Full text of "The expositor's Greek Testament;"

See other formats

os ων ον ών νο 
με 4 υιφνφισφν ο παρα, 


ον pate ne bilan ant) 


Pom itp σῶν ἡ ohn om 
Ra-potie ses ea inh 
er 
cokers 











fa 
ΝᾺ, 


% 


ον. 
ιν 


Ψ 


“Pe 


k 
~~ 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https ://archive.org/details/expositorsgreektOSnico 


THE EXPOSITOR’S 
GREEK TESTAMENT 


EDITED BY THE REV. 


W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D. 


EDITOR OF “ THE EXPOSITOR,” ‘‘ THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE,” ETC. 


VOLUME IIL 


HODDER AND STOUGHTON 
NEW YORK AND LONDON 





{/ 
᾿ Ψ 





νά “ . . Sind = ; x) ιο. 
or a om is ΡΥ ανν 


THE EXPOSITOR’S 
GREEK TESTAMENT 


I 


THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE 
CORINTHIANS 


BY THE VERY REV. 


Ἱ. Ἡ BeEKNARD, DD. 


DEAN OF ST. PATRICK’S, DUBLIN 


II 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 


BY THE REV. 


FREDERTIC *RENDALL, M.A. 


III 
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 


BY THE REV. 


5: ἢ. Ε΄ SALMOND; 199. 
IV 
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 


H. A. A. KENNEDY, D.Sc. 
ν 
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 


BY PROFESSOR 


A. S. PEAKE, M.A. 


HODDER. AND STOUGHTON 
NEW YORK AND LONDON 





THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL 
TO THE 


CORINTHIANS 





INTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER I. 
THE TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 


1. In the case of no book of the New Testament is it more 
essential to a true understanding of its language, that we should 
have a clear view of the circumstances under which it was composed, 
than in the case of 2 Corinthians. It is the most autobiographical 
of all St. Paul’s letters, and it abounds in personal allusions, which 
it is difficult, at this distance of time, to appreciate, and of which 
some will probably always remain obscure. It glows with the heat 
of fervid life) and was evidently written under the influence of 
strong emotion. And, if we do not assign it to its true place in St. 
Paul’s life, we are likely to miss a good deal of the force of its 
earnest and eager words. It is, therefore, desirable to enter into 
more detail as to the occasion of its composition than was necessary 
in the case of a treatise like the Epistle to the Romans, the argu- 
ments of which are largely independent of the circumstances of the 
author at the time when it was written. 

2. In the nineteenth chapter of the Acts we find that Ephesus 
has become St. Paul’s headquarters; the centre of interest has 
been shifted from Jerusalem and Antioch, and the Apostle’s labours 
are being mainly spent upon Asia Minor. Corinth, however, 
occupies a considerable share in his thoughts; and, during the 
period of over two years which he spends at Ephesus, communica- 
tions with the Corinthian Church are being carried on. It is the 
_ sequence of events during this period and the subsequent six months 

that we have to examine. Such an examination of the order in 
which events followed one another might be made without any 
determination of the absolute dates of any ; but it is convenient to 


‘See Hort, $udaistic Christianity, p. 98, 


4 INTRODUCTION 


indicate here the system of chronology which has been adopted. 
Provisionally, the dates assigned to the principal events of St. Paul's 
life by Mr. Turner! will be taken as a basis for investigation. It is 
now pretty generally agreed among scholars that the dates formerly 
accepted, ¢.g., by Wieseler and Lightfoot, are two years too late; 
but this does not, of course, affect materially the accuracy of Light- 
foot’s conclusions as to the order in which the several incidents of 
the Apostle’s career took place. Indeed, the scheme of recon- 
struction of St. Paul's history while at Ephesus, which has approved 
itself to the present editor, is in the main that put forward by 
Lightfoot,? although his dates have not been followed. This scheme 
is not without difficulties ; but it is dependent on fewer subsidiary 
hypotheses than any other which has been proposed, and it possesses 
special claim to consideration from the fact that it is an attempt to 
explain the documents as they stand without resort to the heroic 
measures of dissection which some critics have found it necessary to 
adopt. 

3. I start, then, with the assumption that St. Paul's sojourn of 
over two years at Ephesus ® (Acts xix. 10) lasted from December, 52, 
or January, 53, to March or April, 55, and 1 proceed to examine his 
communications with Corinth during that period. The Church at 
Corinth had been founded by the Apostle on his second missionary 
journey, late in the year 50 (Acts xviii. 1 f.);* but, all too soon after 
its foundation, it became apparent that the laxity of morals, for 
which Corinth was notorious, was showing itself in the lives of the 
Christian converts. Men do not easily shake themselves free from 
evil traditions and associations ; and the power of the new faith took 
time to establish itself there as elsewhere. When the restraints 
imposed by the Apostle’s presence were removed, various scandals 
betrayed the moral weakness of these clever Greeks who had 
welcomed the new teaching but a short time before. It would 
appear that while St. Paul was at Ephesus bad news reached him 
from Corinth as to the morals of his converts; and in consequence 
of this he paid to that city a brief disciplinary visit, of which indeed 
no account has been given by St. Luke, but which is alluded to in St. 
Paul's Epistles (see especially 2 Cor. xii, 21, where we are informed 


ὁ See article ‘‘ Chronology of N.T.” in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. 

2See Biblical Essays, pp. 222, 274. 

‘It is probable that the “‘ three months” of ver. 8 is to be reckoned in addition 
to the ‘two years" of νετ, 10; cf. τριετίαν, Acts xx. 31. 

*On the Church at Corinth, see the first chapter of Prof. Findlay’s Introduction 
οἱ Corinthians (vol. ii., p. 729 ff.). 


INTRODUCTION 5 


that it was in consequence of the lax morality of the Corinthians 
that he visited them in grief). 

4, The reasons for holding that this visit (which we shall call the 
“Intermediate Visit’) took place are as follows. We have seen 
that St. Paul’s first visit to Corinth is recorded in Acts xviii, 
Another visit is mentioned in Acts xx. 3, viz., that which was sub- 
sequent to the two Canonical Epistles to the Corinthians, and which 
was in contemplation while he was writing both. Its date was 
55-56. But it appears from 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, that this was his 
third visit; and hence a visit to Corinth must have been paid 
between the years 50 and 55 (probably towards the end of the 
period, say in the autumn of 54), of which no account is given in the 
Acts? It is all but impossible to fit in this visit if we do not 
suppose it to have been paid from Ephesus; and it would have been 
an easy matter for St. Paul to have undertaken this. Ephesus was 
only a week or ten days’ sail from Corinth, and on the receipt of ill 
news it would have been the most natural thing in the world that 
he should thus cross the Aigean hastily to set matters right. It 
appears distinctly from 2 Cor. ii. 1 that this visit was a painful one, 
and such as he would not wish again to have experience of. And, 
further, the language of xii. 21, xiii. 2, suggests that the trouble which 
caused this Painful Visit was not faction or schism, but unchastity 
of life among his converts. 

5. St. Paul thereafter returned to Ephesus and wrote, probably 
after no long interval, a letter which is now lost. It is mentioned 
in 1 Cor. v. 9; and it contained, he tells us, injunctions to the 
Corinthian Christians “to keep no company with fornicators,” in- 
junctions (probably) suggested to him by what he had seen on his 
recent visit. That visit had been one of stern rebuke rather than 
of counsel ; and it is quite intelligible that on his return he should 
desire to put in writing his deliberate advice. There is no indication 
that anything had happened up to this point which suggested the 
rise of schisms or of party spirit at Corinth. Indeed it may well 
have been that his visit, ἐν λύπῃ (2 Cor. ii. 1), was the proximate cause 
of the schisms with which the Church at Corinth was soon to be 
troubled ; for the attempt to enforce discipline for lapses in morality 


1 This, indeed, has been denied by Paley (Hore Pauline, chap. iv., § xi.) and, 
recently, by Prof. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 275) and Dr. Robertson 
(Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, νο]. i., p. 494) ; but I cannot think that their explanations 
of 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, as alluding to a visit intended, but not paid, are satisfactory. 

*The language of 1 Cor. xvi. 7, οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἄρτι ἐν παρόδῳ ἰδεῖν, seems 
to suggest that his last visit to Corinth had been a brief and hasty one. 


6 INTRODUCTION 


would naturally stir up party opposition, and would stimulate dis- 
affection on the part of the less stable members of the little 
community. The Lost Letter, then, consisted mainly of rules as 
to conduct, and was not concerned, so far as we know, with the 
question of schism, which had probably not yet arisen.! Two other 
topics, however, it may have touched upon, viz., the Apostle’s plans 
of travel and the collection for the poor Judzan Christians. We 
must not lose sight of the fact that St. Paul’s plans were in the 
main determined during these years by his purpose of making a 
collection to relieve the needs of the poorer converts in Judza and 
of bringing it in person to Jerusalem. Now, as to his plans of 
travel, it is plain that the route mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 5, and 
actually adopted in the sequel (Acts xix. 21), was not the route 
which the Corinthians expected him to take. At one time he had 
wished to travel from Ephesus to Corinth—Macedonia—Corinth— 
Jerusalem, a route which would twice give them the benefit and 
the privilege of seeing him while he was in Europe (2 Cor. i. 15, 
16). This plan seems to have been communicated to them before 
1 Corinthians was written ; and it is obvious to suggest that it was 
announced in the Lost Letter. Again, it will appear (see § 7) from 
a consideration of the structure of the First Canonical Epistle to the 
Corinthians that the Corinthians in their letter which preceded it 
had asked for details about the manner in which the collection 
for the Judzan Christians was to be made. In other words, they 
had already been informed by St. Paul that such a collection was 
being organised ; and so we are led round to the suggestion that 
this information also was contained in the Lost Letter. 

6. We now proceed with the history. Some time after the Lost 
Letter had been despatched bad news again came from Corinth, and 
this of two kinds. First, members of Chloe’s household (οἱ Χλόης, 
1 Cor. i. 11, cf. also 1 Cor. xi. 18) reported that factions had arisen, 
and that a Peter party and an Apollos party were setting themselves 
up in opposition to the party of Paul. Some indeed went so far as 
to call themselves, par excellence, the ‘‘ Christ party ” (1 Cor. i. 12). 
And, secondly, a rumour reached Ephesus that an abominable case 
of incest had occurred among the Christians at Corinth (1 Cor. v. 1). 
This was much worse than any of the moral lapses which the Apostle 
had previously rebuked in person or by letter; it was a wickedness 


1 This is an argument which should not be overlooked for placing the Inter- 
mediate Visit before the Lost Letter, or at any rate before the First Canonical 
Epistle. 


INTRODUCTION τι 


which even the heathen did not tolerate. About the same time 
that these distressing reports reached Ephesus, a dutiful message 
to St. Paul was brought from Corinth by Stephanas, Fortunatus 
and Achaicus (1 Cor. xvi. 17). These envoys seem to have 
brought with them a letter asking for advice on certain points of 
conduct and discipline, viz., about Marriage, Celibacy, the use of 
Idol-meats, the. Gifts of the Spirit, and the Collection,? with each 
of which the Apostle deals separately in his reply under a distinct 
heading, beginnning περὶ δέ... It is interesting, because so 
natural,’ that the Corinthians seem to have made no mention in 
their letter of the schisms and disorders which had arisen among 
them.4 

7. It was in consequence of the reports which had reached him, 
as well as in reply to this letter of the Corinthian Church, that St. 
Paul wrote the First Canonical Epistle. Of this the early part is 
entirely taken up with warnings against schism (chaps. i.-iv.), and with 
a stern rebuke for the sins of the flesh into which they had fallen, 
and of which the Church had not taken cognisance (chaps. v., vi.). 
The remainder of the Epistle is mainly occupied with the letter of 
the Corinthians to him, taking up their points in order: περὶ δὲ ὧν 
ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι (1 Cor. vii. 1); περὶ δὲ 
τῶν παρθένων (1 Cor. vii. 25); περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων (1 Cor. viii. 1); 
περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν (1 Cor. xii. 1); περὶ δὲ τῆς λογίας (1 Cor. xvi. 
1). It thus appears, and it is important to bear it in mind, that 
chaps. vii.-xvi. of 1 Corinthians are of the nature of an appendix or 
excursus, and that chaps. i.-vi. constitute the letter proper, as con- 
taining the Apostle’s special message to the Corinthian Church at this 
juncture. His language in reference to the party spirit which was 
manifesting itself is grave and uncompromising (1 Cor. iii. 12-15), 
and he writes about his own position in a spirit of depression (1 Cor. 


1See Cicero, pro Cluentio, 6, 15. 

2 Lewin (94. Paul, vol. i., p. 386) and Findlay (Expositor, June, 1900) have tried 
to reconstruct this letter ; but beyond the general fact that it dealt with certain topics 
we have no data upon which to go. 

3 See Paley, Hore Pauline, chap. iii., § i. 

4 Mention may be made here of an apocryphal letter of the Corinthians to St. 
Paul and his supposed reply, which are extant in Armenian and in Latin. An 
English translation by Lord Byron will be found in Stanley’s Corinthians, vol. ii., 
p. 305. These letters do not correspond in any way to the lost correspondence 
discussed above (1 Cor. v. 9, xvi. 17), and, although they were admitted into the 
Armenian and Syrian canon, have no claim to authenticity or genuineness. They 
were originally incorporated in the apocryphal Acts of Paul (see Sanday, Encyel, 
Biblica, vol. i., p. 907). 


8 INTRODUCTION 


iv. 11-13); but when he begins to speak of the bad living of his 
converts, and to comment on the shocking news which had reached 
him, his tone is one of severe and unsparing rebuke. He is astounded 
that such a scandal as has been mentioned to him (1 Cor. v. 1) 
should be endured for a moment, and he bids them excommunicate 
the offender at once (1 Cor. ν. 5). Inthe Lost Letter he had warned 
them against associating with persons who lived impure lives, but 
now it has actually become necessary to rebuke them for tolerating 
the company of a man who is living unchastely with his stepmother 
(1 Cor. ν. 1). They must ‘put away the wicked person” from 
among themselves (1 Cor. v. 18). It is their duty to “judge them 
that are within,” and it is a scandalous thing that such wrongs as 
a Christian father endures when his son has robbed him of his wife 
should be brought for adjudication before heathen tribunals.' The 
Christian community should exercise its own spiritual prerogative 
(1 Cor. v. 4), and decide such cases without the interference of 
heathen lawyers (1 Cor. vi. 1-7). The wickedness of sins of the flesh 
only appears in its true light when judged on Christian principles 
(1 Cor. vi. 15 ff.), and it is by these that the fitting punishment should 
be determined. 

8. Such is the language and the drift of the body of 1 Corin- 
thians. The allusions to the Passover feast (1 Cor. v. 7, 8, cf. xv. 
20, 23) make it probable that it was written about Easter, and the 
year was, according to the system we have adopted, 55 a.p. This 
is a consequence of 1 Cor. xvi. 8, from which it appears that when 
it was composed it was St. Paul’s intention to leave Ephesus after 
the ensuing Pentecost. Thus the letter was written during the 
last months of his stay at that city. Nothing is said as to the 
bearers of the letter; but 2 Cor. xii. 18 seems to indicate that Titus 


1The Roman law under which a prosecution for adultery would be made 
was the lex Fulia de adulteriis, passed by Augustus, 17 B.c. It is probable, how- 
ever, that native Greek law would be enforced at Corinth. This also recognised 
adultery as an indictable offence; the damages allowed in any special case being 
assessed at the discretion of the judges. 

2The subscription in the received text states that it was written at Philippi; 
but this is a manifest mistake, probably due to a misunderstanding of the words 
Μακεδονίαν yap διέρχομαι {η 1 Cor. xvi. 5. Ver. 8 of the same chapter is conclusive 
as to the place of writing. This subscription further adds that the letter was 
carried to Corinth by the envoys Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus along with 
Timothy; but this again seems to be a misapprehension, although there is some 
justification in 1 Cor. xvi. 18 for the supposition that the envoys who had brought 
the Corinthian letter to Ephesus took back the answer (see above), For Timothy's 
movements see § 13 note, 


INTRODUCTION 9 


and an unnamed brother (see note in loc.) were entrusted with it, 
This is confirmed by 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, passages which explain 
how St. Paul’s grave anxiety as to the reception which the Corin- 
thians would give to his letter of warning and rebuke was allayed 
by the news which Titus brought him about it (see notes in loc.).1 

9. I have already remarked that the directions about the collec- 
tion to be made at Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 1) were given in answer to 
enquiries on the subject sent by the Corinthian Christians, and 
presuppose that his correspondents were already sensible of the 
obligation which rested upon them of helping the poor brethren of 
_dudzea. It is only the manner in which the collection is to be 
made that is now prescribed for the first time (Easter, 55). And 
we have also seen (8 δ) that the information as to St. Paul’s plans 
of travel given in 1 Cor. xvi. 5 was such as to cause the Corin- 
thians keen disappointment.2 He then announces that he will 
come vid Macedonia, and that he may possibly winter at Corinth 
(1 Cor. xvi. 6). This plan was carried into effect. He left Ephesus 
about April, 55, shortly after the riot which was stirred up by 
Demetrius, and proceeded to Macedonia (Acts xx. 1) υἱᾶ Troas 
(2 Cor. ii. 12). Here he had arranged to meet Titus on the return 
of the latter from his mission to Corinth; but he was disappointed. 
We do not know how long he waited for Titus; but after an interval 
during which “a door was opened unto him” (2 Cor. ii. 12) he 
crossed over to Macedonia in much anxiety of spirit. At last they 
met at some undefined point in St. Paul’s Macedonian tour of in- 
spection (Acts xx. 2), not improbably at Philippi, as Neapolis the 
port of Philippi was the natural place of embarkation for Troas. 
Thus St. Paul would be likely to meet Titus at Philippi on his way 
to their rendezvous. Further, Philippi was a place where St. Paul 


1See, on this question, Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p.280f. Titus is mentioned 
nine times.in 2 Corinthians, and evidently had a special interest in and connexion 
with Corinth. That his name does not appear in 1 Corinthians is no more sur- 
prising than that it does not appear in Acts. It is likely that it was the ability 
with which he conducted himself as the bearer of 1 Corinthians, and as St. Paul’s 
representative at that critical moment at Corinth, that first marked him out as fit 
to be a leader in the Church. 

? Dr. Robertson says (Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, νο]. i., p. 493) that 1 Cor. xvi. 
5, 6 is “ἃ passage totally out of correspondence with the situation presupposed 
in 2 Cor. i. 23. Moreover, in defending his change of plan (2 Cor. i. 15-23) St. 
Paul would not have failed to appeal to the clear statement of his intentions in 
1 Cor. xvi. 5.᾽ I cannot understand where the difficulty comes in. The Corin- 
thians took umbrage at the message of 1 Cor. xvi. 5; appealing to it would have 
had no point. St. Paul’s line of defence is quite sound (see § 12 below). 


10 INTRODUCTION 


had many good and staunch friends; and it was a suitable centre 
from which to visit the Christian communities formerly founded by 
him.} 

10. Titus reported in the first instance that the Corinthians had 
loyally responded to the appeal made by St. Paul in 1 Cor. v. and vi. 
as to their treatment of the case of incest. They had taken the 
case into their own hands, and had punished the offender with 
extreme severity (2 Cor. ii. 6 ff.). They had gone so far in their 
zeal to assert the spiritual prerogative of the Church, in which St. 
Paul deemed himseif to have an important share (2 Cor. vii. 12; 
cf. 1 Cor. v. 4, συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος), that it was 
now desirable to offer counsels of forbearance (2 Cor. ii. 6 f.) 
rather than to inflame their indignation against the offender. The 
really important end which the Apostle had in view when writing 
1 Cor. v. had been gained, υἱσ., he had convinced the members of 
the Church that it was their duty to take cognisance of grave moral 
offences. Quite possibly the civil courts might have decided equit- 
ably as to the measure of the penalty to be inflicted for the ἀδικία ; 
but the primary purpose of his sharp rebuke was not to secure due 
retribution in this particular instance (ody εἵνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος οὐδὲ 
εἵνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος, 2 Cor. vii. 12), although this was doubtless 
necessary, but to awaken the sleeping conscience of the Church to 
pass judgment in all cases of moral lapse, as was its inherent right 
and privilege. The Church at Corinth was an Apostolic Church. 
It had been founded by St. Paul. Though ‘‘absent in body” he 
was “present in spirit” at the deliberations of its members (1 Cor, 
v. 3). And to vindicate the spiritual authority of the Church 
founded by him was, in effect, to vindicate his authority. Thus he 
can go so far as to say that the main purpose of his stern letter of 
rebuke (1 Cor.) was ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ 
ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (2 Cor. vii. 12, where see note). To 
manifest their zeal for St. Paul’s authority was to manifest their 
sense that Christian standards of living were widely different from 
heathen standards, and it was further to recognise that the Church 
has spiritual authority “to bind and to loose”. In exhibiting their 
zeal for him, their founder, they had made clear their recognition of 
this great principle. If it be said that to read this into 2 Cor. vii. 
12 is to go beyond the tenor of the words used, it must be replied 


1The subscription to 2 Corinthians, Πρὸς Κορινθίους δευτέρα ἐγράφη ἀπὸ 
Φιλίππων τῆς Μακεδονίας διὰ Τίτου καὶ Λουκᾶ, would be a confirmation of this 
conclusion, if any reliance could be placed on these colophons to the Epistles. 
See notes on 2 Cor. viii. 18, xiii. 14. 


ΟΙ INTRODUCTION 11 


that St. Paul’s language in the earlier letter sufficiently shows the 
high spiritual authority which he would have the Corinthians attach 
to the deliberate decisions of their assembled leaders. ‘In the 
name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, 
with the power of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. v. 4). The words “and 
my spirit” indicate not only his sympathy for them, but his assurance 
that the decisions to which such an assembly would be guided would 
be even as the decisions promulgated by his own apostolic authority 
which was “ not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus 
Christ and God the Father ”’.! 

11. The second matter which Titus reported was not so satis- 
factory to St. Paul. Titus explained, as it would seem, that the 
Corinthians were much distressed at the news that the Apostle’s 
plans of travel had been changed (2 Cor. i. 16, 17), and that they 
were ready in consequence to impute to him instability of purpose 
which amounted to fickleness. St. Paul’s answer is found in 2 Cor. 
i. 23, ii. 4. He did not carry out his former intention of crossing 
direct from Ephesus to Corinth because he thought it better that 
there should be a short interval, during which they might mend 
their ways, before he again addressed them. His last visit (the 
“Intermediate Visit ) had been ἐν λύπη; and it was undesirable that 
his next visit should be of the same character. So instead of visiting 
them at once, he wrote a severe letter (1 Cor.), and proceeded to 
Macedonia in the first instance, reserving his visit to Corinth until 
they should have had time to profit by his written rebukes. In this 
change of plan there was no display of fickleness; his one desire 
was to edify them and to do what was best for their true welfare. 

12. And, thirdly, Titus had no good news to bring about the 
factions in Corinth, concerning which St. Paul had already written 
(1 Cor. i. 12-18, iii. 1-6). When he despatched the First Canonical 
Epistle he was already aware that his authority had been called in 
question at Corinth, and that some were passing unfavourable judg- 
ments upon his acts (1 Cor. iv. 3-5). Already he had bidden the 
rebellious party not to be too ready to judge by the superficial appear- 
ance of things, but to distrust their hasty conclusions about him 
(1 Cor. iv. 5, 10-14). He had written mildly, but with authority, as 
became an Apostle. ‘‘ Be ye imitators of me” he had twice repeated 
(1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1). And he had assured them that when he came, 
as he certainly would come (1 Cor. xi. 34), to Corinth, those who had 
ventured to rebel would be treated with severity, if they did not 


1Gal. i. 1. 


12 INTRODUCTION 


repent (1 Cor. iv. 18-21). But Titus seems to have reported that 
the factious opposition to St. Paul’s authority was even more bitter 
than it was before 1 Corinthians was written. The Apostle’s post- 
ponement of his visit gave the malcontents courage to break out 
into open defiance (2 Cor. x. 10-12). 

13. On learning all these facts from Titus, in part consoling, in 
part most distressing, St. Paul wrote the Second Canonical Epistle 
to the Corinthians, associating the name of Timothy with his own 
in the address at the beginning.! The principal person entrusted 
with the carriage of the letter was, as was natural, Titus (2 Cor. viii. 
17), whose former mission had been so prudently and honourably 
discharged (2 Cor. xii. 17, 18). With Titus were associated two 


1 It will be convenient to state at this point the view of Timothy’s movements 
which has been adopted. We learn from 1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, that he was sup- 
posed by St. Paul to be on his way to Corinth when the First Canonical Epistle was 
written, and that the Apostle expected him to return to Ephesus with “ the brethren” 
who were the bearers of that letter (x Cor. xvi. 11). It does not appear that he was 
entrusted with any special mission to the Corinthian Church, the language of 1 Cor. 
iv. 17, “who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which be in Christ,” being 
suggestive rather of informal conference than of a formal embassy, and that of 
1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11 implying, as it would seem, that Timothy is to be welcomed at 
Corinth only as a passing visitor on his way back to the Apostle’s side. Now it is 
natural to identify this journey made by Timothy with that recorded in Acts xix. 22, 
where St. Paul is said during the last weeks of his stay in Ephesus to have “ sent 
into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timothy and Erastus”, 
Timothy had been associated with St. Paul on his first visit (about the year 50) to 
the cities of Macedonia (Acts xvii. 14, 15, xviii. 5), and he was evidently a suitable 
lieutenant to send in advance to prepare the way for the Apostle’s second visit. Most 
probably the business of the collection in Macedonia was entrusted to him to 
organise. And the date of this journey of Timothy to Macedonia (January or 
February, 55) well agrees with the date which must be assigned to the journey ἡ 
referred to in 1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10. The plan seems to have been to visit the 
churches of Macedonia (this, the important purpose of the journey, is all that is 
mentioned in Acts) and then to return to Ephesus by sea from Corinth (this, as the 
only point in the journey interesting to the Corinthians, is alone mentioned in 
1 Cor.). Erastus, Timothy’s fellow-traveller on this occasion, bore the same name © 
as the city treasurer at Corinth, whom we find there about February, 56 (Rom. xvi. 
23), as well as at a later period (2 Tim. iv. 20) ; and it is highly reasonable to identify 
him with this important member of the Corinthian Church, and to suppose that when 
we find him with Timothy he was on his way home. Timothy is also found at 
Corinth in St. Paul’s company when the Epistle to the Romans was written (Rom. 
xvi. 21) ; but we have nothing to show us whether or no he had got so far during 
the preceding spring. It is on the whole probable that he found so much to do in 
Macedonia that he stayed there during the whole spring and summer of 55 (so Light- 
foot, Biblical Essays, p.276f.). At any rate we meet with him next in Macedonia 
(and probably, as we have seen, at Philippi) in St. Paul’s company about the month 
of November, 55, when 2 Corinthians was despatched (2 Cor. i. 1), 








INTRODUCTION 13 


vthers, possibly Luke and Barnabas, but of their names we cannot 
be certain (2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, where see notes). The Epistle being 
despatched, St. Paul travelled slowly through Macedonia, arriving 
at Corinth in due course as he had promised (1 Cor. xvi. 5, 6), and 
staying there three months (Acts xx. 3). This period probably covered 
December, 55, and January and February, 56. In consequence of a 
Jewish plot he then returned through Macedonia instead of sailing 
direct for Syria as he had intended to do (Acts xx. 3); and starting 
from Philippi “after the days of unleavened bread” (Acts xx. 6), 
t.e., March 18-25, he arrived in Jerusalem in time for the Pentecost 
festival of the year 56. 

14. The account which has been given above of the sequence 
of events during St. Paul’s sojourn at Ephesus assumes that the 
First Canonical Epistle to the Corinthians is the “ Painful Letter ” 
to which the Apostle alludes in 2 Cor. ii. 4, vii. 8, 12; and it has 
been urged by several critics that it does not answer to the de- 
scription there given.! The two allusions are as follows: “ For 
out of much affliction and anguish of heart 1 wrote unto you 
with many tears; not that ye should be made sorry, but that ye 
might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you” 
(2 Cor. ii. 4) ; and “ For though I made you sorry with my epistle, 
I do not regret it although I did regret; for I see that that epistle 
made you sorry, though but for a season. . . . So although I wrote 
unto you, I wrote not for his cause that did the wrong nor for his 
cause that suffered the wrong, but that your zeal on our behalf 
might be made manifest unto you in the sight of God” (2 Cor. vii. 
8, 12). It is said that “ from beginning to end of 1 Corinthians there 
are no traces of anguish of heart and much affliction, either in 
utterances expressing these feelings or in the style of the Epistle 
itself’’.2 I believe that the passages which have been quoted in 
§ 8 demonstrate the inaccuracy of any such assertion. Critics have 
strangely overlooked in this connexion the fact that chaps. vii.-xvi. of 
1 Corinthiansare mainly taken up with answering the queries which his 
correspondents had put to St. Paul; and that the body of the letter 
proper is contained in chaps. i.-vi. It isin these earlier chapters that 
we are to look for traces of mental anguish and depression, and I hold 
that they are plainly there to be found, and that the note of identi- 
fication afforded by 2 Cor. ii. 4 is answered by such passages 


1 E.g., this objection was raised by Klépper (1870) and has been repeated by 
Waite in the Speaker's Commentary, by Robertson (Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 
vol. i., p. 494) and by Kennedy (2 and 3 Corinthians, p. 64 f.), as well as by others, 

2 Kennedy, loc. cit., p. 65. 


14 INTRODUCTION 


as 1 Cor. iii. 12-15, iv. 11-13, v. 1-6, 19, vi. 5, 9-11. Had the structure 
of 1 Corinthians been sufficiently attended to, | cannot think that 
this objection would ever have seemed forcible. And so with 2 
Cor. vii. 8. It has been urged against the identification of the 
« Painful Letter ” with 1 Corinthians that “ it is scarcely comprehen- 
sible that St. Paul should have said, even in a moment of strong 
excitement, of so costly a monument of Christian truth as the First 
Epistle is, that he repented for a while of ever having written it”? 
But this is to exaggerate the measure of the Apostle’s regret. He 
merely says (2 Cor. vii. 8) that fora moment he regretted having 
given them pain by what he had written, i.¢., he regretted the 
severe sentences which he had penned; but not that he lamented 
the composition of the whole Epistle. The earlier part of the 
Epistle, which is, I repeat, the core of the letter, is extremely 
severe, and especially chaps. v. and νι In the phrase “ the Painful 
Letter” there is, in fact, a latent fallacy. The language of 2 Cor. ii. 
4, vii. 8, would be sufficiently accounted for if any part of the letter 
to which he refers seemed to St. Paul (for the moment) to be unduly 
severe, or if any section of it had caused unexpected grief to the 
Corinthians. 

15. An objection of a somewhat similar character is that the 
language used in 2 Cor. ii. 6-11 cannot be taken as referring to the 
punishment of the offender of 1 Cor. v. 1-5, inasmuch as the mild 
treatment suggested by St. Paul in the later Epistle would be quite 
inadequate to the offence.* Not to dwell on the fact that unrelenting 
severity is not a Christian virtue, and that Titus may have reported 
some extenuating circumstances of which we know nothing, I believe 
that the considerations brought forward above in § 10 go a long 
way to break the force of this objection. The intimate connexion 
between the fifth and sixth chapters of 1 Corinthians has not been 
sufficiently recognised by commentators, and thus the primary pur- 
pose of St. Paul’s message of rebuke has been misconceived. He 
was more anxious to awaken the sleeping conscience of the Church 
at Corinth, and to prevail upon its members to exercise their powers 
of spiritual discipline, than to adjudicate between the wronged father 
and the offending son. Excommunication was the only suitable 
penalty for the latter's grave offence, but St. Paul had never meant 


1 Waite, Speaker's Commentary, Ὁ. 383. 

2Compare also the great severity of the incidental remark in 1 Cor. xv. 2 
ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῆ ἐπιστεύσατε. That he should suggest such a possibility shows 
how much he is depressed as he writes. 

8 This is urged by Schmiedel and Jilicher amongst others, 


INTRODUCTION 15 


to convey (although the Corinthians had misunderstood his counsel) 
that the ban could not be taken off by the same authority which 
had imposed it, if evidence of penitence were forthcoming. Indeed 
the identification of ὃ ἀδικήσας in 2 Cor. vii. 12 with the offender of 
1 Cor. v. 1 seems to be not doubtful when the language and purport 
of the earlier passage are considered. I have already pointed out 
(§ 10) that the aim of the Apostle in writing 1 Cor. v. and vi. was not 
merely that the offender should be excommunicated, but that the 
scandal of such a case being brought by Christians before a heathen 
court should be avoided. Consider, further, St. Paul’s language. 
Some persons, he says (1 Cor. iv. 18, 19), ‘“‘were puffed up” 
(ἐφυσιώθησαν) as though he were not coming; i.e., they made little 
of his authority in his absence. The same word (πεφυσιωμένοι) is 
used (1 Cor. v. 2) of the action, or rather the inaction, of the 
Christian community in reference to the case of incest; and in this 
matter he declares ‘‘ Your boasting is not good” (οὐ καλὸν τὸ καύχημα 
ὑμῶν, 1 Cor. v. 6). That is to say, their καύχημα consisted in their 
resistance to his apostolic authority ; they were “ puffed up,” and so 
they had not dealt with the offender as they would have done had 
they followed his teachings (1 Cor. v. 2). It is with reference to this 
that he says in the later letter, εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἔγραψα, ἵνα γνῶ τὴν 
δοκιμὴν ὑμῶν, εἰ εἰς πάντα ὑπήκοοί ἐστε (2 Cor. ii. 9). Again, the 
sentence which he directs to be pronounced upon the offender is 
παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ eis ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός (1 Cor. v. 5) ; but 
when he bids them be merciful and forgive, his reason is ἵνα μὴ 
πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ (2 Cor. ii. 11). The man was only 
“delivered over to Satan,” eis ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός (1 Cor. v. 5); but 
care must be taken lest Satan rob the Church of his soul (2 Cor. ii. 
11). The reference to Satan in the later Epistle is pointless, unless 
we bear in mind the tenor of the sentence in the earlier one. And 
there is another phrase perhaps worthy of attention. The offender is 
called ὁ ἀδικήσας in 2 Cor, vii. 12, and the injured person is ὁ ἀδικηθείς. 
If we turn back to 1 Cor. vi. we find that the words ἀδικεῖν and 
ἄδικος (1 Cor. vi. 8, 9) are specially used of the carnal offences which 
St. Paul has there in view. The point of his rebuke in that chapter 
is that it would have been better for the offended father to have 
suffered wrong (ἀποστερεῖσθε; cf. for the force of this 1 Cor. vii. 5) 
than to have brought the matter before the heathen tribunals. And 
when St. Paul speaks of the Corinthians as having proved them- 
selves in the end to be ἀγνοὺς τῷ πράγματι (2 Cor. vii. 11), the last 
words recall the ἐν τῷ πράγματι of 1 Thess. iv. 6, where the refer- 
ence is to adultery, the language used being strikingly like that of 


16 INTRODUCTION 


1 Cor. vi.8. There are also some other links connecting the “ Painful 
Letter’? with 1 Corinthians which should not be overlooked. In 
2 Cor. ii. 4 St. Paul is careful to explain that the letter which was 
written with tears was written οὐχ iva λυπηθῆτε, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα 
γνῶτε ἣν ἔχω περισσοτέρως eis ὑμᾶς. It might be expected therefore 
that the Painful Letter should exhibit some trace of this overflowing 
ἀγάπη. And such a trace is conspicuously present in the last words 
of 1 Corinthians, ἡ ἀγάπη pou μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (1 Cor. 
xvi. 24). No other letter of St. Paul’s has so affectionate a farewell. 
It was plainly added for some special reason. But if we identify this 
letter with the “ Painful Letter,” 2 Cor. ii. 4 gives an excellent reason 
for its addition. And, once more, the reference in 2 Cor. iii. 1 Ε, to 
a former self-commendation which the Apostle had indited finds its 
best and simplest explanation if we bring it into connexion with 
1 Cor. ix. 18 

16. Something must now be said about other schemes of re- 
construction of the history which have been proposed by recent 
writers. It is unnecessary to rehearse them all,' but the discussion 
of one or two of the most plausible may serve to bring the difficulties 
of the problem into clearer relief, and to supply tests by which the 
adequacy of the solution that has been adopted may be estimated. 
In England, the editor of 1 Corinthians in this Commentary, Pro- 
fessor Findlay,? and Professor Sanday*® (not to speak of German 
writers) interpolate a second lost letter from St. Paul to the Corin- 
thians between the First and Second Canonical Epistles. They hold 
it probable that the embassy of Timothy to Corinth vid Macedonia 
(Acts xix. 22, 1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10) succeeded so far as this, that 
Timothy reached Corinth, but that his mission was not a success as 
regards the healing of disorders there. In consequence of the bad 
report brought back by Timothy, St. Paul wrote a second lost letter 
and sent it by the more capable hands of Titus.‘ It is the return of 
Titus from this mission which St. Paul awaited with such anxiety at 
Troas (2 Cor. i. 13), and the missive which Titus bore was the 
Painful Letter to which the Apostle alludes in 2 Cor. ii. 4, vii. 8. 


1An elaborate account of the various theories which have been propounded 
will be found in an article by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift fir wissenschaftliche 
Theologie (1899), and a comparative table is given by Schmiedel in the Hand 
Kommentar, pp. viii, ix. Cf. also Jilicher’s Einleitung for a good discussion. 

2See vol. ii., p. 736 f., and Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, vol. iii., p. 711 ff., 3.0. 
* Paul”. 

5 Encycl, Biblica, νο]. i., p. gor {. 

‘On this hypothesis Titus was not the bearer of 1 Corinthians, 


INTRODUCTION τη 


Another scheme agreeing with this, in so far as it refuses to identify 
the Painful Letter with 1 Corinthians, has recently been expounded by 
Dr. Robertson.! This writer holds that after the despatch of 1 Corin- 
thians by the hands of Titus, St. Paul changed the plan of travel 
announced in that letter (1 Cor. xvi. 5) and decided to take the 
route Ephesus—Corinth—Macedonia—Corinth, which would give 
the Corinthians a δευτέρα χαρά; that painful news having been 
brought back by Titus from Corinth, the Apostle reverted to the 
plan announced in 1 Cor. xvi. 5, as he was unwilling to visit Corinth 
so soon under the circumstances; that he wrote a severe letter, 
now lost, of which Titus was again the bearer; and that it was 
on Titus’ report of the result of this second mission that 2 
Corinthians was written and entrusted to the same capable 
messenger. 

17. On both these theories the same observation may be made 
at the outset. They are highly complicated. Quite apart in the 
one case from the assumption (for which there is no evidence) that 
Timothy reached Corinth and that his mission there was a failure, 
and from the assumption in the other case? that the language of 
2 Cor. i. 15 cannot be explained unless we suppose St. Paul to have 
changed his mind as to his route twice after the despatch of 1 Corin- 
thians, both theories presuppose events and documents of which no 
historical trace has survived. Doubtless we must not assume that all 
the facts have been recorded ; it may be necessary to introduce some 
hypotheses in order to co-ordinate the fragments of history at our 
disposal. Nevertheless, the theory which depends on the fewest hypo- 
theses has the best claim to acceptance, provided that it covers the 
facts. Now the writers whose theories have been indicated in § 16 
agree in interpolating a letter between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corin- 
thians, which has utterly vanished out of knowledge. Such an 
interpolated letter was suggested by Bleek as long ago as 1830, and 
its actuality has been assumed by many critics since in Germany as 
well as in England. No doubt the phenomena may be accounted for 
by an artifice of this sort. We may put anything we please into a 
letter of which we know nothing; there is no way of proving our 
speculations to be wrong. But the necessity for so large an hypo- 
thesis must be glaringly evident before the hypothesis can be justified. 


1 Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, vol. i., p. 495, 5.0. “2 Corinthians”. 
2Dr. Sanday seems also to favour this idea of a double change of intention as 
to his route on the part of St, Paul (Encycl. Biblica, vol. i., p. 903). See § 16 
above. 
VOL, IIL 2 


18 INTRODUCTION 


And it has not been proved, as we have seen (§§ 14, 15), that the 
“ Painful Letter” of 2 Cor. ii. 4, vii. 8, cannot have been the First 
Canonical Epistle to the Corinthians. It is upon this supposed 
impossibility that the whole edifice of theory rests, and the base does 
not appear—to the present writer at least—to be broad enough to 
bear the superstructure, 


μι... = 


CHAPTER II. 
THE INTEGRITY OF THE BPISTLE, 


1. Our discussion has hitherto taken for granted the unity of 
the Epistle (2 Cor.) with which we have to do. But this has been 
repeatedly questioned, and the arguments alleged in support of the 
composite character of the document require to be considered in 
detail. So far back as 1767 Semler urged that the Epistle could be 
resolved into three parts: (1) chaps. i.-viii. + Rom. xvi. 1-20 + chap. 
xiii. 11-13; (2) chaps. x.-xiii. 10; (3) chap. ix.; of which he held (2) 
to be posterior to (1). After a struggling existence the analysis 
attracted fresh interest when Hausrath in 1870 took it up in part 
and advocated the distinctness of chaps. x.-xili. from chaps. i.-ix. 
Schmiedel (in the Hand Kommentar) defended this view in 1890, 
and Clemen has since adopted it, and indeed regards it as an 
established result of criticism.1 The theory has not had many 
advocates in England, but it has been vigorously supported by Dr. 
J. H. Kennedy in his work entitled The Second and Third Epistles 
to the Corinthians (1900). By no writer has the matter been more 
carefully and acutely investigated, and his arguments demand 
attention. 

2. Dr. Kennedy’s view of the sequence of events during St. 
Paul’s stay at Ephesus is as follows: 1. Titus was sent on 
a mission to Corinth to preach and to continue St. Paul’s work 
(2 Cor. xii. 18) at some period after the Apostle’s first visit (Acts 
xviii. 1). 2. Lost Letter tothe Corinthians. 3. Mission of Timothy 
to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 5). 4. 1 Corinthians written from 
Ephesus about April, 54. 5. St. Paul stayed at Ephesus because 
of the greatness of the opportunity there (1 Cor. xvi. 8). 6. He 
formed a fixed purpose of visiting Jerusalem with the offerings 
which were being collected (Acts xix. 21). 7. Bad news came 
from Corinth. 8. St. Paul accordingly paid a brief disciplinary visit 


1See Theologische Literaturzeitung, 22nd Dec., 1900; and cf, Clemen’s work 
entitled Die Einheitlichkeit d. paulin. Briefe. 


20 INTRODUCTION 


to that city. 9. On his return he wrote from Ephesus the Painful 
Letter, of which the end is preserved to us in 2 Cor, x-xiii. 10. 
Mission of Timothy to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22). 11. Mission of 
Titus to Corinth to subdue the rebels there. 12. On Titus’ report of 
the success of his mission St. Paul wrote from Macedonia about 
November, 55, a letter of which we have the beginning preserved 
in 2 Cor. i.-ix., the rest being lost. 13. This letter was forwarded 
to Corinth by Titus and two unnamed companions, the bearers being 
entrusted also with the business of the collection (2 Cor. viii. 6). 
It will be recognised at once that this is a highly complicated 
scheme. Dr. Kennedy has to assume three missions of Titus to 
Corinth instead of two, the number which commentators have 
generally recognised ; and he has, in like manner, to find room for 
two missions of Timothy, one to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17) and a second, 
quite distinct from this, to Macedonia (Acts xix. 21). In addition, 
he has to push back the date of 1 Corinthians by a year, in order 
to give time for all the incidents of which he finds traces in the 
Epistles; and he splits up 2 Corinthians into two fragmentary 
letters. We shall consider these points separately. 

3. First, then, as to the missions of Titus. Dr. Kennedy takes 
in close connexion the two verses 2 Cor. viii. 6, 7, and translates 
(p. 122), “1 summoned (7 exhorted) Titus that as he had made a 
beginning, so he might accomplish in you this grace also; yea that as 
ye abound in everything, in faith and utterance, and in all diligence, 
and in your love towards us, so ye may abound in this grace also”, 
This translation is probably right (see note in Joc.) ; but the inference 
which its author derives from it is by no means inevitable. Dr. 
Kennedy holds that the words prove that the furtherance of the 
collection for Jerusalem was the purpose of Titus’ later visit only, 
and formed no part of his commission in the earlier visit. But 
this cannot be maintained. Such an interpretation will harmonise 
with Dr. Kennedy’s scheme of Titus’ visits (see above); but the 
passage is quite consistent with the other view that Titus’ two visits 
to Corinth were made as the bearer of the two Canonical Epistles. 
For in what St. Paul says, the emphasis is on the contrast between 
προενήρξατο and ἐπιτελέσῃ. A beginning had been made by Titus in 
the matter of the collection; he is now to finish his work, that the 
Corinthians may be as conspicuous for their liberality as they already 
are for other graces. Dr. Kennedy objects to this that it is incon- 
ceivable that St. Paul when sending Titus with a strong message 
of rebuke should also have instructed him to obtain money contribu- 
tions. ‘Such a course,” he says, “ would have been as inconsistent 


INTRODUCTION 21 


with wise diplomacy as with the self-respect which formed so marked 
a feature in St. Paul’s character.”! But to argue thus is to over- 
look the fact that St. Paul’s instructions about the collection in 1 
Cor. xvi. 1-5 were given in answer to queries addressed to him on 
the subject by the Church of Corinth. The first part of the letter 
which Titus carried was taken up with rebuke; but there was 
nothing undiplomatic in the fact that St. Paul sent his answers to 
these queries by the same hand. In fact to have withheld his 
answer would have only given offence.? 

4. We have now to consider the evidence adduced for the dis- 
section of 2 Corinthians. First, it is urged that there is not only a 
change of tone at x. 1, but that the way in which the chapter opens 
shows that something has been lost which immediately preceded it. 
Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ are the first words, and δέ (it is said) marks an anti- 
thesis. The passage “contains an allusion to an objection which 
had been brought against the Apostle, which it brings before us 
not as if the subject were now for the first time introduced, but 
as if it had been already mentioned”. Rather should we say that δέ 
marks the transition to a new subject, a usage to which we have 
an exact parallel in viii. 1 of this very Epistle; where after the 
words which conclude chap. vii., χαίρω ὅτι ἐν παντὶ θαρρῶ ἐν ὑμῖν, St. 
Paul passes to his next topic with the words γνωρίζομεν δὲ ὑμῖν. 
Another parallel is found at 1 Cor. xv. 1, where in like manner a 
new subject is introduced by the words γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν. It is 
unnecessary to assume, as some have done, that the change of 
‘tone here was caused by the arrival at this point of a messenger 
from Corinth bringing tidings later and less favourable than that 
brought by Titus. This may, indeed, be so; but the hypothesis 
is not needed. It is hardly likely that any of St. Paul’s more 
important letters were written or dictated at a single sitting ; and 
the change of tone is sufficiently accounted for by a change of mood 
such as every busy and over-burdened man is subject to, especially 


110ε, Cit., Pp. 124. 

2These considerations also break the force of Dr. Kennedy’s main argument 
for the early date of 1 Corinthians. It is plain that the business of the collection 
had been set on foot before the date of that letter, in which counsel is given as to 
the best method of carrying it on; and thus the phrase ἀπὸ πέρυσι (2 Cor. viii. 10, 
ix. 2), in which so much difficulty has been found, receives adequate explanation. 
The Corinthians would truly be said in November, 55, to have ‘‘ made a beginning” 
a year ago, and St. Paul’s boast to the Macedonian Christians that Achaia had been 
‘prepared for a year past’ was quite justifiable (see note in loc.). 

® Kennedy, Joc. cit., p. 96. 


a2 INTRODUCTION 


if his health is not very robust (cf. 2 Cor. i. 8, 9, and xii. 7). The 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians is not a formal treatise like 
the Epistle to the Romans; it is a personal letter, and in such 
letters we have no reason to expect either systematic arrangement 
of topics or pedantically uniform treatment. 

5. This consideration helps us, too, to dispose of the difficulty 
that the last four chapters contemplate an openly rebellious minority 
at Corinth, the existence of which is not emphasised in the first 
nine chapters. It was entirely natural that Titus’ report being 
of a mixed character, partly good and partly bad, St. Paul’s letter 
based upon it should show traces at once of his gratification and 
of his grief. And, indeed, chaps. i.-ix. are not without indications that 
his authority was not cheerfully accepted by all the Corinthian 
Christians. His defence against the charge of fickleness (i. 15-17) 
shows that the charge had been made; the mention of οἱ πλείονες in 
ii. 6 (cf. iv. 15) shows that a minority did not heartily concur in 
the sentence which was inflicted, although, as a matter of fact, all 
had acquiesced in his view that the Church should take cognisance 
of the moral scandal which had occurred;! he more than hints 
in ii. 17 that οἱ πολλοί make merchandise of the word of God, 
and his remark loses point if none such were to be found at Corinth ; 
that τινες, “ some persons,” make use of commendatory letters (iii. 1) 
is brought up to their disparagement ; the comparison between the 
ministries of the Old and New Covenants in iii. 6 f. is indirectly 
aimed at the Judaising party (xi. 22, 23); so, too, those who boast 
ἐν προσώπῳ καὶ οὐ καρδίᾳ (v. 12) are his Corinthian opponents ; and, 
lastly, the force of the antitheses in vi. 8-10 depends on the fact 
that corresponding statements to his discredit were being made 
at Corinth. The situation was simply this. The Church as a whole 
(and, indeed, unanimously, cf. vii. 15, 16) had taken the action 
he desired in the case of the offender; but there remained a 
turbulent minority who resisted his authority in other matters. The 
evil of unchastity does not here need special consideration; it was 
always present at Corinth. 

6. It is time to adduce the passages upon which defenders of the 
theory that chaps. x.-xiii. constitute a part of the Painful Letter 
mainly depend. The case is best put by Dr. Kennedy,? who produces 


ΕἼ cannot think that Dr. Kennedy’s view (loc. cit., p. 102) that the “" minority " 
here indicated were out-and-out supporters of St. Paul who were anxious to go 
farther even than he, will commend itself to many minds, 

2 Loc. cit., p. 81 {. 





INTRODUCTION 23 


three pairs of parallels between the first nine and the last four 
chapters of the Epistle. (a) In xiii. 10 the Apostle wrote διὰ τοῦτο 
ταῦτα ἀπὼν γράφω, ἵνα παρὼν μὴ ἀποτόμως χρήσωμαι ; and to this it is 
said that ii. 3, καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτὸ, ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην ἔχω, refers. 
But this reference is by no means inevitable; it is quite as natural 
to suppose that the effect of the Painful Letter (which I take to be 
1 Corinthians) having been so salutary, as is indicated in ii. 3, the 
Apostle would again try the effect of a written threat of severe dealing. 
(0) In xiii. 2 we have προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ 
ἀπὼν νῦν τοῖς προημαρτηκόσιν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, ὅτι ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς τὸ 
πάλιν οὐ φείσομαι, to which i. 23 corresponds well if we suppose it 
written at a later date, viz., φειδόμενος ὑμῶν οὐκέτι ἦλθον εἰς Κόρινθον. 
On the other hand, it is plain that the texts may be taken up by 
another handle; and we may understand their sequence to be that 
the Apostle having said at i. 23 that he had not come to Corinth 
before as he wished to spare them, he explains at xiii. 2 with plain 
sternness that when he does come he will not spare. There is 
nothing gained in lucidity or in force by the hypothesis that xiii. 2 
represents the earlier statement and i. 23 the later. (c) Again, in x. 6, 
St. Paul says of himself: ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες ἐκδικῆσαι πᾶσαν παρακοήν, 
ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ὑπακοή, while at ii. 9 he writes, εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ 
ἔγραψα ἵνα γνῶ τὴν δοκιμὴν ὑμῶν, εἰ εἰς πάντα ὑπήκοοί ἐστε. Here it is 
not to be gainsaid that an excellent sense emerges from counting 
x. 6 to be prior to ii. 9, which seems, when taken in connexion with 
vii. 15, 16, to speak of unanimous obedience on the part of the 
Christians at Corinth. But the character of this obedience has 
been indicated above in § 4. So far as the specific case as to 
which St. Paul had written the Painful Letter was concerned, the 
“ obedience”’ had been that of “all”; but there remained a faction 
which was disobedient at heart, and until they should have yielded 
to his authority it could not be said that their ‘“‘obedience”’ was 
“ fulfilled”. As to these three pairs of parallel passages, then, it is not 
the case that a satisfactory explanation can be provided only by the ex- 
pedient of recognising chaps. x.-xiii. as prior to chaps. i.-ix.; on the 
contrary, they yield a consistent sense when the Epistle is inter- 
preted as a continuous whole. A remarkable commentary upon the 
danger of relying too much on coincidences of language of this sort 
is afforded by the fact that exactly an opposite inference to that 
with which we have been dealing has been drawn by another critic, 
Drescher. This writer, like Schmiedel and Clemen and Kennedy, 
regards chaps, x.-xili. as distinct from chaps. i.-ix.; but he is led from 
internal evidence, as it appears to him, to count the Nine Chapters 


24 INTRODUCTION 


as earlier in date than the Four.!. When internal evidence leads 
competent scholars to such entirely divergent conclusions, it is a 
natural inference that the arguments on which they rely do not 
amount to demonstration. 

7. It is further to be borne in mind that the theory which regards 
chaps. i.-ix. and chaps. x.-xiii. as parts of distinct letters which have 
been joined together by mistake depends on the concurrence of several 
improbable hypotheses. We have to suppose not only that chaps. i.-ix. 
are a fragment of a longer letter which has lost its concluding pages, 
and that chaps. x.-xiii. are a fragment of a longer letter which has lost 
its opening pages, but that in each case the mutilation happened to 
come at a point where a new sentence began a new page. This is a 
most unlikely thing to happen. Take any book or manuscript at 
random and count the number of places where the tearing away of 
pages does not leave a clause incomplete. The number will be small 
indeed.2. But the measure of the improbability of this happening 
must be twice repeated before we reach the improbability of 2 Cor. 
i.-ix. and 2 Cor. x.-xiii. being both fragments. For neither 2 Cor. 
ix. 15 nor 2 Cor. x. 1 is an incomplete sentence. It has been argued 
indeed (see above, § 4) that 2 Cor. x. 1, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ. . . , points to 
some preceding argument which is not to be found in 2 Cor. ix, 
The argument is unconvincing ; but what is here dealt with is the 
improbability that a tearing of the MS. should have left no trace on 
the grammatical coherence of the sentence which followed the 
mutilation. In fact, it is not too much to say that the phenomena 
of the existing document cannot be explained as resulting from the 
mere juxtaposition of two fragments of other letters. We have to 
postulate, in addition, an editor who trimmed the ragged edges and 
brought the end of chap. ix. and the beginning of chap. x. into 
grammatical sequence by emendation of the texts which the two 
fragments presented. And beside all this we have yet to reckon 
with the improbability, be it great or small, that the two fragments 
belonging to distinct letters should have become joined together 
under the mistaken impression that they were parts of one whole. 


1 Studien und Kritiken, Jan., 1897. Krenkel takes the same view, and holds 
that chaps. x.-xiii. form a letter later in date than chaps. i.-ix. This was also 
Semler’s view. 

ΣΑ good illustration is afforded by the end of St. Mark’s Gospel. It is generally 
(though not universally) believed that a page has been lost at the end, and that the 
present conclusion is by another hand. But one of the strongest arguments for this 
view is that ver. 8 is incomplete, and that it ends ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, {.ε., “for they were 
afraidto... ”. There is no such incompleteness apparent at 2 Cor. ix. 15. 


INTRODUCTION 25 


Under these circumstances we fall back on the prima facie case, 
which is that the Second Epistle to the Corinthians is an ens 
integrum, and we proceed to bring forward some of the positive 
data which point to its unity. 

8. First, attention should be directed to passages in chaps. x.- 
xiii. which point back to passages in chaps. i.-ix. (a) In xi. 15 St. 
Paul writes that the false apostles, whom he calls Satan’s διάκονοι, 
are trying to pass themselves off as διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης, 7.6., as 
ἀπόστολοι Χριστοῦ (ver. 13). Now there is nothing in the context to 
suggest such a phrase as διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης, and it does not, as a 
matter of fact, occur in any other of St. Paul’s letters or in the 
N.T. outside this Epistle or in the LXX. The one passage which 
explains it is iii. 7-11, where the Ministry of the Old Covenant is 
declared to be less glorious than that of the New, and where 4 
διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης is set over against ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως. 
Unless the readers of xi. 15 were aware that St. Paul used the phrase 
“the ministry of Righteousness ” as descriptive of the ministry of the 
Gospel, the title διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης would have had no special mean- 
ing for them. Thus we conclude that the discussion of iii. 7-11 is 
presupposed by the use of the title in xi. 15. (Ὁ) The charge which 
his opponents brought against St. Paul at Corinth is thus described 
by him in xii. 16, ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον. They had 
called him a πανοῦργος, “ἃ crafty man,” and suggested that his 
dealings in the matter of money were full of guile (δόλος). At iv. 2 
he refers to the same charge, μὴ περιπατοῦντες ἐν πανουργίᾳ μηδὲ 
δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. The meaning of the latter clause, 
“handling deceitfully the word of God,” is fixed by the parallel in 
ii. 17, καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, which shows that the δόλος 
repudiated by him was crooked dealing in regard to money, “‘ making 
a traffic” of the Gospel. (ο) The passages just cited from the earlier 
part of the letter have other echoes in the later part. In ii. 17 
those who make merchandise of the word of God at Corinth are 
ot πολλοὶ, and he speaks of his opponents again as πολλοί in xi. 18. 
His declaration in ii. 17 is that he preaches ἐξ εἰλικρινείας (cf. i. 12), 
and in iv. 2 that it is τῇ φανερώσει τῆς ἀληθείας ; so in xi. 6 he says 
of himself, ἐν παντὶ φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν eis ὑμᾶς. And, lastly, the 
asseveration of his sincerity in ti. 17, κατέναντι Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν, 
is repeated in xii. 19, the only other place where it occurs in his 
Epistles. (d) In x. 5 he speaks of bringing every thought into 
captivity, εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and of his readiness to avenge 
all disobedience, ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ὑπακοή. Seven verses before, 
in ix. 13, he had written of the ὑποταγὴ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ 


26 INTRODUCTION 


εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ; and the language is sufficiently similar to 
suggest that x. 5 was written while the phrases of ix. 13 were still 
in his mind. (e) The concluding summary of the Epistle (xiii. 11) 
is important (see note im loc.). The exhortations yaipere... 
παρακαλεῖσθε are specially noteworthy, for they exactly reproduce 
the two leading thoughts of its earlier part, Rejoice . . . be com- 
forted. It is difficult to understand how the words are to be 
explained on the hypothesis that they sum up the message of the 
Painful Letter. They are entirely harmonious with chaps. i.-ix., 
but not harmonious at all with chaps. x.-xiii.. “Comfort in affliction” 
is (as Dr. Plummer points out!) the keynote of the first part of 
the Epistle, “boasting in weakness” being the keynote of the 
second part. παρακαλεῖσθε is an appropriate summing up of much 
that is contained in chaps. i.-ix., but is irrelevant as regards chaps. 
x.-xiii.2 And thus, as we find in xiii. 11 a summary of 2 Corinthians 
as a whole, we conclude that it is a single document, and is not 
made up of parts of two letters which have been joined together 
by mistake. 

9. In the next place the linguistic parallels between chaps. i.-ix. 
and chaps. x.-xiii. are in many instances so close as to render it 
difficult to believe that the Epistle is not an ens integrum, (a) 
The phrase ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνειν only occurs once in the N.T. outside 
2 Corinthians, viz., at Gal. ii. 18, and there the meaning is quite 
different (παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω = “1 prove myself a trans- 
gressor’’) from anything in 2 Corinthians. Not only does the phrase 
occur in both parts of this Epistle (iii. 1, v. 12, x. 12, 18), but it 
always implies a bad kind of self-commendation, as contrasted with 


the similar phrase συνιστάνειν ἑαυτὸν (iv. 2, vi. 4, vii. 11), which is 


used throughout in a favourable sense. (0) ὑπόστασις only occurs 
twice in St. Paul, and each time in the same phrase, ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει 
ταύτῃ [5.ο., τῆς καυχήσεως), which is found once in the earlier (ix. 4) 
and once in the later (xi. 17) part of 2 Corinthians. (c) St. Paul 
uses ταπεινός Of himself in vii. 6 and x. 1; the word only occurs 
once again in the Pauline letters (Rom. xii. 16). (4) νόημα occurs 
five times in 2 Corinthians and in both parts of the Epistle (ii. 11, 
iii. 14, iv. 4, x. 5, xi. 3), and is always used in a bad sense. In 
the only other place of its occurrence in the N.T. (Phil. iv. 7) 
there is no suggestion that νοήματα must be bad. (ε) ἀγρυπνία 


1Smith’s Bible Dictionary, νο]. i., p. 657. 
2Semler seems to have had some suspicion of this, for he joins on chap. xiii. 
II-13 to the first part of the Epistle in his scheme of dissection. 


INTRODUCTION 27 


occurs in vi. 5 and xi. 27, but nowhere else in the N.T. (jf) προσ- 
αναπληροῦν occurs in ix. 12 and xi. 9, but nowhere else in the N.T. 
(g) ἕτοιμος occurs both in ix. 5 and x. 6, 16; only once again in St. 
Paul (Tit. iii. 1). (h) δυνατεῖν is found in ix. 8 and xiii. 3; only 
once again in St. Paul (Rom. xiv. 4). (1) θαρρεῖν occurs in v. 6, 8, 
vii. 16 and x. 1, 2, but not elsewhere in St. Paul. It is true that 
in x, 1, 2 it is used to express stern confidence in himself (θαρρῶ εἰς 
ὑμᾶς), and in vii. 16 to express hopeful confidence in his corre- 
spondents (θαρρῶ ἐν ὑμῖν) ; but this does not alter the fact that he 
does not use the word in any sense in any other Epistle. (2 
πλεονεκτεῖν Occurs in ii. 11, vii. 2 and xii. 17, 18; only again in St. 
Paul in 1 Thess. iv. 6. (4) παρακαλεῖν occurs thirteen times in chaps. 
i.-ix. and four times in chaps. x.-xiii.; that is, with unusual frequency 
in both parts of the Epistle. It is the word used throughout of the 
Apostle’s directions to Titus (viii. 6, 17, ix. 5 and xii. 17). Other 
words and phrases occur with marked frequency in both parts of 
the Epistle, such as ἐν παντί, καυχάομαι, περισσότερος (-ws), etc. ; 
but while such phenomena fall in with the conclusion we have 
already reached, they are hardly significant enough to be registered 
as supplying independent arguments. But, on the whole, the 
linguistic facts powerfully support the traditional view, viz., that 
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians is a single document and not 
a patchwork of two or more detached pieces. 

10. It is further to be borne in mind that neither MSS. nor 
versions lend any countenance to these disintegrating theories. 
They all, from the earliest times, treat the Epistle as a whole, as 
Irenzeus explicitly does more than once. He quotes ii. 15, 16 (Her., 
IV., xxviii., 3) and xiii. 7, 9 (He@r., V., iii., 1) as alike contained in the 
secunda ad Corinthios. No doubt the union of fragments is sup- 
posed to have taken place long before his time. Nevertheless the 
fact that there is no trace of it in literature is significant. ‘The 
attestation of the N.T. text is so varied and so early that a displace- 
ment of this magnitude could hardly fail to bear traces of itself.” 1 

11. One section of the Epistle (vi. 14-vii. 1) has been regarded 
as an interpolation by many writers who accept the Epistle in other 
respects as a complete document from the hand of St. Paul. And 
it is not to be denied that this section comes in awkwardly in its 
present place. It is much more like what we would expect a frag- 
ment of the Lost Letter (1 Cor. v. 9) to be than a genuine part of 
the Epistle before us. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that a case 


1 Sanday, Encycl. Biblica, vol. i., p. 906. 


28 INTRODUCTION 


has been made out for its rejection; and I have given (in the 
notes in loc.) the reasons which seem to me to justify the Pauline 
authorship of the section, and plausibly to explain its insertion at 
this particular point. It is not impossible (though for the hypothesis 
there is no external authority) that the section is a marginal gloss 
which has crept into the text at a very early period, or a postscript 
written in the margin by St. Paul or his amanuensis. But, on the 
whole, I believe that it ought to be retained. 


νο ον 


CHAPTER III. 
THE HISTORY STYLE AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


1. The external tradition as to the circulation and authority of 
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians is abundant from the year 
175 onward. It is quoted by Irenzus of Gaul repeatedly (e.g., Her., 
iii., 7, “‘aperte Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios dixisse,” etc.) ; by 
Athenagoras of Athens (de resurr. morte, xviii.) ; by Theophilus of 
Antioch (ad Autol., i., 12, iii, 14); by Tertullian of Carthage (de 
Pudicitia, 13 et passim); by Clement of Alexandria (frequently, 
e.g., Strom., iii., 14, iv., 6), witnesses representing Churches widely 
separated from each other. Again, the Epistle is mentioned in the 
Muratorian Pragment; it was in Marcion’s Canon, and there is no 
evidence that it was absent from any list of N.T. books or any 
collection of Pauline letters. Before 175 ap. the evidence is not 
copious, but it is distinct. The letter to Diognetus (v. 12) quotes 
chap. vi. 8-10; and the elders cited by Irenzeus, who represent (at 
latest) the generation preceding him, quote chap. xii. 4 (Her, V., v., 
1). Finally, Polycarp (ad Phil., ii., 4, and vi., 1) quotes chap. iv. 14 
and viii. 21, thus providing proof of the use of the Epistle before 
the year 120. That it seems to have been used by the Sethites and 
and Ophites would point to a similar conclusion.! 


11Ὲ is somewhat remarkable that the Epistle is not quoted by Clement of Rome 
when writing to the Church at Corinth. He cites (§ xlvii.) the First Epistle, and 
the Second, if known to him, would have supplied him with many apposite texts, 
powerfully supporting his appeal for unity. But no solid argument can be based 
on Clement’s silence, especially when it is remembered that we should look in vain 
in his letter for traces of Galatians, Colossians, Philippians, and 1 and 2 Thessa- 
lonians, as well as of 2 Corinthians. These letters may not have been known in 
Rome at the time; or Clement may have been personally unacquainted with 
them; or he may not have been familiar enough with their contents to quote 
from them. Any of these explanations is adequate, without resorting to the 
hypothesis (cf. Kennedy, 2 and 3 Corinthians, p. 142 ff.) that Clement does not 
quote the canonical 2 Corinthians because it was not yet in existence as a whole, 


but only survived in the form of fragments of the great Apostle’s correspondence 
with Corinth, 


30 INTRODUCTION 


2. External evidence is, however, of little importance in the case 
of a letter which so clearly betrays its authorship as 2 Corinthians 
does. It is unmistakably Pauline, in the tone and character of its 
teaching, no less than in its style and vocabulary. No Epistle lets 
us see more of the working of the Apostle’s mind, or gives us a 
clearer view of his personality (see above, chap. i., § 1). It is distine-] 
tively a Jettery rather than an efistle ; that is, it was written to meet 
an emergency that had arisen at Corinth, and there is no trace that 
the writer was conscious that it would take a permanent place in 
literature. Herein lies at once its charm and its difficulty; and 
herein, too, is the explanation of the absence of systematic and con- 
sistent arrangement, such as might fairly be expected in a formal 
treatise. It reflects the varying moods of the writer; and the 
broken constructions and frequent anacolutha show that it was 
written at a time of mental agitation and excitement. 

3. We count it unnecessary to produce here the proofs of the 
Pauline character of the style and diction of the Epistle.' They 
are apparent throughout, and the marginal references to the text 
have been specially prepared with a view of bringing out the linguistic 
parallels between 2 Corinthians and the other Pauline letters.* 
Among the words peculiar in the N.T. to this Epistle are the following: 
ἀβαρής, ἀγανάκτησις, ἁγνύτης, ἀγρυπνία, ἁδρότης, ἄμετρος, ἀνακαλύπτειν, 
ἀνεκδιήγητος, ἀπαρασκεύαστος, ἀπειπεῖν, ἀπόκριμα, ἄρρητος, αὐγάζειν, αὖθαί- 
ρετος, βελίαρ, δίψος, δόλιος, δυσφηµία, ἐγκρίνειν, ἐκδαπανᾶσθαι, ἐκδημεῖν, 
ἐκφοβεῖν, ἐλαφρία, ἐντυποῦν, ἐπενδύεσθαι, ἑτεροζυγεῖν, εὐφημία, ἱκανότης, 
καθαίρεσις, κάλυμμα, καπηλεύειν, καταβαρεῖν, κατάκρισις, καταναρκεῖν, 
κατάρτισις, κατοπτρίζεσθαι, µετοχή, μολυσμός, µωμεῖσθαι, νυχθήμερον, 
ὀχύρωμα, παραυτίκα, παραφρονεῖν, πεντάκις, πέρυσι, προαµαρτάνειν, προε- 
νάρχεσθαι, προκαταρτίζειν, προσαναπληροῦν, προσκοπή, πτωχεύειν, σαργάνη, 
σκῆνος, σκόλοψ, στενοχωρεῖσθαι, συγκατάθεσις, συλᾷν, συμπέμπειν, συμφώ- 
νησις, συναποστέλλειν, συνυπουργεῖν, συστατικός, ὑπερέκεινα, ὑπερεκτείνειν, 
ὑπερλίαν, φειδομένως, φωτισμός, ψευδαπόστολος, ψιθυρισμός. 

4. That the Epistle falls of itself into three parts is evident to 
the most casual reader. (1) From i. 1 to vii. 16 the writer is 


1Those who desire to learn what has been urged against the Pauline author- 
ship may be referred to Dr. Knowling’s Witness of the Epistles, chap. ii., ‘* Recent 
Attacks upon the Hauptbriefe”; see especially p. 192. But it is quite outside the 
plan of this commentary to take notice of every extravagance of criticism. (See 
also vol. ii., p. 753 above.) 

* Note that in the marginal references the LXX numbering of the Psalms and 
of the other Ο.Τ. books has been followed; and that “ here only means that the 
word so designated does not occur again in the N.T. 


INTRODUCTION 31 


occupied with the reflections which are suggested by the report 
brought by Titus as to the response of the Corinthian Church to 
the injunctions of the First Epistle in the matter of the incestuous 
man. In this section there is a digression of great doctrinal import- 
ance on the Ministry of the New Covenant (iii. 7-iv. 15), followed 
by some profound thoughts about the life after death (iv. 16-v. 10) ; 
and a minor digression (vi. 14-vii. 1) about the dangers of inter- 
marriage with the heathen; but the main topic of these chapters 
is his thankfulness at the news he has received, which consoles 
him in his many troubles. Again and again he bids them be sure 
of his sincerity and single-mindedness. (2) Chapters viii. and ix. 
deal with the collection which was being made for the poor Chris- 
tians in Judza, a subject which had been much in his thoughts 
during the preceding year. (3) The last four chapters are taken 
up with a vindication of his apostolic authority, which was neces- 
sary to put forward plainly before his next visit to Corinth. There 
was a party in that city calling themselves by the name of Christ 
(x. 7), who made light of St. Paul’s apostolic claims and were 
trying to undermine his authority. The Church as a whole had 
acquiesced in St. Paul’s directions given in 1 Cor. v.; but a minority 
of malcontents were troublesome and calumnious, and needed re- 
pression. A detailed analysis of the letter is subjoined. 


ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 


I. The obedience of the Corinthians to the instructions of the First 
Epistle. 


Introductory— 
Address (1, 1, 2). 
God’s consolations and the sympathy of sorrow (i. 3-7). 
His recent peril (i. 8-11). 
His sincerity of purpose— 
They must acknowledge it (i. 12-14). 
His change of plan was not due to fickleness (i. 15-22). 
The real reason of the postponement of his visit (i. 23-ii. 4). 
The offender has been sufficiently punished (ii. 5-11). 
He rejoices to hear that his reproof has been loyally received (ii. 12-17). 
The Corinthians are his “‘ Letter of Commendation” (iii. 1-3). 
His success, however, is due to God (iii. 4-6). 
Digression on the Ministry of the New Covenant— 
It is more glorious than that of the Old (iii. 7-11). 
It is more open (iii. 12-18). 
He, accordingly, delivers his message plainly (iv. 1-6). 


32 INTRODUCTION 


His bodily weakness does not annul the effects of his ministry (iv. 7-15). 
He is sustained by a glorious hope (iv. 16-18). 
His expectation of a glorified body hereafter, and his desire to 
survive until the Second Advent (v. 1-5). 
In any case to be with Christ is best (v. 6-8). 
We must remember the Judgment to come (ν. 9, 10). 
He reiterates his sincerity of purpose (v. 11-13). 
The constraining power of his ministry (v. 14-16). 
In Christ all is new (v. 17-19). 
As Christ’s ambassador he prays them to be reconciled to God (v. 
20-Vi. 3). 
The conditions and characteristics of his ministry (vi. 4-10). 
He affectionately declares his sympathy and claims the same from them (vi. 
11-13). 
[Ῥατεπίεῖςα] warning against familiar association with the heathen (vi. 
14-Vii. 1).} 
He claims their sympathy again (vii. 2-4). 
He repeats his joy that his reproof has been loyally received (vii. 5-12). 
Titus also rejoiced to bring such tidings (vii. 13-16). 


Il. The Collection for the Judzan Christians, 


The liberality of the Macedonian Churches (viii. 1-7). 
He counsels, though he will not command, the imitation of it (viii. 8-15). 
The mission of Titus and higswo companions (viii. 16-24). 
Its purpose, that the collection may be made ready (ix. 1-5). 
Liberal giving is (a) blessed of God (ix. 6-11), and (δ) calls forth the bless- 
ings of the recipients (ix. 12-15). 


{Il. The Vindication of his Apostolic Authority. 


He entreats them not to force him to use his authority (x. 1-6). 
Despite all appearances it is weighty and is Divinely given him (x. 7-18). 
He begs them to bear with the statement of his claims at length (xi. 1-4). 
He is in no way inferior to his adversaries (xi. 5-15). 
His Apostolic labours and trials (xi. 16-33). 
His vision, of which he could boast, if he chose (xii. 1-6). 
His “‘ thorn in the flesh "’ (xii. 7-10). 
This testimony should have proceeded from the Corinthians (xii. 11-13). 
That he did not claim maintenance was disinterested (xii. 14-18). 
The purpose of this “' glorying” is their edification (xii. 19-21). 
If he comes again, he will not spare (xiii. 1, 2). 
Christ is his strength: let them see to it that He is theirs also (xiii. 3-10). 
Conclusion— 
Final exhortations (xiii. 11). 
Salutations and benediction (xiii. 12, 13). 





CHAPTER IV. 
THE TEXT. 


1. The uncial manuscripts whose readings are cited, in all 
important cases, in the critical notes are the following :— 


Ν. Codex Sinaiticus (szc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published 
in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862. 
The symbol δῆς is used to indicate the corrections intro- 
duced by a scribe of the seventh century, δ ἢ denoting the 
autograph of the original scribe. 


A. Codex Alexandrinus (sec. v.), at the British Museum, pub- 
lished in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson 
(1879); it is defective from chaps. iv. 13 to xii. 7 of our 
Epistle. 

B. Codex Vaticanus (szc. iv.), published in photographic fac- 
simile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi. 


C. Codex Ephraemi (sec. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by 
Tischendorf in 1843. The text of our Epistle is wanting 
from chap. x. 8 to the end. 


D. Codex Claromontanus (sec. vi.), a Greco-Latin MS. at 
Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852. D> and De denote 
the readings introduced by correctors of the seventh and 
ninth centuries respectively. The Latin text is represented 
by d; it follows the Old Latin version with modifications. 


E. Codex Sangermanensis (szc. ix.), a Grzeco-Latin MS., now 
at St. Petersburg, formerly belonging to the Abbey of 
Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Its text is largely dependent 
upon that of D. The Latin version, e (a corrected copy 
of d), has been printed, but with incomplete accuracy, by 
Belsheim (1885). 

F, Codex Augiensis (szc. ix.), a Greco-Latin MS., at Trinity 
College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek 


text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore 
VOL. III. 


14 INTRODUCTION 


not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin 
version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifica- 
tions. 

G. Codex Boernerianus (sac. ix.), a Graeco-Latin MS., at Dres- 
den, edited by Matthzi in 1791. Written by an Irish 
scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex 
Sangallensis (8) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is 
based on the O.L. translation. 

H. Codex Coislinianus (sxc. vi.), fragments of which survive 
in several libraries. Of our Epistle chap. iv. 2-7 is at 
St. Petersburg, and chaps. x. 18-xi. 6 and xi. 12-xii. 2 
at Mount Athos. These latter fragments were edited by 
Duchesne in 1876; the readings of the former are given 
by Tischendorf. 


K. Codex Moscrtensis (szec. ix.), edited by Matthzi in 1782, 

L. Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf 
and others. 

M. Codex Ruber (sec. ix.), at the British Museum; it derives 
its name from the colour of the ink. It contains of this 
Epistle chaps. i. 1-15 and x. 13-xii. 5. 


O. This is a fragment (sec. vi.), at St. Petersburg, containing 
chaps. i. 20-ii, 12. 

Ρ. Codex Porphyrianus (sec. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated 
by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. ii. 13-16. 


R. Codex Cryptoferratensis (sac. vii.), a palimpsest fragment 
containing chap. xi. 9-19, edited by Cozza in 1867, and 
cited by Tischendorf.' 


The tendency of these MSS. to fall into groups will be apparent 
on a cursory inspection of the apparatus criticus. The readings 
of DEG are, as a rule, ‘Western’; while ΝΒ represent (as 
usual) a weight of authority that cannot be rejected without 
much hesitation. The lacunz in A and C prevent the affinities 
of the “ Alexandrian” group NACLP from being as apparent here 
as in other Epistles (ε/. Sanday-Headlam, Romans, p. Ixxi). 


1 The following uncial authorities for our Epistle are as yet inedited :— 
S. At Mount Athos (sac. viii. ?), contains, inter alia, chaps. i. 1-xi. 23. 
wy. A ninth-century Codex at Mount Athos. It is said to be complete. 
5. Codex Patiriensis (sec. v.), at Rome (Vat. Gr. 2061). It contains chaps, 
iv. 7-vi. 8 and vii. 15-x. 6 of our Epistle. 


INTRODUCTION 35 


2. The minuscule or cursive manuscripts are very numerous, 
and only a few of special interest are occasionally cited in the 
critical apparatus. 17, the “queen of cursives” (ssc. ix.), is at 
Paris; 37 (636. xv.) is the well-known Leicester Codex = Ev. 69; 
and 73 (szec. xi.) is at Upsala. 

3. Versions. Of these the Latin claims special attention. The 
versions d, e, f, g have been described above. We have also of the 
Old Latin the fragmentary Codex Frisingensis (r) of the sixth (?) 
century, containing of our Epistle chaps. i. 1-ii. 10, iii, 17-v. 1, 
vii. 10-vili. 12, ix. 10-xi. 21, xii. 14-21, xiii, 2-10. The symbol ΠῚ 
marks the readings found in the Speculum, which represents the 
text of the Spaniard Priscillian. The Vulgate (vg) of the Pauline 
Epistles differs but little from the pre-Hieronymian Latin. 

In Syriac we have the Peshitto (szc. iii.?) and the Harclean 
version (szc. vii.) The margin of the latter often preserves better 
readings than are found in its text. 

Of Egyptian versions we have the Bohairic or the North Coptic, 
and the Sahidic or South Coptic, the language of Upper Egypt. 
These versions are to be dated probably about the third century. 

It has not come within the scope of this edition to cite the 
patristic authorities for the variants recorded; for a full conspectus 
the student must be referred to Tischendorfs Novum Testamentum 
Grece (8th edit.), on which the following apparatus criticus is based. 

4. In accordance with the general plan of the Expositor’s Greek 
Testament the ‘received text’’ (see vol. i., p. 52) is printed at the 
head of the pages but the commentary follows the reading, which 
has appeared to the editor to be, on the whole, most probably 
original, 

Among the Patristic Commentaries on the Epistle perhaps 
the most important are those of Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster and 
Primasius. Modern commentaries are very numerous. Stanley’s 
notes are often illuminating and picturesque; Alford is careful and 
thorough, as usual; and Waite (in the Speaker’s Commentary) 
provides a useful discussion of the main questions which the Epistle 
suggests. Of German commentaries Schmiedel’s (in the Hand 
Kommentar) is by far the most complete. It is a brilliant and 
scholarly piece of work, and is indispensable to the student who 
wishes to have detailed information as to the various schemes by 
which St. Paul’s history has been reconstructed for the years 53-55 
A.D. Schmiedel’s general view (see p. 19 above) that chaps. x.-xiii. con- 
stitute part of a letter distinct from and later than chaps. i.-ix. has 
not commended itself to the present editor; but his notes are full of 


36 INTRODUCTION 


learning and suggestiveness. Schnedermann’s edition of the Epistles 
to the Corinthians (in Strack-Zéckler's Kommentar) has also been 
found useful at some points. Bengel’s Gnomon and Field’s detached 
Notes have, of course, been diligently consulted.! 

In this edition the interpretation which has seemed on the whole 
the best has been set down, without (as a rule) discussing at length 
the rival theories. It would have been easy to crowd the notes 
with references to other editors; but it has seemed better to 
economise space in this direction, and so to find room for a larger 
number of references to St. Paul’s other writings. 


September, 1900. 


‘See also Prof. Findlay’s account of the Commentaries on 1 Corinthians 
vol. ii, Ρ. 752 above). 


ΠΑΥΔΟΥ TOT ΑΠΟΣΤΟΔΟΥ 


Η ΠΡΟΣ 


ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ 


ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΑ, 


I. τ. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, " διὰ "θελήματος 3 Θεοῦ, 2 Rom. xv. 


καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς, τῇ " ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ " Θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, 
Eph. i. 1; Col. i. 1; 2 Tim. i. 1. 


32; 1 Cor. 
i. 1; chap. 
Vili 


Ὁ Acts xx. 28; 1 Cor. i. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 14, ete. 


‘ ADEGKL and most vss. have "Ino. Χρ.; better Χριστου Ἴησου with SBMP 17. 


CHAPTER I. ADDRESS, vv. I, 2.—The 
usual form of address at the beginning of 
a Greek letter was A. B. χαίρειν (see 
Acts xxili. 26); and this is adopted by 
St. James in his Epistle (Jas. i. 1), and is 
followed, among other Christian writers, 
by Ignatius in his letters (πλεῖστα χαίρειν 
is his ordinary formula). St. Paul, original 
in this asin all else, struck out a form for 
himself. He replaces χαίρειν by χάρις 
καὶ εἰρήνη (1 Thess.), which in subse- 
quent letters is expressed more fully, as 
here, χάρις kat εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς 
ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. (In 1 
and 2 Tim. he adds ἔλεος.) The simple 
greeting of ordinary courtesy is thus 
filled with a deep religious meaning. 
Grace is the keynote of the Gospel; and 
peace, the traditional and beautiful saluta- 
tion of the East, on Christian lips signifies 
not earthly peace merely, but the peace of 
God (Phil. iv. 7). The first instance of 
the combination of χάρις with εἰρήνη is 
noteworthy, viz., they are coupled in the 
Priestly Benediction at Num. vi. 24.— 
ἀπόστολος Xp. Ἰη.: St. Paul’s letters are 
all semi-official, except perhaps that to 
Philemon; and thus they usually begin 
with the assertion of his apostolic office. 
This it would be especially necessary to 
emphasise in a letter to Corinth, where 
his authority had been questioned quite 
recently (x. ro ff.), and where the names 


of Apollos and Peter had formerly been 
set in opposition to his (1 Cor. i. 12).— 
διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ: he is ever anxious 
(see reff.) to explain that his apostleship 
was not assumed of himself; it is a mis- 
ston from God; he is a σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς.-- 
καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφός: Timothy now 
occupies the place at St. Paul’s side which 
was filled by Sosthenes when 1 Cor. was 
written (1 Cor. i. 1). Timothy had been 
despatched to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22) 
to go on to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17), but 
St. Paul seems to have had a suspicion 
that he might be prevented from arriving 
there (1 Cor. xvi. 10). From the facts 
that we now find him in Macedonia, and 
that there is no mention of him in chap. 
xii. 16-18, it is likely that he was pre- 
vented from reaching Corinth by some 
causes of which we are unaware.—rq 
ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.: the letter is 
addressed primarily to the Christian con- 
gregation at Corinth, and secondarily to 
the Christians throughout Achaia. It is 
thus a circular letter, like that to the 
Galatians or Ephesians, and so at the end 
we do not find salutations to individuals, 
as in 1 Cor. and in the other letters 
addressed to particular Churches. The 
words τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ suggest the 
idea of settled establishment ; the Church 
at Corinth had now been for some time 
in existence. —év ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ: the 


38 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B Ι, 


cActsix. 13; σὸν τοῖς " ἁγίοις πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ" 2. χάρις ὑμῖν 


1 Cor. xvi. 

ἀπ chap. καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

ΣΦ ὁ 4 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ “Θεὸς καὶ “πατὴρ τοῦ "Κυρίου ἡμῶν “᾿Ιησοῦ 
dPs. ο "Χριστοῦ, ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ‘ οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ " Θεὸς πάσης " παρακλήσεως, 


53: Lki 4. ὁ Ὁ παρακαλῶν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ ᾿θλίψει ἡμῶν, εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι 
ἐν ἴχ, 5, ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει, διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς 


ε Rom. xv. 6; Eph. i. 3; chap. xi. 31; 1 Pet. i. 
5; Phil. ii. 1; 2 Thess. ii. 16. b Isa. li. 14, 


Roman province of Achaia included the 
whole country which we call Greece (ex- 
cluding Macedonia), and it is in this large 
sense that the name is used here (cf. ix. 
2 below). 

Ver. 2. ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς x.t.A.: this 
coupling of the names of God our Father 
and the Lord Fesus Christ as alike the 
source of grace and peace is most signi- 
ficant in its bearing upon St. Paul’s 
Christology (cf. xiii. 13). 

I. The Obedience of the Corin- 
thians to the Instructions of the 
First Epistle (i. 3—vii. 16). This is 
the main topic of the first section of this 
Epistle. Vv. 3-7: THANKSGIVING; Gop’s 
CONSOLATIONS AND THE SYMPATHY OF 
Sorrow. St. Paul’s habit is to begin 
his letters with an expression of thank- 
fulness for the Christian progress of his 
correspondents. The only exceptions 
are the Epp. to Titus and to the Gala- 
tians (in this case he had received bad 
news from Galatia). In 1 Tim. i. 12 the 
cause of his thankfulness is the exhibition 
of the Divine mercy to himself; and this 
Epistle begins with a like thought, from 
which he passes (ver, 14) to his confident 
belief that the Corinthian Christians are 
still his καύχ It was especially im- 
portant that a letter which was so largely 
taken up with rebuke and with the asser- 
tion of his apostolical authority should 
begin with a pee ἢ of sympathy and 
hopefulness (vv. τα ff.). 

Ver. 3. εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ.; blessed 
is the God and Father of our Lord Fesus 
Christ. Note that τοῦ Κνρίον is depen- 
dent on Θεός as well as on πατήρ; cf: 
Eph. i. 17, and John xx. 17, Rev. i. 6 
This is the starting-point of the Christian 
revelation, that the Supreme is “the 
God and Father" of Jesus Christ; He 


is εὐλογητός (7772), the Object of 


His creatures’ blessing. The verb is not 
expressed, but the analogy of 1 Pet. iv. 
11 would indicate that ἐστίν rather than 
ἔστω should be understood. A doxology 
is not a prayer, but (cf. Matt. vi. 13, and 


f Isa. Ixiii. 15, 16; Rom. xii. 1. g Rom. xv. 


i. 13. i Ver. 8; chaps. ii. 4, iv. 17, Vi. 4, Vili. 2, 13. 


John xii. 13, a close parallel) a thankful 
and adoring statement of the Divine 
goodness and power.—é πατὴρ τῶν 
οἰκτιρμῶν : the Father of mercies, sc., 
from whom merciful acts proceed; olx- 
τιρμός, compassion, is the very charac- 
teristic of a Father’s providence; see 
reff. and Luke vi. 36.---καὶ Θεὸς πάσης 
παρακλήσεως : and God of all comfort, 
sc., from whom every consolation pro- 
ceeds. We have παράκλησις applied to 
God in Ο.Τ., ¢g., in Ps. xciil. το, αἱ 
παρακλήσεις σον ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχήν 
pov; and the word is adopted in the 
N.T. for the Divine comfort not only b 
St. Paul (see reff.), but by St. Luke (ii, 
25 and Acts ix. 31), and by St. John, νυ 
describes alike the Spirit (John xiv. 16, 
xv. 26, xvi. 7) and the Son (1 John ii. 1) 
as the παράκλητος. 

Ver. 4. ὁ παρακαλῶν ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ.;: 
who comforteth us in all our affliction 
(the def. art. indicating trials actually 
pep. The verb παρακαλεῖν has 
three shades of meaning, (a) to beseech, 
eighteen times in St. Paul, (δ) to exhort, 
seventeen times, (c) to comfort, thirteen 


times, of which seven are in this Epistle, ᾿ 


where the word occurs altogether seven- 
teen times. C/. ver. 6, ii. 7, 8, v. 20, vi. 
I, Vii. 6, 7, 13, Viii. 6, ix. 5, x. 1, xii. 8, 
18, xiii. Τ1.---εἷς τὸ δύνασθαι κ.τ.λ.: to 
the end that we may be able to comfort 
them that are in any affliction (sc., any 
that may happen to arise). This is the 
final purpose of God's gifts of grace, viz., 
that they may not only be a blessing to 
the individual, but through him and as 
reflected from him to his fellows.—#s 
παρακαλούμεθα: through the comfort 
wherewith we ourselves are being com- 
forted of God. ἧς, for ἥν, has been at- 
tracted into the case of + ήσεως (cf. 
1 Cor. vi. 19, chap. x. 13, Eph. ii. ro). 
Ver. 5. ὅτι καθὼς περισσεύει κ.τ.λ.: 
for as Christ's sufferings flow over abun- 
dantly to us, even so our comfort also 
aboundeth through Christ. t the 
Christian is a fellow-sufferer with Christ 
is frequently urged by St. Paul (Rom. 


δὼ. 


2--7. ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


39 


παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ: 5. ὅτι καθὼς περισσεύει τὰ * C/- nae 


, 1 a a > Θὰ “ἂς Ὁ α , Eph, iii. 
παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς, μα ae Χριστοῦ περισσεύει Eph τ 
ς ε ~ ” ς 4 lel ς fal η 
καὶ ἡ μάς ἡμῶν. | δ εἴτε δὲ ολα, πες τῆς ὑμῶν | ἀν το νι 
/ a 3 3 ς al a“ 4 
παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας, τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ᾿ὑπομονῇ τῶν 41: xi. 12. 
: ie σεώς ἘΣ ὙΠῸ - nS PY ae ns : port εἰς, ™Rom.iv, 
αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν ' εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ 16; οἱ 
ver. 21. 


τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας ᾿- 7. καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν ™BeBaia n τ Cor. x. 


δη ρε 
A 8 ο ει ᾿ 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν : εἰδότες ὅτι ὥσπερ ὅ " κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων, οὕτω v.15 ἃ 
et. i. 4. 


1 DE have το παθημα. 

* The uncials have του Χριστου; του is omitted by a few minuscules only. 

5 B 17 omit the first και σωτηριας. 

4 The order of clauses in the latter part of the verse is variously given in the MSS. 
The received text (followed by the A.V.) is devoid of MS. authority and was manu- 
factured by Erasmus, The choice lies between (1) ειτε παρακαλουμεθα υπερ της 
νµων παρακλησεως (Omitting και σωτηριας) της ενεργουµενης εν υποµονῃ των αντων 
παθηµατων ων και Ίμεις πασχοµεν και η ελπις .. . Όμων, which is attested by 
SACMP, τ, the Peshitto and Bohairic vss.; and (2) της ενεργουµενης εν πυπομονῃ 
τῶν αντων παθημάτων ων και ἡμεις πασχομεν, και ἡ ελπις ημων βεβαια ὑπερ υμων" 
ειτε παρακαλουμεθα, υπερ της υμων παρακλήσεως και σωτηριας, Which is the order 


of BDEGKL, d, e, f, g, and the Harclean. 


Tisch., W.H. and the R.V. 


We follow (1), which is adopted by 


δ For ωσπερ (DbcKL, etc.) read ως, with NABCD*E*MP, etc. 
ρ 


viii. 17, Phil. iii. το, Col. i. 24; see esp. 
chap. iv. το, 11 below, and cf. Matt. xx. 
22). Here he dwells on the thought that 
this fellowship in suffering implies also 
the consolation and strength which flow 
from union with Christ ; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 13. 

Vv. 6, 7. We follow the reading of 
the Revisers (see crit. note) and trans- 
late: But whether we be afflicted, it is 
for your comfort and salvation; or 
whether we be comforted, it is for your 
comfort, which worketh in the patient 
endurance of the same things which we 
also suffer: and our hope for you is stead- 
fast ; knowing that as ye are partakers 
of the sufferings, so also are ye of the 
comfort. This is an expansion of the 
εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι κ.τ.λ. of ver. 4: the 
Apostle’s afflictions and consolations 
alike are for the sake of his converts; 
they and he have a common fellowship 
in Christ, with all which that involves of 
sympathy with each other. The nearest 
parallel (see reff.) is Eph. iii. 13, διὸ 
αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐνκακεῖν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσίν 
μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ἥτις ἐστὶν δόξα ὑμῶν. 
For the constr. etre. . . εἴτε cf. chap. 
ν. 13 and 1 Cor. xii. 26. Note that 
ἐνεργεῖσθαι is always in the N.T. middle, 
not passive, and is used intransitively 
(see Rom. vii. 5, chap. iv. 12, Gal. v. 6, 
Eph. iii. 20, Col. i. 29, r Thess. ii. 13); 
when the verb is used of God it is always 
in the active voice {1 Cor. xii. 6, Gal. ii. 


8, etc.).—év ὑπομονῇ: ὑπομονή means 
expectation or hopeful waiting in the 
canonical books of the LXX; but is 
often used for steadfast endurance in 
Ecclus. and in 4 Macc. (see 4 Macc. xvii. 
12). It is a favourite word with St. Paul 
in this latter sense, in which it is always 
used in the N.T. (cf., e.g., Luke xxi. το, 
1 Tim. vi. 11); for the juxtaposition of 
ὑπομονή and παράκλησις see Rom. xv. 
5.---τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων: the suffer- 
ings which the Corinthian brethren must 
endure are here represented as the same 
as those of the Apostle; 7.e., the reference 
is not to any special affliction such as 
that alluded to in ver. 8, but to the 
troubles which came upon him in the 
general discharge of his Apostolic office 
and upon all those who were engaged in 
the struggle against Judaism on the one 
side and heathendom on the other. 

Ver. 7. καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς κ.τ.λ.: and our 
hope for you is steadfast, knowing (we 
should expect εἰδότων, but cf. Rom. xiii, 
11) that as ye are partakers of the suffer- 
ings (see reff. for κοινωνός with a gen, 
objectt), so also are ye of the comfort. The 
main idea of this section is well given by 
Bengel: ‘‘Communio sanctorum.. . 
egregie representatur in hac epistola’”’. 

Vv. 8-11. His Recent ΡΕΕΙΙ,. Ver, 
8. οὐ yap θέλομεν κ.τ.λ.: for we would 
not have you ignorant, brethren, about 
(for ὑπέρ with gen. in this sense, cf, 


40 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B I. 
o Acts xix καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως. 8. οὐ γὰρ θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοὶ, 
pion vii, ὑπὲρ] τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν τῆς γενομένης ἡμῖν " ἐν τῇ “᾿Ασίᾳ, ὅτι καθ᾽ 
13 1Cor-P ὑπερβολὴν " ἐβαρήθημεν ὃ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν, ὥστε * ἐξαπορηθῆναι ἡμᾶς 

- καὶ τοῦ Liv: 9. ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὸ " ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου 

i. ἐσχήκαμεν, ἵνα μὴ ᾿ πεποιθότες ὦμεν ' ἐφ᾽ ' ἑαυτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ "ἐπὶ τῷ 
Θεῷ τῷ " ἐγείροντι" τοὺς νεκρούς" 10. ὃς ἐκ τηλικούτου θανάτου 
© ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς καὶ ῥύεται," " εἰς ὃν "ἠλπίκαμεν ὅτι ὃ καὶ ἔτι 7 


v Chap. iv. 14; Rom. viii. 
x John v. 45; 1 Pet. iii. 5. 


r Chap. iv. 
S8only. 8 Here only. 
11; 1 Cor. vi. 14, etc. 


u Ps. ii. 12; Jer. xvii. 7. 


t Lk. xviii. 9. ν᾽ 
ess, i. Το. 


w Rom. vii. 24; Col. i 13; 1 


1 BKLM have νπερ της θλ., probably the autograph; but περι (a natural altera- 
tion) has the support of RACDEGP 17. 

2 NecDbcEKL, the Syriac and Bohairic give ηµιν; om. naw N*ABCD*GMP 17 
and the Latins. 

3 DEGKL, d, e, f, g, vg. and the Syriac vss. give «Bap. υπερ Suv. ; better νπερ 
ϑυναμιν εβαρηθηµεν, with NABCMP 17, τ. 

* G has επι Θεον τον εγιροντα. 

®* DcEGKLM, f, vg. and the Harclean give ρνεται; ρνσεται has the stronger 
support of  ΒΟΡ 17, g, and the Bohairic. 

δ ort is omitted in BD*M; G, g insert it after και; all other authorities support 


received text. 
7 DbG and a few cursives omit ert. 


chap. viii. 23, xii. 8, 2 Thess. ii. 1) our 
affliction which happened in Asia, that 
we were weighed down exceedingly, 
beyond our power, insomuch that we 
despaired even of life. Having spoken 
in general terms of the Divine comfort in 
times of trouble, he goes on to mention 
his own particular case, the ‘‘ affliction 
which befel him in Asia”. What was 
this? Asia almost certainly means 
Ephesus, where he had lately been exposed 
to many adversaries (1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 9). 
We naturally think of the tumult recorded 
in Acts xix. 23 ff.; but the language here 
used is so strong that he must have been 
exposed to something worse than a tem- 
rary riot. He was ‘weighed down 
yond his power” (ὑπὲρ δύναμιν, a 
phrase which he never uses elsewhere, 
and which is specially remarkable from 
the pen of one who always gloried in the 
Divine δύναμις granted to him, of which 
he said πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυνα- 
οὖντί με, Phil. iv. 13); he “ despaired of 
life,” and yet he describes in this v 
Epistle (iv. 8) his general attitude in tri- 
bulation as “ perplexed, yet not despair- 
ing”. Nor have we knowledge of any 
persecution at Ephesus so violent as to 
justify such language, though no doubt 
the allusion may be to something of the 
kind. Whatever the “affliction” was, 
the Corinthians were acquainted with it, 
for St. Paul does not enter into details, 


but mentions it only to inform them of its 
gravity, and to assure them of his trust in 
his ultimate deliverance. On the whole, 
it seems most likely that the reference is 
to grievous bodily sickness, which brought 
the Apostle down to the gates of death 
(see ver. 9, and cf. chap. iv. 10 and xii. 
ff.). Such an affliction would be truly 
ὑπὲρ δύναμιν; and it would be necess 
to contemplate its recurrence (ver. 10). 
St. Paul in this Epistle, with unusual 
frequency, uses the plural ἡμεῖς when 
speaking of himself; sometimes this can 
be explained 41 the fact that Timothy was 
associated with him in the writing of the 
letter (i. 1), but in other passages (e.g., 
ver. 10, ν. 13, 16, X.7, II, 15, xi. 21) such 
an explanation will not suit the context, 
which demands the individual application 
of the pronoun. 

Ver. 9. ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ κ.τ.λ.: nay, we 
ourselves had the sentence of death in our- 
selves; i.e., the danger was so great that 
the sentence of death had been already 
pronounced, as it were. ἀπόκριμα might 
mean “ answer,’’ as the Revisers trans- 
late it (they give sentence, with the A.V., 
in their margin); cf. the verb ἀποκρίνειν. 
But in the other places where this rare 
word is found (e.g., Jos., Ant., xiv. το, 
6, and an inscription of 51 a.p., quoted 
by Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 
85) it stands for an official decision or 
sentence. Cf. κρίμα θανάτον, “the sen- 


8—12. 


ἡ ῥύσεται, 11. ” συνυπουργούντων καὶ ὑμῶν } ὑπὲρ 2 ἡμῶν ὃ τῇ δεήσει, ¥ ie 


Ὁ εὐχαριστηθῇ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. 


ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOY= B 


41 


m. iv. 


ἵνα ἐκ πολλῶν "προσώπων τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα διὰ πολλῶν 2 Here only. 


a Prov. viii. 
30andreff. 
below. 


12. Ἡ γὰρ “καύχησις ἡμῶν αὕτη ἐστὶ, τὸ μαρτύριον τῆς “ συνειδή- > Chaps. iv. 


το, 1x. 12. 


~ , - 
σεως ἡμῶν, ὅτι ἐν ἁπλότητι ὃ καὶ " εἰλικρινείᾳ Θεοῦ,7 οὐκ ὃ ἐν σοφίᾳ ct Cor. xv. 


a 9 Ss , af , 3 - / 
σαρκικῆ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν χάριτι Θεοῦ ἡ ἀνεστράφημεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, περισσο- 


10, 17. 
only; cf. Phil. i. το. 


1 A has μων for vpev. 
3 AG have υμων for μων. 


ἃ Eccl. x. 20; Wisd. xvii. 11 only in LXX; cf. Rom. ii. 15. 
f Ezek. xix. 6; Eph. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iii. 15. 


31; chaps. 
vii. 4, 14, 

Vili. 24, xi. 
e 1 Cor. v. 8; chap. il. 17 


3 D*G have περι for υπερ. 
4 GM, d, ε, g, give εν πολλῳ προσωπῳ. 


5 evx. υπερ ηµων is read by RACD*GM 17 and the vss.; BDcEFKLP have υμων. 


ὃ απλοτητι SCDEGL, the Latin and Syriac vss. ; but the better supported reading 
is αγιοτητι of Ν ΑΒΟΚΜΡ 17, 37, 73, and the Bohairic (see note). 


7 SABCDEM have tov Θεου; GKLP omit του. 
8 BM 37, 73, f, vg. and the Harclean read και ουκ ev; W.H. place και in brackets. 


tence of death” (Ecclus. xli. 3). The 
tense of ἐσχήκαμεν is noteworthy; it 
seems to be a kind of historical perfect, 
used like an aorist (cf. chap. ii. 13, xi. 25, 
Rev. v. 7, viii. 5, for a similar usage).— 
ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες κ.τ.λ.: 1,6., “the 
gravity of the danger was such as to im- 
press upon me the vanity of putting my 
trust anywhere save in God, who has the 
power of life and death”. God can 
“raise the dead” (see chap. iv. 14); 
much more can He bring back the dying 
from the gates of death. 

Ver. το. ὅς ἐκ τηλικ. K.T.A.: who 
delivered us out of so great a death, and 
will deliver (reading ῥύσεται). The form 
of words recalls Rom. xv. 31 and 2 Tim. 
iv. 17, 18, which would give some sup- 
port to the theory that the great peril in 
‘question was persecution at the hands of 
opponents ; but (as we have said on ver. 
8) it seems more probable that the 
Apostle’s deliverance was from a danger- 
ous illness. It is possible, indeed, that 
we have here a reminiscence of Job 
XXXill. 30, ἐρύσατο τὴν ψυχήν µου ἐκ 
θανάτου, which would confirm this inter- 
pretation. Note that the preposition is 
ἐκ, not ἀπό; ἀπό would only indicate 
deliverance from the neighbourhood of 
a danger; é« indicates emergence froma 
danger to which one has actually been 
exposed (see Chase, Lord’s Prayer in the 
Early Church, pp. 71 ff.). Cf. with the 
whole phrase 2 Tim. iv. 17, 18, ἐρύσθην 
ἐκ στόματος λέοντος, ῥύσεταί με ὁ κύριος 
κ.τ.λ.---εἷς ὃν ἠλπίκαμεν : towards whom 
we have set our hope. εἰς with the acc. 
(see reff.) expresses the direction towards 
which hope looks; ἐπί with the dat. after 





ἐλπίζειν (1 Tim. iv. το, vi. 17) rather indi- 
cates that 7m which hope rests. Cf. Ps. 
iv. 6, ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ κύριον. The perfect 
ἠλπίκαμεν here has its full force, viz., 
“towards whom we have set our hope, 
and continue to do so”; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 
το, 1 Tim. v. 5, vi. 17.—Kal ἔτι ῥύσεται: 
the force of ἔτι (if indeed it be part of 
the true text: see crit. note) is to carry 
the mind on to the perils of the future, as 
distinguished from those of the present : 
He will continue to deliver us. 

Ver. II. συνυπουργούντων καὶ ὑμῶν 
Κ.τ.λ.: ye also helping together on our 
behalf by your supplication ; i.e., appar- 
ently, ‘‘helping me”. St. Paul claims 
that the sympathy of his converts with 
him shall be exhibited by their prayers 
forhim. δέησις is prayer for a particular 
object, as contrasted with the more general 
προσευχή (Eph. vi. 18).—tva ἐκ πολλῶν 
προσώπων κ.τ.λ.: that from many faces 
(sc., as if upturned in thanksgiving) thanks 
be given on our behalf through many for 
the gift bestowed on us. πρόσωπον came 
to mean “person” in later Greek, but it 
never can be thus translated in the Ν.Τ., 
save in the phrase λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον 
(Luke xx. 21, Gal. ii. 6) or θαυμάζειν 
πρόσωπα (Jude 16), “to respect the per- 
son’’ of anyone. Even in these passages 
λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον is a Hebraism which 
originally meant “raise the face’’ (see 
Plummer on Luke xx. 21). πρόσωπον 
is used ten times elsewhere in this Epistle 
in its ordinary sense of “face”’ (chap. ii. 
τοι η, το, ταν. 6, Va το νι, 24: Xe 
I, η, χι, 200], also τ Cor. ΟΣ τὸ, xiv. 
25, Gal. i. 22). Hence we cannot follow 
the English versions in translating ἐκ 


42 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 1. 


g1 Cor. xiii. δ 
12, χίν, 37, Τέρως δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 
xvi. 18; 
chaps. vi. 
9, xiii. 5. 


1 BG om. αλλ’. 


13. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλα γράφομεν ὑμῖν ἀλλ᾽} ἢ " ἃ 
ἀναγινώσκετε, ἢ ὃ καὶ " ἐπιγινώσκετε, ἐλπίζω δὲ ὅτι καὶ ΄ ἕως τέλους 


7A om. a 


5 B and a few cursives omit η και επιγνωσκετε (through homceoteleuton); GK, 
the Latin, Peshitto and Bohairic vss. omit η. 


* SABCD*EG and most vss. omit και; ins. DCKLMP and the Harclean. 


πολλῶν προσώπων “ by many persons " 
in this verse, an additional difficulty in 
the way of such a rendering being that 
it would require ὑπό, not ἐκ. πρόσωπον 
is a face, and the image in the writer's 
mind is that of faces upturned in prayer, 
the early Christian (and the Jewish) atti- 
tude of prayer being one of standing with 
uplifted eyes and outstretched arms (cf. 
Ps. xxvii. 2, Matt. vi. 5, 1 Tim. ii. 8, and 
Clem. Rom.,§ 29). The general thought, 
of the united thanksgivings of many 
persons, is found twice again in the 
Epistle in somewhat similar contexts (see 
τε). χάρισμα and εὐχαριστεῖν (the 
passive is found here only in N.T.) are 
favourite words with St. Paul, the former 
occurring sixteen times in his Epistles 
and only once elsewhere in the N.T. 
(1 Pet. iv. το). 

Vv. 12-14. THEY MUST ACKNOWLEDGE 
HIS SINCERITY OF Purpose. He claims 
that he has always been frank and open 
in his dealings with the Corinthian Chris- 
tians: cf. 1 Thess. ii. 3.— γὰρ καύχησις 
κ.τ.λ.: for our glorying is this. Note 
καύχησις, not καύχ as at ver. 14, 
which is rather the thing boasted of 
than the act of boasting. κανχάομαι and 
its cognates are peculiarly frequent in 
this Epistle (see Introd., p. 27).---τὸ pe 
τύριον τῆς συνειδήσεως ἡμῶν: vis., the 
testimony of our conscience. μαρτύριον 
is the thing testified to by conscience, as 
contrasted with μαρτυρία, the act of 
testimony. συνείδησις, ‘ conscientia,” 
represents the self sitting in judgment 
on self, a specially Greek idea, and taken 
over by St. Paul from Greek thought; 
the word is a favourite one with him, both 
in his Epistles and in his speeches (Acts 
xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16).---ὅτι ἐν ἁγιότητι καὶ 
εἰλικρινείᾳ Θεοῦ: that in holiness and 
sincerity of God (cf. chap. iv. 2). The 
received reading, ἁπλότητι, probably 
arose from the fact that while ewe 
occurs four times in this Epistle, and is a 
specially Pauline word, ἁγιότης is rare, 
only occurring in the Greek Bible twice 
elsewhere (2 Macc. xv. 2, Heb. xii. 10). 
The etymology of εἰλικρινεία (see reff.) 


is uncertain; but the meaning is not 
doubtful. The force of the genitive τοῦ 
Θεοῦ is somewhat the same as in the 
phrase δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (Rom. iii. 21); 
the holiness and sincerity which St. Paul 
claims as characterising his conduct are 
Divine qualities, and in so far as they are 
displayed in men they are God's gift, as 
he goes on to εχρἰαίη.--οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ 
σαρκικῇ κ.τ.λ.: not in fleshly wisdom, 
but in God's grace, sc., which had been 
vouchsafed to him for the due discharge 
of his apostolic office (Rom. i. 5, xii. 
3, xv. 15, 1 Cor. iii. το, Eph. iii, 2). 
Especially in the Corinthian letters does 
St. Paul insist on this, that his power is 
not that of human wisdom (1 Ως 
13, chap. x. 4. The word σαρκικός is 
found five times in his letters, and only 
twice elsewhere in N.T. It signifies that 
which belongs to the nature of the σάρξ 
of man, as contrasted with σάρκινος, 
“made of flesh,”’ which is the stronger 
word (cf. iii. 3 below).—dverrpddyper ἐν 
τῷ κόσμῳ: did we behave ourselves in the 
world, sc., the heathen world (cf. 1 Cor. 
ν. τὸ, Phil. ii, 15).--περισσοτέρως δὲ 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς: and more abundantly to you- 
ward, sc., perhaps because his oppor- 
tunities at Corinth had been greater han 
elsewhere of displaying the holiness and 
sincerity of the Christian life. 

Ver. 13. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλα κ.τ.λ.; for we 
write none other things unto you than 
what ye read (ἀναγινώσκειν always means 
‘toread "’ in St. Paul’s Epp. and through- 
out the N.T.) or even acknowledge ; 1.¢., 
there is no hidden meaning in his letters; 
he means what he says, as to which 
doubts seem to have been prevalent at 
Corinth (chap. x. 10,11). The play upon 
words ἀναγινώσκετε . . . ἐπιγινώσκετε 
cannot be reproduced in English. St. 
Paul is fond of such paronomasia; see, 
6.8 γινωσκομένη . « « ἀναγινωσκομένη, 
chap. ili. 2; φρονεῖν, ὑπε iv, σω- 
φρονεῖν, Rom. xii. 3; συνκρίνω, ἀνακρίνω, 
1 Cor. ii, 13, 14; ἐργαζόμενοι . . . 
περιεργαΐζ 2 Thess. iii. 11; cf. for 
other illustrations 1 Cor. vii. 31, xi. 31, 
xii, 2, Phil. iii, 2, Eph. v. 15, and chaps 


13---τό, 


ἐπιγνώσεσθε, 14. 
i 


Κυρίου ! Ἰησοῦ.3 


ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν πρότερον," ἵνα πο. χάριν ὃ 


ὑμῶν διελθεῖν ἵ 


χ.2; Eph. 111. 12; Phil. iii. 4 only. 


1 του κυριον ηµων is read by $BGMP, f, 6, vg., the Bohairic and Peshitto. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΟΙΟΥΣ B 


καθὼς καὶ ἐπέγνωτε ἡμᾶς 
καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν, καθάπερ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν, 
15. καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ ne Ge ἐβουλόμην τος 


43 


Bia yin tp ὅτι h Jos. xviii. 
απο βερους, οτι 20; Rom. 
ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ γεν ΧΙ, Ὅν xv. 

chap. il. 5 


καὶ 19ι᾽ i Chaps. ν. 
12, ΙΧ. 


ἔχητε," τό. 


εἰς Μακεδονίαν, καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας ἐλθεῖν k Chaps. iii, 


4, Vill. 22, 
1 Num, xx. 18; Rom. xv. 28. 


ημων 


is (wrongly) omitted by ACDEKL, d, ε and most cursives. 
2 D*EGMP and nearly all vss. add Χριστου after Ἴησου; om. N*ABCDbcKL 


(rightly). 


3 DEGKL and most vss. have ελθειν προς υμας ; but NABCMP and the Harclean 


support the received order. 


4 προτερον should come after εβουλοµην, with nearly all the uncials; the received 
text follows the order of KL and the Bohairic. 


5 We retain χαριν, which is found in *ACDEGK; but ScBLP have χαραν, 
which is adopted by W.H., and is mentioned in R.V. margin. 


8 exnre ADEGKL,; better σχητε with BCP (see on ii. 3). 
7 AD*GP have απελθειν; διελθειν ΝΒΟΡΕΕΚΙ,. 


iv. 8, x. 12 below. ἀλλ᾽ ἤ is equivalent 
ton‘ except” ; cf. Job vi. 5, Isa. xlii. το. 
—éhrifw δὲ ὅτι κ.τ.λ.: and I hope that 
ye will acknowledge unto the end, 50.» 
unto the day of the Lord’s appearing (as 
in τ Cor. i. 8), when the secrets of all 
hearts shall be revealed. 

Ver. 14. καθὼς καὶ ἐπέγνωτε κ.τ.λ.: 
as also ye did acknowledge us in part ; 
{.6., some of them made this acknowledg- 
ment, but not all (1 Cor. ili. 4).—ore 
καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμεν: that (not ‘ be- 
cause ”) we are your glorying (cf. ν. 12) ; 
that is, the Corinthian Church was 
proud of its connexion with the great 
Apostle, and still “* gloried ” in him.— 
καθάπερ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ.: as ye 
also are ours, in the day of our Lord 
Fesus. Lest this assertion of his single- 
mindedness and integrity should seem to 
claim any undue superiority to his fellow 
Christians at Corinth, he hastens to add, 
parenthetically, with remarkable tact, 
that if he is their “' glory’’ so are they 
his. He constantly thinks thus of his 
converts; cf., ε.σ., Phil. ii. τὸ and τ 
Thess. ii. 19, 20.—év τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου 
Ἰησοῦ: ‘A day of the Lord,” ‘The 
Day of the Lord” are common ex- 
pressions in the prophets; cf. Isa. xiii. 
6, ο. Jer. xlvi. το, Ezek. xxx, 3, Zech. 
xiv. 1, Joeli. 15, ii. 1, 13, 31 (cited Acts 
11, 20), etc. And the phrase is taken up 
by St. Paul (1 Thess. v. 2, 1 Cor. i. 8, v. 
ἘΠ ο” ἘΠῚ οἰ τοι Limit. το], απα {5 
applied to the Second Advent of Christ; 
cf. also 2 Pet. iii. το, and Matt. xxiv. 42. 


Vv. 15-22. His CHANGE OF PLAN WAS 
Not DuE To FICKLENESS. καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ 
πεποιθήσει ἐβουλόμην κ.τ.λ.: and in this 
confidence (sc., that they would acknow- 
ledge his sincerity) I was minded to come 
before (sc., before he went to Macedonia) 
unto you, that ye might have a second 
benefit. The circumstances seem to have. 
been as follows. While St. Paul was at 
Ephesus (Acts xix.) his intention had 
been to cross the A®gean to Corinth, 
thence to visit Macedonia, and then to 
come back to Corinth on his way to 
Judzea with the contributions which he 
had gathered (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4). The 
Corinthians would thus have enjoyed a 
‘second benefit” (cf. Rom. i. 11, xv. 29), 
inasmuch as he would have visited them 
both on his way to Macedonia, and on 
his return journey. This project he had 
communicated to them, probably in the 
letter which is lost (1 Cor. v. 9). But he 
received bad news from Corinth (1 Cor. 
i. 11), and he wrote 1 Cor. in reply. In 
this letter (1 Cor. xvi. 5) he incidentally 
mentioned that he had changed his plans, 
and that he now proposed to travel from 
Ephesus to Corinth vid Macedonia, the 
route which he adopted in the sequel 
(Acts xx. 1 ff., chap. ii. 12, vii. 5). When 
the Corinthians heard of this, they began 
to reproach him with fickleness of pur- 
pose (chap. i. 17), and the charge came 
to his ears. We have his defence in the 
verses (15-22) before us. 

Ver. 16. προπεμφθῆναι: 
forward on my journey”. 


το πο οι 
The practice 


44 


m Ἄδα μοι, πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ὑφ ὑμῶν “ προπεμφθῆναι εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν. 
τι ἄρα τῇ 


$3 re τοῦτο οὖν Boudeudpevos! μή 


XV. 24; 1 
Cor. xvi. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 1. 


17. 
“éhappia ἐχρησάμην ; ἢ ἃ 


6, 11; Tit. “ βουλεύομαι, " κατὰ " σάρκα βουλεύομαι, ἵνα ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ τὸ “ ναὶ 


iii. 13. 
Ὁ Here only; 


ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ; 18. πιστὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς, ὅτι ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν ὁ πρὸς 


4. —_ ᾽ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἐγένετο vai καὶ οὔ" 19. ὁ γὰρ ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς 
o Here only Χριστὸς “ ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν δι᾿ ἡμῶν " κηρυχθεὶς, Be ἐμοῦ καὶ Σιλουανοῦ καὶ 


in Pau 


p John viii. 15; Rom. viii. 4, 12, 13; chaps. ν. 16, x. 4, xi. 18. 


111, 16. 


q Mt. ν. 37; Jas. v. 12. τι Tim. 


1 The better reading is BovAopevos, with NABCGP, f, vg. and the Bohairic; 


BovAevopevos DEK, d, e, g and the Syriac. 


® eyevero of NCDbcEKL is probably a (mistaken) correction of εστιν, which is read 
by $)*ABCD*GP 17, the Latin and the Bohairic vss. 


ΣΝΑΒΕΟΡ, 17 have ο τον Θεον yap; text follows the later authorities DEGKL. 


4Ἴη. Xp. has the support of N©BDEGKLP; but Ν’ΑΟ (a strong combination) 
give Xp. "ly. The order of words is therefore doubtful, but we prefer Xp. "In. on the 


whole. 


of “μυ fellow-Christians on their 
journeys, of “" seeing them off”’ in safety, 
is often mentioned in Acts, and is incul- 
cated more than once as a duty by St. 
Paul (see reff.). 

Ver. 17. τοῦτο οὖν βουλόμενος κ.τ.λ.: 
when therefore I was thus minded, did I 
shew fickleness? The article rp before 
ἐλαφρίᾳ can hardly be pressed so as to 
convey the meaning ‘that fickleness 
which you lay to my charge"; it is 
merely generic.— ἃ βουλεύομαι κ.τ.λ. : 
or the things that I purpose, do I pur- 
pose according to the flesh, that there 
should be with me the Yea, yea, and the 
Nay, nay? That is, “Are my plans 
made like those of a worldly man, that 
they may be changed according to my 
own caprice, Yes to-day, No to-morrow 2”) 
His argument is that, although the details 
of his original plan had been altered, yet 
in spirit and purpose it was unchanged ; 
there is no room for any charge of in- 
consistency or fickleness. His principles 
of action are unchangeable, as is the 
Gospel which he preaches. He had pro- 
mised to go to Corinth, and he would go. 
For a similar use of the phrase κατὰ 
σάρκα see reff., and cf. chap. v.16. The 
reduplication val val... οὔ οὔ is not 
altogether easy to explain; but we have 
vai ναὶ repeated similarly in Matt. v. 37, 
and perhaps we may also compare the 
᾿Αμὴν, ᾽Αμήν of St. John’s Gospel (e.¢., 
x. 1). Some critics (e.g., Steck) have 
regarded val val... οὔ οὔ here as an 
actual quotation from Matt. v. 37. But 
apart from the fact that this opinion rests 
on a quite untenable theory as to the 
date of this Epistle (see Introd., p. 12), 


the context of the words will not lend 
itself to any such interpretation (see 
above). 

Ver. 18. πιστὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς ὅτι κ.τ.λ.; 
but as God is faithful, our word, εἰς, 
For the construction, «]. the similar 
forms of asseveration ζῇ κύριος ὅτι, “as 
the Lord liveth"’ (1 Sam. xx. 3, 2 Sam. 
ii. 27), and ἔστιν ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ ἐν 
ἐμοὶ ὅτι, “as the truth of Christ is in 
me" (xi. το). For πιστός as applied to 
God, see Deut. vii. 9, 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13, 
1 Thess. v. 24, 2 Thess. iii. 3, 2 Tim. ti. 
13, and cf. 1 Sam. xv. 29.—é w 
ὁ πρὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἔστιν Ναὶ καὶ Οὔ: our 
word (sc., my personal communications 
about my journey, as well as the message 
of the Gospel) towards you is not Yea and 
Nay. Ido not deceive you or vacillate 
in my purpose: cf, ii. 17. 

Ver. 19. He has appealed to the 
faithfulness of God, and this s 
the thought of the unchangeableness of 
Christ.—é τοῦ Θεοῦ γὰρ vids κ.τ.λ.: for 
the Son of God, Christ Fesus, who 
was proclaimed ou us. 
position of rod Θεοῦ before γάρ (as in 
the true text) brings out the sequence of 
thought better, as it brings Θεοῦ (the 
connecting word) into prominence.—&’ 
ἐμοῦ καὶ Σιλονανοῦ καὶ Τιμοθέου : even 
by me and Silvanus and Timothy. These 
three brought the Gospel to Corinth 
(Acts xviii. 5), and were closely associ- 
ated during the Apostle’s labours in that 
city (x Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1). Sil- 
vanus is only another form of the name 
Silas; he was a prophet (Acts xv. 32), 
and apparently, like St. Paul, a Roman 
citizen (Acts xvi. 37), and shared the 





17---22. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


45 


Τιμοθέου, οὐκ ἐγένετο ναὶ καὶ οὔ, ἀλλὰ ναὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν " 29. ὃ Rom. iv. 


lal ~ Ν 
ὅσαι γὰρ " ἐπαγγελίαι " Θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ, καὶ 


τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν δι ἡμῶν. 


21. ὃ δὲ “βεβαιῶν ἡμᾶς 2 σὺν ὑμῖν 


20; Gal. 
iii. 21. 

t Rom. xv. 
8; 1 Cor. 
i. 6,8; Col. 


a ie EY τας ee ΑἈ 
εν αὐτῷ το αμην, 


3 9 ναι] , ς ο <3 4 γ. ᾿ ii. 7: i 
εἰς Χριστὸν, καὶ “χρίσας ημᾶς, Θεός" 22. ὃ“ και σφραγισάμενος ae ΚΩ͂ 


ἡμᾶς, καὶ δοὺς τὸν " ἀῤῥαβῶνα τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν. να ταν 
Χ. - 


Heb. i. 9. 
Eph. i. 14. 


v John vi. 27; Eph. i. 13, iv. 30; Rev. vii. 3, 4. 


ω , 
w Gen. xxxviii. 17; chap. ν. 5; 


1 «at εν αυτῳ DbcEKL and the Harclean; 810 και δι αυτου has the stronger 
support of SSABCGP 17, the Peshitto and the Bohairic. 


2 C and the Harclean stand almost alone in reading vpas συν npw; B has vpas 


συν υμιν and υμας at the end of the verse. 


3 ΝΕΒΟΕΡΕΙΟ have ο και σφρ.; G and the Latins have και ο σφρ.; while 


$$*AC*KP 17 and the Bohairic omit ο altogether. 


W.H. enclose it in brackets. 


Apostle’s perils during the whole of his 
second missionary journey (Actsxv. 40— 
xviii. 18). We hear of him again at 
Rome (1 Pet. v. 12).--οὐκ ἐγένετο vat 
καὶ οὔ, ἀλλὰ val ἐν αὐτῷ γέγονεν : was 
not Yea and Nay, but in Him is (sc., has 
been and continues to be) Yea. There 
is no doubtfulness or vacillation in the 
words of Christ (Matt. vii. 29, John xii. 
50); and He continually emphasised the 
positive and certain character of His 
teaching by the introductory formula 
᾿Αμὴν, ἁμήν. More than this, however, 
is involved here. Christ, who is the 
Object and Sum of St. Paul’s preaching, 
is unchangeable (Heb. xiii. 8), for He is 
not only “true” (Rev. iii. 7), but ‘‘ the 
Truth”? (John xiv. 6): He is, in brief, 
ὁ ᾿Αμήν (Rev. iii. 14), and so it may be 
said that an Eternal ‘“‘ Yea” has come 
into being (γέγονεν, through His incar- 
nate Life) in Him. 

Ver. 20. ὅσαι yap ἐπαγγελίαι κ.τ.λ. : 
for how many soever be the promises of 
God, in Him is the Yea. Not only was 
Christ a διάκονος περιτομῆς . . . εἰς τὸ 
βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων 
(Rom. xv. 8), but He is Himself, in His 
own Person, the true fulfilment and re- 
capitulation of them all (cf. Gal. iii. 8).— 
διὸ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ᾿Αμήν κ.τ.λ.: where- 
fore also through Him is the ‘‘ Amen,” 
to the glory of God, through us. The 
reading of the received text conceals the 
force of these words. It is because Christ 
is the consummation, the ‘‘ Yea” of the 
Divine promises, that the ‘‘Amen”’ is 
specially fitting at the close of doxolo- 
gies in public worship (1 Cor. xiv. 16). 
The thought of the fulfilment of God’s 
promises naturally leads to a doxology 
(Rom. xv. 9), to which a solemn ᾽Αμήν, 
the Hebrew form of the Greek vai, whose 


Tisch. retains it before και, but 


significance as applied to Christ has just 
been expounded, is a fitting climax. δι᾽ 
ἡμῶν in this clause includes, of course, 
both St. Paul and his correspondents; 
it refers, indeed, to the general practice 
of Christians in their public devotions. 
Ver. 21. ὃ δὲ βεβαιῶν κ.τ.λ.: now He 
that stablisheth us with you into Christ 
and anointed us is God, etc. For the 
form of the sentence cf. chap. v. 5. The 
ultimate ground of St. Paul’s steadfast- 
ness in Christ is God Himself; and having 
been led on to say this, he adds σὺν ὑμῖν, 
in order to introduce (as he does at every 
opportunity in the early part of the 
Epistle) the idea of unity between him 
and his Corinthian converts. The play 
on words Χριστόν .. . χρίσας is obvious; 
the only other place in the N.T. where 
the idea is found of the “‘anointing”’ of 
the Christian believer by God is 1 John 
ii, 20, 27, ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ 
ἁγίου. Deissmannhas pointed out (Bibel- 
studien, p. 104) that βεβαιόω and appa- 
βών (see note below) are both technical 
terms belonging to the law courts (cf. 
Lev. xxv. 23, LXX), and that βεβαιῶν is 
here deliberately used rather than κυριῶν 
(Gal. ili. 15), or any other such word, 
Ver. 22. ὁ καὶ σφρ. ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ.: who. 
also sealed us (5ο., all Christians), and 
gave us the earnest of the Spirit in our 
hearts. The aorists, σφραγισάμενος - - - 
δούς, point to acts completed at a definite 
moment in the past; and this can only 
mean the moment of baptism. This, too, 
is the best explanation of the parallel 
passages, Eph. i. 13, iv. 30. The gift of 
the Holy Spirit is repeatedly mentioned 
as consequent on baptism (Acts ii. 38, 
xix. 6); and the σφραγίς, or “seal”’ of 
baptism, is a common image in early 
Christian literature (e.g., [2 Clem.,] § 8, 


46 


x 1 Cor. vii. 
28; cha 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


I, 23—24. 


23. ἐγὼ δὲ μάρτυρα τὸν Θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦμαι ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχὴν, 


: ἣν 
αἰ 6, - ὅτι " φειδόμενος ὑμῶν οὐκέτι 1 ἦλθον εἰς Κόρινθον: 24. " οὐχ ὅτι 
y Sohal Σκυριεύομεν ὑμῶν” τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ συνεργοί ἐσμεν τῆς χαρᾶς ὑμῶν, — 


Hi σον, ὁ . 
17; 2 Thess. ili. 9. 


z Rom. vi. 9, 14, vii. 1, xiv. 9; 1 Tim. wi. 15. 


1 G has οὐκ, which also seems to have been read by the Peshitto, Bohairic and 


d, e, g of the Latins. 


2 DEG and the Latins give the order της πιστεως υΌµων. 


τηρήσατε . . « τὴν σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον). 
The “seal” of the Church is given by 
St. Paul (2 Tim. ii. το) as “The Lord 
knoweth them that are His” (Num. xvi. 
5), and “ Let every one that nameth the 
Name of the Lord depart from unright- 
eousness”’ (Isa. lii. 11; cf. Num. xvi. 26, 
Isa. xxvi. 13). The ἀρραβών (see an ex- 
haustive note in Pearson, On the Creed, 


viii.), i.¢., Pay, is a first instalment, 


given in pledge of full payment in due 
course; see reff. and cf. Rom. viii. 16, τὸ 
πνεῦμα συνμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν 
ὅτι ἐσμὲν τέκνα Θεοῦ: here is the ἀπαρχή 
τοῦ πνεύματος (Rom. viii. 23). For the 
constr. διδόναι ἐν cf. Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 
John iii. 35, Acts iv. 12, chap. viii, 1, 16, 

Ver, 23—ii. 4. ΤΗΕ Reat REASON OF 
THE PosTPONEMENT OF HIS VISIT TO 
CoRINTH WAS THAT HE DID NOT WISH 
HIS NEXT VISIT TO BE PAINFUL, AS THE 
LAST HAD BEEN.—Ver. 23. ἐγὼ δὲ μάρ- 
τυρα τὸν Θεὸν ἐπικ. κ.τ.λ.; but (5ζ,, 
whatever my opponents may say) I invoke 
God as a witness against my soul, sc., if I 
speak falsely; cf. Rom. i. 9, Gal. i. 20, 


Phil. i. 8, 1 Thess. ii. 5, το. For ἐπί 
used in this way cf. εἰς μαρτύριον ἐπ᾽ 
αὐτούς (Luke ix. 5). The A.V. and R.V. 


“upon my soul" do not bring out the 
sense clearly, —Ste φειδόμενος ὑμῶν 
κ.τ.λ.: that to spare you I came not again 
to Corinth, i.e., “I paid no fresh visit,” 
“I gave up the thought of coming”’. 
The A.V., “I came not as yet,” is here 
quite misleading (cf. xiii. 2 and 1 Cor. iv. 
21). 

Ver. 24. This verse is parenthetical, 
and introduced to guard against mis- 
understanding. οὐχ ὅτι κυριεύομεν ὑμῶν 
τῆς πίστεως: not that we have lordship 
over your faith, This is not the depart- 
ment of his Apostolic authority (cf. Luke 
xxii. 25, x Pet. ν. 3). ἃ συνεργοί 
κ.τ.λ.: but we are (only) fellow-workers 
in (producing) your joy; a parenthesis 
within a parenthesis, not necessary to the 
sense, but added to emphasise once more 
his sense of the common ties between 


him and the Corinthians (cf. Rom. xvi. 
3, chap. viii. 23, Col. iv. 11).---τῇ γὰρ 
πίστει ἑστήκατε: for by your faith ye 
stand. If it were dominated by the 
authority of another, it would not be thus 
the instrument of their steadfastness. 
Another (inferior) interpretation is, “ As 
regards your faith ye stand,” ie, “1 
have no fault to find with you so far as 
your faith is concerned " ; but the parallel, 
Rom. xi. 20, seems to fix the dative as 
instrumental. 

Cuaprer Il.—Ver. 1. ἔκρινα δὲ ἐμαν- 
τῷ τοῦτο κ.τ.λ.; but I decided this for 
my own sake, that I would not come 
again to you with sorrow ; i.e., I deter- 
mined that my next visit should not be 
painful, as my last was. The juxtaposi- 
tion of πάλιν with ἐν λύπῃ (see crit. 
note) requires that γτπ ree Hence 
the former visit in St. Paul’s mind could 
not have been his first visit to Corinth 
(Acts xviii. 1 ff.), for that was not ἐν 
λύπῃ. And thus we are forced to con- 
clude that another visit was paid from 
Ephesus, of which no details have been 
preserved (cf. xii. 14, xiii. 1). The con- 
ditions of the scanty evidence available 
seem best satisfied by supposing that St. 
Paul's second visit to Corinth was paid 
from Ephesus during the period Acts 
xix. ro. Alarming news had probably 
reached him, and he determined to make 
ο for himself. On his return to 
Ephesus he wrote the letter (now lost) 
alluded to in 1 Cor. v. 9, in which he 
charged the Corinthians “ to keep no com- 
pany with fornicators"’, Subsequently to 
this he again received distressing intelli- 
gence (1 Cor. i. 11, v. 1, etc.), whereu 
he wrote the first canonical Epistle leas 
Introd., p. 7). 

Ver. 2. εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ κ.τ.λ.; for if I 
make you sorry, who then is he that makes 
me glad, but he who is made sorry by me ὃ 
His argument is: When I make you 
sorry, it is that you may repent (see 
chap. vii. 9), and so gladden me: my 
change of purpose was not prompted by 
the desire of giving pain, but on the con- 


I. 1—5. 


"τῇ γὰρ "πίστει "ἑστήκατε: ΤΙ. 1. 


"τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν 2 ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 


δ τς 


, “ 
ὑμᾶς, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὃ ὁ ᾿ εὐφραίνων με, εἰ μὴ 6 λυπούμενος ἐξ ἐμοῦ ; 


3. καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν 4 "τοῦτο ὃ ° 


2 d 


ὧν ἔδει µε χαίρειν - ᾿ πεποιθὼς 
πάντων ὑμῶν ἐστιν. 


καρδίας ἔγραψα ὑμῖν διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων, οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε, ἀλλὰ : 
τὴν ὃ ἀγάπην ἵνα γνῶτε ἣν ἔχω περισσοτέρως εἰς ' ὑμᾶς. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


47 


Η͂ Ἄ ή ᾿ 
ἔκρινα 821 ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, ὁ Rom. αὶ. 
ἰ γὰρ ἐνὰ ~ Cor. xvi. 
2. εἰ 
γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ τς 


a Rom. xiv. 


αὐτὸ, ἵνα μὴ ἐλθὼν λύπην ὁ ἔχω ἴ ἀφ᾽ 13: 


Ὁ Rom. xv. 


ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ το; Gal. 


iv. 27. 


4. ἐκ γὰρ πολλῆς "θλίψεως καὶ * συνοχῆς ο Rom. xiii. 


6; chap. 
Vii. 11. 
2 Thess. 
iii. 4. 
fi 


‘ , > 9 R . 1. 4. 
5. Εἰ δέ τις λελύπηκεν, οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ " ἀπὸ “μέρους, f Job xxx. 3} 


«ΧΧΙ.25. 
6 Reff. i. 14. 


1B 17, the Bohairic and Harclean have yap; D* has re; all other authorities δε. 
2 SABCKLOP place ελθειν after υµας; DEG and the Peshitto read ελθειν προς 


vpas, and the Bohairic has το μη ελθειν προς υμας εν λυπῃ (Omitting παλιν). 


The 


received order is found in a few cursives only. 
5 S&cDEGKLOP, etc., give εστιν; om. δ ΒΟ and the Bohairic. 
4 sycCcDEGKL, the Syriac and (most) Latin vss. have υμιν, which is omitted by 


S*ABC*OP 17 and the Bohairic. 


5 CO give αντο τουτο (cf. vii. 11); A and the Bohairic omit αυτο. 
8 DEG and a few other authorities have λυπην επι λυπὴν (from a reminiscence of 


Phil. ii. 27). 


7 εχω NcDEGKL; better σχω, $*ABOP (see on i. 15). 


8G has wa γνωτε την αγαπην. 


trary by my fear that, if I visited you as 
I had intended, you would sadden me: 
I should have had to grieve, and be 
grieved by those who are the source of 
my purest joy. With the introductory 
καὶ tis, ‘“Who then,” the implied 
answer being ‘“‘ No one,” cf. Mark x. 26, 
καὶ τίς δύναται σωθῆναι, and chap. ii. 16. 

Ver. 3. καὶ ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτὸ: and 
I wrote this very thing ; i.e., 1 communi- 
cated my change of plan (1 Cor. xvi. 5 
ff.). So ἔκρινα τοῦτο in ver. 1. (The 
translation “just for this reason,” taking 
τοῦτο αὐτό adverbially, is also admis- 
sible; cf. 2 Pet. i. 5).—tva μὴ ἐλθὼν 
λύπην κ.τ.λ.: lest when I came I should 
have sorrow from them from whom I 
ought to rejoice. ad ὧν is for ἀπ 
ἐκείνων ἀφ᾽ ὧν; cf. I Pet. ii. 12, iii, 16,— 
πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ πάντας ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.: hav- 
ing confidence in you all, that my joy is 
the joy of you all; {.6., having confidence 
in the perfect sympathy between himself 
and his correspondents. He could only 
be made glad if they were made glad; 
and so to visit them for the purpose of 
rebuking them would be as painful to 
him as to them. Observe the repeated 
πάντας . . . πάντων: despite the factions 
in Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 4) he must think of 
them all as his friends (cf. xiii. 13). 


9. has προς υμας. 


Ver. 4. ἐκ γὰρ πολλῆς θλίψεως κ.τ.λ.: 
for out of much affliction and anguish of 
heart I wrote to you with many tears. 
This describes the state of mind in which 
he wrote 1 Cor., if the view of the situa- 
tion which has been adopted in this com- 
mentary be correct (see Introd., p. 13).— 
διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων : we have διά used, 
somewhat similarly, with the genitive of 
the attendant circumstances, in Rom. ii. 
27, iv. 11, viii. 25, xiv. 20, chap. v. 7, Heb. 
xii. 1, Rev. xxi. 24, etc.—ovx ἵνα λυπη- 
θῆτε κ.τ.λ.: not that ye should be made 
sorry, but that ye should know the love 
which I have so abundantly to you. 
ἀγάπη, aS a grace especially to be ex- 
hibited in Christian intercourse, is re- 
peatedly dwelt on by St. Paul. The 
word has been described as “ecclesi- 
astical”” and as having been first intro- 
duced to literature in the LXX. But it 
has been recently found in papyri of 
the Ptolemaic period (Deissmann, Bibel- 
studien, p. 81), and it thus appears that 
the LXX only took over a word already 
current in the speech of Greek Egypt. 
Here the position of ἀγάπην before ἵνα 
gives it special emphasis; cf., for a like 
order, Acts xix. 4, Rom. xi. 31. περισ- 
σοτέρως may mean ‘“‘ more abundantly,” 
sc., than to other Churches; but it is 


48 


h 1 Thess. 
ii.9; 2 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


Il. 


ἵνα μὴ " ἐπιβαρῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς. 6. ‘ixavdv τῷ " τοιούτῳ ἡ | ἐπιτιμία 


Thess. iii. αὕτη ἡ ὑπὸ " τῶν " πλειόνων - 7. ὥστε " τοὐναντίον μᾶλλον ' ὑμᾶς 


8 only. 


ἐς Cor. xv. ° χαρίσασθαι καὶ παρακαλέσαι, μήπως τῇ περισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ " κατα- 
i 16, ii. ποθῇ ὁ τοιοῦτος. 8. διὸ παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς “ κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην. 


5; 2 Tim. 
li. 2. 

k 1 Cor.v. 5; 
chaps. x. 11, xi. 13. 
iv. 15, ix.2; Phil.i,1q4.  m Gal. ii. 7; 1 
Eph. iv. 32; Col. ii. 13, iii. 13; Lk. vii. 42. 
15; Gen. xxiii. 20; + XXV. 30. 


9. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἔγραψα,” ἵνα γνῶ τὴν "δοκιμὴν ὑμῶν, εἰ * εἰς 
1 Wisd. iii. το only; cf. 2 Macc. vi. 1 
et. iii. xii. 13; 

p 1 Cor. xv. 54 (Isa. xxv. 8); chap. v. 4. q Gal. ilk 
τ Rom. v. 4; chaps. viii. 2, ix. 13, xili. 3; Phil, ii. 22 only. 


m 1 Cor, ix. 1 


ν x. 5, xv. 6; cha: 
only ; 3 Mace. fil, oa. a 


o Chaps. ii. 10, 


! AB and the Peshitto (which W.H. follow here) omit μαλλον, but it is found in 
all other authorities; DEG 17 place it after vpas. 


3 G inserts νµων (vobis, f, g, and so the Bohairic) after εγραψα. 


Σα, g prefix παντων to υμων. 


* AB 17 have ῃ, which W.H. place in their margin; almost all other authorities 


have ει. 


quite legitimate to take it as used without 
any special comparative force (cf. x. 8). 

Vv. 5-11. ΤΗΕ OFFENDER HAS BEEN 
SUFFICIENTLY PUNISHED: THE APOSTLE 
ACQUIESCES IN THEIR REMISSION OF THE 
PENALTY OF 1 Cor. v. 1-5.—Ver. 5. εἰ δέ 
τις λελύπηκεν κ.τ.λ.: but if any one, σε, 
the incestuous person of 1 Cor. ν. 1, his 
name being suppressed with a rare deli- 
cacy of feeling, hath caused sorrow, he 
hath caused sorrow, not to me, sc.,1 am 
not the person directly aggrieved, but to 
some extent (that I press not too heavily 
on him) to you all. That is to say to 
the words ἀπὸ μέρους are added by the 
Apostle ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ (sc., αὐτόν). 
The sentence has been otherwise con- 
strued ‘he hath not caused sorrow to 
me [alone], but [only] in part [having 
caused sorrow to you also): [this I add] 
that I may not press heavily on you all,” 
sc., by representing myself as the only 
person aggrieved. But this would re- 
«Ὁ εἰ μή instead οἵ ἀλλά, and, further, 

oes not suit the context so well as the 
rendering given above, which treats ἵνα 
μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ as parenthetic. 

Ver. 6. ἱκανὸν τῷ τοιούτῳ κ.τ.λ.: 
sufficient to such an one (the word used 
in 1 Cor. v. 5 to indicate the offender 
is this punishment (which was inflicte 
by the majority. The directions given by 
the Apostle for dealing with the offender 
had probably been carried out with harsh- 
ness and severity ; he now suggests that 
the punishment might be remitted, and 
the guilty man forgiven. ἐπιτιμία in the 
Attic orators is used for ‘‘ the possession 
of political rights,’’ but it came to mean 
(see reff.) penalty or requital ; the punish- 
ment (see 1 Cor. v. 5) would seem to 
have been of a disciplinary, and not 
merely punitive, character; it was pro- 


bably like the formal excommunication 
of a later age (cf. also 1 Tim. i. 20), 
and involved the exclusion of the guil 
person from the privileges of the Christian 
Society. That it was inflicted only by 
“ the majority" (for so we must translate 
τῶν πλειόνων ; see reff.) is sufficiently 
accounted for by remembering the pre- 
sence of an anti-Pauline party at Corinth, 
who would not be likely to follow the 
Apostle’s instructions. The construction 
ἱκανὸν . . . ἡ ἐπιτιμία (ἐστι, rather than 
ἔστω, is the verb to be supplied) affords 
an instance of a neuter adjectival 
dicate set over against a feminine sub. 
(cf. Matt. vi. 34); ἱκανὸν seems to be 
used here like the Latin satis. 

Ver. 7. ὥστε τοὐναντίον μᾶλλον 
κ.τ.λ.: so that contrariwise ye should 
rather forgive him and comfort him (cf., 
for the sentiment, Ecclus. viii. 5, Col. iii, 
13, Eph. iv. 32). We should expect some 
verb like δεῖν, but it is perhaps sufficiently 
suggested by ὥστε. χαρίζεσθαι is gene- 
rally found in the N.T. in the sense of 
“τὸ bestow a favour"’; but it conveys the 
special meaning “to forgive”’ in the pas- 
sages referred to above.—pyres τῇ περ- 
ισσοτέρᾳ λύπῃ κιτιλ.: lest such an one 
should be swallowed up with his excessive 
sorrow, 5ε., should be driven to despair 
through overmuch severity. Again (see 
on ver. 4 above) we are not to press the 
comparative force of περ' pa. 

Ver. 8. παρακαλῶ κιτιλ.: 
wherefore I beseech you (or " ἐχβοτί you,” 
see on i. 4) to confirm your love toward 
him. Authority “to bind” and “to 
loose" had been committed to the 
Apostles (Matt. xviii. 18); St. Paul had 
exercised the former function (1 Cor. v. 
5), and he now discharges the latter. 
The various meanings of iv 


6---12. 


πάντα " ὑπήκοοί ἐστε. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 49 
10. ᾧ δέ τι 'χαρίζεσθε, καὶ ἐγώ; καὶ γὰρ oats hl. 
ii. 8 only. 


.« 3 a , a 

ἐγὼ et! τι κεχάρισμαι, ᾧ κεχάρισμαι, δι ὑμᾶς, ἐν “προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, ἐς Wy 
aA lel ~ -“ A ν᾿ α 

11. ἵνα μὴ ‘ πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ “ Σατανᾶ " οὐ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἃ Κεῖ. i. τι. 


νοήματα ἀγνοοῦμεν. 


12. Ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς τὴν Τρωάδα εἰς 2 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ 


v Chaps. vii. 
2, Xil. 17, 
18; 1 
Thess. iv. 
6 only. 


w Rom. xvi. 20; 1 Cor. v. 5, vii. 5; chaps. xi. 14, xii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Thess. Π, 9; 1 Tim, i. 20, v.15. 
x Chaps. iii. 14, iv. 4, x. 5, xi. 3; Phil. iv. 7 only; Bar. ii. 8; 3 Macc. v. 30. 


! The better reading is καὶ yap εγω ο κεχαρ. εἰ τι κεχαρ., With RABCGO, ete. ; 


received text DbKL 17, the Harclean, etc. 


2 G and the Latin vss. have δια το ευαγγελιον; DE δια τον ευαγγελιον. { 


have been noted above (on i. 4); it is 
interesting to observe here how the word 
is used in one sense in ver. 7, and in 
another in close sequence in ver. 8 (cf. 
the two senses of παραδίδωμι in τ Cor, 
xi. 23). For ἀγάπη see on ver. 4 above. 

Ver. 9. εἰς τοῦτο yap κ.τ.λ.; for to 
this end also did I write, viz., that I 
might know the proof of you, whether ye 
were obedient in all thingc; κει, his 
object in writing the former letter (1 Cor.) 
was not only the reformation of the 
offender, but the testing of the Cor- 
inthians’ acceptance of his apostolic 
authority (cf. vii. 12). For the constr. 
εἰς τοῦτο yap... iva... cf. Rom. 
xiv. 9. It is hard to decide between the 
readings ei, ‘‘ whether,” or ἦν “ where- 
by” (see crit. note); but the general 
sense is the same in both cases. A com- 
parison of this verse with vii. 12 has led 
some critics to doubt whether chaps. ii. 
and vii. really refer at all to the offender of 
1 Cor. v. 1; for the expressed object of St. 
Paul’s communication was to prove the 
loyalty of the Corinthians to himself. 
And thus it is supposed that the indi- 
vidual in view is some bitter personal 
opponent of St. Paul (see Tertullian, de 
Pudic. xiii. f.). But vv. 5-9 seem quite 
consecutive, and we find it more natural 
to interpret ver. 5 in reference to 1 Cor. 
ν. 1ff. And vii. 12 seems clearly to dis- 
tinguish 6 ἀδικηθείς from St. Paul him- 
self (see Introd-, p. 15). 

Ver. το. ᾧ δέ τι χαρίζεσθε κ-.τ.λ.: 
but to whom ye forgive anything, I for- 
give also; for what I also have forgiven 
(if I have forgiven anything) for your 
sakes have I forgiven it in the face of 
Christ. This is not a general principle, 
but a statement of the Apostle’s feelings 
at the present juncture ; if they are willing 
to forgive the offender, so is he. Whether 
he advocates punishment or forgiveness it 
is always δι᾽ ὑμᾶς, “for your sakes,” and 
it is ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ, “in the sight 

VOL HT, 


of Christ”. πρόσωπον (see on i. 11) is a 
‘*face,” and so ἐν προσ. Χρ. is a stronger 
way of saying ἐνώπιον Χριστοῦ (cf. chap. 
iv. 2, viil. 21, Gal. i. 20); the Apostle 
claims that his acts of condemnation and 
forgiveness are done as ‘in the presence 
of Christ”. Both A.V. and R.V. render 
‘Cin the person of Christ,’’ which would 
mean that St. Paul had acted as Christ’s. 
delegate. But the usage of πρόσωπον in 
2 Cor. is against this interpretation. 

Ver. 11. ἵνα μὴ πλεονεκτηθῶμεν κ.τ.λ. 7 
lest we, δο., you and I together, be 
robbed by Satan; i.e., lest we drive 
sinners to despair and so let Satan 
capture them from us. ‘ The offender 
was to be delivered over τῷ Σατανᾷ eis 
ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός (1 Cor. v. 5)—care 
must be taken lest we πλεονεκτηθῶμεν 
ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ, and his soul perish 
likewise’’ (Alford). Observe that in St. 
Paul’s writings (except chap. xii. 7; see 
reff.) Σατανᾶς takes the article, ‘‘the 
Satan,” the adversary; it has not yet 
come to be regularly used as a proper 
name (but cf, Matt. iv. το, Mark ili. 23). 
—ov γὰρ αὐτοῦ κ.τλ.: for we are not 
ignorant of his devices. νόημα (see reff.) 
is generally (always in this Ep.) used in 
a bad sense, of the thoughts of man’s 
unregenerate heart. Here τὰ νοήματα 
are the designs of the adversary of souls. 

Vv. 12-17. HE WAS DISAPPOINTED AT 
NOT MEETING TITUS IN TROAS, BUT 
HE REJOICES NOW TO LEARN THAT HIS 
MESSAGE OF REPROOF HAS BEEN LOYALLY 
RECEIVED IN CORINTH.—Ver. 12. ἐλθὼν 
δέ κ.τ.λ.: but (the particle δέ marking 
the resumption of his original subject) 
when I came to Troas, for the purposes 
of the Gospel of Christ (cf. ix. 13). He 
stayed there seven days preaching and 
teaching on his return from Greece (Acts 
xx, 6-12). We are not to press the 
article and translate ‘‘the Troad”’; cf. 
Acts xx. 5, 6, where we have ἐν Tpwad, 
and eis τὴν Τρῳάδα used of the same 


ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOYS B Il. 


50 
scar pas μοὶ ᾽ ἀνεφγμένης "ἐν "Κυρίῳ, 13, οὐκ ἔσχηκα "ἄνεσιν τῷ 
η ὌΨΑ πνεύματί μου, τῷ] μὴ εὑρεῖν 5 pe Τίτον τὸν ἀδελφόν µου: ἀλλὰ 
| Isa. xlv. 1. ® ἀποταξάμενος αὐτοῖς, ἐξῆλθον εἰς Μακεδονίαν. 14. “τῷ δὲ “ Θεῷ 
i ἂς «χάρις τῷ πάντοτε ὁ θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς dv? τῷ Χριστῷ, καὶ τὴν 
ian ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως αὐτοῦ ᾿ φανεροῦντι δι ἡμῶν ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ. 
2):chaps. 15. ὅτι Χριστοῦ " εὐωδία ἐσμὲν τῷ ὁ Θεῷ ἐν τοῖς " σωζομένοις καὶ ἐν 
poet Ὁ Mk. vi. 46; Lk. ix δὲ, xiv. 93; Acts xviii. 18,21 ου. ¢ Rom. vi 


3; 2 Thess. i. 7 only. 
a δε Say tegen ii. 15 only. e John xii. 3; Eph. v. 2; 


1, vii. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 57; chaps. viii. 16, ix. 15. d 
Phil. iv. 18 (Gen. viii. 21; Lev. i 9) only; cf. Cant.i.3. f Chaps. iii. 3, iv. το, 11, ν. 10, 11, Vii. 12, 


xi.6.  g Acts ii. 47; 1 Cor. i. 18, xv. 2; 1 Pet. iii. a1. 


1 Most authorities have τῳ py ενρειν; το LP; τον ΝΟ 73; εν τῳ DE 17. 
Ξ evpioxeay D*. 3. 17, 37; 73 have εν Χριστῳ Ἴησον. 4 K omits τῳ Θεφ. 


place in consecutive verses. Troas would 
be a natural place of rendezvous, as it 
was the point of embarkation for Mace- 
donia (see Acts xvi. 8); and here St. 
Paul had expected to meet Titus, who 
had been sent from Ephesus to Corinth, 
with an unnamed companion, as the 
bearer of 1 Cor. (see Introd., Ρ. 9).---καὶ 
θύρας por ἀνεφγμένης ἐν Κυρίῳ: and a 
door was opened for me in the Lord. This 
is not the “ door of faith ” (Acts xiv. 27), 
but the door of opportunity at Troas (see 
reff. above), which he describes here as 
“opened,” a phrase which he had used 
a short time before of his prospects of 
usefulness at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 9). It 
is open ἐν Κνρίῳ; that is the sphere, as 
it were, of his apostolic labours (see 
τεή.]. 

Ver. 13. οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πν.: 
I had no relief for my spirit. So he 
says again (vil. 5) ἐλθόντων ἡμῶν εἰς 
Μακεδονίαν οὐδεμίαν ἔσχηκεν ἄνεσιν ἡ 
σὰρξ ἡμῶν. We are not to lay much 
stress on πνεῦμα being used here and 
σάρξ there (yet cf. chap. vii. 1); σάρξ 
in the later passage is used of the whole 
mortal nature of man, which is subject 
to distress and disappointment; and 
πνεῦμα here is a general term for the 
“mind” (cf. Rom. 1. 9, viii. 6, xii. rx, 1 
Cor. ii. 11, ν. 3, xiv. 14, Chap. vii. 1, 13, 
etc., for St. Paul’s use of πνεῦμα for the 
human spirit, and see on iii. 6 below). 
For the tense of ἔσχηκα, see on i. 9.— 
τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν κ.τ.λ.: because I found 
not Titus my brother: but taking my 
leave of them (sc., the disciples at Troas) 
I went forth into Macedonia, ἐξέρχεσθαι 
is the word used in Acts xvi. 10, xx. 1 of 
‘going out” of Asia to Macedonia; cf. 
vill. 17. 

Ver. 14. τῷ δὲ Θεῷ χάρις κ.τ.λ.: but 
thanks be to God, etc. Instead of giving 
details of the information which Titus 


brought to him in Macedonia (chap. vii. 
6), he bursts out into a characteristic 
doxology, which leads him into a long 
digression, the main topic of the Epistle 
not coming into view again until vi. 11.— 
τῷ πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι : who always, 
se., even in times of anxiety and distress, 
leadeth us in triumph in Christ. θριαµ- 
βεύειν, “το lead as captive in a triumphal 
procession,” occurs again in this sense 
Col. ii. 15. The rendering of the A.V., 


‘*which causeth us to triumph,” h 
yielding a good sense here (and despite 
the causative force of verbs in ), 


must be abandoned, as no clear instance 
of ϐ ὕειν in such a signification 
has been produced. The splendid image 
before the writer's mind is that of a 
Roman triumph, which, though he had 
never seen it, must have been iliar to 
him as it was to every citizen of the 
Empire. He thinks of God as the Victor 
(Rev. vi. 2) entering the City into which 
the glory and honour of the nations 
(Rev. xxi. 26) is brought; the Apostle 
as “in Christ"—as a member of the 
Body of Christ—is one of the captives, 
by means of whom the knowledge and 
fame of the Victor is made manifest. 
He rejoices that he has been so used by 
God, as would appear from the tidin 
which Titus has brought him.—«al 
ὀσμὴν τῆς γνώσεως κ.τ.λ.: and maketh 
manifest through us the savour of the 
knowledge of Him (sc., of Christ) in every 
place, sc., at Corinth as well as in Troas 
and Macedonia. It is possible that the 
metaphor of the ὀσμή is suggested by 
and is part of that of the triumph; «.g., 
Plutarch (μη. Paul. c. 32) says that 
the temples were “full of fumigations” 


during the passage of the procession. 
But ὴ cbuBias is a frequent LXX 


phrase (see reff.). 
Ver. 15. ὅτι Χρ. εὐωδία κ.τ.λ.: for 


13—I7. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


51 


τοῖς ἢ ἀπολλυμένοις - τό. οἷς μὲν ὀσμὴ | θανάτου 3 εἰς θάνατον, οἷς δ 1 Cor. i. 


δὲ ὀσμὴ 1 ζωῆς” εἰς ζωήν, καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ‘ikavds; 17. οὐ γάρ 
ἐσμεν, ὡς οἱ ® " πολλοὶ ' καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς". 


18; Chap. 
iv. 3; 2 
Thess. ii. 
10, etc. 
Reff. ver. 6. 


ἐξ Ἡ εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλ᾽ ds ἐκ Θεοῦ, κατενώπιον ὃ τοῦῖ Θεοῦ, " ἐν kRom.v. 15, 


" Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν. 


1 Here only. 


l oopnv DE. 


10, xii. 5; 
1 Cor. x. 
17, 33. 


πι Reff.i.12. ἢ Rom. ix. 1; chap. xii. το. 


2 @avarov . . . ζωης DEGKL, etc.; better εκ θανατου .. . εκ ζωης NABC 17 


and the Bohairic. 


ὅοι λοιποι DEGL, g and the Syriac vss.; better, as in text, οι πολλοι, with 


NAECK, d, e, ἢ, vg. and the Bohairic. 


4 G, the Latin and Bohairic vss. omit the second ws. 
5 G, d, e, f, g and the Harclean omit the second αλλ’. 
δ ScDEGKL have κατενωπιον; better κατεναντι (cf. Rom. iv. 17 and chap. xii. το) 


with Ν ΑΒΟΡ 17. 


7 ScDbcEGKLP give τον Θεου; better om. του with NR*ABCD* (cf. xii. το). 


we are a sweet savour of Christ unto 
God. Not only ‘through us” is the 
ὀσμή made manifest; we ourselves in so 
far as we realise and manifest our mem- 
bership of Christ are, in fact, that εὐωδία. 
The influence of the lives of the saints is 
sweet and penetrative, like that of in- 
cense. From this verse comes the phrase 
‘the odour of sanctity ’’.—év τοῖς σωζο- 
μένοις καὶ κ.τ.λ.: among them that are 
being saved and among them that are 
perishing. It is difficult to understand 
why the American Committee of Revisers 
objected to this rendering, and translated 
“are saved ... perish”. The force of 
the present participles ought not to be 
overlooked (see reff.) ; men in this world 
are either in the way of life or the way 
of death, but their final destiny is not to 
be spoken of as fixed and irrevocable 
while they are in the flesh. Free will 
involves the possibility alike of falling 
away from a state of grace, or of repent- 
ance from a state of sin. But for men of 
either class is a Christian life lived in 
their midst, a εὐωδία Χριστοῦ. 

Ver. 16. οἷς μὲν ὀσμὴ κ.τ.λ.: to the 
one a savour from death unto death ; to 
the other a savour from life unto life ; 
and yet it is the same ὀσμή in both cases ; 
cf. Luke ii. 34. ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον 
may be illustrated by Rom. i. 17, ἐκ 
πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (see also chap. iii. 18); 
emphasis is gained, according to the 
Hebrew idiom, by repeating the important 
word. The Rabbinical parallels given by 
Wetstein and others show that the meta- 
phor of this verse was common among 
Jewish writers; they called the Law an 


aroma vitae to the good, but an aroma 
mortis to the evil.—kat πρὸς ταῦτα τίς 
ἱκανός: who then is sufficient for these 
things ? sc., to fill such a part as has been 
just described (for καὶ . . . τίς see on 
ver. 2 above). St. Paul’s answer is not 
fully expressed, but the sequence of 
thought is this: “it might be thought 
that no one is sufficient for such a task; 
and yet we are, for we are not as the 
many,” etc. ; an answer which he is care- 
ful to explain and qualify in ver. 5 of the 
next chapter, lest he should be accused 
of undue confidence. 

Ver. 17. οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὡς κ.τ.λ.: for 
we are not as the many, viz., the ordinary 
teachers with whom you meet. The 
indirect reference is to his opponents at 
Corinth, though they are not named. At 
least he is more worthy to fill the high 
office of which he has been speaking than 
many who would be only too glad to 
usurp his authority ; cf. chap. iv. 2, 1 
Thess. ii. 3, 5 for similar comparisons.— 
καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ: who 
adulterate the word of God, i.e., the 
Divine message as revealed in the Gospel 
(the wswal sense in the N.T. of 6 λόγος 
τοῦ Θεοῦ; cf. iv. 2 and 2 Tim, ii. 15). 
κάπηλος (Ecclus. xxvi. 29) is ‘a huck- 
ster,” and is used in Isa. i. 22 of one who 
adulterates wine; so the primary sense of 
καπηλεύειν is ‘to make merchandise of” 
(R.V. margin), which readily passed into 
“to corrupt’ or ‘‘adulterate” for the 
purposes of trade.— ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλι- 
κρινείας κ.τ.λ.: but as of sincerity (our 
subjective attitude of mind), but as of 
God (the objective source of our message 


ζ2 


a Chaps. ν. 
12, X. 12, 
18; cf. 
chaps. iv. 
2, Vi. 4, 
Vii. 11. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


ΠΠ. 


III. 1. ΑΡΧΟΜΕΘΑ πάλιν " ἑαυτοὺς" συνιστάνειν; εἰ" μὴ χργζομεν, 
ὥς ὃ τινες, " συστατικῶν ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν συστατικῶν “; 
2. ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν ὑμεῖς ἐστε, "ἐγγεγραμμένη ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 


bHere only. ἡμῶν, γινωσκομένη καὶ ἀναγινωσκομένη ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων : 


ς Ver. 3; 
Lk. x. 20 
only; 1 


3. ᾿ φανορούμενοι ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ διακονηθεῖσα ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, 


Mace. xiii. ἐγγεγραμμένη © οὐ μέλανι, ἀλλὰ Πνεύματι “Θεοῦ “ζῶντος, οὐκ ἐν 
ἃ Ref. τας, "πλαξὶ “λιθίναις, ἀλλὰ ἐν " πλαξὶ " καρδίας Τ δῚ σαρκίναις. 


e Deut. ν. 


26: Acts xiv. 15; Rom. ix. 26; chap. vi. 16; 1 Thess. i.g; 1 Tim. iii. 15, etc. 
h Ezek. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26. 


Deut. iv. 13, etc. g Heb. ix. 4 only 


1; Heb. vii. 16 only. 


{ Exod. xxxi. 18; 
i Rom. vii. 14; 1 Cor. iii, 


| BD* 17 have συνισταν; FG συνισταναι ; all other authorities σννιστανειν. 
2 « py AKLP; better η µη with ΝΒΟΡΕ and the primary vss. 


ΑΓ” have ὡσπερ. 


4 D*EGKLP, d, e, g and the Syriac have σνστατικων (G, g add επιστολων); 
better om. with SABC 17 and the Bohairic. 


ΝΠ 17 have καρδιαις υμων. 


5 B 67°**, f, vg. have και eyyeyp. 


7 FK and most vss. support καρδιας ; better καρδιαις with NABCDEGLP and 


the Harclean. 
primitive clerical error. 


and of our commission to speak), im the 
sight of God (sc., in the consciousness of 
His presence ; cf. ver. 10 above), speak we 
in Christ, sc., as members of Christ's 
Body, in fellowship with Him. This 
solemn and impressive confirmation of 
what has been said is repeated, chap. xii. 
19, κατέναντι Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν. 
Cuapter [1]0-ὔὖν. 1-3. THE Cor- 
INTHIANS ARE St. Pauv’s “ Epistle oF 
COMMENDATION ", —Ver. 1, 
πάλιν ἑαντοὺς συνιστ. : are we beginning 
again (sc., a8, for instance, in 1 Cor. ix. 
15, xiv. 18, xv. 10, or possibly he alludes 
to i. 12 above; cf. chap. v. 12, x. 18 
below) to commend ourselves? His oppo- 
nents seem to have made this charge, 
which he is careful to repudiate —S 
12; cf. xii. τα). The phrase davrov 
συνιστάνειν (or συνιστάναι, for both 
forms occur) is found four times in this 
Epistle (see reff.), and always in a bad 
sense, the prominent place of ἑαντὸν sig- 
nifying that there has been undue egotism; 
on the other hand, συνιστάνειν ἑαντὸν, 
which occurs three times (see ον is 
always used in a good sense, of that legi- 
timate commendation of himself and his 
message which every faithful minister will 
adopt. Neither form occurs elsewhere in 
the N.T. (unless Gal. ii. 18, παραβάτην 
ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω, be regarded as an 
exception).— μὴ χρήζομεν κ.τ.λ.: or do 
we need, as some do (i.¢., the οἱ πολλοί 
of ii. 17; τινες is his usual vague descrip- 
tion of opponents; see 1 Cor, iv. 18, 


W.H. suggest that the second πλαξι was introduced through a 


xv. 12, chap. x. 2, Gal. i. 7, 1 Tim. i, 
3, 19), epistles of commendation to you or 
from you? Greek teachers used to give 
ἐπιστολαὶ σνστατικαί (Diogenes Laert., 
viii. 87) ; for such commendatory mention 
cf. Acts xv. 25 (of Judas and Silas to the 
Shurch at Antioch), Acts xviii. (ot 
Apollos to the Church at Corinth), Kom. 
xvi. τ (of Phoebe to the Church at Rome), 
chap. viii. 16-24 (of Titus and his com- 
panions to the Church at Corinth); cf, 
also 1 Cor. xvi. 3. St. Paul scouts the 
idea that he, who first brought the Gospel 
to Corinth, should need to present formal 
credentials to the Corinthian Church; 
and it would be equally anomalous that 
he should seek recommendations from 
them (ἐξ ὑμῶν). He has testimonies to 
his character and office far superior to 
any that could be written on papyrus, 
These can be pointed to if any object 
that his Apostolic office was self-assumed, 
and that he delivers the Gospel message 
in his own way and on his own authority 
(Gal. i. 12). 

Ver. 2. ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ.; ye 
are our epistle. They are his ποδια, 
Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 2, where he tells them that 
they are the '' seal"’ of his apostleship. 
Note the emphasis laid on ἐπιστολή by its 
position in the sentence.—éyyey 
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν: written in our 
hearts, i.e., in the heart of me, Paul (cf. 
vii. 3); a somewhat moreno and, as 
it were, parenthetic application of the 
metaphor, suggested by the memory of 


1—6, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


43 


k Ref. i. τς 


k ’ ‘ , 3 1 x a ~ A x Ν 
4. " Πεποίθησιν δὲ τοιαύτην ἔχομεν διὰ τοῦ gues πρὸς τὸν hea LE 
, α Ea 
Θεόν]: 5. οὐχ ὅτι likavol ἐσμεν dd? ἑαυτῶν λογίσασθαί ὃ τι," ὡς °m Here 


only. 


ἐξ ἑαυτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ "'ἱκανότης ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 6. ὃς καὶ "ἱκάνωσεν 2 Col. 1. τς 


nly 


ἡμᾶς “ διακόνους ἢ καινῆς " διαθήκης, οὐ “ γράμματος, ἀλλὰ “ πνεύ-ο ae Eph, 


p Mt. xxvi. 28; Lk. xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25; Heb, viii. 8 (Jer. xxxi. 31), ix. 15. 


1A has exo. 


ΠΠ, 7; Col. 


i, 23. 
q Rom. ii. 29, vii. 6. 


2 ad εαντων is placed as in text by KL and the Harclean, and after λογισασθαι τι 
by ADEGP and the Latins; its true place is before ικανοι ἐσμεν with SBC 73 and 
the Bohairic; 17 and the Peshitto omit ad’ eavtwv altogether, 


3 CDEG give λογιζεσθαι for λογισασθαι of RABKLP. 
4B om. tt; P has the order τι λογιζεσθαι. 


δ C om. ως as unnecessary for the sense. 


5 αὐτων BG for εαντων. 


717 has ov γραμματι αλλα πνευματι, which the Latin vss. follow. 


his labours among them which had left 
an indelible impression upon his heart.— 
γινωσκ. καὶ ἀναγινωσκ. κ.τ.λ.: known 
and read of all men. This is the legiti- 
mate application of the metaphor, and is 
expanded in the next verse. The letter 
written on St. Paul’s heart was not 
open to the world; but the letter written 
on the heart of the Corinthians by Christ 
through St. Paul’s ministry was patent 
to the world’s observation, as it was re- 
flected in their Christian mode of life. 
Facts speak louder than words. For the 
jingle γινωσκομένη . .. ἀναγινωσκομένη 
cf. Acts viii. 30, γινώσκεις ἃ ἀναγινώσ- 
kets, and see the note on i. 13 above. 

Ver. 3. avepovpevor ὅτι ἐστὲ κ.τ.λ. : 
being made manifest that ye are an epistle 
of Christ (sc., written by Christ), minis- 
tered by us (the Apostle conceiving of 
himself as his Master’s amanuensis).— 
ἐγγεγραμμένη οὐ μέλανι κ.τ.λ.: written 
not with ink, but with the Spirit of the 
living God; not in tables of stone but in 
tables that ave hearts of flesh. This 
writing’? which the Corinthians ex- 
hibit is no writing with ink on a papyrus 
roll, but is the mystical imprint of the 
Divine Spirit in their hearts, conveyed 
through Paul’s ministrations; cf. Jer. 
xxxi. 33, Prov. vii. 3. And this leads him 
to think of the ancient ‘‘ writing” of 
the Law by the “finger of God” on the 
Twelve Tables, and to contrast it with 
this epistle of Christ on tables that are 
not of stone but are “hearts of flesh” 
(see reff.). For σάρκινος (cf. λίθινος, 
ὀστράκινος) see on i. 12 above. 

Vv. 4-6. His succESs IN THE MINIS- 
TRY OF THE NEW COVENANT IS ALTO- 
GETHER DUE TO Gop.—Ver. 4. πεποί- 
θησιν δὲ τοιαύτην κ.τ.λ.: and such con- 


fidence have we through Christ towards 
God (cf. Rom. iv. 2, v. 1 for a like use of 
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν). That is ‘ we are sufti- 
cient for these things’’ (see ii, 16, 17) ; 
but he hastens to explain the true source 
of his confidence. 

Ver. 5. οὐχ ὅτι ἱκανοί κ.τ.λ.: not 
that we are sufficient of ourselves to judge 
anything as from ourselves ; sc., to judge 
rightly of the methods to be followed in 
the discharge of the Apostolic ministry ; 
there is no thought here of the natural 
depravity of man, or the like. For the 
constr. οὐχ OTL... cf. i. 24 and reff. 
λογίζεσθαι is here used in its widest 
sense of carrying on any of the ordinary 
processes of reasoning (cf. x. 7, xii. 6). 
The repetition ag’ ἑαυτῶν . . . ἐξ ἑαυτῶν 
emphasises the statement of the need of 
God’s grace. St. Paul’s habit of dwell- 
ing on a word and coming back to it 
again and again (an artifice which the 
Latin rhetoricians called traductio) is 
well illustrated in this passage. We 
have ἱκανοί, ἱκανότης, ἱκάνωσεν; γραμ- 
pa (following ἐγγεγραμμένη in ver. 2) ; 
διακονηθεῖσα, διάκονος, διακονία; and 
δόξα eight times between vv. 7-11. With 
the sentiment ἡ ἱκανότης ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, cf. τ Cor. xv. 10 and chap. xii. g. 

Ver. 6. ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν κ.τ.λ.: who 
also (‘‘ qui idem”; cf. 1 Cor. i. 8) made 
us sufficient as ministers of the New 
Covenant—{ministers] not of the letter 
(i.e., the Law), but of the Spirit ; for the 
letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. 
The Apostle’s opponents at Corinth were 
probably Judaisers (xi. 22), and thus the 
description of his office as the διακονία 
καινῆς διαθήκης leads him to a compari- 
son and a contrast of the Old Covenant 
and the New. The ‘‘covenants” (Rom, 


54 
r John vi. 
63; Rom. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


ΠῚ. 


patos: τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτείνει, τὸ δὲ " πνεῦμα " ζωοποιεῖ. 7. 


wit 115 Tel δὲ ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν,32 " ἐντετυπωμένη ἐν ὃ 


43; Ch. = ί 

δι Gi ε λίθοις, 
Viii. 10. 

s Here only. 

t Exod. xxxiv. 40-35. 


ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ, ᾿ ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι " ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς 
and Kom. Ἰσραὴλ "εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον Μωσέως ὁ διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου 


Ὁ Acts i. το, iii. 4, Vi. 15, Vii. 55, xi. 6, xfii. 9. 


1B has αποκτεινει; but NGKP 17 have αποκτεννει, and ACDEL αποκτενει; 


Lachmann conjectured αποκταινει. 


2 BD*G and the Peshitto have γραμματι. 
5 SycDbcEKL, d, e, f support εν λιθοις; om. εν N*ABCD*GP 17, g. 
4 The more accurate spelling is Μωνσεως (NBCGKL, etc.) ; and so at wv. 13, 15. 


ix. 4, Eph, ii. 12) between Jehovah and 
Israel were the foundation of Judaism. 
They began (not to speak of the Covenant 
with Noah) with the Covenant of Circum- 
cision granted to Abraham (Gen. xvii. 2) 
and repeated more than once (Gen. xxii. 
16, xxvi. 3), which is often appealed to in 
the N.T. (Luke i. 72, Acts iii. 25, vii. 8, 
etc.). This was not abrogated (Gal. iii. 
17) by the Covenant of Sinai (Exod. xix. 
5; cf., for its recapitulation in Moab, 
Deut. xxix. 1), which, as the National 
Charter of Israel, was pre-eminently to 
a Hebrew “the Old Covenant”. The 

eat prophecy of a Deliverer from Zion 
fisa. lix. 21) is interpreted by St. Paul 
(Rom. xi. 27) as the ‘‘covenant” of 
which the prophet spoke in the next 
verse ; and Jeremiah, in a passage (xxxi. 
31-33) from which the Apostle has just 
now (ver. 3 above) borrowed a striking 
image, had proclaimed a New Covenant 
with Israel in the future. The phrase 
had been consecrated to the Gospel, 
through its employment by Christ at the 
Institution of the Eucharist (Matt. xxvi. 
28, Luke xxii. 20, 1 Cor. xi. 25); and in 
that solemn context it bore direct allusion 
to the Blood of Sprinkling which ratified 
the Old Covenant of Sinai (Exod. xxiv. 
8). Itis of this ‘‘ New Covenant” that 
St. Paul is a διάκονος (Christ is its μεσί- 
της, Heb. ix. 15); #.¢., he is a διάκονος 
ov γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος, not of 
the letter of the Law (as might be 
wrongly inferred from his statement in 
ver. 3 that the ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ was 
‘ministered 'Γδιακονηθεῖσα] by him), but 
of the “ Spirit of the living God” (ver. 3). 
This is a much more gracious διακονία, 
inasmuch as the Law is the instrument of 
Death (cf. Rom. v. 20, vii. 9, viii. 2, in all 
which passages the Apostle brings into 
closest connexion the three thoughts of 
the Law, Sin, and Death), but the Spirit 
of God is the Giver of Life (see reff. and 


cf. Gal. iii. 21, where he notes that the 
law is not able, ζωοποιεῖν, '' to give life ΓΝ 
It will be observed that the article is 
wanting before καινῆς διαθήκης, as it is 
before γράμματος and πνεύματος ; but 
we need not on that account with the 
Revisers translate ‘‘a new covenant”. 
The expression ‘‘ New Covenant,”’ like 
the words “ Letter’ (for the Law) and 
‘*Spirit” for the Holy Spirit, was a 
technical phrase in the theology of the 
day; and so might well dispense with the 
article. The contrast between “letter” 
and ‘Spirit’’ here (so often misunder- 
stood, as if it pointed to a contrast be- 
tween what is verbally stated and what 
is really implied, and so justified an appeal 
from the bare ‘‘letter’’ of the law to the 
principles on which it rests) is exactly 
illustrated by Rom. vii. 6, where St. Paul 
declares that the service of a Christian 
is ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος kal οὐ παλαιό- 
THT: γράμματος, {.ε., in newness of the 
Spirit and not in oldness of the letter”. 
And (though not so plainly) the same 
contrast is probably intended in Rom. ii. 
29. In St. Paul's writings πνεῦμα, when 
used for the human spirit, is contrasted 
with σῶμα (1 Cor. v. 3), σάρξ (2 Cor. vii. 
1) and νοῦς (1 Cor. xiv. 14), but never 
with γράμ, This is a technical term 
for the "" Law” (like γραφή, Scripture; 
cf. ver. 7, ἐν γράμμασιν), and is properly 
set over against the ‘Spirit " of God, 
whose office and work were first plainly 
revealed in the Gospel. 

Vv. 7-11. DIGRESSION ON THE MINIS- 
TRY ΟΡ THE New 6 ΙΝΕΝΑΝΤ. It 18 (a) 
MORE GLORIOUS THAN THAT OF THE OLD. 
—Ver. 7. εἰ δὲ ἡ διακονία κ.τ.λ.; but if 
the Ministration of Death (see ver. 6), 
written, and engraven in stones, came 
into existence in glory, etc. The refer- 
ence is to the glory on the face of Moses 
(see reff.) when the Tables of the Law 
were brought down from Mount Sinai. 


γ-τι. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


55 


αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην, 8. πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἡ διακονία δῦ ος vil. 


only. 


πνεύματος ἔσται ἐν δόξῃ ; 9. εἰ γὰρ 4! διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως W Rom. ν. ο, 


δόξα,” “ πολλῷ μᾶλλον περισσεύει ὃ ἡ διακονία τῆς διακαιοσύνης 


év* δόξη. 


τούτω τῷ  µέρει, ἕνεκεν ὃ τῆς ” ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης. 
τὸ καταργούµενον διὰ δόξης, "πολλῷ "μᾶλλον τὸ μένον ἐν δόξη. ii 
y 


14; Eph. i. 19, ii. 7, 111, το only; 2 Macc. iv. 13. 


1 BDbEKLP, f, g and the Bohairic support η διακ. ; 
The external evidence is thus evenly balanced, but the 


d, e and the Syriac vss. 


1Ο. καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ὃ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδοξασμένον * ἐν 


το τ Cor, 
χι, 22; 
Phil. i. 23, 
ii. 12 and 
νι νὰ 11, 
. εἰ yao x ap. ix. 
ὙῸΡ 3; cf. Col. 


z Reff. ver. 9. 


Ty διακονιᾳ NACD*G 17, 


form of the sentence inclines us to the received text. 


2 D*EG supply εστιν after Sofa. 


ΡΕ, d, e, g and the Syriac vss. give περισσευσει. 
4 S$cDEGKLP support ev δοξῃ; S*ABC omit εν. 
5 Only a few cursives (and d, e, f, g) support ουδε; all uncials and the Bohairic 


have ov. 


6 For ενεκεν read εινεκεν with NABDEGP. 


St. Paul argues that for two reasons the 
glory of the New Covenant is greater, 
(i.) the former διακονία was one of con- 
demnation, the latter of righteousness 
(ver. g), and (ii.) the glory of the former 
was only a transient gleam, while that 
of the latter abides for ever (ver. 11). 
Of the first Tables which Moses broke 
in anger it is said that the writing was 
γραφὴ Θεοῦ κεκολαμμένη ἐν τοῖς πλαξίν 
(Exod. xxxii. 16) ; it is merely said of the 
second Tables that Moses wrote upon 
them ‘‘the words of the Covenant, the 
Ten Commandments” (Exod. xxxiv. 28). 
Nevertheless the tradition (see Philo, Vit. 
Mos., iii., 2) was that the second Tables, 
like the first, were not only “ written” 
but “engraven” (ἐντετυπωμένη), as the 
Apostle has it.—dorre μὴ δύνασθαι κ.τ.λ.: 
so that the Children of Israel could not 
(sc., through fear, Exod. xxxiv. 30) look 
steadfastly upon the face of Moses on 
account of the glory of his face, transient 
asit was. καταργεῖσθαι is nearly always, 
if not always (for 1 Cor. ii. 6 is doubtful), 
passive in St. Paul (Rom. vi. 6, vii. 2, 1 
Cor. xiii. 8, xv. 26, Gal. ν. 4), and as it 
must be taken passively in ver. 14 below, 
there is a good deal to be said for re- 
garding it as passive here and in vv. 11, 
13 (as the A.V. does; note, however, that 
the translation ‘‘ which was to be done 
away” in this verse is wrong). Yet the 
sense seems to require the middle voice 
‘“‘which was passing away,” sc., even as 
he spoke to the people. The position of 
τὴν καταργουμένην gives it emphasis. 
Pfleiderer is guilty of the extravagant 
supposition that the whole story of the 


Transfiguration (cf. Luke ix. 28 ff.) is 
built up on the basis of this passage (cf. 
μεταμορφούμεθα, ver. 18), the disappear- 
ance of Moses and Elijah, leaving Jesus 
alone with His disciples, indicating that 
the glory of the Old Covenant was pass- 
ing away (καταργουμένην) ! 

Vv. 8, 9. πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον κ.τ.λ.: 
how shall not rather the Ministration of 
the Spirit be with glory? For if the 
Ministration of Condemnation be glory 
(if we read τῇ διακονίᾳ we must render, 
with the American Revisers,‘‘has glory’), 
much vather doth the Ministration of 
Righteousness exceed in glory. Cf. Rom. 
v. 16, TO μὲν yap κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς 
κατάκριμα; τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν 
παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα, and 
Rom. viii. 1, οὐδὲν γὰρ νῦν κατάκριμα 
τοῖς ἐν Χρ. “In. The phrase ϑιάκονοι 
δικαιοσύνης is used again at xi. 15, as 
descriptive of the ministers of the New 
Covenant; it is an essential point of 
Pauline theology that ‘righteousness ” 
is not of the “law” (Gal. ΠΠ. 21). The 
argument is a minori ad majus. 

Ver. το. καὶ yap οὐ δεδόξασται: for 
that which hath been made glorious, 56., 
the Ministration of the Old Covenant, 
hath not [really] been made glorious in 
this respect, viz.,on account of the sur- 
passing glory (of the Ministration of the 
New Covenant) ; 7.e., the surpassing glory 
of the second made the glory of the first 
seem nought, The phraseology of Exod. 
Xxxiv. 35 (τὸ πρόσωπον Μωσῆ .. - 
δεδόξασται) is still in the Apostle’s mind. 
ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει has been otherwise 
explained as equivalent to ‘in this in- 


56 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B ΠῚ. 


. η. 12. ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα, πολλῇ "παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα" 13. 
i 1. νἱ. καὶ οὐ καθάπερ "Μωσῆς ἐτίθει “κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ " πρόσωπον ἑαυτοῦ, 


19; Phil. 


i.20; Col. πρὸς τὸ μὴ “ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραὴλ "εἰς 1d? τέλος ὃ τοῦ καταρ- 


ii. 15; 1 


Tim. iii, youpévou 14. ἀλλ᾽ “ἐπωρώθη τὰ !νοήµατα αὐτῶν ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς 


b Exod. 
XxXxiv. 33, 


5. 
c Here only. 
d Reff. ver. 7. y 2: 

xiii. 15; 1 Tim. iv. 13 only; Neh. viii. 8. h 


e Mk. vi. 52, viii. 17; John xii. 40; Rom. xi. 7 only. 
i ere only. 


ojpepov* τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ" τῇ “ ἀναγνώσει τῆς " παλαιᾶς 
ὃ διαθήκης μένει μὴ ᾿ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, 6° τι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται" 


f Reff. ii. 11. 


g Acts 
i Ver. 18 only; c/. Job xii. 22. 


' $$DEK support εαντον; better αντον ABCGLP 17. (Yet B has eavrov, Exod. 


XXXIV. 35.) 
2 D*G om. το before τελος. 


ΣΑ, f have προσωπον for τελος (a manifest error due to the προσωπον in the line 


before). 


* Better σηµερον ἡμέρας (cf. Acts xx. 26, Rom. xi. 8) with NABCDEGP and most 
vss.; the received text in omitting ἡμέρας follows KL and the Peshitto. 


®° DEG have εν for επι. 


stance of Moses’; but it seems (see 
ref.) to be merely a redundant phrase, 
added for the sake of emphasis, intro- 
ducing ἕνεκεν τῆς ὑπερβ. δόξ. 

Ver. 11. εἰ γὰρ τὸ καταργ. «.T.A.: 
for if that which passes away was with 
lory, much more that which abideth is 
in glory. The difference of prepositions 
διὰ δόξης . . . ἐν δόξῃ should not be 
overlooked; the Ministration of the Old 
Covenant was only with a transient flush 
of glory, that of the New abides in glory 
(cf. esp. Heb. xii. 18-27). It is true that 
St. Paul sometimes ges his pre- 
positions in cases where we find difficult 
to assign a sufficient reason (εξ. διά and 
ἐκ, Rom. iii. 30, Gal. ii. 16); but that is 
no reason for confusing the force of διὰ 
and ἐν, when the preservation of the 
distinction between them adds point to 
the passage (cf. Rom. v. 10, where διὰ 
and ἐν are again confused in the A.V.). 
See further on vi. 8 

Vv. 12-18. ΤΗΕ MINISTRY OF THE 
New Covenant 18 (δ) OPEN, NOT 
VEILED, AS WAS THAT OF THE OLD. 
The illustration from the Ο.Τ. which is 
used in these verses has been obscured 
for English readers by the faulty render- 
ing of the A.V. in Exod. xxxiv. 33. It 
would appear from that rendering, viz., 
‘till Moses had done speaking with 
them he put a veil on his face,” that the 
object of the veil was to conceal from the 
people the Divine glory reflected in his 
face. But this is to misrepresent the 
original Hebrew, and is not the rendering 
given either by the LXX or by modern 
scholars. The R.V. substitutes when for 


® τι should be written οτι, as by Tisch. and W.H, 


till in the verse just quoted, thus bringing 
out the point that the veil was used to 
conceal not the glory on the face of 
Moses, but its evanescence ; it was fading 
even while he spoke, and this by his use 
of the veil he prevented the people from 
re When he * went in unto the 

d” again he took the veil off. The 
Apostle — all this to the Israel of his 
day. Stilla veil is between them and the 
Divine glory—a veil “ἢ upon their hearts” 
which prevents them from seeing the 
transitoriness of the Old Covenant; yet, 
as it was of old, if they turn to the Lord, 
the veil is removed, and an vision 
is granted. St. Paul is fond of such alle- 
gorisings of the history of the Exodus; εὐ» 
¢.g., 1 Cor. x. 2, Gal. iv. 25. 

Ver. τῷ, ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην κ.τ.λ.: 
having therefore such a hope (sc., of the 
glorious Ministration of the Spirit, ver. 8; 
αι ver. 4) we use great boldness of speech. 

he verses which follow are parentheti- 
cal down to ver. 18, where the subject is 
again we, i.e., all Christian believers, as 
contrasted with Jews. 

Ver. 13. καὶ οὐ καθάπερ κ.τ.λ.: and 
(we put no veil upon our face) as Moses 
puta veil upon his face. The construc- 
tion is broken, but the sense is obvious; 
cf., for a somewhat similar abbreviation, 
Mark xv. 8, ὁ ὄχλος ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι 
καθὼς ἐποίει αὐτοῖς.-- πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενί- 
σαι κιτιλ.: to the end that the children 
of Israel should not look steadfastly on 
th: end of that which was passing away, 
sc., the evanescence of the g on 
Moses’ face. The A.V., “could not 
steadfastly look to the end of that which 


12---ἸΉΊ. 


15. ἀλλ᾽ " ἕως " σήμερον, ἡνίκα ᾿ ἀναγινώσκεται ” Μωσῆς, κάλυμμα 
ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κεῖται ϑ- 16. ' ἡνίκα δ᾽ ὁ ἂν ™ ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς 


ο 1 
Κύριον, | περιαιρεῖται τὸ ᾿ κάλυμμα. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


ἜΝ 


k Ecclus. 
xIvii. 7; 
Matt. 
XXVil. 8; 
cf. Deut. 
XXIX. 4. 
Exod. 

m Exod. xxxiv. 31. 


17. ὃ δὲ Κύριος τὸ Πνεῦμά 


XXXiV. 34. 


1 DEGKLP support ηνικα αναγιν.; better ηνικα αν αναγιν. with ΑΒΟ 17. 


ΣΚΙ, support ἀαναγινωσκεται ; better αναγινωσκηται with SABCDEP, 


3 D*EG, the Latins and the Bohairic place κειται before επι τὴν καρδιαν αυτων. 


4 $8cBDEGKLP support δ᾽ av; but ΝΑ 17 give δε εαν. 


was abolished,” evidently takes τέλος 
as standing for Christ, the fulfilment of 
the Mosaic law (Rom. x. 4). But this is 
not suitable to the context. πρὸς τό with 
an infinitive is sometimes found to express 
the aim or intention (ever the mere re- 
sult), as, e.g., Eph. vi. 11, 1 Thess. ii. 9, 
2 Thess. 111. 8. 


Ver. 14. GAN ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα. 


(αὐτῶν: but their minds were blinded, 
sc., in reference to what they saw (cf. 
Rom. xi. 25); they took the brightness 
for an abiding glory (cf. Deut. xxix. 4). 
πῶρος, which primarily means a kind of 
marble, came to mean, in medical writers, 
a hardening of the tissues; and hence we 
have πωρόω, (1) to petrify, (2) to become 
insensible or obtuse, and so (3) it comes 
to be used of insensibility of the organs 
«οἱ vision, to blind. (See J. A. Robinson 
in ¥ournal of Theological Studies, Oct., 
1901, and cf. reff. above.)—aypu γὰρ τῆς 
“σήμερον ἡμέρας κ.τ.λ.: for until this very 
day at the reading of the Old Covenant the 
same veil remaineth unlifted (for it is only 
done away in Christ). (1) Some com- 
mentators take μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον as a 
nominative absolute, and translate ‘‘the 
‘same veil remaineth, it not being revealed 
that it (sc., either the veil or the Old 
Covenant) is done away in Christ”. But 
the order of the words seems to force us 
‘to take the present participle with μένει 
—it having a merely explanatory force 
and being almost redundant. (2) Again 
both A.V. and R.V. (text), while trans- 
lating the first part of the clause as we 
have done, render 6 τι ἐν Xp. καταργεῖται 
“‘which veil is done away in Christ’. 
But it seems indefensible thus to take 6 
τι as equivalent to 6. (3) Field arrives 
at yet another rendering by taking κάλυμ.- 
“μα per synecdochem for the thing veiled, 
which is here declared to be the fact that 
the Old Covenant is done away in Christ. 
Herenders ‘‘ the same mystery remaineth 
unrevealed, xamely, that it is done away 
in Christ”. But it is a grave objection 


C omits αν. 


to this that τὸ κάλυμμα has to be taken 
in a sense different from that which it has 
all through the rest of the passage. (4) 
We prefer, therefore (with Schmiedel and 
Schnedermann), to read 6 τι as ὅτι, for, 
and to regard the phrase ὅτι ἐν Xp. 
καταργεῖται as parenthetical: ‘ until this 
day the veil remains unlifted (for it is 
only in Christ that it is done away)”’; 
2.6., the Jews do not recognise the vanish- 
ing away of the glory of the Law, which 
yet is going on before their eyes. How 
completely Judaism was dissociated in 
St. Paul’s mind from Christianity is plain 
from the striking phrase ἣ παλαιὰ διαθήκη 
(here only found; but cf. ver. 6), by 
which he describes the religious system 
of his own early manhood, which had 
only been superseded by ἣ καινὴ διαθήκη 
thirty years before he wrote this letter. 
ἀνάγνωσις is (see reff.) the public reading 
of the Law in the synagogues; it seems, 
however, unnecessarily ingenious to see 
here, with Schmiedel, an allusion in τὸ 
κάλυμμα to the covers in which the 
Synagogue Rolls were preserved. 

Ver. 15. ἀλλ᾽ ἕως σήμερον K.T.A.: 
but unto this day, whensoever Moses (sc., 
the Law; cf. Acts xv. 21) is read, a veil 
lieth upon their heart. It will be observed 
that the image has been changed as the 
application of Exod. xxxiv. 2g ff. pro- 
ceeds: in that history the veil was upon 
the face of Moses; here it is upon the 
heart of the people, as God speaks to 
them through the medium of the Law 
(see above on ver. 2 for a similar change 
in the application of the metaphor sug- 
gested by the word ἐπιστολή). 

Ver. 16. ἡνίκα δ᾽ Gv κιτιλ.: but 
whensoever it, t.e., Israel, shall turn to 
the Lord, the veil is taken away ; a para- 
phrase of Exod. xxxiv. 34, ἡνίκα δ᾽ ay 
εἰσεπορεύετο Μωσῆς ἔναντι Κυρίου λα- 
λεῖν αὐτῷ, περιῃρεῖτο τὸ κάλυμμα ἕως 
τοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι. 

Ver. 17. δδὲ Κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν: 
but the LORD, 1.6., the Jehovah of Israel, 


58 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B ΠῚ. τ 
oy kines ἐστιν" οὗ δὲ τὸ " Πνεῦμα " Κυρίου,! ἐκεῖ 5 "ἐλευθερία. 18. ἡμεῖς δὲ 


a Nias πάντες, ᾽ ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν “δόξαν Κυρίου * κατοπτριζό- 
μα. μένοι, τὴν αὐτὴν ᾿εἰκόνα " μεταμορφούμεθα ὃ ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, 


Acts v. 9, 
Viii. 39. o Rom. viii. 21; 1 Cor. x. 29; Gal. ii. 4, v. 1, 13. 
xxxill. 1 r Here only. s Rom. viii. 29; 1 


t Matt. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. 2; Rom. xii. 2 only. 


p Reff. ver. 1 q Cf. Exod. 
. xi. 7, xv. 49; chap. iv. 4; Col. i. = iii. το. 


1 L has το αγιον instead of Κνριον, and two cursives omit Κνριον. Hort suggested 
that Κυριον is a primitive error for Κυριον; but this seems quite unnecessary; see 


note below and reff. 


2 Om. εκει NABCD* 17,1, the Peshitto and the Bohairic; it is thus inadequately 
supported and, moreover, is not in St. Paul’s style (cf. Rom. iv. 15, v. 20). 


ΣΑ μεταμορφουμενοι. 


spoken of in the preceding quotation, 
is the Spirit, the Author of the New 
Covenant of grace, to whom the new 
Israel is invited to turn (cf. Acts ix. 35). 
It is quite perverse to compare 1 Cor. 
xv. 45 (where it is said that Christ, as 
“the last Adam,” became πνεῦμα ζωο- 
ποιοῦν) or Ignatius, Mag., ξτ5, ἀδιάκριτον 
πνεῦμα ὅς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, and to 
find here an “ identification” of Christ 
with the Holy Spirit. ὁ Κύριος is here 
not Christ, but the Jehovah of Israel 
spoken of in Exod, xxxiv. 34; and in St. 
Paul’s application of the narrative of the 
Veiling of Moses, the counterpart of 6 
Κύριος under the New Covenant is the 
Spirit, which has been already contrasted 
in the preceding verses (vv. 3, 6) with 
the letter of the Mosaic law. At the 
same time it is true that the identifica- 
tion of “τῆς Lord” (i.¢., the Son) and 
“the Spirit" intermittently appears 
afterwards in Christian theo . see 
(for reff.) Swete in Dict. Chr. Tow. iii., 
115a.—ot δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.λ.:; and 
where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is 
liberty ; sc., in contradigtinction to the 
servile fear of Exod. xxxiv. 30; ς΄. John 
viii. 32, Rom, viii. 15, Gal. iv. 7, in all of 
which passages the freedom of Christian 
service is contrasted with the bondage of 
the Law. The thought. here is not of 
the freedom of the Spirit’s action (John 
iii. 8, x Cor. xii. 11), but of the freedom 
of access to God under the New Cove- 
nant, as exemplified in the removal of 
the veil, when the soul turns itself to the 
Divine glory. ‘ The Spirit of the Lord” 
is an O.T. phrase (see reff.). We now 
return to the thought of ver. 12, the 
openness and boldness of the Apostolical 
service. 

Ver. 18. ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες κ.τ.λ.: but 
we all, sc., you as well as I, all Christian 
believers, with unveiled face (and so not 


as Moses under the Old Covenant), re- 
flecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, 
sc., of Jehovah (see cefl.), which is the 
glory of Christ (cf. John xvii. 24), are 
transformed into the same image, sc., of 
Christ (see reff.), from glory to glory (i.t., 
progressively and without interruption, 
and so unlike the transitory reflection of 
the Divine glory on the face of Moses; 
of. Ps. Ἰχκχιν. 7, and on chap. ii. 16 


above), as from (not “by” as the A.V.) 
the Lord the Spirit; sc., our progress in 
is continuous, as becomes the work 


of the Spirit from whom it springs (John 
xvi. 14, Rom. viii. 11). The meaning of 
κατοπτρίζεσθαι (which is not found else- 
where in the Greek Bible) is somewhat 
doubtful. (i.) The analogy of 1 Cor. xiii. 
12, of Philo, Leg. All., iii., 33 (a passage 
where Exod. xxxiii. 18 is parap 

and which therefore is specially apposite 
here), and of Clem. Rom., § 36, would 
sup the rendering of the A.V., “ be- 
holding as in a glass" (i.¢., a mirror). 
This is also given in the margin of the 
R.V., and is preferred by the American 
Revisers. But such a translation is 
not appropriate to the context, for the 
Apostle’s thought is not of any indirect 
vision of the Divine glory, but of our 
freedom of access thereto and of per- 
ception thereof. It seems better there- 
fore (ii.) to render with the R.V. (follow- 
ing Chrysostom) reflecting as in a mirror. 
And so the image conveyed is “ that 
Christians having, like Moses, received 
in their lives the reflected glory of the 
Divine presence, as Moses received it on 
his countenance, are unlike Moses in 
that they have no fear, such as his, of 
its vanishing away, but are confident of 
its continuing to shine in them with 
increasing lustre (cf. iv. 6 below); and 
in this confidence present 

without veil or disguise, inviting enquiry 


IV. 1—3. 


καθάπερ: ἀπὸ Κυρίου Πνεύματος. 


πάμεθα τὰ " κρυπτὰ τῆς “ αἰσχύνης, μὴ " περιπατοῦντες "ἐν 


1 ἐνώπιον τοῦ | Θεοῦ. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


59 


IV. 1. Διὰ τοῦτο ἔχοντες τὴν 3 Lk: xviii. 


1; Gal. 
, “ Η . 
διακονίαν ταύτην, καθὼς ἠλεήθημεν, οὐκ " ἐκκακοῦμεν,” 2. ἀλλ᾽ " ἀπει- τί. ο. 
f ί Thess. iti 
πανουργίᾳ - 
A ; A ἦ ΡῪ κ > 13; and 
μηδὲ Ε δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ TH ἢ φανερώσει τῆς ο μα. 
ἀληθείας | συνιστῶντες ὃ | ἑαυτοὺς πρὸς πᾶσαν * συνείδησιν ἀνθρώπων ie χ, 3. 
ς om. 11. 
4. ἢ εἰ δὲ '' καὶ ἔστι κεκαλυμμένον τὸ " εὐαγ- 16; 1 Cor. 
iv. 5, xiv. 


25; 1 Pet. ili. 4. 

Rom. vi. 4; Eph. v. 2; Col. iii. 7, etc. 
g Here only, Ps. xiv. 3, xxxv. 3. 

Χ. 12, 18. k Reff. i. 12. 

1; cf. chap. viii. 21. 


ἃ Phil. iii. το; Jude 13; cf. Rom. vi. 21; Eph. v. 12. 
f Chap. xi. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 19; Eph. iv. 14; cf. chap. xii. 16. 

h 1 Cor, xii. 7 only. 
1 Rom. xiv. 22; chap. vii. 12; Gal. i.20; 1 Tim v. 4, 21; 2 Tim. iv. 
m 1 Cor. iv. 7; cf. chap. iv. 16, v. 16, vii. 8. 


e Acts xxi. 21; 
i Chap. vi. 4, vii. 11; cf. chap. iii. 1, v. 12, 


ni Thess. i. 5; 2 Thess. ii 


14; cf. Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 8. 


1B has καθωσπερ. 


3 The better orthography is εγκακουµεν NABD*G 17. 


3 DcEKL give συνιστωντες; better συνισταντες ΟΠ 17, followed by Tisch., 
or συνιστανοντες A(?)BP, adopted by W.H. 


instead of deprecating it, with nothing 
to hold back or to conceal from the eager 
gaze of the most suspicious or the most 
curious” (Stanley). The words Κυρίου 
πνεύματος will bear various renderings: 
(a) the Lord of the Spirit, which is not 
apposite here, (b) the Spirit of the Lord, 
as the A.V. takes them and the Latin 
commentators generally, (c) the Spirit, 
which is the Lord, the rendering of Chry- 
sostom, which is given a place in the 
R.V. margin, and (d) the Lord, the Spirit, 
πνεύματος being placed in apposition to 
Κυρίου, neither word taking the article, 
as the first does not after the prep. ἀπό. 
We unhesitatingly adopt (d), the render- 
ing of the R.V., inasmuch as it best brings 
out theidentification of Κύριος and πνεῦμα 
in ver. 17. It is worth noticing that the 
phrase in the ‘‘ Nicene” Creed τὸ πνεῦμα 
+ «+ τὸ Κύριον τὸ ζωοποιόν is based on 
the language of this verse and of ver. 6 
above. 

CHAPTER 1V.—Vv. 1-6. HE DELIVERS 
WITH FRANKNESS HIS MESSAGE OF CHRIST 
THE TRUE LicHT.—Ver. 1. διὰ τοῦτο 
ἔχοντες κ.τ.λ.: wherefore, having this 
Ministration, sc., of the New Covenant, 
even as we received mercy (i.e., ‘even 
as we were mercifully granted it,” a 
favourite thought with St. Paul; cf. 1 
Cor. vii. 25, 1 Tim. i. 13, 16), we faint 
not; cf.2 Tim. i. 7, οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν 
6 Θεὸς πνεῦμα δειλίας. He is still an- 
swering the question, ‘‘ Who is sufficient 
for these things ?” (ii. 16); but he, again, 
in the verses which follow, diverges from 
this main thought to answer the charge 
of insincerity which his opponents had 
brought against him. The tone of vv. 
1-6 is very like that of 1 Thess. ii. 1-12, 
which offers several verbal parallels. 


Ver. 2. ἀλλ᾽ ἀπειπάμεθα τὰ κρυπτὸ 
κιτολ.: but we have renounced (the “ in- 
gressive aorist”; cf. ἐσίγησεν, Acts xv. 
12) the hidden things of shame ; cf. Rom. 
xiii, 12, Eph. iv. 22. The stress is on 
τὰ κρυπτά; it is the openness and can- 
dour of his ministry on which he insists 
(cf. John iii. 20).—ph περιπατ. «.T.A.: 
not walking in craftiness (see x. 3 and 
reff. above; περιπατεῖν = versari), nor 
handling deceitfully (οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ, 1 
Thess. ii. 3, cf. chap. ii. 17) the Word 
of God, sc., the Divine message with 
which we have been entrusted (cf. the 
charge brought against him and referred 
to in xil. 16, viz., that being πανοῦργος 
he had taught the Corinthians δόλῳ) ; 
but by the manifestation of the truth (cf. 
vi. 7, vil. 14), sc., by plain statement of 
the truths of the Gospel in public preach- 
ing, commending ourselves (here is our 
Letter of Commendation, iii. 1, and ef. 
note there) to every man’s conscience (lit. 
“(0 every conscience of men,” 1.6., to 
every possible variety of the human con- 
science ; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 22) in the sight of 
God. ‘The appeal to conscience can never 
be omitted with safety, and any presenta- 
tion of Christianity which is neglectful 
of the verdict of conscience on the doc- 
trines taught is at once un-Apostolic and 
un-Christlike. These verses (1-6) have 
been chosen as the Epistle for St. 
Matthew’s Day, probably on account of 
the apparent applicability of ver. 2 to the 
circumstances of St. Matthew’s call and 
his abandonment of a profession which 
was counted shameful. But of course 
ἀπειπάμεθα does not imply that St. Paul 
had ever been guilty of using crafty 
artifices such as he here repudiates once 
and for all. 


60 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


IV, 


Pérdgdwoe τὰ “νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων, εἰς 


5. οὐ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς 


t Wisd. vii. 26; reff. 


δ chap- γέλιον " ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς »ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶ κεκαλυμμένον 4. ἐν οἷς ὁ 
ΚΝ Jakn Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου 

ἤν 1 only τὸ μὴ τ αὐγάσαι } αὐτοῖς 2 τὸν "φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης 

« XL. 
ΓᾺΡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν "εἰκὼν τοῦ ' Θεοῦ." 
επ. Ι. 11. 

τΗετὲ only, ® κηρύσσομεν, ἀλλὰ " Χριστὸν ἢ ᾿Ιησοῦν Κύριον’ ἑαυτοὺς δὲ δούλους 

Fit a, τῶν s Ver. 6 only; cf. Job iii. 9; Ps. xxvi. 1, Ixxxix. 8, etc. 

iii. 18. u wiii 5; τ Cor. 1. 23; Phil. i. 15. 


ΓΙ SBGKLP support ανγασαι; CDEH have κατανγασαι, and A 17 διανγασαι. 
2 DbcEKLP and the Syriac vss. add αντοις after avy.; om. NABCD*GH 17, d,e, 


f, g, τ, etc, 
°C has κνριον for Χριστον. 


* SycLP and the Harclean add τον αορατον (from Col. i. 15) after Θεον. 


5 BHKL, the Peshitto and Bohairic support 


Ἴησ.; NACDE, the Harclean, 


x . 
ἁ, ε, f, τ, etc., give "ln. Xp. Kv. ; G, g give Kv. “ly. Κρ. ; P πας Ἴη. Xp. (omitting Κν.). 


Ver. 3. εἰ δὲ καὶ κ.τ.λ.; but even if 
our gospel (sc., the good news we preach ; 
see reff.) is veiled (returning again to the 
metaphor of iii. 12-18), it is veiled in 
them that are perishing ; i.e., the fault lies 
with the hearers, not with the preacher 
(cf. vi. 12, and see Rom. i. 28). Blass 
(Gram, of N.T. Greek, § 41, 2) points out 
that ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλνμένοις is almost 
equivalent to “ for them that are perish- 
ing" (cf. chap. viii. 1 and 1 Cor. xiv. 11 
for a like use of ἐν). 

Ver. 4. ἐν οἷς ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος: 
among whom the god of this world, sc., 
Satan. αἰών is an ‘‘age,” a certain 
limit of time, and so ὁ αἰὼν οὗτός (1 
Cor. i, 20, ii. 6) is ‘this present age,” 
over which the devil is regarded as having 


power (cf. Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12). We have 
the expression al cia, τοῦ αἰῶνος 
τούτον in Ignatius (Rom., 6). Wetstein 


quotes a Rabbinical saying, ‘‘ The true 
God is the first God, but Sammael (i.¢., 
the evil angel who was counted Israel's 
special foe) is the second God". Many 
early writers, beginning with Origen and 
Irenzus, through of Gnostic specu- 
lations, dissociate ὁ Θεός from τοῦ αἰῶνος 
τούτον, which they join with τῶν ἀπίσ- 
των. But this is a mere perversity of 
exegesis, suggested by controversial pre- 
judice. Beliar is twice called ‘ the ruler 
of this world" in the Ascension of Isaiah 
(ed. Charles, pp. 11, 24). τὰ 
γοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων : hath blinded (the 
‘*ingressive aorist '’ again ; τὰ ver. 2) the 
minds (cf. iii. 14) of the unbelieving. Out 
of sixteen occurrences of the word 
ἄπιστος in the Pauline Epistles, fourteen 
are found in the Epp. to the Corinthians ; 
it consistently means “ unbelieving,”’ and 
is always applied to the Acathen, not to 


the Jews (except, perhaps, Titus i. 15).— 
εἰς A μὴ αὐγάσαι κ.τ.λ.: fo the end 
that the light (lit. “the illumination”’) 
of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who 
is the Image of God, should not dawn 
upon them. This is the force of αὐγάσαι, 
even if, as we seemingly must do, we 
omit αὐτοῖς from our text; αὐγή is the 
‘*dawn,” and αὐγάσαι is to be taken in- 
transitively. The R.V. marginal render- 
ing “that they should not see the light,” 
etc., does not suit the context so well. 
The A.V. “the light of the glorious 
gospel of Christ" is inadequate, as it 
does not bring out the force of the phrase 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίον τῆς δόξης is the 
genitive of contents (αι, the similar 
phrase, 1 Tim. i. 11); the substance of 
the good tidings preached is the δόξα, 
the glorious revelation of Christ (cf. ver. 
6 below). That Christ is the Image or 
εἰκών of God is the statement of St. 
Paul which approaches most nearly in 
form to the λόγος doctrine of St. John 
(see reff. and, for the general sense, 1 
Cor. xi. 3, Phil. ii. 6; cf. Heb. i. 34). , 
Ewald, who maintains that St. Paul was 
acquainted with a Johannine tradition 
of our Lord’s words, finds in vv. 3, 
reminiscences of conversations r 
in the Fourth Gospel. Thus we have in 
consecutive verses (John viii. 44, 45 
ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ 
- ++ οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι, and the expres- 
sion 6 Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτον is compar- 
able with ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμον τούτον 
(John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). The 
parallels are certainly interesting; cf. 
also the phrase εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ with 
John viii. 19, 42. 

Ver. 5. οὐ yap ἑαντοὺς κιτιλ.: for 
we preach not ourselves, but Christ Fesus 


4—9.- 


ὑμῶν 1 διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν.2 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


61 


6. ὅτι ὁ8 Θεὸς ὁ εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότους φῶς Y C/ Hab. 


1, 14. 


λάμψαι,“ ὃς ὃ ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς W See oni. 


" γνώσεως τῆς " δόξης τοῦ ὃ Θεοῦ ἐν "προσώπῳ Ἰησοῦ ἴ Χριστοῦ. x Col. ii. 3; 


7. Ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν * θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ” ὀστρακίνοις ”΄ σκεύεσιν, Ξ:. 
ἵνα ἡ "ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν: δ. ἐν 20; 


vi. 28. 


" παντὶ " θλιβόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ “ στενοχωρούμενοι - * ἀπορούμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ z Ps. ii. 29; 


οὐκ 
Pet. iii. 7. a Reff. i. 8. 
10, and Josh. xvii. 15; Isa. xlix. 19. 
i. 8 only. 
XXXVI. 25. 


1S 17 have ἡμῶν, a mere blunder. 


* ἐξαπορούμενοι - 9. διωκόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ 


b Chap. vii. 5; reff. below. 
d John xiii. 22; Acts xxv. 20; Gal. iv. 20 only. 
f Rom. ix. 29 (Isa. i. 9); 2 Tim. iv. το, 16; Heb. xiii. 5 (Josh. i. 5); Deut. iv. 31; Ps, 


Acts ix. 
15; Rom. 
1K. ΣΤ Ἢ 
c Chap. vi. 12 only; cf. chap. vi. 4, xii. 
e Chap. 


* ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι : 


3 Ἴησουν is supported by A*BDEGHKLP and the Syriac vss. (cf. ver. 11); S*A**C 
17, the Latins and Bohairic give Ἴησον, which does not yield so impressive a sense. 


3 B om. ο before Θεος. 


4 Better Aap wee with SQ*ABD* and the Syriac vss.; λαμψαι is supported by the 


remaining uncials and the Latins. 


5 D*G and the Old Latin vss. omit ος before ελαμψ. 
6 Instead of του Θεου C*D*G, d, ε, g, r supply αὐτου. 


TSCHKLP, the Syriac and Bohairic support Ἴησ. Xp.; DEG and the Latins 
give Xp. Ἰη.; AB 17 (followed by Tisch. and W.H.) omit Ἴησου (see ii. το above). 


as Lord (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 3, “ No mancan 
say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy 
Spirit”), and ourselves your slaves for 
Fesus’ sake (cf. τ Cor. ix. 19 and chap. i. 
24 above; see also xi. 20 καταδουλοῖ). 

Ver. 6. ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ.: seeing it is 
God who said “ Light shall shine out of 
darkness”? (a paraphrase of Gen. i. 3; 
cf. Ps. exii. 4), who shined in our hearts 
to illuminate (others) with the knowledge 
of the glory of God in the Face of Christ. 
That is to say, there is nothing secret 
or crafty in the Ministration of the New 
Covenant; it is the proclamation of a 
second Fiat Lux (St. John i. 4, viii. 12) 
in the hearts of men (2 Pet. i. 19). The 
image of iii. 18 is thus preserved in this 
verse; we reflect the light which shines 
upon us from the Divine Glory, as mani- 
fested in Christ. 

Vv. 7-15. His BopiLty WEAKNESS 
DOES NOT ANNUL THE EFFECTS OF HIS 
MInistRY.—Ver. 7. ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυ- 
ρὸν κιτιλ.: but, sc., in contrast to the 
glowing and exultant phrases of ver. 6, 
we have this treasure, sc., of ‘the light 
of the knowledge of the glory of God,” 
in earthen vessels. The comparison of 
man, in respect of his powerlessness 
and littleness in God’s eyes, to an 
earthen jar made by a potter for his 
own purposes and of any shape that 
he wills is common in the O.T. (Job 
κ. ο 155. Xxx. Τά}. Jer: XIX. τι; “see 


2 Esdras iv. 11), and St. Paul works out 
the idea in Rom. ix. 20 ff. He also dis- 
tinguishes here and at 2 Tim. ii. 20 
between different kinds of σκεύη, illus- 
trating thereby the difference between 
men; while he himself is elsewhere called 
σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς, and St. Peter calls 
woman ἀσθενέστερον σκεῦος (see reff.). 
In the present passage σκεῦος seems to 
be used specially for the human body (cf. 
2 Esdras vii. [88], vas corruptibile), as the 
thought in the Apostle’s mind is (mainly) 
of his own physical infirmities; the 
figure being derived from the ancient 
custom of storing gold and silver in 
earthenware pots. The treasure of the 
Gospel light is contained in an “ earthen 
vessel,”’ a frail body which may (seem- 
ingly) at any moment succumb (cf. Job 
iv. Ig and see v. 1 below). This may 
appear surprising, that so great a treasure 
should seem to be exposed to the mishaps 
which may befall the perishable jar in 
which it is contained; but yet (though 
St. Paul does not pursue this line of 
thought here) it is the very principle of 
the Incarnation that the heavenly is 
revealed and received through the earthly, 
for ‘‘ the Word became flesh” (St. John 
i. 14).—tva ἣ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως 
κ.τ.λ.: that the exceeding greatness of 
the power, sc., which triumphs over all 
obstacles, may be God’s and not from 
ouvselves. The weakness of the instru- 


62 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


6 Heb. vi.t Εκαταβαλλόµενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀπολλύμενοι: 1Ο. πάντοτε τὴν "νέκρωσιν 


only; 2 


Kings iii, τοῦ Κυρίου 1 ᾿Ιησοῦ 5 ἐν τῷ σώματι ὃ ' περιφέροντες, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ 


5 Rom. ἵν. τοῦ Ἰησοῦ + ἐν τῷ ὁ σώματι ἡμῶν " φανερωθῇ. 


19 only; 


5; Heb. 
ΧΙ, ΙΖ. 
i Mk. vi. 55; Eph. iv. 14 only; 2 Macc. vii. 27. 


11. del® γὰρ ἡμεῖς 


εἶ τοὶ fii. οἱ ζῶντες εἰς θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα διὰ ἸΙησοῦν, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ 


κ Reff. ii. 14. 


1 KL and the Harclean give Κνριον, but it is not found in the best authorities 


and should be omitted. 


2 For Ἴησον D*G, d, 6, f, g read Χριστον. 
5 DEG, the Peshitto, Bohairic and Latin vss. add ηµων after σωματι. 


4 6, ἃ, e, g give Ἴησον Χριστον. 


ΣΝ, τ, vg. give τοις σωμασιν (adopted by Tisch.); the received text follows the 
bulk of the authorities ; A and the Bohairic place φανερωθῃ before ev τῳ σωματι ηµων. 


5 G, f, g and the Peshitto give ει for ae. 


ment is to demonstrate the Divinity of 
the power which directs it (cf. chap. xii. 
g and 1 Cor. ii. 5). 

Vv. 8,9. ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι κ.τ.λ. : 
with a sudden change of metaphor, the 
Apostle now thinks of himself as a soldier 
engaged with an apparently stronger foe, 
and at every moment on the point of 
defeat; and in four pairs of antithetical 
participles he describes his condition: ἐν 
every direction pressed hard, but not 
hemmed in; bewildered, but not utterly 
despairing ; pursued, but not forsaken 
(i.e., abandoned to the pursuing foe); 
struck down (as by an arrow; cf. Xen., 
Cyr., i, 3, 14 for this use of κατα- 
βάλλειν), but not destroyed. The general 
sense is much like that of Prov. xxiv. 16, 
Mic. vii. 5; cf. also chap. xi. 23-30. 
στενοχωρία is nearly always (in N.T.) 
coupled with θλῖψις (cf Rom. ii. 9, viii. 
35, chap. vi. 4, and Isa. viii, 22, xxx. 6). 
With the play on words ἀπορούμενοι . 
ἐξαπορούμενοι, which it is difficult to re- 
produce in English, see on i. 13 above. 
The phrase ἐν παντί occurs no less than 
nine times again in this Epistle (see chap. 
Vi. 4, Vii. 5, 11, 16, viii. 7, ix. 8, 11, xi. 6, 
g), though only once elsewhere (1 Cor. i. 
5) in St. Paul’s writings. 

Vv. 10, tr. The climax of the preced- 
ing antithesis is now reached: '' Dying, 
yet living” ψ, vi. 9). πάντοτε τὴν 
νέκρωσιν κ.τ.λ.; always bearing about 
in the body the dying of Fesus, that the 
Life also of Fesus may be manifested in 
our body; for we which live are ever 
being delivered over to death (cf. xi. 23 
below) for Fesus’ sake, that the Life also 
of Fesus may be peg ees in our mortal 
flesh. The key to the interpretation of 
ver. ro is to observe that ver. 11 is the 


explanation of it (ἀεὶ yap κ.τ.λ.); the 
two verses are strictly parallel: “our 
mortal flesh” of ver. 11 is only a more 
emphatic and literal way of describing 
“our body” of ver. το. Hence the 
bearing about of the νέκρωσις of Jesus 
must be identical with the continual 
deliverance to death for His sake. Now 
the form νέκρωσις (see reff.) is descriptive 
of the process of “ mortification”; and 
the νέκρωσις τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ must mean the 
νέκρωσις to which He was subject while 
on earth (gen. subjecti). The phrase 
περιφέρειν τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ con- 
veys, ο, an idea comparable to that 
involved in other Pauline phrases, ¢.g., 
“to die daily" (1 Cor. xv. 31), “to 


be killed all the day long” (Rom. viii.. 


36, a quotation from Ps. xli¥ 22), “to 
know the fellowship of His sufferings, 
becoming conformed unto His death” 
(Phil. iii. το), “to fill up that which is 
lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my 


flesh" (Col. i. 24), the conception of 
the intimate union in cufiering τας δον 
Christ and the Christian having been 
already touched on in i. 5. And such 
union in suffering involves a present 
manifestation in us of the Life of Christ, 
as well as ultimate union with Him in 
glory (Rom. viii. 17, cf. John xiv. 19). 

he phrases “if we have become united 
with Him by the likeness of His death, 
we shall be also by the likeness of His re- 
surrection,” and “ if we died with Christ, 
we believe that we shall also live with 
Him” (Rom, vi. 5, 8), though verbally 
similar, are not really parallel to the verse 
before us, for they speak of a death to 
sin in baptism, while this has reference 
to actual bodily suffering in the flesh, 
And the inspiring thought of vv. το, σε 


ΝΥ 


‘<4 


10—I5. 


Ἰησοῦ! φανερωθῇ ἐν τῇ ᾿θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν. 
θάνατος ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνεργεῖται, ἡ δὲ ζωὴ ἐν ὑμῖν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


63 


12. ὥστε ὁ μὲν” | age 
11; 1 Cor, 


12. ἔχοντες δὲ TO 
3 X 5 XV. 53, 54; 


Sie Ἐς ο , Ye , τα ςς 2 4 chap. v. 
αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως, KATA τὸ γεγραμμένον, Επίστευσα, διὸ Sane 4 


ἐλάλησα," ὃ καὶ ἡμεῖς πιστεύομεν, διὸ καὶ λαλοῦμεν" 14. εἰδότες mPs.cxv.t. 


a aA Ε A - 
ὅτι 6 " ἐγείρας τὸν Κύριον * Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς διὰ ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐγερεῖ, 


“᾿ παραστήσει σὺν ὑμῖν. 


P πλεονάσασα διὰ “ τῶν 1 πλειόνων τὴν " εὐχαριστίαν "περισσεύση εἰς 


Jude 24. 
iii. 12; Eph. i. 8. 


15. τὰ γὰρ πάντα δι ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἡ χάρις 


p Rom. v. 20; chap. viii. 15; Phil. iv. 17; 1 Thess. iii. 12, etc. 
t Acts xxiv. 3; 1 Cor. xiv. 16; chap. ix. 11, 12; Phil. iv. 6; 2 Macc. ii. 27. 


Reff. i. 9. 
καὶ ο Rom. xiv. 
10; chap. 
Xi. 2; 
Eph. v. 
27; Col. 
1. 22% of. 
q Reff. ii. 6, 
s Chap. ix. 8; 1 Thess. 


1C has Χριστου; D*G, d, e, g Ἴησου Χριστου. 


2 KL and the Harclean give μεν, but it is omitted by the best uncials and vss. 
3 86 and the Syriac vss. have διο και ελαλησα; om. και (with LXX) BCDEKLP 


and the Latins. 


4 B 17,1 om. κυριον, but it is attested by overwhelmingly preponderating authority. 
® SycDcKL and the Syriac vss. support δια Ἴησου; better συν with R*BCDEGP, 


the Latins and Bohairic. 


of the present chapter is that Union with 
Christ, unto death, in life, has as its 
ioyful consequence Union with Christ, 
unto life, in death. It is the paradox of 
the Gospel over again, 6 ἀπολέσας τὴν 
ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ εὑρήσει αὐτήν 
(Matt. x. 39). It will be observed that 
the best MSS. give in ver. 10 τοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ. It is worth noticing that while 
in the Gospels the proper name ᾿Ιησοῦς 
generally takes the article, in the Epistles 
it is generally anarthrous. In addition 
to the example before us, the only other 
passage where St. Paul writes ὁ *Inaots 
is Eph. iv. 21 (cf. Blass, Gram. of N.T. 
Greek, ὃ 46. το). 

Ver. 12. The manifestation of Christ’s 
Life in the Apostle’s daily νέκρωσις is 
thus visible to the world and especially 
to his οοηνετί5.- ὥστε ὃ μὲν θάνατος 
κ.τ.λ.: so then Death worketh in us (see 
on i. 6), but Life in you, t.e., the Risen 
Life of Christ, the source of present grace 
as of future glory. It is this latter aspect 
of ζωή, viz., as the life after death, to 
which his thoughts now turn. 

Ver. 13. ἔχοντες δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ πν. 
κιτιλ.: but, sc., despite our bodily weak- 
ness and the ‘working of death in us”’ 
of νετ. 12, having the same spirit of 
faith, sc., as the Psalmist, according to 
that which is written, “41 believed, and 
therefore I spoke,” we also believe, and 
therefore also we speak, sc.,as the Psalmist 
did. The exact meaning of Ps. cxv. 1 
in the original is hard to fix; but the 
context would not naturally suggest the 
beautiful thought here readintoit. That 


faith must find expression, that it cannot 
be silent, is the Apostle’s adaptation of 
the words. With τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως 
ef. Kom. Vill, 15, τ Cor. 1v.-21, Gal. νι. 
ο Ερα ματ ο Lim. ἂν 7. οἷος Deiss- 
mann (Neue Bibelstudien, p. 78) illus- 
trates the introductory formula of citation 
here employed by the legal formula κατὰ 
τὰ προγεγραμμένα which occurs in a 
Fayyuim papyrus of 52 A.D. 

Ver. 14. Despite the contrast between 
death in us and life in you (ver. 12), we 
trust that we too shall share in that 
Risen Life of Christ. εἰδότες ὅτι κ.τ.λ.: 
knowing that He who raised up the Lord 
Fesus (see reff.) shall raise up us also 
with Fesus, sc., on the Day of the general 
Resurrection (1 Thess. iv. τα), and shall 
present us with you (see reff.). Observe 
that the A.V. ‘shall raise up us also by 
Jesus’’ depends on a wrong reading, and 
perverts the sense. It would appear 
from this passage that the Apostle did 
not hope to be alive at the Second Advent 
of Christ (cf. i. 8, 1 Cor. xv. 52), although 
at an earlier period he seems to have 
cherished such an expectation (1 Thess. 
iv. I5). 

Ver. 15. τὰ γὰρ πάντα δι᾽ ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.: 
(With you, I say) for all things (cf. τ 
Cor. iii. 22) are for your sakes (cf. 1. 6), 
that the grace, being multiplied, sc., to me, 
through the (prayers of the) greater num- 
ber of you, may cause the thanksgiving to 
abound unto the glory of God. Cf. i. τά, 
a closely parallel passage, and Phil. i. το. 
Except that we have deemed it necessary 
to translate τῶν πλειόνων literally (see on 


64 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


t Rom. xv. t = t ~ 
Ὅν δόξαν τοῦ ' Θεοῦ. 


IV, τ6---τϑ, 


16. διὸ οὐκ " ἐκκακοῦμεν ᾿ GAN’ εἰ καὶ ὁ 


χι 31; ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος "διαφθείρεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἔσωθεν 2 “ ἀνακαινοῦται 


Phil. ii. 


11; ο΄. (ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ. 17. τὸ γὰρ "παραυτίκα "ἐλαφρὸν τῆς "θλίψεως 


chap. vi 


19. 
Ὁ Reff.ver.1. 


ἡμῶν καθ "ὑπερβολὴν εἰς" ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον " βάρος δόξης 


Ὑ Lk, xii. 551 "κατεργάζεται ἡμῖν, 18. μὴ σκοπούντων" ἡμῶν τὰ βλεπόμενα. ἀλλὰ 


1 Tim. 


5: τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα" τὰ γὰρ βλεπόμενα "πρόσκαιρα, τὰ δὲ μὴ βλεπό- 


w Col. iii. το 


only; cf. Rom. xii. 2; Tit. ὙΠ Heb. vi. 6. 
;of.¢ 


xi. 30 only; Exod. xviii. 26; ¢ 


ε Matt. xiii. 21; 


1 See crit. note on iv. 1. 


hap. i. 17. z 
ii. 6. c Chap. v. 5, Vii. το, 11, ix. 11, xil. 14, ete. 
: via -ᾱ 17; Heb. xi. ας only; ε/. 1 Thess. ii. 17. 


x Here only; Ps. lxix. 4; Tobit iv. εἶ y Matt. 
Reff. i. 4. a Reff. i. 8. b Gal. vi. 2; 1 Thess. 


ἆ Rom. xvi. 17; Gal. vi. 1; Phil. ii. 4, iii. 17. 


2 DbcEKL support ο ἐσωθεν ; better ο εσω ηµων with NBCD*GP, 
2 D*EG, the Latins and Peshitto have προσκαιρον και ἐλαφρον. 


4 BC? and the Peshitto omit ἡμων. 


® $9°C*K, the Bohairic and Harclean omit εἰς νπερβολην. 
® D*G, d, e, g have σκοπονντες (an anacolouthon) for σκοπονντων ἡμῶν. 


7G, g, τ give προσκαιρα εστιν. 


ii. 6), the above is the rendering of the 
R.V. The A.V. “that the abundant 
grace ἜΣ through the thanksgiving of 
many redound to the glory of God"’ can 
hardly be possible, and the position of 
πλεονάσασα in the sentence seems to 
require that the words be connected as 
in R.V. For the transitive significance 
of περισσεύω see reff. 

Vv. 16-18. He IS SUSTAINED BY A 
Giorious Hope.—Ver. 16. διὸ οὐκ 
ἐγκακοῦμεν κ.τ.λ.: wherefore, sc., because 
of the thought in ver. 14, we faint not 
(repeated from ver. 1); but even though 
our outward man is decaying, yet our 
inward man is being renewed day by day. 
That is, even though (note εἰ καί with 
the indicative as introducing not a mere 
contingency, but a matter of fact; see 
reff. ver. 3) the '' earthen vessel” (νετ. 7) 
of my body is subject to a continual 
véxpworg (νετ. 10) and decay, yet my 
true self is daily renewed by Divine grace; 
it is in hope of the consummation of this 
‘renewal ” that I faint not (cf. Isa. xl. 
30). The contrast between ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν 
ἄνθρωπος and ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος has 
verbal parallels in Rom. vii. 22, Eph. iv. 
22, 23, Col. iii. g (cf. also τ Pet. iii. 4), 
but they are not quite apposite, as in those 

assages the thought is of the difference 
tween the lower and higher nature, the 
‘*flesh"’ and the “spirit,” whereas here 
the decay of the bodily organism is set 
over against the growth in grace of the 
man himself; cf. the expression of P!ato, 
ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος (Repubdl., ix., p. 589). 
The phrase ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ is a Hebra- 


ism ; it is not found in this exact form in 
the LXX, but it might well be a render- 


ing of OV OV (cf. Gen. xxxix. το, 
Ps. lxviii. 19, Esther iii. 4). 

Ver. 17. τὸ γὰρ παραντίκα x.7.A, : 
for our present light burden of affliction 
worketh out for us more and more exceed- 
ingly an eternal heavy burden of glory ; 
cf., for the thought (ever full of consola- 
tion to the troubled heart), Ps. xxx. 5, 
Isa. liv. 7, Matt. v. 11, Heb. xii. 11, 1 
Pet. i. 6, v. 10, and especially Rom. viii. 
18. παραντίκα does not refer (as the 
A.V. and R.V. would suggest) to the brief 
duration of temporal affliction, but only 
to its being present with us now, as set 
over against the future glory (see reff.), 
τὸ ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψεως offers a good 
instance of “ the most classical idiom in 
the language of the N.T.” (Blass)— 
especially frequent in St. Paul—accord- 
ing to which a neuter singular adjective 
is used as if it were an abstract noun; 
cf. chap. viii. 8, Rom. viii. 3, 1 Cor, i. 25, 
Phil. iii. 8, etc., for a like construction, 
καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολήν is another 


Hebraism (see last verse), IND) IND 
=‘exceedingly”’ ; it cannot qualify βάρος 
(as the A.V. takes it) or αἰώνιον, but must 
go with κατεργάζεται, as above (cf. Gal. 
i. 13). Stanley points out that the col- 
location βάρος δόξης may be suggested 


by the fact that the Hebrew 71 means 


both “ to be heavy’ (Gen. xviii. 20, Job 
vi. 3) and “to be glorious” (Job xiv. 


“ἢ 


ν. I—2. 


μενα αἰώνια. V. 1. οἴδαμεν γὰρ, ὅτι ἐὰν ἡ " ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία 
τοῦ "σκήνους “καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ] ἐκ Θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οἰκίαν “ ἀχειρο- 


ποίητον, αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 
τὸ ! 
only; Wisd. ix. 15 only. 
58; Col. ii. 11 only; cf. Acts xvii. 24. 
John xxi. 7. 


e 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


4 
2. καὶ yap ἐν τούτῳ “στενάζομεν, 
οἰκητήριον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ * ἐπενδύσασθαι ἢ ἐπιποθοῦντες - Ἶ 
ο Matt. xxiv. 2; Mk. xiv. 58; Acts vi. 14; Gal. ii. 18, etc. 


Rom. viii. 23. 
h Rom. i. 11; chap. ix. 14; Phil. i. 8, ii. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 4. 


65 


a John iii, 
12; 1 Cor. 
XV. 40; 
Phil. 11, 
IO, iii, 19; 
Jas. iii. 15 
only, 

Ver. 4 

d Mk. xiv. 


f Jude 6 only. 6 Ver. 4 only; cf, 


1 DEG, d, e, ἔ, g have οτι οικοδοµην. 


21); cf. the ambiguity in the Latin 
gravitas. 

Ver. 18. μὴ σκοπούντων ἡμῶν τὰ 
βλεπόμενα «.7.A.: while we look not at 
the things which are seen (cf. chap. v. 7), 
but at the things which are not seen: for 
the things which are seen are temporal, 
sc., for the moment, but the things which 
are not seen are eternal, sc., for the ages ; 
cf. Rom, viii. 24, Heb. xi. 1. Wetstein 
quotes a good parallel to this splendid 
sentence from Seneca (Ep. 59): ‘Ista 
imaginaria sunt, et ad tempus aliquam 
faciem ferunt. Nihil horum stabile nec 
solidum est... mittamus animum ad 
€a, quae aeterna sunt.” 

CHAPTER V.—Vv. 1-5. HIS EXPECTA- 
TION OF A GLORIFIED BODY HEREAFTER } 
AND HIS DESIRE ΤΟ SURVIVE UNTIL ΤΗΕ 
SECOND ADVENT.—Ver. I. οἴδαμεν yap 
«.7-A.: for (in explanation of iv. 17) we 
know, sc., we Christians (cf. Rom. vii. 14, 
1 Cor. viii. 1), thatif our earthly (ἐπίγειος 
as contrasted with ἐπουράνιος ; see reff.) 
tabernacle-house be dissolved, etc. De- 
spite the fact that he was himself a 
σκηνοποιός (Acts xviii. 3), this is the 
only place where St. Paul employs any 
of the terms correlative to σκηνή. It is 
natural to think of the temporary charac- 
ter of the σκῆναι used by the Chosen 
People in the desert wanderings, an idea 
which is probably present in 2 Pet. i. 14, 
ἡ ἀπόθεσις τοῦ σκηνώματός μου ; but the 
use of σκῆνος as a depreciatory term for 
the ‘bodily frame” (R.V. mg.) is bor- 
rowed, as Field has shown, from the 
Pythagorean philosophy. It is the 
‘* tenement house,” the ‘‘ earthen vessel ”’ 
(see iv. 7), and is called in Wisd. ix. 15, 
τὸ γεῶδες σκῆνος. καταλύειν (see reff.) 
is often used of the ‘‘ destruction” of a 
house; and the application of the word 
‘dissolution’”’ for death is probably 
derived from this passage.—oixoSopihy ἐκ 
Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.: we have (i.e., at the very 
moment of bodily dissolution, when the 
Resurrection takes place, according to 
the Apostle’s thought here; see Charles’ 
Eschatology, pp. 395, 400) a building 


VOL. III. 


μι 


from God, sc., not built up by the natural 
processes of growth but the direct gift of 
God, a house not made with hands (this 
being added to emphasise its ‘super- 
natural”? character; the σκῆνος of the 
natural body is also, of course, ἀχειρο- 
ποίητον, and so the idea is not as fitly 
in place as at Heb. ix. 11, 24, but it is 
suggested by the word οἰκία. It is just 
possible that his own trade of tent- 
making may have been in his mind at the 
moment), eternal, in the heavens. Cf. 
Luke xvi. 9, αἰωνίους σκηνάς ; as he has 
just said (iv. 18) τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰωνία. 
It will be observed that here aiwvios is 
used with the special intention of empha- 
sising the permanent character of the 
heavenly house, in contrast with the 
earthly house which is dissolved; it is 
therefore not accurate to say (as is some- 
times said) that aiwvfos never connotes 
length of time, although it is true that in 
St. John it is a ‘ qualitative” rather 
than a ‘‘ quantitative” term. 

Vv. 2, 3 and ver. 4 form two parallel 
sentences, both introduced by kai yap, 
of which either may be used to elucidate 
the other. Both bring out the Apostle’s 
shrinking from death, i.e., the act of 
dying, and his half-expressed anxiety that 
he may survive until the Day of Christ 
(cf. τ Thess. iv. 15). 

Ver. 2. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ κ.τ.λ.: for 
indeed in this, sc., in this tabernacle (cf. 
ver. 3), we groan, sc., being weighed down 
by the body, longing to be clothed upon, 
t.¢., to have the heavenly body put on 
in addition, like an outer garment over 
our mortal flesh, with our habitation 
which is from heaven, sc., which is brought 
thence by the Lord at His Coming (cf. 
1 Thess. iv. 16, Rev. xxi. 2,and Ascension 
of Isaiah (ed. Charles), iv. 16, ix. 17). 
The verb ἐπιποθεῖν always expresses in 
St. Paul a yearning for home; here it 
is used of the heavenly home-sickness of 
the saints. 

Ver. 3. εἴ ye καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ.;: 
if so be that (εἴ ye = siquidem; cf. Eph. 
iii, 2, iv. 21, Col. i. 23) we shall be found 


66 


{1 Cor. xv. 
4, etc. 

κ Reff. i. 8. 
1 Here only 
in Paul. 
m Reff. ii. 7. 


ἢ Refi.iv.11. τῇ ἧς. 
ο Reff. i. 22. ΤῊΝ ζωῆς 


chaps. vii. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


3. εἴ! γε καὶ ᾿ ἐνδυσάμενοι” οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα. 4. καὶ γὰρ οἱ 
ὄντες ἐν τῷ σκήνει ὅ στενάζοµεν “ βαρούμενοι,! ἐπειδὴ > οὐ θέλομεν 
᾿ ἐκδύσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπενδύσασθαι, ἵνα ' καταποθῇ τὸ " θνητὸν ὃ ὑπὸ 
5. ὁ δὲ κατεργασάμενος ἴ ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο Θεὸς," ὁ 
pVer.8; καὶ οοὺς ἡμῖν τὸν ’ ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ " Πνεύματος. 


Vv. 


6. "θαρροῦντες 


16, x. 1,2; οὖν πάντοτε, καὶ εἰδότες ὅτι “ ἐνδημοῦντες !° "ἐν τῷ " σώματι “ ἐκδη- 


Heb. xiii. 


6only. q Vv.8,gonly; cf. viii. 1ο. τ 


p. xii. 2,3; Heb. xiii. 4. 


1S9CKLP support εἰ ye; BDEG 17 have ειπερ. 
2D*, ἆ, ε, g have εκδνσαµενοι; G εκλνσαµενοι. 
* DEG, d, e, f, g, the Syriac and Bohairic vss. give σκηνει τοντφ. 


*D*G have βαρυνομενοι. 


δ ἐπειδὴ is found in a few cursives only; the uncials give εφ’ φ. 
® G, g and the Bohairic have θνητον τοντο. 


7 DEG, ἆ, e, f, g, πὶ κατεργαζοµενος. 


δ has o Ocos. 


®SycDbcEKL and the Harclean insert καὶ before δους; the better authorities 


omit it. 
10 D*G have ἐπιδημουντες. 


also clothed, sc., with the heavenly body 
(note ἐνδνσ., not ἐπένδυσ., which would 
only be appropriate of the body to be 
“‘ superindued ᾽ in the case of one surviv- 
ing to the Second Advent), not naked, sc., 
disembodied spirits at the Day of His 
Appearing, a condition from the thought 
of which he shrinks. γυμνός was com- 
monly used in this sense in Greek philo- 
sophy; Alford quotes Plato, Cratyl., p. 
2776) ἡ ψυχὴ γυμνὴ τοῦ — (see 
1 Cor. xv. 37) ; cf. also Philo de Hum., 4, 
τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπογυμνουμένης. 

Ver. 4. καὶ γὰρ οἱ ὄντες κιτιλ.: for 
indeed we who are in the body (see ver. 1) 
groan, being burdened (cf. Wisd. ix. 15, 
φθαρτὸν σῶμα βαρύνει ψυχήν), not for 
that (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ; cf. Rom. ν. 12) we would be 
unclothed (cf. 2 Esdras ii. 45) but clothed 
upon, that what is mortal may be swal- 
lowed up of life, i.e., that the mortal body 
may, without passing through death, be 
absorbed, as it were, in the heavenly 
body which is to be superindued (cf. Isa. 
xxv. 8). The double metaphor in these 
verses from that of a house to that of a 
garment is quite in St. Paul’s manner, 
Stanley finds the explanation of both “ in 
the image which both from his occupation 
and his birthplace would naturally occur 
to the Apostle, the tent of Cilician hair- 
cloth, which might almost equally suggest 
the idea of a habitation and of a vesture” 
(cf. Ps. civ. 2). The truth is that no 
single metaphor could possibly convey to 
the mind a true conception of heaven or 
of the condition of the blessed. We may 


speak of the heavenly home as a place 
(οἰκητήριον), but we have to remind our- 
selves that it is rather a state here ex- 
pressed by the image of heavenly vesture, 

Ver. 5. ὁ δὲ κατεργασάμενος κ.τ.λ. : 
now He that worked us up for this very 
thing, sc., the change from mortality to 
life, is God (cf. iv. 6 and especially 1. 21 
for the form of the sentence), who gave 
to us the earnest of the Spirit; cf. Rom. 
viii. τι. The “ Holy ΕΝ of promise” 
is ‘an earnest of our inheritance " (Eph, 
i. 14; see above on i, 22). 

Some theologians, ¢.g., Martensen, take 
a somewhat different view of vv. 1-5, and 
interpret them as implying St. Paul's belief 
in a body of the intermediate state be- 
tween death and judgment, distinct at 
once from the “ earthly tabernacle” and 
the “‘ heavenly house,” which latter will 
be “superindued”’ at the Second Advent. 
But (a) there is no hint elsewhere in the 
N.T. of such an ad interim body; (δ) the 
**house” which ‘we have” at death is 
described in ver. 1 not as temporary, but 
as “eternal”. This it is which enables 
him to face death with courage; he 
would shrink from any γυμνότης or dis- 
embodied condition, and—so far as the 
“ body” is concerned—he does not con- 
template any further change at the Day 
of Judgment. If it might be so, he is 
reverently anxious to live until the 
Parousia, and then to be “ superindued "; 
but even if he is to pass through the gate 
of death he is content. See Salmond’s 
Christian Doctr. of Immortality, p. 565 ff. 


3—I0. 


μοῦμεν 1 ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου 3: 7. διὰ πίστεως γὰρ " περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ 
διὰ " εἴδους - 8. θαρροῦμεν * δὲ, καὶ " εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον ἐκδημῆσαι 
ἐκ ὅ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν Κύριον. 

9. Διὸ καὶ ’ φιλοτιμούμεθα, etre’ ἐνδημοῦντες, εἴτε ἐκδημοῦντες, 


Υ εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι. 


tal a a “A , 
δεῖ ” ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ” βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα " κομίσηται ἕκαστος 
τὰ ὃ S149 τοῦ σώματος, πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν, εἴτε κακόν.]0 


8, iii, 1; 2 Thess. ii. 12. 


10; Phil. iv. 18; Col. iii. 20; Wisd. iv. το, ix. 10. 
xxi. 36; Acts xviii. 17; 1 Thess. i. 3, ii. 19, iii. 9, 13. Ν 
a Eph, vi. 8; Col. iii. 25; 2 Macc. vili. 33. 


Rom. xiv. το, etc. 


1 DEG have αποδηµουµεν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


v Rom. xv. 20; 1 Thess, iv. 11 only. 


67 


> 3s Reff. iv. 2. 

t Lk. iii. 22, 
ix. 29; 
John v. 
37; 1 
Thess. v. 
22 only; 
Exod. 


το. τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡμᾶς * φανερωθῆναι ne 17. 
u 


om. Xv. 
26, 27; 
chap. xii. 
10; I 
: Thess. ii. 
ly w Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Eph. v. 
x Reff. ii. 14. y Matt. x. 32, xxv. 32; Lk. 
z Matt. xxvii. 19; Acts xviii, 12, xxv. 6; 


2 D*G, d, e, g and the Bohairic give Θεου for Kuptov. 


3 G, ἢ, g have και ov δια. 
δν om. εκ. 


4 17 have θαρρουντες. 
5 D* 17 have Θεον for Κυριον. 


7 The Peshitto and f, g give the order ειτε εκδ. ειτε ενδ. 


8 D*G have a δια του σωματος επραξεν. 


® The Latin vss. (propria corporis) testify to a variant ιδια for δια. 


1 BDEGKLP have κακον; ΝΟ 17 have φαυλον (probably an early correction 
introduced from Rom. ix. 11; it is, however, adopted by Tisch. and W.H.). 


Vv. 6-8. IN ANY CASE TO BE WITH 
CHRIST IS BEST.—Ver. 6. θαρροῦντες 
οὖν k.T.A.: being therefore, sc.,on account 
of “the earnest of the Spirit’ (ver. 5), 
always, sc., in any event, whether we die 
before the Day of Christ or survive to see 
it in the flesh, of good courage, and know- 
ing that whilst we are at home in the 
body (see reff.) we are absent from the 
Lord, sc., from Christ, our true home. 
The O.T. phrase that man is a sojourner 
only (παρεπίδημος) on the earth (Ps. 
XXxvili. 13; cf. Heb. xi. 13) is verbally 
comparable with this ἐνδημοῦντες .. . 
ἐκδημοῦμεν ; but the idea here is rather 
that of the body as the temporary habi- 
tation of the man’s self (cf. ver. 1). We 
are citizens of earth, but our true πολί- 
τευμα is ἐν οὐρανοῖς (Phil. iii. 20). 

Ver. 7. διὰ πίστεως γὰρ K.T.A.: for 
we walk by faith (cf. John xx. 29, and 
chap. iv. 18),-7z.e., in a state of faith (see 
note on διά with the gen. of attendant 
circumstances ii. 4), not by appearance 
(εἶδος, as the reff. show, must be thus 
translated = quod aspicitur ; but neverthe- 
less the rendering of A.V. and R.V. ‘not 
by sight,” though verbally inexact, con- 
veys the sense. Cf. Heb. xi. 1, ἔστιν 
δὲ πίστις . . . πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ 
βλεπομένων, and τ Cor. xiii. 12). The 
verse is parenthetical and explanatory of 
the sense in which we are ‘‘ absent from 
the Lord”’. 


Ver. 8. θαρβοῦμεν δὲ κ.τ.λ.: nay (the 
δέ is resumptive of the thought in ver. 
6, which has been interrupted by ver. 7, 
the grammatical structure involving an 
anacoluthon), we are of good courage 
(for this is demanded even of the most 
faithful by the prospect of death) and are 
well-pleased (see reff. for cases where 
εὐδοκεῖν is used of men, not of God) 
rather to be away from the home of the 
body and to be at home with the Lord 
(cf. John i. 1 for such a use of πρός). 
Even if we must die before the Second 
Advent, we would say, we are content, 
for this absence from the body will be 
presence with Christ (cf. Luke xxiii. 43, 
Phil, i. 21-23), though the glory of that 
Presence shall not be fully manifested 
until the Day of the Parousia. 

Vv. 9,10. WE MUST REMEMBER THE 
JUDGMENT TO COME.—Ver. 9. διὸ καὶ 
φιλοτιμούμεθα κ.τ.λ.; wherefore also we 
make it our ambition (see reff.), whether 
at home or away from home, sc., whether 
at His coming He finds us ‘‘ in the body ”’ 
or * out of the body,” to be well pleasing 
to Him; cf. Rom. xiv. 8, Phil. i. 20, 1 
Thess. v. το, 

Ver. το. τοὺς γὰρ πάντας κ.τ.λ.: for 
(explanatory of the reason of our desire 
to be “well-pleasing’’ to Him) we all 
(τοὺς πάντας is emphatic, not only Paul 
who has been speaking of himself as 
ἡμεῖς, but “all of us” quick as well as 


68 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


γ. 


τι "μι 11. εἰδότες οὖν τὸν " φόβον τοῦ ἢ" Κυρίου, ἀνθρώπους πείθομεν, Θεῷ 


XXXV. 5; 
chap. vii. 
1 and 


πεφανερῶσθαι. 


21. 
ς Reff. i. 12. 
d Reff. iii. 1. 


δὲ πεφανερώμεθα: ἐλπίζω δὲ καὶ ἐν ταῖς “σσυνειδήσεσιν ὑμῶν 
12. οὐ yap! πάλιν “ ἑαυτοὺς " συνιστάνομεν ὑμῖν, 
ἀλλὰ " ἀφορμὴν διδόντες ἡμῖν 2 καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ἔχητε 


e Rom. vii. 8, 11; chap. xi. 12; Gal. v. 13; 1 Tim. v. 14 only; Prov. ix. 9; 3 Macc. iii. 4. 


1 DcEKL support yap; om. all vss. and RBCD*G. 
2 B*, ἆ, e support διδοντες ηµιν; better υμιν with all other authorities. 
5 9B 17 have (wrongly) vpwv ; ἡμῶν all other authorities. 


dead) must be made manifest. The A.V. 
‘‘appear” weakens the force of the 
word; the Day of Judgment is to be a 
day when men’s characters shall be made 
patent to the world, and to themselves, 
as they have always been to God; οἵ, 
Mark iv. 22, Rom. ii. 16, xiv. 1ο, 1 Cor. 
iv. 5, Rev. xx. 12.--ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήμ. 
κ.τ.λ.: before the judgment-seat ο 

Christ. In the N.T. (see reff.) βῆμα is 
always used (except in the quotation 
Acts vii. 5) of the official seat of a judge, 
although twice in the LXX (Neh. viii. 4, 
2 Macc. xiii. 26), as generally in classical 
Greek, it stands for the pulpit from which 
a formal speech is made.—tva κομίσηται 
ἕκαστος κ.τ.λ.: that each one may re- 
ceive, i.e., obtain the es of (see reff.), 
the things done rraetionn ἡ the medium of 
the body (cf. Plato's phrase αἰσθήσεις αἱ 
διὰ τοῦ σώματος, cited by Meyer; there 
is no need to identify διὰ τοῦ σώματος 
with ἐν τῷ σώματι of ver. 6 as the A.V. 
and R.V. do) according to what he did, 
sc., in this present life (note the aorist 
and cf. Luke xii. 47), whether it be good 
or bad (cf., for this constr. of «ire... 
εἴτε, Eph. vi. 8, Phil. i. 18). Similar 
expressions are used of a future judg- 
ment, at, ¢.g., Ps. lxi. 13, Prov. xxiv. 12, 
Jer. xvii. το, xxxii. 19 (cf. Job xxxiv. 11 2) 
in the O.T., and in the N.T. at Rom. ii. 
6, xiv. 12, 1 Pet. i. 17, in all of which 
passages the power of judgment is as- 
cribed to the Eternal Father. But He 
‘hath given all judgment unto the Son” 
(John v. 22), and thus Christ is repeatedly 
spoken of as the future Judge of men, 
e.g., Matt. xvi. 27, Acts xvii. 31, Rev. ii. 
23, xxii. 12, and esp. Matt. xxv. 31-46. 
Ο/. Luke xxi. 36, σταθῆναι ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ 
υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπον. And so (from the 
present verse) the variant Χριστοῦ has 
crept into the parallel passage, Rom. xiv. 
1Ο,πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι 
τοῦ Θεοῦ. A reference to the O.T. 
parallels makes it tolerably plain that 
the statement that men will be judged 


according to their works is a broad and 
general one, and that to find a difficulty, 
as the Fathers did, in the case of the 
death of infants (whether baptised or 
unbaptised), who are incapable of self- 
conscious and voluntary actions, is quite 
perverse, 

Vv. 11-13. REITERATION OF HIS SIN- 
CERITY OF PURPOSE.—Ver. 11, € 
οὖν τὸν φόβον κ.τ.λ.: knowing, there- 
fore, sc., because of the conviction ex- 
pressed in ver. 10, the fear of the Lord, 
sc.,as Judge (cf. Heb. x. 31), we persuade 
men, sc., of our sincerity, but we have been 
(already) made manifest to God, as we 
shall be at the Day of Judgment (see ver. 
το). Toregard πείθομεν (cf. Acts xii. 20, 
Gal. i. το) as referring to a“ persuading” 
of the truths of Christianity is to depart 
from the context. He is now returning 
to the question at iii. 1, and he has ex- 
plained the motives of his ministry and 
the obligations to sincerity of speech 
which bind him. We should expect (in 
classical Greek) ἀνθρώπους μὲν weld, 
κ.τ.λ., but the omission of μέν does not 
destroy, though it obscures, the anti- 
thesis. It would be out of place to speak 
of ‘‘ persuading" God of our sincerity ; to 
Him we are “made manifest” whether 
we will or πο.-- ἐλπίζω δὲ κ.τ.λ.: and 
I hope (as we say, “1 trust”) we have 
been made Μίκι ἐΣ also in your con- 
sciences ; see iv. 2 for a similar appeal. 

Ver. 12. οὐ yap πάλιν κ.τ.λ.; we 
are not again (see iii. 1, and the note 
there; he takes up this theme again after 
along digression) commending ourselves 
to you, but [write these things) as givi 
you occasion of glorying on our behalf. 
We must understand in the latter clause 
some such words as γρά ταῦτα: 
there are similar anacolutha at Vii. 5, viii. 
18.—tva ἔχητε πρὸς τοὺς κ.τ.λ.;: that ye 
may have tt, sc., some καύχημα or matter 
of glorying, against those who glory in 
outward appearance and not in heart, 
δε., against his opponents at Corinth. 


11. - τὸ. 


A να ’ Ν ΡΥ 
πρὸς τοὺς ἐν ' προσώπῳ καυχωμένους, καὶ οὐ 
γὰρ “ἐξέστημεν, Θεῷ’ εἴτε Be ela ὑμῖν. 


τοῦ | Χριστοῦ ὃ " συνέχει ἡμᾶς, 15. 


ΠΡΟΣ. ΚΟΡΙΝΘΊΟΥΣ 


69 


καρδία.” 13, etre (1 


oat ς Thess. ii. 
alae. ᾿ἀγάπη 


17 and on 
chap. 1.11, 


'kptvavtas τοῦτο, ὅτι εἰ" εἷς ὑπὲρ g acre only 


n Paul; 


πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον: καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέ- cf: Mk. 


ili. 21. 


θανεν; ἵνα ot ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν h Rom. xii. 


11, 6. 


i Rom. viii. 35; Eph. iii. 19. 
XViii. 5. 


1 Cf. Acts xv. 1ο. 


3 Tit. 


k Phil. i. 23 only in Paul; cf. Lk. viii. 37, xii. 50; Acts 


1 CDcEKLP have ov (D*G have ουκ); better µη with NB 17. 
2 CDcEKLP give καρδιᾳ ; better ev καρδ. with RBD*G 17, 
3 CP 17 and the Harclean have Θεου for Χριστου. 


4 ΦΟΝ, f and the Bohairic insert ει; 


om. &*BC2DEGKLP, ἃ, e, g and the Syriac 


vss. (it may have been dropped through inadvertence before ets). 


δα, f, g, etc. give απεθανεν Χριστος. 


The phrase προσώπῳ οὐ καρδίᾳ occurs 
in 1 Thess. ii. 17 in the sense of eee 
ov σώματι (cf. τ Cor. v. 3, Col. ii. 5); 
but a better parallel for the present 
passage is 1 Sam. xvi. 7, where Samuel is 
told that while man looks εἰς πρόσωπον, 
God looks εἰς καρδίαν. So St. Paul 
here refers to teachers who lay stress on 
the outward appearance and the ‘‘face”’ 
(see note i. 11) of things, such asa man’s 
enthusiasms and visions (xii. 1 and ver. 
13), or his eloquence (chap. x. 10), or his 
letters of commendation (iii. 1), or his 
Jewish birth (xi. 22), or his personal in- 
timacy in the flesh with Christ (ver. 16) 
—rather than on the inward motive and 
“heart” of his message. 

Ver. 13. εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν «.T.A.: 
for whether (see on i. 6 for constr.) 
we are beside ourselves, it is unto 
God; or whether we are of sober 
mind, it is unto you (note the dat. com- 
modi). At a later period Festus told 
Paul that he-was mad (Acts xxvi. 24), 
so impressed was he with the Apostle’s 
enthusiasm; and it is probable that the 
anti-Pauline party at Corinth were not 
slow to point to the ‘visions and re- 
velations of the Lord” which St. Paul 
claimed for himself (chap. xii. 1-6), and 
to the facility with which he spoke 
“with tongues” (1 Cor. xiv. 18), as 
proofs of his madness. A similar accusa- 
tion was made against his Master (Mark 
iii. 21). But St. Paul bids them (ver. 
12) look a little deeper, and not judge 
by mere outward phenomena such as 
these. He repeatedly asks them to bear 
with his seeming foolishness (chap. xi. 
I, 16, 17, xii. 6, 11). It is possible that 
a charge of a contrary nature had been 
also made by his opponents, and that 


his regard for other men’s prejudices (τ 
Cor. ix. 20), and the ‘‘craftiness”’ with 
which he caught the Corinthians “ with 
guile’”’ (chap. xii. 16), were urged as 
savouring more of worldly wisdom than 
of true piety. His answer to both charges 
is contained in this verse. If he has ex- 
ceeded the bounds of moderation, it is 
in his moods of highest devotion, when 
he is pouring out his soul to God and 
not to man; if he has exercised a sober 
prudence in his dealings with his con- 
verts, it is all for their sakes, and not for 
selfish ends. 

Vv. 14-16. IT Is NoT THE KNnow- 
LEDGE OF CHRIST IN His EARTHLY LIFE, 
BUT THE LOVE WHICH CHRIST HAS FOR 
MAN THAT IS THE CONSTRAINING POWER 
OF Ῥαυν) 5 PREACHING.—Ver. 14. ἢ γὰρ 
ἀγάπη τοῦ Χρ. κ.τ.λ.: for the Love of 
Christ constraineth us, sc., within the 
limits laid down in ver. 13. The words 
are often quoted as meaning that the love 
which Christians bear to Christ is the 
supreme motive of the Christian life; 
but however true this is in itself, it is not 
the meaning of the Apostle here. The 
genitive of the person after ἀγάπη is in 
St, Paul’s Epistles always subjective (cf. 
η ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, Rom. v. 5, viii. 39, 
chap. xili. 13, 2 Thess. iii. 5, and cf, also 
Rom. ἂν. 30, Eph. ii. 4, Col. i, 13, and 
for 4 ay. τοῦ Xp. reff. above); z.e., “the 
Love of God” and ‘‘ the Love of Christ "ἢ 
signify with him the love which God and 
Christ bear towards (εἰς) man, (St. Paul 
often uses the verb ἀγαπάω to express 
man’s love to God, but never the sub- 
stantive ἀγάπη). St. John’s usage varies, 
the genitive sometimes being objective 
and sometimes subjective (cf. John v. 42 
and i John ii, 5, 15, iii. 17, iv. 9, Υ. 33 


70 
m Ἐν exis ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι. 


ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


γ. 


16. ὥστε ἡμεῖς “ ἀπὸ ™ τοῦ ™ νῦν οὐδένα 


48; Jobn οἴδαμεν "κατὰ "σάρκα" εἰ δὲ] καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ" σάρκα Χριστὸν, 


viii. 11; 
Acts 


xviii. 6. n Reff. i. 17. 


1 The best supported reading is ει και $*BD* 17; G, the Latins and the Peshitto 
have και ει; ΝΕΟ ΡΟΕΕΚΙ, and the Harclean ει δε και; K and the Bohairic ει δε. 


2 DE, ἃ, e and the Bohairic have Xp. κατα σαρκα. 


see also Luke xi. 42), but St. Paul's is not 
doubtful. The ‘‘ Love of Christ” here, 
then, is the love which Christ has for us, 
not the love which we bear to Him; the 
constraining power of Christian ministra- 
tion and service is more effective and 
stable than it would be if it sprang from 
the fickle and variable affections of men 
(cf. John xv. 16). 

Ver. 15. κρίναντας τοῦτο ὅτι els 
κ.τ.λ.: judging this; that One died for 
all (cf. Rom. ν. 15), therefore all died, 
and He died for all, that they who live 
(see iii. 11) should no longer live unto 
themselves, but unto Him who died and 
rose again for them. To die ὑπὲρ τῶν 
φίλων αὐτοῦ is the greatest proof that 
anyone can offer of his love (John xv. 13). 
The proof to us of the Love of Christ to 
all is that He died ὑπὲρ πάντων. Of this 
Death two consequences are now men- 
tioned: (a) one objective and inevitable, 
quite independent of our faith and obedi- 
ence; (b) another subjective and condi- 
tional. (a) ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον, then 
all died, sc., in Him who is the " reca- 
pitulation” of all humanity, Jew and 
Greek, bond and free, faithless or believ- 


Death and our benefit: it was “ for our 
sake,” “on our behalf” (e.g., Luke xxii. 
19, 20, John x. 15, xi. 51, Rom. v. 6, 1 
Cor. i. 13, Gal. iii, 13, Eph. v. 2, Heb. ii. 
9, 1 John iii. 16). It is not equivalent to 
ἀντί, “ instead of’ (although in Philemon 
13 its meaning approximates thereto), and 
ought not to be so translated; although 
the preposition ἀντί is used of our Lord’s 
Atoning Work in three places (Matt. xx. 
28, Mark x. 45, 1 Tim. ii. 6), and the 
implied metaphor must have a place in 
any complete theory of the Atonement. 
But here ὑπέρ is (as usual) used, and the 
rendering ‘instead of,” even if linguis- 
tically possible (which it is not), is ex- 
cluded by the fact that in the phrase ὑπὲρ 
αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερϑέντι, ὑπὲρ 
αὐτῶν is governed by both participles. 
Christ rose again ‘‘on our behalf’; He 
is never said to have risen “instead of 
Ver. 16. ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν 
κ.τ.λ.: so that, sc., ause of our con- 
viction, that we should not live unto 
ourselves but unto Christ (ver. 15), we, 
sc., Paul as contrasted with his opponents 
at Corinth, from henceforth, sc., this con- 


ing. We must not weaken the force of viction having mastered us, know no 


οἱ πάντες: the Incarnation embraces all 
men (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22). The A.V. “then 
were all dead”’ (the same mistranslation 
occurs Rom. vi. 2, Col. iii. 3) does not 
bring out the sense, which is that the 
Dying of Christ on the Cross was in some 
sort the dying of all mankind. But (0) 
the purposes of the Atonement are not 
completely fulfilled without the response 
of man’s faith and obedience; He died 
for all, ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες κ.τ.λ. This is the 
frequent exhortation of St. Paul (Rom. 
vi. 11 and see 1 Pet. iii. 18); the purpose 
of Christ’s Death is to lead us to Life, a 
life ‘unto God” (cf. Rom. vi. 11, xiv. 7, 
8)—the ‘life indeed” (1 Tim. vi. το) 
which must be begun here if it is to be 

erfected hereafter. The preposition 
ὑπέρ, ‘on behalf of" (cf. chap. xii. το), 
employed in these verses is the one 
usually employed in the N.T. to express 
the relation between Christ’s Atoning 


man after the fresh, i.é., are quite in- 
different as to his mere external quali- 
fications as a preacher of the Gospel, 
his eloquence, Jewish birth, etc.: we 
are not like those who glory ἐν π 

and not ἐν καρδίᾳ (ver. 12); cf. Gal. 
ii. 6.—el καὶ ώκαμεν κ.τ.λ.:; even 
though we have known (the — 
between οἴδαμεν and ἐγνώκαμεν is hardl 
to be pressed) Christ after the flesh, 
i.e., though there was a time in my life 
when I, like my Judaising opponents 
now, laid great stress on the local and 
hereditary, and, so to speak, 

“notes’’ of the Messiah who was to 
come, yet now we know Him so no more, 
i.e., 1 know better now, for I have learnt 
since my conversion that the national 
Messiah of the Jews is Himself the In- 
carnate Word, to whom every race οἱ 
men is alike related, for He is the Christ 
of the Catholic Church of God. In per- 


a tae 


16—17. 


ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκ ἔτι γινώσκομεν.ὶ 


Ῥ κτίσις - τὰ “ ἀρχαῖα "παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονε καινὰ TA? πάντα. 


14; cf. Rom. viii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. ii. 10, 13. 


Paul. τ Here only in Paul. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


17. ὥστε εἴ τις “ἐν “Χριστῷ, " καινὴ 9 


ἼΙ 


Rom. xvi 
7; chap. 
ΧΙ]. 2; 
Gal. i. 22; 
1 Pet. v. 


p Gal. vi. 15 and see below. q Here only in 


1 DEG, d, e, g add κατα σάρκα (to clear up the sense) after γινωσκ. 


2 DbcEKLP and the Harclean support καινα τα παντα; the stronger combination, 
NBCD%*G, the Latins and the Bohairic, omit τα παντα. 


sonal religion the merely historical must 
yield precedence to the mystical element ; 
it is of great interest and of real value to 
learn all that can be known about the 
Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection of 
Jesus of Nazareth, but it is the present 
Life of Christ, ‘‘in whom” we may be 
found if we will, that is of religious im- 
port, as is further explained in ver. 17. 
This ‘‘is the same feeling which appears 
in the fact... that no authentic or 
even pretended likeness of Christ should 
have been handed down from the first 
century; that the very site of His dwell- 
ing place at Capernaum should have been 
entirely obliterated from human memory; 
that the very notion of seeking for relics 
of His life and death, though afterwards 
so abundant, first began in the age of Con- 
stantine. It is the same feeling which, 
in the Gospel narratives themselves, is 
expressed in the almost entire absence of 
precision as to time and place ”’ (Stanley). 
Beyschlag and others (see Knowling, 
Witness of the Epistles, p. 2) conclude 
from the words εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ 
σάρκα Χριστόν that St. Paul had seen, 
and possibly heard, Jesus during His 
public ministry at Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor. 
ix. I); on this interpretation the words 
would be introduced at this point to 
indicate that, however much stress the 
other Apostles and their adherents might 
lay on such outward knowledge, yet to 
St. Paul, though he could lay claim to 
it as well as they, this did not seem the 
essential matter. But (a) the words do 
not necessarily imply this; it is note- 


— worthy that-he says Χριστόν, not Ἰησοῦν, 


which we should expect on Beyschlag’s 
hypothesis. (b) The explanation given 
above is quite in accordance with the 
usage of κατὰ σάρκα with a verb (see 
reff.), and the order of the words here 
and in the preceding clause does not 
allow us to take κατὰ σάρκα with οὐδένα 
in the one case and with Χριστόν in the 
other. (c) As Schmiedel points out, if 
St. Paul really had had personal experi- 
ence of the public ministry of Jesus, he 
would hardly have failed to mention it 


in the great apologetic passage, chap. xi. 
22-33. Other writers, 6.ς., Jowett, ex- 
plain the latter clause of this verse by 
supposing that the Apostle is contrasting 
his more mature preaching with his 
preaching at an earlier stage of his 
Christian ministry when he had not yet 
emancipated himself from Jewish pre- 
judices. But of his consciousness of 
such a “development” in his views, 
subsequently to his conversion, there is 
no trace in the Epistles. The contrast 
is really between Saul the Pharisee and 
Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

Vv. 17-19. IN CHRIST ALL IS NEW, 
AS FROM GOD WHO RECONCILED THE 
WORLD TO HIMSELF IN ΟΗΕΙΡΤ.--- Ψετ. 
17. ὥστε εἴ τις κ.τ.λ.: 5ο that (a con- 
sequence of the higher view of Christ 
explained in the last verse) if any man 
(note the universality of the doctrine 
which he expounds) be in Christ, there 
is a new creation. To be ἐν Χριστῷ is 
a very different thing from claiming to 
Ρε Χριστοῦ “' of Christ,” sc., of the Christ- 
party (1 Cor. i. 12, chap. x. 7); this in- 
deed is exactly the distinction which St. 
Paul has had in mind in the last verse. 
The expression ‘‘a new creation” was a 
common Rabbinical description of a con- 
verted proselyte (see Wetstein in loc.); 
but its meaning was enriched in the 
religion of the Incarnation (cf. John iii. 
3, Rom. vi. 4, Eph. ii. το, iv. 23, Col. iii. 
το, etc.). The Vulgate “si qua ergo in 
Christo nova creatura,’”’ which takes τις 
with κτίσις, is plainly a mistake.—7a 
ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν κ.τ.λ.: the old things 
have passed away; behold, they are be- 
come new, sc., not only the ancient 
customs of Jewish ritual observance, but 
the old ways of conceiving of the Messiah 
who was to come; more generally, the 
old thoughts of God and of sin and salva- 
tion have received fresh colouring—they 
are ‘‘become πεν/ (cf. Heb. viii. 13). 
The words of Isa. xliii. 18, το offer a 
close verbal parallel: τὰ ἀρχαῖα μὴ 
συλλογίζεσθε- ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ποιῶ καινὰ (cf. 
Isa. Ixv. 17, Rev. xxi. 4, 5), but the 
parallel is rather in words than in sense. 





---- 


72 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B ν. 


* Rom. εἰ. 18. τὰ δὲ "πάντα "ἐκ tod! "Θεοῦ, τοῦ " καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ 


1Cor 


vill 6, xi διὰ Ἰησοῦ 2 Χριστοῦ, καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς "καταλλαγῆς" 


t Rom. v. 
10; 1 Cor. 
Vii. 11, 
and vv. 


19, 20 


only; Jer. xxxi. 39 (LXX); 2 Macc. i. 5, vii. 33, viii. 29; of. Ko ii. 16; Col. i. 20, 21. 


v. 11, xi. 15, 19 only; Isa. ix. 5; 4 Macc. ν. 20. 
vi. 14; Rom. iv. 25, etc. 


1 D*G om. του. 


19. Yds "ὅτι Θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ 
᾿λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ “παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν 


u Rom. 
v Chap. a1; 2 Thess. ii. 2 only. w Matt. 


2 DcEKL support "Ino. Χρ.; NBCD*GP and the vss. om. Ἴησου. 


The thought of the new interpretation 
of life offered in the Incarnation carries 
us a step beyond the prophets of the Old 
Covenant. St. Paul’s words show how 
completely he regarded “the Death of 
Christ as a new epoch in the history of 
the human race. Had he foreseen dis- 
tinctly that a new era would be dated 
from that time; that a new society, 
philosophy, literature, moral code, would 
grow up from it over continents of which 
he knew not the existence; he could not 
have more strongly expressed his sense 
of the greatness of the event than in 
what is here said” (Stanley). 

Ver. 18. τὰ δὲ πάντα κ.τ.λ.; but all 
things, sc., all these new things, are of 
God. See reff. St. Paul is especially 
anxious in this Epistle to trace up spir- 
itual blessings to their true source; see 
chap. i. 21, iv. 6, v. 5, and cf. 1 Cor. iii. 
23, ὑμεῖς δὲ Χ ῦ, Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ. 
--τοῦ καταλλάξαντος κ.τ.λ.; who recon- 
ciled (note the aorist) us, sc., all mankind, 
to Himself through Christ. The words 
καταλλ καταλλαγή should be 
studied (see reff.) in all the contexts where 
they occur. The verb signifies (i.) to 
exchange and (ii.) to reconcile, i.¢., to re- 
establish friendly relations between two 
parties who are estranged, no matter on 
which side the antagonism exists. Thus 
in Matt. v. 24 it is the brother who has 
given offence (not he who has received it) 
that is spoken of as “ being reconciled "’ 
to the other (cf. also 1 Sam. xxix. 4). And 
so too St. Paul’s usage is to speak of man 
being reconciled to God, not of God being 
reconciled to man; but far too much has 
been made of this distinction. In fact, in 
2 Macc. (see reff.) the usage is the other 
way, for God is there always spoken of 
as ‘‘ being reconciled” to His servants. 
It is, no ιν, more reverent in such a 
matter to keep as close to the language 
of the N.T. as we can, and to speak 
nakedly of God “ being reconciled”’ to 
man might readily suggest false and un- 


worthy views as to the Supreme. But 


that St. Paul would have felt any diffi- | 


culty in such a phrase is very unlikely, 
The important point to observe in the 
present passage is that it is God Himself 
who is the ultimate Author of this Recon- 
ciliation ; cf. Rom. v. 8, viii. 31, 32, and 
especially John iii, 16. That the Recon- 
ciliationis ‘through Christ” is the heart 
of the Gospel of the Atonement (cf. Rom. 
iii. 24, Col. i, 20, εἰς.).---καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν 
κ.τ.λ.; and gave to us, sc., to me, Paul 
oe is not now thinking of others), the 

inistry of Reconciliation ; cf. chap. iii. 
9, ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης, the geni- 
tive in both cases being, of course, of the 
thing ministered. 

Ver. 19. ὡς ὅτι Θεὸς ἦν κιτιλ.: viz, 
that God was reconciling the world, 56.» 
the whole human race (cf. Rom. iv. 13, 
xi. 12, and note the a ce of the 
article), to Himself in Christ (cf. Gal. ii. 
17). The pleonastic ὡς ὅτι is not classi- 
cal, but it is found in late authors (see 
τεῦ). The A.V., ‘God was in Christ, 
reconciling,” etc., is not accurate; qv 

oes with both καταλλάσσων and θέμενος, 
ἣν with a participle being more emphatic 
than a simple imperfect es. Luke iv. 44). 
If we take ἦν with ἐν Χριστῷ, we sh 
have to treat θέμενος κ.τ.λ. as a parallel 
clause to λογιζόμενος κ.τ.λ., which it is 
not.—ph λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς κ.τ.λ.;: not 
reckoning unto them their trespasses, a 
parenthetical sentence explanatory of 
καταλλάσσων ; cf. Rom. iv. 8 (Ps. xxxii. 
2).---καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν κ.τ.λ.: and 
had στ. in our hands (cf. τ Thess. ν. 
9, 1 Tim. i. 12; the verb is specially used 
of the Divine purposes) the Word of Re- 
conciliation, t.e., the Divine M 
which speaks of reconciliation to God ; 
cf. Acts xiii. 26, ὁ λόγος τῆς 
ταύτης, ἵ Cor.i. 18, ὃ λόγος τοῦ σταυροῦ, 
Phil. 11. 16, λόγος ζωῆς, etc. 

Vv. 20-vi. 3. As Curist’s AMBASSA- 
DOR HE ENTREATS THE CORINTHIANS TO 
BE RECONCILED To Gop,—Ver. 20. ὑπὲρ 


18—2r1, 


tov! λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς. 


ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι ἡμῶν" 
καταλλάγητε” τῷ Θεῷ 21. τὸν γὰρ 
ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γινώμεθα ὃ "δικαιοσύνη " Θεοῦ 


iv. 12; 1 Thess. iii. 10. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


20. ὑπὲρ” Χριστοῦ οὖν ᾿ πρεσβεύομεν, * 


a Rom. 


73 


Eph. νι. 
20; Phil. 
3 , 3 =z τὰ ο. i. 20. 
δεόμεθα ὃ * ὑπὲρ τον ᾿ μα τῇ 
) ἧ ἧ 20 only. 
μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ cere 
1o;chaps, 
Viii. 4, Χ. 
> 2; Gal. 
i. 17, 111, 5, 21, 22, X. 3; Jas. i. 20; 2 Pet. i. 1 only 


1 D*EG, g have (του) εναγγελιου Tov λογον- 
2 D*G, d, e, g have ον υπερ Χρ. for υπερ Χρ. ovve 


3 D*G, ἆ, e, g have δεοµενοι. 
4 D*G, d, e, g and the Harclean margin 


give καταλλαγηναι. 


5 $cDcEKLP and the Syriac vss. insert yap; better om. yap with *BCD*G 17, 


the Latins and Bohairic. 
ὁ Only a few minuscules give γινωμεθα ; 


Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν κ.τ.λ.: we are 
ambassadors therefore, sc., because to us 4 
has been committed the Ministry of 
Reconciliation, on behalf of Christ, as 
Christ’s representative (see on ver. 15 
above for the force of ὑπέρ), as though 
God were entreating by us (cf. vi. 1 and 
see on i. 4). The construction of ὡς 
followed by a genitive absolute is found 
also at 1 Cor. iv. 18, 2 Pet. i. 3.---δεόμεθα 
ὑπὲρ Xp. κ.τ.λ.:; we beseech you on 
behalf of Christ, Be ye reconciled to God. 
The imperative καταλλάγητε is much 
more emphatic than the infinitive καταλ- 
λαγῆναι (see crit. note) would be; all 
through we perceive the Apostle’s anxiety 
that the Corinthians should turn from the 
sin which beset them, whatever it might 
be in any individual case (cf. ii. 16, iv. 
I, vi. I, xi. 3). Note that the appeal, 
‘Be ye reconciled to God,” is based on 
the fact (ver. 18) that God has already? 
‘reconciled us to Himself through Jesus 
Christ ”. 

Ver. 21. The very purpose of the 
Atonement was that men should turn 
from δἱΠ.-- τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν 
κιτιλ.: Him who knew no sin (observe 
μή rather than ov, as it is not so much 
the bare fact of Christ’s sinlessness that 
is emphasised, as God’s knowledge of 
this fact, which rendered Christ a possible 
Mediator) He made to be sin on our 
behalf. Two points are especially deserv- 
ing of attention here: (i.) That any man 
should be sinless (cf. Eccl. viii. 5) was an 
idea quite alien to Jewish thought and 
belief; and therefore the emphasis given 
to it by St. Paul, and the absolutely 
unqualified way in which it is laid down 
in a letter addressed to a community con- 
taining not only friends but foes who 
would eagerly fasten on any doubtful 


all the uncials have γενωμεθα. 


statement, show that it must have been 
regarded as axiomatic among Christians 
at the early date when this Epistle was 
written. The claim involved in the chal- 
lenge of Christ, τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει pe 
περὶ ἁμαρτίας (John viii. 46), had never 
been disproved, and the Apostolic age 
held that He was χωρὶς aGpaptias... 
ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἅμαρ- 
τωλῶν (Heb. iv. 15, vii. 26), and that 
ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν (1 John iii. 5; 
cf. St. Peter’s application of Isa. ΠΠ. ο at 
1 Pet. ii. 22). That He was a moral 
Miracle was certainly part of the primitive 
Gospel. (ii.) The statement ἁμαρτίαν 
ἐποίησεν is best understood if we recall 
the Jewish ritual on the Day of Atone- 
ment, when the priest was directed to 
“εἰ place’ the sins of the people upon the 
head of the scapegoat (Lev. xvi. 21), 
ἁμαρτία cannot be translated “' sin-offer- 
ing’’ (as at Lev. iv. 8, 21, 24, 34, v. 0-12), 
for it cannot have two different meanings 
in the same clause; and further it is 
contrasted with δικαιοσύνη, it means 
‘sin’? in the abstract. The penalties of 
sin were laid on Christ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, “on 
our behalf,” and thus as the Representa- 
tive of the world’s sin it becomes possible 
to predicate of Him the strange expression 
ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν (ποιέω being used 
here as at John v. 18, villi. 53, x. 33). 
The nearest parallel in the N.T. is γενό- 
μενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα (Gal. iii. 13); 
cf. also Isa. liii. 6, Rom. viii. 3, 1 Pet. 
11, 24.—tva ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα κ.τ.λ.: that 
we might become, sc., as we have be- 
come (note the force of the aorist), the 
righteousness of God in Him (cf. Jer. 
xxiii. 6, 1 Cor. i. 30, Phil. iii. g, and reff.). 
‘“‘Such we are in the sight of God the 
Father, as is the very Son of God Him- 
self. Let it be counted folly or frenzy or 


74 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΟΙΟΥΣ B γι, 


a Mk. xvi. διῶ 
ο. ἐν αὐτῷ. 
Cor. xvi. 
16; Jas. 
ii. 22 only. 


A ek VI. τ. "Συνεργοῦντες δὲ καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν μὴ "εἰς 
vill. 285 1” κενὸν τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ δέξασθαι ὑμᾶς 3- 2. (λέγει γὰρ, “ Καιρῷ 
°Sextd “ ἐπήκουσά σου, καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σωτηρίας “ ἐβοήθησά σοι -" 


b Gal. ii. 2; ἰδοὺ νῦν καιρὸς ᾿ εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἰδοὺ νῦν ἡμέρα σωτηρίας") 4. μηδεμίαν 


hil. ii. 


16;1 δὲν ἐμηδενὶ διδόντες " προσκοπὴν, ἵνα μὴ ᾿μωμηθῇ ἡ διακονία ‘+ 


Thess. iii. 

5 only; Isa. Ixv. 23. 

cf. Ps. xix. 2. ε Here only in Paul; οἱ. Acts 

1 Pet. ii. 5 only. g Chap. vii. 9; Phil. i. 28. 
i Chap. viii. 20 only; Prov. ix. 7; 


) D*E*G, d, e, g give παρακαλουντες. 
* D* om. vpas; ΝΟ 17 have ηµας. 


c Lk. iv. 19, 24; Acts x. 353 Phil. iv. 18 (Isa. lvi. 7) only. 
9 


d Here only; 
, xxi. 28. f Rom. xv. 16, 31; chap. viii. 12; 
h Here only ; c/. Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 9. 


isd. x. 14 only; cf. 2 Pet. ii. 13. 


5. D*G, ἃ, ες, g give καιρῳ yap λεγει. 


* DEG 73, the Latin, Sahidic and Syriac vss. add ἡμων after διακ. 


fury or whatsoever. It is our wisdom and 
our comfort; we care for no knowledge 
in the world but this, that man hath 
sinned and God hath suffered; that God 
hath made Himself the sin of men, and 
that men are made the righteousness of 
God" (Hooker, Serm.., ii., 6). 

CuapTer VI.—Ver. 1. συνεργοῦντες 
δὲ καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν κιτ.λ. : and working 
together (that is, with God, as is plain 
from chap. v. 20, and also in connexion 
with 1 Cor. iii. 9; cf. Acts xv. 4), we, 
sc., I, Paul, entreat also (cf. chap. v. 20, 
Θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι᾽ ἡμῶν) that ye 
receive not the grace of God (a general 
phrase, frequently used by St. Paul to 
express the favours and privileges offered 
to the members of the Church of Christ, 
not to be limited to grace given at any 
special moment, as, ¢.g., at baptism) in 
vain (see reff, and cf. Heb. xii. 15). Note 
that “the grace of God” may “re- 
ceived"’ in vain; it is offered, indepen- 
dently of man’s faith and obedience, but it 
will not profit without these. The choice 
in the Anglican Liturgy of vv. 1-ro as the 

pistle for the First Sunday in Lent, 
when the Ember Collect is said on behalf 
of those to be ordained in the next week, 
is especially happy; the magnificent de- 
scription of the characteristics and the 
conditions of a faithful Christian ministry 
(vv. 4-10) being prefaced by the solemn 
warning of vv. 1-3. 

Ver. 2. λέγει yap, Καιρῷ δεκτῷ 
κ.τ.λ.: for He, sc., God, saith (cf. Rom. 
ix. 15, Gal. iii. 16), “At an acceptable 
time I hearkene to thee, and in a day of 
salvation did I succour thee” (Isa. xlix. 
8. The whole verse is parenthetical, 
and is introduced to remind the Cor- 
inthians that the present dispensation is 
that dispensation of grace of which the 
"vere speaks; tanley pointed out that 

ξασθαι of ver. may well have sug- 


gested δεκτός, which in its turn suggested 
the quotation. The words in their original 
context are addressed by Jehovah to His 
Servant, while St. Paul takes them as 
addressed by God to His people; but, 
inasmuch as the Servant in the latter 
portion of Isaiah is the Representative 
of Israel, the application made by the 
Apostle is easily explicable.—l80d viv 
καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος κ.τ.λ.: behold now 
is the “ Acceptable Time," behold now is 
the “ Day of Salvation”. This is St. 
Paul’s comment. Observe that he does 
not say σήμερον (cf. Heb. iii. 7 ff.), but 
viv—not ‘to-day,’ but “the present 
dispensation”. His point here is not (as 
it is often represented) that the only day 
of grace which we can reckon on is the 
present (gravely true though this is), but 
that the Christian dispensation is the one 
spoken of by the O.T. prophet in familiar 
words. It will be remembered that Christ 
applied to Himself and His ministry in 
like manner the words of Isa. ἱχὶ, 2, 
καλέσαι ἐνιαντὸν Κυρίον δεκτόν (Luke iv. 
19). We are not to draw any distinction 
here between δεκτός and εὐπρόσδεκτος ; 
the latter is the usual word in secular 
authors, and (see reff.) is always used by 
St. Paul, except (Phil. iv. 18) in a quota- 
tion from the LXX, 

Ver. 3. μηδεμίαν ἐν μηδενὶ κ.τ.λ.: 
giving πὸ occasion of stumbling (see 
reff.; Alford aptly quotes Polybius, 
xxvii., 6, 10, διδόναι ἀφορμὰς προσκοπῆς) 
in anything, that our ministration be not 
blamed. The clause is parallel with ver. 
1, διδόντες corresponding to σννερ- 
γοῦντες, both being descriptive of the 
way in which παρακαλοῦμεν, etc. ; cf., for 
like sentiments, 1 poor 13, ix. κε ο. 
x. 33. We have Ψος ο 
rather than ανν . Se οὐδενί, ok is 
the thought or intention of the preacher 
which is the point to be brought out. 


1—6. 


4. ἀλλ᾽ " ἐν " παντὶ ᾿ συνιστῶντες ! 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


PS 


᾿ ἑαυτοὺς ὡς ™ Θεοῦ ™ διάκονοι," Κὶ See on iv. 
b 


ἐν " ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ, ἐν ° θλίψεσιν, ἐν ο... ev 4 aretigeptars, .. 3. 
. αστασία ἼΩΝ υ ν ΧΠ 4; 1 
5. ἐν Poa ests év fh a ἐν Pes iS) é όποις, ἐ ο. 

3 
"ἀγρυπνίαις, ἐν "νηστείαις, 6. ἐν " ἁγνότητι, ἐν γνώσει, ἐν 3 µακρο- 2 
θυµία, ἐν 7 χρηστότητι, ἐν * πνεύματι " ἁγίῳ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ * ἀνυποκρίτῳ, ο ος 
26; chap. xii. 10; 1 Sam. xxii. 2. q Rom. ii. 9, viii. 35; chap. xii. 10; r Acts 


xvi. 23; chap. xi, 23; cf. Heb. xi. 36. 
only; Prov. xxvi. 28; Tobit iv. 13. 
u Chap. xi. 27 only; 2 Macc. ii. 26. 
ix. 3. w Chap. xi. 3 only. 
y Gal. v. 22; Col. iii. 12. z Cf. Rom. xv. 19; 
i. 5; 


s Lk. 

t 1 Cor. iii. 8; chaps. x. 15, xi, 23, 27; I Thess. 1. 3) πχ, 5, 

v Lk. ii. 37; Acts xiv. 23, xxvii. 9; chap. xi. 27 only; Dan. 

x Gal. ν. 22; Eph. iv. 2; Col. i. 11, iii, 12; 2 Tim. iii. 1ο, iv. 2. 
τ Thess. i. 5. 

τ Pet. i. 22; Jas. 111. 17 ἜΚΟΣ Wisd. v. 18, xviii. 16 only. 


τ chap. iv. a 


xxi. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 6 ap. xii. 20; Jas. iii. 16 


a Rom. xii. 9; 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. 


IggcDcEKL give συνιστωντες; Tisch. reads συνισταντες with $*CD*G 17; 
W.H. read συνιστανοντες with BP (cf. ili. 1). 


2 D* has διακονους; also f, g, vg. 


Vv. 4-10. THE CONDITIONS AND THE 
CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS APOSTOLIC 
Ministry. We have in this noble de- 
scription of his service a characteristic 
outburst of impassioned eloquence on a 
topic in which the Apostle felt an intense 
personal interest. But its fervour has not 
been permitted to interfere with the care- 
ful choice of words: the balanced anti- 
theses, the rhythmical cadences and 
assonances, which abound throughout, 
betray the literary training of the writer, 
and recall at once such passages as Rom. 
Viii. 31-39, 1 Cor. xiii. 1-13. Indeed 
many of the phrases which follow 
suggest an acquaintance with the Stoic 
paradoxes expressive of the αὐτάρκεια 
of the ideal sage. Compare also chap. 
xi. 22-28, where he recounts in more 
detail the trials of his Apostolic ministry. 

Ver. 4. GAN ἐν παντὶ συνιστάντες 
K.T-A.: but in everything (the details 
being given in the following verses) 
commending ourselves (see note on iii. 
1) as God’s ministers do. We now come 
to the description of the conditions under 
which and the means by which God’s 
minister commends himself to those to 
whom his message is addressed. The 
description naturally divides itself into 
four sections: he commends himself (i.) 
in outward hardships, vv. 4b, 5, (ii.) in 
inward graces, vv. 6, 7a, (iii.) by the 
armour of righteousness, whether he be 
well or evil spoken of, vv. 7b, 8ab, (iv.) 
having indeed a character the reverse of 
that ascribed to him by his opponents, 
vv. 8¢-10. 

(i.) The general description here is év 
ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ : in much patience (see 
note on i. 6 and ¢f. xii. 12); and this 
is further amplified and explained in 
the three triplets which follow. (a) év 


θλίψεσιν, ἐν ἀνάγκαις, ἐν στενοχωρίαις: 

in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses 
(see reff. and cf. Acts ix. 16), 7.6., such 
trials as sickness (see i. 6, xii. 7), or loss 
of friends (2 Tim. iv. 10), or perplexity 
(iv. 8, where see note), or any of the 
thousand chances (as we call them) of 
a troubled and anxious life. ‘‘ The pre- 
vailing idea is that of pressure and con- 
finement: each stage narrower than the 
one before, so that no room is left for 
movement or escape”’ (Stanley). 

Ver. 5. (0) These outward hardships 
are next more definitely exemplified from 
the opposition and persecution which St. 
Paul encountered from opponents during 
his missionary experiences. ἐν πληγαῖς, 
ἐν φυλακαῖς, ἐν ἀκαταστασίαις: in stripes 
(see reff. and cf. Acts xxii. 24), im tm- 
prisonments (see on xi. 23), in tumults (cf. 
Acts xiii. 50, xiv. 5, 10, xvi. 22, xvii. 5, 
XVilil. 12, xix. 20, Xxi. 30). ἀκαταστασία 
might mean inward disorder, rather than 
external tumult (see reff., LXX, and cf. 1 
Cor. iv. 11), but the latter meaning best 
suits the context here. (c) Next the 
Apostle enumerates the bodily hardships, 
voluntarily undertaken, which his work 
made it necessary to endure.—éy κόποις, 
ἐν ἀγρυπνίαις, ἐν νηστείαις : in labours, 
sc., probably his labours in preaching the 
Gospel (see reff., but cf. 1 Thess. ii. 9, 2 
Thess. iii. 8, where κόπος is used of the 
manual labour he underwent in working 
for a livelihood; see also 1 Cor. iv. 11 
ἀστατοῦμεν καὶ κοπιῶμεν), {π watchings, 
sc., in nights rendered wakeful by anxiety 
or press of work (Acts xx. 31) or urgency 
of prayer (Acts xvi. 25 and cf. Eph. vi. 
18 ἀγρυπνοῦντες), in fastings. Some 
expositors explain these νηστεῖαι as the 
voluntary fastings of religion (so Hooker, 
Eccl. Pol., ν., \xxii., 8; and cf. Acts xiii. 


76 


ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOYS B 


VI. 


bEph.i-t3i 7, ἐν "λόγῳ " ἀληθείας, ἐν "δυνάμει “Θεοῦ, διὰ τῶν “ὅπλων τῆς 


Col. i. 5 
2 Tim. 


ἃ δικαιοσύνης τῶν “δεξιῶν καὶ “ ἀριστερῶν, 8. διὰ δόξης καὶ ‘dripias, 


c Rom.i.16; διὰ ε δυσφημίας καὶ " εὐφημίας " ὡς ἢ πλάνοι, καὶ ἀληθεῖς - 9. ὡς 
18, 24, i. } ἀγνοούμενοι, καὶ * ἐπιγινωσκόμενοι’ ὡς ἀποθνήσκοντες, καὶ ἰδοὺ 


5; chap. 

ΧΙ, 4: 2 

Tim. i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 5. 
fChap. xi.21,etc. g Here only. 
2, 3). And itis true that νηστεία (see 
reff.) and νηστεύω are always (outside 
this Epistle) used of fasting as a devotional 
observance. But in the parallel passage 
xi. 27 νηστεῖαι is clearly used of involun- 
tary abstinences from food; and this 
meaning seems better to suit the context 
here also (cf. τ Cor. iv. 11, Phil. iv. 12) 
(§ 23). The triplet (c), then, means “ in 
toil, in sleeplessness, in hunger nin 

Vv. 6, 7. (ii.) The inward gifts and 
qualities by the display of which the 
Christian minister commends himself are 
now enumerated. (a) We have, first, 
four graces, each described by a single 
word: ἐν ἁγνότητι, ἐν γνώσει, ἐν paxpo- 
θυμίᾳ, ἐν χρηστότητι: in pureness, Sc., 
not only chastity, but purity of intention 
and thought in general (cf. chap. vii. 11, 
Jas. iii. 17, 1 John iii. 3), in knowledge, 
sc., of Divine things (the λόγος γνώσεως 
is one of the gifts of the Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 
8), in long-suffering (a grace specially 
needful for a Christian missionary; in 
Rom. ii. 4, ix. 22, 1 Tim. i. 16, St. Paul 
speaks of God's paxpoOvp(a, but generally 
he applies it to man; see Prov. xxv. 15), 
in kindness (see reff.; it is a Divine attri- 
bute in Rom. ii. 4, xi. 22, Eph. ii. 7, Tit. 
iii. 4; of. Matt. xi. 30).—(b) We have 
next four qualifications, each described in 
two words: év πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
μμ. ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθείας, ἐν δυνάμει 
Θεοῦ: im the Holy Spirit (this ought to 
stand at the head of the list, but the 
order in which the various graces are 
mentioned is determined rather by sound 
and rhythm than by strictly logical con- 
siderations), in love unfeigned, sc., love to 
man, not love to God (see note on chap. 
v. 14 and cf. ἡ ἀγάπη ἀννπόκριτος, Rom. 
xii. ο), in the Word of Truth, sc., the 
message of the Gospel (see reff. and cf. 
chap. ii. 17, iv. 2), in the Power of God, 
which (Rom. i. 16, 1 Cor, i. 18) he 
declares the Gospel itself to be. This, 
of course, is not the force of the phrase 
here; nor are we to think solely of 
‘‘miraculous” powers (Acts viii. το, I 
Cor. ii. 5), which were “signs of an 
Apostle’ (Rom. xv. 19, chap. xii. 12), 
but of the Divine grace given him for his 
special work (see τεβ.). “In verbo 


d Rom. vi. 13; cf. Rom. xiii. 12; chap. x. 
hi Tim. iv.1; cf. 2 Tim. iii. 13. 


e 1 Chr. xii. 4. 
κ Reff. i. 13. 


ύσει. ies. 
veritatis, in virtute Dei” may still stand 
for the watchword of Christian preaching. 
—(iii.) We have now three clauses be- 
ginning with διά; the preposition in the 

rst of them being instrumental, in the 
other two expressing a state or condition. 
—(a) διὰ τῶν ὅπλων τῆς δικαιοσύνης 
τῶν δεξιῶν καὶ ἀριστερῶν: by the weapons 
of Righteousness on the right hand and on 
the left, sc., both offensive and defensive 
armour—the sword on the right and the 
shield on the left. See Eph. vi. 11, 1 
Thess. v. 8 for St. Paul’s more detailed 
description of “the panoply of God”’; 
the idea being apparently taken from 
Wisd. v. 18 ff. ; cf. for ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης 
Rom. vi. 13. 

Ver. 8. (δ) διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀτιμίας, διὰ 
δυσφημίας καὶ εὐφημίας: by glory (cf. 
John v. 41) and dishonour, by evil report 
and good report. To misrepresentation 
and slander St. Paul was much ar Sc 
and he evidently felt it deeply (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 
12).—(iv.) Finally, he proceeds to specify 
the charges made against him by his op- 
ponents; he can afford to neglect them, 
inasmuch as in each case they are quite 
opposed to the real facts. Towards the 
close he adds one or two antitheses to 
the list, which may not have been directly 
suggested by the current calumnies about 
him, but which are yet quite in keeping 
with the rest. There are seven antitheses 
in all.—ads πλάνοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς: as de- 
ceivers (so his opponents said of him, as 
it was formerly said of his Master, John 
vii. 12; cf. chap. ii. 17, iv. 2) and yet 
true. In the Clementines St. Paul is 
expressly described by his adversaries as 
πλάνος and as disseminating deceit 
(πλάνην). 

Ver. 9. ὡς ἀγνοούμενοι καὶ ἐπιγινω- 
σκόµενοι: as unknown, sc., an obscure 
person without proper credentials (οὐ, iii. 
2, x. 10), and yet well known (cf. xi. 6).— 
ὡς ἀποθνήσκοντες καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν: as 
dying (as was doubtless often reported 
when he was ill; see on i. 8 above, and 
cf. xi. 23, where he speaks of the continual 
hazards of his life), and behold we live 
(cf. iv. 10, where the death of the body is 
contrasted with the daily manifestation 
of the true life).—ds παιδενόμενοι καὶ μὴ 


7-:3. 


ζῶμεν" ὡς ' παιδευόμενοι, ἷ 


ἀεὶ δὲ " χαίροντες - ὡς πτωχοὶ, πολλοὺς δὲ "πλουτίζοντες: ὡς μηδὲν 


ἔχοντες, καὶ πάντα ἢ κατέχοντες. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


77 


καὶ μὴ '"θανατούμενοι’ 1Ο. ὡς λυπούμενοι, 11 oes xi. 


ο) 

im. 11, 
25; Heb. 
xii. 7, 10. 

m Rom. vii. 


11. Τὸ ᾿ στόμα ἡμῶν “ ἀνέῳγε πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Κορίνθιοι,2 ἡ " καρδία es 13, 
ἡμῶν ὃ "πεπλάτυνται" 12. οὐ "στενοχωρεῖσθε ἐν ἡμῖν, στενοχωρεῖσθε π Rom. xii. 


δὲ ἐν τοῖς “σπλάγχνοις ὑμῶν 13. τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν " ἀντιμισθίαν (ὡς 


16. o1 Cor. i. 5; chap. ix. 11 only. 
Ixxvii. 2; Prov. xxix. 45; cf. Eph. vi. 19. 


p 1 Cor. vii. 30, xi. 2, xv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21. 
: r Deut. xi. 16; Ps. cxviii. 32. 
t Chap. vii. 15; Phil. ii. 1; Col. 111, 12; Philm. 7, 12. 


12; Phil. 
Woodly τ 
Thess. v. 

q Ps. 
s Chap. iv. 8 only. 
u Rom. i. 27 only. 


1 D*G, d, e, g have πειραζοµενοι for παιδευοµ.. 


2 w Κορινθιοι G, f, vg. and the Bohairic. 


θανατούμενοι : as chastened, sc., as a 
punishment for his sins, which had very 
probably been said of him when the 
news of his grievous sickness (i. 8, etc.) 
reached his foes at Corinth, but not killed. 
He does not deny that he has been 
*“‘ chastened”? (see reff. and cf. chap. xii. 
7-9), but he recalls in thankfulness the 
words of Ps. cxvii. 18, παιδεύων ἐπαί- 
δευσέν pe Κύριος, καὶ τῷ θανάτῳ οὐ 
παρέδωκέν µε. 

Ver. 10. ὡς λυπούμενοι, ἀεὶ δὲ χαίρ- 
οντες: as sorrowful (this charge in one 
sense was no doubt quite true), yet 
alway rejoicing. This, which is fre- 
quently spoken of by the Apostle as a 
Christian duty (see reff.), is specially 
prominent in this Epistle; cf. chap. i. 
24, vii. 4, and the note on ii, 2,3. St. 
Paul’s words are an echo of the farewell 
words of Christ (John xvi. 22), ὑμεῖς οὖν 
viv μὲν λύπην ἔχετε . . . τὴν χαρὰν 
ὑμῶν οὐδεὶς ἀρεῖ ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν.---ὡς πτωχοὶ, 
πολλοὺς δὲ πλουτίζοντες: as poor, sc., 
as a pauper—the word is stronger than 
πένης (the taunt seems to have been 
thrown at him; cf. Phil. iv. 12 and 
chap. xi. 7), and yet making many rich, 
5ο., in the heavenly riches; cf. 1 Cor. i. 
5, Matt. v. 3, and esp. Prov. xiii. 7 (a 
passage which seems to have been in the 
Apostle’s mind), εἰσὶν οἱ πλουτίζοντες 
ἑαυτοὺς μηδὲν ἔχοντες, καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ 
ταπεινοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πολλῷ πλούτῳ.--- 
ὡς μηδὲν ἔχοντες καὶ πάντα κατέχοντες : 
as having nothing and yet possessing all 
things; cf. = Cor. iii, 22, “all things are 
yours”. κατέχειν (see reff.) is a stronger 
word than ἔχειν ; it is ‘to hold fast” or 
“to possess,” as, 6.5., the land of pro- 
mise (Josh. i, 11). 

Vv. 11-13. AFFECTIONATE DECLARA- 
TION OF HIS FRANKNESS AND SYMPATHY, 
AND AN APPEAL THAT THE CORINTHIANS 
SHOULD SHOW THE SAME,—Ver. 11, τὸ 
στόμα ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ.: our mouth is open 





5 NB have η καρδ. vpev. 


(ἀνέφγα = avéwypar, as often in later 
Greek; observe its present signification, 
as at 1 Cor. xvi. 9) unto you, O Corin- 
thians, t.e., 1am speaking quite candidly 
and freely to you (see reff.). Only here 
and at Gal. iii. 1, Phil. iv. 15, does St. 
Paul call his correspondents by name; 
here it emphasises the affectionate nature 
of his appeal, and it singles out the 
Corinthians from the wider circle to 
whom the letter was addressed (i. 1ὴ.---ἧ 
καρδία ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ.;: our heart is enlarged, 
which is indeed the reason of his freedom 
of speech, for ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς 
καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ (Matt. xii. 34). 
By enlargement of heart is meant here a 
widening of sympathy, and not the εκ. 
pansiveness of joy (Isa. lx. 5) or an in 
crease in intelligence and wisdom (1 
Kings iv. 29). 

Ver. 12. οὐ στενοχωρεῖσθε ἐν ἡμῖν 
κ.τ.λ.:; ye are not strattened in us (this 
carries on the metaphor of πεπλάτυνται), 
but ye are straitened in your own affec- 
tions ; 1.ε., his adversaries at Corinth may 
have said that he was a man of narrow 
sympathies, and that there was no room 
in his heart for his Corinthian converts, 
but, in fact, the lack of sympathy was on 
their side—it is they that are ‘ narrow- 
minded”. τὰ σπλάγχνα =the upper 
viscera, ἴ.6., the heart, lungs and liver, 
the vital parts, and so may be rendered 
‘the affections ”’. 

Ver. 13. τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν 
K.T.A.; now for a recompense in like kind 
(an accus. abs.)—I speak as unto chil- 
dren, sc., who should respect and imitate 
their parents (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 14)—be ye also 
enlarged, sc., in heart. 

Vv. 14-vii. I. PARENTHETICAL.—HE 
WARNS THEM AGAINST TOO FAMILIAR 
ASSOCIATION WITH THEIR HEATHEN 
NEIGHBOURS. ‘These verses are some- 
what perplexing, inasmuch as they seem 
to interrupt the appeal of vv. 11-13 by 


78 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B VI. 


von τέκνοις λέγω) πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς. 
τίς γὰρ “ μετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ ὃ καὶ " ἀνομίᾳ ; 


xix. 19. 


a ἀπίστοις 7: 
wHere only; ὙΡΟΡΥΕΕΟΥΙ 5 


14. Μὴ γίνεσθε * ἑτεροζυ- 


Ps.cxxi. τίς” δὲ 7 κοινωνία φωτὶ ὃ πρὸς σκότος; 15. τίς δὲ "συμφώνησις 


Cf. 


τ:κ.17, Χριστῷ ὃ πρὸς "Βελίαρῖ; ἢ τίς " μερὶς πιστῷ ὃ μετὰ ἀπίστου ; 
Ι, 


x Rom. iv. 7, vi. το; 2 Thess. ii. γ; Τε, ντ. = y —— viii. 4, ix. 13, xiii. 13, etc.; cf. Ecclus. xiii. 
36. a Her 


17. z Here only; c/. 1 Cor. νι, 5; Lk. v. 


1 6, d, e, f, g and the Peshitto have και µη. 


ε only. Ὁ Col. i. 12; cf. 1 Kings xii. 16. 


3. 6 has pera απιστων. 


3.0 has δικαιοσννης μετα ανοµιας; D* δικαιοσννης και αδικιας; DcE δικαιοσννη 


και αδικια. 


Καὶ and the Harclean text have τις δε; better η τις with the principal uncials 


and vss. 


5 Ὁ", ἆ, e give φωτος. 


® DEGKL, g and the Syriac vss. give Χριστῳφ; better Χριστον with BCP 17, 


d, e, f and the Bohairic. 


7 Βελιαρ is the right spelling; D*EK have βελιαν and G βελιαβ ; βελιαλ appears 


in a few cursives only, and in f, g, vg. 


8 B 17 and the Bohairic have πιστον for πιστφ. 


the introduction of an irrelevant warning. 
If they be omitted, the argument is quite 
consecutive, vii. 2 f. being in close and 
evident connexion with vi. 11-13. And 
it has been supposed that the whole 
section is an interpolation either (a) 
added by St. Paul after the arrival of 
Titus, in consequence of the news he 
had received as to the state of the 
Corinthian Church; or (δ) belonging to 
another Pauline letter (possibly the Lost 
Epistle of 1 Cor. v. 9), and inserted here 
at a later date when a collection of 
Pauline letters began to be made; or (c) 
it has been regarded (¢.g., by Heinrici) asa 
fragment of an ancient homily, not by St. 
Paul, which has found a resting place 
here. It is urged in favour of the non- 
Pauline authorship of the section that (a) 
it contains a considerable number of 
words which do not occur elsewhere in 
St. Paul. To this it may be replied that 
ἑτεροζυγεῖν and βελίαρ have their origin 
in O.T. phraseology, while μολυσμός is 
a LXX word (see reff.) ; and that, as to 
the words μετοχή, συμφώνησις, συγκατά- 
θεσις, it is not surprising that some of the 
synonyms which are found in this section 
should be comparatively rare. It is not 
easy to find (as has here been done, with 
no small skill) five distinct terms to con- 
vey almost the same idea. (B) Schmiedel 
urges that the phrase ΕΣ ς σαρκός 
(vii. 1) is quite un-Pauline, and that it is 
inconsistent with St. Paul’s psychology 
to speak of being ‘‘cleansed" from it, 
inasmuch as for him the σάρξ is always 
tainted by sin. But there is no thought 
here of the taint of sin which remains in 


fallen man ; μολυσμός is always used in 
the LXX (see reff.) of a too intimate 
association of the chosen people with 
heathen nations, and such ‘“ contamina- 
tion’ is exactly what it stands for in this 
place. As an argument on the other side, 
there occur in this section several quite 
common Pauline ideas and secteur > 
ἔριν the contrast of Christianity and 
heathendom as light and darkness (ver. 
14), the description of Christians as God's 
temple (ver. 16), the phrases “ the livin 
God” λαοὶ 16) and “ the fear of God "(vit 
1), the introduction of the term ἀγαπητοί 
(vii. 1), etc. We regard, therefore, the 
section as undoubtedly Pauline; and, 
further, its connexion with what precedes 
reveals itself on a close inspection of the 
phraseology. The Apostle has bidden the 
Corinthians ‘ Be ye enlarged in heart"’. 
But he is reminded that this phrase has 
a bad meaning in the Law (Deut. xi. 16; 
see Chase, Classical Review, 1890, p. 
151), where it is applied to that excessive 
tolerance which μμ permit the wor- 
ship of other gods beside Jehovah; and 
so he hastens to give a warning (paren- 
thetically introduced) to the Corinthians 
that he does not mean by enlargement of 
heart any undue tolerance or con- 
taminating association with their heathen 
neighbours (see on iv. 4 above for 
ἄπιστος). 

Ver. 14. Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες 
κ.τ.λ.; δὲ not (mark that the pres. tense 
γίνεσθε indicates the beginning ofa state, 
sc., “do not become”’) unequally yoked 
with unbelievers, the constr. being “ be 
not unequally yoked, as you would be if 


14—18, 


“συγκατάθεσις ναῷ Θεοῦ 
ζῶντος, καθὼς ὃ 


16. τίς δὲ 
* ναὸς 2 39 Θεοῦ ἐστε! 
ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ © ἐμπεριπατήσω " 
” , 5 , 32 
ἔσονταί por” λαός”. 
ἀφορίσθητε; λέγει Κύριος, 
Σεἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς, 18. καὶ * 


ἔσεσθέ μοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας, | λέγει ' Κύριος | παντοκράτωρ. 


g Lev. xxvi. 12. 


Tim. 1. » 1 only. 
ayes 12 Sam. vii. 8; 


Κο Sam. vii. 14; cf. Isa. xlili. 6. 


ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOYS B 


h Isa. 111. 11. 


79 


an . mere) win ἢ Here only: 
μετὰ εἰδώλων ; ὑμεῖς ὶ γὰρ tk 


τ 5 ὃς. 66% 12 : XXiii. 51. 
εἶπεν ὁ Θεος, “ Οτι Scouse» ἜΣ Can nL: 

3 -“ . 
καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ αὐτοὶ τό, 17; 2 
ate i Λ 3 « Thess. ii. 

5 A 3 

17. "8s “ἐξέλθετε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ος 

“Kal ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε"” ““κἀγὼ 19; Eph. 
ii. 21. 


ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς προ, καὶ ὑμεῖς ¢ Refi. iii. 3. 


f Rom. viii. 
IL; Col. 
iii. 16; 2 
i Ezek, xx. 34; ο/. Zeph. iii. 20, 

cf. Rev, iv. 8, etc. 


'NycCDcEGK, 6 g and the Syriac vss. (probably from 1 Cor. iii. 16) support 
υμεις .. . εστε; better ἡμεῖς «. . ἐσμεν with KY*BD*LP, d, e and the Bohairic. 


3 has ναοι. 


3 For καθως ειπεν D*EG, d, ε, g have (wrongly) λεγει γαρ (see note), 


4 GP, g have αυτοις for αντωγ. 


> DEGKL, vg. read pou; better µου with  ΒΟΡ 17. 
6 DEKLP give εξελθετε; better εξελθατε with ΝΒΟ 17. 


you were yoked with unbelievers”. The 
most obvious application of such a pro- 
hibition would be to intermarriage with 
the heathen, which was continually for- 
bidden to the chosen people (see Deut. 
Vii. 3, Josh. xxiii. 12, Ezra ix. 2, Neh. xiii. 
25), and this is probably the main thought 
here (see ref. Lev. for ἑτερόζνγος); but 
to indulge in any excessive familiarity 
of intercourse would be ‘‘to be enlarged 
in heart” in a way which the Apostle 
strongly deprecates (cf. 1 Macc. 1. 15). 
He enforces this by five contrasts which 
illustrate the incongruity between Chris- 
tianity and heathendom.—tts γὰρ μετοχὴ 
κτλ; for what fellowship have right- 
eousness and lawlessness ? or what com- 
munition has light with darkness? Cf. 
Eph. v. 7, μὴ οὖν γίνεσθε συμμέτοχοι 
αὐτῶν" ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς 
ἐν Κυρίῳ, and cf., for the same image, 
Acts xxvi. 18, Rom. xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 5 
and chap. iv. 6, xi. 14. 

Ver. 15. τίς δὲ συμφώνησις κ.τ.λ.; 
and what concord has Christ with Belial ? 
ΟΥ what portion has a believer, sc., a Chris- 
tian (see Acts xvi. 1, Eph. i. 1, Col. i. 2, 
etc.), with an unbelicver, sc., a heathen 


bya = = worth- 


lessness is frequently rendered παράνομος 
(Deut. xiii. 13,1 Kings xx. 13) or ἀνομία 
(Ps. xvii. 5) by the LXX; they never 
treat it asa proper name, although Theo- 
dotion does so at Judges "xix. 22, and it is 
so regarded in later literature (e.g., Test. 
xu. Patriarch. and Orac. Sibyll., iti., 63, 
73). Here it is the personification of 
ἀνομία, just as Christ is the personifica- 


(see on iv. 4 above) ? 


tion of δικαιοσύνη ; the contrast is that 
between Christ and Satan (cf. 1 Cor. x. 21). 
See Charles’ Ascension of Isaiah, pp. ἵν. ff., 
for the identification of Beliar with Satan. 
The Hebrew form, Belial, with a sub- 
stitution of 7 for 1, is written BeAtap in 
the best Greek MSS. (see crit. note). 

Ver. 16. τίς δὲ συγκατάθεσις κ.τ.λ.: 
and what agreement has the Temple of 
God with idols? It is quite unnecessary 
to mark the absence of the article by 
translating ‘‘a temple of God”: ναὸς 
Θεοῦ has become anarthrous, as a quasi- 
technical phrase, and in the Apostle’s 
thought there is only one such Temple, 
which is built up by the whole body of 
believers (see reff.).—ypets γὰρ κ.τ.λ.: 
for we are the Temple of a God who is 
alive (see reff.); note that ζῶντος as the 
emphatic word is placed last.—Ka§as 
εἶπεν 6 Θεὸς κ.τ.λ.: as God said, “1 will 
dwell in them (these words are only a 
paraphrase of Lev. xxvi. 11; the quota- 
tion begins with ver. 12) and walk in 
them, and I will be their God, and they 
shall be My people” (cf. Exod. vi. 7, Jer. 
xxxi. 33, Ezek. xi. 20, Zech. viii. 8, xiii. 
g, etc., where the promise is reiterated). 
Several passages of the O.T., viz., Lev. 
xxvi. 12, Isa. lii. 11, Ezek. xx. 34 and 2 
Sam. vii. 14 are here combined; and it is 
worth noticing that the first, second and 
fourth of these are marked as distinct quo- 
tations by the introductory formulz which 
precede them in the O.T. in each case, 
Viz., καθὼς εἶπεν 6 Θεός from Lev. xxvi. 
12, λέγει Κύριος from Isa. lii. 5 (or Ezek. 
xx. 33), and λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ 
from 2 Sam. vii. 8, 


80 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


vil. 


aRom. xii ΤΙ, 1, Ταύτας οὖν ἔχοντες τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, " ἀγαπητοὶ, " καθαρί- 


19; 1 Cor. 


58; chap 


o Eph. v. 26; 
Tit. ii. 14 only in Paul. 
Cor. viii. 7. d 
iii. 13 only. 
ii. 6. hx Cor. iii. 17, xv. 33; 


Ver. 17. διὸ ἐξέλθετε κ.τ.λ.: where- 
fore, “Come out from among them and 
be separate,” saith the Lord, " «πὰ touch 
not an unclean thing and I will receive 
you.” So, too, the Heavenly Voice of 
the Apocalypse cried “" Come out of her” 
to those who were in danger of con- 
tamination with the sins of pagan Rome 
(Rev. xviii. 4). But the command must 
not be misapplied. St. Peter was wrong 
in “‘ separating” himself from his Gentile 
brethren (Gal. ii. 12), as he was wrong 
in calling that “unclean” which God 
had cleansed (Acts x. 14). And St. Paul 
never counsels any at Corinth to “‘sepa- 
rate’’ himself from the body of his fellow 
Christians on account of their sinful 
lives. (1 Cor. v. 13 is a direction to the 
Church to excommunicate a sinful mem- 
ber, a quite different thing.) To the 
Apostle separation from heathendom was 
imperative, but separation from the 
Christian Church was a schism and a 
sin. 

Ver. 18. καὶ ἔσομαι κιτιλ.: and “I 
will be to you a Father, and ye shall be 
to Me sons and daughters,” saith the Lord 
Almighty. The ideal relation of Israel 
to Jehovah was that of a son to a father 
(Exod. iv. 22, Jer. xxxi. 9, Hos. i. 10); 
but the full meaning of such words was 
reserved for Him to teach who came to 
reveal the Father (Matt. xi. 27), as their 
full blessedness can be realised only by 
the heir of the Father's kingdom who 
“‘overcomes ” at last (Rev. xxi. 7). 

Cuaprer VII.—Ver. 1. ταύτας οὖν 
ἔχοντες κιτιλ.: having therefore these 
(note the emphasis given to ταύτας by 
its position) promises, beloved, let us 
cleanse ourselves from all contamination 
of flesh and spirit (cf. τ Pet. ii. 11, 1 
John iii. 3). We find the construction 
καθαρίζειν ἀπό again in Ecclus. xxxviii. 
10 and Heb. ix. 14 (see also Deissmann, 
Neue Bibelstud., p. 44). We have already 
pointed out (on vi. 14) that poAvepds is 
always used of the defilement which 
springs out of evil (and especially heathen) 
associations; this may affect the πνεῦμα 
(see on ii, 13) as well as the σάρξ.-- 
ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην κ.τ.λ.; perfecting 


Rom. xv. 28; chap. viii. 6, 11; Gal. iii. 3; Phil. i. 6, 
f Rom. iii. 18 only (Ps. xxxv. 2); Isa. xi. 3; οἵ. chap. ν᾿ 11. 
ap. xi. 3; Eph. iv. 22. 


x 14.x¥. σωµεν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ παντὸς “μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος, 
; “ ἐπιτελοῦντες "ἁγιωσύνην ἐν ' φόβῳ ! Θεοῦ. 

2. "Χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς' οὐδένα ἠδικήσαμεν, οὐδένα " ἐφθείραμεν, 
ς Here only; Jer. xxiii. 15; 1 Esdras viii. 33; 2 i ν. 27 onl 


ε ο. ος 
g Gen. xiii. 6; John 


iv. 


holiness in the fear of God, sc., the fear 
that man ought to feel towards God (see 
v. 11), which is, indeed, one of the gifts 
of the Divine Spirit (Isa. xi. 3), and 
which was repeatedly commended to the 
chosen people (Deut. vi. 2, Ps. cxi. 1). 
The practical issue of belief in the 
promises of the Old Covenant (which 
have a yet larger meaning under the 
New) is positive as well as negative, 
sanctification as well as separation. St. 
Paul's word for man’s sanctification is 
ἁγιασμός, the result of which process is 
here expressed by ἁγιωσύνη (see reff.) ; 
this is especially an attribute of God in 
the O.T. (Pss. xcv. 6, xcvi. 12, cxliv. 5, 
2 Macc. iii. 12). 

Vv. 2-4. HE CLAIMS THEIR Sym- 
PATHY AGAIN. He now resumes the 
appeal which is interrupted at vi. 13 by 
the parenthetical warning vi. 14-vil. 1. 
—Ver. 2. χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ.; make 
room for us, sc., in your hearts, 4.¢., let 
there be no στενοχωρία (vi. 12); we 
wronged no man, we corrupted no man, 
we took advantage ofno man. Apparently 
accusations of this sort had been laid to 
his charge (see esp. chap. xii. 16, 17), 
and he is, as ever (chap. ii. 17, Acts xx. 
33), careful to assert their baselessness. 
It is an excessive refinement of exegesis 
which finds here distinct charges hinted 


at in the three words ἠδικήσαμεν, ἐφθεί- 


paper, ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν. They are used 
quite generally, the only one that offers 


any ambiguity being the second, φθείρειν 
often (see reff.), though not always, 
carrying a reference to bodily defile- 
ment through lust; here (as at 1 Cor. iii. 
17) it seems to connote injury of any sort. 
Ver. 3. πρὸς κατάκρ. κ.τ.λ.: I do not 
say this by way of condemnation (i.¢., do 
not think that I accuse you of mistrustin 
me); for I have said before (viz., in iii. 
2, vi. 11) that ye are in our hearts (cf. 
Phil. i. 7) to die together and to live to- 
gether (cf. i. 6), ἐ.ε., your image is in my 
heart in life and in death. ere there 
is such a wealth of sympathy as this, 
there can be no thought of “ condemna- 
tion”. Wetstein gives a good verbal 
parallel from Athenzus (vi., 249), τούτονς 


ἔς 


I—7. 


οὐδένα | ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν. 


‘ cv > is , ε fal > Q) > Ν 
ρῆκα γὰρ ὅτι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ἐστε“ εἰς τὸ 


καὶ " συζῆν. 4. πολλή μοι 


p , ε ‘ Ἑ τον 
καύχησις ὕπερ ὑμῶν" 


σεύομαι τῇ” χαρᾷ ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ "θλίψει ἡμῶν. 
ς lal 3 , ih , ” 6 
ἡμῶν εἰς Μακεδονίαν, οὐδεμίαν ἔσχηκεν 

ἀλλ᾽ "ἐν "παντὶ ᾿ θλιβόμενοι 7 - ἔξωθεν μάχαι, ἔσωθεν φόβοι. 


ἀλλ᾽ ὁ “παρακαλῶν τοὺς “* 


ΩΝ 


ο του 7. * 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


3. ob! πρὸς " κατάκρισιν λέγω" 


οὐ * μόνον χ δὲ 8 


81 


i Reff, ii, τα, 
' προεί- k Chap. iii. 


™ συναποθανεῖν, 8 only. 
Ν 3 1 Chap. xiii 
ο - 1 Δ ε » , 2. 
παῤῥησία πρὸς ὃ ὑμᾶς, πολλή μοι ΘΕ ΤΣ 
ή η 4 4 § = 31; 2 Lim. 
πεπλήρωμαι τῇ ed ος οι, 
καὶ γὰρ ἐλθούντων n Rom. vi. 
Ἢ 5: we ξ 8; 2 Tim. 
ἄνεσιν σὰ ὧν, [10 τι only. 
) ἡ Ρ ἡμ 2ο Reff.iii.rz, 
6. p Reff. i. 12. 


Rom. v. 


ης παρεκάλεσεν πο 6 Θεὸς 20 only. 


r Reff. i. 4. 
ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Ε eee ii. 13. 
Reff, iv. 8, 


ary καὶ ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει ἣ παρεκλήθη ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, ἀναγγέλλων ε u Isa. xlix. 


ἡμῖν Ὁ τὴν ὑμῶν % ἐπιπόθησιν, τὸν ὑμῶν 


29; Lk. i. 52; Rom. xii, 16; chap. x. 1; Jas. i. 9. iv. 6; 


x. 10; Phil. i. 26, ii. 12. 
reff. Vi 2. 
xi. 2; Phil. iii. 6; Col. iv. 13. 


x Rom. v. 3, πε, Viil. 23, ix. 10; chap. viii. το, etc. 
z Matt. ii. ἘΠ ον ΧΧΧΙ, 15); 2 Macc. ΧΙ. 6 only. 


13; see 
reff. i. 4. 
v Matt. xi. 
w I Cor. xvi. 17; chap. 
Ver. 11 only; οἵ. 
a Rom. x. 2; chaps. vii. 11, ix. 2, 


* ὀδυρμὸν, τὸν ὑμῶν " ζῆλον 


1 Pet. v. 5 only. 


lov προς κατακρ. is the order of DEGKL, etc.; better προς κατακρ. ov with 


SBCP. 
2B om. εστε. 
4B has ev ty xapq. 


3 D*E, d, e and the Peshitto have προς υμας εστιν. 
5 After πασῃ τῃ D*E* have πολλῃ- 


8 S&8CDELP have εσχηκεν; BGK have εσχεν; CG and the Syriac vss. put eo x. 


after ανεσιν. 
7 Ὁ", d, e give θλιβομενος. 
ΣΝ ΓΣ have avayy. υμιγ. 


δ᾽ οἱ βασιλεῖς ἔχουσι συζῶντας καὶ συν- 
αποθνησκόντας. 

Ver. 4. πολλή μοι παρρησία κ.τ.λ.] 
great is my boldness of speech towards 
you (cf. vi. 11), great 15 my glorying on 
your behalf, sc., on account of the good 
news of their conduct (cf. i. 14, iii. 2), I 
am filled with comfort (for the constr. cf. 
Luke ii. 40, Rom. i. 29, 2 Macc. vii. 21), 
sc., with the comfort (note the article) 
which Titus had brought, I overflow with 
joy (cf. Phil. ii. 17, Col. i. 24) 2 all our 
affliction (see vi. 10). 

Vv. 5-12. HE WAS COMFORTED TO 
LEARN FROM TITUS THAT HIS REBUKE 
HAD BEEN PROFITABLE. Cf. throughout 
1 Thess. ili. 1-8, a passage strikingly like 
this in its human sympathy and kindli- 
ness.—Ver. 5. καὶ yap ἐλθόντων κ.τ.λ.: 
for even when we were come into Mace- 
donia (he has explained in ii, 12 his 
anxiety when he was at Troas, but it 
remained with him even when he had 
crossed into Europe) our flesh had no 
velicf (see note on the similar phrase, ii. 

13), but [we were] afflicted on every side. 
Note the anacoluthon, the participle θλι- 
βόμενοι being used as if it were a finite 
verb (cf. v. 12 for a like constr.).—€§w0ev 
µάχαι κ.τ.λ.: without were fightings, sc., 


VOL, III. 


8 G, g and the Peshitto omit δε after povoy, 


with adversaries (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 32), with- 
in were fears, sc., the anxieties which the 
Apostle would feel for his converts, 
especially those at Corinth (cf. chap. xi. 
28). It will be noticed that the familiar 
cadence ‘‘fightings within and fears 
without”’ is a misquotation. 

Ver. 6. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ παρακαλῶν κ.τ.λ.; but 
He that comforteth the lowly (see ref. 
Isa.), even God (to whom he is especially 
careful in this Epistle to trace up all 
grace and consolation), comforted us by 
the coming of Titus. παρουσία is often 
used for the Advent of Christ, but also 
(see reff.) for the advent of St. Paul or 
his companions. This is the first explicit 
mention of St. Paul’s meeting with Titus 
in Macedonia (but cf. ii. 13) which was 
the occasion of the letter being written. 

Ver. 7. οὐ μόνον δὲ κ.τ.λ.: and not 
by his coming only, but also (see reff. for 
constr.) by the comfort wherewith he 
was comforted in respect of you (cf. τ 
Thess. iii. 7 for constr.), 7.6... “1 was 
comforted, not only by his coming, but 
by the good news which he brought”’; 
while he told us your longing, sc., to see 
me, your mourning, sc., at the rebuke 
which I sent you, your zeal on my behalf. 


ζῆλος may either mean ‘‘ zeal,” in a good 


82 


b Matt. xxi. ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ὥστε µε] μᾶλλον χαρῆναι. 


30, 32, 
He 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Ὁ - 


ΥΠ. 


δ. Ὅτι εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς 


ἀανῆ οι; ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ," ob? " μεταμέλομαι, εἰ ὃ καὶ μετεμελόμην - βλέπω 


a1(Ps.cix. γὰρ * ὅτι ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἐκείνη, εἰ καὶ "πρὸς "ὥραν, ἐλύπησεν " ὑμᾶς. 


4) only. 


cJohn v.35; 9. Νῦν χαίρω, οὐχ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε εἰς “μετάνοιαν 


Gal. ii. 5 


Phiim. ἐλυπήθητε γὰρ "κατὰ “Θεὸν, ἵνα ἐν μηδενὶ " ζημιωθῆτε ἐξ ἡμῶν. 


d Acts xx. 
41, xxvi. 
20; Rom. 
ii. 4; Ver. 


_ 10. ἡ γὰρ κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη μετάνοιαν εἰς σωτηρίαν " ἀμεταμέλητον 
7. κατεργάζεται ὃ" ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου λύπη θάνατον ' κατεργάζεται. 
ἰδοὺ yap " αὐτὸ "τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ Θεὸν λυπηθῆναι Spas,’ πόσην κατειρ- 
γάσατο " ὑμῖν " ᾿ σπουδὴν, ἀλλὰ "' ἀπολογίαν, ἀλλὰ " ἀγανάκτησιν, 


11. 


Ἢ ae. ἀλλὰ φόβον, ἀλλὰ " ἐπιπόθησιν, ἀλλὰ “ζῆλον, ἀλλ᾽ "ἐκδίκησιν. *év 


chap. xii. 
a1; Acts 
xvii. 30. ΄ 5 
ε Rom. viii. 27; Eph. iv. 24; ε[. chap. xi. 17. 
h Rom. xi. 29 ony i Reff. iv. 17. 
m 1 Cor. ix. 3; Phil. i. 7, 16; 2 Tim. iv. 16. 


2; Phil. iv. 8; 1 Tim. v. 22; Tit. ii. 5; of. vi. 6. 


κ Reff. ii. 3. 
n Here only; τῷ Mk. x. 14. 
xii. 19 (Deut. xxxii. 35); 2 Thess. i. 8 (Isa. Ixvi. 15). ε 


ἃ παντὶ ᾿ συνεστήσατε ᾿ ἑαυτοὺς " ἁγνοὺς εἶναι ἡ ἐν" τῷ ᾿ πράγματι. 


f Reff. vi. 3. g 1 Cor. iii. 15; Phil. iii. 8, 
1 Rom. xii. 8, 11; ver. 12; chap. viii. 7, 8, 16. 

ο Reff. ver. 7. ey 

ff.iv.8. τ Κε ἵνα. ο Chap. xi 


t 1 Thess. iv. 6. 


1 DE have μαλλον pe; G μαλλον χαρηναι με; K om. με. 
2 After επιστ. D*EG, d, ε, f, g add pov and the Harclean adds pov πρωτῃ. 


3 B has ει δε και. 


* BD®, d, ε, vg. om. yap; Lachmann and Hort think that vg. (videns) has alone 
preserved the true reading, viz., βλεπων (see note below). 


δα, f, g, vg. have vp. ελνπησεν. 


® ΝΕΟ ΚΊ, give κατεργάζεται ; better (here) εργαζεται with ΝΒΟΡΕΡ, 
ΤΝΕΡΕΚΙ.Ρ, d, ε, vg. read νµας; better om. with Ν ΒΟΘ 17, g. 

* $B°CGKLP have κατειργασατο; B*DE have κατηργασατο. 

ΡΝΕΟΘΩΡ, f, g, vg. and the Syriac give εν vp; om. εν R*BDEKL. 

1 DbcEKLP, d, ε give εν τῳ mpayp.; better om. εν with NBCD*G, f, g, harsh 


though the resulting constr. is. 


sense, as here (see τεῦ), or “ jealousy,” 
in a bad sense (see reff. xii. 20).--ὥστε 
µε μᾶλλον χαρῆναι: so that I rejoiced yet 
more, sc., than at the mere coming of 
Titus with his news (cf. ver. 13). 

Ver. 8. ὅτι εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα κ-.τ.λ.: 
for though I made you sorry with my 
epistle (sc., esp. 1 Cor. v.; of. Introd., p. 
14), I do not regret it; though I did 
regret it (for I see that that epistle 
made you sorry, though but for a season), 
yet now I rejoice, etc. We follow the 
punctuation adopted by Tisch., W.H. 
and the American Revisers, the second 
clause softening the apparent harshness 
of the first, and βλέπω γάρ “ee ὥραν 
being ἃ parenthetic explanation. 

Ver. 9. νῦν χαίρω κ.τ.λ.;: now, 56., 
now that Titus is come, and I have 
learnt the effect of my letter, I rejoice, 
not that ye were made sorry, but that ye 
were made sorry unto repentance (of 
which there was no sign when he wrote ; 


see 1 Cor. v. 2), for ye were made sorry 
according to the will of God, sc., in God's 
way as contrasted with man’s way (cf. 1 
Cor. xv. 32 and see reff.), so that ye 
might suffer loss by us in nothing, {.ε., the 
sorrow caused by my rebuke was divinely 
ordered for your good, so that my severity 
did not hurt but rather benefited you. 
The word μετάνοια occurs curiously 
seldom in St. Paul (see reff.), perha 
because it indicates the very first step in 
the religious life, that ‘‘ change of mind” 
as to God which precedes even the re- 
nunciation of sin (see esp. for this use 
reff., Acts and Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17, Acts 
ii. 38, etc.), and this first step his corre- 
spondents had already taken, or his letters 
to them would not have been written. 
Ver. το. ἡ γὰρ κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη 
κιτιλ.: for such godly sorrow, {.ε., ΦΟΙΤΟΝ/ 
for sin as an offence against God (Ps. 
1. 6) and not only for the temporal conse- 
quences of sin (cf. Bengel, ‘‘animi Deum 


8—13. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


83 


12. ἄρα εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, οὐχ εἵνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος, οὐδὲ 3 u Reff. ii. 14. 


v Reff. iv, 2. 


εἵνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος 1+ ἀλλ᾽ εἵνεκεν τοῦ " φανερωθῆναι τὴν 'σπου- ν τ Cor. 


δὲ Be χὰ ‘ ς Ν ε a 4 ‘ ek a ν 
ην υρων την υπερ ημων ΄“ πρὸς υμας 


Xvi. 18; 


ἐνώπιον τοῦ “Θεοῦ. 13. Διὰ Philm. 


A , MON) δα , Con! ἢ / δὲ ὃ 7, 20. 
τοῦτο παρακεκλήμεθα ἐπὶ τῇ παρακλήσει ὑμῶν 5" περισσοτέρως δὲ  χ See on 


μᾶλλον ἐχάρημεν ἐπὶ τῇ χαρᾷ Τίτου, ὅτι " ἀναπέπαυται τὸ * πνεῦμα 


1 D*E have αδικηθεντος . . - αδικησαντος. 


δα (not F), d*, g give σπουδὴν ημων. 


ii. 13. 


2 NcB, 37, 73 have αλλ) ουδε. 
4 SQD*F have ὑπερ υμων. 


5 FKL, the Bohairic and Harclean support παρακλ. vpwv; better ηµων with 


SBCDEGP, vg. and Peshitto. 


6 All the uncials place δε, not before μαλλον, but between επι and ty παρακλήσει. 


spectantis et sequentis ”), worketh repent- 
ance which leads tosalvation, arepentance 
which bringeth no regret. ἀμεταμέλητον 
may be taken with σωτηρία (see Κ.Υ. 
margin), but there would be no point in 
applying such an adj. to σωτηρία, where- 
as it iS quite apposite as applied to 
μετάνοια (as by Chrys., R.V., etc.).—4 
δὲ τοῦ κόσμου κ.τ.λ.: but the sorrow of 
the world, sc., such sorrow as the world 
feels—for failure, not for sin— worketh 
out death, sc.,as opposed to σωτηρία (cf. 
chap. ii. 16). 

Ver. 11. ἰδοὺ γὰρ αὐτὸ κ.τ.λ.: for 
behold, this same thing, viz., that you 
were made sorry after a godly sort, what 
diligence it wrought in you, yea (sc., ‘not 
only so, but also,” ἀλλά introducing an 
accessory idea) what a defence, sc., of 
yourselves to me through the mediation 
of Titus, yea what indignation, yea what 
fear, sc., of St. Paul’s rebukes, yea what 
longing, sc., that he should come to them 
(see ver. 7), yea what zeal, sc., on behalf 
of God and righteousness, yea what 
avenging, sc., the heavy punishment 
solemnly inflicted on the offender in God’s 
name (chap. ii. 6). Observe that ἐκδί- 
κησις and ἐκδικέω are always (see reff. 
and Luke xviii. 7, 1 Pet. ii. 14, etc.) used 
of God’s avenging of sin, not of man’s 
retaliation.—év παντὶ κ.τ.λ.: im every- 
thing ye approved yourselves to be pure 
in the matter, i.e., not that they were 
quite free from gross sins of the flesh (see 
xii, 21), but that by their ready compli- 
ance with the Apostle’s directions they 
had cleared themselves from the guilt of 
connivance at incest (see ii. 6). τῷ 
πράγματι (the dat. of regard) is a vague 
phrase used here and at 1 Thess. iv. 6 to 
denote abominable wickedness. 

Ver. 12. ἄρα εἰ καὶ ἔγραψα κ.τ.λ.; 
consequently, although I wrote to you, i.e., 
wrote a severe letter, {έ was not for his 
cause that did the wrong, sc., the inces- 


tuous son of 1 Cor. v. 1, nor for his cause 
that suffered the wrong, sc., his father, 
but that your diligence on our behalf 
might be made manifest to yourselves 
(‘chez vous,” so πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 1 Thess. 
ili. 4) in the sight of God. He does not 
mean that this was the only reason for 
writing (cf. ii. g), and that the more 
obvious reason was not in his mind; but 
he states strongly (expressing himself by 
an idiom common in the Ο.Τ., e.g., Jer. 
vii. 22) a principal cause of his writing, 
viz., that the Corinthian Church might 
be recalled to a true sense of what was 
due to its founder, as if it were the, 
only cause. See on ii. 9, and, for a 
discussion of the whole question, see 
Introd., Ῥ. 1ο ff. 

Ver. 13. διὰ τοῦτο παρακεκλ.: where- 
fore we have been comforted. With 
Tisch., W.H. and modern editors gene- 
tally we place a full stop here. What 
follows introduces a new idea. 

Vv. 13-16. THE Joy oF TITUS IN 
THE TIDINGS HE BROUGHT. Chrysostom 
notes the tact which leads St. Paul to 
communicate this so emphatically ; Titus 
was going back to Corinth on the busi- 
ness of the collection (viii. 6, 16, 23), and 
it was very desirable that he should be 
well received there.—émi δὲ τῇ παρα- 
κλήσει ἡμῶν περισσοτέρως μᾶλλον k.T.A.: 
and in addition to this comfort of ours we 
rejoiced the more exceedingly (cf. νετ. 7, 
and for the double comparative cf. Mark 
vii. 36, Phil. i. 23) at (for the constr. 
χαίρειν ἐπὶ εΓ. 1 Cor. xiii. 6, xvi. 17, etc.) 
the joy of Titus, because his spirit hath 
been refreshed by you all (cf. the some- 
what similar use of ἀπό in chap. ii. 3, 
Matt. xi. το, Acts ii. 22), Both here and 
at ver. 15 πάντων is emphasised by its 
position before ὑμῶν; Titus was well 
received by all at Corinth, and it seems 
to be implied at xii. 18 that he left a 
favourable impression upon them αἱ], 


84 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


VII. 14—16. 


σα Cor. ἓ, ,, αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ πάντων ὑμῶν" 14. ὅτι εἴ τι αὐτῷ ὑπὲρ] ὑμῶν κεκαύχηµαι, 


27, Xi. 4,5, 


22; chap οὐ ” κατῃσχύνθην " ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πάντα 3 ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ἐλαλήσαμεν ὑμῖν, 
z Rell i.12. οὕτω καὶ ἡ " καύχησις ἡμῶν ' ἡ ’ ἐπὶ ὃ Τίτου ἀλήθεια ἐγενήθη 15. 


a Reff. vi.12. 


vx Cor. iv. καὶ τὰ "σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ περισσοτέρως εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐστιν, " ἀναμιμνη- 


17;2 Tim. 


᾿ ἐδέξασθε αὐτόν. 


» Ss: 
Phil. ii. 12; Isa. xix. 16. d See on iv. 8. 


σκομένου τὴν mdvtwr" ὑμῶν ὑπακοὴν, ὡς μετὰ “φόβου καὶ “τρόμου 
16. χαίρω ὅτι “ ἐν ' παντὶ " θαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν. 
ε Reff. v. 6. 


16, g, the Peshitto and Bohairic give the order κεκ. νπ. ἡμων. 
2 CG, g, the Harclean and Bohairic have παντοτε for παντα. 


3 CDEP, d, e, f place υμιν before ev αληθ. 


* BF have νµων for ἡμῶν. 


5ΝΒ om. ἡ before επι (so Tisch, and W.H.). 


® DEGP have προς Τιτον. 


Ver. 14. ὅτι εἴ τι κιτιλ.: for if in 
anything I have gloried to him on your 
behalf, τ.ε., have boasted of you (cf. ix. 2, 
xii. 5), 1 was not put to shame, sc., by the 
vanity of my boasting being exposed; 
but as we spake all things to you in truth 
(this he is continually insisting on, ¢.g., 
at i. 18, ii. 17, iv. 2, etc.), so our gloryin 
also, viz., that made before Titus (cf. 
Mark xiii. 9 for ἐπί with the gen.), was 
found (not ‘is found" as A.V., but “ was 
found” as at 1 Cor. i. 30) to be truth. 

Ver. 15. καὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα κ.τ.λ.: 
and his heart is more abundantly towards 
you, while he recalls to himself the obedi- 
ence of you all, how with fear (see reff. 
and cf. Matt. xxviii. 8, 1 Pet. iil. 15, for 
μετὰ φόβον) and trembling you received 
him. He had brought a stern message, 
which involved the excommunication of 
the unworthy member (1 Cor. v. 5); it 
was no wonder that they trembled at his 
coming. 

Ver. 16. χαίρω ὅτι κ.τ.λ.; 1 rejoice 
that in everything I am of good courage 
(not as A.V. “ I have confidence,” which 
would be πέποιθα) concerning you. 

II. The Collection for the Judzan 
Christians (viii. 1-ix. 15). e have 
now come to the second main topic of 
the Epistle, viz., the collection to be made 
at Corinth, as in all the Christian com- 
munities which the Apostle had founded, 
on behalf of the poor Christians at Judwa 
(chaps. viii. and ix.). We first hear of 
this great undertaking at 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 
but it is plain from that passage as well 
as from 2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2, that it had 
been organised some time before 1 Cor. 
was written. (See Introd., p. 6.) The 
poverty of the Christians at Jerusalem, 
however caused, was evidently acute ; and 
when St. Paul first parted from the Twelve 


ΤΝ” om. παντων. 


on his mission to the Gentiles, one of 
the stipulations made with him was that 
he should ‘remember the poor” (Gal. 
ii. το). This stipulation he faithfully 
observed, and it was to convey the 
money thus entrusted to him to its 
proper recipients that he paid his last 
visit to Jerusalem (Acts xxiv. 17). See 
further the excellent discussion in Stan- 
ley’s note on 1 Cor, xvi. 1. 

Chap. viii. vv. 1-7. THE LIBERALITY 
OF THE MACEDONIAN CHURCHES—AN 
EXAMPLE TO CoriINnTH.—Ver. 1. Γ 
ἵομεν δὲ ὑμῖν κιτιλ.: moreover (for this 
is the force of the δὲ μεταβατικόν, mark- 
ing the transition to a new subject; cf. 
1 Cor, vii. 1, viii. 1, xv. 1, Chap. x. 1, 
etc.), brethren, we make known to you 
the grace of God, sc., the special grace of 
liberality in giving, which has been given 
in, i.e., given to and exhibited in (see on 
i. 22), the Churches of Macedonia, ¢.g., 
Philippi, Thessalonica and Bercea (Acts 
xvi. and xvii.), which places we may 
presume he revisited on this journey. 

Ver. 2. ὅτι ἐν πολλῇ δοκιμῇ κ.τ.λ.: 
how that in much proof of affliction, i.e., 
in spite of the severe afflictions by which 
they were tried, probably a reference to 
persecution and annoyance from their 
heathen neighbours (see Acts xvi. 20, 
Phil. i, 28, 1 Thess. i. 6, ii, 14, iii. 3-9), 
the abundance of their joy and their deep 
poverty (κατὰ βάθους = ‘reaching deep 
down ”’; cf. the phrase in Strabo, ix., 419, 
ἄντρον κοῖλον κατὰ βάθους) abounded 
unto the riches of their liberality. ἁπλοῦς 
means primarily ‘ simple,” “ single- 
minded” (Matt. vi. 22), and ἁπλότης is 
thus used by St. Paul in chap. xi. 3, 
Eph. vi. 5, Col. iii. 22; but single- 
mindedness or ‘theartiness” of giving 
(see 1 Chron, xxix. 17) involves “ liber- 


VIII. τ---6. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


85 


VIII. 1. ΓΝΩΡΙΖΟΜΕΝ δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοὶ, τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἃ Rett i. ᾿ 


δεδομένην ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Μακεδονίας: 2. ὅτι ἐν πολλῇ 
" δοκιμᾷ "θλίψεως ἡ “περισσεία τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ κατὰ βάθους 
ἁπτωχεία αὐτῶν ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς tov! πλοῦτον τῆς ° ἁπλότητος 4 
αὐτῶν : 3. ὅτι κατὰ δύναμιν, ᾿ μαρτυρῶ, καὶ ὑπὲρ” δύναμιν 5 αὖθαί- 
ρετοι, 4. μετὰ πολλῆς παρακλήσεως δεόμενοι ἡμῶν, τὴν χάριν καὶ 
τὴν ἢ κοινωνίαν τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ᾿ ἁγίους δέξασθαι ὅ ἡμᾶς " 
5. καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν, ἢ ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν πρῶτον τῷ Κυρίῳ, 
καὶ ἡμῖν " διὰ " θελήματος "Θεοῦ: 6. εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς 


c Rom. v. 
17; chap. 
X.15; Jas. 
i. 21 only. 
Ver 9; 
Rev. ti. 9 
only. 

e Rom. xii. 
8; chaps. 
ἴχ πα, 153: 
ΧΙ. 5: 
Eph. vi. 
5; Col. 
iii. 22 
only. 

« f Rom. x. 2; 


; ε cal 
Titov, ἵνα, καθὼς ' προενήρξατο," οὕτω καὶ ™ ἐπιτελέσῃ εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ Gal. iv. 


iv. 13. 


h Reff, vi. 14. 
πι Reff. vii. 1. 


g Ver. 17 only. 


15; Col. 


i Reff. i. 1. k Reff. i. 1, 1 Ver. το only. 


1 ΝΕΡΕΚΙ, support τον πλοντον; better τὸ πλουτος with *BCP 17 (cf. the 
same variant Eph. i. 7, ii. 7, iii. 8, 16, Phil. iv. 19, Col. ii. 2; in later Greek there is 
a tendency towards the neuter form; see crit. note on ix. 2). 


2 KLP give υπερ Suv. ; better παρα with NBCDEG, 
3 δεξασθαι ηµας is not found in the uncials and primary vss, ; it isa mere explana- 


tory gloss. 
4B 73 have ηλπικαμεν. 


ality”? in giving (cf. ix. 7), and thus in 
many passages (see reff. and cf. Jas. i. 
5) liberality is the best rendering. The 
whole of Greece, except the Roman 
colonies of Patrae and Corinth, was in 
a dire condition of poverty and distress 
at this period (see Arnold’s Roman 
Commonwealth, ii., 382, quoted by Stan- 
ley) ; and the contribution of the Mace- 
donian Christians was really comparable 
to the giving of the widow’s mite (Mark 
xii. 44). It is noteworthy that no warn- 
ings against the temptations of wealth 
occur in r and 2 Thess. or Phil. See, 
however, Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays, p. 247. 

Ver. 3. ὅτι κατὰ δύναμιν κ.τελ.; 
for according to their power, I bear wit- 
ness, yea and beyond their power. Field 
quotes a good parallel from Josephus, 
Antt., iii., 6. 1, who has κατὰ δύναμιν... 
παρὰ δύναμιν as here. 

Vy. 3,4. ᾿αὐθαίρετοι μετὰ πολλ. παρ- 
ak. κ.τ.λ.: of their own accord begging 
of us with much entreaty (the constr. is 
clumsy but perhaps unbroken; we should 
expect ἔδωκαν after αὐθαίρετοι, but the 
verb is found in ver. 5) the favour, sc., of 
giving (cf., for this sense of χάρις, Acts 
xxiv. 27, xxv. 3, Ecclus. xxx. 6), and the 
participation in the ministering to the 
saints, sc., the poor Christians in Judza. 
The Macedonian Christians did not wait 
to be asked to give; they asked to be 
allowed the privilege of giving (cf. Acts 
XX. 35). διακονία is the regular word for 


5 B has ενηρξατο (cf. ver. το). 


such charitable service (cf. Acts vi. 1, xi. 
29, Rom. xv. 25, 31, chap. ix. 1, 12, etc.), 
a primary duty of the διάκονοι being the 
administration of alms. 

Ver. 5. καὶ οὐ καθὼς κ.τ.λ.: and not 
(merely) as we hoped, i.e., beyond what we 
expected or hoped, but first (not only in 
order of time, but in order of importance ; 
as we say “‘first of all”) they gave them- 
selves to the Lord. This is not merely 
the consecration of self (cf. Rom. xii. 1), 
which is the condition of all acceptable 
almsgiving, for this would not have been 
beyond the Apostle’s expectations, but 
the devotion of personal service in the 
work of spreading the Gospel, such as 
was given by Sopater of Bercea, Aris- 
tarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica 
(Acts xx. 4), and Epaphroditus of Philippi 
(Phil. ii. 25). Other Macedonian Chris- 
tians who are named as helpers of St. 
Paul are Jason (Acts xvii. 5 1.) and Gaius 
Acts xix. 29); possibly Demas also (Philm. 
24, 2 Tim. iv. 10) was of Thessalonica, and 
it has been argued that St. Luke was of 
Philippi. (see Ramsay, St. Paul the 
Traveller, p. 202).---καὶ ἡμῖν διὰ θελ. 
Θεοῦ: and to us (some of them were St. 
Paul’s companions in travel) by the will 
of |God. Everywhere in St. Paul’s writ- 
ings the impulse to faithful service is 
traced up to God’s grace. 

Vv. 6, 7. εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι κ.τ.λ.: 
so that we exhorted Titus (the epistolary 
aor: infin. ; this is the exhortation to Titus 


“ 


86 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β νΠΠΠ, 


5 5εε ον ἵν. τὴν χάριν ταύτην. 7. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὥσπερ "ἐν " παντὶ περισσεύετε,! πίστει" 
ο = ad καὶ λόγῳ καὶ γνώσει καὶ “ πάσῃ " σπουδῇ, καὶ τῇ ἐξ ὑμῶν ὃ ἐν ἡμῖν 


18: chap. ἀγάπῃ, ἵνα καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χάριτι περισσεύητε. 8. οὐ “κατ᾽ 


Eph. i. 3. ἃ ἐπιταγὴν λέγω, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς " ἑτέρων " σπουδῆς καὶ τὸ τῆς ὑμετέ- 


Ρ Reff. vii. 


11, α 
q Rom. xvi. “ied 


ἀγάπης * γνήσιον " δοκιμάζων ὅ- 9. γινώσκετε γὰρ τὴν χάριν τοῦ 


26; 1Cor.Kuptou ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι δι ὑμᾶς ὃ ' ἐπτώχευσε " πλούσιος 


vii. 6; 1 ἦ 
Tim. i. 1; Tit. i. 3. 
xiii. 5; Gal. vi. 4; 1 Thess v. αι. 
ii. 4; 1 Tim. vi. 17. 


1 CP have περισσενητε. 


Σεξ υμων εν ἡμῖν, NCDEGKLP, the Latin and Harclean vss., which 


τ Phil. iv. 3; 1 Tim. i. 2; Tit. i. 4 only. 
t Here only; Ps. Saat st: 


s 1 Cor. xi. 28; ver. 22; cha 
cf. chap. vi. 10, etc. u Eph. 


ΣΝ has εν πιστει. 
ives the 


sense more agreeable to the context; B, the Peshitto and Bohairic give εξ ἡμων ev 
vpiv, which is preferred by W.H. and Κ.Υ. marg. (cf. the variants in vii. 12). 


* D*E*G have περισσενσητε. 
5 D*G have δοκιμαζω. 


on his meeting with St. Paul in Mace- 
donia after accomplishing his first Mission 
to Corinth; παρακαλ. is the word used 
throughout of the Apostle’s directions to 
Titus; see viii. 17, ix. 5, xii. 17, and on 
chap. i. 4), that as he made a beginning 
before, sc., in the matter of the collection, 
during the Mission from which he has 
now returned, so he would also com- 
plete in you this grace also, i.¢., the 
grace of liberal giving in addition to the 
graces of repentance and goodwill which 
rejoiced him so much to observe (vii. 13, 
14). ἐπιτελεῖν is to bring to a successful 
issue a work already begun; see ν, 11 
below.—4AX’ ὥσπερ κ.τ.λ.: yea rather 
(ὥσπερ having an ascensive force as at 
i. 9, ν. 7 being strictly parallel to and 
explanatory of v. 6) that as ye abound 
(cf, 1 Cor. xv. 58) tn everything (so he 
had said of the Corinthians in 1 Cor, i. 
5, ἐν παντὶ ἐπλοντίσθητε), in faith (see 
chap. i. 24 and 1 Cor. xii, 8, where πίστις 
is named as one of the gifts of the Spirit 
exhibited among them), and utterance, i.e., 
the grace of ready exposition of the Gospel 
message, and knowledge, i.e., of Divine 
things (λόγος and γνῶσις are conjoined, 
as here, at 1 Cor. i. 5, and γνῶσις is also 
mentioned with πίστις at 1 Cor. xii. 8; 
at 1 Cor. viii. 1 he points out with marked 
emphasis that γνῶσις is not comparable 
in importance to ἀγάπη as shown in con- 
descension to a brother's intellectual 
weakness), and all carnestness (see reff. 
and cf. vii. 11, where he mentions the 
σπουδή that the Corinthians had ex- 
hibited when they received his message 
of reproof), and in your love to us (cf. 1. 
11 and vili. 24; the variant reading ἐξ 
ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν would disturb the sense 


7B om. Χριστον. 


® DE have τὴν er. σπονδην. 
5 CK have δι᾽ nas. 


all through he is speaking of the graces 
of the Corinthians, not of his own), so 
ye may abound in this grace also (cf. ix. 8). 
The English versions and comm. take 
ἵνα with the subj. here as a periphrasis 
for the imperative, and understand some 
verb like βλέπετε, “See that ye abound, 
etc.,” but this usage of ἵνα is unex- 
ampled. We follow Kennedy in taking 
v. 7 in close connexion with v. 6, although 
we do not agree with the inferences 
which he draws (2 and 3 Cor., p. 122). 
V. 7 seems “to have been added by St. 
Paul,” he rightly observes “to avoid 
any appearance of depreciating the work 
which Titus had already accomplished 
among the Corinthian Christians, by the 
description of it in v. 6 as a beginning”. 
Cf. the shrewd remark of Grotius, “non 
ignoravit Paulus artem rhetorum, movere 
laudando "", 

Vv. 8-15. HE couNSELS (THOUGH 
HE WILL NOT COMMAND) THAT THEY 
FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF THE MACE- 
DONIAN CHURCHES, ACCORDING TO THEIR 
ABILITY.— Ver. 8. οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν 
λέγω κ.τ.λ.; I speak not by way of com- 
mandment, i.¢., I do not give you an 
authoritative and formal command (as I | 
might do), but as proving through the 
earnestness of others, sc., the example of 
the Macedonian Churches (ver. 3), the 
genuineness also of your love (ver. 7). 
For the constr. τὸ γνήσιον τῆς ἀγάπης 
see on iv. 17. 

Ver. 9. γινώσκετε yap x.7.A.: for ye 
know the grace, i.e., the act of grace, ο 
our Lord Fesus Christ, that being rich, 
sc., in His pre-existent state before the 
Incarnation, yet for your sakes (cf. Rom. 
xv. 3) He became poor, sc., in that κένωσις 


7. 13. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


87 


dy, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τῇ] ἐκείνου " πτωχείᾳ “ πλουτήσητε. το. καὶ "γνώμην Ὁ Reff. ver. 


ἐν τούτῳ " δίδωμι - τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν ” συμφέρει, οἵτινες 2 οὐ μόνον τὸ 
ποιῆσαι ὃ ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ θέλειν ΄ προενήρξασθε * "ἀπὸ "πέρυσι: 11. 


νυνὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι ” ἐπιτελέσατε, 


an ‘ A 
τοῦ ὃ θέλειν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἐπιτελέσαι ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν. 


Rom. x. 
12; 1Cor. 


iv. 8; τ 

2 β ; Tim. vi. 
ὅπως καθάπερ ἡ “προθυμία 928. ο, 
12. Εἰ γὰρ ἡ 25: oft 
yer. Cor. i. 10; 


προθυμία “πρόκειται, καθὸ ἐὰν ὃ ἔχῃ τις, “εὐπρόσδεκτος, οὐ καθὸ οὐκ Philm. 


ῳ >” > eon ‘ a > see . 
ἔχει. 13. οὐ γὰρ ἵνα ἄλλοις ' ἄνεσις, ὑμῖν δὲ ὃ " θλῖψις - ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ yz Cor. vi. 


i i 


πὴ Ὁ "νἀ ας A 
ἰσότητος, εν τῳ νυν 

z Ver. 6 only. a Chap. ix. 22. 

ἃ Here only in Ῥαὰ]. e Reff. vi. 2. 
26, viii. 18, xi. 5 only; Gen. ΧΧΧ. 20, 


1 DEG have αυτου. 


lol a / 
καιρῷ τὸ ὑμῶν "περίσσευμα εἰς τὸ ἐκείνων 


Ὁ Reff. vii. 1. 
f Reff. ii. 13. 
k Here only in Paul. 


το, κ, 23; 
chap. xii. 


ἘΣ 
c Ver. 19, chap. ix. 2; Acts xvii. 11 only. 
g Reff.i.4. hColiv.1only. i Rom. iii, 


2 G, ἢ, g and the Peshitto give οτι for οιτιγεςν 


8 The Peshitto (mistaking the sense) interchanges ποιησαι and θελειν. 


4 D*G have ενηρξασθαι (cf. ver. 6). 


> BCDcEKP read εαν; SD*GL have αγ. 
δ C?L and the Bohairic support τις, but $§™BC*DEGKP and the Latins omit it. 


7 DEG, g add τις after εχειο 


8 S$cDEGKLP, ἢ, g, vg. and the Harclean support υμιν δε; S*BC 17, ἆ, e om. δε. 


which the Incarnation involved (Phil. ii. 
5, 6), (the aor. marks a def. point of 
time, ‘He became poor,” not ‘ He was 
poor’’), in order that ye by His poverty, 
ῖ.6., His assumption of man’s nature, 
might be rich, 1.6., in the manifold graces 
of the Incarnation (cf. 1 Cor. 1.5). This 
verse is parenthetical, introduced to give 
the highest example of love and self- 
sacrifice for others; there is nowhere in 
St. Paul a more definite statement of his 
belief in the pre-existence of Christ before 
His Incarnation (cf. John xvii. 5). It has 
been thought that ἐπτώχευσε carries an 
allusion to the poverty of the Lord’s 
earthly life (Matt. viii. 20); but the 
primary reference cannot be to this, for 
the πτωχεία of Jesus Christ by which 
we are “made rich’’ is not the mere 
hardship and penury of His outward lot, 
but the state which He assumed in be- 
coming man. 

Ver. 10. ᾿ καὶ γνώμην κ.τ.λ.: and here- 
in I give my opinion, for this (i.e., that he 
should offer them an opinion rather than 
give a command in this matter, cf. ix. 2) 
is better, 1.6., is morally profitable, for 
you, inasmuch as you (see Rom. i. 25, 32, 
etc., for οἵτινες = quippe qui) were the 
first to make a beginning last year, sc., 
they began to make the collection before 
the Macedonian Churches did (ef. 1 Cor. 
xvi. 1, chap. ix. 2), not only to do but also 
to will, sc., they were beforehand not only 
in act, but-in intention. ἀπὸ πέρυσι is 
for ἐκ πέρυσι or πρὸ πέρυσι of classical 


Greek ; Deissmann (Neue Bibelstudien, p. 
49) notes its occurrence in a papyrus of 
the second cent. B.c., of which the words 
run: ὅτι εἰσὶν ἐν τῷ κεραμεῖ ἀπὸ πέρυσι 
ιβ κ.τ.λ., ἡ.6., “that twelve drachmae 
are in the pot from last year”. This 
parallel is important, as showing that ἀπὸ 
πέρυσι does not necessarily mean “a 
year ago”. It must be borne in mind 
that St. Paul is writing from Macedonia 
and probably in the month of November. 
Now the Macedonian year, like the 
Jewish, began with October, so that the 
phrase would be strictly justifiable, ac- 
cording to the chronological scheme 
adopted in the Introd. (p. 13). 

Ver, τι. νυνὶ δὲ κ.τ.λ.: but now com- 
plete the doing also, that as there was 
the readiness to will, so there may be also 
the completion in accordance with your 
ability: ἐκ τοῦ ἐχεῖν = καθὸ ἄν ἔχῃ of 
ver. 12 = pro facultatibus (cf. John iii. 
34, ἐκ μέτρου), and not, as A.V., ‘ out of 
that which ye have”’. 

Ver. 12, εἰ yap ἡ προθυμία κ.τ.λ.: 
for if the readiness is there it is accept- 
able according as a man has, not accord- 
ing as he has not; cf. ix. 7, Mark xii. 43, 
and Tobit iv. 8, ‘As thy substance is, 
give alms of it according to thine abund- 
ance; if thou have little, be not afraid to 
give alms according to that little ”, 

Vv. 13,14. ov γὰρ ἵνα κ.τ.λ.: for the 
collection is ποί made in order that there 
may be relief to others, t.e., to the Judean 
Christians, and pressure to you, but by 


88 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


ΝΠ]. 


11 Cor. xvi. ὑστέρημα, 14. ἵνα καὶ τὸ ἐκείνων περίσσευμα γένηται εἰς τὸ ὑμῶν 


17; chaps. 
ix. 12, xi, 
; Phil. 
li. 30. 
m Exod. 
xvi. 18, 
n Here only. 


ὑστέρημα: ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης, 15. καθὼς γέγραπται, ™“‘O τὸ 
πολὺ, οὐκ ἐπλεόνασε καὶ ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον οὐκ " ἠλαττόνησε”. 
16. "Χάρις δὲ “τῷ “ Θεῷ τῷ διδόντι ᾿ τὴν αὐτὴν ἢ σπουδὴν ὑπὲρ 


ο Refi.ii.14. ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ Τίτου: 17. ὅτι τὴν μὲν παράκλησιν ἐδέξατο, 


p Reff. vii. 
11. 


α σπουδαιότερος δὲ ὑπάρχων, " αὐθαίρετος ἐξῆλθε πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 


18. 


αμα "Συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ pet? αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀδελφὸν, οὗ ὁ ὃ "ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ 


il. 28; 


Tim.i.17. £Ver.3only. δβ Ver. 22 only. 


t Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 3; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Phil. iv. 8. 


1 $*BCKP, g read διδοντι; δοντι is read by ΜΕΡΕΙ, ἃ, e, f, vg. and the Syriac; 
C and the Bohairic add μιν (through misunderstanding the sense). 


2 Tisch. reads τον αδελφον per’ αντον with N{*P and the Bohairic; but the τες, 
order is supported by all the other principal MSS. and vss. 


8 Ἐπ om. ο. 


equality, your abundance at the present 
season being a supply for their want, that 
their abundance also may prove to be a 
supply for your want, sc., at some future 
time, that there may be equality, i.e., 
reciprocity. There is no thought here 
of Jerusalem giving spiritual benefits in 
return for the material benefits given by 
Corinth (cf. chap, ix. 14 and Rom. xv, 
27); what is meant is that if it ever 
came to the turn of Corinth to be poor, 
then it would be for Jerusalem to con- 
tribute for Aer support. Such an idea as 
that of the transference of the merits 
of the saints is, of course, quite foreign to 
the context. 

Ver. 15. καθὼς γέγραπται κ.τ.λ.: as 
it is written, sc., in the words of Scripture, 
“ He that gathered (we must understand 
σύλλεξας from Exod. xvi. 17) much had 
nothing over; and he that gathered little 
had no lack,” sc., because each gathered 
enough manna for his own needs and no 
more, That each Christian Church may 
have enough for its necessities, not its 
luxuries, is what St. Paul contemplates 
as desirable and possible by mutual 
generosity in giving. The true text 
(ABF) of the LXX in Exod. xvi. 18 has 
τὸ ἔλαττον for τὸ ὀλίγον, which however 
is found as an early correction in A, and 
also in Philo. 

Vv. 16-24. HE COMMENDS TO THEM 
TiTrus AND TWO UNNAMED COMPANIONS, 
WHO, BEARING THIS LETTER WITH THEM, 
ARE SENT TO GATHER THE COLLECTION 
at CortntTH.—Ver. 16. χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ 
x.t.A.: but thanks be to God, who gives 
(note the pres. tense) to (lit., ‘in’; see 
on i. 22 for constr.) the heart of Titus 
the same earnest care for you, sc., the 
same that I myself feel. 


Ver. 17. ὅτι τὴν μὲν παράκλ. κ.τ.λ.: 
for not only did he accept (the epistolary 
aorist) our exhortation, sc., of ver. 6, but 
ΙΕ this is the proof of his σπουδή) 

eing himself very earnest (we are not to 
press the comparative σπονδαιότερος; 
cf. Acts xvii. 22), it was of his own accord 
that he went forth (epist. aor.) unto you, 
sc., from Macedonia, bearing this letter. 
ὑπάρχων is used (as at Rom. iv. 19, 1 
Cor. xi. 7, chap. xii. 16, Gal. i, 14, Phil. 
ii. 6) instead of ὥν, as expressing not 
merely the fact that Titus was σπου 
τερος, but that this was his habitual 
condition; “being, as he is,” would 
convey the sense. 

Ver. 18. συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ κ.τ.λ.;: and 
we have sent (the epistolary aorist; cf. 
Acts xxiii. 30, chap. ix. 3, Phil. ii. 28, 
Philm. 12) together with him the brother, 
sc., the brother whom you know (cf. 
chap. xii. 18), whose praise in the Gospel, 
i.e., whose good repute as a labourer in 
the cause of the Gospel (cf. chap. x. 14, 
Phil. iv. 3, Rom. i. 9), is throughout all 
the Churches, i.e., is spread abroad in 
all the Churches through which I have 
passed (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 17, xiv. 33; see 
xi. 28). The Patristic reference (Origen, 
Jerome, etc.) of these words to St. Luke 
is stereotyped in the Collect for St. Luke’s 
Day, but there is hardly room for doubt 
that this is due to a mistaken interpreta- 
tion of εὐαγγέλιον as signifying a written 
Gospel, rather than the “" good news” of 
God delivered orally by the first Christian 
preachers. We have no positive data by 
which to determine which of St. Paul’s 
contemporaries is here alluded to. It 
has been argued that as this unnamed 
“brother” is seemingly subordinate to 
Titus, he must not be identified with 


14-22. 


εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν" 19. "οὐ " μόνον δὲ, 

ἈΝ ‘ | - 3 ~ τ ΣΡ ean | m8 ΩΣ 
καὶ " χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν  συνέκδηµος ἡμῶν 1 σῦν 2 τῇ 
χάριτι ταύτῃ, τῇ διακονουμένῃ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ ὃ τοῦ 
Κυρίου δόξαν, καὶ " προθυμίαν ὑμῶν: 20. 7 στελλόμενοι τοῦτο, μή 
τις ἡμᾶς “μωμήσηται ἐν τῇ " ἁδρότητι ταύτῃ τῇ διακονουμένῃ ὑφ᾽ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


89 


α ἀλλὰυ Reff. vii. 7. 
v Acts xiv. 
23 only. 
w Acts xix. 
29 only; 

ch. 


Τὰ: 
y 2 Thess. 


ἡμῶν" 21.  mpovoodpevor® καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον Κυρίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ iii. 6 only; 


ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων. 
a 
ὃν 


b Prov. iii. 4. 


1 DE add eyevero after ημων. 


22. “Συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν, 


cf. Acts 
XX. 20; 
Gal. ii. 12. 


4 ἐδοκιμάσαμεν ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις "σπουδαῖον ὄντα, νυνὶ δὲ 2 Κε. vi. 3. 


a Here only. 


ς σετ, 18 only. dReff.ver.8. ο Reff. ver. 17. 


2 BCP, f, vg. and the Bohairic (followed by W.H.) read ev for συν, which is found 


in DEGKL, ἆ, e, g and the Syriac vss. 


3 SDbcEK and the Syriac vss. support αυτον; BCD*GL, the Latins and Bohairic 


omit it. 


+ vpwv after προθ. is found in F and a few cursives only; ημων is read by all the 


principal uncials and vss. 


5 KL support προνοουµενοι καλα; C 17, 73 and Bohairic give προν. γαρ καλα; 
better προνοουμεν yap καλα with the other uncials and vss. 


persons so important as (e.g.) Apollos or 
Silas; and, again, that, as he was appar- 
ently not a Macedonian (ix. 4), he cannot 
be any of the prominent members of the 
Macedonian Church (see on ver. 5 above). 
Trophimus the Ephesian is not impossible 
(see Acts xx. 4, xxi. 29), but it is idle to 
speculate where the evidence is so scanty. 
The important point about this unnamed 
brother is that he was selected not by 
St. Paul, but by the Churches who took 
part in the work of collecting money as 
their representative as is now explained. 

Ver. 19. οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ κ.τ.λ.;: and 
not only so, but who was also appointed 
(χειροτονεῖν is, strictly, to vote by a show 
of hands, and hence it came to mean 
**to elect”) by the Churches, {.6., all the 
local congregations interested, as our 
fellow traveller in the matter of this 
grace (reading év; see crit. note), sc., 
this contribution of money (see vv. 6, 7, 
1 Cor. xvi. 3), which is being ministered 
by us to exhibit the glory of the Lord 
(cf. iv. 15), and our readiness. The MS. 
evidence requires us to read ἡμῶν, but 
it must be confessed that ὑμῶν is rather 
what we should expect, especially as 
προθυμία in ver. 11 and in ix. 2 is applied 
to the Corinthians and not to St. Paul; 
a plausible conjecture would be κατὰ 
προθυμίαν ἡμῶν for καὶ προθ. ἡμ., but 
the words give an intelligible sense as 
they stand (see Gal. ii. 10). 

Ver. 20. στελλύμενοι τοῦτο κ.τ.λ. : 
avoiding this (στελλέσθαι might mean 


“to prepare” as at Wisd. xiv. 1, 2 Macc. 
v. I, but Mal. ii. 5 and reff. make us 
decide for the Vulgate rendering devi- 
tantes ; the metaphor is a naval one, of 
shifting sail so as to avoid an enemy’s 
pursuit), that any man should blame us in 
the matter of this bounty (see xii. 18; 
ἁδρός = full, ripe, rich, as at 1 Kings i. 
9, Job xxxiv. τὸ, Isa. xxxiv. 7, Jer. v. 5, 
and so ἀδρότης stands for a considerable 
and liberal—a ‘‘ fat’? — contribution) 
which is being administered by us. For 
the broken constr. στελλόμενοι κ.τ.λ. Cf. 
ν, πο Vile δ. 

Ver. 21. προνοοῦμεν γὰρ κ.τ.λ.: for 
“we provide things honest” not only “in 
the sight of the Lord,” but also ‘in the 
sight of men,” an injunction in the Pro- 
verbs which the Apostle quotes again at 
Rom, xii. 17. Where other people’s money 

16 in question, one cannot be too careful ; 
and the prudence of the method pursued 
in this collection, whereby the contribut- 
ing Churches appointed colleagues to 
accompany St. Paul and to check his 
accounts, is worthy of close imitation in 
the ecclesiastical finance of a later age 


(cf. vi. 3). ; ΩΝ 
Ver. 22. συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ αὐτοῖς 
Κ.Τ.λ.;: and we have sent with them our 


brother, whom we have many times proved 
earnest in many things, but now much 
more earnest because of the great confidence 
which he has in you (cf. Gal. v. το, 
πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς), {.ο., which was in- 
spired by the account that Titus brought 


90 


{Reff. i. τ5, πολὺ σπουδαιότερον ' πεποιθήσει πολλῇ τῇ εἰς ὑμᾶς. 
ὑπὲρ Τίτου, " κοινωνὸς ἐμὸς καὶ εἰς] ὑμᾶς συνεργός : “etre ἀδελφοὶ 


xv. Ir 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


23. ὅ εἴτε 


h Lk. v. το; ἡμῶν, ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν, δόξα Χριστοῦ." 24. Τὴν οὖν ' ἔνδειξιν 


Phi 


17; Isai τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν, καὶ ἡμῶν "καυχήσεως ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, εἰς αὐτοὺς 


3; . 
reff.i.7. i Rom. iii. 25, 26; Phil. i. 28 only. 


κ Reff. i. 12. 


1 DE, d, e, the Peshitto and Bohairic give σννεργος εἰς vpas. 


2 CF have Κνριον for Χριστον. 


of their good conduct. It is as impossible 
to identify this ‘‘ brother”’ as him of ver. 
18; like the first named he was an envoy 
of the contributing Churches (ver. 23), 
and further (what is not said of the first 
named) he was on terms of personal inti- 
macy with St. Paul, as appears from this 
verse. The guess that he was Tychicus 
is a plausible one (see Acts xx. 4, Eph. 
vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, 2 Tim. iv. 12, Tit. iii. 
12), but it is only a guess and is incapable 
of verification. A few cursives (see on 
xiii. 13) give the name of Barnabas with 
those of Titus and Luke in the subscrip- 
tion at the end of the Epistle, and this 
may represent an early tradition. 

Ver. 23. εἴτε ὑπὲρ Τίτον κ.τ.λ. : 
whether you ask about Titus (cf. on i. 
8 for this use of ὑπέρ), he is my colleague 
and my fellow worker to you ward (for 
him St. Paul will be personally respon- 
sible), or our brethren, they are the 
envoys of Churches, i.c., they were duly 
χειροτονηθέντες (ver. 19). The term 
ἀπόστολος is generally used by St. Paul 
as a technical term; but occasionally, as 
here, and at Phil. ii. 25 (of Epaphroditus) 
and (possibly) at Rom. xvi. 7, he uses 
it in its primitive etymological meaning 
of “envoy” or ‘‘emissary ” (cf. 1 Kings 
xiv. 6). These men are further described 
as δόξα Χριστοῦ, the glory of Christ, per- 
haps because their work is so specially 
ad majorem Dei gloriam (see ver. 19 and 
ΙΧ. 13). 

ver 24. τὴν οὖν ἔνδειξιν κ.τ.λ.: shew 
ye therefore (if we read ἐνδεικνύμενοι the 
exhortation is indirect, as at Rom. xii. 9- 
21) unto them in the face of the Churches 
the demonstration of your love, sc., to us 
(cf. ver. 7), and of our glorying on your 
behalf, sc., my boasting of your readiness 
to give (cf. vil. 4, 14, and ix. 2, 3). 

CHAPTER IX.—Vv. 1-5. HE 15 CON- 
FIDENT OF THEIR READINESS TO GIVE; 
BuT TiITUS AND HIS COMPANIONS HAVE 
BEEN SENT ON, THAT THE COLLECTION 
MAY BE READY WHEN HE ARRIVES AT 
Corintu.—Ver. τ. περὶ μὲν yap κ.τ.λ. ; 
for concerning the ministration to the 


5. D*G, g give νπερ ημων. 


saints, i.e., the collection (see on viii. 4), 
it is superfluous (cf. 2 Macc. xii. 44) for 
me to write, sc., this letter (note the force 
of the art. before γράφειν), {ο you, who 
“were the first to make a beginning” 
(viii. το). Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 9. 

Ver. 2. οἶδα γὰρ τὴν προθ. «.7.A.: 
for I know your readiness, of which I 
glory (for constr. cf. xi. 30, Prov. xxvii. 1) 
on your behalf (of. vii. 14) to the Mace- 
donians, that Achaia (not ὑμεῖς, he re- 
τας the actual words in which he made 

is boast; for “Achaia” see on i. 1) 
has been prepared since last year (see on 
viii. το above), i.¢., to make its contribu- 
tion. It would seem that the Apostle 
feared that he had somewhat overstated 
the case, as he is evidently anxious about 
the Corinthian collection. The use of 
the present tense, καυχῶμαι Μακεδόσιν, 
shows that he is writing from Macedonia 
(see Introd., p. 12).---καὶ τὸ ὑμῶν ζῆλος 
κιτιλ.: and your zeal (see on vii. 7) has 
provoked the majority of them (see on ii. 
6), sc., to contribute (cf. viii. ry 

Ver. 3. ἔπεμψα δὲ τοὺς κ.τ.λ. 
but (the δέ corresponding to μέν of ver. 
1) I have sent (the epistolary aorist ; cf. 
viii. 18) the brethren (cf. viii. 16-22), that 
our glorying on your behalf may not be 
made void (cf. esp. 1 Cor. ix, 15) im this 
respect, i.e., in the matter of actually 
gathering the money, as distinct from 
their general readiness to be liberal (viii. 
το), in order that, even as I said, sc., to 
the Macedonians to whom he had re- 

atedly boasted of Corinthian generosity 
. 2), ye may be prepared. 

Ver. 4. μή πως ἐὰν κιτιλ,: 
lest by any means, if there come with me 
any of Macedonia (not “ they of Mace- 
ἁοπία, as A.V.; it is probably a fair 
inference from this verse that the un- 
named “ brethren ” of viii. 18, 22 were not 
Macedonians), and find you unprepared, 
i.e., with the collection still incomplete, 
we—that we say not, ye (which is what 
he really wishes to convey to them)— 
should be put to shame in this confidence, 
i.c., should be shamed because of our 


ΙΧ. 1—5. 


Ἰ ἐνδείξασθε,] kat? εἰς ''πρόσωπον τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


ΟΙ 


ΙΧ. τ. Περὶ μὲν | Rom. ii 


15, ix.22 
Eph. ii. 7. 


γὰρ τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους περισσόν μοι ἐστὶ τὸ ὃ γράφειν Eh ti. 7. 


ὑμῖν. 
Μακεδόσιν, ὅτι ᾿Αχαΐα παρεσκεύασται 


ὑμῶν " ζῆλος “ ἠρέθισε " τοὺς ° πλείονας. 


φοὺς, ἵνα μὴ τὸ ᾿καύχημα ἡμῶν τὸ 


h , bh , ine ‘ 3 9 29 
μέρει " τούτῳ ἵνα, καθὼς ἔλεγον, παρεσκευασμένοι ἦτε: 4. μή 
ἐὰν 11 ἔλθωσι σὺν ἐμοὶ Μακεδόνες καὶ εὕρωσιν ὑμᾶς | ἀπαρα- ἢ Reff. i. τα. 


πως 10 2,8 


σκευάστους, ἢ" καταισχυνθῶμεν ἡμεῖς, ἵνα μὴ λέγωμεν 13 Gpets,!® ἐν τῇ 


παρακαλέσαι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς, ἵνα " προέλθωσιν εἰς 15 ὑμᾶς, καὶ 


ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ τῆς 1 καυχήσεως. 5. '' ἀναγκαῖον οὖν "ἡγησάμην 


2. οἶδα γὰρ τὴν " προθυμίαν ὑμῶν, ἣν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καυχῶμαι ἃ ἜΡΙΣ viii. 
> ἀπὸ ἢ πέρυσι . καὶ 64 ἐξ 5 b Chap. viii. 


6 δὲ δελ 10 only. 
Pa " 3. 
: ὲ ελ- ς Reff. vii. 7. 
3: ἔπεμψα ο αι ἃ Col. iii. 
ς Ὁ τὰς ε a a ly: 
ων "κενω τω 21 Only; 
ὕπερ ὑμ. πι επ lca 
xix. 7. 
e Reff. ii. 6. 


g Rom. iv. 
14; 1 Cor, 
1. τη, ἸΧι 
15; Phil. 

A il. 7 only. 
προ- ἢ Reff. iii. 


πε 


ΕἾ 1ο. 
καταρτίσωσι τὴν προκατηγγελμένην 5 εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν!" 7 ταύτην "ἑτοίμην i Here only. 


1 Chap. xi. 17; Heb. iii. 14. 


14. 
o Here only. 


Acts xx. 5, 13. 


m Phil. ii. 25; 2 Macc. ix, 21. 
p Chap. x. 6,16; Tit. iii. 1. 


k Reff. vii. 
n Here only in Paul; cf. 


1 sgCDbcE**KLP, f, vg. the Syriac and Bohairic support ενδειξασθε; BD*E*G 
17, ἆ, e, g give ενδεικνυµενοι (preferred by Tisch.), 


2 καὶ before εις προσ. is found in a few cursives only, and should be omitted. 


3 C 17 om. το before γραφειν; G has του. 
4 Better το - . . ζηλος with $B 17 (see on viii. 2). 
5 Better om. εξ before υμων with NBCP 17, f, vg. the Peshitto and Bohairic. 


8 DE and the Bohairic give ἐπεμψαμεν. 


8 G, g om. το υπερ υμων. 
10 BDb and the Peshitto om. εαν. 


7 B* has καυχημα υμων. 
9 Ὁ", ἆ, e, f, g, vg. om. πως, 


11 D*bE*L, d, e and the Peshitto have και καταισχ- 


12 C*DEG, ἆ, e, g give λεγω. 


13 B* has λεγ. ηµεις. 


14 τῆς καυχήσεως is found in cDcEKLP and the Syriac vss. (from xi. 17); better 
om. τῆς καυχησεως N*BCD*G 17, vg. and the Bohairic. 


1 ΟΚΤ, support εις υµας; BDEG have προς. 
16 KL support προκατηγγελµενην; better προεπηγγελµενην (Rom. i. 2 only) with 


NBCDEGP. 
ΤῸΝ, ἅ, 6, M, Vg. OM. ὑμων. 


exaggerated statements. ὑπόστασις = 
substratum or substance (Heb. i. 3, xi. 1) 
is sometimes used in the LXX as = 
“ground of hope” (Ruth i. 12, Ps. 
Xxxvili. 6, Ezek. xix. 5), and thus it 
came to mean “ confidence,” as here (see 
reff.). 

Ver. 5. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἡγησάμην 
κ.τ.λ: therefore, sc., because of the 
reason in ver. 4, I thought it necessary to 
exhort the brethyven (inasmuch as two of 
these ‘brethren’? were not chosen by 
St. Paul, but were the delegates of the 
contributing Churches, the rendering 
‘‘entreat”’ of the R.V. conveys well the 
meaning of παρακαλέσαι; but see on 
viii. 6) that they should go beforehand 
unto you, sc., before the Apostle should 


himself arrive at Corinth, and make up 
beforehand your bounty which was pro- 
mised beforchand, sc., to the Macedonians. 
«Bis dat qui cito dat”’ is what he would 
impress upon the Corinthian Christians. 
εὐλογία, elsewhere used in the N.T. as 
= “blessing”’ (e.g., Rom. xv. 29, 1 Cor. 
πι πθ Galil. τη] 15 here ΞΞ ΠΕ ὦ 
meaning which as the rendering of 


rid" it frequently has in the LXX 


(Gen. xxxiii. 11, etc.). ‘Originally the 
blending of the two ideas arose from the 
fact that every blessing or praise of God 
or man was in the East (as still to a great 
extent) accompanied by a gift ’ (Stanley). 
Cf. the similar ambiguity in the word 
χάρις.--ταύτην ἑτοίμην elvarK.t.A.; that 


92 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B ΙΧ, 
a Rom εἶναι, οὕτως ὡς εὐλογίαν, καὶ] μὴ ὥσπερ” “ πλεονεξίαν. 6. τοῦτο 
Col τίς; δὲ,” 6 "σπείρων "φειδομένως φειδομένως καὶ "θερίσει: καὶ ὁ σπείρων 
1 Thess. ἐπ᾽ 4 εὐλογίαις ἐπ᾽ “ εὐλογίαις καὶ " θερίσει. 7. ἕκαστος καθὼς 


ii. 5 


τὰ Cor. ix. “προαιρεῖται ὃ τῇ καρδίᾳ: μὴ ἐκ λύπης ἢ "ἐξ " ἀνάγκης - "ἱλαρὸν 


1;G 
vi. 7. 
5 Here only; 
cf. i. 13. 
t Here only. 
u Heb. vii. 12. 


γὰρ * δότην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ “Θεός. 


v Prov. xxii. 8. w Reff. iv. 8, 


8. δυνατὸς ἴ δὲ 8 ὁ Θεὸς πᾶσαν χάριν 


περισσεῦσαι εἰς ὑμᾶς, ἵνα "ἐν “ παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν * αὐτάρκειαν 


x1 Tim. vi. 6 only; οὐ. Phil. iv. 11. 


ΔΝ "6, d, e, f, g, πι, vg. and Peshitto om. και after ενλογ.; ins. NcBCDEKLP, 


the Harclean and Bohairic. 


* ws is the true reading; ωσπερ is found in a few cursives only. 
3 f, m, vg. and the Bohairic supply λεγω after δε. 


* D*G, d, e, g, πὶ and the Bohairic give ev ενλογίᾳ for the first επ. ενλ., and for 
the second D*, ἆ, ε have εξ ενλογιας, and G has em’ ενλογιφ. 


5 D*E om. και. 


°DEKL support προαιρειται; G 17 have προειρηται; better προῃρηται with 


NBCP 


7 C®?DbcEKLP support δυνατος ; better Suvare with NBC*DG*. 


8. Ὁ" and the Peshitto give yap for δε. 


(we must supply ὥστε as at Col. iv. 6) 
the same might be ready as a bounty 
(οὕτως ὡς marks the exact mode in which 
the thank-offering is desired; cf. 1 Cor. 
iii. 15, iv. I, ix. 26), and not as an extor- 
tion, sc., a matter of covetous grasping on 
my part (cf. xii. 17). The A.V. rendering 
of πλεονεξίαν = “"᾿ covetousness,”” seems 
to mean “ niggardliness, such as a covet- 
ous man would exhibit,” and this would 
fall in well with the verses which follow ; 
but it is not agreeable to the general 
meaning of the word or to St. Paul’s 
usage elsewhere (see reff.). 

Vv. 6-11. LIBERAL GIVING IS BLESSED 
or Gop.—Ver. 6. τοῦτο δὲ, ὁ σπείρων 
κ.τελ.: but (sc., although I am not press- 
ing you to give, cf. ver. 1) this I say 
(understanding φημι; cf. 1 Cor. vii. 29, 
xv. 50), He that soweth sparingly shall 
reap also sparingly, and he that soweth 
bountifully (lit., ‘‘on the principle of 
bounties ἢ; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 10, ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι, 
for a similar dative of condition) shall 
also reap bountifully. A similar principle 
of spiritual husbandry is laid down in 
Prov. xi. 24, 25, where its application is 
plainly to the rity of the 
“liberal soul’; cf. also Luke vi. 38. 
Here, too, this is, no doubt, the main 
thought (cf. viii. 14); but St. Paul else- 
where extends the principle to the fiature 

st which each soul shall reap accord- 
= to its sowing (Gal. vi. 7; cf. chap. v. 
10). 

Ver. 7. ἕκαστος καθὼς κ.τ.λ.: {εί 

each man give (understanding διδότω) 


- 


according as he hath purposed (note the 
perf.; he implies that they had already 
made up their minds to give. προαίρεσις 
is Aristotle's formal word in Nic. Eth., iii. 
3-19, for a free act of moral choice) in his 
heart (cf. Exod. xxv. 2, “of every man 
whose heart maketh him willing, ye shall 
take my offering"); not grudgingly or of 
necessity, κω “God loveth a cheerful 
giver". In this quotation from Prov. 
xxii. 8, St. Paul substitutes (perhaps to 
avoid the cognate of εὐλογία) ἀγαπᾷ for 
εὐλογεῖ, the LXX reading as it has come 
down to us, but the sense is not altered. 
The duty of almsgiving played a lar 
art in Ἑξῶνον ethics, and that it should 
carried out ungrudgingly is often in- 
sisted on in the O.T. and Ap ha, a 
point specially to be peat in the 
case of a people who have always had 
the repute of being over-fond of money— 
e.g., ‘* Thine heart shall not be grieved 
when thou givest unto him” (Deut. xv. 
10); ‘Let not thine eye be envious” 
(Tobit iv. 7); “In every gift show a 
cheerful countenance "’ (Ecclus: xxxv. 9). 
These precepts St. Paul commends to the 
Corinthians (cf. Rom. xii. 8). (Note that 
the practice of having ‘all things com- 
mon," which was initiated by the enthu- 
siasm of the first converts (Acts iv. 32 ff.), 
did not last long; it was a noble attempt 
to express in outward deed the brother- 
hood of men as revealed in the Incarna- 
tion, but was, in fact, impracticable). 
Ver. 8. δυνατεῖ δὲ ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ.: and 
God is powerful (sce reff. xiii. 3) to make 


6—12, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


93 


ἔχοντες, περισσεύητε ἢ εἰς ¥ πᾶν " ἔργον "ἀγαθόν: 9. καθὼς γέγραπ- 2 Tim. ii. 


ται, ὅ ““᾿Εσκόρπισεν, ἔδωκε τοῖς πένησιν - ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει 2 Ps. cxi. 9. 


3 
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 1... 


ν 3 3 A ο , 3 
και αρτον εἰς βρῶσιν χορηγησαι, κ 


1Ο. ὁ δὲ " ἐπιχορηγῶν " σπέρμα 2 τῷ σπείροντι 
αἱ “᾿ πληθύναι ὃ τὸν 


a Gal. iii. 5; 
Col. ii. 19; 
cf. Phil. i. 

σπόρον 19. 

Ὁ Isa. lv. 1ο, 


d 


ὑμῶν, καὶ αὐξήσαι ὃ τὰ “ γεννήματα ὁ τῆς "δικαιοσύνης ὑμῶν" 11. 51 Pet. iv. 


fest 
ἵεται δι ἡμῶν  " εὐχαριστίαν τῷ ὃ 


1 ra 
λειτουργίας ταύτης οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ 


παντὶ © πλουτιζόμενοι εἰς πᾶσαν " ἁπλότητα, ἥτις ° | κατεργά- 


11 only; 
Ecclus. 
XX XIX. σα. 


Θεῷ 12. ὅτι ἡ διακονία τῆς d Here only 


in Paul. 


™ προσαναπληροῦσα τὰ " ὑστερή- e Hos. x. 12. 


f Reff. iv. 8. 


- , a lal 
ματα τῶν “ ἁγίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περισσεύουσα διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν g Refi.vi.x0. 


2. i Reff. iv. 17. 


κ Reff. iv. 15. 
ο Reff. i. 1. 


1 GK, ἢ, g add του αιωγος at end. 


1 Phil. ii. 17, 30. 


h Κε. viii. 


τῇ Chap. xi.gonly. ῃ Reff. viii. 13. 


2? SCDbcEKLP support σπερµα; BD*G have σπορον- 


® sscDcGKL support the aorist infinitives (or optatives) ; better χορηγήσει... 
πληθυνει . . - αυξησει with S*BCD*P, the Latins and the Bohairic, 


4 The uncials have γενηµατα. 
ὃ D* has ει τις for ητις. 
8 D* om. tw; Β has ευχαρ. Θεου- 


all grace, t.e,, every gift, temporal as well 
as spiritual, abound unto you (see reff. iv. 
15 for περισσεύω in a transitive significa- 
tion), in order that ye, having always all 
sufficiency, sc., of worldly goods and gifts 
(for πᾶσαν see reff. vili. 7), may abound 
unto every good work. Note the parono- 
masia, ἐν παντὶ, πάντοτε, πᾶσαν .. - 
περισσεύητε . . . πᾶν. 

Vv. 9 and το are parenthetical, con- 
taining an illustrative quotation and its 
application.—Ver. 9. καθὼς γέγραπται 
“ Ἐσκόρπισεν κ.τ.λ.: as it is written, 
sc., in the words of Scripture (perhaps 
the quotation was suggested by the 
image of sowing and reaping which re- 
called the word ἐσκόρπισεν), ‘He, sc., the 
liberal man, hath scattered abroad (ef. 
Prov. xi. 24), he hath given to the poor, 
his righteousness, i.e., his beneficence (as 
at Matt. vi. 1; St. Paul, when using his 
own words, never uses δικαιοσύνη in this 
old Hebrew sense), endureth for ever.” 

Ver. το. ὃ δὲ ἐπιχορηγῶν “σπέρμα 
τῷ σπείροντι κ.τ.λ.: and he that sup- 
plieth “seed to the sower and bread for 
food,” shall supply and multiply your 
seed, t.e., your means of giving, for sow- 
ing (the A.V. not only follows the inferior 
reading, but conceals the quotation from 
Isa, lv. το), and increase (cf. τ Cor. ili. 6 
for the trans. use of αὐξάνω) the “ fruits” 
of your ‘‘vightecousness,” 1.6., οἵ your 
beneficence, as in the preceding verse. 
The phrase γενήματα δικαιοσύνης in ref. 
Hosea may be illustrated by τὸ γένημα 


δα, g read wa ev παντι. 


7 C?P, g* and the Harclean margin give δι υμων- 


τῆς ἀμπέλου, “the fruit of the vine ” in 
the Gospels (e.g., Mark xiv. 25). This 
verse is the application, as it were, of the 
quotation in ver. 9, the connecting link 
being the word δικαιοσύνη. 

Ver. 11. He now resumes the general 
subject of ver. 8, ἐν παντὶ πλουτιζόμενοι 
here being in apposition with ἐν παντὶ 
- + + ἔχοντες there; there is thus no 
necessity to treat πλουτιζ. as a nom. 
pendens.—év παντὶ πλουτιζόμενοι κ.τ.λ.: 
ye being enriched in everything unto all, 
i.é., all kinds of, liberality, which worketh 
through us (he goes on in the next verse 
to explain how this is) thanksgiving unto 
God; cf. 1. τε, iv. 15. 

Vv. 12-15. LIBERAL GIVING WILL 
CALL FORTH THE BLESSINGS OF THE 
RECIPIENTS.—Ver. 12. ὅτι ἡ διακ. τῆς 
λειτ. κ.τ.λ.;: for the ministration of this 
service (λειτουργία, which originally 
stood for any public service, came to be 
restricted to the service of God; λειτουρ- 
yéw is used in Rom. xv. 27 of this very 
contribution ; cf. Num. vili. 22, Heb. viii. 
6, ix. 21) is not only filling up (note the 
constr. ἐστι with a participle) the wants of 
the saints, but is abounding also through 
many thanksgivings unto God (cf. iv. 15). 

Ver. 13. διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακ. 
κ.τελ.; inasmuch as they, i.e,, the Judean 
Christians, through the proof, sc., of you, 
afforded by this ministration (cf. viii. 2 
for a similar gen. after δοκιμή), glorify 
God (cf. Matt. v. 16, 1 Pet. ii. 12) for the 
obedience of your confession in regard to 


94 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


IX. 13—15. 


Ρ Reft. ii. 9. τῷ Θεῷ - 13. διὰ 2 τῆς " δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης δοξάζοντες 


q Gal. ii. 


1 Tim, ng τὸν Θεὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ᾿ ὑποταγῇ τῆς "ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 


11, iii. 


rx Tim: vi. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ "ἁπλότητι τῆς "κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς πάντας, 
iii. 1,iv. 14. καὶ αὐτῶν δεήσει ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν," " ἐπιποθούντων ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν " ὑπερ- 


14, X. 23 a - ‘in - - - 
ε oniy. τ βάλλουσαν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν. 15. "χάρις δὲ ὁ "τῷ " Θεῷ 
etl. Vill. 
.. ἐπὶ τῇ * ἀνεκδιηγήτῳ αὐτοῦ 7 δωρεᾷ. 
επ. Vi. 14. 
u Reff. v. 4 v Reff. iii. 1ο, w Reff.ii.14. x» Hereonly. y Rom. v. 15,17; Eph. iii. 7, iv. 7. 
' B has Χριστῳ for Θεῳ. * B has και δια. 5 BE have νπερ ἡμων. 


*ScC*DbcEKLP, the Syriac and Bohairic vss. give δε after χαρις; om. 


N*BC*D*G 17 and the Latins. 


the Gospel of Christ (cf. ii. 12). The 
sentence is an anacoluthon ; δοξάζοντες 
cannot be taken as in apposition with 
πλουτιζόμενοι of ver. 11, for the persons 
referred to are different. It would be 
grammatically admissible to take δοξάζ. 
τὸν Θεὸν with els τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Xp., but 
the order of words and the sense both 
support the connexion ὁμολογίας εἰς 
κ.τ.λ. Of the A.V. * by the experiment of 
this ministration they glorify God for your 
professed subjection unto the Gospel of 
Christ’ Lightfoot truly remarks that “a 
concurrence of Latinisms obscures the 
sense and mars the English”. The con- 
tribution of money for the relief of the 
Christian poor is a ὁμολογία, inasmuch 
as it is the manifestation to the world of 
belief in Christ’s Gospel; ὁμολογία is a 
‘‘confession” or “vow,” and so (as in 
Deut. xii. 17, Amos iv. 5) = “a free will 
offering ".—kal ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας 
κ.τ.λ.;: and for the liberality of your con- 
tribution unto them and unto all. This 
would suggest that the rich Corinthian 
Church had been liberal to other Churches 
besides that of Jerusalem, but we have 
no knowledge of anything of the sort. 
Ver. 14. καὶ αὐτῶν δεήσει κ.τ.λ. 
This is again an independent sentence, 
beginning with a gen. abs.: while they 
also, with supplication on your behalf, 
long after you (sc., apparently, long to 
see you) by reason of the exceeding grace 
of God upon you; t.e., you have the 
prayers of those whom you are helping, 
who feel the yearnings of affection for 
their benefactors in whom the working 
of God’s grace has been so signally dis- 
played. aah ο, 
Ver. 15. χ ᾧ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ.;: thanks 
be to God ἘΣ His es eakable gift. 
δωρεά is always in the N.T. (see reff., 
etc.) used of the gifts of God, not of 
men; and the “unspeakable” gift (cf. 
Rom, xi. 33, Eph. iii. 20) for which the 


Apostle bursts out here into a character- 
istic doxology is the gift of Christ Him- 
self (John iii. 16) and of salvation in Him, 
thankful appreciation of which had borne 
such fruit in Christian lives. 

III. The Vindication of his Apos- 
tolic Authority. It would appear that 
while Titus had brought favourable news 
as to the loyalty with which the Cor- 
inthians had received St. Paul’s message 
of reproof in the matter of the incestuous 
person (vii. 9-11), he had also brought 
distressing intelligence as to the deprecia- 
tion of the Apostle’s authority by certain 
active Judaisers at Corinth. The case is 
80 serious that it requires immediate 
attention, and the third (and last) section . 
of the latter is occupied with St. Paul’s 
reply in vindication of his claims. See 
Introd., p. 22. 

Cuapter X.—Vv. 1-6. He Beas 
THEM NOT TO FORCE HIM TO EXERT HIS 
AUTHORITY WITH SEVERITY WHEN HE 
comes. He first expresses the hope that 
their conduct will be such as to admit of 
his being ‘meek and gentle” when he 
arrives at Corinth, of his coming in a 
“spirit of meekness,” and not “with a 
rod” (x Cor. iv. 21).—Ver. 1. αὐτὸς δὲ 
ἐγὼ Παῦλος κ.τ.λ.: now (δέ marks a 
transition to a new subject, as at viii. 1, 
1 Cor, xv. 1) I Paul myself (αὐτὸς ἐγὼ, 
calling attention to a specially personal 
matter as at xii. 13, Rom. ix. 3, xv. 14; 
he writes ἐγὼ Παῦλος elsewhere at Gal. v. 
2, Eph. iii. 1, Philm. το only, for the sake 
of emphasis) entreat you (cf. i. 4, and for 
the constr. παρακαλῶ διὰ cf. Rom. xii. 1, 
xv. 30, 1 Cor. i. 10; the πραύτης καὶ 
ἐπιείκεια τοῦ Xp. are the example which 

ives point to the entreaty or exhortation) 
By the meckness and gentleness of the 
Christ. That the Messianic King should 
be mpavs had been declared by Zechariah 
(ix. 9, cited Matt. xxi.’5), while πραύτης 
had been associated with His royal pro- 


Χ. 1—5. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


95 


X. 1. ΑΥΤΟΣ δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς διὰ τῆς "πραότητος 3 Ὃ πο 


καὶ " ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς "κατὰ “ πρόσωπον μὲν “ ταπεινὸς ἐν 
ὑμῖν, ἀπὼν δὲ “θαῤῥῶ eis? ὑμᾶς" 2. δέοµαι δὲ, τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι 


ν. 23; 
Eph. iv. 
2; Col. 
iii. 12. 


τῇ ® πεποιθήσει ὃ ἡ λογίζομαι Ἀτολμῆσαι ἐπί τινας τοὺς λογιζομένους > ms xxiv. 


ἡμᾶς ὡς ‘kata ᾿ σάρκα | περιπατοῦντας. 3. 


only; 


‘ ‘ P τ 
σαρκι γὰρ πέρι- τ ἄρ 


k ἐν κ 


πατοῦντες, οὐ κατὰ σάρκα 'στρατευόμεθα: 4. (τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς Tim. iii. 


Ἢ στρατείας ἡμῶν οὐ σαρκικὰ, ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς "καθαίρεσιν 
“ὀχυρωμάτων ") 5. Ρλογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες καὶ πᾶν “ ὕψωμα "ἐπαιρό- 
4 


μενον κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ 


g Reff. i. 15. h 1 Cor. vi. 1; chap. xi. 21, etc. 
Phil. i. 22; Col. ii. 1, ete. 
n Ver. 8, chap. xiii. 10 only. ο Here only. 
39 only. r Chap. xi. 20; Ezra iv. 19. 
t Reff. ii. 11, 


11 Cor. ix. 7; 1 Tim. i. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 4. 


3; Jas. iii. 
17. 
ο Acts iii. 
13,XXv.16. 
d Reff. vii. 6. 


"αἰχμαλωτίζοντες πᾶν "νόημα e Reff. v. 6. 


f Reff. v. 20. 
k Gal. ii. 20; 
m 1 Tim. i. 18 only. 
p Rom. ii. 15 only; Prov. vi. 18. q Rom. viii. 

s Lk. xxi. 24; Rom. vii. 23; 2 Tim. iii. 6 only. 


i Rom. viii. 4; cf. reff. i. 17. 


1 The better spelling is πραυτητος with ΒΑΡ 17. 
2 P and the Latins give ev υμιν for εἰς vpas. 
3 C? and the Bohairic add ταντῃ (cf. i. 15) after τῃ πεπ. 


4G, d,e, 6, mom. και. 


gress by the Psalmist (Ps. xliv. 5); and 
Christ, when He came, declared that he 
was πραῦς καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, a 
claim which His life on earth abundantly 
exemplified (cf. Matt. xii. 19, Luke xxiii. 
34). So too in the wonderful portrait of 
the Righteous Man in Wisd. ii. 12 ff., 
ἐπιείκεια, ‘ gentleness,” ‘‘ sweet reason- 
ableness,” is one of the qualities men- 
tioned (ver. 19). In Greek Ethics (e.g., 
Aristotle, Nic. Eth., v., 10) the ἐπιεικής is 
the “ equitable”? man, who does not press 
for the last farthing of his rights (see 
τεβ,). St. Paul alludes to these qualities 
as well known to have belonged to the 
character of Jesus, even as they had been 
foretold of the Messiah.—és κατὰ πρό- 
σωπον κ.τ.λ.: I Paul, who indeed (sc., as 
you say by way of reproach, the conces- 
sive μέν) before your face am lowly among 
you (he had admitted this before, 1 Cor. 
ii. 3 and chap. vii. 6, and the lowliness of 
his demeanour had been made the subject 
of adverse comment, see further ver. 10), 
but being absent am of good courage to- 
wards you, t.e.,am outspoken in rebuke 
of you (a quite different phrase from 
θαρρῶ ἐν ὑμῖν of vii. 16). 

Ver. 2. δέομαι δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὼν κ.τ.λ.: 
nay (sc., ‘‘ however that be,” δέ recom- 
mencing the sentence) I beseech you, that 
I may not (the use of the article with μή 
and the inf. is somewhat unusual; but 
cf. ii. τ, Rom. xiv. 13; τὸ adds emphasis 
to the thing asked), when present, shew 
courage with the confidence (almost = 
“ peremptoriness ”) wherewith I count on 


|) 


myself (mid., not passive) to be bold 
against some (for the vague tives see on 
ili, 1) which count of us as if we walked 
according to the flesh. His opponents 
charged him with low motives (cf. ii. 17) 
which he will indignantly and sternly 
repudiate. 

Ver. 3. ἐν σαρκὶ yap κ.τ.λ.:; for 
though we walk in the flesh, sc., as all 
men must do (see reff.), we do not war, 
{.6., CaIry ON Our campaign against evil 
and the enemies of God, according to the 
flesh (cf. John xvii. 15)—for the weapons 
of our warfare (see on vi. 7) are not 
carnal (see on i. 12), but are mighty 
before God, 1.e., in God’s sight, in His esti- 
mation (or, perhaps, ‘‘ exceeding mighty,” 
which is the force of τῷ Θεῷ at Jonah 
iii, 3, Acts vii. 20; the A.V. ‘‘ mighty 
through God,” z.e., ‘‘ by His aid,” cannot 
be right), to the casting down of strong- 
holds, which is the ultimate object of every 
campaign, and which, being achieved, is 
the seal of victory ; καθαίρειν τὰ ὀχυρώ- 
pata is the regular LXX phrase for the 
reduction of a fortress (see Prov. xxi. 22, 
Lam. ii. 2, 1 Macc. v. 65, viii. το). 

Ver. 4 is an explanatory parenthesis, 
and the constr. of ver. 5 is continuous 
with ver. 3, the metaphor of the destruc- 
tion of the citadel being carried on. 

Ver. 5. λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες κ.τ.λ.; 
casting down, as if they were centres of 
the enemy’s force, reasonings (St. Paul’s 
message, as he told the Corinthians at 1 
Cor. ii. 4 was not ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας 
λόγοις, but “in demonstration of the 


96 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B Χ. 


u Κε. ix. 5. εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 6. καὶ ἐν” "ἑτοίμω ἔχοντες ᾿ ἐκδικῆσαι 


ν Rom. xii. 
19; cf. 
vii. 11. 

w Rom. v. 
19; Heb. 


πᾶσαν " παρακοὴν, ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὃ ὑμῶν ὁ ἡ ὑπακοή. 
7. τὰ "κατὰ "πρόσωπον βλέπετε; εἴ τις πέποιθεν " ἑαυτῷ Χριστοῦ ὃ 


ii. 2 only. εἶναι, τοῦτο λογιζέσθω πάλιν ἀφ᾽ 7 ἑαυτοῦ, ὅτι καθὼς αὐτὸς Χριστοῦ, 


x Reff. ver. 
I. 


1 After Χρ. D*EG, d, e, g, πι add αγοντες. 


2 D* has ετοιµως for εν ἐτοιμῳ. 


°C, r add προτερον after πληρ. 


*D*cEG, d, e, g, τ give the order η νπακ. υμων. 


5 B has δοκει πεποιθεναι, 


5 D*E*G, d, e, f, g supply δονλος after Χρ. 


7 ap εαντον is found in CDEGKP (cf. iii, 5); better εφ with ΜΒΙ, and the 


Latins. 


Spirit and of power”; he ever regards 
the Gospel as a revelation, not a body of 
doctrine which could be reasoned out by 
man for himself from first principles— 
not, to be sure, an irrational system, but 
one which is beyond the capacity of 
reason to discover or to fathom to its 
depths), and every high thing (carrying 
on the metaphor by which the “ tower- 
ing” conceits of speculation are repre- 
sented as fortifications erected against 
the soldiers of the Cross) that is exalted, 
or “ elevated,” “ built up,” against the 
knowledge of God, sc., which 15 revealed 
in Christ, and leading captive (for aly- 
μαλωτίζειν the more correct Attic form 
is αἰχμαλωτεύειν) every thought into the 
obedience of Christ (cf. ix. 13). All 
through this passage the Apostle has 
directly in view the opposition of gain- 
sayers at Corinth, and so it is not safe to 
interpret his phrases as directed without 
qualification against the claims of the 
intellect and conscience in the matter of 
doctrine, Yet it must be remembered 
that he regarded the message which he 
preached as directly revealed to himself, 
and not derived from tradition or inter- 
pretation, and hence as possessed of a 
certainty to which the demonstrations of 
philosophy, however cogent, could not 
attain. All Truth must be loyal to “ the 
obedience of Christ,” who was Himself 
“the Truth” (cf. xiii. 8). 

Ver. 6. καὶ ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες κ.τ.λ. : 
and being in readiness (cf. ἑτοίμως ἔχω 
chap. xii. 14) to avenge all disobedience 
(cf. Matt. xviii. 17), 5ε., if there remain 
any still disobedient, when your obedi- 
ence, κε. to me and to my Apostolic 
authority (cf. ii. 9, vii. 15), shall be ful- 

lled. The word ὑπακοή in ver. 5 brings 

im back to this, the primary object of 
his letter. He does not wish to arrive in 
Corinth until the Church as a whole is 
firm in its loyalty to him. 


Vv. 7-18. DESPITE ALL APPEARANCES, 
ΗΙ5 APOSTOLICAL AUTHORITY IS 
WEIGHTY ; HIS MISSION To THE GREEKS 
15 A Divine Trust.—Ver. 7. τὰ κατὰ 
προσ. x.t.A.: ye look at the things which 
are before your face; i.e., you pay too 
much attention to outward appearances 
(cf. Rom. ii. τα, Gal. ii, 6, Eph. vi. 9), 
you lay too much stress on persona! inti- 
macy with Christ in the flesh (v. 7), and 
on a man's bodily presence and powers of 
speech (ver. 10), even on his own self- 
commendation (ver. 12). The rec. text 
places a note of interrogation after 
βλέπετε, but it seems preferable to treat 
the sentence as a simple categorical 
statement (see esp. on ver. 12, and cf. 
John vii. 24).—«t τις πέποιθεν κ.τ.λ.: 
if any man (this is his usual vague way 
of referring to opponents; cf. xi. 4, 20) 
trusteth in himself that he is Christ's, 
prides himself on specially belonging to 
what he regards as the “party” of 
Christ, which had unhappily grown up at 
Corinth (1 Cor. i. 12), let Kins consider this 
again (he has often heard it before, but 
has forgotten it) with himself (or, reading 
ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, “let him think this out for 
himself '"—it does not need any prompting 
from without), that even as he is Christ's, 
so also are we (1 Cor. iii. 23). 

Ver. 8. ἐάν τε γὰρ καὶ περισσότερόν 
κ.τ.λ.; for even if I should glory some- 
what abundantly (or, perhaps, ‘‘ some- 
what more abundantly,”’ sc., than I have 
already done in vv. 3-6; but the com- 
parative need not be pressed; cf. ii. 4), 
concerning our authority (which the Lord 
gave for building you fe and not for 
casting you down), I 5 not be put to 
shame, t.e., my confident words can be 
amply justified. He returns here to the 
image of ver. 4; his authority (and he 
repeats this again in the same words at 
ΧΙ, το) extends not solely or chiefly to 
the overthrow of the fortresses of mis- 


4). 


6—11,. 


οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς Χριστοῦ. 


καυχήσωμαι ὁ περὶ τῆς " ἐξουσίας ἡμῶν," ἧς ἔδωκεν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῖν ὃ 
εἰς ” οἰκοδομὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς " καθαίρεσιν ὑμῶν, οὐκ " αἰσχυνθήσομαι " 
9. ἵνα μὴ δόξω ὡς ἂν “ἐκφοβεῖν ὃ ὑμᾶς διὰ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


8. ἐάν τε” γὰρ καὶ ὃ 


97 


περισσότερόν τι Y Chap. xii. 


ix. 4, etc. 
z Chaps. xii. 
1ο, Xiii..10; 
1 Cor. xiv. 
26, etc. 


I . 
Ὁ a Reff. ver. 


ὅτι αἱ μὲν" ἐπιστολαὶ, pyot,!? “Bapetar καὶ “ἰσχυραί: ἡ δὲ ᾿ παρουσία 4. 


b Phil. i. 20. 


τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενὴς, καὶ ὁ λόγος * ἐξουθενημένος" 11. τοῦτο λογι- eo. 


Acts xxv. 


a a 3 ~ 
ζέσθω ὁ " τοιοῦτος, ὅτι οἷοί ἐσμεν τῷ ᾿ λόγῳ BV ἐπιστολῶν ἀπόντες, 7; 1 John 
ν. 3 


τοιοῦτοι καὶ παρόντες τῷ ᾿ ἔργῳ. 


10, X. 22. f Reff. vii. 6. 
xv, 18; Col. iii. 17. 


g Rom. xiv. 10; 1 Cor. vi. 4; Gal. iv. 14. 


61 Cor. i. 


25, 27, iv. 
h Reff. ii. 6, i Rom 


1 DcEKL and the Bohairic support Χριστου after ἡμεῖς, but all the other prin- 


cipal authorities omit it. 


2 BG 17 and (perhaps) d, e, g, the Peshitto and Bohairic omit τε after εαν. 


3 S$cDcE**L, the Peshitto and Harclean margin support και after yap; om. και 
$$*BCD*E*GP, the Latins, Bohairic and Harclean text. 


4 BCDEK, followed by W.H., support καυχησωµαι; Tisch, reads καυχησομαι with 


NLP. 


5 C*P, the Peshitto and Bohairic omit ηµωγ. 
6 ημιν is found in DcEGKL (P 73, f and the Harclean have ηµιν ο κυρ.) ; om. 


new S*BCD* 17, d, 6. 
7 D*EG, d, ε, g give δοξωμεν. 
9 Better αι επιστ. μεν with ὃν Β, τ. 


8 DE, d, e, g give εκφοβουντες. 


10 \$DEGKLP, d, e, and the Bohairic have φησιν, which is also preferred by 
W.H.; B, f, 6, τ, vg. and the Syriac support φασιν. 


guided imagination, but also to the 
positive and more congenial work of 
construction, of ‘‘ building up” (cf. Jer. 
i. 1ο). 

ἫΝ 9. ἵνα μὴ δόξω κ.τ.λ.: that I 
may not seem as if I would scare you by 
my letters. It is best to take these words 
with εἰς οἰκοδομήν of the preceding verse ; 
his purpose in writing so severely is 
not to terrify them, but to build them 
up in holiness and obedience. ὡς av = 
tanquam, with the infin. is only found 
here in the N.T. The plural τῶν ἐπισ- 
τολῶν suggests (what we know from 1 
Cor. v. 9) that atleast one letter of rebuke 
in addition to 1 Cor. had been written 
before this. 

Ver. το. ὅτι at ἐπιστολαὶ μὲν, φασίν 
κ.τελ.: for “his letters” they say “are 
weighty and powerful but,” etc. The 
reading is doubtful (see crit. note) ; if we 
follow the rec. text φησίν = ‘fone says” 
or “he says” (cf. Wisd. xv. 12), the 
reference will be to an individual oppo- 
nent (the τοιοῦτος of ver. 11) who would 
be readily recognised by the Corinthians ; 
but we must then suppose τις to have 
dropped out. It is simpler therefore to 
read φασίν with the A.V. and R.V., and 


VOL III, 


to take the words as reproducing the 
charge against the Apostle commonly 
made by those who were disaffected at 
Corinth. They are ‘‘remarkable as giv- 
ing a contemporary judgment on his 
Epistles, and a personal description of 
himself” (Stanley).— δὲ παρουσία τοῦ 
σώματος k.t.A.: “διέ his bodily presence 
is weak (see chap. xii. 7, Gal. iv. 14, and 
Acts xiv. 12, where the Lystrans called 
Barnabas ‘‘ Zeus,” and evidently there- 
fore counted him as of more dignified 
presence than his companion) and his 
speech contemptible”; cf. 1 Cor. i. 17. 
Persuasive speaker as St. Paul must have 
been (the Lystrans called him Hermes 
as ‘* the chief speaker ’’), he probably had 
not the arts of a trained rhetorician (1 
Cor. 1. 17, ii. 1, 4, Chap. xi. 6), and this 
would appear a grave defect to these 
clever and shallow Greeks. According to 
the second century Acts of Paul and 
Thecla (§ 3) the Apostle was a low-sized 
man, bow-legged, of a healthy com- 
plexion, with eyebrows knit together (the 
Armenian version adds that his eyes were 
blue), and an aquiline nose. The descrip- 
tion of him in the piece called Philopatris 
(§ 13), ascribed to Lucian, is very similar. 


98 


k Reff. ver. 
2 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


12. Οὐ γὰρ "τολμῶμεν; | ἐγκρῖναι 3 ἢ " συγκρῖναι ἑαυτούς τισι τῶν 


1 Here only." ἑαυτοὺς " συνιστανόντων - ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς 3 “ μετροῦν- 


m 1 Cor. il. 
13 only. 
n Reff. iti. 1. 


τες, καὶ συγκρίνοντες ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς, οὐ "συνιοῦσιν. 13. ἡμεῖς δὲ 


ὁ Here only οὐχὶ εἰς TAS ᾿ ἄμετρα καυχησόµεθα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ " μέτρον τοῦ 


in Paul. 
4 - 
καὶ ὑμῶν. 


; Eph. iv. 7. 


u Here only. v Matt. xii. 


B has τολμω. 


5 Vv. 15, 16; Gal. vi. 16; Phil. iii. 16 only. 
; Rom. ix. 31; Phil. iii. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 


an κανόνος 057 " ἐμέρισεν 1 ἡμῖν ὃ ὁ " Θεὸς ὃ μέτρου, " ἐφικέσθαι 1’ ἄχρι 
14. οὐ! γὰρ ὡς μὴ ἐφικνούμενοι 15" εἰς ὑμᾶς " ὑπερεκτείνομεν 
° ἑαυτούς: ἄχρι yap! καὶ ὑμῶν " ἐφθάσαμεν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ 


ἕω. 1 Cor. vii. 17. 
1 


2G has κριναι; DE add eavrovs. 


3 om. εαντους before µετρ.; DEK 73 have εαντονς εαντοις. 


4 DcEKLP support συνιουσιν ; better συνιασιν with $B 17, 37; N* has συνισ- 
agi ; om, ov συν. ἡμεῖς δε D*G, ἆ, ε, f, g (see note below). 


5 D*G and the Latins give εἰς To ἀμετρον. 


6G, ἢ, g give kavxwpevor; Om. κανχ. DY, δ. ἃς 


ΤΜ 67**, d, ε, ἢ, g, vg. Εἶνε οσον ἐμετρησεν. 


®GL, g, om. ἡμιν. 


ΣΤΕ, d, e give Κνριος. 


1 DE have αφικεσθαι. 


Ἡ Ῥ has ov yap μὴ ws; B has simply ws yep µη, which W.H. place in their 


margin. 
12 Καὶ has αφικνουμένοι ; G, adixopevor. 


Ver. 11. τοῦτο λογιζέσθω κ.τ.λ.; let 
such an one, sc., as makes comments οὗ 
the kind just quoted, reckon this, that (cf. 
constr. ver. 7) what we are in word by 
letters when we are absent, such are we 
also in deed when we are present. 

Ver. 12. ob γὰρ τολμῶμεν κ.τ.λ.; for 
we do not venture (an ironical refusal to 
put himself on a level with his adver- 
saries, whose shallow pretensions he 
thus quietly exposes) fo mumber or com- 
pare ourselves (note the paronomasia in 
the Greek) with certain of them that 
commend themselves (the charge made 
against him—see on iii. 1—he retorts 
with great effect on his opponents) ; but 
they themselves measuring themselves by 
themselves and comparing themselves with 
themselves are without understanding (cf. 
Prov. xxvi. 12). This sentence 15 so 
much involved, that it is not surprising 
to find the Western authorities (see crit. 
note) giving it a quite different turn by 
the omission of the words οὐ συνιοῦσιν 
(or συνιᾶσιν) ἡμεῖς 88... καυχησόμεθα. 
Following this shorter text, the meaning 
would be: “ but we are measuring our- 
selves by ourselves and comparing our- 
selves with ourselves, not going into 
spheres beyond our measure,” etc. This 
gives a connected sense, and is favoured 
by the fact that the balance of the sen- 
tence leads us to expect that αὐτοὶ after 


15 δ" om. yap after αχρι. 


ἀλλὰ shall refer to the Apostle, and not 
to his opponents, as it must do with the 
longer reading. Nevertheless we believe 
that the omission is simply an attempt 
to evade the difficulty of the true text; 
it would be quite unlike St. Paul to speak 
of himself as his own standard of con- 
duct, and would not be harmonious with 
the thought of ver. 13. Others take 
συνιοῦσιν as a dative participle and 
adopt the rendering: “ but we (i.¢., St. 
Paul) measure ourselves by 

and compare ourselves with ourselves, 
unwise as we are” (sc., in their opinion). 
This, however, is not only open to the 
objection just mentioned, but would re- 
quire τοῖς before οὐ συνιοῦσιν. On the 
whole, therefore, we prefer to follow the 
best MS. authority by reading συνιᾶσιν, 
and to treat the Western text as an ab- 
breviation, which misses the point of the 
argument in the attempt to simplify the 
construction. 

Ver. 13. ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐχὶ κ.τ.λ.: but we 
will not glory beyond our measure (els 
τὰ representing the direction and extent 
of his boasting), but accordi to the 
measure of the rule which (οὗ tor ὅν by 
attraction) God hath apportioned (see 
reff.) fo us as a measure, to reach (the 
infin. of purpose) even unto you. κανών 
is a line of direction (see reff., and cf. 
Clem. Rom., § 41, μὴ παρεκβαίνων τὸν 


12---τϑ, 


Χριστοῦ 15. οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα καυχώμενοι ἐν "ἀλλοτρίοις " κόποις, 
ἐλπίδα δὲ ἔχοντες, αὐξανομένης τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, ἐν ὑμῖν ” μεγα- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


99 


w Rom. xiv, 
4, Χν. 20; 
1 Tim. v. 
22. 


λυνθῆναι κατὰ τὸν κανόνα ἡμῶν” εἰς "περισσείαν, 16. εἰς τὰ Ret vi. 5. 


hil. 1, 20. 


"ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν εὐαγγελίσασθαι, οὐκ ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ κανόνι εἰς τὰ ZReff.viii.2, 


» ἕτοιμα καυχήσασθαι. 


a Here only; 


17. “ὋὉ δὲ “ καυχώμενος ἐν "Κυρίῳ °Kau- ο΄. Amos 


ε A A γ. 27. 
χάσθω -" 18. οὐ γὰρ ὁ “ ἑαυτὸν “ συνιστῶν, ἐκεῖνός ἐστι * " δόκιμος, b Refi. ix. 5. 
c 1 Cor. i. 31 
ἀλλ᾽ ὃν ὁ Κύριος συνίστησιν. (Jer. ix. 
24). 


ἃ Reff, iii. 1. 


1B has ηµων for vypev. 


ο Rom. xiv. 18, xvi. 10; 1 Cor. xi. 19; chap. xiii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 15, 


2 88 has ὑμῶν for ημων. 


8 DcKL support συνιστων ; better συνιστανων with NBD*EGMP (ef. crit. notes 


on ili. 1, iv. 2). 


4 S8cBGKLMP, g support εστι Sox. ; but ΓΕ, d, e, f, τ, vg. give δοκιμος εστι, 


ὡρισμένον τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ κανόνα), 
and so here represents the ‘‘ province” 
or sphere in which St. Paul conceives 
himself as appointed by God to proclaim 
the Gospel. He especially emphasises 
this here; to Corinth he has a “ mission,” 
as the Apostle of the Gentiles; his autho- 
rity over the Corinthian Church is not 
usurped, but has been divinely given 
him. 

Ver. 14. οὐ γὰρ ὡς μὴ κιτιλ.: for we 
stretch not ourselves overmuch, as though 
we veached not unto you (ὡς μή indicating 
that the case is only a hypothetical one; 
cf. 1 Cor. iv. 18); for we came (φθάνω 
being used as in modern Greek; see 
reff.) as fay as unto you in the Gospel of 
Christ. Corinth was the westernmost 
point that he had reached. This verse, 
it will be observed, is parenthetical, and 
is introduced to make it clear that Corinth 
was part of his appointed sphere; cf. 1 
Cori, σαν, το, 1X> 1, 

Ver. 15. οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα κ.τ.λ.: 
not glorying beyond our measure (the 
argument is resumed from ver. 13), thatis, 
in other men’s labours. This he steadily 
avoided (cf. Rom. xv. 20); even Rome 
itself was to be visited en route to Spain 
(Rom. xv. 24). But his Corinthian oppo- 
nents were not so scrupulous about in 
truding into another man’s sphere (1 Cor. 
iid. το, iv. 15). --ἐλπίδα δὲ ἔχ. κ.τ.λ.: but 
having hope that, as your faith groweth 
(see Eph. ii. 21, iv. 15, Col. i. το, ii. το 
for intrans. use of αὐξάνειν, and cf. chap. 
ix. 10), we shall be magnified in you (cf. 
Acts v. 13) according to our rule, {.6., our 
“line,” our apportionment of Apostolic 
work, unto further abundance, so as, etc. 

Ver. 16. εἰς Ta ὑπερέκεινα κ.τ.λ. : SO 
as to preach the Gospel in the regions 
beyond you, 1.6. (if we are to press the 


idea of direction in ὑπερέκεινα), the 
western parts of Greece, Rome and 
Spain, which were ‘“‘ beyond,” if viewed 
from Jerusalem, the home of Christianity, 
whence St. Paul, like the other early 
preachers, received his ‘‘ mission” (more 
probably, however, ὑπερέκεινα is used 
quite vaguely as ἐπέκεινα is in Amos ν. 
27, where the idea of direction cannot be 
read into it), and not to glory in another’s 
“line” about things made ready to our 
hand. ‘This is what the intruders had 
done at Corinth, whose Church St. Paul 
had founded (1 Cor. iii. 6), 

Ver. 17. ὁ δὲ καυχώμενος κ.τ.λ.: but 
he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, 
a quotation from the O.T. (see reff.) used 
before by St. Paul (cf. also Rom. xv. 18, 
I Cor. iii. 7). For not he that commendeth 
himself is approved (cf. Prov. xxvii. 2), 
but whom the Lord commendeth (cf. Rom. 
ii, 29, 1 Cor. iv. 5). And the Corinthian 
Church itself is his ‘‘ letter of commenda- 
tion ”’ (iii. 2). 

CHAPTER XI.—Vv.1-4. HE BEGS THEM 
TO BEAR WITH HIM IF HE STATES HIS 
CLAIMS AT LENGTH; IT IS NECESSARY 
TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THEIR READINESS 
To ΑΟΟΕΡΤ NovEL TEACHING.—Ver. 1. 
ὄφελον ἀνείχεσθέ µου κ.τ.λ.: would that 
ye could bear with me in a little (μικρόν 
τι only here and ver. 16; cf. Heb, ii. 7) 
foolishness. ἀφροσύνη = ‘ nonsense”’ 
(see ref. and cf. Rom. ii. 20, 1 Cor. xv. 36, 
Eph. v. 17). He thus deprecates his 
insistence on his claim to apostolic 
authority, and at the same time introduces 
with great skill a passionate statement of 
it.—G@AAG καὶ ἀνέχ. µου: nay indeed bear 
with me; 1.6., he not only utters a wish, 
but entreats them directly. Others (e.¢., 
R.V. marg.) take avéx. as indic., 2.60., 
“but indeed ye do bear with me”’. 


10Ο 
a τ Cor. iv. 
8; Gal. v. 


12. 
b Vv. 17, 21; 


kal ἀνέχεσθε * μου. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


ΧΙ, 


ΧΙ. τ. *"Odedov! ἀνείχεσθέ 3 μου μικρὸν τῇ ὃ " ἀφροσύνῃ - ἀλλὰ 
2. “ ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς Θεοῦ ὅ ζήλῳ " "ἡρμοσάμην 


ΜΚ. vii. γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ, παρθένον ἁγνὴν " παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ 3. 


81; Gal. 
ἵν. 17. 
d Κεβ.ν 7 
7. e Here only. f Reff. vii. 11. 
1. kReff.iv.2. 1 Reff. vii. 4. 


ος Cor, xii. φοβοῦμαι δὲ " μή δ ἢ πως, ds ὁ ' ὄφις Εὔαν ὃ ' ἐξηπάτησεν ev" τῇ 
.Κ πανουργίᾳ αὑτοῦ, οὕτω 8. ᾿ φθαρῇ τὰ "νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς 
i. 


g Reff. iv. 14. 
τῇ Reff. ii. 11. 


h Chap. xii.20; Gal.iv. 11. i Gen. iii. 


1 DcEGKL have ὠφελον (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 8); οφελον BMP. 
2 A few minuscules have οφελον ηνειχεσθε. . 


> KLP support ty αφροσννῃ; ΝΒΡΕΜ 17 have (preferably) τι αφροσννης, and 


there are minor variants. 
* S$ has αλλα και ανασχεσθε. 


ὅ For µηπως G has μηποτε and D* has µη. 


6 DEKL, the Harclean, ἃ, e, f, r, vg. support-the order Ev. εξηπ.; but NBGMP 17, 


g and the Bohairic give εξηπ. Ev. 
7 Ὁ)" omits εν. 


8 DbcEKLM, f, vg. and the Syriac support οντω φθαρῃ; better om. ουτω (asa 
marginal gloss) with 4,BD*GP 17, d, e, g, τ and the Bohairic. 


Ver. 2. ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς κιτιλ.: for I 
am jealous over you with a godly jealousy 
(cf. Zech. i. 14, and for Θεοῦ tide cf. 
Acts xxii. 3, Rom. x. 2; this ‘ jealousy” 
of St. Paulis on behalf of God); for I 
espoused you to one husband, that I might 
present you as a pure virgin to Christ, sc., 
at His Coming. The figure of Israel as 
a Bride presented to Jehovah as the Bride- 
groom was frequently used by the 0.T. 
prophets (Isa. liv. 5, lxii. 5, Hosea ii. 19) ; 
and, according to the Rabbis, Moses was 
the bridesman or paranymph. Here St. 
Paul conceives of himself as the para- 
nymph (cf. John iii. 29) who presents the 
Church as a pure Bride (cf. Rev. xxi. 2) 
to Christ, the heavenly Spouse, the ‘* one 
husband" to whom she is bound to 
remain faithful. Some critics have found 
here an echo of Christ's words at Matt. 
ix. 15, XxV. 1-12; but the similarity does 
not extend further than the employment 
of the same image demands. ἁρμόζω in 
the act. is regularly used of the father of 
the bride; in the pass. of the bride her- 
self (Prov. xix. 14); and in the mid. 
generally of the bridegroom, but some- 
times (as here) of others. 

Ver. 3. φοβοῦμαι δὲ μή πως κ.τ.λ.: 
but I fear lest by any means, as “ the 
serpent beguiled" Eve in his craftiness 
(in Gen. iii, x the serpent is called 
φρονιμώτατος, but St. Paul changes the 
word to indicate the baseness of the 
serpent’s wisdom. Aristotle uses πανονρ- 
yia in direct contrast to φρόνησις ; cf. 
Nic. Eth., vi., 12), your minds should be 
corrupted from the simplicity and the 


purity (cf. chap. vi. 6) that is toward 

hrist. It would appear that the belief 
of the synagogues was that the serpent 
literally “ seduced” Eve (cf. 4 max 
xviii. 6-8, and Iren., contra Haer., i., 307), 
and it is probably in reference to this 
that St. Paul substitutes the stronger word 
ἐξαπατάω (as he does at 1 Tim. ii. 14) for 
the simple verb ἆπατ. of Gen. iii. 13. 
Carrying on the metaphor of ver. 2, he 
expresses his anxiety lest the Corinthian 
Church, the Bride of Christ, should be 
seduced by the devil from her singleness 
of affection νά 1 Macc. ii. 37, 60, and see 
on viii. 2 for ἁπλότης) and her purity, and 
so should be guilty of spiritual fornica- 
tion. He assumes that “the serpent” 
is to be identified with Satan, the tempter 
of mankind, as he does also at Rom. 
xvi. 20; the earliest trace of this identi- 
fication, which has become so familiar, is 
Wisd. ii. 24, cf. Rev. xii.g,xx.2. He now 
gives the reason of his anxiety, lest they 
should fall away ; viz., they were show- 
ing themselves too willing to listen to 
strange teachings. 

Ver. 4. εἰ μὲν yap ὁ ἐρχόμενος κ.τ.λ.: 
for if he that cometh (ὃ ἐρχόμενος may 
point to some one conspicuous opponent, 
but it would not be safe to press this, or 
to lay stress on the verb as indicating one 
who comes without authorised mission, as 
at John x. 8; it is probably a quite in- 
definite phrase, “if any one comes and 
preaches,” etc.) preacheth another Fesus 
whom we did not preach (not “ another 
Christ,”’ “ὦ new Messiah,” for of this 
the false teachers at Corinth were not 


1—6, 


" ἁπλότητος 1 τῆς εἰς τὸν 2 Χριστόν. 


ἄλλον “ Ἰησοῦν ὃ Ὁ κηρύσσει ὃν οὐκ ἐκηρύξαμεν, 
λαμβάνετε ὃ οὐκ ἐλάβετε, ἢ εὐαγγέλιον 1 ἕτερον ὃ 


καλῶς ἠνείχεσθε.ὃ 
«ὑπὲρ λίαν ἀποστόλων. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


IOI 


i μὲν γὰρ ὃ Reff. viii, 
4: εἰ μεν yop ὃ ἐρχόμενος " Re viii 


“ cy Acts ix. 
vi a ετερον 0 Acts. 
re ΠΝ 1 i ρ 20, XiX. 13. 
> . 
οὐκ ἐδέξασθε, P Ver. δι, 
Rom. iii. 


5. Λογίζομαι yap® μηδὲν ἢ ὑστερηκέναι ἴ τῶν 23; 1 Cor. 
Ἢ ἐ i.7; chap. 

6. εἰ δὲ ὃ καὶ "ἰδιώτης ὃ τῷ λόγῳ, GAN οὐ κι τι. 

4 ᾿ q Chap. xii. 


11 only. r Acts iv. 13; 1 Cor, iv. 16, 23. 


19 Β 17, g and the Harclean (with asterisk) give απο της ἀπλοτητος και της 
αγνοτητος, which is adopted by W.H. and the R.V.; SycDcKLMP, f, vg. and the 
Peshitto have only απο της απλ. of the rec. text. 


2 BDEKLP support εις τον Xp.; SGM omit τον. 


3G, f, g, vg. give Χριστον for Ἴησουν. 


4G, g add λαµβανεται after evayy. er. 


5 BD* 17 have ανεχεσθε; but SDcEGKLMP have ανειχεσθε; the τες, ηνειχεσθε 


is found in cursives only, 


5 B has δε for yap, probably in mistaken reference to μεν of ver. 4. 
7 D*E, d, e, τ, etc., add ev υμιν after νστερ. 


8 Ὁ", ἆ, 6, f, g give ει και. 


guilty; but ‘‘another Jesus,” 7.¢., a dif- 
ferent representation of the historical 
Person, Jesus of Nazareth, from that 
which St. Paul put forward when at 
Corinth; see reff.), or if ye receive a 
different Spirit which ye did not receive, 
sc., a Spirit different from Him whom 
you received at your baptism (λαμβάνειν 
is the regular verb with πνεῦμα; cf. 
John xx. 22, Acts viii. 15, x. 47, xix. 2, 
Rom. viii. 15, 1 Cor. ii. 12, Gal. iii. 2; 
it expresses the co-operation of the will 
in a degree which δέχεσθαι, the verb 
used in the next clause of ‘‘ accepting” 
the Gospel, does not; see Acts vii. 38, 
xvii. 11, 1 Thess. i. 6, etc.), or a different 
Gospel which ye did not accept, sc., when 
the Gospel was first brought to you by 
me, ye bear with him finely! καλῶς is 
ironical, as at Mark vii. 9 = praeclare. 
This facile acceptance of novelty is the 
cause of his anxiety; cf. 1 Cor. iii, 11, 
Gal. i. 6-8. Such instability is always a 
danger in the case of newly-founded 
Churches. 

Vy. 5-15. HE IS NOT INFERIOR TO 
MIS ADVERSARIES ALTHOUGH (a) HE IS 
NOT A TRAINED ORATOR (ver. 6), AND 
ALTHOUGH (b) HE DID NOT CLAIM MAIN- 
TENANCE FROM THE CHURCH (ver. 7). 
THIS WAS NOT THROUGH WANT OF AF- 
FECTION FOR THEM, BUT THAT THERE 
MIGHT BE NO ROOM FOR CAVIL.—Ver. 
5. λογίζομαι yap κ.τ.λ.: for I reckon 
that I am not a whit behind these super- 
fine Apostles; you receive them gladly; 
why not me? He then proceeds to re- 
fute the two reasons which were assigned 
for the disparagement of his apostolic 


9 D*E, d, e, g give ιδ, εἰμι. 


authority, viz., (a) he had none of the 
arts of a trained rhetorician, (b) he had 
not claimed maintenance from the Church 
of Corinth, which he had a right to 
do, if of genuine “apostolic”? rank. οἱ 
ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι, “these superfine 
Apostles”’ is thus, as at xii. 11, an ironical 
description of the ψευδαπόστολοι (ver. 
13) against whom he is contending. 
The A.V. and R.V. render ‘‘the very 
chiefest Apostles,” 1.6. the original 
Twelve, who received their commission 
directly from Christ, and especially 
Peter, James and John; but to introduce 
any mention of them here would be 
irrelevant, and would interrupt the argu- 
ment (they were ἰδιῶται ἐν λόγῳ), not to 
speak of the fact that ὑπερλίαν seems 
always in Greek literature to be used in 
an ironical sense. 

Ver. 6. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ 
κτλ; but even if I be rude in speech (see 
on x. το; ἰδιώτης is a “layman,” who is 
without professional training), yet am I 
not in knowledge, sc., of divine things 
(see on vili. 7 {οτ]λόγος and γνῶσις) ; but 
in everything we have made it, sc., τὴν 
γνῶσιν, manifest (reading φανερώσαντες ; 
cf. Col. iv. 4) among all men (cf. 1 Cor. 
viii. 7, Heb. xiii. 4, or “fin all circum- 
stances,’’ as at Phil. iv. 12) to you-ward, 
He claims that he both knows the truth, 
and has presented it to them openly and 
plainly (cf. chap. ii. 17, iv. 2). 

Ver. 7. ἢ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα κ.τ.λ.: 
or did I commit a sin (note the irony) in 
abasing myself (cf. Phil. iv. 12), that 
ye might be exalted, sc., in spiritual 
privileges (cf. 1 Cor. ΙΧ. 11), because I 


102 


s Reff. iv. 8. 

t Reff. ii. 14. 

u Rom. iii. 
24; Gal. ii. 


ΠΡῸΣ KOPINOIOYS B 


τῇ γνώσει: ἀλλ᾽ "ἐν " παντὶ ᾿ φανερωθέντες 1 ἐν" πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς. 
ἢ 5. ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα, ἐμαυτὸν ὁ ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε, ὅτι 


ΧΙ. 


7. 


2. δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ ᾿ Θεοῦ ᾿ εὐαγγελίον εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν; 8. ἄλλας 


41: 
Thess. iii. 


ν Rom. Lyk. 


xv. 16; 1 καὶ παρὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ ” ὑστερηθεὶς, 


Thess. ii. 


: ἐκκλησίας “ ἐσύλησα, λαβὼν " ὀψώνιον πρὸς τὴν ὑμῶν διακονίαν " 


οὐ " κατενάρκησα οὐδενός ὅ - 


ας Pet.g. τὸ γὰρ "ὑστέρημά µου " προσανεπλήρωσαν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἐλθόντες 


w Here 
only. Ξ 

x Luke iii. τηρήσω. 
14; R 


ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας καὶ "ἐν ἢ παντὶ “ἀβαρῆ ὑμῖν ἐμαυτὸν ἐτήρησα καὶ 
10. ἔστιν ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ, ὅτι ἡ " καύχησις αὕτη 


: Kom. , , > - δ ὁ 
νἱ 23:1 οὐ σφραγίσεταιἹ εἰς ἐμὲ ἐν τοῖς “ κλίμασι τῆς Αχαΐας. 11. διατί; 


Cor. ix.7 
only; 1 


ὅτι ® οὐκ ἀγαπῶ ὑμᾶς ; ὁ ‘Ocds ! οἶδεν - 12. ὃ δὲ ποιῶ, καὶ ποιήσω, 


Macc: iii. 9 ἢ 
2s ta "ἐκκόψω τὴν " ἀφορμὴν τῶν θελόντων ἀφορμὴν, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται 
Reff. ver. 

« Ἃ z Chap. xii. 14 only. a Reff. ix. 12; ε/. i. Cor. xvi. 17. Ὁ Reff. iv. 8. c Here only. 

d Rest. i. 12. e Rom. xv. 23; Gal. i. 21. f Chap. xii. 2, 3. g Rom. xi. 22. h Reff, ν. 11. 


1 ScDcEKLP, the Syriac and Bohairic support φανερωθεντες; D*, d, e, f give 
φανερωθεις ; better φανερωσαντες with δ ΒΟ 17, g. 
36, f, Ε,τ, vg- and Peshitto omit εν πασιν. 


26, f, g, τ, vg. give ἢ µη op. 


* DEGLP have εαντον for ἐμαντον. 


® DEGKL support ονδενος; better ονθενος with BMP 17, 37. 
®NcDEGL, g support νµιν εµαντον; better ἐμαντον υμιν with Ν ΒΜΕΡ 17, ὁ, e, 


f, vg.; K om. υμιν. 


7 σφραγισεται is a scribe’s blunder (supported by a few cursives only) for φραγη- 


σεται. 


5 B om. οτι after διατι. 
preached to you the Gospel of God for 
nought ? 

Ver. 8, ἄλλας ἐκκλησίας ἐσύλησα 
κιτιλι : I robbed other Churches, e.g., 
Philippi (Phil. iv. 15, He expresses him- 
self hyperbolically to bring out his mean- 
ing; ovAgy is a very strong word, sce 
Acts xix. 37, Rom. ii. 22), taking wages 
of them (ὀψώνιον primarily means the 
rations supplied to a soldier, and thence 
his pay ; see reff.), that I might minister 
unto you. διακονία is not used here in 
special reference to the collection for the 
Judwan Christians, as it was at viii. 4, 
ix. I, 13, but in its most general sense ; 
cf. 2 Tim, iv. 11, Heb. i. 14.--καὶ παρὼν 
κ.τ.λ.; and when I was present with you, 
i.e., during his first visit to Corinth (see 
Acts xviii. 1 ff.), and was in want (a con- 
dition which he recalls again, Phil. iv. 12), 
I was not a burden on any man. νάρκη 
is the torpedo-fish, which paralyses its 
victims by contact, and then preys upon 
them; so καταναρκᾷν signifies ‘to oppress 
heavily”. The compound verb is not 
found elsewhere in Greek literature (we 
have ναρκᾷν in Gen. xxxii. 25, Job xxxiii. 
10) ; Jerome says (Ep. cxxi. ad Algasiam) 
that it is a Cilicianism, like ἡμέρα in 1 
Cor. iv. 3. 


Ver. 9. τὸ yap ὑστέρημά pov κ.τ.λ.;: 
for the brethren, when they came from 
Macedonia (very likely Silas and Timothy; 
see Acts xviii. 5, Phil. iv. 15), supplied the 
measure of my want ; and tn everything I 
hept myself (note the aorists as ss 
to the definite period of his residence in 
Corinth) from being burdensome unto you 
(cf. xii. 16, 1 Thess. ii. 6), and so will I 
heep myself. 

Ver. 10, ἔστιν ἀλήθ. Xp. κ.τ.λ.: as 
the Truth of Christ (we have ἡ ἀλήθ. τ. 
Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 25, iii. 7, xv. 8; cf. John 
xiv. 6, Eph. iv, 21) ἐς in me (for the form 
of the asseveration see on i. 18; Rom. ix. 
1 is not a true parallel to the constr. here), 
this glorying, sc., in my independence, 
shall not be stopped, as far as I am con- 
cerned, in the regions of Achaia (see on 
i. 1); cf. vii. 14. The true reading is 
φραγήσεται ; φράσσειν is ‘to fence,” 
but in N.T. (Rom. iii. 19, Heb. xi. 33; 
cf. also Dan, vi. 22) is used with στόμα 
in the sense of ‘to stop” the mouth, 

Ver. 11. διατί; ὅτι οὐκ dy. κ-.τ.λ.: 
wherefore ? because ] love you not? God 
knoweth, i.e., that I do love you. 

Ver. 12. ὃ δὲ ποιῶ κ.τ.λ.: but what I 
do, that I will do that, by refusing to 
accept maintenance gratis at your hands, 


7-15. 


εὑρεθῶσι καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


103 


13. ot} γὰρ ' τοιοῦτοι * ψευδαπόστολοι, ἶ Ref. 11. 6. 


k Here only. 


ἐργάται * δόλιοι, μετασχηματιζόµενοι εἰς ἀποστόλους Χριστοῦ: 14. 11 Cor. iv. 


καὶ οὐ θαυμαστόν 3: αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ ™ Σατανᾶς μετασχηματίζεται εἰς ὃ 


6; Phil. 
iii. 21; 4 
Macc. ix. 


ἄγγελον φωτός; 15. οὐ μέγα οὖν εἰ καὶ οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ µετα- 22 


τα Reff. ii. 


σχηματίζονται ὡς διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης, ὧν τὸ τέλος ἔσται ὃ κατὰ τὰ τι. 


1G has ου yap for ot yap and omits ets before αποστ. 
2 DbcEKLM support θαυμαστον ; better θαυμα (Rev. xvii. 6 only) with SBD*GPR 


17. 


5 D*, ἆ, 6, m give ws αγγελος for εις αγγ. 


* D*, d, e, πι and the Peshitto omit ουν, 


I may cut off the occasion (τὴν ἄφορμ.» 
the definite opportunity for attack which 
my opponents desire) from those who 
desire occasion that in the matter of their 
boast, sc., that as of Apostolic rank free 
maintenance was their rightful due, they 
may be found even as we, {.6., they desire 
that I and they may be on equal terms so 
far as the taking of money is concerned. 
It is better to regard the second iva, not 
as in apposition with the first, but as 
dependent on θελ. ἄφορμ. and as express- 
ing the desire of St. Paul’s opponents, 
not his own. The situation seems to 
have been as follows: St. Paul held that 
the ‘labourer is worthy of his hire” 
(Luke x. 7, 1 Tim. v. 18), and in 1 Cor. 
ix. 11-13 he gives a clear exposition of 
the principle as applied to preachers of 
the Gospel. On these grounds he more 
than once (Phil. iv. 15, 16) accepted 
money from the generous Church of 
Philippi. But it was not his usual prac- 
tice. He reminds the Thessalonians (1 
Thess. ii. 9) that when with them he had 
worked for his living. So too he did at 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), any help he then 
accepted coming from Macedonia (chap. 
xi. g); and he did the same at Ephesus 
(Acts xx. 34). Now his Corinthian oppo- 
nents were very ready to take money for 
their teaching (x Cor. ix. 12) ; indeed they 
prided themselves on doing so, as it was 
the privilege of ‘‘apostles”’. This deter- 
mined St. Paul that it should never be 
truly said of him that he was a hireling 
teacher, and so he was especially careful 
at Corinth (1 Cor. ix. 15-19) to avoid even 
the appearance of grasping after money 
(cf. Gen. xiv. 23). This honourable in- 
dependence, however, created a difficulty 
in two directions. On the one hand, it 
gave his opponents a handle for saying 
that he was not really of Apostolic rank, 
inasmuch as he dared not claim Apostolic 
privilege ; and, on the other hand, it hurt 
the feelings of his Corinthian friends that 


5 D*, ἆ, e, πι have εστιν for εσται. 


he should refuse maintenance at their 
hands. His reply is contained in vv. 
7-12 of this chapter. And the point of 
ver. 12 is that his action is necessary, for 
if he were to take money as his opponents 
did, it would speedily be made a matter 
of cavil, and would tend to bring him 
down to their level (see also xii. 14). 

Ver. 13. ot γὰρ τοιοῦτοι κ.τ.λ.: for 
such men (this explains the ground of his 
determination in ver. 12 not to give 
opportunity for cavil) ave false apostles 
(cf. Rev. il. 2. This speedy appearance 
of false teachers was one of the most 
remarkable features of the Apostolic age; 
cf. Galo) 4: ΕΠΗ. 1. σε iit. 15; Lite 
i, 10, 2 Pet. ii. 1, 1 John iv. 1), crafty 
workers (cf. Phil. iii. 2), fashioning them- 
selves into Apostles of Christ, {.ε., laying 
special claim to that great title (cf. chap. 
Χ. 7). μετασχηματίζειν τι is to change 
the outward appearance (σχῆμα) of a 
thing, the thing itself in essence (μορφή) 
remaining unchanged (see reff.). 

Ver. 14. καὶ οὐ θαῦμα κ.τ.λ.: and no 
marvel ; for even Satan fashioneth him- 
self into an angel of light. Light is the 
symbol of God (1 John i. 5, 1 Tim. vi. 
16) and His messengers (Matt. xxviii. 3, 
Acts xii. 7), as darkness is the symbol of 
Satan (Luke xxii. 53, Eph. vi. 12, Col. i. 
13). The μετασχηματισμός of Satan has 
just before been in the Apostle’s mind 
(ver. 3), and perhaps such passages as 
Gen. 111. 1, Job i. 6, 1 Kings xxii. 19-23 
sufficiently account for the image. But 
it is more probable that some Rabbinical 
tradition lies behind the word used by St. 
Paul; cf. Apoc. Moysis (ν. 17) τότε ὃ 
σατανᾶς ἐγένετο ἐν εἴδει ἀγγέλου. A 
reference has been here found by Ewald 
to Matt. iv. 1-11, but while it is not im- 
probable that the Apostle had heard the 
story of the Lord’s Temptation, there is 
no clear trace of it in his Epistles. 

Ver. 15. οὐ μέγα οὖν κιτ.λ.: it is no 
great thing therefore,if his ministers also, 


104 


n Rom. ii. ὃτῶ 
ἀροῦν Cor, ἔργα αὐτῶν. 


xv. 36; 


ver. 19, 


chap. xii. 3 
6, τῆν σωμαι 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B ΧΙ, 


16. Πάλιν λέγω, Μή τίς µε δόξῃ " ἄφρονα εἶναι " εἰ 
δὲ μή} γε, κἂν ὡς ἄφρονα δέξασθέ µε, ἵνα μικρόν "τι κἀγὼ καυχή- 
17. ὃ λαλῶ, οὐ 4 λαλῶ κατὰ Κύριον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν “ἀφροσύνῃ, 


Eph. ν. ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ " ὑποστάσει τῆς Kavxioews* 18. ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ καυχῶνται 
ο Refi. ver. ἃ κατὰ τὴν "σάρκα, κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι. 10. ἡδέως γὰρ ἀνέχεσθε 
I. 
p Refi. ix.4. τῶν ἀφρόνων, " φρόνιμοι ὄντες: 20. ἀνέχεσθε γὰρ, εἴ τις ὑμᾶς 


q Reff. i. 17. 


τ Rom. xi. "καταδουλοῖ, εἴ τις ᾿ κατεσθίει, εἴ τις λαμβάνει, εἴ τις " ἐπαίρεται, 


ον xii. 16 
(Prov. iii. 7); 1 Cor. iv. 10, x. 15. 


1 D* has py for µηγε. 


5 Gal. ii. 4 only. 


t Mark xii. 40; αἱ. ν. 15. u Reff. x. 5. 


2 καγω μικρον τι is the order in all the best authorities; µικρον τι καγω only in a 


few cursives and the Harclean. 


5. DEKLPR give κανχησοµαι; κανχησωµαι, NBGM, 


4 The order ov λαλω κατα Κνρ. is found in DELM, d, e, τ, vg., the Bohairic and 
Harclean; better ov κατα Kup. λαλω with ἡ ΒΟ ΚΡΕ, f, g and the Peshitto. For 


κατα Κυριον f, r give κατα Θεον. 


δ ΟΕ 17, 73 give κατα σαρκα; ins. τὴν δ ΒΌΦΕΚΤΜΡ, 
6 The Armenian vs. adds after ανεχ. yap, εἰ τις εξαπατᾳ vas. 


sc., as well as himself, fashion themselves 
as ministers o righteousness (see on iii. 
9); whose end, notwithstanding their dis- 
guise (cf. Rom. vi. 21, Phil. iii. 19), shall 
be according to their works (see on ver. 
10). 

᾽ν. 16-33. His APOSTOLIC LABOURS 
AND TRIALS.—Ver. 16. πάλιν λέγω κ.τ.λ.: 
I say again (the first time having been in 
ver. 1), let no man think me foolish, i.e., 
senseless with the ἀφροσύνη of self- 
praise ; but even if ye do (for εἰ δὲ μή ye 
cf. Matt. vi. 1, ix. 17, Luke xiii. 9, xiv. 
32), yet receive me as foolish (there is a 
somewhat similar ellipse in Mark vi. 56, 
Acts v. 15), that I also, sc., as well as they 
(cf. ver. 18), may glory a little (μικρόν τι 
= “a trifle,” “a little bit”). 

Ver. 17. ὃ λαλῶ κ.τ.λ.: what I speak, 
I speak not after the Lord, i.e., Christ 
(he refuses to claim Divine inspiration 
for his self-glorying; cf. 1 Cor. vii. 12, 
25), but as in foolishness, in this con- 
fidence of glorying (see on ix. 4 for 
ὑπόστασις). 

Ver. 18. ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ καυχῶνται κ.τ.λ.: 
seeing that many, sc., of the Corinthian 
Judaisers against whom this whole pol- 
emic is directed (cf. ii. 17, where they are 
also alluded to as of πολλοὶ), glory after 
the flesh, i.e., in external circumstances 
which are really no fit subject for glory- 
ing (see, on ἐν προσώπῳ, chap. v. 12 and 
τε), I too will glory, sc., after the flesh ; 
i.e., he proceeds to explain how much 
better external grounds he has for boast- 
ing than his Judaising rivals. 


face. A blowin t 


Ver. 19. ἡδέως γὰρ ἀνέχεσθε κ.τ.λ.: 
for ye bear with the foolish, 1.¢., the false 
teachers, gladly, being wise yourselves, 
the latter clause being, of course, ironical, 
although (see reff.) it was true that φρόν- 
ησις was a quality which he had seriously 
ascribed to the Corinthians in a former 
letter. Hie point is that, as they have 
borne with the self-commendation of the 
pseudo-apostles, they should extend the 
same indulgent toleration to him. He 
then goes on to remind them of the in- 
solence and ill-treatment which they had 
endured at the hands of these self-con- 
stituted spiritual guides, 

Ver. 20, ἀνέχεσθε γὰρ κ.τ.λ.; for ye 
bear with a man if he (we cannot press 
τις SO as to point to any special in- 
dividual; cf. x. 7) enslave you (in con- 
trast to any such tyranny, St.. Paul 
describes himself as the δοῦλος of the 
Corinthians; see iv. 5, and ε/. Acts 
xv. 10); if he devour you, t.e., robs you 
of your substance by greedily demand- 
ing maintenance, as these “ superfine 
Apostles” did (see on ver. 12, and εἴ. 
Rom. xvi. 18, Phil. iii. 19); if he take 
you captive (λαμβάνειν is thus used of 
catching fish, Luke v. κά chap. xii. 
16. Field defends the A.V. “taketh of 
you,”’ i.¢., takes money, by appealing to 
the Peshitto, and also by the usage of 
good Greek writers); if he exalt himself 
(cf. ἃ, τα, ο το he smite you on the 

e face was, and is, a 
common form of insult in the East (cf. 1 
Kings xxii. 24, Matt. v. 39, xxvi. 67, 


- ἘΝ στ =e 


16---23, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 105 
εἴ τις ὑμᾶς 1 εἰς πρόσωπον “δέρει. 21. κατὰ “ ἀτιμίαν λέγω, * ὡς V1 Cor ix 
"ὅτι ἡμεῖς " 7ἠσθενήσαμεν ὅ: ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ ὁ ἄν τις "τολμᾷ, (év° "ἀφροσύνῃ W Chap. vi 
λέγω,) τολμῶ κἀγώ. 22. " Ἑβραϊοί εἰσι; κἀγώ - ᾿Ισραηλῖταί εἰσι ; * ΕἾ ν. 

κἀγώ: σπέρμα ᾿Αβραάμ εἰσι; κἀγώ: 23. διάκονοι Χριστοῦ εἰσι, ¥ Ver. 0, 
(᾿ παραφρονῶν λαλῶ,θ) «ὑπὲρ “ἐγώ: ἐν ἁκόποις περισσοτέρως, ev? το, xiii. 3, 


a ε A 9, εἴς. 
ἃ πληγαῖς "ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως, ἐν θανάτοις 2 Ref. x. 2. 


1. b Acts vi. 1; Phil. iii. 5 only. 


a Reff. ver. 


c Here only. d Reff. vi. 5. 


1 ypas εις προσ. is the order of DDKLM and the Peshitto; better εις προσ. vpas 
with $BD*EGP 17, the Latins and Harclean. 


2 G, g place ηµεις after ησθεν. 


ὃ ησθενησαμεν is supported by DEGKLMP;; better ησθενηκαµεν with NB 17, 37, 
73. After ησθεν. DE, d, e and the Clem. vg. add ev τουτῳ τῳ pepe. 


4 D*, d, e, vg. and the Syriac have αν for δ᾽ αν. 
5 G, g have ev αφρ. λεγω after τολμω καγω. 
6 DEG, the Latin and Peshitto give λεγω for λαλω, 


7 BD*E 17, ἆ, e, f, vg. (followed by W.H. and the R.V.) give the order ev vA. 
περισσ., εν πληγ. υΌπερβ., which we adopt ; the rec. text is supported by 4¥cDbKLM, 
the Syriac and Bohairic vss. ; ἐδ, g (followed by Tisch.) give εν πληγ. περισσ., εν 
φυλ. νπερβ.; P has ev φυλ. virepB., ev wAny. περισσ. 


Acts xxiii. 2, 1 Cor. iv. rz); and the 
despotic teachers whom the Corinthians 
tolerated had very likely inflicted this 
last indignity upon them. Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 
3, Tit. i. 7, where it is forbidden to the 
ἐπίσκοποι to be “strikers”. ‘Such are 
your teachers,” he says to them, ‘J 
am but weak in comparison with these 
strenuous spiritual directors.” 

Ver. 21. κατὰ ἀτιμίαν λέγω «.7.X.: 
by way of disparagement, sc., humbly of 
myself, I say that we, 1.6., 1 myself, ἡμεῖς 
being ironically emphasised, have been 
weak,1.é., 1 have not attempted to enforce 
my authority in any of these directions 
(cf. x. 10 and 1 Cor. ii. 3). He now 
changes his tone from irony to direct and 
masterful assertion, and in the splendid 
passage which follows he makes the 
boast”? which he has been leading up 
to with such prolonged explanations.— 
ἐν ᾧ δ᾽ av κ.τ.λ.: and yet whereinsoever 
any man is‘bold (I speak in foolishness— 
this he is careful to add once more; see 
ver. 17), 1 am bold also. His whole life 
will justify him. 

Ver. 22. ‘EBpatot εἰσι; κἀγώ; are 
they Hebrews? so am I, At a later 
period the term 'Ἑβραῖος was not con- 
fined to Palestinian Jews (Eus., H.E., 
ii., 4, 2, ili, 4, 2), but expressed mere 
nationality, However in the N.T. it is 
used in contrast with Ἑλληνιστής (Acts 
vi. 1; cf. Phil. iii. 5), and denotes a Jew 
who retained his national language and 


customs. Jerome states (de Vir. ill.) that 
St. Paul was born in Gischala of Galilee, 
but this cannot be true in the face of his 
own statement that he was born in Tarsus 
(Acts xxii. 3).---᾿Ισραηλεῖταί εἰσιν ; κἀγώ: 
are they Isvaelites? soamI. The term 
Israelite expresses the sacred character of 
the nation, like the term Quirites for 
Romans, and is always used in the Ν.Τ, 
as a term of praise (John i. 48, etc.).— 
σπέρμα ᾽Αβρ. κ.τ.λ.: are they the seed of 
Abraham? soamI. This is the highest 
dignity of all, to be an inheritor of the 
Messianic promises given to Abraham 
(cf. for the phrase Isa. xli. 8, John viii. 
33, Rom. ix. 7, Gal. iii. 29). In the two 
parallel passages, Rom. xi. 1, Phil. iii. 5, 
he adds that he is of the tribe of Benja- 
min—a fact which probably accounts for 
his name ‘‘Saul” (x Sam. ix. 1). It 
shows how strong the Judaising party 
were at Corinth that he thinks it im- 
portant to put this proud statement of 
his descent in the forefront of his apology. 

Ver. 23. διάκονοι Χρ. κ.τ.λ.: ave they 
Christ’s ministers? (as they specially 
claimed to be; cf. x. 7)—I speak as one 
beside himself (sc., as if he would say 
‘this is mad boasting indeed; for what 
office can be higher than this?”’); I am 
more, t.e., 1 am that in a higher degree 
than they (ὑπέρ being used adverbially), 
as is proved by my trials in the service of 
the Gospel. The summary which follows 
is of deep interest for the student of St. 


106 


ε Hereonly. 

[τ Tim. i. 
19 only. 

ἔ Here only. 
Here 
only; Pss. 


πολλάκις. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


ak 


24. ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων " πεντάκις τεσσαράκοντα "παρὰ “μίαν 
ἔλαβον, 25. τρὶς ἐρραβδίσθην," ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην, τρὶς *évavdynoa, 
Ενυχθήµερον ἐν τῷ " βυθῷ πεποίηκα: 26. «μιας πολλάκις ὃ" 


heya 16, Κ κινδύνοις ποταμῶν, κινδύνοις λῃστῶν, κινδύνοις ἐκ ᾿ γένους, κινδύ- 
ΤΟ iv. 6 νοις ἐξ ἐθνῶν, κινδύνοις ἐν πόλει, κινδύνοις ἐν “ ἐρημίᾳ, κινδύνοις ἐν 


nly. 
εἶ viii. 35 only. 12 Macc. xii. 31. 


m Mark viii. 4; Heb. xi. 38. 


1 The preferable spelling is τεσσερακοντα with WB*DE, 
3 The preferable spelling is εραβδισθην with all the uncials except M, 
5 Ὁ)", ἃ, e and the Peshitto give πολλαις for πολλακις. 


Paul’s life; he goes into more definite 
detail than elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 11-13, 
chap. iv. 7-10, vi. 4-10), and gives us a 
more vivid picture of his extraordinary 
labours than would be possible to form 
from the narrative in the Acts alone. It 
will be remembered that his missionary 
career lasted for ten or eleven years after 
this Epistle was written, and that there- 
fore we cannot regard these verses as 
giving us a complete list of his trials.— 
ἐν κόποις K.T.A.: in labours more abun- 
dantly, sc., than they (cf. 1 Cor. xv. το), 
in prisons more abundantly (up to this 
point in his life we only know of one 
imprisonment, viz., at Philippi, Acts xvi. 
23, but there must have been others; 
cf. Rom. xvi. 7, where he 8 s of 
Andronicus and Junias as having been 
his “ fellow-prisoners "ἢ on some occasion 
to which no other allusion had been pre- 
served. Afterwards we read of his being 
imprisoned at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 33), 
at Cesarea (Acts xxiii. 35) and at Rome 
(Acts xxviii. 30), besides which the evi- 
dence of the Pastoral Epistles gives 
another Roman imprisonment. Clement 
of Rome (§ 5) speaks of St. Paul as seven 
times in bonds; εὖ vi. 5 above), in 
stripes above measure, details of which are 
given in the following verses (cf. Acts 
xxi. 32), in deaths oft, i.e., in trequent 
perils of death (cf. Acts ix. 23, xiv. 19, 
etc., and chaps. i. 10, vi. 9). 

Ver, 24. ὑπὸ Ἰουδ. κ.τ.λ of the 
Fews five times received I orty stripes 
(there is an ellipse of πληγάς as at Luke 
xii. 47) save one. The Law forbad more 
than forty stripes (Deut. xxv. 3); and, to 
be on the safe side, it was the custom in 
the judicial scourgings of the synagogues 
(Matt. xxiii. 34, Acts xxii. 19) to stop 
short at thirty-nine. This punishment 
was so severe that death often ensued 
(cf. Josephus, Antt., iv., 8, 21); we know 
nothing of the circumstances under which 
it was inflicted on St. Paul. 


Ver. 25. τρὶς ἐραβδίσθην κ.τ.λ. : thrice 
was I beaten with rods, i.e., “ virgis 
caesus sum,” a Roman, as distinct from 
the ¥ewish, method of scourging—dis- 
tinct too from flagellation with thongs 
(Matt. xxvii. 26). It was forbidden in 
the case of a Roman citizen by the Lex 
Porcia, but nevertheless St. Paul had 
endured it at Philippi (Acts xvi. 23, 37), 
and barely escaped it at Jerusalem (Acts 
xxii. 25). We do not know the other two 
occasions alluded to.—dwaf ἐλιθάσθην 
κ.τ.λ.; once was I stoned, i.e., at Lystra 
(Acts xiv. 19, and almost at Iconium, ver. 
5), thrice I suffered shipwreck, of the 
circumstances of which we have no 
record, for the shipwreck on his voyage 
to Rome (Acts xxvii.) was subsequent to 
this, a night and a day have I been (there 
— to be no special reason here for 

rf. in preference to the aorist) ἐν 
‘ie ries cep, probably after one of the ship- 
wrecks (cf. Acts xxvii. 44). For ποιεῖν 
with words of time cf. Acts xv. 33, xx. 3, 
Jas. iv. 13. 

Ver. 26. ὁδοιπορίαις πολλ. κ.τ.λ. ; in 
Journeyings often (of the extent of which 
the Acts gives us some idea; their dangers 
= now enumerated), in perils of rivers, 

from swollen torrents dangerous to 
ford (Stanley notes that Frederick Bar- 
barossa was drowned in the Calycadnus, 
not far from Tarsus; see Ramsay, The 
Church in the Roman Empire, p. 23, for 
several illustrations of the dangers of the 
Pisidian highlands), in perils of robbers, 
on account of whom travelling in Asia 
Minor was, and still is, dangerous (the 
district of Perga and Pamphylia which 
St. Paul traversed on his first missionary 
journey was notorious for brigands; see 
Strabo, xii., 6, 7), in perils from my kin- 
dred, {.ε., persecutions at the hands of 
the ‘Jews which he had suffered (see 
Acts ix. 23, 20, xiii. 5ο, xiv. 5, 19, XVii. 
5, 13, xviii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 15), and from 
which he was yet to suffer more (Acts 


24—29. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


107 


θαλάσσῃ, κινδύνοις ἐν " ψευδαδέλφοις: 27. ἐν] “κόπῳ καὶ “ μόχθῳ, Ἡ Cal ii 4 


only. 


ἐν " ἀγρυπνίαις πολλάκις,” ἐν Twa καὶ * δίψει, ἐν " νηστείαις πολ- 9 1 Thess. 


1.9; 2 


λάκις,” ἐν "ψύχει καὶ “ γυμνότητι - 28. χωρὶς τῶν “παρεκτὸς, ἡ Thess. iil 


ἐπισύστασίςά pou” ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, ἡ "μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. P Rell. vi. 5. 


q Rom. viii. 


29. τίς " ἀσθενεῖ, καὶ οὐκ ἀσθενῶ ; τίς " σκανδαλίζεται, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ 55. 


s Acts xxviii. 2. 
ν Reff. ver. 21. 


t Matt. v. 32; Acts xxvi. 29 only. 
w Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 13. 


r Here only. 
u Mark iv. 19; Luke xxi. 34; 1 Pet. v. 7. 


1 NcKLMP, f, vg., etc., support ev κοπῳ; better om. εν with ὃν ΒΡΕ, d, ε, δ. 
2 D*, d, e, f, vg. and the Peshitto have πολλαις (twice) for πολλακις. 


5B has διψη. 


4KLMP support επισυστασις; better επιστασις with $BDEG 17 (cf. Acts xxiv. 


12) and vg. = instantia, 


5 &$cDEKLMP, ἢ, g, vg. support pov; better por with ἂν Β 17. 


XX. 3, ΧΧΙ. 31, xxiii. 12, xxv. 3), tn perils 
from the Gentiles, as, e.g., at Iconium 
(Acts xiv. 5), at Philippi (Acts xvi. 20) 
and at Ephesus (Acts xix. 23), in perils 
in the city (Acts xxi. 31 and passim), in 
the desert (Arabia (2), Gal. i. 17), in the 
sea, {.6., in town and country, by land 
and by water, in perils among false 
brethren, i.e., probably the Judaisers who 
were his bitter opponents (cf. ver. 13 and 
Gal. ii. 4). 

Ver. 27. κόπῳ Kal pox. κ.τ.λ.; I” 
labour and travail, in watchings often 
(see on vi. 5), in hunger and thirst (cf. τ 
Cor. iv. 11, Phil. iv. 12), in fastings often, 
i.e., plainly, in involuntary deprivation 
of all food (the idea of voluntary de- 
votional fastings is quite foreign to the 
context here, and to bring it in spoils the 
rhetorical force of the passage; see on 
vi. 5), in cold and nakedness (cf. 1 Cor. 
iv. II). 

Ver. 28. χωρὶς τῶν παρ. K.T.A.: be- 
sides the things which I omit (see reff., 
and cf, Heb. xi. 32; the A.V. ‘those 
things that are without”? = vulg. quae 
sunt extrinsecus, is wrong), there is that 
which presseth upon me daily, anxiety 
for all the churches (see on viii. 18). 
ἐπισύστασις of the rec. text means a 
combination for hostile purposes, and is 
used of Korah’s rebellion in Num. xvi. 
40, xxvi. 9, in which latter place we have 
the same textual variants as here (cf. also 
1 Esdr. ν. 73). This may be the true 
reading, both here and at Acts xxiv. 12, 
for the syllable ov might readily drop 
out in transcription. If it be adopted 
here it would refer to the cabals of the 
Apostle’s adversaries = ‘the daily com- 
bination against me,” and would thus 
indicate a trial distinct from ‘‘the care 
of all the churches,” which is next 


mentioned. But, although this gives a 
good sense, we prefer to read ἐπίστασις 
as better supported both here and at 
Acts xxiv. 12 (the only places of its 
occurrence in N.T.). Polybius uses the 
word as = ‘‘attention,”’ ‘‘ close observa- 
tion,” but this will not suit Acts xxiv. 
12. It is foundin 2 Macc. vi. 3 as = 
‘ visitation ” or ‘‘ pressure,” and the latter 
rendering seems best to satisfy the con- 
text here. We have therefore followed the 
Revisers in adopting the Vulgate render- 
ing instantia = ‘that which presseth,” 
and in taking Ἡ μέριμνα κ.τ.λ. as in 
apposition with ἣ ἐπίστασις. 

Ver. 29. τίς ἀσθενεῖ κ.τ.λ.: who is 
weak, sc., in prejudice (as at Rom. xiv. 1, 
1 Cor. viii. 11), and Iam not weak, 1.6., in 
Christian sympathy (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 22 
ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν ἀσθενής) ; who 
is made to stumble, and I burn not ? 1.6., 
with the fire of righteous indignation (cf. 
πυρωθείς = “inflamed” at 2 Macc. iv. 
38). The word ἀσθενῶ now suggests to 
him a new thought, that it is in his weak- 
ness as supported by God’s grace rather 
than in any strength of his own that his 
real boast may be made. 

Ver. 30. εἰ καυχᾶσθαι κιτ.λ.: if 1 
must needs glory, I will glory of the things 
that concern my weakness (cf. chap. ΧΙ. 5, 
g), such as are the perils and indignities 
which he has recounted in the preceding 
verses. 

Ver. 31. ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ κ.τ.λ.: 
the God and Father of the Lord Fesus, 
who is blessed for evermore (see on i. 3, 
and for 6 ὤν as applied to God, ‘the 
self-existent one,” cf. Exod, ili. 14, 
Wisd. xiii. 1, Rev. i. 8), knoweth that I 
lie not (cf. xii. 6). This solemn assevera- 
tion belongs (see reff.) to what follows, 
and not to the statements which precede 


108 


ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOYS B 


ΧΙ. 30—33. 


x1 Cor. vii. * πυροῦμαι ; 30. εἰ καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, τὰ τῆς ” ἀσθενείας pou! καυχή- 


9; Eph. 
vi. 16. 


y 1 Cor. ii. ere 


31. ‘07 "Θεὸς καὶ "πατὴρ τοῦ "Κυρίου ἡμῶν ὃ *"Inood 


3: chaps. Χριστοῦ 4 οἶδεν, ὁ ὧν " εὐλογητὸς “eis τοὺς " αἰῶνας, ὅτι ἢ οὐ " ψεύδο- 


xii. 5, 9, 
10, ΧΙ, 4. μαι. 
z Reff. i. 3. μ 
a Rom. 1.2 
ix. 5; Ps 


32. ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὁ ἐθνάρχης ᾿Αρέτα τοῦ βασιλέως " ἐφρούρει 
5, τὴν Δαμασκηνῶν ὃ πόλιν, πιάσαι με θέλων 5: 33. καὶ διὰ “ θυρίδος ἐν 


lxxxviii. “σαργάνῃ ᾿ἐχαλάσθην διὰ τοῦ τείχους, καὶ ἐξέφυγον τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ. 


3. 
b ξεν χ. 1; Gal.i.20; 1 Tim. ii. 7. 
only. f Acts ix. 25, xxvii. 17. 


' B om. pov. 


ς Gal. iii. 23; Phil. iv. 7. 


dActsxx.gonly. ο Here 


2 D*E, d, e have ο Θεος τον Ἰσραηλ. 


* SBGKL, g and the Harclean omit ηµων; ins. DEMP, d, e, f, vg. the Peshitto 


and Bohairic. 


4 DEKLMP, d, e, f, vg. the Peshitto and Bohairic support Χριστον; on. NBG 


17, 37, g and the Harclean. 


5 DbKLM support Aap. πολιν; the preferable order is πολιν Aap. with QBD*EGP 


17, 37 and the Latins. 


5 BD*, d, e, f, vg. and the Peshitto omit θέλων ; ins, ΝΕ«ΕΚΙ ΜΡ and (before 
πιασαι pe) G, g, the Bohairic and Harclean. 


it. If the text is not corrupt, it would 
seem that the Apostle intended now to 
illustrate in detail the providence which 
overruled his life, the ‘strength which 
was perfected in weakness,” and that, be- 
ginning with one of the earliest and least 
dignified perils of his career as a Christian 
missionary, he then is led off through 
some train of ideas which we cannot trace 
into the quite different subject of his 
“visions” and “revelations,” which 
diverts him from his original intention. 
If, on the other hand, we might suppose 
νν. 32, 33 to be a marginal gloss (founded 
on Acts ix. 23-25, and perhaps introduced 
in reference to the κίνδυνοι ἐκ γένους of 
ver. 26) which was not part of the 
original text—though possibly an auto- 
graph addition made after the letter was 

nished—the argument would be quite 
consecutive. He feels the remarkable 
account in xii. 2-4 to be so incredible 
that he thinks it right to prefix the strong 
asseveration of ver. 31 that he is telling 
the truth. But there is no MS. authority 
for thus treating vv. 32, 33. 

Ver. 32. ἐν Δαμασκῷ ὁ ἐθν. κ.τ.λ. : 
in Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas 
the king guarded the city of the Dama- 
scenes, sc., by placing a watch at the 
gates, to take me ; and through a window 
(i.e., an aperture in the city wall, or the 
window of a house overhanging the wall) 
was I let down ina basket (σαργάνη is 
anything twisted, and so here probably a 
rope basket; σφυρίς is the word used in 
Acts ix. 25) by the wall, and escaped his 
hands, The incident took place on St. 
Paul’s return to Damascus from Arabia 


(Gal. i. 17) and is narrated in Acts ix. 
23-25. The date of it is important in the 
chronology of the Apostle’s life, It 
could not have been before a.p. 34, for 
coins of Tiberius prove Damascus to have 
been under direct Roman administration 
in that year. Tiberius was unlikely to 
have handed Damascus over to Aretas 
(fourth of the name), the hereditary chief 
(cf. 2 Mace. ν. 8) of the Nabathzan 
Arabs ; for up to the close of the reign of 
Tiberius military operations were being 
carried on against Aretas by the legate of 
Syria. Hence Damascus was probably 
not ceded to Aretas until the reign of 
Caligula, and consequently this episode 
in St. Paul's life cannot have taken place 
before the middle of a.p. 37. Instigated 
by the Jews (Acts ix. 23), the “ ethnarch,” 
or provincial governor of Damascus under 
Aretas (cf. 1 Macc. xiv. 47), laid a plan for 
the arrest of the Apostle which was frus- 
trated by St. Paul’s escape in the manner 
described (cf. Josh. ii. 15, 1 Sam, xix. 12). 
CuapTer XII,—Vv. 1-6. THe Apos- 
TLE'’S VISION: IF HE CHOSE, HE COULD 
BOAST OF 1T.—Ver. 1. With Tisch., 
W.H. and the R.V. we adopt the read- 
ing (see crit. notes): καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ: 
οὐ συμφέρον μέν, ἐλεύ δὲ κιτιλ.: 
I must needs glory, though it is not ex- 
pedient (sc., my opponents drive me to 
it); but I will come to visions such as 
were seen by Daniel (x. 1), which were 
predicted as to be nted in the New 
Dispensation (Joel ii. 28 f., quoted in 
Acts ii. 17), which were seen by 
Peter (Acts x. το), and by St. John (Rev. 
i, 10, iv. 1), as well as by St. Paul him- 


ΣΙ 14. 


XII. 1. Καυχᾶσθαι! δὴ 5 
εἰς 


Ῥ Χριστῷ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων, (εἴτε "ἐν "σώματι,ῖ οὐκ οἶδα " 


4 ἐκτὸς ὅ τοῦ ὃ σώματος, οὐκ οἶδα " 


aA , a 
τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ 


οὐ συμφέρει ὃ 
5 ὀπτασίας ὅ καὶ ἀποκαλύψεις Κυρίου." 


6 "Θεὸς 


109 


por ἐλεύσομαι yap *? ch ney 


2. οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἢ ἐν Acts xxvi. 
biel vt. 

er. V. I 

eve? Ren. é 


ὃ otdev .) * ἁρπαγέντα d : Bor. vi. 


3. καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον, ε Chap. xi. 
Il. 


(εἴτε ἐν σώματι, εἴτε ἐκτὸς ὃ τοῦ σωματοῦς, οὐκ 10 sie 6 Θεὸς οἶδεν" | ets viii. 


I 


4. ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν © παράδεισον, καὶ ἤκουσεν ἢ ἄρρητα ῥήματα, ἅ Thess. iv. 


xii. 5. 


17; Rev. 


g Luke xxiii. 43; Rev. ii. 7 only. h Here only, 


lnc, f, vg. prefix ει before καυχ. (from xi. 30). 


2 KM support δη; ${D* and the Bohairic give δε; 


and Syriac vss. have δει. 


BDcEGLP 17, 37, the Latin 


5 DcEKL and the Harclean support cupdeper por; D* and the Peshitto give 
συμφερει without por; better συμφερον μεν with BGP 17, 6733, f, g, vg. and the 


Bohairic. 


4 yap is read by DEKL and the Syriac vss.; better δε with δ Β (which adds και) 


GP 17, 73, f, g, vg. and the Bohairic. 
5 GP have εις τα(ς) οπτ. 
7 D*E* have ev τῳ cop. 


8 G, 6 give Χριστου for Κυριου. 
8 B om. του before σωµατος. 


9 $gDbcE**GKLMP support εκτος (from νετ. 2); BD*E* have χωρις, which is 


perhaps preferable. 


10 B om. ουκ οιδα, and accordingly W.H. bracket the words. 


Selb (Actsix: 95 δ΄. τ ου. 1x.) τὶ Acts 1x, 
12, xxii. 17) and revelations of the Lord, 
sc., revelations granted by Christ (Rev. i. 
1). St. Paul repeatedly insists that he 
received his message δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως 
"In. Χρ. (Gal. i. 12, Eph. iii. 3; cf. 1 Cor. 
xi. 23, xv. 3) ; On one occasion he went 
up to Jerusalem κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν (Gal. 
ii. 1); and he claims to have the power 
of speaking ἐν ἀποκαλύψει (τ Cor. xiv. 
6), as had also some of his Corinthian 
converts (1 Cor. xiv. 26). He now men- 
tions one signal instance of such a 
‘vision and revelation’? which was 
vouchsafed to him. 

Ver. 2. οἶδα ἄνθρ. ἐν Χρ. κ.τ.λ.: I 
know (not “1 knew” as the A.V. has it) 
a man in Christ, i.c., a Christian (see 
reff.) ), fourteen years ago (for the constr. 
πρὸ ἐτ. Sex. cf. John xii. 1)—whether in 
the body, I know not ; or whether out of 
the body, I know not (the words dis- 
tinctly indicate St. Paul’s belief that 
perception is possible for a disembodied 
spirit) ; God knoweth—such an one caught 
up to the third heaven. Cf. Ezek. viii. 

“The Spirit lifted me between the 
earth and the heaven, and brought me 
in the visions of God to Jerusalem.” 
The date of this trance must have been 
about 41 or 42 A.D., years of which we 
have no details so far as St. Paul’s life 
is concerned; probably he was then at 


Tarsus (Acts ix. 30, xi. 25; cf. the refer- 
ence to St. Paul in the dialogue Philo- 
patris, ὃ 12: ἐς τρίτον οὐρανὸν ἀερο- 
βατήσας). The mention of ‘the third 
heaven” raises interesting questions as 
to Jewish beliefs. There is no doubt 
that a plurality of “heavens” is recog- 
nised all through the Ο.Τ. (see, e.g., 
Deut. x. 14, 1 Kings viii. 27, Neh. ix. 
6, Ps. Ixviii. 33 and cxlviii. 4); but 
it has been matter of dispute whether 
the Rabbinical schools recognised seven 
heavens or only three. However it is now 
fairly well established that, in common 
with other ancient peoples (e.g., the Par- 
sees, and probably the Babylonians), the 
Jews recognised seven heavens. This 
view not only appears in the pseud- 
epigraphical literature, but in some of 
the Fathers, e.g., Clement of Alexandria. 
Its most detailed exposition is found in 
the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, a Jewish 
apocalypse written in Greek in the first 
century of our era (now only extant ina 
Sclavonic version). In chap. viii. of 
this work we find that Paradise is ex- 
plicitly located in the ‘‘third heaven,” 
which is the view recognised here by 
St. Paul (see Charles’ Sclavonic Enoch, 
pp- xxxi. ff.). 

Vy. 3,4. καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον κ.τ.λ.: 
and I know such a man (he speaks 
with such caution and reticence of this 


Σ 1 


ied aioe οὐκ ἐξὸν, ἀνθράπῳ λαλῆσαν, 


ΠΡῸΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


ΧΠ. 


5. ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοιούτου καυχήσομαι " 


| Reff.i. 55. ὑπὲρ] δὲ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ καυχήσομαι, εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ' ἀσθενείαις μου." 


πι Reff. i. 8. 
n 2 Thess. 
ii. 4 only. 


6. ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, οὐκ ἔσομαι " ἄφρων - ἀλήθειαν γὰρ 


oHere only. ἐρῶ - | φείδομαι δὲ, μή τις εἰς ἐμὲ λογίσηται ὑπὲρ ὃ βλέπει με, ἢ 


p Reff. ii. 11. 

q Mark iv. 
65; 1 Cor. 
iv. 11. 


ἀκούει τι ὃ ἐξ ἐμοῦ. 


7. Καὶ τῇ " ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων ἵνα ὁ μὴ " ὑπεραίρωμαι," 


ἐδόθη μοι “σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκὶ, ἄγγελος "Σατᾶνδ ἵνα µε “ κολαφίζῃ, 


1 D* has περι δε for νπερ δε. 


2 BD* 17, 673”, d, e, the Syriac and Bohairic vss, om. pov; ins. $DcCEGKLMP, 


f, g, vg. (cf. ver. 9). 


> SycD*E*KLP, d, e, fand the Harclean support ακονει τι; better om. τι with 
Ny" BDcE**G 17, 37, g, the Peshitto and Bohairic vss. 


4 The best authorities ΑΒΕ 17 read &o before wa; it is omitted by DEKLP, 
the Latin and Syriac vss., “ἃ characteristic Western attempt to deal with a difficulty 


by excision ’’ (Hort). 
° DELP give νπεραιρομαι. 


6 wycA**DbcEKLP and the Harclean margin support Σαταν; better Σατανα with 
N*A*BD*G 17*, 67**, the Bohairic and Latin vss. (Σαταν is indecl. in 1 Kings xi. 
14, but the form in N.T, is always the declinable Σατανας). 


momentous event in his spiritual life that 
he will not even describe it in the first 
person) ... how that he was caught 
up into Paradise (see previous note), and 
heard unspeakable words which it is not 
lawful for a man to utter; such words 
are reserved for the Divine voice which 
speaks to man, although this restriction 
does not apply to all Divine words. 

Ver. 5. ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοιούτον κ.τ.λ.: On 
behalf of such an one will I glory, but on 
mine own behalf, i.e., of myself in my 
normal state, J will not glory save in my 
weaknesses, as he has already done, xi. 
23 fff. 

Wee, 6. ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσω κανχ. κ.τ.λ.: 
we must supply a suppressed clause: 
“ And yet, as you see, if I did choose to 
boast, I should keep within the truth” is 
the sense. For if I should desire to glory, 
I shall not be foolish (cf. xi. 1 and ver. 11), 
for I shall speak the truth (xi. 31); but I 
forbear, lest any man should account of 
me above that which he seeth me to be 
or heareth from me. He is anxious that 
he should be judged, not by his report of 
his own spiritual experiences, but by his 
laborious and painful life in the service of 
the Gospel. It is instructive to notice 
that he does not bring forward this vision 
as evidence of the truth of doctrine; he 
only mentions it incidentally and with 
reserve as a Divine manifestation of 
which he might legitimately boast, if he 
chose. On the other hand, he appeals to 
the fact that he had seen the Risen Christ 


(1 Cor, ix. 1, xv. 8) as of great evidential 
importance, which indicates that he be- 
lieved that vision to be “ objective” ina 
sense in which the visions of an ecstatic 
trance are not. 

Vv. 7-10. His “THORN IN THE 
PLESH ’.—Ver. 7. καὶ τῇ ὑπερβ. τῶν 
ἀποκ. If we read διό, these words ought 
either to be taken with the concludin 
words of ver. 6 (as by W.H.), or—regard- 
ing ver. 6 asa parenthesis—with ver. 5 
as by Lachmann). Neither gives a satis- 

ctory sense, and we therefore follow the 
R.V. in regarding the construction as 
broken. He says and by reason of the 
exceeding greatness of the revelations— 
and then suddenly changes the form of 
the sentence.—&6 ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρ. κ.τ.λ.; 
wherefore, that I should not be exalted 
overmuch, there was given to me, 56.» 
God (as at 1 Cor, xi. 15, xii. 7, Gal. iii. 
21), α thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan 
(who is regarded as having power over 
the σάρξ, Luke xiii. 16, 1 Cor. v. 5, Job 
ii. 5), that he might buffet me (see reff.), 
the pres. tense indicating that this 
“buffeting’’ was not a single isolated 
trial but continual, that I should not be 
exalted overmuch. In classical Greek 
σκόλοψ means a “stake,” and this is 
given as an alternative a in the 
R.V. margin. Thus the Apostle’s trial 
would be likened to a continual “‘ impale- 
ment”. Stanley, who adopts this render- 
ing, compares Gal. ii. 20 “ I am crucified 
with Christ”. But in the Greek of the 


5-9. 


iva! μὴ " ὑπεραίρωμαι. 


, - Ἐπ πὰς Φλ Ee δ ‘ ” , s? a ε 
κάλεσα, ἵνα "ἀποστῇ ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ" 9. καὶ εἴρηκέ μοι, "᾿Αρκεῖ σοι ἢ 

’ ἜΣ ἐν δύ Η 4 é > 0 , λ a 
Χχᾶρις μου" η yap ὀυναµις μου ν ἀσῦύενειᾳ τελειουται. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


IIT 


8. ὑπὲρ 3 τούτου τρὶς ὃ τὸν Κύριον mape-r Luke iv. 


13;1 Tim. 
Vi. 5. 
s John xiv. 


4 8; 1 Tim. 


ἥδιστα 


3 ἀλλ , > a > , 6 9 δέ. ΄ vi. 8. 
οὖν μᾶλλον καυχήσομαι ἐν ταις ἀσθενείαις μου," Wa ΄“ἐπισκηνώσῃ | Here only. 


1 The second wa µη υπεραιρ. is omitted by $*ADEG 17 and the Latin vss.; but 
is found in °¢BKLP, the Syriac and Bohairic vss., and is printed by Tisch. and W.H. 


ΣΑ has και υπερ. 


8 D*E, d, = and the Bohairic give τον Kup. τρις. 


4 ScA*DbcEKLP, the Syriac and Behairic vss. support pov after Suv. ; better om. 
with §*A*BD*G and the Latins, but the sense is not affected. 


5 τελειουται, NCDcEKLP ; better reXerrar with N*ABD*G. 
5 B 67**, the Harclean and Bohairic vss. om. pov after ασθ.; ins. NADEGKLP, 


the Latin, Peshitto and Sahidic vss, 


LXX (see Num. xxxiii. 55, Hosea ii. 8, 
Ecclus, xliii. το) σκόλοψ undoubtedly 
means ‘thorn,’ not “stake” (Ezek. 
xxviii. 24 is, perhaps, doubtful). Illus- 
trations of its use in this sense also 
occur in Artemidorus, Babrius and the 
medical writers (see Field in loc. and 
Hermathena, xix., p. 390); ¢.g., of the pain 
of cutting a tooth itis said ὅταν ἐμπεπαρ- 
μένος ἦ σκόλοψ σαρκί (Comm. in aph. 
Hippocr., 25). We hold, then, that 
σκόλοψ here certainly means “thorn,” 
and that St. Paul’s trial is compared to 
the vexatious irritation of a thorn rather 
than to the agonising and fatal torture 
of impalement on a stake. We have no 
knowledge as to what this trial was. It 
is a mere fancy, and not a happy one 
(probably suggested by the Latin stimulus 
carnis), that it consisted in violence of 
sensual passions (cf. contra 1 Cor. vii. 7-9 
and ver. 9 below). That the σκόλοψ is an 
individual opponent who was a “thorn 
in his side”’ (cf. x. 7, xi. 14) was held by 
Chrysostom; Ephraim Syrus identifies 
him with Alexander the coppersmith (2 
Tim. iv. 14)! But this guess hardly ex- 
plains σαρκί; the trial was not of the 
spirit, but im the flesh. It seems likely on 
the whole that it was a bodily infirmity, 
probably the ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός of Gal. 
iv. 13. Jerome (Gal., iv., 13) and Ter- 
tullian (de Pudic., 13) mention the tradition 
that it was headache ; this was probably (if 
there be any truth in the tradition) only 
a symptom. Another view (supported by 
the Celtic name for the disease) is εβί- 
lepsy, a disease to which “visionaries” 
are said to be prone, but which afflicted 
two such strong men as Napoleon and 
Peter the Great. Those who hold this 
view generally point to the circumstances 
of St. Paul’s conversion as illustrating an 
attack of the disorder. But this at least 


is excluded by the Apostle’s own words; 
the “thorn in the flesh” was “given” 
him after the “vision” of fourteen years 
before ; {.6., this infirmity came upon him 
after the year 41. Another plausible con- 
jecture (see Farrar, S¢. Paul, Excurs. xi., 
but cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 
Ρ. 39) is that the Apostle suffered from 
ophthalmia (cf. Acts ix. 9, Gal. iv. 15, 
vi. II), a very common disease in the 
East. Prof. Ramsay (loc. cit., p. 94 ff.) 
thinks it was chronic malarial fever. 
Whatever his infirmity was, it apparently 
affected the dignity of his outward appear- 
ance (Gal. iv. 14), and was evident to the 
eye. Fora full discussion of the various 
theories on the subject see Lightfoot, 
Galatians, p. 186 ff. 

Ver, 8. ὑπὲρ τούτου τρὶς κ.τ.λ.: con- 
cerning this thing (or ‘‘this angel”’; for 
ὑπέρ = “concerning” see on i. 8) I be- 
sought the Lord, i.e., Christ (see ver. 9), 
thrice that it (or “he”’) might depart 
from me. “Thrice” seems to point to 
three special occasions, when his prayers 
for the removal of his trial were specially 
urgent. Like Another who prayed thrice 
that the cup of suffering might pass from 
Him (Matt. xxvi. 44), St. Paul did not 
receive the answer his spirit longed for. 
But he did receive an answer abundantly 
sufficient to strengthen and to console. 

Ver. 9. καὶ εἴρηκέ μοι κ.τ.λ.: and He 
hath said (note the perf. as expressing 
the abiding validity of the Divine pro- 
mise; so often in quotations from the 
Ο.Τ., e.g., Acts xiii. 34, Heb. iv. 4, x. 9) 
to me, ‘‘My grace is sufficient for thee 
(cf. Isa. xliii. 2), for My power is being 
made perfect (τελεῖσθαι is found here 
only; the tense indicates a continuous 
fact in St. Paul’s life) in weakness”, So 
it is said of Christ that He was “ made 
perfect through sufferings "’ (Heb. ii. το); 


112 


υ Reff. ν. 8. 
ν Reff. xi. 


ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOYS B 


ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


ΧΙ, 


το. διὸ " εὐδοκῶ ἐν " ἀσθενείαις, ἐν 


w ἔξει νι, ὕβρεσιν, ἐν “ ἀνάγκαις, ἐν 3 διωγμοῖς, év? " στενοχωρίαις, ὑπὲρ 


x Acts xiii, Χριστοῦ: ὅταν γὰρ ᾿ ἀσθενῶ, τότε δυνατός εἰμι. 


50; Rom. 


11. Γέγονα "ἄφρων 


vill. 351 2 καυχώμενος 3. ὑμεῖς µε ἠναγκάσατε. ἐγὼ γὰρ ὥφειλον ὑφ ὑμῶν 
«13 Τΐπ, " συνίστασθαι - οὐδὲν γὰρ ὁ " ὑστέρησα τῶν " ὑπὲρ λίαν " ἀποστόλων, 


iii. 11. 
y Reff. xi. εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι. 
41. 
z Reff. xi. 
Ὁ Ref. xi. 5. 


10. 
a Ref. iii. 1. ς Reff. iv. 17. 


1 A om. εν διωγμοις. 


12. Τὰ μὲν σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου "κατειργάσθη ° ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν ᾿ πάσῃ 
d Reff. viii. 7. 


2 SycDEGKLP support ev στεν.; better και orev. with Ν Β. 


3 LP and the Syriac vss. support the explanatory gloss κανχωµενος after αφρ. 
om. NABDEGK, the Latin and Egyptian vss. 


4 B ins. τι after γαρ (W.H. place it in their margin); G has ov yap. 
5 SAB°KL support κατειργασθη ; B*DEG have κατηργασθε. 


and of the power which He communicates 
from Himself the same law holds good. 
Cf. Isa. xl. 20-31.---ἥδιστα οὖν κ.τ.λ.: 
most gladly therefore will I rather glory in 
my weaknesses (sc., rather than that they 
should be removed), that the power of 
Christ (see on vi. 7 and reff. there) may rest 
upon me, lit., ‘may spread a tabernacle 
over me”, The image is that of the 
Shechinah or σκηνή, the glory which 
was the symbol of the Divine presence 
in the Holy of Holies, descending upon 
the faithful (cf. John i. 14, Rev. vii. 15, 
xxi. 3). The two renderings (“ strength” 
and “ power "’) of δύναμις in the A.V. of 
this verse are preserved (although inter- 
changed) in the R.V. by a curious in- 
advertence on the part of the Revisers, 
who are generally scrupulous even to 
pedantry in maintaining uniformity in 
such matters. 

Ver. 10. διὸ εὐδοκῶ κ.τ.λ.; wherefore 
I am well content in (for εὐδοκεῖν ἐν cf. 
2 Sam. xxii. 20, Matt. iii. 17, 1 Cor. x. 
5) weaknesses, in insults (ὕβρις is used 
for ‘“‘injury’’ to a ship in Acts xxvii. το, 
21; it does not occur elsewhere in N.T.; 
but cf. ὑβρίζειν, Acts xiv. 5, 1 Thess. ii. 
2), in necessities, in persecutions and dis- 
tresses, for Christ's sake (cf. Matt. v. 11); 
for whenever I am weak, then am I 
strong. Wetstein compares Philo’s τὸ 
ἀσθενὲς ὑμῶν δύναμίς ἐστι (Vit. Mos., i., 
§ 13). St. Paul’s words are more than 
a verbal paradox: they express the fact, 
to which history abundantly testifies, 
that the world’s throne is the Cross. 

Vv. 11-13. THE FOREGOING TESTI- 
MONY TO HIS CLAIMS OUGHT TO HAVE 
COME FROM THE CORINTHIANS WHO 
WITNESSED HIS APOSTOLIC LABOURs. 


—Ver. 11. va ἄφρων ὑμεῖς κ.τ.λ. : 
I am become foolish, sc., boasting thus: ye 
compelled me, t.¢., it was your doing ; Jor 
I ought to have been commended by you 
(cf. iii. 1, 1 Cor. ix. 1), #.¢., you should 
not have left it to me to speak my own 
praises: for in nothing was I behind the 
superfine Apostles, whom you trust so 
readily, although I am nothing, sc., in 
God's eyes (cf. John viii. 54, 1 Cor. iii, 
7). Of the Apostles properly so called, 
St. Paul cals himself ὁ ἐλάχιστος (1 
Cor. xv. 9); but he will not admit for a 
moment the superiority of the Corinthian 
Judaisers. hie λ. 

Ver. 12. σημεῖα κ.τ.λ.; ful 
(there is no antithesis to μέν) the pina 
of an Apostle (τοῦ is generic, “such as 
might be expected from an Apostle” ΧΑ 
Mark. xvi. 20) were wrought (note 
passive; he does not claim to be any- 
thing more than God's instrument ; 
οὐδέν ἐστι) among you in all patience, 
δε., On my part (ὑπομονή is an essential 
quality for a Christian missionary; see 
on i, 6), in signs and wonders and powers. 
This direct assertion, made as if it were 
indisputable, that miracles had been 
wrought at Corinth through his agency 
(see also Rom. xv. 19, 1 Cor. ii. 4 
is noteworthy. The three words u 
should be distinguished. τέρας is some- 
thing anomalous, outside the ordinary 
course of nature. This, however, is not 
the prominent idea in the N.T. miracles; 
τέρας is never used in the Ν.Τ. (save in 
the quotation Acts ii. 19) except in com- 
bination with σημεῖον τ 4 “sign” 
the Divine purpose. σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα 
is the regular phrase both in Ο.Τ. 
(Exod. vii. 3, etc.) and in the Ν.Τ. for 


10---15. 


© ὑπομονῇ, ἐν] “σημείοις καὶ !τέρασι καὶ ’ δυνάμεσι. 


ἐστιν ὃ ἠττήθητε” ὑπὲρ ὃ τὰς λοιπὰς 


= BEN > g , εκ Ἡ , 6 x a5 , , 
εγω ου κατεναρκησα υμων χαρισασ ε μοι την αοικιαν ταυτην. 


14. ἰδοὺ τρίτον © | ἑτοίμως | ἔχω ἐλθεῖν 


A. 6 > 1 A ο νὰ τε 3 3 ε αν > Q 3 / 
κήσω ὑμῶν: οὐ γὰρ ᾿ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμᾶς. οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει 


Lal a , 
τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσι “ θησαυρίζειν, 
15. ἐγὼ δὲ ἥδιστα δαπανήσω 7 καὶ 


υχῶν ὑμῶν: εἰ Kal’ περισσοτέρως ὑμᾶς ἀγαπῶν " “ἧττον ἀγαπῶμαι 
ψυχῶν up ρ Ρως ὑμᾶς ay γαπῶμαι. | 


24, 33, Xiii. 53 Phil. ii. 21. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


m 1 Cor. xvi. 2. 


irq 


e Reff. i. 6. 
f Acts ii. 22; 
Rom. xv. 


13. τί γάρ 


ἐκκλησίας ; εἰ μὴ ὅτι αὐτὸς * 


9; Heb. ii. 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐ “ καταναρ- 4: 

p pees g Chap. xi. 
8 only. 
Reff. ii. 7. 
i Acts xxi. 

13; Dan. 

iil, 15. 

k Chap. xi. 8 
only. 

1 Cor. x. 
Οἱ Cor, xi. 17 only. 


ἀλλ᾽ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις ᾿ 
ἃ ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι ὑπὲρ τῶν 


n Here only. 


1DcEKLP and the Bohairic support εν σηµειοις; SAAD", d, 6, f and the Har- 
clean give σηµειοις; G, g and the Peshitto και σηµ.; δῷ τεσηµ.; better σημειοις 


τε with ὃν Β 17, 73. 


ΣΝΕΑΡΡΕΚΙ,Ρ support ηττηθητε; better ησσωθητε with κ ΡΕ”, 


3 DE give παρα for υπερ. 


4G and the Latin vss. give εγω αυτος. 


5 S8ABG, the Latin, Syriac and Sahidic vss. have τριτον τοντο (DE and the 
Bohairic give τουτο τριτον) ; om. τουτο KLP (cf. xiii. 1). 


6 DbcEKL, the Latin, Syriac and Egyptian vss. support καταναρκ. υμων; D*G 


have vpas for υμων ; om. νΌµων NAB 17, 


73" 


7 D*E, d, e add και εκδαπανησω after δαπανησω. 


8 NcDbcEKLP, f, vg. and the Syriac vss. support ει και; om. ει και D*d, 6, g; 
om. καὶ Ν ΑΒΕ 17 and the Egyptian vss, 


® $cBDEGKLP and the Latin vss, support αγαπων ; better αγαπω with ΝΑ 17 


and the Egyptian vss. 


‘‘miracles’’; but it is their signal rather 
than their wonderful character upon 
which stress is laid. To describe them 
as δυνάμεις (Matt. vii. 22, Acts xix. 11, 
1 Cor. xii. 10, 28) directs attention to 
the Omnipotent Being to whom they are 
due. 

Ver. 13. τί γάρ ἐστιν ὃ Hoo. κ.τ.λ.: 
for what is there wherein ye were treated 
as inferior (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19) to the rest of 
the churches, except indeed that I myself 
did not burden you? Cf. Acts xx. 33, I 
Cor. ix. 12 and ver. 16. The emphatic 
αὐτὸς ἐγώ may indicate that it was only 
he himself (and not his colleagues) who 
refused maintenance (see on xi. 12). 
This was the only σημεῖον τοῦ ἄποσ- 
τόλου which he did not exhibit at Corinth, 
and he ironically adds, Forgive me this 
wrong. 

Vv. 14-18. THAT HE DID NOT CLAIM 
MAINTENANCE AT CORINTH WAS Ρ18- 
INTERESTED ON HIS PART.—Ver. 14. 
ἰδοὺ τρίτον τοῦτο κ.τ.λ.: behold this is 
the third time that I am ready to come 
to you. While these words only express 
that he had been ready to go twice before, 
they are quite consistent with the hypo- 
thesis, required by xiii. 1, 2 and ii. 1 
(see Introd., p. 5), that he had actually 

VOL, III, 


paid two previous visits to Corinth, the 
first of which is described in Acts xviii. 
That we have no details of the second is 
no argument against its having taken 
Ρίαοε.- καὶ οὐ καταναρκ. κ.τ.λ.: and I 
will not be a burden to you, following in 
this my practice on the two former 
occasions; for I seek not yours but you ; 
for the children are not bound to lay up 
for the parents, in which relation he 
stands to them (1 Cor. iv. 14 f., cf. Gal. iv. 
19), but the parents for the children (cf. 
ΣΟΥ xix.) τῇ). See ON) ΧΙ. τὸ for 55, 
Paul’s principles of action in this matter. 

Ver. 15. ἐγὼ δὲ ἥδιστα κ.τ.λ.: and I 
will most gladly spend and be wholly 
spent for your souls’ sake (cf. chap. i. 6, 
ROM six. Soph atl α τ). Ὁ Τπεςς, ai. ο. 2 
Tim. ii. το for the like expressions of 
unselfish devotion). ψυχή is here used 
(as at Heb. xiii. 17,1 Pet. ii. 11) of the 
spiritual part of man, the interests of 
which are eternal.—ei περισσοτέρως ὑμᾶς 
ἀγαπῶ κ.τ.λ.: if I loved you more abun- 
dantly, i.e., than I love other Churches 
of my foundation (cf. xi. 11), am I loved 
less (5ο., than I am loved by other 
Churches)? Is it thus that you requite 
my affection ? 

Ver. 16. ἔστω δὲ «.7.A.; but be it sol 

8 


Γδόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον. 


ὑτοῦ " ἐπλεονέκτησα ὑμᾶς ; 
πως κος ἐπλεονέκτησα ὑμᾶς ; 


ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOYS B 


ΧΙ, 


16. Ἔστω δὲ, ἐγὼ οὐ Ρ κατεβάρησα } ὑμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων “ πανοῦργος 
17. μή τινα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δι” 


18. παρεκάλεσα Τίτον, καὶ ' συναπέσ- 


1 Thess. τειλα τὸν ἀδελφόν ὃ: μή τι ἐπλεονέκτησεν ὑμᾶς Τίτος; οὐ τῷ αὐτῷ 
μη τη μ ω αὐτῷ 


t Here only. 

u Rom. iv. 
12; 1 Pet. 
ii. 41, 

v Acts xxiv. 


10; Rom. ii. 15. w Chap. ii. 17. 


5 Reif. ii. στ. πνεύματι περιεπατήσαμεν ”; οὐ τοῖς αὐτοῖς " ἴχνεσι ; 
1g. Πάλιν ® δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν " ἀπολογούμεθα ; " κατενώπιον ὃ tod? 
"Θεοῦ " ἐν " Χριστῷ " λαλοῦμεν - τὰ δὲ πάντα, " ἀγαπητοὶ, ὑπὲρ τῆς 


x Reff. vii, 1. 


1 ΝΟ have κατεναρκησα νµων (from ver. 13) for κατεβαρησα υμας. 


2G, f, g, vg. om. δι᾽ αντον. 


® Some editions of the Peshitto suggest αδελφονς for αδελφον, but it is doubtful if 


there is a Greek variant behind their texts. 


46, g add after περιεπατησαμεν (from xiii. 2), οτι εαν ελθω παλιν ον φεισομαι. 


δΟΌΏΕΚΙΡ, g, the Syriac and Bohairic vss. ας στὸ: παλιν ; better παλαι with 
ΝΑΒΕ 17, 67°*, d, e, f, vg. with a period after απολογ. 


6 DEKLP support κατενωπιον ; better κατέναντι with ΝΑΙ (c/. ii. 17). 
ΤΝΕΡΟΕΕΚΙ, support τον Θεον; better om. τον with *ABD*GP 17, 37 (¢. ii. 


17). 


I did not myself burden you (cf. xi. g and 
ver. 13). This the Corinthians grant as 
indisputable, but they allege a_ sinister 
reason, viz., being crafty (for ὑπάρχων 
see on viii. 17) J caught you (see on xi. 
20) with gutle (cf. iv. 2, μὴ περιπα- 
τοῦντες ἐν πανουργίᾳ μηδὲ δολοῦν- 
τες κιτιλ). That is, his adversaries 
hinted that, although he did not accept 
maintenance directly, yet the collection 
made for the Judwan Christians was 
under his hand, and that he was not 
above suspicion in his disposal of it. To 
this he returns an indignant denial, and 
appeals directly to their own observation 
of the messengers whom he had sent, of 
whom Titus (at least) had met him in 
Macedonia with a report (vii. 6) and was 
sent back to Corinth with two companions 
to complete the business, carrying this 
letter (viii. 6, 18 Π.). 

Ver. 17. μή τινα ὧν κ.τ.λ.;: of those 
whom (ὧν by attraction for ἐκείνων ots) I 
have sent, was there one by whom I took 
advantage of you? The constr. is broken, 
and the resulting anacoluthon is one of 
the most striking in St. Paul’s writings 
(cf. Rom. viii. 3, Gal. i. 20). 

Ver. 18. παρεκάλεσα Τίτον κ.τ.λ. : 
I exhorted Titus (see on viii. 6), and I 
sent the brother with him. This was the 
mission from which Titus’ return is re- 
corded above (vii. 6). We do not know the 
name of his companion ; but it is highly 
probable that Titus and this ἀδελφός are 
the ἀδελφοί who were the bearers of the 


former letter to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 12). 
-- μή τι ἐπλεονέκτ. κ.τ.λ.: surely Titus 
took no advantage of you ? walked we not 
χ᾽ Titus my emissary and I mysel 
yy the same spirit and in the same = κ. 
It is plain that Titus’ first mission had 
been admirably fulfilled, and that the 
Corinthians had recognised his single- 
mindedness and sincerity (see vii. 13). 
To their good opinion of him St. Paul 
might fairly point, for Titus, after all, had 
only carried out Ais instructions. 

Vv. 19-21. His GLORYING HAS NOT 
BEEN BY WAY OF APOLOGY, BUT TO EDIFY 
THEM UNTO REPENTANCE. — Ver. 10. 
πάλαι δοκεῖτε κ.τ.λ.: ye are thinking 
this long time (i.e., since they read xi, 1 ff. ; 
for πάλαι cf. Matt. xi. 21, Heb. i, 1, 2 Pet. 
i. 9) that we are excusing ourselves to you, 
which is very far from his intention (cf. 1 
Cor. iv. 3). On the contrary, in the sight 
of God speak we in Christ (as he had said 
before, ii. 17). But all the things, sc., 
which we speak, beloved, are for youredtfy- 
ing, sc., of which you sorely stand in need. 

Ver. 20. φοβοῦμαι yap κ.τ.λ.: for I 
fear lest by any means, when I come, I 
should find you not such as I would, and 
should myself be found of you such as ye 
would not, t.e., indignant to severity at 
their backsliding of x. 2), lest by any 
means there should be strife (cf. 1 Cor. 1. 
II, iii. 3), jealousy, ragings (this seems to 
be the force of the plur. θυμοί; cf. Wisd. 
vii. 20), factions (ἐριθεῖα is derived from 
ἔρῖθος, a hired labourer, and signifies a 


10---2Ι. 


ὑμῶν 7 οἰκοδομῆς. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


τς 


20. * φοβοῦμαι γὰρ, μή ἔπως ἐλθὼν οὐχ οἵους Υ Reff. x. 8. 


Ζ Reff. xi. 3. 


θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς, κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐ θέλετε" μή πως " Epers,! 3 Romi. 29, 


Lado? “ θυμοὶ, 1 ἐριθεῖαι, " καταλαλιαὶ, ᾿ ψιθυρισμοὶ, ὁ φυσιώσεις, 


h 


χι, τα” 
Gal. v. 20; 
Phil. i. 15. 


ἀκαταστασίαι: 21. μὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντα ὃ µε ταπεινώσῃ * | ὁ | Θεός b Rom. xiii. 


13; 1 Cor. 


‘pou πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ πενθήσω πολλοὺς τῶν "προηµαρτηκότων, καὶ μὴ oe 3; Gal. 
Vv. 20, 

μετανοησάντων ἐπὶ τῇ ''''"ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ ᾿" “πορνείᾳ καὶ '" ἀσελγείᾳ c Rom. ii. 8; 

ἜΣ al. ν. 20; 

ἡ ἔπραξαν. Eph. iv. : 
: Fe ats τι wg hoes 31; Ol. 

ii. 8. d Rom. ii. 8; Gal. v. 20; Phil. i. 17, ii. 3. 61 Pet. ii. 1 only; Wisd. i. 11. f Here 

only. g Here only; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 6, 18, v. 2, Viil. 1. h Reff. vi. 5. i Rom. 1, 8; Phil. i. 3, iv. 

19; Philm.4. _k Chap. xiii. 2 only. 1Gal.v.19. mEph.v.3; Col.iii.5. π Eph. iv. 19. 


o 1 Cor. v. 1, Vi. 13, 18, Vil. 2. 


1 BDEGKLP, the Latin, Egyptian and Harclean vss, give ερεις; Tisch. and 
W.H. read ερις with ΝΑ 17 and the Peshitto. 


2 SDbcEKLP, the Latin, Egyptian and Harclean vss. support ζηλοι; Tisch. and 
W.H. read ζηλος with ABD*G 17 and the Peshitto. 


> sgcDcKL support ελθοντα pe; better ελθοντος µου with S*ABGP, placing pe 


after ταπειν. 


Δ SAK support ταπεινωσῃ; BDEGLP have ταπεινωσει. 


mercenary cabal), backbitings, whisper- 
ings (1.6., open and secret defamation of 
character), swellings, i.e., insolences, 
tumults (see on vi. 5). Cf. Jas. iii. 16, 
ὅπου yap ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία, ἐκεῖ ἀκατα- 
στασία. 

Ver. 21. μὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος μου 
κ.τ.λ. ; lest when I come, my God should 
humble me again before you, sc., because 
of the scanty fruit of his preaching (as 
had been the case on his second visit), 
and I should mourn for many (observe, 
not ‘‘all”’) that have sinned heretofore, 
{.6., before my-second visit, and did not 
repent, 1.6., after my second visit (we thus 
retain the force of the aorist part; for 
μετανοέω see on Vil. 9, and for μετανοεῖν 
ἐπὶ cf. Joel ii. 13, Amos vii. 3), of the 
uncleanness and fornication and lascivi- 
ousness which they committed. There is 
nothing in the anxiety here expressed 
which is inconsistent with the language 
of vii. 9 ff. There he expresses his satis- 
faction that in the matter of the incestuous 
person the Corinthians had obeyed his 
directions; but their proneness to sins of 


the flesh he is fully alive to. See, e.g., 
vi. 14, Vil. 1. 
CHAPTER XIII.—Vv. 1-10. IF HE 


COMES AGAIN, HE WILL NOT SPARE: 
CHRIST IS HIS STRENGTH: LET THE Cor- 
INTHIANS SEE TO IT THAT HE BE THEIRS 
ALSO. — Ver. 1. τρίτον τοῦτο κ.τ.λ.: 
this is the third time I am coming to you. 
‘At the mouth of two witnesses or three 
shall every word be established.” That is, 
he will hold a formal enquiry in the strict 


legal way (see reff.) when he arrives. No 
evasions will be possible. 

Ver. 2. προείρηκα καὶ προλ. κ.τ.λ.: 
I have said beforehand (at chap. x. 6, 11, 
xil. 21), and I do say beforehand, as when 
I was present the second time (cf. ii. 1, 
xii, 14), so now being absent, to them that 
have sinned heretofore, i.e., before my 
second visit (as at xii. 21), and to all the 
vest, 1.6., any more recent offenders, that 
if I come again I will not spare. It was 
**to spare’ them that he had paid hither- 
to no further visit after his second (i. 23). 
He proceeds to give the reason why he 
will not “spare” if such a visit should 
be necessary; viz., they have challenged 
his Apostolic authority. 

Ver. 3. ἐπεὶ δοκιμὴν κ.τ.λ.: seeing 
that ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in 
me (cf. Matt. x. 20), 1.6., a proof that lam 
really an ‘‘ Apostle” with a ‘‘ mission” 
from Christ to speak in His Name. 
This last thought leads him into a short 
digression, ‘He who has thus com- 
missioned me is not weak, but strong, 
and this paradoxical strength in weak- 
ness is mine also” (vv. 3b, /).--ὃς εἰς 
ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. : who is not weak in relation 
to you, sc., as you think me to be (x. το, 
xi. 21), but is powerful in your midst. 
And this is true for two reasons: (a) be- 
cause of His Resurrection, as the Victor 
over Death; (b) because of the strength 
with which He empowers us in the dis- 
charge of our duty to you. Each of 
these reasons is now introduced by καὶ 


yap. 


116 


a Chap. xii. 
14; Num, 
Judges 
XVi. 15: 
John xxi. 


14. 
b Deut. xix. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ ὃ. 


XIII, 


XIII. 1. *Tpitov! "τοῦτο ἔρχομαι 3 πρὸς ὑμᾶς - ““ἢ ἐπὶ ὃ " στό- 
xxii. 285 µατος δύο μαρτύρων Kai‘ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα". 


2. “προεί- 


ρηκα καὶ " προλέγω ὡς ὃ παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον, καὶ ἀπὼν νῦν γράφω] 
τοῖς “προημαρτηκόσι, καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, ὅτι, ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς 


15(Matt. τὸ πάλιν, οὐ ᾿ φείσομαι: 3. ἐπεὶ ὃ "δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ 


χνῖϊ!. 16; 


 Τίπι. ν, λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ, ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ Ἐ ἀσθενεῖ, ἀλλὰ | δυνατεῖ ἐν 


x9): . £ “ 
ς Chap. vii. ὑμιν. 


4. καὶ γὰρ εἰ" " ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ | ἀσθενείας, ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ 


a Gal. v.21;™ δυνάμεως ™ Θεοῦ |": καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς " ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν 1} αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ 


1 Thess. 
iii.g. | ¢ Chap. xii. 21 only. f Reff.i.23.  g Ref. ii. 9. h Reff. xi. 21. i Rom. xiv. 4; 
chap, ix. 8 only. Κι Cor. i. 23, ii. 2,8; Gal. iii. 1. 1 Reff. xi. 30. πι Reff. vi. 7. ὦ Reff. xi. a1, 


ΝΕΑ 17, vg. prefix wou to τριτον (from xii. 14). 
2 A and the Peshitto read (from xii. 14) ετοιµως exw ελθειν for ερχοµαι. 


ΣΝ”, g and the Syriac vss. prefix wa to em στ. 
ΑΝ, ἢ, vg. read η τρ. (as at Matt. xviii, 16, 1 Tim. v. 19) for και τρ. 


δ D*E add yap after προειρ. 


6 D*, ἃ, e and the Harclean om. ws before παρων. 
7 DeEKLP-and the Syriac have γραφω (from ver. 10); om. RABD*G 17 and the 


Latins. 


* f, vg. have an for επει, and there is Patristic testimony to a variant εν. 


¥ So NcADLcEL, f, vg. and the Syriac; 


g and the Bohairic. 
10 17 om. Θεον; so also Hilary. 


better om. ει with *BD*GKP 17, ἆ, e, 


4 BDEKLP, d, e, vg. and the Harclean give ασθεν. εν avtw; better σὺν for εν 
with WAG, f, g, the Peshitto and Bohairic. 


Ver. 4. (a) καὶ yap ἐστανρώθη κ.τ.λ. : 
for He was crucified through weakness 
(cf. Phil. ii. 8,1 Pet. iii, 18; ἐκ indicating 
that it was His self-assumed ἀσθένεια 
which made the Passion possible), but 
liveth through (ἐκ again indicating the 
ultimate condition) the Power o God 
(see reff. and cf. Rom. viii. 11, Eph. i. 
20, Phil. ii. 9).—(b) καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς κ.τ.λ. : 
for we also are weak with Him (the read- 
ing ἐν αὐτῷ might be explained from 
such passages as i, 5, iv. 10, 11; but it 
is so startling that we hesitate to adopt 
it, when the MS. evidence is so evenly 
balanced; σὺν αὐτῷ means simply “‘ we 
are weak, as He was weak, in the world’s 
eyes”; see xii. 10), but we shall live 
with Him, not only in the Resurrection 
Life of believers (John xiv. 19, Rom. v. 
10, vi. 8), but through the Power of 
God toward you, t.e., through the power- 
ful sanctions with which He will con- 
firm our exercise of Apostolic discipline 
at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. v. 5). The thought 
is that already expressed in xii. το. He 
now resumes the argument of ver. 38, sc., 
you are claiming to test my claims: you 
should look to yourselves ; your faith is 


a witness to mine—that Christ dwells in 
you is a proof that He dwells in me, who 
preached Him to you. Cf. chap. i. 24, 
ul. 2. 5 
Ver. 5. ἑαντοὺς πειράζετε κ.τ.λ. : try 
your own selves (πειράζειν generally has 
a sinister sense in the Ν.Τ, = “to 
tempt,” as at 1 Cor. vii. 5, x. 9, Gal. vi. 
1, 1 Thess. iii. 5; but see reff.) whether 
ye be in the Faith, sc., the objective 
Christian Creed (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 13) ; prove 


your own selves (δοκιμάζειν goes back to 
Soxipy of ver. 3; cf. also ἀδόκιμοι at the 
end of this verse). Or know ye not as to 


your own selves that Fesus Christ is in 
you ? (cf. Rom. viii. το, Gal. iv. το) un- 
less indeed, sc., which is certainly not the 
case (for εἰ μή τι ke Luke ix. 13, 1 Cor. 
vii. 5) ye are reprobate, ἀδόκιμος is that 
which will not satisfy a test, and so = 
reprobus. Their own consciousness of 
the power of Christ’s grace is the best 
proof that his preaching to them was 
Divinely authorised; he “ begat them in 
Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. iv. 15). 

Ver. 6. ἐλπίζω δὲ oS, ὡ but, how- 
ever it may be with you, I hope that ye 
shall know that we are not reprobate, that 


I—9. 


ζησόμεθα 1 σὺν 3 αὐτῷ ἐκ ὃ ™Suvdpews '' Θεοῦ εἰς" ὑμᾶς. 

“πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς ὃ "ἢ δοκιμάζετε. 

ᾳ 2 ’ ε ὺ φ 3 a ‘ > e a > 8 
ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς, OTL Ιησους' Χριστὸς ἐν ὕμιν εστιν “; 


τι " ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε. 


ἀδόκιμοι. 


μηδὲν, οὐχ ἵνα ἡμεῖς "δόκιμοι φανῶμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ὑμεῖς "τὸ ᾿ καλὸν i. 16. 


ποιῆτε,10 ἡμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἀδόκιμοι ὦμεν. 


ΠΡΟΣ KOPINOIOYS B 


7. " εὔχομαι ϑ δὲ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, μὴ ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς κακὸν 


στη 


5. ἑαυτοὺς 9 Rev. ii.2 


iii. το; Ps. 
ἢ οὐκ XXV. 2. 


p Reff. viii. 
εἰ ια 8. 
μη q Reff. i. 13. 


6. ἐλπίζω δὲ ὅτι γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμὲν τ Rom. i. 28; 


1 Cor. ix. 
27;2 Tim. 
ili. 8; Tit. 


s Rom. ix. 
8. οὐ γὰρ δυνάμεθά τι κατὰ 3; 3 John 


τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας. 9. χαίρομεν 1! γὰρ 12 ὅταν ε Κοῇ x. 18, 


u Rom. vii. 


ἡμεῖς " ἀσθενῶμεν, ὑμεῖς δὲ δυνατοὶ ἦτε τοῦτο δὲ 15 καὶ εὐχόμεθα, 21; Gal. 


vi. 9; 
1 Thess. v.21; Amosv.14. v Ref xi 29. 


1 DcEKL support ζησομεθα ; G has ζησωμεν; better ζησομεν with MABD* 17. 
2 D* 17, d, 6, g give Eno. εν αντῳ (a reading which may be the true one). 


3 6, g om. εκ δυναμ. Θεου; K om. Θεου. 


4 BDcE om. εις vpas, wherefore W.H. bracket the words. 


5 A om. εαυτους Soxipal. 


δ δ ἢ om. η. 


7 BDEKL, d, ε and the Syriac support the order Ἴησ. Xp.; ΝΑΡ, f, g, vg. and 


the Bohairic give Xp. Ἴησ. 


8 BD* 17 om. εστιν after ev υμιν; but it is found in all the remaining uncials and 


in the primary vss. 


9 DcEKL and the Peshitto support evxopar; better ευχοµεθα with HRABD*GP 
17, 37, the Latin, Harclean and Bohairic vss. 


10 ΚΙ, have ποιειτε for ποιητε. 


12 DcE**K om, yap; the Peshitto has Se. 


1 DEP, f give xatpwpev. 


15 K9cDcEKL and the Peshitto give δε και; better om. δε with S*ABD*GP, the 


Latin and Bohairic vss. 


we can confidently submit to any testing 
of our apostolic authority. 

Ver. 7. εὐχόμεθα δὲ κ.τ.λ.: now we 
pray to God (for εὐχ. πρὸς cf. Num. xi. 
2) that ye do no evil; not that ye may 
appear approved, i.e., the motive of his 
prayer was not that his ministry should 
be accredited by its success, but that ye 
may do that which ts honourable (see reff. 
and mark the contrast between τὸ κακόν 
and τὸ καλόν), even though we be as repro- 
bate. That is, his prayer was for their 
sakes, and it was sincerely offered 
although, if it were fully answered, there 
would be no occasion for the exercise of 
his apostolic authority, and so the δοκιμή 
or ‘‘ proof” which the malcontents were 
asking for (ver. 3) would not be mani- 
fested. And he gives two reasons for 
this disinterestedness of his intercessions 
for them: (i.) he could not exercise his 
authority, even if he would, except in con- 
formity with the facts (ver. 8), and (ii.) 
their moral growth is a real joy to him 
(ver. 9). 

Ver. 8. οὐ γὰρ Suvap, κ.τ.λ. : for we 


can do nothing, exhibit no Apostolic 
power, against the truth, i.e., against the 
facts of the case, but for the truth (cf. 
1 Cor. iii. 1 for the elliptical constr.). The 
principle here laid down is of far wider 
application than an accurate exegesis can 
assign to it in its context. Itis a general 
principle, which Christian theology has 
not always sufficiently remembered, that 
to fight against truth, whether ethical or 
historical or scientific, is to fight against 
Him who is the Truth, and so is to court 
defeat. We can do nothing, even if we 
would, against the truth (cf. 1 Esdr. iv. 
38). 
Ver. 9. χαίρομεν γὰρ «.7.A.: for we 
rejoice when we are weak and ye are 
strong, 1.ε., in Christian graces. The 
primary reference is to that weakness 
which the non-exercise of Apostolic 
authority would seem to suggest to them 
(ver. 4, xi. 21), and of which his opponents 
were very ready to accuse him (x. 10); 
but in all weakness of his he repeatedly 
declares his contentment, if it minister in 
any way to their edification (see iv. 12, 


118 


meee of. τὴν ὑμῶν * κατάρτισιν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ B 


XII. 


10. διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα ἀπὼν γράφω, ἵνα 


Ἐρδ. ἵν, παρὼν ph ᾿ ἀποτόμως χρήσωμαι 3 κατὰ τὴν ἢ ἐξουσίαν ἣν ἔδωκέ ὃ 


14, 1 


Thess. iii. μοι ὁ Κύριος εἰς ” οἰκοδομὴν, καὶ οὐκ εἰς 7 καθαίρεσιν. 


x Tit. i. 13 


11. "Λοιπὸν, ἀδελφοὶ, χαίρετε, "καταρτίζεσθε, παρακαλεῖσθε, " τὸ " 


ly; ‘ > 
Wisd. ν. αὐτὸ "φρονεῖτε, “ εἰρηνεύετε : καὶ ὁ “Θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ “ εἰρήνης 


22 only. 


y Ref. x.8. ἔσται μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 12. “᾿Ασπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν " ἁγίῳ ® * φιλήματι. 


z Phil. iii. 1, 
iv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 1. 
16, xv. 5; Phil. ii. 2, iv. 2. 


ο Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 1 Thess. v. 27; cf. 1 Pet. ν. 14. 


1 DEG and the Latins give py παρων. 


a Rom. ix. 22; 1 Cor. i. 10; Gal. vi. 1; 1 Thess. iii. το, b Rom. xii. 
c Mark ix. 50; Rom. xii. 18; 1 Thess. v. 13. d Rom. xv. 33 
2 DEGP have χρησομαι- 


3 KL and the Syriac support the order εδ. μοι ο Kvp. (from x. 8) ; better ο Κυρ. εδ. 


μοι with RABDEGP, the 
*A om. το αντο φρονειτε. 


atin and Bohairic vss. 


°G 17, 73, 6 give της ειρήνης for της ay. και ειρ.; DEL give της ειρ. και της 


αγαπης. 
® AGL, f, 6, vg. give εν φιλημ- αγιω. 


xii. το, and cf. 1 Cor. iv. 10).---τοῦτο δὲ 
καὶ κιτ.λ. : this we also pray for (and not 
merely rejoice in), vis., your perfecting 
(cf. ver. 11). 

Ver. 10. διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα κ.τ.λ. : for 
this cause I write these things, {κει this 
letter, while absent that I may not when 
present (cf. ii. 3) deal sharply (we must 
understand ὑμῖν after χρήσωμαι, as at 
Esth. i. το, ix. 27) according to the author- 
ity which the Lord gave me for building 
up and not for casting down. The last 
clause is repeated verbatim from x. 8. 

CONCLUSION.—VV. 11-13, FINAL Ex- 
HORTATIONS, SALUTATIONS AND BENEDIC- 
TION.—Ver. 11. λοιπὸν, ἀδελφοὶ κ.τ.λ. : 
finally, brethren (λοιπόν strictly = “from 
henceforth,” but is used vaguely, as in 
reff. for“ finally". ‘‘ Well, then,” is its 
nearest equivalent as used in Modern 
Greek) rejoice (as at Phil iii. 1, iv. 4, 1 
Thess. v. 16 and everywhere in the Paul- 
ine Epp. where the word occurs; the 
ring ror of the A.V. “ farewell” cannot 
be justified. ‘‘ Farewell” would be 
ἔρρωσθε), be perfected (see reff. and cf. 
Lightfoot on 1 Thess. iii. 10), be com- 
forted, be of the same mind, live in peace, 
and then the God of Love (this phrase is 
only found here in N.T., but cf. 1 John 
iv. 8) and Peace shall be with you. In 
these exhortations we have a summary of 
the whole letter: (1) Rejoice in the grace 
you have received (i. 24, ii. 3) even as I 
do on your behalf (vii. 7, 9, 16, xiii. 9). 
(2) Be perfected, go on to perfection (vi. 
I, 13, Vii. 1, 11, ix. 8, xii. το, xiii. 9), the 
word καταρτίζεσθαι being used as at Gal. 
vi. 1 of gradual amendment after a grave 
fault. (3) Be comforted, the keynote of 


the early part of the Epistle (see on i. 4 
and cf. especially i. 4, 6, vii. 7). (4) Be 
of the same mind, live in peace (xii. 20). 
With the whole may be compared 1 Cor. 
i, 10, παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς... 
αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες καὶ μὴ 
σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτ οι ἐν τῷ 
αὐτῷ νοῖ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ. 

Ver, 12. ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλ. κ.τ.λ. : 
salute one another with a holy kiss. 
This common form of Eastern salutation 
became at an early date part of the ritual 
of Christian worship, as indicating the 
brotherhood of the faithful in the family 
of God. So early as Justin (Afol., i., 65) 
we read of the ‘kiss of peace” in the 
service of the Eucharist.—éomd{. tp. 
κ.τ.λ.; all the saints, sc., all from Mace- 
donia where the Apostle was, salute you 
(cf. Phil. iv. 22). 

Ver. 13. ἡ χάρις τοῦ κ. κ.τ.λ.: the 
Grace of the Lord Fesus Christ (his con- 
cluding salutation in Rom., 1 Cor., Gal., 
Phil., Philm., r and 2 Thess.), and the 
Love of God (see on v. 14), and the 
Fellowship of the Holy Spirit (as at Phil. 
ii. 1, and cf. 1 Cor. 1. 9, x. 16) be with 
you all, even with those who opposed 
him. The ordinary conclusion of a letter 
of the period was ἔρρωσθε, as χαίρειν 
was the introductory greeting (see on i, 
1). But St. Paul has a signature of his 
own, which he calls the σημεῖον ἐν πάσῃ 
ἐπιστολῇ (2 Thess. iii, 17); viz., he 
always ends with a prayer that Christ's 
grace may rest on his correspondents, 
either in the form ἡ χάρις τοῦ Kup. "In. 
Xp. or in the abbreviated form ἡ χάρις 
(as in Eph., Col. and the ΓᾺ Ἀν κα 
Here, and here only, he fills it out so 


10--13. 


ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς ot ἐἅγιοι πάντες. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Β 


[19 


13. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου 1 Ἰησοῦ ἴ Ref. τ, 


lod A A Ay LE [ ’ 
Χριστοῦ,” καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ᾽Αγίου Πνεύματος 


ετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. ᾿Αμήν.8 
μ μ 


Πρὸς Κορινθίους δευτέρα ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων τῆς Μακεδονίας, 


διὰ Τίτου καὶ Λουκᾶ. 


1 After Κυριου, some cursives, f, m, vg., the Peshitto and Bohairic add ἡμων. 


3 B om. Χριστου. 


3 s9cDEP, d, e, vg., the Syriac and Bohairic add αµην; better om. with Ὁ ΑΒΕ 


ἘΠῚ "να TLR, 


as to embrace the Three Persons of the 
Blessed Trinity. Possibly the phrase the 
“God of Love” in ver. 11 has suggested 
here mention of the “‘ Love of God,” 1.6., 
the love which God has for man; and 
a prayer for the ‘‘ Fellowship of the Holy 
Spirit,” z.e., the κοινωνία which is the 
Spirit’s gift, is a fitting conclusion to a 
letter addressed to a community agitated 
by faction and strife and jealousy (xii. 
20). But whatever were the thoughts 
which suggested this triple benediction 
(cf. Num. vi. 23 f.), it remains, as Bengel 
says, ‘‘egregium de SS. Trinitate testi- 
monium”., It offers a devotional parallel 
to the Baptismal Formula (Matt. xxviii. 
το): and the order of its clauses receives 
its explanation in later words of St. Paul: 


δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν. .. 
ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (Eph. 
ii, 18). It is the Grace of Christ which 
leads us towards the Love of God, and 
the Love of God when realised through 
the Spirit’s power promotes the love of 
man (1 John iy, τι), the holy fellowship 
fostered by the indwelling Spirit. 

πρὸς Kop. κ.τ.λ. This subscription is 
found (in substance) in KL, the Harclean 
and Bohairic vss. and in many cursives, 
but has no real authority. The mention 
of Titus and Luke is plainly derived from 
chap. viii. 18. A few cursives add the 
name of Barnabas; the Peshitto mentions 
Titus only. The form of subscription in 
the best MSS., NAB 17, is simply πρὸς 
Κορινθίους B. 





ο @ i 


ου ν πε a eee αν ἣν οὐδὸν 


a κ } ys 
- so 6 


a Pe eel Rae ας ἀν δι 


. 
. 
5 
- 
~- 
΄ 
- 
7 
= * 
΄ 
+>. 
᾿Ξ ᾿ 
ΝΕ ae 
= ᾿ - 
- ᾿ 
4 ον. 9) ἱ 





THE EPISTLE: OF PAUL 
TO THE 


GALATIANS 





INTRODUCTION. 


Text. The text of this Epistle has been constructed with due 
regard to the traditional text (Textus Receptus) on which our 
Authorised Version was based. But the discovery of MSS. not 
then known, and the critical study of ancient authorities since 
that time, necessitate careful revision and extensive alteration of 
that text. For this purpose the editor has relied mainly on 
Tischendorf’s collation of MSS. The Apparatus Criticus is based 
on his authority and follows his notation. It contains all the MS. 
evidence which appears really important for determination of the 
text. The following letters are used to designate uncial MSS. :— 


ἐδ = Sinaiticus. Ε Augiensis. 

Α Alexandrinus. 6 Boernerianus. 
B Vaticanus. H Coislinianus. 
ο Ephraemi. K Mosquensis. 
D Claromontanus. Ι[, Angelicus. 

E Sangermanensis. Ρ Porfirianus. 


Corrections of ancient date, inserted in the uncial MSS., are 
indicated by small letters or numerals (a, c, 1, 3) attached to the 
capital letters. Cursive MSS. are denoted by the numerals 
generally accepted for their designation. 

The readings, punctuation, and division of paragraphs differ here 
and there from those adopted by Westcott and Hort. The reasons 
for these variations may be gathered from the notes. 

ΡΑύΙΙΝΕ AutHorsHip. Widely different opinions are entertained 
by critics with regard to the date of the Epistle and the locality of 
the Galatian Churches. But its authorship has never been seriously 
questioned. This unanimity of tradition is probably due to the nature 
of its contents. For it is stamped throughout with characteristic 
features of the Pauline mind and spirit. Matter and style alike attest 
the personality of the Apostle to the Gentiles. It unites dialectic 
skill in criticising the language and history of the Old Testament, 


124 INTRODUCTION 


and a comprehensive philosophy which assigns to law, to the spirit, 
and to the flesh their several functions in God’s government of the 
world, with intense spirituality and absolute devotion to the Lord 
Jesus. The Apostle Paul alone of the Apostles and their con- 
temporaries exhibited this rare combination of mental and spiritual 
qualities. None of his Epistles is more certainly genuine, none 
gives so vivid a picture of his mind and character during the most 
active stage of his apostolic career. 

Ancient Testimony. The adoption of its language by Fathers 
of the Church in the second century proves its antiquity and high 
reputation in their time. Polycarp borrows ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων 
ἡμῶν from iv. 26, and θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται from vi. 7; Irenzeus gives 
a Latin version of Π, 19, referring to the Epistle by name; Justin 
Martyr reproduces Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, ὅτι κἀγὼ (ἤμην) ds ὑμεῖς from iv. 12, 
and ἔχθραι ἔρεις ζῆλος ἐριθεῖαι θῦμοι . . . καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις from 
ν. 20. Its canonicity is established by its insertion in every Canon 
of Scripture. Marcion also placed it at the head of his catalogue of 
Pauline Epistles. 

ANTECEDENTS OF THE GALATIAN Converts. Throughout the 
Epistle the author assumes the position of Founder, he addresses 
the Galatians as his own converts and claims special authority over 
them in the name of Christ who had made him Apostle and com- 
mitted to him the ministry of the Gospel among them. One passage 
in the Epistle brings into prominence the diverse elements which 
entered into their composition, reminding us that, like other Pauline 
Churches, they were mixed bodies comprehending a minority of 
Jewish Christians (iii, 28), But the circumcised minority are in 
general ignored (iv. 8), for the Epistle is specially addressed to 
the Greek converts, who had not yet accepted circumcision, but 
had of late been urged by agitators to submit to it for the sake 
of the covenanted blessings attached to it at its institution. 
These uncircumcised Greeks formed apparently the mass of the 
Galatian Churches: there is at the same time no doubt that they 
had been for some time regular attendants on the teaching of the 
synagogue, for the Epistle assumes throughout their familiarity 
with the patriarchal history, the Law, the Psalms and Prophets, 
as well as expositions of Scriptural topics by Jewish teachers, They 
had belonged, in fact, to the body of devout Gentiles who frequented 
Jewish synagogues, studied Jewish Scriptures, and found many points 
of sympathy with their theology and morality, but repudiated their 
ceremonial law, and so formed a distinct class apart from the Jewish 
congregation. 


INTRODUCTION 125 


Loca.ity OF THE GALATIAN CHuRCHES. The locality of these 
Churches demands attentive consideration, for on the determina- 
tion of this depends not only the date of the Epistle, but the whole 
of its historical connection with the life of Paul. The theory that 
these Churches were situated amidst the Keltic population in the 
north-east of Asia Minor, though it wraps much of their early 
history in darkness, requires us to assume that they were founded 
during the missionary journey of Paul and Silas across Asia 
Minor and revisited by Paul three years later: otherwise it could 
not be reconciled with the narrative of the Acts. The reaction 
therefore towards Judaism, which evoked the Epistle, cannot be 
dated before the commencement of his Ephesian ministry. Now 
before that time Paul had openly broken with the synagogue at 
Corinth and established Churches in Achaia practically independent 
of Judaism. Is it reasonable to conclude that a Pharisaic reaction 
in some of the Pauline Churches was then for the first time started 
with success and excited in his mind the lively apprehension which 
is here expressed? In my judgment the history of Greek Christianity 
precludes it, for a very real and formidable agitation on this very 
subject had once already run its course, and been so decisively 
checked in Syria and Palestine after the success of Paul and Bar- 
nabas in Southern Galatia as to render its renewal quite hopeless. 
A demand was made at Antioch by a Pharisaic party for the 
circumcision of all Christians, the authority of Paul and Barnabas 
was openly challenged, and the peace of the Church was endangered 
by conflicting views. But the decisive condemnation of this agitation 
at Jerusalem led to its speedy collapse; there is no trace, outside 
this Epistle, of its subsequent revival in any Greek Church. On the 
contrary the career of Paul within the next two or three years 
irrevocably established the independence of Greek Christianity ; 
hence I conclude that the two intrigues of the Pharisaic party, 
first at Antioch, next in the Galatian Churches, recorded in this 
Epistle were but a later stage of the movement recorded in the 
Acts—last expiring efforts of Judaism to arrest the growing freedom 
of Greek converts. 

But putting aside for the present the question of date, is there 
ground for supposing that these Churches were planted in the cities 
of Northern Galatia, Ancyra Pessinus and Tavium, as the late 
Bishop Lightfoot persistently contended, rather than in those of 
Southern Galatia, the Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, 
as Professor Ramsay maintains? Great weight is deservedly attached 
to the opinion of Bishop Lightfoot; but it must be remembered that 


126 INTRODUCTION 


it was formed more than a generation ago, when comparatively 
little was known of the internal geography of Asia Minor, or of its 
condition under the Cesars: whereas Professor Ramsay’s advocacy 
of the opposite view is founded on intimate acquaintance with the 
geography and history of the country during the first century. Again, 
Paul’s foundation of the four southern Churches and subsequent 
visits to them are well-attested facts, while he is not known to have 
visited the northern division at all. It had indeed little attraction 
for an educated Greek as a sphere of missionary enterprise, and 
held out little promise of success, for it was then inhabited mainly 
by an imperfectly civilised population of Keltic herdsmen and shep- 
herds. If the authenticity of the Acts be admitted, the earliest 
occasion on which Paul was within reach of Northern Galatia, and 
can have founded Churches there, was on his way to Troas and 
Macedonia. It has accordingly been suggested that he may then 
’ have turned aside to preach amidst that people. But every stage 
of that journey was accomplished under the immediate guidance 
of the Spirit, and the silence of the narrative, written as it was 
by a fellow-Christian who accompanied the apostolic party from 
Troas onwards, is conclusive against that theory. That history 
leaves the reader virtually no choice but to identify the Galatian 
Churches with the four whose foundation it records. It is futile 
to object that the instability which the Epistle reproves in the 
Galatians was characteristic of a Keltic people, for it belonged as 
certainly to the populace of the southern cities, or that there may 
have been Jews and Greeks in the northern cities when history 
establishes the special preponderance of these elements in the 
southern. The further contention that the name Galatia was not 
extended to the southern division of the province save in official 
language ignores the fact that the province had been seventy-five 
years in existence and really furnished the only collective name for 
the heterogeneous races incorporated in it under the previous rule 
of Galatian kings. If it be urged again that Paul would not have 
designated his Churches by the name of the province, the answer 
is that throughout his Epistles he invariably groups his Churches 
according to provinces, whether Syria or Asia, Macedonia or Achaia. 
His reference in this Epistle to the Churches of Judza and to his 
ministry in Cilicia can hardly be reckoned an exception, for these 
were quasi-provinces governed independently by imperial procurators. 
Nor was this practice a mere accident of language: it faithfully 
reflected his deliberate policy of Church extension, suggested 
perhaps by the example of the Jewish Dispersion, who had; before 


INTRODUCTION 127 


planted their synagogues in the principal centres of commerce and 
civilisation. It was certainly his practice to establish groups of 
Churches round the several capitals of provinces, and link those 
centres together by chains of Churches along the main roads, 
and so to create an ecclesiastical organisation closely corresponding 
to the existing divisions of the Empire. We find for instance that 
he made the provincial capitals Antioch, Corinth and Ephesus 
successive centres of Church life as they were of imperial adminis- 
tration, and surrounded each with its group of dependent Churches. 
But for Jewish malice he might have done the same for Thessalonica ; 
and his eager aspiration to visit Rome reveals still wider projects 
for multiplying these federations of Churches until they became 
coextensive with the Empire. 

Hence I conclude that in this Epistle also the name Galatia 
denotes the province, as it clearly does in 1 Peter i. 1, and that the 
Galatian Churches were those in its southern portion whose founda- 
tion is recorded in the Acts. This conclusion is confirmed by the 
leading part assigned to the Galatian Churches in the collection for 
the Saints (1 Cor. xvi. 1). It is further supported by the previous 
course of Galatian history. 

GaaTIAN History. The Greek name Galatia denoted originally, 
like the Roman Gallia, the country of the Gauls or Kelts (Γαλάται). 
About B.c. 278 a considerable detachment of warriors, roughly 
estimated at 20,000, broke off from three of the Keltic tribes that 
poured down on Greece, and made their way across into Asia 
Minor with wives and children. As war was their trade and 
only means of subsistence, they scoured the country far and wide, 
sometimes plundering on their own account, sometimes allying 
themselves with various kings and cities, or taking service under 
them as mercenary soldiers. Eventually they formed permanent 
encampments under native chieftains in the north-east of Phrygia, 
south of Bithynia and Pontus, speaking their own language and 
dwelling apart from the older Phrygian inhabitants. This district 
became consequently known as Galatia: its broad stretches of up- 
land afforded pasture for their flocks and herds, and their families 
found safe homes in their cantonments. But the limits of their 
territory were still unsettled, depending continually on the fortune 
of war: for the tribesmen retained their predatory habits and were 
hardly ever at peace with all their neighbours. At last, however, 
in B.c. 189 they were forced by a crushing defeat which they en- 
countered at the hands of the Romans to respect the peace of their 
neighbours, and began to cultivate home industries within their own 


128 INTRODUCTION 


borders. Gradually they mingled more freely than at first with the 
Phrygian population, adopted their religion, though they retained 
their own language, and dwelt among them as a dominant race, so 
that Northern Galatia became the home of a settled people. 

But a century later the Mithridatic wars swept to and fro across 
their country, obliterating the old landmarks and opening a new 
chapter in Galatian history. Many of their chieftains distinguished 
themselves on the Roman side, and were rewarded with large grants 
of territory outside the old borders: one in particular, Deiotarus, 
became by the favour of Pompey the most powerful monarch in 
Asia Minor. He and his successors were enabled by the active 
part which they took in the ensuing civil wars of Rome, or by 
judicious desertion of the losing cause, to enlarge and consolidate 
their kingdom until it embraced Southern Phrygia with parts of 
Lycaonia and Pisidia, and extended to the range of Taurus. This 
was the kingdom which the last native ruler Amyntas bequeathed to 
the Romans at his death in Β.ο, 25. A Roman province was formed 
out of it, and retained the name Galatia which had belonged to it 
under its Galatian king. There is nothing in this history of gradual 
expansion to justify the arbitrary restriction of the name to the 
northern division alone. 

Still less reasonable does this appear in the light of its subsequent 
history. For seventy-five years before this Epistle was written 
Galatia had formed a single province of the Empire. Now the unity 
of an imperial province was not merely official, but affected all the 
relations of life. A system of centralised despotism prevailed under 
the Czesars which concentrated all authority—=military, civil, judicial 
alike—in the hands of the governor; commercial and financial 
matters were regulated by him; his court was the centre of social 
life. The name Galatia therefore in the N.T. can only mean the 
great central province of Asia Minor which bore that name. 

But in the middle of the first century there was a wide difference 
in language, occupation, nationality, social organisation, between 
the northern and southern portions of the province. The northern 
was still mainly Keltic and pastoral with comparatively little com- 
merce and few roads. Southern Galatia, on the contrary, was full 
of flourishing cities, and enriched by the constant flow of commerce 
across it. This was the natural result of its geographical position 
and political history. In ancient times it formed the highway along 
which the Asiatic monarchs of the interior maintained their com- 
munication with the western coast. When Greek monarchs ruled 
in Syria and Asia Minor, the high-road between their two capitals 


INTRODUCTION 129 


Antioch and. Ephesus passed through it and it became a principal 
channel for the flow of Greek commerce and civilisation eastwards. 
They were careful accordingly to plant and foster colonies of Greeks 
and Jews along the line of route. Hence came the mingled popula- 
tion of Greeks and Jews amidst whom Paul found so congenial a 
soil for planting Christian Churches. Augustus Cesar in due time 
inherited the policy of the Syrian monarchs together with their 
dominions in Asia, planting fresh colonies in that region in order 
to secure the important high-road to the east for his legions and for 
the interchange of commerce. The citizens of these various colonies 
and municipalities had but one collective name—the name of the 
imperial province to which they belonged. So also the Galatian 
Christians, though for the most part of Greek or Jewish origin (as 
the tenor of previous history suggests), could hardly be addressed 
by any other name than that of Galatians. 

Joint Mission ΟΕ Paut AND Barnasas. Throughout the early 
history of Greek Christianity no more important event is recorded 
than the conversion of Southern Galatia. The area of Christendom 
had not till then been extended beyond Syria, Roman Cilicia, and the 
island of Cyprus. The successful ministry of Paul and Barnabas in 
Galatia added a new province to the kingdom of Christ, drove a wedge 
deep into the heart of an idolatrous region, and established a valuable 
outpost for further advance into Asiatic and European Greece. And 
the special character impressed by the circumstances of that ministry 
upon the new Churches gave additional importance to their founda- 
tion beyond the material extension which it effected in the area of 
Christendom. There for the first time Paul made a direct appeal 
to his Gentile hearers against Jewish opposition, and met with an 
enthusiastic response. These Churches started in consequence with 
an overwhelming majority of Gentile converts. In them for the first 
time the Jewish Christians, who had hitherto held an undisputed 
initiative in the Church, found themselves in a decisive minority. 
This altered relation of Greeks and Jews produced a crisis in the 
history of Greek Christianity, and in the apostolic career of Paul 
himself. For the Greeks had previously occupied a subordinate 
position in the Church, and the Apostle to the Gentiles had played 
a secondary part in the ministry of the Gospel. When, however, 
he boldly denounced the Jewish people and their rulers in the 
Galatian synagogue for the murder of Christ, proclaimed him the 
light of the Gentiles, and overruled the claims of the Law in favour 
of purely spiritual doctrines of divine forgiveness and grace, of 


human faith and repentance, the Greeks recognised in Jesus the 
VOL. IIT, 9 


120 INTRODUCTION 


Saviour of the whole world rather than the promised Messiah of 
the Hebrews, and rallied round the Apostle as the foremost champion 
of Greek freedom in Christ. It was the commencement of a veritable 
revolution. Hitherto Christianity had been regarded for the most 
part as a national religion, it was now perceived to be a world-wide 
revelation, and an irreconcilable antagonist to the narrow formal 
creed of the Jewish synagogue. Gentiles had indeed been admitted 
to the Church many years before, when Peter baptised Cornelius 
and his friends; and the assembled Church had then solemnly 
ratified his act. The right of believing Gentiles to Christian 
baptism had thenceforth become a fundamental law of the Church, 
sealed to them in perpetuity by a divine charter which none could 
gainsay. But the acceptance of this principle had wrought little 
visible effect upon the structure or government of the Church, 
No sudden influx of Gentile converts flooded the existing Churches; 
they only grew insensibly by continual adhesion of individual Gentiles 
or groups of Gentiles to older congregations of Jewish Christians. 
The process of conversion was too silent and gradual to exercise 
material influence over the prevailing spirit of the community or to 
remodel its ministry and organisation. Christian teachers retained 
in those early years the stamp of their Jewish training, partly 
because the Hebrew Scriptures continued to be the only written 
Canon of faith and practice (though they had learned to interpret 
them in a new spirit), but still more because the Apostles and older 
disciples had grown up to manhood before they had known Jesus, 
had accepted the Law for their rule of life, and drawn their inspira- 
tion from the writings of Hebrew prophets; they prided themselves 
on their descent from Abraham and the patriarchs, rested on God’s 
ancient covenants with Israel, and fixed their hopes on the future 
kingdom of the national Messiah, which had a deeper significance 
for them than for other Jews because their faith was concentrated 
on the person of a living Lord who had risen irom the dead and 
ascended into heaven. Again, the outward environment of the 
Church was no less Jewish than the spirit of its teaching, for the 
synagogue was still the only centre of public ministry open to 
Christian teachers. Thither the brethren resorted regularly for 
reading of the Scriptures, for united prayer and praise, and for 
religious instruction; there they delivered addresses to mixed con- 
gregations of Jews and Christians, basing their doctrine on the 
Jewish Canon. They claimed, in fact, to be a reformed branch of 
the ancient national Church, and were long regarded by the Greek 
world as a purely Jewish sect. 


INTRODUCTION 131 


Accordingly, the conversion of the Gentiles made at first but slow 
progress; few came within touch of the Christian ministry but those 
who had already become regular attendants on the worship of the 
synagogue, the devout Gentiles who clustered round Jewish congre- 
gations in Greek cities. These were not proselytes, for they shrank 
from circumcision with all the ceremonial bondage and social ex- 
clusiveness which it entailed; but they had become familiar with 
the language, the history and the spirit of the Old Testament, and 
had accepted much of its theology and morality. They were pre- 
disposed by these antecedents to listen gladly to a Gospel which 
placed the love of God and man above ritual observance and 
taught the brotherhood of all mankind: and so embraced the faith 
in considerable numbers. But these Greeks had no rights whatever 
in the Jewish congregation; though their attendance was tolerated, 
if not encouraged, they were only admitted on sufferance. They 
were therefore at first content, after having occupied so subordinate 
a position in the synagogue, to fill a secondary place in the Church, 
and to acquiesce willingly in the leadership of Jewish Christians. 

These considerations account for the tardy growth of Gentile 
Christianity, which lingered for several years on the eastern coast 
of the Levant without an attempt to raise its voice in the Greek 
cities to the west.1 Even in Antioch, afterwards the mother-city 
of Greek Christianity, the Greeks were slow to vindicate their 
independence of Judaism. The prompt response however of that 
Church to the call of the Spirit for special labourers in the Lord’s 
vineyard attested at last the growing strength of their spiritual life 
and their hopeful confidence in the future of the Kingdom. The 
diffusion of the faith had up to that time been due more to provi- 
dential circumstances than to spontaneous effort ; refugees had been 
driven by persecution to seek safety in distant cities, and had carried 
their faith with them in their flight. But the mission of Barnabas 
and Saul was a purely missionary enterprise despatched for the 
express purpose of extending the Gospel to the islands and coasts 
of the Mediterranean. The two Apostles were necessarily invested 
with wide discretion in regard to the conduct of their mission ; 


1Thirteen years elapsed between the conversion of Saul and the Apostolic 
Council. The baptism of Cornelius took place before Christian refugees from 
Jerusalem had settled in Czesarea or Philip had taken up his abode there; so that 
it coincided more or less closely with the beginning of this period, whereas the 
mission of Paul and Barnabas belongs to its latter years; for the special object of the 
Apostolic Council was to allay the heart-burnings aroused among Jewish Christians 
by its success, and to restore the peace of the Church, 


132 INTRODUCTION 


neither their route nor their methods could be fully determined in 
advance, for they depended on future openings that might present 
themselves, and were therefore in large measure left to their own 
judgment. But the direction in which it was launched gives a clear 
intimation of the desires and hopes that animated its authors; it 
turned its back on Palestine and the East, and set its face toward 
Asiatic Greece and the famous centres of Greek civilisation ; it was, 
in short, a message from a Greek Church to their Greek brethren in 
other lands. 

The condition of Western Asia at that time held out an exceptional 
promise of success to Christian Apostles. Thanks to the universal 
peace and settled order which the Czsars had established throughout 
the Empire, that region had attained a high pitch of industrial activity 
and commercial prosperity. In spite of the social corruption and 
luxurious vices which riches brought in their train, the consequent 
exuberance of life, social, intellectual and spiritual, afforded a favour- 
able opening for religious reform. The region had been in former 
centuries a frequent battlefield between Greek and Asiatic races, 
and still formed a border-land between eastern and western thought. 
But the religion which the people had inherited from ancient times 
was more Oriental than Greek, and its degraded type of sensuous 
worship could hardly satisfy the conscience even of a heathen 
community to which the influences of western civilisation had 
penetrated. Greek philosophy and Roman morality combined to 
create a nobler ideal of human duty and divine government than 
could be reconciled with the popular religion, so that all the better 
feelings of educated men and women were stirred into revolt against 
the debased superstition of the masses. 

The religious ferment produced by this collision was specially 
aggravated by the multiplication of Jewish colonies in the principal 
cities of Asia Minor, systematically planted and fostered long ago 
through the wise policy of Syrian kings for the encouragement of 
trade and promotion of intercourse between these two races of their 
subjects. These settlements were particularly thriving in Southern 
Galatia, along the direct line of communication between the two 
capitals Antioch and Ephesus. Nowhere else are recorded such 
conspicuous traces of their religious influence over the surrounding 
population. They formed, of course, distinct communities of their 
own, divided from the Greeks by unsociable habits as well as ritual 
obligations and religious scruples. Yet their Scriptural teaching 
proved so attractive to seekers after God that a considerable num- 
ber of Greeks frequented their weekly services in the Pisidian 


INTRODUCTION 133 


Antioch and in Iconium, and these, like the devout Gentiles every- 
where, were disposed to give a cordial welcome to the preaching of 
Christ. Accordingly, it was in those cities that His Apostles gained 
their first conspicuous success; there Asia Minor first awoke to the 
call of the Gospel, and the first fruits were reaped of an abundant 
harvest. It was, perhaps, inevitable that this hearty reception of 
the new doctrine by Greeks should provoke intense jealousy on the 
part of the Jews, and arouse bitter opposition from them. The 
vehement appeal of Paul to his Gentile hearers at Antioch brought 
that opposition to a head, and stirred the passions of both parties 
to fever heat. The Jews heard the impotence of their law for 
salvation denounced in their own synagogue, the Gentiles heard the 
offer of a new way of salvation by repentance and faith in Christ 
alone. 

From that hour both alike recognised in that Apostle the fore- 
most champion of Gentile rights and the most formidable adversary 
of Judaism. 

Let us now, therefore, turn to his personal history and review 
the chain of circumstances which landed him with his colleague in 
the interior of Asia Minor. The record of the joint mission during 
its first few months was uneventful; they traversed Cyprus from 
end to end, preaching in all the synagogues by the way without 
achieving any success that the historian counted worthy of record. 
Barnabas, himself a native of the island, naturally took the lead 
in virtue of his older standing in the Church and of his superior 
position at Antioch as the chosen representative of the Twelve, but 
failed apparently to elicit any enthusiastic response. It was not till 
they reached Paphos, the western port and the seat of the Roman 
government, that the spirit of Paul was stirred within him to carry 
his appeal to Gentile hearers. He procured by some means an 
audience of the proconsul, and after a signal manifestation of his 
spiritual power in smiting Elymas with blindness, succeeded in con- 
verting Sergius Paulus himself. This success was fruitful in results: 
it established Paul’s virtual leadership; for Barnabas, though he 
retained the nominal dignity of head, was content to submit the 
further guidance of their policy to the more determined counsels of 
his energetic colleague. A new spirit of enterprise speedily mani- 


1 The historian chooses this occasion for dropping the Hebrew name Saul and 
adopting the Greek name Paul, indicating that he then entered on his special 
ministry to the Greeks. In relating the voyage from Paphos he ignores Barnabas 
altogether, and in the subsequent narrative assigns him throughout a secondary 
part. The language of the Lycaonian populace furnishes an apt illustration of 


124 INTRODUCTION 


fested itself in their proceedings. Paul and his Company (as they 
are designated in Acts xiii. 13), crossing to the mainland, struck at 
once across Pamphylia and the Pisidian highlands into the interior. 
The desertion of John Mark at this critical moment is significant. 
He was warmly attached to his cousin Barnabas, and had under- 
taken the office of minister to the Apostles; yet so reluctant was 
he to embark with them on their new enterprise that he did not 
hesitate to incur a well-grounded charge of disloyalty by withdrawing 
from the mission immediately on touching the coast of Pamphylia, 
and leaving them to pursue their way without him to the Pisidian 
Antioch. This faint-hearted desertion serves by way of contrast to 
bring out in stronger relief the resolution with which the Apostles 
pressed forward from the coast. But on their arrival in Galatia 
their journey was arrested and came to an apparently premature 
termination. For many months they settled down permanently— 
first in Antioch, then in Iconium—with an absolute determination 
not to depart until they were either expelled by authority or driven 
to flight by imminent peril of life. Even then they did but take 
refuge in neighbouring cities for a while until the storm had passed, 
and eventually revisited the scenes of their former ministry, and so 
retraced their steps to the coast from which they had started, after 
firmly planting the faith of Christ in the region of Southern Galatia. 
The narrative does not explain this sudden arrest of the onward 
movement which had carried them with such determined energy 
into the interior, it simply records the fact that they stopped short 
in Antioch, without any intimation that a change had occurred in the 
apostolic policy. The reader might well gather from it the impres- 
sion that Galatia had been all along their destined sphere of labour. 
This, however, could hardly be: it can scarcely be conceived that 
they contemplated the cities of Galatia as their final objective when 
they started with such resolute purpose from Paphos; for those 
cities had neither ancient fame nor present importance to attract 
special attention. Nor, again, would Mark have found that brief 
expedition into the interior so alarming as to desert his post if he 
had known how short a distance they were about to travel. What 
then, were the subsequent circumstances that prompted Paul and 
Barnabas to abandon their more ambitious designs and take up their 
residence at Antioch? The history and character of Paul quite 


their mutual relations to each other: they recognised the superior dignity of Bar- 
nabas by identifying him with Jupiter, but called Paul Mercury because he was the 
chief speaker, 


INTRODUCTION 135 


forbid any suspicion that the change was owing to caprice or to 
irresolution on his part. Nor was it due to the immediate and 
unexpected success of their ministry in that city ; on the contrary, 
his recorded address in their synagogue furnishes ample evidence of 
his previous failure to touch the consciences or win the hearts of 
his Jewish hearers. He, doubtless, had begun his ministry there, as 
elsewhere, by offering the Gospel to the Jews, and his bitter denun- 
ciation of their prejudice against Christ shows how stubborn had 
been their resistance to his Gospel before he turned to his Gentile 
hearers with this despairing appeal. 

On the whole therefore I conclude from a survey of the historical 
narrative that Paul and Barnabas embarked at Paphos on an 
ambitious project of missionary enterprise, which for some unknown 
reason they failed to realise, though they pursued it steadily without 
a pause as far as Antioch. It further appears that their first efforts 
after their arrival in that city were foiled by the persistent opposition 
of the Jews, but that their perseverance was at last rewarded by 
signal success amongst the Greeks. 

It is time now to turn to the Epistle and compare these con- 
clusions with the incidental reference there made to the circum- 
stances of the conversion. In Gal. iv. 13 the Apostle reminds his 
converts that he had not originally preached the Gospel to them 
by his own deliberate choice, but on account of an illness which 
deprived him of all option in the matter. They knew (he writes) 
that his preaching had been due to infirmity of the flesh, 1.6., to 
bodily illness. This language plainly intimates that he altered his 
plans in consequence of the illness, and undertook their conver- 
sion instead of carrying out his previous intention. Neither the 
time nor the place of the attack are specified, but the context 
supplies materials for determining both. It shows that the Galatians 
were quite aware of his previous design, that they had been eye- 
witnesses of the illness, had watched its progress and seen enough of 
its repulsive symptoms to provoke natural contempt and disgust, but 
had on the contrary exhibited heartfelt sympathy and intense desire 
to alleviate his sufferings. It is quite certain therefore that it ran 
its course after his arrival in their country. It may have been 
contracted on the way; if it was (as his language in iv. 15 and 
vi. 11 suggests) an attack of virulent ophthalmia which permanently 
impaired his sight, it is probable that he caught the infection in the 
lowlands of Pamphylia, where that malady was notoriously prevalent. 
But whatever its specific character, it was in Galatia that it pros- 
trated him, and by incapacitating him for continuing his journey 


136 INTRODUCTION 


left him no choice but to prolong his stay in the country, and so 
occasioned the conversion of the Galatians as its eventual result. 
Evidently the illness beset him so soon after his arrival that he 
had no time before the attack either to resume his journey or to 
entertain any plan for preaching where he was. It was, however, 
so tedious and protracted in its operation that it altered his whole 
scheme of travel. And whereas he was but a passing stranger when 
he broke down, and had not attempted to make a single convert, 
he found himself before its close surrounded by a devoted band of 
friends who were zealous to make any sacrifice for his relief. The 
pathetic language of the Epistle shows how intimate an affection 
had grown up between the Apostle and his Galatian hosts, and 
makes it clear that the nucleus of a future Church was formed by 
the ministrations of his sick chamber. No mention is made of this 
illness in the Acts, for it belonged to the personal history of the 
Apostle rather than to the history of the Church; but the record 
dovetails with subtle harmony into the narrative of the Acts, ex- 
plaining at once why he stopped short at the first stage of his 
intended journey, and how it came to pass that so many of his 
hearers afterwards rallied round him with enthusiasm on his appear- 
ance in the synagogue of Antioch. 

A consideration of the geographical condition of Asia Minor in 
the middle of the first century brings out still more clearly the 
thorough agreement of the two narratives. The Epistle implies, 
as we have seen, that the foundation of the Galatian Churches 
was due to an interrupted transit through their country. Now this 
conception is fatal to the idea of a northern site for those Churches. 
What possible object could the Apostle have for visiting Northern 
Galatia at all unless it was for the conversion of its people? It lay 
quite away from his recorded track, and it is inconceivable that he 
intended to traverse it on his way to some still more distant field of 
labour. Southern Galatia, on the contrary, was traversed from end 
to end by a great highway along which he is known to have travelled 
four times, visiting the cities through which it passed. According 
to the Acts the first of these cities visited by the Apostle was the 
Pisidian Antioch in the extreme south of the Galatian province. 
There his journey was for some reason arrested, and there he 
succeeded after a prolonged sojourn in founding the first Galatian 
Church. These facts identify Antioch as the scene of his involun- 
tary detention, and its position gives at once a definite clue to the 
original purpose of the apostolic expedition from Paphos. It was 
a Roman colony planted by Augustus Cesar on the main road which 


INTRODUCTION 137 


ran from Syria to the western coast of Asia and so linked the eastern 
provinces of the Empire with Greece and Rome by way of Ephesus, 
It was besides in direct communication with the southern coast of 
Pamphylia, and so with Cyprus; for a system of military roads, 
studded with colonies, converged upon it from the south. For full 
half the year this was the only regular means of communication 
between Paphos and the province of Asia; for even in autumn the 
persistency and violence of the Etesian winds out of the A2gean Sea 
made it difficult and dangerous for the best found vessels to round 
the Cnidian promontory, as was proved by Paul’s subsequent ex- 
perience. There is also good reason to calculate that Paul and 
Barnabas, starting from Syria after the reopening of navigation in 
the spring, spent the summer in traversing Cyprus from end to end 
and did not arrive at Paphos before the autumn. Their only means 
of proceeding westward at that season was to cross to the mainland 
in such coasting craft as they could find at Paphos and strike across 
Pamphylia to the main road at Antioch, as they did. This raises 
a presumption that their original object in making so eagerly for the 
Pisidian Antioch was to reach Ephesus and the province of Asia. 
On arriving at that city they had the option of three routes only: 
(1) to proceed northward by local roads into the heart of Phrygia, 
which was obviously not their intention when they started from 
Paphos; (2) to move eastward to Iconium and other Galatian cities, 
but these are expressly excluded from his original purpose by the 
language of the Epistle in iv. 13; (3) to pursue their journey west- 
ward by the high-road to Ephesus. This was Paul’s project on his 
next visit to the Galatian Churches, and was doubtless his design on 
this occasion, had it not been hindered by illness, as it was afterwards 
by the voice of the Spirit. It was, in fact, ordained that the con- 
version of the Galatians should form the first step to that of Asia 
Minor, and that Ephesus and the famous cities of the western sea- 
board should be reserved for the final consummation of his apostolic 
labours amid the Asiatic Greeks. The outcome of his public ministry 
with Barnabas in Southern Galatia is recorded in Acts xiii., xiv. His 
successful appeal to the conscience of his Greek hearers provoked 
intense jealousy on the part of the unconverted Jews, who proceeded 
to hunt the Apostles with determined malice from every city in suc- 
cession. They were enabled with the support of influential partisans 
at Antioch, by secret plots at Iconium, and by mob-violence at Lystra, 
to put the Apostles everywhere to flight, but not before they had 
planted in each place the seed of a future Church, which had become 
so firmly established before the final departure of Paul and Barnabas 


138 INTRODUCTION 


from the country that they were able to organise a permanent frame- 
work for the government of the several Churches. According to 
their own report of their mission, its most conspicuous feature had 
been the door of faith which God had opened to the Gentiles. The 
widespread alarm raised in the Churches of the Circumcision by the 
number and ritual independence of these Greek converts produced 
a crisis in the Church and threatened a dangerous schism between 
its Jewish and Greek sections. Christians from Judea raised a 
standard of open revolt against Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, dis- 
puting their right to concede this freedom to the Gentiles. Thanks, 
however, to the intervention of the older Apostles these agitators 
were decisively condemned at Jerusalem, the apostolic authority of 
Paul and Barnabas was triumphantly vindicated, and the liberty of 
Gentile converts in the matter of circumcision was finally established, 
while the religious prejudices of Jewish Christians against com- 
munion with the unclean were mitigated by prudent concession to 
Jewish sentiment. 

Seconp Ministry oF Paut ΙΝ Gavatia. The apostolic con- 
ference at Jerusalem was followed by a gathering at the Syrian 
Antioch of Christians from Jerusalem. Besides Judas and Silas, 
who were deputed by the Church of Jerusalem to proceed to Antioch 
as their representatives, Peter himself repaired thither with Mark 
and others, whose influence so seriously undermined that of Paul in 
the mind of Barnabas that they agreed to separate. Paul accordingly 
enlisted Silas as his companion for a fresh mission to the cities of the 
Greeks. His first object was to revisit his Galatian converts and 
communicate to them the terms of union between Jewish and Gentile 
converts which had been ratified by the Churches at Jerusalem and 
Antioch. He hastened apparently to carry tidings of that decision in 
person, probably crossing the mountain-passes from Cilicia as early 
as they were open in the ensuing spring,’ and to recommend its 
observance to his disciples. During this visit he also made choice 
of Timothy for his minister, and decided in consequence to circumcise 
him, lest the Jews should take offence in the cities he was about 
to visit. His visit was otherwise uneventful. He traversed the 
whole country, confirming the Churches everywhere, but only on his 
way to the new sphere which lay before him; and did not revisit 
Galatia till three years later on his way from Syria to Ephesus. 

Motive AND GENERAL SCHEME OF THE EpistLe. The opening 

ΤῸ appears from Cicero's letters that at the time of his government of Cilicia 
these passes were absolutely closed during the winter months (Cic. ad Att., v., 31), 
even for important despatches. 


INTRODUCTION 139 


verses of the Epistle throw a clear light on the motive which 
prompted it. In i. 1 he vindicates his own apostolic commission, in 
i. 6-9 the truth of his Gospel, against an attack which was troubling 
the peace of the Galatian Churches in his absence. The move- 
ment was not spontaneous, but due to an intrigue set on foot by 
foreign emissaries. Alarming tidings had, however, reached the 
Apostle as to the progress of the agitation. Its nature becomes 
apparent from the whole tenor of the Epistle ; it was an attempt 
of the Pharisaic party to revive Judaism within the Church. For 
this purpose it was necessary for its authors to impugn the truth 
of the Apostle’s doctrine, and they sought accordingly to undermine 
his personal influence and depreciate his apostolic authority. Some 
had even ventured to impeach the sincerity and the consistency of 
his teaching by accusing him of an inordinate desire to please (i. 10). 
He had perhaps given specious occasion for this charge by his avowed 
principle of becoming all things to all men, but he dismisses it lightly 
with scorn, for the friends and converts to whom he was writing 
knew well that his real motive had always been to win men to 
Christ. He does not apparently feel it needful to defend his motives, 
but concentrates attention on two points, the truth of his Gospel, 
and the reality of his commission from God. He begins with an 
indignant denunciation of the new heresy, which he declares to be 
a spurious perversion of the one true Gospel. But he perceives 
the necessity for vindicating his own right to speak in the name 
of Christ before grappling with the main issue and developing the 
fundamental divergence of the Gospel in its essential basis and 
spirit from the Law. For the result of the conflict depended 
practically more on the personal than the doctrinal factor. He had 
been himself the foremost champion of Gentile freedom in Christ ; 
the doctrine of free grace in Him had won its way mainly through 
the advocacy of Paul and owed its triumph in Galatia, at Antioch, 
and in Jerusalem, to his eloquent support. This was why his 
antagonists had endeavoured to depreciate his position in the 
Church, and to set up the Twelve as the real interpreters of Christ 
on earth, that they might thereby discredit his authority as a 
teacher. The circumstances of his life furnished opponents with 
plausible ground for questioning the soundness of his doctrine. He 
had neither listened to the voice, nor seen the face, of Christ on 
earth; he had not attended on His ministry like the Twelve, nor 
been sent forth like them by His express command. He was, in 
short, to use his own words, an Apostle born out of due time. 
This made it easy for them to contend that he had not received 


140 INTRODUCTION 


the Gospel by direct revelation from Christ, but gathered it at 
second-hand from the Twelve. To meet this insidious policy, he 
was forced to place on record the true history of his conversion and 
subsequent ministry in Christ. He relates accordingly Οο 5 
revelation to him of His Son from heaven, his secret communion 
with God apart from all human intercourse, his entire independence 
of the Twelve, the full recognition of his Apostleship to the Gentiles 
by the three pillars of the Church at Jerusalem, and his public 
rebuke to Peter at Antioch. Incidentally this autobiography is of 
the utmost historical value: while it is in perfect harmony with the 
outlines of the historical narrative, it adds to it a rich store of 
personal details, and reveals the inward motives and policy of the 
chief actors in successive scenes. It relates, however, only certain 
events which bore on the immediate object of the author, viz., the 
vindication of his own position in the Church, 

The remainder of the Epistle (with the exception of a few personal 
appeals and practical exhortations) is devoted to a scrutiny of the 
divergent principles of the Law and the Gospel. The intruders, 
belonging manifestly to the Pharisaic party, had been urging the 
Greek converts in Galatia to embrace circumcision, not as an 
absolute necessity for salvation, but as a counsel of perfection 
which would invest them with superior holiness to their uncircum- 
cised brethren, would entitle them to a higher place in the Kingdom 
of God, and secure to them the covenanted blessings promised to 
the children of Abraham. By this arrogant pretension to superiority 
in the sight of God these Jewish Christians were in fact pouring 
dishonour on baptismal grace, reopening the quarrel between Jews 
and Gentiles and destroying the unity of Christ. The Apostle 
combats this delusive persuasion by setting forth the true function 
of the Law in the divine economy. It had proved ih practice 
impotent to bless, for it stipulated for a perfect obedience to which 
flesh could not attain as a condition precedent to acceptance before 
God, so that Israelites had in fact fled to Christ for refuge from the 
curse of a broken law: it was primd@ facie inconsistent with the 
unconditional promise of God to Abraham, and the Mosaic dispen- 
sation was really an exceptional provision against the lusts of the 
flesh, designed like the preparatory discipline of childhood to last 
only during years of immaturity before the advent of the true Seed 
of Abraham. He argues that the Law was a bondage imposed on 
the children of Abraham after the flesh, whereas Christians are the 
true seed of Abraham and heirs like Isaac of God’s ancient promises. 
By union with Christ in His death they have died to the condemna- 


INTRODUCTION 141 


tion of the Law, by union with His life they have become partakers 
of His Spirit. They are therefore freed in Christ from the dominion 
of the Law unless they wilfully submit themselves to its yoke afresh 
by embracing circumcision. For the spirit within them stedfastly 
resists every sinful lust of the flesh, and brings forth of itself good 
fruit abundantly. 

Summary ΟΕ Contents. The principal heads of the argument 
are as follows :— 


i, 1-5. Address, blessing, ascription of glory to God. 

i. 6-9. Rapid defection of the Galatians from their faith; denunciation of 
spurious Gospels. 

i. I0-ii. 14. Repudiation of corrupt motives; attestation of the author’s apos- 
tolic commission and of his independence of the Twelve and of human 
teaching ; his championship of Gentile rights; and the recognition of his 
ministry to the Gentiles by the acknowledged pillars of the Church. 

ii. 15-21. Israelites had themselves: confessed by seeking salvation in Christ 
through faith that no flesh can attain to the righteousness of the Law. Paul 
himself had died to Law with Christ that he might be quickened with Him 
to the new life of Christ within him. 

iii. 1-14. Spiritual blindness of the Galatians. Was it faith or obedience to 
Law that had procured for them the gifts of the Spirit? By faith men 
become children of Abraham and inherit his blessing. The Law entails 
a curse and not a blessing, but Christ has redeemed us all from the curse 
of the Law by bearing it Himself. 

ili. 15-iv. 7. The publication of the Law from Sinai could not annul or modify 
God’s earlier covenant with Abraham. It was merely a preparatory disci- 
pline like that of childhood and a temporary provision against the lusts of 
the flesh, ordained for children of the flesh till the world was ripe for the 
Advent of Christ the true seed. All that are His are one with Him, and so 
are the seed of promise: they have outgrown the restraints of spiritual 
childhood and regained their birthright of freedom in the House of God. 

iv. 8-10, Protest against the revival of ignorant superstitions. 

iv. 11-20. Appeal to the remembrance of former affection. 

iv. 21-30. Illustration out of patriarchal history of the mutual relations between 
Jews and Christians. 

iv. 31-v. 12. Assertion of Christian freedom; protest against renewed bondage 
by circumcision; threats of punishment against these devotees to the flesh. 

ν. 13-vi. το. Warning against the abuse of freedom; antagonism of the spirit 
to the flesh; its perfect harmony with Christ’s law of love and excellence 
of its fruits; practical exhortation. 

vi. 11-18, Peroration, and farewell blessing. 


CompsARIsoN ΟΕ GataTians ul. 1-10 witH Acts xv. 1-29. In 
Gal. ii. 1-10 is recorded a conference of Paul and Barnabas with 
the Church of Jerusalem and its members. It appears from the 
narrative that they went up to Jerusalem for the express purpose 
of vindicating their right in virtue of their office as ministers of 


142 INTRODUCTION 


Christ to exempt Gentile converts from circumcision—a right which 
had been seriously disputed, but strenuously maintained by them. 
It further appears that James, Peter and John welcomed them as 
brethren in Christ, and fully recognised their special commission 
from God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts xv. 1-29 is 
likewise recorded an open revolt at Antioch against the authority 
assumed by Paul and Barnabas to exempt Gentile converts from 
circumcision. They were forced in consequence to undertake a 
mission to Jerusalem for the vindication of Gentile freedom in 
Christ as well as their own apostolic authority, and to enter upon 
prolonged debates with the Apostles and elders there gathered. In 
the sequel the Church resolved, on the advice of Peter and James, 
to repudiate unreservedly the claim for universal circumcision in the 
Greek Churches, to condemn the agitators, and heartily to commend 
the services of Barnabas and Paul to the cause of the Gospel. The 
two records differ in details—it could not well be otherwise if they 
are really independent—but agree completely about the substantial 
facts. The same issue is raised in both, vizs., the right of Paul and 
Barnabas to dispense with the obligation of circumcision, the same 
Apostles take part in the conference. It is true that the presence 
of John is not noted in the Acts, but the speakers only are there 
named, and John probably did not speak, but stood silently beside 
Peter as in earlier days, while Peter spoke for both; the result of 
the proceedings is the same according to both records. Now, this 
result was of such vital importance that it decided for all time the 
relation of Christianity to Judaism, declaring it to be world-wide in 
its scope, and distinguishing it from the national creed of the Jewish 
people. As the sanction given by the Circumcision to Peter's 
baptism of Cornelius had before stamped their approval on the 
admission of the uncircumcised to baptism beyond recall, so the 
Apostolic Council decided finally the union of all the members of 
Christ in a single Church: the concession once made at Jerusalem 
in the name of the assembled brethren was final. 

There were, in fact, but two occasions on which Paul and Bar- 
nabas went up together from Antioch to Jerusalem, and the object 
of both visits is specified. The earlier occurred in the lifetime of 
Herod Agrippa, and, therefore, not later than 44, before their 
successful mission to Cyprus and Asia Minor, whereas the Epistle 
records the recognition of their special ministry to the uncircum- 
cision in the fourteenth year after the conversion of Saul. Again, 
it was undertaken merely to carry alms with a view to an impending 
famine, and they found the Church of Jerusalem on their arrival in 


INTRODUCTION 143 


the utmost peril. Herod was hunting down its leaders for death, 
and they were seeking safety in concealment or flight. Neither 
they nor Saul could show their faces without imminent danger, 
much less assemble to discuss the claims of the uncircumcised. 
The envoys could only depart in haste after depositing their alms 
in the hands of the elders. On the contrary, the account given in 
the Acts of their later visit to Jerusalem corresponds entirely (as we 
have seen) with the apostolic narrative. The historian, of course, 
reviews the event from the standpoint of Church history, while the 
Apostle presents the incidents in their personal aspect, and the 
details vary accordingly in the two narratives. Bor instance, the 
Epistle does not state that Paul and Barnabas were deputed by the 
Church of Antioch to represent them at Jerusalem, though we might 
well gather this from the circumstances and the history of their 
reception ; it does, on the other hand, record a revelation of the 
spirit, either to him or to the Church, which prompted the action 
of both, though for some reason unrecorded in the pages of the 
history. The statement of Paul, that he took with him a Greek 
disciple of his own, incidentally confirms the statement of the Acts 
that other Christians were deputed to accompany the Apostles. 
The account given in the Acts of a personal collision between the 
Apostles and certain agitators at Antioch, on the subject of circum- 
cision, explains the reference made in the Epistle to a demand for the 
circumcision of Titus, which Paul had steadfastly resisted. What- 
ever semblance has been found of divergence in the two accounts 
is really due to misconception of the language. Many critics have 
argued, for instance, as if the struggle over Titus took place at 
Jerusalem, but a careful student of the Greek text may perceive 
that it really occurred at Antioch before the mission, and is in 
perfect harmony with Acts xv. 1, 2. Again, James, Peter and 
John have been represented as at first lukewarm and hesitating in 
their support of Paul and Barnabas; but the Greek text places their 
brotherly cordiality in strong contrast with the prejudices and cold- 
ness of other Christians who had once been of high repute in the 
Church. 

The silence of the Epistle about the injunctions of the Council 
to abstain from ceremonial uncleanness is easily understood. They 
were indispensable for harmonious intercourse between Greeks and 
Jews in one communion; they were of real value until the Church 
was able to promulgate a new law of uncleanness based on true 
principles and distinguishing real from ceremonial pollution. Paul 
had therefore recommended their observance, and had, partly in 


144 INTRODUCTION 


consequence of this deference to the Mosaic law, been charged with 
preaching circumcision (v. 11). But the two questions were really 
distinct, and he is careful in this Epistle to confine himself to the 
subject of circumcision. 

ΗΙΘΤΟΒΙΟΑΙ, CONNECTION OF THE EPISTLE WITH THE LIFE OF PAUL, 
The Galatian Epistle belongs obviously to the same group as the 
Thessalonian, Corinthian and Roman, but critics are by no means 
agreed as to its position amidst them in point of time, some placing 
it before, some between, some after, the others. All were written 
during the seven years in which Paul was engaged in founding and 
organising successive Churches on both sides of the A2gean Sea, there 
was considerable uniformity in the circumstances of his life through- 
out this period of apostolic activity, and this uniformity is reflected 
in a certain family likeness which runs through all the Epistles 
of that date. All except the Roman sprang out of the needs of 
infant Churches beneath his care. These depended largely on his 
personal example and authority for guidance in faith and morals; 
accordingly the personal element looms large in all, in none more 
so than in this. He was throughout in continual contact with 
Jewish influences, utilising the synagogue everywhere while it was 
possible for the conversion of devout Gentiles as well as Jews, and 
everywhere encountering opposition and persecution from the Jews. 
There was, however, little occasion to combat Judaism in the 
Thessalonian Epistles, for that Church was at the time suffering 
grievously from Jewish persecution; in the Corinthian Church 
again the Greek element predominated, and the most pressing dangers 
arose from the contamination of heathen license and idolatry. 
Therefore the antagonism between Pharisaic Judaism and Christ- 
ianity comes into prominence in the Galatian and Roman Epistles 
alone. Both employ almost identical language in contrasting the 
Law and the Gospel, the former based entirely on the holiness of 
God and man’s duty of absolute obedience, the latter adding the 
revelation of God's love even for sinners, and His offers of forgiveness 
and grace to all that believe in Christ. But the coincidence is not 
due to any similarity in the circumstances of the two communities. 
In the Galatian Church the Apostle was combating a survival of 
Judaism amidst his own converts, in the Roman Church he was 
laying down principles for a community who had hitherto had no 
Apostolic guidance, Still less can the identity of language be fairly 
urged to prove an approximation in the date of the two Epistles. 
For these fundamental truths formed without doubt the staple of 
the Apostle’s teaching throughout the years of continuous transition 


INTRODUCTION 145 


from Jewish to Christian doctrine, and his language in regard to 
them could not fail to become in some measure stereotyped. 

We tread on far safer ground when we rely on historical con- 
siderations for determining the occasion of the Epistle. During the 
seven years of continuous transition from Jewish to Christian doctrine 
a radical alteration was effected in the position of Greek Christianity 
and of Paul himself. At the beginning no Greek Churches existed 
outside Syria except those which he and Barnabas had founded: the 
two stood on the same level, and rival teachers had fair show of 
reason for ranking him below the Twelve; at its close a multitude 
of Churches in Europe and Asia recognised him as the great Apostle 
to the Gentiles, and he might have replied to his detractors with 
scorn by pointing to the visible tokens of divine blessing stamped on 
his apostolic labours in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia. That he did 
not do so in his Galatian Epistle furnishes conclusive proof of its 
early date. When Paul, after his second visit to Galatia, departed 
for an indefinite time to an unknown destination in the west, there 
was still a reasonable chance of inducing many Galatian converts to 
submit to circumcision in his absence, but with every fresh Greek 
Church added to the communion the hope must have steadily faded. 
The growing strength, number, and independence of these Churches 
soon after made a revival of Judaism in one of them hopeless. But 
the attempt made at Antioch after the Council (as the Epistle 
records) to affix a stigma of uncleanness on the uncircumcised 
shows that the Pharisaic party, though defeated in their efforts to 
enforce circumcision on all members of Christ, had not then aban- 
doned the hope of persuading their Greek brethren to adopt it, and 
had little scruple about putting unfair pressure upon them for this 
object by withdrawing from their communion. Their partial success 
at Antioch in obtaining the adhesion of Peter and Barnabas to their 
practice encouraged them to hope much from fresh efforts in the 
absence of Paul. The moment was otherwise favourable for a 
renewed attempt to advocate circumcision in the Galatian Churches. 
Jewish influence was strong in the country; the people were im- 
pulsive and excitable, easily swept to and fro by capricious currents 
of religious emotion; the vacillation of Peter and Barnabas had 
made it easy to claim their sanction and set up the authority of 
the Twelve against that of Paul. He had himself during his recent 
visit furnished his adversaries with a fresh handle for misrepresenta- 
tion, for he had circumcised Timothy and had recommended his 
converts to abstain from the forms of ceremonial uncleanness most 


offensive to the Jews, so that he was even said to be now preaching 
VOL. III. 10 


146 INTRODUCTION 


circumcision (v. 11). The imputation seems absurd in view of his 
later life, and would have been so after he had openly broken with 
the synagogue, but was plausible enough when he was bent above 
all things on promoting harmony between the two sections of the 
Church by some voluntary sacrifices of Greek freedom in Christ. 
I contend therefore that the recent warnings to which i. 9 refers 
(see notes on that v rse) were delivered on the occasion of his second 
visit to Galatia aft: r the Apostolic Council, that the agitation in the 
Galatian Churches was a sequel of the intrigue at Antioch, some of 
the Pharisaic emissaries having probably followed the receding steps 
of the Apostle that they might renew their insidious schemes behind 
his back, and that the Epistle followed speedily on this agitation. 
Its language certainly implies a close connection between the two 
movements; for the remonstrance spoken at Antioch passes insensibly 
into the written argument without any clear line of division. Ifa 
later date be assigned to the Epistle, the abrupt termination of the 
autobiography on the eve of the second visit becomes unintelligible. 
The earlier date explains also the motive which prompted him to 
record his personal collision with Peter. It is inconceivable that 
he raked up this story out of a distant past. But if the example 
and authority of Peter and Barnabas had been employed by his 
rivals in Galatia to undermine his position, it became necessary for 
him in his own defence to give a true version of the events that 
had occurred at Antioch. 

Assuming therefore that the reactionary movement in Galatia 
followed closely on his departure, where and when was the Epistle 
written? It may be presumed that he lost no time after he was 
informed of it before writing to counteract it; but the tidings could 
not reach him without considerable delay, for his destination was 
unknown until he himself opened communications from Philippi. 
Probably therefore he could receive no news from Galatia till after 
his arrival at Thessalonica; there was not however very frequent 
intercourse then between that city and Galatia, and his stay there 
was cut very short by persecution. The absence of Silas and Timothy 
at the time of writing points distinctly to the early days of his 
ministry at Corinth, for they were with him in Macedonia, but did 
not rejoin him afterwards till some weeks after his arrival in Corinth, 
That they were absent is morally certain. Their names, which 
appear conspicuously in the Epistles to the Thessalonians written 
about the same time, are here absent in spite of Timothy’s Galatian 
home, and in i. 9 the writer expressly refers to the united warnings 
delivered by him and his colleagues Silas and Timothy, to fortify 


INTRODUCTION 147 


\ 

the appeal which he now makes in his own name (as we have fore- 
warned you of late, 1 say again). This date explains also the absence 
of any greeting from a Christian Church by name, for at the time 
the Apostle had only begun to gather round him the nucleus of the 
future Church of Corinth in the house of Aquila and Priscilla. 
I conclude therefore that the Epistle was written from Corinth 
before the arrival of Silas and Timothy, in which case it is the 
earliest Epistle of Paul now extant, being written before the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians. The previous outrage at Philippi and the 
subsequent persecutions which he encountered in Macedonia make 
the references to persecution and to the marks of Jesus branded on 
his body peculiarly appropriate. 

RESULT OF THE EPISTLE AND SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE 
CuurcHes. The Pharisaic reaction came upon Paul as an un- 
welcome surprise after the enthusiastic reception they had originally 
given to the doctrine of free grace in Christ, and the recent con- 
firmation of their faith by personal intercourse. He gives vent, 
accordingly, in forcible language to his indignation at the disloyal 
intrusion of false teachers into his own fold. Their readiness to listen 
with itching ears to strange doctrines, and to be fascinated by the 
charms of religious novelty, even though the doctrine was incompatible 
with the spirit and the cross of Christ, and in spite of attacks aimed 
at the position of their own well-proved Apostle, distressed him sorely ; 
for they argued unsoundness in their faith, and shook his confidence 
in the permanence of their loyalty to Christ. But ought we, there- 
fore, to conclude that they were permanently estranged from their 
great Apostle? Are we to infer the depth and strength of the 
reaction from its suddenness? It seems to me that the balance of 
evidence in the Epistle inclines the other way and tends to suggest 
their substantial loyalty in spite of some temporary estrangement. 
Por the agitation is declared to be but a little leaven, dangerous in 
principle and fraught with possibilities of evil, but only just beginning 
to work; no mention is made of Greek converts having actually 
adopted circumcision. Paul expresses his confidence that they will 
all be of one mind with him; he does not hesitate to threaten the 
intruders with the judgment of the Churches if they persist (v. 10) ; 
he longs indeed to come amongst them and assure himself by a fresh 
visit of their fidelity to Christ and His Apostles, but he lays down 
his pen with an assurance that henceforth no man will trouble him. 
And the evidence of history confirms this favourable impression ; it 
would seem that the Epistle did really succeed in re-establishing the 
faith of the Galatians. For we hear no more of any anxiety about 


148 INTRODUCTION 


their state; the Apostle was in no hurry to make his voice heard 
among them—he let three years pass before he revisited them, and 
then only on his way to Ephesus. Yet an incidental reference in 
1 Cor. xvi. 1 attests his confidence in their unshaken loyalty. It 
appears from that passage that when he appealed to all his Greek 
Churches for a joint contribution for the poor brethren in Jerusalem, 
the Galatians were the very first to receive his instructions, even 
before the Corinthians. It is a slight but sufficient testimony to 
the unbroken strength of the tie that bound them to their own 
Apostle. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ3 


I. 1. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος, (οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ δι ἀνθρώπου, 
ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν 


1ΝΑΒΡΕΕΑΚ 17, etc. 


CHAPTER I.—Vv. 1-5. APosToLic AD- 
DRESS, BENEDICTION AND DoxoLocy.— 
The Epistle opens with the author’s 
name and the designation of his office, 
Paul, an Apostle. So far it follows the 
teguiar practice of Apostolic Epistles in 
advancing at the outset a claim to atten- 
tive hearing. But circumstances gave in 
this case a special significance to this 
opening; for in the Galatian Churches 
rival agitators had seriously challenged 
the author’s right to this title of Apostle, 
so that the bare mention of his office 
involved a distinct protest against the 
slanders which had been circulated in 
regard to his office and his person. He 
proceeds, accordingly, to an emphatic 
vindication of his divine commission, not 
from men, neither through man. He 
raises here a twofold issue, evidently 
corresponding to two specific points in 
his qualifications for the office, which his 
adversaries had on their side selected for 
attack. The transition from the plural 
in the first clause, to the singular in the 
second, is significant, and helps to furnish 
a key to the two particular points in his 
career on which his enemies had fastened. 
His mission to the Gentiles had appar- 
ently been disparaged on the plea that it 
had emanated from men, i.e., from the 
Church of Antioch only. Again, the 
validity of his cornmission was impugned 
on the ground that he had originally re- 
ceived the Spirit through a man, i.e., 
through the agency of Ananias, who had 


been deputed to lay his hands upon him 
at Damascus. By these insinuations an 
invidious comparison was instituted be- 
tween Paul and the original Apostles 
who had been sent forth by Christ Him- 
self, and had received the Spirit by a 
miraculous outpouring from Heaven on 
the day of Pentecost. It was obviously 
impossible to confute these aspersions 
by alleging any specific act of the risen 
Lord. Accordingly Paul contents him- 
self for the moment with an indignant 
repudiation of the calumnies, reserving 
his full vindication for the historical re- 
view of his conversion and Christian life 
(i. 10-ii. 14). The tokens by which the 
risen Lord had attested His presence and 
His commission to His servant Paul had 
been very real and certain to the eye of 
faith; but they had, from the nature of 
the case, been less tangible than the 
evidence of His living voice and pre- 
sence during His earthly sojourn; they 
had been granted at successive stages of 
the Apostle’s life, and had often taken the 
shape of visions, personal revelations, and 
spiritual communion. At his conversion 
he had been declared a chosen vessel 
for future ministry ; three years later the 
Lord had replied to his prayer in the 
temple, bidding him depart from Jeru- 
salem, for (He said) I will send thee far 
hence unto the Gentiles; afterwards, at 
Antioch, the Spirit had given command, 
Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the 
work whereunto I have called them; 


ο 150 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 1. 


ἐκ νεκρῶν.) 2. καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοὶ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς 
Γαλατίας: 3. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ Κυρίου 
ἡμῶν 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 4. τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ" τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν 
Ίημων BDEFGKL,; placed after πατρος ΝΑΡ 17. 
2 περι NADEFGKLP ; νπερ B 17, 67. 


thereupon God had visibly sealed his 
appointment by the abundant blessing 
bestowed upon his labours, as the Gala- 
tians themselves could amply testify.— 
διὰ .. . πατρὸς. The previous com- 
bination of ἀπό and διά in the negative 
clauses invites a corresponding combina- 
tion here in the antithesis, ἀλλὰ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς, 
declaring, on the one hand, the instru- 
mentality of the Son in the appointment 
of His Apostle, and, on the other, tracing 
back the authority with which he was in- 
vested to God the Father as its original 
source. But Paul prefers here, instead 
of contemplating his apostleship to the 
Gentiles by itself as a single act of the 
Divine Head of the Church, to connect 
it with the larger design of building up 
the Church of Christ, for which the united 
action of the Father and the Son was 
indispensable. The Father set that de- 
sign in motion by raising Him from the 
dead, and is here accordingly associated 
with the Son as directly co-operating in 
the government of the Church. In the 
subsequent review of his own personal 
life, Paul in like manner perceives the 
immediate hand of God in his pre- 
Christian life, setting him apart from 
his mother’s womb, and training him 
under the law for his future work as 
an Apostle, before he was brought to 
Christ at all. 

Ver. 2. οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ. No name is 
mentioned: neither Timothy nor Silas, 
nor any other companion of Paul known 
to the Galatians can have been with him 
when he wrote, nor is the name men- 
tioned of any Christian congregation ; 
probably he was residing in some Greek 
city in which no Church had yet been 
formed. The phrase οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ seems, 
from its use in Phil. iv. 21, to describe 
a small group of brethren immediately 
surrounding the Apostle; for the saluta- 
tion from them is there followed by a 
separate salutation from the Roman 
Church in general. The position of the 
Apostle during his first few weeks at 
Corinth, before Silas and Timothy re- 
joined him, corresponds closely to the 
circumstances indicated by this phrase 
(see Introd., pp. 146-147).---ἐκκλησίαις. 


There were four Churches in Southern 
Galatia, but they formed a single group, 
being all bound together by the great 
imperial highway that ran through them, 
and gave facility for constant intercourse. 
All would, therefore, respond speedily to 
any religious impulse, like the wave of 
Pharisaic reaction which the Apostle is 
combating in this Epistle. 

Ver. 3. The apostolic blessing is here 
as elsewhere summed up in the com- 
prehensive words grace and peace. These 
include the lifegiving power of the spirit 
as well as the assurance of God's forgiving 
love in Christ and peace with an accusing 
conscience. This verse affirms once more 
the co-operation of the Father with the 
Son in devising and carrying out the 
scheme of man’s redemption. 

Ver. 4. περὶ τ. ἁμαρτιῶν. The sin 
offerings of the Law were designated 
περὶ «θῖν (cf. Heb. κ. 6, 8), but 
περί and ὑπέρ were equally applicable 
with reference to Christ's offering of 
Himself for our sins; the former fixing 
attention on the effect of His sacrifice 
in doing away sin, the latter on the 
motive which prompted Him, viz., love 
for sinners. ‘The two prepositions are 
combined in τ Pet. iii. 18. It is often 
difficult to decide which is the genuine 
reading owing to the variation of MSS.: 
but here they are greatly in favour of 
περί, which is also more appropriate to 
the context: for in this clause a com- 
parison is intended between the sin- 
offerings of Christ and the typical sin- 
offerings of the Law; while the next 

resses the motive of the Saviour by 
the addition ὅπως ἐξέληται . . .—aldvos. 
In early Greek this word denote/ the 
appointed lifetime of man, and so com- 
bined the thought ofan overruling destiny 
with the course of human life. From the 
conception of individual life was developed 
that of corporate life, whether of families, 
nations or societies, and the idea of 
divine appointment was more distinctly 
fastened on the word in Scripture, so that 
every successive dispensation of God was 
designated as an αἰών. In this place 
αἰῶνος denotes the world which Jesus 
found existing at the time of His coming, 
out of which He chose His disciples. 


2—6. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


151 


ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ, 5. 


κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἀμήν. 


αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 


‘ ς - 
καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, ᾧ 


» ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς 


t 


6. Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτω ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος 


1 αιωγος T. ev. NAB 17, 39; 7. εν. αι. Noor DEFGHKLP, 


World is the nearest English equivalent 
to αἰών in this sense, if only it be under- 
stood to mean a particular phase of 
human society, as in the phrases religious 
world, scientific world, etc., and not the 
material universe.—éveotGtos: existing. 
This participle is twice elsewhere applied 
to things existing by way of contrast to 
things future (μέλλοντα), in Rom. viii. 38 
and τ Cor. iii. 22. A similar contrast is 
here suggested between 6 ἐνεστώς and 
ὃ μέλλων αἰών, 1.6., between the world 
which Christ found existing on earth and 
the Messianic world whose coming 
Hebrew prophets had foretold.—zovy- 
pov. This sweeping condemnation of 
the existing world corresponds to the 
language of the Baptist and to Christ’s 
own denunciations of the evil generation 
to which He came. In spite of all that 
revelation and conscience had done to 
leaven it, He found the faithful few in 
number, and evil predominant in the 
mass.—éééAntat. Here, as in Acts xxvi. 
17, this verb coupled with ἐκ can only 
denote choice out of the world, not 
deliverance from it, which would require 
the addition of ἐκ χειρός, as in Acts 
xii. II, or some equivalent. The clause 
describes the process of selection begun 
by Christ on earth, and still continued 
by the risen Christ as He calls fresh 
disciples into His Church continually. 
Ver. 5. ᾧ ἡ δόξα, sc. ἐστιν. Our 
versions supply ἔστω and turn the clause 
accordingly into an invocation of praise. 
But the insertion of the article points 
rather to an affirmation, whose is the 
glory. The verb is usually omitted in 
the doxology, but ἐστιν is added in 
I Pet. iv. τὶ. The glory consists in the 
manifestation of the Father’s character 
throughout all the ages in the continual 
redemption of mankind according to His 
will, Hereby is revealed His union of 
perfect wisdom, holiness, and love.—eis 
τ. αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων. αἰών denotes in 
Scripture a divinely appointed period 
(see note on ver. 4). The larger of 
these divine dispensations comprehend 
within them other shorter periods, and 
are therefore designated αἰῶνες αἰώνων. 
The phrase in the text ascribes the glory 


to God for the whole term of these dispen- 
sations, 2.6., for all the ages of human life, 
since these together make up the sum of 
man’sexistence. The full form is used by 
the Apostle in Phil. iv. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 18, 
but he uses elsewhere the shorter form eis 
τ. αἰῶνας.--ἀμήν. This Amen crowns 
the previous declaration of the glory of 
God by an invitation to the Churches 
to join in the ascription of praise. 

Vv. 6-9. THE APOSTLE EXPRESSES 
SURPRISE AT THE SUDDEN DEFECTION OF 
HIS CONVERTS FROM THE ONLY TRUE 
GOSPEL, AND PRONOUNCES ANATHEMAS 
ON ALL PERVERTERS OF THE TRUTH.— 
Paul is evidently startled at the tidings 
of a sudden revolution in Galatian feel- 
ing. His intense indignation is evinced 
by the vehemence of his language and 
the solemnity of his anathema. There 
could be but one true Gospel; this new 
doctrine was no Gospel at all, but only a 
heretical perversion of the truth by foreign 
agitators. They were probably emis- 
saries of a Pharisaic party in the Church, 
which advocated circumcision and legal 
observances for all converts alike. 

Ver. 6. μετατίθεσθε: ye are removing 
(not vemoved asin A.V.). The agitators 
had not yet achieved any decisive suc- 
cess, though the Galatians were disposed 
to lend too ready an ear to their sugges- 
tions. It was not so much their actual 
progress, as the evidence afforded of the 
instability of the Galatian faith, that ex- 
cited misgivings in the mind of Paul 
(cf. iv. 11, 20); he regarded the move- 
ment as merely a little leaven, and had 
not lost his confidence in the personal 
loyalty of his converts and the general 
soundness of their faith (v. 9, 10, vi. 17. 
See Introd., p. 147).---τοῦ καλέσαντος, sc. 
Θεοῦ. The Gospel call proceeded from 
God, like those to Abraham and the 
ancient servants and people of God; the 
Epistles of Paul invariably attribute it to 
Him (cf. i. 15), not to His human instru- 
ments.—év χάριτι. This is evidently not 
= εἰς τὴν χάριν (into the grace of Christ, 
A.V.), but records the spirit of Divine 
love which prompted the call. God, of 
His grace in Christ, sent forth the Gospel 
to the Galatians by the hands of Paul 


152 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 1. 


ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον " 7. ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, 
εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 8. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ 
οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται ὑμῖν παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα 


” 
εστω. 


9. ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι, πάλιν λέγω, Εἴ τις ὑμᾶς 


εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 


and Barnabas.—érepov. This passage 
brings out forcibly the different meaning 
of ἕτερος and os. €repos is primarily 
the other of two, ἄλλος another of several. 
Hence ἕτερος fixes attention on two ob- 
jects exclusively (cf. note on τὸν ἕτερον 
in vi. 4); here it marks the essential dif- 
ference between the true and the spurious 
Gospel, distinguishing the latter as quite 
a different Gospel. 

Ver. 7. ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο. The trans- 
lation of this clause in A.V. and R.V. 
(which is not another) has caused great 
embarrassment by its apparent identifica- 
tion of the spurious Gospel with the true. 
Lightfoot pleads ingeniously that ἄλλο 
may mean another besides the true Gos- 
pel, and so interprets the clause to mean 
that it is no Gospel at all; but this will 
hardly be accepted by most other scholars. 
The American revisers suggest the ren- 
dering which is nothing else than. _But 
these difficulties arise from making 8 the 
subject of the sentence: surely it is in 
fact a connecting adverb (touching which, 
as to which, whereas), as it is again in ii. 
10, and probably in ii. 2ο. If the clause 
be rendered, whereas there is no other 
Gospel (i.c., than the true), the sense be- 
comes perfectly clear, and it forms an 
appropriate introduction to the succeed- 
ing anathemas by its emphatic testimony 
to the one true Gospel.—el py... This 
clause qualifies the former ‘‘ there is no 
other Gospel,” only a spurious semblance 
(on the use of εἰ μή see note on ver. 19). 
—tivés. There is a studied vagueness 
in this and other references to the agita- 
tors. They were evidently not Galatian 
Christians, but strangers from abroad, 
whom the Apostle treats with real or 
affected contempt. 

Ver. 8. ἡμεῖς. Paul here associates 
with himself the colleagues Barnabas, 
Silas, Timothy, who had combined with 
him to preach the Gospel. He desires 
to impress on his disciples that the con- 
troversy is not between one teacher and 
another, but between truth and false- 
hood: no minister of Christ, not even an 
angel, can alter the truth in Christ.— 
ἀνάθεμα. The two derivatives, ἀνάθημα 
and ἀνάθεμα, are both employed in the 


LXX and N.T. in different senses. ἀνά- 
θημα serves, as in other Greek authors, 
to denote a temple offering, statue, or 
ornament (cf. 2 Macc. ix. 16, Luke xxi. 
5), while ἀνάθεμα is restricted to the 
Hebrew conception of an offering devoted 
under a solemn vow to death or destruc- 
tion (Lev. xxvii. 28, Josh. vii. 1, Acts 
xxiii. 14). The Epistles of Paul attach 
to the word the idea of spiritual death. 
The significant addition ἀπὸ τοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ in Rom. ix. 3 associates with it the 
further idea of separation from Christ, 
and consequent loss of all Christian 
blessings and means of grace. It does 
not, like excommunication, pronounce a 
judicial sentence on particular convicted 
offenders, but solemnly affirms general 
laws of the spiritual kingdom, e.g., in 
1 Cor. xvi. 22, any who love not the Lord, 
here any who tamper with the truth of 
the Gospel, are pronounced outcasts from 
the faith, and dead to the Spirit of Christ. 

Ver. ο. προειρήκαμεν. The contrast 
between this plural and the singular 
λέγω proves that Paul is here referring, 
not to previous warnings of his own by 
letter, but to joint warnings given by his 
companions Silas and Timothy as well 
as himself during his visit to the Churches, 
He never speaks of himself in the plural 
number. ὡς ... ἄρτι: as we have also 


forewarned you of late, I say again. 


Our versions interpret προειρήκαμεν we 
have said before and καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω 
so say I now again. But Greek usage 
forbids this antithesis between προ. and 
ἄρτι. Προλέγειν means to forewarn, not 
to say in time past (cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 
Gal. v. 21, 1 Thess. iti. 4); while ἄρτι 
is used indifferently of recent or of present 
time. In Matt. ix. 18, 1 Thess. iii. 6 
it means of late, in Matt. xxvi. 53, John 
xiii, 7, 37, xvi. 12, 31, Σ Cos. πω τα 
xvi. 7 it means now, by way of contrast 
with the future. "Αρτι cannot therefore 
be used to contrast the present time 
with the immediate past. The words 
καὶ ἄρτι belong really to the preceding 
clause, and contain a reminder how 
recent had been the warnings which the 
Apostle is repeating. Since the rendering 
of John ix. 25 Whereas 1 was blind, now 


713. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


¥53 


ΤΟ. Αρτι yap ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν Θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις 
ἀρέσκειν ; εἰ ἔτι] ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην. 


ΤΙ. Γνωρίζω δὲ 2 ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοὶ, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ 


ἐμοῦ, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ ἄνθρωπον - 12. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου 
παρέλαβον αὐτὸ, οὔτε ὃ ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δι ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ 


Χριστοῦ. 


13. Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ 


Nev ετι ΝΑΒΡΙΕ( 17, etc.; ει yap ere ΡΓ'ΕΚΙ.Ρ. 
28e SAD°EKLP; γαρ NaBD!FG 17. 
8 ovre before e815. BDSEKL; ουδε SAD!FGP 31, etc. 


1 see appears to contradict this view of 
ἄρτι, it may be well to point out that 
ὧν does not mean whereas I was, but 
that the speaker’s real meaning was, I 
being (sc., by nature) blind now see. 

The true rendering is of some historical 
importance, as evidence that warnings 
on the subject of circumcision had been 
given to the Galatians by Paul and his 
companions during a recent visit (see 
Introd., p. 146). 

Vv. 10-24. REPUDIATION OF CORRUPT 
MOTIVES, EVIDENCE FROM PAUL’S PER- 
SONAL HISTORY THAT HIS CONVERSION 
WAS DUE TO GOD, AND THAT HE WAS 
TAUGHT THE GOSPEL BY GOD INDE- 
PENDENTLY OF THE TWELVE AND OF 
JERUSALEM.—Ver. 10. The order of 
words in the Greek text forbids the stress 
laid in our versions on the alternative 
men or God; the meaning of which is 
besides a little obscure in this connection. 
The true rendering of ἤ is rather than 
(= μᾶλλον ἤ), as in Matt. xviii. 8, Luke 
χν. 7, xvii. 2, 1 Cor. xiv. το: Am I now 
persuading men rather than God? ‘This 
language indicates clearly what kind of 
calumnies had been circulated. His 
detractors accused him of sacrificing the 
truth of God for the sake of persuading 
men. It was, we know, his boast that 
he became all things to all men, but 
whereas his real motive was that he 
might win all to Christ, they insinuated 
that he was more bent on winning favour 
with men than on securing the approval 
of God. During his recent visit he had 
made two concessions to Jewish feeling ; 
he had circumcised Timothy, and had 
recommended for adoption regulations 
tending to promote harmonious inter- 
course between Jewish and Gentile 
converts. It was easy to misrepresent 
these concessions as an abandonment of 
his former principles: and they furnished 
his enemies accordingly with a handle 
for decrying him as a time-server without 
fixed principles, now bent on winning 


Jewish favour, as he had been before on 
gaining the Gentiles (see Introd., p. 145, 
and cf. ν. 11).—Aptt. The Greek text 
throws the emphasis on this word, and 
its subtle irony is brought out by the ἔτι 
which follows. ‘Am I doing this now ἢ 
Do you charge me now (he says in effect 
to these partisans of Judaism) with 
regarding men more than God? There 
was atime, before I knew Christ, when 
I did study to please men: if that were 
still my desire, I should not have been 
a servant of Christ.” 

Ver. 11. γνωρίζω. Here, as in 1 Cor. 
xii. 3, xv. 1, this verb has the force of 
reminding rather than of making known. 
In all three passages the author calls 
attention to forgotten truths, which had 
once been well known. 

Ver. 12. ἐγὼ. The personal pronoun 
is inserted, because the author is here 
laying stress on the special education he 
had received for his ministry of the Gospel. 
He had not learnt it, like his converts, 
from human teaching, but by direct 
communion with God in spirit, as the 
Twelve had learnt it from Christ’s own 
teaching. This independence of older 
Christians is a marked feature in the 
history of his life. The agency of Ananias 
was necessary for his admission into the 
Church, but after his baptism no older 
Christian appears on the scene at Damas- 
cus, 

Ver. 13. Ἠκούσατε. The Galatians 
had no doubt heard from Paul himself 
of his former persecution of the Church. 
How frequently it formed the topic of his 
addresses to Jewish hearers may be 
gathered from his defence of himself 
at Jerusalem in Acts xxii., and before 
Agrippa in Acts xxvi.—lov8aiopo. The 
rendering of this word in our versions, 
Fewish religion, is unfortunate: it im- 
plies a definite separation between the 
two religions which did not then exist, 
for Christians were still habitual wor- 
shippers in the synagogue; and it puts 


154 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 1. 


Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν: 14. καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ ἸΙουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ 
πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει µου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς 


ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν µου παραδόσεων. 


15. ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν 


ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἀφορίσας µε ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός µου, καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς 
χάριτος αὑτοῦ, 16. ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ, ἵνα εὐαγγελί- 
ἵωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ 


this view into the mouth of Paul, who 
steadfastly persisted in identifying the 
faith of Christ with the national religion. 
The word ᾿Ιονδαΐζειν denotes the adoption 
of Jewish habits, language, or policy (εἴ. ii. 
14). Soherelov8aiopes denotes Jewish 
partisanship, and accurately describes the 
bitter party spirit which prompted Saul to 
take the lead in the martyrdom of Stephen 
and the persecution of the Church. _Inci- 
dentally the partisanship was based on 
a false view of religion, for the narrow 
intolerance of the Scribes and Pharisees 
was a prevailing curse of Jewish society 
at the time; but ᾿Ιουδαῖσμός expresses 
the party spirit, not the ο Still 
more alien to the spirit of Paul is the 
language attributed to him in the next 
verse, I profited in the Fews’ religion 
(A.V.): for it indicates satisfaction at the 
success of his Jewish career, whereas he 
never ceased to regard it with lifelong 
remorse. His real assertion here is that 
he advanced beyond his fellows in sec- 
tarian prejudice and persecuting zeal— 
a statement borne out by the history of 
the persecution.—ore. This adverb is 
obviously attached to the preceding sub- 
stantive ἀναστροφήν. 

The imperfects ἐδίωκον . . . describe 
che course of action continuously pursued 
by Saul down to his conversion.—éwép- 
θουν. This term is likewise applied in 
Acts ix. 21 to the havoc wrought by Saul 
in the Church. 

Ver. 14. συνηλικιώτας. Saul had 
been educated at Jerusalem, and this 
word points to his contemporaries in the 
schools of the Pharisees.—yéva. This 
term sometimes denotes family, but here 
race and nation, as in Acts xviii. 2, 24. 
So also συγγενής in Rom. ix. 3, xvi. 7, 
21.--ζηλωτῆς. This is not here the 
proper name of a sect, being coupled 
with a genitive, as in Acts xxi. 20. Saul 
had no sympathy with the anarchical sect 
of Zealots who preached the sacred duty 
of revolt from Rome, though he had the 
persecuting zeal of an orthodox Pharisee. 
-- πατρικῶν. This differs in sense from 
πατρῷος. The latter denotes the national 


law and customs of Israel (Acts xxii. 3, 
xxviii. 17), the former the hereditary 
traditions of the family, as the addition 
of pov further signifies. In Acts xxiii. 6 
Paul describes himself as a son of Phari- 
sees. 

Ver. 15. ἀφορίσας. Paul looks back 
on his parentage and early years as a 
providential preparation for his future 
perso be this view is justified by his 
antecedents. By birth at once a Hebrew, 
a Greek and Roman citizen, educated in 
the Hebrew Scriptures and in Greek 
learning, he combined in his own person 
the most essential requisites for an Apostle 
to the Gentiles. He was further moulded 
by the spiritual discipline of an intense, 
though mistaken, zeal for the Law of his 
God, which issued in bitter remorse. By 
this career he was fitted to become a 
chosen vessel to bear the name of Christ 
before the Gentile world. He did not 
hesitate accordingly to regard himself, 
like Hebrew prophets of old pn xlix. 
1, 5, Jer. i. 5), as dedicated from his 
birth to the service of God. 

Ver. 16. ἀποκαλύψαι . . . ἐν ἐμοὶ. 
These words taken alone might denote 
either an inward revelation to Paul him- 
self, or a revelation through him to the 
Gentilea, But the context is decisive in 
favour of the former: for this revelation 
is not only associated closely with his 
conversion and his personal history be- 
tween that and the visit to Arabia, but 
it is expressly stated that it was granted 
with a view to future preaching (ἵνα .. .). 

The context distinguishes this revela- 
tion from the call ; it cannot therefore be 
identified with the previous vision of 
Christ on the way, but (as the words 
ἐν ἐμοί import) was an inward and 
spiritual revelation which followed that 
appeal to eye and ear. The history 
corroborates this view: for it relates that 
Saul, after his vision, spent three days 
in solitary communion with himself and 
God before he was admitted to Christian 
baptism. — προσανεθέμην. This com- 
pound verb denotes (as in ii. 6) additional 
communication. After direct revelation 


14—18. 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


"ο 


αἵματι, 17. οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστό- 
λους, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπῆλθον εἰς ᾽Αραβίαν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν. 
18. Ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ἔτη ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι 


lpia ern ΝΑΡ 17, etc.; ern τρια BDEFGKL. 


from God Saul had no occasion to seek 
further advice from man. There is an 
apparent reminiscence in thought and 
language of Christ’s words, flesh and 
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but 
My Father. 

Ver. 17. ἀνῆλθον. The religious 
position of Jerusalem as seat of the 
Temple and mother-city of the Church, 
its political importance, and its geo- 
graphical position on the central heights 
of Palestine, combined to suggest the 
application of the terms up and down 
to journeys to and from Jerusalem.— 
ἀποστόλους. In the third Gospel and 
early chapters of the Acts this title is 
habitually applied to the Twelve. It was 
extended to Paul and Barnabas on the 
occasion of their mission. In 1 Cor. ix. 
2 Paul and Barnabas are distinctly enu- 
merated amidst the recognised Apostles. 
Rom. xvi. 7 suggests a further extension 
of the title, probably to all founders of 
churches. But with the possible excep- 
tion of James, no addition is recorded to 
the number of the Twelve at Jerusalem 
after Matthias.—’ApaBiav. No mention 
is made elsewhere of this journey; its 
object is clearly indicated by the context ; 
for it is placed in strong contrast with 
human intercourse, and was, therefore, 
undertaken for the sake of solitary com- 
munion with God. The Arabian deserts 
were within easy reach of Damascus. 
Lightfoot suggests, indeed, that Paul 
perhaps repaired to Mount Sinai; but if 
the Apostle had been granted communion 
with God on Mount Sinai, the name 
would have constituted too effective an 
argument in favour of his Divine com- 
mission to be suppressed here. The 
Sinaitic peninsula was, in fact, remote 
from Damascus; the journey was at all 
times dangerous for travellers without 
escort, and in the year 37 (the most 
probable date of Saul’s conversion) was 
hardly possible on account of war be- 
tween King Aretas and the Romans, 

Ver. 18. Ἔπειτα. The thrice-re- 
peated "Ἔπειτα in this verse, in ver. 21, 
and in ii. 1, singles out three events in 
the Apostle’s life bearing on his inter- 
course with the Church of Jerusalem: 
his first introduction to them, his depar- 
ture to a distant sphere of labour, and 


his return to Jerusalem with Barnabas. 
The object of this sketch was not to 
write a history of those years, but to 
fix attention on certain salient incidents 
which threw light on the real nature of 
his intercourse with Jerusalem. — pera 
τρία ἔτη. A different preposition is here 
employed from that used in 11, 1, which 
describes a mission within fourteen years. 
In this case no precise date is implied; 
for the object is not to date the visit, but 
to show that three full years at least had 
elapsed before Paul had any intercourse 
with the Twelve.—toropjoau: to enquire 
of Cephas, i.e., to obtain information from 
him. This is the usual meaning of the 
verb; in Herodotus, and elsewhere, it 
denotes visits paid to places of interest 
with a view to getting information about 
them on the spot. The circumstances in 
which Paul found himself at that time 
make this sense very appropriate. He 
had been suddenly driven from his minis- 
try at Damascus, and was compelled to 
seek a new sphere. He could not turn 
to any adviser more valuable than Peter 
for determining his future course. For 
that Apostle was not only prominent in 
the general government of the Church, 
but had taken the lead in its expansion 
by his visits to Samaria, to the maritime 
plain, and to Cesarea, and by his bap- 
tism of Gentiles. In spite, therefore, of 
the danger of revisiting Jerusalem, Paul 
repaired thither co consult Peter as to 
how he could best serve Christ.—Ky¢éyv. 
Several MSS. give the Greek form, Πέ- 
τρον, of this name; but the Hebrew 
form appears to be the original reading 
throughout the Epistle, except in ii. 7, 8. 
At Jerusalem he was probably known 
by the name Cephas, but in the Greek 
Church at large by the name Peter.— 
ἐπέμεινα. Both in the Acts and in the 
Pauline Epistles this verb denotes the 
continuance or prolongation of a stay.— 
πρὸς αὐτόν. This can hardly be = παρ᾽ 
αὐτῷ, I abode with him. The clause 
expresses rather the motive for Paul’s 
lingering at Jerusalem, I tarried to see 
him fifteen days. 

This narrative is so independent of the 
account given of Paul’s first meeting 
with the Twelve in Acts ix. 26-29, that 
some Critics question the identity of the 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 3 


Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε" 19. ἕτερον 
δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου. 
20. ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι. 
21. Ἔπειτα ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας" 


1Κηφαν NAB 17, εἰς. ; Πετρον NCDEFGKLP., 


two visits. But it is clear that both 
passages alike refer to Paul's first return 
to Jerusalem, after a prolonged sojourn 
at Damascus; and the subtle harmony 
of the two narratives is as conspicuous 
as their independence in details. The 
history states the bare fact that Paul, 
finding his life in imminent danger from 
the Jews at Damascus, fled to Jerusalem ; 
the Epistle explains why he encountered 
so obvious a danger; the Epistle states 
that he prolonged his stay to see Peter; 
the history explains that he was unable 
to gain access to the Apostles for a time. 
The history records the principal events 
of the visit from the historical point of 
view, ¢.g., the apprehensions felt by the 
Christian body, the intervention of Bar- 
nabas, the attempts on Paul's life; the 
autobiography passes these by as foreign 
to its purpose, but is far richer in per- 
sonal details, relating incidentally the 
date, the motive, and the duration of the 
visit, and particularising the brethren 
whom Paul saw on the occasion; where- 
as in the Acts mention is merely made 
of the disciples generally. 

Ver. το. εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον. εἰ μή may 
either state an exception to the preceding 
negative clause (= except, save), or merely 
qualify it (= but only), as it does in Luke 
iv. 26, to none of them, sc., the widows in 
Israel, but only to Sarepta in Sidon ; and 
in Gal. i. 7, no other Gospel, only (et μή) 
there are some that pervert the Gospel. 
The latter appears to be its meaning 
here. If James had been entitled an 
Apostle, the author would probably have 
written that he saw no other Apostles but 
Peter and James. But here he states 
emphatically that he saw no second (ἔτε- 

v) Apostle, only James. The Epistle, 
ike the Acts (see xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18), 
fully recognises the leading position of 
James in the local Church (cf. ii. 9, 12) ; 
and the ecclesiastical tradition which 
entitles him Bishop of Jerusalem corre- 
sponds to this. All the evidence left of 
his life suggests that he clung throughout 
his Christian life to Jerusalem and did not 
undertake such missionary labours as 
would entitle him to the designation of 
Apostle.—rév ἀδελφὸν .. . James is 


here described as the brother of the Lord 
in order to distinguish him from James 
the son of Zebedee, who was living at the 
time of Paul’s first visit; but elsewhere 
as James: after the death of the other 
James there could be no question who 
was meant. 

Ver. 20, The solemnity of this appeal 
to God in attestation of His truth marks at 
once the importance which Paul attached 
to his independence of human teachers, 
and the persistency of the misrepresenta- 
tion to which he had been exposed.— 
ἰδοὺ. This imperative is always used 
interjectionally in Scriptures: the sub- 
sequent ὅτι depends on ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, 
which has the force of an attestation. 

Vv. 21-23. About ten years of the life 
of Paul, between his flight from Jerusalem 
to Tarsus and his return to Jerusalem for 
the Apostolic Council, are here passed 
over. They were spent, partly in and 
around Tarsus and Antioch, partly in the 
joint mission with Barnabas to Cyprus 
and Asia Minor. The Galatians were 
already acquainted with the leading facts 
of that period, and it was needless to refer 
to them here: enough that he spent those 
years, like those at Damascus, in an in- 
dependent ministry at a distance from 
Jerusalem. He did indeed repair thither 
once with Barnabas to alms from 
Antioch to the Elders; but circum- 
stances prevented any intercourse with 
the Twelve at that time: for before 
they reached the city the Herodian per- 
secution had begun, and the leading 
Christians were in peril of death at the 
hands of Herod. Paul himself can only 
have paid a secret and hurried visit to 
the city, and thought it needless appar- 
ently to mention it in this place.—«A(- 
ματα. This word denotes the fringes 
of coastland sloping down from the 
mountains to the sea in north-western 
Syria and eastern, é.e. Roman, Cilicia. 
It is a ig in 2 Cor, xi. 10 to the 
coastlands of Achaia. 

The name Syria is placed before Cilicia, 
though the ministry at Tarsus preceded 
that at Antioch: for the latter was by 
far the more important and prolonged 
ministry. A further reason for placing 


19—24. II. 1. 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


/ 


157 


23. ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ιουδαίας 


ad > a , ‘ , > a ε , ε a 
ταις ἐν Χριστῷ" 23. μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἧσαν ὅτι ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε 


νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει. 


ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν Θεόν. 


Syria first was the subordinate position 
of Cilicia: for Roman Cilicia was, like 
Judza, only a district of the great pro- 
vince of Syria, separately administered 
by an imperial procurator at Tarsus. 

In Acts xv. 41 Syria and Cilicia are 
coupled together as forming a single 
region (τὴν Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν), no 
article being inserted before Κιλικίαν; 
not so here, for the first ministry at Tar- 
sus was distinct from that at Antioch. 

Ver. 22. ἤμην δὲ ayv. The correct 
translation is not I was unknown (as our 
versions render it), but I was becoming 
unknown. At the beginning of this 
period he was a familiar figure in Jeru- 
‘salem, but in the course of ten years’ 
absence he gradually became a stranger 
to the Christians of Judza.—éxkAnotats. 
This passage speaks of the Churches of 
Judzea in the plural, as does also 1 Thess. 
ii. 14. In the Acts the Church through- 
out Judea, Galilee and Samaria is de- 
scribed as a single Church according to 
the text of the best MSS. (ix. 31): the 
funds contributed for the relief of the 
poor Christians in Judza are handed 
over to the Elders at Jerusalem (xi. 29, 
xii. 25); brethren from Judea are cen- 
sured as members of their own body 
by the assembled Church at Jerusalem 
(xv. 1, 24). It would seem from this that 
an effective unity of administration and 
control existed in Jerusalem side by side 
with local organisation of the several 
Churches of Judea. 

Ver. 23. The faith seems to be here 
identified with the living body of be- 
lievers, for this verse describes Saul as 
making havoc of the faith, while ver. 13 
applies that term to the Church. 

Ver. 24. They glorified God in Saul, 
ascribing the change entirely to the grace 
of God working on his heart. 

CHAPTER II.—Vv. 1-10. NARRATIVE 
OF THE AUTHOR’S VISIT WITH BARNABAS 
TO THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM, HIS 
FRUITLESS NEGOTIATIONS WITH PARTY 
LEADERS, AND THE BROTHERLY WELCOME 
AND RECOGNITION HE RECEIVED FROM 
James PETER AND JoHN.—The author 
has shown by a rapid glance over the 
first thirteen years of his Christian life 
how independent he had been of human 
teaching at his conversion and sub- 
sequently. He now proceeds to record 


24. καὶ ἐδόξαζον 


11. τ. Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν 


the true history of the negotiations which 
he had undertaken at Jerusalem in con- 
junction with Barnabas in the fourteenth 
year of his ministry. (On the identity 
of this conference with the Apostolic 
Council, whose proceedings are recorded 
in Acts xv., see Introd., pp. 141-144). 
The Galatians were well aware of the 
position of Paul and Barnabas in the 
Church of Antioch: it was not therefore 
necessary to state in express terms that 
they were deputed to represent that 
Church. Enough that their first act 
was to lay before the Church of Jerusalem 
an account of the Gospel they were 
preaching to the Gentiles, and that their 
divine commission to the Gentiles was 
fully recognised by the leaders of the 
Church at Jerusalem. They knew already 
the general outline of events: for the 
resolution adopted at Jerusalem, and 
subsequently approved at Antioch, had 
been duly communicated to them by 
Paul himself. His object in this Epistle 
is to remove misconstruction as to his 
own position. His reference of this 
question to the Church of Jerusalem had 
been misrepresented as an act of sub- 
mission and acknowledgment of his own 
inferiority, whereas he had really procured 
the condemnation of the false brethren 
who denied his authority, had silenced 
his opponents, and met with brotherly 
fellowship and full recognition at the 
hands of James Peter and John. 

Ver. 1. διὰ δεκατ. ἐτῶν. Greek usage 
in calculating intervals of time between 
two events reckons two years for the two 
broken years at the beginning and end 
of the period. Some critics, notably 
Lightfoot, calculate this period from the 
meeting with Peter mentioned in i. 18: 
but this attaches far too much importance 
to that interview. It is only mentioned 
and its date loosely indicated in order to 
show that three full years passed before 
they had any intercourse. The dominant 
note of time throughout in the mind of 
the author is surely the conversion: and 
the object of specifying a period of time 
here, as in i, 18, is to show how many 
years of Christian life had passed before 
the event.—Tirov. The names of the 
Christians who accompanied Paul and 
Barnabas are not given in Acts xv. 2. 
It appears that Titus, a Greek Christian, 


158 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


Il. 


ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ Βαρνάβα, συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον : 
2. ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 
ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσι, μή πως εἰς 
κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον 3. (ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοὶ, Ἕλλην ὧν, 


one of Paul’s own children in Christ, 
was among them, and that Paul was 
responsible for his selection. His choice 
of a Greek for his companion evinces 
the determined spirit with which he 
started on his mission, 

Ver. 2. κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν. This 
statement of Paul’s motive is in no 
way inconsistent with the independent 
statement in the Acts that he was deputed 
by the Church. The revelation may 
have come to Paul himself, and in that 
case he prompted the decision of the 
Church, of which he and Barnabas were 
at that time the ruling spirits; or it may 
have been made through the Spirit to 
the Church, in which case Paul would 
count it right at once to obey his voice. 
--ἀὀνεθέμην . . . Two different methods 
of action are here specified, public 
addresses describing the nature and 
result of the Apostle’s preaching among 
the Greeks, and private interviews with 
individual brethren or groups of brethren. 
The term κατ ἰδίαν does not imply 
secrecy in these communications. The 
context shows that the point at issue 
was the circumcision of Gentile converts. 
--͵τοῖς δοκοῦσιν. As this phrase recurs 
four times in eight verses, it is necessary 
to determine its true meaning with some 
precision. δοκεῖν nowhere else conveys 
the idea of superiority implied in our 
versions, of reputation (of repute R.V.). 
The two passages adduced in its support 
do not stand the test of criticism: in 
Eur., Heracl., 897 there is an obvious 
ellipsis of εὐτυχεῖν, in Hec., 295 of δόξαν 
ἔχειν. In the latter indeed δοκούντων 
appears to be a cynical comment of the 
deposed queen on the unreality of outward 


glory. eee 
In fact δοκεῖν, like seem in English, 
was either a neutral term which expressed 
according to the context any impression, 
good or bad, produced by the appearance 
of an object, or it laid stress on the 
unreality of the mere outward semblance. 
The Greeks dwelt often on the contrast 
between δοκεῖν and εἶναι embodied in 
the famous line of Aischylus οὐ γὰρ 
δοκεῖν δίκαιος ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι θέλει. In 
ver. 6 this contrast reappears in the 
antithesis between δοκοῦντες εἶναι and 
ποτε ἦσαν. In ver. 9, on the contrary, 


ot δοκοῦντες, coupled as it is there with 
στύλοι εἶναι, denotes the high estimate 
formed of the Three. The elliptical 
phrase ἀνεθέμην τοῖς δοκοῦσιν in ver. 
2 should in. like manner be interpreted 
by the context. I take it to mean ἀνε- 
θέμην ols ἐδόκει δεῖν ἀναθέσθαι. Paul, 
as he states, brought the matter in 
private interviews before those whom it 
seemed right to approach in that way, 56., 
influential opponents, whose hostility he 
was anxious to deprecate.—pyj πως . . « 
It was of vital moment to the welfare 
of the Greek Churches at that time to 
avoid a breach with Jerusalem. Besides 
embracing a minority of Jewish Christians, 
they were leavened through and through 
with Jewish influences, so that a quarrel 
might have led to a disastrous schism in 
all the existing Churches. More than 
this, they relied still mainly on the Old 
Testament for the basis of their theology 
and morals. The abundant promise of 
harvest among the Greeks rested still 
on the nucleus of devout Gentiles who 
had been prepared by the teaching of 
the synagogue for the lessons of Christ's 
Apostles. τρέχω . ἔδραμον. The 
present subjunctive is coupled here with 
the aorist indicative, as it is in 1 Thess. 
iii. 5, to express the fear of present 
failure, coupled with a dread that past 
labours had been rendered futile. 

Ver. 3. Howbeit even Titus, who was 
with me, being a Greek, had not been 
compelled mg 4 circumcised, The last 
verse related the steps taken by Paul to 
disarm opposition. He was, however, no 
less resolute in his resistance to any en- 
croachment on Christian freedom. The 
presence of Titus with him attested his 
determination; for the circumcision of 
Titus had been demanded, and resisted 
evidently by Paulhimself. It is a strange 
misconception of critics to argue as if this 
struggle over Titus took place at Jeru- 
salem. The demand for the circumcision 
of all converts was made at Antioch and 
pressed against the authority of Paul and 
Barnabas (Acts xx. 2): the express object 
of the deputation was to protest against 
this demand, which they did with entire 
success. The Greek aorist ἠναγκάσθη 
answers here to the English pluperfect, 
as often elsewhere (cf. Winer, xl., 5). 





2---6. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΤΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


‘39 


ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι "), 4. διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλ- 


φους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν 


ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν ' " 5. οἷς οὐδὲ 2 


πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ 
μείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 


ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου δια- 


6. ᾿Απὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι (ὁποῖοί ποτε 


1 καταδουλωσουσιν ΝΑΒΟΡΕΕΑ; -σονται L; -σωνται Κ, 
2 ous ουδὲ NABCDcorr.EFGKLP; om. Ὁ. 


Ver. 4. The narrative returns here, 
after the parenthetical reference to Titus, 
to the subject of vv. 1, 2, and the verb 
ἀνέβην, already repeated in ver. 2, must 
here also be supplied to complete the 
sense: But it was because of the false 
brethren privily brought in that I went 
up, men who came in. ... Theaddition 
of the article, rightly inserted by the 
Revised Version before false brethren, 
shows that they were a particular body 
of convicted offenders against Christ, of 
whose guilt the Galatians had been al- 
ready informed. The force of παρεισ- 
ἄκτους is well illustrated by Strabo, xvii., 
p- 794, Where it denotes the treacherous 
introduction of foreign enemies into a 
city by a faction within the walls. In 
the next clause παρεισῆλθον describes 
the stealthy entrance of these secret foes ; 
κατασκοπῆσαι marks their hostile intent, 
and likens them to spies who are bent on 
discovering to an enemy the weak points 
in a military position: the freedom of the 
Greek Churches in Christ is further de- 
clared to be the object of their hostility. 
This description brings the Epistle into 
close touch with the Acts: for it is there 
stated that Paul and Barnabas were driven 
to go up to Jerusalem by the factious oppo- 
sition of certain foreign emissaries from 
Judza who attacked the freedom of the 
Greek converts from circumcision and 
disturbed the peace of the Church; also 
that these men were altogether repu- 
diated and condemned at Jerusalem by 
the Apostles and brethren, and finally 
that the document embracing this sen- 
tence of condemnation had been placed 
by Paul himself in the hands of the 
Galatians. There can be no doubt, in 
view of this close correspondence, that 
the false brethren whom the Epistle de- 
nounces are identical with the Pharisaic 
emissaries who stirred up strife at Antioch. 
--καταδουλώσουσιν. All the best MSS. 
agree in reading this future indicative in- 
stead of the subjunctive after tva ; possibly 
the author meant to express thereby the 
assured hope of success, and not merely 
the intention of the conspirators, 


Ver. 5. εἴξαμεν. Paul here couples 
Barnabas with himself in recording the 
determined resistance offered by both to 
the demand for the circumcision of all 
Christians preferred at Antioch. Bar- 
nabas was at that time a staunch sup- 
porter of Greek freedom. The verse 
obviously refers to their attitude at 
Antioch before going to Jerusalem.—rq 
ὑποταγῇ : by our submission. Here, as 
in 2 Cor. ix. 13, ὑποταγή denotes a 
voluntary act, not one imposed upon 
a subject. The same rendering appears 
more appropriate for expressing the due 
attitude of wife and children in τ Tim. 
ii. τα, iii. 4. The middle voice ὑποτάσ- 
σεσθαι is five times rendered submit in 
the Authorised Version, and the force of 
the original is impaired by its exclusion 
from the text of the Revised Version.— 
ἵνα... The motive for firmness was the 
maintenance of the truth of the Gospel, 
2.6., of the freedom to which the uncircum- 
cised were entitled in Christ. —mpés ὑμᾶς: 
for you, i.e., with a view to your welfare. 
The rendering of our versions, with you, 
would be properly expressed by ἐν ὑμῖν. 

Ver. 6. The author here resumes the 
broken thread of the narrative, which he 
interrupted after νετ. 2 in order to show 
that his conciliatory attitude at Jerusalem 
was not due to weakness or irresolution. 
He now proceeds to relate the sequel of 
the advances which he made at Jerusalem 
to the Pharisaic party. The repetition of 
the phrase ot δοκοῦντες, and the fresh 
transition from the plural εἴξαμεν to the 
singular ἐμοί, indicate the fresh shifting 
of the scene from Antioch back to Jeru- 
salem. The first clause is left unfinished, 
for the mention of these men who seemed 
to be anything leads the author to in- 
terrupt his narrative again that he may 
challenge their right to be heard; he 
breaks, accordingly, into the disparaging 
comment, what manner of men they had 
once been, maketh no matter—a forcible 
expression of his disappointment at find- 
ing so little Christian sympathy or life 
where he had hoped to find so much. 
After this parenthesis he remoulds the 


160 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


IL 


ἦσαν οὐδέν por διαφέρει - πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ AapBdver)— 


ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο. 


7. ᾿Αλλὰ τοὐναντίον, 


ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας, καθὼς 

Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς 8. (ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν 

τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησε καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη), 9. καὶ γνόντες τὴν 

χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, ᾿Ιάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς) καὶ Ἰωάννης, οἱ 
11, και Κηφας NBCKLP; Πετρος και |. DEG. 


form of his sentence; and οἱ δοκοῦντες, 
the subject of ἦσαν, becomes the subject 
of the verb προσανέθεντο. Instead, there- 
fore, of concluding the sentence in its 
original form, and stating that from those 
who so seemed he got no response, he 
writes, to me, I say, those who so seemed 
communicated nothing further.—rév δο- 
κούντων εἶναί τι. These are identified 
with τοῖς δοκοῦσιν in ver. 2. They are 
there described as men whom it was 
thought advisable to approach in private, 
here as men who were thought to be 
anything, i.¢., to have any weight in the 
Church. The English version somewhat 
suggests that they held high office and 
were in positions of dignity, perhaps 
Apostles; but the Greek order in that 
case must have been τί εἶναι, nor can 
that emphasis be justified in rendering 
the enclitic τι after εἶναι. They were 
probably party-leaders, but the Apostle 
writes of them with scant respect as men 
who were now little better than a name. 
-ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν . « «: What manner 
of men they had once been maketh no 
matter to me. The margin of the Re- 
vised Version rightly renders ὁποῖοι as 
an indirect interrogative dependent on 
διαφέρει, and gives to ποτε its true sense 
of formerly, in time past (as in i. 13, 23). 
Coupled as it is here with wore, ἦσαν 
has the force of a pluperfect, and con- 
trasts the character of these men as 
reported from past time with what Paul 
actually found them to be: he could get 
no brotherly help or counsel from them. 
Therefore he pronounces the adverse 
judgment upon them (7 ον... 

αμβάνει); for, like his Master (Luke 
xx. 21), he regarded no man’s person, 
if weighed in the balance and found 
wanting.—4pol... προσανέθεντο. This 
clause forms an antithesis to ἀνεθέ 
τοῖς δοκοῦσιν in ver. 2. Paul had laid 
before them an account of his successful 
ministry among the Greeks, but they had 
no further response to make in the shape 
of Christian sympathy, or of fresh argu- 
ment in justification of their prejudices 
against him and his teaching. 


Ver. 7. The emphatic opening of this 
verse, ᾿Αλλὰ τοὐναντίον, gives promi- 
nence to the thorough contrast pre- 
sented by James, Cephas and John to 
the cold reserve of these suspicious and 
prejudiced opponents. It is fectly 
clear in the Greek text, though unfor- 
pera | not in the English versions, 
that they are the subject throughout 
vv. 7-9, and that the participles ἰδόντες 
and γνόντες refer to them as well as the 
verb ἔδωκαν. But contrariwise Fames 
and Cephas and Fohn ... when they 
saw ... and perceived the grace that 
was given unto me, gave to me and 
Barnabas right hands of fellowship. 
They saw in the marvellous success of 
Paul and Barnabas a visible token of 
their divine commission and of the grace 
bestowed uponthem. These were doubt- 
less the real authors of the final resolution 
adopted by the Council; and its hearty 
appreciation of their beloved Barnabas 
and Paul, men that have hazarded their 
lives for the name of the Lord Fesus 
Christ coincides with the language of 
the Epistle.—Nérpos. In this and the 
next verse the Greek name is used to 
designate the Apostle of the circumcision, 
probably because he was already known 
to the whole Greek world as an Apostle 
under that name. In Jerusalem, however, 
and as a man, he habitually went by his 
Hebrew surname Cephas, and that name 
is accordingly given him elsewhere in the 
Epistle. 

Ver. 8. ἐνεργήσας. When this verb 
is applied to the work of the Spirit in the 
hearts of men, the preposition ἐν is added 
to it. The absence of é before Πέτρῳ 
and ἐμοί indicates that this verse is not 
describing the work of grace in the hearts 
of Peter and Paul, but the work of God 
for them, i.e., for the furtherance of the 
Gospel which they preached. 

Ver.g. The name of James is placed 
vefore those of the Apostles Peter and 
John. This was probably because as 
permanent head of the local Church he 
presided at meetings (cf. Acts xxi. 18). 
The well-known strictness of his own 


Ἵ- 11. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


161 


δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβα κοινωνίας, 
ο ε ἊΣ η | 3 a ἔθ 3 A δὲ 3 a De ἐν , - 
ἵνα ἡμεῖς 1 εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν - το. μόνον τῶν 


ττωςΏν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. 
11. Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθε Κηφᾶς 2 εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ 


Ίημεις NBFGKLP; 
2Κηφας NABCHP; 


legal observance gave special weight to 
his support of Greek freedom on this 
occasion. A comparison of his address 
with the subsequent resolution of the 
Council suggests that he took a leading 
part in drafting some part of it at least. 
—ot δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι. The habit- 
ual application to the Church of figures 
borrowed from a temple of God suggested 
the description of Apostles as pillars. 
It occurs also in Clement of Rome and 
Ignatius. The repetition of the phrase 
ot δοκοῦντες is apparently designed to 
contrast the high estimate formed of the 
Three with the unfounded and indefinite 
estimate of others who had proved to be 
mere names.—iva . The mutual 
understanding between the two groups 
of Apostles obviously did not imply an 
absolute restriction of each to one section 
of the Church. All converts alike were 
members of a single united Church: 
circumstances of themselves forbade any 
definite division: Paul opened his minis- 
try everywhere in the synagogue, and 
numbered Jews as well as Greeks amidst 
his converts. So Peter again is next 
found at Antioch. 

Ver. το. pévov... ἵνα. A verb 
must be supplied out of δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν 
expressive of the pledge that the other 
Apostles exacted from Barnabas and 
Paul. τῶν πτωχῶν. These words are 
displaced from their grammatical position 
after pynpovevwpev in order to lay stress 
upon the poor being the central object 
of the appeal. Judea suffered often from 
famine in apostolic times, and Christians 
were probably the worst sufferers owing 
to religious ill-will and social persecution. 
This passage implies chronic poverty. 
So also does the history of the Pauline 
contribution, which was not an effort 
to meet a special emergency, for it took 
more than a year to collect, but a fund 
organised to meet a permanent demand 
for systematic help.—é. The addition 
of τοῦτο after αὐτό shows that 6 is not 
the object of ποιῆσαι, but is used with 
adverbial force for a connecting particle, 
as ini. 7, as for which.—xai ἐσπούδασα: 
not I also, for this would require καὶ ἐγώ 


VOL. III. 


neers µεν NaACDE, 
Πετρος DEFGKL. 


in the Greek text. The force of καί i 
to intensify the following verb. I wa 
not only willing, but was indeed ealou 
to do so. 

Vv. r1-14. INTRIGUE AT ANT οοι 
TO AFFIX THE STIGMA OF UNCLEANNESS 
ON UNCIRCUMCISED BRETHREN, COUNTE- 
NANCED BY PETER AND BaRNABAS, BUT 
OPENLY REBUKED By PAUL.—The gather- 
ing of many Christians at Antioch after 
the Apostolic Council during the sojourn 
of Paul and Barnabas in that city is 
recorded in the Acts, but no mention is 
made of Peter or of this episode. The 
omission is instructive, for it bears out 
the impression which the Epistle itself 
conveys that the collision was a transitory 
incident, and had no lasting effect on 
Church history, The fact, however, that 
Peter and Barnabas both consented to 
affix the stigma of uncleanness on their 
uncircumcised brethren rather than incur 
the obloquy of eating with them bears 
striking testimony to the strength of the 
prejudices which then prevailed among 
Jewish Christians. Neither of them had 
any real scruples about intercourse with 
these brethren: Peter had been taught 
of God long ago not to call any unclean 
whom God had cleansed, and had recently 
protested at Jerusalem against laying the 
yoke of the Law upon the neck of the 
disciples; Barnabas had ministered for 
years to Greek converts, had championed 
their cause at Jerusalem with Paul, and 
had like Peter consorted with them freely 
of late: yet neither of them had the 
moral courage to act up to their con- 
victions under the eyes of the brethren 
from Jerusalem. Their vacillation attests 
the difficulty ofretaining Jews and Greeks 
in one communion, and the wisdom and 
prudence which guided the decision of 
the Apostolic Council. But that decision 
had materially strengthened Paul’s posi- 
tion. A basis of union had been formally 
ratified between the two Churches of 
Jerusalem and Antioch. The Church of 
Jerusalem by calling on Greek Christiant 
to consent, as they had done, to certain 
prescribed forms of abstinence had vir- 
tually bound themselves to accept these 


11 


162 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 
ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσµένος ἦν. 


Il, 


12. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ 


Ιακώβου, μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν - ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον,ὶ ὑπέστελλε καὶ 


ἵηλθον ΑΟ ἙΗΚΙΕΡ; ηλθεν NBD'FG. 


as conditions of intercourse, and the 
withdrawal from the common meal vio- 
lated therefore the spirit of a solemn 
treaty. Paul had therefore strong ground 
for remonstrance, independently of his 
authority in his own Church, and his 
protest was evidently effectual, though 
he refrains from recording Peter’s humil- 
iating retreat from a false position. For 
it is recorded here for the express purpose 
of exemplifying his successful vindication 
of his apostolic rights. 

The early Fathers shrank from ad- 
mitting the moral cowardice of which 
Peter was guilty on this occasion, and 
made various efforts to evade the plain 
sense. Clement of Alexandria questioned 
the identity of Cephas with the Apostle. 
Origen propounded a theory that the 
scene was a preconcerted plot between 
the two Apostles for the confutation of 
the Judaisers; and this theory prevailed 
extensively in spite of the discredit which 
it cast on the character of both until it 
was effectually exposed by Augustine in 
controversy with Jerome, who had him- 
self adopted it. 

Again, this momentary collision be 
ween the two great Apostles was dis- 
torted by party spirit into an evidence 
of personal rivalry. Their preeminence 
in their two respective spheres has been 
already noted as early as the Apostolic 
Council, and this led, perhaps inevitably, 
to personal comparison. In the Corin- 
thian Church opposite partisans adopted 
their names for rival watch-words. At 
a later time elaborate fictions of their 
lifelong antagonism were invented and 
circulated in the Clementine literature. 
But the collision here mentioned was 
obviously a transitory incident. The 
language of gratitude and esteem ap- 
plied to Peter elsewhere in the Epistle 
precludes any idea of permanent es- 
trangement. — ὅτι κατεγν os 
Our versions are surely wrong in giving 
a causal force to ὅτι in this clause, for it 
adduces no clear and reasonable justifica- 
tion of the opposition offered. It is much 
better to take ὅτι as declarative: Paul is 
here stating the ground which he took up 
against Peter: I withstood him, saying 
that he had condemned himself. He 
urged that Peter was condemned by his 
own inconsistency. By first eating with 


Gentiles and then pressing upon them 
observance of the very principles that 
he had violated he was playing fast and 
loose with the Law. 

Ver. 12. ᾿Ιακώβον. Any visitors from 
the Church of Jerusalem might perhaps 
be said to come from James, who was 
its permanent head; but these brethren 
appear to have been in special sympathy 
with James in regard to their strict ob- 
servance of the Law, and the respect 
paid by Peter to their opinion suggests 
that they were representative men, pro- 
bably deputed for some purpose by their 
Church. There is, however, no reason 
to conclude that James prompted or 
approved the intrigue against Gentile 
freedom at Antioch. Scrupulous as he 
was about observing the Law, he had 
taken a leading part at Jerusalem in 
shaping the recent contract with their 
Gentile brethren, and was the last man 
to sanction an evasion of its terms. 

The imperfect tenses ὑπέστελλεν, ἀφώ- 
ριζεν give a graphic picture of Peter's 
irresolute and tentative efforts to with- 
draw gradually from an intercourse that 
gave Offence to the visitors.—r. ἐκ περι- 
τομῆς. The omission of τῆς before περι- 
τομῆς is conclusive against the rendering 
of our versions, them . . . of the circum- 
cision. For περιτομή without an article 
does not denote the body of men, but the 
rite. By τ. ἐκ περιτομῆς are meant the 
party who based their faith on circum- 
cision, and made that the charter of God's 
covenant rather than baptism, and not the 
Jewish Christians in general. It is clear 
from the context that the Circumcision as 
a body did eat with their brethren until 
Peter set the example of withdrawal 
through fear of this determined minority 
of partisans. In Acts xi. 2 the phrase 
obviously singles out a particular party 
who pressed the claims of circumcision 
in an assembly consisting wholly of cir- 
cumcised men. In Acts x. 45 of ἐκ π. 
πιστοί distinguishes those who believed 
after circumcision from the uncircumcised 
who believed; and in Col. iv. 11 of ὄντες 


ἐκ π. οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοί ἆ ates 
those men who were my only } 


workers after circumcision. or the 
force of the elliptical phrase of ἐκ cf. iii. 
7,9, Rom. iv. 14.) 

Ver. 13. σνυννπεκρίθησαν .. . ὑποκρί- 


I2--15. 


ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


163 


13. καὶ συνυπε- 


κρίθησαν αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρνάβας συναπήχθη 


αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. 


14. ANN ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσι πρὸς 


τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Kya! ἔμπροσθεν πάντων, 
Εἰ σὺ, ᾿Ιουδαῖος ὑπάρχων, ἐθνικῶς ζῇς καὶ οὐκ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς, πῶς 3 τὰ 
ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν ; 15. ἡμεῖς φύσει ἸΙουδαῖοι, καὶ οὐκ ἐξ 


1Knoq SABC 17, εἰς. ; Πετρφῳ DEFGKLP, 
3 πως NABCDEFGP; τι KL. 


ge. The verb ὑποκρίνεσθαι is often 
used of playing a part as an actor in 
a play without any invidious meaning ; 
but ὑπόκρισις corresponds throughout 
the N.T. to its English equivalent hypo- 
crisy, and fidelity to the Greek text almost 
demands that rendering here. The men 
who had hitherto eaten with the uncir- 
cumcised and now withdrew because they 
shrank from giving offence were, in fact, 
affecting religious scruples which they did 
not feel, and the Apostle does not hesitate 
to denounce such insincerity by its true 
name hypocrisy.—xat Βαρνάβας: even 
Barnabas. The defection of Barnabas 
was a heavier blow to the cause of 
Gentile freedom than the vacillation of 
Peter. With the single exception of 
Paul himself, Barnabas had been the 
most effective minister of Christ for the 
conversion of Greeks; he had been of late 
deputed to appear with Paul as their re- 
presentative in Jerusalem, and his with- 
drawal from social communion with 
Greek Christians fell upon them with 
the force of a betrayal. Yet Paul, who 
had been for many years his most inti- 
mate companion, and knew his heart, 
writes more in sorrow than in anger of 
his lamentable weakness in being led 
away by evil example. For he saw that 
he was the victim of stronger wills than 
his own. Jerusalem had been his early 
home and the place of his earliest min- 
istry. The Twelve had been his first 
teachers in Christ; his cousin John Mark, 
who was even then in Antioch, was so 
dear to him that Barnabas, when driven 
to choose between him and Paul, chose 
Mark for the companion of his future 
ministry. What wonder then that he 
was tempted on this occasion for a mo- 
ment to yield to the influence of Peter 
and the brethren from Jerusalem! 

Ver. 14. πρὸς τ. ἀλήθειαν. Our ver- 
sions render πρός, according to, like κατά: 
and so impugn these men for want of 
uprightness in their conduct rather than 
for inconsistency of doctrine. But the 


censure of the Apostle is really directed 
to the falsehood of their teaching. They 
were not dealing straightforwardly with 
the truth in casting the slur of unclean- 
ness on those whom God had cleansed 
in Christ.—avayxdfers. Peter was by his 
example really putting a severe pressure 
on Gentile converts to adopt a Jewish 
rule of life, though perhaps unintention 
ΙΙΥ.--ὑπάρχων. This participle notes 
the bearing of antecedents on present 
action. Peter being a Jew might have 
been expected to act otherwise. 

Vv. 15-21. JEWS THEMSELVES WERE 
DRIVEN TO RESORT TO CHRIST AS SIN- 
NERS FOR PARDON BECAUSE THEY COULD 
NOT OBTAIN JUSTIFICATION BY PERFECT 
OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW—NOT THAT 
THEY MIGHT THEREBY BECOME MORE 
FREE TO SIN, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF 
NEW LIFE IN CHRIST, EVEN AS PAUL 
HIMSELF ENDURED CRUCIFIXION WITH 
CHRIST, THAT CHRIST MIGHT LIVE IN 
HIM. Ver.15. As the next verse opens, 
according to the Greek MSS.., with εἰδότες 
δὲ, it is necessary to understand here a 
finite verb, We are Fews, etc. 

The personal narrative breaks on 
abruptly at this point. Peter drops out 
of sight, and the Epistle passes from a 
protest against his vacillation into an 
elaborate argument against the doctrinal 
errors of the Pharisaic party, which forms 
too integral a portion of the whole Epistle 
to be detached from it. Yet the new 
strain of thought springs so directly out 
of the previous remonstrance that it 
might well have been addressed there 
and then to the Jewish Christians at 
Antioch, The outspoken protest against 
an insidious attempt to force on Gentiles 
the Jewish rule of life leads naturally to 
an enquiry what this rule has done for 
men who are Jews by birth. Did it 
justify them before God? We know that 
it did not: they had to turn to Christ for 
the peace with God which the Law could 
not give. In short, vv. 15-21 are con- 
nected at once with the preceding matter 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


nl, 


ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοὶ, 16. εἰδότες δὲ} ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ 
ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν ph διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ,2 καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς 
Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, 
καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόµου: ὅτι ὃ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου“ οὐ δικαιωθήσεται 
πᾶσα σάρξ. 17. εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν 


1δε NBCD'E!FGL; om. AD*KP. 

}Χριστον ἰησον AB 17; |. Χριστον NCDEFGKLP, 
δοτι NABDFG 17, εἴς. ; διοτι CD°EKLP. 

«εξ εργων νομου before ev Six. NABCDEFGP, 


and the subsequent; and apparently re- 
produce in substance an argument which 
had already been addressed, viva voce, to 
the circumcision-party at Antioch, whom 
the Apostle identifies in spirit and policy 
with the subsequent agitators in Galatia. 
--οοὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν This clause expresses 
pointedly the insolent contempt of the 
Pharisaic party for Gentiles, who did not 
belong to the holy nation nor inherit the 
Law and the Covenants. Yet in spite of 
these arrogant pretensions to superior 
sanctity (it is added) they were driven by 
the verdict of their own conscience to 
embrace the faith of Christ because they 
knew that no flesh could possibly be so 
perfect in obedience to Law as to be 
thereby justified. 

Ver. 16. οὐ δικαιοῦται . . . Two 
methods of seeking justification in the 
sight of God are here distinguished. 
The former took account of nothing but 
stedfast obedience to the law of God. 
Before his conversion Paul knew no 
other: he had been taught by his legal 
training to base his standard of right and 
wrong entirely on the revealed law, to 
find in it the sole guide of conscience, 
and to measure righteousness by con- 
formity to its commandments alone. 

But his view of God’s judgment had 
been profoundly modified by his con- 
version. He had learnt on the one 
hand from the teaching of Christ how 
impossible it was for man to attain to 
perfect righteousness, seeing that God 
claims not only obedience to the letter 
of the law, but an allegiance of the heart 
too thorough to be attainable by human 
infirmity. But on the other hand he 
knew now that God is a loving Father 
in Christ, ever seeking out His erring 
children that He may win them back, 
ever ready to temper strict justice with 
infinite mercy, and waiting only for the 
first response of imperfect faith and im- 
perfect repentance, so they be at all 
sincere, to blot out a guilty past, and 


pronounce a favourable judgment on the 
sinner. He perceived that there is room 
in the judgment of God for another 
element beside strict justice, viz., the 
mercy of the judge, ail that a prisoner, 
however clear may be his guilt on the 
evidence of his life, may nevertheless be 
assured of pardon and acceptance by 
throwing himself in humble trust on 
that mercy. In the Epistles of Paul 
accordingly justification acquired a new 
meaning, becoming equivalent to accept- 
ance before God, and the term righteous- 
ness was applied to the merciful acquittal 
of the guilty but penitent offender. 

The clause ἐξ ἔργων νόμου defines an 
acquittal on the merits of the case alone, 
based on a life of holy obedience, while 
διὰ πίστεως ‘Il. Χρ. — to faith in 
Christ as the appointed channel of God's 
mercy.—émorevoapeyv. Here, as in 
Rom. xiii. 11, this verb denotes the act 
of embracing the faith. Jewish Christians 
had by their conversion declared the 
hopelessness of their position under the 
Law without Christ. Faith in him was 
(they saw) the only means of obtaining 
justification.—_&idrs . . . This clause 
corroborates the verdict of conscience and 
experience by the authority of Scripture, 
for it adopts the language of Ps. cxlii. 
(cxliii.) 2, οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου 
πᾶς ζῶν, with only some verbal alterations 
suggested by the context of the Epistle. 
As two kinds of justification have been 
mentioned, the clause ἐξ ἔργων νόμον 
is required here to make it clear that 
the justification to which the Psalm refers 
was legal, the words ἐνώπιόν gov are 
dropped as needless in this context, and 
πᾶσα σάρξ is substituted for πᾶς ζῶν in 
order to show that the Psalm referred to 


earthly life. The is quoted with 
corresponding αμ» νὰ. in Rom. 


ili. 20. 
Ver.17. εἰ δὲ . . . ὁ The 
last verse arrived at the conclusion that 


Jewish converts by their own act con- 


16—19. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


165 


καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ, ἄρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος ; μὴ γένοιτο, 


18. εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα, ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν 


συνιστάνω.ὶ 


10. ᾿Εγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόµου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω. 


1συνιστανω SABCDFGP. 


demned themselves to be guilty of a 
brokenlaw. The argument now proceeds 
on this assumption ‘Jf it be true (as 
has been shown) that we by seeking to be 
justified in Christ were found to be our- 
selves also sinners as well as the Gentiles 
—if our sin was then discovered, and it 
be admitted that confession of sin lies 
at the root of all Christian life, what then 
is the attitude of Christ toward sin ?”’— 
ἄρα X. a. διάκονος; This clause is 
clearly interrogative, and the true reading 
is ἄρα, not ἄρα (inferential). For here, 
as always elsewhere in Pauline language, 
μὴ γένοιτο repudiates a monstrous sug- 
gestion, put forward in the form of a 
question, the mere statement of which is 
repugnant to the moral sense. 

It was objected to this doctrine of God’s 
free grace in Christ to guilty sinners 
that it held out a license to sin by doing 
away the wholesome restraints of the 
Law, and so encouraged men to continue 
in sin by its assurance of pardon. The 
fallacy is here dismissed with scorn on 
the strength of the very nature of Christ, 
but is more fully exposed in the sixth 
chapter to the Romans. 

Ver. 18. ‘If, indeed, I do reestablish 
the authority of the Law over Christian 
life, it becomes true that Christ did lead 
me to transgression.” So argues the 
Apostle as he turns to his own life for 
an illustration of the incompatibility of 
allegiance to Christ with the continued 
supremacy of the Law. 

Ver. 19. Ἐγὼ. The stress laid on the 
personal pronoun shows that Paul is here 
referring to the facts of his personal his- 
tory. Hesingles out his own conversion 
for the sake of the crucial example which 
it afforded of the difficulty of reconciling 
the commands of Christ with the tra- 
ditional law of Israel, for he was actu- 
ally bearing the commission of the high 
priest, and carrying out the orders of the 
Sanhedrim when Christ met him in the 
way and laid His commands upon him. 
He had to choose between the two: and 
at Christ’s word he flung up his office 
and renounced for ever the service of 
the Law. —8ia νόμου : though under 
law. The translation of these words in 
our versions through the law seems to 
me fatal to the sense: for the death to 


Law which is here recorded was not due 
to the instrumentality of Law, but 
was the immediate effect of the vision 
and words of Christ; and the express 
object of this reference to the conversion 
of Saul is to show how union with Christ 
annihilates the authority of an outward 
law. διὰ νόμου is really akin to διὰ 
γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς in Rom. ii. 27, 
and to δι ἀκροβυστίας in Rom. iv. 11. 
In all these cases διά denotes the en- 
vironment, whether of the letter, of cir- 
cumcision, of uncircumcision, or of law, 
which was subsisting at the time. Saul 
was on official duty, surrounded by the 
circumstances and machinery of Law 
when Christ stayed him, and he became 
at once dead to the claim of Law upon 
him. —vép@ ἀπέθανον. These words 
give a vivid description of the spiritual 
revulsion produced by his conversion in 
the heart of Saul. Whereas, hitherto, his 
whole mind had been set on fulfilling the 
whole Law, and he had counted its obli- 
gations all in all to him, he now entirely 
renounced the duty of obedience to its 
commands and repudiated its authority. 
And just as death works a final change, 
and leaves behind an indelible effect, so 
did his conversion affix a permanent 
stamp of lifelong change on all his after 
years: thenceforth he served another 
Master, owned absolute obedience to 
His will, listened for His inward voice 
or outward revelation, and drank of His 
Spirit. 

The absence of the article before νόμῳ 
is noteworthy; whereas the Law of 
Moses, being the one revealed Law, is 
always designated the Law (6 vépos), 
νόμῳ denotes law in the abstract, so 
that this clause comprehends emancipa- 
tion from all control of externallaw. The 
freedom was, of course, purely spiritual: 
Paul continued fully to acknowledge the 
duty of outward submission to all duly 
ordained authority, but maintained the 
absolute independence of his spirit and 
conscience from its dictates.—iva Θεῷ 
ζήσω. This clause adds the motive for 
this death to Law. It was a veritable 
death unto life: Saul had striven in vain 
to obtain life before God by zealous ful- 
filment of every commandment; he now 
acknowledged his utter failure, surren- 


166 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


Il, 20—2I. 


20. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι: ζῶ δὲ οὐκ ἔτι ἐγὼ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ 
Χριστός: ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ," 


τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. 


21. οὐκ 


ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ: εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα 


Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. 


17. νιου τ. Θεου NACD*EKLP ; τ. Θεον και Χριστου BD'FG. 


dered all the pride and ambition of his 
life, and cast himself in humble trust at 
the feet of Jesus to receive from Him 
that precious life which he had sought 
in vain by his most zealous efforts under 
the Law. 

Ver. 20. Χριστῷ συνεστ. The Greek 
order throws special emphasis on Χριστῷ: 
union with Christ became from that time 
the central feature of his life; it entailed 
in the beginning a fellowship with his 
crucifixion, a real crucifixion of heart 
and will. By this figure he describes 
the intense agony of spiritual conflict, 
the crushing load of shame and bitter 
remorse which he underwent during the 
three days of darkness and silent despair 
that followed his vision of the Christ.—_{6 
δὲ: And I live. I can perceive no ground 
for rendering δέ nevertheless (A.V.) or yet 
(R.V.). There is no contrast here be- 
tween the life and the previous death: 
on the contrary, the life is presented as 
the direct outcome of the death. As the 
resurrection of Christ was the sequel of 
the crucifixion, so Paul was joined to 
Christ in death that he might be joined 
to Him in spiritual life—otne ἔτι . . . 
The new life is no longer, like the former, 
dependent on the struggling efforts of a 
mere man to draw near to God in his 
own righteousness. Christ Himself is 
its source, as the vine is the source of 
life to the branches.—8 δὲ ζῶ: But in 
that I live. Our versions make this = 
ἣν ζωὴν ζῶ; but it seems to me more 
accordant with the context and with 
Greek forms of expression to make 6 = 
in that, as it is rendered by A.V. in Rom. 
vi. 10. Two instances of this adverbial 
use of 6 for a connecting particle have 
been already noted in this Epistle (i. 7, 
ii. 10). Paul is here accounting for the 
fact that he now possesses spiritual life, 
though still in the flesh and subject to 
motions of sin in his members: it belongs 
to him in virtue of his faith in the Son 
of God.—pe... ἐμοῦ. The previous 
clauses have expressed the intimate per- 
sonal union between the spirit of Paul 
and his Divine Master. In harmony 
with that view an exclusive personal 


aspect is ted of the love of Christ 
and of His sacrifice on the Cross, as 
though Paul himself had been their sole 
object. 

Ver. 21. Christ died in order that men 
might live before God by His grace in 
spite of a broken Law; if men could 
keep the Law of themselves and live, 
there would be no call for grace, and 
the death of Christ would be proved a 
useless sacrifice.—&ia νόμου. Law was 
never, like faith, instrumental to justifi- 
cation (cf. νετ. 16). Accordingly, Paul 
never speaks of justification through 
Law, but either ἐκ νόμον or ἐν νόμῳ. 
Here, as in ver. 19, διὰ νόμον really 
denotes a legal environment, and the 
verse argues that if righteousness was 
really within men’s reach under a legal 
dispensation, then there was no occasion 
for the death of Christ at all. 

CuapTer III.—Vv. 1-6. WHAT SENSE- 
LESS FOLLY IS IT FOR YOU, WHO HAD THE 
CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST SET PLAINLY BE- 
FORE YOUR EYES, TO RESORT NOW TO 
Circumcision! THINK ONLY HOW IT 
WAS THAT YOU RECEIVED THE SPIRIT: 
WAS IT BY OBEDIENCE TO LAW OR BY 
LISTENING IN FaitH? Can you ϱΟΝ- 
PLETE A SPIRITUAL WORK BY AN ORDI- 
NANCE OF THE FLESH? DID YOU SUFFER 
ALL THAT PERSECUTION FOR NOTHING? 
WAS IT YOUR OBEDIENCE TO LAW OR 
YOUR LISTENING IN FAITH THAT LED TO 
Gop’s IMPARTING TO YOU THE SPIRIT 
WITH POWER, EVEN AS THE FAITH OF 
ABRAHAM WAS RECKONED TO HIM FOR 
RIGHTEOUSNESS ?—Ver. 1. ἐβάσκανεν. 
This word denoted either the fascination 
of an evil eye or some malignant influ- 
ence akin to it; the infatuation of some 
Galatians at this crisis is attributed to the 
baneful effect of some mysterious powers 
of evil. 

The reading ἐβάσκηνεν has probably 
found its way into some MSS. from 
classical usage; most verbs in -αίνειν 
form the aorist in ἃ in the N.T., e.g., 
λενκᾶναι ἐσήμανεν ποιμάνατε. 

The additions τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι 
after ἐβάσκανεν, and ἐν ὑμῖν after προε- 
γράφη in the Received Text are evidently 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


167 


III. τ. Ὦ ἌΝΟΗΤΟΙ Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν,ὶ οἷς κατ 
ὀφθαλμοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη 2 ἐσταυρωμένος ; 2. τοῦτο 
μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν - Ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε, 


ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως ; 2. οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε ; ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι, 


νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε; 4. τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῆ ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῆ. 


. 6 οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, 
χορηγῶν op μ py μ μῖν, 


1 τῇ αληθειᾳ μη πειθεσθαι after εβασκανεν CDIEKLP; om. SABD!FG 17, 67. 


Σεν υμιν after προεγραφη DEFGKLP; 


spurious. The former is probably due to 
a reminiscence of v. 7, where the clause 
occurs.—mpoeypady. This word is twice 
employed by the Apostle, once in Rom. 
xv. 4 with reference to the Scriptures, 
once in Eph. iii. 3 with reference to a 
former letter ofhisown. Here, probably, 
it refers in like manner to some document 
which he had placed in the hands of the 
Galatians, or some letter he had written 
for their guidance during his absence, in 
which the vital truth of the crucifixion 
had been enforced. That he wrote many 
apostolic letters to his converts is clear 
from 2 Thess. iii. 17. The addition κατ᾽ 
ὀφθάλμους is in harmony with this view. 
γράφειν never has the sense of painting 
in the N.T.—éotavpwpévos. The Greek 
order of words indicates that this parti- 
ciple has the force of a predicate. The 
fact of the Crucifixion with all that the 
fact involved was the truth which had 
been so distinctly set before the eyes of 
the Galatians in black and white. 

Ver. 2. The Apostle appeals with 
confidence to the personal experience 
of his converts. They were themselves 
conscious of having received on their 
conversion gifts of the Spirit. Whence 
then came the inward change? Was it 
the result of fulfilling law, or of listening 
in faith? The question needs no answer : 
for it was obviously the result of listening 
in faith, The second clause couples 
together two essential requisites for 
conversion; men must not only listen, 
but listen in a right spirit, desiring to 
know and do God’s will. The genitive 
πίστεως adds this essential condition.— 
τὸ πνεῦμα. The spirit constitutes in this 
Epistle a definite element inthe regenerate 
nature, due to spiritual creation as the 
flesh is to natural creation—an internal 
organ by which the Holy Spirit operates 
on the will and prompts the action of 
man (cf, v. 16-22). It becomes therefore 
a living human force within the heart, 
distinct from the personality of the Holy 
Spirit. But on the other hand it is 


om. SABC 17, etc. 


absolutely dependent for its vital force 
on the original inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit, and can neither live nor grow 
without continual nourishment and sus- 
tenance from Him. 

Ver. 3. πνεύματι . . . σαρκὶ. These 
two datives denote the two internal 
spheres susceptible of moral influence. 
Conversion had brought about a spiritual 
change as its immediate result: it was 
folly to look for a consummation of this 
change from an ordinance of the flesh 
like circumcision. This was to exalt 
flesh above spirit instead of rising from 
flesh to spirit.—évdpyeo@ar and ἐπιτελεῖν 
are coupled together in 2 Cor. viii. 6 and 
Phil. i. 6 to express the beginning and 
consummation of works of mercy and 
sanctification. Greek authors use ἐνάρ- 
χεσθαι with reference to the initial cere- 
mony of a sacrifice (Eur., Ιβᾳ., A. 147, 
435, 955), ἐπιτελεῖν in Heb. ix. 6 refers 
to the performance ofritual. The middle 
voice ἐπιτελεῖσθε is used here because 
the spiritual process is to be wrought by 
them upon themselves. 

Ver. 4. The persecutions endured by 
the Galatian converts had all been due 
to the jealous animosity of the Jews: if 
they were now to accept the Law after 
all, they would proclaim their former 
resistance to have been wanton caprice 
on their part, which had led them to 
provoke persecution to no purpose (εἰκῆ) 
without any sufficient object. 

Ver. 5. ἐπιχορηγῶν. The verb χορη- 
γεῖν acquired its meaning from the 
function of the χορηγός whose duty it 
was to supply the members of his chorus 
with all necessary equipment in the course 
of their training and performance. As 
men took pride in the liberal fulfilment 
of this duty, the word came to denote 
aliberal supply. The compound émyopn- 
yetv denotes apparently an enhancement 
of this bounty (2 Cor. ix. 10).---δυνάμεις. 
This word is sometimes applied in the 
Gospels to visible miracles, but in the 
language of Paul, as elsewhere, it denotes 


168 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


ΠῚ, 


ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως ; 6. καθὼς ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπίστευσε 


τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 


7. γινώσ- 


κετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοί εἰσιν υἱοὶ ᾿Αβραάμ. 8. προϊδοῦσα 
δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ Θεὸς, προευηγγελίσατο 
τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ, ὅτι Ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. 


9. ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ ᾿Αβραάμ. 


forces or powers. Here accordingly it 
cefers to the supernatural powers imparted 
by the Spirit to Christians. 

Ver. 6. The faith of the Galatians is 
likened to that of Abraham, in that it 
found the same acceptance with God. 

The quotation of Gen. xv. 6 was 
reckoned follows the LXX, whereas our 
version, following the Hebrew text, refers 
to God, he counted it. This passage is 
repeatedly commented on by Philo as well 
as inthe N.T. Paul bases his argument 
upon it in Rom. iv. 3 by way of proof 
that God imputes righteousness on the 
ground of faith, not of works, and James 
guards it against misinterpretation by 
teachers who degraded faith into a barren 
assent of the intellect (James ii. 17-23). 
Obviously Jewish teachers had already 
concentrated attention on this passage 
on account of the explicit testimony 
which it bears to the faith of Abraham 
and to God's acceptance of that faith; 
and stress had been laid upon its authority 
in their schools of theology. 

Vv. 7-14. By FAItH MEN BECOME 
SONS OF ABRAHAM AND INHERIT HIS 
BLESSING, WHEREAS THOSE WHO CLAIM 
IT ON THE SCORE OF OBEDIENCE TO Law 
ARE SUBJECT TO THE CURSE OF A BROKEN 
LAW; FROM WHICH CHRIST REDEEMED 
us, GENTILES AS WELL AS JEWS, BY 
BEARING THE CURSE HIMSELF.—Ver. 7. 
Γινώσκετε: Ye perceive. The emphatic 
admonition, Know ye, adopted in our 
versions, would require an aorist impera- 
tive γνῶτε, as in Heb. viii. τα. This 
verse contains a deduction from the 
former, as is suggested by the inferential 
Gpa. Since faith was the ground of 
Abraham’s justification, it follows that 
those who inherit his faith are his true 
sons.—ol ἐκ πίστεως, sc. viol ὄντες. 
The form of the Greek sentence suggests 
the insertion of these words to complete 
the ellipsis. With this addition the verse 
carries on the previous argument to its 
natural sequel. The faith of Abraham 
was there declared to be a fundamental 
condition ofthe divine acceptance. Those 
therefore who inherit his faith are his 
sons indeed and heirs of his blessing. 
The discourse of Christ recorded in the 


1Ο. ὅσοι 


Gospel follows the same line of argument: 
If ye were Abraham's children, ye would 
do the works of Abraham (John viii. 39). 
Both alike urge that resemblance in life 
and character is the true test of sonship. 
Gentiles therefore who prove themselves 
sons of Abraham by exhibiting like faith 
are his sons indeed, and inherit the 
blessing promised to his seed. The 
antithesis in ver, 10, ὅσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμον 
εἰσίν, sc. υἱοί, presents a like ellipsis: 
the exclusive claim of Jews to be sons 
of Abraham in virtue of their observance 
of the Law is there disposed of on 
corresponding grounds. 
Ver. 8. δικαιοῖ: justifieth. The 
ogee tense is used because justification 
y faith, though not revealed to the 
Gentiles till Christ came, was an eternal 
truth of God's dealings with man, to be 
revealed in due time. There were in 
Genesis anticipations of this truth, and 
Abraham himself, the father of the faith- 
ful, was a kind of firstfruits of the Gentiles 
(Rom. iv. 10-12). The quotation here 
given contains the substance of promises 
recorded in Gen. xii. 3, and xviii. 18 with 
slight verbal alteration. These were an 
earlier Gospel, but not (as our versions 
intimate) the Gospel. 


Ver. 9. οἱ ἐκ πίστεως. See note on 
ver. 7. 
Ver. 10. The Apostle here proceeds 


to deal with the rival claim to a special 
blessing on the score of obedience to Law. 
Jews maintained that their knowledge 
of the Law entitled them to the blessings 
attached to the sons of Abraham. He 
urges on the contrary that this entailed 
on them the curse of a broken Law: 
for no flesh could keep the whole Law 
(cf. ii. 16). The failure of men to satisfy 
the requirements of the Law is not limited 
to the Mosaic Law, but is incidental 
to the idea of righteous Law in the 
abstract. Hence the expression νόμου 
rather than τοῦ νό The Roman 
Epistle accordingly pronounces sentence 
of guilt on the Gentile as well as the 
Jewish world for breach of the Laws of 
natural or revealed religion. Here, how- 
ever, the object is to meet claims founded 
on the Mosaic Law, so the curses of that 


6—14. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


169 


γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσὶν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσί γέγραπται γὰρ dri! 
Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς γεγραμ- 


μένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου, τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. 


II, ὅτι 


δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, δῆλον - ὅτι Ὁ δίκαιος 
μα τ +? 


ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται: 12. 6 δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾽ 


Ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ” ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. 


13. Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς 


ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου, γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κα- 


τάρα (γέγραπται γὰρ, Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος 


ἐπὶ ξύλου") 14. ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ γένηται 


1οτι NABCDEFGP 17, etc. ; 


om. KL, 


Ξανθρωπος after aura D9EKL; om. SABCD!FGP 17, etc. 


Law are adduced in support of the 
argument. The imprecation here given 
is not a verbal quotation, but reproduces 
in substance the series of curses pro- 
nounced from Mount Ebal (Deut. xxvil. 
15-26), summing them up in a single 
sentence. 

Vv. 11,12. The failure of the Law to 
justify is further established by a com- 
parison of Habakkuk ii. 4 with Lev. 
xvill. 5: the latter embodies the spirit 
of the Law: for it demands obedience 
as a necessary condition antecedent to 
the gift of life from God (cf. Rom. x. 5). 
The prophet on the contrary makes life 
dependent upon faith. By thus substi- 
tuting faith for obedience he virtually 
supersedes the existing Law, and estab- 
lishes a new criterion, which takes 
account of the state of heart instead of 
the outward life (cf. Rom. i. 17). The 
same passage is adduced in Heb. x. 38 
in proof of the vital importance of faith. 
All three writers agree in basing true 
religion upon heartfelt trust in God: but 
whereas the Epistle to the Hebrews 
tegards faith from the same standpoint 
as the Hebrew prophet, and identifies 
it with the steadfast loyalty to an unseen 
God which supports the believer under 
manifold trials, Paul here limits his view 
to the faith which prompts the convert 
to embrace Christ. Regarding it there- 
fore from a purely Christian standpoint, 
he embodies in his conception the new 
revelation of the Father’s character made 
in Christ. The faith which he has in 
mind is justifying faith, the faith in God’s 
pitying love which assures a repentant 
sinner of forgiveness and merciful accept- 
ance in spite of a guilty past. 

Ver. 13. The Law pronounced a 
blessing and a curse; but since it made 
no allowance for human infirmity, the 
blessing proved barren in result; while 


the curse, which invoked the just wrath 
of an offended God for the punishment 
of the guilty, proved, on the contrary, 
fruitful in condemnation. 

From this hopeless state of just con- 
demnation Christ delivered us by reveal- 
ing the infinite mercy of an Almighty 
Father, and so reviving hope and thank- 
ful love in the heart of the condemned 
sinner by faith in His Ίονε.-- ἐξηγόρασεν. 
The figure of a ransom, which this word 
conveys, is doubly appropriate in this 
connection. Men needed a ransom, for 
the Law had left them prisoners under 
sentence of death, and Christ had Him- 
self to pay the price. He had to become 
a man like His brethren save in sin, and 
to endure the penalty denounced on male- 
factors and hang on the accursed cross, 
as if He had been guilty like them.—yevé- 
μενος κατάρα. Hebrew thought tended 
to identify the man on whom a curse 
was laid with the curse, ας it identified 
the sin-offering with the sin, calling it 
ἁμαρτία (Lev. iv. 21-25). Hence the 
scapegoat was regarded as utterly un- 
clean by reason of the sins laid upon it. 
- Ἐπικατάρατος. .. This passage is 
quoted from Deut. xxi. 23 with one 
significant alteration. In the original 
the criminal executed under sentence of 
the Law is pronounced kexatapapévos 
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, so that the Law is affirmed to 
be the voice of God, carrying with it the 
fulness of divine sanction. But here the 
words ὑπὸ Θεοῦ are omitted, inasmuch 
as the new revelation of God’s mercy in 
Christ has superseded for Christians the 
previous condemnation of the Law. 

The original passage refers to criminals 
executed under the Jewish Law, and 
commands the speedy burial of their 
dead bodies before sunset in opposition 
to the vindictive practices prevailing in 
Palestine among the surrounding nations. 


170 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


ΠῚ 


ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ 


τῆς πίστεως. 


of nailing up unburied bodies in public 
places (cf. 1 Sam. xxxi. 10, 2 Sam. 
xxi. 10). It made, of course, no refer- 
ence to crucifixion, which was a Roman 
mode of execution, not a Jewish. 

Ver. 14. ἵνα . ἵνα .. . Two 
gracious purposes of the Redeemer are 
here coupled together: (1) the extension 
of the blessing to Gentiles as well as Jews; 
(2) the outpouring of the Spirit upon those 
that embraced the faith of Christ. 

Vv. 15-18. Gop’s WORD WAS PLIGHTED 
TO ABRAHAM THAT HE WOULD BESTOW 
THE INHERITANCE ON HIS SEED (NOT ON 
ALL HIS DESCENDANTS, BUT ON ONE 
PARTICULAR SEED), AND COULD NOT 
THEREFORE BE SET ASIDE BY SUBSE- 
QUENT STIPULATIONS IN THE Law.— 
Ver. 15. κ. ἄνθρωπον λέγω. This preface 
indicates that the argument which it in- 
troduces is founded on the principles of 
human law and συδίοπι.---διαθήκην. The 
meaning testament affixed to this word 
in classical Greek belongs to the Greek 
practice of testamentary disposition, other 
covenants being designated by κη, 
etc. But no such law or custom existed 
among the ancient Hebrews, so the LXX 
employed the word to express the Hebrew 
conception of a covenant between God 
and His people. As this was the outcome 
of God's sovereign grace and bounty, and 
not a matter of mutual arrangement, it 
could hardly be described by any of the 
Greek terms for covenant; it was, on the 
other hand, analogous to a disposition 
of property by testament, and was accor- 
dingly designated by the term διαθήκη. 
Thence it was extended also to covenants 
between man and maninthe LXX. The 
same sense of covenant is attached to the 
word apparently throughout the N.T. 
Here, at all events, the distinct refer- 
ence to the covenant with Abraham 
leaves no doubt of its m@aning.—dpws 
ἀνθρώπον. This phrase (= καίπερ ἀν- 
θρώπον οὖσαν ὅμως) intimates that even 
men are bound by a contract duly rati- 
fied: a fortiori, God is bound by His 
plighted word. Two distinct methods of 
superseding a contract are suggested by 
ἀθετεῖ and ἐπιδιατάσσεται: it might be 
expressly annulled, or it might be over- 
laid by new stipulations. 


15. ᾿Αδελφοὶ, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω, ὅμως ἀνθρώπου 
κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. 
᾿Αβραὰμ ἐῤῥέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, 
λέγει, ‘Kal τοῖς σπέρµασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ 


16. τῷ δὲ 
καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ: οὐ 


πολλῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς, Καὶ 


Ver. 16. The clause καὶ τῷ σπέρματι 
αὐτοῦ is quoted from God’s promises to 
Abraham in Gen. xiii. 15 and xvii. 8 with 
only the necessary change of the second 
person gov into αὐτοῦ. The original 
promise was limited to the possession of 
the promised land, but was coupled with 
a perpetual covenant between God and 
the seed of Abraham: I will be their God, 
Thou shalt keep my covenant, thou and 
thy seed after thee in their generations. 
Hence Hebrew prophecy imported into 
it the idea of a spiritual inheritance, and 
the Epistle adopts this interpretation with- 
out hesitation.—ot λέγει, sc. ὁ Θεός. As 
the clause in question was quoted from an 
utterance of God, it was not necessary to 
specify the subject of λέγει.---καὶ τοῖς 
σπέρμασιν: And to his seeds, i.e., families. 
This contrast between the many families 
and the one chosen family is more than 
mere verbal criticism: it contains the 
germ of that doctrine of continuous 
divine election within the stock of Abra- 
ham which is developed in the ninth 
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. 
For Abraham had many children after 
the flesh; and the exclusion of Ishmael, 
Dedan, Midian, Esau in triarchal 
times in favour of Isaac Ae iy of Jacob 
established the principle which culmin- 
ated in the rejection of the Jewish nation 
in favour of Christ. This conception of 
a continuous holy family linking Christ 
with Abraham runs through the next 
section of the Epistle; just as πολλῶν 
and ἑνός here mean π. σπερμάτων and 
é. σπέρματος, so ἑνός in ver. 20 means 
ἑνὸς σπέρματος and τὰ πάντα in ver. 22 
τὰ πάντα σπέρματα. In like manner 
Christ is contemplated, not by Himself 
alone as constituting in the unity of His 
person the chosen seed, but as a new 
centre out of whom the family of God 
branched forth afresh. He became in a 
far higher sense than Isaac or Jacob a 
new head of the chosen family: for all 
Abraham’s children after the flesh that 
received Him not were shut out from the 
blessing, while all who believed in Him 
became by faith sons of Abraham and 
members of the true family of God. The 
whole Church of Christ are in short 
regarded as one with Christ—one in life 


15---10. 


τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός. 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


171 
17. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω, διαθήκην 


η ε a an al ε , 4 ό A ά 
προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ” ὁ μετὰ ETH τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα 


γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ, εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. 


18. 


εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκ ἔτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας - τῷ δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ 


δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ Θεός. 


19. Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος ; τῶν παρα- 


βάσεων χάριν προσετέθη,2 ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθη τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, 
xap ρ η» αχρ N ρμᾶ ᾧ επηγΥ 


leus Χριστον after Θεον DEFGKL; om. ΝΑΒΟΡ 17, etc, 
2 προσετεθὴ NABD*EKL; ετεθη D!FG 71, etc. 


and spirit, for they are members of His 
body and partake of His spirit (cf. vv. 
28, 29). 

Vv. 17, 18. The inviolate sanctity of 
God’s earlier covenant in presence of the 
subsequent promulgation of the Law is 
here affirmed in virtue of the principle 
established in ver. 15. Had the inherit- 
ance been made contingent on obedience 
to Law, the previous promise would have 
been thereby invalidated. 

The Received Text inserts ets Χριστόν 
after Θεοῦ. The words appear from the 
MS. evidence to be a later addition to the 
text, suggested probably by the previous 
argument, which associated the promise 
to Abraham with the coming of Christ, 
in whom alone that promise finds its 
fulfilment. The very form of the sentence 
forbids the acceptance of the addition 
here: for διαθήκην in the absence of an 
article does not denote the particular 
covenant concluded with Abraham, but 
signifies any covenant in the abstract, 
if duly ratified by God, whatever its 
nature.—8v’ ,émayy. κεχάρισται. The 
full bearing of the language on the 
argument can hardly be expressed in 
English without a paraphrase. χαρίζεσθαι 
denotes not merely a gift, but a free gift 
bestowed by the grace of God without 
reserve, and ἔπαγγελία marks the promise 
as a spontaneous offer, and not an under- 
taking (ὑπόσχεσις) based on terms of 
mutual agreement. 

Vv. 10-22. THE LAW WAS A ΤΕΝ- 
PORARY ENACTMENT ORDAINED TO DEAL 
WITH THE OFFENCES WHICH IT DE- 
NOUNCES UNTIL THE COMING OF THE 
PROMISED SEED. THE GOD FROM WHOM 
IT PROCEEDED WAS THE GoD OF ABRA- 
HAM, BUT HE PROMULGATED IT THROUGH 
ANGELS AND AN APPOINTED MEDIATOR TO 
ALL THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM AFTER 
THE FLESH, NOT TOTHE ONE CHOSEN SEED. 
DID IT THEN CONTRAVENE HIS PROMISES? 
NAY VERILY. IF INDEED IT HAD BEEN 
CAPABLE OF QUICKENING LIFE, IT WOULD 
HAVE PROVIDED NEW MEANS OF JUSTIFI- 


CATION: BUT WHAT IT REALLY DID WAS 
TO CONVICT ALL ALIKE OF SIN, THAT 
THE PROMISE MIGHT BE GIVEN TO THOSE 
WHO BELIEVE ON FAITH IN CHRIST. 
—Ti οὖν ὁ νόμος. What function then 
had the Law, if it had absolutely no 
effect on God’s previous covenant with 
Abraham ἢ — τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν. 
Our versions render this because of 
transgressions, ignoring the Greek article. 
But there could obviously be no trans- 
gressions until the Law existed, however 
grievous the moral degradation. The 
real meaning is that it was added with 
a view to the offences which it specifies, 
thereby pronouncing them to be from that 
time forward transgressions of the Law. 
Its design is gathered in short from its 
contents. The prohibitions of the Ten 
Commandments teveal their own purpose: 
they were enacted in order to repress the 
worship of false gods, idolatry, blasphemy, 
Sabbath breaking, disobedience to parents, 
murder, adultery, theft, false witness, 
covetousness. These sins prevailed be- 
fore the Law, but by pronouncing them 
to be definite transgressions it called in 
the fear of God’s wrath to reinforce the 
weakness of the moral sense and educate 
man’s conscience. The same aspect of 
the Law is forcibly presented in τ Tim. 
i. 9. Law is not made for a righteous 
man, but for the lawless and unruly... . 
Attention is in both concentrated on the 
moral Law to the exclusion of the sacri- 
ficial and ceremonial.—aypis οὗ. The 
alternative reading ἄχρις ἄν does not 
affect the sense. It is assumed on the 
strength of previous argument that the 
dispensation of the Law came to an end 
with the coming of Christ. By the gift 
of an indwelling spirit He emancipated 
His faithful disciples from allegiance to 
an outward Law.—émyjyyeAtar: He (i.e., 
God) hath promised (cf. Rom. iv. 21, 
Heb, xii. 26). ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι never has 
a passive sense in the Ν.Τ.-- διαταγεὶς 
δι ἀγγέλων. The N.T. refers three 
times to the interposition of angels in 


172 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


ΠῚ, 


διαταγεὶς δι ἀγγέλων, ἐν χειρὶ µεσίτου: 20. ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ 


ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν. 


21. Ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν 


τοῦ Θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο. εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, 
1τον Θεον NACDEKLP ; Qeov FG; om. Β. 


the promulgation of the Law: God's 
intercourse with Moses through the angel 
of His presence was evidently a common 
topic in Jewish schools of theology. In 
Acts vii. 53 the fact is recorded by way of 
enhancing the authority of the Law; in 
Heb. ii. 2 it is contrasted with God's reve- 
lation in His Son: here it is contrasted 
with God’s more familiar intercourse 
with Abraham. He drew nigh to God, 
and was called the friend of God: but 
at Sinai the people stood far off, and the 
Law was made known through the double 
intervention of angels and of a human 
mediator.—év χειρὶ μεσίτον. The term 

σίτης was applied with the utmost 
atitude to any intermediate between two 
parties, whether it was the one great 
Mediator between God and man or any 
of the subordinate servants of God 
through whom He makes known His will 
to men or exercises His authority. The 
phrase ἐν χειρί defines its meaning here, 
for it implies that Moses was put in charge 
of the promulgation of the Law (cf. 
Numb. iv. 28, 37 in LXX), and was 
God's appointed agent for the purpose. 
This interposition of a mediator between 
God and the people was a marked feature 
of distinction between the Sinaitic and 
the patriarchal dispensation. 

Ver. 20. The rendering of the first 
clause in our versions, Now a mediator 
is not a mediator of one, reduces it to an 
unmeaning truism. The author is not 
treating of mediators in the abstract, but 
writes of Moses the mediator of the Law 
that he was not mediator of one chosen 
family ; and so contrasts God's revelation 
through him with the previous covenant. 
That covenant had been made with Abra- 
ham in person, and embraced a single 
chosen family (cf. ver. 16) restricted from 
generation to generation by continuous 
selection of God's elect until it centred in 
Christ Himself. Not so the covenant of 
Sinai: it was addressed, not to one family 
(ἑνὸς, sc. σπέρματος), but to many families 
of Abraham's children after the flesh. 
This change of recipients involved a vital 
change in the revelation also- whereas 
the promise had quickened faith by an 
appeal to gratitude and love, the Law 
used threats of wrath and punishment to 
deter corrupt and carnal natures from 
indulging the vices of the flesh. 


The stress laid on the unity of the 
chosen seed in ver. 16 and the ellipsis of 
σπέρματα with τὰ πάντα in ver. 22 justi 
us in understanding σπέρματος here wi 
ἑνός.--ὁ δὲ Θεὸς els ἐστιν. The recur- 
rence of the same phrase εἷς ὁ Θεός with 
a corresponding force in Rom. iii. 30 
suggests its true force and connection 
with the context in this place. The 
Apostle is there urging the real harmony 
of God's dealings with Jews and Gentiles, 
however different the method employed 
for justifying the two severally; and 
argues that it is nevertheless one and 
the same God who will justify both. 
So here after differentiating the revelation 
made through Moses from that to Abra- 
ham, he is careful to add that the God 
of Sinai is one with the God of Abraham, 
however distinct might be the two revela- 
tions. The true force of the clause may 
be expressed as follows, but the God (sc. 
the God of Sinai) is one with the God of 

ise. The twofold revelation of the 
name of God to Moses as the God of 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and as the 
eternal God I am that I am, suggests 
the same thought of the divine unity in 
spite of the various aspects in which 
God reveals Himself to successive genera- 
tions of men. 

Ver. 21. In view of the continuity of 
divine providence the suggestion that the 
Law contravened or nullified the previous 
covenant of God with Abraham and the 
patriarchs is dismissed as monstrous. It 
was incompatible with the faithfulness of 
God to His pledged word, and is therefore 
repudiated with the customary formula μὴ 
γένοιτο. The apparent sanction given 
by the Law to a new method of justifica- 
tion (viz., by works) could lead to no 
actual result, unless it had at the same 
time the er which it lacked 
of quickening spiritual Π{ε.-- τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
These words are omitted in some MSS., 
but the preponderance of authority is in 
favour of their retention. The sense is 
the same whether they be expressed or 
understood. The addition may perhaps 
be due to a marginal comment which 
found its way into the text. 

Ver. 22. The real function of the Law 
was not to justify but to convict of sin, 
that men might the more readily turn in 
humble faith to Christ for relief from the 


20 —24. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


173 


ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἦν ἂν] ἡ δικαιοσύνη" 22. ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ 


’ ~ -“ 
τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 


δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσι. 


23. Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον 


ἐφρουρούμεθα συγκλειόμενοι 2 εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφ- 


θῆναι " 24. ὥστε 6 νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστὸν, ἵνα 


lex νομου ην av ΜΑΒΟ 3, εἴς. ; om. ην av FG; av ex νομου ην D?EKLP, 
μου η & η μου η 


2 συνκλειομενοι ΝΑΒΡΙΕΡ 17, εἰς. ; 


burden of an accusing conscience.—y 
γραφὴ. The Old Testament was always 
designated by the plural γραφαί in apo- 
stolic times, for the several books were 
preserved in separate rolls and did not 
form a single whole. Here, therefore, 4 
γραφή points to some particular passage 
of the Law to which the author has already 
drawn attention as embodying its spirit. 
The passage of Deut. xxvii. 26 quoted in 
νετ, 10 answers this description, for it 
imprecates a curse on all who fell short 
of perfect ορεάϊεπςε.--συνέκλεισεν .. . 
τὰ πάντα. The figure here presented of 
prisoners under sentence, condemned to 
pay the penalty of sin, makes it clear that 
the object of συνέκλεισεν is persons, not 
things: and accordingly these prisoners 
are described in ver. 23 as συγκλειόμενοι 
(masc.). A neuter plural substantive 
must therefore be understood with τὰ 
πάντα which is applicable to persons. 
Hence 1 infer that by τὰ πάντα is meant 
τὰ πάντα σπέρματα, i.c., all the families 
of Abraham after the flesh, in other words 
the whole Jewish nation.—tva... The 
design of the Law was to pave the way 
for the eventual fulfilment of the promise 
to all that believe by faith in Christ. 

Vv. 23, 24. THE POSITION OF THE 
TRUE CHILDREN OF GOD BEFORE THE 
COMING OF CHRIST IS ILLUSTRATED BY 
ΤΗΕ CONTROL EXERCISED OVER CHILDREN 
IN THEIR FATHER’S HOUSE BY MEMBERS 
OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. These verses ex- 
plain the position of the faithful under 
the Law. They are here associated with 
Christians by the use of the first person 
plural; for they too were in their genera- 
tion believers in God, they belonged to 
the same blessed family and inherited 
the original promise. Yet since all Israel 
from the time of Moses to the Advent 
were subjected to the control of the Law, 
they too were subject to bondage. But 
this was really due to the watchful love 
of their Heavenly Father, who thus pro- 
vided needful shelter and guidance, just 
as an earthly father places his young 
children during years of weakness and 
inexperience under the charge of house- 


συνκεκλεισμενοι CD°EKL. 


hold servants.—tnyv πίστιν. The article, 
though ignored in our versions, is essen- 
tial to the sense. By the coming of the 
faith is meant the historic fact of the 
Christian religion, the spread of the Gos- 
pel on earth. The term has the same 
objective sense as in i. 23, ili. 25, Acts 
vi. 7,and Rom. iii. 30, where also a clear 
distinction is drawn between πίστεως, 
faith in the abstract, and τῆς πίστεως, 
the faith of Christ. Obviously faith did 
not come with Christ, it was the most 
conspicuous virtue of the Jewish Church, 
and Abraham was but the first of many 
splendid examples of it.—ovyxAevdpevor. 
MS. authority is strongly in favour of the 
present participle, which is also more 
appropriate than the perfect ovyxe- 
κλεισμένοι for describing the continuous 
process of legal condemnation which pre- 
vailed from generation to generation.— 
παιδαγωγὸς. No English equivalent for 
this term can convey its real force, for it 
has no exact counterpart in an English 
home. The position of a nurse towards 
young children approaches more nearly 
than that of schoolmaster or tutor to 
the office of the παιδαγωγός, for he was 
a confidential dependent, usually a slave, 
neither qualified to instruct, nor invested 
with authority to control his young 
master, but appointed to attend on him, 
to safeguard him, and to report to his 
father any disorderly or immoral habits 
on which it might be necessary for the 
father to place a check. The Law in 
like manner regulated outward habits, 
enforced order and decency, and main- 
tained a certain standard of morality 
among Israelites until in due time they 
became ripe for spiritual freedom. It was 
not the function of the Law to address 
itself directly to the conscience like the 
Prophets, or to claim spiritual authority 
over the whole man, but to impose a 
check on the open tyranny of evil, to 
enforce on the community a higher 
standard of morals, and so to foster 
indirectly the growth of spiritual life. 
Vv. 25-29. BuT NOW WE ARE NO 
LONGER CHILDREN. YE ARE ALL SONS 


174 


ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν " 25. 
26. πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ἐστὲ διὰ τῆς πίστεως 


παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


ΠῚ, 


ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως, οὐκ ἔτι ὑπὸ 


ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: 27. ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν 


ἐνεδύσασθε. 


28. οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος, οὐδὲ Ἕλλην: οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος, 


οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος - οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ - πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ 


or GoD: AT YOUR BAPTISM YE PUT ON 
CHRIST, AND WERE INVESTED WITH 
SPIRITUAL MANHOOD: ALL PREVIOUS 
DISTINCTIONS OF CREED OR RACE, OF 
POSITION OR NATURE, WERE DONE AWAY: 
YE ARE ALL ONE IN CuRIST.—The sudden 
change from the first to the second 
person plural betokens an extension in 
the point of view from Israel to the 
Gentile world. The Epistle has been 
dealing since iii. 17 with the position 
of Israelites under the Law before the 
Advent of the Christ. But that event 
brought Gentiles also within the sco 
of God’s revealed promises and of His 
blessings in Christ. So the Apostle 
turns to his converts, largely enlisted out 
of Gentiles, with the assurance, “ Ye are 
all sons of God, whatever your ante- 
cedents"’. Their adoption is assumed, as 
their possession of the gifts of the Spirit 
is assumed iniii.2. The spirit of adoption, 
of which they were conscious within their 
hearts, assured them that they were sons 
of God (cf. Rom. viii. 15, 16). 

Ver 27. ἐνεδύσασθε. The conception 
of spiritual manhood is here associated 
with baptism by a figure borrowed from 
Greek and Roman usage. At a certain 
age the Roman youth exchanged the 
toga praetexta for the toga virtlis and 
passed into the rank of citizens. So 
the Christian had been invested at his 
baptism with the robe of spiritual man- 
hood. Whereas he had before been under 
the control of rules and regulations, like 
a child in his father’s house, he possessed 
now the independence of a grown up son. 
This figure of clothing is applied in 
various ways in Scripture: the effects 
of death and resurrection are described 
in 2 Cor. v. 4 by the figure of unclothing 
and reclothing : the figures of putting on 
Christ and putting on armour are used 
in Rom, xiii. 12, 14, Eph. vi. ΙΙ to 
express the new life support and stren 
required for our Christian warfare. 
exact force of the figure depends in every 
case upon the context. Here the author 
evidently has in mind the change of 
dress which marked the transition from 
boyhood to manhood. Greeks and 
Romans made much of this occasion and 
celebrated the investment of a youth 


with man’s dress by family gatheri 

and religious rites. The iF hitherto 
subject to domestic rule, was then ad- 
mitted to the rights and responsibilities 
of a citizen, and took his place beside 
his father in the councils of the family. 

Baptism is in fact likened to a spiritual 
coming of age: the convert, who 
hitherto been bound to obey definite 
commandments and fulfil definite duties, 
was now set free to learn God's will 
from the inward voice of the Spirit, 
and discharge the heavier obligations 
incumbent on a citizen of the heavenly 
commonwealth under the guidance of 
an enlightened conscience. He had 
entered on his spiritual manhood, and 
was accordingly emancipated from his 
earlier bondage to an outward Law. 

There is an obvious correspondence 
between this figure of putting on Christ 
at baptism, and the ceremony which 
prevailed throughout the Church in sub- 
sequent centuries of investing catechu- 
mens with white robes on the occasion 
of their baptism. Both give expression 
to a kindred thought: some of the 
Fathers associate them together, and 
perhaps the language of the Apostle 
contributed to the spread of the cere- 
monial. The symbolism however differed 
materially: the white robes corresponded 
rather to the wedding garment in the 
parable: they were an emblem of purity 
and signified the cleansing effect of 
baptism, whereas the context of the 
Epistle points to enfranchisement and 
emancipation from control. 

Ver. 28. Having now established the 
temporary and subordinate function of 
the Law, the Apostle finally repudiates 
every claim, whether on that or any 
other ground, on behalf of any distinct 
class to superior sanctity in Christ. All 
Christians, whatever their antecedents, 
are one in Christ.—otx« ἔνι. Distinctions 
of creed or race are incompatible with 
true membership of Christ: the legal 
barriers and social cleft which severed 
freeman from slave, even natural divisions 
as deep-seated as those of sex, disappear 
in presence of the all-absorbing unity of 
the body of Christ. ἔνι is a strengthened 
form of ἐν used for ἔνεστιν, as πάρα, πέρι, 


25—29. IV. 1—3. 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


175 


ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 29. εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, dpa τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ σπέρμα 


ἐστὲ, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι. 


IV. 1. Λέγω δὲ, Ἐφ᾽ ὅσον 


χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου, κύριος 


πάντων ὦν 2. ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶ καὶ οἰκονόμους, ἄχρι τῆς 


προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός. 


Ὁ ss ο) μι 3 / ς ἈΝ 
3. οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς, OTE HEV νήπιοι ὑπὸ τὰ 


leore και FGKLP; om. και NABCDE 17, etc, 


μέτα are for πάρεστιν, περιέστιν, μέτεσ- 
τιν.--ὑμεῖς. Special stress is laid on this 
pronoun by its insertion with πάντες : 
the Galatians were themselves a signal 
instance of the power of the Gospel to 
make men one in Christ: for their 
Churches were gathered out of the most 
diverse elements: Jew and Gentile, slave 
and freeman, male and female, had all 
contributed to their composition. 

Ver. 29. ὑμεῖς. The emphatic in- 
sertion of ὑμεῖς before Χριστοῦ in pre- 
ference to Χριστοῦ ἐστέ lays stress 
apparently on the wonderful transforma- 
tion of men who had been aliens from 
the people of God into members of 
Christ. 

CHAPTER IV.—Vv. 1-7. THERE WERE 
IN THE GENTILE WORLD ALSO BEFORE 
CHRIST CHILDREN OF GOD IN BONDAGE 
TO HUMAN RULE, THAT KNEW NOT THE 
UNSEEN FATHER IN HEAVEN WHO WAS 
ORDERING THEIR LIVES. THEY WERE 
LIKE ORPHAN CHILDREN, WHOM A ΡΕ- 
PARTED FATHER HAS WITH LOVING CARE 
CONSIGNED DURING CHILDHOOD TO THE 
CHARGE OF GUARDIANS AND STEWARDS. 
IN DUE TIME, HOWEVER, GOD SENT 
FORTH His SON TO REDEEM THEM ALSO 
FROM BONDAGE, AND HAS MADE US SONS 
AND HEIRS, SENDING FORTH THE SPIRIT 
oF His SON INTO OUR HEARTS.—In 
dealing with the relation of the Mosaic 
Law to the antecedent covenant and 
with its subsequent fulfilment in Christ, 
the Apostle necessarily limited his view 
of the seed of Abraham, who were cove- 
nanted heirs of salvation between Moses 
and the Advent, to Israel. He likened 
these accordingly to children growing 
up in their father’s house under domestic 
control. But as most of those to whom 
he wrote had been converts from heathen- 
ism, he now extends his view of the world 
before Christ so as to embrace Gentiles 
also within its scope. Amidst the heathen 
were other children of God,a faithful seed, 
potential heirs of salvation, who passed 
through a like stage of spiritual childhood 
under different conditions. They were 
like orphan children committed by the 
watchful care of an unseen and un- 


known father to the custody of others. 
For they were subject to human systems 
of religion, government and law, neither 
knowing their Heavenly Father nor com- 
prehending His love forthem. The con- 
ception of a dead father providing by his 
will for the due education of his orphan 
children serves admirably to illustrate the 
mutual relations between God and the 
Gentile world, and to set forth the com- 
bination of steadfast love on one side 
with utter ignorance on the other. The 
illustration is obviously borrowed from 
testamentary systems prevailing among 
Greeks and Romans (not among He- 
brews) which enabled a father to appoint 
guardians for his orphan children dur- 
ing their minority. These testamentary 
powers differed considerably in different 
parts of the Roman world according to 
the municipal laws of various Cities. 
Whereas Roman citizens became wards 
of the state at fourteen, so that the 
powers of testamentary guardians were 
strictly limited, the discretion of the 
father was allowed a wider range in 
Greek cities. At Athens, for instance, 
the guardians of Demosthenes retained 
control over his property till he became 
a full citizen after eighteen; and in 
Asiatic Greece the custody of property 
was sometimes prolonged to twenty-five, 
though the personal authority ceased at 
fourteen. The dependent position of an 
orphan is described in popular language 
without legal precision; νήπιος is not a 
legal term, but an appropriate description 
for a child of tender years, naturally sub- 
ject to the control of guardians (ἐπιτρό- 
πους) and subordinate agents whom they 
might employ for household management 
or care of property (οἰκονόμους). It can 
hardly be right to identify the latter with 
the Roman curatores, for the special 
function of these officers was custody 
of property and not personal. 

Ver, 3. νήπιοι: children, i.e., spirit- 
ually children. The clause points to 
the stage of undeveloped spiritual life 
through which converts from heathenism 
had passed, the spiritual childhood which 
had been the lot of earlier generations be- 


176 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


IV, 


στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἦμεν δεδουλωμένοι - 4. ὅτε δὲ ἦλθε τὸ πλήρωμα 
τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναι- 
κὸς, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, 5. ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν 


υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν. 


6. ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοὶ, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ 


πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κράζον, ᾿Αββᾶ, ὁ 


πατήρ. 
κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ." 


7. ὥστε οὐκ ἔτι εἶ δοῦλος, ἀλλ᾽ υἱός - εἰ δὲ υἱὸς, καὶ 
8. ᾿Αλλὰ τότε μὲν, οὐκ εἰδότες Θεὸν, ἐδου- 


Ίημων ΑΒΟΡΙΕΟΡ; νµων Ρ΄ΕΚΙ.. 
2 Bia Θεον NABC! 17; δια Θεον FG; Θεον δια Χριστον ΝΟ ΡΕΚΙΡ. 


fore the time was ripe for the Advent.— 
στοιχεῖα. The association of this word 
with νήπιοι fixes on it the conception of 
a rudimentary training to which the world 
was subjected during its spiritual infancy 
way of preparation for the Gospel of 
Christ and the dispensation of the Spirit. 
Before men could enter into the spirit 
of His teaching, they had to learn the 
elementary principles of religion and mo- 
rality. Compulsory obedience to definite 
rules of justice and order was an 
preparation for the freedom of the Spirit. 
This preliminary education was given to 
the Hebrews in the Ten Commandments 
and the Law, it was imparted to a wider 
world in Greek civilisation and philo- 
sophy, in Roman law and government, 
and in other forms of national and social 
life. These rudiments are disparaged in 
ver. ϱ as weak and beggarly in compari- 
son with the teaching of the Spirit, for 
Christian men ought to have outgrown 
their spiritual childhood. So, again, in 
Col. ii. 8, 20, they are condemned 
wherever their traditional hold on hu- 
man society produces an antagonism to 
the higher teaching of Christ. But before 
the Advent they formed a valuable dis- 
cipline for the education of the world. 
Ver. 4. When God saw that the world 
was ripe for the Advent, He sent forth 
His Son. Until generations of mankind 
had learnt through years of social training 
to control some of the animal instincts 
of their lower nature, to rebel against 
its brutal passions, and cherish a desire 
to live in obedience to their higher nature, 
until they had developed some sense of 
sin and some craving after a holiness 
beyond their reach, they were not ready 
to welcome a Redeemer.—yevépevov . . - 
νόμον. The incarnate Son of God took 
upon Him our nature and our duties. 
He was (1) born of woman, (2) made 
subject to Law. His subjection to Law 
is so expressly associated with the sub- 
jection of the world in general to Law 


that the term cannot be limited (as our 
versions limit it) to the Law of Moses. 
Christ was in fact subjected also to Roman 
Law, and died by its sentence. 

Ver. 5. twa... ἵνα. These two 
final clauses couple together two gracious 
purposes of God in the scheme of re- 
demption, (1) the obliteration of a guilty 
past, (2) divine adoption with the blessings 
which sonship entails. The description 
under Law includes Gentiles as well as 
Jews: for though they had not the Law, 
they were not without Law to God (cf. 
Rom, ii. 14... .): they have indeed 
been expressly specified in iii, 14 as 
included in the redemption from the 
curse of the Law.—dmwodaBopev. This 
verb denotes receiving back, as ἀποδι- 
δόναι does giving back (cf. Luke xix. 8): 
accordingly it describes the adoption in 
Christ as a restoration of the original 
birthright, withheld throughout many 
generations for the sake of necessary 
discipline. 

Ver. 6. Sonship involves relations ot 
mutual confidence and love between the 
Father who bestows His choicest gifts, 
and the Son who responds with His 
whole heart. 

Ver. 7. διὰ Θεοῦ. This language is 
unusual, and many variations are found 
in MSS. and versions, amidst them the 
Received Text Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ, but 
there can be little question on MS. 
evidence that the above is the genuine 
text. As for the true force of the words, 
the Epistle has now traced the scheme 
of redemption and design of bestowing 
a heavenly inheritance in Christ as far 
back as the patriarchs, and has shown 
that from the time of Abraham downwards 
God was disciplining Israel with a view 
to their becoming sons of God, and again 
that He was really ordering the lives of 
Gentiles likewise, though they knew 
Him not, with the same intent. With 
good reason therefore it is here said 
“through God—through His original 


4-12. 


λεύσατε τοῖς φύσει ph! οὖσι θεοῖς - 9. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


ΓΦ 
15 ἢ 


νῦν δὲ, γνόντες Θεὸν, μᾶλλον 


δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ 
πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; το. ἡμέρας 


A A a A Ve , 
παρατηρεῖσθε, καὶ μῆνας, καὶ καιροὺς, καὶ ἐνιαυτούς. 


11. Φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μή πως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς. 


12. Γίνεσθε 


1 φυσει µη NABCDIEP; μη φυσει D'FGKL. 


design and providential care—thou hast 
now become son and heir”. 

Vv. 8-10. BUT THOUGH IN TIME PAST 
WHEN YOU KNEW NOT GOD YOU WERE 
SLAVES TO FALSE GODS, HOW CAN YOU, 
NOW THAT YOU HAVE LEARNT TO KNOW 
HIM, OR RATHER HAVE BEEN RECOGNISED 
By HIM, TURN BACK TO THE LESSONS OF 
CHILDHOOD AND CRAVE A BONDAGE TO 
TIMES AND SEASONS ?—The guilt of past 
idolatry is palliated on the score of 
ignorance, in the same spirit as in Acts 
xvii. 30, in order to press home the 
responsibility of those who have learnt 
to know God (γνόντες Θεόν) in Christ. 
There was some excuse for their former 
bondage to imaginary gods who had no 
real existence: but how can they now 
turn back in heart to the weak and 
beggarly lessons of their spiritual child- 
hood after they have received the spirit 
of sonship? Instead of ruling their own 
lives by reason and conscience under the 
guidance of the Spirit like men in Christ, 
they are bent on subjecting themselves 
like children to elementary rules of formal 
service. 

Ver. 9. μᾶλλον δὲ. This correction 
is added, lest any should pride themselves 
on their knowledge of God, to warn them 
that it is not due to their own act, but 
to God who recognised them as His sons 
and revealed Himself to them. ἀσθενῆ 
kal πτωχὰ. Hitherto the Apostle has 
spoken with respect of the education 
given to the world before Christ (iv. 1-3), 
bearing in mind the progress of the Greek 
and Roman world in social habits, in- 
stitutions and laws: they had in fact 
learnt much in the sphere of morals and 
natural religion that would bear com- 
parison with the progress of Israel under 
the light of the revealed Law of God. 
But when he compares the mechanical 
routine of formal observances which 
formed the staple of religion for the 
heathen and for many so-called religious 
Jews with the spiritual teaching of the 
Gospel, he does not hesitate to denounce 
them as weak and beggarly. 

Ver. το. The observance of Sabbaths 
and new moons, of feasts and fasts, of 


VOL. III. 


sabbatical and jubilee years, was clearly 
enjoined by the ceremonial Law; and 
Paul admitted the obligations of that Law 
for himself and for all the Circumcision. 
He continued to frequent the Sabbath- 
worship of the synagogue, attended the 
feasts, bound himself under voluntary 
vows. What he condemns is the adoption 
of these practices by baptised Gentiles: for 
this imputed to them an inherent sacred- 
ness incompatible with the true freedom 
of the Spirit. 

Vv. 11-20. DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE 
APOSTLE AT THE CHANGED FEELING OF 
HIS CONVERTS; REMINISCENCES OF THE 
PAST; PATHETIC APPEAL TO OLD AFFEC- 
TION; PROTEST AGAINST PRESENT ES- 
TRANGEMENT.—Ver. 12. Our versions 
abruptly sever the connection of this 
verse with the previous context, and do 
great violence to the Greek text in both 
clauses. They transpose the words ἀδελ- 
poi δέομαι ὑμῶν from their true place at 
the end of the verse to the beginning, and 
render γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, Be ye as I am. 
But this makes it = γίνεσθε ὁποῖος ἐγώ 
εἰμι (cf. Acts xxvi. 29), though it is im- 
possible to understand εἰμι in the Greek 
text after γίνεσθε. The context points 
distinctly to ἐγενόμην as the proper 
supplement after ὡς ἐγώ. The last verse 
has carried back the author’s thoughts to 
his original ministry, and he proceeds to 
revive the remembrance of that period. 
“Act as I did (he exclaims); deal with 
me as I dealt with you.” Instead of a 
mere vague admonition to imitate his 
character he is holding up his actual 
conduct for an example to them, and 
proceeds to specify the particular occa- 
sion to which he refers.—8ri κἀγὼ . . .: 
For I too beseech you as you, brethren, 
besought me. It is an obvious error to 
detach κἀγώ from the following verb 
δέοµαι and supply εἰμι, as is done in 
our versions. The Greek requires a verb 
to be supplied after ὑμεῖς corresponding 
to κἀγὼ δέομαι ὑμῶν, and I understand 
accordingly ἐδεήθητέ pov. 

The Galatians could not fail to recollect 
the occasion to which these words refer; 
for it was the true birthday of their 


12 


178 


Church, the memorable crisis when at 
the close of Paul’s address the Jews de- 
parted from the synagogue, but the Gen- 
tiles besought him to repeat to them the 
words of life on the following Sabbath ; 
after which many Jews and proselytes 
followed Paul and Barnabas persuading 
them to abide by the doctrine of the grace 
of God. (See Acts xiii. 42, 43. In the 
Greek text it is clear that the persuasion 
proceeded from them, and not from Paul 
and Barnabas.) The Galatians had then 
been suitors to Paul to maintain the free- 
dom of the Gospel, he was now a suitor 
to them in his turn for its maintenance. 
—ovdéy µε ἠδικήσατε: Ye had done meno 
wrong. The force of this clause appears 
from what follows: Paul is dwelling on 
the mutual relations between him and the 
Galatians at the time of that memorable 
petition. They on their side had done 
him no wrong, they had not driven him 
away by persecution or illtreatment, yet 
up to that time (τὸ πρότερον) he had only 
been induced by illness to preach to them. 
The Galatians had, in short, given him no 
excuse for passing them by, as he in- 
tended to do, until he was attacked by 
an illness which left him no option. 

Ver. 13. δι ἀσθένειαν. This can only 
mean owing to infirmity of the flesh, {.ε., 
to illness. διά with accusative has the 
same causal force in the N.T. as in Attic 
Greek. A phrase like διὰ νύκτα, by night, 
is found in Homer, but διά subsequently 
lost its temporal force, and only regained 
it in the Latinised Greek of later centuries 
from confusion with the Latin fer. The 

sition of δι’ ἀσθένειαν before the verb 

ays stress upon the fact that the ministry 
was due to illness alone, and not to spon- 
taneous resolve. 

It appears from this and the following 
verses that the illness occurred under the 
eyes of the Galatians, who watched its 
progress, were familiar with its repulsive 
symptoms, and displayed tender sympathy 
with the sufferer. They were aware also 
of the alteration it had made in his plans. 
The inference from these facts is clear, 
that he did not intend at the time of his 
arrival in Galatia to preach there at all, 
but was prostrated immediately after by 
sudden illness, and so forced to relinquish 
his previous project and abandon for the 
present any further journey. The only 
conceivable way, in short, in which an 
attack of illness in Galatia can have 
occasioned his preaching there was by in- 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


ὡς ἐγὼ, ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς, ἀδελφοὶ, δέομαι ὑμῶν. 
ἠδικήσατε' οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι᾽ 


IV, 


13. οὐδέν με 
ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην 


voluntary detention. Here, accordingly, 
the motive for mentioning it is to show 
how little claim he had on the gratitude 
of the Galatians at that time, and how 
little he had deserved the tender sympathy 
which they exhibited. The historical con- 
nection of this illness with the ministry of 
Paul and Barnabas is investigated in the 
Introduction (pp. 135-7). 

It has been suggested that this attack 
was perhaps identical with the σκόλοψ 
τῇ σαρκί mentioned in 2 Cor. xii. 7, and 
this may be true, but the real nature of 
the σκόλοψ is unknown. Some features 
of this attack on the contrary may be 
inferred from the description given of its 
effects: it incapacitated the patient for 
travel, produced disfigurement and offen- 
sive symptoms, but allowed free inter- 
course with those around him. His 
success in winning the hearts of those 
who visited him in his sick chamber 
suggests a chronic ailment prolonged 
for a considerable time, as does also the 
complete change in his plans. The only 
definite hint given of a specific malady 
is the language of ver. 15: from which 
I gather that the eyesight was imperilled 
by a virulent attack of ophthalmia. That 
disease was notoriously prevalent in the 
lowlands of Pamphylia through which 
he had been travelling, and if so con- 
tracted, would produce the symptoms 
described. The pathetic appeal to Gala- 
tian sympathy on the score of imperfect 
sight in vi. 11 confirms this view. If 
his sight had been impaired by an illness 
to which they had themselves ministered 
with tender solicitude, they would be 
quick to feel for his privation.—rd πρό- 
τερον. Lightfoot contends with justice 
that this phrase cannot on account of 
the prefixed article refer to an indefinite 
period in time past. The author clearly 
had in his mind two distinct periods, an 
earlier and a later, during the earlier of 
which he states that his preaching had 
been occasioned by illness. Lightfoot 
suggests that he referred perhaps to the 
two visits which he had paid to the 
Galatian Churches: and the suggestion 
is reasonable if his theory be accepted 
of sites in Northern Galatia, for no details 
are known of either visit. But it is quite 
incompatible with the history of his 
ministry in Southern Galatia recorded 
in Acts xiii., xiv. That lasted over two 
winters at the very least, comprised two 
visits at considerable intervals to eacb of 


13—17. 


ΠΡΟ”, TAAATAS 


179 


ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον, 14. καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν 1 ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ 
ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄγγελον Θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ µε, 


ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. 


15. ποῦ 3 οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν; μαρτυρῶ 


γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι, εἰ δυνατὸν, τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἐδώκατέ 


μοι. 


16. ὥστε ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, 17. Ζηλοῦσιν 


ὑμᾶς οὐ καλῶς, ἀλλὰ ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς θέλουσιν, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε. 


Ίνμων NABD'FG 17, εἴς. ; μου τον D°EKLP, 
3 που NABCFGP 5, εἴς. ; τις DEKL. 
8 εδωκατε NABCD! 17, 47; av εδωκατε NCD°EKLP 


the Churches, and displayed through- 
out as resolute an initiative, as deter- 
mined energy, as vigorous activity, as 
can be found in the whole course of his 
apostolic career. That ministry gave 
certainly no sign of illness, but the 
contrary. We have seen, however, that 
it was preceded by a prolonged illness, 
during which he was probably confined 
to his sick chamber and could only 
minister to those who visited him there. 
His first ministry in Galatia passed in 
short through two distinct stages, first 
the private ministrations of a sick man, 
and then a public career of unexampled 
vigour and success. The last verse 
placed the readers on the division line 
between the two, for it reminded them 
of the memorable petition addressed to 
him and Barnabas at the close of his 
first public address in the synagogue of 
the Pisidian Antioch. It is, therefore, 
of the preceding period that he writes 
here, “' You know that it was owing to 
illness that I had preached to you uf to 
that time (τὸ πρότερον) ᾿. It is needless 
to dwell on the complete harmony of this 
interpretation with the context. 
Ver. 14. τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν. The 
best MSS. all read ὑμῶν, not pov or 
μου τον. The accusative τὸν πειρασμόν 
is not governed by ἐξουθενήσατε or 
ἐξεπτύσατε, whose real object is the pe 
which follows ἐδέξασθε: it is really a 
pendent accusative in apposition to the 
sentence: As for the temptation to you 
in my flesh (i.e., the temptation to reject 
me with contempt and disgust on account 
of my diseased state), you did not.... 
Ver. 15. ποῦ οὖν... The MSS. 
are decisive in favour of ποῦ, which 
makes excellent sense. ‘‘ You congratu- 
lated yourselves,” it is urged, “‘on my 
coming among you, you welcomed me 
as an angel, as Christ Himself: what 
has become of that feeling now ? where 
is your satisfaction at your lot?”— 
ἐδώκατε. Some MSS. insert av before 


this verb: the addition would be necessary 
in Attic Greek to express the conditional 
force of the clause, but is not needed 
in Hellenistic Greek—rovs ὀφθαλμοὺς 
ὑμῶν. The full force of ὑμῶν may be 
given in English by the rendering your 
own eyes : for it lays stress on the contrast 
between their eyes and those of Paul. 
The addition is significant, and strongly 
confirms the view that his eyes were the 
organ specially affected by his malady. 

Ver. 16. ὥστε is often used in the 
sense of therefore to introduce an im- 
perative or an affirmative conclusion in 
the Epistles of Paul, but not an interro- 
gation. I can see no reason here for 
making the clause interrogative: the 
rendering I am therefore become an 
enemy to you is quite in harmony with 
the context, which assumes the existence 
of some actual estrangement. This es- 
trangement is attributed to plain speaking 
which had given offence to the disciples. 
As he had seen no trace of coldness at 
the time of his recent visit, he must be 
referring to some language which he had 
used on that occasion. Circumstances 
forced him to take up strong ground at 
that time on the subject of circumcision 
and to denounce the opposition and in- 
trigues which he had encountered from 
the Pharisaic party. 

Vv. 17, 18. The substantive ζῆλος 
(probably derived from ζέειν, burn) de- 
notes some kind of passionate desire. 
Whether it was of good or evil tendency 
depended on the nature of its object and 
the spirit in which it was pursued: for the 
same term was used to designate zeal for 
God or for some noble object, personal 
passion, or an exclusive spirit of selfish 
jealousy. The verb ζηλοῦν partakes of 
the same neutral quality. Its figurative 
meaning is here borrowed from the efforts 
of a lover to win favour. The Pharisaic 
party affected (i.e., courted) the Galatians 
in a selfish spirit, being minded to shut 
them out of their rightful inheritance in 


180 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


IV. 


18. καλὸν δὲ τὸ ζηλοῦσθαι ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε, καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ 
παρεῖναί με πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 19. τεκνία] μου, οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω, μεχρις 
οὗ μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν: 20. ἤθελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
ἄρτι, καὶ ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνήν μου, ὅτι ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν. 

21. Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε; 


1 τεκνια ΜΕΑΟΡΙΕΚΙ.Ρ; τεκνα ΝΜ ΒΗ ΕΘ. 


Christ, that they might reduce them to 
dependence on their own Law. Paul 
also courted them, not for his own glory, 
but that he might join them to Christ, and 
he was glad that they should be courted 
at all times, even by others in his absence, 
if it was done in a right spirit. They 
affect you (he writes, i.¢., court you) not 
honourably, but are minded to shut you 
out that you may affect them. But tt is 
good for you to be affected at all times 
and not only when I am present with 
you.—{ndotre. As there are no other 
instances of ἵνα being followed by an 
indicative present in Pauline language, 
it is probable that this and φυσιοῦσθε in 
1 Cor. iv. 6 are really forms of the sub- 
junctive, though ζηλῶτε is the contracted 
form in general use. 

Ver. 19. τεκνία pov. This is an 
accusative in apposition to ὑμᾶς, not 
a vocative introducing a fresh appeal. 
It is clear from the addition of the con- 
necting particle δέ after ἤθελον that that 
word begins a new sentence. τεκνία is 
usually a term of maternal endearment; 
and though addressed by John in his first 
Bpistle to his children in Christ, is not 
used elsewhere by Paul, who prefers to 
address them as children (τέκνα), rather 
than as babes. But in this passage he 
is adopting the figure of a child-bearin 
mother; he is in travail for the spiritu 
birth of Christ within them (as he says), 
and straining all his powers to renew 
once more the spiritual life which had 
died in them until he could succeed in 
shaping their inner man afresh into the 
image of Christ. 

Ver. 20. ἤθελον. This imperfect ex- 
presses a na wish, qualified by im- 
plied conditions, like ην in Rom. 
ix. 3 and ἐβουλόμην yr χχν. 22. 
He would fain be with them now (ἄρτι) 
instead of waiting for some future oppor- 
tunity, were it not that he was unavoid- 
ably detained by other οἰαίπι».---ἀλλάξαι. 
This is interpreted by some as a threat 
of increased severity, by others as a 
craving for the use of gentler words; 
but neither interpretation agrees with 
the regular Greek usage of the word, 


The natural meaning of the Greek ex- 
pression is to exchange the voice for 
some other means of persuasion, in this 
case for the pen, and this sense is clearly 
indicated by the context. Paul longs to 
comeand speak to them instead of writing, 
and is confident of his power to clear away 
doubts and errors by personal intercourse. 
--ἀποροῦμαι. This middle voice denotes 
the inward distress of a mind tossed to and 
fro by conflicting doubts and fears. 

Vv. 21-30. PATRIARCHAL HISTORY IS 
EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERSE- 
CUTION OF CHRISTIANS, WHO ARE THE 
PROMISED SEED OF ABRAHAM, BY JEWS 
WHO ARE HIS SEED AFTER THE FLESH. 
HAGAR AND HER SON, SARAH AND HER 
SON, FURNISH PROPHETIC TYPES OF 
THE MUTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE 
Two. AS HIS ELDER SON, ΤΗΕ SLAVE- 
BORN ISHMAEL, WAS CAST OUT FOR 
MOCKING THE FREEBORN CHILD, 80 THE 
OLDER ISRAEL UNDER BONDAGE TO THE 
LAW WILL BRING ON THEMSELVES THE 
DOOM OF NATIONAL REJECTION BY PER- 
SECUTING THE TRUE IsRAEL oF Gop 
WHOM CHRIST HATH ENDOWED WITH 
THE FREEDOM OF THE Spirit.—The 
force of this illustration depends on the 
distinction drawn in iii. 16-22 between 
the seed of promise and the seed of 
Abraham after the flesh. The argument 
of Rom. ἰχ. 6 . . . is likewise based on 
the successive exclusion of the latter 
from inheritance of the blessing. John 
the Baptist and Jesus Himself expressly 
warned the Jews not to rely on their 
claim to be sons of Abraham. 

Isaac the child of promise, only son of 
a free mother after years of barrenness, 
and heir to an indisputable birthright, 
aptly prefigured the Church of Christ, 
born in the fulness of time, made free 
by the gift of the Spirit, and established 
for ever in the house of their heavenly 
Father by an eternal covenant of adoption. 
Ishmael again, who had for some years 
filled the position of a son without the 
birthright which could entitle him to 
inherit the blessing, but was eventually 
driven out for his mockery of the promised 
child, supplied an exact prototype of 


18—25. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


181 


22. Γέγραπται γὰρ, ὅτι ᾿Αβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παι- 


δίσκης, καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας - ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης 


κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, 23. 6 δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι ἐπαγ- 


γελίας.] 


24. ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα: αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο 3 


ὃ θῇ , 4 > 4 “65 ~ > , A ΠῚ ΕῚ 4 
ιαθῆκαι' μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν 


“Ayap 25. (τὸ γὰρ ὃ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ), συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ 


1 δι᾽ επαγγελιας SAC 17, 73; δια της επ. BDEFGKLP, 


2 δυο (without αι) NCABCDEFGKLP. 


ὅτο γαρ ΝΟΕ; το δε 17; το Αγαρ B; 


Israel after the flesh, long recognised as 
the people of God, but bound under the 
Law, and eventually destined to be shut 
out from the household of God for their 
guiltin persecutingChrist and His Church, 
--τ. νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε. This is a re- 
monstrance addressed to men who are 
bent on upholding the authority of the 
Law, but are indifferent to the lessons 
which it teaches. ἀκούειν has this force 
of listening, not only when used ab- 
solutely, but when coupled as it is here 
with an accusative (cf. Luke x. 39, Eph. 
i, 13). 

Ver. 22. γέγραπται ὅτι. The state- 
ment which follows is not a quotation, 
but a summary of recorded facts. 

Hagar and Sarah are entitled the hand- 
maid and the freewoman because they 
are accepted types of each class in 
Scripture. In the LXX παιδίσκη denotes 
any young woman (¢.g., Ruth) as it does 
in Attic Greek, but in the N.T. παιδίσκη» 
a handmaid, corresponds to παῖς, a male 
servant. 

Ver. 23. The two who were coupled 
together in the last verse as sons of one 
father are here contrasted in respect of 
their different mothers. — γεγέννηται. 
The perfect is used in order to present 
the birth as a Scripture record now in 
existence (cf. Heb. xi. 17, 28... .): other- 
wise the aorist ἐγεννήθη would have been 
appropriate. — δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας. There 
is an alternative reading διὰ τῆς ἐπ. 
supported by equal MS. authority: but 
it is difficult to attach any meaning to 
the article, whereas δι ἐπαγγ. forms an 
appropriate antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα. 
Like διὰ νόµου in 1, 19, 21 it describes 
the attendant circumstances under which 
the birth took place, διά not having an 
instrumental force. 

Ver. 24. ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα. 
No doubt is thrown on the historical 
truth of the patriarchal history by classing 
the story of Ishmael with allegories: 
though an additional value is thereby 


το δε Αγαρ ADE; το yap Ayap KLP. 


claimed for it as embodying spiritual 
truth,and typifying the permanent relation 
between the two δεεάς.---αὗται γάρ εἰσιν. 
The two women are identified with the 
two covenants, the Sinaitic and the 
Christian, which they typify: and the 
characteristic features of the two are 
declared to be slavery and freedom.— 
γεννῶσα. This term is applied to the 
conception of the mother in Luke i. 13, 
57 also, though more often applied to the 
father. 

Ver.25. τὸ γὰρ. The variety of read- 
ings in the MSS., το Ayap, to yap Ayap, 
το Se Ayap, το yap, indicates some primi- 
tive error of transcription. It is hardly 
possible to extract any reasonable sense 
from the three first: for τὸ ἽΑγαρ cannot 
mean Hagar herself: it denotes the name 
Hagar, and Stanley’s attempt to connect 
this name with Sinai proved futile. How 
then can the statement be understood 
that the name Hagar is Sinai, or that it 
answers to Jerusalem? How again can 
the superfluous description of Sinai as a 
mountain in Arabia be explained 2 More- 
over, the reading τὸ “Ayap without any 
connecting particle is intolerable in Greek 
language, and δέ or γάρ was probably 
added to correct the solecism. Hence 
I conclude that “Ayap was probably an 
error in transcription for the original γάρ, 
suggested by its occurrence immediately 
before. 

The statement in the text on the con- 
trary, For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, 
is full of meaning when it is remembered 
that Hagar had no connection with Sinai 
itself, but that she found a home for 
herself and her children in Arabia.— 
συστοιχεῖ. The previous clause τὸ yap 
... ApaBiq is a parenthesis, ἥτις is 
therefore the subject of συστοιχεῖ. The 
Apostle finds in the actual state of 
Jerusalem and her children the same 
characteristic feature of slavery as in 
the covenant of Sinai. 


Ver. 26. ἡ ἄνω Ἱερ. The Psalms and 


182 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


Iv. 


vv Ἱερουσαλὴμ, δουλεύει yap! μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. 26. ἡ δὲ ἄνω 


Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν, ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν. 


27. γέγραπται 


γὰρ, Εὐφράνθητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα: ῥῆξον καὶ βόη- 
σον, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα: ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου 


μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα. 
κατὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐσμέν. 


28. ἡμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφοὶ, 
20. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ 


1 δουλενει yap NABCDFGP;; 8. δε D°EKL. 


Prophets attest the enthusiastic devotion 
of Israelites to the city of Jerusalem. Since 
the temple of God and the palace of the 
house of David were within its walls, 
it was at once the holy city round which 
clustered the religious feelings of Israel, 
and the city of the great king, of whom 
the royal house of David were represen- 
tatives (cf. Ps. xlviii.). The events of 
the captivity and restoration associated 
it still more intimately with the national 
fortunes and aspirations of Israel. Hence 
both Isaiah and Ezekiel invested it with 
ideal glory in their prophetic anticipations 
of the Messianic om om. Their visions 
of its future destiny looked forward to its 
becoming the centre of a world-wide 
worship: there the great King of all the 
earth would manifest His presence, and 
thither would flow all nations, offering 
their homage and bearing due tribute of 
gifts and sacrifices. But the Hebrew 
ideal scarcely rose above imaginations 
of an earthly city and a temple on the 
mountains of Israel. It was the function 
of Christian inspiration to spiritualise this 
conception, to eliminate its local associa- 
tion with the typical temple on earth, 
and to substitute a heavenly for an earthly 
city. The Apocalypse bears witness to 
the process of transition. Though it 
adheres closely to the vision of Ezekiel, 
and continues to employ material imagery 
for expressing the dazzling brightness 
and intense purity of the temple-city, 
yet the New Jerusalem is now seen com- 
ing down from heaven to a new earth; 
in place of earthly light it is illuminated 
by the light which emanates from the 
throne of God and of the Lamb; and 
material images are interpreted as sym- 
bols of moral beauty and spiritual holi- 
ness. The Epistle to the Hebrews views 
the heavenly Jerusalem from another 
side. Whereas the Apocalypse depicts 
its buildings, streets and rivers, the 
Epistle describes the throng of angels, 
the assembly of the first-born, the spirits 
of departed saints that are gathered 
there round the throne of God, and 
contrasts the awful majesty of the living 


God with the material terrors of Sinai. 
This Epistle presents the contrast be- 
tween the earthly and the heavenly 
Jerusalem, and between the covenants 
of Sinai and of Christ in a different 
aspect. For the Apostle embodies in 
his conception a purely Greek ideal of 
a city, the mother and home of freemen. 
A self-governed body of free citizens, 
subject to no foreign control, but main- 
taining justice and order in perfect peace 
by their own sovereign will, furnishes 
him with an appropriate type of the 
heavenly commonwealth, whereof Chris- 
tians are even now citizens, dwelling in 

ace together in the unity of Christian 
rotherhood, and independent of all 
restraints of law because they themselves 
do the will of God from the heart. 

The Hebrew form ‘le is 
naturally preferred to the ο I all 
these passages, because Jerusalem is 
ee as an ideal city. The stress 

ere laid on the freedom of Christ's 
disciples recalls the conversation of 
Christ with the Jews in John viii. 32 
... but the bondage is there more 
distinctly associated with actual sin. 

Ver. 27. The prophecy of Isaiah liv. 1, 
here quoted from the LXX, describes the 
restoration of Zion, the enlargement of 
her borders and increase of her people, 
under the figure of a wife long neglected 
and barren, but now restored to the 
favour of her husband and fruitful in 
children. This picture was perhaps 
suggested to the prophet by the history 
of Sarah’s prolonged barrenness before 
she became the fruitful mother of Israel, 
and is peculiarly ΜῊΝ riate for describing 
the long delayed but textile growth of the 
Christian Church, of which she was the 
typical mother. 

Ver. 29. ἐδίωκεν. This imperfect de- 
notes a tendency and disposition rather 
than actual persecution on the part of 
Ishmael. The nearest ae ain to it 
recorded is in fact his mockery of Isaac 
on the occasion of his weaning (Gen. 
xxi. g). The LXX gives a different 
version of his conduct on that occasion, 


26—31. Δ, 1. 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


183 


σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκε τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτω καὶ νῦν: 30. ἀλλὰ 


τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; Ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν 


αὐτῆς" οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσῃ ὃ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης 


μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. 


31. Διό, ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας 


V. 1. TH} ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς 2 Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσε - στήκετε 8 οὖν καὶ 


1 τῇ ελευθεριᾳ NABCDP; τῃ ελ. ουν C°KL; τῃ ελ. ῃ DSEKL; ῃ ελ. FG. 
ημας Χρ. NABDEFGP 17, etc.; Χρ. ηµας ΝΕΟΚΙ., 
ὅστηκετε ουν NABCFGP 17, etc.; om. ουν DEKL. 


which is accepted in the margin of the 
Revised Version, and seems more in 
harmony with the circumstances, viz., 
that he was playing with the child, 
bearing himself in short as an elder 
brother in the family, and that the 
jealousy of Sarah was aroused lest he 
should claim an elder brother’s share of 
the inheritance. But the Apostle adopts 
the traditional view of his conduct which 
was accepted by the Jews, in conse- 
quence perhaps of the subsequent feud 
between the two races; and discovers in 
Ishmael the same jealous temper that 
was exhibited by Jewish persecutors 
towards the infant Church. 

Ver. 30. Again, the expulsion of 
Ishmael gives warning that those who 
observe the letter of the Law only, and 
lack the true spirit of sonship, though 
they render formal obedience to the will 
of the Father, have no abiding inheritance 
in His house. 

CHAPTERS IV. 31—V. 12. FREEDOM 
IS OUR BIRTHRIGHT IN CHRIST AND AN 
ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF OUR CALL. 
ACCORDINGLY THE APOSTLE PROTESTS 
AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT ALL CHRIS- 
TIANS SHOULD BE CIRCUMCISED, AS A 
DEPARTURE FROM THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, 
A DANGEROUS INNOVATION WHICH THE 
CHURCHES WILL CERTAINLY CONDEMN, 
AND A SUPERSTITION OF THE FLESH ON 
A PAR WITH THE GROSSEST HEATHEN 
SUPERSTITIONS.—Ver. 31. The preced- 
ing allegory has illustrated the essential 
difference between the heritage of Jews 
and Christians. Whereas Jews inherit 
bondage to Law, freedom is the Christian 
birthright, derived from their heavenly 
mother. The Apostle now proceeds to 
enforce the truth that Christ bestowed 
this freedom upon us, and that it is an 
essential principle of our call. 

CHAPTER V.—Ver. 1. In the original 
text, which I have adopted in accord- 
ance with the best MS. authority, the 
first clause of this verse is clearly de- 


tached from the second στήκετε οὖν, 
and attached to the preceding ἀλλὰ 
τῆς ἐλευθέρας without any connecting 
particle. But this primary connection 
with the preceding verse was apparently 
obscured at an early period of Church 
history, owing probably to the frequent 
use of the important section v. 1 ff. asa 
Church lesson by itself apart from the 
preceding allegory. It is difficult other- 
wise to account for the reat variety of 
connecting particles c.oployed in MS. 
versions and quotations to transform the 
fragment τῇ ἐλευθ. ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς Hrevd. 
into a complete sentence, e.g., the ad- 
dition of 7, οὖν, or γάρ, and the omission 
of οὖν after στήκετε, all evidently correc- 
tions made with one object. The division 
of chapters has unfortunately perpetuated 
this error. But the removal of the full 
stop after ἐλευθέρας at once restores the 
full force of the original passage: Where- 
fore, brethren, we are not children of a 
handmaid, but Christ set us free with the 
Sreedom of the freewoman. ‘The threefold 
iteration, free, freedom, freewoman, marks 
with expressive emphasis the importance 
of this Christian birthright.—pas Xpic- 
τὸς. The best MSS. place the object 
ἡμᾶς before the subject Χριστός, invert- 
ing the usual order of words. This in- 
version throws an emphasis on ἡμᾶς; as 
the previous context demands; for the 
whole passage forcibly contsasts the free- 
dom granted to us Christians with the 
bondage which the Jews inherit.—py 
πάλιν . . . Converts had all alike, 
whether Jews or Greeks, been under 
bondage to some law, human or divine: 
all had been set free by Christ, but might 
now, by the voluntary adoption of cir- 
cumcision, forfeit this freedom and rivet 
the yoke of Law about their own necks. 

Ver. 2. ἐγὼ. The Apostle finds it 
necessary to express pointedly his own 
personal judgment on the effect of cir- 
cumcision in consequence of false reports 
which had been circulated that he had 


184 


μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


‘v, 


2. ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν, 


. ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε, Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει - 3. μαρτύρομαι 
δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ, ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον 


τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. 


4. κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν 


νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε: 5. ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ 


πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. 


6. ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ 


Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει, οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ πίστις δι᾿ 


ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. 


7. Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς - τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν ἢ 


1ενεκοψεν NABCDEFGKLP; ανεκοψεν rec. 


given some sanction to the new doctrine. 
(See ver. 11.) 

Ver. 3. μαρτύρομαι. This verb, which 
in Attic Greek denotes the calling of wit- 
nesses, is applied in Pauline language to 
the Apostle’s own testimony.—tepirép- 
νησθε, περιτεμνομένγῳ. The use of the 
present tense intimates that the warning 
is not aimed at isolated acts, but at the 
introduction of a systematic practice in- 
volving a virtual transfer of allegiance 
from Christ to the Law. 

Ver. 4. κατηργήθητε. This verb is 
applied with comprehensive force to any 
destruction of growth and life, physical 
or spiritual, beneficial or deleterious. 
Joined with ἀπό it denotes the loss of 
some essential element of life by the 
severance of previous intimate relations, 
¢.g., annulment by death of a wife's obli- 
gations to her husband (Rom. vii. 2), and 
emancipation from the control of the Law 
by spiritual death (Rom. vii. 6). Here, 
in like manner, it denotes the paralysis 
of spiritual life by severance of union 
with Christ. This paralysis produces a 
deadening effect on the whole spiritual 
nature, and results in the continuous 
craving for legal justification which is 
expressed by δικαιοῦσθε. --- ἐξεπέσατε. 
Α5 the | aged κυσίν verb ἐκπίπτειν 
corresponds to the active verb ἐκβάλ- 
λειν, this aorist corresponds to ἔκβαλε 
in iv. 30; so that the combination of 
κατηργήθητε with ἐξεπέσατε contains a 
special allusion to the doom of Ishmael, 
who suffered the loss of his inheritance 
at the same time that he was cast out 
from his father’s house. Disloyal chil- 
dren of God, who prefer bondage to 
filial freedom, have ιν their own act 
forfeited the birthright of sons, and been 
cast out from His favour and blessing. 

Ver. 5. πνεύματι. In the absence of 
an article this dative must have an ad- 
verbial force, and should be rendered in 
spirit. The Holy Spirit is uniformly 

esignated τὸ Πνεῦμα. --- ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. 


This verb expresses eager expectation 
rather than the attitude of patient wait- 
ing attributed to it in our versions. True 
faith in Christ inspires a confident hope 
of acceptance (δικαιοσύνης) before God. 

Ver. 6. Circumcision conveyed no 
spiritual blessing in return for its bind- 
ing pledge of obedience to the Law. 
In 1 Cor. vii. 17-22 it is placed in the 
same category as marriage and slavery, 
outward conditions of life which are 
neither good nor evil in themselves, but 
are the appointed portion of some, who 
should therefore loyally accept the burden 
or the blessing. Paul not only paid due 
respect to the Law himself, but even cir- 
cumcised Timothy, when he desired to 
take him with him as his minister in 
Christ amidst Jews, that he might avoid 
needless offence. But he warned his dis- 
ciples at the same time that in resorting to 
it for salvation they were really denying 
the faith, and forfeiting their birthright 
of Christian freedom.—8v ἀγάπης. The 
rendering of our versions by or through 
love confuses faith with love, as though 
faith was the result of love or worked 
through its instrumentality. But the 
clause really describes a combination of 
two distinct graces: there may be intense 
faith without love (cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 2); but 
faith ought to work in love, {.ε., in a 
spirit of love. Love is the atmosphere 
amid which faith should put forth its 
energy. This force of διά has been 
already noted in the case of διὰ νό 
(ii, 19).—évepyoupévyn. The middle voice 
is here employed to describe the inner 
working of the spirit of man, the active 
is used for recording God's work for man 
in ii. 8. 

Ver.7. ἐνέκοψεν. The figure ofa race, 
introduced by ἐτρέχετε, is here carried on. 
Hitherto they had run a smooth course 
of obedience to truth; who had thrown 
obstacles in their way ? 

Ver. 8. It was God who called Abra- 
ham, Moses, Samuel and the prophets of 


2--.13, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


185 


ἀληθείᾳ 1 μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8. ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς. 


9. Μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα Lupot. 


το. ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν 
γ pb 


Κυρίῳ, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε: ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει 


τὸ κρῖμα, ὅστις ἂν ἡ. 


11. ἐγὼ δὲ, ἀδελφοὶ, εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι 
yf , 2 ριτομῇ 


κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; dpa κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ 


σταυροῦ ; 12. ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. 


13. Ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, ἀδελφοί μόνον μὴ τὴν 
ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκὶ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε 


1αληθειᾳ SAB; τῃαλ. CDEFGKL, 


old and was now calling the Galatians 
through the Gospel of which Paul was 
minister, but this new persuasion was no 
true gospel, and did not come forth from 
Him. 

Ver. g. Leaven became a type of 
moral and spiritual corruption in virtue 
of the fermentation it engenders. A very 
small lump might readily form a centre 
of widespread corruption; so stringent 
precautions were adopted in Jewish 
households for the removal of every 
particle before the days of unleavened 
bread. Hence the origin of the proverb 
quoted here and in 1 Cor. v. 6. It is 
clear that the taint of heresy had not 
yet spread widely through the Galatian 
Churches; it was more its insidious na- 
ture than its actual extent that alarmed 
the Apostle. 

Ver.10. The emphatic ἐγώ with which 
this verse opens reminds the converts of 
the Apostle’s personal claims in the Lord 
on their allegiance. He reckons with 
confidence on their support in pronounc- 
ing the judgment of their church on any 
who may disregard this warning. Every 
offender shall bear his own responsibility, 
whoever he may be. 

Ver. 11. It seems strange in view of 
Paul’s later career that he should have 
needed to repudiate, however briefly and 
scornfully, the charge of still preaching 
circumcision as he had before his con- 
version. After his open breach with the 
synagogue, indeed, at Corinth and at 
Ephesus it would have been hardly pos- 
sible to advance such a plea. But he had 
recently, before writing this Epistle, taken 
two steps open to this misconstruction on 
which agitators could fasten. He had 
deposited with the Galatians for their 
guidance the resolution adopted by the 
Church at Jerusalem which recommended 
scrupulous regard for the Law in certain 
matters, and he had himself circumcised 
a Galatian convert whose father had been 


a Greek. Paul contents himself with 
pointing for answer to the persecutions 
which he was still enduring at the hands 
of Jews, probably those which befel him 
in Macedonia.—apa. The interrogative 
ἄρα is far more appropriate to the context 
than the inferential dpa. The Apostle, 
being accused of currying favour with 
the Jews, points indignantly to the per- 
secutions he was suffering from them and 
exclaims, ‘‘ Hath the stumbling-block of 
the Cross been done away?” 

Ver. 12. ὄφελον. This adverb occurs 
also in x Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1, Rev. 
iii. 15. In all three places it expresses 
dissatisfaction with the actual position, 
““ Would that it were otherwise”. But 
it acquires this force from its combination 
with past tenses, like the aorist ὥφελον 
in Attic Greek, When coupled however 
with a future as it is here, it does not 
express a wish, but like the future of 
ὀφείλειν declares what ought to be the 
logical outcome of the present. The 
clause predicts in bitter irony to what 
final consummation this superstitious 
worship of circumcision must lead. Men 
who exalt an ordinance of the flesh above 
the spirit of Christ will be bound in the 
end to proceed to mutilation of the flesh 
like heathen votaries. — ἀποκόψονται. 
This word was habitually used to de- 
scribe the practice of mutilation which 
was so prevalent in the Phrygian wor- 
ship of Cybele. The Galatians were 
necessarily familiar with it, and it can 
hardly bear any other sense.—davacra- 
τοῦντες. This word forcibly expresses 
the revolutionary character of the agita- 
tion which was upsetting the peace and 
order of the Galatian Churches. It is 
used in Acts xvii. 6, xxi. 38 to denounce 
seditious and riotous conduct. 

Vv. 13-15. FREEDOM IS AN ESSENTIAL 
ELEMENT OF CHRISTIAN LIFE, TO BE 
USED NOT FOR SELF-INDULGENCE, BUT 
FOR WILLING SERVICE TO THE LAW OF 


186 


ἀλλήλοις. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


ν. 


14. Ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται,! ἐν τῷ, 


᾽Αγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. 15. εἰ δὲ ἀλλή- 
λους δάκνετε καὶ κατεσθίετε, βλέπετε μὴ ὑπὸ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωθῆτε. 
16. Λέγω δὲ, Πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε, καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ 


τελέσητε. 


17. ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ 


πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός’ ταῦτα γὰρ 8. ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται," ἵνα μὴ 


} πεπλήρωται NABC 17, etc. 


; πληρονται DEFGKLP, 


Ίσεαντον NABCDEK 17; eavrov FGLP. 
ὅταυτα γαρ NBD'EFG 17; ταντα δε ΝΑΟΙ ΚΙ Ρ 
6αλλ. αντικ. ABCDEFG; αντικ. αλλ. ΝΚΙ.Ρ. 


Love.—Ver. 13. ἐπ᾿ ἐλευθερίᾳ. Our 
versions render this unto (for R.V.) 
freedom, as though it were the design of 
the Gospel to lead to freedom. But the 
Greek text affirms rather that God's call 
was based upon freedom, and so makes 
it an essential element in spiritual life 
and the inalienable right of every true 
Christian.—pévov μὴ. A warning is 
added that freedom, essential as it 15 to 
spiritual life, is open to abuse by carnal 
men, and that it is subject to the demands 
of the higher Law of mutual love. “ Only 
do not treat it as an opening for carnal 
self-indulgence, but for loving service to 
each other.” μόνον is used in the same 
elliptical way in ii. 10 and 2 Thess. ii. 7; 
and the ellipsis of the verb after μή is 
common in rhetorical passages.—adop- 
μήν. This term was applied in military 
language to a base of operations, and 
gencrally to any starting-point for action. 
In Rom. vii. 8, 11, 2 Cor. xi. 12 it denotes 
an opening for sin, as it does here.— 
δουλεύετε. This injunction contains an 
instructive paradox. Christians are freed 
from the trammels of outward Law, not 
that they may please themselves, but 
that they may become slaves to the Law 
of mutual love. The true ideal of the 
Christian is not freedom, but unfettered 
service to the love of God and man, which 
annihilates self, and subordinates all 
selfish desires to perfect love. A similar 
paradox is found in 1 Cor. vii. 22, he that 
was called, being free, is the bondservant 
of Christ. 


Ver. 14. πεπλή MS. authority 
is decisive in favour of this perfect against 
the present πληροῦται. The perfect is 


likewise adopted in the parallel passage 
Rom. xiii. 8, ὁ ἀγαπῶν νόμον πεπλήρω- 
κεν. For the very existence of love in the 
heart attests the completion ofa μας 
inward act of the will.—év ἑνὶ λόγῳ. 
The single precept which follows em- 
bodies in itself the whole duty to man, 


- τὸν πλησίον. The language of Lev. 
xix, 18 is here invested with the compre- 
hensive force which Christ attached to 
the word neighbour by his teaching. 

Ver. 15. If the spirit of mutual love 
does not prevent Christian brethren from 
preying on one another, they are in 
danger of utter destruction. 

Vv. 16-24. MEN WHO REGULATE THEIR 
LIVES BY THE SPIRIT WILL NOT CARRY 
OUT DESIRES OF THE FLESH. For Gop 
HAS SET THESE TWO FORCES IN MUTUAL 
ANTAGONISM WITHIN OUR HEARTS FOR 
THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KEEPING DUE 
CHECK UPON THE WILL. SO IF YE BE 
GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT, YE ARE NOT SUB- 
jecT TO LAW: FOR THE SPIRIT MASTERS 
UNLAWFUL LUSTS BEFORE THEY ISSUE 
IN ACTION: AND ITS FRUITS ARE SUCH 
AS NO LaW CAN CONDEMN.—Ver. 16. 
Πνεύματι περιπ.: Walk by the spirit, 
i.e., Regulate your lives by the rule of 
the spirit. You will not then fulfil 
the desire of the flesh, 

Ver. 17. σὰρξ . . . πνεῦμα. All the 
various motives which operate on the 
mind and will to prompt intention and 
action are comprehended under one of 
the two categories, spirit and flesh. The 
line of division between them corresponds 
to that drawn in 1 Cor. ii. τή between the 
natural man {ψυχικός) and the spiritual. 
The spirit of man owes its original 
existence to the quickening inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit, and depends for its 
continued life on the constant supply of 
his life-giving power: its impulses are 
therefore purely spiritual. In the term 
flesh are included all other desires of the 
natural man, not only the appetites and 
passions which he inherits in common 
with the animal creation, but all the 
desires that he conceives for the satis- 
faction of heart or mind. — ἐπιθυμεῖ. 
This is a neutral term equally applicable 
to the good desires of the spirit and the 
evil lusts of the flesh. ἀντίκειται GAA. 


14--:ἀτϊ. 


ἃ ἂν θέλητε, ταῦτα ποιῆτε. 
ὑπὸ νόμον. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


18. εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ 
19. φανερὰ δέ ἐστι τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκὸς, ἅτινά 


ἐστι πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, 20. εἰδωλολατρεία, φαρμακεία, 
ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοὶ, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21. 
φθόνοι,3 φόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις - ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν, 
καθὼς προεῖπον, ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ 


Ἱερις SABD!'; ερες CD°EFGKLP. 
Ξζηλος BDEFGP 17; ζηλοι ΝΟΡ)ΚΙ.. 
5 Insert φονοι ACDEFGKLP after φθονοι ; om. NB 17, εἴς, 


ἵνα. After the coexistence of two con- 
flicting forces, spirit and flesh, in the 
heart of man has been definitely affirmed, 
it is here added that these are set (sc. by 
divine appointment) in mutual antago- 
nism to each other for the express purpose 
of due control over the human will. 
Both alike derive their being from the 
same Creator, though one belongs to the 
natural, the other to the spiritual, creation: 
both alike continue by His will to fulfil 
their several parts in the scheme of 
Christian life. It is beside the purpose 
of the Epistle to analyse the functions 
of the flesh in the economy of nature, 
or to affirm the absolute dependence of 
the human will on the spontaneous action 
of its desires for vital force and energy: 
enough that by the will of God they too 
form an essential element in Christian life: 
the Epistle deals not with their beneficial 
action, but with their liability to perver- 
sion. For their indiscriminate craving 
for indulgence renders them constantly 
liable to become ministers of sin. The 
mind of the flesh, if left without a check, 
issues in enmity to God and death (cf. 
Rom. viii. 6, 7). Wholesome restraint 
is therefore a condition essential to their 
healthy action. In every community 
this is to a certain extent provided by the 
discipline of education, by social order 
and law. But in true Christians a far 
more effective control is maintained by 
the spirit, since it is capable of combating 
every wrong desire within the heart before 
it issues in sinful action, and so by 
constantly checking any wrong indul- 
gence it gradually neutralises the power 
of selfish appetites, and establishes an 
habitual supremacy over the whole mind 
and will, until in the ideal Christian it 
brings them into perfect harmony with 
the mind of Christ. 

Ver. 18. Law finds no just occasion 
against men who are led by the spirit, 
for they themselves check every wrong 
Gesire within them, and so fulfil the 


whole Law. The identity of Law with 
justice and right is, of course, assumed. 

Ver. 19. Though this verse enume- 
rates only evil works of the flesh, it is 
not thereby suggested that its action is 
wholly evil; for the flesh has been shown 
to have its appointed function from God, 
and to be essential to the human will. 
The opening ἅτινα puts the following 
catalogue of crimes and vices in its true 
light as samples, produced by way of 
specimen of the evil effects wrought by 
excessive indulgence of natural appetites 
without due control, and not an exhaus- 
tive list of the works of the flesh, as the 
rendering which, in our versions, rather 
suggests. The list begins and ends with 
sensual vices due to the lower animal 
nature; it couples idolatry with its ha- 
bitual ally sorcery: in specifying the 
various quarrels between man and man 
it adds two διχοστασίαι and αἱρέσεις to 
the corresponding list in 2 Cor. xii. 20, 
perhaps owing to the prevalence of 
religious dissensions in the Galatian 
churches.—acéAyeva. This term, which 
in classical Greek expresses insolent con- 
tempt for public opinion, denotes in the 
N.T. shameless outrages οπ public 
decency—a fit climax to fornication and 
uncleanness. 

Ver. 20. ζῆλος. See note on iv. 17.— 
ἐριθίαι. The apparent derivation of this 
word from ἔριθος (a hireling) points to 
mercenary motives. The Apostle else- 
where associates it with jealousy, envy 
and vainglory, and contrasts it with sin- 
cerity, union and love. It denotes, pro- 
bably, selfish intrigues.—aipéoets. This 
term is used in the N.T. to designate any 
religious sect or party, é.g., the Pharisees, 
Sadducees, Nazarenes (as the Jews desig- 
nated Christians). 

Ver. 21. προεῖπον. No particular 
admonition is here specified: warnings 
against these sins had, of course, formed 
the staple of many former discourses. 

The Epistle has already claimed for 


188 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


Vv. 22---26. 


κληρονομήσουσιν. 22. ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη, 
χαρὰ, εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία, χρηστότης, ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις, 23. πραύ- 


της, ἐγκράτεια " κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστι νόμος. 


24. οἱ δὲ τοῦ 


Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 1 τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασι καὶ ταῖς 


ἐπιθυμίαις. 


25. Εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν. 


26. 


μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦν- 


τες. 


VI. 1. ᾿Αδελφοὶ, ἐὰν καὶ προληφθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἔν τινι παρα- 


πτώματι, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι 


1 Xp. Ιησον NABCP 17, εἴς. ; om. ἰησον DEFGKL. 


Christians the inheritance of sons. That 
this inheritance included a kingdom 
needed no proof; for the conception of a 
Messianic kingdom ran through Hebrew 
prophecy and covered the whole range 
of Gospel teaching. 

Ver. 22. Since the object of this verse 
is to exhibit the harmony between the 
fruit of the spirit and the restraints of 
law, those qualities only are specified 
which affect man’s duty to his neighbour, 
Love with its unfailing attendants, inward 
joy and peace, supplies the motive power ; 
.. in the face of wrongs and 
ill-treatment, kindness in rendering ser- 
vice to others, and goodness in the free 
bestowal of bounty on those who need, 
cannot fail to gain goodwill; good faith, 
meckness, self-control enlist confidence 
and τεβρεςί.---πίστις. It is clear from 
the subordinate place here assigned to 
- πίστις that it does not here denote the 
cardinal grace of faith in God which is 
the very root of all religion, but rather 
good faith in dealings with men, and due 
regard to their just claims. 

Ver. 23. πραύτης: Meekness is the 
outcome of true humility, the bearing 
towards others which results from a 
lowly estimate of ourselves.—¢yxpdareca : 
Self-control comprehends every form of 
temperance, and includes the mastery of 
all appetites, tempers and passions. 

Ver. 24. ἐσταύρωσαν. The Apostle 
has already traced back his own spiritual 
life to the fellowship with the crucifixion 
of Christ, which he had undergone at his 
conversion (ii. 20). He assumes that his 
converts have likewise crucified the will 
of the flesh—not, however (as the pre- 
vious context shows), that that will is 
already dead, but that the spirit has by 
one decisive victory asserted its complete 
supremacy in all true Christians, and so 
given an earnest of its entire triumph in 
the επὰ.-- παθήμασιν. This word de- 
parts here from its usual meaning, suf- 
ferings, and expresses inward emotions, 


as in Rom. vii. 5. Greek philosophers 
applied πάθος in like manner to denote 
active impulses of passion. 

CHAPTER V. 25.—VI. 6. RULES oF 
CONDUCT DICTATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 
Μύτυλι, Love.—Ver. 25. Here, as in 
ii, 20, the thought of crucifixion with 
Christ suggests that of the new life which 
is its sequel. 17}, then, we live in spirit 
(i.e., if we have spiritual life), let us 
take the spirit for the rule to guide our 
conduct. 

Ver. 26. The English version pro- 
voking introduces an idea of wanton 
rovocation which does not belong to the 

atin provocantes, nor to the Greek προ- 
καλούμενοι, for this denotes challenges 
to combat, and so describes the spirit of de- 
fiance which animated rival parties amid 
the heated atmosphere of religious con- 
troversy. The verse denounces the vain- 

lorious temper of party leaders which 
ound vent in mutual defiance and ill-will. 

Ver. 1. ᾿Αδελφοὶ. The last verse pro- 
tested against unbrotherly tempers; this 
appeal presents, by way οἱ contrast, the 
claims of brotherly love even in the case 
of real wrongdoing. —xal προλ ἢ- 
The English version ena ἐξ ες οὴ ee 
the idea of sudden temptation, and so 
tends to palliate the guilt of the offender, 
but the Greek denotes rather his surprise 
in the very act, and so lays stress on 
the reality of his guilt. The passage is 
urging the tender treatment of actual 
offenders, and the preceding καί enforces 
the claims even of guilty brethren on 
Christian charity: ‘ Brethren, if a man 
be actually detected . . . deal tenderly 
with him in a spirit of meekness.”— 
καταρτίζετε. This verb denotes some- 
times the original framing of a mechanism 
(e.g of the human body and of the 
universe in Heb. x. 5, xi. 3), but more 
often its readjustment (¢.g., the setting 
of a broken limb, or the mending of nets 
in Matt. iv. 21). Here it indicates the 
correction of an offender with a view to 


VI. I--7. 


ΠΡΟΣ TAAATAS 


189 


πραύτητος, σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν μὴ Kal σὺ πειρασθῇς: 2. ἀλλήλων τὰ 
βάρη βαστάζετε, καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσατε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
3. εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὧν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτὸν 1: 4. τὸ 


δὲ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω ἕκαστος, καὶ τότε εἰς ἑαυτὸν μόνον τὸ 


καύχημα ἕξει, καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἕτερον" 5. ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον 


φορτίον βαστάσει. 
κατηχοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς. 


6. Κοινωνείτω δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον τῷ 
7. μὴ πλανᾶσθε, Θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρί- 


“ 1 dpevarrarg ε. SABC 17, etc.; eavtov bp. DEFGKLP, 


his restoration; and the need of meekness 
and forbearance for the due execution of 
this delicate task is enforced. 

The transition from the plural καταρτί- 
ἵετε to the singular σκοπῶν is instructive. 
The treatment of offenders belonged to 
the Church collectively, but each member 
needed to examine himself individually, 
in order that he might fulfil his part with 
due humility and sympathy. 

Ver. 2. βαστάζετε. From its original 
sense of taking up, this verb acquires the 
most various meanings, ¢.g., carvying in 
Matt. xx. 12, ministration in Matt. ili. 11, 
vobbery in John xii. 6. Here it signifies 
lending a hand to help by lifting heavy 
loads. This does not involve transference 
of the burden, for it is said in 2 Cor. viii. 
13, I mean not that other men be eased 
and ye burdened : and in ver. 5 itis added 
that each will have his own pack to bear ; 
but Christian love must ever be careful to 
relieve each in turn when overtaxed by 
crushing loads. 

Vv. 3-5. Any conceit of our own 
strength or goodness is a vain delusion, 
for we are nothing. Let no man com- 
pare his own with others’ work: this 
will only feed his vanity; but let each 
scrutinise his own work. Then, if he 
find there ground for rejoicing, it will be 
in the ability that has been given by God’s 
grace to sucha oneas he is: for each will 
have his own burden to bear of conscious 
guilt and shame. 

Ver. 4. τὸν ἕτερον. This phrase de- 
notes originally the other of two persons, 

but in this connexion another than self, 
' the world being classified under two heads 
—self and not self, so that any other man 
with whom we are brought into contact 
belongs to the second division. 

Ver. 5. φορτίον. This word was 
applied to the pack usually carried by a 
porter or a soldier on the march. In 
Matt. xi. 30 Christ employs this figure 
to describe the burden which he lays on 
each of his disciples (τὸ φορτίον pov), 


‘ 


and here it denotes the regular daily bur- 
den laid on Christians, It is necessary 
to distinguish this from the heavy loads 
(βάρη) to which ver. 2 refers as needing 
the help of Christian brethren for the 
relief of overtaxed carriers. 

Ver. 6. Let him that is taught share 
with him that teacheth. The word 
κοινωνεῖν contains the key to the true 
meaning of this verse. Our versions 
understand it here, and in Rom. xii. 13, 
Phil. iv. 15, in the sense of communicat- 
ing to others ; but I can find no warrant 
for this in Greek usage. In Rom. xv. 27 
it signifies distinctly to receive a share, 
and elsewhere to become a partner 
(κοινωνὸς γενέσθαι) and share in com- 
mon with others (1 Tim. v. 22, 1 Pet. 
iv. 13, 2 John 11, Heb. ii. 14). Here in 
like manner it enjoins upon the leaders 
of the Churches the duty of admitting 
all the members to participation in any 
spiritual blessings they enjoy. It con- 
tinues, in fact, the protest against the 
arrogant pretensions and selfish exclusive- 
ness of Judaising leaders.—ayaQots. It 
is impossible to restrict this word to mere 
worldly goods, except where the language 
of the context suggests or warrants such 
a restriction, as is the case in Luke xii. 
18, xvi. 25. The language here points 
to the blessings of Christian faith and 
doctrine. —Katrnxotpevos. Oral teach- 
ing is specified because it was the only 
form of instruction then existing in the 
Churches. 

Vv. 7-10. Gop’s JUDGMENT IS UN- 
ERRING. THOSE WHO SOW EITHER TO 
THE FLESH OR TO THE SPIRIT SHALL 
ALIKE REAP THE HARVEST FOR WHICH 
THEY HAVE SOWN. BUT FAINT NOT IN 
WELLDOING, FOR WE SHALL IN DUE TIME 
REAP LIFE ETERNAL.—Ver. 7. μυκ- 
τηρίζεται. From its original sense of 
sneer this verb was applied in rhetorical 
language to the betrayal of covert ill-will 
and contempt by cynical gestures in spite 
of fair words. There can be no double- 


190 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


VL 


ζεται" ὃ γὰρ ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο καὶ θερίσει 8. ὅτι ὁ 
σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν " ὁ δὲ 
σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 9. 
τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν - καιρῷ γὰρ ἰδίῳ θερίσομεν, 


μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι. 


10, ἄρα οὖν ὡς καιρὸν ἔχομεν, ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ 


ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως. 


11. Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί. 


12. 


ὅσοι θέλουσιν εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκὶ, οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς 
περιτέμνεσθαι, μόνον ἵνα τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ pi’ διώκωνται. 


1 μη after Χριστον KABCDEF 17, εἴς. ; after wa FGKL. 


dealing with God, for He knows all the 
thoughts and intents of the heart. 

Ver. 8. Every action produces an 
effect on the character of the actor cor- 
responding as exactly to its motive as 
the fruit to the seed. If it springs from 
selfish desire, it stimulates the growth of 
evil lusts, and issues in a harvest of in- 
ward corruption. If, on the contrary, it 
be done in obedience to the spirit, it 
quickens spiritual growth, and issues 
eventually in a harvest of eternal life. 
The heart of man resembles a field in 
which he sows, by the mere exercise of 
his will, a future harvest of good or evil. 

Ver. 9. The warnings μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν 
and μὴ ἐκλνόμενοι Carry on figures bor- 
rowed from harvest work: the former 
depicts husbandmen tempted to slacken 
their exertions by weariness of prolonged 
labour, the latter reapers overcome by 
heat and toil. 

Ver. 10. καιρὸν. The last verse 
affirmed that there is a due season for 
the spiritual harvest as well as the 
earthly; the same analogy suggests the 
existence of a spiritual seedtime also, 
which we are bound to utilise. — τὸ 
ἀγαθὸν. This word varies widely in 
meaning, like good in English; it is 
applied both to the intrinsic goodness 
of God Himself (Matt. xix. 17), and to 
the mere manifestation of a kindly tem- 
per towards others. So also its com- 
pounds ἀγαθοποιεῖν, ἀγαθουργεῖν. The 
clause πρὸς πάντας attaches to it here the 
latter force : so that the goodness spoken 
of is goodness to others.—r. οἰκείους. 
Christians are here designated as the 
household of the faith, and in Eph. ii. 19 
as the household of God. 

Vv. 11-18. THE APOSTLE WRITES 
THE PERORATION WITH HIS OWN HAND, 
DENOUNCING THE MOTIVES OF THE 
PHARISAIC PARTY. AFFIRMING HIS OWN 


ABSOLUTE RELIANCE ON THE CROSS AND 
THE NEW LIFE OF THE SPIRIT, AND CON- 
CLUDING WITH A PERSONAL APPEAL AND 
ΕΙΝΑΙ, BLESSING.—Ver. 11. The Greek 
text admits but one meaning. The use 
of the instrumental dative precludes the 
rendering, See how large a letter I write, 
which would require πηλίκα γράμματα: 
so that the verse obviously calls attention 
to the large letters employed by the writer 
from this point onwards. The statement 
in 2 Thess. iii. 17, that he regularly dic- 
tated the body of his Epistles (cf. also 
Rom, xvi. 22), merely attaching his sig- 
nature by way of attestation, explains 
this appeal. The size of the letters 
attested the difficulty which he found in 
writing with his imperfect sight, and the 
effort he was now making on their behalf 
proved his anxiety for the welfare of his 
Galatian disciples. They were evidently 
well aware of his infirmity, and needed 
no explanation of this pathetic allusion 
to his blindness. It may, therefore, be 
reasonably read in connexion with iv. 
15. Probably the prolonged attack of 
ophthalmia which had threatened the 
destruction of his sight had seriously 
impaired it, and they who had watched 
his sufferings with such tender sympathy 
would now be quick to feel for the priva- 
tion which the attack had entailed u 
him. ἔγραψα: I write. The epistolary 
aorist is constantly used to denote per- 
sonal acts of the writer at the time (2 
Cor. ix. 3, Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8, Philem. 
19, 21). 

Vv. 12,13. Paul impugns the sincerity 
of the agitators: their affected zeal for 
the Law was a pretext with a view to 
disarming Jewish enmity: they urged 
the circumcision of Gentiles also to grati 
their own vanity. They had probably, 
like the Jewish Christians at Antioch 
(cf. ii. 13), been guilty of inconsistency 


8—16. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 


Ι9Ι 


13. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν - ἀλλὰ 
θέλουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι, ἵνα ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκὶ καυχήσωνται. 
14. ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Κυρίου 
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: δι οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, κἀγὼ τῷ 


κόσμῳ. 
ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. 


> ‘ x A Ἰ A 34 ιτο , » 1 ” 

15. ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἔστιν,ὶ οὔτε 
Ἀ ϱ » , 

16. kal ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ 


στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ 


τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


1εστιν SABCDEFG 17, εἴς. ; ισχνει ΝΕΡεΚΙ,Ρ, 


in their practice: but Paul apparently 
relies also on his argument in ii. 16 that 
Jewish converts had by the mere act of 
embracing Christ confessed their own 
inability to keep the Law, and could not 
therefore be sincere in preaching to others 
obedience to its rules.— 16 σταυρῷ. This 
dative cannot surely mean for (i.e., by 
reason of) the cross. If this had been the 
meaning, it would have been expressed by 
διὰ τὸν σταυρόν. The correct translation 
seems to be, persecuted with the cross, 1.6., 
the cross of outward suffering which was 
in those days the lot of so many converted 
Jews, and notably of Paul himself. The 
Cross of Christ is here identified with per- 
secution as it is in Phil iii. 18 with self- 
denial. 

Ver.13. περιτεμνόμενοι. The present 
participle is more appropriate than the 
perfect περιτετμημένοι, which is read by 
some MSS.: for the author has in mind 
the adoption of a system, as in v. 3. 

Ver. 14. Paul contrasts his own spirit 
with that which his rivals are manifesting. 
They are animated by selfish desires to 
glory over the flesh of others, he will 
glory only in the triumph of the cross 
over his own flesh, whereby the power 
of the world over him, and his carnal love 
of the world, are both done away. 

Ver. 15. Circumcision is again de- 
clared, as in v. 6, to be a mere accident 
of outward circumstance and of no spirit- 
ual import: faith working in love was 
there pronounced essential for Christian 
life, and here a new creation, the birth of 
the spirit in the heart of man. 

Ver. 16. κανόνι. Men need a rule to 
guide their lives as the surveyor or the 
carpenter for the right adjustment of his 
work. This rule was supplied to the 
Jew by the Law in a code of morals, but 
the Spirit quickens in Christians a new 
life whereby the conscience is enlightened 
to discern good and evil for the regula- 
tion of their lives.-—Kal ἐς) τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ: 


yea upon the Israel of God. καί is not 
properly copulative here, but intensive. 
Those who walk by the rule of the Spirit 
are declared to be indeed the true Israel 
of God, not the Jews who have the name 
of Israel, but are really only children of 
Abraham after the flesh. 

Ver.17. τοῦ λοιποῦ... In depreca- 
ting any renewal of the present agitation 
Paul treats with contempt the prospect of 
serious danger from it. It had disturbed 
his peace and the peace of the Church, 
and must be got rid of, but he describes 
it aS a wearisome annoyance rather than 
a real ρετῖ].---στίγµατα. These were in- 
delible marks branded on the flesh. They 
might be self-inflicted: instances are re- 
corded of soldiers branding themselves 
with the name of their general in token 
of their absolute devotion to his cause. 
But they were as a rule inflicted for a 
badge of lifelong service; the figure in 
the text is borrowed from the latter, which 
were either penal or sacred. The penal 
were stamped on malefactors, runaway 
slaves, sometimes on captives; but it is 
clear from the context that the author has 
in mind the στίγματα ἱρά mentioned by 
Herodotus in ii., 113, with which the 
Galatians also were familiar in Phrygian 
temples. A class of slaves (ἱερόδουλοι) 
attached for life to the service of a temple 
were branded with the name of the deity. 
Paul likens himself to these in respect of 
his lifelong dedication to the name of 
Jesus, and of the marks imprinted on 
his body, by which he was sealed for a 
servant of Jesus in perpetuity. These 
were doubtless the scars left by Jewish 
scourging, by the stones of Lystra and 
the Roman rods at Philippi, all tokens of 
faithful service to his Master in which he 
gloried. 

Ver. 18. μετὰ τ. πνεύματος. This 
form of the final blessing occurs also in 
2 Tim. iv. 22 and Philemon 25, but not 
elsewhere: it was probably suggested 


192 ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ VI. 17—18. 


17. Τοῦ λοιποῦ, κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω - ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγ- 
ματα τοῦ Κυρίου ‘Ingod’ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω. 18. Ἡ χάρις 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί. 
ἀμήν" 

Πρὸς Γαλάτας. 2 


Ingov ABC! 17; Κνριον Ιησον ΟΠ ἘΚΙ, ; Κ. I. Χριστου WY. 


*mpos Ύαλατας SABC 6, 17, 135; add ετελεσθη FG; add επληρωθη DE; add 
«γραφη απο Ρωμης KP 47. 


here by the stress laid on the life of the oldest MSS. stamps it as an addition of 
Spirit in the Epistle. later date. The Epistle was evidently 

The subscription ἀπὸ Ρώμης is neither written before the Roman captivity (see 
genuine nor correct, Its a in the Introduction, pp. 144-7). 


APPENDIX A, 
PAULINE CHRONOLOGY. 


Tue Apostolic Council forms a central landmark in the Christian 
life of Paul between his conversion and his Roman imprisonment, 
dividing the interval into two unequal portions. The length of the 
earlier is computed in Gal. ii. 1 at fourteen years; but this may not 
imply a total of more than thirteen; for the broken years at the 
beginning and end are both included separately in that total. The 
three first of these were spent in Damascus, except a brief sojourn 
in Arabia, according to Gal. i. 18: the remainder in or around Tarsus 
and Antioch, with the exception of one brief visit to Jerusalem for 
the conveyance of alms, and a subsequent mission with Barnabas to 
Cyprus and Asia Minor. The visit to Jerusalem was too uneventful to 
call for notice in the Epistle. Its incidental connection with the history 
of Herod Agrippa determines its date: Herod reigned from 41 to 44; 
his persecution of the Church occurred not long before his death, 
and had already begun when the envoys arrived at Jerusalem. The 
joint mission occupied at least two years, probably much more; its 
success established the position of Barnabas and Paul throughout 
the Church as Apostles to the Gentiles, and led to the controversy 
in regard to circumcision which was settled by the Apostolic Council 
at Jerusalem; evidently no long time intervened between its ter- 
mination and the Council. From that time forward the continuous 
narrative of events in the Acts furnishes material for dating approxi- 
mately the successive stages of Paul’s apostolic career. He and 
Barnabas returned at once from Jerusalem to Antioch, and many 
Christians gathered there from Jerusalem, including Peter and 
others whose names are mentioned. The length of their sojourn 
in Antioch and the neighbouring Churches cannot be determined 
with precision, as it is not known at what season the Council took 
place; if at the beginning of winter, they must have remained there 
the whole winter; if near the end, perhaps only a few weeks. In 


either case it is certain that neither Barnabas nor Paul started 
VOL. II, 13 


194 PAULINE CHRONOLOGY 


before spring, for the navigation of the Levant and the passes of 
Mount Taurus between Cilicia and Galatia were alike closed in 
winter to ordinary travellers. The amount of time spent in the 
second visit to the Galatian Churches, in Macedonia, at Athens, and 
on the way to Corinth, is uncertain, but exceeded half a year at the 
lowest computation, and the Corinthian ministry cannot have fallen 
far short of two years, as it embraced several Sabbaths in*the 
synagogue, eighteen months in the house of Justus, and a further 
indefinite sojourn (yet many days) in the city. It may be presumed, 
as he hastened from Cenchree to Jerusalem to complete his vow 
and keep the feast there, that he arrived before Pentecost, about 
the same season that he departed from Antioch on his travels; so 
that the interval was about three years in all. Another period of 
three years carries on the history to the end of the Ephesian 
ministry ; it includes first a journey from Jerusalem to Ephesus, 
in the course of which he spent some time in Antioch and went 
over all the Galatian country in order, then three months’ ministry 
in the synagogue, and two years in the school of Tyrannus, and ends 
about Pentecost (1 Cor. xvi. 8). Another year brought the Apostle 
to Jerusalem, after visiting the Macedonian and Corinthian Churches, 
His imprisonment—first at Jerusalem, then at Czesarea during the 
last two years of the government of Felix and the first part of the 
rule of Festus, and lastly on the way to Rome—accounts for nearly 
three years more, making a period of ten years in all between his 
departure from Antioch on his second mission-journey and his arrival 
in Rome. 

A valuable clue for determining the date of that event is supplied 
by the history of Felix. His recall took place a short time before 
the departure of Paul from Czsarea. He was followed by a hostile 
deputation from Czsarea complaining of his misgovernment; but 
apparently there had not been time to organise and despatch it 
before navigation closed for the winter, otherwise the Roman Jews 
would have heard of Paul’s appeal to Cesar (c/. Acts xxviii. 21); 
so that Pelix was still awaiting his trial at Rome. Now it is pretty 
certain that Pelix retained the government of Judza for the first 
five years after the accession of Nero, in spite of the disgrace of his 
brother Pallas at the imperial court—as long, in short, as Burrhus 
and Seneca dictated the policy of the empire, and was not recalled 
before 59. In spite of his cruelty and extortion he retained the 
confidence of Burrhus to the last, perhaps by the vigour of his 
government, perhaps from personal motives; and it was probably 
the support of Burrhus even more than the wealth of Pallas which 


PAULINE CHRONOLOGY τος 


secured his acquittal at Rome; for Burrhus procured from the 
emperor, as the result of the enquiry, the disfranchisement of the 
Jewish citizens of Czesarea who had impugned the conduct of Felix, 
and the systematic adoption of a rigorous policy for the repression 
of Jewish sedition. As the death of Burrhus took place in February, 
62, the trial of Felix cannot have been later than 61. I conclude, 
therefore, that his recall took place either in 59 or 60, and that Paul 
reached Rome early in 60 or 61. If Prof. Ramsay is right in his 
contention (Expositor, vol. iii., 1896, p. 336), that the voyage of 
Paul to Palestine took place in 57, this is a decisive confirmation 
of the earlier date. Reckoning back ten years we arrive at the 
spring of 50 or 51 for the date of Paul’s departure with Silas from 
Antioch. If the earlier date be assumed, I take it that the Apostolic 
Council was held some weeks earlier in 50; if the latter be pre- 
ferred, I am disposed to date the Apostolic Council late in 50, and 
to conclude that the winter of 50-51 was spent in Antioch or its 
neighbourhood. Either reckoning leads to the choice of 37 for the 
year of the conversion, according to the computation made in Gal. 
11. 

It is true that most critics favour the adoption of an earlier date 
than 37 for the conversion, but chiefly (as I think) because so little 
is known of the years immediately following the first Pentecost. It 
seems to me, on the contrary, probable that several years of silent 
growth intervened before the disciples were strong enough in their 
faith to establish themselves in Jerusalem and face the persecution 
of the rulers; and I find in the Acts many indications of a consider- 
able interval. But it is enough here to compare the history of 
the first great persecution of the Church, which gave occasion for 
the conversion of Saul, with the particular circumstances of the 
year 37 recorded in Josephus which impress on me the conviction 
that the conversion occurred in that year. The narrative of Acts 
vi.-ix. exhibits a remarkable series of events :— 

1. Stephen was indicted for blasphemy, and after a regular trial 
before the Jewish authorities was condemned by acclamation, carried 
without the walls, and stoned to death in strict accordance with the 
procedure of the Mosaic Law. 

2. This was followed by domiciliary visits to the houses of 
Christians, who were arrested, imprisoned, and condemned to death 
by the Jewish authorities, Saul himself giving his vote against them 
(Acts xxvi. 10). A sudden reign of terror prevailed for a short time 
in Jerusalem; and then ceased as suddenly, leaving the Apostles 
once more free to come and go preaching the faith, 


196 PAULINE CHRONOLOGY 


3. The Sanhedrim were able to give Saul authority to bring 
Christians from the province of Syria outside Judza bound to 
Jerusalem for trial. 

Historians have with some reason questioned the possibility of 
such proceedings as these in a Roman province: for the imperial 
government maintained with the utmost jealousy its exclusive pre- 
rogative of life and death over its subjects throughout the empire ; 
the extreme violence of religious factions made the enforcement of 
this principle more essential in Judza than elsewhere, and the 
repeated but futile efforts of the Sanhedrim to procure the death 
of Paul, first by assassination, then by judicial sentence of the 
Roman governor, exemplify at once their impotence for the in- 
fliction of capital punishment, and the vital importance of Roman 
protection to the Apostolic Church. It is true that one other noted 
Christian, James the brother of the Lord, was stoned to death, like 
Stephen: but that was an isolated act of mob violence during an 
interregnum, instigated by a fanatical high-priest, and promptly 
punished as an outrage on Roman authority. 

The most striking parallel to the trial of Stephen is presented 
by that of his Divine Master. Both alike were found guilty of 
blasphemy, partly on the evidence of witnesses, partly on their 
own confession of faith, But when the Sanhedrim appealed to 
Pilate for confirmation of the sentence, he met the appeal with 
bitter scorn, challenging them in derision of their impotence to 
carry out themselves the sentence of death which they had pre- 
sumed to pronounce upon the prisoner. This was indeed no 
solitary instance of the haughty and arrogant spirit which Pilate 
displayed throughout his administration. Por many years he con- 
tinued to earn the hatred of the Jews by his imperious temper 
and excessive severity. It is utterly incredible that intolerable out- 
rages on Roman authority, like the public stoning of Stephen and 
judicial murders of other Christians at Jerusalem, can have occurred 
under the government of Pilate. Now that government lasted ten 
years, and only came to an end by his deposition in the year 37, 
His removal made way for new rulers and new measures in Judza, 
for the Emperor Tiberius, having then become involved in war 
with Aretas owing to the quarrel between that king and Herod 
Antipas, had commissioned Vitellius proconsul of Syria to lead an 
expedition into Arabia and attack him in his capital Petra. As this 
force had to march across Judza and make it the base of operations, 
Vitellius was invested with supreme authority in that country, 
The support of the Jewish nation became indispensable for his 





PAULINE CHRONOLOGY 197 


success, and Vitellius, a supple and unscrupulous courtier, afterwards 
notorious as the basest sycophant at the imperial court, left no 
stone unturned to win their favour. He at once dismissed Pilate 
in disgrace,! remitted obnoxious taxes, rescinded unpopular regula- 
tions, and repaired in person to Jerusalem to curry favour by feasts 
and sacrifices while his army was on the march. We know from 
Josephus that his most ostentatious and successful display of 
sympathy with the Jews was the restoration of the sacred vestments 
to the custody of the priesthood, which his predecessors had hitherto 
retained in their own hands with jealous care as a hostage for 
Jewish loyalty, and that he bestowed the office of high priest on 
a son of Annas the powerful head of the priestly oligarchy. That 
oligarchy had by that time conceived the same jealous hatred 
against the disciples of Christ as against their master; and an 
unscrupulous governor like Vitellius could find no cheaper means 
of gratifying them than the surrender of an unpopular sect to their 
will, The martyrdom of Christians by Jewish zealots for the 
Law became in short as natural under the circumstances as it was 
contrary to the imperial principle of religious toleration, and had 
been inconceivable under Pilate. The presence again of Vitellius 
in Jerusalem suggests a reasonable explanation of the mission to 
Damascus, which could hardly have been undertaken without 
express sanction from the proconsul. 

Finally, the circumstances of the year 37 completely explain the 
rapid termination of the reign of terror in the Church. For about 
Pentecost Vitellius received tidings of the emperor’s death, and 
being personally disposed to side with Aretas against Herod Antipas, 
he at once abandoned the expedition, and gladly returned to Antioch. 
From the day of Tiberius’ decease no motive remained for courting 
Jewish favour: the new reign brought with it in fact an entire re- 
versal of Roman policy in these regions; the Church enjoyed once 
more comparative peace under the shelter of Roman indifference; 
and before long the threats of Caius Cesar to erect his own statue 
in the temple of God turned the thoughts of the Jews from attacks 
on the Christian religion to the defence of their own. There is in 
short one period, and one only, in the Roman government of Judza 
during which the martyrdom of Stephen and many other Christians 
in Jerusalem was either probable or feasible, and that is the first 
half of the year 37. 


1The date of Pilate’s deposition and of the subsequent events is fixed with 
some precision by the time of his arrival in Rome: though he hastened thither 
according to his instructions, he did not arrive before the death of Tiberius on 
16th March, 37 (¥os. Ant., xviii., ἵν.» 2). 


APPENDIX Β. 


COMPARISON ΟΕ THE ROMAN WITH THE GALATIAN 
EPISTLE, 


Tue position of Paul toward the Roman Church differed widely from 
that which he held in regard to the Galatian, and his attitude in the 
two Epistles differs accordingly. He had the strongest possible 
claim on the loyalty of the Galatians, for he had spent months in 
founding and establishing each of the Churches, had recently 
visited them afresh, and wrote for the express purpose of checking 
a threatened revolt against his Gospel and his authority. He was, 
on the contrary, still a stranger to Rome, had no personal experience 
of their actual condition or special temptations, and no more claim 
on their allegiance than on any other converted Gentiles. He was, 
indeed, deeply interested in the welfare of the Church, and had 
perhaps commissioned Aquila and Priscilla with others of his own 
disciples to proceed thither and prepare the way for his own intended 
visit ; but the original foundation of the Roman Church was probably 
due to others. Under these circumstances the coincidence between 
certain chapters of the two Epistles is remarkable. If it were limited 
to the expression of certain eternal truths like the antagonism of 
flesh and spirit, and that love is the fulfilment of the Law, the corre- 
spondence might reasonably be expected. But it extends to the 
quotation and application of the same texts, and to the conclusions 
founded on them. Both adduce the same Scriptural arguments to 
uphold justification by faith alone against legal righteousness. Both 
associate the adoption and inheritance of the sons of God in Christ 
with His ancient promises to Abraham and his seed. Both alike 
restrict the function of Law to the condemnation and punishment of 
sin, and contrast its bondage with the freedom of the Gospel in 
corresponding language. Lightfoot argues from this coincidence 
that the two Epistles approximated in date, in spite of the wide 
divergence in their general tenor. But the coincidence is distinctly 


ROMAN AND GALATIAN EPISTLES 199 


limited in its scope: it is very striking wherever the author is 
dealing with the doctrinal questions at issue between Judaism and 
Christianity and is scarcely perceptible elsewhere. The limitation 
is instructive, for it suggests that the author had made these 
subjects and the passages of the Old Testament which bear upon 
them an habitual topic of controversy with Jewish teachers in the 
synagogue. This view is borne out by comparison of the language 
used by other authors. Even the Epistle of James, widely different 
as are his lessons on the subject of faith and works, bases them on 
the same text as these Epistles, ‘‘ Abraham believed God and it was 
reckoned unto him for righteousness”. Why was this? Because 
the blessing of Abraham, his faith and his righteousness were pre- 
vailing topics in the religious teaching of his day. Philo likewise 
refers constantly to the same passages of Scripture and bases his 
arguments upon them. Now, what had been the antecedents of 
Paul before and after his conversion? Educated in Jerusalem at 
the feet of Gamaliel, he had been a zealot for the Law, and a sincere 
believer in the teaching of the Pharisees. After growing up to man- 
hood in this faith, he had for fourteen years before he wrote the 
Galatian Epistle been engaged in perpetual controversy with his 
former teachers, encountering in every synagogue the same objec- 
tions, and combating them with similar arguments. Inevitably his 
thoughts and language on such subjects as the blessing of Abraham, 
faith and works, the Law and the Gospel, had become in a measure 
stereotyped; and in addressing former disciples of the synagogue, 
whether in Galatia or in Rome, he fell almost unconsciously into 
identical language and trains of thought. 

The close analogy, however, of the two Epistles in certain parts 
serves to bring out in stronger relief their wide divergence in spirit 
and substance. The Galatian Epistle was evoked by an insidious 
attack on the Christian freedom of Greek Churches, and its tone is 
thoroughly controversial. It insists on the futility of seeking 
justification by obedience to the Law, it urges that Jewish Christians 
have all confessed themselves guilty sinners, and owe to Christ 
their redemption from the curses of the Law; it establishes the 
provisional character of the Sinaitic dispensation, and reduces it to 
a mere preparatory discipline designed for an age of spiritual child- 
hood and wholly unfit for Christians, seeing they have attained 
to spiritual manhood; it dwells on the bondage of Israel after the 
flesh, and identifies unbelieving Jews with Ishmael in their present 
temper and future destiny. In the Roman Epistle we breathe a 
different atmosphere. It is a comprehensive exposition of Christian 


200 ROMAN AND GALATIAN EPISTLES 


faith and duty addressed to the central Church of the Empire from 
the standpoint of an Apostle who claims the right to promulgate a 
new law in the name of Christ for the whole Roman world ; it insists 
on the universal sinfulnmess of Jew and Gentile alike; like the 
Galatian it accepts Abraham as father of the faithful, but is careful 
to add that he is so not of the circumcision only but also of the 
uncircumcision ; it is not content to pass over God’s earlier dealings 
with mankind before Abraham and to identify Christ with the seed 
of Abraham, but goes back to the Fall, and describes him as the 
second Adam redeeming the whole race from the dominion of sin and 
death; it does not borrow its idea of law, like the Galatian Epistle, 
from the Mosaic, but develops the conception of an universal law 
of conscience even in the heathen world which maintains perpetual 
conflict with the law of sin and death in our members. 

The reader can hardly fail to recognise in the changed attitude 
of the Apostle his altered position, and the transformation that he 
had been instrumental in effecting@ln Greece and Asia between the 
dates of the two Epistles. The earlier is animated throughout with 
the spirit of conflict, and vividly recalls the period when Paul was 
earnestly battling for the spiritual life of his Gospel against the 
surviving spirit of Judaism within the Church. But when he wrote 
from Corinth to the Roman Church, on the eve of his departure, 
having no more place in those parts, the issue of the conflict had 
been virtually settled by the wonderful expansion of the Greek 
Churches, Judaism had lost its hold, and the independence of the 
Christian Church no longer admitted of a doubt. Hence the Apostle 
does not hesitate to write of the national rejection of Israel as an 
accomplished fact, deeply as he deplored it, and earnestly as he 
craved for their restoration to a due share in their inheritance and 
a place in the body of Christ. The Roman Epistle belongs, in short, 
to a distinctly later stage in the history of the Church than the 
Galatian. Its decisive inclusion of Jew and Gentile in one category, 
its identification of Law with the conscience of mankind, its com- 
prehensive scheme of Christian legislation, based on the eternal 
principles of righteousness, truth and love, its maturity of Christian 
thought, proved that the Apostle had passed beyond the earlier 
stage of controversy with Judaism into a region of spiritual conflict 
with evils of faith and practice, and grasping the conception of a 
universal religion had braced himself to meet its demand for a new 
Law and a new life of the Spirit in Christ. 


THE EPISTLE OF PAUL 


TO THE 


EPHESIANS 





INTRODUCTION 


1. Epuesus. The city with which this sublime Epistle is tradi- 
tionally associated had a notable name in the ancient Greek world. 
A remarkable place belongs to it also in the history of the origins of 
the Christian Church. It emerges far back in pre-Christian times, 
and the glimpses which we get of it from point to point in the course 
of its fortunes show us things of great and varied interest. Its rise 
into an importance which became world-wide, its achievements during 
the palmy period of its prosperity and power, the changes through 
which it passed from the days of its pre-eminence in Asia Minor 
on to its destruction by the Goths and its miserable survival in 
the insignificant modern village of Ayasaluk make an impressive 
story. Its inhabitants were drawn from various sources, Hellenic 
and Oriental. It was one of the chief centres of the Ionian settlers. 
But we are told of strangers who occupied the place or its neighbour- 
hood long before the Ionian immigration. These are referred to by 
Pausanias (vii., 26), who speaks of them as Carians; but some 
modern scholars suppose them to have been Hittites (cf. article 
“ Ephesus ” in Encyc. Biblica). The city was colonised mostly from 
Athens, and something of the Athenian genius may be recognised in 
its people. But it is clear that it had a large infusion of Asiatic 
elements. 

In ancient times Ephesus was a place of commanding commercial 
importance. It owed this not less to its geographical position than 
to the energy and enterprise of its people. No Greek city in Asia 
Minor was more advantageously planted. It stood at the meeting 
point of roads which carried trade with them and converged on the 
great line of communication between the East and the metropolis of 
the world. It was the chief city of one of the four great river valleys 
that penetrated Asia Minor, being to the Cayster what Miletus was 
to the Meander, Pergamus to the Caicus, and Smyrna to the Hermus. 
The most important of the Asiatic trade routes and great lines of 
intercourse between Rome and the East was the one that passed up 


204 INTRODUCTION 


by the Meander and the Lycus to Laodicea and Apamea. This 
being so, the commercial supremacy was held by Miletus for a length 
of time, the road which was commanded by it having the advantage 
of being shorter and less difficult than that to which Ephesus was 
the key. But under the operation of influences which we can only 
partially trace things changed in the later period of the Greek 
sovereignty, and under the Romans Ephesus had the place which 
had once belonged to Miletus. It gained largely by the decline of 
other great commercial cities. The overthrow of Smyrna by the 
Lydians about Β.ο. 525 and that of Miletus by the Persians in B.c. 
494 contributed much to its ascendency. Thus it came about that 
during the Roman Empire it ranked with Antioch and Alexandria as 
one of the three great emporia of the trade of the Eastern Mediter- 
ranean, and formed the commercial capital for the wide and varied 
territory west of the Cilician gates. It rose to the dignity of 
metropolis of the Roman Province of Asia. le was a free city. 
It had an “' assembly” and ‘“ council” of its own, and a governor, 
or pro-consul, ἀνθύπατος (cf. Acts xix. 38). In the general and natural 
decay of popular government, however, under the Imperial system, 
power fell into the hands of officials, and in Ephesus the γραμματεύς, 
the “town-clerk” (Acts xix. 35) or “recorder,” was the great 
authority. 

Ephesus was originally a sea-port. It stood on the left bank of 
the Caster, it is true, a few miles up from the sea, but for a length 
of time the channel of the river was carefully attended to and kept 
open. It was never an easy task, however, to maintain a clear way 
between the harbour and the sea. The quantity of silt deposited by 
the Cajster was great. Blundering engineering, undertaken in the 
second half of the second century Β.ο. under Attalus II. Philadelphus, 
made matters worse. By Paul's time the passage had got into such 
a condition that, though the city still retained its pre-eminence, 
mariners avoided Ephesus if they could. A serious attempt to 
improve the channel was made by the Governor of Asia, as Tacitus 
informs us (Ann., xvi., 23), about Α.Ρ. 65. But effort slackened 
again, and things were left to take their course. The result in 
course of time was that the once famous harbour became a 
troublesome marsh. Ephesus ceased to be a sea-port, its trade 
declined, and the life went out of the city. 

The importance of Ephesus, however, in ancient times was not 
due to its commercial position alone. It had a considerable name 
as a school of art. The great painters Parrhasius of the fifth cen- 
tury B.c. and Apelles of the fourth belonged to the city. Above all, 


INTRODUCTION 205 


it was a place of paramount religious interest. It was the centre of 
the worship of the goddess who was known among the Greeks as 
Artemis and among the Romans as Diana. The temple erected in 
her honour was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, a 
splendid structure of shining marble, stated by Pliny (Nat. Hist., 
xvi., 40, 213) to have been 425 feet long and 220 wide (but by 
Mr. J. T. Wood to have measured 343 feet by 164), with 127 columns 
some 60 feet high. It is reported to have taken about 220 years to 
finish, In it was treasured an image of the goddess which was 
believed to have fallen from heaven in remote times. Behind the 
shrine was the “ treasury,” which was the bank of Asia. The temple 
was destroyed by the Goths in Α.Ρ. 262. 

Magnificent as the temple was, it was not the only architectural 
wonder possessed by Ephesus. There was the great theatre, on the 
west side of Mount Coressus, a vast structure, the largest Greek theatre 
in Asia Minor and in the ancient Greek world, reputed to accommodate 
50,000 spectators. North of it was the stadium, where races were 
run and wild beast fights were conducted, It was the temple, 
however, that made the chief glory of the city. It was the temple 
that added more than anything else to its importance. The chief 
boast of Ephesus was the title of νεωκόρος, or “ temple-warden ” 
(literally “ temple-sweeper”’), rendered “ worshipper” in Acts xix, 
35 by the AV, and “temple-keeper” by the RV. It is true that the 
title was more usually given to Asiatic cities as wardens of temples 
of the Imperial worship, and Ephesus was νεωκόρος first of one 
temple, then of two, and later still even of three. But an inscription 
of the second century and coins of the third bear witness to the fact 
stated in Acts xix. 35 that Ephesus had the title of Warden of the 
Temple of. Diana (cf. Prof. Ramsay’s article on “ Ephesus” in 
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible), This vast temple was not the 
only sacred structure that found a place on the slopes of the hill 
which made the original religious centre. Here was built the great 
Christian Church which was dedicated by Justinian to St. John the 
Evangelist. Here, too, at a later date, was erected the mosque 
which is reported to have been one of the best specimens of Arabian- 
Persian art. 

2, THe CuurRcH IN Epuesus. It is with the great names of Paul 
and John that the story of the primitive Christian community in 
Ephesus is specially associated, both in the New Testament itself 
and in tradition. John’s connection with the Ephesian Church be- 
longs to the latter part of the first century. We have every reason 
to believe that, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion 


206 INTRODUCTION 


of the members of the mother Church, that Apostle made Ephesus 
his home. The historian Eusebius speaks of his residence there, and 
reports certain interesting occurrences which took place during his 
stay. Other names known to us in the sacred history have also cer- 
tain associations with the Ephesian Church. One of these is that of 
Timothy, who appears to have been commissioned by Paul towards the 
end of his career to do some special work in Ephesus. In 1 Timothy 
(i. 3) the Apostle is represented as reminding this his “own son in 
the faith” that he had besought him to abide “still in Ephesus,” 
while he himself went into Macedonia, that he might “ charge some 
that they teach no other doctrine”. It may also be inferred from 
what is said of John Mark in different passages of the New Testa- 
ment (Col. iv. 10; 1 Peter v. 13; 2 Timothy iv. 11) that he too 
had not a little to do with the Churches of Asia; and that being 
so, it can well be understood that he was known to the Church of 
Ephesus and visited the city in his journeyings. It has been supposed 
by some that the Evangelist Luke also had some connection with 
Ephesus. But there is no historical foundation for this. Mr. J. Τ. 
Wood indeed takes the name borne by the modern village which 
represents the ancient Ephesus to be a corruption of αγιος λουκας, 
“St. Luke”, But Ayasaluk or Ayassaluk appears to be a corrup- 
tion of Ayo-theolog, Ayo-tholog, αγιος θεολογος, the name being taken 
from the Church of St. John built there by Justinian. 

It is with Paul himself, therefore, that the beginnings of the 
Church of Ephesus are associated. Men from Asia were among the 
multitudes in Jerusalem who heard the Apostles speak with tongues on 
the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 9), and it is possible that the first tidings 
of the new faith may have been carried by some of these to the capital 
of the Province. But of that there is no record. The testimony of 
the Book of Acts is that Paul, at the beginning of his second great 
missionary journey, after he had gone throughout Phrygia and the 
region of Galatia, was “ forbidden of the Holy Ghost”’ to preach the 
word in Asia (xvi. 6); but that at the close of that journey, when he 
was on his way from Greece to Syria, he did visit Ephesus and 
“reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue”. That he made some 
impression on this occasion appears from the fact that he was 
asked to stay. This he could not do, because he had to press on to 
Jerusalem to keep the feast there. But he left Aquila and Priscilla 
in Ephesus and promised himself to return (Acts xviii, 19-21). To 
this brief visit of the Apostle of the Gentiles, followed up by the 
efforts of Aquila and Priscilla, the planting of a Christian Church 
in the capital of the Province of Asia appears to be due. When 


INTRODUCTION 207 


Paul was away in Syria and Asia (Acts xviii. 22, 23) something 
further was effected in another way. Apollos came to Ephesus, 
knowing only of the baptism of John. He had the way of God ex- 
pounded to him more fully by the two devoted friends whom Paul 
had left behind him in Ephesus. The result was that, understanding 
better as he now did the fulfilment of the promised Messianic salva- 
tion, he ‘mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing 
by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts xviii. 24-28). After 
Apollos had passed on to Corinth Paul returned, as he had under- 
taken to do, to Ephesus (Acts xix. 1). On this occasion his stay was 
a protracted one, extending over more than two years and three 
months (Acts xix. 8, 10), or as he expressed it in round numbers in 
his address to the elders at Miletus “by the space of three years” 
(Acts xx. 31). 

First he devoted himself to the instruction of certain disciples 
who had been baptised only unto John’s baptism and knew nothing 
of the Holy Ghost (Acts xix. 1-7). Then for three months he 
spoke of the things of the Kingdom of God to the Jews in the 
synagogue. In this he had only partial success, and soon he had 
to encounter bitter opposition. He gave up his appeal, therefore, 
to the Jews, and took the school of ‘‘ Tyrannus,” in which he “ dis- 
puted daily” for the space of two years. He did this with such 
result that he turned many from the practice of the magical arts 
which were in great favour in Ephesus, and “all they which dwelt in 
Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 
xix. 10, 20). In other words, the report of the Gospel which Paul 
preached penetrated through the Province, being carried no doubt to 
the great cities by travellers who visited Ephesus, and by missionaries 
or messengers like Epaphras. And for the purpose of disseminating 
the knowledge of the new faith through the Asiatic Province, Ephesus 
was not less singularly fitted by its geographical position and com- 
mercial communications than was Antioch for Syria or Rome for 
the further West. The tumultuous opposition, however, which was 
roused by Demetrius against Paul as a destroyer of the silversmith’s 
craft and a subverter of the worship of Diana, brought his work in 
Ephesus to a close and compelled him to hasten his departure into 
Greece (Acts xix. 21—xx. 1). During his last voyage to Syria he 
did not visit Ephesus itself; but, touching at Miletus, he sent for 
the elders of the Ephesian Church and took his pathetic farewell of 
them there (Acts xx. 17-38). 

So far as the Book of Acts is concerned, that is the last glimpse 
we get of Paul in his connection with Ephesus. In the Pastoral 


208 INTRODUCTION 


Epistles, however, we have some further references to Ephesus and 
to Paul’s care for the Church there. In 1 Timothy (i. 3), as we have 
seen, we find that Timothy had been placed in the city with a view 
to the preservation of sound doctrine, and that Paul desired him 
to remain there when he himself went into Macedonia; and in 2 
Timothy mention is made both of the way in which Onesiphorus 
ministered to Paul in Ephesus (i. 18), and of the fact that Tychicus 
was sent by Paul to Ephesus (iv. 12). The relations, therefore, 
between Paul and this Church were of the closest and most con- 
fidential kind. As to the composition of the Christian community, 
it appears to have included from the first both Jews and Greeks 
(Acts xix. 1-10, xx. 21). The Gentile element, however, seems to 
have been the larger and to have grown more and more, so that the 
Epistle deals with the Church as practically a Gentile-Christian body. 

In 1 Peter (i. 1) those in Asia, including doubtless the members 
of the metropolitan Church, are named among the strangers scattered 
throughout various lands, towards whom the writer has a certain re- 
sponsibility and to whom he addresses his Epistle. In the Apoca- 
lypse which bears the name of John, the Church of Ephesus appears 
among the seven Churches of Asia to which John’s message is 
directed ; and that the Ephesian Church was recognised as the chief 
of the seven may be inferred perhaps from the fact that it has the 
first place in the list and in the address (i. 11, ii. 1). It is also 
with John that tradition connects the Ephesian Church after Paul's 
decease. Of its later history, it is enough to say that it long retained 
its importance among the Churches, and that, among other things, it 
was the seat of one of the great CEcumenical Councils (a.p. 431), and 
also of the notorious Robber-Synod (a.p. 440). 

8. Toe Episttp—its GENERAL CHARACTER, CONTENTS AND PLAN, 
Among the Epistles bearing the name of St. Paul there is none 
greater than this, nor any with a character more entirely its own. 
There have been students, it is true, who with an almost incredible 
lack of insight have considered it an insipid production or a tedious 
and unskilful compilation. Among these must be named even so 
acute a scholar as De Wette. Such pronouncements, however, 
belong to the failures and eccentricities of criticism, and count for 
little. With few exceptions scholars of all different schools who have 
studied and interpreted this Epistle have been at one in regarding it 
as one of the sublimest and most profound of all the New Testa- 
ment writings. In the judgment of many who are well entitled to 
deliver an opinion, it is the grandest of all the Pauline letters. There 
is a peculiar and sustained loftiness in its teaching which has deeply 


INTRODUCTION 209 


impressed the greatest minds and has earned for it the title of the 
“ Epistle of the Ascension”. It tarries largely among “ the heaven- 
lies,” and lifts us into the eternities a parte ante and a parte post. 
It is characterised by a dignity and a serenity which are entirely in 
harmony with the elevation of its thoughts. It takes little to do 
either with the questions of ceremonialism or with the personal vin- 
dications which fill so large a space in others of the greater Epistles 
of St. Paul. The polemical element is conspicuous by its absence. 
There is scarcely even an echo of the great controversies which ring 
so loudly in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians. If they 
were still active in any measure or at all in the writer’s view when 
he addressed himself to these Asiatic Churches, they are not on the 
surface at least of this majestic Epistle. The nearest approach to 
any explicit allusion to such things is in what is said in a single verse 
(chap. ii. 11) regarding the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. 
There is a remarkable cohesion, too, in the composition, part 
fitting in with part naturally and without effort. In its structure 
the Epistle is an unmistakable unity. The whole argument moves 
round a few great ideas. The plan is simple. The Epistle opens 
and closes in the usual Pauline way, and it divides naturally into two 
great sections, one doctrinal and the other practical or hortatory. 
There is first the usual inscription or greeting (i. 1, 2), followed by 
‘a thanksgiving which takes the form of a solemn ascription of praise 
to God for the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the writer and his 
readers. The mention of these blessings develops into a doctrinal 
statement which deals with the lofty themes of election, predestina- 
tion, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; the mystery of the Divine 
will; the grace of the Holy Spirit as seal and earnest ; the power of 
God in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ ; the sovereignty of 
Christ over the world and His Headship over the Church ; the Divine 
quickening of the spiritually dead; the abrogation of the Law that 
formed the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile ; the love of 
Christ and His indwelling in the believer. Each of these great 
themes leads easily to the next. In the course of their exposition 
the Apostle enlarges especially on the ultimate purpose of God to 
sum up all things in Christ (i. 9-11); the relation in which Christ 
stands to the universe and to the Church (i. 20-23); the absolutely 
gracious character of the salvation, the new life, and the gifts bestowed 
upon believers by God (ii. 1-10) ; the revelation and fulfilment of the 
purpose of God, hidden for ages, to make the Gentile partaker with 
the Jew (ii. 11-22) ; and the marvel of the grace that has established 
equality and unity where once there were pri ilege and separation 
VOL, III. 14 


210 INTRODUCTION 


(iii. 1-19). This first of the two primary divisions of the Epistle con- 
cludes with a doxology, which again celebrates that gracious power of 
God which works all for us and within us. 

As the doctrinal section occupies the first three chapters, the 
hortatory section extends over the last three. These chapters are 
taken up with practical matters—the necessity of a walk in harmony 
with the Divine call ; the commendation of humility, meekness, for- 
bearance, concord, peace and all good brotherly relations ; the duty of 
growing in likeness to Christ and in obedience to Him; the forsaking 
of all heathen vices ; the practice of truthfulness and honesty, abstin- 
ence from all corrupt communications, from all bitterness and wrath 
and evil-speaking and malice; sedulous watchfulness against any 
falling back into easy compliance with the two characteristic pagan 
forms of moral evil, sensuality and greed, or into any slackness in the 
sense of their deep sinfulness ; the reverent regard of the Christian 
relations between husband and wife, parents and children, masters 
and slaves, and the careful observance of the duties arising out of 
the Christian idea of these relations ; the need for the full spiritual 
equipment provided by God for the withstanding of all evil. These 
various ethical requirements and recommendations are presented 
as all having their roots in the great facts and doctrines of grace 
which are expounded in the former division of the Epistle, and as all 
growing up out of that soil. In their enforcement special prominence 
is given to the maintenance of concord and peace in the Church (iv. 
4); the great object which all Christian gifts are meant to serve (iv. 
12-16); the forswearing of all sins of uncleanness as things wholly 
alien to the Christian life (ν. 3-14); the sacredness of the primary 
domestic and relative duties, those above all pertaining to the rela- 
tions of husband and wife (ν. 22—vi. 1-9); the seriousness of the 
Christian’s warfare and the sufficiency of the Christian’s armour (vi. 
10-18). The Epistle is brought to its close by some personal refer- 
ences bearing on the writer’s requirements and commission (vi. 19, 
20) ; a brief notice of the mission of Tychicus (vi. 21, 22); anda final 
salutation or benediction, which is given in terms of grace and peace 
(vi. 23, 24). 

In the course of thought thus followed out in the Epistle there 
are certain great ideas that have peculiar prominence given them. 
Of these the largest is that of the Divine grace—the term χάρις 
occurring under one aspect or another some thirteen times. Another 
is that of “the heavenlies,”” which has an entirely peculiar place and 
application in this Epistle. Much, too, is made of the conceptions 
of the Divine fulness (πλήρωμα); the mystery (μυστήριον) ; the economy 


INTRODUCTION 211 


(οἰκονομία) ; the spiritual understanding (γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις, σοφία, σύνε- 
σις, φρόνησις) proper to the Christian and in which he is to increase: 
There are also the ideas of union and unity, union with Christ, union 
and fellowship one with another, the unity of the Church, the one- 
ness of Jew and Gentile, the unity in the diversity of gifts, the unity 
of the faith. These great conceptions run through the Epistle, and 
express themselves in such compound forms as συνεζωποίησε, συνήγειρε, 
συνεκάθισεν, συμπολῖται, συγκληρονόμοι, συναρμολογουμένη, συνοικοδομεῖσθε, 
σύσσωμος. 

The Epistle is remarkable also for the use which it makes of a 
series of terms of far-reaching significance, which belong to the very 
essence of its thought and nowhere get the place and the iteration 
which they have here, except in some measure in the Epistle to the 
Romans. Among these are the counsel (βουλή) of God, His will 
(θέλημα), His purpose (πρόθεσις), His good-pleasure (εὐδοκία), His fore- 
ordaining or pre-determining (προορίζειν), His afore preparing (προετοι- 
pater), etc. 

The vocabulary of the Epistle also is singular and full of interest. 
The letter contains a number of words and phrases which are peculiar 
to itself and the sister Epistle to the Colossians, so far as the New 
Testament writings are concerned—such as ἀνθρωποπάρεσκος, ἁφή, 
ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, ἀπαλλοτριοῦσθαι, αὔξειν, and its noun αὔξησις, ὀφθαλμο- 
δουλεία, ῥιζοῦν, συζωοποιεῖν, συμβιβάζειν, ἐκ ψυχῆς. It has others which 
are confined to itself and certain others of the Pauline Epistles: 
ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀληθεύειν, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἐπιχορηγία, εὔνοια, εὐωδία, θάλπειν, 
κάμπτειν, περικεφαλαία, πλεονέκτης, ποίημα, πρεσβεύειν, προετοιµάζειν, 
προσαγωγή, προτίθεσθαι, υἱοθεσία, ὑπερβάλλειν, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ. 

On the other hand, there are a good many words which occur in 
this Epistle alone of all claiming to be by Paul, although they are 
found occasionally elsewhere in the New Testament, such as ἄγνοια, 
ἀγρυπνεῖν, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, ἀμφότεροι, ἄνεμος, ἀνιέναι, ἅπας, ἀπειλή, εὔσπλαγχ- 
vos, μακράν, ὀργίζεσθαι, ὁσιότης, ὀσφύς, πανοπλία, πάροικος, περιζωννύναι, 
πλάτος, ποιμήν, in the sense of pastor, πολιτεία, σαπρός, σπῖλος, συγκαθίζειν, 
σωτήριον, ὕδωρ, ὑποδεῖσθαι, ὕψος, φραγμός, φρόνησις, χαριτοῦν, χειροποίητος. 
Some of these obviously are of small moment. Others have some 
significance. On these lists see Abbot’s Crit. and Exeg. Comm. on 
the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, and more especi- 
ally Holtzmann’s Eznleitung and Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosser- 
Briefe. ἴῃ addition to these we have a considerable list of pure ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενα, including ἄθεος, αἰσχρότης, αἰχμαλωτεύειν, ἀνανεόω, ἄνοιξις, 
ἀπαλγεῖν, ἄσοφος, βέλος, ἐκτρέφω, ἐλαχιστότερος, ἑνότης, ἐξισχύειν, ἐπιδύειν, 
ἐπιφαύσκειν, ἑτοιμασία, εὔνοια, εὐτραπελία, ὁ ἠγαπημένος, aS applied to 


212 INTRODUCTION 


Christ, θυρεός, καταρτισμός, κατώτερος, κληροῦν, κλυδωνίζεσθαι, κοσµοκράτωρ, 
κρυφῆ, κυβεία, μακροχρόνιος, μέγεθος, μεθοδεία, μεσότοιχον, μωρολογία, πάλη, 
παροργισμός, πολυποίκιλος, προελπίζειν, προσκαρτέρησις, ῥυτίς, συμμέτοχος, 
συμπολίτης, συναρμολογεῖν, συνοικοδομεῖν, σύσσωμος. In the case of two 
of these, αἰχμαλωτεύειν and εὔνοια, the TR gives each in one other 
passage (2 Tim. iii. 6; 1 Cor. vii. 3), but on insufficient documentary 
evidence. The introduction of some of these terms no doubt is due 
to circumstance. But an analysis of the vocabulary as a whole 
brings out the fact that in language as well as in thought this Epistle 
has a character of its own. 

4. ΤΗΕ AFFINITIES OF THE EpistLe. There are some resemblances 
which deserve notice between the terms of this Epistle and those of 
the address recorded in Acts (xx. 17-38) as delivered by Paul to the 
Ephesian elders at Miletus, ¢.g., μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης, iv. 2., cf. 
Acts xx. 19; ἐκληρώθημεν, κληρονομία, i. 11, 14, cf Acts xx. 32; the 
Divine βουλή, i. 11, cf. Acts xx. 27; the Divine δύναμις and κράτος, i. 
19, cf. Acts xx. 32; the being builded, συνοικοδομεῖσθε, ii. 21, cf. Acts 
xx. 32. But apart from these we find a number of resemblances 
between this Epistle and other NT writings which are of interest, 
and which may point to certain relationships between them. There 
are a few points of contact, ¢.g., between this Epistle and the three 
Pastoral Epistles (e.g., in 2 Tim. i. 9, 10, ii. 1), which have been con- 
sidered to go some way to establish identity of authorship, or at least 
of ultimate source. But these do not amount to much. There are 
other correspondences which are thought to indicate a certain affinity 
between this Epistle and the Fourth Gospel. Among these are 
reckoned the prominence given in both to the great conceptions of 
ἀγάπη and γνῶσις ; the designation of Christ as ὁ ἠγαπημένος (Eph. i. 
4) as compared with the terms of John iii, 35, x. 17, xv. 9, xvii. 23, 24, 
26; the ἐξελέξατο mpd καταβολῆς κόσμου of Eph. i. 4, and the ἠγάπησάς 
pe πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου Of John xvii. 24; the common use of the 
figures of light and darkness (Eph. v. 11, 13; John iii. 20, 21), and 
the particular phrases ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε (Eph. v. 8), περιπατεῖτε 
ὡς τὸ φῶς ἔχετε (John xii. 35); the designation of the work of re- 
generation as a quickening of the dead (Eph. ii. 5,6; John v. 21, 25, 
28). In both writings again we have the work of redemption pre- 
sented under the aspect of a sanctification or setting apart (ἁγιάζειν, 
Eph. v. 26; John xvii. 17, 19); and in both this is given as taking 
effect by way of a cleansing or purifying by the word—xaSapioas . . . 
ἐν ῥήματι (Eph. ν. 26), καθαρὸς διὰ τὸν λόγον (John xv. 3). We have 
also the idea of grace according to measure (ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς 
δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Eph. iv. 17), and grace without measure in the one 


INTRODUCTION 213 


case of Christ (John iii. 81). The striking resemblance between the 
ἀνέβη . . . κατέβη, ὁ καταβάς . . . ὁ ἀναβάς in Eph. iv. 9, 10, and the 
declaration οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς 
in John iii. 13 is also noticed. But less can be made of this, as the 
terms in Ephesians are drawn from an OT quotation. Nor can 
much be made either of the contention that what is said of Christ as 
the point of union or restoration for a divided world in Eph. i. 10 is 
essentially the same as the representation of Him as the Λόγος in the 
Prologue to the Fourth Gospel; or of the parallel in such passages 
in John as x, 16, xi. 52, xvii. 20, 21 to the terms in which this Epistle 
enlarges on the inclusion of the Gentiles (ii. 13-22, iii. 6). The more 
relevant of these coincidences, however, may perhaps be taken to 
indicate an acquaintance on the part of the writer of the Fourth 
Gospel with this Epistle. They show at least that the authors of 
these two writings had much in common both in terms and in ideas. 
There are certain points of contact also between Ephesians and 
the Apocalypse, of which much has been made by Holtzmann. 
Minor resemblances are discovered between such passages as Eph. 
i. 8 and Apoc. xiii. 18; Eph. ii, 18 and Apoc. v. 9; Eph. iii. 9 and 
Apoc. iv. 11, x. 6; Eph. iti. 18 and Apoc. xi. 1, xxi. 15-17; Eph. 
ν. 32 and Apoc. i. 20. But these are too uncertain and remote to 
trust to. Of more importance are the coincidences between the 
view of Christ’s relation to the Church in Eph. v. 25, etc., and the 
figure of the Church as the Bride of the Lamb in Apoc. xix. 7; the 
mention of the Apostles and prophets in Eph. ii. 20 and Apoc. xxi. 
14; the μυστήριον revealed (ἀπεκαλύφθη) “to His holy Apostles and 
prophets (Eph. iii. 5) and the μυστήριον Θεοῦ in Apoc. x. 7; the μὴ 
συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις Of Eph. v. 11 and the ἵνα μὴ 
συγκοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῆς Of Apoc. xviii. 4. It cannot be 
said, however, that these amount to much. Pew would pronounce 
them sufficient to prove any literary or doctrinal dependence of the 
one writing on the other. Holtzmann, however, infers from them 
that the writer of Ephesians made some use of the Apocalypse. 
Another writing with which Ephesians is thought to be in affinity 
is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Considerable resemblance is found 
between the two in their view of the Person of Christ, e.g., in Eph. 
i. 10, 20-22, iv. 8-10, 15 and Heb. i. 8-13, ii. 9, x. 12, 13, etc. The 
seating of Christ on the right hand of God appears in both Epistles 
(Eph. i. 20; Heb. i. 3, vili. 1, x, 12). So is it also with the use of 
the term παρρησία with reference to access to God (Eph. iii. 12; 
Heb. iv. 16); with the conception of Christ’s work as a sanctifying 
(ἁγιάζειν, Eph. v. 25, 26; Heb. xiii. 12, x. 10); and with the place 


214 INTRODUCTION 


given to the blood of Christ (Eph. i. 7; Heb. ix. 12). In the use of 
terms, too, there are resemblances of some significance. In both we 
have the phrases αἷμα καὶ σάρξ (for the more usual σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα), 
ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν, αἰὼν μέλλων, προσφορὰ καὶ θυσία, εἰς ἀπολύ- 
tpwow. And certain expressive words are found in both, such as 
ἀγρυπνεῖν, κραυγή, ὑπεράνω, βουλή. These things have been supposed 
to point to the priority of Ephesians, while some, on the other hand 
(e.g., von Soden), have regarded them as indicating that Hebrews is 
the earlier writing. But it would be in the highest degree precarious 
to draw any inference from such data with respect to the chrono- 
logical relation of the one Epistle to the other. 

Of more interest is the connection between our Epistle and 1 
Peter. The points of affinity between these two writings have been ex- 
aggerated, it is true, and conclusions have been drawn from them with 
a confidence which they do not warrant. They undoubtedly deserve 
attention, however, both for their number and for their significance. 
At the same time the lists prepared by Holtzmann and others require 
to be carefully sifted and considerably reduced. Among the more 
relevant coincidences are the following: the place given to hope ; the 
connection of the Christian hope with the resurrection of Christ and 
with the κληρονομία (Eph. i. 18-20; 1 Pet. i. 3-5); the prominence of 
the idea of the Divine power (δύναμις Θεοῦ, Eph. i. 19; 1 Pet. i. 5); 
the mention of the access or introduction (τὴν προσαγωγὴν πρὸς τὸν 
πατέρα, Eph. ii. 18) to God which we have through Christ in the one, 
and the definition of the object of Christ’s sufferings in the other (iva 
ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, | Pet. iii. 18); the mystery hid πρὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου in Eph. iii. 9, and the fore-ordination of Christ πρὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου in 1 Pet. i, 20. Perhaps of yet greater significance are the 
parallels in idea and in expression with regard to the ascension of 
Christ (Eph. iv. 8-10; 1 Pet. iii. 22); the session of Christ at God’s 
right hand in heaven (ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, Eph. i. 
20 ; ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν, 1 Pet. ili. 22); the 
subjection of all angelic powers to Christ (Eph. i. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 22). 

There are other coincidences to which great importance has 
been attached, but which are of more doubtful relevancy. The most 
striking of these are the analogous statements about the prophets, 
the hiding of the meaning of their prophecies from themselves, and 
the extent of the revelation made to them (1 Pet. i. 10-12; Eph. iii. 
5, 10). But it is not the same class of prophets that is in view in 
both. In 1 Peter it is the OT prophets ; in Ephesians it appears to 
be the NT prophets. The resemblance between Eph. ii. 18-22 and 
1 Pet. ii. 4-6 must be discounted to a considerable extent, because 


INTRODUCTION 215 


both writers are quoting the familiar passage in Ps. cxviii. 22, or have 
its terms in mind. Nor does the coincidence between the opening 
doxologies (1 Pet. i. 3; Eph. i. 3—in both εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) carry us very far. On the other hand 
there are some marked resemblances in syntax and construction, 
especially in the paragraphs immediately following these doxologies. 

On these data very contradictory conclusions have been suspended. 
Some have inferred that the author of Ephesians was a debtor to 
1 Peter (Hilgenfeld, Weiss). Others have taken the author of 1 
Peter to be a borrower from Ephesians. The theory has also been 
broached that both Epistles proceed from one hand, possibly that of 
the writer of Acts and the Third Gospel. Others have explained the 
case by supposing that Peter may have heard Paul in Rome, or that 
there may have been converse between the two Apostles in Rome 
which is reflected in these parallels. So different are the aspects in 
which these things present themselves to different minds. One thing 
at least it is very difficult to imagine. That is, that a writer of the 
genius and power which the Epistle to the Ephesians discloses could 
have been a borrower even from the author of 1 Peter. 

The question of greatest interest, however, is that touching 
the relation between the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Epistle 
to the Colossians. Here the resemblances and the differences 
are equally striking and unmistakable. The general likeness in 
the structure of the two writings arrests attention at once—in the 
division of the matter between the doctrinal and the practical, in the 
form of the paragraphs, and in much of the diction. It is calculated, 
indeed, that in some seventy-eight out of 155 verses we have much 
the same phraseology. Lists have been compiled by De Wette 
and others including the following passages: Eph. i. 4; Col. i. 22: 
Eph. i. 6,7; Col. i. 18, 14: Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20: Eph. i. 15-17; 
Coli. 3, 4: Eph. 1 18; Col: i, 27: Eph. it. 21; Col. 11 16: Eph. i. 
22 ἐπ Col. i. 18 Ὁ > Eph. i. F, 12; Col. i221: Eph. ti. 5; Col. ii. 13: 
Eph. fi. 15; Col. ii. 14: Eph. ii, 16; Col. ii. 20: Eph. iii, 1; Col. i. 
24: Eph. iii. 2; Col. 1. 25: Eph, iii. 3; Col. i. 26: Eph. iti. 7; Col. 
199: ος. Ερι id, 8: Ε΄: Col, 1.27 >) Bph. ιν. 1: σοι. 10: Eph. ty, 
2; Col. iii. 12 f.: Eph. iv. 3 f.; Col. iii, 14 f: Eph. iv. 15 f£; Col. if. 
19: Eph. iv. 19; Col. iii. 1,5: Eph. iv. 22 f.; Col. iii. 8 ff.: Eph. 
iy. 20 f. > Col: tii, &f :-Eph: iv. 29; Col. tii. 8., iv. 6: Eph. iv. 31; 
Col. iti. 12 f.: Eph. v. 3; Col. iii. 5: Eph..v. 4; Col. iii. 8: Eph. v. 
5; Col. iti..5: Eph. v. 6; Col. iii. 6: Eph. v.15; Col. iv. 5: Eph. v. 
19 f.; Col. iii. 16 f.: Eph.v. 21; Col. iii, 18: Eph. v. 25; Col. iti. 19: 
Eph. vi. 1; Col. iii. 20: Eph. vi. 4; Col. iii. 21: Eph. vi. 5 ff; Col. 


216 INTRODUCTION 


ili. 22 ff.: Eph. vi. 9; Col. vi. 1: Eph. vi. 18 ff.; Col. iv. 2 ff.: Eph. 
vi. 21 £; Col. iv. 7 f. 

These parallels are by no means all of the same value. Yet with 
all necessary deductions they are remarkable both in number and in 
quality. Taken along with the large resemblance in matter, which 
extends in some parts over considerable sections, they exhibit a re- 
lationship close enough to warrant us to speak of the two as sister 
Epistles. 

It does not follow from this, however, that the one is dependent 
on the other. There are, indeed, important differences between the 
two kindred writings which make it difficult to regard the one as 
made up out of the other. The style is different, that of Ephesians 
being round, full, and rhythmical, where that of Colossians is more 
pointed, logical and concise. The question of the Church has no 
such place in the latter as in the former. The Epistle to the 
Ephesians has much more of an OT colouring than that to the 
Colossians. In the latter we have only one OT quotation or 
allusion. In the former we have eight or nine, vis.: Gen. ii. 24 
(Eph. v. 31); Exod. xx. 12 (Eph. vi. 2); Ps. iv. 4 (Eph. iv. 26); Ps. 
viii. 6 (Eph. i. 22); Ps. Ixviii. 18 (Eph. iv. 8); Ps. cxviii, 22 (Eph. ii. 
20); Song of Songs iv. 7 (Eph, v. 27, perhaps); Isa. lvii. 9 (Eph. ii. 
17); Isa. Ix. 1 (Eph. v. 14). There are phrases which are distinctive 
of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but which do not reappear in that 
to the Colossians, ¢.g., τὰ ἐπούρανια. And besides all this there are 
whole paragraphs in Ephesians which have nothing like them in 
Colossians—those dealing with the union of Jew and Gentile in the 
one Church of God as the subject of the Divine predestination (Eph. 
i. 3-14); the unity of the faith and of the Church (iv. 5-16); the con- 
trast between the light and the darkness with their corresponding 
results (v. 8-14); the mystery of the marriage-union as a reflection of 
the union between Christ and the Church (ν. 22-33); the description 
of the panoply of God (vi. 10-17). And in like manner there are 
whole sections in Colossians, such as the polemical passage in chap. 
ii. and the salutations in chap. v., which have no place in Ephesians, 

The question raised by the co-existence of these likenesses and 
differences has been very variously answered. Some have inferred 
that Colossians must have been the original writing, and that 
Ephesians resembles it at so many points because it has been bor- 
rowed largely from it. Others have regarded Ephesians as the earlier 
and more original composition. The scholar who has gone most 
laboriously into the details of this question, viz., H. J. Holtzmann, 
came to the conclusion that the priority could not be given wholly to 


INTRODUCTION 217 


either Epistle, but that there were sections of Ephesians (e.g., i. 4, 
ef. Col. i. 22 ; i. 6, 7, cf. Col. 1. 13, 14; iit. 3, 5, 9, cf. Col. i. 26, ii. 2) 
which pointed to the priority of that Epistle, while there were a con- 
siderable number that pointed in the opposite direction. He took 
refuge, therefore, in the complicated theory that Colossians as we 
have it is not the Epistle as it originally was ; that there was a briefer 
Pauline Epistle to the Colossian Church on which the author of the 
Epistle to the Ephesians based his work; that the Colossian Epistle 
was afterwards enlarged by this author ; and that the hand that did 
all this was not Paul’s own, but perhaps that of the writer who added 
the closing doxology to the Epistle to the Romans. 

This is a far-fetched explanation, and one beset by many difficul- 
ties. The terms supposed to have been taken from the Epistle to 
the Colossians come in quite simply and naturally in the sister 
Epistle, but by no means in the same context or connection. The 
most distinctive sections of the Colossian Epistle, those dealing with 
the strange, speculative views of Christ’s person and relations, have 
no place in the Ephesian Epistle, and it is surely a surprising cir- 
cumstance that a borrower such as the compiler of Ephesians is 
supposed to be should have so carefully avoided these things and 
should have appropriated only the least characteristic parts of the 
writing which he chose for the basis of his own communication. 
It is still more surprising that a writer capable of producing the 
Ephesian Epistle should have thought of using another composition 
inthis dependent manner. In point of fact there is nothing in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, whether of likeness or of unlikeness, that 
may not be accounted for in a far simpler and more natural way. 
A writer addressing himself in two different communications, prepared 
much about the same time, to Churches in the same part of the world, 
not widely separated from each other, with much in common, but 
with something of difference also in their circumstances, their dangers 
and their needs, naturally falls into a style and a tenor of address 
which will be to a considerable extent the same in both writings and 
yet have differences rising naturally out of the different positions. 

5. AUTHORSHIP OF THE ΕΡΙΘΤΙΕ. The historical evidence in favour 
of the Pauline authorship of this Epistle is very strong. We have 
the best reason for saying that by the end of the second century it 
was generally regarded as the work of Paul. There is evidence also 
that it was in circulation by the close of the first century or the 

‘beginning of the second. The place which it had then, and the use 
which was made of it, also indicate that it was recognised as more 
than an ordinary writing—that it was accepted indeed for what 


218 INTRODUCTION 


it professed to be. In short, in oldest antiquity there is nothing to 
show that the claim which it bore upon its face was questioned, or 
that it was assigned to any other writer than Paul. 

It is possible that within the NT writings themselves we have an 
important indication of the authorship. In Col. iv. 16 mention is 
made of an Epistle “from Laodicea”. If Colosstans is accepted as 
what it professes to be, and that Epistle “from Laodicea” can be 
identified, as many hold it can, with our Epistle to the Ephesians, 
we have a very direct witness to the Pauline authorship. But apart 
from that there are things of great interest in relation to the question 
of authorship in very early Christian literature. Even in Clement of 
Rome there are forms of expression which look like echoes of ideas 
and terms characteristic of this Epistle. Thus the phrase ἠνεῴχθησαν 
ἡμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς καρδίας in chap. 36 recalls Eph. i. 18. The state- 
ment in Eph. i. 4 of our election of God in Christ (καθὼς ἐξελέξατο 
ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ, etc.) may perhaps be reflected in what is said of Christ 
Himself and us in chap. 64---ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ 
ἡμᾶς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον. The paragraph on unity, too, in 
Eph. iv. 4-6 may be reflected in chap. 46---ἢ οὐχὶ ἕνα Θεὸν ἔχομεν καὶ 
ἕνα Χριστόν; καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος τὸ ἐκχυθὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, Kal μία 
κλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ. The most that can be said, however, of these 
analogies is that they are suggestive. Still less can be made of 
the witness of the Didaché or of certain passages in the Epistle of 
Barnabas (vi. 15, xix. 7). In the first of these two writings we have 
these two statements which have a general, but only a general, resem- 
blance to Eph. vi. δ, 9, viz., ὑμεῖς δὲ of δοῦλοι ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς κυρίοις 
ὑμῶν ds τύπῳ Θεοῦ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ (Did., iv., 11), and οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις 
δούλῳ σου ἢ παιδίσκῃ τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν, ἐν πικρίᾳ σου. But 
this is all. 

It is different with the testimony of Ignatius. It is claimed 
indeed by some excellent scholars that in one interesting passage 
Ignatius speaks definitely and unmistakably of Paul as the writer 
of an Epistle to the Ephesians. That is the statement in Ep. 
ad Eph., ο. 12, Παύλου συμμύσται (ἐστε) τοῦ ἡγιασμένου . . . ὃς ἐν 
πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ μνημονεύει ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The difficulty attach- 
ing to the interpretation of the second clause is seen perhaps 
in certain ancient variations of reading—in the substitution of μνη- 
µονεύω in the Armenian Version, and in the amplification ὃς πάντοτε 
ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσιν αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει ὑμῶν which it receives in the longer 
form of Ignatius. In order to make it carry the inference drawn 
from it the rendering “in all the Epistle” or “in every part of the 
Epistle to you” must be given it. But, not to speak of the inept 


INTRODUCTION 219 


meaning that would thus be the result, it is very doubtful whether 
that rendering can be accepted as grammatically justifiable. None 
of the few instances which are adduced in support of the contention 
that πᾶς without the article can mean “the whole” can be said to be 
free of doubt. Some, 6.Ρ., πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matt. ii. 3), πᾶς Ισραήλ 
(Rom. xi. 26), are not pertinent, inasmuch as the nouns are proper 
names. Others are almost equally doubtful for other reasons, 6.6., 
ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς (Acts xvii. 26), where the phrase πρόσωπον 
τῆς γῆς has much the force of a proper name, there being only one 
such thing. The same in effect is the case with πᾶν σῶμα in a passage 
of Aristotle which has been very confidently appealed to, viz., Set τὸν 
πολιτικὸν εἰδέναι πῶς τὰ περὶ ψυχῆς ' ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ὀφθαλμοὺς θεραπεύοντα, 
καὶ πᾶν σῶμα (Eth. Nic., i. 18, 7). Por σῶμα is used there not in the 
sense of any particular body, but in that of body as distinguished from 
soul. If the sentence must be translated in accordance with the 
stated force of πᾶς in conjunction with an anarthrous noun, οἱ2., as = 
“in every letter,” it cannot safely be concluded that Ignatius had in his 
mind a particular Epistle of St. Paul’s known to be addressed to the 
Ephesians. It would be strange, indeed, as Professor Abbott remarks 
(ut sup., p. xi), that if Ignatius wished to remind the Ephesians of 
Paul’s regard for them he should “ only refer to the mention of them 
in other Epistles, and not at all to that which had been specially 
addressed to them”. But allowing this contested passage to stand 
aside, we find Ignatius elsewhere using words or phrases which 
appear to indicate an acquaintance with characteristic expressions in 
our Epistle, such as πλήρωμα, προορίζεσθαι, ἐκλέγειν, θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός, 
λίθοι ναοῦ πατρός, ἡτοιμασμένοι εἰς οἰκοδομὴν Θεοῦ πατρός (chap. ix. ; cf. 
Eph. ii, 20-22), μιμηταὶ ὄντες τοῦ Θεοῦ (chap. i. ; cf Eph. ν. 1). 

The witness of Polycarp, Hermas and Hippolytus is also of some 
significance. In Polycarp we have two passages which have all the 
appearance of quotations from our Epistle or reminiscences of its 
terms, viZ.:; χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων (Ep. ad Philipp., 
chap. i.; cf. Eph. ii. 5, 8, 9); and (in the Latin form, the Greek not 
being extant) “ ut his scripturis dictum est, ivascimini et nolite peccare 
et sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram” (chap. xii.; cf. Eph. iv. 
26). In Hermas, not to mention other sentences which are less 
definite, we have ἴπεςε---μηδὲ λύπην ἐπάγειν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ σεμνῷ καὶ 
ἀληθεῖ (Mand. ; cf. Eph. iii. 30); and ἔσονται εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα καὶ ἕν σῶμα 
(Sim., ix., 13; cf. Eph. iv. 4, 5). From Hippolytus we gather that 
Eph. iii, 4-18 was quoted as γραφή by the Valentinians (Philos., vi., 34). 

The judgments of scholars have differed and no doubt will con- 
tinue to differ as to the relevancy and the value of these testimonies. 


220 INTRODUCTION 


But with Irenzus at least and the Muratorian Canon we reach 
sure and indisputable ground. Irenzus refers to Paul by name 
as the author of our Epistle and quotes it as his. He cites Eph. 
ν. 13 as words of Paul (Adv. Her.,, i., 8,5); and he expresses himself 
thus—xdOws 6 μακάριος Παῦλός φησιν ἐν τῇ πρός ᾿Εφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ : ὅτι 
μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ 
(Adv. Her., ν., 2, 3; cf. Eph. v. 30). The Muratorian Canon 
mentions the Ephesians as one of the Churches to which Paul 
wrote Epistles. The testimony of Clement of Alexandria is like 
that of Irenzus. Thus, after citing 2 Cor. xi. 2 as an injunction 
of the Apostle’s (ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐπιστέλλων πρὸς Κορινθίους φησίν), he 
introduces Eph. iv. 13-15 in these ἴεγπις-- σαφέστατα δὲ ᾿Εφεσίοις 
γράφων . . « λέγων: μεχρὶ καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς 
πίστεως, κ.τ.λ. (Paed., i., 18). In the same way he quotes 1 Cor, 
xi. 3 and Gal. v. 16 ff. as words of Paul (φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος), and 
proceeds thus—&é καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους γράφει - ὑποτασσόμενοι 
ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ, etc., as in Eph. v, 21-25 (Strom., iv., 65) 
The testimony of Marcion is to the same effect, although he gave 
the Epistle the title “ad Laodicenos” (Tert., Adv. Marc., v., 17); 
while Tertullian, his opponent, mentions Ephesus among the Churches 
that had original, apostolic Epistles, and corrects Marcion only on 
the matter of the destination—Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam 
istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos (Adv, 
Marc., v., 17). And from the latter part of the second century the 
stream of testimony to the fact that the Epistle was recognised as 
Paul's flows steadily on. 

Notwithstanding the strength of the external testimony, however, 
there have been not a few in modern times, from Schleiermacher 
and Usteri on to the present day, who have doubted or denied the 
Pauline authorship. Among these De Wette, Baur and Holtz- 
mann occupy a conspicuous place. It is to be observed, however, 
that some who have most strenuously questioned the genuineness of 
the Epistle still admit it to be of very early date—as early as Α.Ρ. 75 
or 80. De Wette, e.g., allows it to be a product of the Apostolic age, 
the work indeed of some highly gifted scholar of the Apostle’s, and 
Ewald’s position is something similar. Others take up an indeter- 
minate position. The conclusion of Jiilicher, ¢.g., is that the Pauline 
authorship can neither be certainly accepted nor absolutely denied. 

The arguments leading up to the doubt or denial of the genuine- 
ness of the Epistle are based upon internal considerations—style, 
language, peculiar usages, the nature of the ideas, etc. Thus De 
Wette regards the composition as unlike Paul’s way of writing—in its 


INTRODUCTION 221 


want of connection and its many parentheses, in much of its phrase- 
ology, and in the poverty of its contents. To him it is a composition 
copious in words but poor in ideas, lacking originality, so dependent 
indeed on the Epistle to the Colossians as to look like a “ verbose 
amplification ” of it, the work not of Paul himself but of an imitator. 
But the similarities between Ephesians and Colossians, as we have 
seen, admit of a simple explanation, and it is a surprising judgment, 
one that few certainly will accept, which De Wette pronounces on 
our Epistle when he speaks of it as having no distinctive character, 
as a dependent production, and non-Pauline in style. We should 
rather say with Meyer that it is so like Paul in tone, tenor and 
much else as to make it hard indeed to imagine that it can be the 
work of a mere imitator; all the more so if it is, as De Wette thinks 
it, without any special object. 

Baur, Schwegler, and other adherents of the Tiibingen School 
dilate chiefly on its doctrinal character as inconsistent with the Paul- 
ine authorship. They find it full of Gnostic and Montanist thought 
᾿ and terminology. They lay stress on the use of such terms as πλήρωμα, 
on the peculiarities of the Christology, etc., and judge it to be the 
product of the second century, when Gnostic speculations had taken 
shape and had become familiar. But this view of the Epistle is no 
longer asserted with the former confidence or in the pronounced 
form in which it was elaborated by Baur himself. It is acknowledged 
more generally now that the phenomena in the Epistle on which the 
old Tiibingen School fastened may be accounted for by the operation 
of ideas which were in affinity with those known as Gnostic, but which 
came short of the developed Gnosticism of the middle of the second 
century ; and further that the passages most insisted on by Baur, 
when fairly interpreted, are quite consistent with the form of doctrine 
found in the primary Pauline Epistles. 

The objections most generally urged against the Pauline author- 
ship take the following forms. In the first place the vocabulary of 
the Epistle, it is said, presents great difficulty. The ἅπαξ λεγόμενα 
are thought to be so numerous and of such a kind as to raise a 
very serious question. But when the list is examined the case is 
considerably modified. The whole number of words which are found 
in this Epistle and nowhere else in the NT is forty-two. The number 
of words found in this Epistle and occasionally elsewhere in the canon- 
ical books, but in none of the other writings generally recognised as 
Pauline by the critics in question, is thirty-nine, according to the 
reckoning of Holtzmann. But the Epistle to the Colossians and 
the three Pastoral Epistles are left out of account in this computa- 


222 INTRODUCTION 


tion, and at the most the number of these ἅπαξ λεγόμενα is not 
proportionately greater than in some of the acknowledged Pauline 
Epistles. In Galatians, e.g., there are thirty-three words used 
only there and nowhere else in the NT; in Philippians there are 
forty-one; in 2 Corinthians there are ninety-five ; while in Romans 
there are no less than one hundred and in 1 Corinthians one hundred 
and eighty. Further, some of these terms, e.g., those belonging to 
the description of the panoply of God in chap. vi., are obviously the 
products of the figure or the occasion. Some, again, are but single 
occurrences, and in the case of several there are related forms found 
in others of the Epistles. For example, καταρτίζω, κατάρτισις, ὁσίως, 
προσκαρτερεῖν appear elsewhere, though καταρτισμός, ὁσιότης, προσκαρ- 
τέρησις happen to be used only in Ephesians, 

In the second place it is objected that there are certain Pauline 
words which get a new sense in this Epistle. Instances of this 
are alleged to be found in such terms as μυστήριον, οἰκονομία, περιποί- 
nots. But with respect to the first of these the only passage in 
which it can be said to have anything like a novel application is 
v. 32. In the other four occurrences it is used in reality very much 
as it is used elsewhere by Paul. The term οἰκονομία, again, as it is 
handled in this Epistle, has the same general sense of stewardship 
as it has in 1 Cor, ix. 17, though with a different application. And 
if περιποίησις, which has the abstract sense in 1 Thess. v. 9, 2 Thess. 
ii. 14, has to be understood as concrete here in chap. i. 14, that is a 
variation which appears in the use of other terms in the Pauline 
writings and elsewhere. 

In the third place it is objected that in this Epistle certain ideas 
are expressed by terms which differ from those employed by Paul 
elsewhere for the same purpose. To this class are sometimes 
reckoned such words and phrases as ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Κύριον, ἀγαπᾶν τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν, δίδοναί τινα τί, ἀγαθὸς πρός τι, δέσμιος, ἴστε γινώσκοντες, εἰς 
πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, πρὸ καταβολῆς τοῦ κόσμου, σωτήριον, 
αἱ διάνοιαι, τὰ θελήματα, πνεῦμα τοῦ νοός. Little need be said of 
peculiarities of this kind. Some of them have their explanation in 
the nature of the subject or in simple variety in style and ex- 
pression. Others have affinities elsewhere in the Pauline writings. 
How varied, e.g., is Paul’s way of speaking of understanding, spirit, 
etc. Is a writer like St. Paul to be shut up to the same stereo- 
typed forms of expression in one writing after another? Is he to 
be debarred from using the word ἀγαπᾶν with reference to Christ 
or to the Church in this Epistle, merely because in other Epistles 
he uses it with regard to God? And is it impossible for him to 


INTRODUCTION 225 


address his hearers as τέκνα ἀγαπητά when the imitation of God is 
in view, because elsewhere he may use that designation with regard 
to their relations to himself? 
ἢ Some of the instances most commonly cited, however, deserve 
more attention. There is, ¢.g., the use of φωτίζειν in 111. 9, in application 
to the Apostle’s commission to enlighten or instruct. This, it is urged, 
is an application of the word not found elsewhere in the Pauline writ- 
ings. But that might be the case and yet its use here might have its 
justification. The reading is not certain. The question is whether 
πάντας should be inserted or not. If it is omitted, then the aspect of 
the question is changed. If it is inserted, there are analogies to this 
use of φωτίζειν in the LXX (Jud. xiii, 8; 2 Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, 28), and 
Paul may have followed these. There is again the designation of God 
AS 6 Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (i. 17). This indeed is a rare 
designation, and for that very reason one most unlikely to have 
been used by a forger or a mere imitator. But it is a designation 
perfectly consistent with the highest view of Christ’s Person, and 
one which has its justification in Christ’s own words, as recorded 
in the Fourth Gospel (John xx. 17). The phrase τὰ ἐπουράνια, 
which is used five times in this Epistle and, as it seems, with the 
local sense, is confined, it is true, to this one writing among all 
those attributed to Paul. But the adjective, ἐπουράνιος, in the sense 
of heavenly, is used also in 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48, 49; Phil. ii. 10. It 
is difficult to see why Paul should not be thought at liberty to use 
or even to coin such a phrase, or why he might not select the 
term τὰ πνευματικά instead of τὰ πνεύματα in the large and special 
sense which it has in this Epistle. Why, too, should it be thought 
that a word like κοσµοκράτωρ, or a phrase like ὁ ἄρχων τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ 
ἀέρος, SO appropriate to the ideas in hand, must be alien to Paul? 
So is it also with the word διάβολος which meets us in this Epistle, 
while in others, it is said, Paul speaks only of Σατανᾶς. But διάβολος 
is also used in 1 and 2 Tim. The two words indeed are practically 
the same in sense. They are employed interchangeably by other 
NT writers, e.g., the authors of the Fourth Gospel and the Book of 
Acts. Why should a writer of the power and the versatility of Paul 
be tied down to the use of one of these words in all his writings, 
later as well as earlier? There remains the phrase of which perhaps 
most has been made, τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις καὶ προφήταις. This, it is 
said, smacks of the later period when men’s thoughts of the Apostles 
and the prophets of the NT Church had changed. Its use here has 
been felt to be such a difficulty by some that they have tried to 
dispose of it as a gloss or as a case of dislocation in the text. But 


224 INTRODUCTION 


there is nothing so very strange in this application of the term ἅγιος 
if we give the word the broad sense which is its proper sense, and 
which it has indeed in the very same context in the phrase ἐμοὶ τῷ 
ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων (ili. 8). 

In the fourth place serious objection is taken to the Pauline 
authorship on the ground of what is held to be the un-Pauline type 
of thought which appears again and again in the Epistle. It is said, 
e.g., that the question of the inclusion of Few and Gentile in one 
Church is presented in a different light from that in which it is seen 
in other Pauline Epistles. Only here, it is said, is it put before us as 
the great object or, at least, a primary object of Christ’s work and of 
the Divine predestination (ii. 13-18, 19-22, iii, 5, etc., iv. 7-16); and 
what is more, it is introduced simply as a matter of revelation and 
not as a thing over which there had been sharp controversy. It is 
certainly a remarkable place that is given in this Epistle to the 
thought of the unity of the Church and the perfect equality of Jew 
and Gentile within it. But there is no contradiction between this 
way of looking at the inclusion of the Gentiles and that which 
prevails in the other Epistles. The statement is in harmony with the 
general disposition of the Epistle, which is to carry all things back 
to the eternal will and purpose of God. The controversy, moreover, 
was ended, and Paul had no occasion to revive the memory of it in 
the message needed by those whom he addresses here. 

The view , again, which is given of the Law in this Epistle is 
thought to be singular. The Law is not exhibited, it is said, as 
having any real moral value or religious use, but as having simply a 
typical significance and as the cause of enmity and separation be- 
tween Jew and Gentile. And Circumcision itself, it is added, is 
presented as a merely formal thing, and contemptuous words are 
spoken of it (ἡ λεγομένη περιτομή, ii. 11) which would come strangely 
from Paul, himself a circumcised Jew and one who elsewhere 
attaches religious value to circumcision and says good things of it, 
But where he had for his special subject the oneness of Jew and 
Gentile as effected by Christ and as seen in the Church, it was matter 
of course that he should speak particularly of the dividing effect of 
the Law as it was witnessed in the pre-Christian times. And he does 
not speak elsewhere of the Law only in one way. He has very 
different things to say of it according to circumstances; and he 
presents it in aspects which seem even contradictory, speaking of 
it, as he does, now as holy (Rom. vii. 9) and again as incompetent 
(Rom, viii. 3); now as a παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν (Gal. iii. 25) and 
again as Carrying a curse (κατάρα) and condemnation with it (Gal. 


INTRODUCTION 225 


iii. 10). And the same is true of the ways in which circumcision is 
regarded in the Pauline Epistles: cf. Rom. ii. 26-29, iii. 1; Gal. v. 6, 
vi. 15; Phil. iii. 5; Col. ii. 11, 13, etc. 

A very different position, too, is thought to be given to the 
Death of Christ in this Epistle from what it has in the acknowledged 
Pauline writings. In Epistles like those to the Romans, the Gal- 
atians and the Corinthians its expiatory and propitiatory value is 
the theme on which Paul dwells with most emphasis. But here 
this is passed over in silence, and comparatively little is made of 
the Death of Christ even in other aspects. It is rather His exalta- 
tion with all that it involves that is dwelt on. But the difference, so 
far as it exists, is due to the occasion and to the state of those 
addressed. It is true that it is as the means by which the reconcili- 
ation of Jew and Gentile is effected that the Cross is specially 
mentioned (ii. 16), and it is with reference to the imitation of God 
that Christ’s giving of Himself is described as an offering and a 
sacrifice to God. But there is nothing in this to make it impossible 
to suppose that the same author, writing with an eye on other con- 
ditions, might speak of the Cross and the Death of Christ in connec- 
tion with the reconciliation of the world or of the individual. More- 
over, we have here the blood of Christ, redempiton through His blood, 
and the forgiveness of sins as related to His blood—all which are 
distinctly Pauline, if they are also Johannine, terms and ideas (i. 7, 
ii. 13). 

Further, this Epistle is alleged to depart widely from the recog- 
nised Pauline Epistles in its Christology, its doctrine of Christ’s 
Headship, and its view of the Parousia. With regard to the first of 
these particulars this Epistle is more in affinity with that to the 
Colossians than with any other, in so far as it exhibits Christ in His 
largest relations to creation, and presents Him as designed in the 
eternal purpose of God to be the bond of union or reunion for a 
world existing at present in a condition of dislocation and division. 
But there are at least the rudiments and foretokens of this doctrine of 
Christ’s cosmical relations elsewhere. There is, ¢.g¢., the statement of 
the “one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,” in 1 Cor. viii. 6; 
and there is the larger analogy in the great paragraph on the Evangel 
of Creation in Rom. viii. 19-20. It may be, again, that in other Pauline 
passages the body is said to be as Christ (1 Cor. xii. 12) or be in Christ 
(Rom. xii. 4, 5), and the head is reckoned simply among the members 
(1 Cor. xii. 21); whereas here, as in Colossians, believers are the 
members, Christ is the Head, and the Church is the body. But the 
different applications of these figures have their sufficient explana- 

VOL. III, 16 


226 INTRODUCTION 


tion in the different subjects. In the present case the subject is 
the relation between Christ and the Church; in the others it is the 
relation between the members of the Church themselves. And as 
regards the Parousia, the assertion is that, instead of looking, as Paul 
does elsewhere, to that great event as the near and certain con- 
clusion of the world’s end and the consummation of the Kingdom of 
God, the writer of this Epistle views the future as made up of a series 
of ages following one upon the other. But this overlooks the con- 
sideration that the αἰῶνες ἐπερχόμενοι may be those that are to make 
up the Eternity which opens after the Second Coming. The fact 
remains, however, that the Parousia does not occupy the place 
which it has in such Epistles as those to the Thessalonians, and 
that there is nothing to show that it fills the writer’s vision here 
as it does there. But this Epistle is separated by years from those 
earliest writings attributed to Paul. Much had taken place in the 
interval; the Return of Christ had not been witnessed, but the 
Kingdom of God had been seen establishing itself far and wide by 
the preaching of the Gospel. Even in the Second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians it is recognised that the Parousia cannot enter until 
certain things have happened; and in the further experience of God's 
ways as regards the times and the seasons, the Second Coming, 
though the expectation of it was not lost, came to be regarded as a 
less immediately impending event. 

Pinally, it is affirmed that this Epistle differs essentially from the 
acknowledged Pauline writings in its view of the Church, and that 
in more than one respect. It is singular, it is said, in speaking of 
the Church as one, and it gives a view of the Church which could 
not have emerged till a considerably later date than that to which 
Ephesians must be assigned if it is by Paul. To this it is enough to 
reply first that there is nothing in the Epistle to point to a highly 
developed condition of the Church. The organisation of the Church 
is not one of the subjects dealt with. The gifts bestowed upon the 
Church are brought into view, and are shown to be of various kinds, 
But they are not such as infer a comparatively late period. There 
is no mention of rule by bishops and deacons, nor does the external 
unity of the Church form a feature of this Epistle. The view which 
is given of the Church as one is indeed the highest found in the 
Pauline writings. But it is not wholly new. It has its foundations at 
least in earlier Pauline writings, as, e.g., in 1 Cor. xii, 28 (ἔθετο ὁ Θεὸς 
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, etc.) ; xv. 9 (διότι ἐδίωξα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ); Gal. i. 13 (ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ); Phil. iii. 6 (διώκων 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν) ; cf. in the Book of Acts (the composition of a Pauline 


INTRODUCTION 227 


writer), τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ [Κυρίου] ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος 
αὐτοῦ, xx. 28. In the sister Epistle, too, the term ἐκκλησία is used 
both of the local Church and of the universal (i. 18, 24, iv. 15, 16). 
But, apart from that, the unity is a spiritual unity, a oneness which 
consists in the union of individuals, the ἅγιοι, in faith—not the unity 
of a corporation or an organisation. There is nothing in this im- 
portant section of the teaching of the Epistle to make it necessary 
to suppose that it was written at a time when the multitude of 
separate local Churches were driven by the needs of defence to 
form themselves into one large, strong organisation. 

In none of these particulars in which this Epistle is asserted to 
stand apart is there any essential difference between it and the 
acknowledged Pauline Epistles. There are differences, but they are 
differences which admit in each case of a natural explanation, and 
which in no case amount to anything that is incompatible with the 
recognised Pauline doctrine. On the other hand, as scholars like 
Jiilicher frankly admit, we find in this Epistle many distinctive 
Pauline ideas, turns of expression, and qualities of style—the use of 
characteristic terms not found elsewhere in the NT, of particles like 
διό, dpa οὖν, etc.; of ideas like that of the Divine riches, etc., as well 
as the broad lines of Pauline doctrine. Allowing all reasonable 
weight to the internal considerations, of which so much is made, 
they come far short of balancing the strong and consistent argument 
provided by the historical testimony to the Pauline authorship. 

6. THE DESTINATION OF THE ΕΡΙΘΤΙΕ. The traditional view is 
that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesian Church—to that 
Church definitely and by itself. This view has still the support of 
some important authorities. In modern times, however, it has come 
to be largely held that the Epistle is an Encyclical letter, meant not 
for the Ephesian Church specifically, but for a number of Churches, 
or rather for the Christian people found in the Roman Province of 
Asia, or more particularly in the Phrygian territory. The question 
is—Which of these two views of the destination of the Epistle best 
satisfies the data at our disposal, internal and external ἢ 

At first the case for the traditional view seems to be far stronger 
than the other, especially on the side of the historical testimony. 
Here much depends on how the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the inscription is 
regarded. The textual question is not by any means the only element 
in the case. But it is an important element, and the facts which 
come into view are of great interest. They are also plain and indis- 
putable. First there is the fact that all manuscripts, both uncial and 
cursive, with the exception of three, have the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in the 


228 INTRODUCTION 


opening verse. There is the second fact that all manuscripts, so far 
as known to us, without any exception have had this express note of 
destination in the inscription at one time or other. There is the third 
fact that the description of the intended readers as the saints in 
Ephesus is found in all the ancient Versions. And in addition to this 
we have the fact that everywhere the title of the Epistle bears that it 
is addressed to the Ephesians. These things make their impression. 
They are taken by so high an authority as Meyer to mean that the en- 
tire ancient Church (Marcion being discounted), from the Muratorian 
Canon (somewhere about Α.Ρ. 180), Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria 
and Tertullian, held the Epistle to be addressed to the Ephesians. 

The argument from historical testimony in favour of the retention 
of “in Ephesus” in the inscription is also supported by such con- 
siderations as these—that in the Epistles generally acknowledged to 
be by Paul the readers in view are definitely designated, even when 
the Apostle is not writing to the Christians of a single Church or city 
(Gal. i. 2; 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i, 1); that if ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is omitted, the 
letter becomes a circular letter “ without any limitation whatever of 
locality or nationality,” as Meyer puts it, and that this does not fit in 
either with the declared mission of Tychicus (vi. 21), or with what is 
said in such passages as i. 15, ii. 11, iii. 1, iv. 17, etc. It is further 
urged that in every other case in which Paul makes use of the phrase 
τοῖς οὖσιν in an inscription, he attaches to it the name of the city 
or territory to which the readers belong (as in Rom., Cor., Phil.), 
and that without ἐν Ἐφέσῳ the τοῖς οὖσιν does not admit of a sense 
that is adequate or even natural. It may be added that some think 
there is an allusion to the world-famed temple of Diana at Ephesus 
in chap. ii. It is also strongly argued that it is incredible that no 
letter should have been addressed by Paul to a Church like this with 
which he had so many intimate connections, and which was of such 
importance in the fulfilment of his mission. The case as thus stated 
seems well-nigh concluded. 

But there is another side to it. The arguments last mentioned 
are obviously of the most precarious kind. There are other Churches 
with which Paul had very close connections, but which have no letter 
specifically addressed to them among all the Pauline writings that 
have come down to us. If there is an allusion to any particular 
temple in chap. ii. it might be that of Jerusalem rather than that of 
Ephesus. The phrase τοῖς οὖσιν may be construed satisfactorily, 
as we shall see (cf. Notes on i. 1), even if ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is omitted. The 
letter may be a circular letter of another kind than that supposed 
by Meyer to be indicated by the contents. And there may be a 


INTRODUCTION 229 


sufficient reason for Paul’s departure in this case from his usual 
habit of designating by their locality the readers he addresses. 

But it is of more importance to see how different an aspect the 
textual question assumes when it is more closely examined. For 
the weighty fact presents itself that the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ are not 
found in our two oldest and best manuscripts, $B. They have also 
been struck out of cursive 67 by a second hand which may have some 
affinity with B. This is a fact of essential importance in view of 
what these two great uncials have been proved to be in respect of 
value as well as age. It is reinforced by transcriptional probability, 
it being far less likely that a local designation so much in Paul’s 
way, if it belonged to the original text, should have been dropped out 
or deleted by a succession of scribes than that, not forming part of 
the original inscription, it should have been inserted by later hands. 
Nor can the witness of the ancient Versions outweigh this textual 
evidence. For, important as that witness is, it is the witness of 
documents, the extant manuscripts of which are not equal in an- 
tiquity to the Greek uncials. 

But the textual case does not end here. It is supported by 
Patristic testimony of great significance. From Tertullian we learn 
that Marcion and his followers spoke of the Epistle as addressed to 
the Laodicenes. The relevant passages are these two: (1) Praetereo 
hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, 
haeretici vero ad Laodicenos (Adv. Ματο., v., 11) ; and (2) Ecclesiae 
quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non 
ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit 
quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator ; nihil autem de titulis 
interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam (ib. 17). 
In face of this statement it is difficult indeed to suppose that Marcion 
could have had the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in his text. 

Then it appears from what is reported of Origen’s commentary 
that he, too, had not the words in his text. The passage runs thus : 
᾿Ωριγένης δέ φησι, ἐπὶ μόνων ᾿Εφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς 
οὖσι," καὶ ζητοῦμεν εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι" 
τί δύναται σημαίνειν - ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ᾿Εξόδῳ ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ 
ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεῖ τὸ ὤν, οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος, γίνονται ὄντες, 
καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι εἰς τὸ εἶναι, “ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ 
μὴ ὄντα ᾿ φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος, “iva τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ, etc. (Cramer, 
Catena). Here Origen states distinctly that the phrase was without 
ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, and that this was peculiar to the case of Ephesians; and 
he proposes a particular way of getting a suitable meaning out of 
the phrase, giving it a metaphysical sense. 


230 INTRODUCTION 


Further, as regards Tertullian, from the passages already quoted, 
it may be inferred with much probability that he, as well as Marcion, 
did not have ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in his text. Por it is of the ¢itle that he 
speaks, and what he charges Marcion with falsifying is not the 
text itself but the title. If he had had the words ἐν ᾿εφέσῳ in the 
text he would surely have appealed to that in refuting Marcion. But 
instead of that he appeals to the veritas ecclesiae. 

Then we have a statement of great importance made by Basil. 
It is as follows: τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων, ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοιῳ τῷ ὄντι 
δι᾿ ἐπιγνώσεως ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς 
οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι 
καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν (Adv. Eunom., ii., 
19). Here Basil is obviously referring to the ἐν ᾿εφέσῳ ; not, as some 
painfully endeavour to make out, to the τοῖς or to the οὖσι. In doing 
so he gives us to understand that the local designation was absent, 
and his statement is the more important because he speaks not only 
of the ancient copies themselves, but also of the tradition of the 
men who were before him, and describes the clause as being in both 
cases simply τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 

There are other witnesses that are considered to speak to the same 
effect. But they are less certain and at the best only of subordinate 
importance. There is astatement by Jerome to the following effect : 
Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum 
sit ‘‘ Haec dices filiis Israel: qui est misit me,” etiam eos qui Ephesi 
sunt sancti et fideles essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos. . . . Alii vero 
simpliciter non ad eos qui sint, sed ad eos qui Ephesi sancti et fideles 
sint, scriptum arbitrantur (On Eph. i. 1; vol. vii., p. 545). In this 
Jerome seems to refer to Origen and his interpretation of τοῖς οὖσι, 
and to the peculiar reading. But it is at least possible, as Meyer 
takes it, that the words eos qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles may re- 
present τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς ; or it may be, as 
others, ¢.g., Alford, think, that Jerome is dealing only with two pos- 
sible interpretations of τοῖς οὖσιν, without saying anything to imply 
that the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ were absent from the inscription. 

There is, however, something to notice in the case of certain 
Latin commentators. In some of these the inscription is dealt 
with in a way that suggests either that they had not the word 
Ephesi in the copies they followed, or that it occupied a different 
place. Thus Ambrosiater passes over the word Ephesi in his com- 
ment—non solum fidelibus scribit, sed et sanctis: ut tunc vere 
fideles sint, si fuerint sancti in Christo Jesu. Victorinus Afer’s 
statement points to a different arrangement of the words—sed haec 


INTRODUCTION 231 


cum dicit “ Sanctis qui sunt fidelibus Ephesi” quid adjungitur? ‘In 
Christo Jesu” (Mai, Script. Vet. nova Collect., iii., p. 87). Ata much 
later period Sedulius Scotus also comments on the passage thus: 
Sanctis. Non omnibus Ephesiis, sed his qui creduntin Christo. Et 
fidelibus. Omnes sancti fideles sunt, non omnes fideles sancti, etc. 
Qui sunt in Christo Jesu. Plures fideles sunt sed non in Christo, 
etc. (cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 384, 385, and Abbott, ut supra, 
pp. ii, iii), The strength of the case on the side of Textual Criticism, 
however, lies with 8B and the testimonies of Marcion, Origen and 
Basil. It amounts to this, that there is no evidence that the words 
ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ formed part of the Greek text of the first three centuries. 
It is not till we come to the latter half of the fourth century that 
we have any certain indication of the local designation being included 
in the inscription, and that indication is found in Basil’s implied dis- 
tinction between the ancient copies (τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων) and 
others. 

But the question does not terminate there. The character of the 
Epistle itself and the relations between Paul and the Ephesian Church 
form weighty elements in the case. Everything goes to show how 
intimate these relations were, how peculiar was the place that this 
Church had in the Apostle’s heart, how much it was his care. Not 
only was he the founder of the Church of Ephesus, but he spent 
some three years preaching and teaching in the city. During that 
long residence his interest in his Ephesian converts was so keen and 
anxious and his labours in their behalf so great that he describes 
himself as “‘ ceasing not to warn every one day and night with tears” 
(Acts xx. 31). Various things that are mentioned or alluded to in 
his Epistles indicate how constantly he had them in his mind. And 
the farewell which he took of their elders at Miletus is among the 
most pathetic passages of the NT. On his side there were words of 
tender solicitude and loving warning; on theirs thankfulness, affection, 
an emotion so profound that they “fell on his neck and kissed him, 
sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should 
see his face no more”. It is difficult to suppose that Paul could 
have written a letter intended specifically for this Church without 
giving some indication of what it was to him personally, without some 
reference to what he had done for it and the grateful response which 
his labours had found in it, without letting his feeling towards its 
meimbers express itself in some form. 

Yet this Epistle is in all these respects a singularly neutral com- 
position, without the personal note that makes itself felt in such 
Epistles as those to Corinth and Philippi, with nothing to say about 


232 INTRODUCTION 


any individual but the bearer of the letter, with nothing to connect it 
with the particular locality, with little or nothing to recall Paul’s stay 
in Ephesus or any of the many things that made his work among 
the Ephesians so memorable and the terms on which he and they 
stood to each other so close and affectionate. In the present case 
there is only the very general salutation which is given in the last 
two verses; and that is something less particular than the salutation 
with which the Epistle to the Philippians closes; while there are 
none of those personal touches throughout the Epistle to relieve the 
impersonal conclusion such as we find in these other letters. And 
in addition to the argument which founds on this neutral, impersonal 
quality of the Epistle, there are expressions here and there which per- 
haps suggest relations of a different kind from those which we know to 
have existed between Paul and the Ephesians. Not to speak of such 
passages as i. 15, there is the statement in iii. 4, which seems to 
some to mean that those addressed had yet to learn what Paul’s 
“knowledge of the mystery in Christ” was; which could not be 
said of the Ephesians. There are also the two passages in which 
Paul uses the formula: “if indeed” (iii, 2, iv. 21, 22); of which it 
may be said that, although εἴγε does not necessarily express actual 
doubt, it is a particle more in place where the speaker’s own ex- 
perience or work is not in view, than where he addresses those who 
owe to him what they are and with whom his relations are direct 
and intimate. 

The result, therefore, to which many have been led since Arch- 
bishop Ussher first threw out the suggestion is that this Epistle isa 
circular letter meant for a number of Churches in a particular part 
of the Asiatic province, of which Ephesus was one. This view is 
accepted in one way or other by such authorities as Bengel, 
Neander, Harless, Olshausen, Reuss, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Hort, 
Weiss, Woldemar Schmidt, Abbott, etc. This general conclusion, 
however, is put in more than one form. Some regard the sen- 
tence as complete in itself and as requiring nothing to be in- 
serted after the τοῖς οὖσιν. Bengel, e.g., looking to the κατὰ τὴν 
οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν οὗ Acts xiii. 1, and the ai δὲ οὖσαι ἐξουσίαι of Rom. xiii. 
1, rendered it ‘‘ sanctis et fidelibus qui sunt in omnibus iis locis, quo 
Tychicus cum hac Epistola νεηπίε”. But the introduction of ἐν 
᾿Αντιοχείᾳ in the former and the force of the οὖσιν in the latter make 
these imperfect parallels. Others give the words the sense of “the 
saints who are really such” or ‘‘the saints existing and faithful in 
Christ Jesus”. But neither of these readings can be justified. The 
only interpretation of the clause that is quite consistent with grammar, 


INTRODUCTION 233 


in making it a sentence complete within itself, is “the saints who are 
also faithful’. Adopting this, some (e.g., Abbott, following Reiche, 
Ewald, etc.) take the Epistie to be addressed not to any particular 
Church or Churches as such, but generally to all the Christian 
people in the Phrygian parts. This hypothesis, it is held, ex- 
plains the absence of local particulars; avoids the necessity of 
supposing that a blank space had been left after the τοῖς οὖσιν ; and 
enables us to understand the phrase “' {πε epistle from Laodicea ” 
in Col. iv. 16. Others, however, think the case is better met by 
supposing that a space was left in which the name of the particular 
church might be inserted to which the letter was addressed in the 
course of its circular journeyings ; or, as Hort prefers to put it, that 
the blank in the original copy sent with Tychicus was filled in with 
the name of the Church of each place in which it was read. 

The last is perhaps the most natural explanation. And on 
the whole question it may be said that it is much easier to under- 
stand how the local designation should have come to be inserted 
than to imagine how, if originally in the text, it should have come 
to be omitted, and that, too, at so early a date. The fact that the 
Ephesian Church was the Church of the chief city of the Asiatic 
Province and the most important Church in all these parts would 
account for the insertion of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, especially if, as is most 
probable, it was from Ephesus that copies were sent elsewhere. The 
fact that the Epistle was meant for a wider audience than that found 
in Ephesus itself would account for the circulation of such a letter 
as that referred to as “the epistle from Laodicea”’. On the other 
hand, the supposition that the Epistle was meant originally only for 
Ephesus, and that the ἐν Ἐφέσῳ came to be dropped either by acci- 
dent or by design, is one hard to entertain. It is difficult to imagine 
how mere accident could account for the omission, and to say that 
the local designation was struck out of certain very ancient copies 
because it did not appear to be in harmony with the contents of the 
letter is to attribute to these very early times the operation of a 
criticism of which we have very little evidence. 

7. TimE AND PLaAce oF Composition. The date has been put 
variously, ¢.g., at A.D. 55-58 (McGiffert) ; 60 or 61 (Meyer) ; 62 (Zahn) ; 
61-63 (Lightfoot) ; 75 to 80 (Ewald) ; about Α.Ρ. 80 (Scholten); about 
A.D. 100 (Holtzmann, Mangold); 130-140 (Baur, Davidson). The 
question of the date depends largely on the question of the place. 
The Epistle itself makes it clear that Paul was a prisoner when 
he wrote it (iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20). It contains things, too, which 
point to some affinity between it and other Epistles in which the 


234 INTRODUCTION 


writer is a prisoner. The reference to Tychicus as the bearer con- 
nects it with the Epistles to Philemon and the Colossians (cf. vi. 
21, Phil. 13, Col. iv. 7), and suggests that these three letters belong 
very much to the same period, and that they were written when 
Paul was occupied very much with the same questions. Two 
imprisonments, however, come into view—the one in Czesarea (Acts 
xxiii. 35, xxiv. 27), the other in Rome (Acts xxviii.). Each of these 
has its supporters. 

The view that this Epistle belongs to the period of the Caesarean 
Captivity is advocated with great ability by Reuss and Meyer among 
others. Reuss contends that the theory that the various Epistles 
of the Captivity were all written from Rome rests mostly on “ un- 
authenticated tradition”; that the mood of the Apostle in the 
Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon suits his circum- 
stances in Cwsarea better than those in Rome; that there are 
chronological difficulties of a serious nature in the way of referring 
these three Epistles together with Philippians and 2 Timothy to 
Rome; that this makes it necessary to divide the five between 
Czsarea and Rome; and that the various allusions to individuals, 
such as Tychicus, Timothy and Demetrius, in these Epistles are 
best harmonised, and certain particular statements, such as the 
πρὸς ὥραν in Phil. 15, best understood, on the theory that those to 
Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were written in Czesarea, 

Meyer admits that some of the arguments thus used by Reuss 
cannot be pressed, especially those founding on such indications as 
the πρὸς ὥραν, and on the idea that the friends of Paul mentioned in 
Colossians (iv. 9-14) and Philemon (10, 23) could not have been with 
him at Rome. But he attaches great importance to these con- 
siderations—viz., (1) that it is more probable that Onesimus should 
have sought safety in Colosse than that he should have risked the 
long journey by sea to Rome, and the possibilities of capture in 
Rome; (2) that if Ephesians and Colossians had been sent from 
Rome, Tychicus and Onesimus would have arrived at Ephesus first 
and afterwards at Colossz ; in which case it would be reasonable to 
suppose that Paul would have mentioned Onesimus to the Ephesians, 
as he does in the Epistle to the Colossians; (3) that the ἵνα εἰδῆτε 
καὶ ὑμεῖς in Eph, vi, 21 implies that when Tychicus reached Ephesus 
he ‘“‘ would already have fulfilled the aim here expressed in the case 
of others,” and these others are the Colossians (Col. iv. 8, 9); and 
(4) that in Phil. 22 Paul asks a lodging to be prepared for his speedy 
use—a statement implying that his place of imprisonment was not 
so distant from Colossz as Rome was, 


eb 


-- 


INTRODUCTION 235 


These arguments, however, when narrowly examined, are not so 
convincing as they appear at first sight to be. A runaway slave would 
in reality be more likely to escape discovery in the thick masses of 
the population of the world’s metropolis than in Czsarea. Our 
ignorance of the circumstances of the flight of Onesimus and the 
supposition that the Epistle is an Encyclical make the argument 
from the lack of any such mention of Onesimus as we find in Colos- 
sians uncertain. The ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς does not necessarily imply 
what Meyer infers from it, and the same may be said of the reference 
to the lodging in Philemon. 

On the other hand there are weighty objections to referring this 
Epistle to the Czesarean imprisonment. Thus, the circumstances 
of the captivity seem to suit Rome better than Czsarea. For when 
we compare Acts xxiv. 23 with Acts xxviii. 16, etc., we gather that 
the Apostle had less liberty in Czesarea than in Rome, and this 
accords ill with such passages as Eph. vi. 19, 20. The number of 
friends mentioned in these Epistles of the Captivity as companions of 
Paul—Aristarchus, Marcus, Jesus Justus, Lucas, Demas, Epaphras, 


- Tychicus, Onesimus—is considerable, so considerable as to make it 


probable, as Alford, e.g., contends, that he was in Rome; for it was 
there rather than in Czesarea that so many might have been with 
him. Then there is the argument drawn from the relations between 
the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. 
If these letters belong to much the same period in Paul’s career 
(and there is much to favour that), then the mention of “ Czsar’s 
household” in Phil. iv. 22 points much more to Rome than to 
Czsarea as the place of the Apostle’s residence when he wrote 
these kindred communications; and the same holds good of the 
statement of his progress in Phil. i. 21, etc. In neither case can 
Czesarea be fairly said to suit the circumstances, or to be of the 
importance implied. The expectation also which the Apostle appears 
to entertain when he wrote Philippians was that of speedy release 
and a visit to Macedonia (i. 26, ii. 24, Phil. 22); but what he looked 
to when he was in Cesarea was rather that he might go to Rome. 
These arguments will become all the stronger if it is made out 
that Philippians was written before Ephesians. There is the greater 
reason then for taking the latter to have been written at Rome. 
This is a question which need not be discussed at length here. 
It is enough to say that the arguments against the priority of 
Philippians in the line of these four letters of the Captivity are 
neither very certain nor very weighty, while there are various 
internal considerations which favour the priority. Of these the 


236 INTRODUCTION 


most important perhaps is found in the points of contact on the 
one hand between Philippians and the earlier Pauline Epistles, 
especially Romans, and on the other hand between Philippians 
and the other three Epistles of the Captivity. These have been 
worked out with care by Lightfoot among others, at once with 
regard to particular expressions and to parallels in thought. They 
have led him and others to the conclusion that the Epistle to the 
Philippians is the middle link between the great letter to the Romans 
and those to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Philemon, The 
majority of scholars, therefore, take our Epistle to have been written 
at Rome. If so, its date may be about a.p. 62 or 63. 

The question has also been considerably discussed whether our 
Epistle is prior to that to the Colossians or posterior to it. That 
it is prior is argued from its more general aim; from the more 
abstract character of its contents; and from the consideration that, 
as it is an Epistle which would be much more difficult to draw up 
than that to the Colossians, the resemblances between the two are 
best accounted for by supposing that some of the ideas thought 
out in the former were transferred to the latter. On the other 
hand, it is held that, as Coloss2 was nearer Caesarea and would be 
reached by Tychicus before he got to Ephesus, it is more natural to 
think that the Epistle to that Church would be written before the 
other, as it would be delivered before it. But this presupposes that 
the place of composition was Caesarea. And the same is the case with 
the contention that the καὶ ὑμεῖς of Eph. vi. 21 refers to the Colossians 
(cf. Col. iv. 7), and presupposes that Paul had already communicated 
with Colosse. These are all very precarious arguments, and the 
question must be regarded as undecided. 

8. THe Doctrine or THE Epistite. The teaching of the Epistle 
is at once so lofty and so profound as to more than justify all that has 
been said of the grandeur of the composition by discerning minds in 
ancient and in modern times. Chrysostom speaks of the Epistle as 
“ overflowing with lofty thoughts and doctrines '’—one in which 
Paul expounds things ‘“ which he scarcely anywhere else utters”. 
(ὑψηλῶν σφόδρα γέμει τῶν νοημάτων καὶ ὑπερόγκων - ἃ γὰρ μηδαμοῦ σχέδον 
ἐφθέγξατο, ταῦτα ἐνταῦθα δηλοῖ) Theophylact, Grotius, Witsius and 
others speak of it in similar terms. Adolphe Monod, in his Ε xplica- 
tion, describes it as ‘‘ embracing in its brevity the whole field of the 
Christian religion,” as expounding “ now its doctrines, now its morals 
with such conciseness and such fulness combined that it would be 
difficult to name any great doctrine or any essential duty which has 
not its place marked in it”. And Coleridge wrote of it as “ one of 


INTRODUCTION 237 


the divinest compositions of man,” embracing “every doctrine of 
Christianity—first those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and then 
those precepts common to it with natural religion” (Table Talk). 

What gives it its peculiar majesty is the way in which it carries 
everything back to God Himself, His will, His eternal purpose and 
counsel. It is a distinctively theological Epistle, in the sense in which 
the Epistle to the Romans is distinctively anthropological or psycho- 
logical, and that to the Colossians Christological, The great subjects 
of predestination and the Divine plan, eternal in the mind of God, 
centring in Christ and fulfilled in Him, have a larger and more 
definite place in this Epistle than in any other, excepting Rom. viii.- 
xi. It has at the same time, however, a rich Christology. Christ is 
set forth as the Son of God (i. 3, iv. 13) ; the Beloved of the Father 
(i. 6); pre-existent (i. 4); raised from the dead and exalted to supreme 
sovereignty over all things—King of the universe and Head of the 
Church (i. 20-23, ii. 6, iv. 9, 12, ν. 23); the Giver of all spiritual 
gifts (iv. 7, 8); the Treasury of all knowledge and riches (iii. 8-10) ; 
having the place given in the OT to Jehovah (iv. 8). 

Its Soteriology also i8 of wide compass. It speaks of Christ as 
the medium of God’s forgiveness of sinners (iv. 32); of redemption 
as coming to us by Him (i. 7); of the offering and the sacrifice made to 
God in Christ’s giving of Himself (ν. 2); of the reconciliation of Jew 
and Gentile as accomplished by Him; of the gracious results of His 
work as being effected by His blood and His cross (i. 7, ii. 16). The 
doctrine of the Church also reaches its highest point in this Epistle. 
Not only is the Church the Bride of Christ (v. 25-27) and His Body 
and the fulness of His gifts, but it is the Church ideal—one great, 
catholic, spiritual body including all the chosen, redeemed and 
sanctified. And among other doctrines which have a place in it is 
that of the Holy Spirit as active in the prophets (iii. 5), and as the 
believer’s seal and earnest (i. 13, 14, iv. 30); that of regeneration as 
the operation of God (ii. 25); and that of the existence and power 
of evil spirits (ii. 2, vi. 12). The deep foundations of the confessional 
doctrine of original sin are also found by many in ii. 3, and the great 
Reformation doctrine of the priority of grace has its roots in ii. 5-8, 

9. THe LITERATURE OF THE ΕΡΙΘΤΙΕ. The literature is copious. 
Not to mention the well-known books on New Testament Introduction, 
the various works on the Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 
and the articles in the great Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, 
there are many treatises of importance in addition to the formal 
commentaries. Among these may be mentioned C. F. Baur’s 
Paulus der Apostel Fesu Christi ; H. J. Holtzmann’s Kritik der 


238 - INTRODUCTION 


Epheser- und Kolosser-briefe ; J. Késtlin’s Der Lehrbegriff des Evang. 
und der verwandten Ν. Τ. Lehrbegriffe ; A. Linemann’s De Epistola 
ad Ephesios Authentia ; J. FP. Raebiger’s De Christologia Paulina 
contra Baurium Commentatio ; C. von Weizsacker’s A post. Zeitalter ; 
L. Usteri’s Entwicklung des Paul. Lehrbegriff's ; O. Pfleiderer’s Der 
Paulinismus (Paulinism, tr. by E. Peters) and his Urchristentum ; 
A. Sabatier’s L’Apétre Paul (The Apostle Paul, tr. by A. M. Hellier) ; 
J.T. Wood’s Modern Discoveries on the Site of Ancient Ephesus ; 
A. C. M’Giffert’s History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age; 
ο. G. Findlay’s Ephesians (The Expositor’s Bible); R. S. Candlish’s 
Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, expounded in a series of Discourses ; 
J. Pulsford’s Christ and His Seed, central to all things, being a series 
of Expository Discourses on Ephesians; R. W. Dale’s The Epistle 
to the Ephesians, its Doctrine and Ethics ; J. B. Lightfoot’s Biblical 
Essays ; P. J. A. Hort’s Prolegomena to St. Paul's Epistles to the 
Romans and the Ephesians ; W. M. Ramsay’s Cities and Bishoprics 
of Phrygia, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, Church in the 
Roman Empire, and St. Paul the Traveller. 

Among commentaries the following may be noticed: those by 
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jer- 
ome and (Ecumenius in ancient times; those by Luther, Bugenhagen, 
Bucer and Calvin in the Reformation period—of which Calvin’s is by 
far the best; P. Bayne’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians 
(1643); J. Ferguson's A Brief Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to 
the Galatians and Ephesians (1659) ; Thomas Goodwin's Exposition 
(1681); L. Ridley’s Commentary (1546); R. Rollock’s In Ep. Pauli 
ad Ephesios Commentarius (1580); also H. Zanchius, Comment. in 
Ep. ad Ephesios (1594); R. Boyd of Trochrig, In Epistolam Pauli 
Apost. ad Ephesios Praelectiones (1652); John Locke, Paraphrase 
and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, Corinthians, 
Romans, Ephesians (1707); J. D. Michaelis, Paraphrase u. Anmer- 
kungen iiber die Briefe Pauli an die Galat., Eph., Phil., Col. 
(1750, 1769) ; 5. Ε. N. Morus, Acroases in Epp. Paulinas ad Galatas 
et Ephesios (1795); P. J. Spener, Erklarung der Episteln an die 
Epheser und Colosser (1706); G. Τ. Zachariz, Paraphrastische Erk- 
larung der Briefe Pauli an die Gal., Eph., Philip., u. Thess. (1771, 
1787). 

Of works of more recent date those by the following may be men- 
tioned: Dr. Alfred Barry, in Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary for 
English Readers ; L. P.O. Baumgarten Crusius, Comm. δεν die Briefe 
Pauli an die Eph. u. Kol. (1847); J. A. Beet, Commentary on the 
Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon ; J. 


INTRODUCTION 239 


T. Beck, Erklarung des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser; FP, Bleek, 
Vorlesungen Πεν die Briefe an die Kol., d. Philemon, 1. d. Epheser ; 
K. Braune, in Lange’s Bibelwerk ; J. G. Candlish, The Epistle 
of Paul to the Ephesians; J. L. Davies, The Epistles to the 
Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon; John Eadie, Commentary on 
the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians ; C. J. Elli- 
cott, Critical and Grammatical Commentary on Ephesians, with a 
Revised Translation ; G. H. A. Ewald, Die Sendschreiben des Ap. 
Paulus iibers. u. erklart, and Sieben Sendschreiben des N. B.; J. 
P, Flatt, Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe an die Gal. u. die Epheser ; 
G. C. A. Harless, Comm. δεν den Brief Pauli an die Epheser ; 
C. Hodge, Commentary on Epistle to the Ephesians ; J. C. Κα. von 
Hofmann, Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser; FP. A. Holtzhausen, 
Der Brief an die Epheser iibers. u. erklart ; M. Kahler, Der sogen. 
Eph, des P. in genauer Wiedergabe seines Gedankenganges; A. 
Klopper, Der Brief an die Epheser ; J. Macpherson, Commentary on 
St, Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians ; Ἐς K. Meier, Commentar iiber d. 
Brief Pauli an die Epheser; H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetisches 
Handbuch δον den Brief Pauli an die Epheser ; the same, edited by 
Woldemar Schmidt (1878, 1886), and by Erich Haupt (1897) ; H. C. 
G. Moule, “The Epistle to the Ephesians” (Cambridge Bible for 
Schools and Colleges); H. Oltramare, Comm. sur les Epitres de S. 
Paul aux Coloss., aux Ephés. et a Philémon; L. J. Rickert, Der 
Brief Pauli an die Epheser erladutert und vertheidigt ; G. Schneder- 
mann, in Strack ἃ. Zéckler’s Kurzgef. Kommentar (1885); H. von 
Soden, in Handcommentar zum N.T.; R. E. Stier, Die Gemeinde in 
Christo Fesu: Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser; B. Weiss, 
Die Paulinischen Briefe im berichtigten Text, mit kurzer Erldauter- 
ung ; G. Wohlenberg, Die Briefe an die Epheser, an die Colosser, an 
Philemon u. an die Philipper ausgelegt (Strack u. Zéckler’s Kurzgef. 
Comm., 1895). 

Abbreviations.—The abbreviations adopted in this Commentary 
are either those usually employed or such as explain themselves. 





ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥ͂Σ. 


I. τ. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ "ἀπόστολος “Inood Χριστοῦ] "διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, κ 4 σοτεῖ. t: 
ο 


τοῖς “ἁγίοις τοῖς” οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ὃ καὶ 


i,1; Titus i. 1; also Rom.i.1; Gal. i. τ; Phil. i. 1. 


i. 1; also Rom. xv. 32; 2 Cor. viii. 5. 
Rom. i. 7; Heb. iii. 1. dc 


Ce ie ο 
1 Tim. i, 
1; 2 Tim. 
b xr Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor.i. 1; Col.i. 1; 2 Tim. 


πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ 


; ς Col. 1.2; Phil. i.1; also Dan. vii. 18; Acts ix. 13, 32, 41; 
ol. i. 1; also Wisd. iii. 9; Acts x. 45; 1 Tim. ν. 16; Rev. xvii. 14. 


1 |yoov Χριστου, TR with SAFKL, etc., Vulg., Syr.-P, Arm., etc., Gr. and Lat. 
Fathers. Χριστου ἰησου, BDP 17, etc. ; Vulg.am., Syr.-H, Boh., Copt., Goth., ete. ; 


Origen, etc.; LTTrWHRV. 


2 πασιν is inserted by $A, Vulg., Copt. 


δεν Εφεσῳ omitted by BQ 67", Orig., 
is transferred to margin by TTr and ΕΝ. 


TirLE.—Ancient documents give the 
title of this Epistle in various forms. In 
our oldest manuscripts, BRAK, etc., it is 
simply προς ἔφεσιους, and this is fol- 
lowed by LTTrWH. Later, it becomes 
προς Εφεσιους επιστολη, as in k; επι- 
στολη προς Ἐφεσιους, as in {; Παυλου 
επιστολη προς ἔφεσιους, as in P; του 
αγιου ἄποστολου Παυλου επιστολη 
προς Εφεσιους, as in L; προς Ἐφεσιους 
επιστολη του αγιου αποστολου [Παυλον, 
asin’. Nor are these the only forms. 
In DF we have αρχεται προς Εφεσιους; 
Cod. am. gives inctpit epistula ad Ephe- 
sios, and f has τοις εφεσιοις μυσταις 
ταντα διδασκαλος εσθλος. The form 
followed by the AV is that of the 
Elzevir text, Παυλου του αποστολου η 
προς εφεσιους επιστολη. 

CHAPTER I.—Vv. 1, 2. Address and 
Salutation.—In the form of his Epistles, 
especially in the opening address and in 
the conclusion, Paul follows the methods 
of letter writing which were customary in 
the ancient world, in particular in Greece 
and Rome, in his own time. We now 
possess a considerable collection of an- 
cient letters, especially communications 
of a business kind and letters of familiar 
intercourse. Not a few of these belong 
to the periods immediately preceding and 
following the birth of Christ. They help 
us to a better understanding of some 
things in Paul’s Epistles. They also 


VOL, III. 


, Cyril Jer., etc. D omits τοις before ονσιν. 


Marc., Basil. It is omitted by WH, and 


let us see how he infused the new spirit 
of Christianity into the old accustomed 
heathen forms of epistolary correspond- 
ence. 

This Epistle opens in Paul’s usual 
way, with a greeting in which both the 
writer and the readers are specifically 
designated. At the same time the address 
has certain features of its own, which 
have their explanation in the circum- 
stances.—Maddos. Inthe Epistles which 
he addresses to Churches, Paul usually 
associates some one else, or more than 
one, with himself in the superscription— 
Sosthenes in 1 Corinthians; Timothy in 
2 Corinthians, Philippians and Colos- 
sians; Silyanus and Timothy in 1 and 
2 Thessalonians; ‘‘all the brethren ”’ in 
Galatians. The only exception is the 
Epistle to the Romans. In Philemon, 
too, a letter of a personal and private 
character, though meant also for the 
Church in the house of the recipient 
(ver. 2), he names Timothy with himself. 
But in the present Epistle no one is 
conjoined with him in the greeting. It 
is difficult to suppose that he was ab- 
solutely alone at the time when he wrote 
this letter. The explanation lies probably 
in the fact that the Epistle was written as 
a communication of a general character, 
intended to go round a considerable circle 
of Churches.—améotodos. Usually this 
term has the definite, official sense of a 


16 


242 


delegate, a messenger with a commission. 
Occasionally it has a wider and less 
specific meaning, as in Acts xiv. 4, 14, 
1 Cor. ix. 5, 6; Gal. ii. 9, and probably 
Rom. xvi. 7; τας xv. ο ο Ὁ car. 
viii. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 6. In the Gospels, 
while it occurs oftener in Luke, it is 
found only once in each of the other 
three. In the LXX it occurs once, as 


the representative of ποσο (x Kings 


xiv. 6). In later Judaism it denotes one 
who is sent out on foreign service, ¢.g., to 
collect the Temple-tribute. See Light., 
Galatians, pp. 92-101, Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
This order is to be preferred, with the 
RV and TTrWH, to the Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
ofthe TRandthe AV, The genitive may 
be the ordinary possessive genitive, ‘‘ an 
apostle belonging to Christ Jesus”; or it 
may be the genitive of derivation or 
source, ‘‘ an apostle sent by Christ Jesus,”’ 
the term ἀπόστολος retaining something 
of its original sense of one sent by 
another. The former is the more probable 
view, looking to the analogy of such 
phrases as ob εἰμι (Acts xxvii. 23). The 
name Χριστός, which in the Gospels 
preserves its technical sense of ‘the 
Christ" in all but a few instances (¢.g., 
Matt. i. 1, 18; Mk. i. 1; John xvii. 3), 
has become a personal name in the Paul- 
ine Epistles. The combination “ Jesus 
Christ,”’ or ‘‘ Christ Jesus,"’ which is rare 
in the Gospels, occurs frequently in the 
Book of Acts and most frequently in 
the Epistles. 

There is a variety in the way in which 
Paul designates himself in his Epistles 
that is of interest and has its meaning. 
In some he gives only his name, and 
makes no reference to his being either 
an apostle or a servant of Jesus Christ. 
So in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. In one 
(Philemon) he describes himself as a 
‘prisoner of Jesus Christ”. In one 
(Philippians) he is “ servant" only; in 
two (Romans and Titus) he is both “ ser- 
vant” and “apostle”. In seven (1 and 
2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 
and 2 Timothy, and here in Ephesians) it 
is only the apostleship that is instanced, 
but in each case with a further statement 
of how it came to him.—84 θελήματος 
Θεοῦ. So also in 1 and 2 Corinthians, 
Colossians and 2 Timothy. In Galatians 
we have οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀν- 
θρώπον, ἀλλὰ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ 
Θεοῦ πατρός, κ.τ.λ.; and in τ Timothy: 
κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ 
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (RV); cf. κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν 
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ, with reference 
to the commission to preach (Titus i. 3). 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ Ι, 


The phrase used here in Ephesians defines 
the apostleship as an office which came to 
Paul neither by his own will nor by the 
act of any man, but by direct Divine call 
and appointment. His Epistles certainly 
reflect his consciousness of this fact. His 
work, his discourses, his letters all alike 
reveal the conviction that he was in actu- 
ality what he had been declared to be 
in the message to Ananias—“‘ a vessel of 
election ’’ (Acts ix. 15). This is the main 
idea in the defining sentence and its equiv- 
alents. They vindicate Paul’s author- 
ity, indeed, when that is challenged, but 
they express primarily the fact that it was 
by grace he was what he was (1 Cor. 
xv. 10).—toig ἁγίοις. Those addressed 
are designated first by a term which ex- 
presses the great Old Testament idea of 
their separation. It does not immedi- 
ately or distinctively denote their per- 
sonal piety or sanctity in our sense of the 
word, though that is dealt with as going 
with the other. It expresses the larger 
fact that they are set apart to God and 
taken into a special relation to Him. In 
three of the Epistles of the Captivi 
(Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians) it 
takes the place which the Church has 
in the superscriptions of the earlier 
Epistles ως. Corinthians, 
Galatians), The reason for the varia- 
tion is not easy to see. It has been 
supposed to be due to the desire to 
give ‘‘a more personal colouring to the 
Epistle as if addressed to the members 
of the Church as individuals rather than 
as a body” (Abbott). The distinction, 
indeed, is not carried through the two 
groups of Epistles; for in Philemon it is 
again “τῆς Church,” not “the saints”, 
—tois οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ. The local 
definition ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (on which see more 
in the Introduction) is inserted by the 
vast majority of manuscripts, both uncial 
and cursive, and Fathers, and, as far as 
we know, by all the Versions. It is 
supported also to some extent by the fact 
that in the oldest manuscripts the title of 
the Epistle is προς Εφεσιους; by the 
apparently unanimous tradition of the 
Early Church that this Epistle was 
addressed to the Ephesians; by the 
absence of all evidence indicating that 
the Epistle was claimed in ancient times 
for any other Church definitely named; 
and by certain parallels in Ignatius. On 
the other hand, it is omi by the two 
oldest and most im t uncials, B and 
Ν (in which it has been inserted by later 
ands); it is expurged from the cursive 
67 by a corrector who seems to have had 
an older document before him; it did not 


τ--2 


9 . ‘ Cpls 
2. "χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη 
κυρίου  ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ. 


, a 
Ιησοῦ. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


243 


ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ο ΘΔ]. 131. 


' Χρ. before Ino. Β. 


belong to the text of the manuscripts 
followed by Origen early in the third 
century, nor to that of those mentioned 
by Basil about a century and a half later. 
The omission is supported also to some 
extent by a statement made by Tertullian 
regarding Marcion; and more decidedly 
by the general character of the Epistle 
(its lack of personal references, salutations 
to individuals, etc.), as well as by the 
difficulty of understanding why the phrase 
should have been dropped if it did be- 
long to the original text. Tischendorf, 
Westcott and Hort and others, there- 
fore, bracket it in their texts; Tregelles 
brackets it in his margin and the Revisers 
give it as an alternative reading in their 
margin. 

If ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ is retained, allis plain. If 
the hypothesis is accepted (on which see 
Introduction) that a blank space was left 
after the τοῖς οὖσιν to be filled in with the 
names, each in its turn, of the particular 
Churches in the Province of Asia to which 
the letter came in its rounds among the 
congregations, all still remains plain. 
But if the clause is omitted and if the 
hypothesis mentioned is not accepted, 
a difficulty arises in dealing with the 
combination τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς. 
There are far-fetched expedients which 
need only to be named in order to be 
dismissed—such as Origen’s notion that 
thé τοῖς οὖσιν has a transcendental sense, 
meaning that the saints ARE, as God is 
called I AM, and expressing the idea, as 
it may be, that they are those who have 
been called out of non-existence into real 
existence or an existence worthy of the 
name; and the somewhat similar idea 
that the tots οὖσιν denotes the reality 
of their sainthood: ‘‘ the saints who are 
really such”’; or the reality of their saint- 
hood and faith: ‘‘ the saints and believers 
who are truly such’. The choice lies 
between two explanations, viz., (1) ‘‘to 
the saints who are also believers in Christ 
Jesus,” and (2) ‘“‘to the saints who are 
also faithful in Christ Jesus”. The for- 
mer gives to πιστοῖς the special New 
Testament sense which it has in such 
Pauline passages as 2 Cor. vi. 15; Gal. 
lii. 9; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Titus Ἱ. 6. It takes 
the term to be added in order to com- 
plete the description of the readers as 
Christians—not merely set apart, as 
might be the case with Jews (the τοῖς 


ἁγίοις by itself not going necessarily 
beyond the OT idea and the Israelite 
relation), but specifically believers in 
Christ. The latter gives the adjec- 
tive the sense of trustworthy, stead- 
fast, which is its classical sense, but 
which it also has in a later passage of 
this Epistle (vi. 21), in other Pauline 
Epistles (Col) iv. ο τ πι 1. το 
2 Tim. ii. 2), and occasionally elsewhere 
ὙΠ ἘΠΕ ΝΕ (2:2.,.00 bet. va το Πες, 
ii.17). The term thus defines the readers, 
who are understood to be Christians, as 
faithful, constant in their Christian pro- 
fession. This is favoured by the desig- 
nation of the brethren in Col. i. 2, which 
is the closest parallel and in which the 
πιστοῖς seems to have the sense of faith- 
ful. It is objected that, if this were the 
meaning, the πιστοῖς should have been 
followed by the simple dative Χριστῷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ, as in Heb. 11. 2. In like mannet 
it is objected to the former explanation 
that in connecting the πιστοῖς immedi- 
ately with the ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ‘‘ be- 
lieving in Christ Jesus,” it has usage 
against it, πιστὸς ἐν not being found in 
that sense in the NT although we find 
πίστις ἐν occasionally in‘ Pauline pas- 
sages (Eph. i. 15; Gal. iii. 26) and πισ- 
τεύειν ἐν at least once elsewhere (Mk. 
i. 15). Butin point of fact the ἐν Χριστῷ 
Ἰησοῦ is best taken here in the definite 
Pauline sense which it has as an inde- 
pendent phrase expressing a distinct and 
profound idea—that of fellowship or union 
with Christ, or standing in Him. It is 
doubtful whether ic is meant to qualify 
both the ἁγίοις and the πιστοῖς (so 
Abbott, etc.). More probably it qualifies 
the nearer adjective, and expresses the 
fact that it is in virtue of their union with 
Christ that the readers are πιστοί. Their 
constancy has its meaning and its life in 
their fellowship with Him. Of the two 
explanations the second is to be preferred 
on the whole (with Lightfoot, etc.), al- 
though the first has the support of Meyer, 
Ellicott, etc. 

Ver. 2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη: Grace 
to you and peace. Supply εἴη, on the 
analogy of other optatives, e.g., in 1 Pet. 
I, 2; 2 Pet. 1. 2; Jude 2, ‘This: isthe 
Christian rendering of the greeting with 
which letters began. It combines the 
Greek form with the Hebrew, but trans- 
lates the χαίρειν of the former into the 


ν᾽ 


αν 


~ 


244 ΠΡῸΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 

fLukei.68 8, τΕὐλογητὴς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ] τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν 3 Ἰησοῦ 
ix. 26 ay χριστοῦ, ὁ " εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ὃ " ἐν πάσῃ ' εὐλογίᾳ " πνευματικῇ ἐν 
5τοῆ g=Acts iii. 26; Gal. iii. 9; Heb. vi. 14 al. ἢ constr., here only. See James ΠΠ. 

i= Rom. xv. 29; Heb. vi. 71; Gen. xxxiii. τα. k=Rom. i. 11; 1 Cor. ix. 11; Col.i.g; 1 πε σὴν 


1 και πατὴρ omit B, Hil.'; ο θεος και omit Victorin., ΗΠ].339, (τ 


Στ. κυρ. και σωτῆρος ηµων ΑΝ’. 


evangelical χάρις. What Paul desires 
for his readers is the enjoyment of the 
free, loving favour of God and the peace 
which results from it. This is the usual 
form which the opening salutation takes 
in the Epistles of the NT. So it is in 
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 
Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessa- 
lonians, Philemon, 1 and 2 Peter; as also 
in Revelation i. 4. It is not, however, 
the only form. In James, but only in 
him, we have the old formula χαίρειν 
(i. 1). In 1 and 2 Timothy and 2 John 
(but not in Titus according to the best 
reading) it is χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη; and 
in Jude we find ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη 
καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη.-- ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πα- 
τρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 
from God our Father and the Lord Fesus 
Christ. The grace and peace desired for 
the readers by the writer are blessings 
which come only from God the Father 
and from Christ. The “Lord Jesus 
Christ”? is named along with ‘‘God our 
Father” as the giver of the grace and 
peace—a collocation impossible except 
on the supposition that the writer held 
Christ to be of the same rank with God 
or in a unique relation to Him. There is 
a distinction indicated here between God 
and Jesus Christ. But it is not in what 
they are able to give; for the gifts of 
grace and peace come from both. Nor 
is any distinction suggested here in re- 
spectofnature. But there isa distinction 
in respect of relation to believers. To the 
receivers of grace and peace God is in the 
relation of Father ; to the same subjects 
Christ is in the relation of Lord. God is 
Father, having made them His children 
by adoption. Christ is Lord, being con- 
stituted Head of the Church and having 
won the right to their loving obedience 
and honour; cf. MacP., in loco. 

Vv. 3-8. DoxoLocy, ΟΚ ASCRIPTION 
oF ΡΕΑΙΣΕ το GOD FOR THE BLESSINGS 
or His Love and Grace. This extends 
over six verses, in one magnificent sen- 
tence intricately yet skilfully constructed, 
throbbing in each clause with the adoring 
sense of the majesty of that Divine Coun- 
sel and the riches of that Divine Grace 
which had made it possible to write in 


SOmit npas δ". 


such terms to Gentiles in a distant pro- 
vince of the heathen Roman Empire. It 
is Paul’s way to begin with a doxology 
ora zen Aes) A reno . The latter, 
expressed by ιστῶ, αριστοῦμεν, 
εἴς., is the δεν. abe and is found in 
one form or another in Romans, 1 Corin- 
thians, Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, 
1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy (i. 12), 
2 Timothy. The former is seen in 2 
Corinthians and (in a different form) in 
Galatians as well as here. The only 
Epistle that lacks both is that to Titus. 

Ver. 3. εὐλογητός: Blessed. The 


LXX equivalent for the Hebrew 3. 


Vulg. Benedictus. In the NT the idea 
of being blessed is expressed both by 
εὐλογητός (Luke i. 68; Rom. i. 25, ix. 
5; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi, 31; 1 Pet. i, 3), and 
by εὐλογημένος (Matt. xxi. 9, xxiii. 39; 
Mark xi. 9; Luke xiii. 35, xix. 38; John 
xii. 13, etc.), On the analogy of similar 
verbs εὐλογητός means “ to be praised,” 
‘* worthy of praise,” and it is sometimes 
said to differ from εὐλογημένος in that 
the latter denctes one on whom blessing 
is pronounced. But that distinction is 
a fine one and uncertain. Philo puts the 
difference thus: εὐλογητός, κ᾽ 
εὐλογημένος . τὸ μὲν 


μόνον 

μένος... vie τῷ πων. 

κέναι, τὸ δὲ τῷ ίζεσθα μόνον 
ue pees 2 peregie ἄξιον... 


ὅπερ εὐλογητὸν ἐν τοῖς χρησμοῖς ᾷδεται 
(De Migr. Abr., § το, i., 453, Mang.; cf. 
Thayer-Grimm, sub voc.). The distinction 
is shortly expressed thus by Light., “‘ while 
εὐλογημένος points to an isolated act or 
acts, εὐλογητός describes the intrinsic 
character’ (Notes on the Epistles of St. 
Paul, p. 310). In the NT εὐλογητός is 
used only of God; in one case, indeed, 
absolutely, ‘The Blessed"’ (Mark xiv 
61). Inthe LXX it is used both of God 
Gen, ix. 26, xiv. 20; 1 Sam, xxv. 32; 

s. lxxii. 17, 18, το, etc.), and (less 
frequently) of man (Gen. xii, 2, xxiv. 31, 
χχνι. 29; Deut. vii. 14; Jud. xvii. 2; 
1 Sam. xv. 13, xxv. 33; Ruth ii. 20). 
In the LXX εὐλογημένος is occasionally 
used of God. In the NT it is used only 
of man (Matt. xxv. 34; Luke i. 28, 42), 
of the Messiah (Matt. xxi. 9, xxiii. 39; 














3» ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Mark xi. 9; Luke xiii. 35, xix. 38; John 
xii. 13), or of the Messianic Kingdom 
(Mark xi. το), In doxologies we are 
usually left to supply the verb, which may 
be ἔστιν (Abbott); ἔστω on the analogy 
of ἔστω . . . ηὐλογημένος in 2 Chron. 
ix. 8; or εἴη on the analogy of Job i. 21, 
Psalm cxiii. 2, in which passages, how- 
ever, the form is εὐλογημένος. Here, as 
generally where εὐλογητός is the word 
used and not εὐλογημένος, the sentence 
is best taken as an affirmation, ἐστίν 
being supplied; cf. Psalm cxix. 12 in 
contrast with Psalm cxii. 2; Job i. 21; 
2 Chron. ix. 8. In most cases the εὖλο- 
γητός stands first in its sentence. There 
are exceptions, where the verb or parti- 
ciple has a position within the sentence 
or at its close. These are explained by 
some (W. Schmidt, etc.) as due to the 
fact that the emphasis is meant to be 
on the Subject of the doxology, not on 
the idea of the praise itself; by others 
(Haupt, etc.) more simply as regards 
most occurrences, if not all, as due to the 
fact that the copula (εἶναι, γιγνέσθαι) is 
expressed. The cases most in point are 
I Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Jobi. 21; 
Psalm Ixviii. το, cxiii. 2. In all these 
instances except the last the form is 
εὐλογημένος and the γένοιτο or εἴη is 
expressed. In Psalm Ixviii. 19 alone 
we have Κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητός, and 
that followed immediately by εὐλογητὸς 
Κύριος ἡμέραν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν.---ὁ Θεὸς καὶ 
πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 
the God and Father of our Lord Fesus 
Christ. The same designation of God 
occurs also in Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3, 
ii. 31; 1 Pet. i. 3. In Col. i. 3, the καὶ 
Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ of the TR is 
too slenderly supported to be retained. 
Many good commentators (Mey., EIl., 
Haupt, Schmied., etc.) take the Θεός and 
the πατήρ apart here, placing the genitive 
in relation only to the latter and making 
the sense “ Blessed be God and the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ,” or “ Blessed 
be God who is also the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ”. Others (including 
Theod., Jer., Theophyl., Stier, Blk., 
V. Hofm., V. Soden, Oltr., Klép., Beck., 
Alf., Light., W. Schmidt, Abbott) under- 
stand God to be praised here as the God 
of our Lord jesus Christ as well as His 
Father. Grammar leaves the question 
open; for the inclusion of Θεός and 
πατήρ under one initial article does not 
establish the second view, nor does the 
use of καί instead of τε καί disprove it 
(cf. iv. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 25). The first ren- 
dering is advocated on account of the 
extreme rarity of the designation “ the 





-have Him for our God. 


245 


God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ΕΠ1); 
on the ground that Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ being 
a “stated Christian designation of God,” 
only the πατήρ requires any further defi- 
nition by a genitive (Mey.); or for the 
reason that the passages in which the 
phrase θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν occurs show 
it to have been Paul’s habit to use θεός 
absolutely, the appositional πατὴρ κ.τ.λ. 
serving to define more particularly the 
Christian idea of God (Haupt). The 
second rendering is to be preferred, 
however, as the more natural, and is 
supported by the analogous Pauline 
construction 6 Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν 
(Gali, 4; τι Thess. 1. 3, iii, xz, τη). 
Nor is there anything strauge or un- 
Pauline in God being called “the God 
of our Lord Jesus Christ”. As true 
Man Christ had God for His God as we 
He Himself 
spoke of God as ‘‘My God” in the cry 
of desolation from the Cross and again 
in His word to Mary after His Resurrec- 
tion (John xx. 17). In this same Epistle, 
too, we have the express designation 
ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(i. 17). 

This form of doxology (as well as the 
prayer in the greeting for grace and 
peace) occurs again in 2 Cor. i. 3 (as also 
in 1 Pet. i. 3), but with a different 
reference—there with regard to Paul’s 
own experiences, here with regard to the 
Christian enlargement of others.—6 εὖλο- 
γήσας ἡμᾶς: who blessedus. Tosuppose 
that the ἡμᾶς refers to Paul himself is 
inconsistent with the whole tenor of the 
paragraph and with the κἀγώ in ver. 15. 
If Paul speaks of God as εὐλογητός it is 
because of the great and generous things 
He had actually done for himself and 
for these Ephesians. These things he 
proceeds to set forth in respect both of 
their nature and their measure. He says 
first that “*God blessed us” (not ‘hath 
blessed us”). The question is how far 
he is looking back here. Is it to the 
time when God first made him and those 
addressed His own by grace? Or is it 
to the eternal counsel of that grace? 
There is much to be said in favour of 
the second of these two references. It 
appears to be more naturally suggested 
by the text than the other. We may, 
perhaps, plead on its behalf the analogy 
of the aorists in Rom. viii. 29, 30. It 
gives unity to the whole statement, and 
makes the interpretation of the following 
clauses, each introduced by ἐν, easier. 
Yet on the whole the first is to be pre- 
ferred, especially in view of the further 
definition introduced by the καθώς of 


246 


ver. 4. The idea, therefore, is that in 
calling us to Christian faith God blessed 
us, and that the great deed of blessing 
which thus took effect in time had its 
foundation in an eternalelection. All that 
Christians are is thus referred back to 
God's free, decisive act of εὐλογεῖν ; 
“blessing’’ in His case meaning not 
words of good but deeds of grace. So, 
too, the εὐλογητός which comes from our 
lips answers to, and is the return for, the 
εὐλογήσας of God. In word and thought 
we bless God because in deed and positive 
effect He blessed us; cf. Is. xv. 16.—év 
πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ : with every 
spiritual blessing. This defines the 
nature of the “ blessing’’ with which 
God so signally blessed us. The ἐν 
might be understood in the /ocal sense, 
as denoting the sphere within which 
the εὐλογεῖν proceeded. But in view of 
the following ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, it is 
simplest to take it as the instrumental 
ἐν, “by means of”; cf. 1 Thess. iv. 18; 
James iii. 9; and the analogous ἐν μέτρῳ 
μετρεῖν, ἐν ἅλατι ἁλίζειν (Matt. vii. 2, 
v. 13; Mk. iv. 24, ix. 49), etc. See 
Winer-Moult., Grammar, p. 485; Butt- 
mann-Thayer, Grammar, p. 329. The 
πνευματικῇ is taken by some to mean 
inward as opposed to outward blessing, 
or blessing relating to the spirit of 
man, not to the body (Erasmus, etc.) 
—a sense too restricted to fit the usage 
of the term in the NT. Others under- 
stand it to mean “of the Holy Spirit,” 
i.e., blessing proceeding from the Holy 
Spirit. So Mey., Alf. (who makes it 
“blessing of the Spirit "’), etc.; so, too, 
Ell., who would refer the term directly 
to the Holy Spirit, on the basis of Joel 
iii. 1 ff.; Acts 11. 16. But this would be 
more naturally expressed by ἀπὸ or ἐκ 
τοῦ Πνεύματος, and it is the hind of 
blessing rather than its source that is in 
view here. It is best, therefore, to take 
πνευματικῇ to define the blessings in 

uestion as spiritual in the sense that 
they are the blessings of grace, blessings 
of a Divine order, belonging to the sphere 
of immediate relations between God and 
man (cf. Rom. i. 11, xiv. 1, xv. 27; 1 Cor. 
ix. 11). It is true that these come from 
God through the Spirit. But the point 
in view is what they are, not how they 
reach us. There is little to suggest 
either that a contrast is drawn be- 
tween the blessings of the Gospel and 
the more temporal blessings of the OT 
economy, as Chrys., Grotius, etc., sup- 
pose. There is still less to suggest that 
the statement is to be limited to the 
extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, healing, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ Ι, 


tongues, etc., dealt with in 1 Cor. xii., 
etc. This latter supposition is refuted 
by the inclusive πάσῃ. The expression 
is a large one, covering all the good that 
comes to us by grace—whether the assur- 
ance of immortality, the promise of the 
resurrection, the inheritance of the king- 
dom of heaven, the privilege of adoption, 
etc., as Theodoret puts it; or all that 
belongs to the fruit of the Spirit, the 
graces of love, joy, etc. (Gal. v. 22, 23), 
as Abbott explains it; or the peculiar 
a of peace of conscience, assur- 
ance of God's love, joy in God, the hope 
of glory, etc., as it is understood by others. 
The blessing with which God blessed us 
is the τν order of blessing, not of 
material kind or changeful nature, but of 
heavenly quality and enduring satisfac- 
tion, and such blessing He bestowed 
upon us in its every form and manifes- 
tation, — ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις : in the 
heavenly places. Further definition of 
the blessing in respect of its sphere 
—tin the heavenlies”. In the NT 
the adjective ἐπουράνιος occurs both in 
the literal sense and in the metaphorical, 
and in a variety of applications—existing 
in heaven (6 πατήρ pov ὁ ἐπ., Matt. xviii. 
35, ν. lL. οὐράνιος); of heavenly order or 
descent (the Second Adam, ὃ ἐπουράνιος, 
1 Cor. xv. 48); originating in heaven, be- 
longing to heaven, heavenly in contrast 
with ey (κλῆσις ἐπ., Heb. iii. 1; 
δωρέα ἐπ., Heb. vi. 4; πατρίς ἐπ., Heb. 
xi. 16; Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπ., Που, xii, 22; 

cla ἐπ., 2 Tim. iv. 18). It is not 
easy to determine the precise shade of 
meaning in each case. The plural ra 
ἐπουράνια is used of the eternal decrees 
or purposes of grace as contrasted with 
the operations of grace accomplished and 
experienced on earth (John iii. 12); 
of the celestial bodies, sun, moon 
and stars (1 Cor. xv. 40); of things 
or beings in heaven as contrasted with 
those on earth or under earth (Phil. 
ii. 10); of the heavenly types and realities 
of religious services of which earthly 
ordinances and ministries are the shadow 
(Heb. viii. 5). The particular phrase ἐν 
τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, however, has this pecu- 
liarity, that it occurs five times in this 
Epistle and nowhere else in the NT. 
It is a singular fact that even in the 
writings bearing Paul’s name it is con- 
fined to this one letter, and is not found 
even in the companion Epistle to the 
Colossians which belongs to the same 
time, has so much in common, and in 
point of fact presents more than one 
opportunity, as Meyer observes, for the 
introduction of such a phrase (i. 5, 16, 20). 
































3-4. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 247 


In three out of the five occurrences the 
term has the local sense (i. 20, ii. 6, 111. 
10), and in a fourth (vi. 12) that sense is 
also possible, though not certain. The 
expression in all probability has the same 
application in the present instance. To 
take it, with Chrys., Thdt., Beng., and 
more recently Beck, as a further descrip- 
tion of the blessing in respect of its nature 
as spiritual or heavenly has not only 
usage against it, but also the considera- 
tion that the second of the two descriptive 
clauses would then add little or nothing 
to what is expressed bythe first. Deciding 
for the local sense, however, we have 
still to ask how the phrase is to be con- 
nected and what is its particular point. 
Some connect it (e.g., Beza) immediately 
with ὁ Θεός, making the sense ‘‘God 
who is in heaven blessed us”. But this 
puts the qualifying clause at an awkward 
distance from its subject. The clause 
may be connected with the εὐλογήσας 
as describing the deed of blessing in 
respect of its sphere; which would be 
most suitable to the case if the εὐλογήσας 
were understood of the Divine decree of 
grace. Some, adopting the same connec- 
tion, make it refer ideally or proleptically 
to the blessings laid up for our future 
enjoyment in the heavenly life (e.¢., Th. 
Aquin.); but the context has in view 
blessings which are ours in reality now. 
Others take it to refer to the Church 
as the Kingdom of God on earth, the 
present depository of the Divine blessings 
(Stier); but the Church is not identified 
in this way with the Kingdom of God 
in the Pauline writings. It is best, 
therefore, to connect ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις 
immediately with the previous ἐν πάσῃ 
εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ, and to understand 
it as describing the region in which this 
‘‘spiritual blessing’’ is found. Not a 
few interpreters, indeed, pointing to the 
analogy of ii. 6, Phil. iii. 20 (where, 
however, it is our citizenship that is said 
to be in heaven, not we ourselves), etc., 
introduce a mystical sense here, and take 
“the Πεανεπ]ες to be, not ‘literal 
locality but . . . the heavenly region in 
which our citizenship is’? (Abbott), the 
heaven that is created within us here 
and now by grace. ‘The heaven of 
which the Apostle here speaks,” says 
Lightfoot, “15. not some remote locality, 
some future abode; it is the heaven 
which lies within and about the true 
Christian.” So substantially also Alf., 
Ell. (the latter connecting it, however, 
with εὐλογήσας), Cand., etc. But what 
the writer has specially in view here is 
the eternal counsel of God and the effect 


given to it on earth, and there is nothing 
to suggest that at this point he is thinking 
of believers as being themselves in a 
certain sense in heaven even now. It 
is best, therefore, to retain the simple 
local meaning (as the Syriac and Ethiopic 
Versions render it, “in heaven,” “in the 
heavens”), and take it to describe the 
blessings which are stated to be in their 
nature spiritual further as being found in 
heaven. To that they belong, and from 
thence it is that they come to us to be 
our present possession on earth. (So 
Subst., Mey., Haupt, etc.) The choice 
of the unusual form here may be due 
to the largeness of the idea. It is not 
merely that the blessings with which 
God blessed us are blessings having 
their origin in heaven (which might 
have been expressed by am’ οὐρανοῦ or 
some similar phrase), but that they are 
blessings which have their seat where 
God Himself is and where Christ reigns. 
—év Χριστῷ: in Christ. Not merely 
“through Christ”. The phrase expresses 
the supreme idea that pervades the 
Epistle. Here it qualifies the whole 
statement of the blessing, in its bestowal, 
its nature, and its seat. The Divine 
εὐλογεῖν has its ground and reason in 
Christ, so that apart from Him it could 
have no relation to us. It is ours by 
reason of our being in Him as our 
Representative and Head; ‘“ by virtue 
of our incorporation in, our union with, 
Christ” (Light.), ‘In Him lay the 
cause that God blessed us with every 
spiritual blessing, since His act of re- 
demption is the causa meritoria of this 
Divine bestowal of blessing” (Mey.). 
Ver. 4. καθώς: even as. Not “be- 
cause,” but ‘according as,” “in con- 
formity with the fact that”. Cf. καθότι, 
which is used in the NT only by Luke 
and means both “according as” and 
“because”; and the Attic καθά, καθό, 
for which, indeed, καθώς is occasionally 
used in classical Greek, at least from 
Aristotle’s time. Here καθώς designates 
the ground of the “ blessing” and so is 
also the note ofits grandeur. The “bless- 
ing” proceeded on a Divine election, and 
took effect in accordance with that. It 
has its foundation, therefore, in eternity, 
and is neither an incidental thing nor an 
afterthought of God. So in x Pet. i. 2, 
the ἐκλογή has its ground and norm 
in the πρόγνωσις, the foreknowledge 
of God the Father, and that “ foreknow- 
ledge” is not a theoretical but an efficient 
Κπονν]εάρα.---ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς: He chose 
us (not “hath chosen us’’), or elected 
us. The verb, which occurs in the NT 


‘) 


248 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1, 


I= yer. 20; τοῖς | ἐπουρανίοις "ἐνὶ χριστῷ, 4. καθὼς "' ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς " ἐν 
fi’ 10, vi αὐτῷ “πρὸ” “καταβολῆς κόσμου, " εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ " ἀμώμους 


12 only; 

Matt. xviii. 35; Dan. iv. 23. 
in Epp.); Deut. vii. 7. 

ἀπό, Matt. xiii. 35 al. 

ix. 24; 2 Kings xxii. 24. 


1 Omit εν some cursives, ¢.g., 7. 


m= Mark xiii. 20; John vi. 70 reff. (1 Cor. i. 27; James ii. 5 only 
n=Col. i. 16; see Acts xv. 7. 
p constr., Col. i. το, 22. 


ο John xvii. 24; Ata ied 
q ch. v. 27; Col. i. 22 only in Paul; Heb. 


2 After Χριστω insert Invov Γ5 ΕΚ 4, 46, 47, 76, 109, 115, Syr.-P., Eth., Theophyl., 


Victorin., ul. 
8 For εν avtw, eavtw FG, Did., Athan. 


only in the Middle (except, perhaps, in 
Luke ix. 35), is the LXX equivalent for 


“WIA, and expresses the idea of selecting 


for oneself out of a number. It is some- 
times alleged that we are not entitled to 
give it so definite a meaning in doctrinal 
paragraphs like the present, because there 
are passages in which it appears to ex- 
press nothing more than the general idea 
of a choice, without reference either to any 
special relation to the person choosing or 
to the leaving of others unchosen. (So, 
e.g., Abbott.) But the passages adduced 
in support of this are few in number and 
by no means bear out the contention. In 
Luke ix. 35, ¢.g., where ἐκλελεγμένος is 
said of the Son, the idea of a choice from 
among others is certainly not an alien 
idea (cf. Thayer-Grim., Lex., sub voc.) ; 
and in Acts iv. 5, xv. 22, 25, the point is 
a choice for oneself in the form of an 
appointment to a particular service or 
office. That the verb denotes the choice 
of one or more out of others is implied in 
its compound form, and is made abun- 
dantly clear by actual usage, ¢.g., in the 
case of the selection of the Twelve (John 
vi. 70, xiii, 18, xv. 16), the appointment of 
a successor to Judas (Acts i. 24, etc.). In 
not a few passages it is made more certain 
still by the addition of explanatory terms, 
e.g., ἀπό τινων (Luke vi. 13), ἐκ κόσμον 
(John xv. 19), ἔκ τινων (Acts i. 24), ἐν 
ἡμῖν (Acts xv. 7). That it means to 
choose out for oneself appears from such 
passages as Luke x. 42, xiv.7. The verb 
ἐκλέγεσθαι is specially used of God's 
election of some out of mankind gener- 
ally to be His own in a peculiar sense, 
the objects of His grace, destined for 
special privilege, special relations, special 
service ; cf. Acts xiii. 17 (of Israel) ; Mark 
xiii. 20; John xv. 19; Rom, ix. 11, xi. 5, 
9, 203 <r Con..1.27 8: το s Pet, 
ii. g ff. The foundation of the state- 
ment is the great OT idea of Israel as 
a nation chosen by the Lord to be “a 
peculiar people unto Himself, above all 


ἔπρος FG. 


peoples that are upon the face of the 
earth” (Deut. xiv. 2; cf. Ps. xxxiii. 11, 
12, cxxxv. 4; Isa. xli. 8, 9, xlii. 1). What 
is meant, therefore, is that the blessing 
which God bestowed on these Ephesians 
was not a thing of the time merely, but 
the issue of an election prior to their call 
or conversion, a blessing that came to 
them in accordance with a definite choice 
of them out of the mass of others by God 
for Himself.—év αὐτῷ: in Him; that is, 
in Christ, not “through Him” simply. 
But in what sense? It is true that Christ 
is the first “ Elect” of God, and that our 
election is contained in His. But His 
election is not the matter in hand here, 
and the point, therefore, is not that in 
electing Christ God also elected us (Calv., 
Βεηρ., etc.). Nor, again, is it that we are 
included in Him (Hofm.), for neither is 
this the point in view here, The im- 
mediate subject is not what we are or are 
made, but what God does—His election 
and how it proceeds. And the ideaisthat _ 
that election has its ground in Christ, in 
the sense that apart from Christ and with- 
out respect to His special relation to us, 
and His foreseen work, there would be no 
election of us. An extraordinary sense is 
attached to the ἐν αὐτῷ by Beys., who 
takes the point to be that the “ divinely 
conceived prototypes of perfected be- 
lievers are from eternity posited by God 
in the One Prototype of humanity accept- 
able unto Him” (Christ. d. N. T., p. 141). 
This is a philosophical notion wholly alien 
to Paul, on which see Meyer, in loc, The 
ἐν αὐτῷ might mean that God's election 
of us was in Christ in so far as Christ was” 
contemplated as having the relation of 
‘head and representative of spiritual, as 
Adam was the representative of natural, 
humanity” (Ols., Ell.) But it is best 
taken as expressing again the broad idea 
that “in Christ lay for God the causa meri- 
toria of our election” (Μεγ.).---πρὸ κατα- 
βολῆς τοῦ κ. : before the foundation 
of the world. This is the only occurrence 
of this particular expression in the Pauline 


Ri ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


writings, but it occurs also once in John 
(xvii. 24) and once in Peter (1 Pet. i. 20). 
It is akin to the form ἀπὸ καταβολῆς 
(Matt. xiii. 35, omitting κόσμου with 
LTTrWHR marg.), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσ- 
μου (Luke xi. 50; Heb. iv. 3; Rev. xiii. 8); 
as also to these phrases: ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς (1 
Thess. ii. 13), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. 
ii. 7), πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (2 Tim. i. 9). 
It expresses most definitely the fact that 
the election in question is not the setting 
apart of certain persons at a definite 
period, an act in time, a historical 
selection, as some (6.Ρ., Beys.) strive to 
prove, but an eternal choice, a deter- 
mination of the Divine Mind before all 
time. The idea of the Divine elec- 
tion in the NT is not a philosophical 
idea expressing the ultimate explanation 
of the system of things or giving the 
rationale of the story of the human race 
as such, but a religious idea, a note of 
grace, expressing the fact that salvation 
is originally and wholly of God. In 
Pauline teaching the subjects of this 
Divine election are neither the Church 
as such (Ritschl), nor mankind as such 
(Beck), but Christian men and women, 
designated as ἡμεῖς, ὑμεῖς. It is, as is 
here clearly intimated, an eternal deter- 
mination of the Divine Will, and it has 
its ground in the freedom of God, not in 
anything foreseen in its subjects. Ofa 
prevision of faith as the basis or motive 
of the election there is no indication here. 
On the contrary, the character or dis- 
tinguishing inward quality of the subjects 
of the election is presented in the next 
clause as the object of the election, the 
end it had in view. (See especially 
Haupt, in loc.)—elvar ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ 
ἀμώμους : that we should be holy and 
without blemish. The election, there- 
fore, had a definite purpose before it— 
the making of its subjects ἁγίους καὶ 
ἀμώμους. The simple infinitive is freely 
used to express the idea of purpose or 
design not. only in the NT but in 
classical Greek (Soph., Oed. Col., 12; 
Thuc., i., 50, iv., 8; Herod., vii., 208, 
etc.; cf. Winer-Moult., Gram., p. 399). 
On the ἁγίους see under ver. 1. There 
is a question, however, as to the precise 
sense Of ἀμώμους. The adjective means 
both ‘ without blame” (inculpatus) and 
“without blemish” (immaculatus). In 
the LXX it is a sacrificial term, applied 
in the latter sense to victims (Exod. xxix. 
τ Ἐν 3, τους 1, 6).9, 10, xxii. το, 
etc.). It has this sense of “without 
blemish” also in Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. 
i. 19; cf. the use of the noun in 2 Pet. 
ii, 13. In the Pauline writings it is 


249 


found, in addition to the present passage, 
in Eph. v. 27; Phil. ii. 15 (according to 
the best reading); Col. i. 22. In the 
first and third of these occurrences it is 
rendered by tbe RV “ without blemish,” in 
the second, “ blameless’. On the ground 
of usage, especially in the LXX, many 
commentators conclude for the second 
sense. Light., e.g., takes the point of 
the two adjectives to be that the former 
denotes the consecration of the victim 
and the latter its fitness for the con- 
secration (Notes on Epistles of Paul, 
p. 313). The Vulg. gives immaculati, 
and Wycl. “without wene”. On the 
other hand, there is nothing in the verse 
to suggest the idea of sacrifice or a victim. 
The parallel passage, also, in Col. i. 22, 
where we have not only ἁγίους and 
ἀμώμους but a third adjective ἀνεγκλή- 
τους, is on the whole on the side of 
“blameless”. That, too, is the meaning 
of the word in classical Greek {ε.ρ., 
Herod. ii., 177), and in inscriptions 
(C. I., 1974). Little indeed depends on 
the decision between the two senses; 
for both terms, ‘‘ without blemish”? and 
“ without blame,” may have ethical appli- 
cations. There is the further question, 
however, whether in this statement Paul 
has in view the standing of believers or 
their chavactey—whether he thinks of 
them as justified or as designed to be 
sanctified. The arguments in support of 
the objective relation to God being a view 
here (Mey., Haupt, etc.) are weighty. It 
is held, e.g., that γίγνεσθαι would be 
more appropriate than εἶναι if the per- 
sonal sanctification of believers was in 
the writer’s mind; that in that case the 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ would more naturally have 
come in before the κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ; 
above all, that the tenor of the section 
as a whole is on the side of the first 
view, the idea all through the paragraph 
(vv. 3-14) being what God does for us, 
not what we are now or are meant to be 
inwardly to Him, and the objective facts 
of the forgiveness of sin, adoption, etc., 
being clearly introduced in vv. 7 ff. On the 
other hand the ethical sense is strongly 
advocated by many (Chrys., Theophy., 
Alf., Ell., Candl., Abb., etc.) on the 
broad ground that it is so much Paul’s 
way to point us to newness and holiness 
of life as the great end of the Divine 
purpose and the Divine call (Phil. ii. 15; 
τ Ὅπεβε, ἵν. 7; 2 Thess. 11. 13; Titus 
ii. 14). This is supported further by 
the presence of the qualifying ἐν ἀγάπῃ», 
if it is attached to ver. 4; and by the 
weighty consideration that the ἁγίους 
καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους in the 


250 


r 2 Cor. ii. 
17, ΧΙ 19; 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν] ἀγάπῃ, 5. " προορίσας 2 ἡμᾶς εἰς ' υἱοθεσίαν 


Col. i. 22: διὰ ἸΙησοῦ χριστοῦ ὃ “eis αὐτὸν, κατὰ τὴν " εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος 


ude 24; 


vit. ἵν. 17 vat. 5 ver. 11 reff. 


t Rom. viii. 15, 23, ix. 4; Gal. iv. 5 only ἡ. 


u=Col. i. 20, 


v Matt. xi. 26 ||; Luke ii. 14; Phil. i. 15, ii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 11; Ps. v. 12. 


λεν αγαπ. is joined with the foregoing by LP, f, Vig.; with the following by d, g, 


Orig., Chrys., Thdrt. 
ἔπροωρισας D*P. 


parallel passage in Col. i. 22 is fol- 
lowed immediately by a reference to 
continuing “in the faith, grounded and 
stedfast, and not moved away from 
the hope of the Gospel”. Something 
depends, however, on the position of 
the following ἐν ἀγάπῃ, on which see 
Ῥεϊονν.---κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ: before Him; 
that is, before God. Read αὐτοῦ, not 
(as Harl., etc.) αὑτοῦ ; see Winer-Moul., 
Gram., pp. 188, 189. So, too, in the 
parallel passage Col. i. 22. The present 
approbation of God is in view, not His 
future judgment. Light. thinks that 
God Himself is thus regarded as the 
great μωμοσκόπος, who inspects the vic- 
tims and takes cognizance of blemishes. 
But this is to import a priestly notion 
which is not expressed in the context. 
This phrase might be specially appro- 
priate to the idea of the standing or 
relation of believers as supposed to be 
conveyed by ἀμώμους. But it also suits 
the idea of character —Gpoépovs “ in 
God's sight,”’ “under the eye of God 
as Witness and Judge, and so in truth 
and reality”. The terms ἐνώπιον, κατε- 
γώπιον, κατέναντι are also used in this 
sense in the NT, and do not appear 
to occur in profane Greek. They are 
peculiar to the LXX, the Apocrypha, 
and the NT. All three are used by 
Paul, κατενώπιον and κατέναντι spar- 
ingly (the former only here and in 
Col. i. 22, the latter in Rom. iv. 17; 
2 Cor. ii. 17, xii. 19); most frequently 
ἐνώπιον (Rom. iii. 20, xii. 17, xiv. 
22; 1 Cor. i. 29; 2 Cor. iv. 2, etc.), 
which is also much employed in Luke 
and Revelation, never in Matthew or 
Mark.—év ἀγάπῃ : in love. What does 
this qualify? The divine election, say 
some (CEc., etc.). But the remoteness of 
the ἐν ἀγάπῃ from the ἐξελέξατο makes 
this, if not an impracticable, at least a 
less likely connection. It is possible, 
indeed, also to retain the connection of 
the ἐν ἀγάπῃ with ver. 4 and yet give it 
the sense of the Divine love, if we take 
it to qualify not the ἐξελέξατο alone, but 
the whole clause which it concludes. 
In that case the idea would be that the 


5 Xp. Ino. B, Chr.; Xp. Or., Hil. 


electing act and the object it had in view, 
namely holiness and blamelessness on 
our part, were both due to God’s love 
and had their explanation in it. The 
choice, however, appears to be between 
attaching the clause to the preceding 
ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους and attaching it to 
the following προορίσας. Commentators 
and Versions are widely divided on the 
question. The former 15 the connection 
in LP, the Goth. and Copt. Vv., the 
Vulg., the texts of Stephens, WH, and 
the Revisers, and it is preferred by Eras., 
Luth., Beza, Calv., Grot., Wetst., Alf., 
Light. The latter is the connection in 
the Syr.-P, and is followed by LTTr 
marg., RV marg., Orig., Chrys., Thdrt., 
Theophy., oy Beng., Harl., de 
Wette, Olsh., Hof., Bleek., Mey., Ell., V. 
Sod., Haupt, Abbott, etc. The propriety 
of understanding the ἐν ἀγάπῃ as meant 
to qualify the προορίσας is | -- on 
such grounds as these—that the Pauline 
Epistles furnish no other instance of 
ἅγιος or ἄμωμος having attached to it 
any grace or virtue defined by évas the 
form in which the holiness or blameless- 
ness shows itself (Haupt); that it is 
befitting that the love which is its prin- 
ciple and ground should get emphatic 
expression when the Divine πὶ ισμός 
is first introduced (ΕἸ]., etc.); that this 
connection is most in harmony with the 
ascription of praise (Mey.), and with the 
genius of the paragraph as a whole, which 
is concerned with what God is to us 
rather than what we are required to be 
to Him. On the other hand in support 
of attaching the ἐν ἀγάπῃ to the preced- 
ing, itis pointed out that in view of the 
subsequent κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν there is less 
reason for introducing ἐν ἀγάπῃ in so 
emphatic a position before the προορί- 
σας; that, if not in the Pauline Epistles 
themselves, yet elsewhere both within 
and without the NT we have instances 
analogous to the connection of ἐν 
ἀγάπῃ with ἀμώμους here—e.g., 2 
Pet. ili. 14, ἀμώμητοι . . « ἐν εἰρήνῃ ; 
Jud. 24, ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει ; Clem. 
Rom., 50, ἵνα ἐν ἀγάπῃ εὑρεθῶμεν δίχα 
προὔκλίσεως ἀνθρωπίνης ἅμωμοι (cited 


3 


EO ..».. 


«ον 


by Light., Notes; ut sup., 313), and 
above all that it is Paul’s usual, if not 
constant, habit to place ἐν ἀγάπῃ after 
the clause it qualifies (Eph. iv. 2, 15, 16, 
v. 2; Οσοι. ΑΝ 2; 1 Thess. v. 13; ef. also, 
though in association with other terms, 
Simm. 1%. Τῶν ο Tim. 1, 12). On the 
whole this connection is to be preferred, 
and the ἐν ἀγάπῃ will then define the 
holiness and blamelessness, which are 
the end and object of God’s election of 
us, as having their truth and perfection 
in the supreme Christian grace of love. 

Ver.5. προορίσας ἡμᾶς: having fore- 
ordained us. Better, in that He fore- 
ordained us. Wycl. gives ‘‘hath bifore 
ordeyned us”; Tynd. and Cranmer, 
“ ordeyned us’’; and so the RV, ‘‘ fore- 
ordained”, But the Genevan, the 
Rhemish and the AV, following the 
praedestinavit of the Vulg., give “did 
predestinate us,’’ ‘hath predestinated 
us,” ‘having predestinated us”. While 
in Romans and Ephesians the AV adopts 
‘“predestinated,”’ in 1 Cor. ii. 7 it has 
“foreordained’”’. It is best to adopt 
foreordain all through, as προορίζειν 
means to determine before. The verb 
seems not to occur either in the LXX 
or in any Greek writer before Paul. 
It is found in Heliodorus, Ignatius, 
etc. In the NT it is always used 
of God as determining from eternity, 
sometimes with the further definition 
πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. ii. 7)—decreeing 
to do something (Acts iv. 28); fore- 
ordaining things or persons (1 Cor. ii. 7; 
Rom. viii. 29 ff.) ; or, as here, appointing 
one beforehand to something. The πρὸ 
in the compound verb expresses the fact 
that the decree is prior to the realisation 
of its object. The aor. part. may be 
taken as temporal (so the Syr.-Phil.), in 
which case the foreordination would be 
something prior (not in time, indeed, but 
in logical order) to the election, and the 
election would be defined as proceeding 
on the foreordination (EIl., Alf., etc.). 
But it may also be taken as modal, not 
prior to the election but coincident with 
it, and expressing the mode of its action or 
the form which it took—‘“‘ in that He fore- 
ordained us” (Mey., etc.). On this use 
of the aor. part. see Winer-Moul., Gram., 
p- 430. This is the more probable view, 
because no real distinction appears to 
be made between the ἐκλογή and the 
προορισμός beyond what may be sug- 
gested by the ἐκ in the one and the πρό 
in the other ; the idea in the ἐκλογή being 
understood to be that of the mass from 
which the selection is made, and that of 
the προορισμός the priority of the decree 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


251 


(ΕἸ1.). It is also to be noticed (cf. Mey.) 
that both in Romans (viii. 29) and in 
1 Peter (i. 2) it is the πρόγνωσις, not 
the mpoopicpés, that is represented as 
antecedent to the election or as forming 
its ground. This Divine προορισμός, 
like the Divine ἐκλογήν has in the Pauline 
writings, in which it receives its loftiest, 
most complete, and most unqualified 
statement, not a speculative but an in- 
tensely practical interest, especially with 
regard to two things of most immediate 
personal concern—the believer’s incen- 
tive to live in newness and holiness of 
life (cf. ii. 10), and his encouragement to 
rest in the Divine salvation as for him an 
assured salvation.—eis υἱοθεσίαν : unto 
adoption. Or,as the RV gives it, follow- 
ing the adoptio filiorum of the Vulg., 
‘unto adoption as sons’’. Itis a Pauline 
term, and conveys an idea distinct from 
that of sonship and explanatory of it. 
The sonship of believers, the fact that 
they are children of God, with the privi- 
leges and responsibilities belonging to 
such, finds frequent expression in the 
NT writings. But it is only in the 
Pauline Epistles that the specific idea 
of υἱοθεσία occurs, and there in five 
instances (Rom. viii. 15, 23, ix. 4; Gal. 
iv.5; Eph.i.5). In onecase it is applied 
to the special relation of Israel to God 
(Rom. ix. 4); thrice (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. 
iv. 5; Eph. i. 5) it is used of the present 
position of believers in Christ; once 
(Rom. viii, 23) it refers to their future 
consummation, the resurrection of life 
that will be the full manifestation οἱ 
their sonship. It is a term of relation, 
expressing our sonship in respect of 
standing. It appears to be taken from 
the Roman custom, with which Paul 
could not fail to be acquainted. Among 
the Jews there were cases of informal 
adoption, as in the instance of Mordecai 
and Esther (Esth. ii. 7). But adoption 
in the sense of the legal transference of 
a child to a family to which it did not 
belong by birth had no place in the 
Jewish law. In Roman law, on the other 
hand, provision was made for the trans- 
action known as adoptio, the taking of a 
child who was not one’s child by birth to 
be his son, and αγγοραίζο, the transference 
of a son who was independent, as by the 
death of his proper father, to another 
father by solemn public act of the 
people. Thus among the Romans a 
citizen might receive a child who was 
not his own by birth into his family and 
give him his name, but he could do so 
only by a formal act, attested by wit- 
nesses, and the son thus adopted had 


252 


in all its entirety the position of a child 
by birth, with all the rights and all the 
obligations pertaining to that. By “adop- 
tion,” therefore, Paul does not mean the 
bestowal of the full privileges of the 
family on those who are sons by nature, 
but the acceptance into the family of 
those who do not by nature belong to 
it, and the placing of those who are not 
sons originally and by right in the rela- 
tion proper to those who are sons by 
birth. Hence νἱοθεσία is never affirmed 
of Christ; for he alone is Son of God by 
nature. So Paul regards our sonship, 
not as lying in the natural relation in 
which men stand to God as His children, 
but as implying a new relation of grace, 
founded on a covenant relation of God 
and on the work of Christ (Gal. iv. 5 ff.). 
--διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : through Fesus 
Christ; in this case not in Christ but 
through Him, That is, it is through the 
mediation of Christ that our adoption as 
sons is realised; cf. Gal. iii. 26-iv. 7. 
Elsewhere the ethical side of the sonship 
is expressed. For God not only brings 
us into the relation of sons, but makes 
us sons in inward reality and character, 

iving us the filial mind, leading us by 
His Spirit, translating us into the liberty 
of the glory of His children (Rom. vii. 
12, 14, 21; Gal. iv. 6).—«ls αὐτόν: unio 
Himself, that is, not unto Christ, as De 
Wette, V. Soden, etc., still think, but 
unto God. Here, as in ver. 4, we read 
αὐτοῦ, not αὑτοῦ (as Stephens, Mill, 
Griesbach, etc., put it), the writer iving 
it as from his own standpoint. ow is 
this to be understood? It may mean 
simply that God Himself is the Father to 
whom we are brought into filial rela- 
tion by adoption. In that case the point 
would be the glory of the adoption, in- 
asmuch as it is God Himself and none 
less than He who becomes our Father by 
it and to whom the foreordination into 
the position of sons looks. Or it may 
be the deeper idea that God Himself is 
the end of the foreordination, as Christ 
is its medium or channel. The εἰς is 
not to be confused with év, nor would 
the idea thus be reduced to that of 
simple possession. Here the εἰς may 
rather have its most definite force, ex- 
pressing the goal of all. The final 
object of God’s foreordination of us to 
the standing of sons is to bring us to 
Himself, into perfect fellowship with 
Him, into adoring, loving relation to 
Himself as the true End and Object 
of our being.—xata τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ 
θελήματος αὐτοῦ : according to the good 
pleasure of His will. Wycl. gives “by the 


faction (2 Thess, i. 11). 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1, 


purpose of His will”; Rhem., “according 
to the purpose of His will” ; Tynd., “ ac- 
cording to the pleasure of His will’; 
Cran., Gen., AV, “according to the good 
pleasure of His will”. The noun εὐδοκία 
(Vulg.-Clem., beneplacitum) is a biblical 
term. It is not current in profane Greek, 


but represents the ps of the OT (es- 


pecially in the Psalms), and occurs a good 
many times in Sir. In the NT itis found 
thrice in the Gospels (Matt. xi. 26; Luke 
ii. 14, κ. 21), and six times in the Pauline 
Epistles (Rom. x. 1; Eph. i. 5, 9; Phil. 
i, 15, ii. 13; 2 Thess. i. rr), but nowhere 
else. It has the sense (a) of will (Matt. 
xi. 26; Luke x. 21), passing into that of 
desire (Rom. x. 1); and (δ) of good will 
(Luke ii. 14; Eph. i. 9; Phil. i. 15, ii. 
13), passing into that of delight or satis- 
Here it is taken 
by most (Mey., De Wette, Stier., Alf., 
Ell., Abbott, etc.) in the sense of bene- 
placitum, purpose, sovereign counsel, as 
equivalent to κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελή- 
ματος αὐτοῦ in ver. 11, Light., ¢.g., is 
of opinion that, while its central idea is 
‘‘ satisfaction,” it will ‘only then mean 
‘benevolence’ when the context points 
to some person towards whom the satis- 
faction is felt”. He refers to ἐν ᾧ εὐδό- 
κησα in Matt. iii. 17, and contends that 
without such indication of a personal 
object ‘‘the satisfaction is felt in the 
action itself, so that the word is used 
absolutely, and signifies ‘ good pleasure,’ 
in the sense of ‘desire,’ ' purpose,’ ‘ de- 
sign’"’ (Notes, ut sup., 314). But in the 
Pauline Epistles, when it is used of God, 
it is a term of grace, expressing “ good 
pleasure” as kind intent, gracious will, 
and even when used of man it conveys 
the same idea of goodness (Rom. x. 1; 
Phil. i. 15). Nor does the connotation 
appear to be different in the occurrences 
in the Gospels (Matt. xi. 26; Luke ii. 14; 
x. 21). In the present passage it is only in 
relation to the grace of His dealings with 
sinful men that reference is made to the 
will of God. The clause in question pre- 
sents that grace in the particular aspect 
of its sovereign, unmerited action. It 
adds the last note to the statement of 
the wonders of the Divine election by 
expressing the fact that that election and 
God's foreordination of us unto adoption 
are not due to any desert in us or any- 
thing outside God Himself, but are acts 
of His own pure goodness, originatin 
only and wholly x the freedom of His 
own thoughts and loving counsel. 

Ver. 6. εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτοφ 
αὐτοῦ: to the praise of the glory of his 


5-7. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


253 


αὐτοῦ, 6. εἰς “ ἔπαινον " δόξης 1 τῆς 2 χάριτος αὐτοῦ, 7 ἧς 5 * ἐχαρί- w See Phil. 


1. ΤΕ 


τωσεν ἡμᾶς " ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ, 7. "ἢ ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν 4 τὴν " ἀπολύτρωσιν Pet. i. 7. 


23; Col. i. 27. y attr., Acts i. 1 reff. 
a Vv. 3, 4 reff. b Col. i. 14; 1 Cor. i. 30. 
Heb. ix. 15, xi. 35; Dan. iv. 32, Chis. Ms 


lens δοξης DE. 


x= Rom. iii. 


z Luke i. 28 only +; Sir. xviii. 17; Ps, xvii. 25 Symm. 
c Luke xxi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Col. i. 14; 
.; see Ps. Ixviii. 18; Isa. Ixiii. 4. 


2ens om. Dam. 


δεν η, with S°DEF (om. η) GKL, most MSS., Syr.-P., Bas., Chr. (hoc loco), 
Thdrt., Dam., Victorin., Ambrstr.; text AB 6, 17, 231, 47, 57, al., Orig. Chr.; η Thi. ; 
και 1. After ηγαπ. insert νιω αὐτου DIEFG, syr.*, d,e, f, g, vg., Syr.-P., Goth., etc. 

4 exxopev SD, Copt. (accepimus), Eth.} Iren.*!°; text S8AB!D* SEFGKLP, ἆ, e, 
f, g, Vulg., Syr.utr., Arm., Goth., Iren.”, Or., Cyr., Thdt., Victorin., Jer. 


grace. Twice again in the same context 
we have the phrase “ to the praise of his 
glory” (vv. 12, 14). Here it is the glory 
specifically of God’s grace, and the praise 
of that is now stated to be the ultimate 
end of God’s foreordination of us unto 
adoption, as our adoption itself has been 
declared to be the object of the fore- 
ordination. God’s final purpose in His 
eternal determinations, and the supreme 
end to which all that He wills regarding 
us looks, are the manifestation and adoring 
recognition of His grace in its glorious- 
ness. So Chrys. puts it briefly ἵνα 4 τῆς 
χάριτος αὐτοῦ δόξα δειχθῇ. The phrase 
means more than “the praise of his 
glorious grace’’. It expresses the setting 
forth on God’s part, and the joyful 
confession on man’s part, of what the 
Divine grace in these eternal counsels 
is in the quality of its splendour, its 
magnificence. That this is the idea 
is shown by the subsequent mention 
of the “riches” of the same grace 
(ver. 7).—év ᾗ ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς: with 
which he freely gifted us ; literally, with 
which he graced us. The AV follows 
Beza’s in qua nos acceptos sibi effecit in 
rendering it ‘‘wherein he made us ac- 
cepted”. The RV, which gives “ where- 
with he endued us ” in the margin, deals 
better with it in the text, ‘‘which he 
freely bestowed on us’. The reading 
ἐν ἡ of the TR, supported by such MSS. 
as DEGL, the mass of the cursives, the 
Vulg., etc., must give place to ἧς, which 
is given by ΒΑ, Eth., Syr., etc., and 
is adopted by LT (eighth ed.) TrWHRV. 
The ἧς is by attraction for ἣν (cf. similar 
genitives by attraction in iv. 1; 2 Cor. 
i. 4), the explanation being found in the 
influence of such usages as μάχην μάχεσ- 
θαι, ὕβριν ὑβρίζειν, κλῆσιν καλεῖν, χάριν 
χαριτοῦν. See Win.-Moult., Gram., p. 
203; Buttm., Gram., p. 289. The verb 
χαριτόω, following the analogy of other 
verbs in -ow, means gratia aliquem affi- 
cere. But this may have two senses (cf. 


Harl., Ell.), either to make one agree- 
able, possessed of grace (Sir. xviii. 17; 
Ps. xvii. 26 (Symmachus), Clem. Alex., 
Paed., iii., 11), or to bestow grace on one, 
to compass one with favour (Test. xii 
Patr., Jos. i.). The verb is of rare occur- 
rence, whether within or without the NT. 
It is commonest in ecclesiastical and 
Byzantine Greek, In the NT it is found 
only twice, here and in Luke i. 28. In 
both instances some would give it the 
former sense. In the present passage, 
e.g., Chrys. makes it ἐπεραστοὺς ἐποίησε, 
and so substantially Cornel. a Lapide, 
Bisping, and various RC interpreters. 
The latter sense, however, is rightly 
preferred by Beng., Ell., Alf., Light., 
Mey., Haupt, etc., as more in harmony 
with the general sense of χάρις in the 
Pauline Epistles, and with the fact that 
the main idea in the context is what God 
in His gratuitous goodness does for us.— 
ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ: ἐπ the Beloved. The 
doubtful explanatory term υἱῷ αὐτοῦ 
is added by some ancient authorities 
(DEFG, Vulg., Goth., Jer., etc.). Again 
it is not “ through him,” but “in him”’, 
The grace is bestowed in and with Christ 
Himself. It is in the gift of the Son 
that the gift of grace becomes ours and 
that the splendour of the grace is seen. 
The designation ὃ ἠγαπημένος as applied 
to Christ is peculiar to this one passage 
so far as the NT is concerned. In the 
NT its nearest equivalent is the title 
τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ in the some- 
what similar passage in Col. i. 13. Cf. 
also 6 vids μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (Matt. iii. 17, 
Kvil. 5; Mk: 1 21, 1x. 7, Luke in. 22; 
ix. 35), 6 ἀγαπητός pov (Matt. xii. 18); 
and in the OT Ps. xxvii. 6 (LXX); Is. 
v. I. Outside the NT the term ὁ ἠγαπη- 
μένος αὐτοῦ is used of Christ in the Ef. 
of Barn. (3, 4). Light. points also to 
similar designations in Ignatius, Clem. 
Rom., and the Ascensio Isaiae (Notes, ut 
sup., 316). 


Ver. 7. ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρω- 


254 


ow: in whom we have the redemption. 
Here and in the parallel passage in 
Col. i. 14 the readings vary between 

v and ἔσχομεν. In the present 
κι ας sd πω... has the sup- 
port of some good authorities (ΝΕ, 
Copt., Eth., etc.), the weight of documen- 
tary evidence is largely on the side of 
ἔχομεν (BSQSADDEFGKL, Vulg., Syr., 
Goth., etc.). What is in view, therefore, 
is something possessed now, and the 
writer describes that as τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν 
—‘ the redemption,” i.¢., the redemption 
familiar to every Christian, long expected 
and now accomplished. This ἀπολύτρω- 
σις is viewed sometimes as a thing of 
the future (Luke xxi. 28; Rom. viii. 23; 
Eph. iv. 30; and probably also Eph. 
i, 14; 1 Cor. i. 30); sometimes as a 
present possession (as here; Rom. iii. 24; 
οὐ, Ἱ. χὰ; Heb. xx. τῇ, That. the 
ἀπολύτρωσις here is a redemption not 
from the power or pollution of sin, but 
from its guilt, its condemnation, its 
penalty, is made plain by the defining 
clause which follows, identifying it with 
the forgiveness of sins. This is not the 
only aspect in which it is presented in the 
Pauline Epistles. The verb λυτροῦσθαι 
is applied there to a redemption from 
“all iniquity,” Tit. ii. 14, as in 1 Pet. 
i. 18 it is used of a redemption from a 
‘*vain manner of life’’. ut it is the 
primary aspect of the word and its 
cognates, and the one that is at the 
foundation of the other. The noun 
ἀπολύτρωσις is of rare occurrence, found 
only in a few passages in profane Greek 
(Plut., Pomp., xxiv., 2; J h., Antiq., 
xii., ii, 3; Diod., Frag., lib. xxxvii., 
5, 3 (Dindorf.); Philo, Quod omn. prob. 
lib. sit., § 17); and in the NT itself only ten 
times in all. The verb ἀπολντροῦσθαι 
is not found in the NT at all; the simple 
λντροῦν, λυτροῦσθαι thrice (1 Pet. i. 18; 
Luke xxiv. 21; Tit. ii. 14) and the noun 
λύτρωσις thrice (Luke i. 68, ii. 38; Heb. 
ix. 12). The proper idea is that of a re- 
lease, deliverance, or redemption effected 
by payment of a price or ransom (λύτρον). 
It is argued indeed that this idea cannot 
be said to be the essential or primary 
idea of ἀπολύτρωσις, because it is used 
in connections in which the notion of 
a payment is not in view (so Abbott) ; 
and that, therefore, we are not entitled 
to say that it means more than deliverance. 
It is true that, as is the case with most 
words, the definite, specific sense passes 
at times into the more general sense 
of “ deliverance’ (Heb. xi. 35; cf. Exod. 
τὰν But in profane Greek and in the 
LXX the primary sense of the verb, the 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


noun, and their cognates is that of a re- 
demption effected by payment of a price, 
or a release granted on receiving a price 
(Plut., Pomp., 24; Plato, Leges, 11, p. 
919(a); Polyb., xxii., 21, 8; Exod. xxi. 8; 
Zeph. iii. 1); and in the Pauline Epistles 
it denotes the deliverance accomplished 
at the cost of Christ's death from the 
Divine wrath and the penalty of sin. So 
it is understood, ¢.g., by Origen, in loc., 
Μεγ., Alf., Ell., etc.; and as the ἄφεσιν 
κ.τ.λ. shows that the “ redemption ” here 
in view is one in relation to the guilt or 
penalty of sin, so the διὰ τοῦ αἵματος 
αὐτοῦ shows that it is a redemption by 
payment of a price. This is consistent 
with Paul’s doctrine of the Divine wrath, 
redemption, propitiation, expiation, and 
the curse of the law (Rom. i. 18, iii. 
23, ν. 5 ff.; 1 Cor. vi. 20; Gal. iv. 4). 
It has its foundation also in Christ’s own 
declaration of the purpose of His coming, 
vis., to give His life a λύτρον ἀντὶ πολ- 
λῶν (Matt. xx. 28; Mk. x. 45).---διὰ 
τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ: through His blood. 
Christ’s “‘blood,”’ therefore, is that by 
which the redemption is effected—the 
price (τιμή, τ Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23) of the 
deliverance, the “ransom” that had to 
be paid for it (Matt. xx. 28; Mk. x. 45). 
The same idea appears in the teaching 
both of Peter and of John (1 Pet. i. 18; 
Rev. v. 9). The term occurs repeatedl 

in the NT, and in various Poser ύ 
αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. x. 16), τοῦ 
Κυρίον (1 Cor. xi. 27), τοῦ ἀρνίον (Rev. 
vii. 14, xii. 11), τοῦ σταυροῦ (Col. i. 20). 
What is its import? It means more 
than the death of Christ. It means that 
death in a particular aspect—as a sacri- 
fice, a death having a definite efficacy. 
It is a sacrificial term, based on the use 
of the bl of victims, offered under the 
OT Law, for purposes of purification and 
expiation (Lev, xvii. 11; Heb. ix. 7, 12, 
18-22, 25, x. 4, xi. 28, xiii. αχ). It 
looks back also to Christ’s own words 
in the institution of the Su (Matt. 
xxvi, 28; Mk. xiv. 29), and denotes the 
ratification of a new relation between God 
and men by a new covenant sacrifice 
It is used with reference to the purchase 
of the Church (Acts xx. 28; Rev. v. 9), 
the grace of access to God (Heb. x. 19), 
the admission of the Gentiles on equal 
terms with the Jews (Eph. ii. 13), the 
reconciliation of all things to God (Co 


i. 20); but also and most definitely {ο 


the changed condition of sinful men, 
and that most frequently on the objective 
side, as a new relation. As in the 
Levitical system there was a purificatory 
use of blood in the case of certain matters 


7. 


οἵ uncleanness (Lev. xiv. 5, 50), So in 
the NT the ‘‘blood” of Christ is used 
with reference to the ethical power of 
Christ's death in purifying or in overcom- 
ing (1 Pet. i. 19; 1 Johni. 7; Rev. xii. 11). 
But its special use is with reference to 
justification (Rev. v. 9), the position of 
non-condemnation (Heb. xii. 24), the 
cleansing of the conscience (Heb. ix. 14), 
the making of peace between God and 
the world (Col. i. 20), the manifestation 
of the righteousness of God in the passing 
over of sins (Rom. iii. 25), the remission 
of sins (Heb. ix. 22). Its primary idea, 
as is shown by usage and by OT analogy, 
is not that of renewing power or moral 
effect, but that of expiation, the removal 
of guilt, the restoration of broken relations 
with God. The important passage indeed 
in Ley. xvii. 11, which speaks of the 
‘‘blood”’ as reserved by Jehovah for the 
altar, for the purpose of ‘‘covering’”’ sin or 
making ‘‘atonement’’ for it, and declares 
that the atonement is made by the blood 
by reason ΟΕ’ the life of the flesh ” that is 
in it, has been held by nota few (including 
Bahr and other distinguished scholars) 
to express only the idea of self-surrender. 
On this ground the piacular efficacy of 
the OT sacrifices, and, therefore, of the 
sacrifice of Christ, has been denied. But 
the ‘covering ”’ of sin or making ‘‘atone- 
ment’”’ for it by sacrifice, is in many 
passages of the OT definitely connected 
with the forgiveness of sin (Lev. iv. 26, 
v. 18, etc.) ; the passage in Lev. xvii. Ir 
embodies the idea that ‘‘life” is the 
offering by which the  transgressor 
‘covers ”’ his sin or finds forgiveness for 
it; and in passages like the present it 
is this kind of efficacy that is definitely 
ascribed to the ‘‘ blood” of Christ. 

The attempt has been made to prove 
that this great phrase, ‘‘the blood of 
Christ,” covers two ideas which ought 
to be distinguished, namely, that of the 
blood as shed and that of the blood as 
offered, or death and life as two different 
conceptions, Thus the phrase in question 
is interpreted as setting forth Christ’s life 
in two distinct aspects, namely, as laid 
down in the act of dying and as liberated 
by the same act and made available for 
us, so that we are saved by having it com- 
municated tous. So West., Epistle to the 
Hebrews, pp. 293 ff. ; Epistles of St. ohn, 
pp. 34 ff. But neither in the present para- 
graph nor in any other Pauline passage 
is there anything to bear this out. Paul, 
indeed, speaks largely of the Christ who 
having died is now alive, and of what is 
effected for us by His life (Rom. v. 8-11; 
Phil, iii, το, etc.). But what the Living 


ΠΡῸΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


255 


Christ does for us in the forgiveness of 
sin, or in the subjugation of sin, is done as 
the power of what He did in dying for 
US.—Thv ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωµάτων: the 
forgiveness of our trespasses. The term 
ἄφεσις, while used occasionally in the 
general sense of release (Luke iv. 18; cf. 
Isa. Ixi. 1), expresses statedly the idea of 
the letting go of sin (ἀφιέναι τὴν ὀφειλήν, 
Matt. xviii. 32; ἀφιέναι τὰ ὀφειλήματα, 
τὰ παραπτώματα, Matt. vi. 12, 14, etc.), 
its dismissal or pardon, in the sense of 
the remission of its penalty (Matt. xxvi. 
28; Mark i. 4; Luke i. 77, iii. 3, xxiv. 
475 Acts ἅν 38, ν. 32; αν, κι, 98, 
etc.), and as distinguished from πάρεσις, 
the praetermission or passing by of sin in 
simple forbearance (Rom. iii. 25). The 
term παράπτωμα describes sin as lapse, 
misdeed, trespass (nearly equivalent to 
παράβασις, transgression, and ἁμάρτη- 
μα, evil deed, these differing not so much 
in their use as rather in the metaphors 
underlying them), as distinguished from 
ἀνομία, lawlessness or iniquity, ἀδικία, 
unrighteousness or wrong, and ἁμαρτία, 
which is applied not only to acts of 
sin, but to sin as a power, a habit, a 
condition (cf. Trench, Syn., § Ixvi.; 
Fritzsche, Kom., i. 289; Light., Notes, 
ut sup., on Rom., v., 20Ο)---κατὰ τὸν 
πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ: according 
to the riches of His grace. The read- 
ings vary between τὸν πλοῦτον (TR, 
following $¥°D°KL, etc.) and τὸ πλοῦ- 
τος (LTTrWHRYV, following ΒΝΙΑΡΙ, 
etc.). The masculine is the usual form, 
but the neuter is found in the best 
MSS. in several passages in the Pauline 
Epistles (2 Cor, viii. 2; Eph. i. 7, ii. 7, 
i. 8.16: ΕΠΗ. αν. το, Col. 1. 27. ii, 2). 
Elsewhere in the NT the masculine pre- 
vails. Winer explains the exchange be- 
tween the two forms as due to the popular 
lauguage, as 6 and τὸ πλοῦτος are used 
indifferently in modern Greek (Winer- 
Moult., Gram., p. 76). The great word 
χάρις, “grace,” which has been used 
twice already in these opening verses, 
touches the pulse of all Paul’s teaching on 
the redemption of sinful man. It has a 
large place in all his Epistles, and not least 
inthisone. For here it meets us at every 
turning-point in the great statement of 
the Divine counsel, the securities of the 
forgiveness of sin, the way of salvation. 
While it has the occasional and subor- 
dinate senses of loveliness (Col. iv. 6), 
favour or good will, whether of God or of 
man (Luke ii. 40, 52; Acts ii. 47, iv. 33, 
vii. το, etc.), in the Pauline writings it 
has the particular sense of free gift, 
undeserved bounty, and is used specially 


256 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1 


dhere only; διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν 3 ἄφεσιν τῶν " παραπτωµάτων, κατὰ τὸ 


see Col. i. 
14. 

ε ch. il. 7, ὃ 
iii. 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. ii. 2. 
4 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 12. 


1 ro πλοντος 


etc., Or., Cyr., Bas., Chrys., Euthal., etc. 


fattr., Rom. iv. 17; Col. i. 23; ch. ii. 4, 1ο al. 
h=ver. 17; Col. i. 9, 28. ἢ 


" πλοῦτος | τῆς χάριτος 2 αὐτοῦ, 8. ἵ ἧς ὃ 5 ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς "ἐν 


Ε ἴταπ.ν 


*ABD*EFGP 31, 47, 59,67; το πληθος 17; τον πλοντον N*D®KL, 


2 For χαριτος, χρηστοτητος A τορ, Copt.; text BDG, f, ete. 


5 For ης, quae ἃ, e, f, g, Ambrst. 


of the goodness of God which bestows 
favour on those who have no claim or 
merit in themselves (Rom. iii. 24, v. 17, 
20; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. i. 15, etc., etc.), 
or of that free favour of God as a power 
which renews men and sustains them in 
the Christian life, aiding their efforts, 
keeping them from falling, securing their 
progress in holiness (2 Cor. iv. 15; vi. 1; 
2 Thess. i. 12, etc.). The freeness of this 
Divine favour in the form of grace, the 
unmerited nature of the Divine goodness, 
is what Paul most frequently magnifies 
with praise and wonder. Here it is the 
mighty measure of the largesse, the grace 
in its quality of riches, that is introduced. 
This magnificent conception of the wealth 
of the grace that is bestowed on us by 
God and that which is in Christ for 
us, is a peculiarly Pauline idea. It 
meets us, indeed, elsewhere (cf. the 
plenteous redemption of the Psalmist, 
Ps, cxxx. 7; the multitude of the Divine 
mercies, Ps. lxix. 13, 16, and loving 
kindnesses, Ps. Ixiii. Τ᾽ the fulness of 
Christ, John i. 16; Col. i. το, etc.) ; but 
nowhere 8ο frequently or with such in- 
sistence as with Paul. Cf. the riches of 
God’s goodness (Rom. ii. 4), His glory 
(Rom. ix. 23), His wisdom (Rom. xi. 33), 
His mercy (Eph. ii. 4), the glory of His 
inheritance (Eph. i. 18), the glory of the 
mystery (Col. 1. 27); also the exceeding 
riches of His grace (Eph. ii. 7), his riches 
in glory by Christ Jesus (Phil. iv. 19), the 
riches of the pre-incarnate Christ (2 Cor. 
viii. 9), the riches of Christ the Lord 
(Rom. x. 12), the unsearchable riches of 
Christ (Eph. iii. 8). That our redemption 
cost so great a price, the blood of Christ, 
is the supreme evidence of the riches of 
the Divine grace. And the measure of 
what God does for us is nothing less than 
the limitless wealth of His loving favour. 

Ver. 8, ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς: 
which he made to abound towards us. 
Both in profane and Biblical Greek 
περισσεύειν is usually intrans. It is 
so used in the vast majority of cases in 
the Pauline Epistles (Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 11η. 2 Cor. ἃ 5, ας. 12% 


Phil. i. 26, etc.). In later Greek, how- 
ever, it has also, though not frequently, 
the trans. sense, and there are some 
instances of this also in the NT (Luke 
xv. 17, according to the better reacing; 
2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8; 1 Thess. iii. = 
Here, therefore, two interpretations are 
possible, viz., ‘‘ wherewith he abounded” 
(as in Syr., Vulg., Arm., AV, RV πιατρ., 
etc.), or ‘which he made to abound” 
(as in Goth., Eth., RV, etc.). The latter 
sense, that of furnishing richly so that 
there is not only enough but much more, 
is on the whole in better harmony with 
the context. It is also supported by 
grammar, inasmuch as it is un 
whether the NT presents any instance of 
attraction where the genitive of the rela- 
tive represents the dative. Such attrac- 
tion is possible in classical Greek (cf. G. 
Kriiger, Untersuch., p. 274; Jelf, Gram., 
822; Winer-Moult., Gram., p. 204); but 
the instances referred to in the NT (Rom. 
iv. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 6) may admit of another 
explanation. It is also possible, indeed, 
to take the ἧς, not as a case of attraction, 
but as under the immediate regimen ot 
ἐπερίσσενσεν. For there are at least 
some instances of περισσεύειν τινος in 
the sense of abounding im something; 
cf. Wa... παντὸς χαρίσματος περισ- 
σεύῃς in Ignat., Pol., 2, and περισσεύου- 
ow ἄρτων in Luke xv. 17 (the reading of 
the TR with QDQR, etc.; περισσεύονται, 
however, being accepted by TrWHRV 
with BAP, etc.). The transitive sense, 
however, is further favoured by the force 
of the following yvwploas, as Winer 
points out. The els ἡμᾶς, expressing 
the objects to whom the “abounding” 
is directed, is like the εἰς τοὺς πολλούς 
of Rom. v. 15, the εἰς ἡμᾶς of 2 Cor. 
i. 5, the εἰς ὑμᾶς of 2 Cor. ix. 8. In the 
last-named passage, indeed, περ'σσεύειν 
occurs both in the sense of mc king to 
abound and in that of abounding, and in 
both cases, though with different shades 
of meaning, it is followed by els.—év π. 
σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει: in all wisdom 
prudence. The clause expresses the par- 
ticular forms in which God made His 


7—8, 


grace to abound towards us, or the gifts 
in which His abounding grace was to 
be seen, namely, those of insight and 
practical intelligence or discernment with 
regard to the deep things of His saving 
counsel. There is considerable difference 
of opinion, however, with respect to the 
connection of the clause, its application, 
and the precise import of its terms. By 
some (Theod., Griesb., etc.) the words are 
attached to the following γνωρίσας and 
taken to define the way in which God 
made known the ‘mystery of His will”. 
But the reason already given, drawn from 
Paul’s usage, for attaching the ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
(ver. 4) to the statement preceding it, holds 
good also here. Nota few (Rickert, De 
Wette, Alf., etc.) understand the clause to 
refer to God, and to express the thought 
that the supremacy of His wisdom was 
seen in the bestowal of His grace so 
abundantly on us, that it was ‘‘in His 
manifold wisdom and prudence, mani- 
fested in all ways possible for us, that 
He poured out His grace upon us” (Alf.). 
But it is difficult to adjust the terms to 
such a use. For it is doubtful whether 
φρόνησις in the sense which it bears here 
can be predicated of God. The instances 
which are cited (Prov. ili. 19; Jer. x. 12) 
are extremely few. They are also of 
doubtful relevancy, inasmuch as the 
φρόνησις in these passages represents a 
Hebrew word with a somewhat different 
idea, rendered by the RV ‘‘understand- 
ing”. Neither is the πολυποίκιλος 
σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ (Eph. iii. 10) a valid 
analogy, the thought expressed there 
being that of the many and various ways 
in which the Divine wisdom is manifested 
and realised. The same must be said of 
the phrase φρόνησις θεοῦ in the narrative 
of Solomon’s decision (1 Kings iii. 28) ; 
for it expresses a prudence or intelligence 
given to Solomon by God or divine in 
quality. Even were it more certain than 
it is that there is biblical warrant for 
affirming φρόνησις of God, the πάσῃ 
puts that reference out of the question 
here; πᾶς being an extensive, not an in- 
tensive, definition, expressing not the 
highest wisdom and prudence, but all 
possible wisdom and prudence, every kind 
of such attributes (cf. Winer-Moult., p. 
137). It is true that there are cases in 
classical Greek which might entitle us to 
take πᾶσα σοφία as equivalent to πᾶσα 
ἢ σοφία, “τς whole of wisdom,” ‘the 
sum of wisdom”? (cf. Kiihner, Gram., ii., 
ὃ 465; Anm., 8). But there dces not 
appear to be any certain example of that 
in NT Greek. Further, it is the grace 
of God that is magnified in the paragraph, 


VOL. III. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


257 


and that not in respect of other qualities 
in God Himself, but in respect of what 
it does for us. Hence most (Harl., Mey., 
Ell., Abb., Haupt, etc.) understand the 
clause to refer not to God the Giver, but 
to us the receivers. This is borne out 
also by the ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν 
τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ 
καὶ συνέσει of Col. i. 9; by the place 
assigned to Christian wisdom in the 
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colos- 
sians; and also to some extent by such 
partial parallels as these: ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ 
(Col. iii. 16); ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν 
παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει (1 Cor. 
1. 9), δία: 

There remains, however, the question 
as to the precise sense of the two nouns. 
Σοφία is of frequent occurrence in the 
NT generally and in the Pauline writings 
in particular ; φρόνησις occurs only twice 
in the whole NT, viz., in Luke i. 17 
(where the RV renders it ‘‘ wisdom”) 
and here. As in the present passage the 
two nouns are also conjoined in 1 Kings 
Lite το ἵν. 20} Ἐτονια ο Ville τ. Dane 
1: 1) 1 21, 23: 85:0; ἴου, Ἱπ Ιοξερῃ., 
πιο 11,9) ο ο, Villy, 7, 5. πεις is. a 
distinction between them which is vari- 
ously put in Greek and Roman literature. 
Aristotle, e.g., defines σοφία as ἐπιστήμη 
καὶ νοῦς TOV τιμιωτάτων τῇ φύσει, and 
φρόνησις 45 περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα καὶ περὶ 
ὧν ἔστι βουλεύσασθαι (Eth. Nic., vi., 7). 
Plato deals with φρόνησις as the wis- 
dom of action, prudential wisdom or 
sagacity (Laws, i., 631 C; 632 E, etc.), 
and as the faculty by which we judge τί 
πρακτέον καὶ τί ov πρακτέον ([Plato], 
Def., 411). Philo takes σοφία to relate 
πρὸς θεραπείαν Θεοῦ and φρόνησις to 
relate πρὸς ἀνθρωπίνου βίου διοίκησιν 
(De Prom. et Poen., 14). Cicero again 
describes the former as rerum divinarum 
et humanarum scientia and the latter 
as rerum expetendarum fugiendarumque 
scientia (Off., i. 43); while others ex- 
plain σοφία as ἐπιστήμη θείων τε Kal 
ἀνθρωπίνων and φρόνησις as ἐπιστήμη 
ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν (Sext. Emp., p. 720; 
Plut., Mor., 1066 D). In all these defini- 
tions σοφία is the larger idea, wisdom in 
the most general sense, and φρόνησις 
is the secondary idea, expressing a par- 
ticular result or application of σοφία. 
So it seems to be also substantially with 
the Biblical use of the terms. Σοφία is 
the collective moral intelligence, “insight 
into the true nature of things’’ (Light.), 
and in the Pauline Epistles it is this intelli- 
gence in especial as knowledge of the 
Divine plan of salvation long hidden and 
now revealed; while φρόνησις is the prac- 


17 


258 


δ. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1, 


i Luke i. 17 πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ ᾿ ppovycer! 9. "γνωρίσας ” ἡμῖν τὸ ' μυστήριον τοῦ 
Kings ti θελήματος αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν "' εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν " προέθετο ° ἐν 


k John xvii. 26; Ezek. xliv. 23; Eph. and Col. fr. 
iv.11; Dan. ii. 29 al. m ver. 5 reff. 


1 For Φρονησ., γνωσει 17; συνεσει 71. 


n Rom. i. 13, iii. 25 only; Exod. xl. 4. 


1 Ch. iii. 3, vi. 19 al.; Col. i. 26 al.; Mark 
xl. ο Vv. 3, 4 reff. 


Ξγνωρισαι FG 76, ἆ, e, f, g, Vig., Goth., Hil, Theophyl., Victorin., Ambrst., 


Aug., etc. 


Σαντον om. DEFG, d, e, g, Goth., Copt., Tert., Victorin., Hil. 


tical use of wisdom, the product of wisdom 
(cf. Prov. x. 23, ἡ δὲ σοφία ἀνδρὶ τίκτει 
φρόνησιν), “the right use and applica- 
tion of the φρήν ” (Trench), the faculty of 
discerning the proper disposition or action. 
The riches, the abounding riches, of the 
grace expended on us stood revealed 
in the bestowal of these gifts of spiritual 
comprehension and practical discernment 
with reference to the deep things of the 
Divine Counsel and the Divine Revela- 
tion. 

Ver. 9. γνωρίσας ἡμῖν: having made 
known unto us. Better, “in that He 
made known unto us”. As in ver. 5 
the aor. part. is modal, not temporal, ex- 
pressing an act not conceived as prior to 
that intimated by the definite tense, but 
coincident with it and stating the way in 
which it took effect. The ἡμῖν means 
to us Christians generally, not to us 
Apostles particularly, and the knowledge 
in question is spiritual understanding or 
insight. It was in giving us to know a 
certain secret of His counsel that God 
made His grace to abound toward us in 
all wisdom and discernment. The reve- 
lation of this secret to our minds meant 
the bestowal on us of all that is implied in 
wisdom and intelligence.—ré μνστήριον 
τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ: the mystery (or 
secret) of His will. The gen. is the 
ordinary gen. objecti, the mystery touch- 
ing or concerning His will; not the gen. 
subjecti, the mystery originating in His 
will, nor the appositive gen., as if it were 
simply another form for ‘* His hidden 
will”. The word μυστήριον, which in 
classical Greek meant something secret, 
especially the secrets of religion com- 
municated only to the initiated and by 
them to be kept untold, is used in the 
Apocryphal books of things hidden, ¢.g., 
the counsels of God (Wisd. ii. 22; Judith 
fi. 2), and in the NT occasionally of things 
not clear to the understanding (1 Cor. xiii. 
2, xiv. 2), or of the mystic meaning of 
things — sayings, names, appearances 
(Eph. v. 32; Rev. i. 20, xvii. 5). But 
its distinctive sense in the NT is that of 
something once hidden and now revealed, 


a secret now open. In this sense it is 
applied to the Divine plan of redemption 
as a whole (Rom. xvi. 25; 1 Cor. li. 7; 
Eph. vi. το; Col. i. 26; 1 Tim. iii. 9, 16, 
etc.), or to particular things belonging to 
that Divine plan—the inclusion of the 
Gentiles (Rom. xi, 25; Eph. iii. 3, 9), 
the transformation of Christians alive on 
earth at Christ’s return (1 Cor, xv. 52), 
the union of Christ and the Church (Eph. 
v. 32). It does not convey the idea of 
something that we cannot take in or 
understand even when it is declared to 
us. It is peculiarly frequent in the 
kindred Epistles to the Ephesians and 
Colossians, ten out of the twenty-six or 
twenty-seven occurrences being found in 
them. Nor is it confined absolutely to 
the things of grace. Paul speaks also of 
the ‘mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 
ii. 7). The redemption accomplished 
through Christ—this is the secret hidden 
for ages in the Divine Counsel and now 
revealed. This also is the truth, the dis- 
closure of which to our understandings 
meant so large a gift of grace in the way 
of insight and spiritual discernment.— 
κατὰ αι εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ: according to 
His good pleasure. This isto γ᾽ τρια 
neither to the μυστήριον τοῦ TOS 
αὐτοῦ, which . . further definition, 
nor to the following προέθετο, κ.τ.λ., but 
to the γνωρίσας, precisely as the previous 
προορίσας was declared to be κατὰ τὴν 
εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (ver. 5). 
The opening of this secret to us after the 
silence of ages had its ground and reason 
in nothing else than the gracious counsel 
or free purpose of God.—fv προέθετο: 
which He purposed. This verb προτί- 
θεμαι occurs only thrice in the NT, and 
all three instances are in the Pauline 
Epistles: once of human purpose (Rom. 
i. 13), once of the Divine action (Rom. 
iii, 25), and once (here) of the Divine 
purpose. The efernal purpose of God 
is in view, as the context shows. The 
προ in the compound verb, however, does 
not express the idea of the pre-temforal. 
It appears to have the local sense-— 
setting before oneself and so determining. 


9---1Ο, 


αὑτῷ το. Peis! “ οἰκονομίαν τοῦ " πληρώματος τῶν "Ἥ καιρῶν, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


259 


t ἀνα- p=Matt. x. 


18. 


κεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ χριστῷ," τὰ ὃ ἐπὶ * τοῖς οὐρανοῖς q=Ch. iii. 


ch. iii. 2; Col. i. 25; Luke xvi. 2 reff. 
24 reff. t Rom. xiii. 9 only t. 


1 For εις, κατα τὴν A, 


r=Gal., iv. 4 only. 


only; see 
s See Mark i. 15; Luke xxi 


2 Omit tw 116, 143; Xp. Ino. 143. 


3 Insert τε, a few cursives, Epiph., Cyr., etc. 
4εν τοις NKPAFGKP, etc., Copt., Chr., Thdrt., Epiph., Thl., Ir.; text 4*BDEL, 
Goth., Eus., Thdrt., Dam., Oec., Tert., etc. 


—év αὐτῷ: in Himself. Some make it 
“in him,” that is, in Christ (Chrys., 
Luth., Bengel, Hofm., Light., Wycl., 
Vulg., etc.), and this would be quite in 
accordance with the subsequent statement 
of the eternal purpose as one which God 
‘*purposed in Christ Jesus the Lord” 
(Eph. iii. 11). But God and His will 
are the subjects in view here, and the 
mention of Christ seems too remote for 
the αὐτῷ to refer naturally to Him. The 
purpose is God’s own free determination, 
originating in His own gracious mind. 
The reading ἐν αὑτῷ is adopted by Mey., 
Ell., etc., while ἐν αὐτῷ is given by 
Γασππι, Είδος. ΝΗ ΕἨατ, etc. The 
question whether the NT knows any 
other form than ἑαυτοῦ as the reflexive 
of the third person is still debated. It is 
urged (e¢.g., by Bleek, Buttm., etc.) that 
the NT does not use αὑτοῦ, but only 
ἑαυτοῦ in most cases or at least the vast 
majority, on such grounds as these, viz., 
that the MSS. have ἀπό, ἐπί, ὑπό, etc., 
and not ἀφ᾽, ἐφ᾽, ὑφ᾽, before αὐτοῦ ; that 
in the second person we find only σεαυ- 
Tov, not σαυτοῦ; and that the first and 
second personal pronouns are often used 
in the NT instead of the reflexive, though 
not when the pronoun is immediately de- 
pendent ontheverb. Lightfoot concludes 
that ‘‘avrod, etc., may be used for ἑαυτοῦ, 
etc., in almost every connection, except 
where it is the direct object of the verb” 
(see his note on Col. i. 20). On the other 
hand, Ell. is of opinion that the reflexive 
form is in place ‘‘ where the attention is 
principally directed to the subject,” and 
the non-reflexive where it is “ diverted by 
the importance of the details”. Winer, 
while admitting that in most passages 
αὐτοῦ, etc., would suffice, would write 
αὑτοῦ, etc., certainly in a few cases such 
as John ix. 21 (αὐτὸς περὶ αὑτοῦ λαλήσει) 
and Rom. iti. 25 (ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὺς... 
εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὑτοῦ), and 
would prefer it also in such passages as 
Mark vii, 35; Luke xii. 34, xix. 15; Rom. 
xiv. 14; Rev. xi. 7, xiii. 2; as also here 
in Eph. 1.9. See Buttm., p. 111; Win.- 
Moult., p. 188; Bleek, Heb., ii., p. 60. 


Ver. το. εἰς οἰκονομίαν: unto a dis- 
pensation. This expresses the end which 
God had in view in that which He 
purposed. Some (Erasm., Calv., etc.) 
give εἰς the temporal sense of usque ad. 
But the idea is rather the more definite 
one of design. God had His reason for 
the long delay in the revelation of the 
‘“‘mystery’’, ‘That reason lay in the fact 
that the world was not ripe for the 
dispensation of grace which formed the 
contents of the mystery. In classical 
Greek the word οἰκονομία had the two 
meanings of (a) administration, the 
management of a house or of property, 
and (δ) the office of administrator or 
steward. It was used of such things 
as the arrangement of the parts of a 
building (Vitruv., i., 2), the disposition 
of the parts of a speech (Quint., Inst., 
ΠΠ, 3), and more particularly of the 
financial administration of a city (Arist., 
Pol., iii. 14; cf. Light., Notes, sub voc.). 
It has the same twofold sense in the 
NT—an arrangement or administration 
of things (in the passages in the present 
Epistle and in τ Tim. i. 4), and the 
office of administrator—in particular the 
stewardship with which Paul was en- 
trusted by God (x Cor. ix. 17; Col. i. 25). 
The idea at the basis of the statement 
here, therefore, as also in the somewhat 
analogous passage in Gal. iy. I-11, is 
that of a great household of which God 
is the Master and which has a certain 
system of management wisely ordered 
by Him. Cf. the figure of the Church 
as the household of God (1 Tim. iii. 
15; Heb. iii. 2-6; 1 Pet. iv. 17), and the 
parables which run in terms of God as 
οἰκοδεσπότης (Matt. xiii. 27, xx. 1, 11, 
xxl. 33; Luke xiii. 25, xiv. 21).---τοῦ 
πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν: of the fulness 
of the times. That is, a dispensation 
belonging to the fulness of the times. 
The gen. cannot be the gen. objecti 
(Storr, etc.), nor the epexegetic gen. 
(Harl.), but must be that of characteristic 
quality, ‘‘a dispensation proper to the 
fulness of the times” (Mey.), or it may 
express the relation of time, as in ἡμέρα 


260 


ὀργῆς (Rom. ii. 5), κρίσις μεγάλης 
ἡμέρας (Jude 6). In Gal. iv. 4 the phrase 
takes the more general form τὸ πλήρωμα 
τοῦ χρόνου; hereit has the more specific 
form τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν, the ful- 
ness of the seasons, or series of appointed, 
determinate times. The idea of the 
fitness of the times, it is probable, is also 
expressed by the καιρῶν as distinguished 
from χρόνων, the former being a qualita- 
tive term, the latter a quantitative (see 
Light., Notes, p. 70). Cf. Heb. i. 1, and 
especially the πεπλήρωται 6 καιρός of 
Mark i. 15. In classical Greek πλήρωμα 
appears to have both the passive sense, 
‘that which is filled,’’ and the active, 
“that which fills’. The former is rare, 
the latter is sufficiently common. See 
Lidd. and Scott, Lex., and Rost u. Palm., 
Wortb., sub voce. In the NT likewise 
it seems to have both senses (though this 
is questioned) ; the passive being found in 
the great doctrinal passages in the Pauline 
Epistles (Eph. iii. 19, iv. 13, etc.), the active 
occurring more frequently and in a variety 
of applications (Matt. ix. 16; Mark ii. 21, 
vi. 43, Vili. 20; Rom. xi. 12; 1 Cor. 
x. 26). With reference to time it means 
‘complement "'—the particular time that 
completes a long prior period or a previous 
series of seasons. The purport of the 
statement, therefore, tae to be this: 
God has His household, the kingdom 
of heaven, with its special disposition of 
affairs, its οἰκονόμος or steward (who is 
Christ), its own proper method of ad- 
ministration, and its gifts and privileges 
intended for its members. But these 
gifts and privileges could not be dispensed 
in their fulness while those for whom 
they were meant were under age (Gal. 
iv. 1-3) and unprepared for them. A 
period of waiting had to elapse, and 
when the process of training was finished 
and the time of maturity was reached 
the gifts could be bestowed in their 
completeness. God, the Master of the 
House, had this fit time in view as the 
hidden purpose of His grace. When 
that time came He disclosed His secret 
in the incarnation of Christ and intro- 
duced the new disposition of things 
which explained His former dealings 
with men and the long delay in the 
revelation of the complete purpose of 
His grace. So the Fathers came to speak 
of the incarnation as the οἰκονομία 
(Just., Dial., 45, 120; Iren., i., 10; 
Orig., C. Cels., ii, 9, etc.). This 
““ceconomy of the fulness of the sea- 
sons,” therefore, is that stewardship of 
the Divine grace which was to be the 
trust of Christ, in other words, the dis- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


pensation of the Gospel, and that dispen- 
sation as fulfilling itself in the whole 
period from the first advent of Christ 
to the second. In this last respect the 
present passage differs from that in Gal. 
iv. 4. In the latter “the fulness of the 
time” appears to refer definitely to the 
mission of Christ into the world and His 
work there. Here the context (especially 
the idea expressed by the next clause) 
extends the reference to the final com- 
pletion of the work—and the close of the 
dispensation at the Second Coming.— 
ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι: {ο sum up. Or, 
having regard to the Middle Voice, “τὸ 
sum up for Himself’. The sentence 
thus introduced is one of the select class 
of passages which refer to the cosmical 
relations of Christ’s Person or Work. It 
is one of great doctrinal importance, Its 
exact import, however, is very differently 
understood by different interpreters. 
Every word in it requires attention. 
There is fixst the question of its precise 
relation to the paragraph of which it 
forms part. The inf. is taken by most 
(Mey., Ell., etc.) to be the epexegetic inf., 
conveying something complementary to, 
or explanatory of, the preceding state- 
ment, and so = ‘namely (or to wit), tosum 
up". It is that inf., however, in the 
particular aspect of consequence or con- 
templated result = "80 as to sum up”’ (so 
Light.; cf. Win.-Moult., pp. 399; 400). 
But with what part of the paragraph is 
this complementary sentence immediately 
connected? The doctrinal significance 
of the sentence depends to a considerable 
extent on the answer to the question, and 
the answer takes different forms. Some 
understand the thing which is explained 
or complemented to be the whole. idea 
contained in the statement from yv 

onwards, ‘at once the content of the 
μυστήριον, the object of the εὐδοκία, 
and the object reserved for the olx." 
Abb.). Others limit it to the p τον 
Bez., Harl., ΚΙ.) or to the πρ το 
(Flatt, Hofm.). Others understand it to 
refer to the εὐδοκίαν in particular, the 
fv... καιρῶν clause being regarded as 
a parenthesis (Alf., Haupt); and others 
regard it as unfolding the meaning of 
the immediately preceding clause—the 
οἰκονομίαν τ. π. τ. κ. (Mey., etc.). The 
last seems to be the simplest view, the 
others involving more or less remoteness 
of the explanatory sentence from the sen- 
tence to be explained. So the point 
would be that the @conomy, the new 
order of things which God in the purpose 
of His grace had in view for the fulness 
of the seasons, was one which had for 


κ 


ΤΟ, 


its end or object a certain summing up 
of all things. But in what sense is this 
summing up to be understood? The 
precise meaning of this rare word avake- 
φαλαιώσασθαι has to be looked at. 
In the classics it is used of repeating 
summarily the points of a speech, gather- 
ing its argument together in a summary 
form. So Quintilian explains the noun 
ἀνακεφαλαίωσις as rverim repetitio et 
congregatio (vi., 1), and Aristotle speaks 
of the ἔργον ῥητορικῆς as being ἄνακε- 
φαλαιώσασθαι πρὸς ἀνάμνησιν (Frag., 
123). In late Greek the verb means also 
to present in compendious form or to 
reproduce (Protev. Fac.,13). The simple 
verb κεφαλαιοῦν in the classics denotes 
in like manner to state summarily, or 
bring under heads (Thuc., tii., 67, vi., 91, 
etc.), and the noun κεφάλαιον is used in 
the sense of the chief point (Plato, Laws, 
643 D), the sum of the matter (Pind., 
P., 4, 206), a head or topic in argument 
(Dionys. Hal., De Rhet., x., 5), a re- 
capitulation of an argument (Plato, Tim., 
26, etc.). In the NT the verb ἄνακε- 
φαλαιώσασθαι occurs only twice, namely 


here and in Rom. xiii. 9; in which_ 


latter passage it is used of the summing 
up of the various commandments in the 
one requirement of love to one’s neigh- 
bour. The simple verb κεφαλαιοῦν 
occurs only once, viz., in Mark xii. 4, 
where it has the sense of wounding in 
the head; but the text is uncertain 
there, TTrWH reading ἐκεφαλίωσαν 
with BSL, etc. The noun κεφάλαιον 
is found twice, v7z., in Acts xxii. 28, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


261 


compound verb. The ἄνα is taken by 
many to add the idea of again, and to 
make the result or end in view the 
bringing things back to a unity which 
had once existed but had been lost. So 
it is understood by the Pesh., the Vulg., 
Tertull. (e.g., in his Adv. Mare., v., 17, 
‘‘affirmat omnia ad initium recolligi in 
Christo”; in the De Monog., 5, ‘‘adeo 
in Christo omnia revocantur ad initium,” 
etc.), Mey., Alf., Abb., etc. On the other 
hand, Chrys. makes the compound verb 
equivalent to συνάψαι ; and the idea ofa 
return to a former condition is negatived 
by many, the ava being taken to have 
simply the sense which it has in ava- 
γινώσκειν, ἀνακρίνειν, ἀνακυκᾶν, ἀνα- 
λογίζεσθαι, ἀναμάνθανειν, etc., and to 
express the idea of “going over the 
separate elements for the purpose of 
uniting them” (Light., Notes, p. 322). 
Usage on the whole is on the side of the 
latter view, and accordingly the con- 
clusion is drawn by some that this 
‘summing up’ is not the recovery of 
a broken pristine unity, but the gathering 
together of objects now apart and unre. 
lated into a final, perfect unity. Never- 
theless it may be said that the verb, if it 
does not itself definitely express the idea 
of the restoration of a lost unity, gets 
that idea from the context. For the 
whole statement, of which the ἀνακε- 
φαλαιώσασθαι clause forms part, runs in 
terms of a redemption, and the cognate 
passage in Col. i. 20 speaks of a final 
reconciliation of all things.—7Ta πάντα: 
all things. An all-inclusive phrase, 


where it has the sense of a sum of money equivalent to the totality of creation ; 
(as in Lev. vi. 5; Num. v. 7, xxxi. 26),and not things only, nor yet men or intel. 
in Heb. viii. 1, where it means the chief ligent beings only (although the phrase 
point in the things that the writer has might bear that sense, cf. Gal. iii. 22), but, 


been saying.. The prevailing idea con- 
veyed by these terms, therefore, appears 
to be that of a logical, rhetorical, or arith- 
metical summing up. The subsequent 
specification of the objects of the ἄνακε- 
φαλαιώσασθαι, however, makes it plain 
that what is in view here is not a logical 
or rhetorical, but a real or objective sum- 
ming up. Further, as the verb comes 
not from κεφαλή but from κεφάλαιον, it 


as the context shows, all created objects, 
men and things. Cf. the universal ex- 
pression in Col. i, 20.—év τῷ Χριστῷ: 
in Christ, or rather ‘tin the Christ,” 
the introduction of the article indicating 
that the term has its official sense here. 
The same is clearly the case in ver. 12, 
and, as Alford notices, the article does 
not seem to be attached to the term 
Χριστός after a prep. unless some special 


does not refer to the summing up of point isin view. The point of union in 
things under a head, and the point of this gathering together of all things is 
view, therefore, is not that of the Head- the Christ of God. In Him they are to 
ship of Christ—which comes to distinct be unified.—ra ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ 
expression at the close of the chapter. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς: the things in the heavens. 
On the other hand it does not seem and the things upon the earth. Or, 
necessary to limit the sense of the according to the better reading and as in 
word (with Haupt) to the idea of a KV ππατρ., the things upon the heavens, 
résumé or compendious presentation of and the things upon the earth. The 
things ina single person. The question reading of the TR, though supported 
remains as to the force of the prep.in the by ΑΣ, most cursives, Chrys., etc., 


262 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ L 


u Hereonly. καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς" ΤΙ. ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ "ἐκληρώθημεν Ἱπροορισθέντες 


1 Kings 
Xiv. 41. 


"κατὰ " πρόθεσιν 2 τοῦ τὰ ὃ 
v Acts iv. 


z=Acts ii. 23, iv. 28, xiii. 36; Heb. vi. 17. 


πάντα * ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν * βουλὴν 


28; Rom. viii. 29, 30; 1 Cor. ii. 7; ver. 5 only ἐ, 
11; ch. iii. 11; 2 Tim. i. 9; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Macc. iii. 8. 


w= Phil. ii. 3 reff. x= Rom. viii. 28, ix. 


y 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11; Phil. ii. 13. 


1 For εκληρ., εκληθηµεν (gloss) ADEFG, it., d, e, g; text ΒΝΚΙ.Ρ, al., d, e, f, g, 
Vig., Euseb., Euthal., Cyr., Chrys., Thdt., Dam., etc. 


3 Before προθ. insert την D'FG, al. After προθ. insert τον Θεον DEFG το, 46, 


71-3, 80, Copt., Eth., Slav., Ambrst. 


3 Before παντα om. τα D'FG tog, Thdrt. 


must give place to τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 
which is adopted by LTTrWH on the 
basis of BAQDL, etc. It is an unusual 
form for the compound phrase, the term 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς being ordinarily coupled 
with ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (cf. iii. 15; also 
the parallel in Col. i. 20, where the ἐπί 
is poorly attested). The ἐπί in ἐπὶ τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς, however, may have the force 
of at, which it has in such phrases as 
ἐπὶ πύλῃσιν (Π1., iii., 149), ἐπὶ πύργῳ 
(11., vi., 431), ἐπὶ τῇ Ἦν δα «ολα. (Acts 
iii, 10, 11), the heavens being regarded, 
as Meyer thinks, as ‘‘the stations at 
which the things concerned are to be 
found”. The phrase in its two con- 
trasted parts defines the preceding ra 
πάντα, making the all-inclusive nature 
of its universality clear by naming its 
great divisions. It is not to be under- 
stood as referring in its first section to 
any particular class, spirits in heaven, 
departed saints of Old Testament times, 
angels (as even Chrys. and Calv. thought), 
Fews, and in its second section specifically 
to men or to Gentiles. It explains the uni- 
versality expressed by τὰ πάντα as the 
widest possible and most comprehensive 
universality, including the sum total of 
created objects, wherever found, whether 
men or things.—év αὐτῷ: in him. Em- 
phatic resumption of the ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ 
and transition to the following state- 
ment, solemnly re-affirming also, as Ell. 
suggests, where the true point of unity 
designed by God, or the sphere of its 
manifestation, is to be found. 

The passage has been supposed (Orig., 
Crell., etc.) to teach the doctrine of a 
Universal Restoration. But interpreted 
as above it has nothing to do with any 
such doctrine, whether in the sense of a 
final salvation of all unrighteous and 
unbelieving men or in that of a final 
recovery of all evil beings, devils and 
men alike. Nor, again, does it refer 
particularly to the case of the indi- 
vidual. It speaks, as Meyer notices, of 
the ‘‘aggregate of heavenly and earthly 


things,” and of that as destined to make 
a true unity at last. Another view of 
the general import of the statement, 
which has been elaborated with much 
ability by Haupt, requires some notice. 
Pressing to its utmost the sense of a ré- 
sumé or summary, which he regards as the 
idea essentially contained in the terms in 
question, he contends that the meaning 
of the statement is that in Christ, who 
belongs at once to humanity and to the 
heavenly world, should be seen the com- 
pendious presentation of all beings and 
things—that in His person should be 
summarised the totality of created ob- 
jects, both earthly and heavenly, so that 
outside Him nothing should exist. He 
looks for the proper parallel to this not 
in Col. i. 20, but in Col. i. 16, 17, where 
it is said of Christ that “‘in Him were 
all things created" and that “in Him 
all things consist”. And he appeals in 
support of his view to the use of the 
kindred verb σνγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι in Xen. 
(Cyr., viii., 1, 15, viii., 6, 14), where it 
expresses the organisation of a multitude 
of slaves under one representative, in 
whom they and their acts were so em- 
bodied that Cyrus could transact with 
all when dealing with the one. But 
the idea of Christ’s agency in the first 
creation and the continuous maintenance 
of things is not expressed in the passage 
in Ephesians, and while it is the pre- 
existent Christ that is in view in Col. i. 16, 
here it is the risen Christ.. It remains, 
therefore, that the present passage be- 
longs to the same class as Rom. viii. 20- 
22; Col. i. 20, etc., and expresses the 
truth that Christ is to be the point of 
union and reconciliation for all things, 
so that the whole creation shall be finally 
restored by Him to its normal condition 
of harmony and unity. 

Ver. 11. ἐν ᾧ καὶ: in whom also τος. 
The καί does not qualify the subjects 
(for there is no emphatic ἡμεῖς, nor is 
there any such contrast between ἡμεῖς 
and ὑμεῖς here as appears in verses 12, 13), 


10-11. 


but refers to what is expressed by the 
verb and presents that as something 
additional to what has been expressed 
by the preceding verb. The ‘ we,” there- 
fore, designates Christians inclusively, 
and the καί gives the sentence this force 
—‘‘not only was it the purpose of God 
to make known the secret of His grace 
to us Christians, but this purpose was 
also fulfilled in us in point of fact and 
we were made His own—not only chosen 
for His portion but actually made that”, 
The AV “in whom also we” seems to 
follow the erroneous rendering of the 
Vulg., im quo etiam nos. Equally at 
fault are those (including even Wetstein 
and Harless) who limit the “we” to 
Jewish Christians Πεγα.---ἐκληρώθημεν : 
were made a heritage. The reading 
ἐκλήθημεν, found in a few uncials and 
favoured by Griesb., Lachm., Riick., may 
be a gloss from Rom. viii. 13, or possibly 
a simple case of mistaken transcription 
due to the faulty eyes of some scribe. 
The verb ἐκληρώθημεν is of disputed 
meaning here. This is its only occur- 
rence in the NT. The compound form 
προσκληροῦν also occurs in the NT, 
but only once (Acts xvii. 4). In classical 
Greek κληροῦν means to cast the lot, to 
choose by lot, and to allot. Both in the 
classics and in the NT κλῆρος denotes 
a lot, and then a portion allotted. The 
cognate κληρονομεῖν means to get by lot, 
to obtain an allotted portion, and so to 
inherit; and κληρονομία, in the LXX 


often representing ΟΠΣ, signifies a 
property inherited, or a possession. In 
the OT it is used technically of the por- 
tion assigned by lot to each tribe in the 
promised land, and of the Holy Land 
itself as Israel’s possession given by God 
(Deut. iv. 38, xv. 4). In the NT it gets 
the higher sense of the blessedness of the 
Messianic kingdom, the Christian’s des- 
tined possession in the consummation of 
the Kingdom of God. The affinities of 
κληροῦν show that it may have the 
definite sense of heritage. It is alleged 
indeed by some (e.g., Abb.) that the only 
idea expressed in κληροῦν is that of 
assigning a lot or portion, and that the 
notion of an inheritance does not belong 
to it. But the portions of land assigned 
by lot to the tribes of Israel on their 
entrance into Canaan were secured 
inalienably, and the lots belonging to 
each family were so secured to the family 
from father to son that it was impious 
to let them go into the hands of strangers 
(cf. the case of Naboth, 1 Kings xxi. 3). 
Thus the idea of lot or portion passed 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOYS 


263 


over into that of inheritance. Thus, too, 
in the OT the blessings of the people of 
God, recognised to be possessed by God’s 
free gift and not by the people’s merit, 
came to be describedin terms of a heritage, 
and God Himself, the Giver of all, was 
looked to as the supreme portion of His 
people, the possession that made their 
inheritance (Ps. xvi. 5-11). But in the 
OT there was also the counter idea that 
Israel was the portion or inheritance ot 
the Lord, chosen by Himself to be His 
peculiar possession. At times these two 
ideas meet in one statement (Jer. x. 16). 
The question, therefore, is—which of 
these two conceptions is embodied in the 
ἐκληρώθημεν here? Or may it be that 
the word. has a sense somewhat different 
from either ? Some take this latter view, 
understanding the word to mean appointed 
by lot, or elected by lot, sorte vocati sumus 
as the Vulg. makes it. So Syr., Goth., 
Chrys., Erasm., Estius, etc. So also the 
Genevan Version gives ‘‘ we are chosen,” 
and the Rhemish “ we are called by lot”. 
The point thus would be again the 
sovereignty of the Divine choice, the 
Christians in view being described as 
appointed to their Christian position as 
if by lot. But when our appointment or 
election is spoken of it is nowhere else 
said to be by Jot, but by the purpose or 
counsel of God. Retaining, therefore, 
the general conception of an inheritance, 
some take the passive ἐκληρώθημεν for the 
middle, and render it simply ‘‘we have 
obtained an inheritance” (AV., Conyb.). 
The passive, however, must be accepted 
as a real passive, and the choice comes 
to be between these two interpretations: 
(a) we were made partakers of the 
inheritance, in hereditatem adsciti, en- 
feoffed in it (Eadie), and (δ) we were 
made a heritage (RV), God’s λαὸς ἔγ- 
κληρος, taken by Him as His own 
peculiar portion. The former is the view 
of Harl., Mey., Haupt, etc., and so far 
also of Tyndale and Cranmer, who trans- 
late “we are made heirs”. It deals with 
the pass. κληροῦσθαι on the analogy of 
such passives as πιστεύομαι, φθονοῦμαι, 
διακονοῦμαι; it has the advantage of 
being in accordance with the idea regu- 
larly conveyed by, the cognate terms 
κληρονομία, κληρονομεῖν ; and it points 
to a third gift of God of the same order 
with the previous two—forgiveness, wis- 
dom, inheritance. The other interpre- 
tation, however — ‘made a heritage,” 
“taken for God’s inheritance ””—is to be 
preferred (with Grot., Olsh., De Wette, 
Stier., Alf., etc.) as being on the whole 
more consistent with usage; more in 


264 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ I. 


a Acts iii. τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, 12. "εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰς " ἔπαινον δόξης 1 


19, Vii. 19; 


c Here only. 


αὐτοῦ 3 τοὺς “ προηλπικότας "ἐν τῷ χριστῷ 


ὅν 13. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς," 


d1 Cor. xv. 19; Ps. xxxii. 21. 


Lens δοξ. A, al., Chr., Thdrt., Oec.; text {BDEFGKLP 1, 35, 48, 57, all Eus. 


Cyr., Dam., Th! 


2 After δοξ. omit αντον D'FG, ἆ, e, g, Tert. 


5 rous to xp. om. 115; Tw Om. FG 1, 50. 


‘For υμεις, ἡμεις N°AKL 13, 39, 44-6, all Thl., Oec, 


harmony with the import of the other 
passives in the paragraph; sustained, 
perhaps, by the use of προσκληροῦν in 
Acts xvii. 4, where the idea is rather that 
of being allotted to Paul as disciples than 
that of joining their lot (AV and RV = 
“ consorted with”) with Paul ; and, in par- 
ticular, as suggested by the els τὸ εἶναι 
that follows—els τὸ ἔχειν rather than 
εἰς τὸ εἶναι being what would naturally 
follow the statement of an inheritance 
which we τεςεϊνεά.---προορισθέντες κατὰ 
πρόθεσιν : having been foreordained ac- 
cording to the purpose. The fact that we 
were made the heritage of God is thus 
declared to have been no incidental thing, 
not an event belonging only to time or 
one having its explanation in ourselves, 
but a change in our life founded on and 
resulting from the eternal foreordaining 
purpose of God Himself. The purpose 
of God is expressed here by the term 
πρόθεσις, the radical idea in which is 
that of the setting of a thing before one. 
It occurs six times in the Pauline Epistles, 
and is not confined to one class of these, 
but appears alike in the Primary Epistles, 
the Epistles of the Captivity, and the Pas- 
toral Epistles (Rom. viii. 28, ix. 11; Eph. 
i. 11, iii. 11; 2 Tim.i.9, iii. 1ο). Outside 
these Epistles it occurs only twice in the 
NT, both times in Acts (xi. 23, xxvii. 13) 
and of human purpose.—rov τὰ πάντα 
ἐνεργοῦντος: of Him who worketh all 
things. The πάντα has the absolute 
sense, and is not to be restricted to 
the ‘all things” that belong to the 
Divine grace and redemption. The 
foreordination of men to a special re- 
lation to God is connected with the 
foreordination of things universally. 
The God of the chosen is the God of 
the universe; the p which is 
the ground of our being made God’s 
heritage is the purpose that embraces the 
whole plan of the world ; and our position 
as the κλῆρος and possession of God has 
behind it both the sovereignty and the 
efficiency of the Will that energises or is 
operative in all things.—xata τὴν βουλὴν 


τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ : after the counsel 
of his will, The distinction between 

ονλή and θέλημα is still much de- 
bated, scholars continuing to take pre- 
cisely opposite views of it. On the one 
hand, there are those who hold that 
θέλειν and its cognates express the will 
as proceeding from inclination, and that 
βούλεσθαι and its cognates express the 
will as proceeding from deliberation 
(Grimm, Wilke, Light., etc.). On the 
other hand, there are those who contend 
that θέλειν is the form that conveys the 
idea of deliberation and βούλεσθαι that 
which carries with it the idea of inclina- 
tion. In many passages it is difficult, if 
not impossible, to substantiate any real 
distinction, the terms being often used 
indiscriminately. But in connections like 
the present it is natural to look for a dis- 
tinction, and in such cases the idea of 
intelligence and deliberation seems to 
attach to the βουλή. This a s to 
be supported by the usage which pre- 
vails in point of fact in the majority of 
NT passages, and in particular by such 
occurtences as Matt. i. 19. Here, there- 
fore, the will of God which acts in His 
foreordaining purpose or decree, in bei 
declared to have its βουλή or ‘counsel, 
is set forth as acting not arbitrarily, but 
intelligently and by deliberation, not 
without reason, but for reasons, hidden 
it may be from us, yet proper to the 
Highest Mind and Most Perfect Moral 
Nature. ‘ They err,” says Hooker, with 
reference to this passage, ‘‘who think 
that of God's will there is no reason ex- 
cept His will” (Ecc. Pol., i., 2). It is 
also implied in this statement that the 
Divine foreordination, whether of things 
universally or of men’s lots in particular, 
is neither a thing of necessity on the one 
hand nor of caprice on the other, but a 
thing of freedom and of thought; and 
further, that the reasons for that fore- 
ordination do not lie in the objects them- 
selves, but are intrinsic to the Divine 
Mind and the free determination of the 
Divine Will. 


11-12. 


Ver. 12. εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον 
τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ: to the end that we 
should be unto the praise of His glory. 
The art. τῆς is inserted by the TR before 
δόξης, but on slender authority. It is 
omitted by most of the primary uncials 
and other important documents. On 
the other hand, the αὐτοῦ after δόξης 
is omitted by a few ancient authorities, 
especially D'F. This clause states the 
ultimate end which God had in view in 
foreordaining us to be made His κλῆρος. 
It was not for our own privilege (as the 
Jews with their limited and exclusive 
ideas had misinterpreted the object of 
God in His election of them), but that 
through us His glory might be set forth. 
Cf. the prophetic declaration, ‘‘the people 
which I formed for myself, that they might 
set forth my praise” (Isa. xliii. 21); and 
such passages as Ps. cxliv. 12; Sirach 
πχ το ἘΠῚ τας ο δε Δ 7. ΤΒ6 
sentence is best connected with the prin- 
cipal verb, not with the προορισθέντες 
which defines the ἐκληρώθημεν, but with 
the ἐκληρώθημεν itself. It is also to be 
taken as a whole, containing one idea, 
precisely as is the case with the other eis 
ἔπαινον sentences in vv. 6,14. Το break 
up the clause so as to take the εἰς τὸ 
εἶναι ἡμᾶς to express the end or object, 
further defined by the tots προηλπικό- 
τας, and to make eis ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης 
αὐτοῦ an incidental or parenthetical 
clause, is in the highest degree artificial 
and out, of harmony with the other 
sentences. The question remains as 
to the persons included in the ἡμᾶς 
—whether Christians generally, or Jews 
or Jewish Christians specially. In order 
to answer that question the force of the 
following clause must be determined.— 
τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ: we 
who had (RV marg., ‘‘have”) before 
trusted in Christ. Better, we, to wit, 
who have aforetime hoped in the Christ. 
The article defining the προηλπικότας 
is most naturally taken as placing the 
προηλπικότας in apposition to the ἡμᾶς 
and as explaining the ἡμᾶς now in view 
to be a particular class, and not the 
subjects of God’s grace generally. The 
attempt is made, indeed, in more than 
one way (¢.g., by Hofm., Harl., Abb., 
Haupt, etc.) to construe τοὺς προηλπι- 
κότας as the predicate, so that the sense 
should be, ‘‘to the end that we should be 
those who have before hoped (or believed) 
in Christ”. But this is not a construction 
naturally suggested by the simple form 
of the sentence. It has also the dis- 
advantage of not being in harmony with 
what is the prevalent, though not invyari- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


265 


able, use of the article as distinguishing 
subject from predicate, and it turns the 
εἰς ἔπαινον κ.τ.λ. awkwardly into a paren- 
thetical sentence—‘to the end that we, 
to the praise of His glory, should be those 
who have before hoped in Christ”. It 
is to be further noticed that the προ in 
προηλπικότας must have its proper force, 
expressing a hope cherished before the 
event. Some understand this differently, 
taking the προ to express the fact that 
Jewish Christians preceded Gentile Chris- 
tians in hoping in Christ (Beza, Grot., 
Beng., etc.). Others (De Wette, etc.) 
would make the event in view as the 
object of hope the second Advent of 
Christ, the Parvousia of the Epistles. 
But the point appears to be that there 
were those, namely, pious Jews of OT 
times, who cherished a hope in the 
Christ of promise and prophecy before 
the appearance of Christin history. The 
words are entirely appropriate as a de- 
scription of those who looked for Christ 
before He came. The prep. ἐν is most 
naturally understood as is the ἐν after 
the simple ἐλπίζειν, e.g., in 1 Cor. xv. 
19, and the ἐλπίζειν itself must have the 
natural sense of hoping, not believing or 
trusting. Yet, again, the object of the 
hope is here not Χριστὸς, but ὁ Χριστός, 
‘* the Christ,” ‘the Messiah”. Thesense 
consequently is, ‘‘we, to wit, who have 
reposed our hope in the Christ before 
He appeared”’. These things help us to 
answer the question—Whoare the persons 
referred to? They are, say some, Chris- 
tians generally, as those who hope in 
the Christ who is to return, and of whom 
it may be said, speaking of them from 
the standpoint of the final fulfilment 
at Christ’s second Advent, that they 
are those who have reposed their hope 
in the Christ who is to come. This 
is urged specially on the ground that, 
as all through the preceding paragraph 
Paul has spoken of things pertaining 
to Christians generally and has used the 
terms ‘‘ we,” “15 of Christians without 
distinction, it is unreasonable to suppose 
that at this point he changes all and puts 
a restricted meaning on the ἡμᾶς. On 
this view the following ὑμεῖς must also 
be taken not as referring to a distinct class 
of Christians, but simply as applying to 
the Ephesian readers in particular what 
is said of all Christians as such. It must 
be allowed that much may be said in 
favour of this view. But on the other 
hand it is just at this point that Paul 
introduces a ὑμεῖς as well as a ἡμᾶς--- 
a fact that naturally suggests a distinction 
between two classes; as in chap. ii, 


266 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


e2Cor. vi. ἀκούσαντες τὸν "λόγον τῆς “ ἀληθείας, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας 


ἄμ ee " τ 

᾿ 15 ὑμῶν," év® ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ᾿ ἐσφραγίσθητε ὁ τῷ * πνεύματι τῆς 
ames 1. 

18. f=2 Cor. i. 22; ch. iv. it: see Rev. vii. 3 al. g Here only; see Rom, i. 4, viii. 15; 
xi. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim. i.7; Heb. x. 29. 


1 τῆς om. FG, 


Ξημων K 74, 115, 122, Copt., etc. 


Σεν ω kat om. Ambrst.; om. και DEFG, ἆ, e, g, Copt., Goth., Arm., etc. 


ἑεσφραγισθη B; -ημεν Did. 


11-22 he draws out the distinction de- 
finitely and with a purpose between two 
classes who became believers in the 
Christ in different ways and at different 
times. Hence it appears simplest (with 
Μεγ., etc.) to regard Paul as speaking 
in this clause specially of those who like 
himself had once been Jews, who had 
the Messianic prophecies and looked for 
the Messiah, and by God's grace had 
been led to see that in Christ they had 
found the Messiah. In the following 
ὑμεῖς, therefore, he refers to those who 
had once been Gentiles and had come 
to be believers in Christ. This is sup- 
ported by the explanatory nature of the 
clause introduced by τούς, by the proper 
sense of the προηλπικότας, and by the 
introduction of τῷ Χριστῷ in place of 
Χριστῷ. 

Ver. 13. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς : in whom ye 
also. The reading ἡμεῖς appears in cer- 
tain manuscripts of importance (Α ΚΙ Ν 
ε, f, 6, etc.); but the weight of document- 
tary authority is greatly on the side of 
ὑμεῖς. Taking, therefore, the καὶ ὑμεῖς, 
as contrasted with the previous ἡμᾶς, 
to refer to the readers of the Epistle as 
Gentiles in distinction from the writer and 
those whom he couples with himself as 
having formerly been Fews, we have in 
this verse and the following a paragraph 
which gives first a description of the evan- 
gelical standing and experience of Gentile 
Christians such as these Ephesians were, 
and then a statement of the fact that, 
in their case as in that of the others, God's 
ultimate end in His gracious dealing with 
them was the praise of His glory. The 
opening clause, however, presents some 
difficulty. The sentence is left with 
something unexpressed, or its form is 
disturbed. How is it to be construed? 
It is natural to think first of explaining 
it by supplying some verb for the 
ὑμεῖς, and as the substantive verb is 
often left to be understood, some intro- 
duce ἐστέ here = “in whom ye also 
are,” “tin whom ye also have a part” 
(Mey., Alf.). But the great Pauline 
formula ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι can scarcely be 
dealt with thus, the εἶναι in it has too 


profound a sense to allow of its being 
dropped and left to be understood as is 
possible with the ordinary substantive 
verb. Others, therefore, look to the 
immediately preceding προηλπικότας for 
the word that is to be supplied (Erasm. 
Calv., Beza, Est., etc.; and so AV 
‘‘in whom ye also trusted”). But to 
make this applicable to Gentile be- 
lievers requires us (unless the Second 
Advent is supposed to be the object of 
the hope) to supply only ἠλπίκατε not 
προηλπίκατε, and to give the verb the 
modified sense of trusting or believing. 
Much more may be said in favour of 
supplying the definite verb ἐκληρώθημεν 
which rules the larger sentence (Erasm. 
in his Paraphrase, Cornel. a Lap., Harl., 
Olsh., etc.) = ‘in whom ye also were 
made God's κλῆρος, or possession”. 
The comparative distance of the ἐν ᾧ 
καὶ ὑμεῖς from ἐκληρώθητε is no serious 
objection, especially in view of the fact 
that it is the definite verb, and not a quali- 
fying participle, that is in view. There 
remains, however, yet another method of 
explanation, viz., to regard the sentence 
as an interrupted construction, in which 
the expression of the main wr oe that 
of the ἐσφραγίσθητε, is delayed by other 
preliminary ideas, the second ἐν @ being 
a resumption and continuation of the first 
(Theod. Mops., Jer., Beng., De Wette, 
Rick., Bleek, Bisp., Ell., Humphrey, 
Abb., Von Sod., Haupt). This solution 
of the difficulty appears on the whole to 
be the best, and it has been preferred by 
the majority of interpreters. It seems to 
be favoured by the Syr., Copt. and Eth, 
Versions, and is adopted by the RV— 
“in whom ye also, having heard the word 
of the truth, the gospel of your salvation 
—in whom, having also believed, ye were 
sealed”. The interruption of the regular 
construction in the statement of the fact 
of their having been “sealed” a sto 
be caused by the introduction of the idea 
of the primary Christian requirement ot 
faith after the mention of the hearing. 
It is objected that the distance between 
the one ἐν ᾧ and the other is much less 
than is usual in such cases, and that in a 





a 


13. 


resumption we should expect not ἐν ᾧ καί, 
but ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς. But anacoloutha are 
quite in Paul’s way, and they are not all of 
one type or one extension (cf, Win.-Moul., 
p- 704), and the καί (minus the ὑμεῖς) is 
appropriate as giving an ascensive force 
to the πιστεύσαντες. This view of the 
construction has the advantage also of 
enabling us to retain substantially the 
same sense for the év @ in these three 
occurrences (vv. 11, 13), and it makes the 
defining participles ἀκούσαντες (with 
its clause) and πιστεύσαντες important 
preparations for the statement of privilege 
in the ἐσφραγίσθητε, each contributing 
something proper in its own place to the 
order of ideas. Hence both the first ἐν ᾧ 
and the second are to be connected with 
the ἐσφραγίσθητε = “in whom, on hear- 
ing and believing, ye were sealed’’; it 
being in Christ, in virtue of our union 
with Him, that we receive the gift of the 
Spirit—axovoavres: having heard (or, 
on hearing). This comes in its proper 
order, the first in the series of things, 
preparing the way for the sealing of the 
Spirit. In the narratives of cases of 
reception into the Christian Church in 
the Book of Acts we discover this order 
of grace: hearing, repentance, baptism, 
the gift of the Holy Ghost (ii. 37, 38), or 
hearing, faith, baptism, the gift of the 
Holy Ghost (viii. 6, 12, 17). Yet this is 
not an invariable order. Sometimes only 
hearing, baptism, and the gift of the 
Holy Ghost (xix. 5, 6) are mentioned; and 
in such instances as those of Paul (ix. 17) 
and the men of Czesarea (x. 44-47), the 
gift of the Holy Ghost appears to have 
preceded the administration of baptism. 
On the importance of hearing, that is, 
access to the preached word, cf. Rom. x. 
13-17, where the πιστεύειν is declared to 
come by the ἀκούειν.-- τὸν λόγον τῆς 
ἀληθείας: the word of the truth. The 
λόγος here is evidently the word of 
preaching, and it is said to be “οἵ the 
truth,” not with any particular reference, 
as Meyer justly observes, to the OT 
word as one that dealt with types and 
shadows rather than realities (Chrys.), or 
to the word of heathenism as the word 
of error (Corn, a Lap., etc.), but in the 
sense in which our Lord Himself spoke of 
the truth and the word (John xvii. 17; 
ο Col. τὸ ἘΠ᾿ 2. Lim, 1) το James η, τη). 
The gen. is not that of apposition (Harl.), 
but the gen. objecti, ‘the word concern- 
ing the truth;” or, as Ell. suggests, 
the gen. of ethical substance or ethical 
content, ‘‘the word of which the truth 
is the very essence, or content’’.—7rd 
εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν: the 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


267 


gospel of your salvation. Further defi- 
nition of the word of the truth”. The 
preached word which has the truth for its 
essential content is that which brought 
you the good tidings of salvation. Here, 
again, the gen. is not that of αββος. or 
identity (Harl., etc.), but most probably 
that of content or subject matter (Mey., 
Ell., etc.) Elsewhere we have the εὐαγ- 
γέλιον defined as that of the Kingdom 
(Matt. ix. 35), of God (Rom. i. 1), of the 
Kingdom of God (Mark i. 14), of Christ, 
Fesus Christ, His Son, etc. (Rom. 1. 1, 9, 
16; Marki. 1), of peace (Eph. vi. 15), of 
the grace of God (Acts xx. 24), of the 
glory of the blessed God (1 Tim. i. 11), 
of the glory of Christ (2 Cor. iv. 4). No- 
where in the NT is the word εὐαγγέλιον 
used so frequently and in such a variety 
of applications as in the Pauline Epistles. 
It is never used in Luke’s Gospel, in 
John’s Gospel or Epistles, in Hebrews, 
or in James; in Matthew’s Gospel it 
occurs four times, in Mark eight times, 
in Acts twice, in Peter once, and in the 
Apocalypse once. The noun σωτηρία, 
which has so large a place in the rest of 
the Pauline writings, is of rare occur- 
rence in these Epistles of the Captivity. 
It is found thrice in the Epistle to the 
Philippians, but only once in this pro- 
found Epistle to the Ephesians (in vi. 17 
we have the other form τὸ σωτήριον), 
and not even once in the sister Epistle 
to the Colossians.—év 6: —in whom, I 
say. With the former ἐν ᾧ the writer 
turned from the case of those like him- 
self who, having been Jews, had been 
made God’s κλῆρος in Christ, to that of 
Gentiles like these Ephesians who also 
had been made partakers of God’s grace 
in Christ, though in a different way, not 
as having had the hope of the Jews ina 
promised Messiah, but simply as having 
heard the word of Christian preaching. 
The particular gift of grace which it was 
in his mind to state as bestowed on these 
Gentile Christians was the sealing of the 
Spirit. With this second ἐν ᾧ, ‘—in 
whom, I say,” he takes up the statement 
which had been interrupted by the men- 
tion of the way in which they had come 
to receive the grace, and brings it (with 
a further reference to the antecedents to 
the sealing) to its intended conclusion. 
This ἐν ᾧ, therefore, is not to be dealt with 
differently from the former and made to 
relate to the εὐαγγέλιον, as if = ‘in 
which Gospel having also believed, ye 
were sealed” (Mey.). It simply continues 
the idea of the previous ἐν ᾧ, expressing 
the fact that the grace which came to the 
Gentile who heard the word of preaching, 


268 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΗΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


nConstr. ἢ" ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ, 14. " ὅς ] ἐστιν ' ἀῤῥαβὼν 5 τῆς " κληρονομίας 


Mark xv. 
16; Gal. 
116;  ὰ 
iii. 13, vi. αὐτου. 
17; Phil. 
i. 28 al. fr. 
1 Pet. i. 4. 1 Ver. 7 reff. 
Mal. iii. 17; 2 Chron. xiv. 13. 


i2 Cor. i. 22, ν. 5 only; Gen. xxxviii. 17, 18, 20. 


ἡμῶν εἰς ' ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς ™ περιποιήσεως, εἰς " ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης 


k=Acts xx. 32; Col. iii. 24; 


τῇ t Thess. v. 9; 2 Thess. ii.14; Heb. x. 39; 1 Pet. ii.g from 
n Ver. 6 reff. 


1 For ος, ο (gramm. emendn.) ABFGLP 57, 67", 71, all, Ath., Euthal., Chr.; text 


NDEK, most MSS., d, Chr.-comm., Thdrt., Did 


2 apaBwy FG 37, 76, Euthal., etc. 


like the grace which came to the Jew who 
had the Messianic hope, was bestowed 
“in Christ,” and had its ground in Him.— 
καὶ πιστεύσαντες: having also believed. 
The καί belongs not to an implied ὑμεῖς 
but to the πιστεύσαντες. It is the ascen- 
sive καί, adding to the first condition of 
hearing the second and higher of be- 
lieving. The object of the πιστεύσαντες 
is the previous λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, “ hav- 
ing also believed that word of preaching ;” 
not the ᾧ, ‘believing also in whom” 
(Calv., Bez., Mey.). In Biblical Greek 
the phrase πιστεύειν ἔν τινι is of very 
rare occurrence, especially in the sense 
of believing or confiding in a ferson (Ps. 
Ixxviii. 22; Jer. xii. 6). In Mark i. 1 it 
has τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as the object. In 
John iii. 15 both the reading and the 
connection are uncertain; in John xvi. 
30 the idea is “by this". The πιστεύ- 
σαντες here expresses something prior to 
the fact conveyed by the definite verb, 
not contemporaneous with it (Harl.). 
The sealing was in Christ (ἐν ᾧ), and 
it followed on their πίστις.---ἐσφραγίσ- 
θητε: ye were sealed, The verb σφρα- 


γίζειν (- onn) in the NT expresses 


several distinct ideas, ¢.g., confirming or 
authenticating (John iii. 32, vi. 27; ¢f. 
σφραγίς in Rom. iv. 11; 1 Cor. ix. 2); 
securing (Matt. xxvii. 66; Rev. xx. 3); 
keeping secret (Rev. x. 4, xxii. 10; cf. 
σφραγίς in Rev. v. 1, 2, 5,9, vi. I, Vili. I, 
etc.); marking as one’s possession or as 
destined for something (Κεν. viii. 3-8; οὐ, 
σφραγίς in 2 Tim. ili, 4; Rev. ix. 4). 
Here and in iv. 30 the idea seems to be 
either that of authenticating or certifying 
them to be of God's heritage, or that of 
marking them as such. The two ideas 
are near akin, The latter will be more 
applicable, if (with Theophyl., Chrys., 
Cornel. a Lap., Alf., etc.) we take the 
attestation to be the objective attestation 
to others, the evidence to our fellows that 
we are the chosen of God; the former, if 
(with Mey., Ell., etc.) we take it to be 
the attestation to our own consciousness. 


+» Thi., Oec. 


This hope or assurance which is given to 
ourselves seems rather in view here (cf. 
Rom. viii. 16). There is no reason to 
suppose that there is any allusion here 
to any peculiar use of the seal whether 
in Jewish custom or in heathen religious 
service. Nor is the rite of Baptism 
specially referred to. In ecclesiastical 
Greek, indeed, baptism came to be de- 
noted by the term σφραγίς; but there 
is no instance of that in the NT. The 
terms σφραγίς, σφραγίζειν, are used in 
the Pauline Epistles of circumcision (Rom. 
iv. 11), of the contribution from Mace- 
donia and Achaia (Rom. xv. 28), of the 
Corinthians as the witnesses to Paul's 
apostleship (1 Cor. ix. 2), of the inward 
certification of believers (2 Cor. i, 22; 
Eph. i. 13, iv. 30), and of the destination 
or ownership of the Church or congrega- 
tion of believers (2 Tim. ii. 19).—t@ 
Πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ: ak 
the ‘Holy Spirit of promise. The Spirit 
is that by which (instrumental dative) 
the sealing is effected; and that Spirit 
is called the Spirit of promise, not in the 
active sense of bringing or confirming 
the promise (Calv., Bez., etc.), but in the 
age sense of having been announced 

y the promise, or being the object or 
content of the promise in the OT, The 
τῷ ἁγίῳ, thrown emphatically to the 
end of the clause, designates the Spirit 
solemnly in respect of the essential per- 
sonal quality of holiness. Taken together 
with the general tenor of the paragraph 
and with the fact that in the ὑμεῖς Gentile 
Christians as a whole are addressed, and 
not any select number or class, it is clear 
that what is in view here is not the extra- 
ordinary or miraculous gifts of the Spirit, 
but that bestowal of the Spirit in which 
all believers shared, which was the subject 
of the great OT prophecies (Joel iii. 1-5; 
Isa. xxxii. 15, xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 
xxxix. 29; Zech. xii. 10), and of which a 
new heart, a new spirit, was to be the 
result. 

Ver. 14. ὅς ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν τῆς κλη- 
ρονομίας ἡμῶν : which isan earnest of our 





13--Ι4. 


inheritance. So with the RV, rather than 
‘who is the earnest,” etc., of the AV. 
The reading ὅ is preferred by Lachm., 
Alf., WH, etc., as supported by ABGL, 
Athan., Cyr., Chrys., etc. The TR isthe 
- reading of ΝΕ, Thdrt., Damasc., Theo- 
phyl., etc.; the masc. form és being due 
to attraction to the following ἀρραβών, 
as, ¢.g., in τῷ σπέρματί σου ὅς ἐστι 
Χριστός, Gal. iii. 16. The word ἀρραβών 
(or ἀραβών, the form preferred by Tisch. 
and regarded by WH as only Western, 
cf. Westcott and Hort’s New Testament 
in Greek, 11., App., p. 148) is the LXX 


reproduction of the Heb. pay which 


occurs in Gen. xxxviii. 17, 18, 20 and 
is rendered ‘“‘pledge”. It is found in 
classical Greek of earlier date than the 
WX ο. -Isaeus, De Cir: hers, 28; 
Aristotle, Pol., i.. 11; Menander, Frag. 
Com. (Meineke), iv., pp. 268, 283; etc., 
cf. Light., Notes, ut sup., p. 323), and is 
supposed, therefore, to have come from 
the Phoenicians into Greek use. At an 
early date it was introduced also into 
Latin, but by what channel we know not. 
In Latin it occurs in the three forms 
-avvabo, rabo (e.g.,in Plautus, Truc., iii., 
20), and arra (e.g., Aul. Gell., xvii., 2). 
It survives in the forms arra, arrhes in 
the languages most directly derived from 
the Latin; as also in our avles, the ob- 
solete English earlespenny, etc. Etymo- 
logically, it appears to have expressed the 
idea of exchange, and so its primary sense 
may have been that of a“ pledge’”’ simply. 
But it came to mean more than ἐνέχυρον, 
or pledge, in the sense of something ex- 
changed between two parties to a contract 
or agreement. Its proper sense is that 
of carnest—part of the price to be re- 
ceived or part of the thing that is to be 
possessed, given in assurance that the 
full payment or the complete possession 
will follow. Wycl. gives ‘‘ernes” ; the 
Rhemish, ‘“ pledge”; Tynd., Cran., and 
the Genevan, ‘‘earnest’”. The idea is 
similar to that elsewhere expressed by 
ἀπαρχή; ‘ first-fruits’’? (Rom. viii. 23). 
The “earnest of the Spirit” is mentioned 
by itself in 2 Cor. v. 5; in 1 Cor. i. 22, 
as here, it is introduced along with the 
sealing of the Spirit. To the truth ex- 
pressed by the latter it adds the higher 
idea that the believer possesses already 
| in reality, though but in part, the lifeof 
the future; the inheritance of the present 
and the inheritance of the future differing 
not in kind but only in degree, so that 
even now we have the life and blessed- 
ness of the future in the way of foretaste. 
It is doubtful whether the term is also 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


269 


meant to suggest the idea of obligation 
on the believer’s side, as Light. thinks, 
who takes it to intimate that “the Spirit 
has, as it were, a lien upon us’’.—eis 
ἀπολύτρωσιν: unto the redemption. The 
“unto” of the RV is to be preferred to 
the “until” of the AV. The clause is 
to be connected not with the ὅς ἐστιν 
ἀρραβών, κ.τ.λ., but with the main 
statement, viz., the ἐσφραγίσθητε, and 
the eis expresses not the idea of time 
but that of purpose. It is the first of 
two purposes which God is here de- 
clared to have had in sealing them. In 
that operation of His grace God had 
it in view to make them certain of the 
complete redemption which was to come 
at the consummation of the Kingdom 
of God. The ἀπολύτρωσις here, as the 
tenor of the passage plainly indicates, 
is the final, perfected redemption, as in 
iv. 30, Rom, viii. 23, and probably r Cor. 
i. 30.—T 7s περιποιήσεως: of the posses- 
sion. The “purchased possession”’ of 
the AV is less apt, as the verb περι- 
ποιεῖσθαι expresses the general idea of 
preserving, acquiring, gaining for oneself, 
without specific reference toa price. But 
what is the import of the phrase here ? 
The form of the noun περιποίησις and 
its use point to the active sense, pre- 
serving, acquiring. In 2 Chron. xiv. 13 
it is said of the Ethiopians that they fell 
ὥστε μὴ εἶναι ἐν αὐτοῖς περιποίησιν, so 
‘*that they could not recover themselves” 
(RV text), or, ‘‘so that none remained 
alive” (RV marg.). The word occurs in 
the NT five times in all (Eph. i. 14; 
it Thess. v. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 14; Heb. 
ΧΕ 39); 1 Pet. t.9). In three of these 
instances it certainly has the active sense 
(1 Thess. v. 9, περιπ. σωτηρίας; 2 Thess. 
ii. 14, περιπ. δόξης; Heb. x. 39, περιπ. 
ψυχῆς), and it would be most natural to 
take it in that sense here. But it is diffi- 
cult to adjust that to the genitive case 
dependent on the ἀπολύτρωσιν. The 
most plausible rendering on that view 
is that proposed by Abbott, viz., “a 
complete redemption which will give 
possession”. The noun may be taken, 
however, in the passive sense, and a 
more natural meaning results. Some then 
understand it of the inheritance we are 
to possess. So Aug. and Calv. make it 
= haereditas acquisita; Matthies, ‘“ the 
promised glorious possession”; Bleek, 
“the redemption which is to become 
our possession”. So, too, Macpherson 
takes the ‘‘possession” to be the “in- 
heritance of the saints”? here, as he 
takes the previous ἐκληρώθημεν to mean 
‘made possessors of our lot”. But all 


270 


ο constr., 
Matt. xi. 
2; Acts. 
Xxiii. 16 ; 
Gal. i. 13; Col. i. 4; Philem. ver. 5. 
iii. 26; i 
=ay év, 1 John iv. 16. 


r=ver. i. reff. 


15. Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ, “ἀκούσας τὴν "καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς " πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


. 


Ιησοῦ 1 καὶ τὴν “ ἀγάπην thy? “ εἰς πάντας τοὺς " ἁγίους, 16. οὐ 


Ρ constr., Acts xvii. 28, xviii. 15, xxvi. 3; πίστ. ἐν, Gal. 
ol. i. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 13; 2 Tim. iii.15; Paul only. 


q Rom. v. 8; Col. i. 4; 1 Pet. iv. 8 


1 Insert Χριστω DEFG, d, e, g, Goth., Syr.-P., Eth., Victorin. 
3 αγαπην την om. (home@otel.) SAB 17, al., Cyr., Jer., Aug.: την om. D'FG also, 


becomes plainer if we understand the 
idea to be rather that of God’s posses- 
sion in us, the περιποίησις being taken 


as the equivalent of the OT a0, 
ony 3 προς, by which Israel 


is designated as the possession acquired 
by the Lord for Himself (Exod. xix. 5; 
cf. Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18; Ps. 
cxxxv. 4). It is true that the LXX 


rendering of bap is usually περιού- 
σιος. But that is not the only form that 
is adopted. In Ps. cxxxv. 4 the phrase is 
εἰς περιουσιασμὸν ἑαντῷ; and in Mal. 
iii. 17, where Aquila has περιούσιος, the 
LXX has εἰς περιποίησιν. Further, in 
Isa. xliii, 21 the same idea is expressed 
by the corresponding verb—Aaév pov ὃν 
περιεποιησάμην (cf. Acts xx. 28, τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο). 
So, too, Peter, with this passage in view, 
describes the spiritual Israel of the NT 
as λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (1 Pet. ii. 9); 
while in Titus, ii, 14, again, we have 
λαὸν περιούσιον. This interpretation is 
that of the Syriac, Erasm., Calvin, etc., 
and it is preferred by most recent com- 
mentators, including Harless, Meyer, Ell., 
Alf., etc. It is adopted also by the RV, 
which renders it “‘God’s own possession”, 
Wycliffe, however, gives “ purchasynge”’; 
the Genevan, “ that we might be fully re- 
stored to liberty”; the Rhemish, “ the 
redemption of acquisition”; the AV, 
Tyndall and Cranmer give “the pur- 
chased possession”.—els ἔπαινον τῆς 
δόξης αὐτοῦ: unto the praise of his 
glory. The second end of the sealing, 
or rather the second aspect of the ulti- 
mate purpose of God in the sealing. The 
final end on our side of that great act of 
grace is the consummation of the re- 
demption of those who have been made 
God's own people. On God's side the 
final end of the same grace is ‘ the praise 
of His glory ’—the adoring confession of 
the glories of the Divine Nature and 
Mind so revealed to men. The αὐτοῦ 
refers to the main subject here, not 
Christ in whom we obtain the grace, but 


God by whom it is willed—the Eternal 
eo of all. 

v. 15-23. SeEcoND SECTION OF THE 
EpisTLe: in which the writer expresses 
his own feelings and desires towards the 
Ephesians, and in doing so leads them to 
the highest conception both of Christ's 
own supremacy and of thegrandeur of that 
Church of His of which they had been 
made members. The wonders of the grace 
thus shown them give him occasion, he 
tells them, for increasing thanksgiving. 
But his thanksgiving also prompts him to 
prayer on their behalf. Seeing to what 
they had already attained in the Christian 
life into which that marvellous grace had 
brought them, especially in faith and in 
brotherly love, his prayer is that they 
may increase in these yet more and more, 
and in particular that they may have an 
enlarging insight into the hope that 
springs from their calling, the inheritance 
which is reserved for them, and the present 
power of Christ which is the guarantee 
for all that they have and look for. 

Ver. 15. Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγώ; For this 
cause I too. διὰ τοῦτο might cover the 
contents of the entire preceding para- 
graph, pointing back to ver. 3 and in- 
dicating that in his thanksgiving to God, 
in behalf of these Ephesians, the Apostle 
had in his mind the whole counsel and 
eternal choice of God of which he first 
made mention, and the whole operation 
of grace in the lives of the Ephesians in 
the several particulars afterwards in- 
stanced. In view, however, of the tran- 
sition from the more general “‘us”’ to the 
more definite “' ye also” in ver. 13 it is 
probably more accordant with the tenor 
of thought to take the διὰ τοῦτο to re- 
fer to the signal manifestation of God's 
grace in the sealing of these believers, 
who had been taken from the dark pagan 
world, with the Spirit which was both 
assurance and foretaste of απ΄ inheri- 
tance undreamt of in their heathenism. 
The κἀγώ is best explained by the same 
καὶ ὑμεῖς. It means simply ‘“‘I on my 
side,” and does not imply as some, in- 
cluding, even Meyer, suppose, that the 
writer was thinking of a co-operation be- 





15. 


tween those addressed and himself in 
thanksgiving | and prayer.—dkovoas τὴν 
καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ: 

having heard of your faith in the Lord 
Fesus. It has been wrongly inferred from 
the ἀκούσας that the writer had no per- 
sonal acquaintance with those addressed 
and knew of their conversion only by 
the report of others. Philemon was well 
known to Paul, who spake of him indeed 
as his ἀγαπητός, his συνεργός, and his 
son in the faith (ver. 19). Yet Paul uses 
with reference to him almost the same 
terms as those used Πετε---εὐχαριστῶ... 
μνείαν σου ποιούμενος. . . ἀκούων σου 
τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν κ.τ.λ. (νετ. 
4,5). Besides, what the writer speaks of 
here is not their conversion but their faith 
and love, and it is only in harmony with 
all that we know of Paul that he should 
have used every opportunity of keeping 
himself in communication with them and 
watching their progress. Through Ty- 
chicus, or some other visitor or messenger, 
tidings of their Christian walk may have 
come to him now (cf. Introduction). In 
any case he finds his first and foremost 
reason for thanksgiving in the report of the 
way in which the fundamental Christian 
requirement was made good among them 
—that of faith, their faith in the Lord 
Jesus Himself, The phrase here is not 
the usual Thy ὑμετέραν πίστιν, or τὴν 
πίστιν ὑμῶν, but τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν. 
The sense, however, is substantially the 
same. Some good grammarians indeed 
seek to establish a distinction between 
the two phrases, and claim a special 
partitive or distributive sense for the one 
with κατά. Ellicott, ¢.g., points to the 
fact that the form 4 καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστις is 
adopted only once by Paul, while πίστις 
ὑμῶν occurs some seventeen times in his 
Epistles, and concludes on the whole 
that the former may denote ‘the faith 
of the community viewed objectively,” 
“the faith which 15 among you,” whereas 
the latter expresses ‘‘ the subjective faith 
of individuals”. Alford, also, gives the 
former the sense of the “faith which 
prevails among you ” (on the analogy of 
τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς βίῳ in Thuc., vi., 16), 
and takes it to imply that some in the 
Ephesian Church may not have had the 
faith. So the RV gives in its text ο the 
faith . . . which is among you”; marg., 
“in you” But the analogies referred 
to (2.g., τῷ νόμῳ TO ὑμετέρῳ, John viii. 

17, as contrasted with νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ 

ὑμᾶς in Acts xviii. 15; ef. Ell.) scarcely 
bear this out, and there is much to show 
that the latter form had become, or was 
on the way to become, simply a peri- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


571 


phrasis for the former. Such phrases as 
ὡς καί τινες τῶν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν ; the 
above νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς; and τῶν 
κατὰ Ιουδαίους ἐθῶν (Acts xvii. 28, xviii. 
15, xxvi. 3) may be thus explained ; and 
in later Greek κατά with an acc. is fre- 
quently used where the older classical 
Greek would have had the gen. case, ¢.g., 
ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπόθεσις = the resig- 
nation of government, Diod., πα. 68. 
So, while in the NT κατά may usually 
retain its distributive force, in cases where 
it is followed by the acc. of a personal pro- 
noun it may mean nothing more than the 
poss. adj. or the gen. of the personal pro- 
noun. As Buttmann points out, strictly 
speaking it is not so much that the 
case was periphrased but that the pre- 
positional phrase displaced the simple 
case”; as it was easy for the Greek 
language to make prepositional phrases 
dependent immediately upon substantives, 
and natural, therefore, for it in its later 
developments to carry this further and 
employ ‘‘ prepositional expressions even 
where the earlier language still preferred 
the simple case” (Gram. of N. T. Greek, 
p. 156; cf. Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 241; 

Win.-Moult., pp. 199, 241, 499; Blass, 
Gram. of N. Ὗ. Greek, p- 133). —Kkal τὴν 
ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους: 

and your love toward all the saints. 
The reading is uncertain. The Received 
Text inserts τὴν ἀγάπην, which has the 
support of such authorities as \®DGKL, 
Syr., Boh., Lat., Copt., Goth., Thdrt., etc., 
and is adopted by Tisch. and Tregelles 
(the latter bracketing it in margin). It 
is regarded by WH as a Western and 
Syrian insertion from Col. i. 4. The τὴν 
ἀγάπην is omitted by BAP, 17, Orig., 
Cyr., Jer., etc., and is deleted by Lach., 
WH and RV. The documentary evidence 
is on the side of the omission. But the 
difficulty is to find in that case a suitable 
sense. Hort thinks that Philem. 5 fur- 
nishes a parallel, as it might be rendered 
(with RV marg.) “hearing of thy love 
and faith which thou hast toward the 
Lord Jesus and toward all the saints” 
But the love is expressed there. Dale 
would render it ‘having heard of the 
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ which is 
among you and shown toward all the 
saints,’ as if the point of the latter 
clause was the reality or manifestation 
of the faith. But in the Greek there is 
nothing corresponding to the ‘‘shown”’ 

The πίστις, in short, if it belongs to 
both clauses, must be introduced in 
two different aspects, as belief in the 
first clause and as faithfulness in the 
second. But in the absence of any 


272 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1, 


s=Acts vi. "παύομαι 1 ' εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν " μνείαν ὑμῶν " ποιούμενος "ἐπὶ 
13 al.; - Η - ΄ δ ἢ - - 
Cal. το; τῶν προςευχῶν μου, 17. ἵνα ὁ "θεὸς "τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ, 

xxviii, ὁ "πατὴρ τῆς " δόξης, δῴη ὃ ὑμῖν ’ πνεῦμα " σοφίας καὶ " ἀποκαλύ- 


20. 

t=John xi. 41; Rom. i. 8 al. fr. 
aul only. 

1 Pet. i. 3 only; abs., here only. 


xxviii. 3; see 2 Tim. i. 7. a=ch. iii. 3. 


1 ravoopat DE, Victorin. 


u Rom.i.g; Phil. i. 3; 1 Thess. i. 2, iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 3; Philem. 4. 
v=Rom. i. 10; 1 Thess.i. 2; Philem. 4 only. 
x=2 Cor. i. 3; James i, 17. 


w Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31; 
y Acts vii. 2. z Exod. 


2 Omit vpov NABD 17, 33-5-7-9) 73» 116-8, all, d, e, Goth., Hil.; text DSEKLP, 
vg., Syr.utr., Cop., Arm., Orig., Chrys., Thdrt., etc. 


3 δω B, 63, Cyr. 


intimation of a double presentation of 
πίστις this is awkward exceedingly. 
The Revisers nevertheless render it—“ the 
faith in the Lord Jesus which is among 
you, and which ye shew toward all the 
saints”. The insertion in any case is 
of early date, and the omission may have 
been due to the eye of some ancient scribe 
being deceived by the two occurrences 
of τήν. The grace in question, whether 
their love or their faithfulness, was of 
catholic quality, taking ali the saints for 
its objects. 

Ver. 16. οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ 
ὑμῶν: cease not to give thanks for you. 

he παύομαι is most naturally connected 
with the nearer participle. There is no 
reason why the remoter participle should 
be made the leading term, as some con- 
strue it, rendering it so—‘'I cease not, 
while giving thanks for you, to make 
mention,” etc. (Abbott). The verb εὖ- 
χαριστεῖν, which is used in later Greek 
both in the sense of feeling thankful and 
in that of giving thanks, occurs in none 
of the NT Epistles except in that bearing 
Paul’s name. In these it is found some 
twenty-six times. It also appears once 
in Revelation, twice in Acts, and more 
frequently in the Gospels.—pvelav ὑμῶν 
ποιούμενος : making mention of you. 
Documentary evidence is against the 
insertion of ὑμῶν. Though it is sup- 
ported by considerable authorities (D°K 
LP, Vulg., Syr., Boh., Orig., etc.), it has 
no place in BAD}, etc., and is omitted 
by LTTrWH and the Revisers. The 
subject of the μνεία, therefore, must be 
understood. It may be ὑμῶν, or it may 
rather be the preceding πίστιν and 
ἀγάπην. In the phrase μνείαν ποιεῖσ- 
θαι the noun seems to have the sense of 
mention. In other connections it has the 
sense of mindfulness (μνείαν ἔχειν τινός, 
1 Thess. iii. 6) or that of remembrance 
(Phil. i. 3).—éwi τῶν προσευχῶν pov: 
in my prayers. On ἐπί as here = in see 


Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 137; 
Win.-Moult., p. 470; Bernh., Synt., p. 
246. The local reference proper to ἐπί 
(as the preposition answering the question 
Where ?), however, is not wholly sunk in 
the temporal sense. See Ell, on 1 Thess, 
i.2. Winer takes it to express the idea of 
something attaching itself to something 
else. The word for prayer used here is 
one of frequent occurrence in the NT, 
sometimes joined with δέησις (¢.g., Eph. 
vi. 18; Phil. iv. 6, etc.), and sometimes 
with ἔντενξις as well (1 Tim.ii.1), The 
most general term is προσευχή =preca- 
tio, and that term is not used but of prayer 
to God. Δέησις, which can be used also 
of addresses to men, has the more definite 
sense of petitio, rogatio; while ἔντενξις, 
which means a falling in with, conference, 
conversation, and goes beyond the idea of 
intercession (as our AV renders it), ex- 
presses prayer as the converse of the 
soul with God, with the notion of urgency 
and filial confidence. See Huther and 
Ell. on 1 Tim. ii. 1; Win.-Moult., sub 
δέησις; Light. on Phil. iv. 6; Trench, 
Syn., sub voce. 

Ver. 17. ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 
Ἰησοῦ nh : that the God of our Lord 
Fesus Christ. In the parallel passage in . 
Col. i. g the ἵνα is preceded immediately 
by αἰτούμενοι, and has the reduced or 
sub-telic force which it has after verbs of 
asking, expressing the content of the 
prayer, but that in the light of purport. 
Here the ἵνα relates to the general idea 
of the sentence, instead of being immedi- 
ately dependent on any verb for asking. 
It has more of the idea of purpose, there- 
fore, init. It is to be admitted, however, — 
that in NT Greek the proper {είς sense 
of ἵνα is seen in the process of weakening 
and passing over into the force of ἵνα 
as the sign of the inf. in modern Greek. 
Yet, even when expressing simple result 
or event, it has behind it the Hebrew idea 
of events as the results of Divine purpose; 


ποπ ο ντ 


16----17. 


cf. Blass, Gram. of N.T. Greek, pp. 224, 
225; Buttm., Gram. of N.T. Greek, pp. 
236-241; Ell. on Phil. i. g. It is most 
usual for Paul to speak of God as the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ or as His 
God and Father. Here he speaks simply 
of “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”’. 
The designation, though misunderstood 
and misapplied by the Arians and their 
successors in modern times, is entirely 
consistent with Christ’s own words (Matt. 
xxvil. 46; John xx. 17) and with the high- 
est view of His Person. In the Eternal 
Godhead the Son has His life from the 
Father, the One Fount of Deity, and is 
subordinate in the sense in which son is 
subordinate to father, while He has the 
same Divine being. In the ministry of 
redemption our Lord, while the Son of 
the Eternal Father, is the Christ of God, 
God being revealed in Him, sending Him 
(Gal. iv. 4), exalting Him (Phil. ii. 9), 
receiving back the kingdom from Him 
(1 Cor. χν. 24). Inrespect of His mission, 
His mediation, His official work and re- 
lations, He has God as His God, whose 
commission He bears and whose τε- 
deeming purpose He is to fulfil.—é 
πατὴρ τῆς δόξης: the Father of glory. 
This is not to be taken in the reduced 
sense of “(πε glorious Father”. On 
the other hand it is not to be dealt 
with as if the δόξα referred to Christ’s 
divinity, as in the exigencies of the con- 
troversy with Arian views some were 
driven to interpret it, arguing that 
the one phrase, “the God of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,” applied to His human 
nature and the other, ‘‘the Father of the 
glory,” to His divine nature (Athan., 
Greg. Naz.). Nor yet, again, is δόξα 
to be regarded as referring to Christ’s 
glorified humanity (Stier), Taking the 
δόξης in its proper sense and with the 
full force of the gen. case, some give 
the πατήρ the sense of author or maker, 
understanding God to be designated as 
the Source of glory (Erasm., Grot., 
Olsh., etc.). For this some appeal to 
such instances as Job xxxvii. 28; Jas. 
i. 17. But that is at the best a rare sense 
of πατήρ and one otherwise unknown to 
Paul. More is to be said in favour of the 
idea that the gen. designates God as the 
Father who gives glory, the glory be- 
stowed on Christ Himself (cf. Acts iti. 13) 
no less than tat reserved for Christians, 
It is best, however, to take it as the gen. 
of characteristic quality—the Father to 
whom glory belongs (Mey., ΕἸ]., etc.) ; 
cf. the same designation in Ps. xxix. 3; 
Acts vii. 2; also ‘‘the King of glory,” 
Ps, xxiv. 7; ‘“‘the Lord of glory,” 1 Cor. 

VOL. III. λ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


273 


ii. 8; ‘‘the cherubims of glory,” Heb. 
ix. 5, etc. The appropriateness of the 
title here lies in the preceding definition 
of the final end of God’s counsel and 
grace—eis ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ.-- 
δῴη ὑμῖν: may give unto you. Lachm., 
Fritzsche (Rom., iii., 230) and Haupt (who 
refers to the confirmation furnished re- 
cently by two inscriptions of the second 
century given in Dittenb., Syll., 462,,, 
466,) give the Ionic conj. δώῃ ; WH give 
δώῃ vel δῷ in the margin, but δῴη in the 
text. The latter form is to be preferred, 
although opinion is still divided to some 
extent on the conj. and opt.forms. Blass, 
é.g., takes the δώῃ in the present passage 
to be really a conj. and to be best repre- 
sented by the δῷ of Cod. B. He is in- 
clined to regard the forms δοῖ, δώῃ as 
both conj. and opt. (Gram. of N.T. Greek, 
pp. 49, 211). As in the NT ἵνα in the 
vast majority of cases is followed by the 
conj. or the fut. indic. even after past 
tenses, it would be most natural to accept 
the conj. form here. But this Ionic form 
of the conj. appears to be strange to the 
NT and to be ‘without analogies in 
later Greek” (Butt., Gram. of N.T. 
Greek, p. 46). On the other hand, the 
form δῴη seems to be recognised as a 
later Greek equivalent to δοίη, and Winer 
accepts it as an opt. pres. in NT Greek, 
pointing to such passages as Rom. xv. 5; 
2 Tim 1. 16, 18 (ii. 7); John xv. 16, as 
well as Eph. 1. 17, iii. 16, and the comp. 
ἀποδῴη of 2 Tim. iv. 14 (Win.-Moult, 
Gram., Ῥ. 94.---πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀπο- 
καλύψεως: the Spirit of wisdom and 
revelation. ‘The question here is whether 
the πνεῦμα is to be understood in the sub- 
jective sense of our spirit, or in the ob- 
jective sense of the Holy Spirit. The 
former view is adopted by Chrys., Thdrt., 
Rickert, De Wette, Bleek, and more re- 
cently by Abbott and the Revisers, the 
RV rendering being “ἃ spirit of wisdom 
and revelation”. This is urged on the 
analogy of such occurrences as Rom. viii. 
το οι Oy Gales Vien το Pa al, ἢ; lett 
there is much against this. As Meyer 
points out, it is doubtful whether in the 
NT there is any case in which, when the 
πνεῦμα is spoken of as given, it is not 
the objective πνεῦμα. But apart from 
this, the matter in view is what the 
Ephesians were themselves to be, not 
what they were to do for others, and 
although it is easy enough to suit the 
subjective view of the πνεῦμα σοφίας 
(‘‘a wise spirit”) to this, the difficulty is 
to adjust to this the subjective view of 
the πνεῦμα ἀποκάλυψεως. The fatal 
objection, indeed, to the interpretation 


274 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 1, 


b=Col. i. 9. pews ἢ ἐν “ ἐπιγνώσει “ αὐτοῦ, 18. “ πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς 


c=cb: iv, 


13; Col. i. τῆς ‘KapSias ὑμῶν,ὶ 5 εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι Spas” τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἢ ἐλπὶς τῆς 


9,10, ii. 2; 


1 Tim. ii. 4 al.; Heb. x. 26; 2 Pet. i: 2, 3, 8, ii. 20; Paul and 2 Pet. only. 
Heb. vi. 4; see x. 32; Ps. xviii. 8. 
h Ch. iv. 4 only; constr., see Col. i. 23. 


always. 


e=ch. iii. 9; 
g Ver. 12 reff. 


ἃ obj.-gen. aft. ἐπ. 
f Here only; see Matt. xiii. 15. 


1, οφθ. τ. διανοιας vp. (explany. corrn.), with MSS., Cyr.-Jer., Thdrt., Oec.; text 


NABDEFGKLP, most curs., Goth., Syr., 


2 wa οιδατε FG. 


in question lies in the sense of the ἀπο- 
κάλυψις, which has the stated meaning 
not of understanding mysteries but of 
disclosing them; and the tenor of the 
paragraph makes it impossible to suppose 
that in the one case, that of the σοφία, 
Paul had in view a gift that was to make 
themselves wise, and in the other, the 
ἀποκάλυψις, a gift that was to render 
them capable of disclosing mysteries to 
others. How difficult it is to give ἀπο- 
κάλυψις its proper sense on the subjective 
view appears from the renderings pro- 
d, ε.ρ., De Wette’s, Riickert’s, or 
Abbott's. The first makes it = “ the 
uality of mind which consists in wis- 
dons (mediate knowledge) and revelation 
(susceptibility for the immediate know- 
ledge of divine truth)"; the second takes 
it as = "ἃ wise heart and open for His 
revelation"; the third gives ‘‘a spirit of 
wisdom,” but leaves the rest unattempted. 
But ἀποκάλνψις is not a susceptibility for 
knowledge, nor a mind open to revelation, 
nor anything like that. It is necessary, 
therefore, to take πνεῦμα as = the Holy 
Spirit, with Mey., Ell., Haupt. and most. 
The fact that the phrase is πνεῦμα and 
not τὸ πνεῦμα is no objection tothat. The 
attempts made by Middleton, Harless, 
and others to make out an established 
distinction between the two forms, the 
one referring regularly to the personal 
Spirit of God and the other to the in- 
dwelling influence of the Spirit or the 
spirit of the believers as ruled by the 
Holy Spirit, cannot be regarded as 
successful; the terms πνεῦμα, πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον, πνεῦμα Θεοῦ being free to drop 
the article as proper names or terms of 
understood meaning. But what is the 
particular idea then in each of the two 
words σοφία and dmoxdAvyis? It can- 
not be rier the latter refers specifically to 
the χάρισμα of prophecy (so Olsh., etc.). 
For that is presented as a gift bestowed 
only on some, whereas the prayer here 
contemplates gifts for all those addressed, 
and there is nothing to indicate that a gift 
for the time being only is in view. Nor 
can it well be that the second noun ex- 


Cop., vg., Arm., etc. vpwv om. B 17, εἰς, 


presses the means by which the gift in- 
timated by the first noun was to take 
effect,—the gift of revelation bringing 
about the gift of wisdom (Harl.); for we 
should expect the order in that case to 
be reversed. The distinction between the 
terms is rather that of the gift of spiritual 
understanding generally and the gift of 
special revelations in particular, cf. 1 Cor. 
ii. 10; and so far the second is the higher 
idea. What Paul prays for on behalf of 
these Ephesian converts is that God 
might continue to bestow upon them 
the gift of His Holy Spirit already im- 
parted to them, and that to the effect 
both of making them wise to understand 
the things of His grace and of disclosing 
to them more of the mysteries of His 
kingdom.—év ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ: in the 
knowledge of him. The αὐτοῦ refers to 
God, as the context shows, not to Christ, 
The term ἐπίγνωσις occurs with special 
frequency in the Epistles of the Captivity 
and in 2 Peter with reference to the 
knowledge of God or of Christ, as in 
the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews it is 
used of the knowledge of the truth. It’ 
means a knowledge that is true, accu- 
rate, thorough, a so might be rendered 
“full knowledge,’ notwithstanding the 
fact that the simple γνῶσις may be used 
at times in much the same sense (as 
possibly in 1 Cor. xii. 8, xiii. 8). The use 
of γινώσκω and ἐπιγινώσκω in 1 Cor. 
xiii. 12 points to the intensive sense of 
the compound form. The ἐν is not to be 
dealt with as = εἰς (Grot.) or διά (Beza), 
but must have either the instrumental 
sense or the Jocal. It was by the know- 
ledge of God Himself, or, as it may be 
better put, within the sphere of that 
knowledge that the gift of enlightenment 
and the reception of further disclosures 
of the Divine Counsel were to make 
themselves good. The only gifts de- 
sired for these converts were gifts of a 
spiritual order, meaning a ac- 
quaintance with God Himself. The 
clause ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ is connected 
by some (Chrys., Lachm., Olsh., etc.) 
with the sentence which follows, and by 


17---1δ. 


others only with the ἀποκαλύψεως. But 
the course of thought and the balance of 
the terms point to it as qualifying the two 
gifts specified in the preceding sentence. 

Ver. 18. πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλ- 
μοὺς τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν: the eyes of your 
understanding (heart) being enlightened. 
For the διανοίας of the TR, which is 
very poorly attested, καρδίας is to be 
read (with LTTrWHRV) on the au- 
thority of the best MSS., representing 
the different families (QQBADFKL, etc.). 
The ὑμῶν is to be retained, though it is 
omitted by B 17, etc., and is bracketed 
by WH. The syntax of the sentence is 
difficult, but is best taken (with AV, Bez., 
Beng., Bleek, Mey., etc.) as an acc. absol. 
The existence, indeed, of the acc. absol. 
in the NT is still doubted by some good 
grammarians (Winer, Blass, etc.), and 
alleged cases are disposed of as ana- 
coloutha. But such a construction, 
though of much rarer occurrence than 
the gen. absol., was not unknown to clas- 
sical Greek (cf. Jelf, Gv. Gram., ii., Ῥ. 
406), even where there was no repetition 
of the subject (cf. Mey., zn loc.), and there 
appear to be at least a few instances of 
it in the NT, e.g., certainly in Acts xxvi. 
3 (admitted by Buttm., Gram. of N. T. 
Greek, p. 347), and probably in Rom. 
viii. 3, etc. The syntax is otherwise ex- 
plained here (e.g., by Harl., Stier, etc.) 
as a case of apposition, the ὀφθαλμούς 
continuing the πνεῦμα, as if = “that He 
may give unto you the spirit of wisdom 
and revelation—enlightened eyes,” an 
explanation in the highest degree awk- 
ward and next to impossible in view of 
the τούς. The presence of the article 
before ὀφθαλμούς and its absence be- 
fore πεφωτισμένους point to a case of 
tertiary predicate (Buttm.), so that the 
sense would rather be “give unto you 
the Spirit—to wit, eyes enlightened”. 
Others (Ell., etc.) account for it as an 
instance of lax construction and abnor- 
mal case (by no means rare in the NT), 
the πεφωτισμένους standing for πεφωτισ- 
μένοις and the τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς being the 
defining acc. = “that he may give unto 
you—being enlightened as to the eyes of 
your heart” (Ell., etc.). Only in biblical 
and ecclesiastical Greek is φωτίζω used 
of the inward enlightenment which means 
a spiritual, saving knowledge of the things 
of God; cf. φωτισθέντες as applied to 
those who had become Christians (Heb. 
vi. 4, X. 32), and the subsequent use of 
the same term to describe the ‘“ baptised” 
in early Christian literature. The un- 
usual figure of speech, ‘‘ the eyes of your 
heart,” is peculiarly appropriate here. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


275 


The gift in question is the special gift 
of knowledge or insight, hence the figure 
of the eyes. The knowledge isa spiritual 
knowledge; hence “ the eyes of theheart,” 
καρδία being the “inner man,” the seat 
and centre of the mental and spiritual 
life, with special reference at times to 
the faculty of intelligence (Matt. xiii. 15 ; 
John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 27; Rom. i. 21; 
2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. iv. 12, εἴο.).---εἷς τὸ 
εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς: that ye may know. The 
object of the enlightenment, viz., know- 
ledge, a tuller knowledge of certain things 
now specified.—tis ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπίς τῆς 
κλήσεως αὐτοῦ: what is the hope of his 
calling. The tis is to be taken in its 
proper sense, not “how great” nor “οἵ 
what kind,” but ‘‘what”—what the hope 
really and essentially is. The κλῆσις 
αὐτοῦ is the call of which God is the 
author, and that is an effectual call, In 
the Gospels the κλητοί are contrasted 
with the ἐκλεκτοί, the ‘‘chosen”’ being 
the select few of the ‘‘called” (Matt. xxii. 
14). In the Epistles the ‘called of God”’ 
are always those to whom the call has 
come with effect, who have listened to it 
and been made believers. The κλήσεως 
is best taken as the gen. of efficient cause 
(Mey., Ell., etc.)—the hope effected, 
wrought by the call. Hence the ἐλπίς 
is not the object hoped for (a sense 
which it has occasionally in the NT, 
é.g., Tit. ii. 13; Col. i. 5; probably also 
Gal. v. 5; Heb. vi. 18), but the attitude 
of mind, the subjective hope, the assured 
Christian expectation.—kat τίς 6 πλοῦτος 
τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ : [and] 
what the riches of the glory of his inheri- 
tance. The best critics (LTTrWHRV) 
omit the καί of the RV, the diplomatic 
evidence (ΝΒΑ ΡΙΕΗ 17, etc.) being de- 
cidedly against it, although it has the 
support of ΚΙ, as well as certain 
Versions and Fathers, It does not fol- 
low from this omission, however, that we 
have not three distinct things mentioned 
in the three clauses, or that the second 
and third, which refer to the inheritance 
and the power, are only co-ordinate 
with the first, specifying two things re- 
lating to the ἐλπίς (so Haupt). The 
κληρονομία is not the inheritance which 
God has in us (a sense which the word 
seems never to have in the NT), but the 
inheritance which God gives to us and 
which is the object of our hope. The 
αὐτοῦ is the gen. of origin. The mag- 
nificence of this inheritance, the perfected 
blessedness of the Consummation, is ex- 
pressed by a series of terms setting it forth 
in respect of the glory belonging to it 
and the riches pertaining to that glory, 


276 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


iRom. xi. δ᾽ κλήσεως ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς) ὁ "πλοῦτος τῆς ᾿δόξης τῆς "κληρονομίας 


29; Phil. 
iil. 14. 

k See ver. 7 
reff. 


1 Col. i. 27. 

m Ver. 14 reff.; constr., here only. 
see Job xv. 11. 

r=Ver. 5; Col. i. 11. 


τ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς " ἁγίοις, 19. καὶ τί τὸ " ὑπερβάλλον 3 "ἢ μέγεθος τῆς 
δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ “eis ἡμᾶς ὅ τοὺς πιστεύοντας " κατὰ τὴν " ἐνέργειαν 
n Ver. 1 reff. 


p Here only; Exod. xv. 16. 7. 
ε Phil. iii. 21; ch. iii. 7, iv. 16; Col. i. 29, ii. τα; 2 Thess. ii. 9, τα; Paulonly. 


ο Cor. iii. το, ix. 14; ch. ii. 7, iii. 9 only; 
q=2 Cor. ix. 13; ch. iii. 2; see δα ον, τὰ 4 


1 και before τις om. HABDFG, 17, 59, Goth., Ambrst.; insert \*D°EKLP, MSS. 
nearly vss., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., Ambrst. MS., Jer., al. 


2 vrepB. om. FG; νπερµεγεθος 63. 


and these as qualities for the better 
knowledge of which a new illumination 
of the Spirit is desired. The δόξης and 
the κληρονομίας are genitives of posses- 
sion or of characteristic quality,—év τοῖς 
ἁγίοις: in the saints. How is this to be 
connected? Many (Harl., Riick., Olsh., 
Alf., etc.) attach it immediately to κληρο- 
γομίας = “the inheritance i by God 
among the saints,” or, as Alf. paraphrases 
it, “Ηἰς inheritance in, whose example 
and fulness and embodying is in, the 
saints’. This would have n a more 
reasonable interpretation if the κληρο- 
νομίας had been followed by τῆς; in the 
absence of the article it would suit better 
if the κληρονομία could be taken as 
meaning God's inheritance in us. It is 
best on the whole to regard the ἐν τοῖς 
ἀγίοις as related to the idea of the clause 
as a whole and as expressing the sphere 
within which (ἐν = among) these riches 
of the glory of the inheritance are known 
and realised. The κληρονομία is the 
future inheritance, which ts ours at 
present only in foretaste, The “saints” 
are the whole community of those set 
apart to God in Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 
xx. 32, xxvi. 18), and that community 
contemplated specially in its future com- 
pleteness. This is the seat of the inheri- 
tance, or the circle within which alone it 
is to be found in its riches and glory. 
Ver. το. καὶ τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος 
τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ: and what the ex- 
ceeding greatness of his power. The 
αὐτοῦ refers again to God, and the power 
of God is introduced in respect of that 
surpassing greatness which belongs to it 
alone and which is the guarantee of the 
fulfilment of the Christian hope. The 
context and the subsequent mention of 
the resurrection and exaltation of Christ 
show that it is the future of believers 
that is still distinctively in view. So in 
these three clauses Paul leads the readers 
on from the hope itself which becomes 
theirs in virtue of their being called of 
God, to the splendour of the inheritance 
to which the hope points, and from this 


ὅ εις υμας DFGP 17, 31-7, al.*, Ambrst. 


again to that in God Himself which makes 
the fulfilment of the hope and the posses- 
sion of the inheritance certain, namely 
the limitless efficiency which is His pre- 
rogative.—els ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας: 
to us-ward who believe. No better ren- 
dering of εἰς ἡμᾶς here could be devised 
than the "(ο us-ward” of the AV which 
is wisely retained by the RV. The clause 
is best attached to the whole thought of 
the preceding sentence, and not to the 
δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ alone. The els expresses 
the idea of “ethical direction" (EIl.), 
indicating the objects toward whom 
this Divine power will go forth—those, 
namely, who are believers. The ἡμᾶς 
connects these Ephesian believers, in 
whom the Divine power has worked 
mightily even now αλ the conjunction 
of faith and the power of God in 1 Cor. 
ii. 5), with that whole community of the 
saints which was mentioned in the former 
sentence as the circle within which at 
last the complete possession of the in- 
heritance will be made good.—xara τὴν 
ἐνέργειαν τοῦ κράτους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ: 
according to the working of the strength 
of his might. Another impressive ac- 
cumulation of terms, further describing 
that boundless efficiency of God in 
which we have our security for the 
realisation of the hope however new, and 
the possession of the inheritance however 
rich in its glory. ᾿Ενέργεια, which in 
the NT is never used but of superhuman 
power whether Divine (Eph. iii. 7, iv. 16; 
Col. i. 29, ii, 12) or Satanic (2 Thess. 
ii. 9), denotes power as efficiency, opera- 
tive, energising power. τος is power 


as force, mastery, power as shown in_ 


action: ἰσχύς is power as inherent, 

as possessed, but passive. The phrase, 
therefore, means “the efficiency of the 
active power which expresses inherent 
might". This again is best understood 
as defining the whole preceding state- 
ment, not as belonging simply to the 
πιστεύοντας. For, while the idea that 
our faith is the result of God’s power, 
is clearly expressed elsewhere {ε.β., Col. 


a 


190-21, 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOYS ᾿ 


277 


τοῦ "κράτους τῆς "ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, 20. "ἣν "ἐνήργησεν]1 ἐν τῷ χριστῷ, t Ch. vi. το 


3 , τς a! νά 
ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 


Υ ἐπουρανίοις ὃ 21. “ὑπεράνω πάσης 


“δυνάμεως καὶ ἆ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς “ ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου 


u Ver. 11 reff. 
intrans., see 2 Thess. ii. 4 reff. 
ix. 5 only; Deut. xxvi. 19. 
Tit. iii. 1. 
Rev. iii. 5. 
2 Tim. ii. 19 only. 


καὶ ἢ ἐκάθισεν 2 * ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς 


ἀρχῆς καὶ Ὁ ἐξουσίας ὁ καὶ 


ν Constr., Col. i. 21, 26; Heb. viii. 10; 2 John 2. 
x=Rom. viii. 34 reff. 
abc=Luke xii. 11; Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Col. i. 16, ii. 15; 
ἃ Col. i. 16; 2 Pet. ii. το; Jude 8 only 1. 
f Luke vi. 13, 14; Acts xix. 13; Rom. xv. 20; 1 Cor. v. 1,11; ch. fii. 15, v. 13; 


only ; Isa. 
χ]. 26 
Dan. iv, 
27; see 
Col. i. rz; 
2 Thess. 
i. 9. 

w Trans,, 1 Cor. vi. 4 only; 
y Ver. 3 reff. z Ch. iv. 10; Heb, 


- > 
t 


e=Acts iv. 12; Phil. ii.g; Heb. i. 4; 


1ενηργηκεν AB, Euth., Cyr., Procop.; text }DEFGKLP, MSS. appy. (Vss. and 
Lat. Fathers ambiguous), Eus., Cyr., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., al. : 

* For εκαθισεν, καθισας SAB το, 17, 23, 57, 80, al.jo, Eus., Cyr., Procop., Tert., 
Jer., Ambr., Pel. ; text rest of MSS., Mss,, it., Copt., Goth., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., Thl., 


Oec., al. 
Lat. Fathers. 


3 For επουρ., ουρανοις B, 71, 213, Hil. 


ii, 12), that is not what is in view here: 
The κατά is best taken here in its proper 
sense of measure, standard or proportion. 
What the clause sets before us, therefore, 
is that the measure of that surpassing 
power of God which is the guarantee of 
our hope, is the operation of the exertion 
of the might that dwells in God as seen 
in the historical case instanced in the 
following sentence, viz., the resurrection 
and exaltation of Christ. 

Ver. 20. ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ 
ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν; which He 
wrought in the Christ when He raised 
Him from the dead. The ἣν refers to the 
preceding ἐνέργειαν. The documentary 
authorities vary between the ἐνήργησεν 
of the TR (after ΝΡΕΚΙ,, etc.) and 
ἐνήργηκεν which is the reading of BA, 
etc., and is preferred by LTTr (marg.) 
WH (with the other in margin). The 
aorist is more in keeping with the definite 
historical event referred to; the succeed- 
ing aorists on the other hand favour the 
perfect, making it the more difficult 
reading to account for. Here again the 
article with the Χριστῷ may give it the 
official sense “πε Christ”. This is the 
more probable in view of the use of the 
év as well as the relation of the statement 
to the hope and the inheritance. The 
surpassing power of God was not only 
manifested in the case of our Lord, but 
was wrought in Him, and in Him not 
as an individual member of the race, but 
as ‘‘the Christ,’ the Anointed of God, 
in whom we are represented and have 
our Head. The result of that working of 
God’s energy in Him was His resurrection 
from the dead—an event which, as Paul 
uniformly teaches, had a power not for 
Himself only but for us. The ἐγείρας 


After καθισας insert αυτον $A 17, 23, 57, 80, al., Copt., al., Eus., Procop., 


4 efovoias και αρχης Β. 


may have the force (coincidence in 
time) given it by the AV and the RV, 
etc., ‘‘when he raised Him”; or it may 
be better taken as the defining, explan- 
atory aor. (as in γνωρίσας; ver. 9), “in 
that He raised Him”.—kai ἐκάθισεν 
ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ: and seated Him on His 
right hand. The ἐκάθισεν of the TR, 
supported by such MSS. as DFKL, the 
Copt. and Goth. Versions, etc., must 
give place to καθίσας, the reading of 
BWA 17, etc., adopted by LTTrWHRV. 
A few authorities (ΝΑ 17, etc.) insert 
αὐτόν before ἐν δεξιᾷς The exaltation 
to the place of honour and authority 
following the resurrection is a further 
witness to what the ἐνέργεια of God 
can effect.—év τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις: in the 
heavenlies. That the phrase has the 
local sense here (cf. on ver. 3 above) is 
made abundantly clear by the terms 
ἐγείρας, καθίσας, ἐν δεξιᾷ --- 41] terms with 
a local reference. The phrase οὐρανοῖς 
indeed is found instead of ἐπουρανίοις 
in a few ancient authorities (B, Hil., 
Vict.). 

Ver. 21. ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ 
ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος: 
over above all rule, and authority, and 
power, and lordship. ‘The intensive force 
“far above” is given to the ὑπεράνω by 
Chrys., Theoph., Stier, the AV, the RV, 
etc. But it can scarcely be sustained in 
face of the actual use of the word in 
Heb. ix. 5 (cf. Ezek. xliii. 15); the 
tendency of late Greek to substitute 
compound for simple forms without sub- 
stantial change of sense; thenon-intensive 
use of the cognate form ὑποκάτω (Mark 
vi. 11; Luke viii. 16; John i. 51); and 
the testimony of the Syriac and other 
ancient Versions, which render it simply 


278 


“above” (e.g., Vulg., supra). ‘ Over 


above,” therefore, is to be preferred to 


“far above”. The πάσης is “all” in 
the sense of ‘every,’ every particular 
kind of ἀρχή that can be named. The 
terms are given in the abstract form, not 
as if only principles and forces were in 
view, and not personal powers, but be- 
cause ‘‘classes or categories of personal 
beings are expressed, just as, ¢.g., ἐξουσία 
is said of human authorities, which con- 
sist of persons” (Mey.). The use of the 
abstract ἀρχαί, etc., instead of theconcrete 
ἄγγελοι, etc., enhances the conception 
of the absolute, all-embracing dominion 
of Christ. But what manner of powers 
or authorities do these terms designate ? 
The fact that the immediate subject here 
is the heavenlies and Christ’s position in 
them at once excludes such interpretations 
as identify these ἀρχαί, etc. with earthly 
powers (Morus); with every kind οἱ 
dignity wheresoever found (Erasm., Olsh., 
etc.); with the Jewish hierarchy (Schoett.); 
or with the various orders of Gentile 
powers (van Til). The leading idea of 
the section and the apparent purport of 
similar statements (Eph. iii. 10; Col. 
i. 16; Rom. viii. 38; 1 Pet. iii. 22) point 
to the angelic world as meant. The 
fact that nothing is said here of Christ's 
triumph over Satanic powers suggests fur- 
ther that only angels of good,—heavenly 
intelligences, are in view. Can any 
definite distinction then be made out 
between the terms? And can it be said 
that the enumeration means that the 
world of good angels has its distinct 
orders and grades of angelic dignity and 
power? The passage must be read in 
connection with the analogous enumera- 
tions in Eph. iii, το; Rom. viii. 38; 
1 Pet. iii, 22, and especially Col. i. 16. 
Differences in the enumerations then at 
once appear. In Eph. iii. τὸ we have 
only the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι ; in Rom. 
viii. 38, ἄγγελοι, ἀρχαί, δυνάμεις ; in 
1 Pet. iii. 22, ἄγγελοι, ἐξουσίαι, δυνά- 
pes. And in the most direct parallel 
(Col. i. 16) we find θρόνοι, κυριότητες, 
ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι. The Pauline passages 
themselves, therefore, show πο such 
identity either in the number or in the 
succession of authorities as would be con- 
sistent with a determinate doctrine of 
graduated orders. Nor can it be inferred 
from the words in Matt. xviii. 10 (as Meyer 
thinks) that such gradations are recog- 
nised by our Lord Himself. It is true 
that in the non-canonical writings of the 
Jews (e.g., Test. XL. Patr., etc.) the idea 
of variety of ranks among the angels 
appears, and that in the later Rabbinical 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


1. 


literature it took strange and elaborate 
forms. But between these and the simple 
statements of the NT there is no real like- 
ness, and there is nothing here to point 
certainly either to an ascending scale or to 
a descending. Itis held by some indeed 
(e.g., patsy that the angelic authorities 
are named here according to the latter 
scale, beginning with the highest and 
proceeding to the lower and the lowest. 
For this two reasons are offered, vis., first 
that it would be natural for the writer, 
who has led the reader up to the right hand 
of God as the position possessed by 
Christ, to give his enumeration of the 
powers subject to Christ in the succession 
of first, second and third in rank; and 
second, that in the various references 
made to them, the ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, δυνά- 
pets are given in the same order. But the 
former is a very precarious reason; and 
the latter is not valid, inasmuch as in 
none of the passages appealed to do we 
et all these three terms together (Eph. 
ui. 10; Col. i. 16, ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 22). 
Nor is it possible to establish any clear 
distinction of sense and application be- 
tween the four terms introduced here, 
such as that attempted, ¢.g., by Alford 
who, including in the list earthly as well 
as heavenly powers and evil as well as 
good spirits, regards ἀρχή as the supreme 
expression of dignity, ἐξουσία as official 
power in all its forms, primary or dele- 
gated, δύναμις as might or the “raw 
material" of power, and κυ » 38 
the pre-eminence of lordship, We 
must take the terms, therefore, not 
as dogmatic terms either teaching or 
implying any doctrine of graduated 
ranks, differentiated func'ions, or organ- 
ised order in the world of angels, but 
as rhetorical terms brought together in 
order to express the unique supremacy 
and absolute sovereignty proper to Christ, 
and meaning simply that whatever powers 
or dignities existed and by whatever 
names they might be designated, Christ's 
dominion was above them all. This is 
suggested also by the further generalisa- 
tion that follows.—xal πα 
ὀνομαζομένου : and every name that is 
named. The ὄνομα here is not to be 
taken as a title of dignity, but (as the 
ὀνομαζομένον shows) has the simple 
sense of name. There is an advance 
in the statement of Christ’s supreme 
rank, but it is simply from the idea of a 
supremacy over all heavenly intelligences 
to that of a supremacy over all created 
objects by whatsoever name called.—ot 
μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ Kal ἐν τῷ 
μέλλοντι : nut ουν in this world (or age), 


2I—22. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


279 


οὐ µόνον ἐν τῷ 5 αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἢ µέλλοντι: 22. καὶ g Matt. 


πάντα | ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν "ἔδωκεν Ικεφαλὴν 


h Matt. xii. 32; Heb. vi. 5. 
Heb. viii. 10, x. 16; Rev. passim. 
19 only. 


but also in that which is to come. The 
statement of Christ’s absolute and un- 
matched supremacy is brought to its 
height by this last generalisation, which 
embraces within its sweep the totality of 
created objects not only as they now are, 
but as they may hereafter be in any 
possible future. The word αἰών here as 
elsewhere, has the idea of duyation at its 
foundation. It means “age,” ‘ aeon,” 
and as used of the world presents it, in 
distinction from κόσμος, in its temporal 
aspect, ‘this present state of things”. 
The Jews spoke of the period before 


Messiah’s Advent as my ήν, 
“this age,” and of the period introduced 


by that event as N2i7 odiyn, “the 


coming age’, So the NT writers desig- 
nate the period preceding the final Return 
or Parousia of Christ ὃ αἰὼν οὗτος (also 
ὁ νῦν αἰών, τ Tim. vi. 17; 6 ἐνεστὼς 
αἰών, Gal. 1. 4; or simply 6 αἰών, Matt. 
xiv. 22), and the period beginning with 
the Parousia ὃ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων (also 6 
αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος, Lk. xx. 35; 6 αἰὼν 6 ἐρχό- 
μενος, Mk. x. 30; Lk. xviii. 30; cf. οἱ 
αἰῶνες ot ἐπερχόμενοι, Eph. ii. 7). 

This paragraph gives simply a positive 
statement of the exaltation of Christ, 
His sovereign and unshared supremacy 
over all. It makes no reference to Jewish 
or Gnostic speculations inconsistent with 
this. It is different with the great sec- 
tion in the sister Epistle to the Colossians. 
There we see that such speculations were 
rife in at least one of the Churches of the 
Lycus valley. The statements in that 
Epistle have an unmistakable reference to 
theosophic notions akin to the Gnostic 
ideas of emanations—notions of angelic 
intermediaries between God and the 
world; against which the Apostle has 
to assert the exclusive relation of Christ 
to the whole system of things, seen and 
unseen, earthly and celestial, as the 
Creator of all, the Upholder of all, the 
One Being in whom resided all the forces 
pertaining to the maintenance and ad- 
ministration of things. The literature of 
Judaism makes it also clear that by Paul’s 
time the Jews had constructed a some- 
what elaborate system of Angelology, 
with theories of graduated positions and 


i Luke ii. 51 al. fr.; Ps. viii. 6. 


Xi. 32; 
Rom. xii. 
2 al. fr. 
k John iii. 16, 35; ch. iv. 11; 


l=1 Cor. xi. 3; ch. iv. 15; ver. 23; Col. i. 18, ii. 1ο, 


distinctive functions. The Book of Enoch 
(Ixi. το) speaks of “angels of power and 
angels of principality”. The Book of 
the Secrets of Enoch (xx. 1, 3) describes 
the heavenly host as consisting of ten 
troops—lordships, principalities, powers, 
cherubim, seraphim, thrones, etc. In the 
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi 
3) six orders are named, of which the high- 
est are the θρόνοι, ἐξουσίαι, occupying the 
seventh heaven, while the δυνάμεις are 
the fifth in order and are assigned to the 
third heaven. The same general doctrine 
appears also in Ephraem Syrus (i., p. 
270), who gives three great divisions of 
the celestial world, viz. (1) θεοί, θρόνοι, 
κυριότητες ; (2) ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαί, ἐξ- 
ουσίαι; (3) ἄγγελοι, δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, 
σεραφίμ. Inthe De Princip. of Origen 
(i., 5, 3, etc.) five orders are named, 
rising from the τάξις ἀγγελική to ἀρχαί, 
ἐξουσίαι, θρόνοι, and finally κυριότητες. 
But the conception of a great, graduated 
angelic hierarchy was elaborated most 
fully by the author of the remarkable 
book, De Coelesti Hierarchia, the so- 
called Dionysius the Areopagite. There 
we find a scheme of orders in three sets of 
three, descending from the highest to the 
lowest: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones; 
Dominations, Virtues, Powers (or Author- 
ities) ; Principalities, Archangels, Angels. 
Hence the sublime description in Dante 
(Paradiso, canto xxxviii.) and Milton’s 
“Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, 
Virtues, Powers” (Paradise Lost, v., 601). 

Ver. 22. καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς 
πόδας αὐτοῦ: and He put all things under 
His feet. The ὑπέταξεν is coordinate with 
the previousévyipynoe. Thesetwo things 
God did: He wrought His mighty power 
in raising and exalting Christ and He sub- 
jected all things to Him. The idea ex- 
pressed by the ὑπέταξεν here is not the 
limited idea of a subjection of opposing 
objects, which we have in 1 Cor. xv. 27, 
but the wider idea of placing all created 
things under the sovereignty of Christ. 
The words recall those of Ps. viii. 7, but 
do not give these in the form of a quota- 
tion, ‘That Psalm speaks of Man as he 
was meant by God to be, with dominion 
over all the creatures. Here that ideal 
is presented as made real in Christ, the 
exalted, sovereign Christ. The act re- 


280 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


1. 


m Absol. ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ " ἐκκλησίᾳ, 23. ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ " σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ ° πλή- 


Acts ii. 

7:1 see 
att. XVL. 

18; epp. passim. 


n=Rom. xii. 5; { Cor. xii. 27; ch. iv. 4 al.; Col. i. 18 al. 


_ pwpa τοῦ Ta! πάντα " ἐν πᾶσιν “ πληρουμένου. 


ο Matt. ix. ar; 


Mark ii. 21, viii. 20; John i. 16; Rom. xi. 12, 25, xiii. 15, xv. 29; 1 Cor. x. 26,28; Gal.iv.4; Eph. 


iii. 19, iv. 13; Col. i. 19, ii. 9. 


p=ch. v. 10; Col. i.g; Gal. v. 14. 


1 Before παντ. om. Ta some mss.; insert MSS., most mss.-ff. 


ferred to, therefore, by the aor, ὑπέταξεν 
may be the definite gift of absolute do- 
minion consequent on the exaltation. 
The raising of Christ to God’s right hand 
was followed by the placing of all things 
under His feet and making Him, de facto, 
sovereign over all.—xal αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κε- 
φαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ: and 
gave Him as head over all things to the 
Church. The RV agrees with the AV 
and the Bishops’ Bible in rendering it 
“and gave Him to be head". Tynd. and 
Cran. have “hath made Him above all 
things the head”; the Rhemish, “ hath 
made Him head over all the Church”, 
The two ideas of Christ’s Headship over 
all things and His Headship over the 
Church appear to be in the statement. 
The question is how they are related, 
and what is the precise idea πω τό ὑπ 
each of the significant terms. The 

κεν is not to be taken in the technical 
sense of appointed, installed (as expressed 


by 13, τιθέναι), but, as is indicated by 


the simple dat. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, in its ordi- 
nary sense of gave, Christin the capacity 
or position here ascribed to Him 15 pre- 
sented as a gift of God to the Church. 
Having exalted Him to the highest and 
invested Him with supreme dominion, 
God gives Him to the Church. The 
πάντα in ὑπὲρ πάντα must have the sense 
it has in πάντα ὑπέταξεν, not “all author- 
ities,” but “all things”. The κεφαλή, 
therefore, must express an absolute head- 
ship over all the created world, visible and 
invisible, not a particular, higher head- 
ship over other subordinate headships, 
Apostles, Bishops, etc., in the Church. 
Further, as the subsequent statement 
about the σῶμα shows, it must have the 
full sense of head, organic head, and 
neither that of sum nor that of highest 
dignity only. The term ἐκκλησία, again, 
obviously has here its widest Christian 
sense. Used by the Greeks to designate 
an assembly of the people called for de- 
liberation (cf. Acts xix. 39), and by the 
LXX as the equivalent of the Hebrew 


ΤΊ), the congregation of Israel, especi- 
ally when called in religious convention 
(Deut. χχχί. 30, etc.), it expresses in the 


NT the idea of the fellowship or assembl 
of believers meeting for worship or for ε ὁ 
ministration. And it expresses this in 
various degrees of extension, ranging from 
the small company gathering for worship 
in one’s house (the ἐκκλησία κατ᾽ οἶκον, 
Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19, etc.), or the 
single congregation of village or city (Acts 
ν. 11, viii. 3; 1 Cor. iv. 17, etc.), to the 
ταὶ γε Christian communities of provinces 
and countries (τῆς ᾿Ασίας, Γαλατίας, ‘lov- 
δαίας, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 19; 2 Cor. viii. 1; 
Gal. i. 2, 22), and finally to the Church 
universal, the Church collectively, the 
whole fellowship of believers throughout 
the world (Matt. xvi. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 28; 
Phil. iii. 6; Col. i, 18, 24, etc.). Here and 
in the other occurrences in this Epistle 
the word has this largest extension of 
meaning, with the further mystical idea 
of a unity vitally related to Christ, in- 
corporated in Him, and having His life 
in it. If the terms then are to be so 
understood, how is their connection in 
the sentence to be construed? The τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ is immediately dependent on 
ἔδωκεν, and cannot well be taken as a dat. 
commodi = “for the good of the Church” 
(De Wette), as if it were attached immedi- 
ately to the ὑπὲρ πάντα. The κεφαλὴν 
ὑπὲρ πάντα may then be taken either as 
in apposition to abrév—" gave Him, head 
over all things, to the Church,” é.¢., gave 
Him, this head over all things, to the 
Church (Chrys., Stier, etc.) ; or as having 
a predicative force—“ gave Him as head 
over all things” (Ell., etc.). The latter 
is to be preferred both as the easier con- 
struction and as more congruous with 
the anarthrous κεφαλήν. Thus the pur- 
port of the clause is that God, in giving 
Christ to the Church, gave Him in the 
capacity of Head over all things. There 
is no distinction or comparison, therefore, 
between two headships, as if one were 
over the world or over the state, and the 
other over the Church, Christ’s Head- 
ship over the Church, so far as this clause 
is concerned, is rather implied than ex- 
pressed. The idea of the Headship over 
the Church is more distinctly conveyed 
by the sentence which follows, with the 
further description of the Church as the 
σῶμα Χριστοῦ. Here the great idea is 


22—23. 


still that of the Headship of Christ over 
all things. Having that supremacy He 
is given by God to the Church, and as 
given in the capacity of universal Head 
He is given to the Church as her Head 
also. 

Ver. 23. ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ : 
which is His body. The ἥτις (not ἥ) 
introduces a profound statement, the in- 
terpretation of which is much contested. 
It is supplementary to the preceding, and 
further defines the relation between Christ 
and the Church in respect of His Head- 
ship. The ἥτις, therefore, has something 
of its qualitative force, pointing to what 
belongs to the nature of the Church 
(Meyer), and in that way giving the 
ground of God’s gift of Christ to the 
ἐκκλησία. Or (with ΕἸ]., etc.) it may be 
taken in the subdued, explanatory sense— 
“which indeed”. The word σῶμα, which 
passes readily from its literal meaning 
into the figurative sense of a society, a 
number of men constituting a social or 
ethical union (cf. Eph. iv. 4), is frequently 
applied in the NT Epistles to the Church, 
with or without τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as the 
mystical body of Christ, the fellowship 
of believers regarded as an organic, spirit- 
ual unity in a living relation to Christ, 
subject to Him, animated by Him, and 
having His power operating in it. The 
relation between Christ and the Church, 
therefore, is not an external relation, or 
one simply of Superior and inferior, Sove- 
reign and subject, but one of life and 
incorporation. The Church is not merely 
an institution ruled by Him as President, 
a Kingdom in which He is the Supreme 
Authority, or a vast company of men in 
moral sympathy with Him, but a Society 
which is in vital connection with Him, 
having the source of its life in Him, sus- 
tained and directed by His power, the 
instrument also by which He works.—7ro 
πλήρωμα τοῦ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρου- 
μένου: the fulness of Him that filleth all 
in all, The preceding sentence carries 
the idea-of the Church far beyond the 
limited conception of a concrete institu- 
tion or outward, visible organisation, and 
lifts us to the grander conception of a 
great spiritual fellowship, which is one 
under all varieties of external form and 
constitution in virtue of the presence of 
Christ’s Spirit in it, and catholic as em- 
bracing all believers and existing wherever 
any such are found. It is the conception 
of the Church which pervades this Epistle 
(ται: LO, στον δα 255) 27: το 99]: 
It appears again in similar terms in the 
sister Epistle (Col. i. 18, 24), and else- 
where in the varied phraseology of the 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


281 


“royal priesthood” (1 Pet. ii. 9) and the 
‘Church of the Firstborn ” (Heb. xii. 23). 
It is this supreme idea of the Church as a 
spiritual order the essence of which is a 
living relation to Christ, that receives 
further expression in the profound sen- 
tence with which the paragraph closes. 
The great difficulty here is with the term 
πλήρωμα itself, The other terms are 
easier. For the πάντα of the TR, which 
has the most meagre attestation, τὰ πάντα 
(supported by the great uncials, etc.) must 
be substituted (with Beng., Griesb., LT Tr 
WHRV). The ‘‘all ” therefore must be 
taken here in the sense which it has in i. 
to— the all,” the whole system of things, 
made by Christ and having in Him the 
ground of its being, its continuance, its 
order (Heb. 1.-3; Col. 1. 16, 17; 1 Cor. 
viii. 6). The ἐν πᾶσιν will have a corre- 
sponding extension of meaning, ‘ with all 
things,” not merely with all blessings, 
gifts or spiritual requirements. The 
universe itself and all the things that 
make its fulness (cf. “the earth . . . and 
the fulness thereof,” Ps. xxiv. 1) are alike 
made and maintained by Christ. The 
prep. is taken by some in its primary 
force of in. But it is difficult then to find 
a natural sense for the clause; the inter- 
pretations proposed, ¢.g., ‘‘in all points”’ 
(Harless), ‘in all modes of manifesta- 
tion” (Bleek), etc., going beyond the 
actual terms. It is best to understand it 
as the instrumental év, of which we have 
an instance in ch. ν. 18 (Mey., Ell., ΑΙ, 
and most) “with all things”. Some 
strangely take ἐν πᾶσιν as masc. here, 
supposing the point to be that Christ 
supplies in all His believing members all 
the things with which they need to be 
provided (Haupt, Moule). The πληρου- 
μένου may be a pure passive, and so it is 
taken by some (Vulg., Chrys., etc.). In 
that case Christ would be described as Him- 
self ‘‘filled as to all things’’. It occurs, 
however, also as a middle with an active 
sense (Xen., Hell., v., 4, 56; vi., 2, 14, 
etc.). So it is rendered here by some of 
the Versions (Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm.), 
and the sense of “filling” best suits the 
context. The middle, however, probably 
retains something of its proper reciprocal 
or reflexive force, conveying the idea of 
filling the totality of things for Himself. 
What is to be said now of the term 
πλήρωμα itself? There are some inter- 
pretations which may at once be set 
aside, e.g., the means of fulfilling (Rick.), 
the Church being described as the medium 
or instrument by which Christ accom- 
plishes His destined work of bringing 
all things back to God; coetus numer- 


282 


osus, with reference to the multitude of 
those who are subject to Christ (Storr, 
Rosenm., etc.) ; perfection, in the objec- 
tive sense of the term, the Church being 
Christ’s perfect work (Oltr.)—a meaning 
which goes beyond the term itself ; the 
totality of the aeons, in the Gnostic 
sense, Christ and the Church being 
viewed here in union and the two ideas, 
“that which makes full” and “ that 
which is made full,’ being supposed 
to pass over the one into the other 
(Baur). The choice is between the 
active sense of “ that which fills or 
completes and the passive sense of 
‘that which is filled”. The former 
is favoured by Chrys., GEcum., Aquin., 
Schwegler, Abb., etc., and it must 
be admitted to be linguistically pos- 
sible. Verbals in -pa, it is true, have 
usually the pass. sense, and this one 
formed from πληροῦν (which means both 
to fill and to fulfil) would most nat- 
urally be taken as = “ that which is 
filled,” or “that which is fulfilled or com- 
pleted". It is argued indeed by Light. 
in a weighty dissertation on ‘‘ The mean- 
ing of πλήρωμα” (Saint Paul's Epistles 
to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 
257-273) that nouns of this formation are 
always passive, expressing either the pro- 
duct of the action denoted by the active 
verb, or that action itself regarded as a 
completed thing ; and further that in the 
case of πλή if we follow out the idea 
of fulfilling rather than that of filling, we 
shall not require to give it now an active 
sense and again a passive, but shall be able 
to take it in all its occurrences as a real 
passive, denoting result in one aspect or 
another. But, while it is possible enough 
to understand it in this way in all the 
passages in the Epistles, it is difficult to 
carry the passivesense through the various 
occurrences in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. ix. 
16; Mark ii. 27, viii. 20). Nor does it 
seem easy to adjust the properly passive 
sense to all the passages either in the LXX 
(cf. Ezek. v. 2; Ὠαλ. x. 3), or in profane 
Greek (e.g., Soph., Trach., 1203 ; Eurip., 
Troad., 824; Philo, de Abr., ii., p. 39), 
without putting somewhat strained inter- 

retations on some of the cases. The 
idea, however, that results from allowing 
πλήρωμα to have the active sense here is 
not germane to the general scope of the 
paragraph. That idea is that the Church 
is that which makes Christ Himself com- 
plete. A head, however perfect in itself, 
if it is without members, is something 
incomplete. So Christ, whois the Head 
of the Church, requires the Church to 
make His completeness, just as the 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Π. 


Church which is His body requires Him 
as the Head to make it a complete and 
living thing. But the main thought of 
the whole paragraph is what Christ is 
and does in relation to the universe and 
the Church, not what the Church is to 
Him or does for Him, and the πληρον- 
μένον cannot have the sense of “ Him 
who is being filled” without putting a 
forced meaning on the τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. 
Hence πλήρωμα is to be taken in the 
passive sense here, as is done by most 
commentators, and the idea is that the 
Church is not only Christ’s body but that 
which is filled by Him. In Col. i. 19, ii. 
g the whole πλήρωμα, or every plenitude 
of the Godhead, the very fulness of the 
Godhead, the totality of the Divine 
powers and qualities, is said to be in 
Christ, so that He alone is to be recog- 
nised as Framer and Governor of the 
world, and there is neither need nor place 
for any intermediate beings as agents in 
those works of creating, upholding and 
administering. Here the conception is 
that this plenitude of the Divine powers 
and qualities which is in Christ is im- 
parted by Him to His Church, so that the 
latter is pervaded by His presence, ani- 
mated by His life, filled with His gifts 
and energies and graces. He is the sole 
Head of the universe, which is supplied 
by Him with all that is needed foe its 
being and order. He is also the sole 
Head of the Church, which receives from 
Him what He Himself possesses and is 
endowed by Him with all that it requires 
for the realisation of its vocation. 
Cuaprer II. Vv. 1-10. A new para- 
graph begins at this point. This is 
denied indeed by some, who would 
connect the καὶ ὑμᾶς of ii. 1 immediately 
with the ἡμᾶς πιστεύοντας of i. 19 
(Knatchbull), the ἐνήργησεν of i. 20 (Ben- 
gel), or the καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν, etc., of i. 22 
(Lachm., Harl.). But none of these con- 
nections yields a sufficiently clear and 
harmonious sense. The last, indeed, 
which proposes to separate ii. 1 from 
i. 23 merely by a comma and which 
would make the καὶ .. . συνεζωοποίησεν 
a statement parallel to the αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν, 
etc., as well as continuous on it, would 
require ἡμᾶς rather than ὑμᾶς. All three, 
too, take seriously from the point and 
power of the closing verses of chapter i., 
which are given in a strain of lofty and 
majestic affirmation suitable to the wind- 
ing up of a great argument. We have, 
therefore, a new section here, in which 
a particular application is made of what 
has been affirmed in the preceding para- 
graph. These first ten verses speak of 


I—z2. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


283 


II. 1. Καὶ ὑμᾶς 1 ὄντας “νεκροὺς τοῖς " παραπτώµασιν καὶ ταῖς a—John ν. 
ὃς ~ 25; Rom. 
> ἁμαρτίαις," 2. ἐν ais ποτὲ ὃ “ περιεπατήσατε “ κατὰ τὸν “ αἰῶνα τοῦ xi. 15; 
3 ο = Col. ii. 
ἁκόσμου τούτου, “κατὰ τὸν °dpxovta τῆς ‘ ἐξουσίας τοῦ “ἀέρος, τοῦ 13; Rev. 


b Here only; παρ. Matt. vi. 14. 
d Here only ; see Gal. i. 4. 


ἢ Rom, viii. 1, 4, xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 3 al. ; 
e=John Xii. 31, Xiv. 30, xvi. 11. 


iil. 1, 
2 John 6. 


f Ch. 1, 21 reff, g Acts xxii. 23; 


1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 17; Rev. ix. 2, xvi. 17 only; Ps. xvii. 11. 


Iypas 44, 45, 48, etc. 


2 For αµαρτ., επιθυµιαις B. After ap. ins. ὑμων 
Euthal., Thdrt., 
mss., Ar.-pol., Chr.-text-comm., παν, ΓΗ 


4πτοντου FG, etc. 


Syr., Copt., Eth., Goth., Or., 


8 Omit, L. 


a further manifestation of that power of 
God which was seen in the resurrection 
and exaltation of Christ, namely, in the 
raising of the Ephesians themselves from 
the death of sin into a new life unto God, 
and that not of works but of grace. 

Ver. 1. καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκρούς: and 
you, being dead. ‘The construction is 
broken, the writer turning off into two 
relative sentences (vv. 2, 3) before he 
introduces his leading verb. His original 
statement is taken up again, assome think, 
at the καὶ ὄντας νεκρούς of ver. 5 (Griesb., 
Riick., etc.). But the resumption begins 
rather with the ὁ δὲ Θεὸς of ver. 4 (Mey., 
Ell., εἰς). So the ὑμᾶς ὄντας here is 
under the regimen of the συνεζωοποίησε 
(ver. 5), and the καί has the force of 
‘and you too,” “you, also, as well as 
Christ”. The ὄντας expresses the con- 
dition they were in when God’s power 
wrought in them. The νεκρούς means 
neither dying nor mortal, nor yet, again, 
condemned to death, but dead. Meyer, 
indeed, contends for the sense of ‘‘ made 
liable to eternal death,” ashealso takes the 
following συνεζώοποιησεν, συνήγειρεν, 
συνεκάθισεν as proleptic terms. But the 
whole series of terms is best understood 
to express things done then and states 
belonging to the actual present. The 
νεκρούς, therefore, means ethically or 
spiritually dead, and what had been said 
of the power of God in Christ’s case is 
now applied to the case of the readers 
themselves. The power that raised.Christ 
from the dead and exalted Him is also the 
power that took them out of the state of 
spiritual death and gave them a new life 
andanew dignity with Christ.—rois παρ- 
απτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις : through 
your trespasses and sins. On the authority 
ofsuch uncials as ἢ ΒΗ 6, such Versions 
as the Syr. and the Vulg., and such 
Fathers as Theod., ὑμῶν is to be inserted 
after ἁμαρτίαις. ‘The dat. is the instru- 
mental dat., ‘‘by trespasses,” not in 
them, nor even in respect of them 


NBDEFGP, d, e, f, g, m*’, Vulg., 
Luc., Victorin., etc. ; text KL, most 
Oec. 


(Moule). Etymologically, παράπτωμα 
points to sin as a fall, and ἁμαρτία to 
sin as failure. It is impossible to es- 
tablish any clear distinction between the 
two nouns in the plural forms, as if the 
one expressed acts and the other states 
of sin, or as if the former meant single 
trespasses and the latter all kinds of sins. 
Here sin is that which makes dead—the 
cause of the death-state. In the kindred 
passage in Col. ii. 13 we have the same 
idea expressed by τοῖς παραπτώμασι καὶ 
ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, if, with the 
best MSS. and critics, we omit ἐν. The 
TR inserts ἐν before παραπτώμασι, in 
which case sin would be presented there 
as itself the state of death. 

Ver. 2. ἐν αἷς ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε: 
wherein in time past (RV, ‘aforetime’’) 
ye walked. ‘The ats takes the gender of 
the nearer noun, but refers to both the 
παραπτώμασι andthe ἁμαρτίαις. Tres- 
passes and sins were the domain in which 
they had their habitual course of life in 
their former heathen ἁαγς.-- κατὰ τὸν 
αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου: according to 
the course (or age) of this world. As the 
év of the former clause gave the stated 
sphere within which their pre-Christian 
life moved, so the κατά of this clause and 
the next gives the standard to which it 
conformed and the spirit by which it was 
ruled. The phrase κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦτον 
might have sufficed, the fuller form which 
introduces both αἰὼν and κόσμος is more 
expressive. The κόσμος is the world as 
the objective system of things, and that as 
evil. The αἰών is the world as a world- 
period—the world as transitory. Insucha 
connection as the present αἰὼν comes near 
what we understand by “the spirit of the 
age,’ but is perhaps most happily ren- 
dered course, as that word conveys the 
three ideas of tenor, development, and 
limited continuance. This course of a 
world which is evil is itself evil, and to 
live in accordance with it is to live in 
trespasses and sins.—kata τὸν ἄρχοντα 


284 


τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος : according to the 
prince of the power of the air. A yet 
darker colour is now given to the descrip- 
tion of the former heathen walk of those 
addressed. Their life was determined 
and shaped by the master of all evil, the 
supreme ruler of all the powers of wicked- 
ness. The terms obviously designate 
Satan, but their precise sense is some- 
what difficult to decide. Three different 
shades of meaning are suggested for ἐξ- 
ουσία here, viz., (a) supreme right or 
power, in which case the idea would be 
the prince to whom belongs the authority 
of the air; (b) the domain or sphere ot 
authority, as possibly in Col. i. 13 (Chrys., 
Theod., Hofm., Oltr.); (c) authority in 
the collective sense, the totality of evil 
powers, all that is known as evil authority. 
The third sense is supported in some 
measure by Rom. xiii. 1, 2, and is preferred 
by most. The idea thus becomes “the 
prince who rules over all that is called 
authority”. The ἀέρος then is best taken 
as the gen. of place, denoting the seat of 
this overlordship of evil. The word ἀήρ 
cannot be taken as equivalent to mundus 
(Aquin.) or οὐρανός (Olsh.) or σκότος (K1.) 
or πνεῷμα (Hofm.) ; neither can it express 
the quality of these evil powers—their 
incorporeal or aeriform nature (Hahn). 
In all its other NT occurrences (Acts xxii. 
23; 1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 
Rev. ix. 2, xvi, 17) it has the literal sense. 
It has it here, and it describes these 
demonic powers as between earth and 
heaven, in that “‘ supra-terrestrial but sub- 
celestial region (6 ὑπονράνιος τόπος, 
Chrys.) which seems to be, if not the 
abode, yet the haunt of evil spirits” (Ell). 
Thus the prince of evil is described 
as the Lord-Paramount over all the 
demonic powers; and these demonic 
powers, as having their seat in the 
air, are distinguished from the angels 
whose abode is in heaven (ἄγγελοι τῶν 
οὐρανῶν, Matt. xxiv. 36). The Rabbinical 
literature has many extraordinary and 
grotesque speculations about the demons 
as being winged (Talmud, Chagizg., 2), as 
dwelling in the air (R. Bechai, Pent., f. 
139, 4), about the souls of devils as dwell- 
ing in a firmament under the sphere of 
the moon (Tu/f haares, f. 9, 2), etc. Such 
fancies were also entertained by the 
Greek philosophers, ¢.g., the Pythagoreans 
(Diog. Laert., viii. 2). But these have 
little or no relation to the present passage. 
In Philo and in the Jewish Pseudepi- 
graphic writings things more akin to it 
are found. There is, ¢.g., the description 
of Beliar as the ἀέριον πνεῦμα (Test. xii. 
Patr. p. 729); of the “prince of this 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il. 


world” as dwelling in the firmament 
(Ascens. Isa., 10) ; of the “ air” as peopled 
by souls (Philo, Gig., i. 263). But even 
these form very partial analogies, and the 
passages in the Book of Enoch (ch. xv., 
1ο, II, 12; xvi., 1), which have been 
taken to refer to the subject, are of un- 
certain interpretation (cf. Charles, Book 
of Enoch, p. 84). We have no definite 
knowledge, therefore, of the origin of this 
idea. But it seems to have been familiar 
enough to the readers to require no expla- 
nation.—rov πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦν- 
τος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας : of the 
spirit that worketh now in the sons ο 
disobedience. How is the gen. τοῦ πνεύ- 
ματος to be construed? It naturally 
suggests itself to regard the “spirit” 
now mentioned as in apposition to the 
“ prince” just described. But to under- 
stand the gen. here as continuing the acc. 
ἄρχοντα (Riick., De Wette, Bleek, etc.) is 
to take too violent a liberty with grammar. 
The τοῦ πνεύματος is under the regimen 
of the ἄρχοντα as the ἐξουσίας is, and it 
adds something to the idea. The ruler 
over all that is called authority is also the 
ruler over this particular spirit. It is 
objected that the designation of a ruler 
over a spirit is an anomaly. But we 
have a parallel in the Pauline description 
of Christ as Κνρίον πνεύματος (2 Cor. iii, 
18). The πνεῦμα here 15 not the spirit 
or mind of man (which would be incon- 
sistent with the force of the ἐξουσίας), 
nor is it a collective term equivalent to 
the ἐξουσία (for its form is against that, 
as is also the statement of its operation). 
It is either (a) the evil principle or power 
that comes into men from Satan, cf. τὸ 
πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμον, I Cor. ii. 12; τὸ τοῦ 
ἀντιχρίστον, 1 Johniv. 3; ἕτερον πνεῦμα 
λαμβάνειν, Eph. iv. 23; or (δ) the per- 
sonal Spirit—that particular Spirit whose 
domain and work are in evil men. The 
latter is perhaps to be preferred, as in more 
definite accordance with the contrast with 
the Holy Spirit of God which seems to 
be in view. By ἀπειθεία is meant not 
merely unbelief, but disobedience. Its 
stated sense in the NT is that of “ obsti- 
nate opposition to the Divine will” 
(Thay.-Grimm, sub voce). The term 
υἱός in its topical sense and followed 
by the gen. of a thing, expresses what is 
in intimate relation to the thing, what 
belongs to it and has it as its innate 
quality. ‘Sons of disobedience” are 
those to whom disobedience is their very 
nature and essential character, who belong 
wholly to it. It is a well-known Hebrew 
idiom, occurring often in the NT, especi- 
ally in the case of Hebraisms of trans- 


2—3. 


h 


A Lal - 
οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς 1 πάντες ” | ἀνεστράφημεν ποτὲ ἐν ταῖς ™ ἐπιθυμίαις 
ο. Ν -“ lol » aA 
τῆς “oapkos ἡμῶν, ποιοῦντες τὰ " θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν 
“ διανοιῶν, καὶ ἦμεν ὃ " τέκνα “ φύσει " ὀργῆς ὁ ὡς καὶ "οἱ λοιποί" 


i Ch, i. 11 reff. 
ἀπ. Rom. xi. 30, 32; Heb. iv. 6, 11 ἡ. 
2 Pet. ii. 18; see Heb. x. 33; Ezek. xix. 6. 
n Plur., Acts xiii. 22 only, and Jer. xxiii. 26. 


li. 15, iv. 8 only. 


1 και ners om. FGL ; up. ADK. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


' y ; ο-- 0ο]. i. 21; ch. iv. 18; see note. 
John i. 12 al.; Rom. ix. 8; ch. v. 8; 1 Pet. i. 14; 2 Pet. ii. 14; Isa. ἵν]. 4. 
ri Thess. iv. 13, ν. 6; 1 Tim. ν. 20; Rev. xi. 13 al. 


285 


πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ' ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς " υἱοῖς τῆς " ἀπειθείας, 3. ἐν h=Luke ix. 


55; Rom. 
Vili. 15; 

1 Cor. iv. 
2132 
Tim. i. 

7; τ Johr 
iv. 1 ff. 


k Ch. v. 6; Col. iii. 6 only; υἱὲ, = John Xvii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 5; see Isa. lvii. 4; 
l=2 Cor. i. 12 (and constr.) ; 1 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Pet. i. 17; 


m Gal. v. 16; 1 Pet. 11. 11; 1 John ii. 16. 
p=Matt. xi. 19; 
q Rom. ii. 14; Gal 


ἅπαντ. om. 17, 68, 74, 115, v.-ms., Syr., Ar.-erp., Tert., Ambrst, ; παντες np. 73; 


et nos et omnes Fortun-in Aug. 


3 For ηµεν, ηµεθα 398 17, 73, Orig.,; text ADEFGKLP, Clem., Did., Chr., Thdrt., 


Dam., al. 


4 φυσ. tex. ADEFGLP 3, 37, 80, 106-8-16, It., Vlg., Arm., Orig.,, Did., Thdrt., 
Lat. Fathers; text ἡ ΒΚ, al. pler. Orig.,, Chr., Dam., Tert.; φυσει om. 109, Eth., 
Clem. ; τεκνα οργής φυσει Cyr. ; οργης τεκνα Clem. 


lation. But the same or similar forms 
are found now and again in profane 
Greek, especially in inscriptions and in 
dignified speech (cf. Plato’s use of ἔκγο- 
vos, Phaedr., p. 275 Ὁ), the vies τύχης of 
the Tragedians, etc. ; see Deissmann, 
Bible Studies, pp. 161-166. The νῦν 
does not refer to the present in contrast 
with the future of the Parousia (Olsh.), 
nor with any other future; nor again is it 
= " Even now,” which would have been 
καὶ νῦν. It looks back upon the previous 
πότε, and contrasts the present working 
of the πνεῦμα with the past. Once that 
spirit worked in all those addressed ; now 
it works not in them indeed, but in those 
given over to disobedience to God’s will. 
So the lordship belonging to the Prince of 
evil extends not only over all those malign 
powers whose seat is in the air, but also 
and more particularly over that Spirit 
who operates as an energy of wickedness 
in the hearts of men opposed to God. 
Ver. 3. ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἄνεσ- 
τράφημέν ποτε: among whom also we all 
had our life and walk aforetime. The 
AV gives ‘also we all”; Tynd., Cov., 
Gen., ‘‘we also had”; Bish., “we all 
had”; RV, “we also 411". The ἐν ots 
cannot mean “in which trespasses” (so 
Syr., Jer., Beng., etc.); for the ὑμῶν of 
ver. I is against that, and the form would 
have been ἐν αἷς as ruled by the nearest 
noun ἁμαρτίαις. It can only refer to the 
viol τῆς ἀπειθείας. The καὶ ἡμεῖς πάν- 
τες is in contrast with the καὶ ὑμᾶς of 
νετ. 1 and the περιεπατήσατε of ver. 2. 
Paul had begun by speaking of the moral 
condition of these Gentiles before their 
conversion. He now adds that these 


Gentiles were in no exceptional position 
in that respect, but that all, Jews as well 
as Greeks, Jewish-Christians like himself 
no less than Gentile Christians like his 
readers, had been among those who once 
lived in obstinate disobedience to God. 
Paul seldom misses the opportunity of 
declaring the universal sinfulness of men, 
the dire level of corruptness on which all, 
however they differed in race or privilege, 
stood. So here the ἡμεῖς πάντες is best 
taken in its utmost breadth—not merely 
“all the Jewish-Christians” (Mey.), but 
= the whole body of us Christians, Jewish 
and Gentile alike included. For the 
περιεπατήσατε of ver. 2 we have now 
ἀνεστράφημεν, “had our conversation” 
(AV), ‘“ conversed” (Rhem.), “ lived” 


(RV). Like the Heb. on it denotes 
one’s walk, his active, open life, his way 
of conducting himself.—év ταῖς ἐπιθυμί- 
αις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν: in the lusts of our 
flesh. Definition of the domain or ele- 
ment in which their life once was spent. 
It kept within the confines of the appetites 
and impulses proper to fallen human 
nature or springing from it. The noun 
ἐπιθυμία has its usual sense of craving, 
the craving in particular of what is for- 
bidden ; σάρξ in like manner has its 
large, theological sense, human nature 
as such, in its physical, mental and 
moral entirety, considered as apart from 
God and under the dominion of sin.— 
ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ 
τῶν διανοιῶν: doing the desires of the 
flesh and of the thoughts. The ποι- 
οῦντες is sufficiently represented by the 
“doing ” of Wycl., Cov., Rhem., RV. 


486 


s=here 
only ; see 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il. 


4. ὃ δὲ Beds, "πλούσιος ὢν 'ἐν] " ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην 


ἢ. 1.7, 18, αὐτοῦ 2 "ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, 5. καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς ὃ “ νεκροὺς τοῖς 


tConstr.,1 αν A 
Tim. vi.  παραπτωµασιν 
18; James 
ana u Rom. ix. 23 al.; Luke i. passim. 
w Ver. 1. x Col. ii. 13 only {. 


4x 


1Omit εν Ν. 


συνεζωοποίησεν ὃ τῷ χριστῷ (" xdpiti® ἐστε σεσωσ- 


ν Ch. i. 7; Luke if. 8; John vii. ag; 1 Tim. i. 18 al. 
y=Rom. iii. 24, and Paul passim. 


ἔαντον om. DFG 73, 118, d, 6, g, Lat. Fathers; insert before αγαπ. 30, 115-20. 


ἕημας om. 73, 118, Cyr.-Jer. 


4 For τοις παραπτ., ταις αµαρτιαις DE, etc.; εν τ. παραπτ. B, Syr., Copt., al.; 


B adds και ταις επιθυµιαις. 


δ Insert ev before τω Χριστω Β 17, 73, 118, tol, Copt., Arm., Chr., Dam., Victorin., 


etc. 


ὃ Before χαριτι insert ον (=cujus), DEFG, d, e, {, g, Vulg., Victorin., Ambrosiast., 


Aug., etc. ; ov τη D*E. 


The AV and other Versions give “ ful- 
filling”. The word θέλημα is of very rare 
occurrence, except in biblical and ecclesi- 
astical Greek. It denotes properly the 
thing willed, but is used also of the Divine 
purpose (e.g., Eph. i. 9), or mercy > ἰς 
Eph. v. 17), etc. Here, as also in ohn 
i, 13, it denotes inclination or desire. The 
pl. διανοιῶν is best rendered “thoughts,” 
with Wycl., Cov., Rhem. and RV margin; 
RV text, following the AV and other Ver- 
sions, gives “mind”, In the LXX the 


singular represents the OT a, and de- 


notes the mind in the large sense, inclusive 
of understanding, feeling and desiring. It 
is only the context that gives it the sense 
of wicked thoughts. Two sources of evil 
desire and impulse, therefore, are indi- 
cated here, viz., our fallen nature in 
general and the laboratory of perverted 
thoughts, impressions, imaginations, vo- 
litions, in particular.—at τέκνα 
φύσει ὀργῆς: and were children by 
nature of wrath. “Children,” rather 
than “the children,” as it is given by 
AV and all the other old English Ver- 
sions (except Wycl., who has ‘the 
sons’’). From what he and his fellow- 
Christians did in their pre-Christian life, 
Paul turns now to what they were then. 
The statement is so constructed as to 
throw the chief emphasis on the ἥμεν 
and the ὀργῆς. For ἦμεν the better 
attested form is ἤμεθα. Some good 
MSS. and Versions (ADGLP, Syr.-Harcl., 
Vulg.) read φύσει τέκνα, and that order is 
accepted by Lachmann, while a place is 
given it in the margin by Tregelles. The 
order τέκνα φύσει, however, which is 
that of 9 ΒΚ, Chrys., etc., and both the 
TR and the RV, is to be preferred. The 
ἦμεν makes it clear that it is no longer 


doing (ποιοῦντες) simply that is in view, 
but bemg, condition. The τέκνα is the 
same kind of idiomatic phrase as the 
former viol, only, if possible, stronger and 
more significant. It describes those in 
view as not only worthy of the ὀργή, but 
actually subject to it, definitely under it. 
But what is this ὀργή itself? It is not 
to be identified with punitive righteous- 
ness (τιμωρία), punishment (κόλασις), 
future judgment, or the effect of God's 
present judgment of men, but denotes 
the quality or affectus of wrath. But is 
it man's wrath or God's? The word is 
certainly used of the passion of wrath in 
us (Eph. iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; Jas. i. το, 
etc.), and so the whole phrase is under- 
stood by some to mean nothing more than 
that those referred to were given to vio- 
lent anger or ungovernable impulse (¢.g., 
Maurice, Unity, p. 538). But this would 
add little or nothing to what was said of 
the lusts of the flesh and thoughts, and 
would strip the whole statement of its 
point, its solemnity, and its universality. 
It is the Divine wrath that is in view here; 
as it is, indeed, in thirteen out of twenty 
occurrences in the Pauline writings, and 
that, too, whether with or without the 
definite article or the defining Θεοῦ (cf. 
Moule, in loc.). This holy displeasure 
of God with sin is not inconsistent with 
His love, but is the reaction of that love 
αν μονος the denial of its sovereign rights 
of responsive love. The term φύσις, 
though it may occasionally be applied to 
what is habitual or to character as de- 
veloped, means properly what is innate, 
implanted, in one by nature, and this with 
different shades of meaning (6/., ¢.¢., 
Rom. ii. 14; Gal. ii. 15, 1v. 8, εἰς.). 
The clause means, therefore, that in 
their pre-Christian life those meant by 


= ee | 


the ἡμεῖς πάντες were in the condition 
of subjection to the Divine wrath; and 
that they were so not by deed merely, 
nor by circumstance, nor by passing 
into it, but by nature. Their universal 
sin has been already affirmed. This 
universal sin is now described as sin by 
nature. Beyond this Paul does not go 
in the present passage. But the one is 
the explanation of the other. Universal 
sin implies a law of sinning, a sin that is 
of the nature; and this, again, is the ex- 
planation of the fact that all are under 
the Divine wrath. For the Divine wrath 
operates only where sin is. Here is the 
essential meaning of the doctrine of 
original sin. That it finds any justifi- 
cation here is denied, indeed, by some; 
even by Meyer, who admits, however, that 
elsewhere (¢.g., in Rom. vi.) Paul teaches 
that there is a principle of sin in man by 
nature, and that man sins actually be- 
cause of that innate principle. But he 
argues that it is in virtue not of the 
principle itself, but of the acts of sin by 
which that principle expresses itself, that 
we are in a state of subjection to the 
Divine wrath. This, however, is to make 
a nature which originates sinful acts and 
which does that in the case of all men 
without exception, itself a neutral thing. 

Ver. 4. 6 δὲ Θεὸς, πλούσιος ὧν ἐν 
ἐλέει : but God (or, God, however), being 
vich in mercy. A return is now made to 
the statement which was interrupted at 
ver. 2. The resumption might have been 
made by οὖν. The adversative δέ, how- 
ever, is the more appropriate, as the other 
side of our case is now to be set forth— 
the Divine grace which meets the sinful, 
condemned condition, and which stands 
over the dark background of our death 
by sin and our subjection by nature to 
the Divine wrath. God who is wroth 
with sin, is a God of grace. His dis- 
position towards those who are dead by 
trespasses and sins is one of mercy, and 
this no stinted mercy, but a mercy that 
is rich, exhaustless (for πλούσιος, πλου- 
τίζειν. etc., cf. x Cor. i. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 11; 
1 Tim. vi. 17, 18; Jas. ii. 5).---διὰ τὴν 
πολλὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς: by 
veason of His great love wherewith He 
loved us. The use of the cogn. acc. ἣν 
adds to the force of the idea; cf. the use 
of the same phrase by our Lord Himself 
with reference to His Father’s love, John 
xvii. 26. If mercy is God’s attitude to 
sinful men, love is His motive in all that 
He does with them; and as the mercy is 
“rich” so the love is “ great”. With this 
great love God loved us when He chose 
us, and it is on account of that love (not 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


287 


“through” it, as Luther puts it) that He 
acts with us as He does. The ἡμᾶς has 
the widest sense here—all of us, whether 
Jew or Gentile. 

Ver. 5. Kal ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς Tots 
παραπτώμασιν : even when we were dead 
by our trespasses. The condition of death 
in which we are by nature is now re- 
affirmed, and in a still more emphatic way 
thaninver.1. The καί is not the copula, 
simply attaching one statement to another 
(Mey.), nor a mere repetition of the καί 
of the opening verse, nor = “also,” “ also 
us” collectively (which would require 
καί ἡμᾶς), but the ascensive καί = even 
(Syr.-Phil., AV, RV, EIl., etc.). It quali- 
fies the ὄντας (while the νεκροὺς is thrown 
emphatically forward), and heightens the 
sense of the greatness of the Divine power 
—as a power Operating on us when we 
were yet held fast in the state of inexorable 
death. The τοῖς defines the trespasses 
as those already mentioned in connection 
with that state of death, and so has much 
the sense of “‘ our ”.—ovveLworotnaev τῷ 
Χριστῷ: quickened us together with the 
Christ. Some authorities (including B 
17, Arm.) insert ἐν before τῷ Χριστῷ; 
which is favoured so far by Lachm. and 
gets a place in the margin with WH and 
RV. But the mass of authorities omit it. 
The συν-, therefore, of the compound 
verb refers to the Χριστῷ, and the idea 
expressed is that of fellowship with Him, 
not the fellowship or comprehension of 
Jew and Gentile alike in the Divine act 
of quickening (Beza). Here again the 
article probably designates Christ in His 
official relation to us. The quickening 
here in view is understood by some (in- 
cluding Meyer) to refer to the first act 
in the raising of the dead at the great 
day; the following verbs συνήγειρεν, 
συνεκάθισεν being similarly understood 
in the literal sense, as referring prolepti- 
cally to events that belong to the ultimate 
future. Thus the standing rather than 
the moral condition is supposed to be 
primarily in view, the idea being that 
when Christ was raised from the dead 
we also as members of His body were 
raised in principle with Him, so that the 
resurrection of the future which we await 
will be simply the application to the 
individual of what was accomplished once 
for all for the whole of His members then. 
It must be admitted that the analogous 
passage in Col. ii, 12, 13, which associates 
the quickening with the forgiveness ot 
trespasses and the blotting out of the 
hand-writing of ordinances, on the whole 
favours that interpretation. Looking, 
however, to the express and particular 


288 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


2 Col. ii. 12, μένοι) 6. καὶ "συνήγειρεν καὶ ᾿ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς " ἐπουρανίοις ἐν 


iii. 1 only; 
Exod. 
xxiii. 5 
alex. 

a Trans., 
here only, intr., Luke xxii. 55; Exod. xviii. 13. 
ix. 16; 1 Tim. i. 16 al(§), but Paul only. 

e Ch. i. 19 reff. f Ch. i. 7 reff. 


χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ," 7. ἵνα “ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς 
τὸ " ὑπερβάλλον ᾿ πλοῦτος 2 τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν " χρηστότητι ὃ. ἢ ἐφ᾽ 


“ αἰῶσιν τοῖς “ἐπερχομένοις 


b Ch. i. 3 reff. ς Rom. ix.r7, from Exod. 


d Here only; éx.=Luke xxi. 26; James ν. 1. 
g Rom. ii. 4 al(5), but Paul only. 


ἢ See i, 19, εἰς ἡμ. 


Σεν Χ. |. om. FG, g, Hil. ; cum Chr. Ὑες. Fortun. ; omit Inovov Orig., Cyr. 
2rov νπερβαλλοντα πλοντον, with D°ELP, Or., Euseb., Chr., Thdrt., etc.; το 
νπερβαλλον πλοντος HBADFG 17, 673, Orig., Euth., εἰς. 


8 Before χρηστ. insert τη DE. 


description of the worldly walk and the 
conversation in the lusts of the flesh, 
which is given in vers. 2, 3, and which 
seems to explain what is said in ver. 1 
of the state of being “ dead by trespasses 
and sins”; and having regard also to the 
application to the moral life which is made 
in the second half of the Epistle, most in- 
terpreters understand the quickening here 
affirmed to be that of regeneration—the 
communication of spiritual Η{ε.---χάριτί 
ἐστε σεσ' ι: by grace have ye been 
saved. Sothe RV, while the AVis content 
with “are ye saved". The idea is that 
they were saved and continued to be so. 
The χάριτι is put emphatically first—* by 
grace it is that ye have been saved". The 
parenthetical mention of grace is in place 
Nothing else than grace could give life 
to the dead, but grace could indeed do 
even that. 

Ver. 6. καὶ συνήγειρεν: and raised 
us with Him. That 1s, to life now, ina 
present spiritual renewal. The σννήγει- 
pev expresses the definite idea of resurrec- 
tion, and primarily that of the physical 
resurrection. The introduction of this 
term and the following makes it not im- 
probable that both ideas, that of the 
present moral resurrection and that of 
the future bodily resurrection, were in 
Paul's mind, and that he did not sharply 
distinguish between them, but thought of 
them as one great gift of 1Ηε.---καὶ σννε- 
κάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπονρανίοις: and seated 
us (or, enthroned us) with Him in the 
heavenlies. Made us sharers with Him 
in dignity and dominion, so that even 
now, and in foretaste of our future ex- 
altation, our life and thought are raised 
to the heavenlies where He reigns. But 
as Bengel notices, Paul pauses here and 
does not add the ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ which is 
said of Christ in i. 20 —év Χριστῷ "Ingo: 
in Christ Fesus. Not the συνεκάθισεν 
only, but the whole statement is qualified 
by this. This quickening, this resurrec- 
tion, this seating of us with Him take 


effect in so far as we are in Him as our 
Representative, having our life and our 
completeness in our Head. 

Ver. 7. ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν 
τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις τὸν ὑπερβάλλοντα 
πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ: that He 
might shew forth in the ages that are 
coming the exceeding riches of His grace. 
For the τὸν ὑπερβάλλοντα πλοῦτον of 
the TR the neuter form τὸ ὑπερβάλλον 
πλοῦτος is ag ὃν. by most editors 
(LTTrWHRV). The satisfaction of His 
love was God’s motive in quickening and 
raising them. The manifestation of His 
glory in its surpassing wealth is His final 
purpose in the same. The.verb ἐνδείκ- 
γυσϑαι occurs cleven times in the Pauline 
Epistles and Hebrews, and nowhere else 
inthe NT. The active is very rare even in 
the classics, and is never found in the NT. 
Hence the ἐνδείξηται is to be taken as a 
simple active (not as=shew forth for Him- 
self), all the more by reason of the αὐτοῦ. 

hat is meant by the τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς 
ἐπερχομένοις ἢ Some give it the widest 
possible sense, ¢g., per omne vestrum 
tempus reliquum quum in hac vita tum 
in futura quoque (Morus), “the succes- 
sively arriving ages and generations from 
that time to the second coming of Christ” 
(Ell.). But it is rather another form ot 
the αἰὼν ὁ (Harl., Olsh., Mey., 
Haupt, etc.), the part. ἐπερχόμενος being 
used of the future (¢e.g., Jer. xlvii. 11; Isa. 
xli. 4, 22, 23, ΧΙ. 23; Luke xxi. 26; Jas. 
v. 1, εἰς), and the future being con- 
ceived of as made up of an undefined 
series of periods. In other cases redupli- 
cated expressions, αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων, 
etc., are used to express the idea of eter- 
nity. God's πο therefore, is that 
in the eternal future, the future which 
opens with Christ’s Parousia, and in all 
the continuing length of that future, the 
grace of His ways with those once dead 
in sins should be declared and understood 
in all the grandeur of its exceeding riches, 


—ty χρηστότητι ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς: in kindness 





5—I0. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


289 


ἡμᾶς ἐν χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 8. τῇ γὰρ ᾿ χάριτί 3 ἐστε σεσωσµένοι * διὰ i Ver. 5 reff 


τῆς πίστεως, ‘kai τοῦτο οὐκ "' ἐξ ὑμῶν," θεοῦ τὸ "δῶρον : 9. οὐκ "' ἐξ 


ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις "καυχήσηται. 


Phil. Π1, ϱ; Col. ii. 12 al.; 1 Pet. 1, 5; =see Acts xv. 9. 
n=here only; δωρεά, John'iv. 10; 2 Cor. ix. 15 al. 


m 2 Cor. iii. 5; 1 Cor. i. 30. 


Το. αὐτοῦ ὅ γάρ ἐσμεν ? ποίημα, 


k Rom. iii. 
22, 30; 2 
Cor. v. 7, 
9 al., ii. 
16, ili. 26; 

11 Cor. vi. 6; Phil. i. 28. 

ο Rom. ii. 17 


al(34), but Paul only, exc. James i. 9; iv. 16, not in Col.; so also καύχημα and καύχησις, exc. James 


iv. 16. p Rom. i. 20 only; Gal. ΥΠ, 17. 


1 Ina. om. DEFG, d, e, 6, Eth., Victorin., etc. 
2avrov χαριτι σεσ. εσµεν DE, ἆ, ε, al., Vss. 


3 Before πιστεως Om. της δῷ 


BD!FG 17, 67", 76, 80, Chr., Thl.-text, etc, ; insert 


DEKL, most mss., Thdrt., Dam., Thl.-comm., Oec. 
4upov DFG 46, 52, 73, etc., Arm. Chr., Dam., etc. 


ὄθεου yap N. 


toward us. The ἐν is taken by some 
(Mey., etc.) as the instrumental ἐν, ‘by 
means of kindness”. It is more natural 
to give it the proper force of ‘‘in,” as 
defining the way in which the grace 
showed itself in its surpassing riches. 
It was in the form of kindness directed 
towards us. The χρηστότης, which 
means moral goodness in Rom. iii. 12, 
has here the more usual sense of benig- 
nity (cf. Rom. ii. 4, xi. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 6; 
Gal. ν. 22; Col. iii, 12; Tit. iii, 4).— 
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: in Christ Fesus. 
Again is Paul careful to remind his 
readers that all this grace and the mani- 
festation of it in its riches have their 
ground and reason in Christ. 

Ver. 8. τῇ yap χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσ- 
μένοι: for by grace have ye been saved. 
More exactly ‘‘ by the grace,” 1.6., by this 
grace, the grace already mentioned. 
Grace is the explanation of their own 
salvation, and how surpassingly rich the 
grace must be that could effect that !— 
διὰ τῆς πίστεως: through faith. That 
is, by faith as the instrument or means. 
Paul never says διὰ τὴν πίστιν, as if the 
faith were the ground or procuring cause 
of the salvation. It is the χάριτι, too, 
not the explanatory πίστεως that has the 
first place in Paul’s thoughts here.—at 
τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν: and that not of your- 
selves. That is, not as proceeding from 
yourselves or of your own performance. 
The sentence thus beginning with καὶ 
τοῦτο (cf. Rom. xiii. 11) is not paren- 
thetical, but an integral part of the state- 
ment. But to what does the τοῦτο refer ? 
To the πίστεως say some (Chrys., Theod., 
Jer., Bez., Beng., Bisp., Moule, etc.). 
The neut. τοῦτο would not be irrecon- 
cilable with that. The formula καὶ τοῦτο 
indeed might rather favour it, as it often 
adds to the idea to which it is attached. It 
may also be granted that a peculiarly suit- 


VOL. ΠΠ. 


ὃ ποιηματα 47. 


able idea results—the opportune reminder 
that even their faith, in which at least they 
might think there was something of their 
own, has its origin in God’s grace, not 
in their own effort. But on the other 
hand the salvation is the main idea in 
the preceding statement, and it seems 
best to understand the καὶ τοῦτο as 
referring to that salvation in its entire com- 
pass, and not merely to the one element 
in it, its instrumental cause, appended by 
way of explanation. Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον: it 
is the gift of God. Or, perhaps, ‘‘ God’s 
gift-it is”. The salvation is not an 
achievement but a gift, and a gift from 
none other than God. This declaration 
of the free, unmerited, conferred nature 
of the salvation is made the stronger not 
only by the contrast with the ἐξ ὑμῶν, but 
by the dropping of any connecting par- 
ticle. 

Ψετ.ο. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις Kav- 
χήσηται: not of works, that no one should 
glory. The OT protest against glorying 
in any but the Lord and the prophet’s 
jealousy for the honour of God (Jer. ix. 
23, 24; Is. xlii. 8, 14, etc.) burn with 
a yet intenser flame in Paul, most of all 
when he touches the great theme of man’s 
salvation. That the glory of that salva- 
tion belongs wholly to God and in no 
degree to man, and that it has been so 
planned and so effected as to take from 
us all ground for boasting, is enforced on 
Paul’s hearers again and again, in different 
connections, with anxious concern and ut- 
most plainness of expression (cf. Rom. 
Di τὴ} τους, 20, iv. 73 Gali το. 
Phil. iii. 3, etc.). 

Ver. το, αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα: 
for we are His workmanship (or, handi- 
work), The αὐτοῦ is emphatic—“ His 
handiwork are we”. The word ποίηµσ 
occurs only once again in the NT (Rom. 
i. 20, with reference to the works ot 


19 


290 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


q=ch. iii. ο, ὃ κτισθέντες ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ * ἐπὶ " ἔργοις " ἀγαθοῖς, " οἷς "προητοι- 
Col. i. τό, pacer ὁ θεὸς ἵνα ἡ ἐν αὐτοῖς * περιπατήσωμεν. 


iii. τὸ 


13; 1 
ποι. ἦν. 7. 5 Acts ix. 36; Rom. ii. τς 

only; Isa. xxviii. 24. v Rom. vi. 4; 2 τ 
w W. ὅτι, Paul only; Acts xx. 31; 2 Thess, ii. 5. 
y Rom. ii. 28 reff. 


11. Διὸ “μνημονεύετε ὅτι] * ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη 7 ἐν σαρκὶ, οἱ 


ii. 3 al. fr. 
iv. 2, x. 3, ch. v. 2; Col. ii. 6, iv.5; 1 Johni. 6,7 


t Attr., ii. 7 refi. u Rom. ix. 3 


x=John ix. 13; Rom. vii. 9, xi. 30 al. 


ἔδια τοντο μνημονενοντες up. οἱ wore... FG, Dial... Rec. up. wore °D®KLP, 
Syr.-P., Chr., Thdrt., etc. ; ποτε υμεις Ν΄ ΑΒΡΕ 17, 37, 73, 115, 116, ἃ, 6, f, Vulg., 


Dial., Diod., etc. 


nature). Here, as the following clause 
shows, it expresses not appointment to 
something, but an actual making. The 
clause gives the reason for the statement 
that our salvation is not of works. We 
ourselves are a work, the handiwork of 
God, made anew by Him, and our salva- 
tion, therefore, is due to Him, not to 
ουτεεῖνες.-- κτισθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς: created in Christ 
Jesus for good works. Further defi- 
nition of the ποίημα αὐτοῦ. We are 
God's spiritual handiwork, in the sense 
that we were created by Him, made a 
new spiritual creature by Him when His 
grace made us Christians. This new 
creation was in Christ, so that except by 
union between Him and us it could not 
have taken place (Eph. ii. 15, iv. 24; 
2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15; Col. iii. το). 
Also it was with a view to good works, 
éwi being used here (much as in Gal. 
ν. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 2 Tim. ii, 14) to 
express object; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 492. 
We ourselves then having been created 
anew by God, and good works being the 
object to which that new creation looked, 
not the cause that led to it, all must be of 
grace not of deeds (ἔργων), and there can 
be no room for boasting.—ols προητοίμα- 
σεν ὁ Θεὸς: which God afore prepared. 
The ols cannot with any propriety be con- 
strued as a masc., “ for whom He before 
appointed” (Erasm.); nor can it well be 
taken as the dat. of destination, ‘unto 
which God prepared us” (Luth., Schen- 
kel, etc.); for that would require the 
insertion of a ἡμᾶς. Nor, again, can 
it be taken in the intrans. sense, so as 
to give the idea “for which God made 
previous preparation” (Stier); for while 
ἑτοιμάζειν may be used intransitively 
(Luke ix. 52), the compound verb does 
not appear to be so used. It is best 
taken (with the Syr., Goth. and Vulg. 
Versions and the best exegetes) as a case 
of attraction—ols for ἅ, The προετοιμά- 
ζειν is not quite the same as προορίζειν. 
It means to prepare or place in readi- 


ness before, not specifically to foreordain 
(Aug., Harl.). The προ- describes the 
preparation as prior to the creation (κτισ- 
θέντες). The subjects of the preparation 
also are the good works themselves, not 
the ways in which they are to be done, 
In relation to the question of human 
merit or glorying, therefore, good works 
are viewed in two distinct aspects. They 
are the goal to which God's new creation 
of us looked; they are also in God's 
eternal plan. Before He created us in 
Christ by our conversion He had destined 
these good works and made them ready 
for us in His purpose and decree. There 
is the unseen source from which they 
spring, and there is their final explanation. 


—tva ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν: that we 
od’s p 


should walk in them. G in 
the place which He gave to works 
in His decree was that they should actu- 
ally and habitually be done by us. His 


final object was to make good works the 
very element of our life, the domain in 
which our action should move. That this 
should be the nature of our walk is implied 
in our being His handiwork, made anew 
by Him in Christ; that the good works 
which form the Divine aim of our life 
shall be realised is implied in their being 
designed and made ready for us in God’s 
decree ; and that they are of God's orig- 
inating, and not of our own action and 
merit, is implied in the fact that we had 
ourselves to be made a new creation in 
Christ with a view to them. 

Vv. 11-22. The second half of this 
chapter makes a ag στ by itself. Its 
subject is the case of those Gentile be- 
lievers whom Paul has immediately in 
view—their heathen past and their Christ- 
ian present. They are reminded of what 
they once were—outside Christ, outside 
the special privilege of Israel, without 
hope, and without God; and of what 
they have come to be by the power of 
Christ's death—placed on an equality 
with the chosen people, brought nigh 
to the Father, made part of the house- 





10o—I2, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


201 


λεγόμενοι " ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τὴς "λεγομένης " περιτομῆς 7 ἐν σαρκὶ z Mott. x.2; 


Auss iii. 


° χειροποιήτου, 12. ὅτι ἦτε TO καιρῷ ' ἐκείνῳ “xwpis χριστοῦ “ἀπηλ- 2; 1 Cor. 


Thess. ii. 4 al. 
22, 23; Acts vii. 8, x. 45, xi. 2; Exod. iv. 26. 
11, 24 only; Isa. ii, 18, of idols. 


a Paul only, exc. Acts xi. 3; Gen. xvii. 11, etc 


d Rom. iii. 21 al. 


Vill. 5; 2 
b Paul only, exc. John vii. 
c Mark xiv. 58; Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24; Heb. ix. 
e Ch. iv. 18; Col. i. 21 only; Ps. Ixviii. 8. 


1Rec. before τω καιρ. insert ev with D°EKLP, Vss., Fathers; om. RABD!FG, 


Chr.-comm., Epiph., Cyr., Lat. Fathers. 


hold of God and the living temple of the 
Lord. 

Ver. 11. Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ὑμεῖς 
ποτὲ: Wherefore remember that aforetime 
ye. The order of the TR, ὑμεῖς ποτέ, 
is supported by such authorities as Ὁ 
(with οἱ before ποτέ), Syr.-Harcl., etc. 
Some authorities place the ποτέ after 
the ἔθνη (Syr.-P., Boh.). But ποτὲ ὑμεῖς 
is the order of the best and oldest MSS. 
(N*ABD*), the Vulg., etc., and is adopted 
by most (LTTrWHRY). As διὸ indi- 
cates, what follows is a personal, ethical 
application of what has been said ; and the 
application is drawn not from the im- 
mediately preceding sentence, but from 
the contents of the prior paragraph as a 
whole. The great things done for them 
by God’s grace should incline them to 
think of the past from which they have 
been delivered. The remembrance of 
that past will make them more thankful 
for their present privilege, and more care- 
ful to walk in the good works which God 
has in view for them. The sentence is 
interrupted by descriptive clauses, but is 
taken up again in the next verse; where 
a second ὅτι and the words τῷ καιρῷ 
ἐκείνῳ are introduced, resuming the ὅτι 
and the woré of ver. 11. There isnoneed, 
therefore, to supply either ὄντες or ἦτε 
at this point. τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί: Gentiles 
in the flesh. The article is given to the 
ἔθνη; the class to which the readers belong 
being in view (Win.-Moult., pp. 132, 217). 
It is not repeated before the σαρκί, as 
the ἐν σαρκί makes one idea with the τὰ 
ἔθνη (Win.-Moult., p. 169). The term 
σάρξ also is to be taken literally, not as 
referring to the former unregenerate life, 
but (as the subsequent sentences show) in 
the sense of the flesh to which civcumcision 
is applicable. They are reminded that 
they belonged to the class of the Gentiles, 
their bodies proclaiming their heathen 
character.—oi λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία: 
whoarecalled Uncircumcision. A further 
definition of what they were as ἔθνη; sug- 
gestive of the low regard in which they 
were held as members of that class. The 
name Uncircumcision !—a name of con- 
tempt, was flung at them. The term 


ἀκροβυστία, which is unknown to profane 
Greek but is used in the LXX, is taken 
to be an Alexandrian corruption of ἀκρο- 
ποσθία.---ὡπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς 
ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου: by that which 
is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made 
by hand. Sothe RV. Better perhaps “ by 
the so-called Circumcision, performed by 
hand in the flesh” (EIl.). Wicl. gives 
“ made by hand in flesh”. A description 
of the Jew, given in a tone of deprecia- 
tion. Hence probably the change from 
οἱ λεγόμενοι to τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς. 
This sentence also is introduced with 
reference to the poverty of the previous 
condition of these Godless, Christless 
Gentiles. The point seems to be that the 
inferiority in which they were held, and 
which was expressed by the contemptuous 
name Uncircumcision, meant all the more 
as it was fastened on them by those to 
whom, while proudly calling themselves 
the Circumcision, the distinction was 
nothing more than an outward manual 
act performed on their bodies. The rite 
when its spiritual significance and use are 
in view, is spoken of with honour by Paul 
(Rom. iv. 11). As amere performance, a 
barrier between Jew and Gentile, a yoke 
imposed by the former on the latter, a 
thing made essential to salvation, he 
spoke of it in terms of scorn and repu- 
diation. 

Ver. 12. ὅτι fre ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ 
χωρὶς Χριστοῦ: that ye were at that 
time apart from Christ. The sentence 
interrupted by the description of those 
addressed as τὰ ἔθνη κ.τ.λ. is now re- 
sumed—Remember, I say, that ye were. 
The τῷ καιρῷ, corresponding to the pre- 
vious ποτέ, refers to their pre-Christian 
days. In such phrases it is usual to 
insert ἐν (Donald., Greek Gram., p. 487), 
and it is inserted by the TR (following 
AD'FG, εἴς). But time when is also 
often enough expressed by the simple 
dat. (Win.-Moult., pp. 273, 274), and 
the balance of evidence is largely against 
the presence of the prep. here. The 
χωρὶς Χριστοῦ is the predicate to Fre, 
and is not a defining clause = “ being at 
that time without Christ” (De Wette, 


292 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il. 


f Acts xxii. λοτριωμένοι τῆς ᾿ πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ " ξένοι τῶν " διαθηκῶν 


only; 
2 Macc. 
ἘΝ μων oc f. Soph., Gd. T. 
g Constr., here only; ¢/. Soph., ‘Yr I 
ix. 4; Gal. iv. 24 only. i Gal. iv. 23; 


τῆς ᾿᾿ἐπαγγελίας, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ " ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. 


220, Plato, A i. 
b. iv. 17 al. a 


h Acts iii. 25; plur., Rom. 
k Here only. oi Bis 


! xoop. τοντω FG, Or., etc. 


Bleek). It describes their former con- 
dition as one in which they had no 
connection with Christ; in i re- 
5 they were in a position ly in- 
τ λα to that of the Jews whose atti- 


nificance that are in view. That the 
Mosaic Law or the Sinaitic Covenant is 
not in view seems to follow from the men- 
tion of the ἐπαγγελία ; for that Covenant 
was not distinctively of the Promise, but 


tude was one of hoping and waiting for “is described by Paul as coming in after it 


Christ, the Messiah. Their apartness 
from Christ, their lack of all relation to 
Him—this is the first stroke in the dark 
picture of their former heathen life, and 
the four to which the eye is directed in 
the subsequent clauses all follow from 
Όναι.---ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας 
τοῦ πραεὺ τ alienated from the common- 
wealth of Israel. The alienation is ex- 
pressed by ἀπαλλοτριοῦσθαι, a strong 
verb, common enough in classical Greek 
(at least from Plato's time), corresponding 


to the OT “V8 (cf. Ps. "νι, 4), and used 


again in Eph. iv. 18; Col.i.21. It does 
not necessarily imply a lapse from a former 
condition of attachment or fellowship, but 
expresses generally the idea of being a 
stranger as contrasted with one who is 
at home with a person or an object. The 
term πολιτεία has two main senses—a 
state or commonwealth (e.g., 2 Macc, iv. 
11, viii. 17), and citizenship or the rights 
of a citizen (Acts xxii. 28). The first of 
these is most in harmony with the theo- 
cratic term τοῦ Ισραήλ, and so it is 
understood by most. These Ephesians, 
therefore, had no part in the theocracy, 
the OT constitution under which God 
made Himself known to the Jew and en- 
tered into relation with him.—kai ξένοι 
τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας : and stran- 
ers from the covenants o the Promise. 

he τῶν διαθηκῶν is probably the gen. 
of ον κράμα or removal. That idea is 
usually expressed by a prep., but with 
verbs like ὑποχωρεῖν, ρειν, ἀπο- 
στερεῖσθαι, and with some adjectives, it 
is also expressed by the simple gen. 
an ae pp. 243, 244). The word 
évos, which has the particular meaning 
of one who is not a member of a state or 
city, is used here in the general sense of 
forcign to a thing, having no share in it. 
The διαθῆκαι are the covenants with 
Abraham and the patriarchs (cf. Wisd. 
xviii. 22; 2 Mace. viii. 5. It is ob- 
viously the covenants of ianic sig- 


and provisionally (Gal. iii. 17-19). The 
ἐπαγγελία is the Promise, the one dis- 
tinctively so called, the great Messianic 
Promise given to the fathers of the 
Hebrew people (Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 18, 
xvii. 8, εἰς). The defining τῆς ἐπαγ- 
γελίας is attached by some (Rosenmiiller, 
etc.) to the following ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες. 
But the covenants and the promise are 
kindred ideas, and make one thought 
πετε.---ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες : having no 
hope. With participles the subjective 
negative is much more frequently used 
than οὐ. In cases like the present, where 
the participle does not belong to the class 
of those expressing command, purpose, 
condition or the like, the use of μή is 
due to the aspect in which the matter in 
κκ τῆ presents itself to the writer—to 
¢ fact, ¢.g., that he has a genus, not the 
individual, in view; cf. Ell. on 1 Thess. 
ii. 15, and Win.-Moult., p. 606. 
statement here is absolute—éAqiSa, not 
τὴν ἐλπίδα. It is not only that they had 
not the hope, the Messianic hope which 
was one of the distinctions of the Israel- 
ite, but that they were utterly without 
hope. Ignorant of the Divine salvation 
and of Christ in whom it was found, th 
had nothing to hope for beyond this world. 
--καὶ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ: and without 
God in the world, The last element in 
the darkness and misery of their former 
life. The adj. ἄθεος, which is never 
found in the LXX or in the Apocrypha, 
and only this once in the NT, in classical 
Greek means impious in the sense of 
denying or neglecting the gods of the 
State; but it is also used occasionally 
in the sense of knowing or worshipping 
no God (ΕΙ, V. h., 2, 31), or in that of 
abandoned by God (Soph., Gd. R., 633). 
Three renderings are possible ε- 
ignorant of God, denying God, forsaken 
of God. The third is preferred by many 
(Mey., Ell., εἰς), who think that the 
darkest colour is given to the picture of 
their old heathen condition by this men- 





12---Τά. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


293 


13. ' νυνὶ δὲ ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἱ ™ ποτὲ ὄντες " μακρὰν ° ἐγγὺς | Acts xxii. 


ἐγενήθητε ᾿ "ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ χριστοῦ. 


Rom. vi. 22 41(19); Paul only. 
v. 17 only in Paul; Isa. lvii. το; Dan. ix. 7. 


m Ver. τι reff. 


I (XXiv. 13 


14. αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ 


n Luke xv. 20 al.; Acts ii. 39; here and 
ο Abs., Luke xix. 11; John xix. 42; Phil. iv. 5. 


p Luke xxii. 20; Rom. iii. 25, v. 9; Heb. x. 19; Rev. i. 5; v. ο. 


leyev. εγγ. NAB 17, 31, 37, etc., Eus., Euth., Dial., Epiph., Ir., Tert., al.; text 


DEFGKL, most mss., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., al. 


tion of the fact that they were without 
the help and protection of God. The 
first of the three senses, however, seems 
even more in harmony with the preceding 
negations. As they were without Christ, 
and without hope, so were they without 
God—without the knowledge of the one 
true and living and thus destitute of any 
God. So in Gal. iv. 8 Paul speaks of 
Gentiles like these as knowing not God 
and doing service unto them which by 
nature are no gods. The clause ἐν τῷ 
κόσμῳ is connected by some with the 
whole preceding description (Koppe, etc.); 
by others with the two last sentences in 
the description—the ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες 
andthe ἄθεοι (ΑὉ}.). But it rather makes 
one idea with the immediately preceding 
term ἄθεοι. It is difficult to say in what 
particular sense the κόσμος is used here— 
whether in the simple, non-ethical sense, 
or in the deeper sense which it has in John 
and also at times in some degree in Paul 
(x Cor. i. 21, vi. 2, xi. 32; 2 Cor. vii. 10). 
Whichever is preferred—whether “ with- 
out God in the world of men,” or “without 
God in this evil world” —an appropriate 
idea results. But the implied contrast 
with the previous πολιτεία τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ 
leads most to decide for the latter. The 
domain of their life was this present evil 
world, and in it, alienated as it was from 
God, they had no God. 

Ver. 13. νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγγὺς ἐγενη- 
θητε: but now in Christ Fesus ye that 
aforetime were far off are become nigh. 
In classical Greek νυνί is used only of 
time, mostly with present tenses, rarely 
with the future, and means at this very 
moment. In the NT it is used mostly 
of time, but also as a logical particle, 
bringing a statement to a conclusion, = 
vebus sic stantibus, as the case stands 
(Rom. vii. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 20, etc.). Here 
it has the usual temporal meaning—now 
as contrasted with the previous period, 
the καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ. The ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 
is put emphatically first and is to be 
connected with the νυνί (ΕἸ]., etc.) rather 
than with the ἐγενήθητε, the point being 
this—then ye were separate from Christ, 


For αιµατι, ονοματι 49. 


but now ye are in Him, united with Him, 
and so are become nigh. It is difficult, 
if not impracticable, to discover in each 
case a reason for the use of Χριστὸς 
"Ingots instead of the simple Χριστός; 
and the ᾿Ιησοῦ indeed is dropped by some 
ancient authorities (L., Iren., Orig., Tert., 
εἴς). But the double designation is 
appropriate here—then they were without 
Christ, having no part in the Messiah in 
whom the Jew had hope; now they are 
in living, present, personal fellowship with 
the Saviour known among men as Christ 
Jesus. The μακράν repeats the idea of 
distance and separation previously ex- 
pressed by ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι and ξένοι. 
The expression ἐγγὺς γίνεσθαι, to come 
or become near, which is common enough 
in profane Greek, occurs only here in the 
NT. The order of the TR, ἐγγὺς ἐγενή- 
θητε, is supported by DFKL, etc. ; but 
ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς is the reading of BRA, 
17, Vulg., Goth., etc., and is adopted by 
most (LTTrWHRYV). For the designa- 
tion of the Gentiles as “ far off” and the 
use of the phrase ‘bring nigh” in the 
sense of making them members of the 
theocracy, cf. Isa. lvii. 19; Dan. ix. 7; 
and for examples in Jewish literature, see 
Wetst., in loc.; Schéttg., Hore Hebr., 
i, 76. The verses which immediately 
follow refer to the removal of the ancient 
barrier between Jew and Gentile. The 
ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς, however, need not be 
restricted to that. It is in contrast with 
the whole previous condition of separa- 
tion from Christ, with all that that meant 
with regard to the commonwealth of 
Israel, the covenants, hope, and God. 
It is probably to be taken, therefore, in 
the large sense of being brought into the 
Kingdom of God, made near to God 
Himself and so brought to hope and privi- 
lege.—év τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ: in (or, 
by) the blood of Christ. On the import 
of the phrase “the blood of Christ”’ see 
under i. 7 above. The év here has much 
the same sense as the διὰ there. They 
both express instrumentality. If there is 
any difference between them it is that 
διὰ expresses simple, objective, instru- 
mentality, while ἐν denotes what ΕἸ]. 


only ; se 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IL. 


« εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν καὶ τὸ " μεσότοιχον τοῦ 


Rom. v.1."paypod ' λύσας, 15. τὴν " ἔχθραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν " νόμον 


r Here 
only. 
2 Pet. iii. 10, 11, 12. au 
see Rom. iii. 27, vii. 2, viii. 2. 


calls immanent instrumentality, the action 
of the verb being regarded as existing in 
the means. See Ell. on the present 
passage and on 1 Thess. iv. 18. There 
is little to be gained, however, by attempt- 
ing much finesse in such matters. 

Ver. 14. αὐτὸς yap ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη 
ἡμῶν: for He is our Peace. As most 
commentators notice, the emphasis is on 
the atrés—‘“‘He and no other”, But 
there is probably more in it than that. 
The selection of the abstract εἰρήνη, in- 
stead of the simple εἰρηνοποιός, suggests 
that the point of the αὐτός is not only 
“ He alone,” but “ He in His own person”. 
It is not only that the peace was made 
by Christ and ranks as His achievement, 
but that it is so identified with Him that 
were He away it would also fail,—so de- 
pendent on Him that apart from Him we 
cannot have it. And He is thus for us 
“the Peace” (ἡ εἰρήνη), Peace in the 
absolute sense to the exclusion of all 
other. Peace, the peace of the Messianic 
age, the peace that is to come by Messiah, 
is a frequent note in OT prophecy (Isa. 
ix. 5, 6, lii. 7, lili. 5, Ivii. 19; Mic. v. 5; 
Hag. ii. 9; Zech. ix. το). Here, as the 
next sentence shows, the peace especially 
in view is that between Jew and Gentile. 
- ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν: who made 
both one. Νοῖ “hath made,” but “made,” 
with reference to the definite act of His 
death, as suggested by the ἐν τῷ αἵματι. 
The ἀμφότερα is the abstract neuter—the 
two parties or classes. The sing. neut. 
ἕν (= one thing, one organism) expresses 
the idea of the unity, the new unity which 
the two long separate and antagonistic 
parties became; cf. the ἕν used even of 
the relation between Christ and God in 
John x. 16, and for the unity here in 
view, cf. Rom, x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. 
iii. 28; Col. iii, r1.—xal τὸ μεσότοιχον 
τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας: and broke down 
the middle wall of the partition. The 
former clause began the explanation of 
how Christ became our Peace. That 
explanation is continued in this clause 
and in the following. The καί, there- 
fore, is epexegetic = to wit, or im that 
(cf. Win.-Moult., p. 545). The gen. 
φραγμοῦ is not a mere equivalent to an 
adject. or a partic., as if = τὸ μεσότοιχον 
διαφράσσον (Grot., Rosenm., etc.), nor 


s Matt. xxi. 33; | Mark Luke xiv. 23, epp., here only; Num. xxii. 24. 
. Luke xxiii. τα; Jamesiv.4al.; Paul only; Gen. iii. 15. 


t=Johnii. 19; 
ν το only; 


is it the gen. of quality, = “the middle 
wall whose character it is to divide”; 
but either (a) the αῤβος. gen. or gen. of 
identity, = ‘‘the middle wall that is (or, 
consists in) the partition,” or (δ) the 
posses. gen., = “the wall pertaining to 
the partition”. On the latter view of 
the gen. the μεσότοιχον (a word found 
only this once in the NT and of rare 
occurrence elsewhere) becomes the more 
definite and specific term, the φραγμός 
the more general, the former being, in- 
deed, a part of the latter. That is to say, 
the φραγμός is the whole system of things 
that kept Jew and Gentile apart, and the 
μεσότοιχον is the thing in the system that 
most conspicuously divided them, and 
that constituted the “enmity,” vis., the 
Law. It is best, however, to take the 
terms μεσότοιχον and φραγμός in the 
simple, literal sense of division and ᾱ- 
tion, which are not explained to be the 
Law till the νόμος is actually introduced 
in the subsequent clause; and, th 

the former view of the gen. ap to 
be preferable. It is suggested that what 
Paul really expresses then is the fact 
that the legal system, which was meant 
primarily to protect the Jewish people 
against the corruption of heathen idolatry, 
became the bitter root of Jewish exclusive- 
ness in relation to the Gentiles. This is 
to give the φραγμός here the sense of 
something that fences im or encloses, 
which it occasionally has (Soph., Gd. 
Tyr., 1387). But that is a rare sense, 
and the idea seems to be simpler. It is 
doubtful, too, whether Paul had in view 
here any material tition with which 
he was familiar. It could scarcely be 
the veil of the Temple that was rent at 
the Crucifixion; for that veil did not 
serve to separate the Gentile from the 
Jew. It might rather be (as Anselm, 
Bengel, and many more have thought) 
the wall or screen that divided the court 
of the Gentiles from the sanctuary proper, 
and of which Josephus tells us that it bore 
an inscription forbidding any Gentilefrom 
penetrating further (Few. Wars, v., 5, 2; 
vi., 2, 4; Antiq., vill., 3, 2; XV-, IX, 5). 
But even this is questionable, and all the 
more so as the wall was still standing at 
the time when this was written. For the 
use of λύσας cf. John ii. 19. 





14---τῦ, 


τῶν " ἐντολῶν ἐν " δόγμασιν " καταργήσας,! ἵνα τοὺς δύο ” κτίσῃ 
* ἑαυτῷ “eis ἕνα ἢ καινὸν 5 " ἄνθρωπον, “ποιῶν εἰρήνην, 16. καὶ " ἀπο- 


only; Dan. vi. 9. 
z=Here only. 
see 2 Cor. v.17; Gal. vi. 15. 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOYS 


x Luke xiii. 7, but=(24) Paul only; see Rom. iii. 2 al. 
a=Matt. xiii. 30, xxvii. 51 || Mark; Rev. xvi. 19; Jud. ix. 43. 
c James iii. 18 only; sec Matt. v. g. 


295 


Σ ἐν wLukeii.1; 
Acts xvi. 
4, XVii. 7; 
Col. ii. 14 
y Ver. τὸ reff. 

b Ch. iv. 24 only; 
d Col. i. 20, 21 only. 


᾿ καταρτισας DE. For εαντω, αυτω NABFP 3, 14, 17, εἴο., al.g; εαντω N*DEK 
LP, most mss., Ath.,, Chr., Thdrt., Dam., Thl., Όες, 


2 κοινον FG. 


Ver.15. τὴν ἔχθραν : to wit the enmity. 
Many (Luth., Calv., De Wette, etc.) 
take this to be a figure for the Mosaic 
Law. But the ἔχθρα is in antithesis to 
the εἰρήνη of ver. 14, and the specification 
of the Law comes in later. It is better, 
therefore, to take the ἔχθρα here in 
the abstract sense of hostile, separating 
feeling. But is it the enmity of Jew and 
Gentile to God (Chrys., Harl., etc.) or the 
enmity between Jew and Gentile? The 
statement of the μεσότοιχον as a mid- 
wall between τὰ ἀμφότερα decides for 
the latter. The argument in favour of 
this view is stronger still when the 
former view is connected with the idea 
that the ἔχθρα is the Mosaic Law. For 
the Mosaic Law could not be said to 
have been the cause of hostile feeling on 
the part of Gentiles to God.—év τῇ σαρκί 
αὐτοῦ: in His flesh. The term σάρξ is 
taken by some (Stier, etc.) in a sense 
wide enough to cover Christ’s incarnation 
and His entire incarnate life. But, apart 
from other difficulties, this is inconsistent 
with the definite mention of His blood and 
His cross. The term refers, therefore, to 
His death, and means His crucified flesh 
(cf. Col. i. 22). The great difficulty here, 
however, is the connection. Some attach 
the phrase immediately to τὴν ἔχθραν 
(Chrys., etc.), ‘‘the enmity which was in 
His flesh,” as if the idea were ‘‘the 
hatred in the human race generally” or 
‘the national hatred,” the hatred in the 
Jewish people. But this would require 
τήν before ἐν σαρκί, and furnishes at 
best a forced meaning. Most commen- 
tators connect it with καταργήσας; sup- 
posing it to be put emphatically first. 
So it is taken, e.g., by Meyer, who makes 
ἐν σαρκί begin the new clause. The RV 
takes the same view, but brings the ἔχθραν 
under the regimen of the καταργήσας--- 
‘having abolished in His flesh the enmity, 
even the law”’. There is much to say in 
support of this, especially in view of the 
Pauline statements in Rom. iii. 21, x. 14; 
Gal: 1|. 15: Col. Ἡ, τὰς etc! ‘Oni the 
other hand there is an awkwardness in 
bringing in the predication before the 


verb, and the parallelism is broken (cf. 
Alf.). It is best, therefore, to attach the 
ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ to the λύσας (Calv., 
Riick., Alf., etc.). The form of the sen- 
tence is better kept in this way. The ap- 
propriateness of the use of λύσας is then 
seen; for the verb Avew (= subvert, 
dissolve), is equally applicable to the 
μεσότοιχον and to the ἔχθραν, the phrase 
λύειν ἔχθραν being common in ordinary 
Greek. On the other hand καταργεῖν is 
much less applicable to ἔχθραν. So the 
sense is—‘*who in His crucified flesh 
(i.e., by His death on the cross) broke 
down the middle-wall of the partition, to 
wit the enmity” (1.6., the hostile feeling 
between Jew and Gentile).—rov νόμον 
τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας: 
having abolished (or, inthat He abolished) 
the law of commandments (expressed) in 
ordinances. Further statement of the 
way in which Christ by His death on the 
cross removed the separation and the 
hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile, 
viz., by abrogating the dividing Law 
itself, The Law is now introduced, and 
the term ὁ νόμος is to be taken in its full 
sense, not the ceremonial law only, but 
the Mosaic Law as a whole, according to 
the stated use of the phrase. This Law 
is abolished in the sense of being rendered 
inoperative (aS καταργεῖν means), and it 
is defined as the Law τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν 
δόγμασιν. What is the point of the 
definition? The article, which is in 
place with the ἐντολῶν, is omitted before 
the δόγμασιν, as the latter makes one 
idea with the former and further is under 
the regimen of a prep. (cf. Win.-Moult., 
ΡΡ. 139, 149, 151, 158). The Law is one 
of ‘*‘commandments-in-decrees’’, What 
is in view is its character as mandatory, 
and consisting in a multitude of prescrip- 
tions or statutes. It enjoined, and it 
expressed its injunctions in so many 
decrees, but it did not enable. The 
Law was made up of ἐντολαί and these 
ἐντολαί expressed themselves and opera- 
ted in the form of δόγματα, ordinances. 
The word δόγμα in the NT never means 
anything else than statute, decree, ordin- 


296 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il. 


e Rom. xii. καταλλάξῃ ' τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν "ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ θεῷ 3 Σδιὰ τοῦ 


5: 


al. 


bor! x. 17 σταυροῦ, "ἀποκτείνας τὴν " ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ»: 17. καὶ ' ἐλθὼν “edny- 


{Col.i.20. Ὑελίσατο ἢ εἰρήνην ὑμῖν 4 τοῖς ' μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην ὅ τοῖς "' ἐγγὺς, 


g=here 
only. 
1m Ver. 13 reff. 


1 αποκαταλλαξει KLP 72, 80, al. 
Σεν ενι πνευματι προς Tov θεον Thdrt. 


h Rom. viii. 7 reff. 


i= Matt. ii. 8, 9, 23, iv. 19 al. 


k Rom. x. 15 only. 


εν eavtw FG 115, Lat.-mss.-in.-Jer., Goth., Arm., Lat. Fathers (not Tert., Jer., al.). 

4 vpiv om. 73; ἡμῖν 31, 44, al.g, Eth., Slav.-mss., Thl.-ms. Rec. om. εἰρηνὴν with 
KL, a Syr., al., Chr. Thdrt., Tert., Eus., Euth., Dam., εἰς. ; insert NABDEFGP 
17, 71, 80, It., Vig., Copt., Eth., Arm., Eus., Procop., Cypr., Hil., all. 


ὄεσχομεν NI. 


ance (cf. Luke ii. 1; Acts xvi. 4, xvii. 7; 
Col. ii. 14; in Heb. xi. 23 it is a variant 
for διάταγμα). Hence it cannot have any 
such sense here as doctrines, evangelical 
teaching (Theod.), evangelical precepts 
(Fritz.), the faith (Chrys.). Some taking 
the ἐν as the instrumental ἐν make it = 
“having abolished the law by injunc- 
tions” (Syr., Vulg., Arab., Grot., Beng., 
etc.). But the NT uniformly speaks of 
the abrogation of the condemning law as 
being effected by Christ’s death, never 
by His teaching, or by evangelical pre- 
cepts. Another turn is given to the 
sentence by taking ἐν in the sense of 
“in respect of,” “on the side of” (Harl.), 
as if the idea were that the abrogation 
Οἱ the Law was limited to its mandatory 
side,—to the orders contained init. But 
this would require τοῖς before the δόγ- 
μασιν; nor is it the way of the NT to 
speak of the Mosaic Law as done away 
by Christ only on one side.—Tva τοὺς δύο 
κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαντῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον: 
that He might create in Himself the two 
into one new man. Statement of the 
object of the καταργεῖν. The masc. δύο 
is introduced now, instead of the ἀμφό- 
τερα, with a view to the ἄνθρωπον. One 
man was to be made out of the two men. 
The κτίσῃ is better rendered create with 
the RV than make with the AV. A new 
creation is in view. For ἐν ἑαντῷ of the 
TR (with ΚΙΝ), etc.) αὐτῷ is to be 
preferred as the reading of Ν ΒΑΕ, etc. 


(LTTrRV); WH gives αὑτῷ. In either 
case the sense is “in Himself"; not “by 


it” (Grot.) as if the reference were to 
Christ's doctrine, nor “ through Himself” 
as ifit were δι’ αὐτοῦ. The new creation 
and the new union have their ground 
and principle im Christ. What was con- 
templated, too, was not simply the making 
of one man (ἕνα ἄνθρωπον) where formerly 
there were two, but the making of one 
new (καινὸν) man. The result was not 


that, though the separation between them 
was removed, the Jew still remained Jew 
and the Gentile still Gentile. It was 
something new, the old distinctions be- 
tween Jew and Gentile being lost in a 
third order of ‘“‘man”—the Christian 
man,—tovwv εἰρήνην : making peace. 
The cpt is still peace between the 
estranged Jew and Gentile, and the ποιῶν 
(pres., not aor.) belongs to the object 
expressed by the tva. In carrying out 
that purpose He was to make peace the 
one with the other. 

Ver. 16. καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμ- 
φοτέρους : and that He might reconcile 
them both, Further statement of object, 
the καί continuing and extending it. 
Only at this point is the prior and larger 
idea of the reconciliation to God intro- 
duced, and even now it is in connection 
with the idea of the reconciliation of Jew - 
and Gentile. For τοὺς δύο we now have 
τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους, not “the two” but 
“both of them together,” unity being 
the aspect in which they are now pre- 
sented. The ἄπο- in such compounds has 
sometimes simply va tas, hou 
ἀποθ iv, ἀποθαυμάζειν, ἄποκαρα- 
ο ο... ον. κα 
though less frequently, the sense of again 
(ἀποδίδωμι, ἀποκαθίστημι, ἄποκατο 
θόω, ἀποκαταλαμβάνω). It is doubtful 
which is the force of the ἄπο- here. In 
the context, it is true, so far as the rela- 
tions of Jew and Gentile to each other are 
dealt with, we have simply the idea of a 
state of separation into two hostile camps 
giving place to a state of unity. But 
in the present clause the larger truth of 
a reconciliation te God is in view, and 
this favours the idea of a restoration to 
a condition which had been lost. The 
form ἀποκαταλλάσσειν occurs in the 
NT only here and in Col. i. 20, 21. In 
the LXX and once in the NT (Matt. 
v. 24) we have also διαλλάττεσθαι. But 





16—18, 


the two appear to be practically indis- 
tinguishable. As derivatives of ἀλλάσ- 
σειν they both convey the idea of a 
change, not primarily in feeling (which 
is expressed by ἱλάσκεσθαι and its com- 
pounds), but in relation, and in mutual 
relation, on the side of God to man and 
on the side of man to God (cf. Rom. 
v. 9-11; 2 Cor. v. 18-20).—év ἑνὶ σώματι 
διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ: in one body through 
the cross. This cannot refer to Christ’s 
body (Chrys., Beng., Harl., Hofm.), as if 
the point were either the reconciliation 
of two parties by one body, or the one 
offering of Christ that needed no repe- 
tition (Heb. vii. 27, etc.), or, again, the 
one sacrifice as_ contrasted with the 
multitude of the Levitical oblations. 
These are ideas alien to the context, 
and they are the less appropriate because 
Christ Himself is the subject of the ἄπο- 
καταλλάξῃ. The reference is to the Jews 
and Gentiles now making one body; cf. 
the ἕν σῶμα in 1 Cor. x. 17; Eph. iv. 4; 
and especially in Col. ili. 15. His object 
was to bring the two long-sundered and 
antagonistic parties as one whole, one 
great body, into right relation to God 
by His cross. The διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ be- 
longs rather to the ἀποκαταλλάξῃ than 
to the following ἀποκτείνας (von Soden). 
--ὠΟὠὀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ: having 
slain the enmity thereby. For ἐν αὐτῷ 
there is a variant reading ἐν ἑαυτῷ, slen- 
derly supported (F 115, etc.); and some 
propose ἐν αὑτῷ (von Soden). But this 
ἐν αὐτῷ refers to the σταυροῦ, and the 
idea is not that Christ slew the enmity 
in Himself, but that He did it “by the 
cross,’”’ or, as some take it (Alf., etc.), 
“on the cross”. The ἔχθρα here, again, 
is not the Law itself, nor the enmity of 
Jew and Gentile {ο God (though most 
take it so), butrather the ἔχθρα previously 
mentioned—the enmity between Jew and 
Gentile. Further, the ἀποκτείνας which 
might denote an action coincident with 
that denoted by the main verb, or might 
define the way in which ‘the latter was 
made good, seems to have its proper 
sense of priority— after He had killed”’. 
He had first to kill this enmity between 
the two before He could bring them both 
into right relations to God in the way 
indicated, viz., in one body, as one great, 
united whole. 

Ver. 17. καὶ ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰ- 
ρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς 
ἐγγύς: and He came and preached peace 
to you that were far off, and peace to them 
that were nigh. The TR reads simply 
καὶ τοῖς ἐγγύς (with KL, the mass of 
cursives, the Syr., εἴς). The primary 


. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


297 


uncials and other important authorities 
(BRAD 17, Vulg., etc.) insert εἰρήνην 
(so LTTrWHRV). The repetition has 
rhetorical force. The καί, again, does 
not merely connect this statement with 
the former. It adds to the thought. 
Not only did Christ effect the recon- 
ciliation, but He also came and preached 
the glad tidings of it, and that not 
to one class but to both. The aor. 
partic. has probably its proper force of 
priority in relation to the def. aor. εὐ- 
ηγγελίσατο. The coming in question 
preceded the preaching. The best ren- 
dering, therefore, will be neither ‘‘com- 
ing ’’ (Eadie), nor ‘‘came and preached” 
(AV and RY), but “having come” (Mey., 
EIl., etc.). But to what coming does the 
ἐλθών refer? Not to the incarnation 
(Chrys., Anselm, Harl., etc.); for the 
preceding sentences, which speak of His 
blood and of the peace effected through 
His cross, make it clear that the time in 
view is not before the crucifixion but after 
it. Nor can the reference well be to the 
event of His Resurrection, nor even to 
His own direct teaching during the forty 
days (Beng.). What is in view is rather 
His coming in His Spirit (cf John xiv. 
18; Acts xxvi. 23, etc.). That the idea 
of His spiritual Advent in the Holy Ghost 
which is prominent in the Fourth Gospel 
is not a Johannine idea only, but one 
entirely consistent with Paul’s teaching, 
appears from the Pauline doctrine of the 
dwelling of Christ Himself or His Spirit 
in the believer (Rom. viii. 9, 10; 2 Cor. 
xii. 17, xili. 5; Gal. ii. 20); as also from 
the relation of the Holy Ghost to the 
Apostle’s preaching (Rom. xv. 18), etc. 
The preaching meant by the εὐηγγελίσα- 
ro, therefore, is Christ’smediate preaching 
through His Apostles and others, especi- 
ally that declaration of His truth which 
made these Gentiles Christians. Those 
‘“‘afar off’? are mentioned first, as the 
Gentiles in the persons of these Ephe- 
sians and other Asiatics were the writer’s 
immediate concern. 

Ver. 18. ὅτι δι αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προ- 
σαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι 
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα: for through Him we 
both have our access in one Spirit unto 
the Father. Some take ὅτι as = that, 
the mention of the common access being 
taken as the contents of the εὐηγγελί- 
σατο. But the subject of the preaching 
has already been given, viz., εἰρήνη. 
Hence ὅτι = for, and the verse is a con- 
firmation of the previous statement in 
the form of an appeal to the experience 
of those addressed. The fact that we, 
both of us, are now brought to God 


298 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il, 


nRom.v.2; 18. ὅτι δι αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν " προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ° ἑνὶ 


ch, iii. 12 
only. πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν ἢ πατέρα. 
ο 11,1. 


10. ‘dpa οὖν  οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ' ξένοι καὶ 


27; ch.iv. "πάροικοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐστὲ ὃ 'συμπολῖται τῶν " ἁγίων καὶ "οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ, 


3, 4: ids P ὶ 
p=1 Cor. viii. 6; 1 Ῥεῖ. i.17; John, passim. 

al8.; Paul only. 
s Acts vii. 6,29; 1 Pet. ii. 11 only; Gen. xxiii. 4. 

1 reff. v=Gal. vi. 10; 1 


ἴεσχομεν NY’. 


q Rom. ν. 18, vii. 3, viii. 12, ix. 16, 18; Gal. vi, τὸ 
r=Matt. xx. 5, 35 al.; Acts xvii. 21; Heb. xi. 13; 3 John 5; Ruth. ii. το. 


t Here only; Jos., Antt., xix., 2, 2. u Ch. i. 


im. v. 8 only; Isa. iii. 6. 


3 Omit ονν FG., Or. 


5 Rec. om. εστε with D'EKL, Syr., Cop., Arm., Orig., Bas., Euth., etc. ; insert 
NABCD'EFG 31, 71-3, It., Vig., Goth., Bas., Lat. Fathers. 


through Him is a witness to the truth of 
what I have just said, viz., that Christ 
came and preached peace to both. The 
privilege referred to is a present and con- 
tinuing privilege (ἔχομεν, not ἐσχήκαμεν 
as in Rom. v. 2)—one to which effect is 
being given now, viz., τὴν προσαγωγήν, 
“the introduction,” or ‘our introduc- 
tion”. This noun denotes, properly 
speaking, the act of bringing to one, and 
then the approach or access (Herod., ii., 
58; Xen., Cyr., vii., 5, 45). It is urged 
by some (Μεγ., Ell., etc.) that both here 
and in Rom. v. 2 it has the primary 
trans. sense, and denotes the privilege 
of being brought to God or introduced 
to Him. Christ would thus be pre- 
sented in the character of “ Bringer,” 
perhaps with some allusion to the office 
of the προσαγωγεύς through whom in 
Oriental courts one was brought into 
the royal presence. But the difference 
in idea between access (πρόσοδος) and 
‘admission " (Ell.) or “ bringing " (προ- 
σαγωγή) is slight, and there seems suf- 
ficient justification for the intrans. sense. 
The ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, which is strangely 
taken by some (Anselm, Rosenm.) as = 
ὁμοθυμαδόν, '' with one mind,” obviously 
refers to the Holy Ghost. That is made 
clear both by the mention of the coming 
and preaching in the Spirit, and by the 
reference both to Christ and to the Father. 
The ἐν is not = by, but in, with reference 
to the element in which alone we have the 
access. As that right is ours only through 
Christ (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ), so it is made ours in 
actual experience only in the Spirit, and 
Jew and Gentile have it alike because it 
is one and the same Spirit that works in 
both. So both have continuous access 
to God from whom once they were far 
removed, to Him, too, in the benign 
character of the Father (τὸν πατέρα) 
whom they can approach without fear. 

Ver. 19. ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι 
καὶ πάροικοι: So then ye are no more 
strangers and sojourners. At this point 
Paul brings to their conclusion the state- 


ments made in vv. 14-18, and draws from 
them the natural, comforting inference. 
The conclusive apa is one of Paul’s 
favourable particles. In his writings 
and in the NT generally it is some- 
times placed second in the sentence, 
and sometimes (contrary to classical 
use) first. The combination οὖν 
is peculiar to Paul, and takes the first 
place in the sentence. In this form it 
has less of the ratiocinative force and 
more of the collective; cf. Buttm., Gram. 
of N. T. Greek, p. 371; Blass, Gram. of 
N.T. Greek, p. 273. ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, 
a comprehensive expression, including 
“all who, whether by natural and terri- 
torial demarcation, or by the absence of 
civic privileges, were not citizens” (Ε11.). 
The term πάροικος in ordinary Greek 
means a neighbour. In the LXX it 


represents Iwan (nine times) or “VA 


(eleven times). Here it stands for the 
classical μέτοικος, which never occurs in 
the NT, is found only once in the LXX 
(Jer. xx. 3) and means one who comes 
from one country or city and settles in 
another, but does not rank as a πολί 
or ἀστός having the right of citizenship 
(cf. Acts vii. 6, 29; 1 Pet.ii. 11). There 
is no reference to proselytes in particular 
(Baumg.).—éAAa συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων: 
but fellow-citizens with the saints. Most 
critical editors (LTTrW HRV) insert ἐστέ 
after ἀλλά, on the authority of ΒΝΑΘΟΓΡ, 
etc. The form συνπολῖται is preferred 
by Tisch., WH, EIll., ΑΙ, etc. The 
word belongs mostly to late Greek. 
The ἁγίων is not to be restricted to 
“Ap the patriarchs, or OT believers, 
ut is a comprehensive name for Chris- 
tians, the whole community of believers 
in Christ without distinction of Jew and 
Gentile. The Jewish people were once 
‘the saints’ of God, and Gentiles stood 
outside having no part in their πολιτεία. 
Now all Gentile believers, like these 
Ephesians, form part of that greater 
“Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16) which con- 


18--21. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


299 


20. ” ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ " θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφη- w Acts xx. 


1 2 


a μὴ y , 
τῶν," ὄντος "ἀκρογωνιαίου 


Col. ii. 7; Jude 20 only. 
γι Pet. ii. 6 only; Isa. xxviii. 16. 


1. προφ. om. 41, Marcion-in. Tert. 


8 Omit αὐτου 3”, Copt., Orig., Victorin. 


αὐτοῦ ὃ χριστοῦ “Ingod,* 21. ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα 


5 32 (τες); 
1 Cor. iii. 
10, etc. ; 


x=Rom. xy. 20; 1 Cor, iii. 10,11; 2 Tim. ii. 19; Heb, vi. 1. 


2 Insert Abou DEFG, Orig., Eus., Chr. 


“Rec. Ino. Xp. with CDEFGKLP, etc., d, e, g, Syr., Ps.-Just. Orig.,, Eus., 
Euth., Thdrt., Chr., Victorin, Jer. Ε2.40, 15.60: Χριστου Incov Ν ΑΒ 17, 39, 47, al., 
Vig., Goth., Copt., Orig... Thl., Ambrst., Jer. ἘΖ. 38. Aug., oft. all. 

5 Rec. after πασα insert η with ΔΝΙΑΟΡ, Arm, Orig., Euth., Bas., Chr., Thdrt., 
εἴς, ; text &*BDEFGKL, most mss., Clem., Orig., Bas., etc. 


sists of all Christians, and share in all 
the rights of such.—kat οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ: 
and of the household of God. So in Gal. 
Vi. 1Ο, πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως. 
In Greek writers of the later period 
οἰκεῖος is used frequently with the gens. 
of abstract nouns (οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας, 
ὀλιγαρχίας, etc.) in the general sense of 
one closely connected with philosophy, 
etc., but without any specific reference 
either to the house of God, or to the 
οἰκεῖοι as forming one family. With 
the present case, however, it is different. 
The phrase οἰκεῖοι Θεοῦ naturally sug- 
gests the idea of members of God’s 
household or family (Mey.); cf. τ Tim. 
Iie το ΕΙΘΡ. 111: ο 5; Osx, 2ος τ' Pet. 
1ν. 17. 

Ver. 20. ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θε- 
µελίῳ: being built upon the foundation. 
From the idea of the house or household 
of God contained in the οἰκεῖοι Paul 
passes by an easy transition to that of the 
building of the spiritual οἶκος. The ém- 
in the comp. verb probably expresses the 
notion of building up; the second ἐπί 
with the dative θεμελίῳ, that of resting on 
the foundation—which also might have 
been expressed by the gen. The forms 
ὁ θεμέλιος and τὸ θεμέλιον both occur, 
the former much more frequently than 
the latter in Greek literature generally. 
The latter, however, is found frequently 
in the LXX, and at least once quite un- 
mistakably in the NT (Acts xvi. 26).— 
τῶν ἀποστόλων Kal προφητῶν: of the 
Apostles and Prophets. The omission of 
τῶν before προφητῶν does not neces- 
sarily identify the Apostles and Prophets 
as one and the same persons (Harl.); cf. 
Win.-Moult., p. 162. It indicates, how- 
ever, that they both belong to the same 
class. The gen. is variously understood 
as (1) the gen. of apposition =the founda- 
tion which ἐς or consists in the Apostles ; 
(2) the gen. of originating cause = the 
foundation laid by them; (3) the possess. 


gen. = “the Apostles’ foundation ”’—in 
the sense of that on which they built 
(Anselm, Beza, etc.), or as = that on 
which they also were built (Alf.). The 
choice seems to be between (1) and (2). 
The former has been the view of many 
from Chrys. down to Von Soden and 
Abbott, and is favoured so far by Rev. 
xxi. 14. But the second has the suffrages 
of the majority of modern exegetes (Riick., 
Harl., Bleek, Mey., Ell., etc.). Itis more 
in accordance with 1 Cor. iii. το (although 
it is the worth of teachers that is im- 
mediately in view there), and more especi- 
ally with Rom. xv. 20, where the Gospel 
as preached by Paul appears to be the 
“‘foundation’’. Here, therefore, it seems 
best on the whole to understand the Gos- 
pel of Christ as preached by the Apostles 
to be the ‘‘foundation”’ on which theit 
converts were built up into the spiritual 
house. But who are these προφῆται ? 
The OT prophets, say many (Chrys., 
Theod., Jer., Calv., Riick., etc.)—a view 
certainly favoured by the use made of the 
writings of these prophets in the NT, and 
by the view given of them as ‘‘ evange- 
lists before the time ’’ (Moule); cf. Luke 
xxiv. 25; Acts iii. 18, 21, 24, x. 43 ; Rom. 
xvi. 26. But the natural order in that 
case would have been ‘“ Prophets and 
Apostles,” and the previous statements 
referred clearly to Christian times—to the 
preaching after Christ’s death. Hence 
the προφῆται are to be understood as the 
Christian prophets, of whom large men- 
tion is made in the Book of Acts and the 
Epistles—the NT prophets who in this 
same Epistle (iii. 5) are designated as 
Christ’s prophets and are named (iv. Ir) 
among the gifts of the ascended Lord 
to His Church. The frequency with 
which they are referred to (Acts xi. 28, 
xv. 32; I Cor. xiv., etc.) and the place 
assigned to them next to the Apostles 
(Eph. iv. 11) show the prominent position 
they had in the primitive Church. The 


300 


z= Matt. 
xxiv. 1 i 
ο 1 

OF. 111.0 

2Cor.v. © ἐν πνεύματι. 
Ἃ 

a Ch. iv. 16 only. 
only. d Here only. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


b Ch. iv. 15; Col. i. το; 2 Thess. i. 3 reff. 
e= Matt. x. 18 al. fr. 





" οἰκοδομὴ "συναρμολογουμένη " αὔξει " εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον "ἐν κυρίῳ, 
22. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς “ συνοικοδομεῖσθε “eis ' κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ ! 


ς Rom. xvi. 11, 12 al. fr.; Paul 
f Rev. xviii. 2 only; Ps. Ixxv. 2. 


g (Rom. ix. 1); ch. iii. 5, v. 18; vi. 18; Col. i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 12; Jude 20, 


1 For τ. θεον, τ. Χριστον B. 


statements made regarding them in the 
early non-canonical literature (The Teach- 
ing of the Twelve, Clem. Alex., Strom., 
the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) show how 
they continued to exist and work beyond 
the Apostolic Age, and help us to dis- 
tinguish their ministry as that essentially 
of teachers and exhorters, whether itin- 
erant or resident, from the essentially 
missionary ministry of the Apostles. 
Further the association of these νὰ hets 
with the Apostles suggests that the latter 
term is not to be restricted here to the 
Twelve, but is to be taken as including 
all those to whom the name “ Apostle” 
is given in the NT.—6vros ἀκρογωνιαίον 
αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: Yesus Christ 
Himself being the chief corner-stone. A 
few documents, os Ni’, omit Ἰησοῦ. 
The ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ of the TR is sup- 
ported by such authorities as CDFKL. 
The best reading, however, is Χριστοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ, “ Christ Jesus,” which is found in 
BAWN-corr., 17, Vulg., Copt., Goth., etc., 
and is adopted by LTTrWHRV. The 


word ἀκρογωνιαῖος (cf. the 133 198 
of Isa. xxviii. 16) is peculiar to biblical 
and ecclesiastical Greek, and is applied 
to Christ also in 1 Pet. ii. 6. It de- 
notes the stone placed at the extreme 
corner, so as to bind the other stones in 
the building together—the most impor- 
tant stone in the structure, the one on 
which its stability depended. The αὐτοῦ 
refers to Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, not to the dxpo- 
γωνιαίον, nor to the θεμελίῳ (Beng.), the 
point being that to Christ Himself and 
none other the building owes its exis- 
tence, its strength and its increase. He 
Himself, and neither Apostle nor Prophet, 
is at once the ultimate foundation (1 Cor. 
iii. 11) and the Head-stone of the Corner. 
Some have supposed that, the ἀκρογωνι- 
aios being the stone inserted between 
two others to give strength and cohesion 
to the whole, there is a reference in the 
phrase to the union of Jew and Gentile. 
But this is to push the figure too far. 
Ver. 21. ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομὴ συν- 
αρμολογουμένη αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν 
Κυρίῳ: in whom each several building 


(RV text; “every building,” RV marg;) 
fitly framed together, groweth into a holy 
temple in the Lord. The relative refers 
naturally wees nearest subject, what is 
also the leading subject, Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
not to the ἀκρογωνιαίου, far less to 
the remoter θεμελίῳ ; the ἐν also has its 
full sense of in, not by or on. That is 
to say, it is in Christ Fesus, and only by 
connection with Him, that the οἰκοδομή 
is what it is here declared to be. The 
word οἰκοδομή appears to be confined 
to late Greek, no certain instance of it 
having been found in classical Greek. It 
occurs in Diod., Philo, Plut., Joseph., 
the LXX, Macc., etc. It is used both 
for οἰκοδόμησις and οἰκοδόμημα. In the 
NT it has sometimes the literal sense of 
οἰκοδόμημα {ε.ρ., Matt. xxiv. 1; Mark 
xiii. 1; 2 Cor. v. 1); and sometimes the 
figurative sense of edification (Rom xiv. 
19, xv. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 10; Eph. iv. 29), 
or, as here, that of a body of Christian 
believers. The question of the text here 
is important. There is considerable 
support for πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή (ΝΑ6Ρ, 
Arm., etc.), and it is conceivable that 
itacism might have caused the omission 
of the 4. But diplomatic evidence is 
decidedly in favour of πᾶσα οἰκοδομή 
(BN*DGKL, etc.). Adopting this read- 
ing (with LTTrWHRV) we have to ask 
whether the phrase is to be rendered the 
whole building or every building. The 
former rendering is certainly the one that 
first suggests itself, while the latter seems 
at first difficult to relate to the context. 
The former is defended as legitimate by 
some weighty authorities; ε.ρ., Winer, on 
the ground that the subject is “ the Church 
of Christ as a whole,”’ and Ellicott, who 
takes it to be a case of grammatical laxity. 
But the distinction between πᾶς with the 
article and πᾶς without it is so well main- 
tained in the NT that only an absolutely 
intolerable sense can justify us in de- 
parting from it. The only exceptions 
to the general rule appear to be those 
that hold good also for ordinary Greek 
—in general and unqualified statements, 
with proper names, and with nouns which 
have acquired so stated a meaning that 


21---22. 


they can drop the article, etc. (cf. Win.- 
Moult., p. 138, and especially Buttm., 
Gram. of N. T. Greek, pp. 119, 120; 
Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, pp. 161, 
162). The present instance does not 
come within the scope of these excep- 
tions. It is not like πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ 
(Acts ii. 36), nor is it really analogous 
even to such cases as the πᾶσα γῆ of 
Thucyd., Π., 43, or the πᾶσα ἐπιστολή 
of Ignat., Eph., 12. Hence the ren- 
dering here must be ‘‘every building”’ 
or “every several building’”’. The pre- 
sent participle cuvappodoyoupévy (the 
verb occurs in the NT only here and in 
iv. 16, and corresponds to the classical 
συναρμόζειν) describes the joining to- 
gether as a process now going on. The 
pres. αὔξει (a form occurring in the NT 
only here and in Col. ii. 19, but common 
in Soph., Thucyd., Pind., etc.) in like 
manner expresses what is happening now, 
or, it may be, what is normal. The 
phrase vaov ἅγιον is sufficiently ren- 
dered ‘a holy temple” or “sanctuary”’. 
Some (e.g., Mey.), supposing that Paul 
has the Jewish temple in view and means 
to say that the Christian Church is now 
the true Temple of God, the house made 
His own sanctuary by His dwelling in it, 
would render it ‘‘the holy temple”. The 
ἐν Κυρίῳ is connected by some (Harl., 
etc.) immediately with ἅγιον, = a temple 
that is holy as being in the Lord; by 
others with ναὸν ἅγιον (Ell.); by others 
with αὔξει (Mey.). But it really qualifies 
the whole statement of the joining and 
growing. ΑΙ this is in the Lord, 2.6., 
in Christ, as both the context and the 
general NT application of Κύριος show. 
The sense of the whole, therefore, is 
this—in Christ the Lord every several 
building that goes to make up the ideal 
Temple of God, every Christian com- 
munity, the one now addressed not less 
than others, is at present being surely 
framed and fitted together, and is grow- 
ing and harmoniously developing so that 
it may form part of the great mystical 
Body of Christ, the vast spiritual fellow- 
ship of believers which is God’s true 
Temple. 

Ver, 22, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδο- 
μεῖσϑε εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν 
πνεύματι : in whom ye also are being 
built together into a habitation of God 
in the Spirit, The relative refers again, 
as in ver. 21, to Christ, the Κυρίῳ just 
named, not to the ναόν. The καί (= 
also, not even) points to the dignity of 
the present position—“ the exalted nature 
of the association in which the Ephesians 
shared ” (Ell.). The συνοικοδομεῖσθε is 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


301 


not imper. (Calv.), but indic., the burden 
of the whole section being what was 
done for the readers and what was made 
of them. The συν- in the comp. verb 
might convey the idea of being built 
together with others ; but, in view of the 
force of the συναρμολογουμένη it is rather 
to be understood as denoting the com- 
pact connection of one part with another, 
the orderly conjunction and co-ordination 
of all the various parts of the οἰκοδομή 
(Mey., Ell.); cf. the συνέκλεισεν in Gal. 
ili, 2. κατοικητήριον is best translated 
‘“‘habitation’”’. Some draw a distinction 
between the ναόν as the whole Church 
and the κατοικητήριον as the individual 
Christians (Harl.). But the latter phrase 
simply expresses in another form the 
same idea as the former. The κατοικη- 
τήριον being that of God (τοῦ Θεοῦ), 
belonging to Him, inhabited by Him, is 
the same as the ναός. The ἐν πνεύματι 
is not to be taken as= “in a spiritual 
manner,” as ifin contrast with ἐν σαρκί; 
nor as making with the noun the idea of 
‘a spiritual house”; but as=in the Holy 
Spirit, the anarthrous πνεῦμα having often 
that sense andthe similar ἐν Κυρίῳ sugges- 
ting it. Nor should the ἐν be rendered 
“through” (AV) or “by” (Mey.). It is 
true that the instrumental use of év gives 
a thoroughly good sense, viz., that we 
are built together in Christ by the agency 
of the Holy Spirit—in respect of His 
dwelling and operating in us. But the 
idea is rather that of iz the Spirit as the 
element of the life or the condition of the 
process. The phrase may be connected 
immediately with the κατοικητήριον as if 
= “a habitation of God realised in the 
Spirit,” or it may be construed as a terti- 
ary predication (Ell.) = “and it is in the 
Spirit”. But it is best taken to qualify 
the whole statement of the συνοικοδο- 
μεῖσθε, = ‘in Christ as the ground and 
principle of all ye too are being built to- 
gether into a habitation of God, and it is 
by your being in the Spirit that this is 
taking effect”. Union with Christ, life 
in the Spirit—this explained what they 
were; this meant that they, as well as 
other Christian bodies, were being built 
up so as to be a habitation of God. 
CuHaApTERIII. Vv. 1-13. These verses 
make a paragraph by themselves. Their 
main subject is the call of the Gentiles 
and Paul’s Apostolic vocation in relation 
thereto. He reminds his readers of the 
mystery of that call, its revelation to the 
Apostles and prophets, his own destin- 
ation to the ministry of preaching among 
the Gentiles, and the grace given him to 
make known the Divine dispensation 


302 
a Luke vii. 
ver. I4; 


Heb. xiii. 3; Zech. ix. 
d Ch. i. 15 reff. 


12. c= 
e=1 Cor. ix. 17. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ΠῚ, 


ITI. 1. Τούτου "χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος ὁ " δέσμιος τοῦ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν,2 2. "εἴγε “ἠκούσατε τὴν “οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος 
Tit. i. 5; 1 John iii. 12; Jude 16 ο δρ xvii. 17. 


b Acts xxiii. 18; 2 Tim. i.8; Philem. i. 9; 


l. i. 23; ch. v. ar; 2 Cor. v. 3; Gal. iii. 4; Paul only. 


1 For χριστ., κυριου C; uno. om. DFG 61, Eth., Victorin.; wo. xp. 115, lect. 
1, Syr., Arm., Chr., Cyr., Theophyl., Jer., Ambr., etc. 


2 After εθν. add πρεσβενω DE το, Slav., Ambrst.-comm. ; κεκαυχημαι 71, 122, 219. 


that opened the Church to those who 
were not of Israel. This with the view 
that they should not misunderstand his 
present position or be discouraged by it. 
Ver. 1. τούτον χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος ὁ 
δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ: for this 
cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Fesus. 
The τούτον χάριν is referred by some 
(Mey., etc.) to the immediately preceding 
sentence; the fact that they are destined 
to make a habitation of God, and are 
being built together with a view to that 
end, being Paul’s reason for pleading with 
them and praying for them, It is best 
referred, however, to the purport of the 
whole statement just brought to its con- 
clusion ; the fact that they are now what 
God’s grace has made them and are 
meant by Him to form a spiritual habi- 
tation for Himself, being His reason for 
what He urges on them and what He 
does for them. ἐγὼ Παῦλος, a solemn 
and emphatic designation of the writer by 
himself, expressive rather of his personal 
interest in them than the consciousness of 
his authority (Mey.). For similar occur- 
rences of the emphatic personal designa- 
tion, with different shades of meaning, see 
2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. v. 2; Col. i. 23; Philem. 
19. The article with the δέσμιος ex- 
presses simply the character in which 
Paul appears at present or the class to 
which he belongs (cf. Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφός, 
Philem. 1); not his pre-eminence among 
the Lord’s prisoners, as if it= the prisoner 
par excellence La ps claim surely 
which would neither be like Paul nor in 
harmony with the thought of the para- 
on. The gen. Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is 
probably that of originating cause—one 
who has been made a prisoner by Christ ; 
cf. 2 Tim. i. 8; Philem. 9, as also Eph. iv. 
1. The’lyngod is omitted by Tisch. on the 
authority of such MSS, as Ν Ρα but 
it is rightly retained by most as found in 
BN-corr.ACD?*>®, Vulg., etc.—imép ὑμῶν 
τῶν ἔθνων: on behalf of you the Gentiles. 
Paul was called specially to be a minister 
of Christ to the Gentiles (Acts xxi. 21, 
28, xxii. 21), and his preaching Christ as 
for the Gentiles equally with the Jews 


pr that enmity of the Jews which 
ed to hisimprisonment. It was thus for 
the Gentiles that he was a prisoner; and 
there is probably also the further thought 
in the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν that Paul's imprisonment 
was to be for their good, helpful to their 
Christian life. For the idea with which 
the paragraph closes is that his afflictions 
were their glory (ver. 13). But what of 
the construction and connection here ? 
The simplest adjustment is to insert εἰμί 
after ὁ δέσμιος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ: “1 Paul 
am the prisoner,’ etc. So the Syr., 
Chrys., Mey. and others, But this takes 
the point from the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν and makes 
Paul assert and exalt himself as a sufferer 
in a way unlike him. It is best to take 
it as a broken construction, the statement 
with which Paul begins being, as in so 
many other cases, diverted into a different 
channel by the introduction of some sub- 
sidiary remark. Here he is turned off from 
what he meant to say by the polite refer- 
ence in the εἴγε clause. ere then 
have we the resumption? Not at chap. 
iv. 1 (with the AV, Mich., Winer, etc.), 
for chap. iii, is not part of a parenthesis, 
but a paragraph complete within itself; 
nor at ver. 13, which is of too limited 
scope and fails to meet the full force of 
the τούτου χάριν; but at ver. 14, where 
the τούτου χάριν is repeated. 


τς a> εἴγε ἠκούσατε τὴν οἰκονομίαν 
τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι εἰς 
ἡμᾶς: if so be that ye did hear of the dis- 
pensation of the grace of God that was 
given me to you-ward. The comp. par- 
ticle εἴγε, or εἴ ye (according to LTrWH), 
makes a supposition which is taken for 
granted, = “if, indeed, as I may assume”. 
Whether the certainty of the assumption 
is in the particle itself or is derived from 
the context is still debated among gram- 
marians. Some hold that in this case as 
in others the yé simply strengthens the 
force of the simple particle, while others 
think that this 15 its significance, if not 
in every instance, at least in a consider- 
able number of occurrences; cf. Mey. 
and Ell., in loc.; Win.-Moult., p. 561; 
Baumlein, Partikeln, p. 64. ere it 


Ι πτΔ4. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


303. 


τοῦ θεοῦ] τῆς δοθείσης μοι ᾿ εἰς ὑμᾶς, 3. ὅτι 2 ἕ κατὰ ὅ ἀποκάλυψιν f= ch. i. 19 


" ἐγνωρίσθη ὃ μοι τὸ ' μυστήριον, καθὼς 
"πρὸς ὃ δύνασθε " ἀναγινώσκοντες “ νοῆσαι τὴν ἢ σύνεσίν μου “ ἐν τῷ 


reff, ik=here only; Rom. xv. 4; Gal. iii. 1 
Acts xxvi. 28,29; see 1 Pet. v.12. 
2 Cor. i. 13. 


i. 9; Col. 1. ο, ii. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 7. q (Ch. i. 15); 2 


3, Jude 4 only; 1 Macc. x. 36. 
m= Luke xii. 47; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. ii, 14. 
ο Matt. xxiv. 15; Rom. i. 20; 1 Tim. i. 


᾿ reff. 
Ἐπροέγραψα έν | ὀλίγῳ, 4. ¢(Rom.xvi. 
25); Gal. 
ii. 2 only. 
hi Ch. 1,9 
l=here only; 
n Matt. xii. 3; 
7; 2 Tim. ii. 7. p=Luke ii. 47; 1 Cor. 
Chron. xxxiv. 12; Neh. xiii. 7; 3 Esdr. i. 33. 


1τ.θεου inserted before της χαριτος D* D°EFG, d, e, g, Goth. ; for του θεου, του 


Χριστου P; αντον A. 


2 ort om, BFG, d, e, Victorin., Ambrst., etc. 
%eyvwptoe D?EKL, Eth., Dam., Theophyl., Oec., etc.; εγνωρισθ ABCD*FGP 
εγνωρ γνωρισθη ὃν 


Ότο τη 22, στ, δη, 75, 80. τοῦ, 177, Vue. 


introduces a polite reminder of what 
these Ephesians certainly had heard— 
“a gentle appeal, expressed in a hypo- 
thetical form, and conveying the hope 
that his words had not been quite for- 
gotten” (Ell.). On οἰκονομίαν, which 
means the dispensation, the arrangement 
made in the matter of something, not ‘‘ the 
apostclic office” (Wiesel.), see under i. 
το. The τῆς χάριτος is the gen. objecti 
or that of “the point of view” (EIll.) = 
the arrangement or disposition in respect 
of the grace of God. The χάρις itself is 
not the afostolic office (Est.), but the gift 
of grace that selected Paul and qualified 
him for that office; and so it (not the 
οἰκονομία, but the χάρις) is described as 
δοθείσης, given. The εἰς ὑμᾶς, admirably 
rendered by the AV “(ο you-ward,” de- 
notes the “ethical direction” (EIll.) of 
the gift of grace—the fact that it was 
bestowed on Paul not for his own sake, 
but_with a view to their position. 

er. 3, ὅτι κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ἐγνώ- 
oe μοι τὸ μυστήριον: how that by way 
of revelation he made known (was made 
known) to me the mystery. The ὅτι is 
omitted by BD-lat., Ambros., etc., and is 
bracketed by L and WH, but is retained 
by most. The ἐγνώρισε of the TR (sup- 
ported by D®KL, etc.) must give place 
to ἐγνωρίσθη, which is the reading of 
BNACD'F 17, Lat., Syr., Copt., etc., and ( 
is adopted by LTTrWHRV. On μυσ- 
τήριον see under i. 9. Here it is the 
particular μυστήριον or ‘‘secret” of the 
admission of the Gentiles on equal terms 
with the chosen people—a disclosure of 
the Divine purpose which so often calls 
forth Paul’s adoring wonder. The sen- 
tence explains and develops the preced- 
ing statement, giving what they heard 
(ἠκούσατε) of the peculiar dispensation 
made by God with Paul; and the promi- 
nent thing here, as indicated by the 
emphatic position of kata ἀποκάλυψιν, 
is the way in which the “ mystery” was 


, Syr., Arm., Goth., Cop., Bas. 


made known to him, viz., the way of 
revelation.—Ka0as προέγραψα ἐν ὀλίγῳ: 
as I wrote afore in few words. The ἐν 
ὀλίγῳ is wrongly taken by some as = 
πρὸ ὀλίγου, “a short time before”. It 
is equivalent to the δι ὀλίγων or the ἐν 
βραχεῖ, ἐν βραχέσι of classical Greek, 
and means briefly (cf. Acts xxvi. 28 and 
the συντόμως in Acts xxiv. 4). But what 
is the writing referred to? It might be 
a previous letter now lost (Chrys., Calv., 
etc.). The aor. might so far favour this, 
and the ἀναγινώσκοντες of ver. 4, which 
Meyer thinks excludes it, is not neces- 
sarily inconsistent with it. The δύνασθε 
ἀναγινώσκοντες νοῆσαι need not be lim- 
ited to the reading of the present Epistle, 
but might equally well apply to the act 
of reading any other letter, and the terms 
might suggest indeed a fuller statement of 
the ‘‘ mystery ” in question than is given 
anywhere in the first part of this Epistle. 
The reference, however, might also be 
to something already said in the present 
letter, in which case the προέγραψο 
would have the force of “I have written 
already above”. This is the generally 
accepted interpretation, the particular 
statement in view being that in chap. i. 
9, 10, or rather (so Mey., etc.) that in 
chap. ii. 11-22, in which the inclusion of 
e Gentiles is the special topic. 

Ver. 42 πρὸς ὃ δύνασθε ἀναγινώσ- 

γοῆσαι τὴν σύνεσίν µου ἐν τῷ 
μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ: in accordance 
with which, when ye read, ye can per- 
ceive my understanding in the mystery of 
the Christ. The ὅ refers to the προγε- 
γραμμένον indicated in the προέγραψα, 
the mpés with acc. expressing here, as 
often, the idea of the standard or measure 
of the νοῆσαι (Win.-Moult., p. 505 ; Bern- 
hardy, Synt., p. 205). Wicl. gives “as”; 
Cov., ‘like as”; Rhem., ‘according 
as’; Tynd., Gen., AV and RV, “ where- 
by”. Theaor. νοῆσαι follows the present 
ἀναγινώσκοντες, the perception being re- 


304 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ΠῚ. 


r Acts xiv. μυστηρίῳ τοῦ χριστοῦ, 5. ὃ ἑτέραις | * γενεαῖς οὐκ " ἐγνωρίσθη τοῖς 


16, XV.20; 0 ς α 


t Matt. xi. a5; 1 Cor. ii. 10; Phil. iii. 15; 1 Pet. i. 12. 


υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ds νῦν ᾿ ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς " ἁγίοις 5 '""ἀποσ- 


u Rev. xviii. 


ver. 21; 
Col. i. 26. 
8 Here only; Ps. xxv. 7 al. 
21 only. v 1 Cor. xii. 28; Rev. xviii. 20; ch. ii. 20, iv. 11. 


1 Rec. before erep. inserts ev with a few mss., Copt., Syr. ; om. εν NABCDEFGK 
LP, most others, It., Vulg., Arm., Slav., Clem., Orig., Chr., Cyrr. Jer., al. 


3 Omit rots αγιοις Orig., Thdrt. 


garded as a single, accomplished act, the 
result of the process of reading. The 
verbs νοεῖν and συνιέναι when contrasted 
are supposed (cf. Tittmann, Syn., p. ΙΟΣ, 
and Ell., in loc.) to differ as merken, ‘‘ per- 
ceive,” differs from verstehen, ‘‘ under- 
stand”’, But such distinctions are pre- 
carious as regards NT Greek. The noun 
σύνεσις, which is applied sometimes to 
the understanding mind (Mark xiii. 33 ; 
Wisd. iv. 11), occurs repeatedly in the 
NT in the sense of mental apprehension 
(Luke ii. 47; 1 Cor. i. 19; Col. i. 9, ii. 2; 
2 Tim. ii. 7). It is defined as “insight 
depending on judgment and inference" 
(Mey. on Col. i. 9), usually in the theor- 
etical sense, but sometimes in the practical 
(cf. Mark xii, 33). It appears to denote 
critical understanding, the apprehension 
of the bearings of things, while φρόνησις 
conveys the idea of practical, ethical 
understanding (cf. Light. on Col. i. g; 
Schmidt, Synonymik, chap. xiii., § το, 
chap. cxlvil., ὃ 8). Here σύνεσις is 
followed by ἐν (cf. also 3 Esdras, i. 3), 
συνιέναι ἐν being a common phrase for 
having understanding in a matter (2 
Chron. xxxiv. 12; Josh. i. 7; Dan. i. Αγ 
As the σύνεσίν μον ἐν τὼ. etc., makes one 
idea, the article is dispensed with after 
the prep. The τοῦ Χριστοῦ is taken by 
some as that of originating cause (Hofm.), 
=the mystery of which Christ is the 
author; by others as the gen. objecti, = 
the mystery relating to the Christ (Abb., 
Haupt, etc.), by others still as the gen. 
of apposition (Mey., Alf., etc.), or of 
identity (Ell.), = the mystery which ἐς 
the Christ, which He makes, or which is 
contained in Him. The latter is thought 
to be favoured by Col. i. 27. But the 
idea there is that of the Christ in us, 
which is not quite the same ; and it seems 
best on the whole to take the second view, 
‘the mystery relating to the Christ,” i.¢., 
the revelation of the long-hidden purpose 
of God regarding the Christ as not for 
Israel only, but also for the Gentiles. 
Ver. 5.) ὃ ἐν ἑτέραις γενεαῖς οὐκ ἐγνω- 
ρ τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων : which in 
other Generations was not made known to 
the sons of men. The TR inserts ἐν 


before ἑτέραις, as in Syr.-Phil. and Copt. 
But the insertion is due probably to the 
double dative, and the év (which is not 
found in BRACDFKL, κ”. rightly 
omitted by LTTrWHRV. ε γενεαῖς, 
therefore, is the dat. of time; the term 


γενεά, like the ΟΤ "1 (of which it is 


the usual rendering in the LXX), mean- 
ing the period covered by a generation of 
men (Luke i. 20; Acts xiv. 16, xv. 21; 
Col. i. 26) as well as the generation or race 
itself. By τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων are 
to be understood, not the OT prophets 
(Beng.) as contrasted with the “ Apostles 
and prophets" of the next clause, but 
men generally and in the absolute sense, 
in conformity with the γενεαῖς. -ὡς viv, 
ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐ- 
τοῦ καὶ προφήταις ἐν πνεύματι : as now 
it was revealed to His holy Apostles and 
prophets in the Spirit. The ὡς has its 
proper comparative force. The fact of 
the revelation made in pre-Christian 
times to the fathers and the prophets is 
not questioned. The matter in view is 
the measure or manner of the revelation, 
The νῦν = “now,” in these Christian 
times, and the aor. ἀπεκαλύ defines 
the fuller revelation as made definitely 
at a former period in these times. The 
verb also has its proper force, as dis- 
tinguished from the ἐγνωρίσθη and as 
describing the way, viz., by revelation, 
that the truth was made known. The 
prophets of the OT dispensation were 
designated ἅγιοι (2 Kings iv. 9; Luke i. 
20; 2 Pet.i. 21). Those of these Chris- 
tian times are in like manner designated 
ἅγιοι, as men separated and consecrated 
to the office and distinguished from the 
mass of the υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. They are 
further describedas His (atrod),i.e.,God’s 
Apostles and prophets, God being the 
subject implied in the ἐγνωρ and the 
ἀπεκαλύφθη. The terms ἀποστόλοις and 
προφήταις have the same sense here as 
in ii. 20, viz., the Christian Apostles and 
prophets. Theclause ἐν Πνεύματι defines 
the ἀπεκαλύφθη ; not the προφήταις, 
as if = προφῆται θεόπνευστοι (Holzh., 
Koppe), te the προφῆται need no such 





aT 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


any 


/ A Ν 
τόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ " προφήταις " ἐν πνεύµατι,' 6. εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη * συγ- νν Ch. ii. 22. 


κληρονόμα καὶ ᾿ σύνσωµα καὶ "συμμέτοχα τῆς 


3 x Rom. viii, 
" ἐπαγγελίας ἐν 17; Ileb. 


a 32 A a > X1. 9; 
χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὃ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 7. οὗ ἐγενήθην “ " διάκονος Pet iii 7 


κατὰ τὴν “δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ τῆν δοθεῖσάν ὃ μοι κατὰ δι 


a Acts i. 4 reff. 


b=1 Cor. iii. 5 al.; Col. i. 7, 23, 25. 


1 After πνευματι insert αγιω DE 4, 19, 34, 38, 55, 61, 72, 74, 91, ἃ, e, Eth. 
3 After επαγγ. insert αυτου D?D°EFGKL, etc., Vulg.-ed., Syr.,, Thdrt., Dam., 
Hil., al.; om. ΝΑΒΟΡΡ 17, 73, 106-9, Lat., d, 6, tol., Syr., Copt., Arm., ἃ, e, 


Orig.,, Cyr., Chr., Jer., Pel., Sedul. 


Sev τω χριστω DEFGKL, etc., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., etc.; ev Χριστω ἤἴησου SAB 


CP τὴ; 47, 73, Vulg., Goth., Cop., etc. 


4 ἐγενηθην NRABDFGP 17, 31, 47, 72, 80, Euth., Oec. ; εγενοµην CD*EKL, Chr., 


Thdrt., Dam., etc. 


ὅ της δοθεισης HABCDFGP το, 17, 23, 31, 30, 47, 57, 73, 80, 137, d, ε, f, g, Vulg., 
Cop., Goth., Euth., Victor., Ambrostr. ; τὴν δοθεισαν D°EKL, al., pler., Goth., Thdrt., 


Dam., Theophyl., Oec. 


definition. As in ii. 22 the πνεῦμα here 
is the Holy Spirit, and the ἐν would most 
naturally be taken in the same sense as 
these. Here, however, most understand 
it as the instrumental év. It seems to 
combine the two ideas of agency and 
element or condition, and describes the 
revelation as having been made in and 
by the Spirit. 

Ver. 6. εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα: 
[to wit], that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs. 
The εἶναι = ave, not should be, the 
“‘mystery”’ or secret revealed being a 
fact, not a purpose, The obj. inf. ex- 
presses the contents or purport of the 
ἀποκεκαλυμμένον (Win.-Moult., p. 400). 
ovykAnpovépa (or συνκληρονόμα, LT Tr 
WHRY) = fellow-heirs with the Fews ; 
the only occurrence of the word in the 
NT in this application (for other appli- 
cations cf. Rom. vili. 17; Heb. xi. g; 1 
Pet. iii. 7).--καὶ σύσσωμα : and fellow- 
members. σύσσωμος (σύνσωμος, LTTr 
WHRYV) in the NT occurs only here and 
is unknown to classical Greek, although 
Arist. uses συσσωματοποιεῖν (De Mundo, 
iv., 30). It was probably constructed by 
Paul for his present purpose. It means 
belonging jointly to the same body.—xai 
συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας : and fellow- 
partakers of the promise. συμμέτοχος 
(συνμέτοχος, LTTrWHRYV) is found in 
the NT only here and inv. 7. It occurs 
also in Joseph. (few. Wars, i., 24, 6), 
and in Justin (Afol. ii., 13). The verb 
συμμετέχω, however, is used in clas- 
sical Greek (Eurip., Supp., 648; Plato, 
Theaet., 181 ο, etc.), although it is not 
found in the NT. τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, not 
specifically the promise of the Spirit, but, 


VOL, IIL 


as undefined, the promise of Salvation, 
the Messianic promise in its length and 
breadth. The three terms describe the 
Gentiles, therefore, first generally as heirs 
together with the believing Jews in all 
things, and then more particularly as 
belonging equally with them to the same 
corporate body and sharing equally with 
them in the Messianic promise. The TR 
inserts αὐτοῦ after ἐπαγγελίας. It is 
wanting, however, in the best documents 
(ΘΝΑΟΡΙ, 17, etc.) and is to be omitted. 
---ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : in 
Christ through the Gospel. For the τῷ 
Χριστῷ of the TR (with DFKL, etc.) 
read Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (with BNXC, 17, etc.). 
These words are best taken as qualifying 
all the three former terms. The joint- 
heirship, membership, and participation 
had their objective ground and reason in 
Christ Jesus, and were made the actual | 
possession of these Gentiles by the 
medium or agency of the Gospel that 
was preached to them. 

_ Ver. 7./ οὗ ἐγενόμην διάκονος κατὰ τὴν 
δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ : of which 
I became a minister according to the gift 
of the grace of God. The TR reads 
ἐγενόμην (with CD°KL, etc.). The less 
usual form ἐγενήθην, however, is given 
by ΒΝΡΙΕ, 17, etc., and is to be pre- 
ferred. There is no difference, however, 
in the sense; ἐγενήθην being simply the 
Doric equivalent to ἐγενόμην, which re- 
appeared in the LXX and in later Greek 
generally, διάκονος is a servant, atten- 
dant of any kind; also a deacon in par- 
ticular (Phil. i. 1; £ Tim. iii. 8, 12), or a 
deaconess (Rom. xvi. 1), and perhaps a 
waiter, one who serves at table (John 


20 


306 


d Here 
only ; see 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


τὴν 3 ἐνέργειαν τῆς “δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. 


τη - 


8. ἐμοὶ τῷ "ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ ! 


ch.irg πάντων ᾿ ἁγίων" ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις αὕτη, τοῖς" ἔθνεσιν "εὐαγγελίσασθαι 


reff. 
ε Here only ; μειζότερος, 3 John 4. 


f Ch. i. 1 reff. 


g Ch. ii. 17 reff. 


}ελαχιστω FG 49. Insert των before παντων P, al., mss., Goth., Cyr., Thdrt., 
Theophyl. ; omit των SACDEFGKL, most mss., Orig., Dial., Did. 


2 Insert αποστολων Archel. 
8 After αντη insert του θεον FG. 


* Before τοις εθν. insert ev with DEFGKL, mss., nearly It., Vulg., Goth., Syrr., 


al., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., al., Lat. Fathers ; 


ii. 5,9). Here it has the general sense 
of minister, as Paul designates himself 
again in 2 Cor. iii. 6; Col. i, 23. Once 
he calls himself ὑπηρέτης (1 Cor. iv. 1); 
but with no tangible difference in idea, 
except that ὑπηρέτης may suggest a still 
greater degree of subordination than διά- 
κονος. The distinction drawn by some 
Harless) between the two terms, as if 
τάκονος expressed activity in relation to 
the service and ὑπηρέτης activity in re- 
lation to the master, cannot be made 
good. τῆς χάριτος is probably the gen. 
of apposition or identity (as the χάρις in 
ver. 8 indicates), = the gift consisting in 
the grace; and the particular οὐ rash in 
view is the office of the apostleship or the 
ministry to the Gentiles (as vv. 2, 8 sug- 
gest), not the gift of tongues (Grot.) or 
the gift of the Holy Ghost (Flatt, etc.). 
That “grace,” too, was God's gift (rot 
Θεοῦ).---τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ- 
γειαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ : which was 
given to me according to the working of 
His power. For the τὴν δοθεῖσαν, quali- 
fying the δωρεάν, of the TR (with CD°KL, 
etc.) the better reading is τῆς δοθε 
qualifying the χάριτος (with ΒΝΑΡ)Ε, 
17, etc.; so LTTrWHRV). As the 
former sentence affirmed the gift of 
the grace, this one states the manner of 
the bestowal. The standard or pro- 
portion of the giving was the efficiency, 
the efficacious working --- of 
God’s own power. The change in Paul 
when God made him an Apostle of Christ 
to the Gentiles was so great that he saw 
in it-nothing less than the result of the 
Divine omnipotence. 

Ver. 8. ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων 
τῶν ἁγίων ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις αὕτη : to me, 
who am less than the least of all saints, 
was given this grace. The τῶν inserted 
by the TR, on slender documentary evi- 
dence, before ἁγίων must be omitted as 
wanting in ΒΝΑΟΡΕΚΙ, etc. The 
thought of the dignity of the office he 
had received at the cost of such grace 
and power at once evokes the sense of 


omit ΝΑΒΟ 23, 31, 61, Copt. 


his own utter unworthiness, to which he 
gives stronger expression here than even 
in 1 Cor. xv. 9, or 2 Cor. xii. 11. The 
form ἐλαχιστότερος, a comparative of 
the superlative ἔλαχιστος, is found only 
here. It belongs to a class of double 
comparisons which had a place pro- 
bably in the popular modes of speech, 
but of which a considerable number are 
found in later literature, especially in 
poetry. The only other example in the 
NT 1 the double comparative μειζό- 
τερος in 3 John 4; cf. Buttm., Gram, of 
NT Greek, Ρ. 28.—dv τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐαγ- 
γελίσασθαι τὸν ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτον 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ: to preach to the Gentiles 
the unsearchable riches of Christ. The 
TR inserts ἐν before τοῖς ἔθνεσιν with) 
DFKL, εἰς); but it is not found in 
BSAC, etc., and is best omitted. The 
former reading would define the sphere 
assigned to Paul in his ministry; the 
latter, the subjects of that ministry. For 
τὸν πλοῦτον the better accredited form is 
τὸ πλοῦτος, The τοῦ Χριστοῦ is prob. 
the gen. of possess., = the riches that 
Christ Aas, or that are in Him. The 
πλοῦτος thus contained in Christ is the 
whole wealth of the salvation He be- 
stows; and this is “‘ unsearchable,”’ i.e., 
not in the sense of inexhaustible, but 
rather in that of unfathomable, “ past 
finding out,” such as cannot be filly 
comprehended by man; cf. Rom. xi. 33, 
the only other NT occurrence of ἀνεξιχ- 
γίαστον ; also Job ν. ο, ix. 10, xxxiv. 24, 
the only occurrences in the LXX. It 
is a picturesque and suggestive word, 
meaning literally such as cannot be 
traced owt by footprints. 
Ver. καὶ φωτίσαι πάντας τίς ἡ 
τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμ- 
μένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων : and to make all 
see what is the fellowship rr hei 
of the mystery ret ab: all ages hat. 
been hidden. The πάντας which the TR 
inserts after φωτίσαι is omitted by some 
MSS. (including ΝΑ) and certain Fathers 
(Hil., Jer., Aug., etc.). It is rejected by 


δ--9. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 307 


τὸ " ἀνεξιχνίαστον ' πλοῦτος ! τοῦ χριστοῦ, 9. καὶ " φωτίσαι πάντας 2h Rom. xi. 
33 only; 


ν η 3 ae ~ τὰ ’ ~ m2 x a 
τις ἡ Olkovopia® τοῦ "ἢ μυστηρίου τοῦ ™dwoKexpuppévou ἀπὸ τῶν Job. v. ὁ. 
i Neut., ch. 
i. 7 reff. k John i. 9; ch. i. 18 reff. 1 Ch, i, το reff. πι Ch, i. 9 reff. n Matt, xi 


25 || Luke; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Col. i. 26; 4 Kings iv. 27. 


1 τον a. πλουτον, with $*D*EKLP, al., Fathers; το . . . πλουτος SNABCDFG 17, 


673. For του χρ., αυτου 17. 


2 Insert παντας Ν'ΒΟΡΕΕΑΚΙ.Ρ, Vulg., Chr., Did., Euth., εἴς. ; omit 39 Α. 67, 


Cyr., ΗΠ Αυρ., είς, 
3 For οικογ., κοινωνια with 57, al. 


Tisch., accepted by RV in the text, and 
dealt with by WH as a secondary reading. 
The κοινωνία of the TR, which has the 
slenderest possible authority, must give 
place to the οἰκονομία of the RV with 
LTTrWH, which is the reading of ΒΝ 
ACDKFL, etc. Ifthe πάντας is omitted 
the sense becomes, as it is given in the 
margin of the RV, “to bring to light what 
is” the dispensation. If it is retained, 
the idea will be that of the enlightenment 
of all as to what the dispensation is. The 
πάντας, however, which occupies an un- 
emphatic position here, after the verb (in 
contrast with the emphatic position of 
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν before its verb) can scarcely 
bear the absolute sense of all men, Jew 
and Gentile alike, but refers to all the ἔθνη 
previously mentioned. The verb φωτίσαι 
is more than διδάξαι or κηρύξαι. It 
means to illuminate. Paul was not only 
to deliver his Apostolic message, but also 
to spiritually enlighten those who heard 
it, so that they should understand it. The 
particular thing in that message which is 
here in view is the οἰκονομία (on which 
see under i. 10), that is, the dispensation 
or arrangement of the mystery, to wit 
the admission of the Gentiles on equal 
terms with the Jews; the μυστήριον here 
having the same application as in iii. 6. 
The formula ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων occurs in 
the NT only here and in Col. i. 26; the 
forms ἀπὸ αἰῶνος and ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος also 
occur, the former in Luke 1. 7ο and Acts iii. 
21, the latter in John ix. 32. It means 
literally ‘“‘ from the ages,” “ from the 
world-periods,” that is, from the begin- 
ning, or since the world began, It is to 
be distinguished from πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων 
(z Cor. ii. 7). The Divine decree was 
formed before the ages of the world 
began ; the keeping of that decree hidden 
was since the ages of the world began, 
i.e., ‘from the commencement of the 
ages when intelligent beings from whom 
it could be concealed were called into 
existence”’ (Ell.). In Rom. xvi. 25 we 
have the similar description of the μυσ- 


τήριον as χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου. 
—év τῷ Θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι διὰ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: in God who created 
all things [through Fesus Christ]. The 
‘mystery’ had its place of concealment 
in God Himself, in the Divine mind. 
And God is designated specially in respect 
of His creative power— God who created 
all things ”’ (not ‘‘inasmuch as He created 
all things,”’ which would require the omis- 
sion of the τῷ). The τὰ πάντα, which 
also occupies a somewhat emphatic posi- 
tion here, is not to be restricted either to 
the physical creation (Chrys.), or to the 
spiritual (Calv.), but has the absolute 
sense of all that exists. The TR adds 
διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to the κτίσαντι (with 
Π5ΚΙ,, etc.); but these words must be 
omitted, as the best authorities (ΒΝΑΟ 
DF, 17, etc:) do not give them. But why 
is this reference to God as the Creator of 
all things introduced at this point? By 
way of confirmation, say some, of what 
has just been said of the “" mystery”’ as 
having been hidden from the beginning 
in God; the point being that He who 
created all things must have had the con- 
tents of this ‘“‘mystery”’ in His eternal 
plan (Mey.). To ‘‘enhance the idea of 
His omnipotence,” say others; He who 
created all things having ‘ordained the 
mystery itself in the exercise of His un- 
doubted prerogative of sovereign and 
creative power” (Ell.). Or, as others 
put it more precisely, its object is to take 
the wonder from the idea of the “ mys- 
tery”? having been so long unrevealed; 
the creation of all things by God being a 
fact which involves His perfect right to 
adjust all things as He will” (Alf.)—the 
Creator of all being “ free to make what 
arrangements He pleased as to the con- 
cealment and revelation of His purpose” 
(Abb.). None of these interpretations 
can be said to be either very clear or very 
adequate. This designation of God as 
the Creator of all that exists is intended 
rather to express the greatness of the 
“mystery ” that is now disclosed and of 


308 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Ill. 


ο Col. i. 26;° αἰώνων 1 » ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα “ κτίσαντι,2 το. ἵνα * γνωρισθῇ 


plur., 
Rom. i. 


r Ch. i. 9 reff. s Ch. i. 21 reff. t Ch. i. 


1 After τ. atwy. insert και απο των Ύενεων FG, g, Syr. 


vov® ταῖς " ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς " ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ᾿ ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς 


25, ix. 5 
ke 1 Cor. ii. 7, x. 11; ch. ii. 7; 1 Tim. i. 17; _ i. 2, xi. 4. 
3 reff. 


p Col. iii. 3. q Ch. ii. ro refi. 


2 After κτισαντι insert δια Incov Χριστου D°EKL, etc., Syr., al., Chr., Thdrt., 


ΤΗΙ., Oec.; om. SABCDFGP 17, 73, 177-8, al., It., Vulg., Syr., Ar 


--erp., Copt., 


Eth., Arm., Dial., Bas., Cyr., Tert., Jer., Ambr., Aug., Ambrst., Vig., Pel. 
3 yvv om. FG, Syr., all Orig., Tert., all; insert (etc.) Ath., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., al., 


Jer... 


which Paul is to be a preacher. The 
main thought in the verse in question is 
the thought with which it starts, véz., 
the marvel of that Apostolic commission 
of which Paul had been put in trust by 
the grace of God; and the majesty and 
the wonder of that commission are made 
the greater by the grandeur of the “‘ mys- 
tery” the Divine disposition of which he 
was appointed to declare toallmen. This 
“mystery,” though long hidden, had been 
in the Divine mind from the first, and it 
had been there in such a sense that the 
whole scheme of created things had it in 
view, and in such wise that the know- 
ledge of it was to be imparted even to 
the angelic world (cf. Haupt). Or, as it 
may be better put, the “mystery” now 
at last revealed by God and proclaimed 
by Paul to all men in all the sovereign 
and surpassing wisdom of the Divine 
dispensation by which it was hidden 
long and in the fulness of time at last 
disclosed, was one of God's own eternal 
secrets, one of His unsearchable thoughts, 
a thing that had its place from the begin- 
ning in His creative plan, a reserve in the 
Eternal mind that purposed and formed 
all that exists. And to Paul’s hands did 
the surpassing grace of God commit the 
proclamation of a truth of such magni- 
tude, the illumination (φωτίσαι) of so 
unsearchable a disposition of the Divine 
wisdom | 

Ver. το. ἵνα γνωρισθῇ viv ταῖς ἀρχαῖς 
κὰὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις : 
in 0 at now unto the principalities 
and the παρόν in the heavenlies might 
be made known. To make the manifold 
wisdom of God known where formerly it 
was not understood is now declared to 
be the object in view. But the object of 
what? The creation of all things, says 
Harless ; who connects the ἵνα ῇ 
immediately with the τῷ τὰ πάντα κτί- 
σαντι. But, while it is true that τε- 
demption is sometimes exhibited in re- 
lation to creation (John i, 1-14, etc.), 
and while Christ Himself is presented at 


times not only as the author and ground 
of creation but also as its end or object 
(Col. i. 16), the idea resulting here on 
that view would be that the hyp xg of 
God in creating all things was the pro- 
clamation of His wisdom to the angelic 
world by the Church. This, however, 
would be a statement without any par- 
allel elsewhere in the NT. It is better, 
therefore, to connect the sentence im- 
mediately with the τοῦ μυστη τοῦ 
ἀποκεκρυμμένον, as is done wore 
and many more. In that case the idea 
would be that the “ mystery’ was long 
hidden indeed, but hidden only with the 
design of being made known, and that on 
the widest possible scale—to angels no 
less than to men—in due time (cf. the 
general statement of principle in Mark iv. 
22). There is much to be said in support 
of this, Ὁ ἢ the antithesis of the νῦν to 
the ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, and the γναρισθῇ to 
the ἀποκεκρυμμένον, etc. But it is best 


to take the verse as referring to the pre- 
vious ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις αὕτη, etc. (Ell, 
Alf. ; and. substantially De Wette, Hofm., 
etc.). The main idea in the paragraph 
from ver. 7 onwards is unmistakably that 
of the marvellous call and commission of 
Paul, and the wonder of the grace that 
made an Apostle and preacher of him is 
magnified the more by the Divine pur- 
pose revealed in that commission, to wit, 
the making known the manifold wisdom 
of God in His ways with sinful men and 
with the outcasts of the Gentile world in 
particular. It is objected indeed that 
this is to make Paul claim for his own 
preaching and as his own special work 
what belonged to other Apostles and 
preachers no less than to him. But all 
that is stated here goes in point of 
fact to enhance the i of Paul’s own 
personal insignificance, the extraordin 

and unmerited nature of his call, and his 
absolute indebtedness to grace. ‘ For 
this sublime cause,” as Alford admir- 
ably expresses it, “the humble Paul 
was raised up—to bring about—he, the 





Io—II, 


u 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


309 


ἐκκλησίας ἡ " πολυποίκιλος “copia τοῦ θεοῦ, 11. κατὰ ” πρόθεσιν u Ch. i. 22 
τε. 


- , A aA ~ ~ 
τῶν "αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν “ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ! τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, v Here 


w=Rom., xi. 33; 1 Οὐσ. ἱ. 21, εἴς, ; Rev. ν. 12 ἃ]. 


only. 


x Ch. i. 11 reff. γα Tim. i.9. z=Col. i. τό reff. 


Before Χριστω insert τω Ν ΑΒΟ 17, 37, 116, etc. ; omit ΜΟ ΡΕ ΚΙ, most mss., 
Ath., Chr., Thdrt., Dam. ; FG om. Χ. Ino. ; Clem. om. Ino. 


least worthy of the saints—that to the 
heavenly powers themselves should be 
made known, by means of those whom 
he was empowered to enlighten ’—the 
manifold wisdom of God. The ἀρχαί 
and ἐξουσίαι can only mean good angels 
(cf. under i, 21 above) ; and these names 
of dignity (the term ἄγγελος is not used 
in this Epistle) are appropriate here as 
suggesting again the greatness of Paul’s 
commission, and perhaps also (as Mey. 
thinks) the glory put upon the ἐκκλησία. 
That the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι cannot mean 
any orders of earthly powers—Jewish, 
Gentile or Christian rulers or the like, is 
shown by the ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. Nor 
can they refer to demonic powers, whether 
by themselves alone or as part of the 
angelic world, for this would scarcely be 
* consistent with the mention of the Church, 
and further the Divine power would in 
that case be more in point than the 
Divine wisdom. Nor again is there any- 
thing in the context to suggest that Paul 
has in view the angels that ministered the 
law and the elemental powers honoured 
by the heathen (V. Soden). The ἐν τοῖς 
ἐπουρανίοις here, as elsewhere in the 
Epistle, has the sense = in heaven ; see 
under 1. 3 above. The ἐν, therefore, has 
its proper local sense, and is not = in re- 
spect of, as if the clause meant “in the case 
of the heavenly things”. As the phrase 
makes one idea, too, with the ἀρχαῖς and 
ἐξουσίαις, defining them as heavenly, it 
requires no ταῖς after the ἐξουσίαις.---διὰ 





πο σης ἐκκλησίας : through the Church. The 


Church, therefore, that is, as is evidently 
meant here, the whole body of believers 
in the unity in which Jew and Gentile 
are now made one, is the means by which 
the Divine wisdom is to be made known 
and Paul’s commission in that respect 
made good. The Church, which it was 
his high Apostolic vocation to build up by 
bringing multitudes of Gentile believers 
into its membership—the Church in 
which the breaking down of ancient bar- 
riers and the removal of the old enmity 
were now seen, was itself the living wit- 
ness to the Divine σοφία, the “ mirror,” 
as Calvin puts it, “in which angels con- 
template the wonderful wisdom of God”. 
And that Divine wisdom is described as 


πολυποίκιλος (a word found only this 
once in the NT)—not with any reference 
to Gnostic ideas of σοφία (as Baur ima- 
gined), for the use of such a term as this 
in that connection is of later date (Iren., 
Haer., i., 4, 1); nor simply in the sense 
of very wise, for which Aesch., Prom., 
1308, is mistakenly cited; but as = 
multivarius, multiformis (Vulg.), having 
a great variety of forms. The adj. is 
used of the rich variety of colours in 
cloths, flowers, paintings, etc. (Eurip., 
Iph. T., 1149 ; Eubulus, ap. Athen., 15, 
p. 679 5; Orph. Hym., vi., 11; Ixi., 4). 
In different ways had God dealt with 
men, with the Jew in one way and with 
the Gentile in another, in the long course 
of the ages. But in all these He had 
had one great end in view. Now in 
the Church the realisation of that end is 
seen, and in that great spiritual harmony 
angels can perceive the manifoldness and 
majesty of that Divine wisdom which by 
ways so diverse had been working to 
this great result. That angels have an 
interest in man’s redemption and desire 
to look into it is stated in 1 Pet. i. 12. 
Here it is indicated that they are capable 
/of an enlargement of insight into it. 


Ver. 11. / κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων: 
cordingAo the eternal purpose. Liter- 
ally;“according to the purpose of the 


ages’? or “‘world-periods”; but repre- 
sented with substantial accuracy by the 
“eternal” of the AV and the other old 
English Versions with exception of Wicl. 
and the Rhemish. The term πρόθεσις 
must be taken here as elsewhere in the. 
proper sense of purpose, not in that of 
foreknowledge (Chrys.); and the clause 
is to be connected neither with the σοφία 
nor with the πολυποίκιλος in particular, 
but with the γνωρισθῃ. The disclosure 
of the manifold wisdom of God to the 
angelic world, contemplated in the com- 
mission given by God’s grace to Paul, 
was of further-reaching moment than 
that. It was contemplated in God’s 
eternal purpose and took place in accor- 
dance with that. The gen. αἰώνων may 
be a gen. of time (cf. Jude 6); Alf. com- 
pares our phrase “δὴ opinion of years” ; 
or it may rather be one of the many forms 
of the gen. of possession—‘the purpose 


310 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ΠῚ, 


a Acts ii. 2912. ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν "παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν] " προςαγωγὴν ἐν “πεποιθή- 


αἰ(4) ; 2 
Cor. iii. 
12, Vii. 43 


reff. c 2 Cor. i. 15; Phil. iii. 4 only 
Acts iii. 16 al. fr. 


9; 2 Thess. iii. 13 only. ohn ν. 35; 


σειΣ “διὰ τῆς πίστεως “αὐτοῦ. 


1 Tim. ili. 13; Philem. 8; Heb. iii. 6; 4 aa 2 28; ee ey Pt in ον 
4 Kingsx 19 
εἰς. 


fC Colt 93 Joka ν. πα ae 
om. ii. 23 


13. διὸ ᾿ αἰτοῦμαι "μὴ ἐγκακεῖνϑ ὃ ἐν 
"ἢ b ἘΣ ii. 18 

8 re ε 

g Luke xviii. be a Cor. iv. 1,16; Gal. vi. 


1 τὴν om. NAB 17, 80; insert CD*KLP, Ath., Euthal., Thdrt., etc. 


? For εν πεπ., εν τω ελενθερωθηναι D!. 


Sexxaxey CD°FGKL, etc., Fathers ; ενκακειν (Ν Β᾽, al 


37, 39, 46, 47, etc. 


pertaining to the ages,” formed before the 
[oundation of the world (i. 3), long hidden 
in the Divine Mind (iii. 9), but existent and 
in God’s view from the beginning till now 
(cf. 2 Tim. i. 0).---ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν Χριστῷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν : which he wrought 
in Christ Fesus our Lord. The subject 
of the ἐποίησεν is the πρόθεσις, not the 
σοφία (Jer., Luth., etc.). The verb is 
rendered “‘ purposed” by the RV; as it is 
also taken by many to mean formed, con- 
stituted (Calv., Harl., Hofm., De Wette, 
Alf., Abb., etc.). This use of the verb is 
somewhat like that in Mark iii. 6, xv. 1 
(συμβούλιον ποιεῖν), etc., and gives a 
good sense. On the other hand, the use 
of ποιεῖν in such connections as θέλημα 
ποιεῖν (Matt. xxi. 31; John vi. 38; Eph. 
ii. 3), γνώμην ποιεῖν (Rev. xvii. 17), etc., 
seems to be sufficient justification for 
giving it the sense of fulfilling, carrying 
out; and the designation Christ Fesus 
(not Christ simply), pointing as it does 
to the historical Person, suggests that 


what is in view now is the realisation of 


the purpose rather than its formation. 
On the whole, therefore, it is perhaps 
best to render it ‘‘which He wrought, 
or carried into effect, in Him whom we 
reach as Christ Jesus our Lord” (Mey., 

Il., εἰς). The TR (with ΝΤΟ ΡΚΙ., 
etc.) gives ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ; the best 
critics (LTTrWHRV), on “ἂν authority 
of BN*AC 17, etc., insert τῷ before 
Χριστῷ. The designation ὁ Χριστὸς 
᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν is singular; ε[., 
however, the τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν 
Κύριον of Col. ii. 6. 

Ver. 12, ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν 
Hel τὴν προσαγωγήν: in whom we have 
bo d access. The second τήν, 
which is inserted by the TR, has the 
support of some good authorities, CD* 
KLP, Chrys., etc.; but is not found in 
BNA 17, etc., and is to be omitted (with 
LTTrWHRV). As the παρρησία and 
the προσαγωγή meet in one idea the 
τήν does not require to be repeated. 
The article before the nouns has much 


+ εγκακειν), NABD 13, 17, 


the force of ‘‘our boldness and access”, 
The παρρησίαν is not to be limited to 
freedom of speech, freedom in preaching, 
or boldness in prayer, but is to be taken 
in the large sense which it has in Phil. 
i. 20: Tim. iii, 135 Heb. x. 19; and 
especially in 1 John ii. 28, iii. 21, iv. 17, 
v. 14—freedom of spirit, cheerful boldness, 
“the joyful mood of those reconciled to 
God” (Mey.). The conjunction of the 
προσαγωγή with the intrans. παρρησία 
makes the intrans. sense of access more 
appropriate here than the trans. sense of 
introduction ; cf. under ii. 18.---ἓν πεποι- 
θήσει: in confidence. The noun πεποί- 
θησις belongs to late Greek (Joseph., 
Philo., Sext. Empir., εἰς). In the 
LXX it occurs once (2 Kings xviii. 19) ; 
in the NT it is found only in Paul (2 
Cor. i. 15, iii. 4, Vill. 2a, αὶ ΕΣ 
iii. 4, and here). It indicates the dis- 
position in which the παρρησία με ον 
προσα are made ροοά.---διὰ 
πίστεως through our faith ve 
Him. The αὐτοῦ is best taken as the 
n. objecti; cf. Rom. iii. 22; Gal. ii. 16. 
Thus, as the ἐν ᾧ expresses the fact that 
Christ is the ground of our παρρησία and 
προσαγωγή, and the ἐν πεποιθήσει the 
state of mind in which we enjoy these 
blessings, so this clause declares the 
means by which they become our actual 
possession. The whole verse, moreover, 
is not so much a simple addition to the 
preceding statement as rather an indirect 
appeal to personal experience, in confirm- 
ation of what was said of the fulfilment 
of God's eternal purpose in Christ Jesus 
our Lord, the ἐν ᾧ having, as Ell, explains 
it, the same force as év αὐτῷ γάρ. 
' πὰ ye —— μὴ ἐγκακεῖν ἐν 
ὑμῶν : wherefore 
I Task that ye pe κέν: eart in my tribula- 
tions in your behalf. The διό is referred 
by some (Mey., etc.) to the immediately 
preceding verse, the possession of these 
great privileges of “‘ boldness and access" 
on the part of the Ephesians being Paul’s 
reason for urging on them the request 


12—14. 


which follows. It is better, however, to 
refer the διό to the great thought of the 
whole paragraph, to which the statement 
in ver. 12 is subordinate, viz., the dignity 
of the office committed to Paul and its 
significance forthem. Because the great 
trust of the Apostleship among the Gen- 
tiles is what he has declared it to be for 
himself and for them, he puts this request 
before them. The αἰτεῖν, which some- 
times expresses a demand (Luke i. 63; 1 
Cor. i. 22), has the simple sense of asking 
here ; and in such connections as the 
present αἰτοῦμαι has the full sense of 
asking for one’s self. It is followed 
sometimes by the acc. and inf. (Luke 
xxiii, 23; Acts ΠΠ. 14), and sometimes, 
as here, by the simple inf. (Acts vii. 46). 
The idea in the verb ἐγκακεῖν is that 
of losing courage, becoming faint of 
heart. The form ἐκκακεῖν, which is 
given in the TR, appears in CD®FKL, 
etc. It is doubtful, however, whether 
that form occurs anywhere in ordinary 
Greek. It may have had a place in 
popular, oval use. The written form 
was ἐγκακεῖν, and that form appears 
here in most of the best MSS. (ΒΝΔΡΙ, 
etc.). Hence LTrRV adopt ἐγκακεῖν ; 
TWH, ἐνκακεῖν. But what is the con- 
struction here? Some supply Θεόν, and 
make the sense either (1) ‘‘I pray God 
that ye faint not,” or (2) “1 pray God 
that I faint not”. But if the subject of 
the αἰτοῦμαι had been God, the Θεόν 
could scarcely have been omitted, as there 
is nothing in the context clearly to sug- 
gest it. And that it is the readers, not 
Paul himself, whose possible faint-heart- 
edness is referred to appears from the 
force of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν and the ἥτις ἐστὶ 
δόξα ὑμῶν. Paul himself rejoiced in his 
tribulations (2 Cor. xii. 5, 10: Col. i. 24, 
etc.), and a prayer in such circumstances 
as the present betraying any fear about 
himself would be utterly unlike him. 
But he might have cause enough to 
apprehend that these converts might not 
all view painful things as he did. Hence 
ὑμᾶς is to be understood as the subject 
of αἰτοῦμαι (cf. 2Cor. v. 20; Heb. xiii. 
19). The ἐν before θλίψεσι has the proper 
sense of in (not ‘‘at” as RV puts it), 
pointing to the circumstances, sphere, or 
relation in which the faint-heartedness 
ought not to show itself (cf. Win.-Moult., 
pp. 482, 483, and Ell., zm loc.). These 
θλίψεις were ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (the phrase ὑπὲρ 
ὑμῶν going surely with the θλίψεσί μου, 
not with αἰτοῦμαι as Harless strangely 
puts it), as sufferings endured in virtue of 
Paul’s Apostleship among the Gentiles ; 
cf, Phil. i. 17. The defining article again 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


411 


is not required before ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, as the 
phrase makes in reality one ἰά68.---ἥτις 
ἐστὶ δόξα ὑμῶν : which are your glory. 
The distinction between the definite or 
objective rel. ὅς and the indefinite, gen- 
eric, or qualitative rel. ὅστις (cf. Jelf, 
Gr. Gram., 816) is not always main- 
tained in the NT, and indeed the use of 
ὅστις for ὅς is as old as Herod. (ii., 92) 
and Ionic Greek generally (Kiihner, Gr. 
Gram., ii., 996). In the Pauline Epistles, 
however, the distinction seems to be fairly 
maintained (Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, 
p. 173), and ἥτις appears here to have the 
force of an explanation—‘‘ inasmuch as 
they are,” “for indeed they are”. The rel. 
is referred by some (Theod., Olsh., Harl.) 
to the μὴ ἐγκακεῖν, or to the whole sen- 
tence beginning with that ; in which case 
ἥτις would stand for 6. But it is most 
naturally referred to the θλίψεσι. It is 
a case of attraction, but one in which the 
noun of the rel. clause gives its number 
(cf. Dem. ο. Aphob., p. 853, 31, and in 
the NT itself, Acts xxiv. 11; Phil. iii. 20) 
as well as its gender to the rel. (Win.- 
Moult., p. 206; Buttm., Gram. of NT 
Greek, p. 281; Donald., Gr. Gram., p. 
362; Madvig, Syn., § 98). The clause, 
therefore, gives the readers a reason or 
motive for not yielding to faintness of 
heart. Paul’s tribulations were endured 
in their behalf, and were of value for 
them. The greater the office of the 
sufferer, the more did the afflictions which 
he was content to endure for them re- 
dound to their honour; and the better 
this was understood by them, the less 
should they give way to weakness and 


discouragement. == 


Vv. 14-19. A paragraph containing an 
earnest prayer for the inward strengthen- 
ing of the readers, the presence of Christ 
in them, their enlargement in the know- 
ledge of the love of Christ, and the reali- 
sation in them of the Divine perfections. 

Ver. 14. τούτου χάριν: for this cause. 
The sentence begun at ili, 1 and inter- 
rupted at ver. 2 is now taken up again. 
The τούτου χάριν, therefore, refers to the 
great statement of privilege in the latter 
part of the previous chapter. The ideas 
which came to expression in the digres- 
sion in vy. 2-13, are also no doubt in view 
in some measure. The thought of the 
new relations into which the Ephesians 
had been brought by grace toward God 
and toward the Jews—the reconciliation 
of the Cross, peace effected where once 
there was only enmity, the place given 
them in the household of God—gave 
Paul cause for prayer in their behalf.— 
κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά pov: I bow my knees, 


_ 


4x2 ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ Ill. 


i=Rom.v. ταῖς 'θλίψεσίν µου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, "ἥτις ἐστὶν ᾿δόξα ὑμῶν. 14. "τούτου 


3; 2 Cor. 


vi. 4 χάριν " κάμπτω τὰ "γόνατά μου “πρὸς τὸν πατέρα,” 15. ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα 
14; Col. «πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ᾿ ὀνομάζεται, 16. ἵνα δῴη ὃ ὑμῖν 


i. 24. 

k Attr., ch. i. 8 reff. 

n Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11; Phil. ii. 10 only. o=L 
Mem., iv. 6, 12. 


151 Cor. ii. 7, xi. 15; Phil. iii. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 20. 
q Luke ii. 4; Acts iii. 25 only; 


m Ver. 1 reff. 
xii. 3; 1 Cor. xiii. τα. p=here only; Xen., 
um. i. 18. r Ch. i. δ reff. 


1 npev C 17, 31, 33, 37, 71, 72, 80, 116, Cop., Arm., Euth, 


2 Insert τον Κνριον η 


Orig., εἴς. ; omit ΝΑΒΟΡ 17, 67%, al., Copt., A&th., Ar.-erp., 


ν ἴησου Χριστον N*DEFGKL, beg, τ Goth., Syr., Arm., 


drt., Orig., Epiph., 


Euth., Cyrr., Dam., Jer. (ποπ, ut in latinis codd. additum est, ‘ad Patrem Dom. 
nostri Ὑ. C.,’—sed simpliciter ‘ad Patrem,’ legendum”). 


Ξδω NSBABCFG 17, 37-9, 116, Meth., Bas., Cyrr., εἴς. ; δωη DEKLP, Valent., 


Orig., Ath., Chr., Euthal., etc. 


A simple, natural figure for prayer, earnest 
prayer (Calv.)—not as if Paul actually 
knelt as he wrote (Calov.). The standipg 
posture in prayer and the kneeling are 
both mentioned in the NT (e.g., Mark 
xi, 25; Luke xviii. 11, 13, for the former, 
and Luke xxii. 41; Acts vii. 60, xx. 36, 
xxi. 5, for the latter), For kneeling in 
the OT see 1 Kings viii. 54 ; Dan. vi. 10; 
cf. also 1 Kings xix. 18.---πρὸς τὸν πα- 
τέρα: to the Father. The πρὸς takes the 
place of the simple dat. which usually 
follows the phrase κάμπτω γόνν (Rom. 
xi. 4, xiv. 11), the idea here being that of 
prayer, and of God as the Hearer to whom 
it was directed. The TR, following 
N*DFKL, Lat., Syr., Goth., etc., adds 
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This 
is an addition which might very readily 
find a place in the text, the designation 
being a familiar one, occurring already 
indeed in this Epistle (i. 3). It does not 
appear, however, in ΡΝ Ὁ, 17, Copt., 
Eth., etc., and it is omitted by the best 
critics (LTTrWHRYV). 

Ver. 15. ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐ- 
ρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται: from 
whom every family in heaven and on 
earth is named. The ἐξ οὗ denotes the 
origin of the name, the source whence it 
is derived (cf. Hom., Π., x., 68; Xen., 
Mem., iv., 5, 8; Soph., Gd. R., 1036). 
The verb ὀνομάζομαι is also followed by 
ἀπό (Herod., vi., 129); but ἐκ conveys 
the idea of more direct origination (cf. 
Ell., in loc.). The noun πατριά, for 
which πάτρα is the more usual form in 
classical Greek, never has the sense of 
πατρότης, paternitas (Syr., Goth., Vulg., 
Luth., and, so far, also Harl.). It means 
sometimes ancestry (Herod., ii., 143 ; iil., 
75), but usually family (Exod. vi. 15, xii. 
3; Num. i. 2; Luke ii. 4), race or tribe, 
t.¢., a number of families descended from 


a common stock (Herod., i., 200; Num. i. 
16), nation or people (1 Chron. xvi. 28; 
Ps, xxii. 28; Acts ili. 25). In the LXX the 


πατριαί are the nnn as dis- 


tinguished from the φυλαί, FVD. 
The Israelites were constituted of twelve 
φυλαί divided into a number of πατριαί, 
each of these latter again consisting of so 
many οἶκοι. Here the word seems to have 
the widest sense of class, order, nation, 
community, as the idea of family in the 
proper sense of the term is inapplicable to 
the case of the angels, who are indicated 
by ἐν οὐρανοῖς. Further, the anarthrous 
πᾶσα πατριά grammatically can only 
mean “every family” (see under ii. 21 


above), not “ the whole family ’’ (Mich., 


Olsh., etc.). All such ideas, therefore, 
as that angels and men, or the blessed in 
heaven and the believing on earth, are in 
view as now making one great family, 
are excluded. Nor can ὀνομάζεται be 
made to mean anything else than “are 
named "—certainly not exist, or called 
into existence (Estius, etc.), or “are named 
the children of God” (Beng., etc.). The 
sense, therefore, is “ τῆς Father, from 
whom all the related orders of intelligent 
beings, human and angelic, each by itself, 
get the significant name of ων, com- 
munity”. The various classes of men on 
earth, Jewish, Gentile, and others, and 
the various orders of angels in heaven, are 
all related to God, the common Father, 
and only in virtue of that relation has 
any of them the name of family. The 
father makes the family; God is the 
Father of all; and if any community of 
intelligent beings, human or angelic, bears 
the great name of family, the reason for 
that lies in this relation of God to it. 
The significant name has its origin in the 





5 Penk 


14—17. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


313 


κατὰ τὸ "πλοῦτος 1 τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ " δυνάμει 3 " κραταιωθῆναι " διὰ 5 ο. 1.7 


Tren. 


τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ “eis τὸν * ἔσω * ἄνθρωπον, 17. ” κατοικῆσαι τὸν t=Col.i. τι. 


ii. 40; 1 Cor. xvi. 13 only; Neh. ii. 18. 
w=ch. ii. 21 al. 


x Rom. vii. 22; see 2 Cor. iv. 16. 


u Lukei. 80, 


v Acts xxi. 4; Rom. v. 5; 1 Cor. ii. ro al. 


y Col. i. το, ii. g al. 


tov πλουτον, with D°KL, etc., Fathers; το πλουτος SABCDEFGP 673, 116, 


Ath.-ms., Ephr. ; το πληθος 17. 
Σεν Suv. FG, Copt. ; δυναμιν Mac. 


spiritual relationship. It is not possible, 
however, to give proper expression to the 
thought in English. In the Greek there 
is a play upon the words πατήρ, πατριά, 
which cannot be reproduced. Some have 
supposed that Paul has certain Rabbinical 
notions in view here, or that he is glancing 
at certain Gnostic theories, or at the vain 
worship ofangels. But there isno ground 
for such far-fetched suppositions. The 
Rabbinical conceits regarding angels and. 
the Gnostic speculations were both very 
different from anything suggested here. 
Ver. 16. ἵνα ϑῴη ὑμῖν κατὰ τὸν πλοῦ- 
τον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ: that He would 
grant you according to the riches of His 
glory. The tva introduces the subject of 
the prayer, representing it, however, also 
as the thing which he had in view in pray- 
ing and which made the purpose of his 
prayer (see under i. 17 above). For the 
δῴη of the TR (with DKL, etc.), the RV 
(with LTTrWH) gives δῷ as in ΒΝΑΟΕ, 
17, etc. (see under i. 17 above), For τὸν 
πλοῦτον (TR, with D®°KL, etc.) read 
again τὸ πλοῦτος, with \BBACDF, etc. 
The δόξα is the whole revealed perfections 
of God, not merely His grace or His 
power ; and the clause belongs more fitly 
to the δῷ than to the following δυνάμει 
κραταιωθῆναι. The measure of the gift 
for which Paul prays on behalf of the 
Ephesians is nothing short of those per- 
fections of God which are revealed now 
in their glorious fulness and inexhaustible 
wealth (cf. i. 7, 18; ii. 4, 7).---δυνάμει 
κραταιωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ: 
to be strengthened by power through His 
Spirit. The δυνάμει is taken by some 
as the dat. of manner, or as an adverbial 
expression = mightily. But the former 
mention of the ἐγκακεῖν suggests that the 
power is regarded here as 7m the subjects 
rather than as put forth by God. Others 
make it the dat. of reference, or take it to 
denote the particular form in which the 
strengthening was to take effect, viz., in 
the form of fower as contrasted with 
knowledge or other kinds of gifts. But 
there is nothing to suggest limitation to 
one special capacity. Such limitation 
indeed would be inconsistent with the 


comprehensive εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. 
It is best understood as the dat. instrum. 
The strengthening was to take effect by 
means of power imparted or infused, and 
this impartation of power was to be made 
through the Spirit of God.—eis τὸν ἔσω 
ἄνθρωπον : into the inward man. The 
‘inward man ” is viewed here as the recip- 
tent, that into which the strengthening 
was to be poured, or the object towards 
which the gift was directed. The εἰς, 
therefore, has its full force of ‘‘ into,” and 
is not to be reduced either to “‘in” (RV), 
or to “‘in regard of” (Mey.). The phrase 
ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος has certain parallels in 
classical Greek, e.g., 6 ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος 
(Plato, Rep., ix., p. 589), 6 εἴσω ἄνθρωπος 
(Plotin., Enn., v., 1, 10); and it is con- 
ceivable that these philosophical expres- 
sions had become popularised in course 
of time, and had penetrated even into 
the common speech of Jews, or at least 
into the vocabulary of educated Jews. 
But the question is—What is the force of 
the phrase in the NT itself? The two 
terms 6 ἔσω ἄνθρωπος, ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρωπος 
denote the two sides or aspects of the 
nature of man, soul and body, real and 
phenomenal, enduring and perishable (cf. 
the contrast in 2 Cor. iv. 16) ; as the terms 
ὁ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος, ὁ καινὸς (νέος) ἄν- 
θρωπος denote his twofold moral nature. 
The ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος itself occurs only 
thrice in the NT, and all three occur- 
rences are in the Pauline Epistles (Rom. 
vii. 22; 2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16). It 
has different shades of meaning there, 
but the same general sense, viz., that of 
the personal subject, the rational, moral 
self, somewhat similar to the νοῦς in 
Rom. vii. 23, and the ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς 
καρδίας ἄνθρωπος of 1 Pet. iii. 4. In 
this ἔσω ἄνθρωπος the goodness of the 
law of God can be recognised so that one 
can delight in that law. But there is 
another law that warsagainst it and brings 
it into subjection (Rom. vii. 19-23). Hence 
the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος has to be regenerated, 
and so becomes “ the new man,” ὃ καινὸς 
ἄνθρωπος, that is created after God (6 
κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθείς, Eph. iv. 24), or 6 
véos ἄνθρωπος, that is renewed (avaxay- 


314 


z Constr., 
ch. i 


p., Col. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Ill, 


at Ἡ χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, 18. ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
Col. i. 2; ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ " τεθεμελιωμένοι, ἵνα ἢ ἐξισχύσητε “ καταλαβέσθαι 


bait 4 σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς " ἁγίοις τί τὸ ' πλάτος καὶ " μῆκος καὶ " βάθος 1 καὶ 


e=ch. i. Σ reff. 


iv. 13, X. 34, xxv. 25; Phil. iii. 12, 13 . 
fg Rev. xx. 9, xxi. 16 only; Gen. i. 15. 


1νψ. κ. Bad. BCDEFG 17, 37, 57, 73, 116, It., Vulg., Syr., Ar.-erp., Copt., Eth., 
Arm., Ath., Cyr., Lucif.. Ambrst., Pel., Jer.; βαθος και υψος AKL, etc., Syr., al., 


Orig., Chrys., Thdrt., al. 


vovpevos, Col. iii. το). The strength, 
therefore, which was to be communicated 
by the impartation of new spiritual power 
through the Holy Spirit was a gift to en- 
rich and invigorate the deepest and most 
central thing in them—their whole con- 
scious, personal being. 

Ver. 17. κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ 
τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν : that 
Christ may dwell in your hearts through 
faith, The presence of Christ, His stated 
presence (κατοικεῖν as contrasted with 
παροικεῖν = sojourn, cf. Gen. xxxvii. 1), 
the taking up of His abode in them (cf. 
the use of κατοικεῖν in Matt. xii. 45; 
Luke xi. 26; 2 Pet. iii. 13; and also 
its application to Christ Himself in an- 
other relation in Col. i. 19), is also em- 
braced in the scope of Paul’s prayer. 
The indwelling expressed here by the 
comp. κατοικεῖν is also expressed by 
the simple οἰκεῖν (Rom. viii. 9; 1 , 
iii, 16). Its seat is the καρδία---εἷνε centre 
of feeling, thinking, willing (cf. Delitzsch, 
Bib. Psych., iv., 5). And the means or 
ped ας through which it takes posses- 
sion of the heart is faith, the διὰ πίστεως 
indicating the receptivity which is the 
condition on our side. There remains, 
however, the question of the construction. 
The κατοικῆσαι, etc., may be taken as 
dependent on the δῷ and as forming a 
second boon contemplated in the gift 
prayed for, as if = “and that He may 
grant you also that Christ may dwell in 
your hearts” (Mey., Abb., εἰς.). Or it 
may be taken as dependent on the κρα- 
ταιωθῆναι, etc., expressing the contem- 
plated result of the gift of strength (inf. 
of consequence ; cf. Acts v. 3; Heb. vi. 
10; Apoc. v. 5, xvi. 9, etc.), = “to the 
effect that Christ may dwell in your 
hearts’. The omission of the con- 
necting καί is no insuperable objection 
to the former ; for cases of asyndeton are 
sufficiently common. But the second 
view (so ΕΙΙ., Alf., etc.) is on the whole 
to be preferred, as it deals better both 
with the grammatical connection and with 
the emphatic position of the κατοικῆσαι. 


The former view has the difficulty of tak- 
ing two somewhat different grammatical 
constructions as parallels, and it fails to 
bring out as the latter does the advance in 
thethought. The indwelling of Christ is 
the higher boon which is in view as the 
end and effect of the strengthening.—év 
ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι: ye 
having been rooted and pases love. 
Nothing can legitimately be made of the 
anarthrous ἀγάπῃ, the article being often 
dropped before abstract nouns, and es- 
pecially after a preposition (Win.-Moult., 
ΡΡ. 148, 149). As the ἀγάπῃ is also 
without any αὐτοῦ or other defining gen., 
it appears to have its most general sense 
here, not “the love of God” or “the 
love of Christ” in particular, but love, 
the Christian principle or grace which is 
“the bond of perfectness"’ (Col. iii. 14). 
In this love they are described (by two 
perf. partics.) as ‘having been rooted and 
grounded’’. If the terms ἐῤῥιζωμένοι, 
τεθεμελιωμένοι were used in fet proper 
etymological connotation, they might 
suggest much, The former might con- 
vey the idea of subjects deriving their 
life and growth from love; and the latter 
the idea of subjects built up on the basis 
of love as living stones in the Divine 
temple. But the terms are also used 
without any reference to their original, 
etymological sense — ῥιζοῦν, ¢.g., in 
Soph., (2d. C., 1591, means simply to 
establish something firmly. So here the 
two words probably express the one 
simple idea of being securely settled and 
deeply founded. Thoroughly established 
in love, having it not as an uncertain 
feeling changing with every change of 
experience, but as the constant principle 
of their life—this they must be if they 
are fully to apprehend the magnitude of 
Christ’s love. Here, again, the con- 
struction is a difficult question. West- 
cott and Hort attach ἐν ay to the 
κατοικῆσαι Clause and the ἐῤῥιζωμένοι 
καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι to the ἵνα clause. 
But the ἐν καρδίαις ὑμῶν seems a pro 

and adequate conclusion and completion 


17—I9. 


of the idea of the indwelling. Many (in- 
cluding Meyer, Winer, Buttm., AV, RV, 
etc.) connect the whole clause with the 
ἵνα, = “in order that, being rooted and 
grounded in love, ye may be able”. This 
gives an excellent sense, and examples of 
the transposition of part of a sentence 
from the natural place after the tva to one 
before it are found elsewhere in the NT 
(ος Acts xix, αν τ Cor. ix. 15; 2 605. 
ii. 4; Gal. ii. το; Col. iv. 16; 2 Thess. 
ii. 7; cf. Buttm., Gr. of N. T. Greek, p. 
389). On the other hand, the relevancy 
of most, if not all, of these examples is not 
above suspicion (cf. Ell. and Abb. zm loc.), 
and it does not appear that in the present 
passage there is any such emphasis on 
the ἐν ἀγάπῃ as can explain its peculiar 
position. Hence it is better on the whole 
to connect it with the preceding (as is 
done in one way or other by Chrys., 
Luth., Harl., Bleek, De Wette, Alf., Ell., 
Abb., etc.), and take it as another instance 
of the nom. absol. or participial anaco- 
louthon (cf. Win.-Moult., p. 715 ; Kriger, 
Sprachl., ὃ 56,9, 4; Buttm., Gr. of N. T. 
Greek, p. 298; Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Greek, 
Ρ. 285). So we translate it—‘‘ ye having 
been rooted and grounded in love in order 
that ye may be able,” etc. The rooting 
and grounding are expressed by the perf. 
part., as they indicate the state which 
must be realised in connection with the 
indwelling of Christ before the ability for 
comprehending the love of Christ can be 
acquired, 

Ver. 18. ἵνα ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσ- 
θαι σῦν πᾶσι τοῖς ἁγίοις: that ye may 
be fully able to comprehend with all the 
saints. The “ may be strong” of the RV 
is a less happy rendering than usual, as it 
obscures the fact that the verb is different 
from that expressing the strengthened in 
ver. 16. The strong compound ἐξισχύ- 
ειν, = to be eminently able, to have full 
capacity, occurs only this once in the NT 
and is rare in ordinary Greek. καταλαμ- 
βάνειν, = ‘take hold of” (1 Cor. ix. 24; 
Phil. iii, 12, etc.) or in the sense of mental 
grasp (Plato, Phaedr., 250 D), in its vari- 
ous NT occurrences in the Middle Voice 
(Acts iv. 13, x. 34, xxv. 25) has only the 
latter meaning. Here, therefore, it is = 
understand, not =occupare, take possession 
of (Goth., Kypke). The RV substitutes the 
more neutral apprehend—a word capable 
of either sense—for the ‘‘ comprehend ”’ of 
the AV. This gift of spiritual compre- 
hension is contemplated further as to be 
possessed and exercised σῦν πᾶσι τοῖς 
ἁγίοις, not as a matter of private ex- 
perience, the peculiar faculty of some, or 
an exceptional bestowment like the rare 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


315 


privilege of visions, but as a gift proper 
to the whole community of believers and 
one in which these Ephesians might share 
together with all God’s people; for the 
phrase cf. 1. 15, vi. 18; Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. 
111, 13; Philem. 5; Rev. viii. 3; and for 
the sense of ἅγιος see under i. 1 above. 
—tl τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάθος καὶ 
ὕψος: what is the breadth and length 
and depth and height. Sothe AV. But 
height and depth, according to the RV. 
The order of the TR, βάθος καὶ ὕψος, is 
that of 5 ΚΙ,, Syr., etc.; ὕψος καὶ βάθος 
is that οἵ BCDG, 17, Vulg., Boh., etc. 
The latter is preferred by LTrWH, the 
former getting a place in the margin with 
Trand WH. What is the object in view 
in the mention of these dimensions? It 
is left unnamed. Hence the many con- 
jectures on the subject; e.g., that it is the 
Christian Church (Mich., Koppe, etc.), 
or Temple (Bengel), the work of redemp- 
tion, or the mystery previously noticed 
(Theophy., Harl., Olsh., Bleek, etc.), the 
mystery of the Cross (Est.), the Jove of 
God (Chrys., Erasm., Grot., etc.), the 
wisdom of God (De Wette), Jove (Moule), 
all that God has revealed or done in us 
and for us (Alf.). But the context natur- 
ally suggests the love of Christ (Calv., 
Mey., Ell.), that being the supreme theme 
and the one which is immediately set be- 
fore us in express terms. The imagination 
of the Fathers, Augustine, Gregory Nyss., 
Jerome and others, ran riot in the en- 
deavour to find some distinctive, spiritual 
meaning in each of the four things here 
named, the shape of the Cross, e.g., being 
supposed to be signified (Estius), the 
Divinity of Christ being found in the 
figure of the height, His human nature 
in the depth, the extent of the Apostolic 
Commission in the length and breadth, 
etc. Nor are the feats of interpretation 
less forced or fanciful which have been 
performed by some more modern exe- 
getes. But the terms length, breadth, 
depth, height are introduced with no other 
purpose than the simple and consistent 
one of setting forth the surpassing magni- 
tude of Christ’s love for us. The power 
to comprehend that love in its utmost 
conceivable grandeur and its furthest- 
reaching relations is what Paul prays 
God to grant his Ephesians. 

Ver.19. yvaval re τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν 
τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ Χριστοῦ : and 
to know the love of Christ which passeth 
knowledge. Literally, ‘‘the knowledge- 
surpassing love of Christ”. The gen. 
γνώσεως is due to the ὑπερβάλλουσαν 
having the force of a comparative (cf. 
Aesch., Prom., 944; Hom., Π1., xxiii., 


316 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ ΠΠ. 


k Ch. i. το ‘Gos, 19. γνῶναί te! τὴν " ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς | γνώσεως ἀγάπην 3 
Τ. 


eff, 
l=1 Cor. 
Viii. 1, 
xiii. 2, 8 (see 1 Tim. vi. 20). 


Ίπεοτῃ. DFG, Copt. 


m= Rom. i. 29, xv. 13; 2 Cor. vii. 4 al. 


τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα ™ πληρωθῆτε “eis πᾶν ὃ τὸ " πλήρωμα τοῦ θεοῦ. 


n=Rom, xv. 20. 


2 ay. της γν. A 74, 115, Syr., Ar.-pol., Jer. (scientiam caritatis Aug.)). 


Siva πληρωθη παν Β 73, 116. 


847; Bernhardy, Synt., iii., 48 B). That 
the Χριστοῦ is the gen. subj., Christ's 
love to us, is made clear by the descrip- 
tion of it as surpassing knowledge, which 
could not be said of our love to Him. 
The repetition of the same idea in con- 
trasting senses in the γνῶναι and the γνώ- 
σεως has its point not in any antithesis 
between theoretical or discursive know- 
ledge (Ell.) and practical knowledge, or 
between false knowledge and true (Holz), 
or between Auman knowledge and divine 
(Chrys.), but in the simple fact that there 
is a real knowledge of Christ’s love pos- 
sible to us, a knowledge that is capable 
of increase as we are the more strength- 
ened by power in the inner man, while 
a complete or exhaustive knowledge must 
ever remain beyond our capacity. This 
petition for the gift of a true and enlarging 
knowledge (a knowledge which is obvi- 
ously not a matter of mere intellect but 
of conscious, personal experience) is 
connected with the former petition for 
spiritual comprehension by τε, and this 
is presented in the character, not of a 
climax, but of an adjunct, an additional 
statement in supplement of the former. 
The simple re (as distinguished from τε 
. . « καί) occurs rarely in the Gospels, 
with greater comparative frequency in 
Romans and Hebrews, but oftenest by 
far in Acts. It is used to connect single 
ideas in Greek poetry (seldom in Greek 

rose), and is occasionally so used in the 
NT (cf. Acts ii. 37, 40, xxvii. 4; and see 
Bernh., Synt., xx., 17). In this case it 
seems to indicate a ‘closer connection 
and affinity” than καί (cf. Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Greek, p. 263).—tva — els 
πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ: that ye may 
be filled unto all the fulness of God (or, 
into the whole fulness of God). The 
great Vatican Codex (followed by 17, 73, 
116) has an interesting variety of reading 
here, vis., πληρωθῇ for πληρωθῆτε, the 
eis being also dropped. This reading 
gets a place in the margin of WH. On 
the difficult term πλήρωμα see under 
i. 1ο and especially i, 23 above. The 
interpretation of this clause is much dis- 
μα, The εἰς cannot mean with or in, 


as it is taken by some, but must=“‘into” 
or “unto,” expressing the measure up to 
which the being filled is to take effect, 
the limit of the filling, or the goal it 
has before it. The AV and the other 
Old English Versions erroneously give 
“ with"; except Wicl., who makes it 
“in,” Cov., who renders “into,” and 
Rhem., “unto”. The Θεοῦ may be the 
= of originating cause, = the fulness 
estowed by God; or, better, the = 
en., = the fulness possessed . 
he main difficulty is the sense of the 
πλήρωμα itself. Some explanations may 
be set aside as paraphrases rather than 
interpretations; ¢.g., that πλήρωμα = 
the Church (Koppe, etc.); the gracious 
presence of God, the Divine δόξα, filling 
the people (Harl.); the perfection of 
God, in the sense of the highest moral 
ideal that can be presented to him “in 
whose heart Christ dwells” (Oltr.), etc. 
Nor can any good sense be legitimately 
got by taking it as = πλή “that 
ye may be filled with the gifts with which 
God is wont to furnish men” (Grot.)— 
an interpretation that cannot be adjusted 
to the els. The choice lies between two 
views, viz., (1) that πλή has its 
primary, pass. sense—the fulness that is 
in God, or with which God Himself is 
filled ; or (2) that it has the sense derived 
from this, viz., fulness, copia, πλοῦτος, 
πλῆθος. The latter is preferred by Meyer, 
who appeals to such passages as Song of 
Songs, v., 12; Rom. xv. 29; Eph. iv. 13, 
etc., in support of it, and understands it 
to convey the special idea of charismatic 
fulness as bestowed by God. So he 
renders it, “tin order that ye may be 
filled with Divine gifts of grace to such 
extent that the whole fulness of them 
(way has the emphasis) shall have 
over upon you”. So also substantially 
De Wette, Abbott, and others, who refer 
to 2 Pet. i. 4. But there are weighty 
reasons for preferring the former view 
with Alf., Ell., Haupt, etc. It gives πλή- 
pwpa the largest and profoundest sense, 
not restricting it to gifts of grace bestowed, 
but taking it to express the sum of the 
Divine perfections (so substantially Chrys., 


10---20. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


317 


20. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ] πάντα ποιῆσαι " ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ 3 ὧν o=Philem, 
εἴ Bibs ai. 
“αἰτούμεθα ἢ "νοοῦμεν κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν "ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, ὃ px Thess. 


13; Matt. ν. 37. q Ver. 13 reff. 


r Ver. 4 reff. 


11. IO, v. 
s= Matt. xiv. 4; Rom. vii. 5; 1 Cor 


xii. 6; 2 Cor. 1. 6, iv. 12: Gal. ii. 8, iii. 5, Paul esp 


λυπερ om. DEFG, d, e, f, g, Vulg., Ambrst., etc. 


Άκαι νπερεκ. Syr., Schr. et P., Ambrst. 
ρ yt 


Rick., etc.), the whole ἀρετή or excellence 
that is in God; cf. Chrysostom’s ὥστε 
πληροῦσθαι πάσης ἀρετῆς ἧς πλήρης 
ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός. It brings the whole para- 
graph to a conclusion worthy of itself, 
lifting us to a conception which sur- 
passes all that has preceded it, and 
carrying us from the great idea of the 
fulness in Christ to the still greater idea 
of the fulness in God. Nor is it any 
valid objection to it that what is thus put 
before us is what can never be attained in 
this life. It is an ideal, essentially the 
same as that contained in the injunction 
to be perfect as our Father in heaven is 
perfect (Matt. v. 48). This interpretation 
also is most inharmony with the great idea 
of the indwelling of Christ in our hearts, 
expressing indeed what is implied in that. 
In Christ the πλήρωμα of God dwells ; 
so far as Christ dwells in us the πλήρωμα 
of God isinus. In that indwelling lies 
the possibility of our growing in moral 
excellence on to the very limit of all that 
is in God Himself. That they might be 
strengthened in the inner man so as to 
have Christ’s living and abiding presence 
in them, and be lifted thereby to the com- 
prehension of His love and the personal 
knowledge of that which yet surpasses all 
knowledge, and at last be filled with all 
spiritual excellence even up to the measure 
of the complete perfection that is in God 
Himself—this is the sweep of what Paul 
in his prayer desires for these Ephesians 
so late sunk in heathen hopelessness and 
godlessness. 

Vy. 20-21. A fervent ascription of 
praise to God evoked by the thought of 
the great things which His grace has 
already wrought in these Gentiles, and 
the greater things of the future which the 
same grace destines for them and would 
have them attain to. 

Ver. 20. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα 
ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα 
ἢ νοοῦμεν: Now unto Him that is able to 
do exceeding abundantly above all that 
we ask or think. So both AV and RV; 
as also the old English Versions, excep- 
ting Wicl. (‘more plenteously than we 
axen”’), Cov. and Rhem. (‘more abun- 


Σεν υμιν A 39, 63. 


dantly than we desire”). More exactly 
it = “able to do beyond all things, super- 
abundantly beyond what we ask or think’ 
(Ell.). The τῷ refers naturally to God, 
the main subject of the whole paragraph. 
The δέ has something of its proper ad- 
versative force, the contrast between the 
subjects of the Divine grace and the 
Divine Giver of the grace being to some 
extent in view. The doxology brings the 
whole preceding paragraph and the first 
main division of the Epistle to a fitting 
close. Its best parallel is in Rom. xvi. 
25-27. The ὑπὲρ cannot be taken as an 
adverb (Beng.), but governs the πάντα. 
The πάντα again is not to be connected 
with the ὧν as if= ‘all that we ask”; the 
gen. ὧν is due to the comparative in the 
ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, as in the previous case 
of the ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως. 
Further, the ὑπὲρ πάντα does not belong 
to the δυναμένῳ, but makes one idea with 
the ποιῆσαι. Thus we have two distinct 
descriptions of God here, the second of 
which explains and develops the thought 
of the first. He is described first gener- 
ally in respect of the absoluteness of His 
power, as “able to do beyond all things,” 
‘Cable to do more than all,” 7.e., One to 
whose efficiency there is no limit; and 
then with more particular reference to 
the case of Paul and his fellow-believers, 
as able to do above measure beyond 
anything with which our asking or even 
our thinking is conversant; superabun- 
dantly beyond the utmost requests we 
can make in prayer, nay beyond all 
that can suggest itself to our minds in 
their highest ventures. The verb νοεῖν, 
here used of thinking of as distinguished 
from asking for, has two main lines of 
meaning, viz., to understand and to pon- 
der or consider, The latter is in view here. 
The strong, cumulative ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ 
occurs again in 1 Thess. iii. το, v. 13, 
Such compounds with ὑπέρ (ὑπερλίαν, 
ὑπερπερισσεύω, ὑπερινικάω, ὑπερυψόω, 
ὑπεραυξάνω, ὑπερπλεονάζω) are charac- 
teristic of Paul. They are not entirely 
limited to him (¢.g., ὑπερπερισσῶς, Mark 
Vii. 37; ὑπερεκχυννόμενον, Luke vi. 38). 
But they are much more used by him 


418 


lev τ. εκκ. και εν Xp. In. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


- 1. az. 


t 1 Cor. xiv. 21. αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα "ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ! εἰς πάσας τὰς 
το γενεὰς τοῦ " αἰῶνος 2 τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.Σ 


ABC 17, 73, 80, 213, v., Copt., Jer., εἴς. ; ev Xp. In. 
και (εν Ambrst.), τ. εκκλ. DFG, d, e, f, g, Victorin., etc. ; εν τη εκκλ 


nova ev Χριστω 


Incov text, D°(Xp. In. ev τ. εκκ. E)KLP, most mss., Syrr., al., Chrys., Thdrt., Dam.- 


text, Thl., Όες, 


Στον αιων. om, FG, tol.; in omnia secula seculorum, ἃ, e, Ambrst. 


3 «μὴν om. 57, 67%. 


than by any other NT writer, occurring 
nearly thrice as often in the Pauline 
Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews 
as in all the other NT books (cf. Ell. 
in loc.). Such bold compounds are “in 
keeping with the intensity of his pious 
feeling, which struggles after adequate 
expression” (Mey.).—xara τὴν δύναμιν 
τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν: according to 
the power that worketh in us. The 
“power”? in question is doubtless the 
inward operation of the Holy Spirit. 
The ἐν ἡμῖν has the force of an appeal 
to consciousness. The power that we 
know to be operative in ourselves is 
a witness to God’s ability to do super- 
abundantly beyond what we ask or think. 
The efficient power of which we have 
experience in ourselves represents the 
measure and mode of the limitless ca- 
pacity that is in God, and by the one 
we can conceive of the other and trust 
it. The ἐνε ν must be taken 
here not as pass., but as middle (cf. Gal. 
v. 6). In Col. i. 29 we have the similar 
phrase κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν 
ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν δυνάμει. There 
it is used with reference to the Apostle’s 
labour and striving at the time; here 
with reference to the possibilities of God’s 
future dealings with his converts. 

Ver. 21. αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ 
ἐν X @ ᾿Ιησοῦ : unto Him be the glory 
in the Church in Christ Fesus (better, 
“‘and in Christ Jesus”). In the αὐτῷ 
the great Subject of the ascription is 
named the second time with rhetorical 
emphasis, and as it stands first in the 
sentence εἴη (not ἐστί) is to be supplied. 
The article with δόξα defines it as the 
glory that is due to Him, or that befits 
Him. And that “glory” is to be given 
Him ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ' the Church being 
the domain in which the praise that be- 
longs to Him is to be rendered Him. 
The reading of the TR, ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν 
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, follows such authorities 
as D®*KLP, Syr., Eth., Arm., Goth. It is 
rendered by some “in the Church which 
is in Christ Jesus”, But there is no evi- 


dent reason for defining the Church here 
specifically as in Christ; for it is the 
Christian Church that is obviously meant, 
and there is no need to distinguish it 
from the Church of Israel. Such a con- 
struction, too, distinguishing one Church 
from another, would have been clearer if 
τῇ had appeared before ἐν Χριστῷ, al- 
though the absence of the article is not 
fatal to it (cf. 1 Thess. i. 1, εἰς). Hence 
those who follow the TR take the words 
as two distinct clauses, ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, 
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, understanding them to 
mean that the praise which is given in the 
Church is praise given in Christ in virtue 
of her union with Him as her Head, or 
taking them to point first to the Church 
as “the outward domain in which God 
is to be praised”’ and then to Christ 
as the “spiritual sphere in which this 
ascription of praise is to take place” 
(Mey.), it being only in Christ that 
believer or Church can really praise God. 
There is, however, a small, but important 
addition made to the text by some of the 
oldest and best authorities, by the inser- 
tion of καί before the ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
The evidence is so strong (BSAC, 17, 
Vulg., Boh., etc.) that the καί can 
scarcely be refi and it is accepted by 
LTTrWHRV. So the sentence becomes 
‘in the Church and in Christ Jesus,” and 
the idea is that praise is to be given to 
God and His glorious perfections shown 
forth both in the Church which is the 
body, and in Christ who is the Head—in 
the Church as chosen by Him, and in 
the Christ as given, raised, and exalted 
by Him. So Haupt, with a somewhat 
similar idea, understands the sense to 
be that the glorifying of God takes 
place in outward-wise in the circle of 
the Church and at the same time in 
such inward-wise that it is in Christ.— 
els πάσας Tas γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν 
αἰώνων. ἀμήν: unto all generations for 
ever and ever. Amen. More exactly 
“unto all the generations of the age of 
the ages. Amen.” Another of these 
reduplicated, cumulative expressions by 


IV. 1—2. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


319 


ΤΥ τ: ος οὖν aa ἐγὼ ὃ arf ἐν κυρίῳ," cee Matt. 


4 περιπατῆσαι 3 


b Ch. iii, 1 reff. 
only, exc. 3 John 6. 
i. 26; ch. i. 18; Paul only, exc. 2 Pet. i. 1Ο. 
1 Chron. xxix. 22 al. fr. 
I Pet. v. 5; see Ps. cxxx. 2. 


τῆς 


lev Χριστω SQ Eth. 


which the mind of man working with the 
ideas of time labours to convey the idea of 
the eternal. The formula may be, as was 
suggested by Grotius, a combination of 
two distinct phrases of similar meaning, 
one in which continuance, endless con- 
tinuance, is expressed in terms of yeved, 
γενεαί (cf. eg., Luke i. 50; εἰς γενεὰς 
γενεῶν, or εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς with 
LTTrWHRYV) ; and another in which 
the same idea is expressed in terms of 
αἰών, αἰῶνες (cf. εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων, Rev. 
xiv. II ; εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, Gal. 
i. 5, etc.) The peculiarity here is the 
conjunction of the two formule and the 
use of the sing. αἰών in the latter; cf. eis 
TOV αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, 3 Esdr. iv. 38; ἕως 
αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, Dan. vii. 18; εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα [τοῦ αἰῶνος], Heb. 1. δ; εἰς ἡμέραν 
αἰῶνος, 2 Pet. iii. 18. The precise idea 
underlying the phrase is not quite clear. 
It may be that the everlasting future is 
thought of as one long ‘‘ age”’ embracing 
in it an unnumbered succession of ‘‘ gen- 
erations’ and making the sum and crown 
of all possible ‘‘ages”. Or the “age of 
the ages” may have the force of a super- 
lative, ‘‘ the age par excellence,” the “age 
beside which there is none other to be 
named,” and that regarded as containing 
in itself all conceivable “' generations ” 

More precisely, the idea of the Parousia 
may be behind all, the age (6 αἰών) being 
the Messianic age which opens with the 
Parousia, brings all other ‘‘ages” with 
the “‘ generations’ belonging to them to 
an end, and is itself to endure for ever. 
Thus, as Meyer puts it, the idea is that 
the glory to’ be given to God in the 
Church and in Christ its Head is to 

‘endure not only up to the Parousia, 

but then also ever onward from genera- 
tion to generation in the Messianic zon 
—consequently to last not merely eis τὸ 
παρόν, but also εἰς τὸ ἀΐδιον. The 
ἀμήν, which occurs so frequently in our 
Lord’s discourses at the beginning of 
an affirmation, is used here, as so 
often in the OT, at the close of the 
sentence in the sense of so be it (LXX, 
γένοιτο ; cf. Num. v. 22, εἴο.). It was 
the people’s assent in OT times to de- 


*kdjoews *Hs ἐκλήθητε, 2. 


ς Term and constr., Rom. xvi. 2; Phil. i. 27; Col, i. 10; 1 
d=Acts xxi. 21 al. fr.; princ. Paul and John. 


viii. 5 al. 
fr.; Rom. 
Xi. x. 
Thess. ii. 12; Paul 
Rom. xi. 29; 1 Cor. 
Z=Matt. xxviii. 8; 


* μετὰ πάσης ‘Ta- 


f Attr., ch. i. 7 reff. 


h Acts xx. 19 (Paul); Phil. ii. 3; Col. ii. 18, 23, iii. 12; Paul only, exc, 


2 περιπατησατε 17. 


clarations made at solemn assemblies 
(Deut. xxvii. 15; Neh. v. 13, viii. 6, εἰς.). 
It was also their response to the prayers 
offered in the synagogue, and from 
1 Cor. xiv. 16 we gather that this use of 
the word was continued in the Christian 
Church. 

CHAPTER IV. Vv. 1-16. With the 
fourth chapter begins the second main di- 
vision of the Epistle. As in others of 
Paul’s Epistles the doctrinal statement is 
followed by the practical enforcement 
of duty. Doctrinal considerations are at 
the same time introduced again from point 
to point in support of the duties enjoined. 
The hortatory section commences with 
the earnest recommendation of a life in 
conformity with the Christian vocation, 
with special reference to the need οἱ 
humility, loving consideration and unity. 

Ver. I. παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ 
δέσµιος ἐν Κυρίῳ: I therefore, the pris- 
oner in the Lord, beseech (or, exhort) you. 
In more exact accordance with the order 
of the words—* I beseech you, therefore, 
I the prisoner in the Lord”. The οὖν 
connects the practical charge with the 
preceding statement of doctrine and privi- 
lege, and establishes the one upon the 
other. The connection is taken by some 
to be with the statement just made in 
ili. 21 regarding the Church (Mey.). A 
reference of a larger scope, however, 
seems more in harmony with the contents 
of the paragraph. It is best, therefore, 
to understand the οὖν as basing the ex- 
hortations which follow on the whole 
preceding statement of the great things 
done for the readers by God’s grace— 
from chap. iii. 6 onwards. The verb 
παρακαλῶ is rendered “beseech” by 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., AV, RV, 
while the Genevan gives ‘ pray”. 
But in Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish., it 
is “exhort,” and this is the more pro- 
bable shade of meaning here in view 
of the context (Alf., Ell.). In classical 
Greek the dominant idea of the verb, 
except when it is used with reference to 
the gods, is that of admonishing or ex- 
horting. In later Greek and in the NT 
the idea of entreating has its place along 


220 


with the other. For the force of the 
article in ὁ δέσμιος and the anarthrous 
ἐν Κυρίῳ, see under iii. 1 above. The 
ἐν Κυρίῳ belongs not to the παρακαλῶ 
(Semler), but to the δέσμιος. It expresses 
the sphere within which his captivity sub- 
sisted or the ground of that captivity. 
He was a prisoner because of his con- 
nection with Christ, the Lord, and for 
no other reason. As in chapter iii., so 
here the idea of the dignity of his office 
seems to lie behind the mention of his 
imprisonment. He designates himself 
“the prisoner in the Lord’’ not with a 
view to stir the sympathy of the readers 
and enforce his exhortation by an appeal 
to feeling, but as one who could rejoice 
in his sufferings and speak of his tribu- 
lations as their “ glory” (iii. 13 ; Gal. vi. 
17).— ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς 
ἐκλήθητε: to walk worthily of the calling 
wherewith ye were called. As the phrase 
καλεῖν κλήσει occurs (cf, 2 Tim. i. 9, and, 
with ἐν, 1 Cor. vii. 20), the ἧς may be 
by attraction for 9. As that, however, is 
a doubtful application of the law of attrac- 
tion, and as the formula κλῆσιν καλεῖν is 
found in Arrian, Efpict., p. 122, it is to be 
explained rather as = ἦν (cf. i. 6; 2 Cor. 
i. 4; and Win.-Moult., p. 202). With 
the ἀξίως τῆς κλήσεως cf. πολιτεύεσθαι 
ἀξίως τοῦ evayyeAlov, Phil. i. 27; περι- 
πατεῖν ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ καλοῦντος 
(καλέσαντος), : Thess. ii. 12; περιπα- 
τῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ Κυρίου, Col. i. το. 

Ver. 2. μετὰ π' ταπεινοφροσύνης 
καὶ πρᾳότητος : with all lowliness and 
meckness. Statement of moral disposi- 
tions which should attend their walk; 
pera conveying the idea of accompani- 
ment, relation, association, while σύν 
suggests closer conjunction, fellowship, 
especially a fellowship which helps. Kri- 
ger (Sprachl., § 68, 13, 1) puts the dis- 
tinction thus—“ σύν τινι denotes rather 
coherence, μετά τινος rather coexistence" 
(cf. Win.-Moult., pp. 470, 488). As in 
the case of πᾶσα σοφία (i. 8), πᾶσα τα- 
πεινοφροσύνη can mean only ‘all lowli- 
ness,” ‘‘ all possible lowliness,” or * every 
kind of lowliness,"’ not summa humilitas. 
The word ταπεινοφροσύνη is of very rare 
occurrence in non-biblical Greek, and 
when it does occur it has the sense of 
pusillanimity (Epictet., Diss., 3, 24, 56; 
Joseph., fewish Wars, iv., 9, 2). It is 
not used in the OT; but in the NT it 
denotes one of the passive graces, un- 
recognised or repudiated in Greco-Roman 
ethics, which Christianity has glorified— 
the lowliness of mind which springs from 
a true estimate of ourselves—a deep sense 
of our own moral smallness and demerit 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


(cf. Acts xx. 19; Phil. ii, 3; Col. iii. 12; 
1 Pet. v. 5; Col. ii. 18, 23, of a false 
humility). πὶ » or better πραύτης 
(TTrWH) in oe form and without 
iota subscript ; cf. Buttm., Gram. of N. T. 
Greek, p. 26 (who regards the form πρᾷος 
as apparently “ unknown to the lan 

of the NT”); and Blass, Gram. of ΝΣ 
Greek, p. 7 (who thinks there is not 
sufficient evidence to decide between 
πραότης and πρᾳότης). It means more 
than modestia (Vulg.), mansuetudo, &rap- 
αξία, gentleness, or equanimity, inasmuch 
as it has regard ta our attitude towards 
God as well as towards men, and includes 
more than outward behaviour or natural 
disposition. It is a grace of the Spirit, 
the disposition of loving submissiveness 
in the first place to God and His dealings 
with us, and, as the consequence of that, ~ 
of quiet restraint, mildness and patient 
abnegation of self in face of the provoca- 
tions of others. It is a moral quality, 
therefore, with a far wider scope, a larger 
significance, a deeper and more vital re- 
lation to character than was thought of 
p the philosophers and moralists of the 
old world, who regarded it only as the 
opposite of ἀγριότης, savageness (Plato, 
Symp., 107 d), χαλεπότης, Aarshness 
(Arist., Hist. Anim., ix., 1), or & ία, 
roughness (Plut., De lib. ed., 18); 4 
Trench, Syn., pp. 143, etc.; Schmidt, 
Synon., 08, 3.---μετὰ μακροθυμίας : with 
long-suffering. This is best taken as an 
independent clause, which is developed in 
the following sentence. Some (Theod., 
Beng., etc.) attach both the μετὰ πάσης 
ταπ., etc., and the μετὰ paxp. to the 
ἀνεχόμενοι clause. But this gives one long 
sentence, which obscures the transition 
from idea to idea and makes the several 
clauses less distinctive. Others (Calv., 
Harl., Riick., Ols., etc.) attach the pera 
µακρ. to ἀνεχόμενοι ; but to make it part 
of that clause takes from the point of the 
μακροθυμία and disturbs the balance of 
the clauses, in which we have first the 
general idea of worthiness of walk, then 
certain particulars involved in that, and 
then the further explanation (in the 
ἀνεχόμενοι clause) of these various par- 
ticulars or of the one last noticed. The 
term μακροθυμία means both endurance 
or constancy in presence of illness and 
trouble (Col. i. τα ; 2 Tim. iii. 10; Heb. 
vi. 12; James v. 10), and, as here (cf. 
also Rom. ii. 4, ix. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 6, 
etc.), the abnegation of η in 
presence of wrong—the opposite of ὀργή 
(Prov. xvi. 32), ὀξοθυμία (James i. 19), 
etc., and akin to ὑπομονή (2 Cor. vi. 4, 
6; Col. i. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 10; James v, 


2—4 . 


Σπραῦὔτητος;,! 
ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπη, 3. 


πεινοφροσύνης καὶ 


πνεύματος ἐν τῷ " συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης.: 


James v. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 20; 2 Pet. ΠΠ. 15; Prov. ΧΧΝ. 15. 
Ι Acts xviii. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 11; Col. iii. 13 Paul; 
1 το ση, 111. τη Iga, xxi, 3, 


1 Thess. ii. 17; 2 Pet. 
ν. 23, al.; 


James i. 27 al. 
Iviii. 6. 


ο Ver, 13 only. 
q Ch. il. 16 reff. 


Ίπραοτητος ADEFGLO, most others, Chr., Euth., Thdrt., 


τητος SBC 17; υΌπακοης 117. 
3 For ειρ. αγαπης Καὶ 1. 


10, 11). The word belongs to later 
Greek (Plut., Macc., etc.), and the LXX; 
but in neither has it the exact sense it 
gets in them ΝΎ. 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ : forbearing one another in 
love. Explanation and application of 
the μακροθυμία. By a natural and 
familiar irregularity which gives effect 
to the logic of the statement rather than 
to the construction the partic. reverts 
from the acc. to the nom. (cf. Col. i. 10; 
Kriiger, Sprachl., § 56,9, 4). To attach 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ (Orig., Lachm., Olsh., etc.) to 
the following σπουδάζοντες is to make 
the ἀνεχόμενοι abrupt and bare, and to 
disturb the harmonious form of the par- 
ticipial sentences. The duty of mutual 
forbearance is to be practised zm love. 
It was to be a loving forbearance—a 
forbearance having its motive, its inspir- 
ation, its life, in love. 

Ver. 3. σπουδάζοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνό- 
τητα τοῦ πνεύματος: giving diligence to 
keep the unity of the Spirit. Further de- 
scription of the mutual forbearance in re- 
spect of the inward effort required, but 
introducing also the larger, fundamental 
idea of unity. σπουδάζω, which conveys 
the idea of exertion, is better rendered 
“ giving: diligence ” (RV) or ‘earnestly 
striving” (Alf.), than ‘endeavouring ”’ 
(AV). τηρεῖν = keep, in the sense of 
maintaining with watchful care; sug- 
gesting also that what is to be keft is 
something already in our possession. 
τοῦ Πνεύματος is the gen. of originating 
cause, = the unity which the Spirit pro- 
duces or works, and here the oneness in 
feeling, interest and purpose which is 
appropriate to the oneness in doctrine and 
privilege whereof the readers are immedi- 
ately reminded. Commentators, even of 
the rank of Calvin, have interpreted the 
πνεύματος here as the human spirit, 
the Christian spirit of concord; while 
others (De Wette, etc.) have taken it to 
denote the spirit of the Christian com- 
munity. But the ἓν Πνεῦμα of the 


VOL. III. 





ΠΡΟΣ E®EZIOY= 


μετὰ 
™ σπουδάζοντες ™ 


321 


᾿βάξραδυν πεῖ ies ual i 1 Cor. iv. 


21 reff. ; 
τηρεῖν τὴν ια. τοῦ τι χΙῖν. 
4. 1ἓν σῶμα καὶ vk Rom. ii. 4 

in Paul; 
1 Term and constr., Matt. xvii. 17; 
Isa. Ixiii. 15. πι Gal. ii. το; 
n=1 Cor. vii. 37; 2 Cor. xi. 9; 1 Thess. 
p Acts viii. 23; Col. ii. 19, iii. 14 only; Isa. 


τ Ch. ii. 18 reff. 


Dam., etc.; mpav- 


following verse, the general NT doctrine 
of the Spirit of God as operating in the 
believer and in the Church (cf. ii. 22), 
and the analogy of such passages as 1 
Cor. xii. 13, point clearly to the Holy 
Spirit.—év τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης : in 
the bond of peace. This is not to be 
attached to the next verse (Lach.), a 
connection which would again disturb 
the symmetry of the participial sentences 
and rob some of the statements which 
follow of their appropriateness. It defines 
the way in which the unity is to be kept. 
The ἐν is not the instrumental ἐν, = ‘“‘ by 
means of the bond of peace’”’; : but, as in 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ, the local ἐν or that of relation 
specifying the sphere (EIl.), or the ethical 
relation (Mey.) in which the unity is to 
be maintained. The εἰρήνης might be 
the gen. 0b7.,= “‘ the bond by which peace 
is kept,” to wit, love (Beng., etc.). But 
it is best understood as the gen. of appo- 
sition (Mey.), οτ identity (Ell.), = “ the 
bond which7s peace”. The unity, there- 
fore, which is wrought among these 
Ephesians by the Spirit of God will be 
theirs in so far as they make peace 
the relation which they maintain one to 
another, or the bond in which they walk 
together. In Col. iii. 14 love is the “ bond 
of perfectness”’ ; but the construction and 
the idea are different here. 

Ver. 4. ἕν σῶμα καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα: There 
is one body and one Spirit. This is not 
to be taken as part of the exhortation, ἐστέ 
or γίνεσθε being understood (Calv., Est., 
Hofm., etc.); for that would not be con- 
sistent with the following εἷς Κύριος, εἷς 
Θεός. Itisa positive statement, made all 
the more impressive by the lack of γάρ or 
any connecting particle, and giving the 
objective ground, or basis in fact, on which 
the walk in lowliness, meekness, long- 
suffering and loving forbearance is urged, 
and of which it should be the result. The 
σῶμα is the whole fellowship of believers, 
the mystical body of Christ (cf. ii. 16 
RON; πας Σ στ κ αρ ΧΙ} 1 ΟΌΪ- 


21 


222 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


s1 Cor. vii. πνεῦμα, καθὼς Kal! ἐκλήθητε "ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς " κλήσεως ὑμῶν" 
Thess. ἵν. 5. εἷς κύριος, μία πίστις, ἓν βάπτισμα, 6. εἷς θεὸς καὶ; πατὴρ 
7. 


1 και (after καθως) om. Β 19, 32, 39, 43, 55, 114, 213-38, al., Vulg., Syr., Goth., 


Chr.,, Ambrst. 


2 After θεος om. και 38, 47, 114, Syr., Ar.-erp., Eth., Chr.-text, Iren., Euseb, 


i. 24). The Πνεῦμα, as in ii. 18, is the 
Holy Spirit who is in the Church and 
in whom we are “ baptised into one body” 
(1 Cor. xii, 13). The idea that this great 
sentence means only that we are to be 
united so as to be one body and one soul, 
though supported by Calvin, is out of 
harmony with the larger scope of the 
following verses, and in any case stands 
or falls with the view that this verse is 
part of the exhortation.—Kads καὶ ἐκλή- 
θητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν: 
even as also ye were called in one hope of 
your calling, καθὼς (late Greek for the 
καθά, καθό, καθάπερ of the Atticists and 
the earlier writers; cf. under i. 4, ili. 3 
above) illustrates and enforces the unity 
as something entirely in accordance with 
their calling, the καί marking this as a 
second thought suggested by the first. 
The ἐν may be instrumental (so Mey., 
referring to Gal. i. 6), the point then 
being that the calling came by means of 
one hope, viz., that of the Messianic sal- 
vation. But it is rather = im, expressin 
the ethical domain or element in whic 
the calling took place (Ell.). The κλήσ- 
ews is the gen. of origin or efficient 
cause, = the hope originated or wrought 
in you by your calling, as in i. 18 (EIil., 
Mey.); rather than the gen. of possess.,= 
the hope belonging to your calling. The 
fact that, when they were called out of 
heathenism, one and the same hope was 
born in them, is a fact in perfect keeping 
with the unity of the Christian body and 
the unity of the Divine Spirit operating 
in it, and the one confirms and illumines 
the other. 

Ver. 5. εἷς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν 
βάπτισμα: one Lord, one faith, one τ". 
tism. “Οπε Lord,” that is Christ, He 
alone and He for all equally whether 
Gentile or Jew. ‘One faith,” i.¢., one 
belief having Him as its object; πίστις 
having here its usual subjective sense of 
saving trust, not =that which is believed, 
the Christian doctrine or creed (Grot.)— 
a meaning which is at the best very rare 
in the NT and not quite certain even in 
most of the passages usually cited in sup- 
port of it (Acts vi. 7; Gal. i. 23; 1 Tim. 
1. 4, 19, ii. 7, iv. 1, 6, v. 8, vi. 10, 21), but 
most probable in Jude iii. 20. ‘One 


baptism "—the rite, one and the same 
for all, by which believers in Christ are 
admitted into the fellowship of His 
Church, and which is described as “ into 
Christ” (Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27), into 
His name (Acts x. 38, 48, xix. 5), into the 
‘*name of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Ghost ” (Matt. xxviii. το). 
No mention is made of the Lord's Supper. 
This is the more remarkable in view of 
the fact that elsewhere it is referred to as 
a token of unity (1 Cor, x. 17). Various 
explanations of the omission have been 
given—e.g., the desire to preserve the 
rhythmical form of the sentence, together 
with the fact that the Lord’s Supper did 
not as yet stand by itself, but was com- 
bined with ordinary Christian meals 
(Mey.); the fact that it was more a re- 
presentation than a condition of unity (De 
Wette) ; the consideration that it is not 
like baptism an initial, (oe rite, 
but one that comes to be observed after 
admission (Harl.), None ofthese reasons 
can be called satisfactory, nor have we 
the materials for an adequate explana- 
tion. 
Ver. 6. εἷς Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων: 
one God and Father of all. This supreme 
name, Θεὸς or ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, is used 
both absolutely (1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. v. 
20; Jas. i. 27), and with defining terms, 
e.g., τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, i. x. (Rom. xv. 6; 
Eph. i. 3; 2 Cor. 1. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3), ἡμῶν 
(Gal. i. 4; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Thess. iii. 11, 
13; 2 Thess. ii. 16), πάντων (here; cf. 
the longer designation εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ 
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, 1 Cor. viii. 6). Christian 
unity being here in view, the name ap- 
plies to the special Fatherhood of God 
in grace, not (with Holz., Abb.) to the 
universal Fatherhood of God and His 
relation to all men. Attention is rightly 
called by Mey. and others to the advance 
in the thought in these verses from 
Church to Christ, and from Christ to 
God who is One in the highest and most 
absolute sense—the One source of life 
and good in all His people, the one to 
whom both Christ and the Spirit are 
related.—é ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ διὰ πάντων, 
καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ὑμῖν: who is over all, and 
through all, and in [you] all. The ὑμῖν 
of the TR (following some cursives and 


5--8, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


323 


πάντων, ὁ "ἐπὶ πάντων 1 καὶ "διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν. 7.  évl t Rom. ix. 5 


δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ὃ ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ " μέτρον τῆς * δωρεᾶς τοῦ u Constr., 


χριστοῦ. 


xii. 8; Rom. iii. 22; pec. to Paul. 

Paul only. x Ch. iii. 7 reff. 
z Ps, Ixvii. 18, a=Luke i. 78, xxiv. 49. 

Num. xxi. 1; Jud. ν. 12; 2 Chron. xxviii. 17. 


8. διὸ ἡ λέγει “᾿Αναβὰς εἰς * 


v Ver. 16 reff. 
y Gal. iii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 16; James iv. 6; Heb. x. 5. 


see Gal. i. 
x; Col. i. 
16; 1 Cor. 
w=Rom. xii. 3; 2 Cor. x. 13; vv. 14, 16; 


ὕψος " ἠχμαλώτευσεν * ° aix- 


b 2 Tim. iii. 6 only. c=Rev. xiii. 10 only ; 


lo επ. παντ. om. 2, 46, Ps.-Ign., Cyr., Hil. 

3 After πασιν add υμιν some cursives, Ch., Thdrt., Theophyl., Oec.; ηµιν DEFGKL 
23, 37-9, 44-8, It., Vulg., Syr., Goth., al., Did., Dam., Iren., al.; πασιν alone, 
SABCO?P 17, 31, 67, 71, 73, 80, 109, 177, Copt., Eth., Arm., Marc., Orig., Euseb., etc. 


ὄνμων B 38, 109, Thdrt. 


4nxpadwrevoas AL 71, 114, al.,, Eth, (and εδωκας after); αιχµαλωτευσας 47, 71. 


Fathers), and the variant ἡμῖν (in DFKL, 
Lat., Syr., Goth., etc.) must be omitted 
(with LTTrWHRYV) as having no support 
from ΒΝΑΘΟ, 17, Copt., Eth., etc. The 
πάντων and the πᾶσιν are most naturally 
taken as masculines here, in harmony 
with the previous πάντων. The clause, 
therefore, expresses a three-fold relation 
of the One God and Father to the all 
who are His: first, the relation of trans- 
cendence (Mey.) or sovereignty—ért (= 
ὑπεράνω, over or above) expressing the 
supremacy of absolute Godhead and 
Fatherhood; second, that of immanence 
-διά (= through) expressing the per- 
vading, animating, controlling presence 
of that One God and Father; and third, 
that of indwelling—the év expressing the 
constant abode of the One God and 
Father in His people by His Spirit. 
Neither the creative action of God (Est.), 
nor His providential rule (Chrys., Grot.), 
is in view, but what He is to the Christian 
people in His dominion over them and 
His gracious operative presence in them. 

Ver. 7. ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἣ 
χάρις: but unto each one of us was given 
the grace. For ἡμῶν some few authorities 
(including, however, B) read ὑμῶν. After 
ἡ χάρις some few insert αὕτη (C*, 31, 
etc.). The article before χάρις is omitted 
in BD'PL, etc., but inserted in SACD*K, 
etc. The evidence is pretty evenly bal- 
anced. Hence WH bracket 4; TRV re- 
tain it; LTr omit it. The article defines 
χάρις as the grace of which the writer 
and his fellow-believers had experience, 
which they knew to have been given them 
(ἐδόθη), and by which God worked in 
them. What is given is not the χάρισμα 
but the χάρις, the subjective grace that 
works within and shows itself in its 
result—the charism, the gracious faculty 
or quality. The emphasis is on the ἑκάσ- 
τῳ, and the δέ is rather the adversalive 


particle than the transitional. It does 
not merely mark a change from one 
subject to another, but sets the each over 
against the all, and this in connection 
with the injunction to keep the unity of 
the Spirit. God’s gracious relation to all 
is a relation also to each individual. Not 
one of them was left unregarded by Him 
who is the God and Father of all, but 
each was made partaker of Christ’s gift 
of grace, and each, therefore, is able and 
stands pledged to do his part toward the 
maintenance of unity and peace. (Cf. 
Rom. xii. 6.)---κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ: according to the measure 
of the gift of Christ. Statement of the 
law of the bestowal of grace. Each 
gets the grace which Christ has to give, 
and each gets it in the proportion in 
which the Giver is pleased to bestow it; 
one having it in larger measure and 
another in smaller, but each getting it 
from the same Hand and with the same 
purpose. The δωρεᾶς is the gen. of the 
subject or agent—the gift which Christ 
gives, as is shown by the following ἔδωκε 
δόματα. 

Ver. 8. διὸ λέγει: wherefore He saith, 
when He ascended on high. The διό 
introduces the words which follow as a 
confirmation of what has just been said ; 
and these words are not a parenthesis, 
but part of a direct and continuous state- 
ment; = ‘the fact that it is thus with 
Christ and His gift, and that the grace 
which we possess is bestowed by Him on 
each of us in varying measures as He dis- 
tributes it, has the witness of God Him- 
self in OT Scripture”. The quotation 
which follows is obviously taken from 
Psalm Ixviii. 18, and in the main in the 
form in which it is given in the LXX. 
There are difficulties in the rendering 
which Paul uses and in the application he 
makes of it. But they are not such as to 


324 


justify the assertion that the passage isa 
quotation from some Christian hymn, and 
not from Scripture. There is nothing in 
the verse or in the context to suggest any- 
thing else than the Psalm. The question 
is raised whether the introductory λέγει 
is personal or impersonal; and whether, 
if personal, ὁ Θεός, or ἡ γραφή, or τὸ 
πνεῦμα is to be understood. OT quota- 
tions are usually introduced by the per- 
sonal term in such forms as ὁ προφήτης 
λέγει (Acts ii. 17), ἡ γραφὴ λέγει (Rom. 
x. 17), Ἡσαΐας λέγει (Rom. x. 16, 20), 
Μωυσῆς λέγει (Rom. κ. 19), Δαβὶδ λέγει 
(Rom. iv. 6), ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη 
λέγει (Rom. x. 6). Sometimes, again, 
passive forms are used, γέγραπται (Rom. 
Χ. 15), μαρτυρεῖται (Heb. vii. 17), etc. 
In other cases the simple φησί (1 Cor. 
vi. 16; Heb. viii. 15), εἴρηκε (Heb. iv. 4), 
or λέγει (Gal. iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2; Eph. 
iv. 8, v. 14) is used ; and in one case the 
λέγει is introduced as continuing γέγραπ- 
tat (Rom, xv. 10). Some, therefore, hold 
that, in cases like the present, λέγει is 
impersonal, = “ it is said,” as ( is 
used impersonally in Attic (Abb. ; cf. 
Light. on Gal. iii. 16). As the NT, how- 
ever, makes a very limited use of imper- 
sonal verbs of any kind, most take these 
undefined verbs by which quotations are 
introduced as personal, and so it is with 
λέγει here. The subject to be supplied 
must be the one most readily suggested 
by the context ; and here, as in most 


cases, that will be neither ἡ γραφή nor 
τὸ Πνεῦμα, but ὁ Θεός. The full formula 


λέγει ὁ Θεός occurs in Acts ii. 17, and is 
implied in the πάλιν τινὰ δρίζει ἡμέραν, 
“ Σήμερον," ἐν Δανεὶδ λέγων of Heb. iv. 
7. It is also confirmed in some degree by 
the analogous mention of the Holy Ghost 
in Heb. x. 15 (cf. Win.-Moult., p. 656; 
Blass, Gram. of Ν. T. Greek, p. 75).— 
᾿Αναβὰς εἰς ὕψος : when He ascended 
on high. In the Psalm the victorious 
Subject is addressed in the second per- 
son; here the “ Thou” becomes “ He”. 
In the Psalm the ascent expressed by 


pind mby (= “ Thou hast,gone 
up to the height”) is the triumphant 
ascent of the God of Israel to Zion, the 
place of His earthly rest, or (better) to 
heaven His proper habitation, after the 
victory He achieved for His people. 
Here it is the ascension of Christ to the 
right hand of God (cf. Acts ii. 33). The 
aor. part. has its most proper temporal 
force, denoting something that preceded 
the main event in view. It means here, 
therefore, that Christ’s ascension had 
taken place before He distributed the 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


gifts of ρταςε.---ἠχμάλωτενσεν αἱ ω- 
σίαν: He led captivity captive. the 
original "AW FAW, the abstract αἰχ- 
μαλωσίαν (= “a body of captives ” 

chosen according to a familiar usage if. 
Num. xxxi. 12; 2 Chron. xxviii. rr; see 
Win.-Moult., p. 282), instead of the con- 
crete αἰχμαλώτους (" captives”’), adds to 
the force of the sentence. The verb αἰχ- 
μαλωτεύω belongs to late Greek ; it is 
pretty freely used in the LXX and the 
Apocrypha. The phrase is a general one, 
meaning nothing more than that He made 
captives (cf. Judges v. 12), and suggesting 
nothing as to who these captives were. 
Neither in the Psalm nor in Paul’s use of 
it here is there anything to warrant the 
idea that the captives are the redeemed 
(Theod.), or men in the bonds of sin on 
earth (Harl.), or souls detained in Hades 
(Est., Konig, Delit., εἰς). The most 
that the words themselves, or passages 
more or less analogous (1 Cor, xv. 25, 
26) warrant us to say is that the captives 
are the enemies of Christ; just as in the 
Psalm they are the enemies of Israel and 
Israel's God. But these are left quite 
undefined, and the whole idea of the clause 
is subordinate to that next expressed, viz., 
the giving of the gifts. —xal ἔδωκε δόματα 
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις : and gave gifts unto men. 
The καί of the TR is found in ΒΟ 
KL, etc. ; but is omitted in 4*AC*D*G, 
17, etc. It is put in brackets by WH, 
and omitted by LT, but retained (on the 
whole rightly) by RV. Here the quotation 
diverges widely, both from the original 


Hebrew, which has MAIDA alae) 


OTN (= Thou hast received gifts 


among men"’); and from the LXX which 
renders it ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ (or 
ἀνθρώποις). ‘The idea in the Psalm is that 
of Jehovah, the Conqueror, receiving gifts, 
that is to say, gifts of homage; or, possibly, 
receiving the captured men themselves 


regarded as gifts or offerings, the DIN2 


being capable of that sense (cf. Ewald, 
Aus. Lehrb. d. Hebr. Sprache, § 287 h). 
The idea expressed here is that of the 
ascended Christ giving gifts to men ; 
ἔδωκε being substituted for ἔλαβες, and 
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις for the generic ἐν ἀνθρώ- 
πῳ (or ἐν ἀνθρώποι-).---Ἴ 5 in order to 
suit the purpose of a testimony to the 
statement made regarding Christ and the 
gift of grace, the OT passage is materially 
changed. OT quotations introduced in 
the NT are given without much regard 
to the literal faithfulness with which 


8--ο. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


325 


17 only. 


e=Rom. x, 7. f Here only; Ps, Ixii. 9. 


1 ey ἀνθρωποις FG, Orig., Euseb., Hil., Jer., etc. 

* After κατ. insert πρωτον $°BC*KLP, al., Vss., Thdrt., Dam., Ambrst.-ms., Oec.- 
comm. ; προτερον 120; N*AC*DEFGO 17, 46, 67°, 43, al., It., am., Copt., Sahid., 
Eth., Thdrt., Cyr., Chr.-comm., Oec.-text, Iren., Lucif., Hil., Jer., Aug., al. 

ὕ After κατ τ. insert µερη with SABCD°KLP, etc., vss. Orig.,, all Aug.s, al. ; om. 
DEFG, ἆ, e, g, Syr., Ar.-erp., Thdrt., Orig.,, Iren.,, Tert., Lucif., Hil., Ambrst., Jer.; 


κατωτατα Thdrt., Orig., Euseb., Cyr. 


quotations are expected to be made in 
modern times; and in other passages 
made use of by Paul (e.g., Rom. x. 6-10) 
we discover a remarkable liberty both in 
reproduction and in application, But in 
none is the change so great as in the 
present case. There is first the depart- 
ure from the historical meaning of the 
Psalm ; in which, however, this passage 
stands by no means alone. The Psalm 
in which this magnificent description of 
the victorious march of Israel’s God 
occurs, celebrates the establishment of 
Jehovah’s kingdom in the past and pro- 
claims the certainty of its triumph over all 
enemies and in all nations in the future. 
It does this in connection with some great 
event in the history of Israel. All pos- 
sible opinions have been expressed as to 
the particular occasion of the Psalm. It 
has been identified with the removal of 
the Ark to Zion in David’s time (2 Sam. 
vi. 12, etc.; τ Chron. xv.); with some 
unnamed victory of David or with David’s 
victories generally; with the placing of 
the Ark in Solomon’s Temple; with the 
victory of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram over 
Moab (2 Kings iii. ; Hitzig) ; with the 
check given to the Assyrians in Heze- 
kiah’s time ; with the consecration of the 
Temple of the Restoration (Ewald) ; with 
the return from the captivity (Hupfeld) ; 
with the. struggle between Egypt and 
Syria for the possession of the Holy Land 
towards the close of the third century 
B.c.; with the victories of Jonathan or 
Simon in the Maccabean wars (Olsh.) ; 
with the struggle between Ptolemy Philo- 
metor and Alexander Balas (1 Macc. xiv.), 
etc. Butall this uncertainty as to the par- 
ticular date and occasion does not affect 
the fact that what is dealt with is some 
great passage in the history of the Jewish 
nation. The probabilities are that the 
Psalm belongs to the latter part of the 
Babylonian exile; but Paul passes by 
the actual historical intention of the 
words and puts on them a quite differ- 


ent sense. There is, secondly, the 
notable change from Jehovah receiving 
gifts to Christ giving gifts. Some have 
explained this by supposing that Pau 
followed a Hebrew text which read 


ΓΔ, or some such form, instead of 


nnp> : but of this there is no evidence. 


It is possible, indeed, that the Apostle 
adopted a traditional version or interpre- 
tation of the passage which was familiar, 
and of which some indication is found 
in the Peshitta Syriac and the Chaldee 
Paraphrase (both having a rendering = 
“Thou didst give gifts to the children of 
men”). Something also may be said in 


support of the explanation that the Πορ 


of the original, which is used elsewhere 
in the sense of fetching or taking in order 
to give (Gen. xviii. 5, xxvii. 13, xlii. 16, 
xlviii. 9, etc.), has that meaning here. 
But after all such explanations the fact 
remains that both the terms and the idea 
are changed. There is thirdly the Mes- 
sianic interpretation. It is here that the 
justification of the change is found. The 
Psalm, there is good reason to believe, 
had been regarded as a Messianic Psalm ; 
and the use made of it by Paul was in all 
probability in accordance with views of 
Messianic prophecy which had become 
current, and with a method of dealing 
with the OT which was generally under- 
stood. But in any case it is an applica- 
tion rather than an interpretation in the 
strict sense of the word that we have 
here. And the justification of such an 
application lies in the fact that the un- 
known event celebrated in the Psalm was 
a victory of the Theocratic King, and in 
that sense a part of that triumph of the 
Kingdom of God which was to be carried 
to its consummation by the Messiah. 
Ver. 9. Τὸ δέ, ἀνέβη, τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ 
ὅτι καὶ κατέβη πρῶτον : Now this, He 
ascended,” what is it but that He also 


326 


descended [ first}? The TR inserts πρῶ- 
τον, with BNQ*C*KLP, most cursives, Syr., 
Vulg., Goth., Arm., etc. The omission 
of πρῶτον is supported by ΝΔ", 17, 
Boh., Sah., Eth., etc. The documentary 
evidence is pretty fairly balanced. The 
reponderance, however, on the whole, 
is on the side of the omission, especially 
in view of transcriptional probabilities. 
The word is deleted by LTTr; while WH 
and RV give it a place in the margin. 
The δέ has its usual transitional force, 
but with something added. It continues 
the thought, but does that in the form of 
an explanation or application ; cf. Gal. 
ii. 2; Eph. v. 3; see also Buttm., Gram. 
of N. T. Greek, p. 303; Winer.-Moult., 
Ρ. 553. What the precise point of the 
quotation is, and what the explanation 
amounts to which is thus introduced, are 
questions of no small difficulty. The 
answer will appear when the particular 
terms have been examined. The clause 
τὸ δέ, ἀνέβη is not to be taken as if Paul 
were limiting himself to a play upon the 
word, What follows shows that he had 
in view the historical fact expressed in 
the ἀναβάς, viz., the Ascension. As in 
Matt. ix. 3; John x. 6, xvi. 17, the τί 
ἐστιν has the force of—What does it 
mean? What is implied in the state- 
ment ? And the reply given by Paul in 
ὅτι καὶ κατέβη is that the ascent pre- 
supposes a previous descent, This of 
course is not given as an inference of 
universal application, but as one that 
holds good in the case in view, and one 
which gives Paul the warrant to use the 
quotation as he does. In the Psalm it 
was Jehovah that ascended, but that was 
only after He had first descended to earth 
in behalf of His people from His proper 
habitation in heaven. And so the Giver 
of gifts to whom Paul desires to direct 
his readers was One who had first come 
down to earth before He ascended. It was 
the belief of those whom Paul addressed 
(cf. the express statement in John iii. 13) 
that Christ’s proper abode was in heaven. 
That belief is here taken for granted, and 
the conclusion consequently is drawn that 
the Giver who ascended is Christ.—els 
τὰ κατώτερα μέ γῆς: into the 
lower parts of the earth. The locality 
or the extent of the descent is now defined. 
The question is whether the locality in 
view is this world as a scene of existence 
lower than heaven, or the under world as 
a deeper depth than earth itself. Does 
the sentence refer to Christ’s incarnation 
and the subjection to which He humbled 
Himself on earth even unto death? Or 
does it point to His descent to Hades ὃ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV, 


And if the latter is the case, in what 
aspect and with what particular signifi- 
cance is His visit to the world of the dead 
resented ? On these questions there 
as been and there continues to be great 
diversity of opinion. Both interpretations 
have large support. That the “ lower 
parts of the earth" mean simply earth 
itself in distinction from heaven is the 
view of Calv., Grot., Mich., Winer, Harl., 
Thom., Reiche, de Wette, Hofm., Bey- 
schlag, Schweitzer, Weiss, Pfleid., Bis- 
ping, Abb., Haupt and others. That 
they mean Hades is the view favoured 
by the Copt. and Eth. Versions, and by 
such interpreters as Iren., Tertull., hey 
Erasm.,, Estius, Eb Riick., Olsh., Del., 
Bleek, Mey., Alf., Ell. (on the whole), 
etc. Those who adopt this latter view, 
however, are not wholly at one, The 
eat majority indeed, especially among 
atristic and Lutheran exegetes, under- 
stand Paul to affirm that Christ after His 
death made a manifestation of Himself 
in epee to the world of the departed, 
and fulfilled a certain ministry there. 
That ministry is understood by some, 
especially among the Fathers, to have 
been concerned with the release of the 
souls of OT saints from the Limbus Pat- 
rim ; by others, especially among certain 
classes of modern commentators, to have 
been a new proclamation of grace to the 
whole world of the departed or to certain 
sections of the dead; cf. Pearson on the 
Creed, sub Art. v.; Salmond’s Christian 
Doctrine of Immortality, p. 421, etc. But 
there are those, especially Calvinistic 
theologians, who take the writer to mean 
nothing more, if he refers to Hades at all, 
than that like other men Christ passed at 
death into the world of the departed and 
had experience there of the power of 
death for a time. Some (e.g., Chrys., 
Theod., Oec.) are of opinion that the 
phrase points to the death or the burial 
of Christ, but do not press it beyond that. 
On the other hand, there are those (e.g., 
Von Soden, Abb.) who take the descent 
to be to earth and not to Hades, but 
instead of identifying it with the incarna- 
tion regard it as subsequent to the ascen- 
sion. What then is the most reasonable 
interpretation ? 

It must be said in the first place that 
neither grammar nor textual criticism 
gives a decisive answer. The τῆς γῆς 
may be taken equally well as the appos. 
gen., = “the lower parts which are or 
make the earth”; the poss. gen., = “ the 
lower parts belonging to earth,” Hades 
being conceived to be part of the earth, 
but its lower part; or the comp, gen., = 


g—Io. 


‘the parts lower than the earth”. But 
the comparative idea is not more pertinent 
to the one main line of interpretation than 
to the other. The κατώτερα may mean 
the parts lower than the earth itself, 2.6., 
Hades ; but it may also mean the parts 
lower than heaven, i.e., the earth. Nor 
does the variety in reading affect the 
sense, though much has been made of it. 
The word μέρη is inserted after κατώτερα 
by BSQCD°KLP, Syr.-P., Boh., Vulg., 
Arm., Chrys., etc. It is omitted by 
D*G, Goth., Eth., Iren., etc. It must 
be held, therefore, to belong to the text, 
but it is not inconsistent with either inter- 
pretation. The main arguments in favour 
of Hades being in view are these; that if 
earth were meant, it is difficult to under- 
stand why some simpler form such as eis 
τὴν γῆν or εἰς THY γῆν κάτω (Acts ii. 10) 
was not chosen; that the use of so singular 
a phrase as τὰ κατώτερα, which recalls the 
LXX rendering for PUNT NANA, 
one of the OT expressions for the under- 
world, suggests at once that something 
lower than earth itself, a yet deeper depth, 
was intended (Mey.); that the accompany- 
ing phrases ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν 
and ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα, being ex- 
pressions of largest extension, make it 
reasonable to give the widest possible 
sense also to the κατώτερα; and that 
justice is done to the peculiarity and the 
amplitude of the various expressions only 
by taking Paul’s idea to be that as Christ 
rose in order to fill the whole world, He 
-had first to pass in His victorious power 
through all the great divisions of the 
universe—heaven above, earth beneath, 
and even the subterranean world, in the 
assertion of His universal sovereignty. 
But there is much to be said on the other 
side. The superlative formula τὰ κατώ- 
tata would have been more in point if 
the idea to be expressed had been that of 
a depth than which there was none deeper 
(Abb.), or that of a descent embracing all 
the several parts of the universe. In 
point of fact, too, it is not Ta κατώτερα, 
but τὰ κατώτατα, that the LXX employs 


in reproducing the Hebrew NAN 


8971. If Hades had been intended, 


it is strange that Paul did not select one 
or other of the more familiar and quite 
unambiguous phrases which are used 
elsewhere, e.g., ἕως ἅδου (Matt. χι. 23), 
eis ἅδου (Acts ii. 27), or such a formula 
as εἰς τὴν καρδίαν τῆς γῆς (Matt. xii. 
40), εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον (Rom. x. 7). It is 
also to be considered that, granting it is 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


327 


the Ascension and not merely the Resur- 
rection of Christ that is expressed by the 
ἀνέβη, it was not from Hades, but from 
earth that He did ascend. Further, the 
point immediately in view is not any 
work that Christ did in the world and its 
several parts, but the identity of the Per- 
son who descended, and ascended, and 
gave gifts. This is made sufficiently clear 
by the repeated αὐτός (vv. 10, 11), and 
the idea of a Hades-visit or a Hades- 
ministry has no obvious relation to that. 
The great paragraph in Phil. ii. 5-10, 
which is in some sense a parallel, has 
also to be taken into account. There 
again the whole statement turns upon 
the two great ideas of the incarnation 
with the humiliation involved in it and 
the exaltation, and nothing is said about 
any visit of Christ to the underworld. 
Here, too, the whole idea of a descent 
to Hades appears to be foreign to the 
thought. It is not suggested by the 
passage in the Psalm; for there is not 
a word about Sheol in it. Neither is 
there any indication of it in the context 
in the Epistle. For there the bestowal 
of gifts is referred not to Christ’s descent, 
but to His ascension, and no hint is given 
of any work done by Him in Hades with 
a view to that bestowal, or of any relation 
in which the world of the dead stands to 
His prerogative of giving. For these 
reasons we conclude that the phrase 
τὰ κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς means the 
earth as a scene of existence, lower than 
His native heavens, to which Christ 
descended. 

Ver. το, ὃ καταβάς, αὐτός ἐστι καὶ 6 
ἀναβάς : he that descended, he it is that 
also ascended (or, he himself also ascended). 
It was the first thought of every Christian 
mind that Christ had come down from 
heaven to live and work among men on 
earth for their salvation. Founding on 
this Paul declares that He who descended, 
whom all knew to be Christ, He and no 
other was also the Person who ascended. 
So he reminds his readers of the source 
of all the gifts in operation in the Church 
or enjoyed by individual Christians— 
the ascended Christ. A peculiar force 
is claimed by some (Von Soden, Abb., 
Bruston) for the καί in kal κατέβη. It 
is argued that it represents the descent 
as subsequent to the ascent, and contem- 
poraneous with the giving of the gifts. 
So the point is taken to be this—that the 
ascent would have been without a purpose 
unless it had been followed by a descent. 
This, it is thought, is the reason why Paul 
pauses to say that the ascending implied 
also a descending and that the Person in 


428 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


ΕΟ, αι TO, ὁ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς " ὑπεράνω πάντων ' τῶν 
τε, 


Ὁ Acts ii. 2 οὐρανῶν, ἵνα Ἡ πληρώσῃ ” τὰ πάντα. 


v.28; = 


Rom, xv. 13. i Ch. i. 22 reff. 


1QOmit, P 113 Thdrt., Euseb, 


view not only ascended but also descen- 
ded. Hence what is in the writer’s mind 
here is held not to be the incarnation or 
humiliation of the pre-existent Christ, 
but the descent of the exalted Christ to 
His Church, supposed to be referred to 
also in such passages as ii, 17, ili. 17, ν. 
31, 32. But it is nowhere taught in the 
Pauline Epistles that a descent or a de- 
parture from heaven after the exaltation 
was necessary in order that the ascended 
Lord might bestow gifts upon His Church. 
The passages cited do not bear out any 
such idea. The first (ii. 17) does not 
refer to a coming of the glorified Christ ; 
the second (iii. 17) speaks only of the 
spiritual presence of Christ in the heart; 
and the third (v. 31, 32) deals obviously 
with a ‘‘mystery” of relations, and has 
nothing to do with any coming of Christ 
out of heaven following on His ascen- 
sion or required for the bestowal of His 
gifts. Nor is there any reason why the 
καί should have more than the familiar 
additive force.—twepdvw πάντων τῶν οὐ- 
pavev: up above all the heavens. Soin 
Heb. vii. 27 our High Priest is described 
as ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. 
There may be an allusion here to the 
Jewish ideas of a gradation of heavens, 
a series of three or, as the case rather 
appears to stand, seven heavens, with 
which the Pauline τρίτος οὐρανός (2 Cor. 
xii, 2) may also be connected; on the 
conceptions of a plurality of heavens 
which prevailed among the Jews, the 
Babylonians and other ancient peoples, 
see the writer's article on ‘‘ Heaven”’ in 
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. But 
the point of the phrase as we have it here 
is simply this—that whatever heavens 
there are or may be, Christ is above 
them all. So high has His ascension 
carried Him. It means the highest 
possible exaltation—the supremacy of 
One who shares in the sovereignty of 
God. For the term ὑπεράνω see on 
i. 21.—tva πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα: that He 
might fill all things. The use of the 
conj. with ἵνα after a past tense may be 
due to the fact that the ‘‘filling” is to 
be viewed as a continuous action (ΕΙΙ., 
Alf.; cf. Klotz, Devar., ii., p. 618), if it 
is not to be explained simply by the laxer 
employment of the conj. in NT Greek. 


11. καὶ αὐτὸς ᾿ ἔδωκεν τοὺς 


3 πληρ. εαντω 47. 


The sense of fulfilling or completing has 
been given by many to the πληρώσῃ. 
Thus the idea has been taken by some 
to be that of the fulfilling of prophecy 
(Anselm, etc.), the accomplishment of all 
things that Christ had to do in His re- 
deeming mission (Riick.), the making of 
all perfect (Oltr.), etc. But, as in i, 23, 
the verb has the sense of filling, and τὰ 
πάντα is to be taken again in its widest 
application, and is not to be restricted to 
the world of believers or to the Church of 
Jew and Gentile (Grot., Schenk., εἰς,). 
Nor is there anything to suggest that the 
ubiquity of Christ's body is in view, as 
some Lutherans have argued (Hunn., 
Οαἶον., εἰς). The idea that is in the 
paragraph is not that of a ‘‘ diffused and 
ubiquitous corporeity,” as Ellicott well 
expresses it, but that of a “ pervading and 
energising omnipresence”, The thought 
is the larger one that the object of Christ’s 
ascension was that He might enter into 
regal relation with the whole world and 
in that position and roses bestow 
His gifts as He willed and as they were 
needed. He was exalted in order that 
He might take kingly sway, fill the uni- 
verse with His activity as its Soverei 
and Governor, and His Church with His 
presence as its Head, and provide His 
people with all needful grace and gifts. 
In OT prophecy to “fill heaven and 
earth” is the note of Deity (Jer. xxiii. 
24).—We may be in a position now to 
determine Paul's object in introducing 
the passage from Ps, Ixviii. and in 
applying it as he does. The general 
connection is clear enough, He bids 
his readers study lowliness, forbearance 
and unity, because there is one faith, one 
baptism, etc. They are not to be vexed 
or divided because one may have more 
of the gift of grace than another. All 
receive from Christ, each in his own way 
and measure as Christ wills; for, as the 
Psalm shows, all gifts come from Him. 
Now some take the point of the quotation 
to be this—He who is the subject of the 
Psalm is One whose seat is in heaven, a 
Sovereign Giver of gifts (Ell.). Others 
are of opinion that the words are cited in 
order to bring out the fact that Christ’s 
bestowal of gifts “stands in ne 
connection with His general position of 


ro—II, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


329 


μὲν " ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ " προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ ᾿ εὐαγγελιστὰς, τοὺς k Ch. iii. 5 
. το 
δὲ ™ ποιμένας καὶ " διδασκάλους, 12. πρὸς Tov! “ καταρτισμὸν τῶν | Acts xxi. 


iv. 5. 


Τὴ John x. 2, εἴς.» but=here only; see Jer. iii. 15; Ezek. xxxiv. passim. 
1 Cor, xii, 28, 29; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Heb. v. 12; James iii. 1. 


8; 2 Tim. 
n Acts xiii. 1 
o Here only. 


1Qmit τον I, 10g, 114, 121, 178. 


filling the whole universe” (Mey.). But 
the case appears to be less involved than 
that, and to turn simply on the identifica- 
tion of the Person who is the source of 
the gifts. Paul has spoken of the grace 
as given (ἐδόθη, ver. 7), and he has 
quoted the words of the Psalm which 
say that “the gave gifts” (ἔδωκεν δόματα, 
ver. 8). But he has not named the Giver. 
Now he explains that the Giver is Christ; 
and that this is indicated by the Psalm 
itself, because it sings of One who went 
up on high, and of an ascent which pre- 
supposed a previous descent. Thus he 
identifies the subject of the Psalm with 
Christ; as elsewhere the Jehovah of the 
Prophets and the Psalms is identified 
with the Christ of the Apostles, and what 
_is affirmed of the former in the OT is 
ascribed to the latter in the NT. 

Ver. 11. καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκε τοὺς μὲν 
ἀποστόλους : and He gave some Apostles. 
That is, ‘‘ He gave some as Apostles,” or 
(with RV) ‘‘some to be Apostles”. At 
this point Paul reverts to the statement 
in ver. 7, and having shown that the 
declaration in Ps, Ixviii. applies to Christ, 
he proceeds to set forth the purpose (ver. 
12) with which the gifts of the exalted 
Giver are bestowed and His grace given 
to such. But before he explains that 
purpose he specifies a series of gifts given 
with that in view. We have a somewhat 
similar enumeration in 1 Cor, xii. 28. 
But while the ruling idea there is that of 
appointments (ἔθετο) and the subject is 
God, here the particular idea is that of 
gifts (ἔδωκε) and the subject is Christ. 
Further, while the list in Ephesians be- 
gins with Apostles, prophets, evangelists, 
teachers, and continues in terms of per- 
sons, the statement in 1 Cor. takes note 
indeed of Apostles, prophets, and teachers, 
but thereafter passes from persons to gifts 
or ministries—miracles, healings, helps, 
governments, tongues. This has its sig- 
nificance, as we shall see. The αὐτός is 
again emphatic, =“ he himself,” “Πα and 
no other’. The ἔδωκε is not to be taken 
as = ἔθετο, appointed or set. Thatit has 
its proper sense of gave is clear from its 
relation to the preceding ἔδωκε δόματα. 
The “giving” refers to the call of the 
Church’s Head, the point being the gift 


of Christ to the Church in the form of 
certain men chosen by Him and equipped 
by Him to do service toward the building 
up of His body and the bringing of all 
its members to the measure of the stature 
of His fulness. Further, the exhortation 
to unity (ver. 3) is still in view, Christ 
having given these ‘Apostles ” and others 
in order that all His disciples may come 
to the unity of the faith (ver. 13). All 
through the statement, too, the primary 
thing is the fersons, not the offices. 
Nothing is said of any special order or 
orders in the Church possessing excep- 
tional prerogatives, or any office or rank 
to which peculiar or exclusive powers 
of grace were attached. The men are 
Christ’s gifts to the Church and to every 
member of it; and they are given to do 
a certain work looking to a great end, 
viz., to furnish His people and every 
individual believer among them (vv. 7, 
16) for their particular service and their 
particular contribution to the building up 
of Christ’s body. Nothing is said of the 
time when these gifts were given. But 
as they are the gifts of the exalted Christ, 
it is plain that the ἀποστόλους are not to 
be restricted to the original Twelve, but 
are to be taken in the wider sense, in- 
cluding not only Paul, but Barnabas 
(Acts xiv. 4, 14), probably James (1 Cor. 
xv. 7; Gal. i. το), Silvanus (1 Thess. ii. 
6), perhaps also Andronicus and Junias 
(Rom. xvi. 7). The ‘ Apostle” is de- 
scribed as one called by Christ (Gal. i. 
1); one who has seen Christ and been 
a witness of His resurrection (1 Cor. ix. 1, 
2; Acts i. 8, 21-23); one whose “signs” 
were “wrought . . . by signs, and won- 
ders, and mighty works” (2 Cor. xii. 12) ; 
whose office also was not limited to a 
single church or locality, but was related 
to the world generally and to all the 
churches (Matt. xxviii. 10; 1 Cor. xi. 28). 
See also on chap. i. 1.---τοὺς δὲ προφή- 
τας: and some as prophets. These are 
referred to along with the Apostles also 
in ii. 20, ili, 5, and in 1 Cor. xii. 28. 
With NT prophets we have also NT 
prophetesses. Agabus, those of Antioch 
Judas and Silas, the four daughters o 
Philip, are mentioned as having the gift 
of prophecy. As in the case of Agabus 


330 


pq Here 
onl 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


ἁγίων, εἰς " ἔργον Ἱδιακονίας,! εἰς "οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ "σώματος τοῦ 


γ. . 
q=Rom. χί. "χριστοῦ, 13. "μέχρι " καταντήσωμεν 3 "οἱ ὃ "πάντες "εἰς τὴν 
I 


r=Rom. xiv. 19, xv. 2; Paul only. 
Mark xiii. 30. 


s=1 Cor. xii. 27; Col. ii. 17. 
u Acts xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xiv. 36 il, iii 


I t Constr., here only; sea 
; Phil. iii. 11 =Paul only. v1 Cor. x. 17 


2Cor. v.10; Galv.14; Phil. ii. αι; Paul only; τὰ πάντα pa 


‘Insert τῆς before διακονιας D*FG. 


Ἕκαταντησομεν 44-8, 72, 113, 219, Chr. ; καταντησωμεν Clem., Orig., etc. ; καταν- 


τησω FG, 
“or om. DFG, Clem.,, Orig.,. 


this gift of prophecy included the predic- 
tion of events (Acts xi. 28, xxi, το), but 
its chief function was edification. The 
prophets were preachers or exhorters, to 
whom revelations of spiritual truth were 
imparted, and who spoke in the Spirit 
(ἐν πνεύματι; Eph. iii. 5; Apoc. i. 10), 
but not in ecstacy or as one in a trance (év 
ἐκστάσει, Acts x. 10, xxii. 17), Further, 
he was usually, if not always, itinerant. 
This order of prophets continued to have 
a place in the Church for a considerable 
period. Large mention is made of it 
in the Didaché, and in Eusebius, Hist. 
Eccles., v., 17, reference is made to Quad- 
ratus and Ammia in Philadelphia. This 
may take the order on to Hadrian’s time; 
cf. Selwyn, The Christian Prophets, and 
Gwatkin’s article in Hastings’ Dictionary 
of the Bible, ἵν., p. 127. See also on ii. 
20 above.—rtovs δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς: and 
some as evangelists. In 1 Cor. xii. 28 the 
evangelist is not mentioned. Here he is 
distinguished from the Apostle and the 
prophet and named as the third in the 
order of Christ's gifts tothe Church, The 
εὐαγγελιστής is mentioned only twice 
again in the NT, vés., in Acts xxi. 8, 
where Philip, one of the seven deacons 
is so designated ; and 2 Tim. iv. 5, where 
Timothy is charged to “ do the work of an 
evangelist”. Like the prophets the evan- 
gelists were generally itinerant preachers 
or missionaries, though sometimes they 
had a stated place of abode or ministry. 
The term seems, therefore, to belong to 
the Pauline vocabulary. These evange- 
lists were inferior to the Apostles, assisting 
them or delegated by them, but without 
their authority. They had the gift (χάρ- 
topa) of the Spirit, as in the case of 
Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6); 
but, if we may judge by Philip’s case 
(Acts viii. 5-18), they could not impart 
the Holy Ghost. Nor do they seem to 
have had the special revelations which 
were given to the prophets.—rovs 

ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους: and some as 
pastors and teachers. The ποιμένες and 
διδάσκαλοι are distinguished from the 


former orders as being connected with 
particular churches, resident and not mis- 
sionary or itinerant. The absence of the 
τοὺς δέ before διδασκάλους indicates also 
that the ποιμένες and the διδάσκαλοι 
were not two distinct orders, but desig- 
nations of the same men (cf, the πρεσβύ- 
τεροι οἵ ἐπίσκοποι ; Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 
25, ν. 2), in different functions, the former 
defining them according to their office of 
oversight, the latter according to their 
office of instruction and guidance. The 
ποιμήν would naturally also be a διδάσ- 
καλος; but there is not the same reason for 
supposing that every διδάσκαλος would 
also be a ποιμήν. Nothing is said here of 
πρεσβύτεροι, ἐπίσκοποι, διάκονοι, The 
absence of such official terms points per- 
haps to the comparatively early date of 
the Epistle. 

Ver. 12. πρὸς τὸν κατα τῶν 
ἁγίων : with a view to the full equip- 
ment of the saints. The object with 
which Christ gave some men as Apostles, 
and some as prophets, etc., is now stated 
in a sentence consisting of three clauses. 
The precise construction and meaning 
of these clauses are by no means easy 
to determine. The main difficulty is the 
relation in which they stand to each 
other and to the preceding ἔδωκε. What 
that relation is will be best seen when 
the several terms have been examined, 
The sentence begins with πρός, but the 
two clauses which follow are introduced 
each by els. Little can be made, how- 
ever, of that. The nice distinctions of 
the classical period were not maintained 
in later Greek; and, while Paul’s use of 
prepositions is for the most part remark- 
ably precise, it is his habit to vary them, 
without any obvious difference in sense. 
Especially is this his way with those of 
kindred meaning and followed by the 
same case: cf. εἰς and πρός in Rom. 
iii. 25, and see Win.-Moult., pp. 512, 513. 
The noun κατα occurs only here 
in the NT; in 2 Cor. xiii. 9 we have 
κατάρτισις. The verb καταρτίζω which 
is found more frequently and expresses 


12. 


the general idea of making ἄρτιος, /it, 
complete, is used in the sense of repairing 
literally (Matt. iv. 21; Mark i. 10), re- 
storing in a spiritual or disciplinary sense 
Gal. vi. 1), perfecting or making perfect 
Matt. xxi. 16; 1 Thess. iii, 10; 1 Pet. 
ν. το, etc.), and also in that of preparing, 
furnishing, equipping (Polyb., i., 47, 6; 
ν. ο τσι Ἠαι κ. 66: Luke vi, 40; 
Heb. x. 5, xi. 3, also Rom. ix. 22, with 
eis). The noun, therefore, may well 
have the meaning of equipment here.— 
eis ἔργον διακονίας : for the work of 
ministration. ἔργον has the simple sense 
of business—the work done in ministra- 
tion. διακονίας is taken by most in the 
specific sense of ministerial service, ser- 
vice of an official kind in the Church. 
But, while this is a very frequent use 
(ACE Τὸ. 25, XX.) 24, ΧΕΙ. τὸ; Rom. 
xi. 13, xii. 7, etc.), the word has also 
the more general sense of service (Heb. 
i. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 11). Its cognates δια- 
κονέω, διάκονος have also the same sense 
(Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45; John xii. 26; 
Acts xix, 22; Phil. 13; Col.i.25; 2 Cor. 
Vi. 4, xi. 15, etc.). It is quite legitimate, 
therefore, to give the noun here the non- 
official sense, if the contest points to 
that. This also is in harmony with the 
anarthrous διακονίας. --- eis οἰκοδομὴν 
τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ: for the 
building up of the body of Christ. Cf. 
πρὸς οἰκοδομήν in iv. 29, and πρὸς 
οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας in τ Cor, 
xiv. 12. The two figures of the Church 
as a building and a body are combined 
here. But in what relation do these 
clauses stand to each other and to the 
ἔδωκε This is very differently put. 
Some take them to be three parallel or 
coordinate clauses dependent on ἔδωκε, 
as if=‘‘ Christ gave some as Apostles, and 
some as prophets, etc., with a view to 
these three things—the perfecting of the 
saints and the work of the ministry, and 
the edifying of the body of Christ. So sub- 
stantially Chrys., Theophy., Oec., Calv., 
Beng., ΚΙδΡ., etc., and the AV. To this 
it is objected that the eis ἔργον διακονίας 
would occupy an awkward position, and 
that the natural order would have been 
εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, πρὸς καταρτισμὸν, 
etc. With this sense of maladjustment 
of the clauses some (Grot., etc.) have 
even supposed a trajection. Others 
(Lachm., Harl., Tisch., Bleek, Hofm., 
Mey., Von Soden, ΕἸ]., Alf., Abb., etc.) 
take the second and third clauses, each 
introduced by eis, to be parallel to each 
other, and directly dependent on the ἔδωκε. 
They thus express the immediate object, 
while πρὸς καταρτισμὸν κ.τ.λ. denotes 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


931 


the ultimate end; as if = “" Christ, with 
a view to the full, final perfecting of 
the saints, gave Apostles, prophets, etc. 
for the work of the ministry, for the 
edifying of the body of Christ”. But 
this gives a somewhat awkward and 
involved construction, and reduces the 
force of the third clause, which would 
naturally be expected to bring us to the 
larger, ultimate purpose of Christ’s giving. 
Olshausen modifies this interpretation to 
the effect of taking the second and third 
clauses as subdivisions of the first, = 
‘Christ gave Apostles, etc., for the per- 
fecting of the saints, on the one hand 
for the fulfilment of the teacher’s office, 
and on the other hand, as regards the 
hearers, for edification”, But no such 
distinction is in view here between 
teachers and hearers, the subjects being 
the ἅγιοι generally. None of these ad- 
justments of the clauses quite meets the 
case. The proper construction, recog- 
nised so far by Erasm., Luther, De Wette, 
Riickert, Weiss, and more recently ac- 
cepted by Haupt, is the simplest. It 
takes the sentence to be dependent as 
a whole on the ἔδωκε, and understands 
the three clauses as successive, the first 
looking to the second, the second to the 
third, the third forming the climax and 


_expressing the ultimate object of the 


giving on the part of the ascended Christ. 
Thus the sense becomes—‘ Christ gave 
some men as Apostles, some as prophets, 
etc., with a view to the full equipment of 
the saints for the work of ministration or 
service they have each to do in order to 
the building up of the body of Christ ”’. 
The building up of the Church—that is the 
great aim and final object ; to that every 
believer has his contribution to make ; 
and to qualify all for this is the purpose 
of Christ in giving ‘‘ Apostles, prophets, 
evangelists, pastors and teachers”. In 
this way each clause fits in naturally with 
the next, and the ultimate object is ex- 
pressed last. This, too, is the only con- 
struction which does justice to the ἑνὶ δὲ 
ἑκάστῳ at the beginning of the statement 
(ver. 7) and the ἑνὸς ἑκάστου at its close. 
These are the terms which convey the 
ruling idea, viz., that each member gets 
the gift of grace, and each has his part to 
do towards that upbuilding of the Church 
which is the great object of Christ’s be- 
stowments ; and these Apostles, prophets, 
etc., are the means provided by Christ 
whereby all the members shall be made 
capable of performing their several parts 
in order that at last the whole Church 
may be built up in its completeness as 
the body of Christ. 


332 


w Ver.3 
only. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


“évérynta τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς " ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ," 


x Ch. i. 17 εἰς 7 ἄνδρα " τέλειον, εἰς " μέτρον "ἡλικίας τοῦ " πληρώματος τοῦ 
ren, 


y James iii.2; see Col. i, 28, iv. 12. 
b Ch. i. a1. 


z Ver. 7 reff, 


a=Luke ii. 52, xix. 3 only; John ix. a1, 


1+, νιον om. FG, Clem.,, Lucif, 


Ver. 13. μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάν- 
τες εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα: until we all attain 
unto the unity. The AV wrongly makes 
it ‘come in"; Tynd., “ grow εν unto”; 
Cran., better, “come to”, ut best, 
“ arrive at,’’ or (with RV) “attain unto”. 
The statement of the great object of 
Christ's gifts and the provision made by 
Him for its fulfilment is now followed by 
a statement of the time this provision and 
the consequent service are to last, or the 
point at which the great end in view is to 
be realised. It is when the members of 
the Church have all come to their proper 
unity and maturity in their Head. The 
tendency of late Greek to use the subj. 
‘without ἄν, especially after temporal par- 
ticles, renders it doubtful whether much 
may be made of the unconditioned μέχρι 
here. The absence of av, however, and 
the use of the subj., seem to point to the 
event as expected, and not as a mere 
hypothetical possibility; cf. Mark xiii. 
30; and see Hartung, Partikl., ii., p. 
291; Hermann, Part., ἄν, p. 66; Win.- 
Moult., pp. 378, 387. καταντάω, followed 
in NT by εἰς, elsewhere also by ἐπί, con- 
veys the idea of arriving at a goal (cf. 
Acts xxvi. 7; Phil. iii. τα), the aor. subj. 
also having the force of “shall have 
attained”. οἱ πάντες evidently refers not 
to men generally, but to Christians and 
to these in their totality. The article 
goes appropriately with the ἑνότητα, 
the unity in view being the definite 
unity denoted by the words that follow. 
--τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ 
viot τοῦ Θεοῦ: of the faith and the 
knowledge of the Son of God. τοῦ νἱοῦ 
is the gen. obj., and it is best taken as 
dependent on both nouns. Some (e.g., 
Haupt), however, are of opinion that the 
repetition of the article before ἐπιγνώσεως 
implies that the τοῦ vlod τοῦ Θεοῦ is 
dependent only on the latter. The καί 
shows that the ἐπιγνώσεως is not an ep- 
exegesis of the πίστεως ; and the πίστις 
(here in its usual Pauline sense of trusting, 
saving faith) and the ἐπίγνωσις express 
distinct, though related, ideas (cf. Phil. 
iil. 9, 10; 1 John iv. 16). The unity in 
view, therefore, is oneness in faith in 
Christ and oneness also in the full ex- 


perimental knowledge of Him. The point 
of the clause is not any unity between 
faith and knowledge themselves, to the 
effect, ε.ρ., of rising from the former to 
the latter as a higher Christian endow- 
ment (Olsh.), but a unity which shall 
make all the members of Christ's body at 
one in believing in Him and knowing 
Him, The title υἱὸς rod Θεοῦ as applied 
to Christ occurs frequently in the Pauline 
as well as in the Johannine writings, but 
never in 2 Thess., Phil., Philem., or the 
Pastoral Epistles. In passages like the 
present, if they stood by themselves, it 
might be difficult to say whether the meta- 

hysical, the theocratic, or the ethical 
idea is in view. But the analogy of such 
statements as those in Rom. i. 4, viii. 3, 32; 
Gal. iv. 4, and the general Pauline con- 
ception of Christ as a transcendent Per- 
sonality, different from men as such, and 
to be named together with God, point to 
a relation to God in respect of nature 
as the force of the designation here.— 
εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον: unto a perfect man. 
τέλειος, as in 1 Cor. ii. 6, xiv. 20; Heb. 
ν. 14, and as is suggested by the subse- 
quent νήπιοι, means perfect in the sense 
of full grown. The state in which unity 
is lacking is the stage of immaturity ; the 
state in which oneness in faith and know- 
ledge is reached is the state of mature 
manhood in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. xiii. rt). 
The singular ἄνδρα instead of ἄνδ is 
appropriately used (as we have εἰν 
had 6 καινὸς ἄνθρωπος) when the idea of 
unity is in view. The goal to be reached 
is that of a new Humanity, regenerated 
and spiritually mature in all its members. 
—aels μέτρον ἡλικίας : unto the measure of 
the stature. A clause in apposition to the 
former, further defining the τέλειον, and 
giving a fuller and yet more precise 
description of the goal which is to be 
reached. Is ἡλικίας, however, to be ren- 
dered age or stature ? The noun appears 
to have both senses. In Luke xix. 3 it is 
certainly = stature, and probably so also 
in Luke ii. 52; while in John ix. 21, 23 it 
is clearly = age, and most probably so 
also in Matt. vi. 27 and Luke xii. 25, altho’ 
the latter two are held by seme to be 
referable to the other meaning ; cf, Field, 


13--14. 


Χριστοῦ, 14. ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν 
φερόμενοι παντὶ 
only; Isa. Ivii. 20 vat.; 


f Matt. xi. 7; Jude 12. 
h Here only. 


Jos., Antt., ix., 11, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ο νήπιοι, ἃ 
Τ ἀνέμῳ τῆς "διδασκαλίας ἐν τῇ 


3503 


κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ “ περι- εΞΙ Cor. 
ili. τ 
"kuBeia! τῶν Paul. 
d Here 
e=Heb, xiii. 9; Jude 12; Eccl. vii. 8. 


g(M att. xv. ὃ; Mark); Col. ii. 22 Paul only; Prov. ii, 17. 


κυβεια AB°CD°EKL, etc. ; κυβια S8B*D*FGO?P, Euthal., etc. 


Otium Νογυ., iii., Ῥ. 4. The adj. ἥλικος 
in the NT has the idea of magnitude 
(Col. ii. 1; James iii. 5), and that is its 
most frequentsense in non-Biblical Greek. 
Much depends, therefore on the context. 
The antithesis between τέλειον and νή- 
πιοι favours the idea of age (so Mey., 
Harl., Abb., etc.). But the idea of stature 
is suggested by the μέτρον, the πληρώ- 
ματος, the αὐξήσωμεν and the αὔξησιν, 
and is on the whole to be preferred (so 
Syr., Goth., Copt., Eth. prob., AV., RV., 
Erasm., Grot., Beng., Rick., Alf., ΕΙΙ., 
εἰςο.).---τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ: 
of the fulness of Christ. The πλήρωμα 
here is taken by some in the sense of per- 
fection. So Rick., who makes it ‘‘ the 
perfection possessed by Christ,” and Ol- 
tramare who renders it ‘‘the measure of 
the height of the perfection of Christ ”. 
But τελείοτης is one idea, and πλήρωμα 
another. Not less foreign to the real 
meaning of the noun are such inter- 
pretations as ‘‘the gracious presence of 
Christ ” (Harl.) ; “the perfect age of 
Christ” (Luth. ; cf. Calvin’s plena aetas) ; 

‘the stature of the full grown Christ,” 
etc. Nor can the phrase be taken as 
a designation of the Church (Storr; also 
Baur, who holds it = that with which 
Christ fills Himself or is completed, i.e., 
the Church). For that would give the 
incongruous idea that we are to attain to 
the Church. The Χριστοῦ is the poss. 
gen., and the phrase means the fulness 
that belongs to Christ, the sum of the 
qualities which make Him what He is. 
These are to be imaged in the Church 
(cf. i. 23), and when these are in us we 
shall have reached our maturity and 
attained to the goal set before us. Thus 
the whole idea will be this—‘ the measure 
of the age, or (better) the stature, that 
brings with it the full possession on our 
side of that which Christ has to impart— 
the embodiment in us the members, of 
the graces and qualities which are in 
Him the Head”. It has also been asked 
whether the goal thus set before us is 
regarded as one to be reached in our 
present temporal life by way of develop- 
ment, or one to be attained to only in 
the future life. As between these two 


ideas the preference must be given (with 
Chrys., Oec., Jer., Luth., de Wette, etc.) 
to the former, in view of the general tenor 
of the exhortation introducing the para- 
graph, the point of iii. 19, the place given 
to unity and maturity, etc. So Mey. 
thinks it refers to the Christian condition 
to be reached “after the last storms and 
before the Parousia”. Not a few of the 
Fathers, however, take the resurrection 
to be specially in view, and interpreters 
like Theod., Calv., etc., think it looks to 
the perfected life of the other world. But 
Paul gives no clear indication of the time, 
and it may be, therefore, that he has in 
view only the goal itself and the attain- 
ment of it at whatever time that may take 
effect. 

Ver. 14. ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι: that 
we may be πὸ longer children. Statement 
of aim following on the previous state- 
ment of goal or limit. The verse is 
regarded by some (Harl., etc.) as con- 
nected immediately with vv. 11, 12, and 
coordinate with νετ. 13. Others under- 
stand it as an explanation of what the 
attainment of the goal spoken of in ver. 
13 means. But it is best to take it as 
subordinate to the immediately preceding 
statement. That is to say, as ver. 13 has 
set forth the goal to be reached and the 
limit put upon the bestowal of the gifts 
referred to as given by Christ, this verse 
now gives the purpose which was in view 
in setting such a goal before us and in 
giving the gifts of Apostles, prophets, 
etc. (Mey., Ell., etc.). That purpose 
looks to a change which has to take place 
in us from the condition of νήπιοι and 
κλυδωνιζόμενοι to that of ἀληθεύοντες, 
αὐξάνοντες, etc. The μηκέτι implies 
something different from the existing 
condition, and that existing condition, 
we see, is one of immaturity, assailed, 
wavering faith, and subjection to the dis- 
tracting influence of false teachers. In 
his address to the elders at Miletus (Acts 
xx. 29) Paul had spoken of ‘“ grievous 
wolves” that would enter the Ephesian 
Church after his departure. But the 
statement here is wide enough to apply 
to the Church generally and not merely 
to the Ephesians. νήπιοι; literally infants 


334 


(Matt. xxi. 16; 1 Cor. xiii. 11), and then 
minors (Gal. iv. 1), the immature or un- 
taught (Matt. xi. 25; Rom. ii. 20; Heb. 
v. 13, εἰς.).---κλυδωνιζόμενοι : tossed to 
and fro. κλύδων means a dashing or 
surging wave (Luke viii. 24 ; James i. 6; 
cf. Thayer-Grimm’s Lexz., sub voce); and 
κλυδωνιζόμενοι means tossed about by 
waves (cf. LXX of Isa. lvii. 20). In the 
changefulness and agitation which were 
the results of their unthinking submission 
to false teaching their pao ee or lack 
of Christian manhood was seen,—kal 
περιφερόμενοι πάντι ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασ- 
i τηλοῦ and carried about by every wind 
o doctrine. The ἀνέμῳ is the instrum. 

at, ; the article τῆς denotes that doctrine 
in the abstract is meant—‘‘every kind 
and degree of it” (Ell.). διδασκαλία 
means teaching, either in the sense ot 
instructing (Rom. xii. 7, xv. 4; 1 Tim. iv. 
13, 16, v. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16; Tit. ii. 
7), or in that of doctrine, the thing taught 
(x Tim. i. το, iv. 6, vi. 1, 3; 2 Tim. iv. 3; 
Tit. i. 9, ii, σ, 1Ο). Here AV, RV, EIL, 
etc., take the second sense. ‘‘In the fact 
that now this, now that, is taught accor- 
ding to varying tendencies, there blows, 
now this, now that, wind of doctrine” 
(Mey.).—@ τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων : in 
the sleight pe spa For κυβείᾳ TWH 
give the form κνβίφᾳ, flak μας may be 
the instrumental ἐν (so ., Haupt, 
etc.). But the contrast with the follow- 
ing ἐν ἀγάπῃ (ver. 15) points rather to the 
usual force of év as=in (so Vulg., Copt., 
etc.), the κυβεία being the “ element, the 
evil atmosphere, as it were, in which the 
varying currents of doctrine exist and 
exert their force” (Ell.). κνβεία means 
dice-playing (e.g., in Plato, Phaedr., p. 
274 D), and then deception, fraud. Some 
(e.g., Beza, Von Soden, etc.) give it the 
sense of levity, or putting at stake—a 
shade of meaning occasionally expressed 
by the verb κυβεύειν (¢.g., Plato, Prot., 
p. 314 A). The idea expressed here by 
the κυβεία itself might be simply that of 
hazard, unsettlement, with reference to 
the uncertainties into which the νήπιοι 
were cast by the diverse forms of false 
teaching under which they fell (ο. Haupt). 
But it is in the character, not of gamesters, 
but deceivers that the false teachers are 
immediately presented (cf. Mey.). This 
“sleight of men” is in contrast with 
‘‘the faith and the knowledge of Christ,” 
or it may be with the pure, sure word of 
God by which the faith and knowledge 
of the Son of God came.—év πανουργίᾳ 
πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλάνης : in crafti- 
ness with a view to the machination of 
error. The renderings of the great Ver- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV, 


sions show how difficult it is to do justice 
to this sentence in English, The AV 
takes refuge in a paraphrase, ‘‘and cun- 
ning craftiness whereby they lie in wait 
to deceive’’. Wicl. gives “το the deceiv- 
ing of error "’; Cov., “το the deceitfulness 
of error’’; Bish., ‘‘in craftiness to the 
laying in wait of error”; Rhem., “to 
the circumvention of error”; RV, ‘in 
craftiness, after the wiles oferror”. The 
Vulg. has in astutia ad circumventionem 
erroris. πανουργία, used in 1 Cor. iii, 
19, of a false wisdom, means here, as in 
classical and also in later Greek, cunning, 
knavishness, treacherous deceitfulness. 
The ἐν πανουργίᾳ is taken by some as 
a definition of the ἐν κυβείᾳ, adding to 
the idea of hazard and destruction con- 
tained in the latter, the idea of fraud, 
But it is rather a distinct clause, em- 
phasising the dishonesty and trickery of 
the false teaching. Its authors u all 
the arts of deception to persuade the 
γήπιοι that their self-made doctrine was 
the Divine truth. The prep. πρός is not 
to be identified with ral (=after, accord- 
ing to), but has its sense of with a view 
to, furthering, tending to. The noun 
οδεία (or μεθοδία according to TWH) 
is nowhere found in the NT except here 
and once again in this same Epistle (vi. 
11), and seems not to occur in non-Bib- 
lical Greek, whether that of the LXX or 
that of the Classics. Its meaning here, 
however, may be safely taken to be trick- 
ery, cunning arts, treacherous wiles; as 
its verb μεθοδεύω, which means primaril 
to pursue a plan, whether honest (Dio 
Sic., i., 81), or dishonest (Polyb., xxxiv., 
4, 10), came to have the sense of follow- 
ing craftily, practising deceitful devices 
(Diod., vii., 16; 2 Sam. xix. 27). The gen. 
πλάνης is usually taken as the gen. subj., 
= the πλάνη which practises craft. But 
it may rather be the gen. obj., expressing 
the object or result of the μεθοδεία, = 
“the cunning art that works to error”, 
The article gives the noun the abstract 
sense or the force of a personification, = 
Error. Here, as elsewhere, πλάνη has 
the passive sense of error, not the active 
sense of seduction, or misleading (Luth., 
de Wette, etc.). But the question re- 
mains as to the precise idea here. 
The term means properly speaking error 
in the sense of straying from the way, 
wandering hither and thither. That 
sense is frequent in classical Greek— 
Aeschyl., Eurip., Plato, etc. Inthe NT 
the word is usually said to be used of 
mental error, wrong opinion, as ¢.g., 
in 1 Thess. ii. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 11; 2 Pet 
ii, 18, iti. 17; Jude τα; 1 John iv. 6 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


et 335 
ἀνθρώπων, ἐν | πανουργίᾳ] πρὸς τὴν " μεθοδείαν 2 τῆς ᾿ πλάνης, i= Luke xx 
15. '' ἀληθεύοντες " δὲ ἐν ἀγάπῃ " αὐξήσωμεν " εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα, i. το; a 

or. iv. 2, 


xi. 3 only; Josh. ix. 4. 
xiii. 18. 
n Ch. ii. ar. 


1 Matt. xxvii. 64; Rom. i. 27; Prov. xiv. 8. 


κ Ch, vi. 11 only, see 2 Kings xix. 27; Polycarp. ad Phil., 7; 2 Macc. 


πι Gal. iv. 16 only; Gen. xlii. 16. 


1 Insert τη before πανουργια FG 39, 116. 
2 μεθοδειαν B®CD®E, etc., Chr., etc.; μεθοδιαν SB*D*FGKLO®, etc., Euth.; τας 


μεθοδιας A, 
3 After πλαν. add του διαβολου A. 


But it is doubtful whether that sense 
fully meets the case in some of the 
passages thus cited, e.g., 1 John iv. 6. 
In such passages as Rom. i. 27; 
James i. 20, it denotes error in practice, 
a wrong way of life or action. This 
seems to be its force here. Conse- 
quently the idea of the clause is more 
definite than ‘‘in craftiness tending to 
the settled system of error” (Ell.). It 
means ‘‘in craftiness, furthering the 
scheming, deceitful art which has for its 
result the false way of life that strays 
fatally from truth.” 

Ver. 15. ἀληθεύοντες δέ: but truthing 
it. A participial clause qualifying the 
following αὐξήσωμεν and introducing the 
positive side of the change in view as 
contrasted with the negative aspect of 
the same in the μηκέτι clause. The δέ 
has the force of “ but rather ” or ‘‘ but on 
the other hand”. Opposition of one thing 
to another is usually expressed by ἀλλά; 
but the advers. δέ is also used at times 
with that force, with the difference, how- 
ever, that δέ connects while it contrasts or 
opposes; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 551. The 
precise meaning of ἀληθεύοντες is dis- 
puted. The RV marg. makes it “" dealing 
truly”; but that is a doubtful sense. 
Calvin takés it = veritati operam dare; 
Rickert, ‘‘ holding fast the truth’’; Ell., 
“holding the truth’; Olsh., ‘ walking in 
truth”; Alf., ‘‘ being followers of truth”. 
But in classical Greek the verb seems to 
mean to speak truth as opposed to ψεύ- 
δεσθαι (Plato, Rep., p. 589 ο; Χεῃ., 
Anab., i., 7, 18, iv., 4, 15, etc.), and that 
is its sense also in Gal. iv. 16. It is best 
to take it here, too, as = “ speaking 
truth”; or more definitely ‘ confessing 
the truth”. The point of this brief, but 
significant clause, therefore, may be this 
—these Ephesians had learned the saving 
truth (ἡ ἀληθεία ; cf. Gal. ii. 5, 14; 2 Cor. 
We, ο, τΈεςἹ οσο. ἨΠεῦυ, x4°20, εἰσ) οὗ 
Christ. They had been exposed to the 
treacheries and risks of false teaching. 
Christ had given them Apostles, prophets, 
and evangelists to secure them against 


4 For αληθ. δε, αληθιαν δε ποιουντες FG, 


all teachers of craft, and they are here 
charged to continue to confess the truth 
in which they had been instructed and so 
grow to the maturity of the Christian life, 
—év ἀγάπῃ : in love. The question is— 
to what is this to be attached? It is con- 
nected by many (Syr., Eth., Theophy., 
Oecum., Erasm., Calv., Riick., Bleek, 
de Wette, Alf, AV, RV, etc.) with the 
ἀληθεύοντες, and it is taken to express 
the idea that love is the element in which 
truth is to be spoken (or the truth con- 
fessed), if it is to conduce to unity and 
brotherliness. This construction is sup- 
ported by the considerations that the 
simple ἀληθεύοντες δέ would be some- 
what bald if it stood wholly by itself ; 
that it is natural to associate Jove and 
truth ; that the position of ἐν ἀγάπῃ after 
the ἀληθεύοντες and also the parallel 
structure of ver. 14 point to this con- 
nection ; and that we thus get a contrast 
between πανουργία and ἀγάπη and again 
between πλάνη and ἀληθεύειν. The 
main argument for connecting the clause 
rather with the following αὐξήσωμεν (= 
‘but speaking truth (or rather, confessing 
the truth) may in love grow πρ) is the 
fact that in ver. 16, where the climax is 
reached, ἐν ἀγάπῃ qualifies the main 
thought—that of the growth or the edi- 
fication of Christ’s body. This is a con- 
sideration of such weight as to throw the 
probability on the whole on the side of 
the second connection (Mey., Alf., Haupt, 
etc.).—avfjowpev εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα: 
may grow up unto him in all things, 
αὐξήσωμεν, which is under the regimen 
of the tva, has here, as in ii. 21 and in 
various other passages of the NT, the 
intr. sense of growing. In earlier classical 
Greek it meant to cause to grow. That 
sense it has in the LXX and also occasion- 
ally in the NT (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7; 2 Cor. ix. 10), 
while the pass. is used to express growing. 
But from Arist. onwards it came also to 
have the intr. sense. Meyer takes eis 
αὐτόν to mean simply ‘‘in reference to 
him”. The idea then would be that it 
is only by being in relation to Christ that 


336 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


oCh.i.22 ὅς ἐστιν ἡ “κεφαλὴ, χριστὸς, 16. ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα "συναρμολο- 
reff. ᾿ 9 r o a. 8 δ 

p Ch ἢ. 2x γούμενον καὶ «συμβιβαζόμενον διὰ πάσης ᾿ ἁφῆς τῆς " ἐπιχορηγίας 
on 


'y. 
q Col. ii. 19 only; Isa. xl. 14 al. 


r Col. ii. 19 only. 


s Phil. i. 19 only 


1ο Xp. DG, etc. ; omit ο ABC 17, 673, 73, Bas., Cyr., Did., Dam. 


we can grow. But while it is true that 
the growth which is set before us as our 
aim depends wholly on our remaining in 
living relation to Christ, the phrase els 
αὐτόν can scarcely bear this out, but, as 
restricted by Meyer, would mean only 
“as regards him”. The εἰς αὐτόν must 
have a more definite sense. It might 
mean “into him” (AV, RV, EIL., etc.), 
in the sense of becoming wholly incor- 
porated in Him, or made one with Him, 
or in the sense of growing till our life 
has “its centre in Him,” as Ell. would 
put it. But this is an idea difficult to 
grasp, and not quite in harmony with 
the conception of Christ as Head. For 
the members to grow into the head is not 
a congruous idea. It is best, therefore, 
to give els the sense of “‘unto,” Christ 
the Head being the end and object of the 
growth of the members. This means 
more than that we are to grow into re- 
semblance to Him, or that our growth 
is be according to His example. It 
means that as He is the source from 
which (ἐξ οὗ, ver. 16) the grace or power 
comes that makes it possible for us to 
grow, He is also the object and goal to 
which our growth in its every stage must 
look and is to be directed. This is more 
in harmony with the previous εἰς ἄνδρα 
τέλειον and els μέτρον ἡλικίας, κ.τ.λ. 
The extent or scope of this growing into 
Christ is expressed by τὰ πάντα (the 
acc. of def. or acc. of quantitative object. ; 
cf. Kriiger, Sprachl., ὃ 46, 5, 4), = in all 
that belongs to our growth; in all the 
power and circumstances of our growth. 
The simple πάντα is so used in 1 Cor. ix. 
25, X. 33, xi. 2. Here τὰ πάντα is in 
place, the idea being, as Meyer rightly 
observes, the definite idea of all the points 
in which we grow.—bs ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, ὁ 
Χριστός: who is the head even Christ. 
With DGKL, Chrys., etc., the TR reads 
ὁ Χριστός. Thearticle is rightly omitted, 
however, by LTTrWHRV on the author- 
ity of the oldest and best MSS., BRAC, 
with Bas., Cyr., etc. Instead of the or- 
dinary form of direct apposition els αὐτὸν, 
Χριστόν, the relative form is adopted, 
probably with a view both to emphasis, 
and to definiteness in the connection 
with ἐξ οὗ, κ.τ.λ. Such constructions 
were usual in Greek of all periods; οὕ. 


Win.-Moult., p. 665; also 2 Cor. x. 13; 
Plato, Afol., p. 41 A; Eur., Hec., 764. 
Ver. 16. ἐξ οὗ wav σῶμα: from 
whom the whole body. Statement of 
the relation of the whole, following that 
already made regarding the several mem- 
bers. πᾶν τὸ σῶμα looks back on the 
οἱ πάντες. The ἐξ has its proper force 
of origin (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 6; 2 ΝΣ ἃ 
xiii. 4, and especially the precise parallel 
in Col. ii, το), and cannot be reduced to 
mean per quem (Morus.,etc.). All growth 
in the body has its source in Christ, the 


Head.—ovvappodoyovpevoy καὶ bla 
βαζόμενον: ae fitly framed together 
and compacted. Or, as RV, “ fitly framed 
and knit together". The participles are 
presents, as expressing a process that is 
going on. For the former see on chap. ii. 
21 above. The latter, to which TWH 
give the form συνβιβαζόμενον, expresses 
the general idea of putting together, but 
with various shades of meaning, ¢.g., 
reconciling one to another (Herod., i., 
74); considering or concluding (Acts xvi. 
10) ; demonstrating (Acts ix. 22) ; instruc- 
ting (1 Cor. ii. 16) ; and (as here and in 
Col. ii. το) compacting or knitting together 
into one whole. Distinctions have been 
drawn between the two terms; ¢.g., by 
Bengel, who took the 

to express specially the harmony of the 
building and the συμβιβαζόμενον its so- 
lidity; and by Ellicott, who thinks the 
idea of the former is that of the aggre- 
gation of the parts, and of the latter that 
of their inter-adaption. But at the most 
the difference does not seem to go beyond 
the notions of joining (ἁρμός = a joint) 
and compacting or making to coalesce.— 
διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας : by 
means of every joint of the supply. Here 
the AV and the RV are in substantial 
agreement, the former giving “ by that 
which every joint supplieth”; the latter, 
“through that which every joint sup- 
plieth,"’ with the marginal rendering 
“through every joint of the supply”’. 
The Vulgate gives per omnem juncturam, 
The old English Versions vary, ¢.g., Wicl., 
“by each jointure of under serving " ; 
Tynd., ‘in every joint wherewith one 
ministereth to another”; Cov., “every 
joint of subministration ”; Gen., “ by 
every joint for the furniture thereof” ; 


16. 


κατ᾽ " ἐνέργειαν 1 


σιν τοῦ σώματος “ ” ποιεῖται εἰς " οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ. 


9 only. u Ver. 7 reff. v Acts ii. 6 reff. 


ἕνεκα κ. κάλλους τῶν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ μελῶν κ. μερῶν. 


y Constr., Luke v. 33; Phil. i. 4; 1 Tim. ii. 1 al. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


337 


ἐν " μέτρῳ " " ἑνὸς " ἑκάστου "μέρους ὃ τὴν * αὔξη- τ ΟΠ. { το, 


iii. 7; Col. 


w= Plat., Legg., vii., p. 705 E, ἐλαφρότητός τε 
x Col. ii. 19 only; 2 Macc. v. 16. 
z Ver. 12 reff. 


1 κατ evepy. om. FG, d, e, f, g, Arm., Iren., Lucif., al. 


2 ev perp. om. Καὶ 3, Arm. 


3 For µερους, µελους AC 14, al., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., al., Cyr., Chrys., Jer., 
Pel., al.; text S$ BDEFGLO?, ἢ, g, Syr.-P., Eth., Goth., Bas., Euth., Thdrt., Dam., 


Ir:, Luc., etc. 
4rov σωμ. om. Κο 


Bish., ‘“‘by every joint yielding nourish- 
ment”. The clause is one of much diffi- 
culty, especially asregards the ἁφῆς, The 
word occurs only twice in the NT, here 
and in Col. ii. το. The question is 
whether it means joint, contact, or sen- 
sation. In classical Greek it has a variety 
of meanings, e.g., towch (Aeschyl., Prom., 
850), the sense of touch (Plato, Rep., 523 
E), grasp (Plut., 2, 86 F), a junction or 
joint in the body (Arist., De Gen. et Corr., 
i., 8, 24), and also, it is contended, feeling 
(Plato, Locr., p. 100 D, E; Pol., vii., p. 
523 E, etc.). In the present passage 
Chrys. and Theod. give it this last sense, 
αἴσθησις, feeling, perception ; and among 
others Mey. follows this, rendering the 
clause ‘‘by means of such sensation of 
the supply” and denying indeed that ἀφή 
ever has the sense of συναφή, vinculum. 
But it seems clear that in the passage in 
Aristotle referred to above and in others, 
(ορ, Απο, Qe Coclo, 1., 105 Plato, 
Axioch., p. 365 A) it has the sense of 
joining, juncture, joint, It is also clear 
that it has the sense of adhesion, contact 
(Arist., Metaphys., iv., 4, Χ., 3; Phys. 
Ausc., iv., 6; De Gen. et Corr., i., 6). 
The meaning indeed for which Mey. con- 
tends seems to have little or no foundation 
in ancient Greek use. The choice lies 
between the other two. The sense of 
contact is preferred by some (e.g., Oec., 
von Hofm.), the idea then being “ by 
means of every contact which serves for 
supplying,” or ‘‘ by means of every con- 
tact of each member of the body with the 
power which Christ supplies”. But most 
prefer the sense of “joint,’’ both because 
all the most ancient Versions understand 
the clause to have the members of the 
body and their relation one to another in 
view, and because in the parallel passage 
(Col. ii. το) ἀφῶν is coupled with συνδέσ- 
pov. If the sense of feeling is adopted 
the clause will naturally be attached to 
the following αὔξησιν , . . ποιεῖται, and 


VOL. III. 


will specify the way in which the growth 
is to be made. With the sense of joint 
the clause will be best attached to the 
participles preceding it (especially in view 
of the clause in Col. ΠΠ. το), and will define 
the means by which the framing and 
compacting are effected. (See especially 
Light. on Col. ii. 19.) The term ἐπι- 
χορηγία, which occurs again in Phil. i. 
Ig, means supply, perhaps with something 
of the idea of the large and liberal, as 
Ell. suggests, belonging to the primary 
use of ἐπιχορηγεῖν. The τῆς points to 
the particular supply that comes from 
Christ, and the gen. may be taken as that 
of inner relation or destination (cf. σκεύη 
τῆς λειτουργίας, Heb. ix. 21; see Win.- 
Moult., p. 235). The idea, therefore, 
appears to be that the body is fitly 
framed and knit together by means of the 
joints, every one of them in its own place 
and function, as the points of connection 
between member and member and the 
points of communication between the 
different parts andthe supply which comes 
from the Head. ‘The joints are the con- 
stituents of union in the body and the 
media of the impartation of the life drawn 
by the members from the head. Precisely 
so in Col. ii. 19 the joints and ligaments 
are mentioned together and are described 
as the parts by which the body receives its 
supplies (ἐπιχορηγούμενον) and is kept 
compact together (συμβιβαζόμενογ). --- 
κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου 
μέρους : according to an efficiency in the 
measure of each individual part. For 
μέρους some good MSS., etc., read μέλους 
(AC, Syr., Boh., Vulg., etc.), and WH 
give it a place in their margin. But µέ- 
ρους is to be preferred, as supported by 
such authorities as ΒΝΡΚΙ Ρ, Arm., 
etc. ἐνέργειαν = energy in the sense of 
activity, working. ἐν μέτρῳ = in the 
measure, 1.e., proportionate to, in keeping 
with (Mey.), or commensurate with (Ell.). 
ἐν can never have the sense οἴκατά, But 


22 


338 


a=Gal.v. 3; 
Acts xx 


only. 
δι Thess. iv. 1 al. fr.; Paul only. 


*paprupepar Ρ. 


ΠΡΟΣ EPESIOYS 


ς Ver. 1 reff. 


IV, 


17. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ “ μαρτύρομαι ' "ἐν κυρίῳ, μηκέτι ὑμᾶς 
36 (Paul) “ περιπατεῖν καθὼς καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἔθνη ” περιπατεῖ ἐν 4 ματαιότητι 


d Rom. viii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 18 only; Ps. xxx. 6. 


* Before εθν. om. λοιπα ΝΑΒΡΙΕΟΣ το, 17, 47, 51, 67%, ἆ, e, f, g,m, Vulg., Copt., 
Sah., Aith., Clem., Cyr., Lat. Fathers; insert λοιπα $y°D* “EKLP, most mss., Syr., 


Goth., Chr., Dam., Thdrt., ΤΗΙ., Όες. 


it is used occasionally like the Heb. 2, 


in phrases expressing the proportion or 
law in accordance with which something 
is done (Thuc., i., 77, viii. 89; Heb. iv. 
11; see Win.-Moult., p. 483). The clause 
is connected by some (de Wette, etc.) with 
τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας; by others (Harl., etc.) 
with the συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβι- 
βαζόμενον ; but it is best attached to the 
αὔξησιν ... ποιεῖται. Soit defines the 
nature, law, or order of the growth, de- 
scribing it as proceeding in accordance 
with an inward operation that adapts 
itself to the nature and function of each 
several part and gives to each its proper 
measure. It is a growth that is neither 
monstrous nor disproportioned, but nor- 
mal, harmonious, careful of the capacity 
and suited to the service of each individual 
member of Christ's body. —trhv αὔξησιν 
τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται: maketh the growth 
of the body. αὔξησις, common enough, 
together with αὔξη, in classical Greek, 
occurs only twice in the NT, here and 
Col. ii. 19. The Mid. ποιεῖται conveys 
the idea of making for oneself ; or it may 
rather strengthen the sense, suggesting 
“the energy with which the process is 
carried on" (Ell.). See especially Don- 
aldson, Greek Gram., p. 438, for the use 
of the appropriative and intensive Middle. 
The repetition of the σῶμα, “the whole 
body . . « makes the increase of the 
body,” is due probably to the desire to 
avoid ambiguity, as the pronoun might 
have been taken to refer to the pépovs.— 
εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαντοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ: unto the 
building up of itself in love. εἰς expresses 
the object and end of the carrying on of 
the growth, viz., the completion of the 
body. The ἐν ἀγάπῃ might qualify the 
αὔξησιν ποιεῖται (so Mey.); but it is 
more fitly connected with the οἰκοδομήν, 
as denoting the ethical element or con- 
dition of that consummation and com- 
pletion of the Church which is the object 
of the long-continued process of growth. 

Vv. 17-24. A paragraph which takes 
up —_ the practical address begun with 
the first verse of the chapter, but inter- 


rupted at ver. 4, and contains solemn 
exhortations to withdraw from all con- 
formity with the old vain pagan life. 
Ver. 17. τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ paprv- 
ρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ: this I say, therefore, and 
testify in the Lord. The οὖν has here its 
simple, resumptive force (cf. Donald., 
Greek Gram., ὃ 548, 31; Win.-Moult., p. 
555). It takes up the train of thought 
which had been broken off at ver. 4. 
The τοῦτο refers to the exhortation 
that follows. μαρτύρομαι is used of a 
solemn declaration, protest, or injunction 
of the nature of an appeal to God (cf, 
Acts xx. 26, xxvi. 22; Gal. ν. 3, εἰς). 
ἐν Κυρίῳ, not = by the Lord, nor on the 
Lord’s authority, but in the Lord, the 
writer identifying himself with Christ and 
giving the exhortation as one made b 
Christ Himself (¢f. Rom. ix. 1; 2 Cor. il, 
17; 1 Thess. iv, 1; also the classical εἶναι 
ἕν τινι, as in Soph., Oed. Tyr., 314; Oed. 
Col., 247, etc., and Abb., in loc.).—anuéte 
ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν: that ye no longer walk. 
he exhortation began (ver. 1) as a posi- 
tive injunction to a worthy walk. It is 
now resumed in the negative form of an 
injunction against an unworthy Pagan 
walk.. The περιπατεῖν, the ordinary 
objective inf., expresses the object of the 
ruling verb. After verbs like μαρτύρομαι 
such Saf. conveys the idea of what ΝΣ 
to be and has something of the force of 
an imper. (cf. Acts xxi. 4, 21; Tit. ii. 2, 
etc.). It requires no δεῖν to be supplied 
(see Jelf, Greek Gram., p. 884, 4; Buttm., 
Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 273; Win. 
Moult., pp. 403, 405).---κεκααθὼς καὶ τὰ 
λοιπὰ ἔθνη περιπατεῖ: as the [rest of the) 
Gentiles also walk. λοιπὰ is inserted by 
the TR before ἔθνη, and is supported by 
ΝΡ ΚΙ, Syr., Goth., Chrys., etc. It 
is omitted, however, by BS*AD*G, 
Boh., Eth., Vulg., etc., and must be 
deleted here (with LTTrWHRV). The 
καί associates the walk which they are 
charged to continue no longer with that 
of the Gentiles generally, and with their 
own former walk in their non-Christian 
days.—év ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν: in 
the vanity of their mind. νοῦς is not 


17—18, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


339 


τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν, 18. " ἐσκοτισμένοι ' τῇ ᾿ διανοίᾳ dvtes,” " ἀπηλλοτ- e=Rom. 1. 


II, Xi. 10 


ριωμένοι τῆς "ζωῆς τοῦ "θεοῦ, διὰ τὴν | ἄγνοιαν ὃ τὴν οὖσαν only; Ps. 


f Ch, ii. 3 τοῦ, μ Ch. ii. 12 reff. 


h Here only. 


Ixviii. 23. 
i Acts iii. 17, xvii. 30; 1 Pet. i. 14; Lev. xxii. 14 


‘eoxotwpevor AB, Ath.; AB 17, etc.; εσκοτισµενοι DEFGKLO?P, mss., appy., 


Clem., Chr., Thdrt., all. 
2 ovres om. FG 115, Thl. 


merely the intellectual faculty or under- 
standing, but also the faculty for recog- 
nising moral good and spiritual truth 
(Rom. i. 28, vii. 23; 1 Tim. vi. 5, etc.). 
ματαιότης, a peculiarly biblical and ec- 
clesiastical term, occurring in NT only 
here andin Rom. viii. 20 ; 2 Pet. ii. 18, and 


corresponding to the Heb. pap NW, 


means vanity in the sense of purposeless- 
ness, uselessness. There is nothing in the 
clause to restrict it to the case of idol- 
worshippers or to that of the heathen 
philosophers (Grot.). It is a description 
of the walk of the heathen world generally 
—a walk moving within the limits of in- 
tellectual and moral resultlessness, given 
over to things devoid of worth or reality 
(cf. Rom. i. 21, ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς 
διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν). 

Ver. 18. ἐσκοτισμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ ὄν- 
τες: being darkened in their understand- 
ing. For ἐσκοτισμένοι of the TR, with 
DGKLP, etc., the more classical form 
ἐσκοτωμένοι is given in BSA, etc., and 
is preferred by LTTrWH. The ὄντες is 
more appropriately attached (with LTTr 
WHERYV, Theod., Beng., Harl., de Wette, 
Alf., Ell., Abb., Mey., etc.) to this clause 
than to the following ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι 
(Beza, Riick., etc.). The parallelism of 
the two clauses is better kept in this way, 
_ while the emphasis is thrown first on the 
ἐσκοτωμένοι and then on the ἀπηλλο- 
τριωμένοι. The sentence is a further 
description of the walk of the Gentiles 
and an explanation of its vanity. Their 
walk is what it is because of the condition 
of moral darkness into which they fell 
and in which they continue. With ἐσ- 
κοτωμένοι compare the ἐσκοτίσθη, κ.τ.λ. 
of Rom. i. 21, and contrast the πεφωτισ- 
μένοι as the note of the new condition in 
Eph. i. 18. The τῇ διανοίᾳ is not to be 
taken as if this clause referred only to the 
intellectual condition. διάνοια covers 
the ideas not only of understanding, but 
also of feeling and desiring. It is the 
faculty or seat of thinking and feeling 
(Matt. xxii. 37 ; Luke i. 51, x. 27; Col. 1. 
21; 2 Pet. iii. 1). The dat. is that known 
as the dat. of sphere or reference (cf. 


ϑαγνωσιαν FG, 


Bernh., Synt., p. 84; Win.-Moult., pp. 
263, 270), or the ‘local dat. ethically 
used ”’ (Ell. on Gal. i. 22; Donald., Greek 
Gram., p. 458).---ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι: alien- 
ated. Being in a state of moral darkness 
they also become alienated from the true 
life. The word is used of those who have 
estranged themselves from God, here and 


in ii, 12; Col. i. 21 (cf. the OT VV 


in Ps, lviii. 3; Ezek. xiv. 5, 7.---τῆς ζωῆς 
τοῦ Θεοῦ: from the life of God. This 
cannot mean the godly life, the way of 
life approved by God. For ζωή in the 
NT seems never to mean the course of 
life, but life itself, the principle of life as 
opposed to death. The two things are 
distinguished, e.g., in Gal. v. 25. Nor is 
there any reference here to the life of the 
Logos (John i. 3) in the pre-Christian 
world (Harl.). For it is the ἔθνη as they 
were known to him that Paul has in view 
here. The Θεοῦ, therefore, is best taken 
as the gen. of origin (as in δικαιοσύνη 
Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 17; ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
Phil. iv. 7; ¢f. Win.-Moult., p. 233), = 
“the life that comes from God,” the spirit- 
ual life communicated by God. Some 
(Ell., Abb., etc.) think that the phrase 
means more than this, and indicates that 
the life thus imparted to us by God is His 
own life, the very life possessed by Him- 
self, in the profoundest and most real 
sense ‘‘ the life of God” in τι8.--διὰ τὴν 
ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς : because of 
the ignorance that is in them. Explicit 
statement of the cause of their estrange- 
ment, which was implicitly given in the 
ἐσκοτωμένοι. The term ἄγνοια again is 
not aterm merely of intellect. It denotes 
an ignorance of Divine things, a want of 
knowledge that is inexcusable and in- 
volves moral blindness (Acts iii. 17, xvii. 
30; 1 Pet. i. 14). It is further defined 
here not simply as αὐτῶν ‘their ignor- 
ance,” but as an ignorance οὖσαν ἐν 
avrots—surely a phrase that is neither 
tautological nor without a purpose, but 
one that describes their ignorance in re- 
spect of its seat. Their alienation had its 
cause not in something external, casual, 
or superficial, but in themselves—in a cule 


340 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Iv. 


k Mark itt. ἐν αὐτοῖς, διὰ τὴν " πώρωσιν τῆς "καρδίας αὐτῶν, 19. | οἵτινες 


only; τ 


om xi. ™ ἀπηλγηκότες 1 ἑαυτοὺς " παρέδωκαν τῇ " ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς " ἐργασίαν 


25. 
jemand ii. 4 al. m Here only. 
ο Mark vii. 22; Rom. xiii. 13 al. 

Jonah i. 8. 


n=Rom. i. 24 etc. ; 1 Cor. v. 5 
p=Here only ; Luke xii. 58; Acts xvi. 16, 19, xix. 24, 25 only; 


; 1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 4. 


1 απηλγηκοτες Syr.-P., Clem., Orig., etc. ; αφηλπικοτες FG ; απηλπικοτες DE. 


pable ignorance in their own nature or 
heart (cf. the ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν 
καρδία in Rom. i. 21).---διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν 
τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν : because of the hard- 
ening of their heart. This clause, intro- 
duced by διά, as the former also is, is 
taken by most (Harl., Olsh., de Wette, 
Ell., Alf., etc.) to be an independent 
statement, coordinate with the διὰ τὴν 
ἄγνοιαν, and giving a further explanation 
of the alienation. Such coordination of 
clauses is somewhat frequent with Paul 
(cf. Gal. iv. 4, etc.). Others (Mey., Abb., 
etc.) attach it to the former clause, and 
take it to be a statement of the cause of 
the ἄγνοια. Thus their alienation would 
be due to their ignorance, and this ignor- 
ance would be caused by the hardening 
of their hearts. The τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐ- 
τοῖς thus loses its κ Ppa and we 
should have to regard it as adopted in- 
stead of the simple αὐτῶν merely with a 
view to clearness of connection between 
the ἄγνοιαν and the διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν. 
The noun πώρωσις means hardness, not 
blindness. Formed from πῶρος = hard 
skin or induration, it means literally the 
covering with a callus, and in its three 
occurrences in the NT (here and Mark 
iii. 5; Rom. xi. 25) it is used of mental 
or moral hardening ; as is also the verb 
πωρόω (Mark vi. 52, viii. 17; John xii. 
40; Rom. xi. 7; 2 Cor. iii. 4). 

Ver. 19. οἵτινες ἀπηλγηκότες: who 
having become past feeling. οἵτινες has 
its usual qualitative or explanatory force, 
=“ who as men past feeling”. The 
ἀπηλγηκότες is naturally suggested by 
the πώρωσιν. It expresses the condition, 
not of despair merely (Syr., Vulg., Arm., 
etc.), but of moral insensibility, ‘ the 
deadness that supervenes when the heart 
has ceased to be sensible of the ‘ stimuli’ 
of the conscience”’ (Ell.). A few MSS. 
(DFG, etc.) mistakenly read ἀπηλπικό- 
τες Or ἀφηλπικότες, = desperantes (Latt., 
Syr., Arm., εἲς,).---ἑαντοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ 
ἀσελγείᾳ: gave themselves up to lasci- 
viousness. In Rom. i, 26 Paul gives us 
the other side of the same unhappy fact 
- ππάρεδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεός. It isat once 
a guilty choice of men and a judicial act 
oiGod, ἀσέλγεια is wantonness, shame- 


less, outrageous sensuality (cf. 2 Cor, xii. 
21; Gal. vi. 19; 2 Pet. ii. 7, etc.).—els 
ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεο- 
νεξίᾳ: to the working of all uncleanness 
with greediness, The noun ἐργασία is 
used sometimes of work or business (Acts 
xix. 25); sometimes of the gain got by 
work (Acts xvi. 19; perhaps also Acts 
xvi. 16, xix. 24); sometimes of the pains 
or endeavour (Luke xii. 58). Hence some 
give it the sense of trade here (Xoppe, 
RV marg. = “τὸ make a trade of”). It 
might perhaps be rendered here “so as 
to make a business of every kind of un- 
cleanness". But it seems rather to be 
simply -- τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι. The εἰς denotes 
the object, the conscious object (EIl.) of 
the self-surrender. π' = every kind 
of; ἀκαθαρσία is moral uncleanness in 
the widest sense; ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ describes 
the condition or frame of mind in which 
they wrought the ἀκαθαρσία, viz., that 
of covetousness or greediness. πλεονεξία 
is taken by some to mean ἀμετρία, inor- 
dinate desire or insatiableness (Chrys., 
Oec., Calv., Trench, etc.). It is repeat- 
edly coupled indeed with sins of the flesh 
in the NT (1 Cor. v. 11; Eph v. 3; Col. 
iii. 5) and is akin to them as they all in- 
volve self-secking. But its own proper 
meaning is greed, covetousness, and that 
sense is quite applicable here. See 
further on ν. 3, 5. These two things 
ἀκαθαρσία and πλεονεξία ranked as the 
two great heathen vices. So the Gentiles, 
darkened and alienated from the life of 
God, had become men of such a char- 
acter that they gave themselves wilfully 
over to wanton sensuality, in order that 
they might practise every kind of unclean- 
ness and do that with unbridled greedy 
desire. 2 
Ver. 20. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε 
τὸν Χριστόν ye ye did not thus learn 
the Christ. ὑμεῖς, in emphatic contrast 
with the ἔθνη yet unconverted. The οὐχ 
οὕτως is an obvious litotes, suggesting 
more than is expressed. Meyer compares 
Deut. xviii. 14. The phrase ἐμάθετε τὸν 
Χριστόν has no precise parallel except the 
following αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε. The nearest 
analogies to it are the phrases which 
speak of preaching Christ (κηρύσσειν τὸν 


iene 


10--21, 


“ ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν " πλεονεξίᾳ. 


Prov. vi. 16. r= Here only; see Col. iii. 5. 
1 Cor. xiv. 35; Phil. iv.9; Rev. xiv. 3. 
constr. here only. 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOYS 


ἐμάθετε τὸν "χριστὸν, 21. ‘elye αὐτὸν " ἠκούσατε καὶ “ἐν αὐτῷ 


341 


20. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως q Rom. i.24; 


Paul only, 
exc. Matt. 
XXiii. 27; 
s Constr., Matt. xxiv. 32, Mark; Rom. xvi. 17; 
t Ch. iii. 2 reff. u Ch. i. 15 reff. v=Ch.i.15; 


1 For €. epy. ak. π.,--ε . . . θαρσιαν πασης A. 
* For ev πλ.,--και πλεονεξιας DEFG 309, d, 6, f, 6, m, Slav. (not rec.), Clem., 


Ambrst., Aug., Sedul., Pel.-comm. 


Χριστόν; Gal. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 23; 2 Cor. 
i. 19; Phil. i. 15), the γνῶναι αὐτόν in 
Phil. iii. το, and the παρελάβετε τὸν 
Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον in Col. ii. 6. 
It cannot = “ye learned the doctrine of 
Christ” ; nor can it be taken as = “‘ye 
learned to know Christ”; for there are 
no relevant examples of such usages. 
Χριστόν must be taken as the object of 
the learning, and the form τὸν Χριστόν, 
especially looking to the following Ἰησοῦ 
(ver. 21), probably indicates that the 
official sense is in view here. The aor. 
further points to the definite time of their 
conversion. The Christ, the Messiah, 
He personally—that was the contents of 
the preaching which they heard, the sim 
of the instruction they received and the 
knowledge they gained then. 

Ver. 21. εἴγε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε: if in- 
deed ye heard Him. On etye,=‘‘if so be 
that,’”’ ‘“‘if as I assume it to be the case,” 
see in iii. 2 above. In the form of a deli- 
cate supposition it takes it as certain that 
they did hear. The αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε is to 
be understood as the ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν. 
The pronoun is placed for emphasis be- 
fore its verb. The point, therefore, is 
this—‘‘if, as I take it to be the fact, it 
was He, the Christ, that was the subject 
and the sum of the preaching which 
you heard then’”.—kat ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδι- 
δάχθητε: and in Him were instructed. 
ἐν αὐτῷ is not to be reduced to “ὃν 
Him” (Arm.; also AV ‘taught by 
Him”), or ‘about Him,” or “in His 
name” (Beng.), but has its proper sense 
of ‘tin Him”. The underlying idea is 
that of union with Christ. The ἐδιδάχ- 
θητε, therefore, refers probably to instruc- 
tions subsequent to those which were 
given them at their first hearing (ἠκού- 
gate). It was in fellowship with Christ 
that they received these instructions.— 
καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: even 
as truth is in Fesus. WH give καθώς 
ἐστιν ἀληθείᾳ, ev τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ as a marginal 
reading. ‘The meaning of the clause is 
much disputed. That it expresses in 
some way the manner or standard of the 
instructions (ἐδιδάχθητε) is clear from the 


καθώς. But what the point and connec- 
tion of the clause are it is by no means easy 
to determine. Wicl. gives ‘‘as is truth 
in Jesus”? ; AV and other old English 
Versions, ‘fas the truth is in Jesus,” as 
if it were ἣ ἀλήθεια. Some dispose of it 
as a parenthesis (Bez., Riick., etc.), as if 
=‘‘if ye were so instructed about Christ, 
that would be false” (as in Him there is 
only truth, moral and religious truth). 
Others (Grot., etc.) make it = “as it 
really is,” 1.6., ‘‘ if ye were instructed in 
the Gospel as it really is in Jesus’ ; or 
(Jer., Erasm., Est., etc.) they supply a 
οὕτως to the ἀποθέσθαι and understand 
the καθὼς clause to refer to Jesus as the 
Pattern of moral truth or holiness. Jer- 
ome’s explanation, ¢.g., is this—quomodo 
est veritas in Fesu sic evit et in vobis qui 
didicistis Christum. Somewhat similarly 
others, connecting it with ἀποθέσθαι, take 
it to mean that as moral truth is in Jesus, 
so they on their part are to lay aside the 
old man (Harl., Olsh., etc.). Or, connect- 
ing it with ἐδιδάχθητε, they understand 
the point to be that they were instructed 
in a way implying a moral change, as in 
Jesus there is truth and, therefore, holi- 
ness (so de Wette substantially). Meyer 
makes the ἀποθέσθαι dependent on the 
καθὼς clause, so that the sense becomes 
this—“ truth it is in Jesus that ye put off 
the old man ” ; and Abbott appealing to 
the use of ἀλήθεια in ver. 24 and in John 
iii, 21, makes it = ‘‘as it is true teaching 
in Jesus that ye should put off,’ etc. All 
these interpretations involve dubious con- 
structions or impose unjustifiable senses 
on the ἀλήθεια. Feeling this others have 
adopted the bolder expedient of making 
Χριστός the subject of ἐστιν, the sense 
then becoming “845 He (Christ) is truth 
in Jesus’’ (Cred., Von Soden). A better 
turn is given to this by WH, who would 
read ἀληθείᾳ and so get the sense ‘‘as 
He (Christ) is in Jesus in truth”. In 
support of this it is urged that the αὐτόν, 
ἐν αὐτῷ show that Christ, the Messiah, is 
the leading subject. But this construc- 
tion means that it was not enough to be 
instructed in a Messiah; that they had 


342 


w=John 
2 gre 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ IV. 


* ἐδιδάχθητε καθώς ἐστιν " ἀλήθεια] "ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, 22. * ἀποθέσθαι 


Rom. ix. ὑμᾶς *xatd τὴν προτέραν " ἀναστροφὴν ὃ τὸν " παλαιὸν " ἄνθρωπον 


1. 

x See 1 Thess. iv. 14; 1 Cor. iv. rz. 
ames i. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 1. z=Rom. ix 
ames iii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 15. 


1 Insert η before αληθεια FG. 
3 Omit τὴν προτεραν αναστροφην L. 


also to recognise that Messiah in the 
historical Jesus, and that in Him they 
would see the life which signified for 
them a putting off ofthe oldman. There 
is no indication, however, in the context 
or in any word of Paul's belonging to this 

eriod of a form of false Christian teach- 
ing which distinguished between Christ 
and Fesus, or of Gentiles professing to 
believe in a Messiah but not in Jesus as 
that Messiah. It only remains, therefore, 
to fall back on the interpretation “‘if ye 
were instructed according to that which 
is truth in Jesus”. The clause will 
then describe the mature or manner of 
the instruction, as the following clause 
expresses its substance. In form or char- 
acter the instruction was in accordance 
with what was true, with what was true 
in Fesus, that is to say, with truth as 
seen embodied in Him (cf. Alf., ΕΙ.). 
And instruction of that kind meant that 
they should put off the old man. 

Ver. 22. ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς κατὰ τὴν 
προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄν- 
θρωπον: that ye put off, as regards your 
former manner of life, the old man, This 
is best connected with the ἐδιδάχθητε. 
It gives the purport or contents of the 
instruction. The inf., therefore, is the 
objective inf. (cf. in μηκέτι περιπατεῖν, 
ver. 17 above, and Donald., Greek Gram., 
§ 584). It has something of the force of 
an imperative, but is not to be taken as 
the same as an imperative, that use of the 
inf. being very rare in the NT, and found 
ο Ιπάεεάοπ]γ ἵπ the caseof oracles, 
aws and the like (cf. Win.-Moult., p. 397). 
In such constructions as the present the 
inf, does not require the pronoun; but 
ὑμᾶς is introduced here with a view to 
lucidity, after the reference to Fesus in ver. 
21 (so ΕἸ]., Alf., etc.). The figure in the 
ἀποθέσθαι is taken from the putting off of 
garments, and is parallel to the ἐνδύσασ- 
θαι of ver. 24. The κατὰ clause defines 
that in respect of which this putting off 
is to take effect, the prep. having here the 
general sense of “in reference to,” not that 
of “in conformity with". τὸν παλαιὸν 
ἄνθρωπον, contrasted with the καινὸς 
ἄνθρωπος (ver. 24), the νέος ἄνθρωπος 


8, 5. 
b Rom. vi. 6; Col. iii. 9. 


y Acts vii. 58; =Rom. xiii. 12; Col. iii. 8; Heb. xii. 1; 


a Gal. i. 13; τ Tim, iv. 12; Heb. xiii. 7; 


ἔαποθεσθε Eth., Victorin., Pelag., Dam. 


(Col. iii. το), the καινὴ κτίσις (Gal. vi. 
15), is the former unregenerate self in its 
entirety (cf. Rom. vi. 6; Col. iii. ϱ).----τὸν 
φθειρόμενον : which waxeth corrupt. The 
pres. part. marks the corruption as a pro- 
cess that on, a condition that pro- 
gresses. The point is missed by the “is 
corrupt " of the AV, but is well put by 
“waxeth corrupt " (Ell., RV); ¢f. also 
Gal. vi. 8. The “ corruption,” however, 
is to be understood as “ destruction ”. 
The “old man" is in a condition of 
advancing destruction or ruin, and, there- 
fore, should all the more be “ put off”. 
Some (¢.g., Meyer) take eternal destruc- 
tion to be in view, the pres. part. express- 
ing what is to issue in destruction or 
indicating the certainty of the future.— 
κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης : accord- 
ing to the lusts of deceit. ἀπάτης is the 
gen. subj., not = * the deceitful lusts” 
(AV), but = the lusts which deceit uses 
or which are its instruments. The ἀπάτη 
is in contrast with ἀλήθεια, the article 
giving it the abstract force approaching 
a personification. κατά here = in aceor- 
dance with. The process of corruption 
or ruin goes on in precise conformity 
with the nature of the lusts which the 
deceitful power of sin ha» in its service. 
Ver. 23. ἀνανεοῦσθαι δέ: and that ye 
be renewed. For ἀνανεοῦσθαι a few 
MSS. (D? 17, 47, etc.) and some Versions 
(Syr., Copt., the read ἀνανεοῦσθε, 
while δέ is omitted by F. In such con- 
nections δέ expresses both addition and 
contrast. It introduces a statement 
connected with the foregoing but giving 
the other side of that. Here it is the 
positive change which must follow the 
πον off. As the middle of this verb 
as the active sense, ἀνανεοῦσθαι must 
be taken as passive here, = “* be renewed,” 


not ‘renew yourselves” (Luth.). The 
verb expresses a eo change, a trans- 
formation from old to new. hether it 


also conveys the idea of restoration toa 
former or a primal state is doubtful, so 
many compounds with ἀνά (ἀναπλη- 
ροῦν, ἀνακοινοῦν, ἀνισοῦν, ἀνιεροῦν, etc.) 
expressing nothing more than change. 
For the supposed distinction between 





nar δ ἣν 





22---24. 


, 
τὸν ° φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς “ ἐπιθυμίας] 
4 a a lal 
θαι" δὲ τῷ " πνεύματι τοῦ 5 νοὸς ὑμῶν 24. καὶ ἢ ἐνδύσασθαι ὃ τὸν 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


343 


τῆς "ἀπάτης, 23. Γἀνανεοῦσ- car Cor. ἳ 
Cor. xi. 4; 
ude 10. 


e Matt. xii. 22, Mark; Col. ii. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 10; Heb. iii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 13 only, 


g Here only; v.=Rom. i. 28, vii. 32, 


ἃ Mark iv. το. 
constr., 2 Pet. ii. 10. f Here only; Job xxxiii. 24. 
xii. 2 al. h=Rom. xiii. 12, 14; 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54; Col. iii. ro. 


Ἰ τὰς επιθυµιας Clem., Orig., Cyr., Hil., 


Tert., Luc., etc. 


Aug., Jer., etc. ; την επιθυµιαν DE, d, e, 


2 avaveovobe D*, το, 14, 17, 31, 33, 37, εἴς., d, 6, f, g, m, Sah., Copt., Syr., Clem., 


Chr., Cyr., etc. 


3 ἐενδυσασθε with much the same authorities as ανανεουσθε, 


ἀνανεοῦσθαι as expressing renovation, 
making new, or giving a fresh begin- 
ning, and ἀνακαινοῦσθαι as referring to 
regeneration or change of nature, see 
Haupt and Ell. im loc., and Meyer on 
Col. iii. το.---τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν : 
in the spirit of your mind. ‘The position 
of the ὑμῶν gives it a measure of em- 
phasis, ‘‘youry mind,” ‘‘the mind that 
is in you,” unless it be taken (with 
Haupt) to be placed last because it 
qualifies not the vods only but the whole 
idea in τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοός. This diffi- 
cult sentence has been understood to refer 
to the Holy Spirit, the vods being dealt 
with as some form of the poss. gen. or 
the gen. subj., and the πνεύματι as 
dat. insty. Thus the sense would be 
‘‘renewed by the Holy Spirit bestowed 
on, or possessed by, your mind” ((ἔς,, 
Theophy., Bull, Waterland, Fritz., etc.). 
This proceeds on the NT doctrine that 
it is by the Spirit of God that we are 
regenerated or renewed. But it leaves 
the point of the addition of τοῦ νοός 
obscure. This ancient interpretation has 
been adopted by some recent exegetes 
with certain modifications. Thus Ellicott 
is of opinion that the πνεύματι refers not 
to the Holy Spirit distinctly and separ- 
ately as the Divine Agent, but to that 
Spirit as united with the human spirit. 
In this way he thinks the foss. gen. is in 
point, and the introduction of the νοός 
accounted for as the receptaculum of the 
πνεῦμα. But, while it is true that it is 
often difficult to say whether the re- 
generated mind of man or the Divine 
Spirit is particularly in view in the 
Pauline use of πνεῦμα, there seems to 
be no case in which the NT speaks of the 
Holy Spirit as man’s Spirit, or attaches 
to πνεῦμα in the sense of the Divine 
Spirit any such defining term as ὑμῶν 
or τοῦ νοὺς ὑμῶν. Nor can it be said 
that πνεῦμα, in the sense of the Divine 
Spirit in union with man’s spirit, has 
anywhere else any such designation as 
the one in the text. Nor, again, does 


the interpretation which turns upon this 
idea of union between God’s Spirit and 
our spirit, and not simply on the indwell- 
ing of the Divine Spirit in us, really 
account in any satisfactory way for the 
vods. It is necessary, therefore, to take 
πνεῦμα here as = our spirit, and that as 


“at once distinguished from and related 


to the νοῦς. The πνεῦμα, then, appears 
to be the higher faculty in man, the 
faculty that makes him most akin to 
God, the organ of his spiritual life and 
his fellowship with God, under the bond- 
age of sin by nature, but set free from 
that and made fit for the purposes of the 
Divine life by the Holy Spirit. The 
vovs (cf. on ver. 17 above) is the faculty 
of understanding, feeling, and deter- 
mining, distinguished by Paul from the 
πνεῦμα (1 Cor. xiv. 14), represented as 
capable of approving the law, but incap- 
able of withstanding the motions of sin 
(Rom. vii. 23), and itself the subject or 
seat of renewal (ἀνακαίνωσις, Rom. 
xii. 2). Further the regenerate human 
spirit and the Divine Spirit are described 
as distinct and yet co-operant (Rom. 
viii. 16). Here then the πνεύματι must 
be taken not as the instrumental dative 
(for renewal does not take effect by 
means of our spirit), but as the dat. of 
vef., and the νοός will be the gen. subj. 
Thus the sense becomes ‘renewed in 
respect of the spirit by which your 
mind is governed” (Μεγ. that is, in 
respect of the spiritual faculty, the moral 
personality whose organ is the mind or 
reason. Some, holding by the inter- 
pretation of πνεῦμα as our spirit, take 
the νοός to be the gen. of appos. (e.g., 
August., de Trin., xiv., 16, sptritus quae 
mens vocatur), or the part. gen., = “τῆς 
governing spirit of your mind” (De 
Wette). But the above construction is 
better, and it is the one adopted sub- 
stantially by the AV and the other old 
English Versions, the RV, Mey., Haupt, 
Abb., and most commentators. : 
Ver. 24. καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καιγον 


444 ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ ΙΝ. 


iCh.iirs ὅ καινὸν ᾿ ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν | κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ 


reff. δ 
κα Cor. vii.™ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας. 


9, 10, 11 
only ; see note. 1 Ch. ii. 10 reff. 


m Luke i. 75 only; Deut. ix. 5 al. 


1 For της αλ., και αληθεια DFG, d, e, g, πι, Cyr., Hil., Lucif. 


ἄνθρωπον: and put on the new man. 
For ἐνδύσασθαι the imper. ἐνδύσασθε is 
read by some authorities of consequence 
(NKB'D*, εἰς). The aor. is appro- 
priately used again, as before in ver. 22; 
‘putting off’ and ‘putting on” being 
acts, while renewal (ἀνανεοῦσθαι) is a 
process. For καινὸς ἄνθρωπος see on 
li. 15 above.—rtdv κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα: 
which after God was created. The aor. 
κτισθέντα suggests that the ‘new man” 
is regarded here not as a nature created 
anew for the individual, but as “ the holy 
form of human life which results from re- 
demption,” created once for all in and by 
Christ, and participated in by the indi- 
vidual convert. (See Ell., in loc., and 
Miller, Christ. Doctr. of Sin, ii., p. 392). 
The phrase κατὰ Θεόν has sometimes the 
simple sense of ‘godly,’ “in a godly 
manner” (2 Cor. vii. 9, 10, 11). Hence 
it is held by some to mean nothing more 
here than created “ divinely” (Hofm.) or 
“according to the will of God"’ (Abb.). 
But κατά is also used to express likeness 
(1 Kings xi. 10; Heb. viii. 8; Gal. iv. 28; 
1 Pet. i. 15, iv. 6). Here, therefore, it 
may mean “like God" or “after the 
image of God", That this is the sense 
is confirmed by the use of κτισθέντα 
(which recalls Gen. i. 27), and by the 
fuller parallel statement in Col. ii. 10: 
τὸν veov, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγ- 
νωσιν Kat’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν. 
The clause, therefore, affirms a new 
creation of man, and describes that crea- 
tion as being according to the image or 
likeness of God. It neither states nor 
suggests, however, that the image of God 
in which man was first created was lost 
and has been restored in Christ. What 
it does state is simply that this second 
creation, like the first, was in conformity 
with the Divine likeness or after the ex- 
ample of what God is.—év δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ 
ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας: in righteousness 
and holiness of the truth. For τῆς 
ἀληθείας some few authorities give καὶ 
ἀληθείᾳ (D'G, Cypr., Hil., εἰς). This 
clause specifies the things in which 
the new man was created and in which 
the likeness between him and God con- 
sisted. ἐν, therefora denotes the quality 
or ethical condition in which the creation 


realised itself. δικαιοσύνη and ὁσιότης 


are coupled again in Luke i. 75 (cf. also 
Wisd. ix. 3; Clem. Rom., First Corin- 
thians, xlviii., 4). Plato distinguishes in 
two ways between the idea of δίκαιος 
and that of ὅσιος. He defines δίκαιος 
as the generic term and ὅσιος as the 
specific (Euthyp., p. 12 Ε); and he de- 
scribes the former as having regard to 
our relations to men, the latter to our 
relations to God (Gorg., p. 507 B). The 
latter distinction is also given by other 
Greek writers (Polyb., xxiii., το, 8, etc.), 
It is not easy, indeed, to say how far this 
distinction holds good in the NT. But 
both in profane and in biblical Greek the 
two words, adjective, adverb or noun, are 
often combined in one statement (e.g., 
Plato, Protag., 329 ο; Theaet., 176 B; 
Rep., x., 615 8; Laws, ii., 663 B; Joseph., 
Antiq., viii., 9, 1; Luke i. 75; 1 Thess. 
ii. 10; Titus i. 8). In many of these 
cases the distinction between integrity 
and piety is certain, and it is suitable to 
all. The NT alsoclearly distinguishes be- 
tween δίκαιος and εὐλαβής (Luke ii. 25). 
It may be said, therefore, that δικ ύ 
and ὁσιότης are not used vaguely or 
interchangeably, but that, while both are 
of grace and both consequently have a 
new meaning Godward, the former ex- 
presses the right conduct of the Christian 
man more distinctively in its bearings on 
his fellow-men, and the latter the same 
conduct distinctively in its relation to 
God. τῆς ἀληθείας is not to be reduced 
to ‘true holiness” as in AV, but is to be 
taken as the gen. of origin and as quali- 
fying both nouns. Further, ἀλήθεια with 
the article, contrasting with τῆς ἀπάτης 
of ver. 22, seems to be more than Truth 
in the abstract or a quasi-personification 
of Truth. It may mean “ the truth” par 
excellence, the evangelical message, the 
objective truth given in the Gospel (4 
ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίον, Gal. ii. 5, 14; 
or simply, as here, ἡ ἀλήθεια, John viii. 
32, 40, xvii. 19; Gal. v. 7; 2 Cor. iv, 2, 
xiii. 8, etc.). The creation of the new 
man in the Divine likeness realises itself, 
therefore, in something better than the 
ceremonial rectitude of the Jew or the 
self-contained virtue of the heathen—in 
a righteousnes and a holiness born of the 
new truth contained in the Evangel. 

Vv. 25-32. A paragraph containing a 





Γ 
| 


24- -26. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


345 


25. Διὸ " ἀποθέμενοι τὸ “ψεῦδος " λαλεῖτε " ἀλήθειαν ἕκαστος n Ver. 22 


μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων “μέλη. 


ἵεσθεϊ καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε. 
p Zech. viii. 16. 


1 After opy. insert δὲ PG ; και ΟΠ], Sah. 
ὅτω om. NAB, etc. 


series of detached, practical exhortations, 
dealing with certain evils to be forsworn 
and duties to be fulfilled. These injunc- 
tions are all based on the preceding state- 
ment, or are delivered as applications of 
the foregoing charge to put off the old 
man and put on the new. 

Ver. 25. Διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος, 
λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλη- 
σίον αὐτοῦ: Wherefore, putting off false- 
hood, speak ye truth each one with his 
neighbour. διό, with the enlarged forms 
διότι, διόπερ, is rare in the NT except in 
Luke and Paul, but frequent with these, 
especially with the latter. It is = quam- 
obrem, on which account, and refers here 
to what was said about the new man and 
his creation κατὰ Θεόν as the ground for 
what follows. τὸ ψεῦδος includes false- 
hood in every form, of which lying τὸ 
ψεύδεσθαι (Col. iii. 8) is one chief in- 
stance. The partic. has its proper aor. 
force, expressing a thing understood to be 
done, completely and finally, = ‘‘ having 
put off then once for all falsehood in its 
every form”. λαλεῖτε, the continuous 
pres. following on the past act, has the 
force of ‘‘speak truth and speak it continu- 
ally,” as the result of that prior “ putting 
off”. The prep. μετά is appropriate here 
as the prep. of personal association and 
mutual action (Win.-Moult., pp. 470, 
471). It is truth in intercourse between 
Christian brethren (rot πλησίον αὐτοῦ), 
not between Christians and their fellow- 
men in general, that is in view here 
(cf. Zech. viii. τ6).---ὅτι ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων 
µέλη: for we are members one of another. 
Reason for this practice of truth—a reason 
drawn not from the common conceptions 
of duty or social weal, but from the pro- 
found Christian idea of union one with 
another through union with Christ. As 
in the human body each member is of the 
other in connection and for the other in 
service, so in the spiritual body of which 
Christ is the Head the members belong 
one to another and each serves the other; 
cf. Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 15. But can 
untruth consist with a union in which 
each is of and for the other? Why the 
sin of falsehood is first named, and why 


q Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 27. 


rei. 
26. * ὀργί- ο John viii. 


Ἢ 44; Rom. 
6 ἥλιος μὴ " ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ” 1O° 1.25: Ps. 
ν. 6 


r Ps, iv. 4. s Here only; Deut. xxiv. 16. 


3 For επι, ev D 3, ἆ, 6, f, m, Vulg., etc. 


the sins of anger, dishonesty and corrupt 
speech are next dealt with, we have no 
means of determining. The explanation 
lies no doubt in local and congregational 
circumstances which Paul did not need 
to particularise. 

Ver. 26. ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε: 
be ye angry, and sin not. The words are 
taken from Ps. iv. 4, and follow the 
LXX rendering. The original Hebrew, 


ἸΝΌΓΙΓΙ. 5) WIN, is rendered by 
some ‘Tremble and sin not’ (Ewald; 
AV, ‘Stand in awe and sin not”), {.ο., -- 
“let wholesome fear keep you from this 
sinful course”’; by others, as the LXX 
gives it (Hitz., Del., etc.). As used by 
Paul here the words recognise the fact that 
anger has its rightful place and may be a 
duty, while they indicate also how easily it 
may pass into the sinful. Great difficulty 
has been felt with this, and in various 
ways it has been sought to empty the in- 
junction of its obvious meaning. Some 
take the first imperative conditionally, as 
if = ‘if ye are angry, do not sin” (Olsh., 
Bleek, etc.) ; others, in a way utterly at 
variance with the quotation, take ὀργί- 
ἵεσθε as an interrogative (Beza, Grot.) ; 
others declare it impossible to take the 
first command as direct (Buttm., Gram. 
of N. T. Greek, p. 290), or deal with the 
first imper. as permissive, and with the 
second as jussive (Winer, De Wette, etc.), 
as if = “‘be ye angry if it must be so, but 
only do not sin”. Such a construction 
might be allowable if the first imper. were 
followed by ἀλλὰ καί or some similar 
disjunctive: but with the simple καί it 
is inadmissible. Both impers. are real 
jussives, the only difference between them 
being in the py—which also throws some 
emphasis on the second. The καί has 
here the rhetorical sense which is found 
also in atque, adding something that 
seems not quite consistent with the pre- 
ceding or that qualifies it, =‘‘and yet” (cf. 
Matt. iii. 14, vi. 26, x. 29, etc.). Nor is 
the difficulty in admitting ὀργίζεσθε to be 
a real injunction of anger anything more 
than a self-made difficulty. Moralists of 
different schools, the Stoics excepted, 


346 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Iv: 


tHere only; ' παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν, 27. py dé! " δίδοτε "τόπον τῷ "διαβόλῳ. 28. 


3 Kings 


κ 


; Rom. xii. 19; see Heb. xii. 17. 
x Matt. vii. 23, xxvi. 10; Acts x. 35. 
xii. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 8 only; Job xxxi. 17. 


ὁ “κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, μᾶλλον δὲ “ κοπιάτω * ἐργαζόμενος 
* ἀγαθὸν ταῖς χερσὶν,” ἵνα ἔχῃ ” μεταδιδόναι ὃ τῷ " χρείαν ἔχοντι. 


v Particip., Gal. i. 23 αἱ. fr. 
xy Rom. ii. 10; Gal. vi. ro. 


w Matt. vi. 28; Rom. xvi. 6. 
z Luke iii. rr; Rom. i. 11, 


a Matt. iii. 14; Gospels pass.; 1 Cor. xii. 21, 24; 


1 Thess, i. 8, iv. 9 al. Paul; 1 John ii. 27, iii. 17 (abs.); Rev. iii. 17 al. 


1 unre mss. Chrys.,, Thdrt.; μηδὲ NABDEFGKLP, Clem., εἰς, 
ταις ιδιαις χ. το αγαθ. SNADEFG 37, 57, 73, 116, al.,, it., v., Copt., Sah., Ἐτλ., 


Arm., Bas., Naz., Epiph., Jer., Aug., Pel. ; 


το ay. τ. ιδ. x. K το, 47-8, 71-2, 80, 117, 


Syr., Thdrt. ; το ay. (omg. τ. xepo.) 17, 673, Clem.; tats χερ. (omg. το αγ.), Tert. ; 
al. vary ; Tats χερσι το αγαθον KYB, most mss., Chrys., Thl., Oec. 


* peradouvar DFG. 


have recognised the place of anger in a 
moral nature; cf., ¢.g., Plato’s τὸ θυμοει- 
δέ; Butler's statement of the function 
of anger in a moral system as ‘a balance 
to the weakness of pity" and a “ counter- 
poise to possible excess in another part of 
our nature,” Sermons, Carmichael's ed., 
p- 126, 128. A righteous wrath is ac- 
nowledged in Scriptureas something that 
not only may be but ought to be, and is 
seen in Christ Himself (Mark. iii. 5). So 
Paul speaks here of an anger that is 
approvable and to be enjoined, while in 
the καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε he forbids only a 
particular form or measure of anger. As 
the following clause suggests, even a 
righteous wrath by over-indulgence ma 
pass all too easily into sin.—é ἥλιος πι 
ἐπιδνέτω ἐπὶ τῷ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν: {εί 
not the sun go down upon your provoca- 
tion. For the expression 6 ἥλιος ph ἐπι- 
δνέτω cf. Deut. xxiv. 13, 15; Jer. xv. 9; 
also Hom., Π., ii., 413, and Plutarch’s 
statement of the Pythagorean custom— 
εἴποτε προαχθεῖεν εἰς λοιδορίας ὑπ' dp- 
γῆς, πρὶν ἣ τὸν ἥλιον δῦναι τὰς δεξιὰς 
ἐμβάλλοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι 
διέλνοντο (De Am. frat., p. 488 Β). τῷ, 
inserted by the TR, is supported by DF 
ΚΙ ΝΟ, etc.; it is omitted by the best 
critics (LTTrWHRV) on the authority 
of BN'A, etc. The noun παροργισμός 
occurs only here in the NT; never, as it 
would appear, in non-biblical Greek; but 
occasionally in the LXX (1 Kings xv. 30; 
2 Kings xxili. 26; Neh. ix. 18). It differs 
from ὀργή in denoting not the disposition 
of anger or anger as a lasting mood, but 
provocation, exasperation, sudden, violent 
anger. Such anger cannot be indulged 
long, but must be checked and surren- 
dered without delay. To suppose any 
allusion here to sunset as the time for 
εἰ ἐκ or to night as increasing wrath 
Υ giving opportunity of brooding, is to 


import something entirely foreign to the 
simplicity of the words as a statement of 
limitation. 

Ver. 27. μήτε δίδοτε τόπον τῷ δια- 
βόλῳ: neither give place to the devil. 
The pyre of the TR is supported by 
cursives and certain Fathers, but must 
be displaced by μηδέ, for which the 
evidence is overwhelming (BS¥DFKL, 
etc.). μήτε properly used would have 
required μήτε, not μή, in the previous 
prohibition. μηδέ on the other hand 
1s grammatically correct as it adds a 
new negative clause, = ‘‘also do not,” 
“nor yet’ (Hartung, Partikl., i., p. 210; 
Buttm., Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 366; 
Jelf, Greek Gram., ὃ 776). τόπον, = 
room, opportunity; cf. Rom. xii. 19. 
διάβολος is not = calumniator (Luth., 
etc.), as if the reference were to heathen 
slanderers of Christians (Erasm.), but 
= the devil, the word having always 
that sense in the NT when used as a 
noun (in τ Tim. iii, 11; 2 Tim. iii, 3; 
Tit. ii. 3 it is probably an adject.); of. 
Matt. iv. 1, 5, xiii. 39, xxv. 41, etc. It 
has that sense again in 1 Tim. iii. 6. 
The more personal name Σατανᾶς occurs 
more frequently in the Pauline writings, 
while it is used only once in John’s 
Gospel (xiii. 27) and never in his Epistles. 
On the other hand διάβολος is strange 
to Mark. 

Ver. 28. ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω: 
let the stealer no longer steal. Not ὃ 
κλέψας, = “he who stole,” but pres. 
part. with a subst. force (cf. Win.-Moult., 
Ρ. 444). Stealing was not wholly con- 
demned by ancient heathen opinion. It 
was even allowed by the Lacedamonians 
(Miller, Dor., ii., p. 310). It was a vice 
into which the recently converted living 
in the old pagan surroundings, especi- 
ally when unemployed, might all too 
readily slip. It has been thought strange, 


27—20. 


29. πᾶς λόγος " σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ης ὑμῶν μὴ 


347 


“ ἐκπορευέσθω, b oe vii. 


GAN “el τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς " οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ‘xpetas,! ἵνα " δῷ 2 χάριν ΣΤῊ 


48; ΤΕΣ Hig 43 Only. 
d=Phil. 
g= ΞΕ ΤΑ Ια ἵν. si 


e= Ver. 12 reff. 


c Matt. iv. 4 (from Deut. viii. 3), xv. 11; 


, xiii. 
Rev. passim ; Paul, here only. 


Abs., Acts xxviii. 10; ‘see Phil. ii. 25, iv. 16. 
t Pet. v. 5; see Exod. iii. 21; Ps. Ixxxiv. 12. 


1 For χρειας, πιστεως DEFG 46, d, 6, f, 6, Jer., Bas,-oft., Naz., Anton., Max., 


Tert., Cyr,, Hil., Aug., Ambrst., Pel., ‘al. 
2 For δω, δοι DFG. 


scarcely credible indeed, that professing 
Christians in these Asiatic Churches could 
have given way to thieving. But the 
Epistles bear witness to the existence of 
grosser offences against morality in the 
Churches (e.g., τ Cor. ν. 1).---μᾶλλον δὲ 
κοπιάτω: but rather let him labour. 
μᾶλλον δέ has a corrective force, = nay 
vather, but on the contrary rather; cf. 
Rom. viii. 34; Gal. iv. 9.—épyaldpevos 
τὸ ἀγαθὸν ταῖς χερσίν: working the 
thing that is good with his hands. The 
readings here vary considerably, not- 
withstanding the simplicity of the state- 
ment. The TR adopts the reading given 
by L, many cursives, Slav., Chrys., είς, 
In B, am., etc., the ταῖς χερσίν precedes 
τὸ ἀγαθόν. "This latter with ἰδίαις 
inserted between τὸ ἀγαθόν and ταῖς 
χερσίν is found in K, some cursives, 
Syr.-Phil., etc.; while ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν 
τὸ ἀγαθόν is the reading of AD/EFG, 
37, etc., Vulg., Goth., Copt., Sah., Eth., 
Arm., Jer., Epiph., etc. This last is 
the best, and is adopted by LTTr and by 
WH in the marg., though not in the 
text. τὸ ἀγαθόν as opposed to the κακόν 
of theft = labour, not idleness; honest 
work, not stealing ; the use of one’s own 
hands in toil, not robbing the hands of 
others. twa ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ χρείαν 
ἔχοντι; that he may have to give to him 
that has need. It has been thought 
strange by some that Paul simply forbids 
stealing and makes no reference to the 
duty of restitution. In point of fact he 
does more than that; for he declares the 
proper object of all Christian labour (cf. 
Olsh.), viz., to acquire not merely for 
ourselves and our own need, but with 
the view of being able to help others. 
Ver. 29. πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ 
στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω : let no 
corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, 
πᾶς . ++ μή, the well-known Hebraistic 
form, the negative attaching itself to the 
verb, = “ non-utterance—let that be for 
every corrupt word”. λόγος = word, in 
the sense of a saying, speech or utterance. 
σαπρός, lit. votten or worn out and unfit 
for use, and then worthless, bad (e.g., 


give grace to the hearers. 


qualifying trees, fruit, fish as the opposite 
of καλός, Matt. vii. 17, xii. 33, xiil. 48; 
Luke vi. 43, etc.). Here it does not seem 
to mean filthy, but, as the following clause, 
ἀγαθός, κ.τ.λ., suggests, bad, profitless, 
of no good to any one. Some, however, 
give it the more specific sense, = foul, 
as including scurrilous and unbecoming 
utterance (Abb.).—a An’ εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς 
πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας: but such as 
is good for edification of the need. ἀλλ’ 
εἴ τις, = but such as, but whatever ; lit. 
= “but if there is any . . . let it proceed 
out of your mouth” (Μεγ... ἀγαθός 
with πρός or εἰς is sufficiently frequent 
in classical Greek in the sense of suzt- 
able, serviceable for something (e.g., 
Plato, Rep., vii., p. 522 A). The phrase 
οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας is somewhat diffi- 
cult to construe. Its difficulty probably 
accounts for the reading πίστεως instead 
of χρείας in D!F, etc. It cannot be dealt 
with by inversion as it is put in the 
AV, “το the use of edifying”; nor as 
equivalent to ‘‘those who have need” 
(Riick.); nor as = “as there may be 
need” (Erasm., qua sit opus). Neither 
can it be a gen. of quality, as if= 
‘“‘seasonable edification ”’ The τῆς 
must have its full value, especially after 
the anarthrous οἰκοδομήν ; and the χρείας 
is best taken either as the gen. obj., = 
“ edification applied to the need”’ (Mey., 
Alf., Abb.), or the gen. of remote reference 
(EIL.; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 235), “edi- 
fication in reference to the need,”’ z.¢., to 
the present need. So the Vulg. (am.) 
gives ad aedificationem opportunitati 5.--- 
ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσι: that it may 
So the RV. 
The AV also gives ‘‘ minister grace unto 
the hearers”. The other old English 
versions likewise render χάριν, grace, 
except Tynd., who makes it ‘‘that it may 
have favour,” and Cov., who renders it 
“that it be gracious to hear”. Nota 
few (Theod., Luth., Riick., etc.) make 
it = give pleasure. But χάρις usually 
means favour or benefit, and the phrase 
διδόναι χάριν expresses the idea of doing 
a kindness to one (Soph., Ajax., 1333; 


348 


h=Rom. τοῖς ἀκούουσιν. 


xiv. 15. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


30. καὶ μὴ " λυπεῖτε! τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον 3 τοῦ 


i Ch. i 33 θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ | ἐσφραγίσθητε “eis ' ἡμέραν ' ἀπολυτρώσεως. 31. πᾶσα 
k=Phil. ii, "πικρία καὶ θυμὸς καὶ ὀργὴ “ καὶ " κραυγὴ καὶ "βλασφημία ” dp- 


16;2Tim, 
i. 12. 1 Here only; see ch. i, 7 reff. m Acts viii. 23; Rom. iii. 14, from Ps. ix. 27; Heb. 
xii. 15 only. n=Acts xxiii. 9 only; see Matt. xii. το. o=Col. iii. 8 al. p=(in epp.) 


Col. ii. 14 only; Matt. xiii, 12 and Gosp. passim; Acts xxii. 22. 


ἔλυπητε KL, Cyr., al., Bas., Thdrt. 


Στο ay. wv. DEFG, ἆ, e, g, Goth. 


ὅτι θεον om. 2, 49, AZth., Chr., Epiph., Tert. 
‘opy. x. θυμ. DEFG 37, 46, 55, 73, 116, ἆ, e, f, g, Vulg., Copt., Clem., Ambrst., etc. 


Plato, Laws, iii., p. 702 ο; Exod. iii, 21; 
Ps. Ixxxiv. 11); and in the NT it has this 
sense with the specific notion of gracious 
kindness or service (2 Cor. i. 15, viii. 6; 
James iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5). So it is here. 
The λόγος is the subj., and the clause 
gives the Christian object of every speech 
or utterance, viz., to do good to the 
hearers, to impart a blessing to them 
(Ell.). For words with a different result 
cf. 2 Tim. ii. 14. 

Ver. 30. καὶ μὴ λνπεῖτε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ 
ἅγιον τοῦ Θεοῦ: and grieve not the Holy 
Spirit of God. This is not a general 
exhortation, but one bearing, as the καί 
indicates, particularly on the preceding 
injunction. The utterance of evil or 
worthless words is repugnant to the holi- 
ness of the Spirit, and is to be refrained 
from as calculated to grieve Him. The 
injunction is made the more solemn by 
the designation of the Spirit as “the 
Holy Spirit” and the Spirit “" of God”, 
The Spirit is here regarded as capable of 
feeling, and so as personal. In Isa. Ixiii. 
1o we have a similar idea, following the 
statement that Jehovah was afflicted in 
all His people's affliction. These terms, 
no doubt, are anthropopathic, as all terms 
which we can use of God are anthropo- 
morphic or anthropopathic, But they 
have reality behind them, and that as 
regards God's nature and not merely 
His acts. Otherwise we should have an 
unknown God and One who might be 
essentially different from what we are 
under the mental necessity of thinking 
Him to be. What love is in us points 
truly, though tremulously, to what love is 
in God. But in us love, in proportion 
as it is true and sovereign, has both its 
wrath-side and its gricf-side ; and so must 
it be with God, however difficult for us 
to think it out.—év ᾧ ἐσφραγίσθητε: in 
whom ve were sealed. ἐν ᾧ, not “by 
whom” (Tynd., Cranm., Gen., Bish.), or 
“whereby” (AV), but η whom,” the 
Holy Spirit being the environment of 
the seal, the sphere or element in which 


it takes effect. On the sealing see on 
i. 13 above.—els ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως: 
unto the day of redemption. εἰς is most 
simply taken as=withaview to. ἀπολύ- 
τρωσις, as ini. 14, Luke xxi. 28, Romans 
viii. 23, is the redemption of the future, 
and here specifically that redemption in 
its completeness and finality. The gen. 
is the gen. of temporal relation, = the 
day on which redemption will take effect, 
or manifest itself; cf. ἡμέρα ὀργῆς (Rom. 
ii. 2); κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέρας (Jude 6). 
The consideration, therefore, that it is in 
the Spirit they have their security and 
their assurance of reaching the day when 
their redemption shall be made perfect, 
is an additional reason for avoiding 
everything out of harmony with His 
holy being and action. 

Ver. 31. πᾶσα πικρία: let all bitter- 
ness. The noun πικρία occurs thrice 
— in the NT, and with different shades 
of meaning (Acts viii. 23; Rom. iii. 143 
Heb. xii. 15). Meyer makes it = fretting 
spitefulness here. Butit seems to be more 
than that (cf. χολὴ πικρίας as a descrip- 
tion of exceptional wickedness in Acts 
viii. 23), and to mean _ resentfulness, 
harshness, virulence. In James iii. 11 
τὸ πικρόν is contrasted with τὸ γλυκύ, 
and in ver. 14 it qualifies ζῆλον which 
again is coupled with ἐρίθειαν. The 
πᾶσα has the force of ‘all manner of”. 
Harshness in all its forms whether in 
speech or in feeling (the latter, perhaps, 
being specially in view as the contrasting 
χρηστοί suggests) is to be put away. 
--καὶ θυμὸς καὶ ὀργή: and wrath and 
anger. ‘These two words are often con- 
joined in non-biblical Greek, in the LXX 
and in the NT (e.g., Rom. ii. 8; Col. 
iii. 8; Rev. xvi. το, xix. 15). So far as 
they differ, the distinction is that θυμός 
is p Ae the more passionate and passing 
sentiment, the burst of anger, and ὀργή 
the settled disposition. So in Ecclus. 
xlviii. τὸ we get the phrase κοπάσαι 
ὀργὴν πρὸ θυμοῦ. See Trench, Syv., 
ΡΡ. 123-125.—Kal κρανγή: and clamour, 


30---32, 


θήτω ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν σὺν πάσῃ “ κακίᾳ, 32. το. Se! 
Ἶ ο 


χρηστοὶ, * εὐσπλαγχνοι, 


ἐν χριστῷ “ ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν .ὃ 


35; see ch. ii. 7 reff. s 1 Pet. iii. 8 only t. 


Ἡ, 13. tu Col. iii. 13. 


1Omit δε B 32, 47, 69, 177, lect. 14, Clem., Orig., Dam., Oec. ; 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


349 


Ε 
εἰς al Nace q ere iv 


ili. 8. 
r=(in epp.) 

here only; 

Luke vi. 
t Luke vii. 42, 43; 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xii. 13 ; Col. 


ἑαυτοῖς καθὼς Kat ὁ θεὸς 


for δε, ουν DFG, 


lect. 6, 14, it. ; τε Syr., Ath. ; δε SAD°EKLP, most mss., Vulg., Copt., Sah., Syr., 


al., Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., Tert., 


Jer., al 


2 For o 0. ev Xp., ο Χριστος 14, 48, 62, al., Antioch.,, Tert.; ο θεος 11, 39, Thdrt., 
Dam. ; ηµιν BDEKL, al., 25, Syr., Chr.-comm., Thdrt., ΤΠ. 


ϑυμιν NAFGP, all d, e, f, Vulg., Copt., Sah., Goth., al., 


Thl.-marg., Oec., Tert., Ambrst.-al. 


κραυγή is sometimes the cry of distress 
(Heb: v. 7; Rev. xxi. 4). Here it is the 
outcry of passion (Acts xxiii.g). καὶ βλασ- 
φημία: and evil speaking. Here it is 
obviously slanderous or injurious speech 
with reference to brethren (Matt. xii. 31, 
xv. 19; Mark iii. 28, vii. 22; Col. iii. 8; 
1 Tim. vi. 4). 80 πικρία, the harsh, 
virulent temper, works θυμὸν καὶ ὀργήν; 
wrath and anger, and these again induce 
κραυγὴν καὶ βλασφημίαν, passionate 
clamour and hurtful speech. --ἀρθήτω 
ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ: be put away 
from you together with all malice. κακία 
may mean either wickedness generally 
(Acts vill. 22; 1 Cor. v. 8, xiv. 20; 1 Pet. 
ii. 16); or all-will, malignity in particular 
(ποσα η, σσ. οι ii. 8: Tit.) i: +3); 
James i. 21; 1 Pet. ii, 1). The context 
points to the latter here. So Wicl., 
Cov., Rhem., AV, RV; while Tynd. 
gives “ maliciousness,” and the Bish, 
“naughtiness’”’. 


Ver. 32. γίνεσθε δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους 
χρηστοί: but become ye kind one to 
another. The δέ is omitted by Β, ἃ, 


177, Clem., etc., while οὖν is substituted 
for it in D'F, 114. It is bracketed by 
WH and by Tr marg., and is omitted by 
L. But it is quite in place, having its 
combined connecting and opposing force ; 
cf. on ver. 15 above. γίνεσθε (not ἐστέ), 
= “become ye,” or “show yourselves,” 
rather than “be ye”. The idea is that 
they had to abandon one mental con- 
dition and make their way, beginning 
there and then, into its opposite. χρησ- 
τοί, = kind, benignant, used of God 
(Luke vi. 35; Rom. ii. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 3), 
but here (its only occurrence in the 
Epistles) of mex ---εὔσπλαγχνοι : tender- 
hearted. There could be no better 
rendering. In Col. iii. 12 the same 
disposition is expressed by σπλάγχνα 
οἰκτιρμοῦ. It is only in Scripture and 
in eccles. Greek that the adject. conveys 


Clem., Cyr., Chr.-text, 


the idea of compassion (Pray. of Manass., 
7; Vest. XII. Patr., Test. Zab., § ο). 
—xapildpevor ἑαυτοῖς: forgiving each 
other.  Partic. co-ordinate with the 
χρηστοί, εὔσπλαγχνοι, denoting one 
special form in which the kindness and 
tender-heartedness were to show them- 
selves. χαρίζομαι means either to give 
graciously (Luke vii. 21; Rom. viii. 32; 
ers li. 9, etc.), or to forgive (Luke 

+ 42; 2 Cor. bey το πώ πο» Ὁοι 
ii. ede iii. 13). Some adopt the former 
sense here (Vulg., donantes; Eras., 
largientes). But the second is more in 
harmony with the context. For the use 
of ἑαυτοῖς 45 = ἀλλήλοις in classical 
Greek (e.g., Soph., Antig., 145) see 
Kuhner, Greek Gram., ii., p. 497; Jelf, 
Greek Gram., § 54, 2. In the NT the 
same use prevails (1 Cor. vi. 7; Col. 
ill. 13, 16, etc.) The two forms are 
often conjoined in the same paragraph 
Or sentence, both in classical Greek 
(Xen., Mem., ii., 7, iii., 5s. ao etc.) and 
in the NT (as here, Col. πο απ Ῥες 
iver 8, δον ΤῈ there 15 Ἂν distinction 
between them, it is that the idea of 
fellowship or corporate unity is more 
prominent in ἑαυτοῖς ; cf. Blass, Gram. 
of N. T. Greek, pp. 169,170; Light. and 
Ell. on Col. iii. 13.---τὠ᾽:αθὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν 
Χριστῷ ἐχάρισατο ὑμῖν: even as also 
God in Christ forgave you. καθὼς points 
to the Divine example; καὶ places the 
two instances, the Divine and the human, 
over against each other; the reference 
and the comparison indicate the supreme 
reason or motive for our fulfilment of the 
injunction. ἐν Χριστῷ is not “ for 
Christ’s sake’’ (AV) or per Christum 
(Calv.), but “tix Christ” as in 2 Cor. 
v. 19; the God who forgives being the 
God who manifests Himself and acts in 
the suffering, reconciling Christ. The 
aor. should be rendered did forgive with 
Wicl., Tynd., Gen., Bish., RV (not ‘hath 


35° 


a 1 Cor. iv, 
16, Xi. 1; ᾿ 
1 Thess. 2. και 
i. 6, ii. 14; 
Heb. vi. 
12 only. 

b 1 Cor. iv. 14, 17; 2 Tim. i. 2; see Phil. ii. 15. 

e=Acts xxi. 26, xxiv. 17; Rom. xv. 16; Heb. (5). 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


V. 


V. 1. Γίνεσθε οὖν "μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς "τέκνα ” ἀγαπητά, 
μιμη yang 

“ περιπατεῖτε “ἐν ἀγάπῃ, καθὼς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν 

ἡμᾶς] καὶ ᾿ παρέδωκεν “ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν” “προσφορὰν καὶ ᾿θυσίαν 


ς Ch. ii. 10 reff. d Gal. ii. 20; ver. 25 only. 
ef Heb. x. 5, from Ps. xxxix. 6. 


1 npas W*DEFGKL, ἆ, e, f, g, Vulg., Syr., Cop., Arm., etc. ; υμας ΝΑΒΡ 32, 37, 
71, 73, 116, Sah., Eth., Clem., Euth., Dam., εἴς. 


2 vypwv B 37, 73, 116, Sah., Eth., Dam., ete. 


forgiven” as in AV, etc.), the point 
being the forgiveness effected when 
Christ died. The reading ὑμῖν, supported 
by ΝΑΡ, 37, Sah., Boh., Vulg., Goth., 
Eth., etc. is to be preferred on the whole 
to ἡμῖν which appears in DKL, 17, 47, 
Syr., Arm., etc. L gives ἡμῖν in text; 
TrWHRY give it in margin. 

ΟΗΑΡΤΕΕ V. Vv. 1-14. A paragraph 
ruled by the general idea of the imitation 
of God in the forgiving love which has 
been appealed to in the preceding verse. 
In the light of that Divine example Paul 
charges his readers to follow purity, un- 
selfishness, sobriety and other graces, 
and to avoid all heathen vices and in- 
dulgences ἜΣ to these. 

Ver. 1. γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ: 
become ye therefore imitators of God. 
γίνεσθε, as in iv. 32, = “ become ye,” 
rather than “be ye”. This γίνεσθε also 
resumes the former γίνεσθε (iv. 32), and 
continues the general injunction expressed 
by it. The οὖν points to the same con- 
nection of ideas, while it introduces new 
exhortations based on the supreme fact of 
God's forgiving love in Christ. Of the 
duties inculcated on that basis the first 
and the one most immediately in view is 
that of the forgiveness of those who wrong 
us—a forgiveness which should be free, 
loving, ungrudging, complete as God's for- 
givenessis. The term μιμητής is used of 
the imitation of men (1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 
1; 1 Thess. i. 6; Heb. vi. 12), Churches 
(x Thess. ii. 14), things (1 Pet. iii. 13 
with ζηλωταί as var. reading). Only here 
is it used of the imitation of God—the 
loftiest and most exalting endeavour that 
can possibly be set before man, proposed 
to us also by Christ Himself (Matt. v. 
45, 48).---ὡἰς τέκνα ἀγαπητά: as children 
beloved. Not merely ‘‘dear children” 
(AV). The compar. part. ὡς points to 
the manner or character in which the 
imitation is to be made good, and indi- 
cates at the same time a reason for it 
(Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 270). 
They are children of God, experiencing 
His love. Children should be like the 


ὅθυσιαν και προσφοραν Μ. 


father, and love should meet love; cf. 
Matt. v. 45. 

Ver. 2. καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ: 
and walk in love. Here, again, καί ex- 
plains in connecting and adding. The 
‘imitation’? must take effect in the 
practical, unmistakable form of a loving 
course of life.—xa@ds καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς 
ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς: even as Christ also 
loved us [you]. The reading ὑμᾶς (with 
BN 'A, Sah., Eth., etc.; TTrWHRV) is 
to be preferred to the ἡμᾶς of TR (with 
ΡΚΕΙ ΝΟ, etc.). The aor. should have 
its proper historical force, ‘* loved,” not 
‘hath loved” (AV). Christ is now intro- 
duced as the great Example, instead of 
God, and the Divine love as openly seen 
in Christ is given as the motive and the 
pattern of the love that should mark our 
walk.—«al παρέδωκεν ἑαντὸν: and gave 
Himself up. Statement of the act in 
which Christ's love received its last and 
highest expression, viz., the surrender of 
Himself to death. The καί has some- 
thing of its ascensive force. The idea of 
death as that to which He gave Himself 
up is implied in the great Pauline declara- 
tions, ef-s Rom. iv. 25, viii. 32; Gal. ii. 
20; Eph. ν. 25.—twép ἡμῶν: for us. 
The ἡμῶν of the TR, supported by 
NADFEKL, etc., is to be preferred on 
the whole to the ὑμῶν of B, m, 116, etc., 
which is regarded by WH as the primary 
reading and given in marg. by RV. The 
prep. ὑπέρ seldom goes beyond the idea 
of ‘on account οὗ," “for the benefit of”. 
In classical Greek, however, it does some- 
times become much the same as ἀντί (¢.g., 
Eurip., Alc., 700; Plato, Gorg., 515 C), 
and in the NT we find a clear instance 
in Philem. 13. In some of the more 
definite statements, therefore, on Christ's 
death as a sacrifice (2 Cor. v. 14, 15, 21; 
Gal. iii. 13, and here) it is thought that 
the more general sense is sharpened 
by the context into that of “in place 
of”. But even in these the idea of sub- 
stitution, which is properly expressed 
by ἀντί (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45), is 
not in the ὑπέρ itself, although it may 


1---3. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


351 


τῷ θεῷ “eis " ὀσμὴν " εὐωδίας. 3. ‘wopveia! δὲ καὶ " ἀκαθαρσία g Ch. ii. 22 
reff. 


πᾶσα " "ἢ ' πλεονεξία μηδὲ ' ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν, καθὼς " πρέπει h Phil. iv. 


Gen. viii. 21; Lev. i. 9 and pass. 
v.10; ver. 5. m Ch. i. 21 reff. 


ik Col. 1.5; Gal. ν. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 21, 
ἢ Constr., 1 Tim. ii. 10; Tit. ii.1; Heb. ii. το, vii. 26 only. 


18 only ; 
1 See 1 Cor. 


Ίπορνεια BD*KL, etc.; πορνια NAD*FGP, etc. 
ἅπασα after ακαθαρσια SAP 17, 31, 39, Copt., Orig., etc.; before ακαθαρσια DE 


FGKL, Bas., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., etc. 


be in the context; cf. Win.-Moult., pp. 
434, 435; Mey. on Rom. v. 6, Gal. iii. 
13; Ell. on Gal. iii. 13.—mpoodopav 
καὶ θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ: an offering and 
a sacrifice to God. The primary idea 
in the whole statement is the love of 
Christ, and that love as shown in giv- 
ing Himself up to death. This giving 
up of Himself to death is next defined in 
respect of its character and meaning, and 
this again with the immediate purpose of 
magnifying the love which is the main 
subject. The acc., therefore, is the pred. 
acc., = “as an offering”. The defining 
τῷ Θεῷ, as its position indicates, is best 
connected with the προσφορὰν καὶ θυ- 
σίαν; not with παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, to 
which εἰς θάνατον is the natural supple- 
ment ; por with εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, for 
that would place τῷ Θεῷ in an emphatic 
position not easy to account for. The 
term προσφορά is used in the NT of 
offerings of all kinds, whether bloody or 
unbloody, whether of the meal offering, 


MWD (Heb. x. 6; Ps. xl. 7), or of the 


bloody offering (Heb. x. 10) and the ex- 
piatory sacrifice (Heb. x. 18). When it 
has the latter sense, it has usually some 
defining term attached to it (περὶ apap- 
τίας (Heb. x. 18), τοῦ σώματος Ἰ. X. (Heb. 
x. 10)). The term θυσία in like manner 
is used for different kinds of offerings. 


In the LXX it represents both πο 


and ΤΠ}, and in the NT in such 


passages as Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7, etc., it is 
used generally. Sometimes it is applied 
to unbloody oblations (Heb. xi. 4). Again 
(e.g., Heb. ix. 23, x. 5, 26) it is sin-offer- 
ings, expiatory offerings that are in view. 
The two terms, therefore, cannot in them- 
selves be sharply distinguished, but they 
get their distinctive sense in each case 
from the context. Here, as in Heb. v. 8, 
etc., it is possible that the two terms are 
used to cover the two great classes of 
offerings; in which case, as in Ps, xl. 6, 
8, the θυσίαν will refer to the sacrifice of 
slain beasts. Ifthat is so, the sin-offering, 
or oblation presented with a view to the 


restoration of broken fellowship will be 
in view. And this is in accordance with 
the particular NT doctrine of Christ’s 
death as a fropitiation, which has a 
distinct and unmistakable place in Paul’s 
Epistles, though not in his only (Rom, 
111, 23; 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10), and a recon- 
ciliation (Rom. v. 11; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19), 
as well as with the OT view of sacri- 
fice offered in order to effect forgive- 
ness and removal of guilt (Lev. iv. 20, 
26, 35, ν. 10, 13, 16, etc.).—eis ὀσμὴν 
εὐωδίας : for a savour of sweet smell. 
So Ell.; ‘for an odour of a sweet 
smell” (RV); “for a sweet smelling 
savour” (AV, Gen., Bish.); ‘in to the 
odour of sweetness” (Wicl.); “in an 
odour of sweetness”? (Rhem.); “ sacri- 
fice of a sweet savour” (Tynd., Cov., 
Cranm.). Statement of the acceptability 
of Christ’s sacrifice, taken from the OT 


Mims, Lev, 19 Ὁ, 23; τη, Ἡ, το, 


ili, 5, etc. (cf. Gen. viii. 21; Phil. iv. 18), 
where ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας is defined as θυσίαν 
δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ. The founda- 
tion of the phrase is of course the ancient 
idea that the smoke of the offerings rose 
to the nostrils of the god, and that in this 
way the Deity became partaker of the ob- 
lation along with the worshipper (Hom., 
Il., xxiv., 69, 70). The phrase was natur- 
ally used oftenest of the burnt offering 
(Lev. ii. 9, 13, 17), and some have argued 
that there is nothing more in view here 
than the idea of self-dedication contained 
in that offering. But the phrase is used 
also of the expiatory offering (Lev. iv. 31). 

Ver. 3. πορνεία δὲ καὶ πᾶσα ἀκαθαρ- 
σία: but fornication and all unclean- 
ness. The better order ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα 
(LTTrWHRV) throws the emphasis on 
πᾶσα, = ‘fornication and uncleanness, 
every kind ofit”. The metabatic 8écarries 
the exhortation over to a prohibition ex- 
pressed in the strongest terms, which is 
levelled against one of the deadliest and 
most inveterate temptations to which 
Gentile Christians were exposed. The 
term πορνεία is to be taken in its proper 
sense and is not to be restricted to any 
one particular form—the license prac- 


29 


oCh.i.1 
reff. 


only. 
s Col. iii. 18; Philem. 8 only; 1 Macc. xi. 35. 
and Paul only; exc. Rev. iv. ο, vii. 12. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


γ. 


° ἁγίοις, 4. καὶ " αἰσχρότης | καὶ " µωρολογία ἢ " εὐτραπελία τὰ οὐκ 
par Here "ἀνήκοντα,2 ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ' εὐχαριστία. 


5. τοῦτο "γὰρ ἴστε ὃ γινώ- 
t=Acts xxiv. 3; Phil. iv. 6; Col. ii. 7 al.; Luke 


u Constr., here only; see Luke iv. 44 reff.; Gen. i. 6. 


1 και αισχρο BD*KLP, Syr.-P., Copt., Arm., Clem., Βα5., etc. ; ἢ αι 
AD*FG ο... Sah., Fath, ms a ae 

2a ουκ ανηκεν ABP 31, 67%, 73 (17 omg. ἅ), Clem.,, Eph., Antioch., Cyr., (latt.) ; 
τα ουκ ανηκοντα DEFGcKL, most mss., Clem., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., al. 

ϑεστε yw. with D°EKL, etc., Syr., al., Thdrt., Dam., ΤῊ, ; τε 73; wore ΑΒ 
FG 23}, 31-9, 44-7, 57, al., Vulg., Copt., Arm., Clem., Cyr., Chr., Όες., Suid., Cypr., 


Jer., Vig., Per., al 


tised at heathen festivals, concubinage, 
marriage within prohibited degrees, or 
the like. The moral life of the Graeco- 
Roman world had sunk so low that, while 
protests against the prevailing corruption 
were never entirely wanting, fornication 
had long come to be regarded as a 
matter of moral indifference, and was 
indulged in without shame or scruple not 
only by the mass, but by philosophers 
and men of distinction who in other re- 
spects led exemplary lives.—# πλεονεξία: 
or covetousness. Here, as in iv. 19, πλεο- 
νεξία is named along with ἀκαθαρσία. 
In this passage, as in the former, most 
commentators take the two terms to 
designate two distinct forms of sin, viz., 
the two vices to which the ancient heathen 
world was most enslaved, immorality and 
greed ; while some understand πλεονεξία 
to be rather a further definition of ἀκα- 
θαρσία and give it the sense of insatia- 
bility, inordinate pray sensual greed. 
The noun is found ten times in the NT 
and the verb πλεονεκτεῖν five times. In 
some of these occurrences πλεονεξία can 
mean nothing else than covetousness (¢.g., 
Luke xii. 15; 2 Cor. ix.5; 1 Thess. il. 5). 
But the question is whether it has that 
sense in all the passages, or has taken 
on the acquired sense of sensual greed 
or overreaching in some of them. That 
is not very easy to decide. The associa- 
tion of the word πλεονέκτης with sins of 
the flesh (e.g., in 1 Cor. v. 10, 11) is urged 
in favour of the latter application (cf. 
Trench, Syn. of the N. Τ., p.79). But it 
is argued with reason that the use of the 
disjunctive ἢ between πόρνοις and πλεο- 
γέκταις there and the connecting of πλεο- 
νέκταις with ἅρπαξιν by καί point to a 
distinction between the former two and an 
identity between the latter. So, too, in 
Col. iii. 5 the noun πλεονεξίαν is differen- 
tiated from the πορνείαν, etc., by τήν. On 
the other hand, the passages in Rom. i. 29 
and 2 Pet. ii. 14 seem to suggest something 


more than covefousness, and it is also to 
be noticed that the original idea of these 
terms was that of having or taking an 
advantage over others. In 1 Thess. iv. 
6 the verb πλέονεκτεῖν is used along with 
ὑπερβαίνειν in this sense, with reference 
to the sin of adultery. The present 
passage is probably the one, so far as 
Pauline use is concerned, that most 
favours the second sense, and it must 
be added that even the argument from 
the force of the disjunctive ἤ must not 
be made too much of. For in chap. v. 5 
we find πόρνος and ἀκάθαρτος connected 
by ἢ.--μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν: let it 
not be even named among you. Cranm., 
Gen., Bish. render it ‘be once named”. 
The strong neg. μηδέ gives it this force 
—‘ Not to speak of doing such a thing, 
let it not be even so much as mentioned 
among you”. The partial parallel in 
Herod., i., 138, ἅσσα δέ σφι ποιέειν 
οὐκ ἔξεστι, ταῦτα οὐδὲ λέγειν ἔξεστι, is 
noticed here by most.—kxa@ds πρέπει 
ἁγίοις : as becometh saints. The posi- 
tion of sainthood or separation to God, 
in which the Gospel places the Christian, 
is so far apart from the license of the 
world as to make it utterly incongruous 
even to speak of the inveterate sins of 
a corrupt heathenism. 

Ver. 4. καὶ αἰσχρότης: and filthiness. 
This is taken by many (Eth., Theophyl., 
Oec., Riick., Harl., etc.) to refer to in- 
decent talk, which, however, would be 
expressed by αἰσχρολογία (Col. iii. 8). 
The context shows it to refer to sins of 
the flesh, but there is nothing to limit it 
to sinful speech. It denotes shameless, 
immoral conduct in general.—xal 
λογία ἢ εὐτραπελία: and foolish talking 
or (and) jesting. The readings here are 
somewhat uncertain as regards the par- 
ticles. The TR has the support of such 
authorities as ΧΡ, Syr.-Harcl., Arm. for 
καί. .. 4; ΑΡ”, Vulg., Sah., etc., 
give ῆ iy as ἢ; ΒΝ ΘΚ, Boh., Eth,, 








4---5. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


δ 


σκοντες, ὅτι πᾶς “πόρνος ἢ “ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ " πλεονέκτης, 8! ἐστιν νι Cor. ν. 


> = re Qe ir al. 
Σεϊδωλολάτρης, οὐκ ἔχει "κληρονομίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Ἀχριστοῦ Paulonly, 


xxi. 8, xxii. 15. 
vii. 14; 2 Cor. vi. 17; = here only. 
το, 11, Vi. 9, X. 7; Rev. xxi. 8, xxii. 15. 


ΧΙ 


exc. Rev. 


w In Gospels and Rev. only with πνεῦμα ; legal, Acts x. 14, 28, xi. 8; 1 Cor. 
Cor. ν. το, 11, vi. 10 only; Sir. xiv. 9. 
z Ch. i. 14 reff. 


Ἵ y1 Cor. ν. 
az Tim. v. 21; Rev. xx. 6. 


1 For 6 ὅς ADEKL, most mss., Copt., Syr., Clem., Chr., Thdrt., all; ο ΜΒ 17, 
67, lect. 40, al., Cyr., Jer.,, also with ιδωλολατρια FG, It., Vulg., Cyp., Jer., Ambrst., 


al. 


For ο εστ., η Or καὶ Syr., Ar.-erp., Eth. 


3 εις την Bas. τ. θ. κ. Xp. FG, Ambrst., al. 


etc., have καί . . . καί. The first is 
accepted by TRV; the second by L; the 
third by WH. ‘The choice is between 
the first and third, and the balance of 
evidence is on the whole, although not 
very decidedly, on the side of kat... 
kai. The noun pwpodoyia is of very 
rare occurrence. In common Greek it is 
found only a very few times (Arist., Hist. 
An., i., 11; Plut., Mor., 504 A); in the 
NT only this once. Its sense, however, 
is sufficiently clear.—kat εὐτραπελία: 
and jesting. ‘This is the solitary occur- 
rence of the noun in the NT. It is 
found, however, in Aristotle (who de- 
fines it as πεπαιδευμένη ὕβρις, Eth. 
Nic., iv., 14), Pindar (Pyth., i., 178), 
etc. It appears to have meant originally 
versatility, facetiousness, and to have 
acquired the evil sense of frivolity or 
scurrility, Here it is taken by some 
(e.g., Trench, Ell.) to be distinguished 
from µωρολογία and to denote, therefore, 
not the sin of the tongue merely, but the 
“evil ‘urbanitas’ (in manners or words) 
of the witty, godless man of the world”’ 
(Ell.). This depends so far on the accept- 
ance of the disjunctive 4 as the proper 
reading, but may be essentially correct. 
AV and other old English Versions give 
jesting, except Wicl., who has harlotry, 
and the Rhem. which gives scurrility.— 
τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα: things which are not 
scemly, The article has the pred. force 
= “as things which are not seemly” 
(Mey.; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 610). The 
reading, however, varies. The TR is 
supported by the great mass of MSS— 
DGKL, etc.; but ΒΑΕ, etc., give ἃ οὐκ 
ἀνῆκεν, which is to be preferred. The 
clause is in apposition to the preceding ; 
but probably only to the latter two nouns, 
μωρολογία and εὐτραπελία, as these form 
the direct contrast to the following εὖχαρ- 
ιστία, Cf. τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα of Rom.i. 28. 
--ὠΟὠΟλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία: but rather 
giving of thanks. ‘The brachylogy (cf. 
Jelf, Greek Gram., ὃ 705, 3) requires ἔστω 
or rather γίνεσθω to be supplied. The 
εὐχαριστία is understood by some to 


VOL, IIL. 


mean gracious speech (Clem. Al.; also 
Jer., with a perhaps), or pious, edifying 
discourse generally (Calv., on the analogy 
of Col. iv. 6; Prov. xi.6). Others give it 
the sense of courteous speech (Mor.). But 
the idea of gracious speech would be ex- 
pressed rather by εὔχαρι, and, as Meyer 
points out, the contrast which would thus 
result would be less in keeping with “ the 
Christian character and the profoundly 
vivid piety of the Apostle”. On nothing 
does he more insist than on the grace of 
thankfulness, and the expression of it, to 
God for the gifts of His love to sinful 
men. 

Ver. 5. τοῦτο yap ἴστε γινώσκοντες: 
for this ye know, being aware that. The 
TR reads ἐστε = ye are (with D°KL, 
Theod., Theophyl., etc.), taking it with 
the participle as = ‘‘ ye are aware”. But 
tore (which is supported by BX43AD*GP, 
Vulg., Goth., Sah., Boh., Arm., Chrys., 
etc.) must be preferred. The phrase ἴστε 
γινώσκοντες is explained by some as a 
Hebr. form, following the well-known 
use of the inf. with the fin. verb, or as 
having the force of the participle with 
the fin. verb in such expressions as 
γινώσκων γνώσῃ (Gen. xv. 13); and so 
the RV renders Ἱε--έγε know of a 
surety’. But in such formule the 
same verb occurs in both cases, whereas 
here we have two distinct verbs. Hence 
it is best rendered—‘ ye know, being 
aware that”. It is an appeal to their 
consciousness of the incompatibility of 
such sins with the inheritance of the 
Kingdom of God. It is not necessary, 
therefore (with von Hofmann), to put 
a full stop between the tore and the 
γινώσκοντες, and make ἴστε refer to the 
preceding statement. Nor is there any 
reason for taking tore as an imper. (so 
Vulg., Beng., etc.) instead of an indic. 
The τοῦτο refers to what follows, and 
the γάρ introduces a reason for the former 
injunctions, These injunctions are en- 
forced by a reference to the reader’s own 
knowledge, and that reference to their 
knowledge is made in direct appeal to 


23 


354 


br Tim. ii. καὶ " θεοῦ.] 
14;James ς 
i. 26 only. yap 
cx Cor. xv. 


1ο, 14, 58 al.; Col. ii. 8; James ii. 20; Exod. v. 9; Job. vi. 6. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


γ. 


6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς " ἀπατάτω "κενοῖς λόγοις: διὰ ταῦτα 
ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς 


ἁσὶοὺς τῆς 3 ἀπειθείας. 


d Ch. ii. 2 reff. 


1Xprorov 14, al. ; θ. κ. X. Ar.-erp., Ambrst., al. ; X. τον θεον Eth., Ar.-pol., Thdrt.,. 


their consciousness.—éti was πόρνος ἢ 
ἀκάθαρτος : that no fornicator or unclean 
person. On the Hebr. formula was... 
οὐκ, “every One . . . shall not,’’ see on 
iv. 29 above and Win.-Moult., p. 209.— 
ἢ πλεονέκτης : or covetous man, The 
πλεονέκτης appears here again to have 
its proper sense, and not any secondary 
application. —6s ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης : 
who is an idolater. This reading of the 
TR has the support of ADKLP, Syr.- 
Harcl., Boh., Arm., Chrys., etc. But 
there are two interesting variants, viz., ὅ 
ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία, which is the reading 
of G, Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Pes. (probably), 
and ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, which is given 
by BN, 673, Jer., etc. The choice must 
be between this last andthe TR. Onthe 
whole the former is to be preferred (with 
LTTrWHRY) on textual grounds, and 
that reading will then have the force of 
“which is the same as an idolater"’. 
Some (Harl., etc.) refer the relative (ὅς) 
to all three previous nouns; but the 
analogy of Col. iii. 5 is against that. It 
is true that fornication and uncleanness 


might also well be called forms of idolatry.’ 


But the point here seems to be that the 
covetous, grasping man in particular, who 
makes a god of Mammon, is much the 
same as the worshipper of an idol; and 
the πλεονέκτης is thus made synony- 
mous with the εἰδωλολάτρης in order 
to stigmatise avarice as a specifically 
anti-Christian vice, essentially incom- 
patible with the spirit of self-sacrifice 
which is of the very being of Christianity 
and was inculcated so strenuously by 
Paul himself.—otx ἔχει κληρονομίαν: 
has inheritance. The ἔχει is taken by 
Meyer as a case of present for future, 
marking a looked-for event as just as 
certain as if it were already with us. 
But it is rather a proper present, appro- 
priate here as the expression of a principle 
or law; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 331.—év τῇ 
βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ: in the 
Kingdom of Christ απᾶὰ Οοά. The clause 
has been understood as an affirmation of 
Christ’s Godhead, as if = “the Kingdom 
of Him who is at once Christ and God” 
(Beza, Beng., Riick., Harl.); and some, 
with this view of its import, have held it 
to be an example of the application of 


Sharp’srule, But that rule is inapplicable 
here by reason of the fact that Θεός is 
independent of the article and occurs 
indeed without it in the phrase βασιλεία 
Θεοῦ (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, xv. 50; Gal. ν. 21). 
Θεοῦ has the same climactic force here 
as in 1 Cor. iii. 22, etc. The kingdom is 
Christ's, committed to Him now, but to 
be delivered up at last to God, who is to 
be sole and absolute Sovereign (1 Cory. 
XV. 24, 28). 
Ver. 6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς 
λόγοις : let no one deceive you with vain 
words. A solemn warning, made the 
more pointed by being given without any 
connecting particle. κενός is “vain” in 
the sense of empty, without the substance 
of truth or reality, and so = sophistical ; 
cf. κενολογεῖν in Isa. viii. 19. But what 
is the reference? Some think heathen 
philosophers and Fews are in view (Grot.), 
or Fudaisers in particular (Neand.), or 
antinomian Christians (Olsh.), or teachers 
of Gentile tendencies (Meyer), or false 
rethren in the Churches (Abb.). But 
the expression is a general one, applying 
to all who sought by their sophistries to 
palliate the vices in question or make 
them ap to be novices. These would 
be found mostly (though by no manner of 
necessity exclusively) among the heathen, 
especially among such Gentiles as heard 
the truth and remained unbelieving. This 
is most accordant with the μονό κνν 
terms which follow, υἱς.--υϊοὺς τῆς ἀπει- 
θείας; μὴ . . . συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν; ἦτε 
dp ποτε σκότος. (So Mey., Ell., etc.)— 
διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ: 
Sor because of these things cometh the wrath 
of God. The διὰ ταῦτα, which is placed 
emphatically first, refers of course to 
the sins in question; not to the “vain 
words," as Chrys., ¢.g., strangely thought. 
The certainty of the Divine retribution is 
added as an enforcement of the previous 
warnings. It is given in terms of a 
solemn present (ἔρχεται) and in the form 
of “τε wrath of God"—an expression 
which occupies a very large place both 
in the OT and in the NT. This ὀργὴ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ is not to be limited (with 
Ritschl.) to the judgment of the last 
day, or taken as synonymous with the 
vindicta Dei, or resolved into a figure 





q 


6---8, 


7. μὴ οὖν γίνεσθε “ συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΤΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


355 


8. “ἦτε γάρ ποτε ® σκότος, ¢ Ch. iii. 6 


rs κ ος reff. 
νῦν δὲ "ds ἐν κυρίῳ: ὡς "τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε 9. (6 γὰρ f Rom. vi. 


g Acts xxvi. 18; Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 6 al. 


of speech with no reality behind it, or 
identified simply with certain effects— 
the workings of conscience, the short- 
ness and the ills of life, the penalties of 
the present existence, etc. It is given in 
Scripture, just as the love, the righteous- 
ness, the holiness of God are given, as 
an affectus and not merely an effectus, a 
quality of the perfect moral nature of 
God, an attitude and sensibility of the 
Divine Mind toward εν]. It is exhibited 
as operating now, but also as looking to 
fulfil itself completely in the final adjust- 
ment. Here its future operation in the 
ultimate awards may be specially in view, 
but not that alone. Meyer puts it too 
narrowly when he says it is ‘‘the wrath 
of God in the day of judgment, which 
future, as in ver. 5, is realised as present”’. 
-ἰπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας : upon the 
sons of disobedience. For ἀπειθείας WH 
prefer ἀπειθίας. The phrase has been 
used already in ii. 2, and there with 
reference to the unregenerate. Here, 
again, it describes the persons in respect 
of their ““ essential and innate disobedi- 
ence” (ΕΙΙ.). The ἀπειθεία in view is 
the denial of faith, disobedience to the 
truth of the Gospel of God, and so to 
God Himself; see on ii. 2, and cf. Rom. 
30. 532) αν 31: heb, iv. Ὁ, Tr. 

Ver. 7. μὴ οὖν γίνεσθε συμμέτοχοι 
αὐτῶν : become not ye then partakers with 
them. γίνεσθε again=“ do not become,”’ 
‘«suffer not yourselves to be’’; not ἐστε, 
“be not’’. What is meant is a possible 
falling back into ways by grace forsaken. 
The participation which is negatived is 
obviously taking part with the sons of 
disobedience (αὐτῶν) in their vices, not 
merely in their punishment or in the 
ὀργή. The term συμμέτοχος (or συνμέ- 
τοχος, TWH) occurs only here and in 
iii. 6above. The οὖν has the force which 
it has in v. 1, giving the inference to be 
drawn from the statement of the wrath 
of God. 

Ver. 8. ἦτε γάρ mote oxdtos: for ye 
were once darkness. A consideration in 
support of the previous exhortation, viz., 
the consideration that with them the con- 
dition in which such sins could be in- 
dulged was wholly past and gone. The 
ἦτε is put emphatically first to throw 
stress on the fact that all that is now 
behind them, and surely not a condition 
to which they could revert. No μέν re- 


17. 
h Ch. ii. 3 reff. 


quires to be supplied here. Its omission 
in this clause, while the next has 8é, is 
nothing strange or irregular, the pév 
being inserted only “when the first 
clause is intended to stand in connection 
with and prepare the reader for the oppo- 
sition to the second” (EIl.). See Ell. on 
Gal. ii. 15; Jelf, Greek Gram., p. 765; 
Donaldson, Greek Gram., pp. 575-578. 
It has to be remembered also that the cor- 
relation of those two particles has by no 
means the position in NT Greek which 
it has in classical Greek. In point of fact 
it has little or no place in the Catholic 
Epistles except 1 Pet. (to some extent), 
or in 2 Thess., 1 Tim., Tit., Philem., 
and the Apoc., and is comparatively rare 
even in the Gospels; cf. Blass, Gram. of 
ΔΝ. T. Greek, pp. 266, 267. The abstract 
σκότος, instead of ἐσκοτισμένοι or similar 
concrete form, adds greatly to the force ot 
the representation. They were darkness 
itself,—persons ‘‘in whom darkness be- 
comes visible and holds sway”? (Thay.- 
Grimm), so utterly sunk in ignorance of 
Divine things, so wholly lost in the evils 
accompanying such ignorance —vov δὲ 
φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ: but now ye are light in 
the Lord. Instead of what they once 
were they had become enlightened by 
the Gospel, discerners of Divine truth 
and subjects of the new life which it 
opens tomen. The completeness of the 
change is indicated again by the use of 
the abstract term—so possessed and 
penetrated were they by that truth that 
they could be described not simply as 
enlightened but as themselves now light. 
And this “in the Lord,” for it was in 
virtue of their fellowship with Christ 
that this new apprehension of things 
came to them, transforming their lives. 
—s τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε: walk as 
children of light. The strong abstracts 
σκότος, φῶς, come in fitly before the 
exhortation and make it more pointed. 
The omission of οὖν or any similar par- 
ticle adds further to the force of the 
exhortation. If these Ephesians were 
now ‘‘light in the Lord,” it was not for 
themselves only but for others. They 
were Called to live a life beseeming those 
to whom Christian enlightenment and 
purity had become their proper nature; 
cf. Luke xvi. 8; John xii. 36; 1 Thess, 
v. 5. Nothing is to be made of the 
absence of the article here in contrast 


356 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


᾿ς 


iRom.xv. καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ᾿Ὠἀγαθωσύνῃ 2 καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ 


τη, Ὁ 
ν. 22; 


i, 11 only; Neh. ix. ὃ5 
iv. 18; Col. iii. 20 al. Paul (and Heb.) only. 


k Constr., Rom. xii. 2; see Luke xiv. 19 reff. 


ἀληθείᾳ), το. "δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν ᾿ εὐάρεο τον τῷ κυρίῳ 11. καὶ 


1 Rom. xii. 1; Phil. 


Ἰπνευματος D*E*KL, etc., Syr., al., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., al. ; φωτος SABDEFGP 
6, το, 17, 47, 673, 179, 213, al., It., Vulg., Syr., Ar.-erp., Copt., Sah., Eth., Arm., 


Marcion., Lat. Fathers. 
3αγαθοσυνη DEFGLP 37, al. 


8 For κνρ., θεω DFG, it., v., Lat. Fathers (exc. Aug.). 


with τοῦ φωτὸς of ver. 2, the general 
practice being to insert or omit the article 
in the case of the governed noun accord- 
ing as the governing noun has it or wants 
it (Rose’s Middleton, On the Greek Article, 
iii., 3, 7, Ῥ. 40). ‘ . 

Ver. 9. ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος 
[φωτός]: for the fruit of the Spirit (the 
light) The reading of the TR, τοῦ 
πνεύματος, which is that of such uncials 
as D°KL, most cursives, Syr.-P., Chrys., 
etc., must give place to τοῦ φωτός, which 
is supported by ΒΑΡ, 677, Vulg., 
Goth., Boh., Arm., Orig., etc. The πνεύ- 
ματος is probably a correction from Gal. 
v. 22. The whole verse is in effect a 
parenthesis, and is printed as such by 
the RV. But it is a parenthesis with a 
purpose, the ydp being at once explana- 
tory and confirmatory. It gives a reason 
for the previous injunction and an επ: 
forcement of it; the point being this— 
““Walk as I charge you; for anything 
else would be out of keeping with what 
is proper to the light and is produced by 
it”. καρπός, frust, a figurative term for 
the moral results of the light, its products 
as a whole; cf. Matt. iii. 8; Phil. i. τὰ, 
etc. In the corresponding statement in 
Gal. v. 22, where the καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύ- 
ματος is contrasted with ra ἔργα τῆς 
σαρκός, the singular term may also sug- 
gest the idea of the unity of the life and 
character resulting from the Spirit.—év 
πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ: is in all goodness, 
ἐστι, is, consists, is left unexpressed after 
καρπός. The πάσῃ here again has the 
force of ‘every form of,”—in goodness 
in all its forms. The noun ἀγαθωσύνη 
appears again in Rom. xvi. 14; Gal. v. 
22; 2 Thess. i. 11. Thus it occurs only 
four times in the Pauline writings. It is 
used in the LXX, but appears not to 
belong to classical Greek. It varies 
somewhat in sense. In the OT it means 
sometimes good as opposed to evil (Ps. 
xxxviii. 20, lii, 3), sometimes enjoyment 
(Eccles. iv. 8), sometimes benevolence, 
the bountiful goodness of God (Neh. 


ix. 25). Here and in the other Pauline 
passages it is taken by some in the sense 
of uprightness, but appears rather to mean 
active goodness, beneficence ; cf. Trench, 
Syn., p. 218.---καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ : and right- 
cousness. δικαιοσύνη here has the sense 
of rectitude, probity, freedom from the 
morally wrong or imperfect, as in Matt, 
iii. 15, ν. 6, 10, 20, etc., and as also in 
such Pauline passages as Rom. vi. 13, 16, 
18-20, villi. 10; 2 Cor. vi. 7, 14, εἰς.--- 
καὶ ἀληθείᾳ: and truth. ἀλήθεια here 
in the subjective sense of moral truth, 
sincerity and integrity as op to 
falsehood, hypocrisy and the like; cf. 
John iii. 21; 1 Cor. v. 8; Phil. i. 18, ete. 
Here, then, Christian morality is given 
in its three great forms of the good, the 
just, the true. Abbott compares the 
“justice, mercy, and truth” of the Gos- 
pels and Butler's ‘‘justice, truth, and 
regard to the common good”, 

er. 10. δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν εὐάρεσ- 
τον τῷ Κυρίῳ: proving what is well- 
pleasing to the Lord. The exhortation 
ows in νετ, 8, interrupted by the en- 
orcement introduced in ver. 9, is now 
continued and explained. The participial 
sentence defines the wa/k which was en- 
joined in respect of the way in which it 
is to be made good. It is a walk which 
is to be taken up and carried out in the 
light of a constant trial of what pleases 
the Lord. The verb δοκιμάζειν here has 
its primary sense of proving, testing (cf. 
Rom. xii. 2), rather than its secondary 
sense of approving (cf. Rom. xiv. 22; 
1 Cor. xvi. 3, etc.). , Here, therefore, the 
δοκιμάζοντες expresses the idea of the 
careful trial, “the activity and experi- 
mental energy”’ (Ell.), necessary to the 
walk. The answer of the conscience 
(Rom. xiv. 23), or conformity to the 
Gospel (Rom. i. 16; Phil. i. 27), is given 
elsewhere as the test of the Christian 
walk. Here its correspondence with 
what is pleasing to God is given as its 
final proof and its most distinctive charac- 
teristic. εὐάρεστον is better rendered on 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


9---12. 


δ οὐχ 


‘ a A ” κι mn 
μὴ ''συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς " ἔργοις τοῖς ° ἀκάρποις 1 τοῦ " σκότους, πι Phil. iv. 
14; Rev. 
XViii. 4 
ie : only. 
n Rom. xiii. 12 only; see Cor. iv. 5; Isa. xxix. 15. ο Matt. xiii. 22 Mark; Tit. iii. 14; 2 Pet. i. 8; 


μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ " ἐλέγχετε. 12. τὰ γὰρ “ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν 


Jude 12; see 1 Cor. xiv. 14; Wisd. xv. 4. p=John iii. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 24; 2 Tim. iy. 2; Tit. i. 
9, 13, 11. 15; Xen., Symp., viii., 43. 


q Here only; Gen. xxxi. 26 al. 


1 For ακαρπ., ακαθαρτοις 61-2; ατακτοις 30!, Slav.-ms, 


the whole ‘‘ well-pleasing ’’ (RV), especi- 
ally when Col. i. το is compared, than 
“acceptable” (AV). 

Ver. II. καὶ μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς 
ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους: and 
have no fellowship with the unfruitful 
works of darkness. TWH again prefer 
the form συνκοινωνεῖτε. The verb has 
its usual force here, and takes us back to 
the συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν of ver. 7. The 
only question is whether it governs the 
ἔργοις itself, or an αὐτοῖς or αὐτῶν under- 
stood. Looking to the συμμέτοχοι av- 
τῶν above, the συγκοινωνήσαντές μου τῇ 
θλίψει of Phil. iv. 14, etc., some prefer 
the latter, = “have no fellowship with 
them in the works”. But the gen. prob- 
ably would then be the proper case for 
the things in which the participation took 
place; cf. the use of συγκοινωνεῖν with 
τινί τινος (Dio Cass., xxxvii., 41, etc.), 
and συγκοινωνὸς τῆς ῥίζης, etc. (Rom. 
xi. 17). Here, therefore, as in the case 
of the ἁμαρτίαις in Rev. xviii. 4 and even 
the θλίψει in Phil. iv. 14, the verb is 
best understood as governing the ἔργοις 
directly. Elsewhere we read of ἔργα 
πονηρά (Col. i. 21), and νεκρὰ ἔργα 
(Heb. vi. 1); here of ἔργα ἄκαρπα, works 
which result in no gain, yield nothing 
pleasant or profitable, bring no blessing 
or reward with them; cf. the contrast 
between the works of the flesh and the 
fruit of the Spirit in Gal. v. το, 22.— 
μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε: but rather even 
reprove them. ‘This rendering of the RV 
is on the whole the best. AV omits the 
even. The other old English Versions 
render similarly, except Wicl., who has 
“but more’; Gen., 2, which gives “" but 
even reprove them rather’’; and Bish., 
‘but even rebuke”... The formula μᾶλλον 
δὲ καί, combines the ideas of the correc- 
tive (μᾶλλον), the adversative (δέ) and the 
ascensive (καί), and means, therefore, 
‘but rather even,” not merely ‘“ yea, 
much more”. Without the καί the phrase 
μᾶλλον δέ has the force of a corrective 
climax ; cf. Mey. on Rom. viil. 34, Gal. 
iv. 9, and Fritz. on Rom. viii. 34. It was 
not enough, therefore, for them simply to 
abstain from such works; they must even 
reprove them. ‘The question, however, is 


what is the proper sense of ἐλέγχετε here, 
and what is the force of the whole sen- 
tence? Some give the verb the sense of 
reproving, but understand the reproof in 
view to be both in word and in deed 
(Olsh.), or only in deed, i.e., the reproof 
conveyed by the spectacle of a pure life 
and consistently moral walk. Others, 
looking to the following τὰ yap κρυφῆ 
γινόμενα, etc., and thinking it incongru- 
ous to speak of an oral rebuke in con- 
nection with a statement of the shame it 
is even to speak of the sins in question, 
would give the verb the sense of exposing 
(Abb.), But both the context and the 
general idea connected with ἐλέγχειν in 
the Pauline writings (cf, e.g., 1 Cor. xiv. 
4. 5 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 15) 
point to the notion of oval reproof. The 
idea, therefore, is that these Christians 
were not at liberty to deal lightly with 
such sins, or connive at them, or be silent 
about them, but had to speak out against 
them and hold them up to rebuke, with 
the view of bringing their heathen neigh- 
bours to apprehend their turpitude and 
forsake them. 

Ver. 12. τὰ γὰρ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ 
αὐτῶν αἰσχρόν ἐστι καὶ λέγειν: for the 
things which are done by them in secret it 
is a shame even to speak of. This render- 
ing of the RV, which follows Ellicott’s, 
does more justice to the order of the 
Greek than that of the AV. The term 
κρυφῆ Occurs only this once in the NT; 
but it is found occasionally in the LXX. 
Lach., WH, Μεγ., etc., prefer the form 
κρυφῇ ; most editors and grammarians 
(Treg., Tisch., Alf., Jelf, Win,, etc.) 
adopt κρυφῆ; cf. Win.-Moult., pp. 52, 
53. The ydpintroduces a reason for, ora 
confirmation of, the charge to reprove the 
sins. But what of the special point and 
connection? Some (e.g., Harl.) would 
refer the yap to the μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε, as 
if = “do not take part in their sins, for 
they are too vile evento mention’’. But 
this does not do justice to the difference 
between the κρυφῆ γινόμενα and the ἔργα 
τοῦ σκότους. Others, putting more into 
the λέγειν than it can properly bear, 
understand it as = “rebuke these sins 
openly, for to speak of them in any other 


358 


Markiv. αἰσχρόν ἐστιν καὶ λέγειν" 
22; John 
iii. 21; 
Rom. i. 19 
al. Paul. 


terms than that of rebuke is shameful”. 
Bengel finds in it a reason for the sins 
being only referred to and not specified 
by name. Stier, supposing the reproof 
de facto to be in view, makes it = “do 
not even name these sins, for if you did so 
you would yourselves be sinning, where- 
as your walk in the light will be their 
reproof’’, Others (Von Sod., Abb.), 
adopting the sense of ‘“ expose” for 
ἐλέγχειν, take the idea to be—‘‘do not 
participate in these works, but expose 
them, for the things they do secretly it is 
a shame even to mention; but all these 
things when exposed by the light are 
made manifest in their true character”. 
But the course of thoughtis simpler. The 
secrecy of the works in question is the 
reason why they require to be openly 
reproved ; and the point is this—the 
heathen practise in secret vices too abom- 
inable even to mention; all the more is 
the need of open rebuke instead of silent 
overlooking or connivance (Mey., Ell., 
etc.). It is not all heathen sins, there- 
fore, that are in view; for it would be an 
exaggeration to say that all such vices 
were of a kind too shameful even to speak 
of; but a certain class of sins, that worst 
class which are done in secret. This is 
in harmony with the emphatic position of 
the κρυφῆ and with the contrast in the 
φανεροῦται. Butif the expression κρυφῇ 
γινόμενα covers less than the ἔργα τοῦ 
σκότους, there is nothing on the other 
hand to indicate that it refers specifically 
to the immoral licence of the Pagan mys- 
teries, or any other single instance of dark 
and infamous excess. It includes all those 
shameless heathen indulgences which 
sought the cover of secrecy. 

Ver. 13. τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ 
τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται, πᾶν γὰρ τὸ φανε- 
ρούμενον φῶς ἐστί: but all, when they are 
reproved, are made manifest by the light: 
for everything that is made manifest is 
light. Both the connection and the 
import of some of the words here are 
difficult to determine, and various inter- 
pretations have been proposed. The RV 
renders it “ but all things when they are 
reproved are made manifest,” treating it 
as a general statement. But the point 
and the harmony of the whole verse are 
best seen if the phrase τὰ πάντα is taken 
to refer to the secret practices which 
have been immediately in view, = “ all 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOYS 


v. 


13. τὰ δὲ πάντα ἢ ἑλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ 
τοῦ φωτὸς "φανεροῦται - πᾶν γὰρ τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστιν, 


of them,” ‘‘all these things”. The ἐλεγ- 
χόμενα, again, must have its proper sense 
of reproved or rebuked, and cannot be 
dealt with as synonymous with πεφανε- 
ροῦται. The anarthrous participle will 
express the manner or the time of the 
action in question, and is not = “all 
things which are reproved” (Vulg., AV, 
etc.), but is = “all these things when 
they are reproved”. The πᾶν must " 
accepted as ἃ neuter, there bein 
reason for taking it (with Benge 
abstract for concrete and so= Couns 
man". Further, the φανερούμενον and 
the φανεροῦται are naturally to be taken 
as of the same Voice. That the former 
cannot have the force of the Middle, 
“that which makes manifest,” appears 
from the fact that there does not appear 
to be any instance of φανεροῦσθαι being 
anything else than a pure passive in the 
NT, although it occurs some fifty times 
there. Two particular difficulties remain, 
viz., (a) the connection of ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός, 
and (δ) the sense of φῶς in the two clauses. 
As to (a), some attach the words to the 
ἐλεγχόμενα, = ‘ when they are reproved 
by the light” (Syr., Copt., etc.). But, 
as the ἐλέγχετε (ver. 11) was introduced 
without any specification of the agent, 
it is most natural to connect the ὑπὸ τοῦ 
φωτός here not with the participle but 
with the fin, verb, and the best sense is 
ot thereby. As to (δ), itis held by some 
opty Ell.) that the term φῶς must have 
the same sense in both clauses, whether 
the primary sense or the metaphorical. 
But it is difficult to get a clear and con- 
sistent sense for the statement on that 
supposition, neither is it necessary that the 
τοῦ φωτός in the first clause should have 
identically the same sense as φῶς in the 
second. In point of fact in the former 
the idea of the Christian light, the light 
of the Christian truth previously r 
to, seems to be in view; while in the 
latter clause, which gives a general state- 
ment in support of the preceding par- 
ticular affirmation, φῶς has its primary 
sense. It should be added that, if Φανε- 
povpevoy is part of the statement of a 
general truth, the objection taken by 
some (¢.g., Abb.) to the interpretation 
that deals with it as a true passive, vis., 
that it should then be πεφανε 
falls to the ground. These considera- 
tions, therefore, negative all such inter- 





55. 14. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


359 


14. διὸ "λέγει "Ἔγειρε] ὁ “καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, 5 Ch. iv. 8 
4 Pog rel: 
"καὶ " ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὃ Χριστός." 15. "βλέπετε οὖν " πῶς * ἀκριβῶς t ἴα, xevi. 
190; (Heb.) 
ἴσχον; ut Thess. v. 6 reff. v=James iv. 7; Rev. ii. 1ο, w Here only; Job xxv. 5. 
x= Matt. xxiv. 4 al.; 1 Cor. iii. το, viii. 9, x. 22, xvi. 10; Gal. v.15; Col. 11,8; Heb. ili. 12, xii. 25. 
y See note. z=here only; see Acts xxvi. 5. 


1 εγειραι with some mss. ; εγειρε MSS., al. 
2 erupavoets του Χριστου D! and mss, in Chr.-Jer., d, e, f, Thdrt. (who however 


cites text from ἔνια τῶν ἀντιγρ. with approval), Orig., Ambrst.; επιφαυσει σοι 
ο Χριστος Marc., Clem., Orig.,, Ath., Chr., Dam., Archel. (om. σοι), Jer., Ambr., 


Aug., Vig., Pel., al. 


pretations as these—(1) ‘he who does 
not refuse to be made manifest, becomes 
an enlightened one” (Beng.); (2) ‘for 
all that is enlightened by the light, is 
itself light” (Olsh.); (3) ‘all things 
which are tested by the light of the 
doctrine of Christ, one has no need to 
keep secret; all, however, which one 
can perform openly is itself light’; (4) 
all those constructions which give dave- 
povpevov the Middle sense, e.g., ommne 
enim illud, quod manifesta facit alia, lux 
est (Erasm.) ; lux enim illud est quod omnia 
facit manifesta (Beza; similarly Calv., 
Bleek, etc.); (5) and all that make the 
light the agent of the ἐλέγχειν (De 
Wette, etc.) The sense, therefore, is 
this—‘‘all these shameful things which 
are done by them in secret, when they 
are subjected to the open rebuke which 
Christians ought to give them, are laid 
bare by the light of the Christian truth 
acting in their reproof, so that the doers 
of them are made to see them in the 
odiousness of their real nature; for every- 
thing that is disclosed in its real colours 
ceases to be secret and becomes of the 
nature of light”. So substantially Mey., 
Ell., etc. The δέ also has its proper, 
adversative force, as if = ‘these things 
indeed are done in secret; but (or yet) 
they are made manifest and displayed in 
their true character, when you reprove 
them in the power of Christian truth”’, 
Thus, the whole sentence becomes a 
further reason, derived from the effects 
of the act, for practising the ἐλέγχειν ; 
and the second clause confirms the par- 
ticular power ascribed to the Christian 
φῶς by reference to the general statement 
of the connection between manifestation 
and light. 

Ver. 14. διὸ λέγει, Ἔγειραι 6 καθεύ- 
δων καὶ ἀνάστα ἑκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ém- 
φαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός: Wherefore he 
saith, Awake thou that sleepest and arise 
from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon 
thee. Sothe RV, better on the whole than 
the ‘‘shall give thee light” of the AV. 
The verse contains a quotation, but the 


great difficulty is in ascertaining its source 
and understanding its precise point. It 
is introduced by the subordinating, co- 
ordinating, and causal particle διό (on 
which see under ii. 11, and cf. Buttm., 
Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 233; Blass, 
Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 274) = δι’ 8, 
‘on which account,” 2.6., “things being 
as I have stated them we have the Divine 
word, ‘Arise,’” etc. The λέγει is taken 
by some (Haupt, Abb.) as =7¢ is said; 
but in Paul’s general use it is personal, 
ὁ Θεός or similar subject being under- 
stood; while φησὶ is the formula that 
may be used impersonally. (See on iv, 
8, and cf. Bernh., Synt., xii., 4, p. 419.) 
For ἔγειραι of the TR, which is the 
reading of the cursives, ἔγειρε, which is 
supported by BS3ADGKL and practically 
all uncials, must be accepted. It requires 
no σεαυτόν to be supplied ; neither is it to 
be explained as an Active with a Middle 
sense; but is best understood as a formula 
like ἄγε, with the force ofup/ The imper. 
ἀνάστα for ἀνάστηθι occurs again in Acts 
xii. 7, as also in Theocr., 24, 36; Menander 
(Mein.), p. 48, etc. ; cf. ἀνάβα (Rev. iv. 1), 
κατάβα (Mark xv. 30; but with a υ. 1.). 
The verb ἐπιφαύσει means properly to 
dawn, corresponding to the ordinary 
Greek ἐπιφώσκω, which is used also in 
the narratives of the Resurrection in 
Matt. xxviii. 1; Luke xxiii. 54. This is 
the only occurrence in the NT of the form 
ἐπιφαύσκω, which is found occasionally, 
however, in the LXX (Job xxv. 5, xxxi. 6, 
ΧΙ, 1ο, etc.) The noun ὑπόφαυσις also 
occurs in Herod., vii., 30. Instead of 
ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὃ Χριστός D* and certain 
manuscripts mentioned by Chrys., Theod., 
Jer., etc., read ἐπιψαύσει σοι 6 Χρισ- 
τός οἵ ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This 
reading was connected with the legend 
that our Lord’s Cross was planted above 
Adam’s burial-place, and that our first 
father was to be raised from the dead 
by the touch of the Saviour’s body and 
blood. The clause as we have it means 
not merely ‘‘ Christ will cause His face 
to shine graciously upon thee,” but 


360 ἢ 


“Christ will shine upon thee with the 
light of His truth and bring thee out of 
the pagan darkness of ignorance and 
immorality ”’. 

So much for the terms. But whence 
does the passage come? The answer 
which first suggests itself, and which 
is given by many (Calv., Est., Beng., 
Harl., Olsh., Hofm., Weiss, Alf., ΕΙΙ., 
etc.), is that it is a quotation from the 
OT, as the formula λέγει indicates, and 
in fact a very free reproduction and 
application of Isa. Ix. 1. The difficulty 
lies in the extreme freedom with which 
the original- words are handled. There 
is but a very slender resemblance be- 
tween what we have here and the LXX 
version of the prophetic verse, viz., φωτί- 
ἴον, φωτίζον, Ἱερονσαλήμ, ἥκει γάρ σον 
τὸ φῶς καὶ ἡ δόξα Κυρίον ἐπί σε ἀνατέ- 
ταλκεν. Nor should we have a different 
condition, if we supposed Paul in this 
case to have followed the Hebrew text. 
Hence some (Beza, etc.) imagine that 
Paul has combined with Isa. lx. 1 other 
Isaianic passages (é.g., ix. I, xxvi. 10, 
lii.1). But while it is true that Paul does 
elsewhere use great liberty in modifying, 
combining, and applying OT passages, it 
cannot be said either that these words of 
Isaiah have muchrelation tothe quotation, 
or that we have in Paul's writings (even 
Rom. x. 6, etc., not excepted) any case 
quite parallel to this. Others, therefore, 
conclude that the passage is from some 
apocryphal writing, the Apocalypse of 
Elias (Epiph.), a prophecy under the 
name of ¥eremiah (Geor. Syncell.), one 
of the writings attributed to Enoch (Cod. 
G, margin). But though Paul might 
have quoted from an apocryphal book, 
and some think he has done it, ¢.g., in 
1 Cor. ii. 9, it is certain that his habit is 
to quote only from the OT, and further 
this formula of citation appears always to 
introduce an OT passage. Meyer tries 
to solve the difficulty by the somewhat 
far-fetched supposition that Paul really 
quoted from some apocryphal writing, but 
by a lapse of memory took it for a part of 
canonical Scripture. Others suggest that 
he is quoting a saying of our Lord not 
recorded in the Gospels (cf. Resch., 
Agrapha, pp. 222, 289), or a baptismal 
formula, or some hymn (Mich., Storr, 
εἰς). The choice must be between the 
first-mentioned explanation and the last. 
Notwithstanding the confessed difficulties 
of the case, there is not a little to incline 
us to the idea that, although in a very in- 
exact and unusual form, we have a biblical 
quotation before us here. On the other 
hand it is urged (e.g., by Haupt) with 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vv. 


some force that the rhythmical character 
of the passage favours the supposition 
that we have here a snatch from some 
very ancient hymn or liturgical com- 
position. The question must be con- 
fessed to be still open. But what in any 
case is the point of the quotation here ? 
The passage is introduced in connection 
with the reference to the effects of a faith- 
ful ἔλεγξις and under the impression of 
the figure of the light. It takes the form 
of an appeal to wake out of the pa 
condition of sin, described by the two- 
fold figure of sleep and death, and of a 
promise that then Christ will shine upon 
the sinner with the saving light of His 
truth. The quotation comes in relevantly, 
therefore, as a further enforcement both of 
the need for the reproof which is enjoined, 
and of the good effects of such a reproof 
faithfully exercised. 

Vv. 15-21. A paragraph closely con- 
nected with the former, and specifying 
various things belonging to the correct- 
ness and consistency of the Christian 
walk. 

Ver. 15. βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκριβῶ 
[ἀκριβῶς πως) περιπατεῖτε: “abet heed 
then how ye walk with strictness (or, take 
heed carefully how ye walk). The writer 
passes from the statement of the need of 
the ἔλεγξις and its profitable effects into 
which he had been led for a space, and 
returns to the exhortation of ver. 8. The 
οὖν has its resumptive force here; as 
indeed it is a particle not so much of infer- 
ence as of “‘continuation and retrospec- 
tion" (Donald.), and is better rendered’ 
“then,” “accordingly,” ‘to proceed,” 
than ‘‘therefore’’ (see Win.-Moult., p. 
553; Ell. on Gal. iii. 5; and eapealaliy 
Donaldson, Greek Gram., p. 571). It is 
out of place to give βλέπετε any such 
sense as “ make use of the light so as to 
see,” as if it had regard to the φῶς pre- 
viously mentioned, It has the simple 
force of ‘‘take heed,” as in Matt. xiii, 
23, 33; 1 Cor. x. 7; Phil. iii. 2; Col. iv. 
17. Itis followed by πῶς again in Luke 
viii. 18; 1 Cor. iii, ro. The particular 
shade of meaning attributable to ἀκριβῶ 
here turns in some degree on the reading. 
The TR gives πῶς ἀκριβῶς, following 
$°ADGKLP and most MSS., with the 
Vulg., Syr., Arm. Versions, and such 
Fathers as Theodor., Jerome, etc. If 
this order is adopted ἀκριβῶς, which = 
“exactly,” “ diligently ᾿" (Matt. ii. 8; 
Luke i. 3; Acts xviii. 25; 1 Thess. v. 2), 
will express the idea of strict conformity 
to a standard, carefulness against any 
departure from what is proper to a Chris- 
tian walk. So the AV and other old 





15---16, 


περιπατεῖτε, μὴ ὡς " 


τὸν “καιρὸν, ὅτι αἱ Ἱ ἡμέραι 
iv. 5 only. be Col. iv. 5; Dan. ii. 8. 
de Ps. xl. 1. e= Gal. i. 4; ch. vi. 13. 


English Versions render it “ circum- 
spectly”” or (Wicl., Rhem.) ‘ warily” 
—a very good translation. In BN *17, 
Origen, etc., the order is ἀκριβῶς πῶς, 
and this is adopted by TTr marg. WHRV. 
In that case the injunction loses its 
distinctive note, and instead of the 
charge to take heed how they walked 
“with strict carefulness,’? we have the 
plain exhortation to ‘take heed care- 
fully’? how they walked. The πῶς in 
either case should have its proper sense 
“how” (as in Cran., Cov., Rhem. and 

. similarly Wicl.), not ‘‘that” (as in AV 
and the rest of the old English Versions). 
Further, the περιπατεῖτε is not an indic. 
with a conjunctive force, as if = “ take 
heed how ye should walk,” but a proper 
indic. ; the point being the need of looking 
carefully at the way in which the Christian 
walk was being carried out there and then. 
See Win. -Moult., p. 376, and cf. ἕκαστος 
βλεπέτω πῶς οἰκοδομεῖ in τ Cor, πὶ. xo. 
--μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σοφοί: not as 
unwise, but as wise. Some think that 
some such term as περιπατοῦντες must 
be supplied here. But it is unnecessary, 
the μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι being dependent on the 
TOS περιπατεῖτε and explanatory of it, = 
“how ye walk, {ο wit, not as unwise, but 
as wise”. The subjective negative μή is 
in point because the whole sentence is also 
dependent on the βλέπετε. The nature 
of the walk to be consistently pursued is 
placed in the stronger light by the anti- 
thetic parallelism ; a form especially char- 
acteristic of the Johannine writings; cf. 
Win.-Moult., p. 762. They were to walk 
as those who had the character (@s) not 
of fools, but of wise men. 

Ver. 16. ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν καιρόν: 
buying up for yourselves the opportunity. 
Definition of the ὡς σοφοί, specifying the 
way in which they were to give token of 
the quality of wisdom. The expression 
‘occurs only once again in the NT (in Col. 
iv. 5); and there are but few proper par- 
allelsto it. The phrase as used in Dan. ii. 
8 has rather the sense of gaining time, 
delaying. The classical phrase καιρὸν 
πρίασθαι (used, ε.σ., by Demosthenes) 
has the plain meaning of purchasing for 
money. Even the κερδαντέον τὸ παρόν 
cited from Anton., vi., 26, and the καιρὸν 
ἁρπάζειν of Plut, (Philop. , 15) are but 
partial analogies. In the NT the verb 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


“πονη ραί εἶσιν. 


361 


Ani Aig ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σοφοὶ, 16. "ἐξαγοραξόμενοι a Here 


17. διὰ τοῦτο μὴ bGal iii. τα, 
iv.5; Col. 


d=2 Tim. iii. 1; Heb. x. 32; 1 Pet. iii. το. 


ἐξαγοράζειν has at times the sense of 
redeeming, ransoming one from another 
by payment of a price, and so it is applied 
to Christ’s vicarious death (Gal. iii. 13, iv. 
5). It has the sense of ransoming occa- 
sionally in profane Greek (e.g., Diodor., 
36, I, p. 530). Hence some take the idea 
here to be that of redeeming, as from the 
power of Satan (Calv.), or from the power 
of evil men (Beng.) ; the sacrifice of earth- 
ly things being taken by some (Chrys. 
Theophyl., Oec., etc.) to be the pur- 
chase-price. But it is doubtful whether 
any such technical or metaphorical sense 
can be attached to the word here, where 
the subject in view is the plain duty of 
a careful Christian walk. The simpler 
sense of buying is more appropriate to 
the context. The ἐξ- probably has its 
intensive force, although Ellicott takes it 
to refer merely to the “‘ undefined time or 
circumstances, owt of which, in each par- 
ticular case, the καιρός is to be bought”’ 
Giving the Middle also its proper sense, 
we get the sense of “ buying up for your- 
selves’, The thing to be ‘‘ bought up” 
is the καιρός, not ‘the time,” but ‘the 
jit time,” the ‘ opportunity,” and the 
purchase-money implied in the figure is 
left undefined, but may be the careful 
heed expended on their walk. Thus the 
sense comes to be this—the character of 
wisdom by which their walk was to be 
distinguished was to show itself in the 
prompt and discerning zeal with which 
they made every opportunity their own, 
and suffered no fitting season for the ful- 
filment of Christian duty to pass unused. 
Luther’s “‘suit yourselves to the time” 
would require some such phrase as δου- 
λεύειν τῷ καιρῷ (Rom. xii. 11), and is 
otherwise inappropriate. Other expla- 
nations, such as Harless’s supposition 
that the matter in view is the fit time for 
letting the ἔλεγξις break in upon the 
darkness of sin, are remote from the im- 
mediate subject or impart ideas which are 
not in the text. The RV gives ‘ redeem- 
ing the time”’ in the text, and ‘‘ buying 
up the opportunity’ in the margin.— 
ὅτι αἱ ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσι: because the 
days are evil. Statement of motive for 
buying up the opportunity, οἱς., the evil 
of the time. The context makes it clear 
that what is in view is the moral evil of 
the days, not merely as, e.g., in Gen. 


462 


{Luke xi. γίνεσθε “ἄφρονες, ἀλλὰ συνιόντες 1 
18. καὶ μὴ " μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ' ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ ὃ * πλη- 


40, ΧΙ, 20; 
Rom. ii. 

20 al. ; ᾿ 
Paul only, exc. 1 Pet. ii. 15; Job ν. 3. 
1 Thess. v. 7 only. 
52; Rom. i. 29, xv. 13 al. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


; g Acts xxi. 14 only; elsw. τοῦ θεοῦ. 
i Tit. i. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 4 only; Prov. xxviii. 7; 2 Macc. iv. 6. 


v. 
τί τὸ "θέλημα τοῦ " κυρίου." 


h Luke xii. 45; 
k= Acts a 


1 σνννεντες D°EKL, mss., nearly, Syr., Arm., Eth., al., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., etc. ; 


συνιετε ABP 67?, 73, 118, Chr.-ms., Jer. 


all, Lucif., all). 


; συνιοντες DFG (It., Vulg., Goth., Syr., 


* After κυρ. insert ημων B; for κυρ.» θεον A 14, 55, 66%, 109-15-78, ἃ, e, f, Syr., 


Thl., Jer., Aug.-Pel. 
ἕαλλα μαλλον 1ο, 37, 71, 116, Arm. 


xlvii. 9, their difficulties and troubles 
(Beza, etc.). The fact that the times in 
which they lived were morally so corrupt 
was a strong reason for making every 
opportunity for good, which such times 
might offer, their own. 

Ver. 17. διὰ τοῦτο μὴ γίνεσθε ἄφρονες: 
for this cause become not ye foolish. The 
διὰ τοῦτο may refer to the immediately 
preceding clause (Riick., De Wette, etc.), 
the evil of the days being a reason for 
avoiding folly. It is better, however, to 
refer it to the main idea, that of the walk, 
than to the subordinate. The manner of 
walk which they were called to pursue 
required the cultivation of wisdom, not of 
folly. The γίνεσθε, again, is not to be 
reduced to the sense of ἐστε. Contem- 
plating them as in the Christian position 
Paul charges them not to suffer them- 
selves to slip back again into folly—a 
thing inconsistent with the walk required 
of the Christian. ἄφρονες is a strong 
term=without reason, senseless, lacking 
moral intelligence.—éAAa συνιέντες [συ- 
νίετε] τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Κυρίου: but under- 
standing [understand] what the will of the 
Lordis, The reading varies here between 
συνιέντες, as in TR, with Ὀ Ε ΚΙ, and the 
mass of MSS., Vulg., Syr.-P., etc. ; συνι- 
όντες, with D*G, etc. ; and συνίετε, with 
ΕΝΑΡ 17, etc., which is adopted by LT Tr 
WHRYV. For Κυρίον Lachmann gives 
θεοῦ in the margin, but on slight author- 
ity. The Κύριος, as in Acts xxi. 14; 1 
Cor. iv. 19, is Christ. As distinguished 
from γινώσκειν, συνιέναι expresses intel- 
ligent, comprehending knowledge, more 
than acquaintance with a thing or mere 
matter of fact knowledge. 

Ver. 18. καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ : 
and be not made drunk with wine. A 
particular case of the ἀφροσύνη to be 
avoided is now mentioned. The καί is 
used here, as, ¢.g., also in Mark i. 5, to 
add a special designation to a general, 
inclusive statement ; Win.-Moult., p. 546. 
The case is the abuse of wine. But there 


is nothing to suggest any reference to 
excess at the Agapae (1 Cor. xi. 21) in 
especial. ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία : wherein is 
dissoluteness. Or, with the RV, “ wherein 
is riot”. The AV, Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen., Bish., all give “excess”; Wicl. 
has lechery, and the Rhem. riotousness. 
ἀσωτία (cf. Prov. xxviii. 7) expresses the 
idea of an abandoned, debauched life; 
literally, the condition of one who is past 
salvation. The ἐν @ refers not to the 
οἶνος alone (which might infer a Gnostic 
view of matter or Montanistic, ascetic 
ideas of life), but to the whole phrase 
μεθύσκεσθε olvw—the becoming drunk 
with wine.—éAAa πληροῦσθε ἐν Πνεύ- 
ματι: but be filled with the Spirit. The 
verb πληροῦν is construed with the gen. 
of the thing that fills (e.g., Acts ii, 28, 
ν. 28, xiii. 52, pass., etc.); or with the 
Hebraistic acc. (Col. i. 9); or with the 
dat. (Rom, i. 29; 2 Cor. vii. 4, etc.). The 
construction with ἐν here is exceptional. 
Hence some prefer to understand πνεύ- 
ματι of man’s spirit, and render it (as 
RV margin) “be filled in spirit”. The 
contrast would then be between being 
filled in one’s physical or carnal nature 
and filled in one’s spiritual nature Bs 
Braune, and in effect Abb.). In NT 
Greek, however, verbs that are followed 
by the simple dat. sometimes vary it by 
a prepositional form, ¢.g., βαπτίζεσθαι 
ὕδατι (Luke iii. 16) and ἐν ὕδατι (Matt. 
iii. 11), παντὶ τρόπῳ (Phil i. 18) and ἐν 
παντὶ τρόπῳ (2 Thess. ii. 16), etc.; and 
the formula πληροῦν or πληροῦσθαι ἐν 
is not wholly without analogy; cf. rot 
τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου, i, 23 
above; and Col. iv. 12, πεπλη ρη- 

ένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ, where 
indeed the πεπληρωμένοι οἵ the TR must 
give place to another verb, yet one with 
the same idea, the sense being probably 
“filled with everything willed by God” 
(cf. Win.-Moult., p. 272; Blass, Gram. 
of N. T. Greek, p. 117). The ἐν may be 
taken, therefore, as the instrum. ἐν, and 





17—I9. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


363 


ροῦσθε ἐν ᾿πνεύματι,! 19. λαλοῦντες '' ἑαυτοῖς "ψαλμοῖς 2 καὶ "ὕμνοις 1 Const., 


καὶ " φδαῖς [᾿πνευματικαῖς 5], " ἄδοντες καὶ "ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ "καρδίᾳ" 


32 reff. n=Col. iii. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 26. 
Rev. ν. 9 al. only; Exod. χν. al. 
Rev. v. 9, xiv. 3, xv. 3 only; Jer. xxxvil. 19. 


1 Kings xvi. 16. 


Rom. x. 


20. 
We m=Ch, iv. 
Ὁ Col. iii. 16 only; Neh. xii. 46. p Col. iii. 16; 
q Rom. i. 11 al. Paul only, exc. 1 Pet. ii. 5. r Col. iii. 16; 


5 Rom. xv. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; James v. 13 only; 


t=Acts vii. 54; Rom. ii. 15, 29, x. 6; 1 Cor. vii. 37 al. 


ley τω πνευματι FG ; add ayww Eth., Arm. 
2 ev Wak. B, D.-lat., 17, 67”, 73, 116-18, Vulg., Chr., Ambrst., Jer., Pel. 


3 After ωδαις om. πνευµατικαις B, d, 6, Ambrst.-ed.; add εν χαριτι A. 


εν ταις 


καρδιαις Ν'ΑΡΕΕΑΡ 47, It., Vulg., Goth., Syr., Syr.-marg., al., Bas., Chr.,, Lat. 


Fathers. 


47y καρδια SQB, Orig.; εν τη καρδια KL and most MSS., Syr.-P., Arm., Eth., 


Chr., Euth., Thdrt., Dam., Theophyl. 


the sense will be ‘‘filled with or by the 
Spirit”. Some (e.g., Ell., Alf.) would 
combine the ideas of in and by, suppos- 
ing the unusual phrase to be chosen with 
a view to convey the fact that the Holy 
Spirit is not only the instrument by which 
the Christian man is filled, but that also 
in which he is so filled. But this is a 
needless refinement. The contrast, as 
most commentators recognise, is not 
merely between the οἴνῳ and the πνεύ- 
ματι, but between the μεθύσκεσθε and 
the πληροῦσθε, Otherwise the order 
would have been μὴ οἴνῳ μεθύσκεσθε, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι πληροῦσθε(Μεγ.). The 
contrast is not between the instruments 
but between the states—between two ele- 
vated states, one due to the excitement of 
wine, the other to the inspiration and en- 
lightenment of the Spirit. 

Ver. 19. λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς 
καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς : 
speaking one to another in psalms and 
hymns and spiritual songs. Lachm. in- 
serts ἐν before ψαλμοῖς ; Trand WH place 
it in the margin, on the authority of BP 17, 
67”, Vulg., Jer. πνευματικαῖς is bracketed 
by Lach., but is to be retained, as being 
found in all authorities with the exception 
ofa very few—B, d,e,etc. The AV and the 
other old English Versions render ἑαυτοῖς 
“ yourselves,’ and the RV gives this a 
place in the margin, But in all proba- 
bility ἑαυτοῖς has the reciprocal sense = 
ἀλλήλοις, as in iv. 32 (cf. Jelf, Greek 
Gram., § 654, 2). The idea is not that 
of meditation, but that of converse. There 
is nothing, however, to suggest the 
thought of actual worship. The sen- 
tence specifies one of the ways in which 
the condition of being “ filled with the 
Spirit ” would express itself. In their in- 
tercourse one with another their language 
would not be that of ordinary convention, 
far less that of base intoxication, but that 
of spiritual devotion and thankfulness, 


Reference is made by many commenta- 
tors to Pliny’s well-known report of the 
practice of the Christians of Bithynia 
and Pontus—carmen Christo quasi Deo 
dicunt secum invicem (Ep., x., 97); but 
what is in view there is responsive praise 
in the Lord’s Day worship. Psalms, 
hymns, and spiritual songs are mentioned 
again in Col. iii. 16. What the distinc- 
tions are, if any, between the three terms 
has been considerably disputed. ψαλμός 
is a religious song, especially one sung to 
a musical accompaniment, and par excel- 
lence an OT psalm; ὕμνος is properly 
speaking a song of praise; ᾠδή is the 
most general term, applicable to all kinds 
of songs, secular or sacred, accompanied 
or unaccompanied (cf. Trench, Syu., p. 
279; Light. on Col. iii. 16). The 
three words are brought together here 
with a view to rhetorical force, and it is 
precarious, therefore, to build much 
upon supposed differences between them. 
There is nothing to warrant Harless’s 
idea that the Ψαλμός is the spiritual song 
for Fewish-Christians and the ὕμνος for 
Gentile-Christians ; or Olshausen’s sup- 
position that the term ψαλμοῖς is to be 
limited to the OT psalms which had 
passed over into the Christian Church. 
There were Christian psalms—psalms 
which the Holy Spirit moved the primi- 
tive Christians to utter when they came 
together in worship (1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26), 
as He moved them to speak with tongues 
(Acts ii. 4, x. 46, xix. 6). It is probable, 
therefore, that these are intended here, 
especially in view of what has been said 
of being ‘filled by the Spirit”. If the 
terms, therefore, are to be distinguished at 
all, the case wil! be simply this—that the 
ψαλμοί and the ὕμνοι are specific kinds 
of ᾠδαὶ πνευματικαί, and that the for- 
mer are the Christian psalms which wor- 
shippers were inspired to sing, and which 
no doubt would be like the familiar psalms 


364 


u=Luke 
xvii. 16, 
xviii. 11; 
John xi. 
; Rom. i. 8 and freq. Paul; Rev. xi. 17. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ν. 


ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ, 20. " εὐχαριστοῦντες " πάντοτε ὑπὲρ " πάντων ἐν 
ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ “τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί,} 


41 νι Cor. i. 4; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3; Paul only. 
να Cor. ix. 8; Phil. i. 4; 1 Thess. i. 2; Paul only. 


w James i. 27. 


᾿ πα. κ.θ. DEFG, 4]... It., Goth., Vig. 


of Israel, while the latter were songs of 
praise to Christ or to God. On this view 
the adj. πνευματικαῖς is attached to the 
ᾠδαῖς not merely to differentiate these 
eres as religious and not secular, but to 

escribe them as inspired by the Holy 
Ghost.—dBovres καὶ ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ 
καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ : singing an 
making melody in your heart to the Lord. 
The év of the TR is supported by KL, 
most cursives, Syr.-Harcl., Arm., etc. It 
is omitted by ΒΝ”, Orig., etc., and is 
deleted by L1(Tr})WHRV. For τῇ καρ- 
δίᾳ, Lachm. prefers ταῖς καρδίαις, which 
is given by N°ADGP, Vulg., Boh., Syr. 
ψάλλοντες, properly = playing on a 
stringed instrument, and then = singing, 
especially to an instrument (Rom. xv. 9; 
1 Cor. xiv. 15; James v. 13). The τῷ 
Κυρίῳ will have its usual reference, viz., 
to Christ. The question, however, is 
whether this clause is to be taken as 
coordinate or as subordinate. Does it 
add something to the previous λαλοῦντες 
clause, or simply explain and extend it? 
The latter view has been accepted by 
many from Theodoret downwards, who 
understand the point here to be that the 
speaking one to another in psalms and 
hymns and spiritual songs was not to be 
a formal thing or a matter of the lips only, 
but the utterance of the heart, ‘‘ with the 
heart" (RV). But this would be expressed 
rather by ἐκ τῆς κ ας OF κατὰ τὴν 
καρδίαν. The rendering “ heartily” also 
would be easier if there were no ὑμῶν. 
Besides the contrast in the context is not 
between lip-praise and heart-praise on the 
part of Christians, but between Christian 
converse expressing itself in praise, and 
the vain or profligate talk of the heathen. 
Hence (with Harl., Mey., Ell., Alf.), it is 
best to give ἐν its proper sense of in, and 
to understand the clause as referring to 
the melody that takes place in the stillness 
of the heart. It specifies a second kind 
of praise in addition to that of the λα- 
Aovwres—the unvoiced praise of medita- 
tion and inward worship. 

Ver. 20. εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲ 
πάντων: giving thanks always for all 
things. Another coordinate clause giving 
a third and more particular way in which 
the being “ filled with the Spirit” should 


express itself. The two preceding sen- 
tences referred to. praise, both outwardly 
with the mouth and inwardly in the 
silence of the heart. This third sentence 
mentions a special form of praise, viz., 
thanksgiving. This thanksgiving is de- 
scribed as a constant duty, the πάντοτε 
which would have been inappropriate 
with the λαλοῦντες and with the ἄδοντες 
καὶ ψάλλοντες being in place here where, 
as in the case of joy and prayer (1 Thess. 
v. 16, 17), the matter is one primarily of 
attitude or spirit. The ὑπὲρ πάντων, “for 
all things’’ (neut., not masc., as under- 
stood by Theodor.), is taken by many in 
its widest possible extent, as including 
things evil as well as good. The Epistle 
does not deal, however, particularly with 
the sufferings of the Christian, but with 
what he receives from God and what his 
consequent duty is. It is most accordant, 
therefore, with the context to understand 
the πάντων as referring to all the blessings 
of the Christian, the whole good that 
comes to him from God.—év ὀνόματι τοῦ 
Κνρίον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: in the name 
of our Lord Fesus Christ. The phrase év 
ὀνόματι... .Χ Ὁ is different from ἐν 
Χριστῷ and of wider application. It has 
different shades of meaning, authority, 
power, honour, dependence, etc., in different 
connections. Here probably it expresses 
the idea of doing something in dependence 
upon Christ, or in regardfulness of what 
Christ is; cf. John xiv. 13, xv. 16, xvi. 
23; Col. iii. τμ. Θεῷ καὶ πατρί: {ο 
God and the Father. The RV gives "ιο 
God, even the Father” in its text, and 
“τὸ the God and Father "’ in the margin. 
But the most appropriate rendering of the 
title is the above. The title designates 
One who is God and at the same time 
Father; the Fatherhood here, as else- 
where, being no doubt primarily the 
relation to Christ, as is suggested by the 
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, etc. 

Ver. 21. ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις : 
subjecting yourselves one to another. The 
connection of this clause is by no means 
clear. It is taken by not a few (Calv., 
Matthies, etc.) as an independent clause, 
the participle being dealt with as an im- 
perative. But there is nothing to suggest 
the ἐστε which would have to be supplied. 


20--22. 


21. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ἡ ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ]: 
τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ, 23. ὅτι ἀνήρ ὃ ἐστιν " κεφαλὴ τῆς y= =1 Cor. 


365 
22. at γυναῖκες x earth 22 


1, 3 ch. 
i, 22, iv. 15; Col. i. 18; Paul only, 


1 Χριστου SABLP, most others, {, Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., Eth., Goth., Orig., 


Bas., Chrys., Dam., Victorin., 


εἰς. ; Χριστου ἴησου 


DE 35, d, e ; Inoou Χριστον 


Fer.G, 6; κυριου K; θεον most cursives, Clem., Euth., Thdrt., Dam. 


? After ανδρ. insert υποτασσεσθε KL, al., Chr. ; 


before ιδ. DF, Syr.; νποτασσεσ- 


θωσαν SAP 17, 57, fere al., Vulg., Copt., Clem. ., Bas., Thdrt., Dam., Lat. Fathers ; 


without υποτασσεσθαι or ἠποτασσεσθωσαν B, MSS. in Jerome 3 
ἐχχ. additum est, subditae sint, in gr. edd. non habetur. « . 


intelligitur quam in latino), Clem. 


(Hoc quod in lat. 
. Sed hoc magis in graeco 


59 ἀνὴρ some cursives, Clem., Chr., Thdrt., etc. ; ανηρ SADEFGKLP 44, τοῦ to 


II-53-77-6-9, 219-38, all, Dam. 


To relate the clause to the paragraph 
which follows means that it is the intro- 
ductory, general statement, of which we 
have a particular application in what is 
said of the γυναῖκες. But in that case 
we should expect the duty of the γυναῖ- 
κες to be conveyed by a noun distinct 
from ὑποτασσόμενοι, but denoting a form 
of behaviour that would come easily under 
the comprehensive duty expressed by the 
participle. It is best to connect the 
clause, therefore, with what precedes it, 
and to take it as a fourth coordinate 
clause, giving yet another way in which 
the condition of being ‘‘ filled with the 
Spirit ” should express itself. The former 
three dealt with spiritual converse, praise, 
and thanksgiving; this one deals with 
what is due from ourselves to others. It 
is appended to the other three as a sum- 
mary statement of duty in our relations 
one to another, of which particular appli- 
cations are to be made. ‘Thus it leads 
easily on to the special obligations which 
are next enforced. The same compre- 
hensive statement of Christian duty in 
our earthly relations as summed up in 
the one idea of mutual ὑπόταξις, in 
contrast with pagan self-seeking and 
self-assertion, is given in 1 Pet. v. 5.— 
ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ [Χριστοῦ]: in the fear of 
God [of Christ]. The reading of the TR, 
Θεοῦ, is that mostly of the cursives and 
a few Fathers. It must give place to 
Χριστοῦ, which is given by BNALP, 
Vulg., Syr., Boh., etc., andis accepted by 
LTTrWHRV. ‘Other variations occur, 
e.g., Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ in Ὁ and ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ in 6. The phrase “in the fear 
of Christ’? occurs only this once. Rever- 
ence for the Lord Himself was the spirit 
in which this great duty of mutual sub- 
jection was to be fulfilled. 

Vv. 22-33. A paragraph which, in 
dealing with the duties of wives and 
husbands as seen in the new light of 


Christian truth, gives the Christian ideal 
of the marriage-relation. It is the loftiest 
conception of that relation that has ever 
come from human pen, and one than 
which no higher can be imagined. 
Ver. 22. At γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις av- 
δράσιν [ὑποτάσσεσθε]: Wives, be in 
subjection to your own husbands. The 
great Christian law of mutual subjection 
or submissive consideration is now to be 
unfolded in its bearing on three particu- 
lar relations which lie at the foundation 
of man’s social life—those of husbands 
and wives, parents and children, masters 
and servants. The relation of husbands 
and wives, as the most fundamental, is 
taken up before the others, and the 
Christian duty of the wives is set forth 
first. The reading is somewhat uncertain. 
The TR inserts ὑποτάσσεσθε, with KL, 
most cursives, Syr., Chrys., etc. A few 
manuscripts (DG) place the ὑποτάσσεσθε 
after the γυναῖκες. In some important 
authorities (ΝΑΡ 17, Boh., Goth., Vulg., 
Arm., etc.) we find ὑποτασσέσθωσαν; 
which is accepted by LTr and given a 
place in the margin by WH. ‘Theclause 
is given without any verb by B, Clem., 
and Jer., which last states that the verb 
was not found in his Greek codices. This 
shortest form is adopted by WH in their 
text. The verb is easily supplied from 
the preceding ὑποτασσόμενοι, and such 
constructions are quite in Paul’s style. 
The ἰδίοις (which is omitted in the 
parallel passage in Col. iii. 18) is here, 
as often if not always in the NT, some- 
thing more than a simple possessive. It 
conveys the idea of what is special, and 
gives a certain note of emphasis or in- 
tensity, = husbands who as such are 
peculiarly and exclusively theirs; see 
1 Pet. iii. 1, and cf. Ell. im loc.; Blass, 
Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 169.—as τῷ 
Κυρίῳ: as to the Lord. That is, to 
Christ; not to the husband as lord and 


366 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vv. 


2 Ch. i. a3 γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς "ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς 1 " σωτὴρ 


a=Constr., τοῦ σώματος. 
1 Tim. iv. 
10; John iv. 42; 1 John iv. 14. 


1 και αντος εστιν 
alone N*ABD*E*F 
Victorin., etc. 


24. ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 5 ἡ ἐκκλησία " ὑποτάσσεται τῷ χριστῷ, 


0,» 5E*KLP, Syr., Arm., Goth., Bas., Chr., Thdrt., etc. ; αυτος 
72, 73, 112, 178, d, e, f, g, Vulg., Copt., Clem., Euth., Orig., 


ἕως SAD*FGP 17, 31, 47, 673, 73, Clem., Orig., Chr., Euth., etc. ; ωσπερ DSEKL, 


al., pler., Bas., Thdrt., Dam., etc. 


master. If the husband’s supremacy 
had been in view, it would have been 
expressed by τοῖς κυρίοις. The ὡς de- 
notes more than similarly, and more than 
“just as they are submissive to Christ so 
should they be to their husbands”. The 
next sentence, and the whole statement of 
the relation between husband and wife in 
the following verse in terms of the relation 
between Christ and the Church, suggest 
that the point of the ὡς is that the wife is 
to regard the obedience she has to render 
to her husband as an obedience rendered 
to Christ, the Christian husband being 
head of the wife and representing to her 
Christ the Head of the whole Christian 


body. 

Ver. 23. ὅτι ὁ ἀνήρ ἐστι κεφαλὴ τῆς 
γυναικός, ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας : because the husband is the 
head of the wife, as also Christ is the head 
of the Church. Reason for a wifely sub- 
jection of the kind indicated. It is found 
in the relation of headship. In the mar- 
riage union the husband holds the same 
relation, viz., that of headship, as Christ 
holds to the Church, and the headship of 
the one represents the headship of the 
other. For ἐστι κεφαλή, B, Vulg., etc., 
give κεφαλή ἐστιν, which WH place in 
the margin. The 6 before ἀνήρ rests on 
the slenderest authority, and is omitted by 
LTTrWHRYV on the testimony of BRA 
DFKL, etc. The anarthrous ἀνήρ means 
‘‘a husband” in the sense of any man 
belonging to the class of husbands. The 
article, again, is appropriate in τῆς γυναι- 
κός, as a definite relation is expressed 
there τὸ "ἃ husband is head of his wife”. 
The ὡς καί indicates the point common 
to the two subjects—each is head, though 
in relation to different objects.—{al] αὐ- 
τός [ἐστι] σωτὴρ τοῦ τος: and He 
is Himself the Saviour of the body. The 
καί and the ἐστι of the TR have consider- 
able authority (NQ°D**KLP, most cursives, 
Syr., Arm., etc.); but they are not found 
in BN*ADG, Vulg., etc., and are to be 
omitted (with LTTrWHRV). The clause 
then might be construed as in apposition 
to the previous ὃ Χριστός, = “ as Christ 


is the Head of the Church—He, the 
Saviour of the body”. But it is best 
taken as an independent clause, stating 
in a definite and emphatic way an impor- 
tant point in which Christ, who resembles 
the husband in respect of headship, at the 
same time differs from the husband, It 
is best rendered, therefore, “He, He 
Himself (i.e., = He alone) is the Saviour 
of the body". The RV less happily 
makes it “ being Himself the Saviour of 
the body". The αὐτός can only be Christ, 
and the σῶμα is the Church—the body to 
which He brings salvation. The husband 
is head of the wife, and in that he is like 
Christ; but Christ is also that which the 
husband is not, viz., Saviour of that 
whereof He is Head. 


Ver. 24. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑπο- 
τάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, καὶ αἱ γυ- 


vaixes τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί: 
nevertheless as the Church is subject to 
Christ, so also let the wives be subject to 
their husbands in everything. For ἀλλ᾽ 
the best editors give ἀλλά, For the ὥσ- 
περ of the TR, supported by D®KL and 
most cursives, read (with LTTrWHRY) 
ὡς, which is found in a. 17, 67*, 
etc. But B omits it. The ἰδίοις inserted 
by TR (after AD*°KLP and various Ver- 
sions, etc.) before ἀνδράσιν is wanting 
in BND*G, 17, 673, etc., and should be 
deleted. It has crept in probably from 
νετ. 22. The question here is as to the 
force of the ά. Some suppose a 
suppressed negation before it, ¢.g., ‘‘ be 
not disobedient,” “do not disallow the 
marital headship, but,” etc. (Eadie). 
Others give it a resumptive force (Harl., 
εἰς). But the supposed digression, 
which can only be the brief clause αὐτὸς 
σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος, requires no such re- 
sumption. Others give it a certain syllo- 
gistic force, understanding it to introduce 
a proof of the preceding statement, pre- 
senting the relation in a new light, or an 
inference from the statement (De Wette, 
Olsh.); but ἀλλά does not draw conclu- 
sions like οὖν, nor is it = ὥστε, alth 

it may introduce a minor proposition; cf. 
Win.-Moult., p. 291; Hartung, Partikl., 


23---26. 


» - , 
οὕτως καὶ at γυναῖκες τοῖς ἶ ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


367 


25. οἱ ἄνδρες, 


ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας ἑαυτῶν,” καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν 


ε A ~ 
ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἢ" ἑαυτὸν " παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, 26. ἵνα αὐτὴν b Ver. 2reft 


1 Before ανδρ. insert ιδιοις ΑΌΞΕΞΚΡΕΡ, etc., Vss., Fathers; om. ΜΨΒΡ"Ε "Ες 


κ ου alt. 


Ξεαυτων om. SAB 5, 17, 23, 49, 57, 7ο, Clem.,, Orig., Cyr., Chr.g; insert DEKL, 
είς, (τας εαν. Clem.,), Chr., Thdrt.,, al. ; add vpwv FG, Thdrt.,. 


ii., p. 384. Others make it = ‘‘ but then, 
which is the main thing,” etc., supposing 
ver. 24 to give a second proof of the fact 
that wives should be obedient to their 
husbands as to the Lord—a proof drawn 
from the position held by Christ and by 
the husband, viz., that of being head 
(Win.-Moult., p. 565). This, however, 
would be expressed rather by δέ than by 


ἀλλά, the former being the particle that- 


in opposing also continues and connects, 
adding something distinct from what has 
preceded, while the latter has the full 
opposing significance, disannulling or dis- 


counting something mentioned. before. 


(Win.-Moult., p. 551). The ἀλλά, there- 
fore, must have its full adversative force, 
and is best rendered '' nevertheless,”’ ‘‘ for 
all that”. The twenty-fourth verse thus 
looks to the peculiarity mentioned as 
belonging to Christ’s headship in dis- 
tinction from the husband’s, viz., the 
fact that He is not only Head, but Saviour. 
And the idea becomes this—‘“ Christ in- 
deed is Saviour of the body, and that the 
husband is not; nevertheless the question 
of obedience is not affected thereby ; for all 
that, as the Church is subject to Christ, 
so too are wives to be subject to their 
husbands” (so subst. Calv., Beng., Mey., 
Ell., Alf., etc.). In the οὕτως clause 
ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, ‘let the wives be sub- 
ject,’ as in RV text and according to most 
commentators, or better, ὑποτάσσονται, 
‘© so are the wives also”’ (as in RV marg.), 
is to be supplied from the preceding ὑπο- 
τάσσεται. The ἐν παντί naturally means 
in everything pertaining to the marriage- 
relation. 

Ver. 25. οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυ- 
γαῖκας [ἑαυτῶν], καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς 
ἠγάπησε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν: husbands, love 
your wives, even as also Christ loved the 
Church. The reflexive ἑαυτῶν introduced 
by the TR after γυναῖκας, as in DKL, 
Syr., etc., is not found in BWA, 17, Clem., 
etc., and is properly omitted by LTTr 
WHRYV. The reading ὑμῶν also occurs 
in G. We have now the statement of the 
corresponding duty of husbands. If the 
wife’s duty is submission,the husband's is 


love—a love like Christ’s—a love capable 
even of suffering and dying for the wife 
as Christ did for the Church.—kai ἑαυτὸν 
παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς: and gave Himself 
up for it. παρέδωκεν, as in v. 2, Gal. 
il, 20 (παραδόντος ἑαυτόν), Rom. iv. 25 
(παρεδόθη), without explanation of that 
to which He gave Himself; that being 
understood to be death. This is the 
measure, therefore, of Christ’s love, and 
this is the manner of love with which the 
husband is to meet the wife’s obedience. 

Ver. 26. ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ: that He 
might sanctify it. Statement of the great 
object with which Christ in His love for 
the Church gave Himself up to death for 
it. An object worthy of the self-sacrifice, 
described in definite terms and with a 
solemn significance—the sanctification 
and cleansing of the Church with a view 
to its final presentation in perfect holiness 
at the great day. The verb ἁγιάζειν, a 
later form of ἁγίζειν (used, ¢.g., by Soph., 
Oed. Col., 1495; Pindar, Ο., iii., 34, etc.), 
frequent in biblical and patristic Greek, 
means to set apart to a sacred use, to 
consecrate, by external or ceremonial 
cleansing (Heb. ix. 13; 1 Tim. iv. 5); 
by an expiation (1 Cor. vi. 11; Heb. x. 
10, 14, 29); or by inward, ethical puri- 
fication (t Thess. v. 23). Most exegetes 
take ἁγιάσῃ in the third sense here, and 
this is favoured by the terms which follow 
in ver. 27. On the other hand, both in 
the Pauline writings and in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews (cf. Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 
Engl. transl., vol. ii., 68, etc.) the domi- 
nant application of the verb is deliverance 
from the guilt of sin by means of an ex- 
piation.—ka8apioas: cleansing it. The 
verb καθαρίζειν, Hellenistic for καθαίρειν, 
has certain occasional applications in the 
NT (e.g., literal cleansing, Matt. xxiii. 
26; Luke xi. 39; pronouncing ceremoni- 
ally clean, Acts x. 15, xi. 9; consecrating 
by cleansing, Heb. ix. 22, 23); but apart 
from these it has two main senses—that 
of ethical purification (2 Cor. vii. 1; James 
iv. 8), and that of forgiveness, freeing from 
the guilt of sin (Tit. ii. 14; Heb. ix. 14; 
1 John i. 7,9). In the case of this verb, 


368 


again, the prevailing idea is that of the 
changed, rectified relation to God. The 
two ideas probably are not sharply divided 
in the writer’s mind. They are brought 
together again, both as definite acts of 
the past, in 1 Cor. vi. 11, ἀλλὰ ἀπελού- 
σασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώ- 
θητε. But the effect on standing appears 
to be the thing immediately in view here. 
In classical Greek, too, the term καθαρμός 
is used in the sense of a purification from 
guilt (e.g., Soph., O. T., 1228). The 
participle is taken by many as, in relation 
to ἁγιάσῃ» a proper past = “that he might 
sanctify it after cleansing it” (Μεγ., Alf., 
Ell. ; RV “having cleansed it,” etc.). The 
purification in view is thus made some- 
thing prior to the sanctifying. But 
καθαρίσας, as is often the case with aor. 
participles connected with a fin. aorist 
(Bernh., Synt., x. 9, ᾿ 383), may also be 
of the same time as ἁγιάσῃ and express 
the way in which the sanctifying takes 
effect. The latter is the more probable 
view here (Syr., Vulg., Harl., Abb., etc.), 
especially as the aor. ἁγιάσῃ points toa 
single, definite act, and one predicated of 
the Church as a whole.—t@ λουτρῷ τοῦ 
ὕδατος: by the bath of the water. Desig- 
nation of the means by which the purifi- 
cation takes place. The phrase is a 
difficult one. The word λουτρόν occurs 
only once again in the NT (Tit. iii. 5). 
It is used in both cases with reference to 
baptism (although some do not admit 
this), and it is so used in eccles. Greek. 
In classical Greek it has the occasional, 
secondary sense of a libation for the dead 
(Soph., El., 84, 434; Eurip., Phoen., 
1667), but is used properly as = “ bath, 
bathing-place (e.g., Homer's θερμὰ λοε- 
τρά, 1]., xiv., 6; λοετρὰ ᾿Ωκεανοῖο, 1]., 
xviii., 489, etc.) ; bathing (Herod., vi., 52: 
Xen., Cyr., vii., 5, 20); or the water for 
bathing or washing (Soph. Oed. Col., 
1599)". It is doubtful whether any clear 
instance can be found of its use as = 
washing. The ὕδατος is prob. the gen. 
materia, and the articles mark the Aov- 
τρόν as the well-known bath of the (bap- 
tismal) water. The Versions vary in their 
renderings. The Vulg. gives lavacrum, 
and similarly the Syr. and the Goth. 
The Rhem. follows the Vulg. and renders 
laver. But the other old English Versions 
have either “ the washing" or ‘‘ the 
fountain” of water. The RV gives ‘the 
washing of water” in the text, but “the 
laver” in the margin. But “ laver,’’ in 
the sense of the vessel, does not appear 
to be a legitimate translation. The only 
legitimate rendering is “the bath of 
water,” i.c., the bath of the baptismal 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


΄ 
-- 


V. 


water. Many interpreters find in the 
phrase an allusion to the bath taken by 
a bride before her wedding. The subse- 
quent imagery, and especially the ας <a 
στῆσαι, may favour τονε bat the fact 
that the Subject here who cleanses by the 
bath of the water is Christ, while it was 
not the bridegroom who administered the 
pre-nuptial bath to the bride, makes that 
doubtful.—év ῥήματι : with (or pwone®) 
the word. In respect both of sense an 
of connection this is a peculiarly difficult 
phrase. With respect to the fatter the 
ἐν ῥήματι is connected by some with the 
ἁγιάσῃ = ‘sanctify it by the word,” ἐν 
being taken as the instrum. dat. (Winer, 
Riick., Bisp., Bleek, Mey., etc. ; cf. Win.- 
Moult., p. 172). The objection to this is 
the remoteness of the defining phrase 
from the verb. On the other hand it ma 
be the case that the order is selected wi 
a view to bringing things together, first 
the two verbs and then the two defining 
terms (so Meyer). The analogy of John 
xvii. 17, ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, is 
also urged. Others connect it with the 
λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος, --'' the bath of water 
in or by the word". But to this there is 
the serious objection that the ἐν ῥήματι 
is anarthrous. The Greek would require 
either τῷ or τοῦ ἐν ῥήματι, the phrase not 
being one of the kind (like τῶν λῶν ἐν 
δόγμασι, chap. ii. 15 above) to make a 
single idea with the λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος 
and so dispense with the article; cf on 
chap. i., 17 above. There remains the 
third course—to connect it with καθαρί- 
σας, or with the idea expressed by the 
clause καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ Tod ὕδατος 
as a whole. This on the whole is the 
connection freest from difficulty, and it 
gives a congruous idea, which may take 
more than one form, ¢.g., that the puri- 
fication is effected by the ῥῆμα; that it 
is accompanied by it; or that it takes 
lace in it as its element or condition. 
ut what of the sense of the ῥήματι ἢ 
How difficult it is to obtain a satisfactory 
meaning appears at once from the variety 
and the peculiarity of the interpretations 
pare τ Some, ¢.g., take it to refer to 
the baptismal formula, “in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost,” or “in the name of Jesus” 
(Chrys.); in which case, however, we 
should expect either καὶ ῥήματος or ἐν τῷ 
ῥήματι. Others give the noun the simple 
sense of “an utterance”’ and take the 
phrase to mean “ attended or conditioned 
by an utterance"; with the explanation 
that the particular utterance in view is “the 
revelation of salvation embodied in the 
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 


20---27. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


369 


© ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας τῷ “λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος "ἐν ῥήματι, 27. tvac=John 


Γπαραστήση αὐτὸς] ἑαυτῷ * ἔνδοξον 


Paul; Jude 1; Rev. xxii. 11. 


art.), Rom. x. 17; Heb. vi. 5, xi. 3; ch. vi. 17; Paul only. 
ix. 41, Xxiii. 33; Rom. vi. 13 al.; Luke and Paul only (see Matt. xxvi. 53). 


1 Cor. iv. 10 only; 1 Kings ix. 6 al. 


d Tit. iii. 5 only; Cant. iv. 2. 


XVii. 17, 
19; Rom. 
xv. 16 al. 
e Ch. iv. το, vi. 2; 6. (without 
f=2 Cor. xi. 2; Luke ii. 22; Actsi. 3, 
g Luke vii. 25, xiii. 17; 


‘ > , δ + 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μὴ ἔχουσαν 


liv. π. αὐτὴν ΕΚ, etc., Vss., Chr., Thdrt.,, al.; avros SABD*FGLP 6, το, 17, 
23}, 67”, etc., It., Vulg., Copt., Goth., Greek-Lat. Fathers. 


Ghost” (Moule). Haupt, again, makes it 
= “by means of a word,” supposing the 
term to be added in order to bring out the 
wonderfulness of the purification as seen 
in the fact that it is effected simply by a 
word, that is to say the word spoken by 
the person who baptises. Hofmann also 
gives it the sense of “ with a word,” 1.6. 
= cleansing it by the utterance of His 
effective will. Others make it=“‘ by the 
bath resting on a word,” viz., the Divine 
command (Storr, ΚΙ., etc.). If we look, 
however, at the use of the word ῥῆμα in 
the NT we find that it is applied to any- 
thing spoken—a sound produced by the 
voice: (2 Cor. xii. 4; Heb. xii. το); /a 
declaration (Matt. xxvi. 75; Mark ix. 32, 
Luke ii. 50, etc.) ; doctrine or instruction 
(Rom. x. 17, if not = command); or a 
saying, whether in the form of a message 
(Rom. x. 8), a command (Luke v. 5), or a 
promise (Luke i. 38, ii. 29). In Paul’s 
Epistles and in Hebrews, it appears to 
be used mostly, if not exclusively, of a 
word proceeding directly or indirectly 
from God (cf. Ell.inloc.). It has indeed 
another sense, that of ‘‘thing,” corre- 


sponding to the Hebr. 9, “ the thing 


spoken of,” ‘the thing enjoined,” etc. 
(ε.ϱ., Matt. xviii. 16; Luke i. 37, ii. 15; 
Acts x. 37; 2 Cor. xiii. 1). This sense is 
claimed for it by some in Rom. i. 8, 13-21. 
But it is scarcely applicable here. Hence 
here it may best be taken to refer either to 
the word of promise, that is the Divine pro- 
mise of forgiveness (Mark xvi. 16), or to 
the preached Gospel. It has alsothe great 
advantage of being in harmony with the 
ῥῆμα Θεοῦ in chap. vi.17. Itis true that 
ῥῆμα is not quite the same as λόγος, but 
carries with it the definite sense of the 
spoken word; and that, consequently, it 
may not be taken to designate the Gospel 
here in the subjective sense of divine truth, 
the Word of God in respect of its spirit- 
ual contents, or as a revelation of grace. 
But it may have the sense of that truth as 
ont, the preached Word or Gospel. 

ith the former sense the clause will de- 
fine the purification as being in accordance 
with or dependent on the Divine promise, 


VOL? LIL 


or having that promise as its ground. 
The latter interpretation (which is pre- 
ferred by Meyer, etc.) is thought to be 
most in harmony with Rom. x. 8, 17; 
Eph. vi. 17; Heb. vi. 5, and it gives a 
good sense however the ἐν is construed. 
The main objection urged against these 
two interpretations is the absence of the 
article, and the fact that where ῥῆμα has 
such a sense it is accompanied by some 
defining term, Θεοῦ (Eph. vi. 17), Χριστοῦ 
(Rom. x. 17) orthe like. To this the only 
reply is that the omission of the article is 
due to the presence of the preposition 
(Middleton, Gr. Artic., vi. 1; cf. Ell. in 
loc.), or that ῥῆμα may have become, like 
γόμος, χάρις, etc., so well-understood and 
constant a term in the sense of ‘the 
spoken word” par excellence, that it 
could dispense with the article (Mey.). 
Thus the import of the whole verse will 
be—‘ that he might set apart and conse- 
crate the Church by cleansing it of guilt 
by baptism in accordance with the Divine 
promise ” (or, ‘‘on the ground of the 
preached word of the Gospel”). The 
clause defines the καθαρισμός as one 
that does not take effect by means of the 
λουτρὸν τοῦ ὕδατος in and by itself, but 
by that only as administered in the power 
or on the ground of the preached Word. 
It is to be observed also that the sanctify- 
ing and the purifying are referred to 
Christ’s giving up of Himself, His death 
being that in virtue of which these things 
take place. 

Ver.27. ἵνα παραστήση αὐτὴν [αὐτὸς] 
ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν : that He 
might Himself present to Himseif the 
Church, glorious. Statement of the re- 
mote, ultimate object with which Christ 
‘‘gave Himself up” to death; as the im- 
mediate object, which has that final pur- 
pose in view, is expressed by the ἁγιάσῃ. 
For αὐτήν of the TR, supported by D*K, 
most cursives, Syr,-P., etc., the reading 
αὐτός is to be substituted on the authority 
of BNSAD*GL, Syr.-Harc., Vulg., etc. 
It is Christ Himself who is to present the 
Church, and itis to Himself He is to pre- 
sent it. He is at once the Agent and the 
End or Object of the presentation, The 


24 


370 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vv. 


h2 Pet. ἢ. " σπίλον ἢ ᾿ ῥυτίδα ἤ τι "τῶν τοιούτων, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ᾗ ἁγία καὶ ' ἄμωμος 


13 only; 

Jos., 

Antt., 3 με χ 

xiii, 11,3. τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. 
i Here 


only; Aristoph., Plut., 1051; Plat., Symp., p. 191 a. 
m=Luke xvii. 10; John xiii. 14 al.; 1 Cor. xi. 10 


1 Ch. i. 4 reff. 


28. οὕτως ™ ὀφείλουσιν οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾷν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς 
ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ ᾿ 


k gers} 32 al. Paul; 3 John 8. 


1 και οἱ ανδρες οφειλονσιν ABDEFG 17, 213, It., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Clem., Jer., 


Aug., Pel. ; 
Method., Chr., Thdrt., al. 


παραστήσῃ is not to be taken here to 
mean the presenting of the Church as an 
offering. It is true that the verb is so used 
in Rom. xii. 1; but the case is different 
here, in respect both of the ruling idea of 
the paragraph and of the introduction 
of ἑαντῷ. It would be incongruous with 
Paul's teaching to speak of Christ as pre- 
senting an offering to Himself. The idea, 
as the context suggests, is that of the 
bridegroom presenting or setting forth the 
bride; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 2. The anarthrous 
ἔνδοξον is a case of tertiary predicate (c/. 
Buttm., Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 473). 
The rendering, therefore, is not ‘‘ present 
a glorious Church,” but “present the 
Church, glorious,” i.¢., in the aspect, or 
character of gloriousness. The presenta- 
tion in view, which is given here as the 
final object of Christ's surrendering of 
Himself to death, and is exhibited (by use 
of the aor.) as a single def. act, cannot be 
anything done in the world that now is (as 
is supposed by Beng., Harl., Hofm., etc.), 
but must be referred (with Aug., Jer., 
Riick., De Wette, Bleek, Mey., Ell., Alf. 
and most) to the future consummation, 
the event of the Parousia.—ph ἔχουσαν 
σπῖλον : not having spot. Explanation 
of what is implied on the negative side 
in the ἔνδοξον. The neg. μή ἰ5 in place, 
as the clause refers to the purpose in the 
mind of Christ. The word σπῖλος = sot, 
moral blemish, takes the place of the Attic 
κηλίς in later Greek writers (Dionys., 
Harl., Plut., Lucian, Joseph., etc.). It 
occurs only once again inthe NT (2 Pet. 
ii. 13). The “+” being short in compo- 
sition (ἄσπῖλος), WH, EIl., Alf., etc., 
accentuate it σπίλος; Lach., Tisch., Lip- 
sius, Mey., etc.,retain σπῖλος.---ἢ putida: 
or wrinkle. The word ῥυτίς occurs only 
this once in the NT, and is not found in 
the Apocrypha or in the LXX, but is not 
infrequent in profane Greek, whether 
classical (Aristoph., Plato, etc.), or late 
(Diod., Plut., Lucian, etc.). Attempts 
have been made (by Aug., Grot., etc.) to 
establish a distinction between σπίλον 
and ῥντίδα here, but without success.— 
ἥ τι τῶν τοιούτων : or any such thing. 


κ. οφ. οι ανδρ. Arm.; ονυτως οφειλονσιν οι ανδρες Μ᾿ ΚΙ,, εἴς., Syr., 


The article gives this the force of any- 
thing belonging to the c/ass of such things 
as deform and defile.—@AX’ ἵνα ἦ ἁγία καὶ 
ἄμωμος: but that it should be holy and 
is see The regular construction 
would have taken some such form as 
ἀλλ᾽ οὖσαν, etc. It is changed here, 
perhaps with a view to bere as if the 
paragraph had begun with ἵνα μὴ ἔχῃ. 
Such oratio variata was common in 
Greek, and there are numerous examples 
of it in the NT generally (¢.g., Mark xii. 
38; John viii. 53; Acts xx. 34, xxii. 17; 
1 Pet. ii. 7), and especially in the Pauline 
writings (Rom. i. 12, iv. 12, xii. 6; 1 Cor. 
vii, 13, xiv. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 23; Phil. ii. 22). 
See Jelf, Greek Gram., § 909; Win.- 
Moult., p. 722; Buttm., Gram. of Ν. Τ. 
Greck, p. 241. On ἄμωμος see under i. 4 
above. 

Ver. 28. οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν [καὶ] of 
ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾷν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας : even 
so (also) ought husbands to love their own 
wives, The reading and the order vary 
somewhat. The ὀφείλουσιν precedes οἱ 
ἄνδρες in most manuscripts, Ν ΚΙ, 17, 
εἰς, ; in others (ADGP, etc.) it follows it. 
Lachm. prefers the latter; TrWHRV the 
former. The TR, supported by KL, 
etc., omits καί; which is inserted, how- 
ever, before οἱ ἄνδρες by BADFG 17, and 
most Versions, etc. It is accepted by 
TrRV, and is bracketed by WH. The 
οὕτως is taken by some (De Wette, etc.) 
to refer to the following ὡς, =" husbands 
ought to love their wives just as they love 
their own bodies”. To this there is no 
serious grammatical objection ; for οὕτως 
does not look always to what pr 
but may refer to what follows (e.g., 1 
Cor. iii. ας, οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός ; 

1 Cor. iv. 1). When this is the case, 
however, whether in classical Greek or 
in the NT, there appears to be a certain 
emphasis on the οὕτως, and its more 
familiar reference is to what precedes. 
Here, too, the καί favours the relation to 
the preceding καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστός, etc, 
The idea, therefore, is that even as Christ 
loved the Church so too ought husbands 
to love their wives.—aés τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώ- 


28—30. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


3/1 


29. οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ' ἐμίσησεν, ἀλλὰ " ἐκτρέφει n Ch. vie 4 
τ ᾿ only ; 
καὶ “ θάλπει αὐτὴν,” καθὼς Kal ὁ χριστὸς ὃ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 30. ὅτι 5 Kings 


fol Αα a ‘ - 
μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν 


xii. 8, 10 
al. 
οἱ Thess. 
ii. 7 only; Deut. xxii. 6. 


1 την εαυτου σαρκα $¥*, Method., Orig., Victorin., etc.; τὴν σάρκα αὐτου Vulg., 


Tert., Ambrst., Jer., etc. 


2 extp. av. κ.θ. DEFG, d, e, f, g, Goth. ; some Vss. repeat αὐτὴν; Method. om.- 


altog. 


80 κνριος D°EKL, etc., Ar.-pol., Slav., Oec. ; ο Χριστος SABD*FGP 17, etc., It., 
Vulg., Syr., Copt., Sah., etc., Greek-Lat. Fathers. 


pata: as their own bodies. This is 
not to be reduced to ‘like themselves” 
(Rosenm., etc.); nor does ὡς here mean 
simply “like,” as if all that is meant is 
that the husband’s love for his wife is to 
be similar to his love for his own body. 
The ὡς has its qualitative force, = ‘as 
it were,” “as being’. Christ and hus- 
band are each head, as Paul has already 
put it, and as the Church is the body in 
relation to the former, so is the wife in 
relation to the latter. The husband, the 
head, therefore, is to love the wife as being 
his body, even as Christ loved the Church 
as forming His body. The idea of hus- 
band and wife as being one jlesh is prob- 
ably also in view. ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
γυναῖκα, ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ: he that loveth 
his own wife loveth himself. ‘The relation 
of head and body means that the wife is 
part of the husband’s se/f. To love his 
wife, therefore, in this character as being 
his body, is to love himself. It is a love, 
consequently, not merely of duty, but of 
nature—Kata φύσιν as well as κατ᾽ ὀφει- 
λήν (ΕἸ1.). 

Ver. 29. οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
σάρκα ἐμίσησεν: for no one ever hated 
his own flesh. The yap gives a reason 
for the preceding statement, looking to 
the thought, however, rather than to the 
form ofthestatement. The thoughtis the 
oneness of husband and wife, the position 
of the wife as part of the husband’s self; 
and the connection is this—‘‘he should 
love her even as Christ loved the Church, 
for the wife, I say, is as the body in that 
natural relationship in which the husband 
is the head, so that in loving her he loves 
himself ; and this is the reason in nature 
why he should love her, for according to 
this to hate his wife is to hate his own 
flesh, which is contrary to nature and a 
thing never seen”. σάρξ has here its 
non-ethical sense, practically τὸ σῶμα (as 
in Matt. xix. 5; Mark x. 8; 1 Cor. vi. 16, 
etc.).— GAN’ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν: 
but nourisheth and cherisheth it. The 


form ἀλλά is preferred again by LTTr 
WHRV. The ἐκ- in the comp. ἐκτρέφει 
may point to the careful, continued 
nourishing from one stage to another, 
nourishing up to maturity. Ell. takes it to 
express ‘‘ the evolution and development 
produced by the τρέφειν ᾿᾿ (so, too, Mey., 
etc.). As θάλπειν means primarily to 
warm, some give it the literal sense here, 
supposing it to leok to the covering and 
protection of the body as ἐκτρέφει looks to 
its nourishment—* fovet” spectat amic- 
tum, says Bengel, ut ‘‘nutrit” victum; and 
so Mey. But the secondary sense seems 
more appropriate here, especially in view 
of the following affirmation regarding 
Christ, and as it isin 1 Thess. ii. 7.---καθὼς 
καὶ ὁ Κύριος [Χριστὸς] τὴν ἐκκλησίαν: 
even as the Lord [Christ] also the Church. 
For the Κύριος of the TR (with D®KL, 
etc.) read with the best critics Χριστός, 
which is given in BXgAD'F, 17, and most 
Versions and Fathers. That is, ‘even as 
Christ also nourisheth and cherisheth the 
Church ”’—a broad statement of Christ’s 
loving care for His Church, into which 
no reference to the Lord’s Supper (which 
is nowhere in view here) as the means by 
which the nourishing is effected can be 
dragged (as, e.g., by Kahnis, etc.). 

Ver. 30. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος 
αὐτοῦ: for we are members of His body. 
The μέλη, which is the heart of the state- 
ment, has the emphatic position. Weare 
not something apart from Christ, nor do 
we occupy only an accidental relation to 
Him, Weare veritable parts of that body 
of which He is head, and this is the rea- 
son why He nourishes and cherishes the 
Church ; cf. the detailed description in 1 
Cor. xii. 12-27.--ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, 
καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ: being of His 
flesh and of His bones. This sentence, 
which is added by the TR, has con- 
siderable documentary testimony—*D 
GLP, most cursives, such Versions as 
the Syr. and the Arm., and such Fathers 
as Iren., Jer., etc. If it is retained, as is 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ ν. 


372 


᾿Ησε ὀστέων αὐτοῦ. 31. " ἀντὶ "τούτου “ καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος πατέρα 
only ; see 


Luke xii. καὶ μητέρα, καὶ "προσκολληθήσεται ὅ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα ὁ αὐτοῦ, 
4 Matt. xix. 5 from Gen. ii. 24; 1 Thess. iii. 1 al. r Acts v. 36. 

lex τ. σ. GUT. κ. ἐκ τ. οστ. αντ. OM. Μ ΑΒ 17, 67°, Copt., Eth., Euth.; insert 
"DEFGLP, also K, but with τον σωµατος for των οστεων, most others, Vulg., 
Syr., Arm., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., al., Jer., al. 

2 rov πατερα SAD°EKLP, etc., Marc., Orig., Euth., Meth., Chr., etc.; πατερα 
without τον BD*FG ; πατερα without αὐτου N*BD*FG 17, 673, 73, 115, Vulg., Syr.- 
P., Arm.,, Orig., etc. ; insert αντον Ν΄ ΑΡ'ΕΚΙ.Ρ, etc., Syr.-Sch., Cop., Eth., Marc., 
Meth., etc. ; την µητερα, with same authorities mostly as for τον watepa ; omit την 
BD*FG. 

5 κολληθησεται ΓΕ, Marc., Epiph. 


4 49 °F i . 
τη γυναικι N*AD*FG 17, 37, 116, It., Vulg., Lat. Fathers, Meth., Epiph. ; π 
τὴν γυναικα $Y°BD*EKL, most cursives, Orig.., Chr., Thdrt.o, al. Sait 


done by Mey., ΕΙῑ., Reiche, Alf., etc., it 
will be an explanation of the affirmation 
that we are μέλη τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, 
drawn from the thought of our origin 
(ἐκ). Weare members of Christ's body, 
as having the source of our spiritual being 
in Him. This statement of our spiritual 
origin is expressed in terms like those used 
ofthe origin of our physical life, the allu- 
sion being probably to the record of the for- 
mation of Eve in Gen. ii. 23. As the first 
woman derived her physical being from 
Adam in the way there recorded, so we 
‘Christians draw our spiritual being from 
Christ. The evidence, however, is de- 
cidedly adverse, the clause not — 
in ΒΜ ΓΑ, 17, 673, Boh., Eth., ethod., 
Euthal., Origen (prob.), etc. The inter- 
nal evidence may be said to be against it, 
in so far, ¢.g., a8 a new figure is suddenly 
introduced, the statement is carried be- 
yond the idea of relationship, and no clear 
or congruous meaning can be readily 
attached to the new terms, flesh and bones. 
Nor is it easy in face of evidence so old 
and so various to suppose that the words 
were mistakenly omitted by homceote- 
leuton. The clause, therefore, is deleted 
from the text by LTTrWHRYV/;; Tr., how- 
ever, giving it a place on the margin. 
Ver. 31. ἀντὶ τούτον καταλείψει ἄν- 
θρωπος [τὸν] πατέρα [αὐτοῦ] καὶ [τὴν] 
μητέρα : for this cause shall a man leave 
this) father and mother. Lachm. and 
Tregelles omit τόν and τήν; which are 
bracketed by WH. The αὐτοῦ is omitted 
by LTTrWHRY, as not supported by 
BN*D*G, 17, Vulg., Arm., etc. It is 
found in ΓΑ ΚΕ, Syr.-P., Boh., etc. 
These words, whether Paul gives them 
professedly as a quotation in a free form, 
or uses them directly, making them his 
own (Mey.), are substantially those which 
in Gen, ii. 24 follow the statement re- 


garding Eve as bone of Adam’s bone 
and flesh of his flesh. ἀντὶ τούτου corre- 
sponds to the ἕνεκεν τούτου of Gen. ii. 
24; ἀντί, the prep. of exchange and succes- 
sion, being used also, like the Hebrew 


wy IW), in the sense of “for that,” 


and occasionally as = “ wherefore "’; cf. 
ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, Luke xii. 3; cf. Blass, Gram. of 
N. T. Greek, p. 125; Win.-Moult., p. 
456. Thus ἀντὶ τούτον may refer either 
to the immediately preceding statement 
regarding our being members of Christ's 
body (so Mey.), or to the leading idea of 
the previous verses, viz., the husband’s 
duty to love, nourish, and cherish the 
wife even as Christ loves, nourishes, and 
cherishesthe Church. Theformer connec- 
tion leads, as in Meyer's case, to an alle- 
gorising interpretation. The latter is to 
be preferred as in harmony with a simpler 
and more natural view of what follows. 
Another turn is given to the phrase, ¢.g., 
by Von Soden, who makes it = “instead 
of this,” supposing the point to be that in 
place of hating, as mentioned in ver. 29, 
the husband ought to love and cleave to 
his wife. But this is far-fetched. The 
καταλείψει, especially in view of its 
application in the OT passage cited or 
used, must be taken here as the ethical 
future, the future expressing what should, 
can, or must be, as, ε.ρ., in Matt. vii. 26; 
Luke xxii. 49; John vi. 68; Rom. x. 14, 
etc.; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 348; Donaldson, 
Greek Gram., p. 407. Meyer insists on 
its being a pure future, and refers it ta 
what is to take place at the Parousia, 
The verse as used here has been strangely 
handled by many commentators, who 
have found secondary, mystical meanin 

in the words. Nota few of the Fathers 
(Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Jerome, etc.) 
interpreted it of the Incarnation ; and later 


31—32. 


, 9 ε οι μον , , 
καὶ ἔσονται ot δύο “eis σάρκα μίαν. 
μέγα ἐστίν, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω “eis χριστὸν καὶ 


Xv. 51 al. Paul; Rev. i. 20 al. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


373 


32. τὸ "μυστήριον τοῦτο 5 Matt. xix. 
reff. 

εἰς 1 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. t=Rom. xi. 

25; 1 Cor. 

u=<Acts ii. 25; Heb. vii. 14 only. 


u 


lomit εἰς BK 4, 51, 72, 73, etc., Iren. (Greek-Lat.), Tert., al. ; insert ¥KADEFGLP, 


Orig, 


al. pler., Vulg., Syr., Orig.o, 
exegetes expounded it as referring in one 
way or other to Christ’s present connec- 
tion with the Church (Grot., Beng., etc.) ; 
some understanding Christ’s separation 
from His nation (Mich.), or from the 
synagogue, to be indicated by the phrase 
“leave His Father,’ and others even ex- 
plaining it of the Lord’s Supper (Harl., 
Olsh.). Alford applies it mystically to 
“that past, present, and future which 
constitutes Christ’s Union to His Bride, 
the Church—His leaving the Father’s 
bosom, which is past—His gradual pre- 
paration of the Union, which is present— 
His full consummation of it, which is 
future”. Even Meyer puts a forced, 
allegorical sense upon it, taking it to be 
used typically of the perfect union which 
takes place between Christ and the Church 
only at His Second Coming, before which 
time He is not Husband, but Bridegroom. 
So the ἄνθρωπος becomes Christ, at the 
Parousia ; the leaving father and mother 
becomes mystically Christ’s leaving His 
seat at the right hand of God; the two 
becoming one flesh is the descending, 
returning Christ making one ethical per- 
son with the Church, etc. But all thisis 
in the highest degree unnatural. When 
Paul allegorises he gives intimation of the 
fact (ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, Gal. iv. 
24), and certainly there is no such allegory 
as this would be anywhere else in the 
Pauline writings. Its incongruities con- 
demn it. What is to be made, e.g., of 
the leaving of the mother, which Jerome, 
e.g., is driven to say means the leaving of 
the heavenly Jerusalem? We take the 
verse, therefore, in its simple and obvious 
sense, as referring to the direct and ruling 
idea of the paragraph, viz., the natural 
marriage relation and the duty of hus- 
bands to wives; and we read it as an 
enforcement of that duty based upon the 
natural identity of the wife with the 
husband, as stated in the narrative of 
Creation and illustrated in its highest 
ideal in the Church’s relation to Christ. 
- καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυ- 
ναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ δύο ἔσονται εἰς 
σάρκα μίαν: and shall cleave unto his 
wife, and the two shall become one 
flesh. ‘Cleave to” represents very 


Meth., Tit., Chr., Thdrt., Hil., etc. 


well the force of the verb προσκολλάω, 
the Sept. representative of (JIT, to glue 


to, stick to. For πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα, the 
reading of TR, with ΒΝΟΡΚΙ,, Orig., 
etc., τῇ γυναικί is given in ΝΑΡ, 
etc., and is preferred by LTTr, while 
WH place it in the margin. The αὐτοῦ 
is omitted by T with ἐδ], etc. For προσ- 
κολληθήσεται there is also the variant 
κολληθήσεται in $Q°D'F, etc. 

Ver. 32. TO μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα 
ἐστίν : this mystery is great. Not “ this 
is a great mystery,” as it is rendered by 
the AV and Rhem. ; nor “this is a great 
secret,” Tynd., Cran., gen. The term 
μυστήριον (on which see under i. 9 above) 
cannot mean allegory or dark-saying, but 
must have its usual sense of something 
once hidden and now revealed, a secret 
disclosed. It cannot refer, therefore, as 
Mey. makes it do, to the quotation from 
Gen. ii. 24 as a passage with a hidden 
typical or mystical meaning, one deep 
(μέγα) and difficult to reach. Nor can it 
well refer to the spiritual union of Christ 
and the Church by itself (Beng.), or to 
the comparison between the union of 
husband and wife and that of Christ and 
the Church (Est.), as the ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω 
would then lose its point. It is simplest 
to take it as referring to Christian truth 
touching the relation between husband 
and wife as set forth in these verses. 
That truth is described by μέγα as great, 
i.¢., in the sense of grandeur and impor- 
tance. The Vulg.rendering sacramentum 
(followed by Wicl. and the Rhem.) has 
induced many Roman Catholic theolo- 
gians to found on this as a passage pre- 
senting marriage in the character of a 
sacrament —a perverted interpretation 
which was disavowed indeed by distin- 
guished scholars like Cajetan and Estius 
in the Roman Catholic Church itself. It 
may be added that Alford understands by 
the μυστήριον ‘the matter mystically 
alluded to in the Apostle’s application of 
the text just quoted; the mystery of the 
spiritual union of Christ with our human- 
ity, typified by the close conjunction of the 
marriage state”. And Von Soden, taking 
the τοῦτο, as in 1 Cor, xv. 51, to refer to 


in Paul; 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


V. 33 


. "πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς “ot καθ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα 


τ Cor. xi. " οὕτως ἀγαπάτω * ὡς ἑαυτόν," ἡ δὲ γυνὴ 7 ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα. 
al. 
= in Matt. and Luke (Gosp.), (vi. 24 al.), in Mark (xii. 32), John (viii. 10, but ?), and Acts viii. 1 al., 


with gen. “except”. 


x 1 Cor. iii. 15 reff. y Constr., Mark v. 23. 


1εκαστον FG 13, ΡΕ. 


what follows, supposes the sense to be 
“this secret, that is, what I am about to 
say as the secret sense of this sentence, 
is great”. Hatch, again, who regards 
μυστήριον as closely related in sense to 
τύπος, σύμβολον and παραβολή and in- 
terchangeable with them, gives μυστήριον 
the sense of “ symbol” (which he thinks 
is its meaning also in Rev. i. 20, xvii. 7), 
and renders it ‘‘ this symbol (sc. of the 
joining of husband and wife into, one 
flesh) is a great one” (Essays in Biblical 
Greek, p. 61).—ty& δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστόν, 
καὶ [εἰς] τὴν ἐκκλησίαν: but I speak with 
reference to Christ and the Church. The 
second els is omitted by LWH, as not 
found in BK, Iren., Tert., etc.; it is 
inserted, however, in NADFL, Orig., 
Meth., Theodor., Cypr., Hil., etc. The 
formula λέγω δέ is used in various Pauline 
passages where an explanation of some- 
thing previously said is in view (¢.g., 1 
Cor. i. 12; Gal. iii. 17, iv. 1, v. 16; οἵ, 
τοῦτο δέ φημι, τ Cor. vii. 29, xv. 50). 
Here too, the sense is not “I interpret 
it,” but simply “I say it,” “I mean it™. 
The δέ has here its disjunctive force, 
introducing an explanation and separa- 
ting it from the thing explained (Thayer- 
Grimm, Greck-Engl. Lex. of Ν. T., p. 
125). The els is the prep. of ethical 
direction, indicating that towards which 
the mind is looking (Thayer-Grimm, ut 
sup., p. 184; and cf. Acts ii. 25), Ξ- " with 
reference to Christ,” not “of Christ,” far 
less “in Christ” as the Vulg. unhappily 
renders it. The emphatic position of the 
ἐγώ gives it to be understood that what 
immediately follows is the writer’s own 
way of putting the matter just stated, or 
his own application of the words of Scrip- 
ture. The sense, therefore, is this—“ the 
truth of which I have spoken, the relation 
of husband and wife as one flesh, is a 
revelation of profound importance; but 
let me explain that, in speaking of it as 
I have done, my meaning is to direct 
your minds to that higher relation be- 
tween Christ and His Church, in its 
likeness to which lies its deepest sig- 
nificance. 

Ver. 33. πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα: 
nevertheless ye also severally. πλήν, con- 


w Acts xxi. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 31; = Mark xiv. 19; John viii. 9. 


2 ws εαν. αγαπ. DEFG (αγαπα D). 


nected probably with πλέον and meaning 
primarily further, besides, is used both for 
unfolding (= moreover) ; and for restric- 
ting (= how beit, nevertheless ; cf. Thayer- 
Grimm, ut sup., p. 517; Donaldson, Greek 
Gram., § 548). Here probably it has the 
latter application, = ‘‘ nevertheless, not to 
say more of that higher union, see that 
ye, all of you, fulfil the obligation of love 
to your wives”. The distributive phrase 
οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, “γε one by one,” individ- 
ualises the ὑμεῖς, and excludes all excep- 
tions. The καί conjoins the ὑμεῖς with 
Christ, = “ἴῃ you also, as in Christ, love 
is to be fulfilled". ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν: {εί 
each one of you love his own wife as him- 
self. The sentence, which has begun with 
the plural ὑμεῖς, when it reaches its verb 
follows the nearest ἕκαστος, and gives 
ἀγαπάτω instead of ἀγαπᾶτε. The on 
τος expresses still more emphatically the 
absoluteness and universality of the Chris- 
tian duty of conjugal love—a duty from 
which no single husband is exempt. As 
in ver, 28 the ὡς means not merely that 
each husband is to love his wife as. he 
loves himself, but that he is to love her 
as being himself, part and parcel of him- 
self according to the Divine idea of the 
marriage union.— δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται 
τὸν ἄνδρα: and the wif, -let her see that 
she fear her husband. ἡ γννή is a nom. 
absol, of a simple kind and emphatic; the 
δέ is metabatic and slightly adversative; 
=*‘*so much has been said of the husband, 
and as to the wife now, reverence is her 
part’. The change in the construction 
rer’ the usual imperative to the form tva 
φοβῆται is explained by some by supply- 
ing βλεπέτω, as βλέπετε stands in as. 
But ἵνα with the conj. is used elsewhere 
in the NT (Mark v. 23; 2 Cor. a as 
an imperative formula, originally no doubt 
an elliptical form for I bid you that you 
do,” or “ see you that youdo”. It occurs 
also in later Greek prose (e¢.g., Arrian, 
Epict., iv., 1, 41), a8 the corresponding 
formula ὅπως is used in the same way 
in classical Greek with the fut. indic. 
(Aristoph., Nubes, 823), and more occa- 
sionally with the conj. (Xen., Cyr., i., 3, 
18). So in Latin, ibi ut sint om 


Vik τ---α, 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOY= 


375 


VI. τ. τὰ τέκνα, "ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν Ὁ ἐν κυρίῳ 1 :α Matt. viii. 
, 


Ἂ 27 αἱ. 
τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον. 2. “Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα,’ υ Ch. iv. 17 
ren. 


c Exod. xx. 12. 


1 Omit εν κυριω BD*FG, d, e,f, g, Clem., Tert., Cypr.; insert ΝΑΡ’΄ΕΚΙΡΕ, all 
cursives (appy.), most Versions, Orig., Bas., Chr., Euth., Thdrt., Dam., Ambrst., Jer. 
? After τὴν p. insert gov Βα 37, 47, 115, 219, 238, etc., Syr., Copt., Eth., Orig., etc. 


parata, Cic., Fam., xiv., 20 (cf. Donald- 
son, Greek Gram., p. 602 ; Win.-Moult., 
Ρ. 396). φοβῆται, fear, in the sense of 
reverence, spontaneous, obedient regard; 
cf. the frequent application of the verb to 
the fear of God (Luke i. 50, xviii. 2, 4; 
Acts x. 2, 22, 35, etc.) ; and its use in the 
case of Herod (Mark vi. 20). 

CHAPTER VI. Vv. 1-4. Other relative 
duties—those of parents and children, 
With this the concise paragraph in Col. 
ili. 20, 21 is specially to be compared. 

Ver. I. Ta τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς 
γονεῦσιν [ἐν Κυρίῳ]: children obey your 
parents in the Lord. ‘The duty of the 
wife has been described by the terms 
subjection or submission (ὑποτάσσεσθαι) 
and fear (φοβεῖσθαι). The duty of the 
child is now described in terms of obe- 
dience (ὑπακούειν, =readiness to hearken 
to one) and honour (τιμᾶν, ver. 2). In 
these words the whole distinctive duty of 
the child is summed up, in the Old Testa- 
ment as well asin the New. The “eye 
that mocketh at his father, and despiseth 
to obey his mother, the ravens of the 
valley shall pick it out, and the young 
eagles shall eat it” (Prov. xxx. 17). Dis- 
obedience to parents is named among the 
dark sins of the heathen of reprobate mind 
(Rom. i. 30), and the evils of the ‘ griev- 
ous times” in “the last days” (2 Tim. 
iii. 2). The ἐν Κυρίῳ, τεῖπ Christ, is best 
connected with the ὑπακούετε, not with 
the γονεῦσιν. It defines the quality of 
the obedience by defining the sphere 
within which it is to move—a Christian 
obedience fulfilled in communion with 
Christ. This phrase ἐν Κυρίῳ, however, 
is of disputable authority. It is inserted 
by the TR, supported by SAD?°KLP, 
Vulg., Syr., etc.; but is omitted by BD* 
FG, Cyr., Cypr., etc. It is deleted by 
Lachm., bracketed by TrWH, and re- 
tained by RV.—rotto γάρ ἐστι δίκαιον : 
for this is right. δίκαιον = right, not in 
the sense of befitting (πρέπον) merely, 
mut 7. Col. tv. Ὁ ΕΙ. τς ο 1v.iS3 2 
Thess. i. 6) in that of righteous, what is 
required by Jaw—the law that is at once 
founded on the natural relation of τέκνα 
and yovets and proclaimed in the Divine 
Commandment (ver. 2). 


Ver. 2. τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν 
μητέρα: honour thy father and mother. 
Obedience is the duty ; honour is the dis- 
position of which the obedience is born. 
The authoritative terms of the OT Law 
(Exod. xx. 12; Deut. v. 16), given in the 
exact words of the LXX, are adopted in 
order to enforce regard for that disposi- 
tion.— itis ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγ- 
γελίᾳ: which is the first commandment in 
point of promise. ἥτις may have here a 
simply explanatory force (so ΕΙΙ., who 
renders it ‘‘the which’”’; Abb., ‘‘ for such 
is”) rather than the qualitative sense, or 
the casual, ‘‘seeing it 15’. But even its 
explanatory use suggests a reason for the 
fulfilment of the commandment. The 
prep. ἐν is understood by some (e.g., Alf.) 
to be the local év, expressing the sphere 
of the commandment, and so conveying 
the idea of being “accompanied by”. 
But more probably it expresses the simple 
sense of relation, ‘‘ in regard of,” “ in 
point of” (Mey., Ell.; cf. Win.-Moult., 
p- 488). πρώτη, like other ordinals, 
being specific enough in itself, dispenses 
with the article. But what is meant by 
this definition of the fifth command- 
ment as the first in point of promise ? 
The second commandment also has a 
kind of promise. But if that command- 
ment is discounted because its promise is 
general, not peculiar to itself, but appli- 
cable to all, and if the fifth alone has 
attached to it a promise relevant to itself, 
why is it called the “ first’ and not rather 
the “only”? commandment in point of 
promise ? Some meet the difficulty by 
supposing it to mean the first in the 
second table (Mich., etc.). But in the 
second table it would still be not only 
the first but the only one of the kind ; and 
if the Jewish division of the Decalogue, 
which assigned jive commandments to 
each of the two tables, reaches thus far 
back, it would not be even in the second 
table. Nor can πρώτη be taken in the 
sense Of first in importance ; for it is never 
described as such (cf. per contra Matt. 
xxii. 38; Rom. xiii. 9, 10; Gal. ν. 14). 
The most probable explanation is that 
Paul has not the Decalogue alone in view, 
but the whole series of Divine Command- 


376 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


νι.) 


΄ 


d=ch. v.26 ἥτις ἐστὶν 1 ἐντολὴ πρώτη "ἐν ἐπαγγελία,” 3. ἵνα " εὖ σοι " γένηται 


εἴ Here 


καὶ ἔσῃ ‘ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 


4. καὶ οἱ πατέρες, μὴ © πα- 


gRom.x. βοργίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ" ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν ' παιδείᾳ καὶ 


only. ᾿ 

19 only, 

from ο νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου.” 
Deut. 


xxxii. 21; see Col. iii. 21; ch. iv. 26. 


Wisd., xvi. 6. 


1 Omit εστιν B 46, Eth. 


h Ch. v. 29 
Heb. xii. 5, 7, 8, 11 only; Prov. i. 2, 7 (Ps. vi. 1; Isa. lili. 5). 


reff.; Prov. xxiii. 24. i 2 Tim. iii. 16; 
kx Cor, x. 11; Tit. iii. το only; 


3 Before επαγΥγ. insert τη DEFG 2, 73, 115, many Fathers, 


® For κνρ., Χριστον 17. 


ments, Mosaic and later (Mey., etc.). 
Westcott and Hort notice another 
sible pointing, viz., πρώτη, ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ, 
=‘'the which is the first commandment, 
with the promise that,” etc. But this 
still leaves it unexplained why this com- 
mandment is called the first. The whole 
sentence is dealt with as a parenthesis by 
the RV. But this is to miss the real point 
of the statement, which is to advance 
from the duty of obedience (ὑπακούετε) 
enforced by its relation to the require- 
ment of law (the δίκαιον), to the higher 
idea of filial honour as inculcated in the 
highest summary of Divine Law, the Dec- 
alogue. The ἥτις clause, therefore, is an 
integral part of the statement, and instead 
of being a remark by the way conveys an 
advance in the thought. 

Ver. 3. ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ 
μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς: that it may 
be well with thee, .- mayest live 
long on the land, The quotation of the 
commandment is continued according to 
the LXX, but with some variations, vis., 
ἔσῃ for γένῃ, and the omission of τῆς 
ἀγαθῆς ἧς (Exod. xx. 12, or ἧς alone as 
in Deut. v. 16) Κύριος ὁ Θεός σον δίδωσί 
σοι. This clause is omitted perhaps as 
less suitable to those addressed (Abb.); or 
it may be with a view to generalise the 
statement and relieve it of all restrictions 
but those which necessarily condition the 
promises of temporal blessings (ΕΙΙ.). 
Meyer strangely supposes that the quota- 
tion is left unfinished simply because the 
readers could easily complete it for them- 
selves. In that case it might have been 
even shorter. The first clause promises 
temporal good generally ; the second the 
particular blessing, so associated in the 
OT with the idea of the Divine favour, 
of length of days. The ἔσῃ is explained 
by not a few (Erasm., De Wette, Win., 
etc. ; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 361) as a case 
of oratio variata, a transition from the 
ἵνα construction to direct narrative, = 
“and thou shalt be,” as the RV margin 


puts it. But there is no necessity for 
supposing such a change in the construc- 
tion, as tva with the tut. indic., though 
strange to Attic Greek (which yet uses 
ὅπως with that tense and mood), is found 
in the NT (1 Cor. ix. 18; Rev. xxii. 14). 
In Attic Greek the idea would have been 
expressed not by εὖ γενέσθαι, but by εὖ 
πάσχειν, εὖ πράττειν or similar form 
(Mey.). In the OT original, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
refers of course to the land of Canaan. 
Meyer thinks it must retain its historical 
sense here. But that, in its literal com- 
pleteness, would be something inappli- 
cable to Paul’s Christian readers, The 
fact that the quotation is broken off at 
this point, and that the more restricted, 
national terms of the OT promise are 
omitted, might warrant us in giving the 
phrase the larger sense of “on the earth” 
(with RV text). But it is best to take 
the phrase as far as possible in its his- 
torical sense, and translate it “on the 
land” (RV marg.), #.¢., the land on which 
your Christian lot is cast. 

Ver. 4. καὶ οἱ πατέρες, μὴ παροργί- 
tere τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν: and, ye fathers, 
provoke not your children to wrath, 
The καί continues the statement of this 
second of the relative or domestic duties, 
presenting now the other side. The duty 
is one not only of children to parents, but 
also of parents to children. The parental 
duty is set forth in terms of the father's 
obligation without particular mention of 
the mother’s, not because children of 
maturer age are in view (Olsh.), but 
simply because the father is the ruler in 
the house, as the husband is the head of 
the wife; the mother’s rule and responsi- 
bility being subordinate to his and repre- 
sented by his. The parental duty is given 
first negatively, as avoidance of all calcu- 
lated to irritate or exasperate the children 
—injustice, severity and the like, so as to 
make them indisposed to filial obedience 
andhonour. παροργίζειν, a strong verb, 
found again in Rom. κ. 19, with which 


3ο. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


377 


5. Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις] | κατὰ σάρκα ™ μετὰ I (Acts ii, 


“φόβου καὶ "τρόμου, ἐν “ ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας” ὑμῶν, ὡς τῷ 


Paul only; Ξε σαρκί or ἐν σ., 1 Pet. iii. 18 al. 
Phil. ii. 12 only. 


m=ch. iv, 2 reff. 
ο Col. iii. 22 al. Paul only; 1 Chron. xxix, 17. 


30); Rom, 
15 ἂν. α, 
1χ απ, 

Ὧ1 Cor. ii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 15; 


Ἰ τοις κυριοις κατα σαρκα DEFGKL, al. pler., Chr., Thdrt., Oec., etc. ; τοις κατ. 
σαρ. κυρ. NABP 17, 31, 37, 39, 47, 57, 73, al.g, Clem., Chr.;, Dam., Thl. 
2 ens καρδιας ABDEFGKL, etc., Clem., Chr., Thdrt., Dam.; omit της δν 3, 48, 


077,72) 11d, 115, 122; Orig., Bas.,,ete. 


cf. μὴ ἐρεθίζετε in Col. iii. 21.---ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ- 
τρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ Kal νουθεσίᾳ 
Κυρίου: but nurture them in the disci- 
pline and admonition of the Lord. For 
ἀλλ᾽ TTrWHRV prefer ἀλλά as before. 
We have now the statement of parental 
duty on the positive side. ἐκτρέφειν has 
here obviously the sense of bringing up 
(cf. Prov. xxiii. 24), not that of nourishing 
as in v. 29 above. ἐν 15 not instrumental 
here but local, denoting the ethical sphere 
or element in which the παιδεία and the 
νουθεσία take place. παιδεία in classical 
Greek means education, the whole instruc- 
tion and training of youth, including the 
training of the body. In the NT as also 
in the OT and the Apocrypha παιδεία 
and its verb παιδεύειν mean education per 
molestias (Aug., Enarr., in Ps. cxix. 66), 
discipline, instruction by correction or 
chastening (Luke xxiii. 16; Heb. xii. 
Be ᾖ, 5: Ῥεν. πὶ. Ὁ;» εἰ, Ley. πα, 16), 
ΕΛ τ’ isd, Πα 5 SCClus. ἵν. τη 
xxii. 6; 2 Macc. vi. 12). ΟΕ the general 
Greek sense there is but one instance in 
the case of the verb in the NT (Acts vii. 
22); and as regards the noun the passage 
in 2 Tim. iii. 16 suits the idea of disci- 
plinary instruction. There is no reason, 
therefore, for departing from the usual 
biblical sense of the word here, or for 
giving it the wide sense of a/l that makes 
the education of children. The term vov- 
θεσία, not entirely strange to classical 
Greek (e.g., Aristoph., Ranae, toog), but 
current rather in later Greek (Philo, 
Joseph., etc.) in place of the earlier form 
νουθέτησις (νουθετία also appearing to 
occur occasionally), means admonition, 
training by word, and in actual use, 
mostly, though not necessarily, by word 
of reproof, remonstrance or blame (cf. 
Trench, NT Syn., pp. 104-108). The 
Vulg. translates very well, ‘‘in disciplina et 
correptione”. The distinction, therefore, 
between the two terms is not that between 
the general and the special (Mey.), but 
rather that between training by act and 
discipline and training by word (Ell.). The 
Κυρίου is taken by some as the gen. obj., = 
“about Christ’ (so the Greek commenta- 


tors generally); by others as = ‘“‘accord- 
ing to the doctrine of Christ’? (Erasm., 
Est., etc.), or as=‘‘ worthy of the Lord”’ 
(Matthies). But it is best understood 
either as the possess. gen. or as the gen. 
of origin, = ‘‘the Lord’s discipline and 
admonition,” 1.6., Christian training, the 
training that is of Christ, proceeding from 
Him and prescribed by Him. 

Vv. 5-9. Other relative duties—those 
of masters and servants. With this com- 
pare the paragraph in the sister Epistle, 
Col. iii. 22-iv. 1, and the statement in 
1 Peter ii, 18-25. 

Ver. 5. ot δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς 
κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα: servants obey them 
who according to the flesh are your 
masters. As in the case of the two re- 
lations already dealt with, so here the 
statement begins with the dependent 
member, the servant, who in these times 
was a bond-servant. Many questions 
would inevitably arise with regard to 
the duties of masters and servants in a 
state of society in which slavery pre- 
vailed and had the sanction of ancient 
and undisputed use. Especially would 
this be the case when Christian slaves (of 
whom there were many) had a heathen 
master, and when the Christian master 
had heathen slaves. Hence the con- 
siderable place given in the NT to this 
relation and the application of Christian 
principles to it (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 21, 22; 
r Lim, νι. το” Lit; 11.9, το». and Phile- 
mon, in addition to Col. iii. 22, iv. 1 and 
1 Pet. ii. 18-25). Here, as elsewhere in 
the NT, slavery is accepted as an existing 
institution, which is neither formally con- 
demned nor formally approved. There 
is nothing to prompt revolutionary ac- 
tion, or to encourage repudiation of the 
position. Onesimus, the Christian con- 
vert, is sent back by Paul to his master, 
and the institution is left to be under- 
mined and removed by the gradual oper- 
ation of the great Christian principles of 
the equality of men in the sight of God, 
a common Christian brotherhood, the 
spiritual freedom of the Christian man, 
and the Lordship of Christ to which every 


378 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vi. 


p Col. iii. αχριστῷ,] 6. μὴ κατ᾽ " ὀφθαλμοδουλείαν 2 ὡς “ ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ᾽ 
ο 


nly. ἃ . 
q Οοἵ. iii. 225 δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ,» 


only; Ps. 
lii. 5. τ Col. iii. 23 only. 


ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, 7. ἐκ "ψυχῆς 


1For Χριστω, κνριω AL 17, 39, 47, Vulg.-ms., Copt., Chr.,. 
3 οφθαλμοδουλιαν §§ DEFGLP 37, 120, 121, etc. ; ὀφθαλμοδουλειαν ABK and most. 
ὅτου Χρ. D°EKL, etc., Chr., Thdrt.; om. τον RABDFGP, al. plu., Bas., Euth., 


etc, 


other lordship is subordinate. See espe- 
cially Goldwin Smith’s Does the Bible 
Sanction American Slavery ὃ; Kostlin’s 
Christliche Ethik, pp. 318, 480, etc. ; 
Mangold’s Humanitat und Christenthum ; 
Lightfoot’s Colossians and Philemon, pp. 
319-329. ὑπακούετε, as in the case of 
children so in that of slaves obedience is 
the comprehensive name for duty, and 
this as a duty lying within the larger prin- 
ciple of the recognition and honour due 
to constituted authority (Rom. xiii. 1-7; 
1 Pet. ii. 13-17). For τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ 
σάρκα (TR, with DFKL, etc.), the better 
order is τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις (LT Tr 
VHRY, with ΒΜΑΡ, etc.), =“ those who 
according to the flesh are your masters” 
(RV), not “ your masters according to the 
flesh” (AV). In the Pastoral Epistles 
and 1 Peter the slave's master is called 
δεσπότης. The word κύριος, limited by 
the κατὰ σάρκα to the designation of 
a lordship which holds only for material 
interests and earthly relations, may per- 
haps have been selected here with a view 
to the contrast with the Κύριος whose 
lordship is absolute, inclusive alike of mas- 
ter and of slave, of earthly and of heav- 
enly relations.—pera φόβου καὶ τρόμου : 
with fear and trembling. The use of the 
same phrase with regard to Paul himself 
(1 Cor. ii. 3), the Corinthians (2 Cor. vii. 
15), and the Philippians (Phil. ii. 12), is 
enough to show that nothing more is in 
view here than solicitous zeal in the dis- 
charge of duty, anxious care not to come 
short.—év ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν: 
in singleness of your heart. A clause 
qualifying the obedience itself; not the 
‘fear and trembling,” in which case we 
should have expected τοῦ ἐν ἁπλότητι, 
etc. It states the spirit in which the 
obedience was to be rendered,—not in for- 
mality, pretence, or hypocrisy, but in 
inward reality and sincerity, and with an 
undivided heart. The noun ἁπλότης = 
the condition of being without folds, sim- 
plicity, as contrasted with pretence, dis- 
simulation, insincerity, in the NT is 
found only in the Pauline writings, and 
there seven times, with slightly different 


shades of meaning (Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. 
viii. 2, ix. 11, 13, xi. 3; Eph. vi. 5 ; Col. 
iii, 22; in 2 Cor. i. 12 the preferable 
reading is ἐν ἁγιότητι). The phrase ἐν 
ἁπλότητι occurs again in the a and the 
last of these passages.—a@s τῷ Χριστῷ: 
as to Christ. That is, with on cbse 
regarded as rendered to Christ Himself; 
cf. ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ in v. 22, and see also 
Rom. xiv. 7-9. 

Ver. 6. μὴ κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοδουλείαν : not 
in the way of eye-service. TWH prefer 
the form ὀφθαλμοδουλίαν. Negative ex- 
planation of what ἁπλότης τῆς καρδίας 
means. κατά points to the principle or 
rule of action. The noun occurs only 
here and in Col. iii. 22; but ὀφθαλμό- 
δουλος is found also in the Constit. Apost., 
iv. 12. It is the service that is done only 
when one is under the master’s eye—an 
obedience to save appearances and gain 
undeserved favour, which is not rendered 
when the master is absent as it is when 
his scrutiny is on us.—ds ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι: 
as men-pleasers. ἀνθρωπάρεσκος is an- 
other non-classical word, occurring only 
in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek, and in 
the NT limited to this passage and Col. 
iii. 22; cf. Ps. ΗΠ, 6, ὀστᾶ ἀνθρωπαρέσ- 
κων in LXX, and Ps. Salom., iv., 8, 10.— 
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς δοῦλοι [τοῦ] Χριστοῦ: but as 
bond-servants of Christ. τοῦ is found in 
D*KL, etc., but not in BRQSAD*F, etc., 
and is omitted by LTTrWH. The con- 
trast is with ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, servants of 
Christ, not pleasers of men. The δοῦλοι 
Χριστοῦ, therefore, is a clause by itself, 
only explained by what follows. Some, 
mistaking this, make it one sentence with 
ποιοῦντες, etc.; in which case it loses 
its force, and the emphasis is on the 
ποιοῦντες.-- ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς: doing the will of God 
from the heart. Statement of what is 
appropriate to the ‘ bond-servants of 
Christ”. It belongs to the chafacter (ὡς) 
of the bond-servant of Christ to do the 
will of God, the God and Father of Christ, 
in his condition in life, and to do that 
not grudgingly or formally, but ex animo, 
with hearty readiness—éx ψυχῆς; lit, 


6—8. 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOYS 


379 


ar ’ 
μετ᾽ "εὐνοίας δουλεύοντες ὡς τῷ Kupiw! καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις 2- 8.81 Cor. vii. 


a 3 


εἰδότες ὅτι 


ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος ὃ ποιήσῃ ἀγαθὸν, τοῦτο ‘ κομίσεται 4 


only; 
1 Macc, 


ΧΙ. 53. 
t=2 Cor. ν. 10; Col. iii. 25 al. 


1 Omit ws before τω κυριω D®EKL, al. plu., Thdrt., Dam., etc. ; insert ως SAB 
D*FGP, d, e, f, g, m, Vulg., Syr., Bas., Chr., etc. 


Ῥανθρωπω B, Eth., Dara. 


ϑέκαστος after οτι ABDEFGP, etc., d, 6, f, g, τῇ, Vulg., Copt., Arm., Petr., Bas., 
Euth., Dam., etc.; εκαστος before ποιηση KL, al. longe plu., Syr., Chr., Thdrt., 
Dam., Theophyl., Oec. ; εκαστος after ποιηση Ν ἡ, Syr.-P.; εαν τι ποιηση BL, ἆ, 
e, 46, 62, 115, 129, Petr., etc. ; ειδοτες οτι (prob. ο τι) εαν ποιηση 34" ; o cav ποιη 
SP°ADEFGP 3, 17, 31, εἴς. ; ο εαν τι εκαστος ποιηση L**, al. plu., Chr.!8°, Thdrt., 


Dam. 


ἁκομισεται N*ABD*FGP (-ισηται), Petr. ; κομιειται S*D°EKL, Bas., Euth., 


Thdrt., Dam. 


‘from the soul,” cf. ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς 
σου “with all thy soul,” Mark xii. 30. 
The ἐκ Ψυχῆς is attached by not a few 
σα Chrys.,, Jer... Beng., Earl, De 
Wette, Alf., Abb., WH) to the following 
clause. Tregelles, again, would attach 
both ἐκ ψυχῆς and μετ᾽ εὐνοίας to the 
ποιοῦντες TO θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. But on 
the whole the simplest and most congru- 
ous connection is as it is given both in 
the AV andthe RV. The addition of ἐκ 
ψυχῆς to the ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ 
Θεοῦ is not superfluous ; for to be true to 
the character of the bond-servant of Christ 
requires not merely the doing of God’s 
will, but the doing of that will ex animo. 
But such definition is enough, and there 
is no need of the further description μετ᾽ 
εὐνοίας. On the other hand the μετ 
εὐνοίας is as pertinent as an explanation 
of the δουλεύοντες as ἐκ ψυχῆς is as an 
explanation of the ποιοῦντες. 

Ver. 7. μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δουλεύοντες [ὡς] 
τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις : with good 
will doing service [as] to the Lord and not 
to men. Further explanation of what is 
meant by the bond-service of Christ, vzz., 
a service rendered with good will and as 
aservice to the Lord Himself, not to men. 
per’ εὐνοίας means not simply with readi- 
ness, but with the disposition that wishes 
one well. In the NT the noun occurs 
only here ; in 1 Cor. vii. 3 the accredited 
reading is not εὐνοίαν but ὀφειλήν. The 
TR omits ὡς before τῷ Κυρίῳ (with D’KL, 
etc.). Itis given, however, by ΒΑ " 
GP, Vulg., Syr., etc., and is rightly in- 
serted by LTTrWHRV. It got a place 
in Beza’s edition of 1598. 

Ver. 8. εἰδότες ὅτι ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος 
ποιήσῃ ἄγαθόν : knowing that whatsoever 
good thing each shall have done. Or, 
according to the text of T and WH = 
* knowing that each, if he shall have done 


any good thing”. Participal clause sub- 
joining a reason or encouragement for a 
service rendered in sincerity, with hearty 
good-will, and as to the Lord Himself. 
The encouragement lies in their Christian 
knowledge of the Lord’s reward. εἰδότες, 
not = ‘who know” as if οἱ εἰδότες, but 
“seeing ye know,” ‘knowing as ye do”’. 
ΤΠεποιήσῃ, as followed by the κομίσεται, 
is best rendered “ shall have done’”’. 
The readings vary greatly. Passing over 
minor diversities, ο.5., εἰδόντες for εἰδό- 
τες, ἐάν Tis ἕκαστος, ὃ ἕκαστος ποιήσῃ 
with omission of ἐάν τι, etc., we find 
exceptional uncertainty in the text of the 
ἐὰν clause. The TR reads ὅτι ὃ ἐάν τι 
ἕκαστος, which is given in L? and most 
cursives. In that case ἐὰν is the potential 
ἄν, the 8 and the τι being separated by 
tmesis (cf. ἣν ἄν τινα καταβλάψῃ, Plato, 
Laws, ix., 864 Ε), and the sense being = 
‘‘ whatsoever each,” etc. But in acon- 
siderable number of Manuscripts and 
Versions (ADGP, 17, 37, Vulg., Arm., 
etc.) we find ὅτι ἕκαστος ὃ ἂν (or ἐὰν) 
ποιήσῃ»; in ΑΝ”, ὅτι (probably ὅ τι) ἐὰν 
ποιήσῃ» while 95 inserts ὅ before ἐάν ; 
in L*, and one or two cursives (46, 62, 
115, 129), ὅτι ἐάν τι ἕκαστος ; and in B 
ἃ, e, Petr, alex. can. 6, ὅτι ἕκαστος ἐάν τι 
ποιήσῃ. This last reading is preferred 
by Tisch., ed. viii.th, Alf., WH, and is 
placed in the margin by Lach. In this 
éav is the conditional particle and the 
sense is = ‘‘ knowing as ye do that each, 
if he shall have done any good thing”’, 
The Manuscripts constantly vary between 
ἄν and ἐάν. In classical Greek the con- 
ditional ἐάν, if, took also the contracted 
form ἄν, especially in Thucydides and 
Plato, and this possibly is the explanation 
of the biblical use of ἐὰν as=the potential 
ἄν. In any case the use of ἐὰν, attached 
to relative pronouns and adverbs, ὁ ἐάν, 


380 


u Acts xvi, παρὰ κυρίου.] εἴτε δοῦλος εἴτε ἐλεύθερος. 


26, xxvii. 


ΠΡΟΣ E®ESIOYS χ 


VI. 


9. καὶ οἱ κύριοι, τὰ αὐτὰ 


40; Heb. ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτοὺς, " ἀνιέντες τὴν " ἀπειλήν, εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ αὐτῶν 


xiii. 
only; Deut. xxxi. 6. 


v Acts iv. 17, 29, ix. 1 only; Job xxiii. 6 


1τον κυρ.» with KL, etc., Fathers; κνριον NABDEFGP, Petr., Euth., Dam., etc. 


ὅπου ἐάν, οὗ ἐάν, ὁσάκις ἐάν, etc., with 
the potential force, appears to occur 
(making all due allowance for uncertain- 
ties in the texts) with some frequency 
both in the LXX and in the NT, and 
it is found in the papyri; cf. Thayer- 
Grimm, Lex., p. 168; Buttm., Gram. of 
N. T. Greek, p. 72; Blass, Gram. of N. 
T. Greck, pp. 60, 61, 216.---τοῦτο κομιεῖ- 
ται [κομίσεται] παρὰ [τοῦ] Kuplov: this 
shall he receiveagain from the Lord. The 
κομιεῖται of the TR 15 supported by δα Ὁ 
KL, Bas., Chr., Theodor., etc.; P gives 
κομίσηται. The best reading is κομί- 
σεται, which is that of BYy*AD*G, etc. 
In the NT the verb κομίζειν is used once 
in the simple sense of carrying or bring- 
ing to one (Luke vii. 37, of the woman's 
ἀλάβαστρον) ; oftener in the sense of ob- 
taining (1 Pet.i. 9; 2 Pet. ii. 13; Heb. x. 36; 
xi. 39), orin that of receiving back, recover- 
ing one’s own (Matt. xxv. 27; 2 Cor. v. 10; 
Col. iii. 25). The word has this last sense 
also in classical Greek {ε.ρ., τὴν ἀδελφήν, 
Eurip., Iph. T., 1362; Thuc., i., 113, ee 
So here the idea is that of receiving bac 
The “good thing” done is represented 
as being itself given back to the doer ; 
the certainty, equity and adequacy of the 
reward being thus signified (cf. especially 
2 Cor. v. 10), Whether the Middle is to 
be taken as the appropriative Middle, 
expressing as it were the receiving back 
of a deposit (Ell.) is doubtful in view of 
the fact that in every NT occurrence but 
one (Luke vii. 37) Middle forms are used. 
The best uncials omit τοῦ before Κνρίον, 
and so LTTrWHRV.—eire δοῦλος, εἴτε 
ἐλεύθερος : whether bond or free. The 
reward in view is that of the Great Day, 
the Parousia, which will have regard not 
to social distinctions or external circum- 
stances, but only to spiritual conditions. 
Ver. 9. καὶ οἱ Κύριοι, τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε 
πρὸς αὐτούς: and ye masters [or lords, 
RV marg.], do the same things unto them. 
The καί has the same force as in vi. 4 
above. The duty of the masters is a 
corresponding duty, essentially the same 
as that of the servants (τὰ αὐτά), and it 
is stated first in respect of what is to be 
done and then in respect of what is to be 
left undone. It is to put a forced sense, 
however, on the phrase ποιεῖτε τὰ αὐτά 
if it is made to refer only to the preceding 


. 


δουλεύοντες (Chrys.), as if the point were 
that the masters had a service to render 
to the δοῦλοι as these had a service to 
render to them. Nor does it seem to 
look back simply to the more general idea 
in ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Prob- 
ably the per’ εὐνοίας is more immediately 
in view, and the meaning is that the 
masters were to act to their servants in 
the same Christian way as the servants 
were Called to act to them—in the same 
spirit of consideration and goodwill.— 
ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν: giving up your 
threatening. The τήν, pointing to the 
too well-known habit of the masters, may 
be best rendered by “your”. ἀνίημι is 
used in the NT in the sense of loosening 
Acts xvi. 26, xxvii. 40), and of leaving 
Heb. xiii. 5, from LXX). In classical 
Greek it is used metaphorically both of 
slackening, releasing (aristoph., Vesp., 
574), and giving up (Thuc., iii., το, of 
ἔχθρα). The latter sense is most in 
point here. As Ell. rightly observes: 
“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”. This nega- 
tive side of the master’s duty is not 
noticed in the parallel passage in Col. 
iv. 1.--εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν [αὐ- 
τῶν καὶ ὑμῶν] ὃ Κύριός ἐστιν ἐν οὐρανοῖς: 
knowing as ye do that also your Master 
(that both their Master and yours) is in 
heaven. εἰδότες, as in ver. 8, expresses 
the reason or encouragement for such 
conduct on the part of masters, viz., 
the fact that masters themselves have a 
Master or Lord, whose seat is in heaven, 
not merely on earth, and who is Lord 
equally of master and of slave. The 
reading of the TR, καὶ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, has 
the support of most cursives and such 
uncials as K. Some few MSS. give καὶ 
αὐτῶν ὑμῶν (D°G). But the best ac- 
credited reading is καὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν, 
‘both theirs and yours,” given by B!AD*, 
also by Ν΄ (except that αὐτῶν becomes 
ἑαυτῶν), Syr., Boh., Vulg., Arm., etc., 
and accepted by LTTrWHRV.—xai 
προσωποληψία οὔκ ἐστι παρ᾽ αὐτῷ: and 
respect of persons is not with Him, The 
form προσωποληψία is preferred by the 
best critics (LTTrWH). The noun and 


g—I0, 


καὶ ὑμῶν 1 ὁ κύριός 2 ἐστιν ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὃ καὶ 


ἐστιν * παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. 


το. Τὸ ¥ λοιπὸν," " ἐνδυναμοῦσθε 7 ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ " κράτει τῆς 


11; Phil. iv. 8; 1 Thess. ἱν. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 1; =Paul only. 


Acts ix. 22. a Ch. i. 19 reff. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


481 


/ Ἂ 
" προσωπολημψία * οὔκ wx Rom. ii. 
11; Col. 

ili 25; 
James ii. 
I only. 

y 2Cor. xiii. 

z Rom. iv. 20 al.; Paul only, exc. 


1 και αυτων και υμων δ" (εαυτων) ABDP 17, 31, 37, 38, 116, Vulg., Goth., Arm., 
Copt., Clem., Euth., Dam., Jer.; kat upov και αυτων ΟἿ, 5, 23, 47, 67, 73, 115, 213, 
Syr.-P., Petr., Bas., Cypr., Ambrst. ; και αντων υμων DEFG, g, etc. ; και υμων αυτων 
k, al. plu., ἃ, e, Syr.-Sch., Eth., Bas., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., etc. 

2 Omit ο before κυριος 17, 74, 115, 238, Bas., Dam. 

*ovpavots Clem., Petr., Bas., etc.; τοις ουρανοις P; ovpavw δῷ 31, 47, 73, Bas., 


Dam., etc. 


4‘ προσωποληψια D°EKLP, etc. ; προσωπολημψια ΝΑΒ"Ρ"Κα. 
ὅπαρ avtw Petr., Bas., etc. ; εν avtw 31, 37, Syr.-P., Cypr., etc. ; παρα θεω D* FG. 


d, e, f, g, m, Pelag., etc. (FG add tw.) 


ὅτου λοιπου ΑΒ 17, 73, 118, Euth., Cyr., Procop., Dam.; το λοιπον ἡ DEFG 
KLP, etc., Chr., Thdrt., Theophyl., Oec., etc. ; add αδελφοι µου $°KLP, etc., Syr., 
Copt., Goth., Chr., Theophyl., etc.; omit ἄδελφοι µου ἂν ΒΡΕ, 17, ἆ, 6, πι, Arm., 


Eth., Dam., etc. 
Τδυναμουσθε B 17, Orig. 


its cognates προσωπολημπτής (Acts x. 
34), προσωπολημπτέω (Jas. ii. 9), ἄπροσ- 
ωπολήμπτως (I Pet. i. 17), are Hellen- 
istic forms, occurring only in biblical 
and ecclesiastical Greek. προσωπολημ- 
Ψία itself is found only four times in 
the NT (Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. 
iii. 25; Jamesii. 1). Cf. also the phrases 
βλέπειν εἰς πρόσωπον (Matt. xxvi. 16; 
Mark xii. 14), λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον (Luke 
xx. 21; Gal. ii, 6), which in the NT have 
always a badmeaning,—to judge partially, 
to have regard to the person in judging 
or treating one. In the LXX the phrase 
λαμβάνειν or θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον is also 
used in the sense of having respect to one’s 
person, being partial (e.g., Job xxxii. 21, 
where it is conjoined with giving flatter- 
ing titles), but admits at the same time 
of the better sense of showing favour 
to one (Gen. xix. 21). 

Vv. 10-20. General concluding ex- 
hortation, following up the injunctions 
bearing on the particular, domestic duties. 
This comprehensive charge, which is ex- 
pressed in terms of the Christian’s spiritual 
warfare, the powers of evil with which he 
has to contend, and the weapons with 
which he is to arm himself, brings the 
Epistle worthily to its close. 

Ver. 10. τὸ λοιπόν [ἀδελφοί] pov, 
ἐνδυναμοῦσθε [δυναμοῦσθε] ἐν Κυρίῳ: 
finally (or, henceforth) [my brethren], be 
strengthened in the Lord, For τὸ λοιπόν, 
the reading of TR with ΡΕΚΙ ΑΝ”, etc., 
τοῦ λοιποῦ, is to be preferred (with LTTr 
WHRY\V) as sustained by ΕΝΑ, 17, etc. 


The form τὸ λοιπόν (also the simple λοι- 
πόν) is used in classical Greek both as = 
"ας for the rest,”’ quod superest, “ finally’’ 
and with the temporal sense of henceforth. 
In the NT it has both these applications 
(εσ., Phil. 111:.2, iv. 8; 2 Thess. 111. 2, 
etc., for the former, and Matt. xiv. 41, 
xxvi. 45; I Cor. vii. 29; Heb. x. 13 for 
the latter). It occurs also once in the 
sense of “ αἱ last,” or ‘‘already”’ (Acts 
xxvii. 20). The form τοῦ λοιποῦ, properly 
a temporal gen., both in classical Greek 
(Herod., 11., 2: Xen., Cy7., iv., 4, το, etc.) 
and in the NT (Gal. vi. 17), has the sense 
of “henceforth”. τὸ λοιπόν can be used 
for τοῦ λοιποῦ, but it does not appear 
that τοῦ λοιποῦ is equally interchange- 
able with τὸ λοιπόν. Here τὸ λοιπόν 
might mean either “as for what you 
have still to do in addition to what has 
been said” (Mey.), or ‘“ henceforth "". 
τοῦ λοιποῦ is=“ in the future,” “ hence- 
forth” (cf. Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, 
ΡΡ. 94, 109; Ell. on Gal. vi. 17; Thayer- 
Grimm, Lex., p. 382). The TR inserts 
ἀδελφοί pov, with 9 ΚΙ, most cursives, 
and Syr., Boh., etc. ἀδελφοί, without 
μον, is read by AFG, Vulg., Theodor., 
etc. But the best accredited text (ΒΒ Ὁ, 
17, Eth., Arm., Cyr., Luc.. Jer., etc.) 
omits the phrase (so LTTrWHRV). The 
ἐνδυναμοῦσθε of the TR is supported by 
the mass of authorities, but is displaced 
by the simple δυναμοῦσθε (which occurs 
in Col. i. 11) in B 17; which latter is 
given a place in the margin by WH. 
ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι is a proper passive = “ to 


482 
b Ch. iv. 24 "ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ. 


22 only; 


2 Kings ii. 21. d= Matt. ν. 28 al. 


1ενδνσ. upas FG. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ἒεις το DEFG. 


Vi. 


11. ἢ ἐνδύσασθε] τὴν “ πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, * πρὸς 
ἘΠ, ε« « - 
c Luke xi τὸ 2 δύνασθαι ὑμᾶς στῆναι 3 


πρὸς τὰς “μεθοδείας ὁ τοῦ διαβόλου. 


e Ch. iv. 14 reff. 


Sor. up. DE; αντιστ. Κ. 


4 μεθοδειας Β ΟΡ, etc.; μεθοδιας NAB*FGKL 37, etc. 


be strengthened,” as in Acts ix. 22; Rom. 
iv. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 1; Heb. xi. 34. The év 
Κυρίῳ (ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ in Ν”) defines the 
strengthening as Christian strengthening, 
such as can take effect only in union with 
Christ.—xal ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος 
αὐτοῦ: and in the power of his might. 
On the distinction between the various 
words for strength, etc., cf. on chap. i. 19 
above. The phrase is not to be reduced 
to “in his mighty power,” but has the 
full force of ‘‘ in the active efficacy of the 
might that is inherent inhim”. Meyer 
takes the ἐν as instrumental =“ by means 
of the might of his strength”. But it 
has its proper force of “in,” the efficient, 
energetic power of the Lord’s inherent 
might being the principle or element in 
which the increase of strength which is 
possible only where there is union with 
Christ is to realise itself. By the καί, 
therefore, this clause adds something to 
the preceding and does more than merely 
explain it. In 2 Cor. xii. 9, ἵνα ἐπι- 
σκηνώσῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
the idea is that of the strength of Christ 
descending to rest on one. 

Ver. σι. ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ: put on the whole armour of 
God. Further explanation of what has 
to be done in order to become strong 
enough to meet all enemies, even the 
devil. τοῦ Θεοῦ is the gen. of origin or 
source, = the panoply which comes from 
God or is provided by Him. To put the 
emphasis on the Θεοῦ (Harl.) is to miss 
the point and to suppose a contrast which 
there is nothing here to suggest, viz., 
with some other kind of panoply. The 
emphatic thing, as most exegetes notice, 
is the πανοπλίαν, the idea being that we 
need not only a Divine equipment, but 
that equipment in its completeness, with- 
out the lack of any single part. The fact 
that, in order to meet our spiritual foe, 
we need to take to ourselves all that God 

rovides for living and for overcoming, 
is expressed in a telling figure drawn 
from the world of soldiery. The figure 
of the Christian as a warrior with his 
arms, wages, etc. (ὅπλα, ὄψωνια, etc.), 
occurs repeatedly in the Pauline writ- 
ings (Rom, vi. 13, 23, xiii. 12; 2 Cor. x. 4; 
1 Thess. ν. 8; 1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 12; 2 Tim. 


iv. 7). In briefer form the figure of the 
armour appears in 1 Thess. v. 8, and in 
its rudiments also in Isa. lix. 17; cf. also 
Wisd. v.17, etc. πανοπλία is not armour 
simply (Vulg. armatura, Harl., etc.), but 
whole armour, the complete equipment of 
the Roman ὁπλίτης or “man of arms,” 
consisting of shield, helmet, breastplate, 
greaves, sword and lance; cf. Thuc., iii., 
14; Isocr., 352 Ὁ; Herod., 1., 60; Plato, 
Laws, vii., p. 796 B; and especially Poly- 
bius, vi., 23,2, etc. The word occurs only 
once again in the NT (Luke xi, ον No 
doubt the Roman soldier is particularly in 
view. Paul, the Roman citizen, would 
think of him, and it was the Roman mili- 
tary power that filled the eye where Paul 
laboured and wrote.—mpds τὸ δύνασθαι 
ὑμᾶς στῆναι πρὸς τὰς μεθοδείας τοῦ δια- 
βόλου: that ye may be able to stand 
against the wiles of the devil. State- 
ment of the object of the putting on of 
this panoply. The general sense of 
direction conveyed by the flexible prep. 
πρός when followed by the acc. takes 
a wide variety of applications. In this 
short sentence it expresses mental direc- 
tion, aim or object, and local direction, 
against. The phrase στῆναι πρός be- 
longs to the soldier’s language, being 
used for standing one’s ground, in oppo- 
sition to taking to flight (Thuc., v., 104, 
and cf. Raphel., Annot., ii., p. 493). In 
Jas. iv. 7 we have ἀντιστῆναι with the dat. 
For μεθοδείας TWH prefer μεθοδίας. On 
this rare term, found neither in profane 
Greek nor in the OT, and in the NT only 
in the two occurrences in this Epistle, see 
on chap. iv. 14 above. The plural de- 
notes the various forms which the pe- 
θοδεία, the craftiness, takes, and is tly 
rendered either stratagems (which brings 
out the fundamental idea of method or 
plan in the deceit) or wiles, The Rhem. 

ives deceits ; Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Bish., assaults or crafty, assaults. The 
Devil, διάβολος, is mentioned here as 
the author and practiser of all subtle, 
malicious scheming. The malign powers 
of which he is the prince are noticed next. 

Ver. 12. ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν [ὑμῖν] ἡ 
πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα: prem our) 
wrestling is not against flesh and blood. 
Reason for speaking of the μεθοδεῖαι τοῦ 


11---Ι2, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


383 


12. ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ὶ ἡ "πάλη πρὸς "αἷμα καὶ "σάρκα, ἀλλὰ f Here 


only. 


πρὸς τὰς “dpxds, πρὸς τὰς " ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς ‘ κοσμοκράτορας g Matt. xvi. 


xv. 50; Gal. i. 16; Heb. ii. 14; Sir. xiv. 18. 


h Ch. i. 21 reff. 


17; 1 Cor. 
i Here only. 


1 For ηµ., υμιν BDFG 52, 115-20, al., It., Syr., Ar.-pol., Slav. al., Lucif., Ambrst. ; 
ημιν SADSEKLP, etc., most mss., Vulg., Copt., Syr., al., Thdrt., Clem., Orig., 


Meth., all Cyp., Hil., Jer., Aug., Ambrst. 


διαβόλου as dangers against which the 
Christian must stand his ground. The 
ὅτι is explanatory, = ‘‘the wiles of the 
Devil, I say, for it is not mere men we 
have to face’. The term πάλη, which 
occurs only this once in the NT, is used 
- in classical Greek occasionally in the 
general sense of a battle or combat (in 
the poets, e.g., Aesch., Cho., 866; Eurip., 
Heracl., 159), but usually in the specific 
sense of a contest in the form of wrest- 
ling. If it has its proper sense here, as is 
most probable, there is a departure for 
the time being from the figure of the 
panoply, and a transition to one which 
brings up different ideas. Has Paul, 
then, who elsewhere uses the more gen- 
eral figures of the μάχη, the ἀγών, etc., 
any special object in view in selecting 
πάλη here? There is nothing to indicate 
any such special object, unless it be to 
bring out the hand to hand nature of the 
conflict, “the personal, individualising 
nature of the encounter”’ (Ell.). The q 
defines the πάλη in view, viz., the physi- 
cal struggle, as not the kind of πάλη with 
which we are concerned—which is “ for 
us” (ἡμῖν). The ἡμῖν of the TR has the 
support of ΝΑΡ ΚΙ .ΡΒ, most cursives, and 
most Versions; tpiv is read by BD*G, 
Eth., Goth., etc. The case is somewhat 
evenly balanced. TrWH place ὑμῖν in 
the margin; Lach., Tisch., etc., keep 
ἡμῖν. The form αἷμα καὶ σάρξ occurs 
only here and (acc. to the best critics) in 
Heb. ii. 14. Elsewhere it is σὰρξ καὶ 
αἷμα ; but the sense is the same, = feeble 
humanity. The phrase occurs four times 
in the NT, always with the same general 
sense of man in the character of his weak- 
ness and dependence, but with slightly 
varying references; e.g., with regard to 
our corporeal being in τ Cor. xv. 50; 
Heb. 11. 14; our intellectual power in 
Matt. xvi. 17; our spiritual capacity as 
contrasted with invisible, diabolic agents 
(cf. Ell. on Gal. 1. 16). The idea of carnal 
desires or passions which is ascribed to 
the phrase here by some (Jer., Matthies, 
etc.) would be expressed by σάρξ with- 
out αἷμα.---ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς: but 
against the principalities. The formula 
οὐκ---ἀλλά indicates not a comparative 


negation, as if = “not so much against 
flesh and blood as against the ἀρχαί," but 
an absolute. Meyer regards the clause 
as a case of brachylogy, some term of 
more general sense than πάλη, ¢.g., μάχη 
or μαχετέον having to be understood, = 
“ for us there is not a wrestling with flesh 
and blood, but a fight with the princi- 
palities”. This on the ground that the 
idea of wrestling is inconsistent with that 
of the panoply. But while it is true that 
there is a change in the figure for the 
time being, there is nothing strange in 
that, neither is there any incongruity in 
representing the Christian’s conflict as a 
wrestling—an individual encounter and 
one at close quarters. On the sense of 
apxat, principalities or rulers applied 
here to the powers of evil, see on i. 21 
above.—mpos τὰς ἐξουσίας : against the 
authorities. On ἐξουσίαι, here designa- 
ting demonic authorities, see on i. 21 
ἂρονε.-- πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ 
σκότους [τοῦ αἰῶνος] τούτον: against 
the world-rulers of the darkness of this 
world (or, of this darkness). τοῦ αἰῶνος 
is inserted after σκότους by the TR, and 
is found in most cursives, and in such 
uncials as $°D®EKLP. It is omitted 
in Byg*D*FG, 17, 673, etc., and is re 
jected by LTTrWHRV. In the NT we 
have such designations as 6 ἄρχων τοῦ 
κόσμου τούτου (John xiv. 30), ὃ Θεὸς τοῦ 
αἰῶνος τούτου (2 Cor. iv. 4), applied to 
Satan. The phrase koopoxpdtwp τοῦ 
σκότους τούτου occurs only here. The 
noun κοσμοκράτωρ is found in the Orphic 
Hymns (iii., 3, of Satan), in inscriptions 
(C. I., 5892, with ref. to the emperor), in 
Gnostic writings (of the devil), and in 
the Rabbinical literature in transliterated 
Hebrew form (of the angel of death, and 
of kings like the four pursued by Abra- 
ham, and Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Mero- 
dach, Belshazzar; cf. Wetstein, in loc. ; 
Fischer’s Buxtorf, Lex., p. 996, etc.). 
According to usage as well as formation, 
therefore, it means not merely rulers 
(Eth., Goth.), but world-rulers, powers 
dominating the world as such and work- 
ing everywhere. τοῦ σκότους limits 
their dominion, however, to the world as 
it now is in the darkness of its ignorance 


384 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


VI. 


k=Col.i, τοῦ " σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ ᾿ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς 


13; Luke 
XXil. 53. 

1 Constr., 
here only. 


3 ἐπουρανίοις. 


πὶ Matt. xxii. 18 al.; Rom. i. 20 al. 


13. διὰ τοῦτο °dvahdBere τὴν " πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, 


n Ch. i. 3 reff.; Ps. xli. 1, xlviii. 5. 


ο Acts vii. 43, XX. 13, 14, xxiii. 31; 2 Tim. iv. 11; Deut. i. 41; Jer. xxvi. 3. 


1 Add του αιωνος, with \h°D°EKLP, etc., Syr.*, al., Mac., Ath.-ms., Chr., Thdrt., 
al.; om. $*ABD*FG 17, 673, 80, most vss., Clem., Orig.-oft., Ath., Eus., Bas., 
Nyss., Cyr., Cypr., Lucif., Hil., Ambrst., Jer., Tert., etc. 


and evil, and suggests the destined termin- 
ation of their operation.—mpés τὰ πνεν- 
ματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας : against the spirit- 
forces of wickedness. The repetition of 
the πρὸς before each of the four powers 
named in the clause has rhetorical force. 
Such renderings as “spiritual wicked- 
ness” (Tynd., Bish., AV), ‘ spiritual 
craftiness ” (Cran.), spirituales nequitiae 
(Erasm., Beza, Wolf., etc.), are inade- 
quate. The phrase τὰ πνευματικά is 
not the same as τὰ πνεύματα, but means 
properly speaking the spiritual things (so 
Wicl., “ the spiritual things of wicked- 
ness"). It is possible that the neut. adj. 
has the collective force here; in support 
of which Meyer and others adduce such 
ρω. aS τὸ πολιτικόν, τὸ ἱππικόν, τὰ 

Πστρικά, εἰς, But τὸ πολιτικόν seems 
to mean the whole of that section of the 
community which consists of πολῖται ; 
τὸ ἱππικόν, also τὰ ἱππικά (Polyb., iii., 
114, 5) means cavalry ; and τὰ λῃστρικά 
is used for pirate-vessels. The Ben τὸ 
λῃστικόν, however, has both the sense of 
piracy (Thucyd., i., 4, 13), and that of a 
band of robbers (Thucyd., ii., 69). This 
may perhaps justify the sense of spirit- 
bands or spiritual hosts here. But it 
seems most consonant with usage to give 
the term τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας the 
simple sense of “the spiritual things,” 
i.e., ‘elements or forces of wickedness,” 
without connecting with it the doubtful 
connotation of armies, hosts, or hordes 
(cf. Abb., in loc.). The πονηρίας is the 
gen. of quality, = the spirit-forces whose 
essential character is wickedness.—éyv τοῖς 
ἐπουρανίοις: in the heavenly regions. On 
τὰ ἐπονράνια see under i. 3 above. The 
phrase, of which this is the fifth occur- 
rence in the Epistle, is most naturally 
understood in the local sense which it 
has in the previous instances. Some 
depart from this sense and make it = the 
heavenly blessings, giving at the same 
time the meaning of “ for,” “in behalf” 
to ἐν, = "' for the heavenly possessions ”. 
So even Chrys., Theod., and Oec., fol- 
lowed by Witsius, Wolf., etc. But év 
ςαπποῖ-- ὑπέρ or περί, not even in Matt. 
vi. 7; John xvi. 30; Acts vii. 29; 1 Cor. 


ix. 4. Others, retaining the local sense, 
take the phrase as a designation of the 
scene of the combat, e.g. = ‘‘in the king- 
dom of heaven,” that being the region in 
which Christians contend with the ene- 
mies of God (Matthies), or “in the air” as 
contrasted with the solid ground (Riick.). 
But the term qualifies τὰ πνευματικά. 
Forming one idea with that, it dispenses 
with the article ; cf. τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ ἀέρος, 
Matt. vi. 26; τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ viv 
αἰῶνι, τ Tim. vi. 17, etc. It defines 
the domain of these spirit-forces. Their 
haunts are those superterrestrial regions, 
not the highest heavens which are the 
abode of God, Christ, and angels, but 
those lower heavens which are at once 
subcelestial and superterrestrial. The 
ΒΡ and the idea may be suggested 
y the Jewish notion of a series of seven 
heavens, each distinguished from the 
other, the third or (later) the fourth, 
¢.g., being identified with Paradise. Cf. 
Morfill and Charles, Book of the Secrets 
of Enoch, p. xl. The phrase expresses, 
therefore, much the same idea as the 
phrase τοῦ ἀέρος in ii. 2, The reason 
why Paul uses ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις and 
not ἐν τῷ ἀέρι here may be, as Meyer 
suggests, his wish to “bring out as 
strongly as possible the superhuman and 
superterrestrial nature of these hostile 
spirits ”’. 

Ver. 13. διὰ τοῦτο ἀναλάβετε τὴν 
πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ: wherefore take up 
the whole armour of God. διὰ τοῦτο, 
i.e., because your enemies are such as 
these. ἀναλαβεῖν is the accepted term 
for taking up arms, as κατατίθεσθαι is for 
laying them down (Deut. i.- 41; Jer. 
xxvi. 3).—tva δυνηθῆτε ἀντιστῆναι ἐν 
τῇ PG τῇ πονηρᾷ: that ye may be 
able to withstand in the evil day. The 
object of the ἀντιστῆναι, viz., the powers 
of evil, is ο to be understood. bee 
ἡ πο is inadequately interpre 
be we ia death (E. Schmid); the day of 
judgment (Jer.); the present life (Chrys., 
Oec., etc.) —which would rather have been 
αἰὼν πονηρός; or the whole period of con- 
flict prepared for us by Satan (Riick., 
Harl., De Wette, Bleek, εἰς). Regard 


13-14. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


385 


ἵνα δυνηθῆτε " ἀντιστῆναι ἐν τῇ “ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ “ πονηρᾷ καὶ ἅπαντα p Matt. v. 


1 2 


* κατεργασάμενοι 
q Ch. v. 16 reff. 


στῆναι. 


. 39 al. ; 
14. στῆτε οὖν "περιζωσάμενοι τὴν abs., here 


only. 


r=Rom. vii. 15, 17, etc., xv. 18 al.17; Paul only, exc. 1 Pet. iv. 3; James i. 3, 20. 


8 Luke xii. 35 al.; Paul, here only; Dan. x. 5; Ps. Ixiv. 6. 


1 κατεργασμενοι A. 


ὥστηναι, στητε ουν Orig., Euseb., Dam., Jer., etc.; στητε DFG, d, ε, Cypr.; 


stare without στητε ουν Victorin. 


must be had to the definiteness given to 
the ἡμέρα by the article, which marks it 
out as in some sense or other a single 
day, a critical day, a time of peculiar 
peril and trial. Hence the choice must 
be between the time immediately pre- 
ceding the Parousia, the searching day 
of the future in which the powers of evil 
will make their last and greatest effort 
(Meyer, etc.), and the day of violent 
temptation and assault, whenever that 
may come to us during the present time 
(Ell., etc.), ‘any day of which it may be 
said, ‘this is your hour, and the power 
of darkness’” (Barry; so also Abb.). 
The latter view is on the whole to be 
preferred.—kal ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι 
στῆναι: and having done all, {ο stand. In 
A we have the variant κατεργασμένοι, a 
misspelling for κατεργασάμενοι or for 
κατειργασμένοι. The Vulg. renders in 
omnibus perfecti (following perhaps the 
reading κατειργασμένοι). Some make it 
= “having prepared all things for the con- 
flict” (Erasm., Beza, etc.) ; but that 
would be expressed by some such form as 
παρασκευασάμενοι (I Cor. xiv. 8). Others 
give it the sense of overpowering (Oec., 
Chrys., Harl., etc.; cf. ‘‘overcome” in 
AV margin)—a sense which it has, but 
not in the NT, as far as appears, and 
which will not suit the neut. (ἅπαντα) 
here. There is no reason to depart from 
the ordinary sense of the verb, viz., that 
of perficere (cf. Plato, Laws, iii., p. 686 Ε; 
Herod., v., 24, etc.), doing thoroughly, 
working out, especially (the κατά being 
intensive) accomplishing a difficult task. 
Applied to things evil or dishonourable 
this becomes perpetrare. These are the 
senses which it has in the NT generally 
and in the Pauline writings in particular 
(Rom. vii. 15, 17; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Phil. 
ii. 12, etc.; and in the sense of perpetra- 
ting, Rom. i, 27, il. 9; 1 Cor. v. 3; 
1 Pet. iv. 3). The ἅπαντα refers obvi- 
ously to the conflict in view, and means 
‘all things pertaining to your struggle”. 
The στῆναι, in contrast with the ἀντι- 
στῆναι or withstanding, denotes the final 
result; the ability to withstand when the 


VOL. III, 


fight is on is to be sought with a view to 
holding one’s position when the conflict 
is atan end,—neither dislodged nor felled, 
but standing victorious at one’s post. 
Ver. 14. στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν 
ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ: stand, therefore, 
having girded your loins with truth. In 
some few authorities στῆτε οὖν is omitted 
(Victor., Ambrstr.); in others the οὖν is 
omitted and στῆτε is retained (D*FG, 
Cyp., etc.). ὀσφυς is accentuated ὀσφῦς 
by TR and Treg.; but ὀσφύς by LTWH. 
The aor, στῆτε may perhaps be best ren- 
dered, ‘‘ take your stand,” the definite act 
beingin view. The spiritual warrior who 
has kept his position victorious and stood 
above his conquered foe in one ‘evil day,” 
is to take his stand again ready to face 
another such critical day, should it come. 
The following sentences explain what has 
to be done if he is thus to stand. The 
aorists can scarcely be the contemporary 
aorists or definitions of the way in which 
they were to stand; for it would not be 
the mark of the good soldier that he left his 
equipment to be attended to till the very 
time when he had to take up his position. 
They are proper pasts, stating what has 
to be done before one takes up his stand. 
First in the list of these articles of equip- 
ment is mentioned the girdle. Appropri- 
ately so; for the soldier might be furnished 
with every other part of his equipment, and 
yet, wanting the girdle, would be neither 
fully accoutred nor securely armed. His 
belt or baldric (ζωστήρ or (later) ζωνή) 
was no mere adornment of the soldier, 
but an essential part of his equipment. 
Passing round the loins and by the end of 
the breastplate (in later times supporting 
the sword), it was of especial use in keep- 
ing other parts in place, and in securing 
the proper soldierly attitude and free- 
dom of movement. The περιζωσάμενοι 
is better rendered (with RV) “ having 
girded your loins,” than “having your 
loins girt” (with AV); for the girding is 
the soldier’s own act by help of God’s 
grace (cf. Luke xii. 35 and the ἀναζωσά- 
pevol τὰς ὀσφύας of τ Pet. i. 13). The 
sing, ὀσφύς is used now and again in 


25 


386 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vi. 


tLukelc., ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν "ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν * θώρακα τῆς δικαιο- 
Mati. ii, σύνης, 15. Kat " ὑποδησάμενοι τοὺς πόδας "ἐν 3 ἑτοιμασίᾳ τοῦ 


est Pet. 


i. 13; Isa. xi. 5. u See 1 Cor. iv. 21 reff. 


5 η 
w Mark vi. 9; Acts xii. 8 only; 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. 


the LXX as the rendering of own 


= the two loins, and so it is used here 
and in Acts ii. 30; Heb. vii. 5,10. The 
ἐν in ἐν ἀληθείᾳ is the instrum. ἐν, per- 
haps with some reference to the other 
parts being within the girdle (Ell.; cf. 
περιεζωσμένος ἐν δυναστείᾳ, Ps. Ixiv. 7). 
But what is this ἀληθεία which is to 
make our spiritual cincture? It has 
been taken in the objective sense, the 
truth of the Gospel (Oec.). But that is 
afterwards identified with the sword (ver. 
17). It is subjective truth (cf. v. 9 above). 
But in what sense again? In that, says 
Meyer, of “ harmony of knowledge with 
the objective truth given in the Gospel”; 
in that, as Ell. puts it, “of the inward 
practical acknowledgment of the truth as 
it is in Him” (Christ). But in its sub- 
jective applications ἀληθεία means most 
obviously the personal grace of candour, 
sincerity, truthfulness (John viii. 44; 1 
Cor. v. 8, xiii.6; 2 John 1; 3 John 1), as 
it is used also of the veracity of God 
(Rom. xv. 8). It seems simplest, there- 
fore, and most accordant with usage to 
take it so here (with Calv., etc.). And 
this plain grace of openness, truthfulness, 
reality, the mind that will practise no 
deceits and attempt no disguises in our 
intercourse with God, is indeed vital to 
Christian safety and essential to the due 
operation of all the other qualities of char- 
acter. In Isa. xi. 5 righteousness is com- 
bined with truth in this matter of girding 
--ἔσται δικαιοσύνῃ ἐζωσμένος τὴν ὀσφὺν 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀληθείᾳ εἱλημένος τὰς πλευράς 
—in the case of the Messianic Branch out 
of the roots of Jesse.—xal ἐνδυσάμενοι 
τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης: and having 
put on the breastplate of righteousness. 
As the soldier covers his breast with the 
θώραξ to make it secure against the dis- 
abling wound, so the Christian is to 
endue himself with righteousness so as 
to make his heart and will proof against 
the fatal thrust of his spiritual assailants. 
This δικαιοσύνη is taken by some (Harl., 
etc.) as the righteousness of justification, 
the righteousness of faith. But faith is 
mentioned by itself, and as the ἀληθεία 
was the quality of truthfulness, so the 
δικαιοσύνη is the quality of moral recti- 
tude (cf. Rom. vi. 13), as seen in the 
regenerate. The gen. is to be understood 


vi Thess. ν. 8; Rev. ix. ας, only; Isa. lix. 17. 
x Here only; =Ps. ix. 37; see Ezra ii. 68. 


as that of apposition or identity, = “the 
breastplate which is righteousness”. In 
the analogous passage in 1 Thess. v. 8 
the breastplate is faith and love, and with 
it is named the helmet, which is intro- 
duced later in this paragraph. In the 
fundamental passage in Isa. lix. 17 we 
have the breastplate and the helmet again 
mentioned together, and the former iden- 
tified as here with righteousness—évedv- 
σατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα. 

Ver. 15. καὶ ὑποδησάμενοι τοὺς πό- 
δας: and having shod your feet. So ἴῃς 
RV; better than “and your feet shod” of 
AV. The reference comes in naturally in 
connection with the στῆτε. The soldier, 
who will make this stand, must have his 


feet protected. The Heb. by, sandal, 


is represented in the LXX by ὑπόδημα, 
which also occurs repeatedly in the Gos- 
pels and Acts, σανδάλιον being also used 
both in the NT (Mark vi. 9; Acts xii. 8), 
and in the LXX, as well as in Josephus, 
with the same sense. Here, however, 


the military sandal (Hebr. ‘WD, Isa. 
ix. 4; Lat. caliga; cf. Joseph., Few. 
Wars, vi. 1, 8, and Xen., Anab., iv., 5) 
is in view, which protected the soldier's 
feet and made it possible for him to move 
with quick and certain step.—dv ἕτοι- 
μασίᾳ: with the preparedness. The form 
ἑτοιμασία occurs in later Greek (¢.g., 
Hippocr., p. 24; Joseph., Antiq., x., 1, 
2) and in the LXX (cf. Ps. x. 17), for the 
classical ἑτοιμότης. It means (a) prepar- 
ation in the active sense of making ready 
(Wisdom, xiii., 12); (b) a state of pre- 
paredness, whether external (e.g., ἵππους 
els ἑτοιμασίαν παρέχειν, Joseph., Antiq., 
Χ., I, 2), or internal (Ps. x. 17); perhaps 
also ὦ something fixed, a foundation 


(= Heb. η». ; Dan. xi. 7). Some have 


given it this last sense here, either as = 
stedfastness in keeping the faith, or as = 
on the foundation, the strong and certain 
ground, of the Christian religion (Beng., 
Bleek, etc.). But in harmony-with the 
general idea of the ethical equipment of 
the Christian, it means readiness, pre- 
paredness of mind. The ἐν is again the 
instrum. prep.—rov εὐαγγελίον τῆς εἰρή- 
νης: of the Gospel of peace. The first gen. 
is that of origin, the second that of con- 


14—16, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


387 


᾿ εὐαγγελίου τῆς "εἰρήνης, 16. “ἐπὶ πᾶσιν " ἀναλαβόντες τὸν y Here 


᾿ θυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως, “ἐν ᾧ δυνήσεσθε πάντα τὰ βέλη τοῦ “ πονηροῦ 


xx. 24; Isa. lii. 7; Rom. x. 15. k 
a Ver. 13 reff. b Here only; 2 Kings i. 21. 
xiii. το al.; (2 Thess. iii. 3)? 1 John ii. 13, v. 18. 


only; see 
Mark i. 
14; Acts 


z Luke iii. 20, xvi. 26; 2 Cor. vii. 4; Col. iii. 14; 1 Thess. iii. 7, 9. 
c Simply local, see note. 


d=(Matt. v. 37, 39)? 


lem. ADEFGKL, etc., Syr.-scr., Arm., Goth., Chr., Euth., etc.; for em, ev BP 
17, 26, 31-7, 80, 118, 213, It., Vulg., Method., Naz., Cyr.-jer., Cypr., etc. 
3Ξδυνασθαι DFG, ἆ, ε, f, 6, m, Victor., Jer. 


tents, = ‘‘ the preparedness which comes 
from the Gospel whose message is peace”. 
The εἰρήνη here is doubtless peace with 
God (Rom. v. 1), that peace which alone 
imparts the sense of freedom, relieves us 
of what burdens us, and givez the spirit 
of courageous readiness for the battle 
with evil. The phrase ‘‘the Gospel of 
peace”’ is elsewhere associated with the 
idea of the message preached (Isa. lii. 7 ; 
abun, τες δ΄: Rom. x. :5). Έστε, 
however, the readiness is not zeal in 
proclaiming the Gospel, but promptitude 
with reference to the conflict. The pre- 
paredness, the mental alacrity with which 
we are inspired by the Gospel with its 
message of peace with God, is to be to 
us the protection and equipment which 
the sandals that cover his feet are to 
the soldier. With this we shall be helped 
to face the foe with courage and with 
promptitude. 

Ver. 16. ἐπὶ [ἐν] πᾶσιν ἀναλαβόντες 
τὸν θυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως: in addition to all 
(or, withal) taking up the shield of faith, 
The readings vary between ἐπί and ἐν. 
The former, that of the TR, is supported 
by ADGKL, most cursives, and such 
Versions as the Syr.-P, and the Arm.; 
the latter, by ΒΝΕ, 17, Syr.-H., Boh., 
Vulg., etc. The latter is accepted by L 
(non-marg.) TTrWHRV; and with it the 
sense is “in or among all,” aptly rendered 
withal by the RV. With ἐπί the sense 
will be neither “above all” (AV) as if = 
most especially, nor “ over all,” with refer- 
ence to position ; but, in accordance with 
the general idea of “‘ accession,” ‘‘ super- 
addition” expressed by ἐπί (cf. EIl.), in 
addition to all (cf. Luke iii. 20). θυρεός, 
in Homer = a stone put against a door 
(θύρα) to block or shut it (Od., ix., 240, 
etc.), but later =a shield, is the large, 
oblong shield, Lat. scutum, as distin- 
guished from the smaller, circular ἀσπίς, 
the Lat, clipeus. It is described by Poly- 
bius (vi., 23, 3 as the first portion of the 
πανοπλία, and is appropriate here where 
the Christian is presented under the figure 
of a heavy-armed soldier. τῆς πίστεως, 
the gen. of appos. or identity, = ‘‘ the 


shield which is, or consists of, faith”; 
πίστις having here also its distinctive 
NT sense of saving faith—the faith by 
which come the Divine forgiveness and 
the power of a new life.—év ᾧ δυνήσεσθε 
πάντα τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ [τὰ] πεπυρω- 
μένα σβέσαι : wherewith ye shall be able 
to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. 
ἐν ᾧ = ‘‘ by means of which,” as the shield 
is placed before us to cover us from the 
stroke. There is no necessity for putting 
on δυνήσεσθε the sense of the remote 
future, as if the last conflict preceding 
the Judgment (Mey.) alone were in view. 
It refers to the future generally—to any 
time in our Christian course when we shall 
need special power for special assault. 
The art. τά is omitted before πεπυρωμένα 
by BD*G, etc., but inserted by the mass 
of authorities. Lach. deletes it; Treg. 
and WH bracketit. The anarthrous par- 
ticiple might have the qualitative sense, 
=‘‘fire-tipped as they are” (so Abb.). If 
the article is retained, it would be implied, 
as Meyer remarks, that the wicked one 
has also other arrows to discharge besides 
these fearsome and pre-eminently destruc- 
tive ones, which are mentioned here in 
order to express in its utmost force the 
terror of the attack. The βέλη in view 
are not poisoned arrows (referred to, as is 
supposed, in Job vi. 4; Ps. xxxviii. 2), 
which were not flaming missiles; but 
arrows tipped with tow, pitch or such 
like material, and set on fire before they 
were discharged, the πυρφόροι ὀΐστοί 
tDind τς il., 75, 4), or βέλη πυρφόρα 
Diod., xx. 96), the malleoli used by the 
Romans (Cic., Pro Mil., 24), the Greeks 
(Herod., viii., 52), and, as it would seem, 
the Hebrews (Ps. vii. 13). The σβέσαι 
has its own appropriateness here, the @v- 
ρεός being constructed of material (wood 
and leather, Polyb., Hist., ii., 23, 3), 
which not only prevented the missile 
from penetrating, but was proof against 
its fire and let it burn itself out. τοῦ 
πονηροῦ, in harmony with the general 
idea of a personal stand against spiritual 
foes, must be masc., ‘the Evil One,” the 
Devil. 


488 


e1Cor. vii. ta! " πεπυρωμένα ᾿ σβέσαι. 


9; 2 Cor. 


ΧΙ. 29; 
2 Pet. iii. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vi. 


17. καὶ τὴν " περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ 


ἢ σωτηρίου ᾿ δέξασθε,2 καὶ τὴν " μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν 


12; Rev. ῥῆμα θεοῦ, 18. ''διὰ πάσης " προσευχῆς καὶ " δεήσεως προσευχό- 


i. τς, iii. 

18; Prov. x. 20. 
h Luke ii. 30 reff.; Acts xxviii. 28. 
1 Ch. v. 26 reff.; Acts xv. 27, 32. 

1, v. 5; 2 Chron. vi. 19 al. 


i=Lu 


f Matt. xii. 2oal.; 1 Thess. ΤῸ Heb. xi. 
i ke ii. 28, 


m 2 Cor. ix. 12 al. fr. 


gi Thess. v. 8 only; Isa. κ. 17. 
17 only. k Heb. iv. 12 al. fr. 
n Acts. i. 14; Phil. iv. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 


xvi. 6, xx 


linsert τα NAD*EKLP, etc., Clem., Orig., etc.; om. τα BD*FG. 
20m, δεξασθε DFG, d, ε, g, m, Cypr., Luc., Victorin.; δεξασθαι AD'EKLP, 17, 


etc. 


Ver. 17. καὶ τὴν περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ 
σωτηρίου δέξασθε: and receive the helmet 
of salvation. The construction changes 
here, as is often the case with Paul, and 
passes from -the participial form to the 
direct imperative. There is no necessity, 
however, for marking this by a full stop 
at the close of the preceding sentence 
(with Lach., Tisch., and RV). δέξασθε is 
omitted by D*FG, ΟΥΡ., etc., and becomes 
δέξασθαι in AD°EKLP, 17, etc. The 
verb has its proper sense here, not merely 
‘“‘take,”’ but “ receive,” i.¢., as a gift from 
the Lord, a thing provided and offered 
by Him. The /elmet required for the 
defence of the head is introduced both 
in Isa. lix. 17 and 1 Thess. v. 8. It is 
noticed before the sword; for, the left 
hand holding the shield, when the sword 
is grasped by the right, there remains no 
hand free to put on any other part (Mey.). 
τοῦ σωτηρίον is again an afpos. gen, = 
“the helmet which ἐς salvation”. In 
1 Thess. v. 8 the helmet is not the salva- 
tion itself, as here and in Isa. lix. 17, but 
the hope of it. Paul's usual term is 
σωτηρία. In Tit. ii. 11 he uses the adj. 
σωτήριος in the sense of “ bringing salva- 
tion”. This is the only instance of his use 
of the abstr. neuter for σωτηρία. It 
occurs, however, in Luke’s writings (Luke 
ii. 30, iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28, and in the 
LXX).—xal τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος: 
and the sword of the Spirit. The gen. 
here cannot be that of appos. (although it 
is so taken by Harl., Olsh., etc.), for the 
following explanation renders that inept. 
It must be the gen. of origin, =“ the sword 
supplied by the Spirit”.—8 ἐστι ῥῆμα 
Θεοῦ: which is the word of God. Some 
strangely make the 6 refer to the πνεύ- 
ματος, = ‘the Spirit who is the Word of 
God” (Olsh., Von Sod., etc.); but no- 
where else is the Spirit identified with 
the Word. The 6 is explanatory of the 
μάχαιρα, the neut. form being due to the 
usual attraction. In Heb. iv. 2 we have 
the λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ compared in respect of 
superior sharpness or penetrating power 


to a two-edged sword. Here we have 
the phrase ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, which is to be 
understood, in accordance with the proper 
sense of ῥῆμα, as the — Word, the 
preached Gospel, and this in its length 
and breadth—not in the commandments 
of God only (Flatt), nor in His threaten- 
ings alone (Koppe), nor even yet in the 
sense of the written Word, the Scriptures 
(Moule). The sword is the only offensive 
weapon in the panoply. But it is indis- 
pensable. For, while the Christian soldier 
is exhibited here mainly in the attitude of 
defence, as one who stands, in order to 
take his position and keep his ground, 
thrust and cut will be required. The 
preached Gospel, “τῆς power of God” 
(Rom. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 18), is the weapon 
— by the Spirit for meeting the 
unge of the assailant and beating him 
back. With this the description of the 
ΕΝ ly comes ἴο an end. It has ποῖ fol- 
owed the usual way, but has left out cer- 
tain parts (spear or lance, and greaves, to 
wit), and has introduced others (the girdle 
and the sandals) which are not enumerated 
in Polybius's list of the accoutrements of 
the man-at-arms. It has kept only in part 
by the Isaianic description (Isa. lix. 17), 
including the breastplate and the helmet, 
but passing over the “ garments ”’ and the 
‘*cloke”. Nor has it much more in com- 
mon with the fuller description in Wisd. v. 
18, 20, which may also have been more or 
less in the writer’s mind—Arpperat πανο- 
πλίαν τὸν ζῆλον αὐτοῦ . . . ἐνδύσεται 
θώρακα δικαιοσύνης, καὶ περιθήσεται 
κόρυθα κρίσιν ἀνυπόκριτον. λήψεται 
ἀσπίδα ἀκαταμάχητον ὁσιότητα, ὀξυνεῖ 
δὲ ἀπότομον ὀργὴν εἰς ῥομφαίαν. It 
differs also in the application of the figures 
of the breastplate and the helmet from 
the briefer Pauline description in 1 Thess. 
ν. 8. But the capacity of bearing a variety 
of applications, each as just in its place 
as the other, is the quality of all figura- 
tive language that is apt and true to 
nature, 


Ver. 18. 


διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς καὶ 


17—18, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


489 


- ‘ a 5 
ενοι ᾿ ἐν παντὶ καιρῶ 5 ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ “ εἰς αὐτὸ 1 ᾿ ἀγρυπνοῦντες 2 ο Luke xxi. 
t 


36 only. 


ἐν πάσῃ "προσκαρτερήσει καὶ ὃ " δεήσει περὶ ὁ πάντων τῶν * ἁγίων p Ch. ii. 22 
ἢ ff. 


qt Pet. iv. 7; Jude 20; (Rom. ix. 17, xiii. 6; 2 Cor. ν. 5, but all w. τοῦτο). 
s Here only. 


xxi. 36; Heb. xiii. 17 only; Cant. v. 2. 


reff. 
τ Mark xiii. 33; Luke 
t Ch. i. 1 reff. 


1 After αὐτὸ insert τουτο D°EKLP, etc., Chrys.-text., Thdrt., Dam.-text., al.; 
om. $ABD*FG (αντον D*FG) It., Vulg., Lat. Fathers, Copt., etc. 


? After ayp. insert παντοτε DEFG, It., Syr., Ar.-erp., Bas. 
ὃ arpook. kat om. D* (ev π. τη δ.) FG, It., Victorin., etc. 
4 For περι, υπερ D*E*FG 37, 47, 73, 80, Syr. (with περι in marg.), Thdrt. 


δεήσεως προσευχόμενοι: with all prayer 
and supplication praying. This clause is 
a further explanation of the manner in 
which the injunction στῆτε οὖν is to be 
carried. It is connected by some with 
the preceding δέξασθε; but it is not 
appropriate to the δέξασθε, which repre- 
sents a single, definite act, while it is 
entirely suitable to the continuous atti- 
tude expressed by στῆτε. This great 
requirement of standing ready for the 
combat can be made good only when 
prayer, constant, earnest, spiritual prayer, 
is added to the careful equipment with all 
the parts of the panoply. Meyer would 
Separate προσευχόμενοι from the διὰ 
πάσης, etc., and make it the beginning of 
a new, independent clause. His reason 
is that it is i.upossible to pray with every 
kind of prayer on every occasion. But 
the absoluteness of the statement is only 
of the kind that is often seen in Paul, as, 
e.g., when he charges us to pray ἀδιαλείπ- 
τως (1 Thess. ν. 17). διά has the familiar 
sense of ‘by means of,” in the particular 
aspect of formal cause, the manner in 
which a thing is done (cf. εἶπε διὰ παρα- 
βολῆς, Luke viii. 4; εἶπε διὰ ὁράματος, 
Acts xviii. 9;. τῷ λόγῳ δι’ ἐπιστολῶν, 
2 Cor. v. 11, etc.; Grimm-Thayer, Lezx., p. 
133). The πάσης has the force of “ every 
kind of”. The distinction attempted tobe 


drawn between προσευχή (= npn) 


and8énats ( = Tr), as between prayer 


for blessing and prayer for the withhoid- 
ing or removing of evil, cannot be made 
good. The only difference between the 
two terms appears to be that προσευχή 
means prayer in general, precatio, and 
δέησις, a special form of prayer, petition, 
rogatio.—év παντὶ καιρῷ : in every season. 
Not merely in the crisis of the conflict or 
on special occasions, but habitually, in 
all kinds of times.—év πνεύματι : in the 
Spirit. The reference is not to our spirit, 
as if = with inward devoutness or with 
heartfelt pleading (Erasm., Grot., etc.), 


nor as opposed to βαττολογεῖν (Chrys.), 
but “in the Holy Spirit,” the Holy Spirit 
being the sphere or element in which 
alone true prayer of all different kinds 
can proceed and from which it draws its 
inspiration ; cf. the great statement on 
the intercession of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 
26, 27); also Gal. iv. 6, and especially 
Jude 20, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχό- 
μενοι. Thus the praying is defined in 
respect of its variety and earnestness 
(διὰ πάσης, etc.), its constancy (ἐν παντὶ 
καιρῷ), and its spiritual reality or its 
“holy sphere” (cf. Ell.).—kai εἰς αὐτὸ 
[τοῦτο] ἀγρυπνοῦντες: and thereunto 
watching. The τοῦτο of the TR in- 
serted after αὐτό has the support only 
of such MSS. as D®JK, etc. ; it is omitted 
in BAW, etc., while αὐτόν alone occurs 
in D*G. τοῦτο, therefore, is to be de- 
leted, as is done by LTTrWHRYV. The 
els τοῦτο refers not to what is to follow, 
as, @g., to the ἵνα μοι δοθῇ (Holzh.), 
but to what immediately precedes. 
The clause, therefore, attaches (by the 
καί) a more particular requirement to 
the general statement just made, speci- 
fying something that is to be done with 
a view (eis τοῦτο) to the fulfilment of the 
large injunction as to praying. That is 
watchfulness, readiness, and, as the next 
words state, watchfulness in intercession, 
ἀγρυπνεῖν = to keep awake or to keep 
watch, and then to be attentive, vigilant 
(Mark xiii. 33 ; Luke xxi. 36), is much the 
same as γρηγορεῖν ἀπά νήφειν. So far as 
any distinction is made between them it 
may be that ἀγρυπνεῖν expresses alert- 
ness as opposed to listlessness, γρηγορεῖν 
watchfulness as the result of effort, and 
νήφειν wariness, the wakefulness that is 
safe against drowsiness (Sheldon Green, 
Crit. Notes on the N. T., sub Mark xiii. 33). 
—ty πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει καὶ δεήσει: 
in all perseverance and supplication. The 
only occurrence of the noun προσκαρτέ- 
ρησις. The verb, however, is found a 
number of times, both in profane Greek 
and in the NT, especially in Acts (Mark iii. 


390 


πὶ gs 
xii. 8. 
v See note. μου Σ ἐν 
w Matt. v. 
2 reff.; Acts viii. 35, x. 34 al. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vi. 


19. καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα μοι δοθῇ 1 "λόγος * ἐν " ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός 
ὑ παῤῥησίᾳ " γνωρίσαι τὸ " μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου," 
x Phil. i. 20; Col. ii. 15; τὸ Paul only. 


yz Ch. i. ο reff. 


1δοθειη, with some mss. ; 808m most MSS., mss., Vss., Ff. 


2 Insert τον εναγγελιον NADEFKLP, etc., d, e, f, Vulg., Syr., Copt., etc. ; om. 
BFG, g, Victorin., Tert. (citing freely), Ambrst. 


9; Acts i. 14, ii. 42, 46, vi. 4, vill. 13, x. 7; 
Rom. xii. 12, xiii. 6; Col. iv. 2) in the sense 
of giving heed to (e.g., τῇ προσενχῇῃ, Acts 
i. 14, etc.), continuing in, etc. The per- 
severance or stedfastness in view is in 
the matter of prayer, so that the “in 
every kind of perseverance and suppli- 
cation” is much the same as “in every 
kind of persevering supplication,” al- 
though in the case of a hendiadys proper 
the order would rather have been ἐν δεή- 
oe. καὶ προσκαρτερήσει.---περὶ πάντων 
τῶν ἁγίων: for all the saints. Thus in 
order to prayer of the kind described— 
prayer comprehensive, continuous, and 
moving in the domain of the Spirit of 
God, there must be intercession for all 
and watchfulness and perseverance in it. 
Only when we constantly pray in this 
way for others can we pray for ourselves 
‘* with all prayer and supplication in every 
season in the Spirit”. 

Ver. 19. καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ: and for me. 
καί has here its adjunctive force, in the 
special form of appending the particular 
to the general (Win.-Moult., p. 544), = 
‘‘and for me in particular”. Paul passes 
from the requirement of intercession for 
all to that of intercession for himself, and 
that with a view toa special gift from God, 
to wit, freedom of utterance in preaching. 
The περί of the former clause becomes 
ὑπέρ in the present. This suggests the 
existence of some distinction between the 
two preps., and some have attempted to 
show that ὑπέρ alone expresses the idea 
of care for one, while περί denotes a more 
distant relation (Harl., etc.). But it is 
impracticable to establish either that or 
any other tangible distinction. ὑπέρ may 
be, generally speaking, more applicable to 

ersons, and περί to things. But here 
th are used of persons. Even in clas- 
sical Greek they were often used as if 
interchangeable (e.g., Demosth., PaAil., 
ii., Ῥ. 74, 35), and in later Greek, both 
biblical and non-biblical, they seem to 
have lost any distinction they once may 
have Ἠαὰ.-- ἵνα μοι δοθείῃ [δοθῇ] λόγος: 
that to me may be given utterance. The 
δοθείῃ of the TR rests on very slender 
cursive evidence ; δοθῇ is read by BRAD 
EFGKLP, etc., and must be substituted. 


A few authorities place μοι a, 7 
(99, d, ο, f, veg, δω ake 
most it is inserted before it. δοθῇ has 
the position of emphasis—the utterance 
for which they were to pray in Paul’s 
behalf is regarded as a gift from God. 
For this use of λόγος cf. # Cor. i. 5; 2 
Cor. xi. 2. —év ἀνοίξει τοῦ ατός μου: 
in opening my mouth. Not ‘that I may 
open my mouth”’ (AV), but “ when I open 
my mouth’’, The ἐν marks the occasion 
of the action, and the action itself is that 
in which the gift (δοθῇ) of Divine help is 
sought. The phrase ἀνοίγειν τὸ pa 
does not of itself denote any special kind 
of utterance, whether unreserved (Calv., 
De Wette, etc.), unpremeditated (Occ.), 
or other. If it conveys in any case the 
idea of acertain quality of speech, that is 
due to the context; as in 2 Cor. vi. 11, 
where it is conjoined with the phrase 4 
καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται. It means 
simply the opening of the mouth tos 

or the act of speaking; but both in the 
OT and in the NT it appears to have a 
certain pathetic (Mey.), or rather solemn 
force (Ell.), being used of grave and impor- 
tant utterances on which much depended 
(Job iii. 1; Dan. x. 16; Matt. v. 2; Acts 
viii. 33, xviii. 14).—dv παρ : with 
boldness. Statement of the thing specially 
sought, and recognised as to be οι πε κακό” 
only by the gift of God, to wit, fearless, 
confident freedom whenever occasion came 
to preach the Gospel. παρ prim- 
arily = freedom in speaking (Acts iv. 13; 
2 Cor. ili. 12); then frankness, unreserve, 
or plainness in speaking (Mark viii. 32; 
John x. 24, xi. 14, xvi. 25, etc.); and 
boldness, assurance, as opposed, ¢.g., to 
αἰσχύνεσθαι (Phil. i. 20; 1 John iti. 21, 
v. 14); and with the fundamental idea ot 
freedom or confidence in speaking again 
suggesting itself (1 John ii. 28, iv. 17; 
see also under iii. 12 above).—yvwploat 
τὸ μυστήριον [τοῦ εὐαγγελίου]: to make 
known the mystery (of the Gospel]. The 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου of the TR has large sup- 
port (NADEKLP, Vulg., Syr., Copt., 
etc.). It is omitted by BrerG, Victor., 
etc., and is deleted by LWH. The gen. 
is probably that of contents, or one of the 
various forms of the gen. possess., = the 


19---2ο. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


391 


20. ὑπὲρ οὗ "πρεσβεύω ἐν " ἁλύσει, ἵνα "ἐν αὐτῷ 4 παῤῥησιάσωμαια 2 Cor. v. 


" ὡς δεῖ µε λαλῆσαι. 


(Paul); 2 Tim. i. 16. c See note. 


e Col. iv. 4. 


mystery contained in the Gospel or be- 
longing toit. On μυστήριον see under i. 
g above.—The connection of the several 
clauses in this verse is variously under- 
stood. Some connect ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στό- 
ματός pov with the following ἐν παρρησίᾳ. 
So Grotius, who explains it thus—“ ut 
ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem 
urbem perferre possem sermonem”; but 
παρρησία does not apply to freedom of 
movement, and here it has a sense in har- 
mony with the following παῤῥησιάσωμαι. 
Others attach the ἐν ἀνοίξει closely with 
the λόγος as a definition of it, = ‘that 
utterance may be given me by the open- 
ing of my mouth” (Cornel. 4 Lap., Harl., 
Olsh., Von Soden, Abb., etc.). This makes 
the ‘‘opening of the mouth” the act of 
God ; in support of which interpretation 
appeal is made to the terms in Ezek, iii. 
ο σοας. SE ποσα. 5ο. ΕΒ. Ἡ, τὸν Che 
absence of the article, and the analogous 
passage in Col. iv. 3 are also thought to 
favour this. But the terms in Col. iv. 3 
are different—iva Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν 
τοῦ λόγον, and the construction makes 
the δοθῇ and the ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματος 
practically one and the samething. The 
simplest constructions are these two—(r) 
to connect ἐν παρρησίᾳ with what pre- 
cedes, and with the λόγος not the ἄνοιξις, 
= “that utterance, and that with bold- 
ness, may be given to me when I under- 
take to open my mouth with a view to 
make known the mystery of the Gospel”’ ; 
and (2) to connect ἐν παρρησίᾳ with 
what follows, to wit, the γνωρίσαι, = 
“that to me utterance may be given 
when I open my mouth, that with bold- 
ness I may make known the mystery of 
the Gospel”. The latter is preferred by 
Meyer, Ell., WH, etc. It is followed by 
the RV text, “in opening my mouth, to 
make known with boldness,” etc.; while 
the RV margin gives ‘‘in opening my 
mouth with boldness, to make known the 
mystery,” etc. The former construction 
gives a good sense for each particular 
term and a simple connection, if the év 
παρρησίᾳ is taken to define not the opfen- 
ing of the mouth, but the utterance, the 
λόγος, which is the main thought. On 
the whole the latter is perhaps to be pre- 
ferred, the need of utterance, power of 
speech, when occasion offers itself to 
preach, being first mentioned, and this 
gift of utterance being next defined in 


20 only. 
- b Acts 
XXViii. 20; 


ἃ Acts ix. 26 al.; 1 Thess, ii. 2 only; Prov. xx. ο al. 


respect of its object, viz., to give fearless 
confidence in making the Gospel known. 

Ver. 20. ὑπὲρ ot πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει: 
in behalf of which I am an ambassador in 
achain. The οὗ is best referred, not to 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, but to τὸ μυστήριον, the 
mystery contained in the Gospel being 
the thing that Paul desired to make known 
(γνωρίσαι). So in Col. iv. 3 it is this 
μυστήριον that the writer is to utter 
(λαλῆσαι) and on account of which he is 
bound (δέδεµαι). πρεσβεύω = ‘I act as 
ambassador,” only here and in 2 Cor. v. 
20. The ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ of the latter pas- 
sage is left to be understood here. The 
legation or embassage in Christ’s cause, 
which Paul here ascribes to himself, is 
not to be limited to the Roman Court 
(Mich.), but is to be understood as to the 
whole Gentile world, in the wide sense of 
the commission given (Acts ix. 15, xvii. 
15); the debt professed (Rom. i. 14); the 
office claimed (Rom. xi. 13), and recog- 
nised (Gal. ii. 9). The noun ἅλυσις, 
which is not of frequent occurrence in 
classical Greek, means there a chain 
(Herod., ix., 74; Eurip., ΟΥ., 984); also a 
woman’s ornament, a bracelet (Aristoph., 
Frag., Mem., ii., p. 1079). Itis taken by 
some to be a word of general application, 
denoting a chain or bond by which any 
part of the body may be bound, and it is 
questioned (e.g., by Mey.), whether it is 
distinguished from πέδη as hand-fetter 
from foot-fetter. But, while in such pas- 
sages as Rev. xx. 1 the specific sense may 
not be required, it seems clear that the 
distinction between manacle and fetter 
does obtain (cf. Polyb., iii., 82, 8); that 
this distinction is made in Mark ν. 4; 
and that ἅλυσις is used of the “ hand- 
cuff” by which a prisoner was attached 
to his guard (Joseph., Antiq., xviii., 6, 7, 
10: Acts xii. 6, xxi. 33, etc. ; cf. Light., 
Phil., p. 8). This may be its meaning 
here, and there will be no necessity for 
taking it to be a collective sing. = bonds; 
of which use indeed, though possible 
(cf. Bernh., Synt., ii., 1, p. 58), there does 
not appear to be any clear example in the 
NT itself. And such phrases as εἰς τὴν 
ἅλυσιν ἐμπίπτειν (Polyb., iv., 76, 5, xxi., 
3, 3) are inconclusive, the article giving 
the word the generic sense. It has been 
thought that the expression points to the 
custodia militaris endured by Paul in 
Rome (Acts xxviii. 16, 20; cf, 2 Tim. i. 


392 


f Col. iv. 7; 
ch. i. 15. 

g Here 
only. 

h (Ch, v. 1 reff.); see 1 Cor. xv. 58 reff. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


Vi. 


21. Ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ bpeis! ' τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ, © τί πράσσω, πάντα ὃ 
ὑμῖν ” γνωρίσει ὃ Τυχικὸς ὁ ἢ ἀγαπητὸς " ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς ' διά- 
i Col. iv. 7 only. 


1 και up. ἐιδ. (ιδ. AD*FG, al.) NADEFG, 108-14-18-20, al., It., Vulg., al., Thdrt., 
some Lat. Fathers; ειδητε και υμεις BKL, etc., Syr. Arm., Eth., Chr., Dam., Jer., 


Ambrst., etc. 
παντα om. D*FG, it., Syr., Jer. 


5 yv. up. NBDEFGP 37, 116-20, It., al., 


Syr.-P., Chr., Thdrt., Dam., etc. 


16; Beza, Grot., Paley, Steyer, etc.). 
That is possible, and indeed even prob- 
able, so far as the custodia is concerned. 
But the description might apply to the 
imprisonment in Czsarea as well as to 
thatin Rome. The real point of the clause 
is in the view it gives of the need of the 
παρρησία and of the intercessions that 
should bring that gift.—Tva ἐν αὐτῷ παρ- 
ρησιάσωμαι ὡς δεῖ µε λαλῆσαι : in order 
that therein I may speak boldly, ας] ought 
to speak. How is this purpose-clause to 
be connected? Some attach it to the 
πρεσβεύω (Beng., Meyer, Von Soden), 
as if = “ I act as ambassador in a chain 
with the object of speaking boldly,” etc. 
Others connect it with the whole fore- 
going clause, making it subordinate to 
that, and an explanation of the object of 
the gift of utterance, = “" that utterance 
may be given to me to make known the 
mystery, with the view that I should speak 
boldly ” (Harl.). But ἵνα is repeatedly 
used to introduce something that is not 
subordinate to, but coordinate with, what 
is stated in a former ἵνα clause (Rom. viii. 
13; Gal. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xii, 20; 2 Cor. ix. 
3). It is best, therefore, to take it so 
here, and to understand the clause as 
giving a second object contemplated in 
the π οἱ and ἀγρυπνοίντες, 
etc. First the gift of utterance, and now 
secondly the gift more particularly of a 
boldness or freedom (παρρησιάσωμαι) in 
preaching such as became the Apostle’s 
office and responsibility (ὡς δεῖ pe λαλῆ- 
σαι). The αὐτῷ refers to the μυστήριον 
which was to be preached. The ἐν is 
taken by some (e.g., Harl.) to denote 
the source or ground of the boldness in 
speaking (παρρησιάσωμαι). But it is 
God who is named as the source of such 
boldness (ἐπαρρησιασάµεθα ἐν τῷ Θεῷ, 1 
Thess. ii. 2). It might be an instance 
of ἐν expressing that on which a certain 
power operates or in which it shows it- 
self (as in ἵνα οὕτω γένηται ἐν ἐμοί, 1 
Cor. ix. 15; ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε, τ Cor. iv. 6; 
cf. Thayer-Grimm, Lex., p. 210). But it 


Ambrst. ; vpiv γνωρισει AKL, εἰς, Vulg., 


is best understood as the note of that in 
which one is busted (cf. Acts xxii, 12; 1 
Tim. iv. 15; Col. iv. 2, εἴς.), and so= 
“that, occupied with that mystery, {.ε., 
in proclaiming it, I may speak boldly” 
(Mey.). 

Vv. 21-22. Statement regarding Tych- 
icus and his mission. 

Ver. 21. ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς [καὶ 
ὑμεῖς εἰδῆτε) τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, τί πράσσω: but 
that ye also may know my affairs, how I 
do. The metabatic δέ, passing on to a 
different subject. The order καὶ ὑμεῖς 
εἰδῆτε is given in ΝΑΡΕ, etc.; εἰδῆτε 
καὶ ὑμεῖς in BKL, Syr., ete. The evi- 
dence is almost equally balanced. LTTr 
prefer the former order; WH give it in 
the margin. The καί has its proper force 
of “also,” and points, therefore, to others 
as well as the Ephesians as possessing 
or being interested in the knowledge of 
Paul's affairs. Those who take the 
Epistle to the Colossians to be prior 
to this one, naturally think of the Colos- 
sians as in view. But in the Epistle 
itself there is nothing to indicate who 
these others were. For τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ = 
“my circumstances,” ¢f. Phil. i. 22; Col. 
iv. 7; also Tob. x. 8; 1 Esdr.i. 22. τί 
πράσσω, not = ‘what I do,” but “how 
I fare,” in the reflexive sense (Lat., me 
habeo) common from éschylus down- 
wards. Here it is explanatory of τὰ κατ᾽ 
ἐμέ. --- πάντα ὑμῖν γνωρίσει [γνωρίσει 
ὑμῖν] Τνχικός: Tychicus shall Sake 
known to you. πάντα is omitted in 
D'F, Syr., etc. ὑμῖν is placed by the 
TR before γνωρίσει (as in AKL, Syr.-P., 
Chr., Theod., etc.; after it by LTTr _ 
WHRY (as in gap 17, 37, 116, 
120, Syr.-Sch., Copt., etc.). τΤυχικός, 
usually so accented, but Τύχικος in WH, 
is mentioned again in Acts xx. 4; Col. 
iv. 7; 2 Tim. tv. 12; Tit. iii. 12. We 
gather from these passages that he was 
a native of proconsular Asia (Acts xx. 4), 
possibly of Ephesus itself (see πο. 
Philip., p. 11); that he was with Paul 
towards the close of his third missionary 


21---23. 


τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ ' παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


393 


al. fr. 


23. Εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ "' ἀγάπη Ἰ μετὰ πίστεως ἀπὸ θεοῦ m 3 Cor, 


xili. 13; 
1 Thess. iii. 6; Jude 2. 


1 For αγαπη, ελεος A. 


journey (Acts xx. 4); and again at the 
time when the Epistle to the Colossians 
was written; and yet again at the end of 
the Apostle’s career (Tit. iii. 12; 2 Tim. 
iv. 12). It is probable that he went to 
Jerusalem, as Trophimus did (Acts xxi. 
29), in all likelihood as a delegate of his 
Church, the words ἄχρις τῆς ᾿Ασίας not 
belonging to the true text of Acts xx. 4. 
We find him here charged with the de- 
livery of the circular letter known as the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, probably at 
the chief centres, Laodicea, Colosse, 
etc., where Christian communities had 
been formed in Asia. He is mentioned 
also in connection with missions to Crete 
and to Ephesus (Tit. iii, 12; 2 Tim. iv. 
12).—6 ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς 
διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ : the beloved brother 
and faithful minister in the Lord. In 
the sister Epistle he is described in the 
same terms, but with the addition of καὶ 
σύνδουλος. πιστός = faithful, in the 
sense of trusty, as in Matt. xxiv. 45 and 
often elsewhere. The ἐν Κυρίῳ defines 
the διάκονος, and does not refer to the 
whole clause. The service to Paul was 
service rendered in the Lord, in Christ’s 
fellowship and Spirit. The term διάκονος 
does not carry here the idea of ecclesiasti- 
cal office, such as the deaconship proper, 
but refers to ministrations rendered to 
Paul himself, and so is ‘‘servant”’ or 
“ὁ minister’ in the general sense. So in 
Col. iv. 7 he is called not only πιστὸς 
διάκονος, but Paul’s fellow-servant 
(σύνδουλος) in the Lord. This is Paul’s 
commendation of him to the Churches 
which he was to visit. 

Ver. 22: ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο: whom I have sent unto you for 
this very purpose. ἔπεμψα, in idiomatic 
English = ‘‘ I have written,” but literally 
= Κ1 did write”. Ifit were certain that 
the Epistle to the Colossians preceded 
that to the Ephesians, that the special 
mission on which Tychicus was sent with 
Onesimus to Colossz took place before 
Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
and that he found some opportunity of 
forwarding the latter Epistle also in the 
course of Tychicus’s journey, the ἔπεμψα 
would have its usual aorist sense, refer- 
ring to a past act. Failing this, it must 


be taken as an instance of the epistolary 
aor., the mission being coincident with 
the writing of the letter, but contemplated 
from the view-point of the recipients of 
the letter, to whom it was a thing of the 
past. The epistolary aor. certainly occurs 
in Latin, in the use of scripsi, etc. (cf. 
Madvig, Gr., ὃ 345). How far its use 
extends in the NT is still a moot question, 
some finding many cases, ¢.g., ἔγραψα in 
Gal. vi. 11; Philem. το, 21; 1 Pet. v. 12; 
I John ii, 14, 21, 26, v. 13; ἐπέστειλα, 
Heb. xiii. 22; ἔπεμψα, συνέπεμψα in 2 
Cor. viii. 18, 22; Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8; 
Phil. ii. 28; Philem. 11, etc. ; while others 
(e.g., Blass) restrict it to ἔπεμψα in Acts 
xxlii, 30; Phil. ii. 28; Col. iv.8; Philem. 
11, etc. (cf. Win.-Moult., p. 347; Blass, 
Gram. of Ν. T. Greek, p. 194; Lightf. on 
Gal. iv. 11; Col. iv. 8; Ell. on Gal. iv. 11. 
—iva γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν: that ye may 
know our state. τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν will natur- 
ally have the same sense as the τὰ κατ᾽ 
*pé, the ἡμῶν including Paul’s com- 
panions with himself. It is well rendered 
“our state” by the RV; “our affairs” 
by the AV. The information regarding 
Paul and his friends would not be confined 
to the letter, but would be given no doubt 
also by Tychicus by word of mouth.—kat 
παρακαλέσῃ Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν : and that 
he may comfort your hearts. παρακαλεῖν 
means most frequently either to exhort or 
(in later Greek as well as in the NT) to 
beseech. Rarely in non-biblical Greek has 
it the sense of comforting or encouraging ; 


but in the LXX it represents OFT, and 


in the NT it has these senses, and also 
once that of instructing (Tit.i.9). Here 
it means to comfort, or to encourage ; 
probably the former, with respect both to 
Paul’s troubles already mentioned (iii. 13 
above) and their own. 

Vv. 23-24. Closing Benediction. 

Ver. 23. εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ 
ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως: peace be to the 
brethrenand love with faith. Paul’s bene- 
dictions are usually addressed directly to 
the reader, μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν or some similar form 
being employed. This one is addressed 
to the brethren in the third person, as is 
perhaps more appropriate in a circular 
letter, There is nothing to favour Wiese- 


394 


5. Rom. ii. πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ χριστοῦ. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


vi. 


24. ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν 


ἄν, 43, 50, ἀγαπώντων τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν χριστὸν ἐν " ἀφθαρσίᾳ." 


53, 54} 
2 iin, i. 16; (Tit. ii. 7 var. read.). 


1 Add αμην $*DEKLP, etc., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Goth., Eth., Thdrt., Victorin., 
Ambrst.; om. αµην ΑΒΕΕ 17, 73, f, g, Arm., Euth., Orig. 


ler’s notion that in the ἀδελφοῖς Fewish 
Christians are saluted, while the πάντων 
in ver. 24 refers to Gentile Christians. 
εἰρήνη, not = concord one with another, 


but = the OT ο σύ in salutations or 


farewells, = ‘‘ may it be well with the 
brethren”; with the Christian connota- 
tion, however, of well-being as mental 
peace and good due to reconciliation with 
God. In his expression of what he would 
have them enjoy he couples with the 
blessing of a new mental peace that also 
of love—the Christian grace of love, that is 
to say, and such love as is associated with 
faith (μετὰ πίστεως). μετά, as distin- 
guished from σύν, expresses the simple 
idea of accompanying. So here it is not 
‘love and faith,’ but, faith being pre- 
supposed as making the Christian, it is 
love which goes with faith, not the Divine 
love (Beng., etc.), but the brotherly love 
which shows itself where faith is and by 
which faith works (Gal. v. ϐ).---ἀπὸ Θεοῖ 
πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίον ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: from 
God the Father and the Lord Fesus Christ. 
The two-fold source of the blessings de- 
sired for the reader—God as Father, the 
Father of Christ Himself, the causa prin- 
cipalis and fons primarius ; Christas Lord, 
ead over all with a sovereignty which is 
founded in God (1 Cor. xi. 3; Phil. ii. 9; 
Eph. i. 17), as causa medians and fons 
secundarius. The phrase occurs again 
(though with some variations in the 
readings) in 2 Tim. i. 2; Tit. i. 4. In 
the opening salutation it is “God our 
Father”. Here the relation of God to 
Christ is more in view, in respect of their 
joint-bestowal of spiritual blessings. 

Ver. 24. ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγα- 
πώντων τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν 
ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ. [ἀμήν]: Grace be with all 
them that love our Lord Fesus Christ in 
reigns hearse As in Colossians, the three 
Pastoral Epistles, andalso in Hebrews, we 
have here ἡ χάρις, '' the grace,” the grace 
beside which there is none other, the grace 
of God in Christ of which Christians have 
experience. In the closing benedictions 
of Cor., Gal., Philip., Thess., Philem. (as 
also in Rev.), we have the fuller form 4 
χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, or ἡ 
χάρις τοῦ Κυρίον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ; 


also in Romans according to the TR, the 
verse, however, being deleted by the best 
critics. The former benediction was for 
the brethren, probably those in the Asiatic 
Churches. his second benediction is 
of widest scope—for al! those who love 
Christ. The difficulty is with the un- 
usual expression ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, both as to 
its sense and its connection. The noun 

is used in Plutarch of τὸ θεῖον 
(Arist., c. 6), in Philo of the κόσμος (De 
incorr. Mundi, § 11), in the LXX and the 
Apocr. of immortality (Wisd. ii. 23, vi. 19; 
4 Mace. xvii. 12). In the NT it is found, 
in addition to the present passage, in 
Rom. ii. 7 of the ‘ incorruption”” which 
goes with the glory and honour of the 
future; in 1 Cor. xv. 42, 50, 53, 54, Of 
the “incorruption”’ of the resurrection- 
body ; in 2 Tim. i. το, of the life and **in- 
corruption" brought to light by Christ. 
The occurrence in Tit. ii. 10 must be dis- 
counted in view of the adverse diplomatic 
evidence. The Pauline use, therefore, is 
in favour of the idea of “ incorruption,” 
‘‘imperishableness,”’ the quality of the 
changeless and undecaying ; and that as 
belonging to the future in contrast with 
There 


Cov. Test., ‘ sincerely” ; ν. Cran., 
‘‘unfeignedly’’. This would be expressed 
by ἀφθορία or some similar term (cf. Tit. 
ii. 7). Nor can it be simply identified 
with all imperishable being in this life 
or in the other (Bleek, Olsh., Matthies, 
etc.); nor yet again with ἐν ἀφθάρτοις 
on the analogy of ἐν ᾿πονρανίοις, as if 
it described the sphere of the ἀγάπη. 
There remains the qualitative sense of 
“‘imperishableness’’ (Mey., Ell., Alf., 
Abb., and most), which best suits lin- 
guistic use, the sense of the adj. ἄφθαρ- 
τος (cf. Rom. i. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 25, xv. 52; 
1 Tim. i. 17; 1 Pet. i. 4, 23, iii. 4), and 
the application here in connection with 
the grace of love. The ἐν, therefore, is 
not to be loosely dealt with, as if = «ls 
(Beza, as if it meant the same as els 
τὸν αἰῶνα), or διά (Theophy.), or ὑπέρ 
(Chrys.), or even μετά (Theodor.); but 
has its proper force of the element Οἱ 


23—24. 


manney in which the love is cherished. 
Further, the simplest and most obvious 
connection is with the ἀγαπώντων, as it 
is taken by most, including Chrys., 
Theod., and the other Greek comment- 
ators. Some, however, connect the phrase 
with ἡ χάρις, as = “grace be with all in 
eternity” (Bez., Beng., Matthies), or, ‘‘in 
all imperishable being” (Harl.), or as a 
short way of saying ‘‘grace be with all 
that they may have eternal [π᾿ (Olsh.). 
This construction, though strongly advo- 
cated recently by Von Soden, fails to 
give a clear and satisfactory sense, or one 
wholly accordant with the use of ἀφθαρ- 
σία; while there is against it also the fact 
that the defined noun and the defining 
phrase would be further apart than is 
usual in benedictions. Still less reason is 
there to connect the phrase immediately 
with τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν as 
if it described Christ as zmmortal (Wetst., 
etc.)—a construction both linguistically 
and grammatically (in the absence of 
τὸν before ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ) questionable. 
The phrase, therefore, defines the way 


ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 


ο 


in which they love, or the element in 
which their love has its being. It is a 
love that ‘‘ knows neither change, dimin- 
ution, nor decay” (Ell.). The closing 
ἀμήν added by the TR is found in ΝΟ 
KPL, most cursives, Syr., Boh., etc.; 
but not in ΒΝ ΑΘ, 17, Arm., etc. It is 
omitted by LTTrWHRV. 

The subscription πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ἐγρά- 
φη ἀπὸ Ρώμης διὰ Τυχικοῖ is omitted 
by LTWH; while Treg. gives simply 
πρὸς Ἐφεσίους. Like the subscriptions 
appended to Rom., Phil., and 2 Tim., it 
chronicles a view of the Epistle that is 
easier to reconcile with fact than is the 
case with others (1 and 2 Thess., Tit., 
and espec. 1 Cor., Gal., 1 Tim.). In the 
oldest MSS. it is simply πρὸς Ἐφεσίους. 
In the Versions, later MSS., and some 
of the Fathers it takes various longer 
forms. The form represented in the TR 
and the AV is not older than Euthalius, 
Deacon of Alexandria and Bishop of 
Sulca, who flourished perhaps in the 
middle of the fifth century. 





της εσας ΘΕ PAUL 
το THE 


PHILIPPIANS 





INTRODUCTION. 


THe CuHurcH ΑΡΡΒΕΘΘΕΡ. The town of Philippi occupied a 
commanding situation on the rocky slopes of a steep hill which 
overlooked, on the one side, the spacious plain of Drama watered by 
the Gangites (or Angites, Herodot., vii., 113), and, on the other, the 
pass between Mount Pangzeum (south-west of Philippi) and the spurs 
of Hemus. Through this pass ran the famous Roman road, the Via 
Egnatia (see Tafel, De Via Militari Romanorum Egnatia, Tibing., 
1842), connecting Dyrrhachium on the Adriatic with the Hellespont. 
Its importance as a strategic position was manifest. Its value as a 
commercial centre was no less evident, standing as it did on the busy 
Roman thoroughfare which joined East and West, and being itself the 
emporium of a large industry which circled about the rich gold mines 
dotted over the surrounding region. Originally it had borne the 
name of Κρηνίδες (or αἱ Κρηνίδες), derived, perhaps, from the copious 
streams which flowed through the plain (Strabo, vii., Frag. 34, ταῖς 
Κρηνίσιν ὅπου νῦν ot Φίλιπποι πόλις ἵδρυται ; Appian, B. Ο., iv., 105, οἱ 
δὲ Φίλιπποι πόλις ἐστὶν 7 Δάτος ὠνομάζετο πάλαι καὶ Κρηνίδες ἔτι πρὸ 
Δάτου). Philip of Macedon, in his victorious career, quickly discerned 
the value of the country bordering on Mount Pangeum. He 
recognised a source of vast profit in the gold and silver mines, which, 
up till now, had only been partially exploited. But a local centre of 
influence was necessary to command this coveted territory. Accord- 
ingly, by enlarging the former Krenides, he founded a new city, to 
which he gave his own name, Philippi (see Diod. Sic., xvi., 8, 6, 
ταύτην μὲν ἐπαὐξήσας οἰκητόρων πλήθει μετωνόμασε Φιλίππους ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ 
προσαγορέυσας - τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν χώραν χρυσεῖα μέταλλα παντελῶς ὄντα λιτὰ 
καὶ ἄδοξα ταῖς κατασκευαῖς ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ηὔξησεν ὥστε δύνασθαι φέρειν αὐτῷ 
πρόσοδον πλεῖον ἢ ταλάντων χιλίων). 

This Greek city attracted the notice of Augustus after his defeat 
of Brutus and Cassius in its immediate neighbourhood in 42 Β.ο, 
Having to find places of settlement for Italian soldiers who had 
served their time and could not be maintained in Italy, he established 
at Philippi, among other towns, a Roman colony, to which he granted 


400 INTRODUCTION 


the jus Italicum as an attraction to settlers. This privilege included 
(a) exemption from the oversight of the provincial governor, (δ) 
immunity from the poll and property taxes, (c) rights to property in 
the soil regulated by Roman law (see Marquardt-Mommsen, Rémische 
Staatsverwaltung, Bd. |., pp. 363-364; Mommsen, Provinces of Roman 
Empire, Ἱ., pp. 299-302). 

But, in addition to its industrial and military importance, Philippi 
could boast of the religious zeal of its inhabitants. MM. Heuzey 
and Daumet, in their exhaustive and invaluable Mission Archéo- 
logique de Macédoine (Paris, 1876), have pointed out that the rocks 
near the ancient site of Philippi are “a veritable museum of myth- 
ology” (p. 86). Traces have been found of a temple dedicated to 
Silvanus, one of the most popular deities of the Imperial epoch, who 
was worshipped as the sacred guardian of the Emperor (pp. iii, 75). 
The Oriental god Mén seems also to have had his votaries there, and 
in the neighbouring mountains Dionysus, the favourite divinity of 
the Thracians, had “ the most revered of his sanctuaries” (p. ν). 
This was the spiritual soil upon which the Gospel of Christ had to 
work, a picture in miniature of the strangely cosmopolitan character 
of religion in the Roman Empire at that stage in its history. Wecan 
easily conceive how, amidst these surroundings, the maiden “ pos- 
sessing a spirit of divination” was sure to drive a flourishing trade. 

The account of Paul’s work at Philippi is given in Acts xvi., 
a chapter belonging, in part, to the “we-sections,”’ which are re- 
garded as extremely valuable even by the most negative critics. (Por 
attacks upon the authenticity of this account see Knowling on A, 
xvi., ad fin., in vol. ii. of this work.) It was thoroughly in accord- 
ance with the Apostle’s well-weighed plan of operations to choose 
as the starting-point of his labours in Europe a typical city of 
the Roman Empire, lying on one of the main trade-routes, where 
he might count upon protection against violence, and from which 
any strong influence he might exert must extend itself towards 
East and West (see Ramsay, Church in Rom. Emp., pp. 56, 70, 
148 εἰ al.). Paul seems to have attached himself to a little com- 
pany of Jews and proselytes (A. xvi. 13 ff.). Mention is only made 
of some women who assembled for prayer by the river side on the 
Sabbath day. From this it may probably be gathered that Judaism 
had no firm hold at Philippi. It is worthy of note that the charge of 
being Jews is set in the forefront by the enraged Philippians who drag 
Paul and Silas before the Praetors.! (Por the ancient hatred of 


1 See Henle, Tub. Theol. Quartal-Schr., 1893, Hft. 1, p. 82, 


INTRODUCTION 401 


Jews in the Roman world, see esp. Reinach, Textes . . . relatifs au 
Fudaisme, Paris, 1895.) Lydia, a seller of purple dyed garments, a 
native of Thyatira, famous for its dyeing trade, became the nucleus 
of a Christian congregation. She was already a God-fearer (σεβομένη 
τὸν Θεόν, see Schiirer, Fewish People, ii., 2, p. 314). As the result 
of Paul’s preaching she and her household were baptised, and the 
Apostle, with his companions, accepted her hospitality (see esp. A. 
xvi. 15). This spirit of generosity was to become characteristic of the 
Church at Philippi and of early Christian life as a whole. 

It is needless to dwell on the sharp crisis through which Paul 
and Silas had to pass. The arrest, the illegal flogging (cf. Cic., in 
Verr., ν., 66: facinus est vincirt civem Romanum, scelus verberari, 
prope parricidium necart), the extraordinary deliverance, the repent- 
ance, conversion and baptism of the jailor, the release in presence of 
the panic-stricken magistrates,—all these experiences must have made 
a deep impression on the minds of the Philippians. Already there were 
brethren there (A. xvi. 40), whom they exhorted as they were on the 
point of leaving Philippi for Thessalonica. Strangely enough, the “we” 
introduced at A. xvi. 10 ceases with ch. xvi., only to be resumed 
at ch. xx. 6, when Paul leaves Philippi after another visit. Perhaps 
it is not unreasonable to believe with Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 
p. 219) that Luke was left behind at Philippi to extend and consoli- 
date the good work which had been done. In any case the Church 
must have made rapid progress. For Paul had scarcely left Mace- 
donia when the Philippian Christians began to minister to his needs. 
From that time onwards they occupy a chief place in his affections. 

It is difficult to point to anything like fixed data as regards the 
component parts of the Church at Philippi. Schinz in his important 
dissertation, Die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi (Ziirich, 1837), 
brings forward many arguments to prove that it was essentially a 
heathen-Christian community (see esp. p. 57 ff.). Certainly much, 
both in the Epistle and in the narrative of its founding, goes to 
confirm this opinion. As we have seen, it was a proselyte, a woman 
of Asiatic birth, who took the leading place in the early fortunes of 
this Church. Jews seem to have been a negligeable quantity at 
Philippi, for, apparently, there was no synagogue in the town. From 
the evidence of the Epistle, devoted women of heathen extraction (as 
their names show, see ch. iv. 2) stood in the forefront of Christian 
work. This was not peculiar to Philippi. Nothing is more remark- 
able than the place taken by women in the Apostolic Church as a 
whole. The Christian faith was their true emancipation. It gave 


scope for their most characteristic activities (see an interesting sum- 
VOL, III. 26 


402 INTRODUCTION 


mary in Rilliet, Commentaire sur Epitre . . . aux Phil., pp. 312-313; 
also Renan, St. Paul, pp. 147-150; Lft., Philippians, pp. 55-56, who 
hints with good reason, on the evidence of Inscrr., that women 
occupied a specially favourable position in Macedonia; H. Achelis, 
Zeitsch. f. N. Τ. Wissensch., i., 2, pp. 93, 97-98, and cf. notes on ch. 
iv. 2). It is worthy of notice that the only definite information we 
have as to any friction in the Philippian Church attaches itself to 
two of these Christian matrons, Euodia and Syntyche. In all likeli- 
hood the friction was slight. The Apostle does not deal with it in 
strong terms. Evidently it was some personal variance connected 
with Church life and work, or, perhaps, associated with the possession 
of particular spiritual gifts. We know how this latter endangered 
unity at Corinth (see 1 C. χι). It is possible that we have a hint 
of its character in the warnings given against a false self-satisfaction 
in ch. iii. 12-16. Here and there, throughout the Epistle, there are 
echoes of it (see ch. i. 27, ii. 2-4, 14, iv. 5), and these point to a certain 
danger of selfish assumptions of superiority. But there are no traces 
of doctrinal controversies like those which rent some of the other 
Pauline Churches. On the whole, Paul feels unmingled satisfaction 
and joy in their condition. It is evident, therefore, that if there were 
any Jewish-Christians in the Church, they had not made themselves 
obnoxious by laying special emphasis on the characteristic tenets of 
their party. Indirect evidence on this point is afforded by incidental 
statements in the Epistle. Paul was accustomed to accept gifts from 
the Philippians. This was a course which he took care to avoid in 
Churches where a minority of Jewish-Christians could bring it up asa 
reproach against him. (Contrast his attitude, e.g., towards the Church 
at Corinth.) Further, when he does burst forth in words of solemn 
warning against his adversaries (ch. iii. 2), it may be clearly seen that 
he is dealing with persons entirely outside the Philippian Church, 
but persons who may at any moment intrude into their midst and 
work serious havoc (see notes ad loc.). It seems, therefore, reason- 
able to conclude that this Church was composed mainly (if not 
exclusively) of heathen-Christians, at one in their loyalty to the Faith 
and to him who had first proclaimed it in their hearing; exposed, at 
the same time, to hurtful influences which might invade them from 
outside, and liable to those mutual differences of feeling which make 
themselves manifest in every Christian community. 

ΤΗΕ Occasion oF THE Letrer. In ancient times letters were 
written to correspondents at a distance when a favourable opportunity 
presented itself of forwarding them to their destination (cf. Cic., ad 
Attic., i, 9, 1). In the present instance this was afforded by the 


INTRODUCTION 403 


return of Epaphroditus to Philippi (ch. ii. 28). Prom ch. iv. 15-16 
it may be inferred that Paul had frequent communications with the 
Philippians.'_ The letter before us is evidently the reply to one which 
Paul had received. The recognition of this gives the proper clue to 
its interpretation. Dr. Rendel Harris, in a suggestive paper in the 
Expositor (v., 8, p. 403), advances the hypothesis that “when Paul 
replied to a letter he held the letter that he was replying to in his 
hand, and followed closely the points in it that needed attention” (see 
also Lock, zbid., v., 6, p. 65 ff.). We believe this to be, in large 
measure, true of Philippians. Traces of a definite reply seem to 
emerge at i. 12 (where he answers their eager inquiries as to his 
health and prospects), i. 26 (they had probably spoken of him as their 
καύχημα, cf. Harris, of. cit., p. 178), Π. 19 (where he reminds them 
that he is as much concerned to hear good news as they are), ii. 26 
(their reference to the illness of Epaphroditus), tii. 2 (the abruptness 
with which the warning is introduced is best explained by some dis- 
concerting tidings from Philippi), iv. 10 (they had apologised for their 
remissness in attending to his wants), and perhaps iv. 14-15 (they 
may have felt a little doubtful whether Paul would be willing to 
accept their gift, for here and there in the Epistle we have the 
slightest hints that he has to disabuse them of a notion that he had 
not been entirely pleased with them. See notes oni. 3). 

It is manifest that the Apostle had received a gift from the 
Philippian Church through Epaphroditus, who spent some time, at 
least, in his company at Rome (ch. ii. 30). We cannot tell whether 
a letter had accompanied this gift, or, if so, whether Paul had acknow- 
ledged it in any way before. At all events, our Epistle is written 
considerably later, and presupposes a communication which came to 
Rome from Philippi while Epaphroditus was still at Paul’s service. 
This is necessary from ch. ii. 26, ἀδημονῶν διότι ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἠσθένησεν. 
Perhaps even the order of subjects in the Letter is regulated by the 
arrangement of topics in that from Philippi. The chief matter 
involved, the acknowledgment of their gift, is introduced at the 
beginning (ch. i. 3-5, this is at least a likely interpretation) and end 
(ch. iv. 10-19) with a graciousness and delicacy of feeling unsurpassed 
in the annals of letter-writing. 

Prace AND Date ΟΕ Writinc. (a) It is all but universally 
agreed that this Epistle was written from Rome. That is the early 


1 No argument, however, can be based on the fact that Polycarp, Ep. ad Philipp., 
iii., says of Paul: ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς, as the plural is frequently 
used to describe a single letter. See Lft. ad loc. 


404 INTRODUCTION 


tradition, and no contrary evidence has been forthcoming strong 
enough to refute it. Of course the matter must be determined by 
comparing what we gather concerning Paul’s circumstances from the 
Epistle itself with our information from other sources. The Apostle 
isa prisoner. He is residing in some centre of activity where the 
preaching of Christ has extended with amazing rapidity. His trial 
is about to reach a critical point. There is still the possibility that 
he may have to suffer asa martyr. But, on the whole, his outlook 
is very hopeful, and he can speak with joyful confidence of the speedy 
prospect of seeing his friends at Philippi again. Incidentally he 
mentions that the real character of his offence is now known in the 
“ Prztorium,” and he concludes his letter by sending greetings from 
the Christians of Czsar’s household. It seems to us that this situa- 
tion can only correspond to one particular epoch in the Apostle’s 
history, that the beginning of which is outlined in A. xxviii. 16, 30-31. 
The only alternative hypothesis which has ever been seriously put 
forward is that of Ca@sarea. This was first done by Η. G. Paulus 
(in a Programm, Jena, 1799), and later, more acutely, by Béttger 
(Beitrdge, ii., p. 47 ff., Gétt., 1897). Béttger lays stress on the point 
that prisoners at Rome could not have experienced the delay which is 
presupposed in this Epistle in the case of Paul. This argument is 
invalidated by the fact that processes of appeal were peculiarly sub- 
ject to protracted delays. These were caused in particular by the 
necessity of having all the declarations of witnesses, informations, 
etc., handed in writing to the appellant before the higher court heard 
the appeal (see Geib, Geschichte d. rom. Criminalprocesses, esp. pp. 
688-690). Béttger also tries to show that πραιτώριον (ch. i. 13) and 
οἰκία Καίσαρος (ch. iv. 22), almost the only local references in the 
Epistle, apply equally well to Caesarea. This argument is emphasised 
by O. Holtzmann (Th. LZ., 1890, col. 177), who adds these others, 
(a) that we know nothing of a sojourn of Timothy at Rome, (0) that 
the bitterness against the Judaisers is far more intelligible on the sup- 
position that Paul’s experiences of the Jews at Jerusalem were fresh 
in his remembrance. No one would deny that πραιτώριον is used of 
an Imperial residence outside Rome. And possibly οἰκία Καίσαρος 
might be equivalent to πραιτώριον, i.¢., in this case, according to 
Holtzmann, τὸ πραιτώριον τοῦ Ἡρώδου (A. xxiii. 35). This supposi- 
tion Holtzmann believes to be the best explanation of μάλιστα (ch. iv. 
22), for he considers the use of that word to point to those in Paul’s 
immediate neighbourhood. But the assumption is quite gratuitous. 
He has already sent greetings from oi σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί, and in adding 
those of the ἅγιοι he singles out οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας. This was 


INTRODUCTION 405 


most natural, since we know from other sources (see notes ad loc.) that 
there was a large body of Christians in the Imperial household, some 
of them perhaps connected with Philippi, and, in all probability, this 
movement had assumed greater proportions during Paul’s sojourn at 
Rome. His converts there, in their new-born enthusiasm, would be 
likely to show a peculiarly lively interest in that far-distant Church 
which had manifested so remarkable an appreciation of their father 
in the Faith. An unbiased reader must feel that there is something 
far-fetched in the reference of οἰκία Καίσαρος to Cesarea. The con- 
text of πραιτώριον indicates that Paul writes from a centre of eager 
Christian activity, a place of much higher importance than Cesarea, 
which had long since heard the Gospel (A. x.), and could scarcely, 
in any case, be supposed to exert a pre-eminent influence. As to 
the other arguments of Holtzmann, there is nothing to oppose the 
hypothesis that Timothy visited Rome; in fact, it would be surprising 
if he had never seen his beloved master during so long a period of 
suspense. And certainly it did not require any recent experiences of 
Paul to call forth stern denunciations of those Judaisers who had 
dogged his steps from the beginning to the close of his career. 

But the decisive argument for Rome, in our judgment, is Paul’s 
situation. He expects a speedy termination of his case. How could 
this be possible at Czsarea? There, on the first favourable oppor- 
tunity that presents itself, he appeals to Cesar. Only when that 
appeal has been heard can any decision be come to. And many 
hints in the Epistle suggest that the all-important moment was close 
at hand (see ch. i. 12, 18, 19, 20, 26, ii. 24, probably i. 7; also a 
discussion by the author in Expository Times, x., 1, pp. 22-24, and 
an excellent dissertation, The Epistle of St. Paul’s First Trial, by 
R. R. Smith, Camb., 1899). It is perhaps needless to deal with 
Spitta’s argument in favour of Ceesarea (A postelgeschichte, p. 281) 
that the expectation of Felix that he should be offered a bribe by 
Paul was roused by the gift of money which the Apostle had lately 
received from Philippi. 

(0) We believe that the arguments adduced above are sufficient 
to fix Rome as the place from which the Epistle was written. 
They also suggest a late date in Paul’s sojourn at Rome, for 
he is awaiting the final decision in his trial. Lightfoot has at- 
tempted to show that Philippians stands first in order among the 
Imprisonment-Epistles. His main argument is greater similarity 
(especially in thought) to Romans than to Colossians and Ephesians. 
But this method of reasoning is precarious. Are we at liberty to 
break up the thinking of a man like the Apostle Paul, as it is 


406 INTRODUCTION 


expressed in a small group of occasional letters, into a series of 
well-marked stages? These letters were, after all, the products of 
special circumstances, of special situations. Paul did not write as 
one who gradually, in successive works, presents a system of thought 
to the world. We may readily admit that more parallels may be 
found, on careful search, between Philippians and Romans than 
between it and the other Imprisonment-Epistles (although this state- 
ment must be made with caution, see Von Soden, Hand-Comm., iii., 
1, p. 16, on the marked resemblances between Phil. and Coloss.). 
But that does not touch the question of date. Paul’s letters must 
be interpreted from the historical background of each of them. To 
use as an argument for the ante-dating of Philippians the fact 
that the other two letters of the Captivity ‘exhibit an advanced 
stage in the development of the Church” (Lft., Phil., p. 45) 
seems, to say the least, hazardous, when, on Lightfoot’s own 
showing, no more than a year can have elapsed between the earlier 
and the later writings. The “advanced stage in the development of 
the Church” emerges suddenly in view of the dangerous situation in 
which the Christians of Asia were placed at the time. 

It is more difficult to speak with any confidence as to the actual 
date. The chronology of Paul's life has recently been the subject of 
keen discussion. For our purpose the crucial date is that of the 
arrival of Festus as Procurator of Judwza. Everything depends on 
determining the year in which the Procurator Felix was recalled and 
replaced by Festus (see Harnack, Chronologie d. altchristl, Litt., p. 
233). It is impossible here even to give a sketch of the various lines 
of argument used to fix approximately the all-important date. O. 
Holtzmann, who depends upon the authority of Tacitus and Josephus, 
and is followed, among others, by Harnack (who emphasises, in addi- 
tion, the testimony of the Chronicle of Eusebius), argues for the end of 
the year 55 or the early part of 56. This would make 57 the year of 
Paul's arrival in Rome, and thus, if our former arguments are valid, 
Philippians would have to be assigned to the year 59, as he ap- 
proached the close of his two years’ captivity at Rome. This dating is 
much earlier than the received chronology, which would refer the re- 
call of Felix to 60 and the Apostle’s arrival in Rome to 61. In that 
case our Epistle would fall somewhere within the year 63. We are 
inclined, however, to accept the view of Mr. C. H. Turner in his 
masterly article on the Chronology of N. T. in Hastings’ Bible Dict. 
After a fair-minded and cautious survey of all the arguments, he is 
led to adopt 58 as the year of the recall of Felix and the arrival of 
Festus in the province of Judeaa. Paul would thus have reached 


INTRODUCTION 407 


Rome early in 59. Hence, in all likelihood, Philippians was written 
towards the close of the year 61, when matters had taken so favour- 
able a turn that the Apostle could reasonably expect a speedy release 
(see Turner’s article, op. cit.). Ror the new chronology see O. Holtz- 
mann, Ν. T. Zeitgeschichte, Ὁ. 125 ff., Harnack, Chronologie, p. 233 
ff.; for the received view, Schirer, fewish People, i., 2, pp. 182-184, 
and note 38 with exhaustive list of literature, and in Zeitsch. f. τοῖς». 
Th., Bd. xli., Hft. 1, pp. 21-42. On the whole question of place and 
date consult Steinmetz, Die zweite rém. Gefangenschaft d. Ap. Paulus, 
Leipz., 1897, pp. 4-9, and especially Th. Zahn, Eznleit. in d. N. Τ., 
Bd. I., pp. 380-392, whose arguments appear quite conclusive for 
placing Phil. after Eph., Col. and Philem. 

GENUINENESS. (a) There is no lack of external evidence for this 
Epistle. References are found to it in Church writers from the 
earliest times. These begin with Polycarp (πρὸς Φιλ., iii., 10 [Παῦλος] 

. ὃς kal ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς), and include the ancient letter 
from the Christians of Vienne and Lyons (Eusebius, H. £., v., 2), as 
well as the Fragment of Muratori on the Canon, 

(b) The internal testimony is equally convincing. Perhaps no 
Pauline epistle bears more conclusively the stamp of authenticity. 
There is an artlessness, a delicacy of feeling, a frank outpouring of 
the heart which could not be simulated. Like 2 Corinthians, this 
letter is a mirror of the Apostle’s personal life. It reflects his vary- 
ing moods at a great crisis in his history. It throbs from first to 
last with eager emotion. It gives a most vivid picture of Paul’s 
intimate relations with the Churches which he has founded. The 
whole composition of the letter is devoid of any artificial plan. The 
Apostle moves from subject to subject by rapid transitions and un- 
expected turns of thought. If this Epistle betrays the compiler’s 
hand, no internal proof of authenticity may be held valid at all, and 
literary criticism becomes irrelevant. For, in the case before us, 
every circumstance can be understood from the conditions existing 
in the life and times of Paul. This is the problem with which 
criticism has always and alone to deal. 

None the less has the genuineness of Philippians been stoutly 
challenged. Baur was the first to enter the field in his Paulus, Bd. 
II., p. 50 ff. The objections he raised were: (1) the echo of Gnostic 
ideas in ch. ii. 6-9, (2) the lack of a genuine Pauline content, (3) the 
extraordinary nature of some of the historical details. To a sober 
judgment these difficulties do not exist. The Gnosticism of ch. ii. is 
the phantasy of a biased imagination. If the content in this Epistle 
be not Pauline, we may be said to know nothing of the Apostle’s 


408 INTRODUCTION 


thoughts or feelings. The historical details, so far from being extra- 
ordinary or unaccountable, afford us some of the most valuable side- 
lights we possess on a particular epoch of Paul’s history, otherwise 
obscure. Since Baur’s time comparatively few critics have been 
bold enough to renew the attack on our Epistle. A complete history 
of its criticism will be found in Holsten’s articles in the Fahrb. f. 
protestant. Theol. (1876), pp. 328-372. No more searching scrutiny 
of the Epistle with a view to proving its spuriousness has ever been 
carried out than that of Holsten himself (of. cit., 1875, p. 425 ff. ; 
1876, p. 58 ff.). In these discussions he brings all his well-known 
acuteness and subtlety of reasoning to bear upon the minutest points 
of the letter. He willingly admits that it belongs to the Pauline 
school, but decides from such indications as the method of dealing 
with the Judaisers in ch. i., the conception of Christ in ch. ii. 6-9, 
etc., etc., that it cannot be the work of Paul. But any fair-minded 
reader of Holsten’s articles will feel bound to agree with the verdict 
of an unbiased scholar like Schiirer that his “arguments are so 
foolish that one is sometimes tempted to put them down as slips 
of the pen” (Th. LZ., 1880, col. 555). Probably Pfleiderer’s state- 
ment may be taken as representative of present-day opinion: “ The 
genuineness of this letter is not to be doubted. The accounts of 
Philippians tally thoroughly with the presuppositions of Romans” 
(Urchristenthum, p. 153). Among many elaborate defences of the 
authenticity of Phil. we may mention as especially worthy of note 
those of Hilgenfeld in Zeitsch. f. wiss. Theol., xvi., 2, p. 178 ff.; 
xviii., 4, p. 566 ff.; xx., 2, p. 145 Π.; xxvii, 4, ρ. 498 ff. 

The unity of the Epistle has also been questioned. This was 
done as early as the beginning of last century by Heinrichs (N. T., 
ed. J. Koppe, vol. vii., pars 2, proll., p. 31 ff.), who supposed it to 
consist of two letters, one (ch. i. 1-iii. 1 ; iv. 21-23) being addressed 
to the Church in general, the other (ch. iii. 2-iv. 20) to the more 
prominent authorities in it. (Por a full account of such attempts 
see Clemen, Einheitlichkeit d. paulin. Briefe, 1894, p. 133 ff.) Vélter 
(Theol. Tijdschr., 1892, pp. 10-44, 117-146) put forward the theory 
that we have here a genuine Epistle consisting of ch. i. 1-7, 12-14, 
180.26: ii. 17-29; iv. 10-21, 23, and also a spurious one made up of 
ch. i. 8-10, 27-30; ii. 1-16; iii. 1-iv. 9, 22, the remaining verses being 
added by the redactor whose compilation is before us. It is difficult 
to take so arbitrary a scheme as this seriously, and Vélter entirely 
fails to show what aim or motive his hypothetical redactor had in his 
work. This would require to be stated with some appearance of 
reason before we could consider the likelihood of finding in a simple, 


INTRODUCTION 409 


apparently spontaneous letter, a document so complicated as that 
which Volter discovers. C. Clemen, in the work above cited and 
also in his Chronologie d. paulin. Briefe, 1893, attempts to prove 
that two genuine letters have been combined in one Epistle. The 
first, composed of ch. ii. 19-24; iii.; iv. 8-9, he holds to be the 
earliest of the Captivity Epistles, the second, embracing ch. i. 1-ii. 
18, 25-30; iv. 1-7, 10-23, to be the latest (see Table in Chronol., p. 
292). While laying stress upon the presence of numerous repetitions 
and paragraphs which have no connexion with their context, he 
bases his position mainly on what he conceives to be inexplicable 
contradictions between ch. ii. 20 and ch. i. 14, 16, and also between 
ch. iii. 2, 18 and ch. i. 18, 28. The theory, at first sight, is certainly 
plausible. There is noa priori reason (cf. the case of Paul’s Epistles 
to the Corinthians) why two letters or fragments of letters to the 
Philippians should not, by some accidental circumstances of which we 
know nothing, have been combined. Only there must be some strong 
basis for such an hypothesis, derivable from the Epistle itself. We 
cannot feel that such a basis is presented by the arguments briefly 
alluded to above. In the groups of passages brought forward the 
contradiction appears to us imaginary. An exegesis which takes 
careful account of the historical background of the Epistle and re- 
cognises that the Apostle, like other men, had his moods of strong 
feeling, leaves no ground for maintaining that his statements in the 
one group are irreconcilable with those in the other! (see, for the 
details, the notes on these passages, and a most interesting parallel 
drawn from the criticism of Cicero’s Letters in Deissmann, Bibel- 
studien, pp. 220-222, 250). 

SpeciaAL CHARACTERISTICS. The perusal of the Epistle cannot 
fail to produce the impression of artlessness. That is another way 
of saying that it precisely fulfils the conditions of a letter. Had this 
most prominent characteristic been always kept in view, much futile 
theorising both int the exegesis and in the criticism of the Epistle 
would have been avoided. The only plausible objections that have 
been brought against its genuineness or integrity would have been 
recognised as the natural consequences of its epistolary character 
(Brieflichkeit, a more convenient expression than English affords). 
For here, as in all his letters, the Apostle speaks for the occasion. 
He pictures his Christian brethren at Philippi as listening to his 
conversation. All is spontaneous and free. He draws up no fixed 
scheme which has to be followed, although, perhaps, the letter (or 


1Clemen has recently withdrawn his objections to the unity of Philippians (see 
Th. LZ., 1got, col. 293). 


410 INTRODUCTION 


letters) from the Philippian Church may in some degree have sug- 
gested the course which his thought pursues. He feels thoroughly 
at home with his readers. Thoughts crowd in upon him as he writes. 
His reminiscences of Philippi supply secret links of connexion be- 
tween paragraphs which might seem isolated from one another, links 
of connexion which we can no longer trace. Many of his ideas he 
does not require to elaborate. A brief hint will bring his readers into 
touch with the Apostle’s mind. 

It is quite plain, from a comparison of this with his other letters, 
that no Church held a deeper place in Paul's affection. This may be 
accounted for in various ways. Evidently the Judaising section of 
the Church had not, as yet, been able to gain a footing at Philippi, 
although there is little doubt that attempts must have been made. 
The Christians there refused to lend their ears to insinuations against 
their well-tried teacher and friend. They believed in the Gospel as 
Paul had presented it to them. This unflinching loyalty of theirs 
would be a genuine consolation to the Apostle amidst so many dis- 
heartening experiences endured through the fickleness of once pro- 
mising converts. No wonder that he calls them his joy and crown.! 

But, besides, there was, in all likelihood, a certain frank open- 
heartedness, an affectionate simplicity of nature, which appealed 
directly to the mind of Paul. The Macedonians, as a people, had 
preserved the manners of a more artless time. They had suffered 
comparatively little from the corruption of an enervating age. They 
had maintained, perhaps, above all other parts of Greece, a healthy 
tone of life, a sturdy morality (cf. Renan, St. Paul, pp. 136-139). 
When the Gospel came to them they received it with a child-like 
responsiveness. And their appreciation of its worth remained no 
mere empty feeling. It took practical shape. No sooner had Paul 
left Philippi than they began to consider his needs and, with unhesi- 
tating generosity, to minister to them (see ch. iv. 15-16). And when 
the Apostle made his great collection for the poorer Christians at 
Jerusalem, the Churches of Macedonia amazed him by their liberality. 
It was natural that Paul should be drawn into a specially cordial 
intimacy with such a people. He had proved their loyalty; he had 
received numerous tokens of their affection. A man of his open and 
enthusiastic temperament would rejoice to find a Church to which 
he could unveil his heart without any doubts or misgivings. 

The undertone of the Epistle is a deep, restrained joy. This 
Springs partly from his unalloyed satisfaction in the Christians 


1On fidelity as characteristic of the Macedonian people see an interesting note 
in Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 248, note 5. 


INTRODUCTION “11 


at Philippi. All that he has experienced at their hands, all that 
he has heard of them by report, calls forth from him nothing but 
thankfulness. Even any word of warning which he may feel to 
be needful is uttered with the most delicate courtesy and tact. 
But further, his mood at the time of writing is cheerful and bright. 
He is a prisoner, but, none the less, the work of Christ has richly 
prospered. He has discovered that it is altogether independent of 
the human agents employed. Hence, although enmity or opposition 
may silence the preacher, the Gospel has free course. It remains 
the power of God unto salvation. But the progress of events, also, 
has led him to believe that his work is not done. Things seem to 
be shaping towards his release. The clouds, indeed, have not wholly 
vanished. Therefore a dark shadow flits, for a moment, across the 
page. But hope returns, a hope not baseless, but resting on what 
he feels to be the mind of God. So his farewell greeting can utter 
itself in exulting strains: ‘ Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I 
say, Rejoice”’. 

LITERATURE. (1) Earlier Commentaries. The most valuable are 
those of Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ed. H. B. Swete, 
Camb., 1880) and Theodoret ; in the Reformation period, Calvin. 

(2) Modern Works. Out of a large number which have been 
consulted we may mention Commentaries by Hoelemann (1839), 
Rilliet (1841), De Wette (ed. 2, 1847), Meyer (Engl. Tr.), Wiesinger 
(in Olshausen’s Com., Engl. Tr.), B. Weiss (1859, most exhaustive), 
J. C. von Hofmann, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Eadie, Beet, Moule 
(Cambr. Bible ; Cambr. Gr. Test.), A. H. Franke (ed. 5 of Meyer, 
1886), R. A. Lipsius (in Holtzmann’s Hand-Commentar, 1892, ad- 
mirable for terse exposition), A. Klopper (1893, thorough), Gwynn 
(in Speaker’s Com., 1893), Wohlenberg (in Strack-Zoeckler’s Komm., 
1895), B. Weiss (Die paulin. Briefe im berichtigten Text, 1896, brief 
notes), Vincent (International Crit. Comm., 1897), E. Haupt (ed. 6 of 
Meyer, 1897, very suggestive), and K. J. Miller (Freib. i. Br., 1899). 

Of a more homiletic or practical character are the works of 
Braune (in Lange’s Bibelwerk), Vaughan (1882) and Von Soden 
(1889, a model of its kind). To the same category belong Rainy’s 
exposition of the Epistle (Expositor’s Bible, specially valuable on 
the theology), and Moule’s Philippian Studies (1897, devotional). 
Bengel’s Gnomon is always worth consulting. 

Most valuable articles dealing with the Epistle are those of 
Holsten (fahrb. f. protestant. Theol., 1875, 1876, see section on 
“ Genuineness”’ in the Introduction supr.), Zahn (Luthardt’s Zeitsch. 
1. kirchliche Wissensch, u. kirchl. Leben, 1885) and Henle (Tiibingen 


412 INTRODUCTION 


Quartal-Schrift, 1893). See also the articles quoted in the Intro- 
duction. 

Useful dissertations are those of Schinz, Die christliche Gemeinde 
zu Philippi (Zurich, 1833), Mynster, Kleine theolog. Schriften, p. 
169 ff., Rettig, Quaestiones Philippenses (Giessen, 1831), Laurent, 
Neutestamentliche Studien, and R. R. Smith, The Epistle of St. 
Paul's First Trial (Cambr. 1899). For the literature on Phil. ii. 
6-11 see the notes ad loc. A good list of discussions against and 
in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle will be found in the Com. 
of Lipsius, pp. 211-212. A very full and interesting examination of 
all matters of Introduction is presented in Zahn’s Einleitung in d. 
N. T., Bd. Ι., pp. 368-398. 

On points of grammar and language, in addition to the ordinary 
grammatical works, frequent use has been made of Hatzidakis, Ein- 
leitung in ᾱ. Neugriechische Grammatik (Leipz., 1892), Viteau, 
Etudes sur le Grec du Ν. T. (1. Le Verbe; 11. Sujet, Complément 
et Attribut), 2 vols. (Paris, 1893, 1896), W. Schmid, Atticismus, 5 
vols. (Stuttgart, 1887-1897), and especially G. A. Deissmann, Bibel- 
studien (Marburg, 1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (Marb., 1897). 

Quotations from LXX follow Swete’s ed. For the critical notes, 
besides the great editions of the text, Weiss, Textkritik d. paulin. 
Briefe (Leipz., 1896), has been largely used. 

The abbreviations used in the notes which may require explana- 
tion are :--- 


al, = other passages. 


Alf. = Alford’s Greek Testament. 
Chr. = Chrysostom. 
Comm. = Commentators. 
CT. = Cambridge Greck Testament. 
Dsm. = Deissmann (BS. = Bibelstudien, NBS. = Neue Bibelstudien). 
Edd. = Editors. 
Ell. = Ellicott. 
esp. = especially. 
Gw. = Gwynn. 


Hatz., Einl. = Hatzidakis, Einlettung in die Neugriech. Grammatsk, 
Hfm. = Hofmann. 
Hitzm. = Holtzmann. 


Hpt. = Haupt. 
Inscrr. = Inscriptions. 
Kl. = ΚΙδρρει. 
Lft. = Lightfoot. 
Lips. = Lipsius. 
MT. = Moods and Tenses (Burton, Goodwin), 
Myr. = Meyer. 


Pfleiderer, 


Phil. 

SH. 

SK. 
Thdrt. 
Th. EZ. 
Th. Mps. 
TK. 
W-M. 


W-Sch. 


Wohl. 
Ws. 
Zw. Th. 


INTRODUCTION 413 


Epistle to the Philippians. 

Sanday and Headlam (Romans). 
Studien und Kritiken. 

Theodoret. 

Theologische Literaturseitung. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. 

Texthritik d. paulin. Briefe (Weiss). 
Moulton’s Ed. of Winer’s Grammar. 
Schmiedel’s Ed. of Winer. 
Wohlenberg. 

Weiss. 

Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theologie. 


The recognised contractions have, as a rule, been used in the critical notes. 





᾿ f 
[ ian an 
4. “ας eb 
. 


ΠΑΎΛΟΥ TOT ΑΠΟΣΤΌΛΟΥ 


Η ΠΡΟΣ 
ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ. 
I. τ. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ καὶ Τιμόθεος, " δοῦλοι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” πᾶσι τοῖς 3 Ps. cxvi. 
> ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις, adv? ° ἐπισκόποις 4 eee 


Thess. ii. 4. b Cf. τ Cor. i. 2. 
xi. 18; Neh. xi. 9. 


cf. 1 
ο Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 25; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7 ae Kings 


1 προς Φιλιππησιους: SO SABK 1, 37 (-πισιους), 113. αρχεται προς Φ. DEFG 


(DE -πηνσιους). 
authority. 


2So FGKLP, syrr., Chr., Thdrt. 


The title in Τ.Ε. comes from the ed. of Elzevir, without MS. 


Tisch., W.H., Ws. Χ. |. with ΝΒΡΕ, d, e, 


cop. X. |. more prob., as copyists were more likely to write the common expression 
1. X. for the other, which is characteristic of Paul (cf. Ws., TK., pp. 131-134). 


5 Brickner (Chronologische Reihenfolge d. paulin, Brr., Haarlem, 1890, p. 222) 
would omit the whole clause as interpolated. 


4 B*DcEK with Thphl., Cassiod. συνεπισκοποις ; coepiscopis in Freising Fragg. 
of O.L. (ed. Ziegler). Th. Mps. apparently knows this reading, but rejects it (see 


Swete’s ed., vol. i., p. 198). 


CuapTER I.—Vv. 1-2. SALUTATION.— 
Ver. 1. The only significance belonging 
to the mention of Timothy is that he was 
a well-known figure at Philippi (Acts xvi. 
1-12, xix. 22, xx. 3-6), that they owed 
much to him, and that he was about to 
visit them again. The Epistle claims, of 
course, to be exclusively Paul’s own.— 
δοῦλοι. Already in O.T. δ. is used in 
a distinctly religious sense; see esp. 
Psalms (LXX). As used by Paul, while 
expressing intense fervour of devotion, it 
includes the idea of a special calling and 
function in Christ’s kingdom, parallel to 
its application in O.T. to the prophets; 
see Rom. i. 1, Gal. i. 10, also Tit. i. 1. 
There is genuine humility in the contrast 
between δοῦλοι and ἁγίοις. He only 
calls himself ἀπόστολος when he assumes 
a commanding mood (Chr. ad loc.).—Xp. 
Ἰ. The order strikes the keynote of 
Paul’s attitude towards his Master. He 
delights to think of Him in royal dignity, 
the Messiah who was once Jesus being 


now Κύριος. For a good discussion of 
the respective designations X. Ἰ. and Ἰ. 
X., see Von Soden in Abhandlungen C. 
von Wetzsdcher gewidmet, Ρ. 118.—mraow 
τ. ἁγίοις. It is difficult to say whether 
πᾶσιν is emphatic or not. It is, at least, 
remarkable how often πᾶς appears in the 
opening paragraphs of this Epistle, as if 
to show Paul’s strict impartiality, per- 
haps in the face of some pretensions to 
superiority which appeared in the Philip- 
pian Church. But, on the other hand, 
see 2 Cor. i. 1, Rom. i. 7, where the same 
phrase seems to have no special emphasis. 
-τ. ἁγίοις. Really a terminus technicus 
of the early Church. Having as its basis 
that idea of consecration to God, and 
consequent participation in His Divine 
majesty which bulks so largely in O.T. 
religion (e.g., Lev. xi. 44-45, Jud. xiii. 7), 
and continues to have full prominence in 
the N.T. (Acts, almost all Epistles, Rev.), 
it suggests also in every N.T. instance 
that side of Christian life which stands in 


4τό 


ἃ Almost 
confined 


to Esther καὶ σα η] ῶ 
το Χο καὶ Κυρίου Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
Technical 

use only here and 1 Tim. iii. 8, τα. 


most glaring contrast with the impurity 
and sensuality of the Gentiles, holiness of 
heart and conduct, This would naturally 
come into view as the result of the work- 
ing of the Holy Spirit; see McGiffert, 
Apostolic Age, p. 509 ff.; Hitzm., N.T. 

heol., ii., p. 152. The best commentary 
on the expression is John xvii. 11, 14, 
15-23. In his salutations Paul uses the 
word as practically = ἐκκλησία (cf. 1 Cor. 
i. 2, 2 Cor. i. 1, with 1 Thess. i. 1). For 
the Christian Church is the spiritual suc- 
cessor of the sacred community of Israel. 
Ideally, all Christians are “ saints,” cf. 
ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χ. Ἰ. (x Cor. i. 2). The 
Spirit is, of course, the Sanctifier, but He 
only deals with those who are in Christ 
Jesus.—év X. ᾿Ξ. These words sum up 
Paul’s Christianity. They denote the 
most intimate living union that can be 
conceived between the soul of the believer 
and the Risen Lord. He, as Spirit, is the 
atmosphere in which the new life is lived. 


Cf. the Rabbinic use of =) 714) (place or 


space) as a name of God; see Taylor, 
Sayings of Fewish Fathers, 2nd ed., p. 39. 
The phrase occurs eight times in Phil. 
The same idea is expressed by Χριστὸς 
ἐν ἐμοί; see esp. Gal. ii. 20. “ The gist 
of this formula ev gre | is nothing else 
than Paul’s mystic faith, in which the 
believer gives up himself, his own life, to 
Christ, and possesses the life of Christ in 
himself: he in Christ, and Christ in him; 
he dead with Christ, and Christ become 
his life’ (Pfl., Paulinism, E. Tr., i., p. 
198). For the extraordinarily central 
place of the idea in Paul’s μμ 
see Deissmann, Die Neutestamentliche 
Formel “in Christo Fesu"’ (Marburg, 
1802).---σὺν ἐπισκόποις κ. κόνοις. 
These keenly-discussed terms can only 
be most briefly examined. Who were 
the ἐπίσκ. ? In LXX almost always = 
an official in charge of work being done 
ε.ρ., repairs in Temple; rebuilding of 
Jertalem or an officer in the army (much 
ess frequently). In N.T., besides this 
passage, (a) Acts xx. 28, applied by Paul 
to the πρεσβύτεροι of Ephesus, whom the 
Holy Ghost has made ἐπισκόπους ποι- 
νειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ; (5) 1 
et. ii. 25, of Christ, who is called τὸν 
ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν; 
(c) τ Tim. iii, 2 and Tit. i. 7, where it is 
almost universally admitted to be synony- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


καὶ 4 διακόνοις " 2. Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν 


mous with πρεσβύτερος. Two points are 
clear from ΝΤ. evideeme: δ The ἐπί- 
σκοπος is, at least, often the same per- 
son as the πρεσβύτερος. 2. The ἐπίσκ. 
is concerned with shepherding the flock 
of God. Have we any information to 
corroborate these facts? As to the first 
there is the strong tradition of the early 
Church, ¢.g., Jerome, Ep., 69, 3: apud 
veteres iidem episcopi et presbyteri ; there 
is the admitted fact that in r Clem. the 
name πρεσβύτεροι is given to the ἐπί- 
σκοποι; and Tertullian (Apologet., 39) 
designates the officials who preside over 
the congregation probati quique seniores ; 
see esp. F. Loofs, SK., 1890, pp. 639-641. 
The second fact mentioned above conflicts 
with the celebrated theory of Hatch and 
Harnack (who has, however, greatly 
modified his standpoint ; see his important 
review of Loening’s Die Gemeindever- 
fassung des Urchristenthums in Th, LZ., 
1889, coll. 418-429), that the ἐπίσκοποι 
were distinct finance and cultus officials, 
who only gradually came into possession 
of more spiritual functions, But it seems 
hazardous to narrow down the duties of 
the ἐπίσκ. No doubt the name may, in 
certain cases, have been μυ by 
that of the ἐπίσκοπος or (more com- 
monly) ἐπιμελητής, who exercised ad- 
ministrative control over the property 
of private associations and guilds exist- 
ing at. that time in the Hellenic world 
and enforced the rules of such associa- 
a (see J. Réville, Les Origines de 
l'Episcopat, Paris, 1894, pp. 160-163). 
But just as the functions of these persons 
were left comparatively vague and unde- 
fined, so we might expect to find the 
beginnings of local administration in the 
Christian Church still less clearly marked. 
An additional reason for this would lie in 
the pre-eminent authority of the Apostles 
and the high place assigned to the pos- 
sessors of ‘‘ gifts”. Accordingly it ap- 
pears wise to use great caution in makin 
any distinction between πρεσβυτ. ο 
Probably the truth lies in the 
direction of regarding πρεσβ. as a title of 
status, while ἐπίσκ. is one of function. 
Probably all ἐπίσκοποι were πρεσβύ- 
τεροι, while the converse may not be true. 
The difference of name may point tosome 
early (and unknown) difference of admin- 
istration. The ἐπίσκ. may have had 
some special connexion with the celebra- 


2—4. 


a a a ‘ af ΄ - , 
3. “Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ µου ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ ᾿μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, 4. πάντοτε © 
ἐν πάσῃ “δεήσει μου ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν 


Viii. 25; Inscrr. 
num. exx. in LXX. 


1So edd. with NABDcE**KLP, vg. syrr. cop. 
ημων D*E*FG, d, e, f, g, Ambrst., Cassiod. ‘ 
Zahn (Luthardt’s Zeitschr., 1885, p. 184) would 


“ego quidem” already omitted. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


f Confined to Paul, e.g., Rom. i. 9. 


417 


Very freq. 

in Paul in 

this 

phrase 
Judith 

g Rom. x.1; 2 Tim. i. 3; Eph. vi. 18; 


εγω μεν ευχαριστω τω Κυριω 
In Aug. de corrept. et gratia, § το, 


read εγω μεν, believing that these words were lost through such parallels as 1 Cor. i. 
4, Col. i. 3, Philm. 4; so also Hpt. in Myr.® 


tion of the Eucharist as the central rite of 
Christian worship (see Sohm’s strong 
insistence on this point, Kivchenrecht, pp. 
84 ff., 121 ff.) and with the management 
of Church property, which would origin- 
ally consist of voluntary gifts offered to 
God in Christian worship. Gradually, 
as those endowed with extraordinary 
‘‘charisms”’ (e.g., prophets, teachers, 
evangelists) passed away, their functions 
would tend to be assumed by the leading 
office-bearers in each congregation. So 
the sphere, e.g., of the ἐπίσκ., would be 
greatly enlarged. But we must be con- 
tent, for lack of evidence, to do without 
precise definitions, only concluding as to 
the general equivalence in the earliest 
times of πρεσβ. and ἐπίσκ., and granting 
that their oversight and guidance were 
concerned with the spiritual as well as the 
material well-being of the organisation. 
Deacons are first mentioned here in the 
N.T. It is often tacitly assumed that 
they hold the office or function whose 
institution is described in Acts vi. This 
was an early tradition; e.g., Iren., iii., 12, 
10: Stephanus . . . qui electus est ab 
apostolis primus diaconus. But there are 
considerable arguments against this view. 
These are admirably summarised by 
Gwatkin (Hastings’ B.D., i., 574). (1) 
The seven are nowhere in N.T. called διά- 
κονοι. (2) The qualifications laid down 
(Acts vi. 3) for the seven are much higher 
than those of τ Tim. iii. 8. (3) Stephen 
was largely a preacher and Philip an 
evangelist. (4) The seven evidently rank 
next to the Apostles at Jerusalem. Hpt. 
(Myr.® ad loc.) holds that ἐπίσκ. and 
διάκ. denote here the same persons, the 
ἐπισκοπή being a διακονία towards the 
Church, and compares 1 Thess. v. 12, 
TOUS κοπιῶντας Kal προϊσταμένους. And 
the vague use of the word to denote any 
kind of Christian service (in earlier parts 
of N.T.) might seem to justify the idea. 
But considering the late date of Phil., it 
appears more reasonable to connect the 
office with that of 1 Tim. iii., where a 


VOL. III. 


clear distinction is drawn between the 
διάκ. and the ἐπίσκ. In the early Church 
the most necessary Christian service 
would be the care of the sick and poor. 
So the deacon must neither be double- 
tongued (δίλογος) nor a “lover of dirty 
gain” (so Gwatk. tr. αἰσχροκερδής), for 
in his work of visiting he would have 
temptations to ‘“ gossip and slander ”’ on 
the one hand, and to “ picking and steal- 
ing from the alms”’ on the other (Gwatk.. 
loc. cit.). Many reasons are assigned for 
the mention of these officers here. But 
it seems quite natural that Paul should 
specify those who stood in the forefront 
of the Church’s work and life, more 
especially as the letter is one of thanks 
for the gift which has been sent to him, 
a gift the management of which would 
be in the hands of the controlling author- 
ities in the Church. 

Ver. 2. Paul feels that the ordinary 
Greek salutation χαίρειν or the Eastern 
εἰρήνη σοι is too meagre for Christian 
intercourse. But closely connected with 
χαίρειν is his own great watchword 
χάρις, a word which, perhaps, above all 
others, shows the powerful remoulding 
of terms by Christian thought and feeling. 
χάρις for Paul is the central revelation of 
the fatherly heart of God in the redemp- 
tion which Christ has accomplished for 
unworthy sinners. And its direct resuit 
is εἰρήνη» the harmony and health of that 
life which is reconciled to God through 
Jesus Christ ; see an interesting discus- 
sion of the Apostolic greeting by F. 
Zimmer, Luthardt’s Zeitschy., 1886, p. 
443 ff. Of course ἀπό governs Κυρίου. 
The Socinian exegesis which makes K. 
depend on πατρός is impossible in view 
of Tit. i. 4 (so Gw. ad loc.).—Kvplov. 
The favourite designation of Jesus Christ 
in the early Church. See on chap. ii. 11 
infr. Cf. the extraordinary frequency of 
the term δεσπότης as applied to God in 
Apostolic Fathers, etc. On the whole 
subject see Harnack, Dogmen-Geschichte,, 


i., pp. 153-158. 


27 


418 


Β Rom. xv. 
26; 2 
ix. τῇ. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


ἄν. ποιούμενος, 5. ἐπὶ τῇ "κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν ‘eis τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἀπὸ ἲ 


ix 13). πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν. 6. ΚΣ πεποιθὼς | αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ 


16. = ν ὑμῖν 
i Acts xxiv. ἐναρξάμενος ἐ κ. 

1721 Cor. 

XVi. I. k Constrn. ver. 25; chap. ii. 18. 
m Gal. iii. 3. n Rom. xiv. 20, o2 


v. 5; 2 Cor. i. 14; 1 Thess. v. 2. 


1So Hpt. with DEFGKL, Chr., Thdrt. 


. Vili. 6, 11. 
For thought, cf. 2 Thess. i. 11. 


" ἔργον ἀγαθὸν " ἐπιτελέσει ἄχρις 2. Ρ ἡμέρας 


1 Rom. xiii. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 11; Gal. ii. το εἰ αἱ. 
Freg. in later books of LXX. p1Cor. 


απο της πι 


Ῥωτης W.H., Ws., Lft. 


(brackets) with ΝΑΒΡ 37, Euthal.cod. Possibly τῆς is a later addition. 
2 So Tre.» Lft. (axpi[s]) with DEFGKLP, Chr., Thdrt. W.H., Ws., Alf. αχρι 
u 


with NB, Euthal.cod. (A αχρι ης). 


Vv. 3-8. HIS THANKFULNESS, LOVE 
AND CONFIDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPIANS, 
—Ver. 3. Much may be said in favour of 
the reading ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ (see crit. 
note) from the point of view of sense. 
The antithesis would then show that the 
letter is a direct reply to one received 
from Philippi, and the emphasis on Paul's 
own thanksgiving would be accounted 
for (with Zahn) by the supposition that 
the Philippians imagined a slight lack of 
cordiality on his part. This supposition 
is favoured by the prominence given in 
the Epistle to Paul’s delight in them.— 
εὐχ. τ. Θ. ἐπί. Cf. 1 Cor. 1. 4, εὐχαριστῶ 
τῷ Θεῷ . . «ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι. . . τῇ 
δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν; Papyr. Lond., xlii., κομι- 
σαμένη τὴν παρά σον ἐπιστολὴν 
Ὥρονυ . . . ἐπὶ μὲν τῷ ἐρρῶσθα[(] σε 
εὐθέως τοῖς Θεοῖς εὐχαρίστουν (quoted by 
Dsm., BS., p. 210). A word condemned 
by the grammarians, but in common use 
from the time of Polyb., and found in 
modern Greek as ὑκαριστῶ (Hatz., Ein- 
leit., p. 235].---ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν. 
These words have been the subject of 
much discussion. No doubt ἐπί could be 
used here in what Ell. calls its “ ethico- 
local” sense of a circumstance or experi- 
ence regarded as the basis of an action, 
and thus the meaning would be: “1 give 
thanks to my God at my wh6le remem- 
brance of you” (“every remembrance” 
is, it seems to us, in spite of ΚΙ., -- 
and Weizs., linguistically impossible). 
Or, what is more natural after εὐχαριστῶ 
(see exx. supr.), ἐπί may be “on account 
of”. This would make good sense. The 
total impression left upon him by his 
intercourse with them is one which calls 
forth thankfulness. There is another 
possible meaning supported by Hfm., 
Zahn, Wohl., cade (Th. LZ., 1889, 
col. 419) and Sohm (Kirchenrecht, p. 81). 
ὑμῶν may be gen. of subject, and so we 
should translate: ‘fon account of your 
whole remembrance ofme’’. This would 


accord admirably with the context, pre- 
paring the way for κοινωνία (ver. 5), and 
pointing delicately to the practical expres- 
sion of their thoughtfulness. The only 
serious objection to it is that the other 
interpretation fits in more suitably with 
the parallels Rom. i. 8, 9, 1 Cor. i. 4, Eph. 
i, 16, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2 and those in 
ΙΧΧ. 

Ver. 4. Various divisions of these words 
have been proposed, some referring πάν- 
τοτε . . . ὑμῶν to the preceding verse, 
others taking πάντοτε . . . pov together, 
and regarding the remainder of the sen- 
tence as a connected whole. It seems 
least arbitrary to find in ver. 4 a complete 
thought. The prominence of πᾶς shows 
the exuberance of his joy in them.— 
δεήσει. A special aspect of προσευχή, 
that of entreaty for the satisfaction of 
some known want; cf. Ell. on 1 Tim. ii, 
I.—peTa χαρᾶς. The undertone of the 
whole letter.—8. ποιούμενος, An inter- 
σα, Ser ay in Papyr. of Faijim, 172 
A.D., δικαίαν δέϊησ]ιν ποιούμενος (Dsm., 
NBS., p. 78), in the general sense of 
“asking” (cf. δεήσεις ποιεῖσθαι, Luke 
ν. 33, 1 Tim. ii. 1). 

Ver. 5. On what does ἐπί depend? 
Surely it follows χαρᾶς of preceding 
clause (so Chr., Th. Mps.) rather than 
εὐχαριστῶ of ver. 3. It is, at least, awk- 
ward to take ἐπί twice with the same 
verb. μ. χαρᾶς has an emphatic position. 
Now he gives the reason for his joy.— 
τῇ κοινων At the first glance κ. seems 
to refer to their mutual fellowship and 
harmony as Christians. A closer exam- 
ination reveals that this whole passage 
is concerned with Paul’s personal rela- 
tion to them. And so κ. anticipates 
συγκοινωνούς (ver. 7), and will mean 
their common participation with Paul in 
spreading the Gospel. This really in- 
cludes the idea of united action on the 
one hand, and the concrete expression of 
their helpfulness, their gift to the Apostle, 





Ὄπ 7. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


419 


A , “- a 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 1; 7. καθώς ἐστι” δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ 4 Charac- 


, Cm. αγ. 3 a τ ἘΣ ἜΣ μ᾿ τἌ - this Ep., 

πάντων ὑμῶν, διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν TH "καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς of Ro 
A a3a2 , A Wes 5 , a > , u 

pou καὶ τῇ “ " ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ ᾿ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, συγκοινω- , 


8, s 2 Tim. iv. 16 al. 
cf. 1 Cor. xv. 1Ο, 


19ο Lft., Hpt., W.H. 


t In N.T. only here and Heb. vi. 16; Wisd. vi. 18. 


(τῇ. with ΝΑΕΟΚΕ, 


teristic of 


om. 
xii. 16 al. 
Rom. x. 1; 
2 Cor. vii. 
ur Cor, ix. 23; 


sytr. cop. arm., Chr., 


Euth.cod., Thdrt. Ti., Ws., Alf. X. 1. with BDEL 1, 72, al., ἆ, e, f, g, vg., Aug., 


Ambrst. 
2 All edd. εστιν with MSS. 


Ws. (TK., p. 134) holds that |. X. was suggested by ver. 2. 


δεν before τη απολ. inserted by all edd. (Lachm. brackets) with BDbet cEKLP, 
Chr., Euth.cod., Thdrt., ἆ, 6, f, g. See Ws. (TK., p. 105), who thinks that εν was 
passed over because wanting before βεβαι., the copyists overlooking the fact that 
BeB. was included with απολ. under one article. 


on the other. Hort (Christian Ecclesia, 
Ρ. 44) points out that there is something 
concrete in the κοινωνία of Acts ii. 42. 
The same is true of Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor, 
its Περ. χε τὸ. ΤΗ ‘concrete 
notion in κ. (almost equiv. to “ contribu- 
tion”) is supported by the use of εἰς, 
which is employed technically in con- 
texts like this to denote the destination 
of money-payments, collections, etc. So 
1 Cor. xvi. I, τῆς λογίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς 
ἁγίους ; Acts xxiv. 17, ἐλεημοσύνας ποι- 
ήσων εἰς τὸ ἔθνος pov. Important exx. 
from Papyri in Dsm., BS., pp. 113-114, 
NBS., p. 23. Cf. on the whole idea 
the most apt comment of Chr. ad loc.: 
ὅταν yap ἐκεῖνος μὲν κηρύττῃ; σὺ δὲ 
θεραπεύῃς τὸν κηρύττοντα, κοινωνεῖς 
αὐτῷ τῶν στεφάνων. ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς 
ἔξωθεν ἀγῶσιν οὐ τοῦ ἀγωνιζομένου μόνον 
ἐστὶν ὁ στέφανος ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ παιδο- 
τρίβου καὶ τοῦ θεραπεύοντος καὶ πάντων 
ἁπλῶς τῶν ἀσκούντων τὸν ἀθλητήν.---τὸ 
εὐαγγ. It 15 unnecessary to narrow this 
down to the preaching of the Gospel. 
Used comprehensively. — ἀπὸ πρώτης. 
Cf. the account of their generosity in 
chap. iv. τὸ Π,---ἄχρι τοῦ viv. The same 
phrase in Rom. viii. 22. Cf. Papyr. of 
Faijim péxp[t] τί οὔ] νῦν in Dsm., NBS., 
agile 
. Ver. 6. αὐτὸ τοῦτο. Accus. of the 
“inner object,’’ where the neuter pro- 
noun takes the place of a cognate sub- 
Stantive; cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 1, τρίτον τοῦτο 
ἔρχομαι (see Blass, Gram., p. 89). αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο is characteristic of Paul, ‘the 
firm touch of an intent mind’ (Moule, 
CT. ad loc.). ‘‘Having this firm per- 
suasion.’’ Curiously enough, the same 
confident assurance, although based on 
very different grounds, is characteristic 
also of the later Jewish theology, e.g., 
Apocal. of Baruch (ed. Charles), xiii., 3. 


**Thou shalt be assuredly preserved to 
the consummation of the times.’’ Also 
xxv., 1; Ixxvi., 2. ‘Christianity, by its 
completely rounded view of the world, 
guarantees to believers that they shall be 
preserved unto eternal life in the kingdom 
of God, which is God’s revealed end in 
the world” (Ritschl, ¥ustification, E. 
Tr., p. 200).---ἐναρξάμενος. This verb, 
although a word of ritual in classical 
Greek, is found in LXX (Pentat.) appar- 
ently in the simple sense “ begin’. In 
its only other occurrence in N.T., Gal. 
iii. 3, it is combined with ἐπιτελέω as 
here.—€pyov ἀγαθόν. De W., Lft. and 
others refer this to κοινωνία of ver. 5. 
Is it not far more natural to regard it as 
“the work of God” par excellence, the 
production of spiritual life, the imparting 
of the χάρις of ver. 7? Cf. chap. ii. 13 
and esp. Rom. xiv. 20, μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος 
κατάλνε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ.- ἡμέρας 
Ἰ. X. On the order *I. X., see ver. 1 
supy. ἡμ. lacks the article on the 
analogy of ἡμέρα Κυρίου (LXX). This 
favourite conception of O.T. prophecy 
refers to “ the time when the Lord reveals 
Himself in His fulness to the world, when 
He judges evil and fulfils His great pur- 
poses of redemption among men.... But 
the judgment has not its end in itself, 
it is but the means of making Jehovah 
known to the world, and this knowledge 
of Him is salvation”? (Davidson, Nahum, 
etc., p. 105). It is easy to see how the 
N.T. idea grows out of this. Paul prob- 
ably assumes that the day is not far off, 
but indulges in no dogmatising. This 
name is given to the day because Christ 
as Κύριος is to be judge. Belief in the 
Parousia of Christ has a most prominent 
place in Paul’s religious thought. He 
never attempts to specify the time. But it 
cheers him, esp. in crises of his history (as 


420 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 1. 


ν Rom. 1.9; vous! μου 3 τῆς χάριτος πάντας ὑμᾶς ὄντας. 8. “ μάρτυς γάρ μού 
w Chap ἢ. ἐστιν 3 ὁ Θεός, ὡς " ἐπιποθῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ἐν "σπλάγχνοις Ἰησοῦ * 


ix. 14; of. 


Ps. cxix. 131. x 2 Cor. vii. 15; Philm. 12. 


1 980 also Trg. with BcKsilLP, Other edd. συνκ. with $AB*DEFG, Euth.cod. 


See Ws., TK., pp. 138-139- 


2So all edd. τ. χαρ. pov, DEFG, d, e, f, 6 ἡ μοι τ. χαρ. 30, 43, 52, 
Euth.cod., Thphyl. O.L. (Freising Fragg., Ambrst.) gaudii, which presupposes 
χαρας. 


3Om. Ti., W.H., Lft., Ws., Trg. with °BFer-G 17, d, e, g, eth., Th. Mps. 
(Cat., 236). Text in NcADer.Est.KLP, f, vg. syrP- cop., Thdrt., Ambrst. Myr. sup- 


poses it to be a reminiscence of Rom. i. 9. 


4 So also Hpt. with FKL, f, vg.cle- cop., Thdrt., Ambrst. X. |. Ti., W.H., Ws., 
Lft., Alf., Trg. with NABD*EGP 17, 37, d, ε, g, am. sah., Bas. 


in this Epistle), to believe that the Lord 
isnear. (See Teichmann, Die paulin. Vor- 
stellungen von Auferstchung und Gericht, 

ναι ἢ). There is perhaps no part of 
Paul’s thought in which it is so difficult 
to trace a fixed outline of ideas as the 
eschatological. And yet there is no part 
more regulative for him than this. 

Ver. 7. δίκαιον. = our “right” or 
“natural "τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπ. tp. Not 
«think this concerning you,” but “have 
this care on your behalf"; οὐ. chap. iv. 
10 τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν. τοῦτο of course 
refers to the finishing in them of God's 
‘good work”. @p. seems always to keep 
in view the direction which thought (of a 
practical kind) takes. ὑπέρ usually has 
the sense of “interest in" (so Lft.).— 
διὰ τὸ κ.τ.λ. Paul's only use of διά with 
infin.—év τ. καρδίᾳ. Perhaps it is best 
(with Zahn) to take «. here not so much 
as the seat of the softer feelings, but rather 
as the abode of the stronger thoughts, 
resolutions, etc. A regular Greek usage. 
Cf. τ Cor. ii. 9, 2 Cor. iii. 15, iv. 6 εί al. 
Thus the whole expression would almost 
be equiv. to “1 know that you,” εἰς.; 
cf. ἄσβεστον ὑμῶν περιφέρω τὴν μνήμην 
(Thdrt.). His love is expressed in the 
next verse.—Evidently ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμ. 
κ.τ.λ. goes with the following clause, for 
it is much more natural to suppose a break 
at the first ὑμᾶς, which is resumed by the 
second. On ἐν before τ. ἀπολ. see crit. 
note. Paul separates here (so also Wohl.) 
between his sap and his ἀπολογία, 
which makes up one idea with a yoann 
It seems to us clear that this ἀπολ. marks 
a crisis in his circumstances of which the 
influence is seen all through the Epistle ; 
cf., δι... VV. 19, 25, Chap. ii. 23, 24. 
Ought it not to be taken in its ordinary 
judicial sense of a defence against a re- 


gular charge ? (as against Lft. and Moule, 
CT., who refer ἀπ. and βεβ. to Paul's 
missionary work at Rome, and Hpt., who 
thinks of Paul’s whole activity in refuting 
opponents, both public and private). The 
correctness of this view receives strong 
confirmation from Dsm. (BS., p. 100 ff.), 
who shows that Paul, like the Transla- 
tors of the LXX, was well acquainted 
with the technical sense of βεβαίωσις 
(Lat. evictio), the obligation under which 
the seller came to the buyer to guarantee 
against all claims his right to what he 
had bought. So Paul’s defence before the 
emperor is a guarantee of the Gospel, a 
warrant of its value and claims. For 
ἀπολ. see 2 Tim. iv. 16. ‘ My defence 
and confirmation of the Gospel.”—ovve. 
µ. τ. χάρ. χάρις here must be the great 
central gift of God's grace, which Paul 
always keeps in the foreground. Cf. 1 
Cor. xv. 10, χάριτι δὲ Θεοῦ εἰμὶ ὅ εἰμι, 
καὶ ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ ἡ εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ κενὴ 
ἐγενήθη. There is no need to limit it to 
the grace of apostleship or to that granted 
to him in his trials τ, sufferings. Their 
love and kindness towards him and his 
great work, even at the darkest moments 
in his career, are proof enough that th 
share along with him in the grace of G 

It is probably better to separate pov from 
χάριτος. []. Weiss (Th. LZ., 1899, col. 
263) would read χρείας, comparing chap. 
ii. 25, iv. 16, Rom. xii. 13. Certainly this 
would give good sense and be more 
pointed. ] 

Ver. 8. An exact parallel is Rom. i. 
9-11, μάρτυς yap pov ἐστιν ὁ Θεός... 
ὡς ιαλείπτως μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαι 
κ « «+ ἐπιποθῶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς. Such 
adjuration of God he uses only in solemn 
personal appeals; cf. Gal.i. 2ο. Perhaps 
this goes to justify Zahn in supposing 


8—9, 


Χριστοῦ. 


μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον " περισσεύῃ! ἐν " ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ " αἰσθήσει, 2 


a Rom. xv. 13 al. 
1 Cor, xiii. 12. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 


Several times in Ῥ. in this sense and construction. 
c Only here in N.T., sev. exx, in Prov. 


421 


9. καὶ “τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, 5 ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ann 2 00% a 


Mark xiv. 
35; 1 Cor. 
XiV. 13. 

Ὁ Four times in Col.; cf. 


So Ti., W.H. (f1), Lft., Myr., Hpt., Alf., Trg. with ΝΑΙ, Clem., Bas., 


Chr., Thdrt. περισσευση. 


Lachm., Ws., W.H. (mg.), Trg. (mg.) with BDE 


37, kscr. Myr. accounts for -ση by similarity of sounds in terminations of επιγνω- 
σει, αισθησει, παση. Ws. thinks, conversely, that -ση was transformed into -ἢ 
under the influence of present προσευχομαι (TK., p. 42). 


that the Philippians had imagined some 
lack of cordiality in Paul’s reception of 
their gift. Comm. have noted the inten- 
sity of language manifested in the com- 
pound ἐπιποθῶς But it is needful to 
remember the fondness of later Greek for 
compounds which had lost their strong 
sense. Calvin, with practical insight: 
neque enim parum hoc valet ad fidem 
doctrine faciendam cum persuasus est 
populus a doctore se amari.—év σπλάγχ- 
γοις, ‘* With the heart of Jesus Christ” 
(with which his own has become identi- 
fied). This amounts to the same thing 
as love. Cf. Gal. ii. 20, which is the best 
comment. Possibly Paret (f¥ahrb. f. 
deutsche Theol., iii., 1, p. 25) 15 not too 
fanciful in finding here a definite recollec- 
tion of Jesus’ nature, of which σπλαγχ- 
νίζεσθαι (in the Gospels) is a common 
expression. Every genuine pastor has 
some experience of this feeling. 

Vv. 9-11. PRAYER FOR THEIR INCREASE 
ΙΝ CHRISTIAN DISCERNMENT.—Ver. ο. 
Zahn would put this clause under the 
government of @s in the preceding sen- 
tence, No strong argument can be used 
against this, but it is doubtful whether the 
explanation is necessary. In the use of 
ἵνα here, “ purport’? (to adopt Ellicott’s 
expression) seems to be blended with 
“purpose”. There are certainly passages 
in which the full ‘“‘telic’’ force of ἵνα 
cannot be fairly asserted. This accords 
with the development of the later lan- 
guage. See Hatz., Einl., p. 214 ff. Pos- 
sibly ἵνα in this passage is rhetorically 
parallel to tva in ver. 10. (See J. Weiss, 
Beitrdge zur Paulin. Rhetorik, p. 9.)— 
ἡ ἀγάπη tp. can scarcely mean anything 
else than ‘your love towards one an- 
other’’. This has been already exem- 
plified in their κοινωνία with Paul.— 
περισσεύῃ. In LXX, chiefly in Sirach. It 
is mainly in Paul’s writings that it reaches 
this derivative sense of ‘abound’. In 
the Synoptics it still means (usually), as 
in ordinary Greek, “to remain over ”’. 
Sola charitas non admittit excessum 


(Bacon, de Augm. Scient., vii., 3, quoted 
by Gwynn).—émuyv. κ.π. αἰσθ. Appar- 
ently an eager and enthusiastic spirit pre- 
vailed in this Church. As so commonly, 
it might be accompanied by a slight want 
of discernment. That would lead, on 
the one hand, to misunderstandings over 
trifling matters (cf. chap. iv. 2?), on 
the other, to giving heed to plausible 
teachers, As the Galatians combined 
enthusiasm and fickleness, perhaps, at 
Philippi, enthusiasm was apt to prevail 
Over spiritual common sense. Is not Lft. 
mistaken in annotating “ Love imparts a 
sensitiveness of touch,” etc.? This is 
not before Paul’s mind. His prayer is 
that the sensitiveness of touch may be 
added to love.—émuyv. A favourite word 
in the Epistles of the imprisonment. A 
good example of its intensive force is 
I Cor. xiii. 12, ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, 
τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώ- 
σθην. Very frequent in Justin M., e.g., 
a definition of ἐπιστήμη (Dial., 221 A), 
ἐπιστήμη τίς ἐστιν ἡ παρέχουσα αὐτῶν 
τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν θείων γνῶσιν, 
ἔπειτα τῆς τούτων θειότητος καὶ δικαιο- 
σύνης ἐπίγνωσιν. Cf. Dial., 220 D; 
Apol., ii. το, τὸ. Here =a firm con- 
ception of those spiritual principles which 
would guide them in their relations with 
one another and the world.—aicéyoe. 
Moral sensibility, quickness of ethical 
tact. Originally of sense-perception, but 
applicable to the inner world of sensi- 
bilities. ΚΙ. quotes aptly from Hippo- 
crates, de Off. Med., 3, ἃ καὶ τῇ ὄψι καὶ 
τῇ ἁφῇ καὶ τῇ ἀκοῇ καὶ τῇ ῥινὶ καὶ τῇ 
γλώσσῃ καὶ τῇ γνώμῃ ἔστιν αἰσθέσθαι. 
A complete parallel is Heb. v. 14, where 
the writer defines the τέλειοι (cf. Phil. 
iii. 12, 15-16) as τῶν διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὰ 
αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς 
διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ.--πάσῃ. 
Probably “411 kinds of’’. 

Ver. 10. δοκ. τὰ διαφ. Cf. Rom. ii. 
18, δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφ. Two possible 
renderings. (1) ‘‘Approve things that 
are excellent.’ (2) “Test things that 


422 


ἃ Rom.i.11, 
xii. 2 αἱ. TO. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 1. 


4 εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ διαφέροντα, ἵνα ἦτε " εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ 


e2 Ῥεῖ. ili. ἕἀπρόσκοποι εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, 11. πεπληρωμένοι * καρπῶν ! 


1 Wisd. 


vii.25. δικαιοσύνης tav? διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ," εἰς δόξαν καὶ " ἔπαινον Θεοῦ. 


Noun, 
Cor. v. 8; 
2 Cor. ii. 
17. 

iii. 18; Prov. xi. 30 al. 
22, xxv. 14; Eph. vi. αι. 


12. Γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς ᾿ βούλομαι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι ἢ τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ 


f Acts xxiv. 16; 1 Cor. x. 32. Scarcely found in secular writers. 
h Chap. ii. 11; Rom. xv. 7; Eph. i. 6, 14. 


g Heb. xii. 11; Jas. 
i Jude 5. k Acts xxiv. 


1 So P, syrr. cop, Chr., Thphyl. xapwov... τον. All edd. with NABDEFGKL 


O.L. sah., Thdrt., Ambrst. 
who assigns the omission to carelessness. 


B (with 116, 


122) om. τον. See Ws., TK., p. 78 fin., 


2 The important cursive 37 reads Χ. |. with amiat. 


differ,” i.¢., good and bad. Lft. opposes 
(2) on the ground that “it requires no 
keen moral sense to discriminate between 
good and bad”. But was not this pre- 
cisely the great difficulty for heathen- 
Christians? Theophyl. defines τὰ διαφ. 
by τί δεῖ πρᾶξαι καὶ ri Set μὴ πρᾶξαι. 
The idea seems to be borne out by the 
following εἴλικρ. and ἀπρόσκ. We are 
therefore compelled to decide for (2). 
“The fundamental choice arrived at in 
believing has to be reiterated continually 
in a just application of it to a world 
of varying and sometimes perplexing 
cases” (Rainy, Exfos. Bib., p. 37). 
There are exx. of τὰ διαφ. in chap. iii. 
passim. Of course this ϑοκιμάζειν is 
made possible by the guidance of the 
indwelling Spirit. It shows us “the 
highest point which Paul reaches in his 
treatment of moral questions" (Hitzm., 
Ν.Τ. Theol., ii., p. 149, who points out as 
instances of his délicate moral tact the pre- 
cepts given in r Cor. viii.-x., Rom. xiv.). 
--εἰλικρ. κ. ἀπρόσκ. There is no war- 
rant for adhering to the comm °n deriva- 
tion of εἰλικρ. from κρίνω co npounded 
with either εἵλη (‘heat of sun”) and so 
= “tested by sunbeam,” or εἴλη ( = ἴλη 
“troops "’) and so “ separated into ranks”’. 
The word is the equiv. of Lat. sincerus, 
“pure,” “ unmixed”. A favourite term 
in Plato for pure intellect and also for 
the soul purged from sense. Cf. Phaedo, 
66 A, 67 A, 81 B. Naturally transferred 
to the moral sphere. T. H. Green (Two 
Sermons, p. 41) describes εἰλικρίνεια 
as ‘perfect openness towards God”, 
ἀπρόσκ. will then mean, in all proba- 
bility, “ποῖ giving offence” to others, 
the obverse side of εἶλικρ. This sense 
seems to us to be proved by 1 Cor. x. 32 
with the context, which is simply an 
expansion of Paul’s thought here. Cf. 
also 1 John ii. 10.—els ἡμέραν Xp. els 
has the meanings “with a view to” 
and “until,” which here shade off into 


each other. The conception of ἡμ. Χ. 
“grew in Paul’s hands to a whole 
zon, lasting from the π to the 
tédo0g" (Beysch., N.T. Th., ii., p. 273). 
Ver. 11. Critical evidence (see above) 
fixes καρπὸν . . . τόν as the correct 
reading. We should, of course, expect 
the gen. (see the v./.), but one of the most 
marked features in later Greek is the 
enlarging of the sphere of the accus. It 
is quite common to find it with verbs like 
κληρονομεῖν and κρατεῖν κ.τ.λ. Cf. in 
modern Greek γέμω χρήματα, “1am full 
of possessions "’ (see Hatz., Einl., pp. 220- 
223; F. Krebs, Rection d. Casus in d. 
spateren histor, Grdacitat, Heft i., pp. 3-4, 
i., Ῥ. 3 ἢ). τικαρπ. δικ. A frequent 
phrase in Prov. (LXX). A showing forth 
of the results of righteousness. There is 
nothing here about justification, as Moule 
supposes. It is right conduct the Apostle 
has in view. But it is hardly needful to 
note that with Paul there can be no 
dissociation of the two ideas. δικαιοσύνη 
is always with him the right relation 
between God and man, made possible 
through Christ, which asserts itself, under 
the Holy Spirit’s influence, in righteous 
conduct.—&ia Ἰ. X. The καρπός as well 
as the δικ. is due to Christ (cf. chap. iv. 
13).—els δ. κ. ἔπ. ©. Cf. the refrain in 
Eph. i. 6, 12, 14, “inst hrist’s words in 
John xvii. 4, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 
The disciple must be as the Meee 
Vv. 12-14. HIS PRESENT SITUATION. 
—Ver. 12. γινώσκ. δὲ ὑ. B. A common 
epistolary phrase. Cf. ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι βον- 
λόμεθα in a Letter to the magistrates of 
Oropus from the Roman Consuls, 73 B.c. 
(Viereck, Sermo Graecus, etc., Gdtt., 1888, 
Ρ. 36). δέ, as so frequently, is transi- 
tional.—ra κατ᾽ ἐμέ = my circumstances. 
In later Greek κατά came to be a Me gy 3 
periphrasis forthe gen. W. Schmidt (de 
elocut. Fosephi, pp. 21-22) gives striking 
exx. from Josephus, ¢.g., Antt., i., 296, τοῦ 
κατ᾽ ἐκείνους συγγενοῦς, where κατ᾽ ἐκ. 


το---13. 


μᾶλλον εἰς ! 


δεσμούς µου ™ φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ γενέσθαι ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ " πραιτωρίῳ 


Mace. viii. 8. 
nor’s palace. 


So Acts xxiii. 35. 
= ἐκείνων. See also Kaelker, Quaestiones 
de elocut. Polybiana, p. 282. This is 
Paul’s first reference to his own affairs, 
which were of the deepest concern to the 
Philippians. Their gift had been prompted 
by their apprehensions of his sore need. 
Perhaps, as Calvin suggests, his oppo- 
nents were using his calamities as a proof 
of the worthlessness of his Gospel.— 
μᾶλλον εἰς προκ. . . - ἐλήλ. The use of 
μᾶλλον seems to imply that they were 
looking out for bad news of the Apostle. 
And that would justify the supposition 
that, shortly before this, a change had 
occurred in Paul’s circumstances. May 
not the change be connected with the 
ἀπολογία of ver. 7? Is it not probable 
that Paul had been transferred from his 
hired lodging (Acts xxviii. 30) into the 
prison where those on trial were kept in 
custody? O. Hirschfeld (Sitz. Bericht. 
of Berlin Academy, 1891, pp. 857-858) 
holds that imprisonment at Rome was of 
a military character, and that the barracks 
of various city troops served as prisons. 
Mommsen (op. cit., 1895, p. 500) agrees 
with Hirschf. in believing that the castra 
peregrinorum may have been used esp. 
for this purpose. The Philippians would 
naturally expect that this stricter custody 
must mean severer hardships for the 
Apostle. Asa matter of fact it has been 
in his favour, προκοπή is a technical 
term in Stoic philosophy for ‘“ progress 
towards wisdom” (see Zeller, Stfoics, 
etc., p. 294). It is condemned by Phry- 
nichus (ed. Lobeck, p. 85) as unclassical. 
Frequent in later Greek, esp. in Plutarch 
and Polyb.—éAyAvbev. Cf. Mark ν. 26, 
eis τὸ χεῖρον ἐλθοῦσα (why should ΕἸ]. 
object to this parallel 2), Acts xix. 27. 
Ver. 13. For the skilful rhetorical 
structure of vv. 13-17 see J. Weiss, Beitr., 
p- 17, who compares Rom. ii. 6-12.---τὰ 
Seopa is, on the whole, more common ; 
see Luke viii. 29, Acts xvi. 26, xx. 23. 
According to Cobet, Mnemosyne, 1858, p. 
74 ff. (quoted in W-Sch., p. 85, 7. 8), the 
neuter form refers to actual bonds, the 
masc. to the imprisonment. But there 
seems to be no distinction, e.g., in Attic 
Inscrr. (see Meisterhans, Gramm. d. 
attisch. Inschr., p. 112, n. 1025). And 
Sch. states that the distinction will not 
apply to LXX.—dav. ἐν Χ. γεν. It has 
become plain that he is a prisoner wholly 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν - 13. ὥστε τοὺς |} 


m Constrn. chap. iii. 21; 1 Thess. iii. 13. 


423 


er. 253.1 
Tim. iv. 
15} 
Sirach li. 


Ξ ᾿ ΤΑΣ 
n πρ. four times in Gospp, = gover- 


for Christ’s sake, and not on account of 
any breach of law. γεν. must be trans- 
lated by the English perfect, for, as Moule 
(CT.) well points out, ‘our English 
thought separates present from past less 
rapidly than Greek”. Ofcourse we must 
supply δεσμ. as predicate with φαν. γεν. 
—év ὅλῳ τ. πραιτ. is one of the most 
keenly contested expressions in the 
Epistle. Four leading interpretations are 


found. (1) Those forming the praetorian 
guard. So Lft., Hfm., Abbott, Hpt., 
Vine. This explanation has much in its 


favour. Those coming up on appeal 
from the Provinces were handed over for 
surveillance to the praefecti praetorio (see 
Marquardt-Momma,, ii. 2°, Ρ. 972 and n. 
2). And Lft. (Com., pp. 99-104) has shown 
conclusively that the word admits of this 
meaning. (2) The barracks or camp of 
the praetorian guard. So Lips., ΚΙ., Alf., 
De W., Myr., Ws., Von Soden. But 
none of these Comm. bring direct evi- 
dence to show that the name praetorium 
was ever definitely applied to the castra 
praetoriana, built under Tiberius at the 
Porta Viminalis (Tac., Amn., iv., 2). (3) 
The emperor’s palace. So Chr., Th. 
Mps., Thdrt., Beng., Mynster (Kleine 
theol. Schriften, p. 184, some strong argu- 
ments), Gwynn, Duchesne. In all other 
passages of N.T. πραιτ. = residence of 
the ruler. It is said that it would be im- 
possible for anyone writing from Rome 
to call the palace πραιτ. But, as Gw. 
observes, this is a provincial writing to 
provincials, and using the word in a 
familiar sense. Further, the change for 
the better in Paul’s circumstances is con- 
nected with the knowledge that his bonds 
are in Christ. Is it because the author- 
ities (emperor, etc.) have already begun 
to take a favourable view of his case that 
the preaching is allowed to prosper with- 
out hindrance and that his associates 
take courage? This interpretation cannot 
be dismissed altogether lightly. (4) The 
judicial authorities. So Mommsen (op. 
cit., Ῥ. 498) and Ramsay (St. Paul, etc., 
p- 357 ff.). These would be the praefecti 
praetorio (either one or two) with their 
assessors and other officials of the im- 
perial court. Momms. quotes from a 
letter of Trajan to Pliny (Ep. Plin., 57 
[65]}, in which he decides that a criminal 
condemned to exile, but, in spite of this, 


424 
ο Cf. Luke ὃ 
Sag met 


21;2 


Kings βως τὸν λόγον " λαλεῖν. 


αἱ. 
q In Paul and Hebrews. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


“τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσι, 14. καὶ τοὺς πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν 
Κυρίῳ " πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου ὃ περισσοτέρως τολμᾷν ! ἀφό- 
15. Τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς 


1 80 Alf., W.H. Ti., Trg., Ws. τολμᾶν. 


38ο DcE**K, Chr.(occas.), Thdrt., Ell. (who calls τον Θεον “a nearly certain 
gloss”), Hpt. Other edd. add τον Θεον with NABD*E*P, d, ε, f, vg. sah. cop. 


arm., Clem., Chr,(some places), 


lingering in the province, should be sent 
in chains ad praefectos praetorii mei, who 
are not the prison officials but those con- 
cerned with the hearing of cases. This 
explanation also would agree well with 
what Paul says about his bonds and the 
progress of the Gospel. We would hesi- 
tate to decide between (1) and (4), the 
context seeming to support the latter, 
while, perhaps, ὅλῳ favours the former.— 
καὶ τ. λοιποῖς π. Cf. CIG., i., 1770, 
ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν φανερὰν 
πεποήκαμεν τήν τε ἰδίαν καὶ τοῦ δήμου 
τοῦ Ρωμαίων προαίρεσιν. Apparently a 
vague phrase = everywhere else. 

Ver. 14. τοὺς πλείονας. Vaughan 
holds that “from the universal practice 
of deciding matters by the vote of a 
majority the term comes to mean the 
main body, the society as a whole,” but 
this scarcely seems needful.—rév 48. ἐν 
K. These words surely make up one 
phrase (so Alf., Weizs., Ws., etc., as 
against Lft., Lips., Myr., εἰς). Cf. Col. 
i. 2. It is difficult to see where the 
tautology, which is said to be involved 
in this interpretation, comes in. Prob- 
ably it is an almost technical combina- 
tion. Dsm. (BS., p. 82) notes from 
Papyri a precisely similar technical use of 
ἀδελφός in the language of the Serapeum 
at Memphis. ---πεποιθ. τ. . 
“Having confidence in my bonds,” ἑ.ε., 
being encouraged by the favourable light 
in which his imprisonment was beginning 
to be regarded when seen in its true 
character. [This tells in favour of (4) 
in ver. 13.) Cf. Philm. 21, πεποιθὼς 
τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου.--λαλεῖν. Hpt. believes 
that λαλ. is used here expressly instead 
of λέγειν as emphasising the physiolo- 
gical process rather than the word spoken. 
In the later language these refinements 
were apt to be overlooked. Still it is 


interesting to find that in LXX 495 
is almost invariably transl. by λαλεῖν and 
VON by λέγειν. 


Vv. 15-18. THE RESULT OF HIS MORE 
FAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES: CHRIST 
PREACHED, WHETHER OF SPITE OR GOOD- 
WILL.—Ver. 15. τινές, Are these in- 
cluded in the πλείονες of ver. 14 or not? 
We prefer to believe (so also Weizs., 
Fahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 294 
ff.) that the Apostle has chan his 
point of view. For is it conceivable that 
those who “ had confidence" in his bonds 
should, on the other hand, “raise afflic- 
tion” (ver. 17) for those bonds? He 
thinks now not so much of the em- 
boldening of his Christian brethren as 
of the fact that the Gospel is being 
preached with great vigour over a wide 
area. Accordingly τινές may be taken by 
itself.—Probably καί goes with φθόνον. 
“Some preach . . . actually from envy 
and rivalry.” — ἔριν = “ rivalry” (not 
“ strife’), as often. re Thuc., vi., 31, 

al 


4; 48sch., Eumen, (ed. Paley), 933 (where 
used in a good sense). Το whom does 
Paul refer? It has usually been taken 


for granted that it must to his un- 
wearying opponents, the Judaisers. So 
Myr., Alf., Lft., Franke (esp. SK., 1895, 
P 772), Duchesne and others. But, as 

pt. clearly shows, we have no grounds 
for assuming the existence of a definitely 
anti-Pauline Jewish-Christian party at 
Rome (so also Hort, ¥udaistic Christi- 
anity, pp. 112-113). At the same time 
this jealousy of the Apostle, a matter of 
personal feeling, may well have arisen in 
the Jewish wing of the Roman Church. 
They would naturally be roused to some 
bitterness by Paul's emphasis on the 
universality of the Gospel and his neglect 
of its specially Jewish setting. But it 
is unreasonable to divide all the Chris- 
tians of the ο Age into Gentile- 
Christians and Judaisers. There would 
Jewish-Christians who never 
favoured the extreme methods or even 
doctrines of the latter. (Cf. M‘Giffert’s 
instructive discussion, Apost. Age, pp. 
393-395, and Pfl., Urchrist., pp. 147, 151.) 
It is indeed quite possible that those re- 


be man 


7 


14--τ7. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


425 


δὲ καὶ δι "εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν: 16. οἱ μὲν ἐξ Chap. it 


" ἐριθείας 2 τὸν ὅ 


θλίψιν ἐπιφέρειν * τοῖς δεσμοῖς µου: 17. ot δὲ ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες 


infra. t Acts xvii. 3; Col. i. 28. 


1 εξ εριθειας. . . 


Χριστὸν " καταγγέλλουσιν, οὐχ " ἁγνῶς, " οἰόμενοι 


Often in Acts, 
v In N.T. only found besides in John xxi. 25; Jas. 


13; Eph. 
τς ο, 
Several 
exx, in 
Sirach. 
s See note 


Only twice in LXX. u Only here in N.T. 


ἔν 


to end of ver. 16 and εξ αγαπης . . . to end of ver. 17 change 


places. So all edd. with NABD*EFGP 17, 23, 17, ἆ, ϱ, g, go. sah. cop. arm. 


zth., Bas., Euth.cod., Tert., Victorin. 


Non-transposition only found in ΠΡ εἰς KL 


(which om. οι μεν εξ εριθ. . . . Seop. p.), Chr., Thdrt. 


38ο ΝΑΒέΚΡ. εριθιας DEFG 114. 


τον with Xca.BFG, Chr.cod. 
1 So DcEKL, Chr., Thdrt. 


sah. cop. arm. zth., Aug., Ambrst. (DbP, Euth.cod. επεγειρειν). 


προσφερειν. 


ferred to here are Pauline Christians who 
for some reason have a personal pique 
at the Apostle. (Cf. Ws., Amer. $. of 
Theol., i., 2, pp. 388-389, who throws 
out the interesting suggestion that they 
may have been old teachers of the Church 
who had become jealous of Paul’s high 
position, and so wished to outstrip him and 
destroy his popularity.) ‘Paul says no- 
thing here which I have not experienced ” 
(6αἱν.).----τινὲς δὲ καί. Although not 
explicitly, these, of course, belong to the 
πλείονες of ver. 14. καί marks the con- 
trast with the preceding clause. — δι 
εὐδοκίαν. The word can mean nothing 
else here than “goodwill”. For it is 
placed in antithesis to φθόνος and ἔρις, 
and resumed by ἀγάπη below. Cf. 
Sirach, ix., 12, μὴ εὐδοκήσῃς ἐν εὐδοκίᾳ 
ἀσεβῶν. 

Vy. 16-17. An overwhelming mass of 
authority is in favour of transposing these 
verses as above (see crit. note). TR. is 
simply an emendation based on the order 
in ver. 15.—Ver. 16. οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης. 
Is this a complete phrase or does ἐξ ay. 
qualify the predicate τ. Xp. κηρύσσ. sup- 
plied from ver. 15? The latter seems 
most natural, as it preserves the complete 
parallelism of the clauses, which would 
otherwise be disturbed by οὐχ ayvas.— 
κεῖμαι has practically become perf. pas- 
sive of τίθημι. τέθειμαι is seldom used. 
(See Gildersleeve on Justin M., Apol., i., 
11, 6.) Exactly parallel are Luke ii. 34, 
οὗτος κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν Kal ἀνάστασιν 
πολλῶν ; τ Thess. ili. 3, αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε 
ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα. ‘Am appointed.” 

Ver. 17. ἐξ ἐριθείας. Here virtually 
= “selfishness” (rather than ‘ factious- 
ness’’). Originally, the character of a 


(See Ws., TK., p. 141.) 


3 So Ti., W.H. (f1) with S*ADEKP, Bas., Chr., Euth.cod., Thdrt. 
Trg., Alf., Lach. bracket τον. 


All edd. εγειρειν with NABD*FG 17, 31, O.L. vg. 


Ws. om. 
δ 
Thphyl. (mg.j 


worker for pay. Now that which de- 
graded the hired worker, in the estima- 
tion of antiquity, was his labouring wholly 
for his own interests, while it was a sign 
of the noble to devote himself to the com- 
mon weal. This sense suits all N.T. 
passages (Rom. ii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 20, Gal. 
ν. 20, Jas. iii. 14, 16). See Hpt.’s valu- 
able note from which the above is con- 
densed.—rév Χ. Itis hard tosay whether 
τόν ought to be retained. It would easily 
be accounted for as an assimilation to 
τὸν X. in ver. 15.—katayy. A distinction 
has been drawn between καταγγ. as 
confined to those sent by Christ and 
κηρύσσ. as applying to all preachers, 
including our Lord Himself. Probably 
they are quite synonymous here. Cf. an 
excellent note in Westcott (on 1 John i. 
5) on the special signification of katayy. 
among compounds of ἀγγέλλω = “ pro- 
claim with authority, as commissioned to 
spread the tidings throughout those who 
hear them”’.—ovx ayv. ‘ With mixed 
motives.” Cf. Pind., ΟἹ., iii., 37, μεγάλων 
ἀέθλων ἁγνὰν κρίσιν (quoted by Alf.).— 
οἰόμενοι. ‘ Purposing.’’ So frequently 
in later Greek. Schmid (Atticismus, i., 
128) quotes from Dio Chrys., Aristides and 
Philostratus. Cf. Phryn. (ed. Lobeck), 
190, βιβλίον . . . ὅπερ οἴεται δηλοῦν. 
There is a sharp contrast between εἰδότες 
in νετ. 16 and οἰόμενοι Πετε.---θλίψιν 
ἐγείρειν τ. Seop. µ. The balance of 
authority is in favour of ἐγείρειν. ἐπι- 
φέρειν is probably an ancient gloss, which 
may have crept into some text from the 
margin. The phrase apparently means 
‘to stir up vexation for me in my im- 
prisonment”’. They attributed their own 
jealous feelings to the Apostle, and could 


426 


w Rom. ili. ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι. 


3 
x πα παντὶ τρόπῳ, εἴτε "π 

to correct καὶ ϕ ί ὶ ή 

to correct καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι. 
y Mark xi. 

40; Luke 


XX. 47. 
z Luke xxi. 13. 


Η1Ρ0ΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 1. 


18. “τί γάρ; πλὴν 1 


ει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ, Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται : 


19. οἶδα γὰρ 2 ὅτι τοῦτό 


μοι " ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως, καὶ " ἐπιχορη- 


a Eph. iv. 16 is the only parall. The verb five times in N.T. 


1 80 also Myr. with DEKL, ἆ, e, f, vg. syrr. arm. eth. go., Chr., Thdrt. Ti., 
W.H., Trg. πλην οτι with ΝΑΕΡ 17, sah., Ath.™, Euth.cod.. Thphl.mg. Ws. om. 


πλην with B, Ath.cod. See Ws., TK., p. 103. 


as to the punctuation. 
χαρησ. 
comma aft. χαρησ. 
place interrogation aft. καταγγ. 


3 So Ti., Alf., Trg. with NADEFGKLLP, d, e, t, g, vg. syrr. cop. arm. 
Ws. δε with B 37, 61, 116, sah. See his TK., p. 68, where he 


yop (δε in mg.). 


There is much difference of opinion 


Ti. has comma after καταγγ., stop at χαιρω, and colon after 
Ws. has colon aft. xatpw, stop aft. χαρησ. 
Lft. colon aft. both x. and χαρησ. 


W.H. colon aft. χαιρω, 
Hpt. and Vaughan would 


W.H., 


suggests that it was natural to supplant δε by yap as confirming χαρησομαι. 


not conceive a greater worry to him than 
that he should hear of their success in 
preaching. 

Vv. 18-20. Hs Joy IN THE PREACHING 
ΟΕ CHRIST AND EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS 
IN HIS CAUSE.—Ver. 18. There seems 
little doubt that we should read πλὴν ὅτι, 
as there would be a tendency to omit 
either word to simplify the sense. Ws. 
holds that πλήν was inserted because 
copyists did not notice that ὅτι is causal, 
introducing a protasis. But it is difficult to 
imagine this misunderstanding {ὅτι stood 
alone. τί γάρ probably goes closely with 
οἰόμενοι preceding. ‘Supposing they 
purpose, etc., what then? Only that... 
Christ is preached.” τί has its usual 
classical sense. For πλ. in this usage, 
cf. Acts xx, 22-23, τὰ... συναντήσοντα 
ἐμοὶ μὴ εἰδώς, πλὴν ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα . . . 
διαμαρτύρεται.---προφάσει ε. ἀληϑ. A 
common antithesis. The one party 
preached the Gospel, ostensibly for 
Christ’s sake, really to gain their own 
ends.—The best punctuation of the next 
clause is that of W.H., who place a colon 
after χαίρω and a comma after xapno.— 
ἐν τούτῳ. Must not τ. mean “the fact 
that, in spite of my imprisonment, Christ 
is preached"? It seems far-fetched to 
refer it to his imprisonment.— yalpo. 
Assuming that Paul’s opponents here 
were Judaisers, Comm. have been driven 
to desperate shifts to explain his joy in 
their preaching. This verse was quoted 
in the early Church in favour of heretics, 
so that Chr., Th. Mps. and Thdrt. have 
to protest against the abuse of it (see 
Swete, Th. Mps., i., p. 209). When 
reasonably interpreted it presents no 
serious difficulties. —GAAG κ. χαρήσ. 


Closely connected with the following 
verse, but not necessarily introducing a 
new subject (as Him.). It has almost the 
same force as if οὐ μόνον had preceded. 
The κοινή form for χαιρήσω, like ζήσομαι 
for ζήσω in N.T. Cf. CIA., ii., 593, 5, 
18 (2 cent. B.c.). Found in LXX, where 
χαροῦ also occurs (W-Sch., p. τοϑ, 
n. 8). This is a progressive future. Cf. 
Rom. vi. 2 (see Burton, MT., p. 32). 
Perhaps we can detect, as some have 
suggested, a note of loneliness and resig- 
nation in this verse (cf. chap. ii. 21). 
Ver. 19. The only apparent ground for 
reading δέ is its difficulty. (which 
has greatly preponderating authority) 
gives the reason for the continuance of 
his joy.—rotro. There is no need to 
limit this to his captivity (so ΚΙ.), or his 
worries and trial (De W., Lft.). It is 
used generally of his present circum- 
stances. τοῦτο ... σωτ. is quoted from 
Job xiii. 16 (1 ΧΧ).--σωτ. e fail to 
see why this should be interpreted as the 
final eschatological salvation (so Ws., 
Lft., ΚΙ., etc.). There is nothing in the 
context to justify such a thought. He 
has every reason to hope, he tells them, 
that he will see them again in peace (vv. 
25-27). Surely he is thinking chiefly 
of his probable release, an tion 
which admirably accords with the favour- 
able view of his case which was evidently 
being taken at Rome. This interpreta- 
tion (Chr., τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν λέγει) is 
strongly supported by the sense of the 
word in Job. xiii. 16, from which it is 


here quoted, where Ty has not the 


usual deeper meanin which belongs to 
it in the Prophh. and Pss., but signifies 





18---21. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


427 


γίας τοῦ Πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 20. κατὰ τὴν "ἢ ἀποκαραδοκίαν ὃ Only 


νο. I 9 > > ‘ 3 / > 35 ο , 
καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πάσῃ “ παρρησίᾳ, 
© PC rar | ῃ αν lig a , , » 
ὡς πάντοτε, καὶ νῦν “μεγαλυνθήσεται Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σώματί pou, εἴτε 


διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου. 


et passim. d Luke i. 46; Acts xix. 17. 


21. Ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ Liv.) Χριστός 2: "καὶ 


parall. in 
Rom. viii. 
19. See 
Fritzsche, 
Opusce., p. 
150 ff. 

c Acts iv. 13, 
XXVili. 31 


‘ 


e Cf. 2 Cor. v. 6. 


1 Prob. to be spelt thus in N.T. See W-Sch., i., §5, 11, d. 
2 F, Ger, ἆ, e, f, vg. go. add εστιν. 


victory in a contest for the right. Cf. 
also 2 Cor. i. 10 ff., a passage precisely 
akin to this, which favours the above 
ideaofowtnpia. [We find that Zahn uses 
almost the same arguments, Luthardt’s 
Zeitschr., 1885, p. 300.] This verse is 
linked to ver. 12 by ver. 18. He desires 
their prayers for deliverance, and the 
promised Spirit of Christ (Luke xii. 12) 
to give him wisdom that he may know 
how to act. In any case (the thought 
crosses his mind that he may still be 
condemned) he hopes to glorify Christ 
whether in life or death.—émuyop. The 
absence of the article is no reason for 
joining ἐπιχ. closely with δεήσ. under 
the government of ὑμῶν. The gen. τοῦ 
mv. Ἰ. Χ. is quite sufficient to isolate 
ἐπιχ. ‘The supply given by the Spirit 
of Jesus Christ.” This is the Spirit 
possessed by Christ Himself and com- 
municated to all who abide in Him as 
members of His body. Of course Paul, 
at times, really identifies Christ with the 
Spirit, e.g., 1 Cor. xv. 45, 2 Cor. ili. 17. 
Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17. This identification 
springs directly from his own spiritual 
history. ‘‘ The first ‘ pneumatic’ experi- 
ence Paul had was an experience of 
Christ” (Gunkel, Wirkungen d. heil. 
Geistes®, p.g1). Cf. for the word ἐπιχορ. 
Ep. ad Diogn., i., το, τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ καὶ 
τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὸ ἀκούειν ἡμῖν χορηγοῦν- 
τος. “Α suitable and common word 
for the Giver God. . . . The generosity 
of its origin survives in the transfer” 
(Gildersleeve ad loc.). 

Ver. 20. ἀποκαραδ. The concen- 
trated intense hope which ignores other 
interests (ἀπό), and strains forward as 
with outstretched head (κάρα, δοκεῖν). 
Cf. Rom. viii. 19, ἡ yap ἀποκαραδοκία 
τῆς κτίσεως THY ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται. The verb ἄπο- 
καραδοκεῖν is found in Polyb., Plut., 
Joseph., Aquila. —aioxvv8. very prob- 
ably refers, in the main, to his own con- 
duct, the danger of denying his Lord 
under stress of hardships, but there is 


also involved the thought of Christ’s 
treatment of him. This gives the true 
antithesis to μεγαλυνθ. --παρρησίᾳ. We 
are inclined to believe that π. has its 
literal meaning, boldness of speech, for 
he has before him the danger of denying 
Christ. Of course there is implied the 
idea of courage in his whole bearing. 
The word is typical of the attitude of the 
early Christians.—kai νῦν. His trial is in 
process.—peyah. . . . θανάτου. There 
is some force in Meyer’s suggestion that 
passive verbs are used here because Paul 
feels himself the organ of Divine work- 
ing. ἐν τῷ oop. ‘In my person.” σ. 
in Paulis always a colourless word, the 
organ of the ψυχή or the πνεῦμα, and 
taking its character from its constituting 
principle. If he lives, it will be for the 
service of Christ, which is the highest 
honour he can pay his Lord. If he has 
to die, then his readiness to endure death 
and his calm courage in enduring will 
be the most eloquent testimony to the 
worth of his Lord. 

Vv. 21-23. DEATH OR LIFE MEANS 
CHRIST FOR HIM.—Ver. 21. ἐμοί. Why 
this emphasis? He knew that, after the 
expression of his joyful confidence and 
hope, the word θάνατος would come as 
a shock to their minds. There could be 
no question as to how men in general 
felt concerning life and death. But he, 
the Apostle, occupies a different stand- 
point. This standpoint he must explain. 
In spite of Haupt’s strong arguments for 
taking τὸ ζῇν, not as bodily life, but as 
life in its general conception (including 
the future existence), we cannot help 
feeling that the antithesis of ζωῆς and 
θανάτου (ver. 20) necessitates the same 
contrast between τὸ ζῇν and τὸ ἀποθανεῖν. 
{Kabisch, Eschatologie d. Paulus, p. 134, 
goes the length of saying that Paul does 
not know the conception of life as an 
ethical quality; that it always means 
for him simply existence. Probably there 
may be more truth in this than we are 
at first sight, from our different modes 


428 


f Gal. ii. 20; ry 
pero τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, 


κέρϑος. 


Rom. viii. © ἔργου 1 - καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι 3 οὐ ἢ γνωρίζω. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 1. 


22. εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῆν ἐν ' σαρκί, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς 


23. ᾿συνέχοµαι γὰρ ὃ ἐκ 


Β See note τῶν δύο, Thy "ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς * τὸ ' ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, 


k Appar. the only N.T. ex. of this 


h 1 Cor. xii. 
3, xv. 1; Gal. i. rx al. i Luke xii. 50; cf.2Cor.v. 14. 
constrn. 1 Also in Luke xii. 36 =return. Noun in2 Tim. iv. 6. 


1 FG, O.L. vg., Irenint., Victorin., Ambrst., al. add εστιν. W.H. read epyov,—. 


2 Batpnowpa. Blass τι αιρησοµαι; so W.H. mg. 
8 So some minn., Thdrt. Edd. δε with NABDEFGKLP, O.L, vg. go. Βγτρ. zth. 


sah., Chr., Euth.cod., Victorin., Ambrst. 
* DEFG om. εἰς. 


of thought, inclined to admit. To the 
Jewish mind non-existence was certainly 
one of the most terrible ideas conceiv- 
able.] If life meant for Paul wealth, 
power, self-gratification and the like, 
then death would loom in front of him 
with terror. But life for Aim means 
Christ. He is one with his Lord. And 
he knows that death itself cannot break 


that union, it can only make it more com-" 


plete (because death is σὺν X. εἶναι, ver. 
23). Thus it must be actual gain, a 
definite addition to his joy. Contrast 
the thought of Apoc. of Bar., xiy., 12, 
in some degree similar: “τῆς righteous 
justly hope for the end, and without fear 
depart from this habitation, because they 
have with thee a store of works preserved 
in treasuries ".--κέρδος. Cf. Wisd. iii. 
2, ἔδοξαν ἐν is ἀφρόνων τεθνάναι, 
καὶ ἐλογίσθη κάκωσις ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτῶν, 
καὶ ἡ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν πορεία σύντριμμα" οἱ 
δέ εἰσιν ἐν εἰρήνῃ. In sharp contrast to 
Paul's statement, cf. Libanius, Orat., 
Xxvi., Ῥ. 595 A (quoted by Wetstein) : 
πάντως ols βαρὺ τὸ ζῇν κέρδος ὁ θάνατος. 
See numerous apt illustrations in Wet- 
stein. 

Ver. 22. To show the diversities of 
interpretation to which this verse has 
πον rise, it is enough to note that in the 

rst clause Hpt. would supply ζῇν ἐστιν, 
while Ws, suggests κέρδος. Others regard 
the first two clauses as protasis (τοῦτο 
summing up the words preceding), making 
the apodosis begin with καί. The con- 
text suggests an explanation more simple 
and more natural. Paul has sought to 
convince them that death has no terror 
for him; that, on the contrary, it is pure 
gain. Yet he will not have them suppose 
that therefore life on earth (ἐν σαρκί, life 
with the encumbrance of sinful flesh) is 
a burden anda trouble. In the circum- 
stances, as he points out immediately, it 
is probably best for him and them. And 


Trg. yap in mg. 


he will give a preliminary hint of this. 
Must we not supply μοί ἐστι, in thought, 
in the first clause? This is suggested 
both by ἐμοί preceding and by the μοι 
which follows. ἐστί has to be supplied, 
admittedly, in both clauses of ver. 21. 
There is no greater difficulty in doing so 
here. ‘ But if life in the flesh be my 
portion, this means (so we must also 
translate the ἐστί supplied in first clause 
of ver. 21) for me fruit of (i.¢., springing 
from) labour.” τὸ ζῇν is qualified by ἐν 
σ., because the Apostle felt that he could 
not regard physical death as quenching 
his life. Death only meant fuller life, 
therefore he must define when he wishes 
to speak of life on this earth.—c 
ἔργον. For the phrase see Ps. ciii. (civ.) 
13, ἀπὸ καρποῦ τῶν ἔργων σον χο - 
σεται ἡ γῆ; Wisd. iil. 15, ἀγαθῶ ρ 
πόνων ὁ καρπὸς εὐκλεής. Aptly Thphyl., 
καὶ τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκὶ οὐκ ἄκαρπόν μοί 
ἐστιν" καρποφορῶ γὰρ διδάσκων καὶ 
φωτίζων πάντας. -- τί αἱρήσ. τί has 
practically ousted πότερον from N.T. It 
is quite natural to have the fut. indicat. 
in a deliberative sentence.—yvwpifw. Its 
invariable meaning in Ν.Τ, = ‘make 
known". This sense suits almost every 
instance in LXX. So here, “I do not 
make known,” “1 cannot tell”. 

Ver. 23. συνέχομαι δέ (with most 
authorr.). 8é=‘‘rather”’. Cf. Rom. iv. 
20.—ovvéx. ἐκ. Apparently the idea is 
that of a strong pressure bearing upon 
him from (ἐκ the source) two sides and 
keeping him motionless. — ἔπιθυμ. εἰς. 
Cf. Thuc., iv., 81, ἐπιθυμίαν ἐνεποίει τοῖς 
᾿Ἄθην. συμμάχοις ἐς τοὺς Aaxed.—dva- 
λῦσαι. Aor. of momentary action By 
Burton, MT., Ρ. 5ο). Only here in N.T. 
in this sense. Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 6, ἀνάλυσιν ; 
Philo, Flacc. ad fin., τὴν ἐκ τοῦ βίον τε- 
λευταίαν ἀνάλυσιν. Frequentin LXX and 
late Greek = depart. In Polyb. it usually 
means castra movere.—ovv X. εἶναι. 





22---26. 


πολλῷ] μᾶλλον "ἢ κρεῖσσον: 24. τὸ δὲ " 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


429 


πι Ο[. Mark 


ἐπιμένειν ἐν" τῇ σαρκὶ dvay-™ C/ Mark 


καιότερον δι᾿ ὑμᾶς. 25. καὶ τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα ὅτι μενῶ καὶ “συμ- Cor. vii. 


- A - ~ Ν “ 
παραμενῶϑ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν "προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως, 
~ a 3 A 
26. ἵνα τὸ “ καύχημα ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν epol,* διὰ 


19ο N*DEFGKLP, f, vg. go. syrr. arm. eth., Chr., Thdrt. 


=| 
n Used by 
P. literally 
and meta- 


Edd. add yap with 


ΝΑΑΒΟ 6, το, 17, 31, Clem.™, Euth.cod., Ambrst., Aug. Ws., TK., p. 120, assigns 


the omission to carelessness. 


D*FG, d, e, Victorin. ποσω. 


2 So Alf., Trg., Myr., Ws. with BDEFGKL, Thdrt., Thphl., O.L. vg. Ti., W.H. 


om. εν with SACP, c, k, ο, Clem., Or., Chr. 
absorbed by the final syllable of επιµενειν. 


Myr. thinks ev might easily have been 
Ws. supposes it was omitted on the 


analogy of pass. like Rom. vi. 1, Col. i. 23, where emp. has a different meaning, 
3 So Myr. with DcEKLP, Chr., Thdrt., Thphl. Edd. wapapevw with SABCD*FG 


17, 20, 31, 67**, arm., Euth.cod. 
4 FG, f, g place ev Χ. |. after εν εµοι. 


From this passage and 2 Cor. ν. 8 (but 
see also 1 Thess. v. 10) as compared with 
others, ¢.g., 1 Thess. iv. 15, 1 Cor. xv. 51, 
Beyschl. (N.T. Theol., ii., 269 ff.), Teich- 
mann (op. cit., pp. 57-59), Grafe (Ab- 
handl. C. ο. Weizsdacker gewidm., p. 276) 
and others conclude that the Apostle 
changed his views on eschatology in his 
later years, and esp. when death stared 
him in the face. Instead of supposing a 
sleep (κοιμᾶσθαι) until the Parousia, or 
else the direct experience of that event, 
he now believes that after death the soul 
is immediately united to Christ. It is, 
however, hazardous to build up eschato- 
logical theories on these isolated utter- 
ances of the Apostle. He has, apparently, 
no fixed scheme of thought on the subject. 
The Resurrection is not before his mind 
at allin this passage. His eschatology, 
as Dsm. (Th. LZ., 1898, col. 14) well 
observes, must rather be conceived as 
ἐλπίς. Death cannot interrupt the life 
ἐν Χριστῷ. This is the preparation for 
being σὺν Χ. Evencontemporary Jewish 
thought was familiar with a similar idea. 
So, e.g., Tanchuma, Wajjikra, 8 : “* When 
the righteous leave the world they ascend 
at once and stand on high” (Weber, 
Lehren d. Talmud, p. 323). See also 
Charles, Eschatology, p. 399 Π.--πολλῷ 
κ.τ.λ. It seems necessary for the sense 
to insert γάρ with the best authorities. 
The double comparat. is fairly common. 
Vv. 24-26. HIS PRESENTIMENT THAT 
HE WILL VISIT THEM AGAIN.—Ver. 24. 
ἔπιμ. seems common with Paul in a 
colourless sense.—év. It is hard to de- 
cide whether it should be retained or not. 
No difference is made in the sense.— 


ἀναγκ. It is characteristic of the Apostle 
that the first thing which strikes him is 
the need of others. Wetstein quotes 
aptly from Seneca, Epp. ad Lucil., p. 
104, ingentis animi est aliena causa ad 
vitam reverti quod magni viri saepe 
fecerunt. 

Ver. 25. καὶ τ. π. οἶδα. ‘ With this 
conviction (sc., that his life is needful 
for them) I know,” etc. Paul does not 
claim to be infallible, but he is so con- 
fident of the Philippians’ need of him 
that he cannot doubt that this will be 
God’s purpose too. There is every 
reason to believe that his hope was 
justified (see Introduction).—mwapapevo 
(which is best attested) has in later Greek 
the special sense of ‘‘ remaining alive”. 
See Schmid, Attictsmus, i., p. 132, who 
quotes Dio., i., 62, 8; 333, 29; Herod., 
i., 30, and compares Plat., Phaed., 62 E, 
86 C.—eis τ. ὑ. προκ. κ.τ.λ. Probably 
προκ. Should be taken apart from πίστεως, 
which goes closely with χαράν. ‘‘ With 
a view to your progress and the joy of 
your faith.” ὥστε στηριχθῆναι μᾶλλον 
ὑμᾶς καθάπερ νεοττοὺς δεομένους τῆς 
μητρὸς ἕως ἂν αὐτοῖς παγῇ τὰ πτερά 
(Chr.). 

Ver. 26. “In order that your ground 
of glorying may increase in Christ Jesus 
through me, by reason of my,” etc. 
Their καύχημα is their knowledge and 
possession of the Gospel. Christ Jesus 
is the sphere in which this blessing is 
enjoyed. Cf. Sirach ix. 16, ἐν φόβῳ 
Κυρίου ἔστω τὸ καύχημά σου.---ἐν ἐμοί 
is defined by the following clause. Paul 
looks on his presence with them as an 
occasion of advance in their Christian 


430 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ L 


τ Usually in τῆς ἐμῆς "παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 27. Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγ- 


Second 
Advent. 


5 
here. 
s Acts xxiii. 
1; 2 Macc. vi. 1. 


1 So Alf., Myr. (Lft. mg.) with $aACDcEFGKL, Chr., Euth.cod., Thdrt. 


γελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ * πολιτεύεσθε, ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς, εἴτε 
eldomas ἀπών, ἀκούσω] τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, ὅτι "στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ 


t Chiefly in P., ¢.g., 1 Cor. xvi. 13; 1 Thess. iii. 8 


Lach., 


Ti., W.H., Ws. axove with *BD*P 47, 57. 


calling. év, which here denotes strictly 
the basis, may be translated “through”. 
This passage bears out the favourable 
turn which Paul's affairs have taken, He 
looks forward to rejoining them. 

Vv. 27-30. ENTREATY TO LIVE wWoR- 
THILY OF THE GOSPEL IN THE FACE OF 
CONFLICTS.—Ver. 27. νον “gives the 
aim for which he wishes to remain 
alive’ (Hfm.).—aflws . . . πολιτ. For 
the whole phrase cf. Inscrr. of Per- 
gamon (after 133 B.C.), Bd. ii., 4965, 
[ἀ ναστρεφομένην καλῶς καὶ εὐσεβῶς 
καὶ ἀξίως τῆς πόλεως (Dsm., NBS., p. 
22). For ἀξίως τ. εὐαγγ. cf. Inserr. 
Perg., 521, of a priestess, ἱερασαμένην 
ἀξίως τῆς Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς πατρίδος (of. 
cit., p. 75).-πολιτεύεσθε. In addition 
toreff. in marg., cf. Joseph., Vét., 2; 
Paris Papyr., 63, coll. 8, 9 (164 B.c.), in 
which a letter-writer claims for himself 
that he has ὁσίως καὶ .. . δικαίως 
[πολι τενσάμενος before the gods (Dsm., 
BS., p. 211); 1 Clem. ad Cor., vi., 1. 
The word seems gradually to have lost 
its original sense of life in a community, 
and came to mean simply “live” or 
“behave’’. But probably a shade of its 
original significance often survives as 
here, to live as directed by certain regu- 
lations, certain laws. (Hort, Christian 
Eccl., p. 137, would retain the strict 
sense, “live a community-life . one 
directed not by submission to statutes 
but by the inward power of the Spirit of 
fellowship ”'.]---ἀκούσω. We should, of 
course, expect ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούσας with 
some finite verb of knowing, but the 
Apostle, as so frequently, changes the 
expression of his thought in the process 
of its formation.—oryx. ἐν ἑ. wy. Curi- 
ously enough, the second reference to 
citizenship (iii. 20) is followed by the 
same two verbs στήκειν and συναθλεῖν 
(soGw.). This is the first direct exhorta- 
tion to unity in the Epistle. Apparently 
there was a danger of friction. e have 
no reason to suppose that there had 
been serious divisions in the Philippian 
Church, but the case of Euodia and 
Syntyche (iv. 2) discloses perilous ten- 


dencies, This was not unnatural, for 
“the very energy of the Christian faith 
tended to produce energetic personali- 
ties’ (Rainy, Exp. B., p. 82). And so, 
apart from doctrinal differences alto- 
gether, divergences might arise on ques- 
tions of method, organisation, etc., with 
serious consequences. The following 
words, ἑνὶ πνεύματι, viewed in the light 
of 1 Cor. xii. 9, 11, 13, suggest that the 
differences may have been due to a 
supposed superiority in spiritual endow- 
ments.—é. πνεύμ. It is difficult to de- 
fine precisely the Pauline idea of πνεῦ 

At times (e.g., Rom. viii. 16) Paul speaks 
as if the Divine wv. and the human were 
two forces existing side by side, the 
Divine working upon the human. At 
others, the wv. in man seems to refer to 
the direct indwelling of the Spirit of 
God as the principle of new life imparted 
to man, ¢.g., Rom. viii. το, On the 
whole, we believe it is true to affirm 
that wv. in Paul is not a psychological 
but a religious term (so also Hpt. ΚΙ. 
holds that Paul recognised a distinct mv. 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Hitzm. would identify 
this with the νοῦς. Cf. Cone., Paul, 
ΡΡ. 326.327). Here we are safe in hold- 
ing that ἑνὶ πν. refers to the common, 
spiritual life implanted in them by the 
direct working of the Holy Spirit. Cer- 
tainly this is its most usual significance 
in Paul. See an instructive discussion 
in Holsten, Paulin. Theol., p. 11, who 
shows that when Paul uses trv. to denote 
the Auman spirit, apart from Divine work- 
ing, it is when he is obliged to emphasise 
it as the inner power which moves in the 
hidden life, or when he draws a sharp 
contrast between the inner and outer 
side of human nature, laying stress upon 
the former as the essential, in opposition 
to the senses which cannot truly know. 
--μιᾷ ψνχῃ. Apparently Chr. and ΤΗ, 
Mps., with the best ancient versions, 
join p. ψ. with στήκ. The words denote 
the common feeling, the agreement of 
heart and mind which was the result 
of possession of the same Spirit. Cf. 
Acts iv. 32. ΚΙ. well compares the sense 





27---30. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


431 


"συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 28. καὶ μὴ ᾿ πτυρόμενοι ἐν ἃ Chap. iv. 


μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμένων - ἥτις αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστιν] * ἔνδειξις 


3 (only 
other ex. 
in N.T.). 


, ea 12 , ‘ A > Ν αν 9 φας δ Onl 
ἀπωλείας, ὑμῖν δὲ” σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ 20. ὅτι ὑμῖν ἓν oe ners 


*éxapioOn τὸ 6 ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ W Rom. iii. 


25. 2 Cor. 


καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν: 30. τὸν αὐτὸν 7 ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες οἷον ὅ viii. 24; 


a , 
εἴδετε ® ἐν ἐμοί, καὶ νῦν ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοί. 
143 1 Cor. ii. 12; cf. Buttmann, Ν.Τ. Gramm., p. 52. 


Grimm’s note). 


2 Thess. 
il. 5. 
x Acts iii. 
Tim. vi. 12 al.; cf. Wisd. iv. 2 (with 


1So KL, syrp-, Thdrt., Dam. Ti., W.H., Ws., Alf. εστιν αντοις with NABCD*FG 


17, 61, d, e, f, g, go. arm. 


2So DcEKL, f, vg. cop. go. eth., Chr., Thdrt., Ambrst. 


All edd. υμων δὲ with 


ABP 17, 31, 47, ἆ, 6, arm. syrP-, Aug. ηἡμιν δε C*Der.*Fer.G 73, g, Victorin. 


3 A 35, 71 ηµιν. 


Euth.cod., Thphl. 


of camaraderie which binds the soldiers 
of a country together. For an exhaus- 
tive discussion of ψυχή see Hatch, Essays 
in Bibl. Greek, pp. 101-109.—ovva0X. τ. π. 
A comparison with iv. 3 would suggest 
“striving along with the faith” (so Lft., 
Vau.). This is certainly harsh. The 
parallel in Jude 3, ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ 
πίστει, favours the sense, “striving to- 
gether (συν) for the faith”. Conjungat vos 
evangelii fides, praesertim cum illa vobis 
sit communis armatura adversus eundem 
hostem (Calvin).—rq πίστ. Christianity 
regarded in its most characteristic aspect 
as the acceptance of God’s revelation of 
mercy in Christ, and the resting upon 
that for salvation. ἣ πίστις gradually 
becomes a technical term. See Hatch, 
Hibbert Lectures, p. 314; Harnack, Dog- 
mengesch., i., p. 129 ff. 

Ver. 28. πτυρόμ.. is apparently used 
esp. of scared horses. So Diod. Sic., 
XVii., 34, 6, διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν περὶ αὐτοὺς 
σωρευομένων νεκρῶν πτυρόμενοι. It is 
found in Plut., Reipub. Ger. Praec., Ῥ. 
800, of a multitude. See Kypke ad loc.— 
τ. ἄντικειμ. Who are their adversaries 2 
In ver. 30 he speaks of them as having 
the same conflict as he had when at 
Philippi and now has at Rome. In both 
these instances, most probably, his 
opponents were heathen. Further, when 
‘warning his readers against Jewish 
malice, what he usually fears is not that 
they will be terrified into compliance, but 
that they will be seduced from the right 
path. And, as Franke (Myr.® ad loc.) 
points out, the conflict here is for the 
πίστις, not for the ἀλήθεια of the Gospel. 


4 Om. το FG, 3, 68**, 73, 120, arm. 
5 και added by D*FG, ἆ, ε, f, g, Ambrst. 
8 So edd. with SRAB*CD*E* 17, Chr., 


C* inserts καὶ after ειδετε. 
Thdrt. were BCDcE**FGKLP, Clem., 


It is no argument against this that some 
of his reasoning would only have force 
for Jews, ε.σ., suffering as a gift of God 
(so Holst., Jahrb. f. prot. Th., 1875, p. 
444). For he is speaking of the impres- 
sion made upon them (the Philippians), 
and he uses Christian modes of expres- 
sion. Probably therefore he thinks chiefly 
of their heathen antagonists, as, in any 
case, Jews seem to have formed a very 
small minority of the population. The 
pagans of Philippi, on the other hand, 
would struggle hard against a faith which 
condemned all idol-worship, for the extant 
remains at Philippi and in its neighbour- 
hood show that they were an extra- 
ordinarily devout community. See esp. 
Heuzey et Daumet, Mission Archéolo- 
gique de Macédoine, pp. iii., 84-86. At 
the same time we cannot exclude the pos- 
sibility that he had non-Christian Jews in 
his mind as well.—frts.  ‘‘ Inasmuch as 
this” (sc., the fact of their not being ter- 
tified). The relative is, as frequently, 
attracted to its predicate. So ἥτις, agree- 
ing with ἐνδ., for τοῦτο. In the following 
words the true reading is ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς. 
That of TR. has arisen for the sake of 
symmetry with the succeeding clause.— 
ἔνδειξις. An Attic law-term. In N.T. 
only in Paul. Not found in LXX. It 
denotes proof obtained by an appeal to 
facts. See SH. on Rom. ii. 15.---ἀπώ- 
λεια has its usual Pauline antithesis 
σωτηρία. Paul has never defined ἀπώ- 
Aeva.—All edd. read ὑμῶν δέ. Not only 
is it better attested (see crit. note), but it 
also deserves preference as being the 
harder reading and sufficient to explain 


432 


8. 2 Cor. viii. 
17;1 Tim. 
iv. 13; 
Heb. xii. 


b See note in/r. 
esp. Col. iil. 12. 


1 σι Euth.cod. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 


c1 Cor. x. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Philm. 6 al. 


IL. 


11. 1. Εἴ τις] οὖν " παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι” " παραμύθιον 
ἀγάπης, εἴ τις "κοινωνία Πνεύματος, εἴ τινα ὃ σπλάγχνα καὶ “οἰκτιρ- 


d See on chap. i. 8 supr. ε6/. 


2 aus D*L 17, 137. 


3 So Ws., Myr. with very few minn., Clem., Thdrt., Thphyl., a ὁ 6, f, 6, ΠΠ), 
“ 


Victorin., Ambrst. τις Ti., ΑΙ, W.H. with NABCDEFGKLP, 


Euth.cod. τι 4, 18, 37, 46, 72, 74. 


the other. It really includes ὑμῖν. The 
emphasis in Paul’s mind changes from 
the persons to their destinies. It was 
quite natural to assimilate ὑμῖν to αὐτοῖς 
preceding. But there is also the thought 
that they (the adversaries) will be affected 
not only by the proof of their own 
destruction, but also by that of the Philip- 
pians’ salvation.—rovro seems to refer to 
ἔνδειξις. ‘If God be for us, who can be 
against us?” 

Ver. 29. ὅτι . . . ἐχαρίσθη. Weare 
inclined to join this clause immediately 
to μὴ πτυρόμενοι (so also Hpt.). The 
prospect of suffering was apt to terrify 
them. But when they view suffering in 
its true light, they will discover that it is a 
gift of God's grace (ἐχαρ.) instead of an 
evil.—rd ὑπὲρ κ.τ.λ. The Apostle in- 
tended to insert πάσχειν after Xp., but 
for a moment he pauses. To emphasise 
the real value A ype for Christ's 
sake, he compares it with that which they 
all acknowledge as the crowning blessing 
of their lives, faith in Him. As to the 
form of the sentence, this is a favourite 
rhetorical device of Paul's. See J. Weiss, 
Beitrage, p. τι n.—ob sh 4 might 
have been expected. “' en a limitation 
of an infinitive or of its subject is to be 
negatived rather than the infinitive itself, 
the negative οὐ is used instead of μή. 
This principle applies esp. in the case of 
the adverb μόνον’ (Burton, MT., p. 
183).—els αὐτόν. The deepest aspect of 
faith, the intimate union into which the 
soul is brought. 

Ver. 30. ἀγῶνα. For the fact, see 
Acts xvi. το ff. and cf. 1 Thess. ii. 2. The 
metaphor has been prepared for by στή- 
κετε and συναθλοῦντες. Cf. Epictet., iv., 
4, 32 (quoted by Hatch, Hibb. Lects., p. 
156), “ Life is in reality an Olympic fes- 
tival: we are God's athletes to whom He 
has given an opportunity of showing of 
what stuff we are made”. ἀγών was 
constantly used in later Greek of an in- 
ward struggle. See some striking exx. 
from Plutarch in Holden’s note on 
Timoleon, xxvii., § 5.—€xovres. A broken 


Chr.moscc, 


construction. It ought strictly to be 
dative agreeing with ὑμῖν. It can scarcely 
be taken as parallel with σνναθλ. and 
πτυρ.-- εἴδετε. See reff. above.—daxovere. 
His Roman trial. 

CuapTer II.—Vv. 1-4. EXHORTATION 
TO UNITY OF SPIRIT AND LOWLINESS.— 
Ver. 1. εἴ τις κ.τ.λ. “If exhortation in 
Christ, if the appeal of love, if fellowship 
in the spirit, if compassion and pity have 
any εΠεςι.''---οὖν probably refers back to 
i. 27.---παράκλησις has the two senses of 
“ exhortation "’ and “ consolation”. But 
the whole context, supported by such 

assages as Eph. iv. 1, 1 Cor. i. το, is in 
favour of the former. No doubt the idea 
of encouragement and stimulus is im- 
plied. This is an exhortation in Christ. 
That itself must gain for it a favourable 
reception.—r Only here in N.T. 
Once in LXX, Wisd. iti. 18, Almost 
equiv. to παράκλ., but having a sugges- 
tion of tenderness involved. It springs 
from his love towards them.—«otwy. πνεύ- 
ματος. The community of believers is 
the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit, the 
Spirit of Christ, is the unifying Principle 
of life. Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 13, ἡ κοινωνία 
τοῦ ἁγίον πνεύματος. As Gunkel well 
observes (Wirkungen d. heil. Geistes bei 
Paulus*, p. 69 ff.), Paul rendered an un- 
speakable service to the Church by empha- 
sising this conception. By so doing he 
saved the exuberant spiritual gifts of the 
Apostolic Age from degenerating intomere 
unnatural excitement. All these came to 
be estimated according to their value for 
the community of believers as a whole.— 
τινα σπλάγχνα. There can be no doubt 
that an overwhelming weight of authority 
lies on the side of the reading τις. τινα 
is simply an emendation. How can τις 
be accounted for? We had hit upon the 
conjecture that originally τι may have 
stood in all oe μα (So — reads 
before παράκλησις.) It woul uite 
natural that from a slight hae κατα 
ing of its meaning it should be changed 
into τις before παράκλ. and κοινωνία. 
The τι before σπλάγχνα (found in several 





I—3. 


μοί, 2. Γπληρώσατέ pou τὴν χαράν, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ 5 φρονῆτε, τὴν αὐτὴν ΡΠ 
σύμψυχοι,ὶ τὸ ἕν 3 φρονοῦντες " 3. μηδὲν κατὰ 


ἀγάπην ἔχοντες, ἢ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


433 


i 
or 
constrn. 
cf. John 


ἱἐριθείαν ἢ 54 * κενοδοξίαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ᾿ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγού- ar xg; ἢ 


1So ΑΙ, Trg., Lach. with $BeDcEKLP. συνψ. Τι, W.H., Ws. with 


AB*CD*FG. 


2So most edd. with ScBDFGKLP, d, e, g, syrr. arm. zth., Clem., Bas., Hil., 


Ambrst., Victorin. 


3So Myr. with Der-Eer-FGKLP, f, g, syrr. go., Chr., Thdrt., Hil. 


το αυτο W.H. (mg.) with ΑΟ 17, 73, vg. go., Euth.cod. 


Edd. μηδε 


with SABC 17, 31, 37, 116, d, e, m, vg. cop. arm. eth., Euth.cod., Victorin., Aug., 


Ambrst. 


4Om. κατα TR., Myr. with QCDEFGKLP, f, 6, go., Bas., Chr., Thdrt. 


Edd. 


κατα  ΥΔΒΟ 17, 31, 37, 116, d, e, πι, vg. cop. syrr. arm., Euth.cod., Vict., 


Hil., Aug., Ambrst. 


minn., including 37) might easily assimi- 
late the following o At this stage the 
type of text found in the leading uncials 
happened to arise. And so the error was 
stereotyped, although corrected later by 
Greek Fathers. Curiously enough this 
same conjecture has been made by Hpt. 
We do not overlook the difficulties in- 
volved, but allow it to stand for want of 
anything better.—omAdyyxva. See on i. 
8. He appeals to their pity. 

Ver. 2. Semper in discordiis aperta est 
janua Satanae ad spargendas impias doc- 
trinas, ad quas repellendas optima munitio 
est consensus (Calv.).—mnp. + + + ἵνα. 
The tva clause seems exactly = Latin 
gerund. Cf. an infinitive used in the same 
way in Acts xv. Το, τί πειράζετε τὸν Θεὸν 
ἐπιθεῖναι κ.τ.λ., also Polyc., Martyr., x., 
1 (quoted by Burton, MT., p. 92). ἵνα 
is probably ‘“‘hypotelic”’ as Ell. (on Eph. 
i. 17) terms it, z.¢., ‘‘the subject of the 
wish is blended with and even (at times) 
obscures the purpose ᾽᾽.---τὸ a. φρον. The 
general description of agreement which 
is analysed and defined in the succeeding 
clauses. Perhaps a common phrase in 
popular language. See Sepulchr. Inscr. 
(Rhodes, 2nd cent. B.c.), of a married 
couple, ταὐτὰ λέγοντες ταὐτὰ φρονοῦντες 
ἤλθομεν τὰν ἀμέτρητον ὁδὸν εἰς ᾿Αἴδαν 
(Dsm., NBS., p. 84).---τ. att. ay. The 
same feelings.—ovpy. The same point 
of view in their common interests.—76 
év expresses the one concrete aim of their 
views, perhaps with special reference to 
the unity of the Church (so Lips.). 
Minute distinctions, however, must not 
be forced, as there is doubtless here much 
of what Vaughan terms ‘the tautology 
of earnestness”. 


ο νους TIT. 


Ver. 3. μηδέν. Probably, sc., φρο- 
νοῦντες, although no addition is neces- 
sary. This is the prevalent thought in 
the Apostle’s πηϊπά.---ἐριθείαν. It is no 
wonder that Paul should warn against 
this danger, seeing it was one of his 
most grievous vexations at Rome.—j. 
Read with best authorities μηδὲ κατά 
(see crit. note).—kevoS. Only here in 
N.T. Three times in LXX. Combined 
with ἀλαζονεία and µεγαλαυχία. The 
boastful expression of pride. Egotism 
and boastfulness were apparently the 
perils besetting the Philippian Church. 
These were natural excrescences of the 
zealous spirit which pervaded this com- 
munity. Itis a strange phenomenon in 
religious history that intense earnestness 
so frequently breeds a spirit mingled of 
censoriousness and conceit.—tq ταπει- 
νοφρ. The construction seems exactly 
parallel to Rom. xi. 20, τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ 
ἐξεκλάσθησαν = “on account of,” “by 
reason of’. Perhaps the article em- 
phasises the generic idea (so Myr.). 
ταπεινός with derivatives, used in classi- 
cal writers to denote a mean condition of 
self-debasement, had been already exalted 
by Plato and his school to describe that 
state of mind which submits to the 
Divine order of the universe and does not 
impiously exalt itself. It underwent a 
further stage of development in Christian 
literature, when it came to signify the 
spirit which most resembles that of 
Christ Himself. See an instructive note 
in Moule (CT. ad loc.). 

Ver. The authorities are pretty 
evenly balanced in the case of the alter- 
native readings ἕκαστος and ἕκαστοι (see 
crit. note), Probably edd. are right in 


28 


434 


5. Chap. iii. μενοι ™ ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν" 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


IL. 


4. μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοπεῖτε, 


ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστος. 5. τοῦτο γὰρ" φρονείσθω" ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ 


1So ΜΟΌΕΚΙ;Ρ, d, e, go. syrr., Bas., Ephr., Chr., Thdrt., Hil., Victorin., 


Ambrst. 
Euth.cod., Amb. 


Edd. (Trg., W.H. mg.) εκαστοι with ΑΒΕ 17, 116, f, g, πι, vg., Bas., 


2So L, Chr., Thdrt., Dam. Edd. σκοπονντες with RABCDEFGP, d, e, f, g, πι, 


vg. go. arm. Bas., Euth.cod., Hil., Ambrst. 


5 Om. και D*FGK δι, d, e, f, g, πι, vg., Victorin., Ambrst., αἱ, 


* So KL, ἆ, go. syrr. arm., Chr., Thdrt., 


Dam. Edd. εκαστοι with NABCVi.Der. 


Eer-P 17, 31, 47, cop. Bas., Euth.cod., Victorin., Aug. Om. FG, f, g, m, vg. xth., 


Ambrst. 


5 9ο Myr. with NcDEFGKLP, d, e, f, 
torin., Ambrst. 


NAC 17, Cyr. join ἕκαστοι to following words. 


So W.H. mg. 
6, m, go. syrP-, Chr., Thdrt., Hil., Vic- 


Om. yap edd. with ΝΑΒΟ 17, 37, 73, Κδε., cop. arm. zth., 


Euth.cod. Myr. holds that yap came to be omitted because the preceding ἕκαστοι 
(ver. 4) with the reading φρονειτε (ver. 5) was supposed to begin a new sentence. 


® So Myr. with C°KLP, cop. arm. go., Or., Eus., Ath., Bas., Chr., Thdrt. 


Edd. 


Φρονειτε with NABC*DEFG 17, 67**, d, ε, ἢ, g, πὶ, vg. syrr., Euth.cod., Cyr., 


Victorin., Ambrst. 


preferring the latter, both on account 
of the variety of its witnesses and its 
aptness in the context. Besides, as the 
more difficult, it would be very liable to 
correction. σκοποῦντες has overwhelm- 
ing authority in its favour. ‘No party 
having an eye for its own interests alone 
but also for those of the τες. ἕκαστοι 
(frequent in this sense in classical Greek) 
= each group, each combination.—iré- 
ρων. Used with strict correctness as 
opposed to ἑαυτῶν. It often has a less 
strict usage in N.T. From the gentle 
way in which he deals with them, we 
cannot suppose that there was as yetany 
serious rent in the Philippian Church. 
Probably he has already in mind the 
arty feeling roused by the disagreement 
--- Euodia and Syntyche. The 
opinion of the Christian community was 
divided. This might, of course, lead to 
serious issues. He has already implored 
them to be of the same mind (ver. 2). 
The way of reaching this harmony 18 
unselfishness. ‘Paul's ethic is at least 
as much a social as an individual ethic" 


(Hitzm., N.T. Th., ii., τ62. Instructive 
discussion). 
Vv. 5-11. THE CONDESCENSION AND 


EXALTATION OF ΟΗΗΙ5Τ. As to form, 
vv. 5-10 appear to be constructed in care- 
fully chosen groups of parallel clauses, 
having an impressive rhythm (sce 

Weiss, Beitr., pp. 28-29).—Ver. 5. yap 
ought probably to be rejected with the 
best group of MSS. Φρονείσθω, as the 
harder reading, has much in its favour, 
but φρονεῖτε is far better attested. τοῦτο 
φρονεῖτε κ.τ.λ. The ordinary translation 


Myr. retains φρονεισθω as the harder reading. 


runs, ‘ Have this mind in you which was 
also in Christ Jesus". This means the 
supplying either of ἐφρονεῖτο (ἐφρονήθη) 
or ἦν in the latter half of the verse after 
6. Certainly any past tense (passive) of 
φρονέω is not only very harsh, but, 
when analysed, yields no appropiate 
sense. ἦν is scarcely less “Ὁ for it 
would presuppose τοῦτο φρονεῖν (not 
τοῦτο alone) as the antecedent of 6. 
Deissmann (following Hfm.) supplies 
φρονεῖτε (cf. parallel construction in 2 
Tim. i. 5), and translates, ‘‘ Have this 
mind within your community (so also 
Hoelemann) which ye have also in Christ 
Jesus". This keeps the local meaning 
with both occurrences of ἐν (for we have 
here the common Pauline phrase ἐν Χ. 
Ἰ. as the sphere of the Christian life). 
It gives a vivid force to καί. It gets rid 
of the apparently superfluous use of ἐν 
ὑμῖν after φρονεῖτε. And φρονεῖτε is, of 
course, the easiest word to supply. The 
sense is thoroughly apt. Christians then, 
as now, were often different in their 
ordinary dealings and relations from what 
they were in their strictly Christian life. 
The two spheres were at times kept dis- 
tinct. Those who professed to have made 
great sacrifices for the sake of Christ 
might never dream of making even the 
slightest fora brother. The keenest zeal 
may be displayed in religious work, ac- 
companied by singular laxity of principle 
in the common concerns of daily business 
and social intercourse. At first sight 
the interpretation, perhaps, repels by its 
unfamiliarity. But it appears less diffi- 
cult than the other possible expositions, 








4--7. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


435 


"Kal ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6. ὃς ἐν “μορφῇ Θεοῦ "ὑπάρχων, οὐχ “ ἁρπαγμὸν " C/ 2 Tim. 


i. 5 ad fin, 


ς , Ν 9 το a > ε a 82 ‘ 
ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι "toa! Θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν " ἐκένωσε, 7. μορφὴν 5 See note 


infy. 
p 1 Cor. xi. 


7: Gal. ii. 14 (appar. same force). Extraord. common in Acts, often in seemingly colourless sense. 


q See note infy. r Job xi, 12, xxx. 10. 


1So Trg. ἴσα Ti., ΑΙ, W.H., Ws. 


68-69. 


For Lft. and Vince. practically ignore the 
difficulty, the former taking ἐφρονεῖτο = 
ὃ καὶ Χ. Ἰ. ἐφρόνει ἐν ἑαυτῷ. But that 
begs the question. KI. thinks it impos- 
sible to separate the two spheres. (See 
Dsm., Das N.T. Formel, etc., p. 113 ff. ; 
also Zahn, Luthardt’s Zeitschr., 1885, p. 
243, who quotes with approbation Vic- 
torinus ad loc., Hoc sentite in vobis quod 
sentitis in Christo.) [Ο. Hain, SK., 1893, 
pp. 169-171, following the same lines, 
takes the second φρονεῖτε = imperat. 
‘As indeed ye must have in Christ 
Jesus.” This is difficult to arrive αἲ.]--- 
ἐν ὑμῖν. Correct N.T. writers would 
usually employ ἑαυτοῖς. Classicalauthors 
use ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς. 

Vv. 6-11. In the discussion of this 
crux interpretum it is impossible, within 
our limits, to do more than give a brief 
outline of the chief legitimate interpreta- 
tions, laying special emphasis on that 
which we prefer and giving our reasons. 
As regards literature, a good account of 
the older exegesis is given by Tholuck, 
Disputatio Christologica,pp. 2-10. Franke 
(in Meyer’) gives a very full list of modern 
discussions. In addition to commentaries 
and the various works on Biblical The- 
ology, the following discussions are 
specially important: Rabiger, De Christo- 
logia Paulina, pp. 76-85; R. Schmidt, 
Paulinische Christologie, p. 163 ff.; W. 
Grimm, Zw. Th., xvi., 1, p. 33 ff.; Hilgen- 
feld, ibid., xxvii., 4, p. 498 ff.; W. Weiffen- 
bach, Zur Auslegung d. Stelle Phil., ii. 
5-11 (Karlsruhe, 1884); E. H. Gifford, 
Expositor, v., vol. 4, p. 161 ff., 241 ff. 
{since published separately]; Somerville, 
St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 188 ff. 
It may be useful to note certain cautions 
which must be observed if the Apostle’s 
thought is to be truly grasped. (a) This 
is not a discussion in technical theology. 
Paul does not speculate on the great 
problems of the nature of Christ. The 
elaborate theories reared on this passage 
and designated ‘‘kenotic” would pro- 
bably have surprised the Apostle. Paul 
is dealing with a question of practical 
ethics, the marvellous condescension and 


Prob. the latter is more correct. 
cumflex is, in all likelihood, an assimilation to the Epic language. 


s Rom. iv. 14; 1 Cor. i, 17, ix. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 3 (= make of 
no effect). Jer. xiv. 2, xv. 9 (transl. Heb. word = 


languish), 


The cir- 
See W-Sch.,, i., 


unselfishness of Christ, and he brings into 
view the several stages in this process as 
facts of history either presented to men’s 
experience or else inferred from it. [At 
the same time, as J. Weiss notes (Th. 
LZ., 1899, col. 263), the careful rhetorical 
structure of the passage (two strophes of 
four lines) shows that the thought has 
been patiently elaborated.] (ὁ) It is 
beside the mark to apply the canons of 
philosophic terminology to the Apostle’s 
language. Much trouble would be saved 
if interpreters instead of minutely investi- 
gating the refinements of Greek meta- 
physics, on the assumption that they are 
present here, were to ask themselves, 
“What other terms could the Apostle 
have used to express his conceptions?” 
(c) It is futile to attempt to make Paul’s 
thought in this passage fit in with any 
definite and systematic scheme of Christ- 
ology such as the ‘‘ Heavenly Man,” 
etc. This only hampers interpretation. 
Ver. 6. ὅς. The discussions as to 
whether this refers to the pre-existing or 
historical Christ seem scarcely relevant 
to Paul’s thought. For him his Lord’s 
career was one and undivided. To 
suggest that he did not conceive a pre- 
existence in heaven is to ignore the very 
foundations of his thinking. Probably 
he never speculated minutely on the 
nature of Christ’s pre-existent state, just 
as he refrains from doing so on the nature 
of the future life. He contents himself 
with general lines. The interpretation of 
the passage depends on the meaning 
assigned to (1) μορφή, (2) ἁρπαγμός, (3) 
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ. --- In μορφή 
denotes the form, appearance, look or 
likeness of some one, that by which those 
beholding him would judge him. See Job 
iv. 16, Dan. v. 6 and three other places, 
Wisd. xviii. 1, 4 Macc. xv. 4. Plainly, 
from the context of these passages, the 
word had come, in later Greek, to receive 
a vague, general meaning, far removed 
from the accurate, metaphysical content 
which belonged to it in writers like Plato 
and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us 
of little value, with Lft. and Gifford (op. 


436 


t Rom. i. 
23, Viii. 
LxX. 

u 1 Cor. vii. 


I. 
ν Matt. xviii. 4, xxiii. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 7 al. 


cit.), to discuss the relation of μορφή to 
terms such as οὐσία, φύσις and εἶδος in 
their philosophical refinements. It is far 
more probable that Paul uses µορφ. here 
απ a loose, popular sense, as we use 
‘nature’’’ (Guardian, Jan. 1, 1896). He 
means, of course, in the strictest sense 
that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. 
For p. always signifies a form which 
truly and fully expresses the being which 
underlies it. But in trying to reach a 
conception of the pre-existing nature of 
his Lord, he is content to think of Him as 
the εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Col. i. 15), as sharing 
in that δόξα (on the close relation of p. 
and δόξα see Nestle, SK., 1893, pp. 173, 
174) which is the manifestation of the 
Divine nature (cf. John xvii. 5, Heb. i. 3), 
as possessing, that is to say, the same kind 
of existence as God possesses, without 
indulging in speculations on the meta- 

hysical relationship of the Son to the 
Father. So in 2 Cor. viii. g (the closest 
parallel in thought to this) he describes 
the same condition by the words πλούσιος 
év. And this reminds us of the point of 
emphasis, the unspeakable contrast be- 
tween the heavenly and earthly states, 
the p. Θεοῦ and the p. δούλον. The 
Apostle’s mind is overpowered by the 
profound ethical meaning and value of 
the Humiliation.—twdpywv. Probably 
= “ being constitutionally " (Evans on 1 
Cor. xi. 7), “‘being by nature”. Cf. 
Liturgy of 5. Fames (Hammond, Litt., 
Ρ. 45, quoted by Giff.), παιδίον γέγονεν ὁ 
πρὸ αἰώνων ὑπάρχων Θεὸς ἡμῶν. At the 
same time, in later Greek, it is often ἃ 
mere copula. of Gildersleeve on Justin 
M., Afol.,i.,2. This participle represents 
the imperfect as well as the present tense. 
So probably here.—apwaypév. In the 
absence of relevant evidence for this word, 
its precise significance must largely be 
determined by the context. Accordingly 
it must be discussed in close connection 
with τὸ εἶν. ἴσα Θ. ‘Did not consider 
τὸ ε. t, O.asan ἁρπαγμός.' What is the 
relation of τὸ ε. ἰ. Θ. to popdy? The 
words mean “the being on an equality 
with God” (R.V.). It is surely needless 
to make any fine distinctions here, as 
Giff. does (of. cit., p. 242), between εἶναι 
ἴσος as = equality of nature and εἶναι ἴσα 
as pointing to ‘the state and circum- 
stances which are separable from the 
essence and therefore variable or acci- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ IL, 


ἧς δούλου λαβών, ἐν 'ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος " 8. καὶ " σχήματι 
εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, " ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν, γενόμενος " ὑπήκοος 


w Acts vii. 39; 2 Cor. ii. 9. 


dental,” or, with Lft., to say that ἴσος 
would refer to the person. while ἴσα has 
in view the attributes. As a matter of fact 
the adverb ἴσα (neuter plural) is used in 
the most general sense, without any 
metaphysical subtleties, ¢.g., Job. xi. 12, 
ἄνθρωπος ἄλλως νήχεται λόγοις " 
βροτὸς δὲ γεννητὸς γυναικὸς ἴσα ὄνῳ 
ἐρημίτῃ; xxx. 19, ἥγησαι δέ pe ἴσα 
πηλῷ, ἐν γῇ καὶ σποδῷ pov ἡ μερίς. C/. 
Thuc., iii, 14, ἴσα καὶ ἱκέται ἐσμέν ; 
Soph., Οεά. R., 1188, ὑμᾶς ἴσα 
ηδὲν ζώσας ἐναριθμῶ, and elsewhere. 
hus no theological speculations can be 
based upon the word. Is τὸ « ἰ. Θ. 
equivalent to ἐν p. Θ.2 In spite of some 
Comm. there is absolutely nothing in the 
text to justify the supposition. Plainly 
ορφή has reference to mature; τὸ εἶναι 
on Θεῷ to arelation. In fact it is only 
a particular rendering of ἁρπαγμός which 
suggested their equivalence. A more 
important question 15 whether τὸ «. ἱ. ©. 
was possessed by Christ in virtue of His 
being ἐν pop. Θεοῦ. This will depend 
on the sense of ἁρπαγμός. It is generally 
admitted now that ἁρπαγμός may be re- 
arded as = aypa. (See esp. Zahn, 
uthardt’s Zettschr., 1885, ΡΡ. 244-249.) 
Cf. lit. = “the laying down,” 
“ ordaining " of a thing, which comes to 
mean “the thing laid down,” the ordinance 
or statute; ἱλασμός, lit. =a propitiating, 
appeasing, but usually the propitiatory 
offering, that by which propitiation is 
made (see Hatz., Einl., p. 180). Myr., 
Hfm., Beet and others wish to keep the 
active meaning, and translate, “ Did not 
consider the being on an equality with 
God as a means of robbing’. But it 
seems impossible to accept this sense 
when we have no hint of what is to be 
robbed. Lft., Hpt., Vince. and others, 
regarding ἁρπαγμός as = Serevent 
translate, ‘‘Did not look upon 15 
equality with God as a prize to be 
clutched”. That is to say, τὸ « ἶ. Θ. 
is something which He already possessed 
and resolved not to cling to. But will 
ἁρπαγμός admit of this meaning? We 
cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω or 
any of its derivatives has the sense of 
‘holding in possession,” “ retaining". 
It seems invariably to mean “ seize,” 
“‘ snatch violently’’, Thus it is not per- 
missible to glide from the true sense 
“ grasp αἵ into one which is totally dif- 





8. | ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


ferent, ‘hold fast”. Are we not obliged, 
then, to think of the ἁρπαγμός (= 
ἅρπαγμα) as something still future, a ves 
vapienda? Cf. Catena on Mark x. 41 ff. 
(quoted by Zahn), Jesus’ answer to the 
sons of Zebedee, οὐκ ἐστὶν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ 
τιμή, “the honour is not one to be 
snatched”’, Observe how aptly this view 
fits the context. In ver. 10, which is the 
climax of the whole passage, we read that 
God gave Jesus Christ as a gift (ἐχαρί- 
σατο) the name above every name, ᾖ.6., 
the name (including position, dignity and 
authority) of Κύριος, Lord, the name 
which represents the O.T. Jehovah. 
But this is the highest place Christ has 
reached. He hasalways (in Paul’s view) 
shared in the Divine nature (μ. Θεοῦ). 
But it is only as the result of His Incar- 
nation, Atonement, Resurrection and 
Exaltation that He appears to men as 
on an equality with God, that He is 
worshipped by them in the way in which 
Jehovah is worshipped. This position of 
Κύριος is the reward and crowning-point 
of the whole process of His voluntary 
Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that 
τελείωσις Of which the Epistle to the 
Hebrews speaks. This perfection “He 
acquired as He successively seized the 
occasions which His vocation as author 
of salvation presented to Him, a process 
moving on the lines of His relations to 
mortal, sinful men” (Davidson, Hebrews, 
p. 208). Along the same lines He was 
raised to the dignity of Κύριος, which is 
arelation to mankind. (See on the rela- 
tion of Christ as Κύριος to God, Somer- 
ville, of. cit., pp. 140-142.) This equality 
with God, therefore, consists in the κυριό- 
της, the Lordship to which He has been 
exalted. ‘‘He did not regard the being 
on an equality with God as a thing to be 
seized, violently snatched.” Cf. Heliodor., 
Ethiop., vii., 20, οὐχ ἅρπαγμα οὐδὲ 
ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα. He might 
have used the miraculous powers inherent 
in His Divine nature in such a way as to 
compel men, without further ado, to wor- 
ship Him as God. Instead of that He 
was willing to attain this high dignity by 
the path of humiliation, suffering and 
death. Is not this interpretation strongly 
corroborated by the narrative of the 
Temptation? In that mysterious experi- 
ence our Lord was tempted to reach τὸ 
εἶναι toa Θεῷ in the way of ἁρπάζειν, 
forcing men out of sheer amazement to 
accept His claim and exalt Him as Lord. 
{Perhaps the curious negative expression 
οὐχ ἅρπαγμ. κ.τ.λ. has been suggested 
by a comparison with the first Adam who 


437 


sought to reach ‘equality with God” by 
means of ἁρπάζειν.) It is to be noted 
that the increased glory which Paul and 
all the N.T. writers regard as pertaining 
to Christ after His Resurrection has only 
to do with His dignity, His “ theocratic 
position,” not with His essential person- 
ality. (Cf. Ménégoz, Le Péché et la 
Rédemption, p. 164.) He has simply 
become ἐν δυνάμει, that which He already 
was substantially. Cf. Rom. i. 4, τοῦ 
ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, κατὰ 
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκ- 
ρῶν, ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. 
Also Luke xxiv. 26.--- ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε. 
Instead of appearing among men in the 
Divine μορφή and thus compelling them 
to render Him the homage which was 
His due, He “emptied Himself” of that 
Divine μορφή and took the µ. of a bond- 
servant. The Apostle does not specify 
that of which He emptied Himself, as the 
stress is laid upon the ‘‘emptying,” but 
with pop. δούλου λαβών added to explain 
what ἐκένωσε means, we are bound to 
conclude that he has in view its anti- 
thesis, µ. Θεοῦ. (So also Myr., Hfm., 
Alf., Weiffenb., Hpt., Bruce, Gore, etc. 
Fairbairn, Christ in Mod. Theol., pp. 
475-477, tries to show that Christ emptied 
Himself of the ‘physical attributes” of 
Deity while retaining the ‘ ethical”, 
But does this lead us any nearer a solu- 
tion of the mystery in the depths of the 
Son’s personality Ὁ) . 
Ver. 7. A question arises as to punc- 
tuation. W.H. punctuate as in the text. 
Calvin, Weiffenb. and Hpt. would place 
a comma after γενόμ. and a colon after 
ἄνθρωπος of ver. 8. This would co- 
ordinate these three clauses and make a 
new sentence begin with ἐταπείνωσεν. 
The division does not seem natural or 
necessary.—p. δούλου A. The clause 
defines ἐκένωσε. Christ’s assumption of 
the ‘‘form” of a δοῦλος does not imply 
that the innermost basis of His person- 
ality, His ‘‘ ego,” was changed, although, 
indeed, ‘‘ there was more in this emptying 
of Himself than we can think or say” 
(Rainy, op. cit., Ῥ. 119). 8. simply 
describes the humility to which He con- 
descended. It is needless to ask whose 
δοῦλος He became. The question is 
not before the Apostle.—év ὁμοιώ. ἀνθ. : 
γεν. γεν. as opposed to ὑπάρχων, ‘ be- 


coming’ as opposed to “being by 
nature”, This clause, in turn, defines 
μ. δ. A. ‘Being made in the likeness 
of men.” ὅμοι. expresses with great 


accuracy the Apostle’s idea. Christ 
walked this earth in the real likeness of 


438 


x Heb. xii. 
4; 2 Tim. 
ii. 9; 2 
Macc. 
xiii. 1 
(ἀγωνίσασθαι μέχρι θανάτον). 


1} αχρι D*FG. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


ἡ µέχρι ] θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ." 
Σ ὑπερύψωσε, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ ὄνομα 8 τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα " 


Il. 


9. διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν 


y Only here in N.T.; Ps. xevi. 9. 


2 τον στανρον N. ; 


3 So DEFGKLP, arm., Thdrt., Or., Eus., Ath., Epiph., Chr., Euth.cod. Edd. add 
το with SABC 17, Hipp., Dion.alex., Eus.bis (Alf. brackets το). 


men, This was no mere phantom, no 
mere incomplete copy of humanity. And 
yet Paul feels that it did not express the 
whole of Christ’s nature. It was not ‘‘an 
hereditary likeness of being’ (Hitzm. 
See N.T. Th., ii., pp. 70-72). It was, in 
a sense, borrowed.— ἀνθρ. Almost = 
*‘mankind,” “ humanity”. 

Ver. 8. καί seems to introduce a 
break. The Apostle goes on to describe 
the depth of the self-renunciation. No 
doubt there is here especially before Paul’s 
mind the contrast between what Christ 
“ἧς in Himself and what He appeared in 
the eyes of men” (Lft.).—oy7p. = Lat. 
habitus, the external bearing or fashion, 
“ the transitory quality of our materiality” 
(Gore). — εὑρεθείς. Each word in the 
description emphasises the outward sem- 
blance. ‘Being found, discovered to 
be.” The verdict of his fellow-creatures 
upon Him. They classed Him as an 
ἄνθρωπος. His outward guise was alto- 
gether human.—éran. Even as man He 
endured great humiliation, for He suffered 
the shameful death of the Cross. For 
surely ἐταπ. is more than a vivid, lively 
way of expressing ἐκέν. (as Weiffenb., op. 
cit., p. 42). Therest of the verse depicts 
His humiliation. That consists in His 
obedience and the terrible issue to which 
it led. As obedient, He gave Himself 
wholly up to His Father's will. And the 
course of following that will led as far as 
(μέχρι) death itself, no ordinary death 
(δέ bringing into prominence the special 
nature of it, cf. Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30), but 
a death of shame and suffering. Cf. Cic., 
pro Rabir., ν., 10 (quoted by Moule): Mors 
si proponitur, in libertate moriamur ... 
nomen ipsum crucis absit non modo a cor- 
pore civium Romanorum sed etiam a cogi- 
tatione, oculis,auribus, This would come 
home with force to the minds of the 
Philippians who enjoyed the jus Italicum. 

Ver.g. 80... καί. On account of 
His great renunciation and obedience. 
An exemplification of His own maxim: 
“Ἧς that humbleth himself shall be 
exalted"’. καί marks the correspondence 
between His lowliness and God's exalta- 
tion of Ηϊπι,---ὑπερύψ. This goes back 


beyond the ἐταπείν. to the ἐκέν. (So ΚΙ.) 
It reminds them that Christ has reached 
a position, in a certain sense, higher than 
that which He occupied ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ. 
This has nothing to do with This nature. 
The Divine glory which he always pos- 
sessed can never be enhanced. But now, 
in the eyes of men and as claiming their 
homage, He is on an equality with God. 
Cf. the realistic description of the exalta- 
tion in Sheph. of Hermas (quoted by 
Taylor, Sayings of few. Fathers, p. 167), 
Sim., ix., 6, 1, ἀνήρ τις ὕψηλ, ῷ 
μεγέθει ὥστε τὸν πύργον ὑπερέχειν. Also 
Gospel of Peter, το, with Robinson's notes. 
--ἐχαρίσατο. “ Gave asa gift.” Thisis 
the Father's prerogative, for undoubtedly 
the N.T. teaches a certain subordination 
ofthe Son. Cf. John xiv. 28, Rom. i. 3- 
4, 1 Cor. viii. 6, and, most memorable of 
all, 1 Cor, xv. 28, where the Son, having 
accomplished His work, seems, according 
to the Apostle’s view, to recede, as it 
were, into the depths of the Divine Unity. 
—bvopa. τὸ Sv. should be read with the 
best MSS. It is quite possible that the 
last syllable of ἐχαρίσατο occasioned the 
omission of the article. To what does 
ὄνομα refer? It is only necessary to read 
on, and the answer presents itself. The 
universal outburst of worship proclaims 
that Jesus Christ is Κύριος, Lord, the 
equiv. of Ο.Τ. Jehovah, the highest 
title that can be uttered. The full signi- 
ficance of the name will only be realised 
when all the world acknowledges the 
sovereignty of Christ. As J. Weiss 
notes (Nachfolge Christi, pp. 63-64), this 
is not a specially Pauline conception, but 
belongs to the general faith of the Church. 
{It is amazing how Alf., De W. and Ead. 
can refer it to “ Jesus,’’ Myr. and Vinc. 
to “ Jesus Christ,’ while Lft. and Hpt. 
regard it as = “dignity,” “ title,” with- 
out specifying.) Onthe whole conception 
cf. Heb. i., esp. vv. 3-4. Perhaps the 
Apostle has in his mind the Jewish use of 
σοσπ ‘‘the Name,” as a reverent sub- 
eu? 


stitute for ΓΤ (LXX Κύριος), Jehovah. 
Cf. Sayings of few. Fathers (ed. Taylor), 
iv., 7,and Additional Notes, pp. 165-167, 


9---11. 


10. ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ ! 
[ή 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


439 


πᾶν γόνυ "κάμψη ” * ἐπουρανίων καὶ 2 Eph. iii. 


14; Isa. 


"ἐπιγείων καὶ " καταχθονίων, 11. καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα “ ἐξομολογήσηται3ϑ3 xv. 23. 


ὅτι Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός," εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός. 


in N.T. 


1 Χριστον added by ΝΑ 47, 73, 114, 115, Or., Chr., Cyr., Marc. 


aE, x 
Cor. xv. 


40. 
b Only here 


c Perhaps closest parallels are Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21; Ps. liii. 8 


? καμψει P, 


3 So Lach., Trg. (8), Ws., W.H. with NB, Ir., Clem., Thdrt., Eus., Ath., Cyr. 


Ti., Alf., Myr. -γησεται with ACDEFGKLP, Or., Chr., Euth,cod. 


Ws., TK., 46, 


speaks doubtfully. The subjunct. may be an assimilation to καμψη, but, on the 


other hand, the indic. comes from Isa. xlv. 23. 


It is unsafe to decide, as ε and η 


in the post-classical period were often interchanged. See W-Sch., p. 48. 


4 Om. Χ. Fer.G, g, m, Eus., Novat., Hil. 


where Taylor compares with vv. 7-8 of 
our chap., Isa. liii, 12 and with ver. 9, 
Isa. ΠΠ, 13. Most appropriate to our 
passage is his quotation from Jeremy 
Taylor (Works, vol. ii., p. 72): ‘‘He 
hath changed the ineffable name into a 
name utterable by man, and desirable by 
all the world; the majesty is all arrayed 
in robes of mercy, the tetragrammaton or 
adorable mystery of the patriarchs is made 
fit for pronunciation and expression when 
it becometh the name of the Lord’s 
Christ ”’.—16 ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα. ( 1 Pet. 
iii. 22, ‘Angels and authorities and 
powers being made subject unto Him”’ ; 
Eph. i, 21. 

Ver. το. ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. Ἰ. Perhaps the 
best explanation is that of Weiffenb. (ο. 
cit., p. 51), ‘‘ On the ground of this name 
(K¥ptos),” 1.6., because of what it means 
for every worshipper. Of course, the 
worship is rendered to Him as Lord. 
Abbott (Notes on St. Paul’s Epistles, p. 93) 
compares Ps, Ixiii. 4, “‘ Thus will I bless 
Thee while I live : I will lift up my hands 
in Thy name”. Cf. also Ps. xx. 5, liv. 1. 
This name, which declares the true char- 
acter and dignity of Jesus Christ, is both 
the basis and the object of worship. See 
the somewhat parallel use of εἰς τὸ dv. in 
Inscrr. (Dsm., BS., pp. 144-145). For 
the history of the phrase and its Semitic 
basis consult Die biblische ‘‘im Namen,” 
by J. Bohmer (Giessen, 1898).—éarovp. κ. 
ἐπιγ. κ. καταχθ. Aptly Thdrt., ἐπου- 
ρανίους καλεῖ Tas ἀοράτους δυνάμεις, 
ἐπιγείους δὲ τοὺς ἔτι ζῶντας ἀνθρώπους 
καὶ καταχθονίους τοὺς τεθνεῶτας. 
ἐπουρ. The heavenly spirits. ‘Paul 
regards the higher world as divided into 
a series of ascending spheres”’ (Beysch., 
N.T. Th. [E.Tr.], ii., 1ΟΟ).---καταχθ. It 
is needless to think of these in connexion 
with the Descent into Hades, although 
this subject had an extraordinary place in 





the minds of the early Christians (cy. 
Bruston, La Descente du Christ aux 
Enfers, Paris, 1897). Here simply = a 
general term for the dead. Often in 
sepulchral Inscrr. For the division of 
all beings into three regions Everling 
compares Ignat. ad Trall., 9, ἀληθῶς 
ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἀπέθανεν, βλεπόντων τῶν 
ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ ὑποχθονίων 
(see his Paulinische Angelologie u. Déa- 
monologie, Gott., 1888, pp. 83-84). 

Ver. 11. Κύριος. See on ver. 6 supr. 
This is the characteristic confession of the 
Apostolic Church. It is most significant 
that Κύριος has no article, which shows 
that it has become virtually one of Christ’s 
proper names. See Simcox, Lang. of 
N.T., p. 49, and cf. Acts ii. 36, “Know 
assuredly that God made Him Lord as 
well as Christ, this Jesus whom you 
crucified” (so Hort); 1 Cor. xii. 3, Rom. 
x. 9, I Cor. viii. 6, where ‘‘One Lord” is 
parallel to “One God’’. Hort (ont Pet. i. 
3) compares our verse with vv. 2-5. The 
invocation of one Lord is a bond of unity. 
The term ‘‘Lord” has become one of 
the most lifeless words in the Christian 
vocabulary. To enter into its meaning 
and give it practical effect would be to 
recreate, in great measure, the atmo- 
sphere of the Apostolic Age. [See, on the 
adoration of Jesus Christ in the Apostolic 
Age, an interesting essay by T. Zahn in 
Skizzen aus d. Leben d. alten Kirche, 
Leipz., 1894, pp. 1-38).—els δ. ©. The 
whole purpose of the working out of 
salvation is the glory of God the Father. 
This end is attained when men yield to 
His operations and acknowledge Christ 
as Lord. Cf. esp. Eph. i. g-12. 

Vv. 12-16. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE TO 
BE LED IN A SPIRIT OF AWE AND WATCH- 
FULNESS, AS IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD’S 
WORKING. On vv. 12-13 see two im- 
portant discussions, Schaeder, Greifs- 


440 


d See chap. 
i. 27. 


ει Cor. ii. 
3: 3 Cor. 
Vil. 15; 
Eph. vi. 
5; Exod. 
xv, 16; 
Isa. xix. 
16. 


1 Om. Β 3, 17, 38, 48, 72, cop. arm. eth., Chr., Ambrst. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


f Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 10; cf. Heb. xii. 1, 2. 


Il. 


12. Ὥστε, ἀγαπητοί µου, καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε, μὴ ds! ἐν τῇ 
“ παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον, ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ “ ἀπουσίᾳ μου, 
μετὰ φόβου καὶ “τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν ᾿κατεργάζεσθε - 
13. 6? Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ * ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ 


Ε1 Cor. xii. 6; Gal. iii. 5. 


W.H. bracket. But, as 


Ws. shows (TK., p. 122), ὡς was very liable to omission from carelessness. Prob. 


the -ws of καθώς might be the occasion. 


2So DbetcEL, Chr., Thdrt, 
Euth,cod. 


° A adds δυναμεις. 


walder Studien, pp. 231-260, and Kuhl, 
SK., 1898, pp. §57-580. Ver. 12. ὥστε. 
With what does it link the following 
verses? Paul has returned to practical 
exhortation. So we should naturally 
expect him to take up the thread which 
he dropped at ver. 6 on turning to the 
example of Jesus Christ. At that point 
he had been urging them to be of one 
mind. But with what aim? Especially 
in order that they might present an un- 
broken front in their conflict for the 
faith. But that brings us back to i. 27 ff. 
And that the connexion of our passage 
with the earlier paragraph is not arbitrary 
we may gather from the occurrence of 
the same idea in both, viz., that of his 
own presence and absence. Cf. i. 27 ὃ 
with ii. 12 ὁ. Atthe same time there is 
also a link between vv. 12-13 and the 
passage immediately preceding. He in- 
troduces his admonition with obedience 
(ὑπηκούσατε. But Christ’s lowliness 
consisted precisely in His ὑπακοή (ver. 
8, ὑπήκοος). Christ has been exalted as 
the result (διό, ver. 9) of humble obedi- 
ence. Corresponding to His exaltation 
will be their σωτηρία. --- ὑπηκούσατε. 
We believe that this means obedience to 
God. See on ὥστε supr.—katepyal. Cf. 
Gal. iv. 18.—pera gd. x. tp. Cf. Eph. vi. 
5, οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα 
κυρίοις μετὰ φόβον καὶ τρόμον. In 
both passages the phrase expresses the 
solemn responsibility to God which is 
always felt by those conscious of the 
Divine Presence, whether they are occu- 
pied with common tasks or the concerns 
of their spiritual life. Nihil enim est 
quod magis ad modestiam et timorem 
erudire nos debeat quam dum audimus 
nos sola Dei gratia stare (Calvin). Gun- 
kel (Wirkungen?, etc., p. 70) well con- 
trasts the fear with which the Jew looked 
upon the Divine Presence with the calm 


Edd. om. ο with RABCD*FGKP 17, Eus., 


joy which the Christian feels in such an 
εχρετίεηςε.---τὴν faut. σωτ. Such a use 
of ἑαντῶν for ὑμῶν αὐτῶν is much more 
common in N.T. than in classical Greek. 
But cf. Demos., Olynth., i., § 2, εἴπερ 
σωτηρίας αὑτῶν φροντίζετε. The em- 
phasis is on ἑαυτῶν. Each of them is 
responsible for his own salvation before 
God. They must not lean on the Apostle. 
His absence must make no difference. 
“For the race is run by one and one 
and never by two and two” (R. Kipling). 
—owt. This is the end and aim of their 
faith. See 1 Pet. i. 9, τὸ τέλος τῆς 
πίστεως ὑμῶν σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν.---κατεργ. 
The best comment on the distinctive 
force of κατεργ. is 2 Cor. vii. το, ἡ yap 
κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη μετάνοιαν els σωτηρίαν 
«+» ἐργάζεται " ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμον λύ 
θάνατον κατεργάζεται, where ἐργ. refers 
to a process in its mediate workings, 
while κατεργ. looks solely at the final 
result. So here almost = ‘‘make sure 
of your salvation,” “ carry it into effect’. 
Cf. 2 Pet. i. το. As Kihl (of. cit., p. 
560 ff.) points out, the Apostle does not 
think here so much of the moral effort, their 
deliberate conduct as such (so Schaeder). 
This, as the presupposition of salvation, 
would be alien to the Pauline point of 
view. Lowliness and obedience non 
ὑπακοὴ πίστεως) are needful, that they 
may look away from themselves to Jesus 
Christ, who is the “ author and finisher 
of their faith”. 

Ver. 13. 6 must certainly be omitted 
with all the best authorities. ‘ For God 
is He that works,”’ etc. The emphasis 
lies on Θεός for two reasons. First, in the 
matter of attaining salvation they have 
to do not with Paul, but with God. 
Second, they must enter upon this mo- 
mentous course not lightly, but “ with 
fear and trembling,” for if they miss the 
goal it means that they have deliberately 








12—15, 


ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς " εὐδοκίας.] 


καὶ " διαλογισμῶν, 15. ἵνα γένησθε ' ἄμεμπτοι καὶ "' ἀκέραιοι, τέκνα. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 


14. πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς ἱ'γογγυσμῶν 


441 


h See on 
chap. i. 
15 supY, 
Acts vi. 13 


Θεοῦ " ἀμώμητα 2 ἐν ὃ °péows γενεᾶς " σκολιᾶς καὶ “ διεστραμμένης, see 


7 al, 
Freq. in LXX., ε.ρ., Job i. 1. 
Eph. i. 4, v. 27; Col. i. 22. 
Freq. in LXX., esp. Prov. 


1C, eth. add avrov. 


k Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 8. See note in/fr. 
m Matt. x. 16; Rom. xvi. 19. 
ο See note in/r. 
q Matt. xvii. 17; Luke ix. 41; Acts xx. 30. Often in LXX. 


Exod. xvi. 
1 Chap. iii. 6; Luke i. 6; 1 Thess. iii. 13. 
n 2 Pet. iii. 14. For v.l. ἄμωμα, 
p Acts ii. 40; 1 Pet. ii. 18; Deut. xxxii. 5. 


? So Myr. with DEFGKLP, Chr., Euth.cod., Thdrt. Edd. apwpa with SABC 17, 


23, Clem., Vict.graec. 


5.50 DbetcEKL, Chr., Thdrt.,, Dam. Edd. µεσον with RABCD*FGP 17, 23, 31, 


67**, Euth,cod. 


rejected the purpose of God. This ex- 
plains the connecting yap.—6 ἐνεργῶν. 
It seems always to have the idea of effec- 
tive working. In N.T. the active is 
invariably used of God, The middle is 
always intransitive. The verb has become 
transitive only in later Greek (cf. Krebs, 
Rection ᾱ. Casus, ii., 21). Many exx. 
occur in Justin Μ.---τὸ θέλειν. The first 
resolution in the direction of salvation 
takes its origin from God. So also does 
the ἐνεργεῖν, the carrying of this inward 
resolve into practical effect, the acting on 
the assurance that God’s promise is 
genuine. Cf. Eph. ii. 8, τῇ yap χάριτί 
ἐστε σεσωσμένοι, διὰ πίστεως " καὶ τοῦτο 
οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον. To Paul 
the Divine working and the human self- 
determination are compatible. But “all 
efforts to divide the ground between God 
and man go astray”’ (Rainy, of. cit., p. 
136).- ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας. “To carry 
out His own gracious will.” So Thdrt. 
(seealso Gennrich, SK., 1808, p. 383, 2.1). 
His great purpose of mercy is the salva- 
tion of men. To realise this He sur- 
rounds them with the influences of His 
gracious Spirit. For the word cf. Ps. 
Sol. viii. 39, ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ἡμῶν 
ἡ εὐδοκία εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Conyb.-Hows. 
and Hfm. would join ὑπὲρ τ. εὐδ. with 
the words following, but this would be 
unintelligible without αὐτοῦ. Blass 
boldly reads ὑπὲρ (οὗ) τ. εὐδοκίας πάντα 
ποι. (N.T. Gramm., p. 132). Such pro- 
cedure is arbitrary. Zahn and Wohl. 
(with Pesh. and O.L. versions) connect 
the words with τὸ évepy. preceding, and, 
comparing Rom. vii. 15-21, make εὐδ. = 
human inclination to goodness, i.e., 
practically equiv. to θέλειν. But this is 
the interpretation of a subtle exegete, 
which would scarcely appeal to a plain 
reader. The interpretation given above, 
connecting ὑπ. τ. εὐδ. with 6 ἐνεργ., is 


thoroughly natural and has many parallels 
in Paul, e.g., Eph. i. 5, 9, etc. See esp. 
SH. on Rom. x. 1. These verses are a 
rebuke to all egotism and empty boasting 
(see il. 3). 

Ver. 14. yoyy. Many Comm. under- 
stand yoyy. and διαλογ. as referring to 
God. This interpretation appears far- 
fetched and unnecessary. The whole 
discussion preceding has turned on the 
danger to their faith in being disunited. 
Is it not natural that when he speaks of 
‘“‘srumblings”’ and ‘discussions’? he 
should point to their mutual disagree- 
ments? Would not these be the common 
expressions, é.g., of the variance between 
Euodia and Syntyche? May they not be 
connected with the ἑτέρως τι φρονεῖν of 
chap. iii. 15? There has never beena 
hint of murmuring against God up till 
now. Cf. τ Peter iv. 9, Wisd. i. 11, 
φυλάξασθε. . . γογγυσμὸν ἀνωφελῆ καὶ 
ἀπὸ καταλαλιᾶς φείσασθε γλώσσης. On 
ὙΟΥγ. see esp. Η, Anz, Dissertationes 
Halenses, vol. xii., pars 2, pp. 368-369.— 
διαλογ. Probably = disputes. Common 
in this sense in later Greek. Cf. Luke 
ix. 46. Originally = thoughts, with the 
idea of doubt or hesitation gradually im- 
plied. See Hatch, Essays in Bibl. 
Greek, Ὁ: δ. - 

Ver. 15. γένησθε. “' That ye may be- 
come.” A high ideal before Paul’s mind to 
be reached by a gradual ρτοςες».---ἅμεμπ- 
TOL. οὐ μικρὰν yap προσάγει κηλῖδα ὁ 
γογγυσμός (Chr.). Perhaps ἄμεμ. refers 
to the judgment of others, while ἀκέραιοι 
denotes their intrinsic character (so Lft.). 
Cf. Matt. x. 16, where Christ exhorts the 
disciples to be ἀκέραιοι ds ai περιστεραί. 
—téxva Θεοῦ. This whole clause is a re- 
miniscence, not a quotation, of Deut. xxxii. 
5, ἡμάρτοσαν, οὐκ αὐτῷ τέκνα, μωμητά" 
γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη. It is 
impossible to say whether Paul uses τ. ©, 


442 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il. 


r Rev. xxi. ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς "φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ, 16. "λόγον ζωῆς ' ἐπέχοντες, 


x15 


i246; εἰς " καύχημα ἐμοὶ εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς " κενὸν ἔδραμον, 


xiii. 2. 

5 For the 
thought, 
cf. John 


οὐδὲ εἰς κενὸν " ἐκοπίασα. 


vi. 68; 

Acts v.20. Phrase only here. Cf. 1 Cor, i. 18; 2 Cor. ν. 19 al. 
u See on chap. i. 26. v Gal. ii 
y Ritual sense in Luke i. 23; Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21. 


See note in/r. 
xlix. x 2 Tim. iv. 6. 


in 2 Cor. ix. 12, and prob. ver. 30 of this chap. Often in 


26 = rejoice with. 


TN” εχοντες. 
2So Trg., 
NaB*CD*FGP. ν᾿ om. και σννχαιρω. 


in the strict sense common in N.T., or 
whether he employs the term more loosely 
as in Eph. v. 8.—The best authorities 
read ἅμωμα, the more usual N.T. word. 
ἀμωμητά may be due to μωμητά of LXX. 
Sale is certainly to be read instead of 
ἐν μέσῳ, with all leading authorities. It 
is one of those adverbial expressions 
which, in the later language, perhaps 
under the influence of Semitic usage, took 
the place of prepositions. Cf. Hatz., 
Einl., p. 214, where several exx. are 
quoted from Porphyrogenitus, de Caer.— 
σκολ. κ. διεστραμ. The latter epithet 
is precisely = the Scotch expression 


‘“*thrawn,” “having a twist"? in the 
inner nature.—évy ols. Sense-construc- 
tion.—¢aiy. Comm. differ as to whether 


φ. means here “appear” or “‘shine”’. 
Surely the appearing of a φωστήρ, a 
luminary, must be, at the same time, a 
shining. Both interpretations really con- 
verge in this context. [Calv. takes φαίν. 
as imperative, and compares Isa. Ix. 2. 
This is by no means unlikely.) Probably 
κόσμος (= the whole universe of things) 
goes closely with φωστῆρες, emphasising 
the contrast, while nothing is said as to 
their influence on others. Christ Himself 
is τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμον (John viii. 12). His 
followers are φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ. For 
κόσμος see Evans’ excellent note on 1 
Cor. ii. 12. 

Ver. 16. λ. ζωῆς. For the connexion 
between this expression and φωστῆρες 
see John i. 4, ἢ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων. When Paul speaks of “life” 
as belonging to the Christian he means 
not merely the new power of holy living 
imparted to him, but the real presence of 
a truly Divine life which, although largely 
concealed for the present by the fleshly 
nature, is the pledge and actual beginning 
of life eternal. This is, in the Apostle’s 
view, the supreme goal of the Christian 
calling. The Christian gospel, therefore, 


17. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ 
θυσίᾳ καὶ "λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, χαίρω καὶ * συγχαίρω ὃ 


Kal? "σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ 


_ t No parallel in Ν.Τ, or ΕΧΧ, 
ii. 2; οἱ. Rom. ix. 16; Gal. we w C/. Isa. 
ore general use 


XX. =z Luke i. 58, xv. 6, 9; 1 Cor. xii. 


2 και ει FG, ἢ, g, vg. 
Alf. with ABcDcEKsil.L, 


Ti., W.H., Ws. σννχαιρω with 


is ἃ λόγος ζωῆς. .---ἐπέχοντες. Its common 
meaning (as in Homer, etc.) is “" holding 
forth", But the Apostle is not thinking 
of the influence exercised by his readers 
upon others. It is their own steadfast- 
ness in the faith that is before his mind 
in this passage. That tells against the 
interpretation of Field (Οι Norvicense, 
iii., pp. 118-119, following Pesh. with 
Michaelis, Wetstein, etc.), who translates, 
‘* being in the stead of life "’ (to it, sc., the 
world), ‘holding the analogy of life’’. 
No doubt there are good exx. ofthe phrase 
in later Greek, but we are safe in saying 
that the ordinary N.T. reader would not 
understand Ady. {. in this sense. Chr, 
and Thphl. take it as = “having in 
them "’ (a strengthened ἔχειν). Th. Mps. 
has “holding fast," which is also the 
gloss of Hesychius on the word (κρατοῦν- 
τες). There is practically no difference 
between the two last explanations. Either 
suits the context well. It was quite cus- 
tomary in late Greek to use intensified 
forms like ἐπέχειν as stronger equivalents 
for the simpler words.—els καύχ. ‘‘ For 
a ground of boasting.”’ C/. Zeph. iii. 20, 
δώσω ὑμᾶς ὀνομαστοὺς καὶ els καύχημα. 
one X. A combination only found 
in this Epistle. As the Apostle advanced 
in years the final result of his labours 
would have increasing prominence in his 
thoughts.—rt. Does this introduce the 
ground of his boasting, or is it used in an 
κ᾽ anticipative '’ sense = because? The 
latter seems necessary, as the reason of 
his boasting has already been given, their 
blamelessness and steadfastness. 

ν. «« ἐκοπίασα. These aorists look 

ck from the day of Christ over the 
whole course of Paul’s life and work. It 
is now finished, and it has not failed. We 
must translate by English perfects, “I 
have not run,” etc. Lft. thinks that 
ἐκοπ. is a metaphor from ‘‘ training” in 
athletic contests. See his important note 





16—19, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


443 


πᾶσιν ὑμῖν: 18. τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑμεῖς χαίρετε καὶ συγχαίρετέ 


μοι. 


19. Ἐλπίζω δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ 1 Ἰησοῦ, Τιμόθεον ταχέως πέμψαι ὑμῖν," ἵνα 


1 Lach. Xptorw with CD*FG 38, 71, 74, ἃ, e, g, cop. 


2 Ὁ", O.L. vg., προς υμας. 


on Ignat. ad Polyc., vi., συγκοπιᾶτε 
ἀλλήλοις, συναθλεῖτε, συντρέχετε. But 
its occurrence in Isa. xlix. 4 (κενῶς ἐκοπί- 
aga, εἰς μάταιον καὶ εἰς οὐδὲν ἔδωκα τὴν 
ἰσχύν pov) shows that it may be taken 
without any metaphorical significance. 
Vv. 17-18. MUTUAL REJOICING IN 
CHRISTIAN SERVICE.—Ver. 17. ‘‘ Nay, 
although I should even be offered (lit. 
‘poured out as a libation’) upon the 
sacrifice and sacred service,” etc. εἰ καί 
leaves abundant room for the possibility, 
as distinct from καὶ ei, which barely 
allows the supposition, See esp. Her- 
mann on Viger, no. 307. The metaphor 
of this verse has given rise to much dis- 
cussion. It is admitted that σπένδ. = 
to be poured out as a drink offering. 
Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 6, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι. 
But what is the meaning of ἐπί Is it 
“upon,” “over,” or ‘in addition to,” 
“concurrently with”? Ell. and others, 
holding that the Apostle refers to fewish 
sacrificial usages in which, it is said, the 
drink-offering was poured, not over the 
sacrifice but round the altar, decide for 
the latter sense. Paul’s life would be a 
sacrifice additional to that of their faith. 
But, in writing to the Philippians, it is 
far more likely that he should illustrate 
from heathen ritual in which the libation 
took so prominent a place. In that case 
we have an apt parallel in Hom., J1., xi., 
775, σπένδων αἴθοπα οἶνον ἐπ᾽ αἰθομένοις 
ἱεροῖσι, where ἐπί can scarcely mean 
anything but ‘upon’. After all, the 
decision between the two does not affect 
the sense. The offering of Paul in either 
case, instead of being a cause of sadness 
and despair, is really the climax of their 
sacrifice, the libation which crowns it. 
Zahn (op. cit., p. 296-297), followed by 
Hpt., joins ἐπί with χαίρω in the sense of 
**T rejoice on account of the sacrifice,” 
etc. Thisis certainly attractive, but seems 
too bold in view of the order of the words. 
--τῇ θυσίᾳ κι λειτ. τ. πίστ. Here, again, 
unnecessary difficulties have been raised 
over the question whether Paul or the 
Philippians are to be regarded as offering 
the sacrifice. There is no evidence that 
the Apostle wishes to strain the metaphor 
to the breaking point. He has been 


urging them to preserve their Christian 
faith pure and unfaltering. That will be 
a joy to him in the day of Christ. But 
now another thought crosses his mind. 
What if in his Christian labours he should 
fallavictim? The idea gives a sacrificial 
cast to his thinking, and he regards their 
faith (z.e., virtually, their Christian pro- 
fession and life), on the one hand, as a 
θυσία, an offering presented to God (cf. 
Rom. xii. 1), and, on the other, as a 
λειτουργία, a sacred service, the present- 
ing of that offering. (For the ritual use 
of λειτ. in Egyptian Papyri see Dsm., 
BS., pp. 137-138). ‘‘Even although I 
should fall a victim to my labours in the 
cause of Christ, I rejoice because your 
faith is an accomplished fact. I rejoice 
on my own account (χαίρω) because I 
have been the instrument of your salva- 
tion. I also share in the joy (συγχαίρω) 
which you experience in the new life you 
have received.’’ This paraphrase, per- 
haps, expresses the real force of the 
words in their close connexion with the 
context. We can see no ground for 
translating συγχαίρω (with Lft. and 
others) as “congratulate,” a translation 
which surely misses the point of the 


language. Cf. τ Cor. xii. 26. 
Ver. 18. τὸ δ᾽ αὐτό. Adverbial use 
= ὡσαύτως. Cf. Matt. xxvii. 44.— 


συγχαίρ. This is, of course, a different 
joy from that which he shares with them, 
It is their joy in his obtaining the martyr’s 
crown, 

Vy. 19-24. HIS PURPOSE TO SEND TO 
THEM TIMOTHY, A GENUINE FRIEND OF 
THEIR COMMUNITY.—Ver. 1ο. Clemen 
(Einhettlichkett d. paulin. Briefe, p. 138) 
seeks to prove that vv. 19-24 do not 
belong to this context. This is to for- 
get the flexibility and rapid transitions 
natural to a friendly letter. The last 
paragraph, in spite of its joyful tone, 
ended with a note of anxious foreboding 
for tle Philippians. He will dispel the 
dark shadow.—év K. "Ino. Cf. ver. 24 
infy., and the repeated occurrence of 
this and cognate phrases all through 
Paul’s Epistles. See the note on chap. 
i, 1 supr, His intention depends on 
the will and power of Christ, just as its 


444 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il, 


a Only here κἀγὼ "εὐψυχῶ, γνοὺς τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. 20. οὐδένα γὰρ ἔχω "ἰσόψυχον, 
Ὁ Oak Bere ὅστις "γνησίως τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν “μεριμνήσει. 21. οἱ πάντες γὰρ τὰ 


Ps. liv.14. ἑαυτῶν "ζητοῦσιν, οὐ τὰ τοῦ” Χριστοῦ ὃ Ἰησοῦ. 


ς Only here 
in N.T. 
d τ Cor. vii. 
if: xii. 25; 4] 
ἐ χοά, v.g; Bar. iii. 18. 
ii. g. Rare word. Ps. Ixvii. 31 (Symm.). 


1 L νπερ. 


ει Cor. x. 24, xiii. 5. 


22. τὴν δὲ ‘Soxiphy 


αὐτοῦ γινώσκετε, ὅτι ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον, σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν εἰς Td 


f In N.T. only in Paul, ¢g., Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. 


2 So some minn., Chr., Thdrt. Edd. om. τον with NABCDEFGKLP, Clem. 


3So Ti., Ws., W.H. (Γ with BL, cop. syrp. ethro., Thdrt., Thphl., Chr. ext. 
Trg., Alf., Lft., Myr., W.-H. (mg.) 1. X. with QACDEFGP 17, 39, 47, 115, O.L. 
vgcle. am. tol. syr.8ch. arm., Clem., Chr. com., Euth.cod., Victorin., Ambrst, 


Χριστον K, ethpp., Ουρι. 


performance will be regulated with a 
view to His ρ]οτγ--πέµψαι. We should 
expect future infinitive, but the aorist 
is often used instead “after verbs of 
hoping and promising in which wish or 
will intrudes” (Gildersleeve on Justin 
Μ., Apol., i., 12, 23).---κἀγώ. He takes 
for granted that the visit of Timothy 
will cheer the Philippians. It will cheer 
him also to know how they ἀο.---εὐψνχῶ. 
Common in sepulchral Inscrr. in the 
form εὐψύχει, “ farewell!” There area 
few exx. elsewhere, ¢.g., Joseph., Ant., 
xi., 6, 9, of Ahasuerus, καὶ τὴν ᾿Εσθῆρ᾽ 
εὐψυχεῖν καὶ τὰ ίττω προσδοκᾷν 
παρεθάρρυνεν. --- γνοὺς has probably a 
slightly ingressive force, '' when I come 
to know”. 

Ver. 20. ον. ‘Compounds 
with ltoo- usually mean not merely 
‘like,’ but ‘as good as,’ or ‘no better 
than’” (Jebb on Soph., Ο.Τ., 478). Τὸ 
whom does it refer? De W., Myr., 
Vine. and others refer it to Paul. But 
surely it can only apply to Timothy. 
At least the relative sentence seems to 
necessitate this interpretation. ‘I have 
no one like-minded, [ mean having that 
kind of mind (ὅστις) which will, etc. ... 
but ye know his approvedness.”’ Besides, 
if he were thinking of himself, must 
he not have added ἄλλον to οὐδένα» 
“genuinely”. There is no 
apparent necessity to take it (with Lft. 
and Vince.) as = “ by an instinct derived 
from his spiritual parentage”. yv. is 
used frequently in secular writers = true, 
genuine. Cf. Phocyl., 2, γνήσιος φίλος; 
Pind., Olymp., ii., 21, γνησίαις ἐπ᾽ ape- 
ταῖς. Cf. chap. iv. 3.--μεριμνήσει = 
“‘ give one’s thoughts to a matter’’. Cf. 
1 Cor. vii. 33, and see a good note in 
Jebb on Soph., Οδ κας 

Ver. 21. οἱ πάντες “ee ἴητ. 


This 


verse has roused surprise. Where were 
all Paul's faithful brethren in the Lord? 
Has he no one but Timothy to fall back 
upon? It must be borne in mind that 
we have to do with a simple letter, not a 
treatise, or history of Paul’s work. The 
Apostle speaks in an outburst of strong 
feeling, for he is a man of quick im- 
pulses. He does not for a moment mean 
that he has no genuine Christian brethren 
in his company. But he had found, in 
all probability, that when he pr to 
some of his companions, good Christian 
men, that they should visit far-distant 
Philippi, they all shrank, making various 
excuses. Timothy alone is willing, the 
one man he can least afford to spare. It 
is hard to part with him at such a critical 
time. No wonder that he should feel 
hurt by this want of inclination on the 
part of the other brethren to undertake 
an important Christian duty. No wonder 
that he should speak with severity of a 


disposition so completely op to his 
own. Cf. τ Cor. κ. 33, μὴ ζητῶν τὸ 
ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν πολλῶν. 


See esp. Calvin's excellent note ad loc.— 
Χ.Ἰ. The authorities are almost equally 
balanced as to the readings. See on 
chap. i. 1 supr. 

Ver. 22. δοκιμήν. ‘ Approvedness.” 
That character which emerges as the 
result of testing. Cf. Jas. i. 12.—@s war. 
τέκ. κ.τ.λ. A mixed construction, the 
result of refined feeling. Paul first thinks 
of Timothy as his son in the G 
serving him with ason’s devotion. But 
before the sentence is finished, his lowli- 
ness reminds him that they are both alike 
servants of a common Lord, equal in His 
sight.—els seems here practically equiv. 
to ἐν, as so frequently in later Greek. 
The fact is one of real importance for 
exegesis. (See Hatz., Einl., p. 210; 





20---25. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


445 


εὐαγγέλιον. 23. τοῦτον μὲν οὖν ἐλπίζω πέμψαι, ξ ὡς ἂν ἀπίδω 1 τὰ 5 ο μα, 


. 


περὶ ἐμέ, ἢ ἐξαυτῆς' 24. πέποιθα δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως " See note 
€hevcouar.” 25. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην Ἐπαφρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν i νο 


τα 


και — 


.. 3 ‘ 
συνεργον και 


Paul's writings. 


1So Ws. with B°C (απειδω) DcEKsil.LP, Chr., Thdrt. 


συστρατιώτην * μου, ὑμῶν δὲ ' ἀπόστολον, καὶ 


See esp. Rom. xvi. 3,9, 21; Philm. 24; 2 Macc. viii. 7. 
1 John xiii. 16; 2 Cor. viii. 23; 1 Kings xiv. 6 (A.). 


xX. 1n 


N.T. only 
one out- 
side 

k Philm. 2. 


Ti., Ττρ., W.H., Alf. 


αφιδω with SAB*D*FG 17, Euth.cod. Ws. admits that αφ. is better attested, but 
considers it, nevertheless, to be an ancient copyist’s blunder, due to the analogy οἱ 


ἀφορᾶν. 


εφιδε. (TK., Ρ. 141. 


He compares επισταται (εφ.) in 1 Thess. ν. 3. 
See also W-Sch., p. 39, @). 


See also Acts iv. 29, v./., 


? So edd. with 4cBDEFGKL, d, e, g, syrP. arm. δίῃ. go., Euth.cod., Thdrt., 
Dam., Victorin. προς υµας added by ΝΛΟΡ 23, 39, 57, 115, f, vg. cop. syrsch., 


Chr.*, Thphl., Ambrst. 


Ws. (TK., p. 109) gives exx. of prepositional additions of 


this kind appearing in ancient as well as later MSS. 


8 Om. D*, d, e, Victorin., Ambrst. 


* *SoNBKLP. Edd. συνστρατ. with ACDEFG. This is one of the orthogra- 
phical points on which Bousset (Textkrit. Studien, pp. 102, 103) bases a grouping of 


N.T. MSS., assigning $B to the Hesychian recension. 


cussion, 


Schmid, Atticismus, i., Ῥ. 91: Krum- 
bacher, Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 27, pp. 543- 
544). One can hardly discover here the 
idea of purpose. 

Ver. 23. μέν. He emphasises the com- 
ing of Timothy as distinct from his own. 
—os av. Cf. Rom. xv. 24, 1 Cor. xi. 34. 
“Ας soon as I shall have thoroughly 
ascertained my position.” This temporal 
use of ὡς ἄν seems foreign to classical 
prose. It almost means ‘according as 
I shall”. ἄν marks the uncertainty which 
surrounds the whole prospect. (See 
W-M., p. 387; Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 126.) 
--ὀὠὀπίδω. On the form see the crit. note 
supy. ἀπό emphasises his turning away 
his attention from other things and con- 
centrating it upon his own situation, 7.e., 
gaining a definite knowledge of how his 
affairs stand. Mynster (Kleine Theolog. 
Schriften, p. 173) points out that this 
verse proves that the Epistle could not 
have been written at Cesarea.—éfaurifjs. 
Chiefly in Acts in N.T. = Latin ilico. 
A Hellenistic word. See Phrynichus (ed. 
Lobeck), 47. 

Ver. 24. ἐν Κυρίῳ. See on ver. 10. 
Every mood of Paul’s inner life he desires 
to regulate by the mind and will of 
Christ.—ért. ‘ When an action is to be 
produced, πείθειν takes the infinitive, 
when belief, ὅτι (of objective knowledge) 
sometimes infinitive ’’ (Gildersl. on Justin 
M., Afol., i., 8, 8). 

Vv. 25-30. News ΟΕ EPAPHRODITUS: 
A CORDIAL WELCOME FOR HIM AT PHILIPPI 


See his very important dis- 


BESPOKEN.—Ver. 25. This verse opens 
a passage which Clemen (of. cit., pp. 
138-141) assigns to the second of the two 
letters into which he proposes to divide 
the Epistle. See our Introduction. The 
Apostle, as a matter of fact, passes most 
naturally from the two visits which he 
half promises to the return of Epaphro- 
ditus, which is an immediate certainty.— 
ἡγησ. Epistolary aorist. He writes from 
the point of view of those who receive the 
letter.— Emad. Only mentioned in this 
Epistle, unless we are to suppose him to 
be the same person as Ἐπαφρᾶς of Col. 
i. 7, Philm., 23. Such contractions of 
names were quite common, ¢.g., Ζηνᾶς = 
Ζηνόδωρος, Μενέστας = Μενέστρατος 
(see W-Sch., pp. 142-143). But this 
hypothesis ill accords with the description 
in Col. iv. 12, Ἐπ. ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, to say 
nothing of the fact that, on our view of 
the dating of the Imprisonment-Epistles, 
Epaphras would by this time have left 
Rome.—46. κ. συνεργ.κ. συστρ. Aptly 
Anselm: Frater in fide, cooperator in 
praedicatione, commilito in adversis. 
There is no need to suppose (with Gw.) 
that συνεργ. implies that Epaphroditus 
was in the ministry, or (with Ws.) that 
συστρ. points to Paul’s conflict at Phil- 
ippi. Both terms suit his circumstances 
at Ῥοπῃε.-- ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπ. κ. λειτ. τ. Xp. μ. 
ἀπόστολος is always used of some one 
entrusted with a mission ; it is a word of 
dignified tone. Moule (PS., p. 133) 
thinks we have here “a gentle pleas- 


446 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


Il, 


m Kom. «iil. ™ λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας μου, πέμψαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς - 26. ἐπειδὴ ἐπιπο- 


6, xv. 16; 


νι oy θῶν "ἦν πάντας ὑμᾶς,' καὶ " ἀδημονῶν, διότι ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἠσθένησε 3" 


in LXX. 
n Peri- 


common λύπῃ ὃ σχῶ. 


Luke and Acts. In Paul, only Gal. i. 22. See Blass, Ν.Τ. Gramm., pp. 198, 1 
᾿ p Only here in N.T. See W-M., p. 590. - 
im. i. 17; Tit. iii. 13. 


xxvi. 37; Mark xiv. 33. 
τ Cf. (although differing) Luke vii. 4; 2 


‘So NcCBFGKLYP, f, g, vg. go., Chr., Thdrt., Victorin. 


27. καὶ γὰρ ἠσθένησε " παραπλήσιον θανάτῳ ὃ: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν 
phrasis ἠλέησεν," οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ, ἵνα μὴ λύπην “ ἐπὶ 
om 28. ' σπουδαιοτέρως 7 οὖν ἔπεμψα αὐτόν, ἵνα, ἰδόντες 


ο Only Matt. 
q See note in/r. 


Lach. (brackets), W.H. 


(brackets), Myr. add Wew with N*ACDE, d, e, syrr. cop. arm. zxth. Euth.cod., 


Dam., Thphl., Cassiod. 
chap. i. 8. 
Rom. i. 11, 1 Thess, iii. 6, 2 Tim. 1. 4. 


* D*E*FG, O.L. vg. αντον ἡησθενηκεναι. 


Myr. would account for its omission by assimilation to 
But its insertion is equally well accounted for by the same phrase in 


5. So Ti., Trg., Alf., Ws. with Q*ACDEFGKL. W.H. θανατου with BP 29, 


31, 44, 80, 115, Chr., Euth.cod. 
*So KL, Chr., Thdrt., Dam. 


ηλ. avrov edd. with NABC**DEFGP 17, 37, 116, 


O.L. vg. syrr. arm., Euth.cod., Victorin., Ambrst. 


® So Chr.montf., Thdrt, 
® D*EFG 1,123, 44 εχω. 


antry,” their gift being a sort of Gospel 
to him. But its ordinary Greek use as 
= “delegate” makes this unnecessary. 
--λειτουργόν. “ Minister.” Evidently 
the technical, ritual use of this word and 
its cognates which prevailed in the post- 
classical age and is found in LXX (of 
priests and esp. Levites) and Egyptian 
ο (see H. Anz, Dissertationes 
Philol, Halenses, xii., 2, pp. 346-347; 
Dsm., BS., p. 137 ff.) suggests the idea 
of their gift as being a sacrifice, an obla- 
tion to God. In chap. iv. 18 he calls it 
expressly a θυσία. See an interesting 
discussion of Paul’s use of pagan terms 
in ο Times, x., Nos. 1-5, by 
Prof. W. M. Ramsay. 

Ver, 26. ἐπειδή. Only three times 
elsewhere in Paul. The difference be- 
tween it and ἐπεί is tersely stated by Ell. 
(ad loc.), who notes that it “involves 
the quasi-temporal reference which is 
supplied by δή, and thus expresses a 
thing that at once ensues (temporarily or 
causally) on the occurrence or realisation 
of another ”'.----ἔπιπ. ἦν. Acommon N.T. 
construction. Perhaps the use of the im- 
perfect may be due to Aramaic influence 
(see Schmid, Afticismus, iii., p. 113 Π.). 
In classical Greek it is fairly frequent with 
the perfect and pluperfect. See Kihner, 
Ausfihrl. Gramm., ii., p. 35, ". 3-— 
πάντας. The Apostle cadens to disarm all 
prejudices against Epaphr. μονῶν. 
“Τὴ sore anguish.” In its two other 
occurrences in N.T. it describes the agony 


Edd. Άνπην with all MSS. 
7 σπονδαιοτερον D* FG, 


in Gethsemane. While not found in 
LXX (but several exx. in Symmachus) 
it occurs a few times in later Greek. 
The derivations usually given are doubt- 
(ω].---ἠκούσατε. Probably we must sup- 
that the Philippians, on hearing that 
μμανωὴ was ill, had written a letter 
to which this is the answer.—}oOdvyee. 
We might translate, '' had fallen sick,” an 
ingressive aorist. But with the same tense 
in ver. 27, perhaps it is better to look upon 
the aorist as summing up the whole ex- 
perience of Epaphrod. as a single fact, and 
viewing it in this light. This isa common 
Greek usage (see Burton, ΜΤ., p. 20). 
Ver. 27. καὶ γὰρ κ.τ.λ. ‘For truly 
he was sick,” εἰς,, καί intensifying the 
force of ἠσθέν.--θαν. The more common 
construction of wapamh., backed by a pre- 
ponderating weight of authority, favours 
the dative. The endings -ov and -w were 
frequently interchanged in the MSS. (see 
Ws. TK., p. 18). ---Ἀύπην ἐπὶ λ . 
The reading λύπῃ is merely a simplify- 
ing of the construction. The accusative 
must be read. The usage is practically 
= ἐπί with dative. It denotes the heap- 
ing up of one thing upon another with 
the notion of addition predominant. Cf. 
Matt. xxiv. 2, ob ph ἀφεθῇ λίθος ἐπὶ 
λίθον ; Isa. xxviii. 10, θλίψιν ἐπὶ θλίψιν 
προσδέχου ; Ps. Sol. iii. 7, οὐκ αὐλίζεται 
ἐν οἴκῳ δικαίου γι sb ἐφ᾽ ἅμαρ- 
r 


τίαν. See Buttm., Gram., p. 335.--σχῶ. 
Equiv. to our “ κεῖ", This is the force 
of the aorist. 














ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΉΣΙΟΥΣ 


26----30, 


447 


pew , a 3 ας. , 3 t / ἦν 8 Only here 
αὐτὸν πάλιν, χαρῆτε, κἀγὼ " ἀλυπότερος ὦ. 29. " προσϑέχεσθε οὖν eg a 


ὐτὸν é ί ὰ 4 a ὶ ὺ ἥ ἃ ἐντί Common 
sil ἐν ee μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς, καὶ TOUS τοιούτους μμης αλα 

3/ 4 ὃν A - , , . 
έχετε: 30. ὅτι διὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Χριστοῦ 1 " µέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισε, Μο. 
. XVI. 


" παραβουλευσάμενος 2 τῇ ψυχῇ, ἵνα * ἀναπληρώσῃ ὃ τὸ ὑμῶν ” ὑστέ- ap 
a ri , ron, 
α τῆς πρός με λειτουργίας. 
ΒΡ Beene te PY u Luke vii. 
2, xiv. 8; Isa. xxviii. 16. v See chap. ii. 8 supy. w Only here in N.T. See note inf. 


ΧΙ Cor. xvi. 17. Cf. Plat., Symp., 188 E (quoted by Grimm), εἴ τι ἐξέλιπον, σὸν ἔργον, ὦ ᾿Αριστόφ- 
aves, ἀναπληρῶσαι. y In this sense only in Paul, ¢.g., Col. i. 24. A few exx. in LXX. 


xii. 18, 


19ο DEKL, Chr., Thdrt., Dam. Lach., Ti., Trg., Ws. Χριστον alone with BFG 
73, 80 (W.H. mg.). W.H. (f1) Κυριου with ΝΑΡ 17, 31, 47, cop. syrP. arm. 
eth., Euth,cod. (Trg. mg.). Alf., Myr., Lft., Hpt. το epyov alone with C. Ws. 
(TK., p. 7), arguing in favour of Χριστον, holds that, through misunderstanding, 
it was either omitted or (on the analogy of 1 Cor. xv. 58, xvi. 10) altered into 


Κυριον. 


2So ΟΚΤ Ρ, Chr., Euth.cod., Thdrt., 


Dam. Edd. παραβολευσαμενος with 


SABDEFG 177, 178, 179, d, 6, 6 (parabolatus de anima sua). 
3 αναπληρωσει δῷ 17, 114, 116, d.sct. πληρωση B 36, 43, 44, 109 al, 


Ver. 28. σπουδ. The more regular 
form is the inferior reading σπουδαιότε- 
pov, which is due to some copyist. But 
that in -ws is also found in classical 
Greek. See W-Sch., p. 98. It is quite 
possible that we have here, as frequently 
in later popular Greek, a comparative 
with superlative force (see Blass, Gramm., 
Ρ. 33). “1 sent him with all haste” 
(including the notion of anxiety and con- 
cern which belongs to σπουδαῖος. .-- 
ἔπεμ. Epistolary αοτῖςί.---ἀλυπότ. Their 
joy means the lifting of a burden from his 
heart. He sympathised with Epaphro- 
ditus’ yearning for home. He sympa- 
thised with the Philippians’ anxiety for 
their brother. Chr. aptly quotes Paul’s 
own words in 2 Cor. xi. 29, τίς ἀσθενεῖ 
Kal οὐκ ἀσθενῶ; τίς σκανδαλίζεται καὶ 
οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι, 

Ver. 29. Behind these words must 
lie some unknown circumstances which 
affected the feelings of the Philippians 
towards Epaphrod. It is not sufficient 
to suppose (with Ws.) that they would 
be disappointed because he had not 
stayed long enough at Rome. The 
πάσης χαρᾶς and ἐντίμους surely point 
to some alienation on which we have no 
light. 

Ver. 30. τὸ ἔργον κ.τ.λ. The true 
reading is very difficult to determine with 
such a conflict of authorities. We are 
inclined to believe that τὸ ἔργ. stood alone 
as in C, This is certainly the hardest 
reading of all to account for. Ata very 
early date additions like Χριστοῦ, Κυρίου, 
etc., would be sure to be made.—peéxpu. 
A somewhat rare use ofp. Cf. Κεν. xii. 


11, οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι 
θανάτου, and chap. ii. 8.---παραβολευσ. 
Here, with the great majority of the best 
authorities, we must read παραβολευσά- 
μενος. It is a am. λεγ., probably formed 
from παράβολος, rash, reckless. Cf. the 
legal term παράβολον (later, παραβόλιον), 
the stake which has to be deposited by an 
appellant, and is forfeited if the action be 
lost. ‘Having hazarded his life.” Cf. 
the exact parallel in Diod., 3, 36, 4, 
παραβαλέσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς. What risk 
did he run? Hfm. suggests that his 
illness was produced by his arrival in 
Rome during the hot season of the year. 
Chr. thinks of danger at the hands of 
Nero. Wohl. supposes that his illness 
was the result of his severe missionary 
labours in Rome. May it be that the 
Apostle was now confined in a far more 
unwholesome bondage than before (one 
of the noisome State-prisons? See Intro- 
duction), and that the assiduous services 
of Epaphrod. to him there, brought on 
this severe illness? We believe that this 
interpretation is justified by the next 
words τὸ tp. ὑστέρ. . . « λειτ. In what 
was their service towards the Apostle 
lacking ? Evidently in nothing save their 
own personal presence and personal care 
of him. This would be the more urgently 
needed if Paul’s outward surroundings 
had become less favourable. For the 
phrase ἄναπλ. τὸ ὑστ., cf. τ Cor. xvi. 17, 
τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα οὗτοι ἀνεπλήρωσαν; 
2 Cor. xi. g. 

CuHaApTeR III.—Vv. 1-3. A SALUTA- 
TION CHANGED INTO A WARNING.—Vert. I. 
τὸ λοιπόν. Probably A.V. rightly trans- 


448 


a Rom. xii. 
11 (but no 
exact 


ο, 
exx. in 
Provv.). 

b No relevant parallel. 
d Matt. vii. 6; Rev. xxii. 15. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


ς Partly parallel are 1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18; 2 Cor. x. 7. 
« See note i/r., and οἵ. Matt. ix. 37; Luke xiii. 27; 2 Tim. ii. 15. 


ΠῚ. 


III. 1. ΤΟ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ. τὰ αὐτὰ } 
αι. γράφειν ὑμῖν, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ "ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δὲ " ἀσφαλές.2 2. " βλέ- 
many πετε τοὺς “κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς "ἐργάτας, βλέπετε τὴν 


Also Mark xiii. 23. 


1 σαντα N*FGP (cop. ista). 
Στο ασφαλες Α΄ Vid. 23, 31, 37, 73, 238, Procop. 


lates “finally” (summing up all his 
exhortations to them). It must, how- 
ever, be remembered that in late Greek 
λοιπόν had come to mean scarcely more 
than οὖν. Even in Plato, Gorg., 458 Ὁ, 
there is something very closely approach- 
ing this usage. oe Matt. xxvi. 45 (and 
onit Aars in Zw. Th., xxxviii., 3, pp. 378- 
383), Acts xxvii. 20 (where Blass translates 
by jam), 2 Tim. iv. 8. For instances in 
Epictetus see Class. Review, iii., p. 71. 
It is used regularly in this sense in 
Modern Greek. (Cf. also Schmid, Atticis- 
mus, iii., p. 135-)—xalpere. This is the 
impression he wishes to leave upon them. 
Cf. chap. ii. 18, iv. 4.--τὰ αὐτά. Alf., 
Ws., P. W. Schmidt and others refer this 
to his injunctions concerning joy. But 
that explanation does not seem to accord 
with the rest of the verse. ‘To goon 
writing the same thing is not irksome 
tedious) to me, while for you it is safe.” 
n what cogent sense would it be safe to 
urge them to rejoice? But an excellent 
meaning is found when we connect the 
words with the warning that follows. 
That warning is expressly given for their 
safety. Nothing is more probable than 
that Paul had frequent correspondence 
with the Philippians. He must, for in- 
stance, have ked them for their 
various gifts. In all likelihood, then, τὰ 
av. refers to warnings formerly addressed 
to them against dangerous teachers apt 
to lead them astray. He prepares the 
way for a similar utterance here by a 
certain tone of apology. Perhaps the 
slight friction in the Philippian Church, 
which is hinted at here and there, may 
have been connected with tendencies in 
the direction of Judaising. If a con- 
nexion is necessary between χαίρετε and 
the subsequent warnings (which is very 
doubtful in an informal letter like this), it 
is obvious that the formation of parties 
(Jewish and heathen-Christian) would, 
above all things, mar the spirit of Chris- 
tian joy. [Clemen (Einheitlichk., pp. 
139-140) cuts the knot by deriving the 
latter half of ver. 1 from the redactor. 


The whole section from iii. 2 to iv. 3 
belongs to an old letter to the Philippians. 
Chap. iv. 4 is the continuation of chap. 
iii. τα. Franke, on the occurrence ofthis 
strong warning towards the close of the 
letter, well compares the parallel case 
of Luther who, in prospect of death, could 
not depart without wishing for his fol- 
lowers not only the blessing of God but 
also hatred of the Pope (Myr.,° p. 13). 
Ver.2. It is difficult to meget sl how 
anyone could find three different classes 
in these words (¢.g., Ws., who divides 
them into (a) unconverted heathens, (δ) 
self-seeking Christian teachers, (c) un- 
believing Jews. See also his remarks in 
A, F. Th., i., 2, pp. 389-391). The words 
are a precise parallel to Paul's denuncia- 
tions of Judaising teachers in Galatians 
and 2 Corinthians. Cf. Gal. i. 7, 9, v. 12, 
2 Cor. xi. 13, ii. 17. The istent and 
malicious opposition which they main- 
tained against him sufficiently accounts 
for the fiery vehemence of his language. 
To surrender to their teaching was really 
to renounce the most precious gift of the 
Gospel, namely, “the glorious li of 
the sons of God". For, in Paul’s view, 
he who possesses the Spirit is raised 
above all law. Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 17, and 
see Gunkel, Wirkungen®, etc., pp. 96- 
98.---βλέπετε. Thrice repeated in the 
intense energy of his invective. Liter- 
ally = ‘“‘leok at" them, in the sense of 
“beware of’ them. It is not so used in 
classical Greek. Apparently some such 
significance as this is found in 2 Chron. 
x. 16, βλέπε τὸν οἶκόν σον, Δανείδ. Fre- 
quent in N.T. (see Blass, Gram., p. 87,1. 


1). He would have used a stronger word 
than BX. had the Judaisers alr made 
some progress at Philippi. ε is 


nothing to suggest this in the Epistle. 
But all the Pauline Churches were ex- 
posed to their inroads. At any moment 
their emissaries might appear. — τοὺς 
κύνας. Only here in Paul. Commen- 
tators have tried to single out the point 
of comparison intended, some emphasis- 
ing the shamelessness of dogs, others their 





I—3 , 


ἑκατατομήν: 3. ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


449 


~ 


" περιτομή, of πνεύματι Θεῷ 1 See note 


ΓΝ ἃ a 
"λατρεύοντες, καὶ ' καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ 2 Ε a note 


74; Rom.i.9; 2 Tim.i.3 αἰ, Freq. in LXX, ¢.g., Josh. xxiv. 14. 


᾿ h Luke i. 
i More than thirty exx. in 


Paul; e.g., Rom. ii. 23, v.11. Cf. Jer. ix. 23, 24; Sir. 1. 20 (num. exx. in Sir.). 


1So WcD*P, d, e, f, πι, vg. 


Ὁ. syrsch. et p. txt. arm, zth., Chr., Victorin., 


& 
Ambrst. Edd. Θεου with *ABCDcEFGKL, cop. syrp.mg-, Eus., Euth.cod., Ath, 


2 και ου σαρκι Det.Egr. 


impurity, others their roaming tendencies, 
others still their imsolence and cunning. 
Most probably the Apostle had no de- 
finite characteristic in his mind. κύων 
was a term of reproach in Greek from 
the earliest to the latest times. E.g., 
Hom,, Π., xiii., 623, Often in Ο.Τ. So 
here.—t. kak. épy. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 13, 
ἐργάται δόλιοι. We have here clear 
evidence that the persons alluded to were 
within the Christian Church. They did 
professedly carry on the work of the 
Gospel, but with a false aim. This in- 
validates the arguments of Lips., Hltzm. 
and M‘Giffert (Afost. Age, pp. 389-390), 
who imagine that the Apostle refers to 
unbelieving Jews, probably at Philippi. 
—t. κατατοµήν. A scornful parody of 
their much-vaunted περιτομή. W-M. 
(pp. 794-796) gives numerous exx. of a 
similar paronomasia, e.g., Diog. Laert., 
6, 24, τὴν μὲν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε 
χολήν, τὴν δὲ Πλάτωνος διατριβὴν κατα- 
τριβήν. Lit. = “ἐπε mutilation”. Their 
mechanical, unspiritual view of the 
ancient rite reduces it to a mere lacera- 
tion of the body. The word occurs in 
CIG., 160, 27; Theophr., Hist. Plant., 
4, 8, το; Symm. on Ferem., xlviii., 37 = 
notch, cutting, incision. It is only found 
here with any reference to circumcision. 

Ver. 3. ἡμεῖς. The contrast drawn, 
which has already been before his mind 
in the ironical expression κατατοµή.--ἡ 
περιτ. In LXX it is only found in Gen. 
xvli. 12, Exod. iv. 25 (Jer. xi. 16 has 
another sense). The verb περιτέμνω is 
very common. Perhaps the choice of 
this particular compound to denote the 
rite of circumcision is due, as Dsm. (BS., 
Ρ. 151) suggests, to the Egyptian use of it 
as a technical term for the same custom, 
long in vogue among the Egyptians. 
Examples are found in the Papyri. Paul 
uses it here in its strict sense as a token 
of participation in the covenant with God 
and of obligation to maintain it. But the 
further idea belonged to it of being the 
outward symbol of an inward grace. Cf. 
Deut. xxx. 6. As the rite was regarded 
essentially as one of purification, the 


VOL, III. 


grace associated with it was a cleans- 
ing process. This explains expressions 
like that in Jer. ix. 26, etc.—ol . . .« 
λατρεύοντες. The participle has become 
a noun denoting a class of men, spiritual 
worshippers. Contrast Heb. viii. 5, xiii. 
to, and cf. Heb. ix. 14. Most edd. with 
a number of high authorities read Θεοῦ 
(see crit. note supr.). This gives a 
peculiar combination: ‘“‘ who worship by 
the Spirit of God”. But the occurrence 
of σαρκί immediately after clearly sug- 
gests the favourite Pauline antithesis of 
πνεῦμα and σάρξ. In that case Θεῷ, 
which is supported by some excellent 
evidence, would be the natural reading, 
governed by λατρεύοντες. Aptly parallel 
is Rom. i. 9, ὁ Θεὸς ᾧ λατρεύω ἐν τῷ 
πνεύματί pov. Certainly Θεοῦ, as the 
more difficult reading, must be con- 
sidered. But as λατρεύω had come to 
have the technical sense of worshipping 
God, the word might -be altered at an 
early date to get rid of a superfluity.— 
λατρ. In LXX it is used exclusively of 
the service of God, true or false. But itis 
distinguished from its synonym λειτουρ- 
γεῖν as including the worship of the 
people as well as the ritual of the priests 
and Levites. See esp. SH. on Rom. i. 
9.--καυχώμενοι. One of the Apostle’s 
most characteristic words. It expresses 
with great vividness the high level of 
Christian life at which he is living: 
“exulting in Christ Jesus’. It belongs 
to the same triumphant mood which finds 
utterance so often in this Epistle in 
χαίρω. This victorious Christian glad- 
ness ought to sweep them past all earthly 
formalism and bondage to “ beggarly 
elements '.---οὐκ ἐν σ. πεποιθ. οὐκ (in- 
stead of μή) emphasises the actual con- 
dition of their own Christian life.—év 
σαρκί. On the phrase see Dsm., N.T. 
Formel “in Christo,” p. 125, who regards 
it as following the analogy of the Pauline 
ἐν Χριστῷ. This is manifestly so in our 
instance where the expressions stand in 
juxtaposition. Carnem appellat quicquid 
est extra Christum (Calvin). Here σάρξ 
has a double antithesis, both X, Ἰ, and 


29 


450 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΠΙΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


ΠῚ. 


Κα Cor. viii. πεποιθότες - 4. καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων " πεποίθησιν καὶ] ἐν σαρκί" εἴ τις 


22; Eph. 


iii. τα αἱ. 'Boxet ἄλλος 3 πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μᾶλλον: 5. περιτομὴ ὃ 
τας Ἢ ὀκταήμερος, ἐκ " γένους ᾿Ισραήλ, “ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν," » Ἑβραῖος ἐξ 


XViil. το. 


Cond ἃ by Atticists. See Rutherford, New Phryn., 
T, Seen ; n 2 Cor. xi. 26; Gal. i. τοὶ 


in N.T. See note in/r. 


_ a1; Rom. xi. 1 al, LXX, p 2 Cor. xi. 22. 


1 See note in/r. 


‘ees m Only here 
req. in this sense in LXX. 


14. ο Acts xiii. 


1 Οπι. και D*E*FG, 4, 30, 73, d, ε, f, g, Zahn (Luthardt’s Zeitschr., 1885, p. 


184). 


2 αλλος δοκει DEFG, 73, 74, O.L. vg. go. syrP-, Victorin. 
5 Edd. with overwhelming weight of authority περιτοµῃ. 
*So Alf. with ΡΕ. Ti, Trg., W.H., Ws. Βενιαμειν with ΝΑΒΙ, 37", 47, 


Euth.cod, 


πνεύματι. The ordinary use of “self” 
in the popular religious vocabulary corre- 
sponds with wonderful accuracy to the 
Pauline σάρξ (so also Moule). For a 
strangely kindred conception cf. Seneca, 
ad Marc., 24,5: illi (animo) cum hac carne 
grave certamen est (quoted by Hltzm., 
N.T. Th., ii., p. 21). Of course σάρε 
has become a technical term in Paul's 
controversy with the Judaisers, and that 

articular side of its meaning must always 
be kept in view (see Romans and Gala- 
tians passim).—wewou8. The word occurs 
no less than six times in this short 
Epistle. Paul has reached firm con- 
victions on the highest things. He knows 
what he believes and what he rejects. 
That is the real explanation of his strong, 
exultant joy. 

Vv. 4-6. PAUL'S CONFIDENCE IN THE 
FLESH.—Ver. 4. A very close parallel to 
the thought is found in 2 Cor. xi. 18-23. 
-- καίπερ . . - ἔχων. Arare construction 
in N.T. Three exx. occur in Hebrews. 
Viteau (who regards it as a survival of 
the literary language, see Le Verbe, 
Ρ. 189) would resolve the clause and its 
context into el καὶ ἔχω πεποί ν Kal 
ἐν σαρκί, ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποι- 
θότες (p. 117), which seems a reason- 
able εχρ]απα[ίοπ.-- πεποίθησιν. The 
Apostle realised to the full what was in- 
volved in being a Jew. He felt the high 
prerogatives οὗ the chosen people of God. 
Cf. Rom. iii. 1-2. They were the heirs 
of the promises in a unique manner. But 
these remarkable privileges ought to have 
produced in them willing submission to 
God's universal purpose of mercy instead 
of being incentives to mere self-com- 
placency and bitter prejudice.—xal ἐν σ. 
Zahn (see crit. note supr.) omits καί 
with some good authorities, assigning its 
origin to a false exegesis which believed 
that Paul had some fleshly trust besides 


his Christian boasting. But καί seems 
quite in place, as Paul is simply, for the 
moment, regarding himself from a purely 
Jewish standpoint.—«t τις δ. πεπ. “If 
anyone else presumes to trust.” A com- 

lete parallel is Matt. iii. 9, μὴ δόξητε 
.. ἐν ἑαντοῖς. Cf. τ Cor. xi. 16. 
Akin to this use of δοκεῖν is such a pas- 
sage as Aristoph., Ran., 564, μαίνεσθαι 
δοκῶν, “Pretending to be mad”. We 
cannot help thinking that the usage is 
based on the impersonal use of the verb. 
In later Greek δοκεῖν frequently means 
“think,” ¢.g., Acts xxvii. 13; Acta Philip. 
95,1; Plut., Timol., viii., 3. In official 
Greek it is the regular equivalent of Latin 
censere, the technical term to denote the 
opinion of the Senate (see Viereck, Sermo 
Graecus, etc., p. 72). Holst. acutely 
notes that “" δοκεῖ puts the πεποιθ. ἐν σ. 
subjectively, and denies that there is a 
reality corresponding to this false opinion. 
In this subjectivity there is irony.” 

Ver. 5. The Apostle seems to feel 
a certain natural pride in recounting 
his hereditary privileges. — περιτομῇ 
ὀκταήμ. The dative of περιτ. must be 
read, expressing the sphere to which 
ὀκταήμ. belongs. Literally: “ Eight- 
days-old as regards my circumcision’’. 
A.V. satisfies the requirements. He was 
born in Judaism, and lost none of its 
advantages from the outset. Proselytes 
were circumcised as adults. For the usage 
in this sense see the elaborate list of 
parallels in Wetstein on John xi. 39.—é« 
γένους Ἰ. ἐκ often denotes the class or 
country of a man, ¢.g., John iii. 1, Paul 
shared in the glories of the covenant- 
people. Israel was the theocratic name, 
--φνλης B. This tribe stood high in 
Jewish estimation, not only as descending 
from Rachel, Jacob’s best-loved wife, but 
as remaining loyal to the house of David, 
and, after the exile, forming with Judah 





4—6. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


451 


Ἑβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, 6. κατὰ “ ζῆλον "διώκων τὴν 3 4 Rom.x.2; 


ἐκκλησίαν,5 κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος. 


cf. 2 Cor. 
vii, 11, ix. 
2;1 Macc. 
; ii. 58 (A). 
τ Acts xxii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 23 al. 


1So NcDb et cEKLP, Euth.cod., Bas.eth, Edd. ζηλος with Ν"ΑΒΡ"Εᾳ, 


20m. D*FG. 


the foundation of the future nation.— 
Ἕβρ. ἐξ “EBp. For the phrase cf. Herodt., 
2, 143, Πίρωμιν ἐκ Πιρώμιος ; Plat., 
Phaedr., 246 A, ἀγαθοὶ καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν. 
The force of these words has been 
variously estimated. Lft. and others 
draw a contrast between Ἑβραῖος and 
Ἑλληνιστής, the former being a Jew who 
retained the Hebrew language and cus- 
toms (see Acts vi. 1). But Euseb., 
H.E., 2, 4, 2, applies the designation to 
Philo, and in Praep. Evang., xiii., 11, 2, 
to Aristobulus, both of them Greek-speak- 
ing Jews with little if any knowledge of 
Hebrew. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 22. The Greek 
Comm., Th. Mps. and Thdrt., believe 
that, in using the ancient name, Paul 
wishes to emphasise the purity of his 
lineage. Probably they are right.—xara 
νόμον. Are we to distinguish between 
νόμος and ὁ νόμος in Paul? Attempts 
have been made (notably that of Gifford, 
Romans in Speaker’s Comm., pp. 41-48) 
to show that when Paul omits the article 
he is thinking mainly of the principle of 
law as a method of justification in oppo- 
sition to faith, etc. In our judgment it 
has been made abundantly clear by Grafe 
(Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz, pp. 
1-11) that, for the Apostle, νόμος with or 
without the article means the Ο.Τ. reve- 
lation of the will of God. He makes no 
distinction between a general conception 
of Divine law and the special one of the 
Mosaic law. The Mosaic law is for him 
the Divine law pure and simple, and 
therefore has a universal bearing. There 
are, of course, modifications of this cen- 
tral idea, but they can all be satisfactorily 
accounted for. Often the insertion or 
omission of the article with νόμος is 
entirely a question of formal grammar. 
Here νόμος is plainly the law of Moses. 
—apicaios. Cf. Acts xxiii. 6. For an 
interesting discussion of the influence of 
the school of Hillel upon Paul see Wab- 
nitz, Revue Théol., xiii., p. 287 ff. The 
survivals of Rabbinic doctrines and 
methods in Paul’s thought, however, 
must neither be exaggerated, nor, because 
they are Rabbinic, be contemptuously 
dismissed. “1 God was not moving in 


ὅθεου added by FG, 122, f, vg., Aug., Ambrst. 


the Rabbinic thought of Christ’s day, 
what reason have we to say He... 
moves in the thought of to-day 2” (Ρ. Τ. 
Forsyth). Almost certainly Paul’s family 
must have been in thorough sympathy 
with strict Judaism. No doubt he would 
be disowned by them, and this, as Ramsay 
notes (94. Paul, p. 36), would give special 
force to his words in ver. 8 infr. 

Ver. 6. Probably ζῆλος (neuter) is the 
correct form here. In N.T. the neuter 
occurs only in 2 Cor. ix. 2, but it is found 
in Ignat., and, alternately with ὁ ζ., in 
1 Clem. It is perhaps colloquial (so 
W-Sch., p. 84), although 6 {. is that used 
in LXX. ζῆλος would almost have a 
technical meaning for a strict Jew at that 
time in connexion with the fanatical party 
among the Pharisees who called them- 
selves ζηλωταί (cf. Schiirer, i., 2, p. 80 
ff.). Cf. Gal. i. 14, περισσοτέρως ζη- 
λωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παρα- 
δόσεων.---διώκ. τ. ἐκκλησ. Cf. Gal. i. 
13, ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὁ 
διώκων is, in classical Greek, the techni- 
cal term for the “‘ pursuer”’ or prosecutor 
in the law-courts. Strangely enough it 
was by means of prosecutions that Paul 
usually persecuted.—kata δικ. τ. ἐν ν. 
‘** According to (4.6., tested by the stan- 
dard of) the righteousness which belongs 
to the sphere of the law.” Of course 
this righteousness, which is here equiva- 
lent to right conduct as a whole, is re- 
garded from the point of view of that 
which justifies before God. For the ex- 
ceptional prominence which righteousness 
has in Jewish religious thought, see esp. 
Weber, Lehvren des Talmud, pp. 260- 
270, and Charles’ admirable note on 
Apocal. of Baruch, xxiv. 1. Cf. Ps. 
Sol. ix. g for a very precise formula- 
tion of Jewish thought on this subject. 
It would be wrong to limit δικ. here 
merely to ceremonial observances. It 
includes, most probably, the ordinary 
moral precepts of the law as well.— 
ἄμεμπτος. Exactly parallel to this de- 
scription is the case of the rich young 
man in the Gospels. He also could 
claim to be κατὰ δικ. τ. ἐν voy. ἄμεμπ. 
It was at the next step (ver. 7) that 


452 


5 See note 
infr., and 
on cha 
i. 21. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


ΠῚ, 


7. ἀλλ᾽ ἅτινα" ἦν μοι "κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν 'ζημίαν. 
Ρ. 8, ἀλλὰ “ μενοῦνγε 2 καὶ ὃ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ " ὕπερ- 


wy, Aste éxov τῆς “ γνώσεως Χριστοῦ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὃ τοῦ Κυρίου μου δ: δι ὃν τὰ 
u Rom. ix. πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι "σκύβαλα εἶναι, ἵνα Χριστὸν 
20, X. 


v See 


W-M., p. 
y Only eve ia Ν.Τ. Common in later Greek. 


να Cor. x. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 18 al. 


(Freq. in Paul.) x Matt. xvi. 26; 1 Cor. iii. 15. 


1 Ti, ατινα alone with ΝΔ, 17, ἃ, e, g, Euth.cod., Cyr., Lucif., Amb, 


2So Ti., Ws., W.H. with NAP, 17, 37, kSer., oser., cop., Did., Euth.cod., Cyr., 
Thphl. Trg., Alf, Myr., Lft. μὲν ουν with BDEFGKL, Chr. See Ws., TK., p. 


104. 


8 Om. και 8”, 80, f, vgcle. go. cop. zth. 


, Cyr., Lucif. See Ws., ΤΚ., p. 110, who 


points out that καὶ is often omitted even in ancient MSS. 
*rov X. 1.: B, Thdrt. Prob. to conform to διὰ τὸν X. or τῆς γνώσ. See Ws., 


TK., p. 73- 


Sino. Χρισ. AKP, ἢ, vg. go. syrsch. eth., Bas., Chr., Euth. 
δημων AP, syrP- arm. eth., Did., Bas., Cyr., Lucif. 


7 So Alf. with NcADcEKLP, syrp- 
edd. with ΝΒΡ ἜΘ, 17, d, e, 


ef 


Did., Bas., Chr., Cyr., Aug. Om. ειναι 
vg. cop. syrsch. arm. eth., Lucif., 


Victorin. There is some force in Meyer's argument that ειναι might easily drop 


out before ινα. 


he stopped short. He was unable to 
“count all things loss for Christ ’’. 

Vv. 7-9. EARTHLY GAINS COUNTED 
LOSS THAT HE MIGHT WIN CHRIST.— 
Ver. 7. ἀλλ' ἅτινα. Although in later 
Greek ὅστις had lost almost all its 
peculiar force and become simply = ὅς 
(e.g., Matt. xxii. 2, ete. Cf. Jebb in 
Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook, p. 
302), one feels that something of that 
force is present here. ‘ But these things, 
although they were of a class that was 
really gain to me.”’ Nom de ipsa lege 
loquitur, sed de justitia quae in lege est 
(Estius). The prerogatives mentioned 
above were real privileges viewed from his 
old Jewish standpoint, might even be 
justly regarded as paving the way to sal- 
vation.—xép$y. In the plural it usually 
refers to money (see Jebb on Soph., 
Antig., 1326). Perhaps the idea of sepa- 
rate items of profit is before the Apostle’s 
mind (so also Vaughan). For the anti- 
thesis between κέρδη and ζημίαν cf. 
Aristotle, Eth. Nicom., 5, 4, 6, τὸ 
τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ πλέον τοῦ κακοῦ δὲ ἔλαττον 
κέρδος, τὸ δὲ ἐναντίον ζημία.--ἥγημαι 
...ἴημ. “I have considered and still 
consider.”” Tersely, Thdrt., περιττὸς . . - 
ὁ λύχνος, TOD ἡλίου φανέντος. 

On vv. 8-11 see Rainy’s admirable ex- 
position in Expos. Bible, pp. 200-256.— 
Ver. 8. ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε. Probably γε 
ought to be aad tate crit. note supr.), as 
its absence in some good authorities is 


accounted for by the ease with which it 
could be omitted (so D omits it in 2 Cor. 
xi. 16; DFGin Rom. viii. 32; Bin Rom. 
ix. 20). Almost = “ Nay, that isa feeble 
way of expressing it ; I can go further and 
say,” εἰς. ἀλλά suggests a contrast to 
be introduced, μέν adds emphasis, while 
οὖν, gathering up what has already been 
said, corrects it by way of extending 
his assertion (ye can scarcely be trans- 
lated, representing, rather, a tone of the 
voice in taking back the limitations im- 
plied in ἅτινα . . κέρδη). “Nay 
rather, I actually count al/ things,” etc. 
We cannot well see, in view of the natural 
translation of ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε, how the 
emphasis could be Iaido any other word 
than πάντα. There is no need for con- 
trasting ἥγημαι and ἡγοῦμαι. He does 
not compare present and past. ἥγημαι 
already expresses the fixed decision to 
which he has come. He has spoken of 
regarding his important Jewish preroga- 
tives as “‘loss"’ for Christ’s sake. Now 
he widens the range to πάντα. This is 
the goal of Christian life. It is not to be 
divided up between Christ and earthli- 
ness. It is not to express itself in atten- 
tion to certain details. ‘If we should 
say some things, we might be in danger 
of sliding into a one-sided puritanism” 
(Rainy, of. cit., p. 191).—1d ὑπερέχον τ. 
γνώσ. X. Ἰ. κ.τ.λ. An instance of the 
extraordinary predilection of the later 
language for forming abstract substan- 








7-9. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


453 


κερδήσω, 9. καὶ "εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν ! δικαιοσύνην τὴν 2 Luke xvii. 


18; Rom, 


ἐκ νόμου, ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἘΣ 10; 1 


or. iv. 2 
al. 


Ν΄ places ep. after Sux. 


tives from adjectives and participles. Cf. 
2 Cor. iv. 17, τὸ . . . ἐλαφρὸν τῆς 
θλίψεως ἡμῶν. Probably = “the sur- 
passing (or supreme) thing which con- 
sists in the knowledge,” etc. ‘‘ We be- 
held His glory.” That glory outshines all 
this earth’s guiding-stars.—r. γνώσεως. 
This knowledge on which Paul is so fond 
of dwelling is, as Beysch. well expresses 
it, ‘‘ the reflection of faith in our reason ”’ 
(op. cit., ii., p. 177). It is directly con- 
nected with the surrender of the soul to 
Christ, but, as Paul teaches, that always 
means a close intimacy with Him, from 
which there springs an ever-growing 
knowledge of His spirit and will. Such 
knowledge lays a stable foundation for 
the Christian character, preventing it 
from evaporating into a mere unreason- 
ing emotionalism. The conception,which 
is prominent in Paul’s writings, is based 
on the O.T. idea of the knowledge of 
God. That is always practical, religious, 
To know God is to revere Him, to be 
godly, for to know Him is to understand 
the revelation He has given of Himself. 
Cf. Isa. xi. 2, Hab. ii. 14. It is natural 
that in the later Epistles this aspect of 
the spiritual life should come into the 
foreground, seeing that already the 
Christian faith was being confronted by 
other explanations of man’s relation to 
God. To know Christ, the Apostle 
teaches, is to have the key which will 
unlock all the secrets of existence viewed 
from the standpoint of religion.—rod 
Κυρίου p. It was as Κύριος, the ex- 
alted Lord, that Paul first knew Christ. 
And always it is from this standpoint 
he looks backwards and forwards. To 
recognise this is to understand his doc- 
trinal teaching.—8v ὃν τ. πάντα ἐζη- 
μιώθην. τὰ πάντα = “ the sum-total”’ as 
opposed to a part. (So also Holst.) 
Perhaps in contrasting ἐζημ.απἀκερδήσω, 
as in the similar contrast in ver. 7, he 
may have in view our Lord’s words in 
Matt. xvi. 26. In N.T. only the passive 
of ζημιόω is used with various construc- 
tions. [It gives good sense to regard καὶ 
ἡγ. σκύβ. as a parenthesis, and thus to 
make ἵνα κερδ. along with its parallel 
τοῦ γνῶναι depend on ἐζημ. In this case 
the Apostle speaks from the standpoint of 
his conversion. See J. Weiss, Th. LZ., 


1899, col. 264.]--σκύβαλα. The deri- 
vation is uncertain. It is most probably 
connected with σκῶρ, “dung”. It is 
often used in this sense itself, but also 
in the wider meaning of any “ refuse,’ 
such as the remains of a banquet. See a 
large collection of exx. from late writers 
in Wetstein and Lft., and cf. the apt 
parallel in Plautus, Truc., ii., 7, 5, Ama- 
tor qui bona sua pro stercore habet. Pro- 
bably εἶναι ought to be omitted, although 
there is great divergence in the authori- 
ties. (See crit. note supr.) It might 
easily be inserted as parallel to the pre- 
ceding εἶναι.- ἵνα Χ. κερδήσω. “ That I 
may win Christ.” There is nothing 
mechanical or fixed about fellowship with 
Christ. It may be interrupted by decay 
of zeal, the intrusion of the earthly spirit, 
the toleration of known sins, the easy 
domination of self-will, and countless 
other causes. Hence, to maintain it, there 
must be the continuous estimating of 
earthly things at their true value. Ac- 
cordingly he looks on ‘‘ winning Christ” 
as something present and future, not as 
a past act. (As to the form, an aorist 
ἐκέρδησα is found in Herod., Joseph., 
LXX, etc. See Kihner-Blass, Gramm., 
Πρ Ps 457.) 

Ver. 9. εὑρεθῶ. It is probably used 
here in the semi-technical sense which 
it received in post-classical Greek = 
τυγχάνω with participle (French se trou- 
ver), ‘turn out actually to be”. ‘‘And 
actually be in Him,” from the eschato- 
logical standpoint (see Viteau, Le Verbe, 
Ῥ. 192). The idea is involved of a re- 
velation of real character. Cf. Gal. ii. 
17, εἰ δὲ . . . εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ 
ἁμαρτωλοί.---ἐν αὐτῷ. The central fact 
of Paul’s religious life and thought, the 
complete identification of the believer 
with Christ—py ἔχων. μή either de- 
pends directly on ἵνα or is used to express 
Paul’s own view of what is implied in 
εὗρεθ. ἐν a. This last thought must be 
regarded as the basis on which the 
clauses immediately following rest. — 
ἐμὴν Sux. ‘* A righteousness of my own.” 
Cf. Apoc. of Bar., Γκ. 3, “then Hezekiah 
trusted in his works and had hope in 
his righteousness”. The noun δικ. is 
anarthrous to emphasise the idea belong- 
ing to it in its essential force. ἐμήν is 





454 






ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ Il. | 


a Luke i. 73; ἐπὶ 1 τῇ πίστει" Το. "τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς 


Rom. vi. 
6, vii. 3. 
See Blass, 
Gramm., 


p.231. b2Cor.i.5; τ Pet. iv. 13 


ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ thy? κοινωνίαν τῶν ὃ "ἢ παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, 


1 D*E*, O.L. vg. ἐν mora. LP, syrp, Baseth., Chr., connect this clause with 


the words following. 


2So DEFGKLP, Bas., Chr., Euth.cod, Thdrt. Edd. om. την with S*AB. 
Meyer keeps τὴν, which he supposes to have been ‘overlooked as unnecessary”. 


8 80 Lach., Alf. with QcADEFGKLP. 


HB. 


added to define, and then the definition 
is elaborated by the clause with the 
article. An instructive parallel is Gal. 
ii. 20, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
(see an important note in Green, Gram. 
of N.T., pp. 34-35). δικαιοσύνη, as 
usually in Paul's writings, means a right 
relation between him and God. The 
retention of the word by Paul to denote 
the position of the Christian before God 
is, as Holst. (Paulin. Theol., p. 64) points 
out, a proof of his close connexion with 
the Jewish consciousness. We may call 
it a “forensic ” word, for certainly there 
always lies behind it the idea of a stan- 
dard appointed by God, a law, the ex- 
pression of the Divine will. The qualify- 
ing words here show what Paul has in 
view.—rhy ἐκ νόμον. Cf. the lament for 
the destruction of Jerusalem in Afoc. of 
Bar., \xvii. 6, “τῆς vapour of the smoke of 
the incense of righteousness which is by 
the law is extinguished in Zion” (and 
see Charles’ note on xv. 5). This hypo- 
thetical δικ., which he calls his own, could 
only spring from complete conformity to 
the will of God as revealed in precepts 
and commands. That is the kind of 
relation to God which Paul has found 
to be impossible. On νόμος without the 
article see on νετ. 5 supr. 


δικαιοσύνη which Paul prizes must be 
carefully noted. The presupposition of 
possessing it is ‘‘to be found in Christ”. 
It is not a righteousness which he can 
win by legal observances. It springs 
from God. What does this new relation 
to God precisely mean? The one con- 
dition of understanding the Apostle’s 
language is to remember that he com- 
bines in his thinking two conceptions of 
δικαιοσύνη, or perhaps we should rather 
say that his own experience has made vivid 
for him a two-sided conception of this 
relation. On the one hand, he thinks of 
δικ. as connected with God, the Judge of 
men. God, strictly marking sin, might 


Ti., Trg., Ws., W.H. om. των with 


condemn men absolutely, because all have 
sinned. Instead of that, because of His 
grace manifested in Jesus Christ the 
crucified and working through Christ's 
death, He deals mercifully with sinners, 


treats them as righteous on account of 


the propitiation made by the Righteous 
One, treats them as standing in a right 
relation to Himself, ἐ.ε., pardons them. 
δικαιοσύνη thus comes to be God's 
gracious way of dealing with us, “ for- 
giveness with the Forgiver in it’’ (Rainy, 
op. cit., p. 231), the relation with God 
into which we are brought by His grace for 
Jesus’ sake, regarded more or less as an 
activity of His, practically = salvation 
(which, already in O.T., rested upon the 
rectitude of God's character, see, ¢.g., Isa. 
li. 5-8, Ps. xeviii. 2). God's justifying οἱ 
us makes us δίκαιοι in His sight: we 

sess δικαιοσύνη. That, however, might 
appear arbitrary. But the Apostle gives 
no ground for such a suspicion, ri 
δικ. ἐκ Θεοῦ is only reached “through 
the faith of Christ,” é.¢., the faith which 
Christ kindles, of which He is the author, 
which, also, He nourishes and main- 
tains (see esp. Hausslciter, Greifswald. 
Studien, pp. 177-178). This δικ, is 
securely founded on faith ‘in Christ 
(ἐπὶ τῇ π᾿). But what does such 
faith effect? It is that which makes 
the believer one with Christ. He shares 
in all that his Lord possesses. Christ 
imparts life to him. Christ's relation to 
the Father becomes his. But this is no 
longer a being regarded or dealt with oe 
God a if he were δίκαιος. Union wii 
Christ makes it possible for the Christian 
to be δίκαιος, to show himself such in 
actual behaviour. Thus δικ may 
express something more than the relation 
to God into which believers are brought 
by God’s justifying judgment (which for 
their experience means the sense of for- 
giveness with the Forgiver init), It em- 
braces the conduct which is the r 

to that forgiving love of God, a love only 
bestowed on the soul united to Christ by 





1Ο. 


faith (see esp. Pfleid., Ραμηι., i., p. 
175; Hitzm., N.T. Th., ii., pp. 127-129, 
138-139; Haring, Δικ. Θεοῦ bet Pazlus, 
Tubingen, 1896; Kélbing, SK., 1895, 
7 ff.; Denney, Expfos., vi., 3, p. 433 ff., 4, 
Ῥ. 299 ff., Holst., Paulin. Th., pp. 65-66). 
Vv. 10-11,—CONFORMITY TO CHRIST’S 
DEATH AND RESURRECTION. — Ver. το. 
τοῦ γνῶναι. This infinitive οί purpose 
or motive is frequent in N.T. and later 
Greek. Among classical authors it is 
chiefly found in Thucyd., who favours it 
(see Goodwin, MT., p. 319; Viteau, Le 
Verbe, p. 169 ff.). It is perhaps connected 
with the use of the genitive after verbs of 
aiming, hitting, etc. Paul has already 
spoken in ver. 8 of the γνῶσις of Christ. 
This thought again appeals to him, but 
now as being the natural development of 
winning Christ and being found in Him. 
For with Paul this Christian Gnosis is the 
highest reach of Christian experience. 
Cf. Wordsworth, Excursion, Bk. iv. :— 


For knowledge is delight, and such delight 
Breeds love : yet suited as it rather is 

To thought and to the climbing intellect, 
It teaches less to love than to adore; 

If that be not indeed the highest love. 


γνῶσις is the necessary result of intimate 
communion with Christ. No better com- 
ment on the thought can be found than 
Eph. i. 11-20. Cf., as a most instructive 
parallel, John xvii. 3. The precise force 
of γνῶναι as opposed to εἰδέναι κ.τ.λ. is 
admirably brought out by Lft. on Gal. iv. 
9, where he shows that yv. (1) has in 
view “an earlier state of ignorance” or 
‘fsome prior facts on which the know- 
ledge is based,” and (2) contains ‘the 
ideas of thoroughness, familiarity, or of 
approbation’. yv. emphasises ‘‘ the pro- 
cess of redemption”.—rhv δύναμιν τ. 
ἄνασ. . κοινωνίαν παθημ. . . . 
συμμορφ. . . . τῷ θανάτῳ. As to read- 
ings, τήν must be omitted (with the best 
authorities) before κοιν., because the latter 
forms one idea with the preceding clause. 
In the case of τῶν it is more difficult to 
decide. But the evidence, both external 
and internal, is, on the whole, against it. 
συμμορφιζόμενος is clearly right, having 
unassailable attestation.—In this passage 
we have the deepestsecrets ofthe Apostle’s 
Christian experience unveiled. Qui εκ- 
pertus non fuerit, non intelliget (Anselm). 
Two experiences are described which can- 
not be separated: the experimental know- 
ledge of the believer embraces (1) the 
power of Christ’s resurrection, (2) the 
fellowship of His sufferings, conformity to 
His death, Paul putstheresurrection first, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


455 


because it was the Risen Christ he came 
to know; it was that knowledge which 
gave him insight into the real meaning ot 
Christ’s sufferings and death. But here 
he thinks altogether of a spiritual process 
which is carried on in the soul of him 
who is united to Christ. He has no idea 
of martyrdom before him (so, e.g., De W., 
Myr.). Nor is any earthly suffering pre- 
sent to his mind except, perhaps, as a 
discipline which overcomes sin. Thus 
Col. i. 24 is nota true parallel (so also 
Hpt.). The passages which illuminate 
his meaning are especially Rom, vi. 3- 
12, Viil. 29, Gal. ii. 19-20, vi. 14. Christ, 
in Paul’s view, carries the man who clings 
to Him in faith through all the great 
crises which came to Him on the path of 
His perfecting. The deepest of men’s 
saving experiences run parallel, as it were, 
to the cardinal events of the Christian 
revelation, more especially to that aton- 
ing death accomplished once for all for 
the remission of sins. Cf. Rom. vi. 5, 
σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ 

ανάτου αὐτοῦ. Thisis the “ crucifying 
of the flesh” in fellowship with Christ, 
which results in ‘‘ newness of life ” (Rom. 
vi. 4). On the Cross Christ died, 7.e., 
the earthly part in Him died—His human 
flesh. But that was the only element in 
Him that could be tempted. And, as 
regards that element of His being, He 
died victorious, able to offer up His 
human life without spot unto God. They 
that are Christ’s are enabled, by His 
power communicated to them, through a 
process of overcoming, to die to earthli- 
ness and the appeals made to their fleshly 
nature. But in dying on the Cross Christ 
identified Himself with the sin of the 
world, acknowledging that God’s judg- 
ment upon sin was righteous and true, as 
the Head of mankind representing sinners 
and bearing the burden of their trans- 
gression. So, in the Apostle’s view, they 
that are Christ’s have the firm assurance 
that in Him the Crucified they have made 
full confession of their sin to the holy and 
gracious God. They know, by the wit- 
ness of the Holy Spirit, that God accepts 
that confession and forgives them freely 
and joyfully. For they know that Holi- 
ness has accepted Love, and that Love 
has acknowledged Holiness, or rather, 
that the holy love of the Father and the 
Son is revealed in its unity on the Cross 
of Christ. The result of death with Christ 
is lifein Him. This new life depends on 
Christ’s resurrection. ‘‘ Because I live, 
ye shall live 4150. The power (δύναμιν) 
of His resurrection as experienced by the 


456 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


ΠῚ, 


ore. 8 "συμμορφούμενος | τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, 11. εἴ πως “ καταντήσω εἰς τὴν 


ΟΝ " ἐξανάστασιν τῶν 2 νεκρῶν. 


12. οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον, ἢ ἤδη ἕτετε- 


only here λείωμαι 8 © διώκω δέ, εἰ καὶ ὁ καταλάβω ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ ὅ > κατελήφθην ὃ 


ἐπ ΟΜ 
τ; Eph. iv. 13. e Only here in N.T. 
h Rom, ix. 30; 1 Cor. ix. 24; Sirach xv. 7. 


1So NcDcEKL, Bas., Chr., Thdrt. 

ος with 
Lucif., Victorin. συνφορτειζομενος. 

2 So Myr., with KL, arm. co 
with KABDEP, 17, 31 εἰ al., 
Fet.Gét., των εκ. 
not found elsewhere in N.T., 


f Cf. Heb. ii. το, ν. 9; Wisd. iv. 13. 


ἘΞ Ἢ 
W*ABD*P, 17, 67**, 71, Ruth.col, 


g See note in/r. 


rg., Alf., Ws., W.H. συμμορφιζο- 
Bas. FG, d, e, δ. go., Iren., 


. Thdrt., Thphl. Edd. (exc. Myr.) την ex 
e, f, g, vg. go. syrr., ¢ , Bas., Euth.cod., Chr. 
Myr. πὰ μια that εκ was written in margin to explain εξαν., 
and that so the erroneous insertion of this ex after 


των produced τὴν ex vex. This is improbable. 
* D*EFG, ἆ, ε, f, g, Iren., Ambrst. add η ηδη δεδικαιωμαι (FG? δικαιωμαι, G* 


δικαιομαι). 


480 edd. with NcABDcE**KLP, Clem., Eus., Ματς,, Chr., Euth.cod., Thdrt. 


Ti. om. και with ΡΕ ΕΟ, 39, 112, d, e, f, g, vg., Tert., 


® Om. Det.* Eet.Fer.G, 67°*, Tert. 


Hil., Victorin., Ambrst. 


59ο BeDcEKLP. Edd. κατελημφθ. with NAB*D*FG. 


believer is the effect ot His victory 
over death and sin; that victory which 
has given Him all power in heaven and 
earth; which enables Him to impart 
of His own life to those who are in His 
fellowship. It is not they who live but 
“Christ liveth in’ them. The organic 
connexion between Christ and _ the 
Christian is the regulating idea for the 
Apostle. Christ is, as we have said, the 
Head and representative of humanity. 
Hence conformity to Christ (Rom. viii. 29, 
προώρισεν vs τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ 
νἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) all along the line, both in 
living and dying, is a return to the 
divinely-purposed type, for man was made 
in the image of God (see loc. cit., εἰς τὸ 
εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελ- 
dois). ‘In this appropriation of the death 
and rising of the Lord Jesus . . . there 
are three stages, corresponding to the 
Friday, Saturday and Sunday of Easter- 
tide. Christ died for our sins: He was 
buried: He rose again the third day. 
So, by consequence, ‘I am _ crucified 
with Christ: no longer do I live: Christ 
liveth in me’”’ (Findlay, Galat. in Ex- 
pos. Bible, p. 159). On the whole 
thought of this passage, see Pfleiderer, 
Paulinism, i i., pp. 169, 192-207; Denney, 
τῷ στὰ vi., 4, Ῥ. 299 ff. 

Ver. 11. εἴ πως καταντ. This con- 
struction closely corresponds to the 
Homeric usage of εἴ κε or ἤν (as in 
Odyss., 3, 83, πατρὸς ἐμοῦ κλέος μετέρ- 
χομαι, ἦν που ἀκούσω) where the pro- 


tasis really contains in itself its own 
osis '' which consists of an implied 
idea of purpose" or hope (see Goodwin, 
MT.,p.180; Burton, MT.,§ 276; Viteau, 
Le Verbe, pp. 62, 116). Here the clause 
is almost equivalent to an indirect ques- 
tion, The Resurrection is the Apostle’s 
goal, for it will mean perfect, unbroken 
knowledge of Christ and fellowship with 
Him. Paul knows by experience the 
difficulty of remaining loyal to the end, 
of being so conformed to Christ’s death 
that the power of sin will not revive 
its mastery over him. So his apparent 
uncertainty here of reaching the goal is 
not distrust of God. It is distrust of 
himself. It emphasises the need he feels 
of watchfulness and constant striving (cf. 
διώκω, ver. 12), lest “ having preached to 
others’ he “ be found a castaway” (1 
Cor. ix. 27. Vv. 24-27 of this chap., 
along with Rom. viii. 17, are the best 
parallel to the passage before us). But, 
on the other side, he is always reminded 
that “faithful is He that calleth you” 
(τ Thess. v. 24).---καταντήσω. Pr By 
aorist subjunctive (as corresponding wi 
καταλάβω in ver. 12).--τὴν ἐξαν. τ. 
vexp. Authority, both external and in- 
ternal, supports the reading τὴν ἐκ ο. 
ἐξανάστ. is found nowhere else in Ν.Τ., 
and never in LXX. In later Greek it 
means “expulsion”. It occurs only here 
in this sense. Holst. suggests that έξαν. 
is used here of the actual resurrection, 
because ἀνάστασις was used above of 


11.:-Υὕ2. 


believers with an ethical, ideal meaning. 
We are disposed to believe (with Ws. 
and others) that Paul is thinking only of 
the resurrection of believers (cf. Ps. Sol. 
iii, 13-16 for Jewish thought on this sub- 
ject, the thought which had been Paul’s 
mental atmosphere). This is his usual 
standpoint. In the famous passage I 
Cor. xv. 12 ff. it is exclusively of Chris- 
tians he speaks. We have no informa- 
tion as to what he taught regarding 
a general resurrection. But considering 
that it is with spontaneous, artless letters 
we have to do, and not with theoretical 
discussions, it would be hazardous to 
say that he ignored or denied a general 
resurrection. For him the resurrection 
of Christians depends on and is con- 
formed to the resurrection of their Lord. 
Teichmann (Auferstehung u. Gericht, p. 
67), comparing chap. i. 23 with this 
passage, holds that Paul, although he 
has replaced the idea of resurrection by 
that of a continuous existence after death, 
occasionally (as here) uses the traditional 
termini technici. This may be so. More 
probably at one time he would give pro- 
minence to the thought of uninterrupted 
fellowship with Christ after death, while 
at another his longings would centre 
round the great crisis when Christ should 
acknowledge all His faithful servants and 
make them full sharers in His glory. It 
is not to be doubted that Paul, like the 
rest of the early Christians, expected that 
crisis soon to come, 

Vv. 12-16. THE MARK OF THE MATURE 
CHRISTIAN,—TO PRESS FORWARD.—Ver. 
12. οὐχ ὅτι. There is a curious differ- 
ence (see W-M., p. 746) between the use 
of this phrase in classical and in N.T. 
Greek. λέγω is understood in both cases, 
but in the classical language the usage 
is rhetorical = “not only, but”. InN.T. 
its purpose is to guard against misunder- 
standing, ‘(I do not mean that,” etc.— 
ἔλαβον. The aorist sums up the Apostle’s 
experiences as far as the point he has 
reached, looking at it (with the usual 
force of the aorist) as a single fact. In 
English, of course, we must translate, 
‘Not that I have already attained” (so 
R.V.). In Greek a sharper distinction is 
made between past and present. Cf. 
John xvii. 4, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς; τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας. It is needless 
to ask what is the object of ἔλαβον. 
None is required, just as we speak of 
“attaining”. He has in view all that is 
involved in winning Christ and knowing 
Him. Probably the remaining verses of 
this paragraph are a caution to some at 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


457 


Philippi who were claiming high sanctity, 
and so affecting superior airs towards 
their brethren. This would naturally lead 
to irritation and jealousies.—rTereAclopar. 
The interesting variant δεδικαίωμαι (cf. 
1 Cor. iv. 4) is plainly very ancient, the 
gloss, probably, of some pious copyist 
who imagined that the Divine side of 
sanctification was left too much out of 
sight. τελειόω is a favourite word of the 
writer to the Hebrews. It means literally 
“to bring to the end” determined by 
God. See Bleek, Heb. Brief., ii., 1, 
Ρ. 299. Astriking parallel to our passage 
is Philo, Leg. Alleg., iii., 23 (ed. Cohn), 
πότε οὖν, ὦ ψυχή; μάλιστα νεκροφορεῖν 
σαυτὴν ὑπολήψῃ; apa γε οὐχ ὅταν 
τελειωθῇς καὶ βραβείων καὶ στεφάνων 
ἀξιωθῇς; ἔσῃ γὰρ τότε φιλόθεος, οὐ 
φιλοσώματος.---διώκω. Itis unnecessary 
to assume the metaphor of the race- 
course. δι. and καταλαμβάνω are corre- 
lative words (δι. esp. frequent in Paul) = 
‘seek and find,” “ pursue and overtake”. 
Cf. Rom. ix. 30, Exod. xv. ο (LXX). Of 
course both may be used with a meta- 
phorical colour. Cf. τ Cor. ix. 24, and 
also 2 Clem. xviii. 2 (quoted by Wohl.). 
—ei καὶ καταλ. See on εἴ πως καταντ. 
supr. The subjunctive here is delibera- 
tive as being in an indirect question (see 
Blass, Gramm., p. 206). We believe καί 
ought to be read, as it would very easily 
slip out before κατ. It emphasises the 
correspondence with the following κατε- 
λήμφθην, and may possibly be a sort of 
correction of et πως in the previous verse, 
‘tin the hope that I may really grasp (do 
my partin grasping)”. Hpt. quotes aptly 
from Luther: ‘ein Christ ist nicht im 
Wordensein sondern im Werden, darum 
wer ein Christ ist, ist kein Christ ”.— 
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. Two distinct interpretations are 
possible and equally good. It may (1) 
be = ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, ‘“‘for this reason, 
viz., that I,” etc., or (2) = τοῦτο ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, 
“that with a view to which I,” etc. 
Whichever be chosen, the sense remains 
the same. Paul lays, as it were, the re- 
sponsibility of his attaining upon Christ. 
Christ’s grasp of his whole being (κατε- 
λήμφθην) must have a definite purpose 
in it. Paul’s Christian progress is the 
only thing that can correspond (kat) to 
his experience of Christ’s power.—X. Ἰ. 
τοῦ is certainly to be omitted. It is 
difficult to decide whether Ἰ, ought to 
be read or not. There is some force in 
the remark of Ws. that there would be 
no motive for adding *I., while X. alone 
would follow the analogy of vv. 8-9 (see 
Ws., TK., p. 88). 





ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


iRom. til ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. 13. ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ" ' λογίζομαι 
: οσο κατειληφέναι - "ἕν δέ, τὰ μὲν ᾿ ὀπίσω " ἐπιλανθανόμενος, τοῖς ὃ δὲ 


εἶηρας,ο. ἔμπροσθεν 5 ἐπεκτεινόμενος, 14. κατὰ " σκοπὸν “ διώκω ἐπὶ" τὸ 
2 Cor. 1x. 


6; Gal. ii. 9, v. 13 (see Blass, Gr., 287-288). 1 See note in/r. m Heb. vi. 10, xiii. 2 (with t.). 
Here whet y tin Μη dt eee hen with this constrn. in LXX. n This phrase οἱ here 
in N.T. See note infr. oOnlyhereinN.T. p Only herein N.T. Job xvi. 13; Lam. iii. 12; 


Wisd. v.12. ϱ See on ver. 12 supr. 

1So KL, Thdrt. Ti., Ws. X. 1. with ΝΑΡ, 47, 73, 80, 1ο, c8cr., fier. 
syrp- mg. cop. arm., Chr., Aug., Ambrst. Trg., Alf, Myr. X. with BD*E*FG, 17, 
179, d, e, g, go. eth., Clem., Marc., Hil., Victorin. 

2So Lach., Trg., Alf, Ws. (W.H. mg.) with BDcEFGEL, d, e, f, g, vg. go. 
syr.sch. et p. arm., Tert., Chr., Victorin. Ti., W.H. (Γ ονπω with ΝΑ ΡΕΤ."Β, 17, 


23°, 31 εἰ al., cop. eth., Clem., Bas., Euth,cod., Thdrt, 


2 D*FG, d, ε, f, g, vg. εἰς δε Ta. 


4So DEFGKLP, Bas., Chr., Thdrt. Edd. εἰς with AB, 17, 73, 80, Clem., 
Euth.cod., Cyr. Myr. thinks that επι is explanatory. 


Ver. 13. ἀδελφοί. This direct appeal 
to them shows that he is approaching a 
matter which is of serious concern both 
to him and them.—ty® ἐμαντόν. Why 
such strong personal emphasis? Is it not 
a clear hint that there were people at 
Philippi who prided themselves on having 
grasped the prize of the Christian calling 
already? Paul has been tacitly leading 
up to this. He will yield to none im clear 
knowledge of the difference between the 
old and the new life. He knows more 
surely than any how completely he has 
broken with the past. Yet, whatever 
others may say, he must assume the 
lowly position of one who is still a learner. 
It makes little difference whether οὐ or 
οὕπω be read. The authorities are pretty 
evenly balanced.—Aoyifopar. The word 
(often used by Paul) has the force of 
looking back on the process of a discus- 
sion and calmly drawing a conclusion. 
Cf. Rom. viii. 18 (with note of SH.). 
The Apostle expresses his deliberately 
formed opinion.—éy δέ. There is no need 
to supply a verb. His Christian conduct 
is summed up in what follows. Never 
has there been a more unified life than 
that of Paul as Apostle and Christian. 
“ When all is said, the greatest art is to 
limit and isolate oneself" (Goethe).— 
τὰ μὲν ὁπ. ἐπιλανθ. There are a few 
exx. in classical Greek of ἐπιλανθ. with 
the accusative, ¢.g., Aristoph., Nub., 631. 
But in the later language there was an 
extraordinary extension of the use of the 
accusative. (See Hatz., Einl., p. 220 ff.) 
Does τὰ ὁπ. mean the old life, or the past 
stages of Christian experience? If the 
metaphor were strictly pressed, no doubt 
the latter alternative would claim atten- 


tion. But pressing metaphors is always 
hazardous. And parallel passages seem 
rather to justify the first meaning, ¢.g., 
Jer. vii. 24, ἐγενήθησαν εἰς τὰ ὄπισθεν 
καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὰ ἔμπροσθεν (of disobeying 
God's commands); Luke ix. 62, βλέπων 
εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω; John vi. 66, πολλοὶ τῶν 
μαθητῶν . . . ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω.--- 
τοῖς ἔμπρ. ἐπεκτ. τὸ and τὰ ἔμπρ. are 
found in Herodot. and Xenoph. Wet- 
stein quotes most aptly from Luc., de 
Cal., 12, οἷόν τι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς γυμνικοῖς 
ἀγῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν δρομέων γίγνεται" κἀκεῖ 
γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἀγαθὸς δρομεὺς τῆς ὕσπληγος 
εὐθὺς καταπεσούσης, μόνον τοῦ πρόσω 
ἐφιέμενος καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀποτείνας 
πρὸς τὸ τέρμα κἀν τοῖς ποσὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα 
τῆς νίκης ἔχων, τὸν πλησίον οὐδὲν κα- 
κονργεῖ. In using this comparison, Paul, 
of course, adapts himself, as among 
Greeks and Romans, to a custom of their 
national life. On this kind of adaptation 
see an excellent discussion in Weizsacker, 
Afpost. Zeitalter, pp. 100-104. 

Ver. 14. κατὰ σκ. ‘In the direction 
ot the mark.” Exactly parallel is Acts 
viii. 26, πορεύου κατὰ μεσημβρίαν. Per- 
haps akin are uses like Thucyd., 6, 31, 
κατὰ θέαν ἥκειν; Hom., Odyss., 3, 72, 
κατὰ πρῆξιν (‘ for the sake of business,” 
Ameis-Hentze), It is needless to dis- 
tinguish between σκοπόν and βραβεῖον in 
the Apostle’s thought. Both really point 
to that unbroken and complete fellowship 
with Christ which is attained through the 
power of His resurrection, that resurrec- 
tion being the condition of the believer's 
victory over sin and death, and making it 
possible for him to enter the “ house not 
made with hands, eternal in the heavens”. 
The purified life in heaven is, in a word, 


I3—I5. 


"βραβεῖον τῆς "ἄνω "κλήσεως ' τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿ἸΙησοῦ.3 
ὅσοι οὖν " τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν 3: καὶ εἴ Tu” ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε, 


t Rom. xi. 29; Eph. i. 18; Heb. iii. x αἱ, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


459 


τ1 Cor. ix. 
15. vi 
\ 8 Gal. iv. 
hs 26; Col. 


iii. 1. 
u See note infr. v Only here in N.T. 


1 Tert. apparently reads ανεγκλησεωφ. 
2 D*EFe«.G, d, e, g ev Κυριω |. Χ. 
591’, 30, 39, 41 al., Clem. φρονουμεν (so Lft. mg.). 


both the goal and the prize. Contrast 
with this exulting thought Omar Khay- 
yam, xxxviii.: “‘ The stars are setting and 
the caravan starts for the dawn of no- 
thing ”’.—eis τὸ βραβ. The word occurs 
in Comedy, Inscrr, and N.T. (1 Cor. ix. 
24). Cf. τ Clem., v., 5, 6 Παῦλος ὑπο- 
μονῆς βραβεῖον ὑπέδειξεν» where it is 
perhaps suggested by our passage. It is 
possibly one of those words which must 
have been common in colloquial Greek 
(cf. the frequent use of βραβεύς), but 
have survived only in a few books. eis 
must be read with the best authorities, 
for, as Lft. notes, ‘‘the prize marks the 
position of the goal’. ἐπί [5 an explana- 
tory gloss.—t7js ἄνω κλ. “The upward 
calling.” The Apostle seems to mean 
that the βραβεῖον is the ἄνω κλῆσις (so 
aiso Lips.). κλῆσις is the technical word 
in the Epistles for that decisive appeal of 
God to the soul which is made in Jesus 
Christ: the offer of salvation. Those 
who listen are designated κλητοί. Cf. 
Rom. viii. 30 and Hltzm., N.T. Th., τὸ; 
p. 165 ff. This κλ. is not merely to ‘‘ the 
inheritance of the saints in light”. Its 
effect must be seen in the sanctification 
of the believer’s life on earth. But here 
the addition of ἄνω suggests that the 
Apostle has before him the final issue of 
the calling which belongs to those who 
have endured to the end, who have run 
with patience the race set before them. 
The phrase seems to carry much the 
same meaning as Heb. iii. 1, κλήσεως 
ἐπουρανίου. Cf. the suggestive comment 
of Chr., τοὺς μάλιστα τιμωμένους τῶν 
ἀθλητῶν καὶ τῶν ἡνιόχων οὐ στεφανοῦσιν 
ἐν τῷ σταδίῳ κάτω, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνω καλέσας 
ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖ στεφανοῖ.--ἐν Χ. Ἰ. 
Although it would give a satisfactory 
sense to take these words with διώκω (so 
e.g., Myr., Ws.), it is far more natural to 
join them closely with τ. ἄνω κλ. This 
is emphatically ἐν Χ. Ἰ. Only in con- 
nexion with Him has the κλῆσις either 
in itself or in its goal any meaning. 

Ver. 15. τέλειοι. What Paul under- 
stands by τέλ. we can easily discover 
from Eph. iv. 13-14, Col. i. 28, iv. 12, 1 


Cor. ii. 6 (cf. also the definition of the 
word in Heb. v. 14 taken in connexion 
with vi. 1). In all these passages τέλ. 
depends upon knowledge, knowledge 
gained by long experience of Christ, 
resulting both in firm conviction and 
maturity of thought and conduct. It has 
not so much our idea of ‘ perfect” = 
“ flawless,” as of “perfect” = “ having 
reached a certain point of completeness,”’ 
as of one who has come to his full 
growth, leaving behind him the state of 
childhood (νήπιος). Cf. chap. i. 9-1ο. 
Lft. supposes a reminiscence of the tech- 
nical term τέλειος, used in the Mysteries 
to denote the initiated, and imagines 
Paul to speak with a certain irony of 
people at Philippi who claimed to be 
in this fortunate position as regards 
the Christian faith. There is no need 
to assume here the language of the 
Mysteries (as Anrich shows, Das Antike 
Mysterienwesen, GOtt., 1894, p. 146, 1. 
1), or to find irony in Paul’s words. 
Probably there were some (see on ver. 
13 supr.) at Philippi who boasted of a 
spiritual superiority to their brethren and 
who may have called themselves τέλειοι. 
This may have been due to special equip- 
ment with the Spirit manifesting itself in 
speaking with tongues, etc. See 1 Cor. 
xii. passim. But Paul takes the word 
seriously and points out what it involves. 
[Wernle’s attempt in Der Christ u. die 
Siinde bet Paul., pp. 6-7, to show that 
this passage is no argument against 
Christian perfection which he believes 
Paul to hold, rests on the erroneous 
association of τέλ. with the Mysteries.] 
—rotto dp. Let us show our humble 
conviction that we are still far from the 
goal which we desire to αἰίαῖπ.-- καὶ 
et... ἀποκαλ. If, in the case of any 
separate detail of character or know- 
ledge, you imagine yourselves to be 
τέλειοι, to have reached the highest 
point, God will reveal the truth (the true 
standpoint of humility) on this matter 
also. The form of the conditional sen- 
tence suggests that Paul knew of persons 
at Philippi who had erroneous views on 


46ο 


w ome 
XXVI. 30; 
Luke x. 
11; Eph. 


25. 


x Rom. ix. 31; 2 Cor. x. 14; 2 Sam. xx. 13; Cant. ii. 12 al. 
a Chap. ii. 4; Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 18; Gal. vi. 1. 


z Only here in N.T. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


αὐτῷ ” στοιχεῖν κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν. 


17. "Συμμιμηταί” μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ "σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτω» 


III. 


_ τοῦτο ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει: 16. " πλὴν εἰς ὃ * ἐφθάσαμεν,ὶ τῷ 


1 


Gal. v. 25, vi. 16. Cf. Rom. iv. 12. 


1 So ΜΕΚΙ.Ρ, syrr. ethpp-, Chr., Dam., Thdrt. Edd. tw αντω στοιχεῖν (without 


the words added) with ΑΒ, 17, 67**, cop. sah. xthro., Hil, Aug. 


το αντο 


Φρονειν, τω αντω στοιχειν, DEFG, 23, 31, 37, O.L. vg., Euth.ocd., Victorin., Ambrst. 
2So Trg., Alf. with AB7DcEKLP. Ti., Ws., W.H. συνμ with ΝΒΡ"Εα. 


3 So Ti., W.H. with 


ABD*FG. Trg., Alf., Ws. οντως with DcEKsil.Lsil.P, εἰς, 


See Ws., TK., p. 64, who thinks that ovrw is connected with a similar reading at 


Iv. I. 


this subject. But his hint of rebuke is 
very delicately put. εἴ τι κ.τ.λ. It is 
far-fetched to take this (as Hpt. does) of 
their judgment on the Judaisers. Paul 
has forgotten, for the time, the special 
anxiety which weighs upon him, and has 
become absorbed in the glorious vista 
which unfolds itself to the Christian. 
καὶ τοῦτο κ.τ.λ. A firm conviction of 
the Apostle’s. See esp. 1 Cor. ii. 10 
(and cf. Von Soden, Abhandlungen C. ο. 
Weizs. gewidmet, p. 166). 

Ver. 16. πλήν. It is quite common 
as introducing a parenthesis. ‘Only one 
thing! So far as we have come, kee 
the path” (Weizs.). For the word οὕ. 
Schmid, Alfticismus, i., p. 133, and 
Bonitz’s Index to Aristotle.—els ὃ ἐφθάσ. 
In later Greek es in modern) φθάνω has 
lost all idea of anticipation and simply 
means “come,” “reach"s Cf, 2 Cor. x. 
14 (and see Hatz., Einl., p. 199; Sources 
of N.T. Greek, p. 156). “So far as we 
have come.” In what? Ws. thinks 
in right φρονεῖν, connecting the words 
immediately with τοῦτο φρονῶμεν. ΚΙ. 
supposes the νόμος δικαιοσύνης, referring 
to the earlier part of the chap. (esp. ver. 
9). Does he not rather mean the point 
reached on the advance towards the goal 
(the κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκειν), which is the 
subject directly before his mind? The 
very use of στοιχεῖν seems to justify 
this interpretation.—_r@ αὐτῷ. It is, at 
first sight, natural to refer τ. αὖτ. im- 
mediately to 8 preceding. And this may 
be right. But there is much force in the 
interpretation of Lips., who renders 
“let us walk on the same path” (so also 
Hist.). The exhortation would then be 
directed against the difference of opinion 
and feeling which were certainly present 
in the Church at Philippi, and is sug- 
gested to Paul by the ἑτέρως φρον. of 
ver. 15. That this was an early inter- 


Both he attributes to the arbitrariness of the copyist. 


pretation is shown by the v./. of TR. 
The words κανονι τὸ αὐτὸ Φρονειν sant 
found in the best MSS.) are evidently a 
gloss on the text. ‘Only, so far as we 
have come, let us keep to the same 
path.” τῷ αὐτῷ is an instance of a 
dative common after verbs of “ going 4 
and “walking” in N.T. Cf. Buttm., 
Gram., p. 184.--στοιχεῖν. impera- 
tival infinitive found in Hom., Aristoph., 
Inscrr. (see Meisterhans, Gram. d. att. 
Inschrr., § 88 A; Viteau, Le Verbe, 
147). Probably this usage is close 
connected with the origin of the infini- 
tive, which was a dative, as is shown, 
e.g., by the infinitive in English, ¢.g., 
“to work". This might easily become 
an imperative, “to work"! Analogous 
is the use of χαίρειν and ὑγιαίνειν in 
Letters. στ. is only found in late writers, 
although, from the frequency of στοῖχος, 
we may infer that it must have existed in 
earliertimes. Literally it means ‘ march 
in file’. Moule well observes that στ. 
more than περιπατεῖν (the common word) 
suggests the step, the detail. 

Vv. 17-19. A SOLEMN WARNING 
AGAINST THE EARTHLY, SENSUAL MIND. 
—Ver. 17. ovppip. The compound is 
significant. Uno consensu et una mente 
(Calv.). This emphasis on their unity 
justifies the interpretation of τῷ αὐτῷ 
favoured above. Paul is compelled to 
make his own example a norm of the new 
life. It was not as in Judaism where the 
Law lay ready to hand as a fixed stan- 
dard. There was, as yet, no tradition of 
the Christian life.—oxoweire. A ΡΝ, 
close scrutiny. Cf. Rom. xvi. 17 (but 
there = “‘ mark Be to avoid” ad oe 
probably points back to pov. It seems 
more natural to give pod τὸ its common 
argumentative force, ‘‘ even as ᾽'.---τύπον 
=(1) “stamp” of a die, (2) “copy, 
figure,” as the stamp bears a figure on 


16—19. 


Ὁ περιπατοῦντας, ἢ καθὼς ἔχετε “ τύπον ἡμᾶς. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ 


461 


18. πολλοὶ γὰρ περι- > Ephiv. 17; 


πατοῦσιν, οὓς πολλάκις ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς iv. ts τ 


John ii. 6. 


ἃ ἐχθροὺς τοῦ “ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ: 19. ὧν τὸ Στέλος © ἀπώλεια, - 2. Thess. 


[ή ~ - 
ὧν ὃ Θεὸς ἡ Ἀ κοιλία, καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ᾿ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ 


ἃ See note inj, 


ν. 3 al. ) 
g See note in/r. 


al, 


the face of the die, (3) ‘‘ mould, pat- 
tern,’’ by transference from the effect to 
the cause. Wetst. quotes Diod. Sic., 
Ex. (?), τὸν ἑαυτοῦ βίον eis καλῶν ἐπιτη- 
δευμάτων μίμησιν ἀρχέτυπον τιθέναι. 
See also Radford, Expositor, v., 6, p. 
380 ff. 

Ver. 18. πολλοὶ κ.τ.λ. To whom 
does he refer? Plainly they were per- 
sonsinside the Christian Church, although 
probably not at Philippi. This (against 
Ws.) is borne out by the use of περιπατεῖν 
compared with περιπατοῦντας (ver. 17) 
and στοιχεῖν (ver. 16), by κλαίων which 
would have no meaning here if not 
applied to professing Christians, and 
further by ἐχθρούς which would be a 
mere platitude if used of heathens or 
Jews. Some (e.g., Schinz, Hort, Cone, 
etc.) refer this passage to the same per- 
sons as he denounces at the beginning of 
the chapter, the Judaising teachers. And 
no doubt they might fitly be called ἐχθροὶ 
τοῦ σταυροῦ (cf. Gal. vi. 12-14). But the 
rest of the description applies far more 
aptly to professing Christians who allowed 
their liberty to degenerate into licence 
(Gal. v. 13); who, from an altogether 
superficial view of grace, thought lightly 
of continuing in sin (Rom. vi. 1, 12-13, 
15, 23); who, while bearing the name of 
Christ, were concerned only with their 
own self-indulgence (Rom. xvi. 18). If 
there did exist at Philippi any section dis- 
posed to look with favour on Judaising 
tendencies, this might lead others to 
exaggerate the opposite way of thinking 
and to become a ready prey to Anti- 
nomian reaction. Possibly passages like 
the present and Rom. xvi. 18 point to the 
earliest beginnings of that strange medley 
of doctrines which afterwards developed 
into Gnosticism. That this is the more 
natural explanation seems also to follow 
from the context. The Apostle has had 
in view, from ver. τα onwards, the advance 
towards perfection, the point already 
attained, the kind of course to be imi- 
tated. It seems most fitting that he 
should warn against those who pretended 
to be on the straight path, but who were 
really straying on devious by-ways of 
their ΟΥΥΠ.---οὓς πολλάκις ἔλεγον κ.τ.λ. 


e Contrast Gal. vi. 14. 
h Rom. xvi. 18. Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 13; Sirach xxiii. 6. 


iii. 9; 1 
Tim. iv. 
12; 1 Pet. 
f Rom. vi. 21; 2 Cor. xi. 15; 1 Pet. iv. 17 
i See note infr. 


“Whom I often used to call,” etc. (so 
also Grotius, Heinrichs, Hfm.). Cf. 
Zésch., Eumen., 48, οὕτοι γυναῖκας ἀλλὰ 
Γοργόνας λέγω. Hatz. (Einl., p. 223) 
remarks that in the Greek islands they 
say μὲ λέγει or λέγει με = “he names 
me”. Paul speaks with a depth and 
vehemence of feeling (πολλοὶ... πολ- 
λάκις. . . κλαίων) which suggest his 
genuine interest in those disloyal Chris- 
tians who had once seemed to receive his 
message. If we imagine that the terms 
he uses are too strong to apply to pro- 
fessing Christians, we must remember 
that he speaks in a most solemn mood 
and from the highest point of view.— 
τ. ἐχθροὺς τ. στ. τ. Χ. If we are right in 
taking λέγω = “call,” “name,” τοὺς 
ἐχθ. will come in as the remoter accusa- 
tive. Otherwise it must be regarded as 
assimilated to the relative clause, as in 
I John ii. 25. The true Christian is the 
man who is ‘‘crucified with Christ,” 
who has ‘‘crucified the flesh with its 
affections and lusts”. The Cross is the 
central principle in his life. ‘‘ If any man 
will come after Me, let him deny himself 
and take up his cross and follow Me.” 
Those here described, by their unthinking 
self-indulgence, run directly in the teeth 
of this principle. The same thing holds 
good of much that passes for Christianity 
in modern life. ‘‘Who has not known 
kindly, serviceable men hanging about 
the Churches with a real predilection for 
the suburban life of Zion . . . and yet 
men whose life just seemed to omit the 
Cross of Christ” (Rainy, op. cit., p. 286). 
It is quite probable that Paul would feel 
their conduct all the more keenly inas- 
much as Judaisers might point to it as the 
logical consequence of his liberal prin- 
ciples. 

Ver. Ig. ἀπώλεια. Paul regards the 
two issues of human life as σωτηρία and 
ἀπώλεια (1 Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. ii. 15-16). 
The lattertis a common word for “' destruc- 
tion”. There is much in the Epistles to 
support the statement of Hltzm. (N.T. 
Th., ii., p. 50): “Το be dead and to re- 
main dead eternally, that is to him (Paul) 
the most dreadful ofall thoughts”. (Simi- 
larly Kabisch, Eschatol. d. Paul., pp. 85, 


462 


in 
τὰ Ῥ. has it 
Eph. v. 23. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


ΠῚ. 


TOnly here» ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. 20. ἡμῶν γὰρ] τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς 
Ἴ. ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ' σωτῆρα " ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν" 


Past. Epp. (ten times). A word found (with excep. of four exx. in Luke's wri i hace 
books of NT. n1Cor.i.7; Gal. ν. 5; Heb. ic ak. exx, in 8. writings) only 


λ δε ἆ, ε, f, g, m, go. arm. eth, syrsch. et p.mg., Clem., Or., Eus., Chr., Thdrt., 


134.)---ἧ κοιλία. Most comm. compare 
Eupolis, Κολακ. 4, κοιλιοδαίμων, a 
“ devotee of the belly”. κ. is probably 
used as a general term to include all that 
belongs most essentially to the bodily, 
fleshly life of man and therefore inevitably 
perishes. IJstorum venter nitet : nostrum 
corpus atteritur: utrumque schema com- 
mutabitur (Beng.). Hort ( ¥udaistic Chris- 
tianity, p. 115 ff.) supposes that we have 
here the same development of Judaism 
which is attacked in Col. ii. 20-23. 
But this type of life was by no means 
confined to Jews.— δ. ἐν τ. αἰσχ. 
‘* Who boast of what is really a disgrace 
to them.” Wetst. aptly quotes Polyb., 
15, 23, ἐφ᾽ ols ἐχρῆν αἰσχύνεσθαι καθ᾽ 
ὑπερβολήν, ἐπὶ τούτοις ὡς καλοῖς σεμνύ- 
νεσθαι καὶ μεγαλανχεῖν. Cf. Prov, xxvi. 
11, ἔστιν αἰσχύνη ἐπάγουσα ν, 
καὶ ἔστιν αἰσχύνη δόξα καὶ χάρις. (So 
also Sirach iv. - This was apparently 
a current proverb. The limiting of αἰσχ. 
here to sensual sins is doubtful.—ol τ. 
ἐπίγ. pov. It seems reasonable to ex- 
plain the nominative as a resumption of 
the opening words of the sentence, sum- 
ming up tersely the character in view. 
Cf. Mark xii. 38-40. τὰ ἐπίγ. are opposed 
to τὰ ἔμπροσθεν or τὰ ἄνω. Curiously 
parallel is the Homeric phrase (Odyss., 


21, 8s), ἀγροιῶται ἐφημέρια 
φρονέοντες. 
Vv. 20-21. HEAVENLY - MINDEDNESS 


AND ITS PROSPECT.—Ver, 20. τὸ πολί- 
τευμα. “Our commonwealth.” (Ter- 
tull., municipatus. Cyp., Iren., conver- 
satio.) The thought is certainly suggested 
by ἐπίγ. φρον. in ver. 19 (this is the force 
of γάρ). This world has a characteristic 
spirit of itsown. Worldliness is the com- 
mon bond of citizenship init. There is 
another commonwealth, not of the world 
(John xviii. 36), which inspires its mem- 
bers with a different tone of life. They 
‘*seek the things above where Christ 
sitteth at the right hand of God". Cf. 4 
Esr., 8,52: Vobis enim apertus est para- 
disus . . . praeparata est habundantia, 
aedificata est civitas. The stability and 
security of the pax Romana (one of the 
most favourable influences for Christi- 


anity) filled the thought of the time with 
high conceptions of citizenship and its 
value. This would specially appeal to 
the Philippians, who must have prided 
themselves on possessing ag ον Ttali- 
cum with all its privileges (see Marquardt, 
Rémische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., pp. 
363-365). Again and again Paul himself 
found his Roman citizenship a sure pro- 
tection. Perhaps the unjust treatment 
he had received in that capacity at 
Philippi (Acts xvi. 22-23, 37-39) resulted 
in securing for the young Christian com- 
munity a certain immunity from persecu- 
tion through the favour of the magistrates 
who might fear the consequences of their 
gross violation of justice. The word 
πολίτευμα had been adopted by the Jews 
from Greek civic life long before this 
letter was written (see Hicks, Classical 
Review, i., 1, pp. 6-7, on the whole sub- 
ject of political terms in N.T.). Cf. 
Philo, de Conf. Ling., p. 78 (ed. 
Wendl.), πατρίδα μὲν τὸν “rer 
χῶρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύονται, ξένην δὲ τὸν 
περίγειον ἐν ᾧ παρῴκησαν νομίζουσαι ; 
Aug., de Civ. D., xi., 1 (quoted by 
Wohl.); the Latin Μεάίαεν. Hymn, 
Urbs Ierusalem beata, Dicta pacis visio, 
Quae construitur in caelis, Vivis ex 
lapidibus ; and see Heb. x. 34, Jas. iv. 4, 
1 John ii. 17. πολίτ. is used = “ com- 
monwealth” in 2 Macc. xii. 7 and In- 
scriptions. There is a good discussion of 
Paul’s relation to the state in Hltzm., 
N.T. Th., ii., p. 157 Π.--ἓν οὐρανοῖς. 
Paul had no earthly home.—twdpye. 
It is perhaps used to add dignity to the 
thought, or, possibly, to emphasise the 
idea of substantial existence and reality. 
Cf. ὑπάρχων in chap. ii. 6.—é§ οὗ. It 
seems needless to make this an adverb. 
οὗ refers quite directly to πολίτευμα (so 
also Beng., Hfm., Lips., Holst., etc.).— 
καί marks the reasonableness of looking 
for the Saviour from the heavenly com- 
monwealth. Because their πολίτ. is in 
heaven they have a claim on the Saviour, 
just as the Philippians might rightfully 
look for protection to Rome.—owripa. 
Used, no doubt, in the technical sense of 
Christ’s deliverance at His coming (so 





20-- 21. 


21. ὃς “ μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς " ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν, 
γενέσθαι αὐτὸ 1 ἃ σύμμορφον 3 τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, κατὰ Thy 
; ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι ἑαυτῷ ὃ τὰ πάντα. 


p Luke i. 48 (1 Sam. i. 11)3 Acts viii. 33 (Isa. liii. 8). 
Four exx. in Wisd. 


τ Eph. iii. 7; Col. ii. τα αἱ (only in P), 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ, 


463 


ο το oes Gor: 
Xi. 13-15. 
No other 
exx. in 
N.T. Late 
authors. 


q For constrn. see note infr. Rom. viii. 29. 


1 So Dbetc, EKLP, Chr., Thdrt., Victorin., Aug. (‘an ancient supplement,” Myr.). 
Edd. om. εἰς to Ύενεσθαι αυτο with S,ABD*FG, ἆ, e, ἢ, g, πὶ, vg. go. cop., 


many Fathers. 


2 So Trg., Alf., Ws., W.H. with ABDcEKLP, etc. Ti. συνμ. with 9 ΕΘ. 


3 So ΝΕΡΕΕΙ,, vg., Chr.%4!, Thdrt., Dam., Hil. 


Ti., Trg., Alf., Myr., Ws. αντω 


(W.H. αὑτῷ) with *ABD*FGKP, ἆ, e, g, Eus., Epiph., Euth., Chr. 


also ΚΙ.), but strangely rare until the 
Pastoral Epistles. It corresponds to 
Paul’s use of σωτηρία.---ἀπεκδεχ. The 
compound emphasises the intense yearn- 
ing for the Parousia. It is no wonder 
that early Christian thought centred 
round that time. There was nothing to 
root their affections in the world (cf. Gal. 
i. 4). The dominant influence of this 
expectation in Paul’s thinking and work- 
ing is only beginning to be fully recog- 
nised. See some suggestive paragraphs 
in Wernle’s Der Christ τι. die Siinde bei 
Paul., pp. 122-123.—Kvp. *l. X. This 
order is always found in the phrase. 
Ver. 21. µετασχ. It is doubtful 
whether, in this passage, any special force 
can be given to μετασχ. as distinguished 
from μεταμορφοῦν, carrying out the dif- 
ference between σχῆμα and μορφή. The 
doubt is borne out by its close connexion 
here with σύμμορφον. Perhaps, how- 
ever, the compound of σχῆμα has in view 
the fact that only the fashion or figure 
in which the personality is clothed will 
be transformed. We have here (as Gw. 
notes) the reverse of the process in chap. 
ii. 6-11. The locus classicus on the word 
is 2 Cor. xi. 13-15. It is found in Plato 
and Aristotle in its strict sense. Cf. also 
4 Macc., ix., 22. It is Christ who effects 
the transformation in the case of His fol- 
lowers, because He is πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν 
(x Cor. xv. 45). Cf. Apocal. of Βαγ., li. 
3: ‘‘As for the glory of those who have 
now been justified in my law . . . their 
splendour will be glorified in changes, and 
the form of their face will be turned into 
the light of their beauty, that they may 
be able to acquire and receive the world 
which does not die”.—1ré σῶμα τ. ταπειν. 
The expression must apply esp. to the 
unfitness of the present bodily nature to 
fulfil the claims of the spiritual life. It is 
pervaded by fleshly lusts ; it is doomed to 
decay. ταπειν. is plainly suggested by 


δόξα which follows. σῶμα is “pure 
form which may have the most diverse 
content. Here, on earth, σῶμα = σάρξ" 
(see an illuminating discussion by F. 
Kostlin, Fahrb. f. deutsche Th., 1877, p. 
279 ff.). Holst. (Paulin. Th., p. το) 
notes that for this conception of σῶμα as 
“organised matter,” the older Judaism 


had no word besides ο Later Hel- 


lenistic Judaism used the word σῶμα in 
its Pauline sense (see Wisd. ix. 15).—eis 
τὸ γ. α. is to be omitted with the best 
authorities. See crit. note supr.—ovp- 
µορφον is used proleptically as its posi- 
tion shows. Cf. τ Thess. iii. 13, στηρίξαι 
τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ἀμέμπτους, Perhaps 
the compound οὗ μορφή is used to remind 
them of the completeness of their future 
assimilation to Christ. Cf. Rom. viii. 29. 
The end of the enumeration in that pas- 
sage is ἐδόξασεν. δόξα is the climax 
here.—t. σώμ. τ. δόξης a. With Paul 
δόξα is always the outward expression of 
the spiritual life (πνεῦμα). It is, if one 
may so speak, the semblance of the Divine 
life in heaven. The Divine πνεῦμα will 
ultimately reveal itself in all who have 
received it as δόξα. That is what the 
N.T. writers mean by the completed, per- 
fected “likeness to Christ”. This pas- 
sage, combined with r Cor. xv. 35-50 and 
2 Cor. iv. 16-v. 5, gives us the deepest 
insight we have into Paul’s idea of the 
transition from the present life to the 
future. He only speaks in detail of that 
which awaits believers. Whether they 
die before the Parousia or survive till 
then, a change will take place in them. 
But this is not arbitrary. It is illustrated 
by the sowing of seed. The Divine 
πνεῦμα which they have received will 
work out for them a σῶμα πνευματικόν. 
Their renewed nature will be clothed with 
a corresponding body through the power 
of Christ who is Himself the source of their 


464 


a Onlyhere TV. 1. ὭΣΤΕ, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ " ἐπιπόθητοι, χαρὰ καὶ 
Ρο... ὃ στέφανός µου,ὶ οὕτω "" στήκετε ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἀγαπητοί. ὃ 
2. Edodiav* “παρακαλῶ, καὶ Συντύχην " παρακαλῶ, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν 


infr., 
cf. Prov. 
xii. 4, xvi. 31, xvii. 6 αἱ, 


1 Om. B*. 19ο BD*. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ = 


c See on chap. i. 27 supr. 


Edd. οντως with NADcEFGLP. 


IV. 


d Acts xi. 23, xiv. 22; 1 Thess. iv. 1ο al, 





° B 17, cop. syrtch. add pov. D*, 108*, d, e, go., Victorin. om. ἀγαπήτοι. 


4 Alf. Ενωδιαν with P 47, al. 


5 So Lach., Trg., Ws., W.H. Ti. Σνντνχήν with De. 
g 


spiritual life. The σῶμα σαρκικόν must 
perish: that is the fate of σάρξ. If there 
be no πνεῦμα, and thus no σῶμα πνευµα- 
τικόν, the end is destruction. But the 
σῶμα πνευματικόν is precisely that in 
which Christ rose from the dead and in 
which He now lives. Its outward sem- 
blance is δόξα, a glory which shone forth 
upon Paul from the risen Christ on the 
Damascus road, which he could never 
forget. Hence all in whom Christ has 
operated as πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν will be 
“changed into the same likeness from 
glory ( ) to glory’. Paul does not 
here reflect on the time when the trans- 
formation takes place. That is of little 
moment to him. The fact is his supreme 
consolation. On the whole discussion 
see esp. Hitzm., N.T. Th., ii., pp. 80-81 
and Heinrici on 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff.; for the 
future δόξα cf. Apocal. of Bar., xv. 8 (Ed. 
Charles).—nara τ. ἐνέργ. ἐνέργεια is 
only used of superhuman power in N.T. 
Quia nihil magts incredibile, nec magis a 
sensu carnis dissentancum quam resurrec- 
tio: hac de causa Paulus infinitam Dei 
potentiam nobis ponit ob oculos quae 
omnem dubitationem absorbeat. Nam 
inde nascitur diffidentia quod rem ipsam 
metimur ingeniit nostri angustiis (Calvin). 
---τοῦ δύν. '' His efficiency which con- 
sists in His being able,” etc. The begin- 
nings of this use of the genitive of the 
infinitive without a preposition appear in 
classical Greek. But in N.T. it was 
extended like that οἵ ἵνα. Οὗ, e.g., Acts 
xiv. 9, 2 Cor. viii. 11. See Blass, Gram., 
Ρ. 229; Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 17ο.---ὑπο- 
τάξαι. Cf. τ Cor. i. 24-28. --- ἑαυτῷ. 
αντω must be read with the best authori- 
ties. How is it to be accented? Is it 
to be αὑτῷ or αὐτφὸ W.H. read the 
former, regarding this as one of the 
exceptional cases where “a refusal to 
admit the rough breathing introduces 
language completely at variance with all 
Greek usage without the constraint of 
any direct evidence, and solely on the 


strength of partial analogies” (Ν.Τ., ii., 
Append.,p.144). On the other hand, Blass 
(Gram., p. 35, note 2) refuses to admit 
αὑτῷ. Winer, although preferring αὐτῷ, 
leaves the matter tothe judgment of edd. 
Buttmann gives good reasons for usually 
reading attr. (Gram., p. 111). Certainly 
αὐτοῦ is quite common as a reflexive in 
Inscriptions of the Imperial age (see 
Meisterhans, Gram. d. Att. Inschrr., 8 59, 
5). To sum up, it cannot be said that 
the aspirated form is impossible, but 
ordinarily it is safer to omit the aspirate. 

Cf. Simcox, Lang. of N.T., pp. 63-64. 
CuaprTer 1V.—Vv. 1-3. CouNSELS το 
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. 
—Ver.1. ὥστε. It seems better toregard 
this as drawing the conclusion from iii. 
17-21 than to refer it to the whole of the 
discussion in chap. iii—ordp. p. Cf. 
the combination in 1 Thess. ii. 19, τίς 
γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρὰ ἢ στέφανος 
καυχήσεως ; the meaning is best seen 
from chap. ii. 16. He is thinking of the 
Shristian 


“*day of Christ”. His loyal C 
converts will then be his land of 
victory, the clear proof that he has not 


run in vain. Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 24-25, Sirach 
vi. 31. στεφανόω often means “to re- 
ward,” see Dsm., BS., p. 261.--- οὕτω. 
That is, according to the type which has 
been described in chap. iii. 17 Π.--- 
στήκετε is a word of late coinage, be- 
longing to the κ language, and 
leaving as its survival the modern Greek 
στέκω. Often found in N.T. 

Ver. 2. Εὐοδ. κ.τ.λ. This direct refer- 
ence to a difference of opinion between 
two women of prominence in the Philip- 
pian Church is probably the best com- 
ment we have on the slight dissensions 
which are here and there hinted at 
throughout the Epistle. For, as Schinz 
aptly puts it (op. cit., p. 37), “in sucha 
pure Church, even slight bickerings would 
make a great impression”. We find no 
trace of the cause. It may have turned 
on the question discussed in chap, iii. 


I—3, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


465 


ἐν Κυρίῳ. 3. καὶ] "ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ, σύζυγε” 'γνήσιειῦ “συλλαμβάνου 4 5 See note 


αὐταῖς, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ " συνήθλησάν μοι, μετὰ καὶ > Κλή- ἔτ Tim. i, 


ας. 


µεντος, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ὃ συνεργῶν µου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν ' βίβλῳ ζωῆς. 4- 


1 9Ο 115, Ambrst. 


2So Ν"ΒΡΕΕΚΙΡ. 
Bousset, Textkrit. Studien, p. 102). 


3 So KL, syrr., Chr., Thdrt. 


g Luke v. 7 
: (no other 
i See note in/r. 


ex. in N.T.), h Chap. i. 27. 


Edd. vat with NABDEFGKLP, O.L. vg., etc. 


Ti., Alf., Ws., W.H. (Γ΄ συνζυγε with ScAD*FG (see 
W.H. mg. Συνζυγε. 


Edd. γν. σ. with S$ABDE(FG)P 17, 47, etc. 


4 So Lach. with ABcDcEKLP, Edd. συνλ. with $B*D*FG 17 (see Ws., ΤΙ, p. 


138; Bousset, of. cit., p. 103). 


5 Om. και D*EFG, ἆ, e, f, g, vg. go. syrP- arm. eth., Vict., Ambrst, 


δ δ ἢ και των λοιπων after pov. 


15-16. It may have been accidental 
friction between two energetic Christian 
women. But from the whole tone of 
the Epistle it cannot have gone far. Six 
Christian bishops named Εὐόδιος are 
mentioned in the Dict. of Christ. Biogr. 
The feminine name is also found ir: 
Inscrr.—Zvuvrvxy. The name occurs both 
in Greek and Latin Inscrr., as well as in 
the Acta Sanctorum (v., 225). Curiously 
enough, there is no masculine name pre- 
cisely corresponding to be found except 
the form Sintichus (C.I.L., xii., no. 4703, 
from Narbo in Gaul. The Inscr. quoted 
by Lft. is spurious). On the correct 
accentuation see the elaborate note in 
W-Sch., p. 71. Lft. has collected valu- 
able evidence to show the superior 
position occupied by women in Mace- 
donia. See his Philippians, p. 56, notes 
2, 3, where he quotes Inscrr., in some of 
which a metronymic takes the place 
of the patronymic, while others record 
monuments erected in honour of women 
by public bodies. We may add, from 
Heuzey, Voyage Archéol., Ῥ. 423, an 
Inscr. of Larissa, where a woman’s name 
occurs among the winners in the horse- 
races (see Introduction). For the pro- 
minence of women generally in the 
Pauline Churches, cf. Rom. xvi. passim, 1 
Cor. xiv. 34-35. The repetition of παρα- 
καλῶ perhaps hints that Paul wishes to 
treat each of them alike. [Hitzig, Zur 
Kritik Paulin. Brr., p. 5 ff., exemplifies 
the pitch of absurdity which N.T. critics 
reached in a former generation, by sup- 
posing that these names represent two 
heathen-Christian parties, the one Greek, 
the other Roman.] 

Ver. 3. vat must certainly be read 
with all trustworthy authorities. Exactly 
parallel is Philm. 20. Cf. Soph., Elect., 


VOL, III. 


1445, σὲ κρίνω, val σέ.--ἐρωτῶ is common 
in N.T. = ‘Sbeseech,”” σι», Luke xiv. 18. 
It is not so found in LXX, and this sense 
is very rare in late writers.—yvyjove σ. 
is to be read with the great mass of 
authorities. We believe that W.H. are 
right in their marginal reading of Σύνζυγε 
aS a proper name, This would har- 
monise with the other names mentioned. 
And the epithet yv. increases the pro- 
bability. He requests Syzygus (lit. = 
joiner together) to help Euodia and Syn- 
tyche to make up their differences. ‘I 
beseech thee, who art a genuine Syzygus 
(in deed as well as in name) to help,” 
etc. (so also Myr., KI., Weizs.). See 
esp. an excellent discussion by Laurent, 
N.T. Studien, pp. 134-137. The fact 
that this name has not been found in 
books, Inserr., etc., is no argument 
against its existence. Zygos is found as 
a Jewish name (quoted by Zunz). Similar 
compounds such as Συμφέρων, Συμφέ- 
povoa occur. Perhaps all the above 
names were given to them after Baptism. 
Lft. and others refer σύνζ. to Epaphro- 
ditus. Chr. thinks of the husband of 
one of the women addressed. Wieseler 
(Chronol., p. 458) actually refers it to 
Christ.—ovAd. Paul’s friend is plainly 
a man of tact who can do much to bring 
the Christian women now at variance 
together again. Holst. thinks, and per- 
haps with some reason, that the use of 
συλλαμβ. implies that Euodia and Syn- 
tyche were already trying to lay aside 
their differences.—atties. ‘ Inasmuch 
as they laboured with me.” Their former 
services to the Gospel are a reason why 
they should receive every encouragement 
to a better state of mind. Cf. Acts xvi. 
13.--μετὰ καὶ KA. An unusual position 
for καί although found in Pindar, Dionys. 


30 


466 ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥ͂Σ IV. 
ἐπ ‘im iii, 4, Χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ πάντοτε: πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε. 5. τὸ 
2; 155. ὉΠ. ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. ὁ Κύριος ἐγγύς. 


17; 1 Pet. 
iv 18, 


Halicarn., Aelian, and, above all, in 
Josephus, who delights in this construc- 
tion (see Schmidt, De Elocut. Fos., p. 
16; Schmid, Afticismus, iii., Ῥ. 337). 
These words must be taken with συνήθλ. 
He wishes to remind his Christian friend 
at Philippi of the noble company to 
which the women had belonged, a com- 
pany held in the highest esteem in the 
Philippian Church. Κλήμης must have 
been some disciple at Philippi, unknown 
to Church history like the others men- 
tioned here, It is nothing short of 
absurd (with Gw.) to make this Clement 
the celebrated bishop of Rome. See 
esp. Salmon, Dict. of Chr. Biog., i., p. 
555. The same form in -ης, -εντος is 
seen in Κρήσκης, Πούδης (2 Tim. iv. το, 
21).—év τὰ dv. ἐν BiB. ζ. Perhaps the 
phrase implies that they had passed 
away. The Apostle almost seems to 
foresee the obscurity which will hang 
over many a devoted fellow-labourer of 
his. But their names have ἃ glory 
greater than that of historical renown. 
They are in the i ζωῆς. The idea 
is common in Ο.Τ, Cf. Exod. xxxii. 
32, Ps. lxix. 29, Dan. xii. 1. See also 
Apocal. of Bar., xxiv., 1; Henoch, xlvii., 
3; 4 Ezra xiv., 35; and, in N.T., Rev. iii. 
5. Good discussions of the subject will be 
found in Weber, Lehren d. Talmud, pp. 
233, 276; Schiirer, ii., 2, p. 182. 

Vv. 4-9. GENERAL EXHORTATIONS ON 
THE RIGHT SPIRIT AND THE RIGHT CON- 
DUCT OF LIFE.—Ver. 4. χαίρετε ex- 

resses the predominant mood of the 

pistle, a mood wonderfully character- 
istic of Paul's closing years.—wddw. 
‘He doubles it to take away the scruple 
of those that might say, what, shall we 
rejoice in afflictions?"’ (G. Herbert).— 
ἐρῶ. The future of this verb is probably 
used here, as apparently often in late 
Greek, for the present. 

Ver. 5. τ. ἐπιεικ. ‘ Reasonableness.” 
Matthew Arnold finds in this a pre- 
eminent feature in the character of Jesus 
and designates it “sweet reasonable- 
ness” (see Literature and Dogma, pp. 
66, 138). The trait could not be more 
vividly delineated than in the words of 
W. Pater (Marius the Epicurean, ii., p. 
120), describing the spirit of the new 
Christian society as it appeared to a 
pagan. ‘As if by way of a due recog- 
nition of some immeasurable Divine con- 
descension manifest in a certain historic 


fact, its influence was felt more especially 
at those points which demanded some 
sacrifice of one’s self, for the weak, for 
the aged, for little children, and even for 
the dead. And then, for its constant 
outward token, its significant manner or 
index, it issued in a certain debonair 
grace, and a certain mystic attractive- 
ness, a courtesy, which made Marius 
doubt whether that famed Greek blithe- 
ness or gaiety or grace in the handlin 
of life had been, after all, an unrivall 
success." A definition is given by Aristot., 
Eth, Nic., 5, το, 3, τὸ p btn 4 δίκαιον 
μέν ἐστιν, οὐ τὸ κατὰ νόμον δέ, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐπανόρθωμα νομίμου δικαίου, where the 
point is that it means a yielding up of 
certain real rights. This spirit, in the 
Christian life, is due to i higher 
claims of love which Christ has set in 
the forefront. Cf. 2 Cor. x. 1, Tit. iii. 2. 
Their joy (ver. 4) really depends on this 
‘reasonableness " having as wide a 
scope as possible. It is Be who shows 
forbearance and graciousness all round 
(γνωσθ. πᾶσιν ἀνθ.) who can preserve 
an undisturbed heart. In Ps. Sol. v. 14 
God is called χρηστὸς καὶ ἐπιεικής.--ὁ κ. 
ἐγγύς. Quite evidently Paul expects a 
speedy return of Christ. It was natural 
in the beginning of the Church’s history, 
before men had a large enough perspec- 
tive in which to discern the tardy 
cesses of the Kingdom of God. Cf. chap. 
iii. 21. This solemn fact which governs 
the whole of Paul’s thinking, and has 
especially moulded his ethical teaching, 
readily suggests “reasonableness”. The 
Lord, the Judge, is at the door. Leave 
all wrongs for Him to adjust. Forbear 
all wrath and retaliation (cf. Rom. xii. 
το ff.). But further, in view of such a 
rospect, earthly bickerings and wrang- 
ings are utterly trivial. Cf. 1 John ii. 
28, ‘‘ Abide in Him, so that if He be 
manifested, we may have boldness and 
not be ashamed before Him at His com- 
ing A close parallel is Jas. v. 8. 

er. 6. p. pep. “In nothing be 
anxious.” ep. is not common in earlier 
prose. It is used re y in LXX of 
anxiety (a) approaching dread as Ps. 
xxxvii. το, (δ) producing displeasure as 
Ezek. xvi. 42, (c) of a general kind as 
1 Chron. xvii. 9. For the thought cf. 4 
Ezra ii. 27: Noli satagere, cum venerit 
enim dies pressurae et angustiae ... tu 
autem hilaris et copiosa eris. See the 





4-7. 


6. μηδὲν ' μεριμνᾶτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ | 
ἢ εὐχαριστίας τὰ ᾿' αἰτήματα ὑμῶν ” γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


467 


Matt. vi. 

25, 27, 31; 
Luke ‘di, 
22, 25, 26 


7. καὶ ἡ " εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα ἢ νοῦν, ἢ φρουρήσει αἱ 


τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ ἢ νοήματα 2 ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 


m See note 
infr. 

n Frequent 
in N.T. 


ο Cf. Col. iii. 15. Ρ See note infr 


1 του Χριστου A, syrP- mg-, Cyr., Proc., Ambr., Pelag. 
2 σωματα Fer-G, d, e, 6, m, Victorin., Chrom, 


note on chap. ii. 20 supr.—mpogev. κ. 
τ. δεήσ. προσευχή emphasises prayer 
as an act of worship or devotion; δεήσις 
is the cry of personal need. See on chap. 
i. 4 supr. Curare et orare plus inter se 
pugnant quam aqua et ignis (Beng.).— 
μετὰ εὐχ. The word is rarely found in 
secular Greek (e.g., Hippocr., Polyb., 
Diod. ; see Rutherford, New Phrynichus, 
Ῥ. 69), or LXX. Paul uses it twelve 
times, but only twice with the article. 
Does not this imply that he takes for 
granted that thanksgiving is the back- 
ground, the predominant tone of the 
Christian life? To pray in any other 
spirit is to clip the wings of prayer.— 
αἴτημα is found three timesin N.T. It 
emphasises the object asked for (see an 
important discussion by Ezra Abbot in 
N. Amer. Review, 1872, p. 171 ff.). 
‘Prayer is a wish referred to God, and 
the possibility of such reference, save in 
matters of mere indifference, is the test of 
the purity of the wish” (Green, Two 
Sermons, p. 44).—mpds τ. Θεόν. ‘In the 
presence of God.” A delicate and sug- 
gestive way of hinting that God’s pre- 
sence is always there, that it is the 
atmosphere surrounding them. Anxious 
foreboding is out of place in a Father’s 
presence. Requests are always in place 
with Him. With this phrase cf. Rom. 
xvi. 26. 

Ver. 7. Hpt. would put no stop at the 
close of ver. 6. Whether there be a stop 
or not, this verse is manifestly a kind of 


apodosis to the preceding. “If you 
make your requests, etc., . . . then the 
peace . . . shall guard,” etc. ἡ εἰρ. τ. 


©. Paul’s favourite thought of that 
health and harmonious relation which 
prevail in the inner life as the result of 
reconciliation with God through Jesus 
Christ. Cf. Matt. xi. 28. It would be 
an undue restriction of his thought to 
imagine that he only refers to agree- 
ment between members of the Church, 
although, no doubt, that idea is here in- 
cluded. ‘‘ This peace is like some magic 
mirror, by the dimness growing on which 


we may discern the breath of an unclean 
spirit that would work us ill” (Rendel 
Harris, Memoranda Sacra, p. 130; the 
quotation skilfully catches the spiritual 
conception before Paul’s mind). To 
share anxiety with God is to destroy its 
corroding power and to be calmed by His 
peace. Peace is used as a name of God 
in the Talmud (see Taylor, Yewish 
Fathers, pp. 25-26).--ἡ ὑπερέχ. πάντα 
νοῦν. ‘* Which surpasses every thought, 
all our conception.” (So also Chr., 
Erasm., Weizs., Moule, Von Soden, etc.). 
This meaning seems inevitable from the 
parallel in Eph. iii. 20, τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ 
ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν 
αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν, and cf. ver. 19, τὴν 
ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην 
τοῦ Χ. Space forbids the enumeration of 
the many interpretations given. Words- 
worth (Prelude, Bk. 14) defines this peace 
as ‘repose in moral judgments ”.—yody 

. καρδίας . . . νοήματα. νοῦς, very 
much what we call “reason,” in Paul’s 
view, belongs to the life of the σάρξ, It 
is the highest power in that life, and 
affords, as it were, the material on which 
the Divine πνεῦμα can work. It remains 
in those who possess the πνεῦμα as that 
part of the inner man which is exposed to 
earthly influences and relations. (See an 
admirable note in Ws.) καρδία is “a 
more undefined concept, side by side 
with νοῦς ” (so Liidemann, Anthropol., p. 
16 ff.). It hasto do not merely with feel- 
ings but with will. νοήματα are products 
of the νοῦς, thoughts or purposes. Paul 
would probably regard them as being con- 
tained in the καρδία. The word is found 
five times in 2-Cor. and nowhere else in 
Ν.Τ.---φρουρήσει. A close parallel is x 
Peter i. 5, τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ φρουρου- 
μένους διὰ πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν. Hicks 
(Class. Review, i., pp. 7-8) presses the 
figure of a garrison keeping ward over a 
town, and observes that one of the most 
important elements in the history of the 
Hellenistic period was the garrisoning of 
the cities both in Greece and Asia Minor 
by the successors of Alexander the Great. 


468 


q 1 Tim. iii. 
8,11; Tit. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


IV. 


8. Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα ὃ σεμνά, ὅσα δίκαια, 


ἵνα (ὁ ὅσα " ἁγνά, ὅσα " προσφιλῆ, ὅσα ᾿ εὔφημα, et! τις ἀρετὴ καὶ εἴ τις 


τα Cor. 
11; 1 Tim. 


" ἔπαινος, ταῦτα * λογίζεσθε. 


9. ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε 


γι 54:18. καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, ταῦτα πράσσετε" καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τῆς 


1γ:}ᾧϑᾧ Σ ών, 
Pet. if 2 εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 


5 Onl 
in ΝΙΤ. Sirach.  t Only here in N.T. 


11 K 17, d. ect. 


Cf. Gal. iii. 23. The peace of God is the 

ison of the soul in all the experiences 
of its life, defending it from the external 
assaults of temptation or anxiety, and 
disciplining all lawless desires and ima- 
ginations within, that war against its 
higher purposes.—év X. "Il. Christ Jesus 
is the sure refuge and the atmosphere of 
security. 

Ver. 8. The thought of this paragraph 
(vv. 8-0) is closely connected with that of 
the preceding by the resumption of the 
phrase ἡ εἰρήνη τ. ©. (ver. 7) in a new 
form 6 ©. τῆς εἰρήνης (ver. 9). The 
peace of God will be the guardian of their 
thoughts and imaginations, only they 
must do their part in bending their minds 
to worthy objects. Lft. and Ws. have 
elaborate classifications of Paul's list of 
moral excellences. It is not probable, in 
the circumstances, that any such was 
before the Apostle’s mind.—7rd λοιπόν is 
probably used to show that he is hasten- 
ing to aclose. See on chap. iii. 1 supr. 
Beyschl. well remarks on the “ inex- 
haustibility’’ of the Christian moral ideal 
which is here presented. It embraces 
practically all that was of value in ancient 
ethics.—dAn6q and δίκαια express the 
very foundations of moral life. If truth 
and righteousness are lacking, there is 
nothing to hold moral qualities together. 
—oepva, ‘“ Reverend.” The due appre- 
ciation of such things produces what M. 
Arnold would call ‘‘a noble seriousness" 
(so also Vinc.). — προσφιλῆ. Our 
“lovely” in its original force gives the 
exact meaning, “those things whose 
grace attracts". The idea seems to be 
esp. applied to nal bearing towards 
others. See Sirach iv. 7, προσφιλῆ 
συναγωγῇ σεαυτὸν ποιεῖ; xx. 13, 6 
σοφὸς ἐν λόγῳ ἑαυτὸν προσφιλῇ ποιήσει. 
Cf. W. Pater’s description of the Church 
in the second century: ‘‘ She had set up 
for herself the ideal of spiritual develop- 
ment under the guidance of an instinct by 
which, in those serious moments, she 
was absolutely true to the peaceful soul 
of her Founder. ‘ Goodwill to men,’ she 


u Cf. chap. i. 11; Eph. i. 6, τα, 14. 


v See on chap. iii. 13. 


* emotypys added by D*E*FG, d, e, f, g, Ambrst. 


said, ‘in whom God Himself is well- 
pleased.’ For a little while at least there 
was no forced opposition between the 
soul and the body, the world and the 
spirit, and the grace of graciousness itself 
was pre-eminently with the people of 
Christ” (Marius, ii., p. 132).—edoypa. 
Exactly = our “high-toned”. (So also 
Ell.) ‘Was einen guten Klang hat” 
(Lips.). It is an extremely rare word.— 
εἴ τ. . κ.τιλ. ‘ Whatever excellence 
there or fit object of praise.” The 
suggestion of Lft., ‘‘ Whatever value may 
exist in (heathen) virtue,” etc., goes 
slightly beyond the natural sense, eg 
the reader’s point of view. Cf. Sayings 
of Few. Fathers, chap. ii., 1, '' Rabbi said, 
which is the right course that a man 
should choose for himself? Whatsoever 
is a pride to him that pursues it and brings 
him honour from men.” On the im- 
portant range of meanings belonging to 


, See Dsm., BS., p. go ff. vos, 
as Hort (on 1 Pet. 1. 7) points out, 
corresponds exactly to ἀρετή and im- 


plies it, including in itself the idea 
of moral approbation. He observes 
that it refers chiefly to “the inward 
disposition to acts as actions” (see the 
whole valuable note).—+r. λογίζ. “ Make 
them the subject of careful reflection.” 
Meditatio . . . praecedit ; deinde sequitur 
opus (Calv.). 

Ver. ο. Itis hardly possible, with Ell., 
to refer ἃ καὶ κ.τ.λ. immediately to the 
preceding, without forcing the construc- 
Ποη.---ἐμάθ. κ. παρελ. plainly refer to the 
definite Christian teaching he had set 
himself to give them. π vw is 
used regularly of “receiving” truth from 
a teacher.—h. κ. εἴδ. ἐν ἐ, This is the 
impression made upon them by his Chris- 
tian character, apart from any conscious 
effort on his part. Cf. chap. iii. 17.---ὁ 
Θ. τ. elp. See on ver. 8 (ad init.). It is 
κ να” possible that he has partly in view 

e disregard of these ethical qualities as 
threatening the harmony of the Church, 
and as, so far, to blame for the divisions 
already existing. 





8—rr. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


469 


το. Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ μεγάλως, ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ” ἀνεθάλετε] τὸ 3 W Only here 


ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν - ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, " ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ. 
ὅτι καθ᾽ 7 ὑστέρησιν λέγω" ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔμαθον, ἐν οἷς εἰμί, " αὐτάρκης 


See note infr. x Only here. 


1D* εθαλατε. 


Vv. 10-14. DELICATE EXPRESSION OF 
THANKS FOR THEIR GIFT.—Ver. 10. δέ 
marks the turning of Paul’s thoughts to a 
different subject, or, as Lft. admirably 
expresses it, “arrests 3 subject which is 
in danger of escaping”. He has not, up 
till now, expressly thanked them for their 
generous gift which was, in all likelihood, 
the occasion of this letter. The very fact 
of his accepting a present from them 
showed his confidence in their affection. 
This was indeed his right, but he seldom 
laid claim to it. No doubt the delicacy 
of his language here is due (so also Hil- 
genfeld, ZwTh., xx., 2, pp. 183-184) to 
the base slanders uttered against him at 
Corinth and in Macedonia (x Thess. ii. 
5), as making the Gospel a means of liveli- 
hood (see 1 Cor. ix. 3-18, 2 Cor. xi. 8-9, 
Gal. vi. 6, and Schirer, ii., 1, pp. 318-319). 
--ἤδη ποτέ. An expressive combination 
= ‘already once more” (precisely = 
schon wieder einmal, which has a force 
corresponding to that of the Greek, which 
cannot be reproduced in English, that of 
the unexpected nature of the gift. So 
Ws.).—aveOddere, The verb is very rare 
in secular Greek, while occurring nine 
times in LXX. This older aorist form 
takes the place of the more regular one 
five times in LXX. It is only found in 
the Bible. (See W-Sch., p. 110; Lobeck, 
Paralipomena, p. 557.) The verb is used 
both transitively andintransitively. Here 
it is probably transitive, as in Ezek. xvii. 
24 and three other places in LXX (so 
De W., Ws., Lft., Holst., Lips.,etc.). In 
that case τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν is the 
accusative governed by it. ‘* You let your 
care for me blossom into activity again.” 
Myr. thinks it inconsistent with the deli- 
cacy of Paul’s tone in this passage to take 
it as transitive. But Paul expressly 
guards against hurting their feelings by 
correcting, as it were, his statement by 
the next clause in which he asserts, 
“You did truly care”. This construction 
seems rmauch more natural than to take 
τὸ ὑπ. ἐ. op. 45 an accusative of the 
inner object (so Myr., Gw., Hpt., Eadie). 
Moule, probably with justice, remarks 
that ‘the phrase is touched with a smile 
of gentle pleasantry ” (Philippian Studies, 


P 1, 4, 43 ανεθαλλετε. 


Ezek. 
XVii. 24; 
Sirach i. 
18, xi. 22, 
1. το al. 

z Cf. 2 Cor, ix. 8; τ Tim. vi. 6. 


II. οὐχ 


y Mark xii. 44. 
3 Ἐ6 τον. 


Ρ. 245).—é’ g. The most various inter- 
pretations have been given. Some refer 
@ to the whole phrase preceding. Some 
make ἀναθάλλειν the antecedent. ΕἸ]. 
renders, ‘with a view to which” (pro- 
bably ‘‘my interests”; so also Gw., 
Beet); Lft. “in which” (taking it gene- 
rally); Hfm. = ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι. The 
simplest explanation is to regard ἐμοῦ as 
antecedent (so also Calv., Vaughan). 
** About whom (lit. = in whose case) you 
certainly did care, were anxious, but you 
had no opportunity of showing your care 
in a practical fashion.”’ ἐπίας contrasted 
with ὑπέρ preceding would express a 
more indefinite relation to Paul. They 
were always, as he well knew, thoroughly 
interested in him. The definite relation 
is connected with the actual bestowing of 
the gift.—jkatpetoOe. Lidd. and Scott 
quote one instance of the simple verb 
ἀκαιρέω. It is not certain whether he 
refers here to lack of means or the want 
of opportunity to send a gift. The im- 
perfects show the habitual state of their 
feelings towards Paul. 

Ver. 11. The form of vv. 11-13, from 
ἐγὼ γάρ, is strophic. ἐγὼ . . . εἶναι 
gives the ‘“‘theme”. Ver. 13 marks the 
close. The thought is worked out be- 
tween. See J. Weiss, Βεζίγ., p. 29.— 
οὐχ ὅτι. See on chap. iii. 12 supy.—Ka®? 
ὑστέρησιν. ‘As regards want.” κατά 
has the same sense as in the phrase 
τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ.--ἐγώ emphasises his own 
position in a tone of calm independence 
of circumstances.—év οἷς εἰμί, Taken 
by itself, the phrase might well mean, 
‘in my present circumstances”. But in 
view of the following verses it seems 
better to make it general= “in the 
circumstances in which I am placed at 
any moment”. For exx. of the phrase 
see Kypke and Wetst. ad loc.—épalov 
must be translated into English as a 
perfect, ‘‘I have learned”. But the 
Greek has a true aorist force: it sums up 
his experiences to the moment of writing 
and regards them as a whole.—attdpxys 
is admirably illustrated by Plat., Repub., 
360 B, οὐκ αὐτάρκης, ἀλλὰ πολλῶν 
ἐνδεής. ‘ Dr. Johnson talked with appro- 
bation of one who had attained to the 


470 


ἃ 2 Cor. xi. 
ΡΟ Ὲ εἶναι. 


note infr. 5 παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι 
b See ver. 


18. περισσεύειν Kal ‘ dotepeiobar. 


Luke xv. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


12, οἶδα δὲ] " ταπεινοῦσθαι, οἶδα 
ἁμεμύημαι καὶ “χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾷν, καὶ 


IV. 
καὶ 3 " περισσεύειν " ἐν 


13. πάντα "ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ * ἐνδυνα- 


17; 1 Cor. μοῦντί pe Χριστῷ. 14. πλὴν καλῶς ἐποιήσατε " συγκοινωνήσαντές ὁ 
Cor. i. 3 
τος. ἦν δ, vill. γ; 1 Thess. ν. 18. d Only here in Ν.Τ. 6 Chen a ae Ps. civ. 13. 
f Luke xv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. xi. 37; Sirach xi. 11. g See note in/r. h Eph, ν. 11; Rev. 


xviii. 4. 


1 80 137, some other minn. 
have arisen from the last syll. of οιδα. 


2 A syrtch. om. και. 


Edd. και with ABD, etc. Myr. supposes δε to 


3 So WeDcEet.Per-GKLP, Ath., Cyr., Chr., Euth.cod.. Thdrt., etc. Edd. om, 


Xp with 


brst. 


AB*D*EFG. 


state of the philosophical wise man, that 
is, to have no want of anything. ‘Then, 
sir,’ said I, ‘the savage is a wise man.’ 
‘Sir,’ said he, ‘I do not mean simply 
being without,—but not mye - awant’”’ 
(Boswell’s fohnson, p. 351, Globe ed.). 

Ver. 12. οἶδα κ.τ.λ. καί must be 
read with all good authorities. The one 
καί must be correlative to the other, 
unless he intended to continue the sen- 
tence without the second οἶδα (see an 
excellent note on καί in N.T, in Ell. ad 
loc. He defines somewhat too minutely). 
Examples of the infinitive after οἶδα are 
to be found in classical Οτεεκ.---Ταπειν. 
The best comment on this is 2 Cor. xi. 
7, ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε. 
There it means, ‘keeping myself low"’ 
(in respect of the needs of daily life). 
Moule aptly quotes Diod., i., 36 (speaking 
of the Nile), καθ ἡμέραν . . . ταπεινοῦται 
= “runs low ".—év παντ. κ. ἐν π. A 
vague, general phrase = “in all circum- 
stances of Πε”. It has no immediate 
connexion with μεμύημαι (cf. a similar 
expression μι παντί in Xen., Hell., 
7, 5, 12, and τοις πασιν OF πασιν in 
Thucyd., Soph., εἰς.).-- μεμύημαι. The 
verb was originally used of one initiated 
into the Mysteries. It came (like our 
own ‘‘initiated”’) to lose its technical 
sense. But the word probably implies 
a difficult process to be gone through. 
Cf. Ps. xxv. 14: “ The secret of the Lord 
is with them that fear Him, and He will 
show them His covenant” (Vaughan), 
and Wisd. viii. 4, μύστις yap ἐστιν τῆς 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιστήμης. In later ecclesi- 
astical usage ὃ μεμνημένος = a baptised 
Christian (an instructive hint as to the 
growth of dogma). See Anrich, Das 


N*ABD* 17, ἃ, ε, ἢ, τ, vg. cop. arm. #xth., Clem., Victorin., Am- 
t was very probably added from 1 Tim. i. 12. 


480 Lach., Trg., Alf. with S{BeDcKeil LP. 


Ti., Ws., W.H. ovve. with 


Antike Mysterienwesen, p. 158. μεμύ, 
κ. closely with the infinitives following. 
f. Alciphron, 2, 4 ad /fin., κυβερνᾶν 
μνηθήσομαι.---χορτάζεσθαι is a strong 
word, used originally of the feeding of 
animals, which gradually became colour- 
less in the colloquial language (see 
Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 82).--πεινᾶν 
should be written without iota subscript. 
It is contracted here with a as usuall 
in later Greek. See Phrynichus ed. 
Lobeck), 61, 204. So always in LXX.— 
ὑστερεῖσθαι has the rare meaning “to be 
in want" (absol.), or rather (in middle), 
“to feel want”. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 9, and 
esp. Sirach xi. 11, ἔστιν κοπιῶν καὶ 
πονῶν καὶ σπεύδων, καὶ τόσῳ μᾶλλον 
ὑστερεῖται. 

Ver. 13. π. ἰσχ. It is difficult to 
decide whether π. is accusative or merely 
adverbial. Cf. Jas. v. 16 (where appar- 
ently ἰσχύει has the ντ. and 
Wisd. xvi. 20, ἄρτον... ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ 
ἔπεμψας... πᾶσαν ἡδονὴν ἰσχύοντα. 
For the other alternative see Hom., 
Odyss., 8, 214.—v8uv. Cf. Eph. vi. το, 
ἐνδυναμοῦσθε ἐν Κυρίῳ ; Jud. vi. 34 (cod. 
A), πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐνεδυνάμωσεν τὸν Γεδεών, 
It is arare word. The adjective ἐνδύνα- 

from which it springs, is only found 
in late Byzantine Greek. An apt parallel 
to the whole context is Ps. Sol. 16, 12, 
ἐν τῷ ἐνισχῦσαί σε τὴν ψνχήν pov 
ἀρκέσει μοι τὸ δοθέν.--Χριστῷ must be 
omitted. See crit. note supr. 

Ver. 14. πλήν, See on chap. iii. 16. 
“ All the same, I rejoice in your kind- 
ness.”"—xah@s. Hort (on 1 Pet. 11, Be 
points out that καλός '' denotes that kin 
of goodness which is at once seen to be 
good”.—ovvx. (the preferable spelling). 





12---17. 


μου τῇ θλίψει. 15. οἴδατε δὲ” καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ἷ να 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία 
ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον " δόσεως καὶ λήψεως," Sei μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι : 


19 


16. ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ καὶ ᾿ ἅπαξ καὶ | δὶς εἰς ὅ τὴν '' χρείαν 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


471 


Cf. 
συναίρειν 
λόγον in 
Matt. 
XViii. 23, 
XXV. 19. 

k Sirach xli. 


μοι δ ἐπέμψατε. 17. οὐχ ὅτι " ἐπιζητῶ τὸ “ δόμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιζητῶ τὸν no ὙΠ}: κι 


17. | See note in/r. 


Rom. xi.7 al. ο Matt. vii. 11; Luke xi. 13. 


τ, θλ. µ. DEFG, O.L. vg. 


m Ver. 19; Acts xx. 34} Rom. xii. 13 αἱ. 
t 


if. Jas. 1. 
n Matt. vi. 32; Luke xii. 30; 
enin LXX. See Grimm-Thayer ad voc. 


3 Om. δε Der.*Egr.* 37, 115 al., syrP- arm, zeth., Chr., Thdrt. 
8 ort inserted before ουδ. by D*E*Fer.G, d, e, δ. 
4 80 BecDcEKLP. Edd. λημψ. with NAB*D*FG. 


5 Om. εἰς AD*(E*) 39, 73, go. arm. eth., Victorin. 


Lach. and Lft. bracket. 


ὁ µου DELP, g, syrP- cop. arm., Proc., Thphl., Aug., Ambrst. 


In classical usage (almost confined to 
Demosth.) this verb has the genitive of 
the thing in which a share is given. 
They had made common cause with his 
affliction (probably referring to his im- 
prisonment). The bringing forward of 
μου emphasises their personal relation to 
the Apostle, which was apt to be obscured 
by the form of expression used. 

Vy. 15-19. THEIR EARLIER AND LATER 
GENEROSITY AND ITS DIVINE REWARD.— 
Ver. 15. δέ marks the transition to his 
first experience of their generosity. “' But 
this is no new thing, for you have always 
been generous. You know this as well as 
Ido” (καὶ ὑμεῖς).---Φιλιππήσ. (A Latin 
form, see Ramsay, Fournal of Theol. 
Studies, i., 1, Ῥ. 116.) He singles them 
out from all the other Churches.—év ap x. 
τ. evay. It is difficult to see (in spite of 
Haupt’s objections) how this could mean 
anything else than ‘‘at the time when 
the Gospel was first preached to you”’. 
That had been about ten years previously. 
Cf. τ Clem. 47, ἀναλάβετε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν 
τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου : 
τί πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
ἔγραψεν ; probably this is the gift referred 
to in 2 Cor. xi. 9 (cf. Acts xviii. 5). He 
refused to take any pecuniary aid at 
Corinth lest the Judaising teachers should 
make it a ground for false charges.— 
μοι . . . ἐκοινών. This use (in N.T.) is 
apparently confined to the Epistles. A 
precise parallel (κοιν. with dative and 
eis) is found in Plat., Repub., v., 453 A.— 
els Ady. 8. κ. λ. Lit. = “Νο Church 
communicated with me so as to have an 
account of giving and receiving’”’ (debit 
and credit). The whole of the context 
has a colouring of financial terms. Pro- 
bably Paul uses them in a half-humorous 


manner, The combination of 8. and A, 
is frequent. Cf. Sirach xlii. 7, δόσις καὶ 
λῆμψις παντὶ ἐν γραφῇ, and in Latin 
authors, Cic., Lael., 16, ratio acceptorum 
et datorum. Numerous exx. are given 
by Wetst. Paul had bestowed on them 
priceless spiritual gifts. It was only 
squaring the account that he should re- 
ceive material blessings fromthem. Their 
mutual relations are expressed by the 
Apostle very delicately, as throughout this 
paragraph. His manner here gives a 
luminous view of his refined sensibility. 

Ver. 16. ὅτι κ.τ.λ. We are greatly 
inclined to take ὅτι here, as in ver. 15, as 
dependent on οἴδατε. “Ye know... 
that at the beginning . . . that even in 
Thessalonica,” etc. Thessalonica wasa 
city of far greater wealth and importance 
than Philippi. καί might, however, 
emphasise the fact that they began at 
once to support him.—dwagt κ. δίς is 
probably to be taken literally. Cf. Deut. 
ix. 13, λελάληκα πρὸς σὲ ἅπαξ καὶ Sis; 
1 Mace. iii. 30, εὐλαβήθη μὴ οὐκ ἔχει ὡς 
ἅπαξ καὶ δίς. It is interpreted ina more 
general sense by Lft. and Wohl.—eis τ. 
χρείαν. eis should be read with most of 
the best authorities. It is probably used 
here in a semi-technical meaning often 
found in Papyri (see Dsm., BS., pp. 113- 
115; NBS., p. 23) and also in Paul, z.g., 
1 Cor. xvi. I, τῆς λογίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς 
ἁγίους; Rom. xv. 26, κοινωνίαν τινὰ 
ποιήσασθαι εἰς τοὺς πτωχούς. It de- 
scribes the object of gifts, collections, 
etc., or the various items in an account 
which have to be met. This interpreta- 
tion accords with the financial colouring 
of the passage. 

Ver. 17. τὸ δόμα. It is not the actual 
gift put into Paul’s hands which has 


472 ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ ιν. 


Ρ ra wht καρπὸν τὸν ἢ πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν. 


18. 3, ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα 


abe καὶ περισσεύω - "πεπλήρωμαι, δεξάμενος παρὰ] ᾿Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ 


q Matt. vi.2, 


παρ᾽ ὑμῶν,2 "ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν "δεκτήν, " εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ. 


16. Το. 6 δὲ Θεός μου πληρώσει" πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν κατὰ τὸν πλοῦτον " 


τ No precise 


parallelto αὐτοῦ ἐν * δόξῃ, ἐν Χριστῷ ἸΙησοῦ. 


this sense. 


Verb ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 


common 

in N.T. and LXX. 
In LXX, ¢.g., Isa. xlix. 8 al, 
43; Col. iii. 4 al. 


1A om. παρα. 
2 Der.*Eer.* add πενφθεν. 
πεμφθεντα. 


s Eph. ν. 2. ὄσμ. εὐωδ. often in LXX. 
u Rom. xii. 1; 2 Cor. v.g αἱ. Wisd. iv. το, ix. ro. 


20. τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν 
ἀμήν. 


t Luke iv. 24; Acts x. 35 al. 
"wa Cor. xv. 


FG, d, e, f, g, τ, Iren., Cyp., Vict., Ambrst. add 


ὃ πληρωσαι D*FG 17, 37, ἆ, 6, f, g, τ, vg-, Chr., Euth.cod., Cyr., Thdrt., Thphl., 


Vict., Ambrst. 


480 DbetcEKL, Chr., Cyr. Edd. το πλοντος with &*BD*FGP 17, 67**, 


Euth.cod. 


brought him joy, but the giving (δόσις, 
ver. 15) and the meaning of that giving. 
It is the truest index to the abiding reality 
of his work.—xapwov . . . πλεονάζοντα 
.. « λόγον. We believe that Chr. is 
right in regarding these terms as belong- 
ing to the money-market. ὁ 

ἐκείνοις τίκτεται (Chr.). ‘‘ Interest accu- 
mulating to your credit.’ This is favoured 
by the language of vv. 15-16 supr. πλεο- 
νάζειν is never used in a good sense in 


classical Greek, but always = ‘‘ exceed,” 
“go beyond bounds”. 
Ver. 18. ἀπέχω. The use of this 


word adds much force to the thought, 
when we bear in mind that it was the 
regular expression in the Papyri to denote 
the receipt of what was due, e.g., Faijim 
Pap., Sept. 6, A.D. 57: ἀπέχω παρ᾽ ὑμῶν 
τὸν φόρον τοῦ ἐλα[ι]ουργίον ὧν ἔχετε 
[μο]ν ἐν μισϑώσει. (Dsm., NBS., p. 56.) 
Chr. evidently knew this sense, for he 
says, “ἔδειξεν ὅτι ὀφειλή ἐστιν τὸ 
πρᾶγμα" τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν, ἀπέχω”'. Thus 
the prevailing tone of the whole context 
is maintained. The word is almost = 
“I give you a receipt for what you owed 
me”. The genial strain of humour is in 
no discord with his more serious thoughts. 
--περισσεύω. Cf. Sayings of Few. 
Fathers, p. 64: ‘‘ Whois rich? Hethat 
is contented with his lot."”—aewArp. 
Classical Greek would hardly use the 
word in this personal sense. The closing 
words of the verse have underlying them 
the idea of sacrifice. A gift to an Apostle 
or spiritual teacher seems to have been 
regarded in the Early Church, like the 
gifts brought in the Eucharist, as an 
offering to God. The recipient is looked 


upon as the representative of God (see 
Sohm, Kirchenrecht, pp. 74 ff., 81 ».).— 
dcp. εὐωδ. '' A scent of sweet savour.” — 
θυσίαν δεκτ. “A technical term accord- 
ing to Sirach xxxii, 9" (Hpt.).—ebdp- 
εστον. Cf. Rom. xii. 1 ff., which bears 
closely upon the whole passage. 

Ver. 19. ὁ δὲ Θεός κ.τ.λ. God's 
treatment of them corresponds to their 
treatment of Paul. They had ministered 
to his χρεία, so that he could say πεπλήρω- 
μαι. That was the side of the reckoning 
which stood to their credit. Here is the 
other side. “ My God shall repay what 
has been done to me His servant for the 
Gospel’s.sake. He, in turn, shall satisfy 
to the full (πληρώσει) every need of yours.” 
--τὸ πλοῦτος must be read. See crit. 
note supr. So also in 2 Cor. viii. 2, Eph, 
i, 7,1. 7, im, 8, τό, Col. i, 27, fh. a ut 
ὁ πλοῦτος in Eph. i. 18, and repeatedly 
both in nominative, genitive and accusative 
singular. Modern Greek uses πλοῦτος, 
βίος, θρῆνος sometimes with 6, some- 
times with τό. LXX generally has 6,— 
ἐν δόξῃ. The phrase is regarded by some 
(¢.g., Beng., Ws., Eadie, etc.) as = “in 
a lavish, magnificent way”. This is to 
strain the sense. It is much more natural, 
comparing Rom. viii. 21, Eph. i. 18 (τίς 
ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας), 
to think of it as the future Messianic 

lory which Paul believed to be so near 
so Lft., ΚΙ., etc.). 

Ver. 20. Doxology. Doxologia fluit 
ex gaudio totius epistolae (Beng.). On the 
phrase τοὺς αἰῶνας τ. αἰώνων see the 
excellent note in Grimm-Thayer ad loc. 

Vv. 21-23. GREETINGS AND BENEDIC- 
TION.—Ver, 21. Perhaps this last para- 








— 


18---23. 


21. "᾿Ασπάσασθε πάντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
22. ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι, 


ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί. 


μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ] τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 


473 


ἀσπάζονται w Rom. xvi. 
3; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 19 al. 


23. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 2 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὃ 


ὑμῶν. ἀμήν." 


Πρὸς Φιλιππησίους ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης δι’ ᾿Επαφροδίτου.ὅ 


1B aro. 


2So Der.Eer-P, kscr., f, r, syrsch.et p. cop. zth., Chr., Thdrt., Victorin., Ambrst. 
Edd. om. ημων with SABFer.GKL, ἆ, e, 6, arm., Euth.cod. 


3 So also Myr. with &cKL, syrr., Chr., Thdrt., Thphl. 


Edd. peta του πνευ- 


ατος with *ABDEFGP 6, 17, 31, 47, d, 6, f, g, τ, vg. cop. arm. zth., Euth.cod., 


ictorin., Ambrst, 


4 80 SADEKLP # al, ᾱ, 6, 1, vg. cop. syrr. arm. exth., Thdrt., Dam., 


Ambrst. 
5 So KL, syrr., Thdrt., etc. 


Ti., Ws., W.H. om. αμην with ΒΕ 47, f, g, sah., Chr., Euth.cod., Vict. 
Edd. προς φιλιππησιους with SAB 17, 135. 


The 


latter form is plainly the more ancient, the other being an expansion based on the 


contents of the Epistle. 


graph may have been written by the 
Apostle’s own hand (so Von Soden and 
Laurent, op. cit., p. 9). Cf. Gal. vi. 11. 
—év X, Ἰ. These words are to be taken 
in close connexion with ἀσπάσασθε. Cf. 
1 Cor. xvi. 19, ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἐν Κυρίῳ 
πολλὰ ᾿Ακύλας. -- ἀδελφοί. Perhaps 
these were Roman Christians who aided 
Paul in his labours: (see M‘Giffert, 4. 
Age, p. 397). At least they would be 
included. 

Ver. 22. μάλιστα. If by this time, 
as is probable (see Introduction), Paul 
had been removed from his lodging to 
one of the state prisons near the palace, 
it is plain that Christians of the Imperial 
household would have special oppor- 
tunities of close intercourse with him.— 
οἱ ἐκ τῆς Κ. οἰκίας. See esp. SH., 
Romans, pp. 418-423, as supplementary 
to Lightfoot’s important discussion; and 
also, Riggenbach, Neue fahrb. f. deutsche 
Th., 1892, pp. 498-525, Mommsen, Hand- 


buch d. rim, Alterth., ii., 2 (ed. 3), pp. 
833-839. SH. point out that a number 
of the names mentioned for salutation in 
Rom. xvi. occur in the Corpus of Latin 
Inscriptions as members of the Imperial 
household, which seems to have been one 
of the chief centres of the Christian com- 
munity at Rome. In the first century 
A.D. most of the Emperor’s household 
servants came from the East. Under 
Claudius and Nero they were people of 
real importance. And we find, from 
history, that Christian slaves had great 
influence over their masters. See Fried- 
lander, Sittengeschichte Roms, i., pp. 70 
ff., 74, I10-112. 

Ver. 23. Probably pera τοῦ πνεύματος 
ought to be read with all the chief autho- 
rities instead of πάντων. Myr., however, 
supposes that these words have been 
inserted from Gal. vi. 18, to which he 
would also attribute ἡμῶν supr., which is 
probably spurious. 





THE EPISTLE OF PAUL 
TO THE 


COLOSSIANS 





INTRODUCTION. 


Section I.—Co.tossa, Laopicgea, ΗΙΒΕΒΑΡΟΙ/8, 


CoLoss# was a city of Phrygia, situated on the southern bank of 
the Lycus, a tributary of the Mzander. The river passes here 
through a narrow gorge, by sheer and rocky sides. Its water is 
nauseous, and impregnated to a most unusual degree with carbonate 
of lime, which has formed very remarkable incrustations along its 
course. Rising steep from the glen in which the city lay was Mount 
Cadmos, towering to a height of 7,000 feet. The district is volcanic 
and subject to earthquakes, and a very disastrous one destroyed 
Laodicea, and probably Colosse and Hierapolis, in the reign of 
Nero. The soil was very fertile; and its pastures reared a noted 
breed of sheep. Both Colossz and Laodicea were very famous for 
their woollen manufactures. The former town was at one time of 
great importance, and is mentioned as such by Herodotus (vii., 30) and 
Xenophon (Anab.,i., 2,6). But the foundation of Laodicea, probably 
in the reign of Antiochus II. (261-246 B.c.), gave the death-blow to 
its supremacy. This city was only eleven miles distant, lying also on 
the south of the Lycus, but in a position far better fitted to secure 
commercial success. It was one of the richest cities in the province 
of Asia, and recovered from its destruction by the earthquake without 
receiving help from imperial funds. The third town mentioned in 
this Epistle, Hierapolis, lay to the north of the Lycus, six miles from 
Laodicea, opposite to which it stood, and thirteen from Colossz. Its 
name indicates its character as a sacred city, and it “ was the centre 
of native feeling and Phrygian nationality in the valley’ (Ramsay). 
While it was influenced, especially as to its form, by Greece, “the 
religion continued to be Lydo-Phrygian”. The population of Colossz 
was probably for the most part Phrygian, with Greek admixture. 
In Laodicea the Jews were fairly numerous, though less so than 
at Apameia, and in this respect Colosse probably resembled it. 
The Talmud says that the wines and baths of Phrygia had separated 


478 INTRODUCTION 


the Ten Tribes from Israel; and we have evidence that the Phrygian 
Jews compromised with heathenism to an extent possible only to 
those who held their ancestral faith most loosely. They probably 
accepted Christianity readily, and thus lost their racial identity. 

We have no information as to the introduction of Christianity 
into these cities, in all of which Churches had been planted. They 
had not been founded by Paul, though some of their members were 
known to him. They seem to have owed their origin to Epaphras, 
who was probably one of Paul’s converts, and since the Apostle 
gives emphatic approval to his teaching, they had been instructed in 
the Pauline type of doctrine. Apparently they consisted for the most 
part of Gentiles (this is suggested, though not proved, by i. 21, 27, 
ii. 13, iii. 7). We may conjecture from iv. 10 that Paul had written 
an earlier letter to them, to which they had sent a reply by Epaphras. 
Recently they had been assailed by a form of false teaching, and 
while they remained, so far, loyal to the doctrine they had been 
taught (i. 4, ii. 5), the danger was sufficiently serious to call forth 
this letter, which had perhaps been preceded by a letter addressed 
to Laodicea. It was sent by Tychicus, who was accompanied by 
Onesimus, Philemon’s runaway slave, whom Paul was sending back 
to his master, with a letter asking forgiveness for the culprit. 


Section I].—ANGELOLOoGY. 


Since this subject has an important relation to the false teaching 
in the Colossian Church, to the authenticity of the Epistle and the 
exegesis of several passages, it is necessary to treat it in some detail 
so far as this is relevant here, and more convenient to devote a 
special section to it. The doctrine of angels has considerable 
prominence in the Old Testament, but received great development 
in later Judaism, both among the Rabbis and in the apocalyptic 
literature. The influence of these ideas on the New Testament 
writers is very marked. In this connexion the points to be specially 
noticed are the relation of the angels to nature and men, their 
ethical character, their ranks and their association with the Law. 

In the Ο.Τ. the connexion of the angels with the forces of 
nature is not made prominent. The cherubim, it is true, appear 
in close connexion with natural phenomena, and probably were 
originally identical with the thunder-cloud. But we have no warrant 
for regarding them as angels. In Ps. civ. 4 God’s messengers and 
ministers are said to be made of wind and fire. In later literature this 


INTRODUCTION 479 


thought receives great extension. According to the older Jewish re- 
presentation their work in nature was limited to extraordinary cases ; 
but later this was not so, and the whole world was thought to be full of 
spirits and demons. In the Book of Jubilees the angels are brought 
into close relation with the elements. The author mentions angels 
of fire, wind, tempest, darkness, hail, hoar-frost, valleys, thunder, 
lightning, cold, heat, the seasons, dawn and evening, and all spirits 
of His works in heaven and earth. Similarly in Enoch Ix. we read 
of spirits of sea, hoar-frost, hail, snow, mist, dew and rain. Again in 
the Slavonic Enoch xix. 4 we have “the angels who are over seasons 
and years, and the angels who are over rivers and the sea, and those 


‘who are over the fruits of the earth, and the angels over every herb, 


giving all kind of nourishment to every living thing”. In the N.T. 
this conception is also found, especially in the Apocalypse. Thus we 
read\of an angel “that hath power over fire” (xiv. 18) and an “angel 
of the waters” (xvi. 5), cf. also vii. 1, viii. 5, 7-12. The interpolation 
in John v. 4 presents us with the same idea in the angel that troubled 
the waters. In Heb. i. 7 the language of Ps. civ. 4 is reversed, and 
God is said to make His angels winds and His ministers a flame of 
fire. A similar belief in the evanescent personality of the angels is 
expressed in the Rabbinical statements of the daily creation of angels, 
and their transformation now into this, now into that. While these 
thoughts are all but unknown to the O.T., it frequently connects the 
sons of God with the stars. In the Song of Deborah the stars fight 
against Sisera (Jud. v. 20); in Job xxxvili. 7 the morning stars are 
identified with the sons of God. In Neh. ix. 6 the host of heaven is 
actually said to worship God, and by this personal beings must be 
meant (cf. Is. xxiv. 21 with ver. 23). In Enoch we read of “a prison 
for the stars of heaven and the host of heaven” (xviii. 14), and of 
“the stars which have transgressed the commandment of God, and 
are bound here till ten thousand ages, the number of the days of 
their guilt, are consummated” (xxi. 6). A similar association is 
found in Rev. ix. 1 (cf. ver. 11). A closely related function of the 
angels is that of ruling and representing the nations. This is first 
found in Deut. iv. 19, xxxii. 8, LXX (cf. xxix. 26). According to these 
passages the nations are allotted to the host of heaven or the sons of 
God, while Yahweh chooses Israel for Himself (cf. Sirach xvii. 17). 
This undergoes a development in Daniel. Im Deuteronomy the 
nations have their angels, while Israel has Yahweh. In Daniel 
Israel also has its own angel, Michael. In Is. xxiv. 21-23 we find 
the same thought, the host of the high ones on high being connected 
with the kings of the earth. In Rabbinical literature we have a 


480 INTRODUCTION 


similar idea; the angels of the nations have a relation of solidarity 
with their peoples, and God punishes them before He punishes the 
nations themselves (Weber, System der pal. Theol., 1880, p. 165). In 
the N.T. the angels of the seven churches in the Apocalypse are to 
be interpreted in a similar way. 

From the functions which the angels exercise it might be expected 
that ethical distinctions would not be made prominent. In the older 
Biblical literature there is no reference to evil spirits, in the modern 
sense of the term. The angels are instruments to effect Yahweh's 
will. They are good or evil not in virtue of intrinsic character, but 
of the mission on which they may be sent. The “angels of evil” 
who bring the plagues on Egypt (Ps. Ixxviii. 49), the “destroyer” 
who smites the first born (Ex. xii. 23), the evil spirit that troubles 
Saul, the angel that slays the Israelites (2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17), or 
Sennacherib’s army with the pestilence, the lying spirit in the mouth 
of Ahab’s prophets, the cynical Satan who smites Job in property, 
family and person to prove that he does not serve God for nought, 
all alike belong to the heavenly host and are God’s servants, who live 
to do His will. They are evil so far as their mission is to inflict evil. 
Our distinction between good and evil angels is unknown; moral 
features, if present, are rudimentary. When they are called the “ holy 
ones"’ no ethical reference is intended, but simply their consecration 
to the service of God. Immoral actions are attributed to them. 
Thus the sons of God have children by the daughters of men (Gen. 
vi. 1-4), and the host of the high ones on high have to be visited with 
punishment for the wrongs done by the kingdoms under their charge 
(Isa. xxiv. 21). In Ps. lxxxii. the Elohim are rebuked by God in the 
heavenly assembly for their unrighteous rule, and this is so also in 
Ps. lviii. In Job we have similar thoughts. Twice Eliphaz insists 
on the imperfection of the angels, once in his wonderful description 
of the spirit who said to him, “ Behold He putteth no trust in His 
servants, and His angels He chargeth with folly’ (iv. 18); and again, 
speaking for himself, “‘ Behold He putteth no trust in His holy ones; 
yea the heavens are not clean in His sight” (xv. 15). (Similarly Job 
himself, xxi. 22, though Duhm corrects the text.) Bildad also says that 
God “ maketh peace in His high places,”’ and that “the stars are not 
pure in His sight” (xxv. 2, 5). In later Jewish theology, when the 
distinction of angels and demons has become explicit, the angels are 
frequently represented as far from perfect. The proof of this may 
be seen in Weber. The following points may be selected for mention. 
The angels envied Israel the Law; “the angels of ministry coveted 
it, and it was concealed from them”’. On Sinai God gave Moses the 





INTRODUCTION 481 


face of Abraham, the entertainer of angels, that the angels might do 
him no harm. They raise objections to God’s decrees, and not in 
vain; they.even prevent His wishes from being carried into execution. 
Gabriel was disobedient, and was punished on that account; but 
Dubbiel, who was set in his place, showed himself hostile to Israel, 
and was therefore replaced by Gabriel. Judgments are inflicted on 
the angel princes. Their sinlessness is only relative; sin is wanting 
only in so far as it is rooted in sensuality. A similar view is 
found in Enoch: the stars are punished for disobedience, and the 
“watchers” for their union with the daughters of men. It is also 
clear that where angels are thought of as elemental spirits the 
question of their morality can hardly arise. In the Apocalypse 
the angels of the Churches are praised or blamed for the spiritual 
condition of these Churches, which shows once more how unjustifiable 
is the sharp division of angels into the two classes of perfectly sinless 
and irremediably evil. Angels are mentioned which are not evil 
spirits, and yet are not wholly good. 

In the O.T. not much is said which would lead us to infer any 
gradation of rank among angels, though in Daniel an elementary 
system of division is present. In Rabbinical theology we have a 
developed hierarchy, in which ten orders are enumerated (Weber, 
p- 153). In Enoch we read: “And He will call on all the host of 
the heavens and all the holy ones above, and the host of God, the 
Cherubim, Seraphim and Ophanim, and all the angels of powers 
and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect One, and the other 
powers on the earth, over the water, on that day” (Ixi. 10). Similarly 
we read in the Slavonic Enoch that in the seventh heaven Enoch 
saw “a very great light and all the fiery hosts of great archangels, 
and incorporeal powers; cherubim and seraphim, thrones and the 
watchfulness of many eyes. There were ten troops, a station of bright- 
ness” (xx. 1, cf. 3). Ranks of angels are recognised also in the N.T. 

In Deut. xxxiii, 2 we have in our present text, which probably 
needs correction, a reference to the coming of God to His people 
from Sinai and from “holy myriads”.~ The LXX reads “ with the 
myriads of Kadesh,” but has a reference to “angels with Him on 
His right hand” in the next clause. This passage was interpreted 
to mean that the Law had been given through angels. We find this 
in Rabbinical writings, also in the report of a speech of Herod the 
Great in Josephus, «14., xv., 5,3. In the Book of Jubilees we have 
detailed accounts of the giving of precepts by the angels. We find 
a reference to this function of the angels in the speech of Stephen 


(Acts vii. 53, cf ver. 38) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 2). 
VOL, IIL. 31 


482 INTRODUCTION 


Turning now to Paul, we find marked coincidences with the later 
Jewish view. For the connexion of the angels with nature, we have 
his phrase the “elements of the world” (Gal. iv. 3, cf. ver. 9), which 
should be interpreted as personal elemental spirits, to which the pre- 
Christian world was in subjection (see note on ii. 8). The connexion 
with the stars is probably present in the phrase “ celestial bodies” 
(1 Cor, xv. 40), a term which suggests that they were animated by 
spirits. The moral imperfection of angels is also a Pauline concep- 
tion. He speaks of angels, principalities and powers, which might 
be expected to separate us from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38), he 
supposes the case of an angel from heaven preaching another 
doctrine than what he taught (Gal. i. 8), women have to be veiled 
at the Christian assemblies because of the angels (1 Cor. xi. 10, a 
precept suggested by Gen. vi. 1-4), the principalities and powers have 
to be subjected to the Son (1 Cor. xv. 24), the rulers of this world, 
through ignorance of God's wisdom, crucified the Lord of glory (1 
Cor. ii, 6-8), Christians are to judge the angels (1 Cor. vi. 2). These 
passages, it is true, have been otherwise explained. But the exegesis 
has been unnaturally forced through the initial mistake of assuming 
that the angelic world is sharply divided into sinless and fallen spirits. 
Once this is surrendered the natural interpretation becomes possible, 
Again we find ranks of angels recognised by Paul. In Rom. viii. 38 
we have “angels and principalities and powers,” in Cor. xv. 24 we 
have “every principality and every authority and power,” in Thess. 
iv. 16 the archangel is mentioned. He also shares the belief that 
the Law was given by the mediation of angels (Gal. iii. 19). 

When we approach the Epistle to the Colossians and its com- 
panion Epistle by this line of investigation we find nothing that 
should cause us any surprise. A worship of angels, such as was 
inculcated by the false teachers, was quite a natural application of 
the Jewish doctrine. Gfrérer says: “ According to the testimonies 
cited, the entire activity of God in the world is mediated through 
angels. This belief was not without special dangers. One could 
easily fall into the error that the angels should be worshipped instead 
of God, since they help men more than the Eternal. That at the 
time of the Second Temple there really were men who taught this 
we see from the utterance of the Apostle Paul (Col. ii. 18)” (f¥ahr- 
hundert des Heils, i., p. 376). A proof of the custom among the Jews 
is often quoted from the Preaching of Peter, in which the Jews are 
said to worship angels and archangels. Celsus brings a similar 
charge against the Jews, and numerous Talmudical prohibitions 
attest the prevalence of this cult. The opening section of the 





INTRODUCTION 483 


Epistle to the Hebrews is thought by some to be directed against 
angel worship, but this is improbable. Twice in the Apocalypse the 
angel who shows the visions to the writer restrains him from an 
attempt to worship him. This seems to have a polemical reference 
to angel worship. There is a similar passage in the Ascension of 
Isaiah, vii. 21, cf. viii. 4,5. In the Testament of Levi the seer asks 
the angel to tell him his name that he may call upon him in the day 
of trouble. So in the Testament of Dan, the patriarch bids his 
children “draw near to God and the angel’. We have no ground 
in the angel worship for assuming a post-Pauline date, since already 
before Paul’s time the conditions for it were present. That the 
angelic orders were created by the Son follows from the fact that 
the creation of all was ascribed by Paul to Christ (1 Cor. viii. 6), 
combined with the fact that, as we have seen, Paul recognised the 
existence of angelic orders. That he adds “thrones” and “lord- 
ships’ to the list in Colossians is no proof of difference of authorship, 
for in the undisputed Epistles the lists, which he gives, vary. That 
they are included in the scope of the Son’s work of reconciliation 
cannot be objected to on the ground that they did not need this, for 
the doctrine of angelic sinlessness is contrary to the teaching of Paul, 
as also to that of the O.T. and Jewish theology. A more plausible 
difficulty may be urged as to the method of Redemption. The death 
of Christ was a death in the body of flesh, and thus availed to destroy 
the sinful flesh in humanity. But it might be said, How can this 
have any effect on the angelic world? Should we not say: “ Not of 
angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abra- 
ham”? It is true that the N.T. writers, Paul included, think in the 
main of the effects of Christ’s death on mankind. But in face of 
the false teaching it was natural for Paul to draw an inference 
already implicit in his doctrine. Wherever sin was present, there 
grace was present to meet it; and this grace found its expression in 
the Cross-of Christ. No limit could be set to its saving power; for 
angels as for men it made complete atonement. And the relation to 
the angels which this involved is just what we should expect in Paul. 
The redemption of man was made possible by Christ’s Headship of 
the race. That He was the Head of the angelic world was a natural 
thought to Paul, once he regarded Christ as its Creator, and realised 
its need for redemption. His connexion with it went back to its 
creation, and therefore His redeeming acts could avail for it, as for 
the race of men. It was also a natural thought for Paul, since the 
Cross abolished the Law, and the Law had been given by angels, 
that in the death of Christ God had despoiled and triumphed over 


484 INTRODUCTION 


the angelic powers. That the angels of the Law had brought about 
the death of Christ is the probable sense of 1 Cor. ii. 6-8. That 
they did it in ignorance of God's wisdom tallies with the statement 
that it is through the Church that the manifold wisdom of God is to 
be made known to the principalities and powers. It is not in virtue 
of any personal hostility to Christ that they crucified Him, but in 
virtue of their complete identity with the Law. The Law was 
against us, and Law and grace are incompatible. If so, the angels 
of the Law would necessarily, according to Jewish angelology, stand 
in opposition to Christ, till they were despoiled of the dominion they 
had exercised and placed in their true position. So far then from 
holding any position of authority, or exercising any mediatorial 
function, they are for the Christian as if they were not. He has 
died to the Law, and therefore to the angels of the Law, and all 
those elemental spirits, to which both Judaism and heathenism had 
been in subjection. All that he hoped to win through worship of 
them, and more than all, he has already in Christ. To serve them 
is to fall back into bondage to unmeaning ordinances, to miss the 
substance while clutching at the shadow. The angelology of the 
Epistle is thus in harmony with that of Paul, as gathered from the 
certainly genuine Epistles; and where it shows advance, the de- 
velopment is on thoroughly Pauline lines, and amply accounted for 
by the false teaching which it refutes. There is no reason to doubt 
the authenticity of the Epistle on the ground of its doctrine of angels. 
It is an interesting fact that the Council of Laodicea, about the 
middle of the fourth century, condemned angel worship; and the 
worship of Michael, which Theodoret, in the fifth century, speaks of 
as still carried on in the district, existed into the Middle Ages. 


Section II1].—TuHe FaAtse TEACHING AND ITS REFUTATION. 


The false teaching against which the Epistle is chiefly directed 
was of a Jewish type. This is clear alike from the characteristics 
mentioned and the nature of the polemic. It insisted on observance 
of regulations as to meats and drinks, festivals, new moons and 
Sabbaths. It drew on the tradition of men as its source. The 
reference to circumcision seems to show that the false teachers 
attached value to it; and the declaration that the Law has been 
abolished, which forms the basis for the definite attack, shows that 
they regarded it as still binding. Other characteristics are mentioned 
which are not so exclusively Jewish. It is spoken of as a philosophy 
and empty deceit, which was plausible and gave a reputation for 





INTRODUCTION 485 


wisdom. It had the “elements of the world” and not Christ for 
its content; and was characterised by a humility which found 
expression in the worship of angels, but was not incompatible with 
fleshly conceit. It inculcated severity to the body, and imposed 
ordinances against certain foods. It is possible that the teachers 
asserted that they had visions of angels (ii. 18), but unfortunately the 
phrase from which this is inferred is exegetically uncertain and 
possibly corrupt. The false teachers were Christians, as is clear 
from the words, “ not holding fast the Head”; but probably they did 
not assign to Christ His true place. It is possible that they thought 
of Christ as Paul did, and did not see that their peculiar views were 
incompatible with their doctrine of Christ ; but this seems less likely. 

It is not unnatural that many scholars should have seen in this 
teaching something which, while partially, was not wholly Jewish. 
And the most obvious solution, especially for those who dated the 
Epistle in the second century, was to regard the heresy as a form 
of Judaistic Gnosticism. In favour of this were alleged the use of 
the term “philosophy,” the stress laid on “ wisdom,” the counter- 
presentation of Christianity as “full knowledge of the mystery,” 
the asceticism which forbade drinks as well as meats, the angel 
worship which might rest on a doctrine of intermediaries between 
men and God, the emphasis on the universality of the Gospel in 
contrast to the exclusiveness of an intellectual aristocracy. It is 
certainly difficult to find full-blown Gnosticism mirrored in our 
Epistle. But it is also improbable that we have Gnosticism even 
in arudimentary form. We are certain of the Jewish nature of the 
teaching, and if it can be explained from Judaism alone, we have no 
warrant for calling in other sources. “ Philosophy” was a term used 
by Philo and Josephus for purely Jewish theology or sects; and in 
a Gentile community the common Greek term would naturally be 
employed, whatever the character of the system might be. Hort 
suggests that the term is used in a sense akin to the later use 
to denote the ascetic life, but this is uncertain. The stress on 
“wisdom” and “ knowledge” may be paralleled from the Corinthian 
Church, where there was certainly no Gnosticism. Intellectual 
exclusiveness was no monopoly of the Gnostics; the Pharisees, 
with their contempt for the people of the land, accursed through 
their ignorance of the Law, were conspicuous examples of it; and 
it is a failing common enough in certain types of character. The 
angelolatry, as we have seen already, is perfectly explicable from the 
Judaism of Paul’s time. The prohibition of drinks, while it goes 
beyond the Law, is an extension of it, for which we find a parallel 


486 INTRODUCTION 


in Heb. ix. 10. Asceticism, it is true, is hardly a characteristic of 
Judaism. Yet fasting was considered to have a religious value, 
especially among the Pharisees, and Paul himself buffeted the body 
and brought it into bondage. Nor is it clear whether asceticism was 
regarded as an end in itself or a means to an end. It might be 
practised to induce visions. But, apart from this, it is a tendency 
so congenial to certain temperaments that all need for postulating 
a Gnostic origin, through a belief in the evil of matter, disappears. 

It has, with more plausibility, been suggested that we should seek 
for its origin in Essenism, or some form of teaching with Essene 
affinities. In favour of this it may be said that the Essenes were 
extremely rigid in keeping the Sabbath, they had some secret lore 
about the angels, they abstained from meat and wine, they eliminated 
marriage from their communal life. But there is no indication of 
any extreme Sabbatarianism at Colossz ; what Paul attacks is the 
view that the Sabbath law should be regarded as still binding. The 
doctrine of angels has been already amply explained apart from 
Essenism, while we have no proof that the Essenes worshipped 
angels. Nor are we acquainted with the precise view of the false 
teachers as to eating and drinking, whether this involved abstinence 
from meat and wine. In any case the precepts of the Law as to 
food, with the extension they appear to have received in later Judaism 
(Heb. ix. 10), seem sufficient to account for this phase of the false 
teaching. And there is not a word in the Epistle to warrant us in 
assuming that there was any attack on marriage at Colossez. 
Further, there is no reference to some of the most important Essene 
practices. Such are their frequent washings, their alleged worship of 
the sun, their communal life, their “ fearful oath" on initiation, their 
protracted and severe probation and their use of magic. And, lastly, 
we know nothing of Essenism at this time in Phrygia. For the 
most part the sect had its home by the Dead Sea, and before the 
destruction of Jerusalem it seems to have been unknown outside 
Palestine. Klépper tries to turn the edge of these arguments by 
limiting this element to a dynamic influence of Essene principles on 
the Jews of the Dispersion, by urging that we should expect the 
larger movement of Essenes to Christianity after the destruction 
of Jerusalem to have been preceded by isolated instances, and by 
the reminder that we know the heresy only imperfectly. Lightfoot 
similarly is content to argue for Essene affinities in the false teaching. 
But in face of the absence from it of some of the most striking 
features of Essenism, and the possibility of accounting for it from 
contemporary Judaism, it seems much safer to set aside this theory 






eee SS )2OCl 


INTRODUCTION 487 


as to its origin. In the modified form given to it by Klépper it 
scarcely seems worth contending for δέ: all. 

It is noteworthy that Paul does not, as in Galatians, attack this 
teaching by arguments drawn fromthe Ο.Τ. This has been explained 
by the view that the errors were not doctrinal but practical. But 
this seems to be improbable, and it is more likely that Paul does 
not establish his positions by proof passages because this would have 
been unconvincing to his antagonists, who might perhaps have evaded 
their force by allegorical interpretation. His refutation consists 
partly in pointing the moral of their own experience, partly in a 
positive exposition of great Christian truths with which the false 
teaching was incompatible, partly in direct attack. In recalling 
them to their own experience of salvation, he is throughout suggesting 
that the Gospel which had thus proved its power in them stood in 
no need of being supplemented ; all that was necessary was for them 
to hold firmly by the form in which they had learnt it, and strive 
continually to appropriate its meaning and power more completely. 
The teachers by failing to hold fast the Head were cutting themselves 
off from the source of life. He reminds his readers that they had 
passed into the kingdom of the Son from the realm of darkness, 
they had received deliverance, the forgiveness of sins, had been 
reconciled to God, and been qualified for the saints’ inheritance in 
light. They must be loyal to the truth they had heard, walk in 
Christ, rooted and built up in Him. This truth was not proclaimed 
to and tested by them alone, it was proved by its rapid extension 
in the world. Doctrinally the false teaching was tacitly refuted by 
an exhibition of the true place and work of the Son. He is the 
image of God, Lord of the universe, in whom all things were created, 
including all ranks of angels. They were created through Him and 
even for Him, so that as to origin they were dependent on, and as 
to end subservient to Him. The whole fulness dwelt in Him, and 
therefore reconciliation of all things to God, again including the 
angels, could be made by Him. And thus not only is there no room 
for angelic mediators; they themselves needed to be reconciled to 
God. It is in Christ that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells ; 
it is in Him that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are 
hidden. His death abolished the Law and spoiled the principalities 
and powers; hence the precepts of the former held good no longer, 
and worship ought plainly not to be offered to the latter. Believers 
had died with Christ to these elemental spirits, and could no longer 
be subject to their restrictions. The direct attack may be thus 
summarised, This so-called “ philosophy” is only an empty delusion 


488 INTRODUCTION 


resting on human tradition, with the elements of the world and 
not Christ for its content; in holding fast to antiquated ordinances 
it lets slip the substance to grasp the shadow; it is, in spite of its 
humility, a manifestation of fleshly conceit, but devoid of real wisdom ; 
and the things from which it commands abstinence are so insignificant 
that they perish in the act of use. 


Section IV.—TuHe AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


The external evidence for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle 
is as strong perhaps as we have any right to expect. It is first 
referred to by name in the Muratorian Canon and by Irenzus. It 
was probably used by Justin Martyr and Theophilus; and it is not 
unlikely that there are echoes of it in Barnabas, Clement of Rome 
and Ignatius. But these are quite insufficient to prove acquaintance 
with the Epistle, still less the Pauline authorship. It is more 
important that Marcion included it in his canon, but this again is 
not at all conclusive proof of the genuineness. The question has to 
be settled by the evidence drawn from the Epistle itself. On the 
ground of internal evidence many critics have decided against its 
authenticity. Mayerhoff (1838) was the first to reject it. The 
Tubingen school, including Hilgenfeld, treated it as a second century 
work. Ewald thought that Timothy wrote it after consultation with 
Paul. Holtzmann (1872), following a view indicated by Hitzig, 
recognised a Pauline nucleus, but regarded more than half of the 
Epistle as non-Pauline. Von Soden (1885) reduced considerably 
the range of interpolation in a series of articles on Holtzmann’s 
hypothesis, but has since recognised the whole Epistle as Pauline, 
with the exception of i. 16°, 17, which he thinks may be a gloss, 
since it disturbs the symmetry. 

The authenticity has been impugned on various grounds: the 
language and style, the false teaching, the angelology, the Christology, 
the likeness to Ephesians. Enough has been said already of the 
false teaching and the angelology, so that it is needless to add 
anything here. The Epistle has a considerable number of words 
which are peculiar to itself, but on the whole not an exceptional 
number (34); and the contents of ch. ii. would have made even a 
larger proportion not at all strange. Greater difficulties are caused 
by the style. It is heavier and less impetuous than in Galatians, 
Corinthians and Romans. Several of the logical particles most 
common in Paul are almost absent. There are also strange collo- 
cations of words (of which Haupt gives a good list), many being 








INTRODUCTION 489 


combinations of two or three dependent genitives, accumulated 
synonyms, numerous compound words. But these features may be 
partially paralleled in the earlier letters ; and where they cannot be 
we may rightly lay stress on the difference of Paul’s circumstances 
and the problems with which he had to deal. Letters written in the 
heat of conflict with Judaisers and impugners of his authority, 
written too when he was in full career as a missionary and had 
pressing on him the care of all the Churches, must in the nature 
of the case be very different from a letter written, not to fight for 
the very existence of the Gospel, but to warn a still loyal Church 
against a pernicious error, and written in enforced retirement, with 
ample time for meditation. 

The Christology, it is true, presents an advance on what we find 
in the earlier Epistles. Not in the position it assigns to the Son as 
Creator, for that is found in 1 Cor. viii. 6, but in that it speaks of 
Him also as the goal of the universe. Elsewhere it is God who is 
thus spoken of (1 Cor. viii. 6, Rom. xi. 86). But this is less cogent 
than it appears at first sight. Paul teaches that all things have to 
become subject to the Son, that He may deliver the Kingdom to 
the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). And it would be as warrantable to 
conclude that Romans and 1 Corinthians were by different authors, 
for in the passages already mentioned creation is said to have been 
effected, now through God (Rom. xi. 36), and now again through 
Christ (1 Cor. viii. 6). A doctrine of Christ quite as lofty is found 
in Philippians ; and the conclusive refutation of the false teaching 
was just this setting of the Son in His true position. The doctrine 
of Christ’s work is expressed in a thoroughly Pauline way, which 
bears all the marks of authenticity. It is not a slavish imitation, 
but a fresh and luminous presentation. And yet it is in such perfect 
harmony with Paul’s own doctrine that it seems improbable that it 
can be due to another hand; and more than improbable when we 
remember that no other early Christian writer known to us, with 
the partial exception of the author of 1 Peter, has been able to 
reproduce the Pauline doctrine, any more than Penelope’s wooers 
could bend Odysseus’ bow. The only point under this head which 
raises suspicion is the extension of the reconciliation to God effected 
by Christ to the angelic powers. What has been already said on 
this need not be repeated here. 

Lastly, its relation to Ephesians has aroused suspicion. The 
problem thus presented is unique in the N.T., and has elicited 
numerous solutions. It has been pressed against the authenticity 
of Ephesians more generally than of Colossians ; though Mayerhoff 


490 INTRODUCTION 


thought that Ephesians was genuine and Colossians the copy. If 
one Epistle is copied from the other, suspicion is aroused only 
against the copy; and since, if this is the relation, Colossians is 
more likely than Ephesians to be the original, we should find in 
this fact a proof of the genuineness of the former. For if a later 
writer wrote a letter purporting to come from Paul, and used in it 
a letter that bore Paul’s name, there is a strong presumption that 
the latter would be of well-attested genuineness. But the problem 
is hardly so simple. Holtzmann, in a work described by Godet “as 
a masterpiece of exactness, patient labour and wisdom,” reached 
the conclusion that the Epistles exhibit the phenomenon of mutual 
indebtedness. Sometimes Ephesians seems to be the original, 
sometimes Colossians. Accordingly he formulated the theory that 
Paul wrote an Epistle to the Colossians, on the basis of which a 
later writer composed Ephesians. He then returned to the original 
Epistle and expanded it by free extracts from his own writing, adding 
also a polemic against Gnosticism. This theory was examined by 
Von Soden, who tested very carefully Holtzmann’s reconstruction 
of the original Epistle. He also pointed out that it was justifiable 
to eliminate only such passages as Paul could not have written. He 
rejected only i. 15-20, ii. 10, 15, 18%. This was in 1885. A more 
exhaustive study of Paulinism has led him to accept the authenticity 
of the Epistle as a whole in his commentary (1891). Holtzmann’s 
theory is examined by Dr. Sanday and Dr. Robertson in the articles 
“Colossians” and “ Ephesians” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible 
(2nd ed.), and to these discussions the reader may refer for fuller 
details. J. Weiss in a review of Abbott’s commentary has recently 
expressed himself in favour of a solution, not precisely in Holtz- 
mann’s form, but on his lines (Theol. Literaturseitung, 29th Sept., 
1900). It may be said here that it is hard to understand why 
a writer should give himself so much trouble. His purpose would 
have been served by one Epistle, a still larger “ Ephesians,” in which 
what he inserted in Colossians should have found its home. Very 
few have accepted the theory im its entirety. Yet if Holtzmann’s 
observations are correct, only two theories seem to be tenable, one 
the theory he has himself proposed, the other that both Epistles are 
genuine. His own theory is far too complicated to be probable. 
The similarities occur often in different contexts, and express quite 
different ideas, yet each is natural in its place. This is difficult to 
account for in an imitator, who would be fettered by the document 
which he was using; but in a writer such as Paul, rich in ideas but 
unused to formal composition, such resemblance and yet such 





INTRODUCTION 491 


difference in letters written together was quite to be expected. 
No trace of the process has been left in the textual evidence, and 
this is a cogent argument against the theory. The only alternative, 
then, to Holtzmann’s view seems to be that both letters were written 
by Paul; and thus his investigation becomes the firm basis for quite 
another result than the author contemplated. We cannot in that 
case speak of mutual indebtedness ; the phenomena that suggested 
this explanation are amply accounted for by the unity of authorship. 
It is noteworthy that Jiilicher, who has no leaning to traditional 
opinions, thinks that the best solution of the problem is to be found 
in the acceptance of the authenticity of both Epistles (Einl. 7. d. 
N.T., 1894, p. 97, but compare the more dubious tone of his article 
in the Enc. Bibl., 1899). This view, it may be added, is confirmed 
by the close connexion of Colossians with Philemon, which, if genuine, 
all but guarantees the genuineness of Colossians; and that it is not 
authentic has been argued solely to dispose of its testimony to 
Colossians. We may therefore accept this Epistle with confidence 
as the work of Paul. 


SecTION V.—PLAcE AND DaTE ΟΕ CoMPOSITION. 


Since Paul was a prisoner when he wrote it, our only alternatives 
are Czesarea and Rome. Meyer, Weiss, Haupt and others have 
argued for Czsarea. What Weiss regards as decisive is that Paul 
speaks in Philemon of going to Colosse on his release, whereas in 
Philippians, written from Rome, he says that he hopes to go into 
Macedonia. But this proves nothing, for Macedonia might have 
been taken on the way; and, besides, Paul’s plans might have 
changed in the interval. Haupt thinks that the genuineness of the 
letters can be maintained only on the assumption that they were 
written at Cesarea, since letters so unlike Philippians cannot have 
been written so near to it as their composition at Rome would 
demand. He thinks their peculiar character is best explained by 
the fact that Paul in his confinement, unable to preach, was driven 
in upon himself, and thought out more fully than before the implica- 
tion of his Gospel. The fruit of this we find in Colossians and 
Ephesians. This is of too speculative a character to bear any 
weight. On the other hand, it is certainly more probable that a 
runaway slave should have fled to Rome than to Czesarea; for 
although Czesarea was nearer for Onesimus than Rome, the latter 
was more accessible, and afforded a far safer concealment. Paul’s 
expectations of release were more natural at Rome than at Ceesarea. 


492 INTRODUCTION 


During the latter part of his imprisonment at Caesarea he knew that 
he was going to Rome. It would be necessary then to place the 
letter in the earlier part. But it does not well suit this, for Paul 
had for a long time been anxious to see Rome, and it is most unlikely 
that he should think of going to Colossz first. It would be very 
strange, further, if Paul wrote from Czsarea, that he should be silent 
about Philip, whose guest he had been shortly before, and should 
leave us with the impression that he was unsympathetic. The 
general situation presupposed in the Epistle suits Rome better than 
Czesarea. 

This would be practically certain if these Epistles were written 
after Philippians, as Bleek, Lightfoot and several English scholars 
suppose. But the more usual view which makes Philippians the 
latest of the Imprisonment-Epistles seems to be preferable. The 
argument from theological affinities is most precarious; and Colos- 
sians, as well as Philippians, presents striking parallels with Romans. 
The theological system of Paul was formed before he wrote our 
earliest Epistle, yet how little Paulinism there is in Thessalonians, 
or even in 1 Corinthians. We have no right to expect the thoughts 
of Colossians to reappear in Philippians, a simple letter of thanks to 
a Church where the Colossian type of false doctrine had not ap- 
peared. Indeed, how much there is in Colossians that does not 
recur in Ephesians, and how much Ephesians adds to what we find 
in Colossians! Yet these were written practically together. Three 
years at least lay between Romans and the earliest time at which 
Philippians could have been written, and less than eighteen months 
between this time and the latest date that can be assigned to Colos- 
sians. Further, Paul seems in Philippians to express a more decided 
conviction as to the speedy settlement of his fate than in Philemon; 
and he looks forward to death as a not unlikely contingency. In 
Philippians Paul also speaks of sending away Timothy shortly, 
whereas he is with Paul in Colossians. If 2 Tim. iv. 19 dates, as 
some scholars think, from this imprisonment, this would agree best 
with the priority of Colossians, for in Philippians Paul speaks of 
sending him away, in 2 Timothy we find him gone. This, however, is 
not very cogent. It seems best to adhere to the usual view and to 
date the Epistle during the early part of Paul’s Roman Imprison- 
ment. The year to which we assign it depends on the general view 
we take as to the chronology of Paul’s life. We may perhaps place 
it in ap. 59. [The article on “ Chronology of the New Testament” 
by C. H. Turner in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible may be 
consulted. | 





κ. πο στ 


INTRODUCTION 493 


Section VI.—SELEcTED LITERATURE. 


Of patristic commentaries those of Chrysostom (Homilies), 
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret may be mentioned. Of 
later commentaries earlier than the modern period Calvin and 
Bengel are perhaps the most important. The chief modern com- 
mentaries by foreign writers are those of De Wette, Meyer, Ewald, 
Hofmann, Klopper, Franke (in Meyer), Oltramare, Von Soden (Hand- 
Commentar), Wohlenberg (Strack-Zoeckler) and Haupt (latest edition 
of Meyer). Among English commentaries those of Eadie, Alford, 
Ellicott, Lightfoot, Findlay (in the Pulpit Commentary), Beet, Moule 
and Abbott (International Critical Commentary) may be mentioned. 
Klépper is important for the discussion of theological questions, 
especially the angelology, but the style is very diffuse. Oltramare 
is very full and thorough, but at times eccentric. He is also quite 
ignorant of English work. Von Soden is valuable, and has fre- 
quently influenced Abbott. Much the best commentary on the 
Epistle is that of Haupt, which, though in Meyer, is an entirely new 
work. Por close grappling with the thought of the Epistle it has 
no rival. It sometimes presses the argument from the connexion 
too far, and is perhaps sometimes too subtle; but these are very 
slight defects. We still need in English a commentary of this kind, 
to unravel the thought of this most difficult Epistle. Our most 
important works, those of Ellicott, Lightfoot and Abbott, are of 
special value from the philological standpoint. Lightfoot is very 
full on points of history, and contributes a valuable excursus on the 
Essenes. His discussions of special words are also full and luminous, 
He is less strong in exegesis and Biblical theology. Abbott is 
“mainly philological,” and as such most thankworthy, especially 
for the frequent testing of Lightfoot’s results. Findlay is also 
excellent and deserves to be much better known. Moule rests for 
the most part on Lightfoot, but is very scholarly and at times 
independent. Maclaren in the Expositor’s Bible exhibits the in- 
sight and felicity of exposition which characterise all his work. 
Moule’s Colossian Studies should also be mentioned. 

Por critical discussions the New Testament Introductions may be 
consulted, and especially Sanday’s very valuable article in Smith’s 
Dictionary of the Bible (2nd ed.). The most thorough critical discus- 
sion is Holtzmann’s Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe (1872), on 
which Von Soden wrote a series of elaborate articles in the Yahrb. 
7. protestant. Theol. for 1885. For the theology of the Epistle the 


494 INTRODUCTION 


works on New Testament Theology and on Paulinism may be 
consulted. Everling’s Die paulinische Angelologie und Damonologie 
is the best work on a subject of great importance for the correct 
understanding of the Epistle. Lueken’s Michael (1898) may also 
be mentioned. H. St. John Thackeray's The Relation of St. Paul 
to Contemporary Fewish Thought, published since this commentary 
went to press, contains a useful chapter on angelology. G. Ο. 
Martin’s commentary in the Century Bible appeared too late to be 
used in any way. 

Note.—The text of the Epistle here printed is a critically revised 
text, and that on which the commentary is based. The abbreviations 
in the notes need no explanation. The commentary was finished in 
September, 1898; references to later literature have been sparingly 
introduced in proof. The author may be permitted to add that his 
chief concern has been to expound the thought, since it was desirable, 
in view of the limits assigned, to concentrate attention mainly on one 
side of exegesis, and in the English commentaries on the Epistle 
the philological side is already amply represented. It has therefore 
been necessary to assume much in the way of philological results in 
order to gain space for the elucidation of the thought. 





ΠΑΥΛΟΥ TOT ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ 


Η ΠΡΟΣ 


ΚΟΔΑΣΣΑΗΒΙΣ’᾽ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ. 


I. 1. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, 
Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς 2. τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς 2 


8.2 ΟΟΥ. 1. τ΄ 
καὶ Eph. i. 1; 


Phil. 1. 1, 


ἃ ἁγίοις καὶ ἢ πιστοῖς | 
Y b 2 Cor, vi. 


ἀδελφοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ - χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ° Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν." 5. 


1 Κολασσαεις: 


Ln., Tr., W.H., R.V. with AB*KP, Κολοσσαεις: 


6111: αγ, 


with 


Ἔν WS. 


gBcDFG, probably by assimilation to Κολοσσαις (i. 2). 
2 Κολοσσαις: T., W.H., R.V., Ws. with SBDEFGL. Κολασσαις: Ln., Tr. with 


KP 17, by assimilation to title. 


3So-T., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with BDEKL 17. 


και Κυριου Inoov Χριστου: 


added by T.R. [Ln.] with S,ACFG and most MSS. by assimilation to Pauline usage. 


CHAPTER I.—Vvy. τ, 2. SALUTATION 
oF PAUL AND TIMOTHY TO THE CHRIS- 
TIANS OF CoLoss&.—Ver. I. ἀπόστολος 
. . » διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ. The reference to his 
apostleship is not due to any attack on 
his apostolic authority or teaching, as in 
the case of the Epistles to the Galatians or 
Corinthians, but, as in the Epistle to the 
Romans, tothe fact that he was unknown 
to those to whom he was writing. Simi- 
larly reference is made to it in the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, the letter being sent to 
Churches, to some of which, probably, 
Paul was. unknown. In writing to the 
Macedonian Churches it is not men- 
tioned, for they had been founded by him 
and remained loyal.—Tu.d0eos : included 
in the salutations in Thess., 2 Cor., Phil. 
and Philm. He would be known by 
name to the Colossians as Paul’s com- 
panion, but probably not personally. 
Ramsay’s conjecture (also put forward by 
Valroger) that he may have founded the 
Church is unsupported and improbable 
(see ver. 7), while Ewald’s view that he 
wrote the bulk of the Epistle, after con- 
sultation with Paul, has nothing to recom- 
mend it, and is open to serious objections. 
6 ἀδελφός is added to balance ἀπόστολος, 


and has no reference, as Chrysostom 
thought, to Timothy’s official position. 

Ver. 2. Paul does not address the 
Church as a Church. This has been 
explained by the fact that he stood in no 
official relation to the community, and 
therefore addressed individuals. But he 
does not mention the Church in Philip- 
pians, though he had founded it. The 
omission may be accidental; but he 
seems to have changed his custom in his 
later Epistles, since it occurs in all his 
letters to Churches from Romans down- 
wards.—aylors may be an adjective (so 
ΚΙ., Weiss and others), but more pro- 
bably a substantive (so Mey., EIL, 
Lightf., Ol., Sod., Haupt, Abb.), since 
Paul seems not to use it in the plural in 
an adjectival sense, except in Eph. iii. 5, 
and in the salutations of 2 Cor., Eph. and 
Phil. it is certainly a substantive. Like 
ἀδελφοῖς it may be joined with ἐν X., but 
should more probably be taken by itself. 
The saints are those who are set apart 
for God, as belonging to His holy people, 
the Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16); the privi- 
leges of the chosen nation under the Old 
Covenant being transferred to Christians 
under the New.—morois: not to be taken 


496 


d iv. 3, 

e With ev, 
Gal. iii. 
26; Eph 
i. 15; 1 
Tim. iii. 


13:2 Τἶπ,ς, διὰ τὴν ‘édwida τὴν " ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 


ili. 15. 
f Objective, 
Rom. viii. 24; Gal. v. 5; Tit. ii. 14. 


1 So W.H., R.V. with ΒΟ", possibly by assimilation to 6. π. (ver. 2). 
T., Tr. with AC?DcKLP, probably to avoid unusual expression. 


ΠΡΟΣ KOAOSSAEIS 1. 


3. Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ ! τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ 3 πάντοτε 
δ περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι, 4. ἀκούσαντες τὴν "πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν 
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε! εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, 


ἣν 


g 2 Tim. iv. 8. 


και Tarp: 
τω πατρι: Ln., 


Ws. with D*FG, Chrys. inserted for similar reason. 


2So Ws, with Β. 
MSS. 


Ιησον Χριστου: Ln., T., Tr. [W.H.], Lft., R.V. with other 


So T., W.H., Lft. with ACDcKLP. νπερ: Ln., Tr., W.H. mg., Ws. with 


BD*FG 17, probably from ver. 9. 


‘mv εχετε: Ln., T., Tr., [W.H.] with NACD*FGP 17, possibly conformed to 


Philm. 5. 
perhaps rightly. 


in the passive sense (as by Ew., ΕΙΙ., 
Lightf., Abb., R.V.) =“ steadfast,” “‘ faith- 
ful,” with tacit reference to the falling 
away to false doctrine. Combined with 
ἀδελφ. its meaning would be faithful to 
Paul, which would have no point here. 
It should be taken here, as by most com- 
mentators, in the sense of “ believing’’. 
—év Χριστῷ. Itis significant that Χρισ- 
τός occurs alone very frequently in this 
Epistle, but ᾿Ιησοῦς never (though Κυρίου 
ἡμ. Ἰησοῦ, ver. 3; Kup. Ἴησ., iil. 17). No 
doubt this is to be accounted for by the 
need for emphasis on the doctrine of the 
Person of Christ.—ydpis ὑμῖν κ. εἰρήνη. 
This combination is found in all the 
Epistles that claim to be Paul's except 
the Pastorals, where it is modified. The 
formula, which was probably constructed 
by Paul, combines the Greek and Hebrew 
forms of salutation.—a7ds Θεοῦ μή, -- 
ἡμῶν. This is not added in τ Thess. The 
other Epistles add καὶ Κνρίον ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. No importance is to be attached 
to their omission here. Cf. the similarly 
shortened form ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν (iv. 18). 

Vv. 3-8. PAUL’S THANKSGIVING FOR 
THE TIDINGS HE HAS RECEIVED OF THE 
SPIRITUAL WELFARE OF THE COLOSSIANS. 
According to his usual custom (so in 
Thess., 1 Cor., Rom., Phil., Philm.), 
Paul begins his letter with an expression 
of his thankfulness to God for the Chris- 
tian graces of his readers. There is, 
however, a certain conventional element 
in these greetings, as may be seen from 
a comparison of similar formulz in letters 
found among recently discovered papyri 
(see articles by Prof. Rendel Harris in 
The Expositor for Sept. and Dec., 1898). 
Eph. i. 15-17 is parallel to wv. 3, 4 and 


την: Ws. with DcKL, perhaps by assimilation to Eph. i. 15; B omits, 


g.—Ver. 3. τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ x.7.A.: “to 
God, the Father of our Lord Jesus”, 
Even if Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ were read, we 
should probably not make Κυρίου de- 
pendent on Θεῷ as well as πατρὶ, since 
this is not Paul’s usual language, though 
it is found in Eph. i. 17 (6 Θεὸς τ. Kup. 
ἡμ. ᾿1. Χ.).-- πάντοτε is connected Ὁ 
several commentators (Beng., Alf., Ell., 
Findl., R.V.) with προσευχ. In favour 
of this is ob πανόμεθα ὑπ. Up. προσενχ. 
(ver.g). But more probably it should be 
taken with εὐχαριστ. (Μεγ., Lightf., Οἱ, 
Haupt, Weiss, Abb.), as this is the usual 
collocation in Paul, But wept ὑμῶν be- 
longs to προσενχ., not (as Lightf., Ol.) 
to εὐχαριστ. ‘ We always give thanks 
when we pray for you.” 

Ver. 4. Paul now introduces the 
grounds of his thankfulness, the good 
report he has heard as to the faith and 
love of the Colossians. He refers to it 
again (νετ. ϱ).---πίστιν ἐν X. ἐν may be 
equivalent to els, but probably indicates 
“the sphere in which their faith moves 
rather than the object to which it is 
directed" (Lightf.). This faith rests upon 
Christ. πίστ. is wrongly taken by Ewald 
to mean “fidelity "".--πάντας, {.ε., all 
Christians throughout the world, whose 
unity in the universal Church was a 
thought much in Paul’s mind at this 
time. 

Ver. 5. διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα. This is con- 
nected by Bengel, followed by several 
recent commentators (Hofm., ΚΙ., OL, 
Haupt, Weiss, Abb.), with εὐχαριστοῦμεν. 
Having heard of their faith and love, 
Paul gives thanks for the hope laid up for 
them in heaven. Lightfoot and Soden 
urge that in this way the triad of Christian 





3—6. 


Απροηκούσατε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


497 


Ώ h Class. 
6. τοῦ only here 


i ἢ ae ert κι θὲ Nes <A , πὶ k ο in Bib. 
πάροντος εἰς υμας, κανὼς και εν παντι τῷ κοσμῳ ἐστιν, ᾿ καρτπο- Gk. 


φορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκού- ! Withes.r 


here in N.T.; often in class. Gk.; with πρὸς four times in N.T. 


graces, faith, hope and love, is broken up. 
But “hope” is objective here, not the 
grace of hope, but the object of that 
hope. It is true that Paul glides from 
the subjective to the objective use of 
ἐλπίς in Rom. viii. 24, but if this com- 
bination had been intended here he 
would probably have simply co-ordinated 
the three terms. A more serious objec- 
tion is that εὐχαριστ. is so far away, 
though Haupt urges that διὰ τ. ἐλπ. 
could not have come inearlier. Further, 
Paul never uses this constr. εὐχαριστ. 
διὰ. It is also his custom, at the be- 
ginning of his Epistles, to give thanks 
for the Christian character of his readers 
(which he hardly does in ver. 4), not for 
the heavenly reward that awaits them. 
Others (De W., Lightf., Sod.) connect 
it with τ. πίστιν ... καὶ τ. ἀγάπην. 
This gives a good sense, their faith and 
love have their ground in their hope of 
(reward. But we should have expected 
_ the article before a clause thus added to 
substantives. It is simplest to refer it to 
ν΄“ πὴν ay. ἣν ἔχετε (Chrys., Mey., Ell., Alf., 
Franke), and interpret it of the love which 
is due to the hope of a heavenly reward. 
It is urged that a love of this calculating 
kind is foreign to Paul, but cf. 2 Cor. ix. 
6, Gal. vi. 9.—év τ. οὐρανοῖς. Cf. the 
reward or treasure in heaven (Matt. v. 
12, vi. 20, xix, 21), the citizenship in 
heaven (Phil. iii. 20), the inheritance 
reserved in heaven (1 Pet. i. 4).--ἣν 
προηκούσατε. The reference in προ. is 
disputed. Bengel and Klépper think it 
means before the writing of this letter ; 
Meyer, Hofmann and Haupt before its 
fulfilment... But more probably it is to 
be taken of their first hearing of the 
Gospel (so Lightf., Ol., Abb.), perhaps in 
tacit contrast to the false teaching they 
had recently heard. Haupt, it is true, 
denies that there is any reference to the 
false teachers in vy. 2-8; but though 
none can be proved, it is surely probable 
that the turn of several expressions 
should be determined by the subject 
which was uppermost in the Apostle’s 
mind, and that ke should thus prepare 
his readers for the direct attack.—ddy 
τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Cf. Eph. 
i, 13, according to which τ. evayy. should 
be taken as in apposition to Ady. τ. ἀλ., 


VOL. III. 


acc. Xi. 


63; only 
k Middle only here. 


“the word of truth, even the Gospel,” 
though it is often explained as the word 
of truth announced in the Gospel. It 
is not clear what λόγ. τ. GA. means. 
Several give the genitive an adjectival 
force, ‘‘the true word,” but more prob- 
ably it expresses the content, the word 
which contains the truth. Perhaps here 
also there is a side-thrust at the false 
teachers. 

Ver. 6. This word of the truth has 
been defined as the Gospel, but Paul 
now proceeds to indicate more precisely 
what he means by this term. It is that 
Gospel which they have already received, 
not the local perversion of it that has 
recently been urged on their notice, but 
that which is spreading in the whole 
world, its truth authenticated by its ever- 
widening area and deepening influence 
on its adherents, and which manifests 
the same inherent energy among the 
Colossians themselves, in the form in 
which they learnt it from their teacher 
Epaphras.—ka0as καὶ ἐν παντὶ . . . ἐν 
ὑμῖν. According to ἐπε TR. καὶ ἔστι, two 
statements are made—that the Gospel 
is present with the Colossians as it is 
present in all the world, and that it is 
bearing fruit and increasing as it is among 
the Colossians. The omission of καὶ 
before ἐστὶν καρ. creates a little awkward- 
ness, since καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν seems then 
superfluous. Lightfoot takes ἐστ. καρ. 
together as a periphrasis for καρποφο- 
ρεῖται, but this construction is very rare 
in Paul. The symmetry of clauses is 
much better preserved if, with Soden 
and Haupt, we write ἔστιν, καρ. We 
thus get the same double comparison as 
with the TR., Paul passing from the 
special to the general, and from the 
general back to the special. For the 
hyperbole ἐν π. τ. κόσμῳ, cf. 1 Thess. i. 
8, Rom. i. 8, x. 18. As Gess points out 
(Christi Person und Werk, ii., 1, Ὁ. 228), 
Paul wishes here and in ver, 23 to widen 
the outlook of the Colossians, since the 
more isolated the community the greater 
the dangerfrom seducers. For the similar 
feeling that local idiosyncrasies are to be 
controlled by the general custom of the 
Church, cf. 1 Cor. xi. 16, xiv. 36 (cf. 
33).--καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον. 
The former of these participles expresses ~ 


32 


498 


1 Only here 
and iv. 7 
in Paul. 

m Only here 
i. 11, iii. 13 
in Paul. 

n Mark xi. 


ο With acc., 


1 So Ln., Tr., W.H., Κ.Υ. with *ABDFG, possibly under influence of σννδ. np. 
vpwv: Τ., Ws., W.H. 
vss, probably conformed to νπερ vpwy (ver. g) and τ. νµων ay. (ver. 8). 


2 kat αιτονµενοι: omitted by BK through homceoteleuton. 


and ηµιν (ver. 8). 


the inward energy of the Gospel (dynamic 
middle) in its adherents, the latter its 
extension in the world by gathering in 
new converts.—a¢’ ἧς ἡμέρας. This 
expresses the further fact that the pro- 

ess of the Gospel has been continuous 

om the first in the Colossian Church.— 
ἠκούσατε... .. Θεοῦ. It is uncertain 
whether χάριν is governed by both verbs 
(so Lightf., ΚΙ., Ol., Sod., Abb.) or by the 
latter only (so Mey., Ell., Haupt). In 
the former case ἠκούσ. will mean “ were 
instructed in”. But it is simpler to tran- 
slate “‘ ye heard it [#.¢., the Gospel] and 
knew the grace of God”, ἐπέγνωτε 
should strictly imply full knowledge, but 
as the reference is to the time of their 
conversion it seems doubtful whether 
this shade of meaning should be pressed. 
ἐπίγνωσις is in his mind. The word occurs 
twice in the context. The grace of God 
is probably mentioned in opposition to 
the false teachers’ doctrine of ordinances 
and rigorous asceticism.—év ἀληθείᾳ: not 
to be taken as if an adjective with χάριν, 
“the true grace of God,” for there is no 
false grace of God, but with ἐπεγ. in the 
sense that they knew the Gospel as it 
truly is, in its genuine reality, in opposi- 
tion to the travesty of it recently in- 
troduced, 

Ver. 7. καθὼς, {.ε., in the manner in 
which. Paul thus sets the seal of his 
approval on the form of the Gospel which 
they had learnt from their teacher, and 
also on the teacher himself.—’Ewadpa. 
Epaphras was apparently the founder of 
the Colossian Church, ἐμάθετε referrin 
co the same time as ἠκούσατε. Heh 
remained in connexion with it (iv. 12), 
and seems to have come to Paul to in- 
form him of the teaching that was 
threatening its welfare. He is not to 
be identified with Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 
25 sq., iv. 18), who was connected with 
Philippi. The name was common.— 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ {Ὁ 


σατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ: 7. καθὼς ἐμάθετε 
ἀπὸ ᾿Επαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ ᾿ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ 
ἀπᾶάτοτ. ἡμῶν } διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 8. ὁ καὶ " δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν 
ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι. 9g. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκού- 
σαμεν, οὐ παυόμεθα ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν " προσευχόμενοι καὶ αἰτούμενοι,3 ἵνα 
Phil. i. 11. ° πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ 


mg., R.V. mg. with ΝΕΟΡΟΚΙ, 17; most 





ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. This is probably the correct 
rea ing ; Epaphras is a minister to the 
Colossians on Paul's behalf, since he has 
accomplished a task which belonged to 
Paul’s sphere as the Apostle of the Gen- 
tiles. The reading ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν may be 
taken in two ways, either (preferably) 
that he was a minister of Christ for the 
sake of the Colossians, in which case we 
should probably have had ὑμῖν or ἐν ὑμῖν 
or simply ὑμῶν; or that he ministered 
to Paul as the representative of the 
Colossians, for which we should have 
expected “τὴν minister” instead of 
‘minister of Christ’. 

Ver. 8. τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην may be 
taken in the general sense of ver. 4, 
though many think it is their love to 
Paul that is meant; and this is favoured 
by δηλ. ἡμ., and perhaps by καὶ ἡμεῖς in 
ver. 9. ἐν πνεύματι is added to show 
that this love is in the Holy Spirit. 

Vv. 9-14. PAUL'S UNCEASING PRAYER 
FOR THAT MORAL DISCERNMENT WHICH 
WILL ENABLE THEM TO PLEASE GoD IN 
ALL THEIR CONDUCT, THAT STRENGTH 
WHICH WILL GIVE THEM ENDURANCE IN 
FACE OF ALL PROVOCATION AND TRIAL, 
AND THAT THANKFULNESS TO GOD, WHICH 
BEFITS THE GREAT DELIVERANCE HE HAS 
ACHIEVED FOR THEM THROUGH His Son, 
—Ver.9. διὰ τοῦτο. The good report 
from Colosse prompts Paul's prayer. 
Apparently the reference is to all that 
has been said in vv. 4-8, though Haupt 
confines it to ver. δ.--καὶ sey “we 
also,”’ {.ε., as the Colossians had prayed 
for Paul, so he had made unceasing, 
prayer for them. Similar assurances are 
common in the letters of the period, but 
their conventional character must not in 
the case of one of so intense a nature 
as Paul's lead us to degrade them into 
polite commonplaces. — πὶ όμενοι 
καὶ αἰτούμενοι. The former verb is 
general, the latter special, referring to 


7—I1. 


συνέσει πνευματικῇ, IO. περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς πᾶσαν 

Ρ ἀρεσκείαν, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι 
ρ ᾽ PY’ Ὗ τ ρ ρ 9 υ μ 

τῇ ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ, 11. ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει “ δυναμούμενοι κατὰ 

τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν 


Eth, Eud., ii., 3; Pol., vi., 2, εἰς. ; Diod., xiii., 53. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΛΕΙΣ 


499 


p Only here 
in N.T.;in 
Philo of 
pleasing 
God ; in 
bad sense, 
Theoph., 
Char., 5; 
Arist., 

q Only here, Heb. xi. 34 and (?) Eph. vi. 10 


in N.T., or Gk. vss. of Ο.Τ. Elsewhere in Paul, ενδυν. 


1 So edd. with NABCD*EFGP 17. εἰς τὴν επιγνωσιν: DcKL, probably to simplify 
the constr., perhaps assisted by τὴν επιγνωσιν (ver. 9). 


the definite request. Soden thinks the 
middle (αἰτούμενοι) is chosen to express 
Paul’s personal interest, but there seems 
to have been no distinction between the 
middle and active of this verb in later 
Greek.—iva πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν. 
After verbs of praying, etc., ἵνα is used 
in a weakened sense to express the con- 
tent of the prayer. πληρ. with the 
accusative is not precisely the same as 
with the genitive or dative. So here 
“filled with respect to”. ἐπίγνωσις is 
stronger than γνῶσις. Meyer defines it 
as the knowledge which grasps and pene- 
trates into the object.—rod θελήματος 
αὐτοῦ. This does not mean God’s coun- 
sel of redemption (Chrys., Beng., De W., 
ΚΙ.), nor ‘‘the whole counsel of God as 
made known to us in Christ” (Findl.), 
but, as the context indicates (ver. 10), 
the moral aspect of God’s will, ‘‘ His 
will for the conduct of our lives”’ (Mey., 
Sod., Haupt, Abb.).—év πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ 
συνέσει πνευματικῇ : to be taken with 
the preceding, not (as by Hofm.) with 
the following words. σοφία is general, 
σύνεσις special. σοφία embraces the 
whole range of mental faculties; σύνεσις 
is the special faculty of intelligence or 
insight which discriminates between the 
false and the true, and grasps the τε]α- 
tions in which things stand to each other. 
The addition of mvevp. shows that both 
are to proceed from the inspiration of 
the Holy’ Spirit. They thus stand in 
opposition to fleshly wisdom (2 Cor. i. 
12), and especially, it would seem, though 
Haupt denies this, to the false wisdom, 
by which the Colossians were in danger 
of being ensnared (cf. tot νοὸς τῆς 
σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, ii, 18). The repetition of 
πᾶς in this context should be noticed. 
The early part of the Epistle is strongly 
marked by repetition of particular words 
and phrases. 

Ver. το. περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ 
Κυρίου (cf. Eph, iv. 1). This lofty 
wisdom and insight is not an end in 
itself, It must issue in right practice. 


Doctrine and ethics are for Paul insepar- 
able. Right conduct must be founded 
on right thinking, but right thinking must 
also lead to right conduct. The infinitive 
expresses result ‘so as to walk”. τοῦ 
Κυρ., {.6., of Christ, not of God (Hofm., 
Ol.). Ini Thess. ii. 12 τοῦ Θεοῦ is used, 
but ὁ Kup. in Paul means Christ.—dapeo- 
κείαν in classical Greek used generally 
in a bad sense, of obsequiousness. But 
it often occurs in Philo in a good sense; 
see the note on the word in Deissmann’s 
Bible Studies, p. 224. καρποφοροῦντες 
καὶ αὐξανόμενοι. For the collocation 
cf. νετ. 6. The participles should prob- 
ably be connected with περιπατῆσαι, 
not (as by Beng., Hofm., Weiss) with 
πληρωθῆτε, which is too far away. The 
continuation of an infinitive by a nomi- 
native participle instead of the accusative 
is frequent in classical Greek, and occurs 
several times in Paul (ii. 2, iii. 16, Eph. 
iv. 2, 3). They should not be separated. 
The whole clause should be translated 
‘bearing fruit and increasing in every 
good work by the knowledge of God’’. 
Fruit bearing is one of Paul’s favourite 
metaphors.—tq ἐπιγνώσει: not as ΚΕΝ. 
and Moule ‘‘in the knowledge,” for Paul 
has already spoken of this in ver. 9, but 
“by the knowledge,” the knowledge of 
God being the means of their spiritual 
growth. Meyer, against the overwhelm- 
ing weight of evidence, reads εἰς τὴν 
ἐπίγνωσιν, “45 regards the knowledge ”, 
This would make knowledge the goal 
of conduct (cf. John vii. 17), whereas 
previously the relation is reversed. 
Ver. 11. ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει: ‘ with all 
power,” ἐν being instrumental. κατὰ τὸ 
κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. The equip- 
ment with power is proportioned not 
simply to the recipient’s need, but to 
the Divine supply. God’s glory is His 
manifested nature, here as manifested in 
might.—eis πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ µακρο- 
θυμίαν. This equipment with Divine 
power is not, as we might have expected, 
said to be given with a view to deeds 


ζοο 


τ Absol., 1 
Cor. viii. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 1, 





μετὰ χαρᾶς, 12. εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ " πατρὶ τῷ " ἱκανώσαντι 1 ὑμᾶς 3 


63 2.Cor εἰς τὴν ἐ" μερίδα τοῦ "' κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί, 13. “és 
(quot); ἐρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς “ ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν eis 


4: Eph. ii. 

18; Acts i. 4, 7, li. 3; 1 ο. 
here and 2 Cor. vi. 15; 

18 w Luke xxii. 53. 


1 So T., Tr., W.H., R.V. with nearly all ancient authorities. 


s LXX; Dion. Hal.; only here and 2 Cor. iii. 6 in N.T. 
uke x. 42; Acts viii. 21, xvi. 12 in N.T. 


ae 


u Acts viii. 21. 


καλεσαντι: D*FG 


17, by substitution of more usual word, helped by similarity of the two words. 
καλεσαντι και ικανωσαντι: Ln., Ws. with B alone, by combination of two readings. 


19ο Τ., W.H., Ws., Tr. mg., Κ.Υ. mg. 


, Lft. mg. with NB. ypas: L., Tr., Lft., 


Κ.Υ. with ACDEFGKLP, probably under influence of npas (ver. 13). 


of great spiritual heroism, but for the 
practice of passive virtues, since this 
often puts the greater strain on the 
Christian’s strength. ὑπομ. is endurance, 
steadfastness in face oftrials, temptations 
and persecutions; μακροθ. is forbear- 
ance, the patience of spirit which will 
not retaliate. ‘The one is opposed to 
cowardice or despondency, the other to 
wrath or revenge " (Lightf.). There seems 
to be no reference in µακροθ., as Alford 
supposes, to their attitude in conflict 
with error.—pera χαρᾶς : not to be taken 
(as by Mey., Ell., Hofm., Weiss, Abb.) 
with εὐχαριστ., which would be tauto- 
logical and throw a false emphasis on 
these words, but with trop. κ. μακροθ. 
It forms a very necessary addition, for 
the peculiar danger of the exercise of 
those qualities is that it tends to pro- 
duce a certain gloominess or sourness of 
disposition. The remedy is that the 
Christian should be so filled with joy 
that he is able to meet all his trials with 
a buoyant sense of mastery. 

Ver. 12. εὐχαριστοῦντες : not to be 
taken with ob πανόμεθα, ver. 9 (Chrys., 
Beng.). Usually it is co-ordinated with 
the two preceding participial clauses. 
Haupt objects that it would be strange 
if thankfulness for participation in salva- 
tion were mentioned only after its conse- 
ανν for Christian conduct had been 

educed. He thinks it is a more precise 
development of μετὰ χαρᾶς; joy being 
produced by our thankful consciousness 
of the benefits thus secured tous. There 
is force in this, though the form of ex- 
pression strongly suggests the common 
view, and considerations of order should 
not, perhaps, be so rigidly pressed.—r@ 
πατρὶ. The word is selected to emphasise 
God's Fatherly love as the source of 
their redemption; though Soden thinks 
that, as in Rom. vi. 4, Paul has in mind 
God's relation to Christ (so Alf.).—r@ 


ἱκανώσαντι ὑμᾶς : ‘ who qualified you”. 
The reference is to status rather than 
character.—els τὴν μερίδα ... φωτί. 
Lightfoot thinks τ. pep. τ. «A. is the 
portion which consists in the lot, κλήρον 
being a genitive of apposition (so Sod., 
Abb.). But probably κλ. is the general 
inheritance in which each individual has 
his μέρ. The lot is the blessedness await- 
ing the saints. More controverted is the 
connexion of ἐν τῷ φωτί. Meyer con- 
nects it with ἱκανώσ. and takes ἐν as 
instrumental “by the light”. This is 
harsh, and φωτί in contrast to 

(ver. 13) cannot mean the Gospel. 
Others connect it with ἁγίων, either in 
the sense of angels (so ΚΙ., Franke and 
Lueken) or saints (so Ol. and others). 
But the angels are never in the N.T. 
called οἱ ἅγιοι, though this term is used 
for them in the O.T. and Jewish Apoca- 
lyptic. Further, the contrast with the 
“‘darknéss"’ of ver. 13 loses its force 
unless the “holy ones” are Christians as 
opposed to non-Christians. And if Paul 
had meant this he would have expressed 
himself more plainly. Nor is any such 
reference probable in an Epistle directed 
especially against over-valuation of the 
angels. If saints are meant, unless (with 
ΟΙ.) we give φωτί merely an ethical 
sense, they must be saints in heaven, for 
which we should have expected τῶν ἐν 
φωτί, as the object of the addition would 
be to distinguish them from saints on 
earth. ἐν φωτί should therefore be con- 
nected either with μερίδα (Beng.), μερίδα 
τ. κλήρου (Alf., Lightf.), or μιν pov (De 
W., Ell., Sod., Haupt). The difference is 
slight, and it seems simplest to connect 
with xX., ‘the lot of the saints [situated] 
in the light’; ἐν being probably local, 
and not expressing, as in Acts viii. 21, the 
idea of a share in the light. The precise 
sense of φῶς is disputed. Oltramare takes 
it of the state of holiness in which Chris- 


12—I5. 


τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, 14. ἐν ᾧ 
ἢ ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν “ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν - 15. ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


501 


= x Plut., 


Pomp., 

p. 631 B; 

Jos., Ant., 
ΧΙ 2) 3% 


ἔχομεν τὴν 


Philo, Qu. om. pr. lib., ἃ 171 Diod., Fragm., xxxvii., 53; in LXX only Dan. iv. 30; in N.T. ten 


times. 


1 So edd. (except Ln. ed. min.) with almost all authorities. 


εσχοµεν: W.H. mg, 


with B cop., probably a conformation to aorists of ver. 13. 


tians live, so that the distinction between 
saints on earth and in heaven does not 
arise. But the immediate impression of 
the phrase is that the heavenly kingdom, 
where God dwells in light, is referred to. 

Ver. 13. Paul now explains how God 
has qualified them for their share in the 
heavenly inheritance. On this passage 
Acts xxvi. 18 should be compared; the 
parallels extend to ver. 12, 14 also.— 
ἐρύσατο. The aorist refers to the time 
of conversion. The metaphor implies the 
miserable state of those delivered and 
the struggle necessary to deliver them.— 
ἐξουσίας: “δὶ τῇ βασιλείᾳ opponitur, 
est tyrannis”” (Wetstein, so also Chrys., 
Lightf., Kl.). This would heighten the 
contrast between the power of darkness 
and the ‘‘ kingdom of the son of His love”’. 
But Abbott argues forcibly against this 
view, especially with relation to the N.T. 
usage. He quotes Rev. xii. 10, 7 βασι- 
λεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία Tod 
Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, where the contrast 
obviously cannot be maintained. Grimm 
takes the term as a collective expression 
for the demoniacal powers; and Klopper 
says that in Paul ἐξ. is not a mere ab- 
stract term, but signifies the possessors 
of power. Here, however, he rightly sees 
that the contrast to Bao. makes this 
meaning inappropriate, and that for it 
ἐρύσ. ἀπό would have been expected 
rather than ἐρύσ. ἐκ. Accordingly he 
interprets it as the dominion possessed 
by the (personified) darkness. — τοῦ 
σκότους: taken by Hofmann as a genitive 
of apposition, but the obvious interpreta- 
tion is to take it as a subjective genitive, 
the dominion which darkness exercises. 
We should have expected simply “' out of 
darkness” to correspond to ‘‘in light,” 
but Paul changes the form, partly to 
insist that the darkness is not a mere 
state but exercises an active authority, 
partly to secure a parallel with the king- 
dom of God’s Son. But we are not justi- 
fied (with Mey., KI.) in personifying σκό- 
τος, for the primary contrast is with φωτί 
not υἱοῦ.---μετέστησεν. Wetstein quotes 
Jos., Ant., ix., 11, 1 (Tiglath-Pileser’s 
deportation of N.E, Israel), and Lightfoot 


thinks that this use of the word suggested 
the choice of it here, and this is made 
more probable by the addition of eis τ. 
Bac. Meyer, however, quotes a striking 
parallel from Plato, where no such refer- 
ence is present: ἔκ τε φωτὸς εἰς σκότος 
μεθισταμένων καὶ ἐκ σκότους εἰς φῶς 
(Rep., p. 518 Α).--βασιλείαν. - Meyer 
insists that this is the Messianic kingdom, 
and as the realisation of this lay in the 
future to Paul the clause must have a 
proleptic reference, citizenship in the 
kingdom being guaranteed by their con- 
version. But the argument rests on a 
false premiss, for in 1 Cor. iv. 20, Rom. 
xiv. 17, the sense is not eschatological. 
Nor, indeed, can it be so here, for the 
translation into the kingdom must have 
taken place at the same time as the 
deliverance.—viot τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. 
Augustine, followed by Olshausen and 
Lightfoot, takes ἀγάπης as a genitive of 
origin, and interprets, the Son begotten 
of the essence of the Father, which is 
love. This has no parallel in the N.T., 
and rests, as Meyer points out, on a con- 
fusion of the metaphysical with the ethical 
essence of God. The phrase is practically 
equivalent to His beloved Son, but is 
chosen for the sake of emphasis to indi- 
cate His greatness and the excellence of 
His kingdom. There is, perhaps, the 
further thought that the love which rests 
on the Son must rest also on those who 
are one with Him. 

Ver. 14. This verse is parallel to Eph. 
i. 7. ἐν ᾧ: not by whom, but in whom; 
if we possess Christ, we possess in Him 
our deliverance.—éxopev: (present) we 
have as an abiding possession.—-atroAv- 
τρωσιν: “deliverance”. The word is 
generally interpreted as ransom by pay- 
ment of a price, for which Mark x. 45, 
δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ 
πολλῶν, may becompared. Butit is not 
certain that the word ever has this mean- 
ing. It is very rarein Greek writers (see 
reff.). The passage from Plutarch refers 
to pirates holding cities toransom. But 
obviously the word here does not mean 
that we procure release by paying a 
ransom. The word is often used simply 


502 


ySo 
I 


z Only here 
in N.T. 


1 So Ln., T., Tr., W.H. with §*BD*E*FGP 17, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 1. 


of God, Θεοῦ τοῦ 7 ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 16. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ 
~ pags ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα 1 ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ” ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ "ὁρατὰ 


ssibly by homceoteleuton. τα: 


inserted before ev τοις ovpavors by Ws. (who thinks it indispensable before τα ορατα) 


with KycADcKL. 


2 So T., W.H., Ws. with Ν΄ Β. τα: inserted before επι της γης by [Ln.], [Ττ.] 


with ΝΕΛΟΡΕΕΩΚΙΡ, 


in the sense of “ deliverance,” the idea 
of ransom having disappeared. (So in 
Rom. viii. 23, Eph. iv. 30, Luke xxi. 28.) 
It is best therefore to translate “ deliver- 
ance" here, especially as this suits better 
the definition in the following words. The 
remission of sins is itself our deliverance, 
whereas it stands to the payment of the 
ransom as effect tocause. The elaborate 
discussion in Oltramare may be referred 
to for fuller details, with the criticism in 
Sanday and Headlam’s note on Rom. iii. 
24; also Abbott on Eph. i. 7; Westcott on 
Heb., pp. 295, 296; Ritschl, Rechtf. und 
Versohn. ii., 222 sq. ἄφεσιν τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν. The similar definition of 
ἀπολ. in Eph. i. 7 tells against Light- 
foot’s view that it is added here against 
erroneous definitions by the false teachers, 
who very probably did not employ the 
term. The precise phrase does not occur 
elsewhere in Paul. τ. ap. depends simply 
on τ. ἀφ., not, as Hofmann thinks, on it 
and τ. ἀπολ., for the latter is not used 
with the object from which deliverance 
is effected. 

Vv. 15-21. THIS SON IN WHOM WE HAVE 
OUR DELIVERANCE IS THE MANIFESTATION 
or Gop, THE LORD OF THE UNIVERSE, 

.THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS IN HEAVEN 
AND EARTH, INCLUDING THE ANGELIC 
POWERS, AND HE IS THE GOAL FOR WHICH 
THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED.’ AND AS HE 
15 THE FIRST IN THE UNIVERSE, SO ALSO 

«He 15 Heap OF THE CHURCH, WHO HAS 
PASSED TO HIS DOMINION FROM THE 
REALM OF THE DEAD, THAT HE MIGHT 
BECOME FIRST IN ALL THINGS. FOR THE 
FATHER WILLED THAT IN HIM ALL THE 
FULNESS OF DIVINE GRACE SHOULD 
DWELL, AND THUS THAT HE SHOULD RE- 
CONCILE το ΗΙΜ THROUGH HIS BLOOD 
ALL THINGS NOT ON EARTH ONLY BUT 
ALSO IN THE HEAVENS, IN WHICH RECON- 
CILIATION THE COLOSSIANS HAVE THEIR 
PART.—Ver. 15. With this verse the 
great Christological passage of the 
Epistle begins. Its aim is to refute the 
false doctrine, according to which angelic 
mediators usurped the place and func- 


tions of the Son in nature and grace. He, 
and He alone, is the Creator, Redeemer 
and Sovereign of all beings in the uni- 
verse, including these angelic powers. 
The p e does not deal with the 
eternal relations of the Son to the 
Father, but with the Son’s relations to 
the universe and the Church. It is not 
of the pre-existent Son that Paul begins 
to speak, but of the Son who now pos- 
sesses the kingdom, and in whom we 
have our deliverance (ὅς refers back to 
τ. υἱοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τ. ἀπολύτρωσιν). 
The work of the Son in His ρτε-οχίκίοπε" 
state is referred to, that the true position 
of the exalted Christ may be rightly 
understood. As in other great theolo- 
gical passages in the Pauline Epistles, 
the “να element is introduced 
for the sake of the practical. But it would 
be absurd to infer from this that it had 
little importance for the Apostle himself. 
He assumes the pre-existence of the Son 
as common ground, and is thus apply- 
ing a fundamental Christian truth, which 
would form part of the elementary instruc- 
tion in his Churches, to a new form of 
false teaching.—8s ἐστιν. It is the 
exalted Christ of whom Τ᾿ τὰ] is speaking, 
as is suggested, though not necessarily 
implied by the present, but more forcibly 
by the previous relative clause. We 
could not feel confident in arguing back 
from the function of the exalted Son to be 
εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ to that of the pre-incar- 
nate Son, but what would bea plausible 
inference from this passage is asserted in 
Phil. ii. 5.--εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτον. 
As image of God the Son such 
likeness to God as fits Him to be the 
manifestation of God to us. God is 
invisible, which does not merely mean 
that He cannot be seen by our bodily eye, 
but that He is unknowable. In the 
exalted Christ the unknowable God be- 
comes known. We behold “with un- 
veiled face the glory of the Lord,” and 
so ‘‘are changed into the same image” 
(2 Cor. iii. 18), God has “shined in our 
hearts to give the light of the knowledge 





τ6. 


of the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
Christ” (iv. 6), and it is the unbelieving 
on whom ‘‘the light of the Gospel of the 
glory of Christ, who is the image of God,”’ 
does not shine (iv. 4), These passages 
illustrate Paul’s language here, and show 
that it is not, as Oltramare argues, of 
physical visibility or invisibility that he is 
speaking. Christ is the image of God 
for Christians. This, it is true, is only 
part of His wider functions. The Son is 
the Mediator between God and the uni- 
verse. His work in grace has its basis in 
His place and work in nature. But it is 
the aspect of His work of which Paul is 
here speaking. The view of some of the 
Fathers that the Son, as image of the 
invisible God, must be Himself invisible 
is precisely the opposite of that intended 
by Paul.—wpwrdédtokos πάσης 
κτίσεως. πρωτότοκος in its primary 
sense expresses temporal priority, and 
then, on account of the privileges of the 
firstborn, it gains the further sense of do- 
minion. Many commentators think both 
ideas are present here. Sodenand Abbott, 
on the other hand, deny that the word 
expresses anything more than priority to 
and distinction from all creation, while 
Haupt again thinks that all the stress is 
on the idea of dominion, the Son is ruler 
of all creation (similarly Ol. and Weiss, 
who says that no temporal priws lies in 
the expression). It is undeniable that the 
word in the O.T. had in some cases lost 
its temporal significance, ¢.g., Exod. iv. 
22, Ps. Ixxxix. 28. Schoettgen instances 
the fact that R. Bechai spoke of God as 
“the firstborn of the world,” though, 
probably, as Bleek says in his note on 
Heb. i. 6, this is to be regarded ‘nur als 
eine Singularitat”. The course of the 
argument seems to require that the stress 
should lie on the lordship ot the Son 
rather than on His priority to creation. 
For what Paul is concerned to prove is 
the superiority of Christ to the angels, 
and for this the idea of priority is 
not relevant, but that of dominion is. 
Whether the word retains anything of its 
original meaning here is doubtful. If so, 
it might seem most natural to argue with 
the Arians that the Son is regarded as a 
creature. Grammatically it is possible to 
make πάσης κτίσεως a partitive genitive, 
But this is excluded by the context,which 
sharply distinguishes between the Son 
and τὰ πάντα, and for this idea Paul 
would probably have used πρωτόκτιστος. 
The genitive is therefore commonly ex- 
plained as a genitive of comparison. 
Oltramare says that such a genitive after 
a substantive is a pure invention, but it is 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


303 


explained to be after the προ or πρωτο in 
πρωτότοκος (cf. John i. 15, ὅτι πρῶτός 
pov ἦν). This, as Lightfoot says, ‘unduly 
strains the grammar,” and on this ac- 
count it seems best to exclude the tem- 
poral element altogether. The pre-exist- 
ence is sufficiently asserted in what 
follows. There seems to be no real 
affinity with Philo’s doctrine of the Logos 
as πρωτόγονος- πάσης κτίσεως 
may be taken either as a collective, “all 
creation” (Lightf., R.V.), or distributively, 
“every creature” (Mey.,Ell., Haupt, Abb.). 
Lightfoot urges in favour of the former 
that πρωτότ. ‘‘ seems to require either a 
collective noun or a plural”. But if 
πρωτότ. be taken in the sense of ruler, 
this is not so; and Haupt points out that 
πᾶσα κτίσις elsewhere is used of every 
created thing, and that Paul uses κτίσις 
without the article in the sense of crea- 
ture. It is accordingly best to take it so 
here, “firstborn of every creature”. A 
further question is raised as to what the 
term includes. Haupt thinks its sense is 
limited to spiritual beings, since (1) Paul 
is proving the superiority of Christ to the 
angels, (2) he defines by τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρα- 
vois καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Not including heaven 
and earth themselves, (3) ets αὐτὸν shows 
that animate creatures must be referred 
to. At the same time he is careful to 
point out that, according to Jewish ideas, 
shared, no doubt, by the false teachers, 
the heavenly bodies were regarded as 
possessed of souls and as standing in the 
closest relation to the spirit world. This, 
combined with the fact that all material 
things were supposed similarly to have 
guardian spirits, rather tells against his 
limitation. For Paul really was concerned 
to show not only that Christ was superior 
to the angels, but that He and not the 
angels was Lord of the material creation. 
The phrase should therefore be taken in 
its full sense, though probably it is the 
spiritual side of the universe that he has 
chiefly in mind. The interpretation of 
creation as the new creation, adopted by 
many Fathers to meet the Arian inference 
that the Son was a creature, scarcely 
needs refutation. It would have no point 
against the false teaching at Colosse, 
nor can it be carried through the passage, 
ver. 16 being decisive against it. Paul 
would probably have said firstborn of the 
Church or of the new creation if he had 
meant this. 

Ver. 16. Paul now gives the ground 
for the designation of the Son as πρωτότ. 
π. κτίσεως. In Him τὰ πάντα were 
created. From this it follows that the 
Son cannot be a creature, for creation 


504 


a Test. 
Lev,; only 
here in 

ὁ 


et. ii. 10; Jude 8, 
χαι, 


God, Rom. xi. 36; Heb. ii. 10. 


ΠΝ 
. 1.215 
2P 

wit 


is exhausted by the “all things” which 
were so created in Him (‘‘omnem ex- 
cludit creaturam,” Bengel).—év αὐτῷ: this 
does not mean “by Him”. The sense 
is disputed. The schoolmen, followed 
by some modern theologians, explain 
that the Son is the archetype of the 
universe, the κόσμος νοητός, the eternal 

attern after which the physical universe 

as been created. So Philo held that the 
Logos was the home wherein the eternal 
ideas resided. But it is by no means 
clear that Alexandrian influence can 
be traced in the Epistle. Further, the 
notion of creation is not suitable to the 
origin of the ideal universe in the Son. 
If the Son was from eternity the arche- 
type of the universe, then ἐκτίσθη ἐν 
αὐτῷ ought not to have been used, both 
because the aorist points to a definite 
time and the idea of creation is itself 
inapplicable. But that the ideal universe 
was at some time created in the Son is 
an highly improbable, if it is even an 
intelligible, idea. Again, the sense of 
ἐκτίσθη is controlled by that of κτίσις, 
which does not refer to the ideal universe. 
It must therefore refer to the actual 
creation of the universe. If Paul had 
intended to speak of the realisation in 
creation of the ideal universe which had 
in the Son its eternal home he would 
have said ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Others (Mey., ΕΙΠ., 
Moule) take ἐν αὐτῷ to mean simply that 
the act of creation depended causally on 
the Son. This is perhaps the safest 
explanation, for Haupt’s interpretation 
that apart from His Person there would 
have been no creation, but with His 
Person creation was a necessity—in other 
words, that creation was “given” in 
Christ—seems with the aorist and the 
choice of the word ἐκτίσθη to be in- 
consistent with the eternal existence of 
the Son.—ra πάντα, {.ε., the universe in 
its widest sense regarded as a collective 
whole.—év τ οὐρανοῖς κ. ἐπὶ τ. 
rae As Lightfoot points out, “a classi- 

cation by locality,” while τὰ ὁρατὰ κ. 
τ. ἀόρατα is a “classification by essence”. 
The two do not precisely correspond, for 
the divisions cross each other to some 
extent, though some confine the things 
in heaven to the world of spirits, and 
the things on earth to the world of men, 


ΠΡΟΣ KOAOSSAEIS κ. 
καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε " θρόνοι εἴτε ὃ" κυριότητες εἴτε “ ἀρχαὶ εἴτε 


“ ἐξουσίαι, τὰ πάντα ὅ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ "εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, 17. καὶ 
ς ii. το, 15; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. i. 21, iii. το, vi. 12; Tit. iii, 1; αγγελοι 


om. viii. 38 with efovova; 1 Pet. iii. 22. 
ε Of the Son, only here; of God, Rom. xi. 36; 1 


ἃ 1 Cor. viii. 6; John i. Μο. οί 
. Vil 


in which case they would correspond 
to things invisible and things visible. 
—— this see above on π. κτίσεως.--- 
εἴτε θρόνοι κ.τ.λ. This is not an 
exhaustive definition of ra πάντα, for 
Paul selects for mention those creatures 
to whom worship was paid by the false 
teachers. The names, as in similar lists, 
denote angels and not earthly powers. 
For some of them occur in Jewish angel- 
ology, and a reference to earthly digni- 
ties would be irrelevant to the polemical 
Seale of the passage. These angels, 

aul insists, so far from being superior 
or equal to Christ, were as inferior to 
Him as the creature is to the Creator. 
They owed their very existence to Him, 
and could not therefore be allowed for 
one moment to usurp His place. Light- 
foot thinks that Paul is expressing no 
opinion as to their objective existence, but 
is simply repeating subjective opinions; 
and that both here and in ii. 18 he shows 
a “spirit of impatience with this elabo- 
rate angelology"’. But in face of the 
detailed proof that he accepted the doc- 
trine of various orders of angels (given 
most fully by Everling), this cannot be 
maintained, nor is there any polemical 
reference in Eph. i. 21. It may be ques- 
tioned whether any inference can be 
drawn as to the order of the ranks of 
angels. The order in the parallel list, 
Eph. i. 21, is ἀρχή, δ κα τὶ δύναμις, 
κυριότης, On which Godet remarks that 
in Col. the question is of creation by 
Christ from whom all proceed, hence the 
enumeration descends; but in Eph. of 
the ascension of the risen Christ above all 
orders, hence the enumeration ascends. 
But it must be urged against this not 
merely that only three out of the four 
titles coincide, but that the order is not 
fully inverted. Possibly Paul employs 
here the order of the false teachers (so 
ΚΙ.). The order apparently descends, but 
it is questionable if this is intentional, 
for if the highest orders were inferior to 
Christ, a fortiori the lower would be. 
θρόνοι: taken by some to be the ὁ 
of the throne, that is angels who, like 
the cherubim, bear the throne of God. 
But it is more probable that they are 
those seated on thrones (cf. Rev. iv. 4). 
On these orders, cf, the Slavonic Enoch, 





17. 


xx., I. In the seventh heaven Enoch 
saw ‘‘a very great light and all the fiery 
hosts of great archangels, and incor- 
poreal powers and lordships and princi- 
palities and powers ; cherubim and sera- 
phim, thrones and the watchfulness of 
many eyes”’. Also Enoch, Ixi., το, “and 
all the angels of powers and all the angels 
of principalities” Πρες, xii,, Patr. Levi., 
3, ἐν δὲ τῷ μετ᾽ αὐτόν εἰσι θρόνοι, 
ἐξουσίαι, ἐν ᾧ ὕμνοι ἀεὶ τῷ Θεῷ προσ- 
φέρονται. κυριότητες: apparently 
inferior to θρόνοι.-ἀρχαὶ . . . ἐξο- 
υσίαι usually occur together and in this 
οτάεγ.- τὰ πάντα... συνέστηκεν: 
thrown in as a parenthesis.—_8v’ αὐτοῦ. 
The Son is the Agent in creation (cf. 1 
Cor. viii. 6) ; this definitely states the pre- 
existence of the Son and assumes the 
supremacy of the Father, whose Agent the 
Son ἶ5.--εἷς αὐτὸν. That the Son is 
the goal of creation is an advance on 
Paul’s previous teaching, which had been 
that the goal of the universe is God 
(Rom. xi. 36; cf. 1 Cor. viii. 6, ἡμεῖς εἰς 
αὐτόν). It is urged by Holtzmann and 
others as decisive against the authenticity 
of the Epistle as it stands. But in 1 
Cor, xy. 25 sq. all things have to become 
subject to the Son before He hands over 
the kingdom to the Father. We find 
the same thought in Matt. xxviii. 18 and 
Heb. ii. 8. And, as Oltramare and others 
point out, in 1 Cor. viii. 6, δι’ οὗ τὰ 
πάντα is said of Christ, but of God in 
Rom. xi. 36. Yet this difference is not 
quoted to show that Romans and Corin- 
thians cannot be by the same hand, and 
it is equally illegitimate to press eis avr. 
as inconsistent with Pauline authorship. 
--ἔκτισται. The perfect, as distinct 
from the aorist, expresses the abiding 
result as distinct from the act at a de- 
finite point of time (cf. John i. 3, éyévero 
followed by γέγονεν). 

Ver. 17. αὐτός ἐστιν. αὖτ. is 
emphatic, He and no other. Lightfoot 
(followed by Westcott and Hort and 
Ellicott) accents ἔστιν, “He éxists,” 
on account of the present, and com- 
pares ἐγὼ εἰμί (John viii. 58). But there 
eyo εἰμί stands alone, whereas here 
αὖτ. ἐστ. is completed by πρὸ πάντων. 
Besides, there is no object in the asser- 
tion of the existence of the Son here. 
The sense of ἐστὶν depends to some 
extent on that of πρὸ πάντων. If, as is 
usual, πρὸ is taken here as temporal, 
αὐτός will be the pre-incarnate Son. If, 
however, with Haupt, it be taken to assert 
superiority in rank, αὐτός will be the 
exalted Christ, and the present will be 
quite regular. It is urged that for this 





ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


595 


some other preposition, such as ἐπὶ or 
ὑπέρ, would have been expected. Gess 
says that in each of the eleven other pas- 
sages in which it occurs in Paul it is tem- 
poral, and in the other N.T. passages (37) 
it is used of place or, as generally, of 
time, except in Jas. v. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 8, 
where it is used of rank. It is used, 
however, in classical Greek in this latter 
sense. Perhaps it is safest to allow the 
general Pauline usage to determine the 
sense here. In this case πρὸ is temporal 
and ἐστιν atimeless present. πάντων is, 
of course, neuter, like τὰ πάντα, not 
π]αδου]πθ.--συνέστηκεν: “hold to- 
gether”. The Son is the centre of unity 
for the universe. He keeps all its parts 
in their proper place and due relations 
and combines them into an ordered 
whole. Apart from Him it would go to 
pieces. Philo ascribes a similar function 
to the Logos. Haupt thinks that this 
thought that Christ is the principle of 
coherence for the universe is not in the 
passage, which means no more than that 
He sustains it (cf. Heb. i. 3, φέρων τὰ 
πάντα). 

The interpretation of vv. 15-17 given 
by Oltramare should not be passed over. 
He eliminates the idea of pre-existence 
from the passage, and says that the 
reference is throughout to Christ as 
Redeemer. God had in creation to pro- 
vide by a plan of Redemption for the 
entrance of evil into the universe, and 
only on that condition could it take place. 
So since Christ is the Redeemer, creation 
is based upon Him, He is the means to it, 
and the end which it contemplates. He 
objects to the common view on the fol- 
lowing grounds: (1) Elsewhere Paul 
speaks of God, not Christ, as the Creator 
and goal of the universe; (2) Paul starts 
from the Christ in whom we have redemp- 
tion as πρωτότ. π. κτίσεως, and in ver. 
18, which refers to the same Person as 
ver. 17, He is spoken of as the Head ot 
the Church, therefore the context is 
against any reference to a pre-incarnate 
Christ; (3) He carefully avoids saying 
that the Son has created all things, 
though he has to change the subject ot 
the sentence. In reply to (1) it may be 

said that the Son acts as Agent of the 
Father, and so creation may be referred 
to either, and that while Paul contem- 
plates the final surrender by the Son of 
the kingdom to the Father, he also con- 
templates a prior subjection of everything 
tothe Son. Oltramare himself, for another 
purpose, points to apparent inconsistency 
in John (Johni, 2 compared with Rev. iii. 
14, iv. 11, x.6) and the author of Hebrews 


506 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 1, 


(PlatoRehu αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ *ouvéornxer, 18. καὶ 


Arist., de 
Mun., vi. 


αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας " ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή,ὶ 


471; Philo, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς © πρωτεύων, 


de Plant., 
Noe 2, 4 
Quis rer. div. haer. 12. 


g Class.; LXX; only here in N.T.; cf. φιλοπρωτ., 3 John ϱ. 


1 So Ln., T., Tr., Lft., Ws. with nearly all ancient authorities. η αρχη: [W.H.] 
with B 47, under influence of εστιν η κεφαλη. 


(i. 2 compared with ii. το, xi. 3). _Ifthese 
writers did not find the two views incom- 
patible, why should Paul have done so ? 
In reply to (2) it may be urged that Paul's 
hold on the personal identity of the Son 
in the states through which He passed 
was strong enough to enable Him to glide 
from one to the other without any sense 
of incongruity. As to (3), the change in 
the form of sentence is probably to pre- 
pare for δι᾽ αὐτοῦ κ. εἰς αὐτὸν. There is 
a similar change at ver. 19, where ὅτι ἐν 
αὐτῷ corresponds to ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ (ver. 16). 
His own view is open to fatal objections. 
It is not clear that the creation of the 
angels who did not fall would be condi- 
tional on provision being made for Re- 
demption, nor yet how this would prove 
the superiority of the Redeemer to these 
angels. The insuperable difficulty, how- 
ever, is that the thought is so far-fetched 
and not naturally suggested by the words. 
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα can hardly be 
consistent with the creation of the uni- 
verse long before the Son came into 
existence. Nor can δι αὐτοῦ mean 
merely that the Son was an indispensable 
condition for the creation of the universe, 
it implies active agency. Nor is any 
adequate explanation of τ᾿ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ 
συνέστηκεν given. Besides, Phil. ii, 5-8 
sufficiently proves that Paul believed in 
the pre-existence of Christ, and that 
makes it less than ever justifiable to take 
the passage in other than its plain sense. 
—Gess, it may be added, explains that 
the firstborn is the one who opens for 
those who follow the path of life, and by 
his consecration to God must purchase 
for them the Divine good pleasure, Exod. 
xiii. 2, 12 sq. and Num, iii. 12 sq. are 
quoted to prove this, but neither says 
anything of the purchase of Divine favour 
for those born after. Exod. iv. 22 and 
Ps. Ixxxix. 27 are explained to mean, 
accordingly, that Israel and David, not 
the nations and their kings, are objects 
of God’s good pleasure and mediators of 
it to the world. πρωτότ. π. xr. is there- 
fore explained as the opener of the path 
of life and mediator of God's love to 
every creature. But this is to overlook 


the fact that in Ps. lxxxix. the firstborn 
is further defined as the highest of the 
kings of the earth. 

Ver. 18. The false teachers not only 
wrongly represented the relation of the 
angel powers to the universe, but they 
assigned them a false position in the work 
of redemption and a false relation to the 
Church. Hence Paul passes from the 
pre-eminence of the Son in the universe 
to speak of Him as Head of the Body. 
He is thus supreme alike in the universe 
and the Church.— κεφαλὴ τ. σώ- 
ματος (cf. ii. το, Eph. i. 22, 23, iv. 15, 
16, v. 23). For Christ as Head mee SS 
1 Cor, xi. 3. For the Church as the body 
of Christ, ver. 24, Eph. iv. 2, 1 Cor. xii. 27, 
Rom. xii. 5. For Christians as the mem- 
bers of Christ’s body, Eph. v. 30, 1 Cor. 
xii. 37. For Christians as “ severally 
members one of another,” Rom, xii. 5. 
By this metaphor of “τῆς head of the 
body" is meant that Christ is the Lord 
and Ruler of His Church, its directing 
brain, probably also that its life depends 
on continued union with Him. The 
Church is a body in the sense that itis a 
living organism, composed of members 
vitally united to each other, each mem- 
ber with his own place and function, each 
essential to the body's perfect health, 
each dependent on the rest of the body 
for its life and well-being, while the whole 
organism and all the individual members 
derive all their life from the Head and act 
under His guidance. And as the body 
needs the Head, to be the source of its 
life and the controller of its activities, 
and to unify the members into an organic 
whole, so the Head needs the y to 
be His instrument in carrying out His 
designs. It is only in Colossians and 
Ephesians that Christ appears as Head 
of the Church, but the emphasis in Colos- 
sians is on the Headship, in Ephesians on 
the Church.—r 4s ἐκκλησίας: often 
taken as in apposition to σώματος. For 
this we should have expected τ, σώμ. 
αὐτοῦ, τ. ἐκκλ. (cf. ver. 24). It may also 
be taken as epexegetical of σώματος (so 
Weiss and Haupt, who quotes 1 Cor. v. 
8, 2 Cor. v. 5, Rom, iv, 11, viii, 21, xv. 16 





18—20. 


10. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι, 20. καὶ δι 
αὐτοῦ " ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, ' εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ 


or Bib. Gk. Elsewhere in Paul καταλ., but Rom. v. 10 (bis); 
i Prov. x. 10; Hermes in Stob.; only here in N.T. 


only. 


as parallels, all of which, however, are 
not clear). ἐκκλ. is here the universal 
Church.—é 5 ἐστιν: inasmuch as He is. 
Paul is giving a reason for the position 
of the Son as ἣ κεφ. τ. σώματος.--- 
ἀρχή is not to be taken in the sense of 
ἀπαρχή; nor is it certain that it has, as 
Lightfoot and others think, the sense of 
originating power. It is defined by 
πρωτότ. ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν, and this seems to 
throw the stress rather on the idea of 
supremacy than that of priority. There 
is perhaps a tacit reference to ἀρχαὶ (ver. 
τ6)ὴ.--πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν: 
‘firstborn from among the dead”. In 
Rev. i. 5 we have ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν 
νεκρῶν, which expresses a different idea, 
If the temporal reference in mp. is the 
more prominent, the meaning will be that 
He is the first to pass out of the dominion 
of death. But if sovereignty is the lead- 
ing idea, the meaning is that from among 
the dead He has passed to His throne, 
where He reigns as the living Lord, who 
has overcome death, and who, before He 
surrenders the kingdom to the Father, 
will abolish it—tva... πρωτεύων: 
the purpose for which He is ἀρχή, 
πρωτότ. ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν. He is supreme in 
the universe. He has to become supreme 
in relation to the Church. αὐτὸς is 
emphatic ; ἐν πᾶσιν neuter not masculine, 
on account of the context. 

Ver. 19. This verse with ver. 20 
shows how the Son was able to hold the 
position assigned to Him in ver. 18. 
Further, this verse leads up to ver. 20. 
The thought is then: All the fulness 
dwelt in the Son, therefore reconciliation 
could be accomplished through the blood 
of His cross, and so He became the 
Head ofthe body.—ev8énnoev. Three 
views are taken as to the subject of 
the verb. (1) Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, 
Oltramare, Haupt and the great majority 
of commentators supply 6 Θεός as the 
subject. (2) Ewald, Ellicott, Weiss, 
Soden and Abbott make πλήρωμα the 
subject. (3) Conybeare, Hofmann and 
Findlay supply ὁ υἱός or 6 Χριστός. In 
favour of (3) the unique emphasis on the 
sovereignty of Christ in this passage is 
urged, also that it prepares the way 
for the reference of ἀποκαταλλάξαι and 
εἰρηνοποιήσας to Christ, in accordance 
with Eph. 11, 14-16, ν. 27. It is also 


ΠΡῸΣ KOAOZZAEIS 


56} 


3} Only 
here, ver. 
21, and 
Eph. ii. 16 
i in class. 

1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. ν. 18-20 (ter) 


true that the subject from ver. 15 is, for 
the most part, the Son. But the usage 
of Paul leads us to think of the Father, 
not of the Son, as the One who forms 
the eternal purpose (Eph. i. 9, 2 Cor. ν. 
10). Nor does ver. 20 run on naturally. 
If the Son is the subject of “ was well 
pleased,” the obvious interpretation of 
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἀποκ. is to reconcile through 
the fulness, which is highly improbable. 
We should accordingly have to give to 
δι᾽ αὐτοῦ a reflexive sense, and translate 
“through Himself,” which is grammati- 
cally possible, but not natural. There is 
the further objection which it shares with 
(1) that a change of subjects to the in- 
finitives is required, πλήρωμα being the 
subject of κατοικ., while that to ἀποκατ. 
is Θεός or vids. But it is less awkward 
in (1) than in (3), for the former does not 
make the Son at once the originator and 
the Agent of the plan of reconciliation. 
Against (1), besides the objection just 
mentioned, it may be said that the con- 
struction with εὐδόκ. is unusual, for its 
subject is elsewhere in the N.T. the 
subject of the following infinitive (this 
tells against (3) also), and that in a 
passage of such importance the subject 
could not have been omitted. But for 
the omission of the subject Lightfoot 
compares Jas, i. 12, iv. 6. What, how- 
ever, is really decisive in its favour is 
the difficulty of accepting (2). The ex- 
pression “all the fulness was well 
pleased” is very strange in itself. But 
what is much stranger is that the fulness 
was not only pleased to dwell in Him, 
but through Him to reconcile all things 
unto Him. And the only natural course 
is to refer εἰρνηνοπ. to the subject of 
εὐδόκ., but the masculine makes it diffi- 
cult to regard πλήρ. as that subject. 
We should therefore translate ‘“‘God” 
[or ‘the Father ’’] ‘‘ was well pleased ”.— 
πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα. On πλήρωμα the de- 
tached note in Lightfoot, pp. 255-271, 
should be consulted, with the criticism 
of it in an article on ‘The Church as 
the Fulfilment of the Christ,” by Prof. 
J. Armitage Robinson (Expositor, April, 
1898), also Oltramare’s note. Lightfoot 
urges in opposition to Fritzsche that 
πλήρωμα has always a genuinely passive 
sense, not the pseudo-passive sense ‘id 
quo res impletur’’ which Fritzsche gave 


508 


and Eph. 
ii. 12, iv. 18 in N.T. 


1 So T. 
Tr. with BD*FGL, by homceoteleuton. 


it, and which is really the active ‘id 
quod implet,” but that which is com- 
pleted. The basis of the decision is that 
substantives in -pa, since they are de- 
rived from the perfect passive, must have 
a passive sense. But, as Prof. Robinson 
points out, these substantives have their 
stem not in -μα but in -ματ, and there- 
fore are not to be connected with the 
perfect passive. He reaches the con- 
clusion that if a general signification is 
to be sought for, we may say that these 
nouns represent "' the result of the agency 
of the corresponding verb”. If the verb 
is intransitive the substantive will be so; 
if it is transitive and the substantive 
corresponds to its object the noun is 
ong te but if the substantive is followed 
y the object of the verb in the genitive 
it is active. According to the double 
use of πληροῦν to “ fill” and to “ fulfil,” 
πλήρωμα may mean that which fills or 
that which fulfils, the fulness, fulfilment 
or complement. Oltramare comes to the 
conclusion that the word means perfec- 
tion, and interprets this passage to mean 
that ideal perfection dwelt in Christ. 
Accordingly he escapes the question what 
genitive should be supplied after it. It 
does not seem, however, that the word 
meant moral perfection. Many think 
that θεότητος should be supplied after 
πλήρωμα, as is actually done in ii. 9. 
Serious difficulties beset this view. If 
we think of the eternal indwelling, we 
make it dependent on the Father's will, 
an Arian view, which Paul ο did not 
hold. Alford’s reply to this (endorsed by 
Abbott) that all that is the Son's right 
“is His Father's pleasure, and is ever 
referred to that pleasure by Himself,” is 
anything but cogent, for εὐδόκησεν refers 
to a definite decree of the Father, and 
the obvious meaning of the words is that 
it lay within the Father’s choice whether 
the πλήρωμα should dwell in the Son or 
not. It might refer to the exaltation of 
Christ, in which the Son resumed that of 
which He had emptied Himself in the 
Incarnation. This would follow the re- 
ference to the resurrection in ver. 18. 
But the order does not indicate the true 
logical or chronological sequence. Vv. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ I. 


αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ 
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 21. καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας * ἀπηλλοτρίωμένους καὶ 


.Η.1, Lft., R.V., Ws. with ΝΔΟΡΟΕΕΚΡ. δι᾽ avrov: omitted by Ln., 


19, 20 give the ground (ὅτι) on which 
the Son's universal pre-eminence rests, 
and ver. 20 is quite incompatible with 
this reference to the exalted state, co- 
ordinated as κατοικ. and ἀποκατ. are by 
καὶ. But neither does it suit the incar- 
nate state, which was a state of self- 
emptying and beggary ; even if we could 
at any very definite meaning to the 
words that in the Incarnate Son the 
Father was pleased that all the fulness of 
the Godhead should dwell. We should, 
therefore, probably reject the view that 
τὸ πλήρωμα means the fulness of the 
Godhead. Since the co-ordinate clause 
speaks of reconciliation through the blood 
of the cross, it seems probable that we 
should regard ver. 19 as asserting such 
an indwelling as made this possible. We 
should therefore with Meyer explain τὸ 
πλ. as the fulness of grace, “ the whole 
charismatic riches of God" (so also De 
W., Eadie, Alf., Findl.). Haupt thinks 
that the full content of the Divine nature 
is referred to, but with special reference 
to the Divine grace, and so far he agrees 
with Meyer. We should also, with Meyer, 
interpret the indwelling as having refer- 
ence to the sending of the Son in the 
incarnation. The Father was pleased 
that He should come “ with the whole 
treasure of Divine grace". Thus equipped 
His death procured reconciliation. Gess 
takes it similarly, though he thinks, on 
the whole, that a gradual process is re- 
ferred to. Findlay’s modification of this 
in favour of a reference to the Ascension 
(for which he compares Eph. i. 20-23) 
must be rejected on the grounds men- 
tioned above. The decree of the Father 
may be supra-temporal, as Haupt thinks, 
the aorist being used as in Rom. viii. 29, 
though it is more obvious to take it as 
referring to the time when He was sent. 
Two other interpretations of τὸ πλ. may 
be mentioned. Theodoret and other 
Fathers, followed by some moderns, have 
explained it to mean the Church. But 
the indwelling of the πλ. prepares the 
way for the reconciliation, in consequence 
of which the Church first becomes pos- 
sible. Nor could πλ. by itself mean this; 
in Eph, i. 22 the reference is supplied by 





21. 


the context. More possible is the view 
that it means the universe = τὰ πάντα, 
ver. 16 (Hofm., Cremer, Godet, who com- 
pares ‘‘the earth is the Lord’s and the 
fulness of it”). In that case the genitive 
supplied would be τῶν πάντων from ver. 
20. But if the reference in this be to the 
summing up of all things in Christ (Eph. 
i, το), it is excluded by the fact that the 
indwelling of the fulness is contempor- 
aneous with the incarnate state. A more 
plausible interpretation would be to re- 
gard τὰ πάντα as dwelling in Christ 
before His death, and by sharing that 
death, attaining reconciliation with God. 
This would be an extension of the Pauline 
thought that all men died when Christ 
died (2 Cor. v. 14). But it would be an 
extension precisely corresponding to that 
of the scope of redemption in ver. 20, for 
which, indeed, it would admirably pre- 
pare the way, the universe dwelling 
in the Son that His death might be 
universal in its effects. That the Son is 
not only Head of the race, but Head also 
of the universe, is a familiar thought in 
these Epistles, and as His acts are valid 
for the one so also for the other. Nothing 
more is implied for the relation of the 
universe to Christ than of the race, and 
if the main stress be thrown on angels 
and men, there is nothing incongruous 
in the idea. Whether Paul would have 
used it in this sense without fuller ex- 
planation is uncertain; but in any case 
a genitive has to be supplied. A further 
question must be briefly referred to, that 
of the origin of the term, Several 
scholars think it was already in use as 
a technical term of the false teachers at 
the time when the letter was written. 
This is possible, and in its favour is its 
absolute use here ; but, if so, it is strange 
that Paul should use it with such different 
applications. It is more probable that 
its origin is due to Ἠϊπι.- κατοικῆσαι. 
The word expresses permanent abode as 
opposed to atemporary sojourn. Bengel 
says aptly ‘‘ Haec inhabitatio est funda- 
mentum reconciliationis”’. 

Ver. 20. Το this verse Eph. 1. 10, ii. 
16, are partially parallel. It supplies the 
basis for the Son’s pre-eminence (ver. 18) 
in His reconciling death.—8v αὐτοῦ: 
through the ϑοη.--ἀαποκαταλλάξαι τὰ 
πάντα εἰς αὐτόν. The choice of ἀποκατ. 
instead of the more usual καταλλ. is for 
the sake of strengthening the idea, and 
by insisting on the completeness of the 
reconciliation accomplished to exclude all 
thought that reconciliation by angels is 
needed to supplement that made by 
Christ. The reconciliation implies pre- 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΛΕΙΣ 


509 


vious estrangement. It is the universal 
sweep of this passage that makes it at 
once fascinating and mysterious. Numer- 
ous expedients have been devised by 
exegetes to avoid the plain meaning of 
the words. The natural sense is that this 
reconciliation embraces the whole uni- 
verse, and affects both things in heaven 
and things on the earth, and that peace 
is made between them and God (or 
Christ). The point which creates diffi- 
culty is the assertion that angels were 
thus reconciled. Some have evaded thr 
by interpreting τὰ πάντα of the thing, 
in heaven below the angels and those on 
earth below man. It might be possible 
to parallel the latter reconciliation with 
Paul’s prophecy of the deliverance of 
animate and inanimate nature (excluding 
man) from the bondage of corruption 
(Rom. viii. 19-23). But the two are not 
identical, for one is and the other is not 
eschatological, and reconciliation is not 
deliverance from the bondage of corrup- 
tion. And this helps us little to explain 
what the reconciliation of all things in 
heaven is. Nor is any such limitation 
legitimate; on the contrary, it is pre- 
cisely in the opposite direction that any 
limitation would have to be made; for in 
its full sense reconciliation can only be 
of beings endowed with moral and spiri- 
tual nature. In vv. 16, 17 angelic powers 
are explicitly included in τὰ πάντα. It is 
plain that eis αὐτὸν excludes the view 
that a reconciliation of angels and men 
is intended. This is so even if with 
Chrysostom and others (including appar- 
ently Abbott) we make τὰ ἐπὶ τ. γῆς and 
τὰ ἐν τ. ovpav. depend on εἰρηνοπ. For 
this still leaves unexplained ἀποκ. τ. 
πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, Which makes the refer- 
ence to angels undeniable. Bengel’s 
note, ‘‘Certum est angelos, Dei amicos, 
fuisse inimicos hominum Deo infen- 
sorum,’’ may be perfectly true. But it is 
irrelevant here, for only by forcing the 
words can εἴρηνοπ ... οὐραν. be re- 
garded as other than epexegetical of the 
preceding clause, and in particular τ. ἐπὶ 
τ. γῆς and τὰ ἐν τ. οὐραν. as a resolution 
of τ. πάντα. Abbott’s suggestion that 
τὰ ἐν. τ. οὐραν. may be inhabitants of 
other worlds may be true, though for 
Paul the thought is far-fetched, but does 
nothing towards excluding the angels. 
He urges that ἐν Tots οὐρανοῖς is not 
necessarily equivalent to ‘tin heaven”. 
But not only did Jewish angelology place 
the angels in the heavens, but Paul did 
so too, and has done so only just before 
in this passage, defining τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐραν. 
as the various orders of angels (ver. 16), 


” 


510 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΛΕΙΣ 


δι 


1 Onl here ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς. 22. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπο- 


Ξι Ν.. 
Tim. iii. 


κατηλλάγητε ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου," 


10; Tit.i. παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ' ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον 


6, 7 in 
N.T. 


1 So Ln., Tr. mg., W.H. mg., ΚΕΝ. mg., Lft., Ws. with B. αποκατηλλακηται: 17, 
a corruption from the text. αποκατηλλαγεντες: D* FG, Latin ἆ, e, g, m, Goth., Iren. 


(transl.) and others, an incorrect correction of text to improve the grammar, 


απο- 


κατηλλαξεν: T., Tr., W.H., R.V. with all other authorities, an alteration for the sake 


of smoothness, helped by active in ver. 20. 


2 So T., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with most authorities. avrov: inserted after θανα- 


τον (Ln.], [Lft.] with ΝΑΡ. 


Further, not only is this exclusion of the 
angels from the scope of reconciliation 
inconsistent with the terms ofthe passage, 
it omits a very important point in Paul’s 
polemic. To the angels the false teachers 
probably ascribed the function of procur- 
ing the reconciliation of men with God. 
(Cf. Enoch xv. 2, “And go, say to the 
watchers of heaven, who have sent thee 
to intercede for them: you should inter- 
cede for men, and not men for you”’.) 
How effective is Paul's reply that these 
angels needed reconciliation themselves ! 
Assuming, then, that angels are included 
among those reconciled, and that this is 
also referred to in the words “ having 
made peace through the blood of His 
cross,” the question arises, What did 
Paul mean by this? Meyer says that in 
consequence of the fall of the evil angels 
the angelic order as a whole was affected 
by the hostile relation of God to them, 
and the original relation will be fully 
restored when the evil angels are finally 
castinto hell. But apart from the specu- 
lative nature of this explanation, and the 
injustice it imputes to God, the reference 
is certainly not eschatological. Godet 
lays stress on εἰς αὐτὸν, and suggests 
that the reconciliation is not to God but 
with reference to God. He thinks that 
the passing over of sins by God (Rom. 
iii. 25) might cause the angels, who had 
been mediators in the giving of the law, 
difficulties as to the Divine righteousness. 
This was met and removed by the cross, 
which revealed God's attitude to sin and 
reconciled them to His government. We 
do not know that the angels needed this 
vindication, which, of course, it was a 
function of Christ’s death to give, though 
it is possible (Eph. iii. το, 1 Pet. i. 12). 
But this interpretation seems to be ex- 
cluded by the explanation of reconcilia- 
tionas making peace. And els αὐτὸν was 
probably chosen instead of αὐτῷ on 
account of εἰς αὐτὸν (ver. 16), and be- 


cause it was stronger and expressed the 
thought of God or Christ as the goal. 
The explanation that the angels were 
confirmed, and thus made unable to fall, is 
altogether inadequate. Harless, Oltra- 
mare and others admit a reconciliation of 
men and angels to God, but without 
asserting that τὰ ἐν τ. οὐρ. needed recon- 
ciliation, Wherever it was needed Christ 
effected it. But Paul's division of τὰ 
π. into two categories marked by εἴτε 
- . « εἴτε shows that the statement has 
reference not simply to these classes 
taken together as a whole, but to each 
taken singly. Alford, in his suggestive 
note, after saying that such a reconcilia- 
tion as that between man and God is not 
to be thought of, since Christ did not 
take on Him the seed of angels or pay 
any propitiatory penalty in the root of 
their nature, gives as his interpretation 
“all creation subsists in Christ: all crea- 
tion therefore is affected by His act of 
propitiation: sinful creation is, in the 
strictest sense, reconciled from being at 
enmity: sinless creation, ever at a dis- 
tance from His unapproachable purity, 
is lifted into nearer participation and 
higher glorification of Him, and is thus 
reconciled, though not in the strictest, yet 
in a very intelligible and allowable sense”. 
Unfortunately this cannot be accepted, 
for the strict is the only allowable sense. 
But it is on the right lines, and indicates 
the direction in which a solution must be 
sought. This, as several recent scholars 
have urged (ΚΙ., Gess, Everling and 
others), is through taking account of the 
Biblical and Jewish doctrine of angels. 
That the angels are divided into the 
sharply separated classes of sinless and 
demoniacal is a view on which this pas- 

Ὁ remains inexplicable. Nor is it the 
Old Testament or the Jewish doctrine, or, 
it may be added, the doctrine of Paul. 
Perhaps we need not, with Gess, think 
of an intermediate class, or, with Ritschl, 





22. 


of the angels of the Law. To Jewish 
thought angels stood in the closest rela- 
tions with men, and were regarded as 
sharing a moral responsibility for their 
acts. The angelic princes of earthly 
kingdoms in Daniel, and the angels of 
the Churches in the Apocalypse, are 
Biblical examples of this. A large num- 
ber of Pauline passages harmonise with 
the view that the angelic world needed a 
reconciliation. The detailed proof of 
this cannot be given here; it belongs to 
the discussion of the angelology of the 
Epistle. (See Introd., section ii.) But 
if the angels needed it, how could it be 
effected through the blood of the cross ? 
It is not enough to answer with Haupt 
that the reconciliation of men affected the 
angels who were closely united with 
them. A direct effect seems to be in- 
tended, and the difficulty is that stated 
by Holtzmann, that with the flesh all 
capacity is absent from the angels of 
Paul, to share in the saving effects of the 
death of God’s Son, which was made 
possible through the assumption of the 
flesh, and in which sin in the flesh is con- 
demned. In answer to it these considera- 
tions may be urged. The Son is Head 
of the angels, as He is Head of humanity ; 
therefore His acts had an effect on them 
independently of their effect on men. 
His death must not be narrowly con- 
ceived as physical only, as the destruc- 
tion of the material flesh. It was the 
destruction of the sinful principle; and 
therefore is independent in its effects of 
the possession of material bodies by those 
whom it saves. And this cannot be set 
aside by the fact that Paul uses such a 
physical term as blood of the cross, for the 
death of Christ was surely more to him 
than a mere physical incident. So far, 
then, as the angel world was affected by 
sin, it needed reconciliation, and received 
it in the atoning and sin-destroying death 
of Christ its Head. That in this reconcilia- 
tion evil angels are not included is clear 
from the fact that Paul does not regard 
it as having had effect on them corre- 
sponding to that onmen. Lueken points 
out that Paul adds ‘‘through Him” to 
the words “through the blood of His 
cross,” and refers the latter to the recon- 
ciliation of men and the former to that of 
angels, so that they are simply said to be 
reconciled through Christ. But the δι 
αὐτοῦ is an emphatic resumption of δι 
αὐτοῦ at the beginning of the verse,— 
εἰς αὐτόν. It is uncertain whether this 
should be referred to God or Christ. The 
former is possible, for αὐτός may be 
reflexive, and reconciliation is usually to 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


511 


God (so Eph. ii. 16, also 2 Cor. v. 18-20, 
Rom. v. 10). We should also have ex- 
pected δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν if Christ 
had been meant. On the other hand, the 
reference to Christ is favoured by the fact 
that elsewhere in this passage αὐτός 
always refers to Christ, and by the 
parallel with ver. 16, ἐν αὐτῷ . . . δι 
αὐτοῦ . . . εἰς αὐτόν. Decision is diffi- 
cult; it is perhaps safest to let the Paul- 
ine usage determine the reference, and 
interpret ‘‘ unto Himself ”'.---εἰρηνοποιή- 
σας. In Ephesians great emphasis is 
laid on the peace between Jew and Gen- 
tile, established by the cross, an emphasis 
quite to be expected where the unity of 
the Church is the leading thought; but 
not to be found here, for the peace is 
obviously between God on the one side 
and men and angels on the other ; besides 
which the thought would have no rele- 
vance in this connexion,—8.4 τ. αἵματος 
τ. σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ. The combination of 
the two terms is perhaps for the sake of 
insisting on the historical fact of the 
reconciling death against the tendency to 
seek peace with God through angelic me- 
diators.—ra ἐπὶ τ. γῆς, probably governed 
by ἀποκατ., rather than εἰρηνοπ., since 
it and the companion phrase seem to be 
epexegetical of τὰ πάντα. 

Ver. 21. For this verse cf. Eph. ii. 1, 
12. Usually kat ὑμᾶς is made to begin 
a new sentence. Even with the reading 
ἀποκατήλλαξεν the construction is not 
quite regular, but with the probably cor- 
rect reading, ἀποκατηλλάγητε, a violent 
break in the context is involved, since 
Paul begins with the second person as 
the object and suddenly makes it the sub- 
ject. Such an anacoluthon is possible 
in dictation, but very improbable unless 
several words had intervened, so that 
the beginning of the sentence should be 
forgotten. This is not the case here. 
Lachmann (followed by Lightf. and 
others) takes νυνὶ δὲ. . . θανάτου as a 
parenthesis, in which case παραστῆσαι 
depends on εὐδόκησε, and ὑμᾶς is repeated 
‘to disentangle the construction”. The 
irregularity is thus avoided. Haupt 
objects that it is unlikely that Paul 
should have continued after so long a 
sentence as ver. 20 with the same con- 
struction, and also that the thought in 
this part of the sentence, “to present 
you holy,” is not co-ordinated to the 
thoughts in κατοικ. and ἀποκατ. For in 
the latter the thought is that it is the Son 
in whom the fulness dwells and through 
whom reconciliation is effected. But 
this thought of the pre-eminence of the 
Son in the work of salvation is not con- 


512 


ΠΡΟΣ KOAOSZAEI= 1. 


τῷ Onlyhere αὐτοῦ, 23. εἴ γε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ™ ἑδραῖοι 


and 1 Cor. 


Vii. 37. χν. καὶ μὴ "μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε, 


8in N.T. 


5 Only here τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, οὗ ἐγενόμην 


ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος. 


tinued in ver. 22, where the thought is of 
the Christian standing of the Colossians 
before God. It is therefore unlikely 
that παραστ. should depend on εὐδοκ. 
Accordingly, with Haupt and Weiss, a 
comma should be placed at the end of 
ver. 20, and a full stop at the end of ver. 
21. ὑμᾶς in ver. 21 will then depend on 
ἀποκατ. It might seem an anti-climax 
after the wide sweep of ver. 20 to narrow 
down the reference to the Colossians. 
But we have a similar case in ver. 6, and 
the personal application of a universal 
truth is anti-climax only to a rhetorician. 
The danger of the Colossians makes it 
peculiarly appropriate here.—xal ὑμᾶς : 
“you also”.—6vras emphasises that 
this state was Continuous.—émm)AAotpiw- 
μένους: '' estranged,"’i.¢., from God, prob- 
ably not to be taken as counted as aliens 
by God, but as expressing their attitude to 
God.—tyOpovs τῇ διανοίᾳ. Meyer takes 
ἐχθ. as passive, regarded as enemies by 
God, but the qualification τῇ διαν. and 
the further addition ἐν. τ. ἔργ. τ. πον. 
makes this very improbable. It involves 
the translation of τῇ διαν. “on account 
of your state of mind,” for which διά 
with the accusative would have been 
expected, But it is much simpler to 
take διαν. as dative of the part affected, 
and ἐχθ. as active, hostile to God in your 
mind. διανοία (used only here and Eph. 
ii. 3, iv. 18 by Paul) means the higher 
intellectual nature, but specially on the 
ethical side; it is usually in the LXX the 
translation of ‘‘heart’’. Cremer defines 
it as ‘tthe faculty of moral reflexion ”’. 
ἐν τ. ἔργοις τοῖς πονηρσῖς : to be con- 
nected with ἀπηλλ. καὶ ἐχθ. The pre- 
position indicates the. sphere in which 
they were thus estranged and enemies. 
Vv. 22, 23. THEIR RECONCILIATION 
WILL RESULT IN THE PRESENTATION OF 
THEMSELVES AS BLAMELESS BEFORE 
Gob, IF THEY ARE STEADFAST IN THE 
GOSPEL THEY HAVE HEARD, WHICH IS NO 
OTHER THAN THAT PREACHED THROUGH- 
OUT THE WORLD.—Ver. 22. νυνὶ in con- 
trast to ποτὲ : ‘‘ now,’ not “at the present 
moment," but ‘in the present state of 
things,” thus, as Lightfoot points out, 
admitting an aorist, referring to an action 
lying in the past. ἀποκατηλλάγητε: “γε 
were reconciled,” but scarcely to be re- 


presented in English except by the per- 
fect. ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ. 
It is disputed why Paul should add to 
σώμ. the defining words τ. σαρκὸς a. 
Bengel, Lightfoot and Moule think they 
are added to distinguish Christ’s physical 
from His mystical body, the Church. 
But this would imply δὴ incredible 
obtuseness on the part of his readers, 
for διὰ θαν. sufficiently fixes the refer- 
ence to the physical body; and, as Meyer 
points out, the contrast to the body of 
His flesh is the glorified body, not the 
Church. Nor is a reference to Docetism 
probable. We have no evidence that it 
had appeared so early, and Paul would 
not have refuted it by a mere aside. 
Oltramare thinks that they are added 
because the flesh was the actual seat of 
suffering. But the addition would have 
been unnecessary, for ἐν τ, σώμ. was 
sufficient in itself. The most satisfactory 
view is that Paul has in mind the false 
spiritualism which thought reconciliation 
could be accomplished by spiritual beings 
only, and hence attached little or no 
value to the work of Christ in a body 
composed of flesh (Mey., Alf., Ell., Haupt, 
Abb.). In opposition to this Paul em- 
phasises the fact that it was just by the 
putting to death of this body composed 
of flesh that reconciliation was effected, 
and thereby excludes from the work the 
angels who had no body of flesh. But 
while this is so, it is hard to avoid the 
impression that the phrase is also chosen 
because in the corresponding experience 
of Christians their death to sin is the 
removal of the σῶμα. τ. σαρκός (ii. 1 = 
παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς: cf. Eph. v. 27. With 
the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν the infini- 
tive expresses purpose, “ He reconciled 
in order to present”. With ἀποκατηλ- 
λάγητε, if we adopt Lightfoot’s paren- 
the,is, the infinitive will depend on εὐδόκ. 
(ver. 19). But if νυνὶ δὲ begins a new 
sentence we should translate ‘ye were 
reconciled to present yourselves”. This 
presentation is usually taken to be at the 
judgment, and that is the impression 
the passage naturally makes. Hofmann, 
Lightfoot and Haupt refer it to God's 
present approbation. Haupt thinks the 
presentation is just the same as the re- 
conciliation. Reconciliation has not to 


23—24. 


24.1 Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, καὶ " ἀνταναπληρῶ 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


513 


΄ ἋΣ 


ὃ Σ τ «ορ τὶ = 
τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ° θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ οπὶν here. 


1 So edd. with non-Western authorities, perhaps by homceoteleuton. ος: inserted 
before νυν by Haupt with DEFG, perhaps by dittography. See note. 


do with a change of feeling in God or 
man, but of the relation of God to 
men. It is synonymous with justifica- 
tion. This παραστ. is a continuous pro- 
cess dependent on continuance in faith 
and love. He urges that Paul regards 
the judgment as depending on moral 
conditions, not on the holding fast of 
faith and love. But a distinction of this 
kind should not be pressed in the case 
of Paul; for him faith was the root of 
morality, and love the fulfilment of the 
Law.—katevétiov αὐτοῦ. Generally this 
is taken to be before God. But since 
Paul elsewhere teaches that we must 
appear before the judgment seat of 
Christ, it seems best (with Meyer) to 
take αὐτοῦ in the same way.—aytous 
καὶ ἀμώμοῦς καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους. Soden 
and Haupt insist that these are not 
ethical but religious terms. This is 
probably correct; since the reference is 
to the judgment, they have a forensic 
sense. ἀμώμους probably means blame- 
less rather than undefiled, and this is 
supported by the addition of ἀνεγκλ. 
Ver. 23. εἴ ye with the indicative ex- 
presses the Apostle’s confidence that the 
condition will be fulfilled. — ἐπιμένετε. 
This abiding in faith is the only, as it is 
the sure way, to this presentation of them- 
selves kat. αὖτ. This is directed against 
the false teachers’ assurance that the 
gospel they had heard needed to be supple- 
mented if they wished to attain salvation. 
It needs no supplementing, and it is at 
the peril of salvation that they lose hold 
of Τέ,---τεθεμ.ελιωμµένοι refers to the firm 
foundation, ἑδραῖοι to the stability of the 
building.—py μετακινούμενοι. The perfect 
participle here gives way to the present, 
expressing a continuous process. It may 
be passive or middle, probably the former. 
--ὠΟοπὸ τ. ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : to be 
taken with µετακιν. alone, not, assuming 
a zeugma, with the three co-ordinate 
expressions (Sod.), for it is not at all clear 
that the last of these keeps up the meta- 
phor of a building. The hope of the 
Gospel is the hope given by or proclaimed 
in the Gospel.—ot ἠκούσατε. Paul again 
sets his seal on the form of the Gospel 
which they had received, and again insists 
on the universality of its proclamation, 
its catholicity as guaranteeing its truth 


VOR. tii, 


(see on vv. 5-7).—év πασῇ κτίσει: “in 
presence of every creature”; π. κτ., as in 
ver. 15, with the limitation τ. ὑ. τ. ovp. 
—od ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος: cf. 
Eph. 11.7. This phrase contains ἃ certain 
stately self-assertion ; the Apostle urges 
the fact that he is a minister of this 
Gospel as a reason why they should 
remain faithful to it. His apostolic 
authority, so far from being impugned by 
the false teachers, was more probably in- 
voked; so Paul throws it in the balance 
against them. It is also true that the 
Gentile mission was so bound up in his 
own mind with his apostleship that a 
reference to the one naturally suggested 
a reference to the other. By this clause 
Paul effects the transition to ver. 24. 

Vv. 24-29. PAUL REJOICES THAT HIS 
SUFFERINGS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF 
THE CHURCH, IN WHOSE SERVICE HE 
FULFILS HIS DIVINELY APPOINTED TASK, 
OF FULLY PREACHING THE LONG HIDDEN 
BUT NOW REVEALED MYSTERY OF THE 
GOSPEL, WHICH IS UNIVERSAL IN ITS 
SCOPE, A TASK IN WHICH HE USES ALL 
THE MIGHTY STRENGTH WITH WHICH GoD 
HAS ENDOWED HIM. — Ver. 24. It is 
usually assumed that ὃς read by the 
Western text is due to dittography ; but 
it may quite as easily have fallen out 
through homeeoteleuton as have been 
inserted. It is, h6Wever, omitted by such 
an overwhelming combination of MSS. 
that it would not perhaps be justifiable to 
place it in the text. On grounds of in- 
ternal evidence a strong case can be 
made out for the insertion. Lightfoot 
omits, and thinks the abruptness charac- 
teristic of Paul. He quotes as parallels 2 
Cor. vii. 9, 1 Tim. i. 12. But the con- 
nexion in the former case is uncertain; 
Westcott and Hort do not begin a new 
sentence with viv χαίρω ; if correctly, it 
is not a true parallel. But if otherwise 
there is not the abrupt change of subjéct 
we find here, for Paul has been speaking 
of his previous regret, and viv χαίρω 
follows naturally on this. In the latter 
case, apart from the dubious authenticity 
of the Epistle, ver. 12 naturally continues 
ver. 11. On the other hand, it is very 
characteristic of our Epistle for transi- 
tions to be effected by the relative. 
Without it we have no preparation for 


33 


514 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


σώματος αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία, 25. ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος, 
κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι 


ver. 24, for νῦν is not transitional. And 
with it the appeal to their loyalty in οὗ 
ἐγεν. ἐγὼ Π. διάκ. is greatly strengthened. 
—viv χαίρω: “I now rejoice,” not 
“ now, in contrast to times of repining,” 
or ‘now as I contemplate the greatness 
of redemption,”’ but simply “in my pre- 
sent condition as a prisoner’. Joy in 
suffering is a familiar Pauline idea.—éy 
τοῖς μα ἤκρδεαῖα, not, as Meyerand Haupt, 
“over my sufferings," for which ἐπὶ 
would have been expected (though ¢f, 
Phil. i. 18, Luke x. 20), but “in my 
sufferings,” ἐν denoting the sphere in 
which, not (as Ell.) bot sphere in and 
subject over which.—twép ὑμῶν : {.ε., for 
your benefit. Oltramare compares Phil. 
i. 29, Eph. iii. 1, 13,1 Pet. iti. 18, and 
interprets ‘“‘for love of you”—a fine 
thought; but oo that is not in 
Paul’s mind.—4évravawAnpo. The mean- 
ing of this verb is much disputed. ἀνα- 
πληροῦν is “to fillup’’. ἀντι- in com- 
position has, according to Grimm, the 
following senses: opposite, over against ; 
the mutual efficiency of two; requital ; 
hostile opposition ; official substitution ; 
but some of these do not occur with 
verbs. He explains it in this way: 
“What is wanting of the affliction of 
Christ to be borne by me, that I supply 
in order to repay the benefits which 
Christ conferred on me by filling up the 
measure of the afflictions laid upon Him”. 
ἀντι- on this view means “in return 
for”. Another view proposed is that 
Paul makes up by present suffering for 
his former persecution. Winer noms 
by Lightf., Findl., Moule) says ἄναπλ. is 
used of him who “ὑστέρημα a se relic- 
tum ipfse explet,” and ἀνταναπλ. of him 
who “alterius ὑστέρημα de suo εχρ]ει ”' 
spe in Meyer). The parallels Light- 
oot quotes are intended to show that 
“the supply comes from an opposite 
quarter to the defect’. He takes the 
sense to be that Paul suffers instead of 
Christ, and translates “I fill up on my 
part,” “I supplement’’. Abbott per- 
tinently points out that in the two in- 
stances in which ἀναπληροῦν is used 
with ὑστέρημα (1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 
30) the supply comes from an opposite 
quarter to the defect, and therefore we 
have no more reason for including this 
idea in ἀνταναπλ. than in ἀναπλ. The 
simplest explanation is that of Wetstein, 
“ἀντὶ ὑστερήματος succeedit ἀναπλή- 


pwopa”. (So Mey., Ell., ΑΙ, Haupt, 
Abb.) We thus get the idea that over 
against or corresponding to the previous 
defect comes the filling up. To Light- 
foot’s criticism that this deprives of 
its force, Ellicott replies that there is no 
such clear correspondence of personal 
agents as would be needed to substantiate 
the assertion. It is impossible to feel 
sure which of these views is right, but 
this is of negative importance, since it 
excludes arguments (such as Lightfoot’s) 
as to the meaning of the rest of the 
verse, based on the sense of this verb.— 
τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
Leaving out of account such interpreta- 
tions as “afflictions for the sake of 
Christ,” or ‘afflictions imposed by 
Christ,” the following are the chief views 
that have been taken: (1) Many Roman- 
ist commentators explain the sufferings of 
Christ to be His mediatorial sufferin 

left incomplete by Him and ροκ ι -- 
His saints, Paul taking his share in this. 
(2) Lightfoot, Oltramare, Findlay, amp τ 
and others agree with (1) in taking τ. 

τ. X. as the sufferings which Christ 
endured on earth. But they deny that 
these are mediatorial sufferings ; they had 
‘a ministerial utility". Christ suffered 
for the kingdom of God, and His fol- 
lowers must continue this. Hofmann’s 
view is a special form of this. Christ 
was sent only to Israel, and endured 
sufferings in His ministry to it. Paul 
fills up what is left of these sufferings, 
as Apostle to the Gentiles. (3) Meyer, 
followed by Abbott, thinks the afflictions 
are Paul’s own, and are called the 
afflictions of Christ, because they are of 
the same essential character. Since his 
sufferings are still incomplete, he speaks 
of filling up the measure of them. (4) 
The sufferings are those of the Church, 
which are still incomplete.. They are 
called the afflictions of Christ because 
they are those of His body. Thus Ben- 
gel: “Εἶχα est mensura passionum, quas 
tota exantlare debet ecclesia. Quo plus 
igitur Paulus exhausit, eo minus et i 

posthac et caeteris relinquitur. oc 
facit communio sanctorum.” Cremer 
similarly says that the defect is not in 
what Christ suffered, but in the com- 
munion of the Church in His sufferings. 
Paul concentrates on himself the hate of 
the world against Christ and His Church, 
(5) The sufferings are the sufferings of 


25---26. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


RNS 


τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 26. τὸ μυστήριον τὸ " ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν P Only here 


and 1 Cor. 


“ αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, viv δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, [1.7; Eph. 
κ᾿ ’ 


in Ν.Τ, 


Christ, not, however, those which He 
endured on earth, but those which He 
endures in Paul through their mystical 
union. The defect is not (as in 4) in the 
sufferings of the Church, but in Christ’s 
sufferings in Paul. ( must be set aside 
on the ground that θλίψις is not used 
of Christ’s atoning sufferings, for which 
Paul employs αἷμα, θάνατος, σταυρός. 
(3) must be rejected because the afflic- 
tions of Christ can hardly mean afflictions 
like those of Christ. (4) is to be rejected 
on similar grounds, the defect is in 
Christ’s own suffering, not in that of the 
Church. Besides there would be an un- 


Pauline arrogance in the claim that he 


was filling up the yet incomplete suffer- 
ings of the Church. We are thus left 
with (2) and (5), each of which takes 
‘the afflictions of Christ” in the strict 
sense of afflictions endured by Christ 
Himself. We cannot, with Lightfoot, 
decide against (5) on the ground that 
ἀνταναπλ. excludes an identification be- 
tween the sufferings of Paul and Christ. 
Hofmann’s view is very attractive on 
account of the context, in which Paul is 
speaking of his Apostleship to the Gen- 
tiles. It is perhaps the best form of (2), 
and may be right. It, however, labours, 
with (2) generally, under the objection 
that it implies defect in Christ’s earthly 
sufferings, for ὑστέρημα means defect, 
and also that the claim thus made to fill 
up the defect left by Christ is strangely 
arrogant. Itis therefore best to accept 
(5). It is-urged that there is no N.T. 
parallel to the idea that Christ suffers in 
His members. But, apart from Acts ix. 
4, Paul’s doctrine of union with Christ 
is such that we should almost be com- 
pelled to, infer that Christ suffered in His 
members, even if Paul had not here 
affirmed it. And there is no arrogance 
here. For Paul does not claim to fill up 
the defects in Christ’s earthly suffering 
or in the sufferings of the Church, but 
in the sufferings which he has to endure 
in his flesh, which are Christ’s sufferings, 
because he and Christ are one. We 
should accordingly take τ. θλ. τ. X. with 
ἐν τῇ σαρκί pov as a single idea, “ Christ’s 
sufferings in my flesh”.—év τῇ σαρκί 
pov. There is a delicate contrast be- 
tween the flesh of Paul and the body 
of Christ. If these words were con- 
nected with ἀνταναπλ. they would 


es or Luke x. 21 
41 Cor. ii. 7; Eph, iii. 11; cf. Rom. xvi. 25. 


probably have immediately followed.— 
ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ: ‘on behalf 
of His body”. This may simply mean 
that the sufferings of Paul advanced the 
interests of the Church (cf. Phil. i. 12-14). 
But, taking into account Paul’s strong 
feeling of the solidarity of the Church, 
he probably means that apart from any 
furthering of the Church’s interests which 
his imprisonment may bring about, the 
suffering of one of the members must 
benefit the whole body; just as in a 
higher and fuller sense the suffering of 
the Head had procured salvation for the 
Church. Paul rejoices, not, as Abbott 
says the view taken of τ. 6A. τ. X. would 
involve, ‘‘ because they went fo increase 
the afflictions of Christ,” but because his 
afflictions, which were those of Christ 
also in the necessity of the case, were a 
blessing to Christ’s Ροάγ.- ὅ ἐστιν ἡ 
ἐκκλησία : ‘that is, the Church,” per- 
haps added because σάρξ and σῶμα occur 
together here, and the readers might be 
confused as to the precise meaning of 
σώματος. 

Ver. 25. ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος, 
With these words Paul returns to ver. 
23, speaking of himself here, however, 
as a minister of the Church, there of the 
Gospel. Because he is a minister of the 
Church, it is a joy to suffer for its wel- 
fare. He proceeds to explain what his 
peculiar (ἐγὼ emphatic) ministry is.— 
κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν : cf. Eph. iii. 2. otk. 
is “‘ stewardship ” rather than ‘‘ dispensa- 
tion’ (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 17). τ. Θεοῦ indi- 
cates that this office is held in the house 
of God, or that it has been entrusted to 
him by God.—eis ὑμᾶς : to be taken with 
δοθ. as in Eph. iii. 2, not with πληρ. 
(as by Chrys. and Hofm.), It means 
towards you Gentiles, that is for your 
benefit. The context shows that the 
Gentiles are uppermost in his thought. 
--πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ: “to 
fulfil the word of God”. πλ. is taken 
by some of the completion by this letter 
of the teaching already given to the 
Colossians. But Paul is speaking of 
the function specially entrusted to him. 
Generally this is explained of the geo- 
graphical extension of the Gospel. Haupt 
thinks the geographical point of view is not 
present here. An essential characteristic 
of the Gospel is its universality. Paul’s 
special mission is to bring this to realisa- 


516 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1, 


27. οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς γνωρίσαι τί τὸ πλοῦτος THs δόξης τοῦ 
μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 6! ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς 


1 801.η., Tr., W.H., R.V. with ABFGP 17. ος: T., Ws. with CDEKL, by 


attraction to gender of Χριστος. 


tion. This he does by proclaiming the 
Gospel to the Gentiles, thus making clear 
the true nature ofthe Gospel. This suits 
the context better, for Paul proceeds to 
define the mystery entrusted to him as 
the universality of salvation, not the 
wide extension of the Gospel. Other 
interpretations may be seen in Meyer or 
Eadie. 

Ver. 26. Partially parallel to Eph. 
iii. 9. How great the honour conferred 
on Paul is, appears from the fact that he 
is entrusted with the duty of declaring 
the long concealed secret which is the 
distinguishing mark of his Gospel.—ro 
μυστήριον. Lightfoot thinks that the 
term is borrowed by Paul from the Greek 
mysteries, and that it is intentionally 
chosen to point the contrast between 
those secret mysteries and the Gospel 
which is offered to all. But for the 
mysteries the plural wasemployed. And 
there would be more justification for this 
interpretation in Matt. xiii. 11 = Luke 
viii. το, where the disciples are told by 
Jesus that to them it is given to know 
the mysteries of the kingdom, but not 
to others. But it will not be seriously 
supposed that Christ borrowed the term 
from the Greek mysteries. A mystery 
is a truth which man cannot know by his 
natural powers, so that if it is known it 
must be revealed.—rd ἀποκεκρυμμένον 
ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ τῶν γενεῶν. 
Usually ἀπὸ is taken as temporal, and 
this agrees with the fact that similar 
references in Paul are temporal (1 Cor. 
ii. 7, Rom. xvi. 25), and with the use of 
ἀπὸ as in ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος and ἀπὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου (Matt. xxv. 34). ἀπὸ καταβολῆς 
occurs with κρύπτω (Matt. xiii. 35). But 
elsewhere ἀπὸ after κρύπτω or ἀποκρύ 
indicates those from whom a thing is 
concealed. In favour of this meaning 
here is the order, for if ἀπὸ τ. al. were tem- 
poral ἀπὸ τ. γεν. would be included as 
a matter of course. It has been so taken 
here, not by Klépper, who suggests it as 
possible, but does not accept it, but by 
Franke. He thinks both are terms for 
angels, and in itself such a reference is 
not improbable, for it is through the 
Church that the principalities and powers 
come to learn the manifold wisdom of 
God (Eph. iii. 9, where just before the 


mystery is said to have been concealed 
ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων). But we have no evi- 
dence that yeveal was ever used in this 
way, and no parallel for this use of αἰῶνες 
in N.T. Without identifying the terms 
with personal existences, we may with 
Haupt (cf. also Soden) take αἰῶνες of the 
ages before the world, and γενεαί of the 
generations of human history, This will 
be practically the same as saying that 
the mystery was concealed from angels 
and men. This is probably the meaning 
of Bengel’s note: ‘ Aeones referuntur 
ad angelos; generationes, ad homines”’. 
ἐν oret, followed by Klépper, thinks 
that there is a polemical reference here 
to the antiquity of the Gospel and its con- 
sequent superiority to the Law. Abbott 
thinks the point of the reference to the 
long concealment and recent disclosure 
is that the acceptance of the false teach- 
ing is thus explained. But the non- 
polemical character of parallel passages 
makes these suggestions very uncertain. 
—viv δὲ ἐφανερώθη. The construction 
here changes, and the perfect participle 
is continwed by the aorist indicative 
(Winer-Moulton, p. 717). The anaco- 
luthon is caused by Paul's intense joy 
that the long silence has been broken; 
he is.content with nothing short of a 
definite statement of the glorious fact. 
νῦν is equally appropriate whether ἀπὸ 
is temporal or not, for the antithesis of 
past and present lies in the nature of the 
case.—tots ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ: {.ε., to Chris- 
tians generally, not to the Jewish Chris- 
tians ‘epec yy who certainly were not 
specially enlightened on this matter, nor 
the Apostles and prophets of the New 
Covenant, even though in the parallel 
Eph. iii. 5 they are chosen for mention, 
nor the angels, in spite of Eph. iii. το, 
The words must be taken in their obvious 
sense, 

Ver. 27. Cf. for apartial parallel Eph. 
i, 18.—ols ἠθέλ' ὁ Θεὸς : “ inasmuch 
as to them God willed"; ἠθέλ. is chosen 
to express the idea that the revelation 
had its source solely in God’s will.—ti 
τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης. : cf. Rom. ix. 23, 
Phil. iv. 19, Eph. 1. 18, iii. 16. The 
expression does not mean the glorious 
riches, but rather how rich is the glory. 
The use of ‘‘glory”’ immediately after 


Ἶ 


27---20. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


5 


τῆς δόξης, 28. ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγέλλομεν, " νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄν- τ Paul only 
in N.1t, 


θρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα 


παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ 29. εἰς ὃ καὶ 
κοπιῶ, ἀγωνιζόμενος κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργουμένην 


ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν δυνάμει. 


in the sense of the Messianic kingdom 
favours the adoption of that meaning 
here. But as it is an attribute of the 
mystery it probably expresses its glorious 
character.—év τοῖς ἔθνεσιν is generally 
taken with τί τὸ πλ. κ.τ.λ., and this 
gives an excellent sense, for it was as 
manifested in the Gentile mission that 
the glory of the Gospel was especially 
displayed. There is a little awkwardness, 
since the definition Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν 
seems to make ἐν τ. ἔθν. unnecessary. 
The glory of the mystery was itself Χ. 
ἐν tp. if we take ἐν ὑμῖν to mean among 
you Gentiles. This hardly justifies us 
in connecting the words with γνωρίσαι 
(Haupt), for it already has the recipients 
of knowledge attached to it (ots).—é 
ἐστι answers τί τὸ πλοῦτος κ.τ.λ. The 
riches of the glory of the mystery con- 
sist in Χ. ἐν tp. ἣ ἐλπ. τ. ὃ. Usually 
ὃ is taken to refer to μυστηρίου alone. 
Perhaps the practical difference is not 
ρτεαί.---Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς 
δόξης. Haupt thinks no comma should 
be placed after ὑμῖν, and that the mean- 
ing is that the special glory of the Gospel 
is that Christ among them is the hope of 
glory. But the usual view which makes, 
not the fact that Christ among them 
guarantees their future blessedness, but 
the presence of Christ itself, the great 
glory of the mystery seems much finer. 
Χ. ἐν ὑμ., and not what Χ. ἐν tp. is, 
constitutes the riches of the glory. The 
context shows that ὑμῖν must mean ‘“‘ you 
Gentiles”. It does not necessarily follow 
from this that ἐν must be translated 
‘‘among,” though this is favoured by ἐν 
τ. ἔθν. It may refer to the indwelling of 
Christ in the heart, and this is rendered 
probable by the addition of ἐλπὶς τ. 
δόξης. The indwelling Christ consti- 
tutes in Himself a pledge of future glory. 
For this combination of the indwelling 
Christ with the Christian hope, cf. Rom. 
Vili. το, 

Ver. 28. ὃν: {.ε., Χριστὸν ἐν ὑμῖν.--- 
ἡμεῖς : (emphatic) we in contrast to the 
false teachers. But the reference seems 
to be simply to Paul, not to Timothy 
and Epaphras as well. For throughout 
the section he is speaking of his own 
special mission.—vov@erotvtes. Meyer 


points out that admonishing and teach- 
ing correspond to the two main elements 
of the evangelic preaching, repent and 
believe. Haupt thinks on the ground 
of the order that Paul is not referring 
to elementary Christian teaching, but 
has this epistle in his mind, The order 
might, however, suggest warning to 
non-Christians followed by teaching of 
new converts. But the addition of ἐν 7. 
σοφίᾳ and τέλειον support the view that 
it is warning against error, and advanced 
teaching that he has in view.—dvra . 
ἄνθρωπον : emphatically repeated here. 
The Gospel is for all men, in opposition 
to any exclusiveness, and for each in- 
dividual man in particular. And the ideal 
is only attained when each individual has 
reached completeness. The exclusive- 
ness might be, as with the Judaisers, of 
a sectarian type, or, as with the Gnostics, 
and possibly here, of απ΄ intellectual, 
aristocratic type. Since such is the 
Apostle’s task, he addresses a Church 
the members of which are unknown to 
him.—év πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is taken by some 
to express the content of the teaching, 
everyone may be fully instructed in the 
whole of Christian wisdom. This forms 
a good contrast to the probable practice 
of the false teachers of reserving their 
higher teaching for an inner circle. But 
for this we should have expected the 
accusative. Probably the words express 
the manner of teaching. If the phrase 
is taken with both participles the content 
of the teaching is εχο]ηάεά.-- παραστήσ.: 
probably to present at the judgment.— 
τέλειον. Here also allusion to the 
mysteries is discovered by Lightfoot. 
The term is said to have been employed 
to distinguish the fully initiated from 
novices. But, even if this be correct, 
the word is used in Matt. v. 48, xix. 21, 
where such a reference is out of the 
question. Probably Paul is contrasting 
the completeness he strives to secure with 
that promised by the false teachers. 

Ver. 29. εἰς ὃ: to achieve which end, 
-- κοπιῶ expresses toil carried to the 
point of weariness. — ἀγωνιζόμενος : a 
metaphor from the arena. Meyer takes 
the reference to be to inward striving 
against difficulties and hostile forces. 


518 


a Only here, 
Gal. vi. τί 
(B 17); 


ere 5 


ἐξ νὰ 
b Only here, 


5; Heb. 
vi. I1, x. 
22 in class: or Bib. Gk. 


Perhaps both inward and outward struggle 
are referred to (De W.).—xara. The 
struggle is carried on in proportion not 
to his natural powers, but to the mightily 
working energy of Christ within him,— 
ἐνεργουμένην: a dynamic middle (ef. 
ver. 6). 

CuapTER II.—Vv. 1-3. PAvuL’s DEEP 
CONCERN FOR THE COLOSSIANS AND 
OTHER CHRISTIANS UNKNOWN TO HIM, 
THAT THEY MAY BE UNITED IN LOVE, 
AND ATTAIN FULL KNOWLEDGE ΟΡ 
CHRIST, IN WHOM RESIDE ALL THE 
TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE. 
-θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι : for the formula 
cf. 1 Cor. xi. 3, and for a similar formula 
Phil. i. 12. More frequently the negative 
is used, οὐ θέλω .... γὰρ intro- 
duces the proof of what he has just said, 
by the illustration from the case of his 
readers, and thus prepares the way for 
the warning that follows in ver. 
ἀγῶνα : the inward struggle of Paul will 
embrace his prayers, his anxiety and his 
earnest meditation on the implications of 
the false teaching and the best manner of 
tefuting it. Added to this are the diffi- 
culties caused by his imprisonment and 
the fact that the Colossians were - 
sonally unknown to Ηἶπι,---Λαοδικίφᾳ. The 
members of this Church were probably 
exposed to the same dangers as their 
neighbours. —«at ὅσοι κ.τ. So far as 
the words themselves go, they may mean 
that the Colossians and Laodiceans did 
belong to the number of those who had 
not seen him or that they did not. But 
the latter alternative is very improbable, 
for Paul would not have joined a general 
reference to Churches unknown to him to 
a special mention of two Churches that 
were known to him. Further, Paul con- 
tinues with αὐτῶν, which refers to καὶ 
ὅσοι, but must include the Colossians, 
since in ver. 4 he says, “ This I say that 
no one may delude you”. This also cor- 
responds to the use of καὶ ὅσοι after an 
enumeration. The narrative in Acts 
favours this view, as does the absence of 
any hint in the Epistle that Paul had 
visited Colosse. We may therefore 
safely assume with almost all commen- 
tators that the Apostle was personally 
unknown to both of these Churches.— 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


Il. 


IT. 1. ΘΕΛΩ γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι " ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ 
τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί, 
2. ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν ai καρδίαι αὐτῶν, συνβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
1 Thess.i. καὶ εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς " πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν 


ἐν σαρκί: to be taken with τὸ πρ. pov, 
not with ἑόρ. 

Ver. 2. παρακληθῶσιν. It is disputed 
what meaning should be attached to this. 
Meyer, Ellicott and others translate 
‘“may be comforted’’. This seems to be 
the more usual sense in Paul, and is sup- 

ed by the addition “‘ knit together in 
love,’ which favours an emotional refer- 
ence. It is more probable, however, that 
we should translate ‘‘may be strength- 
ened” (De W., Alf., ΚΙ., OL, Sod.), for 
this was more needed than consolation 
in face of heresy. Oltramare quotes Rom. 
i. 12 (where, however, συμπαρ, is used), 
1 Thess. iii. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 17, where this 
verb is joined to στηρίζειν to show that 
this sense is Pauline, and in the latter we 
have παρακαλέσαι ὑμῶν τ. καρδίας καὶ 
στηρίξαι. Haupt, following Luther, 
thinks it means “ may be warned,” but 
this does not suit καρδίαι, especially in 
iv. 8.—al « αὐτῶν. We might 
have expected ὑμῶν, but καὶ ὅσοι, while 
not excluding the Colossians, includes 
other Churches as well. καρδία implies 
more than our word “ heart,” it embraces 
also the intellect and the will.—ovvBi- 
βασϑέντες agrees with αὐτοί, understood 
as the equivalent of αἱ κ. αὐτῶν. In the 
LXX the word means “ to instruct ᾿ (soin 
1 Cor. ii. 16, which is a quotation from Isa. 
xl. 14). But joined to ἐν dy. it must 
have its usual sense, “ knit together,” as 
in ver. 19 and Eph. iv. 16. There may 
be a reference to the divisive tendencies 
of the false teaching. —xal εἰς πᾶν πλοῦ- 
τος τῆς WH ρίας τῆς συνέσεως: 
“and unto riches of the fulness of 
understanding”. καὶ εἰς is to be taken 
with σννβιβ., “ knit together in order to 
attain”. συνβιβ, is a verb implying 
motion, and therefore is followed my 
els. It is usual to take πληροφ. as “ 
assurance,” but the expression ‘‘all the 
riches of full assurance of understand- 
ing” has a strange redundance, which 
seems scarcely to be met, as Klépper 
thinks, by De Wette’s remark that πλοῦτ. 
is a quantitative but πληρ. a qualitative 
expression. Accordingly it seems better, 
with Grimm and Haupt, to translate 
“fulness,” a sense which is possible 
everywhere in N.T. except 1 Thess. i. 5. 





I—3. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


519 


ν A “ A e ε ‘ 
τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, 3. ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ © Only here, 


τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως * ἀπόκρυφοι. 


Mark iv. 
22; Luke 
viii. 17 in 


1 So edd. with B, Hil. του Qeovo εστιν Χριστος: D, by explanation ; του Θεου του 


εν Χριστω: 17, by explanation: του Θεου: 


DbP 37, 67**, 71, by omission to remove 


difficulty ; του Θεου πατρος Χριστου: WY, by insertion of rarpos to remove difficulty ; 
του Θεου και Xpiorov: Cyr., by insertion of και with similar object. 


For συν. see oni. g. Insight into Chris- 
tian truth is meant here.—ets ἐπίγνωσιν 
τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ. Pro- 
bably this is in apposition to the previous 
clause, εἰς πᾶν κ.τ.λ., and further ex- 
plains it; all the rich fulness of insight, 
which he trusts may be the fruit of their 
union in love, is nothing else than full 
knowledge of the Divine mystery, even 
Christ. The false teachers bid them seek 
knowledge in other sources than Christ, 
Paul insists on the contrary that full 
knowledge of the mystery of God is all 
the wealth of fulness of understanding, 
and is to be found in the knowledge of 
Christ alone. This makes it probable 
that the correct interpretation of the true 
reading is to take Χριστοῦ as in apposition 
to μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ (so Ell., Lightf., 
Findl., Hofm., Holtzmann, Haupt). It 
is true that this is curt and harsh, and that 
we should have expected 6 ἐστιν, but it 
suits the context better than the transla- 
tion ‘the mystery of the God of Christ” 
(Mey., Gess, ΚΙ., Sod., Weiss and appar- 
ently Abb.). It is true that Paul uses a 
similar expression in Eph. i. 17. But 
here it would emphasise the subordina- 
tion of Christ, which is precisely what is 
out of place in a passage setting forth 
His all-sufficiency, and against a doc- 
trine the special peril of which lay in its 
tendency to under-estimate both the 
Person and the Work of Christ. The 
grammatically possible apposition of Χ. 
with Θεοῦ (Hilary) is out of the question. 
Christ is the mystery of God, since in 
Him God’s eternal purpose of salvation 
finds itsembodiment. Hort’s conjecture 
that the original reading was τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν 
Χριστῷ does not find sufficient support 
in the textual or exegetical difficulties of 
the clause. 

Ver. 3. ἐν ᾧ may refer to μυστηρίου 
(Beng., Mey., Alf., Ol., Sod., Haupt, 
Abb.) or to Χριστοῦ (ΕἸ]., Hofm., Lightf., 
Holtzmann, Findl., Moule). The former 
is defended on the ground that ἀπόκρ. cor- 
responds to µυστ. It is also urged that 
μυστ. is the leading idea. On the other 
hand, if Christ is rightly identified with the 
mystery, there is no practical difference 


between the two views, and it is simpler 
to refer ᾧ to X. as the nearer noun.— 
εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ 
γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. Bengel, Meyer and 
Alford take ἀπόκρ. as an ordinary adjec- 
tive with θησαυροὶ, ‘in whom are all 
the hidden treasures’. For this we 
should have expected ot ἀπόκρ., and 
there is no stress on the fact that the 
hidden treasures are in Christ, yet the 
position of the word at the end of the 
sentence is explained as due to emphasis. 
Generally Chrysostom has been followed 
in taking it as the predicate to εἰσὶν, 
“in whom are hidden all the treasures”’. 
But this is excluded by its distance from 
the verb. Accordingly it should be taken 
as a secondary predicate, and thus equiva- 
lent to an adverb, ‘in whom are all the 
treasures . . . hidden,” 7.e., in whom all 
the treasures are, and are in a hidden man- 
ner (Hofm., Ell., Lightf., Sod., Haupt, 
Abb.). The force of the passage then is 
this: all, and not merely some of, the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge are 
contained in Christ, therefore the search 
for them outside of Him is doomed to 
failure. But not only are they in Christ, 
but they are contained in a hidden way. 
Therefore they do not lie on the surface, 
but must be sought for earnestly, as men 
seek for hidden treasure. They are not 
matters of external observances, such as 
the false teachers enjoined, but to be 
apprehended by deep and serious medita- 
tion. If Lightfoot is right in thinking 
that ἀπόκρ. is borrowed from the termin- 
ology of the false teachers, there is the 
added thought that the wisdom they 
fancied they found in their secret books 
was really to be found in Christ alone. 
But it is hardly likely that there is any 
such reference here. Even if the allusion 
to literature were more plausible than it 
is, there is no evidence that the word was 
used in this sense so early. Besides it 
occurs twice with θησ. in the LXX. The 
distinction between σοφίας and γνώσεως 
is not easy to make here; the former is 
general, the latter special. Lightfoot 
says: “While γνῶσις applies chiefly to 
the apprehension of truths, σοφία super- 


520 


d Class. 
only bere 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


Il. 


4. τοῦτο ] λέγω ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς "παραλογίζηται ἐν * πιθανολογίᾳ. 


and Jat 5+ εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμί, 
© Only here χαίρων καὶ βλέπων ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ "στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν 
Gk. 


1So T., W.H., Κ.Υ. with NAB. δε: inserted after rovro by Ln., [Tr.], Ws. with 


most other authorities. 


adds the er of reasoning about them 
and tracing their relations’. Moule 
thinks it is God’s wisdom and knowledge 
that are here attributed to Christ, but 
this seems uncertain. 

Vv. 4-15. PAUL URGES HIS READERS 
NOT TO BE BEGUILED BY PLAUSIBLE 
WORDS, BUT TO HOLD CHRIST FAST AS 
THE PRINCIPLE OF MORAL CONDUCT. 
THEY MUST LET NO ONE TAKE THEM 
CAPTIVE BY DECEITFUL PHILOSOPHY AND 
HUMAN TRADITION, WITH THE ELEMENTS 
OF THE WORLD AND NOT CHRIST FOR ITS 
CONTENT. IN HIM ALONE DWELLS THE 
WHOLE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD, AND 
THEIR COMPLETENESS IS IN Him, THEY 
HAVE DIED, BEEN BURIED AND RAISED 
witH Him, Gop HAS QUICKENED THEM 
WITH HIM, WHILE THEY WERE DEAD IN 
SINS, HAS CANCELLED THE HOSTILE. LAW 
ON THE CROSS, AND SPOILED AND LED 
IN TRIUMPH THE PRINCIPALITIES AND 
POWERS.—Ver. 4. τοῦτο λέγω. Haupt 
thinks the reference is only to ver. 3, 
but this verse looks back as far as 2b, 
and νετ. 5 to ver. 1, Generally the refer- 
ence of τοῦτο is thought to be wv. 1-3, 
though Soden thinks it is to i. 24-ii. 3. 
--παραλογίζηται means to deceive by 
false reckoning, then, as here, by false 
reasoning. — πιθανολογίᾳ: ‘ persuasive 
speech”. The word has no bad sense in 
itself, and what bad sense it has here it 
gets from παραλογ. Classical writers use 
it with the meaning of probable argument 
as opposed to strict demonstration. 

Ver. 5. γὰρ is difficult. Meyer thinks 
that the fact of his spiritual presence is 
mentioned, in contrast to his bodily 
absence, as a reason why they should not 
let themselves be deceived. Ellicott (after 
Chrysostom) thinks that he is explaining 
why he can advise them, it is because he 
thus knows their need. Lightfoot, Soden, 
Findlay and Haupt think he explains his 
warning by his personal interest in them. 
--καὶ goes closely with τῇ σαρκὶ. The 
dative is one of reference, and τῇ σαρκὶ 
is equivalent to “in the body”. There is 
not the least ground for the inference that 
Paul had ever been to Colosse.—r@ 
πνεύματι: not “by the Holy Spirit,” but 


“in spirit”. Paul’s own spirit is meant 
as in 1 Cor. ν. 3, 4.—odv ὑμῖν εἰμί : not 
simply among you, but “ united with you 
through the warmest community of 
interest’? (Sod.).—xalpev καὶ ων. 
Many take this as if it were equivalent to 
‘rejoicing to see,” but it is questionable 
if the words can mean this. If the object 
of his joy is the condition of the Church, 
we should have expected an inversion of 
the order, first seeing and then rejoicing 
at what he saw. Lightfoot explains the 
order as indicating that he looked because 
it gave him joy to look. Ellicott assumes 
a continuation of the words σῦν ὑμῖν, 
“rejoicing with you and beholding”. 
Meyer thinks χαίρων means rejoicing to 
be thus present with you in spirit. It is 
very difficult to decide as to the meaning, 
possibly Ellicott’s view is best.—rhyv τάξιν 
καὶ τὸ στερέωμα. A military sense is often 
found in both of these nouns, though 
sometimes (as by Ol.) it is restricted to 
the latter. Meyer and Abbott deny the 
military reference altogether. Both words 
are used in a military sense, but this is 
suggested by the context, and it is said 
that ‘‘here the context suggests nothing 
of the kind” (Abb.). Haupt decides for 
it on the ground of the connexion. If 
the terms had been general, Paul would 
not have placed his joy over their order 
before his mention of their faith. But in 
representing them as a well-ordered army, 
and then expressing the same idea under 
the image of a bulwark which consists in 
their faith, the order is correct. It is, 
however, very questionable if an argu- 
ment from order of this kind is to be 
pressed. Lightfoot translates στε 
“solid front’. It may have simply the 
sense of firm foundation. Whatever the 
precise force of the words, it is clear that 
the Church as a whole remained true to 
the doctrine it had been taught.— 
πίστεως: cf. Acts xvi. 5, I Pet. v. 9. 
Ver. 6. ὡς οὖν π Oltra- 
mare translates ‘ since,” and interprets, 
“since ye have received Christ . . . it is 
in Him you must walk’. But probably 
the usual interpretation “as” is right, 
meaning the form in which they 





4—8. 


πίστεως ὑμῶν. 


3 πο Ἂ ο) , >A 
ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε, 7. ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ ἐποικοδομούμενοι ἐν αὐτῷ 
καὶ βεβαιούμενοι τῇ πίστει καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, περισσεύοντες] ἐν 


εὐχαριστίᾳ. 


1So T., Tr., R.V., Ws. with SAC 17. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


8. βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται 


$21 


6. ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον, 


t 


f Only here 
in class. 
or Bib. 


ὁ Gk. 


6 ᾿συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς 


εν αντη: added after περισσευοντες, Ln., 


[Tr.], [W.H.] with BDcEKL, by assimilation to iv. 2. 


2 So Τ., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with BCKLP. 


εσται unas: Ln., W.H. mg. with 


SADE. to connect more closely with συλαγωγων. 


received (= καθὼς ἐμάθετε, i. 7). The 
sense is, in that case, live in accordance 
with what you received, and the em- 
phasis is on περιπ., not on ἐν αὐτῷ. 
-παρελάβετε is practically equivalent 
to ἐμάθετε, received by instruction, 
rather than received into the heart.—rév 
Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον. 
frequently translated "πε Christ, even 
Jesus the Lord”? (Hofm., Lightf., Sod., 
Haupt, Abb.). In favour of this is the 
fact that ὁ X. Ἰ. is not a Pauline ex- 
pression, but neither is Ἰ. ὃ Κύριο. A 
further argument in its favour is that 6 
Χριστός is very frequent in this Epistle, 
and especially prominent in this section 
of it. Ifthis is so we must suppose that 
Paul has chosen the form of words to 
meet some false view at Colossez. A re- 
ference to a Judaistic conception ΟΕ the 
Messiah, held by the false teachers, which 
failed to rise to the Christian conception 
of His Person as Lord, is supposed by 
Haupt to be intended. This is possible, 
but the other possible view ‘‘ ye received 
Christ Jesus as Lord” is no more in- 
consistent with Pauline usage, and em- 
phasises still more the Lordship of Christ, 
which it was the chief aim of the Apostle 
toassert. There seems to be no hint that 
the Messiahship of Jesus was challenged ; 
at most there was the question what 
Messiahship involved. More probably 
there is no reference to the Messiahship 
at all. 

Ver. 7. ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ ἐποικοδομού- 
μενοι: ‘rooted and built up’. The meta- 
phor changes from περιπατ., and again 
from ἐρριζ., though Lightfoot points out 
that the term ‘to root” is not infre- 
quently applied to buildings. More im- 
portant is the change in tense, the perfect 
participle expressing an abiding result, 
the present a Continuous process. ἐν 
αὐτῷ probably belongs to both. We 
should not (with Schenkel, Hofm.) place 
a full stop at περιπ. and take the par- 
ticiples with βλέπετε, which would be 
intolerably awkward.—BeBatovpevor τῇ 
πίστει: ‘“stablished in faith,’ also the 


This is- 


present of continuous process. Meyer 
and Lightfoot take the dative as instru- 
mental, but it seems best with most 
recent commentators to take it as a 
dative of reference (cf. νετ. 5).--καθὼς 
ἐδιδάχθητε: cf. καθὼς ἐμάθετε, i. 7. The 
words define τῇ πίστει.---περισσεύοντες 
ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. Oltramare notes that 
“thankfulness is a preservative against 
the new doctrines,” since they remove 
Christ from His true place. The em- 
phasis on thankfulness is very marked 
in this Epistle. 

Ver. 8. Paul once more (previously 
in ver. 4) begins to attack the false 
teachers, but turns aside in ver. g from 
the direct attack to lay the basis for the 
decisive attack in vv. 16-23.---τις. It is 
not clear that we can infer from the, 
singular that only one false teacher had 
appeared in the Colossian Church.—tpas 
is placed in an emphatic position, and 
its force is ‘‘ you whose Christian course 
has been so fair, and who have received 
such exhortations to remain steadfast ’’,— 
ἔσται: the future indicative after μή im- 
plies a more serious estimate of the 
danger than the subjunctive. For the 
construction, τις followed by a participle 
with the article, cf. Gal. i. 7, Luke xviii. 
9.--συλαγωγῶν. The sense is disputed. 
Several of the Fathers and some modern 
writers think it means {ο τοῦ”. It is 
used in this sense with οἶκον (Aristaen., 
2, 22), and Field (Notes on the Translation 
of the N.T., p. 195) says ‘“‘there can be 
no better rendering than ‘ lest any man rob 
you’”’’. But, as Soden points out, that of 
which they were robbed should have been 
expressed. Itis better to take it with most 
commentators in the more obvious sense 
‘lead you away as prey’. The verb is 
so used in Heliod., AZth., x., 35 (with 
θυγατέρα), Nicet., Hist., 5, 96 (with 
παρθένον), and it may be chosen with 
the special sense of seduction in mind.— 
διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας Kal κενῆς ἀπάτης." 
The second noun is explanatory of the 
first, as is shown by the absence of the 
article and preposition before it and the 


522 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΔΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


Il. 


€ ti. 20; Gal.® φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 


iv. 3, cf. 


νεο. κατὰ τὰ " στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν ' 9. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ 


Pet. iii. 
10, 12; 
Heb. v. 12. 


lack of any indication that Paul had two 
evils to attack. The meaning is “ his 
philosophy, which is vain deceit”. The 
word has, of course, no reference to 
Greek philosophy, and probably none 
to the allegorical method of Scripture 
exegesis that the false teachers may 
have employed. Philo uses it of the 
law of Judaism, and Josephus of the 
three Jewish sects. Here, no doubt, it 
means just the false teaching that threat- 
ened to undermine the faith of the Church. 
There is no condemnation of philosophy 
in itself, but simply of the empty, but 
plausible, sham that went by that name 
at Colosse. Hort thinks that the sense 
is akin to the later usage of the word 
to denote the ascetic life—kxara τὴν 
παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων: ‘according to 
human tradition" as opposed to Divine 
revelation. Meyer, Ellicott and Findlay 
connect with σνλαγ. It is more usual 
to connect with ἀπ. or τ. Φιλ. κ. κεν. ἀπ. 
The last is perhaps best. It indicates 
the source from which their teaching was 
drawn.—«atTa τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κ . 
[On this phrase the following authorities 
may be referred to: Hilgenfeld, Galater- 
brief, pp. 66sq.; Lipsius, Paul. Rechtf., 
p. 83; Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers,’ ii., 252; 
Klépper, ad loc. ; Spitta, 2 Pet. ce Aen 
263 sq.; Everling, Paul. Angel. u. Dam., 
pp. ὅς sq.; Haupt, ad loc. ; Abbott, ad 
loc. The best and fullest account in 
English is Massie’s article ‘‘ Elements” 
in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. 
To these may now be added St. John 
Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul 
to Contemporary Fewish T. ht, pp. 
163-170, and Deissmann’s article ‘ Ele- 
ments” in the Encyclopedia Biblica.] 
Originally or. meant the letters of the 
alphabet, then in Plato and later writers 
the physical elements, and lastly (but 
only from the first century Α.Ρ.) the rudi- 
ments of knowl It has been fre- 
quently taken in this sense as the A B C 
of religious knowledge (so recently Mey., 
Lightf., Ol., Cremer and many others). 
This explanation had, however, been 
attacked by Neander with powerful argu- 
ments in his discussion of the parallel pas- 
sage Gal. iv. 3. (Planting and Training, 
i., 465, 466, cf. 323 [Bohn’s ed.].) He 
pointed out that if or. meant first prin- 
ciples we should have had a genitive of 
the object, as in Heb. v. 12, or. τ. ἀρχῆς 


τ. λογίων. Such an omission of the 
leading idea is inadmissible. Further, 
Paul regarded the heathen as enslaved 
under στ. τ. κόσ. and their falling away 
to Jewish rites as a return to this slavery. 
Therefore the expression must apply to 
something both had in common, and 
something condemned by Paul, which 
cannot be the first principles of religion 
(to which also ἀσθενῆ would be inappro- 
priate), but the ceremonial observances, 
which were so called as earthly and 
material. It has been further pointed 
out by Klépper that following κατὰ τ. 
παρ. τ. ἀνθρ. this term introduced by 
κατὰ and not connected by καὶ must 
express the content of the teaching, 
which is not very suitable if “ religious 
rudiments” is the meaning. Nor is it 
true that the false teachers gave elemen- 
tary instruction. If this view be set 
aside, as suiting neither the expression 
in itself nor the context in which it 
occurs, the question arises whether we 
should return to the interpretation of 
several Fathers, that the heavenly bodies 
are referred to. These were called 
στοιχεῖα (examples are given in Valesius 
on Eus. H. Ε., v., 24, Hilg. 1.ς.).. This 
is favoured by the reference to “ days, 
and months, and seasons, and io 
Gal. iv. 11, immediately following the 
mention of στ. in ver. το, for these were 
regulated by the heavenly bodies. But 
it is unsatisfactory, for the context in 
which the expression occurs, especially 
in Galatians, points to personal beings. 
In this passage the contrast of στ. τ. κ. 
with Χριστόν is fully satisfied only if the 
former are personal. In Gal. iv. 3 Paul 
applies the illustration of the heir under 
‘guardians and stewards” to the pre- 
Christian world under the στ. τ. κ., and 
here again a personal reference is forcibly 
suggested. Still more is this the case 
with Gal, iv. 8,9. In ver. 8 Paul says 
ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς. 
In the next verse he asks “ how turn ye 
again to the weak and beggarly στ.» 
to which you wish to be in νο - 
(δουλεῦσαι) over in?” This clearly 
identifies τ. στ. with τ. φύσ. μὴ οὖσι 
θεοῖς, and therefore proves their per- 
sonality, which is suggested also by 
ἐδονλ.; accordingly they cannot be the 
heavenly bodies or the physical ele- 
ments of the world. Hilgenfeld, followed 





9. 


by Lipsius, Holsten and Klépper, regards 
them as the astral spirits, the angels of 
the heavenly bodies. That the latter 
were regarded as animated by angels is 
certain, for we find this belief in Philo 
and Enoch (cf. Job xxxviii. 7, Jas. i. 17). 
But it is strange that the spirits of the 
stars should be called στ. +. κόσμου. 
And while they determine the seasons 
and festivals, they have nothing to do 
with many ceremonial observances, such 
as abstinence from meats and drinks. 
Spitta (followed by Everling, Sod., Haupt, 
and apparently Abb.) has the merit of 
giving the true interpretation. Accord- 
ing to the later Jewish theology, not only 
the stars but all things had their special 
angels. The proof of this belongs toa 
discussion of angelology, and must be 
assumed here. στ. τ. κόσ. are therefore 
the elemental spirits which animate all 
material things. They are so called 
from the elements which they animate, 
and are identical with the ἀρχαὶ κ. 
ἐξουσίαι, who receive this name from 
their sphere of authority. Thus all the 
abstinence from material things, sub- 
mission to material ordinances and so 
forth, involve a return to their service. 
We need not, with Ritschl, limit the refer- 
ence to the angels of the law, though 
they are included. Thus interpreted the 
passage gains its full relevance to the 
context, and to the angel worship of the 
false teachers which Paul is attacking.} 
The chief objection to this explanation 
is that we have no parallel for this usage 
of the word, except in the Test. Sol., 
ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα, οἱ 
κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. But 
this is late. The term is used in this 
sense in modern Greek. In spite of 
this the exegetical proof that personal 
beings are meant is too strong to be set 
aside. So we must explain, '' philosophy, 
having for its subject-matter the ele/ 
mental spirits”.—xal οὗ κατὰ Χριστόν 
must be taken similarly, not having Christ 
for its subject-matter. X. means the 
person of Christ, not teaching about 
Christ, and is opposed simply to στ., not 
to παρ. τ. ἄνθρ. The false teachers put 
these angels in the place of Christ. 

Ver. 9. ὅτι is connected by Bleek and 
Meyer with οὐ κατὰ X., but it is much 
more probable that it should be connected 
with the whole warning introduced by 
βλέπετε. The false teachers represented 
the fulness of the Godhead as distributed 
among the angels, and thus led their 
victims captive. Paul’s warning against 
the false doctrine thus rests on the fact 
that it was in Christ that the whole ful- 


ΠΡΟΣ KOAOZZAEI> 


521 


ness dwelt.—év αὐτῷ is emphatic, in Him 
and in Him alone.—xarouket: ‘* perman- 
ently dwells”. The reference is to the 
Exalted State, not only on account of the 
present, but of the context and Paul’s 
Christology Ρεπετα]]γ.--πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα 
τῆς θεότητος: 411 the fulness of the 
Godhead’’. πᾶν is emphatic, the whole 
fulness dwells in Christ, therefore it is 
vain to seek it wholly or partially outside 
of Him. πλ. τ. θ. is not to be taken (as 
by Ol.) to mean the perfection of Divi- 
nity, 1.ε., ideal holiness. Nor can it 
mean the Church, for which Eph. i. 23 
gives no support, nor yet the universe, 
either of which must have been very 
differently expressed. The addition of 
θεότητος defines πλ. as the fulness of 
Deity. The word is to be distinguished 
from θειότης, 45 Deity, the being God, 
from Divinity, the being Divine or God- 
like. The passage thus asserts the real 
Deity of Christ.—owpatikas. This word 
is very variously interpreted. The refer- 
ence is usually taken to be to the glorified 
body of Christ, or (as by Lightf.) to the In- 
carnation, and the word is translated ‘‘in 
bodily fashion”. Apart from the ques- 
tion whether the word naturally expresses 
this, there is the difficulty caused by the 
contrast implied in its emphatic position. 
This contrast is sometimes thought to be 
to the pre-incarnate state, but this has no 
relevance here. A contrast to the angels 
might be in point, but they were closely 
connected with bodies, so the contrast in 
this respect did not exist. But neither is 
Soden’s view that while the angels have 
bodies what is expressed in them is only 
θειότης (Rom. i. 20) not πλ. τ. θεότητος, 
a tenable explanation, since this is just 
read into the words, not elicited from 
them; nor could such a distinction have 
occurred to the readers. This interpre- 
tation of owp., then, as expressing the 
indwelling of the fulness in a body, 
although said by Abbott to be ‘ the only 
one tenable,” is encumbered with grave 
difficulties,and has beenrejected by several 
commentators. Many have taken it to 
mear, “really” (recently Bleek, K1., Ever- 
ling, Cremer). This is supported by the 
contrast of σῶμα with σκιά in ver. 17, 
the indwelling is real and not shadowy or 
typical. But σωματικῶς could hardly 
express this shade of meaning unless the 
antithesis was expressed. Oltramare 
translates ‘‘ personally, in His person”’. 
But he quotes no instances of the adverb, 
but only of σῶμα. And Haupt’s criticism 
is just, that this sense might suggest that 
in God Himself it dwelt impersonally. 
After an elaborate examination of the 


524 


bh Onlyh 
2 Cor. 
1; Mark 
xiv. 58 in 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


Il. 


«τε, κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς “θεότητος “σωματικῶς, το. καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν 
αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι, ds! ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, 


μα τν ᾧ καὶ περιετµήθητε περιτομῇ " ἀχειροποιήτῳ ἐν τῇ ᾿ ἀπεκδύσει 


1 So T., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with RACKLP. 


by dropping out οἷς before eo. 


various views, Haupt puts forward the ex- 
planation that σωµατ. relates to τ, πλ. 
τ.θ., and is to be translated “in the form 
ofa body”. The meaning he takes to be 
that the fulness exists in Christ as a 
body, that is as a complete and organic 
whole. This suits the context and the 
general argument better than the refer- 
ence to Christ’s own body. In contrast 
to the distribution of the fulness among 
the angels, or to the view that it dwelt 
only partially in Him, Paul insists that 
all the fulness dwells in Him, and not 
fragmentarily but as an organic whole. 
This view, like Oltramare’s, is supported 
only by references to the use of σῶμα. 
This is not a fatal objection, and its har- 
mony with the context makes it the most 
probable interpretation. 

Ver, 10. καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρω- 
μένοι. This still depends on ὅτι. ἐστὲ 
is obviously not an imperative. We 
should, perhaps, reject the view of Elli- 
cott and Lightfoot that there are two 
predicates. The thoughts thus obtained 
that they are in Him, and that they are 
made full, are true in themselves. But, 
as Abbott points out, the context requires 
the emphasis to be thrown on the ἐν 
αὐτῷ, so that the sense is “and it is in 
Him that ye are made full". πεπλ. is 
chosen on account of πλήρωμα in ver. 9, 
but we cannot explain it as filled with 
the Godhead, because such an equalising 
of Christians with their Lord would have 
been impossible to Paul, and would have 
required καὶ ὑμεῖς to express it. This 
meets Oltramare’s objection to the trans- 
lation adopted. He says that if werk. 
means filled, they must be filled with 
something, but since the most obvious 
explanation that they are filled with the 
fulness of the Godhead is so largely re- 
κας it is clear that the translation 

reaks down. He translates ‘‘in Him 
you are perfect,” and urges that this also 
overthrows the usual interpretation of 
πλήρ. τ.θεότ. But apart from the fact 
that πλήρωμα does not mean moral per- 
fection, τῆς θεότ. cannot be supplied. 
What Paul means is that,in Christ they 
find the satisfaction of every spiritual 
want. It therefore follows of itself that 


ο: Ln., Tr. mg. with BDFG 47*, 


they do not need the angelic powers.— 
ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἧς κω 
ἐξονσίας: cf. i. 18. That Christ is th, 
Head of every principality and power is 
a further reason why they should not 
seek to them. All they need they have in 
Christ. Paul does not mention here the 
thrones or lordships asin i. 16. But itis 
a questionable inference that they, unlike 
the principalities and powers, had no 
place in the false teaching. The latte: 
are probably adduced only as examples. 

Ver. 11. The reference to circum- 
cision seems to come in abruptly, But 
probably it stands in close connexion 
with what has gone before. For the 
return to the principalities and powers in 
ver. 15 shows that Paul is not passing 
here to a new section of his subject. 
Judaism, of which circumcision was the 
most characteristic feature, was regarded 
as under angelic powers, and the removal 
of them meant its abolition. It seems 
probable that the false teachers set a 
high value on circumcision, and urged it 
on the Colossians, not as indispensable to 
salvation, in which case Paul would have 
definitely attacked them on this point, but 
as conferring a higher sanctity. There 
seems to be no suggestion that it was 
regarded as a charm against evil spirits. 
The Apostle does not merely leave them 
with the statement that they have been 
made full in Christ, which rendered cir- 
cumcision unnecessary, but adds that 
they have already received circumcision, 
not material but spiritual, not the removal 
of a fragment of the body, but the com- 
plete putting off of the body of flesh.— 
ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετµήθητε. A definite his- 
torical fact is referred to, as is shown by 
the aorist. This was their conversion, 
the inward circumcision of the heart, by 
which they entered on the blessings of 
the New Covenant. The outward sign 
of this is baptism, with which Paul con- 
nects it in the next verse. But it cannot 
be identified with it, for it is not made 
with hands. The circumcision of the 
heart is a prophetic idea (Deut. x. 16, 
xxx. 6, Jer. iv. 4, ix. 25, Ezek. xliv. 7, 9). 
In Paul it occurs Rom. ii. 28, 29, Phil. 


iii, 3.--οπεριτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ: with 2 





1o—I2. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΛΕΙΣ 


525 


Ἢ ΄ν ~ a A i 1 
τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 12. ' συντα- ἷ Only here 


φέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ,! ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως 


and Rom. 
vi. 4 in 
Bib. Gk. 


1 So Ln. mg., Tr., Lft., Ws. with cBD*FG 47,71. βαπτισματι; T., W.H. with 
S*ACDcEKLP, by alteration to more usual form. 


circumcision not wrought by hands,” 
1.€., Spiritual, ethical (cf. Eph. ii. τι, οἱ 
λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης 
περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου) .---ἐν 
τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός: 
“in the stripping from you of the body 
of the flesh”. The expression σῶμα τ. 
σαρκὸς is unusual. It means the body 
which consists of flesh, and of flesh as 
the seat of sin. By the removal of the 
home in which sin dwelt sin itself was 
removed. Itis one of those cases in which 
the sense of σῶμα approximates to that 
of σάρξ. This body of flesh is removed 
from the Christian at his conversion.—év 
τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This cannot 
be the circumcision endured by Christ in 
His infancy, for that was wrought by 
hands, and such a reference would be 
most unfortunate for the polemic against 
ceremonies and altogether un-Pauline. 
Usually it is explained as the circumcision 
of our hearts which comes from Christ. 
But this has no parallel in the N.T.; 
further, it practically repeats ἐν @ κ. 
περιετ.; and, coming between the re- 
moval of the body of the flesh and the 
burial with Christ, breaks the connexion. 
Accordingly Schneckenburger (followed 
by ΚΙ., Sod., Haupt) suggested that it was 
really an expression for the death of 
Christ. (His view that ἀπεκ. τ. σ. τ.σ. 
was to be taken similarly has met with 
no acceptance.) In favour of this it may 
be said that in the immediate context 
Paul goes on to speak of burial and resur- 
rection with Christ, and a reference to the 
death would naturally precede. And 
circumcision is a happy metaphor for 
Christ’s death to sin (Rom. vi. το). 
Meyer’s objection that it is inappropriate 
since Christ endured actual circumcision 
is not serious, for, if sound, it should 
have excluded the choice of these am- 
biguous words altogether, which naturally 
suggest a circumcision suffered by Christ. 
But what creates a grave difficulty is that 
the thought does not seem to run on con- 
nectedly. There is a transition from the 
death of Christ on the cross to the burial 
of Christians with Him in their own per- 
sonal experience. Perhaps this interpre- 
tation involves taking περιετμήθητε of 
the death of Christians with Christ on 
the cross (2 Cor. v. 14), for it doubles the 


difficulty if Paul passes from the personal 
experience of the Christian to the cross, 
and from the cross back to personal 
experience. This suggests the possibility 
that wep. X. might be interpreted on the 
analogy of θλίψεων τ. Χριστοῦ (i. 24) as 
the circumcision of Christ in the believer. 
This would give a good connexion, and 
one that would suit the apparent identi- 
fication of the circumcision of Christ with 
the putting off of the body of the flesh. 
The phrase, however, is so strange, and 
the idea that Christ dies with us so ques- 
tionable (we die with Him), that it seems 
unsafe to adopt it. It is, therefore, best 
to mitigate the difficulty by the view that 
in these words Paul interpolates, in a 
concise and obscure expression, a refer- 
ence to the great fact which underlay the 
spiritual experiences of which he is 
speaking. This circumcision, he would 
say, that is the removal of the flesh, was 
first experienced by Christ on the cross, 
and what happened to you ideally then 
is realised though union with Him now. 

Ver. 12. συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ 
βαπτισμῷ. This refers to the personal 
experience of the Christian. The rite of 
baptism, in which the person baptised 
was first buried beneath the water and 
then raised from it, typified to Paul the 
burial and resurrection of the believer with 
Christ. Burial seems to imply a previous 
death, but Rom. vi. 3, 4 perhaps shows 
that the metaphors must not be rigidly 
pressed. συνταφ. is to be joined closely 
with περιετμήθητε. If any distinction in 
meaning is to be made between βαπτισ- 
µός and βάπτισμα, it is that the former 


‘expresses the process, the latter the re- 


sult.—év ᾧ may refer either to Xp. or to 
Baw. The former view is taken by Chry- 
sostom (followed by Luther, Meyer and 
many others). The latter is taken by 
Calvin and most recent commentators 
(De W., Hofm., Alf., Ell., Lightf., ΚΙ., 
Sod., Haupt, Abb.). In favour of the 
former it is urged that the parallelism 
with ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμ. requires it. But 
the real parallel is with ‘buried with 
Him in baptism,” and this requires 
“raised with Him in baptism”. Since 
baptism is not the mere plunging into 
the water, but emersion from it too, 
ἐν is not against this interpretation, 


526 


ΠΡΟΣ KOAOSZAEI= 


αν. 


* Not οἴαϑε. τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν] νεκρῶν" 13. καὶ 


only Pa 
in N.T., 
exc. Acts 


ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας τοῖς παραπτώµασιν " καὶ τῇ " ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς 


1 Oni here σαρκὸς ὑμῶν | συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς ὃ σὺν αὐτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν 


Eph. 
ii. 5 (par.) in class. or Bib. Gk. 


1 So Ln., Tr. [Lft.], R.V., Ws. with BDEFG 17. των: omitted by T., W.H. with 
ΝΑΟΚΙ.Ρ, in conformity with more common usage. 


2So T., Tr., W.H., Ws. with BL 17. 


s2ACDEFGEP. 


εν τοις παραπτωµασιν: Ln. with 


3So edd. with N*ACKL. νµας: omitted by ΜΕΒΕΕΩΡ, to avoid repetition. 
ηµας: W.H. mg. with B 17, 37, under influence of ἡμιν. 


and διά or ἐξ is not necessary to ex- 
press it.—ovvnyépOnre expresses the 
positive side of the experience. That 
death with Christ, which is the putting 
off of the body of flesh, has for its 
counterpart the putting on of Christ (Gal. 
iii. 27), which is followed by a walk with 
Him in newness of life. It is true that 
our complete redemption is attained only 
in the resurrection of the body (Rom. viit. 
23, 2 Cor. v. 2-4). Butthereis clearly no 
reference here to the bodily resurrection 
at the last day, as some have thought; 
for that is altogether excluded by the 
whole tenor of the passage, which refers 
to an experience already complete. Nor 
can we, with Meyer, think of the bodily 
resurrection as already ideally accom- 
plished in baptism. For the preceding 
context 8 only of a spiritual experi- 
ence, and it is impossible to pass thus 
violently to one that is physical. Haupt 
agrees with this, but thinks the reference 
is not ethical, but religious, that is 
forensic. The rest of the passage, he 
argues, shows that it is not moral trans- 
formation, but justification, that Paul has 
in mind. But however true this may be 


ergs + + + στανρῷ, it is at least 
questionable for the immediately suc- 
ceeding context. And since the union 
covers both ethical renewal and justifica- 
tion, it is natural to find both mentioned 
in connexion with it, and to hold fast the 
former here as the more natural interpre- 
tation of the words.—&a τῆς πίστεως 
τῆς ἐνεργείας : “through faith in the 
working”. Klépper (following Luth., 
Beng., De W. and others) makes τῆς ἐνερ. 
genitive of cause, “ faith produced by the 
working’. He argues that it is strange 
that in the experience already referred to 
the faith which proves itself in baptism 
must be thought of as directed towards 
the Person of Christ, and so cannot now 
be spoker of as faith in the working of 


God ; and further, that the whole context 
has referred to a passive experience, and 
so this is fitly continued by the assertion 
that even the faith, which appropriates 
the death and resurrection of Christ, is 
the creation of God. But these argu- 
ments are insufficient to overthrow the 
force of Pauline usage, according to which 
elsewhere the genitive after πίστις, un- 
less it refers to the person who believes, 
expresses the object of faith. The view 
of Hofmann that τ. ἐνερ. is a genitive 
of apposition, and that whatis meant is 
“ faith, that is the working of God,” is 
je out of the question. For faith 
irected towards the working of God who 
raised Christ from the dead, ¢f. Rom. iv. 
24. God is so characteri since the 
working by which He raised Christ will 
also be effective in our own spiritual 
experience. Our baptism is therefore not 
a sign of nothing, but of a real spiritual 
burial and resurrection with Christ. 

Ver. 13. Partially parallel to Eph. ii. 
I, 5.---καὶ ὑμᾶς : “and you", Frequently 
this is taken to mean “you also,” i.¢., 
you Gentiles. But since Paul has been 
using the second person before, he can 
hardly be introducing a contrast. We 
should therefore take καὶ as simply copu- 
lative. It means“ you as well as Christ,” 
as is shown also by the verbal parallel 
between ἐκ τ. νεκρῶν and νεκροὺς ὄντας. 
—vexpovs. Here Paul varies the sense 
of death. In the preceding verses it is 
death to the old life, here the old life 
itself is described as a condition of 
spiritual death. It is not of liability to 
eternal death (Mey.), or to physical death 
as the certain consequence of sin that 
he is speaking, but of a state of actual 
death, which can only be spiritual (cf. 
“sin revived and I died,” Rom. vii. 9). 
- τοῖς παραπτώµασιν: “ by your tres- 
passes”. The dative is probably one of 
cause, but it could be translated by 





13: - 14. 


πάντα τὰ παραπτώματα, 14. ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν ™ χειρόγραφον 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


527 


m Only here 
and Tob. 


τοῖς δόγμασιν, ὃ ἦν " ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου, ν- δι». 5 
Gk 


“in”, mwapamr. are individual acts of 
transgression, of which ἁμαρτία is the 
principle.—rj ἀκροβυστίᾳ της σαρκὸς 
ὑμῶν: ‘by the uncircumcision of your 
flesh”. This is often supposed to refer 
to literal uncircumcision, ζ.6., to the fact 
that they were Gentiles. But we have 
already seen that there is no emphasis 
on this fact. And the implied contrast 
that Jews were not, while Gentiles were, 
spiritually dead, is impossible in Paul. 
He cannot have said that they were dead 
by reason of uncircumcision, and, if the 
dative is taken otherwise, yet the coup- 
ling of τῇ ἀκρ. with τ. παραπτ. shows 
that physical uncircumcision is not re- 
ferred to, but an ethical state. And 
this would not, as Abbott thinks, be 
unintelligible to Gentile readers, for he 
had already explained the metaphor in 
ver. II. τ. σαρκὸς is accordingly to be 
taken as an epexegetical genitive, “the 
uncircumcision which consisted in your 
flesh ””.—ovveLworrotnoev: to be taken in 
the same sense as συνηγέρθητε, not in 
any of the senses wrongly attributed to 
that word, which ατα reintroduced here. 
Chrysostom (followed by Ew., Ell.) makes 
Christ the subject. This is defended by 
Ellicott on the ground of the prominence 
of Christ through the passage, of the 
difficulty of supplying Θεός from Θεοῦ, 
and of referring the acts in vv. 14, 15 to 
the Father. But this last difficulty, 
urged also by Lightfoot, rests on a 
probably wrong interpretation of ver. 15. 
Neither of the others is of any weight 
against the argument from Pauline usage, 
which always refers such actions to God. 
This view would also involve the awk- 
wardness of making Christ raise Himself 
and us with Him, whereas in ver. 12 His 
resurrection is referred to God. It is 
therefore best to regard 6 Θεός as the 
subject, as in the parallel Eph. ii. 4, 5.— 
χαρισάμενος : “forgiving”. Forgiveness 
is contemporary with quickening.—ypiv : 
the change from the second person may 
be due to Paul’s wish gratefully to 
acknowledge his own participation in 
this blessing. It must not (with Hofm.) 
be referred to Jewish Christians. 

Ver. 14. Partially parallel to Eph. ii. 
15. Apparently Paul now passes to the 
historic fact which supplied the ground 
for the forgiveness. χαρισ. therefore 
refers to the subjective appropriation of 


n Only here and Heb. x. 27 in N.T. 


the objective blotting out of the bond in 
the death of Christ.—éfadelWas: “ having 
blotted out,”’ t.e., having cancelled.—ré 
καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν. 
The original sense of χειρόγ. is hand- 
writing, but it had come to mean a bond 
or note of hand. It is generally agreed 
that the reference here is to the Law (cf. 
Eph. ii. 15, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν 
δόγμασιν). That those under the Law 
did not write the Law has been pressed 
against this. It is true that χειρόγ. 
means strictly a bond given by the 
debtor in writing, It is not necessary, 
with Chrysostom and many others, to 
meet the objection by reference to the 
promise of the people in Exod. xxiv. 3. 
There is no need to press rigidly this 
detail of the metaphor. It is disputed 
in what sense we are to take the reference 
to the Law. Some (including Lightf., 
Ol., Sod., Abb.) think it embraces the 
Mosaic Law and the law written in the 
hearts of Gentiles. It is quite possible, 
however, that καθ᾽ ἡμῶν means simply 
against us Jews. But, apart from this, 
the addition of τ. Soy. points to formu- 
lated commandment. This is confirmed 
by Eph. ii. 15, where the similar ex- 
pression is used, not of what Jews and 
Gentiles had in common, but that whick 
created the separation between them, 
viz., the Jewish Law. Whether, with 
Calvin, Klopper and Haupt, we should 
still further narrow the reference to the 
ceremonial Law is very questionable. It 
is true that circumcision and laws of 
meat and drink and sacred seasons are 
the chief forms that the ‘‘ bond” takes. 
And it might make the interpretation of 
ver. 15 a little easier to regard the cere- 
monial as that part of the Law specially 
given by angels. But this distinction 
between the moral and ceremonial Law 
has no meaning in Paul. The Law is 
a unity and is done away as a whole. 
And for Paul the hostile character of 
the Law is peculiarly associated with 
the moral side of it. The law which 
slew him is illustrated by the tenth 
commandment, and the ministry of death 
was engraved on tablets of stone. It 
was the moral elements in the Law that 
made it the strength of sin. It is not 
certain how τοῖς δόγμασιν should be 
taken. Frequently it is interpreted “ con- 
sisting in decrees”. For this we ought 


528 


ΠΡΟΣ KOAOSSAEI= 


Il. 


0 Only Ret? προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ, 15. ? ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ 


and iii. 9 

in class. Ε 

or Bib. . 
κ. 


6 
q Only here and Matt. i. 19 in class. or Bib. Gk. 


p Only here τὰς ἐξουσίας * ἐδειγμάτισεν } 


19ο Ln., Τ., Tr., W.H., R.V. with all authorities except B. 


Ws. with B. 


to have had τὸ ἐν δόγ. Ellicott says 
this construction ‘‘seems distinctly un- 
grammatical”. Others (including Mey., 
Lightf., Sod., Haupt, Abb.) connect 
closely with χειρόγ., in such a way that 
the dative is governed by γεγραμμένον 
implied in χειρόγ. This is questionable 
in point of grammar. iner says: 
“Meyer’s explanation, that which was 
written with the commandments (the 
dative being used as in the phrase 
written with letters), is the more harsh, 
as χειρόγραφον has so completely estab- 
lished itself in usage as an independent 
word that it is hardly capable of govern- 
ing (like γεγραμμένον) such a dative as 
this". (Winer-Moulton, p. 275; τ΄. 
also Ellicott ad loc.) It seems best 
then (with De W., Ell., ΚΙ., Ol.) to tran- 
slate “τῆς handwriting which was against 
us by its ordinances”’. For this we should 
have expected τ. καθ᾽ hp. τ. δόγ. χειρόγ. 
or T. τοῖς δόγ. καθ᾽ Hp. χειρόγ.; but this 
seems to be the best way of taking the 
text as it stands, and perhaps the position 
of τ. δόγ. is for emphasis. The Greek 
commentators, followed by Bengel, ex- 
en the passage to mean having 
lotted out the Law by the doctrines of 
the Gospel. But δόγ. is a most un- 
Pauline, because legalist, expression for 
the Gospel, and by itself could not mean 
Christian doctrines. Nor is the sense it 
gives Pauline, for it was not by the teach- 
ing of the Gospel, but by the death of 
Christ, that the Law was done away. 
Erasmus’ view (followed by Hofm.) that 
τ. δόγ. should be connected with what 
follows is very improbable.—6 ἦν ὑπεναν- 
τίον ἡμῖν : stronger than καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, 
asserting not merely that the bond had 
a claim against us, but that it was hostile 
to us, the suggestion being that we could 
not meet its claim. No idea of secret 
hostility is present.—xal αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ 
τοῦ μέσον. “And it He hath taken out 
of the midst.” The change from aorist 
to perfect is significant, as expressing 
the abiding character of the abolition. 
Lightfoot thinks that a change of subject 
takes place here, from G to Christ. 
His reason is that Christ must be the 


ἐν παρρησίᾳ "θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν 


r Only here and 2 Cor. ii. 14 in class. or Bib. Gk. 


και εδειγματισεν: 


subject of ἀπεκδ., since “no gram- 
matical meaning can be assigned to 
ἀπεκδυσάμενος, by which it could be 
understood of God the Father”. Since, 
however, no change of subject is hinted 
at in the passage, and would involve 
great difficulty, it is more reasonable to 
conclude that an interpretation which 
requires Christ to be the subject of 
ἀπεκδ. is self-condemned.—mrpooyAdoas 
αὐτὸ τῷ στανρῷ: “ having nailed it to the 
cross”’. When Christ was crucified, God 
nailed the Law to His cross. Thus it, 
like the flesh, was abrogated, sharing His 
death. The bond therefore no longer 
exists for us. To explain the words b 
reference to a custom of driving a nail 
through documents to cancel them, is 
not only to call in a questionable fact 
(see Field, Notes on Transl. of the N.T., 
p. 196), but to dilute in the most tasteless 
way one of Paul's most striking and sug- 
gestive phrases. Quite on a level with 
it is Field's own suggestion as to ‘this 
seemingly superfluous addition” (!) that 
the reference is to the custom of hangin 
up spoils of war in temples. Zahn (Einl. 
in das N.T., i., 335) draws a distinction 
between what was written on the bond 
and was blotted out by God, and the 
bond itself which was nailed to the cross 
and taken out of the way. We thus 
have two thoughts expressed: the removal 
of guilt incurred by transgression of the 
Law, and the abolition of the Law itself. 
It is questionable if this distinction is 
justified. The object is the same, αὐτὸ 
simply repeats χειρόγραφον. 

Ver. 15. In this difficult verse the 
meaning of almost every word is dis- 
puted. It is therefore imperative to con- 
trol the exegesis by strict regard to the 
context. The main question relates to 
the character of the principalities and 
powers. Subordinate questions are raised 
as to the subject of the sentence and the 
meaning of ἀπεκδ. The context before 
and after (οὖν, ver. 16) requires us to bring 
the interpretation into close connexion 
with the main thought, the abolition of 
the Law.—arexSvodpevos τὰς ἀρχὰς 
καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας. Till recently the 


15. 


principalities and powers have been ex- 
plained as hostile demoniacal spirits, and 
this view is held by Meyer, Ellicott, 
Lightfoot, Oltramare and Weiss. In its 
favour is the impression made by the 
verse that a victory over the powers is 
spoken of. How far this is so can be de- 
termined only by an examination of the 
terms employed. Against this view the 
following objections seem decisive. ἀρχ. 
κ. ἐξ. occur several times in the Epistle, 
but nowhere in this sense. In Eph. vi. 
12 the reference to evil spirits is defin- 
itely and repeatedly fixed by the context. 
This is not so here. Further, the con- 
nexion with the context is difficult to 
trace. Bengelsays: ‘ Quiangelos bonos 
colebant, iidem malos timebant: neu- 
trum jure”. Weiss expresses a some- 
what similar idea: “Τὰ seems that the 
Colossian theosophists threatened the 
readers that they would again fall under 
the power of evil spirits if they did not 
submit to their discipline”. But not only 
have we no evidence for this, but this 
interpretation cuts the nerve of the pas- 
sage, which is the abolition of the Law 
by the cross. Meyer’s view is more 
relevant: the Law is done away in 
Christ, and since it is the strength of sin, 
sin’s power is thus broken, and so is the 
devil’s power, which is exercised only 
through sin. Gess interprets that the 
Law through its curse created separation 
between men and God, and thus gave a 
point of support for the dominion of evil 
spirits. “ΟΕ this handwriting have they 
boasted. Our guilt was their strength. 
He who sees the handwriting nailed to 
the cross can mock these foes.” But 
these views are read into the passage, 
and do not lead up to ver. 16. And 
where the Jewish Law was absent, as in 
the heathen world, sin was rampant. 
Ellicott and Lightfoot do not attempt to 
trace a connexion with the context, nor 
on their view of ἀπεκδ. is one possible. 
All this strongly suggests that we should 
give another sense to dpx. κ. ἐξ. And 
this is secured if we identify them with 
ἀρχ. κ. ἐξ. already mentioned (i. 16 and 
ii. το). In favour of this are the follow- 
ing considerations: (1) Unless we are 
warned to the contrary it is natural to 
keep the same meaning throughout. (2) 
We thus get a thought that perfectly 
suits the context. This law that has 
been abolished was given by angels, its 
abolition implies their degradation. To 
them was also subject the whole of the 
observances of eating, drinking, etc. (3) 
It is a powerful polemic against the wor- 
ship of angels (ver. 18), which is lost on 


VOL, ITI. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


529 


the other view. In effect Paul says, 
“You are worshipping angels who were 
degraded when Christ was crucified”. 
We may therefore take apy. κ. ἐξ, as in 
the rest of the Epistle, as angelic powers, 
identical with στοιχεῖα τ. κόσμου, and 
holding a special relation to the Law. 
The next question is as to the meaning of 
ἀπεκδ. Thetranslation “having put off 
His body ’’ may be safely set aside, for 
Paul must have said this if he had meant 
it. The Greek commentators, followed by 
Ellicott and Lightfoot, interpret “' having 
put off from Himself”. The word is 
used in this sense in iii. 9. They explain 
that Christ divested Himself ofthe powers 
of evil that gathered about Him, since 
He assumed our humanity with all its 
temptations. But (apart from the change 
of subject) the change of metaphor is very 
awkward from stripping off adversaries, 
like clothes, to exhibiting and triumphing 
over them. Morecogentis the objection 
caused by the strangeness of the idea. 
Christ wore our human nature with its 
liability totemptation. But that He wore 
evil spirits is a different and indeed most 
objectionable idea. The same transla- 
tion is adopted by some who take the 
other view of ἄρχ. κ. ἐξ.» and the expla- 
nation given is that God in the death of 
Christ divested Himself of angelic media- 
tors. This is free from the impropriety 
of the other view, but shares its incon- 
gruity of metaphor. The more usual 
translation is ‘spoiled’. The middle 
can mean ‘‘ stripped for Himself,” and 
this again suits either view of apy. κ. ἐξ. 
If evil spirits, they are stripped of their 
dominion; but if angels of the Law, they 
are despoiled of the dominion they exer- 
cise. This view, though stigmatised by 
Zahn as ‘an inexcusable caprice,” is 
probably best. They are fallen poten- 
tates. There is no need to worship them, 
or to fear their vengeance, if their com- 
mands are disobeyed. With the true 
interpretation of this passage, every 
reason disappears for assuming that 
Christ is the subject.—éSerypatioev ἐν 
παρρησίᾳ. “' He made a show of them 
openly.” No exhibition in disgrace is 
necessarily implied. The principalities 
and powers are exhibited in their true 
position of inferiority, as mediators of an 
abolished Law and rulers of elements to 
which Christians have died. ἐν παρ. is 
not to be translated ‘‘ boldly,” for courage 
is not needed to exhibit those who are 
spoiled. The word is contrasted with 
‘‘reserve,” and indicates the frank, open 
exhibition of the angels in their true posi- 
tion when the bond was cancelled and 


34 


$30 


5 Only here 
and Rom. 
xiv. 17; 
John vi. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


Il. 


16. Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν *wécer! ἢ ἐν μέρει 
᾿ ἑορτῆς ἢ “νεομηνίας ἢ "σαββάτων, 17. ὅ 3 ἐστιν " σκιὰ τῶν μελ- 


in - 
Nr. ἢ t Only here in Paul. u Only here and 1 Cor. xvi. 2 in Paul. v Heb. x. 1; only here 
‘au 


1So Tr. mg., W.H., Ws. with B cop., Or. η εν ποσει: Ln., T., W.H. mg. with 
NACDEFGKLP, through assimilation to following words. 


2 So Ln., W.H. mg., Ws. with BFG. 
account of enumeration in ver. 16, 


Christ was manifested as the final revela- 
tion of God.—®piapBevoas. This seems 
to express most definitely that the apy. 
κ. ἐξ. are hostile powers. Alford, refer- 
ring to 2 Cor. ii. “oo the true victory 
is our defeat by Him. Findlay thinks 
the reference in the verb (which is not 
earlier than Paul) is not to the Roman 
military triumph, but to the festal pro- 
cession (θρί ) of the worshippers of 
Dionysus. aa this case God is repre- 
sented as leading the angels in procession 
in His honour; in other words, bringing 
them to acknowledge His greatness an 
the revelation of Himself in Christ. It is 
perhaps safest to translate ‘‘ triumphing 
over’’, This is favoured by other pas- 
sages in Paul, which imply that the ἀρχ. κ. 
ἐξ. needed an experience of this kind.— 
ἐν αὐτῷ may refer to Χριστ. or στανρ. or 
χειρόγ. The second is best, for there has 
been no reference to Christ since ver. 13, 
and it is the cancelling of the bond, not 
the bond itself, that is the cause of the 
triumph. It is in the death of Christ that 
this triumph takes place. Zahn explains 
the passage to mean that G has 
stripped away the principalities and 
powers which concealed Him, not from 
the Jews, to whom He had revealed 
Himself, but from the heathen world. 
Thus He has revealed Himself and these 
apparent deities in their true character. 
He has triumphed over them in Christ, 
and led them vanquished in His train. 
But this was not accomplished on the 
cross, but through the preaching of the 
Gospel among the Gentiles, accompanied 
with such signs and wonders as in the 
story of the maid with the spirit of divina- 
tion and the exorcists at Ephesus. But 
this is not what is required by the argu- 
ment, which has the Jewish Law in view. 
Vv. 16-23. Since ΤΗΕ LAw HAS BEEN 
CANCELLED AND THE ANGELS DESPOILED, 
RITUAL OR ASCETIC ORDINANCES HAVE NO 
LONGER ANY MEANING FOR THOSE WHO 
IN CHRIST POSSESS THE SUBSTANCE, OF 
WHICH THESE ARE BUT THE SHADOW. 
THEY MUST NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY 


a: Τ., W.H., R.V. with $ACDEKLP, on 


ANGEL WORSHIPPERS, WHO ARE PUFFED 
UP BY FLESHLY CONCEIT, AND ONLY 
LOOSELY HOLD THE HEAD, FROM WHOM 
THE BODY DRAWS ALL ITS SUPPLY. SINCE 
THEY HAVE DIED TO THE ELEMENTAL 
SPIRITS, THEY MUST NOT SUBMIT TO THE 
PRECEPTS OF ASCETICISM, WHATEVER 
REPUTATION FOR WISDOM THEY MAY CON- 
FER.—Ver. 16. The connexion with the 
ΠΝ argument is this; Since the 
nd written in ordinances has been 
abolished, and the angelic powers spoiled 
and led in triumph, allow no one to 
criticise your action on the ground that 
it is not in harmony with the precepts of 
the Law, or cuts you off from communion 
with the angels. You have nothing to do 
with Law or angels. At best they were 
but the shadow, and in Christ you ess 
the substance.—x«pwwérw ἐν: “ judge you 
in,"’ ἐν meaning on the basis of. ether 
a man eats or drinks or not his conduct 
in this respect supplies no fit ground for a 
judgment of him. κρ. is not to “‘con- 
demn,” though the context shows that 
unfavourable judgment is in Paul’s mind. 
--βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει: “eating and in 
drinking,” not food and drink, for which 
Paul would have used βρῶμα and 
The question is not altogether between 
lawful and unlawful food, but between 
eating and drinking or abstinence. 
Asceticism rather than ritual cleanness is 
in his mind. The Law is not ascetic in 
its character, its prohibitions of meats 
rest on the view that they are unclean, 
and drinks are not forbidden, save in 
exceptional cases, and then not for ascetic 
reasons. But these injunctions stand 
along with ordinances of the Law itself, 
partly, because they may have been re- 
garded as extensions of its principles, 
partly, we may suppose, because, like the 
Law, they were attributed to the angels 
by the false teachers. In Heb. ix. τὸ 
regulations as to drinks seem to be re- 
ferred to as part of the Jewish Law. 
That the false teachers were ascetics is 


clear from ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος in ver. 23. 
—tv μέρει: “in the matter of,” μέρ. 


16—18, 


λόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


2 , ers , aA > 1 
θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ “θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἃ ' ἑόρακεν 
“ ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῇ ” φυσιούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, 


Il., i., 402 ff. 
times) in class. or Bib. Gk. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


x Only here and Acts xxvi. 5; Jas. i. 26, 27 in N.T. 


531 


18. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς " καταβραβευέτω W Dem., 


Mid., 544 
(quota- 
tion from 
witness- 
es); Eus- 
tath., ad 
y Only here and 1 Cor. (six 


1So T., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with Q*ABD* 17, 28, 6733." µη: inserted after a 


by [Ln.] with CKLP. ουκ: FG. 


expressing the category. Chrysostom 
and some others have taken it strangely 
to mean ‘in the partial observance ΟΕ”. 
--ἑορτῆς ἢ veopnvias ἢ σαββάτων: the 
Jewish sacred seasons enumerated δ5 πεν 
occur yearly, monthly and weekly. The 
Sabbath is placed on the same footing as 
the others, and Paul therefore commits 
himself to the principle that a Christian 
is not to be censured for its non-observ- 
ance. σαββ., though plural in form, 
means a single Sabbath day. 

Ver. 17. This verse contains a hint of 
the fundamental argument of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews (cf. esp. Heb. viii. 5, 
x. 1).---ὅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων. 
Whether 6 or ἅ be read, the reference is 
to the whole of the ceremonial ordinances 
just mentioned. σκιὰ is “shadow,” not 
“sketch” (as Calvin and others). It is 
cast by the body, and therefore implies 
that there is a body, and while it re- 
sembles the body it is itself insubstantial. 
τ. peAA. means the Christian dispensa- 
tion, not (as Mey.) the still future Mes- 
sianic kingdom, for, if so, the substance 
would still lie in the future, and the 
shadow would not be out of date. It is 
future from the point of view of Judaism. 
---τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ: “ but the body 
belongs to Christ”. σῶμα is that which 
casts the shadow, therefore it existed 
contemporaneously with its manifesta- 
tion, and, of course, according to the 
Jewish view, in heaven. It practically 
means what we should call ‘the sub- 
stance,” and is chosen as the counterpart 
to σκιὰ, and with no reference to the 
Church or the glorified body of Christ. 
Since the substance belonged to Christ, 
it was foolish for Christians to hanker 
after the shadow. All that the most 
sanguine hoped to attain by asceticism 
and ceremonialism was possessed im- 
mediately in the possession of Christ. 

Ver. 18. This verse gives us our only 
definite information, apart from which it 
would have been a highly probable in- 
ference, that the false teachers practised 
angel-worship. — ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω. 
This is commonly translated ‘‘rob you 


of your prize”. The judge at the games 
was called BpaBevs or βραβευτής, and the 
prize βραβεῖον. But the verb βραβεύω 
apparently lost all reference to the prize, 
and meant simply “το decide”. In the 
two cases in which καταβραβεύω occurs 
it means to decide against or condemn. 
It is best therefore to take it so here, 
“let no one give judgment against you’’; 
it is thus parallel to, though stronger than, 
κρινέτω (ver. 16). (Field, Notes on 
Transl. of the N.T., pp. 196, 197, dis- 
cusses the word; cf. also Ol. and Abb. 
ad ἰοο.)---θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ. 
This phrase is very variously interpreted. 
Some assume a Hebraism, and translate 
‘taking pleasure in humility’? (Winer, 
Lightf., Findl., Haupt). The LXX uses 
this not infrequently (but usually with 
persons, though otherwise in Ps. cxi. 1, 
cxlvi. το); but there is no N.T. parallel 
for it, and Paul does not employ Hebra- 
isms. For this idea he uses εὐδοκεῖν. 
Moreover it yields no relevant sense here. 
Others translate “wishing to do so in 
(or by) humility” (Mey., ΕΙ., Sod., 
Weiss). But for this τοῦτο ποιεῖν should 
have been added, and on this interpreta- 
tion θέλων has really little point. The 
rendering of Alford, Moule and others is 
not very different from this in sense, but 
more forcible. It connects θέλ. with 
καταβραβ., and translates “ wilfully,” 
“of set purpose”. 2 Pet. iii. 5 is re- 
ferred to for the construction. Oltra- 
mare’s view is similar, but he translates 
“spontaneously,” so apparently the R.V. 
mg. and Abbott. The unsatisfactoriness 
of these interpretations suggests that the 
text may be corrupt. Hort thinks that for 
θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ we should read 
ἐν ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ. This word is 
used by Basil, and a similar compound 
occurs in ver. 23. It is, of course, as 
Haupt says, difficult to understand how 
the copyists should have altered it into 
the very strange expression in the text, 
But this is not a fatal objection, and the 
conjecture is very possibly correct. It 
would mean ‘gratuitous humility,” a 
humility that went beyond what was 


532 


z Only here 
and Eph. 
iv. 16 


-) in 
NT. 

required. ταπεινοφροσύνῃ is frequently 
explained as ironical. By a display of 
humility they beguiled their dupes. But 
the connexion with the following words 
makes this improbable. Their humility 
found an expression in angel worship. 
It is therefore that lowliness which causes 
a man to think himself unworthy to come 
into fellowship with God, and therefore 
prompts to worship of the angels. Such 
humility was perverted, but not there- 
fore unreal. It was compatible with 
vanity towards others.—«al ϐ 

τῶν ἀγγέλων : “and worship of angels”’. 
The genitive is objective, though some 
have taken it as subjective. This has 
been done most recently and elaborately 
by Zahn. He takes τ. ἀγγ. with ταπειν. 
as well as with θρησκείᾳ. The former 
noun is used, he argues, in a non-Pauline 
sense, therefore it needs a definition, and 
that τ. dyy. is intended to define it is 
made probable by the fact that it is not 
repeated before θρησκ. What is meant 
is a mortification and devotion suitable 
for angels, but not for men who live in 
bodies, an attempt to assimilate them- 
selves to angels, who do not eat or 
drink. The chief ground urged for this 
view is that Judaism was too strenuously 
monotheistic to admit of angel worship, 
and Paul could only have regarded it as 
idolatry. Against this what is said in 
the Introduction, section ii., may be 
referred to. The angels worshipped by 
the false teachers are the στοιχεῖα τ. 
κόσμον, ἀρχαὶ κ. ἐξουσίαι.---ἃ ἑόρακεν 
ἐμβατεύων. If μὴ is inserted after ἃ, we 
may translate with Ellicott, in his earlier 
editions, “intruding into the things which 
he hath not seen”. This should prob- 
ably be explained with reference to the 
invisible world, with which they pro- 
fessed to hold communion, but which 
really was closed to them. Ellicott still 
thinks this reading gives the better sense, 
though adopting the other in deference to 
the external evidence. But Paul could 
hardly have brought it against them that 
they had fellowship with what they could 
not see. For this was so with all who 
walked by faith. The negative, there- 
fore, is not helpful to the sense, and is 
definitely excluded by the external evi- 
dence. The text without the negative 
is very variously explained. ἐμβατεύειν 
means ‘to stand upon,” then ‘‘to come 
into possession of” a thing, ‘‘to enter 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΔΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


IL 


19. καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν 
"ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον αὔξει 


upon,” “to invade,” then in ἃ figurative 
sense “to investigate”. Since ἃ ἑόρακεν 


also lends itself to diametrically oppo- 
site interpretations, the exegesis mes 
doubly uncertain. It may mean th 


things which can be seen with the bodily 
eye, or it may refer to visions ; they may 
be condemned as deluded visionaries, or 
for their materialism. Alford and Elli- 
cott translate “taking his stand on the 
things which he hath seen,” and lain 
that he becomes an inhabitant the 
world of sight rather than of faith. But 
the use of the perfect is against any 
reference to the circumstances of ordi 

life, and the thought would have been 
far more simply and clearly expressed by 
τὰ ὁρατά. Generally it is supposed that 
“τῆς things which he has seen” means 
his visions. Various views are then 
taken of ἐμβατεύων. Meyer translates 
“entering upon what he has beheld,” 
and explains that, instead of holding 
fast to Christ, he enters the region of 
visions. Several translate “ investigat- 
ing" (Beng., Grimm, Findl., Ol., Haupt). 
This is probably the best translation of 
the words as they stand, for the transla- 
tion “parading his visions’ (Sod. and 
? Abb.) seems not to be well estab- 
lished. The harshness of the combina- 
tion, and uncertainty of the exegesis, give 
much probability to the view that the 
text has not been correctly transmitted, 
After it had been conjectured that we 
should read ἃ ἑώρα κενεμβατεύων, Light- 
foot independently suggested the latter 
word, but for ἃ ἑώρα suggested ἑώ 
or αἰώρᾳ. (Sod. incorrectly quotes the 
emendation as αἱῶρα; and in Abb. by a 
misprint we have αἱώρα. Ellicott not 
only misreports Lightfoot’s emendation, 
but does not even mention Taylor’s.] 
ἑώρα is used sometimes of that which 
suspends a thing, sometimes of the act of 
suspension. “In this last sense,” Light- 
foot says, “it describes the poising of a 
bird, the floating of a boat on the waters, 
the balancing on a rope, and the like. 
Hence its expressiveness when used as 
a metaphor.” κενεμβατεύειν does not 
actually occur, but the cognate verb 
κενεμβατεῖν is not uncommon. A much 
better emendation, however, is that of 
Dr. C. Taylor (Fournal of Philology, vii., 
Pp. 130), ἀέρα κεν τεύων, “ treading 
the void of air”. In his Pirge Aboth,? p. 
161, he says that the Rabbinic expression 





10---2ο. 


τὴν "αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


4.5. 


20. εἰ ὀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν 


στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ ° δογματίζεσθε, 


“fly in the air with nothing to rest upon” 
may have suggested the phrase to Paul. 
This emendation is accepted by West- 
cott and Hort, and regarded as the most 
probable by Zahn, who says that the 
text as it stands yields no sense. It in- 
volves the omission of a single letter, 
and although the province of conjectural 
emendation in the New Testament is 
very restricted, yet such a slip as is sug- 
gested may very easily have been made 
by Paul’s amanuensis or a very early 
copyist. Field urges as a fatal objection 
that ““κενεμβατεύων is a vox nulla, the 
inviolable laws regulating this class of 
composite verbs stamping κενεμβατεῖν as 
the only legitimate, as it is the only exist- 
ing, form” (loc. cit., p. 198). Lightfoot, 
on the contrary, asserts that it is unobjec- 
tionable in itself. Even if Field’s criti- 
cism be admitted, it would be better to 
read ἀέρα κενεμβατῶν than to retain the 
text. If the emendation is correct, Paul 
is asserting the baseless character of the 
faise teaching ; and all reference to visions 
disappears. —eixq should probably, in 
accordance with Pauline usage, be con- 
nected with the following rather than the 
preceding words. It may mean “ ground- 
lessly’? (Mey., Alf., Ell., Ol., Haupt, 
Abb.) or “without result” (Sod. and 
others). The latter is the sense in Gal. 
ii. αν τν. τη τ Cor. xv. 2, Rom: xiii. 4; 
but, since it does not suit φυσ., the former 
is to be preferred here.—qvorovpevos : cf. 
1 Cor. viii. 1  yv@ous φυσιοῖ, xiii. 4. 
They were puffed up by a sense of 
spiritual and intellectual superiority.— 
ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ: “ by the 
mind of his flesh”. The mind in this 
case is regarded as dominated by the 
flesh. Soden, followed by Abbott, says 
that the vots as a natural faculty is 
ethically indifferent in itself, and so may 
stand just as well under the influence of 
σάρξ as of πνεῦμα. But in the most 
important passage, Rom. vii. 22-25, it is 
the higher nature in the unregenerate 
which wages unsuccessful conflict with 
the σάρξ. At the same time we see from 
Eph. iv. 17 that it could become vain 
and aimless and even (Rom. i, 28) re- 
probate. The choice of the phrase here 
is probably dictated by Paul’s wish to 
drive home the fact that their asceticism 
and angel worship, so far from securing 
as they imagined the destruction of the 
flesh, proved that it was by the flesh that 


they were altogether controlled, even to 
the mind itself, which stood farthest from 
it. 

Ver. 19. Largely parallel to Eph. iv. 
15, 16. Paul proceeds to point out that 
so far from securing spiritual growth of 
a higher order, the false teaching, by 
loosening the hold on Christ, prevented 
any growth at all, since it obstructed or 
severed the very channel of spiritual life. 
—kal οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν: ‘and not 
holding fast the head”. For this sense 
of xp. with the accusative cf. Song of 
Songs iii. 4, ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ 
ἀφῆκα αὐτόν. It 15 clear from this that 
the false teachers were Christians. They 
did not profess to have no hold upon 
Christ, but their hold was not firm. All 
the supplies of life and energy flow from 
the Head, so that loose connexion with 
it involves serious loss and not progress 
in the spiritual life. It is significant that 
here each member is recognised as having 
an immediate relation to the Head.—éé 
οὗ: not neuter, referring to κεφ., for ἐξ ἧς 
would have been more natural, but ‘‘ from 
whom’’. It should be connected with 
both participles.—mwav τὸ capa: “the 
whole body’’. Alford takes it ‘‘the body 
in its every part,” but Ellicott denies that 
any distinction between τὸ wav σῶμα and 
πᾶν τὸ σῶμα can be safely drawn. It is 
the body as a whole that increases, and 
thus Paul condemns the tendencies to 
intellectual or spiritual exclusiveness, 
which cripple alike the body and the 
members who exhibit such tendencies. 
As this increase continues each member 
shares in the body’s Ρτορτεςς.---διὰ τῶν 
ἀφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων. Lightfoot givesa 
very full discussion of these terms and 
their use in medical writers. He trans- 
lates ‘through the junctures and liga- 
ments”. No doubt Paul’s language is 
popular, not technical. He is speaking 
of the means by which the various parts 
of the body are supplied and knit to- 
gether. Meyer takes ἀφ. to mean sensa- 
tions or nerve impulses, but we have no 
evidence for this meaning; nor is it suit- 
able here, for there is no reason for 
referring ad. to ἐπιχορ. and συνδ. to 
συνβιβ. No explanation is given of ad. 
κ. συνδ. Some think of the Holy Spirit, 
others of brotherly love, others of minis- 
ters. But probably in Paul’s mind they 
did not correspond to anything definitely. 
—émixopnyoupevov καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον: 


534 


ὁ Only here 21. Μὴ ἅψῃ μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ * 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


Il. 


θίγῃς, 22. (& ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ 


xi. 28, κἩ, ν ἀποχρήσει), κατὰ τὰ “ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ; 


20 (quot.) 

in N.T. 

b Only here in Bib. Gk. 

διδ.) in N.T. 
“being supplied and united”. Often the 
supply is thought to be of nourishment, 
but perhaps we should interpret more 
generally of life. ἀφ. κ. συν. are thus 
the media through which life is com- 
municated and the unity of the organism 
secured.—atfea τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ: 
““increaseth with the increase of God”’. 
Generally αὔξ. τ. ©. is explained to mean 
the growth which God gives (cf. 1 Cor. 
iii. 6). Against this is the fact that Christ 
is referred to as the source of growth. 
We may better take it ‘‘a growth such 
as God requires” (Ol., Haupt). 

Ver. 20. The Apostle, recalling them 
to the time of their conversion, points out 
how inconsistent with a death to the 
elemental spirits any submission to ordi- 
nances belonging to their sphere would 
be. The death of the believer with Christ 
is a death to his old relations, to sin, law, 

ilt, the world. It is a death which 

hrist has Himseif undergone (Rom, vi. 
10). Here it is specially their death to 
the angels, who had ruled their old life, 
and under whose charge the Law and its 
ceremonies especially stood. They had 
died with Christ to legalism, how absurd 
then for ordinances to be imposed upon 
them.—«l ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ : “if, as 
is the case, you died in union with 
Christ”. The aorist points to the defi- 
nite fact, which took place once for all. 
It was in union with Christ, for thus they 
were able to repeat Christ’s own experi- 
εηςε.---ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμον. 
The use of ἀπὸ with ἀποθν. expresses 
more strongly than the dative (as in 
Rom. vi. 2) the completeness of the sever- 
ance, and adds the idea of escape from 
the dominion of the personal powers. On 
στ. τ. κ. See note on ver. ὃ.--ὡς ζῶντες 
ἐν κόσμῳ. For the death ot the Christian 
with Christ includes his crucifixion to the 
world (Gal. vi. 14). The world is ruled 
by these angels; but Christians belong 
to the world to come (cf. τ. ντων, 
νετ. 17), which, as the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, has not 
been made subject to the angels. Since 
they were still living in the physical world 
κόσ. has evidently an ethical sense.— 
δογματίζεσθε may be middle, ‘‘ subject 
yourselves to ordinances,’’ or passive. 
Since Paul nowhere says that the readers 
had accepted the false teaching, the latter 


c Not class., only here and Matt. xv. 9 = Mark vii. 7 (quot. also with 


is better: ‘‘ Why are ye prescribed to?” 
(Mey., Winer, Hofm., Findl., any μα 
Alford also takes it as a passive, but 
thinks it implies a keener rebuke than the 
middle. The middle asserts rather that 
they had submitted, the passive need 
only imply, not their submission, but that 
their resistance might have been more 
energetic. If there is blame it seems to 
be slighter. The verb δογµατ. is chosen 
with reference to τοῖς in νετ. 14. 

Ver. 21. The precepts here quoted are 
those of the false teachers, and are, of 
course, quoted to be condemned, though 
their meaning is frequently misunder- 
stood. It is not said what things are 
thus prohibited, but the context supports 
the reference to meats and drinks, and is 
confirmed by μηδὲ γεύσῃ. There is no 
reason whatever to suppose that there is 
any reference to a prohibition of sexual 
relations.—ph ἅψῃ μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ 
θίγῃς. “Handle not, nor taste, nor even 
touch.” There is perhaps a gradation in 
the order from coarser to more refined 
contact. 

Ver. 22. ἅ ἐστιν πάντα els φθορὰν τῇ 
ἀποχρήσει. Augustine and Calvin too 
& as meaning the ordinances referred to 
in ver, 20, and explained the words as 
Paul's refutation, “all which ordinances 
lead in their use to spiritual destruction”. 
But ἀποχ. means much more than use, 
it means abuse or using up; and ἅ refers 
more naturally to the prohibited things 
than to the prohibitions ; while the sense 
would be complete if τῇ ἀποχ. were 
omitted. A much more attractive inter- 
pretation is that of De Wette (followed 
by Grimm, Ol. and others), He regards 
the words as a continuation of the injunc- 
tions of the false teachers, “all which 
things tend to spiritual destruction in the 
abuse’. The sense will then be that 
certain meats and drinks are forbidden, 
because the abuse of them leads to spiri- 
tual destruction. Lightfoot says “ this 
interpretation, however, has nothing to 
recommend it”. This is perhaps too 
strong, for on the usual view κατὰ... 
ἀνθρώπων comes in awkwardly, as its 
place is at the end of the prohibitions. 
But it must be rejected. The.translation 
is a little strained, and it would have 
been much simpler to say “the use of 
these things is destructive”. It is there- 








21---23, 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


5.3.5 


23. ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν “ ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ἃ Only here 


in class. 


ταπεινοφροσύνῃ Kat! Pdedia σώματος οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί, πρὸς or Bib. 


"πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. 


1 80 [Ln.], T., Tr. [W.H.], R.V., Ws. with all Greek MSS. except Β. 


omitted by B, m, Or. (Lat.), Hil. 


fore best to adhere to the common view, 
and translate ‘‘all which things are to 
perish with the using’’. The meaning is, 
then, that with consumption the forbidden 
meats and drinks were destined to perish. 
This interpretation has the advantage of 
being forcible, for it throws one side of 
Paul’s refutation into a terse parenthesis. 
His argument is, these meats and drinks, 
on which the false teachers lay such 
stress, are of no such importance, for in 
the nature of things they perish in their 
very use. If we can annihilate them 
they cannot rule us. The words should 
be included in brackets.—kara τὰ ἐντάλ- 
ματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων: to 
be taken with δογµατίζεσθε. This states 
the other side of Paul’s refutation, The 
precepts are not only concerned with 
things destined to perish, they have their 
source in human commandments. Light- 
foot aptly points out the striking parallel 
between these words of Paul and those of 
Christ on defilement (Mark vii.). Both 
argue from the perishableness of meats, 
both treat these things as indifferent in 
themselves, and both quote Isaiah. Even 
though these precepts are partially found 
in the O.T., they are rightly called pre- 
cepts of men, partly because they went 
beyond what it enjoined, partly because 
their object is different. 

Ver. 23. ἅτινα: 1.6., which command- 
ments and teachings.—Adyov σοφίας. 
This may be taken in the sense of “a 
word of wisdom,” but with no inner 
truth. Others translate ‘‘ appearance of 
wisdom” (Beng., De W. and others). 
But this seems not to be a meaning of 
Ady. Klopper’s translation, ‘‘ reason” 
or “ ground,” yields no very good sense. 
It is best, with most recent commentators, 
to translate “a reputation for wisdom ”’. 
μέν is not followed by δε, but this is not 
uncommon (see Winer-Moulton, pp. 719- 
721).---ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ ταπεινο- 
φροσύνῃ καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. It is 
impossible to connect σώμ. with all three 
datives (Hofm.), it can belong only to 
ἀφειδίᾳ, with which it is connected as an 
objective genitive, “ severity to the 
body”. If καὶ is retained before ἀφ. the 
sense of the earlier datives is not affected. 


e Only here 
in N.T. 


καὶ; 


If, however, it is omitted their sense may 
be affected. It is possible to take ἀφ., 
then, as an instrumental dative with λόγον 
ἔχοντα. But it is also possible to take it, 
with Haupt, as an explanatory apposition 
to the earlier datives. In this case ἐθελ. 
and tam. have both an ascetic meaning, 
Against this, however, is the fact that the 
words cannot be separated from the 
parallel expressions in ver. 18, This 
seems to fix the sense of ἐθελ. as a wor- 
ship of angels, which was not required of 
them, and ταπ. will mean what it meant 
in ver. 18. ἐθελοθρ. occurs nowhere else, 
and was probably coined by Paul. Simi- 
lar compounds were not unusual, and 
generally, though not invariably, had a 
bad sense. This is commonly supposed 
to attach to this word, but in any case it 
gets a bad sense from its context. ἀφ. 
σώμ. is the clearest assertion we have of 
the ascetic character of the false teach- 
ings.—ovk ἐν τιμῇ τινί, πρὸς πλησμονὴν 
τῆς σαρκός. These words, which con- 
stitute this verse one of the most difficult 
in the New Testament, have received 
very various explanations. It is disputed 
whether οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τ. Should be con- 
nected with the preceding or following 
words, and also with what πρ. πλησ. τ. 
σαρκός should be connected. Sumner, 
followed by Conybeare and Evans on 1 
Cor. vii. 2, interpreted πρὸς as meaning 
‘to check,” and translated “ not in any 
value to check the indulgence of the 
flesh,” connecting οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the 
following words. This view was adopted 
by Lightfoot, and has been accepted by 
Moule and now by Ellicott. It has been 
inserted, with altogether insufficient 
warning, in Κ.Υ. It is a new explana- 
tion, and since propounded has found 
comparatively little favour. Lightfoot 
quotes numerous examples to prove that 
πρός after words denoting value, utility, 
sufficiency, etc., is used in the sense “ to 
check” or ‘‘to prevent”. But in these 
cases the meaning does not lie in πρός, 
but in πρός after some word which im- 
poses this sense upon it (e.g., φάρμακον), 
and there is nothing of the kind here. 
Abbott, in his valuable criticism of this 
interpretation, points out that πρός means 


536 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


ΠῚ, 


III. 1. Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ 
Χριστός ἐστιν, ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος - 2. τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε μὴ 


“with a view (ο, and if the object is a 
word signifying action or the production 
of an effect it will mean with a view to 
(producing). ‘ Hence it seems to follow 
that unless πλησμονή be taken in the 
sense of ‘a state of repletion,’ which 
would be unsuitable, πρὸς πλησμονήν 
could only mean to produce πλ. A 
further question relates to the use of 
τιμῇ. Our word ‘“ value’’ is ambiguous, 
and τιµή may mean “value” in the 
sense of ‘price’. But in this interpre- 
tation it is used in the sense of “" efficacy,” 
and this sense needs to be established. 
It seems necessary to reject this explana- 
tion on linguistic grounds. But the sense 
it yields is less good than appears at first 
sight. For what would be said would be 
that these things had a reputation for wis- 
dom in “ will-worship,” etc., but they had 
not a reputation for wisdom in any value 
against the indulgence of the flesh. But 
obviously this cannot be the meaning. 
The sense imposed “but have not any 
value” can only be got out of the words 
by straining them. Another view, which 
keeps the same connexion of words, is 
that the translation should be “ not in 
any honour to it[i.e., the body] to satisfy 
the [reasonable] wants of the flesh”. 
This must be rejected because πλ. is not 
used in this good sense, and κός Can- 
not be used as equivalent to σώματος in 
a context where σώμ. has been used just 
before, for the terms must stand in 
emphatic contrast. Soden and Abbott 
translate “ not in any honour for the full 
satisfaction of the flesh’. This means 
that there is no real honour, but what 
there is, is such as to satisfy the carnal 
nature. So Meyer, notin any honour, but 
serving to satiate the flesh. The objection 
to this view is that ἀλλά at least is re- 
quired before πρὸς πλ. τ. σαρκός. Alford 
connects οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the preceding 
words, but πρ. πλ. τ.σ. with δογματί- 
ἵεσθε. This gives a fairly good sense, 
and requires no necessary words to be 
αν but the parenthesis is incredibly 
long. A less lengthy parenthesis is in- 
volved in the interpretation of Bahr, 
Eadie and Weiss: ‘ Which things, 
having indeed a reputation of wisdom in 
will-worship and humility and severity to 
the body, not in any honour, are for the 
indulgence of the flesh"’. If the contrast 
is between severity to the body and honour 
to it, we should have expected αὐτοῦ after 


τιμῇ. It is also strange that ἐν should 
be placed before τιμῇ and not before 
ἀφειδ. And the meaning is not probable, 
for it is implied that Paul thought that a 
reputation for wisdom ought to rest on 
honour to the body, which is absurd. 
Findlay’s view, “ποῖ in any honour, 
against surfeiting of the flesh,” not onl 
yields a thought most obscurely vanced, 
but must be rejected because of its trans- 
lation of πρὸς. All these interpretations 
are open to serious if not fatal objections. 
It is therefore not unlikely that Hort is 
right in the suspicion, shared also by 
Haupt, that we have to do here with a 
sre taght corruption, for which no pro- 
able emendation has been suggested. 
He thinks that the text of the Epistle, 
and especially of the second chapter, was 
badly preserved in ancient times. 
CuapTer III.—Vv. 1-17. RESURREC- 
TION WITH CHRIST MUST BE COMPLETED 
BY PARTICIPATION IN HIS HEAVENLY 
LIFE, WHICH THOUGH AT PRESENT CON- 
CEALED, WILL NOT ALWAYS REMAIN 80. 
THIS LIFE WITH CHRIST IN HEAVEN 
DEMANDS THE DEATH OF THE MEMBERS 
ON THE EARTH, THE HEATHEN VICES OF 
IMPURITY AND COVETOUSNESS, WHICH 
BRING DOWN THE WRATH OF GoD, ALL 
SINS OF MALICE, ANGER AND ABUSE AND 
ALL LYING MUST BE GIVEN UP, FOR THESE | 
BELONG TO THE OLD NATURE, AND ARE 
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEW, WITH ITS 
EVER-GROWING CONFORMITY TO THE 
DIVINE IMAGE, AND THE CANCELLING OF 
ALL THOSE DISTINCTIONS WHICH MAKE 
MEN ALIENS TO EACH OTHER.—With iii. 
1 Paul passes to the hortatory portion of 
the Epistle, the attack on the false 
teachers ending with ii, 23, and there is 
no break between vv. 1-4 and ver. 5. The 
ethical exhortation has its basis in the 
dogmatic exposition already given, and 
is therefore connected with it by otv.— 
Ver. 1. εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ: 
“if then [as is the case] you were raised 
together with Christ”. It is not their 
resurrection when Christ rose of which 
he speaks, but their personal resurrection 
with Him at the time of their conversion 
and baptism. This is the counterpart to 
death with Him, and as that breaks off 
the old relations, so this initiates them 
into the new. They must now work out 
to its consequences that which they then 
received in union with Christ. Alford 
denies that there is any ethical element 








τ----. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕῚΙ͂Σ 


537 


τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 3. ἀπεθάνετε γάρ, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν 3 Only here 


τῷ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ - 4. ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ, ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, 
τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ. 
3 Η Greta, ΕΝ a A , > , ἢ: 9 

οὖν τὰ μέλη 2 τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, ἢ" πάθος, ἐπι- 


and Rom. 
iv. 19, 
Heb. xi. 
12 (both 
of Abr.), 
in class, 
or Bib. 


5. "νεκρώσατε 


. Gk. 
b Only here and 1 Thess. iv. 5; Rom. i. 26 in N.T, 


1So Ln., Tr. mg., W.H., R.V., Ws. with BDbcKL. 


ὑμῶν: T., Tr., W.H. mg., 


Κ.Υ. mg. with ΝΟΥ ΕΕ, by assimilation to η ζωη Όμων (ver. 3). 


PISO. ο. το, Να ΑΝ. with κ ΡΟ 17,71. 


by Ln. with sgcAC7DEFGHKLP. 


in this resurrection, on the ground that 
if there were there would be no need to 
exhort to ethical realisation. But this is 
to misunderstand Paul’s idealistic lan- 
guage. Resurrection implies that thedeath 
has already taken place, and the death is 
ethical.—ra ἄνω ζητεῖτε. The reference 
is not, as Meyer characteristically makes 
it, eschatological. It is present fellow- 
ship with the exalted Lord, a life in 
heaven, of which he speaks. The true 
explanation is suggested by Eph. ii. 6, 
συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς 
ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (cf. καθή- 
μενος). Those who have risen with 
Christ must realise ascension with Him. 
—ot ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
καθήμενος : “ where Christ is, seated on 
the right hand of God”. Two state- 
ments are made: Christ is in the region 
of the things above, and He is seated at 
the right hand of God. These facts 
supply the motive for τ. ἄνω ζ. Our 
home with Him is not simply in the 
region of the things above, but in the 
highest position there, at God’s right 
hand. 

Ver. 2. τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε. “Set your 
mind on the things above.” φρ. is wider 
in its sense than ζητ. It embraces, as 
Meyer says, ‘the whole practical bent 
of thought: and disposition”.—py τὰ ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς. “The things on the earth” 
are not in themselves sinful, but become 
so if sought and thought on in preference 
to the things above (cf. Matt. vi. 19-21). 
There seems to be no reference to the 
false teachers here. 

Ver. 3. ἀπεθάνετε yap: “ for ye died,” 
that is to their old life, at the time of their 
conyersion. It gives the reason for ver. 
2. The exhortation is justified because 
they have died with Christ.—kat 4 ζωὴ 
«νον ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. This risen life (ζωή not 
βιός) which they now enjoy through 
union with Christ is concealed with Him 
in God. By the fact that it is hidden is 


υμων inserted after μελη 


not meant that it is secure (KI.), for the 
contrast to κέκ. is Φαν. (ver. 4), but that it 
belongs to the invisible and eternal, to 
which Christ belongs; perhaps not pre- 
cisely ‘shrouded in the depths of inward 
experiences and the mystery of its union 
with the life of Christ” (Ell.). ἐν Θεῷ 
asserts Christ’s own union with God, and 
emphasises our union with God in Him. 
Meyer thinks ζωὴ is the “eternal life,” 
now hidden, but to be manifested at the 
second coming (ver. 4). But this does 
not suit so well the language of the verse. 
Our life in God is opposed to life in the 
world (ii. 20). The transition from the 
aorist to the perfect is to be noticed. 

Ver. 4. This life is not always to re- 
main hidden, it will be manifested at the 
second coming. And that not merely in 
union with Christ, for it is Christ Himself 
who is our Life. This is not to be toned 
down to mean that Christ is the possessor 
and giver of eternal life. Paul means 
quite literally what he says, that Christ is 
Himself the essence of the Christian life 
(cf. Phil. i. 21, ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς, 
also Gal. ii. 20). His manifestation there- 
fore includes that of those who are one 
with Him. And this can only be a mani- 
festation in glory (cf. Rom. viii. 17). 

Ver. 5. Partially parallel to Eph. v. 
3-5δ.--νεκρώσατε οὖν. “Put to death, 
therefore” (cf. Rom. viii. 13). The aorist 
implies a single decisive act. Perhaps 
vex. is chosen as a weaker word than 
θανατόω (Cremer, Haupt), implying the 
cessation of functions during life. οὖν is 
interesting. It seems strange that the 
assertions in the previous verses, of their 
death and resurrection with Christ and 
hidden life with Him in God, should be 
followed by the exhortation to put their 
members to death. Clearly these asser- 
tions are idealistic. The death and resur- 
rection potentially theirs are to be realised 
in the putting to death of their members, 
--τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The mem- 


538 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


Ill. 


ς Only bere θυμίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν " εἰδωλολατρία, 6. δι᾿ 


and 


Cor. x. 14; 
1 Pet. iv. 
3 in class. 
or Bib. 
Gk. 


ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις. 


v.20;1 ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 7. ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε 
8. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, 
ὀργήν, θυμόν, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος 


*So T., Tr., W.H., R.V. mg., Ws. with B, Sah., Eth. [Rom.], and probably 


archetype of ἢ. επι τοὺς νιονς της απειθειας : added by all other MSS. 
all other authorities. Added from Eph. v. 6. 


bers are referred to in so far as they are 
the instruments of the σάρξ, and are in- 
cluded in the “things on the earth,” 
with which the Christian has no more 
concern (ver. 2). Lightfoot places a stop 
at γῆς, and regards reat πτ' κ.τ.λ. as 
governed by ἀπόθεσθε (νετ. 8). He 
thinks Paul intended to make these accu- 
satives directly dependent on ἀπ., but, 
owing to the intervening clauses, changed 
the form of the sentence. It is true that 
the apposition of μέλη and the list of sins 
that follows is strange, but not so strange 
as to make this very forced construction 
ngage ns We should have expected 

π. atthe beginning of the sentence.— 
καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν : “and covetousness,” 
not “impurity”. It comes fitly here, for 
gold provided the means for indulging 
these lustful passions. For the noun with 
the article at the end of a series without 
it, see Winer-Moulton,® p. 145.— ἥτις 
ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία: “inasmuch as it is 
idolatry”. ἥτις refers simply to πλ., 
not to the whole series of vices enumer- 
ated, nor to μέλη, by attraction for ἅτινα. 
The lust for wealth sets riches in the 
place of God (cf. Matt. vi. 24). 

Ver. 6. Parallel to Eph. v. 6, from 
which ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας has 
been added in most MSS. The sentence 
is abrupt without them, and ver. 7 is 
more easily explained if they are retained 
(as by Mey., ΚΙ., Ol.), yet their omission 
in B, combined with their presence in the 
parallel Eph. v. 6, is too strong to admit 
of their retention. The verse may refer 
to a general principle which acts in 
human life, or the reference may be 
eschatological. The latter seems to be 
more in accordance with Paul’s usage. 
ὀργὴ is here the outward manifestation 
of the anger which God even now feels 
at sin. 

Ver. 7. ἐν ols: in which vices. If τ. 
νἱοὺς τ. ἀπ. be retained, the probable 
translation is “in whom”, Lightfoot 
thinks in any case the reference to the 
vices is to be preferred, the chief reason 
being that Paul could not blame his 
readers for living among the Gentiles. 


and almost 


But, as Meyer points out, περιεπ. implies 
participation in conduct.—kal ὑμεῖς: you 
as well as those who still practise these 
vices. — περιεπατήσατέ: a Hebraistic 
metaphor expressing moral conduct.— 
ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις: “ye were living in 
them,” #.e.,in these vices. The reference 
is to their pre-Christian state, in which 
sin was the atmosphere of their lives. 
The change of tense should be noticed. 
Ver. 8. Vv. 8-ro are largely parallel 
to Eph. iv. 22-24, 25, 31.---ψνυνὶ δὲ: “ but 
now,” emphatic contrast to ποτε, now 
that you have passed from that life of 
sinful conduct, see that you strip your- 
selves of these νίςεβ.---ἀπόθεσθε καὶ 
ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα: “ do ye also put away all 
of them ".—«. ὑμ.: obviously not you as 
well as the Ephesians (Holtzm.), but you 
as well as other Christians. It is not 
clear whether τὰ π. refers exclusively to 
the preceding sins, to which then . 
κ.τ.λ. forms a loose apposition, or whether 
it includes the latter also. It seems less 
harsh to give the injunction a forward as 
well as a backward reference. vy 
ν: usually the former is regarded as 
ΡΝ anger, of which the intter is the 
sudden and passionate outburst. Cremer, 
however, followed by Haupt, regards ϐ. 
as the inner emotion, of which dp. is the 
external expression. ὀρ. is certainly used 
of the external manifestation of wrath in 
ver. 6.--κακίαν: “ malignity,” the feeling 
which prompts a man to injure his neigh- 
Ὀουτ.---Αλασφημίαν : as the other sins are 
against men, so this, “slander” not 


“ blasphemy ”. — πλω The 
word may mean “ filthy κ... or 
“abusive speech”. Here the context 
decides for the latter. Lightfoot, com- 
bining both senses, translates “ foul- 
mou abuse,” but such combinations 
are generally to be Poser ἮΝ 
στόματος ὑμῶν: probably thi 

wien apc ἧς περὶ Pith BA. and 
Whether it is dependent on ἀποθ., “ ban- 
ish from your mouth"’ (Mey., Ol., Abb.), 
is more doubtful, since the interpolation 
of sins which are not sins of speech 
makes such a connexion awkward. Prob- 





6—11. 


ὑμῶν. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, 3 


439 


y 9 ὃν ἆ ii. 15. 
ἀπεκδυσάμενοι "τὸν παλαιὸν 2 μις νι 6, 


ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, το. καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν Eph. ἵν. 


A , i 
‘ ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν Kat εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν, f Only here 


-» , 
11. ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἕ ἀκροβυστία, 


and 2 Cor. 
iv. 16 in 
class. or 


βάρβαρος, " Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, ἀλλὰ Ta! πάντα καὶ ἐν Bib. Gk. 


g ii. 13. 
h Only here in N.T. 


1So Ln., Τ., Tr., Lft., R.V., Ws. with 8cBDEFGKLP. τα: omitted by W.H. 


with Ke*AC. 


ably, then, the meaning is ‘ proceeding 
out of your mouth’”’. tp. is emphatic, 
and recalls the readers to their Christian 
profession. 

Ver. 9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους: 
“lie not to one another”. The impera- 
tive changes its tense from aorist to 
present, the exhortation to the decisive 
act being followed by a rule for their 
daily life. εἰς expresses the direction of 
the utterance. It should not be trans- 
lated “against” (ΚΙ., Ἐτ.).---ἀπεκδυσά- 
μενοι. . . ἐνδυσάμενοι. These parti- 
ciples may be translated as part of the 
exhortation, “lie not one to another 
putting off. . . and putting on,” in other 
words, ‘‘ put off... and puton...and 
lie not’. Or they may give a reason for 
the exhortation, “lie not, seeing ye have 
put off . . . and put on”. In favour of 
the former is the addition σὺν τ. mp. 
αὐτ., for ifthe practices had been put off 
at conversion the warning might seem 
superfluous. ἄνακαιν. (pres.) also points 
to a continuous process. Either view 
harmonises with Paul’s theology, for he 
speaks of death to the old and life to the 
new either as ideally complete in the 
moment of conversion or as realised 
gradually in actual experience. But the 
latter, which is taken by most commen- 
tators, is preferable; for the reference is 
much wider than in the foregoing words. 
They refer only to the discarding of 
vices. Paul now emphasises the positive 
side also, the putting on the new as well 
as casting off the οἷά.--τὸν παλαιὸν 
ἄνθρωπον: i.e., the old non-Christian self 
(cf. Rom. vi. 6, Eph. iv. 22).—mpageow : 
‘‘practices,”” such as those already enu- 
merated. 

Ver. 10. τὸν νέον. In Eph. iv. 24 we 
have καινός, “fresh’’ (as opposed to 
“worn out”); νέος is new as opposed 
to old. The idea contained in κ. is here 
expressed by ἀνακ. Some (including 
Sod.) regard ‘‘the new man” as Christ, 
according to which “the old man”? will 
be Adam. But this is negatived by the 


next verse, for if the new man is Christ, 
Χριστός would be a strange tautology. 
κτίσ. is also against it, though we have 
μορφωθῇ X., Gal. iv. 19. It is the re- 
generate self, regenerate, of course, be- 
cause united with Christ.—éavaxa.vov- 
μενον: '' being renewed,” the present 
expressing the continuous process of re- 
newal (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16). There is no 
reference to a restoration to a former 
state.—eis ἐπίγνωσιν: not to be connected 
(as by Mey. and Hofm.) with κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, 
which would give a strange and obscure 
thought, but to be taken as the object of 
the renewal. The knowledge is ethical 
rather than theoretical in this connexion. 
-κατ᾽ εἰκόνα : to be taken with ἀνακαιν. 
There is a clear allusion to Gen. 1. 26-28, 
the new self grows to be more and more 
the image of God. There may perhaps 
be a side reference to “tye shall be as 
gods, knowing good and evil” in eis 
ἐπίγ.-- τοῦ κτίσαντος: i.e., God, not (as 
Chrys. and others) Christ. Some take 
κατ᾽ εἰκ. τ. KT. a. to mean “according 
to Christ”. It is true that Christ is the 
image of God, but the parallel kara Θεὸν, 
in Eph. iv. 24, makes this improbable, 
and we should have expected the article 
before εἰκ. 

Ver. 11. Cf. Gal. iii. 28. He has 
been speaking of sins inconsistent with 
brotherly love, anger and falsehood. 
Such sins are incompatible with Christi- 
anity, which has abolished even those 
deep distinctions that divided mankind 
into hostile camps. In the splendid 
sweep of the great principle, which has 
cancelled the most radical differences 
of nationality, ceremonial status, culture 
and social position, all minor causes of 
strife are necessarily included. The sol- 
vent of national, racial and even religious 
hate cannot be powerless before the petty 
strifes of a Christian church. — ὅπου 
οὐκ ἔνι: “ where there cannot be”. ὅπ. 
seems to refer to ‘‘the new man,” not to 
“knowledge” or “the image’’. In the 
new man created by God all these dis- 


- 


$40 
πᾶσιν Χριστός. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


ΠΠ. 


12. ἐνδύσασθε οὖν ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι 


καὶ ἠγαπημένοι, σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, χρηστότητα, ταπεινοφροσύνην, 
πραύτητα, µακροθυµίαν, 13. ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων καὶ χαριζόμενοι 
iOnly here ἑαυτοῖς, ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν" καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος 1 


ακ. 


1 80 Ln., Tr., W.H., R.V., Ws. with ABD*FG. 


mg. with SacCDbcEKLP. eos: μ᾿". 


tinctions vanish. ἔνι seems not to be for 
ἔνεστι, as used to be said, but, as Butt- 
mann maintained, a form of ἐν. Winer- 
Schmiedel says “ἔνι is the older form 
of ἐν, and has the significance ο[ ἔνεστιν ’'. 
--ΦΈλλην κ.τ.λ. The first two pairs con- 
tain opposites, in race and then in re- 
ligion. For the third pair Paul cannot 
employ an antithesis, since “EAA., the 
contrast to Bdp., has already been used 
in the sense of Gentile. He therefore 
adds to barbarian the Scythian as the 
extreme example—Scythae barbaris bar- 
bariores ριον a ty reverts to the 
method of opposition in the last pair. 
The order Ελλ. κ. Ἴονδ. is unusual, and 
perhaps due to the fact that he is writing 
to Gentiles, but in Gal. iii. 28 he is writ- 
ing to Gentiles too. The usual order is 
resumed in περ. κ. ἀκρ. In δοῦλ. ἐλεύθ. 
he may have a reference to Philemon and 
Onesimus, but the terms occur also in 
the Galatian Πδιι-- πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν 
Χριστός. This expresses the thought 
that Christ is all, and that He is in all 
the relations of life; πᾶσιν is neuter, and 
X. is placed at the end for emphasis. 
Since He is all, and all things are one 
in Him, He is the principle of unity, 
through whom all the distinctions that 
mar the oneness of mankind are done 
away. 

Ver. 12. This verse and ver. 13 are 
parallel to Eph. iv. 2, 32. The ethical 
consequences of having put on the new 
man are now drawn out in detail.— 
ἐνδύσασθε οὖν: not since Christ has be- 
come all and in all to you (Lightf.), but 
since you have put on the new man. 
ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ: {.ε., as conformity to 
your position as God’s elect demands. 
The election is God’s choice of them in 
Christ before creation (Eph. i. 4).---ἅγιοι 
καὶ ἠγαπημένοι qualify ἐκλ., and are not 
vocatives. ἦγ. means, as elsewhere in 
N.T., beloved of God; he is speaking of 
their position as Christians.—omAdyyxva 
οἰκτιρμοῦ : “a heart of compassion,” the 
σπλ. being regarded as the seat of 
emotion.—xpyotétyTa: almost “ sweet- 


ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς - 14. ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγά- 


Χριστος: T., W.H. mg., R.V. 


ness of disposition’’. It is opposed to 
“ severity” (of God) in Rom. xi. 22.--- 
ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραύτητα: both virtues 
towards fellow-men, and quite different 
from tam. in ii. 18. Neither has refer- 
ence to man’s relation to God. Each 
is a specifically Christian virtue. 

Ver. 13. χαριζόμενοι ἑαντοῖς: * for- 
giving yourselves,” but while the varia- 
tion from ἀλλήλ. is probably intentional, 
the practical difference is very slight. The 
thought that Christians are members one 
of another may underlie the choice of 
expression (cf. 1 Pet. iv. 8). It may be 
chosen to correspond to ὑμῖν. 
may have reference to the case of Phile- 
mon and Onesimus.—é Κύριος: whether 
this or 6 Χριστὸς be read the reference is 
to Christ. In the parallel Eph, iv. 32 we 
have “God in Christ,” which is Paul’s 
usual way of putting it. But that is no 
reason for ρα Κύρ. to God, for 
Jesus when on earth forgave sins. The. 
forgiveness they have received is used to 
enforce the duty of forgiving others. The 
best illustration is the parable in Matt. 
xviii. 23-25. 

Ver. 14. ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις τὴν 
ἀγάπην : probably “ over all these,” carry- 
ing on the metaphor of clothing, not ‘in 
additiontoall”. These virtues are mani- 
festations of love, but may be conceivably 
exhibited where love is,absent, so that 
the mention of it is not superfluous.—8 
ἐστιν: probably “that is,” though for 
criticism of Lightfoot’s examples see 
Abbott. The relative cannot mean τὸ 
ἐνδύσασθαι τ. ἀγ., for love itself is the 
σύνδ. --- σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος. 
Generally σύνδ. is explained as that which 
binds together all the virtues. κα καῖ 
tive is variously interpreted. It has 
taken as genitive of the object, but the 
objection (Luther, Ol., Haupt) that the 
bond binds the virtues into a unity but 
does not bind together the unity itself is 
forcible. It has cae ae Seep ve wd 

enitive of quality, “the ect bond,” 
which Paul’ woul have said if he had 
méant it. Ellicott regards it as a subjec- 





12---16. 


πην, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος. 


.. A , 
Χριστοῦ " βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 
ἑνὶ σώματι - καὶ " εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε. 


ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλουσίως, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες καὶ νου- 


θετοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς, * ὕμνοις, 


1So edd. with ΝΕΡΟ ΡΕΕΙ. 
W.H. mg., ΚΕΝ. mg. with Ν΄ cop. 


ρου το το Lit:, WH. me., Ws, 
W.H. with AKL. 


tive genitive, the bond possessed by per- 
fectness ; but this seems unlikely. Again, 
it is explained as the bond which produces 
perfection in these virtues (Ol.), or as the 
bond which binds these virtues together 
andso produces Christian perfection (Sod). 
If, however, we do not take τελ. as an 
objective genitive, there is no ground for 
assuming that the bond is that which 
binds the virtues together. The function 
of love as a bond is to bind Christians 
together, and Haupt explains the wordin 
this way. The genitive he regards as one 
of apposition, the bond in which perfec- 
tion consists. When love binds all 
Christians together, the ideal of Christian 
perfection is attained. This gives a 
natural and appropriate sense, and is 
probably right. The view that σύνδ. is 
the sum total gives a sense to the word 
which it does not bear; nor does it suit 
the context. 

Ver. 15. ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ: “the 
peace which Christ gives”. It might be 
the peace between the members of the 
Church bestowed by Christ (Calv., Ol., 
Sod.). This suits the preceding, but not 
the following words so well, especially, 
perhaps, εὐχ. ylv.—BpaBevérw: “rule” 
(cf. ii. 18). The word has lost its old 
sense “to act as umpire,” and there is 
no reference to acontest ora prize. The 
meaning.is: in deciding on any course of 
action, let that be chosen which does not 
ruffle the peace within you.—eis ἣν καὶ 
ἐκλήθητε: 1.ε., to the enjoyment of which 
ye were called.—év ἑνὶ σώματι : so that 
ye are in one body,” result rather than 
aim being expressed. Disunion in the 
body is incompatible with the peace of 
individual members. — kat εὐχάριστοι 
γίνεσθε: “and become thankful,” 1.6., to 
God for calling you, or more probably for 
the peace in your hearts, which is the 
main thought. εὐχ. might mean ‘“gra- 
cious” (a rare sense), but this would not 
be weighty enough to end these exhorta- 
tions. 





ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΒΕΙΣ 


του Θεου: ΚΕΝ. mg. with AC* 17. 


541 


15. καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ 
ὑμῶν, εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν 
16. ὃ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ } 

k Only here 
and Eph. 
ἢ aA A > a οὗν 19 (par.) 

ὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ἐν τῇ” in NT. 


του Κυριου: 


with ScBD*E*FG 67**. τη: omitted by 


Vv. 16,17. Partially parallel to Eph. 
v. 10, 20.—Ver, 16. ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ: probably, as usually explained, “ the 
Gospel,” so called because He proclaimed 
it and speaks it through His messengers. 
Lightfoot interprets it as “the presence 
of Christ in the heart as an inward moni- 
tor”. The phrase occurs only here, but 
cf. τ Thess, 1, 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1.—év ὑμῖν: 
according to Pauline usage must mean 
within you, and probably not collectively 
(Mey., Alf., Abb.) “in you as a Church,’’ 
but individually.—év πάσῃ σοφίᾳ: to be 
taken with the following words (Beng., 
Μεγ., Alf., Ell., Ol., Haupt, Abb.), since 
ἐνοικ. is sufficiently qualified by πλου- 
σίως, and god. suits διδάσκ. much better 
than ἐνοικ. The balance is better pre- 
served, as ἐν π. σ. is then parallel to ἐν 
χάρ. Lightfoot meets the last point by 
taking ἐν χάρ. with διδάσκ., but even if 
this were probable the other arguments 
are decisive for the connexion with the 
following ννοτάς.-- διδάσκοντες καὶ νου- 
θετοῦντες: cf. i. 28. Lightfoot regards 
the participles as used for imperatives, 
which Ellicott thinks impossible. There 
is a slight, but quite intelligible, anacolu- 
thon here.—éavrots, as in νετ. 13.— 
ψαλμοῖς, ὕμνοις, ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς: to 
be connected with 818. κ. νουθ., not with 
ἄδοντες (Hofm., ΚΙ., Weiss), with which 
the accusative should have been used. 
The precise distinctions intended are not 
certain, and perhaps they should not be 
sharply drawn. The meaning is, what- 
ever kind of song it may be, let it be made 
the vehicle of religious instruction and 
admonition. wad. may be restricted to 
the Old Testament Psalms, but this is 
improbable. ὕμν. are songs of praise to 
God. 8. has a wider sense, and was 
used of any class of song. Hence mv. 
is added to it, and not to the others, for 
ak. is used exclusively and ὕμν. usually 
in a religious sense. ‘The word of Christ 
is to dwell in them so richly that it finds 
spontaneous expression in religious song 


542 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ ΠῚ. 


1 Only bere χάριτι ἄδοντες ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ Θεῷ - 17. καὶ πᾶν ὅτι ἐὰν 


and Eph. 
ν. 4; 
Philm. 8 
in Ν.Τ. 
m Only in 
Paul, exc. 
Rev. xiv. 


13. iw. 
n Only here Κυρίῳ 


and Rev. πρὸς αὐτάς. 


viii. 11, x. 


g icin τοῦτο yap εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν Κυρίῳ. 


ο Only here and 2 Cor. ix. 2 in N.T. 


in the Christian assemblies or the home. 
—tv τῇ χάριτι. Not with sweetness or 
acceptableness (iv. 6), which does not 
suit τ. Θεῷ or the emphatic position. It 
may be “by the help of Divine grace,” 
but more probably the ταν 3 is “with 
thankfulness” (De W , Haupt, 
Abb.), on account of the reference to 
thankfulness in vv. 15 and17. Thank- 
fulness finds expression in song.—év ταῖς 
καρδίαις. The reference is to the inner 
song of praise, which is to be the counter- 
part of the audible singing. What is 
meant is probably not singing from the 
heart, though cf. Matt. xxi. 37. 

Ver.17. πᾶν...ἐργῷ: a nominative abso- 
lute.—wdvra is governed by ποιεῖτε (not 
ποιοῦντες, as Sod.), supplied from ποιῆτε. 

αριστοῦντεφ. This is not some- 
thing additional to actions done in the 
name of Christ; but these actions are 
themselves expressions of thankfulness. 

Ver. 18-iv. 1. ENFORCEMENT OF THE 
RECIPROCAL DUTIES OF WIVES AND HUS- 
BANDS, CHILDREN AND PARENTS, SLAVES 
AND MASTERS, WITH FREQUENT REFER- 
ENCE TO THESE DUTIES AS INVOLVED IN 
THEIR DUTY το CHRIST.—In this section 
the reference to the subject precedes that 
to the ruling parties, and the duty of 
obedience is emphasised to prevent false 
inferences from the doctrine that natural 
distinctions are done away in Christ. 
Holtzmann, Oltramare and Weiss think 
these precepts are added in protest 
against the false teachers’ asceticism. 
The fact that we have similar, and fuller, 
injunctions in Ephesians tells against 
this. Eph. v. 22 sg. and 1 Pet. iii. 6 may 
be compared.—Ver. 18. ἀνῆκεν has 
been taken as a perfect in sense of re 
sent (Luther, Bleek, Ol.), a view said by 
Winer to be “tas unnecessary as it is 
grammatically inadmissible” (Winer- 
Moulton,® p. 338). Usually it is taken 
as an imperfect, “45 was fitting,” and is 
thought (but this is very dubious) to 
imply a reproach. Probably ἐν Kvp. is to 
be joined to it, not to ὑποτ. (cf. ver. 20). 

Ver. το. μὴ πικραίνεσθε: :.ε., do not 


ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ, πάντα ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, εὐχαρισ- 
τοῦντες τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. 

18. Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ὡς | ἀνῆκεν ™ ἐν 
19. οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ μὴ " πικραίνεσθε 
20. τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν κατὰ πάντα, 


21. οἱ πατέρες, μὴ “ἐρεθίζετε 


be harsh or irritable. Bengel defines 


πικρία as ‘“odium amori mixtum,” 
which is acute, but “odium” is too 
strong. 

Ver. 20. κατὰ πάντα is omitted in 
Eph. vi. 1. 

Ver. 21. ἐρεθίζετε: {.ε., irritate by 


exacting commands and perpetual fault- 
finding and interference for interference’ 
sake. The consequence of such foolish 
exercise of authority is that the child be- 
comes discouraged ; in other words, his 
spirit is broken, and since what he does 
leads to constant blame, he loses hope of 
ever being able to please, 
animus pestis juventutis (Βεηρ.). 
Ver. 22. 
at greater length than that of the other 
family relations, probably on account of 
Onesimus. But Paul was much possessed 
with the need for keeping Christianity 
free from the suspicion it naturally 
created of undermining the constitution 
of society. So while δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος 
is a distinction which has vanished for 
Christianity, in the interests of Chris- 
tianity as a spiritual power social free- 
dom had to be cheerfully foregone till the 
new religion was able to assert its prin- 
ciple with success, An instructive parallel 
is the exhortation to submission to con- 
stituted authority in Rom. xiii. In Paul’s 
time slaves probably made up the 
larger part of the population of the 
επιρίτε.---τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις : op- 
ΒΝ to their spiritual Lord.—é@ahpo- 
λείαις : acts of eye-service (singular in 
Eph. vi. 6), i.e., service which is most 
zealous when the eye of the master or 
overseer is upon them. The word was 
perhaps coined by Paul.—ds 
ρεσκοι. It is the Christian’s first duty to 
lease the Lord, and this he can do only 
ν conscientious performance of his tasks 
quite apart from the recognition he 
receives from men. If the principle of 
his conduct is the pleasing of men, he 
will neglect his duty where this motive 
cannot operate. — ἁπλότητι καρδίας: 
‘‘singleness of heart,” opposed to the 





“Fractus - 


The case of slaves is treated - 


17.--25. 


τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἵνα μὴ ᾿ ἀθυμῶσιν. 


πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, μὴ ἐν " ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις,! ὡς 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


443 


22. οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ P Only here 


and Eph, 
vi. 6 (par.) 
in class, 


“dvOpwrdpeckor, GAN’ ἐν "ἁπλότητι καρδίας, φοβούμενοι τὸν Κύριον. oF Bib. 


23. ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώ- « Not class. 


ποις, 24. εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ Κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν 
τῆς κληρονομίας - τῷ Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε" 


r Only Paul in N.T. 


bia ΐ only here, 
ἀνταπόδοσιν Eph. vi. 6 
ὁ vito Δδικῷ {par.); Ps. 

2 ο ικων iil. 5 in 
5* 9 yap Bib. Gk. 


1 So T., Tr., W.H., Ws. with RCKL. οφθαλμοδουλεια: Ln., Lft. with ABDEFG, 


by assimilation to Eph. vi. 5. 


double-dealing of eye-service. — τὸν 
Κύριον: in significant contrast to the 
masters according to the flesh, 

Ver. 23. Not only must the slave’s 
work be done in the fear of the Lord, 
but done as if it were actually for the 
Lord that he was doing it, and not for a 
mere human master. And this principle 
is to govern every detail of his varied 
service. —é« Ψυχῆς: heartily and with 
good will.—ovx ἀνθρώποις : their service, 
Paul would say, is not to be rendered at 
all (οὐκ not μὴ) to their earthly master, 
but exclusively to Christ. 

Ver. 24. However their earthly master 
may reward their service, there is a 
Master who will give them a just recom- 
pense; although they cannot receive an 
earthly, He will give them a heavenly 
inheritance.—&mw6 Κυρίου : in Eph. vi. 8 
mapa K. The absence of the article is 
noteworthy. It emphasises the position 
rather than identifies the Person of Him 
who gives the reward (cf. the anarthrous 
ἐν υἱῷ, Heb. i. τ). Haupt thinks that there 
is no significance to be attached to its 
omission; but, as Lightfoot says, “Τε is 
studiously inserted in the context”’.— 
ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας : the ‘just 
recompense consistingintheinheritance”’. 
KX. is a genitive of apposition.—SovAevere. 
This may be taken as απ indicative 
(Lightf., Findl., Moule, Haupt) or as an 
imperative (Mey., Ell., Alf., Abb.). The 
indicative is defended on the ground that 
it is needed to explain who is meant by 
ἀπὸ Κυρίου (but this was surely obvious), 
and that the imperative seems to require 
ὡς τῷ Κ. But Lightfoot himself quotes 
Rom. xii. 11, where ὡς is absent. On 
the other hand the indicative gives a 
somewhat flat sense, and the imperative 
seems to yield a better connexion with 


ver. 25. It is best then to take it as an 
imperative. 
Ver. 25. This verse provides the 


reason (γὰρ) for δουλεύετε. It is dis- 


puted whether 6 48. means the master 
who treats his slave unjustly, or the slave 
who by his idleness wrongs his master. 
To include both (Lightf., Findl., Ol.) is 
highly questionable, not only because a 
double reference is on principle to be 
avoided in exegesis, but because the con- 
nexion with δουλ. implies that one side 
of the relation only is being dealt with. 
It is commonly thought that the verse 
is an encouragement to the slave, based 
on the assurance that the master who 
ill treats him will receive his recompense 
in due course. In favour of this οὐκ 
ἔστιν προσωπ. is urged, since it implies 
that they are in a social position which 
might influence earthly courts, but can- 
not mitigate the judgment of God. But 
while a Christian writer could dissuade 
from vengeance by the thought that 
vengeance belonged to God alone, it is 
not credible that Paul should console the 
slave or encourage him in his duty by 
the thought that for every wrong he 
received his master would have to suffer. 
And, as Haupt says, we should have ex- 
pected ὑμᾶς after ἀδικῶν and δὲ instead 
of yap. There is also a presumption in 
favour of an exhortation to the slave here. 
If it referred to the masters it would have 
come more naturally after iv. 1. Nor 
does προσωπ. necessarily imply that the 
wrongdoer is socially more highly placed. 
It equally well applies to favouritism that 
might be expected from God on the 
ground of religious position. So we 
should interpret the verse (with Weiss 
and Haupt) as a warning to the Christian 
slave not to presume_on his Christianity, 
so as to think that God will overlook his 
misdeeds or idleness. 

CuapTer IV.—Ver. 1. ἰσότητα. The 
literal meaning is “‘ equality,’ and Meyer 
takes it so here (so Ol., Haupt), explaining 
not of equality conferred by emancipation, 
but of the treatment of the slave by his 
master as a brother in Christ, It may, 


544 


5 Only here κομίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν "προσωπολημψία. ΤΝ. τ. Οἱ 


and Rom. 
νο δ᾿ 
Eph.vi. 9 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


“κύριοι, τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν "ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε, εἰδότες 





jas. iit ὅτι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε Κύριον ἐν οὐρανῷ. 


or Bib. 
Gk. 


2. Τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτερεῖτε, γρηγοροῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχα- 


a Only here ριστίᾳ, 3. προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ 


and 2 Cor. 


viii. 13, 14 ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου, λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ,! δι ὃ καὶ 


in N.T. 


δέδεµαι, 4. ἵνα φανερώσω αὐτὸ ὡς δεῖ μὲ λαλῆσαι. 


5+ ἐν σοφίᾳ 


1So Ln.,, T., Tr., W.H., R.V. with most authorities, possibly by assimilation to 


Eph. iii. 4. 


in spite of Oltramare’s denial, mean 
“ equity,” and the combination with Six. 
suggests this meaning here. The master 
should regulate his treatment of his slave 
not by caprice, but by equity.—rap¢yeoOe: 
“ supply on your part,” a dynamic middle. 

Vv. 2-6. EXHORTATIONS TO PRAYER, 
ESPECIALLY FOR THE PURTHERANCE OF 
THE APOSTLE’S WORK, TO WISDOM TO- 
WARDS THOSE WITHOUT AND TO FIT- 
NESS OF SPEECH.— Vv. 2-4 partially 
parallel to Eph. vi. 18-20.— Ver. 2. 
προσκαρτερεῖτε: cf. Rom. xii. 12, Acts 
i. 14. Steadfastness in prayer is opposed 
to “fainting”’ in it, the best illustration 
being the oy RR widow and the 
importunate friend.—ypyyopotvtes may 
mean that they are to watch against 
growing weary so that the prayer be- 
comes mechanical, or, as Soden takes it, 
against confused thought. But perhaps 
it is not so much alertness in, prayer that 
is meant as the watchfulness which 
manifests itself in the form of prayer (so 
Hofm., Haupt). In favour of this is 
the use of ypyy. in the religious sense 
for watchfulness against temptation.—év 
εὐχαριστίᾳ: thanksgiving is added, be- 
cause it springs from the heart thankful 
for God's gifts, and therefore watchful 
against losing them. 

Ver. 3. ἡμῶν: perhaps ο all his 
fellow-workers, probably not Paul alone, 
on account of the singular (δέδεµαι).---θύ- 
pay τοῦ λόγον : {.ε., a removal of whatever 
obstructs its progress, possibly liberation 
from prison, to which he was looking 
forward (Philm. 22). For the metaphor, 
cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12.---λαλῆσαι: 
“so as to speak,” infinitive of the con- 
sequence.—rd ον τοῦ Χριστοῦ: 
the mystery which has Christ for its 
content. On account of his proclama- 
tion of it, and especially of the truth that 
the Gentiles were admitted freely to its 
blessings, he is now a prisoner. 

Ver. 4. ἵνα is variously connected. 


τουθεου: Ws. with BL 4, 41, 238, Eth., probably under influence of ii. 2. 


The usual way is best which connects it 
with ἀνοίξῃ. This is better than going 
back to προσενχ.» while the connexion 
with λαλ. is strained. It may be taken 
(as Beng., Hofm., Sod.) with δέδεμαι, 
‘bound in order that I may manifest,” 
but if so why should Paul have desired 
li ? Soden gives a peculiar turn to 
the thought. He thinks Paul is bound 
in order that he may manifest to his 
judges how he can do no other (δεῖ 
emphatic) than preach. This seems to 
be met by Haupt’s criticism that for this 
we must have had φανερώσω ὅτι δεῖ pe 
λαλῆσαι αὐτό.--φανερώσω. Soden urges 
in favour of his interpretation that φαν. 
is never used ot Paul's preaching, but 
there seems to be no reason why it should 
not be. It is a stronger word than λαλ., 
he wants to ‘ make it clear”.—ds δεῖ 
λαλῆσαι refers to the mode of preaching, 
but the precise sense is uncertain. Some 
think it means boldly, others in a way 
suited to the culiar circumstances, 
others in a wa that shall be equal to the 
greatness of the message. Or, again, a 
reference is assumed by many to the 
Judaising opposition. But probably the 
feeling that prompts the words is that in 
prison his activity was curbed, and he 
wished to be free that he might preach 
the Gospel without restriction. 

Ver. 5. Cf. Eph. v.15. An exhorta- 
tion to wise conduct in relation to non- 
Christians.—rovs ἔξω: those outside the 
Church; the reference is suggested by 
the mention of θύραν τ. λόγον. They 
must be wise in their relations with them 
so as not to give them an unfavourable 
impression of the Gospel.—rév at 
ἐξαγοραζόμενοι: “making your mar 
fully from the occasion” (Ramsay, δὲ. 
Paul the Traveller, p. 149). They are to 
seize the fitting opportunity when it 
occurs to do good to “those without,” 
and thus promote the spread of the 
Gospel. 


1.- ΎὍ͵ἼῸ, 


περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω, τὸν καιρὸν ” ἐξαγοραζόμενοι. 
λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι “ ἠρτυμένος, εἰδέναι πῶς δεῖ 


ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθαι. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


545 


b Only here 
6. 6 gud eu, 
v.16 (par.); 
Gal. iii. 
13, iv. 5in 
δ᾽ 


7. Τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Τυχικός, 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς ¢ Only here 


καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὃ. 


ς A 3 3. κα aA 9 A 1 
υμας εις AUTO τουτο ινα γνῶτε 


καρδίας ὑμῶν, 9. σὺν ᾿Ονησίµω τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ, 
ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν: πάντα ὑμῖν γνωρίσουσιν τὰ 9 ὧδε. 

10. ᾿Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Αρίσταρχος ὃ "συναιχμάλωτός µου, καὶ 
Μᾶρκος 6 ᾿ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα, περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς, (ἐὰν ἔλθῃ 


‘So edd. with ABD*GP. yva. ... Όμων: ScCDbcEKL; γνωτε. 


Ν΄, but corrected to γνωτε . 


Ver. 6. ἐν χάριτι : probably ‘‘ gracious,” 
“pleasant” is the meaning; by the 
sweetness and courtesy of their conver- 
sation they are to impress favourably the 
heathen. Some (most recently Haupt) 
think Divine grace is meant, but this 
does not suit ἅλατι so ννῈ]].---ἅλατι 
ἠρτυμένος. In classical writers ‘ salt” 
expressed the wit with which conversa- 
tion was flavoured. Here wisdom is pro- 
bably meant on account of εἰδέναι. There 
may be the secondary meaning of whole- 
some, derived from the function of salt 
to preserve from corruption.—eidévar: 
“so as to know”.—w@s κ.τ.λ.: they 
must strive to cultivate the gift of pleasant 
and wise conversation, so that they may 
be able to speak appropriately to each 
individual (with his peculiar needs) with 
whom they come in contact. 

Vv. 7-18. COMMENDATION OF THE 
BEARERS OF THE LETTER, WITH SALUTA- 
TIONS FROM HIS FELLOW-WORKERS AND 
HIMSELF.—Vv. 7, 8 parallel to Eph. vi. 
21, 22.—Ver.7. Τυχικός is mentioned in 
Acts xx. 4, Eph. vi. 21, Tit. iii. 12, 2 Tim. 
iv. 12. He belonged to the province of 
Asia, and was sent at this time not only 
with this letter but with the Epistle to 
the Ἐρπερίαης.---ἀδελφὸς is usually taken 
to express his relation to the members of 
the Church, though Haupt thinks it 
means Paul’s brother.—mords διάκονος: 
“6 faithful minister,’’ probably to Paul, not 
to Christ. mo. goes also with σύνδου- 
λος, and since this expresses a relation to 
Paul it is probable that διάκ. does so 
too.—év Κυρίῳ: to be taken with all three 
nouns on account of the single article. 

Ver. 8. ἔπεμψα: “1 am sending” 
(epistolary aorist).—yv@rte τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν. 


VOL. III. 


τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν ἱ καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς 


οὖν μῶν by Nc, who re-corrected into yvw. . . 


and Mark 
ix. 50; 

Luke xiv. 
34in Ν.Τ. 

d Only here 
and 1 Cor. 
iv. 2 in 
Paul. 

e Only here 
and Rom. 
xvi. 7; 
Philm. 


23 in 
f Only here in N.T 


a ἊΨ 


ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς 


ῳ 


ος 


class. or Bib. Gk. 


εν Όμων: 
εὐμων. 


This is not only the better attested read- 
ing but yields the better sense, because 
both before (ver. 7) and after (ver. g) Paul 
says that Tychicus will acquaint them 
with matters at Rome. He wishes to 
relieve the anxiety of the Colossians as to 
his welfare.—mapakxahéoy: see on ii. 2. 
This function is not ascribed to Onesi- 
mus, who was not a σύνδουλος. 

Ver. 9. ᾿Ονησίμφ. Philemon’s run- 
away slave, who was rescued by Paul 
and converted to Christianity. Paul sent 
him back to his master, with the exquisite 
Epistle to Philemon despatched at the 
same time as this letter. He speaks of 
him in the most affectionate terms, to 
secure a welcome for him at Colosse. 
He seems from this passage to have be- 
longed to Colosse, and we may infer 
that this was the home of Philemon. If 
the author of Colossians learnt his name 
from the Epistle to Philemon, it is strange 
that he should have contented himself 
with this bald reference, and made no 
allusion to his desertion, conversion and 
return tohis master. Such omission here 
is characteristic of Paul’s delicacy.—ra 
ὧδε is wider than τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ (ver. 7). It 
means all thatis happening to the Church 
in Rome. 

Ver. το. ᾿Αρίσταρχος: a native of 
Thessalonica, mentioned in Acts xix. 29, 
XX. 4, xxvii. 2, Philm. 24. In Philm. 
Epaphras is mentioned as Paul’s fellow- 
prisoner. Fritzsche suggested that his 
friends took turns in voluntarily sharing 
his captivity, and explained the difference 
between the two Epistles in this way. 
The divergence between the two Epistles 
testifies to authenticity, for an imitator 
would not have created a difficulty of 


35 


" 


546 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙ͂Σ 


IV. 


πρὸς ὑμᾶς δέξασθε αὐτόν,) 11. καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος ᾿Ιοῦστος, of 
ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 


οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν μοι ‘ παρηγορία. 


12. ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Επαφρᾶς 


ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν 
g Only here ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, ἵνα σταθήτε] τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν 


and Rev. a“ - 
xvi. 10,11, παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


xxi. 4 in 
Ν.Τ. 


;πόνον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν Ἱεραπόλει. 


13. μαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ὅτι ἔχει πολὺν 


14. 


1 So T., Tr., W.H., Ws. with ΔΝ Β 23,71. στητε: Ln., Κ.Υ, with NcACDGKLP, 


this kind. Μᾶρκος (so accented by Blass 
and Haupt, who refers to Dittenberger 
in confirmation), the cousin (ἀνεψιὸς) of 
Barnabas, who may by this time have 
been dead. He is no doubt the John 
Mark of the Acts and the evangelist.— 
ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς. We do not know what 
these commands were. ἐλάβ. cannot be 
an epistolary aorist (2nd person), there- 
fore the or hare -- been sent 

reviously. ἐὰν κ.τ.λ. may express 
the substance of μα... Paul 
may have feared that Mark's defection 
from him, which led to the sharp quarrel 
between him and Barnabas, might pre- 
judice the Colossians against him. The 
mention of his relationship to Barna- 
bas was probably intended as a recom- 
mendation to their kindness. He 
seems to have been unknown to the 
Colossians. 

Ver. 11. ᾿Ιησοῦς : otherwise unknown 
tous. Zahn has well pointed out that 
the mention of this name, in addition to 
those mentioned in Philemon, creates 
difficulties for the impugners of the 
authenticity. If Philemon was authentic 
why should an imitator venture to add 
an unknown person, and especially to 
give him the name Jesus, that so soon 
became sacred among Christians? If 
not authentic, why should he not have 
copied himself ?—ol ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς: 
to be taken with the following words, in 
spite of the awkwardness of the construc- 
tion. What is meant is that these are 
the only ones of the circumcision who 
have been a help to him. If a stop is 
placed at περ., we get the sense that these 
who have just been mentioned are his 
only fellow-workers, which is not true. 
Aristarchus is probably not included, for 
he went as one of the deputation sent by 
the Gentile Christians with the collection 
for the Church at Jerusalem.—otrot μόνοι: 
for the attitude of Jewish Christians in 
Rome towards Paul cf. Phil. i. 15-17, ii. 
ig-24. This is more natural in a letter 


from Rome than from Ca#sarea.—Bact- 
λείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The phrase is inten- 
tionally chosen; the Jews were devoted 
to the kingdom; Paul should have found 
in the Jewish Christians his best helpers. 
---ἐγενήθησαν: the aorist seems to point 
to some special incident, 

Ver. 12. ᾿Επαφρᾶς: see oni.7. He 
was either a native of Colosse or had 
settled there.—800A05 Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
Paul uses this term often of himself, but 
of no one else except here and Phil, i. 1, 
where he calls himself and Timothy 
δοῦλοι X. "I. Meyer and Alford connect 
with ὁ ἐξ ὑμ., but it is better to place a 
comma after ὑμῶν.---πεπληροφορημένοι: 
see on ii, 2. Usuaily it is translated here 
“fully assured", Haupt thinks that after 
τέλειοι this is unsuitable. But if we 
translate “‘complete"’ or “ filled,” this 
is tautological, and it is not clear that 
τέλ. covers full assurance.—4dv παντὶ θελή- 
ματι Θεοῦ: “in everything that God 
wills". Meyer and Alford connect with 
σταθῆτε (or as they read στῆτε), but it is 
better to connect with the two participles, 

Ver. 13. The anxiety of Epaphras for 
these Churches was probably due to his 
connexion with them, either as founder 
or teacher. pre 

Ver. 14. Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς : 
“Luke the physician, the beloved.” no 
doubt to be identified with the evangelist 
Luke. His writings have been shown to 
exhibit a considerable use of medical 
terms. The name was originally Luca- 
nus. He was clearly not one ‘of the 
circumcision” (ver. 11), and this, as 
often pointed out, seems to exclude the 
possibility that he wrote the Epistle to 
the Hebrews.—Anpas: mentioned last 
and without commendation. This iscom- 
monly explained as due to a foreboding 
of Paul that he would turn out badly, 
suggested by the reference to him in 2 
Tim. iv. το as having left him. But in 
Philm. 24 he is placed before Luke and 
numbered among Paul’s fellow-workers. 





11—18, 


ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς 6 ἀγαπητὸς, καὶ Δημᾶς. 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 


547 


15. ἀσπά- 


σασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἀδελφοὺς καὶ Νύμφαν καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον 


αὐτῆς 1 ἐκκλησίαν. 


16, καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή, 


ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ, καὶ τὴν ἐκ 


΄ 9 ‘ ς a > lal 
Λαοδικίας ἵνα καὶ ὕμεις αναγνῶτε. 


Ν ” 3 , 
17. καὶ εἴπατε ᾿Αρχίππῳ, 


Βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς. 


τὃ. ἢ Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου. 


ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 


δεσμῶν. 


> ~ h2 Thess 
μνημονεύετέ μου TOV iii. 17; 1 
Cor. xvi 

21. 


1 50 Ln., Tr. mg., W.H., R.V. mg., Ws. with B67”. αὐτου: DEFGKL; αὐτῶν: 


T., Tr., Lft., R.V. with ΝΑΟΡ 17, 47. 


Possibly he wrote the Epistle, and is 
thus mentioned last and without praise. 

Ver. 15. Νυμφαν may be masculine 
(Νυμφᾶν) or feminine (Νύμφαν). The 
Doric form, Νύμφαν, is improbable; on the 
other hand the contracted form, Νυμφᾶν, 
is rare. If αὐτῶν is read, either is pos- 
sible. Otherwise the decision is made 
by the choice between αὐτοῦ and αὐτῆς. 
It seems probable that αὐτῶν was due to 
change by a scribe who included ἀδελφ. 
in the reference. Anda scribe might alter 
the feminine, assuming that a woman 
could not have been mentioned in this 
way. ‘The attestation of αὐτῆς is very 
strong, though numerically slight. The 
Church in her house was a Laodicean 
Church, distinct apparently from the 
chief Church of the town. 

Ver. 16. τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας : clearly a 
letter sent by Paul to Laodicea, which 
the Colossians are instructed to procure 
and read. It may be a lost letter, or it 
may be our so-called Epistle to the 
Ephesians, to which Marcion refers as 
the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and which 
was probably a circular letter. Weiss 
argues that it cannot be the Epistle to 
the Ephesians, for that was sent at the 


ABERDEEN 


same time as this, and therefore Paul 
could not have sent salutations to Lao- 
dicea in this letter. But this is really 
natural, if Ephesians was a circular letter 
(and the absence of salutations is difficult 
to explain otherwise), and if this letter 
was to be passed on to Laodicea. 

Ver. 17. Archippus may have been at 
Laodicea, but more probably not, for we 
should have expected the reference to 
him in ver. 15. The Church is entrusted 
with the duty of exhorting one of its 
ministers. There is no need to infer any 
slackness on his part.—év Κυρίῳ is added 
to emphasise its importance, and the need 
that it should be zealously fulfilled. 

Ver. 18. τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ : the rest of the 
letter would be written by an amanuensis. 
As he writes, his chain, fastened on his 
left hand, would impress itself on his 
notice. Hence the touching request 
“ Remember my bonds,” which may bear 
the special sense ‘‘remember in your 
prayers”’.— χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν: so with- 
out any defining addition in Eph. and 
1 and 2 Tim. It is not so in the earlier 
letters, but neither is it so in Phil. (or 
Titus). 


UNIVERSITY PRESS 





εἴ 
ἵ 
ῃ 


νὴ 


3 


αν. 
arity ν
Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The expositor's Greek Testament;"

See other formats
