On the use of καιρὸς (‘tempus, seu
punctum temporis opportunum ᾽) and its
distinction from αἰών, χρόνος, and ὥρα,
see Tittm. Synon. p. 39 sq. TOV η-
pat} ‘evil, in a moral sense (Gal. 1.4),
not ‘difficultatum et asperitatis plena,’
Beza (comp. Gen. xlvii. 9), which would
introduce an idea foreign to the context.
Christians are bidden to walk ἀκριβῶς,
and to seize every opportunity, because
‘the days’ (of their life, ©~7n, or of the
period in which they lived) were marked
by so much moral evil and iniquity ;
ἐπεὶ οὖν 6 καιρὸς δουλεύει τοῖς πονηροῖς,
ἐξαγοράσασϑε αὐτόν, ὥστε καταχρήσασϑαι
αὐτῷ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, Sever. ap. Cram.
Caten.

17. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘For this cause;’
commonly referred to the clause immedi-
ately preceding, ἐπειδὴ 7 πονηρία ἀνϑεῖ,
C&cum., Theophyl. (so De W., Olsh.),
but far more probably (see Mey.) to ver.
15, 16, — ‘for this cause, sc. because ye
ought to walk with such exactness ;’ εἰ
γὰρ ἔσεσϑε ἄφρονες ἀκριβῶς ov περιπατή-
σετε, Schol. ap. Cram, Caten.
συνιέντ ε5] ‘understanding ;’ ‘plus est
συνιέναι Quam γινώσκειν, ut apparet ex
hoe loco cum Lue. xii. 47; γινώσκειν
est nosse, συνιέναι attente expendere,’ Grot.
(Pol. Syn.). The reading is slightly
doubtful. Zachm. reads συνίετε with
AB; 6 mss.; Chrys. (ms.), but on ex-
ternal evidence inferior to that for the
participle [συνιέντες, ΒΕ ΚΙ, (συνίοντες,
D'FG, Alf.) ; nearly all mss.; Clarom.,

128

συνιέντες τί τὸ ϑδέλημα τοῦ Κυρίου.

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V. 18, 19,

Ν
8 καὶ μὴ μεδύσκεσϑε οἴνῳ,

ks AN n la
ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσδε ἐν Πνεύματι, ™ λαλοῦντες

Vulg., Goth., Syr-Phil., al., and many
ἘΠῚ, and in the face of the high proba-
bility that the imper. is due to a confor-
mation to ver. 18. appoves|
‘unwise,’ “ἄφρων est qui
mente non recte utitur,’ Tittm. Synon.
p 148,—where the distinction between
this word, νήπιος, ἀμόητος, and ἀσύνετος
is investigated; but see notes on Gal.
rin 1.

18. kal μὴ μεϑύσκ.Ὶ ‘And be not
made drunk with wine ;’ specification of a
particular instance ; καὶ being here used
to append the special to the general: on
this and on the converse use, see notes
on Phil. iv. 12, and comp. the good note
of Fritz. Mark i. 5, p. 11. ἐν ᾧ]
‘wherein,’ Auth.; referring not simply
to οἶνος (Schoettg.), but to μεϑύσκεσϑαι
οἴνῳ, scil., ‘in inebriatione,’ Beza; so
rightly Orig. 1, ap. Cram. Cat.
ἀσωτία] ‘dissoluteness, Hamm., ‘lux-
uria,’ Vulg., Clarom.; not inappropri-
ately Goth., ‘usstiurei’ [unyokedness] ;

“ senseless ;”

Tous ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανη-
ροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν, Arist. Ethic. Nic.
Iv. 1; comp. Cic. de Fin. 11. 8. ~Aow-
τος (o@(w) appears to have two mean-
ings, the rarer, ‘qui servari non potest,’
a meaning which Clem. Alex. (Pedag.
11. 2, p. 184, ed. Pott.) applies to this
place, τὸ ἄσωστον τῆς μέϑης διὰ τῆς ἄσω-
τίας αἰνιξάμενος, ---- Πα the more com-
mon, ‘qui servare nequit ;’ see Trench,
Synon. § xvi. The latter meaning
passes naturally into that of ‘ dissolute-
ness,’ the only sense in which ἀσωτία and
ἀσώτως are used in the N. T., 6. g., Luke
XV Ss alittle, 6.0), Pet. ἂν. ἀρ the
substantive is found Proy. xxviii. 7
(Trench), to which add 2 Mace, iv. 6,
where it is joined with κῶμοι ; see also
Tittm. Synon. p. 152
ματι] ‘with the Spirit ;’ ἐν being appy.
primarily, though not exclusively, ¢stru-

ἐν Πνεύ-

mental (Vulg., Arm.; see Origen ap.
Cram. Cat.),— though an unusual con-
struction with mAnpéw; see however ch.
i. 23. Meyer cites also Phil. iv. 19, but
this is a doubtful instance ; still more so
are Col. ii. 10, iv. 12 (cited by Eadie
after Harl.), as in the first of these pas-
sages ἐν is obviously ‘in,’ and in the
second the reading is more than doubt-
ful; see notes im loc. There would
seem to haye been an intentional inclu-
siveness in the use of this prepp., as
Matthies (misrepresented by Eadie) sug-
gests; the Spirit is not the bare instru-
ment by which, but that ἐπ which and by
which the true Christian is fully filled.
Whether the passive πληροῦσϑε hints at
our ‘reluctant will’ (Mey.) seems doubt-
ful; there is no doubt, however, that the
opposition is not between οἶνος and
Πνεῦμα, but, as the order of the words
suggests, between the two states ex-
pressed by the two verbs. On the omis-
sion of the article (which is inserted in
FG), see notes on ch. ii. 22, and on Gal.
Views

19. λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς] ‘speak-
ing to one another ;’ —not ‘to yourselves,’
Auth.; ἑαυτοῖς being used for ἀλλήλοις,
as in ch. iv. 82; comp. Col. iii. 16, and
see Jelf, Gr. § 654. 2. Scholefield
(JZints, p. 103) and, before him, Bull
(Prim. Trad. 1. 12), compare the well-
known quotation, ‘carmen Christo quasi
Deo dicere secum invicem,’ Pliny, Epist.
x. 97. Whether the reference is here to
social meetings (compare Clem. Alex.
Peedag. τι. 4, p. 194, Pott.}, or expressly
to religious service (Olsh.), or, more
probably, to both, can hardly be deter-
mined from the context. ψαλ-
μοῖς K. τ. λ.] ‘with psalms and hymns
and spiritual songs.’ The distinctions
between these words have been some-
what differently estimated. Olsh. and

Cuap. V. 20.

EPHESIANS.

129

e a a δι Ψ \ ? a a ” \
ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς Kal ὕμνοις Kal ὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ἄδοντες καὶ

ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ,

Stier would confine ψαλμ. to the Psalms
of the Old Test., ὕμνος to any Christian
song of praise ; this does not seem borne
out by 1 Cor. xiv. 26 (see Alford), com-
pare James ν. 13. Harless refers the
former to the Jewish, the latter to Gen-
tile Christians; Orig. (Cram. Cat.) still
more arbitrarily defines the ψαλμ. as
περὶ τῶν πρακτέων, the gd) as περὶ τῆς
τοῦ κόσμου τάξεως καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν δημιουρ-
γημάτων. In a passage so general as
the present, no such rigorous distinctions
seem called for; ψαλμὸ 5 most proba-
bly, as Meyer suggests, denotes a sacred
song of a character similar to that of
the Psalms (ὁ ψαλμὸς ἐμμελής ἐστιν εὐλο-
γία καὶ σώφρων, Clem. Alex. Peedag. τι.
4, p. 194); ὕμνος, a song more espe-
cially of praise, whether to Christ (ver.
19), or God (ver. 20; comp. Acts xvi.
25, Heb. ii. 12); ᾧ δή, a definition gen-
erally of the genus to which all such
compositions belonged (ὠδὴν πνευματι-
κὴν ὃ ᾿Απόστολος εἴρηκε τὸν ψαλμόν,
Clem. Alex. 1. 6.). To this last the epi-
thet πνευματικαῖς is added,—sec. not
merely, ‘of religious import,’ Olshaus.
(‘sancta,’ /Zth.), but in accordance with
the last clause of ver. 18, ‘such as the
Holy Spirit inspired and gave utterance
to;’ ψάλλοντες γὰρ Πνεύμ. πληροῦνται
ἁγίου, Chrys. Much more curious
information will be found in the article
‘Hymni a Christianis decantandi,’ in
Deyling, Obs. No. 44, Vol. 111. p 430
sq.; for authorities, see Fabricius, Bib-
liogr. Antig. x1. 18, and for specimens
of ancient ὕμνοι, ib. Bibl. Greca, Book
v. 1. 24. Lachm. inserts ἐν in
brackets before ψαλμοῖς, but on authority
[B; 5 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg.,
Goth., al; Chrys.] nearly the same and
apparently equally insufficient with that
[B; Clarom., Sangerm.; Ambrst. ed.]
on which he (so Alford) similarly en-

© » fal
a εὐχαριστοῦντες Trav-

closes the scarcely doubtful πνευματικαῖς.
ἄδοντες καὶ WddrAdAovres]| ‘singing
and making melody in your heart ;’ parti-
cipial clause, codrdinate with (Mey.), not
subordinate to (so as to specify the moral
quality of the psalmody, μετὰ συνέσεως,
Chrys.) the foregoing λαλοῦντες κ. τ. A.
Harl. very clearly shows that ἐν τῇ καρ-
dia, without ὑμῶν, could not indicate any
antithesis between the heart and lips,
much less any qualitative definition, —
‘without lip-service’ (compare Theod.,
Eadie), or ‘heartily,’ like ἐκ τῆς καρδίας
(κατὰ τὴν καρδ. CEcum.), but that simply
another kind of psalmody is mentioned,
that of the inward heart; ‘canentes
intus in animis et cordibus vestris, Bul-
ling. (cited by Harl.).
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, though fairly supported
[Lachmann with ADEFG; mss.; Cla-
rom., Vulg., Syr., Goth., Copt., Syr.-
Phil. in marg.; Bas., Chrys. (2), al.] is
still properly rejected by Tisch., al. as an
emendation of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ [B (omits ἐν)
KL; nearly all mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Chrys.,
Theod., al.] derived from Col. iii. 16.

20. “giving
thanks always ;’ third and more compre-
hensive participial member, specifying
the great Christian accompaniment of
this and of all their acts (ch. v. 4, Phil.
iv. 6, Col. iv. 2, see notes), and prepar-
ing the way for the further duty ex-
pressed in yer. 21. It would thus appear
that the imperative wAnp. ἐν TIv. has four
participial clauses appended, two of
which specify more particular, and the
third a more pervading manifestation of
the fruits of the Holy Spirit, viz. ᾧδαὶ
χειλέων (Ecclus. xxxix. 15), δαὶ ἐν τῇ
καρδίᾳ, and εὐχαριστία, while the fourth,
brotaco. passes onward to another form
of Christian duty; see notes ver. 21,
and for two good sermons on this text,
Barrow, Sern. vi11., 1x. Vol. 1., p. 179

17

The reading

εὐχαριστ. πάντ.]

130

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V. 21, 22.

ig \ / 5 > 4 a ' e A 3 ἴω ἴω
TOTE ὑπὲρ πάντων EV ονόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ

τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί,

Wives be subject to your
husbands as the Church is
to Christ.
union of Christ and the Church.

ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἔν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ.
22 e a lal γὼ > ὃ / . lal
Ai γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ

Husbands love your wives as Christ loved His Church. Marriage is a type of the mystical

22. ἀνδράσιν] Tisch. has, with good judgment, rejected the addition of ὑποτάσ-
ceoXe, —whether after γυναῖκες with DEFG ; Lect.19; Vulg., al., or after ἀνδράσιν,

sq. ὑπὲρ πάντων] ‘for all things,’
Auth. ; not masc., se. ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν
τῆς εὐεργεσίας μετειληχότων, Theodoret.
Meyer needlessly limits the πάντα to
blessings ; surely it is better to say, with
Theophyl., οὐχ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀγαϑῶν μόνον,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν λυπηρῶν, καὶ ὧν ἴσμεν, καὶ
ὧν οὐκ ἴσμεν, καὶ γὰρ διὰ πάντων εὐεργε-
τούμεϑδα κἂν ἀγνοῶμεν. Numerous in-
stances of similar cumulation and παρή-
xnois are cited by Lobeck, Paralipom.
p. 56, 57. ἐν τῷ Ovdmuaril ‘in
the name ;’ obviously not ‘ad honorem’
(Flatt.), nor even ‘per nomen,’ scil. ‘per
Christum’ (a Lap.), but ‘in nomine,’
Clarom , Vulg., Copt., al.: the name of
Christ is that general and holy element,
as it were, in which everything (as Harl.
forcibly remarks) is to be received, to be
enjoined, to be done, and to be suffered ;
see Col. iii. 17. The context will always
indicate the precise nature of the appli-
cation; see the exx. cited by Alf. zn oc.
τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί] ‘to God and the
Father ;’ see notes on ch.i.3, and on
Gal.i.4. The most appy. suitable mode
of translating this special and august
title is noticed in notes to Transl. of Gal.
p- 146 (ed. 2).

21. ὑποτασσόμενοι

¢

)

GAANA.|
‘submitting yourselves to one another ;’ not
for the finite verb (Flatt.; see contra
Hermann, Viger, No. 227, Winer, Gr. ὃ
45.6, p. 314), but a fourth participial
clause appended to mAnpotode. The
first three name three duties, more or
less special, in regard to God, the last a
comprehensive moral duty in regard to
man, which seems to have been sug-

gested by the remembrance of the hum-
ble and loving spirit, which is the mov-
ing principle of εὐχαριστία. In the fol-
lowing paragraph, and under a somewhat
similar form (ὑπακοή), in v. 1 sq. and vi.
5 sq., this general duty is inculcated in
particular instances: ἐπειδὴ κοινὴν τὴν
περὶ τῆς ὑποταγῆς νομοϑεσίαν προσήνεγκε
κατ᾽ εἶδος, λοιπὸν παραινεῖ τὰ κατάλληλα,
Theod. On the distinction between ὕπο-
taco. (sponte) and πειϑαρχεῖν (coactus),
see Tittm. Synon. Part τι. p. 3. It
must be admitted that there is some diffi-
culty in the connection between this and
the foregoing participial member. We
can, however, hardly refer the clause to
the remote μὴ μεϑύσκ. (‘don’t bluster,
.. . but be subject,’ Eadie, Alf.), but
may reasonably retain the connection in-
dicated above, the exact connecting link
being perhaps the ὑπὲρ πάντων ; ‘ thank-
ing God for all things (joys — yea sor-
rows, submitting yourselves to Him, yea),
submitting yourselves to one another :’
compare Chrys., iva πάντων κρατῶμεν
τῶν παδῶν, ἵνα τῷ Θεῷ δουλεύωμεν, ἵνα
τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπην διασώζωμεν.
ἐν φόβῳ Χρ.] ‘in the fear of Christ ;’
the prevailing feeling and sentiment ἐπ
which ὑποταγὴ is to be exhibited; ‘ex
[in] timore Christi; quia scilicet Chris-
tum reveremur, eumque timemus offend-
ere,’ Corn. a Lap. The reading
Θεοῦ (Rec.) is only supported by cursive
mss., Clem., and Theod., and is rightly
rejected by nearly all modern editors.

22. af yuvatnes| ‘Wives, —sc. be
subject ;’ first of the three great ex-
emplifications (husbands and wives, —

Guar. V. 23. EPHESIANS. 133

Ὁ
/ Ὁ >) A
Κυρίῳ, “ ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς

with KL; very many Vv.; Chrys., al. (Rec., Scholz), though supported in the
omission only by B, all Gr. MSS. used by Jerome, and Clem. (Harl., Mey. De W.),
Lachm. inserts ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν after ἀνδράσιν with A; 10 mss.; Vulg., Copt.,
Goth. ; Clem. (1), Bas., al. ; the variations, however, and still more the absence of
the word in the MSS. mentioned by Jerome, render it in a very high degree prob-

able that the original text had no verb in the sentence.

parents and children, ch. vi. 1 sq.,—
masters and servants, ch. vi. 4 sq.)
of the duty of subjection previously
specified. A verb can easily and obvi-
-ously be supplied from the preceding
verse, — either ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν (Lachm.),
or more probably, as the imper. in ver.
25 and Col. iii. 18 suggests, ὑποτάσσεσϑε
(Ree.). τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν)
“your own husbands:’ those specially
yours, whom feeling therefore as well as
duty must prompt you to obey; comp.
1 Pet. iii. 1. The pronominal adject.
ἰδίοις is clearly more than a mere possess.
pronoun (De W.), or, what is virtually
the same, than a formal designation of
the husband, ‘der Ehemann’ (Harl.,
Winer), for St. Paul might have equally
well used τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, as in Col. iii. 18.
It seems rather, both here and 1 Pet. iii.
1, to retain its proper force, and imply,
by a latent antithesis, the legitimacy
(comp. John iv. 18), exclusiveness (1 Cor.
vil. 2), and speciality (1 Cor. xiv. 35) of
the connection ; see esp. 1 Esd. iv. 20,
ἐγκαταλείπει τὴν ἰδ. χώραν καὶ πρὸς τὴν
ἰδ. γυναῖκα κολλᾶται. We may also ad-
duce against Harl. his own quotation,
Stobeeus, Floril. p. 22, Θεανῶ --- ἐρωτη-
Seioa, τί πρῶτον εἴη γυναικί, τὸ τῷ ἰδίῳ,
ἔφη, ἀρέσκειν ἀνδρί; clearly ‘her own
husband, — no one except in that proper
and special relationship.’ It may still
be remarked that the use of ἴδιος in later
writers is such as to make us cautious
how far in all cases in the N. T. (see
Matth. xxii. 5, John i. 42) we press the
usual meaning; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 22, 7,
Ῥ. 139, and notes on ch. iv. 28.

ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ] ‘as tothe Lord;’ clearly
not ‘as to the lord and master,’ which
perspicuity would require to be τοῖς κυρί-
ois, but, — to Christ ; ‘ vir Christi imago,’
Grot. ; καλὸν τῇ γυναικὶ Χριστὸν αἰδεῖσϑαι
διὰ τοῦ ἀνδρός, Greg.-Naz. The mean-
ing of ὡς is somewhat doubtful. Viewed
in its simplest grammatical sense as the
pronoun of the relative (Klotz, Devar.
Vol. 11. p. 737), the meaning would seem
to be ‘yield that obedience to your hus-
bands which you yield to Christ ;’ comp.
Beng. As, however, the immediate con-
text and, still more, the general current
of the passage (comp. ver. 32) represent
matriage in its typical aspect, ὡς will
seem far more naturally to refer (as in
ch. vi. 5, 6, comp. Col. iii. 23) to the as-
pect under which the obedience is to be
regarded (‘quasi Christo ipsimet, cujus
locum et personam viri representant,’
Corn. a Lap.) than to describe the nature
of it (Eadie), or the manner (De W.) in
which it is to be tendered ; see notes on
Col. iii. 23. Still less probable is a refer-
ence merely to the similarity between the
duties of the wife to the husband and the
Church to Christ (Kop., comp. Eadie), as
this interpr. would clearly require ὡς 7
ἐκκλ. τῷ Kup.; see Mey. It is thus well
and briefly paraphrased by Chrys., ὅταν
ὑπείκῃς τῷ ἀνδρί, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύουσα
ἡγοῦ πείϑεσϑαι (Sav ): see also Greg.-
Naz. Orat. xxx1. p. 500 (ed Morell.).
23. av hp) ‘a husband.’ The omission
of the article [with all the uncial MSS.,
and nearly all modern editors] does not
affect the meaning of the proposition,
but only modifies the form in which it is

182

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V. 24.

κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ TOD σώματος. ™ ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἡ

expressed ; 6 ἀνὴρ would be ‘the hus-
band,’ ὦ. e. ‘every husband’ (see notes
on Gal. iii. 20) ; ἀνὴρ is ‘a husband,’ z. e.
any one of the class; comp. Winer, Gr.
§ 19.1, p. 111; γυνή, on the contrary,
has properly the article as marking the
definite relation it bears to the ἀνήρ (‘his
wife’), on which the general proposition
is based. ὡς καὶ 6 Xp. x. τ. A]
‘as Christ also is head — of the Church ;’
the ‘being head’ is common to both ἀνὴρ
and Xp.; the bodies, to which they are
so, are different. In sentences thus com-
posed of correlative members, when the
enunciation assumes its most complete
form, καὶ appears in both members, 6. 9.
Rom. i. 13; comp. Kiihner, Xen. Mem.
1. 1. 6. Frequently it appears only in
the demonstrative, or, as here, only in
the relative member ; see Hartung, Par-
tik. ral, 2.2, Vol. i. p.126. In all these
cases, however, the particle καὶ preserves
its proper force. In the former case,
‘per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem,’ a
double and reciprocal comparison is
instituted between the two words to each
of which καὶ is annexed ; see Fritz. Rom.
Vol. 1. p. 88; in the two latter cases a
single comparison only is enunciated
between the word qualified by καὶ and
some other, whether expressed or under-
stood; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635,
and compare Winer, Gr. § 53. 5, p. 390,
who, however, on this construction is
not wholly satisfactory. auTos
σωτήρ) ‘He Himself is the saviour of
the body ;’ declaration, apparently with a
paronomasia (cwtip..... σώματοΞ), of
an important particular in which the
comparison did not hold; the clause not
being appositional (Harl.), but, as the
use of ἀλλὰ in the following verse seems
distinctly to suggest (see notes on ver.
24), independent and emphatic (Mey.) ;
‘He — and, in this full sense, none other
than He—is the σωτὴρ of the body.’

The reading καὶ αὐτός ἐστι | Rec. with
D?D°E?KL; majority of mss; Syr.
(both), Goth., al.; many Ff.] seems
clearly an explanatory gloss, and is
rightly rejected by nearly all recent
editors.

24. ἀλλά] ‘ Nevertheless.’ The ex-
planation of this particle is here by no
means easy. According to the usual
interpr. αὐτὸς κ. τ. A. (ver. 23) forms an
apposition to the preceding words, the
pronoun αὐτὸς (comp. Bernhardy, Synt.
vi. 10, p. 287) being inserted with a
rhetorical emphasis. The proof is then
introduced by ἀλλά, which, according to
De W., preserves its adversative charac-
ter in the fresh aspect under which it
presents the relation; ‘But as the
Church, ete.;’ see Winer, Gr. ὃ 57. 8,
p. 529. This is plausible, but, as Meyer
has ably shown, cannot be fairly recon-
ciled with the clear adversative force of
ἀλλά, ---- ‘aliud jam esse, de quo sumus
dicturi’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2);
δὲ or οὖν would have been appropriate ;
ἀλλὰ is wholly out of place. Riickert
and Harless explain it as resumptive
(Hartung, Partik. ἀλλά, 2. 7, Vol. 11. p.
40), but surely, after a digression of only
four words, this is inconceivable. Eadie
supposes an ellipsis, ‘be not disobedient,
etc.,’? an assumption here still more un-
tenable; as in all such uses of ἀλλά,
and in all those which he has adduced
(some of which, e. g. Rom. vi. 5, 2 Cor.
vii. 11, are not correctly explained) the el-
lipsis is simple, and almost self-evident ;
compare Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 7.
Amid this variety of interpretation, that
of Calv., Beng., Meyer, and recently
Alf. alone seems simple and satisfactory.
Αὐτὸς x. τ. A. is to be considered as
forming an independent clause ; it intro-
duces a particular peculiar only to Christ,
and therefore in the conclusion is fol-
lowed, not by οὖν or δέ, but by the fully

Crap. V. 25, 26. EPHESIANS.

133°
᾽ . ς , A a “ \ e A a
ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται TH Χριστῷ, οὕτως Kal ai γυναῖκες τοῖς
> ὃ / 3 / 95 Οἱ " ὃ > n \ r
ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. i ἄνδρες, ἀγωαπῶτε τὰς γυναῖκας
Φ n \ N a \ 3, , \ > ! Ἀν Ae \
ἑαυτῶν, Kayws Kal ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Kal ἑαυτὸν
/ ig \ > an %—% ὦ » {τ lal
παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, “ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ KaXapicas TO

25. τὰς γυναῖκας ἑαυτῶν] The reflexive pronoun was omitted in ed. 1, with AB ;
5 or 6 mss.; Clem., Origen, al. (Lachmann, Tisch.), but is apparently more rightly
inserted with DEKL (FG add ὑμῶν) ; most mss.; Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Mey.,
Alf., Wordsw.), as the introduction is not easy to account for, and the omission

might have arisen from a conformation to the preceding verse.

adversative ἀλλά : ‘ He is the saviour of
the body (éhat certainly man is not), nev-
ertheless, as the Church is subject unto
Christ, so, etc.’
to explain the σωτηρία in reference to
the other members of the comparison,
the husband and wife (comp. Bulling.,
Beza, Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 115),
are all ferced and untenable. The
reading ὥσπερ for ὡς [Lec. with DE
KL; most mss.; Theod., Dam.] is
rightly rejected by most recent editors.
οὕτως καὶ κ. τ. λ.] ‘so let wives also
be (subject ) to their husbands in everything,
—scil. ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν, supplied from
the preceding member. The Aec. inserts
ἐδίοις before ἀνδράσιν with AD E?K ;
many mss., Vv. and Ff.,— but in opp.
to preponderant authority; BD!EIFG ;
2 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., al., and to
the internal objection that the word was
an interpolation in accordance with ver.
22.

25. οἱ ἄνδρες x. τ. A| ‘ Husbands
love your own wives ;’ statement of the
reciprocal duties of the husband ; ἄκουε

The various attempts

\ na I 5 1s > a Ska afi
καὶ πῶς σε TAAL ἀναγκά(ει ἀγαπαν αὐτὴν,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ δεσποτικῶς προσφέρεσϑαι. ἀγάπα

΄, Set
yap αὐτήν: ποίῳ μέτρῳ; ᾧ

» καὶ ὁ Xp. τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν. προνόει αὐτῆς, ὡς καὶ ὃ Χρ.
ἐκείνης: κἂν δέῃ τι παϑεῖν, κἂν ἀποϑανεῖν
δι αὐτήν, μὴ παραιτήσῃ, Theophyl. On
this and the two following verses, see a
good sermon by Donne, Serm. LXXxv.
Vol. 1v. p. 63 sq. (ed. Alf.).

καϑὼς καὶ κ. τ. A.| ‘even as Christ

also loved the Church and gave Himself

Jor it;’ nearly a repetition of the latter
part of ver. 2, where see the notes on
the different details.

26. ἵνα αὐτὴν ay.| ‘in order that
He might sanctify it ;’ immediate, not (as
De W.) remote purpose of the παραδιδό-
vat, — sanctification of the Church at-
tendant on the remission of sins in bap-
tism ; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 435
(Burt.), Taylor, Bapt. 1x. 17, Water-
land, Hucharist. 1x. 3, Vol. 1v. p. 645.
Both sanctification and purification are
dependent on the atoning death of
Christ, the former as an act contem-
plated by it, the latter as an act included
in it. There is thus no necessity to
modify the plain and natural meaning
of the verb; ayid¢. here neither implies
simple consecration (Eadie) on the one
hand, nor expiation, absolution (Matth.),
on the other, but the communication and
infusion of holiness and moral purity ;
see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 404, comp.
Suicer, Thesaur, 5. v. 11. a, Vol. p. 54.
Kasaptoas] ‘having purified it ;’ tem-
poral participle, here more naturally
denoting an act antecedent to ἁγιάσῃ
(Olsh., Mey.) than one contemporane-
ous with it, as appy. Syr., Vulg., al.,
and, as it would seem, our own Version.
Eadie is far too hasty in imputing ‘error’
to Harl. for maintaining the latter ; it is
clearly tenable on grammatical (see
Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, notes ch.
i. 9), but less probable on dogmatical
grounds ; compare 1 Cor. vi. 11, ἀλλὰ

ἀπελούσασϑε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσϑητε. τῷ

184
λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι,

λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατο 5] ‘by the [well-
known] laver of the water ;’ gen. ‘ma-
terix,’ Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 12, p. 82; comp.
Soph. Gd. Col. 1599. The reference to
baptism is clear and distinct (see Tit. iii.
5, and notes zn Joc.), and the meaning of
λοῦτρον (‘lavacrum,’ Vulg., Clarom.,

Ἰδοῦ Syr., ‘ bvahla.’ Goth.) — indisput-
g¢@a

able: instances have been urged in be-
half of the active sense of λοῦτρον,
adopted by Auth. (and perhaps Copt.,
/Eth.), — but in all that have yet been
adduced (Eeclus. xxxiv. 25 [30], τί ὠφέ-
λησεν τῷ λουτρῷ αὐτοῦ), the peculiar
force of the termination (instrumental
object; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 267,
Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 403) may
be distinctly traced: see exx. in Rost u.
Palm, Lex. 8. v. Vol. 11. Ὁ. 83, and comp.
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 277. It
seems doubtful whether Olsh. is perfectly
correct in positively denying that there is
here any allusion to the bride’s bath be-
fore marriage (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p.
226) ; see ver. 27, which, considered in
reference with the context, and compared
with Rey. xxi. 2, makes such an allusion
far from improbable. ἐν ῥήματι)
“ἴῃ the word,’ ‘in verbo,’ Clarom, Vulg.,
Copt., Goth. There is great difficulty in
determining (1) the exact meaning, (2)
the grammatical connection of these words.
With regard to the former, we may first
remark that ῥῆμα occurs (excluding quo-
tations) five times in St. Paul’s Epp. and
four in Heb., and in all cases, directly
Rom. x. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, xi.
3) or indirectly (Rom. x. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 4,
Heb. i. 3, xii. 19) refers to words proceed-
ing ultimately or immediately from God.
The ancient and plausible reference to
the words used in baptism (Chrysost.,
Waterl. Justif. Vol. v1. p.13) would thus,
independently of the omission of the arti-
cle, scarcely seem probable; see Estius

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V. 27.

οἵ Ὁ ΄ τϑν ε -
τ La παραστήσῃ AUTOS εαυὐτῷ
in loc. The same observation applies

with greater or less force to every interp.
except ‘the Gospel,’ τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίσ-
τεως, Rom. x. 8, the word of God
preached and taught preliminary to bap-
tism (comp. notes ch. i. 13); the omis-
sion of the article being either referred to
the presence of the prep. (Middleton, Gir.
Art. νι. 1), or, more probably, to the
fact that words of similarly definite im-
port (6. g. νόμος, χάρις, κ- τ. A-) are fre-
quently found anarthrous; see Winer,
(: 1.19, ῬΡ 119. (2) Three con-
structions obviously present themselves ;
(a) with ἀγιάσῃ ; (0) with λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδα-
tos; (c) with καϑαρίσας, or rather with
the whole expression, ka&. Aoutp. τ. U5. Of
these (a), though adopted by Jerome, and
recently maintained by Riick., Winer,
(Gr. § 20. 2, p. 125) and Meyer, is seri-
ously opposed to the order of the words,
and (if ἐν be considered simply instru-
mental) introduces an idea (ay. ἐν ῥήμ.)
which is scarcely doctrinally tenable ; the
second (0) is plainly inconsistent with the
absence of the article, this being a case
which is not referable to any of the three
cases noticed on ch. i. 17, — appy. the
only ones in which, in constructions like
the present, the omission can be justified ;
— the third (c) though not without diffi-
culties, is on the whole fairly satisfactory.
According to this view, ἐν ῥήματι has
neither a purely instrumental, nor, cer-
tainly, a simple modal force (‘ verheiss-
ungsweise,’ Harl.), but specifies the nec-
essary accompaniment, that in which the
baptismal purification 15
(comp. John xv. 3), and without which
it is not granted ; comp. Heb. ix. 22, ἐν

vouchsafed

αἵματι πάντα Kadapicerat κ. τ- A., Where
the force of the prep. is somewhat similar.

27. ἵνα παραστήσῃ] ‘in order that
He might present ;’ further and more ul-
timate purpose of ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ
αὐτῆς (ver. 25), the full accomplishment

Cuap. V. 98.

EPHESIANS.

135°

» \ ’ / AY ” I x e A ” a
ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥντίδα % τι τῶν

/ τ ’ “ > e ἕ \ ”
τοιούτων, ἀλλ Wa ἢ AYIA καὶ ἄμωμος"

of which must certainly be referred to 6
αἰὼν μέλλων (August., Est.), not to 6
αἰὼν οὗτος (Chrysost., Beng., Harl.), see
Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 406 (ed. Burt.).
Schoettg. appositely cites the Rabbinical
interpr. of Cant. i. 5, 71821 738 TAIN,
in which the swarthiness is referred to
the Synagogue, m75 thiya [in hoc sec-
ulo], the comeliness to it, San ΞΕ ΞΊΣΞ [in
seculo futuro]; see Petersen, von der
Kirche, 111. 390. The verb παραστήσῃ
is here used as in 2 Cor. xi. 2, of the
presentation of the bride to the bride-
groom, — not of an offering (Harl. ;
Rom. xii. 1), which would here be a
reference wholly inappropriate.

αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ] ‘Himself to Himself;’
not ‘for Himself,’ ἡ. 6. for His joy and
glory (Olsh.), but, with local reference,
‘to Himself.’ Christ permits neither
attendants nor paranymphs to present
the Bride: He alone presents, He re-
ceives. The reading παραστ. αὐτὴν
ἑαυτῷ [Rec. with D®EK; most mss. ;
Chrys., Theod.] is rightly rejected on
preponderant evidence [ABDIFGL; 15
mss.; Clarom., Goth., Vulg., al. ; Greek
and Lat. Ff.] by most modern editors.
ἔνδοξον ‘the
Church glorious ;’ the tertiary predicate
ἔνδοξον (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 489) being
placed emphatically forward, and receiy-
ing its further explanation from the par-
ticipial clause which follows : so, with a
correct observance of the order, Syr.,
Copt., Ath., probably Clarom., Vulg.,
and all the best modern commentators.

τὴν ἐκκλησία»)

,

μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλ ον] ‘not having a
spot.’ The word σπίλος (μιασμός, ῥύπος.
Suid.) is a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T. (2 Pet.
ii. 13), and belongs to later Greek, the
earlier expression being κηλίς ; see Lo-
beck, Phryn. p. 28. Lachmann, Bruder
( Concord.), Meyer, and others, still retain
the accentuation σπῖλος. As the iota is

28 A \ € »
οὕτως καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες

short (comp ἄσπϊλος, Antiph. ap. Anthol.
Vol. vi. 252) the accentuation in the
text seems most correct; comp. Arcad.
Accent. vi. p. 52 (ed. Barker).

ῥυτίδα] ‘a wrinkle ;’ putis: 7 συνελκυσ-
μένη σάρξ, Etym. M.; derived from PYQ,
ἐρύω, see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p.
317. Ruga and ‘wrinkle’ are probably
cognate forms ; see ib, p. 314, and comp.
Diffenbach, Ler. Vol. 1. p. 236.

ἀλλ᾽ ἵν αἹ ‘but in order that it might be ;’
change of construction, as if ἵνα μὴ ἔχῃ
had preceded: similar exx. of ‘oratio
variata’ are cited by Winer, Gr. ὃ 63.
11.1, p. 509. On the true meaning of
ἁγία, as applied to the Church, see Pear-
son, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 403 (Bur-
ton), Jackson, Creed, x11. 4. 8, and on
ἄμωμος, see notes ch.i. 4. The context
might here seem to favor the translation,
‘omni macula carens’ (comp. Cant. iv.7),
but it seems more correct to say that the
first part of the verse presents the con-
ception of purity, ete., in metaphorical lan-
guage, the second in words of simply
ethical meaning.

28. of rws] ‘Thus,’ ‘in like manner ;
“ita, scilicet uti Christus dilexit ecclesiam
quemadmodum jam dixi,’ Corn. a Lap.
Even if the reading of the Rec. be re-
tained (οὕτως Op. οἱ ἄνδρ. ay. κ. τ. A. 5
see below), the reference must still clearly
be to kadds καὶ ὃ Xp. k. τ. A. Ver. 25—27,
not as Est. (comp. De W.) suggests, to
the following és; this latter construction
being contrary, not necessarily ‘to gram-
matical law’ (Eadie ; for comp. John vii.
46, 1 Cor. iv. 1), but to the natural use of
οὕτως, of which ‘non alia est vis quam
qu nature ejus consentanea est, ut co
confirmentur preecedentia, Herm. Viger,
Append. x. p. 747. In passages like 1
Cor. /. c. there is an obvious emphasis,
which would here be out of place. The
reading is doubtful, as in addition to the

190

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. V. 29.

a A tal \ ε lal id
ὀφείλουσιν ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα.

fal na lal \ an
ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ:

evidence in favor of Rec, [KL; nearly
all mss.; perhaps Syr., Arm.; Chrys.,
Theod., al.] that of B (ὀφείλ. καὶ οἱ
ἄνδρεΞ) may now be urged for the inver-
sion; still the authority in favor of the
text [ADEFG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Vulg.,
Goth., Copt.; Clem., Lat. Ff.] seems
fairly to preponderate, and owing to the
testimony of B being of a divided na-
ture, may perhaps be most safely fol-
lowed.
“as (being) their own bodies ;’
ihre eigenen Leiber,’ Meier (comp. Alf.),
but ‘als ihre eigenen Leiber,’ Luth.,
Mey. The context clearly implies that
Christ loved the Church not merely just
as (comparatively) He loved His own
body (scil. ὡς ἑαυτόν, Schoettg.), but as
being His own body, the body of which
He is the Head. In the hortatory appli-
cation, therefore, ὡς must have a simi-
larly semi-argumentative force; other-
wise, as Harl. remarks, we should have
two comparisons, the one with οὕτως,
the other with ὡς, which certainly mar
the perspicuity of the passage. In the

ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα]
not ‘wie

present view, on the contrary, the dis-
tinction is logically preserved; οὕτως
alone introduces the comparison; ὡς
with its regular and proper force marks
the aspects (see notes on ver. 22) in
which the wives were to be regarded
(‘as being, in the light of, their own
bodies’), and thus tacitly supplies to the
exhortation an argument arising from
the thus acknowledged nature of the
ease. For a defence of the simply com-
parative use of ὡς, see Alf. zn loc.

ὁ ἀγαπῶν κ. τ. λ.} ‘He that loveth his
own wife, loveth himself ;’ explanation of
the preceding ὧς τὰ ἑαυτῶν cou. The
Apostle’s argument rests on the axiom
that a man’s wife is a part of his very
self. Husbands are to love them as
being their own bodies ; thus their love

* οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε

to them is in fact self-love; it is not κατ᾽
ὀφειλήν, but κατὰ φύσιν.

29. οὐδεὶς γάρ κ. τ. λ.}] ‘For no
one ever hated ;’ confirmation and proof
of the position just laid down, 6 ἀγαπῶν
κι τ. A.3; first, it is ultimately based on
a general law of nature, οὐδείς ποτε
k. τ. A. (finsitam nobis esse corporis
nostri caritatem,’ Senec. Hpist. 14, cited
by Grot.); secondly, it is suggested by
the example of Christ, καϑὼς καὶ 6 Xp.
κι tT. A. The whole argument then
seems to run, ‘Men ought to love their
wives as Christ loves His Church, as
being in fact (I might add) their own
(ἑαυτῶν) bodies; yes, 1 say the man
who loves his wife loves himself (éav-
τόν) ; for if he hated her he would hate
(according to the axiom ; see above) his
own flesh, whereas, on the contrary,
unless he acts against nature, he nour-
ishes it, even as (to urge the comparison
again) Christ nourishes His Church.’
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα] ‘His own flesh.’
This word appears undoubtedly to have
been chosen in preference to σῶμα, on
account of the allusion to Gen. ii. 23,
which is still further sustained by the
longer reading of ver. 30 and the quota-
tion in ver. 31. ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει)
“but nourisheth,’ ‘ministers to its outward
growth and development.’ The prep.
does not appear intensive (‘ valde nutrit,’
Beng.), but marks the evolution and
development produced by the τρέφειν ;
comp. Xenoph. Gvcon. xvi1. 10, ἐκτρέ-
gel ἡ γῆ τὸ σπέρμα εἰς καρπόν. καὶ
ϑάλπει] ‘and cherisheth ;’ ‘fovet’ Cla-
rom., Vulg.,— more derivatively, Syr.,

mo
Seno [et curam habet] sim. /®th.-

Platt, ‘solicite conservat,’ Meyer main-
tains the literal meaning, ‘warmeth’
(comp. Goth. ‘varmeip’), citing Beng,
‘id spectat amictum, ut nutri vietum.’

οὖ

Cuap. V. 80. EPHESIANS. 19%

\ e a /
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει Kal Sartre αὐτήν,

\ \ ye \ 30 © re
Kay@s καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν: ” OTL μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ

30. ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ] Tisch. (ed. 2) and Lachm. omit
these words, with AB ; 17. 67**; Copt., &th. (both) ; Method. (1) Ambrst. (Jil,
Prolegom. p. 69). The external authorities for their insertion are DEFGKL;
nearly all mss., and Vv.; Iren., Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al.; Hieron., al. (Rec.,
Scholz, Harl., Mey., De W. (2) Alf., Words., — to which now may be added Tisch.,
ed. 7). The preponderance of external authority is thus very decided ; paradiplo-
matic considerations (See Pref. to Galut. p. xvi.) also suggest the probability of an
accidental omission, from the transcriber’s eye having fallen on the third αὐτοῦ
instead of the first; and lastly, internal considerations seem to suggest that the
words, if an insertion from the LXX, would have been cited more exactly, while
the omission might so easily have arisen from the appy. material conception pre-

sented by the clause.

This seems, however, here an interpr.
far too definite and realistic; ϑάλπειν
certainly primarily and properly implies
‘to warm,’ but still may, as its very ety-
mological affinities (ϑηλή Odw) suggest,
bear the secondary meaning, ‘to cher-
ish,’ the fostering warmth of the breast
(compare Theocer. /dyl/. x1v. 38) being
the connecting idea; see 1 Thess. ii. 7,
ὡς ἂν τροφὺς ϑάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα.
καϑὼς καὶ κ. τ. λ.] ‘Even as Christ
the Church, scil. ἐκτρέφει καὶ ϑάλπει,
with general reference to the tender love
of Christ towards His Church. Any
special applications (‘nutrit eam verbo
et Spiritu, vestit virtutibus,’ Grot.) seem
doubtful and precarious. The reading
of Rec. (6 Κύριος τὴν ἐκκλ.) rests only
on D®KL; majority of mss.; Dam.,
CEcum., and is rightly rejected by nearly
all modern editors.

30. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμέν] ‘because we
are members ;’ reason why Christ thus
nourishes and cherishes His Church.
The position of μέλη seems emphatic ;
“members, —not accidental, but integral
parts of His body (Meyer), united to
Him not only as members of His mysti-
cal body, the Church, but by the more
mysterious marital relation in which
Christ in His natural and now glorified
body stands to His Church. On the

On these grounds we retain the longer reading.

important dogmatical application of this
passage to the Holy Communion, see
Waterland, Hucharist, ch. vi1. Vol. 1v.
p. 600, 608, and compare J. Johnson,
Works, Vol. 11. p. 129 sq. (A. C. Libr.).
ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸὺς κ. τ. A.| ‘being of His
Jlesh and of His bones ;’ more exact speci-
fication of the foregoing words, ἐκ with
its primary and proper force pointing to
the origin, to which we owe our spiritual
being ; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 16. The
true and proper meaning of these pro-
found words has been much obscured by
a neglect of their strict reference to the
context, and by the substitution of de-
ductions and applications for the simple
and grammatical interpretation. We
must thus set aside all primary reference
to the sacraments (Theod.), to the Holy
Communion (Olsh.), to Baptism (comp.
Chrys.), and certainly to the Crucifixion
(‘per corporis ejus et sanguinis pretium
redempti,’ Vatabl. ap. Poli Syn.). A
reference to the ἐνσάρκωσις (Irene, Her.
v. 2) is plausible, but untenable; for
Christ, thus considered, is of our flesh,
not we of His, John i. 14; and even if
this be explained away (‘quia in hac
natura ipse caput est,’ Est., comp. Stier)
the reference would haye to be extended
to all mankind, not, as the context re-
quires, limited to the members of Christ's

18

198

EPHESIANS.

CHAP: V.isie

΄ fal a x a \ 9 ~ 5 fal
σώματος αὐτοῦ, EK τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ.

31 2 \ ΄ / ” “ \ , \
ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει AVS pwIros πατέρα καὶ μητέρα Kal προσ-

Church. The most simple and natural
view (comp. Chrys., Beng., Mey.) then
seems to be this, that the words are cited
(in substance) from Gen. ii. 23, to con-
yey this profound truth, — that our real
(spiritual) being and existence is as
truly, as certainly, and as actually (not
ὥσπερ, Theod.-Mops., but γνησίως ἐξ
αὐτοῦ, Chrysost.) ‘a true native extract
from His own body’ (Hooker), as was
the physical derivation of Eve from
Adam ; see esp. the forcible language of
Hooker, Heel. Pol. vy. 56. 7, and comp.
Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 111. § 2, 8,
and the good note of Wordsw. in loc.
This is the general truth, which of course
admits a forcible secondary application to
the sacraments (comp. Kahnis, Abendm.
p- 143 sq.); we may truly say, with
Waterland, that ‘the true and firm basis
for the economy of man’s salvation is
this, that in the sacraments we are made
and continued members of Christ’s body,
of His flesh and of His bones.’ Our
union with the Deity rests entirely in
our mystical union with our Lord’s
humanity, which is personally united
with His divine nature, which is essen-
tially united with God the Father, the
head and fountain of all,’ Charge, a. Ὁ.
1739, Vol. v. p. 212. These are weighty
words.

31. ἀντὶ τούτου] ‘ For this cause ;’
The mean-
ing is practically the same; ἀντὶ passes
by a natural transition from its primary
idea of local opposition (Xenoph. Anab.

7. 6) through that of counterchange

ἕνεκεν τοῦτου, Gen. ii. 24.

IVs, 7;
(see Winer, Gr. ὁ 47. a, p. 826) to that
of mere ethical relation. It can scarcely
be doubted that this verse is nothing
more than a free citation from Genes. ii.
24, ἀντὶ taking the place of ἕνεκεν, and
referring to the same fact, -— the deriva-
tion of woman from man, which is

clearly presupposed in the allusions of
ver. 30. Meyer refers ἀντὶ τούτου with
punctilious accuracy to the words imme-
diately preceding, and gives the passage
a directly mystical interpretation in ref-
erence to the final and future union of
Christ with His Church. Somewhat
differently, and more probably, Chrys.,
Theodoret, Theophyl., Jerome, refer to
Christ’s coming in the flesh; compare
Taylor, Serm. xv11.1, ‘Christ descended
from His Father’s bosom, and contracted
His divinity with flesh and blood, and
married our nature, and we became a
church ;’ see Beng. in loc. To denounce
summarily such an interpr. as ‘wild and
visionary ’ (Eadie), seems alike rash and
inconsiderate. That St. Paul adduces
the verse as containing a definite allegori-
cal meaning, may perhaps be consid-
ered doubtful; but that St. Paul intended
his readers to make some such applica-
tion, seems to have been the general
opinion of the early commentators, is by
no means incompatible with the context,
and cannot be confidently denied; see
Alford in loc. Thus, then, in a certain
sense, we may with Hofmann ( Weiss. w.
Εν, Vol. 1. p. 71), recognize in this
the first prophecy in Seripture ; ‘ primus
vates Adam,’ Jerome. κατα-
λείψει x. τ. A.] ‘shall leave father and
mother.’ Meyer presses the tense some-
what unnecessarily, as referring to some-
thing yet to come. Even if in the orig-
inal passage it designate something
positively future, there is no reason why,
in this application and free citation, it
may not state, not only what will, but
whatever shall and ought to happen; on
this ethical force of the future, see
Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 250, Thiersch., de
Pent. 111. 11, p. 158 sq. The longer
reading of Rec. τὸν mar. αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν

unt. is fairly supported [AD?EKL;

ΟΒΆΡΕΥ. 32.

EPHESIANS.

139

AX NY / \ \ a by a \ ” ς ΄, ?
KO NINGETAL Tr pos ΤΡ γυναίκα AUVTOV, καὶ EDOVTAL OL δύο εἰς

7 / 32 XN if la) / > fe ’ N \ , >
σάρκα μίαν. τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς

most mss.; Syr., Copt., al.; Orig., al.],
but is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch.
Meyer, al., as a conformation to the
LXX.; see especially the critical com-
ment of Origen, cited by Tisch. in loc.
προσκολλ. πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα)
‘shall be closely joined unto his wife ;’
comp. Matt. xix. 5, προσκολληϑήσεται
τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, where the dat. is used,
but with little difference of meaning.
On the close affinity between the dat.
and the accus. with eis and πρός, and
their interchange in many passages, see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 31.5, p. 190. The read-
ing, however, is somewhat doubtful ;
Lachm. maintains the dat. with ADE!
FG; 3 mss.; Meth., Epiph. (compare 1
Cor. vi. 16); but owing to the fair evi-
dence for the text [BD®°EKL; nearly all
mss.; Orig., Chrys., Theod.], and the
distinct’ notice by Origen (see Tisch. in
loc.), with less probability than the accus.
with πρός (Tisch., Mey., al.).

32. τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο] ‘This
mystery is great, sc. deep ;’ explanatory
comment on the preceding verse. But
what mystery ? The answer is not easy,
as four antecedents are possible ; — (a)
the text immediately preceding ; τὸ εἰρη-
μένον, τὸ γεγραμμένον, Stier, Meyer,
compare Chrys., Theodorus ;— (Ὁ) the
whole preceding subject, the strict paral-
lelism between the conjugal relation and
that between Christ and his Church ; —
(c) the spiritual purport, ‘non matrimo-
nium humanum sed ipsa conjunctio
Christi et ecclesix,’ Beng.;— (d) the
simple purport and immediate subject
of the text, ‘arctissima illa conjunctio
viri et mulieris,’ Est. Of these, (a),
though not otherwise untenable, involves
a meaning of μυστήριον, which cannot
be substantiated by St. Paul’s use of the
word; vor. being only used by the
Apostle to imply either something not

cognizable by (ch. i. 9, iii. 4, and appy.
vi. 19), or not fully comprehensible by
unassisted human reason (1 Cor. xiv. 2,
1 Tim. iii. 9, 16), but not, as here (com-
pare Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 783), ‘a
passage containing an allegorical im-
port:’ see Tholuck, Rom. xi. 25, and
compare Lobeck, Aglaoph. Vol. 1. p. 85,
89. Of the rest, (b) and (c) are less
plausible, as in both cases — more espe-
cially in the latter — the remark ἐγὼ δὲ
λέγω κ. τ. A. would seem superfluous,
and the force of the pronoun obscure.
On the whole, then, (4) seems best to
harmonize with the context. ‘Thus,
then, ver. 29 states the exact similarity
(xadws) of the relationship; ver. 30 the
ground of the relation in regard of
Christ and the Church; ver. 31 the
nature of the conjugal relation, with a
probable application also to Christ; ver.
32 the mystery of that conjugal relation
in itself, and still more so in its typical
application to Christ and to His Church.
It is needless to observe that the words
cannot possibly be urged in favor of the
sacramental nature of marriage (Concil.
Trid. xx1y. init.), but it may fairly be
said that the very fact of the comparison
(see Olsh.) does place marriage on a far
holier and higher basis than modern theo-
ries are disposed to admit; see Harl. in
loc., and for two good sermons on this
text, Bp. Taylor, Serm. xvit. XVIII.
Vol. 1. p. 705 sq. (Lond. 1836).

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω] ‘but 7 am speaking ;’
antithetical comment on the foregoing ;
ἐγὼ having no special reference to his
own celibacy (comp. Stier), but, as De
W. admits, marking, and with emphasis,
the subjective character of the applica-
tion and comparison (Winer, Gr. § 22.
6, p. 138, ed. 6), while the slightly op-
positive δὲ contrasts it with any other
interpretation that might have been

140

/
Χριστὸν Kai εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.

EPHESIANS.

CHAP. Υ. 38. Ὑ1.1.

\ a
8 πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ Kad

Ὁ ¢ \ a a ἢ 5 Δ
ἕνα ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν,

ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα.

Children, obey and honor
your parents according to

VI. Ta τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν

God’s commandment: fathers provoke not your children, but educate them holily.

adduced (Mey.): ‘the mystery of this
closeness of the conjugal relation is
great, but I am myself speaking of it in
its still deeper application, in reference
to Christ and the Church;’ μέγα ὄντως
μυστήριον, τέως μέντοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐκλαμ-
βάνεται, map ἐμοῦ τουτό, φησιν, ὡς
προφητικῶς περὶ αὐτοῦ λεχϑέν, Theoph.
On the general use of λέγω δέ, formula
“explanandi atque pressius eloquendi ea
que antea obscurius erant dicta,’ see
Raphel on 1 Cor. i. 12, and notes on Gal.
iv. 1. eis Χριστόν] ‘in reference
to;’ not ‘of,’ Conyb. (comp. Syr.), still
less ‘in Christo,’ Vulg., but ‘in Chris-
tum,’ Beza (comp. /&th., Syr.-Phil.), the
preposition correctly marking the ethical
direction of the speaker’s words ; comp.
Acts ii. 25, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. a,
p. 354, and notes on 2 Thess. i. 11.

The prep, is omitted by BK; 10 mss. ;
Tren., Epiph., Mare., and is bracketed by
Lachm., but without sufficient reason, as
the external authorities against it are
weak, and the probability of an omission,
from not being understood, by no means
slight.

33. πλήν] ‘ Nevertheless,’ 7. e. not to
press the mystical bearings of the subject
any further; the particle not being re-
sumptive (Beng., Olsh.), but, in accord-
ance with its primary meaning, compara-
live, and thence contrasting and slightly
adversative; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol.
11. p. 725, Donalds. Gr. § 548. 33, and
notes on Phil. i. 18, where the derivation
and foree of πλὴν are briefly discussed.
kal ὑμεῖς of nad ἕνα] ‘ Ye also
severally ;’ ye also—as well as Christ
towards His Church. The plural thus
specified by the distributive of καϑ’ ἕνα,
‘vos singuli’ (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 27, 31,

and see Winer, Gr. § 49 a, p. 357),
passes easily and naturally into the sin-
gular in the concluding member of the
sentence. On the striking equivalence
of κατὰ with ἀνὰ in nearly all its mean-.
ings (here evinced in the distributive
use), see esp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 183 sq.
ὡς ἑαυτόν] ‘as himself,’ scil. ‘as be-
ing one with himself,’ see notes on ver.
28. 7 δὲ γυνή κ. τ. λ.] ‘and the
wife (I bid), that she fear her husband :"
emphatic specification (with slight con-
trast) of the duties of the wife: ἡ γυνὴ
being a simple and emphatic nominative
absolute (Mey.; contra Eadie, — but
erroneously), though not of a kind so
definitely unsyntactic as Acts vii. 40 and
exx. cited by Winer (Gr. § 28. 3, p. 207,
ed. 5; see p. 507 ed. 6), and most proba-
bly dependent, not on an imper., but on
some verb of command which can easily
be supplied from the context; see Mey.
on 2 Cor. viii. 7, Fritz. Diss. in 2 Cor. p.
126, Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 365 (ed. 5).
Alford (Cor. 1. c.) suggests βλέπετε, cit-
ing 1 Cor. xvi. 10, but this is not fully
in point, as the subject of the imperative
and the subjunctive is not the same:
more pertinent is Soph. Gd. Col. 156,
where, as Ellendt correctly observes,.
“φύλαξαι adsignificatum habet loquentis
consilium; hee tibi dico ne,’ ete., Lex.
Soph. Vol. 1. p. 840.

Cuapter VI.1. ὑπακούετε k.7.A.|
“obey your parents in the Lord ;’ ἐν Κυρίῳ
(Christ, —not God, as Chrys., Theod. ;
compare ch. iv. 7, v. 21) as usual, de-
noting the sphere to which the action is
to be limited (not for κατὰ Kup., Chrys.),
and obviously belonging, not to τοῖς -yo-
νεῦσιν, nor to τοῖς γον, and to ὑπακ.

ΘΕΑΡΥΝ 9. 3:

2 yj a , 5) } 2
εν Κυρίῳ: TOUTO yap ἐστιν δίκαιον. ῥ

EPHESIANS.

141

/ \
τίμα TOV πατέρα cov

Ν A , [2 >’ \ ’ \ 7, 5, > i} 3 vA >
καὶ τὴν μητέρα, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη EV ἐπαγγελίᾳ, Wa εὖ

(comp. Origen ap. Cramer, Caten.), but
simply to the latter, — serving thus ta
define and characterize the nature, and
possibly limits, of the obedience ; ἐν ois
ἂν μὴ προσκρούσῃς [Κυρίῳ], Chrys. On
the more exact nature of these limits
(here, however, not perhaps very defi-
nitely hinted at; comp. Alf.), see Tay-
lor, Duct. Dub. 111. 5, Rule 1 and 4 sq.
The reading is somewhat doubtful, as ἐν
Κυρίῳ is omitted by Lachm. on fair au-
thority [BD1FG; Clarom., Sang., Aug.,
Boern.; Clem., al.]. The external au-
thorities, however, for its insertion [AD#?
EKL; nearly all mss. and Vy.; Chrys.
(expressly), Theod.] seem clearly to pre-
dominate, and the internal arguments
are in its favor, as if it had come from
Col. iii. 20 it would have been inserted
after δίκαιον ; see Meyer, p. 238.
τοῦτο yap ἐστιν Bik.| ‘for this is
right ;? not merely πρέπον, nor merely
κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμον (Theod.), but
‘in accordance with nature’ (τέκνα γο-
νεῦσιν) and, as the next verse shows, the
law of God: kai φύσει δίκαιον, καὶ ὑπὸ
νόμου προστάσσεται, Theophyl. ;
comp. Coloss. iii. 20. On the position
of children in the early church, and the
relation such texts bear to infant-baptism,
see Stier, Reden Jes. Vol. v1. p. 924 sq.
2. τίμα κ. τ. λ.}] ‘Honor thy father
and thy mother;’ specification of the
commandment as an additional confir-
mation of the foregoing precept, and as
supplying the reason on which it was
based. Had δίκαιον referred only to this
command, some causal particle would
more naturally have been appended. As
it stands, however, the solemn recitation
of the commandm. blends the voice of
God with that of nature. Artes]
‘the which;’ the pronoun not haying
here a strongly causa/, but rather an ex-
planatory force ; see notes on Gal. ii: 4,

TOU

Vv. 24, πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ]
‘the first in regard of promise,’ scil., ‘as a
command of promise ;” compare Syriac

δ δον pore [primum quod

promittit] : not exactly ‘with promise’
Beza, Alf., al., as the prep. here seems
naturally used not so much to state the
accompaniment as to specify the exact
point in which the predication of πρώτη
was to be understood ; so rightly Chrys.
(οὐ τῇ τάξει [‘in regard of order,’ notes
on Gal. i. 22] εἶπεν αὐτὴν πρώτην, ἀλλὰ
τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ), and expressly Winer, Gr.
§ 48. a. obs. p. 349. Meyer cites Diod.
Sic. x11t. 37, ἐν δὲ εὐγενείᾳ καὶ πλούτῳ
πρῶτος. Some little difficulty has been
found in the use of πρώτη, owing to the
2nd commandm. seeming to involve a
kind of promise; see Orig. ap. Cram.
Cat. If this be considered as not a defi-
nite ἐπαγγελία (Calv.), still πρώτη would
seem unusual, as the fifth commandm.
would then be the only one which has a
promise: nor would the assumption that
it is ‘first’ on the second table (not such
a recent division as Meyer after Erasm.
seems to think, see Philo, de Special.
Legg. Vol. 11. p. 300, ed. Mang.) relieve
the difficulty, as the same objection
would still remain. We may perhaps
best explain the statement of priority by
referring it, not to all other foregoing
commands (Harl.), but to all the other
Mosaic commands (Mey.), of which the
decalogue forms naturally the chief and
prominent portion; simply, then, ‘the
first command we meet with which in-
volves a promise.’ It may be ob-
served that the article is not needed
with πρῶτος ; ordinals being from their
nature sufficiently definite ; comp. Acts
xvi. 12, and see Middleton, Greek Art.
νι. 3, p. 100.

8. ἵνα εὖ σοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘in order that

142

EPHESIANS.

Cuapr. VI. 3, 4.

\ A aA \ e La
σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. * Καὶ οἱ πατέρες͵

it may be well with thee ;’ a slightly varied
citation from the LXX, Exod. xx. 12,
Deuteron. v. 16, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ
ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς [Tis
ἀγαδϑῆς, Exod. /. ς.] ἧς Κύριος ὃ Θεός σου
The omission of the latter
words can scarcely have arisen from the
Apostle’s belief that his hearers and
readers (Gentiles) were so familiar with
the rest of the quotation, that it would
be unnecessary to cite it (see Mey.) ; for
thus τῆς γῆς must be translated ‘the
land’ (of Canaan, — simply and _histor-
ically, Meyer) and the promise denuded
of all its significance to Christian chil-
dren. It is far more probable (see
Eadie) that the omission was intended
to generalize the command, and that,
not merely ‘toti genti’ (Beng.), nor in
typical ref. to heaven (Hamm., Olsh.,
see Barrow, Decal. Vol. v1. 524), but
simply and plainly, to individuals, sub-
ject, of course, to the conditions which
always belong to such temporal prom-
ises ; see Leighton, Expos. of Command,
p- 487 (Edinb. 1845). kal €on
μακρ.] ‘and (that) thou be long-lived,’ “ et
sis longevus,’ Vulgate. The future is
commonly explained as a lapse into the
‘oratio directa’ (see Winer, Gir. § 41. "Ὁ.
1, p. 258), but is more probably to be
regarded as dependent on ἵνα (so Vulg.,
/Eth., Arm., all of which use the sub-
junct.),— a construction which though
not found in Attic Greek (see Klotz,
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 630) certainly does
occur in the N. T. (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18,
Rey. xxii. 14, and see Winer, /. c.), har-
monizes perfectly with the classical use
of ὅπως (see the numerous exx. cited by
Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 209, sq.), and is
here eminently simple and natural; com-
pare Meyer in loc. Whether, however,
we can here recognize a ‘logical climax”
(Mey.), is doubtful; the future undoubt-
edly does often express the more lasting

δίδωσί σοι.

and certain result (compare Rev. /. c.,
where the single act is expressed by the
aor. subj., the lasting act by the future) ;
still, as the present formula occurs in
substance in Deut. xxii. 7 (Alex.), and
might have thence become a known
form of expression, it seems better not
to press the future further than as repre-
senting the temporal evolution of the εὖ
γένεσϑαι.

4. καὶ οἱ πατέρες] ‘And ye
fathers ;’ corresponding address to the
parents in the persons of those who bore
the domestic rule, the πατέρες ; compare
Meyer iz loc. Bengel remarks on the
presence of the καὶ here and ver. 9, and
its absence, ch. v. 25; ‘facilins parentes
et heri abutuntur potestate sud quam
mariti.’ This distinction is perhaps
over-pressed ; καὶ here and ver. 9 intro-
duces a marked and quick appeal (see
Hartung, Partikel. καί, 5.7, Vol. 1. 149),
and also marks that the obligation was
not all on one side, but that the superior
also had duties which he owed to the
inferior. The duty is then expressed
negatively and positively. μὴ
παροργίζετ εἾἹ ‘provoke not to wrath ;’
see Col. iii. 21, μὴ epeSi€ere τὰ τέκνα
(Rec., Tisch.) ; negative side of exhorta-
tion (οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀγαπᾶτε αὐτά. τοῦτο γὰρ
καὶ ἀκόντων ἣ φύσις ἐπισπᾶται, Chrys.),
not with reference to any stronger acts
such as by disinheriting, ete. (Chrys.),
but, as Alf. rightly suggests, by all the
vexatious circumstances which may
occur in ordinary intercourse ; ϑεραπεύ-
ew καὶ μὴ λυπεῖν ἐκέλευσε, Theod.
ἐκτρέφετ ε] ‘bring up, educate;
ethical sense, καλῶς ἐκτρέφει πατὴρ δί-
katos, Proy. xxiii. 24; so, frequently in

? in an

‘Plato; compare Polyb. Hist. 1. 65. 7,

ἐν παιδειαῖς καὶ νόμοις ἐκτεϑραμμένων
(Winer). In ch. ν. 29, the reference is
simply physical, but the force of the
compound is the same in both passages ;

Cuap. VI. 5.

EPHESIANS.

145

ἡ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνω ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐ δεί
μὴ παροργ τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἃ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ

καὶ νουδεσίᾳ Κυρίου.

Servants obey and faith-
fully do your duty to your

ὅ Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ

masters as unto Christ, and ye shall receive your reward; masters do the like in return.

see notes in loc.
καὶ νουϑεσίᾳ] ‘in the discipline and
admonition ;? ‘in disciplinad et conrep-
tione,” Vulg.; not instrumental, but as
usual ‘in the sphere and influence of ;’
see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346 note.
These two words are not related to one
another as the general (παιδ.) to the
special (Harl., Mey.), but specify the two
methods in the Christian education of
children, training by act and discipline,
and training by word; so Trench, Syn-
onymns, ὃ XXx11., and before him, Grot.,
‘maid. hic. significare videtur institutio-
nem per penas ; vous. autem est ea insti-
tutio que fit verbis. This Christian
meaning of παιδεύω and παιδεία, ‘per
molestias eruditio’ (August.), seems
occasionally faintly hinted at in earlier
writers ; comp. Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 5, and
Polyb. Hist. 11. 9. 6, where the adverb
ἀβλαβῶς marks that the παιδεύειν was a
word that needed limitation. On the
later form vovSecia instead of νουϑέτη-
σις, see Moeris, Lex. p. 248 (ed. Koch),
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 512, 520.

Κυρίου] ‘Of the Lord;’ subjecti,—
belonging to the general category of the
possessive genitive, and specifying the
Lord (Christ), as Him by whom the
νουϑεσία and παιδεία were, so to say, pre-
scribed, and by whose Spirit they must
be regulated; so Harl., Olsh., Meyer.
The gen. objecti ‘about the Lord’ (‘mo-
nitis ex verbo Dei petitis,’ Beza), though
apparently adopted by all the Greek
commentators (compare Theodoret, τὰ
Seta παιδεύειν), seems far less satisfac-
tory. Meyer reads τοῦ Κυρίου but as it
would seem, by accident; there is no
trace of such a reading in any of the
critical editions.

ἐν παιδείᾳ

5. τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα)

‘to your masters according to the flesh ;᾿
κατὰ σάρκα here, as in Col. iii. 22 (where
it precedes κυρ.), serving to define and
qualify κυρίοις, ‘your bodily, earthly
masters; see notes on ch. i. 19, ii. 11.
Both here and Col. /. c. (where the men-
tion of 6 Κύριος immediately follows)
the adverbial epithet would seem to have
been suggested by the remembrance of
the different relation they stood in to
another Master, τῷ κατὰ πνεῦμα καὶ κατὰ
σάρκα Kup. Whether anything consola-
tory, (κατὰ σάρκα ἐστὶν 7 δεσποτεία, πρόσ-
καιρος καὶ βραχεῖα, Chrys.) or alleviating
(‘manere nihilominus illis intactam li-
bertatem,’ Calv.) is further couched in
the addition, is perhaps doubtful (see
Harl.), still both, especially the latter,
are obviously deductions which must
have been, and which the Apostle might
possibly have intended to be made. On
the stricter but here neglected distine-
tion between κύριος and δεσπότης, see
Trench, Synon. § XXvit. Lachm.
places κατὰ σάρκα before κυρίοις with
AB; 10 mss; Clem., Chrys. (1), Dam.,
al.,— but such a position is rightly re-
jected by Tisch., and most recent editors,
as so probable a conformation to Col. iii.
Ope. μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου]
‘with fear and trembling. By comparing
PS οι 9. 2. Corvin. 15; Phill nu. 12;
where the two words are united, it does
not seem that there is any allusion to the
‘durior servorum conditio’ (Wolf, Ben-
gel, compare Chrys.), but only to the
‘anxious solicitude’ they ought to feel
about the faithful performance of their
duties ; comp. Hammond on Phil. ii. 12,
where, however, the idea of ταπεινοφρο-
σύνη (Hamm.) is not so prominent as
that of distrust of their own powers,
anxiety that they could not do enough ;

144

EPHESIANS.

Crarv. VI. 6.

, \ , \ , > e t A , ἘΝ e
σάρκα μετὰ φόβου Kal τρόμου, ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς
τῷ Χριστῷ: " μὴ κατ᾽ ὀφ αλμοδουλείαν ὡς ἀν) ρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ᾽

see notes in loc. ἐν ἁπλότητι
τῆς καρδίας ὕμ.}] ‘in singleness of
heart ;’ ‘in simplicitate cordis,’ Clarom.,
Vulg., Syr.; element in which their
anxious and solicitous obedience was to
it was to be no hypocritical
anxiety, but one arising from a sincere

be shown :

and single heart; καλῶς εἶπεν, ἔνι yap
μετὰ φ. Kal Tp. δουλεύειν οὐκ ἐξ εὐνοίας δέ,
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἂν ἐξῇ, Chrys. The term ἀπλό-
Τῆς occurs seven times (2 Cor. 1. 12 is
doubtful) in the N. T. (only in St. Paul’s
Epp.), and in all marks that openness and
sincerity of heart (not per se ‘liberality,’
see the good note of Fritz. Rom. Vol.
111. 62) which repudiates duplicity, in
thought (2 Cor. xi.3) or action (Rom.
xii. 8). It is joined with ἀκακία (Philo,
Opif. ὃ 41, p. 38, ὃ 55, p. 61), with aya-
Sérns (Wisdom i. 1), and is opposed to
ποικιλία, πολυτροπία (Plato, Rep. 404 B ;
comp. Hipp. Min, 364 &, where Achilles
is contrasted with Ulysses), κακουργία,
and κακοηϑεία (Theoph., Theod., 2x loc.) ;
see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 436, comp.
Tittm. Synon. p. 29, and on the script-
ural aspects of singleness of heart, Beck,
Seelenl. 111. ὃ 26, p. 105 sq.

6. μὴ Kar ὀφϑαλμοδουλεία»ν]
“not in the way of eye service;’ further
specification on the negative side of the
preceding ἐν ἁπλότ., the prep. with its
usual force designating the rule or ‘ nor-
mam agendi,’ which in this case they
were not to follow; see exx. in Winer,
Gr. ὃ 49. ἃ, p. 358. The word ὀφϑαλ-
0d. appears to have been coined by St.
Paul, being only found here and Col. iii.
22: the adj. ὀφϑαλμόδουλος occurs in
Constitut. Apost. Vol. 1. p. 299 a (ed.
Cotel.), but in reference to this passage.
The meaning is well expressed by Cla-
rom., Vulg., ‘non ad oculum servientes ’
(comp. Syr.), the ref. being primarily to
the master’s eye (uh μόνον παρόντων τῶν

δεσποτῶν καὶ ὁρώντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπόντων,
Theophyl.; compare Xen. (Qcon. x11.
20), and thence generally, and as in the
present case, 7 οὐκ ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας
προσφερομένη Sepamela, ἀλλὰ τῷ σχήματι
κεχρωσμένη, Theodoret. The more cor-
rect form seems ὀφϑαλμοδουλία, see L.
Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. Vol. v. p.
1088, 2446. ἀνῶιρωπάρεσκοι)
‘men-pleasers ;’ Psalm lii. 6, ὁ Θεὸς διεσ-
Lobeck
(Phryn. p. 621) remarks on the question-
able forms εὐάρεσκος, δυσάρεσκος, but ex-
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς
δοῦλοι Xp.| ‘but as bondservants of
Christ ;’ contrasted term to ἀνϑρωπαρ. ;

5 ~ ΕΣ /
κόρπισεν ὀστᾶ aVSpwmraperKwr.

cepts ἀνωρωπάρεσκος.

τίς γὰρ Θεοῦ δοῦλος dy ἀνωρώποις ἀρέσκειν
βούλεται ; τίς δὲ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκων Θεοῦ
δύναται εἶναι δοῦλος ; Chrys. : comp. ver.
7, where the opposition is more fully
seen. Riickert removes the stop after
Xp., thus regarding ποιοῦντες as the prin-
cipal member in the opposition, δοῦλοι
Xp. only a subordinate member which
gives the reason and foundation of it.
This, though obviously harsh, and com-
pletely marring the studied antithesis
between ἀνϑρωπάρεσκοι and δοῦλοι
Χριστοῦ is reintroduced by Tisch. (ed.
7), but properly rejected by other recent
editors. The article before Χριστοῦ | Rec.
with D3EKL; most mss.; Chrys.,
Theod.] is rightly struck out by Lachm.,
Tisch., al., on preponderant external
authority. ποιοῦντες K.T.A.|
“doing the will of God from the soul ;’ par-
ticipial clause defining the manner in
which their δουλεία to Christ was to be
exhibited in action. The qualifying
words ἐκ ψυχῆς are prefixed by Syr.,
JEth.-Platt., Arm., Chrys., and some
recent editors and expositors (Lachm.,
De W.., Harl., Alf., al.) to the participial
clause which follows, but more naturally
and it would seem correctly connected

Cnapr. VI. 7, 8: EPHESIANS.

145

ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ, ποιοῦντες TO ϑδέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς;

7 > > Τὴ ὃ / id fal K ! \ ’ » ΄ὔ
μέτ ευνοιᾶς ουλεύοντες WS TO υριῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνδρώποις,

8 γὼ ἡ Ὡ a SEL ee / > , a rt
εἰδότες OTL O EQV TL εκαστος “ΠΟΙ σῇ ἀγαδόν, Τοῦτο κομίσεται

8. ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος] So Tisch. with KL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), al. ;
Chrys. (3), but ap. for ἕκ. (2), Theod. (adds ἡμῶν), Dam., Theoph., Gicum. (Ree.,
Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer). The shorter and inverted reading, ἕκαστος ὁ ἐάν,
is supported by very strong external authority, viz., by ADEFG; many mss. ;
Vulg., Clarom., al.; Bas., al. (Lachm., Riick., Wordsw.) ; still the internal argu-
ments derived from paradiplomatic (see Pref. to Gal. p. xvi.) considerations are so
decided that we seem fully authorized in retaining the reading of Tisch. The ex-
ample is instructive, as it would seem the numerous variations can all be referred
either to (a) correction, or (Ὁ) error in transcription, or both united. For exainple,
(a) the tmesis seems to have suggested a correction 6 τὶ ἐάν, and then, on account
of the juxtaposition of ὅτι ὅ τι, the further correction of AB, al. Again it is (Ὁ)
not improbable that owing to the homceoteleuton, ὃ ἐάν τι was, in some mss. acci-
dentally omitted, and that the unintelligible reading ὅτι ἕκαστος ποιήσῃ then re-
ecived various emendations : thus we may account for the insertion of ὁ ἐάν τις (1.
27. 31), ἐὰν τις (62. 179), day τι (46.115), 6 ἐάν (23. 47), between ὅτι and ἕκ., all
of which have this value, that they attest the position of ἕκαστ. adopted in the

text.

by Clarom. (where ἐκ ψυχῆς concludes
the στίχος), Copt., Aith.-Pol., Syr.-Phil.,
Auth. (Zisch., Mey., Wordsw., al.), with
the present participial clause. Far from
there thus being any tautology (De W.),
there is rather a gentle climactic expla-
nation of the characteristics of the δοῦλ.
Xp.; he does his work heartily, and be-
sides this, feels a sincere good-will to his
master: comp. Col. ili. 23, ἐκ ψυχῆς ép-
γάζεσϑε, which, though claimed by De
W. as supporting the other punctuation,
is surely more in favor of that of the
text. On the varied uses of ψυχή (here
in ref. to the inner principle of action),
see Delitzsch, Psychol. τν. 6, p. 159 sq.
7. μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δουλ.] ‘with good
will doing service ;’ further specification
of the nature and character of the ser-
vice; μετ᾽ εὐνοίας implying not merely
‘lubenti animo’ (Grinf. Hell. Test.), but
‘cum benignitate,’ Clarom., ‘cum cogi-
tatione bona,’ Copt., in reference to the
well-disposed (“ well-affected,’ Eadie)
mind with which the service was to be
performed. Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p.

19

489) very appositely cites Xenoph.
(icon. p. 673 [x11. 5], οὐκοῦν εὔνοιαν
πρῶτον, ἔφην ἐγώ, δεήσει αὐτὸν [τὸν ἐπίτ-
ροπον] ἔχειν σοὶ καὶ τοῖς σοῖς εἰ μέλλοι
ἀρκέσειν ἀντὶ σοῦ παρών. ἄνευ γὰρ εὐνοίας
τί ὄφελος κι τ. A. This quotation cer-
tainly seems to confirm the distinction
made by Harl. (to which Mey. objects)
that while ἐκ ψυχῆς seems to mark the
relation of the servant to his work, μετ᾽
εὐνοίας points to his relation to his
master: so also the author of the Constit.
Apost. Iv. 22, εὔνοιαν εἰσφερέτω πρὸς τὸν
δεσπότην, Vol. 1. p. 302 (ed. Cotel.) :
see exx. in Elsner, Ots. Vol. 1. p. 228.
The Atticists define evy. as both ἀπὸ τοῦ
μείζονος πρὸς τὸν ἐλάττονα and vice versa,
εὐμένεια as only the former, see Thom.
Mag. p. 368 (ed. Jacobitz), and exx. in
Wetst. in loc. The insertion of ὡς
before τῷ Kup. [Rec. omits with D°EKL;
mss. ; Theod., al.] is supported by pre-
ponderant authority.

8. εἰδότες] ‘seeing ye know;’ con-
cluding participial member, giving the
encouraging reason (σφόδρα Sappeiv περὶ

140

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. VI. 9.

παρὰ Κυρίου, εἴτε δοῦλος εἴτε édev'Sepos. ° Kai οἱ κύριοι, τὰ

by \ a \ > te 5 , ἈΝ 5 / >’ , Ὁ Ν
αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς, ἀνιέντες τὴν ὥπειλην; εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ

τῆς ἀμοιβῆς, Chrys.) why they were to
act with this honesty and diligence.
The imperatival translation, ‘atque sci-
tote’ (Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 491),
is not grammatically tenable (compare
Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, p. 313), and mars
the logical connection of the clauses.
The translation of participles, it may be
observed, must always be modified by
the context; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 45. 2, p.
307, but correct, there what cannot be
termed otherwise than the erroneous
observation that such participles admit
of a translation by means of relatives ;
the observation so often illustrated in
these commentaries — that a participle
without the article can never be strictly
translated as a part. with the article —
appears to be of universal application ;
see esp. Donalds. Gi. § 490.

ὃ ἐάν τι κ. τ. λ.] ‘whatsoever good thing
ἐὰν coalescing
with the relative and being in such con-
nections used simply for ἂν both by
writers in the N. T., LXX, and late
Greek generally. In the passages col-
lected by Viger (Jdiom. vii1. 6), from
classical authors, ἂν clearly must be

each man shall have done ;’

written throughout; see Herm. in loc.
and Winer, Gr. § 42. 6. obs. p. 277.
The relative is separated from τὶ by a
not uncommon ‘tmesis,’ instances of
which are cited by Meyer, e. g. Plato,
Legg. 1X. 864 8, ἣν ἄν τινα καταβλάψῃ
[Lysias], Polystr. p. 160, ὃς ἄν τις ὑμᾶς
εὖ ποιῇ, ---- but here some edd. read ὅταν.
The reading κομιεῖται [Rec. with D®E
KL; most mss.; Bas., Chrys., Theod.]
is rightly rejected by recent editors, both
on preponderant external authority, and
as derived from Col. ἰ. c. The τοῦ is
also rightly struck out before Κυρίου.

τοῦτο Kom. παρὰ Κυρίου) ‘this
shall he receive (back) from the Lord
(Christ) ;’ ‘this, — and fully this,’ ex-

pressed more at length Col. iii. 24, 25.
The ‘appropriative’ middle κομίζεσϑαι
(see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 432. bb, and §
434, p. 450) refers to the receiving back
again, as it were, of a deposit; so that
in κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησε, Col. ἰ. 6. (comp.
2 Cor. ν. 10), there is no brachylogy ;
see Winer, Gr. § 66.1. b, p. 547, and
compare notes in loc. The tense seems
obviously to refer to the day of final
retribution ; ἐπειδὴ εἰκός ἐστι πολλοὺς
τῶν δεσποτῶν μὴ ἀμείβεσϑαι τῆς εὐνοίας
τοῖς δούλοις, ἔκ ει αὐτοῖς ὑπισχνεῖται τὴν
ἀμοιβήν, (σι. εἴτε δοῦλος
εἴτε ἐλ.] ‘whether he be bond-slave or
Jree;’ whatever be his social condition
here, the future will only regard his
moral state; μετὰ τὴν ἐντεῦϑεν ἐκδημίαν
[ἔδειξε] οὐκ ἔτι“ δουλείας διαφοράν, Theod.

9. καὶ οἱ κύριοι] ‘And ye masters ;’
corresponding duties of masters similarly
enunciated positively and negatively
(ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπ.), and concluded with a
similar participial clause expressing the
motive. The negative statement of the
duty is omitted in the parallel passage,
Col. iv. 1. On the use of καί, see notes
on ver. 4. τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε]
‘do the same things towards them ;’ ‘evince
in action the same principles and feel-
ings towards them; preserve the ‘jus
analogum’ (Caly.) in your relations to
them.’ It does not seem necessary to
restrict τὰ αὐτὰ to μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δουλ εύ-
εἰν (Chrys.), or to ποιεῖν τὸ DEA. κ. τ. λ.
(Riick.), or, on the other hand, to ex-
tend it to ἐν ἅπλ., as well as to the other
details (Origen, Cram. Caten. ; compare
Eadie), the reference being rather to the
general expression of feeling, the εὔνοια
which was to mark all their actions, ἵνα
εὐνοϊκῶς --- ϑεραπεύσωσι, Theodoret, or,
as more correctly modified by Stier, —
κυριεύσωσι; ‘ea que benevolentie sunt

compensate,’ Beng. ἀνιέντες

Cnap. VI. 10.

EPHESIANS.

147

> lal ‘ e lal ¢ , Jt » 3 > a \ ,
αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν ὁ Κύριδς ἐστιν ἐν ovpavols Kal πρροσωπολημψῆία

> ” ’ > lal
OUK ἐστιν Tap QUT.
Put on the panoply of God;
arm yourselves against your

Ὁ Τὸ λοιπόν, ἐνδυναμοῦσδε ἐν Κυρίῳ καὶ ἐν

spiritual foes with all the defensive portions of Christian armor and the sword οὐ the Spirit. Pray that we

may be bold,

τὴν ἀπειλήν] ‘giving up your threat-
ening, ‘the too habitual threatening,’
“quemadmodum vulgus dominorum so-
let,’ Erasm. Paraphr. (cited by Meyer) ;
explanatory participial clause (De W.,
here wholly miscited by Eadie), specify-
ing a course of action, or rather of non-
action, in which the feeling was to be
particularly exhibited. As ἀπειλὴ ex-
presses, by the nature of the case, a cer-
tain and single course of action, the
article does not appear to be used, as
with ἀδικία, ἀκολασία, al., to specify the
particular acts (Middleton, Art. v. 1. 1),
but to hint at the common occurrence of
ἀπειλὴ, see ib. v. 1. 4. It is thus not
necessary to modify the meaning of ἀπ.
(‘hardness of heart,’ Olsh.); St. Paul
singles out the prevailing vice, and most
customary exhibition of bad feeling on
the part of the master, and in forbidding
this, naturally includes every similar
form of harshness. εἰδότες ὅτι
κι τ. λ.] ‘seeing ye know that both their and
your master is in heaven ;’ causal particip-
ial member exactly similar to that in
ver. 8; see notes in loc. The reading
is somewhat doubtful; the order in the
text is adopted by Lachmann, Tischen-
dorf, and long since by Simon Colin-
zeus (ed. N. T. 1534) with ABD! (sup-
ported partially by L; 6 mss., al., καὶ
bu. καὶ αὐτ.) ; mss., Vulg., Goth., Copt.,
al.; Clem., al.,—but designated by
Mill, Prolegom. p. 115, as ‘argutius
quam verius.’ This is not a judicious
criticism, for the probability of an omis-
sion of καὶ ὑμῶν, owing to homeeoteleu-
ton, is far from small, and seems very
satisfactorily to account for the various
readings ; see Mey. zn (oc. (Crit. Notes),
p. 239. προσωπολημψία!]
‘respect of persons ;’ personarum accep-

tio, Clarom., Vulg., ‘ vilja hatpei,’ Goth. ;
on the meaning of this word, see notes
on Gal. ii. 6, and on the orthography,
Tisch. Prolegom. in N. T. p. Xivit.

10. τὸ λοιπόν] ‘Finally, ‘as to
what remains for you to do ;’ μετὰ τὸ δια-
τάξαι, φησί, τὰ εἰκότα τοῦτο ἀκόλουϑον
καὶ ὑπόλοιπον, Cicum.; ‘formula con-
cludendi [see Chrys.], et ut ad magnam
rem excitandi,’ Beng.; see 2 Cor. xiii.
11, Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1, and
compare notes on Phil. l.c. On the dis-
tinction between τὸ λοιπὸν and τοῦ λοι-
ποῦ [adopted here by Lachm. with AB ;
3 mss.; Cyr., Dam.,—evidence obvi-
ously insufficient], see notes on Gal. vi.
17; and between it and τὸ μέλλον
(merely ‘in posterum’) the brief dis-
tinctions of Tittmann, Synon. p. 175.
The insertion of ἀδελφοί μου before
ἐνδυν. [Rec., Wordsw. with KL (FG, al.
omit μου) ; most mss.; Syr., Copt., al. ;
Theod., al.| has the further support of
A, which adds ἀδελφοὶ after évd., —but is
appy. rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch.,
al. on good external authority [BDE;
Clarom., Sang., Goth., th. (both)
Arm.; Cyr., al.], and as appy. alien to
the style of an Epistle in which the
readers do not elsewhere appear so
addressed ; see Olsh. and Alf. zn loc.

“be

ἐνδυναμοῦσϑ εἸ strengthened ; ᾿

ἜΣ ΑΨ 2| [corroboremini] Syr., — less
ahs NY

definitely, ‘be strong,’ Auth.; not mid-
dle, ‘corroborate vos,’ Pisc., but (as
always in the N. T.) passive ; compare
Acts ix. 22, Rom. iv. 20,2 Tim. i. 1,
Heb. xi. 34, and see Fritz. Rom. 1. c.
Vol. 1. p. 245. The active occurs, Phil.
iva 19. 1 ΠΡ 1. ΤΩΣ ὃ. ΤΊ ταν: 17. 1π
each case in reference to Christ. The
simple form [here adopted by B; 17;

148

Lad , iol ’ a
τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ.

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. VI. 11, 12.

’ 7 \ rn
1 ἐνδύσασδε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ

Θεοῦ, πρὸς τὸ δύνασαι ὑμᾶς στῆναι πρὸς τὰς μεδοδείας τοῦ

διαβόλου:

Orig. Cat.] is only found once, Col. i.
11, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 605.

καὶ ἐν τῷ κ. τ. A.| ‘and in the power
of His might ;’ not an ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, Beng.,
but with a preservation of the proper
sense of each substantive; see notes on
ch. i. 19. This appended clause (καὶ)
serves to explain and specify the princi-
ple in which our strength was to be
sought for, and in which it abided ; com-
pare 2 Cor. xii. 9, ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ
ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. On the familiar
ἐν Κυρίῳ (‘in the Lord,’ our only element
of spiritual life), see notes ch. iv. 1.

ll. ἐνδύσ. τὴν πανοπλίαν] ‘Put
The
emphasis rests on this latter word (Mey.)
as the repetition in ver. 13 still more
clearly shows, not τοῦ Θεοῦ (Harless) ;
‘significat debere nos ex omm parte
instructos esse, ne quid desit,’ Calv. ;
the term here clearly denoting not
merely the ‘armatura,’ Vulg., but the
‘universa armatura,’ Beza, the armor in
all its parts, offensive and defensive ;
‘omnia armorum genera, quibus totum
militis corpus tegitur,’ Raphel, Annot.
Vol. 11. 491; see Judith, xiv. 4, mavo-
πλίας, compared with ver. 2, τὰ σκεύη τὰ

on the whole armor, the panoply.’

πολεμικά, and comp. παντελὴς πανοπλία,
Plato, Legg. ναι. 796 B. It has been
doubted whether St. Paul is here allud-
ing to the armor of the Hebrew or the
Roman soldier; the latter is most proba-
ble, but both were substantially the
same; see esp. Polyb. Hist. v1. 23, a
good Art. in Kitto, Cyclop. (‘ Arms,
Armour’), and Winer, RWB. Art.
‘Waffen, Vol. 11. p. 667. For a ser-
mon on this text see Latimer, Serm. 111.
p. 25 (ed. Corrie). Θεοῦ] ‘of God;’
‘que a Deo donantur,’ Zanch.; gen. of
the source, origin, whence the arms came
(Hartung, Casus, p. 23, notes, on 1 Thess.

195 ὦ » » ἘΝ τοὶ - ΄ \ Ξε x /
OTL οὐκ ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα Kal σάρκα,

i. 6), well expressed by Theod. ἅπασιν
διανέμει τὴν βασιλικὴν παντευχίαν.

πρὸς τὸ δύνασϑαι κ. τ. λ.] ‘in order
that ye may be able to stand ασαϊηβὶ ;’
object and purpose contemplated in the
equipment ; compare notes on ch, iii. 4
with those on iv. 12. The verb στῆναι,
as Raphel (Annot. Vol. 11. p. 493) shows,
is a military expression, ‘to stand one’s
ground,’ opp. to φεύγειν ; see esp. Kypke,
Obs. Vol. 11. p. 801. The second πρὸς
in this connection has thus the meaning
‘adversus’ (Clarom., Vulg.), with the
implied notion of hostility (‘contra’)
which is otherwise less usual, unless it
is involved in the verb; see Winer, G7.
§ 49. h, p. 361 note. τὰς μεδο-
δείας τοῦ διαβ.} ‘the wiles of the
Devil, — or perhaps, as more in har-
mony with the context, ‘the stratagems”
(Eadie; μεϑοδεῦσαί ἐστι τὸ ἀπατῆσαι καὶ
διὰ μηχανῆς ἑλεῖν, Chrysost.); the
plural denoting the various concrete
forms of the abstract singular; see notes
on Gal. vy. 20. On the form pedodias,
which it must be admitted is here
very strongly supported [AB'DIEGKL ;
many mss.], see notes on ch. iy. 14.
The only reason for not accepting it is,
that in cases of apparent tfacism caution
is always required in estimating the
value of external evidence.

12. ἡμῖν 7
πάλ ἡ] ‘because our struggle is not,’ ‘the
struggle in which we are engaged ;’ rea-
son for the special mention of the pedo-
defas τοῦ διαβόλου, ver. 11. It is com-
monly asserted that the metaphor is not
here fully sustained, on the ground that
πάλη (πάλλω) is properly ‘lucta;’ see
Plato, Legg. ναι. 795 p. As, however,
we find πάλη δορός (Eur. Heracl. 160),
πάλην μίξαντες λόγχης (Lycophron, Cas-
sand, 1358), it is clear such a usage as

«“ > »
οτι ουκ eoTly

Cuap. VI. 12.

EPHESIANS.

149

2 \ \ \ >) , Ν Ν > , ‘ Mt /
ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς Tas ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτο-

the present can be justified ; indeed it is
not unlikely that the word (an ἅπ. λεγόμ.
in New Test., not found in LXX) was
designedly adopted to convey the idea of
the personal, individualizing nature of
the encounter. The reading ὑμῖν
adopted by Lachm. is well supported
[BD!IFG; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang.,
Aug., Boern., Syr., Goth., al.; Lucif.,
Ambrst.], but appy. less probable than
ἡμῖν [AD®EKL; nearly all mss. ; Vulg.,
Copt., Syr.-Phil., al.; Clem., Orig., al.],
for which it might have been easily sub-
stituted as a more individualizing ad-
dress. πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα]
“against flesh and blood, mere feeble man ;
ov πρὸς τοὺς τυχόντας ἔχομέν φησιν, οὐδὲ
πρὸς ἀνδρώπους ὁμοιοπαδϑεῖς ἡμῖν καὶ ἰσο-
δυνάμους, Theophyl.; comp. Polylenus,
Strateg. 111. 11, μὴ ὡς πολεμίοις συμβάλ-
λοντες ἀλλ᾽ ἄνϑρώποις αἷμα καὶ σάρκα
ἔχουσι [the exhortation of Chabrias to
his soldiers], and see notes on Gal. i. 16,
where the formula is more fully ex-
plained. aAAd| There is here no
ground for translating οὐκ ἀλλά, ‘non
tam....quam;’ comp. Glass. Philolog.
1. 5. 22, Vol. 1. p. 420 sq. (ed. Dathe).
The negation and affirmation are both
absolute ; ‘non contra homines [‘ vasa
sunt, alins utitur,’ August.], sed contra
dzmones,’ Cornel. a Lap.; see esp.
Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, p. 439, where this
formula is very satisfactorily discussed,
and comp. Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. τ.
6. 2, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 8. In
those exx. where the negation cannot,
by the nature of the case, be considered
completely absolute, it will be observed,
as Winer ably shows, that the negation
has_ designedly
which, in a faithful and forcible transla-
tion, ought always to be preserved with-
out any toning down; see Fritz. Mark,
Excurs. τ᾿. p. 773 sq., Klotz, Devar.
Vol. 11. p. 9, 10.

a rhetorical coloring,

πρὸς Tas

&pxas| ‘against the principalities ;’ see
esp. notes on ch. i. 23, and observe that
the same terms which are there used to
denote the classes and orders of good,
are here similarly applied to evi! angels
and spirits; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2.
B, p. 355.
pas x. τ. A.] ‘the world-rulers of this

TOUS KOT MOKPaTo-

darkness ;’ those who extend their world-
wide sway oyer the present (comp. ch.
ii. 1) spiritual and moral darkness ;
ποίου σκότους ; apa τῆς νυκτός [compare
Wetst.|; οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ τῆς πονηρίας,
Chrys., see ch. v. 8. Meyer rightly
maintains (against Harless) the full
meaning of κοσμοκρ, as not merely
‘rulers’ (‘magnates,’ /Eth.), ‘ fairwuha-
bandans,’ Goth. (comp. Syr.), but ‘rulers
over the world,’ munditenentes, Tertull.
(Mare. v. 18), κόσμος preserving its
natural and proper force. So even in
the second of the three exx. cited by
Schoetgg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 790, out of
Rabbinical writers (‘qui vocem hance,
ΚΕ ΤΡ civitate donarunt’),
which Harl. here adduces, — ‘ Abraham
persecutus est quatuor JNU PWT, 50.
reges,’— the word appears used design-
edly with a rhetorical force; ex. 3 is
perfectly distinct.
later writers are cited by Elsner, Obs.
Vol. 1. p. 219. The dogmatical mean-
ing is correctly explained by the Greek
commentators ; the evil spirits exercise

sua

Further exx. from

dominion over the κόσμος, not in its
mere material nature (οὐχὶ τῆς κτίσεως
κρατοῦντες, Theophyl.), but in its ethical
and perhaps intellectual character and
relations (ὡς κατακρατοῦντες τῶν τὰ κοσ-
μικὰ φρονούντων, Cicumen.), the depra-
vation of which is expressed by τοῦ ox.
τούτου ; see John xvi. 11, 6
τούτου, I. ib. v.
Πονηρῷ [see notes, ver. 16] κεῖται, 2 Cor.
iv. 4, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, compare
John xiy. 30. On the meanings of κόσ-

ἄρχων τοῦ kK.

19, 6 κ' ὅλος ἐν τῷ

150
pas τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ

pos, see Bauer, de Regno Divino, 111. 2, 8
(Comment. Theol. Vol. 11. p. 144, 154),
and comp. notes on Gal. iv.3. The in-
sertion of τοῦ αἰῶνος before τούτου | Rec.
with D®EKL; majority of mss.; Syr.-
Phil. with an ast. ; Orig., Chrys., Theod.,
al.] seems clearly explanatory, and is
rightly rejected by nearly all modern
editors.
πονηρία 5] ‘the spiritual hosts, communi-
ties, of wickedness,’ sc. characterized by
essential πονηρία ; gen. of ‘the character-
istic quality’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p.
115, Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ, p. 211) ; ἐπ-
εἰδὴ γάρ εἰσι καὶ of ἄγγελοι πνεύματα,

τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς

προσέϑηκε τῆς πονηρίας, Theoph., comp.
(Ecumen. zn loc.
however, merely τὰ πνεύματα (Hlsn. 1,
comp. Syr., dith.), but, in accordance
with the force of the collective neut. ad-
ject. (Bern. Synt. v1. 2, p. 326, Jelf, Gr.
§ 436, 1. δ.), denote the bands, hosts, or
confraternities of evil spirits: Winer
and Meyer aptly cite τὰ λῃστρικά (‘rob-
ber-hordes), Polyzn. Strateg. v. 14. 1
ἱτὰ δοῦλα, τὰ αἰχμάλωτα, cited by Mey.
after Bernhardy, are not fully appropri-
ate ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 378]; comp.
τὰ δαιμόνια, and see esp. Winer, Gr. § 34.
3. Ὁ. obs. 8, p. 213. The gloss of Auth.
‘spiritual wickedness,’ does not seem
tenable, for if τὰ πνευματικὰ be taken as
the abstract neuter (so perhaps Copt., —
which adopts the singular πνευματικὸν)

Τὰ πνευματικὰ are not,

expressive of the properties or attributes
(the ‘dynamic neut. adj.’ of Kvriiger,
Sprachl. ὃ 43. 4.27; comp. Stier), the
meaning must be, not ‘spiritales malig-
nitates,’ Beza, but ‘ spiritualia nequitie,’
Vulg., Clarom. (comp. Goth.), ἡ. 6.
“spiritual elements, properties, of wick-
edness’ (see Jelf, Gr. § 436, obs. 2), —
an abstract meaning which obviously
does not harmonize with the context ;
see Meyer in loc. The concrete interpre-
tation, on the other hand, is grammati-

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. VI. 12.

πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς

cally correct, and far from unsuitable
after the definite τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας.

ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοιΞ)] ‘in the heav-
enly regions,’ ‘in the sky or air ;’ Dobree,
Adv. Vol. 1. p. 574: see notes ch. i. 20,
11. θ. Here again we have at least three
interpretations ; (a) that of Chrys. and
the Greek commentators, who give τὰ
ἐπουρ. an ethical reference, ‘ heavenly
blessings ;”’ (b) that of Riick., Matth.,
Eadie, al., who refer the expression to
the scene, the locality of the combat,
‘the celestial spots occupied by the
chureh;’ (6) the ancient interpr. (see
Jerome zn loc.; comp. Tertull. Mare. v.
18, where, however, the application is
too limited) according to which ἐν τοῖς
ἐπ. is to be joined with τὰ mv. τῆς πον. as
specifying the abode or rather haunt of
the τὰ πνευματ. ; ‘qui infra celum,
/ith. (both). Of these (a) is opposed
to the previous local interpretations of
the words, and involves an explan. of ἐν
(= ὑπέρ, Chrys., or περί, Theod., wholly
untenable; (b) seems vague and not
fully intelligible ; (6) on the contrary is
both grammatically admissible (as the
clause thus presents a single conception,
‘supernal spirits of evil,’ see notes on
ch. i. 19) and exegetically satisfactory.
The haunt of the evil spirits was indi-
rectly specified in ch. ii. 2 as being in the
regions τοῦ ἀέρος ; here the latent oppo-
sition, αἷμα καὶ σὰρξ (on earth) and τὰ
πνευμ. (in supernal regions), suggests a
word of greater antithetical force, which
still can include the same lexical mean-

ing; comp. Matth. vi. 26, τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ
ovpavod. As in ch. ii. 2 there was no

reason for limiting the term to the mere
physical atmosphere, so here still less
need we adopt any more precise specifi-
cation of locality; see notes zn loc., and
comp. generally Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1.
p. 401 sq. The repetition of πρὸς before
each of the substantives is somewhat of

Cuap. VI. 18, 14.

ἐπουρανίοις.

EPHESIANS.

151

δ nr » / \ fal lal
8 διὰ τοῦτο ἀναλάβετε THY πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ,

ivf fol > lel > nA an A ee
ἵνα δυνηδῆτε ἀντιστῆναι ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ TH πονηρᾷ Kal ἅπαντα κατερ-

γασάμενοι στῆναι.

a rhetorical nature, designed to give em-
phasis to the enumeration; see Winer,
Gr. § 50. 7. obs. p. 374.

13. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘On this account,’
‘wherefore ;’ since we have such power-
ful adversaries to contend with; ἐπειδή
φησι, χαλεποὶ οἱ ἐχϑροί, Gicum.
ἀναλάβετε] ‘assume,’ ‘take up,’ not
necessarily ‘to the field of battle,’
Conyb., but with simple local reference,
as opposed to κατατίϑεσϑαι ; ἀναλαμβ. τὰ
ὕπλα k.7.A. being the technical expres-
sion : see Deut. i. 41, Jer.xxvi.3, Judith
Σὶν ἃ; 9, δος. x. 97, x1..7, and exx.an
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 302, Elsner, Obs.
Vol. 1. p. 231, and Wetst. zn loc.
ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ TH πονηρᾷ] ‘in the
evil day — of violent temptation,’ Fell,
Coce. : ἡμέραν πονηρὰν τῆν τῆς παρατάξ-
εως ἡμέραν καλεῖ, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος
αὐτῇ διαβόλου τὸ ὄνομα τεϑεικώς, Theod. ;
Schoettg. compares 72" ΠΣῸΞ ‘in hora
mala, quando periculum nobis immi-
net,’ Hor. Hebr. ΝΟ]. τ. p. 793. The use
of ἡμέρᾳ rather than αἰῶνι (Gal. i. 4) is
opposed to the interpr. of Chrys.,
CEcum., Theophyl., τὸν παρόντα βίον
φησί; and the foregoing earnest tone of
exhortation to the idea that any consola-
tion (scil. ro βραχὺ ἐδήλωσε, Theophyl.,
comp. Chrys.) was implied in the use of
ἡμέρᾳ. Still more untenable is the view
of Meyer, that St. Paul is here specify-
ing the day when the last great Satanic
outbreak was to take place (comp. notes
on Gal. i. 4); the Apostle has at heart
what he knew was much more present
and more constantly impending ; ‘bel-
lum est perpetuum; pugna alio die
minus, alio die magis fervet,’ Beng.
ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι] ‘having
accomplished, fully done all,’ not merely
before the fight, Beng., but as στῆναι (‘to
stand your ground’) obviously suggests,

14 a 5 ΄ τ ἘΠ ον ὦ
στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν ἐν

in and appertaining to the fight ; all things
that the exigences of the conflict re-
quired. The special interpr. of Gicum.
(comp. Chrys.) κατεργασ. = καταπολεμή-
σαντες, 1. 6. ‘having overcome all,’ Auth.
in Marg. (comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 3,
Esdr. iy. 4), though adopted by Harl., is
very doubtful ; for, in the first place, the
masc. would have seemed more natural
than the neut. ἅπαντα (Est., contr. De
W.); and secondly, though katepya¢.
occurs 20 times in St. Paul’s Epp., it is
only in one of two senses, either perficere
(‘notat rem arduam,’ Fritz.), as here,
Rom. vii. 18, Phil. ii. 12, al., or perpe-
trare (‘de rebus que fiunt non honeste’),
Rom. i. 27, ii. 9, al. ; see Fritz. Rom. 11.
9, Vol. τ. p. 109, and the numerous exx.
cited by Raphel, Annot. Vol. τι. p. 495
sq. The concluding στῆναι is, then, not
‘stare tanquam triumphatores’ (Zanch.
ap. Pol. Syn., comp. even Meyer), but
as in ver. 11, ‘to stand firm’ (the battle
is life-long), ‘ut non cadatis aut loco
cedere cogamini,’ Est.

14. στῆτε οὖν] ‘Stand then,’ not as
in ver. 13, in the fight, but, as the con-
text obviously requires, ready for the
fight; ‘kampffertig,’ De Wette. The
several portions of the πανοπλία are then
specified in regular order ; παραϑαρσύνας
αὐτούς, λοιπὸν αὐτούς καδοπλίζει,
Chrys. περιζωσάμενοι THY
ὀσφύν] ‘having girt your loins about ;’
comp. Isaiah, xi.

kat

5, ἔσται δικαιοσύνῃ ἐξ:
ὡσμένος τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀληδείᾳ εἰ-
λημένος τὰς πλευράς. The remark of
Holz., that the aorists are improperly
used for presents, is wholly mistaken ;
the different acts specified by the partici-
ples were all completed before the soldier
took up his position ; comp. notes on ch.
iv. 8. It may be observed that the
girdle was no mere ornament (Harless,

152

ἀληϑεία, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν ώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύ
ηδϑείᾳ, νδυσάμ ὸ ρ ἧς νῆς;

compare Eadie), but the first and most
necessary part of the equipment; a o7pa-
τιώτης ἄζωστος was, as Meyer observes,
Inde-
pendently of serving to keep the armor

a very ‘contradictio in adjecto.’

in its proper place, it appears also, —
except in the Homeric age, when it
formed a part of the cuirass, and in
later times, when ornamented ‘baltei’
came into use (Smith, Dict. of Antiq.
Art. ‘Balteus ’), to have been commonly
used to support the sword ; see plates in
Montfaucon, L’ Antig. Expl. Vol. rv. 1,
p. 19 sq. and Suppl. Vol. rv. p. 14 sq.,
Smith, Dict. Art. ‘Zona,’ and Winer,
RWB. Att. ‘ Giirtel,’ Vol. 1. p. 448.

ἐν ἀληδ εἰᾳ] ‘with truth, as the girdle
which bound all together, and served to
make the Christian soldier expedite and
unencumbered for the fight; é being
instrumental, or perhaps rather semi-
local, with a ref. to the cincture and
equipment; see Isaiah xi. 5 quoted
above, Psalm Ixiv. 7, περιεζωσμένος ἐν
δυναστείᾳ, and comp. Green, Gramm. p.
289. It has been doubted (see Gicumen.
in loc.) whether by ἀλήϑεια is meant
what is termed objective truth (ἀλήϑεια
δογμάτων Cicum. 1), 1. 6. ‘the orthodox
profession of the Gospel’ (Hamm. on
Luke, xii. 35), or subjective truth; the
latter is most probable, provided it is
not unduly limited to mere ‘truthful-
ness’ (Chrysost. 1) or sincerity (Calv.,
Olsh.). It must be taken in its widest
sense ἀλήϑ. ἐν Ἰησοῦ, ch. iv. 21, the
inward practical acknowledgment of the
truth as it is in Him; δύνῃ δὲ ὡς πρὸς
Xp.
(Ecum.; comp. Reuss, Thél. Chret. rv.
16, Vol. 11. p. 169.
σύνη 5] ‘of righteousness ;’ gen. of appo-
sition or identity ; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 8,
p- 470, comp. Scheuerl. Synt, § 12. 1, p.
82; so similarly in regard of sentiment,

τὸν νοῆσαι, τὸν ὄντως ἀλήϑειαν,

τῆς δικαιο-
)

Isaiah, lix. 17, καὶ ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην

E P-HES PANS

Cuap. VI. 15.

15 .

Kal

ὡς ϑώρακα, Wisdom, v. 19, ἐνδύσεται
This δικαιοσύνη is
not ‘righteousness’ in its deeper scrip-
tural sense, 5011, by faith in Christ (Har-
less), as πίστις is mentioned indepen-
dently in ver. 16, but rather Christian
moral rectitude (Meyer, Olsh., Usteri,
Lehrb. 11.1. 2, p. 190; τὸν καϑολικὸν καὶ
ἐνάρετον βίον, Chrys.), or, more correctly
speaking, the righteousness which is the
result of the renovation of the heart by
the Holy Spirit; see Waterl. Regen. Vol.
Iv. p. 434. Eadie presses the article,
but without grammatical grounds; its
insertion is merely due to the common
principle of correlation ; see Middl. Art.
TR τ 0. 5.68

15. ὑποδησάμενοι τοὺς Todas]
‘having shod your feet,’ ‘calceati pedes,’
Clarom., Vulg. It does not seem neces-
sary to refer this specially to the Roman
‘ealiga’ (Mey.; see Joseph. Bell. Jud.
vi. 1. 8), as the reference to the Roman
soldier, though probable, is not certain ;
any strong military sandal (Heb. -4s>,
Isaiah ix. 4, see Gesen. Lex. s. v.) is
perhaps all that is imphed; compare
Lydus, Synt. Sacr. 111. 2, p. 46 sq.
ἐν ἑτοιμασίᾳ) ‘with the readiness ;’

ϑώρακα δικαιοσύνην.

not ‘in preeparationem,’ Clarom, but ‘in
preeparatione,’ Amit., Copt.; ἐν being
instrumental, or semi-local, as in ver,
14. The somewhat peculiar form ἕτοι-
facia, used principally in the LXX and
eccl. writers, denotes properly ‘ prepara-
tion’ in an active sense (Wisdom xiil.
12, érom. τροφῆς, Mart. Polye. § 18,
ἄσκησίν τε καὶ ἑτοιμ.), then ‘a state of
readiness,’ whether outwardly consid-
ered (Joseph. Antig. x. 1. 2, ἵππους εἰς
ἕτοιμ. παρέχεϊν) or inwardly estimated
(Hippoer. de Dee. Hubitu. Vols 1. p. 74,
ed. Kiihn ; compare Psalm ix. 38, érom.
καρδίας, 7. 6. τὸ ἐμπαράσκευον, Chrys.),
and thence by a conceivable transition
(esp. as 5°27 admits both meanings, sce

Cuapr. VI. 16.

EPHESIANS.

159

e / \ ἐᾷ > e 7 lo) b} / lal 3 ,
ὑποδησάμενοι τους πόδας εν ετούμασιᾳ του εὐαγγελίου Τῆς εἰρηνὴς

bie lal ’ , \ \ an ee ΄
* ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀναλαβόντες τὸν δυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως, ἐν ᾧ δυνήσεσδε

Gesen. Ler. s. y.), ‘something fixed,
settled * (compare Theodot. Prov. iy. 18,
ἑτοιμασία ἡμέρας = σταϑερὰ μεσημβρία),
and further even ‘a basis, a foundation,’
Heb. y4573 (Dan. xi. 7, τῆς ῥίζης αὐτῆς,
τῆς ἑτοιμασίας αὐτοῦ, compare Esra ii.
14). This last
meaning, however, may possibly have
originated from a misconception of the
translator (see Holzh. and Meyer in loc.),
but at any rate is very inappropriate in
this place. There is then no reason to
depart from the more correct meaning,
πῶ»
‘readiness,’ ‘ preparedness ἢ (σι.5....α.}9
Syr., ‘manviba,’ Goth.), not, however,
ὥστε ἑτοίμους εἶναι πρὸς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
(Chrys.), but, as the context and meta-
phor suggest, ‘ad militiam, impedimentis
omnibus soluti,’ Calvy.

68, Psalm 1xxxviii.

TOU
evayy. τῆς εἰρήνη 9] ‘of the Gospel
of peace ;’ 501]. caused by the ebayy. τῆς
εἰρήνης ; the first gen. εὐαγγελίου being
that of the source or agent (see notes on 1
Thess. i. 6, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126),
the second, εἰρήνης, that of the purport
and contents ; comp. ch. i. 13, τὸ εὐαγγέλ.
τῆς σωτηρίας, where see notes, and Bern-
hardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 161. The sum
and substance of the Gospel was ἡ
εἰρήνη, Peace, not with one another
merely, but with God (Est.), a peace that
can only be enjoyed and secured if we
war against His enemies ; ἂν τῷ διαβόλῳ
πολεμῶμεν eipnvevouey πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,
Chrys. On the different terms with
which evayy. is associated in the N. T.,
see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. iv. 8, Vol. 11.
p- 81.

16. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν] ‘in addition to all ;’
not, with local ref., ‘super omnibus, quee-
cumque induistis,’ Beng. (comp. Goth.
‘ufar all’), nor, with ethical ref., ‘above
all,’ Auth.,— but simply in ref. to the

Jast accompaniment; comp. Luke iii. 20,
9

προσέϑηκε τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσι, and sce Winer,
Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 850. Eadie cites Col.
iil. 14, ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις, but neither this
passage nor Luke xvi. 26 are strictly
similar, as the addition of τούτοις implies
a reference to what has preceded, while
ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is general and unrestricted,
and more nearly approaches a ‘formula
concludendi ; see Harless, and exx. col-
lected by Wetst. on Luke xvi. 26. In
both the force of ἐπὶ is the same, ‘ acces-
sion,’ ‘superaddition ;’ comp. Donalds.
Gr. § 483. aa. The reading ἐν
πᾶσιν, adopted by Lachm., with B; a
few mss; Clarom.; Vulgate (appy.) ;
Method., Greg.-Naz.; al., has not sufti-
cient external support, and may have
been a correction for the ambiguous ἐπί.
τὸν ϑυρεόν! ‘the shield,’ ‘scutum,’
Clarom., Vulg. The term Supeds, as its
derivation suggests, is properly anything,
‘quod vicem janue prstat’ (Homer,
Od. 1x. 240, 313, 340), thence in later
writers (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 366) a
large oblong or oval shield (οἷά tis Stipa
φυλάττων τὸ σῶμα, Theophyl.), differing
both in form and dimensions from the
round and lighter ἀσπίς (‘clypeus’); see
esp. Polyb. Hist. v1. 23. 2, comp. Lips.
de Milit. Rom. 111. 2, and exx. in Kypke,
Elsner, and Alberti zn loc. ΠῚ]. doubts
whether ϑυρεὸς was intentionally used
instead of ἀσπίς, and cites the very sim-
ilar passage, Wisdom v. 20, λήψεται
ἀσπίδα ὁσιότητα; it is not, however,
improbable that in the time of St. Paul
(perhaps 150 years later) the distinction
had become more commonly recognized ;
see Plutarch, Plamin. § 12.
miatews| ‘of faith; appositional gen.
similar to δικαιοσύνης, ver. 14.
ᾧ δυνήσεσϑ εἸ ‘with which ye will be
able ;’ scil. as protected by and under
cover of which (comp. ver. 16), or, with
a still more definite instrumental force

THS

>
εν

154

, \ , fod a \ 7 ,
πάντα Ta βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι:

(Goth., Arm.), as specifying the defen-
sive implement by which the extinction
of the fire-tipped darts will be facilitated
and effected ; 7 πίστις οὖν ταῦτα σβέννυ-
σιν, Theoph. The future must not be
unduly pressed (Mey.) ; it points simply
and generally to the time of the contest,
whenever that might be: the future is
only ‘a conditioned present ; see Bern-
hardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 877.

τοῦ Tovnpod| ‘the wicked One ;’ ‘ne-
quissimi,’ Clarom., Vulg.; not ‘evil,’ τὸ
πονηρόν, but in accordance with the indi-
vidualizing and personal nature of the
conflict which the context so forcibly de-
picts, — the Devil; μόνον ἐκεῖνος πονηρὸς
κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν λέγεται, Chrys. de Diab. 11.
Vol. 11. p. 309 (ed. Ben. 1834), comp. 2
Thess. iii. 3, 1 John y. 18, probably
Matth. v. 37, John xvii. 15, al., and see
Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 807,
notes on 1 Thess. J. c., and on the conflict
generally, the instructive remarks of
Mayer, Hist. Diab. § 7, p. 681 sq. comp.
also Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11.
p- 226 sq. τὰ βέλη τὰ
memup.| ‘the fire-tipt, or fiery darts ;’
the addition of the epithet serving to
mark the fell nature of the attack, and
to warn the combatant ; πεπ. δὲ αὐτὰ κέκ-
ληκεν διεγείρων τοὺς στρατιώτας, καὶ κελ-
εύὐων ἀσφαλῶς περιφράττεσϑαι, Theodoret.
Allusion is here distinctly made to the
πυρφόροι ὀϊστοί, arrows, darts, etc., tipped
with some imflammable substance, which
were used both by the Hebrews (Psalm
vii. 14), Greeks (Herodotus, vir. 52,
Thucyd. 11. 75, Arrian, Alex. 11. 18),
and Romans (‘ malleoli,’ Cicero pro Mi-
lone, 24: ‘falarice,’ Livy xx1. 8, were
much larger), in sieges, or, under certain
circumstances, against the enemy in the
field; see Vegetius,de Re Mil. αν. 18,
Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Bogen,’ Vol. 1. p.
190. Any reference to ‘ poisoned ’
darts (Hamm. al.) is not in accordance

EPHESIANS.

Οσμαρ. ΥἹ. 17.

17 Ἅ \
Kal τὴν

with the meaning and tense of the part.
πεπυρωμένα. It may be remarked that
the art. is not found in BD!FG, and is
rejected by Lachm.; in which case πεπυρ.
will become a ‘tertiary’ predicate, and
must be translated ‘fire-tipt as they
are,’ see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq.,
and comp. Winer, Gr. § 20, 1. obs. p.
122. It seems, however, much more
probable that the art. was omitted by an
oversight, than that the transcriber felt
any grammatical difficulty, and sought
to remedy it by insertion.
“to quench.’

σβέσαι)
It seems too much to say
That
the use of σβέσαι was suggested by

with Caly., ‘improprie loquitur.’

πεπυρ. is not improbable; as, however,
it is certain that the larger shields, which
for lightness were made of wood, were
covered with hides (μοσχείῳ δέρματι,
Polyb. Hist. v1. 23. 3, Lips. de Milit.
111. 2) and similar materials designed to
prevent the full effect of the βέλη πεπυρ.,
the particular verb cannot in any way be
considered here as inappropriate ; comp.
Arrian, Alex, 11. 18.

17. καὶ τὴν K.7.A.] Meyer rightly
objects to the punctuation of ZLachm.
and Tisch.: a comma, or perhaps rather
a colon (Wordsw.), is here far more suit-
able than a period. We have here only
one of St. Paul’s rapid transitions from
the participial structure to that of the
finite verb ; see Col.i. 6, and notes ch. i.
20. δέξα σὃ εἸ ‘receive, as from
Him who furnishes the armor (ver. 13),
and whose Spirit puts in our hands the
sword ; ‘accipite, oblatam a Domino,’
Beng. The verb is omitted by D!
FG; Clarom.; Cypr., Tertull., al., and
converted into δέξασϑαι by Matth. with
AD? (E?) KL; mss.; Cypr. (1), — but
in neither case on sufficient external evi-
dence. τοῦ σωτηρίου) ‘of sal-
vation ;’ gen. of apposition, as in ver. 14,
16. The use of this abstract neuter is,

CoaPrrvV E18:

EPHESIANS.

155

περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασϑε, καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ Πνεύ-

ματος, ὅ ἐστι ῥῆμα Θεοῦ:

* διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως

a \ ’ \
προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν Πνεύματι, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρυπ-

with the exception of this place, confined
to St. Luke (see Luke ii. 80, iii. 6, Acts
XXvili. 28), though sufficiently common
in the LXX; compare Isaiah lix. 17,
meptkep. σωτηρίου, --- a passage to which
its present occurrence may perhaps be
referred. There is no ground for sup-
posing that τοῦ owt. is masculine (‘salu-
taris, sc. Christi,’ Beng.), either here or
Acts /. c., nor can we say with Mey. that
τὸ σωτήριον is ‘any ideal possession :’
in 1 Thess. vy. 8, the περικεφαλαία is the
ἐλπὶς σωτηρίας, in the present case there
is no such limitation. Salvation in
Christ, as Harl. remarks, forms the sub-
ject of faith; in faith (by grace, ch. ii. 5)
it is apprehended, and becomes even, in a
certain sense, a present possession ; see
notes, ch. ii. 8. τοῦ Mvevuaros|
‘of the Spirit ;’ sc. given by, supplied by
the Spirit; the gen. of the source or
origin, as in verse 13, τὴν πανοπλ. τοῦ
Θεοῦ. The gen. is clearly not apposi-
tional (Cicum. 1., Theophyl. 1., and even
Harl., Olsh.), as the explanatory clause
would thus be wholly out of place. Still
less probable is a gen. of quality, ἡ μά-
χαιρα πνευματική (Chrys. 2), or a simple
gen. of possession, in reference to the
τιμωρητικὴ ἐνέργεια (Sever. ap. Cram.
Cat.) of the Spirit, both of which seem
at variance with the general tenor of the
passage, which represents the ‘arma-
tura’ as furnished to us by God. Thus
then it is from the Spirit that we receive
the sword, that sword being the Word
of God, the Gospel (ver. 15), which is
the δύναμις Θεοῦ (Rom. i. 16,1 Cor. i.
18) to every one who believeth; comp.
Heb. iv. 12.

18. διὰ πάσης κ.τ.λ.} ‘with all
(every form of) prayer and supplication
praying ;’ participial clause expressive
of the manner and accompaniments of

the action, dependent on the principal
imperative στῆτε οὖν (Mey.), not on the
subordinate aor. imper. δέξασϑε, which is
only a variation of the participial struc-
ture, and with which the idea of dura-
tion expressed in πάσης and παντὶ καιρῷ
would not be consistent. The seeming
tautology and an imaginary logical difti-
culty in προσεύχεσϑαι διὰ πάσης προσ. ἐν
παντὶ καιρῷ have induced Mey. to discon-
nect διὰ πάσης k.7.A. and προσευχόμενοι.
This, though not inconsistent with the
use of διὰ (‘conditio in qua locatus ali-
quid facias,’ Fritz. Rom. ii. 27, Vol. τ. p.
138), is still neither necessary nor satis-
factory: διὰ πάσης κ. τ. A. simply and
correctly denotes the earnest (because
varied) character of the prayer (see
Theophyl.) ; ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, the con-
stancy of it (ἐνδελεχῶς, Theod., comp.
Luke xviii. 1, 1 Thess. v. 17, 2 Thess. i.
11); ἐν Πνεύματι (see infra), the holy
sphere of it. Conyb. (comp. Syr., but
not /&th., Syr.-Phil.) translates the part.
as a simple imperat., and makes ver. 18
the beginning of a new paragraph ; this,
however, cannot be justified ; see Winer,
Gr. § 45. 6, p. 313. It has been
doubted whether there is here any exact

distinction between προσευχὴ (τ 3Ξ) and

δέησις (2mm). Chrys. and Theodoret
on 1 Tim. ii. 1 explain προσ. as αἴτησις
ayasay (see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 1)
δέησ. as ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία
(so Grot., as ἀπὸ τοῦ δεοῦς, but see 2
Cor. i. 11) ; comp. Origen, de Orat. § 33,
Vol. xvi1. p. 292 (ed. Lomm.). Alii
alia. The most natural and obvious dis-
tinction is that adopted by nearly all re-
cent commentators, viz. that προσευχὴ is
a ‘vocabulum sacrum’ (see Harl.) de-
noting ‘prayer’ in general, precatio, 5é-
nots, a vocabulum commune,’ denoting
a special character or form of it, ‘pe-

J

150 EPHESIANS.

Cuap. VI. 19.

r \ Ν nr
voovtes ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει Kal δεήσει περὶ πάντων τῶν

if id 19 \ δ \ > la) σ΄ ὃ an , BJ > / Lo)
aylLov, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, Wa μοι δοδῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ

tition,’ rogatio; see Fritz. Rom. x. 1,
Vol. 11. p. 372, and notes on 1 Tim. 1. c.
ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ] ‘in every season.’
There is no necessity to restrict this to
‘every fitting season,’ Eadie; the mind
of prayer (τὸ ὁμιλεῖν τῷ Θεῷ, Theophyl.
on 1 Thess. ν. 17) is alluded to as much
as the outward act; see Alford on Luke
Xvill. 1. ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘in the
Spirit ;’ certainly not the human spirit
(‘cum devoto cordis etfectu,’ Est.), nor
as in contrast to βαττολογεῖν (Chrys.),
but, the Holy Spirit (Jude 20), ὧν whose
blessed and indwelling influence, and by
whose merciful aid we are enabled to
pray (Rom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6), yea, and
who Himself intercedes for us (Rom.
viii. 26). eis αὐτό] ‘for this,’
thereunto; scil. τὸ προσεύχεσϑαι ἐν παντὶ
καιρῷ ἐν Πνεύματι. The reference is
obviously not to what follows (Holzh.),
but to what precedes. It was ‘for this’
(scarcely more than ‘in respect of this,’
Mey.) that the Ephesians were to be
watchful; not that αἰΐ should abide in
continual prayer (Olsh., Harl.), for the
prayer for the Apostle (ver. 19) is to be
for a different spiritual grace, but that
they themselves might have that grace
(‘ut quotidie oretis,’ Est.), and exercise
it in general, persistent, and appropriate
supplications for all saints. The
addition of τοῦτο after αὐτὸ [Rec. with
D3EKL; mss.; Chrys.-text, Theod.,
al.] is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch.,
al., with AB (DIFG; αὐτὸν) ; Clarom.,
Vulg., Copt., al., as a mere explanatory
addition : ‘avrds szepius dicitur de eo de
quo cummaxime sermo est,’ Kiihner
Xen. Mem. 111. 10, 14, comp. Matth. Gr.
§ 469. 7.
προσκαρτ. k. τ. A.| ‘watching in all
perseverance and supplication,’ ‘im omni
instantid et observatione,’ Vulg.; sup-
plementary clause, specifying a particu-

ἀγρυπ. ἐν πάσῃ

lar accompaniment to their prayer and
watchfulness in regard to themselves,
and a particular phase and aspect which
it was to assume; ‘in praying for them-
selves, they were uniformly to blend
petitions for all the saints,’ Eadie ; com-
pare Col. iv. 2, γρηγοροῦντες ev αὐτῇ
(προσευχῇ) ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, Where ἐν evx.
denotes the attendant, concomitant act,
one of the forms which προσευχὴ was to
assume. The two substantives
προσκαρτ. καὶ δεήσ., though not merely
equivalent to ‘precantes sedulo’ (Syr.
comp. /Eth.), still practically amount to
a ‘hendiadys.’ According to the regu-
lar rule, the substantive which contains
the ‘accidens’ ought to follow rather
than precede (see Winer, de Hypall. et
Hendiad. p. 19), still here προσκ. so
clearly receives its explanation from καὶ
δεήσει, that the expression, though not a
strict and grammatical, is yet a virtual,
or what might be termed a contextual ἐν
διὰ δυοῖν ; see esp. Fritz. Matth. p. 857.
On προσκαρτ. comp. notes on Col. iv. 2.
19. καί] ‘and, to add a particular
ease ;’ on this use of καὶ in appending a
special example to a general classifica-
tion, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388,
notes on ch. v. 18, and on Phil. iv. 21.
ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] ‘for me,’ ‘in behalf of me.’
Eadie (after Harl.) endeavors to trace a
distinction between ὑπὲρ here, and περὶ
ver. 18, as if the former was more spe-
cial and individualizing, the latter more
general and indefinite ; ‘sorgt wn Alle,
auch fir mich,’ Harl. This, in the pres-
ent case, where the two prepp. are so
contiguous, is plausible, but, as a general
rule, little more can be said than that
ὑπὲρ in its ethical sense perhaps retains
some stronger trace of its local meaning
than περί; see notes on Gal. i. 4, on
Phil. i. 7, and compare Kriiger, Sprachl.

§ 08, 28. 3. ἵνα μοι δοδῇ

-

Cnap. VI. 20.

EPHESIANS.

157

+ , la)
στόματός μου ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι TO μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,

20 ἐς \ ia 7 > e ΄ 4 > SA 4 ΄ ς
ὑπέρ οὐ πρεσβεύω ἐν αλύσει, WA ἐν αὕτῳ παρρησιάσωμαι ὡς

δεῖ με λαλῆσαι.

Adbyos| ‘that there may be given to me ;’
particular object of the ἀγρυπν. ἐν mpoo-
kapt., with an included reference to the
subject of the prayer; comp. notes on
ch. i. 17. The 6097, as its position
seems to indicate, is emphatic : it was a
special gift of God, and felt to be so by
the Apostle, ‘non nitebatur Paulus ha-
bitu suo,’ Beng. The reading of Rec.,
δοϑείη (which rests only on the authority
of a few cursive mss.), would give the
purpose a more subjective reference, and
represent the feeling of a more dependent
realization ; comp. ch. i. 17, and see esp.
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 622, Herm.
Soph. Elect. 57. ἐν ἀνοίξει
στόμ.] ‘in the opening of my mouth ;
act in which and occasion at which the
gift was to be realized, the connection
clearly being with the preceding (Syr.,
Chrysost., al.), not with the following
words (Auth., Kypke), and the meaning
not ‘ad apertionem,’ 7. 6. ‘ut os aperiam’
(Beza), or, in passive reference to him-
self, and active to God, ‘ut Deus aperiat
os meum’ (comp. Aith.), 7. e. ‘that my
mouth may be opened’ (a Lap., Olsh. ;
comp. Psalm 1. 17), but simply ‘in the
opening of my mouth’ (‘occasione
data,’ Grot.), ‘dum os aperio,’ Est.; so
Mey., Eadie, al.; see esp. Fritz. Dissert.
11. ad 2 Cor. p. 99 sq. The expres-
sion ἀνοίγειν στόμα may be briefly no-
ticed. When not specially modified or
explained by the context (comp. 2 Cor.
vi. 11), it does not, on the one hand,
appear to have any prelusive reference
to the nature or quality of the discourse
(οὐκ ἄρα ἐμελέτα ἅπερ ἔλεγεν, Chysost.,
‘ore semiclauso proferuntur ambigua,’
Calv.), nor, on the other, is to be consid-
ered as merely graphic and unemphatic
(Fritz. loc. cit., and on Matth. v. 2), but
nearly always appears to specify the

solemnity of the act and the occasion ;
compare Matth. v. 2, Job ili. 1, Dan. x.
16, Acts viii. 35, and appy. xviii. 14 [1
was a grave answer before a tribunal],
and see Tholuck, Bergpr. p. 60 sq.

ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι] ‘with bold-
ness (of speech) to make known,’ ‘cum
fiducia, notum facere,’ Clarom., Vulg. ;
specification of the result contemplated
in the gift (‘ut mihi contingat Adyos,
inde autem nascatur τὸ ἐν app. γνωρί-
oa,’ Fritz. ad 2 Cor. p. 100), and of the
spirit by which it was to be marked.
As ἐν ἀνοιξ. Tod στόμ. hinted at the sol-
emn and responsible nature οἵ the act,
so ἐν mapp. refers qualitatively to the
character and spirit of the preaching ;
Sdpoos καὶ λόγου χορηγίαν ἵνα κατὰ τὸν
ϑεῖον λύγον πληρώσω τὸν δρόμον, Theo-
doret. On the meaning οἵ παῤῥησία, see
notes on 1 Tim. iii. 13. τὸ μυστ.
τοῦ εὐαγγελ.] ‘the mystery of the Gos-
pel.’ The gen. is somewhat different to
τὸ μυστήρ. τοῦ ϑελήματος, ch. i. 9; there
it was ‘the mystery in the matter of,
concerning the SéAnua,’— gen. objecti ;
here it is rather ‘the mystery which the
εὐαγγέλ. has, involves,’ — gen. subjecti.
The distinction between these two forms
of gen. is briefly but ably stated by
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7. On the mean-
ing of μυστήριον, comp. notes on ch. v.
32. The concluding words τοῦ
εὐαγγελ. are omitted by BFG; Boern. ;
Tert., Ambrst., and bracketed by Lach-
mann, but rightly retained by Tvsch.,
Alf., Wordsw. on distinctly preponderat-
ing evidence.

20. ὑπὲρ οὗ] ‘in commodum cujus,’
‘to preach which.’ The reference of οὗ
is doubtful ; it can, however, scarcely be
‘to the preceding clause,’ Eadie; for as
this involves two moments of thought,
ἐν παῤῥ. and -yvwp., and as αὐτὸ would

108

I have sent Tychicus to
tell you of my state and to
comfort you,

certainly seem to have the same refer-
ence as 6, there would be an inevitable
tautology in ἐν αὐτῷ (scil. τὸ ἐν Trapp.
κι 7. A+) παῤῥησιάσωμαι. The reference
must then be either simply to τὸ εὐαγγέλ.
(Harl.) or more probably to τὸ μυστ.
τοῦ evayyeA. (Mey.), as this was what
the Apostle ἐγνώρισεν, and in the matter
of which he prayed for the grace of παῤ-
ῥησία. πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει)
‘Tam an ambassador in a chain,’ ‘in ca-

tend,’ Clarom., Vulg., but JAXzas
Ὁ [4 --Ξ

[in caten’s] Syr., and similarly Copt.,
Goth., Arm. [gabdnok, no sing.|; ἃ
noticeable and appy. designedly antitheti-
cal collocation, ‘I am an ambassador —
in chains;’ ‘alias legati jure gentium
sancti et inviolabiles,’ Wetst., compare
Theoph. It seems doubtful whether
any historical allusion to a ‘custodia
militaris’ (Beza, Grot.; on which see
esp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 394, note) is
actually involved in the present use of
the singular; comp. Acts xxviii. 20, 2
Tim. i. 16, Joseph. Antig. xviii. 6, 10,
and see Paley, Hor. Paul. v1. 5, Wie-
seler, Synops. p. 420. As the singular
is not conclusive, being often used, es-
pecially in the case of material objects,
in a collective sense (see Kriiger, Sprach.
ὃ 44. 1, 1, Bernhardy, Synt. 11.1, p. 58),
and as the use of the word in St. Paul’s
Epp. (here and 2 Tim. i. 16) is confined
to the singular, it seems uncritical to
press the allusion, though it still may be
regarded as by no means improbable :
ἅλυσις is used in the singular (eis τὴν
ἅλυσιν ἐμπίπτειν), but with the article
and in a more general sense, in Polyb.
Tish XG δας «16. Ὁ, ἵνα
κι τ. λ.} ‘in order that I may speak boldly ;’
second purpose and object of the ἀγρυπν.
K. τ. A., ver. 18. There seems no rea-
son to depart from the ordinary interpr. ;
the second ἵνα x. τ. A. is not dependent

EPHESIANS.

Guar. Vino

92] ¢ \ IDA \ ig o \ ΕΣ 5 , r
Iva δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ Kat ἐμέ, τί

on πρεσβ. ἐν ἁλύσει (Beng.), nor subor-
dinate to {Harl.), but codrdinate with ἵνα
5087 (comp. Rom. vii. 13, Gal. iii. 14),
and involves no tautology. The first of
the two final sentences relates to the gift
of utterance and app. generally, the
second, to the gift of a conditioned
mapp., — 5011. ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι.

ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in it, ‘therein;’ scil. ἐν τῷ
μυστ. τοῦ εὐαγγελ. ---- ‘occupied with it,
engaged in preaching it.’ Ἔν here
marks, not so much the (official) sphere
in Which (see Rom. i. 9, λατρεύω ἐν εὐ-
ayyeAlw), as the substratum on which
the παῤῥησία was to be displayed and
exercised; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68.
12.6, and notes on Gal. i. 23. It can
scarcely denote the source or ground of
the παῤῥ.. Harl.; for, as 1 Thess. 11. 2,
ἐπαῤῥησιασάμεδϑα ἐν τῷ Θεῷ x. τ. A. (cited
by Harless) clearly shows, God was the
source and causal sphere of the παρῤῥ.
(see notes zn loc.) ; the Gospel (here ‘the
mystery of the Gosp.’) the object in
which and about which it was to be
manifested : see exx. in Bernhardy, Synt.
v. 8. b, p. 212.

21. ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμ.] ‘ But
in order that ye also may know ;’ transi-
tion by means of the δὲ μεταβατικόν,
see notes on Gal. i. 11, to the last and
valedictory portion of the Epistle. In
the words καὶ ὑμεῖς the καὶ is certainly
something more than a mere ‘particle
of transition’ (Eadie, Ruck.). It indis-
putably refers to others besides the Ephe-
sians, but who they were cannot be satis-
factorily determined. If the Epistle to
the Colossians was written first, καὶ
might point to the Colossians (Harl ,
Einleit. p. 60, Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit.
1841, p. 453, Meyer, Hinleit. p. 17, Wie-
seler, Synops. p. 432), but as the priority
of that Ep., though by no means improb-
able both from internal (Neander, Plant-
ing, Vol.1, p. 339 Bohn, comp. Schleierm.

Cuap. VI. 99,

EPHESIANS.

159

7 ΄’΄ δ A / UA € 3 \ , \ \

πράσσω, πάντα ὑμῖν γνωρίσει Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ
΄ 99 ¢ , rn ᾽ \ a

πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ, “ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο,

uj lal “ “
ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν.

Stud. τι. Krit. 1832, p. 500) and perhaps
external considerations (see Wieseler,
Syn. p. 450 sq.), is still very doubtful
(see Credner, Finleit. § 157, Reuss,
Gesch. des N. T. § 119), this seems all
that can be said, — that the use of καὶ is
certainly noticeable, and not to be ex-
plained away, and that though per se it
cannot safely be relied upon as an argu-
ment in favor of the priority of the Ep.
to the Colossians, it still, on that hypoth-
esis, admits of an easy and natural ex-
planation. The article by Wiggers,
above referred to, though in several
points far from conclusive, deserves
perusal. The reading is somewhat
doubtful: ZLachm. adopts the order καὶ
ὑμεῖς εἰδ. with ADEFG (AD'FG id.) ;
Clarom., Vulg., al. ; Theod., Lat. Ff.,—
but appy. with less probability than the
text, which is found in BKL; great
majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Basm. ;
Chrys., Dam., Jerome, al., and adopted
by Tisch., and most recent editors.

τί πράσσω] ‘how 7 fure;’ not ‘quid
(in carcere) agam’ (Wolf), but simply
‘quid agam,’ Clarom., Vulg., — in
simple explanation of τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ; see
Arrian, E’pict. τ. 19, τί πράσσει Φηλικίων,
lian, Var. Hist. 11. 35, ἥρετο, τί πράτ-
τοι [ὃ ὑπὸ ἀσϑενείας καταληφδϑ είς], comp.
Hor. Sat.1.9.4. Illustrations of τὰ κατ᾽
ἐμέ, ‘res meas’ (Phil. i. 12, Col. iv. 7),
are cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234:
see Wetst. and Kypke. ΤύχικοΞϑ)
Not Τυχικός ( Griesb.. Tisch. ed. 7), see Wi-
ner, ΟὟ. ὃ 6,p.49. Tychicus was an ’Agi-
avds, and is mentioned Acts xx. 4, Col.
Lye ὦ. 2) Dimiviv. 12, Tit. iii. 12. Tradi-
tion represents him as afterwards bishop
of Chalcedon in Bithynia, of Colophon, or
of Neapolis in Cyprus; see Acta Sanet.
April 29, Vol. 111. p. 613. The
order γνωρίσει ὑμῖν, though found in BD

EFG ; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm. Aug.,
Boern., Goth., al; Ambrst. (Lachm.), is
rightly reversed by Tisch., Alf., Wordsw.,
on fair evidence [AKL ; nearly all mss. ;
Vulg. (Amit., Demid , — not Fuld),
Syr.-Phil., ἃ]. ; Chrys., Theod., al.], be-
ing not unlikely a conformation to Col.
i πιστό 5] ‘faithful, ‘trusty ;’
not ἀξιόπιστος, scil. οὐδὲν ψεύσεται ἀλλὰ
πάντα ἀληϑεύσει, Chrys., Beng. ; for, as
Mey. remarks, he was probably known
to the Ephesians (comp. Acts xx. 4),
though probably not to the Colossians.

διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘minister in the
Lord;’ Christ was the sphere of his
ministrations, Christ’s Spirit animated
and actuated his labors. It does not
seem necessary to refer the term διάκονος
to any special (‘sacra ordinatione dia-
conum fuisse,’ Est.), or any general of-
fice (‘qui Evangelio navat operam,’
Grot.) in relation to the Gospel, but
merely in reference to his services to St.
Paul; see Col. iv. 7, πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ
σύνδουλος, where, as Meyer and De W.
observe, the latter term is intended to
heighten and dignify the former ; comp.

»

also 2 Tim. iv. 7.

heedie

22.0v ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾷ 5] ‘whom
T have sent to you ;’ not ‘Isend’ ( Words.)
—which, though not appy. inconsistent
with the usage of the New Testament
(see Winer, Gir. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249), does
not seem accordant with the probable
circumstances. Tychicus appears to
have been sent with Onesimus to Colos-
se on a special mission (Col. iv. 8), of
which the Apostle availed himself so far
as to send this letter by him; this mis-
sion, however, the Apostle naturally re-
gards as‘an act belonging to the past,
and so probably uses ἔπεμψα in its ordi-
nary sense. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο]
‘for this very purpose, and no other,’

100

Peace be to the brethren,
and grace to all true Chris-

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. VI. 28,24.

ἢ Εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ἀγάπη μετὰ

d , 5. ἃ a \ \ / 5) a
tians. πίστεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ
a na 94 «ς 7 \ / “ ’ Ne
ριστοῦ. Η χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων
viz, in reference to, and further ex- 18, Vol. 11. p. 200 sq. τοῖς

plained by what follows; not ‘for the
same purpose,’ Auth.; comp. Phil. 1. 28,
Col. iv. 8, and notes in loc. The prepo-
sition is sometimes omitted; see Plat.
Sympos. 204 a, and Stalb. in loc. ; comp.
ib. Legg. 111. 686 c, Protag. 310 Ε.

ἵνα γνῶτε κ. τ. A.| ‘in order that ye
may know the things concerning us ;’ obvi-
ously similar in meaning to εἰδῆτε τὰ
κατ᾽ ἐμέ, but perhaps with a more inclu-
sive reference both to himself and those
with him. Tapakarkéan| ‘com-
fort, ‘consoletur,’ Vulg. (comp. Goth.
‘eabvasstjai’), here judiciously changed
from the ‘exhorte[n|tur’ of Clarom.;
see Col. iv. 7. The subject of the παρά-
κλησις may have been ‘ne offenderetis in
meis vinculis’ (Bengel), or ‘ne animis
deficiatis ob meas tribulationes’ (Est. ;
compare ch. ili. 13); so also Gicum.,
Theophyl.; it is better, however, from
our ignorance of the exact state of the
church to leave the precise reference
undefined, and to extend it generally to
all particulars in which they needed it.
On the meaning of the word, see notes
on ch. iv. 1, and on 1 Thess. y. 11.

23. εἰρήνη] ‘Peace, simply; not
‘concordia,’ Calvin, ‘peaceableness,’
‘Hamm. (comp. εἰρηνεύετε, 2 Cor. xiii.
11), as the Epistle, though εἰρηνικὸς (De
Wette) in relation to the doctrinal as-
pects of the union of Jews and Gentiles
(see ch. 11.}, contains no special exhorta-
tions on the subject of concord gener-
ally. Εἰρήνη is however no mere parting
salutation (comp. notes ch. i. 3, and on
Gal. i. 8), but is in effect a valedictory
prayer for that γαληνὴ καὶ εὐδία ψυχῆς
(Orig. ap. Cram. Cat.) which was the
blessed result of reconciliation with God,
and His Spirit’s special gift ; see Steiger
on 1 Pet, i. 2, Reuss, Theol. Chreét. αὐ.

ἀδελφοῖς] ‘the brethren at Ephesus.’
Wieseler (Synops. p. 444) refers ἀδελφ.
specially to the Jewish Christians, πάν-
των to the Gentile Christians. This is
surely a very doubtful, and even improb-
able interpretation ; for is it likely that,
in an epistle so opposed in its tenor to
all national distinctions, any such special
recognition of their existence weuld be
found? Clearly of ἀδελφοὶ can only
mean ‘the whole Christian brotherhood.’
ἀγάπη μετὰ mwiatews| ‘love with
Juith, not ἀγάπη καὶ πίστις ; the Apostle
does not simply pray for the presence of
each of these graces in his converts, for,
as Olsh. correctly observes, he assumed
πίστις to be there already; what he
As love
(not here the divine love, Beng.) is the
characteristic of a true faith, the medium
by which its energy is displayed (Gal. v.
6), so here faith is represented as the
perpetual concomitant of a true love. If
it had been ἀγάπ. σὺν πίστει it would

prays for is their coézxistence.

rather have conyeyed the here scarcely
realizable conception of their coherence ;
compare ch. iv. 31, πικρία... ἡ «τος σὺν
κακίᾳ [badness of heart was the ‘fer-
mentum,’ the active principle]; 1 Cor.
x. 13, σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ Kal τὴν ἔκβασιν
[ποῦ the one without the other]; see
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1. On the
connection of love and faith, compare
Reuss, Theol. Chreét. 1v. 19, Vol. 11. p.
205, and on the whole verse, a short but
not very connected sermon of Augus-
tine, Serm. ctxviit. Vol. vy. p. 911 (ed.
Migne).

24. ἡ χάρι] “ Grace,’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν ;
the grace of God in Jesus Christ (Mey.).
The use of the article is in harmony
with the immediately preceding and suc-
ceeding mention of Him through whom

Cuap. VI. 94,

tov Κύριον ἡμῶν
(John i. 17) ἣ χάρις ἐγένετο.
μετὰ πάντων x. τ. λ.] ‘with all that
love our Lord, J. C.;’ second and more
general and comprehensive form of ben-
ediction. Meyer compares the similar
maledictory form in 1 Cor, xvi. 22.

ἀφϑαρσίᾳ)]ἅ ‘in incorruption,’

ἐν
Neen ΠῚ [sine corruptione] Syr., ‘in
σ σ᾽

incorruptione,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘incorrup-
tione,’ Clarom., Arm., ‘in unriurcin,’
Goth., ‘in non-interitu,’ Ath.-Platt.
The connection of this clause and the
meaning of the words are both some-
what doubtful, and must be noticed sepa-
rately. (1) AMfeaning; excluding all
arbitrary interpretations of the preposi-
tion, 6. 9. ὑπέρ (Chrys. 2), διά The-
ophyl.), μετά (Theod.), eis (Beza), and
all doubtful explanations of ἀφϑαρσίᾳ,
whether temporal (sc. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,
Matth.), brachylogical (iva ζωὴν ἔχωσιν
ἐν aps., Olsh.), abstr. for concrete —
really (ἐν ἀφϑάρτοις, Chrys. 2) or virtu-
ally (‘in unvergiinglichem Wesen,’ Har-
less), — we have three probable interpr. ;
(a) ethical, ‘sincerity, Auth. Version,
Chrys., compare 1 Pet. iii. 4; (b) quasi-
local, in reference to the sphere of the
ἀγάπη ; comp. ἐν ἐπουρανίοις ; (6) simply
qualitative, i. e. ‘imperishableness,’ Gicum.,
Mey., al. To (a) the lexical meaning
of the word is seriously opposed ; see
Meyer. St. Paul’s use of ἀφϑαρσίᾳ is
perhaps rather in favor of (b), as in all
the six other passages where it occurs
(Tit. ii. 3 |Rec.] is very doubtful) aps.
refers directly or indirectly to a higher
sphere than the present; still as aps. is

21

EPHESIANS.

᾿Ιησοῦν

101

Χριστν ἐν ἀφδϑαρσίᾳ.
anarthrous, and the explanation difficult,
unless the unsatisfactory construction
(8), see below, be adopted, we decide in
favor of (c), and regard ἐν as marking
the manner, or rather conditioning sphere,
in which the action takes place ; comp.
esp. Tit. iii. 15. (2) Connection; three
constructions have been suggested; (a)
with "Ino. Xp., scil. ‘ Christum immorta-
lem non humilem,’ Wetst.;— (8) with
ἡ χάρις, Harl., Stier; —(y) with ἀγα-
πώντων, Chrys., Theod. Of these (a) is
inadmissible, being exegetically unsatis-
factory, and, on account of the absence
of the article, grammatically suspicious ;
(8) is harsh, especially in a simple bene-
diction, on account of the intercalation
of so many words between the nom. and
the modal factor of the sentence; (γ) is
adopted by all the Greek commentators,
and seems most simple and satisfactory ;
we translate, therefore, ‘grace be with
all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in
incorruption, 7. 6. in & manner and in an
element that knows neither change, dim-
inution, nor decay ;’ 4 yap eis τὸν Xp.
ἀγάπη ἄφϑαρτος καὶ ἀμείωτος μᾶλλον δὲ
καϑ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπιδιδοῦσα τὴν ἡμέραν ὥφε-
λεν εἶναι, CEcumen. Thus, then, this
significant clause not only defines what
the essence of the ἀγάπη is, but indicates
what it ought to be, — perennial, immu-
table, incorruptible. The concluding
ἀμὴν [Rec. with DEKL; most Vv. and
Ff.] is perhaps rightly rejected by
Lachm., Tish., al. [with ABFG ; 2 mss.,
Aug., Boern., Amit*., Tol., Basm.,
JEth.-Pol., and some Ff.], as a liturgical
addition.

TRANSLATION.

IN- OP VC Al.

Tue principles on which this translation is based are explained in the
general Preface to the commentary on the Galatians, and in the notice
prefixed to the translation of that Epistle. The English Versions with
which the translation is compared, and the editions which have been used,
are the same as those used in the Translation of the former Epistle, with this
exception, that I have also made extracts from the second edition (if indeed
that be a right title) of the Genevan Version published in 1560. My atten-
tion has been particularly called to this Version by a kind correspondent
(Mr. H. Craik), who appears to me to have so far successfully confirmed the
statements in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia (Art. ‘ Versions’), relative to this
Version, as to make it seem very doubtful whether the edition of 1557,
reprinted by Messrs. Bagster, has in any degree the same claims to be con-
sidered Tae GENEVAN VERSION, as that published three years later.
Without venturing to come to a positive decision on a question which
requires much investigation, I have still thought it highly desirable to
place before the student, under the title of Gen. 2, extracts from this later
and for a long time popular edition, and to call attention to the apparently
slender authority of the edition of 1557 as a formal representation of the
views of the translators of Geneva. Fresh citations from the other Ver-
sions have in a few cases been added, and some errors detected and rectified.

THE EPISTLE TO

THE EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER. 1.1.

AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the
saints which are in Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ
Jesus. *Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father and

the Lord Jesus Christ.

ὃ Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
blessed us with every blessing of the Spirit in the heavenly regions

1. Christ Jesus] *‘ Jesus Christ,’
Auth. In Ephesus| ‘ At
Ephesus,’ Auth. and all the other Vy.

2. And the Lord] So Wiel., Cov.,
Rhem.: ‘and from the Lord,’ Auth. and
remaining Vv. ‘The prep. in such cases
as the present should certainly be omit-
ted, as tending to make that unity of
source from whence the grace and peace
come less apparent than the Greek ;
comp. notes on Phil. i. 2. God and the
Father] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.:
‘the God and Father,’ Auth.; ‘God the
Father,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv. ex-
cept Gen. 2, ‘God even the Father.’

3. Blessed us| ‘ Hath blessed us,’ Auth.
and all the other Vv. The aorist here
ought certainly to be maintained in trans-
lation, as the allusion is to the past act
of the Redemption. The idiom of our
language frequently interferes with the
regular application of the rule, but it

is still no less certain that the English
preterite is the nearest equivalent of the
Greek aor., see Latham, Engl. Lang. §
360, 361, and compare Schoief. Hints
(Pref.), p. xi. It is possible that there
are cases when the English present,
owing to its expressing an habitual action
(Latham, § 573), might seem to corre-
spond to the Greek aor., but as the itera-
tive force of the latter tense, even if ad-
mitted (see notes on Gal. v. 24), seems
radically to differ from that of the Engl.
pres. (the one expressing indefinite recur-
rence in the past, see Jelf, Gr. § 402, 1,
the other indef. recurrence in the present),
it will seem best not to venture on any
such translation. Every blessing]
So Cov. (Test), and sim. Tynd., Cov.,
Cran., Gen. 1: ‘all,’ Auth. and the re-
maining Vy. Of the Spirit] ‘ Spir-
itual,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.; see
notes. The heavenly regions]

166

EPHESIANS.

Cnap. I. 4—8.

in Christ: * even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him ; * hay-
ing foreordained us IN LOVE for adoption through Jesus Christ into
Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, ° to the praise
of the glory of His grace, wherein He bestowed grace on us in the
Beloved ; ‘im whom we are having redemption through His blood,
the forgiveness of our transgressions, according to the richness of
His grace, * which He made to abound towards us in all wisdom

‘ Heavenly places,’ Auth. and all Vv.
except Rhem., ‘in ceelestials.’

4. Even as] ‘ According as,’ Auth,
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘as,’
Wicl., Cov. (Test), Gen. 2, Rhem.
Chose] So Rhem.: ‘hath chosen,’ Auth.,
Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Gen. 2; ‘had
chosen,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. Blame-
less] ‘ Without blame,’ Auth., Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘without
wemme,’ Wiel. ; ‘unspotted,’ Cov. (Test.);
‘immaculate,’ Rhem. The slight change
has been made for the sake of retaining
the same translation both here and ch. v.
27. On the distinction between ἄμωμος
(‘in quo nihil est quod reprehendas’)
and ἄμεμπτος (‘in quo nihil desiderari
potest’), see Tittm, Synon. p. 29.

5. Having, ete.| Auth. and all the other
Vv. connect with the preceding verse;
see notes. The participle expresses prob-
ably a temporal relation, ‘after He had,
ete.,’ but in so profound a subject it
seems best to retain the more undefined
transl. of Auth. Fore-ordained|
Sim. Wiel., ‘bifore ordeyned ;’ Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., ‘ ordeyned before ;’ ‘ predes-
tinated, Auth., and sim. the remaining
Vv. ‘Unto the
adoption of children, Auth., sim. hem. :
well translated by Gen. (both), ‘to be
adopted through J. C.,’ but perhaps
scarcely sufficiently literal. Through|
So Tynd.and the other Vy. except Auth.,
Wicl., Bish., Rhem., “by? Into
Himself| ‘To Himself? Auth. ; ‘into
Him,’ Wicl., ‘uuto Him silfe,’ Tynd.,

For adoption]

Cran., Gen. (both), Bish., Rhem.; * in
Hymselfe,’ Cov. (Test.). Whether we
adopt the translation ‘into’ or ‘unto’
matters but little, both approximating
to, but neither /i/y expressing the mean-
ing of the inclusive eis, perhaps English
idiom (‘adopt into’) is slightly in fivor
of the former. It seems also best in
English, for the sake of perspicuity, to
return to the reflexive form : ‘into Him’
(ed. 1), though literal, perhaps may seem
ambiguous.

6. Bestowed grace on us| ‘ Hath made
us accepted,’ Auth. and all Vv. except
Wiel., ‘hath glorified us,’ Rhem., ‘hath
eratified us.’

7. Weare having] Auth. and all Vv.,
‘we have.’ In the next words we must
appy- be content to omit (with all the
Vv.) the expressive article ‘the redemp-
tion;’ our idiom seeming to require
some adject., e.g. ‘the promised red.,’ to
make the article perfectly intelligible.

Our transgressions] ‘ Sins,’ Auth. and
all Vv.

8. Which He made to abound] ‘Hath
abounded,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘He shed on
us abundantly,’ Zynd., and sim. Cor. ;
‘ He hath ministered unto us abundantly,’
Cran.; ‘ He hath been abundant towarde
us,’ Gen. 2; ‘He abounded toward us,’
Gen. On this clause a friend and accu-
rate scholar has made the observation,
that as all verbs of the character of
περισσεύω may practically be resolved
into a ‘verbum faciendi’ with an ap-
pended accus. elicited from the verb

Cuap. I. 9—12.

EPHESIANS.

167

and discernment ; ° having made known unto us the mystery of His
will, according to the good pleasure which He purposed in Himself
* in reference to the dispensation of the fulness of times, to gather
up again together all things in Christ, the things that are in heaven
and the things that are on earth, even in Him; "in whom we were
also chosen as Mis inheritance, having been foreordained according
to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of
His will ; τ᾿ that we should be to the praise of His glory, who have

(‘make an abundance of’) the gen. ἧς
may here receive a simple explanation
without reference to the principles of
attraction. This remark appears to
deserve consideration. Discernment]
‘Prudence,’ Auth., Wiel., Cov. (both),
Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ perceavaunce,’
Tynd.; ‘understanding,’ Gen. (both).
The transl. ‘prudence’ appears to give
the word a more decided reference to
practice than the context will admit ;
‘understanding, on the other hand, is
too abstract, and fails to recognize the
distinction between σύνεσις and φρόνησις.
Perhaps the transl. in the text, or ‘ intel-
ligence,’ as indicating an application
and exercise of the φρήν, and a result of
(spiritual) σοφία (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 13),
approaches more nearly to the true
meaning of the word in this passage
9. The good, etc.) ‘ His,’ Auth.
Purposed| So Wicel., Tynd., Cov. (Test.),
Rhem.: ‘hath purposed,’ Auth.; ‘had
purp.,’ Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.
10. In reference to] ‘That in the dis-
pens.,’ ete., Auth., sim. Gen. (both) Bish. ;
‘to have it declared when the tyme were
full come,’ Tynd., Cran., sim. Cov. ; ‘in
the dispens.,’ Cov. (Test.) Rhem. The
translation in the text, or ‘ with a view
to’ (see notes), seems to make the mean-
ing a little more distinct than the more
usual ‘ for.’ To gather up again
together] So Gen., omitting ‘up,’ but
with a different turn of sentence: ‘ He
might gather together in one,’ Auth.,
Gen. 2, Bish. ; ‘shuld be gaddered toge-

ther,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘to enstore,’ Wicl. ;
‘to set up all things perfectly,’ Cov.
(Test.), sim. Oran. The things, etc. |
So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Cov., Tynd.,
Cran., ‘both which are in heaven, and
which are,’ Auth., Bish.: the repetition
which the older translators thus preserve
is perhaps not without force in this
solemn enunciation of the eternal pur-
pese of God.

11. We were also, etc.] ‘Also we have

obtained an,’ Auth., ‘we ben clepid bi
sorte,’ Wicl., sim. Cov. (Test.), hem. ;
‘we are made heyres,’ Tynd., sim. Cran. ;
‘by whom also we are come to the in-
heritaunce,’ Cov.; ‘in whom also we
are chosen,’ Gen. (both), Bish.
Having been fore-ordained| ‘ Being pre-
destinated,? Auth. Some of the Vv.
resolve the part. into a finite verb with
the copula (‘and were thereto predesti-
nate,’ Tynd., Cran.), others, as Gen. 1,
express more fully the temporal meaning
(‘when we were’): the simpler transla-
tion of the text (comp. Wiel., Rhem.) is
appy. to be preferred. His will}
So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘His own will, Auth.
and remaining Vv.

12. Who have, etc.] ‘ Who first trusted,’
Auth., sim. Gen. (both) ; ‘ that had hoped
bifor,’ Wicl.; ‘even we whyche afore
have hoped,’ Cov. (Test.),; sim. /Rhem. ;
‘ we which before believed,’ Tynd., Cran.,
sim. Bish. The force of the perf: part.
should be retained in transl., esp. as this
can so easily be done by the inserted
‘have,’ as Cov., Rhem.; the English

168 EPHESIANS. Cnar. 1. 13—17,

before hoped in Christ: “in whom ye too, having heard the word
of truth, the gospel of your salvation,—in whom, J say, having
a'so believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise,
“which is the earnest of our inheritance, for the redemption of the
purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory.

* For this cause I also, having heard of the faith which is
among you in the Lord Jesus, and the love which ye have unto
all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention
of you in my prayers; ” that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Father of glory, would give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and

perfect expresses the past in connection,
by its efforts or consequences, with the
present: see Latham, μηρί. Lang. ὃ 579
(ed. 3).

13. Ye too having, etc.| So with a
similarly suspended member, Rhem., ‘in
whom you also, when you had heard,’
ete.: ‘ye also trusted after that, ete.,’
Auth., sim. Gen. (both) ; ‘in whom ye
also (after that, ete , wherein ye beleved)
were sealed,’ Tynd. ; ‘on whom also ye
beleved after that,’ Coverd., similarly Cov.
(Test.) ; ‘we also believe forasmoch as
we have,’ Cran. ; ‘in whom also ye hoped
after that ye heard,’ Bish. 1 say,
having, etc.] ‘Also after that ye,’ Auth.
The change to the particip. structure in
both members seems to make the sen-
tence a little more distinct, and to pre-
serve in the latter, the close connection
of καὶ with πιστεύσαντες ; see notes.
The| So all the Vv. except Auth., ‘that
holy Spirit.’

14. Which] On the form ‘ which,’ see
notes on Gal. i. 2 ( Transl.). ‘or |
So Cov. (Qest.), sim. Cran.:~* until,’
Auth., Gen. 2 ( Gen. 1, paraphrases, ‘ that
we might be fully restored to libertie’) ;
‘into the red.,’ Wiel. ; ‘to redeme the,’
Tynd.; ‘unto the χοᾶ, Bish. ; ‘to the
red. of,’ hem. The translation of
Turnbull, Hpp. of Paul, p. 92, ‘in the
redeemed possession,’ is very insufficient
and inexact.

15. For this cause, etc.| ‘Wherefore I
also after I heard,’ Auth., sim. Tynd.,
Bish. ; ‘wherefore,’ Tynd., Cov. (both),
Cran., Gen. 1, Bish. ; ‘therefore,’ Wicl.,
Gen. 2, Rhem. The transl. ‘for this
cause’ is more consonant with the gen-
eral style of Auth than the equally literal
and correct ‘on this account,’ and so
substituted accordingly. ‘ Wherefore ’
(Auth. ) is rather the transl. of διό.

The faith which ts among you| ‘Your
faith,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ;
‘the fayth which ye have,’ Tynd., Cov.,
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. And the
love which ye have| ‘And love,’ Auth.,

Tynd., Cran., Gen., and similarly Bish.,

Gen. 2, Rhem.; ‘the love into,’ Wiel.

17. Would give] ‘May give,’ Auth.,
Cov. (both), Cran., Bish. ; ‘myght geve,’
Tynd., Gen. (both), Bish. The change
in the text is made as an attempt to ex-
press the conditioned, hoped for, realiza-
tion (‘would please to give’) expressed
by the opt. δῴη; comp. Latham, Engl.
Lang. ὃ 592, Wallis, Gramm. Angl. p.107-
Hermann (Soph. lect. 57) asserts that
in German the distinction may be ob-
served by translating the Greek subj. by
the German ind. pres., the opt. by the
German imperf. subjunctive. The transl.
of Tynd.,ete., though practically preserv-
ing the correct shade of meaning, vio-
lates the law of ‘ the succession of tenses ;’
see Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616.

Cuap. I. 18—22. EPHESIANS.

169

revelation in true knowledge of Him; ™ having the eyes of your
heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of His call-
ing, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance are
among the saints, “and what the surpassing greatness of His
power zs to us-ward who believe, according to the operation of the
power of His might, * which He wrought in Christ, when He
raised Him from the dead,—and He set Him on His right hand
in the heavenly regions, * over above all Principality, and Power,
and Might, and Dominion, and indeed every name that is named
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; ”and
put all things under His feet, and gave Him as Head over all

True knowledge) ‘ The knowledge,’ Auth.,
and all the other Vy.

18. Having the eyes, etc.| ‘The eyes of
your* understanding being enlightened,’
Auth., sim. Bish. (‘lightened’); ‘and
lighten the eyes of youre myndes,’ Tynd.,
Cran., Gen. 1, sim. Cov.; ‘the eyes of
youre harte beynge lyghtened,’ Cov.
(Test ): ‘the eies of your hart illumin-
nated,’ Fhem. Are among|
‘In,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except
Tynd., Cov., Cran., ‘apon the sainctes.’
It may be observed that Tynd., Cov.,
Cran., Gen. (both), similarly insert the
verb immediately before the prep.,
showing that they did not consider
ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις as merely κληρονομ. αὐτοῦ ;
see notes.

19. What] ‘What is,’ Auth. and the’

other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘whyche
is.” Surpassing] ‘ Excellent,’
Wicl.: ‘passing,’ Rhem.; ‘exceeding,’
Auth. and other Vv. 15 to us-ward|
“To us-ward, Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen.
1, Bish. ; ‘in to us,’ Wiel. ; ‘toward us,’
Cov. (Test.), Gen. 2, Rhem.

Operation] So Rhem.: ‘working, Auth.
and the remaining Vy.; see notes on
ch. iii. 7. The power of His might]
‘His mighty power,’ Auth., Cov., Bish.,
sim. Tynd., Cran., Gen. ; ‘the myght of
His vertu,’ Wicl.; ‘the myght of His
power,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.

22

20. And He set] ‘And set,’ Auth. : the
change in the original from the participial
structure to that of the aor. indic. is bet-
ter preserved by inserting the pronoun.

On His right hand| So Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem., sim. Wiel. :
“at His own right hand,’ Auth.; so also
Cov. (Test.), Gen. (both), but omit
‘own,’ Fleavenly regions| ‘ Heavenly
places,’ Auth., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘ heav-
enli thingis,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both),
Cran. ; ‘celestials,’ Rhem.

21. Over above] ‘Far above,’ Auth.,
Gen. (both), Bish. : ‘above,’ Wiel. and
remaining Vy. And indeed] ‘And,’
Auth., see notes.

22. Put] ‘Hath put,’ Auth. Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem.: ‘hath ap-
pointed,’ Gen. (both: Ἀεὶ. alone omits
the auxiliary verb, ‘and made alle
thingis,’ ete. And gave Him, etc.]
‘And gave Him to be head over all
things to, etc.,’ Auth., Bish. (‘the
head’) ; ‘and hath made Him above all
thynges, the heed of, ete.,’ Tynd., Cov.,
Cran. ; ‘and made Hym heade over all
the congr.,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘hath ap-
pointed Him aboue all thinges, the heade
of, etc.,’ Gen. 1; ‘to be the heade of,’
Gen. 2; ‘and hath made Him head ouer
al the church,’ Rhem. The emphatic
position of αὐτόν in the original should
not be left unnoticed.

170

EPHESIANS.

CHAP 1. 93..11. 1--.-5.

things to the church, * which indeed is His body, the fulness of

Him that filleth all with all.

CuaPTer II.

AND you also being dead by your trespasses and your sins, —
* wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the empire of the air, of the spirit that
now worketh in the sons of disobedience ; * among whom even we

23. Which indeed] ‘Which,’ Auth.
and the other Vv. except Wreel., ‘ that
is.” If the distinction usually made
between ‘that’ and ‘ which’ is correct,
viz., that the former is restrictive, the
latter resumptive (see Brown, Gramm. of
Grammars, II. 5, p. 293, and notes on
Col. iii. 1, Transl.), ‘ that’ will often be
a correct translation of ἥτις when used
differentially (see notes on Gal. iv. 24),
6. g., ἣ πόλις ἥτις ἐν Δέλφοις κτίζεται ; in
the present case, however, Wiel. is not
correct, as ἥτις appears here used ez-
plicatively. With all] ‘In all,’
Auth., Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem., and
similarly the remaining Vv.

Cuap. 11. 1. And you also who, etc.)
‘And you hath He quickened who, etc.,’
Auth. The participle ὄντας has been
differently translated : ‘whereas ye were,’
Cran.: ‘when ye were,’ Cov. (probably
following Vulg.); ‘that were,’ Tynd.,
Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘who were,’ Auth.
Of these, the first two, though more cor-
rect in point of grammar than 7 γπα.,
al., which tacitly apply an article, seem
searcely so satisfactory as the more sim-
ple translation in the text, esp. if the
present verse be compared with verse 5.
The part. ὄντας obviously marks the
state in which they were at the time
when God quickened them. While in
verse 5 this is brought prominently for-
ward by the caf; here, on the contrary,

the καὶ is joined with, and gives promi-
nence to buds. Inthe present case, then,
a simple indication of their state without
any temporal or causal adjunct, ‘ when,’
‘whereas,’ etc., seems most suitable to
the context, as less calling away the
attention from the more emphatic ὑμᾶς.

By| So Rhem.; ‘in,’ Auth. and
other Vv. Your trespasses, etc.]
“Trespasses and sins’ Auth., Cov., Cran.,
Gen. (both), Bish., similarly Tynd. :
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. insert ‘ your’
before the first substantive only.

2. Once walked] ‘In time past ye
walked,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except
Wicl., ‘ye wandriden sumtyme, and
sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Empire}
“Power,” Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.),
Rhem.; ‘the governor that ruleth in,’
Tynd., Cran., Gen., sim. Cov. This
somewhat modern form of expression
seems the only one that exactly repre-
sents the view taken in the notes of the
collective term ἐξουσία. Of the
spirit] So Wiel., Rhem.: ‘the spirit,’
Auth., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ;
‘namely after the sp.,’ Cov.; ‘and the
sp., Gen. 1; ‘even the sp.,’ Gen. 2.
Sons] So Wicl.; ‘children,’ Auth. and
the other Vv.

3. Even we all] ‘ Also we all,’ Auth. ;
‘we also had,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. (both) ;
‘we ali had,’ Bish. Once had our
convers.| ‘Had our conyers. in times
past,’ Auth., and sim. the other Vv.

Cuap: II. 3—6.

EPHESIANS.

171

all once had our conversation in’ the lusts of our flesh, doing the
desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and we were children by
nature — of wrath, even as the rest: — *but God, being rich in
mercy, because of His great love wherewith He loved us, ὅ even
while we were dead by our trespasses, quickened us together with
Christ (by grace have ye been saved), ° and raised ws up with Him,

except Wicl., ‘lyueden sumtyme ; Cov.
(Test.), ‘somtyme;’ Rhem., ‘conversed
sometime.’ This lighter translation of
mote seems preferable both here and in
ver. 2. The order of the Greek would
seem to require ‘had our conversation
once,’ but this would lead to ambiguity
when read in connection with the suc-
ceeding words. Doing| So Wiel.,
Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Cov. :
‘fulfilling,’ Auth., and sim. the remain-
ing Vv. Thoughts! Wiel., Cov.
(Test.), Fhem.; ‘mind,’ Auth. and re-
maining Vv. We were} ‘ Were,’
Auth. Children| ‘The children,’
Auth. and all other Vv. except Wicl.,
“the sons.’ By nature — of wrath|
‘By nature the children of wrath,’ Auth.
and sim. all other Vy. All attempts to
explain away the simple and ordinary
meaning of these words must be, some-
what summarily, pronounced as both
futile and untenable. Such a transla-
tion as ‘children of impulse ’ (Maurice,
Unity, p. 538), has only to be noticed to
be rejected. The substantive ὀργὴ is
used in thirty-four other places in the N.
T., and in none does it appear even to
approach to the meaning thus arbitrarily
assigned to it. The rest] So
Rhem.: ‘others,’ Auth., Gen. 2; ‘other
men,’ Wicl.; ‘other,’ Tynd. and the re-
maining Vv.

4. Being rich] ‘Who is rich,’ Auth. ;
“that is,’ Wiel. ; ‘which is,’ Tynd. and
the remaining Vy. Because of |
‘For,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cran.,
Bish.. Rhem.; ‘through,’ Tynd., Cov.,
Gen. (both).

5. While] ‘When,’ Auth. and all Vv.
The change is only made to express
more forcibly the existing state; see
notes. By our trespasses| Similarly
Tynd., ‘by sinne ;’ Cran. Gen. (both),
Bish., Rhem., ‘by synnes ;’ Cov. (Test.),
‘thorow synnes:’ ‘in sins,’ Auth., Wicl.,
Cov. Quickened| So Wicl., Cran.,
Rhem. ; ‘hath quickened,’ Auth. and the
remaining Vy. Have ye been]
“Ye are,’ Auth. On the simplest practi-
cal rule of choosing between ‘am’ and
‘have been’ in the translation of the
Greek perf. pass., see notes on Col. i. 16
(Trans!.). ‘Are’ might indeed still be
retained on the ground that ‘am’ with
the part. does involve an essentially past
element (Latham, Engl. Lang. ὃ 568),
still the change seems a little more in
harmony with the context.

6. Raised] So Wicel., Cran., Rhem. :
‘hath raised,’ Auth. and the remaining
Vv. Up with him] So Cov. (both),
Rhem.: ‘up together,’ Auth. and the re-
maining Vv. except Wicl., which omits
‘up.’ Sit with him] So Cov.
(Test.), Rhem.; ‘sit together,’ Auth. and
the remaining Vv. except Cov. ; ‘set us
with Him.’ The heavenly regions|
‘Heavenly places,’ <Auth.; sim. Gen.
(both), ‘the heavenly places :’ ‘hevenly
thingis,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Bish. ;
“among them of heaven,’ Cran.; ‘the
celestials,’ Rhem.

7. That He might, etc.| So as to order,
Wicl., Tynd., Gen. (both), Rhem. ; ‘that
in the ages to come He might,’ Auth.,
and sim. Cov. (both), Cran., Bish.

That are coming] ‘To come,’ Auth. and

112

EPHESIANS.

Cosas, 11]. 7..-:1.

and made us sit with Him in the*heavenly regions, in Christ Jesus ;
“that He might show forth in the ages that are coming the exceed-
ing riches of His grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus.
* For by GRACE have ye been saved through faith; and this cometh
not of yourselves, the gift is Gop’s ; ὃ not of works, that no man
should boast: ' for His workmanship are we, created in Christ
Jesus for good works, which God before prepared that we should

walk in them.

“ Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye, Gentiles in the flesh,
who are called the Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision,

the other Vv. except Wiclif, ‘ above
comyng,’ hem. ‘succeeding.’ Shew
Jorth| ‘Shew,’ Auth., and all the other
Vv. In kindness] So Tynd., Cov.,
Cran.; ‘in His kindness,’ Auth., Gen.
(both), Bish. ; ‘in goodness,’ Wiel., Cov.
(Test.) ; ‘in bountie,’ Rhem. Inj
So all the Vv. except Auth. Cran., Bish.,
‘through.’

8. Have ye been| ‘Are ye,’ Auth.: see
notes on ver. 5. And this cometh]
Sim. Wiel.: ‘and that not,’ Auth. and
remaining Vy. It does not seem neces-
sary to change ‘of’ into ‘from,’ the
former being frequently a very suitable
translation of ἐκ ; see notes on Gal. ii.
16. The gift is God’s| ‘It is the
gift of God,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.
The emphasis is maintained, appy. more
in accordance with English idiom, by
placing the gen. at the end rather than
at the beginning.

9. That no man] So Wicl., Rhem.:
‘lest any man.’ Auth. and the remain-
ing Vv.

10. His workmanship are we] ‘ We are
His workmanship,’ Auth, Tynd., Cov.
(both), Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘we
ben the makynge of Hym,’ Wicl.; ‘we
are His work,’ Rhem. The emphatic
position of αὐτοῦ should not be neglected.
For good, etc.| ‘Unto,’ Auth., and the
other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.),
Rhem., ‘in.’ Prepared] So Cov.

(Test.), but omits ‘ before ;’ sim. Rhem.,
but inserts ‘hath:’ ‘hath before or-
dained,’ Auth., and sim. remaining Vy.,
some of which, Wicl., Gen. (both), omit
“before” some ‘hath,’ Tynd., Cov., some
both words, as Cran., Gen.

11. That aforetime]| **That ye being
in time past,’ Auth. This translation of
ποτὲ (Cov.) is perhaps a little simpler
than that of Auth. (and remaining Vy.
except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., “ sum-
tyme’), and serves equally well to keep
up the antithesis between ποτὲ and τῷ
καιρῷ ἐκείνῷ in yer. 12. By the
so-called, etc.| ‘ By that which is called
the circumcision,’ Auth., and similarly
all Vv. Performed by hand] So,
as to order, Wiel., ‘made bi hand in
fleisch ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘made wyth the
hande in the flesh ;” ‘in the flesh made
by hands,’ Auwth., sim. Gen. 2, Bish.;
‘which circumcision is made by hondes,’
Tynd., Cran., sim. Cov.; ‘and which is
made by handes,’ Gen. 1. The trans-
position in the text seems desirable as
precluding any connection of ἐν σαρκὶ
with λεγομένης, the error of Tynd., Cran.,
and most of the other Vy.; ‘made with
the hande,’ Cov., and sim. remaining Vy.

12. Ye were at that time] So Tynd.,
Gen. (both), sim. Wicl., Rhem.: ‘at that
time ye were,’ Auth. and the remaining
Vv. except Cov., ‘that ye at the time
were.’ The promise] So Cran.,

Cuap. II. 12—18. EPHESIANS.

173

performed by hand in the flesh, — that ye were at that time
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and
without God in the world, ® but now in Christ Jesus ye who once
were far off are become nigh by the blood of Christ. “ For He is
our Peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of
the partition — " ¢o wit, the enmity — in His flesh, having abolished
the law of commandments expressed in decrees; that he might
make the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,
16 and might reconcile again both of us in one body unto God by
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. “ And He came and
preached peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them that
were nigh; “since through Him we both in one Spirit have our

*Coverd. (Test.), *Rhem.: ‘ promise,’
Auth, and the remaining Vv.

13. Once were] So Gen. (both) : “some-
times,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex-
cept Tynd., ‘a while agoo ;’ Cov., ‘afore-
tyme.’ Are become] ‘ Are made,’
Auth. and allthe other Vv. The change,
however, seems desirable, if only to ob-
viate the supposition that ἐγενήθητε is
here used with a passive force ; see notes
on ch. iii. 7. The aorist cannot be pre-
served in English when in association
with the particle of present time (νυνί) ;
comp. notes on ch. ill. 5.

14. Maude — broke] ‘ Hath made.....
hath broken,’ Auth. and sim. the other
Vv. except Wicl.,‘made..... and un-
bindynge;’ Fhem., ‘hath made.....
and dissolving.’ The partition]
So Rhem., and sim. Gen. (both) : ‘ parti-
tion,’ Auth. ; ‘the myddel-walle,’ Wiel. ;
“that was a stoppe bitwene us,’ Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., Bish.

15. To wit, the enmity, etc.| ‘ Having
abolished in His flesh the enmity even,’
Auth., and similarly as to connection the
other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.),
Rhem, which separate ἐν σαρκὶ from
καταργήσας, and appy. connect it with
τὴν ἔχϑραν ; see notes. Expressed
in decrees| Similarly Cov. (Test.), Rhem.:

“contained in ordinances,’ Auth., Bish. ;
“maundementis, bidomes,’ Wiel. ;‘ which
standeth in ordinances,’ Gen. 2.

That he might make, etc.| Similarly Cov.
(both), Rhem.; ‘for to make in Himself
of twain,’ Auth., and similarly Tynd.,
Cran., Gen. (both); ‘that he make two
in Hym Silf into a newe man,’ Wicl. ;
‘for to make of twaine one new man in
Hymeselfe,’ Bish.

16. And might] ‘And that He might,’
Auth. Reconcile again| ‘ Recon-
cile,’ Auth. and the other Vv.; see
notes in loc. Both of us| ‘Both,
Auth. In one body unto God]
Similarly Wrel., Cov. (Test), ERhem. :
“unto God in one body,’ Auth. and re-
maining Vv.

17. And He came] ‘And came,’ Auth.
and the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd.
(Test.), ‘and He comynge ;’ Shem.,
“and coming He.’ And peace to|
* “And to,’ Auth.

18. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the
other Vy. We both, etc.] ‘We
both have access by one Spirit,’ Auth. ;
‘han nyg comynge,’ Wicl.; ‘have an
open waye,’ Tynd. Gen. 1; ‘an in-
traunce,’ Cov. (Test.) Cran., Gen. 2,
similarly Cov.; ‘we have both an en-
trance,’ Bish. ; ‘have access,’ them.

114 EPHESIANS. Ὅπαρ. Π, 19---99, ΠΠ. 1---4.

admission unto the Father. "So then ye are no more strangers
and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of
the household of God, ” built up upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;
in whom all the building being fitly framed together groweth into
an holy temple in the Lord ; *in whom ye also are builded together
for an habitation of God in the Spirit.

Cuapter III.

For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you
Gentiles, — *if indeed ye have heard of the dispensation of the
grace of God which was given me to you-ward; *how that By
REVELATION the mystery was made known unto me, as I have
before written in few words ; * agreeably to which, when ye read,
ye can perceive my understandmg in the mystery of Christ,

19. So then] ‘ Now therefore,’ Auth.
and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ there-
for now ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘therefore ;’
Rhem., ‘now then.’ Sojourners]
‘Foreigners,’ Auth. and the other Vv.
except Wicl., Cov. (both), ‘ straungers.’
But ye are] *‘ But, Auth.

20. Built up| ‘And are built,’ Auth.
and the other Vy. except Wiel., ‘aboue
bildid ;’ Cov. (both), Rhem., ‘built.’

21. All the building] So Auth., Gen.
(both), Bish. ; ‘eche bildynge,’ Wicl. ;
‘every bildynge,’ Tynd., Cov. (both) ;
‘what buildyng so ever,’ Cran.: see
notes. Being fitly| ‘ Fitly,’ Auth.

22. In the Spirit] So Wiel., Tynd.,
Coverd. (both), Rhem.: ‘ through the
Spirit,’ Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘by the
Spirit,’ Gen. (both).

Cuap. III. 1. Christ Jesus] ‘ Jesus
Christ,’ Auth. and other Vv., but with-
out any difference of reading in the Rec.
Text.

2. If indeed] ‘If ye, Auth., Tynd.,
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘ if netheless,’

Wicl. ; ‘aceordinge as,’ Cov. ; ‘if so be
that,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘if yet,’ Rhem.
Which, etc.| It is nearly impossible
(without paraphrase) to imply that
‘which ’ refers to ‘ grace : in the original
edition ‘ God’ was followed by a comma.
Was given] ‘Is given,’ Auth. and all the
other Vy.

3. The mystery, etc.| *‘ He made
known unto me the mystery,’ Auth.
As 1 have before written] ‘As I wrote
afore,’ Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘ wrote
above,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. (both), and
similarly Wiel.

4. Agreeably to which] ‘ Whereby,’
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl.,
‘as;’ Cov., (Test.), ‘like as;’ Rhem.,
‘according as.’ Can] ‘May,’
Auth. and all the other Vv., but perhaps
not with perfect exactness ; the rule ap-
parently being, ‘may et can potentiam
innuunt, cum hoc tamen discrimine, may
et might vel de jure vel saltem de rei
possibilitate dicuntur, at can et could de
viribus agentis,’ Wallis, Gramm. Angl.
p- 107. Perceive my understanding}

Cuapr. III. 5—9. EPHESIANS.

175

* which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of
men, as it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles and
prophets by the Spirit; ° ¢o wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs,
and of the same body, and joint-partakers of the promise, in Christ
Jesus, through the Gospel ; ’ whereof I became a minister, accord-
ing to the gift of the grace of God which was given unto me
according to the operation of His power. ἥ Unto me, who am less
than the least of all saints, was this grace given, —to preach
among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, ° and to
make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which
from the ages hath been hid in God, who created ALL THINGS ;

So Cov.: ‘understand my knowledge,’
Auth., Cran., Bish. ; “know myne under-
stondynge, Zynd., Gen. (both) ; undur-
stonde my prudence,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.),
“und. my wisdom,’ hem.

5. Generations] So Wiclif, Cov.
(Test.), Ithem.: ‘ages,’ Auth., Gen. 2,
Bish. ; ‘tymes passed,’ Tynd., and re-
maining Vy. It hath now been|
“It is now,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex-
cept Rhem., ‘now it is.” This is a case
where the strict translation cannot be
maintained ; in English the aorist has
no connection with pres. time (Latham,
Engl. Lang. ὃ 579), and therefore cannot
here properly be connected with νῦν ; in
Greek this is possible, from the greater
temporal latitude of the tense; comp.
notes on 1 Tim. ch. ν. 15 ( Transl. ).

6. To wit, that] Similarly Coverd.,
‘namely, that:’ ‘that,’ Auth. and the
remaining Vy. except Rhem. (which is
excessively harsh), ‘the Gentiles to be,
eter Are] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.) :
‘should be,’ Auth. and the remaining
Vv. except Fhem., supr. ‘cit. Joint-
partakers| Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘lyke par-
takers :’ ‘partakers,’ Auth. and the re-
maining Vv. exeept Wicl., ‘ parteneris
to gidre ;” Rhem., ‘comparticipant.’

The promise] * ‘ His promise,’ Auth.
Christ Jesus] * ‘ Christ,’ Auth.
Through] So Cov. (Test): ‘by,’ Auth,

Wicl., Cov., Gen. 2, Bish., Rhem.; ‘by
the means of,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. 1.

7. 1 became] * ‘I was made,’ Auth.
Which was given] Sim. Wicl., Coverd.
(both), Cran., Rhem., ‘which is given :’
Auth. and remaining Vv., ‘ given.’
According to] So Cov., Rhem.: ‘by,’
Auth., Wicl.: ‘thorow,’ Tynd., Gen.
(both) : ‘after the,’ Cov. (Test.), Cran.,
Bish. Operation] So Rhem.:
‘effectual working,’ Auth. ; ‘worchynge,’
Wiel. and all the remaining Vy. This
word is always difficult to “translate :
‘effectual working’ is perhaps too strong;
‘working’ alone is appy. too weak.
Perhaps the term in the text as marking
a more formal nature of working is
slightly preferable; comp. notes on 2
Thess. ii. 12, where, however, the present
translation would seem less suitable.

8. Was this] ‘Is this,’ Auth. and all
the other Vv. To preach] So
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), sim. Rhem. ; ‘ that I
should preach,’ Auth. and all the remain-
ing Vv. The change is made to pre-
serve a similar translation of the two in-
finitives ; see Scholef. Hints, p. 190.

9. Dispensation] * ‘ Fellowship,’ Auth.
From the ages| ‘From the beginning of
the world,’ Auth. and the other Vy. ex-
cept Wiel., Rhem., ‘fro worldis,’ and
Cov. (Test.), ‘sence the worlde beganne.’
All things} * ‘ All things by J. C., Auth.

EPHESIANS. Cuapr. III. 10—18

176

* to the intent that now unto the Principalities and the Powers in
the heavenly regions, might be made known through the church
the manifold wisdom of God, ™ according to the purpose of the
ages which he wrought in Christ Jesus our Lord; “in whom we
have our boldness and our admission, in confidence, through the
faith in Him. “ Wherefore I entreat you not to lose heart in my
tribulations for you, seeing it is your glory.

“ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, ” from whom
every race in heaven and on earth is thus named, ™ that he would
grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened
with might through His Spirit into the inner man, ” so that Christ
may dwell in your hearts by faith, —’’ ye having been rooted and

10. The powers] ‘ Powers,’ Auth. and
the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ po-
testatis.’
‘Heavenly places,’ Auth., Gen. (both) ;
‘hevenly thingis,’ Wécl., Cov. (Test.),
Cran., Bish.: ‘in heven,’ Tynd., Cov. :
‘in the celestials,’ Rhem. Might
be made known] ‘ Might be known,’ Auth.
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘be
knowun ;’ Jthem., ‘may be notified.’
Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the other
ἅν.

11. Purpose of the ages] ‘ Eternal pur-
pose,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except
Wiel., ‘ordenaunce of worldis,’ and
Rhem., ‘prefinition of worldes.’
Wrought] So Cran., Gen. (both), Bish:
‘purposed,’ Auth., Tynd. : ‘made,’ Wicl.,
—Rhem.: ‘hath shewed,’ Cov. (both).

12. Our boldness| ‘Boldness,’ Auth.
Our admission| ‘ Access,’ Auth., Rhem. ;
‘intraunce,’ (both), Cran., Gen.
(both), Bish. In confidence| So,
as regards the prep., Wicl., Cov. (both),
Rhem., Bish. ; ‘with,’ Auth., Cran., Gen.
(both). The words προσαγωγὴν ἐν
πεποιϑήσει are joined together by Tynd.
and appy. all Vy. except Wécl., and
Auth. (orig. ed.).

13. 7 entreat you, etc.) ‘I desire that
ye faint not,’ Auth., Gen. 2, Bish., and
similarly the remaining Vy. except Wicl.,

The heavenly regions}

Jov.

‘axe that ye faile not.’ Seeing it is,
etc.] ‘Which is,’ Auth. and all the other
Vv.

14. The Father] ‘The Father* of our
Lord Jesus Christ,’ Auth.

15. From] ‘Of, Auth., Gen., Bish,
Rhem. Every race| ‘The whole
family,’ Auth., Gen. (both), ‘ eche fadir-
heed,’ Wrel., similarly Coverd. (Test.) ;
“which is father over all that ys called
father,’ Tynd , Cran., sim. Cov. : ‘all the
familie,’ Bish.; ‘al paternitie, Rhem.
On the difficulty of properly translating
this clause, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch.
ii. p>, 26) (68.921 And on earth|
‘And earth,’ Auth. Is thus
named| ‘Is named,’ Auth. The word
thus is introduced only to make the
paronomasia in the original a little more
apparent.

16. Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the
other Vy. Into| ‘In, Auth. and
all the other Vv.

17. So that]
other Vy. except Rhem.,
dwel, etc.’ ;

18. Yehaving been, ete.| Similarly Cov.
(Test.), Rhem.: ‘that ye being,’ Auth.
and the remaining Vy. except Wiel.
which omits ‘being.’ That ye may
be fully able] ‘May be able,’ Auth. and
sim. all the other Vy.

‘That,’ Auth., and the
‘Christ to

Cuap. IV. 1—2I. EPHESIANS. 177

grounded in love, — that ye may be fully able to comprehend with
all saints what zs the breadth, and length, and depth, and height,
“and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye
may be filled up to all the fulness of God.

” Now unto Him that is able to do beyond all things, abundantly
beyond what we ask or think, according to the power that worketh
in us, “unto Him be glory in the church, in Christ Jesus, to all
the generations of the age of the ages. Amen.

Cuapter IV.

I ExnorT you, therefore, I the prisoner in the Lord, that ye
walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye were called, ° with
all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one
another in love ; *striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace. * U’here is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye

19. May] So Cov. (both), Gen. (both), that,’ Auth., and in similar order all the
Rhem.: ‘might,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., other Vv. It seems, however, desirable
Bish. ; change made to avoid the violation to maintain the emphatic collocation
of the law of ‘succession of tenses;’ see (‘ad excitandum affectum, quo cit effi-
Latham Engl. Lang. § 616. Up cacior exhortatio,’ Est.) of the original.
10] ‘With,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- There is some variation in the translation
cept Wicl., ‘in;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘into;’ of παρακαλῶ. The translation in the text

Rhem., ‘ unto.’ is found in Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. :
20. To do beyond, etc.| ‘Todo exceed- ‘beseech,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.),
ing abundantly above all that, etc., Auth. Rhem.; ‘ praye,’ Gen. (both), In the

and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘more Lord] So Coverd. (both), Gen. (both),
plenteously than we axen ;’ Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.; ‘of the Lord,’ Auth., Cran. ;
Rhem., ‘more abundantly than we ‘for the Lord,’ Wiel. ; ‘for the Lordes
desire.’ sake,’ Tynd. Were called| ‘Are

21. In Christ Jesus] ‘By J.C.,’ Auth. called,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘and in J. 3. Striving] ‘Endeavouring,’ Auth.
C., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘which The present current use of the verb
is in,’ Cov. To all the generation, ‘endeavour’ seems to fall so short of the
etc.| ‘ Throughout all ages, world with- real meaning of the σπουδάζειν as to war-
out end,’ Auth., Bish., sim. Rhem.; ‘to rant the change in the text or the adop-
alle the generaciouns of the worldis,’ tion of ‘being diligent’ (Tynd., Cran.),
Wicl. ; ‘thorow out all gen. from tyme ‘using diligence,’ — terms more clearly
to tyme,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘throughout all indicative of the σπουδὴ and zeal that
gen. for ever,’ Gen. (both). was evinced in the matter; see Trench

on Auth. Ver. ch. iii. p. 43.

Cuar. IV. 1. 7 exhort you, etc.| “1, 4. There is, etc.| It can scarcely be

therefore, the prisoner, ete. beseech you doubted that the Auth. is right in retain-
23

PPIUIESTANS- Cnap. IV. 5—12.

178

were called in one hope of your calling ; ° one Lord, one faith, one
baptism ; ° one God and Father of all, who ¢s over all, and through
all, and in all.

7 But unto each one of us the grace which he has was given ac-
cording to the measure of the gift of Christ. ° Wherefore He saith,
When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, He gave
gifts unto men. ° Now that Ile ascended, what doth it imply but
that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth. ' He
THAT DESCENDED, He it is that ascended up above all the heavens,
that He might fill all things. “And Himself gave some to be
Apostles ; and some, Prophets ; and some, Evangelists ; and some
Pastors and Teachers ; ” with a view to the perfecting of the saints,

ing (after Gen. i. 2) this assertory form.
Some of the older Vv., Wicl., Cov. (both),
Bish., supply nothing; others, Tynd.,
Cran., supply the participle ‘being one
body, etc.,’ both of which forms fail to
convey the force of the original; see
notes. Were called] ‘Are called,’
Auth. and all the other Vy.

6. Over] So Rhem.: ‘above all,’ Auth.
and all the remaining Vv. In all]
‘In *you all,’ Auth.

7. Each one] Sim. Wicl. : ‘ every one,’
Auth. and the remaining Vv. This
change seems desirable to avoid a con-
fusion with the usual translation of παντί.
The grace which, etc.| ‘Is given grace,’
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl.,
‘grace is gouun.,’

8. He gave] ‘ *And gave,’ Auth.
What doth it imply] ‘ What is it,’ Auth.,
Cov. (both), Gen. ii., Rhem.; ‘what
meaneth it,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. i.
Descended| ‘Descended *first,’ Auth.

10. He it is] So Wicl.: ‘is the same
also that,’ Auth. Above] ‘Far
above,’ Auth. The heavens] So
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘heavens,’ Auth.
and the remaining Vv.

11. Himself] ‘He,’ Auth. Wiel.,
Rhem. ; ‘and the very same,’ Tynd., Cran. ;
“and the same,’ Cov. (both) ; ‘ He there-
fore,’ Gen. (both). To be Apostles |

So Cov. (both), Gen. (both); ‘some,’
Auth. Wicel., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ made
some,’ Tynd. Cran. The insertion of
the words in italics seems necessary to
make the sense perfectly clear.

12. With a view to] ‘For,’ Auth., Cov.
(Test.), Gen. ii.; ‘to the ful endynge,’
Wicl., ; ‘ that the sainctes might have all
things,’ Tynd.; ‘whereby the sayntes
mighte be coupled together,’ Cov. ; ‘to
the edifyeng,’ Cran. ; ‘that the sainctes
might be gathered together,’ Gen. i. ; ‘to
the gathering togeather,’ Bish. ; ‘to the
Of minis-
tration| So Bish.; ‘of the ministry,’
Auth. ; ‘of mynsteri,’ Wicl. ; ‘work and
minystracyon,’ Cran. For the build-
ing up| ‘For the edifying,’ Auth., Cov.
(Test.) ; ‘to the edifying,’ Tynd, Cov. ;
‘even to the edifying,’ Gen. i.; ‘edi-
fication,’ Gen. ii.; ‘unto the edifying,’
Bish., Rhem. This translation is perhaps
slightly preferable to that of Auth., and
to that adopted in ed. i. (‘edification’),
as both verb and substantive are now
commonly associated with what is simply
instructive or improving, without neces-
sarily suggesting the wider sense which
seems to prevail in the present passage.
The article is required by the principles
of English idiom, though confessedly thus
not in exact harmony with the Greek.

consummation,’ Rhem,

77

Cnap. LV. 13—16. EPHESIANS. 179

for the work of mimistration, for the building up of the body of
Christ ; * till we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the
true knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto
the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: “ that we may
no longer be children, tossed to and fro and borne about by every
wind of doctrine, in the sleight of men, in craftiness tending to
the settled system of Error; “ἢ but holding the truth may in love
grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Curist:
"ἢ from whom the whole body being fitly framed together and com-
pacted by means of every joint of the spiritual supply, according

13. Arrive at] ‘Come in,’ Auth. ;
“rennen into,’ Wiel. ; ‘growe up unto,’
Tynd., Gen. 1; ‘come to,’ Cran.; ‘al
meete together (in the etc.), unto,’ Gen.
2; ‘meete together into,’ Bish. ; ‘ meete
al into,’ Rhem. The true knowl-
edge| ‘ The knowledge,’ Auth.: the other
Vv. omit the article. Full-grown]
‘ Perfect,’ Auth. and the other Vv.

14. May, etc.] ‘Henceforth be no more,’
Auth. Borne about by| “ Carried
about with,’ Auth. and the other Vy.
except Wiel., ‘borun aboute with ;’
Tynd., “ caryed with.’ In—in] So
Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.: ‘by
—and, Auth., Tynd.; ‘by — through,’
Cran. In craftiness, etc.] ‘And
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in
wait to deceive,’ Auth. and the other
Vv. except Wicl., ‘to the disceyuynge
of errour;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘to the de-
ceatfulness of errour;’ Bish., ‘in crafti-
ness to the laying in wayte of errour;’
Rhem., ‘ to the circumvention of errour.’
10 is by no means easy to devise a literal
and at the same time perfectly intelligi-
ble translation of the last clause of this
verse. The difficulty is mainly in the
brief and almost elliptical form of ex-
pression introduced by the prep.: of the
translations that have hitherto been pro-
posed, that in the text, or ‘furthering,
promoting the system, etc.’ (but see
notes on Phil. iv. 17 Transl.), or more

simply, ‘ with a view to the system,’ etc.,
seems the most suitable.

15. Holding the truth] ‘Speaking the
truth, Auth. ; ‘folowe the truth,’ Tynd.,
Coverd., Cran., Gen. (both), ‘do truthe ;’
Wicl., ‘perfourmyng ye truth,’ Coverd.
(Test.); ‘folowing the truth,’ Bish. ;
‘doing the truth,’ Rhem. May in
love] ‘In love may,’ Auth.

16. Being fitly framed together| “ Fitly
joined together,’ Auth. It seems desira-
ble to retain the same translation here
and ch. ii. 21. The translation of sev-
eral of the older Vy. e. g. ‘coupled and
knet togedder,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.},Cran.,
Gen. (both), is not unsatisfactory ; ‘com-
pacted ’ has, however, the advantage of
preserving the σὺν in each verb without
repetition; otherwise, ‘knit together’
would perhaps have been a more genu-
inely English translation. Ac-
tive working| ‘The effectual working,’
Auth. ; ‘worchynge,’ Wiel. ; ‘the opera-
cion,’ Tynd., Cran., Rhem. ; ‘the effectual
power,’ Gen. 1, The addition of the
epithet ‘active’ or ‘vital,’ Alf.,—if in
italics (see notes on ch. iii. 7, and on
2 Thess. ii. 11), may perhaps here be
rightly admitted as serying slightly to
elear up the meaning. By
means of, ete.| ‘By that which every
joint supplieth,’ Auwth.; ‘in every joint
wherwith one ministreth to another,’
Tynd., Gen. 1, and similarly Cov., Cran. ;

180

EPHESIANS.

Cuapr. IV, 17—19.

to active working in the measure of each single part, promoteth
the increase of the body for the building up of itself in love.
“This then I say and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer
walk as the other Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind,
15 being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life
of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the
hardness of their heart: ” who as men past feeling have given

‘bi eche joynture of undir seruynge,’
Wiel. ; ‘every joynt of subministration,’
Cov. (Test.), and sim. Rhem. ; ‘by every
joint for the furniture thereof,’ Gen. 2;
‘by every joint yeelding nourishment,’
Bish. Each single] Sim. Wiel.,
‘each:’ ‘every,’ Auth. and all the re-
maining Vy.; see notes on ver. 7.
Promoteth the inerease| ‘Maketh in-
crease,’ Auth.; ‘makith encreesynge,’
Wicl.; ‘maketh the increase,’ [hem. ;
Tynd., al. paraphrase. The more mod-
ern term ‘promoteth,’ seems admissible
as both literal, and also tending to clear
up the sense. For the building
up of itself | ‘ Unto the edifying,’ Auth. :
it seems desirable, for the sake of uni-
formity, to preserve the same translation
as in ver. 12; the simplest (paraphras-
tic) translation would be ‘so as to build
itself up in love.

17. This then I say] ‘This I say
therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex-
cept Rhem., ‘ this therefore I say.’ The
resumptive character of the address is
appy. here best preserved by the more
literal translation of ody; comp. notes
on 1 Tim, ch. ii. 1. Ye must no
longer| ‘Ye henceforth walk not,’ Auth.,
Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘ye
walke not now,’ Wiel., Cov. (Test.), sim.
Rhem. As the other. ... also]
Sim. Cov.: ‘as other,’ Auth. and the other
Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.,
which omit τὰ λοιπὰ in translation.

18. Being darkened, ete.| ‘Having the
understanding darkened,’ Auth., Cov.
Test. (‘an und.’ ete.) ; ‘that han undir-

stondynge derkned with derknesses,’
Wicl.; ‘blynded in their und” Tynd.,
Cov.; ‘whyle they are blinded, ete.’
Cran.; ‘having their cogitation dark-
ened,’ Gen. (both) ; ‘ darkened in cogita-
tion,’ Bish. ; “haying their und. obscured
with darkness,’ Rhem. Alienated}
‘Being alienated,’ Auth. On account of
the absence of ὄντες in the second mem-
ber, it seems best to omit the part. of the
verb substantive. Because of }
So Tynd., Cran., Gen. 1: ‘ through,’
Auth., Cov. (both), Gen. 2; ‘bi,’ Wicl.,
Bish,, Rhem. Hardness] So
Gen. (both) : ‘blindness,’ Auth. and re-
maining Vv.; see Trench on Auth. Ver.
ch. vii. p. 117.

19. Who as men] ‘ Who being,’ Auth.,
and sim., as to the translation of the
relative, all the other Vv. Wan-
tonness] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.
(both), Bish.; ‘lasciviousness,’ Auth. ;
‘unchastite,’ Wiel. ; ‘unclennesse,’ Cov.
(Test.) ; ‘impudicitie,’ Rhem. The ar-
ticle joined with it tends almost to per-
sonify it, hence the capital. For
the working] Sim. Wiel.,‘ in to the worch-
ynge ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘in the workinge ;’
‘unto the operation,’ Rhem.: ‘to work,’
Auth. and the remaining Vy.

All manner of | So Tynd., Cov., Cran.,
Gen. 1: ‘all, Auth. and the remaining
Vy.; see notes on ver. 31.

In greediness] ‘ With greediness,’ Auth.
and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘in
coueitise ;? Cov. (Test.), ‘unto gr.;’
Rhem., ‘unto avarice.’ This translation
of πλεονεξία may be retained if qualified

Cuap. IV. 20—25. EPHESIANS.

181

THEMSELVES over unto Wantonness, for the working of all man-
ner of uncleanness in greediness. ™ But YE did not so learn
Christ ; “if indeed ye heard Him, and were taught in Hi, as is
truth in Jesus * that ye must put off, as concerns your former con-
versation, the old man, which waxeth corrupt according to the lusts
of Deceit, “and rather become renewed by the Spirit of your

mind, “and put on the new man, which after God’s image hath

been created in righteousness and holiness of Truth.
» Wherefore, having put away Falsehood, speak truth each man
with his neighbor ; because we are members one of another.

by the remarks zn loc., and not under-
stood as indicating a mere general
ἀμετρία. The true idea of πλεονεξία is
“amor habendi:’ the objects to which it
is directed will be defined by the context.

20. Did not so learn] ‘ Have not so
learned Christ,’ Auth. and all the other
Vv.

21. If indeed} ‘Tf so be that,’ Auth.,
Bish., and sim. other Vv. except Wicl.,
‘if nethless ;’ Lthem., ‘if yet.’

Ye heard him] Sim. Wicl.: ‘have heard
Him,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vv.
Were taught in Him] ‘ Have been taught
by Him,’ Auth., Gen. (both); ‘ben
taugte in Him,’ Wiel., Tynd., Cov.; ‘be
instructe in Him,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘haue
bene taught in Him,’ Cran. and the re-
maining Vv. As is, etc.| So
Wiel. ; ‘as the truth is in Jesus,’ Auth.,
Bish., and sim. remaining Vy.

22. That ye must] ‘That ye,’ Auth.
As concerns your former] ‘Concerning
the former, etc.’ Auth. Which
waxeth, etc.| ‘Which is corrupt,’ Auth.,
and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘which
marreth himselfe. The lusts of
Deceit} ‘The deceitful lusts,’ Auth. ; ‘bi
the desiris of errour,’ Wicl., sim. Cov.
(Test.), Rhem. ; ‘ the deceavable lustes,’
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. (both); ‘the
lustes of errour,’ Bish.

23. And rather] ‘ And, Auth.

Become renewed] ‘Be renewed,’ Auth.

This change is made as an attempt to
express the contrast between the pres.
ἀνανεοῦσϑαι and the aor. ἐνδύσασϑαι.

By the Spirit] ‘In the spirit,’ Auth. and
all the other Vv.

24. And put on] ‘And that ye put on,’
Auth. After the image of God}
So Tynd., ‘after the ymage of God :’
“after God,’ Auth. and the other Vv.
except Rhem., ‘according to God.’ The
order of the Greek τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισῶ.
is similarly retained by all the Vv.
except Wicl., Cov. (both). It may be
observed that the transl. of Rhem., ‘ac-
cording to,’ has the advantage of pre-
serving the antithesis κατὰ τὰς ἐπιῶ.
k. T. A.(ver. 23), and κατὰ Θεόν, but fails
in bringing out clearly the great doc-
trinal truth appy. implied in the latter
words. Hath been created] ‘ Is
created,’ Auth., and similarly all the
other Vv. The transl. ‘hath been,’ is
perhaps here slightly preferable to ‘ was,’
as the latter tends to throw the κτίσις
further back than is actually intended ;
the ref. being to the new κτίσις in Christ.
Holiness of Truth] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.),
Bish., similarly Rhem.: ‘true holiness,’
Auth, and the other Vv. except Cov.,
where it is more correctly, ‘ true righteous-
ness and holynes.’

25. Having put away] ‘Putting away,’
Auth. Falsehood] ‘ Lying,’ Auth.
and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘lesynge.’

182

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. IV. 26—31.

* Be angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your

angered mood; “nor yet give

place to the devil. ™ Let the

stealer steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his

own hands the thing that is good,

that needeth.

that he may have to give to him

* Let no corrupt communication proceed out of

your mouth, but that which is good for edification of the need,
that it may minister a blessing unto the hearers ; Ἢ and grieve not
the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed for the day of

redemption.

Truth each man| So Wiel.; ‘every man
truth,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except
Cov. (Test-), Rhem. (omits ‘the’), ‘the
truth every man.’ Because] ‘ For,’
Auth., Gen. 1, al. ; ‘for as moch,’ Tynd.,
Cran. ; ‘because,’ Rhem.

26. Be angry] So the other Vv. ex-

cept Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., ‘be ye
angry ;’ Wicl., ‘be ye wrooth.’
Angered mood] ‘ Wrath,’ Auth. and all
the other Vv. The change may per-
haps be considered scarcely necessary,
as the expression has become so familiar ;
still παροργισμός, ‘exacerbatio,’ ‘exas-
peration,’ cannot strictly be translated
‘wrath.’

27. Nor yet] *‘Neither,’ Auth. ; see
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3 ( Transl.)

28. The stealer| ‘Him that stole,’

Auth., Bish., and sim. all other Vy. ex-
cept Cov., ‘he that hath stollen;’ Cov.
(Test.), ‘he that dyd steale.’ The
Auth. in ver. 29 supplies a precedent for
this idiomatic translation of the present
part. with the article. Eis own]
‘His,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.
The thing that) ‘The thing which,’
Auth., Cran., Bish. ; ‘that that,’ Weel. ;
‘some good,’ Cov.; ‘some good thing,’
Tynd.; ‘that which,’ Bish., Rhem. The
slight change to ‘that’ is perhaps more
critically exact; see Brown, Gram. of
Gramm. 11. 5, p. 293, and notes on ch. i.
23.

29. For edification] ‘To the use of
edifying,’ Auth., Gen (both); ‘good to

* Let all bitterness, and wrath and anger, and

edefye with all,’ ete., Zynd., Cov., Cran.,
Bish.; ‘to the edificatioun of feith,’
Wicl., sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. On the
difficulty of properly translating these
words, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. x.
p. 178. A blessing] ‘ Grace,’
Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov.,
‘that it be gracious to hear;’ Tynd.,
‘that it may have faveour.’

30. In whom] Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘in
whiche:’ ‘whereby,’ Auth. ; ‘by whom,’
Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish; "
‘wherewith,’ Cov. (both). Ye
were] ‘Ye are,’ Auth. and all the other
Vv. For| ‘Unto,’ Auth., Cov.,
Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘in
the,’ Wiel. : ‘agaynst the,’ Cov. (Test).

31. All bitterness] So Auth. It is not
always desirable to preserve the more
literal transl. of πᾶς (‘all manner of’),
esp. when it is prefixed to more than
one abstract substantive, as it tends to
load. the sentence without being much
more expressive. When the adj. fol-
lows, as in ver. 19, the longer translation
will often be found more admissible.
Wrath} So Auth., Wicl., Coverd. ('Test.),
‘fearsness,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ;
‘anger,’ Rish., Rhem. The translation
may be retained, whenever Supds and
ὀργὴ occur together, as sufficiently exact,
provided that by ‘ wrath’ we understand
rather the outbreak (‘excandescentia,’
Cicero, Tusc. Disput. αν. 9), by ‘anger’
the more settled and abiding habit. It
is perhaps doubtful whether ‘wrath ”

Cuap. V. 1—3.

EPHESIANS.

183

clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice ;
” but become kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one’
another, as God also in Christ forgave you.

CHAPTER V.

Become then followers of God, as beloved children; * and walk
in love, even as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an
offering and a sacrifice to God, for a savour of sweet smell.

* But fornication, and all manner of uncleanness or covetousness,

does not imply a greater permanence
than Suuds, see Cogan on the Passions, 1.
1, 2. 3, p. 111, still as it is several times
applied to God as well as man, it seems
generally the most proper and satisfac-
tory translation. Malice] So
Auth. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘ma-
liciousness,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv.
except Bish., ‘noughtiness. As κακία
points rather to the evil habit of the
mind, as distinguished from πονηρία, the
outcoming of the same (Trench, Synon.
ὃ x1.),— ‘malice,’ which is defined by
Crabb (Synon. s. v.) as ‘the essence of
badness lying in the heart,’ would appear
a correct translation ; see Cogan on the
Passions, 1. 3. 2, 1, p. 159.

32. But] ‘ And,’ Auth. Be-

come kind] ‘Be ye,’ Auth. and other
Vv. ; corresponding to ἀρϑήτω ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν,
ver. 31. As God also in Christ]
Similarly Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ;
“even as God for Christ’s sake,’ Auth.,
Tynd., and the remaining Vv.
Forgave] So Wicl., Tynd., Gen. (both),
Bish.; ‘hath forgiven,’ Auth. and the
remaining Vv. The aorist seems more
exact, as pointing to the past act of
God’s mercy and forgiveness displayed
in ‘ Christ,’ ἡ. 6. in giving Him to die for
the sins of the world.

Cuarter V. 1. Become then followers]

‘Be ye therefore followers,’ Auth. and
the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘therfor be
ye folowers;’ Cov., ‘be ye the folowers
therefore ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘be ye therfore
the folowers.’ The more literal transl.
of γίνεσθε might perhaps be here dis-
pensed with, as necessarily involved in
the action implied in μιμηταί; as, how-
ever, it seems an echo and resumption
of the preceding γίνεσϑε (ch. iv. 32), it
will be most exact to retain this more
literal translation. Beloved]
‘Dear,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except
Wicl., ‘dereworthe ;’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.,
“most deare.’

2. Even as] So all the other Vv. except
Wicl., Rhem., Auth., ‘as;’ Cov. (Test.),
“‘lyke as;’ see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5
( Transl.). Loved us, etc.| So
all Vy. except Auth, Gen. 2, Bish.
(similarly Cov.), ‘hath loved us and
hath given.’ Savour of sweet
smell] ‘Sweet smelling savour,’ Auth.,
Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘in to the odour of
swetnes,’ Wieel., sim. Cov. (Test.) ; “5800.
of a swete saver,’ T’ynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘in
an odour of sweteness,’ Rhem.

3. All manner of uncleanness] ** All
uncleanness,’ Auth. ; see notes on ch. iv.
31. Be even] ‘ Be once,’ Auth.,
Cran., Gen. 2, Bish., sim. Tynd., Gen. 1;
“so much as be,’ Rhem.; Wicl. omits
καὶ in transl.

184 EPHESIANS. Cuap. V. 4—13.

let it not be even named among you, as becometh saints ; ‘and no
filthiness, and foolish talking or jesting, — things which are unbe-
coming, — but rather giving of thanks. ° For this ye know, being
aware that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man
who is an idolater, hath an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ
and God. ° Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because
of these stns cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobe-
dience. ‘Do not then become partakers with them. *For ye
WERE once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as
children of light, —° for the fruit of the light zs in all goodness
and righteousness and truth,—7 proving what is well-pleasing
unto the Lord. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather even reprove them. ™ For the
things which are done by them in secret it is a shame even to
speak of. ™ But all these things, when they are reproved, are
made manifest BY THE LIGHT; for everything that is made mani-

4. And no—and} ‘ Neither— nor,’
Auth. As several MSS., e.g. ADIEI
FG; 4 mss.; Vulg., ‘Clarom.,, al.
(Lachm., Meyer, al.), read #—%, it seems
desirable to mark in the translation the
reading adopted. Or] ‘ Nor,’
Auth. Jesting| So Auth. and
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ harlotrie ;’
Rhem., ‘ scurrility.’ Things
which are, etc.| ‘Which are not con-
venient, Auth. ; ‘which are not comely,’
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish.; ‘which are
things not comely,’ Gen. (both).

5. Ye know, being aware] *‘Ye know
that, etc.,’ Auth. An inheritance]
‘ Any inheritance,’ Auth. and the other
Vy. except Wicel., ‘eritage;’ Cov.
(both), Rhem., ‘inheritaunce.’

Of Christ and God| ‘Of Christ and of
God,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.

6. These sins] ‘ These things,’ Auth.

7. Do not then become] Sim. Rhem.,
‘become not therefore;” ‘be not ye
therefore,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Cran.,
Gen, 2, Bish.; ‘therfor nyle ye be
made,’ Wicl.; ‘be not therefore,’ Tynd.,

Gen. 1: the insertion of ‘ye’ is not in
accordance with the original.

8. Once| So Tynd., Gen. (both) :
‘sometimes,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘sometime,’
Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem.

9. The light] ‘ The * Spirit,’ Auth.

10. Well-pleasing] So Wicel., Cov.
(Test.), Rhem.; ‘acceptable,’ <Auth.,
Bish. ; ‘ pleasinge,’ Tynd. and the re-
maining Vv.

11 But rather even] Similarly, but
rather awkwardly, Gen. 2, ‘but even
reprove them rather;’ ‘but rather,’
Auth. and remaining Vy. except Wiel.,
‘but more ;’ Bish., ‘ but even rebuke.’

12. For the things, etc.| ‘For it is a
shame even to speak of those things
which are done of them in secret,’ Auth.
and in similar order, the other Vy. ex-
cept Wicl., Rhem.

13, All these] ‘ All,’ Auth.

When they are] So Tynd., Cov., Cran.,
Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘that are,’ Auth.,
Wicl., Cov. (Test.) Rhem.

For everything, etc.| ‘For whatsoever
doth make manifest is light,’ Auth. ; ‘ for

Sr

Cuap. V. 14—24. EPHESIANS. 185

fest is light. “ Wherefore He saith, Up! thou that sleepest, and
arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

* Take heed then how ye walk with strictness, not as fools, but
as wise, “buying up for yourselves the opportunity, because the
days are evil. ” For this cause do not become unwise, but under-
standing what the will of the Lord ἐ8. And be not made drunk
with wine, wherein is dissoluteness, but be filled with the Spirit ;
" speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singmg and making melody in your heart to the Lord, ” giving
thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, “ submitting yourselves one to another
in the fear of Christ.

* Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
Lord ; * for a husband is head of his wife, as Christ also is head of
the church ; He 7s the saviour of the body. * Nevertheless as the
church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives also be to their hus-

al thing that is schewed is light,’ Wiel. ;
‘for whatsoever is manifest, that same
is light,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘for euery
thinge that is manifest is light,’ Cov.
(Test.) : ‘for it is light that discouereth
all things,’ Gen. 1; ‘for it is light that
makes all things manifest,’ Gen. 2; ‘for
all that which doeth make manifest is
light,’ Bish. ; ‘for al that is manifested
is light,’ Rhem.

14. Up! thou that sleepest] So Coverd.
(Test.): ‘awake thou that sleepest,’
Auth. and the remaining Vv. except
Wicl., Rhem., ‘rise thou that,’ ete.

15. Tuke heed] So all the other Vv.

except Wicl., Rhem., Auth., ‘see.’
How ye] So Cran., Cov. (both), Rhem.,
similarly Wiel. ; ‘that ye,’ Auth. and the
remaining Vy. With strictness]
‘Circumspectly,’ Avth. and the other
Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘warily.’

16. Buying up, etc.| ‘Redeeming the
time,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), simi-
larly Cov., Gen. (both), Bish., Rhem.;
‘agenbiynge tyme,’ Wrel.; ‘avoydyng
occasion,’ Cran.

17. For this cause] ‘Wherefore,’ Auth.,

24

Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ;
‘therfor,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.

Do not become] Sim. Rhem.; ‘be ye not,’
Auth. and the remaining Vy.

18. Made drunk] ‘Be not drunk,’
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl.,
‘nyle ye be drunken;’ Cov., ‘be not
dronken ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘be not ye
dronken,’ Dissoluteness| ‘ Ἐχ-
cess,’ Auth. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.
(both), Bish.; ‘leccherie,’ Wiel. ;
“voluptuousnesse,’ Cov, (Test.) ; ‘riot-
ousness,’ Rhem.

19. One another] ‘ Yourselves,’ Auth.
and all the other Vv.

21. Of Christ] ‘ Of * God,’ Auth.

22. Submit yourselves] Italics ; but not
so in Auth. which adopts the insertion.

23. A husband] *‘The husband,’
Auth. Head of his] ‘The head
of the,’ Auth. As Christ also]
‘Even as Christ,’ Auth. and the other
Vv. except Wicl Cov. (Test.), Rhem.,
‘ As Christ is.’ He is] *‘ And
he is,’ Auth.

24. Nevertheless] ‘Therefore,’ Auth.
and the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov.

180 EPHESIANS. Crap. V. 25—32.

bands. ™ Husbands, love your own wives, even as Christ also loved
the church, and gave Himself for it; * that He might sanctify it,
having cleansed it by the laver of the water in the word, * that
He might Himself present to Himself the church in glorious
beauty, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that
it should be holy and blameless. * Thus ought husbands also to
love their own wives, as being their own bodies. He that loveth
his own wife loveth himself. “For no man ever hated his own
flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as Christ also doth
the church: ” because we are MEMBERS of His body, of His flesh,
and of His bones. ® For this cause shall a man leave his father
and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall
be one flesh. This mystery is a great one; I however am

(Test.), Bish., Rhem., ‘ but.’
Also be] ‘Be,’ Auth. Their hus-
bands] *‘ Their own husbands,’ Auth.

25. Your own] ‘ Your,’ Auth. and all
the other Vy.

26. Sanctify it, etc.] ‘Sanctify it and
cleanse it,’ Auth., Gen. 2; ‘to sanctifie
it, and clensed it,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.
1; ‘to sanctifie it, when he had clensed
it,’ Bish.; ‘sanctifie it, cleansing it,’
Rhem. By the laver of the, etc.]
So Rhem. (‘of water’): ‘with the wash-
ing of water by the word,’ Auth. ; ‘with
the, etc., in the word,’ Wicl.: ‘in the
fountayne of water thorow the worde,’
Tynd., Cran.; ‘in the f. of w. by the
worde,’ Cov. ; ‘with the f. of w. in the
worde,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘in the washing
of w. through the worde,’ Gen..1; ‘in
the fountain of water in the word,’
Bish.

27. He might Himself, etc.] ‘He might
present it *to Himself a glorious church,’
Auth., Bish. (‘unto’); ‘to make it unto
Himselfe a glorious congregacion,’ Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., similarly Gen. 1; ‘to geue
the chirche glorious to Him self,’ Wicl.
Blameless| ‘Without blemish,’ Auth. ;
‘that it hadde no wemme,’ Wiel. ; ‘ with-

out blame,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.
(both), Bish. ; ‘ undefyled,’ Cov. (Test.) ;
‘unspotted,’ 2hem. ; see notes on ch. i. 4.

28. Thus also, etc.] *‘So ought men
to love,’ Auth. Own wife —
wives] Auth. omits ‘own.’

As being] ‘ As,’ Auth. and all the other
Vv.

29. Ever] So Wicl., Rhem.; ‘ever
yet,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex-
cept Cov. (Test.), ‘at ony tyme.’

Christ also, etc.| *‘ The Lord, the
Church,’ Auth.

30. Because] So Rhem.: ‘for,’ Auth.
and the remaining Vv. except Wiel.,
‘and.’

81. Father] *‘ His father,’ Auth.

82. This mystery, etc.| ‘This is a great

mystery,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.); ‘this
sacrament is great,’ Wicl.; ‘is a great
sacr.’ Rhem.; ‘is a great secrete,’ Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.
I however am, etc.| ‘ But I speak,’ Auth.
and the Vy. except Wicl., ‘ye I seie;’
Cov. (Test.), ‘but I say;’ “1 speake,’
Bish. In reference to| ‘ Con-
cerning,’ Auth, Gen. 2; ‘in,’ Wiel.,
Cov. (Test.) Rhem.; ‘bitwene,’ Tynd. ;
‘of,’ Cov., Cran., Gen.

EPHESIANS.

Cuap. VI. 1—8. 187

speaking in reference to Christ and to the church. ἢ Nevertheless
ye also severally, let each one ef you thus love his own wife as
himself; and the wife, let her reverence her husband.

CuapTer VI.

CHILDREN, obey your parents, in the Lord; for this is mght.
* Honour thy father and thy mother, the which is the first com-
mandment in regard of promise; °* that it may be well with thee,
and that thou mayest live long upon the earth. * And, ye fathers,
provoke not your children to wrath ; but bring them up in the
discipline and admonition of the Lord.

° Bond-servants, be obedient to your masters according to the
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
Christ; ° not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as bond-ser-
vants of Christ; doing the will of God from the heart; ‘ with
good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: ‘seeing
ye know that whatsoever good thing each man shall do, THIS shall

33. Ye also, εἰς. ‘Let every one of

you in particular,’ Auth.; ‘do ye so,
that every one,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.;
‘you also let every one loue,’ Cov.
(Test.); ‘every one of you, do ye so,’
Gen. (both), Bish. The slight asynde-
ton in the original is perhaps best re-
tained. Thus love his own wife
as] ‘ So love his wife as,’ Auth.
Let her reverence] ‘See that she rever-
ence,’ Auth.; ‘and let the wife se that,’
Tynd., Gen. (both) ; ‘but let,’ ete., Cov.
(both) ; ‘and let the wife feare,’ Cran.,
Rhem.; ‘and let the wyfe reverence,’
Bish.

Cuap. VI. 2. Thy mother] So Wicl.,
Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘mother,’ Auth. and
the remaining Vv. The which]
‘Which,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen. 2,
Bish., Rhem.; ‘that is, Wiel., Cov.,
Tynd., Gen. 1; ‘the same is,’ Cran.

In regard of promise] ‘ With promise,’
Auth., Gen. 2; ‘that hath eny promes,’
16

Tynd., Cov., Gen. 1; ‘in the promyse,’
Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. (omits ‘ the’)
Rhem.; ‘in behest,’ Wiel.

3. And that thou] ‘And thou,’ Auth.
Upon] ‘ On,’ Auth.

4. Discipline} So Rhem.; ‘nurture,’
Auth., Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran. ;
‘techynge,’ Wicl.; ‘instruction,’ Gen.
(both), Bish.

5. Bond-servants] ‘Servants,’ Auth. ;
change to maintain the opposition in
ver. 8. Your] ‘Them that
are,’ Auth.

6. Bond-servants] ‘The servants,’ Auth.

8. Seeing ye know] ‘ Knowing,’ Auth.,
and similarly other Vv. except Tynd.,
‘and remember ;’ Cov., ‘and be sure;’
Gen. (both, ‘and know ye.’

Each man| So Wiel., ‘any man,’
Auth. and the remaining Vy. except
Cov., “ἃ man;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘he doth; ’
Rhem., ‘he shall do.’ Shall
do| So Wicl., Rhem.; ‘doeth,’ Auth. and
the remaining Vy. This| ‘The

EPHESIANS.

188 Crap. VI. 9—14.

he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. " And, ye
masters, do the same things unto them, giving up your threat-
ening: seeing ye know that both their Master and yours is in
heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him.

” Finally, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the power of His
might. “ Put on THE WHOLE ARMOUR of God, that ye may be
able to stand against the stratagems of the devil: ” because our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but it is against Principalities,
against Powers, against the World-Rulers of this darkness, against
the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly regions. ™ For
this cause take up THE WHOLE AarMoUR of God, that ye may be
able to withstand in the evil day, and having fully done all, to

stand.

same,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran.; ‘that
same,’ Gren. (both) ; ‘that,’ Tynd., Bish. ;
“it,’ Cov.

9. Giving up your] ‘ Forbearing,’ Auth. ;
‘puttinge awaye,’ Tynd., Cov. (both),
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘remitting,’
Rhem. Seeing ye know, etc.]
‘Knowing that your * Master also is in
h. neither is there,’ Auth.

10. Finally] *‘ Finally my brethren,’
Auth. Be strengthened| So
Rhem.; ‘be strong,’ Auth. and the re-
maining Vy. except Wicl., ‘be ye coun-
fortide.’

11. Stratagems] ‘ Wiles,’ Auth.; ‘as-
piyngis,’ Wicl. ; ‘crafty assautes,’ Tynd.,
Cov., Gen. 1 ; ‘assaultes,’ Cov. (Test.),
Cran., Gen. 2, Bish.; ‘deceites,’ Rhem.
The translation in the text seems best to
convey the idea of a fixed and settled
plan: see notes on ch. iy. 14.

12. Because our wrestling] ‘For we
wrestle not,’ Auth. and remaining Vv.

except Wicl., ‘for why stryuynge ;’
Rhem., ‘for our wrestling.’ But
itis] ‘But, Auth. The World-
Rulers| ‘The rulers,’ Auth.; ‘ govern-

ouris of the world,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.),
‘worldly rulers,’ Tynd.,
Cran.; ‘the worldly gouernours,’ Gen.
(both), Bish. (omits ‘the’); ‘the rec-

sim. Cov. ;

* Stand therefore, having girt your loins about with truth,

tors of the world,’ Rhem. Of
this darkness} *‘ Of the darkness of
this world,’ Auth. The spiritual
hosts of wickedness] ‘Spiritual wicked-
ness,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘spiritual thingis of
w.’ Wicl., Cov. (Test); ‘spretual w.’
Tynd. ; ‘ye spretes of w.’ Cov.: ‘ spret-
ual craftynes,’ Cran. ; ‘spiritual wicked-
nesses,’ Gen. (both); ‘the spirituals of
w. Rhem. In the heavenly
regions] ‘In high places,’ Auth.; ‘in
hevenli thingis,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.),
Cran.; ‘for hevenly thinges,’ Tynd. :
‘under the heauen,’ Cov.; ‘which are
above,’ Gen. 1; ‘which are in the hie
places,’ Gen. 2; ‘in heavenly places,’
Bish.; ‘in the celestials,’ Rhem.

13. For this cause] So Tynd., Cov.,

Gen. (both): ‘wherefore,’ Auth., Bish.,
Cran.; ‘therfor,’ Wicl., Rhem.
Up] ‘Unto you,’ Auth. Fully
done] ‘Done,’ Auth.; ‘and in alle
thingis stonde parfigt, Wiel.: ‘havy-
ing finished all thynges,’ Gen. (both),
Bish.

14. Having girt, etc.] ‘Having your
loins girt about,’ Auth. Bish.; ‘and
your loynes gyrd aboute,’ Tynd., Cov.,
Gen. (both), sim. Cran.; ‘having your
loins girded in,’ Rhem. Hav-
ing put on] ‘ Having on, Auth.

ἢ

Cuar. VI. 15—22. EPHESIANS. 189

and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, ' and having
shod your feet with the preparedness of the gospel of peace; in
addition to all, having taken up the shield of faith, wherewith ye
shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked One ;
1 and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God; “with all prayer and supplication
praying always in the Spirit, and watching thereunto, with all
perseverance and supplication for all the saints ; “ἢ and in particu-
lar for me, that utterance may be GIVEN unto me in the opening
of my mouth, so that with boldness 1 may make known the mys-
tery of the gospel, * for which I am an ambassador im a chain ;
that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

*! But that ye also may know my condition, how I fare, Tychicus,
the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make
known to you all things: “whom I have sent unto you for this

15. And having shod] ‘ And your feet
shod,’ Auth. Preparedness]
‘With the preparation,’ <Auth., Gen.
(both); ‘in makynge rede of,’ Wiel.;
‘(showes) prepared by the, ete.’ Tynd. ;
‘that ye may be prepared,’ Cov., simi-
larly Cran, ‘that ye may be prepared
for ;’ ‘in the preparation,’ Bish. ; ‘to the
prep.’ them.

16. In addition to] ‘ Above all,’ Auth.
and the other Vv. except Wieel., Cov.
(Test.), Rhem., ‘in alle thingis.’
Having, etc.| ‘Taking, Auth., Bish,
Rhem.; ‘take to you,’ Tynd., Cran.,
Gen. 1; ‘take holde of,’ Cov.

Wicked one] Sim. Rhem., ‘of the most
wicked one:’ ‘the wicked,’ Auth. and
the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘the
worst;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘the most wicked.’
The addition in the text seems desirable as
marking the personality of τοῦ πονηροῦ.

17. Receive] ‘ Take,’ Auth. and all the
other Vv.

18. With all prayer, ete.| ‘ Praying
always with all, etc.’ Auth.

All the saints] So Rhem.; ‘all saints,’
Auth, and the remaining Vv. except
Wicl., ‘ alle holi men.’

19. And in particular] ‘And,’ Auth. :

use of καὶ to add the particular to the
general; see Fritz. on Mark, p. 11, 718,
and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12.
In the opening, etc.| ‘That I may open
my mouth boldly to,’ etc., Auth., Tynd.,
Cov., Cran., Gen. (both; ‘in openynge
of my mouth,’ Wiel., similarly Cov.
(Test.), Rhem.: ‘that I may open my
mouth freely to utter,’ etc., Bish.

20. A chain] So Wiel. ; ‘in this ch.,”
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘in bonds,’ Auth.
and the remaining Vv.

21. Condition} Sim. Tynd., Cran. ;
‘ affairs,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘what case I am
in,’ Cov.; change merely to avoid the
homeeoteleuton. How I fare|
‘And how I do,’ Auth.: all the other
Vv., ‘what I do;’ but as this might be
misunderstood and referred to what the
Apostle was actually engaged in (see
Wolf in loc.), it seems best, with Harl.,
to refer τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ to ‘meine Lage,’ τὶ
πράσσω to ‘mein Befinden.’
The beloved] Sim. Cran., Cov. (Test.),
‘the:’ ‘a beloved,’ Auth. ; ‘my,’ Wiel.,
Tynd., Coverd., Gen., Rhem,; ‘a,’ Bish.

22. This very purpose} ‘The same,’

190 EPHESIANS. Cuar. VI. 23, 24.

very purpose, that ye may know our affairs, and that he may com-
fort your hearts.

* Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace de with all them that

love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.

Auth. and all the other Vv. except 24. In incorruption] So Wicl., Rhem. ;
Wicel., ‘ this same.’ May —may] ‘in sincerity,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘in puernes,’
‘Might — might,’ Auth.: change in ac- Tynd.; ‘unfaynedly,’ Cov., Cran. ; ‘sin-
cordance with the law of the succession cerely,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ to the’r immor-
of tenses, Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616. talitie,’ Gen. (both).

WARREN F. DRAPER,

PUBLISHER AND BOOKSELLER,

ANDOVER, MASS.

PUBLISHES AND OFFERS FOR SALE THE FOLLOWING, WHICH WILL
BE SENT POST PAID ON RECEIPT OF THE SUM AFFIXED.

GUERICKE’S CHURCH HISTORY. Translated by W. G. T. SHEDD,
Brown Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 438 pp. 8vo. $2.25.
This volume includes the period of the ANCIENT CHURCH (the first six centuries, A. C.).

DISCOURSES AND ESSAYS. By Pror. W G. T. SHEDD. 312 pp.
12mo. New Edition. $1.00.
ConTEeNtsS.— The Method and Influence of Theological Studies.— The True Nature of
the Beautiful, and its Relation to Culture. — The Characteristics and Importance of a Natural
Rhetoric. — The Nature and Influence of the Historic Spirit. — The Relation of Language and

Style to Thought.— The Doctrine of Original Sin.—'The Atonement, a Satisfaction for the
Ethical Nature of both God and Man.

LECTURES UPON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. By
Pror. W.G.T.SHEDD. 128 pp. 12mo. 60 cents.

ConTENTS.— The Abstract Idea of History. — The Nature and Definition of Secular History.
— The Nature and Definition of Church History.— The Verifying Test in Church History.

OUTLINES OF A SYSTEMATIC RHETORIC. From the German
of Dr. FRANCIS THEREMIN, by W G.T. SHEDD. Third and revised Edition,
with an Introductory Essay by the Translator. pp. 216. 12mo. 75 cts.

AUBERLEN ON DANIEL AND THE REVELATION. Trans-
lated by Rev. ADOLPH SAPHIR. 8vo. pp. 490. $1.50.

CALVIN’S COMMENTARIES. (CALVIN SOCIETY’S EDITION.)
Complete in 45 vols. 8vo. $55.00, with Postage added.

These works are new, accurate, and faithful translations, by the Society specially organized
for the purpose. The volumes average about 500 pages each, 8vo., are handsomely printed on
fine paper, in large type, and bound in black cloth. Copious Tables and Indices are appended.

CALVIN’S INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
3vols. 8vo. $5.00. with Postage added.

The volumes of this work contain upwards of 600 pages each. Besides a Table of Scripture
Passages, there is also a Table of Greek words explained, and a very copious General Index.

ELLICOTT’S COMMENTARY, CRITICAL AND GRAMMAT-
ICAL, on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. With an Introductory Notice
by CaLvin E. Stowe, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo.
pp. 188. $1.50.

HENDERSON ON THE MINOR PROPHETS THE BOOK
OF THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. Translated from the Original
Hebrew. With a Commentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical By
E. Henperson, D.D. With a Biographical Sketch of the Author, by E. P.
Barrows, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo. pp. 490. $3.00.

(2)

Publications of W. }ὶ Draper.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By
MosEs STuART, late Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological
Seminary at Andover. Third Edition. Edited and revised by Pror. R. D.
C. Ropsins. 12mo. pp. 544. $1.50.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
By Pror. M. Stuart. Third Edition. Edited and revised by Pror. R. D.C.
ἘΟΒΒΙΝΒ. 12mo. pp. 575. $1.75.

COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. By Pror.
M. Stuart. 12mo. pp. 482. $1.25.

STUART’S MISCELLANIES. pp. 369. 12mo. 75 cents.

ConTentTs.—I. Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity. — II. Two Sermons on the Atone-
ment.— III. Sacramental Sermon on the Lamb of God.—IV. Dedication Sermon. — Real
Christianity. — V. Letter to Dr. Channing on Religious Liberty. — VI. Supplementary Notes
and Postscripts.

STUART’S GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTA
MENT DIALECT. Second Edition. Corrected and rewritten. 8vo. $1.87.

STUART’S HINTS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPH-
ECY. pp. 146. 12mo. 88 cents.

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. Translated from the Latin
of J. A. Ernesti, and accompanied by Notes, with an Appendix containing
Extracts from Morus, Beck, Keil, and Henderson. By M. Sruarr. Fourth
Edition. 12mo. Half cloth. pp. 142. 60 cents.

STUART’S HEBREW CHRESTOMATHY. Designed as an Intro-
duction to a course of Hebrew Study. Third Edition, 8vo. pp. 281. 75 cents.

MESSIANIC PROPHECY AND THE LIFE OF CHRIST.
By Rev. W.S. KENNEDY. 12mo. pp. 484. $1.00.

SCHAUFFLER’S MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF
CHRIST. 12mo. pp. 439. $1.00.

BIBLE HISTORY OF PRAYER. By Ὁ. A. Goopricu. 12mo.
pp. 884. $1.00.

MONOD’S DISCOURSES ON THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL.
Translated from the French, by Rev. J. H. Myers, D.D. 12mo. pp. 191.
75 ets.

CARLYLE’S LATTER-DAY PAMPHLETS. 12mo. pp. 427. $1.00.

NEMESIS SACRA. A series of Inquiries, Philosophical and Critical, into
the Seripture Doctrine of Retribution on Earth. pp. 550. $2.75.

THEOLOGIA GERMANICA. Which setteth forth many fair linea-
ments of Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a
Perfect Life. Edited by Dr. Prre1rrer, from the only complete manuscript
yet known. Translated from the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH.
With a Preface by the Rev. CHARLES Kina@siery, Rector of Eversley; and
a Letter to the Translator, by the CHEVALIER BuNSEN, D.D., D.C.L., ete.;
and an Introduction by Pror. Catvin E. Stowxr, D.D. 16mo. pp. 275.
Cloth, $1.00; calf, $2.00.

THE CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Edited, with an
Introduction, by Prof. W. G. T. SHEpD. l16mo. pp. 458. $1.00.
(b)

BS2695 .E46
commentary, critical and grammatical,

Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

GAYLORD #3523PI — Printed in USA

eve

ΓΝ ὁ
ἢ ny. . ἢ Py) j un,
: Ti

if
i

tt