Missing 2:1-10. This exhibition of God’ s power has not stopped there He has made us partakers of Christ’ s resurrection and exaltation, having given us life when we were dead through our sins. Not for any merit of our own, but of His own free grace, for it was when we were dead in our sins that He thus loved us. But though our salvation was not on account of any works of ours, it was God’ s purpose in His new creation of us that we should walk in the path of holiness which He designed 1. καὶὑμᾶς from its position means “ and you, too.” Resumed in ver.5, where first the verb συνεζωοποίησε is expressed. Some commentators, indeed, have closely connected this with the preceding verse, so as to make ὑμᾶς depend on πληρουμένου . But the relation between νεκρούς and συνεζ . is decisive against this. Lachmann, while taking ὑμᾶς to be dependent on συνεζ ., puts only a comma after 1:23, so as to co-ordinate καὶ (συνεζ .) ὑμᾶς with αὐτὸνἔδωκε . But in this case we should certainly expect ἡμᾶς here, since the apostle would be passing from what God has done with respect to Christ, to what He has done to Christians; cf. 1:19, εἰςἡμᾶςτοὺςπιστ . Moreover,1:23 has the character of a solemn close, not of a parenthetical insertion; while the exposition which begins in 2:1 is too important to be regarded as a mere appendage to the foregoing. Hence, also, it is not a mere exemplification of the general act of grace referred to in 1:23. Rather are we to understand that the apostle, having spoken of the exceeding power of God towards those that believe, which might be recognised by reflection on what He had done in raising and exalting Christ, now, applying this to his readers, reminds them that in them also God had shown that exceeding power (Meyer). The grammatical structure is interrupted before the subject or the verb is expressed. It is taken up again with δέ in ver. 4, where the subject is expressed, and in ver. 5 the object is repeated, which, however, is now changed to the first person in consequence of the καὶἡμεῖς introduced in ver. 3. ὄνταςνεκροὺςτοῖςπαραπτώμασινκαὶταῖςἁμαρτίαιςὑμῶν . ὑμῶν is added with א B D G, Syr. (both) Vulg., Theodoret, etc. It is omitted by K L, most cursives, Chrys., Oec. A has ἑαυτῶνὄνταςν ., “ dead as ye were through your trespasses and sins.” Many attempts have been made to distinguish between ἁμαρτίαι and παραπτώματα . Tittmann, following Augustine’ s distinction (ad Lev. qu. 20), supposes the former to be deliberate sins, the latter sins of thoughtlessness. Augustine himself in the same place suggests a different view, viz. that π . meant “ desertio boni,” and ἁμ . “ perpetratio mali.” He seems then to have been guessing. Certainly these distinctions are both untenable. Jerome takes παρ . to refer to the beginnings of sin in thought, ἁμ . to the actual deeds, which is not admissible. Many understand ἁμ ., which is the more general term, as meant to include the sinful disposition, παρ . being only concrete acts. However reasonable this may be with the singular ἁμαρτία , it can hardly be maintained of the plural. Etymology gives no help, for παραπίπτω means to fall or go aside from, to miss, e.g. τῆςὁδοῦ , Polyb. iii. 54. 5; τῆςἀληθείας , ib. xii. 7. 2, also without a genitive, to err. So that etymologically παρ . is the same as ἁμαρτία . St. Paul appears to use the words as synonymous, see Romans 5:20, ἵναπλεονάσῃτὸπαράπτωμα ; οὗδὲἐπλεόνασενἡἁμαρτία , κ .τ .λ . Comp. also Romans 4:25 with 1 Corinthians 15:3. Νεκρούς is here taken by Meyer to mean liable to eternal death. That νεκροί may be used proleptically appears from Romans 8:10. In that case the dative is instrumental. But this is hard to reconcile with the tense of συνεζωοποίησε . And surely it is very improbable that the apostle in speaking of the working of God’ s power towards them, would mention only their future deliverance from death, and not their actual deliverance from spiritual death. Nor could the readers fail to think of spiritual death. This sense is sufficiently indicated by τοῖςπαρ . κ .τ .λ ., as well as by the following verse. So Chrysostom, εἰςἕςχατονκακίαςἠλάσατε . This figure of spiritual (or moral) death is frequent amongst the ancients. Clement of Alexandria says that ἐντῇβαρβάρουφιλοσοφίᾳνεκροὺςκαλοῦσιτοὺςἐκπεσόνταςτῶνδογμάτωνκαὶκαθυποτάξανταςτὸννοῦντοῖςπάθεσιτοῖςψυχικοῖς . The Jewish Rabbis have similar expressions. But Christianity has given a much deeper meaning to “ death” in this connexion. We have the same phrase in Colossians 2:13, where ἐν is not part of the genuine text, and τῇἀκροβυστίᾳτῆςσαρκὸςὑμῶν is against the mere instrumental sense of the dative. It expresses that in which the death consisted. 2. ἐναἷς refers to both substantives, though agreeing in gender with the nearer. περιπατεῖν in this sense is a Hebraism. The figure has disappeared, so that we are not to press the preposition as if marking “ the walk which they trod” ; see Romans 13:13, περιπατήσωμεν , μὴκώμοιςκαὶμέθαις , κ .τ .λ ., and the parallel use of πορεύεσθαι , Acts 9:31, π . τῷφόβῳτοῦκυρίου . It is of frequent occurrence in St. Paul and St. John, but is not found in St. James or St. Peter, who use ἀναστρέφεσθαι (a classical word, though not before Polybius); cf. 1 Peter 1:17. κατὰτὸναἰῶνατοῦκόσμουτούτου . “ In accordance with the course of this world.” This combination of αἰών and κόσμος creates some difficulty. Elsewhere we have ὁαἰὼνοὗτος (1 Corinthians 1:20, 1 Corinthians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 3:18, etc.), or ὁκόσμοςοὗτος , 1 Corinthians 3:19. ἡσοφίατοῦκ . τούτου in the latter passage being synonymous with ἡσοφίατοῦαἰ . τούτου in 1 Corinthians 2:6. But the two substantives are not synonymous; αἰών means a period of time; κόσμος , the world existing in that period. Thus Antoninus (2:12) says that all things quickly vanish, τῷμὲνκόσμῳαὐτὰτὰσώματα , τῷδὲαἰῶνιαἱμνῆμαιαὐτῶν . The signification “ life,” frequent in classical Greek, especially in the tragic poets, is never found in the N.T. As a paraphrase, however, “ spirit of the age” fairly represents the sense, except that “ age” refers to the whole period of this κόσμος . Comp. Tacitus, “ corrumpere et corrumpi saeculum vocatur” (Germ. i. 9). αἰών being a technical word with the Gnostics, it was to be expected that some expositors would adopt a similar meaning here. Accordingly, this has been done by Michaelis, who supposes the words αἰὼντοῦκ . τ . to mean “ the devil,” with a polemic reference to the Gnostic aeons; and by Baur, who regards the expression itself as Gnostic, and equivalent to κοσμοκράτωρ , 6:12, meaning “ the devil.” Holtzmann regards it as representing a transition stage between Paulinism and Gnosticism. As the ordinary signification of αἰών yields a perfectly good and Pauline sense, there is no ground for such hypotheses. If the devil were intended to be designated here as ruler of this world, we might expect some such expression as ὁθεὸςτοῦαἰῶνοςτοῦτου , as in 2 Corinthians 4:4. κατὰτὸνἄρχοντατῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦἀέρος . Most expositors take ἐξ . here collectively = αἱἐξουσίαι , understanding τοῦἀέρος as expressing the sphere of their existence. Such words as συμμαχία for σύμμαχοι , δουλεία for δοῦλοι , πρεσβεία for πρέσβεις etc., exemplify this collective use of abstract for concrete terms. So occasionally in English, as “ embassy,” “ flight” (of arrows). The present case, however, is not quite parallel, since the distribution for which ἐξ . is supposed to stand is the plural of this word itself, viz. αἱἐξουσίαι . This implies that the singular might be used of one of the ἐξουσίαι ; cf. Romans 13:2, Romans 13:3, where, however, ἡἐξ . does not mean a ruling person. To use it collectively for αἱἐξ . is, therefore, very different from using ἡσυμμαχία for οἱσύμμαχοι . Besides, we must not assume that the word can be treated apart from the following genitive. ὁἄρχων is defined, not by τῆςἐξ ., but by τῆςἐξ . τοῦἀέρος . For this reason, too, we cannot take τ . ἐ . as a genitive of apposition = “ princeps potentissimus.” Now, the genitive following ἐξουσία is elsewhere either subjective, as ἡἐξ . τοῦσατανᾶ , Acts 26:18; τοῦἡγεμόνος , Luke 20:20; ὑμῶν , 1 Corinthians 8:9; or objective, πάσηςσαρκός , John 17:2; πνευμάτων , Matthew 10:1; ὑμῶν , 1 Corinthians 9:12. It is possible, therefore, to understand the words as meaning “ the ruler to whom belongs the power over the region of the air” ; but this would create a difficulty in connexion with πνεύματος . It is therefore perhaps best to take ἡἐξ . τοῦἀ . as the power whose seat is in the air. Some commentators take ἀήρ here as = σκότος ; and if this were possible we should have obvious parallels in 6:12, κοσμοκράτοραςτοῦσκότουςτοῦτου , and Colossians 1:13, τῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦσκότους . But although ἀήρ , is used in Homer and elsewhere of “ thick air” in contrast to αἰθήρ , as in Plutarch (of the first creation), ἔτιμὲνοὐρανὸνἔκρυπτενἀήρ (De esu carn. Or. I. § 2), it does not appear that it can be used simply for σκότος , nor again that if so used figuratively, it could by another figure be used of spiritual darkness. What, then, does the expression mean? Oecumenius’ view is that as the rule of Satan is under heaven, not above, it must be either in the earth or the air; but, being a spirit, it must be in the air, φύσιςγὰρτοῖςπνεύμασινἡἐναέριοςδιατριβή ; and this is adopted by Harless and others. The air being understood to mean, not merely the region of the atmosphere, but “ all that supra-terrestrial, but sub-celestial, region, which seems to be, if not the abode, yet the haunt of evil spirits,” Ellicott, who compares Job 1:7 LXX, ἐμπεριπάτησαντὴνὑπ ʼ οὐρανόν , which surely is not to be appealed to as giving any light. Eadie ingeniously suggests that “ the ἀήρ and κόσμος must correspond in relation. As there is an atmosphere round the physical globe, so air, ἀήρ , envelops this spiritual κόσμος , ” — an atmosphere “ in which it breathes and moves.” Compare our own phrases in which “ atmosphere” is used figuratively, “ an atmosphere of flattery,” etc. But if such a figure were intended, some word must be added which would indicate the figure, such as the words “ breathes and moves” in Eadie’ s explanation. Indeed, he admits that it is perhaps too ingenious to be true, and falls back on the alternative that either the apostle used current language, which did not convey error, as Satan is called Beelzebub, without reference to the meaning of the term “ Lord of flies,” or that he means to convey the idea of “ near propinquity,” or alludes to what he had more fully explained during his residence at Ephesus. That the notion of the air being the dwelling-place of spirits, and specially of evil spirits, was current, appears to be beyond doubt. Thus Pythagoras held εἶναιπάντατὸνἀέραψυχῶνἔμπλεων (Diog. L. viii. 32). Philo says, οὓςἄλλοιφιλόσοφοιδαίμονας , ἀγγέλουςΜωσῆςεἴωθενὀνομάζειν · ψυχαὶδ ʼ εἰσὶκατὰτὸνἀέραπετόμεναι . In the Test. XII. Patr. it is of ὁδεύτεροςοὐρανός that it has fire, snow, ice ready for the day of the Lord’ s command, ἐναὐτῷεἰσὶπάντατὰπνεύματατῶνἐπαγωγῶνεἰςἐκδίκησιντῶνἀνόμων (Levi, ap. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. V.T. p. 547), and in Test. Benj. p. 729, Βελιάρ is called τὸἀέριονπνεῦμα . Drusius cites from the commentary on Aboth, “ sciendum, a terra usque ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et praefectis et infra plurimas esse creaturas credentes et accusantes, omnesque stare ac volitare in aere … quorum alii ad bonum, alii ad malum incitant.” There is no difficulty in supposing that St. Paul is here alluding to such current notions. Nor are we to suppose that he is conveying any special revelation about the matter. Harless’ objection, that according to the views referred to, the air was inhabited by good spirits as well as bad, is by no means fatal, since it is on the bad spirits that men’ s thoughts would chiefly dwell, and to them would be referred evil suggestions and desires. τοῦπνεύματος is understood by some (including Rü ckert and De Wette) as in apposition with τὸνἄρχοντα . Winer, while rejecting this view, admits that in this case the apostle might most easily have wandered from the right construction, namely, on account of the preceding genitives. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose this, although it must be conceded that the only admissible alternative, viz. that πν . depends on ἄρχοντα , is more harsh as to sense, although the harshness is lessened by the distance from ἄρχοντα . Adopting this, the sense is, “ the ruler of the spirit,” etc. Here πνεῦμα is not to be understood collectively, which it cannot be; it is what in 1 Corinthians 2:12 is called τὸπνεῦματοῦκόσμου , the spiritual influence which works in the disobedient. It seems to be a sort of explanation of the preceding ἐξουσία . νῦν . Not “ even now,” which would require καὶνῦν , but in contrast to ποτέ , when this spirit operated in the readers also. ἐντοῖςυἱοῖςτῆςἀπειθείας . A Hebrew form of expression. We have “ son of misery,” Proverbs 31:5; “ sons of iniquity,” 2 Samuel 7:10; “ sons of Belial (= worthlessness).” Compare ch. 5:6; Colossians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:5 ; 2 Thessalonians 2:3 . Greek authors used the expression παῖδεςζωγράφων and the like, but not with abstracts. The opposite to υἱοῖἀπ . is τέκναὑπακοῆς , 1 Peter 1:14. ἀπείθεια is not unbelief, but disobedience; compare Romans 11:30, καὶὑμεῖςποτὲἠπειθήσατετῷΘεῷ . Chrysostom very curiously says, ὁρᾶςὅτιοὐβίᾳοὐδὲτυραννίδιἀλλὰπειθοῖπροσάγεται ; ἀπείθειανγὰρεἶπεν , ὡςἄντιςεἴποι , ἀπάτῃκαὶπειθοῖτοὺςπάνταςἐφέλκεται . But on Colossians 3:6 he says, δεικνὺςὅτιπαρὰτὸμὴπεισθῆναιἐντούτοιςεἰσιν . The former remark looks more like a rhetorical play on words than a serious comment. 3. ἐνοἷςκαὶἡμεῖς . καὶἡμεῖς , “ we also, we too.” Having spoken specially of the Gentiles in the preceding verses, the apostle now passes to the Jews. The πάντες is certainly no objection to this. “ Even amongst us (the chosen people) there was no exception.” What more natural than to say “ all of us also.” If πάντες included both Jews and Gentiles, ἡμεῖς would be quite superfluous; and the emphatic καὶἡμεῖς would be unintelligible if it included ὑμεῖς of vv. 1 and 2. ἐνοἷς is connected by Stier with παραπτώμασιν (which he thinks appropriate to Jews, as ἁμαρτίαις to Gentiles). His reasons are, first, that as υἱοὶτῆςἀπ . are the heathen, not all the unbelieving, it would not be suitable to reckon the Jews amongst them; secondly, that the harshness of supposing that ἐν just now used with ἐνεργοῦντος is immediately used with the same object in a different signification; and thirdly, that the parallelism of 2 and 3 compels us to take ἐναἷς and ἐνοἷς as parallel. With the reading ὑμῶν adopted above in ver. 1 it is impossible thus to separate παρ . from ἁμ . It might more plausibly be maintained that οἷς refers to both substantives, the feminine having been adopted only because ἁμ . was the nearest substantive, and the neuter being used where that reason does not exist. But we cannot well avoid referring the relative to the nearest antecedent when that gives a suitable sense, and the change of verb from περιπατεῖν to ἀναστρέφεσθαι , which is more suitable if οἷς be persons, is in favour of this; “ amongst whom we also,” belonging to the same class of the disobedient. ἀνεστράφημεν . “ Versabamur,” “ lived our life” ; “ speciosius quam ambulare,” Bengel, but rather perhaps adopted because περιπατεῖνἐντοῖςυἱοῖς could not be said. ἐνταῖςἐπιθυμίαιςτῆςσαρκός . σάρξ , though primarily signifying the matter of the body, and hence the appetites arising from the body, is not to be limited to these, but includes the whole of the lower or psychical nature. In Rom_7. it appears in the natural man as opposed to νοῦς or ἐγώ in the higher sense; in Rom_8. in the regenerate it is opposed to πνεῦμα . Amongst the works of σάρξ are “ strifes,” etc., Galatians 5:19, Galatians 5:22. Compare Colossians 2:18, puffed up by the νοῦς of his σάρξ .” The ἐπιθυμίαι of the flesh are therefore not merely the bodily appetites, but in general what Butler calls “ particular propensions.” So here it includes σάρξ proper and διάνοιαι . ποιοῦντεςτὰθελήματα , κ .τ .λ ., expresses the result in act of the ἐπιθυμίαι ; there is no tautology. Διάνοιαι is not found elsewhere with a bad signification. In classical authors διάνοια means the understanding, or a thought or purpose. In Aristotle virtue is προαίρεσιςμετὰλόγουκαὶδίανοιας . The plural also is used by Plutarch in a good sense. In the N.T. it occurs frequently in a good sense, 1 Peter 1:13, “ girding up the loins of your δ .” ; 2 Peter 3:1“ I stir up your pure δ .” ; 1 John 5:20, “ hath given us a δ .” ; cf. also ch. 1:18. Harless conjectures that the plural here is used in the sense common in Greek writers, viz. purpose, the plural suggesting vacillation; and he compares the use of σοφίαι in Aristoph. Ran., and “ sapientiae” in Cic. Tusc. iii. 18. But this is too refined. It deserves notice that in ch. 4:18 and Colossians 1:20, St. Paul speaks of his readers having been “ darkened in their δίανοια ” and “ enemies in their δ .” Here, while by no means admitting a hendiadys, “ cogitationes carnales,” we must at least allow that διανοιῶν acquires its bad significance from the preceding σαρκός so that it nearly = “ the σάρξ and its δίανοιαι .” καὶἤμεθατέκναφύσειὀργῆς . This order, which is that of the Text. Rec., is established by א B K etc., Chrys., Lachmann adopted φύσειτέκνα , with A D G L P, Vulg., Syr-Harcl. The change from the participle to the finite verb need occasion no difficulty; it is, in fact, required by the sense. Had ὄντες been written it would be co-ordinate with ποιοῦντες and subordinate to ἀνεστράφημεν , and explanatory of it, “ doing the desires … and being the children … ” Whatever view is taken of the latter clause, these two are not co-ordinate. Not merely, therefore, for emphasis, but because the latter is a distinct predication, co-ordinate with ἐνοἷςἀνεστρ ., or, more exactly, expressing a consequence of that, the verb is in the indicative,— “ and so we were.” τέκναὀργῆς is understood by many as = actual objects of God’ s wrath, τέκνα being used as suitable to Israel, and then by a sort of irony is added, not “ of Abraham” or “ of God,” but “ by nature of wrath.” There could be no objection to such an interpretation if it corresponded with the context; but here, if the actual wrath of God were intended, we should expect it to be defined by Θεοῦ or the article, or otherwise. But how strange, if not impossible, would be the expression “ children of God’ s wrath” ; and especially so here, where in the same breath they are described as at the same time objects of God’ s love, without anything to soften the apparent opposition ! Nor can it be said that this is at all implied in the word τέκνα . On the contrary, we have several instances in the Old Testament in which “ son of” followed by a word denoting punishment cannot reasonably be given any other meaning than either “ worthy of,” or “ in danger of.” Thus Deuteronomy 25:2, “ If the wicked man be a son of stripes, the judge shall … cause him to be beaten before his face,” etc.; rightly rendered in the Sept. ἐὰνἄξιοςᾖπληγῶν . 1 Samuel 26:16 (David to Abner), “ Ye are sons of death, because ye have not kept watch over your lord.” 2 Samuel 12:5 (David to Nathan), “ The man that hath done this is a son of death.” In these two passages the RV. has correctly “ worthy to die,” and in the former no other interpretation is possible. In 1 Samuel 20:31, RV. has in the text (with AV.) “ shall surely die,” but in the margin “ is worthy to die.” In Psalms 79:11 and 102:20, “ sons of death” are “ those who are in danger of death.” These instances, together with the indefiniteness of ὀργῆς , justify us in understanding the words to mean “ objects, i.e. fit objects of wrath,” “ deserving of wrath.” And so they are interpreted by Chrysostom, “ We have provoked God to wrath, τουτέστινὀργὴἦμενκαὶοὐδὲνἕτερον ” . “ πάντεςἐπράττομενἄξιαὀργῆς .” Similarly Oecumenius, “ As those who do things worthy of perdition or of hell are called τέκναἀπωλείαςκαὶγεέννης [e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Matthew 23:15] οὕτωκαὶτέκναὀργῆςοἱἄξιαὀργῆς . Why is φύσει inserted? This question does not seem hard to answer. It must first be remarked that φύσις is opposed sometimes to νόμος , sometimes to θέσις , ἀνάγκη , etc., but does not necessarily mean “ by birth.” Romans 2:14, the Gentiles do φύσειτὰτοῦνόμου ; 1 Corinthians 11:14, ἡφύσις teaches that if a man have long hair it is a shame. Josephus says of David that he was φύσειδίκαιοςκαὶθεοσεβής (Ant. vii. 7, 1), and of the Pharisees φύσειἐπιεικῶςἔχουσιν (xiii. 10, 6). We have φύσειφιλογεωργότατος in Xen. Oec. xx. 25. Compare also Philo, De Conf. Ling. p. 327 E, ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἀντιλογικοὶγεγόνασινὅσοιτῆςἐπιστήμηςκαὶἀρετῆςζῆλονἔσχον . It is, in fact, used like our word “ naturally.” Here the opposition suggested might be to χάριτι ; but as the Jews are in question, it is more probably to θέσει , their covenant position as the people of God, by which they were holy branches of a holy root, to whom belonged the υἱοθεσία (Romans 11:16, Romans 11:21). “ We Jews, too, just as the heathen, were, apart from the covenant, τέκναὀργῆς .” From the time of Augustine these words have been supposed by many to contain a direct assertion of original sin. Thus Calvin, “ Paulus nos cum peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum venenum ex utero afferunt.” But, first, this gives a very great emphasis to φύσει , which its position forbids. Secondly, it supposes καὶἤμεθα to refer to, or at least include, a time prior to ἐνοἶςἀν ., which seems not possible. Thirdly, it does not harmonise with the context. That treats of actual sin (including, of course, character), and the immediate context of the Jews only. It would be natural and intelligible that this description should be followed by mention of the wrath thereby incurred; it would also be intelligible, though less natural, that it should be followed by a statement that in addition to this we inherited a sinful and guilty nature. The interpretation in question supposes that neither of these is mentioned; the wrath incurred by actual sin is omitted, while that incurred by birth sin is mentioned without mention of its cause, which is left to be inferred. And fourthly, even this is stated expressly only of the Jews; it is assumed as self-evident of the Gentiles, οἱλοιποί . The reader has to fill up the sentence somewhat in this way, “ We fulfilled the desires of the flesh [and thus became objects of God’ s wrath; and, in addition to this, we were even before committing any actual sin inheritors of a sinful nature, and so] already by nature objects of His wrath.” It is true, indeed, that men are born with a sinful and corrupt nature; but to say this is not to say that the infant who has committed no actual sin is an actual object of God’ s wrath; still less does it prove that the apostle’ s words here imply it. Chrysostom has no trace of such an interpretation; in fact he seems even to regard these words as guarding against a similar interpretation of θελήματασαρκός . “ That is [he says], οὐδὲνπνευματικὸνφρονοῦντες . But that he may not be suspected of saying this in disparagement of the flesh, and lest one should think the offence not great, see how he guards himself. Fulfilling the desires, etc.; he (the apostle) says, we provoked God” ; adding what has been quoted above. Jerome gives as alternatives, “ Vel propter corpus humilitatis corpusque mortis et quod ab adolescentia mens hominum apposita sit ad malum.” “ Vel quod ex eo tempore quo possumus habere notitiam Dei, et ad pubertatem venimus, omnes aut opere aut lingua aut cogitatione peccemus.” He mentions some who took φύσει here to mean “ prorsus” ; cf. ἀληθῶς or ἀληθῶς or γνησίως , Oecum.; but the word never has this meaning. οἱλοιποί , the heathen, cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13. 4. ὁδὲΘεός resumes from ver. 1 after the interruption, and now with the subject; οὖν is more usual in such a resumption; but δέ is more suitable here, on account of the contrast of what is now to be said with what precedes. Jerome’ s comment is characteristic, “ Conjunctionem causalem in eo loco in quo ait: Deus autem etc. arbitramur aut ab indoctis scriptoribus additum et vitium inolevisse paulatim, aut ab ipso Paulo, qui erat imperitus sermone et non scientia, superflue usurpatum.” Erasmus’ remark is more correct, “ Hyperbati longioris ambitum ipse correxit Apostolus.” πλούσιοςὢνἐνἐλέει , “ being as He is” (the participle assigning the reason), not simply ἐλεήμων , but “ rich in mercy” (Chrys.). Compare Romans 9:23, “ make known the riches of His glory on σκεύηἐλέους .” In classical writers πλούσιος is construed with a genitive of the thing, but in the N.T. with ἐν , see James 2:5, ἐνπίστει ; and similarly the verbs πλουτεῖν , πλουτίζεσθαι (1 Corinthians 1:5). Compare the correspondence of ἔλεος and ἀπειθεία in Romans 11:31. ἀγάπη is not a particular form of ἔλεος , but is the cause from which, or by reason of which, ἔλεος was exercised. διὰτὴνπολλὴνἀγάπην , “ propter,” Vulg. “ for His great love” ; cf. Philemon 1:8, “ for love’ s sake.” ἥν , cognate accusative, a very common usage, both in classical and N.T. Greek. Here the addition ἣνἠγ . ἡμᾶς , being not necessary to the sense, gives great emphasis to the expression of the Divine love. Nor is αὐτοῦ to be neglected, “ His love” marking more distinctly that it is from Him alone and His attitude of love that this mercy proceeds. ἡμᾶς now includes both the ὑμεῖς of ver. 1 and the ἡμᾶς ver. 3. and includes therefore both Jews and Gentiles. 5. καὶὄνταςἡμᾶςνεκρούς . The καί does not signify “ us also altogether,” which is forbidden by the position of ἡμᾶς , and for the same reason it does not resume the καί of ver. 1. It is best taken as “ Even,” “ Even when we were dead,” etc. It is objected, indeed, that it is only the dead who can be “ brought to life,” and for this reason Meyer takes καί as the copula, “ on account of His great love, and when we were dead” ; but these two ideas are not co-ordinate. Soden, for the same reason, joins the words with the preceding, “ loved us even when,” etc. This, no doubt, gives a good sense, although the antithesis between “ loved” and “ when dead” is not very natural, whereas that between νεκρούς and ἐξωοποίησε is striking. Besides, the proposed construction would require ἡμᾶς to be expressed with συνεζ . not with ὄντας , since ἠγάπησεν already has its object expressed. But the objection is hypercritical. The answer to it is, not that νεκ . is qualified by τοῖπαραπτ . which has no emphasis, nor that συνεζ . is defined by ἐνΧριστῷ . The true answer is found in the position of the verb. “ Gave life even to the dead” would not be a natural mode of expression, but “ Even the dead He restored to life” is perfectly natural. The καὶὄντας , κ .τ .λ ., attracts the reader’ s attention to some striking instance of God’ s love about to be mentioned. Comp. Colossians 2:13, where the connexion is unambiguous. Indeed, it is not quite true that ζωοποιεῖν can be only of the dead. See John 6:63 compared with ver. 54; also 1 Corinthians 15:36; 2 Corinthians 3:6. τοῖςπαραπτώμασιν = our trespasses, the trespasses already mentioned in ver. 1. συνεζωοποίησετῷΧριστῷ . B adds ἐν after the verb with 17 Arm. and some other authorities, — a reading admitted to the margin by Westcott and Hort, and in brackets by Lachmann. It might, with equal ease, be omitted or inserted accidentally. There could be no reason for intentional omission, but it might be added intentionally from the construction being mistaken. It is observable that B, Arm. also insert ἐν after νεκροῖς , if, indeed, a version can be safely cited in such a case. Internal evidence is against ἐν , as we get a better sense by taking χριστῷ as dependent on συν . Meyer, having understood νεκρούς to refer to future eternal death, of course understands συνεζ . as referring to the eternal life which begins with the resurrection. This view he regards as alone consistent with the context in which the translation into heaven is expressed, and again in ver. 7 the times after the Parousia are referred to. His view then is, that God has made believers alive with Christ; that is, that by virtue of the dynamic connexion of Christ with His believers as the Head with its body, their revivification is objectively included in His; “ quum autem fides suscipitur ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini et ab homine rata habentur,” Bengel. The apostle therefore views this as having already taken place, although the subjective individual participation remains future, and he might have used the future as in 1 Corinthians 15:22. The peculiar use of the aorist here he refers to the principle thus stated by Fritzsche (on Romans 8:30, ii. p. 206), “ Ponitur Aoristus de re, quae, quamvis futura sit, tamen pro peractâ recte censeatur, quum vel aliâ re jam factâ contineatar, ut h. 1., vel a conditione suspensa cogitetur, quam jam obtinuisse finxeris, v. Hom. Il. iv. 161; John 15:6.” This usage was first explained by Hermann, “ De emend. ratione graecae gr.” pp. 190 ff., but, as stated by him, does not apply here. Of the two passages to which Fritzsche after Hermann refers, that from Homer is, says Hermann, the only instance known to me in which it may be reasonably questioned whether the aorist has not the signification of the future, viz. Hom. Il. iv. 160-162. It is as follows:— εἴπεργάρτεκαὶαὐτικ ʼ Ὀλύμπιοςοὐκἐτέλεσσεν , ἔκτεκαὶὀψὲτελεῖ , σύντεμεγάλῳἀπέτισαν , σὺνσφῇσινκεφαλῇσιγυναιξίτεκαὶτεκέεσσιν . Here the poet throws himself forward into the time of the verb τελεῖ and sees the instantaneous carrying out of this vindication of oaths; as if he said, “ And, lo! at once they have paid the penalty.” “ Rem futuram non ut futuram sed ut praeteritam narrat: nimirum post quam Troianos punierit Iuppiter turn illi poenas dederunt” (Hermann). The other example is from John 15:6, ἐὰνμήτιςμείνῃἐνἐμοί , ἐβλήθηἔξωὡςτὸκλῆμα , καὶἐξηράνθη . Here also a condition is expressed from which the consequence necessarily follows. Similarly Epictetus, cap. 59, ἂνὑπὲρδύναμινἀναλάβῃςτιπρόσωπον , καὶἐντούτῳἠσχημόνησας , καὶὃἠδύνασοἐκπληρῶσαι , παρέλιπες (see Jelf, § 403). In the present passage, if συνεζ . is referred to the future, there is no resemblance to these instances. We have already seen, however, that νεκρούς includes present spiritual death, and that indeed as its primary notion, although it cannot be limited to that, since the consequence, natural and eternal death, is necessarily suggested with it. Accordingly, the vivification, though primarily spiritual, includes in it our share in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. In 1:20, 21 the writer has pointed to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ as an exhibition of Divine power; here he declares that by virtue of our union with Him as of members with the head, we participate in the same. “ Quamvis salus nostra in spe sit adhuc abscondita quantum ad nos spectat: in Christo nihilominus beatam im-mortalitatem possidemus,” Calvin. Colossians 2:13 is closely parallel. The fact that baptism is there referred to as the means by which the individual entered subjectively into fellowship with Christ, and is not mentioned here, does not justify the adoption of a different meaning for συνεζ . here, such as that of Harless, whose view is that the risen life and glorification of Christ are here spoken of as ours, because they are the glory of “ our” Redeemer. Chrysostom’ s comment is: εἰἡἀπαρχὴζῇ , καὶἡμεῖς · ἐζωοποίησεκἀκεῖνονκαὶἡμᾶς , to which Theophylact adds: ἐκεῖνονἐνεργείᾳ , ἡμᾶςδυνάμεινῦν , μετ ʼ ὀλίγονδὲκαὶἐνεργείᾳ . συν - clearly “ with Christ,” Colossians 2:13. χάριτίἐστεσεσωσμένοι . “ It is by grace that ye have been saved,” — a lively parenthetical reminder suggested by the preceding words, and vindicating the expression “ vivified when dead.” Being dead, ye could do nothing of yourselves, so that it must needs be all by grace, i.e. simply by God’ s free gift. We are so accustomed to use “ grace” in a technical theological sense, that we are prone to think of that sense where it does not really come in. This technical sense of “ grace” as something conferred is not in question here, and any reference to the distinction between prevenient and co-operating grace, etc., is out of place. The word is used just as in royal letters the words “ by our special grace and mere motion.” D G, Vulg. al. prefix οὗ to χάριτι . The perfect ἐστεσεσωσμένοι here is in striking contrast with the aorist ἐσώθημεν in Romans 8:24, τῇγὰρἐλπίδιἐς . But the perfect is as suitable here as it would have been unsuitable there, where it would contradict ἐλπίδι . Then, what was to be said had reference to the definite moment of the readers’ introduction into the Christian Church, and the point was that the σωτηρία obtained at that definite moment was in part a matter of hope. Here it is not a past moment that is in question, as if χάρις was over and done with, but the readers’ present condition as the continuing result of their conversion. In one sense their σωτηρία was complete, viz. regarded with respect to that from which they were delivered; in another incomplete, viz. with respect to that which was reserved for them. So to persons rescued from a wreck, but not yet arrived in port, we might say either ἐσώθητε or σεσωσμένοιἐστε . 6. συνήγειρε is nearly synonymous with συνεζωοποίησε , but suggests more distinctly physical resurrection. In Colossians 3:1, as here, the ἐγερθῆναισὺνΧριστῷ is treated as past, and is made the motive for seeking those things which are above, “ … for ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” The present passage expresses this more vividly and strikingly, συνεκάθισενἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις . “ Non dicit in dextra; Christo sua manet excellentia,” Bengel (and so Estius less tersely). ἐντοῖςἐπ . denotes the true or ideal locality of the Church as the “ kingdom of heaven.” Comp. Hebrews 12:22, προσεληλύθατε … πόλειΘεοῦζῶντος , Ἱερουσαλὴμἐπουρανίῳ . ἐνΧριστῷ after συν - has caused some perplexity, and led some commentators to understand the συν - in ver. 6 (not in ver. 5) as joining ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς together. But it seems better to understand ἐνΧ . as completing and defining with more precision what was intended by σύν , for it is not simply together with Christ that this vivification and exaltation takes place, but also in Him, by virtue of union with Him as the Head. 7. ἵναἐνδείξηται . The middle does not mean “ for His own glory,” nor does the language of the verse suggest the idea of showing as a sample or specimen. The verb seldom occurs in the active voice except as a legal expression, never in N.T. The middle involves no more than is already contained in αὐτοῦ , as the instances show: Romans 2:15, “ show the work of the law written in their hearts” ; 2 Corinthians 8:24, “ showing the ἔνδειξις of your love and of our boasting” ; 2 Timothy 4:14, “ Alexander the coppersmith πολλάμοικακὰἐνεδείξατο .” See also Titus 2:10, Titus 2:3:2; Hebrews 6:10, Hebrews 6:11. These instances also show that the word means, not “ make known,” but “ exhibit in fact or act.” ἐντοῖςαἰῶσιτοῖςἐπερχομένοις . “ In the coming ages.” It seems more suitable to the context, as well as to the use of parallel expressions, to understand this of the future life, ὁαἰὼνὁμέλλων , in which the state described in the preceding words will be actually realised and made manifest. The present participle is not against this, for in Mark 10:30 we have ὁαἰὼνὁἐρχόμενος in this sense. The plural may at first sight seem against it, but is not really so; it only indicates that the apostle viewed the future age as involving stages of development in which the exceeding riches of God’ s grace will be more and more clearly manifested, and that becomes actual, the knowledge of which is mentioned as the object of desire in 1:18. Compare the frequent expression εἰςτοὺςαἰῶναςτῶναἰώνων , also Jude 1:25, εἰςπάνταςτοὺςαἰῶνας ; and the remarkable expression, 1 Timothy 1:17, τῷβασιλεῖτῶναἰώνων . These αἰῶνες may be regarded as constituting a whole in contrast to the present life, and so be named in the singular ὁαἰ . ὁμέλλων . τὸὑπερβάλλονπλοῦτοςτῆςχάριτοςαὐτοῦ . The neuter πλοῦτος is best supported here. In modern Greek the word is indifferently masculine or neuter. ἐνχρηστότητιἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶς . These words are to be so connected, not ὑπερβάλλονἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶς . To exhibit χάρις in χρηστότης would be tautological. Nor is the absence of the article any objection, for χρηστότης implies, not merely an inherent quality, but one which involves in its idea exercise towards another, so that it requires to be completely defined by the expression of this object. ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ . The ground of this kindness shown towards us is in Christ, not in us. As Calvin remarks, “ Notanda repetitio nominis Christi quia nihil gratiae neque amoris a Deo sperari vult, nisi ipso intercedente.” 8. τῇγὰρχάριτι , κ .τ .λ . How justly I say “ the exceeding riches of His grace,” for, etc. The apostle now speaks in more detail about the truth of which his mind was so full. χάριτι has the article, because it is the grace already mentioned. διὰπίστεως without the article, א A B D* G P 17, Chrys., Rec. has the article, with Dc K L and most cursives. This is the subjective condition, the “ causa apprehendens,” the necessary medium on the side of man, “ the living capacity for receiving the powers of the higher world,” Olshausen. The whole emphasis is on τῇχάριτι . The article before πίστεως would imply that its possession was presupposed: “ your faith.” καὶτοῦτο , “ and that” (for which καὶταῦτα is more frequent in classical writers), is referred by the Fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Jerome, to “ faith.” Thus Chrysostom says: οὐδὲἡπίστιςἐξἡμῶν , εἰγὰροὐκἦλθεν , εἰγὰρμὴἐκάλεσε , πῶςἠδυνάμεθαπιστεῦσαι ; πῶςγὰρ , φησὶ , πιστύσουσινἐὰνμὴἀκούσωσιν . He proceeds to interpret the words Θεοῦτὸδῶρον as applying, not to faith, but to the grant of salvation on condition of faith, ἐπεὶπῶςσώζειἡπίστις , εἰπέμοι , ἄνευἔργων ; τοῦτοαὐτὸΘεοῦδῶρόνἐστιν . This is not very different from what Theophylact says: οὐτὴνπίοτινλέγειδῶρονΘεοῦ , ἀλλὰτὸδιὰπίστεωςσωθῆναι , τοῦτοδῶρόνἐστιθεοῦ . Modern commentators (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, etc.) who have adopted the view that τοῦτο refers to πίστις , understand the meaning to be that the power or exercise of faith (faith subjectively considered) is the gift of God (as Philippians 1:29), in which case καὶτοῦτο to δῶρον must be parenthetical, since to say that faith is not ἐξἔργων would be trivial in the extreme. The gender of τοῦτο is not fatal to the reference to πίστις , but to separate ἐξὑμῶν in this way from ἐξἔργων does violence to the connexion. The latter is a nearer definition of the former. Recent commentators refer καὶτοῦτο to σεσωσμένοιἐστε , or, better, to the whole clause; for after χάριτι had been expressed with σες ., the emphatic καὶτοῦτο would be out of place. In fact, the apostle emphasises and defines τῇχ . more closely by denying the opposites; first, of the objective source χάρις by οὐκἐξὑμῶν ; and, secondly, of the subjective element by οὐκἐξἔργων (Meyer). Θεοῦτὸδῶρον . God’ s is the gift = Θεοῦδῶροντὸδῶρόνἐστι ,Θεοῦ being placed first for the sake of the emphatic contrast with ὑμῶν . 9. οὐκἐξἔργων . He does not say ἔργωννόμου , because not writing to Jewish believers. De Wette (who does not accept the Pauline authorship) thinks the opposition in οὐκἐξἔργων has no meaning, since the writer is not thinking of Jews, and heathen believers did not need to be warned against taking pride in the righteousness of works, especially after what had preceded in vv. 1 and 5. But the οὐκἐξἔργων was such an essential principle of St. Paul’ s teaching that no doubt he must have often repeated it amongst both Jews and Gentiles; nor is there any force in the reference to the past condition of the readers. Might not Gentile converts be tempted to regard their salvation as secured by their new holiness of life? and not the less because their former sins were when they were in darkness. ἵναμήτιςκαυχήσηται . Some commentators insist on giving ἵνα its full final force, “ in order that” ; so that to prevent boasting was God’ s purpose, or one of His purposes, in appointing that men should not be justified by works. Are we then to say that, in order that men should not boast, He has refused to allow salvation or justification by works? Nay; but no man can be justified by his works, and “ when they have been betrayed by these,” God appointed that He should save them χάριτιδιὰπίστεως . So in substance Chrysostom and Theophylact, whose words are: τὸγὰρἵναοὐκαἰτιολγικόνἐστι , ἀλλ ʼ ἐκτῆςἀποβάσεωςτοῦπράγματος . Yet the clause is not to be reduced to a mere statement of result, since it is a result inseparable from God’ s purpose. Stier suggests that ἵνα , κ .τ .λ ., may be viewed as the expression of the writer’ s purpose: “ This I say in order that,” etc. This cannot fairly be called unnatural, but it would require the verb to be present. 10. αὐτοῦγάρἐσμενποίημακτισθέντεςἐνΧριστῷἐπὶἔργοιςἀγαθοῖς . Proof of the foregoing clauses from οὐκἐξὑμῶν , not of ἵνατις … only, which is only a secondary thought. If we are God’ s workmanship, our salvation is not our own work, but the gift of God; and if we are created in Christ for good works, there could be no works preceding this creation from which any merit could arise. The argument turns on αὐτοῦ , which is emphatic, “ His workmanship we are,” and on κτισθέντες ; and the following words still more distinctly express the impossibility of any merit preceding this κτίσις . ποίημα , found again only Romans 1:20 of the works of creation. Here, too, it is referred by Tert. Greg. Naz. and Basil to physical creation. This is refuted by the nearer definition given in κτισθέντες , κ .τ .λ . Pelagius includes both the physical and the spiritual, “ quod vivimus, quod spiramus, quod intelligimus, quod credere possumus, ipsius est, quia ipse conditor nostri est.” The word can hardly of itself be used simply of the new or spiritual creation; it may perhaps be chosen to suggest strongly the analogy of this to the first creation, the nature of this ποίημα being left to be defined by the following words. Perhaps we may better say that the apostle’ s mind was so full of the idea of the “ new man,” that he writes as if this new creation might be regarded as the first “ making” of us. κτισθέντες . “ Created” ; for if anyone is in Christ, he is καινὴκτίσις , 2 Corinthians 5:17; compare also Galatians 6:15. κτίζειν is appropriately used of the καινὸςἄνθρωπος , the coming into being of which is called παλιγγενεσία , Titus 3:5. We are not, then, to weaken it into “ efficere.” ἐνχριστῷἸ . Cf. ver. 15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17, above. ἐν expresses the fellowship in which that new creation takes place. ἐπὶἔργοιςἀγαθοῖς . ἐπί , with the dative, is used to express the condition upon which a thing happens or is done; for instance, the conditions of a treaty ἐπ ʼ ἴσοις , ἐπὶπᾶσιδικαίοις , ἐπὶῥητοῖς , ἐπ ʼ ἀργυρίῳ , ἐπὶτῇτοῦἀνδρὸςψυχῇ (Plato, Rep. 9. p. 590 A); δανείζεινἐπὶὑποθήκῃ (Dem. p. 908, 21). Hence the expression ἐφ ʼ ᾧτε . Many, if not most, of the instances adduced in support of the meaning, “ with a view to such and such an end,” are better explained by this usage, e.g. δώρῳἔπιμεγάλῳ in Hom. Il. x. 304, τίςκένμοιτόδεἔργονὑποσχόμενοςτελέσειενδώρῳἔπιμ ., certainly not “ with a view to,” but “ on the terms of receiving” ; Il. ix. 482, μοῦνον , τηλύγετον , πολλοῖσινἐπὶκτεάτεσσιν ; and v. 154, “ he begat no other son,” ἐπὶκτεάτεσσιλιπέσθαι , the possessions being an accompanying condition of the sonship. So also in such phrases as ἐπὶξενίᾳδέχεσθαι or καλεῖν ; φάσκοντεςἐπ ʼ ἐλευθερίᾳπροεστάναιτῶνἙλλήνων (Dem. p. 661, 16); ἐπ ʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ (ib. p. 1355, 18). καὶἐφ ʼ ᾧἐνΚορίνθῳμὴἐργάζεσθαι . Where the condition is (as in the last instance, not in that preceding) that something be granted, the meaning amounts to the same as “ with a view to” ; but this does not seem to be contained in the preposition. Indeed, the following words, καὶἐφ ʼ ᾧ , κ .τ .λ ., appear to decide the signification of ἐπί here. Similarly in Galatians 5:13, ἐπ ʼ ἐλευθερίᾳἐκλήθητε means, not that freedom was the end or object, but the condition of their calling, the terms on which they were called, viz. so as to be free. Again, 1 Thessalonians 4:7, οὐγὰρἐκάλεσενἡμᾶςὁΘεὸςἐπὶἀκαθαρσίᾳ . Not on such terms were we called, not so that we should be impure. In the following words, ἀλλὰἐνἁγιασμῷ , ἐν appears to be preferred, because ἁγιασμός did not express any outward condition. 2 Timothy 2:14, ἐπὶκαταστροφῇτῶνἀκουόντων “ with a view to,” would be clearly out of place; “ to the subverting” gives the sense correctly. It is the inevitable concomitant. Here ἔργαἀγαθά are not the object of the new creation, but are involved in it as an inseparable condition οἷςπροητοίμασενὁΘεὸςἵναἐναὐτοῖςπεριπατήσωμεν . construction here is much disputed. The most obvious explanation is that οἶς is in the dative by attraction, “ which God before prepared.” Then we ask in what sense can works be said to have been prepared, since they have no existence previous to their being done. An easy answer appears to be, that they are appointed, and so, though not realised in fact, are realised in the divine thought or purpose. This is the view taken after Augustine by Harless, who thinks this the only possible sense here, since the apostle expressly adds that the actual realisation is expected from the believers. Thus St. Paul uses προετοιμάζειν here of things, in the same sense as he had used προορίζειν in 1:11 of persons. De Wette and Braune, etc., agree. The difficulty in this view is that ἑτοιμάζειν is not = ὁρίζειν . “ Aliud est enim, Parare ἑτοιμάζειν , aliud definire ὁριζειν ” (Fritzsche, Rom. iii. 339). The instance which Harless cites from Matthew 25:34, “ the kingdom prepared,” is not parallel, nor Genesis 24:14. For this reason Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, etc., reject this view, but fail to give a satisfactory interpretation. “ God (says Ellicott) made ready for us, prearranged, prepared a sphere of moral action, or (to use the simile of Chrys.) a road, with the intent that we should walk in it and not leave it: this sphere, this road, was ἔργαἀγαθά .” Similarly Eadie, who suggests that προορίζειν marks the destination, προετοιμ . the means: “ they have been prescribed, defined, adapted to us,” “ by prearranging the works in their sphere, character, and suitability, and also by preordaining the law which commands, the inducement or appliances which impel, and the creation in Christ which qualifies and empowers us,” etc. But he does not explain how things non-existent can be arranged except by ordaining. These interpretations do not essentially differ from the first. The similes of a sphere or a road (used by Chrysostom for homiletical purposes) are inappropriate. A road exists objectively before one walks in it. A truer simile would be a path through the seas. Perhaps we might say that the word προετ . is chosen, not as being logically accurate, but in order to express in the most striking manner the truth that the good works do not proceed from ourselves; they are, as it were, received from the Creator as out of a treasure, which is thus figuratively conceived as being prepared before. But this hardly meets the difficulty. Olshausen understands that the circumstances and conditions under which it becomes possible to do good works are ordered by God, προετ . differing from προορίζειν only as relating more to details (compare Eadie, above). Stier suggests taking the verb intransitively, οις being the dative of reference. “ For which God made previous preparation.” The simple verb ἐτοιμάζειν is used intransitively in Luke 9:52, ὥστεἑτοιμάσαιαὐτῷ . This, however, is not entirely parallel. The object to be understood there is readily supplied “ parare paranda” ; just as in English we may say “ prepare,” “ make ready,” viz. “ things.” But here we should have to ask, Prepare what? The answer would perhaps be “ us.” And as Fritzsche points out, this ἡμᾶς as the object did not require to be expressed, since it is sufficiently indicated by the following words, ἵναἐναὐτοῖςπεριπατήσωμεν . This seems, after all, the most unobjectionable interpretation, and is adopted by Reuss, v. Soden, Oltramare, etc. Eadie also expresses himself as inclined to adopt it, if it could be fully justified, but he does not refer to the suggestion of ἡμᾶς contained in the following words. This interpretation cannot fairly be charged with making ἵναἐναὐτοῖςπεριπατήσωμεν a mere tautology. These words strongly accentuate the moral purpose of the preparation. The supposition of a Hebraism, as if οἷς … ἐναὐτοῖς were = ἐνοἷς , is inadmissible. προ has its proper force, not, however, as if it meant before the κτίσις , as ἑτ . expresses an act, not a purpose; and, of course, not after, because of προ -, therefore at the time of the κτίσις , so that ἑτοιμάζειν repeats κτίζεινἐπὶἐρ . ἀγ ., only with the addition of προ to express that the new creation is the primary thing but has this end in view, the works being only a result. It must be observed that ἔργαἀγαθά is general; not τοῖςἀγ . ἔργοις , the definite good works, etc. There is no ground for saying that the weight here assigned to good works goes beyond what is elsewhere expressed by St. Paul, as Baur insists, or that the importance of faith is lessened. Here, as elsewhere, works have their ground in faith. Bengel well says: “ ut ambularemus, non salvaremur, aut viveremus.” 11-22. Ye Gentiles were formerly aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and had no share in the covenants of promise; but Christ by His death has cast down the barrier which separated you from the City of God, and has reconciled you both to God. Now, therefore, all alike have access to Him, the Father, and all alike form part of the holy temple which He inhabits 11. Διὸμνημονεύετε . These blessings should move them to think more of their former state, so that they should be the more thankful. “ Talis recordatio gratum animum acuit, et fidem roborat.” Διό is best taken as referring to the whole section, vv. 1 to 10. ὅτιποτὲὑμεῖς in this order א A B D Vulg., Rec. has ὑμεῖςποτέ , with א c Dc G , Syr-Harcl. But Syr-Pesh, Boh. and some other versions have ποτε after ἔθνη . ὄτι is resumed by ὅτι , ver. 12, and ποτέ by τῷκαιρῷἐκ . Hence we need not supply either ὄντες or ἦτε , but τὰἔθνη is in simple apposition to ὑμεῖς . τὰἔθνη , with the article as indicating a class. Since ἔθνηἐνσαρκί expresses one single idea, the article does not require repetition before ἐν . ἐνσαρκί must have the same sense here as in the following clause, since the former is explained by οἱλεγόμενοιἀκροβυστία , and this has its antithesis in τῆςλεγ . περιτομῆς . It therefore refers to their uncircumcision, not to their former carnal state, nor to their descent. Chrysostom and other Fathers take ἐνσαρκί as opposed to ἐνπνεύματι . Thus Jerome: “ Ephesios in carne vocans ostendit in spiritu esse non gentes.” This contradicts ποτέ and ver. 12. The apostle is not exalting them, but calling attention to their previous inferiority to the Jews. “ Remember that formerly ye Gentiles in the flesh called (in contempt) Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision in the flesh, a circumcision merely physical, made with hands.” He reminds them of the ignominy which in the mind of the Jews attached to the name of heathen and of the uncircumcised. This contempt is already predicated in the words οἱλεγόμενοιἀκρ .; and the lowness of their condition is further shown by the following description of those who so despised them, those, namely, who prided themselves on a mere fleshly distinction made with hands. Why, in fact, does he say λεγομένηςπεριτομῆς , and why χειροποιήτου There was no need to give the readers information on the name or the fact. The latter word is clearly depreciatory, “ a merely external and artificial thing-” But he is far from depreciating circumcision, in its true significance, as the sign of membership of the commonwealth of the people of God. Hence the use of λεγομένης , which by its adjectival connexion with περιτομῆς gets the signification “ so called.” This is readily explained from the apostle’ s use of περιτομή elsewhere in a spiritual, as contrasted with a merely physical sense, as in Romans 2:28, Romans 2:29, “ Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh … circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter.” Philippians 2:2, he calls the physical circumcision κατατομή , a term more contemptuous than χειροποιήτου here: adding in ver. 3, “ We are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” ; and in Colossians 2:11, which is strikingly illustrative of the present passage, “ in whom ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.” Soden thinks that χειροποιήτου here is superfluous, because there is no reference (as in Col.) to a spiritual circumcision, and ἐνσαρκί sufficiently emphasises the merely external character of the sign; and hence he thinks the word introduced out of imitation of Col 2:11. But it seems, on the contrary, to give emphasis and completeness to the thought, and would naturally occur to the writer who about the same time wrote ἀχειροποιήτου in Col. Although “ circumcision” is not used figuratively in the O.T., “ uncircumcision” is. Even in Leviticus 26:41 we have “ their uncircumcised heart.” Jeremiah speaks of the uncircumcised ear of those who will not hearken (6:10), and calls the house of Israel “ uncircumcised in heart” (9:26). Comp. Ezekiel 44:7, “ uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh,” and Acts 7:51. 12. ὅτιἦτετῷκαιρῷἐκείνῳχωρὶςχριστοῦ . Rec. has ἐν before τῷκαιρῷ . It is omitted by א A B D G. ὅτι resumes the former ὅτι . “ Remember, I say, that.” χωρίςχριστοῦ is taken by De Wette and Bleek as, not a predicate, but a circumstantial addition, “ being at that time without Christ.” It would thus correspond with ἐνΧριστῷ , ver. 13, and would give the reason of their alienation from the commonwealth of Israel. But, considering the position of the words, this is a harsh construction, and would deprive the words of the emphasis which belongs to them as the opposite of the frequent ἐνΧρ . in this Epistle. χωρὶςΧρ . is, as Meyer says, the first tragic predicate. χωρίς is distinguished from ἄνευ by Tittmann as follows: “ χωρίς ad subjectum quod ab objecto sejunctum est refertur, ἄνευ ad objectum quod a subjecto abesse cogitandum est.” According to this, χωρίςΧρ . would mean “ ye were far from Christ” ; ἄνευΧρ . would be “ Christ was not with you.” But this must be received with hesitation, seeing that χωρίς occurs in the N.T. forty times, and ἄνευ only thrice (Ellicott), viz. Matthew 10:29; 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Peter 4:9. In the last quoted passage ἄνευγογγυσμοῦ is equivalent to χωρὶςγογγυσμῶν , Philippians 2:14. Schwegler sees here a concession to Judaism which is unlike St. Paul; but without reason, since the concession only relates to pre-Christian times, and the advantage possessed by the Jews in this respect is, as it must be, fully admitted by St. Paul (Romans 3:1 ff.). What is meant by χωρὶςΧριστοῦ is explained in the following words:— ἀπηλλοτριωμένοιτῆςπολιτείαςτοῦἸσραήλ . The verb ἀπαλλοτριόω occurs also in 4:18, ἀπ . τῆςζωῆςτοῦΘεοῦ , and Colossians 1:21, without a genitive. In Ezekiel 14:5, Ezekiel 14:7 we have ἀπ . ἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ ; in 3 Macc. 1:4, τῶνπατρίωνδογμάτων . The active verb occurs in Eccles. 11:34, ἀπ . σετῶνἰδίωνσου . The verb always means to estrange; here therefore “ estranged from” as opposed to “ being at home in.” πολιτεία was interpreted by the ancients in the sense “ manner of life,” “ conversatio,” Vulg., a meaning which the word frequently has in Christian writers, and not in these alone; see Athen. 1. p. 19 A. But to take it so here would be contrary to ver. 19, where the opposite of ἀπ . κ .τ .λ . is συμπολῖται . It may mean either citizenship, or state, commonwealth. Many commentators have taken it in the former sense. It is questionable whether it could be so used with a genitive of the nation or city. Nor does the verb ἀπηλλ . suggest such a meaning. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 3:1-7. This truth, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs with the Jews, was hidden from former generations, but has now been revealed to the apostles and prophets; and unworthy though I am, yet to me has been given the privilege of making it known, and of preaching Christ to the Gentiles 1. τούτουχάρινἐγὼΠαῦλοςὁδέσμιοςτοῦχριστοῦἸησοῦὑπὲρὑμῶντῶνἐθνῶν . (Tischendorf omits Ἰησοῦ , with א D G.) “ For this reason, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles.” “ For this reason,” “ hujus rei gratiâ ,” Vulg., i.e., as Theodoret says, “ Knowing well both what ye were and how ye were called and on what conditions, I pray God to establish you in the faith.” Chrysostom supplies εἰμί . I am the prisoner of Christ Jesus, etc. So the Peshitto and many moderns, including Beza, Meyer, Macpherson, “ in order that ye may be built up to the habitation of God— in this behoof, that your Christian development may advance to that goal.” But this is to give too great prominence to the assertion of his imprisonment, as if it were a main point in the discourse, instead of being incidental. Besides, we should expect in that case δέσμιος without the article. St. Paul was not likely thus to designate himself as “ the prisoner of Christ Jesus,” even with the addition “ for you Gentiles.” The notoriety of the fact does not explain this. Moreover, this view makes τούτουχάριν and ὑπὲρὑμῶν rather tautologous. The analogy of ch. 4:1 is in favour of taking ὁδ . in apposition with ἐγὼΠαῦλος . Calvin’ s “ legatione fungor” is a rendering of πρεσβεύω , the reading of D (from 6:20). Three cursives add κεκαύχημαι . Origen (Catena) supposes a solecism; that, in fact, what St. Paul ought to have written was τ . χαρ . … ἐγνώρισατὸμυστ . Jerome also, following Origen, declares that after diligent search he could not find the continuation of the sense. But the true key was given by Theodore Mops., followed by Theodoret, viz. that vv. 2-13 is a parenthesis. ταῦταπάνταἐνμέσῳτεθεικὼςἀναλαμβάνειτὸνπερὶπροσευχῆςλόγον , Theodoret. The apostle having described himself as a prisoner for the Gentiles, is quite characteristically drawn off into a digression on the grace granted to him in connexion with this ministry to the Gentiles. Oecumenius regards the sentence as resumed in ver. 8 with the change of the nominative to the dative, a change not without parallels, as he observes, in Thucydides and Demosthenes. On that view τούτουχάριν would mean “ for this purpose,” as in Titus 1:5. But then ὁδέσμιος would have no point, and, besides, ver. 8 is closely connected with 6 and 7. It is much more satisfactory to assume, with Theodore and Theodoret, that the sense is resumed with the same words, τούτουχάριν , in ver. 14. The supposition of a resumption in ch. 4:1, adopted in the AV., rests apparently only on the repetition of ὁδέσμιος , and unnecessarily lengthens the parenthesis. “ The prisoner of Christ Jesus,” so he calls himself in 2 Timothy 1:8 and Philemon 1:9, and in this Ephesians 4:1, “ prisoner in the Lord.” He looks on his imprisonment, not merely as suffered in the service of the Lord, but as part of the lot assigned to him by Christ, so that he was Christ’ s prisoner. Somewhat similarly in ch. 6:20, ὑπὲροὗπρεσβεύωἐνἀλύσει . “ In behalf of you Gentiles.” Since it was his preaching the free admission of the Gentiles that led to his persecution at the hands of the Jews and to his present imprisonment, Acts 21:21, Acts 21:28, Acts 21:22:22. 2. εἴγεἠκούσατετὴνοἰκονομίαν . “ If, indeed, ye have heard of the dispensation.” This seems decisive against the supposition that the Epistle was addressed to a Church which had been personally instructed by the writer. The utmost force that can be claimed for εἴγε is that, in Hermann’ s words, it is used “ de re quae jure sumpta creditur,” “ if, as I take for granted,” being less hypothetical than εἴπερ . According to Lightfoot on Galatians 3:4, this rule requires modification when applied to the N.T., where εἴγε is less directly affirmative than εἴπερ . Eadie says it is “ undeniable” that εἴγε is used in the N.T. of things that are certain, quoting 4:21 and Colossians 1:23. The former passage is in the same case with the present; in the latter, hope only is expressed, not certainty. The only other places where εἴγε occurs in the N.T. are Galatians 3:4 and in the Received Text 2 Corinthians 5:3 (εἴπερ , B D). It is found also in Romans 5:6 in B. But allowing that the particle implies certainty as strongly as Hermann’ s rule asserts, it could not be used of a fact in the writer’ s own experience. A preacher addressing a strange congregation might say “ I am sure,” or even “ I know that you have been taught so and so,” but no preacher addressing those whom he himself had taught would ordinarily express himself in this way.1 It is said, indeed, that this argument proves too much, since “ what was known of Paul in the Ephesian Church would practically be known of him throughout the missions of Asia” (Moule). But this is just the kind of case in which the particle may be properly used, viz. where the writer may be “ practically” certain, but doubt is conceivable. Besides, the details which follow might be but imperfectly known to those who had not heard them from St. Paul’ s own lips. And again, would he, in writing to the Ephesians, refer them to what he has just now written, that they may appreciate his knowledge in the mystery of Christ? Had they not had much more full proof of this during his long ministry? Every other attempt to evade this conclusion is equally unsuccessful. Thus ἠκούσατε has been rendered “ intellexistis” (Anselm, Grotius), a meaning which the verb can have only when “ hearing” is included; or, again, “ hearing” the Epistle read (alluding to earlier passages in this Epistle); but cf. ἀναγινώσκοντες , ver. 4. Calvin says: “ Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, eum tacuisse de his rebus.” Ellicott reasons in a circle, “ There could be no real doubt; ‘ neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii quibus Paulus ipse evangelium plusquam biennio praedicaverat,’ Estius. … No argument, then, can be fairly deduced,” etc. He supposes the apostle to convey the hope that his words had not been forgotten. Similarly Eadie, Alford, Macpherson, Meyer, (contra, W. Schmidt in last ed. of Meyer). But the words are not “ if ye remember,” or “ if ye know” ; but “ if ye have heard” ; and that, if written to the Ephesians, would be = “ if I told you.” τὴνοἰκονομίαντῆςχάριτοςτοῦΘεοῦτῆςδοθείσηςμοιεἰςὑμᾶς . “ The dispensation of the grace of God, the grace given me to youward.” As the explanation which follows is “ that by revelation,” etc., it is best to understand τ . χάριτος as the genitive of the object, viz. the dispensation or plan or arrangement (namely, God’ s arrangement) with respect to the grace,” etc. Chrysostom, followed by Oecum., takes the genitive as that of the subject. οἰκ . χαρ . τὴνἀποκάλυψινφησίν , ὅτιοὐπαρὰἀνθρώπουἔμαθεν , ἀλλ ʼ οὕτωςᾠκονόμησενἡχάριςὥστεμοιἐξοὐρανοῦἀποκαλυφθῆναι , Oec. But this does not agree so well with the following words, which define the χάρις as ἡδοθεῖσαεἰςὑμᾶς . Alford, understanding the genitive as objective, takes οἰκ . as = “ munus dispensandi.” But it is not easy to see in what sense St. Paul could dispense the grace given to him. Many commentators suppose δοθείσης to be attracted into the genitive by χάριτος , either understanding that it is in and with the grace that the οἰκ . is entrusted to him (for which reason the participle has the case of χ ., v. Soden), or taking τ . οἰκ . τ . χαρ . as = the gospel dispensation. But, while St. Paul might speak of the gospel dispensation as entrusted to him (οἰκονομίανπεπίστευμαι , 1 Corinthians 9:17), he could hardly speak of it as “ given to him.” Nor does this interpretation agree with the circumstance that the following words take the form of an explanation. The explanation of οἰκ ., as the apostolic office or stewardship, is also not consistent with the explanation, in which it is the act of God that is spoken of, not any conduct of the apostle. It is tempting to suppose, with some expositors, that the writer, in using the word οἰκονομία , has in his mind the building just referred to. But although οἶκος might suggest the idea of an οἰκονόμος , οἰκοδομή and οἰκητήριον do not; and the figurative use of οἰκονομία was so common, that it the apostle had intended such an allusion, he would have made it more distinct. 3. ὅτικατὰἀποκάλυψινἐγωρίσθημοιτὸμυστήριον . “ That it was by way of revelation that the mystery was made known to me.” Explanation of ver. 2; hence the emphasis is on κατὰἀπ ., which is not really different from διἀποκαλύψεως , Galatians 1:12. In the latter passage, κατά could not have been used on account of ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ following. ἐγνωρίσθη is the reading of א A B C D* G P, Vulg., Boh., Arm., Chrys. The Rec. has ἐγνώρισε , with Dc K L, Theoph. Oec. For τὸμυστήριον see on ch. 1:9. Here, not the “ mystery” of redemption in general is meant, but the particular “ mystery” of the inclusion of the heathen, for it is thus explained in ver. 6. καθὼςπροέγραψαἐνὀλίγῳ . “ As I have just written in brief.” προ - is local, not temporal , and the reference is to the present Epistle, not to an earlier one, as supposed by Chrysostom, Calvin, al., contrary to the present participle ἀναγινώσκοντες . Theodoret and Theophylact have the right view. Comp. 1 Corinthians 5:9, ἔγραψαἐντῇἐπιστολῇ and 1 Peter 5:12, ἔγραψαδι ʼ ὀλίγων . The reference is doubtless to the whole preceding exposition about the Gentiles. ἐνὀλίγῳ , equivalent to ἐνβραχεῖ , used by Demosthenes. Theodoret, indeed, and some moderns connect this with the προ - in προέγραψα , as if it meant “ paulo ante,” which would be πρὸὀλίγου . ἐνὀλ . in a temporal sense would mean, “ in a short time” (Acts 26:28). Wetstein correctly, “ pauca tantum attigi cum multa dici possent.” Oecumenius gives a peculiar turn, οὐκἔγραψενὅσαἐχρῆνἀλλ ʼ ὅσαἐχώρουννοεῖν , as if the following πρὸςὅ were = “ prout,” which would make ἀναγινώσκοντες unmeaning. 4. πρὸςὅ is, “ according to which, or looking to which,” namely, to what I have said. Comp. “ πρὸςἃἔπραξεν ,” 2 Corinthians 5:10; πρὸςτὴνἀληθείαντοῦεὐαγγ ., Galatians 2:14; πρὸςτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ , Luke 12:47. But the usage is quite classical. ἀναγινώσκοντες , present, because it is “ while reading,” or “ as ye read.” νοῆσαι . Where it is indifferent whether the aorist or present infinitive is used, the aorist is more frequent (Winer, § 44. 7), especially after such verbs as δύναμαι , θέλω , etc. Hort thinks this ἀναγ . refers to reading the O.T. prophecies, comparing Matthew 24:15. But there the passage “ read” is distinctly specified, and although in Mark 13:14 Daniel is not named, he is quoted. τὴνσυνεσίνμουἐντῷμυστηρίῳτοῦχριστοῦ . “ My understanding in the mystery of Christ.” The article is not required before ἐντῷμ ., because συνιέναιἐν is a frequent expression (Joshua 1:7; 2 Chronicles 34:12). μυστ . τοῦΧρ . We have the same expression in Colossians 4:3, where it clearly means the doctrine of the free admission of the Gentiles . It is the same here, as explained in ver. 6. Similarly, in Colossians 1:27 we have τοῦμ . τούτουὅἐστινΧριστὸςἐνὑμῖν . That passage has been used (by Alford, Ellicott, Meyer) to prove that the genitive here is one of apposition or identity; but it fails in this, since there it is not Χριστός but Χριστὸςἐνὑμῖν , that constitutes the μ . It is better, therefore, to understand “ the mystery (or doctrine) relating to the Christ” ; the genitive being that of the object. Critics who question the genuineness of the Epistle regard this verse as the expression of a boastfulness not in accordance with the dignity of an apostle, and only a clumsy imitation of 2 Corinthians 11:5, 2 Corinthians 11:6, where St. Paul is merely claiming for himself that in which his opponents claim to surpass him. But there is no self-laudation in this assertion of σύνεσις (see, on the contrary, ver. 8); nor even as high a claim to exceptional knowledge as is involved in κατὰἀποκάλυψιν , which it only serves to illustrate. Is it not quite natural that in writing to Churches where he was not personally known, and where there were teachers whose teaching was of a corrupt and paganising tendency (v. 11-14), and threatened to cause a schism between the Jewish and the Gentile members of the Church, the apostle, who was, in fact, combating these errors, and expounding the true nature of the privileges to which the Gentiles were admitted, should remind them in some such way that the subject was one on which he could speak with authority, and thus guard against objections which might possibly be urged by these unsound teachers? From this point of view it will be seen that this indirect and delicate way of meeting possible opposition is thoroughly Pauline. On the other hand, a writer who merely assumed the name of Paul, especially one of such power as the writer of this Epistle, would hardly put into his mouth an expression of such seeming self-complacency, without any hint of opposition. Still less would such a writer forthwith add so striking an expression of self-depreciation as is contained in ver. 8. 5. ὃἐτέραιςγενεαῖςοὐκἐγνωρίσθητοῦςυἱοῖςτῶνἀνθρώπων . “ Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men.” ἐν , which in the Received Text precedes ἑτέραις , rests on slight authority, but it expresses the right construction of ἑτ . γεν . Meyer, in his earlier editions, adopted the view that the meaning was “ to other generations,” τοῖςυἱοῖς , κ .τ .λ ., being epexegetical. (So also v. Soden.) But the usual interpretation is simpler, and corresponds better with the antithetical νῦν . For γενεά in this sense, cf. Acts 14:16, ἐνταῖςπαρῳχημέναιςγ .; and for the dative of time, 2:12, ἑτέραις , i.e. other than the present. “ The sons of men,” an expression frequent in the O.T. and simply = “ men.” Comp. Mark 3:28 (the only N.T. parallel) with Matthew 12:31. It is needless, therefore, to adopt Bengel’ s remark, “ latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignorantiae, ortum naturalem cui opponitur Spiritus.” Bengel, indeed, thinks that the prophets are especially referred to, because Ezekiel, who writes largely of the temple, as St. Paul does here, calls himself the son of man; but this is peculiar to him. It seems equally erroneous to find in the words a marked contrast with “ His holy apostles,” namely, because these were Θεοῦἄνθρωποι (2 Peter 1:21) (Ellicott). This is far-fetched. The apostles and prophets were not the less sons of men; and we might, with as much reason, follow Jerome, who would exclude the O.T. patriarchs and prophets because they were “ sons of God.” ὡςνῦνἀπεκαλύφθητοῖςἁγίοιςἀποστόλοιςαὐτοῦκαὶπροφήταιςἐνΠνεύματι . “ As it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” ὡς is comparative, with such clearness as now. οὕτωςἀκριβῶςοὐκᾔδεισανοἱπαλαιοὶτὸμυστήριον , Theoph.; “ fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum,” Beza. ἀπεκαλύφθη , not now ἐγνωρίσθη , because the special manner in which the knowledge was given is to be brought out. “ His holy apostles.” How can the writer, if himself an apostle, use such an expression? Some critics answer unhesitatingly that it is incredible that an apostle should do so, and that the expression betrays the view which belonged to a later age. Baur thinks the ἁγίοις an oversight. And the writer who was so unskilful as to be guilty of this palpable oversight, is so mindful of his assumed character that in the same breath he says, ἐμοὶτῷἐλαχιστοτέρῳπάντωνἁγίων . The difficulty seems to arise from the use of the word “ holy,” and the corresponding words in other modern languages, to express the personal character of “ holiness.” But ἅγιος is used of any thing that is set apart for a sacred purpose. So we have “ holy prophets,” Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21. All Christians are by their calling ἅγιοι , and St. Paul frequently uses the word where he himself is included (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:2 and Colossians 1:26). When he calls all believers ἅγιοι , what delicacy should prevent him from calling the apostles by the same word? A clergyman is not expected to be prevented, by a feeling of delicacy, from speaking of his “ reverend brethren,” or a bishop of his “ right reverend brethren.” Lachmann and Tregelles place a comma after ἁγίοις , the following words being in apposition: “ to the saints, His apostles and prophets,” or rather “ apostles and prophets of His.” But such a separation of the adjective from the following substantive is harsh, although it must be admitted that it is suggested by the parallel in Colossians 1:26. A more considerable difficulty seems to arise from the statement that the mystery of the free admission of the Gentiles had been revealed to “ the apostles and prophets,” viz. as a body. For this is precisely the special doctrine which St. Paul seems elsewhere, and here in ver. 3, to claim as his own, and which, at least at first, was not accepted by the other apostles (Gal_2.). In ver. 8, also, this is recognised as the distinctive characteristic of St. Paul’ s apostleship. For this reason Reuss makes the suggestion that the second half of ver. 5 is a gloss. In favour of this suggestion, it may also be observed that αὐτοῦ has no expressed antecedent, unless, indeed, in opposition to most expositors, we take it to be Χριστοῦ . In the parallel in Colossians 1:26, τοῖςἁγίοιςαὐτοῦ , the antecedent Θεοῦ occurs just before. But the authority of the MSS. is too strong for this suggestion to be accepted. B, indeed, omits ἀποστόλοις (with ps. Ambr.), while D G place the word after αὐτοῦ . The difficulty, however, is met by the consideration that, not-withstanding the doubts which the other apostles at first entertained, they afterwards fully accepted the doctrine as taught by St. Paul, Acts 15., Galatians 2:7 ff., and that long before the present Epistle was written. The “ prophets” are manifestly Christian prophets. ἐνπνεύματι must be joined with the verb, not with προφήταις , to which it would be a superfluous addition, or ἁγίοις or the following εἶναι . 6. εἶναιτὰἔθνησυγκληρονόμακαὶσύσσωμα … (namely) “ that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs (or joint possessors) and fellow-members of the body.” Epexegetical; stating, not the purpose, but the content of the μυστήριον . The “ should be” of AV. is not grammatically tenable. συγκληρονόμα , fellow-heirs, not with Christ, as in Romans 8:17 (and Jerome here), for it is “ in Christ,” but with the believing Jews. The word συγκληρονόμος is found four times in the N.T. and once in Philo, but not elsewhere. σύσσωμα , incorporated with them into the body of which Christ is the Head. The word is not found elsewhere (except in the Fathers), and is supposed to have been perhaps formed by St. Paul. But as Aristotle has the compound συσσωματοποιεῖν (De Mundo, iv. 30), it is more probable that the adjective was in use. καὶσυμμέτοχατῆςἐπαγγελίαςἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ The Received Text has αὐτοῦ after ἐπαγγ ., with Dbc G K L, al.; but the word is absent from א A B C D* P 17, al. Χριστῷ of the Text Rec. rests on nearly the same MS. authority, with the addition of D; while ΧριστῷἸησοῦ has the authority of א A B C P 17. “ And joint-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.” The accumulation of epithets is due to the importance of the matter; there is no climax, for συμμέτ . is not stronger than σύσσωμα . The former word is found outside this Epistle only in Josephus, but the verb συμμετέχω occurs in Xen. and Plato. Jerome renders the words “ cohaeredes et concorporales et comparticipes promissionis,” defending the inelegance of the Latin by the importance of correctly representing the Greek. The genitive ἐπαγγ . depends only on συμμετ . The promise is the promise of salvation, of a part in the kingdom of the Messiah; and to be partakers of the promise is to be joined with those to whom the promise is given. There is no need, then, to take ἡἐπαγ . as = the thing promised, still less to understand this specially of the Holy Spirit. In the passages to which Eadie and others refer in support of such a restriction, the Spirit is expressly named, e.g. Galatians 3:14; ch. 1:13. ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ and διὰτοῦεὐαγγελίου refer to all three epithets. “ In Christ Jesus through the gospel.” In Christ, not διά , for He was not simply the means; it was in His person that this effect was produced. Cf. 1:7; and for an analogous distinction between ἐν and διά , even where both substantives are impersonal, 1 Peter 1:5, ἐνδυνάμειΘεοῦφρουρουμένουςδιὰπίστεως , and Hebrews 10:10, ἐνᾧθελήματιἡγιασμένοιἐστεδιὰτῆςπροσφορᾶςκ .τ .λ . 7. οὗἐγενήθηνδιάκονος . “ Of which I became a minister” (ἐγενήθην , א A B D* G; but ἐγενόμην , C Dc K L). The use of γενηθῆναι instead of the Attic γενέσθαι is condemned by Phrynichus, who calls it Doric; but it is frequent in later Greek writers (Polybius, Diodorus, Dion. Hal. etc.), as is shown by Lobeck (ad Phryn. p. 109). There is no ground, then, for assigning to the word here a passive shade of meaning, as is done by Oecum., οὐδὲνγὰρἐγὼἔργονἐμὸνσυνεισήνεγκατῇχάριτιταύτῃ . Compare, on the contrary, Colossians 4:11, ἐγενήθησάνμοιπαρηγορία ; 1 Thessalonians 2:14, μιμηταὶἐγενήθητε . διάκονος . Harless maintains that δ . denotes the servant in his activity for that service, while ὑπηρέτης denotes him in his activity for the Master, apparently on the ground that διακονεῖντι or τινίτι is said, and he compares 1 Corinthians 4:1 with Colossians 1:7. But ὑπηρετεῖντινίτι is also said (Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 46; Soph. Phil. 1012), and the distinction cannot be maintained; see 2 Corinthians 11:23, διάκονοιΧριστοῦεἰσι ; 1 Timothy 4:6; and for ὑπηρέτης , Acts 26:16; Luke 1:2. κατὰτὴνδωρεὰντῆςχάριτοςτοῦΘεοῦτῆςδοθείσηςμοικατὰτὴνἐνέργειαντῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ . According to the gift of that grace of God which was given to me “ by virtue of the exercise of His power.” τῆςδοθείσης is the reading of א A B C D* G, Vulg., Boh. The accusative is read by Dc K L, Syr., Chrys. The genitive is one of apposition, the gift being the grace given, so that the two readings do not differ in sense; but logically the genitive has the advantage, as the grace required this further definition more than the gift. κατὰτὴνἐν . αὐτοῦ . These words, which are to be connected with δοθείσης , are by no means superfluous, but express the everpresent consciousness of St. Paul that his mission as an apostle was not due to anything in himself, it was the grace of God given with Divine power that alone changed the persecutor into the apostle. Hence the accumulation δωρεά , χάριςδοθείσηςἐνέργεια , δύναμις , proceeding from the feeling of his own unworthiness, suggested by οὗδιάκ . ἐγενήθην . “ Nolite respicere quid sim meritus, quia dominus ultro mihi sua liberalitate hoc contulit ut sim apostolus gentium; non mea dignitate sed ejus gratia. Nolite etiam respicere qualis fuerim; nam domini est homines nihili extollere. Haec est potentiae ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid effcere.” See Dale, Lect. xiii. p. 235. 8. ἐμοὶτῷἐλαχιστοτέρῳπάντωνἁγίωνἐδόθηἡχάριςαὕτη . τῶν is added before ἁγίων in the Received Text, against a great preponderance of authority. ἁγίων is used as a substantive. “ To me who am less than the least of all saints” (i.e. all Christians) “ was this grace given.” Closely connected in thought with the preceding, as expressing his own unworthiness in contrast with God’ s grace. Ἐλαχιστότερος . Double forms of comparatives and superlatives are frequent in the poets. Wetstein quotes Eustathius, who has collected numerous instances. But they also occur in the later prose writers, e.g. μειζότερος (Malalas, 490. 9; also 3 John 1:4); ἐλαχιστότατος (Sextus Empir.; also Matt. iii. 54, ix. 406), apparently without any increase of meaning. The instances in earlier prose writers (Xen. Aristot.) seem to be invented by the respective writers. The present instance is remarkable as a combination of superlative and comparative. It has a curiously parallel form in Aristotle, Metaph. x. 4. 7 (Bekker), οὔτεγὰρτοῦἐσχάτουἐσχατώτερονεἴηἄντι ; but there the form is introduced only as expressing an impossible conception, and is construed as a comparative; here, on the contrary, ἐλαχιστότερος appears to express a definite idea, not only least of all saints, but even less than this implies. It may therefore be considered a unique formation. The expression can hardly be interpreted, with some eminent expositors, as referring to his consciousness of enduring sinfulness, as to which he could not place himself lower than all saints. True it is, no doubt, that every Christian, when he looks into his own heart, and is conscious of the sin that still dwells there, and knows that he cannot see what is in the heart of others, may be ready to exclaim, ἐγὼἐλαχιστότεροςπάντωνἁγίων ; but this does not express a deliberate comparison, and whatever such a one may feel at such moments, he would act unwisely if, when instructing and exhorting others, he should thus proclaim his own inferiority to them. Such a confession would be likely to be misunderstood, and either called hypocritical or made the ground of the retort, Why, then, take upon you to instruct and reprove your betters? Certainly St. Paul gives us little reason to think that he would take such a view. He declares that he has “ lived in all good conscience toward God” ; that if any one might have confidence in the flesh, he might, being blameless as touching the righteousness which is in the law. And as one of the ἅγιοι , he does not reckon himself amongst the babes in Christ, but the mature, τέλειοι (Philippians 3:15). He affirms that in nothing is he behind the ὑπερλίανἀπόστολοι ; nay, he does not hesitate to call on his readers to be imitators of him, as he is of Christ. While never for a moment forgetting his own nothingness, and that it is only by the grace of God that he was what he was, he likewise never forgets his true position in Christ’ s service. And he was too much taken up with his work in that service to have time for indulging in that kind of self-examination which consists in analysing one’ s state of mind or one’ s feelings. In Romans 7:17, to which Harless refers, he is describing the state from which he has been delivered (ib. ver. 25, 8:2). His recollection, ever vivid, of his former career as a persecutor is quite sufficient explanation of the expression here used. The same writers who hold that the ἅγιοιἀπόστολοι , ver. 5, could proceed only from an imitator who forgot his part, are of opinion that the expression now before us is an exaggerated imitation of 1 Corinthians 15:9, “ I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle.” But there was no occasion there for any comparison with believers in general; he is only speaking of himself as one of the apostles; here he speaks of a grace that distinguished him above other believers, and, “ now undeservedly,” is his natural feeling. Indeed, we may with more justice say that this striking and unique expression could not proceed from calculated imitation; it has the stamp of a spontaneous outflow of an intense feeling of unworthiness. Nor does it really go beyond the passage in 1 Cor.; for there he declares himself not only the least of the apostles, but not meet to be called an apostle; here he does not say that he is not meet to be reckoned amongst the ἅγιοι . For the reader will not fail to note that notwithstanding the depth of his self-depreciation he still counts himself (or is represented as counting himself), and that not with hesitation, amongst the ἅγιοι , the very term which when joined with ἀπόστολοι is thought to be unapostolic. Yet no one supposes that ἁγίων here is inconsistent with humility. τοῖςἔθνεσινεὐαγγελίσασθαιτὸἀνεξιχνίαστονπλοῦτοςτοῦχριστοῦ . The Rec. Text has ἐν before τοῖςἔθ ., with D G K L. It is absent from א A B C P. “ To preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” This is what ἡχάριςαὕτη consisted in. αὕτη refers to what follows. Harless regards the words as an exposition of δωρεά , ἐμοί to αὕτη being treated as a parenthesis in order to avoid what he thinks would be unnatural the close of a period within the long parenthesis, whose unusual length is only explained by the uninterrupted flow of thought. In that case αὕτη would refer backward to ver. 7. But it is very awkward to separate εὐαγγελίσασθαι from the immediately preceding ἡχάριςαὕτη . As to vv. 2-13, this is not grammatically a parenthesis, for the sentence in ver. 1 is completely broken off, and a new sentence begins in ver. 14. ἀνεξιχνίαστον . Theodoret well remarks: καὶπῶςκηρύττειςεἴπερὁπλοῦτοςἀνεξιχνίαστοσ ; τοῦτογὰραὐτό , φησι , κηρύττω , ὅτιἀνεξιχνίαστος . The neuter πλοῦτος however, is the best supported reading in the text, being in א A B C D G 17 67**, while א o Dc K L P have the masculine, “ the riches of Christ” ; all the inexhaustible blessings contained in Him. Comp. Romans 11:33 (where the same word ἀνεξιχ . occurs), and 1 Corinthians 8:9-12, “ We know in part,” etc., and Philippians 3:10. 9. καὶφωτίσαι [πάντας ]. The reading is doubtful. φωτίσαι without πάτας is read by א * A 672, Cyr., Hil. and apparently Jerome. πάντας is added by א c B C D G K L P, Ital, Vulg., Syr., Chrys., al.; Tisch. Treg. Westcott and Hort leave out the word. The insertion seems easy to account for, as the verb seemed to require an accusative, which it usually has in the N.T. As to the sense, the advantage seems to be on the side of the omission. The general meaning is, indeed, pretty much the same with either reading, since the result of bringing the οἰκ to light is that all men are enabled to see it. But πάντας would seem to represent this result as attained by opening the eyes of men, whereas, since it was by revelation that the apostle learned it, opening men’ s eyes would not be sufficient; the mystery itself had to be brought to light. Besides, the meaning given to φωτίσαι with the reading πάντας , viz. to enlighten by way of instruction, has no parallel in the N.T., although it is so used in a few passages in the Sept. (Judges 13:8; 2 Kings 12:2, 2 Kings 12:17:27, 28). Moreover, if πάντας is read, although it is not emphatic, it cannot be limited to the Gentiles, and it would hardly be in St. Paul’ s manner to claim as his the office of enlightening all men as to the mystery. τίςἡοἰκονομίατοῦμυστηρίου . The Rec. Text has κοινωνία , a remarkable variation, but found in few MSS. οἰκονομία is in all the uncials, most cursives, and the versions and Fathers. “ What is the arrangement, or administration, of the mystery?” The mystery is that indicated in ver. 6, and that which was ordered or arranged as to the carrying out of this is the οἰκ . τ . μυστ . This was entrusted to St. Paul; cf. ver. 2. This seems more natural than to interpret οἰκ . as the arrangement which consisted in hitherto concealing the mystery and now revealing it. Comp. Colossians 1:25, τὴνοἰκ . τοῦΘεοῦτὴνδοθεῖσάνμοιεἰςὑμᾶςπληρῶσαιτὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦτὸμυστήριοντὸἀποκεκρυμμένονἀπὸτῶναἰώνων . τοῦἀποκεκρυμμένου , “ which was hidden” = σεσιγημένου , Romans 16:25. Comp. also 1 Corinthians 2:7, καλοῦμενΘεοῦσοφίανἐνμυστηρίῳτὴνἀποκεκρυμμένην . ἀπὸτῶναἰώνων , equivalent to χρόνοιςαἰωνίοις Romans 16:25, “ from the beginning.” The expression occurs only here and Colossians 1:26 in the N.T. ἀπ ʼ αἰῶνος (used also by Longinus) occurs in Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21, Acts 15:18. ἐκτοῦαἰ ., which is used by St John 9:32, is also found in Greek writers. Comp. πρὸτῶναἰώνων , 1 Corinthians 2:7. ἐντῷΘεῷτῷτὰπάντακτίσαντι . “ In God who created all things.” The Rec. Text adds, διὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , with Dc K L, Chrys., Theodoret, Oec. But the words are omitted by א A B C D* G P, Vulg., Syr-Pesh and Harcl (text) and other versions, Tert., Jerome, Augustine, al. It is not quite clear what is the point here of the words τῷτὰπ . κτίσαντι . When the words διὰἸ . Χρ . were read, a reference to the spiritual or new creation was naturally thought of; but these words being omitted, such a reference is excluded. But, in fact, it is remote from the context, and unsuitable to the emphatic and unrestricted πάντα as well as to the simple κτίσαντι . It is clear that κτίζειν cannot be applied to the μυστήριον , which is not a thing created. The simplest explanation seems to be that the Creator of all was free to make what arrangement He pleased as to the concealment and revelation of His purpose. As Bengel remarks: “ Rerum omnium creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquae oeconomiae pro potestate Dei universali liberrime dispensatae.” Harless connects the words with the following: “ Created all things in order to reveal in the Church His varied wisdom.” But so important an assertion as this would hardly be made in so incidental a manner in a subordinate clause, especially as it has no analogy elsewhere in the N.T. Moreover, νῦν in the following clause is against this view; see on ver. 10. 10-13. It is God’ s purpose, that even the angelic powers should learn through the Church the varied wisdom of God as shown in His eternal purpose in Christ 10. ἵναγνωρισθῇνῦνταῖςἀρχαῖςκαὶταῖςἐξουσίαιςἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοιςδιὰτῆςἐκκλησίαςἡπολυποίκιλοςσοφίατοῦΘεοῦ . “ To the end that now might be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places the much varied wisdom of God.” ἵνα is supposed by some to be connected with the whole of the preceding, or specially with ἐδόθη , κ .τ .λ . This would make St. Paul ascribe to his own preaching a result in which the other apostles had their share. But as γνωρισθῇ directly opposed to ἀποκεκρ ., and νῦν to ἀπὸτῶναἰώνων , the most natural interpretation is that the secret or mystery was concealed in former times in order that now the wisdom of God might be manifested in its fulfilment. Braune, however, connects ἵνα with τίςἡοἰκ . τοῦμ . “ The arrangement is directed to this end, that the wisdom of God,” etc. ταῖςἀρχαῖςκαὶταῖςἐξουσίαις . Understood by some of the older expositors of earthly powers in general, or of Jewish rulers in particular (so Locke), or again of heathen priests, or of Church authorities; all from unwillingness to admit the sublime thought of the apostle, that God’ s wisdom in the scheme of redemption is an object of contemplation to heavenly intelligences. Comp., on the contrary, 1 Peter 1:12, “ which things angels desire to look into.” V. Soden, comparing Colossians 2:10-15, understands the words of the angelio powers which ministered the law on the one hand, and on the other hand the elemental spirits which claimed the veneration of the heathen. To both was it now made manifest that the enmity was at an end. ἐντοιςἐπουρανίοις local, cf. 1:3, 20. It qualifies the preceding substantive notwithstanding the absence of the article, which is not necessary in the case of local definitions. Cf. Demosth. c. Pantaen, p. 967, τοῖςἔργοιςἐνΜαρωνείᾳ : Aeschines, Fals. Leg. 42, τὴντρίτηνπρεσβείανἐπὶτὸκοινὸντῶνἈμφικτυόνων (Bernhardy, p. 322 f.). διὰτῆςἐκκλησίας , i.e. as Theodoret expresses it, διὰτῆςπερὶτὴνἐκκλησίανοἰκονομίας . The Church is the phenomenon, which by its existence is a proof and exhibition of the Divine wisdom as manifested in a scheme of redemption which is world wide. πολυποίκιλος does not mean “ very wise,” as has been hastily inferred from the use of ποίκιλος in Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 315, where, however, the word means “ crafty.” πολυποίκιλος is used by Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1149, of cloth; by Eubulus, ap. Athen. 15, p. 679d, of flowers. In a figurative sense, as here, it occurs in the Orphica (lxi. 4, of discourse), and in Theophilus. The Latin here has “ multiformis.” The word probably refers to the variety of God’ s dealings with Jews and Gentiles in former times, which are now seen to have worked to one end. Gregory of Nyssa (Hom. viii. in Cant. Cant. followed by Theoph. and Oecum.) gives a striking interpretation. “ Before the incarnation of our Saviour the heavenly powers knew the wisdom of God only as simple and uniform, effecting wonders in a manner consonant with the nature of each thing. There was nothing ποίκιλον . But now by means of the οἰκονομία , with reference to the Church and the human race, the wisdom of God is known no longer as simple, but as πολυποίκιλος , producing contraries by contraries; by death, life; by dishonour, glory; by sin, righteousness; by a curse, blessing; by weakness, power. The invisible is manifested in flesh. He redeems captives, Himself the purchaser, and Himself the price.” The thought is no doubt striking, but the adjective πολυπ . does not suggest παράδοξον . Perhaps, indeed, the word has been too much pressed by some expositors, and is only suggested by the thought of the great apparent difference and real harmony between the Christian dispensation and that which preceded it. 11. κατὰπρόθεσιντῶναἰώνων . “ According to the purpose of the ages.” The genitive does not seem to be correctly taken as that of the object, the purpose concerning the ages, the foreordering of the ages (Whitby), since the writer is speaking of the one purpose carried out in Christ. Nor can πρόθεσις be taken as = foreknowledge (Chrys.). Modern commentators generally take it as = eternal. Ellicott compares πρόθεσιν … πρὸχρόνωναἰωνίων , 2 Timothy 1:9; but then the latter words are connected with δοθεῖσαν , not with πρόθ . A better sense is obtained by taking the genitive as one of possession, “ the purpose that runs through the ages.” Cf. Tennyson, “ through the ages one increasing purpose runs.” ἣνἐποίησενἐντῷΧριστῷἸησοῦτῷΚυρίῳἡμῶν . “ Which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It is questioned whether ἐποίησεν means “ formed” or “ executed” the purpose. The immediate connexion favours the former view; but it is urged by Meyer, Ellicott, al., that what follows belongs to the execution, not the formation of the purpose; and this has been thought also to account for Ἰησοῦ being added, since it was not the formation of the purpose, but its accomplishment that took place in the historical Jesus. For the use of ποιεῖν in this sense we are referred to ch. 2:3; Matthew 21:31; John 6:38, and in the Sept. 1 Kings 5:8; Isaiah 44:28. But in all these passages the object of the verb is θέλημα , which primarily means that which is willed, so that the exact meaning of π . θέλημα is to perform that which God, e.g., has willed. It could not mean to form a purpose. With πρόθεσις it is otherwise. This properly means the purpose as an act, although by a natural figure it may also be used of that which is purposed. The natural meaning of ποιεῖνπρ ., therefore, is to form a purpose, and the passages cited do not prove that any other sense is possible. Meyer also compares ποιεῖνγνώμην , Revelation 17:17; but even if this were quite parallel, we cannot explain St. Paul’ s Greek by that of the Apocalypse. In any case, when it is a πρόθεσιςτῶναἰώνων that is in question, ποιεῖν would be a very weak verb to use. The addition of Ἰησοῦ is sufficiently accounted for by this, that the apostle desired to bring to the mind of his readers the thought that He whom they know as Jesus their Lord is none other than the Christ in whom God had from eternity formed His purpose. So likewise ch. 1:4. 12. ἐνᾧἔχομεντὴνπαρρησίανκαὶπροσαγωγὴνἐνπεποιθήσειδιὰτῆςπίστεωςαὐτοῦ . So א A B 17 80, Greg-Nyss. The Rec. Text. has τήν before προσαγωγήν , with C Dc K L P, Ath., Chrys., al. D*c have τὴνπροσαγωγὴνκαὶτὴνπαρρησίαν . G: προσαγωγὴνεἰςτὴνπαρρησίαν . The article seems more likely to have been inserted for grammatical reasons than omitted either accidentally or otherwise. “ In whom we have our boldness and access in confidence through our faith in Him.” παρρησία is primarily freedom of speech, and is frequently found in that sense in the N.T., as well as in that of “ plainness of speech,” John 16:25, John 16:26. It occurs in the sense of “ confidence” in the Apocrypha and in Josephus, e.g. 1 Macc. 4:18, λήψετετὰσκῦλαμετὰπ .; Wisd. 5:1, στήσεταιἐνπ . πολλῇὁδίκαιος ; so Philippians 1:20; 1 Timothy 3:13; Hebrews 10:19; cf. 1 John 2:28, 1 John 3:21, 1 John 4:17, 1 John 5:14. The transition of meaning seems not to be by way of generalisation from confidence in speaking to confidence generally; for the primary meaning is not “ confidence,” but “ freedom, openness” of speech. But freedom of speech (in the active sense) implies the absence of fear or shame; see the passages just referred to in 1 John 2:28, “ have π ., and not be ashamed” ; 4:17, “ π . in the day of judgment.” In John 3:21 and 4:12, π . is connected with prayer. On προσαγωγή see 2:18. The intransitive sense is obviously the more suitable here. If the article is not read we must either suppose παρρησία and προσαγωγή to form parts of one conception, or we must connect the following words with the latter only. What has just been said of παρρησία shows that the former alternative is quite possible, παρρησίακαὶπροσαγωγή being nearly equivalent to προσαγωγὴμετὰπαρρησίας , and the idea would be the same that is expressed in Hebrews 4:16, προσερχώμεθαμετὰπαρρησίαςτῷθρόνῳτῆςχάριτος . The other alternative would leave παρρησία very indefinite. How grandly is this confidence expressed in Romans 8:38, Romans 8:39 ! (Meyer.) πεποίθησις is a word of the later Greek. It occurs several times in Josephus, also in Sextus Empiricus and in Philo, but only once in the Sept. 2 Kings 18:19. διὰτῆςπίστεωςαὐτοῦ . The genitive is that of the object, the πίστις is defined by its object. So in Mark 11:22, ἔχετεπ . Θεοῦ , Romans 3:22, Romans 3:26; James 2:1, μὴἐνπροσωποληψίαιςἔχετετὴνπίστιντοῦΚυρίουἡμῶν , and elsewhere. The words are to be connected with ἔχομεν , not with πεποιθήσει . 13. Διὸαἰτοῦμαιμὴἐγκακεῖνἐνταῖςθλίψεσίμουὑπὲρὑμῶν . Διό , viz. because I am the minister of so great a matter; connected, not with the preceding verse only, but with 8-12. The greater the office, the less becoming would it be to lose heart. The following words, however, admit of two interpretations. Either, I pray that I may not lose heart, or, I entreat you, not to lose heart. The latter view is adopted by the Syr., Theodoret, Jerome, Bengel, Harless, Olshausen, Braune. In its favour it is alleged that it is much more natural to supply the subject of the infinitive from that of the substantive verb; and, secondly, that it is difficult to understand ἐν on the other view. But the chief objection to the first-mentioned interpretation, according to Harless, is from the structure of the whole passage. Either St. Paul resumes in these words the course of thought begun in ver. 1, or he does not. Now it is the thought of supplication for his readers that separates the subsequent context from the parenthesis. If, then, he does not here resume ver. 1, how can we suppose that he could express the same thought in the parenthesis itself without observing that the parenthesis was thereby removed? If he does here resume ver. 1, the τούτουχάριν after διό , instead of καί , is inexplicable, or rather intolerable. The argument assumes that αἰτοῦμαι means, I pray (God), and is set aside by taking that word as = I entreat you. The difficulties in Theodoret’ s interpretation are greater. First, if αἰτοῦμαι is, I pray God, Θεόν could hardly be omitted. The passages cited as parallel, viz. Colossians 1:9 and James 1:6, are not really so. In the former, αἰτούμενοι only expresses the content of the prayer mentioned in προσευχόμενοι , which, of course, means prayer to God. In the latter, αἰτείτω repeats the αἰτείτω of the previous verse, which is defined by παρὰτοῦδίδοντοςΘεοῦπᾶσιν . Moreover, the words ἥτιςἐστιδόξαὑμῶν supply much more naturally a motive for the readers than for the apostle. The μου after θλίψεσι , too, would be superfluous if the apostle were praying for himself. And we may add that the implied apprehension lest he should be disheartened by persecution is not in harmony with the apostle’ s character or with his other utterances. He gloried in tribulation, and took pleasure in persecution (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:10; Colossians 1:24). Compare also the passage just referred to in Romans 8:38, Romans 8:39. But he might have reason to fear that some of the Gentile converts might be tempted to lose heart when they saw the persecution to which the apostle was subjected just because of his proclaiming the doctrine, here insisted on, of the free and equal participation of the Gentiles in the blessings of the Messiah’ s kingdom. ἐνταῖςθλίψεσίμουὑπὲρὑμῶν . “ In my tribulations on your behalf.” Namely, those which came upon him by reason of his being the Apostle of the Gentiles. Compare his touching words, Philippians 2:17, “ Even if I am offered on the sacrifice of your faith, I rejoice.” ἐν denotes the circumstances in which, etc.; ὑπὲρὑμῶν is clearly to be joined to θλίψεσίμου , not to αἰτοῦμαι (as Harless). The article is not required, since θλίβεσθαιὑπέρτινος is possible (2 Corinthians 1:6); cf. Galatians 4:14. ἥτιςἐστιδόξαὑμῶν . ἥτις introduces a reason; it is not simply equivalent to ἥ , but implies that what is predicated belongs to the nature of the thing, “ quippe qui,” “ inasmuch as this.” It is referred to μὴἐγκακεῖν by Theodoret, followed by Harless, Olshausen, Braune, al. This, of course, supposes the preceding prayer to be for the apostle himself. On this view it would be his personal fortitude that is the glory of the Ephesians, which would be a strange expression. If it be asked how his afflictions could be their glory, Chrysostom replies, “ Because God so loved them as to give His Son for them, and to afflict His servants; for in order that they should obtain so great blessings Paul was imprisoned.” 14-19 . Prayer for the readers, that they may be given spiritual strength; that Christ may dwell in their hearts; and that they may learn to know His love, which surpasses knowledge 14. τούτουχάρινκάμπτωτὰγόνατάμου . Resumes ver. 1, “ On this account,” referring to the train of thought in the latter part of ch. 2. Although the construction was broken off in ver. 2, the thought has continued to turn on the same ideas. “ I bend my knees,” this expresses the earnestness of the prayer, τὴνκατανενυγμένηνδέησινἐδήλωσεν , Chrys. “ A signo rein denotat,” Calvin. Some, as Calv., have with strange literality supposed that the apostle actually knelt while writing; (against πρός , see below). The usual posture in praying was standing: “ when ye stand praying,” Mark 11:25; “ stood and prayed,” Luke 18:11; “ the publican standing afar off,” ib. 13. But kneeling is mentioned, 1 Kings 8:54 (Solomon); Daniel 6:10; and, in the N.T., Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60, Acts 20:36, Acts 21:5. Eusebius mentions it as the custom proper to the Christians: τὸοἰκεῖοντοῖςχριστιανοῖςτῶνεὐχῶνἔθος (H.E. v. 5). Justin Martyr and Basil represent kneeling as a symbol of our fall by sin. See on Luke 22:41. πρὸςτὸνΠατέρα . κάμπτεινγόνυ in the literal sense takes the dative (Romans 11:4, Romans 11:14:11; both places, however, being quotations). Here as the words were equivalent to προσεύχομαι , πρός is used as indicating the direction of the prayer. After Πατέρα the Rec. Text has τοῦκυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , with א e D G K L, Syr., Vulg., Chrys., al. The words are wanting in א * A B C P 17 67**, Boh., Aeth., Jerome (expressly), and many others. The insertion of the words is easily accounted for; there would be no reason for their omission. Although Jerome expressly states, “ quod sequitur … non ut in Latinis Codicibus additum est, ad patrem domini nostri Jesu Christi, sed simpliciter ad patrem legendum ut dei patris nomen non domino nostro Jesu Christo sed omnibus creaturis rationabilibus coaptetur” (vii. 599), yet a little before he had himself written, “ ad patrem domini nostri Jesu Christi.” Whether the reading there is due to him or to a copyist, it serves as an illustration of the fact that the evidence of readings furnished by quotations in the Fathers as distinguished from express statements must be used with caution. 15. ἐξοὗπᾶσαπατριὰἐνοὐρανοῖςκαὶἐπὶγῆςὀνομάζεται . “ From whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.” We meet here with a perplexity similar to that in 2:21 , except that here no MSS. appear to have the article. We should rather have expected the apostle to say “ the whole family,” which would require πᾶσαἡπατριά . Indeed, many commentators and translators have so taken the words as they stand. This was perhaps even more natural in the case of those who read the addition τοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , since it appeared easy to take these words as the antecedent to οὗ , the sense thus yielded being that “ the whole family” was named from Christ. Whether that addition be accepted or not, if πᾶσαπ . is rendered “ every family,” the antecedent must be τόνΠατέρα . But if those words are omitted, the rendering “ the whole family” loses much of its plausibility. Grammatically it cannot be maintained. Πατριά is a quite classical word (although in classical writers πατρά is more common). It occurs in Herodot. in the sense “ race” or “ tribe,” as when he says there are three πατριαί of the Babylonians (i. 200). In the Sept. it occurs in a similar sense of those descended from a common ancestor, narrower, however, than φυλή , and wider than οἶκος ; see Exodus 12:3; Numbers 32:28; but also in a wider sense, as in Psa_21(22):28, πᾶσαιαἱπατριαὶτῶνἐθνῶν . So in Acts 3:25, πᾶσαιαἱπατριαὶτῆςγῆς , for which we have in Genesis 12:3 and 28:14 φυλαί , and in 22:18 and 26:4 ἔθνη . In Luke 2:4 we have ἐξοἴκουκαὶπατριᾶςΔαβίδ . See note ad loc. Some of the ancients take π . in the present passage as = fatherhood, πατρότης . Thus Theodoret says: ὃςἀληθῶςὑπάρχειπατήρ , ὃςοὐπαρ ʼ ἄλλουτοῦτολαβὼνἔχει , ἀλλ ʼ αὐτὸςτοῖςἄλλοιςμεταδέδωκετοῦτο . And Athanasius: “ God as Father of the Son is the only true Father, and all created paternity is a shadow of the true” (Orat. in Arian. i. 24). But, not to insist on the consideration that this conception is of a kind foreign to St. Paul’ s mode of thought, the word itself does not admit such a meaning; and those who have adopted it are involved in a difficulty with respect to the πατριαί in heaven,— a difficulty which Theodoret solves by understanding spiritual fathers to be called heavenly fathers; Jerome, by supposing the archangels to be alluded to as fathers. Setting aside this interpretation, we take the words as = “ every family.” This cannot be understood of “ the family on earth” and “ the family in heaven,” in whatever way these respectively are interpreted, for πᾶσα implies a plurality. By the πατριαί on earth are doubtless meant the nations, with the fundamental division into Jews and Gentiles; by those in heaven, angels regarded as belonging to certain groups or “ tribes.” ὀνομάζεται , i.e. gets the name πατριά , not, are called “ sons of God,” which is not in the words. Nor is it merely the fact of creation that is referred to; for the relation of intelligent beings to their author is something deeper than that of things to their creator. Of things merely material God is the creator; of personal intelligences He is the Father. Hence the words suggest a motive for the prayer, and a reason for expecting its fulfilment, for those addressed were also πατριά , of whom God was the Father. The rendering “ every family” is therefore not only more grammatical, but more to the purpose than “ the whole family,” and the addition of the words τοῦΚυρίου , κ .τ .λ ., injures the sense. ὀνομάζεται has been taken by some to mean “ exists,” or “ is called into existence” ; but the verb never has this meaning, certainly not in 1:21 or 5:3. Even were it true that καλεῖν meant “ to call into existence,” this would prove nothing as to ὀνομάζειν , for καλεῖν means to call in the sense “ bid one come,” which in certain circumstances might signify to call into existence; whereas ὀν . is simply to give a name to a thing. Nor is it true that καλεῖν of itself has the alleged meaning: it is certainly not proved by Philo’ s words, “ τὰμὴὄνταἐκάλεσενεἰςτὸεἶναι .” For ὀνομάζεσθαιἔκτινος , cf. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1036, ὥστ ʼ ὠνομάσθηςἐκτύχηςταύτης , ὃςεἶ . ἵναδῷὑμῖνκατὰτὸπλοῦτοςτῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ . “ That He would grant you according to the riches of His glory.” δῷ is the reading of א A B C G, whilst δῴη is read by D K L and most MSS. The ἳνα depends on the idea of προσεύχομαι implied in the preceding, so that this and the following verses express the content of the prayer. For ἵνα cf. Colossians 1:9. “ Riches of His glory,” Romans 9:23. Not to be limited to power or to grace, but in accordance with His whole glorious perfection. The term πλοῦτος is particularly suitable when the thought is of God as a giver. δυνάμεικραταιωθῆναιδιὰτοῦΠνεύματοςαὐτοῦεἰςτὸνἔσωἄνθρωπον . “ To be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inward man.” δυνάμει is instrumental, “ ut virtute seu fortitudine ab eo acceptâ corroboremini,” Estius. Harless understands it as denoting the form in which the strengthening takes place, viz. a strengthening in power, not in knowledge or the like, comparing Acts 4:33, “ with great power gave the apostles witness” ; but this does not seem parallel. In the present case this would be a tautology, “ be strengthened with strength.” κραταιόω , from the poetic κραταιός (used also in later prose and in Sept.), is a later form for κρατύνω . εἰς indicates the direction of the gift. The meaning of ὁἔσωἄνθρωπος appears to be decided by Romans 7:22, “ I delight in the law of God,” κατὰτὸνἔσωἄνθρωπον . It is not therefore the καινὸςἀνθρ ., but is the higher moral and rational nature, the Reason, which, by its constitution, is in harmony with the Divine Law, but in the unregenerate is enslaved to the power of sin in the flesh, that is, to the appetites and desires which constitute man’ s lower nature (compare Butler’ s Sermons on Human Nature). ὁἔσωἄνθ . requires renewal, and undergoes renewal from day to day, ἀνακαινοῦταιἡμέρᾳκαὶἡμέρᾳ , 2 Corinthians 4:16. It has been maintained, not without plausibility, that the expressions ὁἔσωἄνθρ . and ὁἔξωἄνθρ . are derived from the school of Plato, not directly, but through Plato’ s use having influenced common speech. We find in Plato, τοῦἀνθρώπουὁἐντὸςἄνθρωπος (Rep. ix. p. 589); in Plotinus, ὁεἴσωἄνθρ . (Enn. v. 1. 10) and ὁἔξωἄνθρ . The threefold division, πνεῦμα , νοῦς , σῶμα , in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, points in the same direction. With St. Paul, however, the contrast between the inward man and the outward man is not that between the pure and the impure. The inward man includes not only the Reason, which accepts the law of God and approves of it, and the Conscience, which pronounces the obligation and condemns the violation of it, but also the Will from which action proceeds; see Romans 7:17, Romans 7:18, where ἐγώ is used of both parts. St. Paul’ s view of the relation of the man to virtue and vice is much more like that of Aristotle. The man knows the right, but at the moment of action appetite blinds him. It deserves notice also that St. Paul does not use πνεῦμα of the unregenerate. In them the higher principle is νοῦς , which ineffectively protests against the σάρξ , while in the regenerate πνεῦμα is superior (Romans 7:25, Romans 7:8:4, Romans 7:9). That he does not mean πνεῦμα and ψυχή to be a complete division of the human faculties, would appear from 1 Corinthians 14:14, 1 Corinthians 14:15. 17. κατοικῆσαιτὸνΧριστὸνδιὰτῆςπίστεωςἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςὑμῶν . “ That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” κατοικῆσαι is, by many expositors, taken as the end or result of κραταιωθῆναι on account of, 1st, the asyndeton; 2nd, the emphatic position of the verb; and 3rd, the difference in the construction of the two clauses, which otherwise must be taken as co-ordinate. But although the use of the infinitive of end or result is often very lax, none of the instances cited in the grammars are parallel to this. Setting aside the cases in which the principal verb is one which means “ to will, order,” etc., or which otherwise involves the notion of purpose, in those which remain the subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the verb on which it depends. The emphatic position of κατοικῆσαι seems sufficiently accounted for by the importance of the idea it expresses, and the rhetorical advantage of giving it a position parallel to that of κραταιωθῆναι . The asyndeton need cause no difficulty, considering the structure of the whole sentence. κατοικ . is not something added to κραται ., but is a further definition of it. κατοικεῖν is found in N.T. only here and Colossians 1:19, Colossians 2:9 (but ἐγκατοικεῖν , 2 Peter 2:8). It is very frequent in Sept. (as in classical authors also), and is opposed to παροικεῖν as the permanent to the transitory; cf. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 4.1 ff He now passes, as usually in his Epistles, after the doctrinal exposition to the practical exhortation, in the course of which, however, he is presently drawn back (ver. 4) to doctrinal teaching to support his exhortation to unity. 1-4. Exhortation to live in a manner worthy of their calling, in lowliness, patience, love, and unity 1. παρακαλῶοὖνὑμᾶςἐγὼὁδέσμιοςἐνΚυρίῳ . “ I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, entreat you.” οὖν may indicate inference from the immediately preceding verse, or more probably (since it is the transition between two sections of the Epistle) from the whole former part, ὁδέσμιοςἐνΚ . This is not to excite their sympathy, or as desiring that they should cheer him in his troubles by their obedience; for, as Theodoret remarks, “ he exults in his bonds for Christ’ s sake more than a king in his diadem” ; but rather to add force to his exhortation. “ In the Lord” for “ in Domini vinculis constrictus est qui ἐνΚυρίῳὥν vinctus est,” Fritzsche (Rom. ii. p. 84). It does not signify “ for Christ’ s sake” ; compare συνεργὸςἐνΧριστῷ , Romans 16:3, Romans 16:9; ἀγαπητὸςἐνΚυρίῳ ib. 8. It assigns rather the special character which distinguished this captivity from others. παρακαλῶ may be either “ exhort” or “ entreat, beseech” ; and in both senses it is used either with an infinitive or with a conjunction . Either sense would suit here, but “ exhort” seems too weak for the connexion; comp. Romans 12:1, where it is followed by “ by the mercies of God,” a strong form of appeal. More than exhortation is implied, especially as it is an absolute duty to which he calls them. ἀξίωςπεριπατῆσαιτῆςκλήσεωςἧςἐκλήθητε . “ To walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called.” ἧς attracted for ἥν the cognate accusative; cf. 1:6; 2 Corinthians 1:4. True, the dative might be used with καλεῖν (see 2 Timothy 1:9); but the attraction of the dative would not be in accordance with N.T. practice. 2. μετὰπάσηςταπεινοφροσύνηςκαὶπρᾳότητος . “ With all lowliness and meekness.” μετά is used of accompanying actions or dispositions (see Acts 17:11; 2 Corinthians 7:15); πάσης belongs to both substantives. What is ταπεινοφροσύνη Chrysostom says it is ὅταντιςμέγαςὤνἑαυτὸνταπεινοῖ ; and elsewhere, ὅτανμεγάλατὶςἑαυτῷσυνειδώς , μηδὲνμέγαπερὶαὑτοῦφαντάζηται . Trench says it is rather esteeming ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so, the thinking truly, and therefore lowlily of ourselves; adding that Chrysostom is bringing in pride again under the disguise of humility. In this he is followed by Alford and other English com mentators. Yet surely this is not right. A man may be small, and know himself to be so, and yet not be humble. But every man cannot truly think himself smaller than his fellows; nor can this be the meaning of Php 2:3. If a man is really greater than others in any quality or attainment, moral, intellectual, or spiritual, does the obligation of humility bind him to think falsely that he is less than they? It is no doubt true that the more a man advances in knowledge or in spiritual insight, the higher his ideal becomes, and so the more sensibly he feels how far he comes short of it. This is one aspect of humility, but it is not ταπεινοφρούνη . And St. Paul is speaking of humility as a Christian social virtue. St. Paul declares himself to be not a whit inferior to οἱὑπερλίανἀπόστολοι , and in the same breath says that he humbled himself; he even exhorts his readers to imitate him, and yet he attributes this very virtue to himself, Acts 20:19. And what of our Lord Himself, who was meek and lowly, πρᾷοςκαὶταπεινός , in heart? One who knows himself greater in relation to others, but who is contented to be treated as if he were less, such a one is certainly entitled to be called humble-minded; he exhibits ταπεινοφρούνη . Chrysostom’ s definition, then, is far truer than Trench’ s; it only errs by limiting the possibility of the virtue to those who are great. This is a peculiarly Christian virtue. The word occurs in Josephus and Epictetus, but only in a bad sense as = “ meanness of spirit.” πρᾳότης is understood by some expositors as meekness toward God and toward men; the spirit “ which never rises in in subordination against God, nor in resentment against man” (Eadie); but its use in the N.T. does not justify the introduction of the former idea; compare 1 Corinthians 4:21, “ Shall I come to you with a rod, or in the spirit of πρ .” ? 2 Timothy 2:25, “ correcting in πρ .” ; Titus 3:2, “ showing all πρ . towards all men.” Resignation toward God and meekness toward man are distinct though allied virtues. The same virtues are mentioned in Colossians 3:12. μετὰμακροθμυίας , “ with long-suffering,” connected by some expositors with the following; but ἀνεχόμενοι is already defined by ἐνἀγάπῃ , which is best connected with that word. The repetition of μετά is rather in favour of than adverse to the parallelism with the preceding, ταπ . and πρᾳ . being taken more closely together as being nearly allied virtues. μακροθυμία has two senses: steadfastness, especially in enduring suffering, as in Plutarch, “ Never ask from God freedom from trouble, but μακροθυμία ” (Luc. 32) cf. James 5:10; Hebrews 6:12; but generally in N.T. slowness in avenging wrongs, forbearance, explained, in fact, in the following words. Fritzsche defines it, “ Clementia, quâ irae temperans delictum non statim vindices, sed ei qui peccaverit poenitendi locum relinquas” (Rom. i. p. 98). Compare 1 Corinthians 13:4, ἡἀγάπημακροθυμεῖ , χρηστεύεται . In his comment on that passage, Chrysostom rather curiously says: μακρόθυμοςδιὰτοῦτολέγεταιἐπειδὴμακράντινακαὶμεγάληνἔχειψυχήν . ἀνεχόμενοιἀλλήλωνἐνἀγάπῃ . “ Forbearing one another in love.” This mutual forbearance is the expression in action of μακροθυμία It involves bearing with one another’ s weaknesses, not ceasing to love our neighbour or friend because of those faults in him which perhaps offend or displease us. The participles fall into the nominative by a common idiom, ὑμεῖς being the logical subject of ἀξίωςπεριπατ ; cf. ch. 3:18 and Colossians 1:10. There is no need, then, with some commentators, to supply ἐστέ or γίνεσθε . 3. σπουδάζοντεςτηρεῖντὴνἑνότητατοῦπνεύματοςἐντῷσυνδέσμῳτῆςεἰρήνης , “ giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” “ Endeavouring,” as in the AV., would imply the possibility, if not likelihood, of the endeavour failing. Trench (On the Authorised Version, p. 44) says that in the time of the translators “ endeavouring” meant “ giving all diligence.” But in Acts 16:10 the word is used to render ἐζητήσαμεν , and except in this and two other passages it is not used for σπουδάζειν , which, in Titus 3:12 and 2 Peter 3:14, is rendered “ be diligent” ; in 2 Timothy 4:9, 2 Timothy 4:21, “ do thy diligence” ; 2 Timothy 2:15, “ study.” The other passages where the rendering is “ endeavour” are 1 Thessalonians 2:17, where the endeavour did fail, and 2 Peter 1:15, where failure might have appeared possible. Theophylact well expresses the force of the word here: οὐκἀπόνωςἰσχύσομενεἰρηνεύειν . The clause expresses the end to be attained by the exercise of the virtues mentioned in ver. 2. τηρεῖν , “ to preserve,” for it is supposed already to exist. “ Etiam ubi nulla fissura est, monitis opus est,” Bengel. The existence of divisions, therefore, is not suggested. “ The unity of the Spirit,” i.e. the unity which the Spirit has given us. “ The Spirit unites those who are separated by race and customs,” Chrys., and so most recent commentators; and this seems to be proved by ἕνΠνεῦμα in the following verse. But Calvin, Estius, and others, following Anselm and ps-Ambrose, understand πν . here of the human spirit, “ animorum concordia.” De Wette, again, thinks that the analogy of ἑνότηςτῆςπίστεως , in ver. 13, is against the received interpretation, and accordingly interprets “ the unity of the spirit of the Christian community,” taking πν . in ver. 4 similarly. Comp. Grotius, “ unitatem ecclesiae quae est corpus spirituale.” (Theodore Mops. agrees with Chrys. The quotation in Ellicott belongs to the next verse.) ἐντῷσυνδέσμῳτῆςεἰρήνης . Genitive of apposition; peace is the bond in which the unity is kept; cf. σύνδεσμονἀδικίας , Acts 8:23, and σύνδεσμοςεὐνοίας , Plut. Num_6. The fact that love is called the bond of peace in Colossians 3:14 does not justify us in taking the words here as meaning “ love,” an interpretation adopted, probably, in consequence of ἐν being taken instrumentally; in which case, as peace could not be the instrument by which the unity of the Spirit is maintained, but is itself maintained thereby, the genitive could not be one of apposition. But the ἐν is parallel to the ἐν before ἀγάπῃ , and in any case it is not by the bond of peace that the unity of the Spirit is kept. 4-11. Essential unity of the Church. It is one Body, animated by one Spirit, baptized into the name of the one Lord, and all being children of the same Father. But the members have their different gifts and offices 4. ἓνσῶμακαὶἓνΠνεῦμακαθὼςκαὶἐκλὴθητεἐνμιᾷἐλπίδιτῆςκλήσεωςὑμῶν . “ One Body, and one Spirit, even as ye were called in one hope of your calling.” This and the two following verses express the objective unity belonging to the Christian dispensation in all its aspects. First, the oneness of the Church itself: one Body, one Spirit, one Hope. Next, the source and instruments of that unity, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; and lastly, the unity of the Divine Author, who is defined, in a threefold manner, as over all, through all, and in all. Although there is no connecting particle, and γάρ is certainly not to be supplied, the declaration is introduced as supplying a motive for the exhortation, but the absence of any such particle makes it more vivid and impressive. We need not even supply ἐστί ; it is rather to be viewed as an abrupt and emphatic reminder of what the readers well knew, as if the writer were addressing them in person. Still less are we to supply, with Theophylact and Oecumenius, “ Be ye,” or with others, “ Ye are,” neither of which would agree with vv. 5 and 6. One Body; namely, the Church itself, so often thus described; one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which dwells in and is the vivifying Spirit of that body; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13. The parallelism εἷςΚύριος , εἷςΘεός seems to require this. Comp. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, where τὸαὐτὸΠνεῦμα , ὁαὐτὸςΚύριος , ὁαὐτὸςΘεός . Chrysostom, however, interprets differently; indeed, he gives choice of several interpretations, none of them agreeing with this. “ Showing (he says) that from one body there will be one spirit; or that there may be one body but not one spirit, as if one should be a friend of heretics; or that he shames them from that, that is, ye who have received one spirit and been made to drink from one fountain ought not to be differently minded; or by spirit here he means readiness, προθυμία .” καθώς is not used by Attic writers, who employ καθάπερ or καθό . It is called Alexandrian, but is not confined to Alexandrian or biblical writers. ἐνμιᾷἐλπίδι . ἐν is not instrumental, as Meyer holds. Comp. καλεῖνἐνχάριτι , Galatians 1:6; ἐνεἰρήνῃ , 1 Corinthians 7:15; ἐνἁγιασμῷ , 1 Thessalonians 4:7; nor is it = εἰς or ἐπί , as Chrysostom. It is frequently said in this and similar cases that it indicates the “ element” in which something takes place. But this is no explanation, it merely suggests an indefinite figure, which itself requires explanation. Indeed, the word “ element” or “ sphere” seems to imply something previously existing. What ἐν indicates is that the hope was an essential accompaniment of their calling, a “ conditio” (not “ condition” in the English sense). It differs from εἰς in this, that the latter preposition would suggest that the “ hope,” “ peace,” etc., followed the calling in time. In fact, the expression εἴςτι involves a figure taken from motion; he who is called is conceived as leaving the place in which the call reached him. But κλῆσις as applied to the Christian calling is pregnant, it includes the idea of the state into which the calling brings those who are called. “ ἐν exprimit indolem rei,” Bengel on 1 Thessalonians 4:7; so also the verb. Hence such an expression as κλητοὶἅγιοι . They are so called as to be ἐνἐλπίδι , ἐνεἰρήνῃ , by the very fact of their calling, not merely as a result of it. Hence, also, we are not to interpret “ hope of your calling,” or “ the hope arising from your calling,” which is hardly consistent, by the way, with the idea that hope is the “ element.” It is rather the hope belonging to your calling. 5. εἷςΚύριος , μίαπίστις , ἓνβάπτισμα . “ One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.” One Lord, Christ; one faith, of which He is the object, one in its nature and essence; and one baptism, by which we are brought into the profession of this faith. The question has been asked, Why is the other sacrament not mentioned? and various answers have been given, of which the one that is most to the point, perhaps, is that it is not a ground or antecedent condition of unity, but an expression of it. Yet it must be admitted that it would supply a strong motive for preserving unity, as in 1 Corinthians 10:17. Probably, as it was not essential to mention it, the omission is due in part to the rhythmical arrangement of three triads. 6. εἷςΘεὸςκαὶπατὴρπάντων . “ One God and Father of all.” Observe the climax: first, the Church, then Christ, then God; also the order of the three Persons— Spirit, Lord, Father. Ellicott quotes from Cocceius: “ Etiamsi baptizamur in nomen Patris Filii et Spiritus. Sancti, et filium unum Dominum nominamus, tamen non credimus nisi in unum Deum.” It is arbitrary to limit πάντων to the faithful. It is true the context speaks only of Christians, but then πάντες has not been used. The writer advances from the Lord of the Church to the God and Father of all. For this notion of Fatherhood see Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 1. ὁἐπὶπάντωνκαὶδιὰπάντωνκαὶἐνπᾶσιν . “ Who is over all, and through all, and in all.” The Received Text adds ὑμῖν , with a few cursives, and Chrys. (Comm. not text), Theoph., Oec. ἡμῖν is added in D G K L, Vulg., Syr. (both), Arm., Goth., Iren. There is no pronoun in א A B C P 17 672, Ign. Orig. al. It was, no doubt, added as a gloss, πᾶσιν seeming to require a limitation. As πᾶσιν is undoubtedly masculine, it is most natural to take πάντων in both places as masculine also. Ver. 7 individualises the πάντων by ἑνὶἑκάστῳἡμῶν . Erasmus and some later commentators, however, have taken the first and second πάντων as neuter, whilst the Vulg. so takes the second. ὁἐπὶπάντων ; cf. Romans 9:5, ὁὢνἐπὶπάντωνΘεὸςεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοῦςαἰῶνας . “ Over all,” as a sovereign ruler. It is less easy to say what are the distinct ideas meant to be expressed by διά and ἐν respectively. The latter is more individualising, the indwelling is an indwelling in each; whereas διὰπάντων expresses a relation to the whole body, through the whole of which the influence and power of God are diffused. It is a sustaining and working presence. This does not involve the supplying of ἐνεργῶν . We are not to suppose a direct reference to the Trinity in these three prepositional clauses, for here it is the Father that is specially mentioned in parallelism to the Spirit and the Son, previously spoken of. 7. ἐνὶδὲἑκάστῳἡμῶνἐδόθηἡχάριςκατὰτὸμέτροντῆςδωρεᾶςτοῦχριστοῦ . “ But to each one of us the grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” He passes from the relation to the whole to the relation to the individual. In the oneness of the body, etc., there is room for diversity, and no one is overlooked; each has his own position. Compare Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:4 ff., where the conception is carried out in detail. “ The grace,” i.e. the grace which he has. The article is omitted in B D G L P, but is present in א A C Dc K Pcorr, most others. The omission is easy to account for from the adjoining η in ἐδόθη . “ According to the measure,” etc., i.e. according to what Christ has given; cf. Romans 12:6, “ gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us.” 8. Διὸλέγει . “ Wherefore it saith” = “ it is said.” If any substantive is to be supplied it is ἡγραφή ; but the verb may well be taken impersonally, just as in colloquial English one may often hear: “ it says,” or the like. Many expositors, however, supply ὁΘεός . Meyer even says, “ Who says it is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scripture is.” Similarly Alford and Ellicott. If it were St. Paul’ s habit to introduce quotations from the O.T., by whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula ὁΘεὸςλέγει , then this supplement here might be defended. But it is not. In quoting he sometimes says λέγει , frequently ἡγραφὴλέγει , at other times Δαβὶδλέγει ,Ἡσαΐαςλέγει . There is not a single instance in which ὁΘεός is either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original context God is the speaker, as in Romans 9:15. Even when that is the case he does not hesitate to use a different subject, as in Romans 10:19, Romans 10:20, “ Moses saith,” “ Isaiah is very bold, and saith” ; Romans 9:17, “ The Scripture saith to Pharaoh.” This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in ch. 5:14 a form of expression consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration. When Meyer (followed by Alford and Ellicott) says that ἡγραφή must not be supplied unless it is given by the context, the reply is obvious, namely, that, as above stated, ἡγραφὴλέγει does, in fact, often occur, and therefore the apostle might have used it here, whereas ὁΘεὸςλέγει does not occur (except in cases unlike this), and we have reason to believe could not be used by St. Paul here. It is some additional confirmation of this that both here and in ch. 5:14 (if that is a biblical quotation) he does not hesitate to make important alterations. This is the view taken by Braune, Macpherson, Moule; the latter, however, adding that for St. Paul “ the word of the Scripture and the word of its Author are convertible terms.” It is objected that although φησί is used impersonally, λέγει is not. The present passage and ver. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles where this sense is at least applicable; cf. Romans 15:10, where λέγει is parallel to γέγραπται in ver. 9; Galatians 3:16, where it corresponds to ἐρρήθησαν . But, in fact, the impersonal use of φησί in Greek authors is quite different, namely = φασί , “ they say” (so 1 Corinthians 10:10). Classical authors had no opportunity of using λέγει as it is used here, as they did not possess any collection of writings which could be referred to as ἡγραφή , or by any like word. They could say: ὁνόμοςλέγει , and τὸλεγόμενον . Ἀναβὰςεἰςὕψοςᾐχμαλώτευσεναἰχμαλωσίανκαὶἔδωκεδόματατοῖςἀνθρώποις . “ When he ascended on high He led a captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” The words appear to be taken from Ps: 68:18 (where the verbs are in the second person); but there is an important divergence in the latter clause, which in the Hebrew is, “ Thou has received gifts among men,” the meaning being, received tributary gifts amongst the vanquished, or according to another interpretation, gifts consisting in the persons of the surrendered enemies (Ibn Ezra, Ewald). The Septuagint also has ἔλαβεςδόματαἐνἀνθρώπῳ , or, according to another reading, ἀνθρώποις . Various attempts have been made to account for the divergence. Chrysostom simply says the one is the same as the other, τοῦτοταὐτόνἐστινἐκείνῳ and so Theophylact, adding, “ for God giving the gifts receives in return the service.” Meyer, followed by Alford and Eadie, maintains that the Hebrew verb often has a proleptic signification, “ to fetch,” i.e. to take in order to give. The apostle, says Eadie, seizes on the latter portion of the sense, and renders— ἔδωκε . Most of the passages cited for this are irrelevant to the present purpose, the verb being followed by what we may call the dative of a pronoun, e.g. Genesis 15:9, “ Take for me” ; 27:13, “ Fetch me them.” In such cases it is plain that the notion of subsequent giving is in the “ mihi,” not in the verb, or rather the dative is simply analogous to the dativus commodi. This use is quite parallel to that of the English “ get.” In 18:5, “ I will get a piece of bread and comfort ye your hearts,” the pronoun is omitted as needless, the words that follow expressing the purpose for which the bread was to be fetched. In 42:16, “ Send one of you and let him fetch your brother,” there is no idea of giving. In no case is giving any part of the idea of the Hebrew verb any more than of the English “ get” or “ fetch.” But whatever may be thought of this “ proleptic use,” this is not the sense of the verb in the psalm, so that it would not really help. The psalm speaks of receiving (material) gifts from men; the apostle, of giving (spiritual) gifts to men. Macpherson says, “ The modification is quite justifiable, on the ground that Christ, to whom the words are applied, receives gifts among men only that He may bestow them upon men.” But Christ did not receive amongst men the gifts which He is here said to bestow. The Pulpit Commentary states: “ Whereas in the psalm it is said gave gifts to men” [which is not in the psalm, but in the Epistle], as modified by the apostle it is said “ received gifts for men,” which is neither one nor the other, but a particular interpretation of the psalm adopted in the English version. Ellicott, admitting that the difference is not diminished by any of the proposed reconciliations, takes refuge in the apostolic authority of St. Paul. “ The inspired apostle, by a slight (?) change of language and substitution of ἔδωκε for the more dubious ל ָ ק ַ ת , succinctly, suggestively, and authoritatively unfolds.” But he does not profess to be interpreting (as in Romans 10:6, Romans 10:7, Romans 10:8), but quoting. Such a view, indeed, would open the door to the wildest freaks of interpretation; they might not, indeed, command assent as inspired, but they could never be rejected as unreasonable. The change here, far from being slight, is just in that point in which alone the quotation is connected either with what precedes or with what follows. The supposition that St. Paul does not intend either to quote exactly or to interpret, but in the familiar Jewish fashion adapts the passage to his own use, knowing that those of his readers who were familiar with the psalm would recognise the alteration and see the purpose of it, namely, that instead of receiving gifts of homage Christ gives His gifts to men, is not open to any serious objection, since he does not found any argument on the passage. So Theodore Mops., who remarks that ὑπαλλάξαςτὸἔλαβεδόματαοὕτωςἐντῷψαλμῷκείμενον , ἔδωκεδόματαεἶπε , τῇὑπαλλαγῇπερὶτὴνοἰκείανχρησάμενοςἀκολουθίαν · ἐκεῖμὲνγὰρπρὸςτὴνὑπόθεσιντὸἔλαβενἥρμοττεν , ἐνταῦθαδὲτῷπροκειμένῳτὸἔδωκενἀκόλουθονἦν . As Oltramare observes: Paul wishes to speak of the spiritual gifts granted to the Christian in the measure of the gift of Christ, exalted to heaven. An expression of Scripture occurs to him, which strikes him as being “ le mot de la situation.” Depicting originally the triumph of God, it strikes him as expressing well (mutatis mutandis) the triumph of Christ, but he does not identify either the facts or the persons. It is, however, remarkable that the same interpretation of the words of the psalm is given in the Syriac Version and in the Targum. The former may have followed St. Paul, as the Arabic and Ethiopic, although made from the Septuagint, have done; and it has been suggested that the Targumist, finding a difficulty, followed the Syriac,— an improbable supposition. In his expansion he interprets the words of Moses, “ Thou didst ascend to the firmament, Moses the prophet, thou didst take a captivity captive, thou didst teach the words of the law, thou gavest gifts to the sons of men.” This Targum as we have it is of comparatively late date. But if we may assume, as no doubt we may, that it is giving us here an ancient interpretation, we have a solution of the difficulty so far as St. Paul is concerned; he simply made use of the Rabbinical interpretation as being suitable to his purpose. Compare 1 Corinthians 10:4. No doubt the question remains, What led the Targumist to take this view of the passage? Hitzig suggests that as the receiving of gifts seemed not consonant with the majesty of God, the paraphrast mentally substituted for ל ק ח the verb ח ל ק , which has the same letters in a different order, and means “ to divide, give a portion,” etc. This verb is rendered δίδωσιν by the Sept. in Genesis 49:27 , while in 2 Chronicles 28:21, where it occurs in an otherwise unexampled sense “ plunder” , the Sept. has ἔλαβεν . The feeling that prompted the paraphrast here shows itself also in Rashi’ s comment, “ took, that thou mightest give.” This renders needless a recourse to the supposition that the quotation is from a Christian hymn, which borrowed from the psalm. The objection raised to this and to the preceding view from the use of λέγει , has no force except on the assumption that Θεός is to be supplied; and, in fact, in ver. 14 many expositors suppose that it is a hymn that is quoted in the same manner. Nor can it be truly alleged that St. Paul here treats the words as belonging to canonical Scripture, for he draws no inference from them, as we shall see. Indeed, if he himself had altered them, instead of adopting an existing alteration, it would be equally impossible for him to argue from the altered text as if it were canonical. ᾐχμαλώτευσεναἰχμαλωσίαν . “ Took captive a body of captives,” the cognate accusative, abstract for concrete, as the same word is used in 1 Esdr. 5:45 and Judith 2:9. We have the same expression in the song of Deborah: “ Arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam,” Judges 5:12, which is perhaps the source of the expression in the psalm. The interpretation adopted in a popular hymn, “ captivity is captive led,” as if “ captivity” meant the power that took captive, is quite untenable, and such a use of the abstract is foreign to Hebrew thought. Who are these captives? Chrysostom replies: The enemies of Christ, viz. Satan, sin, and death. In substance this interpretation is no doubt correct, but it is unnecessary to define the enemies; the figure is general, that of a triumphant conqueror leading his conquered enemies in his train. Compare Colossians 2:15. To press the figure further would lead us into difficulties. These enemies are not yet finally destroyed, ἔσχατοςἐχθρὸςκαταργεῖταιὁθάνατος (1 Corinthians 15:25). Theodoret interprets the “ captives” as the redeemed (as Justin had already done), namely, as having been captives of the devil, οὐγὰρἐλευθέρουςὄνταςἡμᾶςᾐχμαλώτευσεν , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπὸτοῦδιαβόλουγεγενημένουςἀντῃχμαλώτευσεν , καὶτὴνἐλευθερίανἡμῖνἐδωρήσατο ; and so many moderns. But this does not agree with the construction by which the αἰχμαλωσία must be the result of the action of the verb. Besides, the captives are distinguished from ἄνθρωποι . The same objections hold against the view that the captives are the souls of the righteous whom Christ delivered from Hades (Lyra, Estius). “ And gave gifts.” καί is omitted in א A C2 D G 17, al.; but inserted in א c B C* and c Dc K L P, al. Syr. A tendency to assimilate to the passage in the psalm appears in the reading ᾐχμαλώτευσαις in A L and several MSS., which nevertheless read ἔδωκεν . For the gifts compare Acts 2:33. 9. τὸδὲἈνέβητίἐστινεἰμὴὅτικαὶκατέβηεἰςτὰκατώτεραμέρητῆςγῆς . “ Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth?” There is here a very important variety of reading— κατέβη without πρῶτον is the reading of א A C D G 17 672, Boh., Sahid., Eth., Amiat., Iren., Orig., Chrys. (Comm.), Aug., Jerome. κατέβηπρῶτον is read in א c B Cc K L P, most MSS. Vulg., Goth., Syr. (both), Arm., Theodoret. The weight of authority is decidedly on the side of omission. Transcriptional evidence points the same way. The meaning which presented itself on the surface was that Christ who ascended had had His original seat in heaven, and that what the apostle intended, therefore, was that He descended before He ascended; hence πρῶτον would naturally suggest itself to the mind of a reader. On the other hand, it is not easy to see why it should be omitted. Reiche, indeed, takes the opposite new. The word, he says, might seem superfluous, since both in ver. 8 and ver. 10 we have ἀναβὰςεἰςὕψος without πρῶτον ; or, again, unsuitable, since Christ descended but once, supposing, namely, that the reference to ἀναβάς was missed. He thinks πρῶτον all but necessary to the argument of the apostle. This is just what some early copyists thought, and it is a consideration much more likely to have affected them than the opposite one, that the word was superfluous. It is rejected by most critics, but Westcott and Hort admit it to a place in the margin. μέρη after κατώτερα has the authority of א A B C Dc K L P, while it is omitted by D* G (not f). The versions and Fathers are divided. The word is read in Vulg., Boh., Arm., Syr-Pesh, Chrys., Theodoret, Aug., but omitted by Goth., Syr. (Sch.), Eth., Iren., Theodotus. The insertion or omission makes no difference in the sense. Most recent critical editors retain the word. Tischendorf rejected it in his seventh, but restored it in his eighth edition. Alford, Ellicott, and Meyer pronounce against it; the last-mentioned suggesting that it is a gloss due to the old explanation of the descent into hell, in order to mark the place as subterranean. τὸδὲἈνέβη , i.e. not the word ἀνέβη , which had not occurred, but that which is implied in ἀναβάς . τίἐστινεἰμή , κ .τ .λ ., i.e. “ what does this mean but,” etc. τὰκατώτερατῆςγῆς . The genitive may be either partitive, the lower as distinguished from the higher parts of the earth, or of apposition, the lower regions, i.e. those of the earth. With the former interpretation we may understand either death simply, as Chrysostom and the other Greeks, τὰκάτωμέρητῆςγῆςτὸνθάνατόνφησιν , ἀπὸτῆςτῶνἀνθρώπωνὑπονοίας , quoting Genesis 44:29; Psalms 142:7; or Hades, as the place where departed spirits live, which is the view of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, and many moderns, including Bengel, Olshausen, Meyer (later editions), Alford, Ellicott, Barry. But there are serious objections to this. First, if the apostle had meant to say that Christ descended to a depth below which there was no deeper, as He ascended to a height above which was none higher, he would doubtless have used the superlative. τὰκατώτεραμέρητῆςγῆς , if the genitive is partitive, could mean “ the low-lying regions of the earth,” in opposition to τὰἀνωτερικὰμέρη (Acts 19:1). Meyer, indeed, takes the genitive as depending on the comparative; but this would be an awkward way of expressing what would more naturally have been expressed by an adverb. τὰκατώτατατῆςγῆς occurs in the Sept. Psalms 63:9, Psalms 139:15 ; but in the former place the words mean death and destruction; in the latter they figuratively denote what is hidden, the place of formation of the embryo. The corresponding Hebrew phrase is found in Ezekiel 32:18, Ezekiel 32:24, referring to death and destruction, but rendered βάθοςτῆςγῆς . Cf. Matthew 11:23, where ᾅδου is used similarly. Such passages would support Chrysostom’ s view rather than that under consideration. But, secondly, all these Old Testament expressions are poetic figures, and in a mere statement of fact like the present, St. Paul would hardly have given such a material local designation to the place of departed spirits, especially in connexion with the idea of Christ filling all things. Thirdly, the antithesis is between earth and heaven, between an ascent from earth to heaven, and a descent which is therefore probably from heaven to earth. Some, indeed, who adopt this view understand the descent as from heaven, some as from earth. For the argument from the connexion, see what follows. For these reasons it seems preferable to take “ the lower parts of the earth” as = “ this lower earth.” Those who adopt this view generally assume that the descent preceded the ascent, and therefore understand by the descent, the Incarnation. This view, however, is not free from difficulty. St. Paul is speaking of the unity of the whole on the one hand, and of the diversity of individual gifts on the other. The latter is the topic in ver. 7 and again in ver. 11. To what purpose would be an interpolation such as this? It is not brought in to prove the heavenly pre-existence of Christ; that is assumed as known; for ascent to heaven does not imply descent thence, except on that assumption. And why the emphatic assertion of the identity of Him who ascended with Him who had previously descended, which was self-evident? But, in fact, this ascension is not what is in question, but the giving of gifts; what had to be shown was, that a descent was necessary, in order that He who ascended should give gifts. The descent, then, was contemporaneous with the giving, and, therefore, subsequent to the ascent. This seems to be indicated by the καί before κατέβη . It seems hardly possible to take καὶκατέβη otherwise than as expressing something subsequent to ἀνέβη . The meaning then is, that the ascent would be without an object, unless it were followed by a descent. This is the descent of Christ to His Church alluded to in 2:17, “ came and preached” ; in 3:17, “ that Christ may dwell in your hearts” ; and which we also find in John 14:23, “ we will come to Him” ; also ib. 3 and 16:22. It is now clear why it was necessary to assert that ὁκαταβάς was the same as ὁἀναβάς . This interpretation is ably maintained by v. Soden. 10. ὁκαταβὰςαὐτόςἐστινκαὶὁἀναβὰςὑπεράνωπάντωντῶνοὐρανῶνἵναπληρώσῃτὰπάντα . “ He Himself that descended is also He that ascended high above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.” αὐτός is not “ the same,” which would be ὁαὐτός , but emphatic. οὐγὰρἄλλοςκατελήλυθεκαὶἄλλοςἀνελήλυθεν , Theodoret. “ All the heavens” is probably an allusion to the seven heavens of the Jews. Cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2, τρίτοςοὐρανός , and Hebrews 4:14, διεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανούς , “ that He might fill all things.” This has sometimes been understood to mean “ that He might fill the universe,” as when we read in Jeremiah 23:24, μὴοὐχὶτὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶτὴνγῆνἐγὼπληρῶ ; But how can the occupation of a special place in heaven have for its object presence throughout the universe? Moreover, this does not agree with the context, which refers to the gifts to men. In fact, in order to explain this connexion, the omnipresence is resolved by some commentators into the presence everywhere of His gifts (Harless), or else of His government (Chrys, al.). A similar result is reached by others, who take πληρώσῃ as meaning directly “ fill with His gifts” (De Wette, Bleek, al.), τὰπάντα being either the universe, or men, or members of the Church. But πληροῦν by itself can hardly mean “ fill with gifts.” Rü ckert explains, “ accomplish all,” viz. all that He had to accomplish. But the words must clearly be interpreted in accordance with 1:23, τὰπάνταἐνπᾶσινπληρουμένου , which they obviously repeat. Oltramare interprets, “ that He might render all perfect, and (in conformity with this purpose), He gave,” etc. 11. καὶαὐτὸςἔδωκεντοὺςμὲνἀποστόλους , τοὺςδὲπροφήτας , τοὺςδὲεὐαγγελιστάς , τοὺςδὲποιμέναςκαὶδιδασκάλους . “ And He Himself gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers.” ἔδωκεν is not a Hebraism for ἔθετο (1 Corinthians 12:28); it is obviously chosen because of ἔδωκενδόματα in the quotation, as if the apostle had said, “ the gifts He gave were,” etc. It is not merely the fact of the institution of the offices that he wishes to bring into view, but the fact that they were gifts to the Church. Christ gave the persons; the Church appointed to the office (Acts 13:2, Acts 14:23). The enumeration here must be compared with that in 1 Corinthians 12:28, “ God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then miraculous powers, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues.” There the order of the first three is expressly defined; the latter gifts are not mentioned here, perhaps, as not expressing offices, but special gifts which were only occasional; and, besides, they did not necessarily belong to distinct persons from the former. “ Apostles.” This word is not to be limited to the Twelve, as Lightfoot has shown in detail in his excursus on Galatians 1:17. Besides St. Paul himself, Barnabas is certainly so called (Acts 14:4, Acts 14:14); apparently also James the Lord’ s brother (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), and Silvanus . In Irenaeus and Tertullian the Seventy are called apostles (Iren. ii. 21. 1; Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 24). According to the Greek Fathers, followed by Lightfoot, Andronicus and Junia are called apostles in Romans 16:7. In 2 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25 the messengers of the Churches are called “ apostles of the Churches.” But to be an apostle of Christ it seems to have been a condition that he should have seen Christ, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Corinthians 9:2, and have, moreover, been a witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:8, Acts 1:21-23). Their office was not limited to any particular locality. Prophets are mentioned along with apostles in 2:20, 3:5. Chrysostom distinguishes them from “ teachers” by this, that he who prophesies utters everything from the spirit, while he who teaches sometimes discourses from his own understanding. “ Foretelling” is not implied in the word either etymologically or in classical or N.T. usage. In classical writers it is used of interpreters of the gods. For N.T. usage, compare Matthew 26:68, “ Prophesy, who is it that smote thee” ; Titus 1:12, “ a prophet of their own,” where it is used in the sense of the Latin “ vates” ; Matthew 15:7, “ well hath Isaiah prophesied of you” ; and especially 1 Corinthians 14:3, “ He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” Also Acts 15:32, “ Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren … and confirmed them.” The function of the prophet has its modern parallel in that of the Christian preacher, who discourses “ to edification, exhortation, and comfort” to those who are already members of the Church. “ Preaching,” in the English Version of the N.T., means proclaiming the gospel to those who have not yet known it . By “ evangelists” we are doubtless to understand those whose special function it was to preach the gospel to the heathen in subordination to the apostles. They did not possess the qualifications or the authority of the latter (περιίόντεςἐκήρυττον , says Theodoret). One of the deacons is specially called an evangelist (Acts 21:8). Timothy is told by St. Paul to do the work of an evangelist, but his office included other functions. τοὺςδὲποιμέναςκαὶδιδασκάλους . The first question is whether these words express distinct offices or two characters of the same office. Many commentators— both ancient and modern— adopt the former view, differing, however, greatly in their definitions. Theophylact understands by “ pastors,” bishops and presbyters, and by “ teachers,” deacons. But there is no ground for supposing that deacons would be called διδάσκαλοι . On the other hand, the circumstance that τοὺςδέ is not repeated before διδασκάλους is in favour of the view that the words express two aspects of the same office. So Jerome: “ Non enim ait: alios autem pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse debeat et magister.” This, indeed, is not quite decisive, since it might only mark that the gifts of pastors and of teachers are not so sharply distinguished from one another as from those that precede; and it must be admitted that in a concise enumeration such as the present, it is in some degree improbable that this particular class should have a double designation. This much is clear, that “ pastors and teachers” differ from the preceding classes in being attached to particular Churches. The name “ pastors” implies this, and this term no doubt includes ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι . Compare 1 Peter 5:2 , ποιμάνατετὸἐνὑμῖνποίμνιοντοῦΘεοῦ , ἐπισκοποῦντες (om. RV. mg.): 1 Peter 2:25, τὸνποιμένακαὶἐπίσκοποντῶνψυχῶνὑμῶν , where ἐπίσκοπον seems to explain ποιμήν : Acts 20:28, τῷποιμνίῳἐνᾧὑμᾶςτὸΠνεῦματὸἅγιονἔθετοἐπισκόπους , ποιμαίνειντὴνἐκκλ . ποιμήν was used in the earliest classical writers of rulers of the people. Even in Homer we have Agamemnon, for instance, called ποιμὴνλαῶν . The ποιμήν of a Christian Church would, of course, be a teacher as well as a governor; it was his business to guide the sheep of the flock; cf. 1 Timothy 3:2, δεῖτὸνἐπίσκοπον … διδακτικὸν : also Titus 1:9. But there would naturally be other teachers not invested with the same authority and not forming a distinct class, much less co-ordinate with the ἐπίσκοποι . Had τοὺςδέ been repeated, it might have seemed to separate sharply the function of teaching from the office of ποιμήν . It is easy to see that ἐπίσκοπος would have been a much less suitable word here, since it does not suggest the idea of a moral and spiritual relation. 12-16. The object of all is the perfection of the saints, that they may be one in the faith, and mature in knowledge, so as not to be carried away by the winds of false doctrine; but that the whole body, as one organism deriving its nourishment from the Head, may be perfected in love 12. πρὸςτὸνκαταρτισμὸντῶνἁγίων , εἰςἔργονδιακονίας , εἰςοἰκοδομὴντοῦσώματοςτοῦχριστοῦ . “ With a view to the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ.” The καταρτισμὸςτῶνἁγ . is the ultimate purpose, with a view to which the teachers, etc., have been given εἰςἔργονδίακ . εἰςοἰκ . κ .τ .λ . The Authorised Version follows Chrysostom in treating the three clauses as co-ordinate, ἕκαστοςοἰκοδομεῖ , ἕκαστοςκαταρτίζει , ἔκαστοςδιακονεῖ . The change in the prepositions is not decisive against this, for St. Paul is rather fond of such variety. But if the three members were parallel, ἔργονδιακονίας should certainly come first as the more indefinite and the mediate object. In fact, Grotius and others suppose the thoughts transposed. A plausible view is that adopted by De Wette and many others, that the two latter members depend on the first. “ With a view to the perfecting of the saints, so that they may be able to work in every way to the building up,” etc. But in a connexion like this, where offices in the Church are in question, διακονία can only mean official service; and this does not belong to the saints in general. Olshausen supposes the two latter members to be a subdivision of the first, thus: “ for the perfecting of the saints, namely, on the one hand, of those who are endowed with gifts of teaching for the fulfilment of their office; and, on the other hand, as regards the hearers, for the building up of the Church.” But it is impossible to read into the words this distinction, “ on the one hand,” “ on the other hand” ; and the οἰκοδομὴτοῦσώματος describes the function of teachers rather than of hearers. Besides, we cannot suppose the teachers themselves to be included among those who are the objects of the functions enumerated in ver. 11. The word καταρτισμός does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. Galen uses it of setting a dislocated joint. The verb καταρτίζω by its etymology means to restore or bring to the condition ἄρτιος , and is used Matthew 5:21 of “ mending” nets; in Hebrews 11:3 of the “ framing” of the world. It occurs Galatians 6:1 in the figurative sense, “ restore such one.” In Luke 6:40 the sense is as here, “ to perfect,” κατηρτισμένοςπᾶςἔσταιὡςὁδιδάσκαλοςαὐτοῦ . Also in 2 Corinthians 13:11, καταρτίζεσθε . Comp. ib. 9, τῂνὑμῶνκατάρτισιν . καταρτισμός is the completed result of κατάρτισις . οἰκοδομὴντοῦσώματος . The confusion of metaphors is excused by the fact that οἰκοδομή had for the apostle ceased to suggest its primary meaning; cf. 1 Corinthians 8:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:11, and below, ver. 16. The fact that both οἰκοδομή and σῶματοῦΧριστοῦ have a distinct metaphorical sense accounts for the confusion, but does not prove it non-existent. The ancients were less exacting in such matters than the moderns; even Cicero has some strange examples. See on 3:18. It is useful to bear this in mind when attempts are made elsewhere to press too far the figure involved in some word. 13. μέχρικαταντήσωμενοἱπάντεςεἰςτὴνἑνότητατῆςπίστεωςκαὶτῆςἐπιγνώσεωςτοῦυἱοῦτοῦΘεοῦεἰςἄνδρατέλειον , εἰςμέτρονἡλικίαςτοῦπληρώματοςτοῦΧριστοῦ . “ Till we all (we as a whole) attain to the oneness of the faith, and of the thorough knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature (or maturity) of the fulness of Christ.” μέχρι is without ἄν because the result is not uncertain. οἱπάντες , “ we, the whole body of us,” namely, all believers, not all men (as Jerome), which is against the preceding context . The oneness of the faith is opposed to the κλυδωνιζόμενοικαὶπεριφερόμενοι , κ .τ .λ . ver. 14. “ Contrarius unitati est omnis ventus,” Bengel. ἐπίγνωσις is not merely explanatory of πίστις , which is indeed a condition of it, but a distinct notion. τοῦυἱοῦτοῦΘεοῦ belongs to both substantives. The Son of God is the specific object of Christian faith as well as knowledge. εἰςἄνδρατέλειον , a perfect, mature man, to which the following νήπιοι is opposed. Comp. Polyb. p. 523, ἐλπίσαντεςὡςπαιδίῳνηπίῳχρήσασθαιτῷΦιλίππῳ , διάτετὴνἡλικίανκαὶτὴνἀπειρίαντὸνμὲνΦ . εὗροντέλειονἄνδρα . The singular is used because it refers to the Church as a whole; it corresponds to the εἷςκαινὸςἄνθρωπος . It is doubtful whether we are to take ἡλικία as “ age” or “ stature” ; not only ἡλικία itself but μέτρονἡλικίας occurs in both senses, the ripeness of full age, and the measure of stature. In the N.T. ἡλικία has the meaning “ stature” in Luke 19:3, ἠλικίᾳμικρὸςἦν , and “ age” in John 9:21, ἡλικίανἔχει . “ Mature age” is the most common signification in Greek writers, whereas the adjective ἡλικός most frequently refers to magnitude. It would appear, therefore, that to a Greek reader it is only the connexion in which it stands that would decide. There is nothing here to decide for “ stature” ; μέτρον , indeed, might at first sight seem to favour this, but we have in Philostratus, Vit. Soph. p. 543, τὸμέτροντῆςἡλικίαςταῖςμὲνἄλλαιςἐπιστήμαιςγήρωςἀρχή . On the other hand, what the context refers to is the idea of “ maturity” ; if “ stature” were unambiguously expressed, it could only be understood as a mark of maturity; any comparison with physical magnitude would be out of the question. See on Luke 2:52. “ Of the fulness of Christ,” i.e. to which the fulness of Christ belongs. Some expositors take πληρωμα here as if used by a Hebraism for πεπληρωμένος = perfect, complete, either agreeing with Χριστοῖ or with ἡλικίας , thus interpreting either “ the measure of the perfect (mature) Christ,” or “ of the perfect stature of Christ,” which again may be explained as that which Christ produces. But this supposition is inadmissible. We cannot separate τὸπλήρωματοῦΧριστοῦ . Or, again, τὸπλήρωματοῦΧριστοῦ is understood to mean, “ what is filled by Christ,” i.e. the Church, which is so called in 1:23. But apart from the wrong sense thus given to πλήρωμα , there is a wide difference between predicating τὸπλ . of the Church, and using the term as synonymous with ἐκκλησία . We may ask, too, How can we all arrive at the maturity of the Church? A better interpretation is that which makes τὸπλ . τοῦΧρ . = the fulness of Christ, i.e. the maturity is that to which belongs the full possession of the gifts of Christ. Oltramare objects that this interpretation rests on an erroneous view of the sense of πλήρωματοῦΧρ ., which does not mean the full possession of Christ, nor the full gracious presence of Christ. Moreover, it makes μέτρον superfluous, and makes the whole clause a mere repetition of εἰςἄνδρατέλειον . With his view of πλήρωμα = perfection (see 1:23), there is a distinct advance, “ to the measure of the stature (i.e. to the height) of the perfection of Christ.” This is also Rü ckert’ s view. It is questioned whether St. Paul here conceives this ideal as one to be realised in the present life or only in the future. Amongst the ancients, Chrysostom, Theoph., Oecum., Jerome, took the former view, Theodoret the latter. It would probably be an error to suppose that the apostle meant definitely either one or the other. He speaks of an ideal which may be approximated to. But though it may not be perfectly attainable it must be aimed at, and this supposes that its attainment is not to be represented as impossible. See Dale, Lect. xv. p. 283. 14. ἵναμηκέτιὦμεννήπιοι , κλυδωνιζόμενοικαὶπεριφερόμενοιπαντὶἀνέμῳτῆςδιδασκαλίας . “ That we may be no longer children tossed and borne to and fro by every wind of teaching.” This does not depend on ver. 13, for one does not become a mature man in order to grow. Ver. 12 states the final goal of the work of the teachers; ver. 13, that which must take place in the meantime in order to the attainment of that end. κλυδωνιζόμενοι from κλύδων , a billow or surge, may mean either tossed by the waves or tossed like waves, as in Josephus, Ant. ix. 11. 3, ὁδῆμοςταρασσόμενοςκαὶκλυδωνιζόμενος . Here, as ἀνέμῳ is most naturally connected with it as well as with περιφ ., the latter seems best; and this corresponds with James 1:8, διακρινόμενοςἔοικεκλύδωνιθαλάσσηςἀνεμιζομένῳ . A similar figure occurs in Jude 1:12, νεφέλαιἄνυδροιὑπὸἀνέμωνπαραφερόμενοι : cf. Hebrews 13:9, διδαχαῖςποικίλαιςμὴπαραφέρεσθε . ἀνέμῳ does not refer to “ emptiness” nor to “ impulsive power,” but rather is chosen as suitable to the idea of changeableness. So Theophylact: τῇτροπῇἐμμένωνκαὶἀνέμουςἐκάλεσετὰςδιαφόρουςδιδασκαλίας . The article before διδ . does not “ give definitive prominence to the teaching” (Eadie), but marks teaching in the abstract. ἐντῇκυβείᾳτῶνἀνθρώπων . “ Through the sleight of men.” κυβεία , from κύβος , is properly “ dice-playing,” and hence “ trickery, deceit.” Soden prefers to take it as expressing conduct void of seriousness; these persons play with the conscience and the soul’ s health of the Christians. But this is not the ordinary sense of the word. ἐν is instrumental, the words expressing the means by which the περιφ . κ .τ .λ . is attained. There is no objection to this on the ground that it would thus be pleonastic after ἐνἀνέμῳ (Ell.), since ἐντῇκ . is not connected with περιφερόμενοι , but with the whole clause. Ellicott himself says the preposition “ appears rather to denote the element, the evil atmosphere as it were, in which the varying currents of doctrine exert their force.” “ Element” is itself figurative, and requires explanation; and if “ evil atmosphere,” etc., is intended as an explanation, it is clear that no such idea is implied in the Greek, nor would it be at all in St. Paul’ s way to carry out the figure in such detail, or to expect the reader to compare κυβεία to the atmosphere; see on 5:5. ἐνπανουργίᾳπρὸςτὴνμεθοδείαντῆςπλάνης . “ By craftiness, tending to the scheming of error.” πανοῦργος and πανουργία are used in the Sept. generally, if not invariably, in a good or an indifferent sense, “ prudent,” Proverbs 13:1; “ prudence,” Proverbs 1:4, Proverbs 1:8:5; “ shrewdness,” Ecclus. 21:12; Joshua 9:4 (though this latter may be thought an instance of a bad sense). Polybius also uses πανοῦργος in the sense of δεινός , “ clever, shrewd.” In classical writers the words have almost invariably a bad sense, the substantive meaning “ knavery, unscrupulous conduct.” In the N.T. the substantive occurs five times, always in a bad sense (Luke 20:23; 1 Corinthians 3:19; 2 Corinthians 4:2, 2 Corinthians 11:3, and here), the adjective once, 2 Corinthians 12:16, in the sense “ crafty.” μεθοδεία is found only here and ch. 6:11. The verb μεθοδεύω is used, however, by Polybius, Diodorus, and the Sept., and means to deal craftily ; the substantive μέθοδος , from which it is derived, being used by later authors in the meaning “ cunning device.” πλάνη has its usual meaning “ error,” not “ seduction” (a meaning which it never has, not even in 2 Thessalonians 2:11), and the genitive is subjective, thus personifying error. In the Revised Version πρός is taken as = according to, “ after the wiles of error,” a comma being placed after πανουργίᾳ . This seems to leave the latter word too isolated. Moreover, this sense of πρός , though appropriate after verbs of action, being founded on the idea of “ looking to,” or the like, does not agree with the participles κλυδ . and περιφ . Codex A adds after πλάνης , τοῦδιαβόλου , an addition suggested probably by 6:11. 15. ἀληθεύοντεςδὲἐνἀγάπῃ . “ But cherishing truth in love.” RV. has “ speaking truth in love,” only differing from AV. by the omission of the article before “ truth,” but with “ dealing truly” in the margin. Meyer insists that ἀληθεύειν always means “ to speak the truth.” But the verb cannot be separated from ἀληθεία . Verbs in -εύω express the doing of the action which is signified by the corresponding substantive in -εία . Of this we have two examples in ver. 14, κυβεία , which is the action of κυβεύειν , μεθοδεία of μεθοδεύειν . Comp. κολακεία , κολακεύω ; βραβεύω , ἀριστεύω , ἀγγαρεύω with their substantives in -εία , and many others. Now ἀληθεία is not limited to spoken truth, least of all in the N.T. In this Epistle observe 4:24, δικαιοσύνηκαὶὁσιότητιτῆςἀληθείας , also 4:21 and 5:9; and compare the expressions “ walking in truth,” “ the way of truth,” “ not obeying the truth, but obeying unrighteousness, ἀδικία .” Here, where the warning is not to the false teachers, but to those who were in danger of being misled like children by them, “ speaking truth” appears out of place. As to the connexion of ἐνἀγάπῃ , it seems most natural to join it with ἀληθεύοντες , not only because otherwise the latter word would be harshly isolated, but because the “ growth” is so fully defined by the following words. If, indeed, love were not mentioned, as it is, at the end of ver. 16, there might be more reason to adopt the connexion with αὐξήσωμεν , on the ground that considering the frequent references to it, as in 4:2, 3:18, 19, it was not likely to have been omitted in speaking of growth. Connected with ἀληθεύειν , ἐνἀγάπῃ is not a limitation, but a general characteristic of the Christian walk; “ Not breaking up, but cementing brotherly love by walking in truth” (Alford). Probably, however, the apostle intended ἐνἀγάπῃ to be connected both with the preceding and the following; his ideas progressing from ἀληθεία to ἀγάπη , and thence to αυξζησις . αὐξήσωμενεἰςαὐτὸντὰπάνταὅςἐστινἡκεφαλή , Χριστός . “ May grow up unto Him in all things, who is the Head, even Christ.” αὐξήσωμεν is not transitive as in 1 Corinthians 3:6; 2 Corinthians 9:10, etc., and in the older classical writers and the Septuagint, but intransitive as in later Greek writers and Matthew 6:28; Luke 1:80, Luke 2:40, and elsewhere; cf. here also 2:21. εἰςαὐτόν . Meyer understands this to mean “ in relation to Him,” with the explanation that Christ is the head of the body, the growth of whose members is therefore in constant relation to Him as determining and regulating it. The commentary on εἰςαὐτόν is, he says, given by ἐξοὗ , κ .τ .λ ., the one expressing the ascending, the other the descending direction of the relation of the growth to the head, He being thus the goal and the source of the development of the life of the Church. However correct this explanation may be in itself, it can hardly be extracted from the interpretation of εἰς as “ in relation to,” which is vague and feeble. Nor does it even appear that εἰςαὐτόν admits of such a rendering at all. Such expressions as ἐςὅ = “ in regard to which,” εἰςταῦτα = “ quod attinet ad … ” etc., are not parallel. Interpreted according to these analogies, the words would only mean “ with respect to Him, that we should grow,” and the order would be εἰςαὐτὸναὐξ . Meyer has adopted this view from his reluctance to admit any interpretation which does not agree with the figure of the head. But that figure is not suggested until after this. We have first the Church as itself becoming ἀνὴρτέλειος , then this figure is departed from, and the readers individually are represented as possible νήπιοι . The subjects of αὐξήσωμεν , then, are not yet conceived as members of a body, but as separate persons. But as soon as the pronoun introduces Christ, the idea that He is the head suggests itself, and leads to the further development in ver. 16. We can hardly fail to see in αὐξ . εἰςαὐτόν a variation of καταντήσωμενεἰςἄνδρατέλειον , εἰςμέτρονἡλικιαςτοῦπλ . τοῖΧρ . “ Unto Him.” This would seem to mean at once “ unto Him as a standard,” and “ so as to become incorporated with Him” ; not that εἰςαὐτόν by itself could combine both meanings, but that the thought of the apostle is passing on to the idea contained in the words that follow. He begins with the idea of children growing up to a certain standard of maturity, and with the word αὐτόν passes by a rapid transition to a deeper view of the relation of this growth to Christ the Head. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 5:1γίνεσθεοὖνμιμηταὶτοῦΘεοῦ . “ Become therefore imitators of God.” γίνεσθε resumes the γίνεσθε of 4:32. The words of that verse, “ forgiving … as God forgave you,” show that the imitation inculcated is in respect of this particular virtue, and the οὗν , therefore, connects this verse with that immediately preceding, not with the whole foregoing subject. Imitators of God! The idea is a grand and ennobling one; and our Lord Himself sets it before us, and in the same aspect, when He says, “ Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” namely, in that “ He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:48). So that we also should love our enemies. The forgiveness inculcated is obviously free forgiveness, as in the passage just cited and in the Lord’ s Prayer. That this is here placed on the ground of imitation of God’ s forgiveness is a decisive proof that St. Paul did not view the Atonement in the light of payment of a debt or endurance of a penalty demanded by Divine justice. The most unforgiving of men, if not actually vindictive, might say, I am quite ready to forgive on the same terms on which you say that God forgives, viz. that the debt be fully paid, the offence fully atoned for. Chrysostom has a fine comment on this “ forgiving one another.” There is a great difference, he says, between God’ s forgiveness and ours, “ for, if thou forgivest, the other will in turn forgive thee; but to God thou hast forgiven nought. And thou to thy fellow-servant, but God to His servant, and His enemy, and him that hateth Him. And He did not for give simply without peril, but with the peril of His Son. For that He might forgive thee He sacrificed the Son,— τὸνΥἱὸνἔθυσε , — but thou, although often seeing forgiveness to be without peril or expense, dost not exercise it.” ὡςτέκναἀγαπητά , i.e. as children beloved of God. He adds, says Chrys., another obligation of imitating God, not only because He has conferred benefits on us, but because we are His children, nay, His beloved children. “ If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” 2. καὶπεριπατεῖτεἐνἀγάπῃ specifying, further, wherein the imitation of God is to be shown. Love is to be the rule of our life. καθὼςκαὶὁχριστὸςἠγάπησενὑμᾶςκαὶπαρέδωκενἑαυτὸνὑπὲρἡμῶν . Compare John 13:34, “ as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” καὶπαρέδωκεν expresses wherein this love was shown. So ver. 25, “ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it” ; Galatians 2:20, “ loved me, and gave Himself for me.” The verb requires no supplement, such εἰςθάνατον or τῷΘεῷ see Romans 8:32; Galatians 2:20, and ver. 25. ὑπέρ “ on behalf of.” προσφορὰνκαὶθυσίαντῷΘεῷ . τῷΘεῷ is best connected with these words for the reason just mentioned; not with the following, since this would suppose the words placed emphatically before εἰςὀσμήν , as if to exclude the idea of human pleasure, which is out of the question. προσφορά and θυσία are sometimes said to specify respectively an unbloody and a bloody offering; but such a distinction cannot be maintained either in classical or biblical Greek. The idea of “ sacrifice” in θύω is not derived from that of slaying, but of “ smoking,” “ burning incense.” This was, according to Aristarchus, the meaning of the verb in Homer; cf. Latin “ fumus,” “ subfio,” which are from the same root. For biblical usage see Genesis 4:3; Numbers 7:49, Numbers 7:73, etc. The alleged sense would be especially out of harmony with the figurative use of θυσία in St. Paul, θυσίαζῶσα , Romans 12:1; cf. Philippians 2:17, Philippians 4:18. Ellicott supposes that προσφορά is used as the more general term, relating, not to the death only, but to the life of obedience of our blessed Lord, His θυσίαζῶσα ; while θυσία refers more particularly to His atoning death. The words appear, however, to be borrowed from Psalms 40:6 (quoted Hebrews 10:5), where they are used simply as together including all kinds of ceremonial offering. εἰςὀσμὴνεὐωδίας . “ For a sweet-smelling savour.” The figure was founded originally on the heathen idea that the smell of the burnt sacrifice did literally ascend to the gods, who thereby participated with the worshipper in the sacred feast. So in Homer often; see especially Il. xxiv. 69, 70, οὐγάρμοίποτεβωμὸςἐδεύετοδαιτὸςεἴσης , Λοιβῆςτεκνίσηςτε · τὸγὰρλάχομενγέραςἡμεῖς . It is appropriate only to a burnt-offering. That St. Paul here speaks of Christ as a sacrifice cannot, of course, be denied. But does he do so by way of stating the nature or manner of the atonement? Surely not. There is not one word to hint at the relation of this sacrifice to God’ s forgiveness. On the contrary, God in Christ forgiving us, and Christ showing His love by His offering of Himself, are put forward as exactly parallel examples; indeed, in view of the parallel in Col.,ὀΚύριοςἐχαρίσατο , we might say as one and the same. It is this single aspect of Christ’ s sacrifice as a supreme exhibition of love on the part both of the Father and of the Son that is here presented. Indeed, in Romans 8:32 the very same word παρέδωκε is used of the Father that is here used of the Son. And if we cannot argue as if the apostle were here stating the essential nature of the atonement, still less are we justified in assuming that he had in his mind the “ substitutionary” view of sacrifice. Whatever the original idea of sacrifice may have been (and certainly the substitutionary view is not the only one possible), neither psalmists nor apostles seem to have had this idea present to their minds whenever they spoke of sacrifice. The psalmist speaks of sacrificing thanksgiving and praise (Psalms 50:14); St. Paul, of his offering of the Gentiles (Romans 15:16). In Romans 12:1, already quoted, he calls on his readers to present their bodies as a sacrifice. In Philippians 2:17 he represents himself as offering their faith as a sacrifice; and in the same Ephesians 4:18, he calls their present to him a sacrifice, an odour of a sweet savour. With the exception of 1 Corinthians 10:18 , these are the only passages beside the present in which he uses the words. This gives little support to the notion that we are to interpret his words here as if we were dealing with a treatise on scientific theology. Chrysostorn certainly does not err in this way. He observes: ὁρᾷςτὸὑπὲρἐχθρῶνπαθεῖν , ὅτιὀσμὴεὐωδίαςἐστί , καὶθυσίαεὐπροσδεκτόςκἂνἀποθάνῃςτότεἔσῃθυσία · τοῦτομιμήσασθαίἐστιτὸνΘεόν . 3-11. Special warnings against sins of impurity 3. πορνείαδὲκαὶἀκαθαρσίαπᾶσαἢπλεονεξίαμηδὲὀνομαζέσθωἐνὑμῖν . πορνεία is mentioned as being a sin of little account amongst the Gentiles. On πλεονεξία see 4:19. This passage, says Moule, more perhaps than any other, suggests that the wordhad acquired by usage, in St. Paul’ s time, a familiar though not fixed connexion with sensual greed, just such as our word “ covetousness” has acquired with the greed of material property. It is urged here that ἤ indicates that the two words between which it stands belong to different classes. But in the following verse we have ἤ between μωρολογία and εὐτραπελία , which do not belong to different classes. μηδὲὀνομαζέσθω . Herodotus says of the Persians: ἅσσαδέσφιποιέεινοὐκἔξεστι , ταῦταοὐδὲλέγεινἔξεστι (i. 138). But St. Paul’ s precept refers to particular classes of sin only. Compare ver. 12. of οἱγὰρλόγοιτῶνπραγμάτωνεἰσὶνὁδοί Chrys. Bengel suggests for ὀνομ . “ mentioned as committed,” “ ut facta” ; cf. ἀκούεταιἐνὑμῖνπορνεία , 1 Corinthians 5:1. But, besides that ὀνομ can hardly mean this,μηδέ , “ not even,” is decisive against it. 4. καὶαἰσχρότηςκαὶμωρολογίαἢεὐτραπελία . The MSS. and Vss. vary between καί and ἤ in the first and second places. AD* G,It, Vulg., Sah. have ἤ … ἤ א a B Dc K, Boh., Eth. have teal καί … καί . א * P, Syr-Harcl., Arm. have Καί … ἤ . Lachmann writes ἤ … ἤ , Tischendorf, RV. καί … ἤ , WH. καί … καί . αἰσχρότης is not merely “ foolish talking,” which would be αἰσχρολογία , but “ shameful conduct.” Plato has (of Rhadamanthus inspecting the souls of the dead): ἀσυμμετρίαςτεκαὶαἰσχρότητοςγέμουσαντὴνψυχὴνεἶδεν (Gorg. 525 A); but there the word means the hideousness stamped on the soul by the vices of the living man. μωρολογία , “ stultiloquium,” only here in bibl. Grk. It is a rare word also in classical writers, but occurs in Arist. (Hist. An. i. 11) and Plutarch (Mor. 504 B). Plautus uses “ morologus,” “ Amoris vitio non meo nunc tibi morologus flo” (Pers i. 1. 50). εὐτραπελία . Aristotle defines εὐτρ . as πεπαιδευμένηὔβρις . οἱἐμμελῷπαίζοντεͅεὐτράπελοιπροσαγορεύονται . But he adds that, since most persons are pleased with excessive jesting, οἱβωμολόχοιεὐτράπελοιπροσαγορεύονται (Eth. Nic. 414), i.e., as in many other cases, the extreme usurps the name of the near. This would justify St. Paul’ s usage, were there nothing else. But for the adjective compare also Pindar, Pyth. 1178, μὴδολωθῇςεὐτραπέλοιͅκέρδεσσ ʼ and 4:104, where Jason boasts that he has never spoken ἒποͅεὐτράπελον . According to Dissen, the word was used “ cum levitatis et assentationis, simulationis notatione” ; but this does not seem to be the meaning here, where the context clearly points to licentious speech; see ver. 5. Trench compares the history of the Latin “ urbanitas” and the English “ facetious.” He notes that in the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus, the old man who describes himself as “ cavillator facetus” says: “ Ephesi sum natus; non enim in Apulis, non Animulae.” ἄοὐκἀνῆ . So א A B P. Rec. has τὰοὐκἀνήκοντα , with D G K L and most. ἀλλὰμᾶλλονεὐχαριστία . Clement of Alex. understands εὐχ . here of “ gracious speech” ; and so Jerome : “ juxta quam grati save gratiosi et salsi apud homines appellamur,” — an opinion followed by Calvin, Hammond, and many others, “ gracious, pious, religious discourse in general,” Hammond; who points to the ἵναδῷχάριντοῖͅἀκ . in 4:29, and “ let your speech be always ἐνχάριτι ” in Colossians 4:6. In Proverbs 11:16 we have γυνὴεὐχαριστόͅ , “ a gracious, pious woman.” The adjective is sometimes so used in classical authors: εὐχαριστότατοιλόγοι , Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1. This would suit the context very well; but as it only against St. Paul’ s use of the word elsewhere, but, moreover, there is no example of the substantive in this sense, it would be too bold to adopt it. We have to understand a suitable verb from ὀνομαζέσθω , both for this and the preceding substantives. The sense is not: “ let not foolish speech be mentioned but thanksgiving,” but: “ let there not be,” etc. Bengel understands ἀνήκει to εὐχαριστία ; and so Braune; which with the reading ἃοὐκἀνῆκεν is not unnatural, but more harsh. In these cases of brachylogy there is really no need to look for a verb, the sense is obvious to the reader. 5. τοῦτογὰρἴστεγινώσκοντες . ἴστε is the reading of א A B D* G P, It Vulg., Goth., Sah., Boh., Arm., Chrys. ἔστε , that of Dc K L, Theodoret, Theoph. Internal as well as external evidence favours the former. ἔστεγιν . would be a feeble periphrasis for οἴδατε or γινώσκετε , since there is no hint here of an emphasis on the present tense. The combination of the two verbs is not to be explained by reference to the Hebrew idiom, which combines a finite verb with the infinitive absolute (imitated in Greek by the participle with the finite verb), since the verbs here are different. Xenophon’ s ὁρῶνκαὶἀκούωνοἶδα (Cyr. iv. 1. 14) is nearer, but not exactly parallel, since there the participles define the kind of knowledge: “ I know by observation and hearsay.” The meaning is clear: “ ye know full well, of your own knowledge.” ἴστε is not imperative, as in the Vulgate and Bengel, etc., which does not at all agree with the addition γινώσκοντες . Hofmann puts a stop after ἴστε , so as to make τοῦτο refer to the preceding. On πᾶςοὐκ cf. 4:29. ὅἐστινεἰδωλολάτρης . There are three readings— ὅἐστινεἰδωλολάτρης , א B 672, Jerome. ὅςἐστινεἰδωλολάτρης , A D K L P, Syr-Harcl., Boh., Arm., Chrys. ὅἐστινεἰδωλολατρεία , G, It, Vulg., Goth.; Syr-Pesh (printed text) has “ or,” which points to ὅ . The last is supposed by Meyer to have been an explanation of the second, which he thinks genuine, the first being produced from this by restoring εἰδωλολάτρης . But it is quite as easy to account for the third variety as arising from the first, because εἰδωλολάτρης was thought unsuitable to ὅ . If the second reading had been the original, it is not easy to see why it should have been changed; but ὅ would readily be changed to ὅς for grammatical reasons. With the reading ὅς some commentators (Harless, Braune, etc.) refer the relative to all three antecedents; but this is not so natural as the reference to πλεονέκτης , which also corresponds with Colossians 3:5, πλεονεξίαν , ἥτιςἐστὶνεἰδωλολατρεία , although there also Harless regards ἥτις as by attraction for ἅτινα , as Ephesians 3:13. With the reading ὅ , the latter reference must, of course, be adopted. On the designation of πλ . as idolatry, see above on 4:19. The passages from Rabbinical writers, quoted by Schö ttgen and Wetstein, do not throw much light on the matter. They represent all kinds of wickedness and vice as idolatry; pride, anger, refusal to give alms. If πλεονεξία is simply “ covetousness,” the question is, why should this, any more than fornication and impurity, be singled out to be called idolatry? Meyer says that πορνεία and ἀκαθαρσία are also subtle idolatry (certainly not “ more subtle forms,” Ellicott), but that it was natural for St. Paul, whose own self-sacrificing spirit was so opposed to this self-seeking, to brand this especially as idolatry in order to make it κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν abominable. There is nothing in his language elsewhere to support this idea. One of Chrysostom’ s explanations shows how difficult he found it to answer the question. Wouldst thou learn, says he, how πλ . is idolatry, and worse than idolatry? Idolaters worship God’ s creatures, but thou worshippest thy own creature, for God did not create πλεονεξία . If we give πλεονεξία and πλεονέκτης the wider sense advocated on 4:19, there is no difficulty. οὐκἔχεικληρονομίαν . As κληρονομία does not necessarily imply actual possession, but the title to possession, it is not necessary to say that the present is used to express the certainty of future possession. ἐντῇβασιλείᾳτοῦΧριστοῦκαὶΘεοῦ . Many expositors (Bengel, Harless, etc.) argue from the absence of the article before Θεοῦ that the words mean “ the kingdom of Him who is Christ and God.” But Θεός is one of the words that do not require an article; comp. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, βασιλείανΘεοῦ : also ib. 15:50 and Galatians 5:21. See also Galatians 1:1, διὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦκαὶΘεοῦπατρός : Romans 15:8, ὑπὲρἀληθείαςΘεοῦ : 13:4, Θεοῦδιάκονος , etc. There is in the context no dogmatic assertion about Christ, and to introduce such a prediction in this incidental way would be out of place. Nor does the apostle’ s language elsewhere lead us to suppose that he would thus absolutely designate Christ, God. Comp. 4:6, “ one Lord, one God.” The absence of the article gives more unity to the conception; it is not “ the kingdom of Christ, and also the kingdom of God,” but being the kingdom of Christ it is the kingdom of God. 6. μηδεὶςὑμᾶςἀπατάτωκενοῖςλόγοις . λόγαικενοί , “ sermones a veritate alieni.” Aeschines speaks of a decree written by Demosthenes as κενώτεροντῶνλόγωνοὓςεἴωθελέγεινκαὶτοῦβίουὃνβεβίωκε (Cont. Ctes. p. 288); and Plato says: τίςἐνξυνουσίᾳτοιᾷδεμάτηνκενοῖςλόγοιςαὐτὸςαὑτὸνκοσμοῖ ; (Laches. 169 B). To what persons do these words refer? Grotius thinks, partly heathen philosophers, partly Jews, who thought that all Jews would have part in the world to come. Meyer sees in them the unbelieving heathen, which view he supports by reference to the following words; and so Eadie. But the Christians, as such, were separate from the unbelieving heathen, and the Epistle gives no reason to suppose that they would need to be warned against immoral teaching proceeding from them. Rather, we must understand persons amongst themselves who made light of sins of impurity, as too many in Christian communities still do. As Bullinger (ap. Harless) says: “ Erant apud Ephesios homines corrupti, ut hodie apud nos plurimi sunt, qui haec salutaria Dei praecepta cachinno excipientes obstrepunt; humanum esse quod faciant amatores, utile quod foeneratores, facetum quod jaculatores, et idcirco Deum non usque adeo graviter animadvertere in istiusmodi lapsus.” The context perfectly harmonises with this: “ Be not ye Christians misled into such vices, for it is just these, etc., and by falling into them ye would be συμμέτοχοι with those who are in the darkness from which ye have been delivered.” διὰταῦταγάρ , “ for it is on account of these things"; not this teaching, but these sins. ἔρΧεταιἡὀργὴτοῦΘεοῦ . ὀργή is not to be limited to the ordinary judgments of this life, “ quorum exempla sunt ante oculos ” (Calv.); nor is there reason to limit it to the wrath of God in the day of judgment (Meyer). The wrath of God will be manifested then, but it exists now. ἐπὶτοὺςυἱοὺςτῆςἀπειθείας , see 2:2. 7. μὴοὖνγίνεσθεσυμμέτοχοιαὐτῶν . “ Do not therefore become partakers with them.” αὐτῶν refers to the persons, not the sins (as Braune). This sharing is by some understood of sharing in their punishment, but by most expositors of sharing in their sins; Stier combines both, and not unreasonably, since it has just been said that these sins bring punishment, and the sense naturally is : Have nothing in common with them, for ye surely do not desire to share the wrath with them. 8. ἦτεγάρποτεσκότος . μέν is quite properly absent. To quote Fritzsche: “ Recte ibi non ponitur, ubi aut non sequitur membrum oppsitum, aut scriptores oppositionem addere nondum constituerant, aut loquentes alterius membri oppositionem quacunque de causâ lectoribus non indixerunt” (Romans 10:19, vol. ii. p. 423). ἦτε . The emphasis is on the time past; cf. “ Troja fuit, fuimus Troes.” σκότος . Stronger than “ were in darkness.” They were not only in darkness; darkness was also in them. So νῦνδὲφῶςἐνΚυρίῳ . The whole nature of light was to belong to them as formerly the whole nature of darkness; they were not only in the light, but penetrated by it, so that they themselves became “ the light of the world,” Matthew 5:14. ἐνΚυρίῳ , “ in fellowship with the Lord.” ὡςτέκναφωτὸςπεριπατεῖτε . With τέκναφωτός cf. υἱοὶἀπειθείας , ver. 6 and 2:3. Alford argues from the absence of the article before φωτός (in contrast with τοῦφωτός , ver. 9 and Luke 16:8), that “ it is light as light that is spoken of.” But the absence of the article is in accordance with the settled rule stated by Apollonius, that (subject to certain qualifications) nouns in regimen must have the article prefixed to both or to neither (see Middleton, On the Greek Article, iii. 1, 7; 3, 6). 9. ὁγὰρκαρπὸςτοῦφωτός . The walk to which I exhort you is that which becomes children of the light, for etc. The Rec. Text. has πνεύματος for φωτός , with Dc K L, Syr-Pesh, Chrys. and most cursives. φωτός is the reading of א A B D* G P 672, It, Vulg., Goth., Boh., Arm., Origen, Jerome. It might be thought possible that φωτός had come in from recollection of the same word just preceding, but the figure of “ light” governs the whole passage, and ἔργαἄκαρπασκότους , ver. 10, corresponds to καρπὸςφωτός here. Καρπὸςπνεύματος undoubtedly came in from the parallel, Galatians 5:22, where the contrast is with ἔργασαρκός , ver. 19; cf. 17, 18. The variation is an important one for the estimate of the character of the authorities that support the two readings respectively. ἐνπάσῃἀγαθωσύνῃκαὶδικαιοσύνῃκαὶἀληθείᾳ .“ In all (i.e. every kind of) goodness and righteousness and truth,” the opposites of κακία , ἀδικία , ψεῦδος . ἀγαθωσύνη is not found in classical Greek, but is used by St. Paul in three other places, viz. Romans 16:14; Galatians 5:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:11. The use of it in the Sept. gives us little help. In Eccles., where it occurs several times, it is used for “ enjoyment.” In Nehemiah 9:25, Nehemiah 9:35, it is used of the goodness of God. In Psalms 3:3 (li. Sept.) it is “ good “ in general as opposed to “ evil” ; and so in 38(37):20. In St. Paul it would seem to mean “ goodness” in the special sense of benevolence; and thus the threefold enumeration here would correspond to that in the Gospels: “ justice, mercy, and truth,” and to Butler’ s “ justice, truth, and regard to common good” (comp. Romans 5:7). As a metaphor the expression “ fruit of the light” cannot be called “ strictly correct,” as if it referred to the necessity of light for the production of fruit, etc. The words “ children of light” convey no intimation of such a figure. 10. δοκιμάζοντεςτίἐστινεὐάρεστοντῷΚυρίῳ . Compare Romans 12:2, εἰςτὸδοκιμάζεινὑμᾶςτίτὸθέληματοῦΘεοῦ , τὸἀγαθὸνκαὶεὐάρεστονκαὶτέλειον . Putting to the proof, partly by thought and partly by experience. Stier and some others take the words imperatively, supplying ἐστε , as Romans 12:9-13 and vv. 19, 20; but here between two imperatives this is less natural. 11. καὶμὴσυγκοινωνεῖτετοιςἔργοιςἀκάρποιςτοῦσκότους . “ Have no fellowship with.” The thought joins on to ver. 7. The verb with the dative means to have fellowship or partnership with. In the sense, “ to have part in a thing,” it takes the genitive. ἀκάρποις , for vice has no καρπός . Thus Jerome: “ Vitia in semet ipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes frugibus pullulant et redundant.” 11, 12. μᾶλλονδὲκαὶἐλέγχετε , τὰγὰρκρυφῆγινόμεναὑπ ʼ αὐτῶναἰσχρόνἐστικαὶλέγειν . κρυφῆγινόμενα cannot be merely synonymous with ἔργασκότους , as Harless and Olshausen hold; σκότος and κρυφῆ are distinct notions, and ἔργασκότους might be open offences. Besides, this would make κρυφῆ quite superfluous. καὶλέγειν , “ even to mention.” ἐλέγχετε is usually taken to mean “ reprove.” This seems to imply reproof by words; but then the reason assigned seems strange; they are to be reproved, because even to speak of them is shameful. If the conjunction had been “ although” and not “ for,” it would be intelligible. Hence some expositors have actually supposed that γάρ here means “ although,” which is, of course, impossible. Another view that has been taken is “ rebuke them openly, for to speak of them otherwise is shameful” ; but this puts too much into λέγειν . Bengel’ s view is that the words assign, not the reason for ἐλ ., but the reason of the apostle’ s speaking indefinitely of the vices, whilst he enumerates the virtues. This is forced, and against the emphatic position of κρυφῆ . Stier’ s view is that the reproof is to be by the life, not by words: “ Ye would yourselves be sinning if ye were to name the secret vices” ; hence the necessity for walking in the light, that so these deeds may be reproved. But St. Paul is not deterred by such scruples from speaking plainly of heathen vices when occasion required. Harless’ view, that the words are connected with μὴσυγκ ., “ Do not commit these sins, for they are too bad even to mention,” assumes that τὰκρυφῆγινόμενα Simply = τὰἔργατοῦσκότους , which we have seen is untenable. Meyer and Eadie assign as the connexion, “ By all means reprove them; and there is the more need of this, for it is a shame even to speak of their secret sins.” This seems to leave the difficulty unsolved. Barry says: “ In such reproof it should be remembered that it would be disgraceful ‘ even to speak’ in detail of the actual ‘ things done in secret.’ ” This again supposes that γάρ assigns a reason for what is not expressed, namely, for some qualification of ἐλέγχετε , not at all for ἐλέγχετε itself. There is, however, another meaning of ἐλέγχω very common, especially when the object is a thing, not a person, and more particularly in connexion with derivatives of κρύπτω , viz. to expose or bring to light. Artemidorus, in his interpretations of dreams, when speaking of those dreams which forebode the revealing of secrets, always speaks of τὰκρυπτὰἐλέγχεσθαι , e.g. ii. 36, ἥλιοςἀπὸδύσεωςἐξανατέλλωντὰκρυπτὰἐλέγχειτῶνλεληθέναιδοκούντων . Polybius says: ἐλέγχεσθαίφασιντὰςφύσειςὑπὸτῶνπεριστάσεων (p. 1382). He opposes to it διασκοτεῖσθαι (p. 1383). And Phavorinus defines ἐλέγχω . τὸκεκρυμμένονἀτόπημάτινοςεἰςφῶςἄγω . Cf. Aristoph. Eccles. 483. So the substantive ὁἔλεγχος = proof. The connexion of this signification with that of “ convict” is obvious. The Etym. M. has ἔλεγχόςἐστινὁτὰπράγματασαφηνίζων … ὁγὰρἔλ . εἰςφῶςἄγειτὰπράγματα . This appears to be the meaning of the verb in John 3:20, οὐκἔρχεταιπρὸςτὸφῶς , ἵναμὴἐλεγχθῇτὰἔργααὐτοῦ . Compare in the following verse, ἔρχεταιπρὸςτὸφῶς , ἵναφανερωθῇαὐτοῦτὰἔργα . Compare also 1 Corinthians 14:22, ἐλέγχεταιὑπὸπάντων … τὰκρυπτὰτῆςκαρδίαςαὐτοῦφανερὰγίνεται . The occurrence of κρυφῆ here in the immediate context suggests that this meaning was present to the apostle’ s mind. Adopting it, we obtain as the interpretation : Have no participation with the works of darkness, nay, rather 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. Then follows the reason, not for 13a, but for the whole exhortation. This ἐλέγχειν is not useless, for it leads to φανεροῦσθαι , and so turns σκότος into φῶς . This is Soden’ s interpretation. A remarkable parallel is John 3:20, just quoted. There also ἔργα are the object, ἔργα whose nature is σκότος (ver. 19); and it is the φῶς which effects ἐλέγχειν , ver. 20, and φανεροῦν , ver. 21. 13. τὰδὲπανταἐλεγχόμεναἡπὸτοῦφωτὸςφανεροῦται · πᾶνγὰρτὸφανερούμενονφῶςἐστι . The difficulty in tracing the connexion continues to be felt here. Meyer interprets: But everything ( = those secret sins) when it is reproved is made manifest by the light; that is, by the light of Christian truth which operates in your reproof, it is brought to the light of day in its true moral character; I say, by the light, for— to prove that it can only be by the light— whatever is made manifest is light; it has ceased to have the nature of darkness. Assuming, namely, “ quod est in effectu id debet esse in causa .” This is adopted by Ellicott. But it is open to serious objection: first, ὑπὸτοῦφωτός is not emphatic; on the contrary, its position is as unemphatic as possible; secondly, ἐλεγχόμενα is on this view not only superfluous but disturbing; thirdly, the assumption that what is in the effect must be in the cause, is much too recondite a principle to be silently assumed in such a discourse as this; and, lastly, this treats φανερούμενον as if it were πεφανερωμένον . Meyer, in fact, endeavours to obtain, by the help of a hidden metaphysical assumption, the same sense which Eadie and others obtain by taking φανερούμενον as middle (=AV.). Ellicott adds, “ whatever is illumined is light.” But φανερόω does not mean “ to illumine,” but to make φανερός . It occurs nearly fifty times in the N.T. and never = φωτίζειν . True, it is allied to φῶς , but not closely, for its nearest connexion is with the stem of φαίνω , viz. φάν , which is already far from φῶς . Again, when it is said by Alford (in reply to Eadie’ s objection that the transformation does not always take place) that, “ objectively taken, it is universally true: everything shone upon is Light” (whether this tends to condemnation or not depending on whether the transformation takes place or not), this surely is just what is not true. A dark object shone upon does not become lux (the English word is ambiguous). He adds that the key text is John 3:20, but in order to fit this in he interprets “ brought into light” as “ made light.” Bengel, followed by Stier, takes φανερούμενον as middle, “ quod manifestari non refugit; confer mox, ἔγειραικαὶἀνάστα ” [the correct reading is ἔγειρε ]; and on πᾶν , “ Abstractum pro concreto nam hic sermo jam est de homine ipso, coll. v. seq. propterea.” We seem almost driven (with Eadie, after Beza, Calvin, Grotius, etc.) to take φανερούμενον as middle, in this sense, “ whatever makes manifest is light.” The examples, indeed, of φανεροῦςθαι as middle, adduced by Eadie, are not quite to the point, viz. such as ἐφανερώθη in Mark 16:12, where the medial sense is much more marked than in the present passage. Bleek thinks it necessary to suppose an active sense here, but he proposes to read φανεροῦντό . Oltramare interprets: “ All the things done in secret, when reproved, are brought into open day by the light [which is salutary], for whatever is so brought out is light.” 14. Διὸλέγει . “ Wherefore it is said.” It is generally held that this formula introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. Here the difficulty arises that this is not a quotation from canonical Scripture. Jerome admits this, saying, “ omnes editiones veterum scripturarum ipsaque Hebraeorum volumina eventilans nunquam hoc scriptum reperi.” He therefore suggests that it is from an apocryphal writing; not that the apostle accepted such a writing as authoritative, but that he quoted it as he has quoted Aratus, etc. He, at the same time, mentions others who supposed the words to be spoken by the apostle himself under inspiration. Many moderns, however, think that the original text is Isaiah 10:1, “ Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the lord is risen upon thee,” the words being, it is said, quoted, not verbally, but in essence. It would be more correct to say that the resemblance is verbal rather than in essence; for the differences are important. The very word ὁΧριστός is fatal to the idea of a quotation. Alford, indeed, says that it is a necessary inference from the form of the citation (viz. ὁΧρ .) that St. Paul is citing the language of prophecy in the light of the fulfilment of prophecy, which obviously assumes the point in question. It is said, moreover, that no surprise can be felt at finding Christ substituted for the Lord (Jehovah) of the O.T., and the true Israel for Jerusalem. True: if the question were of the application of words from the O.T., as in 1 Peter 3:15, or of interpretation added to the quotation, as in Romans 11:6-8. Moreover, the words here are not addressed to the Church , they seem rather addressed either to recent converts or to those who do not yet believe. And, further, there is nothing in Isaiah about awaking from sleep or arising from the dead (though Alford asserts the contrary); nor is the idea, “ shall give thee light,” at all the same as Isaiah’ s, “ the glory of the Lord has risen upon thee.” Hence other commentators find it necessary to suppose a reference to other passages either separately or combined with this, viz. Isaiah 9:2, Isaiah 26:19, Isaiah 52:1. Such conjectures, in fact, refute themselves; for when the words of a prophet are so completely changed, we can no longer speak of a quotation, and λέγει would be quite out of place. Nor can we overlook the fact that the point of the connexion seems to lie in the word ἐπιφαύσει . Others have adopted Jerome’ s suggestion as to an apocryphal source, some even going so far as to suggest the actual name of the book, Epiphanius naming the Prophecy of Elijah; George Syncellus, a book of Jeremiah; the margin of Codex G, the Book of Enoch. It is hardly sufficient to allege against this view that λέγει always introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. But ὁΧριστός is inconsistent with the idea of an O.T. apocryphon, and apart from that the whole expression has a Christian stamp. Meyer endeavours to reconcile the assertion that λέγει introduces a citation from canonical Scripture with the fact that this is not such a citation, by the supposition that by a lapse of memory the apostle cites an apocryphon as if it were canonical. But was St. Paul’ s knowledge of the Scriptures so imperfect that he did not know, for example, that the promised deliverer is never in the O.T. distinctly called ὁΧριστός Others conjecture that it may be a saying of Christ Himself that is quoted. The use of Χριστός in the third person is not inconsistent with this; nor, again, the fact that St. Paul does not elsewhere quote the sayings of Christ. Why might he not do it once? But it is impossible to supply ὁΧριστός or Ἰησοῦς as a subject without something to suggest it. It is too forced to meet this by taking φῶς as the subject. The difficulties disappear when we recognise that λέγει need not be taken to mean ὁΘεὸςλέγει ,— an assertion which has been shown in 4:8 to be untenable. It means “ it says,” or “ it is said,” and the quotation may probably be from some liturgical formula or hymn,— a supposition with which its rhythmical character agrees very well. That the words were suggested originally by Isaiah 60:1 may be admitted. Theodoret mentions this opinion: τινὲςδὲτῶνἑρμηνευτῶνἔφασανπνευματικῆςχάριτοςἀξιωθένταςτινὰςψαλμοὺςσυγγράψαι , referring to 1 Corinthians 14:26. He seems to have taken this from Severianus (Cramer, vi. 197), who concludes: δῆλονοὗνὃτιἐνἑνὶτούτωντῶνπνευματικῶνψαλμῶνἤτοιπροσευχῶνἔκειτοτοῦτοὃἐμνημόνευσεν (compare also Origen in the Catena, ib.). Stier adopts a similar view, but endeavours to save the supposed limitation of the use of λέγει by saying that in the Church the Spirit speaks. As there are in the Church prophets and prophetic speakers and poets, so there are liturgical expressions and hymns which are holy words. Comparing vv. 18, 19, Colossians 3:16, it may be said that the apostle is here giving us an example of this self-admonition by new spiritual songs. The view that the words are from a liturgical source is adopted by Barry, Ewald, Braune, v. Soden, the last-mentioned suggesting (after some older writers) that they may have been used in the reception after baptism. Compare 1 Timothy 3:16, which is not improbably supposed to have a similar source. ἔγειρε is the reading of a decisive preponderance of authorities, א A B D G K L P, apparently all uncials, ἔγειραι being found only in cursives. In the other places where the word occurs (Matthew 9:5; Mark 2:9, Mark 2:11, Mark 2:3:3, Mark 2:5:41; Luke 5:23; John 5:8), ἔγειρε is likewise supported by preponderant authority, a third variation ἐγείρον occurring in some places. Fritzsche on Mark 2:9 has ably defended the propriety of ἔγειρε , which is not to be understood either as active for middle or as if σεαυτόν were understood, but as a “ formula excitandi,” “ Up !” like ἄγε , ἔπειγε (Eurip. Orest. 789). So in Eurip. Iph. Aul. 624, ἔγειρ ʼ ἀδελφῆςἐφ ʼ ὑμέναιονεὐτυχῶς ; and Aristoph. Ran. 340, ἔγειρεφλογέαςλαμπάδαςἐνχερσἰ … τινάσσων . This use is limited to the single form ἔγειρε . ἔγειραι , says Fritzsche, would mean “ excita mihi aliquem.” ἀνάστα for ἀνάστηθι = Acts 12:7. This short form is also found in Theocritus and Menander. Compare κατάβα , Mark 15:30 (in some MSS. including A C), and ἀνάβα , Revelation 4:1. καὶἐπιφαύσεισοιὁΧριστός . ἐπιφαύσει from ἐπιφαύσκω , which is found several times in Job (Sept.); D* d e and MSS. mentioned by Chrysostom and by Jerome read ἐπιψαύσειςτοῦΧριστοῦ . Jerome (quoted by Tisch.) relates that he heard some one disputing in the church, in order to please the people with something new, saying that this was said with reference to Adam, who was buried on Calvary, and that when the Lord on the Cross hung above his grave, the prophecy was fulfilled, “ Rise Adam, who sleepest, and rise from the dead and Christ shall touch thee, ἐπιψαύσει ,” i.e. that by the touch of Christ’ s body and blood he should be brought to life. This story probably indicates how this reading arose. 15— 21. General exhortation to regulate their conduct with wisdom, to make their market of the opportunity, and, avoiding riotous indulgence, to express their joy and thankfulness in spiritual songs 15. βλέπετεοὖνἀκριβῶςπῶςπεριπατεῖτε . This is the reading of א * B 17 and some other MSS., Origen, and probably Chrys. But πῶςἀκριβῶς , א c A D G K L P, with most MSS., Vulg., Syr. (both), Arm., Theodoret, Jerome, etc. Chrysostom has ἀκριβῶςπῶς in text and comment, but in the latter πῶςἀκριβῶς occurs presently after, also βλέπετεπῶςπεριπατεῖτε . As πῶςἀκρ . is the common later reading, it is probable that its occurrence in the second place in the comm. is due to a copyist of Chrys. The variation in the original text may have arisen from an accidental omission of πῶς after -βῶς (it is actually om. in Eth.), it being there inserted in the wrong place. In Eadie’ s comment. Exo_2, πῶς is similarly om. οὖν is resumptive, “ to return to our exhortation.” Some, however, regard this as an inference from what immediately precedes, viz. “ since ye are enlightened by Christ” (Ewald, Braune); but as the substance of the exhortation is clearly the same as in vv. 8-10, it is unnecessary to look on this as an inference from ver. 14. Harless follows Calvin, who says: “ Si aliorum discutere tenebras fideles debent fulgore suo, quanto minus caecutire debent in proprio vitae instituto?” But this would seem to require an emphatic αὐτοί . On ἀκριβῶς compare Acts 26:5, κατὰτὴνἀκριβεστάτηναἵρεσιν . As περιπατεῖτε is a fact, the indicative is correctly used, and is exactly parallel to 1 Corinthians 3:2, ἕκαστοςβλεπέτωπῶςἐποικοδομεῖ . Most commentators expound the other reading. Fritzsche’ s view of this has been generally adopted (Opuscula, p. 209 n.), viz. that ἀκρ . περ . = “ tanquam ad regulam et amussim vitam dirigere,” the whole meaning πῶςτὸἀκριβῶςἐργάζεσθε = “ videte quomodo circumspecte vivatis h. e. quomodo illud efficiatis, ut provide vivatis.” He exposes the fallacy of Winer’ s contention (subsequently abandoned), that the words were a concise expression for βλέπετεπῶςπεριπατεῖτε , δεῖδὲὑμᾶςἀκριβῶςπεριπατεῖν . He thinks the reading ἀκρλβῶςπῶς was a correction on the part of those who, being familiar with ἀκ . βλέπειν , εἰδέναι , etc., were offended with ἀκρ . περιπατεῖν . which is, he says, most suitable to this place. μὴὡςἄσοφοι , explaining πῶς , and so dependent, like it, on βλέπετε , hence the subjective negation (Winer, § 55. 1). Then ωεριπατοῦντες need not be supplied. 16. ἐξαγοραζόμενοιτὸνκαιρόν . “ Seizing the opportunity,” “ making your market to the full from the opportunity of this life” (Ramsay, St. Paul as Traveller, etc., p. 149). The same expression is used in Colossians 4:5 with special reference to conduct towards those outside the Church, ἐνσοφίᾳπεριπατεῖτεπρὸςτοὺςἔξω . τὸνκ . ἐξαγ . Lit. “ buying up for yourselves,” ἐξ being intensive, and corresponding to our “ up.” καιρὸνὑμεῖςἀγοράζετε occurs Daniel 2:8, but in a different sense, viz. “ wish to gain time.” More parallel as to sense is κερδαντέοντὸπαρόν , Antonin. vi. 26. ἐξαγοράζω , in the sense “ buy up,” is found in Polyb. ii. 42. 2, ἐξηγόρασεπαρ ʼ αὐτῶντάτεμονόξυλαπλοῖαπάντα , κ .τ .λ . In Mart. Polyc. 2 it has the wholly different sense: “ buy off,” διὰμιᾶςὥραςτὴναἰώνιονκόλασινἐξαγοραζόμενοι . Chrysostom says the expression is obscure, and he illustrates it by the case of robbers entering a rich man’ s house to kill him, and when he gives much to purchase his life, we say that he ἐξηγόρασενἑαυτόν . So, he proceeds, “ thou hast a great house, and true faith; they come on thee to take all; give whatever one asks, only save τὸκεφάλαιον , that is τὴνπίστιν .” This completely ignores τὸνκαιρόν . Oecum. is more to the point: ὁκ . οὔκἐστινἡμῖνβέβαιος … ἀγόρασονοὖναὐτὸνκαὶποίησονἴδιον . So Theodore Mops., and so Severianus in Catena, adding that “ the present opportunity δουλεύειτοῖςπονηροῖς , buy it up, therefore, so as to use it for piety.” But it is futile to press the idea of “ purchasing,” or the force of ἐξ , so as to inquire from whom the opportunity is to be bought, as “ from evil men” (Bengel, cf. Severianus, above), “ the devil,” Calvin; or what price is to be paid (τὰπάντα , Chrys.). The price is the pains and effort required. ὅτιαἱἡμέραιπονηραίεἰσιν . So that it is the more necessary τὸνκαιρὸνἐξαγ . The moments for sowing on receptive soil in such evil days being few, seize them when they offer themselves. πονηραί is “ morally evil,” not “ distressful” (Beza, Hammond, etc.),— an idea foreign to the context, which contrasts the walk of the Christians with that of the heathen. 17. διὰτοῦτο . Viz. because it is necessary to walk ἀκριβῶς . εἰγὰρἔσεσθεἄφρονεςἀκριβῶςοὐπεριπατήσετε , Schol. ap. Cat. Not “ because the days are evil,” which was only mentioned in support of ἐξαγ . τὸνκαιρόν . μὴγίνεσθεἄφρονες . “ Do not show yourselves senseless.” ἄφρων differs from ἄσοφος as referring rather to imprudence or folly in action. ἀλλὰσυνίετε . So א A B P 17, 672, etc. Rec. has συνιέντες , with Dc E K L and most MSS., It, Vulg., Syr-Pesh; while D* G have συνίοντες which Meyer, with little reason, prefers as the less usual form. Somewhat stronger than γινώσκετε , “ understand.” τίτὸθέλημα , cf. ver. 10. 18. καὶμὴμεθύσκεσθεοἴνῳ . καί marks a transition from the general to the particular, as in εἴπατετοῖςμαθηταῖςαὐτοῦκαὶτῷΠέτρῳ , Mark 16:7; πᾶσαἡἸουδαίαχώρα , καὶοἱἹεροσολυμῖται , Mark 1:5. Fritzsche, in the latter place, remarks that καί in these instances is not = “ imprimis,” but “ scriptores rem singularem jam comprehensam communiori propterea insuper adjiciunt copulae adjumento, quod illam tanquam gravem impensius inculcatam volunt lectori.” It is out of the question to suppose any reference here to such abuses as are mentioned in 1 Cor. 11., which would have called for a more explicit censure. ἐνᾦἐστινἀσωτία . ἐνᾧ not οἴνῳ , but μεθύσκεσθαιοἴνῳ . ἀσωτία , “ a word in which heathen ethics said much more than they intended or knew,” Trench. It is the character of the ἄσωτος “ perditus,” thus defined by Aristotle: τοὺςἀκρατεῖςκαὶεἰςἀκολασίανδαπανηροὺςἀσώτουςκαλοῦμεν (Eth. Nic. iv. 1). In classical authors the adjective varies in sense between “ lost” and “ prodigal,” the latter, “ qui servare nequit,” being the more common. The substantive occurs also Titus 1:6; 1 Peter 4:4; and the adverb Luke 15:13, where see note. The Vulg. renders by “ luxuria, luxuriose,” words which in later Latin acquired the sense of profligate living. In mediæ val Latin “ luxuria” = “ lasciviousness.” But the meaning in the N.T. is clearly “ dissoluteness.” The remark of Clem. Alex., τὸἄσωστοντῆςμέθηςδιὰτῆςἀσωτίαςαἰνιξάμενος , was natural to a Christian writer accustomed to the technical use of σῴζειν , but no such idea seems implied in the use of the word in N.T. ἄσωτος is not derived from σώζω , but from σόω (Hom. Il. ix. 393, 424, 681). ἀλλὰπληροῦσθεἐνπνεύματι . The antithesis is not directly between οἶνος and πνεῦμα , as the order of the words shows, but between the two states. Meyer remarks that the imperative passive is explained by the possibility of resistance; but what other form could be employed? The signification is middle, for they must co-operate. The present tense cannot very well be expressed in the English rendering; “ be filled” is after all better than “ become filled,” which would suggest that the filling had yet to begin. ἐνπνεύματι is usually understood of the Holy Spirit, ἐν being instrumental (Meyer), or both instrumental and expressing the content of the filling (Ellicott, Macpherson, al.). But the use of ἐν with πληρόω to express the content with which a thing is filled would be quite unexampled. Philippians 4:19 is not parallel (Ellicott admits it to be doubtful); still less Colossians 2:10, Colossians 4:12 . Plutarch’ s ἐπεπλήρωτοἐνμακαριότητι (Plac. Phil. i. 7. 9) is not parallel; the words there (which are used of the Deity) mean “ is complete in blessedness,” the alternative being “ something is wanting to Him.” Meyer, indeed, says that as St. Paul uses genitive, dative, and accusative in (Colossians 1:9) with πληρόω , we cannot be surprised at his using ἐν ,— a singular argument. The genitive and dative are both classical; the accusative in Colossians 1:9 is not accusative of material. But such variety in no way justifies the use of ἐν , the meaning of which is wholly unsuitable to the idea “ filled with.” The nearest approach to this would be the instrumental sense (adopted by Meyer, al., in i. 23). Where the material is only regarded as the means of making full, it may conceivably be spoken of as an instrument; but this would require the agent to be expressed, and, besides, would be quite inappropriate to the Holy Spirit. For these reasons the rendering mentioned in the margin RV. (Braune’ s also) is not to be hastily rejected. “ Be filled in spirit,” not in your carnal part, but in your spiritual. Alford attempts to combine both ideas, “ let this be the region in, and the ingredient with which you are filled,” πνεῦμα being the Christian’ s “ own spirit dwelt in and informed by the Holy Spirit of God.” This seems an impossible combination, or rather confusion of two distinct ideas. Macpherson, in order to secure a contrast between the “ stimulation of much wine and the stimulation of a large measure of the Spirit,” represents the apostle as saying, “ conduct yourselves like those that are possessed, but see to it that the influence constraining you is that of the Holy Spirit.” It is hardly too much to say that this is a reductio ad absurdum of the supposed antithesis. There is nothing about excitement, nor does St. Paul anywhere sanction such conduct. 19. λαλοῦντεςἐαυτοῖς On ἑαυτοῖς = ἀλλήλοις , see 4:32. Not “ to yourselves,” AV.; “ meditantes vobiscum,” Michaelis. Compare Pliny’ s description, “ carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem” (Epp. x. 97). But the reference cannot be specially to religious services, as the context shows; cf. Colossians 3:16. ψαλμοῖςκαὶὕμνοιςκαὶᾠδαῖςπνευματικαῖς = Colossians 3:16, except that the copulas are there wanting. The distinction between these words is not quite agreed upon. ψαλμός from ψάλλειν , primarily the plucking of the strings, is used by classical authors to mean the sound of the harp, and hence any strain of music. The Schol. on Aristoph. Aves, 218, says: ψαλμὸςκυρίως , ὁτῆςκιθάραςἦχος . Cyrilli Lex. and Basil on Psa_29. define it: λόλοςμουσικός , ὅτανεὐρύθμωςκατὰτοὺςἁρμονικοὺςλόγουςπρὸςτὸὄργανονκρούεται . And to the same effect Greg. Nyss. It occurs frequently in the Sept., not always of sacred music, e.g. 1 Samuel 16:18 of young David, εἰδότατὸνψαλμόν , i.e. playing on the harp. ὕμνος is properly a song of praise of some god or hero. Arrian says: ὕμνοιμὲνἐςτοὺςθεοὺςποιοῦνται , ἔπαινοιδὲἐςἀνθρώπους (Exped. Alex. iv. 11. 3). Augustine’ s definition is well known: “ Oportet ut, si sit hymnus, habeat haec tria, et laudem, et Dei, et canticum.” Hence ὑμνεῖν , to praise by a hymn. ᾠδή , from ἀείδω , ᾄδω , seems to have originally meant any kind of song, but was specially used of lyric poetry. It is frequently used in Sept. (Exodus 15:1; Deuteronomy 31:19-22; Judges 5:1, Judges 5:12, etc.). πνευματικαῖς is omitted by B d e, and bracketed by Lachmann. Not only is it attested by superabundant authority, but it seems essential as a further definition of the preceding word or words. Probably it is to be taken (as by Hofmann and Soden) with all three. ἐν is prefixed to ψαλμοῖς in B P 17 672, Vulg., Jerome, and admitted to the margin by WH. After πνευμ . A adds ἐνχάριτι , clearly from Colossians 3:16. ᾄδοντεςκαὶψάλλοντεςτῇκαρδίᾳὑμῶντῷκυρίῳ . Rec. has ἐν before τῇΚ ., with K L most MSS., Syr-Harcl., Arm., while Lachm. reads ἐνταῖςκαρδίαις , with א c A D G P, It, Vulg., Boh., Syr-Pesh, Harcl. mg. But א * B have the singular without ἐν , and so Origen. In Colossians 3:16 all MSS. have ἐν , and most MSS. and Vss. the plural, Dc K L reading the singular. Chrysostom interprets ἐντῇκαρδίᾳ as meaning “ heartily or sincerely” ; μετὰσυνέσεωςπροσέχοντες , i.e. from the heart, not merely with the mouth. But this would be ἐκτῇςκαρδίας without ὑμῶν . 20. εὐχαριστοῦντεςπάντοτεὑπὲρπάντων . “ Even,” says Chrysostom, “ if it be disease or poverty. It is nothing great or wonderful if when prosperous you give thanks. What is sought is that when in affliction you do so. Nay, why speak of afflictions here? we must thank God for hell,” explaining that we who attend are much benefited by the fear of hell, which is placed as a bridle upon us: a profoundly selfish view, to which he was no doubt led only by the wish to give the fullest meaning to πάντων . Jerome is more sober: “ Christianorum virtus est, etiam in his quae adversa putantur, referre gratias creatori.” But St. Paul is not specially referring to adversity; on the contrary, the context shows that what he had particularly in his mind was occasion of rejoicing. Theodoret, however, takes πάντων as masc., that we must thank God for others who have received Divine blessing. But there is nothing in the context to favour this. ἐνὀνόματιτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . When I speak of doing something in the name of another, this may mean either that I do it as representing him, that is, by his authority, or if the action is entirely my own, that I place its significance only in its reference to him. When an apostle commands in the name of Christ, this is in the former sense; when I pray or give thanks in the same name, it is as His disciple and dependent on Him. τῷΘεῷκαὶΠατρί , see 1:3. There is no need to refer πατρί here to Christ; the article rather leads to the sense, “ God, who is also the Father,” namely, of us. 21. ὑποτασσόμενοιἀλλήλοιςἐνφόβῳΧριστοῦ . Χριστοῦ with א A B L P, Vulg., Syr. (both), Boh., etc. Θεοῦ of Rec. is in most cursives, and D has ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ ; G, ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . As φόβοςΧριστοῦ is not found elsewhere, copyists naturally wrote φόβοςΘεοῦ , which was familiar. “ In the fear of Christ,” i.e. with reference for Him as the guiding motive. “ Submitting yourselves.” The connexion of this with the preceding seems rather loose. Ellicott says: “ the first three [clauses] name three duties, more or less specially in regard to God, the last a comprehensive moral duty in regard to man, ” suggested by the thought of the humble and loving spirit which is the principle of εὐχαριστία . This does not meet the difficulty of the connexion. Alford refers back to μὴμεθύσκ ., “ not blustering, but being subject,” and Eadie is inclined to the same view; but this is forced, and requires us to interpolate something which is not indicated by anything in the text. Much the same may be said of Findlay’ s view. He illustrates by reference to the confusion in the Church meetings in the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 14:26-34), “ when he urges the Asian Christians to seek the full inspiration of the Spirit, and to give free utterance in song to the impulses of their new life, he adds this word of caution.” This supplies too much, and besides, ὑποτασσόμενοι would be an unsuitable word to express such readiness to give way in the matter of prophesying as St. Paul directs in 1 Cor. Bloomfield, taking a similar view, supposes that what is insisted on is subordination to a leading authority. This preserves the sense of ὑποτ ., but not of ἀλλήλοις . Blaikie refers back to ver. 15. In considering the connexion it must be borne in mind that ὑποτάσσεσθε in the next verse is in all probability not genuine, so that the verb has to be supplied from ὑποτασσόμενοι . There is therefore no break between vv. 21 and 22. Further, the whole following section, which is not a mere digression, depends on the thought expressed in this clause of which it is a development. To suppose a direct connexion with πληροῦσθεἐνπν . does not yield a suitable sense. The connexion with the preceding context is, in fact, only in form, that with what follows is in substance. From 4:32 we have a series of precepts expressed in imperatives and participles depending on γίνεσθε , περιπατεῖτε ; δοκιμάζοντες , ἐξαγοραζόμενοι , λαλοῦντες . Ver. 18 interrupts the series by a direct imperative, as in vv. 3 ff., 12 ff. St. Paul elsewhere (Romans 12:9) carries on in participles a series of precepts begun in a different construction, ἀποστυγοῦντεςτὸπονηρόν , κ .τ .λ . It is therefore quite natural that here, where the participles λαλοῦντες , εὐχαρ ., though not put for imperatives, yet from their connexion involve a command, he should make the transition to the new section easy by continuing to use the participle. Comp. 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Peter 3:1. Meyer admits that it is no objection to this that in what follows we have only the ὑπόταξις of the wives, while the ὑπακοή of the children and servants in ch. 6. cannot be connected with ὑποτασς .; for in classical writers also, after the prefixing of such absolute nominatives which refer collectively to the whole, often the discourse passes over to one part only. But he thinks that in that case αἱγυναῖκες would necessarily have a special verb correlative with ὑποτ . It is not easy to see the force of this. 22-33. Special injunctions to husbands and wives. Wives to be subject to their husbands, husbands to love their wives. This relationship is illustrated by that of Christ and the Church. As Christ is the Head of the Church, which is subject to Christ, so the husband is the head of the wife, who is to be subject to the husband; and Christ’ s love for the Church is to be the pattern of the man’ s love for his wife. The analogy, indeed, is not Perfect, for Christ is not only the Head of the Church which is His body, but is also the Saviour of it; but this does not affect the purpose of the comparison here. 22. αἱγυναῖκεςτοῖςἰδίοιςἀνδράσινὡςτῷΚυρίῳ . So without a verb B, Clement (when citing vv. 21-25), Jerome’ s Greek MSS. His note is, “ Hoc quod in Latinis exemplaribus additum est: subditae sint, in Graecis Codd. non habetur.” ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is added after ἀνδράσιν in א A P 17 al. Vulg., Goth. Arm., Boh., etc., and Clement (when citing ver. 22 only). ὑποτάσσεσθε in K L most MSS., Syr. (both), Chrys., D G also have ὑποτάσσεσθε , but after γυναῖκες . Lachmann adopted ὑποτασσέσθωσαν , but later critical editors read without the verb. The testimony of Jerome, who knew of no Greek MSS. with the verb, is very important. No reason can be imagined for its omission if it had been in the text originally, whereas the reason for its insertion is obvious, and was stated even by Erasmus: “ adjectum, ut apparet, quo et sensus sit lucidior, et capitulum hoc separatim legi queat, si res ita postulet.” The latter reason is particularly to be noted. The diversity in the MSS. which have the verb is also of weight. The shorter reading agrees well with the succinct style of St. Paul in his practical admonitions. ἰδίοις is more than a mere possessive, yet does not imply an antithesis to “ other men” ; it seems rather to emphasise the relationship, as in the passage quoted from Stobaeus by Harless (Floril. p. 22): Θεανῶἡπυθαγορικὴφιλόσοφοςἐρωτηθεῖσατίπρῶτονεἴηγυναικιτὸτῷἰδίῳ , ἔφη , ἀρέσκεινἀνδρί . Compare also Acta Thomae, p. 24 (ed. Thilo): οὕτωςεἶὡςπολὺνξρόνονσυμβιώσασατῷἰδίῳἀνδρί . That the word was not required to prevent misconception of ἀνδράσι is shown by its absence in the parallel, Colossians 3:18. ὡςτῷΚυρίῳ , not “ as to their lord,” which would have been expressed in the plural, but “ as to the Lord Christ,” “ as” not meaning in the same manner as, but expressing the view they are to take of their submission; compare 6, 7. “ subjectio quae abuxore praestatur viro simul praestatur ipsi Domino, Christo,” Bengel. So Chrysostom: ὅτανὑπείκῃςτῷἀνδρί , ὡςτῷΚυρίῳδουλεύουσαἡγοῦπείθεσθαι . 23. ὅτιἀνήρἐστικεφαλὴτῆςγυναικός . Assigns the reason of ὡςτῷΚυρίῳ . The article before ἀνήρ in Rec. has no uncial authority in its favour. “ A husband is head of his wife.” ὡςκαί , “ as also.” Compare 1 Corinthians 11:3, παντὸςἀνδρὸςἡκεφαλὴὁΧριστόςἐστι , κεφαλὴδὲγυναικὸςὁἀνήρ , κεφαλὴδὲτοῦΧριστοῦὁΘεός . ὁΧριστὸςκεφαλὴτῆςἐκκλησίαςαὐτὸςσωτὴρτοῦσώματος . Rec. has καὶαὐτόςἐστις ., with א cDbc K L P most MSS., Syr. (both), Arm. But the shorter reading is that of א A B D G, Vulg. The added words are an obvious gloss. Boh. has ἐστι without καί , and Aeth. καί without ἐστι . This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 6:1-9. Special injunctions to children and fathers, slaves and masters. Slaves are called on to regard their service as a service done to Christ; masters are reminded that they, too, are subject to the same Master, who has no respect of persons 1. τὰτέκνα , ὑπακούετετοῖςγονεῦσινὑμῶνἐνΚυρίῳ . ἐνΚυρίῳ is omitted by B D* G, but added in, א A Dbc K L P, Vulg., Syr., etc. Origen expressly, who mentions the ambiguity of the construction, i.e. that it may be either τοῖςἐνΚυρίῳγονεῦσιν or ὑπακούετεἐνΚ . If the words had been added from Colossians 3:20 they would probably have come after δίκαιον . Assuming that the words are genuine, as seems probable, the latter is the right construction. “ In the Lord,” not as defining the limits of the obedience, ἐνὁ͂ςἂνμὴπροσκρούσῃς , Chrys., but rather showing the spirit in which the obedience is to be yielded. It is assumed that the parents exercise their authority as Christian parents should, and we cannot suppose that the apostle meant to suggest to the children the possibility of the contrary. τοῦτογάρἐστινδίκαιον , i.e. καὶφύσειδίκαιονκαὶὑπὸτοῦνόμουπροστάσσεται , Theoph. Compare Colossians 3:20. From the children being addressed as members of the Church, Hofmann infers that they must have been baptized, since without baptism no one could be a member of the Church (Schriften, ii. 2, p. 192). Meyer’ s reply, that the children of Christian parents were ἅγιοι by virtue of their fellowship with their parents (1 Corinthians 7:14), loses much of its point in the case of children who were past infancy when their parents became Christians. But no conclusion as to infant baptism can be deduced. 2. ἥτιςἐστὶνἐντολὴπρώτηἐνἐπαγγελίᾳ . ἥτις , “ for such is,” Alf. To translate “ seeing it is” would be to throw the motive to obedience too much on the fact of the promise. πρώτηἐνἐπ . has caused difficulty to expositors. The second commandment has something which resembles a promise attached. Origen, who mentions this difficulty, replies, first, that all the commandments of the Decalogue were πρωταί , being given first after the coming out of Egypt; or, if this be not admitted, that the promise in the second commandment was a general one, not specially attached to the observance of that precept. The latter reply has been adopted by most modern commentators. Others have supposed “ first” to mean “ first in the second table” ; but the Jews assigned five commandments to each table, as we learn from Philo and Josephus. See also Leviticus 19:3 and Romans 13:9. The position of the precept in the former passage and its omission in the latter agree with this arrangement. In either case this would be the only commandment with promise. Meyer and Ellicott suppose, therefore, that it is not the Decalogue alone that is referred to. Braune and Stier understand πρώτη as first in point of time, namely, the first which has to be learned. Compare Bengel (not adopting this view): “ honor parentibus per obedientiam praesertim praestitus initio aetatis omnium praeceptorum obedientiam continet.” ἐνἐπαγγελίᾳ . Ellicott, Meyer, and others take this to mean “ in regard of, or, in point of, promise.” “ The first command we meet with which involves a promise” (Ell.). Meyer compares Diod. Sic. xiii. 37, ἐνδὲεὐγενείᾳκαὶπλούτῳπρῶτος . But to make this parallel we should understand the words here: “ foremost in promise,” i.e. having the greatest promise attached, or, at least, “ having the advantage in point of promise,” which is not their interpretation. Chrysostom says: οὐτῇτάξειεἶπεναὐτὴνπρώτην , ἀλλὰτῇἐπαγγελίᾳ . But it is precisely τῇτάξει that Ell. and Mey. make it first, only not of all the commandments. It is better, then, to take ἐν (with Alford) as = characterised by, accompanied with, so that we might translate “ with a promise.” But to what purpose is it to state that this is the first command in order accompanied with a promise, especially when it would be equally true, and much to the purpose, to say that it is the only command with a promise? On the whole, therefore, remembering that it is children who are addressed, the interpretation of Stier and Braune seems preferable. Westcott and Hort give a place in their margin to a different punctuation, viz. placing the comma after πρώτη , and connecting ἐπαγγελίᾳ with ἵνα . 3. ἵναεὖσοιγένηται , κ .τ .λ . The text in the Sept. proceeds: καὶἵναμακροχρόνιοςγένῃἐπὶτῆςγῆςἦςΚύριοςὁΘεόςσουδιδωσίσοι . The latter words are probably omitted purposely as unsuitable to those addressed. The future ἔσῃ is to be regarded as dependent on ἵνα ,— a construction which is found elsewhere in St. Paul, as 1 Corinthians 9:18, ἵναἀδάπανονθήσωτὸεὐαγγ .: Galatians 2:4, ἵναἡμᾶςκαταδουλώσουσιν . In Revelation 22:14 we have future and conjunctive, just as in classical writers future and conjunctive are used after ὅπως . It is possible that ἔσῃ is used here because there was no aor. conj. of the verb. In the passage referred to in Rev. the future is ἔσται . 4. καὶοἱπατέρες . καὶ marks that the obligation was not all on the side of the children. So καὶοἱΚύριοι , ver. 9. πατέρες , “ patres potissimum alloquitur, nam hos facilius aufert iracundia,” Bengel. μὴπαροργίζετε , Colossians 3:21, μὴἐρεθίζετε , “ Do not irritate.” ἐνπαιδείᾳκαὶνουθεσίᾳΚυρίου . παιδεία occurs only in one other place in St. Paul, viz. 2 Timothy 3:16, πᾶσαγραφή … ὠφέλιμος … πρὸςπαιδείαντὴνἐνδικαιοσύνῃ . The verb παιδεύω also, although used of chastening in 1 Corinthians 11:32; 2 Corinthians 6:9, is employed in a wider sense in 2 Timothy 2:25; Titus 2:12. There is no sufficient reason, then, for supposing that the two substantives here are distinguished, as Grotius thinks: “ παιδεία hic significare videtur institutionem per poenas: νουθεσία autem est ea institutio quae fit verbis,” followed by Ellicott and Alford. Rather, παιδεία is, as in classical writers, the more general, νουθεσία more specific, of instruction and admonition. νουθεσία is a later form for νουθέτησις . Κυρίου is not “ concerning the Lord,” as Theodoret, etc.,— a meaning which the genitive after such a word as νουθ . can hardly have, but the subjective genitive; the Lord is regarded as the guiding principle of the education. 5. οἱδοῦλοι , ὑπακούετετοῖςκατὰσάρκακυρίοις . This is the order in א A B P, etc. Rec. has τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα . Bengel thinks that κ . σάρκα is added, because after the mention of the true κύριος it was not fitting to use κύριοι without qualification. In Colossians 3:22 a sentence intervenes, but still the reason holds good, for ὁΚύριος was their κύριος also κατὰπνεῦμα . δεσπότης is the word used for the master of slaves in the Pastorals and 1 Peter. μετὰφόβουκαὶτρόμου . These words are similarly associated in 1 Corinthians 2:3; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Philippians 2:12, expressing only anxious solicitude about the performance of duty, so that there is no allusion to the hardness of the service. In Colossians 3:22 it is φοβούμενοιτὸνκύριον . ἐνἁπλότητιτῆςκαρδίας . The word ἁπλότης is used several times by St. Paul (by him only in the N.T.), and always indicates singleness and honesty of purpose, sometimes showing itself in liberality. (See Fritzsche’ s note on Romans 12:8, vol. iii. p. 62.) Here the meaning is the obvious one, there was to be no double-heartedness in their obedience, no feeling of reluctance, but genuine heartiness and goodwill. ἔνιγὰρκαὶμετὰφόβουκαὶτρόμουδουγεύειν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐξεὔνοιας , ἀλλὰκακούργως , Oecum. ὡςτῷΧριστῷ , as ὡςτῷΚυρίῳ , 5:22, “ so that your service to your master is regarded as a service to Christ.” 6. μὴκατ ʼ ὀφθαλμοδουλίαν . “ Not in the way of ὀφθ .” The word is not found elsewhere except in Colossians 3:22, and may have been coined by St. Paul. The adjective ὀφθαλμόδουλος is found in the Apost. Constit., but with reference to this passage (i. p. 299 A, ed. Cotel.). The meaning is obvious. ὡςἀνθρωπάρεσκοι . This word is not found in classical writers; it occurs in the Sept., Psa_52(53):6; not as a rendering of our Hebrew text. It is also found in Psalt. Sol. iv. 8, 10. This is the opposite of ὡςτῷ as well as of the following words. ἀλλ ʼ ὡςδοῦλοιΧριστοῦποιοῦντεςτὸθέληματοῦΘεοῦ . τοῦ before Χριστοῦ rests on insufficient authority, Dc K L, etc., against א D* G L P, etc. Not subordinate to the following clause, as if it were “ as servants who are doing,” etc., for the words are clearly in contrast to the preceding, and ποιοῦντεςτὸθέλ . has much more force if taken as a separate character. 6, 7. ἐκψυχῆςμετ ʼ εὐνοίαςδουλεύοντεςὡςτῷΚυρίῳ . ἐκψυχῆς may be connected either with what precedes or with what follows. The latter connexion (adopted by Syr., Chrys., Jerome, Lachm., Alf., WH.) seems preferable, for ποιοῦντεςτὸθέληματοῦΘεοῦ does not require such a qualification, nor is there any tautology in taking ἐκψ . with the following, for these words express the source in the feeling of the servant towards his work; μετ ʼ εὐνοίας his feeling towards his master (Harless). Compare Raphel’ s apt quotation from Xen.: οὐκοῦνεὔνοιανπρῶτον , ἔφηνἐγώ , δεήσειαὐτὸν [τὸνἐπίτροπον ] ἔχεινσοικαὶτοῖςσοῖςεἰμέλλοιἀρκέσεινἀντὶσοῦπαρών . (Oecon. xii. 5). Treg. puts a comma after εὐνοίας , WH. after δουλεύοντες . ὡς before τῷΚυρίῳ rests on preponderant evidence, א A B D* G P, Vulg., Syr. It is omitted by Dc K L. Internal evidence is in its favour, since δουλ . τῷκ . would be tautologous with δοῦλοιΧριστοῦ . 8. εἰδότεςὅτιἕκαστοςὃἂνποιήσῃἀγαθόν , τοῦτοκομίσεταιπαρὰΚυρίου . There is great uncertainty as to the reading. ὅτιἕκαστοςὂἂνποιήσῃ , A D G P 17 37, Vulg., Arm. ὅτιἕκαστοςἐάντι , B, Petr. Alex. ὅτιἐάντιἕκαστος , L* 46 115. ὅἐάντιἕκαστοςποιήσῃ , L** and most cursives. This is the Rec. Text. ὅτιἐὰνποιήσῃ , א *, corrected by א c by the insertion of ὅ before ἐάν . There are minor variations. The best supported reading is that first mentioned, which is adopted by Treg. and Tisch. 8; but Meyer and Ellicott think the Rec. better explains the others. WH. adopt the reading of B. In the reading of Rec. the relative is to be understood as separated from τι by tmesis. Cf. Plato, Legg. ix. 864 E, ἣνἄντινακαταβλάψῃ . κομίσεται , א A B D* G, is better attested than the Rec. κομιεῖται . τοῦ also of Rec. before Κυρίου is rejected on the authority of all the chief uncials. κομίζεσθαι is to receive back, as, for example, a deposit, hence here it implies an adequate return. Compare 2 Corinthians 5:10, ἵνακομίσηταιἕκαστοςτὰδιὰτοῦσώματος , and Colossians 3:25. This lesson to slaves is equally a lesson for all kinds of service, as the following for all masters. 9. καὶοἱκύριοι . See on καί , ver. 4. τὰαὐτὰποιεῖτε . I.e. act in a similar manner, in the same spirit. De Wette refers it to ἀγαθόν . The Greek comm. pressed τὰαὐτά as if it meant δουλεύετεαὐτοῖς . ἀνιέντεςτὴνἀπειλήν . “ Giving up your threatening.” The article indicates the well known and familiar threatening, “ quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet,” Erasmus. εἰδότες , κ .τ .λ . Wetstein cites a remarkable parallel from Seneca, Thyest. 607, “ Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae Jus dedit magnum necis atque vitae, Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus. Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit, Major hoc vobis dominus minatur! Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.” καὶαὐτῶνκαὶὑμῶν is supported by preponderant authority, א A B D, Vulg. Boh. Arm., Petr. Alex. etc. Dc G have καὶαὐτῶνὑμῶν : K and most cursives, καὶὑμῶναὐτῶν . Meyer thinks the mention of slaves here appeared unsuitable, partly in itself and partly in comparison with Colossians 4:1. Whether this be a correct account of the causes of the variation, it cannot be doubted that the reading attested by the best MSS. here is the more forcible, expressing, not merely the fact that “ ye also have a Master,” but that both you and they are subjects of the same Master. προσωπολημψία , like προσωπολημπτής , and the verb προσωπολημπτέω , is found only in N.T. and ecclesiastical writers. The expression πρόσωπονλαμβάνειν has a different meaning in the N.T. from that which it had in the O.T. In the latter it only meant to show favour, in the former it is to show partiality, especially on account of external advantages. 10-12. Exhortation to prepare for the spiritual combat by arming themselves with the panoply of God, remembering that they have to do with no mere mortal foes, but with spiritual powers 10. τοῦλοιποῦ . So א * A B 17. τὸλοιπόν . א c D G K L P, Chrys., etc. Meyer points out that B 17 have δυναμοῦσθε instead of ἐνδ ., a variation which Meyer thinks may have arisen from a confusion of the N of λοιπόν with the N of ἐνδυν ., thus pointing to the reading λοιπόν . Properly, τοῦλοιπόῦ means “ henceforth, for the future,” Galatians 6:17, in which sense τὸλοιπόν may also be used; but the latter alone is used in the sense “ for the rest,” Philippians 3:1, Philippians 3:4:8, 2 Thessalonians 3:1. As the latter is the meaning here, we should expect τὸλοιπόν . ἀδελφοίμου is added in Rec. before ἐνδυν ., with א c K L P, most cursives, Syr. (both) Boh., but om. by א * B D 17, Arm., Aeth,. A G, Vulg., Theodoret have ἀδελφοί without μου . It has probably come in by assimilation to other passages in which τὸλοιπόν occurs (see above). St. Paul does not address his readers thus in this Epistle. ἐνδυναμοῦσθε . “ Be strengthened.” Cf. Romans 4:20. Not middle but passive, as elsewhere in N.T. (Acts 9:22; Romans 4:20; 2 Timothy 2:1; Hebrews 11:34). The active occurs Philippians 4:23; 1 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 4:17. The simple verb δυναμόω , which B 17 have here, is used in Colossians 1:2, and according to א A D in Hebrews 11:34. ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι occurs once in the Sept. Psa_51 (52): 7 rather in a bad sense. There is no reason why a verb which occurs once in the Sept. and several times in the N.T. should be said to be “ peculiar to the Alexandrian Greek.” καὶἐντῷκράτειτῆςἰσχύοςαὐτοῦ . Not a hendiadys. Compare i. 19. 11. ἐδύσασθετὴνπανοπλίαντοῦΘεοῦ . “ Put on the panoply of God.” πονοπλία occurs also in Luke 11:22. The emphasis is clearly on παν . not on τοῦΘεοῦ . Observe the repetition in ver. 13, “ of God,” i.e. provided by God, ἄπασινδιανέμειτὴνβασιλικὴνπαντευχίαν , Theodoret. There is no contrast with other armour, nor is πανοπλία to be taken as merely = “ armatura.” The completeness of the armament is the point insisted on. St. Paul was, no doubt, thinking of the Roman soldiery, as his readers also would, although the Jewish armour was essentially the same. Polybius enumerates as belonging to the Roman πανοπλία , shield, sword, greaves, spear, breastplate, helmet. St. Paul omits the spears, and adds girdle and shoes, which, though not armour, were an essential part of the soldier’ s dress. πρὸςτὸδύνασθαι . “ To the end that ye may be able.” στῆναιπρός , “ to hold your ground against,” an expression suited to the military figure. τὰςμεθοδείας . Cf. 4:14. The plural expresses the concrete workings of the μεθοδεία . We can hardly press it as specially appropriate to the military metaphor and = “ stratagems.” 12. ὅτιοὐκἔστινἡμῖνἡπάληπρὸςαἷμακαὶσάρκα . ἡμῖν , with א A Dc K L P and most MSS. and vss. ὑμῖν , B D* G, Goth., Aeth., adopted by Lach., and admitted to the margin by Treg. and WH. The second person would very readily occur to a scribe, the whole context being in the second person. ἡπάλη . “ Our wrestling.” The word is suitable to πρὸςαἷμακαὶς ., but not to the struggle in which the πανοπλία is required. The word is indeed found in a more general sense (see Ellicott), but only in poetry, as “ wrestling “ also might be used in our own tongue. But as the word is here used to describe what the struggle is not, it is most natural to supply a more general word, such as ἡμάχη or μαχετέον , in the following clause, according to an idiom frequent in Greek writers. αἷμακαὶσάρκα , in this order here only. Jerome understands this of our own passions; but that would be πρὸςτὴνσάρκα without αἷμα . Moreover, the contrast is clearly not between foes within and foes without, but between human and superhuman powers. πρὸςτὰςἀρχάς , πρὸςτὰςἐξουσίας . See on 1:21. πρὸςτοὺςκοσμοκράτορας . “ World-rulers.” The word κοσμοκρατωρ occurs in the Orphica (viii. 11, xi. 11), and is used by the Schol. on Aristoph. Nub. 397, ΣεσάγχωσιςὁβασιλεὺςτῶνΑἰγυπτίωνκοσμοκράτωργεγονώς . It frequently occurs in Rabbinical writers (transliterated), sometimes of kings whose rule was world-wide, as “ tres reges κοσμοκράτορες , dominatores ab extremitate mundi ad extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnesar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar” (Shir Rab. iii. 4, ap. Wetst.); also of the four kings whom Abraham pursued (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 57. 1). These are so called to add glory to Abraham’ s victory. Also the angel of death is so called, and by the Gnostics the Devil (Iren. i. I). In the Test. XII Patr., Test. Sol. the demons say: ἡμεῖςἐσμεντὰλεγόμεναστοιχεῖα , οἱκοσμοκράτορεςτοῦκόσμουτούτου . It appears, therefore, that it differs from “ rulers” in implying that their rule extends over the κόσμος . Schoettgen supposes that St. Paul means the Rabbis and Doctors of the Jews, and he cites a passage from the Talmud where it is argued that the Rabbis are to be called kings; he also compares Acts 4:26. But the context appears to be decisive against such a view. The contest is clearly a spiritual one. Compare the designation of Satan as ὁΘεὸςτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου , 2 Corinthians 4:4; ὁἄρχωντοῦκόσμουτούου , John 14:30. τοῦσκότουςτούτου . So, without τοῦαἰῶνος , א A B D G 17 672, Vulg. Boh. Syr-Pesh and Harcl (text), etc. After σκότους , τοῦαἰῶνος is added by א ca Dc K L P most MSS. The words were not likely to be omitted because they seemed superfluous or difficult to explain; and an omission from homoeoteleuton is not to be supposed in the face of so many documents. They might, on the contrary, have been added as a gloss, the phrase σκότουςτούτου being rare. πρὸςτὰπνευματικὰτῆςπονηρίας . “ Against the spirit forces of wickedness,” which belong to or are characterised by πονηρία . RV. has “ hosts of wickedness.” So Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, comparing τὸἱππικόν , “ the cavalry,” Revelation 9:16; τὸπολιτικόν , Herod. vii. 103; τὰλῃστρικά , Polyaen. v. 14. 141. But these are not really parallel; ἱππικόν , primarily meaning “ appertaining to ἵπποι , ” hence “ equestrian,” was naturally used for brevity to designate the cavalry of an army, as πεζικά the infantry, just like our “ horse and foot.” Thus Polyb. xv. 3. 5, Ἁννιβὰςἐλλείπωντοῖςἱππικοῖς , “ in the matter of cavalry” ; ib. xviii. 5. 5, Αἴτωλοι … καθ ʼ ὅσονἐντοῖςπεζικοῖςἐλλιπεῖςεἶσι … κατὰτοσοῦτοντοῖςἱππικοῖςδιαφέρουσιπρὸςτὸβέλτιοντε͂νἄλλενἙλλήνων : ib. iii. 114. 5, τὸτῶνἱππικῶνπλῆθοςτὸσύμπαντοῖςΚαρχηδονίοιςεἰςμυρίους . … In Revelation 9:16 we have ὁἀριθμὸςτῶνστρατευμάτωντοῦἱππικοῦ . But πνευματικόν never had such a signification, nor would its etymology lead us to expect that it could be so used; for it does not mean what relates to πνεύματα , but to τὸπνεῦμα . It would be almost as reasonable to conclude from the use of the English “ horse” and “ foot,” that “ spirit” could be used for a host of spirits, as to draw a like conclusion about πνευματικά from the use of ἱππικά , etc. Moreover, τὰἱππικά does not mean “ hosts or armies” of horses or of horsemen; and, if we were to follow the analogy of its meaning, we should interpret τὰπν . τῆςπον . as = the πνευματικόν constituent of πονηρία . τὰλῃστρικά , too, does not mean “ bands of robbers,” but of “ pirate ships,” which are themselves called λῃστρικαί , Polyaenus, v. 14. 141; and τὸπολιτικόν , in Herod. vii. 103, means that part of the population which consists of πολίται . This word, like ἱππικόν , used in such a connexion as it has there, at once conveys this meaning. But to give πνενματικά here the meaning “ spiritual armies, or hosts,” is to depart wholly from the ordinary use of the word. Giving up, therefore, this rendering as untenable, we may translate “ the spiritual forces, or elements of wickedness.” ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις is connected by Chrysostom with ἡπάληἐστίν . Thus: ἑντοῖςἐπ . ἡμάχηκεῖται … ὡςἂνεἰἔλεγεν , ἡσυνθήκηἐντίνικεῖται : ἐνχρυσῷ , i.e. our contest is for the heavenly blessings, and so Theodoret, Oecum. al. But in the illustration cited it is the connexion with κεῖται that makes this sense possible; the idea is “ rests in, or depends on,” which does not suit ἡπάληἑστίν . The view generally adopted by modern expositors is that τὰἐπ . means the seat of the evil spirits or spiritual hosts referred to, corresponding to the τοῦἀέρος of 2:2. As Alford expresses it, that habitation which in 2:2, when speaking of mere matters of fact, was said to be in the ἀήρ , is, now that the difficulty and importance of the Christian conflict is being set forth, represented as ἐντοῖςἐπ .— over us and too strong for us without the panoply of God. He compares τὰπετεινὰτοῦοὐρανοῦ , Matthew 6:26. This comment seems to amount to this, that these spiritual hosts dwell in the air; but to impress us the more with the difficulty of the combat, the air is called “ heaven.” There is, however, no proof that τὰἐπουράνια meant the atmosphere, and this is not the meaning of the word elsewhere, e.g. 1:3, 20, 2:6. The view of Eadie, al., is that τὰἐπ . means the celestial spots occupied by the Church, and in them this combat is to be maintained, “ These evil spirits have invaded the Church, are attempting to pollute, divide, and overthrow it.” Barry, while adopting the former view of τὰἐπ ., yet adds that the meaning points to the power of evil as directly spiritual, not acting through physical and human agency, but attacking the spirit in that higher aspect in which it contemplates heavenly things and ascends to the communion with God. In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, which is pre-Christian, and perhaps as early as b.c. 30, we have “ a scheme of the seven heavens which, in some of its prominent features, agrees with that conceived by St. Paul. Paradise is situated in the third heaven as in 2 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 12:3, whereas, according to later Judaism, it be longed to the fourth heaven. In the next place the presence of evil in some part of the heavens is recognised. Thus, in Ephesians 6:12, we meet with the peculiar statement, Against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavens” (Morfill and Charles, p. xl). Charles points out other parallels between the Epistle and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch; e.g. Ephesians 3:10, Ephesians 3:4:10, 25 (pp. xxii, xli); and the possibility that the present passage has been influenced by these speculations must be admitted. 13-18. Detailed description of the spiritual armour 13. ἐντῇἡμέρᾳτῇπονηρᾷ . “ The evil day,” the day of the power of evil, when the conflict is most severe, “ any day of which it may be said, ‘ this is your hour, and the power of darkness,’ ” Barry. Meyer understands it as referring to the great outbreak of Satanic power expected to occur before the second coming. ἅπαντακατεργασάμενοι ; Oecum. and Theoph. take this to mean “ having overcome all,” AV. marg.; but although the verb has this sense occasionally in classical writers, or rather “ to despatch, to finish,” “ conficere,” it never has it in St. Paul, who uses it twenty times. This would not be decisive if this meaning were more suitable here. But the conflict is perpetual in this world, it is ever being renewed. On the other hand, we cannot without tautology understand this clause as merely expressing preparation for the combat. κατεργάζεσθαι , too, means to accomplish a difficult work: “ notat rem arduam,” Fritzsche, and could hardly be used of mere arming for the fight. It appears, then, to mean having done all that duty requires, viz. from time to time. The Vulgate (not Jerome) has “ omnibus perfecti,” or, in some MSS., “ in omnibus perfecti,” following, as some think, the reading κατειργασμένοι . A has κατεργασμένοι , doubtless a mistake for κατεργασάμενοι , not meant for κατειργασμένοιστῆναι . opposed to φεύγειν , “ hold your ground.” 14. στῆτεοὖν . This στῆτε cannot be taken in the same sense as the preceding, otherwise we should have the end there aimed at, here assumed as already attained when the arming begins. In the following details of the figure, each part of the equipment has its appropriate interpretation, which, however, must not be pressed too minutely. In the case of the breastplate and the helmet, St. Paul follows Isaiah 59:17, ἐνεδύσατοδικαιοσύνηνὡςθώρακα , καὶπεριέθετοπερικεφάλαιονσωτηρίουἐπὶτῆςκεφαλῆς , but the remainder of Isaiah’ s description was unsuitable, viz. καὶπεριεβάλετοἱμάτιονἐκδικύσεωςκαὶτὸπεριβόλαιονζήλου . The figure of Isaiah is more fully carried out in Wisd. 5:18, 20, λήψεταιπανοπλαίοντὸνζῆλοναὐτοῦ … ἐνδύσεταιθώρακαδικαιοσύην , καὶπεριθήσεταικόρυθακρίσινἀνυπόκριτον . λήψεταιἀσπίδαἀκαταμάχητονὁσιότητα , ὀξυνεῖδὲἀπότομονὀργὴνεἰςῥομφαίαν . In Isaiah 11:5, δικαιοσύνη and ἀλήθεια are both girdles. περιζωσάμενοιτὴνὀσφὺνὑμῶνἐνἀληθείᾳ . The aorists are properly used, since the arming was complete before the στῆτε . The present would mean that they were to be arming themselves when they took up their position, which would be rather a mark of unpreparedness. The girdle was a necessary part of the equipment of a soldier to make rapid movement possible; and, indeed, was commonly used to support the sword, though not in Homeric times. But there is no reference to that use here, the sword being not referred to until ver. 17. ἐνἀληθείᾳ , ἐν , instrumental, “ with“ ; “ truth,” not the objective truth of the gospel, which is the sword, ver. 17, but truth in its widest sense as an element of character. Compare ch. 5:9. τὸνθώρακατῆςδικαιοσύνης , genitive of apposition. δικ ., as in ch. 5:9, Christian uprightness of character, which like a breastplate defends the heart from the assaults of evil. Eadie (with Harless, al.) understands it of the righteousness of faith, i.e. Christ’ s justifying righteousness, remarking that the article has a special prominence. But the article is used in accordance with the ordinary rule, θώρακα having the article. The faith by which this justification is attained is mentioned in ver. 16. That no Christian possesses entire rectitude is not an objection, the breastplate is not faultlessness, which would, in fact, be inconsistent with the figure, but the actual rightness of character wrought by Christ. 15. ὑποδησάμενοιτοὺςπόδας , no doubt referring to the “ caligae” of the Roman soldier. ἐνἑτοιμασίᾳ . The more classical form is ἑτοιμότης , but Hippocr. has ἑτοιμασία . The word occurs in the Sept. in the sense of “ preparedness” (Ps. 9:41, Psalms 10:17), but more frequently as representing the Hebrew מ ָ כ ו ֹ ן , which they rendered according to their view of its etymology, not its meaning. It is quite erroneous to interpret it here by this use, or rather misuse, of it, as some expositors have done, taking it, for example, to mean ‘ vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem adeo ipsam certam illam quidem et fundamento cui insistere possis, similem,” Koppe. This is also against the figure. Shoes are not the firm foundation on which one stands, but we may compare with them the readiness of mind with which one advances to the conflict, and which is wrought by the gospel τοῦεὐαγ . It is not preparation to preach the gospel that is meant, for the apostle is addressing all Christians; and, moreover, this interpretation does not agree with the figure. τῆςεἰρήνης , peace with God and amongst men, see ch. 2:17; an oxymoron. ἂντῷδιαβόλῳπολεμῶμενεἰρηνεύομενπρὸςτὸνΘεόν , Chrys. 16. ἐνπᾶσιν . So א B P 17, al., Cat. text, Vulg., Boh., Syr-Harcl., Aeth. ἐπὶπᾶσιν , A D G K L most cursives, Syr-Pesh, Arm., etc. There is a similar variety in Luke 16:26, where א B L Boh. read ἐν , but A D X Δ al. ἐπί . This alone is sufficient to set aside Ellicott’ s suggestion that ἐν here was a correction for the ambiguous ἐπί . Meyer thinks it was substituted as the more common. If ἐπί is read it is not to be rendered “ above all,” AV. Beza, nor “ over all,” but “ in addition to all“ ; cf. Luke 3:20, προσέθηκεκαὶτοῦτοἐτὶπᾶσι . τὸνθυρεόν . θυρεός is used in Homer of a great stone placed against a door to keep it shut. In later writers, Plutarch, Polybius, etc., it means a large oblong shield, “ scutum,” according to Polyb. 4 ft. by 2 ½ , differing from the ἀσπίς , which was small and round. But in Wisdom, quoted above, ὁσιότης is the ἀσπίς or “ clypeus.” St. Paul’ s purpose, however, is different, and he is describing a heavy armed warrior well furnished for defence. τῆςπίστεως , genitive of apposition. Only where faith is weak does the enemy gain access. In 1 Thessalonians 5:8 faith and love are the breastplate. ἐνᾧδυνήσεσθε . The future is properly used, not because the combat does not begin until the day of the great future conflict with evil, but because the whole duration of the fight is contemplated. At all times ye shall be able, etc. τὰβέλητοῦπονηροῦτὰπεπυρωμένασβέσαι . The figure alludes to the darts or arrows tipped with tow dipped in pitch and set on fire, mentioned, for example, in Herod. viii. 52. Some of the older interpreters (Hammond, al.) understood the word to mean poisoned, the word “ fiery” being used with reference to the sensation produced; but this is contrary to the grammatical meaning of the word. “ Fiery darts” is a suitable figure for fierce temptations; beyond this there is no need to go. σβέσαι is appropriate, since the shields alluded to were of wood covered with leather, in which when the arrow fixed itself the fire would go out. So Thucydides tells us of hides being used for this very purpose (ii. 75). τά is omitted by B D* G, and bracketed b Treg. and WH.; omitted by Lachm. If omitted, the interpretation would be “ fire tipped as they are.” The authority for omission is small; but the insertion would be more easily accounted for than the accidental omission. 17. καὶτὴνπερικεφαλαίαντοῦσωτηρίουδέξασθε . This verse is separated from ver. 16 by a full stop in RV. as well as by Lachm., Tisch., not Treg., WH. But though the construction is changed, as in 1:22, this is only a result of the rapidity of thought for which a strict adherence to the participial construction might be a hindrance. The same vividness of conception leads the writer to put τὴνπερικ . first. Σωτήριον is not used elsewhere by St. Paul; here it is taken with the preceding word from the Sept. Theodoret understands it as masculine, referring to Christ; and so Bengel, “ salutaris, i.e. Christi” ; but this is refuted by the parallel, 1 Thessalonians 5:8, where the περικ . is the hope of salvation. Soden thinks that in that passage the apostle purposely corrects the σωτήριον of the Sept. καὶτὴνμάχαιραντοῦπνεύματος . This cannot well be a genitive of apposition, since the following clause explains the sword as ῥῆμαΘεοῦ . Olshausen, indeed, and Soden, take the relative ὅ as referring to πνεύματος . They understand the writer as speaking of the Holy Spirit in relation to man, as finding expression in the word of God. But there is no parallel for thus calling the Spirit ῥῆμαΘεοῦ . It is much more natural to interpret τοῦπν . as “ which is given by the Spirit’ ; nor is there any difficulty in taking this genitive differently from the others, since this alone is a genitive of a personal name. Chrysostom suggests the alternative: ἤτοιτὸΠνεῦμάφησιν , ἤτοιἐντῇπνευματικῇμαχαίρᾳ (or ἤτοιτὸχάρισματὸπνευματικόν , διὰγὰρπνευματικῆςμαχαίρας , κ .τ .λ .). ὅἐστινῥῆμαθεοῦ . Compare Hebrews 4:12, ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ … τομώτεροςὑπὲρπᾶσανμάχαιρανδίστομον . δέξασθε . “ Accipite, oblatum a Domino,” Bengel. A Dc K L, etc., read δέξασθαι , perhaps only by itacism. The verb is omitted by D* G, al. 18. διὰπάσηςπροσευχῆςκαὶδεήσεως , κ .τ .λ . These words are best taken with the principal imperative στῆτε , not simply with the previous clause, for πάσης and ἐνηαντὶκαιρῷ would not agree with the momentary act δέξασθε , which is itself subordinate to στῆτε . “ With all prayer, i.e. prayer of every form.” προσευχή and δέησις differ in this respect, that the former is used only of prayer, whether supplication or not, to God, while δέησις means “ request,” and may be addressed to either God or man. Here, then, we may say that πρ . expresses that the prayer is addressed to God, and δ ., that it involves a request. Compare Philippians 4:6, ἐνπαντὶτῇπροσευχῇκαὶτῇδέησει , and see on Luke 1:13. ἐνπαντὶκαιρῷ corresponds with the ἀδιαλείπτωςπροσεύχεσθαι of 1 Thessalonians 5:17. ἐνΠνεύματι . “ In the Spirit” (cf. Jude 1:21) not = ἐκψυχῆς , for which interpretation St. Paul’ s usage supplies no justification, besides which it was not necessary to say that the prayer was to be from the heart. Chrysostom supposes ἐνπν . to be in contrast to βαττολογίαις , which is also open to the objection that he who has put on the specified armour must be assumed not to pray ἐνβαττολογίᾳ . καὶεἰςαὐτό . “ Thereunto,” i.e. to the προσευχόμενοιἐνπ . κἐνπν . Rec. has τοῦτο after αὐτό , with Dc J K, etc.; but αὐτό alone, א A B . The frequent occurrence of αὐτὸτοῦτο in St. Paul accounts for the insertion. ἀγρυπνοῦντεςἐνπάσῃπροσκαρτερήσει . Compare Colossians 4:2, τῇπροσευχῇπροσκαρτερεῖτε , γρηγοροῦντεςἐναὐτῇἐνεὐυχαριστίᾳ , “ keeping watch,” or “ being watchful” ; cf. Mark 13:33, ἀγρυπνεῖτεκαὶπροσεύχεσθε : ib. 35, γρηγορεῖτε : Luke 21:36, ἀγρυπνεῖτεἐνπαντὶκαιρῷδεόμενοι , κ .τ .λ . Προσκαρτέρησις is not found elsewhere, but the verb προσκαρτερέω is frequent both in classical writers and N.T. always with the sense of continued waiting on, attention to, adherence, etc. Cf Acts 2:42, τῇδιδαχῇ : ib. 46, ἐντῷἱερῷ : 8:13, τῷΦιλίππῳ : Mark 3:9, ἵναπλοιάριονπροσκαρτεπῇαὐτῷ : Romans 12:12, προσευχῇ : ib. 13:6, εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτο . It is clear, then, that Alford is not justified in rendering it “ importunity” in order to avoid a hendiadys. Practically, there is a hendiadys. περὶπάντωντῶνἁγίων , καὶὑπὲρἐμου . καί , introducing a special case, see ch. 5:18. Harless and Eadie distinguish περί here from ὑπέρ , regarding the latter as more vague. “ They could not know much about all saints, and they were to pray about them.” Eadie admits, however, that such a distinction cannot be uniformly Carried out. Meyer, to prove the prepositions synonymous, quotes Dem. Phil. ii. p. 74, μὴπερὶτῶνδικαίωνμηδ ʼ ὑπὲρτῶνἔξωπραγμάτωνεἶναιτὴνβουλήν , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπὲρτῶνἐντῇχώρᾳ : but this passage rather indicates the contrary; “ not about a question of justice, but in defence of.” So also the similar one, οὐπερὶδόξηςοὐδ ʼ ὑπὲρμέρουςχώραςπολεμοῦσι , i.e. “ not about a matter of glory, but in defence of,” etc. ὑπὲρδόξης might have been used, but the idea would not be quite the same. Here, too, ὑπέρ expresses with more precision “ on behalf of” ; but the reason of the difference is probably not to be found in the difference between πάντωντῶνἁγίων and ἐμοῦ , but in the fact that the special object of the latter prayer is stated: “ and on behalf of me, that,” etc. See Dale, Lect. xxiv. p. 437. 19, 20. The apostle’ s request for their prayers for himself, that he may have freedom to proclaim the mystery of the gospel for which he is an ambassador. ἵναμοιδοθῇλόγςἐνἀνοίξειτοῦστόματόςμου . Λόγος , in the sense of utterance, as 2 Corinthians 11:2, ἰδιώτηςτῷλόγῳ . The words ἐνἀνλοίξειτοῦστ . are by some connected with the following. Thus Grotius: “ ut ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem,” etc., but παρρησία never refers to external freedom, and its meaning here is further determined by παρρησιάσωμαι , ver. 20. To take παρρησίᾳ as merely epexegetical of ἀνοίξειτ . στ . would be very flat. Taken with the preceding, the words may mean the opening of the mouth by God, as in Psalms 51:17. Or they may mean, “ when I open my mouth.” The latter is the interpretation adopted by Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer. But so understood, the words are superfluous, not to say trivial. On the other hand, with the former interpretation they give a fulness of expression to the idea in δοθῇλόγος , which is in harmony with the gravity of the thought; they complete from the subjective side what is expressed on the objective side in δοθῇλόγος . This is the view of Harless, Olsh., Soden. The absence of the article is also in its favour. Compare Colossians 4:3, although there it is ἵναὁΘεὸςἀνοίξῃήμῖνθύραντοῦλόγου . “ Opening the mouth” is an expression used only where some grave utterance is in question. ἐνπαρρησίᾳγνωρίσαι . “ To make known with openness of speech “ ; cf. Philippians 1:20. The margin of RV. connects ἐνπαρρησίᾳ with the preceding words, as the AV. had done. This involves a tautology with παρρησιάσωμαι . δοθείη of Rec. rests on very slight evidence. τὸμυστήριοντοῦεὐαγγ . See ch. 1:9. 20. ὑρὲροὗπρεσβεύωἐνἁλύσει . οὗ refers to τὸμυστ ., for this is the object of γνωρίσαι , and γνωρίσαι is in substance connected with πρεσβεύω Compare Colossians 4:3, λαλῆσαιτὸμυστ . τοῦΧριστοῦδι ʼ ὃκαὶδέδεμαι . The simplest view is probably the best: “ I am an ambassador in chains” ; but Grotius understands the words to mean: “ nunc quoque non desino legationem” ; but this would require some emphasis on ἁλύσει , as, for example, καὶἐνἁλ . πρεσβεύω : and there is no reference here, as in Philippians 1:12 ff., to the good effects of his imprisonment. The oxymoron is noted by Bengel and Wetstein: “ alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant.” So, indeed, Theoph., τοὺςπρέσβειςνόμοςμηδὲνπάσχεινκακόν . ἐνἁλύσει is in distinct opposition to ἐνπαρρησίᾳ . Paley and others have drawn attention to the use of ἅλυσις here as referring to the “ custodia militaris” in which St. Paul was kept at Rome, Acts 28:16, Acts 28:20; cf. 2 Timothy 1:16. It is true the singular might possibly be used in a general sense, although the instances cited from Polyb. of εἰςτὴνἅλυσινἐμπίπτειν (xxi. 3. 3, iv. 76. 5) are not parallel, since the article there is generic. Still it can hardly be denied that the term has a special suitability to the circumstances of this imprisonment, or rather custody. Of course, δεσμοί as the general term might also be used, and therefore the fact that it is used, Colossians 4:18, is no objection. ἵναἐναὐτῷπαρρησιάσωμαι . Co-ordinate with the preceding ἵνα . Soden, however, takes the clause as depending on the πρεσβεύωἐνἁλ ., the meaning according to him being that St. Paul might have been set at liberty on condition that he did not preach the gospel, but remained in custody in hope that the result of the trial would be that he would be at liberty to preach. This, he adds, corresponds to ὡςδεῖμελαλῆσαι , and escapes the tautology involved in the other interpretations. 21-24. Personal commendation of Tychicus, who carries the letter, and final benediction 21. ἵναδὲεἰδῆτεκαὶὑμεις . καί is probably simply “ ye as well as others.” Meyer and others suppose a reference to the Epistle to the Colossians, “ ye as well as the Colossians” ; cf. Colossians 4:7. But this seems forced, for this significance of καί could hardly occur to the readers. But it may mean, “ although there are no personal relations between us.” Alford understands: “ as I have been going at length into the matters concerning you, so if you also, on your part, wish,” etc. τὰκατ ʼ ἐμέ = Colossians 4:7. τὶπράσσω , nearer definition of τὰκατ ʼ ἐμέ , “ how I do,” not “ what I am doing,” which they knew was the one thing that always engaged his thoughts. Τύχικοςὁἀγαπητὸςἀδελφὸςκαὶπιστὸςδιάκονος . Tychicus is mentioned, Acts 20:4, as accompanying St. Paul from Macedonia to Asia. His services as διάκονος are alluded to 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12. It was only ἐνκυρίῳ that he was Paul’ s διάκονος . In Colossians 4:7 σύνδουλος is added. 22. ὃνἔπεμψαεἰςαὐτότοῦτο ( = Col_4.), i.e. for the very purpose now to be mentioned: ἵναγνῶτετὰπερὶἡμῶν , κ .τ .λ . = Colossians 4:8 (where, however, there is a difference of reading). 23. Εἰρήνητοῖςἀδελφοῖς , κ .τ .λ . A truly apostolic benediction as to substance, but differing in form from St. Paul’ s final benedictions. First, it is in the third person, not the second, τοῖςἀδελφοῖς instead of ὑμῖν , μετὰπάντωντῶνἀγ . instead of μεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . The whole form, too, is markedly general. This agrees well with the view that the Epistle was addressed to a circle of Churches. Secondly, the benediction is in two parts, not, as elsewhere, one; and, thirdly, χάρις , which elsewhere comes first, here concludes, and εἰρήνη , elsewhere last, is here first. These points all speak for the genuineness of the Epistle, and against the hypothesis of imitation. ἀγάπημετὰπίστεως . πίστις is presupposed, therefore it is not ἀγάπηκαὶπ . Love is the characteristic of a true faith. For ἀγάπη A has ἔλεος , suggested probably by recollection of 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1. 24. ἩχάριςμετὰπάντωντῶνἀγαπώντωντὸνΚύριονἡμῶνἸησοῦνχριστὸνἐνἀφθαρσίᾳ . ἀφθαρσία elsewhere means the incorruptibility of future immortality; see, for example, Romans 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:10. The adjective ἄφθαρτος has a corresponding meaning. God is ἄφθαρτος , Romans 1:23; 1 Timothy 1:17; the dead are raised ἄφθαρτοι , 1 Corinthians 15:52; the Christian’ s crown is ἄφθαρτος . So 1 Peter 3:4, the ornament of women is to be ἐντῷἀφθάρτῳτοῦπραέοςκαὶἡσυχίουπνεύματος . The word, then, does not point merely to time but to character, and that suits very well here as an attribute of love. It is more than “ sincerity” (ἀφθορία , Titus 2:7); it is “ imperishableness, incorruptibility.” It is a “ spiritual, eternal love, and thus only is the word worthy to stand as the crown and climax of this glorious Epistle,” Alford. Some connect the word with χάρις . Soden defends the connexion on the following grounds: first, that if connected with ἀγαπώντων , ἐνἀφθ . must express a character of the ἀγάπη , in which case ἀγαπᾶνἐνἀφθ . would be an unsuitable form of expression for ἀγαπᾶνἐνἀάπῃἀφθάρτῳ and, secondly, that ἀφθαρσία almost always contains a point of contrast with the transitory nature which belongs to the creature in this world; it belongs to the sphere of heavenly existence, serving to designate eternal life as the highest blessing of salvation; and this is the gift of χάρις , which culminates in the bestowal of it. Bengel, who connects ἀφθ . with χάρις , remarks, however, well: “ Congruit cum tota summa epistolae: et inde redundat etiam ἀφθαρσία in amorem fidelium erga Jesum Christum.” The writer, in fact, returns to the fundamental thought of 1:3-14. There is no analogy for the connexion with τὸνΚύριονἡμῶν , adopted by some expositors. Ἀμήν is added in א c D K L P most MSS., Amiat.**, Syr. (both), Boh., not in א A B G 17, Arm., Amiat. Alf Alford. Ell Ellicott. WH Westcott and Hort. Treg. Tregelles. Arm Armenian. Tisch. Tischendorf. Boh Bohairic. Cited by Tisch. as “ Coptic,” by Tregelles as “ Memphitic,” by WH. as “ me.” Syr-Pesh The Peshitto Syriac. Harcl The Harclean Syriac.