OF PAUL TO THE _____________ I. ADDRESS AND Ephesians 1:1-21 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which [who] are at [in] Ephesus, and to [omit to] the faithful [or believers] in Christ Jesus: [.] 2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from [omit from] the Lord Jesus Christ. AND Eph_1:1. The Inscription (address). A. The writer (Ephesians 1:1 a). Paul. Comp. the Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans. Beza (Acts 13:9) explains the fact that he thus names himself in all his Epistles, by saying that he as the Apostle to the Gentiles retains the appellation used by them. Jerome: “The name Paul is the token of victory, raised above the first spoils of the church among the heathen.” [Comp, Schaff, Romans , 6 p. 58.—An apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.—We find precisely as here ἀπόστολοςἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματοςθεοῦ in 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1. While in the earliest Epistles to the Thessalonians there is no qualifying phrase, Paul calls himself in Philemon 1:1, δέσμιοςΧριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, and writes in Philippians 1:1 : Παῦλοςκαὶ Τιμόθεος, δοῦλοιΧριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; in 1 Corinthians 1:1 κλητός is prefixed, in Romans 1:1 δοῦλοςἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ is added, in Titus 1:1 δοῦλοςθεοῦ, ἀπόστολοςδιʼ ?Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are joined together, while in 1 Timothy 1:1; instead of διὰ θελήματοςθεοῦ, we find κατʼ ? ἐπιταγὴνθεοῦ σωτῆροςἡμῶνκαὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆςἐλπίδοςἡμῶν. In Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Titus 1:1, still further amplifications are appended. In this variety there is nothing arbitrary, but a consideration of the circumstances and relations determines the special form of the inscription in each letter, as in each case must be shown and has been shown. The shortest form, used here by the Apostle, is sufficient to indicate, humbly in unfading remembrance of his wonderful conversion and calling, that he has received his Apostleship without his own merit or worthiness, through the will and grace of the Most High (Galatians 1:15-16), hence that he had not assumed it for himself or obtained it through the mediation of others. He did not present himself to the Ephesians as a stranger, as in the case of the Roman church, nor had he to deal with opponents, as in the case of the Galatians, nor was he approaching the end of his life, as it appears in the Pastoral Epistles. Hence there was no need of such an amplification as in those letters. Still, as he was not writing about a private matter, as to Philemon, but of Church and Christianity at large, and the Epistle is an official letter of great importance, the official designation should not be omitted. Comp. the Introduction, § 1. 2, § 3. Ἀπόστολος is an official title. [Comp. Romans, p. 59. See Luke 6:13 (ἀποστόλουςὠνόμασεν); Mark 3:14 : ἴναἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺςκηρύσσειν. Hence 1 Timothy 2:7 : κῆρυξκαὶ ἀπόστολος and πρεσβεύεινὑπὲρΧριστοῦ, 2 Corinthians 5:20; Ephesians 6:20. As an Apostle, one sent out, he is dependent on the Sender, has his authority in Him (against Harless), since κατʼ ? ἐπιταγὴν—Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, 1 Timothy 1:1, does not describe the source, the origin of the Apostolic authority, but only the corresponding activity, the situation in accordance with the commission. It is no self-glorification, but in ἀπόστολοςἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ there is expressed the feeling of dependence, in κατʼ ? ἐπιταγὴν—Ἰησοῦ that of attachment; thus in 2 Corinthians 3:5 he calls himself ἱκανός, “sufficient,” but denies his ἱκανότηςἐκτοῦ θεοῦ, his “sufficiency is of God.” The genitive Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ accordingly designates chiefly Him who sends, who gives authority; the subject of the proclamation commanded to the Apostle is indeed the same Lord; but this lies in the nature and Being and position of the Sender, not in the genitive. Paul thus marks the authority which he has in the Christian church. [Ellicott and Alford follow Harless in taking the genitive as one of simple possession, but Eadie thinks it indicates also “the source, dignity and functions of the Apostolic commission,” as well as including the idea of authority.—R.] Finally, the position of the words must be considered. The best and most MSS. read here Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; the same order is found in Galatians 1:1 without variation, but in all other Pauline inscriptions Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is the better attested reading, so that Tischendorf (ed. 7, maj.) reads thus in every case except Galatians 1:1, while Knapp and others read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, except in Philemon 1:1. The difference in position expresses a difference of shading in the view. “Jesus” is the personal name of Him who appeared in the form of a servant, referring chiefly to His humanity. “Christ” is the official name of the Mediator, referring to the Divinity of the Son mediating from eternity. Historically the Apostolic proclamation begins with the Jesus in the form of a servant, the Son of man, rising to the Christ, the Son of God, as He proved Himself to be. Thus it occurred in the revelation to Paul, whose question the Lord thus answered: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:5; Acts 26:15; Acts 22:8); in the last passage “of Nazareth” is added. He refers back to this most pointedly in Galatians 1:1; hence in that passage the reading is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ without variation. But for this very reason the prevalent designation of Paul as “an Apostle of Christ Jesus” is explicable: for the exalted Son of Man, the Christ, who had appeared in Jesus of Nazareth, had called him to be an Apostle, while He had called all the others in the form of a servant. There is, however, no perceptible reason in the church to which he writes, nor in the contents of the Epistle, nor in the circumstances in which he writes, for giving prominence to this distinction or to the consciousness of it. Hence the better supported reading is the more to be accepted, since, the subsequent context (πιστοὶςἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) might give occasion for substituting the more usual order. Διὰ θελήματοςθεοῦ sets forth the means, as in 1 Corinthians 1:9 : ὁ θεὸςδἰ οὐ ἐκλήθητε; Galatians 4:7 : κληρόνομοςδιὰ θεοῦ (ΰ. A. B. C; F. G.: διὰ θεόν). In these cases the preposition διά with the genitive evidently stands in connection with the causa principalis, seeming to be entirely=παρά, ὑπό. So in Galatians 1:1, ἀπό and διά are definitely distinguished, and διά is there applied to Christ and also to God. Fritzsche’s remark does not meet the case: est autem hic usus ibi tantum admisseus, ubi nullam scntentiζ ambiguitatem crearet. Winer (p. 355) comes nearer, since διά does not designate the author as such, i.e., as him from whom something proceeds, but chiefly as the person through whose endeavors or favor, etc., something is imparted to some one. It is precisely the activity and efficacy of the Divine will over against the various difficulties which must be overcome and set aside, “the achieving and penetrating power, the energy” of the same, which is indicated. It does not rest nor repose, as if what comes, only came hither from Him or out of Him; He must be active, must further in the present. Hence this phrase is not merely a reference to the final and supreme ground and to the important prerogative of his calling, as one divinely authorized, in order to remove all suspicion of intrusion and unwarranted appearance or writing, but it is also a reminder of the continued energy of the free grace of God; what exalts and sustains him and what humbles him, he comprehends here in one; it is as much an expression of humility as of dignity. Here this added phrase has “still another peculiar meaning. For when an Apostle in the Holy Spirit begins to write an Epistle, he knows already with the first word, what will follow further; he has conceived and borne the whole, before he begins his greeting. If we read further, how in Ephesians 1:3-11 all the consolation of this Epistle is brought out of the revealed mystery of the gracious good pleasure and will of God, we can mark what the Apostle has already in mind: an Apostle and messenger through the will of God brings no other message than a glad one, the gospel of Redemption unto blessedness. Comp. Romans 1:10-11; Romans 15:29; Romans 15:32. It is a counsel of grace creating joy and peace, this will of God, through which he also, who from Saul had become Paul, in his call to be an Apostle stands before all who should believe on Jesus Christ unto eternal life, as an example of the mercy that saves sinners (1 Timothy 1:12-16).”—Stier. [Ellicott gives especial weight to the latter part of Stier’s view, Alford to the former, while Eadie clings to the single notion of authority.—R.] Accordingly the remark of Melancthon, although accepted by most commentators, does not cover the case: Vides, quanta cura fuerit Spiritui sancto certos nos reddere, de verbo Dei, ut et secure crederemus et non aliud audiremus prζter hoc verbum.B. The recipients of the Epistle (Ephesians 1:1 b).—To the saints who are in Ephesus and the faithful [or believers] in Christ Jesus.—Ἅγιοι is applied to Christians according to the analogy of the Hebrew χָ ?γֹ ?εωׁ (Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 14:2; 1 Peter 2:9) as those consecrated to God, as members of a sanctified fellowship, of the kingdom of God, of the Church of Christ. Although in the nature of the Christian communion there is not merely, the calling and destination but also the condition and furtherance of inward holiness, so that the latter are to be chiefly thought of in connection with an ἄγιος and can never be separated entirely from him, still they are not assumed in the word itself [Harless thus restricts it], so that this is not to be regarded as a moral peculiarity (Estius, Grotius and others), nor does it express the call in the history of personal salvation and the moral destination, so as to mean: those called to holiness (Schenkel). If the former view includes too much, the latter includes too little. The principle of holiness has already come to them and even into them (Lange); not merely is the goal of their calling held up before them, but the strength to attain to it is conceded and imparted (Stier). So that ἄγιος designates not merely a goal, a destination, but a relation into which the man is transferred and with which something is placed in himself.The inner side of this relation, the demeanor is here designated by πιστός, which means not merely faithful, reliable, but is also=πίσυνος (in any case from πείθω), πιστεύων blieving, Comp. Passow sub voce. So that it is used, not only in contrast with ἄπιστος (John 20:27; 2 Corinthians 6:15), but without such a connection (Galatians 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:6), even in the address (Colossians 1:1). On this account it is not to be applied to constantia in sanctimonia (Grotius) or perpetuitas in evangelica fide (Baumgarten). Matthies is as little justified in limiting πιστοί to the enlightened believing nature, and referring ἄγιοι to the sanctified affectionate walk, as is Schenkel in applying the latter to the destination of the life and the former to the direction of the heart. For πιστεύω is not merely a direction of the heart, but a living activity, the acceptance and appropriation of what is proffered together with the devotion of one’s own person to the Giver of every perfect gift. Καί joins πιστός with ἄγιος, as belonging together, like Colossians 1:2, and thus are indicated the external relation established from above, and the demeanor of the church corresponding thereto, or “prominence is given both to the external relation and the internal condition of the Christian” (Harless). There is no ground for taking the conjunctive particle as epexegetical, as Beza and others do, appealing to Ephesians 2:8; Galatians 6:16. Although the absence of the article before πιστοῖς renders this admissible, it is decidedly opposed by the fact that the union of ἁγίοις and πιστοῖς is a description of the one church on its objective and subjective side, of the two important elements in the completion of the idea (Bengel: Dei est, sanctificare nos et asserere, nostrum, ex Dei munere credere): the two notions do not cover the same ground, nor does one replace or explain the other; besides, Paul, least of all, would elevate the subjective above the objective element, and that too with an apparent exaltation of the Ephesian church, as though the vocati were all fideles. Because the article is wanting before πιστοῖς, it is not allowable to find indicated in the two words two different grades or parts of the church, as does Stier, appealing to 1 Corinthians 1:2, where he thinks three grades are referred to; and yet dropping “the thought of grades, which is but indistinctly present in the two words,” he applies them to two parts, the first of which is thought of in the first part of the Epistle, the other in the second part. The acceptance of such a division would be grammatically inadmissible here (we should then read τοῖςἁγίοιςκαὶ τοῖςπιστοῖς), and a similar division of the matter of the Epistle is found in others also: should not then the churches to which they were written, have had these two parts just as in Ephesus, or should not Paul have so thought, of them in the letters addressed to them? The distinction is artificial. Both ideas are further defined: τοῖςἁγίοιςτοῖςοὗσινἐνἘφέσῳ, πιστοῖςἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The first marking the objective side of the church by a local qualification, the second, respecting its subjective side, by the life-sphere of faith; each is thus defined more closely according to its nature. On ἐνἘφέσῳ, see Introduction, § 5 [and Textual Note³]. Whether it is accepted or rejected makes little change in the sense of the words.—Τοῖςοὗσιν means those who are. In Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1, ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ οὔσῃ or ἁγίοιςτοῖςοὗσιν stand in connection with a following statement of the place, as herewith ἐνἘφέσῳ. This justifies the presumption that here too it can mean only this; nor does the word admit of any other meaning. It is entirely inadmissible, to explain τοῖςοὗσιν without ἐνἘφέσῳ as meaning “actual” (to the actually holy); this would read: τοῖςὅντως, Basil (τοῖςἘφεσίοιςἑπιστέλλωνώςγνησίωςἡ νωμένοιςτῷ ὄντιδἰ ἐπιγνώσεως—ὅνταςαὐτοὺς—ὠνόμασεν) to the contrary notwithstanding. Bengel, who does not accept ἐνἘφέσῳ, renders: qui prζsto sunt, referring to Acts 13:1; Romans 13:1. But the passages cited, Acts 13:1 : κατὰ τὴνοὖσανἐκκλησίαν, and Romans 13:1 : αἱ δὲ οὖσαιἐξουσίαι, by the participle of εἶναι mark only present existence and validity (in the churches which are existing there at present, the powers ruling there at present), and Bengel himself shortly before explains with more exactness: qui sunt in omnibus iis locis, quo Tychicus cum hac epistola venit, so that the participle has still a local reference. Such a reference must at all events be retained, and if ἐνἘφέσῳ must be omitted, then there is a lacuna, either intentional on the part of the writer, as in the case of a circular letter, or occasioned by the transcribers. ἘνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is joined to πιστοῖς. The connection with ἐν is not objectionable, even though πιστὸςἐν does not occur elsewhere; for in Colossians 1:1 : πιστοῖςἀδελφοῖςἐνΧριστῷ, the phrase qualifies ἀδελφοῖς so 1 Timothy 1:2 : γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐνπίστει. But πίστιςἐνΧριστῷ is found in Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4; Galatians 3:26 : μετὰ πίστεωςκαὶ ἀγάπηςτῆςἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 1 Timothy 1:14; and πιστεύεινἐντῷ εὐαγγελίῳ Mark 1:15. Since ἐν designates the element, the life-sphere, the principle, the inmost life-fellowship of the believer, it is not=εἰς (Baumgarten), for it is not the object, aim or direction of the believer that is marked, but his activity and vitality. Hence it is also not=διὰ Χριστοῦ, for the means are not here discussed, as Schenkel thinks, nor is it to be rendered: fidem in Christo reponentibus (Meyer), since in that case we should find ἐπί with the dative (Winer, p. 867). The position ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ must be noticed, since at the beginning we read ἀπόστολοςἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and so too in the greeting, Ephesians 1:2. “The proclamation of the messenger proceeds mainly from Jesus, preaching and proving that He is the Christ—but the faith of the saints rests mainly on the Christ, the Messiah, the giver of the gift of God, of eternal life (Romans 6:23). Comp. Colossians 1:4; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Timothy 1:14-15.”—Stier. “In Christ” is in this Epistle the centre and heartbeat of the apostolic proclamation. Comp. Ephesians 1:3-4; Ephesians 1:6-7; Ephesians 1:10-13, etc. [See Eadie’s remarks in Homil. Notes.—R.] This formula corresponds entirely to the phrases “in Adam,” “in Abraham,” referring to the efficient fellowship of life. The connection with πιστοῖς must be retained, the more since ἁγίοις has already an added qualification. It is true ἐνΧριστῷ might be joined with ἁγίοις, as in Philippians 1:1. But it does not result from this, that it belongs here not merely to πιστοῖς but also to ἁγίοις, as Schenkel, Harless and others think; as if Paul had written: τοῖςἁγίοιςκαὶ πιστοῖςἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ?! One might say with the same reason, that τοῖςαὗσινἐνἘφέσῳ belonged to πιστοῖς, since the believers also are there. While Paul writes τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ in 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; ταῖςεκκλησίαις Galatians 1:2; in Romans 1:7; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2, he says: τοῖςἁγίοις. In the former cases he has in view the unity comprehending the Christian persons, in the latter the persons standing in this unity: this form will, therefore, scarcely support the view, that it bears in itself a more confidential character. (Schenkel on Colossians 1:2.) For the Romans were strangers to the Apostle, while the Colossians, Corinthians and Galatians were known and dear. Still less is there to be found in this difference an indication that he had founded the church in question or some one else. Ephesians 1:2. The Salutation. [On the Pauline salutations, see Dr. Schaff’s note, Romans, p. 57. Grace be to you and peace.—Χάρις has the same root as χαίρω, χαρά, χάρμα (joy), χαρτός (pleasant), from which also carus, gratius, gratia, grates are derived. It means favor, gracious character, loving, obliging devotion to another, such as that of a wife to the husband, the enjoyment of love. See Passow sub voce. The thought of the Scripture is aptly expressed by the German word Gnade, the original meaning of which may be perceived in the expression: die Sonne gent zu Gnaden (the sun goes down, goes under), ein gnδdiger Regen (a rain that falls lightly and penetrates deeply). It is compounded of ge, with the signification of strengthening, multiplying (as in Gerδusch, Geschrei, etc.), and naden (down, into the depths). Gnade, grace, is therefore condescending love and beneficent kindness of God, the Lord, condescending indeed from the heights of glory into the depths of darkness. Comp. Kling, 1 Corinthians 1:3 (Biblework). [The English word grace, as will be seen from the etymological remark above, has the same root as the Greek word used here, and is its nearest possible equivalent in all its various meanings.—R.] Εἰρήνη from εἴρω (to knit, to speak, according to Plato, Cratylus, p. 398, D: τὸ εἵρεινλέγεινἕστι, according to the analogy of sero, sermo, sermonem nectere) designates a union after separation, reconciliation after contest and quarrel, since then the speech is no longer against, but to and for each other, since then comes rest and joyousness, παῤῥησία. It is Friede, peace, because one is glad and free [froh und frei], the actual well-being, corresponding to the Hebrew ωָׁ ?μֹ ?ερ. [The meaning of the Hebrew word is aptly expressed thus: “Peace, plenty, and prosperity.”—R.] First comes χάρις, grace, “that which is subjective in God and Christ, which the Apostle wishes to be directed and shown to his readers; the latter is the actual result, which is presented through the bestowal of grace” (Meyer on Romans 1:7); grace is the ground of sanctification and of peace, peace is the goal of faith; the dative ὑμῖν “to you,” viz., ἁγίοις and πιστοῖς, after χάρις indicates that “grace” first of all becomes their portion, and then “peace” becomes and remains theirs more and more. The thought will be best completed from 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:2, where πληθυνθείη is added, even if this word is not in the Apostle’s mind; for as ἅγιοι and πιστοί they are already partakers of these, and in Christians there is a growth both of grace and peace. From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.—The preposition ἀπό designates the coming hither, without defining more closely the relation of that which comes to him from whom it comes, as is done by ἐκ and παρἁ, or denoting the activity of him from whom it comes, as in the case of ὑπό. On the further distinction between these prepositions, see Winer, pp. 342 f., 346 f. Here ἀπό therefore means simply from, governing both the genitives: θεοῦ πατρὸςἡμῶν and κνρίουἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Both grace and peace come from both God and Jesus Christ; in this then God and Jesus are alike. Still in 2 Corinthians 13:13 Paul says: “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” placing it before “the love of God.” In the present passage the two are distinguished by closer qualifications. “Our Father” denotes the fatherhood of God; we rejoice as His children “by virtue of the adoption (Ephesians 1:5) attained through Christ.” With the word “our” the Apostle includes himself and the readers, called “you” just before, and all Christians, in humble, sacred joy. Κυρίου without ἡμῶν denotes in general the Lordship of Christ; He is such as Creator (Colossians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6; comp. John 1:3), as Propitiator and Redeemer (Acts 20:28), as the exalted Son of man (Philippians 2:9-11); and such power as Lord He has from God the Father (Ephesians 1:22; Matthew 28:18) until the consummation of the plan of salvation (1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:28), while He in His appearance as Messiah (Χριστός) has God as head (1 Corinthians 11:3) and is “God’s” (1 Corinthians 3:23). Comp. Harless in loco. It is inconceivable how any can [as the Socinians], in opposition to the language and thought alike, make the genitive “Lord Jesus Christ” co-ordinate with “our,” and thus dependent on “Father;” but what is not possible for those who are unwilling to perceive Christ in His Dignity above us, and us in our need below Him! The importance of this benediction will be perceived from the constant repetition of it, even if in manifold forms. The briefest form is found in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 : χάριςὑμῖνκαὶ εἰρήνη; in Colossians 1:2 we have: χάριςὑμῖνκαὶ εἰρήνηἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸςἡμῶν; 2 Thessalonians 1:2 : χάριςὑμῖνκαὶ εἰρήνηἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸςκαὶ κυρίουἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Then as here (Ephesians 1:2) in Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Philemon 1:3. In Galatians 1:3, ἡμὥν occurs after κυρίου, not after πατρός, and something further is appended, together with a doxology. Titus 1:4 : χάριςκαὶ εἰρήνηἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸςκαὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆροςἡμῶν The greetings in the two Epistles to Timothy are the fullest: χάρις, ἕλεος, εἰρήνηἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸςκαὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίουἡμῶν. “Mercy” enters between, to indicate the activity of “grace” towards this “peace.” AND ETHICAL1. Paul knows and feels himself to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, quite as much as those who were immediately called and sent out by Jesus Himself. He too was called and ordained just as immediately in an extraordinary manner, as these in an ordinary way. On this account he adds, “by the will of God,” excluding all human choice and self-will in his call. Hence he is not to be reckoned as the thirteenth, but as the twelfth chosen in the place of the traitor Judas; the election of Matthias (Acts 1:15-26), having been occasioned by Peter and consummated by the disciples before the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, is to be regarded as a work of haste and precipitancy. [On the other hand, see Lechler, Biblework, Acts, p. 22. The question is discussed in the histories of the Apostolic times. “Paul never represents himself as one of the twelve, but seems rather to distinguish himself from them as one born out of due time, occupying a similar relation to the Gentile world, as the older apostles did to the Jewish.” Schaff, Hist. of the Apost. Church, p. 513. The only practical use made of it in modern times has been in the interest of Prelacy, against the people’s choice of ministers.—R.] 2. As Paul places himself upon an entire equality with the other Apostles, although he is pre-eminently the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:17-18; comp. Lechler, Biblework, Acts, p, 171), he designates the Apostolate as unique in its character, in respect to the immediate call, as well as to its special position and mission in the incipient stages of the Christian Church. This refutes the error of the Irvingites, who believe in the re-appearance of actual Apostles and the re-establishment and renewal of the Apostolate in their churches (Schenkel, Schmoller, on Galatians 1:2, Biblework). We must not, however, overlook the fact, that Paul in Philippians 1:1 calls himself in connection with Timothy only “the servant of Christ Jesus,” and in Romans 1:1, “servant of Jesus Christ,” in Titus 1:1, “servant of God,” first, and then “Apostle;” thus giving priority in these passages to the general official name; including his assistant with himself in Philippians 1:1, while in the two Epistles to the Thessalonians he mentions these without any further qualification. In the Apostolate, as a specializing of the general service of the church, we must regard the general ecclesiastical office as conjoined, finding in the former the basis of all real church offices. It is in fact the historically first form of office in the church, unfolding itself further in the wider course of ecclesiastical development, according to the necessity of the congregation, in conformity with the gifts and tasks of the church. Thus the diaconate soon sprang up (Acts 6:1-7), then other offices (Ephesians 4:11), especially that of “presbyter” in both Jewish and Gentile Christian churches. To this correspond the instructions and commissions imparted to the Apostles by the Lord Himself (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; Matthew 28:19-20, where the promise: “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” is especially to be noted; John 20:21-23), which are still in force for the ministers of the word, and will be unto the end of the world. In addition, it may be remembered that the Apostle is writing to churches already existing, though in most cases founded by himself, so that he does not place himself with his office and ministry temporal in priority, nor as to his rank above the church, but works on and in her, as well as for her. 3. Paul regards the church from a double point of view, as consecrated to God, and believing. With the first term (ἄγιοι) he sets forth its objective ground, with the second (πιστὸιἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) its subjective life; the former marks the Divine work of salvation, the latter the human acceptance and appropriation; that indicates the relation of the church to God, this the demeanor; that defines their worth (dignity), this their worthiness; that is always first, impelling to the other, this is always second, having in the first its ground, impulse and power. In the objective factor, in God’s arranging and ordering, there is constantly given the power, which will and can and should become efficient, even though only latent at times. Nothing is said respecting the degree and extent to which this power, given in connection with the assembly effected by God, has wrought and been successful in the whole body; from the first feeble beginnings on to the consummation, there are manifold, unmistakable gradations; fluctuations, too, and relapses of a very dubious character. But above the appearance in single churches and periods, the eternal and glorious basis must not be misunderstood; here Paul gives an important example to the Ephesians. The Christian must confess in humble gratitude that he is ἄγιος, and in assiduous obedience feel and show himself to be πιστὸςἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 4. God, who has condescended and given Himself to us as a Father (“grace be unto you from God our Father”) with His gifts (“peace”), stands together with Christ (“and the Lord Jesus Christ”) toward us as Giver and Dispenser. It is the will of God, who has ordered all things (“by the will of God”) to this end, constantly accomplishing His purpose actively through His creatures, inanimate as well as animate and personal, willing and unwilling, yes, resisting even. Accordingly the Lord sends His Apostles, remains together with the Father the constant source of all the benefits of salvation, aye, the element, the life-sphere for all the called and believing ones. Although it remains untouched here, in what relation the Lord Jesus stands to God the Father, it is still clear, that He needs no “grace” and “peace,” but is, as the sending Lord and partaker of Divinity, highly exalted above us, and we are deep below Him, poor, wretched, without peace, needing Him, but yet the objects of His mercy, who should become partakers of God. 5. Grace and peace stand related to each other: in the former God condescends to man, in the latter man lifts himself to God. In grace, the Most High comes down into the depths of misery and sin; in peace, poor sinful man, taken up, reconciled, pacified, cleansed, draws nigh to his God and Father. Neither is complete at once, each has its development and history: grace, not merely forgiveness of sin, but deliverance, enlightening, sanctification, beatification, imparts ever more fully, penetrates ever deeper and wider, exalts ever more gloriously; peace, not merely rest, quiet, but union and harmony, strengthens more and more, grows and impels ever higher and more beautifully. This is indicated by the form of the benediction. The victory is decided; it will be followed up, improved, and that more completely—and all this by the ethical mode of faith, not an indefinite and general one, but the special definite faith in Christ Jesus the living Mediator of all blessing and salvation. AND Did God make out of Saul, the persecutor of the Church of Jesus Christ, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, then rejoice in humility and think that the same God who has made of thee a Christian, a joyous child of God, will help others to the same privilege; if He succeeded in doing this in your case, is it not even more likely to succeed in that of others?—Do not forget that in dealing with the Apostle of Jesus Christ, thou dealest with the will and work of God.—Take heed in thine office and calling, that thou standest there by the will of God.—Paul, so wonderfully led, so marvellously overcome and so highly favored, sees through all the defects, weaknesses, sins of his churches, their glory, the glory of the people of God, and their life of faith, however weak. Now then, do not starch thyself in thy precious office with proud ignoring of the worth of thy flock; rejoice in the worth of thy ministry, but at the same time in the church of thy Lord; do not depreciate the church of God because of human appearances or on account of individual members, however numerous, since thou dost claim respect for thy office despite thy sinful person. The dignity of the office and the calling is to be recognized, even if the person in office or called permits himself to become guilty of unworthiness. What is specifically Christian is this, that thou, called and trained by the Father, inwardly deniest the natural Ego more and more entirely, for the sake of the one and unique person, Jesus Christ.—He who is never satisfied in his morality, but humbly strives and believes and hopes, is near to Christ and belongs to Christ. Christless morality, irreligious virtue, or, as it was more faithfully termed in the last century and still is in this, “godless” virtue, calling and thinking itself “free,” has only the outward appearance, the garment, is really foolish pride. Thou canst be a broker or agent of morality, then thy part in it is usufructuary, but thou art no owner of it.—From the fact that thou art “holy,” i.e., consecrated to God, accepted by Him the Holy One, follows thy faith, which appropriates and believes what is Divine and holy, more and more inwardly to the internal personality. It is therefore not correct to say: Holiness proceeds from faith in Christ; hence Paul calls them believers, too. Nor is holiness merely the goal of Christian striving; he who has God and Christ, the Holy One, has holiness also; it is not put before us as a goal, far or near, but we, as Christians, are in it, as in an element, a sphere, that it may become ours, be in us, increasing and strengthening itself in us.—The saint consecrated to God (ἄγιος) says, first in the consciousness and confession of his faith, however: I am God’s! The believer (πιστός) says: God is mine! But that we are God’s always comes first, then that God is ours.—How well has Paul complemented the salutation of the Old Testament: Peace be with you (Judges 6:23; 1 Samuel 25:6, etc.), by adding or rather prefixing grace, which was not wanting in the Old Testament. Starke:—A minister of Christ, a teacher of the Gospel, must be installed by the will of God. Mark this, ye runners, who run of yourselves.—Where grace is, there is peace also, even though it be not felt by a believer in his state of conflict.—Since grace and peace come from Christ as well as from God the Father, Christ must be very God as is the Father. Rieger:—A believer is already a saint.—My God! I am Thine; therefore am I holy. Uphold me in faith on Christ Jesus!—The chief possession of the saints and believers is grace and peace. This is from the very first the life of their heart; this distributes to them their daily nourishment and strength, and with this, too, they are equipped even unto the end of their course. Heubner:—The call of God to the ministry gives the proper joy in office.—The Apostolic benediction contains all that is worth wishing for.—Schenkel:—Neither the consummation of salvation nor the beginning of faith is to be found outside of fellowship with Christ.—Grace is the ground of our faith, peace the hope of our life. Stier:—He whom the Lord admits among His called saints, has an inextinguishable spark of faith, that may bring him among the elect and faithful. And if there were left of the church only a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, a cottage in a vineyard, a well-nigh devastated, straitly besieged city, and the rest were as Sodom and Gomorrah—if instead of the Ephesus of the days of Paul and John, there remains only the miserable village of Aja-soluk: yet shall the besieged city of God remain His preserved city, until He Himself destroys it, and we would not regard His sacred people as rejected either in their dispersion or in their blindness.—Grace and peace, it is just this which is wanting to those who are away from Christ and without God in the world, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. Grace and peace, it is this which is ever more and more needful for those, who have obtained precious faith in the righteousness which our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ gives. In this double yet single word we have once more: what proceeds from God and what should be effected in us. The first ground of all holiness is the grace of the Eternal One, meeting and preventing us; the final goal of all fidelity in faith is complete peace or entire salvation. [Eadie:—“In Christ Jesus.” The faith of the Ephesian converts rested in Jesus, in calm and permanent repose. It was not a mere external dependence placed on Him, but it had convinced itself of His power and love, of His sympathy and merits; it not only knew the strength of His arm, it had also penetrated and felt the throbbing tenderness of His heart—it was therefore in Him.—“Grace.”—As a wish expressed for the Ephesian church, it does not denote mercy in its general aspect, but that many-sided favor that comes in the form of hope to saints in despondency, of joy to them in sorrow, of patience to them in suffering, of victory to them under assault, and of final triumph to them in the hour of death.—“Peace.”—A conscious possession of the Divine favor can alone create and sustain mental tranquility. To use an impressive figure of Scripture, the unsanctified heart resembles “the troubled sea,” in constant uproar and agitation—dark, muddy and tempestuous; but the storm subsides, for a voice of power has cried, “Peace, be still,” and there is “a great calm:” the lowering clouds are dispelled, and the azure sky smiles on its own reflection in the bosom of the quiet and glassy deep. The favor of God and the felt enjoyment of it, the Apostle wishes to the members of the Ephesian Church.—R.] Footnotes: Title: ΰ. A. B. D. E. K. and others: πρὸςἘφεσίους, to which F. G. and others prefix ἄρχεται, some versions incipit. L. has τοῦ ἁγίουἀποστόλουΠαύλουεπιστολὴ πρὸςἘφεσίους. [Elzevir has Παύλουτοῦ ἀποστόλουἡ πρὸςἘφεσίουςἐπιστολή, which is followed in the E. V.—R.] Ephesians 1:1.—[Rec., ΰ. A. F. G. K. L., all cursives, some versions, read: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. B. D. E., some versions and fathers, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ellicott, Alford: Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The latter is more usual (see Colossians 1:1) and seemingly better adapted to the contents of this Epistle, which would afford grounds for deciding against it. See in Exeg. Notes, Braune’s reasons for accepting the first reading.—R.] Ephesians 1:1.—[ΰ.3 A. insert πᾶσιν after ἁγίοις. So Vulgate, Coptic.—R.] Ephesians 1:1.—[See the Introd. § 5, for a discussion respecting the words ἐνἘφέσῳ. The words are found in all uncial and cursive manuscripts except ΰ. B. 67. They are found in all versions without exception. Meyer (p. 8) defends the words as decidedly genuine, and with him a number of the best editors. On the other hand, they are omitted in the three manuscripts mentioned above, though supplied by later hands in ΰ. B., and really present in 67, with marks of suspicion. To this must be added, the testimony of Basil that in his time they were wanting in old copies, Marcion’s view, the possibility that Tertullian did not know of them, Origen’s acceptance of the omission, and the bare possibility that Jerome did not insert them. The discovery of ΰ. and its omission of them has led careful editors, such as Tischendorf, Ellicott and Alford, to bracket them, but there is at present no evidence sufficient to warrant their rejection, while the omission makes a reading so singular as to overbear the ordinary canon respecting the lectio difficilior. We must also take into the account the “subjective criticism” of the earlier centuries.—R.] Ephesians 1:2.—[Ellicott aptly says: “The preposition in such cases as this should certainly be omitted, as its insertion tends to make that unity of source from whence the grace and peace come less apparent than it is in the Greek.” For the same reason a thorough revision would remove the comma after “Father,” as well as the second “to” in Ephesians 1:1.—R.] [Whenever the name of an Epistle or Gospel thus occurs, in Italics, followed by a reference to page or section, without any other specification, the reference is to the present edition of the “Biblework,” or “Lange’s Commentary,” as it is popularly called.—R.] [The contents of the Epistle, especially its fundamental thoughts, seem to me to be strikingly in keeping with the order: “Christ Jesus,” so much so as to awaken additional suspicion of an alteration to that form in MSS. of an early date.—R.] [The references in the original are to the 6th German edition of Winer, but they have been altered to conform to the 7th German edition, which is now the standard, and to whose pages the last American edition refers in a separate index.—R.] [Dr. Hodge explains it: “Those who are cleansed by the blood of Christ, and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and thus separated from the world and consecrated to God.” No doubt this describes the “saints,” but it is too extensive a definition of the word as here used. Eadie opposes the restriction of Harless, but properly says: “The appellation ἅγιοι thus exhibits the Christian church in its normal aspect—a community of men self-devoted to God and His service.” Ellicott has a valuable note on the word, agreeing with Alford, who says: “It is used here in its widest sense, as designating the members of Christ’s visible Church, presumed to fulfil the conditions of that membership.”—R.] [The classical meaning: qui fidem prζstant, is accepted by Alford, but the particular and theological sense: qui fidem habet, is preferable here, and is adopted by Hodge, Ellicott, Eadie. The last author thinks the other meaning would require a simple dative after it, as Hebrews 3:2. See his notes for the authorities justifying this meaning in the N. T.—R.] [Stier accepts the meaning: faithful, which best accords with his peculiar view respecting the two grades in the church.—R.] [Alford seems to reject this connection. In that case we must accept an elliptical construction: “The saints who are in Ephesus, the believers (who are) in Christ,” or take the phrase as qualifying both adjectives; the objections to the latter will be found below.—R.] [Ellicott thus discriminates between πιστὸςἐνΧριστῷ and πιστεύεινεἰςΧριστόν: “The latter involves a closer connection of the verb and the preposition, and points rather to an act of the will, while the former involves a closer connection of the preposition and the noun, and marks a state and condition.”—R.] [Ellicott and Alford supply εἴη, not ἔστω (Meyer), the optative being the more usual form, as is implied in the suggestion of Dr. Braune.—R.] II. PART FIRST THE GLORY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST 1–3A. The ground and goal of the churchEph_1:3-231. Grateful praise of the decree of grace(Ephesians 1:3-14)3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath [omit hath] blessed us with [ἐν, in] all spiritual blessings [blessing] in [the] heavenly places in 4Christ: According [even] as he hath chosen [he chose] us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him [;] in love: [omit the colon] 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children [unto adoption] by [through] Jesus Christ to [unto] himself, according to the good 6pleasure of his will, To [Unto] the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [which he freely bestowed upon us] in the beloved: 7In whom we have [the or our] redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins [our transgressions], according to the riches of his grace; 8Wherein he hath abounded 9[Which he made to abound] toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto [to] us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which 10he hath [omit hath] purposed in himself: [,] That in [Unto] the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one [to gather up together] all things in Christ, both [omit both and supply the things] which are in heaven, and 11[the things] which are on earth; even in him: [,] In whom also we have obtained an [In whom we were also made his] inheritance, being [having been] predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own [omit own] will: 12That we should be to [unto] the praise of his glory, who first trusted [we who have before hoped] in Christ [or the Christ]. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard [In whom ye also, having heard] the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also, after that ye believed [in whom I say having also believed], ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise [the 14Spirit of promise, the holy One], Which [Who] is the earnest of our inheritance until [unto] the redemption of the [his] purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. AND Summary.—It is clear that Ephesians 1:3 opens the section with thanksgiving and praise for the blessing of Redemption. But in this wonderful chain of clauses (Ephesians 1:4-14), so interwoven and intertwined, the divisions and groupings are not easily perceived, so that expositors hold very different opinions. But it is evident, that the three times repeated: “unto the praise of the glory of his grace” (Ephesians 1:6), “unto the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:12), “unto the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:14), form conclusions, receiving, it is true, in the flow of language in Ephesians 1:6; Ephesians 1:12, qualifications for amplification and transition. Accordingly we find in Ephesians 1:4-6, the first foundation for praise: the election of eternal mercy; in Ephesians 1:7-12, the second: the carrying out of the eternal decree; Ephesians 1:13-14, the third: the personal appropriation of salvation. Our view is directed to the Father before all time, the Son in time, the Spirit in eternity. So Stier, who, however, artificially divides each section again into three parts, according to ground, course and goal.[Alford, who follows Stier, gives this summary: “The preliminary idea of the Church, set forth in the form of an ascription of praise, Ephesians 1:3-14 :—thus arranged: Ephesians 1:3-6, the Father, in His eternal love, has chosen us to holiness (Ephesians 1:4), ordained us to Sonship (Ephesians 1:5), bestowed grace on us in the Beloved; Ephesians 1:7-12, in the Son, we have—redemption according to the riphes of His grace (Ephesians 1:7), knowledge of the mystery of His will (Ephesians 1:8-9), inheritance under Him the one Head (Ephesians 1:10-12); Ephesians 1:13-14, through the Spirit we are sealed, by hearing the word of salvation (Ephesians 1:13), by receiving the earnest of our inheritance, to the redemption of the purchased possession (Ephesians 1:14).—Dr. Hodge is less satisfactory, see Ephesians 1:4 for his exhaustive analysis of Eph 1:4-6.—R.] Harless: 1. The objective act of God, a) in the eternal decree of the Redemption of believers, b) actualized through the death of His Son (Ephesians 1:1-7 : παραπτωμάτων); 2. The revelation of this act in the word (Ephesians 1:7-10); 3. The subjective actualization of this act in the Redemption of individuals (Ephesians 1:11-14).—Meyer takes the salvation (Ephesians 1:3) as a) foreordained (Ephesians 1:4-5), b) effected (Ephesians 1:6-7), c) made known (Ephesians 1:8-10), d) actually appropriated (Ephesians 1:11), by Jews (Ephesians 1:12), as well as by those who had been heathen (Ephesians 1:13-14).—Others otherwise, always with an overlooking of the incisa so readily perceived.—[Dr. Lange, who suggests the frequent occurrence of liturgical forms in Paul’s Epistles, finds in these verses the most striking example. See his liturgical reading, Romans, p. 26.—R.] Ephesians 1:3. General opening.Blessed be [εὐλογητός].—First of all, we must notice the play upon the words: εὐλογητός—ὁ εὐλογήσας—ἐν—εὐλογία. The words εὐλογεῖν and εὐλογία have a two-fold meaning, as in benedicere and benedictio, to bless and blessing, (αֵּ ?ψֵ ?κְ) αָּ ?ψַ ?κְ, to praise, to laud and to endow, all to be traced back to one sense, to speak or promise good. So εὐλογεῖν, Luke 1:64 (ἐλάλειεὐλογῶντὸνθεόν); comp. Luke 24:53 (αἰνοῦντεςτὸνθεόν); James 3:9 (ἐναὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεντὸνκυρίον); εὐλογία, Romans 16:18 (διὰ τῆςχρηστολογίαςκαὶ εὐλογίας), decora oratio, praise, Galatians 3:8-9; Galatians 3:14; Hebrews 6:7. The German word Segen, blessing, is derived from signum, sign, i.e., the sign of the cross in pronouncing the blessing; from this is derived segnen, to bless (see Juetting, Bibl. Wφrterbuch, p. 171 ff.), and this means not only to wish well (Psalms 10:3; Isaiah 65:16) in coming (1 Samuel 13:10) or in going (Acts 20:1), but to praise, to thank (1 Corinthians 14:16; 1 Corinthians 10:16) and also to assign or impart good or goods (Genesis 12:2; Genesis 27:34; Genesis 27:36). The meaning, to praise, to thank, does indeed become the prominent one, where it is applied to men with regard to God, since man has only words, can only εὗ λέγειν; as does that of allotting good or goods, where God’s dealings towards men are in question, since with God there is no resting in words, His words are or become deeds. Bengel: Antanaclasis: aliter benedixit Deus nobis, aliter nos benedicimus illi. Theodoret: εἰδέναιπροσήκει, ὡςεὐλογοῦντεςμὲνοἱ ἅνθρωποιτὸνθεὸνλόγουςαὐτῷ προσφέρουσιμόνους, ἔργῳ δὲ αὐτὸνεὐεργετῆσαιοὐ δύνανται, ὁ δέθεὸςεὐλογῶνβεβαιοῖ τοὺςλόγουςτῷ ἔργῳ καὶ παντοδαπὴνπαρέχειφόρανἀγαθῶντοῖςεὐλογουμένοις. It is otherwise, when Jethro says of God: αָּ ?γεּ ?κְ ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ (Exodus 17:10), or Laban to Eliezer, (Genesis 24:31): αְּ ?ψεּ ?κְ ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ “thou blessed of the Lord” (comp. Genesis 26:29; Matthew 25:34, where Jesus as Judge will say to His own: “Come, ye blessed of my Father;” Luke 1:28, where Mary is called κεχαριτωμένη, “highly favored,” in the same sense). Both meanings appear here in our passage, where the Apostle praises and blesses God (εὐλογητός), who has blessed us (ὁ εὐλογήσαςἐνεὐλογίᾳ). The form here chosen should be noticed, εὐλογητός, which is always applied to God, not εὐλογημένος, since for Him there is no time when He was not and will not hereafter be “blessed,” so that God is κατʼ ? εξοχὴνὁ εὐλογητός (Mark 14:61). Nor is this=worthy of praise, to be praised, but like αָּ ?ψεּ ?κְ in a purely passive sense, as the promiscuous use of both forms requires. The position of the words also, at the beginning, shows that the emphasis rests upon it; in Romans 9:5 the Person is put first for the same reason. [So Ellicott.] On the sense of εὐλογητός it may be remarked, that Paul begins nearly all his Epistles with praise and thanksgiving to God, and that too with a reference to the churches and persons to which, the circumstances in which, and the purpose with which, he is writing; with εὐλογητός as here, only in 2 Corinthians 1:3 (so 1 Peter 1:3), usually with εὐχαριστεῖν, Romans 1:8; 1 Corinthians 1:4; Philippians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; Philemon 1:4, with χάρινἔχειν 2 Timothy 1:3. As the received “grace” is returned again in thanksgiving, so is the εὐλογία received from the Lord, in the εὐλογητός from the praising creature: God is saluted, never blessed, with His own blessing (Stier). The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—ὁ θεὸςκαὶ πατὴρτοῦ κυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ.—Exactly as in 2 Corinthians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3. Comp. Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Colossians 1:3; Revelation 1:6. It is most natural, since the passage does not read: ὁ θεός, ὁ πατὴρτοῦ κυρίου, to join the genitive τοῦ κυρίου, “of our Lord,” with θεός, “God,” as well as with πατήρ, “Father” (Jerome, Theophylact, Rueckert, Stier), as the genitive is not necessarily required as an explanatory addition to πατήρ. It is found without any qualification, in Ephesians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 15:24 : τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί; Ephesians 6:23; 2 Timothy 1:2; Galatians 1:1 : θεοῦ πατρός; 1 Thessalonians 1:1 : θεῷ πατρί. Besides in Ephesians 3:14 many MSS. read: τὸνπατέρατοῦ κυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ (though ΰ. A. B. C. omit the genitive), while the established reading in Ephesians 1:17 is: ὁ θεὸςτοῦ κυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ, so that the Apostle, as this very Epistle shows, could join this qualifying phrase to “God” as well as to “Father.” On this account Meyer is incorrect, in applying the genitive to πατήρ, and not to θεός, on the ground that the former idea alone demands such complementing, and not the latter; nor should he have laid so great weight upon the notion, that the expression: the God of Christ, as an isolated one, has not obtained that currency, which it must have done, had it been found in this “solemn formula” also, since Christ’s word on the cross (Matthew 27:46 : θεέμου, θεέμου) and on the day of His resurrection (John 20:17 : ἀναβαίνωπρὸςτὸνπατέραμουκαὶ πατέραὑμῶνκαὶ θεόνμουκαὶ θεὸνὑμῶν; comp. Revelation 2:7; Revelation 3:12) suffice to justify this expression and this connection in our “solemn formula.” We find too in B. the reading ὁ θεὸςτοῦ κυρίου, κ. τ. λ. Nor can it be asserted, with Harless, that if the following genitive belonged to the first substantive also, the reading should necessarily be: ὁ θεόςτεκαὶ πατήρ; Meyer refers very properly to 1 Peter 2:25. Kai binds what is homogeneous; τε adds something accessory (Winer, pp. 404, 408); καὶ conjungit, τε adjungit, as Hermann says. To be God and to be Father are not ideas which exclude each other, nor do they appear as two, but as a unity; He is here praised, who is not only the God of the Incarnate One, but is also the Father of this Lord, of the. Only Begotten, whom He has given; thus is indicated the God-man by whom the blessings of Redemption are mediated. It was not necessary for Theodoret to say: δηλῶν, ὡςἡμῶνμένἐστιθεὸς, τοῦ δὲ κυρίουἡμῶνπατήρ. Practically this generally Christian formula has taken the place of the Jewish: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even if it were not so intended by the Apostle or Apostles, as Rueckert supposes. Who blessed us [ὁεὐλογήσαςἡμᾶς].The active, over against the passive (εὐλογητός) denotes efficient, active blessing, the aorist the historical fact in the existence and condition of the Church. Hence “us” should be taken in its wider meaning and applied to Christians, and should not be limited to the Apostle (Koppe), who afterwards (Ephesians 1:15 : ἐγώ) begins to speak of himself and his experiences, nor to the Jewish Christians, who are first thought of in Ephesians 1:11 (comp. Ephesians 1:13); so strong rather is the feeling of the fellowship under the blessing of God, that the Apostle, as the genuine Apostle to the Gentiles, includes with himself and the Apostles as his people, all men, who have become or will become Christians. With all spiritual blessings, ἐνπάσηεὐλογίαπνευματικῇ.—This denotes the sphere into which He in blessing has transferred them; He has so placed us in blessing, that we are surrounded, overflowed thereby, and ἐνπάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ. According to Winer (p. 105) this means every blessing; πᾶσαἡ εὐλογία would be the whole blessing; see the instructive passage, Romans 3:19. There is no variety of blessing, which God has not bestowed upon us, but the entire fulness of the blessing, so that we have nothing more receive, has not yet been conferred upon us. Comp. Romans 15:29 : “in the fulness of the blessing of Christ.” The adjective “spiritual” limits the manifold variety to the domain of the spiritual, to what the Holy Spirit effects and imparts. It is recalled also in what follows respecting the adoption (Ephesians 1:5) the redemption and forgiveness of sins (Ephesians 1:7), the revelation (Ephesians 1:9) and thus is expounded the riches of that spiritual blessing, which we already possess, but which we ever need yet more. There is no manner of occasion for supposing an antithesis to the earthly blessings and promises of the Israelites (Chrysostom, Grotius and others), or to their typical possessions and the vain ones of the heathen (Schφttgen); nor should “spiritual” be explained as=qui ad animum pertinet (Erasmus, Rosenmueller); our spirit of itself still belongs to the σάρξ. [See Romans, p. 234 f.] The Apostle is treating of the blessings promised in Joe 3:1, which are no longer merely promised, since their fulfilment is expressed in “who hath blessed us.” In heavenly places, ἐντοὶςἐπουρανίοις. 1. Besides this passage the phrase is found in Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:6; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 6:12, and in all, even in the last named, with a local sense; in the domain of the heavenly; hence in accordance with the nature of the matter, it is not to be taken in any coarse, sensuous signification as measurable, limitable space, but as domain, region. 2. The word itself has in the preposition ἐπί a local reference, like ἐπίγειος (1 Corinthians 15:40), but as this is to be distinguished from κατάγειος, καταχθόνιος (Philippians 2:10), so is the former from ὑπερουράνιος. 3. Τὰ ἐπουράνια at all events is not to be taken as=ὁ οὐρανός, οἱ οὐρανοί or=βασιλείατῶνοὐρανῶν, but designates more indefinitely, in general, what belongs to heaven in contrast with what belongs to and is on earth, as appears from Ephesians 6:12, where the contest with the powers of darkness “in heavenly places” is spoken of in antithesis to the contest with flesh and blood. 4. The connection of the phrase ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις with ἐνεὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ is demanded by the fact that the latter is joined with εὐλογήσας and dependent on it, and hence the latter cannot belong to the verb as a closer qualification of the act of blessing. Accordingly this added phrase says, that every spiritual blessing, which we have received, springs from a higher world, is to be sought in a heavenly region and thence to be obtained. [Ellicott with his usual exactness presents the view here upheld and now generally received; he takes the phrase as “defining broadly and comprehensively the region and sphere where our true home is (Philippians 3:20), where our hope is laid up (Colossians 1:5), and whence the blessings of the Spirit, the ἡ δωρεὰ ἡ ἐπουράνιος (Hebrews 6:4) truly come.” We may add from Alford: “Materially we are yet in the body: but in the Spirit, we are in heaven—only waiting for the redemption of the body to be entirely and literally there.”—R.] Accordingly it is incorrect: a) To understand by τὰ ἐπουράνια bona not loca, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther and many others; the idea of possessions is already found in εὐλογία (against Rueckert, Stier). Nor is Calvin right in saying: Non multum refert, subaudias locis an bonis; tantum voluit indicare prζstantiam gratiζ, quζ per Christum nobis confertur, quia scilicet non in mundo, sed in c�lo et vita ζterna nos faciat bonos.b) Grotius is in error, in referring it, to a place indeed, but to the c�lum summum in contrast to the regio astrifera. c) The rendering and explanation: in heaven (Meyer, Rueckert, Harless, Stier, Schenkel and others), is not exact, passes beyond the word itself; still less is it admissible to refer it to the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of heaven on earth, the church (Ernesti, Teller and others). [With more definiteness it is explained by Hodge: c�lum gratiζ, the kingdom of grace here on earth, the heavenly state into which the believer is introduced; a view to which Eadie inclines.—R.] d) To follow Beza in joining the phrase to God, is as unjustifiable and inadmissible, as to accept with Koppe the aorist for the future, because the believers walk in heaven already in a certain sense (Philippians 3:20, to which Jerome and Beza refer), or quia non in mundo, sed in c�lo et vita ζterna nos faciat beatos (Calvin), or quia hζc (dona) nos et spe et jure in c�lis collocant (Grotius). The explanation of Homberg, that it is=εὑλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ καὶ ἐπουρανίῳ is altogether arbitrary and groundless. In Christ, ἐνΧριστῷ, indicates the mediation of the blessing (Segnen) which consists in spiritual blessing (Segen). Comp. 2 Corinthians 5:18 f. It is not propter Christum (Morus, Flatt, Meyer: “in Him was contained the ground why God blessed us,” which is after all equivalent to: for Christ’s sake). Schenkel: “Outside of the fellowship with the Son there is no part in the spiritual blessing of the Father (Romans 8:9 f.).” It cannot be overlooked in this Epistle, that this phrase: ἐνΧριστῷ, is “the centre and heart beat of the Apostle’s view.” It is repeated in Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 1:6-7; Ephesians 1:10-13 ff.; with the Apostle it stands in the same category as: in Adam, in Abraham. Herein (ἐνΧριστῷ) is to be found the difference between the Christian and Jewish Churches, the New Testament and Old Testament people of God. In the case of the former, the blessing was not wanting, nor the “spiritual,” for the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14); even the “every” was not lacking, since God’s Word was there, the forgiveness of sins, though in incipiency, in types, in shadow (Hebrews 8:5 : σκιᾷ τῶνἐπουρανίων, Colossians 2:17); nor yet is ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις, “heavenly places,” altogether new, as though the New Testament first found place and voice there, first established itself there, while the Old Testament pointed only to the earthly Canaan (against Stier). [Alford follows Stier, in accepting a reference to the Trinity in the threefold ε̇ν, but Ellicott’s treatment of the phrases seems more exact: “Εὐλογήσας contains the predication of time (Donaldson, Gr. § 574 sq.), ἐνπ. εὐλογίᾳ πνευμ. the predication of manner, more exactly defined by the local predication ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις, while ἐνΧριστῷ is that mystical predication which, as Stier well observes, ‘is the very soul of this Epistle,’ and involves all other conceptions in itself.” This accords well with Braune’s view, that it expresses the distinctively Christian character of the blessing here spoken of,—R.] The first foundation of the praise; Ephesians 1:4-6 : The Election of eternal mercy. [Dr. Hodge thus analyzes these verses: “Of these (spiritual gifts for which the Apostle blesses God) the first in order and the source of all the others is election, Ephesians 1:4. This election Isaiah 1. Of individuals. 2. In Christ. 3. It is from eternity. 4. It is to holiness, and to the dignity of sons of God. 5. It is founded on the sovereign pleasure of God (Ephesians 1:4-5). 6. Its final object is the glory of God, or the manifestation of His grace, Ephesians 1:6.” This agrees with Braune’s view, except that he substitutes “the church” for “individuals” under (1), viewing the church as an organism made up of individuals. See below and also Doctr. Note 3.—R.] Ephesians 1:4. Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world [καθὼςἐξελέξατοἡμᾶςἐναὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆςκόσμου].—Καθώς marks a relation, indeed a conformity of two facts, which correspond to one another: the εὐλογεῖν has taken place in conformity with the ἐκλέγεσθαι; He has blessed entirely as He has decreed in the choosing, the election. So Meyer also. That analogy is in question, according to which from the fact of the blessing a conclusion may be drawn with respect to the election. It is not merely indicated that there is an internal connection between the election and the blessing, but it is definitely stated that this carrying out corresponds to the eternal decree of God. Bengel: electio respondet, et eam subsequitur, benedictio, et patefacit. Hence καθώς is not used here as a designation of causality (Morus, Rueckert) [Hodge: because], as it is in other passages (Winer, p. Eph 417: [quoniam] quippe, siquidem); Harless takes it as an argumentative particle (=inasmuch) and says that it is related to καθότι, the latter however designating the causa, the former the modus (Romans 1:28; 1 Corinthians 1:6). [Meyer takes it as argumentative; Alford and Ellicott as explaining and expanding the foregoing, the latter admitting its causal force at times; Eadie is most exact: “These spiritual blessings are conferred on us, not merely because God chose us, but they are given in perfect harmony with His eternal purpose.” However true it may be that “election is the cause or source of all subsequent benefits” (Hodge), it is hardly safe to found such a statement on the particle καθώς.—R.] Ἐξελέξατο=He chose us out for Himself; Paul uses it only three times elsewhere (all in 1 Corinthians 1:27-28). The verb ἐκλέγεσθαι corresponds entirely to the Hebrew αָּ ?ηַ ?ψ, as ἐκλεκτός=αָּ ?ηִ ?ιψ. In the middle form it designates, both in the Old and New Testaments, an act of God, “by virtue of which some rather than others especially belong to God’ ’ (Harless). Although Hofmann (Schriftbeweis I. p. 223 ff.) will only admit, that in this word respect is had to that on account of which one is chosen, or respect to him who on that account is chosen or accepted, and that the stress is laid each time upon that which the chosen one thus becomes, and not upon the antithesis to those who do not become this, yet he perceives in the preposition a preference, even if only a preference above a mass to which he would otherwise belong. He refers to οἱ ἐκλεκτοίἄγγελοι (1 Timothy 5:21), ὁ υἱὸςτοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος (Luke 9:35),ὁ Χριστὸςτοῦ θεον͂ ὁ ἐκλεκτός (Luke 23:35), remarking, that the angels are thus designated as taken by God into His service, and that Christ is not elected out of the sum of humanity, to become what the rest should not become, but chosen to be, what the rest are not. Ἐκλέγεσθαι, does then still mark a preference, a distinction from others, who are not what the chosen are, even if not an opposition to those, who do not become this. Respecting the others, in preference to whom the elect belong to God, nothing is indicated here,—whether they are not chosen after all, or no longer do or can belong to the elect; just as it is not said concerning the elect, that they cannot fall away from such a relation to God. Since in 1 Peter 1:1, the church is termed “elect” and in the conclusion (Ephesians 5:13) “the Church at Babylon elected together with you,” and “elect of God” (Colossians 3:12), “for the elect’s sakes” (2 Timothy 2:10), “God’s elect” (Romans 8:33), etc., are applied to individual Christians, because and in so far as they are members of the Church of Christ, it may be concluded, that the act of election does not concern individuals as its immediate objects, as Hofmann thinks. It is true that the κόσμος, out of which they are Chosen (John 15:19), is not a sum of individuals, a multitude; it is rather an ethical conception. Still less is the Church a plurality, a colluvies, it is an organism, a whole. Yet God does have regard to the individuals, with Him the individual, the member, is not lost in the whole. Accordingly the explanation of Harless is to be sustained, only it must be remembered, that the individuals are not to be thought of as without connection, severed, by themselves alone, or the others as those who may not and shall not belong to God. Hofmann’s opposition is right only against this unjustifiable interpolation. It is evident that Paul could apply the word “chosen” only to himself and the members of the Church, because only in the case of these was this fact cognizable, and must be, or at least could be, perceptible to individuals. Hence we should here, with Frank (Theologie der Form. Con. 4 p. 177), think of the world merely, out of which Christians are taken by virtue of their effectual calling, as in 1 Peter 1:1; James 2:5; 1 Corinthians 1:27 f., not however of the totality of those called, from whom the elect, as more numerous (Matthew 20:16; Matthew 27:14), are to be distinguished. See further in Doctr. Note 3. Inadmissible, therefore, is the explanation: prζcipuo in nos amore Deus fuit, because ἐκλέγεσθαι is also=imprimis amare vel imprimis beneficiis ornare (Morus). Comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. It is very erroneous to suppose (Rueckert), that Paul transferred the faith of his nation, respecting the preference of their race to all the nations of the earth, to those who accepted Christianity with joy, and regarded these as the number chosen by God. The position of the verb emphasizes this electing act of God as the main thing. It is then further defined. First, there is added a designation of the objects, ἡμᾶς, US. By this is meant the Church of Christ, the congregatio sanctorum, the “saints,” who at the time make up the people of God, in whom the election, consummated in the calling, is perceptible and manifest. About the conduct of individuals, their faith, its degree or perfection, nothing is said, just as little as was expressed or indicated in ἁγίοις (Ephesians 1:1). Accordingly the reference is not to individuals in themselves, to the sum of individuals at that time, but to the Church and its growth externally and internally, yet in such a way that each individual may refer it to himself. Richter, therefore, correctly remarks: “God chooses for Himself, out of all, before others and for others.” But it is also correct to say: Sic nos quoque in Christo eramus, priusquam mundus fieret, vigore scilicet electionis ζlernζ (Musculus). Second qualification: definition of modality, in Him, ἐναὐτῷ, viz., Christ. By this our election is more closely defined and limited: Christ the Person, in whom we are chosen, the life-sphere, the life-element, in which we are the objects of the Divine election. Harless may be correct, in saying that it is first stated in what follows, how He has chosen us in Him, but he is incorrect in rejecting all closer definitions of expositors here as interpolated, even if they correspond with what follows. Beza (in ipso videlicet adoptandos) is very near the true explanation, but his view is more limited than the subsequent context authorizes. Our union, our external and internal connection, with Christ is marked as the modality of our election. But the act of choice is asserted as a fact: in Him He has chosen us, so that as humanity was made in Adam, as the people of Israel was separated in Abraham, so the Church was chosen in Christ; not, however, that He has merely determined to choose us. Accordingly it is entirely improper to read ἐνἁυτῷ (Alex., Morus, Holzhausen), nor is it=εἰςΧριστόν (Ethiop. Vers.), or=δἰ αὐτοῦ, τουτέστιδιὰ τῆςεἰςαὐτὸνπίστεως (Theophylact and others), or per Christum et Christi merita prζvisa (A-Lapide, Bullinger), or propter Christum (Glassius, Flatt). Finally, it is arbitrary and incorrect to join ἐναὐτῷ with ἡμᾶς, since ὄντας is “wanting and εἶναιἡμᾶςἁγίους follows. [Olshausen, Ellicott: “In Christ, as the head and representative of spiritual, as Adam was the representative of natural humanity.” “In the proper and final sense this can be said only of His faithful ones, His Church, who are incorporated in Him by the Spirit. But in any sense, all God’s election is in Him only” (Alford)). Hodge: “In Christ, i.e., as united to Him in the covenant of redemption;” on the ground of the federal union which precedes the actual union. So Eadie. Meyer is less exact: “The divine act of our election has in Christ its determining ground.” “Outside this connection of the divine decree of election with Christ we would not be chosen; but in Christ there lay for God the causa meritoria of our election.” This is really equivalent to propter Christum.—R.] Third qualification: a temporal definition, before the foundation of the world, πρὸ καταβολῆςκόσμου. Used by Paul only here, but found in John 17:24; 1 Peter 1:20. In Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 3:4 : and ἀπὸ καταβολῆςκόσμου; Matthew 13:35 : ἀπὸ καταβολῆς. The preposition πρὸ denotes that the election took place before the creation, and, since καταβολή designates the foundation, the groundwork, before the beginning of the carrying out of the well-ordered plan of creation. Thus the reference to the eternity preceding time is made very strong, stronger than in πρὸ τῶναἰώνων (1 Corinthians 2:7; comp. 2 Timothy 1:9; Romans 16:25; Colossians 1:26; Ephesians 3:9; Ephesians 3:11). The election precedes the creation: the fulfilment of the former is justified in creation and its history, in the history of the world. Harless: “The plainest parallel Isaiah 2 Timothy 1:9 : ‘who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.’ ” Olshausen (with Stier also) properly rejects the idea of a real, individual existence of believers before the creation in the Divine mind, but Christ’s existence with the Father before the creation of the world is unmistakably indicated (Stier). Bengel: Hζc prζsupponunt ζternitatem filii Dei, namque filius, ante mundum factum erat objectum amoris paterni non futurum tantummodo, sed jam turn prζsens, John 17:5; John 17:24. [Alford (after Stier): “How utterly irreconcilable pantheism is with this, God’s election before laying the foundation of the world, of His people in His Son.”—R.] That we should be holy and without blame before him [εἶναιἡμᾶςἁγίουςκαὶ ἀμώμουςκατενώπιοναὐτοῦ ?].—The infinitive εἶναιἡμᾶς adds a supplement to the previous clause, to the phrase ἡμᾶςἐναὐτῷ in particular, and is to be taken as epexegetical (Winer, p. 298), giving prominence to the end, purpose and result of the election. The position of εἶναι marks the existence, the actualized reality aimed at in the pretemporal, eternal choice. Ephesians 3:4; Ephesians 3:6 (ἐντῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ?—εἶναιτὰ ἔθνη, κ. τ. λ.) is similar. Whether we are to understand the then present realization, just begun, or the consummation, begun in the church militant, or the completed reality in the church triumphant, cannot be determined from the adjectives “holy and without blame,” but must be found in the phrase κατενώπιοναὐτοῦ, “before Him.” It is not necessary to write αὑτοῦ, with Harless, Stier and others. Bengel has remarked (App. ad Matthew 1:21), and Tischendorf [Prζf. N. T., p. 58 f. ed. 7], corroborates it, that before αυτοῦ αυτῷ, αυτόν we constantly find ἀπ̓ ?, ὑπ̓ ?, μετ̓ ?, ἐπ̓ ?, κατ̓ ?, never ἀφ̓ ?, ὑφ̓ ?, μεθʼ ?, ἐφ̓ ?, καθʼ ?, so that in the New Testament the reflexive form αὑτοῦ is never used, but in its stead ἑαυτοῦ. Thus too it happens that αὐτός is referred in quick succession to different subjects, as Mark 8:22; Mark 9:27-29 (Winer, pp. 141, 143). From the Apostle’s point of view αὐτοῦ is quite correct, and to be understood of God, even though ἐναὐτῳ refers to Christ. To the phrase κατενώπιοναὐτοῦ corresponds the Hebrew μִ ?τְּ ?πֵ ?ιιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, coram Deo. According to this we must accept a reference to the present life, and not to the Judgment. The context at all events gives no support for the reference to the Judgment, which He will hold at the end of days. The parallel passage, Colossians 1:22 : “to present holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight,” as well as the “now” (Ephesians 1:21), and “if at least ye continue” (Ephesians 1:23) refer definitely to the present state. This is confirmed by a comparison with Jude 24: “to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy.” We must evidently apply this to the Judgment before God in eternity, but the expression is modified in accordance with this meaning. Hence Stier is mistaken in regarding our passage as applicable “to the last flaming glance of the holy Judge, who can and will be the perfectly righteous and eternal beatifying God alone (Hebrews 12:23).” Schenkel too is not satisfied with the reminder that He is the knower of hearts, but refers to His great Judgment day. [Meyer renders this phrase: judice Deo, in connection with his view of the forensic reference of the adjectives “holy and without blame.” But the reference to sanctification is to be preferred, and hence if “before Him” does not refer to the last Judgment, it must mean: vere, sincere (Beza, Ellicott; so Eadie). Alford: “In the deepest verity of our being, thoroughly penetrated by the Spirit of holiness, bearing His searching eye; but at the same time implying an especial nearness to His presence and dearness to Him—and bearing a foretaste of the time when the elect shall be ἐνώπιοντοῦ θρονοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, Revelation 7:15.”—R.] With our view then “holy and unblamable” cannot of course mean the complete holiness, which is the original end of the first choosing, as its attained goal before the throne of God, as Stier thinks, or humanity cleansed from all the defilements of sin, which, according to Schenkel, is the end of the Divine election. Ἅγιος, holy, can scarcely be taken in any other sense than that of Eph 1:1, designating one consecrated to God. The distinction between its meaning here and Ephesians 1:1 is to be found in the qualifications: εἶναι—κατενώπιοναὐτοῦ. This state of consecration is therefore a reality, not merely a being “called,” a “name” (although even this latter is not a mere sound, a non-entity), a reality too before God, and not merely before men. Accordingly ἄγιος here must in some way mark the internal effects upon the subject, connected with this state of consecration; so that ἄμωμος is very naturally added. Ἄμωμος corresponds to the Hebrew ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, unblemished, and is to be rendered neither irreprehensus (Morus) nor irreprehensibilis (2 Peter 3:14; Philippians 2:15, where the form is ἀμώμητος), even though this is the original meaning (Passow sub voce). It is applied strictly to the sacrificial animal (1 Peter 1:9) which is also consecrated to God. The two words are joined together elsewhere (Ephesians 5:27; Colossians 1:22); in the first passage they are used of the church (“not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing”), in the latter, which is parallel to our verse, καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους is added. Hence we are reminded of Rom 8:33 : “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth,” and have to do with those who are transferred εἰςυἱοθεσίαν (Ephesians 1:5), who are partakers of “redemption,” “the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7), among whom all this is inward, living truth, the vital beginning of a glorious conclusion, so that advance is ever made toward holiness (1 Peter 1:15-16), and the saying in the Apocalypse (Revelation 22:11) is verified: “he that is holy, let him be holy still,” which indeed finds a further verification in eternity. Thus both a condition, a subjective, state, and more especially a position, which is to be and has been occupied, a station into which they have come and live, are meant, and not merely a judgment. The words of Koppe, which Harless recalls, are apt: non tum ad virtutis studium, quam potius ad dignitatem Christianorum, qua tanquam homines innocentes sibique caros Deus eos tractat, est referendum, idem quod alias in epp. Pauli est δικαιοῦσθαιπαρὰ θεῷ. Accordingly ἅγιος without further qualification does not refer to inward, actual sanctification (Stier). Such limitations as: nisi confecto nostro stadio (Calov.), quantum quidem hujus in mortali vita per Dei ipsius gratiam et carnis nostrζ infirmitatem fieri potest (Calixtus), are as inadmissible as the explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius, that the final end of the matter of Christianity is found in moral worth, or Rueckert’s opinion, that it was the Apostle’s peculiarity, to idealize everything. [Modern English commentators accept the distinction of Meyer respecting these two words: the first presents the positive, the second the negative side; but there is an unusual agreement among them against the reference to justification, which Braune, Meyer, Olshausen, Harless, Koppe and others favor. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Stier, Hodge, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford and others, apply the adjectives to sanctification. And with good reason: For an ultimate result is here spoken of, and Paul who had stamped the technical sense on so many Greek words before this Epistle was written, would have made the other meaning plain by using such words here. Dr. Hodge deduces very properly these statements: “If men are chosen to be holy, they cannot be chosen because they are holy.” “Holiness is the only evidence of election.”—R.] In love, ἑνἀγάπῃ.—Of course, His, God’s love. This phrase, at the close of Eph 1:4, must be connected grammatically with the following participle, thus standing in emphatic position. The Greek is much freer in the position of words than the German; where the latter must help out the meaning with particles, the former requires only change of position; still it never goes beyond bounds in this respect. It cannot be connected with “chose” (Oecumen., Thomas, Flacius, Baumgarten, Flatt, and others), since it stands entirely too far and too decidedly removed from that verb; and must be regarded as “trailing after it.” Nor yet is the connection with “holy and blameless” (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius [evangelii, τὸ πᾶν is in love], Wolf, Rueckert [dubiously], Morus, Matthies, Heubner [E. V., Alford, Hodge], admissible; although ἄμωμοςἐνἀγαλλιάσει (Jude 1:24) and ἀμώμητοςἐνἐιρήνῃ (2 Peter 3:14) occur, yet it is in such close union as to form one idea; the phrase could be separated from its adjective by “before Him,” only in case the latter were adopted to be included with the adjective as one idea, which was to be qualified; but Paul uses ἅγιοςκαὶ ἄμωμος without any qualification (Ephesians 1:27; Colossians 1:22), and the proper exposition excludes this connection, which has mainly subserved the Romanist and Rationalistic view. Accordingly most (from the Peshito to Tischendorf) have upheld the conection with προορίσας as the only admissible one. [The connection with the adjectives favors the reference to sanctification in those words, giving this sense: we are chosen to be placed “in a state of moral excellence which consists in love” (Hodge). But this author is as little justified in saying that the reference to sacrificial purification occasioned the connection with the following participle, as Braune is, in affirming that the connection with the adjectives has mainly subserved the Romanist and Rationalistic view. Neither of these statements affect the question. Alford has an able defence of the ordinary connection. Besides arguing that throughout this long sentence the verbs and particle precede their qualifying clauses, since the verbs are emphatic, giving prominence to God’s act, not His attribute, he holds that this qualification is highly appropriate: “ἀγάπη, that which man lost at the Fall, but which God is, and to which God restores man by redemption, is the great element in which, as their abode and breathing-place, all Christian graces subsist, and in which, emphatically, all perfection before God must be found.” All which is true, but not sufficient to overcome the grammatical objections to this view. Dr. Hodge says that “predestinated” has a subsequent qualification, hence it would be tautological to join “in love,” to it, but as Ellicott intimates, the two qualifying phrases point to two different attributes; one to the loving mercy, the other to the sovereign power of God. The view of Braune, is that of the Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustine, Jerome, Bengel, Koppe, Storr, Harless, De Wette, Olshausen, Holzhausen, Stier, Turner, Eadie, Ellicott, Meyer, Bleek; also Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf. The list might be enlarged, but is long enough to sustain the last remark of Braune against Hodge’s assertion that “the majority of commentators adopt the construction followed by our translators.”—R.] Ephesians 1:5. In love having predestinated us [προορίσαςἡμᾶς].—Προορίζειν, to determine beforehand; πρὸ points out, that the determination existed before the thing or person to be destined, and is to be more closely defined only by the context: “before the foundation of the world” (Harless, Stier, Meyer, and others), hence beforehand, not before others (Baumgarten). The participle is associated with ἐξελέξατο: ἐξελέξατοτῷ προορίσαι, or καὶ προώρισε. Thus the Greek expresses it, not indicating a chronological sequence; the temporal relation is not touched upon. The aorist indeed denotes the concluded action without reference to the past or present; the matter spoken of is before time. Similarly Ephesians 1:8; Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 1:20. The participle denotes, therefore, not priority of fact, but only the attendant manner (Harless). Homberg is incorrect: postquam nos prζdestinavit adoptandos, elegit etiam nos, ut simus sancti. In that case we should have found at all events, πρότερονπροορίσας. When the Apostle says (Romans 8:30): “whom he did predestinate, them he also called,” without mentioning the election, we must find the latter included in the first ante-temporal act, not in the other act of accomplishment, taking place in time. Nor can it be inferred from Romans 8:29 : “whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate,” that the predestination was preceded temporally by a particular act, that of foreknowing, quite as little as the two notions are to be confounded. [As regards the relation of priority, Alford and Stier, take the “election” as antecedent to the “predestination,” the former regarding the ἐξελέξατο in this passage as ranking with the προέγνω in Romans 8:29. On the other hand Hodge implies just the reverse, that the election is based on the preceding predestination. Ellicott too regards the participle “as temporal, not modal, and its action as prior to, not synonymous with, that of ἐξελέξατο.” He takes it as=quum prζdestinavit, “after He had,” &c., but Meyer says that “predestinatio is never elsewhere distinguished from electio, as antecedent to it.” Eadie too takes the participle as synchronous with the verb, which is safest where there is no grammatical necessity for insisting on the temporal qualification (see, however, Winer, p. 321). It is not well to dogmatize about the order in the Divine mind, especially on so slender a basis as that afforded by the Greek aorist participle.—R.] The phrase “in love,” coming first, marks with special emphasis the motive of the predestination. In hac epistola regnat τὸ amo, amor, amatus; ipsi principio epistolζ congruit (Bengel). This precedence is like Ephesians 3:18 : ἐνἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι. What is thus demanded by the thought, and confirmed by the form of language, is certainly not contradicted, as will appear, by what follows: κατὰ τὴνεὐδοκίαν—εἰςἔπαινονδόξηςτῆςχάριτος, which is not added tautologically, as some (Matthies and others) suppose. Ἡμᾶς, “us,” is the object, as in Ephesians 1:4; but it must be noticed, that we have here, not ἐκκλησία or some such collective notion, but ἡμᾶς. Hence it cannot be said with Schenkel: “The predestination applies to the whole of the Divine decree of salvation, the election to the individual persons in whom it is accomplished.” So much only is correct, that the thought does not respect individuals as such, a colluvies, a multitude, but the church and its members, or the individuals as members of an organism, but in the predestination, just as in the election (Ephesians 1:4). Comp. Romans 8:29 f. Eadie makes a far better distinction between προορίσας and ἐξελέξατο: “The end pre-appointed—πρό, is implied in the one; the mass out of which the choice is made—ἐκ, is glanced at by the other.” So Ellicott.—R.] Unto adoption, εἰςυἱοθεσίαν. This designates, in distinction from τεκνογονία (1 Timothy 2:15), adoption (υἱοὺςθέσθαι, υἱὸνθετὸνποιεῖσθαι); we are not children by nature, like Christ, but only by grace. Adoption is a rich conception, not at all a simple matter, and its actualization has a very significant history; it did not come to maturity at once, but has a development from primary stages, preceded by grand preparatory stages, unto its completion in eternity. To the Old Testament Israel belonged the adoption (Romans 9:4, to which are added the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of the sanctuary, the promises); even the Christians are “waiting for the adoption, the redemption of the body” (Romans 8:23). An explanatory parallel to our verse is found in Romans 8:29 : “He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren;” Romans 8:30 (“he also glorified”) however points yet deeper, so that we must recall the bold words of Peter (2 Peter 1:4): “that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,” as well as those of Paul (Romans 8:17): “If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” Comp. Galatians 4:5-7; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; 1 John 3:2. Hence it is not a formula solemnis ad Christianam religionem adducere (Koppe), nor to be referred in general and indefinitely to the benefits, which distinguish Christians from other men (Flatt), nor yet futura beatitate ornari, adeo amari Deumque redamare (Morus), nor can it be said: υἱοθεσία veniζ peccatorum morte Christi partζ certa spe verissime constat (Tittmann). [Hodge: Sonship in reference to God includes,—1. Participation of His nature or conformity to His image. 2. The enjoyment of His favor, or being the special objects of His love. 3. Heirship, or a participation of the glory and blessedness of God. Sometimes one and sometimes another of these ideas is the most prominent. In the present case it is the second and third.” Meyer has a good note in loco on υἱοθεσία.—R.] Through Jesus Christ unto himself, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰςαὐτόν.—Against the reading αὑτόν, see the close of Eph 1:4. Δτά with the genitive retains the meaning per, through, marking the mediator, cannot therefore be: propter (Moldenhauer). Comp. John 14:6. The person of the Lord must be regarded as that of the mediator. Even though we find in Galatians 3:26 : υἱοὶ διὰ τῆςπίστεως, there the subjective mediation which proceeds from the Object of faith, the mediator, is marked, here the objective, to which the former will not be wanting. We take αὐτόν as referring to God; should Jesus Christ be meant, the reading must be, καὶ εἰςαὐτόν. Hence the explanation is incorrect: in conformitatem ejus (Christi) per fidem et bonos mores (Anselm and others). But the preposition εἰς must retain the sense unto or into Him, as is required by those passages cited in the last paragraph, which indicate the final end of the υἱοθεσία. Hence it is not so much an “explanatory addition” (Harless), as an adjoined supplement (Stier). The explanation: ad gloriam gratiζ suζ (Piscator, Morus), is in any case insufficient. It is impossible to take εἰςαὐτόν as=the Hebrew μεֹ, sibi (Grotius, Wolf, Koppe following the paraphrase of Bucer: Qui prζdestinavit pridem nos, ut in filios sibi per Jesum Christum—adoptaret). Passavant weakens it into: up to God. Nor is it=ἐνἑαυτῷ (Calvin, Beza, Calixtus); and just as little a circumlocution for the genitive αὐτοῦ, qualifying υἱοθεσία (Rueckert). Meyer is excellent: “How rich and entirely Grecian Paul is precisely in his prepositional expressions, by which he never represents a mere relation of case.” [Among the various opinions respecting εἰςαὐτόν, and the shadings of signification attached to it, the view of Ellicott seems most satisfactory: “In these deeper theological passages the preposition seems to bear its primary (εἰς=ἐνς Donaldson, Cratylus, § 170) and most comprehensive sense of ‘to and into’ (see Rost u. Palm. Lex. s. v.); the idea of approach (τὴνεἰςαὐτὸνἀνάγουσαν, Theophylact) being also blended with and heightened by that of inward union; comp. notes on Galatians 3:27. We may thus paraphrase, ‘God predestinated us to be adopted as His sons; and that adoption came to us through Christ, and was to lead us into, and unite us to God,’ ”—R.] According to the good pleasure of his will, κατὰ τὴνεὐδοκίαντοῦ θελήματοςαὐτοῦ.—Εὐδοκία can indeed mean good will, as in Luke 2:14; Philippians 1:15; Philippians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:11, or wish, arbitrium, or Matthew 11:26; Luke 10:21. Here however it is equivalent to βουλή, Ephesians 1:11 : κατὰ τὴνβουλὴντοῦ θελήματος, and the sense is that what was ordained in love, He ordained according to (κατά) the determination of His will. As ἐνἀγάπῃ (Ephesians 1:4) denotes the principle of the ordaining, εὐδοκία here cannot mean “good will.” It is the substantive answering to δοκεῖν (frequentative from δέχεσθαι, Ion., δέκεσθαι), to seem good, as Acts 15:22; Acts 15:25; Acts 15:28=beneplacitum, and is distinguished from (βουλή, the inclinational act of willing (while ἐθέλειν designates the ethical act), only in this, that it refers more to deliberation, choice. Comp. Tittmann, Syn. I. p. 124 ff. Hence the interpretations of Theodoret (ἡ ἐπʼ ? εὐεργεσίᾳ βούλησις), Suidas (from Theodoret ad Psalms 5:12; τὸ ἀγαθὸνθέλημα), Beza (benevolentia), Luther, Morus (pro benevolo suo consilio), Harless, (according to the kindness of His will), Olshausen, Heubner [Eadie, not Meyer as the German indicates,—R.] and others, are incorrect. [The two meanings of εὐδοκία here under discussion are: 1. beneplacitum, mere good pleasure; 2. benevolentia. Undoubtedly in this case God’s good pleasure was also His benevolentia, but to which does the Apostle here refer? The usage of the LXX. favors the latter meaning, but in the New Testament both occur. The context must decide. It favors meaning (1), for (a) the idea of benevolence in the highest degree was already introduced as a qualification in ἐνἀγάπῃ, admitting that the phrase is to be joined with this verse. (b) The phrases occurring afterwards in Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 1:11 point to this meaning, especially βουλὴντοῦ θελήματοςαὐτοῦ (Ephesians 1:11). (c) The reference being to the actor exclusively and not to the objects of the action, this meaning brings them less into view (Ellicott, after De Wette). The proper safe-guard against the notion of bare arbitrary decree is found in ἐνἀγάπῃ. So substantially but with an occasional tendency to press the sense too far, Grotius, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, Flatt, Rueckert, De Wette, Meyer (“the free self-determination independent of all human desert is here meant”), Bleek, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott. Nor does this view make the ground for thanksgiving the less, as Eadie implies.—We accept θέλημα here in the simple sense of “will,” reserving the discussion of its precise meaning for a subsequent page.—B.] The explanation of Chrysostom (τὸ σφοδρὸνθέλημα, τὸ μετὰ ἐπιθυμίαςθέλημα) is to be rejected. Ephesians 1:6. Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, εἰςἔπαινονδόξηςτῆςχάριτοςαὐτοῦ.—Εἰςἔπαινον points to the υἱοὶ θετοί, who now praise, as those who have been blessed by the sonship and heirship, and renders prominent, that God’s ultimate aim is the blessedness of His creatures, of His Own. For εἰςἔπαινον is to be taken in connection with προορίσαςεἰςυἱοθεσίαν—εἰςαὐτόν as forming the conclusion; it reaches unto the praise from him who has been pardoned. The object of the praise is “the glory,” but not glory in itself, or God’s glory, but “of his grace” (αὐτοῦ not αὑτοῦ, see on Ephesians 1:4). Χάρις is ἀγάπη, the latter is however more general, the former more special, marking love, which condescends, like the German Gnade (see on Ephesians 1:2), or which acts upon χαίρειν, χαρά, making or being χαριέις (lovely). This then is, principally, the object of the praise, which lauds indeed the glory of the grace. This glory is the object of the praise, Ephesians 1:12; Ephesians 1:14, where we find: εἰςἔπαινοντῆςδόξηςαὑτοῦ. It is remarkable that the article is omitted here before δόξης; but δόξα is not the main idea, but ἡ χάριςαὐτοῦ, and we should render (according to Winer, p. 179): To the praise of His glory in grace (Gnadenherrlichkeit), so that δόξατῆςχάριτος forms one conception. Still it is altogether inadmissible to explain the genitive δόξης as a Hebraism for the adjective ἔνδοξος; Paul was acquainted with that adjective (Ephesians 5:27; 1 Corinthians 4:10) and did not select it here. This is equally true, whether it be joined with ἔπαινον, as meaning: to glorious praise (Grotius, Estius), or to τῆςχάριτος: to the praise of His glorious grace (Luther, Beza, Morus, Koppe, Flatt, and others). [Meyer: “The glorifying of the Divine love (which however is here designated, according to its definite peculiarity, as grace, because it concerns what is sinful, Ephesians 2:1 ff) is the final end” of the Divine predestination. Ellicott: “As Chrysostom appears rightly to have felt, δόξης is a pure substantive, and serves to specify that peculiar quality or attribute of the χάρις which forms the subject of the praise.”—R.] Which he freely bestowed upon us [ἦςἐχαρίτωσενἡμᾶς]—On the attraction ἦςἐχαρίτωσεν for ῆν—according to the well-known expression χάρινχαριτοῦν, see Winer, p. 154, and the Textual Note6. Similar cases, Ephesians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 1:4. Χαριτοῦν=gratia aliquem afficere; but gratia may be taken in the subjective or objective sense, so that this means either: He has made lovely, pleasing, or: He has dispensed grace, favor. The word occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Luke 1:28 (the salutation of the angel to Mary: χαῖρεκεχαριτωμένη, where either meaning may be accepted, or both combined (Stier in loco.) [The objective sense is certainly to be preferred in Luke 1:28; for to take the other view involves at least a quasi support of very untenable dogmas. On the force of Greek verbs in όω, see Eadie, Harless, Ellicott.—R.] It also occurs in the LXX. (Sir 9:8; Sir 18:17), and in the first sense. The reading ἦς supports the first view; the reading ἐνᾗ the other. For the former was evidently accepted in the Syriac version, and aptly reproduced: quam effudit super nos, so that His grace has not remained and does not remain fruitless. So the Vulgate: gratificavit. Chrysostom: οὐ μόνονἁμαρτημάτωνἀπήλλαξεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπεράστουςἐποίησεν; Theodoret, Theophylact, �cumenius to the same effect. A-Lapide: Gratiosos nos reddidit, scilicet gratiam suam nobis communicando et infundendo. Luther: Angenehm gemachi, made pleasant. Beza: Gratis nos sibi acceptos reddidit; so Stier and others. The second view is held by Bengel (gratia amplexus est), Baumgarten, Koppe, Flatt, Harless, Rueckert, Schenkel and others. At all events with the perspective reaching “unto the praise of the glory of His grace,” we must not leave out of view the result of pardoning, the effect of the χάρις on the χαριτῶθέντες, who become χαρίεντες; here, where the Apostle “closes his first circle of thought” (Stier), there is at the same time a reference to the goal aimed at from the pardon. Accordingly “us” applies not merely to Paul and his readers or contemporaries, but to all believers. [The subjective sense may be involved, but the other seems decidedly preferable. Alford says the subjective meaning of χάρις does not seem to occur in the N. T., certainly not in St. Paul. He very properly argues for the other meaning, from the “indefinite aorist, referring to an act once past in Christ, not to an abiding state which He has brought about in us.” Also from the context which is all of God’s grace. So Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, Hodge. The Romanist expositors find in the other sense a support for their doctrine of justitia inhζrens.—R.] In the beloved, ἐντῷ ἀγαπημένῳ.—This contains a reference to ἐχαρίτωσεν, Bengel aptly says: Autonomasia, opportuna. Amor plus significat, quam gratia. 1 Peter 2:10 : ubi de iis, qui misericordiam consecuti sunt, ea dicuntur, supra quζὁ ἠγαπημένος, amatus longe eminet; ἔλεος necessario prζsupponit prζviam miseriam, sed amor non item. The Beloved, κατʼ ? ἐξοχήν, (Colossians 1:13; Matthew 3:17), by God the Father, not ab omnibus (Pelagius), is the Only Begotten, the Son of God by nature, Christ; He is the object of the love (ἀγάπη) of the Father, not needing χάρις, as we; only through the grace of God in Christ do we become objects of His love; as χαριτωθέντες. Accordingly this distinction is not to be made use of in favor of the second meaning of έχαρίτωσεν, as is done by Harless. The preposition ἑν must be retained as marking our fellowship with Christ, who is our life-sphere; hence it is not=διὰ τόν, propter (Grotius and others). We are rather reminded of the verse: Vor dir sonst nichts gilt, als Dein eigen Bild. [Before thee nothing passes current but thine own image.] In Him, the image of God, we have, not only objectively, but subjectively also, the grace, that we are well-pleasing to God. [Eadie: “We, as adopted children, are indeed loved, but there is another, the Son, the own Beloved Son. It was not, therefore, affection craving indulgence, or eager for an object on which to expend itself, that led to our adoption. There was no void in His bosom, the loved One lay in it.”—R.] second foundation of the praise; Ephesians 1:7-12. The carrying out of the eternal decree. Ephesians 1:7. In whom we have the [or our] redemption through his blood [ἐνᾧ ἔχομεντὴνἀπολύτρωσινδιὰ τουαἴματοςαὐτοῦ ?].—Comp. Colossians 1:14. “We have,” “the first present tense of the whole discourse, and very emphatic” (Stier). Hence it immediately follows ἐνᾧ, “in whom.” With this a new circle of thought begins, pointing to the already experienced accomplishment of the Divine eternal decree, even though just begun. The preposition ἐν is to be taken in its strict meaning: for only within the Person of the Beloved, Christ, are we in the possession and enjoyment of redemption. Christ’s work is inseparable from His Person; we have redemption, not in His work without His Person, but in His Person, which with His work is a living unity (Olshausen). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. Exhortation springing out of the Apostle’s supplication for the Church as the body of Christ, who is the Head(Ephesians 1:15-23.)15Wherefore [For this cause] I also, after I [having] heard of your faith [or the faith which is among you] in the Lord Jesus, and love [the love which ye have] unto all the saints, 16Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge [in full knowledge] of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; [Having the eyes of your heart enlightened,] that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and 19[omit and] what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is [omit is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according 20to the working of his mighty power [the might of his strength], Which he [hath] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him [in raising him from the dead and making him sit] at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21Far [over] above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion [lordship], and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22And hath put [And subjected] all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that [who] filleth all in all. AND Summary.—After the praise of God on account of His grace towards Christendom, to which the readers of this letter belong (Ephesians 1:13) has been expressed (Ephesians 1:3-14), there follows on account of this very grace the Apostle’s thanksgiving for the readers’ faith and love in his prayers (Ephesians 1:15-16), out of which he gives prominence to the petition, united with his thanksgiving, that God would make them know the glory of their calling and inheritance as well as of His power (Ephesians 1:17-19), which He has shown and will show in the Redemption through Christ, the Head of the church (Ephesians 1:20-23). It is not proper to find here, as Olshausen does, after an “effusion of love,” only a “thanksgiving for the faith of the readers,” as far as Ephesians 2:10, without perceiving the profound, rich instruction contained in these verses. But it is not precisely a prayer for the readers which follows, as Harless says; he only mentions what he does when thinking of the church. This prayer and supplication to God about and for souls is the apostolic ministry in faith, care and joy; and the whole Church should know it and should infer from this petition, how weak and needy she is in and of herself, even though born a heavenly seed for heaven; and how necessary earnest, persevering prayer and supplication on her part always is, for her preservation and prosperity. [After praise comes prayer (Eadie). Ellicott: “I ever give thanks, and pray that you may be enlightened to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the greatness of His power, which was especially displayed in the Resurrection and supreme exaltation of Christ.”—Alford, following the Trinitarian division of Stier: “The idea of the Church carried forward, in the form of a prayer for the Ephesians, in which the fulfilment of the Father’s counsel through the Son and by the Spirit, in His people, is set forth, as consisting in the knowledge of the hope of His calling, of the riches of His promise, and the power which He exercises on His saints as first wrought by Him in Christ, whom He has made Head over all to the Church.”—R.] The Apostle’s Thanksgiving (Ephesians 1:15-16). Ephesians 1:15. For this cause, διὰ τοῦ το, refers to what precedes, and on account of the close connection of the individual parts with each other, to Ephesians 1:3-14. So most ancient and modern commentators (�cumenius: διὰ τὰ ἀποκείμεναἀγαθἀ τοῖςὀρθῶςπιστεύουσικαὶ βιοῦσικαὶ δίατὸ ἐντοῖςσωθησομένοιςτετάχθαιἡμᾶς); it is not merely an appendage to Ephesians 1:13-14, because the thanksgiving and petition apply to the readers only (Meyer, Rueckert), nor to the last clause (Ephesians 1:14 : “to the praise of His glory”), as Grotius thinks. But it treats of more than thanksgiving, of petition, supplication, not merely of the readers, but also of all Christendom (εἰςἡμᾶς, Ephesians 1:19; comp. Ephesians 1:20-23). [The reference to the whole preceding paragraph is defended by Harless (so Chrysostom, Winzer, Schenkel and many others). It accords best with Braune’s exegesis of Eph 1:13-14, to accept this view, but Eadie, Ellicott, Hodge follow Theophylact, in referring it to Ephesians 1:13-14. Alford: “On account of what has gone before, since Ephesians 1:3; but especially of what has been said since Ephesians 1:13, where καὶ ὑμεῖς first came in.” The more restricted view seems preferable, but we must then accept an expanded reference in Ephesians 1:19.—R.] I also, καὶ ἐγώ.—The unexpressed fellowship in which Paul thus marks himself, as Ephesians 1:13 (καὶ ὑμεῖς), is to be inferred from the context, from the clause ἀκούσας—οὐ παύομαιεὐχαριστῶν. He thinks of the Christians, who have spoken of the readers’ Christian state with joy and thanksgiving, and “expects, that all Christians, especially they themselves to whom he writes, would do the same” (Harless). Hence it is not=even I also, a believing Israelite (Baumgarten); such arrogance he would have opposed, not possessed. Nor is it=also I, your Apostle (Stier) [Eadie]; He places himself as a member of the body of Christ, who is the Head, in the Church, not above it. [De Wette unwarrantably joins καί with the preceding διὰ τοῦτο. Alford objects to the view of Meyer (“Paul knows that he co-operates with the readers in his prayerful activity”), preferring to take καί as marking the resumption of the first person after the second. Ellicott thus expresses Braune’s view: “Κἀγὼ is thus faintly corresponsive with καὶ ὑμεῖς, and hints at the union in prayer and praise which subsisted between the Apostle and his converts.”—R.] Having heard, ἀκούσας.—This marks nothing further than that he had heard, and accordingly indicates only, that what has been heard has been spoken of, hence that the Apostle was not in Ephesus, when he heard. Grotius is therefore correct: loquitur apostolus de profectu evangelii apud Ephesios, ex quo ipse ab illis discesserat. So Theodoret, Harless, Meyer and others. Nothing is said respecting acquaintance or non-acquaintance (against Olshausen [who thinks the larger part were probably unknown to him—R.]); it is used in the former case, Philemon 1:5, in the latter, Colossians 1:4; Romans 1:8. Bengel: Hoc referri potest non solum ad ignotos facie, sed etiam ad familiarissimos, pro statu eorum prζsenti. It is therefore not=scire, comperire (Hammond), as though it described personal observation, since it is the very opposite; but at the same time nothing can be inferred from this against the composition of this Epistle for the Ephesians, nor that he wrote the letter before his personal acquaintance, nor yet that he had other churches in his mind at the same time (Stier).Of the faith which is among you in the Lord Jesus, τὴνκαθ̓ ὑμᾶςπίστινἐντῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ.—To this Colossians 1:4 is parallel: “your faith in Christ Jesus,” etc. Accordingly τὴνκαθ̓ ὑμᾶςπίστιν here seems to be equivalent to τὴνπίστινὑμῶν there [so E. V.]. But “faith among you” differs somewhat from “your faith;” the relation of the faith to the subjects is different: in the first case, in accordance with the notion of the preposition (κατὰ τῆνπόλιν, Luke 8:39, κατʼ ? οἶκον not=ἐνοἴκῳ, see Winer, p. 374), which is distributive, the faith is merely to be found there, within the church, even though each one does not have it, and believers and unbelievers dwell side by side, in the other case, however, the faith is the possession of the individuals; Winer, p. 146, fides, quζ ad vos pertinet, apud vos (in vobis?) est. Such circumlocutions have their special shadings of thought, as τὴνἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν (Acts 23:21), τῇ ἐξὑμῶνἀγάπῃ (1 Corinthians 8:7), promissio a te profecta, amor qui a vobis proficiscitur, are not exactly equivalent to tua promissio, amor vester. Comp. Winer, p. 181. Stier is excellent: A hint that a gracious treasure of faith and love is indeed present within the church, yet not certainly active in every member of it. [So Alford.] The notion of the substantive is not, however, thereby modified, as though the objective nature of faith were to be understood here, and the individual quality of faith in the particular persons, in Colossians 1:4 (Harless) [Ellicott]; with the Apostle the faith in Ephesus as among the Colossians remains the subject of thanksgiving; and the genitive indicates nothing about individual quality, only the possession of the individuals, still less any thing about purity or impurity (Matthies); nor is any hint given respecting fides qua or fides quζ creditur. It is indeed here as there more closely defined as the faith “in the Lord Jesus,” as Galatians 3:26. The preposition marks the foundation of the faith: founded in the Lord Jesus, or its life-sphere, without placing any other aim of the faith. There is no reason for understanding here εἰςθεόν from 1 Peter 1:21 : “who by him do believe in God” (Bengel: fidem erga Deum in domino Jesu; Grotius: fidem in Deum fundatam in Christo); “in the Lord” is not=“through Him,” nor ἐν=εἰς (Koppe, Flatt). The article τἠν is wanting before ἐντῷ κυρίῳ, because the qualifying phrase adds an integral element to πίστις, which as anticipated is joined immediately (Romans 3:25; 2 Corinthians 7:7). [“Christ-centred faith” (Ellicott).—R.] Comp. Winer, p. 128. The position of the words does not permit our connecting ἐντῳ κυρίῳ with ὑμας (Winzer); besides πίστις requires further definition more than ὑμᾶς. And the love which ye have unto all the saints, καὶ τὴνἀγάπηνπὴνεἰςπάνταςτοὺςἁγίους.—[See Textual Note1.—R.] This sets forth the first and immediate manifestation of the faith. Chrysostom aptly says: πανταχοῦ συνάπτεικαὶ συκολλᾷ τὴνπίστινκαὶ τὴνἀγάπην, θαυμαστήντιναξυνωρίδα. Quisquis fidem et amorem habet, particeps est totius benefactionis (Bengel). This love is, however, more closely defined as “unto all the saints.” On the article [which here specializes love.—R.] see Winer, p. 126. “Paul had here first the idea of love in itself and then added in his thought τὴνείςπάντας” (Meyer). Ἅγιοι are Christians. Hence: “all saints” (Ephesians 3:8; Ephesians 3:18; Ephesians 6:18; Ephesians 6:24) points to brotherly love as character Christianismi, John 13:34 f.; 1 John 5:1. As little as this notion is to be enlarged here into universal philanthropy, as Calvin would do, and as is the case in 1 Corinthians 13; Galatians 5:6; 1 Timothy 2:1; Titus 3:2, also in 2 Peter 1:7 (ἐντῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ τὴνἀγάπην), so little and still less is brotherly love to be narrowed down, with Theodoret, to liberality. At the same time we should not overlook the emphasis resting on the word “all,” permitting no distinction as respects condition, rank, possessions or internal endowment, either mental or spiritual. Ephesians 1:16. Cease not to give thanks for you, οὐ παύομαιεὐχαριστῶνὑπὲρὑμῶν.—Thus or εὐχαριστῶ πάντοτε, 1 Corinthians 1:4; Philippians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; Philippians 4; comp. Winer, p. 323. Paul never ceases to be a giver of thanks. [The participle points to a state supposed to be already in existence. Eadie: “As one giving thanks for you I cease not.” Ulphilus: non cessans gratias dico.—R.] The phrase ὑπὲρὑμῶν, as in Ephesians 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:1, marks the protection of prayer, like that of a shield over the assailed (Winer, p. 359) while περὶ πάντωνὑμῶν (Romans 1:8) denotes the position of the protector around the protected. Making mention of you, μνείανὑμῶνποιούμενος, adds a limitation; he thanks constantly whenever he thinks of them; but that happens daily.—In my prayers, ἐπὶ τῶνπροσευχῶνμου.—This indicates that Paul has and takes occasion to think of them from his prayers. Comp. Winer, p. Eph 352: 1 Thessalonians 1:2; Romans 1:10. Praying is the Apostle’s daily doing, and therewith arises the thought about his church, changing his prayer into intercession. The subject of his thought and petition is not, therefore, precisely the faith and love of the Ephesians (Meyer [Alford] who rejects ὑμῶν), but themselves, with their necessities indeed, which determine the purport of the petition.—“No thanksgiving without petition, so long as perfection and completion are not yet there” (Stier). The Apostle’s petition as to its purport. Ephesians 1:17-19 Ephesians 1:17. That, ἵνα, has its parallel in ὅπως, Phil. 6 and must retain, as in Ephesians 3:16, the signification of the purpose, design, Comp. Winer, pp. 418 f., 428 f. The Apostle’s will, in the very thought of his prayer, is directed to this, that God should give (Meyer, Schenkel). Hence there is no reason for weakening the force of ἴνα here into: that He may give (Winer, p. 273), as if it introduced only the object, the purport of the petition (Harless, Stier); for although Paul did not regard his request “as causa of Divine favors,” nor purpose “thereby” to bestow upon others the gift of grace, yet still in his petitions offered in the name of Jesus (John 14:13; John 15:16; John 6:23) he has the design as well as the hope, that they should take place. Bengel: Argumentum precum pro veris Christianis.The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, ὁθεὸςτοῦ κυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ.—Here we must hold (see Ephesians 1:3 f.), that he is speaking of the Incarnate One, the God-man, to whom God is God, worshipped by Him also (Stier). It does not suffice to say, that the meaning is, God sent Him, He bore witness of God and returned to God (Harless) [apparently Hodge also]. The Father of glory, ὁπατὴρτῆςδόξης. This parallel clause is far more difficult than the last. First of all, πατήρ, corresponding to θεός, is to be retained in its established meaning, “Father,” hence not to be taken in the sense of causa (Grotius), auctor (ὁ μεγάλαὑμῖνδεδωκώςἀγαθά, Chrysostom and others), source, origin (Matthies, Schenkel). The genitive, τῆςδόξης, designates the possession, the character of the Father, to whom the glory belongs, which is=λָּ ?αεֹ ?γ, the Divine glory and majesty; it is like “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2; Psalms 29:3), “the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8), “the King of glory” (Psalms 24:7); comp. also “the Father of mercies” (2 Corinthians 1:3). Hence: the Father full of glory. As parallel to the genitive: “of our Lord Jesus Christ,” we must also in connection with “glory,” think of Him, in whom it was manifested. Bengel: Pater gloriζ, infinitζ illius, quζ refulget in facie Christi; imo gloriζ, quζ est ipse filius Dei, unde etiam nobis hereditas gloriosa obtinget (Ephesians 1:18). Harless: Father of glory, because the glory presses upon the Apostle, which God has revealed to men in His Son. Though the Greek Fathers go too far (δόξανγὰρτὴνθείανφύσινὠνόμασεν), yet “the Father full of glory,” following “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,” is evidently not without a reference to Christ and of such a kind, that the Apostle’s first phrase conceives rather of the God-man; the second of the God-man. This explanation accordingly is not a curiosity (Rueckert), needing no contradiction (Olshausen), nor is it obscurius et remotius (A-Lapide). It is much more of a curiosity, to wish to connect thus: Deus qui est domini nostri Jesu Christi pater, gloriζ; since then ὁθεός and τῆςδόξης must be taken together, while τοῦ κυρίου—ὁ πατήρ is inserted between them (Vatable). The conjecture of Piscator, that πατήρ and θεός were first written in interchanged positions, is very bold. Still it cannot be said that our phrase is=pater gloriosus (Calvin and others), or cui debetur honor, venerandus, or prζstantissimus (Wahl and others), or the Almighty Father (Koppe).—�cumenius aptly remarks: πρὸςτὸ προσκείμενονὀνομάζειθεόν. The designation of God in this passage corresponds entirely with the fervor and confidence of the Apostle’s petition respecting the affairs of the kingdom of Christ. May give unto you, δῴηὑμῖν.—Δᾠη the optative; John 15:16 : δώῃ the conjunctive; the Ionic conjunctive form is not sufficiently attested in the New Testament, and δῴ is preferred [in that passage, B. giving it here also.—R.] The optative as modus optandi is here, especially in oratio obliqua (Matthies), used in the place of the conjunctive (Winer, p. 273). In 2 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 1:18 we find a similar usage. [Meyer and Ellicott regard the optative as chosen to follow the present here, because the answer belongs to what is hoped for, etc., the latter finding in its use a support for his view of the sub-final force of ἵνα. But the view of Alford (and Eadie) is preferable: The optative “is used when the purpose is not that of the writer as he is writing, but is described as that of himself or some one else at another time,” thus falling in effect under the rule of the oratio obliqua.—R.] The spirit of wisdom and revelation, πνεῦμασοφίαςκαὶἀ ποκαλύψεως, is the object of the preceding verb. The omission of the article before the genitives points to the close connection with the governing substantive, to which also the article may be wanting, without its becoming indefinite, as the genitives contain the closer definition; Luke 23:46 : εἰςχεῖράςσουπαρατίθεμαιτὸ πνεῦμάμου (Winer, p. 118 f.). God gives as a Father to His children, who have become such through Christ, of His Spirit; hence the reference may well be to the Holy Ghost; but since they have already been sealed with this (Ephesians 1:13), this efficient, personal, power recedes rather, and we are to understand the spirit wrought or to be wrought by the same in Christians. So Galatians 6:1; 2 Timothy 1:7. So Olshausen, Stier: Something of God, yet manifesting itself as in man. Hence we are not to understand the human spirit of itself, or the human heart (Rueckert: God give you a wise heart, open to His revelation), nor yet precisely the Person of the Holy Ghost (Bengel: idem Spiritus, qui est promissionis, in progressu fidelium est etiam sapientiζ et revelationis; sapientia in nobis operatur sapientiam, Revelatio cognitionem; Matthies, Meyer). Evidently Paul is speaking of a gift for all Christians; hence Charisms are not meant, as 1 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Corinthians 14:12; 1 Cor. 6:26 (Olshausen). Both “wisdom” and “revelation” point to universal gifts to Christians, and to what is or comes to pass in them, hence to something subjective. By “wisdom” we understand a continued condition, by “revelation” the single glances afforded us, into the truths of Christianity, into the will of God in special circumstances and situations of life, into the human heart, into the course of time, into eternal life. The former includes the φρόνησις, “understanding,” joined with it in Ephesians 1:8; the latter is “the very necessary private revelation for every Christian” (Stier), as 1 Corinthians 2:10. Paul adds the special to the general in the same way (Romans 1:5; Romans 5:15; Romans 11:29). Accordingly we are not to consider the second an objective medium for the first (Harless); in that case, the position would be reversed (Meyer). Comp. Colossians 1:9. In the full knowledge of him [ἐνἐ πιγνώσειαὐτοῦ ?].—First the meaning of the words. In ἐπίγνωσις the preposition, which “renders prominent the intension of the verbal notion to its object” (Harless), must not be overlooked, and the distinction from γνῶσις must be maintained. It is major exactiorque cognitio (Grotius,) plena et accurata cognitio (Wahl). 1 Corinthians 13:12 is instructive: “Now I know (γιγνώσκω) in part; but then shall I know (ἐπιγνώσομαι) even as also I am known” (ἐπεγνώσθην). Hence it is not=agnitio (Calovius and others), nor can it be of any force here, that γνῶσις designates the higher, the charismatic form of knowledge, 1 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Corinthians 13:8 (Olshausen), since this technical term designates the character, not the degree (Meyer). The context, Ephesians 1:18-19, evidently determines that the knowledge of God is here referred to, and does not permit αὐτοῦ to be referred to Christ (Beza, Erasmus, Luther and others); nor can it remain undetermined (Calvin). Finally ἐν, “in,” designates the sphere within which that is accomplished, which has been spoken of: it cannot possibly be taken as=εἰς (Vulgate, Luther and others), or=per (Erasmus and others), or=una cum (Flatt). [Hodge most unwarrantably renders the preposition ἐν, “together with.”—R.] The connection with the verb “give” is clear then: The knowledge of God is a status or circle of life, wrought already by the Spirit and word of God, in which he should and must be, who will and shall receive the spirit of wisdom and revelation, since this does not take place without means, Colossians 1:9-10. Advance is made from truth to truth, from knowledge to knowledge. The connection with what follows: πεφωτισμένουςὀφθαλμούς (Chrysostom and others), is impossible, both grammatically and logically, on account of the appended εἰςτὸ εἰδέναιὑμᾶς, which is joined at the close of Eph 1:18, just as ἐνἐ πιγνώσειαὐτοῦ here in Ephesians 1:17; the two phrases correspond to each other. But the connection with ὖμῖν is quite as impossible, as with ἀποκαλύψεως (a suggestion of Koppe’s); it is contrary to the usus loquendi and introduces erroneous thoughts: for it is not to those, who have known, who are real worshippers, that He gives such a spirit, as He does not give the spirit through knowledge, but rather knowledge through the Spirit, nor does revelation consist only in the knowledge of God, although this is the beginning, centre and main point to which all comes and returns. [Eadie follows Koppe, the result being a confusion respecting these phrases, which is very uncommon with him.—R.] Ephesians 1:18. Having the eyes of your heart enlightened [πεφωτισμένουςτοὺςὀφθαλμοὺςτῆςκαρδίαςὑμῶν],—This is added without a conjunction, seeming to be in apposition, with the emphasis on the participle; the being enlightened is, what God should give. Τοῦςὀφθαλμούς, eyes, He need not first give; Bengel: articulus prζsupponit oculos jam prζsentes. But the Apostle wishes that the eyes may be given in a new quality (Harless). Accordingly we should not render: enlightened eyes (Luther); in that case we should find, τοῦςὀφθαλμοὺςτοῦςπεφωτισμένους. It is arbitrary to correct the reading into πεφωτισμένοις (Piscator and others), as though it belonged to ὑμῖν. It is untenable to accept an accusative absolute (Beza, Koppe, Meyer [E. V., Eadie), and to refer the participle to ὑμῖν, so that the accusative of the noun is made to contain the closer definition; for then the recipients would have been, which is contrary to Scripture and to fact, enlightened before they received the Spirit of wisdom and revelation; the reference to the effect: so that you are illuminated as respects your eyes—is grammatically impossible. Nor should εἶναι be interpolated (Flatt). [The interpretation: so that you are illuminated as respects your eyes, is that of Meyer, who does not defend the accusative absolute. Ellicott and Alford, whose rendering is given in the English text, refer the participle to ὐμῖν, as a lax construction, taking the noun as an accusative of limiting reference. Notwithstanding Dr. Braune’s objection, this seems the best solution. The clause “serves to define the result of the gift of the Spirit, and owing to the subsequent infinitive, which expresses the purpose of the illumination, not unnaturally lapses into the accusative” (Ellicott). See Alford for similar constructions. The accusative absolute which also expresses a result, is a very doubtful construction, see Meyer in loco, and on Romans 8:3. The appositional construction, which makes our clause the object of δώη, is open to fewer grammatical than logical objections. The enlightenment as regards the eyes of the heart ought not to be put as correlative or co-ordinate with the gift of the Spirit of wisdom, etc. This objection holds, however, the meaning of our clause may be enlarged, as is done below, and by Harless and others. Braune’s view, it should be added, is supported by Rueckert, Matthies, Meier, Holzhausen, Harless, Olshausen, De Wette and others; apparently by Hodge, who does not notice the construction preferred in this note.—R.] The value of the gift is well described by Gregory Nazian.: εἰ γὰρσκότοςἡ ἄγνοιακαὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία, φῶςἄνεἴηἡ γνῶσιςκαὶ ὀ βίοςἔνθεος. According to Ephesians 5:8, compared with Ephesians 4:18; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Hebrews 6:4, the light of life is meant, that illumination which is already connected with sanctification and rooted in experience (Harless, Stier), so that it cannot be referred to merely intellectual insight (Rueckert and others). [Yet “the eyes of the heart” are spoken of, giving prominence to the perceptive side.—R.] The eyes are τῆςκαρδίαςὑμῶν, “of your heart,” and this is the centre of life (Harless), the core of the personality (Olshausen), and not merely mind or soul, without disposition. Matthew 23:15 : τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσι. Comp. Ephesians 4:22; Romans 1:21; 2 Corinthians 4:6. Cor est, quo tantas res percipimus (Bengel). It is thus marked by this qualifying phrase, that we, in spite of our old nature, are renewed and made susceptible of that wisdom and revelation, that is the light for which the eyes of our heart are prepared; our heart should become secure and full of the Spirit. Thus this apposition is defended from Meyer’s objections. That ye may know, εἰςτὸ ἐιδέναιὑμᾶς.—This sets forth the aim of the enlightening, toward which progress is made “in the knowledge of Him;” the latter is to be developed. Thus to the ground and outgoing there corresponds the aim, in which the beginning now appears in its extent; the deeper insight after the hearing of the proclamation, after the first faith and knowledge and understanding, is here treated of.What is the hope of his calling, τίςἐστινἡ ἐλπίςτῆςκλήσεωςαὐτοῦ.—The first object of this insight is “the hope of His calling.” “His,” αὐτοῦ, according to the context, is to be understood of God; Romans 11:29 : the “calling of God.” He calls; this call is not without effect; and this is the hope, the cause of which is the call. The re-echo in us of this call of God on us is hope, hoping; the Christian’s hope lies, not in the eternal “election,” but in the temporal “calling.” So “joy of the Holy Ghost” (1 Thessalonians 1:6), “trial of affliction” (2 Corinthians 8:2). Hope is the Christian’s advantage (Ephesians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; Romans 5:2), and a hope that “maketh not ashamed” (Romans 5:5; Romans 8:24). To know the character of such hope is not a small matter (against Stier). Τίς points then to the character, the quality of this hope. Passow sub voce. It is therefore not=πόση, ποταπή, quanta (Stier, Olshausen, Schenkel), but qualis, cujusnam naturζ (Harless, Meyer and others). Nor is ἐλπίς=res sperata (Olshausen, Stier [Eadie] and many others), although it can mean this (Colossians 1:5 : “laid up;” Hebrews 6:18 : “set before us;” Galatians 5:5 : “wait for the hope of righteousness”), which Meyer [with Ellicott] denies. It is inconceivable that κλῆσις should be=those called (Schuetze). Luther renders: “your calling,” putting the effect for the cause: “his calling.” [With Alford, Eadie, and Ellicott it is better to take τίς in the simple meaning “what,” quζ (Vulgate), without referring either to quality or quantity. As regards “hope,” the objective sense must be admitted in the N. T., but the bald res sperata does not express the signification here. Alford thinks the controversy mere trifling: “If I know what the hope is, I know both its essence and its accidents.” Even Ellicott admits an objective aspect: “the grounds, the state of the hope.” Hodge supports the subjective sense. On κλῆσις, see Romans, pp. 280, 281.—R.] What the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints [τίςὁ πλοῦτοςτῆςδόξηςτῆςκληρονομίαςαὐτοῦ ἐντοῖςἀγίοις].—The second object of the insight is the object of the Christian hope, the inheritance, to which “the calling of God” helps us, hence “His:” He gives it, it is from His own. As Divine, eternal life, participation in the kingdom of God, heirship with Christ (God Himself is our portion), it has a “glory” and this glory has “riches,” so that it is an important object for our more profound observation. So Colossians 1:27 : “the riches of the glory of this mystery.” It is a weakening of the ideas, to resolve these substantives into objectives: what is the riches of the glorious inheritance (Luther), or: what is the glorious riches of His inheritance (Stier). [As Meyer well says: “What a rich, sublime cumulation, setting forth in like terms the weightiness of the matters described;—and not to be diluted by any resolving of the genitives into adjectives.”—R.] “In the saints” is added after “His inheritance,” without the article (τῆςἐντοῖςἁγιόις), and hence conceived of as most closely connected with his inheritance, which is to be found in (Luther: an) and among the saints, the called Christians not outside of them. So Romans 9:3 : “my kinsmen according to the flesh;” 2 Corinthians 7:7 : τὸνὑμῶνζῆλονὑπὲρἐμοῦ Comp. Colossians 1:12 (εἰςτὴνμερίδατοῦ κλήρουτῶνἁγίωνἐνφωτί); Acts 20:32 (δοῦναιτὴνκληρονομίανἐντοῖςἡλιασμέουοιςπᾶσιν); Acts 26:18. The Apostle does not say “in you,” “us,” but states it altogether objectively in humility and wisdom. He speaks indeed of the inheritance of God in Christians, but not of the glory of the portion, nor its riches in the saints, so that we must understand here chiefly the children of God, who are partakers of the inheritance (Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 1:14), even though only in its incipient stages; “the riches of the glory” become indeed perceptible even here, but unfold themselves fully only in eternity, which is the more to be included, since here and hereafter are less divided than light and darkness. Accordingly we are not to consider the object of the inheritance to be principally and solely the present kingdom of God on earth (Harless), or on the other hand the future kingdom of God to be established at the second Advent (Meyer); nor is the connection of ἐντοῖςάγίοις with an ἐστιν to be supplied (Koppe and others) possible, since not ὁ πλοῦτος, but only κληρονομία, is in, on and among the saints. To join αὐτοῦ with ἐντοῖςἁγίοις (Stier) is inadmissible, because far-fetched. The reference is not to the totality of morally good beings in the other world (Rueckert), or in the holiest of all (Calovius), as Hebrews 9:12; nor should prominence be given to the thought, as inhering in the text: God inherits the saints (Meyer, �ttinger, Stier), although they belong to Him, and He to them. This is the carrying out, extension and expansion of the thought, but not an exegesis of the words set before us. Ephesians 1:19. And what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe [καὶ τίτὸ ὑπερβάλλονμέγεθοςτῆςδυνάμεωςαὑτοῦ εἰςἡμᾶςτοὺςπιστεύοντας.]—The third object of the insight is the power of God, which leads from the calling to the inheritance. The “exceeding greatness” of this power is a worthy object of profound insight (2 Corinthians 4:7 : ὐπερβολὴ τῆςδυνάμεως); it must and can also be experienced, since it makes itself felt “to us-ward,” to those “who believe” in the present, hence, without limiting the circle of those who believe, or passing beyond it, not to all in general, but only to those who admit and consent to this condition appointed by God. Since the preposition designates the direction towards the believers, and the present participle the present time, and the article before the participle marks that word as the ground, condition of the activity (Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:23), and since only experiences of the power of God are spoken of, from which “the exceeding greatness” is to be inferred, we must here hold fast to the proofs in this earthly life (Chrysostom or to Harless, Stier), and not apply it to the future (Meyer, Schenkel, who however adds, that the beginning of the consummation manifests itself in this life).According to the working of the might Of his Strength, κατάτὴνἐνέργειαντοῦ κράτουςτῆςἰσχύοςαὐτοῦ.—In this collocation of words the proper subject is ἰσχύς, as δύναμις just before, giving prominence to a characteristic, the strength (ἰσχύς from ἵς =seat of elasticity, sinew, muscle, nape of the neck, stem of a tree, hence vis); δύναμις is brachium divinum, ἰσχύς its muscles; κράτος is the power manifesting itself, the ἐξουσία, which rules (κρατεῖ); ἐνέργεια (ἐνἔργῳ), efficacia (Erasmus), the actual efficiency (Harless). So Bengel, Calvin: robur est quasi radix, potentia autem arbor, efficacia fructus. There is no chance throwing together of words, but an order corresponding to the thought: regard is to be paid chiefly to the efficacy, the effects, in which the power of God’s strength allows itself to be perceived and felt. [The language is intended to exalt our ideas of God’s power in connection with this “eminent act of His omnipotency.”—R.] Κατά with the accusative juxta, secundum, according to, thus designating the norm and standard as well as the motive and occasion (Winer, p. 375 f.). Comp. Ephesians 4:7; Ephesians 1:5, and κατὰνομον (Luke 2:22), κατὰ χάριν (Romans 4:4). The two notions, “according to” and “by virtue of” are related (1 Corinthians 12:8-9). The simplest connection and that most readily understood by the hearer, is that with “us who believe.” We believe only by virtue of the efficacy of the power of God in Christ and upon our souls. [The meaning of the preposition is something less than propter and something more than according to. On the connection see below.—R.] So Chrysostom, who truly and beautifully says: τοῦ ἀναστῆσαινεκρὸνπολλῷ θαυμασιώτεροντὸ πεῖσαιψυχάς. Just on this account, because we believe only by virtue of the efficacy of God’s power, which has enough obstacles to faith to overcome in us, we can understand, how great the power of God is. Since believing is not a momentary affair, but a status, preserved by the same power, which produced it, the aorist participle πιστεύσαντες is not necessary (Bleek), and no room is given for the monstrous thought, that faith according to the power of God is spoken of. It is inadmissible to connect, either with the verb ἐστι which is understood, or with “the exceeding greatness” (Schenkel), or with all the points introduced by “what” (Harless), or with “may know” (Meyer). [Dr. Hodge also defends the connection of this clause with πιστεύοντας, but it is doubtful whether this is correct. For though undoubtedly expressing a truth, yet it places the rest of the chapter in grammatical dependence on an incidental idea. It has also a suspicion of polemical purpose (against Pelagianism) attached to it, besides pressing too strongly on κατά the sense of “in virtue of.” It is better then with De Wette, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford and others, to accept a reference which Braune does not mention, viz.: to the whole preceding clause: “not however as an explanation (Chrys.) or an amplification (Calv.) of this power, but in accordance with the full ethical force of κατά, as a definition of its mode of operation (Eadie), a mighty measure, a stupendous exemplar by which its infinite powers towards the believing, in its future, yea, and its present manifestations, might be felt, acknowledged, estimated and realized” (Ellicott).—R.] The Apostle’s petition as to its ground. Ephesians 1:20-23. Ephesians 1:20. Which he hath wrought in Christ—Ἠνἐνέργησεν, analogous to ἀγάπηνἀγαπᾷν, Ephesians 2:4, is to be referred to ἐνέργειαν. Winer, p. 210. [The cognate accusative]. Nor is ἐντῷ Χριστῷ, without a reference to εἰςἡμας, Ephesians 1:19 : in Christ is accomplished that efficacy of God, which is powerful toward us. [“In Him” as our spiritual Head (Ellicott and others).—R.] In raising him from the dead, ἐγείραςαὐτὸνἐκνεκρῶν, marks a fact of his working. [The aorist indicates that the act is contemporaneous with that of the preceding verb. Alford justly warns against the danger of regarding, “with the shallower expositors, Christ’s resurrection as merely a pledge of our bodily resurrection, or as a mere figure representing our spiritual resurrection,—not as involving the resurrection of the church in both senses.” Both Hodge and Eadie fall somewhat short of the full conception thus expressed.—R.] And making him sit at his own right hand in the heavenly places [καὶ καθίσαςἐνδεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις].—Thus the exaltation, beginning with the resurrection, was completed (1 Peter 3:21 ff.). Instead of the better supported participle, ἐκάθισεν has been generally substituted, because the Greeks disliked the spinning out of long relative and participial sentences, and easily passed over into the finite verb (Winer, p. 533, b.). Ἐνδεξιᾷαὑτοῦ denotes the participation in dominion, the σύνθρονος of the Father (Mark 16:19.; Romans 8:34; Acts 7:55; Philippians 3:20 f.; Matthew 20:21; Mark 10:37). Comp. also 1 Samuel 10:25; 1 Kings 2:19, in the earthly relations, which are transferred to Christ, Psalms 110:1. The phrase ἐντοῖςἐ πουρανίοις (see on Ephesians 1:3), which is the antithesis of ἐκνεκρῶν, designates space, or as Hofmann [Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 334) intimates, the relation to the world; ἐνδεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ distinguishes Him from spirits, ἐνἐπουρανίοις locates Him and them alike. We may with as little right understand here the status c�lestis (Harless and others) as the central place of Divine glory and revelation, the highest, inmost heaven (Stier, Schenkel), since the word is used of Satan also (Ephesians 6:11-12). [The various local expressions used in the context seem decisive as to the meaning of ἐπουρανίοις. It refers to heavenly places, is more indefinite than ἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς, but was chosen here probably on account of the details in Ephesians 1:21 (Ellicott).—Alford reminds us, that “the fact of the universal idea of God’s dwelling being in heaven, being only a symbolism common to all men, must, not for a moment induce us to let go the verity of Christ’s bodily existence, or to explain away the glories of His resurrection into mere spiritualities. As Stephen saw Him, so He veritably is: in human form, locally existent, over above,” etc.—R.] Ephesians 1:21. Over above all principality, and power, and might, and lordship, and every name that is named [ὑπεράνωπάσηςἀρχῆςκαὶ ἐξουσίαςκαὶ δυνάμεωςκαὶ κυριότητοςκαὶ παντὸςὀνόματοςὀνομαζομένον].—The word ὑπεράνω (Ephesians 4:10 : πάντωντῶνοὐρανῶν; Hebrews 9:5), the opposite of ὑποκάτω (κλίνης, Luke 8:16; τῆςσυκῆς, John 1:51; τῶνποδῶν, Mark 6:11; Matthew 22:44; Revelation 12:1), can only mean “over, above” [so Ellicott, Alford] without marking any particular eminence, Greek Fathers, Beza, Estius [Eadie] or dominion (Bengel), although the latter inheres in the nature of the case (Meyer). It is to be connected with “setting,” and with its genitives (“all principality,” etc.) forms the detailed description and explanation of the phrase, “at his right hand in the heavenly places;” the two belong together, the first being more closely defined by the second. Of these four names the first three occur in the same order in 1 Corinthians 15:24, the first two occur in our Epistle, Ephesians 3:10, and in Colossians 1:16, after εἴτεθρόνοιεἴτεκυριότητες, joined with εἴτε also and in the same order, in 1 Peter 3:22 : ὑποταγέντωναὐτῷ ἀγγέλωνκαὶ ἐξουσιῶνκαὶ δυνάμεων. On the other hand in Romans 8:33 : ἄγγελοι and ἀρχαί, like ζωή and θάνατος, δύναμις, ὕψωμα and βάθος, are contrasted with each other by οὔτε—οὔτε; so that we can infer nothing thence respecting our passage. A certain consistency is noticeable in the use of these words. Besides the reference to angels is quite obvious, being required here by the context, especially ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις. Calvin. Cur non simpliciter nominavit angelos? Respondeo, amplificandζ Christi gloriζ causa Paulum exaggerasse hos titulos, ac si diceret; nihil est tam sublime aut excelsum, quocunque nomine censeatur, quod non subjectum sit Christi majestati. According to Hofmann (Schriftbeweis; I. p. 34) we cannot understand here a climax descendens (Meyer, Stier). These designations for the world of angels were given through the higher position of the angels as the messengers of God (Psalms 103:20 f.; Hebrews 1:6 f., 13 f.), as holy (Psalms 89:5; Daniel 8:13). Since the context points to the resurrection of Christ, the Crucified, and His exaltation to a participation in the government of the world, as a fact, in which we see the efficiency of God, according to which He works on us also, in order to make us His children and heirs of His glory, we may well apply these terms to good as well as bad angels, aye, we can scarcely limit the reference to the angels, who reach also into this world, the αἰὼνοὗτος, especially as both πάσης and the concluding phrase “every name that is named,” which corresponds entirely with “nor any other creature” (Romans 8:38), warrant an unbounded extension, limited only to power and might. Harless only concedes this, preferring however the reference to good angels alone, as does Meyer, who then refers “name” to every thing created. In such universality is the passage understood by Erasmus, Rueckert, Stier [Alford] and others. With Stier we must understand under the first four designations, personalities, not merely principles, forces, factors, recognizing them in “every name that is named,” the transition to the impersonal (τὰ πάντα). Accordingly the following views are to be rejected: the reference to devils alone (Scholz), to Jewish hierarchs (Schφttgen), to heathen (Van Till) human potentates (Morus); the affirmation of a polemical purpose, not at all indicated, against angel-worship (Bucer, Estius, Hug), or a preservative purpose against possible infection through false gnosis (Olshausen [Hodge, though not decidedly]); also every attempt to define the different grades of these groups of angels, and the explanation of “name” as a summing up of a nomen dignitatis potentiζve (Erasmus and others); it is not even to be limited to names of “such a character” (Harless). [It is on some accounts safest to take the four terms here introduced in the widest, most indefinite sense. Still it would seem best, if any limitation is made to refer the words to good angels alone, including of course under that term all created heavenly intelligences. The prevailing reference in these words is to angelic powers, to good (Ephesians 3:10; Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:10) and bad (Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 15:24; comp. Romans 8:38) alike. The preceding local definition would not exclude the latter, as Christ is placed “over above” all these (besides ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις is apparently applicable to bad angels also, Ephesians 6:12). But the “verse relates to Christ’s exaltation in heaven rather than His victory over the powers of hell.” Then without; attempting any closer definition of these classes, we may still admit a descensive order throughout: First the Exalted One, then the various gradations of heavenly Intelligence, then “every name that is named,” a view which is favored by the apparent regularity in the order (comp. Colossians 1:16). “Every name that is named” includes more than persons, in this view, more than titles of honor: Every thing which can bear a name. No less comprehensive sense seems admissible.—Alford accepts the most universal reference for the four terms under discussion, but adopts rather too abstract a sense.—Ellicott refers to the list of authors in Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, § 131.—R.] Not only in this world, but also in that which is to come [οὐ μόνονἐντῶ αἰῶνιτούτωἀλλὰ καὶ ἐντῷ μέλλοντι].—This qualifies “named,” establishing the pre-eminence of Christ above all that is ever named in both this world and that to come. Beza: prζstantiam non esse temporariam, sed ζternam. We find a parallel in “things present,” “things to come” (Romans 8:38). Yet the expression here is not purely=now and hereafter [Hodge], but designates the present time as the first age, disappearing in the transition to the future glory, the future as the eternal glory beginning with the return of Christ. Paul takes the reference to time from the system of the world ruling in each period, thinking at once of pre-messianic and post-messianic, terrestrial and celestial worlds. Excellent, but rather abrupt is Bengel’s remark: αῖών denotat hic non tempus, sed systema rerum et operum suo tempore revelatum et permanens. It is then=always (Harless) with respect to this institution of the history of salvation (Stier). Comp. my remarks on αἰὼνοῦ ?̓τος and μέλλων, Biblework, 1 John 2:18, p. 73 f. The connection with καθίσας (Calvin and others) is incorrect and also the remark of Bengel, following Chrysostom: “Imperia, potestas, etc., sunt in futuro, sed tamen nominantur etiam in seculo hoc; at ea quoque, quζ in prζsenti ne nominantur quidem, sed in futuro demum nobis nomine et re patefient, Christo subjecta sunt,” Ephesians 1:22. And subjected all things under his feet [καὶ πάνταὑπέταξενὑπὸ τοῦςποδαςαὐτοῦ ?]—Even if we retain the participle in Ephesians 1:20, we must here accept the transition from the participle to the finite verb. The words themselves are not difficult. Evidently, and in this the advance of thought consists, πάντα, “all things,” is to be applied to all that is created, and ὑπέταξεν, “subjected,” with its closer definition, refers of itself as well as on account of Psa 8:6 (comp. Ephesians 3:6) to conflict and opposition, which was suggested already by the passage (Psalms 110:1) evidently in mind in Ephesians 1:20 : “set him at his own right hand.” The Lord Himself had quoted Psalms 8:3. The same Psalm (Ephesians 1:6) is used with special emphasis in 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 2:6-8. Should the Psalm refer to the glory of the first Adam (Genesis 1:26-28) and its restoration, as is definitely indicated in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Ephesians 2:6-8), then we must suppose here, that Paul is led by such thoughts to the use of this passage, especially as the context requires it, treating as it does of what shall occur to us, in accordance with what has occurred to Christ. Dominium nunc illi uni (Christo) tribui potest, quandoquidem per Adamum primum potestatem dignitatemque a Deo concessam nostrum genus amisit (Peter Martyr). There is therefore no tautological repetition here, but from above descensively the Apostle marks, after a sketch of the dignity of Christ (Schenkel), the sovereignty, which subjects all things, even the unconscious creation (Olshausen). This representation is not merely emphatic, or only a reminiscence (Meyer), but καὶ τὴνπροφητικὴνἐπήγαγεμαρτυρίαν (Theodoret). So Harless and Stier in the main. [The notion of opposition should not be too “strongly pressed, though it is undoubtedly implied. As regards the allusion or citation from Psalms 8:6, if it be regarded as a mere allusion the difficulty disappears; if it be a veritable citation, then we must adopt one of two conclusions: either the Psalm is in a certain sense Messianic, or Paul quotes in the accommodating manner which virtually destroys any specific meaning the Scriptures have. I prefer to adopt the former alternative, little fearing that too many Psalms will be accepted as Messianic. Paul’s allusion is due “to a direct reference under the guidance of the Spirit to a passage in the O. T. which in its primary application to man involves a secondary and more profound application to Christ. In the grant of terrestrial sovereignty the Psalmist saw and felt the antitypical mystery of man’s future exaltation in Christ” (Ellicott).—R.] And gave him to be the head over all things to the church [καὶ αὐτὸνἔδωκενκεφαλὴνὑπὲρπάντατῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ?].—Thus is set forth the office (Schenkel) of Christ, and the sphere of His efficiency. Αὐτὸν is in emphatic position, Him. Such an one, thus placed [thus exalted, thus glorified]. We must regard Him too as a gift, a present. Διδόναι is not=τιθέναι. the Apostle might otherwise have said ἔθηκεν or κατέστησεν; it is quite different in 1 Corinthians 12:28 : “And God hath set (ἔθετο) some in the church.” He gave Him to be “Head over all things-to the church.” We say with equal exactness: He gave Him to be Head, or as Head for the Church. As Head! not as καρδιά, but as κεφαλή. In the head lies the organizing power. Schubert (Geschichte der Seele, p. 163) describes the relation of head and body “as a figure of a love, descending from above to beneath, grasping and moving the corporeal, and of a longing rising from below to above, the work of which it is, to constantly transform the lower nature of that which longs into the higher nature of that which is longed for.” Martin Boos boldly says: “Christ dwelling in our humanity is as active as in that which He assumed from Mary.” Gerlach beautifully says: “At once Ruler and Member of His Body.” “Head” designates elsewhere superiority also (1 Corinthians 11:3). The qualifying phrase “over all” is governed by “gave him to be head,” and marks the might (ὑπὲρ) of this Head; πάντα is all without limitation, He is Head over all—to the church, to Christendom; “Head” is not to be supplied again (Meyer). The presence κεφαλὴνὑπὲρπάντα between ἔδωκεν and τῆἐκκλησίᾳ does not at all alter the construction (against Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 117). The sense is precisely this: “Christ is such a Head of the Church, that He is for all that the Lord over all, over devils, world, etc.” (Luther). The whole economy of Creation stands at His disposal as the basis and sphere of activity for the economy of redemption (Beck). Accordingly ὑπὲρπάντα is not to be joined per trajectionem to αὐτόν (Syriac, Greek fathers, Erasmus and others), nor is ὑπὲρπάντα to be taken as meaning: above all the good which God has given stands this that He gave Christ as Head of the Church (Chrysostom), nor is it=prζcipue, μάλισταπάντων (Baumgarten), nor=ὑπερέχουσαπάντων, caput summum (Beza, Rueckert: Oberhaupt, Olsh.: the prophets also were heads); nor are we to understand it of bona virtutum (Anselm), or dona gratiζ, nor is “the natural limitation to be found in τῇ ἐκκλησία” and this dative taken as in commodum ecclesiζ, for the Church (Harless). It is altogether unwarrantable to take the neuter for the masculine (Jerome, Wahl). [The view of Braune is in the main that of modern English commentators. We must reject any sense of the verb but the simple one of “give,” since the dative follows. Christ is given to the church—and given as Head, for the next clause renders this view imperative. The only trouble then is with “over all things;” what is His relation to them? Evidently that of Head also. No other view is admissible exegetically; the question becoming thus a purely grammatical one: Shall we accept a brachyology and understand a second κεφαλήν before τῇ ἐκκλησία (Meyer, Stier, Hodge approvingly): “gave Him the Head over all things (to be the Head) to the church,” or take κεφαλήν as a species of tertiary predicate (Alford, Eadie, Ellicott): “gave Him as Head over all things to the Church.” The latter seems to be Braune’s view, and is certainly the simpler grammatically. Nor does it throw out of view the grand thought that Christ is Head of the Church. Alford: “Christ is Head over all things: the Church is the Body of Christ, and as such is the fulness of Him who fills all with all: the Head of such a Body, is Head over all things; therefore when God gives Christ as Head to the Church, He gives Him as Head over all things to the Church, from the necessity of the case.”—R.] The choice of the word ἐκκλησία for the Christian Church (Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 3:21; Ephesians 5:23; Ephesians 5:25; Ephesians 5:27; Ephesians 5:29; Ephesians 5:32; Philippians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 6:4; 1 Corinthians 12:28) is very apt. Gerhard (Loc. ed, Cotta. x. 3, 20): Chemnitius notat σύγκλησιν de primoribus, magnatibus, consulibus et eorum conventu, διάκλησιν de colluvie promiscuζ multitudinis quando fit congregatio ab agris, ἐκκλησίαν vero de civibus, quando σύνοδοςτῶνκατὰ τὴνπόλιν celebratur, eorum scilicet, qui certis legibus sibi devincti unius reipublicζ cives sunt. Appellatio igitur ecclesiζ ad populum Dei translata ostendit, ecclesiam Dei non esse colluviem promiscuζ multitudinis, sed eorum, qui certis legibus a Deo vocati et sibi invicem sunt obstricti. Athenis erant usitati duplices conventus, ἐκκλησίαι et ἀγοραί vel ἀγοραίαι. Illζ significabant conventus ordinatos, quando universitas civium, eorum scilicet, qui jus civitatis habebant, ordine, justo, a magistratu convocati congregabantur; hζ vero significabant congregationes promiscuas et inordinatas, quando promiscua multitudo hominum in civitatibus et oppidis sine observatione ordinis in unum coibat.—Appellationi igitur ecclesiζ ad populum Dei translatζ inest significatio εὐταξίαςκαὶ εὐνουίας, qualis est in aristocratia civili, cui opponitur δημοκρατία, ἀκαταστασίαςκαὶ ἀταξίας plenissima.—Ut civitas non consistit ex medico et medico, aut ex rustico et rustico, sed ex medico et rustico, sicut Aristoteles in ethicis loquitur, ita quoque ecclesia non constat ex pastore et pastore seu ex auditore et auditore, sed ex docentibus et discentibus, atque inter ipsos auditores sunt varii vitζ status atque ordines.Accordingly the ἐκκλησία has two main features in it, one the ordained unity and the other the calling, which includes in itself a separating out (ἐκλέγεσθαι) from the world not yet called or rejecting the call, and which is consummated through intellectual means. See further under Doctr. Note 5. Ephesians 1:23. Which is his body, ῆτιςἐστὶντὸ σῶμααὐτοῦ ?—The pronoun ὅστις has an “explanatory element,” introducing the statement of a reason, and is=the old German als welcher, “as which.” So Romans 2:15 : οἵτινες=ut qui (Beza), qui quidem ostendant (Castalio); Luther renders it quite well: damit dass sie beweisen, and here: welche da ist. [Alford: which same; Eadie, Ellicott: which indeed. Meyer: “ut quζ, defining the attribute as belonging to the being of the church”—is perhaps too strong—though true enough.—R.] He is the Head of the church, since it is His Body, τὸ σῶμααὐτοῦ (Ephesians 2:16; Ephesians 4:4; Ephesians 4:12; Ephesians 4:16; Ephesians 5:23; Ephesians 5:30; Colossians 1:18; Colossians 1:24; Colossians 2:19; Colossians 3:15; Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Corinthians 12:27). From this citation of passages, in all of which this view of the Apostle is contained, the frequency of the figure, especially in this Epistle, may be seen. The membership making up the whole, the indispensableness of Christ and the vital fellowship with Him are marked. We must also remember, that here, on account of the ἥτις, only that is treated of, which the church is and has in Christ, and not what He has in it; this is only an inference, though a correct one, and remains in the background, should it enter at all. [The questions, what constitutes the church? who are true members of the true church? do not enter here; but that Paul here teaches a mystical union, above and beyond any federal or representative union, or ethical union of thought and feeling, seems perfectly clear. We call this a figure, but is it not the reality, and the organic unity of the body the figure? Really and truly the church is the body of Christ, and out of this truth spring many lessons respecting our personal union with Christ. Alford: “It is veritably His body: not that which in our glorified humanity He personally bears, but that in which He, as the Christ of God, is manifested and glorified by spiritual organization. He is its Head; from Him comes its life; in Him, it is exalted; in it, He is lived forth and witnessed to; He possesses nothing for Himself,—neither His communion with the Father, nor His fulness of the Spirit, nor His glorified humanity,—but all for His Church, which is in the innermost reality, Himself.” Comp. Colossians 1:24, which admits of no satisfactory explanation, unless we accept the fact that the Apostle was conscious of such a union as this.—R.] The fulness of him who filleth all in all [τὸ πλήρωματοῦ τὰ πάνταἐνπᾶσινπληρουμένου.]—As respects syntax, this is the intrusion of an apposition, forming a parallel clause, in order to express without a figure, what has just been figuratively explained: “fullness” corresponds to “body,” “of Him filling all in all” to “His.” On πλήρωμα, comp. Ephesians 1:10 and Passow sub voce. Words ending in—μός as a rule represent the abstract action of the verb, those in—μα the concrete effect, so “that they are for the most part equivalent to the perfect participle passive” (Buttmann), like πρᾶγμα, σπέρμα, κήρυγμα, especially here σῶμα (id quod σώζεται). The word is not=πλήρωσις, the act of filling, but is to be taken in the passive sense: all that, or with which any thing is filled, the fulness. So here. [This simple passive sense is adopted by Fritzsche, De Wette, Olshausen, Stier, Meyer, and by Alford, Eadie, Ellicott (“that which is filled, the filled-up receptacle).” As the word was a favorite among the Gnostics (in after times however), so it has been a favorite plaything with commentators since, who have thrown not a little confusion upon its meaning. The simple passive sense is the most natural one; though perhaps not the most usual one, it is certainly allowable. The active sense, the filling up is adopted by Harless, who says there is no other sense used in the New Testament, in which view Hodge seems to acquiesce. But what is meant by the active sense: implendi actionem, or id quod res impletur? Ellicott speaks of the latter as passive, while Hodge evidently regards it as active (so Braune apparently under 2 below). Alford deems it a transition from the abstract sense, denying any active sense to such nouns, but saying that what is thus termed is “a logical transference from the effect to that which exemplifies the effect.” From this it is evident how impossible it is to speak intelligibly about the word in its active and passive senses, until this meaning: that by which any thing is filled, is properly labelled. That is the work of the grammarian, yet it is evident that it is active or passive, according to the point of view: “whether one thinks first of the container, and then of the contained, or the reverse.” Harless and Hodge are not justified in saying that the word is always used actively in the New Testament, though this sense is a common one. It would give here the meaning complement, or supplement, which seems appropriate in view of the figure of Head and Body. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B. The extent and mission of the church Ephesians 2:1-221. Reminder of the previous condition of death and the glorious new creation(Ephesians 2:1-10.)1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins [You also who were dead in your trespasses and your sins]; 2Wherein in time past ye [Wherein ye once] walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power [or powers] of the air, [of] the spirit that [which] now worketh in the children [sons] of disobedience: 3Among whom also [even] we all had our conversation [way of life] in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires [doing the wishes] of the flesh and of the mind [thoughts]; and [we] were by nature the children of wrath, even as others [the rest:—]. 4But God, who is [being] rich in mercy, for [because of] his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins [our trespasses], hath [omit hath] quickened us together with Christ, 6(by grace ye are [have been] saved;) And hath [omit hath] raised us up together [with Him], and made us sit together [with Him] in [the] heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7That in the ages to come he might shew [That he might shew forth in the ages which are to come] the exceeding riches of his grace, in his [omit his] kindness toward us, through [toward us in] Christ Jesus. 8For by grace are ye 9[have ye been] saved through faith it is the gift of God [the gift is God’s]. Not; of works, lest any [that no] man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship [his handiwork are we], created in Christ Jesus unto [for] good works, which God hath before ordained [God before prepared] we should walk in them. AND Connection and Summary.—After the Apostle has been led, by his petition for enlightenment respecting the glory purposed from eternity and already begun, to the carrying out of this purpose in the Church of Christ, the Body of which He is the Head, and in such a manner too, that Ephesians 1:23, “so grand and solemn in matter and in manner,” is adapted to form “a full-toned conclusion” (Meyer), his look is again turned to his readers to notice the “mighty working of the Father, through the resurrection and ascension of the Son, done once for all, and yet taking place in every one called into the Church” (Stier). First of all he is moved by “a glance at the similar condition of death in the case of the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:1-2) and of the Jews (Ephesians 2:3)” (Stier) and then by the thought of God, who out of mercy has quickened and blessed the wretched in, with and through Christ (Ephesians 2:4-7): of grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), new-creating in Christ (Ephesians 2:10)! [Braune, as will be seen below, arranges this section into paragraphs: Ephesians 2:1-3, the condition of death out of Christ; Ephesians 2:4, the Deliverer; Ephesians 2:5-6, the deliverance; Ephesians 2:7, the purpose; Ephesians 2:8-10, the means of bringing about the deliverance.—Hodge, who is always clear in his analysis, finds three principal topics treated of in this section:—(1) The spiritual state of the Ephesians before their conversion, Ephesians 2:1-3. (2) The change which God had wrought in them, Ephesians 2:4-6. (3) The design for which that change had been effected, Ephesians 2:7-10. He then enters into details.—Alford: “The power of the Father in quickening us, both Gentiles and Jews, in and with Christ (1–6); His purpose in manifesting this power (7); inference respecting the method of our salvation.” This follows Stier’s view, who refers the preceding clause to God.—R.] Hence the connection of the beginning of this chapter (καὶ ὑμᾶςσυνεζωποίησε, Ephesians 2:5) with “wrought” (Ephesians 1:20, Bengel) or “gave” (Ephesians 1:22, Harless) is inadmissible. Nor is καὶ ὄνταςὑμᾶς to be joined with εἰςἡμᾶςτοὺςπιστεύοντας (Ephesians 1:19, Knatchbull and others) or with πληρουμένου (Ephesians 1:23, Calovius, Koppe and others); nor is it necessary to complain here again, that a well-continued thread of discourse can scarcely be found in this Epistle (Rueckert). Although these grammatical connections are to be rejected, there is still an internal relation: as the petition (Ephesians 1:15-19) passed over into the typical and consolatory view of the exaltation of Christ, this section by applying this to the readers in effect continues the subject. The condition of death out of Christ (Ephesians 2:1-3) The construction is not easy at first sight, but otherwise regular: καὶ ὑμαςὄντας (Ephesians 2:1)—ὁ θεός (Ephesians 2:4)—συςεζωοποίνσεν (Ephesians 2:5). The expansion of the object (Ephesians 2:1-3), alone occasions the beginning of a new sentence (Ephesians 2:4), as ὁ δὲθεός shows, indicating as do autem, inquam the epanalepsis (Winer, p. 412); in consequence the object already described (Ephesians 2:1-3) is again repeated in briefer statement (Ephesians 2:5). So Theophylact and most ancient and modern expositors. [Ellicott thus states the same view: “Ephesians 2:1, after having its structure interrupted by the two relatival sentences, Ephesians 2:2-3, is renewed in Ephesians 2:4 (not Ephesians 2:5, Schott) by means of δέ resumptive (Herm. Viger, No. 544), and there further elucidated by the interpolated nominative Θεός, expanded in application by the more comprehensive ἡμᾶς, and concluded in Ephesians 2:5.”—Hodge (more popularly, but less exactly): “He dwells so long, in Ephesians 2:2-4, on the natural state of the Ephesians, that he is obliged, in Ephesians 2:5, to repeat substantially the beginning of Eph 2:1, in order to complete the sentence there commenced.” The objection to the E. V.: hath he quickened, aside from the wrong tense, is that “he” has no antecedent, if Ephesians 2:23 refers to Christ, within reasonable distance.—R.] Ephesians 2:1. You also, καὶ ὑμᾶς, applies the discourse to the readers, without opposing ὑμᾶς to any others, than the genus, the whole church, as members of which they here come into special consideration, since they also have experienced, what has been experienced by the whole, and are a proof of the truth before uttered. [In rendering καὶ ὑμᾶς, “you also,” it is not implied that they are contrasted with other Christians; it is chosen rather to avoid the simple connection with what precedes which is expressed by “and you,” and to give prominence to the word “you;” not thus introducing “a special exemplification of the general act of grace in Ephesians 2:23,” but implying a parallelism between the physical death in the case of Christ and the spiritual death in their case, as indeed the governing verb συνεζωοποίησεν (Ephesians 2:5) suggests.—R.] Who were dead in your trespasses and your sins, [ὄνταςνεκροὺςτοῖςπαραπτώμασικαὶ ταῖςἁμαρτίαιςὑμῶν. See Textual Note1].—Ὄντας, depending on συνεζωοποίησε, in view of the ποτέ occurring in the subsequent relative clause, is evidently=cumeratis (Bengel), the condition in which God found them, when He quickened them (Meyer). They were dead through sins; the dative is ablatival, marking the causa efficiens (Grotius, Meyer). Hence it is not equivalent to νεκροὶ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (Romans 6:11), ye are dead for sin (Cajetan), nor with Grotius=ἐντοῖςπαραπτώμασι (Colossians 2:13, the parallel passage, in which the status, the element is emphasized).That Paul makes a distinction between παράπτωμα and ἁμαρτία, and what it is, is shown in Romans 5:12-19. There the sin of Adam is termed τὸ τοῦ ἑνὸςπαράπτωμα (Ephesians 2:15; Ephesians 2:17-18) or παρακοή (Ephesians 2:19), and through one man ἡ ἁμαρτία has come into the world (Ephesians 2:12). Comp. Romans 5:20 with Romans 7:10-13. Παράπτωμα is applicable to the first sin of the seduced first man; the idea of misdeed is contained in it, of a deed not considered, temere commissum, i.e., a nolente facere injuriam, while ἁμαρτία, with its manifestations αἱ αμαρτίαι reaches further and deeper (Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 45 ff.). There is here an ascent from desertio boni to perpetratio mali (Augustine). To this view approximate Harless [Hodge] (actual sins and manifestations of sin in word, deed or otherwise), Olshausen (actions of sin and the more internal sinful motions of the soul in desires and words), Jerome (delicta cogitatione inchoata and actual sins). The distinction: the mental errors and obscurations, the moral sins and vices (Matthies), is unfounded; neither should we apply the former to the Jews and the latter to the Gentiles (Bengel), nor with Stier first think of the law of the State, of the conscience, well-known to the heathen also, and then of the outbreaks of corruption itself. We may not, however, take the two as purely synonymous (Koppe), or deny a real distinction by affirming merely a two-fold representation, fall and transgression (Meyer).—The article points to the sins committed by the readers, Romans 5:12 : ἐφʼ ? ᾦ πάντεςἥμαρτον. Hence ὑμῶν is an unnecessary explanatory gloss. [It is to be retained on diplomatic and critical grounds, but does not affect the sense.—R.] Under νεκροί we should understand the dead, made dead; it recalls ἐκνεκρῶν (Ephesians 1:20); Christians are no longer dead. But the natural sinful condition, according to the Scripture from Genesis 2:17 on, is really a death, because it is without life from and in God (Ephesians 4:18). It is therefore not=miserable (Koppe and others), nor does it refer to physical death, as though it were equivalent to certo morituri (Meyer), which does not spare them now. Spiritual death alone is spoken of, since God is the source of life (Psalms 36:10) and without Him men are in the shadow of-death (Matthew 4:16; Luke 1:79; Matthew 8:22; Luke 15:24; Luke 15:32; Romans 7:9-10). So nearly all expositors. [No weakening of the sense is admissible; comp. Doctr. Note 3, d.—R.] Ephesians 2:2. Wherein ye once walked [ἐναἶςποτὲ περιεπατήσατε].—Ἐναῖ ?̓ς, which connects with ἁμαρτίαις, the word just preceding and forming a climax, denotes the causa of the condition of death as a developed condition, as a desired element. Ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε joined with νεκρούς is an oxymoron, like 1 Timothy 5:6 : ζῶσατέθνηκενΙΙεριπατεῖν (Ephesians 4:17; Ephesians 5:2; Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Colossians 3:7) has been transferred from the Hebrew (ημκ) and designates walking as to the mode of life (Winer, p. 32); in English it designates the being at home, having entrance and exit, having one’s doings and movements, having one’s residence (Matthew 17:22 : they abode in Galilee”). [Eadie: “The ἐν marks out the sphere or walk which they usually and continually trod, for in this sleep of death there is a strange somnambulism. Colossians 3:7.”—R.] According to the course of this world [κατὰ τὸναἰῶνατοῦ κόσμουτούτου].—Κατά now defines a relation of those walking to a power. This relation qualifies the walk more closely as one directed thereby, dependent thereon, determined thereby; “according to,” ‘ ‘by virtue of” are the two significations required here (Stier), which are combined in: corresponding to. This power is designated by τὸναἰῶνατοῦ κόσμουτούτου, “the course of this world.” This combination is peculiar, the words themselves are frequent, seeming to be used indiscriminately: 1 Corinthians 2:6 (σοφίατοῦ αἰωνοςτούτου); Ephesians 3:18 (σοφὸςἐντῷ αἰῶνιτούτῳ); Ephesians 2:19 (σοφίατοῦ κόσμουτούτου); Ephesians 1:20 (σοφίατοῦ κόσμου); John 12:31 (ὁ ἄρχωντοῦ κόσμουτούτου); 1 Corinthians 2:6 (τῶνἀρχόντωντοῦ αἰῶνοςτούτου); 2 Corinthians 4:4 (ὁ θεὸςτοῦ αἰῶνοςτούτου). But the distinction is clearly obvious. Αἰών (Passow sub voce, Harless in loco), from αΐω=ἄημι, ἄω, to breathe, is related to ψυχή, with which Homer joins it, referring to life and time (ζvum); hence also ἀπʼ ? αἰῶνος, ἀπʼ ? αἰώνων. In the New Testament the notion of time predominates, of periods of time, and the tendencies controlling them, their character, view and mode of life, their spirit. Κόσμος is the created, but fallen, apostate world, more definitely: humanity. The former may occur in the plural, the latter not. Hence Bengel is very correct: Ille hunc regit, el quasi informat; κόσμος est quiddam exterius: αἰών subtilius. “Tempus dicitur non solum physice, sed etiam moraliter, connotata qualitate hominum in eo viventium; el sic αἰών dicit longam temporum seriem, ubi ζtas mala malam ζtatem excipit.” Acts 14:16; 1 Peter 1:18. In αἰών here the notion of the tendency of time predominates, and means more what we call the course of the world than lapse (Verlauf); the course includes both the time and its character, as does αἰών also. Hence: according to, corresponding to the course of this world. The αἰών is in itself ethically indefinite, hence αἰὼνπονηρός (Galatians 1:4) and the demonstrative οὖτος or a genitive as here τοῦ κόσμουτούτου. Κόσμος is the external appearance, the external continuance of the world of men, αἰών its course, current, impulse (Stier); the latter may change, vary, in different periods, the former remains, and as the latter is estranged from God, so is this.It is incorrect to take the two words as purely synonymous, as though it were τὸνκόσμοντοῦτον (Koppe). We regard as arbitrary the view that they are=τὸναἰῶνατοῦτοντοῦ κόσμου (Rueckert), or: τὸνκόσμοντοῦ αἰῶνοςτούτου (Bretschneider). It is impossible to explain this designation from the gnostic doctrine of Ζons, and to understand the devil thereby (Semler). Luther’s rendering: Lauf [so E.V.: “course”] is more apt than: spirit of the age (Matthies), tendency of the age (Olshausen), life (Harless), duration of time (Meyer), course of time (Schenkel). According to the prince of the powers of the air [κατὰ τὸνἄρχοντατῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦ αέρος].—Here Paul evidently passes to what stands behind the course of this world, influencing it, working through it. Κατά places this clause as parallel to the preceding, and τὸνἄρχοντα refers to the master, the prince. The genitive τῆςἐξουσίας denotes the power belonging to and at the command of this prince (Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15). This power, which is to be considered as collective, is further defined by the genitive τοῦ ἀέρος, “of the air,” most closely connected with it. Ἀήρ, which in its etymology reminds us of αἰών and in its nature of πνεῦμα, is the air, the atmosphere, surrounding the earth, breathed by all, acting upon the κόσμος, the world of men, standing in many relations to and exerting great power and influence upon their life; hence the power which the prince controls, is brought into connection with “the air,” is described by “of the air,” because in this are found the place and character of the power, its medium, element, region and domain, its means and mode; the figurative and literal meanings coalesce, the air as a cosmical and pneumatic reality (Stier); we too say: it lies in the air, in the time, thus denoting a quiet, profound and powerful operation. Thus Satan with his kingdom is sharply characterized, his nature spreading widely miasmata of corrupting power, from which even those truly living can scarcely withdraw or defend themselves, miasmata from diabolical choke-damp (as in the French Revolution) even to the most refined ethereal poisons of classical, ζsthetic literature (Ephesians 6:11-12; Colossians 1:13). So �cumenius has described the devil’s power as ὑπὸ τὸνοὐρανόν, οὐχὑπὲρτὸνοὐρανόν, concluding thus: φύσιςγὰρτοῖςπνεύμασινἡ ἐναέριοςδιατριβή. We reject therefore those explanations, which take ὁ ἄρχωντῆςἐξουσίας as princeps potentissimus (Clarius), or the genitive as appositional=ὅςἐστινἐξουσία (Flatt), or cui est potestas (Erasmus and others), or as the object=imperium (Greek and Latin Fathers and others); those taking τῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦ ἀέρος as potestatis aλriζ (Syriac, Bucer and others); or those taking τοῦἀέρος only figuratively (Calvin, Beza), or=τοῦ σκότους (although we find: εσκοτίσθηὁ ἀήρ, Revelation 9:2), either tropically pro obnubilatione mentis (Cocceius, Storr, and others), or pro concreto as darkened spirits, men and bad angels (Flatt), or by metonyme, continens pro contento, the earth surrounded by the atmosphere (Hilary, Bullinger and others), or merely as the region=ἐντῷ ἀέρι (Baumgarten, not -Crusius), or only as a designation of quality=ἀέριος (A-Lapide, Calixtus and others), or referring it to the “prison,” 2 Peter 2:4 (Augustine); nor can we suppose here a remnant of rabbinical tradition (Meyer), or echoes of a Pythagorean view of the world (Meyer, Schenkel), or the influence of Alexandrian gnosis (Elsner and others). Out of such “muddy pools” or untenable speculations Paul would not have drawn his doctrine. Comp. Doctr. Note 3. [Harless and Stier are very full on this clause. The most extended comments easily accessible to the English reader will be found in Eadie, whose opinion approaches very nearly to that of Braune. The simplest explanation is that of Alford, who thinks the phrase “of the air “is drawn from “the persuasion and common parlance of mankind,” without conveying any teaching respecting demonology. In any case the genitive ἀέρος is to be regarded as a genitive, not of quality, but of place, either literal or figurative, or both, as Braune holds. Hodge, while not definitely deciding, seems to favor the untenable view, that “of the air” is=“of darkness.” Eadie: “The κόσμος of the New Testament is opposed to God, for it hates Christianity: the believer does not belong to it, for it is crucified to him and he to it. That same world may be an ideal sphere, comprehending all that is sinful in thought and pursuit—a region on the actual physical globe, but without geographical boundary—all that out-field which lies beyond the living church of Christ. And, like the material globe, this world of death-walkers has its own atmosphere, corresponding to it in character—an atmosphere in which it breathes and moves. All that animates it, gives it community of sentiment, contributes to sustain its life in death, and enables it to breathe and be, may be termed its atmosphere. Such an atmosphere belting a death-world, whose inhabitants are νεκροὶ τοῖςπαραπτώμασικαὶ ταῖςἁμαρτίαις, is really Satan’s seat. His chosen abode is the dark nebulous zone which canopies such a region of spiritual mortality, close upon its inhabitants, ever near and ever active, unseen and yet real, unfelt and yet mighty, giving to the κόσμος that ‘form and pressure’—that αἰών—which the Apostle here describes as its characteristic element.”—Comp. Stuart, Biblioth. Sacra, 1843, p. 140; Hagenbach, Stud. u. Krit. I. p. Eph 479: Cudworth, Intel. System, II. p. 664.—R.] Of the spirit, τοῦ πνεύματος, is in apposition to τῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦ ἀέρος, “of the power of the air.” While the last phrase sets forth his external dominion, the parallel phrase denotes his internal efficiency. Bengel is excellent: principium illud internum, ex quo fluunt actiones in-fidelium, oppositum spiritui fidelium filiorum Dei. It is therefore not a personality, but an influence which has become a ruling mode of thought, disposition, a πνεῦμαἐνεργοῦν (Rueckert, Stier). Comp. Winer, p. 589. Hence it is not to be joined in apposition to τὸνἄρχοντα and a hypallage accepted as in Ephesians 3:2; 2 Corinthians 3:7; Luke 8:32; Luke 22:20. So Calovius, Koppe, Rueckert; similarly Flatt. But τοῦ πνεύματος is also not dependent, on τοῦ ἀέρος, as Hofmann (Schriftbeweis I. p. 455) thinks, taking ἐξουσία in accordance with Luke 23:7 as the region of dominion, so that the air of the spirit working in the disobedient is the atmosphere formed by his nature. Nor is it to be taken collectively, just as ἐξουσίατοῦ ἀέρος is the complex of demons (Grotius and others). It is the spirit, which through its ruler, the devil, exists outside of individuals, defines them, works in them, the Spirit of the age [Zeitgeist]. [The apposition with ἐξουσίας is at all events to be accepted, with the majority of modern commentators. But here the two views present themselves: (1) the reference to the evil principle, which must be taken objectively as the article requires (Meyer, Ellicott), as Braune holds, or (2) to the aggregate character of the individual πνεύματα (Eadie, Alford). The former is open to the objection, that it represents Satan as the prince of a principle, and the latter assumes a collective sense which is quite unusual. If we accept a tacit antithesis to the Spirit of God, and remember that this spirit is here conceived of as distinct from its influence on men, (1) will be the safer view.—R.] Which now worketh, τοῦ νῦνἐνεργοῦντοσς.—This spirit is to be regarded as efficient, not as effected, affectus mundanus (Schmidt); νῦν being put in advance and “in the children of disobedience” appended for emphasis. “Now” expresses the fact that it has not ceased to work, after no longer working in them, the readers (ποτέ); it now works in the children of disobedience, subjects of its activity are not wanting; it might be explained with Olshausen by ἐντῷ αἰῶνιτούτῳ. From this danger always springs for the believers. Hence it is not: now still, ad huc (Meyer and others), nor: nunc maxime (Bengel: qui evangelium per incredulitatem spernunt, manent mancipia spiritus illius et amplius capiuntur; Stier: “more now, since accomplished redemption proffers itself”). Rueckert also, with Flatt, refers to the extraordinary, specially dangerous power of the Satanic kingdom in the age of Redemption (2 Thessalonians 2:2 ff.; 2 Corinthians 4:4). [So De Wette]. In the sons of disobedience, ἐντοῖςυἱοῖςτῆςἀπειθίας.—Thus are those designated who are οἱ ἐξἀπειθείας (comp. Romans 2:8 : οἱ ἐξἀριθείας), who are dependent on, springing from, nourished by disobedience, as Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6. It is a Hebraistic expression. [It marks “the essential and innate disobedience of the subjects, a disobedience to which they belong as children to a parent” (Ellicott).—R.] “Disobedience” emphasizes the immoral nature of unbelief, which is precisely disobedience, contumacy, among the heathen also, who resist the secret voice of God in their conscience (Romans 2:14-15) as well as among the Jews who resist the revealed will of God in the word of the prophets, and among both, in resisting the apostolic announcement. Meyer should not be willing to refute the explanation: unbelief (Luther, Bengel, Harless, Stier.)—The preposition ἐν, “in,” marks the internality of this Satanic working: in their souls (Meyer). They are the “fulness” of the devil, on whose part there is a “spirit,” efficient unto destruction, which the disobedient and unbelieving mood already present in man comes to meet. Ephesians 2:3. Among whom even we all had our way of life in times past [ἐνοἶςκαὶ ἡμεῖςπάντεςἀνεστράφημενποτέ].—The emphasis rests on καὶ ἡμεῖς “even we;” in antithesis to “you” (Ephesians 2:1), the readers, whom he describes as previously heathen, he places himself and the Jewish Christians, and that too without exception (“all”). ‘Ἑνοἶς, according to grammatical rules, refers to “the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2); thus declaring that those who were formerly Jews belonged also to the children of disobedience; ἐνοἶς is=ὦνκαὶ ἡμεῖςὄντες, in order to lay down the ethical category for the Jews (Meyer). So the same corruption and its universality are predicated of the Jews, over against the Gentiles. Comp. Doctr. Note 3. We should not then render it inter quos, or explain that although the Jews were actually locally among the Gentiles, they did not live there as children of disobedience. The reference to παραπτώμασιν, “trespasses,” Ephesians 2:1 (Syriac, Jerome, Bengel, Stier and others), is at once impossible, if ὑμῶν be retained there, and in any case inadmissible on account of “in the lusts of our flesh,” which denotes the element or sphere of the verb, so that this cannot be found in ἐνοἶς. The grammatical connection cannot be decided by the parallel passage, Colossians 3:7 : ἐνοἶς—περιεπατήσατε, since parallelism will not contravene the requirements of grammar. In the lusts of our flesh [ἐνταῖςἐπιθυμίαιςτῆςσαρκὸςἡμῶν].—The repetition of ἐν in the same clause occurs also in 2 Corinthians 1:12 : ἐνἁγιότητεκαὶ εἰλικρινείᾳ ?—ἐνσοφίᾳ ?—ἐνχάριτιἁνεστράφημενἐντῷ κόσμῳ, where the first phrase answers to the last in our verse, and the last to our first. Bengel remarks on the verb: hoc quiddam speciosius quam ambulare. Stier finds it sharper and stronger than περιεπατήσατε, used of the Gentiles. Luther: “ye have walked”—“we have had our walk.” [So substantially the E. V.] This ἀναστρέφεσθαι refers more to an unquiet, refractory, quarrelsome course of conduct, περιπατεῖν is rather an indolent letting one’s self go according to habit. The qualifying phrase; “in the lusts of our flesh,” also sharpens the affirmative here, in comparison with that respecting the Gentiles. Among the latter the power of the evil spirit works, as respects the Jews prominence is given to their own disposition and will. Israel had already the proper ἄρχων in the theocracy, in its discipline another ἐξουσία, the moderating and helping air of a better spirit, being by no means given over in the same degree to the course of this world (Stier).—Harless sets forth very well the order of the significations of σάρξ; 1) what is material, 2) external, not mental, 3) what is ruled by matter, and in so far sinful, 4) what is sinful, opposed directly to the Spirit of God, 5) Humanity in all these aspects. [Comp. the Excursus in Romans, pp. 235 ff. The word is here used in its ethical sense: the whole human nature turned away from God, in the supreme interest of self, devoted to the creature.—R.] Doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts [ποιοῦντεςτὰ θελήματατῆςσαρκὸςκαὶ τῶνδιανοιῶν].—Ποιοῦντες, placed first for emphasis, defines more closely the preceding verb. [A participle of manner.—R.] The children of disobedience to whom they belonged, do the wills, to τὰ θελήμ̊ατα, not merely single ones, which the flesh has, and those τῶνδιανοιῶν, as real servants, slaves in fact. The plural denotes the confused, opposing multiplicity; a united, self-contained will is not spoken of. But these are not mere ebullitions of the flesh. “The διανοιεῖσθαι is the internal self-activity of man, conscious of his nature as self-determinable, and the διάνοιαι are the manifold productions of this” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 563). He appears as the slave of his inborn nature and of his selfish thought; the two are turned to various objects, and in his desires create a diversity. The understanding or the reason stands in the service of the flesh, falls into subtleties, seeking reasons, excuses, ways and means for the “lusts of the flesh,” helping the desire to strengthen into determinations and activities of the will. Διάνοιαι are “opinions of the will representing themselves as prudent, deceitful grounds of volition.” Cogitationes callidius peccandi studium inferunt, caro c�co ruit impetu (Bengel). The plural marks the sundering, the confusion of the διάνοια into the unhappy and treacherous diversity (Harless, Stier); the flesh makes a heap of: reasonings (Berlenburger Bible). The context determines this view, as Meyer correctly remarks, but the form chosen subserves the context, corresponding well to its purpose; but it should be noted, that διάνοιαι is used by Paul only here, and θελήματα only in his speech, Acts 13:22, there too of God’s will. It is incorrect to regard διάνοιαι as loose fancies (Matthies), sensuous thoughts without the basis of sensuous desire (Olshausen), or corrupt imaginations (Hase). [The distinction between the two classes of θελήματα is thus expressed by Eadie: “The ‘desires of the flesh’ are those grosser gratifications of appetite which are palpable and easily recognized; and the ‘desires of the thoughts,’ those mental trespasses which may or may not be connected with sensuous indulgences.” Ellicott: “The worldly sensual tendency of our life on the one hand, and the spiritual sins of our thoughts and intentions on the other.” Both Eadie and Hodge restrict σάρξ (in the second clause, not in the first) to the animal part of our nature, but this scarcely seems justifiable, especially as the wider meaning gives so good a sense. Nor is the latter exact in taking διανοία as including “the whole thinking and sentient principle, so far as distinguished from the animal principle,” still less in referring it here “more to the affections.” Meyer says διάνοιαι bears to σάρξ in this case the relation of the special to the general.—The article before σαρκός and before διανοιῶν would justify the rendering “our flesh,” “our thoughts,’ but the literal translation is sufficiently explicit, “thoughts” being the nearest equivalent to διάνοια.—R.] And we were by nature the children of wrath [καὶ ἦμεντέκναφύσειὀργῆς].—Καὶἦμεν is most naturally taken as Ephesians 1:19-22 : ἐγείρας—καὶ καθίσας—καὶ ὑπέταξεν, or ἐγείρας—καὶ ἐκάθισεν—and joined with ποιοῦντες, as a participle resolved into the finite verb. Since ἦμεν comes first, it is emphatic. [The change of construction gives emphasis to this verb also, marking that they “were,” not that they “are,” and further, as Eadie suggests, indicating unmistakably, that what they “were by nature” was not the result of what they had been doing.—The insertion of “we” in the English text will serve to indicate this emphasis.—R.] The Apostle has noted the action in the preceding clause, he now notices the state of the Jews, which is perceptible and perceived from the action, and hence put in the second place, this like the other being more sharply expressed than in the case of the heathen. This is parallel to “the children of disobedience,” among whom he has already reckoned them (ἐνοἶς) but among whom they are now characterized as “by nature children of wrath.” The phrases: “son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3), “child of hell” (Matthew 23:15), “Son of peace” (Luke 10:6) are similar. Paul says τέκνα, not υἱοί, not to weaken it into “little children,” but to indicate the relation to birth. The genitive ὀργῆς without the article must be connected as closely as possible with τέκνα, “children of wrath.” [Not mere liable to wrath, but under it, as the figure implies.—R.] The Hebrew phrase αָּ ?πִ ?ινΞμַ ?ιδεָֹ ?δ (2 Samuel 12:5; υἱὸςθανάτου in the LXX., comp. Psalms 79:11; Psalms 102:21) may have occasioned the expression, but does not modify the explanation in the N. Testament, nor justify a weakening of the meaning, only marking the dependence of ὀργή, which the context (Ephesians 2:4) defines as that of God. Son 5:6; Colossians 3:6; Romans 1:18; comp. Doctr. Note 1. Φύσει is not so emphatic ῆ ?̓μεν, nor even as τέκνα, denoting only a closer qualification of the latter, as regards origin, by nature. Φύσις (from φύω, to become, to arise, as natura from nasci, ingenium from geno, gigno) refers to birth, origin, and is that which has grown as distinguished from what has been effected, has the ground of its being, as it is in its own development, not in the accessory influence of others (Harless, Stier). [So Eadie, Alford, Hodge, Ellicott and the vast body of commentators. The last named finds the exact meaning in Gal. 2:25; Romans 2:14; Galatians 4:8, to be respectively (a) transmitted inborn nature; (b) inherent nature; (c) essential nature. The first is the meaning here, see below.—R.] So in Galatians 4:8; Romans 2:24 (comp. Acts 17:28) φύσει points to the ground and origin of the present status. The meaning of these words necessarily is: we were from birth those who were forfeited to the Divine wrath, irζ Dei devoti atque obnoxii, quasi ad eam rem ab ipsa natura efficti (Beza). Indeed ἡ φύσις is something living, developing itself, but from its beginning, in accordance with the principle inherent in it, so that there is included here also the natural development, further determined by man in his unregenerate state. Standing in contrast to this φύσει is the Divine θέσις of God’s work of revelation and of His covenant with the people of Israel, according to which they should not be “children of wrath,” and also might not have been. “As belonging to the people of God, the Jews were αָּ ?πִ ?ινΞμַ ?ιδεָֹ ?δ, but aside from this, consequently as belonging to the Adamite humanity, they were τέκναὀργῆς” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 565), hence φύσει. It is aptly mentioned that Chemnitz remarks: Dicit, eramus et nos, Judζi scilicet. Dixerat enim Romans 11:16 : si radix sancti, ergo rami. Ne ergo intelligatur, Judζos natura esse sanctos, dicit; eramus et nos Judζi filii irζ, sicut cζteri (Harless). The position of φύσει between τέκνα and ὀργῆς suggests too: we were children—that is, φύσει, not θέσει, ὀργῆς, and yet might and should have been διαθήκης (cum putaremus nos esse liberos liberos Dei. Bengel)! [The doctrine of original sin is here plainly implied (Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott, and others), the implication being an “even more convincing assertion of that profound truth.” The opposition of Barnes and Stuart, so far as it has an exegetical basis, finds some justification in the forcing of a direct theological statement on our passage. But the attitude here taken as respects this fearful fact of a universal natural state of condemnation, is precisely that which the Scriptures hold toward the question of the existence of God: it is not proved, but assumed. Comp. Doctr. Notes 1, 3, 4; Eadie in loco; Romans, Dr. Schaff’s exhaustive notes on Ephesians 5:12-21, especially pp. 178–180, 191–195; the last reference is to a resumθ of the theories of original sin.—R.] Accordingly “children of wrath” is not to be taken as merely a Hebraizing phrase for “worthy of wrath,” ira rei, digni (Theodoret, Rueckert and others), nor proprii irζ (Striegel), objects of wrath (Flacius). Nor is ὀργή=p�na (Greek Fathers). Quite as little is φύσει=ἀληθῶς, γνησίως (�cumenius), or: natura, indole gentis (Clericus), still less: patern�, traditionis consuetudine (Pelagius), since it is the very opposite of συνήθεια. Moreover we should not think of a relation produced by the development of a nativa indoles (Meyer), or of the customary actual life of sin, “a doing of the wills of the flesh and of the thoughts,” which had become habitual, making them “the children of wrath” (Schenkel). Bleek says more circumspectly: the reference here is not merely to the inborn character, but also to the natural development springing from the man himself. To explain it of the natural condition of man in ante-christian life (Erasmus and others) leaves undecided the main question, whether or not the φύσει designates an inborn relation. Holzhausen’s connection of φύσει with ὀργῆς (wrath springing from the ungodly natural life) is entirely too inverted. Even as others, ὡςκαιοἱ λοιποί.—In 1 Thessalonians 4:13, this designates the Gentiles, who have not become Christians. Λοιποί are passed over, without any further characteristics; according to the context the word classes together here men with and men without Christ, who have not submitted themselves to the working of Christ, resist it; such can be among Christians even. We may easily suppose, however, that Paul means the yet unbelieving Jews, over against the “we all,” who have become believers in Christ; this would render prominent that while the Jewish Christians who have been rescued from the condition of death are no longer “children of wrath,” these are and remain so, like the heathen, the “children of disobedience.” So Stier, while nearly all expositors refer it either to the Gentiles (Meyer and others) or to all except those mentioned before (Harless and others); the latter is unquestionably more correct than the former, since just here the Gentiles are not in question, and to refer it to these alone, would be as if Ephesians 2:3 had been appended. The extension to other nations is, however, unnecessary, since all men are either Jews or Gentiles, and what has been said of the previous life of Christians from among the Gentiles or Jews, applies to the whole of the human race. It marks in a tender, sparing manner those Jews unconverted to Christ as “children of wrath,” as the Gentiles not converted to Christ are “children of disobedience,” in whom Satan works. [Those who refer ἡμεῖςπάντες to all Christians, of course take οἱ λοιποί as including all the rest of mankind, not Christians; but the universality of sin and guilt remains the indirect (and more convincing) assertion of the passage, whatever reference be adopted.—R.] Ephesians 2:4. The Deliverer. But God, ὁ δὲ θεός.—This is not antithetical, but resumes the discourse, begun with the object and then lengthened out, in order to permit the subject to follow, as we would say in German: hat also Gott. [We have no word so strictly resumptive as the German also, or the Greek δέ, as used here, hence the E. V. supplies both subject and verb in Ephesians 2:1, and resumes here with “but,” which may bear a resumptive meaning.—R.] See on Ephesians 2:1. The δέ is required here by the antithesis in which the subject stands to the object; otherwise we have found οὐν here (Meyer and others). [Hodge makes the antithesis too strong: “notwithstanding our guilt and misery.”—R.] Being rich in mercy [πλούσιοςὢνἐνἐλέει]—Πλούσιος stands first for emphasis; our Epistle frequently mentions the riches in God (Ephesians 1:7; Romans 10:12 : πλουτῶν). [Ὤν does not seem to be causal here (Hodge: “because He is rich in mercy”), but rather to state (in the form of a secondary predicate of time) the general principle under which the Divine compassion was exhibited (Ellicott, Alford); “being rich in mercy.” The special ground follows.—R.]. The connection “rich in mercy” is like James 2:5 (“rich in faith”); 1 Corinthians 1:5; 2 Corinthians 9:11. So πλῆθοςτῶνοἰκτιρμῶνσου, Psalms 51:1; Psalms 69:16. But ἔλεος is somewhat more than οἰκτιρμός (ὁ ἐλεῶν subvenire studet misero et si potest, vere subvenit, sed qui intra fines doloris se tenet, is tantum οἰκτείρει; Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 70). Because of his great love wherewith he loved us [διὰ τὴνπολλὴνἀγάπηναὐτοῦ ἥνἠγάπησενἡμᾶς].—The preposition (διά) marks the ground of His doings (Ephesians 2:5-6), on account of this, propter multum suum amorem. Luther is therefore incorrect: through His great love. Prominence is given, not so much to the greatness, as to the riches; the manifold character of the love of God. The construction, ῆνἠγάπησενἡμᾶς, is like John 17:26; Mark 10:38. Winer, p. 210.—The great love of God (αὐτοῦ) is added by Paul, after the expression respecting the riches of His mercy, which he had placed first on account of the context over against the condition of death in the case of Gentiles and Jews alike, because there was to be found in men themselves no ground at all for their salvation, Mercy was in God the movement of His love, which belongs to His Being; that men should be helped, required the entire fulness of the love of God. Misericordia removet miseriam, amor confert salutem (Bengel). Calvin incorrectly joins διὰ τὴνπολλὴνἀγάπην with πλούσιοςὤν [Hodge apparently]; the latter is an attribute of God, the former is an adverbial qualification of συνεζωοποίησεν. “Us” must be applied here to entire Christendom, after the necessary statements about “you” (Ephesians 2:1-2) and “us” (Ephesians 2:3). Aperta satis hζc verba sunt et cognitu facillima, si tantum et creditu facilia ea plerisque dominus redderet (Bucer)! Stier refers it to the Jews, on which view see next verse. [It is=ἡμεῖςπάντες, if that phrase be accepted in its wider reference.—R.] The Deliverance; Ephesians 2:5-6. Ephesians 2:5. Even when we were dead in our trespasses [καὶ ὄνταςἡμᾶςνεκροὺςτοῖςπαραπτώμασιν].—After ἡμᾶς (Ephesians 2:4) the object is again repeated, with a reference to what has been said in Ephesians 2:1-3, in admiration and wonder at the Divine grace, mercy and love. Now however we read καὶ ὄνταςἡμᾶς, while before we had καὶ ὑμᾶςὄντας (Ephesians 2:1), καὶ ἡμεῖς (Ephesians 2:3); the emphasis therefore rests on ὄντας, and καί puts this state of death with another ὥν in a certain relation to πλούσιοςὤνἐνἐλέει. Accordingly the distinction between those dead, between “you” and “us” falls into the background behind the existence, the reality of this condition. [Against Meyer, who takes καί as the simple copula, and Rueckert, who deems it resumptive, we are fully justified in taking it as intensive, retaining even (E. V.) therefore; so Alford, Ellicott and most.—The dative is precisely as in Ephesians 2:1.—R.] What he has said in Ephesians 2:1 of the heathen: “dead in trespasses,” is true of both therefore: it is the briefest expression, and quite sufficient after the previous explication of the object, especially as he mentions παραπτώματα, in which the reality of the condition of death is perceptible. The article denotes that the sins are the sins of the “dead” themselves (Meyer). [Hence our trespasses.] This statement cannot indeed be referred to entire humanity; though it be done for all men, yet it is only done in Christians; and that is what is spoken of here. But it is just as little to be limited to Jewish Christians (Stier); the interchange of ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς (Ephesians 2:5; Ephesians 2:7-8) springs from the liveliness of the discourse, the interest in the readers and the purpose of the Apostle. Καί is of course not=καίπερ, quamvis (Calvin, Schenkel). [For a making alive could only be from a state of death, not in spite of it.—R.] Quickened us together with Christ, συνεζωοποίησεντῷ Χριστῷ.—The construction is clear; the dative is governed by the σύν in composition. A fact in the past is clearly denoted as having taken place upon Christ and upon us. The meaning is also indicated by the antithesis or object: the dead He has made alive; were these not physically, but spiritually dead, then a spiritual life is meant. The preposition σύν does not denote contemporaneousness, but only fellowship: in the fellowship with the Risen One God quickened us also: Him hath He raised from the dead, us from our death, but not without Him, the Risen One. The verb itself does not determine any thing more definite regarding the life; the tense marks only the act of God as having taken place. Nothing further is added. Accordingly this fact is to be taken altogether objectively, without a subjective reference, altogether generally, without further qualification, as Colossians 2:12-13; Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:1; Colossians 3:3; Romans 6:4-6; it is simply: He quickened us together with Christ. Theodoret: κεφαλὴ ἡμῶνὁ συνεδρεύων, ἀπαρχὴ ἡμῶνὁ συμβασιλεύων· τὴνγὰρἡμετέρανἐνδέδυταιφύσιν. Comp. Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 1:22-23. Though the life of Christ the Risen One is completed, and ours just begun, beginning in the Spirit, yet the two stand in an internal connection (2 Corinthians 5:15), the latter, like the former, is the Father’s act, in which the whole, the full life is implied and granted. Accordingly it is first of all incorrect to apply συν to the re-animation of the Jews and Gentiles together (Beza), or: sicut ad exemplum (Anselm, Grotius). Then the reference is not to physical death and the actual resurrection life (Meyer), or to the forgiveness of sins (Rueckert), or only to the first degree of life, from which the subsequent ones advance (Olshausen), or to justification and regeneration (Bodeus); nor are the aorists to be justified by recalling God’s prescience (Jerome), or by introduced hope (Augustine, Erasmus), or by a prophetic view, as if it had already taken place, were as good as certain (Meyer), nor is the fact of the actual accomplishment of this act of love in the readers, the Christians to be set aside by an emphasizing of the objective act in Christ (Harless).By grace ye have been saved [χάριτίἐστεσεσωσμένοι].—In lively discourse, with a direct application to the readers, this is joined parenthetically to the general, objective fact of new life in Christ. The emphasis rests on χάριτι, which comes first; it refers to “His great love,” is God’s grace, thus dismissing all thought of claim and merit on the part of man. The clause emphasizes the fact of the deliverance from death into life, from wrath into love. Ye are (ἐστε)! This means more than the simple ἐσώθετε. [“Ye have been and are saved,” the perfect of permanent state, implying that God’s grace abides.—R.] Videmus, ut nun quam sibi in prζdicanda gratiζ amplitudine satisfaciat; ideoque identidem pluribus verbis inculcat, nihil esse in salute nostra, quod non sit Deo tribuendum certe qui ingratitudinem hominum rite expendet, non fastidiet hanc parenthesin quasi supervacaneam (Calvin). It is not interpolated from what follows (Grotius), nor is the grace of Christ (Beza) referred to. Ephesians 2:6. And raised us up with him and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus [καὶ συνήγειρενκαὶ συνεκάθισενἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοιςἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ?].—After thus specializing, Paul expands what was expressed in συνεζωοποίησεν. Here the first verb gives prominence to the negative side, and the second, with “in heavenly places,” to the positive side of the quickening; the former marks the disappearance of the condition of death, the latter the permanent participation in what is heavenly. The liveliness of the discourse causes the introduction and repetition of καί, καί; they are not to be rendered: both—and. “In heavenly places” (comp. on Ephesians 1:3) sets forth the antithesis to “the power of the air;” “at His right hand” (Ephesians 1:20) could be predicated only of Christ (Bengel: Christo sua manet exccllentia), but “in heavenly places” of Christians also. “In Christ Jesus,” following “with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5), introduces the mediation in the fellowship with Him; with this Colossians 2:12-13 should be compared. [Eadie takes “in Christ Jesus” as qualifying “in the heavenly places,” but this is scarcely allowable.—R.] Accordingly, “raised with him,” is not an advance from “quickened” toward “made us sit” (Olshausen) [Eadie], the first two expressions occur Colossians 2:12-13 in inverted order. We should not interpolate spe (Grotius) or jure et virtute spirituali (Bengel), nor are the aorists to be taken as futures from a prophetic view (A Lapide), nor should we refer them to summa et universa felicitas (Koppe), or to something spiritual, which is not yet objectively and really given. Comp. Colossians 3:1-3; Philippians 3:20; Romans 6:6-10. Though ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is not=per et propter Christum, yet it cannot be denied that fellowship with Him is indicated (Harless), in accordance with the συν in the verbs. But it may not be affirmed that on account of this “wonderful union” of the redeemed with the Redeemer, all the occurrences, through which the Redeemer passed after His death until His glorification, are spiritually and morally, hence in this life, consummated in the converted (Schenkel). Comp. Doctr. Note 2. [Eadie also takes the three aorists as referring to what takes place in this life, and as marking successive steps: “The dead, on being quickened, do not lie in their graves.” Ellicott is very cautious here: “As συνεζωοποίησεν, though primarily spiritual and present, may have a physical and future reference,—so here conversely, a present spiritual resurrection and enthronement may also be attended to,” the primary reference being, as he thinks, to what is future and objective. Alford seems most correct: “God vivified us together with Christ: in the one act and fact of His resurrection He raised all His people—to spiritual life, and in that to victory over death, both spiritual and therefore necessarily physical also. To dispute therefore whether such an expression as this is past (spiritual), or future (physical), is to forget that the whole includes its parts.—The three aorists are proleptical as regards the actualization in each man, but equally describe a past and accomplished act on God’s part.—The disputes as to whether these are to be taken as present or future, actual or potential, literal or spiritual, will be easily disposed of by those who have apprehended the truth of the believer’s union in and with Christ.” This last statement finds a striking confirmation in the fact, that many a commentator begins by limiting the sense, and ends by including the entire meaning.—R.] Ephesians 2:7. The purpose.—That he might show forth, ἵναἐνδείξηται.—The verb stands emphatically first. Ἐνδείκνυσθαι (Romans 2:15; Romans 9:17; Romans 9:22; 1 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 4:14; Titus 2:10; Titus 3:2) has, like ἔνδειξος (2 Corinthians 8:24) the signification of an efficient, active showing, a making known through communicating, giving, causing to experience. It is not a mere φανεροῦν, γνωρίζειν, declarare (Olshausen, Meyer and others. [Eadie inclines to the singular meaning: give a specimen of, which is not in accordance with the emphasis resting on the word.—R.] In the ages which are to come, ἐντοῖςαἰῶσιτοῖςἐπερχομένοις.—The plural marks a series, the word αἰῶνες, periods of time, stretching over “generations” (Ephesians 3:21), standing over against “the course (αἰών) of this world (Ephesians 2:2), not mere καιροί, occasions, moments of time (Ephesians 1:10); ἐπερχόμενοι points to coming periods, i.e., according to the context, those periods (temporibus in stantibus) following each other with the fact of Redemption in the resurrection of Christ as the starting-point; lastly the preposition ἐν marks these as the spaces of time in which the showing takes place, in which there is really an advance. Bengel: Plurale, contra unum seculum malum, cui secula beata superveniunt potenter. Congruit hζc locutio menti Pauli de die novissimo non proxime in stante. Even in the earliest Epistles there is not wanting the thought of the long development of Christianity, whose blossoming in the Apostolic Church and in the first Christians as first fruits and representatives, lets us perceive the fulness of their Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; comp. Ephesians 5:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; comp. Ephesians 2:3 ff.). It is neither the age succeeding the resurrection, the age of the parousia (Grotius, Meyer), nor αἰὼνμέλλων (Harless). [These limitations are rejected by Eadie, Alford and Ellicott, Hodge who agree with Braune in referring the phrase to the successive periods of time between the resurrection and the Second Advent of Christ. The plural for bids the limitation to any one age, the present participle renders any remote future reference improbable. The Second Advent is rarely alluded to in this Epistle (Alford), though as usual Meyer finds it here also.—R.] The exceeding riches of his grace, τὸ ὑπερβάλλονπλοῦτοςτῆςχάριτοςαῦτοῦ.—The neuter form to τὸπλοῦτος is well established here, as in Ephesians 3:16, and occurs several times (Ephesians 3:8; Philippians 4:19; Colossians 2:2). On ὑπερβάλλον, see notes on Ephesians 1:19. It denotes, over against the wrath of God (Ephesians 2:3) and the power of Satan (Ephesians 2:2) the triumphant superior power, hence it is not=περισσεύειν (Ephesians 1:8). Comp. Romans 5:20. Evidently as in the case of those realities, so is the power of this grace efficient, already imparted. Romans 9:23. In kindness toward us in Christ Jesus [ἐνχρηστότητιἐφʼ ? ἡμᾶςἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ?].—“In kindness” designates the mode of showing the grace, “the friendly, condescending kindness” (Heubner), which expressed itself in Christ’s Incarnation and in Himself. Tittmann (Syn. I. p. 195): Est benignitas Dei ad benefaciendum hominibus potius parata, quam ad puniendum; differt a voce χάρις; in hac enim certe in N. T. imperat notio benevolentiζ et gratiζ, quζ. nihil merentibus bene facit. It is therefore not here (as Tittmann thinks, p. 142): ipsum beneficium in nos Dei benignitate per Jesum Christum; it is not χάρισμα, but χάρις is active “in kindness,” the condescending love scatters out of the fulness of its possessions; that is, its “kindness.” [Eadie says of the four terms here used respecting the source of salvation: ἔλεος, ἀγάπη, χάρις, χρηστότης, “the first respects our misery; the second defines the co-essential form of this—ἔλεος; the third characterizes its free outgoing, and the last points to its palpable and experienced embodiment.” He finds an evident alteration in χάρις, χρηστότης, Χριστός.—R.] Ἐφʼ ? ἡμᾶς is connected with “in kindness,” as χαρὰ ἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ (Romans 14:17) and similar cases. See Winer, p. 126. This occurs with anarthrous substantives, which receive further definition; ἐπὶ denotes the object of the kindness, as Luke 6:35. The phrase: ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ without τοὺς or ὄντας is therefore not to be referred to ἡμᾶς. Were it grammatically admissible, the thought would not be against it, since it corresponds with “to us-ward who believe” (Ephesians 1:19). As, however, it stands here without any word to connect it with ἡμᾶς, it must be taken as qualifying the verb ἐνδείξηται. Notanda repetitio nominis Christi, quia nihil gratiζ neque amoris a Deo sperari vult, nisi ipso intercedente (Calvin). Comp. Doctr. Note 2. The means of the deliverance. Ephesians 2:8-10. Ephesians 2:8. For by grace have ye been saved through faith, τῇ γὰρχάριτίἐστεσεσωσμένοιδιὰ πίστεως.—This is a completed, more closely defined, repetition of the parenthetical clause (Ephesians 2:5). Γάρ is connective. Non igitor ait, sed enim, quia ab effectu ad causam concludit (Bengel): because He in the course of time brings into manifestation nothing else than the exceeding riches of His grace. Ye are saved by grace. Τῇ, χάριτι not merely χάριτι (Ephesians 2:5), to denote the category; the article referring to the grace mentioned in Ephesians 2:7, the wealth of which is so exceeding, marking thus the grace in question (Meyer). The dative expresses, as Romans 3:24 (αὐτοῦ χάριτιδιὰ τῆςἀπολυτρώσεως), the motive, διά with the genitive here states the subjective means, in the passage just referred to, the objective. Comp. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. Extolling comparison of their previous and their present conditionEph_2:11-2211 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles, [that once ye, Gentiles] in the flesh, who are called [the] Uncircumcision by that which is called the 12[or by the so-called] Circumcision in the flesh made [wrought] by hands; That at that time ye were [ye were at that time] without Christ, being aliens [alienated] from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of [the] promise, 13having no hope, and without God in the world: But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime [once] were far off are made [were brought] nigh by [in] the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath [omit hath] made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us [and broke down the 15middle wall of the partition,]; Having abolished [or done away] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of [the] commandments contained [expressed] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain [that he might create the two in himself into] one new man, so making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both [And might reconcile them both] unto God in one body by [in one body to God through] the cross, 17having slain the enmity thereby [on it]: And [he] came and preached peace to you which [who] were afar off, and [peace] to them that [those who] were nigh. 18For through him we both have [our] access by [in] one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore [So then] ye are no more [longer] strangers and foreigners [sojourners], but [ye are] fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built [Built up] upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus] himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth [is growing] unto a holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are [being] builded together for a habitation of God through [in] the Spirit. AND Detailed description of their previous condition. Ephesians 2:11-12.Ephesians 2:11. Wherefore remember.—Διό,“wherefore,” refers, like Ephesians 1:15 : διὰ τοῦτο, to the preceding section (Stier, Bleek), since the object of “remember” is their previous quite as well as their present condition, or the “creating” of those who were “dead,” Talis recordatio gratum animum acuit et fidem roborat (Bengel), taking into view not merely the obtained riches, but also the poverty and misery from which they were released. The reference to Ephesians 2:5-10 (Meyer) is not correct, since Ephesians 2:5 resumes the object of Eph 2:1-3, and Ephesians 2:4 contains the subject, nor that to the last thought only (Chrysostom), since this sums up the whole. [Ellicott suggests the reference “to the declaratory portion of the foregoing paragraph, Ephesians 2:1-7; Ephesians 2:8-10 being an argumentative and explanatory addition.—R.] That once ye, Gentiles in the flesh, ὅτιὑμεῖςποτὲ [ποτὲ ὑμεῖς] τὰ ἔθνηἐνσαρκί.—(See Textual Note 1. The ἦτε (Ephesians 2:12), introduced by the resumptive ὅτε after the apposition, belongs here, so that it need not be supplied. “Ye” means those who are now Christians (σεσωσμένοι), and that they have been “Gentiles in the flesh” is marked by ποτέ. Accordingly τὰ ἔθνηἐνσαρκί is a predicatory appositional phrase. The article marks the designation as one well-known, the substantive, which in itself has no dishonorable meaning, being used with a reference to βεֹ ?ιִ ?ιν, and thus with the additional notion of a fault. Accordingly, Paul adds, “in the flesh.” This is not κατὰ σάρκα (Ephesians 6:5; Romans 9:3; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 10:18), which denotes a relation, while here a status is spoken of, one which has been, but is no longer existing (ποτέ). Joined without the article it forms with “Gentiles” one conception: Goim in the flesh, denoting what is external: Ye former heathen in the flesh, in the natural condition, uncircumcised, without a sign of the covenant, not even externally, in the flesh, endowed with the known sign of the people of God. [Σάρξ is taken in this its simple meaning by nearly all later commentators (Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Hodge, Eadie, for the very good reason that the context plainly points to it, especially ἐνσαρκί just below. Braune’s view of the construction is also the usual one.—R.] Otherwise we must take τὰ ἔθνη without any reference to heathenism and the therewith connected deficiencies, as the nations excepting Israel, and find its quality denoted in the added phrase, as designating what was defective in them. Bengel: hoc considerate Paulus conjungit cum Gentes; nam Judζi gentes simpliciter dicebunt prζputium, non prζputium in carne—Gentiles, not Gentiles in the flesh. Hence it is incorrect to take ἐνσαρκί=natalibus, origine carnati (Grotius); for this they would continue to be. Nor does it designate the carnal mind, the unholy life (Ambrose, Anselm, Calovius), nor has it a typical reference (Stier) for which Hebrews 7:16; Hebrews 9:10, give no occasion. Who are called the Uncircumcision by that which is called [the so called] Circumcision in the flesh wrought by hands [οἱ λεγόμενοιἀκροβυστὶαὑπὸ τῆςλεγομένηςπεριτομῆςἐνσαρκὶ χειροποιήτου.].—Ἀκροβυστία, “uncircumcision,” is evidently in apposition to “Gentiles in the flesh,” and οἱ λεγόμενοι, already prepared for by τά before ἔθνη, is placed first for emphasis. The nations are called “Uncircumcision” on account of heathenism, the absence of the sign of the covenant in the flesh. The abstract noun, denoting here the essential point, is here a name also; hence it stands for the concrete=the uncircumcised. Colossians 3:11; Galatians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 7:19, and περιτομή=the circumcised. In the phrase “who are called the Uncircumcision,” the fact that they were (Luther) and are so termed, is stated here objectively, while in ὑπὸ τῆςλεγομένηςπεριτομῆς, instead of τῶνλεγομένων, which is called, instead of are called, it is indicated that the thing and the name do not coincide in the same way, i.e., by the so-called circumcision, the so-called circumcised. Accordingly the added phrase “in the flesh,” corresponding precisely with “in the flesh “in the last clause, marks the externalness, in the flesh where it takes place. Χειροποιήτον, “wrought by hands,” is added with special emphasis, forming the antithesis to ἀχειροποιήτῳ, Colossians 2:11, and to what is perfect, wrought by God (Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 9:24; Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24). It has a typical reference, as the passages in Hebrews plainly affirm, so that this reference is not contained in ἐνσαρκί, which is not opposed to ἐνπνεύματι, either here or in the previous clause (Stier). Hence we should connect closely “circumcision in the flesh,” and explain: which is made by hands in the flesh (Meyer, Bleek). There is indeed a special significance in circumcision, which is mentioned by Moses (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6), and the prophets (Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:24-25; Ezekiel 44:7; Ezekiel 44:9). This the Apostle does not wish to undervalue; he only does not permit it to pass for something merely external, over against that of the heart, wrought by God (Philippians 3:3 : Romans 2:29; Colossians 2:11), to which that wrought in the flesh points. He marks here the Jew in the people of Israel; the Jew, who remains satisfied with this external mark of the covenant with Israel, is a so-called circumcised one, and exalts himself without reason arrogantly above the uncircumcised and unclean nations. How miserable must be the condition of the heathen, who are despised by the Jew! So much the more glorious is it that they as Christians are now exalted above the latter. Hence we should not accept here a repugnance toward the Jews (Rueckert), or an advantage of the Gentiles (Chrysostom), or the opinion, that uncircumcision was no detriment to the Gentiles, and circumcision no advantage to the Jews (Clarius). In ea ζqualitate, quam antea commemorat apostolus, nunc latentem inζqualitatem profert, ut Gentes, quo longius a Deo abfuerant, eo plura se gratiζ Dei debere fateantur (Beza). Ephesians 2:12. That ye were at that time [ὅτιἦτετῷ καιρᾦ ἐκείνῳ ?].—Ὅτι, “that,” is a resumption of the first ὅτι (Ephesians 2:11), and connects with “remember,” adding to the status miserabilior of the heathen, already defined, the inner side. The verb placed first for emphasis marks the past, and τῷ καιρᾠ ἐκείνῳ, the dative of time (Luke 12:20 : ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί; Winer, p. 205) renders it even more prominent than work (Ephesians 2:11). Without Christ, χωρὶςΧριστοῦ.—Χωρίς ad subjectum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur, avev, ad objectum, quod a subjecto abesse cogitandum est (Tittmann, Syn. I., 93 ff.). Thus χωρὶςΧριστοῦ affirms: the heathen are in a condition, where they are deprived of Him: vos eratis procul a Christo; ἄνευΧριστοῦ esset; Christus non adorat vobis. “Christ” refers to the promised One, the eternal Son of God; since a time is spoken of when He had not appeared in the form of a servant. Hence the name “Jesus” is not inserted. Christ, by means of ἐπιδημίανοητή (Olshausen), as the Angel of the Covenant (Rueckert), dwelt already in the people of Israel (see 1 Corinthians 10:4), and the people of God stood in an attitude of longing, hope, trust and faith, towards the coming One. The antithesis is in Ephesians 2:13 : “in Christ Jesus.” Hence we have here the summary which is expanded in the succeeding clause; this is not then a first point followed by a second and third (Schenkel), but a κεφάλαιον. [Hodge takes the following clauses as a confirmation of this phrase, but Ellicott, more correctly, as an elucidation of its significance.—R.] It is incorrect also to explain it as=sine, Christi fide vel notitia (Anselm, Calovius). Being alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοιτῆςπολιτείαςτοῦ Ἰσραήλ.—This is the first of two co-ordinate members of one thought; it describes the external relation, the other the internal. We have marked here, a separation from the πολιτεία of the people of Israel, which has become and will become ever greater, and at the same time an internal estrangement (comp. Ephesians 4:18; Colossians 1:21). The word indicates, if not an original fellowship, still an earlier nearness and equality. Bengel: Abalienati, non: alieni; participia pr�supponunt, gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum, imo potius ante lapsum Adami fuisse participes lucis et vitζ. So Rueckert, Olshausen, Stier. [Meyer does not think this notion of a previous fellowship is here implied. Alford: “Gentiles and Jews were once united in the hope of redemption—this was constituted, on the apostasy of the nations, into a definite πολιτεία for the Jews, from which and its blessings the Gentiles were alienated.” To which Ellicott adds: “The Gentile lapsed from it, the Jew made it invalid (Matthew 15:6, comp. Chrysostom); and they parted, only to unite again (ἔθνηκαὶ λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ, Acts 4:27) in one act of uttermost rebellion, and yet, through the mystery of redeeming love, to remain thereby (Ephesians 2:15-16) united in Christ forever.”—R.] By πολιτεία (Aristotle: τῶντὴνπόλινοἰκούντωντάξιςτις) we necessarily understand here according to the context the constitution of the State, the external polity, from which the Gentiles were ever farther removed; a reference to the theocracy also is of course included. Hence too the theocratic name of honor, of “Israel” (Genesis 32:28), not “of the Jews.” Tota respublica, Israelis spectabat Christsm (Bengel). Comp. John 1:48; Romans 9:4; Romans 9:6; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Galatians 6:16. The genitive τοῦ Ἰσραήλ denotes the possessor, the usufructuary, of the πολιτεία. [So Ellicott, who rightly insists that the word marks their religious and spiritual, rather than their national or political distinctions. Hodge and Alford accept as more simple the view of Harless, that the genitive is that of the identical nation: “the commonwealth which is Israel.” Alford notices that the word “alienated” requires an objective reality as its reference, hence the meaning mentioned next is to be rejected.—R.] Certainly we should not refer this to the civil constitution (Anselm, Grotius), for which a Roman or Greek could have no desire; what the Gentiles, who became Christians, lacked previously and now possessed, was certainly not “places of honor” or “citizenship in the Jewish State” (Harless). We should not then think of citizenship (Bullinger, Calvin). And strangers from the covenants of the promise, καὶ ξένοιτῶνδιαθηκῶντῆςἐπαγγελίας.—This clause is closely connected with the preceding (καὶ), as a formula. So too the words correspond: “strangers” to “alienated,” “covenants” to “polity,” “promise” to “Israel.” “Strangers” respects what has come to pass in the course of development or the internal position, which that development furthers (Bullinger: eandem rem significat utraque, nisi quod posterius prius); “covenants” designates the repeated renewal of the covenant from Abraham to Moses (Genesis 12:2 f. 7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:18;. Genesis 17:20; Genesis 22:16 ff.; Genesis 26:2 ff.; Genesis 28:13 ff.), to the prophets; the context speaks merely of the time before Christ. All these repeated agreements, however, serve the one promise given to Abraham referring to all nations as well as characterizing the covenants, and reechoing again and again. So in Romans 9:4 : “the covenants” and “the giving of the law” are placed side by side. Hence this is not to be referred to the two covenants, the old and the new (Calovius and others), or to the two tables of the law (Beza and others). Having no hope, etc.—Here again we have two clauses connected and belonging together. Ἐλπίδαμὴἔ χοντες, “having no hope,” owing to the absence of the article, denotes that they have no hope of any kind; not merely a definite hope, but all hope is denied in their case. Hence we should not understand it of the resurrection and eternal life (Bullinger, Grotius), or of the promised possessions (Estius, Bengel), as the object of the hope, nor indefinitely of deliverance (Harless). At most we might join to it from the following ἄθεοι, in accordance with Acts 24:15 : “toward God,” πρὸς (εἰς) τὸνθεόν. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13 we find the expression used as absolutely as here. The negative μή is used with the participle in this clause, which is dependent on μνημονεύετε, “remember,” as a subjective negative. Winer, p. 444. Accordingly this clause is not to be put in dependence upon the preceding “strangers,” etc. (Bengel: si promissionem habuissent, spem habuissent illi respondentem; Harless); the clause would thus also be loosened from its close connection with the following one: καὶ ἄθεοιἐντῷκόσμῳ. Without God.—Ἄθεος is stronger than χωρὶςθεοὺ, corresponding to θεὸνοὐκἔχει (2 John 1:9; 1 John 2:23),=“not having God.” The essence of heathenism is Atheism (Romans 1:21 ff.); the worship of devils and εἴδωλα (1 Corinthians 10:20; 1 Corinthians 7:2) does not take the place of God; “for polytheism is atheistic,” and that philosophy is first correct, which throws this off in its thoughts respecting God. Bengel: non statuerant, nullos esse deos (Acts 19:35): sed verum Deum ignorabant; tantum aberat, ut haberent (1 Thessalonians 4:5). He who is ἄθεος is, not merely as respects religion, but also as respects morality, God-less, and heathen immorality is different from Jewish immorality. Hence Harless should not wish to exclude this, as if it were true enough but not pertinent here, where the distinction from the people of Israel is set forth, they being however included also under sin. Meyer, against the context, weakens the idea, by taking it as passive: God-forsaken. [Of the three senses of ἄθεος: active (opposed to God), neuter (ignorant of God, without the subordinate notion of impiety, which Braune prefers), and passive (forsaken of God, without God’s help), the latter seems most prominent here, and is accepted by Hodge, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, mainly on the ground that the whole passage is passive in its character. This is the gloomiest view, and hence the more probable one, though the others stand so closely related to it, that it is hardly correct to term this a weakening of the idea.—R.] The connection with the preceding clause is evident, God is the God of hope (Romans 15:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:16). Comp. Doctr. Note, 2. In the world, ἐντῷκοσμῶ, sets forth the antithesis to “the commonwealth of Israel,” denoting the “ungodly where” (Meyer), and marking in any case the fearful element of ἄθεος, the place, where a “sure hope, a firm hold” is so urgently needed (Olshausen), the place without the Creator in the service of nature and the creature, without a Redeemer in need and sin, without consolation and salvation in vanity and nothingness. Hence it is not=inter ceteros homines, in his terris (Koppe), in profane humanity, the heathen world (Meyer), or in the world created and ruled by God (Grotius, Rueckert). Finally it must be remarked in regard to the structure of this sentence, that the two pair of clauses which unfold the meaning of “without Christ,” each contain two related connected thoughts, and the two in the first pair stand in such a relation to the two in the second pair, that the first corresponds to the fourth and the second to the third. [The various correspondences as well as the relation to the leading clause of the verse are aptly expressed by Eadie: “Being Christless, they are described in regular gradation as being churchless, hopeless, godless and homeless.”—R.] Ephesians 2:13. Fundamental trait of their present condition.—But now, in Christ Jesus [νυνὶ δὲ ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ?].—The thought of this verse is still in dependence on “remember” (Ephesians 2:11); the Apostle however breaks off into the independent, antithetical form. “But now” is in contrast with “once” (Ephesians 2:11), “at that time” (Ephesians 2:12). and as there the past was described by “without Christ,” so here the present by “in Christ Jesus;” the latter form being fuller than the former, because the Promised One has come, the eternal Son of God has become man. The Apostle does not refer to “the ‘now’ of the present ‘simply,’ but to the present in their fellowship with Christ” (Harless). Still we need not supply either ἐστε (Baumgarten-Crusius) or ὄντες (Calvin), nor connect the phrase exclusively with “now” (Harless); both belong to ἐγενήθητε below, in fact to the whole sentence. Ye who once were far off were brought nigh in the blood of Christ, ὑμεῖςοἱ ποτὲ ὄντεςμακρὰνἐγενήθητεἐγγὺςἐντῷ αἴματιτοῦ Χριστοῦ.—The position of the words obliges us to regard ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ as rendered specially prominent, as a general definition of modality, and ἐντῷ αἵματιτοῦ Χριστοῦ, “in the blood of Christ,” as a special one, so that the latter is to be taken as a more precise explanation of the former; it is not then in apposition with it; both belong to the verbal notion “were brought nigh.” Then again “ye” has now another qualification than before: “who were once far off,” as corresponding to Ephesians 2:12 (“alienated”—“strangers”). Comp. Ephesians 2:17; Acts 3:39; Acts 17:27 (“though He be not far from every one of us”); Mark 12:34 (“Thou art not far from the kingdom of heaven”). These words have a reference figuratively to our relation to God; the heathen are thus spoken of in prophecy (Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 60:3-4; Isaiah 66:19; Isaiah 55:5; Isaiah 57:19) in their relation to both God Himself and His people. Bucer: qui hactenus non fuisti populus domini, jam estis populus domini. The distance and nearness include both the relation to God and that to His people; hence should not be referred either to the former alone (Matthies), or to the latter alone (Rueckert, Olshausen, Bleek). Bengel: procul a populo Dei et a Deo. It is not sufficient to say: longe eratis a cognitione Dei veri et a spe vitζ c�lestis (Grotius), still less: μακράν homines miserrimi, ἐγγύς, felicissimi (Koppe). The approach is something which develops (ἐγενήθητε), has a history; the means rest in and proceed from what is expressed by: “in the blood of Christ.” This is almost=“through his blood,” διὰ τοῦ αἴματοςαὐτοῦ (Ephesians 1:7); the prepositions ἐν and διά are, however, both used in Colossians 1:16 : ἐναὐτῷ ?—διʼ ? αὐτοῦ. The latter denotes the cause, through which any thing takes place, comes into position or existence, the former the permanent ground, on which it has its continuance. (Winer, p. 362. The word “Christ” here has special significance: it marks the Son of God beside the word “blood,” which marks “the form of a servant.” Closer explanation respecting the nature and genesis of their present condition. Ephesians 2:14-18. Ephesians 2:14. For he is our peace [αὐτὸςγάρἐστινἡ εἰρήνηἡμῶν],—The position is emphatic, “He,” not the unemphatic subject, but He Himself (Winer, p. 142). [He and none other; so most commentators.—B.] His Person is “our peace.” The article marks the peace as well-known, more closely defined. Bengel aptly says: pax, non modo pacificator; nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipsi vinculum est utrorumque. The allusion to passages in prophecy (Micah 5:4; Isaiah 9:5-6; Isaiah 52:7; Isaiah 53:5; Zechariah 9:10, etc.; also Psalms 72) is unmistakable. This is denied by Baumgarten-Crusius. The Messiah is indeed called ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν, not merely Prince of Peace, εἰρηνοποιός. The genitive ἡμῶν, “our,” merely denotes that the peace belongs to them, does not say whether the peace is among themselves or between them and God. This is determined by the context. On the nature of this peace, see Doctr. Note 3 b. Who made both one, ὁ ποιήσαςτὰ ἀμφότεραἕν.—He is therefore “the peace” through an act (ἁ ποιήσας with αὐτός, quippe qui fecit), which is set forth here only generally: made one, ε͂νποιεῖν. Here we find a closer definition of the idea “peace,” not of “our,” as the neuter requires. Τὰ ἀμφότερα, like τὰ μωρά, ἀσθενῆ, κ. τ. λ., 1 Corinthians 1:27 f., designates the general: what is of two kinds, “what opposes because sundered” (Matthies). The annulling of an existent variance is thereby noted as the nature of the peace. Hence we may not say that the neuter is=τοῦςἀμφοτέρους (Ephesians 2:16; Ephesians 2:18), τοὺςδύο (Ephesians 2:15), as Koppe, Meyer and others think, nor does the neuter ἕν define the neuter τὰ ἀμφότερα (Bengel). [“Both” is usually referred to “Jews and Gentiles.” This is a legitimate inference, but Braune holds that the statement here does not require any specific reference.—R.] And broke down the middle wall of the partition [καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχοντοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας].—The indefinite notion of “making one” is now more closely defined; καί adds in a figure the main point; hence it is not epexegetical (Meyer). [The explanatory or epexegetical force of καί is accepted by Eadie, Alford, Ellicott. It is correct, if the previous clause has a distinct reference to the Jews and Gentiles: who made both Jews and Gentiles one, viz., in that He broke down, etc. There seems to be nothing gained by adopting Braune’s view, while the other most obviously suggests itself.—R.] Τὸ μεσότοιχον, τοῦ φραγμοῦ (like ἕρκοςὀδόντων)=the partition wall of the fence, that is, the partition wall which is in the fence, denoting in the figure of an independent object a quality and effect of the hedge. [So Harless]. The leading idea is found in the first noun, the wall set up between the two, the Gentiles without the promise and covenant of God, and the Jews, the people of promise, which contains in itself the notion of separation; the participle applies to it. Therefore τοῦφραγμοῦ is not the genitive of apposition (Meyer) or to be resolved into τὸνφραγμὸντὸ μεσότοιχονὄντα (Grimm, Clavis, sub voce); in that case we would have found here τὸνφραγμὸντοῦ μεσοτοίχου. Luther too is incorrect: and has broken down the hedge, which was between. Nor is it=μεσότοιχονδιαφράσσον (Grotius and others). Unserviceable here also is the distinction of Bengel: paries disjungit domos, sepes regiones. From Matthew 21:33; Isaiah 5:2, we are shown that φραγμός (in agreement with Ephesians 2:15) refers to the law, that is, to its quality or effect in separating the people of God, which permits it to be regarded as a partition wall. We may also refer it to the temple in which a type of the spiritual is presented, and to which the expressions here selected point; there was there a court of the Gentiles (Acts 21:28), though only in latter times, in the last temple; a vail, which separated like a wall, rent first at the death of the Redeemer. Hence the word λύσας is aptly chosen (John 2:19; Matthew 5:17; Galatians 2:18; 1 John 3:8; 2 Peter 3:10).—All reference to the separated residence of Jews in cities, as in Frankfort, Rome and elsewhere (Gronow and others) and the like is to be rejected. Ephesians 2:15. Having abolished (done away) in his flesh the enmity, even the law of the commandments expressed in ordinances [τὴνἔχθραν, ἐντῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸννόμοντῶνἐντολῶνἐνδόγμασινκαταργήσας. See Textual Note 4]. The Apostle now adds, without a connecting particle, the meaning of the figure; he construes it thus:τὴνἔχθρανἐντῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καταργήσας, but during the dictation inserts after αὐτοῦ the phrase τὸννόμοντῶνἐντολῶνἐνδόγμασιν, the banner of this enmity; these two objects in the accusative representing two sides of one object, hence very well allowing the dependence on κατηργήσας. To τὸ μεσότοιχον corresponds τὴνἔ χθραν, denoting simply the literal reality, the division, the hostile separation and antagonism of Jews and Gentiles, and, since there is nothing to indicate any limitation, but as the context rather points to enmity of man towards God which is active behind this hostility of the Jews and Gentiles, including this latter at the same time (Ephesians 2:16). [So Alford and Ellicott: “The enmity due not only to Judaical limitations and antagonisms, but also and, as the widening context shows, more especially to the alienation of both Jew and Gentile from God.”—R.] Bucer: Vera tamen inter Judζos et ethnicos inimicitia, i.e., diversitas erat, quod illi verum Deum colerent, hi minime. It is incorrect to refer it exclusively to the enmity against God (Greek Fathers, Harless and others) or to the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Bleek [Eadie, Hodge] and others), or to understand only the cause of division that is the law (Luther, Calvin and others). It is correct however to understand that the Apostle places by the side of the existing fact, τὴνἕχθραν, the cause of the same, τοννόμοντῶνἐντολῶνἐνδόγμασι. The law has its contents in “commandments:” αἱ ἐντολαί, the injunctions to be regarded and executed, are both the purely moral and the ceremonial commandments of God (Matthew 15:3; Matthew 22:36; Matthew 22:38; Romans 7:8-13), called also “of men” (Titus 1:14); the plural marks plurality, and points also to divisions. This is rendered prominent by the phrase ἐνδόγμασιν, joined closely without the article to ἐντολῶν, and defining its quality. Similarly: πίστιςἐντῷ κνρίῳ (Ephesians 1:15), ἀγάπηἐνπνεύματι (Colossians 1:8), σοφίαἐνμυστηρίῳ (1 Corinthians 2:7). Comp. Winer, pp. 129, 206. Δόγμα, used of regal orders (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7), of apostolic determinations (Acts 16:4), means here as in Colossians 2:14 the statutes of the law; δογματίζεσθαι, in Colossians 2:20, is to be ordered or to order one’s self. The idea of a mandate is always contained in it. Erasmus: Ostendens legem imperiosam appellat illam τῶνἐντολῶν(ἐντέλλουσαν)—quomodo? non persuasione et lenitate aut promissis, sed prζceptis quζ vocat Dogmata. Every ἐντολή appears then in a special, mandatory precept. [This view of the phrase is now the common one. Alford: “The law of decretory commandments.” For the other interpretations, see Harless and Eadie in loco.—R.] Of this there is predicated καταργήσας (ἀργὸν=ἀεργὸνποιεῖν, Romans 3:31; 1 Corinthians 13:11): to make unavailing, to do away, to deprive of power. The ideal worth remains intact, so also the theocratic obligation; but in so far as the law imperiously binds the heart and will with casuistic ordinances for all cases, it is done away. In this too lies the cause of the enmity against God and men. [Eadie takes “law,” etc. to mean the ceremonial law. Hodge more correctly: “The idea probably is that the law in all its compass, and in all its forms, so far as it was a covenant prescribing the conditions of salvation, is abolished.” He extends it to all the law of God, written in the heart as well, while admitting a special reference to the Mosaic law.—R.] This doing away took place “in his flesh.” As the decisive, main qualification it stands in an emphatic position. It means more than “in Himself,” denoting the real “likeness” to our “flesh,” in which He began His sanctifying, expiating sorrows, which slew what was opposed, which helped the right to full right, in active obedience to the law even to the acme, of the death on the cross, the passive obedience, thus, though without sin, bearing, feeling, overcoming the “enmity” with the “law,” thus “by virtue of His fleshly life under the law, which He gave to death, in order to receive it back from death living, glorious, free in spirit for us all” (Delitzsch), putting the law with its ordinances into inactivity, at the same time in His bodily life burying it. Bengel construes incorrectly: Est quasi stilo lapidari scriptum: Christus came sua inimicitiam, dogmatibus evangelicis in totum orbem deditis legem prζceptorum sustulit; this is simply untrue historically, impossible logically, unnecessary grammatically, and too artificial. [It seems scarcely correct to render “by His flesh” (Hodge: “i.e., by His death”), since this leaves out of view the life of Christ as a satisfaction of the law. Besides ἐν rarely means simply by. Alford and Ellicott however thus limit it: “in His crucified flesh.”—The question of connection is more disputed. The article would precede, if it should be joined to ἔχθραν. Harless, De Wette, Meyer, Eadie, Hodge agree with Braune in joining it with καταργήσας, in emphatic position. To this Alford, who, with Ellicott and many of the earlier commentators, joins it with λύσας, objects, because it makes the instrumental predication precede the verb. If ἔχθαν is governed by καπαργήσας, the question is decided at once, while in any case this view seems preferable; the general sense remaining the same, although the allusion to the vail of the temple becomes more prominent, if Alford’s view be accepted.—R.] Meyer and others take τὴνἔ χθραν by itself as in apposition to μεσότοιχον, detaching it from what follows; in that case τὸννόμοντῶνἐντολῶνἐνδόγμασιν would stand before ἐντῇ σαρκὶαὐτοῦ. [This is also the view of Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott. While it does not introduce any material difference into the interpretation of the passage, it modifies its form very considerably. And it seems the preferable view. The objection Braune raises is met at once by saying that his own interpretation assumes an after-thought influencing the order (see beginning of this verse). The emphatic phrase; “in His flesh” thus takes an emphatic position, whatever be its connection. The emphasis is altogether lost in the E. V., as any reader may perceive. This view allows of a nicer discrimination between the accusatives, introduces a needed explanation of the figurative expression: “middle wall,” while ἔχθραν is more usual after the verb λύειν than after καταργεῖν. Hodge thus paraphrases: “He is our peace, because He has made the two one, by removing the enmity or middle wall which divided the Jews and Gentiles, and this was done by abolishing the law.” This is correct, but omits the important description of the law and the emphatic: in His flesh.” Comp. Textual Note4.—R.] Stier incorrectly joins ἐνδόγμασιν to νόμον; but then the article τόν would necessarily have been prefixed (1 Thessalonians 1:8) or ἐντολῶν have preceded νόμον (Colossians 1:8). Nor is “in his flesh” to be joined with “enmity” (Chrysostom), as though only a natural hatred among his people, among his kindred, were referred to. It is incorrect to understand νόμοςτῶνἐντολῶν as referring only to adiaphora (Grotius), to the ceremonial law (Bengel) [Eadie], or to the moral law alone (Calovius), or δόγματα as referring to philosophorum doctrinas (Grotius), since the readers are not homines triti in philosophorum Scriptis; quite as little can the doctrine of Christ be denoted thereby (Bengel and others), or nova prζcepta (Fritzsche). Finally καταργήσας does not point to the removal of the theocratic obligation (Schenkel). That he might create the two in himself into one new man [ἵνατοὺςδύοκτίσῃ ἐνἑαυτῷ εἰςἕνακαινὸνἄνθρωπον].—Ἵνα introduces a final clause, giving here the purpose of καταργήσας, which defines λύσας more closely, and with this explains ποιήσας. He has done away the law in its commandments; destroyed the separating elements clinging to it, that He might κτίσῃ. Thus the ποιήσας is further defined as creating. The objects of this creation, τοὺςδύο, are the two great masses of people regarded as two individualities, as two, not a greater number of separate individuals beside each other, each of whom stands or falls for himself (Olshausen); still less is there involved a series of various specimens of the different races. The masculine denotes the persons, in distinction from the more general idea of the neuter (τὰ ἀμφότερα, Ephesians 2:14); the choice of words corresponds. That ἀνθρώπους is not inserted, is not to be explained by the wider scope, as Bengel thinks: eleganter omittit homines, antea enim vix humanum nomen tuiti erant. Ἐνἑαυτῷ places the Person of Christ again in the foreground: Ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem quζrant (Calvin). [Hodge: “In virtue of union with Him,—union with Christ being the condition at once of their unity and of their holiness.” In His Person, at all events.—R.] The ground of the existence and permanence is in Him; He is the Author (κτίσῃ) and foundation, and at the same time the life-sphere, Creator and Second Adam, Progenitor of the new race, which stands in original peace with God. It is therefore not=δἰ ἑαυτοῦ (Greek Fathers), in order to exclude angels or other powers, as those through whom what is asserted was effected. But still less is it=per suam doctrinam(Grotius). In this creation (κτίσῃ, Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:10) there is a purpose εἰςἕνακαινὸνἄνθρωπον. Ἐνἑαυτῷ conditions ἅνθρωπος in the singular. Comp. Galatians 3:28 : πάντεςγὰρὑμεῖςεἷςἐστὲ ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; John 10:16. By εἷςκαινὸςἄνθρωπος is indicated: ὁρᾷςοὐχὶ τὸνἝλληναγενόμενονἸουδαῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτονκἀκεῖνονεἰςἑτέρανκατάστασινἥκονταςοὐχἵνατοῦτονἕτερονἑργάσηται, τὸννόμονκατήργησεν, ἀλλʼ ? ἵνατοὺςδύοκτίσῃ. It is Very superficial and perverted to take “one new man” as a third, which is neither heathenism nor Judaism, without thinking of the moral renewal of persons (Baumgarten-Crusius). The preposition marks the purpose or tendency, and thus the creation as one not yet concluded; humanity, consisting of personally free individuals, is potentially renewed in Christ, but not yet actually. [Alford: “Observe, not that He might reconcile the two to each other only, nor is the Apostle speaking merely of any such reconciliation: but that He might incorporate the two, reconciled in Him to God, into one new man,—the old man to which both belonged, the enemy of God, having been slain in His flesh on the cross. Observe, too, one new man: we are all in God’s sight, but one in Christ, as we are but one in Adam.”—R] Hence: So making peace, ποιῶνεἴρήνην.—The present participle stands first for emphasis, marking a continued activity of Christ. The act of union does not therefore coincide with the act of creation. Hence Bucer is incorrect: pace facta. Since εἰρηνη has no limitation joined with it, that peace (between Jews and Gentiles) which the context indicates as the most immediate reference, is to be meant, but that which is implied also in “new man” (toward God) is not to be excluded (Schenkel [Eadie, Hodge], and others). Harless should not term the note of Chrysostom (πρὸςτὸνθεὸνκαὶ πρὸςἀλλήλους) correct only in the first half. Ephesians 2:16. And might reconcile them both [καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺςἀμφοτέρους].—Καί connects this clause with ἵνα, on which the verb depends; so that this too belongs to the purpose of καταργήσας. The emphasis is on the verb which comes first. This compound occurs only here and in Colossians 1:20-21, and is a strengthened καταλλάσσειν, as ἀπεκδέχεσθαι and ἀποκαραδοκεῖν, not merely to expect, but to await, to expect with perseverance. The preposition ἀπό has the meaning “again” in composition (see Passow sub voce), but only when the notion of the verb itself includes this in some measure, as ἀποκαθίστημι of what is healed, restored (Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:5; Mark 8:25; Luke 6:10; Acts 1:6); certainly the notion “again” is near at hand in that of reconciliation, because separation and enmity are not original, and the reconciliation leads away from the present status back to the original one. Hence the strengthened notion is “reconcile again.” [So Calvin, Alford, Ellicott; but Eadie and Meyer object.—R.] Qui ita deposuerunt immicitiam, ut amicitia successerit, neque quidquam reliquum sit, quin concordes vivant ἐνἑνὶ σώματι, cujus est unum caput Christus (Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 105).—The object of the reconciliation: τοὺςἀμφοτέρους. [The article renders the object definite: them both or both of us.—R.] Since Paul does not say δύο, which is a mere numeral, but ἀμφότεροι, which denotes diversity, he renders prominent the difficulty and importance of the reconciliation. In one body to God through the cross [ἐνἑνὶ σώματιτῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ στανροῦ ?].—“In one body” denotes the sphere in which the reconciliation is consummated: over against “both” there is now only “one body,” in which they are; each does not need a separate one. To supply “being,” ὄντας, in thought is the simplest interpretation. The phrase refers, like ἐνἑαυτῷ, ἐντῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸςγάρ (Ephesians 2:14), to His Person, as the only one in which both are redeemed, to an organism (σῶμα, not σάρξ) in its outward appearance, thus to the body of Christ, the Church. [So Hodge, Alford, Ellicott.] It is not, sicut Latinis collegia vocantur corpora, corporation=Society (Grotius). The end of the reconciliation is τῷθεῷ. It is not God that is reconciled with men, but men with God. What has all along been implied, conceived of in general, left indefinite in the words “peace” (Ephesians 2:14-15), “the enmity” (Ephesians 2:15), “new man” (Ephesians 2:15), is now definitely expressed as the other side. The added qualification of the reconciliation: “through the [or His] cross” refers to the death on the cross, in which the ἱλασμός the atonement, is marked as the act, which is the condition of the at-onement. Comp. Doctr. Note 3. Hence it is not justifiable to take ἑνἑνὶσώματι as=εἰςε͂νσῶμα (Delitzsch), or to refer it to the body of Christ on the cross (Chrysostom, Bengel: cruci affixo, Harless, Hofmann and others), since then διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ would be altogether unnecessary or should be joined with the following άποκετείνας (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 381); nor is the thought to be completed thus: Christ has reconciled in one single body, or made one single body (His own) to a unity, including them in the same fellowship with God; there is no reference to the antithesis of many sacrifices before and outside of Christ. Grotius interprets διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ incorrectly: Simul intelligit doctrinam cruce sanctam; sed crucem dicere malint, ut intelligamus, quanto res ista Christo steterit; Stier too misinterprets: the power and fear of the cross which is to be preached. Nor can we accept a reconciliation of “both with each other, taking “to God” as dative commodi: ut Deo serviant (Grotius). Having slain the enmity on it [ἀποκτείναςτὴνἔχθρανἐναὐτῷ ?].—The aorist participle defines the mode of consummating the reconciliation, explaining τοῦ σταυροῦ, on which account ἑναὐτῷ can refer only to this: the Crucified One, who was slain, the Dying One, slays and has slain “the enmity,” which includes here as in Ephesians 2:15 both the enmity between “both “and against God, the latter being more prominent here, the former in Ephesians 2:15. On the cross the chief matter was, that He who had been rejected by both Jews and Gentiles should through a propitiation in Himself reconcile both to God. It is incorrect to exclude from τὴνἐχθραν enmity toward God (Schenkel, Meyer) or of the Jews and Gentiles against each other (Rueckert, Harless, Hofmann), for the peace of these with each other does not condition their peace with God, indeed enmity against God participates in the hate these have toward each other, which the law occasions and furthers. [Alford and Ellicott adopt this wide or complex reference. Hodge however says: “The enmity is that which subsisted between God and man.” Many doubt the propriety of predicating ἔχθραν of God, who certainly has ὀργήν. Comp. Romans, p. 165. In the passage there commented on, the active sense of the adjective must be accepted, I think, but that does not seem so bold and harsh as to say that ἔχθραν is “God’s enmity.” The wider reference is better sustained by the context, and of itself tones down the objectionable form without at all interfering with the implied truth respecting God’s anger against sin and the satisfaction rendered on the cross.—The view of Meyer is accepted by Eadie, though there seems to be a confusion in his language. But this limited meaning does not “at all satisfy the solemnity of the sentence, or of the next two verses.” Enmity here is “that between man and God, which Christ did slay on the cross, and which being brought to an end, the separation between Jew and Gentile, which was the result of it, was done away” (Alford). The fact that our participle is aorist, and in all probability denotes an antecedent act, is no objection to this view, as Eadie seems to think, since what Christ did on the cross (here spoken of) necessarily precedes what He designs doing through His cross (“reconcile them both in one body to God”), and the enmity of man against God was as fully and effectually destroyed in that act as that between Jew and Gentile. Meyer’s position takes this distinction of enmity as the basis of the “one body,” in which both are reconciled to God, but this seems to condition the latter on the former.—R.] It is a perversion to understand τὴνἔχθραν as the law (Koppe and others). Comp. on Ephesians 2:14. Ἐναὐτῷ cannot be referred to ἐνἑνὶ σώματι (Bengel, Hofmann). Ephesians 2:17. And he came and preached peace [καὶ ἐλθὼνεὐηγγελίσατοεἰρήνην].—Since the verb is not dependent upon ἵνα, but independent, it cannot be joined with Ephesians 2:16. Καί connects rather with Ephesians 2:14 : He Himself is our Peace and announces that Himself (Harless). What intervenes explains the former statement, by showing its meaning and truth in His doings even unto death: He has established peace, therefore He is our Peace. This is to be regarded as pre-supposed in ἕλθών. Accordingly His coming is after His resurrection. Bengel is excellent: Veniens a morte, profectione ad inferos, resurrectione, victor lζtus ipse ultro nuntiavit. To this the verb εὐηγγελίσατο, “preached,” refers, which is not a predicting of the future, but a message from one who is present, who has come. Ἐλθών is added descriptively, and is in accordance with the promise (John 14:18): “I come to you,” denoting there His continued presence, insigne verbum (Bengel). Chrysostom well says: οὐ διʼ ? ἑτέρουἔπεμψεν, οὐδὲ διʼ ? ἀλλοῦ τινὸςταῦταἐμήνυσεν, ἀλλʼ ? αὐτὸςδιʼ ? ἑαυτοῦ. The Risen One is Himself an actual announcement of the attained victory and peace; He is present in the coming of the Holy Ghost, and also with His messengers and their gospel. So in 2 Timothy 1:10, where the ἐπιφάνεια of the Risen One and His gospel are spoken of. Thus the proffering and appropriating of the established peace is emphasized, and “preaching peace” is distinguished from “being peace.” Evidently we should understand both peace with one another and with God. Accordingly it is incorrect to regard ἐλθών as redundant (Grotius and others), or to refer it to the Incarnation (Chrysostom, Anselm, Harless); the expression can by no means be referred merely to the resurrection and the salutation of peace (Bengel), or to the coming in the Holy Spirit (Olshausen, Schenkel), or in the Apostles (Ambrose, Calvin and others); nor can it be=caused to be proclaimed (Grotius), since ἐλθών is found here and is not redundant. “Peace” should not be limited to the relation to God (Chrysostom, Harless [Hodge]) or of the Jews and Gentiles toward each other (Bleek, Meyer). [The repetition and emphasis are against this.] As regards the matters here treated of, we should not compare here John 10:16; John 12:20-23; Matthew 8:11; Matthew 14:14, as though this were that which He “came and preached.” We should rather be reminded of the renewal of the Apostles, the conversion of Paul, and of Rom 8:9-10; Romans 8:14-17; Romans 15:18; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:13. [So Eadie, Alford, Ellicott (and Hodge, except as regards the comprehensive sense of “peace”).—R.] The tense of the verb εὐηγγελίσατο defines the point of time of the conversion of individuals; then Christ brought it to them. To you who were afar off and peace to those who were nigh, ὑμῖντοῖςμακρὰνκαὶ εὶρήνηντοῖςἐγγύς.—This is to be taken in accordance with Ephesians 2:13. The readers as originally Gentiles are those “afar off,” and on this account they come first, as indeed historically such were converted to the Church, the Jews, “those nigh,” falling into the background. The repetition of εἰρήνην before this last term marks their need of this, notwithstanding their nearness; ὑμῖν however comprises both, since both (Jews and Gentiles) were in the Church, though the latter constituted the main element. Comp. Acts 16:23. The double εἰρήνην is derived from Isaiah 57:19. There ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?νωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν refers not inaptly but emphatically, like the double ναὶ ναί, οὒ ὀὒ (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12), to Gentiles and Jews, and hence the repetition. The dative depends on the verb, not on εἰρήνη as dative commodi; the interpretation of Harless compelling him to accept this view of it: the purport of His message was a peace which respected all, Jews as well as Gentiles. [So Hodge, but the other is far simpler, and accepted by Meyer, Eadie, Alford, and most.—R.] Ephesians 2:18. For through him [ὅ τιδιʼ ? αὐτοῦ ?].—Ὅτι is here evidently=quia; it is probatio ab effectu (Calvin). The purport of the εὐηγγελίσατο cannot be thus introduced (Koppe); this is set forth in “peace,” and it cannot be preached, that (ὅτι) we have, but only: because we have, or: that we may have. The nature of the “peace” is not to be explained by this clause (Rueckert); this has been already defined. The truth of the assertion: “came and preached” is shown in a reality (ἔχομεν), the reality of the result of this preaching (τὴνπροσαγωγήν); because the preaching of Christ is spoken of, διʼ ? αὐτοῦ stands first. Were the proclamation the main matter, then ἔχομεν would have taken the first place. “Through Him” denotes the mediation by means of the entire Divine-human Person; it is not=“through his blood” (Olshausen). [Hodge suggests this, but not to the exclusion of other thoughts.—R.] We both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father [ἔχομεντὴνπροσαγωγὴνοἱ ἀμφότεροιἐνἑνὶ πνεύματιπρὸςτὸνπάτερα].—Προσαγωγή here, Ephesians 3:12 and Romans 5:2 (εἰςχάριν) is the presupposition to the entrance into the holiest (Hebrews 10:19) and “into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord” (2 Peter 1:11) and the occasion of the drawing near (Hebrews 10:22); it is not merely the right and permission to do so, but a fact in which we rejoice as a reality (1 Peter 3:18) that has become ours (ἔχομεν); the drawing near should not be wanting; ἐσχήκαμεν (Romans 5:2) gives prominence to the appropriation as a continuing fact, ἕχομεν denotes only the present possession, the acceptance which has taken place. The underlying figure is according to Hebrews 10:19-22 the entrance into the most holy place. In προσαγωγή Stier finds indicated a free approach and an ever closer approach. [The active, transitive sense: admission, introduction, is preferred by Ellicott, Eadie, and Hodge apparently, following Tholuck (Romans 5:2), while Alford prefers the intransitive sense, access, which does not differ greatly from the other, certainly does mean merely liberty of approach, and leave the actual enjoyment of the privilege out of view. “Introduction” certainly does not bring out the idea of “repetition, present liberty of approach,” as “access” does.—Meyer and Eadie remark that it means more than “door,” John 10:9. Comp. Romans, pp. 160, 161.—R.] We need not with Chrysostom (οὐκεἶπενπρόσοδον· οὐ γὰρἀφʼ ? ἑαυτοῦ προσήλθομεν, ἀλλʼ ? ὑπʼ ? αὐτοῦ προσήχθημεν) and Meyer think of a προσαγωγεύς to the king. [This thought need not be peremptorily rejected, however, though the other is on the whole preferable (Ellicott, Eadie, Alford).—R.]. The notion of “leading into” [Meyer] does not suit the other passages, Ephesians 3:12; Romans 5:2. The words: οἱ ἀμφότεροιἐνἑνὶ πνεύματι placed in juxtaposition, mark strongly the removed division, the unity, that too in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. They are not merely within the body of Christ, members of the Church, but are animated and impelled by the Spirit ruling there, which He has sent. “In one Spirit” refers to “in one body;” the two expressions being parallel. It is certainly not=unanimis voluntate,ὁμοθυμαδόν (Anselm). [The reference to the Holy Spirit scarcely admits of a reasonable doubt. But the preposition is not instrumental. To take as such destroys the parallelism with “in one body,” and confuses the relations of this clause. It is greatly to be regretted that this verse, so explicit and discriminating in its designations of the work of the Trinity in our salvation, should be thus confused. Dr. Hodge, whose notes on this verse are otherwise so excellent, does not bring out fully the correct interpretation of this preposition. “The Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital sphere or element in which both parties have their common πρωσαγωγή to the Father” (Ellicott).—R.] “Unto the Father,” ad Patrem ut ad Patrem. Hoc versu fit mentio Christi, Spiritus, Patris, eodem ordine, quo Ephesians 2:12, 1 Corinthians 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:5; aliter Acts 1:4-5 (Bengel). The choice of prepositions is remarkably apt:πρὸςτὸνπατέραδιὰ Χριστοῦ ενπνεύματι, Unto the Father through Christ in the Spirit. Sketch of their present condition. Ephesians 2:19-22. Ephesians 2:19. So then ye are no longer [ἄραοὖνοὐκέτιἑστέ].—Ἄραοὖν is very often used by Paul (Romans 5:18; Romans 7:3; Romans 8:12, etc. Winer, pp. 414, 519); it is=hinc ergo [accordingly then, comp. on Galatians 6:10.—R.]; ἄρα draws a conclusion from Ephesians 2:14-18; οὖν continues the discourse. Οὐκέτι, “no longer,” is placed immediately after ἄραοὖν, for the sake of emphasis. Strangers and sojourners, ξένοικαὶ πάροικοι.—Luther’s rendering: Gδste und Freundlinge, unnecessarily transposes the words. The expression proceeds from the more remote, ξένοι, to the less remote, πάροικοι. The former is the antithesis of ἐπιχώριος, and thus of the following συνπολῖται. So “brethren” are termed (3 John 5) “strangers;” it is=πֵּ ?ψ. The latter word, πάροικοι=ϊּ ?εֹ ?ωָׁ ?α, which is often joined with the former (Leviticus 25:35; Leviticus 25:40). Leviticus 22:10-11, where the LXX oppose πάροικοςἱερέως and οἰκογενεῖςαὐτου, forbidding the former and permitting the latter to eat of the holy things, seems to have been in the Apostle’s mind. Πάροικοι is then here the opposite of οικεῖοι, and means inquilini (from incolo, incolinus), qui domicilium in aliquo loco habent sine jure civitatis, hospites in urbe aliqua (Grotius). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C. The office and service of the churchEph_3:1-211. The office in and for this church(Ephesians 3:1-13.)1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus] for [in behalf 2of] you Gentiles, If [indeed] ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God 3which is given me to you-ward: How that [That] by revelation he made known unto me the mystery [the mystery was made known to me]; ([omit parenthesis] as I wrote [have written] afore in few words; 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge [In accordance with which, while reading, ye can perceive my understanding] in the mystery of Christ,) [omit) ] 5Which in other ages [generations] was not made known unto [to] the sons of men, as it is [has been] now revealed unto [to] his holy apostles and prophets by [in] the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be [are] fellow heirs, and of the same body [fellow members], and partakers [fellow-partakers] of his [the] promise in Christ [Christ Jesus] by [through] the gospel: 7Whereof I was made [became] a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto [which was given to] me by the effectual working [ac cording to the working] of his power. 8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is [was] this grace given, that I should preach among [to preach to] the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship [dispensation] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world [lit., from the ages] hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ 10[omit by Jesus Christ]: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in [the] heavenly places might be [made] known by [through] the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed 12[wrought] in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have [our] boldness and [our] access with [in] confidence by the faith of [through our faith on] him. 13Wherefore I desire that ye faint not [I beseech you not to faint] at my tribulations for you, which is [are] your glory. AND Connection and Summary. With τούτουχάριν the Apostle refers to what precedes (Ephesians 2:19-22), not exclusively to Ephesians 2:22 (Bleek, also Meyer), which is only a conclusion, although a comprehensive one. The reference to Ephesians 3:11-21 (Stier) is preferable to that of Bleek, yet the first part of that section contains merely an antithesis which has been overcome and is past. Without any fear of a relapse he now looks forward and points to the end and aim.—From the fact that the church, “of the family of God,” is built together in Christ “unto an habitation of God in the Spirit,” there proceeds as a result: the Apostle’s intercession and exhortation (Ephesians 3:14-19) the weight and indispensable consideration of which rest upon the office, not the person, although person and office do and must include each other; if the former rightly regards and administers the latter, the latter makes its importance felt chiefly in its bearer. Hence Ephesians 3:1-12 treat of the apostolic office as the appointed subject of the intercession and exhortation. Ephesians 3:1 describes the present efficient bearer of this office in general; Ephesians 3:2 defines the office as a gift of God’s grace, which according to Ephesians 3:3-4 has been imparted in a special manner and according to Ephesians 3:5 now for the first time, having as its task the reception of all nations through the proclamation of the gospel (Ephesians 3:6). Ephesians 3:7-8 a mark the service and the unworthiness of its recipient, Ephesians 3:8 b, 9, the extent of the task allotted to this gift; Ephesians 3:10 points to the aim; Ephesians 3:11, back to the beginning and foundation; Ephesians 3:12, to the carrying out of the task already begun. So Stier in the main. Ephesians 3:1. The person holding the office. For this Cause. Τούτουχάριν is an emphatic expression, occurring elsewhere only in Ephesians 3:14; Titus 1:5. It is stronger than διό, διὰ τοῦτο, introducing something special. [It means for this reason and is aptly rendered in the E. V]—To this strong expression corresponds: I Paul, ἐγὼ ΙΙαῦλος.—The phrase is found also in 2 Corinthians 10:1; Galatians 5:2; Colossians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; Philemon 1:19 (and Ephesians 3:9). Similarly ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης, Revelation 1:9; Revelation 22:8; Revelation 21:2 (Rec). He mentions his name, not on account of his person (Ephesians 3:8), but because of his office and-the importance of what he is doing. The prisoner of Christ Jesus [ὁδέσμιοςΧριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.]—In Ephesians 4:1 alone do we find ἐνκυρίῳ, elsewhere always (2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1:9) as here, with the genitive. It is undoubtedly the genitive auctoris, causζ. Winer, p. 178. So δεσμοὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “bonds of the gospel” (Philemon 1:13) are bonds which belong to the service of the gospel, ὀνειδισμὸνΧριστοῦ (Hebrews 13:13) is reproach which Christ bore, παθήματατοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Corinthians 1:3). Our phrase is not=for Christ’s sake, propter Christum. A special emphasis rests on the expression. In the Epistle to Philemon written at the same time (Ephesians 3:1), it even stands in the place where “Apostle” is usually found, and in Ephesians 3:9 (“as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus”) it is similarly used. Here it is not a predicate, but in apposition to the subject already so emphatically named, not an adjective, but a substantive added for the sake of description. Bengel aptly remarks: legatus, isque vinctus. As if he would say: I Paul, the prisoner, not of the emperor, nor of the soldier, but of Christ Jesus, whose Apostle I am. So, following Rieger, Passavant and Stier. Meyer approaches this view (=δοῦλοςΧριστοῦ). [The phrase is taken as a predicate (εἰμί being supplied) by very many from Chrysostom to Beza, Koppe, Meyer. The Syriac version sustains this view, which simplifies the construction very greatly, but is open to great objection: (1) It makes “for this cause” and “on behalf of you” tautological; (2) disconnects Ephesians 3:2 ff. from Ephesians 3:1, since they then do not explain it; (3) the article could only occur in the predicate with special emphasis; this emphasis is unpauline and inconsistent with “if indeed ye have heard” (Alford).—Other verbs are supplied in some codices. Meyer formerly accepted a brachyology: I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus, (am a prisoner) for you Gentiles, but gave it up as untenable in his 2d ed. See further below.—R.] In behalf of you Gentiles, ὑπὲρὑμῶντῶνἐθνῶν.—This added phrase justifies the above interpretation. Paul is imprisoned for the Gentiles, suffers to their benefit, as is said also in Philippians 1:7; Philippians 1:12 ff.; Colossians 4:3. Although Paul had to suffer on account of his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles (Acts 21:21; Acts 21:28 f.; Acts 22:21 ff.), yet ὑπέρ is not=propter (Grotius). It refers to ὑμᾶς (Ephesians 3:2) and is rather ad evangelium gentibus annuntiandum than annuntiatum (Flatt). Bengel: “Pauli studio erga gentes incensi sunt persecutores, ut vincirent illum; et vincula ipsa profuere gentibus, Ephesians 3:13; 2 Timothy 2:10,” Here then everything “odious” is to be rejected from the term, differing thus from the expression: “once Gentiles in the flesh” (Ephesians 2:10). Olshausen is excellent: “He here makes mention of his bonds, in order to bring into stronger prominence the glory just described in contrast with the present condition of the church.” Harless also remarks: “Paul would have the Gentiles led to none other than Him, whose chains he wore, and would thus give a proof of the glory of such fellowship, exalted above suffering and shame.” Stier: “The bonds should especially show that proof of the office which proceeds from internal efficacy; the bonds themselves also preach to the Gentiles, and themselves reveal to the Apostle something new.” At this point the sentence breaks off, and is resumed again in Ephesians 3:8, since it is peculiar to the naive style of the Greeks, to place the name in the nominative in a sentence, the end of which is not immediately contemplated, and since ἐμοί (Ephesians 3:8) is in a strikingly emphatic position, so that it refers back to ἐγώ (Ephesians 3:1) and thus indicates the resumption of the interrupted construction. So �cumenius, Grotius.[Not withstanding Dr. Braune’s preference for this view of the construction, it seems to be untenable. (1) Though examples of such a change of case may be found, Origen affirms that it is a solecism. (2) There is no natural connection of thought afforded by this view, while “for this cause” loses its meaning; the grace was not given for this cause, i.e., because they were built in. (3) Ephesians 3:8 has another obvious connection, viz., with Ephesians 3:6-7, so that according to this view “the leading thought of the antapodosis in Ephesians 3:8 is clumsily forestalled in Ephesians 3:6-7” (Alford).—R.] Most however (from Luther to Winer, p. 526 f., Bleek) find in Ephesians 3:13 a return to the thought of our verse, and in Ephesians 3:14 a resumption and continuation. [This view is supported, among others by Theodoret, Bengel, Flatt, Lachmann, Rueckert, Harless, De Wette (who however regards the construction as “scarcely Pauline”), Olshausen, Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott. It is the simplest view, except that of Meyer, and not open to any grave objection. (1) It makes the τούτουχάριν of Ephesians 3:14 take up the same emphatic phrase from Ephesians 3:1. (2) It gives to that phrase as well as to the whole chapter an appropriate meaning, while a long digression or parenthetical statement is not unpauline. In view of the truth he has just uttered (Ephesians 2:19-22), he is about to pray for them, but other thoughts come in. He is a prisoner (ver, 1), that too in behalf of the Gentiles: the thought of his office leads him away (Ephesians 3:2-12), when at length he comes back to the thought of imprisonment (Ephesians 3:13) with a request that they would not despond on account of his sufferings—then he resumes (Ephesians 3:14). The whole seems Pauline, and need occasion no difficulty.—R.] Baumgarten-Crusius accepts an anacoluthon without any subsequent continuation. Calvin [legatione fungor] and others supply πρεσβεύω (from Ephesians 6:20); others κεκαύχημαι (from Philippians 2:16); while such supplements as postulo, hoc scribo [Camerarius], cognovi mysterium [Jerome], sum captivus adhuc, etc., are quite ancient, and occur in some copies. A prevalent view (from the Syriac to Meyer and Schenkel) accepts εἰμί as the proper supplement; but it can scarcely be asserted, that Paul, τούτουχάριν, just on this account, is the Apostle to the Gentiles, the prisoner of the Lord, and that too κατʼ ? ἐξοχήν. [See above.] [Among other untenable views there should be mentioned that of Zanchius, Cramer and Holzhausen, who suppose the resumption to take place in Ephesians 3:13. Against this may be urged the simple διό, the want of connection thus given to Ephesians 3:14 with its strong τούτουχάριν, and “the insufficiency of such a secondary sentiment as that in Ephesians 3:13 to justify the long parenthesis full of such solemn matter, as that of Eph 3:2-12” (Alford).—To take the whole chapter as parenthetical is still more objectionable. In that case the digression were too long, and the parts of the chapter would not find their proper connection; besides chap. 4. does not resume the thought begun in our verse.—R.] Ephesians 3:2. The apostolic office is a gift of grace.If indeed ye have heard, εἴ γεἠκούσατε.—It is evident, first of all, that εἰ cannot be regarded as purely hypothetical, since it is written by the prisoner “in behalf of you,” and also since the object they have learned: “the dispensation of the grace of God,” will not admit of such a view. It is not necessary, however, to take it as=ἐπεί, since, Acts 4:9; Romans 11:21; 1 John 4:11; see Winer, p. 417. The same is true of εἴ γε in Ephesians 4:21; for there, immediately after Ephesians 3:20 (“but ye did not so learn Christ”), expressing accurate knowledge of the church, we find: εἴ γεαὐτὸνἠκούσατε, “if indeed ye have heard him.” The particle occurs elsewhere only in Colossians 1:23; Galatians 3:4 (2 Corinthians 5:3, we have in various readings both εἴ γε and εἴπερ). It does not necessarily indicate a doubt, as does εἴπερ (Hermann, ad Viger., p. 833), and hence is more like ἐπείγε, though it must not be regarded as precisely equivalent. In the form there is expressed an uncertainty, an assumption, which challenges a self-scrutiny in the case of every reader or hearer. [“Assuming that;” Alford, Ellicott, not in itself implying the rectitude of the assumption made, which depends on the context.—R.] The context, however, confirms the truth of the assumption, that they have heard. This turn of expression is therefore a rhetorical,“a more elegant and suggestive reminder” (Meyer) of the preaching of Paul, as if he had written: “for ye have heard,” or “since ye have heard.” Estius: “εἴγε non est dubitantis, sed potius affirmantis.” Or we may say with Stier, that it is pre-supposition, not without a slight touch of irony, in case it were otherwise; or still more correctly: in case they would not consider the Apostle as the Apostle of the Lord for them; not to have recognized Paul, not to have received his teaching would he equivalent to not having heard. Hence it is not correct to conclude from these words, that the Epistle was not written to Ephesus (see Introd. §5, 2). Nor does this phraseology render it necessary to accept a wider, partially unknown, circle of readers (Harless, Stier, Bleek and others). The assumption of Calvin is inadmissible: “It is credible, that when he labored in Ephesus, he was silent on these topics.” Nor is it at all necessary to do violence to the verb, and render it: firmiter retinetis (Pelagius), intellexistis (Anselm, Grotius and others). The reference is simply to preaching, especially that of Paul; hence this is termed ἀκοή (Romans 10:16 f.). [See Romans, in loco, p. 349.—R.] Of the dispensation of the grace of God [τὴνοἰκονομίαντῆςχάριτοςτοῦ θεοῦ ?].—Οἰκονομία here follows the close of chap. 2 with its οἰκοδομή. There the building of “an habitation” is treated of, here the establishment of a household, a νέμειν (Stier). See on Ephesians 1:10. This is a matter belonging to God, or still more closely to “the grace of God.” Hence it is to be regarded not as an apostolic function (Pelagius, Anselm, Luther: office [Hodge] and others), but as a Divine arrangement. It must also be remembered that we find here, not χάρισμα, but χάρις. This χάρις is then more closely defined: Which is given me to you-ward.—Τῆςδοθείσηςμοι, as in Romans 12:3; Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 3:10; Galatians 2:9, with ὑμῖν 1 Corinthians 1:4. Hence it is not to be understood of Apostolic office exclusively; although the context here points to that (εἰςὑμᾶς, as in Galatians 2:8, εἰςτὰ ἐθνη). Εἰςὑμᾶς marks the readers as the object about which the Apostle’s position and activity was concerned, and is neither=ὑπὲρὑμῶν, vestra causa (Morus), nor=ἐνὑμῖν, in vobis ( Vulgate) or inter vos, but upon, towards you; as εἰςἡμᾶς, Ephesians 1:19 : hence it is not merely: with respect to you (Rueckert). [“To you-ward,” though now unusual, expresses very well the precise shade of meaning.—R.] Thus the apostolic office is described as a gift of God’s grace, yet not so imparted and conferred that a “dispensation” is not necessary in addition, but so that the person himself (μοι) is especially prepared for it. Here we must include all that God had done for and in Paul, from childhood on (Galatians 1:15), near and in Damascus (Acts 9:1 ff; Acts 22:3 ff; Acts 26:12 ff.); in Jerusalem (Acts 22:21) and elsewhere (Galatians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:8-10; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). So Rueckert especially. To regard this as merely munus apostolicum gratiose, immerito beneficio Divino creditum is too superficial. Nor can we in accordance with Colossians 1:25 : “the dispensation of God which was given to me for you,” explain it thus, that the administrative office of the Divine grace was committed to him (Anselm, Grotius and others); here τῆςδοθείσης belongs to χάριτος, here the matter is regarded under a different aspect, and the context is different, since “heard” is the governing verb, and the office is not heard. [This view of οἰκονομία is defended by Eadie, Alford, Ellicott (Hodge mentions it, though he thinks it differs from his own merely in form). The only remaining question is respecting the genitive. It is obviously not that of the subject, but either that of the object, “the material with respect to which the dispensation was to be exercised” (Alford) or that of “the point of view” (Ellicott). These scarcely differ here, but some such sense is favored by the passive verb ἐγνωρίσθη (Ephesians 3:3 where the Rec. has ἐγνώρισε).—R.] The method of communication. Ephesians 3:3-4. Ephesians 3:3. That, ὅτι, gives prominence to a particular part of what they have heard, the essential part of the dispensation of the grace of God. [Alford: “Epexegesis of the fact implied in ἠκουσατετὴνοἰκ., viz., of the fact that: as we say ‘how that.’ ” That is the literal rendering, “how that” is a rather inelegant exegesis.—R.] By revelation was made known to me [κατὰ ἀποκάλυψινἐγνωρίσθημοι].—The emphasis here rests on “by revelation,” since it comes first. As neither τινα nor τήν is added, the reference is not to some particular event, definite in itself, but not more closely indicated (Acts 9:1 ff., as Olshausen thinks, or Acts 22:21), nor to some occurrence definitely designated, but rather to the mode of making known. It is an adverbial qualification of ἐγνωρίσθη=ἀπεκαλύφθη (Ephesians 3:5), or like Galatians 1:15-16. Κατά denotes, as in κατʼ ? ἄνθρωπον (Romans 3:5 and frequently), κατὰ χάριν (Romans 4:4), a mode which obtains or prevails (Winer, p. 375). [So Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Hodge apparently.—R.] Even διʼ ? ἀποκαλύψεως (Galatians 1:12) does not point to a single revelation (Stier). [Comp. in loco. Ellicott says the allusion in the phrase as it occurs Galatians 2:2 “is rather to the norma or rule, here to the manner.”—R.] It might be interpreted (according to Passow, sub voce, Ephesians 2:3, p. 1598 b) like ἔρχεσθαικατὰ θήραν, to go hunting, or 2 Timothy 1:1 : ἀπόστολοςκατʼ ? ἐπαγγελίαν, apostle for the proclamation; indeed G. Hermann explains Galatians 2:2 : for the explanation, proclamation, presentation. But ἀποκάλυψις is only what occurs to man from God, not what men have to impart to one another. The word μοι, placed last, indicates that he treats of something which does not distinguish him personally, but which belongs to his office: “Revelation” and “apostles and prophets” are correlatives; γνωρίζειν is the general making known, but ἀποκάλυψις denotes that by means of which the official personages thus endowed are immediately distinguished, by means of which the Apostles become prophets. See Ephesians 3:5 and Doctr. Notes on Ephesians 2:20. The mystery, τὸ μυστήριον, altogether indefinite, is, like Ephesians 1:9, the decree of salvation and grace in Christ (Stier), the renewing of humanity through Christ, especially moreover the calling of the Gentiles (Allioli). To refer it to the latter exclusively (most commentators from Chrysostom to Harless, Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek) is not admissible, even though Ephesians 3:6 follows. [On the precise reference of the word “mystery” in this chapter. The great majority of commentators, including Hodge, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, accept the more restricted view just mentioned, but admit the wider reference in Ephesians 3:4 (and many in Ephesians 3:9). The reasons for so doing are quite strong: the purport of the mystery is set forth in Ephesians 3:6, the dispensation of grace spoken of is “to you-ward,” a leading thought of the Epistle has been this calling of the Gentiles to fellowship with the Jews. Nor can it be urged against this, that it presents a matter unworthy of this designation and not at all mysterious. Tholuck (Romans 11:25) thus classifies the meanings of our term: (1) “Such matters of fact, as are inaccessible to reason, and can only be known through revelation: (2) such matters as are patent facts, but the process of which cannot be entirely taken in by the reason.” In the latter sense, the calling of the Gentiles was a “mystery,” is so still in view of the separatism, which to the Gentile mind is in some aspects yet stronger. Evidently the indefinite reference, which leaves this special fact out of view, is inadmissible, while Ephesians 3:4 seems to require the wider meaning. Accordingly the alternating reference has been accepted to meet these requirements. To my mind it is unsatisfactory: (1) It seems unlikely that a word should thus vary so speedily, when there is so little to mark a difference. (2) The difficulty in construction is thus increased: the E. V. accepts a parenthesis so as to connect Ephesians 3:5-6 with “mystery” in our verse, and thus leave the wider reference of Eph 3:4, undisturbed; but this is altogether arbitrary, since the relative clause (Ephesians 3:5) is to be joined directly with “mystery” (Ephesians 3:4) in accordance with the common structural usages of the Apostle. (3) Since then the grammatical connection is such, the purport of “the mystery of Christ” is set forth in Ephesians 3:6, and the alternating reference has lost its one great object, viz., the extension of the meaning in Ephesians 3:4. It seems best then to accept Braune’s view, but with somewhat more definiteness in statement. “The mystery” throughout is one mystery, but in view of the universalism of the Epistle and the current of thought in this section, it here appears as complex, precisely as the notions of “enmity” and “peace” in the preceding section: the mystery of redemption, whose centre is the Person of Christ, whose object and purport is Christ, taking that term as including the Body of which He is the Head, which He has redeemed, and in which the Gentiles are “fellow-members” (σύσσωμα, Ephesians 3:6); the latter thought being the special reference throughout, though never to the exclusion of the wider thought, since Ephesians 3:6 itself with its compounds of συν compels us to think of the one inheritance, body and promise which the gospel presents. Van Oesterzee well remarks (Lange’s Comm. 1 Timothy 3:16, p. 47): “Paul knows one only great mystery,” the chief truth of which as revealed to us is the Person of Christ in its connection with the Body of Christ, as the passage in the Epistle to Timothy itself teaches, and as is not obscurely hinted in. Ephesians 5:32 of our Epistle. With this thought of union as the ruling one, no wonder the special reference to the union of Jews and Gentiles comes in without in the least disturbing or excluding the more general one.—R.] As I have written afore in few words [καθὼςπροέγραψαἐνὀλίγῳ.—The English perfect brings out the force of the verb best, though it is not a literal rendering. The parenthesis of the E. V. is altogether unnecessary, the linking of clauses by relatives being common in this Epistle.—R.] Καθώς indicates that Paul has written only as “it has been made known to him by revelation,” of course, from God. This the context demands (Ephesians 3:2; Ephesians 3:4). This writing has therefore great importance. The verb refers to what is written already. The phrase ἐνὀλίγῳ, in brief=διὰ βραχέων (Chrysostom, Hebrews 13:22); in Plato: διʼ ? ὀλίγων, as in 1 Peter 5:12. The preposition is, at all events, local: in little space=συντύμως, Acts 24:4; Acts 26:28. (ἐνὀλίγῳ sc. χρόνῳ). Pauca tantum attigi, cum multa dici possent (Wetstein). Accordingly we must apply it to the whole Epistle up to this point; in comparison with the wealth of the truth revealed, its fulness, its wide-reaching, deep-moving efficiency, what he writes is to him always little and brief. He thus speaks in modesty respecting his writings, not as though the time for a more thorough treatise failed him (Schenkel). The reference is to such passages as Ephesians 1:9 ff.; Ephesians 1:17 ff.; Ephesians 2:4 ff.; Ephesians 2:11 ff., not to one passage especially, as those expositors must hold, who limit “mystery.” Since he is speaking of local precedence alone, not of temporal, “written before “cannot be referred to a previous Epistle (Chrysostom, Calvin: ferre omnium consensu) as προειρήκαμεν (Galatians 1:9), προλέγω, προεῖπον (Galatians 5:21), point to something spoken at a previous time; so 2 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:4; προεγράφη Romans 15:4 must be understood of a prophetic writing with respect to the future. But Romans 3:9 : προῃτιασάμεθα, as in the present instance, relates to what precedes, in the same Epistle. The explanation: paulo ante (Theodoret, Calvin, Estius and others) is incorrect. Ephesians 3:4. In accordance with which, while reading, ye can perceive.—ΙΙρὸςὃ δύνασθε—νοῆσαι must at all events be joined together. ΙΙρός with the accusative denotes the measure (Romans 8:18) as well as the norm (2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 2:14). Comp. Winer, p. 378. The relative ὅ refers to what was written briefly before, as the measure by which to reckon, on which to measure; hoc non refertur prζcise ad paucis, sed ad totum noλma et πρός notat analogiam ex ungue leonem (Bengel). Accordingly it is not to be applied merely to what was written before (Meyer: προέγραψα), or to ἐνὀλίγῳ (Stier); nor is it=prout (Jerome), nor= ἐνᾡ ?̄ ? (Koppe), nor= ἐξοὑ ?̄ ? (Flatt), since what precedes is neither the source or ground, but can only be the measure. [Eadie prefers the sense “in reference to which,” but “in accordance with” is adopted by Alford, Ellicott (whose note in loco on this preposition is a marvel of neatness and exactness) and others, favored by Hodge, who adds: “what he had written might be taken as the standard or evidence of his knowledge.”—R.] With δύνασθε (Bengel: moderate et liberaliter positum verbum) Paul refers cautiously to the ability which can be affirmed of every one; of the willingness he says nothing, that must come in afterwards. Modestly he points to what they can do, leaving to them the doing, neither commanding nor demanding it. The subject is each and all in the Church. Δύνασθε stands first very properly, since it is the emphatic word. The conditio sine qua non is indeed ἀναγινώσκοντες, reading, while ye read; not attendentes (Calvin). Nor does he say: άκούοντες, hearing; he conceives of each one reading for himself. The present tense suggests repeated reading (Grotius). To the Greek reading [as the word indicates] was a second perception following the first perception of the author; to the Roman and German the immediate thought is of connecting the letters and joining the words (legere, lesen). [The present participle here indicates an act contemporary with that of the perception: while reading.—R.] Νοῆσαι is not exactly equivalent to συνιέναι; they differ as do our “perceive” and “understand.” Comp. Mark 8:17; Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 191. The readers perceive that which Paul understands. It is not a knowledge possible through reflection (Rueckert), but a kind of immediate perception (Ephesians 3:20; Romans 1:20; Hebrews 11:3; Matthew 15:17).My understanding in the mystery of Christ.—Τὴνσύνεσίνμουἐντῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ.—These words are to be taken together as the object of νοῆσαι (Meyer). Σύνεσις used with σοφία (Colossians 1:9), has a πληροφορία (Colossians 2:2; 2 Timothy 2:7), is vox media (1 Corinthians 1:19), and marks an especial knowing, that penetrates and commands its subject, as in the case of a master of the science (John 3:11). “The mystery of Christ” (Colossians 4:3) is the mystery, which has Christ for its object and purport; Christ Himself is the concrete Divine mystery. Colossians 1:27 (Meyer, Stier). It is evident that μυστηρίον is not an absolute secret, since there is an “understanding” with respect to it. See Ephesians 1:9. Beza: “Optimo vero jure de se ista prζdicare apostolum, re ipsa cognoscet, quisquis perspexerit, quam sublimiter et prorsus divine totum illud argumentum ab initio epistolζ pertractarit.” In the connection in which Paul writes, in virtue of his office and by writing labors in and for the Church two things are evident and properly placed together; that he urgently directs the Church to what is written as a standard for their judgment respecting him, as the Apostle, by whom it is said to them, and ascribes to them unconstrained ability and freedom for examination. Hence the inferences drawn from this passage against the genuineness of the Epistle are inadmissible. It is not necessary that he should refer to his labors among them, since his σύνεσις is under discussion, and both the subject-matter itself and his mode of treating it in this Epistle are well adapted to make them aware of this. 1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 John 4:6. Comp. Introd. § 5, 2. [See Eadie on the reasons for professing such a knowledge of the mystery. Meyer properly intimates that this verse is worthy of the Apostle (against De Wette, Schwegler), and that an imitator would never have written it. In fact an imitator would have probably thought of it as De Wette does!—R.] Ephesians 3:5. The period and persons concerned in the communication.—Which, ὅ, refers to “the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:4), not to “the mystery” (Ephesians 3:3); in which case we should have to regard what follows καθώς as a parenthesis (Wetstein, [E. V.], and others). [Dr. Hodge seems disposed to regard Ephesians 3:4 as a parenthesis, but the relative forms a direct connection. The other construction is an attempt to avoid the difficulty which arises in taking Ephesians 3:6 as the purport of the “mystery of Christ.”—R.] In Other generations.—The dative ἑτέραιςγενεαῖς, is a temporal qualification, which is of very common occurrence; see Winer, p. 205. Son 2:12; Matthew 12:1 : τοῖςσάββασι; Luke 13:14 : τῷ σαββάτῳ. The word γενεά designates the lineage, the family, Matthew 1:1; Matthew 1:17; also in a spiritual sense, Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19. Then a generation, Matthew 24:34; Luke 1:48; Luke 21:32; Philippians 2:15; and also an age, Acts 14:16; Acts 15:21; Luke 1:50; Colossians 1:26 (ἀπὸ τῶναἰώνωνκαὶ τω̆νγενεῶν); here the temporal idea is the prominent one, only a shorter period of about 33 years is meant. There is no ground for taking it as=time, era (Schenkel); and still greater objection to retaining the meaning: lineage, and taking it as an ordinary dative, so that “the sons of men” is an epexegesis, which sets forth in concreto what is meant by the “generations” (Meyer). The antithesis “now” demands a temporal definition here. Yet it must be noticed, that the word “generations” is chosen on account of the various stages of revelation to the patriarchs, Moses, David and the prophets. [Meyer, in his 4th edition, gives up his former opinion, adopting the usual view of our word, mainly on the ground that νῦν requires an antithetical temporal qualification here. Still he correctly insists on the meaning “generations,” over against “times” or “periods.” Hodge apparently inclines to the earlier view of Meyer.—The word is used in the LXX. to translate the Hebrew word γּ ?εֹ ?ψ, which admits of the temporal signification, now generally attached to γενεαῖς in this passage. Ellicott remarks that in one case (Isaiah 24:22) even ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν is thus rendered.—R.] Was not made known, οὐκἐγνωρίσθη.—This in distinction from ἀποκαλύφθη is something more general and indefinite. Bengel: Notificatio per Revelationem (Ephesians 3:3) est fons notificationis per prζconium. Revelatio est quiddam specialius; Notificatio fit ad reliquos etiam auditores, Revelatio tantum ad prophetas. To the sons of men, τοῖςυἱοῖςτῶνἀνθρώπων.—Only here and in Mark 3:28. Latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignorantiζ, ortum naturarum (Bengel, who adds with over nicety: de statu vetere loquitur idiotismo linguζ hebraicζ). The antithesis is found in “His holy apostles and prophets,” which moreover compels us to give prominence to the “need of men born of men” (Harless), while ἐνπνεύματι suggests the lack of the regeneration, correlated to revelation (Stier); so that under the term αְּ ?πֵ ?ιΞΰָ ?γָ ?ν we must include also the Old Testament men of God, such as Abraham (Galatians 3:8), and even the prophets (Romans 9:24-29; Romans 15:9-12), whom Jerome would exclude. Bengel, however, is incorrect, when he says: denotari prζcipue Prophetas antiques, v. g. Ezechielem, qui sζpe dicitur αֶּ ?οΞΰָ ?γָ ?ν; thus he is described not as a prophet, but as a man born of men. [Eadie thinks the phrase was suggested by the word γενεά. “Sons succeeded fathers, and their sons succeeded them; so that by ‘sons of men’ is signified the successive band of contemporaries whose lives measured these fleeting γενεαί.”—R.] As it has been now revealed.—Ὡς contrasts now (νῦν) and formerly. On account of this ὡς, we must take οὐκἐγνωρίσθη as = οὐχοὕτωςἐγνωρίσθη, “not thus made known,” and supply here in thought: “through their words and works” (Chrysostom). Comp. Doctr. Notes. It is only asserted that the knowledge of the mystery in former times is not to be regarded as at all equal to the knowledge which now exists; the latter is immeasurably deeper, richer, clearer than the former. It is incorrect to interpret ὡς as=while, and to infer that the mystery was not all known before (Bleek); that cannot be asserted. His holy apostles and prophets.—The Apostles are ἅγιοι, because they are Christians; Paul can have no hesitation in affirming of the Apostles, what he had already said of the whole Church (Ephesians 1:1); of course a higher degree is involved here, especially since they, as well as the Old Testament prophets, who are called “holy,” Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; 2 Peter 1:21 (various reading), are termed “prophets.” The Apostles also were of themselves naturally only “the sons of men,” but like the Christians a holy ἐκλογή. “His,” according to the context (Ephesians 3:2), must be understood of God, and “apostles and prophets,” especially on account of the word “now,” must be interpreted as in Ephesians 2:20. It is incorrect to regard τοὶςἁγίοις as qualified by what follows as an appositional phrase. [So Lachmann, Bisping]. In the Spirit, ἐνπνεύματι, is to be joined with the verb, and defines the modality of the revelation and its communication. It cannot be joined either with “prophets” (Chrysostom) or with “holy” (Meier), still less with what follows (Erasmus). It Is not however = διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, 1 Corinthians 2:10 (Luther: durch den Geist), [E. V., Hodge, Ellicott, Meyer], but denotes the life-sphere, within which the revelation is accomplished: one must live in the Spirit to be a partaker in the revelation. Bengel: cujus donum Novo Testamento reservatum ad Christum glorificandum. The glory of the revelation and the importance of the Apostolic office so overpower Paul here, that he forgets himself altogether. [Olshausen: “It is certainly peculiar, that Paul here calls the Apostles, and consequently himself among them, ‘holy Apostles.’ It is going too far when De Wette finds in this a sign of an unapostolic origin of the Epistle; but still the expression remains an unusual one. I account for it to myself thus—that Paul here conceives of the Apostles and Prophets, as a corporation (comp. Ephesians 4:11), and as such, in their official character, he gives them the predicate ἅγιος, as he names believers, conceived as a whole, ἅγιοι or ἡγιασμένοι, but never an individual.”—R.] Ephesians 3:6. The purport of the mystery. That the Gentiles are (εἶναιτὰ ?̀ ἔθνη).—The infinitive, standing here in emphatic position, is ep-exegetical of μυστήριον, “mystery,” hence not to be joined with “revealed” (Flatt), or with “made known,” nor is εἰςτό to be supplied; and it should not be taken as= γίνεσθαι. [“A mystery is not a secret design, but a secret fact” (Alford); hence “are,” not “should be.” So most commentators.—R.] Fellow-heirs.—Συγκληρονόμα, not as in Romans 8:17 (Χριστοῦ), but “of the saints” (Ephesians 2:19), the believing Israel. Comp. Ephesians 1:14; Ephesians 1:18; Galatians 3:29. With the saints they are heirs of God (Romans 8:17), as His children. That is the highest privilege.—Fellow-members [of the same body].—Καὶ σύσσωμα denotes, by means of a peculiarly formed word, the membership in that body, the Head of which is Christ (Ephesians 1:23; Ephesians 2:12; Ephesians 2:16).—Fellow-partakers of the promise, καὶ συμμέτοχατῆςἐπαγγελίας. [See Textual Note6]. This denotes participation in the promise (Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 2:12; Galatians 3:14), the fulfilment of which is already begun, but by no means completed as yet; βασιλείαγὰρἔπήγγελταιπαρὰ τοῦ πατρός (�cumen.). It refers neither in general to res or bona promissa, nor in particular to the Holy Ghost alone, as Bengel, [Eadie] and Stier think, who find a reference to the Head, Christ, in “fellow-members,” and to the Father in “fellow-heirs,” and thus to the Trinity as in Ephesians 4:4-6; Ephesians 4:18; Ephesians 4:21; Ephesians 4:30; Ephesians 5:1-2; Ephesians 5:18; 2 Corinthians 13:13. There is as little ground for this as there is indication of a climax (Jerome, Pelagius, Schenkel: heir, possessor, partaker). For “fellow-heir” comprises the whole, on the ground of the relation to God as a Father, who has prepared an inheritance for His children; the two added terms respect their relation among each other: the first arising from the relation of the community to which dependence attaches, me other springing directly from the personality regarded as self-inclusive; the first marks the membership in the Church, the relation to it, the second the independence of the individuals, their relation in and of itself. Hence it cannot be said, that what is already sufficiently expressed by the term “fellow-heir,” is repeated twice afterwards, once figuratively and the second time literally (Meyer), or that Paul creatively rummaged in the language (Kalmis), or that the first term contains a personal and substantive reference (Harless), which is further indicated by the other two. [Ellicott’s view resembles that of Braune, but is more clearly expressed: “The general fact of the συνκληρονομία is re-asserted, both in its outward and inward relations. The Gentiles were fellow-heirs with the believing Jews in the most unrestricted sense: they belonged to the same corporate body, the faithful; they shared to the full in the same spiritual blessings: the ἐπαγγελία.”—R.] In Christ Jesus through the Gospel.—“In Christ Jesus,” defines “are” more closely and, like this, relates to all three of the preceding words. It cannot be joined with “promise” (Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius). Thus Paul indicates that all is communicated only in Him, the God-man. Hence “through the Gospel” is added, in order to point to the means by which that objectively given in Christ, already proffered and prepared, is brought to the individual, is presented for his subjective appropriation. Because Paul is speaking of his office and calling, he must add this also. The ministry and unworthiness of the recipient; Ephesians 3:7-8 a. Ephesians 3:7. Whereof I became a minister [οὑ ?̄ ἐγενήθηνδιάκονος].—“Whereof” refers to “Gospel” (Colossians 1:23; Colossians 1:25).—Διάκονος; (Colossians 1:7) is a synonym of ὑπηρέτης (1 Corinthians 4:1; Matthew 26:58; Mark 14:54; Mark 14:65; John 7:32; John 7:45 f., etc.); and according to its etymology (διὰ ?—κόνις, dust), like the latter (ὑπὸ ?—ἐρέτης, rower), designates a servant of a lower order, while οἰκόνομος (1 Corinthians 4:1; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10) denotes one as related to the property, συνεργός (1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Thessalonians 3:2), as related to the works of his Master, δοῦλος (Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 4:12; Romans 1:1; Romans 6:16; 1 Corinthians 7:21; Galatians 1:10; Philippians 1:1), in his dependence, on his Master, λειτουργός (Romans 13:6; Romans 15:16) in his devotion. It is incorrect to assert that διάκονος describes the servant in his activity for the service, ὑπερέτης in that for his Master (Harless). [See Meyer and Ellicott against Harless].—Ἐγενήθην marks more strongly than ἐγεςόμην [Rec.] his becoming a servant, refers to a development, even if not as �cumenius (οὐδὲνγὰρἐγὼ ἔργονἐμὸνσυνεισήνεγκατῇ χάριτιταύτῃ), Rueckert and others think; that thought is found in the context, not in the word. According to the gift of the grace of God [κατὰ τὴνδωρεὰντὴςχάριτοςτοῦθεοῦ ?].—Κατά marks the fact that Paul’s becoming a minister of the Gospel had for its norm the grace of God. Δωρεά (Ephesians 4:7; Romans 5:17), the single gift, like δῶρον (Ephesians 2:8), marks the free present. “The grace of God” sets forth the nature, purport of the gift. [The genitive is one of apposition or identity; the grace was the gift.—R.] Luther accordingly is incorrect: according to the gift out of grace, as if this were the source, the dispenser, while the gift itself was something else, such as the gift of tongues (Grotius), the Holy Ghost (A-Lapide, Flatt). It is in accordance with the context to think of the Apostolic office [Hodge, Eadie]; but the grace of God, which Paul had received, prepared him for this; He cannot use for His service persons as they are. He must convert and transform them for this end (Ephesians 2:10). Which was given to me.—Tischendorf retains τὴνδοθεῖσαν in spite of the Cod. Sin. [See Textual Note9. The received reading makes “given” agree with “gift;” the other with “grace,” the sense being the same in either case.—R.] According to the working of his power [κατὰ τὴνἐνέργειαντῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ ?].—”According to the working” (Ephesians 1:19) marks that the gift has been bestowed, not according to the receptivity of the recipient, but according to the efficiency of the Giver. [This prepositional clause depends on τῆςδοθείσηςμοι, defining the mode of giving. This justifies the seeming tautology: “the gift given to me.” Meyer, whom Ellicott cites in favor of connecting the phrase with the leading verb, now adopts this simpler view. Dr. Hodge accepts without remark the incorrect rendering of the E. V., which, not content with the instrumental sense it imposes so frequently on ἑν, here gives κατά the same sense: by.—R.] “Of His power” gives prominence to God’s power, and throws Paul’s person into the back-ground; yet recalls the fact, as he himself does in Ephesians 3:8, that it is precisely the persecutor who has become an Apostle, the narrow-minded, proud Pharisee who has been transformed into the most large-hearted and humble servant of the Gospel to the Gentiles (Stier). Calvin: In hoc dono prζdicat Dei potentiam, ac si diceret: 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. Hζc est potentiζ ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid efficere. Ephesians 3:8. To me, who am less than the least, ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ.—The pronoun in the dative stands first, somewhat remarkably; we might rather expect: αὕτηἡ χάριςἐδόθητῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων, this very grace is grace to less than the least of all. But the pronoun refers to Ephesians 3:1, and must be joined with it. It is scarcely possible that after the grammatical and logical conclusion of the sentence begun in Ephesians 3:1 (Ephesians 3:7 : τῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοὺ) another entirely new sentence should begin in Ephesians 3:8, only to introduce a parenthetical thought, especially as the sentence closes with Ephesians 3:12, beyond which the supposed parenthesis must be continued. [The objections to this view of the connection will be found in my note at the close of Eph 3:1. Dr. Braune’s difficulty suggested above is not so singular in a writer like Paul as the resumption by means of a dative. As regards the logical connection, Ellicott remarks: “No addition was required to the former period; the great Apostle however so truly, so earnestly felt his own weakness and nothingness (2 Corinthians 12:11), that the mention of God’s grace towards him awakens within, by the forcible contrast it suggests, not only the remembrance of his former persecutions of the Church (1 Corinthians 15:9-10), but of his own sinful nature (1 Timothy 1:15) and unworthiness for so high an office.” The transition always seems natural to one who is familiar with Paul’s modes of thought.—R.] Stier attempts to transfer the double comparative into the German: dem Gerinsteren. Bengel: Notio nominis Paulus cumulata per comparativum superlativo superiorem; quo se sanctis vix accenset; elegantissima modestia. A similar double comparative is found in 3 John 1:4 : μειζοτέραν. Comp. Winer, p. 67, where he compares the Latin minimissimus, pessimissimus. [To this we may add excelsior, now almost naturalized in English; a word constructed precisely like Paul’s double comparative. The rendering of the E. V. cannot be improved.—R.] Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:9 : ἐλάχιστοςτῶςἀποστόλων. Here he cannot sufficiently express himself; here he speaks of the service of the Gospel in general. Accordingly he adds: Of all saints, πάντωνἅγίων, i.e. Christians; he does not say of “Apostles,” nor yet “of men,” two interpretations, the latter of which is designed to exclude angels, without any ground. According to Philippians 3:6; 1 Timothy 1:13, Paul’s persecution of the Church of Christ is the strongest expression of sin in him, so that, according to the context, compared with all Christians, he regards himself as the most unworthy, because he is conscious of his sin and guilt, feeling that since God’s grace has helped him, there is no one whom it cannot and may not help. Was this grace given, ἐδόθηἡ χάριςαὕτη.—This is the grace which lies at the foundation of his vocation as Apostle (Stier), not the Apostolic office itself (Rueckert).—Αὕτη, “this,” points forward to what follows, which sets forth wherein this grace consists. What he has set forth in Ephesians 3:6 as the purport of the mystery, as the mission of the Apostles in general, he now represents as that which is committed to him. There is not therefore here a parenthesis and exclamation of joy: “to me less than the least, is this grace given!” so that what follows is to be joined with “gift,” Ephesians 3:7 (Harless); for Ephesians 3:2-12 do not form an interpolation, but the sentence begun in Ephesians 3:1 is entirely broken off, and αὕτη does not refer to what precedes, nor Isaiah 2:6 to be compared with this construction. The magnitude of the mission; Ephesians 3:8 b, 9. Ephesians 3:8 b. To preach to the Gentiles [τοῖςἔθνεσινεὐαγγελίσασθαι.—“An explanatory and partly appositional clause,” Ellicott.—R.] The infinitive here sets forth the mission of the gift of grace, as in Ephesians 3:6 it indicated the purport of the mystery. See Winer, p. 298. The dative, which in accordance with the context stands first for emphasis, is a more difficult reading than if ἐν were inserted, as in Galatians 1:16. [See Textual Note10. Yet to Paul was committed the task of preaching to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:16; Galatians 2:8; 1 Timothy 2:7; Acts 9:15; Acts 22:21; Acts 26:17), not merely among the Gentiles; he should do what he could, the completed solution of the problem belongs to God. The unsearchable riches of Christ, τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστονπλοῦτοςτοῦ Χριστοῦ.—Theodoret is excellent: καὶ πῶςκηρύττεις, εἴπερὁ πλοῦτοςἀνεξιχνίαστος; Τοῦτογὰραὐτο, φησι, κηρύττω, ὅτιἀνεξιχνίαστος. Romans 11:32. “Of Christ” is not an abbreviated form for the grace, the goodness of Christ, but refers rather to the fulness of the glory (Harless). [Alford: “The fulness of wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption—all centred and summed up in Him.”—R.] Bucer: Jam evangelium exponit investgabiles divitias Christi, non illas quidem, quas nemo nostrum percipere potest, sic enim frustra prζdicaretur nobis evangelium; sed quod quisque pro modulo dono suo tantum percipiat opum c�lestium, quantum ad salutem, consequendam satis est. There is ever indeed an immeasurable remainder, and poor needy souls seek in vain to exhaust it (Berlenburger Bible). Comp. Ephesians 3:19; 1 Corinthians 13:9-12. [Exhaustless “both in its nature, extent and application” (Ellicott).—R.] Ephesians 3:9. And to make all see, καὶ φωτίσαιπάντας.—This adds to “preach,” a further task of the Apostle, which is accomplished by means of the preaching of the gospel; what the gospel can do (2 Corinthians 4:4 : τὸνφωτισμοντοῦ εὐαγγελίου) this the evangelizing Apostle effects, whose word enlightens as a “word of prophecy,” which is a “light shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). He is bidden “to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light” (Acts 26:18). See Ephesians 1:18; Hebrews 6:4; Hebrews 10:32; Psalms 119:130. The object is “all,” which according to the context, means the Gentiles hearing him; there is no reference to the Jews (Pelagius, Harless, Stier), since πάντας, “all,” following the emphatic τοῖςἐθνεσιν (Ephesians 3:8) cannot receive any emphasis. Since, however, no such accusative as “eyes” is added, the verb “enlighten” refers to the whole man, spirit, heart, conscience, not merely to the perceptive faculty (Schenkel), nor is it =docere (Bengel). It is more than “make known,” almost equivalent to ἀποκάλυψις, revelation (Stier). As to what he enlightens the Gentiles then follows: What is the dispensation of the mystery, τίςἡ οἰκονομίατοῦ μυστηρίου.—See on Ephesians 1:9-10. The “mystery” here is not merely the calling of the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:6), but as in Ephesians 2:3; here “the actual accomplishment of the plan hitherto formed in secret” (Stier) is treated of. [Hodge favors the same view. Ellicott: “The dispensation (arrangement, regulation) of the mystery (the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, Ephesians 3:6), which was to be humbly traced and acknowledged in the fact of its having secretly existed in the primal counsels of God, and now having been revealed to the heavenly powers by means of the Church.” So Meyer, Alford and most. See on Ephesians 3:3, however.—R.] Which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God who created all things [τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμένουἀπὸ τῶναἰώνωνἐντῷ θεῷ τῷ τάπάντακτίσαντι].—Τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμένου, is like σεσιγημένου Romans 16:25; comp. 1 Corinthians 2:7; Colossians 1:26. It has been hid ἀπὸ τῶναἰώνων (Colossians 1:26;= ἀπʼ ? αἰῶνος, Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; in ἐκτοῦ αἰῶνος, John 9:32), since the ages, from the beginning of the same; since there were men and angels, it has been revealed to none of them; before that there was no one, from whom it could be hid (Meyer). It was concealed “in God who created all things.” Thus God is marked as the Creator of the universe with all that therein is, of heaven and earth. Bengel: Antitheton ad creaturas, etiam excellentissimas, Ephesians 3:10. There is no ground for limiting “all things,” and referring it either to the moral creation (Calvin, Grotius, Morus, and others), which is forbidden both by the meaning of the word and by the aorist (κτίσας), or to the moral world (Holzhausen). Evidently, however, Redemption and creation are thus placed in relation and connection with each other; Bengel takes the latter as fundamentum omnis reliquiζ �conomiζ, pro protestate Dei universali liberrimζ dispensatζ; Stier regards the former as fundamentum creationis rerum omnium, even of angels. We can and must join together Creation and Redemption, as decrees, dare not separate them, even though the act of creation self-evidently precedes the act of Redemption and the acts of revelation, and is ordered with a view to these. [The only question that arises in regard to this passage is this, Why is the creation introduced in this connection? Hodge deems it a mere expression of reverence, but this is unsatisfactory. Alford thinks the fact here expressed “involves His perfect right to adjust all things as He will,” thus the concealment is justified (so Rueckert). To this Meyer properly objects, that there is no logical connection of this kind, and Ellicott says: “A reference to God’s omniscience would more suitably have justified the concealment.” Olshausen’s view, that Redemption is itself a creative act seems equally irrelevant. It is either added to enhance the idea of God’s omnipotence (Ellicott), or better with Meyer, Eadie, and others, to indicate that God in creating the world included in His purpose and arrangement that development which forms the purport of the mystery.—R.] The end with a glance at the final cause and also at the present; Ephesians 3:10-12. Ephesians 3:10. To the intent that now, etc.—Upon what ἵνα depends will be best determined after the whole verse has been explained. Τνωρισθῆ νῦν is the order in the Greek, hence the former word is emphatic and corresponds with “hath been hid,” just as “now” does with “from the beginning.” Comp. Winer, p. 269. [We might render: “In order that there might be made known now,” (the last word having a secondary emphasis).—R.] Unto the principalities and powers, ταῖςἀρχαῖςκαὶ ταῖςἐξουσίαις.—Thus the objects, to which it is made known, are marked as of importance. See Ephesians 1:21. [The repetition of the article adds solemnity without distinguishing two classes.—R.] In the heavenly places, ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις, describes them more closely as to locality (comp. Ephesians 1:3); hence they are not earthly and human, either heathen priests, Jewish rulers or Christian church authorities, but angels, and good angels, who desire to look into these things (1 Peter 1:12). Calvin: Quid enim egregium de evangelio prζdicaret apostolus aut de gentium vocatione, si nunc primum diabolus innotuisse diceret? The context does not permit us to apply the terms to bad angels (Ambrosiaster), nor even to consider them as included (Bengel, Olshausen, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 361 f., Bleek), since it treats of a designed making known of the wisdom of God to His praise. That Paul did not concisely say “angels,” arises from the fact that here, as in Ephesians 1:21, he wishes to give prominence to their power and elevation, here to glorify the Church, as there to glorify Christ, hence the agency of angels in the world of nations is not indicated (Hofmann). In order to mark that a cosmical relation is under discussion here as in Ephesians 1:10, the “powers” are termed ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. The Apostle’s petition with an exhortation for the church(Ephesians 3:14-19)14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ [omit 15of our Lord Jesus Christ], Of [From] whom the whole [every] family in heaven and [on] earth is named, 16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by [through] his Spirit in the inner man; 17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by [through] faith; that ye, being rooted 18and grounded in love, May be [fully] able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge [or the knowledge-surpassing-love of Christ], that ye might be filled with [may be filled up to] all the fulness of God. AND Eph_3:14. The connection. For this cause, τούτουχάριν.—Thus Paul connects with Ephesians 3:1, where the construction is interrupted. Still with ὑπερὑμῶν (Ephesians 3:13) ha has already resumed what was expressed in Ephesians 3:1, and with “which are your glory,” referred to the previous current of thought (Ephesians 2:22 : “ye are builded together”). Comp. Ephesians 3:1. [Eadie: “The prayer must be regarded as immediately following that section, and its architectural terms and allusions will thus be more clearly understood.” Meyer however explains: on this account that you faint not, etc.—R.] The prayer, Ephesians 3:14-15. I bow my knees, κάμπτωτὰ γόνατάμου.—So Philippians 2:10. It describes τὴνκατανενυγμένηνδέησιν (Chrysostom). Bengel: “Si prζsens adfuisset Paulus, genua flexisset, exardescente pectore. Acts 20:36. Here the reference is to genua mentis (Jerome); the idea of “praying” is so prominent, that the accusative sometimes follows the verb γονυπετεῖν (Matthew 17:14; Mark 10:17). Unto the Father, πρὸςτὸνπατέρα.—The phrase is found thus without any qualification in Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 1:12. [On πρός, denoting the direction, see Winer, p. 378. The metaphorical sense of the phrase justifies the preposition; were the idea merely that of bending the knee, a dative would probably follow.—On the phrase: of our Lord Jesus Christ, see Textual Note1.—R.] From whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.—Ἐξοὑ ?̄ πᾶσαπατριὰ ?—ὀνομάζεται is a paronomasia to πατέρα, which cannot be reproduced, except as Luther (1545) has so beautifully and correctly expressed it: Der der rechte Vater ist όber Alles, was da kinder heisst; all editions from 1522–1541 read: was Vater heisst. Evidently “from whom,” ἐξοὑ ?̄ ?, refers to “Father,” from Him (ἐξ) originates the name borne (ὀνομάζεται) by him who stands at the head of a group, πατριά, which is thus termed from πατήρ. The etymology must be well considered here. While φυλαί (ξַ ?θּ ?εֹ ?ϊ) designates the tribes descending from the sons of Jacob, πατριαί (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ) denotes the families in the several tribes, descending from the sons of Jacob’s sons; οἶκοι (αֶּ ?ιϊΞηָ ?ΰָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ) is yet more special in its meaning. Hence the reference here is to larger groups. The word designates a lineage, family, springing from one father and bearing his name. [Eadie: “Every circle of holy and intelligent creatures having the name of πατριά takes that name from God as ΙΙατήρ.” So Alford, Ellicott.—R.] Accordingly something concrete and living is treated of, so that it is not=πατρότης, Fatherhood (Theodoret, John of Damascus, Anselm, Luther, 1522–41; Meyer: He is the original Father, the Father of all fathers; Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount, p. 394; Nitzsch, Prakt. Theol. 1. p. 269). ΙΙᾶσα without the article (Winer, p. 110) necessarily refers to the multiplicity of the families: every family. Bengel is excellent: omnis, angelorum, hominum ceterorum, ex ipso, ut patre, pendens; as David’s family from David (Luke 2:4) and from Abraham, so the blessing comes, like that of a father upon all the families of the earth (Acts 3:25). The phrase: “in heaven and on earth,” ἐνοὐρανοῖςκαὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, joined closely to πατριά without the article, points to the world of angels and of men, referring to the groups dependent on heads and chiefs. We must then understand here classes of angels (comp. on Ephesians 1:21), since the angels also are called sons, children of God (Job 38:7; Luke 20:36) and call God their Father, not merely their Creator, and races of people as national families, although “children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 5:6) are not wanting. For “all angels, all Christians, aye, all children of men are God’s children, for He has created them all” (Luther) in Christ, the Son of filiation. The word πατριά, which by the addition of πᾶσα and ἐνοὐρανοῖςκαὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, has received an extension of meaning reaching far beyond bodily descent, must be understood not merely in a natural, but also in an ethical sense, as indeed the idea: “Father” is thus used. Since “fatherhood” has not a concrete meaning, it cannot be translated by this word, but Stier thus attempts to preserve the concrete force, der rechte Vater uber Alles, was nach Vδtern heisst.It is incorrect and ungrammatical to understand by it the whole world family (Meyer, Olshausen and others), or only two groups, angels and men (Calvin), or the saints in heaven and the elect on the earth (Calov.), since in that case the article would be found before ἐνοὐρανοῖς and before ἐπὶ γῆς, as in the first case it should stand after πᾶσα. It is incorrect to ignore altogether the idea of groups, families, which Luther’s version throws into the background, and to make of God an “All-father” (Meyer). Luther has given occasion to this mistake, but corrected it through his translation; for he says there that God is Father over all, that is called children, of course maintained, cared for, as we are, in Christ. It respects more the right Father than the right children (Harless). Finally all polemical reference, such as against the particularism of the Jews (Calvin), angel-worship (Michael), must be rejected. The passage is ironical rather. Comp. Doctr. Note 2. Ephesians 3:16. The purport of the supplication. Ephesians 3:16-17.—That he would grant you.—Ἵναδῷ ὑμῖν marks the purpose and consequently the purport of the supplication, indicating at the same time the confidence of him who prays, that He who is implored will fulfil his request. Comp. Ephesians 1:17. [The subject and the purpose thus blended as so often when ἵνα follows a verb signifying (even metaphorically) to pray.—R.] According to the riches of his glory.—Κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτοςτῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ defines the δῷ more closely, as a rich and glorious giving. He should give, not merely announce, according to, in the proportion of His riches in glory. See Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 1:17; Colossians 1:11. “Glory” here embraces the whole glorious perfection of God (Meyer); there is no ground for limiting it to power (Grotius) or grace (Calvin). To be strengthened with might.—Δυνάμει, “with might,” placed first for emphasis, cannot anticipate either the phrase “by his spirit,” or “in the inner man,” nor can it be an instrumental dative (Meyer), nor does it refer to the will or moral being over against knowledge (Harless), which also belongs to the inner man and is given prominence in Ephesians 3:18-19. It qualifies the verb “strengthened,” κραταιωθῆναι, which is antithetical to the term ἐγκακεῖν, “faint” (Ephesians 3:13) thus not merely excluding discouragement and weakness, but marking also the external efficiency, the influence on the world, the overcoming as well as the standing fast, like ἀνδρίζεσθε before κραταιοῦσθε (1 Corinthians 16:13) See Ephesians 6:10; Colossians 1:11; 1 Peter 5:10. Hence the passage does not refer to mere passivity, so that δυνάμει is merely a strengthening of the verb (Rueckert). Luther is incorrect: “That he may give you strength—to become strong.” [The instrumental sense is adopted by Ellicott, Hodge, Alford, Eadie and many others. Braune’s view virtually resolves the dative into an adverb. Ellicott: It defines “the element or influence of which the spirit is the ‘causa medians.’ ” The contrast with ἐγκακεῖν, though plausible, must not be pressed. Eadie. who finds a reference to the figure of the temple in Ephesians 3:18, sees an architectural allusion here.—R.] Through his Spirit [διὰ τοῦ πνεύματοςαὐτοῦ ?].—The means of imparting such strength is indicated thus (αὐτοῦ ?=θεοῦ, who is implored); God’s Holy Spirit makes us strong within, and thus prepares not only the actual fellowship in the kingdom of God, but also the powerful demonstration of the same; hence Bengel well says: δυνάμεί bene congruit cum mentione spiritus.In the inner man.—[Εἰς here is not=ἐν, nor=in regard of (Meyer, Winer, De Wette, Hodge: as to), but “to and into,” marking “the direction and destination of the prayer for gift of infused strength” (Ellicott).—R.] ‘Ὁ ἔσωἄνθρωπος (so also Romans 7:22) is the antithesis of ὁ ἔξωἡμῶνἄνθρωπος (2 Corinthians 4:16), which “perishes,” while “the inward man is renewed day by day.” It is not something physical, but moral, hence too, not=νοῦς, which can have a “vanity” (Ephesians 4:17), of which “corrupt” can be predicated (1 Timothy 6:5), which is impossible in the case of the inner man. It is rather=“the hidden man of the heart” (1 Peter 3:4) and refers to the concealed, displaced and obscured image of God within us. Accordingly the Apostle says εἰςτὸνἔσω, to become strong so far as to reach within to this; the preposition thus marking the aim towards which the becoming strong should be constantly and renewedly directed. See Winer, p. 389. Accordingly “the inner man” cannot be used interchangeably with “the new man” (Ephesians 4:24); the latter is the new creature, in which the former lives again, rises anew out of the death of sin which has come upon it: “the inner man” does not stand in antithesis to the “body,” but includes so much of it as God in the creation has prepared and designed for the life in glory, in the new creation ‘for the resurrection of the body. See Doctr. Note 3. [Comp. Lange, Romans 7:7-25, especially my Excursus, pp. 232–236.—R.] Ephesians 3:17. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.—This verse forms an explanatory, further developing, parallel to the infinitive clause of Eph 3:16. We have here a second petition, in continuation of the first, hence Luther is not altogether incorrect in inserting an epexegetical “and.” [See below.] Κατοικῆσαι denotes a permanent indwelling of one taking entire possession, as Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9; Matthew 12:45; Luke 11:26; 2 Peter 3:13; James 4:5. The expression οἰκεῖν, Romans 7:20 (Ephesians 3:17 : ἐνοικοῦσα), Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 3:16, is weaker. Here it stands first for emphasis and refers to κατοικητήριον, Ephesians 2:21-22. Comp. John 14:21-23. Bengel is excellent: in perpetuum. It corresponds to “strengthened with might,” which precedes it; as the former is marked as an effect from without, from above, by “into the inner man,” so the latter is distinguished by “in your hearts,” as an internal condition. Διὰ τῆςπίστεως [almost=through your faith] denotes in any case a power of the Spirit which has been appropriated by the Christian; accordingly the previous petition was διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, “through the Spirit,” to whom the initiative belongs, the Spirit of Christ, preparing for Him (Bengel: ubi spiritus Dei, ibi etiam Christus), while πίστις, “faith,” is wrought by the Spirit in the human spirit, is the power of man, awakened, directed, strengthened by the Holy Spirit, to appropriate Christ, to become Christ’s. Hence it is neither idem per idem (Matthies), nor something entirely different (Rueckert), nor yet a consequence from what precedes, independent of δῷ, but dependent on κραταιωθῆναι (Bleek). [The connection has been much discussed. Meyer (following Calvin: declarat, quale sit interioris hominis robur) takes the clause as Braune does: parallel to the last clause of Eph 3:16, with an explanatory force. De Wette explains the infinitive as one of design, an opinion to which Eadie formerly inclined. Notwithstanding Braune’s objection, the simplest explanation is that of Bleek, adopted previously however by Alford and Ellicott among others. This accepts the clause as one expressive of the result (“so that”) of the inward strengthening. The emphasis resting on the infinitive seems to demand this (Alford). This is a somewhat lax construction, but clearly admissible (Winer, p. 298).—The view which connects “the inner man” with this verse (Syriac, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius): “In order that Christ may inhabit the inner man by the faith which is in your hearts,” is altogether untenable. On καρδία, comp. Ephesians 1:18; Delitzsch, Bib. Psychologie, II. p. 203 f.: “the seat and centre of the moral life viewed on the side of the affections.” Calvin: “Partem etiam designat ubi legitima est Christus sedes; nempe cor: ut sciamus, non satis esse, si in lingua versatur, aut in cerebro volitet.”] The end of the supplication; Ephesians 3:18-19 a. Ephesians 3:18. That ye.—Ἵνα, “that,” is placed after the closer definition of the subject, as ἕως, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and as ἵνα is put after the object in 2 Corinthians 2:4; Galatians 2:10; Acts 19:4. Similarly 1 Corinthians 11:14-15; 1 Corinthians 14:7 (ἐάν), 16 (πῶς). [So Romans 11:31, where however Dr. Lange denies the trajection. This view of the construction is accepted by Beza, Camerarius, Grotius, Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Rosenmueller, Flatt, Meier, Meyer, Winer (eds. 6, 7), Buttmann, Schenkel, Hodge. It is however adopted by none of the ancient versions except the Gothic, is rejected by Origen expressly. The other view joins this clause to what precedes, as a consequence of the indwelling of Christ, accepting an irregular nominative. So in the main: Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, Estius, Morus, Koppe, Rueckert, Matthies, Harless, Olshausen, B-Crusius, De Wette, Bleek, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford. Our preference is for the former construction. See below.—R.]Being rooted and grounded in love.—The perfect participles, ἐῤῥιζωμένοικαὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι, denote a state, in which they already are and continue to be, which is the pre-supposition, in order that they may be able to know. This state is effected by what has been prayed for in Ephesians 3:15-16; hence according to the sense and the context it is impossible to connect these participles with what precedes (Chrysostom, Luther: “and to become rooted and grounded through love,” Rueckert, Harless, Bleek and others), even if it were grammatically admissible to join a nominative to ὑμῶν, as in Ephesians 4:23 : ὑμᾶς—ἀνεχόμενοι—σ̔πουδάζοντες. Colossians 2:2; Colossians 3:16. See Winer, p. 532. This position gives especial weight to the participles, which introduce two figures borrowed from a tree and a building. They mark that a profoundly penetrating life (ἐῤῥιζωμένοι) and a well-grounded, permanent character (τεθεμελιωμένοι) are necessary. [The first may be regarded as used “without any other allusion to its primitive meaning than that of fixedness, firmness at the base or foundation” (Ellicott).—R.]. Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:9; Colossians 2:7. The double figure strengthens the notion of the relation to love; this latter (ἐνἀγάπῃ) is made prominent by being placed first. “In” marks “love” as the soil, in which they are rooted, and as the foundation, on which they are grounded. This implies moreover that it is not their own love which is referred to, but one which corresponds with the soil afforded to the tree, the foundation given to the house; and this would undoubtedly be, in accordance with the context, the love of Christ (Bengel), were not all closer definition wanting, even the article. Accordingly this substantive rendered general by the absence of the article corresponds with the verbal idea: in loving, i.e. in that love, which is first God’s in Christ and then that of men who become Christians, who are rooted in Him and grounded on Him through faith. [The reference to the Christian grace of love (Eadie, Alford, Ellicott) is preferable since it does not lay too much stress on the absence of the article, as is done by both Meyer (in amando) and Harless (subjective, because anarthrous), and does not confound two things (God’s love to us and our love in response), either of which might be represented as soil and foundation, scarcely both.—R.] But it is not necessary to supply “in Christ” (Harless) in thought, as if “in love” could be instrumental and the preposition could be repeated with two different references and used in joining two distinct definitions. Nor should it be limited to “love of the brethren” (Calvin, Schenkel, Bleek and others), as is still further evident from what follows. May be fully able to comprehend [ἴναεξισχύσητεκαταλαβέσθαι.—Καταλαβέσθαι here means more than a mere intellectual apprehension, a perception, as in Acts 4:13; Acts 25:25; Acts 10:34, but pre-eminently an inward experience: it corresponds with γνῶναι, which is conjoined to it with τε; but differs from it however, the first word denoting the inward experience, the latter the spiritual perception [The tense of this verb perhaps implies the singleness of the act, and the voice the exercise of the mental power, a dynamic middle (Krueger), indicating the earnestness or spiritual energy with which the action is performed (Ellicott).—R.] The verb έξισχύσητε, placed in emphatic position, adds the idea of exertion, an energetic pressing through; Bengel: evaleatis.Something important is treated of, which cannot be comprehended in solitude, for one’s self alone, but only in fellowship: with all saints, σὺνπᾶσιτοῖςἁγίοις.—Like all science, the science of God’s love, the study of God, is a joint labor. What is the breadth and length and depth and height, τίτὸ πλάτοςκαὶ μῆκοςκαὶ βάθοςκαὶ ὕψος.—The lively, roused spirit of the Apostle here borrows the figure of a body, a mathematical magnitude [sacra illa Pauli mathematica], as in Job 11:8-9, it is applied to God’s wisdom and perfection; it is instead of and=τίτὸ μέγεθος, what is the greatness. Since the article occurs but once, the unity of the object referred to is strongly indicated. Very naturally the “breadth” comes first, to this the “length” corresponds; then the “depth” is the nearest dimension, and the “height” closes the series: what is the object then whose dimensions Paul notices here? It is not directly designated, and hence must be taken from the context. The added clause connected with this by τε points at once to “the love of Christ.” The dimensions set forth here then become clear: “breadth” refers to the nations lying beside each other on the earth, over all of whom the love of Christ will extend itself; “length,” to the successive ages during which it will reach; “depth,” to the misery and corruption of sin, into which it will descend; “height” to the glory at God’s throne and near His heart to which it would elevate all. To return to Ephesians 3:9 and accept “the mystery” as the object (Chrysostom, Calovius, Rueckert, Harless and others) is as unfounded as to find a reference to “the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:19), and with Revelation 11:1; Revelation 21:15-16, to understand the Church of Christ, the temple of God (Bengel, Stier, [Eadie], and others), or merely to supply “of God” or “of Christ” (Matthies, and others); Holzhausen alone suggests “our love!” Arbitrary as many of the explanations of the four dimensions undoubtedly are, the opinion of Meyer, that every special interpretation is unpsychological, only opening the door to subjective speculations, is equally unjustifiable. Abusus non tollit usum. The thought of the Apostle is clear: Loved and loving thou knowest the love of Christ. Certainly it is not: In the love to the brethren thou wilt know God’s love. Comp. 1 John 4:10; 1 John 4:16; John 15:9-11. [This simple view of the object whose dimensions are here predicated is held in the main by Calvin, Calixtus, Morus, Storr, Hodge, Meyer, Ellicott. Eadie strangely enough opposes it because τε follows: see his notes for a good resumι of opinions. Ellicott says: “The consequent clause, without being dependent or explanatory, still practically supplies the defining genitive: Paul pauses on the word ὕψος, and then, perhaps feeling it the most appropriate characteristic of Christ’s love, he appends, without finishing the construction, a parallel thought which hints at the same conception (ὑπερβάλλουσαν), and suggests the required genitive.” Alford, less correctly, leaves the object indefinite: “of all that God has revealed or done in or for us,” a view which results from his insisting on the subordinate character of the clause introduced by τε. This little word really settles the question the other way.—An allusion to the temple of Diana (Macknight, Chandler) is exceedingly improbable, and the reference to the Christian Church finds no support in the context, foregoing or subsequent. Augustine gives the fanciful explanation: sacramentum cruces, which Estius elaborates. Comp. that of Severianus (in Alford), and the various homiletical applications given in Hom, Notes.—R.] Ephesians 3:19. And to know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ [γνῶναίτετὴνὑπερβάλλουσαντῆςγνώσεωςἀγἀπηντοῦ Χρ̄ιστοῦ.—Τνῶναίτε adds something closely related, giving prominence to the perception of what has become a matter of internal experience. The object is “the love of Christ,” obviously Christ’s love, not our love to Him. To the former alone is the attribute “knowledge-surpassing” applicable. Bengel: Suavissima hζc quasi correctio est; dixerat: cognoscere, statim negat cognitionem idoneam haberi posse. The participle, which is here placed between the article and substantive, must evidently be taken as an adjective, governing with its comparative meaning the genitive which follows, superiorem cognitione. See Winer, p. 324. It is=ὑπέχουσανπάντανοῦν, “which passeth all understanding” (Philippians 4:7). Comp. Philippians 3:8-10. It is an oxymoron, like 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 1:25; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Galatians 2:19; 1 Timothy 5:6, and refers to an (adequate) apprehension of the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge (i.e., the particular abstract knowledge, which is possible to man of himself). Harless: “Love fully solves the mystery of love; only love experiences love and knows love. The γνῶσις of the reflecting understanding finds its limit here; the γνῶσις of love understands the love of Christ, which otherwise far transcended γνῶσις.” Luther (1522–41): also to know the love of Christ, which yet exceeds all knowledge; in 1545 the incorrect rendering first appeared, which goes too far in the attempt to popularize the Scriptural language: and to know that to love Christ is better than all knowing. This is contrary both to the language and the context. Yet it cannot be said, that the love of Christ is the object of a knowledge, which never attains its full end (Rueckert). Against this is the previous expression: “that ye may be able,” as well as the remainder of the verse. [Nor can we accept the view of Harless and Olshausen: “that ye may know that the love of Christ is knowledge-surpassing,” since the participle, which is properly taken as an adjective, is thus twisted into an infinitive, and since the Apostle’s prayer is thus unnecessarily shorn of its fulness.—R.] The final end of the supplication; Ephesians 3:19 b. That ye may be filled up.—This phrase connects itself with “that ye may be able … to know,” and designates the highest, last favor which the Apostle implores for the Church. With what are they to be filled? To all the fulness of God [ειςπᾶντὸ πλήρωματοῦ θεοῦ.]—Ἐἰς designates that toward and unto which the becoming filled proceeds, and πᾶντὸ πλήρωμα, meta est (Bengel), to which the Church should attain, when it is filled. It is therefore in her, not without her. Hence the Apostle is treating of a fulness in them which God grants, and which is unincumbered, unabridged. They must themselves, through the experience and knowledge of the love of Christ, be prepared, expanded, strengthened and fitted to receive πᾶντὸ πλήρωμα, “all the fulness,” which God will impart, has determined and ordained to impart. What God imparts is indeed in Him, from His own character and glory He imparts. Luther: “That is according to the Hebrew mode of speech as much as to say, that we are filled in every way, by which He makes full—that He alone completely rules and works in us.” It is a bolder expression than 2 Peter 1:4 : “partakers of the Divine nature.” Comp. Ephesians 4:13; Colossians 2:9-10. Chrysostom: πληροῦσθαιπάσηςἀρετῆς, ἦςπλήρηςἐστὶνὁ θεός. Theodoret: ἵνατελείωςαὐτὸνἔνοικονδέξησθε. It is not to be limited to the presence of grace (Harless), or to charisms (Meyer), nor to be pantheistically extended or applied to the universe, filling itself in God, i.e., reaching the highest expression of its perfection, and reflecting itself in the Church, so that in it there is no more defect to be discovered (Schenkel). A fulness of God, which complements His Godhead, as though God’s Being were first perfected through the Church, is as little the subject treated of as a pantheistic deification of men. See Ephesians 1:23. The Apostle undoubtedly refers to the persons and personal culture of the individual members of the Church. See Doctr. Note. 4. [Meyer and De Wette take πλήρωμα in the sense of πλῆθος, and the genitive as that of origin. But the Greek Fathers, and Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, Hodge, among late commentators, prefer to take πλήρωμα in the strict sense of id quo res impletur, and the genitive as a possessive, implying: “that ye may be so filled as God is filled,” the reference being not to charismatic gifts, but to the spiritual perfections of God. The only objection is, that such a fulness could not be realized here in a state of imperfection, but εἰς shows that a standard is here set up, and none but a perfect one would be thus held before them. The other view is too tame for the climactic position and force of the clause. Alford: “All the fulness of the Godhead abides in Christ, Colossians 2:9. Christ then abiding in your hearts, ye, being raised up to the comprehension of God’s mercy in Him and of His love, will be filled, even as God is full—each in your degree, but all to your utmost capacity, with Divine wisdom, might and love.”—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The fervency of the worship (κάμπτωτἀ γόνατάμου) does not lose itself in the joyous sense of the love of God (πρὸςτὸνπατέρα), but becomes more deep and clear in love to the neighbor, in unselfish supplication, which in the scale of prayer rises above the lowest grade, which is a cry of need, a cry for help, above the grade of a pupil, the petition for supply of needed good and protection from threatening evil, and approaches in its best feature the master-prayer of thanksgiving, which is so often forgotten, and of praise, that so often is not understood. 2. The Father who is here supplicated is not the All-father of the 18th century or of the rationalists, nor the Father of the heathen. For He is not that weak father, who on account of His goodness consents to withdraw all the demands of His righteousness; nor is He merely the Creator, as if He were, like Jupiter, a father of the trees and animals, of the flowers of earth and the stars of heaven, as well as of angels and men, and as if the idea of “Father” included only that of the Creator, who calls into being. The father is more than the begetter, he is also the provider, the teacher, the guardian in preserving sacred love. Where such paternal care exists, it comes from God, it points to Him, the original Father. Even the most scanty traces of such fatherhood, i.e., of such companies with a father at their hand, point to Him, who has ordained and still sustains such relations. The children may be lost and not permit Him to work within them; still traces of Him, kindnesses from Him are so little wanting, that even among the heathen “an altar with this inscription, To the unknown God,” points to them. The Church sings and speaks of a λόγοςσπερματικός, and sees a great family in different groups, in different circumstances, conditions and attitudes, but at the head, over all and for all the One Father in Christ. 3. The inner man (ὁ ἔσωἄνθρωπος) is the remnant of the man created in the image of God, which is found in all men, even though extremely disfigured or shrivelled up into insignificance. On this account is Redemption possible, man is capable as well as in need of redemption. Hence the inner man is to be thus distinguished from the new man (ὄ καινὸςἄνθρωπος): the former is the remnant of the original man as created by God in His own image, the latter is the beginning of the regenerated man, new born in Christ; that is still present in all men, this not yet existing in all, though it might and should be; that is found without the Church also, this begins only within it; the former is the starting-point for the latter, the latter is the result of the reviving of the former obtained in Christ; that is the first creation, conceived in retrospect, this the “new creature,” conceived as rising; the former is accordingly of nature, which God in holy love has created, preserved and guided, the latter of grace, in which He has had mercy upon the former. But universal as the need of redemption and the capacity for redemption are, man is, on account of this need and in spite of this capability, not in a condition to win the gracious right of sonship, or obligated thereto (Schenkel), but on account of this need notwithstanding this capability only in a state to receive the gift of renewed sonship. See Exeg. Notes, Ephesians 3:16. 4. In the economy of salvation,—in which our passage, being addressed to believers, presupposes justification and antecedent repentance, and regards only the growing renewal, the strengthening of the inner man, his growth in the grace and truth of Christ—the Father constantly, at every stage, takes the initiative, and the recovering man takes no step forward without power received from God. Hence the supplication, that He would “grant” and that too “through His Spirit” to the inner man: thus the renewal within begins from above. Then the awakened, renewed power of the inner man appears in faith, in dependence draws Christ into himself, into his heart, as a guest into his house, for continued intercourse with Him, carefully directing himself by Him in all respects. The inner man, when once, he has actually, with saving effect, become the object (εἰς) of the working of the Holy Ghost, becomes the subject of transforming activity in faith, which like a screw binds Christ to the soul. Though we may not, with the mystics, accept a union essentialis et corporalis, still we should not, with the rationalists, deny the conjunctio substantiζ hominis fidelis cum substantia sanctζ trinitatis and affirm only a dynamic or operative presence of Christ. 5. The work of salvation is a difficult one, and demands the power of God and man. Of God: hence Paul prays (Ephesians 3:16): “that he would grant you according to the riches of His glory.” Of man: hence Ephesians 3:18 : “that ye may be fully able.” 6. Knowledge and Love are not to be separated. There is not merely an “illumination” before conversion and repentance, but also after justification through faith. In the enjoyment of the love of Christ, which we experience, our lovers strengthened, forgetting itself and yet with a profound remembrance of itself it knows what it has experienced, denying itself it is thus strengthened to a clear knowledge of the love of Christ. Human things one must know, in order to love but Divine things one must love, in order to know (Pascal). Love, hastening before, ever gains new material and light for knowledge. “The more I love, the more I find that I ought to love Thee.” 7. The connection of faith and love is also presupposed here, and in such a way that the former is the mother’s lap for the latter; the faith in that love of God in Christ, which we experience and enjoy, must impel to love, to love in return again and again. 8. Christ’s Love surpasses all knowledge and understanding, that only toilsomely attains to seeing. Hofmann: “There is really but one love in the world, because but one actual entering in of person into person. The eternally personal God, who is Love, who has entered into humanity as the personal Christ, who in the Holy Ghost personally flows into the personal life of men, so that we have Him and are His, He loves and is loved. Only where this archetypal fountain of love exists, can man exercise toward his fellow man a copied love.” Only so far as it is felt, can it be known in our weakness. 9. The completion of fellowship with God points into eternity, from the militant to the triumphant church; there the children become heritors, are taken on His throne and heart. Here many radial lines already proceed from the circumference, grace, peace and joy, truth and freedom, sonship and the sense of sonship, life-power and life-fulness, yet they come together in the center only above. Let us only hold fast to the unity of the family of God in heaven and on earth, the oneness of the Father through Christ in the Holy Ghost. AND Had not the Apostle said so, no one would have discovered from his tone, that he was in bonds and chains, looking death in the face. To him affliction is a clear winter night, in which the stars of promise only shine the brighter. Has he tears in his eyes, they become a telescope to carry his sight into the far distant heavens, to open heaven to him and permit him to gaze into the depth of its wonders. It does not occur to him, to pray for release; he asks only for the perfecting and ennobling of the church.—In outward woe he thinks, feels and prays about inward weal alone; in evil, that concerns himself, about the good of the church alone.—God, the true Father, is not nearer to heaven with its angels and saints than to earth with its sons of men; were we but nearer to Him!—He is the Rich One, who can and will give; we are the poor ones, who should receive and—will not!—It were better if thou didst not care so much how to adorn the outer man through the spirit of the world and of fashion; God can through His Spirit re-animate and strengthen the inner man.—Above all see how it stands within thee, so that what God has created after His image in thee be not stunted and starved out. Thine outer man may laugh and sing and dance, while the inner man laments and sighs and goes to destruction. Christ wishes to dwell with thee, not as a mere passing guest; so order thy work and recreation and mode of life after His example, that it may please Him to dwell there and not to hasten away. He is willing to belong to thee; it is not enough then that thou hearest Him, hearkenest to Him, thou must also belong to Him as His possession, must submit thyself and all thou hast to His disposal.—Bind thyself in faith to Him and hold communion with those who believe in Him, that thou mayest grow in the knowledge of His love. Root thyself ever deeper in that love, ground thyself ever more firmly upon it.—Do like Ernest the Pious, who in 1636 had a medal struck in commemoration of his marriage with Elizabeth Sophia of Altenburg, with this inscription on the one side: Christum lieben ist das beste wissen (Living Christ is the best knowledge), and on the other: Gott, lehr erkennen mich und Dich (God, teach me to know myself and Thee)!—Holy love alone lets us understand and use the Scriptures ever better and better! If we look at God’s word and world without love; we see them only remotely.—Three-fold aim of Christian supplication: 1. Strengthening of the inner man; 2. Knowledge of the love of Christ; 3. Fulness of Divine glory. Starke:—In praying the outward posture is indeed of little importance; it is left to Christian liberty to take this or that position with the body; yet no kind of posture seems better fitted for fervent, earnest prayer, than kneeling.—Thou hast indeed a merciful, gracious and loving Father: Thinkest thou, He can ever forsake thee? That is an idle thought. As little as He can take Love out of His heart so little can He forget thee. See, what is the best thing a teacher can ask for his flock; but also what thou too, O soul, must seek after, to be strengthened through the Spirit of God in the inner man.—It is not enough to have come into a state of grace through conversion, there must be added a strengthening and fortifying, which however is not the work of man, since Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith. Though our sins were so broad, so long, so deep, so high, as heaven and earth, yet is the grace and mercy of God deeper, broader, higher and longer, so that it cannot be measured.—The mystery of the love of God is incomprehensible: in future perfection we will understand it. Because we still await that time, let us meanwhile imitate such love in its depth, by helping those who are in the deepest misery and least deserving; in its breadth, by showing to all men without distinction, for God’s sake, kindness and affection, in its length, by never ceasing or becoming weary; in its height, by looking up to God, devoting to Him all our efforts, and having His glory as our purpose.—In Christianity more depends upon taking in faith, than upon giving and doing in love. For the more we take of the fulness of God, the more we can give. A. Mueller:—He who lets Christ dwell in his heart, only that, he may have from Him a household blessing or a joyful consolation, sells Him his heart; but he who surrenders himself to Christ out of pure love, at the same time thinking himself unworthy of the least look of His grace, gives Him his heart. Rieger:—God oftentimes indeed begins in a very small way in His works of grace, because He will effect nothing according to absolute power, but so as to lead men to faith and obedience.—Christ dwelling in the heart, and His Spirit lay claim also to the members of the body, putting them into the service of righteousness, to bring forth fruit unto God in holiness.—Being rooted and grounded in love we obtain the ability to comprehend, not merely to know, but also with other powers of soul so to appropriate something as to be filled therewith. Faith widens the heart, so that more and more can be grasped. But with these enlarged views, which are imparted to us, we should not sunder ourselves from other saints, nor attach to anything such an immoderate value, as to sever the bond which unites us with other saints, but apply all to the edification of the body of Christ. Heubner:—It is a truly proud misery of Kant’s, his denying kneeling as a slavish Orientalism. He can scarcely have felt the impulse of a praying heart. Lichtenberg judges very differently, when he says: “When the body falls upon its knees, the spirit lifts itself to God.”—We have too little bending of the knee; the Catholics perhaps too much, so that a Catholic may occasionally be recognized by the looks of his clothes at the knees. Spener wished that kneeling devotion was more common among us.—What a comfort for fatherless children and widows, what hope for affectionate fathers, to know that their dear children hare in heaven a better Father than themselves. Still the human relation can best teach the true “Father-theology.”—A church can be good outwardly and apparently and yet be without inward life. This inward life comes from the Spirit of God. Christianity should be learned not by heart, but in the heart.—Christ will dwell, not in stone churches, but in living hearts; the heart should live and move in Him, His Spirit should animate our spirit in constant intercourse with Him.—When Christ dwells in the heart, every one has his Christ in his neighbor.—Breadth: the Church of Christ should stretch itself over the whole circle of the earth, over all lands. The length refers to time; she continues throughout all centuries. The depth points to her foundation; she has it in the unfathomable abyss of Divine mercy, and her height reaches into heaven, it is unassailable, for the church on earth and in the spirit world is one. This is the greatness and the origin of the spiritual temple.—Love to Christ, a simple heart full of faith and love to Him, is better than all science. This love has an unconditioned value, is in itself the highest: not so with knowledge; it can give a kind of enlightenment, without at all affecting the heart. The heart excels the understanding. Science should not be over-estimated, and made an idol. Science can never conquer the enemies of the Kingdom of God, she should be a handmaid. The true science is only where the cross is. Only the theologus crucis is the theologus lucis.Passavant:—With a narrow heart we cannot pray with confidence. Hence everything demands that we should receive Divine riches, which enlightens our mind, expands our heart and makes God great in us.—How worthy of admiration, how highly exalted above man is this inner man of the heart! Faith is his reason and his light; love his heart and his life; the Holy Ghost his soul and strength; Jesus Christ his ego and his nature; God his Father and at the same time his heritage, his glory, his riches, his eternal dwelling-place; God makes him, His work in His own good time, and this through a power whose working corresponds with the riches and the glory of His grace.—Did Christ dwell in us, what would we become to our friends, to our enemies, to the world, to the heavens!—Only the Spirit of God in us can disclose to us what God is; only faith, through the Holy Ghost, can apprehend Christ and His life in us; only pure, holy love in us can comprehend what is transcendent and blissful, the wonders of the love of God in Jesus Christ.—There is a breadth and length and depth and height; for this no worlds are too broad, no paths too long, no space too wide, no abyss, no hell too deep, no heaven too high, that it may not reach thither, and penetrate there with might and almightiness, with light and life, with comfort and salvation and peace from eternal compassion—“fulness of God” the destination and end of man, the aim and end of all the decrees of God, of all the mysteries of Christ. Canst thou not satisfy man? Must he still fill himself with a thousand trifles besides, that his happiness may be complete? Stier:—The higher his petition seeks to ascend above all understanding to Him, who is able to do above all, the deeper he bows himself.—The indwelling of Christ: Its beginning—through faith; means—Christ’s love, which becomes ours; aim—according to the widest extension of the plan (knowledge) and inmost depths of the foundation (Christ’s love). Gerlach:—The love of Christ to us precedes all our love and knowledge. Nitzsch:—The essential petition, which we, each for all and all for each, should bear in our hearts, during the varieties and vicissitudes of our life-path. 1. Its purport: a) To become strong in the inner man; b) To have vital fellowship with the Redeemer; c) To know His love. 2. The effect.Wolters (Dedication sermon at Godesberg): The proper prayer for a young congregation: 1) that its members become strong in the inner man: 2) that Christ lives in their hearts; 3) that they understand His love in its greatness and blessedness. Genzken (Preparatory Lecture on Ephesians 3:13-21): St. Paul our example in prayer. 1) He bows his knees, so we under the burden of our guilt; 2) He addresses himself to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; so there is no other name for us; 3) He asks power for the inner man to strengthen in faith, in love, and for every good work; so we. Lφhe:—St. Paul’s request to the Ephesians, his prayer to God, his song of praise to Him, all in relation to the great mystery of building the church on earth. Westermeier:—The best prayer: 1) to whom it is addressed; 2) the gifts it desires; 3) the basis on which it rests. Kluge:—Seek the kingdom of God, not in external things, but in the inner man—1) in judging of the contest of the gospel against the world; 2) of the blessing of the gospel in yourselves. Rabus:—A glance into the closet of the Apostle: 1) How we should approach God in prayer; 2) how supplicate Him; 3) how praise Him. Rautenberg:—What Paul does in his tribulations, that his disciples may not become weary in the walk of faith: 1) He is far from them—yet sends them his mighty word; 2) He suffers the contempt of the world—but endures it for their glory; 3) He cannot give them his hand, but he bows his knee for them. Dr. Meier (Baptismal discourse on Ephesians 3:18): On the breadth, length, depth, height of the love of God. Prφhle:—Paul’s pious wish for the Church at Ephesus: 1. That they might not become weary in their Christian course (Ephesians 3:13). 2. That God would give them power to become strong in the inner man (Ephesians 3:14-16). 3. That Christ may dwell in their hearts (Ephesians 3:17). 4. That they may be able to comprehend with all saints the breadth=the universality, embracing all, the length=the endlessness from eternity to eternity, the depth and height=the immeasurable and incomprehensible greatness of the love of Christ. [Hodge:—The most beautiful object might be in the apartment of a blind man, and he not be sensible of its presence; or if by any means made aware of its nearness, he could have no delight in its beauty. Christ dwells in us by faith, because it is by faith we perceive His presence, His excellence and His glory, and because it is by faith we appropriate and reciprocate the manifestations of His love. Faith is to this spiritual communion what esteem and affection are to the fellowship of domestic life.—The love of Christ is infinite; not only because it inheres in an infinite subject, but because the condescension and sufferings to which it led, and the blessings which it secures for its objects, are beyond our comprehension.—R.] [Eadie:Ephesians 3:15. They lose the cold and official name of subjects in the familiar and endearing appellation of sons, and they are united to one another not dimly and unconsciously, as different products of the same Divine workman-ship, but they merge into one family—“all they are brethren.” Ephesians 3:17. When Ignatius was asked, on his trial, by the Emperor, what was the meaning of his name—Theophorus—he promptly replied, “He who has Christ in his breast.”—Love is the fundamental grace. Ephesians 3:19. As the attachment of a man, it may be gauged; but as the love of a God, who can by searching find it out? Uncaused itself, it originated salvation; unresponded to amidst the “contradiction of sinners,” it neither pined nor collapsed. It led from Divine immortality to human agonies and dissolution, for the victim was bound to the cross, not by the nails of the military executioner, but by the “cords of love.” It loved repulsive unloveliness, and, unnourished by reciprocated attachment, its ardor was unquenched, nay, is unquenchable, for it is changeless as the bosom in which it dwells. Thus it may be known, while yet it “passeth knowledge;” thus it may be experimentally known, while still in its origin and glory it surpasses comprehension, and presents new and newer phases to the loving and inquiring spirit. For one may drink of the spring and be refreshed, and his eye may take in at one view its extent and circuit, while he may be able neither to fathom the depth nor mete out the volume of the ocean whence it has its origin.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 3:14.—[The phrase: τοῦ κυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which follows πατήρ in Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Romans 15:6, should be rejected here. The weight of diplomatic authority is against it (omitted in ΰ1 A. B. C. 17, 67; found in ΰ3 D. F. K. L. and all other cursives). A number of fathers reject it (Jerome expressly speaks of the omission), while the best versions retain it. It is scarcely credible, as De Wette urges, that it was omitted because coming between παρέρα and πατριά, since it really disturbs the rhythmical connection; while on the other hand no addition would be more likely than this from the common formula. If internal grounds have any weight, it must be rejected. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Rόckert, Harless, Meyer, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott; Eadie inclines to this view. Reiche and De Wette retain it, as does Hodge, who says: “the majority of recent editions and commentators retain them,” a statement surprisingly unwarranted.—R.] Ephesians 3:16.—[The Rec. reads δῴη with D. K. L., and most fathers, but δῷ (ΰ. A. B. C. F.) is to be preferred. Comp. Ephesians 1:17.—R.] Ephesians 3:16.—[Here also as in Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:8, the Rec. gives the masculine form (D.3 K. L., cursives), but ΰ. A. B. C. D.1 F. support the neuter.—R.] Ephesians 3:17.—[Another view of the construction requires the following translation: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, ye having been rooted and grounded in love, in order that,” etc. See Exegetical Notes.—R.] Ephesians 3:18.—[The order of the Rec. (βάθοςκαὶ ὕψος) is sustained by ΰ. A. K. L., most cursives; adopted by Tischendorf, Ellicott, Meyer and Braune, as lectio difficilior. B. C. D. E. F. G., most versions, give the reverse order, which as more natural and prevalent (Romans 8:39) is open to suspicion. It is accepted by Lachmann, Alford and others.—R.] [Ellicott renders: “From whom every race in heaven and on earth is thus named,” while the German text of Braune runs thus in a literal translation: “whose name every family in heaven and on earth bears.”—R.] [So Bodius and Hodge, both insisting upon the exclusive reference to the redeemed. The argument of the latter rests altogether on the incorrect reading he accepts. Admitting that the omission of the article favors the rendering: “every family,” he adds that it may still be omitted where the sense is “the whole family,” provided the context is so clear as to prevent mistake. But it is not so clear, else the great body of commentators would not have mistaken it; hence the condition is not met. Besides the context does not teach, except critical judgments are to give way to exegetical preferences, “that those who are here contemplated as children, are those who are by Jesus Christ brought into this relation to God.” “Consequently” it ought not to be affirmed that “the word πατριά cannot include any but the subjects of redemption.”—Undoubtedly there is an underlying thought of redemption; “it is not in virtue of God’s creative power that the Apostle here prays to Him, but in virtue of His adoptive love in Christ” (Alford). The thought of an “All-Father” is remote enough, but any unnecessary limitation of πᾶσαπατριά is at the same time a limitation of the wider results of Redemptive Love so frequently hinted at by Paul and not very remote here (Ephesians 3:10). Alford: “The Apostle seems, regarding God as the Father of us His adopted children, to go forth into the fact, that He, in this His relation to us, is in reality the great original and proto-type of the paternal relation, wherever found.” And in an ethical sense this relation may be readily conceived of as existing in heaven among other than those redeemed from earth—R.] [Dr. Hodge, very sweepingly, intimates that all those interpretations which distinguish this “inner man” from the renewed man, belong to “the theory of Semi-Pelagianism, embodied and developed in the theology of the Church of Rome.” But this is based on a mere assumption, viz., that this view of “the inner man” as the seat of spiritual influences implies the actual sinlessness and unfallen status of “that inner man,” an implication distinctly denied by many of the supporters of this theory, among whom are expositors, who cannot be classed among the advocates of Semi-Pelagianism. I append the statement of Ellicott, which agrees with my own view, referred to above: “The expression ὁ ἔσωἄνθρωπος (Romans 7:22) is nearly identical with, but somewhat more inclusive than ὁ κρυπτὸςτῆςκαρδίαςἄνθρωπος (1 Peter 3:4), and stands in antithesis to ὁ ἔξωἄνθρωπος (2 Corinthians 4:16); the former being practically equivalent to the νοῦς or higher nature of man (Romans 7:23), the latter to the σάρξ or μέλη: see Beck, Seelenlehre, III. 21, 3, p. 68. It is within this ἔσωἄνθρωπος that the powers of regeneration are exercised (Harless, Christl. Ethik, § 22a), and it is from their operation in this province that the whole man (‘secunda interna spectatus,’ Bengel) becomes a νέοςἄνθρωπος (as opposed to a former state), or a καινὸςἄνθρωπος (as opposed to a former corrupt state), and is either ὁ κατὰ Θεὸνκτισθείς (Ephesians 4:24), or ὁ ἀνακαινούμενοςεἰςἐπίγνωσινκατʼ ? εἰκόνατοῦ κτίσαντοςαὐτόν (Colossians 3:10), according to the point of view under which regeneration is regarded. The distinction between this and the partially synonymous terms πνεῦμα and νοῦς may perhaps be thus roughly stated: πνεῦμα is simply the highest of the three parts of which man is composed; νοῦς the πνεῦμα regarded more in its moral and intellectual aspects, ‘quatenus intelligit, cogitat, et vult;’ ὁ ἔσωἄνθρωπος the πνεῦμα or rather the whole immaterial portion, considered in its theological aspects, and as the seat of the inworking powers of grace.” To which may be added that owing to the fact that πνεῦμα has also a second meaning (the human spirit as inwrought upon by the Divine Spirit), Paul does not use it in Romans 7:7-25, but rather νοῦς and ὁ ἔσωἄνθρωπος. This view of the phrase is adopted by Eadie and Alford, and may be regarded as the prevalent one in Germany, perhaps now among English commentators.—R.] [Eadie thus states his view: The change of syntax indicates a change of connection, and the use of the irregular nominative makes the transition easy to the form adopted with ἵνα. The clause thus changed becomes a species of independent proposition, giving a marked prominence to the sense, and connected at once with the preceding context as its result, and with the following context as its starting idea. So Ellicott, who in his translation puts a dash before and after the clause. The course of thought then is: “Christ dwelling in their hearts—they are supposed, as the effect of this inhabitation, to have been now rooted and grounded in love; and as the design of this confirmation in love—they are then and there qualified to comprehend,” etc. This construction is certainly admissible, although Harless is fanciful in accounting for it by the reference to both the dative and genitive which precede. Meyer presents the forcible objection that the present participles would occur were this the connection. When to this it is replied, “that the clause does express the state which must ensue upon the indwelling of Christ before what is expressed in the next clause can in any way be realized, and that therefore the perf. part. is correctly used” (Ellicott), I find in this but a confession of that subordinate relation of the clause to the next one, which is implied in the other view. If the ideas are so nearly similar, a trajection seems a better explanation, than to complicate the relation of the clauses further (we have already a leading clause in Ephesians 3:14, a clause of purport in Ephesians 3:16, containing a finite verb followed by an infinitive, on which infinitive a clause of result depends, Ephesians 3:17. The view under discussion would make an irregular sub-subordinate clause of result to be followed (Ephesians 3:18) by a clause of design, which the other view would append directly to the purport of the prayer). On the other hand this metathesis is open to objection. Such a trajection implies an emphasis on the words thrown in advance, and it is asserted that there is no necesssity for such emphasis here, but this is no real objection, since the words can be emphatic (notwithstanding Alford’s denial). Again, it is said that the premised words in all such cases form the objective factor of the sentence and are not connected with the subject as here (Ellicott). Ellicott’s remark is true as regards the other cases where ἵνα is trajected, but in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, ἕως is put after the subject, which it not strictly parallel, is certainly analogous.—R.] [ The German has a similar paronomasia: Man soll das Christenthum nicht auswendig, sondern inwendig lernen.—R.] [Beichtrede is literally a discourse at confession but among Protestants means the service preparatory to the communion, during the previous week. The etymology confirms the view, that our preparatory lecture is borrowed from the Romanist usage of confessing before the communion, though in reality a proper mode of obeying the injunction: Let a man examine himself.—R.] 3. Conclusion in the form of a Doxology(Ephesians 3:20-21)20Now unto [to] him that [who] is able to do [above all things], exceeding abundantly above all that [above what] we ask or think, according to the power that 21worketh in us, Unto [to] him be [the] glory in the church by [in] Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end [lit., unto all the generations of the age of the ages]. Amen. AND In general the doxology is frequent, either at the beginning (Ephesians 1:3-14; 1 Peter 1:3-5), or at the close of an Epistle (Romans 16:25-27; Philippians 4:20; 2 Timothy 4:18; 1 Peter 5:11; Jude 25; Hebrews 13:21), or at the close of a section, as here, Romans 11:33-36; Galatians 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:17. Ephesians 3:20. Now to him who is able to do above all things—Τῷδὲ δυναμένῳ stands emphatically first, because the matter in hand is the manifestation of God’s power and almightiness (Ephesians 3:16 : δυνάμει Ephesians 3:18 : ἐξισχύσητε). With the infinitive ποιῆσαι [“to do,” to effect], we must closely connect ὑπὲρπάντα “above all,” under which we should understand creatures, powers and events, which may act in a hindering, disturbing or destructive way. Exceeding abundantly above what we ask or think [ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὦναἰτούμεθαἤ νοοῦμεν].—In this added qualification the Apostle places God’s almightiness in comparison with his prayer, and that in a most striking manner. Hence ὑπετρεκπερισσοῦ, found also in 1 Thessalonians 3:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:13 [a.]. Similar expressions, strengthening the sense, occur in Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 4:10; Romans 5:20; 2 Corinthians 7:4; 2 Corinthians 7:13; 2 Corinthians 11:5; 2 Corinthians 12:11; 1 Timothy 1:14; Mark 7:37; Mark 14:31; Mark 6:51. In its comparative signification it governs, as in Ephesians 3:19 : ὑπερβάλλουσαντῆςγνώσεως the genitive ὦν, which is=τῶνἃ αἰτούμεθαἢ νοοῦμεν. Bengel: Cogitatio latius patet quam preces; gradatio. God is greater than our heart (1 John 3:20). Chrysostom: ἐγὼ μὲνγὰρεὔχομαι, αὐτὸςδὲ καὶ χωρὶςτῆςἐμῆςεὐχῆςμείζοναἐργάσεταιτῶνἡμετέρωναἰτήσεωνοὐχἁπλῶςμείζοναἢ ἐκπερισσοῦ ἀλλʼ ? ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, τὸ μέγεθοςἐμφαίνωντῆςδωρεᾶς. [The relative does not refer to πάντα; it introduces a new but related subject. The two phrases are not in apposition, but the second member explains the first. There is no tautology therefore, since subjoined to the expression of God’s super-abundant power, we have a definition of the mode in which it displays itself, viz., by conferring spiritual gifts in super-abundance (Eadie). There is no hyperbole as Harless thinks, though Paul has such a marked predilection for ὑπέρ and its compounds; it “occurs nearly thrice as many times in Paul’s Epistles and that to the Hebrews as in the rest of the New Testament; and of the 28 words compounded with ὑπέρ, 22 are found in these Epistles, and 20 of them there alone.—R.] According to the power that worketh [or is working] in us, κατὰ τὴνδύναμιντὴνἐνεργουμἐνηνἐνἡμῖν.—This belongs to the phrase: “able to do.” The present middle participle marks the continued efficiency of His power, while “in us” indicates both the object and the sphere of activity. Paulus allegat ezperientiam (Bengel) and full of confidence turns from the beginning to the future. Comp. Colossians 1:29. Miraculous gifts (Michael) are not referred to, nor should ὑπὲρπάντα, “above all,” be limited to quζ hactenus visa sunt (Grotius), or the preposition ὑπὲρ be taken adverbially (Bengel), as in 2 Corinthians 11:23 alone. [The power, so frequently referred to in this Epistle, is the might of the indwelling Spirit. The middle (comp. Galatians 5:6) is used mainly in non-personal references; see Winer, p. 242.—R.] Ephesians 3:21. To him be the glory, αὐτῷἡ δόξα.—The pronoun sums up vigorously and emphatically what is predicated in Ephesians 3:20. The dative denotes that the glory is due, will be given to Him (Luke 17:18; John 9:24; Acts 12:23; Romans 4:20; 1 Peter 1:21; Acts 4:9; Acts 11:13; Acts 14:7; Acts 16:9; Acts 19:7). [So most commentators]. Accordingly the article, ἡδόξα does not indicate the “glory,” which He has (Harless); in that case the pronoun αὐτοῦ would occur, as in the interpolated doxology at the close of the Lord’s prayer: ὅτισοῦ ἐστὶνἡ βασιλεία, κ. τ. λ. But it is the glory of the church, which indeed she has first from God, but which as received from Him, properly His and yet appropriated by her, she returns to Him with gratitude and praise. It is not=ἔπαινος, praise, which consists in words, nor=τομή, honor, which consists in the judgment of those who praise, but refers to the life, worship, and character of the church. Comp. Ephesians 1:12, Eph 14: εἰςἔπαινοντῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ, “unto the praise of his glory.” It is most natural to supply ἔστω. In the church in Christ Jesus, [ἐντῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ?].—The preposition ἐν before τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ points to the sphere in which the glory of God is given back, defining more closely either the omitted ἔστω or ἡ δόξα. By ἡ ἐκκλησία, “the church,” we should understand the assembly of those in whom God’s power has become efficient and works (Ephesians 3:20 : “in us”); it is accordingly no external region (Meyer), which is indifferent internally, and beside which an inner spiritual sphere is to be indicated (ἐνΧριστῷ); the church is indeed herself such a sphere. Hence the phrase “in Christ Jesus,” defines more closely the church, its character and status, in order to explain, in what church the glory can and shall be given to God. Luther has rendered it properly as one notion: die in Christo Jesu lebendige Gemeinde (the church alive in Christ Jesus). [To this interpretation, which is that of Olshausen, Stier and others, it is properly objected that such a definition of the church is altogether unnecessary. If καί be accepted (see Textual Note) this exegesis is inadmissible. Nor is the view of Meyer (with Harless, De Wette, Eadie, Hodge, Alford and Ellicott) open to the objection urged by Braune that it presents an external region internally indifferent. The sphere of the giving of glory is defined in a twofold manner: “It is offered in the church, but it is, at the same time offered ‘in Christ Jesus,’ or presented by the members of the sacred community in the consciousness of union with Him” (Eadie); “if any glory comes from us to God it is in Christ.” The repetition of ἐν seems to point to such a meaning, even if καί be omitted.—R.] Hence it is not=to διὰ Χριστοῦ (Grotius); comp. Colossians 3:17; Romans 1:18; Romans 7:25. [Calvin, Beza and Rueckert: per Christum; E. V.: “by Christ Jesus;” σὺνΧριστῷ (�cumenius), all alike objectionable, for even the instrumental sense of iv is not exactly=διά, and the proper sense of the preposition is the more necessary because it occurs for the second time.—R.] Unto all the generations of the age of the ages, [εἰςπάσαςτὰςγενεὰςτοῦ αἰωνοςτωναἰώνων, ἀμήν͂ ?].—The phrase εἰςπάσαςτὰςγενεάς designates the successive groups which are added to this church; γενεαί designates the groups of living persons. Now, at the time when Paul writes, the beginning has been made, the first γενεά, “generation,” which reflects Godward the glory, the light in and from His light, is present; and thus it should and will continue, hence εἰς, “unto.” It is=εἰςγενεὰνκαὶ γενεάν, or εἰςγενεὰςγενεῶν (Luke 1:50, various reading); this repetition expressing the same idea as πᾱσαι; “the iterative form of the expression indicated the extension” (Harless). The phrase τοῦ αἰῶνοςτῶναἰώνων defines to what these γενεαί belong and extend, in omnes generationes, quζ complectitur ὁ αἰών, qui terminatur in τοῦςαἰῶνας perpetuos (Bengel), Ὁ αἰών marks the unity or totality of passing time, which at the same time includes eternity. We have no word which indicates both, as the Greeks had. [True in both English and German]. Bengel: αἰῶνες periodi �conomiζ divinζ ab una quasi scena ad aliam decurrentes; hic amplificantur causa utrumque vocabulum, cum metaphora in γενεά, generatio, conjungitur, ut significetur tempus bene longum; nam in αἰῶσι non jam sunt generationes. Paul says therefore, that the church now begun shall continue through a long series of generations; begun on earth it will be developed throughout these generations, and even when generations shall cease, shall continue in ζons, without succession of generations, and these generations and those ζons (in which new generations are not added, but the constituent ones continue permanently) form a whole, one αἰών, the αἰὼνμέλλων. Instead of this full formula we find only εἰςτοῦςαἰῶνας, Romans 1:25; Romans 9:5; Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27; Luke 1:33; 2 Corinthians 11:31; or αἰῶναςτῶναἰώνων, 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Peter 5:11. Revelation 1:6; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 4:9-10, etc.; εἰςπάνταςτοὺςαἰῶνας Jude 25; εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, Matthew 21:19; Mark 11:14, etc.; εἰςτὸναἰῶνατοῦ αἰῶνος, Hebrews 1:8. Comp. Doctr. Notes, 5, 6. [Only the most extravagant literalism can exclude the idea of eternity from this cumulative expression, and only the most forced exegesis can include “distinct traces of gnosticism.” Harless makes a subtle distinction between αἰῶνεςτῶναἰῶνων and αἰὼντῶναἰώνων, taking the former as more extensive, the latter intensive, for which there is little room here. Meyer is perhaps too literal in his view of γενεαί, which Braune apparently adopts. Alford is satisfactory: “Probably the account of the meaning is, that the age of ages (eternity) is conceived as containing ages, just as our ‘age’ contains years; and then those ages are thought of as made up, like ours, of generations. It is used, by a transfer of what we know in time, to express, imperfectly and indeed improperly, the idea of Eternity.”—R.] AND ETHICAL1. God’s Omnipotence is unlimited, if we leave out of view His own will: He can do what He will (Psalms 115:3). 2. God’s power works in His people (ἐνὑμῖν, Ephesians 3:20), not merely over them, and about them; for they do not resist Him with that will which He has given from His own will to those created in His image. He will not, with His omnipotence, force any into the Church in Christ Jesus, into salvation. Man has might to resist God’s Almightiness within himself. [The limitation or extension of meaning which theologians of different schools may put upon this last sentence, need not be discussed here. Given free-will, the sacred right of personality, and it is true in some sense—awfully true, since this is the fearful price of our privilege as free men. How God’s Almightiness, notwithstanding, never fails of its purpose, we do not know; that it never does, lies at the foundation of all proper theology.—R.] 3. The Essence of worship is the thankful return of what God has bestowed and the recipient has accepted and appropriated; hence the approach of the recipient to the Bestower, in gratitude for the gift, praise for the Giver; the deepest ground of adoration is, however, the condescending grace and imparting love of the Almighty God. He who is blessed begins to bless the Blesser (Ephesians 1:3) and ends in praise of the God of glory (Ephesians 3:20-21). 4. The true Church, a creation of God (Ephesians 3:20), a living congregation, an assembly of sanctified persons, is Christian, having and needing no other Mediator than Christ Jesus, proving and defining the relation to the church according to the relation to Him. 5. The Christian Church has a history, a development through a long series of generations even into eternity. Hofmann (Sehriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 127) retains the καί before ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ and thinks the glorifying of God “in the church” takes place only in time and on earth, but “in Christ” eternally, as though the church were a temporal thing and nothing more. [Eadie: “The obligation to glorify God lasts through, eternity, and the glorified church will ever delight in rendering praise, ‘as is most due.’ Eternal perfection will sustain an eternal an them.”—R.] 6. The Church of Jesus Christ does not find her final issue in the State (Rothe), or in a higher grade of culture; she has a rising without a setting. Rescued through all the changes of national life, she is herself the rescuer of individuals, and of larger groups as well, unto the future of eternity. AND Prayer is no limit to God’s working in thee, but a condition, which He Himself has appointed, without which thou canst not experience His almighty grace.—Thou art a creature of God, and shouldst become a work of His, praising the Master hand in word and deed, and above all in private character and conduct.—“Exceeding abundantly!” Hagar asked a drop and found a well (Genesis 21:19); Saul sought his father’s asses and found a crown (1 Samuel 9:3; 1 Samuel 10:1); David asked bread and received a kingdom (1 Samuel 21:3). Starke: God does more than we desire. Joseph wishes only to be free from the iron chains: behold, God not only does what he desires, but gives him golden chains besides. Heubner:—In the synagogues, mosques, and pagodas there is no true praise of God, nor yet in our churches, if Christ be not known.—The prayer of Paul for the church (Ephesians 3:13-21). 1. It was prompted by the impulse of love (Ephesians 3:13). 2. Full of confidence toward God, the Father of all churches (Ephesians 3:14-15). 3. It was holy in its purport (Ephesians 3:16-19). 4. Hopeful, certain of hearing (Ephesians 3:20-21).—God the true Father. 1. Exposition: a) He is not only the physical Creator and Upholder, but b) spiritual Father (Ephesians 3:14-16). 2. Ground of our belief in this: a) not mere reason and experience, but b) the gospel of Christ (Ephesians 3:17-18). 3. Power of this belief: a) it attracts our heart to God (Ephesians 3:18), so that we understand God’s heart, b) it strengthens unto obedience, c) it gives comfort and hope (Ephesians 3:19-21).—The intimate fellowship of the Apostles and their churches as an example for us.—The inner growth of a Christian church. Rieger: What occurs to each one at his conversion and during his daily renewal, is as good an evidence of the “exceeding abundant” power of God, as what occurs in the creation, preservation and government of all things. [Eadie:—The Trinity is here again brought out to view. The power within us is that of the Spirit, and glory in Christ is presented to the Father who answers prayer through the Son, and by the Spirit; and, therefore, to the Father, in the Son, and by the Spirit, is offered this glorious minstrelsy: “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 3:21.—After ἐντῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ΰ. A. B. C. insert καί before ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. A few authorities [D.1 F.] read: ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ (ἐν) τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, evidently from doctrinal hesitation about placing the church before Christ; in single minor authorities ἐντῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ is wanting. This arises from the inappropriate καί, which only disturbs, and although well supported externally, is inadmissible on internal grounds. It may be rejected, and is rejected by Tischendorf, on the authority of a number of important MSS. [These are D.2 K. L., besides the great majority of cursives, oldest versions, and many fathers. Rejected by Tischendorf, Meyer, and most, bracketted by Alford accepted by Lachmann, Ellicott (ed. 3, 4 only). Before the discovery of ΰ. the internal grounds were sufficiently strong to outweigh the preponderant uncial testimony in its favor, but now the question is more doubtful. The sense is not affected materially by the variation, though the insertion precludes one interpretation. The word may have been inserted to indicate the other meaning, hence its omission presents a lectio difficilior.—R.] [Alford: “δέ brings out a slight contrast to what has just preceded—viz., ourselves, and our need of strength and our growth in knowledge and fulness,” but the contrast is not strong enough to justify our rendering the particle: “but.”—R.] [When De Wette asks: “Was the Apostle warranted in expecting such a long duration for the Church?” he proves his utter want of sympathy with this Epistle, and abundantly justifies the criticism made on his commentary by Alford (see Introd. § 3, 5).—R.] III. PART SECOND THE SPIRIT RULING IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST Ephesians 4:1 to Ephesians 6:201. The Theme of the Whole Part:Walk worthy of the calling love and unityEph_4:1-31I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you [I exhort you therefore, I the prisoner in the Lord,] that ye walk worthy of the vocation [calling] wherewith ye are [were] called, 2With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing 3one another in love; Endeavoring [Earnestly striving] to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. AND Eph_4:1 a. The connection. I exhort you therefore, I the prisoner in the Lord [ΙΙαρακαλῶ οὖνὑμᾶςἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιοςἐνκυρίῳ ?].—The verb παρακαλῶ, placed first for emphasis, marks what follows as the ethical part. Οὑ ?̄ν, “therefore,” joins this practical, hortatory portion of the letter with the previous theoretical part, and that too as a consequence, so that the one forms a foundation for the other; the context indicating the reference more closely.—Ὁ δέσμιος, “the prisoner,” resumes what was expressed in Ephesians 3:1 and continued further in Ephesians 4:13-14. As Paul in his bonds prays for the Church, so he exhorts it also. Although the paronomasia (παρακαλῶ ?—κλήσεως) recalls ἐκκλησια, yet the reference is not to ἐντῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Ephesians 4:21, but to the whole of what precedes (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ has occurred already in Ephesians 1:22), which is, however, summed up in the concluding doxology. Hence Meyer is incorrect in taking οὖν as an inference from Ephesians 3:21 merely. The exhortation of the Apostle gives special emphasis to ἐγώ, “I,” even though it stands after ὑμᾶς, “you,” in the Greek. The phrase, ὁ δέσμιοςἐνκυρίῳ “the prisoner in the Lord” (which can be taken together grammatically, and must be taken together in view of the reference to Ephesians 3:1), marks the importance of the exhortation of Paul, who as a “faithful member of Christ” bears chains in and for the cause of Christ. Calvin: Erant (vincula) enim veluti sigillum honorificζ illius legationis, quam obtinuerat. Theodoret: Τοῖςδιὰ τὸνΧριστὸνδεσμοῖςἐναβρύνεταιμᾶλλονἤ βασιλεὺςδιαδήματι. He is a shining example, and elsewhere he refers to his own walk in agreement with his preaching (1 Corinthians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17); he speaks accordingly ad excitandum effectum, quo sit efficacior exhortatio (Estius), but not ut Paulum obsequio exhilararent (Bengel). He wishes to gain attention and efficacy for his παρακαλεῖν by appealing, not to his imprisonment, which in itself was incapable of strengthening his exhortation, but to his willing, joyful, worthy wearing of the bonds; thus at the same time also strongly urging self-denial. The verb itself means originally to call hither, to invite (Acts 18:20); then to address either hortatively (Romans 12:1; 2 Corinthians 2:8) or consolingly (2 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 7:6-7). Ὑμᾶς, “you,” designates the Church in its individual members; he always conceives of the Church as a fellowship of particular persons. The fundamental exhortation. Ephesians 4:1 b. That ye walk worthy of the calling [ἆξιώςπεριπατῆσαιτῆςκλήσεως—The infinitive περιπατῆσαι (see Ephesians 2:2), as in Acts 27:33-34, sets forth the purport of the exhortation. The emphasis, of course, rests upon the closer qualification ἀξίως (“worthy”), which stands first; for the kind of walk is the important matter. The genitive (as in Philippians 1:27; Colossians 1:10; Romans 16:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:12) τῆςκλήσεως denotes that call of God, to which the walk must correspond, in order to be worthy. Wherewith ye were called, ἦς (instead of ᾑ ?̄ ? 1 Corinthians 7:20) ἔκλήθητε. This relative clause joined per attractionem (see on Ephesians 1:8) indicates that the call has already taken place and been accepted. He speaks of a walk corresponding to the call already received, not as though we should walk worthy, in order to be called, but, since we are called through the grace of God without our merit or worthiness, we should not be unworthy of such grace (Calvin). Comp. Ephesians 4:17-30; Ephesians 2:10; Titus 2:11 ff.; Romans 8:4 if.; Galatians 5:19 ff. Closer definition of the Christian walk; Ephesians 4:2-3. Ephesians 4:2. With all lowliness and meekness [μετὰ πάσηςταπεινοφροσύνηςκαὶ πραύ̈τητος. See Textual Note2].—This clause defines more closely “walk worthy of the calling,” joining with it two attendants which belong to the Christian walk (Winer, p. 353). First stands “lowliness,” which has for its opposite “minding high things” (Romans 12:16), “thinking one’s self to be something” (Galatians 6:3); it is πάσηςἀρετῆςὑποθέσις (Chrysostom). Comp. Philippians 2:3; Colossians 2:18; Colossians 2:23; Colossians 3:12-13. It is belief in our poverty over against faith in Christ, so that we know we have nothing, know nothing, can do nothing, having only an empty hand, yet an open one, to receive what the Lord will give. Accordingly, as in Matthew 5:3-5, to “the poor in spirit” and “they that mourn” (=οἱ ταπεινοφρονοῦντες) are joined “the meek,” so here “meekness,” πραύ̈της is added, that mildness which is gentle toward others, because it thinks: Have I been helped, then I do not know, who should not be helped! Comp. Galatians 6:1; 2 Corinthians 10:1; 1 Corinthians 4:21; 2 Timothy 2:25. [See Trench, Syn. N. T. § 42, perhaps the most discriminating essay on these words which can be found.—R.] The adjective πάσης, “all,” denotes all the various relations and situations of lowliness and meekness; the former must manifest itself in both intellectual and ethical spheres, before God and men, the latter toward friend and foe, under violations of our own rights and property as well as those of our neighbor. With long-suffering, μετὰ μακροθυμίας, is co-ordinate in form with the other two, standing closely connected, yet taken up by itself. Long-suffering (Matthew 18:26; Matthew 18:29; 1 Corinthians 13:4; 2 Corinthians 6:6; Galatians 5:22) is a manifestation of meekness; much depends upon it frequently in the life of a church. Hence it accords with the context to distinguish this by a second μετά and to conjoin it to the other terms. [The word means, not taking swift vengeance or inflicting speedy punishment, though it becomes more general in its sense=forbearance of every kind. The pointing of the E. V. is correct, making the phrase a separate clause. Besides the objection which Braune urges below against connecting it with what follows we may add, that thus the phrase would receive undue emphasis and the parallelism of the participial clauses be disturbed.—R.] Forbearing one another in love [ἀνεχόμενοιἀλλήλωνἐνἀγάπῃ ?].—We would expect the accusative here instead of the nominative: παρακαλῶ ὑ μᾶς—περιπατῆσαι—ἀνεχομένους. It is not however the ὑμᾶς, “you,” which is to be more closely defined, but the “walking,” not the subject, who should walk, but the predicate, how the walk is to be conducted; the two participles (here and Ephesians 4:3) do not then present secondary and additional thoughts. The passage is continued as though, in accordance with the sense, περιπατήσατε were to be read. So Ephesians 1:18; Colossians 3:16; Colossians 2:2; Colossians 2:10. Winer, p. 532. Ἀνεχόμενοι are those who endure the injuries and sins of others; ἀνοχή is the action of μακροθυμία “long-suffering,” which as the disposition, virtue, is to be perceived in the former. Comp. Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 11:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:4. Ἀνέχεσθαι is the active forbearance, ὑπομένειν the quiet endurance. Tittmann, Syn. I. p. 194. The genitive ἀλλήλων “one another,” refers to the fact, that each one, who has to endure from another, gives occasion also for endurance; “long-suffering” is well aware of this. In love, ἐνἀγάπῃ.—This shows at once that the forbearance should not be mere coldness, indifference, obtuseness. Love should be the element of the endurance (Ephesians 3:18). Aliorum infirmitates ζquo animo ferimus, nec ob ea, quζ nobis in proximo displicent, ab ejus amicitia recedimus, sed personam constanter amamus, etsi vitia in odio habeamus (Calovius). Hence “in love” is not to be joined with what follows (Olshausen); nor are we besides this qualification of “forbearing,” to take “with long-suffering,” as still another such (Calvin, Rueckert, Harless, Stier and others): for the “forbearing” is the act of the “long-suffering,” and the latter is not therefore the attendant (μετά) of the former, but its ground, its cause; a forbearing without love is conceivable and actually occurs, but never without long-suffering and yet in love, since love, according to its very nature, “suffereth long” (μακροθυμεῖ, 1 Corinthians 13:4). Still less allowable is it to join the first μετά with ἀνεχόμενοι (Bengel). [Meyer properly urges against this view that it makes an abrupt, instead of an easy, transition from the general: “walk worthy,” to the special: “forbearing one another.”—R.] Ephesians 4:3. Earnestly striving to keep [σπουδάζοντεςτηρεῖν].—The participle is to be regarded grammatically like the preceding one. [“This clause is parallel to the preceding, and indicates not so much, as Meyer says, the inward feelings by which the ἀνέχεσθαι is to be characterized, as rather the motive to it, and the accompanying or simultaneous effort” (Eadie).—R.] It describes the zealous striving (Luther: be diligent), as Galatians 2:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:19. The present infinitive τηρεῖν denotes the continued maintenance which is necessary every day, since dangers constantly approach. The idea of the verb refers to retaining possession of property, which has not first to be gained. Etiam ubi nulla fissura est, monitis opus est (Bengel). The unity of the Spirit, τηνἑνότητατοῦ πνευματου, not τοῦ νοός, is the unity which the Holy Spirit effects. So Chrysostom: τὸ πνεῦματουςγένεικαιτροποιςδιαφόροιςδιεστηκόταςἑνοῖ and most. It is not the unity peculiar to the Spirit, which needs not to be preserved by us (Schenkel), but the unity and concord of the Church and its members, and indeed only that which the Holy Ghost works; that accomplished by the spirit of the age is not the object of zealous preservation (τηρεῖν), but only of purification. [The genitive is that of the originating cause (Eadie, Ellicott) rather than a possessive.—The reference to the human spirit is altogether inadmissible, yet is advocated by Anselm, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Rueckert, and others.—R.] In the bond of peace, ἐντῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆςεἰρήνης—This defines more closely the “keeping” which is the object of the “earnestly striving,” and in the same way (ἐν) as in Ephesians 4:2 (“forbearing”—“in love”), since something depends upon the motive and mode of preserving unity. The very “unity,” which is “of the Spirit,” required and wrought by the Spirit, can be fostered, furthered and preserved in a carnal manner, from political and egotistical grounds. Against this our phrase is directed. Ὁσύνδεσμος with the exception of Act 8:23, occurs only here and in the Epistle to the Colossians (Ephesians 2:19; Ephesians 3:14); to Ephesians 4:2-3, Colossians 3:13-14 are evident parallels. There “love” is “the bond of perfectness,” hence a bond well adapted to preserve the unity of the Spirit. “Peace” is indeed itself a condition corresponding alike with “unity” and “love;” it is in spiritual life, and for the Church, first peace with God, and then that peace of heart which is undisturbed by the assaults, temptations and ills of the world and the flesh, not even by the disquiet of the conscience; and further with respect to our neighbor, it is peace with him in love to him, out of love to the Lord of the Church, the Saviour, to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, and to His children through Him. Hence love is the bond which cherishes peace in the Church, and in such love should that unity be preserved, which God’s Spirit will work in the Church of Christ; “love edifieth” (1 Corinthians 8:1). Accordingly “the bond of peace” is love itself (so Bengel). The genitive is, therefore, not epexegetical (Bleek), nor the genitive of apposition (Meyer, Schenkel); else, as Rueckert aptly remarks, the foundation of the building would be sustained by a perishable roof, the unity of the Spirit be preserved in or through peace with our neighbor, while the Apostle says, that the unity of the Spirit should be preserved in the efficient strength of the power, which fosters this very peace; that is love, which has peace through faith in love, and brings, establishes and retains peace. Where it is wanting, there is carnal nature and discord (1 Corinthians 3:3). Accordingly the preposition “in” designates love as the element in which the unity of the Spirit is to be maintained; hence ἐν is not=διά (Bleek). [Braune’s view takes the genitive as gen. objecti. It is adopted by Bengel, Rueckert, Harless, Stier, following Theophylact. But it is open to serious objection. It is far from probable that the Apostle would express the notion “in love” by such a periphrasis, especially as the parallel clauses are not parallel in the meaning of their several parts. Certainly the Ephesians would not have the Colossian Epistle at hand to suggest to them this sense, and it is not at all obvious without that suggestion. The assumption that ἐν was instrumental may have led to this view of the phrase (Meyer). On the other hand if the genitive be taken as one of apposition, defining the “bond” as “peace” (so Flatt, Olshausen, Meyer, Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott), we have an obvious and simple interpretation, suiting the sense of ἐν. Rueckert’s objection really applies only to the instrumental sense of the proposition. Alford: Peace binds together the Church as a condition and symbol of that inner unity which is only wrought by the indwelling Spirit of God—Far more than the union of Jew and Gentile is meant.—R.] AND ETHICAL1. Doctrine and Exhortation. “The distinction of doctrinal and hortatory parts must not assume the unapostolical character of that modern fiction, according to which exhortation is so severed from doctrinal discussion, as to contain no doctrine at all. As little as an apostolic Epistle is a mere doctrinal discussion, so little is an apostolic, or even a Christian, exhortation without doctrine. What the Apostle requires, are not requirements in addition to and outside of doctrine, but requirements of doctrine, if by doctrine we mean the knowledge of Christian saving truth. This is the very order, which distinguishes Christian ethics from all other.” The Apostle now shows his readers, “what the gospel requires,” after he has called to their memories what it has given them. It requires manifestations of life from those who had been quickened, not from the dead. It expects works of love and righteousness from those who believe and are justified, from him who has been new-created unto good works (comp. on Ephesians 2:10). It expects good fruit from a good tree. The opinion that men can gather grapes of thorns, see works of holiness without faith, and make man just before God without the Redeemer; the preaching of morality and the theory of good works without faith, all constitute a perversion of Christian intelligence and of the apostolic order into the futility and confusion of pseudo-Christianity (Harless). [The Apostle’s “therefore” rebukes both the dogmatism of dead orthodoxy, and the cry: give us something practical, none of your dry doctrine. At one time the application to the former was more necessary, but the tendency of the present day calls for special attention to the other phase of the matter. When professing Christians or churches tire of the facts respecting God’s love in Christ (the real Christian doctrine on which the Apostle’s “therefore” rests), they have already ceased to be in earnest about the worthy walk.—R.] 2. Paul’s right to exhort. The exhortation of the Apostle proceeds rather from the Christian worthiness of “the prisoner of the Lord,” than from the apostolic dignity of the ambassador of the Lord; the latter is more the merely outward, the former more the inward authority, both belonging together; the latter could not exist without the former and vice versa. The former would have neither courage nor right without the latter, but the latter would lack fervency, sincerity and emphasis without the former. The most winning exordium as well as the most powerful Amen, is still the Christianity of the servant of Christ. Vita clerici evangelium est populi. Non bene auditur, qui non bene diligitur (Gregory the Great). There should be no complaint, because at the present time so much is made to depend on the person, to this first of all men will look. 3. The calling. With the calling which God proffers to us, which we have experienced, the Christian life begins. At first we have only to hear (hφren), then it comes about that we hearken (zuhφren), and finally we adhere (zugehφren). Many are the methods of the call: through God’s word sung or spoken in the sanctuary, in the pictures of sacred art, in holy action, in the statements of pious Christians, or in the Scriptures as we read in the closet, from the mouth of a mother or a child, from events in the life of others or ourselves, in the voice of conscience and the immediate suggestion of the Spirit, suddenly, or in the way of gradual consideration, of recollection of what was previously learned and perhaps long-forgotten—thus often is the call addressed to each: every one is more than once, yes many times called by God to Himself. To this the walk should correspond, to this it should give testimony. 4. The worthiness of the walk is determined first and chiefly by the relation of him who is called to the revelation of grace which introduces and regulates the spiritually received, personal fellowship of grace with God. Thus the foundation of the Christian life is laid. In the received benefits and possession lies the germ of all the blessings of eternity. The great matter is constancy, fidelity, personal fidelity to the inwardly efficient word of God, to the personal fellowship with God wrought by the Holy Ghost who calls us, not to a precept, a law, rule, maxim, not even to one’s own nature and soul; this comes in as a result of the first, which is the cause, the basis, the foundation work, followed by a superstructure of fidelity to the renewed soul. 5. Lowliness is the first attendant (μετά) of the Christian walk, beginning after the call of God: He who hears the call, recognizes Jesus as the Christ, feeling. He has more and is more, His, heavenly and Divine fellowship is beyond all our experience, He knows and explains and presents the Father’s will in overpowering clearness, strength and beauty, and thus he who is called ever feels himself to be more insignificant, sinful and needy. In listening to and looking unto Jesus, lowliness springs up within him; he became a Christian not having this, he did not need to bring it to Christianity or as a price for it, but by becoming a Christian he becomes humble, and that too in the most profound earnestness and lively sorrow over his own sin and poverty and weakness. The more the Christian knows and feels himself to be exalted as a child of God, as a member of the body whose Head is Christ, so much the more does he feel himself to be exalted without any desert or worthiness, only through the fellowship of grace with his Creator, Redeemer and Comforter. He rejoices in his peculiar gifts, but only as given, not as profitable or abused. He well knows, that he is of worth before God, but also that what he is and has is little in comparison with what he should and might be and have, that he is an unprofitable servant and yet is a child of God, a joint heir with Christ. 6. Meekness is joined with lowliness. This is not a soft, yielding natural disposition, nor a prudent bridling of a passionate nature, but it is humility applied to the world, not taking offence at the offences of the world, even though misunderstood, mercilessly treated, oppressed and persecuted. This does not estrange her, for she knows herself. The knowledge and experience of corruption and of salvation through Christ in our own heart, produces either no permanent feeling, or else a common feeling, a fellow-feeling, which looks upon him who gives or prepares offence, as one who is suffering under sin, as unfortunate, rather than as evil-minded and rejoicing in sin; accordingly she remains without bitterness, because she has herself experienced the rich grace of God, and perseveres in patience, because she knows God’s patience. [It is also exercised toward God, in submission, which is the foundation of its manifestations toward men.—R.] 7. Long-suffering is added as an especial attendant of the Christian walk in social life. It is meekness towards the sins of others, whom we can punish, meekness, keeping its ground against a long series of these. She knows out of her own experience of the long-suffering of God, that sin is misery, out of which condemning and judging never helps us, but rather grace and mercy, if one will let himself be helped. Long-suffering refrains from punishment, that rejects, cuts off, expels from fellowship and friendship, having instead entreaty, exhortation, instruction, discipline in word and deed. She can lovingly hope, is lovingly spirited and brave. She bears with her neighbor, does not weakly yield, does not stand by coldly and stolidly, nor yet embittered and in carnal anger; she is not whimpering and feeble, but strong and heroic in her love, like a mother or a friend. 8. Unity should be the object of zealous striving, but only that unity which the Holy Ghost works. It is not first to be made, is not factitious, but unity, wrought from above, which we have only to preserve. Over against this, the Christian must keep at a distance from all party combinations, which in effect introduce discord and schism into church-life. But he must also avoid jumbling together the great variety and wealth of gifts and powers, and seeking to unite all under external form and letter. No carnal strife, but also no slothful peace, no patched-up, hypocritical or dead unity. 9. The impulse under which we must endeavor to keep this peace, is peaceable love, which can have foes, but is a foe to none, rejoicing in every gift and creature of God, embracing such and leading them into the life of the church, employing and enjoying them, as a nation in time of peace with its various classes, labors and powers, strives in every direction to perform its task, not from the motions of the flesh, but from the basis which God has given, out towards the appointed goal. 10. Paul conceives of the Church of Christ above all as a living company of Christian persons, not as an institution with all its regulations. But the sacredness does not rest upon the individuals, but inheres in the whole organism, which the Holy Ghost animates. AND Suffer as a Christian, in order to be able to work in the service of the Master.—Show thyself in deed a servant of Christ, in order in such service to be able to direct aright in word, those who are directed to thee.—Loosen doctrine from the precept which it contains, but do not sever them from one another; distinguish, but do not divide them. There is no Christianity without Christ, and no religion without morality, but at the same time those ethics are of no value which have no doctrine behind them. True the conscience is the voice of God, but what were that, if it were without the Word of God?—He who walks unworthy of his vocation is doubly culpable, more than a heathen; do not despise the calling.—As a child of man, a son of earth, no one stands alone and solitary, but with others, as child of God also dost thou belong to a family; take heed thereto! Thou belongest not merely to the visible, but also to the invisible church.—The three chief virtues of a Christian: Lowliness, meekness, and long-suffering [Demuth, Sanftmuth, Langmuth].—Humility is the basis of all Christian virtue; without it all is wicked, however praiseworthy it may otherwise appear. It is nothing more than evangelical truth applied to all cases; a doctrine which does not make us humble is of no account.—Christian practice in walk and conversation is indispensable; it is more important to be skilful in this, than to have special insight respecting the theory. Starke:—Christians have a great and important calling, to walk worthily according to the commands of their Saviour. O that we ever had this calling before our eyes in all our doings!—Where there is much cross, there much light is. Tribulation brings experience; he preaches best who preaches out of his experience.—What God gives and how He gives should satisfy us. Bread and honor are the twin-portions of our calling.—He lives in no shame, who has an unpleasant calling, for God has set him in it. Has God ordained, our pleasure’s gained!—Without lowliness, gentleness and patience the unity of the Spirit cannot be maintained. All discord, heresy and schism come from the vices which are opposed to these virtues.—A gentle spirit is the garden in which patience grows.—Unity of the Spirit, the highest ornament of Christians. How? should those live in discord, who are members of one body, of one Head, Jesus Christ? But that is the very sign of a corrupted Christianity, that there are so many sects, so much discord and strife among Christians. Rieger:—Paul has just prayed so heartily, now he can exhort so profitably. Have you never found that after secret intercourse with God in prayer, your neighbor’s heart also inclines more to you, and is more willing to receive a word which is redolent of prayer?—The call entitles us indeed to the kingdom and glory of God, but it obligates us also to sanctification, and to adorn the doctrine of God and our Saviour.—Humility stands in the feeling of her own defects, and knows how slowly the growth of the inner man proceeds; hence in meekness she does not exact too much of others, and in long-suffering does not lose patience, when an enduring love is necessary in meeting others. Endurance is keenly felt, but love sweetens it, as we see in the case of our children, what we can endure in them, in order in love to help them out of their infirmities. Endeavor overcomes all difficulties: only ever revert to confidence in God.—Unity in the Spirit we dare not make, but only keep it.—To maintain peace is better than to maintain right. Heubner:—The Christian should be and remain conscious of the fellowship to which he belongs: it is a calamity in the Christian church, that this consciousness has been so greatly extinguished. This consciousness should not be maintained proudly but humbly, because the higher the aim, the greater the required perfection, so much the more should each one be conscious of his distance from it and his weakness. The principle of the Christian communion is: to humble ourselves, to become the least, to serve; out of this grows meekness, which shows itself towards those who make the fulfilment of the duty difficult for us.—Endurance presupposes, that every one has something that is obnoxious to others. It is necessary, because we ourselves are troublesome to others, and because we are all members of one body, and because it is God who places others by our side.—The unity in the Spirit is something very different from corporate, external, conventional, superficial unity; it dwells deep within, in the entire will and disposition, it is holy, proceeding from the Spirit, not from mere prudence, concerning itself about essentials, not about non-essentials. From this we infer what real union is; the Spirit alone can create it, that made by man is as a rule of no value.—Spangenberg says: “I hold that no one is a child of God merely because he belongs to this or that religion [i.e., Christian confession]; to him who receives Jesus Christ, power will be given to become a son of God. In Christ Jesus nothing avails save faith, which works by love. He in whom I find this faith is my brother. Is he of another religion, that makes no difference, he is still my brother and nearer to me than my fellow-professors who have no faith. Indeed, because he is of another religion, in which the gospel does not shine so brightly, he is to me a miracle of grace.”—The Moravians have been very unjustly accused of narrow-heartedness. Passavant:—The calling of men was from the beginning, to live innocently and holily, thankfully and obediently toward their God. The calling of the sinner is: to repent, to forsake the ways of sin, to seek pardon, grace and peace; to turn to the holy and living God, whom he has long forsaken. The calling of the Christian is this: internally and externally, with word and work, with his whole life, in all things, at all times in the church, before believers and unbelievers, to give glory to God the Father in Jesus Christ.—One may endure the faults of his neighbor from want of feeling, from mildness of temperament, from human good-nature, from earthly politeness, from temporal policy, from pharisaical hypocrisy; nothing is so common; but it is rarely done out of real Christian love. Stier:—What is not rooted in humility does not deserve the name of a virtue.—Always and everywhere this alone is of avail, to cherish the unity of the Spirit; thus out of every desolation a new edifice is formed, without this the most beautiful structure becomes rotten and finally breaks. Gerlach:—Patience manifests itself in the quiet endurance of injuries, long-suffering, more in the active maintenance of others in necessities, even when criminal. Sermons on the Epistle for the 17th Sunday after Trinity (Ephesians 4:1-6). Westermeier: Unity in., the Spirit: 1. What is it? 2. By what means is it preserved? a) in general (Ephesians 4:1); b) in particular (Ephesians 4:2-3); 3. On what grounds should it be maintained (Ephesians 4:4-6). Ziel:—Endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit! 1. On what this admonition is based (Ephesians 4:4-6). 2. How we obey it (Ephesians 4:1-3). Ahlfeld:—Walk worthy of your Christian calling! 1) Your calling as children of God; 2) your calling as brethren to each other; 3) your calling, to derive the power for such a walk from the right sources.—Our joy in the congregation of the saints. 1) Who are these saints and how far does this fellowship extend? 2) What is the bond which encircles them? 3) What blessing and what joy do we derive from this fellowship of the saints? Rautenberg:—The unity of the children of God. 1) How the Divine call requires it; 2) in what it consists; 3) from what it proceeds; 4) to what it obliges every one. Kapff:—Endeavor to keep the unity in the Spirit! 1. Let go what disturbs unity. 2. Hold fast what confirms it. Heubner:—The unity of the Christian Church. 1. Oneness of life: a) Worthy walk, b) brotherly love, c) peaceableness. 2. Oneness of faith: a) in one Holy Ghost, b) in one Saviour, c) in one God and Father.—The duties of Christian church-membership. 1. A walk which is worthy of the call into the church (Ephesians 4:1). 2. Specially fraternal walk in humility and love (Ephesians 4:2). 3. A concordant, harmonious walk, not mere external but internal unity (Ephesians 4:3), for the fellowship of the Church is not merely a body, but a Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); it is founded upon one faith in Christ and one confession (Ephesians 4:3) and is perfected in God the Father.—The communion of the saints. 1. A description: not of a place, nor of a form, but of love and of faith. 2. How is it established: not by force, by human power or act, but by the Spirit of God. 3. Its importance. The equality of our fellowship in Christianity. 1. Proof: we have one calling, one Saviour, one Father. 2. Application: Thanksgiving to God, caution against pride, consolation for the lowly and poor, awakening endeavors after this fellowship. Prφhle:—Endeavor to keep the unity in the Spirit! 1. Only in sorrow can we receive this exhortation now-a-days. 2. May it knock loudly upon the conscience of every one. 3. And may it bind anew in firm union our hearts and hands.—Forbearing one another in love. 1. Meaning: a) We should follow after peace, as husbands, wives, kinsmen, masters, servants, b) This is possible through lowliness, meekness, long-suffering. 2. Motive: a) The duty of brotherly love, b) our own defects; to-day I must bear with you, to-morrow you must bear with me. Footnotes: Ephesians 4:1.—Nearly all MSS. have: ἐνκυρίῳ;ΰ.:ἐνκυρίῳ [The change of order is for the purpose of bringing out the emphatic force of παρακαλῶ (exhort rather than beseech); the second I being required in English. In is substituted for of as more correct, while calling is in itself a better word than vocation, serving here to preserve the correspondence between the substantive and verb (aorist: were called).—R.] Ephesians 4:2.—[The spelling πραΰτητος (ΰ. B. C. 17) is considered by Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott, as the best attested form in the dialect of the New Testament. Comp. Galatians 5:23. Braune apparently prefers πραότητος (Rec., A. D. F. L., most cursives). His rendering of the three terms is very neat: mit aller Demuth und Sanftmuth, mit Langmuth.—R.] [Eadie accepts a reference to the preceding paragraph; Alford to the all that precedes (so Hodge), but adds: “here perhaps also a resumption of τούτουχάριν Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 3:14, and thus carried back to the contents of chaps. Ephesians 1:2.” Ellicott: “To those passages in the preceding chapter which relate to the spiritual privileges and calling of the Ephesians, e. g., Ephesians 4:6; Ephesians 4:12, but especially to Ephesians 4:14 ff., in which the tenor of the prayer incidentally discloses how high and how great that calling really was.” The objection to the more general reference in my mind is, that it assumes the Epistle to have been by the Apostle himself purposely divided into two parts, doctrinal and practical, like the divisions of a sermon. Paul’s method is rather that of concatenation.—R.] [The choice of this phrase here, following Ephesians 3:1, where the genitive occurs, is overlooked in the E. V. Ἐν is not here=διά or σύν (it is doubtful if it ever is), but denotes the sphere or element of the captivity. As distinguished from Ephesians 3:1, this passage gives prominence to the fellowship with Christ and devotion to His cause, while the genitive marks Christ more definitely as the author or originator of the captivity. “In the Lord” seems to be at times, Ellicott remarks, little more than a qualitative definition, yet there is far more danger of abridging than extending its profound spiritual significance.—The phrase cannot be joined with the verb, as is done by Semler and Koppe.—R.] [Meyer thinks the attraction is from the accusative ἥν, though admitting that a dative might be proper here. De Wette denies the propriety of the expression κλῆσινκαλεῖν (cognate accusative), though it is defended by Winer, p. 154, and occurs in Arrian, Epict.: καταισχύνειντὴνκλῆσινἧνκέκληκεν. The dative gives the simpler grammatical form and through a slight violation of the law of attraction, is sustained by the analogy of 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Cor. 5:20 is not decisive since ἐν with the dative precedes and the relative might be attracted into that case, though it probably is not.—R.] [Σύν denotes coherence, often with the same idea of assistance; μετά refers to an accompaniment or attendant.—R.] [Trench properly objects to Chrysostom’s proud humility, which shows itself in his definition of the first term: “making ourselves small when we are great,” defining it rather: “the esteming ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so: the thinking truly, lowlily of ourselves.”—The second term is more than gentleness, to which Braune and Hodge seem to limit it; it rests on the former as its foundation, accepting God’s dealings in humility, and manifesting itself toward men, because they are His instruments.—R.] 2. Three motives to the preservation of the unity in the SpiritEph_4:4-16a. The working of the Triune God in the Church(Ephesians 4:4-6)4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called [as ye were also called] 5in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above [over] all, and through all, and in you all [in all]. AND Connection.—These three verses are joined to what precedes without any connecting particle, and, as parallel clauses, follow each other without any such particle, since the context, being quite clear, requires none. Theodoret: πανταχοῦ τὸ ἓνκαὶ εἱ ?̄ςτέθκεικενεἰςσυμφωνίανσυνάπτωντὴνἐκκλησίαν. Bugenhagen: omnia, unde Christiani sumus, unitate nobis commendantur. The exhortation to maintain the unity of the Spirit has mainly occasioned these verses; they give a reason for it; γάρ is wanting however, on account of the liveliness of the discourse, and for emphasis. The objective bases for unity in the Spirit, to which they have been exhorted, the motives for such exhortation are stated. Hence we should supply ἐστίν, and not ἐστέ, as though it were continued exhortation (Syriac, Calvin, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 127, and others). [Braune’s view is that generally received, and by far the most tenable.—R.] Ephesians 4:4. The nature of the fellowship.—There is one body and one Spirit [ἓνσῶμακαὶ ἓνπνεῦμα].—Ἓνσῶμα (Ephesians 1:23; Ephesians 2:16; Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Corinthians 12:20) designates the totality of Christians as a corpus mysticum; it is not=ἐκκλησιά, church, which is to be viewed as the external phenomenon, the body of Christ is hidden, but a reality, like the body of nerves, a hidden reality, which can be traced, making itself perceptible, the invisible church, the unity of which is emphasized by the Apostle and to be held fast.—Καὶ ἓνπνεῦμα is added to designate the soul of this body, the Holy Ghost, which forms and moulds the body, and to show that this σῶμα of Christ is no πτῶμα. He is not speaking therefore of an ideal invisible church, which does not actually exist, but of the actual, real essence of the church, which is internal, but comes into being continuously. It is foolish to explain here, we should be united penitus, corpore et anima, non ex parte duntaxat (Calvin and others). Since Christ’s body and the Holy Ghost are perceptible, not in their essence, but only inwardly and in their effects and consequences, Paul refers next to their own experience: As ye were also called in one hope of your Calling [καθὼςκαὶ ἐκλήθητεἐνμιᾷ ἐλπίδιτῆςκλήσεωςὑμῶν].—According to the calling (καθὼςκαὶ ἐκλήθητε), by means of which he who is called has obtained or can obtain knowledge and perception of the “body” and “Spirit” just mentioned! This calling points likewise (καί) to the unity, because it is consummated “in one hope;” as soon as a man is called of God, he is in the hope of salvation (σωτηρία, κληρονομία) and this hope is one and the same for each and all who are called, by right, in tendency and effect. This “hope” belongs so especially to the being called (ἐκλήθητε) that it can be termed all along “of your calling;” hope and calling are not to be separated from each other. Bengel is excellent: Spiritus est arrhabo, atque ideo cum ejus mentione conjungitur spes hereditatis. They belong together from the beginning; Paul here however refers to the history of the origin of church-fellowship which is to be maintained, whether one looks at the unity of the church, or of principle, or of aim. It cannot be said that the calling consists in hope (Bengel: ἐν exprimit indolem rei, Harless and others), still less that it takes place by means of hope (Meyer), or that ἐν is=εἰς. Winer, p. 385. [See Eadie for a list of prepositions used with καλέω in the New Testament. He, with Alford and Ellicott, rightly supports the usual meaning of ἐν here: the element in which the calling took place. Ellicott speaks of this sense of the preposition as being, “so to say, its theological meaning.” He takes the genitive as one of originating cause, but it is rather that of possession, “the genitive of the correlative noun, suggesting what belongs to the call and characterized it, when they received it. The ‘hope’ is ‘one,’ for it has one object, and that is glory; one fountain, and that is Christ” (Eadie). Ἐλπίς is of course subjective.—R] Ephesians 4:5. Christ and the union with Him.—One Lord, one faith, one baptism.—This refers to the way and the means of salvation. Εἱ ?̄ςκύριος, “one Lord,” is Christ, the Lord par excellence. See Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 1:21. The word found in Deuteronomy 6:4 is now applied in the New Testament to Christ (1 Corinthians 8:4-6). His will has authority over all. Each one stands equally near to Him; for there is “one faith,” which unites with Him; faith (Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 1:15; Ephesians 2:8; Ephesians 3:12; Ephesians 3:17) unites inwardly to the one Lord, trusts Him as Lord. Hence there is but one faith, and not several kinds: fides, qua creditur; it is not then a faith in abstracto (Harless), nor the doctrine of faith (Grotius and others); for this faith is actually and efficiently present and a living power, a believing. [A vast deal of difficulty as well as of error is avoided by bearing in mind that πίστις, “faith,” in the New Testament, almost invariably means subjective faith (Galatians 1:23 is the only exception, and this perhaps an apparent one). The conception of “faith” as a universal dogma belongs to a later age, and while it has preserved Roman Catholic uniformity, has not “kept the unity of the Spirit.” So the Apostle implies: Because there is one faith, keep unity, not because we need unity, lay down one objective Catholic undoubted Christian faith. Dr. Hodge defends the objective sense here, but must make limitations which are of necessity indefinite enough to cast doubt on his own view. Still the context plainly points to the “one Lord” as the object of the “one faith;” and in the nature of things one subjective recognition of this eternal truth respecting Christ, this apprehension of Him in His Person and work, necessarily involves a common objective profession of it, and thus we pass to the third term of the verse, which is to be regarded as the external sign of faith, and in one aspect as a profession objectively made.—R.] Faith, which is one, begins with baptism, which is also only one; the former is an internal subjective medium, the latter an objective one, from without and above; these two factors make the Lord our own, and us the Lord’s own. Modo baptismus modo fides prζponitur, Mark 16:16; Colossians 2:12 (Bengel). [The order of the words does not justify this view of Dr. Braune’s. Alford takes the verse as presenting three great facts on which unity rests, the first objective, the second subjective, the third compounded of the two: “the objective seal of the subjective faith, by which, as a badge, the members of Christ are outwardly and visibly stamped with His name.” To find a reference to one mode of baptism is unwarranted by text or context.—R.] Why the Lord’s Supper is not mentioned, is evident from the context, which contains the motives for the exhortation, to desire to preserve the unity of the Spirit. The Lord’s Supper is rather an act of the preserved unity, than a motive for its preservation. It is celebrated by those who have been reconciled with God and hold each other to be brethren; it does not so much give an impulse to peaceableness, as it is a result of the same, as a common celebration of those who have become united together, as an attestation of the church which has become one in the Lord. De Wette refers to this by intimating that the Lord’s Supper is not mentioned, because it is a representation of unity. The reference to the fundamental conditions of the Christian communion at its beginning is an insufficient ground for the omission of this sacrament (Harless and others). Still less admissible is it to suppose that it is included in the one sacrament of baptism (Calovius), or in the “one Lord, one faith” (Olshausen), or to explain historically, that there has been as yet no separate celebration (Meyer), or that this is prophetic foresight, since the unify of the sacred feast would be broken nevertheless (Stier), or because he did not wish to hinder the manifold form of the rite (Schenkel), or because a definite expression for it was wanting (Bleek). Ephesians 4:6. The deepest basis of true unity. One God and Father of all.—Hero God the Father is referred to, after the Spirit (Ephesians 4:4) and the Son (Ephesians 4:5) have been made prominent. As little as God can be disunited with Himself, so little should you who are His children be among yourselves. Hence to the phrase “one God,” there is added epexegetically: “and Father,” the genitive “of all,” under which Christ cannot be included, leading us to understand it as the Father of believers, of those who have become God’s children in Christ. “Father” cannot then mean merely “creator,” according to the heathen conception, nor can “of all” be neuter in this context. Nam omnes ad unitatem rediguntur (Bengel), and the following “all” (πάντωνπᾶσι) takes up the first one again, referring to persons, to the members of the Church, who should preserve the unity in the Spirit; on which account Ephesians 4:7 continues: “to every one of you.” It is accordingly neither neuter (Irenζus and others), nor to be extended to men in general (Holzhausen). Who is over all, όἑπὶ πάντων marks the Ruler, Guardian, Guide (Winer, p. 351) governing over all (Winer, p. 390). Chrysostom: ἐπάνωπάντων, τὴνδεσποτείανσημαίνει. And through all, καὶ διὰ πάντων, per omnes operans (Bengel); the individuals are instruments, means, as Romans 15:18; 1 Corinthians 3:9; Galatians 1:1 : διʼ ? ἀνθρώπου—διάἸησοῦ. See Winer, p. 390. And in all, καὶ ἐνπᾶσιν, dwelling in all (Bengel, Winer), filling them, perfecting them (John 14:23). All three qualifications refer to “God and Father,” hence are not to be interpreted in a trinitarian sense, of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so that He who is “through all” is the Head working through all, and He who is “in all” is the indwelling Spirit, yet such a reference lies unmistakably in the background (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:13), at all events was not far off, so that Harless can discover here a recapitulation of “one God,” “one Lord,” “one Spirit,” which Stier and others think was intentional. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 201 f., who doubts any reference to the trinity, but applying it to the Father not without the Son and the Spirit, excludes no one Person. The reference to Redemption alone is clearer, hence “through all” is not to be understood of the all-pervading creative power, nor of Providence in general. [While the mention of “one baptism,” with its Trinitarian formula, suggests the great probability of a reference to the Trinity in the several expressions of this verse, which is further favored by the first and third prepositions, it is far safer not to press it. The express mention of the “Father” is against it; διά can be referred to the work or office of the Son only by departing from its proper sense or inverting its relation to the rest of the verse (“per quem omnia facta sunt,” Aquinas, so Olshausen), and as Eadie remarks: “In previous portions of the Epistle triune relation has been distinctly brought out; here the representation is different, for unity is the idea dwelt on, and it is the One God and Father Himself who works through all and dwells in all.” Ellicott here confessedly allows doctrinal considerations to outweigh his exegetical convictions, and it is precisely thus, that those who defend the well-grounded doctrine of the church lose in their contests with those who impugn it. They attack our exegesis of a passage like this, and we must defend the doubtful, unimportant outpost at a disadvantage.—One thing is certain that this passage refers to believers alone, neither teaching God’s Fathership of all men (though Alford thinks it is referred to as a lost possession), nor pantheism of any kind.—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The unity of the Church. Although ἐκκλησία and σῶμα (Χριστοῦ) describe so nearly the same, that of the former it is said (Ephesians 1:23): “which is his body,” while in Colossians 1:24 we read of “his body, which is the church,” yet the two may be thus distinguished: the former designates the church as an assembly of believers, of saints; the latter as a living organism, the organ of Him who is the Head, thus with the corpus Christi mysticum, giving more prominence to the inner concealed side, the unity of the same. Hence there are indeed “churches,” but no “bodies of Christ.” The Nicene creed was right in adding: unam to sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam (the Apostles’ has only: sanctam ecclesiam catholicam); so the Augsburg Confession, Art. vii: quod una sancta ecclesia perpetuo mansura sit. Strictly there is but one Church of Christ, though in groups of congregations with different confessions. No confessional church (though, strictly speaking, the term is a misnomer) is the Church of Christ, it is only a church by the side of others, through which the body of Christ extends itself. 2. The distinction of the body of Christ from the Spirit is indicated definitely enough by their being placed side by side, yet the latter at the same time gives prominence to the church as the working-place of the Spirit.3. The call, when accepted and effectual, begins within the called, not with a mere promise which he receives, but with a hope corresponding thereto, so that the objective call of God and the subjective acceptance of the man come together, and he from the very beginning knows and feels himself to be shown out of the lower sphere of life into the higher one. 4. Christ is the One Lord, and no faith in Him is genuine, except it be in Him as Lord. It is not sufficient to believe the Master or Teacher; it is not enough to feel and deem ourselves scholars, hearers, disciples. The Christian must be servant, subject of Christ, not merely to bear or listen to Him, but to belong to Him, to hearken to Him, to obey, to follow Him as His vassal, attendant, servant. No human dignity, in the history of our lives or of the world exceeds the dignity of Christ: He is the one only Lord; who gives Him up, must give up faith and the fellowship of the church. 5. Baptism, with which faith begins (regeneratio prζcedit fidem) imparts the germ of the new life, the beginning of the gift of the Holy Ghost, the principle of faith in the subject, as at birth, upon coming to the light of the world, man is endowed with reason. It is not merely a symbolical act, nor a mere prophecy of the cleansing which begins later, but it is the incorporation into the body of Christ, animated by the Spirit, implantation into the soil of divine life. [This is the Lutheran view, approaching, in its estimate of the objective grace of this Sacrament, the position of Romanism and Anglicanism. Certainly the fact that baptism is mentioned at all, puts it into an exalted position, from which unchurchly Zwinglianism would degrade it. But it is not placed before faith, nor is there here any warrant for the assertion that faith begins with baptism. The Reformed or Calvinistic view is most in accordance with our passage. See Heidelberg Catechism, Questions 69–74; Belgic Confession, 34; Westminster Confession, 28; comp. especially Romans, p. 206, Doct. Note 3.—While there is no reference to the one mode of baptism, there is probably an allusion to the fact that baptism is not or should not be repeated.—R.] 6. God, the Father of believers, is not far from them, over them, but near to them, disposing concerning them, working through them, yes, dwelling in them, as in a temple, furnishing His work as in a work-shop. God is a Person, who not only rules throughout the universe, but gives to His own a special personality. 7. The Atheist denies the Father, the Deist the Son, the Pantheist the Holy Ghost, because he substitutes for it the unholy “spirit of the world” (Baader). AND Ever return from multiplicity to unity, and in freedom to obligation; but never let your view of the unities be disturbed. Do not hold faith higher than baptism, penetrate into the communion of the Church until you reach the Spirit which is its soul, and do not sunder the Lord Jesus and God the Father! Starke:—There is but one Church, which receives life and movement from the Holy Ghost, and hence but one ship, with which we can sail into the haven of bliss; all other vessels destroy and drown.—Christians are all equal in the fellowship of heavenly possessions, and no one has a better God, Christ, Spirit, Faith, etc., but what one has, the others have also, although one may have a greater enjoyment of such possessions than another. Rieger:—The body of Christ is ruled by one Spirit; one Lord gave Himself for the Redemption of all; out of one Word of truth and of faith are we convinced; one baptism is the door of entrance for us into the kingdom of God. Therefore God administers such a government of love over all, that as much as possible equality is established; out of his property every one can contribute something to the common benefit: as God on the other hand so gives Himself to be enjoyed by each, that he dare not look too anxiously upon others, still less through secret envy render difficult his keeping peace with all.—Heubner, see Homil. Notes on the preceding section. Passavant:—There is one path, one goal, one house, one family, one home to which you have been called; you all hope for one heaven, and in the same heaven to obtain a common inheritance, an identical blessedness and glory in the heavenly life.—“I do not know, how it happens, that we glory in being the children of God so confidently and yet at the same time forget brotherly love.” Stier:—Where there is still body, there is also Spirit—that is the Apostle’s great thought.—Baptism and Faith belong together: 1. As faith is the subjective appropriation, so baptism is the objective representation of the same; 2. Faith takes out of the Lord’s hand, in baptism we have the firm foundation and beginning from the Lord.—I confess that I find the one faith on the Lord in many a [Roman] Catholic with the hearty joy of fraternal agreement, and in many a zealot for the pure Word and Sacrament I might look for it with pain and in vain. [Eadie:—“One baptism” is the result and expression of the “one faith” in the “one Lord,” and, at the same time, the one mode of initiation by the “one Spirit” into the “one body.”—All this unity is but the impress of the great primal unity—one God.—Christ’s claim for the preservation of unity is upon all the churches—a unity of present connection and actual enjoyment—not a truce, but an alliance, with one living and cognizance—not a compromise, but a veritable incorporation.—Hodge:—All sins against unity are sins against the Holy Ghost.—R.] [Seven times does the word “one” occur in these verses, but the middle term is “one Lord,” next on either side “one hope”—“one faith.”—How great a unity results from “one faith,” the same trust of the heart on the “one Lord;” one creed often leads and always permits us to chop logic and split hairs, but where the “faith” is “one,” hearts are one, and no earnest Christian has failed to notice how quickly this manifests itself.—It is a comfort to come back from the jars of the church of to-day and the wars of the church of the past, to the simple truth: There is one body: but here too faith is required.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 4:6.—The Rec. inserts ὑμῖν (with very slight authority), while D. F. K. L., good versions and a few fathers, 40 cursives, read ἡμῖν; no pronoun occurs in ΰ. A. B. Cּ, 10 cursives. Most fathers also sustain the omission, which is accepted by nearly all editors and commentators since Lachmann, the pronouns being regarded as exegetical glosses to confine the assertion to Christians.—R.] [So Eadie with more correctness than Alford and Ellicott, for though γάρ is not to be supplied, yet the logical connection of the assertion is argumentative. It is one of the rare cases where the grammatical nicety of the commentator last named has led him somewhat astray.—R.] [So Meyer: “Objective relations of unity, to which the non-observance of the precept in Ephesians 4:3 would be opposed. These are: 1. The Church itself constituted as a unity—one body, one Spirit, one blessed consummation, Ephesians 4:4; Ephesians 2. That by which this constitution of the same as a unity has and does come to pass—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Ephesians 4:5; Ephesians 3. The supreme Ruler, Administrator and Preserver of this entire unity—one God and Father, etc., Ephesians 4:6. Notice the triple tri-partite division.”—R.] [On this question, which seems to have occupied undue prominence from the sacramental tendencies of many commentators, Ellicott remarks that if a reason must be assigned, “it must be referred to the fundamental difference between the sacraments. The one is rather the symbol of union, the other, from its single celebration and marked individual reference, presents more clearly the idea of unity,—the idea most in harmony with the context.”—R.] [Hodge: “There are many passages to which the doctrine of the Trinity gives a sacred rhythm, though the doctrine itself is not directly asserted. It is so here. There is one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father. The unity of the Church is founded on this doctrine. It is one, because there is to us one God the Father, one Lord, one Spirit. It is a truly mystical union; not a mere union of opinion, of interest, or of feeling: but something supernatural arising from a common principle of life. This life is not the natural life which belongs to us as creatures; nor intellectual, which belongs to us as rational beings; but it is spiritual life, called elsewhere the life of God in the soul. And as this life is common on the one hand to Christ and all His members, and on the other to Christ and God, this union of the Church is not only with Christ, but with the Triune God.”—R.] b. The gift of Christ to individuals(Ephesians 4:7-10)7But unto every [to each] one of us is given grace [was the grace given] according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended 9up on high, he led [a] captivity captive, and gave gifts unto [to] men. ([omit parenthesis] Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first [omit 10first] into the lower parts of the earth? He that [who] descended is the same also that [he it is also who] ascended up far [omit far] above all [the] heavens, that he might fill all things.) [omit) ]. AND Eph_4:7. Every one is cared for by Christ.—But to each one of us, ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν.—Antithetical to “through all and in all,” in order to explain it and to give prominence to the subjective condition, which is a motive for the preservation of unity; “of us” holds fast to the circle of Christians, of believers; it recalls Ephesians 3:20 : “in us.” After the seventh “one” and the fourth “all,” prominence is given to the specializing of what is common to all, to what is peculiar to the individuals. [Hence ἑνὶ in addition to ἑκάστῳ.—R.] It cannot be referred to teachers (Passavant), or to extraordinary Christians (Baumgarten-Crusius), or to the relation of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Olshausen). Each has a part in salvation, and should prove it in concord; each has a part in salvation, and hence should be treated in a fraternal manner. Was the grace given [ἐδόθηἡ χάρις].—The verb stands first for emphasis: Every one has received, no one has it of himself; each has to recognize that, for himself, in order not to be proud, for another, in order not to despise or avoid him. That which was given by Christ is “the grace,” God’s grace, which is active and noticeable in Christianity, and of which he has already spoken in ver.6 (Harless); or the grace imparted. According to the measure of the gift of Christ [κατὰ τὸ μέτροντῆςδωρεᾶςτοῦ Χριστοῦ ?].—One kind of grace is given, and yet very differently. It is given by Christ; hence the genitive Χριστοῦ is the genitive subjecti, on which account we find in ver.Eph 8: “and gave gifts,” Ephesians 4:11 : “and He gave,” accordingly that gift which He has given, not received (Oeder, in Wolf). He gives to each individual, to one more, to another less, to each the entire grace, but in peculiar form, with differently manifested strength, efficacy and tendency; hence “according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” [“In proportion to the amount of the gift which Christ gives” (Ellicott), the first genitive being a simple possessive genitive, and the second that of the agent, or both being subjective. Stier tries to combine the ideas of giving and receiving in the phrase: “of Christ.” “The rule is not our merit, or our previous capacity, nor our asking, but His own good pleasure” (Hodge).—R.] Christ has power thereto; Ephesians 4:8-10. a) The quotation (Ephesians 4:8). b) The further exposition and application (Ephesians 4:9-10). Ephesians 4:8. Wherefore he saith.—Διό denotes that in the quotation there is a reference and proof, i.e., for “the gift of Christ;” as will appear. We most naturally supply ἡ γραφή, the Scripture, with λέγει, “saith” (James 4:6; Romans 15:10; Galatians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:16 : φησίν), and not ὁ θεός (Meyer, Schenkel), or ὁ λέγων (Bleek: the writer). [The fact that Paul frequently supplies ἡ γραφή (Romans 4:8; Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; Galatians 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18) is against Braune’s view; for in some of these passages there is a reason for its insertion (see Romans, p. 314), and as the Scriptures are God’s Word (Meyer), the natural aim and obvious subject is ὁ θεός. So Alford, Ellicott and most.—R.] The quotation is from Psalms 68:19 : ςָ ?μִ ?ιϊָ μַ ?ξָּ ?ψεֹ ?ρωָׁ ?αִ ?ιϊָ ωֶׁ ?αִ ?ιμָ ?χָ ?ηְ ?ϊָּ ξַ ?ϊָּ ?πεֹ ?ϊαָּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν: LXX: ἀναβὰςεἰςὕψοςἠχμαλώτευσαςαἰχμαλωσίανἔλαβεςδὁματαἐνἀνθρώπῳ. In Paul it reads: When he ascended upon high he led a captivity captive, and gave gifts to men, ἀναβὰςεἰςὕψοςἠχμαλώτευσεναἰχμαλωσίανκαὶ ἔδωκεδόματατοῖςἀνθρώποις.—The citation is unmistakable up to the last clause: Paul has used the third person instead of the second, because he would mark the application and not merely quote; but in the last clause he substitutes “give” for “receive,” and the dative τοῖςἀνθρώποις for ἐνἀνθρώπῳ. The article is found in the Hebrew, in the Kamets, and in the singular, the general idea, which Paul expresses by the plural, inheres. Accordingly there remains but three variations of any consequence: μχη, λαμβάνειν, to receive, what is in itself inadmissible, δίδοναι, to give; instead of αΰγν, the dative, which is not represented by αְ, but by μְ, and the added καί. What in the glorious Psalm is said of God, whose triumphant doings on the earth are praised, and who takes up His abode on Mount Zion, in His sanctuary, to which the people festively draw near, and whither the Gentiles also will come, this the Apostle here applies to Christ. David sang of the ark of the covenant, which, after a great victory, was transferred (Stier) or brought back (Hengstenberg) to Zion. In this fact he sees the principle of the history of the Kingdom of God, appearing in ever widening circles and nobler manner; the fact is to him a type of the method and course of the Messianic kingdom. Hence the general view (Ephesians 4:2-7; Ephesians 4:29-32) and the reminiscence of the journey through the wilderness from Sinai to Zion (Ephesians 4:8-19). So that the Apostle is perfectly justified in finding the singer’s eye directed towards Christ and thus interpreting it. The height (“on high”) in the Psalm is first of all Zion (Ephesians 4:16-17; comp. Jer. 17:12, 38; Jeremiah 31:12; Jeremiah 34:14, where ξַ ?ψεֹ ?ν is spoken of Zion); but this is a type of heaven; of the most holy height, on which account the Apostle has heaven in his mind (Ephesians 4:10). By “captivity,” αἰχμαλωσία, according to Jdt 2:9; Ezra 6:5; Revelation 13:10, we must understand captives, a troop or group of them, and not prison, captivity (Luther). This the parallelism which follows in the Psalm (Eph 70: ἀπειθοῦντες, Vulgate: non credentes) teaches us; indeed the next clause (ἔλαβεςδόματαἐνἀνθρώπῳ) indicates plainly enough that the notion of αἰχμαλωσία is that of a turba captivorum, a crowd of captives, since the passage speaks of gifts in the man (in the human race), in men, presents consisting in men, whom He received and bore with Him into the same sanctuary. This however the Apostle does not simply take up in his quotation, does not place it after the first clause without any connecting particle, but with καί, which denotes advance, something further, passes from the quotation over into the meaning: and He gave. For what God conquers, overcomes, leads with Himself, takes to Himself, makes His own, He does not wish to retain for Himself, but He transforms it, endows it, and makes it a gift: His captives become His servants, Israel’s servants. He makes the enemies and antagonists of His theocracy its servants. So in a higher sense Christ; He made Saul Paul, the enemy and destroyer of His church an Apostle. God’s taking, receiving, points to a subsequent giving, Christ’s giving to a previous receiving. Thus the taking of gifts in men passes over into a giving for men, and the citation from David’s Psalm the Apostle interprets as referring to Christ. By “men,” τοῖςἀνθρώποις we must understand chiefly men conquered by Him, His men, to whom He has given gifts of grace, that they themselves may and can become gifts for men in wider circles (see Ephesians 4:11; Acts 2:33). After all this, it cannot be said that the citation is not from Psalms 68:19, but ex carmine, quod ab Ephesiis cantitari sciret (Storr, Flatt), or that Paul did not know the exact words (Rueckert), nor nonnihil a genuino sensu detorsit, de suo adjecit (Calvin), or to invent an exegetical tradition from the Targums (which were made not earlier than the third century, and the Syriac and Arabic versions, altered to accord with the Apostle, and to suppose the Apostle had followed this (Holzhausen, Meyer and others). Nor should we go beyond the context, and find a reference, as in Colossians 2:15, to Satanic powers, which He has led captive (Chrysostom, Beza, Calov., Bengel, Stier and others), since this does not comport with the Apostle’s interpretation, or to the souls released from Hades (Estius, Delitzsch, Psychology, p. 358, and others), since enemies are spoken of. Finally we cannot infer from this passage in the Psalms and the use Paul makes of it this difference between the Old and New Testaments, that in the former God receives gifts from or among men, but in the latter gives to men (Schenkel). [The real difficulty of this verse lies in the form of the last clause. That Paul quotes from the Psalm which has a Messianic reference, that Christ is represented as returning victoriously to heaven with a crowd of captives, is evident, and occasions no difficulty. But as the point of the section is Christ’s giving to men, it is singular that the words: “gave gifts to men” are not found in the Psalm, which says: “received gifts among men.” (αָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, lit., in the man), or as Braune takes it, “consisting in men,” i.e., the captives. Dr. J. A. Alexander (Psalms, in loco): “To receive gifts on the one hand and bestow gifts on the other are correlative ideas and expressions, so that Paul, in applying this description of a theocratic triumph to the conquests of our Saviour, substitutes one of these expressions for the other.” If this be deemed satisfactory, and Braune’s view, which obviates the difficulty in αָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, be accepted, the solution is complete. But if the latter be rejected (see footnote on αἰχμαλωσίαν), then we can render the original passage: “has taken gifts among men” (the collective sense is clearly correct) and consider the whole phrase recast by the Apostle to express the correlative idea which is at hand, and which is contained in the further, fuller, and deeper meaning of the Psalm, here succinctly, suggestively and authoritatively unfolded (Ellicott). This seems to be more satisfactory than to attempt to prove that the Hebrew expresses this meaning. It may be admitted that it is often=danda sumpsit (as Eadie clearly proves) but that it means this in the Psalm in question is very doubtful. The same view would render αָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, for men, which becomes to men, after the bestowal of the gift. See Eadie in loco.—R.] Ephesians 4:9. Now that he ascended, τὸ δὲἀνέβη, taken from the ἀναβάς.—[Not the word, which does not occur in the passage quoted, but the predicate, which is contained in ἀναβάς (Meyer). The δέ introduces a slight explanatory transition; not strictly a proof (Hodge, Ellicott, following Hofmann and Meyer) of the correctness of the Messianic application of the passage cited, but a further explanation of what it means as thus applied. Meyer now (4th ed.) gives up his former view, remarking that such a proof was unnecessary and illogical, since the subject of the Psalm in its Messianic fulfilment was self-evident, and God Himself is conceived of in the Old Testament as ὁ καταβάς—R.] What is it [What does it imply] but that he also descended [τίἐστινεἰ μὴ ὅτικαὶ κατέβη].—Τίἐστιν=what is thereby expressed (Matthew 9:13; John 16:17 ff; John 10:6)? Ὅτικαὶ κατέβη, He has not merely ascended, but has also previously descended; the former presupposes the latter: Thus heaven is indicated as His original dwelling-place (John 3:13) and His Person as that glorious, helping One, who can and will give gifts. [So Meyer. It is impossible to understand the verse otherwise than as indicating heaven to be the point of departure and the place of return for Him who descends and ascends. The doubt respects only the place whither He descended and whence He ascended.—R.] Into the lower parts of the earth, εἰςτὰ κατώτεραμέρητῆςγῆς.—This closer definition of the descending evidently indicates the depths of the lower world, the subterranean world, which is below the surface of the earth; the genitive is partitive, governed by μέρη. The thought occurs in a variety of forms (Philippians 2:10 : καταχθονίων; Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31 : εἰςᾅδην; 1 Peter 3:19 : ἐνφυλακῇ. The expression here corresponds to κατώτατατῆςγῆς (Psalms 63:10), grammatically τῆςγῆς might be the genitive of apposition (Winer, p. 494), like εἰςτὸ ὕψοςτοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Isaiah 38:14). It is also true that the context up to this point would permit us to refer the phrase to the earth alone. But the following τὰ πάντα (Ephesians 4:10) and the design of the Apostle to show the power of Christ, require the fullest justifiable meaning of the expression, and hence the application to Hades. There is no reference to burial (Chrysostom and others), nor in accordance with Psalms 139:15 to the mother’s womb (Calixtus and others). [This interpretation of the phrase: “the lower parts of the earth” is the one anciently received, current among Romanist expositors, and adopted more recently by Bengel, Rueckert, Olshausen, Stier, Turner, Wordsworth, Alford and Ellicott. The other view: the lower parts, viz., the earth, is accepted by the majority of modern commentators, such as Calvin, Grotius, Harless, De Wette, Hofmann, Hodge and Eadie (who gives a full statement of views and a good defence of this interpretation). It may be remarked that while one class of expositors may have been led to the one conclusion by a desire to sustain the article of the Apostles’ Creed; “He descended into hell,” the other may have been quite as much influenced by a fear of favoring the Romanist appendages to that article. Both views are alike grammatical, for while the positive would more naturally express the latter sense and the superlative the former, we have here the indefinite comparative, which may mean either. Doctrinally either view is admissible, while the considerations mentioned by Braune perhaps make the ancient view the preferable one. On Christ’s descent into Hades, see Dr. Schaff’s note, Matthew, pp. 228–229, and Lange and Mombert, First Peter, pp. 63 f., 67–72. Zanchius, Barnes and others favor the notion that the phrase signifies, in general, lowliness or humiliation, a view altogether untenable, because opposed to the context, and an unnecessary departure from the literal meaning.—R.] Ephesians 4:10. He who descended, he it is also who ascended [ὁ καταβὰςαὐτόςἐστινκαὶ ὁ ἀναβάς].—Both thoughts are here brought together, without οὖν, in a lively, joyous manner, marking the identity of the Person. Κα·ταβάς stands first, having the emphasis, and αὐτός [He, emphatic], not ὁ αὐτός [the same, as in E. V.], gives prominence to the Person, who ascended out of the deepest depths, above all the heavens, ὑπεράνωπάντωντῶνοὐρανῶν; the strongest antithesis to Ephesians 4:9. Under the term “heavens” there is no necessity for reckoning either three (Harless and others) according to 2 Corinthians 12:2, or seven (Meyer and others), according to the prevalent Jewish opinion. Similar expressions: Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 7:26. That he might fill all things, ἵναπληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα.—The Apostle thus gives the motive for what he has presented [in Ephesians 4:7]. There is nothing into which He cannot penetrate. Comp. Ephesians 1:23. Τὰ πάντα designates all regions into which He can carry His gifts, can penetrate with His grace and glory, all regions and all persons within them. There is no reference to a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy (Anselm, Koppe and others), or to the completion of the work of Redemption (Rueckert and others); nor is it to be limited to Christians (Beza, Grotius, Schenkel and others), for He rules also among and in His enemies (Psalms 110:2). Chrysostom is excellent: τοῦτόἐστιτῆςἐνεργείαςαὐτοῦ καὶ τῆςδεσποτείας, that He lets none slip, gives to every one, who has permitted himself to be conquered; the gracious and efficient presence of Him, the God-man, is thus established, and Ephesians 4:7 explained. AND ETHICAL1. The idiosyncracy and freedom of the individual is as little altered by the gift of Christ’s grace as the former is of itself able to replace the latter by its own self-originated development. There must be giving, and indeed in this there is necessary a repeated proffering, making receptive or preparing, appropriating and preserving; the Lord offers ten times before we once receive, accept, take; so little does the Lord limit the freedom of the recipient. With the gift (Gabe), however, a task (Aufgabe) is at the same time appointed to the recipient: he must use it, gain with it. The gift does not obliterate national, corporate, local, temporal, individual differences, but purifies and ennobles them. Temperament and natural mental powers, talents and inclinations are only refined, directed, moved and used for the Lord’s kingdom and our own salvation. “It is self-evident that the gifts of grace are not mere developments of the natural talents of the man,—but this does not deny that they are planted in a natural talent” (Kahnis, Lehre vom heil. Geist I. p. 72). 2. Christ is the Lord, who gives. He has fought the fight of Redemption, and stands as a conqueror there; has overcome as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and as the Lamb of God, who bears the sins of the world. He can give to every one and He is willing to do so. His χρίσμα, by means of which He makes men Christians, is a χάρισμα, grace in a special manner adapted to the individual. Comp. 1 Corinthians 12:8 ff. 3. Respecting the internal connection of the Old and New Testament, as well as for Hermeneutics and Homiletics, much can be deduced from the application of this citation from the Psalms in our passage. a. “The Apostle knows that what the Old Testament contains, the New Testament must also contain, only in a more glorious manner. Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:7-11. He knows that however different according to the different relations, which are indicated in the very character of the Old Testament revelation, it still inheres in the nature of this unity of the two revelations, to bear witness of this unity to those who can and will seek it. All that was written aforetime was written εἰςἡμετέρανδιδασκαλίαν (Romans 15:4).” Harless. Besides the definite prophecies, there are in the Old Testament enough types and things typical of Christ and what has taken place in and through Him. What occurred in the people of Israel and is narrated as history or sung by holy men of old, is something pointing to the future; while at the time indeed it is accomplished fact or acute sketching of a living person, yet beyond this it has a validity for the Messianic period, so that when this comes in it is related to it as σκιά to σῶμα, shadow to body. In the Old Testament the Logos is concerned, but concealed, in all; in the New Testament manifested openly in all glory, full of grace and truth. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Redeemer in the New. Comp. Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebrδerbriefs, I. p. 131 ff. b. Hermeneutics should perceive and show forth, in the acts of God narrated or sung in the Holy Scriptures, His administration, both going back to seek the preparatory and prophetic types, and forwards to point out the advancing accomplishment. But there must be a distinction made between what the passage to be expounded expresses as the sense and meaning of the writer, and what the deed or person, so simply and transparently described, signifies in the kingdom of God, in His people, of which signification the writer may be entirely unconscious. “The knowledge which looks back to the guidance of youth is the knowledge belonging to Christianity; the guidance of youth is the history of the Old Testament theocracy; the veil which rests on the guidance of youth disappears with the knowledge of manhood in Christ (2 Corinthians 3:4-16).” Harless. Every important poet, every skilful artist, may first perceive in the later inspection of his work thoughts therein, of which he neither was nor became conscious in making it. So in the Scripture often enough is there more than the writer had in his consciousness. [Comp. Exeg. and Doctr. Notes, Galatians, Galatians 4:19-30. Even Eadie, who is most earnest in the effort to prove that the Apostle cites from the Psalm in accordance with its original and exact sense, says: “Our position is, that the same God is revealed as Redeemer both under the Old and New Testament, that the Jehovah of the one is the Jesus of the other, that Psalms 68 is filled with imagery which was naturally based on incidents in Jewish history, and that the inspired poet, while describing the interposition of Jehovah, has used language which Was fully realized only in the victory and exaltation of Christ.”—R.] c. Homiletics may and should place the biblical history of the Old and New Testament, as a concrete manifestation of a Divine thought or of Divine guidance and ways, which enclose love and wisdom for men, besides others in the present life of the world or of individuals, in order to place these latter in that true light, which the former gives. For God and the Saviour Jesus Christ is the same in the Old and the New Testament, and at all times, ours as well, in His Church. Gaupp (Homiletik I. p. 174) calls this the tropological view. [Admitting both the usefulness of teachings drawn from analogy, since analogy, figure, type, etc., all indicate the harmony of the Divine will in Creation, Providence and Redemption, and the propriety of such extensions and applications of the Old Testament on the part of an inspired Apostle, we must remember that our tropological exposition is not authoritative, and that we can base no doctrine or precept upon it, but only use it to elucidate established doctrine or enforce plain precept.—R.] 4. The Christology of this passage. It says that Christ is originally in heaven; there is His eternal dwelling-place. But He betook Himself into lowliness and penetrated the universe even to the lower regions, in order to fill all with His glory. He works as King, dispensing victoriously, where He has wrought as champion. His pre-existence is taken for granted, while we are especially taught His eternal activity of grace in all directions and for all times and for every man. AND Only take what Christ gives thee; thou needst envy no one.—Thankfully recognize what He has given to another; it benefits thee also.—Do not be satisfied with the natural endowments of your nation, your class, your family, or your intellect; let them be sanctified, purified, penetrated by grace in Christ. The most highly gifted natural man is always smaller and poorer than a living Christian (Goethe, Tersteegen).—Christ is King, Lord; His sword is His word, but this is a sword.—He has descended into the deep as a Redeemer: thy sin is not too deep and thy heart is not too bad: He can fill it. Starke:—Each member must be contented with his measure of gifts, received without pride, shared without envy.—Dear Christian, wilt thou ascend with Christ and reach His glory, then must thou first descend and suffer. Rieger:—No one has all, and no one need be concerned lest he come away entirely empty.—The origin of all gifts is to be found especially in the exaltation of Christ, which began with the victory over the rulers of darkness, over the principalities and powers who held us captive, who were themselves taken captive in the deep path of Christ’s humiliation, and in the moment of Christ’s death, when they believed they had gained the mastery over Him, must find and feel Him to be their Conqueror and Destroyer. Heubner:—The diversity of gifts as respects degree and subject, should not occasion boasting or envy. In working together for the Kingdom of God there can be no envy; where there is envy, there the labor is for personal advantage.—Christ’s Kingdom embraces also the invisible Kingdom of God. Would this be conceivable, were He a mere man? Passavant:—It has ever been the indiscretion and folly of men in the world, that they have forgotten the One Great Giver in the gifts and gifted, looking with especial astonishment to this teacher, with especial love to this benefactor, with especial admiration to this hero;—a virtual idolatry.—The main blow and the victory for all time and for eternity took place in and with the death of Christ—in and with His Resurrection. Stier:—Each for himself and all together have to walk the same way in Christ.—The gifts of Christ are themselves at the same time men; all gifts of grace are pre-eminently official gifts. [Eadie: Ephesians 4:7. The law of the Church is essential unity in the midst of circumstantial variety. Each gift in its own place completes the unity. Ephesians 4:9. Reproach and scorn and contumely followed Him as a dark shadow. Persecution at length apprehended Him, accused Him, calumniated Him, scourged Him, mocked Him, and doomed “the man of sorrows” to an ignominious torture and a felon’s death. His funeral was extemporized and hasty; nay, the grave He lay in was a borrowed one. He came truly “to the lower parts of the earth.” Ephesians 4:10. But as His descent was to a point so deep, His ascent is to a point as high. His position is the highest in the universe.—R.] [Hodge: Ephesians 4:7. To refuse to occupy the place assigned to us in the Church, is to refuse to belong to it at all. Ephesians 4:9-10. All other comings were typical of His coming in the flesh, and all ascensions were typical of His ascension from the grave.—It is God clothed in our nature who now exercises this universal dominion; and therefore the Apostle may well say of Christ, as the incarnate God, that He gives gifts unto men.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 4:7.—[The article is omitted in B. D.1 F. G. L., a few cursives, by Lachmann; bracketted by Alford; inserted in ΰ. A. C. D.3 K., accepted by Tischendorf and most recent editors. The omission was probably due to the η which precedes, and some glosses still further sustain its genuineness.—The order of the E. V. is altered for the sake of retaining the article, and was substituted for is, to bring out the force of the aorist.—R.] Ephesians 4:8.—[Καί is omitted in ΰ. A. C.2 D.1 F., versions and fathers; rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. 2), Ellicott. It is found in (Rec.) ΰ.3 B. G.13 D.3 K. L., nearly all cursives, versions (Syrian, etc.), fathers; accepted by Tischendorf (ed. 7), Meyer, Alford, Braune. As it is wanting in the LXX, the internal evidence seems to decide in its favor; an insertion for the sake of connection is not probable.—See Exeg. Notes for the text of the original Hebrew and the LXX.—R.] Ephesians 4:9.—The Rec. inserts πρῶτον. on the authority of ΰ.3 B. C.3 K. L., cursives, versions and fathers; it is not found in ΰ. A. C. D.1.F?., and is rejected by modern editors as an explanatory gloss.—R.] Ephesians 4:9.—[The authority for μέρη is much stronger than for πρῶτον (ΰ. A. B. C. D 3 K. L., nearly all cursives, a few versions and fathers), though it is open to suspicion as an explanatory gloss, and is rejected by Tischendorf, Meyer and Ellicott (omitted in D.1 F, most fathers). It is however retained, on account of the strong uncial support, by Lachmann, Scholz, Rόckert, Alford and Braune.—R.] [The aorist points to a definite act: “by Christ, at the time of His exaltation—when He bestowed gifts on men” (Alford).—“The grace,” as the article is to be retained, has some shade of a transitive force, denoting the energizing grace which manifests itself in the peculiar gift (Ellicott) rather than the spiritual gift itself and the influence, function, or office flowing from it (Hodge).—R.] [The inspired and prophetic character of the Psalm, and its antiquity are undoubted (see Hitzig, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch against De Wette and Ewald). It was probably composed after a battle, and quite as probably (against Eadie) “at some bringing up of the ark to the hill of Zion,” which took place after a victory (Hengstenberg: taking of Rabbah, 2 Samuel 12:26). Alford, with reference to the return of the ark. says: “It is therefore a Messianic Psalm. Every part of that ark, every stone of that hill, was full of spiritual meaning. Every note struck on the lyres of the sweet singers of Israel, is but part of a chord, deep and worldwide, sounding from the golden harps of Redemption. The partial triumphs of David and Solomon only prefigured as in a prophetic mirror the universal and eternal triumph of the Incarnate Son of God. Those who do not know this, have yet their first lesson in the Old Testament to learn.” Comp. Doctr. Note 3.—R.] [In the revision, by Four Anglican Clergymen, captives is substituted for captivity. “A captivity” is a literal rendering which points to the concrete sense.—As regards this concrete sense, there is little difference of opinion, the only question being: Who are the captives? Obviously enemies who have been overcome, either (a) men who become His servants, those referred to in τοῖςἀνθρώποις (Braune, following some fathers, Harless, Olshausen and others), who were previously prisoners of Satan (though Braune does not bring this out, or (b) Satan, sin, death (Chrysostom, Bengel, Meyer, Stier, Eadie, Alford, Hodge, Ellicott); Calvin seeks to combine the two. The former view greatly lessons the difficulty in the last clause of the quotation, helping to justify the substitution of the notion of giving for that of receiving in the original passage. But this very fact lays it open to suspicion as an exegesis for an emergency. The other view is favored by Colossians 2:15 (though not to be limited by the reference there), it preserves the analogy of the comparison, and gives a forcible meaning. Other views have been suggested, but not very probable ones.—R.] [Alford: “It is natural that one who, like St. Paul, had been brought up in the Jewish habit of thought, should still use their method of speaking.” But this does not imply an acceptation of such a division of the heavens; rather this: “Whatsoever heaven is higher than all the rest which are called heavens, into that place did He ascend” (Bish. Pearson in Ellicott).—R.] [So Hodge, Eadie, Alford and Ellicott. Even Dr. Braune does not attempt to justify the use made of this passage to defend the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s body (Farm. Concord.). On which Ellicott aptly says: “Christ is perfect God, and perfect and glorified man; as the former He is present everywhere, as the latter He can be present anywhere.”—R.] c. The organization and organism of the Church(Ephesians 4:11-16.)11And he gave some, apostles [some to be apostles]; and some, prophets; and 12some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For [Unto] the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry [or of ministration], for the edifying [building up] of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in [unto] the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect [full-grown] man, unto the 14measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more [To the end that we be no longer] children, tossed to and fro [tossed as waves], and carried about with every wind of doctrine [teaching], by [in] the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive [in craftiness tending to 15the system of error]; But speaking [holding] the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which [who] is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole [all the] body fitly joined [framed] together and compacted [,] by that which every joint supplieth [by means of every joint of the supply], according to the effectual [omit effectual] working in the measure of every [each several] part, maketh increase [the growth] of the body unto the edifying [building up] of itself in love. AND Eph_4:11. Christ’s gift for the Church.—And he gave [καὶ αὐτὸςἔδωκεν].—“And” joins with what precedes (“that he might fill all things”), what follows, which has the former as its aim. As the clause of design (Ephesians 4:10) refers to the beginning (Ephesians 4:7 : “according to the measure of the gift of Christ”), so the clause “he gave,” αὐτὸςἔδωκεν, refers back also (Ephesians 4:10 : αὐτὸς Ephesians 4:8 : ἔδωκε, Ephesians 4:6 : ἐδόθη). Αὐτός gives emphatic prominence to the Person of the Giver, the Exalted One: He and none other. Ipse, summa potestate; and repetitur Exodus 5:10. Ministri non dedere se ipsos (Bengel). It is not=ὁ αὐτός (Schenkel), nor is ἔδωκε=ἔθετο (Theophylact, Harless) in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12:28. [Eadie remarks (and Alford approves): “The idea is, that the men who filled the office, no less than the office itself, were a Divine gift.”—R.] Nor should the aorist be pressed, so as to express only something momentary, passing; Paul is himself included, as one whom the Exalted One gave to be an Apostle; the historical fact is indicated. Calvin has justly said: et suscitat interdum prout temporum necessitas postulat, although he accepts the first three classes of officers as belonging only to the beginning of the Church (Institutes, IV. 3, 4). Some to be Apostles [τοὺςμὲνἀποστόλους].—Τοὺςμέν, τοὺςδέ is not=ἑνίους, some [i.e., some Apostles], since this is only a numeral, while the former expression points as a demonstrative to definite persons, whom He has prepared to be the gift, and given as ἀποστόλους. “Apostles” are those immediately called and equipped by the Lord to extend His work; they were especially endowed by Him, and had personally great advantages and prerogatives. First of all there were twelve; after the apostasy of Judas, Matthias was chosen by the disciples somewhat precipitately, before the day of Pentecost, while Paul was called by the Lord Himself as the twelfth. Still Barnabas was called an apostle in connection with Paul (Acts 14:4; Acts 14:14) and others also (Romans 16:7; 2 Corinthians 8:23; Philippians 2:25), hence this is not an abuse of the term (Bleek), so that one might thus name those men, chosen and specially endowed by the Lord, appointed to found churches, as Boniface the Apostle of the Germans, Egede the Apostle of Greenland, Ziegenbalg and Schwartz the Apostles of India. Some prophets.—“Prophets” are (Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5) men, who receive revelation (ἀποκάλυψις) from God, and, perceiving God’s will and thought with clearness, announce the same with discretion and power; the prophet is μάντις, as far as he has revelation (1 Corinthians 14:26); the latter becomes a prophet through interpretation; “glossarily” (to be distinguished from the Pentecostal miracle) is a morbid species of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:27 ff.). They appear in Acts 11:27; Acts 13:1; Acts 15:32; Acts 21:10. They are concerned, not so much with the future (Bengel) as with the eternal. To them correspond in the progress of ages those theologians with more profound insight into God’s truth and will, as well as into the character and course of His Kingdom, such as Luther. [Comp. the excellent note of Eadie in loco. Hodge: “As the gift of infallibility was essential to the Apostolic office, so the gift of occasional inspiration was essential to the prophetic office.”—R.] And some evangelists.—“Evangelists,” such as the deacon Philip (Acts 21:8; Acts 8:4-12), περιϊόντεςἐκήρυττον (Theodoret), as travelling missionaries (Neander), but also in permanent positions (2 Timothy 4:5; comp. 2 Corinthians 8:18), in consequence of their own view of the facts of the Gospel (John 16:26 ff.), or mediate tradition (Luke 1:1-4). It must not be referred to “those writing the Gospel” (Chrysostom); Bengel also goes too far in ascribing to them prζterita; they hare to do with the life of the Lord in prophecy and fulfilment. And some pastors and teachers, τοὺςδὲ ποιμέναςκαὶ διδασκάλους.—Jerome: Non ait, alios autem pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut qui pastor sit, esse debeat et magister et nemo pastoris sibi nomen assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit. Bengel: Pastores et doctores hic pinguntur, nam pascunt (and regunt) docendo maxime, tum admonendo, corripiendo, etc. The pastors are=προἵστάμενοι (Romans 12:8), who have the office of κυβέρνησις (1 Corinthians 12:28) and must be “apt to teach,” διδακτικοί (1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:24; Titus 1:9), they are “bishops,” ἐπίσκοποι (Acts 20:28). Οἱ κατὰ πόλινκαὶ κώμηνἀφωρισμένοι in distinction from εὐαγγελισταί (Theodoret). Bleek takes them as distinct; and he is right to this extent only, that the “teachers” are not always “pastors;” it is as “apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5); hence despite this distinction, they form one category beside the previous ones. [There has been much dispute whether these terms refer to two classes of stationary church officers, or to one whose twofold duty is indicated by two titles. The latter view is favored by the absence of the distinctive τοὺςδέ, and is accepted by Augustine, Jerome, Bengel, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, Hodge, Eadie and Alford. The former is accepted by Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, Neander, De Wette, Stier, though the definitions of the distinction vary greatly. Ellicott says: “The ποιμένες (a term probably including ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι) might be and perhaps always were διδάσκαλοι, but it does not follow that the converse was true. The χάρισμα of κυβέρνησις is so distinct from that of διδασκαλία, that it seems necessary to recognize in the διδάσκαλοι a body of men (scarcely a distinct class) who had the gift of διδαχή, but who were not invested with any administrative powers and authority.” Is the teacher then the parish schoolmaster or the professor of theology? or a preacher who does no pastoral duty? The Reformed Church polity has usually recognized the distinction (Westminster Directory, Constitution of Reformed [Dutch] Church in America, etc.), but practically it has amounted to nothing, as indeed little good has ever resulted from the attempt to reproduce accurately or jure divino those distinctions which expositors discover in the offices of the primitive Church. It may be remarked that while this phrase shows that every pastor ought to be a teacher, putting the former phase of duty first, it will ever be the case that through native endowment some ministers are better adapted for one part of the duty than for the other, though there is no warrant for total neglect of either, or for appointing in one congregation one minister to be pastor and another to be teacher; for the latter would now-adays take undue precedence of the former. Those who are “teachers,” in our sense of the word, are also in the most important sense “pastors.”—R.] It is unmistakable that these four categories above named, so divide themselves, that the first three do not belong to a single congregation, but to the whole Church or a number of congregations, the last however is definitely appointed to one congregation. A gradation from higher to lower is noticeable also, in this manner, that the higher includes the lower grade or grades. Thus Jesus is called and calls Himself “Apostle” (Hebrews 3:1, after John 20:21); “Prophet” (Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33; Acts 3:22 ff; Acts 7:37); εὐαγγελιζόμενος (Luke 4:18; Luke 4:43; Luke 20:1); “Shepherd,” ποιμήν (John 10:11; 1 Peter 2:25); “Teacher” (Matthew 23:8; John 13:14). Accordingly Bengel says: Cum summis gradibus conjuncti poterant esse inferiores; omnes Apostoli simul etiam vim propheticam habuerunt. Sed prophetζ et evangelistζ non simul etiam Apostoli fuerunt. Finally it must be noticed, that the offices themselves are not named here, and that in distinction from 1 Corinthians 12:28, the official persons stand in the foreground as gifts, in Corinthians the gifts of office, the offices themselves falling into the back-ground in both cases. See further, Doctr. Notes 1, 2. Ephesians 4:12. The immediate aim of the activity of the persons in office. [Note on the relation and dependence of the clauses of this verse. There is great difference of opinion, but of the various views those numbered (4) and (5) are most worthy of consideration. Braune adopts (4); but (5) seems to be preferable. 1. The clauses are taken as co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Zanchius, Bengel, E. V.), but this is opposed by the change of preposition, and in that case we would have a different order, the second clause would come first. 2. The trajection (Grotius, Koppe and others), which actually put that clause first, is altogether unwarranted. 3. The second and third clauses are taken as parallel (by Harless and Olshausen), but as dependent on the first, in a partitive sense: some to teach, others to be edified. But there is nothing to indicate such a sense, and it is logically inadmissible, since the “saints” of one clause and “the body of Christ” of the other are identical. 4. Braune follows Erasmus, De Wette, Meier, Flatt, Rueckert, Schenkel and many others, in taking the second and third as dependent on the first, or rather the second dependent oh the first and the third on the second. The meaning then is: “For the perfecting of the saints unto all that variety of service which is essential unto the edification of the body of Christ.” As this view is fully presented below, the objections to it alone require mention at this point. These as urged by Meyer are: a. That as the context treats of offices in the Church, it is improper to enlarge the meaning of διακονία beyond that of official service (Romans 11:13; 2 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 6:3; comp. Acts 6:4; 2 Corinthians 3:7 ff; 2 Corinthians 9:12, etc.). b. That with such a meaning πάντων would have been so essentially necessary with ἅγίων that it could not have been omitted. These objections are sufficiently strong to lead him to adopt the next view. 5. The second and third clauses are taken as co-ordinate, and dependent on ἔδωκε “he gave;” the first expressing the more ultimate and final purpose (πρός) of the action, the other two the more immediate end (εἰς). This view is adopted by Alford, Ellicott, Hodge, Eadie (2d ed.), and gives this sense: “He gave Apostles, etc.,—to fulfil the works of the ministry, and to build up the body of Christy, His object being to perfect His saints.” So Hofmann substantially. The great objection is the strange order which place the more ultimate end first, but as the difficulty seems to inhere in the Apostle’s own choice of prepositions, it is not decisive against this view. While preferring it, I would not insist on its correctness, but, leaving Dr. Braune’s notes as they stand, add in footnotes the requirements of this interpretation.—R.] Unto the perfecting of the saints [πρὸςτὸνκαταρτισμὸντῶνἁγίων].—Πρός marks the end aimed at, viz.: “the perfecting of the saints.” Καταρτισμός, occurring only here, like κατάρτισις in 2 Corinthians 13:9 designates the re-establishment of an affair, so that it is ἄρτιος (only 2 Timothy 3:17, τέλειος various reading), integer, as it should be (1 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:10; Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 11:3; Hebrews 13:21; 1 Peter 5:10). Non potuit honorificentius verbi ministerium commendare, quam dum hunc illi effectum tribuit (Calvin). Through the ministers of Christ the Christians should become complete, perfect. For what purpose? For the work of the ministry [or of ministration, εἰςἔργονδιακονίας].—Hence there is no thought of merely external increase (Pelagius, Beza). Εἰς marks that for which the saints should become expert, complete. The nouns, without the article, have here a more general meaning: ἔργον indicates the efficiency of the διακονίας, and the latter denotes that every work which it does, is a service to our neighbor and then to the whole. Διακονία is a general service (2 Timothy 4:11; 2 Corinthians 11:8). This meaning is demanded here by the context, the connection with the saints, the members, each one of which has his office (Romans 12:4) and needs the other (1 Corinthians 12:21). Comp. 2 Timothy 3:17 : πρὸςπᾶνἐργονὰγαθὸνἐξηρτισμένος. It must not be referred to church service, ecclesiastical office, the diaconate in a technical sense (Meyer). Comp. on Ephesians 4:16. For the building up of the body of Christ, εἰςοἰκοδομὴντοῦ σώματοςτοῦ Χριστοῦ.—The aim of the “ministry” is again subjoined with the preposition εἰς. So great is the significance of the preparing of Christians through the ministers of the Church to ministering activity in the congregation! The body of Christ is there, it exists, but new members are continually incorporated in it, it extends and increases; hence both of the figures derived from the body (Ephesians 1:23; Ephesians 2:20-22) are included. Luther is very good: “that the saints may be fitted to the work of the ministry, that thus the body of Christ may be edified.” Accordingly the three clauses are not co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Bengel and others); nor are the two subjoined with εἰς co-ordinate (Rueckert, Meyer, Harless and others), nor yet dependent on ἔδωκε as some think, while others make them dependent on καταρτισμόν. Quite as little can we accept a trajection of the second number before the first (Grotius, Koppe and others). [See above for a classification of opinions.—R.] Comp. Doctr. Note 3. Ephesians 4:13. The end of the perfecting. Till we all come [μέχρικαταντήσωμενοἱ πάντες].—Μέχρι denotes the final, highest aim, not the beginning and entrance of the same, ἄχρι, but the presence and enjoyment of it (Tittmann, Syn. 1. p. 33 ff.). [Comp. Dr. Schaff’s note, Romans, p. 181]. Καταντήσωμεν, the conjunctive without ἄν denotes simply the future; the verb itself however is=φθάνειν (�cumenius), the arriving at the destination, as frequently in the Acts (Acts 16:1; Ephesians 18:19, 24, etc.), in a local sense; here and Philippians 3:11 however in the spiritual sense, prominence being given to the free movement, which is occasioned, strengthened and animated by the educating καταρτισμός.Under the term οἱ πάντες, “all,”=οἱ ἅγιοι, as a complete whole, the Apostle includes himself; it is therefore implied that those in whom there has been a beginning of πίστις (Harless), even the greatest, the Apostles, are in need of progress towards the goal, are not yet there, even although in advance of others, but further their own progress when they labor for others (Philippians 3:13-14; Romans 1:11-12). Accordingly “all” is not to be extended to all men (Jerome). Bengel is excellent: Ne apostoli quidem se putarunt metam assecutos, nedum ecclesia. Semper proficiendum fuerat, non standum, nedum deficiendum. Et nunc ecclesia ideam sui optimζ non a tergo respiciat oportet, sed ante oculos habeat, ut futuram, etiam num assequendum. Notate hoc, qui antiquitatem non tam sequimini, quam obtenditis.Unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, εἰςτὴνἑνότητατῆςπίοτεωςκαὶ τῆςἐπιγμώσεωςτοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.—The preposition marks the goal. The repeated article demands absolutely, that “faith” and “knowledge” be kept apart as distinct, independent ideas, although the genitive which they have in common (“of the Son of God”) occasions a connection by means of the copulative conjunction. “Faith” designates the immediate possession, “knowledge” the assurance obtained by means of knowing (Matthies); the former is applicable to an ethical, the latter to an intellectual sphere; the latter proceeds constantly anew from the former, the former is itself the permanent beginning, the constant principle, not merely an initiatory stage to be surpassed; both belong together accordingly. The unity of both, since “one faith” is presupposed: (Ephesians 4:5), refers to the various degrees of clearness and power in the individual members (οἱ πάντες), to littleness of faith, weakness of faith, want of maturity, etc. Accordingly the genitive, “of the Son of God,” defines both more closely, indicating that they are as strong, as He possessed them, and that thus we, being God’s children who will grow up and become educated, should possess them; He is the Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) and knowledge, thus Example and Standard. If He is not the object, there is neither faith nor knowledge at all. Hence it is the genitive subjecti (Stier), not objecti, as most consider it. But unity of faith and knowledge is not meant, either alone (Olshausen), or in connection with the other meaning (Stier); we should rather refer it to the unity of the individuals, of the church-members, which is effected by the faith and knowledge of Christ. [The view of Olshausen is, that the unity is the state in which faith and knowledge are identified; fides implicita developing into fides explicita (Bisping). Eadie and Alford virtually accept this as included here, the latter citing De Wette: “True and full unity of faith is then found, when all thoroughly know Christ, the object of faith, alike, and that in His highest dignity as the Son of God.” But the second term is not epexegetical of the first, and faith is not to be lost in knowledge, but abides (1 Corinthians 13:13).—The strong word ἐπίγνωσις must be noticed. If any prefer the more common view of the genitive as that of the object, the following statement (Hodge) will be satisfactory: “Faith and knowledge express or comprehend all the elements of that state of mind of which the Son of God is the object—a state of mind which includes the apprehension of His glory, the appropriation of His love, as well as confidence and devotion. This state of mind is in itself eternal life.” “The unity of faith is now confined to the first principles; the unity of faith contemplated in this place is that perfect unity which implies perfect knowledge and perfect holiness.”—R.] Unto a full-grown man, εἰςἄνδρατέλειον.—The singular marks the unity of the Church, which grows up into a perfect man. Here a “development” (werden) is spoken of, which is involved in the καταντᾳν; the Church, the body of Christ, becomes a personality educated and completed to the perfect life-degree of Christ. For τέλειος is the opposite of νήπιος (Ephesians 4:14); like 1 Corinthians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 2:6 and Hebrews 5:13-14, it means one in ripe, full manhood. Unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ [εἰςμέτρονἡλικίαςτοῦ πληρώματοςτοῦ Χριστοῦ ?].—“Unto the measure of the stature” points to a definite measure; it does not therefore extend in infinitum. Ἠλικία from ἧλιξ, qui adultζ et maturζζtatis est, certainly designates, as in Luke 19:2, the stature, the bodily size, elsewhere (Matthew 6:27; Luke 12:25; Luke 2:52; Hebrews 11:11; John 9:21; John 9:23) however, the age, generally the age of manhood; it is, more fully expressed, the maturity, the full growth, and in accordance with the context the spiritual maturity (Stier). The genitive: τοῦ πληρώματοςτοῦ Χριστοῡ, “of the fulness of Christ,” defines more precisely the measure of the maturity: it is conditioned by the fulness, the state of being filled, which comes from Christ, accordingly by Himself, who lives in it and by His gifts and powers. We should become perfect, as He, the Head was, 1 Corinthians 12:12. Hence Luther is incorrect: in the measure of perfect age; for πληρώματος is not to be made an adjective qualifying ἡλικία. The explanation: full gracious presence of Christ (Harless) is insufficient; still more so the meaning given by Rueckert: Christ stands before us as the ideal of manly size and beauty.—Whether this goal will be reached in this life or only in the next, is decided by πίστις in the context, to this extent, that we must refer it to this life also, although indeed many a one first attains unto it in the future life, since this coming to the appointed goal extends through centuries. Comp. Doctr. Notes 4, 5. The purpose, Ephesians 4:14-15. a) negatively, Ephesians 4:14; b) positively, Ephesians 4:15. Ephesians 4:14. To the end that we be no longer children [ἵναμηκέτιὧμεννήπιοι].—Ἵνα sets forth the purpose, which aims at the fulfilment of μηκέτιὤμεννήπιοι, and this must accordingly take place before the goal is reached, “unto a perfect man.” It is not to be joined to Ephesians 4:13 (Schenkel), but to Ephesians 4:11-12, more particularly to ἔδωκε, and unfolds wherein the “perfecting of the saints” consists. As the Apostle, who, although the most advanced, still in humble sense of fellowship, bears and suffers in the imperfection of the Church, includes himself (ὦμεν), we must not find here a reproach, but a point or state of transition, which does not continue, hence μηκέτι, which does not recall false teachers in Christendom generally (Meyer). The Gentiles are not yet νήπιοι; Christians in their incipiency are such (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21; 1 Corinthians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 8:11; Galatians 4:13; Hebrews 5:13); they should not however remain so, but advance to ripe manhood. Tossed to and fro [as waves] and carried about [κλυδωνιζόμενοικαὶ περιφερόμενοι].—This describes more closely the νηπιότης, with reference to appearances and experiences observed and felt in the churches, inclusive of the false teachers who had appeared and would appear. “Tossed as waves” (fluctuantes, Vulgate), moved as waves, intrinsecus, sursum deorsum, etiam citra ventum (Bengel), “and carried about,” extrinsecus, hue illuc, aliis nos adorientibus (Bengel), describes the ready excitability of the unsubstantial, the immature (James 1:6; Hebrews 13:9; Judges 12); they are dependent on their surroundings, on influences and insinuations, are moved: By every wind of teaching, παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆςδιδασκαλίας.—The wind has a great variety (παντί), from the aura seculi, levis aura popelli to the strong continuing trade-wind, and as to its origin from coarse to refined carnal interests, as well as in its tendency toward aims against the Church or in favor of a false church. [The dative is the dynamic dative, Krueger.—R.] “Teaching” is introduced under the figure of the wind, because it is something pneumatic and because, as the wind in proportion to its strength or the free situation of the water, stirs this from ripples to foam, so the teaching sets in motion the spirit of the νήπιος, which is so easily tossed to and fro. The νήπιος will learn, know; that is the proper way to perfection. But beside the one wholesome teaching of truth there appears the multifarious teaching of error as a great danger, and the greater because it works, moves, attracts and hurries along: In the sleight of men.—Ἐντῇ κυβείᾳ, belonging to the participles, refers with the article to “teaching;” through the sleight befitting the doctrine, and with the substantive (from κύβος, die), to dice-playing, in order to denote, that the teachers deal with the Scriptures and the truth and men, as players with dice (Luther). [Braune agrees with De Wette, Meyer, Hodge, and the E. V., in regarding ἐν as instrumental, but as this seems pleonastic after the dative, “and would mar the parallelism with ἐνἀγάπῃ (Ephesians 4:15), the preposition appears rather to denote the element, the evil atmosphere as it were in which the varying currents of doctrine exist and exert their force” (Ellicott). So Harless, Olshausen, Eadie and Alford.—R.] The genitive (“of men”) indicates that the νήπιοι stand under the influence of men, instead of their placing themselves under the guidance of Christ (Meyer), and also under that of many instead of one. But this is not all; the added parallel clause carries the matter further; there is not only human sleight, temeritas, but a plan also: In craftiness tending to the system of error [ἐνπανουργίᾳ πρὸςτὴνμεθοδείαντῆςπλάνης].—Ἐν connects with the previous phrase. Πανουργίᾳ corresponds with κυβεία, and gives prominence to what the latter does not indicate, the nequitia, the conscious malice; hence it is incorrect to find this in the previous phrase (Harless, Stier). The article can be dispensed with, since the closer qualification is added. The preposition, as in Ephesians 4:12 (πρὸςτὸνκαταρτισμόν), denotes toward what the craftiness proceeds (Winer, p. 378). This is τὴνμεθοδείαν (only here and Ephesians 6:11, where the plural is used), which is derived from μεθοδεύειν, to follow in order to track up something, then machinare, meaning therefore machinatio, crafty pursuing (Luther: erschleichen, to sneak upon), to follow and come upon in a sneaking manner; in this there is found pre-arrangement, system. The principle which μεθοδεύει is indicated by the genitive τήςπλάνης. This is not error mentis, but lying, the opposite of ἀλήθεια (1 John 4:6); hence, especially as τοῦ διαβόλου is added in Ephesians 6:11, Bengel is on the right track when he says: i.e., Satanζ. It is true the πλάνη is in the main only personified (Meyer); but it has a kingdom and a πνεῦμα, that operates through men, the false teachers (τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶνἀνθρώπων), as through serviceable tools, proper instruments. Ephesians 4:15. But holding the truth in love, may grow up into him, ἀληθεύοντεςδὲ ἐνἀγαπῃ αὐξήσωμενεἰςαὐτόν, is to be joined with ἵνα (Ephesians 4:14) as the antithesis (δέ) to “no longer children.” Hence Luther is incorrect: “but let us be honest in love and grow.” Christiana (οἱ πάντες, Ephesians 4:13), not merely teachers, are the subject. Αὐξάνειν is simply to grow, not to remain νήπιος, to come out of the νηπιότης. Hζc αὔξησις, augmentatio (Ephesians 4:16), media est inter infantes et virum (Bengel). Accordingly εἰς points to the goal; hence “into Him” (Matthies, Stier); it corresponds to the εἰςἄνδρατέλειον, we should become a perfect man, as He is. The phrase “Head” from the following relative clause should not be pressed (Hofmann, Meyer), in order to make the meaning still; more difficult; τὰ πάντα stands between, and this accusative of reference will not allow εἰςαὐτόν to be=grow in respect to Him (Meyer), whatever that may mean. [“Unto and into Him,” as the goal and standard of our growth, with a secondary thought apparently of the incorporation of all the Church in Christ, which is developed in the subsequent context. The phrase is not to be joined with “in love” (Harless).—R.] Still less can it mean: ipsius cognitions (Grotius), virtute et influxu (A-Lapide). While εἰςαὐτόν denotes the goal of the growth, ἀληθεύοντεςἐνἀγάπῃ designates the condition under which, the state in which it takes place. Hence the two are to be joined: true in love. Ἀληθεύειν is—ἀληθὴςεἶναι (Passow, sub voce); the context explains it further. In the New Testament only here and Galatians 4:16. There ὑμῖν indicates that it means speaking the truth, here the context is a different one. While αὐξήσωμεν forms an antithesis to νήπιοιὦμεν, ἀληθεύοντες stands in contrast to the manner of such (“tossed as waves and carried about”) and to “teaching” in general, as well as that of the deceitful false teachers in particular. Bengel is excellent: verantes, Luther (Genesis 42:16): if you design truth. The whole personality is spoken of, in walk and nature, and the meaning is more than merely; to be true in speech, verum dicere (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 130, Meyer).Ἐνἀγάπῃ sets forth the sphere or element in which the ἀληθεύειν moves; ἀγάπη and ἀλήθεια are correlative ideas. Comp. 1 Corinthians 13:6. Love is here entirely undefined, hence genera: love for the truth, for the brethren, who come into danger through false teachers, or themselves become false teachers, to the Church as a whole, to God. There is accordingly no reference to forbearance toward error (Harless), or love towards those of different profession (Meyer), or something of the same; nor is ἐν=διά (Schenkel), or σύν, on merely upright in love (Luther and others). In all things who is the head, even Christ [τὰ πάντα, ὸςἐστινἡ κεφαλή, Χριστός].—Τὰ πάντα. without a preposition, as 1 Corinthians 9:25; 1 Corinthians 10:33; 1 Corinthians 11:2, or with κατά (Colossians 3:20) denotes, on account of the article, all, to which reference has been made, into which we must grow: faith, knowledge, truth, love, etc. “Who is the Head, even Christ,” with great emphasis, in order to furnish a motive for growing up into Him. We might have found τὸνΧριστόν, in apposition to εἰςαὐτόν, but it can either be in apposition to ἡ κεφαλή, or in the first instance still be in the nominative (Winer, p. 495). Ephesians 4:16. Comprehensive conclusion.—From whom, ἐξοὖ, marks the cause, the source, and as the context demands, a continuing one. Christ is the goal (εἰςαὐτόν) and the source of the life-development of the Church (Meyer). If then Chrysostom says: σφόδραἀσαφῶςἡρμήνευσετῷ πάνταὁμοῦ θελῆσαιεἰπεῖν, an exact analysis of the sentence will show what is incorrect (ἀσαφῶς). Colossians 2:19 is parallel. a. The subject.—All the body fitly framed together and compacted [πᾶντὸ σῶμασυναρμολογούμενονκαὶ συνβιβαζόμενον ].—“All the body” takes the term “all” (Ephesians 4:13) as a unity; the main idea is that of totality. [“All the body,” which the E. V. gives in Colossians 2:19, is perhaps preferable to “the whole body,” the idea being of the entire body as including every member, rather than of the body as a whole (τὸ πᾶνσῶμα more accurately expresses this). The latter notion becomes the stronger one in the close of the verse.—R.] The double definition, “fitly framed together and compacted,” describes the Church in its present development (present participle). The first adjective (see Ephesians 2:21; of a building) indicates the individual parts and members (ἁρμός, groove, joint, member), which are printed together (σύν), the other, used more precisely of men who enter into a society, marks these members as individuals, as persons. In this the difference and the reason of the double expression is found. In such a union the Church is conceived of, because it is a building; besides a society is spoken of, a society of persons, a congregation. Accordingly such a two-fold designation sets forth, either the figure and fact (Meyer) or harmony and solidity (Bengel). Ellicott suggests, in accordance with the simple meaning of the words, that the latter term refers to the aggregatim, the former to the inter-adaptation of the component parts.—R.] [By means of every joint of the supply.—This phrase, which presents more difficulties than any other in our verse, is discussed below by Dr. Braune, who joins it with the predicate, not with the subject (i.e., as a qualification of the participle) as is done in the E. V. The latter view of the connection is adopted by the majority of commentators (so Hodge, Eadie, Ellicott), and is favored by the position of the phrase and the parallel, Colossians 2:19. The former is defended by Meyer, Stier, Alford, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Bengel). It may be remarked in favor of this, that it gives more perspicuity to the passage, “the whole instrumentality and modality here described belonging to the growth” (Alford), the repetition of σῶμα is more natural in an involved predicate, while the complicated subject is much more awkward. As regards the parallel, the position there is totally different. It ought to be added that the earlier defenders of this view advocated a sense of the word ἁφή(=αἴσθησις, the perception of the vital energy imparted from the head), which did not admit so readily of the connection with the participles. Still Braune’s view is preferable.—R.] b. The predicate.—Maketh the growth of the body, τὴναὔξησιντοῦ σώματοςποιεῖται.—Colossians 2:19 : αὔξῃ τὴναὔξησιν The repetition of τοῦ σώματος (“of the body”) instead of ἑαυτοῦ (“itself”) marks the permanent effect proceeding from the cause, and as compared with Christ’s continued influence, puts into the background the self-development as an entirely independent one. Only when the principle of life in the Church has grown and been strengthened through Christ, does it become perceptible (εἰςοἰκοδονὴνἑαυτοῦ); yet it is already indicated by the middle (ποιεῖται). This repetition is therefore not to be explained by the distance of the predicate from the subject (σῶμα) as an effort at distinctness (Meyer), or as negligence (Rueckert), or as a Hebraism (Grotius), or because the interest of individuals is not under discussion (Harless, Stier).The predicate is then enlarged by a designation of the means: by means of every joint of the supply [διὰ πάσηςἁφῆςτῆςἐπιχορηγίας].—Ἀφή (from ἄπτεσθαι) cannot according to Colossians 2:19, where it is put in one category with συνδέσμων and connected with ἐπιχορηγούμενονκαὶ συνβιβαζόμενον mean the same band, yet must be something similar. It cannot be=αἴσθησις (Chrysostom), sensation (Meyer), contact (Hofmann). Since ἁφὴνἔχειν, means to have something enchaining, enticing (Passow, sub voce), and the singular is found here, the most natural and correct meaning will be: connection or grasp. Ἐπιχορηγία (from χορηγία) means to lead a choir, to defray the expenses of a choir, to render a public service, the contribution to expenditures, public, common rendering of service; accordingly the growth of the Church is by means of every grasp of contribution or service rendered (genitive objecti, and not of apposition, Schenkel, nor=πρός, Grotius, Hofmann and others). [To this view of Dr. Braune it may be objected that it loses sight of the strict anatomical figure without substituting for it the subtler interpretation of Chrysostom and others. It seems better to take ἁφή in the sense indicated by Colossians 2:19, and render it “joints.” The qualifying genitive is as Ellicott remarks: “a kind of genitive definitions, by which the predominant use, purpose, or destination of the ἁφή is specified and characterized.” “The joints are the points of union where the supply passes to the different members, and by means of which the body derives the supply by which it grows” (Alford). Hodge is undoubtedly correct in interpreting this supply as “the Divine life or Holy Spirit communicated to all parts of the Church” (against, Braune, who seems to refer it to the service rendered by the individual members), but it is very doubtful whether he is right in saying that the άφαί “are the various spiritual gifts and offices which are made the channels or means of this Divine communication.” Most recent commentators have wisely refrained from thus particularizing. Certainly when these αφαί are taken as meaning the officers mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, despite all saving clauses, a step is taken toward the Romanist and High Anglican view of the clergy. The figures of Scripture, through wrested and strained interpretation, have been made subservient to great error.—R.] According to the working in the measure of each several part [κατ̓ ἔνέργειανἐνμέτρῳ ἑνὸςἑκάστουμέρους]. —This qualifies the phrase which precedes. κατʼ ? ἐνέργειαν, without the article on account of the following qualification (Ephesians 1:19; Ephesians 3:7), defines the ἐπιχορηγία as an efficient one, while the proportion of this efficiency rests “in the measure of each several part,” in the measure, which every part, the individual member of the Church in himself has from Christ. The service rendered proceeds therefore from the individual parts, from each one, so that it is not to be referred merely to the ministry, the officers of the church (Harless). This efficient service of the individuals is to the advantage of the whole and conditions the growth of the whole. Comp. Ephesians 4:7; Ephesians 4:12. This part of the sentence is therefore to be closely connected with ἐπιχορηγίας and not joined immediately with αὔξησινποιεῖται (Meyer), with which it is connected only through the former.Unto the building up of itself in love, εἰςοἰκοδομὴνἑαυτοῦ ἐνἀγάπῃ.—The aim is thus set forth, and as in Ephesians 4:12 it is οἰκοδομή; the self-development is here marked, since the powers of growth thereto are given from Christ. This self-edification is consummated only in love, as the life-sphere rendering it possible. “In love” therefore depends grammatically on “edifying” (Bleek), not on “maketh increase” (Meyer). With this so emphatic conclusion (“unto the building up of itself in love”) the Apostle is brought back to his starting-point (Ephesians 4:1-3), to the bond of peace. AND ETHICAL1. Christ gives official persons (Ephesians 4:11). It is not so much that Christ established certain regulations binding on the Church, as that He has bestowed on it persons, charisms for the endowment of an office, a ministry. He is the Author and Possessor of the office, not only the first, but the only one, who has never relinquished it and never will to the very end. “Christ gives the Church’s ministers, the Church takes those given and sets them in the service of the Church. Accordingly the Church, or he who represents the rights and duties of the Church, never has to choose the subjects arbitrarily, but to know and recognize those endowed by Christ as those given by Him, and to place them in the ministry; hence the highest idea of the ecclesiastical directory is to examine whether those concerned are given by Christ, without prejudice however to other requisites which are matters of ecclesiastical polity.” Meyer. Concerning the double aspect of the office, which is both diviniand humani juris, a divine institution as well as a human, ecclesiastical arrangement, the passage does not speak more definitely. But three things are plain: 1) It is incorrect to affirm that Christ now raises up no apostolic men, no prophets nor evangelists, but only pastors and teachers. See the Exeg. Notes. He does this according to the necessity of the times. 2) It is also erroneous to find no offices at all appointed, and to be unwilling to institute any, as if it were only a human notion to establish a teaching ministry. So the Quakers (according to Barclay in Guericke, Christl. Symbol, p. 626) and Schenkel, Ephesians, p. 66, 5; the former accept only the authority of the Divine endowment of persons, the latter regards the service alone as from the Lord, but the office as a human regulation. 3) Just as little however should these official persons whom the Lord gave at the beginning and still gives to the Church, be fixed in number, as the Irvingites would do, or be stiffened into a hierarchy as among the Roman Catholics.2. The distinction between the official persons, involving as it does no subordination of one class to the other, since indeed the Apostle Matthew is specially designated as Evangelist, John as prophet and Evangelist, while Peter calls himself “presbyter” (1 Peter 5:1), is altogether irrelevant as respects the teaching office: this individualizes itself in the other offices. Subordination exists only as respects Christ who gives them. They have no reason for self-exaltation on account of their gifts or special calling, nor has the congregation any for aversion to recognize and respect them and their calling: the Lord works with His word and Spirit in them and through them (Acts 13:21; Acts 15:28), and this arrangement belongs to the living and animating organism of the Church, in which the life of Christ develops itself. The officers should be called neither clerics nor Geistliche, nor should the Church be divided into ecclesia reprζsentans and reprζsentata. For every Christian belongs to the κλῆροςθεοῦ, has a part in the κληρονομία (Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 1:15), should be “geistlich,” and have to τὸ πνεῦμα and the ministers as the Lord’s servants must labor in and for the Church, to serve her, not to represent her, but the Lord. 3. The task of the official persons with their gifts for their special calling, over against the other members of the body of Christ with the general call, is “the perfecting of the saints,” and this reaches also to “the work of the ministry,” to “the edifying of the body of Christ.” As certainly then as the servants of the Lord have to serve the Church and its individual members, hence not in the commission of the Church, as though this were always and everywhere the only efficient impulse, nor yet out of their own authority, so certainly should these ministers be prepared for their special service by their labors in the Church, as they have been called and installed by her. As the Lord works upon the Church, and this should permit itself to be acted upon, so she has the duty of working again according to His purpose, of leading back to Him under His guidance and the help of God, which He will grant and furnish for her welfare. The first link in the chain of congregational activity is the officers, the second is every Christian in healthy activity at his post, and thus the joyous upbuilding of the whole is advanced, which reacts on the ministers and individual members of the Church. Thus it goes from above to below, from the ministers in immediate rapport with the Lord to the individuals, the Church, the whole, and from individual to individual, and through them to the whole, and from this back again to the individuals. The lay element must be cultivated, set in motion, sustained, animated and guided. The design is to bless men, to serve the people, the people, the people, as Luther (1 Adv. Kirchenpostille, ed. Franke I. p. 42) preaches. In avoiding the Scylla of priestly rule, many fall into the Charybdis of congregational or lay rule. This is of importance for all Church polity. 4. Like all pedagogy, the pedagogy of the church also should make itself superfluous and unnecessary. The utility of the ecclesiastical office is appointed to this end, and should be managed accordingly. But this gives neither right nor occasion to undervalue at the time what will and should cease after its time. Fidelity to the Master demands that it should be left to Him, when and how He will break up the form, lest we in doing so should spill and lose its contents and substance. 5. In connection with the prospect that we all (Ephesians 4:13) shall attain unto the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, it must be remarked: (1) That this is not spoken of in any way (see Exeg. Notes) of the apocatastasis: “A communion of the enjoyment of salvation” (Schneckenburger.) is not indicated, but the progress from the militant to the triumphant church, the development, not from unbelief to blessedness, not from eternity to God, to heirship with Him, but from faith to sight, from service according to God’s will to participation in the glory of His Nature. (2) A uniformity of expression, of forms and formulas, is not meant, but that condition is meant which the Lord Himself foretells (John 10:16), when there shall be “one fold” and “one Shepherd,” when the church of Christ is developed out of and beyond all “fermentation,” is ripened, ministers and members furthering each other’s advance, the individual parts and the whole in accord, and on the basis of a deeper unity the proper variety existing in glorious harmony. It cannot be overlooked, that, although the differences, which divide, will disappear, because error attaches to them, or at least immaturity, the removal of differences cannot be anticipated, unless the church, instead of growing up unto a perfect man, should become an assembly of offensively over-prudent children. Even the distinction of sex shall be removed (Matthew 22:30), as that of corporealness in general; but that is no reason why we should treat the body as a prison of the soul, and desire to be without sex, before we enter the company of the angels. Let each one be faithful to his own church and to his Lord! Beyond Christ we cannot go, without Him or against Him there is no progress. 6. He who allows himself to be determined by external influences, is still immature, is as yet no man, independent, firm and clear, unless these influences come from the source of truth and life, from Christ: from Him and to Him our life comes and goes. Influences of an unchristian character are brought by the spirit of this world into every age, and many a one may unconsciously serve this spirit against the truth; as in the history of the world there is presented a plan of God, so in these there is a method which points beyond them into the kingdom of darkness and lies. 7. Truth and Love, which belong together, since the former has an ethical character, and the latter is not blind, are the fundamental elements of growth, requiring Christ as the aim and spring of our life, the gifts of Christ and the acceptance on the part of the church, her receptivity and self-activity, the reciprocity of the whole and each individual member. By this we may judge the wrong and error of the separate divisions and generations of the church. The Catholics do not let Christ work as a fresh streaming fountain, nor rightly value the life of the members of the church, but put the apostolic power of the Pope with his hierarchy in the front and centre; they undervalue the Head and members and overvalue the ministers of the church, who become masters. The Lutherans have hampered the lay element, and suffer the consequences of the abridgement: the fellowship of the church is too little developed. The Reformed are wanting in the sacramental element; they foster what is individual and social, rather than that which is formative and established, as the sects proceeding from them plainly show.—By this passage every position and every age regulate itself. AND Take heed, pastor, that thou not only hast an office and ministry shown to thee, which thou administerest, but that thou art and becomest more and more thyself a gift of Christ to His church.—Rejoice, O church, that the servants of Christ are Christ’s gifts for thee and use them according to His will against thy lust and errors.—Thou shouldst not say, that Christ raised up Apostles, prophets, evangelists, only in the first century and never since; nor deny that He raises up the pastors and teachers of His church.—All ministry, even the most important minister is in vain, if he does not labor further into the house and the bye-ways, so that each in his place may do his duty as a Christian; but if the spiritual teachers do their duty, the church will not remain unspiritual.—Do not reckon according to visible results; concealed and gradual is the progress of the work, reaching its mark at last and in glory. But do not think hastily and proudly, now is the time of maturity! You may in the end mistake the impulse of the spirit of the age for the showers of Christ’s Spirit and the Shibboleth of party-spirit for the word of life, and this deception would be fearful.—No one is so much a minor as to be without responsibility and strength to resist; have regard to this, proving all things by the truthfulness in love, by Christ, the End and Source of all growth! Preach the word simply and purely! Certainly, but not less: love it in the same way. Love does not, indeed, work by means of injustice, untruth, deception, counterfeiting, intrigue, misrepresentation and pretence. But she creates fellowship, and truth is the cause, not of the isolated individual, but of the fellowship of heaven and earth, of the nations, of the earth, and of centuries, aye of thousands of years. Starke: For as rogues so manage dice that they must fall according to their wish, so do schismatics and fanatics act with the sacred Scriptures.—Truth and love must be side by side. True teaching and lovely living. That is the sum of all Christianity. Love and unity edify. Rieger: The goal of our growth is a long distance before us, the hindrances are many; but growth is the most certain way thither. For as little as in physical growth is advance made all at once with immoderate rapidity, but as in the use of the ordained means, with proper labor and exercise, in confidence on God and His bestowed blessing, in love and peace with one another, the body grows, not one member only, but one just as another, so we, through God’s word, prayer, embracing all the means afforded us in the church, the school and the home, reach the position of men of God furnished for every good work. Heubner: Christ’s kingdom embraces even the invisible kingdom of God. Would this be conceivable, if He were a mere man?—The variety of offices should not lead to ambition and place-hunting, but to the service of the church.—The stature of manhood in a Christian consists in this, that he, irrespective of men has spiritual majority and independence. Teachers should not wish to keep the congregation in a state of immaturity, but their task is to render themselves unnecessary.—It is the duty of the Christian to strive after this maturity.—Humanity is capable of an ever-increasing perfection by means of Christianity. Progress in Christianity is, however, no advance beyond Christianity.—The Christian is firm in his faith and free from the miserable dependence on foreign and worldly opinion.—How much is still wanting in the mutual support of all in the Christian church. All should be for the furtherance of the Christian life: for example, the household life should be a school of Christianity, the State should further the church, and the schools of learning educate for Christianity, all arts and sciences should subserve religion.—It is child’s play, even when not detrimental, to speculate how far this figure of the body can be carried out into detail, who, for example, is eye, ear, breast, back, etc. This can lead to results of as revolting a character, as the Hindoo system of caste. Passavant: One class, as well as another, is chosen to their particular service by the Master of the church; and He who on earth was in the form of a servant, will regard the more lowly of His servants with special looks of love. He sees the heart, and fidelity in what is little is precious in His sight.—To seek truth always and everywhere, in all things and among all persons; to act in truth with all, towards all, with one’s self and before God; to base one’s inmost thoughts and impulses always in and on the truth—this keeps the heart, amid all the lies, lusts and illusions of this false world, firm and quiet, as the ship that has escaped the waves and cast anchor in the harbor.—All genuine truth and love come alone from Christ upon us and into us, leading us back again to Christ. Gerlach: In every false teaching which separates men from Christ and His word, the Apostle shows us also a work of wickedness. Human nature was not created by God so perverse as to choose without the fault of man, a lie instead of the truth. Zeller: These are the instruments by which the Lord has chosen to build His Church, not Popes, not Emperors and kings, not princes and great ones, the mighty monarchs of this world, but Apostles, Evangelists, pastors and teachers, men illuminated by His spirit, endued with power from on high, not merely by men, but given and appointed by Himself. It is to take place through the peaceful means of preaching, pastoral care, instruction. [Eadie: Ephesians 4:12. The spiritual advancement of the Church, is the ultimate design of the Christian pastorate. The ministry preaches and rules to secure this, which is at the same time the purpose of Him who appointed and who blesses it. Ephesians 4:13. Christians are all to attain to oneness of faith, that is, all of them shall be filled with the same ennobling and vivifying confidence in this Divine Redeemer—not some leaning more to His humanity, and others showing an equally partial and defective preference for His Divinity—not some regarding Him rather as an instructor and example, and others drawn to Him more as an atonement—not some fixing an exclusive gaze on Christ without them, and others cherishing an intense and one-sided aspiration for Christ within them—but all reposing a united confidence in Him—“the Son of God.”—The Christian church is not full grown, but it is advancing to perfect age. Ephesians 4:14. How many go the rounds of all sects, parties, and creeds, and never receive satisfaction. If in the pride of reason they fall into rationalism, then if they recover, they rebound into mysticism. From the one extreme of legalism they recoil to the farthest verge of antinomianism, having travelled at easy stages all the intermediate distance. Ephesians 4:15. That character is nearest perfection in which the excessive prominence of no grace throws such a withering shadow upon the rest, as to signalize or perpetuate their defect, but in which all is healthfully balanced in just and delicate adaptation. Ephesians 4:16. The church is built up, for love is the element of spiritual progress. That love fills the renewed nature, and possesses peculiar facilities of action in edifying the mystical body of Christ. Whatever parts it may have, whatever their forms, uses, and position, whatever the amount of energy resident in them, still, from their connection with the one living Head, and from their own compacted union and mutual adjustment, they compose but one growing structure “in love.”—R.] [Hodge: Ephesians 4:12. If Christ has appointed the ministry for the edification of His body, it is in vain to expect that end to be accomplished in any other way. Ephesians 4:14. Error can never be harmless, nor false teachers innocent. Two considerations, however, should secure moderation and meekness in applying these principles. The one is, that though error implies sin, orthodoxy does not always imply holiness. The character most offensive to God is that of a malignant zealot for the truth. The other consideration is, that men are often much better than their creed: that is, the doctrines on which they live are much nearer the truth than those which they profess. They deceive themselves by attaching wrong meaning to words, and seem to reject truth, when in fact they only reject their own misconceptions. Ephesians 4:16. The church is Christ’s body. The body grows. Concerning this growth, the Apostle says: 1. It is from Him. He is the causal source from whom all life and power are derived. 2. It depends on the intimate union of all the parts of the body with the Head, by means of appropriate bands. 3. It is symmetrical. 4. It is a growth in love.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 4:12.—[Unto is substituted for the preposition for, to indicate the difference in the Greek prepositions. In order to, with a view to, would express one view of the meaning of the verse, but unto suits the view of Dr. Braune better. Ministration is preferable to ministry, since the latter is now confined by usage to the office of the preacher and pastor. Building up is Saxon, edifying Latin.—R.] Ephesians 4:14.—[ΰ. B. 1 D. 1 F. K. L. support the form μεθοδίαν, adopted by Tischendorf (ed. 7); but μεθοδείαν (Rec.) is preferable, “as changes in orthography which may be accounted for by italicism or some mode of erroneous transcription must always be received with caution” (Ellicott).—The periphrasis is necessary to express the force of πρός.—R.] Ephesians 4:15.—[See Exeg. Notes, especially the additional footnote.—R.] Ephesians 4:15.—[The article is found in the Rec., ΰ³ D. F. K. L., most cursives, and is accepted by De Wette; but it is omitted in ΰΉ A. B. C., and rejected by Lachmann. Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott (now by Meyer). It occurs with Χριστός 31 times, and is omitted in 53 instances (Ellicott).—R.] Ephesians 4:16.—[The view of the connection taken in the Exeg. Notes requires the insertion of a comma here, to indicate that the subsequent phrases qualify the main verb.—The less usual form: συνβιβασόμενον is sustained by ΰ. A. B. (?) C. D.Ή F. G., adopted by Tischendorf, Ellicott and others. Comp. Ephesians 3:6, where the usual euphonic changes in the prefixed preposition are ignored in the best MSS.—Effectual is omitted to avoid conveying the impression that the working is God’s ἐνέργεια.—R.] Ephesians 4:16.—[A. C., some versions and fathers sustain the reading μέλους, but it is probably a gloss occasioned by σῶμα; μέρους is found in ΰ. B. D. F. K. L., and accepted by all recent editors.—R.] Ephesians 4:16.—[ΰ D. 1 F. read αὐτοῦ, but ἑαυτοῦ is sustained by most authorities.—R.] [Ellicott: “There is here no direct resumption of the subject of Eph 4:7, as if Ephesians 4:8-10 were merely parenthetical, but a regression to it; while at the same time the αὐτός is naturally and emphatically linked on to the αὐτός of the preceding verse. This return to a subject, without disturbing the harmony of the immediate connection or the natural sequence of thought, constitutes one of the high excellences, but at the same time one of the chief difficulties in the style of the great Apostle.”—R.] [On the position of Matthias, comp. Ephesians 1:1 and Acts (in loco). Eadie thus enumerates the essential elements of the apostolate: 1. That the Apostles should receive their commission immediately from the living lips of Christ. 2. That having seen the Saviour after He rose again, they should be qualified to attest to the truth of His resurrection. 3. They enjoyed a special inspiration. 4. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3. General Christian DutiesEph_4:17 to Ephesians 5:21.a. The principle of the new walk, with reference to the contrast of the old and the new manEph_4:17-24.17This I say therefore [therefore I say], and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not [no longer walk] as other Gentiles [the rest of the Gentiles] walk, in the vanity of their mind. 18Having the understanding darkened [Being darkened in their understanding], being alienated from the life of God [,] through [because of] the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness [hardness] of the heart: 19Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness [to wanton-ness], to work all uncleanness with [in] greediness. 20But ye have not so learned 21[did not so learn] Christ; If so be that ye have heard [If indeed ye heard] him, and have been [were] taught by [in] him, as the truth is [as is truth] in Jesus: 22That ye put off concerning the former conversation [as regards your former way of life] the old man, which is [waxeth] corrupt according to the deceitful lusts [lusts 23of deceit]; And be [become] renewed in the spirit [or by the Spirit] of your mind; 24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is [hath been] created in righteousness and true holiness [holiness of the truth]. AND Eph_4:17 a. The connection. This therefore I Say [τοῦτοοὖνλέγω].—Τοῦτο refers to what follows, and with emphasis (Winer, p. 152); οὖν, however, as the subsequent context shows, going back of the digression (Ephesians 4:4-16), which contains the motives of the exhortation (Ephesians 4:1-3), refers to “walk worthy.” Theodoret: πάλινἀνέλαβετῆςπαρανέσεωςτὸ προοίμιον. But the simple “I say” is not enough for the Apostle; he adds: And testify in the Lord, καὶ μαρτύρομαιἐνκυρίῳ.—He presents himself in his apostolic authority as a witness, not in his own, but in the Lord’s cause. [“By thus sinking his own personality, the Apostle greatly enhances the solemnity of his declaration” (Ellicott).—R.] It is similar to Romans 9:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:1. The Lord is the element in which he lives and in this case bears witness, and at the same time the ground on which he stands in common with the Ephesians; on this account he reckons on their acceptance of his urgent appeal. It is not=πρὸςκυρίου, per Dominum (even the Greek Fathers, and many others). The heathen walk as a type of the natural walk in general; Ephesians 4:17 b–19. Ephesians 4:17 b. That ye no longer walk [μηκέτιὑμᾶςπεριπατεὶν.—This infinitive is the object of λέγω (it being unnecessary to understand δεῖν) expressing, however, what ought to be (Eadie) more than what is; Ellicott thinks an imperative sense involved (“that ye no longer must walk”), as indeed the context indicates (Alford).—R.] This says negatively what is expressed positively in Ephesians 4:1 : “walk worthy.” “No longer” denotes their once walking, as they should not and dare not now, being Christians.—As the rest of the Gentiles walk.—[See Textual Note!] Καθώς introduces the kind of walk which they should avoid. Καί is joined with emphasis and admonitory force to τὰ λοιπάἔθνη to which class they belong. The heathen are those who remained behind, they no longer belong to the heathen who now “walk,” and how? In the vanity of their mind, ἔνματαιότητιτοῦ νοὸςαὐτῶν.—This is the briefest characterization of the natural heathen walk, presenting both its religious and moral side. It is the explanation of Theodoret (τὰ μὴ ὄνταθεοποιε͂ιν) in accordance with Romans 1:21; Romans 8:20; 1 Peter 1:18. This “vanity” [betokening a waste of the whole rational powers on worthless objects (Alford).—R.] is, of course, one brought about through sin, another nature as it were. It has penetrated even the will of the human spirit, corrupting this high faculty, the ἡγεμονικόν in the nature of man. Hence there is no special reference to philosophy (Grotius). To this general sketch are added special traits in Ephesians 4:18-19. Ephesians 4:18. Being darkened in their understanding, ἐσκοτωμένοιτῇ διανοίᾳ ὄντες.—The masculine form indicates the reference to persons, to particular individuals, and not to the whole, τὰ ἔθνη, as such. The verb (σκοτόω), only here and Revelation 16:10, instead of the more usual σκοτίζω, is in the perfect, to denote a state not previously existing, but having come into being, which the present participle, (ὄντες) designates as present. That to which the darkness clings is set forth by τῇ διανοίᾳ, which means the intellectual power of the mind, the mode of thought, the character, since the reference is not to the formal faculty, but to its condition. Comp. Romans 1:21 f.; Romans 11:10. It is incorrect to join ὄντες with what follows (Rueckert) [Eadie]; it follows thus in Titus 1:16 also, and τῇ διανοίᾳ forms one conception, together with the participle in its emphatic position. Being alienated from the life of God, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοιτῆςζωῆςτοῦ θεοῦ.—See on Ephesians 2:12 : “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.” The perfect participle must be noted here also; Bengel correctly remarking: participia prζsupponunt, gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum—fuisse participes lucis et vitζ. Conf. renovari Ephesians 4:23.—Ζωή, the opposite of θάνατος (Ephesians 2:1), is the intensive spiritual, eternal life, belonging to God (τοῦ θεοῦ), vita, quζ accenditur ex ipsa Dei vita (Bengel), qua Deus vivit in suis (Beza), vera vita, qui est Deus (Erasmus); Luther: the life, that is out of God. [Comp. Trench, Syn. § XXVIII; Olshausen, Stier in loco.—R.] See Winer, p. 175. Thus “the vanity of their mind” is designated as to its two sides, the ethically intelligent, and the ethically practical. [This clause sets forth an “objective result of the subjective ‘being darkened’ ” (Alford).—R.] To this corresponds what is immediately added. Because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart, διὰ τὴνἄγνοιαντὴνοὖσανἐναὐτοῖς, διὰ τὴνπώρωσιντῆςκαρδίαςαὐτῶν.—These two clauses are added without a connecting particle, because they refer to the two preceding ones, as their purport requires, and because the one requires and furthers the other. “Because of the ignorance that is in them,” points to an ignorance which has become immanent, is now natural and peculiar (Acts 3:17; Acts 17:30; 1 Peter 1:14), as the ground (διὰ. with the accus., see Winer, p. 372) of the darkening, and which is ever increasing, going from ignorance to ignorance. “Because of the hardness of their heart,” renders prominent in the same way the hardness, unsusceptibility of the heart as the ground of the estrangement from the life of God. The two are ever conjoined in the natural man: There is not intellectual obscuration beside practical estrangement from God, nor ignorance beside hardness of heart; the one conditions the other, working destructively as they reciprocally affect each other. Hence it cannot be affirmed, that the former applies more to the Gentiles, the latter to the Jews (Stier and others); the Gentiles alone are spoken of, as a type of the natural character. But at the same time the “ignorance” is not to be regarded as merely a consequence, and these two clauses (with διά) referred to the last participial clause alone (Meyer). [This parallelism of construction in which the first and third, second and fourth clauses are connected together is accepted, by Bengel, De Wette, Olshausen, Forbes (Symmetrical structure of Scripture, p. 21), Schenkel and others. It is opposed by Meyer, Hodge, Eadie and Ellicott; but the objection they urge, that “ignorance” is not the cause of “darkness,” loses its force when it is remembered that the Apostle is speaking of a process rather than a condition. Nor is it contrary to the Apostle’s style, in which parallelisms abound, far less so than to explain: “Darkness of mind is the cause of ignorance, ignorance and consequent obduracy of heart are the cause of alienation from God” (Hodge), thus trajecting the third and fourth clauses between the first and second. This is the view of Meyer, who makes the last clause subordinate to the third (though both are introduced by διά): a needless complication, which leads to the removal of the comma, while the view of Braune requires the insertion of one after θεοῦ. See Textual Note2.—R.] Ephesians 4:19. Who οἵτινες [men who, such as], introduces the explanation, the proof of this condition.—Being past feeling have given themselves over [ἀπηλγηκότεςἑαυτοὺςπαρέδωκαν].—Ἀπηλγηκότες; (from ἀπὸ and ἄλγος, ἀλγέω,), unsusceptible of pain, and according to the context, in the heart, the moral consciousness, hence not feeling the unrest and punishment of conscience, the correction of God (Jeremiah 5:3), they have given themselves over, ultro (Bengel); that is the ἀγαισθησία, sponte sese in gurgitem omnium vitiorum prζcipitans. Calvin: Homines a Deo relicti, sopita conscientia, exstincto divini judicii timore, amisso denique sensu tanquam attoniti, belluino impetu se ad omnem turpitudinem projiciunt. [The pronoun ἑαυτούς is used “with terrible emphasis” (Meyer).—R.] Self-reprobation is consummated in becoming apathetic, just as Romans 1:24 : “God delivered them over, in the lusts of their hearts.” Our passage marks the freedom and guilt of men, the passage in Romans the rule, will and power of God, but both of them indicate the means: the lust corrupting even unto want of feeling; here prominence is given to the consequence, the condition which has arisen and becomes aggravated (ἀπηλγηκότες), there to the ground, the active power (“lusts”). To wantonness, τῇ άσελγείᾳ.—The term, apparently from θέλγω, schwelgen [allied to the English swell, and meaning to over-eat, carouse, debauch], occurs quite frequently (Mark 7:22; Romans 13:13; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2; 2 Peter 2:7; 2 Peter 2:18; Judges 4), almost always in connection with sensual sins, denoting, however, not special sin, but reckless, unbridled, extravagant and excessive character in general. Comp. Tittmann, I, p. 150 ff., on ἀσέλγεια and ἀκαθαρσία, [Trench, § 16., and Exeg. Notes on Galatians 5:19, in this volume.—R.] It is not to be limited to sensual lasciviousness (Meyer). To work all uncleanness, εἰςἐργασίανἀκαθαρσίαςπάσης.—[The preposition introduces the conscious aim of this self-abandonment.—R.] Ἐργασία marks the managing, the assiduous, connected labor [the working at it as though it were a trade], and ἀκαθαρσία, extended by πάσης, sets forth what has come to pass in the service of ἀσέλγεια. We should apply it to all kinds of uncleanness, especially libidinous, but also to the lust of the eye and pride, natural and unnatural, refined and coarse, solitary and social, in thought, word and deed (Romans 1:24-32). Still less is this to be limited to libidinous filthiness (Meyer), or to trade in harlotry, quζstus ex impudicitia (Grotius, Bengel and others). The next phrase will not justify this. In greediness, ἐνπλεονεξίᾳ.—This word means to want to have more, greediness, avarice, graspingness, limited usually to earthly possession, to money (Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Mark 7:22; Luke 12:15); but the limitation arises from the context, not from the word itself. The context here does not admit of any such limitation: ἐν, in, marks the ground on which the “uncleanness” moves, and this is not avarice, but greed in general unto insatiableness. Hence the Greek Fathers thus explain it (Chrysostom: ἀμέτρως, Theodoret: ἀμετρία, �cumenius: κωθ̓ ὑμερβολήνκαὶ ἀνενδότως. Ἐν is not=σύν (Luther: together with avarice); there is not a new special vice, avarice, added to another special one, unchastity (Meyer, Schenkel); neither the context nor the word itself favors the explanation: gluttony (Harless).Reminder respecting Christ and Christian instruction; Ephesians 4:20-21. Ephesians 4:20. But ye, ὑμεῖςδἐ, in opposition to “the rest of the Gentiles” [just described].—Did not so learn Christ.—Οὑχοὕτως is a very emphatic litotes=entirely otherwise, not at all in such a way that you can live afterwards as you did before. Ἐμάθετε [the historical aorist] τὸνΧριστόν marks Christ as the object, the substance of the preaching of the Apostles and of Christ. Himself; His person we must attain to; He Himself must be accepted and appropriated in us (Ephesians 4:13; Ephesians 4:15; Colossians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 1:19). Hence it is not=the doctrine of Christ, as was once almost generally thought. [This use of the verb with an accusative of the person is probably unique (Ellicott), and properly so, for in no other learning is a Person so directly and fully the object. Hence the explanation: learnt to know is inadmissible as without lexical authority and insufficient. Beza’s exegesis is totally unwarranted: “Ye are not so—ye have learned Christ.”—R.] Ephesians 4:21. If indeed ye heard him [εἴγεαὐτὸνἠκούσατε]—̓ ?́Ειγε, as in Ephesians 3:2, marks in a fine turn of expression a definite, undoubted fact (“that he heard him”), particula non miruit, sed auget vim admonitionis (Bengel). It is not however—“so as” (Stier). Αὐτόν is in emphatic position; “heard” denotes the beginning of the discipleship; hence it is not merely, heard of Him (Luther), but heard Him Himself in spirit, even though through the instrumentality of others. He is the subject of the very first instruction. Hence Paul adds: And were taught in him, καὶ ἐναὐτῷ ἐδιάχθητε.—The two designations correspond to those in Matthew 28:19-20 : “disciple all nations”—“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” “In,” ἐν, is neither=περί, concerning (Piscator), nor ὑπό (Flatt), nor διά, by (Beza) [E. V.], nor illius nomine, quod ad illum attinet (Bengel), but an instruction not merely having its result, a being or living in Him, but in accordance with the fellowship with Him (Winer, p. 366); in ipso=ipsi insiti and docti are equivalent (Bucer); doceri is inseri. As is the truth in Jesus [καθώςἐστινἀλήθειαἐντῷ Ἰησοῦ ?].—“As” refers only to the instruction, to its quality; it corresponds to “not go” (Ephesians 4:20); what was there negatively and briefly indicated, is here positively expressed, and then given in detail. “Is truth” gives prominence to the agreement of the teaching with the reality: in the instruction they hear Him really, possess Him as He is. Ἐστιν, coming first, denotes the existence, the reality, and that, too, as a present, now valid and continuing reality. Consequens (τοῦ audire. et τοῦ doceri est τὸ discere Bengel): they have therefore learned, as truth is in Him. “Truth” is here opposed to the heathen “vanity;” as the latter was a self-made foundling, the former is something bestowed, real, excluding the subtleties of human origin or change of any kind. [The notion of the Greek adjective αληθινός is thus included by Dr. Braune. The clause setting forth the manner of the instruction (the substance follows in Ephesians 4:22-24), may be thus explained: If ye were taught so that what you received was according to what is true (true and real) as embodied in a personal Saviour: The literal rendering: “as is truth in Jesus” gives most nearly the exact force.—R.] In the expression ἐντῷ Ἰησοῦ, the article is significant, pointing to the known Person, the personal name being chosen instead of the official title, Christ. Bengel: Expressius ponit nomen Ἰησοῦ. Christi, ideam perfectissime et fulgidissime explevit Jesus; this preserves the received instruction from obliteration.—The clause is, therefore, not parenthetical (Beza, Rueckert and others), “truth” is neither agnitio Dei (Bengel), nor true doctrine of Christ (Piscator and others), nor true holiness, goodness (Erasmus, Harless [Hodge] and others). We should not connect “in Jesus” with what follows (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II, 2, p. 291). The Christian walk; Ephesians 4:22-24, a. Negative side; Ephesians 4:22, b. Positive side; Ephesians 4:23-24. Ephesians 4:22. That ye put off, ἀποθέσθαιὑμᾶς.—This infinitive depends grammatically on the entire thought, that they heard Him and were taught in Him, as the truth in Jesus is (Bleek), although Stier and Bengel are not incorrect in connecting it in sense with “I say and testify” (Ephesians 4:17); they recognise, however, “a certain reference to the nearest words” (Ephesians 4:21). The emphasis rests on the verb, coming first, which has its antithesis in “put on” (Ephesians 4:24). It is incorrect to accept a dependence on the last clause alone (Meyer) and a contrast between “Jesus” and “ye” (Jerome, Harless, and others), which would be indicated by an emphatic position for ὑμᾶς and the insertion of οὕτως. In the frequently occurring figures of putting on and off the clothes to represent the external appearance from which the internal state may be inferred, it is not necessary to find an allusion to a race before which, or a baptism (of a proselyte) at which the clothes should be taken off; the context gives no warrant for either. The Lord Himself (Luke 24:49) transferred into the New Testament the usage of the Old Testament in describing an instantaneous, sudden inspiration. Comp. Stier, Words of Jesus, 7 p. 323 f. Paul extended the figure (Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 6:11; Ephesians 6:14; Romans 13:12-13; Colossians 3:8-10; 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; Galatians 3:27; 1 Thessalonians 5:8). The verb includes the sense of a decided casting away, not merely a gentle putting off, since this is required of the followers of Jesus, among whom a preserving of the old man and the heathen walk is intolerable. As regards your former way of life [κατὰ τὴνπροτέρανἀναστροφήν.—Κατά introduces that with respect to which the putting off takes place. The substantive (αναστροφή), like the verb, includes a course of conduct arising from a corresponding disposition, the manifestation of what is within, as Galatians 1:13; 1 Peter 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:17-18 (Stier), and is more than περιπατεῖν, preparing the way for the mention of the internal disposition which should be put off. It is not enough to put off merely the former heathen (προτέραν) walk. Antitheton versus 23 totus (Bengel). The old man [τὸνπαλαιὸνἄνθρωπον].—“Man” denotes here the Ego (ἐγώ, Romans 7:9-10; Romans 7:17-21). “Old” designates that it is condemned to be put away, old over against Jesus the second Adam; hence “the old man” (Colossians 3:9; Romans 6:6) means the sinful Ego deranged by sin, the natural man in the corruption of his sin. This condition is then described: Which waxeth corrupt according to the lusts of deceit [τὸνφθειρόμενονκατὰ τὰςἐπιθυμίαςτῆςἀπάτης].—The present participle denotes the present condition, which is not however a purely passive one: “which is corrupted,” but in accordance with Ephesians 4:19 : “which corrupts himself.” It is then neither imperfect: which corrupted himself (Bengel), nor to be taken as referring to the future judgment (Rueckert and others); yet it is not merely=morally destroying himself (Harless). The antithesis is creatum (Bengel) and the use of φθορά and φθείρεσθαι (Galatians 6:8; Romans 8:20-21) points to the whole man, body and soul. [Meyer and Hodge refer it to eternal destruction: “which tends to destruction,” but this does not do justice to the present participle, the peculiar force of which, as indicating a process not entirely passive, is brought out by “waxeth corrupt” (Ellicott). Hodge’s objection, that “old” already expresses the idea of corruption, has no force against this description of the progressive character, while his own view introduces an objective element into a delineation which is strictly subjective.—R.] The accomplishment of the corruption is more closely defined by the phrase: “according to the lusts of deceit,” The corruption is accomplished in accordance with the lusts, the factors of the corruption; and these are affairs of sin, which are here personified in accordance with the power of deceiving and betraying inherent in it (Romans 7:11; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:9). The genitive, which is that of the subject, is not to be resolved into an adjective (Grotius [E. V.] and thus weakened, nor applied merely to error technicus (Bengel). The antithesis is secundum Deum—in justitia et sanctitate veritatis (Bengel). Ephesians 4:23. And become renewed [ἀνανεοῦσθαιδέ],—The contrast is marked by δέ, which introduces the positive side (Ephesians 4:23-24), The verb in the passive points to the fact that a work and operation of God is spoken of (Ephesians 2:10; Ephesians 4:24; κτισθέντα; see Titus 3:5, 2 Timothy 1:9). The present refers to an operation which is not concluded in a moment, but continues. The roots of the word (νέος [recent], new) points to a becoming rejuvenated, to the beginning, the coming into being, of what was not, or not yet, or no longer; καινός [novus] refers to the character of that which exists, as compared with its former condition; άνακαινουν is to put away the ruins of the present condition and to supply new powers, to transfer into a condition of newness, as distinguished from the previous one. Hence we never find νέακτίσις, but καινή, since νεότης is already implied in κτισις. See Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 60 f. [Trench, Syn. (§ xviii; Colossians, p. 65,) Alford and Hodge in loco.—R.] Ἁνά indicates not merely a setting up, but according to the participles in Ephesians 4:18-19, a restitution of the original creation. The infinitive is in the same dependence as ἀποθέσθαι, although in these infinitives there is latent, a hortatory imperative, which comes out in Ephesians 4:25. Still this inheres in the thought, not in the form. In the Spirit [or by the Spirit] of your mind [τῷ πνεύματιτοῦ νοὸςύμῶν].—The renewal, the letting themselves be renewed, is accomplished in this. The dative is one of reference, the genitive that of the subject. Harless says: ψυχή designates the immediateness of the personal life, καρδία the same as the internal life of a human person, νοῦς is the habitus corresponding to this existence and life, πνεῦμα the motive power which calls forth and conditions this habitus. To this the organism of the human spirit corresponds. Bengel: spiritu mentis, 1 Corinthians 14:14. Spiritus est intimum mentis. That inexplicabile coming from God (Oetinger) must be renewed, is seized by the corruption of sin, needs redemption from “the vanity of the mind.” We may not take πνεύματι as instrumental on account of the genitive and understand it of the Holy Spirit (Oekumen, and others), nor can both explanations be combined (Stier: through the Spirit yet living in you); in that case the middle, contrary to the usage which gives it an active sense, and contrary to the Biblical view, which never speaks of men renewing themselves, is taken as reflexive. Nor is the “spirit” of man to be regarded as opposed absolutely to the “flesh,” as if it could never be subject to the latter (Schenkel). [The view of Braune, which takes τῷ πνεύματι as a dative of reference referring exclusively to the human spirit, is accepted by most commentators. Hodge takes πνεῦμα here as the “interior life—that of which the νοῦς, καρδία, ψυχή are the modes of manifestation,”—a psychological statement inferior to that of Harless, and probably resulting from the desire to avoid any trichotomic opinion.—Meyer has wavered in his views: adopting in the 1James , 3 d and 4th eds. the usual opinion, and in the second that of Fritzsche, Alford, Ellicott and others. This takes the dative as instrumental, and as referring to the human spirit acted upon by the Holy Spirit (see Romans, p. 235), or to the Holy Spirit in a gracious union with the human spirit (Ellicott, 3d ed.). To this view I incline, but not decidedly. The other interpretation is open to objections both of an exegetical and psychological nature. This sense of πνεῦμα is now clearly established, and indispensable in exegesis. In fact as Alford says: “the πνεῦμα a of man is only then used ‘sensu proprio’ as worthy of its place and governing functions, when it is one Spirit with the Lord.” The trouble is, that this πνεῦμα would hardly be spoken of as the instrument; the answer being that a process is described as going on, the agent being “the restored and Divinely informed leading principle of their νοῦς.”—The genitive is their possessive.—R.] Ephesians 4:24. And that ye put on, καὶἑνδύσασθαι, is an internal act done by us, having an effect upon the walk and thus manifesting itself.—The new man, τὸνκαινὸνἄνθρωπον, we have as present, given, outside of ourselves, in Christ; hence Romans 13:14 : “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Who after God hath been created [τὸνκατὰ θεὸνκτισθέντα].—This marks both the reality and the character of the new man. The designation evidently points to Genesis 1:26-27; which is even more prominent in the parallel passage, Colossians 3:10 (“after the image of Him that created”). Comp. 1 Peter 1:15. It should be noticed that this qualification compels us not to take “new man” as exactly=Christ; for He is not “created,” but rather “God, the image of Him who creates,” after whom (κατὰ) the new man is created. Hence we should refer it to the new human personality as respects Christ, which the Christian should become. Thus in the Epistle to the Colossians we find: τὸννέοντὸνἀνακαινόμενον, the young, tender, newly born, which is renewed, developed in contrast with the previous one. The creation of the protoplast is however merely recalled; the expressions are borrowed from it, to designate the new creation taking place in Christ and to put it in relation to the first.In righteousness and holiness of the truth [ἐνδικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητιτῆςἀληθείας].—This characterizes the new man and sets forth the distinguishing marks of its character; the preposition adjoining to “created” that in which the created man appears, with which he is endowed, equipped. The Apostle proceeds from without to within. The two notions are united together and applied to God (Revelation 16:5), to men (1 Thessalonians 2:10; Titus 1:1; Luke 1:75), ὄσιος is predicated of God (Revelation 15:4), of Christ (Hebrews 7:26; Acts 2:27; Acts 13:35), of men (1 Timothy 2:8). ̔Οσιότης refers to the inmost nature, the disposition, the immaculate purity of love (Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 5:27; Hebrews 7:26), δικαιοσύνη to the action and mode of dealing, which keeps all relations within the bounds of truth and right (Stier). Tittmann, Syn. I. 25 ff. Here we may not apply the frequent usage of Plato, who joins both notions, of which Philo says: ὀσιότηςμὲνπρὸςθεόν, δικαιοσύνηδὲ πρὸςἀνθρώπουςθεωρεῖται. Meyer regards δικαιοσύνη as moral rectitude in itself, ὁσιοτης specially in reference to God. Schenkel takes the former as respecting the world, the latter God; the latter is evidently opposed to “uncleanness” (Ephesians 4:19) and the former to “wantonness” and “greediness.” [So Stier and Ellicott]. The genitive sets forth the ground of both; “the truth” is personified, like “love” (Ephesians 4:22), the cause of the righteousness and holiness; out of the eternal Divine basis of truth springs the ethical personal life, which is conditioned by this as true: without this man would lapse into “vanity” (Ephesians 4:17). Luther incorrectly renders the genitive by an adjective: in real righteousness and holiness. [So Calvin, Beza, Holzhausen and the E. V., while Pelagius explains: “in the truth,” καὶ ἐνἀληθείᾳ (the reading of D. F. and some fathers) There seems to be an antithesis between “truth” here and “deceit” in Ephesians 4:22 (Hodge, Eadie and others), which suggests that the notion “real” is prominent here.—R.] It is incorrect to take the preposition as instrumental (Morus), or as=εἰς. The new man is not created by this ethical quality but by God, nor is this the end, but the accompanying gift of this creation, as is manifest in Christ, to whom this belonged from the beginning, not becoming His in the course of His life. [Olshausen’s remarks are generally accepted: Δικαιοσύνη, betokens a just relation among the powers of the soul within, and towards men and duties without. But ὁσιότης, like the Hebrew ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, betokens the integrity of the spiritual life, and the piety towards God of which that is the condition. Hence both expressions together complete the moral idea of perfection. As here the ethical side of the Divine image is brought out, Colossians 3:10 brings out the intellectual. The new birth alone leads to ἐπίγνωσις: all knowledge which proceeds not from renewal of heart, is but outward appearance; and of this kind was that among the false Colossian teachers. On the other hand, in Wis 2:23 the physical side of the Divine image is brought out.” Ellicott deems the last reference somewhat doubtful—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The nature of the heathen life is “vanity of the mind.” This designates the type of the natural character among Jews and Christians [“The ethical and religious element of their life was unsatisfactory and cheerless, alike in worship and in practice, the same as to present happiness as to future prospect, for they knew not man’s chief end” (Eadie).—R.] 2. The “vanity of the mind” is the result of a fall from a previous possession and enjoyment of original gifts, which is accomplished in a twofold series of acts reciprocally requiring and furthering each other; the intellectual and moral side of man’s nature being in turn solicited, and thus roused in selfishness, it is ever further removed from the truth in God and from the God of truth. Indeed, the result, the vanity of the mind, is itself capable of increase and must develop into extreme corruption, if aid does not come and a retrograde movement begin. 3. The intellectual and moral side of man require and promote each other. The Reason cannot remain healthy and clear, or susceptible, as from the beginning, if the will is or becomes warped or weakened. The obscuration, weakening of the Reason necessarily enters with the enfeebling and confusion of the will. The Apostle comprises both under the term πνεῦμα (Ephesians 4:23); the former he designates νοῦς (Ephesians 4:17; Ephesians 4:23), δινοια (Ephesians 4:18); the latter καρδια (Ephesians 4:18). The Apostle Paul places the initiative in the lusts (Ephesians 4:22 : “corrupted according to the lusts of deceit”), as Luther sharply indicates in his incorrect translation (which corrupts itself through lusts in error). The perverted will, executing what is wrong, makes the understanding a sophistical attorney, a crafty counsellor for its unrighteousness. 4. The factors of corruption are three: God, who hardens (Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:3; Exodus 14:4; Exodus 14:8; John 12:40; Romans 9:18; Romans 1:24), man himself (1 Samuel 6:6; Psalms 95:8; Hebrews 3:8), the surrounding circumstances, through which and under which it takes place (Genesis 7:13; Genesis 8:15; Hebrews 3:13). According to the context man is here described as the cause of the corruption (Ephesians 4:19), because personal guilt and the evoking of self-activity is treated of, while in Romans 1:24 God is termed the Author in the same matter, since there the final and deepest ground is touched upon. Usually its consummation appears as a history, which is pragmatically sketched by the external circumstances, the Power above the man and the concealed doings within him not being brought into prominence. What comes to pass is never loosed from the dealings of God and His holy rule, nor from the consent and opposition of man or without the influences of historical circumstances and persons. Consider, however, that thy guilt is at once God’s punishment and thine own guilt, and forget not that the two appear together as a developing history. 5. The dangerous element of sin is the deceit of lust, which plays the role of pleasure, and is not really ἡδονή, but φθορά and φθεί. ει. This is God’s appointment, that what is unholy should be unwholesome, as wrong is ill; the lustful one, turning away from God, naturally ruins himself, which is possible only in self-deception. 6. Renewal is not accomplished by man in his own strength, but only in the acceptance and use of the vital strength promised and imparted to him with justification, hence in the appropriated power of God, in the strength of Divine life. Comp. notes 8, 10. 7. Renewal too, like corruption, has its history. As the latter proceeds from ἀνομία to ἀνομία, even to the end, θάνατος (Romans 6:19; Romans 6:21), so in the former advance is made from hearing Christ to being taught in Him, from the scholar to the friend, the intimate of Christ, and from the servant of God, who permits himself to be thus termed, to heirship and participation in His kingdom. [Comp. Exegetical Notes on Ephesians 4:23.—R.] 8. The beginning of the Christian walk is the putting off the previous vices (Ephesians 4:28-32), and from resistance, even if with feeble result, advance is made to victorious crucifixion of the flesh and its lusts (Galatians 5:16-17; Galatians 5:24). 9. In this too knowing and willing stand in reciprocal action conditioning each other: learning Christ and putting on Christ, Christian science and Christian life. Theological faculties and the Church of Christ belong together. No knowledge should sunder itself from life, nor the science of Theology from the Christian Church. Where faith in Christ is not active, the scientific culture of individuals and churches will fare badly enough. 10. The vital power of faith must in the moral life-process prove itself real (τῆςἀληθείας) and permeate the whole mode of life (ἐνδικαιοσύνῃ) from within to without (ἐνὁσιότητι) and thus manifest itself in the walk. Faith, in itself a moral act, must prove itself in an ethical life-process. [11. “This passage is of special doctrinal importance, as teaching us the true nature of the image of God in which man was originally created. That image did not consist merely in man’s rational nature, nor in his immortality, nor in his dominion, but specially in that righteousness and holiness, that rectitude in all his principles, and that susceptibility of devout affections, which are inseparable from the possession of the truth, or true knowledge of God. This is the Scriptural view of the original state of man, or of original righteousness, as opposed, on the one hand, to the Pelagian theory, that man was created without moral character; and, on the other, to the Romish doctrine, that original righteousness was a supernatural endowment not belonging to man’s nature. Knowledge, and consequently righteousness and holiness, were immanent or con-created in the first man, in the same sense as were his sense of beauty and susceptibility of impression from the external world.” Hodge.—R.] AND Deal earnestly with the conduct of those committed to you, as did the Apostle, and take care that none of your children can say: Father and mother have not told me of it.—Much depends upon this, that every one in his circle and place bears witness against the walk of the natural character and in favor of Christian conduct.—Consider, no one is lost except through his own fault; but perhaps through yours too!—Sin binds the will, so that it is not free, and blinds or darkens the Reason, so that it is not healthy. The two faculties act and react upon each other; it is madness for a sinner to boast of a sound reason. It is a fearful truth however, thou wilt have life, enjoy the world and yet thou destroyest thyself, most certainly thy soul at least. Where God’s life and gift, peace and pure pleasure of the heart is wanting, there man wastes himself away, grasping in darkness for light, in emptiness for fulness, in apathy for life, aiming at these, and yet, at last, comfortless and unsatisfied.—Hold to Christian instruction and constantly try, whether thou art learning Christ: He is the measure of all truth.—Never forget: He is the Light; whoso is athirst, let him come to Him—and drink! You may know everything in the world, but not knowing Him, thy knowledge is nothing; you may know nothing of the world, knowing Him, trusting in Him, thy knowledge is rich.—The toil of self-denial and denial of the world cannot be spared you; but begin in the centre, in thyself, thy will and heart. What avails external alteration: that is by no means growing better. One must not be ever setting the tools and the plough in order; draw furrows through the field of thy heart and sow good seed therein, thus wilt thou reach the harvest and the harvest home. The sun makes the Spring and rejuvenates the earth, not single sunbeams, however, but the sun itself ever mounting higher, ever working longer. So Christ, who renews thee. Look how Peter with his sanguine temper became the rock-man, became constant, and John with his choleric disposition (Mark 3:17; Luke 9:54) was renewed into the Apostle of energetic love. Starke:—The natural knowledge of God is not the right one, and is far from sufficing for salvation, 1 Corinthians 1:21.—The origin of all our sins is the “vanity of the mind” and the darkened understanding. We do not understand what the true good is, nor how we can attain to it. If we are to be helped, we must be helped in these respects, else a hardening results, and we become at last “without feeling.”—All, even the best, in man is corrupted by nature, accordingly nothing is to be expected from his own strength.—Mark, man, the stripes of thy conscience, they are a favor from God; despise them not, lest thy heart be gradually led by the deceit of sin into obduracy.—He who does not live devoutly has not rightly learned or heard Christ.—In Christ Jesus is the truth, not a doctrine merely, but a righteous life, and this truth consists in a putting off of the old man and a putting on of the new.—He who rightly knows Christ, must, to honor Him, live holily.—It is a sheer impossibility to be a Christian and to be willing to continue walking in heathenish lusts.—Through a long habit of sinning, the understanding at length becomes so darkened, the conscience so insensible, the will so stubborn, that the man no longer perceives the danger of his sinful condition, has no more conscience about sin, and no desire to desist from sin.—Where sin began, there repentance must begin. Rieger:—The understanding would otherwise be a pre-eminent ornament of man, but it too has suffered much from the inroads of sin.—A proper character begins in us with the knowledge and confession of the might of sin, how it has clung to us from the time of our birth and extended itself as an old man over all our powers and members. Heubner:—Where the will is corrupt, the understanding is darkened; blindness is the result of hardening.—Heathenism is life without God, Christianity life from God.—The Christian must ever begin anew and at the same time afresh. Daily repentance is needed, if we know the weakness, impurity, inconstancy of our hearts.—We will be ever seeing remnants of the old man appearing and returning here and there, and then a putting off of the old and putting on the new man is at once necessary again, and a purging process must be begun as in the case of sick people.—There is no more certain sign of an unspiritual mind, than the question: What then is so bad in me? Am I then so entirely unlike the image of God? Passavant:—The history of the heathen of all ages and countries is a history of such vanity of mind, and of vanities; and all this vain character and action is renewed, re-decked and increased in the history of the character and doings of the heathen now-a-day, of the unbelieving and God-forsaken in Christendom. In the latter case the guilt is indeed greater, the injury deeper and the vanity worse.—This story of the origin of all heathen character and action, and of all idolatry in the world, repeats itself in every heart, which permits itself to be led through lustfulness and vanity of the mind away from the only true God into unbelief, disobedience and ingratitude. The will becomes perverted and evil, seducing in its turn the understanding and all the senses of man; and the mind, when it has once become false and vain, seduces in turn the impure heart, which has forsaken truth and faith; and here, in this impurity is the damnable ground and beginning of all ignorance and obduracy. That which is most exalted in us, which shall inherit immortality, our most beautiful, thinking, poetizing, loving, that which moves our whole heart and soul, what is inmost and most intellectual, our most profound life, our “spirit” itself must be renewed within us. Stier:—The natural man in the vanity of his mind chooses what is void, empty and perishing, instead of what is Divinely real. Lust and deceit are akin.—Hearing, learning, becoming learned, are the three orderly degrees.—Man, corrupt by nature, destroys that which was created, God’s Spirit in our spirit breaks anew the first creation. Once for all in the Person of Christ is that created and prepared for us, which we are to put on. Gerlach:—The lusts paint joy for us and then bring misery, place man in opposition to his Creator, his eternal destiny, himself, making out of the whole character a lie. Ziel: The heathenish nature in our Christian congregations of to-day. From the text (Ephesians 4:17-32) we may perceive as in a mirror: 1) In what inward character of the heart (Ephesians 4:17-19), 2) in what outward form of the conduct it still manifests itself among us (Ephesians 4:25-32). Conclusion: To extirpate it by the roots, each one for himself, puts and must put it away from him. On the Epistle for the 19th Sunday after Trinity, Ephesians 4:22-28.—Langbein: How it is chiefly shown in social life, that something really new is born within us? When there is found, 1) in our mouth, instead of a lie, the truth, 2) in our heart, instead of wrath, placability, 3) in our hands, instead of unjust property, the gift of mercy. Tholuck: The virtue of Christian love of truth. 1. How does it manifest itself a) toward God, b) toward our neighbor, c) towards ourselves? 2. How do we attain to it? a) Through the consciousness of the continued presence of that eye, which sees in secret and to which a lie is an abomination, b) by taking the right standard, the Word of God. F. A. Wolf: On the proper conduct of all in authority for the promotion of fidelity and probity in their subordinates. 1. Strict love of truth. 2. Forbearing earnestness in discipline and admonition. 3. Zeal for the public good in our own place and calling. Florey:—A new man, a new life! 1) In words of truth, 2) mastery over the passions, 3) blamelessness in walk, 4) turning away from what is unjust, 5) activity in one’s calling, 6) brotherly love in the heart.—Some principles for Christian parents in the education of their children. 1. To convince them of the evil nature of their hearts. 2. To be helpful to the renewal of their mind in the Holy Ghost (Baptism, Home, School, Church). 3. To contend against their darling sins (lying, quick temper, slandering, purloining, tattling) and to help to the opposite virtues. Brandt: The new man in Christ. 1. Truthfulness his ornament. 2. His heart breathes love. 3. He allows himself to be guided by benevolence and trustfulness. 4. Faithful and honorable, is his watchword.—A rich harvest blessing is an urgent demand to put off the old man and to put on the new. Without this 1) we do not fulfil the design of God in bestowing this blessing, 2) with all our thanksgiving we cannot please God; 3) we are in danger of turning the blessing into a curse. Spitta: Believing and pious Christians should not walk as the heathen. 1. How the heathen walk. 2. Why Christians should not walk thus? 3. How they show proper earnestness in this. Genzken (Preparatory discourse): The blessed barter (after Matthew 9:16 f.). The old ragged mantle of the old man is cast away (the web of lust and error); 2. The Lord Jesus is put on (the garment of righteousness and honor). [Eadie: Ephesians 4:17. In the case of the heathen, all the efforts and operations of their spiritual nature ended in dreams and disappointment. Ephesians 4:18. Deep shadow lay upon the Gentile mind, unrelieved save by some fitful gleams which genius occasionally threw across it, and which were succeeded only by profounder darkness. A child in the lowest form of a Sunday School, will answer questions with which the greatest minds of the old heathen world grappled in vain.—There could be no light in their mind, because there was no life in their hearts, for the life in the Logos is the light of men. Ephesians 4:19. Self-abandonment to deeper sin is the Divine judicial penalty of sin.—Self was the prevailing power—the gathering in of all possible objects and enjoyments on one’s self was the absorbing occupation. This accompaniment of sensualism sprang from the same root with itself, and was but another form of its development. Ephesians 4:20. Once dark, dead, dissolute and apathetic, they had learned Christ as the light and the life—as the purifier and perfecter of His pupils. Ephesians 4:22. This deceit is not simply error. It has assumed many guises. It gives a refined name to grossness, calls sensualism gallantry, and it hails drunkenness as good cheer. It promises fame and renown to one class, wealth and power to another, and tempts a third onward by the prospect of brilliant discovery. But genuine satisfaction is never gained, for God is forgotten. Ephesians 4:24. While this spiritual creation is God’s peculiar work—for He who creates can alone recreate—this truth in Jesus has a living influence upon the heart, producing, fostering, and sustaining such rectitude and piety.—R.] [Schenkel:—The characteristic marks of heathenish disposition: 1. Darkening of the mind, where the knowledge of what is Divine is concerned; 2. Hardening of the heart, where the repression of their own evil lusts is concerned.—Lust and greed the two fundamental sins of the natural man: 1. Their internal connection; 2. Their external difference.—To learn Christ 1) the Christian’s first duty, 2) his highest wisdom.—The seal of true Christianity is the new birth; for 1) where this is wanting, all good works are but seeming, and 2) where it is present the life with good works must really he teeming.—The deceit of sin and the truth of redemption: 1. Sin corrupts man under the deceitful representations of evil lust; 2. Redemption heals man by restoring his original truth, in righteousness and holiness.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 4:17.—[The reading is doubtful: ΰ3 D.2 3 E. K. L., most cursives, Syriac, Chrysostom (Rec., Tischendorf, Meyer, Eadie, Braune), sustain λοιπά; it is wanting in ΰ.1 B. D.1 F. G., 5 cursives, Vulgate and other versions, and rejected by Lachmann, Alford, Ellicott. The external evidence against it is slightly preponderating, but internal grounds are in its favor. It was probably misunderstood, and the omission further confirmed by 1 Thessalonians 4:5.—R.] Ephesians 4:18.—[ΰ. A. B.: ἐσκοτωμένοι, which, as more rare, is preferred by most recent editors to ἐσκοτισμένοι (Rec., D. F. K. L.). The comma after “God,” is required by the view taken of the construction as a parallelism: a Being darkened in their understanding, b Being alienated from the life of God, a Because of the ignorance that is in them, b Because of the hardness of their heart. The first and third, second and fourth members correspond, the alternation being probably due to the reciprocal interaction which is also implied.—R.] Ephesians 4:21.—[This rendering is literal, see Exeg. Notes.—The aorists in Ephesians 4:20-21 are best rendered by the English past tense.—In is substituted for by, as is so often necessary.—R.] Ephesians 4:23.—[The two leading interpretations are suggested by the two readings given above. See Exeg. Notes.—Became renewed is adopted (from Ellicott) to indicate the force of the present, which here marks a continuing process.—R.] Ephesians 4:24.—[ΰ.1 gives: ὁσιότητικαὶ δικαιοσύνῃ.—The hendiadys of the E. V. here (and at the close of Eph 4:22 : “deceitful lusts”) must be guarded against.—Hath been created is preferable here to was created, for though the Greek aorist is historical, the latter rendering “tends to throw the κτίσις further back than is actually intended; the reference being to the new κτίσις in Christ” (Ellicott).—R.] [The οὖν is resumptive rather than illative, but as Alford says: “The digression is all in the course of the argument. The fervid style of St. Paul will never divide sharply into separate logical portions—each runs into and overlaps the other.” Eadie defends the connection with what immediately precedes.—R.] [If λοιπά be rejected, there is still an allusion in καί to the fact that they were once thus walking, i. e., were once Gentiles. The only point of difference is, that the fuller reading implies they are so still. “Though the Ephesians did not walk so now, their returning to such a course is made the logical hypothesis” (Alford).—R.] [So Eadie and most; Hodge however takes νοῦς as the whole soul, just as on the other hand in Romans 7:23-25, he refers it to the renewed nature, in both cases sacrificing exactness to doctrinal considerations.—R.] [This is a dative of reference, giving the sphere or element m which. On the difference between it and the accusative it may be said that the latter is more objective, denoting that the darkness extended over the mind, the former more subjective, denoting that it has its seat in the mind. The word itself is here=the understanding (Verstand).—R.] [On the etymology and meaning of πώρωσις. See Fritzche, Romans 11:7. It undoubtedly means hardness, obduracy (not blindness), used by medical writers of the “callus” at the extremity of fractured bones.—R.] [Some textual variations occur, but not sufficiently supported to raise any question. From ἀπηλπικότες (D. and others) the sense desperantes seems to have come. But it is incorrect; the semi-technical term πώρωσις suggests a continuation of the figure.—R.] [The unusual position of πάσης leads Ellicott to render: “uncleanness of every kind.”—R.] [Hodge renders: “together with covetousness,” “which is doubly objectionable. The wider sense of πλεονεξία is accepted by Eadie, Alford and Ellicott. The last named, however, properly objects to obliterating the underlying notion of covetousness and self-seeking which seems bound up in the word. Comp. Colossians 3:5, p. 64; and Trench, Syn. §24, who links it most closely with sins of lust.—R.] [Alford renders: “If, that is, it was Him that ye heard and in Him that ye were taught” following Meyer in regarding both as included in “ye learned Christ,” the first clause referring to the first reception, the second to further instruction. So Ellicott. Perhaps Alford restricts the meaning too much when he explains “heard Him,” “if ye really heard at your conversion the voice of the Shepherd Himself calling you as His sheep.”—R.] [This view properly excludes the interpretation “inasmuch,” which Dr. Hodge here, as elsewhere, attaches to καθώς.—R.] [Meyer insists that ὑμᾶς forbids the dependence on ἐδιδάχθητε, but Ellicott suggests that it marks a contrast, not with “Jesus,” but with the “Gentiles” and their own previous condition as implied in the next phrase. The infinitive has, not in itself, but from its independence, an imperative force, as in “walk” (Ephesians 4:1): “that ye must put off.” As an aorist it probably refers to the speedy and single nature of the act. The dependence on the entire preceding thought is a satisfactory solution: The substance of what you heard, were taught, when yon heard Him and were taught in Him in the correct way “as is truth in Jesus,” was “to put off,” “that you must put off,” etc.—R.] [Alford) thus indicates the train of thought: “for you were clothed with it (the old man) in your former conversation.” The phrase qualified the verb, not the substantive: “That as regards your former way of life you put off.”—R.] [The reader is referred to Romans, p. 203; comp. pp. 235–244. The opinions there advocated are expressed in Ellicott’s notes on “the old man:” “personification of oar whole sinful condition before regeneration, opposed to the καινος or νέοςἄνθρωπος (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10) and the κὰινὴ κτίσις (Galatians 6:15), or, if regarded in another point of view to the ἔσωἄνθρωπος (Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22).”—R.] [The middle form of the verb is active in meaning (Harless), so that we must insist on the passive here. Stier objects that “to be renewed” is not a proper subject of exhortation. But the Apostle is giving the substance of the teaching (Ephesians 4:21), and as Alford well remarks: “we have perpetually this seeming paradox of God’s work encouraged or checked by man’s co-operation or counter-action,” He renders: “undergo renewal.”—R.] [“Not created in the case of each individual believer, but created once for all (initio rei Christianζ, Bengel) and then individually assumed” (Ellicott). Comp. Textual Note 5.—R.] [The doctrine of the restoration to us of the Divine image in Christ, as here implied, is not to be overlooked. Mueller, Lehre von der Sόnde, ii. p. 485 ff., denies any allusion to it here, but on insufficient grounds, as indeed he himself virtually allows. Not the bare fact of Gen 1:27, but the great truth which that fact represents is alluded to. The image of God in Christ is a far more glorious thing than Adam ever had, or could have had: but still the κατ̓ εἰκοναθεοῦ ?=κατᾶ θέόν, is true of both” (Alford). Comp. Colossians, p. 68.—R.] [Whatever view may be taken of Eph 4:23, or whatever psychological distinctions may be allowable in the exegesis of the New Testament, there is nothing here or elsewhere to indicate that man has a “spirit” unsubdued by the “flesh,” unaffected by the fall. The natural state is the more awful, because the “spirit,” the higher part, the point of connection with Divine influences, is under the dominion of sin.—R.] Ephesians 4:26.—[Ye is omitted for the sake of euphony, and is inserted in Ephesians 4:25 for the same reason.—On the other changes Bee Exeg. Notes.—R.] b. Special traits of the new walkEph_4:25-3225 Wherefore putting [having put] away lying [falsehood], speak every man truth [speak ye truth each one] with his neighbor: for we are members one of another. 26Be ye angry [Be angry], and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath 27[irritation]: Neither [Nor yet] give place to the devil. 28Let him that stole [who stealeth] steal no more [longer]: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing [that] which is good, that he may have to give [impart] to him that needeth [who hath need]. 29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which [whatever] is good to the use of edifying [for the building up of the need], that it may minister [give] grace unto the hearers [to those who hear]. 30And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby [in whom] ye are [were] sealed unto the day of redemption. 31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and 32clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be [become] ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another [each other], even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven [in Christ forgave] you. AND The general basis: no lie but the truth (Ephesians 4:25); the special points as respects disposition (Ephesians 4:26-27), as respects work (Ephesians 4:28), word (Ephesians 4:29-30); comprehensive conclusion (Ephesians 4:31-32). Ephesians 4:25. The general basis. Wherefore, διό, gives the connection with what precedes (“no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk”), and, as the exhortations with their positive and negative sides show, with special reference to Ephesians 4:22-24. Hence immediately: having put away falsehood, ἀποθέμενοιτὸ ψεῦδος.—According to Psalms 116:11 (“all men are liars”); Psalms 62:10; Romans 3:4, the first duty of every natural man is to put away the lie, especially as the connection with the kingdom of darkness is thereby indicated. For the devil is the liar from the beginning, who slew man, leading him away out of the truth of life in God (John 8:44). Hence [the abstract] τὸ ψεῦδος, which is not τὸ ψεύδεσθαι, nor=lies (Luther); it is the opposite of the “truth as it is in Jesus.” Comp. 1 John 2:4; 1 John 4:20; 1 John 5:10. It does not occur then, because it is the principal spiritual sin of heathenism and has as its result a darkening of the spirit (Schenkel). This requirement is of deeper scope than to allow it to be said that even heathen ethics could designate and forbid this as sin. Speak ye truth each one with his neighbor [λαλεῖτεἀλήθειανἕκαστοςμετὰ τοὺ πλησίοναὐτοῦ ?].—This exhortation is [a reminiscence] from Zechariah 8:16 (LXX.): λαλεῖτεἀλήθειανἔκαστοςπρὸςτὸνπλησίοναὐτοῦ. The article is wanting with ἀλήθειαν, in order to mark that not the complete, entire truth is to be spoken; that cannot be done at the beginning; only let what you do say be true. Paul substitutes the preposition μετά for πρός, in order to give special prominence to the intercommunion in the speaking with each other [Stier] and to bring to mind the Christian brother, as the context requires. The reference is not to “neighbor” in the wider sense, to all men. The Apostle is treating of the Church of Christ. For we are members one of another [ὄτιἐσμὲνἀλλήλωνμέλη].—This is the motive: to be members one of another and to belie one another, how contradictory (Meyer)! Est enim monstrum, si membra inter se non consentiant imo si fraudenter inter se agant (Calvin). Christians are “members one of another,” not merely members of the body of Christ, but each has to do for the other, to give to him, as well as to receive from him and permit him to do in return. The reciprocal ἐπιχορηγία of speaking the truth (Stier) is marked. It is entirely similar to Romans 12:5-8; 1 Corinthians 12:15-27. The passage is full of significance, not inexact (Grotius, Rueckert and others), and is not to be applied to the Gentiles and the Jews, as is done even by Bengal.The Particular Points: a.) As respects the disposition: anger without sin, since in the Church so great occasion to anger especially is given to the Christian with his natural man, and the fellowship is so easily disturbed thereby, and the Christian himself corrupted; Ephesians 4:26-27. Ephesians 4:26. Be angry and sin not [ὀργίζεσθεκαὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε].—The first verb is to be taken as imperative, in this series of imperatives (Ephesians 4:25-32). This is further required by the circumstance, that it is a citation (Psalms 4:5 : ψִ ?βְ ?ζεּ εְ ?ΰַ ?μΞϊֶּ ?ηֱ ?θָ ?ΰεּ translated by the LXX. precisely as Paul here writes it): the original and the Greek version are undoubtedly imperative. The passage in the Psalms is rendered by Luther: Be angry, so that ye sin not; this passage: Be angry and sin not. The sense is evidently equivalent to ὀργιζόμενοιμὴ ἁμαρτάνετε (Winer, p. 292), which not only states the case in which they would become angry, but also expresses that the anger is allowed, aye commanded and righteous. This is only the more strongly marked by the two imperatives joined with καὶ, the second of which only is negatived (μή); accordingly Paul used this form, this citation. The original text in the Psalm, in which the main matter is the transformation of the angry quousque tandem to rest and gentleness, is correctly rendered by the LXX. (Hengstenberg, Hitzig, Stier, against Ewald, Harless and others). It can only be affirmed that Paul did not wish to prove anything by the citation (Harless); he wishes only to use the words of David, but does not use the words of the LXX. to strengthen those which they are acquainted with; it is incorrect to suppose that nothing depends on the sense of the original passage (Rueckert). The Sacred Scriptures, which speak of the wrath of God, showing us Christ in anger at the cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-16; Matthew 21:12-13), do not reject anger: James 1:19-20; Romans 12:19; Ecclesiastes 7:9. So here, for we do not read: Do not be angry and sin, the negative cannot be moved forward so as to qualify the first verb (Winer, p. 460). Hence we need not accept an unwilling permission of anger (De Wette, Winer); in that case ἀλλά would be found in place of καί. Nor is “be angry” in accordance with an assumed Hebraism to be taken conditionaliter on account of the connection with a following imperative (Rueckert, Zyro, Stud. u. Krit., 1841, p. 690), [Hodge apparently]; that would really mean: if ye are angry, ye will not sin. The limitation of “sin not” to reconciliation (Harless), to the exclusion of enmity against others (Zyro), is incorrect because not in accordance with the context. The acceptance of an interrogation (Grotius: are ye angry?) is inadmissible on account of the quotation. Let not the sun go down upon your irritation [ὁ ἤλιοςμὴ ἐπιδυέτωἐπὶ τῷ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν].—This thought is occasioned by the citation (Psalms 4:5) and the matter itself. There is also in the expression “let not the sun go down,” a reminiscence of Deu 25:13; Deuteronomy 25:15, according to which the poor man should receive his cloak, given in pledge, and wages should be paid before sundown. There is no reference to the Pythagorean precept to be reconciled before sunset; and quite as little to Christ, the Sun of Righteousness (Augustine), certainly none to the Reason (Lombard). The [non-classical and rare] word παροργισμός occurs only here; it is related to παροργίζεσθαι (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; Romans 10:19), meaning the anger aroused in us, the being or becoming angry, which should not continue, nor be carried about and nourished. Affectus noctu retentus alte insidet (Bengel). Anger thus becomes hate, rancor. What is right towards the occurrence, viz., being angry, should not when that is past, be retained against the person, who remains. The preposition παρά does not indicate something wrong (Zanchius), [Wordsworth], and the article, marking the momentary being angry, connected with ὀργίζεσθαι, is not incorrect (Stier). [Comp. Textual Note2. Alford brackets the article, suggesting that the omission gives the sense “upon any παροργισμός.” The word irritation preserves the reference to occasion given indicated by παρά, and at the same time distinguishes (in English) from the “wrath” which is forbidden in Ephesians 4:31.—R.] Ephesians 4:27. Nor yet give place to the devil [μηδὲ δίδοτετόποντῷ διαβόλῳ.]—Μηδέ is disjunctive and adds something new (Matthew 6:25); while μήτε is adjunctive, adding something which belongs to the foregoing (Matthew 5:34-36). Comp. Winer, p. 457. Besides not sinning by prolonging wrath, they should not sin by giving place to the devil. Δίδοτετόπον designates, as in Romans 12:19, affording free play, wide space, of course in the heart. But to whom? to the devil, as in Ephesians 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:26, even though it does not elsewhere occur in this sense in Paul’s writings, but more frequently describes slanderers, or a slanderous manner (1 Timothy 3:6-7; 1 Timothy 3:11; Titus 2:3). The antithesis is found in Ephesians 4:30. Hence it does not mean: the blasphemer (Luther and others) or talebearer, as many hold. Nor is the verse to be applied to social life (Harless); the context requires a reference to individuals. Sinful anger brings even the Christian’s heart into the power of Satan, from whom he was freed, destroying the fellowship with the Redeemer and His grace. Ephesians 4:28 b. As respects work: Honesty reaching to benevolence. Let him who stealeth steal no longer [ὁ κλέπτωνμηκέτικλεπτέτω].—Ὁ κλέπτων, which is neither=ὁ κλέψας, nor=ὁ κλέπτης, marks the act or the action, not the character; hence it is stronger than “him who stole,” and weaker than “the thief.” Comp. Winer, p. 331. Luther is therefore incorrect [rendering as in E. V.]; Bengel also: qui furabatur, adding however: prζsenti hic non excluso. The notion of stealing, however, must not be limited here by the definition of criminal law and police regulation, but be conceived of from the stand-point of Christian ethics, as in the case of the eighth commandment. That deportment of the natural man over against the possessions of his neighbor, which ought to be overcome, is here treated of. It is incorrect to suppose idle habitual thieves are meant (Schenkel).—In the Christian ethical sense there is added: μήκετικλεπτέτω. Hence it is unnecessary to inquire why nothing is said of restitution (Michaelis), and the opinion that this exhortation is unsuitable, because it does not correspond with the Apostle’s strictness (De Wette), is not pertinent. The Apostle’s strictness and the Christian view follow immediately: But rather let him labor, working with his hands that which is good [μᾶλλονδὲ κοπιάτωἐργαζόμενοςταῖςχερσὶντὸ ἀγαθόν. See Textual Note4..—Μᾶλλονδέ gives prominence to the antithesis. With the emphatically placed κοπιάτω Paul includes laziness and idleness as the beginning and ground of theft (Bengel: sζpe furtum et otium sunt una), and all the more decidedly by designating as the antithesis: “working with his hands that which is good.” The participle denotes the active, assiduous performance, corresponding slightly with ἐργασία, Ephesians 4:19 (Stier); it is not earning, gaining, as the object is not external possessions, or handicraft, trade (Meyer, De Wette). Bengel is excellent: Antitheton ad furtum, prius manu piceata (i.e., hands to which whatever comes near sticks as to pitch, pix) male commissum; on “with his hands” (the hands of the thief), he adds: quibus ad furtum abusus erat. Romans 6:19. The hands should now do the good, that in its proper time and place must be done; then there will not be wanting something to bestow upon the needy. That he may have to impart to him who hath need [ἴναἔχῃ μεταδιδόναιτῲ χρείανἔχοντι].—“That he may have” sets forth the purpose, not of him who labors, as if the work should be done on this account, but of the enjoining Apostle, the ruling Lord. He should have something to give (μεταδιδόναι), for “we are members one of another” (Ephesians 4:25). This should take the place of stealing. “To him who hath need,” to him from whom recompense is not to be expected. Instead of stealing there is required an honesty and activity, which impels to beneficence. Whether the question about restitution is necessary and ethical earnestness and depth are missed here—is evident enough. See Doctr. Notes.c. As respects speech: no foul word, but gracious discourse tending to edification; Ephesians 4:29-30. Ephesians 4:29. Let no corrupt communication proceed oat of your mouth [πᾶςλόγοςσαπρὸςἐκτοῦ στόματοςὑμῶνμῆ ἐκπορευέσθω].—The subject: πᾶςλόγοςσαπρός is assumed as present in the mouth of the readers while the predicate forbids: let it not proceed out; not one such should be expressed, Ephesians 5:5; John 3:16; 1 John 2:21. [Literally: “let every foul saying not come forth.”—R.] See Winer p. 162 f. Bengel: si jam in lingua sit, resorbete. Σαπρός, from αήπω, σαπῆναι, spoiled by putrefaction, corrupt, used of fishes (Matthew 13:48), of fruit (Matthew 12:33; Luke 6:43), of a tree (Matthew 7:17-18; Matthew 12:33; Luke 6:43), denotes according to the antithesis (αγαθὸςπρός) uselessness, but it is certainly chosen to designate both what is decayed, wornout, ruined, and what is disgusting and stinking; Bengel: vetustatem redolens. Comp. κενὸςλογός, Ephesians 5:6; ρῆμαἀργόν, Matthew 12:36. In these passages the emptiness and unprofitableness is more prominent, here however the loathsomeness. Theodoret: αἰσχρολογία, λοιδορία, συκοφαντία, βλασφημία, ψευδολογίακαὶ τὰ τούτοιςποίσοιμα. But whatever is good for the building up of the need.—Ἀλλὰ (sc. ἐκπορευέσθω), εἴ τιςἀγαθὸς (sc. ἐστι) πρὸςοἰκοδομὴντῆςχρείας. Over against the prohibition the acceptance of wholesome speech takes a very modest attitude; over against πᾶς we have here εἴ τις. Bengel: non postulatur ab omnibus par facundia. ̓Αγαθός, however, as in Romans 15:2, designates what is internally, morally good, not merely what is fitting (Harless), [Hodge, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott]; that would be too external. The genitive of reference has been aptly rendered by Luther: where it is needed. This refers to the time when, to the place where, to the person to whom, to the method how, and to the purport which, we are to speak. “According to Jerome it applies also juxta opportunitatem loci, temporis et personζζdificare audientes” (Stier). Colossians 4:6 : “How ye ought to answer every man.” [Ellicott also takes the genitive as one of reference; “edifying as regards the need, i.e., which satisfies the need.” Alford follows Meyer in regarding it as the regular objective genitive=“the defect to be supplied by edification,” so that the sense is “the edification of the present deficiency or need calling for it.” The hypallage of the Syriac, Beza, followed in the E. V., is clearly wrong, also qua sit opus (Erasmus and others).—R.]. It is incorrect to take ἡ χρεία=οἰ χρείανἔγοντες (Rueckert, Olshausen). That it may give grace to those who hear [ἵναδῷ χάριντοῖςἀκούουσι].—“That” refers to the design of the enjoining Apostle, not that of the obeying member of the congregation. The subject of “give grace” is “good word;” we do not then read “that ye may give.” Luther presents very well the manner, the esthetic side: “that it may be gracious;” for χάρις means also the gracefulness, agreeableness, of the discourse; just as in Colossians 4:6 : “in grace,” Luke 4:22. But the inner side, the matter, must not be overlooked, nor put in a secondary place; it must be a kindness. Harless includes this alone, but incorrectly; a befriending, agreeable act of kindness is meant, which should make this impression on the hearers: whether it profits them, is their own affair. Stier seems to be not incorrect, in finding here (δῷ) an echo of Eph 4:28 (μεταδιδόναι), and a spiritual gift in the seasoned but pleasant word spoken with unction. [Alford retains the theological meaning of χάρις: “minister spiritual benefit; be a means of conveying through you the grace of God” (so E. V.). Hodge on the other hand follows Harless, holding that the phrase always means to confer a favor; “that it may benefit the hearers.” Ellicott accepts the non-theological sense of χάρις, but adds that owing to its change of meaning in the New Testament, there seems to be even in this phrase a reference to spiritual benefit. He renders: “that it may impart a blessing.”—R.] Ephesians 4:30. And, καί, connects closely with what precedes; so much depends on proper speech.—Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, μὴ λυπεῖτεπνεῦματὸ ἄγιοντοῦ θεοῦ.—The verb forbids injuring, disturbing, rendering sorrowful, pointing thus to an intimate fellowship, in which joyous love toward and among each other should prevail, and to a tender conduct and intercourse; for it happens per sermones putres (Bengel). The object is “the Holy Spirit of God.” This full designation shows the importance of the matter and compels us to recognize the objective reality and Personality of the Holy Ghost. Shepherd of Hermas, ii. Eph 10: μὴ θλῖβετὸ πνεῦματὸ ἅγιοντὸ ἐνσοὶ κατοικοῦν, μήποτεἐντεύξηταικατὰ σοῦ καὶ ἀποστῆ ἀπὸ σοῦ. He who speaks out the foul thing which comes from his mind to his lips, injures thus the Holy Spirit in himself, and in others also. The plural means also: Ye, each one in himself, or in others too. The Holy Ghost like God is not apathetic, but capable of being affected. Romans 8:26. He feels what occurs in us, as a loving Friend, who does not Himself change, but will help us and change us, so long as we grant that He be not rejected. This is a possible final result, in spite of the close connection in which He stands to us, and in spite of the help and blessedness, which He produces in us. Both ideas are added in the relative clause which follows: In whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption, ἐνᾦ ἐσφραγίσθητεεἰςἡμέρανἀπολυτρώσεως.—The first thought is contained in the expression: “in whom ye were sealed,” in whom=in fellowship with whom, ye were sealed (Ephesians 1:13); the other is marked by “unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 1:14); hic dies est novissimus, cujus representatio quζdam est in die mortis; prζsupponit dies citeriores (Romans 2:16); in illo maxime die referet, quis inveniatur obsignatus (Bengel). Isaiah 63:10 (where the LXX. have incorrectly rendered ςִ ?φְּ ?αεּ, παρώξυναν; the Vulgate is better: (afflixerunt) should be compared, not as though this were a citation, but on account of the similar thought. Accordingly λυπεῖν is not to be pared down to a mere troubling (Bengel: turbare), nor is the human spirit to be regarded as the object (De Wette; Christian feeling), nor is the capability of being affected which belongs to God and the Holy Ghost to be rejected or regarded as a mere anthropomorphism; the reference to the possibility of being forsaken by the Holy Ghost should not be denied (Schenkel). There is both great kindness and earnestness in the warning thus formulated and emphasized: “in the case of the unredeemed sin it is a transgression of the law (Romans 4:15, etc.), in the case of the redeemed it is a wounding of the Holy Ghost” (Harless), whose tempter he is (Ephesians 2:22). Not by threatenings respecting the punishment of hell, but by holy dread of grieving the Holy Ghost, and wholesome fear of the day of Judgment, which with Him is only the day of Redemption, does the Apostle seek to persuade and strengthen.Comprehensive conclusion; Ephesians 4:31-32. a. The negative side, Ephesians 4:31; b. The positive side, Ephesians 4:32. Ephesians 4:31. Let all bitterness.—Πικρία (Hebrews 13:15; Acts 8:23; Romans 3:14) is ill-temper, animosity, unholy indignation, as πικραιύρσθαι, Colossians 3:19. Comp. ζῆλοςπικρός, James 3:14. It is entirely internal, concealed in the heart [“the prevailing temperament and frame of mind” (Ellicott).—R.].—And wrath.—θυμός is excitement, passionate movement of the temper, in selfishness, unrestrained and disorderly.—And anger.—Ὀργή is the passion concentrating itself, directed against a particular person with the purpose of hurting him. ̔Οθυμὸςγεννητικόςἐστιτῆςὁργῆς (�cumenius). According to the context carnal anger is spoken of; hence there is nothing to be inferred respecting Ephesians 4:26 from this passage. Bengel is incorrect: hactenus descendit climax; but he properly compares the first with χρηστοί, the second with εὔσπλαγχνοι, the third with γαροζόμενοι (Ephesians 4:32) as their respective antitheses. Comp. Tittmann, Syn. I, p. 131 ff. [Also Trench, Syn. § 37; Donaldson, New Cratylus, §§ 476, 477; Galatians 5:20. We now pass to the breaking out of what was within, to its becoming perceptible in look, mien and gesture: and clamor.—Κραυγή (Acts 23:9) is wild, rough crying, refers to the voice, improperly strained and sharpened, as in scolding, upbraiding, to the casting about of words uninterruptedly. It is the steed of anger (Chrysostom).—And evil speaking, βλασφημία, pointing to the purport of the speaking, is aspersion of one’s neighbor, λοιδορία (Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:4; Matthew 12:31; Matthew 15:19), yet sharper than this, not merely like “Raca “(Matthew 5:22), abusing the mental or civil capacity of a brother, but like “thou fool,” the moral capacity for God’s kingdom, and hence not without a reference to God (Stier), blaspheming possibly or probably. “All,” which belongs to all the substantives, refers to the various degrees, from the coarsest among common people to the most refined among the educated; so θυμοί, 2 Corinthians 12:20. Be put away from you.—̓Αρθήτωἀφ̓ ὐμῶν is a stronger conclusion of “putting away” (Ephesians 4:25); it must take place with power in the mighty help of One stronger than we, to whom all this clings.—With all malice.—Σὺνπάσῃ κακίᾳ, the fermentum of the bitterness (Meyer) and the rest [“the active principle to which they are all due”], refers to malice, malignitas and malitia (Romans 1:29; Colossians 3:8), both the quality and its manifestation, in order to sum up in conclusion all that cannot be enumerated. [Eadie: “This verse contains not only a catalogue, but a melancholy genealogy of bad passions; acerbity of temper exciting passion; that passion heated into indignation; that indignation throwing itself off in indecent brawling, and that brawling darkening into libel and abuse; a malicious element lying all the while at the basis of these enormities.”—R.] Ephesians 4:32. The positive side. And become ye, γίνεσθεδέ.—Thus the antithesis is strongly marked at the very start, as not finished at one stroke, but having a development, a history.—Kind one to another.—Εἰςἀλλήλους is put first, marking chiefly the fellowship. Χρηστοί (Luke 5:39; Luke 6:35; 1 Peter 2:3; Romans 2:4) helping the χρεία; ingeniosius quam verius is the reference to the name: Christians (Olshausen). Comp. Tittmann, Syn. I., 140, 195.—Tender-hearted, εὐσπλαγχςοι (like 1 Peter 3:8) refers to sympathy, fellow-feeling, hearty compassion. [Comp. Colossians, p. 69].—Forgiving each other, χαριζόμενοιἑαυτοῖς (2 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 12:13), marks the tender, considerate, forbearing, forgiving life among themselves; ἑαυτοῖς points more strongly than ἀλλήλοις to the existing unity, where one deals with another as himself (Colossians 3:13). [The former thought is from Stier, the latter from Origen, but they are not to be pressed too far.—R.] Even as God in Christ forgave you [καθὼςκαὶ ὁ θεὸςἐνΧριστᾦ ἐχαρίσατοὑμῖν],—Καθώχ is as in Ephesians 1:4 (Harless). Καί joins the readers to God, to the clause “God in Christ forgave you.” The notion is as in Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14. God’s mercy and grace is manifest in Christ, proved itself in Christ, in the death (2 Corinthians 5:19) of Him who accomplished the reconciliation of the world with God. “In Christ” belongs to the verb, the predicate, not to “God,” the subject. [Either connection presents a truth: God in Christ, manifested in Christ, forgave us, but God forgave in Christ, in giving Him to be a propitiation for our sins. The latter thought seems more appropriate with the aorist which refers to a definite past act; it is neither “hath forgiven” (E. V.), nor “will forgive,” a gloss our feeble faith puts on it.—R.] AND ETHICAL. 1. The lie is put first by the Apostle as a fundamental vice. It is the loveless misuse of language and the means for communicating the thoughts of the heart, with the design of deceiving our neighbor. It injures love, therefore one’s own heart, and one’s neighbor, it injures fellowship and truth, and thus one’s own heart again, which needs these, and our neighbor, who needs them no less. The untruth must be intentional; otherwise it is merely not true, an error, not amounting to a lie. The deception must be intentional: Drama, irony, satire, joke, conventionalities are not lies; for in these it is presupposed that our neighbor understands this language and can translate it into his own. What is conventional is the language of humanity, which should come from the heart and become natural, as in Fenelon. A lie is an act of lovelessness against our neighbor, even when not intended to injure him, perhaps only to help or assure ourselves or others, to make preposterous stories, something out of nothing, like all frivolous lies, which, however innocent they may appear, are still the school for turning frivolity into mischief. The word itself does not necessarily make the lie; it may be consummated in silence, in countenance, in gesture or act; but at all events it is an abuse of God’s gift for the manifestation of our thoughts and perceptions. Its opposite is truthfulness, love of truth, which is at the same time love to mankind. It is indeed not possible without some circumspection and restriction, since it does not consist in having the heart on the tongue, but in having the tongue in the heart. This vice is less strange among men than many others, so that even the better class of people, the pious world also, has an elastic conscience respecting this point. The conventional mode of life with its illusion and deception makes truthfulness utterly impossible, unless Christ becomes a living power in us. In lying as in stealing, a beginning is made in a little thing, and then come bolder advances, until an extreme is reached: one lie is told to conceal another, instead of forgiveness being sought, and then comes shameless, impudent untruth. If comes from the devil and leads to him; it is the devil’s own vice (John 8:44). The Scripture forbids it unconditionally, especially the Lord Himself (Matthew 12:36-37); it does not approve of the untruths of the Hebrew midwives, of Michal, Jonathan, etc., only narrating them as facts. Although lying mainly injures fellowship, yet it is not to be so connected therewith as to be considered allowable where no fellowship exists; nor is it to be so contra-distinguished from love, that a lie is not to be regarded as such, where the latter is active, even though the untruth is spoken with an intention of deceiving. The former principle applies to robbers, murderers and thieves; the latter to children, lunatics, drunkards and passionate people. In the first case it is not allowable like stratagem in war or in peril of life, and in the other truth should not become poison or poniard. Over against the sophistry: verbal truth should not stand against hearty love, the rigoristic principle, which allows no lie in an emergency, is justified. It is better inconsistently to deny in books and in the pulpit the right of untruth, and in life and in the household to practise it, than at the expense of truth to serve a false one. To speak an untruth on account of a neighbor’s necessity out of love for him is still a lie; personal need, personal interest does not first give it this character; the necessity of a neighbor gives no justification to a lie in a case of emergency. 2. Anger, which, in God, is the energy of holy love against sin and corruption disturbing and perverting moral order, is justified in the Scriptures. Affirmed of God more than three hundred times, it cannot be wrong of itself in man who is created after the image of God; it is rather a witness and basis of active love in the surroundings of an unholy world. The right to he angry is admitted and granted, but to be angry rightly however. Loveless anger is as incorrect as angerless love. Without ardent hatred towards what is wicked, there can be no lawful anger towards those who are wicked. It is difficult to separate the two; comp. Jude 23; Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15; Romans 12:9; Psalms 97:10; Amos 5:15. The Apostle here gives prominence to the pernicious element of that anger which becomes a lingering grudge, and to the danger of thus falling a prey to the devil; it corrupts man inwardly and makes him the slave of Satan; the “irreconcilable remains the unreconciled, incurring the wrath and judgment of God.” See Palmer, Moral, p. 373. 3. Property and Theft stand in the closest relation. The latter attaches not only to the lack of the former, but rather to its acquisition, preservation and expenditure. A Christian should have more than he requires for himself; there should be a surplus for others, even though he be a day-laborer. The opposite of thievishness is Industry, which leads to opulence; with this many continued and varied exercises of Christian virtue stand connected, and Benevolence, personal, private benevolence, both secret and open; this is required, not the public, municipal charity. The emphasis rests on personal benevolence, which succors and devotes itself to need, not on police alms. Honesty should proceed toward benevolence, and what hampers and weakens the latter, has the blot of dishonesty upon it. Avarice, dissipation, vanity, laziness, negligence, debauchery and idleness are theft. See Braune, Die heilig. 10 Gebote, pp. 178–189; Palmer, Moral, p. 375. [The scope of the negative precept (“steal no longer”) may be inferred from the positive statement which follows: It forbids idleness in general (“labor”) and laziness (“working”), implying also that those who are neither idle nor lazy may yet “steal,” because their work is neither “with the hands” nor for “that which is good” (speculation, sinecures, sharp business habits, etc.). Further all labor, however assiduous, proper and honest, which does not aim at a surplus to give away is not distinctively Christian. Though no one has a right to demand from capital (i.e., the accumulated surplus of labor), yet here is the responsibility of the Christian capitalist. On the other hand, the positive principle of honesty here set forth bids us labor, that we may have a capital for benevolence; so that begging, combining to extort, or even legislating in favor of idleness, is not in accordance with the Apostle’s view. Paul by his example (Acts 18:3; Acts 20:34; 2 Thessalonians 3:8), as well as by the strongest precepts (Acts 20:35; 2 Thessalonians 3:10) exalts the dignity of manual labor. To despise labor is a mark of barbarism, involving as a result either the indigence of savage freedom or the injustice of not less savage slavery. Unless the curse pronounced (Genesis 3:19) upon the man be accepted and transformed by such acceptance into a blessing, it becomes a worse misfortune. As a working man then Paul appears equally removed from the capitalist hoarding only for self and from those champions of labor who talk too much to work and who ask the same wages for the ignorant and lazy as belongs of right to skill and industry. Appealing to his hands hardened by toil, he says: “So laboring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”—R.] 4. The entire scope of speech is here in question: The essential characteristic of Christian speech, well-pleasing to God, is “good for the edifying of the need,” a furthering in accordance with the necessity of the case. This applies to the preacher and pastor, to the social circle, the popular orator, be he democratic or conservative, and to the statesman as well. To have regard to place, time and auditors, and to regulate both matter and manner accordingly: this is the conscientious scrupulousness of the Christian! The minister should spare all pious phraseology which is not to edification, and not be content with sharing and proving his Confession of Faith, without any regard to the necessities of the occasion. Magna vis est in colloquiis piis (Bengel). Much therefore depends on the fitting word; comp. Braune, Die heil. Gebote, p. 205 ff. 5. General remarks: a. Sin is universal; it attaches not to the heathen only, but to the natural, unregenerate man as a ruling power; nor is it to be found especially in one class, race or period.—b. Sin as a whole is referred to: sin of thought, word and deed; here too the coarser or finer form, the secret or open manner makes no difference.—The Apostle so sketches the substance of sin, that at first glance we are shocked, and can imagine, it exists only in numerous circles, strata and periods, in the heathen or the remarkably degraded; but if we look more closely, we find it everywhere and in all ages, often indeed under the gloss of culture and elegant manners. The appearance of sin is in the extremities, but its seat is in the very noblest organs, from which it extends through the whole body of our race, without He helps who is the Head of His Church. 6. The motives presented are: God’s mercy in Christ over us, the precious gift of the Holy Ghost in us, the thought of the day of decision before us. God’s own aim is what is morally good; to injure this is to injure Him, to obstruct, disturb and destroy His working for us and in us. God’s unchangeableness is not the impossibility of being affected; that would be imperfection, indolence (James 5:16-18). Our new birth may, like the life of one born, be again taken away, the sealing of the Holy Ghost be again taken from us. He who does not look at the goal not yet attained and still held up, does not preserve what he has received in his spirit from the Spirit of God. We can lose the grace of God, can again fall into condemnation without recovery, much as it is denied. Hebrews 6:4-6. AND . Comp. Doctr. Notes.—On Ephesians 4:22-28 (the Epistle for the 19th Sunday after Trinity) see the preceding section.—Virtue helps to cast off vice, and the casting off of vice introduces virtue, both thus acting reciprocally.—Two classes of men sin against the Apostle’s precept respecting sinless anger: those who rage and those who can never be angry. Sinful anger is a raging storm which lays waste a planting of God’s; righteous anger is a priest, who slays the sacrifice of righteousness and casts all care and anxiety from herself upon the Lord with a Hosanna. As in the Psalm (Ephesians 4:5) so here the allusion is to night, to intercourse with one’s self, to quiescence about and in us; the day of anger should be the day of reconciliation; in prayer before God let all animosity be still; let not radiant love of God set for us, with the sun in the heaven. With anger we give a lodgement to the murderer of souls, the devil; who does not slay anger, him anger slays. Hot temples are the easiest bridges for the devil into our hearts.—As room can be given to the devil, so is there also a withdrawal of the Holy Ghost,—For the commonest virtues we need what is highest of all: the kindness of God in Christ; without this there is a relapse into the heathen vices. Starke:—Truth is a lovely virtue, a glorious ornament, and sparkles brighter than the most beautiful diamond. If you have the truth, speak the truth from your heart, and walk in the truth, then are you certainly a beloved child of God.—Anger must not be taken to bed and allowed to go to sleep with us, lest it become hatred. Where anger takes the upper hand, Christ goes down with His gracious light.—The slanderer and blasphemer has the devil on his tongue, and whoever purposely listens to the slander gets him in his ears, and whoever takes delight in it, has him in his heart.—There is no dignity, no office, in which peculations are not practised by many. It is only a pity that they are so bedecked and behung with the fine show and appearance and well-adorned cloak of right. Not only are the rich bound to have compassion on the needy, but those who maintain themselves by labor, should share with those who cannot work.—See how put of the glow of sin one spark after another rises up, each greater than the last, until a great fire is made out of it. The enigmatical, mysterious, unfathomable, people, who never let their hearts be seen, do not bear this Divine stamp; it is as if they did not wish their evil tricks to be betrayed.—The Christian should never lay his head unreconciled to rest, and he has no rest, if he has injured any one, or knows himself to be at enmity with any one. Gentle rest belongs only to a heart free from passion. Examine thyself, whether any one sighs over thee. The Pythagoreans, if they had fallen out with each other in words, gave each other the hand before sundown, kissed each other, and were reconciled.—The aim of labor, of earning, should be the weal of others. The worth of labor is this, that it furnishes us the means of doing good and tasting the sweetness of doing good. The perceptible alterations, of life which must occur in the regenerate. 1. In general, in the prevailing mind, Ephesians 4:22-24. a) An entire laying off of the old evil mind, a cessation of the old lust. b) Putting on of an entirely new holy mind, of God’s likeness, like God to think and will, and daily renewed zeal in reaching after the likeness of God. 2. Specially, Ephesians 4:25-28. Through the virtues which the renewed man exhibits: a) Purity, chastity, b) Truthfulness, c) Gentleness, d) Inoffensiveness. e) Honesty and Rectitude. The great difference between Christian culture and that of the world. 1. In general, a) The world’s culture leaves the old humanity untouched, unimproved, only whitewashes it. b) Christian culture ennobles man from the foundation up, by substituting the Divine mind for selfishness. 2. Specially. a. Culture hinders only the great outbreaks of vice, Christianity makes the heart pure. b. Culture teaches to shun great lies, Christianity makes inwardly true. c. Culture makes outwardly refined, Christianity gives true gentleness, d. Culture guards against coarse injustice, but Christianity makes truly honest, even where one is not remarked.—Real improvement must begin at the bottom of the heart.—Would not the world fare better, if all became real Christians?—Christians are new men.—The speech of a Christian should always have a moral purpose. Paul describes Christian eloquence both as to its matter: it speaks what is serviceable for improvement, awakens good impulses, leaves a sting behind it in the hearts of others; and as to its manner, which is to be kind, so that love is thereby expressed and made perceptible. The Christian is no babbler, does not allow himself to become a mountebank or court-fool!—The Holy Ghost can be grieved: 1. In Himself, one frustrates His work partly in his own heart, and partly in others, which especially happens through evil speeches. 2. In others, when one grieves the pious Christians, who are full of this Spirit. Consider, whom you should respect in such persons, the Holy Ghost dwelling in them!—The Christian should not be bitter, without on this account becoming sweet. Wrath is the full outbreak of hate against others. Clamor is a token of a hasty, vehement, uncontrolled, rough spirit. Passavant:—All—liars, because all, sinners, for in every sin is falsehood, a denial of the truth, a deception upon and against ourselves and before God.—Better die than lie! says an old Church Father.—In the case of the unconverted every sin is a wrong against the holy law; in the case of the converted it is at the same time a wrong against the Holy Ghost. Gerlach:—The Holy Ghost is estranged by empty, vain babbling, but grieved by foul talk.—Stier:—To drive out every sin dwelling in the old man, the practice of the opposite virtue must be employed.—Either we slay again, or it slays us. If a man goes to bed with poison, it creeps through all his members during sleep. Anger is a murderer. Who would sleep with a murderer? To be angry is human, but to cherish it long is devilish (Heinrich Mueller). [Eadie:Ephesians 4:26. Anger is not wholly for bidden; it is an instinctive principle—a species of thorny hedge encircling our birthright. But in the indulgence of it, men are very apt to sin.—“When the curfew bell rings, let us then also quench all sparks of anger and heat of passion” (Thos. Fuller). Ephesians 4:27. Give the devil “place” but in a point, and he may speedily cover the whole platform of the soul. Ephesians 4:29. Words so spoken may fall like winged seeds upon a neglected soil. Comp. Proverbs 25:11. Ephesians 4:30. All this perverse insubordination is in utter antagonism to the essence and operations of Him who is the Spirit of truth, and inspires the love of it; who assumed, as a fitting symbol, the form of a dove, and creates meekness and forbearance; and who, as the Spirit of holiness, leads to the appreciation of all that is just in action, noble in sentiment, and healthful and edifying in speech.—It may be said to a prodigal son—grieve not your father lest he cast you off; or grieve not your mother lest you break her heart. Which of the twain is the stronger appeal? Ephesians 4:31. “Anger sets the house on fire, and all the spirits are busy upon trouble, and intend propulsion, defence, displeasure or revenge; it is a short madness, and an eternal enemy to discourse, and sober counsels, and fair conversation; it is a fever in the heart, and a calenture in the head, and a fire in the face, and a sword in the hand, and a fury all over; and therefore can never suffer a man to be in a disposition to pray” (Jeremy Taylor). Ephesians 4:32. In the exercise of Christian forgiveness his authority was their rule, and his example their model. They were to obey and also to imitate, nay, their obedience consisted in imitation.—R.] [Ephesians 4:25. The ground of Christian truthfulness and its negative and positive sides. Ephesians 4:26-27. Anger. 1) may be right; 2) is far more likely to be wrong; 3) certainly is, if it lasts long: 4) becomes worse yet by giving entrance to the devil. Ephesians 4:28. Obedience here would stop many a business, and deplete the ranks of many a profession, by increasing the number of honest laborers; but how much it would do for the weal of mankind!—Legislative charity is not Christian charity, nor the payment of taxes for the support of the poor, an essentially Christian virtue. Ephesians 4:29. The Apostle implies here: 1. That corrupt things rise very naturally to the lips, but should never be spoken; 2. That useful things are rarer.—Much speaking is likely to be evil-speaking.—Profitable conversation: 1. How rare; 2. Little sought for; 3. Selfishness the cause.—This verse would shut many a mouth in prayer-meeting, often enough in the pulpit too.—Would that it did, for is it not by unedifying words as well as evil ones, that the Spirit is grieved? Ephesians 4:31. “Evil speaking,” i.e., slander, is “blasphemy” in Greek; it stands last in this catalogue. It always breaks the sixth and ninth commands, usually the seventh, and is an offence against the third also. Ephesians 4:32. Kindness is well, compassion is better, but forgiveness is like God in Christ.—Who forgave us? God in Christ; how did He forgive us? in Christ; whom did He forgive? us in Christ.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 4:26.—[The article τῷ is omitted in ΰ.1 A. B.; rejected by Lachmann, Meyer, bracketed by Alford, but on the authority of ΰ.3 D. F. K. L., fathers, retained (as in Rec.) by most editors. The probability of its being omitted because the substantive was defined by ὑμῶν is very great.—R] Ephesians 4:27.—[Instead of μήτε (Rec., a few cursives, Chrysostom) most modern editors accept μηδέ on the authority of all our MSS. (ΰ. A. B., etc).—On the grammatical objection to the former reading, see Exeg. Notes.—Nor yet, see Ellicott’s note on the translation of 1 Thessalonians 2:3.—R.] Ephesians 4:22.—[The variations are great: 1. We have the long reading ταἵς ʼ ?ιδιαιςχερσὶντὸ ἀγαθόν (ΰ.1 A. D. E. F. G., many versions), accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. 1), Wordsworth, Eadie, Ellicott and others; the same words appearing with τὸ ἀγαθόν coming first in K. and some cursives. 2. In many authorities ἰδίαις is omitted, and there is a strong suspicion of its interpolation from 1 Corinthians 4:12. Here too there is variety in the order; ΰ.3 B. some fathers read: ταῖςχερσὶντὸ ἀγαθόν (Meyer, Alford, 4th ed.), while the order is reversed in the Rec., L., majority of cursives, many fathers (Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, eds. 2, 7). 3. We have besides two briefer readings, almost wholly conjectural, though each claims a Father in support; the one ταῖςχερσίν alone (regarding τὸ ἀγαθόν as interpolated from Galatians 6:10), the other τὸ ἀγαθόν alone.—It will be seen then that the evidence strongly sustains the position of τὸ ἀγαθόν at the end of the clause; accepting this, the only other question deserving attention is the genuineness of ἰδἰαις. The mass of authority is in its favor, but very good authorities omit it. The internal evidence seems to be against it, for it may have been inserted from 1 Corinthians 4:12, and the special force attached to it by Ellicott (see Exeg. Notes) scarcely amounts to an argument for retaining it.—Braune’s preference is rendered uncertain by an evident typographical error, but he rejects ἰδίαις.—R.] Ephesians 4:29.—[D.1 F., some fathers read πίστεως instead of χρείας; an evident correction.—Give is more literal than minister, which at the same time puts upon grace the sense of “Divine grace,” hearers too is somewhat too technical in its present use.—R.] Ephesians 4:32.—[B. and some minor authorities omit δέ (Lachmann), while οὖν is found in D.1 F. G., both readings probably due to a misapprehension of the relation between Ephesians 4:31-32.—Become is more exact than be; each other (ἑαυτοῖς) than one another.—R.] Ephesians 4:32.—[Never was the E. V. more unfortunate in its rendering of the phrase ἐνΧριστῷ.—The aorist requires here: forgave.—R.] Ephesians 4:32—[B. (according to Alford’s personal inspection, not B.2) D. E. K. L. and a number of minor authorities read ἡμῖν; accepted by Lachmann. But ΰ. A. F. and other authorities support ὑμῖν. The probability of an alteration from Ephesians 5:2 has decided most recent editors of the correctness of the second person.—R.] [Notice the frequent use of abstract nouns, almost personifications, in this chapter. Here “the vice and habit of lying” is meant, which is a chief characteristic of the “old man,” a natural and immediate result of the essential selfishness of sin. The aorist participle is preferred here (=having put away), “because the man must have once for all put off falsehood as a characteristic before he enters the habit of speaking truth” (Alford).—R.] [“The force of the exhortation does not rest on any mere ethical considerations of our obligations to society, or on any analogy that may be derived from the body (Chrysostom), but on the deeper truth that in being members of one another we are members of the body of Christ.”—Ellicott. The analogy Chrysostom draws is striking, however, and deserving of notice: “If the eye were to spy a serpent or a wild beast, will it lie to the foot?” etc.—R.] [This is perhaps the view now generally received. Both imperatives are jussive; anger is not only allowable, but commanded in certain cases, yet the Apostle forbids the joining of sin with it; in so doing the emphasis resting on the second imperative obscures the jussive force of the first one, rendering it rather assumptive: Be angry (for this must be so) and do not sin. So Eadie, Alford, Meyer, Ellicott and others.—R.] [In addition to the critical grounds for rejecting μήτε, the grammatical objection should be noted. Μήτε here would presuppose another μήτε, while μή precedes. The sequence is therefore abnormal. Meyer suggests that it might occur, if the second member were an after-thought, but it never does occur in Paul’s writings. This verse is therefore connected with the preceding, but as an affirmative sentence would be through δέ.—R.] [In two of these instances the meaning is: the devil, in the other two, without the article, it may mean slanderous (as an adjective applied to women in both cases). Meyer is probably right in affirming that the substantive διαβολος in the New Testament always means: the devil. So Hodge, Alford and Ellicott. “A name derived from the fearful nature and, so to say, office of the Evil One.”—R.] [Eadie: “Some, shocked at the idea that any connected with the Ephesian Church should be committing such a sin, have attempted to attenuate the meaning of the word.” So Jerome, Calvin, and Hodge who accepts the past sense. But such sinners may yet have been in the Church. See 1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 12:21. In the service of the Reformed Church for the ordination of Deacons, this gloss occurs: “Let him that stole (or who hath been burthensome to his neighbor),” as an admonition to those who too long depend on the charities of the Church.—R.] [Ellicott retains ἰδίαις and says: “The thievish man lives by the labors and hands of others: he is now himself to labor, and with his own hands, not at τὸ κακόν, but at τὸ ἀγαθόν.” But such an antithesis seems doubtful. The verse is better explained thus: He who steals (whether a thief or a so-called “business-man”) should stop this, and go to work, to real labor. The participial clause then adds how: let him accomplish by assiduous effort with his hands something good, instead of this past evil. The purpose of the effort follows in the next clause. The sum of the whole is: Honest manual labor. 1. Labor, 2. better with the hands than with the dishonest wits; 3. above all let it be honest as to means and good as to end.—R.] [This is evidently stated by the Apostle as “the true specific object of all Christian labor, and just to the extent that the work is done on this account, will it be itself Christian. The laborer may be unconscious of this end at times, but it is necessarily his end in labor as a Christian. The verse is worth a whole library of volumes on social science. Its precepts would make many a so-called merchant or professional man go to manual labor, while on the other hand this last clause would settle the “workman’s question” far more effectually than the whole array of socialistic theories, Agrarian appeals, trades unions and “strikes.” But Prud-homme is too often preferred to Paul.—R.] [Not by whom (whereby, E. V.), Hodge, since God is the Sealer, the Spirit the seal; comp. Ephesians 1:13.—R.] [It is precisely this thought of the Apostle, so correctly stated by Braune, which throws doubt upon the reference to the possibility of losing the seal, found here by Harless, Stier, Alford and Braune (Doctr. Note 6). But the mention of a seal is not suggestive of such a possibility, nor is “grieving the Spirit”=resisting the Spirit, the latter being predicated of unbelievers only (Acts 5:51). Besides had Paul wished to convey this idea παροξύνετε (from Isaiah 63:10, LXX.) was probably in his memory, and this would have expressed such a thought far better. Of course the caution assumes a logical possibility of falling, which is practical enough, but the appeal is to love not to fear. While the Scriptures always thus exhort men, it seems to be a species of anthropomorphism also, for the more theological and soteriological statements preclude such a possibility. Even here where the verse begins with such a caution, there is at once added a mention of the “seal” and of “the day of redemption” as the end, which suggests the doctrine of “final perseverance” rather than the opposite. Comp. Eadie and Hodge in loco.—R.] [Chrysostom adds: “Let women especially attend to this, as they on every occasion cry out and brawl. There is but one thing in which it is needful to cry aloud, and that is in teaching and preaching.”—R.] [Alford is scarcely justified in saying that “become” removes the precept too far from the present. Ellicott rightly takes the verb as implying evil elements among them, yet to be taken away; hence the appropriation of δέ. See Textual Note6.—R.] [This particle introduces an example, having at the same time an argumentative force; not=because, as Hodge renders it here also.—R.] [Lies to children are fearfully common. Surely the motive (“for we are members one of another”) in this case has unusual force. To say that such lies are necessary, is to say that it is necessary to blacken a child’s heart. In the liveliness of childish imagination they are great romancers themselves, but at the same time sensitive to an untruth told them. How can they have faith in God, when those who stand for the time being in the place of God prove unworthy of belief? What they cannot understand should be declared incomprehensible to them, not misstated. What would we think of our Heavenly Father, if He dealt otherwise with us?—R] [In the original Dr. Braune adds: “by the Methodists and Baptists,” an oversight which is singular enough; it may be accounted for by remembering that these two denominations are almost the only ones which operate among German Protestants as missionaries. The representative of the State Church (Dr. Braune is General Superintendent) naturally classes them together. On the question whether the possibility of falling from grace is here taught, see Exeg. Notes. The passage in Hebrews teaches either: no fall is possible, or: the first fall is fatal, an alternative not usually accepted by the advocates of such a possibility.—R.] c. Three points of view for the new walk(Ephesians 5:1-14.) 1) Look above thyself to follow God! (Ephesians 5:1-2.)1Be ye [Become] therefore followers [or imitators] of God, as dear [beloved] children; 2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us [also loved you], and hath given himself [gave himself up] for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour [savour of sweet smell]. AND Eph_5:1-2 a. The exhortation. Become therefore, γίνεσθεοὖν.—This connects with what precedes (Ephesians 4:32): γίνεσθεδέ, marking an inference, and at the same time an advance and a distinction, so that it is=διό (Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 2:11; Ephesians 3:3), and like διὰ τοῦτο (Ephesians 1:15), τούτουχάριν (Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 3:14), indicating a new section, as it does in Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 4:17; Ephesians 5:15. Hence these verses are not to be joined to chap. 4 (Schenkel [Hodge] and others).—Followers [or imitators] of God, μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ.—Like 1 Corinthians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 6:12; 1 Peter 3:13. An injunction on the part of the Apostle to the churches, believers, to imitate what is good; we always find γίνεσθαι, never εἶναι, in this connection; thus the becoming so is marked. Luther, [E. V.], (be), Vulgate (estote) render incorrectly. In what sense this enormous requirement is intended is clearly indicated by the context: condonando et amando; nam sequitur amati (Bengel). [Hence the word “imitators,” though a literal rendering, suggests too much, and “followers” is sufficiently correct.—R.] As beloved children [ὡςτέκναἀγαπητά].—̔Ως, “as,” denotes the reality, τέκναἀγαπητά, “beloved children,” the relation in which they are the objects of the love of God and through Christ His children. Theodoret: υἱοθεσίαςἠξῖώθητε, πατέρατὸνθεὸνὀνομάζετε, ζηλώσατετοιγαροῦντὴνσυγγένειαν. Comp. 1 John 4:12; 1 John 4:7-11; Matthew 5:48; Luke 6:36. Liberorum est, patrem moribus referre (Grotius). Ephesians 5:2. And walk in love.—Καί, “and,” is epexegetical, in order to define the point of the imitation: περιπατεῖτεἐνἀγάπη, “walk in love,” “even as God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32). ̓Ενἀγάπῃ is God’s characteristic (Ephesians 1:4-5), our aim (Ephesians 3:17-19); the former makes the latter possible. On περιπατεῖν, see Ephesians 2:2. Ephesians 5:2 b. Closer designation. As Christ also loved you [καθὼςκαὶ ὁ Χριστὸςἠγάπησενὑμᾶς. See Textual Notes.]—“In Christ” (Ephesians 4:32) is now explained. “As Christ also” binds the Christian walk to Christ and His work. Christ has loved you, in that He became man and dwelt among men, served them, being mighty in word and deed. [While “the Apostle makes no distinction between our being the objects of God’s love, and our being the objects of the love of Christ” (Hodge), it is quite as true that καί, also, marks an advance “from the love of the Father who gave His Son, to that of the Son, the Personal manifestation of that love in our humanity” (Alford). The force of the aorists should be preserved.—R.] The ὑμᾶς marks the exhortation more strongly than if the reading were ἡμᾶς, permitting the general predicate (ἠγάπησεν) to become prominent in its independent validity, over against what follows: And gave himself up for us.—Καίπαρέδωκενἑαυτόν, over against ἔδωκεν (John 3:16) denotes two things: the voluntary giving and the giving Himself up to suffering, that is, to suffering in the general sense, including the special form, death: so has He loved. To this ὑπερἡμῶν, “for us,” also points. [The phrase in itself may or may not imply substitution; Ellicott and most think the context points indisputably in this case to the sense: in our stead.—Comp. Romans (Ephesians 5:6), p. 164; also Galatians (Ephesians 2:20, and Doctr. Notes on Ephesians 3:6-14).—R.] The figure is taken from a conflict, in which, against the enemies thronging over a fallen one, a hero, full of noble courage and of love, protectingly contends; similar to this is the use of περί, which gives prominence to the being encircled by foes. This reference is found also in the closer definition which follows. An offering and a sacrifice, ποοσφορὰνκαὶ θυσίαν—According to Kliefoth [Liturg. Abhandlungen, 4 p. 27 ff.) χψְ ?αַ ?κ (corban) is the common name for all sacrifices and offerings, bloody and unbloody, while ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ (mincha) is principally used of the unbloody (προσφορά), ζֶ ?αַ ?η (zebach) for the bloody offerings (θυσία). Comp. Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 10:8, where both words occur, and Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 10:18 with Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:26, where they are used promiscuously. Still even there τοῦ αώματος is added to προσφορά, so that in accordance with the context and usus loquendi this distinction is to be maintained, and in the given order also, because He gave Himself here as a προσφορά, and became in death a θυσία, the former being the soul of the θυσίαζῶσα (Stier).—[Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, all find in the former term a more general reference to the vicarious work of Christ, and in the latter a more special reference to His death. “The great prominent idea here is the one sacrifice, which the Son of God made of Himself in His Redeeming love, in our nature—bringing it, in Himself, near to God—offering Himself as our representative Head: whether in perfect righteousness of life, or in sacrifice, properly so called, at His death” (Alford).—R.] Accordingly it is not necessary to supply είςθανατον in thought (Harless [Hodge], Schenkel and others); the context includes more. To God for a savour of sweet smell [τῷ θεῷ εἰςὀσμὴνεὐωδίας].—This is=ψֵ ?ιηַ πִ ?ιηεֹ ?ηַ μַ ?ιδεָֹ ?δ (Exodus 29:18, LXX.: τῷ κυρίῳ εἰςὀσμὴνεὐωδίας; comp. Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 3:16), where κυρίῳ in correspondence with the original text is placed last. Hence “to God,” which is inserted for the sake of clearness, is not to be joined to the verb (Meyer). The two substantives (both derived from ὄζω, ὀσμὴ denoting the smell in so far as it is inhaled, and εὐωδία its quality, Winer, p. 562, or its effect, pleasure) give prominence to the fact that God the Father is well-pleased in the self-sacrificing love of the Crucified One, in order to strengthen, through the reference to this, the exhortation, that we too can become well-pleasing to the Father only in self-devoting love. Philippians 4:18; Romans 12:1-2; 2 Corinthians 2:15. AND ETHICAL1. The principle and impulse of the Christian walk is love—love as it actually exists in God, who is Love in His character (1 John 4:8), and as it has been felt and enjoyed by us who are beloved (ἀγαπητοί), so that we can give more and more what we have received and ever receive again. Now in Christ this love has become our portion, hence it is forgiving, reconciling, peace-making; to show this in their walk is here required of Christians. 2. God is the original, Christ the express image of the Father, and the ensample of His people, the Christian the likeness and copy. As the imitation of God cannot be absolute, but is to be limited to loving, to forgiving love, so the imitation of Christ cannot be directed toward expiatory sufferings, but only to self-sacrificing love for our fellows, well-pleasing to God. 3. As we are able to walk in love only as beloved of God and as vouchsafed sonship with Him, so we can only, when reconciled to God through Christ, follow Him in filial and hence in fraternal devotion; in His grace we first can walk as well-pleasing to Him. The error of the Socinians and the Rationalists who see in Christ and His self-sacrifice a mere example and nothing more, is great and pernicious. See Exeg. and Doctr. Notes on Ephesians 2:16. As the Bible highly estimates the icarious sufferings of Christ, which are taught, not in the ὑπὲρἡμῶν, but in the θυσία and the whole Scripture (Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6), so it occurs in the entire life of human society: the child lives by the mother’s sacrifice, and he for whom no one suffers is miserable. So we too should live for others and suffer in their stead; though we cannot make atonement, we can still live and love self-sacrificingly in the strength imparted to us. AND Comp. the foregoing Doctr. Notes and Hom. Notes at the close of Eph 5:6-14. Starke:—Wilt thou become like God hereafter, and see Him as He is, then must thou in this life be holy, even as He is holy.—No one can rightly boast himself of sonship with God, who does not imitate Him.—Christ’s example is the proper mirror in which to see the true and natural form of love. Rieger:—The moral instruction of the Apostles is everywhere deduced from the marrow of the gospel, nor can it be put in practice by any one who does not stand in this gospel of peace. It is the character of love, to imitate as it may the Beloved. Heubner:—This is a powerful precept: who can satisfy its demands? We cannot become like Him, but we can strive to follow Him in holiness and love. Imitating Christ and God is the same thing.—Christ is and remains the original, but we should be copies, the more faithful, the better. Stier:—The Father gives His children but one command: Love! Gerlach:—The thank-offering Christ brought for us, that we too might now offer ourselves to God; the sin-offering, that we need not suffer the same punishment. Footnotes: Ephesians 5:2—[The better attested reading is ὑμᾶς (ΰ.1 A. B., cursives, versions and fathers). The Rec. has ἡμᾶς (ΰ.3 D. E. F. K. L., most cursives and versions); so Lachmann, Ellicott. See text note.—R.] Ephesians 5:2—[B., with some minor authorities, reads ὑμῶν instead of ἡμῶν, which is well supported. The connection with the last clause complicates the critical question however. Tischendorf, Alford and others accept: ὑμᾶς—ὑμῶν; Lachmann, Ellicott and most (Rec.): ἡμᾶς—ἡμῶν. If a uniformity in the person of the pronoun is indispensable, then the latter is preferable but Braune, with Meyer and others, still more correctly accepts the variation (“loved you and gave himself for us), which is lectio difficilior, accounts best for the various readings, and in detail is better supported by diplomatic authority.—R.] [Both Eadie and Ellicott seem disposed to regard the verses in this light, but Alford takes them as transitional, accepting the view of οὖν suggested by Stier and here upheld by Braune.—R.] [The point suggested by the adjective is obscured in the E. V.: “dear;” “as children beloved,” they should imitate God in love, see Ephesians 5:2.—R.] [Alford, Ellicott and others prefer to connect τῷ θεῷ as dat. commodi. This alters the sense very little, and is favored by the position of the words, though the Old Testament allusion strongly sustains the view of Braune, which is accepted by many commentators. The connection with the verb is out of the question.—R.] [Eadie remarks: “To warrant the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the death of Christ, it must have been something more than the natural, fitting, and graceful conclusion of a self-denied life—it must have been a violent and vicarious decease and a voluntary presentation.” See his full doctrinal note in loco. At the same time Alford is perhaps justified in terming the question, as usually discussed, an “irrelevant one here.” “It is not the death of Christ which is treated of, but the whole process of His redeeming love. His death lies in the background as one, and the chief, of the acknowledged facts of that process: but it does not give the character to what is predicated of Him.” This exegetical view does not however favor any theory of the death of Christ which denies its vicarious, propitiatory character as an atoning sacrifice.—R.] 2) Look into thyself and think of purity(Ephesians 5:3-5)3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once [even] 4named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor 5[or] jesting, [things] which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know [of this ye are sure, knowing] that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of [omit of] God. AND The exhortation; Ephesians 5:3-4. Ephesians 5:3. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness [πορνείαδὲ καὶ πᾱσαἀκαθαρσίαἢ πλεονεξία].—“But,” δέ, indicates the transition to another part of the exhortation (Meyer). Πορνεία cannot here, where Christians are addressed, be taken in the heathen sense; the Scriptural meaning (in both Old and New Testament) is the prominent one. Hence it refers not to the coarsest exhibition, but to what is within, to the heart. It comes first as something general and comprehensive; applying to act, word, disposition, as indeed the context combines temper and walk in one, to men among themselves and in relation to God. “And all uncleanness” gives prominence to one particular side of this, pointing to every form and mode of the same. “Or covetousness” marks the other side, which is to be clearly distinguished, hence the disjunctive ἤ, “or,” which indicates that πᾶσα, “all,” belongs here also. The former refers to impure, unchaste, ungodly, dalliance and contact, solitary uncleanness; the latter to greedy lusting, from a distance and ungratified. This accords with Ephesians 4:19, where both substantives are found. Let it not be even named among you, μηδὲ ὁνομαζέσθωἐνὑμῖν.—Comp. Ephesians 5:12; Psalms 16:4. Such a thing should not even be taken up in speech, much less be done. ̓Ενὑμῖν=ἐνμέαῳ ὑμῶν. The prohibition is of course to be limited: sine necessitate (Bengel). It is incorrect to explain: Such a thing should not be told of them, as 1 Corinthians 5:1 (Grotius, Bengel). As becometh saints.—Καθώς, as in Ephesians 5:2; with τρέπειἁγίοις, we should compare ἀξίως (Ephesians 4:17) and ὁαιότης (Ephesians 4:24), with which the introduction of such things into the speech is irreconcilable. [“Were the Apostle to say, Let despondency be banished, he might add, as becometh believers, or, Let enmity be suppressed, he might subjoin, as becometh the brethren; but he pointedly says in this place, “as becometh saints” (Eadie).—R.] Ephesians 5:4. Neither filthiness, αἰσχρότης.—This evidently includes more than αἰσχρολογία (Colossians 3:8). Although the antithesis (εὐχαριστία) points to shameful words (Luther), neither the context, which places αἰσχρότης beside μωρολογία nor the word itself require an exclusive reference to speech. Still less is it to be limited to lewd talk. Bengel refers it also to gestus, etc.Nor foolish talking, καὶ μωρολογία.—[Textual Note1. Should ἢ be accepted here, we should substitute or for nor, as is done in the case of the next substantive.—R.] According to the New Testament conception of μωρός, “fool” (Matthew 5:22; Psalms 14:1; Psalms 53:2), this means godless discourse; it is not merely stultiloquium, insipid talk, silly babbling (Calvin, [Hodge] Meyer, Schenkel). Luther hits the meaning with: Narrentheidinge, buffoonery, which denotes what is high-flown, pompous, in loose discourse. See Juetting: Bibl. Wφrterbuch p. 189. [Trench, Syn. § Eph 34: “The talk of fools, which is folly and sin together.”—R.] Or jesting, ἢ εὐτραπελία (from εὐ and τρέπω) means strictly urbanitas, a habit of cultivated people, not without adroitness and not without frivolity. Luther: jest. Bengel aptly says: subtilior ingenio nititur; this refers to the form, the previous term to the purport. The Vulgate is incorrect: scurrilitas. [Comp. Trench, § 34. on this word. He refers to “the profligate old man” of the Miles gloriosus (Plautus), who is exactly the εὐτράπελος, and remarkably enough an Ephesian, boasting as though such wit were an Ephesian birthright. See also Barrow’s famous sermon on wit from this text (Vol. 1, Serm. 14), an extract from which is given by Eadie in loco.—R.] Things which are not convenient, τάοὐκἀνήκοντα.—This gives prominence to the wider range, beyond the lewdness and the coarser forms. In spite of μὴ καθήκοντα (Romans 1:28) we found οὐκ here, because the negation has coalesced with the word in one conception. See Winer, p. 452. As a predicate we must borrow an absint (Bengel) from μὴ ὀνομαζέσθω. [This phrase is not to be limited to the last of the three substantives, but is “in apposition to the last two words, to both of which εὐχαριστία, as denoting oral expression yet implying inward feeling, forms a clear contrast.”—R.] But rather giving of thanks, μᾶλλονδὲ εὐχαριστία—ἀνήκει, as Bengel aptly supplies out of the preceding context, remarking: linguζ abusus opponitur sanctus et tamen Iζtus usus, Ephesians 5:18-19. Non conveniunt abusus et usus εὐτραπηλία et εὐχαριστία, concinna paronomasia; illa turbat animam (et quidem subtilis aliquando jocus et lepus tenerum gratiζ sensum, Iζdit) hζc exhilirat. As “beloved children” they have ever again to thank God. The reference is not to grace of discourse (Jerome, Calvin, and others, Stier includes this with the other), nor to pudicitia (Heinsius). Ephesians 5:5. Special motive. For this ye are sure, knowing [τοῦτογὰρἴατεγινώσκοντες].—“For” adds a ground, in order to strengthen the exhortation as a consequence therefrom. Accordingly ἔστε [ἴστε] γινώσκοντες is to be taken as an indicative [Meyer, Eadie, Alford and others], not as imperative (Vulgate, Luther, Bengel and others). The participle indicates the mode of knowing as of their own perception (Meyer), insight. Τοῦτο, “this,” placed in advance, points to what is stated afterwards, the import of which cannot be unknown to Christians. Winer (p. 333) is therefore incorrect: What is said in Ephesians 5:3-4, ye know, since ye perceive, that, etc. [This reference of τοῦτο to what follows is doubtful to say the least. It seems quite correct to refer it, as the object of ἴστε, to what precedes, γινώσκοντες being joined with ὅτι. Braune takes no notice of the correct reading, an inadvertence which probably modifies his opinion of the construction. The combination of finite verb and participle is not to be explained as Hebraistic, since the verbs are different.—R.] That no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man.—The concrete terms (πόρνος, ἀκάθαρτος, πλεονέλτης), here occurring instead of the abstract ones mentioned in Ephesians 5:3, must be taken in the same sense. [The literal sense is: “that every fornicator or (ἤ individualizes here) unclean man, or covetous man, who is an idolater, hath not inheritance.” The negation is transferred to the subject according to English usage.—R.] Who is an idolater, ὅςἐστινεἰδωλολάτρης.—This relative clause not only characterizes, but also gives a reason for the fact to be stated. On this account and because “who” is limited to the last term altogether without warrant, the clause is to be applied to “every whoremonger, unclean person, covetous man.” It is not the covetous man alone who is an idolater, having this world’s goods as his god (Matthew 6:24; 1 Timothy 6:10); Paul holds “belly” and “glory” also as “god” for the enemies of the cross (Philippians 3:19). The proof lacks aptness, if that be not attributed to the first two, which is predicated of the third, who is not an idolater more especially than the former. The clause is incorrectly referred to the “covetous man” alone (Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek); Colossians 3:5 does not prove this, still less can it be said that Paul’s self-denial, which unselfishly offered up all, led him to affirm this of covetousness alone, since he was just as free from lust and uncleanness. [In this wide reference of the relative clause Braune is sustained by Harless, Stier and others, but the more limited view is that of Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott and most. It is more natural and obvious, since all that can be urged in favor of the other view but proves that the reference may be thus wide, not that it is. And covetousness is more specially idolatry, the other sins are but more subtle forms of this. If ὅ be accepted as the correct reading, then the reference is necessarily confined to the last word. See Alford in loco.—R.] Hath any inheritance, οὖκἔχεικληρονομίαν.—See Ephesians 1:11. It is not=οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν, “shall not inherit” (Galatians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), nor κληρονομῆσαιοὐ δύνανται (1 Corinthians 15:50). It is the fact respecting the status; permanent, prevalent sin excludes from the kingdom of God, effects the repelling of the arrhabo, the Holy Ghost (Ephesians 1:13-14); “hath an inheritance” is not=inherits the kingdom, since the former marks the heirship, the latter the entrance of the heir. To accept a certain future relation viewed as present, will not suffice (Bengel). [See Winer, p. 249. “Has no inheritance,” can have none, this being a law of God’s moral government of the world (Eadie, Ellicott), an eternal verity of that kingdom (Alford).—R.] In the kingdom of Christ and God, ἐντῇ βασιλείᾳ Χριστοῦ καῖ Οεοῦ.—Βασιλεία means the kingdom, where God in Christ is the Ruler, and His people belong to Him, and hence to be distinguished from ἐκκλησία, to which the fornicator and such characters belong, without having part in the former. (See Doctr. Note 5.) Bengel is excellent: articulus simplex, summam unitatem indicans. The expression here depends on the fact that Christ’s and God’s kingdom is one (Ephesians 5:12), that Christ’s kingdom is also God’s kingdom; though this first appears at the end in glory (Revelation 9:15), the development advancing through the Church. Accordingly it is incorrect to explain it as meaning the kingdom of Christ, who is also God (Harless) [Hodge and many others] though Christ is termed God (Romans 9:5), or can be thus termed [against Meyer]. [Alford: “No distinction is to be made, Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ being in the closest union. Nor is any specification needed that the kingdom of Christ is also the kingdom of God, as would be made with the second article. This follows as a matter of course: and thus the words bear no legitimate rendering, except on the substratum of our Lord’s Divinity. But on the other hand we cannot safely say here that the same Person is intended by Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ, merely on account of the omission of the article. For 1) any introduction of such a predication regarding Christ would here be manifestly out of place, not belonging to the context: 2) θεός is so frequently and unaccountably anarthrous, that it is not safe to ground any such inference from its use here.” So Eadie, Ellicott and many others. The inferential proof of the Divinity of Christ thus afforded is well-nigh as strong as, certainly more defensible than, that resulting from the other view.—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The life of the Christian, like Christian ethics, must pursue sin in its coarsest forms and manifestations even into its most secret, refined propensities; it depends upon the substance; this is to be rejected in every form. Christian culture has a sharp eye and delicate perception for evil under its elegant appearance, and a powerful will and apt word for the refusal and overcoming of the same: it can have no pleasure in elegant forms under which wickedness conceals itself. 2. What was of validity in the morals of the Persians (Herodotus I., 138): ἄσσαδέσφιποιέεινοὐκἐξεστιταῦταοὐδὲ λέγεινἔξεστι, every Christian must accept as valid to this extent, that he says: What is more becoming to do or say, that thou shouldst not even think. A word often includes more evil in itself than an act, and a thought than a word; even if the evil thought be less mischievous than the act, because it is only a thought not an act. The sinful act of the non-christian is at all events as a rule less wicked than the Christian sinful word or temper; as the same is true of a neglected Christian child, over against one carefully trained, or of the same man, as different now and formerly, or on festival or fast day with its elevation and in the press of labor and the throng of the world. 3. The Christian’s position is dignity, which preserves the worthiness of the person in a pure life no less than in pure doctrine with tender conscientiousness. 4. Every sin stands connected with idolatry: it remains the same, whether thou makest a god of the goods of this world in covetousness, or of the lust of this world in pursuit of pleasure, or of thine own Ego in pride. Paul terms covetousness not the (ἡ) but a root (ἥζα) of all evil (1 Timothy 4:10). The same is true of the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (1 John 2:16). [Hodge is however perfectly correct in saying: “The analogy between this supreme love of riches, this service of mammon and idolatry, is more obvious and more distinctly recognized in Scripture than between idolatry and any other of the sins mentioned. It is well that this should be understood, that men should know that the most common of all sins is the most heinous in the sight of God; for idolatry, which consists in putting the creature in the place of God, is everywhere in His word denounced as the greatest of all sins in His sight. The fact that it is compatible with outward decorum, and with the respect of men, does not alter its nature. It is the permanent and controlling principle of an irreligious heart and life, turning the soul away from God. There is no cure for this destructive love of money, but using it for other than selfish purposes. Riches, therefore, must ruin their possessor, unless he employs them for the good of others and for the glory of God.”—R.] 5. The kingdom of Christ and of God is not precisely the church. The former marks the authority, the latter the people; that refers to the power, which orders, manages, governs, this to the grace which chooses, attracts, trains, guides and endows; the former has to do with powers, which are applied and with laws which are established and administered. Both however have one end: God’s glory and the creature’s salvation. The kingdom of God and Christ is wider and narrower than the church. It stretches itself over the time antecedent to the church, which should become the kingdom of God, and embraces all, who obey and permit themselves to be drawn by the will of the Ruler, God in Christ, so far as the same is known, in His laws given to His creatures in nature from the very creation, in their conscience and in the order about and above them. All moral natures of every kind, childlike, truth seeking souls belonging thereto (Matthew 8:12; Mark 12:34; John 18:36-37). To this belong all historical leadings of nations, all guidance to individuals, all the effects of power and wisdom, which prepare the way for the church. The kingdom is God’s as well as Christ’s (Matthew 13:41; John 18:36 f.). As before the church and for the church the kingdom is more extended. But at the same time it becomes less extended within the church. There it applies to those called as the people of God, to those who obey the call; those who resist, who are indifferent, who hold only externally to the church, even though they hold in high regard a moral life, as is done without the church as well, who undervalue or despise the faith of the Scriptures or the church, or rely on the latter and neglect the former,—all withdraw themselves from the “kingdom” within the church. The word is to be taken in this latter sense here (Ephesians 5:5). At the end of the world both come together: since that will be the fulness of time, when the Son of man shall appear in glory. AND . Comp. Doctr. Notes.From the wanderings of the flesh in the insubordination of its appetites and of society in loose talk, we should take occasion, not to run away and forsake the world, but to guard ourselves, and so to strive in ourselves, that God’s pardoning love is not in vain, and sanctification is not disturbed. Neither happiness, nor pleasure, nor property is the aim and task of life, but the formation of the character, of that stamp with His image received in creation and renewed in redemption. To be covetous in what is noblest, to be impure in what is most exalted, to be disorderly in what is spiritual and heavenly is an abomination of abominations. Such a condition excludes from God and God’s kingdom, in the Church, its service and government. Take heed to that, teacher and preacher. Be mindful of it always in prayer and public service. Starke:—In Christianity exact bounds are placed upon our words, far more so than is done by mere reason; Matthew 12:36. Hear this, ye buffoons! ye cannot boast yourselves of Christianity.—You betray by this too well the bottom of your yet unsanctified hearts.—Could we find a register of those whom God as a just Judge will exclude from heaven, the first place as a rule would be given to those who break the Seventh Commandment. Rieger:—The world often gives its uncleanness the name of love-affairs; but the word love in the Scriptures is far too good to be applied to any such things. Heubner:—No man has such a horror of all sins of the flesh as the Christian; his destiny, his fellowship, his Exemplar, his future inheritance, all require him to be pure.—Paul describes the Christian’s propriety in speech, distinguishing three kinds of obnoxious talk: 1. Such as offends and injures the sense of virtue, that is, impure, indecent, shameless talking; 2. Such as opposes the reason and offends the sense of truth, that is, foolish, silly, senseless, insipid talking; 3. Such as hinders religious earnestness, designed only to raise a laugh.—Every prevailing sin removes us from God. The covetous commit idolatry with their money, the lustful with their flesh. If then it be asked which is more compatible with religion, a disposition to lust or avarice, the latter seems less reconcilable. The covetous man imagines, because he perhaps restrains himself from many vices, that he is better, and covetousness as something relative is more difficult to recognize.—The kingdom of Christ is the medium and condition of the king dom of God, through Christ the kingdom of God becomes predominant. The kingdom of Christ, in so far as it is an external institution, yields to the kingdom of God. Passavant:—The Greeks loved a fine joke, seasoned and adorned with wit and grace. But under the jest and its elegant dress, an impure and low sense was often concealed.—Look, wit is a dangerous gift, and to give it play brings discomfort and pain. Stier:—The worst in front, the obscenities, double entendres; there are also obscenities of mammon, nastinesses arising from pride and worldliness, for which the Holy Ghost has the same aversion in His saints. [Eadie:—Into Christ’s kingdom the fornicator and sensualist cannot come; for, unsanctified and unprepared, they are not susceptible of its spiritual enjoyments, and are filled with antipathy to its unfleshly occupations; and specially into God’s kingdom “the covetous man, who is an idolater,” cannot come, for that God is not his God, and disowning the God of the kingdom, he is self-excluded. As his treasure is not there, so neither there could his heart find satisfaction and repose.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 5:4.—[The best established reading as respects the particles is (Rec.): καί—καί—ἤ (?Song of Solomon 2 B. D.3 K. L., most cursives and versions). ΰ1 has ἤ instead of the second και, while ἤ is found three times in A. D.1 F., fathers (Lachmann, Meyer, Braune), and in others καί throughout.—R.] Ephesians 5:4.—[ΰ. A. B., 3 cursives have: ἁ ?̓ οὐκἀνῆκεν (accepted by Lachmann, Alford. and others) instead of τάοὐκἀνήκοντα (Rec., D. F. K. L., Meyer, Ellicott, Braune and most). The latter is well supported and lectio difficilior, but neither external nor internal grounds are altogether decisive.—R.] Ver 5.—[The Rec. has ἔατε on the authority of D.3 K. L., but ΰ. A. B. D. F. G., 30 cursives, good versions support ἴατε, which is accepted by nearly all recent editors. The emendation above conforms to the correct reading.—R.] Ephesians 5:5.—[The reading ὅ is found in ΰ. B., accepted by Lachmann and Alford. The Rec. has ὅς, which has more uncial support. In F. G. the neuter occurs with εἰδωλολατρεία, which helps to account for the change to the neuter.—R.] Ephesians 5:5.—ΰ. B. and most: Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ. We find also θεοῦ καῖ Χριστοῦ, Χριστοῦ θεοῦ, and simply Χριστοῦ. The first is not only better supported, but lectio difficilior. [The second of should be omitted to indicate the close connection implied in the omission of the article before θεοῦ.—R.] [“The ἤ is not explanatory, but has its full disjunctive force, serving to distinguish πλεονεξία from more special sins of the flesh” (Ellicott). On the last noun see Ephesians 4:19. “It is greed, avarice, unconquerable love of appropriation, morbid lust of acquisition, carrying in itself a violation of almost every precept of the Decalogue” (Eadie). This original notion must not be overridden by the connection with sensual sins.—R.] [Meyer and Ellicott supply γινέσθωἐνὑμῖν; Eadie suggests that ὀνομαζέσθω still guides the construction: “Rather let thanksgiving be named—let there be vocal expression to your grateful emotions.” Stier and Alford follow Bengal.—“There is a play perhaps on the similar sound of εὐτραπελία and εὐχαριστία, which may account for the latter not finding so complete a justification in the sense as we might expect: the connection being apparently, ‘your true cheerfulness and play of fancy will be found, not in buffoonery, but in the joy of a heart overflowing with a sense of God’s mercies.’ ”—Alford.—R.] 3) Look about thyself and be independent and benevolent! (Ephesians 5:6-14.)6Let no man [no one] deceive you with vain [empty] words: for because of these 7things cometh the wrath of God upon the children [sons] of disobedience. Be not ye [Become not] therefore partakers with them. 8For ye were sometime [once ye were] darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9(For the fruit of the Spirit [light] is in all goodness and righteousness and 10, 11 truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto [well-pleasing to] the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather [even] reprove them. 12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret [For the things done in secret by them it is a shame even to speak of]. 13But all things that are [being] reproved are made manifest by the light! for whatsoever doth make manifest [everything which is made manifest] is light. 14Wherefore he saith, Awake [or Up!] thou that [who] sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. AND Eph_5:6. The transition. Let no one deceive you with empty words, μεδεὶςὐμᾶςἀπατάτωκενοῖςλόγοις.—The precept: “let no one deceive you,” is entirely general, but limited by the context to social intercourse; there being nothing to indicate a further extension. Hence “no one” is to be applied to members of the Church and the non-christians who are, or come, near them; “deceive” including unintentional as well as intentional leading astray. Accordingly the reference is not, as in Colossians 2:8, to philosophers and Jewish errorists (Grotius), nor merely to frivolous Christians (Olshausen), or to those heathen who had remained unbelieving (Meyer). The loquacious persons spoken of are false teachers with “empty words.” This phrase means discourse wanting in truth, life and spirit; hoc genus est, species tres Ephesians 5:4. (Bengel). [Alford: “Empty—not containing the kernel of truth, of which words are but the shell—words with no underlying facts.”—R.] Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:38. Bullinger: Erant apud Ephesios homines corrupti, ut hodie apud nos plurimi sunt, qui hζc salutaria Dei prζcepta cachinno excipientes obstrepunt: humanum esse, quod faciunt amatores, utile, quod f�neratores, facetum, quod jaculatores, et idcirco Deum non usque adeo graviter animadvertere in istius modi lapsus. Stier is not altogether incorrect in finding an ironical opposition in: ἀπατᾷνκενοῖς, exhorting thus: let them speak only in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14; 1 Corinthians 15:58). For because of these things, διὰ ταῦταγάρ, introduces a reason; “because of these things” pointing beyond the genus (“empty word”) to the species (Ephesians 5:4), just as in the parallel passage, Colossians 3:6 (δίἅ). [The context is decisive against the reference either to the ἀπάτη of the “empty words,” or to this and the sins mentioned in Ephesians 5:4. See Ellicott and Alford.—R.]—Cometh, ἔρχεται, marks the fact as present, like “hath not” (Ephesians 5:5); it is neither=venire solet (Erasmus), nor a general asseveration without any temporal qualification (Harless), nor does it point to the future (Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek); the punishment has already begun. See Romans 1:18. The wrath of God, ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ.—This also is not to be considered as quiescent until the final Judgment. It already comes both externally and internally as correction and punishment, upon the sons of disobedience, ἐπὶ τοὺςυἰουςτῆςἀπειθείας (Ephesians 2:2).—This designates more strongly than ἀπειθείας those who still or again oppose God and His word within the Church. [“The active and practical side of the ἀπειθῶν (John 3:36) is here brought out. The word is a valuable middle term between unbelief and disobedience, implying their identity in a manner full of the highest instruction” (Alford).—R.] Warning against association with wicked men; Ephesians 5:7-10. Ephesians 5:7. Become hot therefore, μὴ οὖνγίνεσθε.—Οὖν, “therefore,” marks the specializing of the warning and that it rests on “the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience” as its basis, while γίνεσθε, “become,” indicates that this state of things is not yet present, and at the same time the danger of its entrance and its quiet, unnoticed and unregarded development. Vulgate: Nolite effici! Bengel: Ne ira super vos veniat!Partakers with them, συνμέτοχοιαὖτῶν, i.e. with the sons of disobedience. It is inappropriate to refer αὐτῶν to vices (Schenkel), and to understand συνμέτοχοι (Ephesians 3:6) of the portion of the wicked (Koppe, Stier, who includes this also). The reference to the punishment is the foundation of the warning against companionship with them. Ephesians 5:8 presents a new reason, taken from their experience of grace, their grasp on the Lord and their task For once ye were, ἦτεγάρποτε!—That is, thanks to God, it is past! Hence ἦτε stands emphatically first; and Luther with his weiland [=to the antique “sometime” of the E. V.] aptly recalls a past condition, referring to a new life.—Darkness, σκός, abstraction pro concreto, emphasi egregia (Bengel). [They were not only living or abiding in it, but themselves actual and veritable darkness (Ellicott).—R.] But now are ye light in the Lord, νῦνδὲ φῶςἐντῷ κυρίῳ.—This, without ἔστι, is quite as emphatic and brief. “Light,” as in 1 John 1:6; John 8:12, is a comprehensive designation of the Divine life and character, both ethical and intellectual in its meaning, in contrast with darkness (Ephesians 4:18; Acts 26:18; Colossians 1:12-13; 1 Peter 2:9). These nominatives emphasize the being full, permeated by, and are stronger than ἐνσκότει (Romans 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:4), ἐνφωτί. [Comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. ii. 1, 3, p. 229, on the terms φῶς and σκότος.—Hodge weakens the sense into “enlightened,” but “light” has here an active sense, which prepares the way for the subsequent exhortation, since they were not only to walk worthy of the light but be light to others (Ephesians 5:13).—R.] The added phrase, ἐντῷ κυρίῳ, excludes the notion of having earned the present condition, marking the operation of the Lord, in order to excite thankfulness for constancy, fear of apostacy and backsliding, without the ability of helping one’s self. Walk as children of light, ὡςτέκναφωτὸςπεριπατεῖτε.—The status is marked by ὡς, “as.” What ye are (“children of light”), be in deed and truth (“walk”)! Energetically added, without any conjunction, as growing out of what precedes, as its result. Ephesians 5:9. For the fruit of the light, ὁ γὰρκαρπὸςτοῦ φωτός.—This is introduced as a ground (γάρ). The children of the light are referred to the fruit of the light, in order to excite them to a corresponding walk. This fruit consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth [ἐνπάσῃ, ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθειᾳ ?]—“Fruit” is in the singular, and yet three terms follow, as in Galatians 5:22 : “the fruit of the Spirit” is followed by nine, in order to render prominent its unity in contrast with “the works of the flesh” (Ephesians 5:19 ff.) in their sundered character, their opposition to each other. Goodness, ἀγαθωσύνη, the opposite of which is κακία, is distinguished from χρηστότης, which is mentioned in connection with it (Galatians 5:22), in this, that it refers to the depth of the disposition, χρηστότης more to the character of its manifestation; both denoting goodness however. Here are designated the character and conduct as regards possessions of every kind, which one has and knows another to stand in need of. Righteousness, δικαιοσύνη, the opposite of which is ἀδικία, respects relations and the ordering of the same, claims which can be made, and obligations, which should be fulfilled, and is just in regard to all these, taking pains that nothing, neither the least nor the most difficult, receives detriment. Truth, ἀλήθεια, the opposite of which is ψεῦδος, concerns the agreement of what is internal and external, of thought and word and deed, of goodness and righteousness, so that one is not served at the expense of the other, and harmony exists. The terms are not to be divided according to the three categories: inwardly, toward man, toward God (B-Crusius), or source, outwardly, inwardly (Schenkel). “All,” πάσῃ, denotes the extent of the manifold manifestations (Philippians 4:6 : ὅσα), it is not then=all kinds. Others explain differently, but it is generally agreed, that ἐατι or συνέστηκε should be supplied. [Comp. Winer, p. 173, against the acceptance of a Hebraism here (ἐν=Beth essentiζ, Gesenius, Lexicon, under α, C.—R.] Ephesians 5:10. Proving, δοκιμάζοντες.—Grammatically this participle may be the mode of the walking, Ephesians 5:9 being taken as a parenthesis. So Bengel, Harless, Meyer, Schenkel [Hodge, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford], and others. But the exhortation may also be regarded as concluded in Ephesians 5:8; nor does Ephesians 5:9 give in the main the impression of being a parenthesis, while the participle can be, according to Winer (p. 545), taken imperatively with ἐστε supplied, as occurs at least ten times in Romans 12:9-13. So Koppe, Stier, Bleek and others. [Such a construction is certainly allowable, where the context plainly requires it, but is not to be accepted when a simpler view is so obviously suggested as in this case.—R.] The former view is favored by the connection of “proving” and “walk,” since through the walk as a child of the light material and power for the proof grows and ripens. [On the word see Trench, Syn., II. § 24.—R.] Investigation and discrimination are required of the children of light; independently, not “tossed as waves and carried about—in the sleight of men” (Ephesians 4:14), they should prove, what is well-pleasing to the Lord, τίἐστινεὐαρετὸντῷ κυρίῳ.—“What,” τί, defines that all things, even the most refined traits and forms, are to be proved. The question is, Is it “well-pleasing to the Lord,” i.e., to Christ, who with His Word is the objective measure. [“The Christian’s whole course is a continual proving, testing of the will of God in practice: investigating not what pleases himself, but what pleases Him” (Alford).—R.] Comp. Romans 14:23; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 5:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Warning against fellowship with evil works; Ephesians 5:11-13. Ephesians 5:11. And have no fellowship, καὶ μὴ συνκοινωεῖτε.—“And” connects the imperative with the similar admonition, Ephesians 5:7, there “with them” is added, here “with the works,” the latter referring to fellowship with the works, the former with the persons The verb is a strengthened form (Philippians 4:14, Revelation 18:4), from συνκοινωνός (Romans 11:17; 1 Corinthians 9:23, Philippians 1:7; Revelation 1:9); it is a compound not usual with the Apostle, denoting however the fellowship on one side alone. Hence συν is not to be referred to the disobedient, and κοινωνεῖν to the works (Meyer). With the unfruitful works of darkness [τοῖςἔργοιςτοῖςἀκάρποιςτοῦ σκότους].—The prominent word ἔργοις, “works,” is followed by ἀ κάρποις, “unfruitful,” distinguished by the article, in contrast to: “the fruit of the light” (Ephesians 5:9). The expression is not without a certain mildness, like “empty words” (Ephesians 5:6), yet without being weak, simply denying the fruit, without positively referring to the corruption and condemnation (Ephesians 4:22; Romans 6:21; Romans 8:13; Galatians 6:8). The expressions: “dead works” (Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 9:14), “wicked works” (Colossians 1:21), are similar. The added genitive: τοῦ σκότους, “of darkness,” appends the positive element (Romans 13:12); Galatians 5:19 : τῆςσαρκός. But rather even reprove them.—Non satis abstinere est (Bengel); hence μᾶλλονδὲ καὶ, “but rather even.” Leviticus 19:17. Ἐλέγχετε requires rebuke, punishment, conviction, as in John 3:20; John 16:8 The object is not expressed; but the context supplies it: αὐτά (them, i.e. the works). The mode is determined by the context, since the evil works are to be punished: through proper conduct in word and work, verbis et factis luce dignis (Bengel). Meyer and Schenkel incorrectly apply it to oral rebuke alone, against the passages in John, from which an oral conviction and punishment cannot be deduced. Comp. John 8:9. The result: conversion, improvement, is in no way indicated, hence not to be accepted (Olshausen). [Alford, Eadie and Ellicott favor the reference to oral rebuke; certainly it seems a prominent thought, but see on the next verse. The last named author thus marks the antithesis: “Do not connive at them or pass them over unnoticed, but take aggressive measures against them; try and raise the Gentiles to your own Christian standard.” Hodge takes the verb as meaning: to convince by evidence, deducing from this statement: “The ethics as well as the theology of the Bible are founded on the principle that knowledge and holiness, ignorance and sin, are inseparable.” Hence that our duty is simply to let “the light of Divine truth shine into the darkened minds of men, and upon their evil deeds.”—R.] Ephesians 5:12. For the things done in secret by them it is a shame even to speak of.—[See Textual Note 4]. Evidently a reason (γάρ) for what was said in ver, 11 is here introduced. Bengel correctly indicates one part of it: cur indefinite loquatur Ephesians 5:11 de operibus terebrarum, quum fructum lucis Ephesians 5:9 definite descripserit,the other is at any rate, why he has expressed himself so briefly, generally, without qualification: ἐλέγχετε. It is incorrect to take γάρ=although (Koppe), or to insert “although” (Rueckert).—Τὰ γάρκρυφῆ γινόμεναὐπ̓ αὐτῶς, i. e, the children of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6), or “those doing the works of darkness” (Winer, p 134), can only be the works mentioned before, but more definitely characterized, in order to give a motive for the propriety of the requirement. Two elements now brought forward, constitute the characteristics of these works: κρυφῆ, “in secret,” the main point standing first, and γινόμενα the second. The former marks the works as those to which ever clings something unknown, unrecognized, that may not appear, but will remain in concealment, ashamed of itself however bold; the latter, which is not==ποιούμενα, marks their involuntary, habitual character, not isolated but peculiar, while ὑπό expresses the guilt of those who do them. Stier aptly compares with our passage the profound description of the “rebels against the light” (ξֹ ?ψְ ?γֵ ?ιΞΰεֹ ?γ, Job 24:13-16) and “the hidden things of darkness” (1 Corinthians 4:5; John 3:20-21); accordingly it is not to be referred exclusively to sins of debauchery, orgies [Holzhausen] and the like, although these are included; nor are we to understand only heathen sins of the most objectionable character. The works of darkness are stretched in a way that is universally and continuously valid; of such works “it is a shame even to speak” (Ephesians 5:3-4). Evidently λέγειν is not merely narration, indifferent mention, but includes disapproving, rebuking mention as well. Paul requires an ἐλεγχειν without a λέγἐιν, “without one’s taking all their dirt into his mouth” (Berlb. Bible), hence through the walk in word and work, so necessary on this account. Matthew 5:16; Philippians 2:15. [The main difficulty here is the question of connection. The views of Bengel and Koppe have been already suggested, and seem unsatisfactory. That of Braune (so Stier, Peile, Bloomfield, following Theophylact and Erasmus) depends on the meaning of ἐλέγχετε, and since this seems to include verbal reproof, the restriction here is at least improbable. Harless and others connect the verse with “have no fellowship,” but this identifies “works of darkness” and “things done in secret” almost too strongly, and as Ellicott suggests, gives undue prominence to the negative part of the command, while the phrase “but rather even,” as well as the subsequent context makes “reprove” the leading thought. Taking ἐλέγχετε in its proper sense, and accepting the connection of this verse with it by γαρ, two views present themselves: that of Alford and others.: “I mention not and you need not speak of these deeds—much less have any fellowship with them—your connection with them must be only that which the act of ἔλεγξις necessitates:” and that of Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie and others: “By all means reprove them, and there is the more need of it, for it is a shame even to speak of their secret sins.” This is preferable, and the reproof of the works of darkness can take place without speaking of the more disgusting forms.—R.] Ephesians 5:13. But all things, τὰ δὲ πάντα, denotes what is described in Ephesians 5:12. [So Meyer, Ellicott and others against Rueckert and Alford), who take the phrase as of general application.—R.]—Being reproved are made manifest by the light, ἐλεγχόμεναὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸςφανερῦται.—The light is God’s, in His Word, in our conscience, character and conduct; the Christian persons falling into the back-ground behind the “light” which works in and out from them: this must work for its own sake, the efficiency does not enter with reference to our persons. Hence ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός belongs both to ἔλεγχόμενα and φανεροῦται, as the position indicates also, since otherwise it would be repeated. In ἐλεγχόμεςα the success of the ἔλέγχετε is set forth: you do not proceed ineffectually against the works of the children of disobedience, they are rebuked, struck, could not avoid it; your light has become a punishment for them. When this takes place, they are made manifest, what is “in secret” in them, becomes plain and its scandalousness is recognized; ἐλεγχόμενα is therefore a presupposition to φανεροῦται, not an extension of the predicate, but a limitation of the subject, τὰ πάντα. The context however suggests: the reproved acts or conditions become so to the possessor: to him they are now manifest as reproved, as reproved with right, and both reproved and manifested through the light of the truth in Jesus Christ and His people. [It seems to be an unsatisfactory way out of the difficulty respecting the connection of ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός, to join it to both the participle and the verb, and Braune is probably led to adopt it by his desire to maintain the thought of a tacit reproof. To join it with the participle (De Wette and others) is open to objection, for this gives the ἔλέγχειν a specification not in accordance with Ephesians 5:12, while, equally with Braune’s view, it makes φῶς entirely too ethical, it being properly metaphorical in both clauses. The connection with the verb is more natural, “by the light” receiving emphasis from the order in the Greek. So Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie and most recent commentators. The participle is a predication of manner or time (“being reproved,” or “when reproved”) joined to the subject. See note at the close of the verse.—R.] For everything which is made manifest is light.—Πᾶντὸ φανερούμενον, following φανεροῦται, is passive (Winer, p. 242); all, that is illuminated, made manifest, φῶςὲστιν, itself gives light, has the nature and efficiency of light. This very general proposition is limited by the character of the subject (Bengel: sermo de homme ipso, Ephesians 5:14), to the persons who permit themselves to be reproved, who must permit themselves to be enlightened, in order to become manifest, shined upon and illuminated, and finally to become themselves light. Bengel: Antanaclasis; nam φανεροῦται est passivum; φανερούμενον medium, quod manifestari non refugit. With Stier we may find here a recalling of: “once ye were darkness, now are ye light” (Ephesians 5:8), in order that in thankfulness and mildness towards those in the same condition in which they formerly were, they may apply the reproving and manifesting walk. Because what is shined upon, illuminated, itself shines, walk then so, that ye shame, reprove, convince those who are busy with the works of darkness, bringing them to the light; thus ye will best help them, as ye yourselves have been helped. The first part of this verse indicates the immediate result, the second the end of the ἐλεγχθῆναι or ἐλέγχειν. Bengel: Simul hinc patet facilitas (Stier: because without speaking, hence without special knowledge of him who is to be reproved), justitia (Stier: because to the darkness the judging light is of right due), salubritas (Stier: because these can thus become light themselves) elenchi.—There is here no reference to the Gnostic light-theory of the Valentinians (Baur), since these on the contrary wrested and distorted this passage after A. D. 150. Quite as untenable and inapt are those explanations which take φανερούμενον as active and πᾶν as the object—accusative (Grotius), or apply the ἐλέγχειν only to oral rebuke (Meyer, Schenkel and others), or regard the neuter as masculine merely (Storr and others). [The view of Meyer is on the whole most satisfactory: “But all things (all those secret sins), when they are reproved, when that ἐλέηχετε has been effected on them, are made manifest by the light, by the light of Christian truth, which is efficient in your reproving, are brought to light as to their true moral quality, unveiled and made clear to the moral consciousness; by the light, I say, they are made manifest, for—in order to prove by a general proposition, that this cannot take place except by the light—all that which is made manifest, that is brought out of its concealment and brought to light in its true character, is light, has thus ceased to have the nature of darkness and is now of the character of light. The basis of this proof is the syllogism: “Quod est in effectu (φῶςἐστι), id debet in causa (ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός).” This is equally simple and grammatical. It avoids the common mistake of referring the words too definitely. Commentators have run into much perplexity by not accepting occasional general propositions; comp. Galatians 3:20. Eadie, following Calvin and others, still maintains an active or middle sense, objecting to the passive that light does not always exercise this transforming influence. But this objection holds only against a too strictly ethical sense of φῶς, to which Olshausen, Stier, Hodge (and Braune) incline. Objectively taken, it is universally true: everything shone upon is light.” “Whether this tends to condemnation or otherwise, depends on the nature of the case, and the inward operation of the outwardly illuminating influence” (Alford, Ellicott). See the last named for a clear statement, and comp. Harless, Eadie, but especially Meyer in loco.—R.] The conclusion; Ephesians 5:14. Ephesians 5:14. Wherefore he saith [διὸ λέγει; Braune: It is said: comp. Ephesians 4:8.—R.]—“Wherefore” refers to what precedes, and in accordance with the purport of the citation, to all that is said of the walk in the light, not merely to Ephesians 5:13 (Schenkel), but to Ephesians 5:8; Ephesians 5:11 also, in order to render the exhortation more complete and forcible through a citation. Hence λέγει is as in Ephesians 4:8. This quotation of the Apostle is not to be weakened, because no corresponding passage is found in the Old Testament, neither Isaiah 60:12 (Calvin and most) nor Isaiah 26:19 (Beza and others) nor Isaiah 52:1-2, or Isaiah 9:1; it is not supposed that he cited a saying given directly to him (Jerome) or an apocryphal passage (Morus and others). Certainly we should not accept a lapsus memoriζ, as though he wished to quote from canonical Scripture and happened on an apocryphal passage that could not be authenticated (Meyer, who compares 1 Corinthians 2:9), and quite as little a combination of the passage from Isaiah (Schenkel, who refers to Romans 9:33; Romans 11:8; Romans 11:26). Least of all is λέγει=φησί, they said, it is said (Bornemann). The most probable explanation is, that it is a quotation from a Christian hymn that had grown out of Isa 10:1-2. This is confirmed by Ephesians 5:18-19, as well as by the significance of church hymns beside the Scripture. So Theodoret with reference to 1 Corinthians 14:26; Severianus in Tischendorf (ed. 7, vol. ii. p. 457). Bengel: Simul videtur in mente habuisse formulam, quζ in festo buccinarum adhiberi solita fuerat. Et fortasse illo anni tempore scripsit hanc epistolam. 1 Corinthians 5:7. Bleek in loco and Stud. und Krit. 1853, p. 331. Stier and others: A word of God is introduced as speaking to the Christian. [There is one insuperable objection to these views of Braune, Stier, Bengel, Bornemann, as well as to those of Rhenferd (one of our Lord’s unrecorded sayings), Wesley (the general tenor of Scripture), Barnes (who sees no reason for accepting a quotation at all), and that is Paul’s use of λέγει, his formula of citation from the Old Testament; especially in conjunction with διό. If we accept a Christian hymn based on the passage in Isaiah the difficulty is not removed, but the way opened for the multiplication of difficulties. If God speaks, (as Braune implies) through a paraphrase in the form of a Christian hymn, much more does he speak, when His Apostle interprets or applies His written word. The best solution is that of Alford:“In the first place, by the introduction of ὁ Χριστός, it is manifestly a paraphrase, not an exact citation. The Apostle cites, and had a perfect right to cite, the language of prophecy: and that he is here doing so, the bare word ‘Christ’ shows us beyond dispute. I insist upon this, that it may be plainly shown to be no shift in a difficulty, no hypothesis among hypotheses—but the necessary inference from the form of the citation. This being so—of what passage of the Old Testament is this a paraphrase? I answer of Isa 60:1-2. There, the Church is set forth as being in a state of darkness and of death (comp. Ephesians 59:10), and is exhorted to awake, and become light, for that her light is come, and the glory of Jehovah has arisen upon her. Where need we go further for that of which we are in search?”—The view of Ellicott is similar: “St. Paul, speaking under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is expressing in a condensed and summary form the spiritual meaning of the passage.” He thinks the prophet’s immediate words supply in substance the first part of the quotation, while the latter part is the spiritual application of the remainder of the verse, and of the general tenor of the prophecy. Alford’s view is safe, and rests on the Lord’s own saying: “Search the Scriptures, they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).—R.] Up! thou who sleepest, ἔγειρεὁ καθεύδων.—[The word ἔγειρε is not the active for the middle but is the common form of rousing (Fritzsche).—R.]—This can be addressed only to the Christian (Romans 13:11-12), who at God’s call opens his eyes; the Lord has come to him, awakened him, so that he, awake and alive, looks about him. [It is more correct to regard this as addressed to those who are not yet Christians, but about to become so through the effectual call of God.—This is perhaps Braune’s view, see Doctr. Note 3.—R.] The beginning of knowledge is thus denoted. Still there is yet a struggle with sleep; the eyes close again; the light of day dazzles.—And arise from the dead, καὶ ἀνάσταἐκτῶννεκρῶν, is the advance to rising from the couch, standing up and preparing for work. Ἀναστῆναιἐπὶ ἔργονἐγερθῆναιἐξὕπνου. The sleeper is inactive, as one who is dead.—The promise incites: and Christ shall shine upon thee, καὶ ἐπιφαύσεισοιὁ Χριστός.—The figure is that of the morning, when day breaks and man meets the sun and daylight. Christ is the light, makes the day that shines upon and enlightens us, in order that we may become light for others, as the context requires. On the forms ἀναστα and ἐπιφαύσει see Winer, pp. 76, 85. [The question of the connection of this verse deserves some further attention. Braune apparently follows Stier, who thinks the quotation is introduced to exhort: “Become light, that ye may be able to convict others,” which accords with his view of silent reproof. But this seems to be stepping aside from the more obvious sense. Hodge takes it as a confirmation of the assertion of the preceding verse: everything made manifest is light. This is true, but scarcely a sufficient reason for its introduction. Meyer paraphrases διό thus: Because the reproof is so necessary, as I have indicated in Ephesians 5:12, and so wholesome in its effects as shown in Ephesians 5:13, therefore, etc., and then says that the call of God confirms the necessity of the reproof, and the promise: “Christ shall shine upon thee,” supports the wholesome influence of the light, under which the reproof places them. This seems preferable. So that the purpose of the Apostle is to show by a paraphrase from the Scriptures that the effect of the light is such, and that therefore Christians should reprove in order that others may become light through the illumination here promised. In general what is made manifest is light (Ephesians 5:15), but Christ’s shining makes new light in a spiritual sense. Let your light shine, so as to reprove, in the hope that Christ will shine on the convicted heart. This seems to be the view of Alford, and is approached by Erasmus and Rueckert.—R.] What Jerome says is interesting: scio me audisse quendam de hoc loco in ecclesiam disputantem—testimonium hoc, inquit, ad Adam dicitur in loco calvariζ sepultum, ubi crucifixus est dominus,—illo ergo tempore quo crucifixus dominus super ejus pendebat sepulchrum, hζc prophetia completa est: surge, Adam, qui dormis et exsurge a mortuis et non ut legimus ἐπιφαύσεισοιΧριστός, i.e., orietur tibi Christus, sed ἐπιφαύσει, i.e., contingent to Christus, quia videlicet tactu sanguinis ipsius et corporis dependentis vivificetur atque consurgat. AND ETHICAL1. One of the weightiest points in the formation of the Christian life is the conversation and intercourse with others, the social life. Here foresight and circumspection are necessary. Sociality is a gift and has a task, and both of these are twofold: Every one has both for himself and others. For himself, that he does not suffer detriment through the idle, flat, empty, useless character of the same. There may enter a somnolence of the awakened Christian impulse and life, of moral endeavor, of zeal in sanctification, through dissipation, gossipping, amusement and jesting, or excitement of carnal zeal, dainty, proud and high-flown character, onesidedness and injustice in opinion and conduct. For others, that he promotes their advancement, and in the interchange of sentiment and experience elevates, confirms, clarifies, rectifies, and complements them. Do not enter into more intimate intercourse with him, who cannot and will not be to you what you ought to be to him, or guard against his influence over you, taking heed if you cannot alter him, that you do not at all events conform him in his character. You should not withdraw yourself from others, but so act that you are not withdrawn from God, who has drawn you to Himself. What He has given you hold fast, so that no one deprives you of it. Do not let what He has planted in you be rooted up by the words of others. Let the fruit of His light ripen, and do not allow it to be eaten up by the worms of the world’s culture. 2. Consider the two in connection: proving what is God’s will, and reproving your neighbor. The former comes first, the latter is second. The former requires care in intercourse with God through His word, personal growth in His grace and knowledge, intimacy with Him, walking in His light, as His child. The latter, on the other hand, that you become for your neighbor a conscience outside of and beside him, as your own conscience has borne witness to yourself, or that like Sarah you speak silently in your conduct (1 Peter 3:1); very little depends on words, at least on many of them, only on apt ones, without scolding; be free and frank, true in love and lovely in truth (Ephesians 4:15). He who is not yet your brother, may and ought to become so; but you should no longer be to him what you were before Christ won you: a companion in his evil works and words. 3. In the concluding verse the grace of God is rendered strongly prominent, but in such a way as to indicate that it is in vain, if man’s own act is not also present and he does not lift himself up by applying the power brought nigh and proffered him, his own strength increasing with the use of the power from on high which he appropriates. If he when awakened does not open his eyes and wake up, if when called he does not get up from his couch, he does not reach Christ’s light or the walk in the day; this however takes place only in consequence of the initiative of Divine and imparted power.4. Finally it may be said, that as Paul immediately afterwards speaks of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19), so he here places on an equality with canonical Scripture the Christian hymn which grows out of God’s word. Hence the importance of church hymnology. By this too we must test every hymn and hymn-book, that nothing apocryphal or heretical throws what is Scriptural into the back-ground, but that the truly Christian element of the hymn animates, furthers and subserves the Scriptures in the congregation, in the public service and in the household. [While compelled to object to the premise here laid down for the reason stated in the additional Exeg. Notes on Ephesians 5:14, we may well approve of the influence, which is valid on other grounds than the supposed citation of a Christian hymn. See further Doctr. Notes on the next section.—R.] AND Comp. the Doctr. Notes.You should not fly from men, yet you should not become their admiring slave, nor esteem yourself less than God has esteemed you, nor forsake His truth to accept human errors. Society has her assemblies generally in the evening; how much is there spoken in the artificial life of crowded halls resounding with human voices, with spirit and wit (but generally without this), confidently and with the approval of the mass. But as you go home in the quiet night, under the twinkling light of the stars or the shining of the moon, test what you have heard: Can you still highly estimate it? Have you not oftenest felt its emptiness with inward sadness? You have often thought, I would have got more by staying at home and chatting with my wife and children or with some friend! How then if you test it by God’s word, by Christ’s life? Prove all thereby!—Let no one say to you: You must believe without examining. But do not let any say of you, that you do so.—The world may ask: what is useful? what is admirable? what is lovely? what is customary? do you only ask: what is right and well-pleasing to the Lord?—Harless very properly says: Punishment is light! But Stier is quite as correct in saying; Light is punishment!—It is good to be convinced by the light, whether it breaks forth from the walk and word of a friend or a foe. To change one’s way on account of the light is well, but when it comes from an opponent, then to do so is deserving of praise. It really amounts to nothing to accept a rebuke out of fear or gratitude, or any spirit of calculation: it is however a special gift of God, when one receives and is affected by the primitive element of the light, altogether irrespective of the man who bears the light, be he dear, influential, powerful or not. For only thus does the recipient become himself light.—Cherish a spirit of independence not merely against others for the truth, but also for others against falsehood; it is the latter that especially needs nurture.—Christ will enlighten thee here, but glorify thee hereafter, if indeed you are really an enlightened Christian and not merely a man shone upon!Starke:—It is an old trick of Satan’s to patch up the worst vices with the form of virtue and give them a free pass in the world under a false name. Craftiness is termed prudence, extravagance generosity, vindictiveness high-spiritedness, arrogance neatness, lechery politeness, avarice economy, etc.—True Christians are not credulous, silly and unreasonable people, but lights in the Lord, on the contrary the godless are such, 1 Thessalonians 5:5.—Where goodness, righteousness and truth cannot be met with, the Spirit of God certainly does not dwell.—Love and goodness must not go so far as to make justice and truth suffer: when these virtues, united together, kiss each other, all goes right. Christian reproof is one of the most excellent obligations of love; from its omission the lack of love and fidelity may certainly be perceived.—As much wickedness is done by the godless in secret, never coming to light; so on the other hand much good is done by the pious, that might be mentioned with praise, yet is concealed out of humility. For them it suffices that God and their own hearts know of it. Rieger:—One of the greatest vexations, and at the same time a correct judgment, respecting the world is, that she has so many people who talk to please her and adorn her filthiness. But all these vain words will not cover her from the wrath of God. Goodness is the imitator of God in His love, by means of which we avoid anger, hatred, tumult, blasphemy, avarice. Righteousness prevents stealing, the unmerciful shutting of the hand against the needy, and avarice which like a weight of lead sinks one into darkness. Truth shuns lies, shameful words and buffooneries, foul talk, vain and seductive discourse.Thus Christian prudence is attained, which never seeks to go as far as it can without sin, but after the manner of well-behaved children, is ever concerned to meet God’s approval. Heubner:—With vain words, i.e., deceiving talk, as though these vices belonged to things indifferent. This evil, perverted moral sense begets unbelief of morally strict Christianity and thus brings down God’s wrath.—The Christian is an interested participant and yet separate and peculiar.—On the Epistle for the third Sunday in Lent; Ephesians 5:1-9. The Divine walk of the Christian. 1. Description. a) In general: Imitation of God, Ephesians 5:1; b) in particular: holy love (Ephesians 5:2) and pure, spotless life (Ephesians 5:3-4). 2. Its necessity. a. For our own salvation; for without such walk we have no part in the kingdom of God and of Christ (Ephesians 5:5); b) for the salvation of others: for only such a walk can reprove the evil, corrupt principles of the world, and make out of unbelievers, children of wrath, believers, children of grace. What would the world be without Enochs? (Ephesians 5:6). 3. Means. a) Separate yourself from the company of the ungodly, leave the path of sinners, else you cannot walk godly (Ephesians 5:7). b) Accept the light of grace, that your darkness may be enlightened (Ephesians 5:8). c) Use the light however as you receive it, beginning with God’s help to exercise your spiritual strength.—The imitation of God, to which the Christian is obligated. 1. In what it consists: a) In accepting the temper, which makes us like to Him as children to a Father (Ephesians 5:1); b) especially in love and holiness (Ephesians 5:2-4). 2. What makes this our duty: a) Our Christian calling, which should distinguish us from idolaters (Ephesians 5:5); b) our happiness, our freedom from the wrath of God (Ephesians 5:6). 3. What strengthens us thereto: a) Holding to the Church and accepting the light of the Word (Ephesians 5:7-8); b) seeking the Spirit of God.—The spirit of Christian investigation is nothing else than Christian conscientiousness, with this rule: what pleases God? What pleases man is a matter of indifference.—The Christian is in duty bound to speak earnestly and decidedly against evil; he dare not be silent, where he ought to speak, still less approve with the men-pleasing spirit of the worldly wise.—The ground of this earnestness and reproof is the shamefulness of the world’s vices.—What is made manifest through rebuke—is generally brought out of the darkness, in which shameless vice conceals itself, and placed in the light, so that it is thus evident to all as wicked. This is indeed the main matter.—All that is made manifest through reproof, so that the man is really made conscious of his sins,—is thereby overcome. This is the only path by which the Divine light rises within man in the place of darkness.—One must be roused, shaken, in order to be brought to consciousness. Out of the sleep of sin, in which he is not aware of the evil, he must be awakened, in order then to see what is in him. Passavant:—It is indeed an unhappy thing to be a companion of sinners, in follies and vices, in which one becomes a means of annoyance, corruption and distress to another, only to be companion in his shame and pain, hereafter in the despair of the Judgment Day. Stier:—Words awaken lust, lust bears sin, this is the irresistible and dangerous course of deceit, against the first appearance of which in words we cannot too carefully guard ourselves.—Where there is unbelief, there is also the wrath of God!—Have nothing in common with them, for you are unwilling to have this wrath in common with them!—Not reproving is equivalent to having fellowship.—Darkness can become light only by means of a shining light, and the walk in the light is of itself able to judge and transform the darkness.—Let yourself be enlightened, that you may live, and become alive that the light may ever more fully shine on you! Genzken (Preparatory Discourse): Jesus my consolation (Ephesians 5:2), my love (Ephesians 5:1-2), my Shield (Ephesians 5:3-7) and great Reward (Ephesians 5:8-9). On the Epistle for the third Sunday in Lent (Ephesians 5:1-9):—Kapff:—What belongs to the walk in the light? 1. Fellowship with God in Christ; 2. Laying off all ungodly doings; 3. Living according to God’s good pleasure (justification, repentance, sanctification).—Rautenberg: That is real love, which goes even unto death for the brethren. 1) It covers a multitude of sins; 2) is the fulfilment of the law; 3) is well-pleasing to God; 4) brings blessedness.—How important are the sufferings of Christ for our sanctification! The Holy Ghost works in us through them 1) powerful, sacred shame, 2) pure, self-sacrificing love.—The sacrifice of Christ a sweet-smelling savor to God—on account of the love 1) which brought it; 2) which makes room for it; 3) which is awakened by it.—Thym: The eternal love, 1) in its archetype, 2) its express image, 3) its copy. [Hodge: Ephesians 5:6. It is not only among the heathen, but among the mass of men in all ages and nations, a common thing to extenuate the particular sins to which the Apostle here refers. It is urged that they have their origin in the very constitution of our nature; that they are not malignant; that they may co-exist with amiable tempers; and that they are not hurtful to others; that no one is the worse for them, if no one knows them, etc. Paul cautions his readers in every age of the Church not to be deceived by such vain words. Ephesians 5:10. Christ is here recognized as the Lord of the conscience, whose will is to us the ultimate standard of right and wrong. It is thus that the sacred writers show that Christ was their God—not merely the God of their theology, but of their religion. Ephesians 5:13. According to the Apostle, the relation between truth and holiness is analogous to that between light and vision. Light cannot create the eye, or give to a blind eye the power of vision; but it is essential to its exercise. Wherever it penetrates it dissipates darkness, and brings every thing to view, and causes it to produce its appropriate effect. So truth cannot regenerate, or impart the principle of spiritual life; but it is essential to all holy exercises; and wherever the truth penetrates, it dissipates the clouds of error, and brings every thing to view, so that when spiritually discerned it produces its proper effect on the soul. Ephesians 5:14. The light which Christ sheds around Him has power to awake the sleeping dead.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 5:7.—[Here as so frequently in compounds with συν in Paul’s Epistles, συνμέτοχοι is better supported than the usual and more euphonic συμμέτοχοι. (Rec). The former is found in ΰ. A. B.1 D.1 F. G., accepted by Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott and many recent editors.—R.] Ephesians 5:9.—[The reading of the Rec.: πνεύματος, is supported by D.3 K. L., most cursives and some fathers, but is how generally rejected as a gloss from Galatians 5:22, φωνός being sustained by ΰ. A. B. D.1 F., good cursives, Syriac and other Versions, Latin fathers.—The parenthesis is to be retained, see Exeg: Notes.—R.] Ephesians 5:11.—[Συνκοινωεῖτε (ΰ. A. B.1 D.1 F. G. L., Tischendorf, Ellicott).—R.] Ephesians 5:12.—The E. V. has unnecessarily transposed the order in this verse. A literal rendering would be: “For the things which in secret come to pass by them it is shameful to speak of.”—R.] Ephesians 5:13.—[These alterations are required by the views expressed in the Exeg. Notes, and may be accepted as indicating in general the opinions of recent commentators.—R.] Ephesians 5:14.—The Rec. reads ἔγειραι (Lachmann], which has no uncial support. Ἔγειρε is accepted by nearly all recent editors and commentators, since it occurs in ΰ. A. B. D. F. K. L., and other authorities.—R.] [“The Apostle generally condemns all apologists for vice, whoever they might be. They would of course be most commonly found among the heathen, and to them the passage most naturally points. The palliation or tacit toleration of vice, especially sensuality, was one of the most fearful and repulsive features of heathenism; see specifically Tholuck, Influence of heathenism, Part iv. 2.”—Ellicott. Comp. the citation from Whitby and Gauthy in Eadie. The “vain words” were publicly spoken then, now they come in more concealed form, but the same lies are uttered still on the same subject and with like result, immediate and ultimate.—R.] [The force of γίνεσθε is not to be explained away, Alford indeed strongly objects to it here as unnecessary and unsuitable, but he seems to entertain a prejudice against it. A German from his familiarity with the distinction between Sein and Werden in his own language is usually delicate in his perception of the same distinction in other languages.—R.] [See Textual Note1 for the authority in favor of thus spelling the word.—R.] [This order seems to bring out the emphasis best. Comp. Harless and Ellicott in justification of the omission of μέν here (against Rueckert).—R.] [The absence of the, article with φωτός is regarded by Alford as significant: “here it is light, as light, which is spoken of.” Ellicott however thinks the omission is due to the principle of correlation: “if the governing noun is without the article, the governed will be equally so.”—R.] [Meyer properly observes that these three words present the whole of Christian morality under its three aspects, the good, the right, the true. It may be added that this verbal triad, presenting the one fruit of the light is less sentimental, but more substantial than the hackneyed cluster of words: the true, the beautiful, the good. “The right” too often gives way to “the beautiful,” so called.—R.] [De Wette’s rendering: “take no part in,” would require a genitive after the verb; the other is more literal, and is now accepted by Eadie, who at first followed De Wette.—R.] [Comp. especially Galatians 5:19; Galatians 5:22, where there is a similar contrast, on which Jerome remarks: vitia in semetipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes frugibus pullulant et redundant.—R.] [So �cumenius, Baumgarten, Matthies, but the Apostle was not apt to pause thus in his rebuke of sin; comp. Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Timothy 1:9-10.—R.] [Alford explains: “Seeing that everything that is made manifest becomes light—is shone upon by the detecting light of Christ—objectively—it only remains that the man should be shone upon inwardly by the same Christ revealed in his awakened heart. We have then in Scripture an exhortation to that effect.”—R.] [The German has an obvious typographical error. It reads Johanneischen Stellen, passages from John. Schenkel really defends the view, “that the Apostle has freely combined several Scriptural passages in accordance with their sense and from memory,” suggesting Isaiah 52:1; Isaiah 26:19; Isaiah 60:1. This view is favored though not definitely adopted by Hodge and Eadie. Undoubtedly, the Apostle combines passages (Romans 9:33; Romans 11:8; Romans 11:26), but not so loosely. We may defend either a quotation according to the sense, or a literal combination, not both, especially in connection with the notion of free quotation from memory. Paul interpreted the Scriptures, whose words he well knew; a lapsus memoriζ was scarcely possible in his case as a man, much less as an inspired man.—R.] [Eadie compares the command of Eph 5:14 to “that given by our Lord to the man with the withered hand—‘Stretch it forth.’ The man might have objected and said, ‘Could I obey thee in this, I would not have troubled thee. Why mock me with my infirmity, and bid me do the very thing I cannot?’ But the man did not so perplex himself; and Christ, in exciting the desire to obey, imparted the power to obey.” If every man would understand the philosophy of waking up before he gets up, what a world of sleepers we would have!—R.] d. Exhortation to a pure walk, with careful consideration of the Christian position(Ephesians 5:15-21)15See then that [how] ye walk circumspectly [strictly], not as fools [unwise men], but as wise, 16Redeeming the time [Buying up the opportunity], because the days are evil. 17Wherefore be ye not unwise [on this account do not become senseless], but understanding what the will of the Lord Isaiah 18 And be not drunk [made drunk] with wine, wherein is excess [or dissoluteness]; but be filled with [in] the Spirit; 19Speaking to yourselves [one another] in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20Giving thanks always for all things unto [to] God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God [Christ]. AND The exhortation; Ephesians 5:15-16. Ephesians 5:15. See then [or take heed].—Βλέπετε with ἵνα (1 Corinthians 16:10; 2 John 1:8), with the accusative (Philippians 3:2; Colossians 4:17), here as in 1 Corinthians 3:10 with πῶς. Sollicitudo etiam modum spectat (Bengel). They are enjoined to take heed, and because (οὖν) as the comprehensive quotation (Ephesians 5:14) says, they are awake, have arisen, been enlightened by Christ, to a walk such as has been spoken of (ver.Ephesians 1 : “beloved children,” Ephesians 5:3 : “as becometh saints,” Ephesians 5:8 : “as children of the light”). Calvin is therefore too limited: Si aliorum discutere tenebras fideles debent fulgure suo, quanto minus cζcutire debent in proprio vitζ instituto; Meyer limits it also to Ephesians 5:10-11.How ye walk strictly [πῶςἀκριβῶςπεριπατεῖτε].—According to the context πῶς is to be confined precisely to the ἀκριβῶς exacte ad voluntatem divinam (Luther’s rendering: vorsichtlich [so E. V.: circumspectly] is not sufficient); marking with the indicative that it is not first to be considered how this shall be taken hold of, but that it already exists in its best feature, the walk being an actual fact (Winer, p. 282). [Alford: “Take heed not only that your walk be exact, strict, but also of what sort that strictness is—not only that you have a rule and keep to it, but that that rule be the best one.” The indicative is not used for the subjunctive or the future; comp. Ellicott in loco and Fritzschiorum Opuscula, pp. 208 f, note.—R.] Not as unwise men, but as wise [μὴ ὡςἄσοφοιἁλλ̓ ὡςσοφοί].—“As,” marking as in Ephesians 1:8 the actual condition, and not comparative [Vulgate: quasi, is apt), designates the subject referred to in “take heed,” “walk,” as “wise.” Hence “not as unwise” (Bengel: qui prζter propter viam ambulant), which is placed first for emphasis, denotes a subjective notion, which is inadmissible and unexpected as regards Christians. Winer, pp. 442, 567. Paul means Christians, in their walk, as indeed σοφός points to practice, walk, in works and evidences corresponding to the aim (Ephesians 1:8; James 3:13), and not philosophers (Grotius), whom he ironically terms ἀσόφους. Ephesians 5:16. Buying up the opportunity, ἐξαγοραζόμενοιτὸνκαιρόν—This describes the “wise” in their walk. The phrase (Colossians 4:5) recalls Daniel 2:8 (LXX.: οἶδαἐγὼ ὅτικαιρὸνὑμεῖςἐξαγοράζετε). Nebuchadnezzar says to the Chaldeans, his servants, plainly, that they only want to gain time. Here however sapienta et ἀκρίβεια prζcipitur, non ignavia (Bengel). In distinction from the passage in Daniel, the article and the middle form are to be noticed. The right point of time, the appropriate time is the object of the ἐξαγοράζειν, the middle denotes that it is to be done for themselves, while the preposition ἐξ designates the complete entire character of the verb. Christians then should not allow τὸνκαιρόν, to escape them, should seize the opportunity (χαιρός), though it costs them something in self-denial, after they have properly looked at it, like a skilful merchant, and then redeeming it out of the possession of sin, of slothfulness and pleasure, of the flesh and of darkness, should make it their own and use it for Christian walk. The time is then not to be taken as it is, nor is Luther correct: “adapt yourselves to the time.” Nor is it, to wait prudently and to temporize (Bengel), or merely, to use for the ἐλέγχειν (Flatt, Harless). [In regard to this phrase, we may accept as established: 1. That καιρόν means opportunity, not time, hence that the E. V. conveys a wrong impression. 2. That all special references to those from whom the purchase is made (bad men, Bengel; the devil, Calvin), or to the price paid (all things, Chrysostom and others), are irrelevant and unwarranted. The participle is one of manner, the ἐξ is referred by Ellicott and Alford to the collecting out of, the buying up, “calling your times of good out of a land where there are few such flowers.” The exact sense then is: improve the opportunities which occur, looking out for them as a merchant, because the days are evil, and opportunities are rare; not as is often supposed: Be diligent in the use of time, because the days are few. The reference to Genesis 47:9 will not justify this twisting of the next clause.—R.] Because the days are evil, ὄτιαἱ ἡμέραιπονηραίεἰσιν—See Genesis 47:9; 2 Timothy 3:1. The days, the present period of life, the αἰὼνοὖτος, in which sin has her glory (Olshausen), are therefore “evil” on account of sin, creating hindrances and temptations, leading even to apostasy; hence not simply full of difficulties, unfavorable circumstances (Rueckert). Ephesians 5:17. The first point of view as respects the wise: the will of God. On this account, διὰ τοῦτο, refers to Ephesians 5:15-16, not merely as [Oecumenius, Rueckert, De Wette, Olshausen] Bleek and others think, to the reason (“the days are evil”) appended to the designation of the “wise.” Become not senseless but understanding, μὴ γίνεσθηἄφρονες, ἀλλὰ συνιέντες.—This can be said to those who are wise. For ἄφρον is qui mente non recte utitur (Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 143), and is joined with νήπιος in Romans 2:20. They should not become this; they are not yet so, since they are “wise.” [This is to be maintained against Alford, who as usual objects to rendering γίεσθε, become.—R.] The antithesis (“but”) is συνιέντες, “understanding” they should become discerning, and that is more than γινώσκοντες. A definite object is treated of, which in every case must be clear to the “wise,” but which can however easily remain not understood: What the will of the Lord is, τίτὸ θέληματοῦ κυρίου, i.e., of Christ.—Non solum universo, sed certo Ioco, tempore, etc. (Bengel). This will reaching to what is least and most peculiar, is the object of the insight of the wise; the further he advances, the less is any thing to him merely permissible; everything becomes for him a precept and will from above. Acts 21:15. Ephesians 5:18. The second point of view: Their own person, its inspiration. And be not made drunk with wine, καὶ μὴ μεθύακεσθεοἴνῳ.—”And” adds a second point to the first; it is not then=in particular (Meyer), as though it introduced a single vice, for which there is no occasion given by the context, since no general pleasure has been spoken of, the species of which could be named.—[The view of Meyer is accepted by most recent English and American commentators. The objection of Braune is not valid, it would seem; for the thought of pleasure does not enter in this clause either. The general notion is “not senseless, but understanding,” and the special and emphatic subordinate thought is “not being drunk,” a connection which is obvious enough. The state of drunkenness is viewed not as a sensual pleasure, but as a “senseless” condition. Comp. Hodge.—R.] The precept, after the reference to the will of God and from its position in antithesis to what follows, contains in the special a reference to the general as is allowed and required by the Scriptural view. Luke 1:15; Luke 21:34; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; 2 Timothy 4:5; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8. So “the wine of the wrath “(Revelation 14:8; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 19:15). The next clause points the same way.Wherein is excess, ἐνᾧ ἐστὶνἀσωτία.—Ἐνᾧ refers to the μεθύσκεσθεοἴνῳ; in this there inheres as on a ground the fact (ἐστίν), which at the same time breaks out as a consequence. Ἀσωτία, the character of an ἅσωτος (ἄσωτος from σόω, σώζω), “past redemption” (Titus 1:6; 1 Peter 4:4), in which one’s own character is corrupted (φθείρεσθαι, Ephesians 4:22). Tittmann, Syn. Ι. p. 152 f. [Comp. Trench, § XVI. The N. T. sense: dissoluteness, profligacy, seems to have arisen from the more common meaning of ἄσωτος: one who does not know how to save, i.e., a spendthrift.—R.] Hence Luther is incorrect in rendering it merely: unordentlich Wesen. Jerome incorrectly limits it to lascivious excesses; Koppe, De Wette and others to excess at the Agapζ, which are not suggested as in 1 Corinthians 11:21; Meyer and [most] others to the vice of drunkenness. But be filled in the Spirit [ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθεἐνπνεύματι].—The antithesis is strongly marked (ἀλλά) and is to be found in πληροῦσθε, which stands first, as did μεθύσκεσθε, not in οἴνῳ and πνεύματι. [Hodge (with others) overlooks this in remarking: “To the Christian, therefore, the source of strength and joy is not wine, but the blessed Spirit of God.”—R.] The imperative: Be filled! is not to be taken merely as καταλλάγητετῷ θεῷ (2 Corinthians 5:20), because it can be refused (Acts 7:51) as well as requested (Luke 11:13), but because Christians in the strength of God have to be faithful and to show zeal, in order to increase and become complete; much then depends on themselves. This is an entirely different becoming full from being “drunk with wine.” The qualification: ἐνπνεύματι, and not πνεύματι, is not an antithesis to οἴνῳ), but designates in and upon what the becoming full takes place, not in flesh and blood, but in the spirit of man, his better part. It is not instrumental, which cannot be established by Ephesians 1:24; Philippians 4:19, as Meyer supposes, nor does it refer to the Holy Spirit (most expositors down to Bleek) or to our spirit and God’s Spirit. That we should be filled with the Holy Ghost is indicated by the context, but not by ἐνπνεύματι. [The instrumental sense of ἐν, if accepted, must not exclude the more usual meaning: “with and in the Spirit” (Eadie, Ellicott). Here also, as in Ephesians 4:23, the exact sense of πνεύματι, in view of the preposition chosen, is neither the human spirit (Braune), nor the Personal Holy Spirit, but the human spirit as acted upon by the Holy Spirit (Alford and others). Comp. Romans, p. 235.—R.] Flacius: prζclara ebrietas, quζ, sobrietatem mentis operator! Comp. Psalms 36:8-10; Acts 2:15-18. Closer definition of becoming full in spirit [or the Spirit]; Ephesians 5:19-21. a. Social Song; Ephesians 5:19 a. b. Singing in private; Ephesians 5:19 b. c. Continual thankfulness; Ephesians 5:20. d. Proper conduct in one’s position; Ephesians 5:21. Ephesians 5:19 a. Speaking to one another, λαλοῦντεςἑαυτοῖς.—The participle denotes the most immediate expression of this being filled in spirit by the Holy Spirit, and this result as an exercise re-acts as a means for furthering the fulness. Spiritus facit fideles Disertos (Bengel). Ἑαυτοῖς, as in Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:16, is=ἀλλήλοις. In intercourse, in social circles, they return, in every case, to this point of speaking as is here described. [The reference to both social intercourse and public assemblies is now usually accepted. The reciprocal action on their hearts rather than the antiphonal method with their lips, is implied in the reflexive pronoun.—R.] It is not then=meditantes vobiscum (Morus). The double sense: from inward impulse, with one another (Stier), is inadmissible, as well as the limitation to public assemblies for worship (Olshausen). In psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, ψαλμοῖςκαὶ ὕμνοιςκαὶ ᾠδαῖςπνευματικῖς.—Luther is incorrect: by Psalms. Since ψαλμός is something historical (Luke 20:42; Luke 24:44; Acts 1:20; Acts 13:33), the word should here retain the meaning of Old Testament Psalms, which were well-known and had been accepted in the public service (Apost. Constitutions, II. 57, Ephesians 5 : τοὺςτοῦ Δαβὶδψαλλέτωϋμνους); ὕμνος is a song of praise, according to the context (Ephesians 5:19 : “to the Lord”) and to history (Pliny in Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, Ι. 1, p. Eph 136: Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem), to Christ, hence more strictly Christian hymns, songs of Jesus; ὠδαὶ πνευματικαί are spiritual songs in general, productions of the Holy Ghost in the department of poetry as regards form, out of the Christian life as regards substance, distinguished from hymns as the spiritual song is distinguished from a song for the Church and congregation, by being more general as regards matter and intended more for individual needs and private use. Stier hits it very nearly with his threefold distinction: Scriptural, congregational, private. It is improper to take the first as applicable to Jewish Christians, the second to Gentile Christians, and the third as referring to an expression understood by every one alike (Harless) or the last as the genus, the first as a hymn with musical accompaniment, the other as a song of praise, improvised, when it is true that out of the head as well as out of the heart only that which is known can be used, or that the heaping of terms is due to the lively and urgent discourse (Meyer and others), since he is not speaking of the day of Pentecost or of the gift of tongues (Acts 2:4; Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6; 1 Corinthians 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:26) but of the orderly and regular course of things in the church; nor should all distinctions be rejected (Rueckert). “Spiritual” belongs to the undefined “songs,” not to “psalms and hymns” (Stier), which are confessedly productions of the Holy Ghost; the word means precisely this however, and not merely that Christian thoughts and feelings find expression therein (Baumgarten-Crusius). Evidently the Apostle marks that Christians should interweave such into their conversation, often passing in joyous mood into united song, not however that such only should be recited, uninterruptedly said or sung. Ephesians 5:19 b. Singing in private. Singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.—Joined as a co-ordinate clause without a connecting particle. The participle ᾅδοντεςκαὶ ψὰλλοντες designate what is related, singing, the former in melody, the latter in recitative; the added phrase (ἐντῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν) however marks something different, that is done alone and inwardly. [So Harless, Meyer, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott and others. Hodge favors what was once the common view: that the clause is subordinate, defining the mode or moral quality of the preceding one. But Harless has shown that such a view is incompatible with the presence of ὑμῶν, and few grammatical commentators have since differed from him.—R.] Here the social song re-echoes, here also is its ground and source. This is even stronger: not merely when excited in the company of others, to become joyously full of the Spirit, but to be that when alone also in disposition and desire “to the Lord” (τῷ κυρίῳ). Acts 2:47; James 5:13. Ephesians 5:20. Continual thankfulness. Giving thanks always for all things, εὐ χαριστοῦντεςπάντοτεὑπὲρπάντων —Thus by the side of the joy is described that circumspect sobriety and thoughtfulness, which at all times and in all things sees and feels God’s gracious hand, not merely singing, in public and private, in order to ask, but giving thanks uninterruptedly through the whole life. This is no popular, hyperbolical expression (Meyer); it is an established injunction of the Apostle (Ephesians 6:18; Colossians 3:17; Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:19; Romans 12:12). Sufferings are included also (Chrysostom and others). [Hodge follows Meyer, in needlessly limiting πάντα to blessedness.—R.] It is indeed so difficult, that it is possible only for him who has God in Christ. Hence: To God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [ἐνὀνόματιτοῦ κυρίουἡμῶν̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί].—“In the name” designates the manifested, known and acknowledged Person (“of our Lord Jesus Christ”), in whom, that is: in fellowship with whom the situation in question is experienced: giving thanks (Colossians 3:17), asking (John 14:13), commanding (2 Thessalonians 3:6), being baptized (Acts 10:48), reproached (1 Peter 4:14), saved (Acts 4:12). We either bear or experience what He permits to be laid upon us or occur to us, or we act in His service, in longing after Him, or in the consciousness of His mediation (per quem omnia nobis contingunt, Bengel); it is=ἐνΧριστῷ (Ephesians 3:21); similar to διὰ Χριστοῦ (Romans 7:25). Without Him we would have no living God, whom we thanked, least of all in Him the Father. The article (τῷ) points to the God known to us, and the phrase “God and the Father” indicates that the same God is a Father for us, our God and Father. It is incorrect to refer πατρί to Christ (Harless, Meyer). [On this august title, comp. Ephesians 1:3; Galatians 1:4; it seems perfectly proper to accept a reference of a general character: the Father, our Father and the Father of our Lord, without limiting it to either or here emphasizing either.—R.] Ephesians 5:21. Proper conduct in one’s position. Submitting yourselves one to another.—Ὑποτασσόμενοι, a co-ordinating participle [not to be taken as an imperative, Calvin and others.—R.], refers to the position, also a gift and ordinance of God, in which one should be considerate and contented as regards superiors and inferiors (ἀλλήλοις), in piety, as well as in charity, in service in each direction, but: in the fear of Christ, ἐνφόβῳ Χριστοῦ ?—According to 2 Corinthians 5:11 (“the fear [not “terror,” E. V.] of the Lord”) and 1 Corinthians 10:22 (“Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He?”), this means fear before Him, as the present Lord, the Head, marking the tender awe of the conscientious, the humble and zealous imitation, not the fear before the Judge (Harless, Meyer and others). [Hodge connects this verse with what follows, a view which is very convenient, but not grammatically admissible, though Ephesians 5:22 ff. do carry out the thought in detail. He says his view is generally accepted, but the view of Braune is held by Knapp, Tischendorf, Rueckert, Harless, Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, in fact by every recent commentator, who gives due place to grammatical considerations, Olshausen excepted. The connection is difficult however. Ellicott finds here named a comprehensive moral duty in regard to man (after the three duties in regard to God) the exact connecting link being “thanking God for all things (for sorrows as well, submitting yourselves to Him, yea) submitting yourselves one to another.” Alford thinks the thought is suggested by Ephesians 5:18 : “that as we are otherwise to be filled, otherwise to sing and rejoice, so also we are otherwise to behave—not blustering nor letting our voices rise in selfish vaunting, as such men do—but subject to one another,” etc. So Eadie.—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The Christian mode of life is precisely wisdom, which has first of all as a pre-supposition the possession of the truth, and is essentially the appropriation and acquisition of truth, or the capacity and readiness, clearly perceiving the truth in every case, position and event, to use it in life, by which use it is not squandered, but increased for the possessor. It is truth becoming or already made practical. It is not a knowing much, but a unity of the knowledge of the truth, a unity referred to the kingdom of God, and hence the doing of the truth; Christian morality is true wisdom, it is of a thoroughly ethical nature, although it never renounces its intellectual character. It is the common bond of truth, love, freedom and rectitude. It takes notice of all, world and nature, the heart itself and men about it, sorrow and joy, circumstances and events, rights and duties, the past and future and present, and above all, what concerns the soul, God’s word and counsel, and the course of His kingdom. It learns experience in all and gains a certain tact, which grows in clearness and confidence, so that it readily knows, what it ought to do and why, while at the same time it is willing and able to do it. Accordingly correct life and correct doctrine meet together in wisdom. Prudence is a natural gift; a child, an unsanctified man, may be prudent. It is only formal, mainly without regard to a definite object; you may be prudent in temporal, even in shameful things, as well as in Divine, eternal things; in the latter you ought to be or become so. Prudence is circumspection, insight, intelligence, discrimination, appreciation and estimation; wisdom applies it to what concerns God and the soul, to the department of practical ethics. 2. A principal trait of wisdom and Christian morality is the improvement of the time, in which it considers and effects what is eternal. Every moment of time is of value to it to be used for the eternal: it perceives the transitoriness of time, but hastens the more to use it as an opportunity, to improve it for eternity. Like a merchant, it makes traffic in time to gain in eternity. Every year, every greater or smaller portion of time, is viewed and treated with reference to the God-appointed duties, so that time appears as measured out eternity. Wisdom fears to destroy time, avoids mere pastime, is unwilling merely to enjoy time, regarding it rather as a season, given of God’s eternal grace, in which the power of body and soul bestowed by God, operates for the glory of His name and the soul’s own salvation, so that from this no complaint or accusation arises.—Precisely the evil days, which continue as long as sin has power, it views as the set time and urgent occasion to wholesome improvement. 3. The two main points of view for wisdom are: Understanding of the Divine Will and active circumspection of spirit. The first is the everywhere valid and objectively given foundation of the Divine will, with which nothing that will be moral, Christian, wise, dare enter into opposition. All culture which lacks an intimate, lively regard for the will of God, is without wisdom also, hence foolish, despite all knowledge and clever character. The other however is sobriety. Stier:—“Not only every passion, every merely sensuous pleasure, every dissipation leaving the heart unguarded and lost in the creature, every waste of time called pastime, even the most dutiful, sober ‘business,’ if it entirely absorbs, has in it something intoxicating; before all however is it the fanaticism of opinion, of error, which the devil will present to us in the most various mixtures, often under the most enticing appearance, out of the great intoxicating cup of the spirit of the age, ‘of the power of the air’ (Revelation 17).” Or one might present a gradation from the common intoxication with wine or brandy, to the “most spirited” form of a “lay-breviary.” [The particular precept must not be overlooked in the general application. Eadie well remarks: “There is in the vice of intemperance that kind of dissoluteness which brooks no restraint, which defies all efforts to reform it, and which sinks lower and lower into hopeless and helpless ruin. There are few vices out of which there is less hope of recovery—its haunts are so numerous and its hold is so tremendous.” Especially when the craving opens the door to covetousness on the part of the dealer and manufacturer, so that the victim is poisoned as well as besotted. No wonder that such a tremendous evil has driven most philanthropists and Christians to the advocacy of forcible measures for its prevention. Still the remedy is not law, but gospel. And “the freedom of the gospel” should never become a yoke of bondage. The two apparently contradictory principles to be reconciled in Christian practice, are (Colossians 2:16): “Let no man judge you in eating or in drinking,” and (Romans 14:21): “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine,” etc.—R.] 4. As a help to sobriety the Apostle sets forth first, the use in common of Christian hymns, which should be used, though not exclusively, in public service. In this the Psalms, as Scriptural songs, with their parallelisms, probably gave rise to antiphonal singing between minister and congregation, the songs of praise (“hymns”), as ecclesiastical songs to hypophonal singing, in which the congregation repeated the last line of the stanza sung by the choir, and the spiritual songs, as Christians, to symphonal singing. The Holy Ghost, who presides in the Church, wrought beyond the word of Scripture, made art in word and tone serviceable to the Church, exercising His power in connection with public service and even in social intercourse. So then beside the use in common there must also be a solitary digging into such poetical treasures and a private application of them. Further, every gift should be constantly esteemed, recognized and used accordingly. Finally however in humility every relation of subordination ordained by God is to be regarded and maintained unimpaired; social institutions are God’s institutions. [In regard to singing in public worship and social intercourse, Ephesians 5:19 plainly shows that other than the Old Testament Psalms were and may still be sung. There is no warrant in the word of God for the exclusion of all hymns composed since the canon of Scripture was closed. Such a view owes its origin to causes quite as much political as religious, and perhaps always more national and local than logical or theological. Still it must be said that this extreme is fostered by a proper antagonism to what is now admitted into the public and especially the social services of Christians. It were better to sing nothing else than the Psalms than to encourage the introduction into congregations of hymn-books, born, not of spiritual feeling, but of pecuniary greed. Especially is it unfortunate that the children in our Sunday Schools are taught bad taste in music, bad morals and worse doctrine by what they sing. The full effect of this mistake has not yet appeared. Comp. Colossians, p. 72.—“Christ is the centre of sacred art as well as of theology and religion. From Him music has drawn its highest inspiration. The hymns of Jesus are the Holy of holies in the temple of sacred poetry. From this sanctuary every doubt is banished; here the passions of sense, pride and unholy ambition give way to the tears of penitence, the joys of faith, the emotions of love, the aspirations of hope, the anticipations of heaven; here the dissensions of rival churches and theological schools are hushed into silence; here the hymnists of ancient, mediζval and modern times, from every section of Christendom, unite with one voice in the common adoration of a common Saviour. He is the theme of all ages, tongues, and creeds, the Divine harmony of all human discords, the solution of all the dark problems of life” (Schaff, Christ in Song, preface). To banish Christian hymns is to exclude from this Holy of holies, but to substitute for them unworthy, unspiritual, and unchristian rhymes is to profane it.—R.] 5. The principle, impulse and norm of all Christian morality, of the new, Divine life, is Jesus Christ, the Fulfiller of the Law and Divine Will; for He is “the manifestation of the willing Divinity and fulfilling humanity (Harless, Christliche Ethik, p. 362). All other motives adulterate or counterfeit the new life. AND The Christian has not like a philosopher first to seek the truth; “as wise,” he possesses it and must evidence it in his walk. With the philosopher all depends upon exactness and acuteness in the tide of his thoughts, with the Christian, however, upon his care in the course of his conduct; the former works out a system, the latter a fine character; the former will grow, while his forerunner decreases, the latter will decrease, but his forerunner must grow in him.—Christian wisdom as manifested in the acceptance and application of three proverbs: 1. Time is money! 2. Time gained, all gained! 3. Good fishing in troubled waters!—He who does not become wise in hard evil days, certainly remains a fool in good days.—It is just the evil days that you should not let pass by unimproved, for in the evil days of earthly life in this valley of tears we must gain for the good days in eternal life on God’s throne.—The evil days are only the so-called bad weather so needed for the growth of the inner min and God’s plants.—There are periodicals and books of all kinds, especially novels, which are like cups full of intoxicating wine, and instead of being bread, they should be burned like the books of magic in Ephesus (Acts 19:19).—The house and household life should not be isolated from the Church and its services, especially its lovely, consolatory, precious hymns.—Thankfulness and humility are two principal emotions of a glad Christian heart: the former sees the gifts, which it has received from the Lord, the latter the duties He has appointed. Without serving love that Christian exaltation is not true, but a lie. The Christian must not ask; Who should minister to me, but: to whom should I minister? Starke: Foresight and wisdom belong to Christianity: not the cunning of this world, but the prudence of the righteous. It is like a bee, drawing honey from good and bad examples alike.—Redeem the time then, and give good heed to the blessed hours, when the Spirit of God knocks at thy heart. Many men are laden down with so much work in their avocation, that they often do not have the proper time for eating, still less for reading God’s word, prayer, and other godly practices: it is especially necessary for these persons to forestall and even to steal time, that they may gain an occasional opportunity for spiritual exercises and collecting their heart before God; and besides this to accustom themselves to lift their heart to God in the midst of business, and to carry on the same in the fear of God.—The will of the Lord is our rule, to know and follow it is the greatest wisdom.—Wine is a good gift of God; but alas! all gifts of God are abused, and so is wine.—In one heart there may not dwell at the same time the fulness of the Spirit and the fulness of the world: God does not enter unless the creature retires thence.—Our Church has a rich treasure of spiritual songs ever increasing; it is a shame that they are so often sung without knowledge or thought,—Great benefits demand great thankfulness.—The fear of God is the bond, which should so unite all Christians together, that they submit to and serve one another. Rieger. The evil mixture of light and darkness with which so many are pleased, and in which they seek their wisdom, will, as folly, become their shame. In a wise walk every child of the light looks chiefly to himself and the keeping of his own way.—In the adapting one’s self to the time, or redeeming the time, one looks to others also, how they are to be approached, or to be served, which is not the same in one case as in another.—Luxury in eating and drinking hinders true wisdom very much. Heubner: One can permit himself to be robbed of much time. Amici fures temporis. Redeeming the time is opposite of whiling away the time. It is a frivolous thought, that of regarding time as an evil. There is a great difference between the worldly wise and the Christian mode of making time profitable. The former seeks to gain as great a pecuniary advantage as possible out of circumstances of time; the Christian regards the pressure and the evil of the time as a means to spiritual gain, as an exercise to faith, and hence places himself in a spiritual attitude to the time; he is for example, prepared for great sacrifices, for privations, sorrows and afflictions, which he has to bear, for difficult duties, disturbances and the like. To the worldly man that time is evil, when his pleasure is interrupted or hindered by sickness, scarcity, etc. The Christian holds that for the evil time, when virtue decreases and is made more difficult for himself, when the good have much to suffer, and the enticements to faithfulness and apostasy are great.—There is also a great inward song, when at work, on a journey or a walk, etc. Such singing imparts a quiet, glad, godly tone to the spirit. Learn good hymns by heart therefore.—The Epistle for the 20th Sunday after Trinity; Ephesians 5:15-21 : The Christian disposition—the best help in evil days. 1. It gives wisdom to understand and to use aright the evil days (Ephesians 5:15-17). 2. It gives us cheerful courage, aroused not by wild intoxication, but by God’s Spirit, fitting us for proper reflection (Ephesians 5:18-20). 3. It teaches the willingness to serve one another in the right way (Ephesians 5:21).—The duty of the Christian, to adapt himself to the time. 1. What it requires? a) Wisdom which bears unavoidable evil as of God’s sending, not murmuring, nor resisting, nor walking uncircumspectly therein, b) Wholesome use of it for the soul’s benefit. 2. Means: a) Knowledge of the Divine Will, of the purposes of Divine Providence and of our salvation, b) Religious inspiration and meditation. 3. The blessing: a) For us; all must serve for our profit, that we give God thanks: b) For others, that we serve and help them. Passavant: It is no easy matter to set the right bounds to our joys; one drop follows another, pleasure entices to sensuality, joyousness to wantonness, forgetfulness to intoxication.—We must give thanks for every gratification even the smallest, which we enjoy from our Heavenly Father through Christ; for every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places and possessions. Whoever understands this, knows how to give thanks to the great Giver for every temporal and earthly good also, even the least. Stier: The walk of a Christian to his goal is a worthy, exact, correct walking; only thus does he find and follow his path. In continuously increasing exactness and strictness as respects our disposition and conduct, we grow out of folly into complete wisdom.—To gain the time is something other than to gain time.—To seek and to use opportunities, to make a prudent choice of the point of time, to esteem time and be busy accordingly, to use prudently and circumspectly the time with its circumstances, this is the meaning of redeeming the time.—The special public service should not and must not be something altogether sundered from the private life of the Church.—The ministry must always reach the spirit, lay the foundation anew; but the congregation comes in with its praying, responding, singing, praising.—The thankful taking and returning of God’s grace is itself true gracefulness.—The root of all apostasy and disobedience is ingratitude. On the Epistle for the 20th Sunday after Trinity (Ephesians 5:15-21): Gesetz und Zeugniss, 1862 [a German theological periodical]: How does the wisdom of the Christian display itself in walk? 1. In a circumspect walk (strait gate, narrow is the way; the days are evil). 2. In an industrious use of the means of grace (the Lutheran Church, the triumphing one, with large capital of the Holy Ghost). 3. In humble conduct. (As the most worthy proof of reason is in sobriety, and the greatest blessedness of a correct walk is shown in a life full of thanksgiving, so in various forms of submission the most delicate tact of this life appears. Thus are added the noblest limitations of life and the purest and most considerate forbearance in all relations.—Lφhe.) Brandt: Earnest demands of the gospel in an evil time. 1. It is a time of ignorance respecting Divine things, and it calls out to us in Ephesians 5:17. 2. It is a time of the dominion of disorderly lusts and propensities, and we are warned as in Ephesians 5:18. 3. It is a time of ecclesiastical lukewarmness, and enforces the precept of Eph 5:19-20. 4. A time of restless excitement, saying to us as in Ephesians 5:21. Rautenberg. The prudence of the children of God in the evil time. 1. They secure to themselves a free hand, to seek their safety—amid all the power of the evil time; 2. An open ear for God’s will—amid all self-will of the evil time; 3. A well-prepared heart for the gift of the Holy Ghost—amid all the carnal mind of the evil time, a joyful spirit in the Lord—amid all the complaints of the evil time. Staudt: The life of the new man 1) in foresight, 2) insight, 3) penetration (Durchricht). Prφhle: Rules of Christian practical Wisdom 1. Prudent foresight. 2. Earnest retrospect. 3. Pious insight. 4. Moderation in pleasure. 5. Practice in sacred Song of Solomon 6. Constant thanks to God. 7. Due subordination.—Become Full of the Spirit! 1. Full of the Spirit, 2. Full. [Eadie: Ephesians 5:15. Wisdom and not mere intelligence was to characterize them; that wisdom which preserves in rectitude, guides amidst temptations, and affords a lesson of consistency to surrounding spectators.—It is a strange infatuation to be obliged in pointing others to heaven, to point over one’s shoulder. Ephesians 5:18. Drunkenness was indeed an epidemic in those times and lands. Plato boasts of the immense quantities of liquor which Socrates could swill uninjured; and the philosopher Xenocrates got a golden crown from Dionysius for swallowing a gallon at a draught.—It is a sensation of want—a desire to fly from himself, a craving after something which is felt to be out of reach, eager and restless thirst to enjoy, if at all possible, some happiness and enlargement of heart—that usually leads to intemperance. But the Spirit fills Christians, and gives them all the elements of cheerfulness and peace; genuine, elevation and mental freedom; superiority to all depressing influences; and refined and permanent enjoyment. Ephesians 5:19. Mere music is but an empty sound; for compass of voice, graceful execution, and thrilling notes are a vain offering in themselves. Ephesians 5:20. So many and so salutary are the lessons imparted by chastisement—so much mercy is mingled up in all their trials—so many proofs are experienced of God’s staying “his rough wind in the day of His east wind,” that the saints will not hang their harps on the willows, but engage in earnest and blessed minstrelsy. Ephesians 5:21. This Christian virtue is not cringing obsequiousness; and while it stands opposed to rude and dictatorial insolence, and to that selfish preference for our opinion and position which amounts to a claim of infallibility, it is not inconsistent with that honest independence of disposition and sentiment which every rational and responsible being must exercise. It lays the foundation also, as is seen in the following context for the discharge of relative duty,—it should be seen to develop itself in all the relations of domestic life.—Schenkel: The duty of subordination in the Christian Church: 1. It rests on the recognition of natural and historical distinctions, ordained by God Himself; 2. It has its pattern in the relation of believers to Christ, which is not one of servile fear, but of moral reverence.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 5:17.—The reading of the Rec. (συνιέντες) is supported by D.3 K. L., nearly all cursives, many fathers and good versions (Tischendorf, Ellicott and most); συνίοντες is found in D.l F, G., some versions (Harless, Meyer, Alford, earliest editions); the imperative: συνίετε has good support (ΰ. A. B., 6 cursives, Chrysostom, Jerome), accepted by Lachmann and Alford (ed. 4). The last appears to be a correction, the participle being lectio difficilior, so that of the two participial readings the first is to be preferred on external grounds.—R.] Ephesians 5:19.—[Lachmann and Alford insert ἐν in brackets before ψαλμοῖς, but as it is found only in B., 5 cursives, some versions, and could so readily enter into an explanatory gloss, it is generally rejected.—Both editors bracket πνευματικαῖς on much the same authority, doubting it as a probable interpolation from Colossians 3:16; but it might readily be omitted in a few cases from hom�teleuton (Meyer).—Ταῖςκαρδιαις, instead of τῇ καρδίᾳ (Rec. ΰ.1 B. K. L.) is found in ΰ.3 A. D. F., but is rejected by Teschendorf, Ellicott, Alford and most, as an emendation derived from Colossians 3:16.—R.] Ephesians 5:21.—[The reading of the Rec. (θεοῦ) has no uncial support; while Χριστοῦ is found in nearly all MSS., and accepted by all recent editors.—R.] [Eadie follows Calvin, Hodge follows Meyer, as respects οὖν, while Alford and Ellicott take the particle as resumptive from the περιπατεῖτε in Ephesians 5:8, and what followed it there. This is preferable unless the extended view of Braune be accepted.—R.] [The E. V. with its order: “what the will of the Lord is,” suggests this definite knowledge in special circumstances, hence to alter it, as some propose, to: “what is the will of the Lord,” would be not only unnecessary, but unfortunate.—R.] [It is to be feared that the rising from the spiritual to the general renders too indefinite the very important precept of the Apostle. We may well hold fast to the plain literal meaning: “do not be made drunk with wine;” this is an injunction deserving all the prominence it receives, even if no general sense be appended.—R.] [In which vice, in the becoming drunk (Meyer, Alford and most), not in the wine, the use of which is not forbidden (comp. 1 Timothy 5:23; Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:20-23), although our passage proves that it was intoxicating.—R.] [While rigorous distinctions are not to be insisted upon, we may accept in the main the view of Braune. Ellicott: “Much curious information Will be found in the article, ‘Hymni a Christianis decantandi,’ in Deyling, Obs. No. 44, Vol. III, p. 430 sq.: for authorities, see Fabricius, Bibliogr. Antiq. XI. 13, and for specimens of the ancient ὕμνοι, ibid., Bibl. Grζca, Book V. I. 24.” In the fourth volume of Tischendorf’s Monumenta Sac. Sued., some hymns are found at the close of the Psalter, but the MSS. is incomplete, leaving us with a hymn incomplete.—In the face of such testimony there can be no question that the early church was not confined to the Old Testament Psalms.—R.] [“Rara phrasis, Bengel; of Him, whose members we all are, so that any displacement in the Body is a forgetfulness of the reverence due to Him “(Alford).—R.] [What relaxation the body demands is certainly not forbidden by Ephesians 5:16. If any one thinks that he is better redeeming the opportunity by so overtasking his brain or his conscience either, as to die early or be laid upon a bed of sickness, or unfitted for duty by dyspepsia, melancholy or what not, he makes a great mistake. What God says so plainly in our frames is not to be overborne by seemingly pious principles; if it is, God punishes us.—R.] 4. Special Christian duties in domestic relations.Ephesians 5:22 to Ephesians 6:9.Wives and husbands(Ephesians 5:22-33.)22Wives, submit yourselves unto [to] your own husbands, as unto [to] the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the [Because a husband is head of his] wife, even as Christ is the head [as Christ also is head] of the church: [,] and he is [himself 24omitting and he is] the Saviour of the body. Therefore, [Nevertheless] as the church is subject unto [to] Christ, so let the wives [also] be to their own [omit own] husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself [up] for it: 26That he might sanctify [it,] and cleanse [cleansing] it with the washing [laver] of [the] water by [in] the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church [That he might himself present to himself the church glorious], not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; 28but that it should [might] be holy and without blemish. So [Thus] ought men [husbands also] to love their [own] wives as their own bodies. He that [who] loveth his [own] wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated [no one ever hated] his own flesh; but nourisheth it, even as the Lord [Christ also doth] the 30church: For [Because] we are members of his body, [being] of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his [omit his] father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they [the] two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery [This mystery is a great one]: but I speak concerning [I say it in33regard to] Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular [Ye also severally, let each one] so love his [own] wife even [omit even] as himself; and [let] the wife see that she reverence her husband. AND To Wives; Ephesians 5:22-24. a. The exhortation, Ephesians 5:22; b. The basis of it, Ephesians 5:23-24. Ephesians 5:22. The exhortation. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, αἰ γυναῖκεςτοῖςἰδίοιςἀνδράσιν.—This section with its particular duties is so closely connected to the last sentence: “submitting yourselves one to another,” with its general duties, that the form is thus abbreviated. Accordingly the verb to be supplied should be imperative, as in some of the various readings, as is required also by the arrangement of the section itself (Ephesians 5:25; Ephesians 5:28; Ephesians 5:33). Bengel Inferiores priore loco ponuntur, deinde superiores 25, Ephesians 6:1; Ephesians 6:4-5; Ephesians 6:9; 1 Peter 3:1, quia propositio est de subjectione: et inferiores debent officium facere, qualescunque sunt superiores. Multi etiam ex inferioribus fiunt superiores: et qui bene subest, bene prζest. The term ἴδιος is almost invariably joined with “husbands” in the New Testament (Tit. 2:5, 17; 1 Peter 3:1; 1 Peter 3:5; 1 Corinthians 7:2 : τὴνἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα—τὸνἴδιονἄνδρα: 1 Corinthians 14:35). We even find ἴδιοςαὐτωνπροφήτης (Titus 1:12) marking in addition to the “their,” that no strange (antithesis: ἴδιος) one is to be thought of. From this it follows that ὁ ἴδιοςἀνήρ is not simply=husband (Harless), nor ἴδιος=ἑαυτοῦ, αὐτου (Winer, p. 145). It has elsewhere its definite meaning=proprius, as Winer admits in regard to many passages, and the Apostle had in this one precept of obedience for the wife a good and sufficient reason for defining the husband with ἴδιος; this justifies the sharpening by which the command appears a natural one. At the same time it points to the fact, that the wife is found to the husband in another way than he to her. She has here her calling, the avocation of the husband extends further. It is also to be noticed with Bengel: Mulieres obsequi debent suis maritis, etiamsi alibi meliora viderentur consilia. See Doctr. Notes. As to the Lord, ὡςτῷ κυρίῳ.—The singular requires according to the context a reference to Christ (Ephesians 6:1; Ephesians 6:5-7), and “as” marks a reality; behind the husband stands the Lord Himself. Thus the obedience is characterized. The obedience is to be rendered not to the husband as man, but as “own husband” in and by whose person the Lord is honored who has established the relation, whom the husband himself must obey. Hence it is not the husband as lord (Thom. Aquinas, Semler and others). The basis of the exhortation; Ephesians 5:23-24. Ephesians 5:23. Because a husband is head of his wife [ὅτιἀνήρἐστικεφαλὴ τῆςγυναικός].—The foundation of the exhortation is introduced by ὅτι, “because.” Ἀνήρ, “husband,” without the article, designates generally every husband, who as such is “head” of the definite wife, chosen and won by him (τῆςγυναικός). The position of the husband is thus marked as of an organizing, managing, controlling and deciding character, which is further set forth by the comparison immediately following: As Christ also is head of the Church.—Ὡςκαὶ ὁ Χριστός places Him as parallel with the husband (Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 4:17). On “head of the Church,” see Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15. The wife and the Church are thus placed as parallels. Himself the Saviour of the body.—This distinguishes Christ from the husband. Αὐτος emphasizes Christ: He and none other. Σωτὴρτοῦ σώματος, Saviour of the body, the Church, is He and He alone. It is thus explanatory of “Christ,” marking His peculiar dignity, and not in apposition to “head.” This is not applicable to the husband as respects the wife; for him also Christ is the Redeemer. [Alford thus expands the Apostle’s thought: “In Christ’s case the Headship is united with, nay gained by, His having saved the body in the process of Redemption: so that I am not alleging Christ’s Headship as one entirely identical with that other, for He has a claim to it and office in it peculiar to Himself.” So most.—R.] It is incorrect to take this as referring to the man also, in order thereby to remind husbands that they should make their wives happy (Erasmus, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ΙΙ. 2, p. 133, and others); that thought belongs to the other part of the exhortation (Ephesians 5:25 ff.) and would weaken the notion of σωτήρ very much. Stier is over-refined in discovering in σωτήρ—σῶμα an etymological allusion, as Philippians 3:20-21. Ephesians 5:24. Nevertheless as the Church is subject to Christ, ἀλλάὡςἡ ἐκκλησίαὑποτάσσεταιτᾦ Χριστῷ ?—Ἀλλα, “nevertheless,” in spite of the difference between Christ and the husband, the resemblance between the Church and the wife remains. Hence the particle is adversative: habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est, est servator ecclesiζ, nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos prζesse, Christi exemplo, utcunque pari gratia non polleant (Calvin, Bengel and others). It is accordingly neither syllogistic=ὥστε, οὖν (Beza [E. V.] and others), nor continuative=δέ (Winer, p. 420), nor resumptive=inquam (Harless). So let the wives also be to their husbands [οὕτωςκαὶ αἰ γοναῖκεςτοῖςἀνδράσις].—The οὕτωςκαὶ strongly marks the analogy. The verb is to be supplied as in Ephesians 5:22. The emphasis rests on the final words: in everything, ἐνπάντι (1 Corinthians 1:5)=κατὰ πάντα (Colossians 3:20; Colossians 3:22). From such a command we are not to infer that the reference is to Christian wedlock (Harless); this must indeed also be thoroughly correct. Neither the one (1 Corinthians 7:12-17) nor the other is to be accepted. “In everything” is limited by the context to that which the husband as such commands and which the wife as such has to do, but in neither contrary to the Lord. [Hodge: “It teaches its extent, not its degree. It extends over all departments, but is limited in all,—first, by the nature of the relation; and secondly, by the higher authority of God.”—R.] To Husbands; Ephesians 5:25-31. a. The exhortation, Ephesians 5:25-28; b. The basis of it, Ephesians 5:29-31. Ephesians 5:25. Husbands, love your wives, οἱ ἄνδρες, ἁγαπᾶτετὰςγοναῖκαςἑαυτῶν. [See Textual Note6].—Thus the husbands are exhorted, but a closer definition follows: Even as Christ also loved the Church.—Καθεςκαὶ ὁ Χριστός places the husbands in emphatic parallelism with Him, and the wives with the Church (τὴνἐκκλησίαν). Si omnia rhetorum argumenta in unum conjicias, non tam persuaseris conjugibus dilectionem mutuam quam hic Paulus (Bugenhagen). [Comp. the apt quotation from Theophylact in Ellicott, and the beautiful remarks of Chrysostom, cited at length by Alford in loco.—R.] Ἠγάπησεν, “loved” (John 13:34; John 15:12; 1 John 2:8; 1 John 3:14) is more closely defined by proof of fact. And gave himself up for it, καὶ ἑαυτὸνπαρέδωκενὑπὲραὐτῆς (Ephesians 5:2).—Here also we should not supply in thought: unto death (Meyer), if by that is meant only the death on the cross; the reference is to the entire suffering including the last act as the extreme point. Thus the love required of the husband, a love self-devoting even unto death, gains a significant depth, while there still remains something important which is incomparable: Christ first created the Church through love, as His love made a reconciliation of the world with God, redemption from sin, and death, eternal life and salvation. Ephesians 5:26-27. The end of the self-sacrificing love of Christ. Ephesians 5:26. That he might sanctify it.—Ἵνα defines the end: αὐτὴνἆγιάσῃ. There is here indicated a continued action and dealing towards and upon the Church, the result of which is expressed in Ephesians 5:27 (“that it should be holy and without blemish”); it is the positive activity, effecting the ethical form and demeanor which is well-pleasing to God. It is not merely segregare et sibi consecrare (Calvin [Eadie, but not to the exclusion of the idea of sanctification as a result.—R.] and others). The modality is set forth in the participial clause: Cleansing it.—Καθαρίσας as in Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 1:13. This indicates the negative activity directed against the evil which is to be removed; both, the positive and the negative, advance together and undivided. Hence it is not: after he cleansed it (Olshausen, Meyer and others), nor, as though it were complete in a moment: and has cleansed it (Luther). It continues: it is not a single member of the Church that is spoken of, but the totality of Christians. By what means then is the Church cleansed from sin? With the laver of the water, τῷ λούτρῳ τοῦ ὕδατος.—Unquestionably this means baptism; the readers must have thus understood it (Harless); insigne testimonium de baptismo (Bengel). The article (τῷ) denotes something well known; besides ὕδατος and the connection with καθαρίσας. Comp. Titus 3:5; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:23; Acts 10:47; Acts 22:16. But the water does not give the cleansing which is spoken of, nor the bathing or washing. It is the baptism, not the bath in the water. Hence there is further added: in the word, ἐνῥήματι, in order to designate Christian baptism as to its essence. The notion of baptism, as a means of cleansing beside the sanctifying (see Doctr. Notes 5, 6), as well as the position of this phrase require us to take both together, and the usage respecting the word ρ̀ὴμα) and the connection by means of ἐν (like Ephesians 6:2 : ἐντολὴ ἐνἐπαγγελία) admit of this. Paul uses ῥὴμα (Ephesians 5:17; Romans 10:8; Romans 10:17; 2 Corinthians 12:4; comp. Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 11:3; 1 Peter 1:25) in a similar manner. [In all cases it refers directly or indirectly towards proceeding ultimately or immediately from God (Ellicott).—R.] The conjunction of καθαρος, ὕδωρ, λόγος, John 13:10; John 15:3, is well known. “The washing of water” takes place “in word,” consists essentially therein, hence the reference to God’s Word in general, and in particular to the name of the triune God and His promise. [Alford is quite correct in referring it to “the preached word of faith (Romans 10:8), of which confession is made in baptism, and which carries the real cleansing (John 15:3; John 17:17) and regenerating power (1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 3:21)—so Augustine Tract. 80 in Joan. 3, vol. 3. p. 1840, Migne; where these memorable words occur, ‘Detrahe verbum, et quid est aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum.’ ” So substantially Eadie, Ellicott, Hodge and others. Comp. Doctr. Notes.—R.] Hence it is incorrect to take ἐνῥήματι, ἵνα as a Hebraism=to the end thereby (Koppe and others), or as formula baptizandi (Greek. Fathers, Scholastics and others). Nor is it to be joined with καθαρίσας (Bengel, Harless, Hofmann Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 135, who takes it as the word Matthew 8:3; καθαρίσθητι), which would then have two means by the side of each other, or with ἁγιάσῃ (Jerome, Winer, p. 130, Meyer and others), for in that case it would of necessity have been immediately subjoined. [The connection with the participle is defended by Eadie, Alford and Ellicott (who more exactly suggests: “rather with the whole expression”). The absence of the article is strongly opposed to Braune’s view, while the participle might well have two added qualifications, one an instrumental dative and the other specifying with ἐν “the necessary accompaniment” (Ellicott). “Thus the word, preached and received, is the conditional element of purification,—the real water of spiritual baptism;—that wherein and whereby alone the efficiency of baptism is conveyed” (Alford).—R.] Ephesians 5:27. That he might himself present to himself the Church glorious, ἵναπαραστήσῃ αὕτὸςἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξοντὴνἐκκλησίαν—This second ἵνα depends on ἁγισ́σῃ, the end and aim of which it introduces: “He might himself present,” etc. He and none other (αὐτός), without the co-operation of others for Himself (ἑαυτῷ) and not for others, the world or anything else, to His own good-pleasure presents the Church gloriously. The figure (παραστὴσαι) is taken, as in 2 Corinthians 11:2, from the adorning of a bride; hence the emphatically placed ἔνδοξον, which in 1 Corinthians 4:10 is the antithesis of ἄτιμος, is like Luke 7:25 (ἐνιματισμᾧ) to be applied to the glorious appearance, so that the Church thus appears “worthy of the calling” (Ephesians 4:1), or “of the Lord” (Colossians 1:10), “of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:12; 3 John 1:6), respondeat ideζ suζζternζ (Bengel). The result of the ἁγιάζειν is the οξάζειν both belong together: sanctitas est gloria interior, gloria est sanctitas emicans (Bengel). The second clause beginning with ἵνα is not to be placed as parallel to the first, nor is the figure of an offering to be substituted for that of adorning (Harless). But it is to be maintained, that this state of things for the Church is not attained in this life (Rudelbach), while at the same time we may say with Bengel: (id valet suo modo jam de hac vita). The vital process in the individual and in the whole is indeed that of a development from seed to harvest, is not complete atone stroke, has its stadia and phases. The consummation is really only at the conclusion (Second Advent). [So Alford, Eadie and most. Hodge has a full note on the question.—R.] Not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, μὴ ἔχουσανσπίλονἤ ῥυτὶδαἢ τιτοιούτων.—Thus the Apostle describes more clearly ἔνδοξον.—Σπίλος (2 Peter 2:13; comp. Judges 12), parallel to μῶμος, designates what clings to her from without, spot and stain, what is loathsome, the remains of the previous walk and conversation; ῥυτίς, wrinkle, refers to internal emotions, which fix themselves in the countenance, and disfigure the face as it grows old. Other antitheses, as those of Grotius (the former applying to carere vitiis, the latter to vegetos semper esse, to what is good) are not justified by the language. The final phrase negatives the least spot or wrinkle or even what is similar, hence in general what can disfigure. [“The terms are taken from physical beauty, health, and symmetry, to denote spiritual perfection” (Eadie).—R.] But that it might be, ἀλλ̓ ἵναῇ instead of ἀλλ̓ οὖσαν, in accordance with the liveliness of the Greek, who liked the transition from the participle into the finite verb. Winer, p. 537. This ἴνα is parallel to the second one at the beginning of this verse. [Hence “might” must be substituted for “should” (E. V.), to indicate the parallelism.—R.] The final end of the sanctifying is the being holy and without blemish.—To the “wrinkle” proceeding from within the “holy” corresponds, to the external “spot” ἄμωμος “without blemish” (Ephesians 1:4). Ephesians 5:28. Thus, οὕτως points emphatically to what precedes, on which account Harless (with Estius: digressus nonnihil ad mysterium, nunc ad institutum redit) incorrectly excludes the definite comparison for wedded life, as though it were inappropriate, when only prudence, moderation are commanded. It is not to be referred to the following ὡς (B-Crusius). [So Alford. But Ellicott, Eadie and Hodge agree with Braune, in referring οὕτως to what precedes, i.e., “thus, in like manner as Christ,” while ὡς indicates not the measure, but a fact, “as they are,” etc.—R.] Ought husbands to love their own wives [καίὁιἄνδρεςὀφέιλουσινἁγαπὰντὰςἑαυτῶνγυναῖκας.]—The comparison with Christ is now especially denoted by καί before οἱ ἄνδρες. Ὀφείλουσιν presupposes a command for this, the “new commandment” (see Ephesians 5:25), which corresponds with nature, as God has ordained it, and, applying to fraternal fellowship, is then certainly valid for marital fellowship, as is indicated by the next phrase which introduces a motive: as their own bodies, ὡςτὰ ἑαυτῶνσώματα.—Here ὡς is evidently a designation of a reality, corresponding to the figure, that the man is the head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3). [See Eadie for a lucid statement of the correct view respecting this particle.—R.] It is not comparative (Grotius), hence not=as themselves. The result of the view that the husband is the head of the wife, while the wife is the body of the husband, as the Church is Christ’s body is this thought: He who loveth his own wife loveth himself, ὁ ἀγαπῶντὴνἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα, ἑαυτονἀγαπᾷ.—Comp. Ephesians 5:33. On this general proposition what follows rests. The basis of the exhortation; Ephesians 5:29-31. Ephesians 5:29. For no one ever hated his own flesh, ούδεὶςγάρποτετὴνἑαυτοῦ σάρκαἑμίσησεν.—The ground which follows is introduced by γάρ. In the first place a general fact is negatively expressed. “No man ever” is not limited; not even nisi scilicet a natura et a se ipso desciscat (Bengel). For all “unsparingness of the body” (Colossians 2:22) rests on self-deception. If he actually injures himself, it cannot even then be said that he “hateth his own flesh.” Paul did not choose σῶμα here, because he already had in mind the quotation (Ephesians 5:31), which refers to the institution of marriage in Paradise before the fall; there as here all that is sinful is excluded from the σάρξ, which is not of itself subject to sin. Μισεῖν is chosen, because the disposition is spoken of; it is to be understood like 1 John 3:15. Grotius aptly recalls Curtius, Eph 7: corporibus nostris, quζ utique non odimus; Seneca, ep. 14: fateor insitam esse corporis nostri caritatem; De Clem. 1, Ephesians 5 : Si quod adhuc collegitur, animus reipublicζ tu es, illa corpum tuum, vides, ut puto, quam necessaria clementia sit. Tibi enim parcis, quum videris alteri parcere. Comp. Proverbs 11:15; Proverbs 11:17. But nourisheth and cherisheth it [ἀλλʼ ? ἐκτρέφεικαίθάλπειαὐτήν]—Ἀλλά naturally takes out of οὐδείς the subject ἕκαστος, each one. The first verb, the strengthened τρέφειν, refers to the growing development brought about through nourishment (Meyer); it occurs only here and in Ephesians 6:4. The second verb (only here and 1 Thessalonians 2:7) is stronger than θερμαίνειν (James 2:16) which is also more general, and denotes the warming upon and with one’s self; hence it is used of brooding, Deuteronomy 22:6 (LXX.); it is more than fovet (Vulgate), pflegt (Luther). The two expressions are distinguished by Bengel so far correctly that he remarks on the former intus, on the latter ad extra, but he is faulty in thinking of victus in connection with the former, amictus with the latter. The one refers to the strengthening food, renewing the life, the other to the protection and preservation of the life. Harless incorrectly denies any distinction, taking both as descriptive of maternal love. Even as Christ also doth the Church [καθὼςκαὶ ὁ Χριστὸςτὴνἐκκλησίαν].—What is of universal validity within the sphere of creation, is found also in the Redeemer as respects His Church (He nourishes and cherishes it). Stier applies it to the Lord’s Supper, which is indeed not to be excluded, thinking that after the nasci in the baptism (Ephesians 5:26) the pasci is here spoken of. It is more natural to remember how Christ calls Himself the bread of life (John 6:48; John 6:51), which “nourishes,” not in the Lord’s Supper alone, even though it takes place there in its most full and intense form, and also that He compares Himself to a hen (Matthew 23:37) that covereth with her wings, thus protecting and cherishing (θάλπει) at the same time. Grotius (nutrit eam verbo et spiritu, vestit virtutibus) is correct only in the first part of his comment. Evidently the spheres of Creation and Redemption do not fall outside each other; the former finds in the latter its restoration and consummation, the latter in the former its basis and point of connection. What is unnatural is unchristian. Ephesians 5:30 proves the action of Christ to His Church through her intimate union with Him: Because we are members of his body [ὅτιμὲληἑσμὲντοῦ σώματοςαὐτοῦ ?].—“Because” connects with the foregoing thought: He nourisheth and cherisheth the Church. The Church is now the subject, which inheres in ἐσμέν. Every individual is so, as the plural indicates. The Church as a whole as also individually, the members of the Church are then “members of His body.” Here τὸ σῶμααὐτοῦ is evidently=ὁ Χριστός (1 Corinthians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 12:27), on which account Bengel is correct in saying: corpus hic dicitur non ecclesia, quζ continentur in subjecto “sumus,” sed corpus ipsius Christi; hence this is entirely like 1 Corinthians 10:16 (Stier). The membership, which is designated by the emphatically placed μέλη, and which is conceived of as existing in the word ἕσμέν, is designed to mark Christendom and Christians as “integral parts of His body” (Meyer). A closer definition follows. Being of his flesh and of his bones, ἐκτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκτὼνὀστέωναῡ ?̔τοῦ.—First of all the repeated preposition must be noticed, marking as it does the origin and the appertaining to. The phrase denotes the personality and corporeality of Christ, in which the Church with her members originates. The connection with and origin from Christ, from the historical, incarnate Christ, from His personal body, is designated in such a way, that we as well as the whole Church are to be regarded as His production and possession; and this is expressed with the Scripture passage, or at least with a reminiscence of the passage, which refers to the creation of the woman out of the first Adam in Paradise (Genesis 2:23 : LXX.: τοῦτονῦνὀστοῦνἐκτῶνὀστέωνμου, καὶ σὰρξἐκτῆςσηρκόςμου), because Christ is the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:47; comp. 1 Timothy 2:13), and the Church, as well as each of its members, is a creation (1 Cor. 5:19). Comp. the parable of the Vine and the branches (John 15:1 ff). Our life in Christ proceeds in its inmost nature from holiness, is really strengthened from Him, and affects the resurrection body. Accordingly it is inappropriate to think only of the close union of Christ with us (Koppe), or the identity of our nature with His (Latin Fathers), or only of spiritual origin (Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Calovius, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II., 2, p. 137, Meyer and others), or only of the death of the cross (Grotius: ex carne ejus et ossibus cruci adfixis, i.e., ex passione ejus prζdicata et credita ortum habuit ecclesia; Schenkel, who refers to Ephesians 5:24), or the Lord’s Supper (Kahnis, Harless, Olshausen, Stier and others), or the glorified body (Gess: Christi Person, p. 274 ff.). Bengel, who is followed, up to a certain point, by Stier, since he also finds in the creation of the woman out of Adam a type of the creation of the Church out of Christ, must be regarded as fanciful despite the several apt remarks he makes: Moses ossa prius, Paulus carnem prius nominat; naturalem quippe structuram, de qua ille, ossa potissimum sustinent; ut in nova creatione caro Christi magis consideratur. Porro Moses plenius loquitur; Paulus omittit quζ ad propositum non ζque pertinent. Non ossa et caro nostra, sed nos spiritualiter (Stier: via spiritualiter in corporationem vergente) propagamur ex humanitate Christi, carnem et ossa habente. Rueckert is altogether perverted in his notion that the Apostle himself had no definite idea in his mind; if he waives an explanation of the passage, so he must waive first of all his own explanation. [In agreement with the view of Braune, in the main, the following statement is appended. The Apostle here asserts a state (ἐσμεν) of Christians, originating from Christ (ἐκ), analogous to the physical derivation of Eve from Adam and the consequent union subsequently between them. The direct reference to every nuptial union (Eadie) does not accord with the preposition or the immediate allusion. This is the mystical relation, implying as Hodge well contends, something more than that we derive our spiritual life from Christ, as Eve her spiritual life from Adam (Ellicott, Alford, following Meyer), since the peculiar language seems to involve more; and something else than that we are partakers of the substance of Christ’s body, as Eve was formed out of the substance of Adam’s body (Calvin, and with various modifications most strong sacramentalists), a view which tends to materialistic conceptions of the union, and, in attempting to explain one acknowledged mystery, creates confusion instead of clearness. This middle position accepts a connection with Him, “not simply and generally by a spiritual union, but in some close and derivative way, which the Apostle calls a mystery” (Eadie), leaving the matter there. As regards the secondary application to the Sacraments, which Ellicott and Wordsworth (with many German commentators) accept, it may be remarked, that these undoubtedly constitute signs and seals, and in a certain sense means of maintaining this union, but this passage, which speaks not of “body and blood,” but of “flesh and bones,” does not distinctly refer to these, so that nothing can be deduced from it in regard to the communication with Christ’s glorified, or transmuted, body in the Lord’s Supper. Comp. the full, clear and excellent discussion of Hodge, who opposes Calvin’s views most strenuously—R.] Ephesians 5:31. Paul in this verse proceeds with the passage which follows the saying of Adam respecting the woman brought to him (Genesis 2:24, LXX.: ἔνεκεντούτουκαταλείψειἄνθρωποςτὸνπατέρααὐτοῦ καἰ τὴνμητέρααὐτοὐ καὶ προσκολληθήσεταιπρὸςτὴνγυναικααὐτοῦ καὶ ἕσονταιοἱ δύοεἰςσάρκαμίαν): For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.—The changes are inconsiderable: ἀντί instead of ἔνεκεν, πατέρα and μητέρα, according to the best authorities, without the articles and pronouns, τῃ γυναικί at least a various reading as Matthew 19:5. Notwithstanding this, it is not a quotation, since there is nothing to indicate this. He merely continues in the words of Moses, which he uses with slight variations, while the Lord introduces them (Matthew 19:5) with εἶπεν and Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 6:16, the last clause with φησίν. Further, this passage is not a part of Adam’s speech, since he could say nothing of forsaking father and mother, unless it be taken as a prediction (Stier) [Jerome: primus vates Adam]; in which case, however, he would still in the last clause have prophesied respecting himself. [Comp. Genesis, p. 209.—R.] Hence it is not strange that the Apostle passes over the intervening clause, in which Harless unnecessarily finds a difficulty. Ἀντὶ τούτου is then, if we compare ἀνθʼ ? ὦν (2 Thess. 2:19; Luke 1:2; Luke 12:3; Luke 19:44), for this, that the woman is taken from the man, he will cling to her; εἰςἀμοιβήν (Winer, p. 342). Paul unmistakably thus returns to the conjugal state, after he has finished the proof (Ephesians 5:30) for “as Christ also” (Ephesians 5:29). Hence it is not necessary with Bleek to supply after Ephesians 5:30 : we are of His flesh and bones, the following middle term: as the woman is not of the flesh and bones of the man, to which Ephesians 5:31 refers. Τούτου is not to be referred to our origin from Christ, to whom the forsaking of father and mother does not apply, the forsaking of father not in the future at least (καταλείψει), and such a reference is foreign to the purpose, the clinging to the wife, the Church, since either this did not at all exist when He was born a man, or he already clung to it in love, without the necessity of first forsaking the Father. Indeed, the future (καταλείψει) may be regarded here in this saying of Moses, analogously to the future [the ethical future] of the commandments (Romans 13:9 : οὐ μοιχεύσεις, κ. τ. λ.), as the precept corresponding to the relations as established in God’s word. Καὶ ἓσονταιοἰ δύοεἰςσάρκαμίαν refers to a gradual coining to pass of unity (hence εἰς with the accusative), and that, too, in the case of two different persons (οἱ δύο, ἄρσενκαὶ θῆλυ, Genesis 1:27), who from within becomes one in all external circumstances, non solum uti antea, respectu ortus, sed respectu novζ conjunctionis (Bengel). Hence it is not necessary to find here only a prophecy of the Second Advent of Christ, who now as Betrothed and afterwards as husband, clings to the Church (Meyer), nor in the Mosaic passage a prophetic type of Christ and His Church (Stier), nor to refer the last clause to the Lord’s Supper (Calvin, Beza, Harless, Olshausen, Kahnis). [The main difficulty is in regard to the connection. Meyer (and many others from Chrysostom to Alford) refers “for this cause” to Ephesians 5:30, thus applying our verse to the relation of Christ and the Church. But the Apostle is recalling a passage at the basis of which lies the fact of Eve’s being taken out of Adam, and the slight alteration he makes does not show an intent to apply it differently here. Besides the whole section treats of the relation of husband and wife, and this is, therefore, to be regarded as the leading reference unless the other is distinctly marked. This principle the Apostle himself assumes in Ephesians 5:32 : “But I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” At the same time we must accept a secondary application (Ellicott) to Christ and the Church, not simply because most commentators have done so, but because the whole tenor of the passage and the interpretation of Eph 5:32 seem to demand it. The view of Harless, Olshausen and Hodge, that the last clause alone refers to Christ and the Church, the early part being introduced merely for the sake of that clause, seems to be an exegetical make-shift. As the Apostle had left out a part of the original passage in Genesis, he might just as readily have omitted all that was irrelevant. Still less tenable is the special application, which Olshausen makes, comparing the Lord’s Supper and conjugal cohabitation, showing that allegory may serve to foster the coarsest materialistic conceptions. Meyer’s paraphrase is as follows: “Wherefore, because we are members of Christ, of his flesh and bones, shall a man leave (i.e., Christ at the Second Advent) his father and his mother (i.e., according to the mystical sense of Paul: He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and shall be joined to his wife (to the Church), and (and then the two) (the husband and the wife, i.e., the descended Christ and the Church) shall be one flesh.” Such a view is to be expected from this commentator, whose grammatical exactness is exceeded only by his fondness for bringing in a reference to the Second Advent, but it fails to meet with general acceptance. JeremyTaylor: “Christ descended from His Father’s bosom and contracted His divinity with flesh and blood, and married our nature, and we became a Church;” but this confuses our nature with the Church, as well as, impliedly, the Bride and the offspring. Alford is safer in regarding “the saying as applied to that, past, present, and future, which constitutes Christ’s union to His Bride the Church: His leaving the Father’s bosom, which is past—His gradual preparation of the union, which is present, His full consummation of it, which is future.” All these views may be held as partial elucidations of the matter in hand on the side of the application to Christ and the Church, which was doubtless in the Apostle’s mind, but we still insist that so detailed a passage has a primary reference to a union, where a mere man leaves his earthly father and mother, and is joined to his wife.—With all these allegorical interpretations, one thought, which inheres in the passage, as referring to the human relation, has been too much overlooked, viz., that it is the man who forsakes father and mother. It is remarkable how true this is, and how it comes out in works of fiction, in homely sayings like this: “My son is my son till he gets him a wife, but my daughter’s my daughter all her life,” in the feelings, since mothers and sisters are rarely jealous of the man, but so often of the woman, who marries into the family. Nor does social custom fail to recognize this. The basis of all is the principle set forth in Ephesians 5:28-29.—R.] Comprehensive double conclusion; Ephesians 5:32-33. Ephesians 5:32. This mystery is a great one, τὸμυστήριοντοῦτομέγαἐστίν.—The position of the words must be noticed. Winer (p. 163) remarks that οὐτος usually comes before the noun, and ἐκεὶνος after, and that accords with the nature of the case. Deviations have their ground in the context. Paul lays the stress here on “mystery,” the position after the noun weakens the demonstrative; it is not δεικτικῶς, does not refer to the last point alone. There is here a retrospect over the whole paragraph. Bengel is correct: mysterium appellatur non matrimonium humanum (Ephesians 5:33), sed ipsa conjunctio Christi et ecclesiζ. “Mystery” (Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:3-4; Ephesians 3:9; Ephesians 6:19) is a fact, which either entirely or partially transcends the understanding, as the Divine will, a decree of God, the truth in its depth, etc. Here it is the union of the man and woman in wedlock, and of Christ and His congregation in the church, which the Apostle so presents that the latter is the pattern, and the former the copy. It is irrelevant to suppose a reference to a concealed sense in the words of Moses, so that εἰρημένον, γεγραμμενον, is to be supplied (Grotius, Stier, Rueckert, Meyer and others). It is termed “great,” because Paul himself plus sensit, quam ii, ad quos scribebat, caperent; comp. Romans 11:33. [Hodge seems inclined to refer “this mystery” to the union of Christ and the Church, in accordance with his view of Eph 5:31. Eadie agrees exactly with Braune, while Alford refers it to “the mystery of the spiritual union of Christ with our humanity, typified by the close conjunction of the marriage state,” alluded to in Ephesians 5:31. Ellicott applies it to the close conjunction of the married state: He adds: “Ephesians 5:29 states the exact similarity of the relationship; Ephesians 5:30 the ground of the relation in regard of Christ and the Church; Ephesians 5:31 the nature of the conjugal relation with a probable application also to Christ; Ephesians 5:32 the mystery of that conjugal relation in itself, and still more so in its typical application to Christ and His Church.” Eadie: “Ephesians 5:25-28 introduce the spiritual nuptial relation, Ephesians 5:29 affirms its reality, Ephesians 5:30 gives the deep spiritual ground or origin of it, while the quotation in Ephesians 5:31 shows the authorized source of the image, and Ephesians 5:32 its ultimate application guarding against mistake.” On “mystery,” see Ephesians 3:3—R.] But I.—Ἐγώ is used only with emphasis (Winer, p. 144), and must have an antithesis, which the context gives; here it is (Ephesians 5:33); “you.” Δέ, but, is merely metabatic (Meyer); therefore: I, the Apostle, the unmarried one.—Say it in regard to Christ and the Church λέγωεἰςΧριστὸνκαὶ εἰςτὴνἐκκλησίαν].—Αέγεινεἰς marks the aim of the discourse, as Acts 2:25; Hebrews 7:14; John 8:26 (Winer, p. 370). Here λέγειν is the expression of the opinion and view of Paul, who refers the mystery to “Christ and the Church” as the archetype and prototype for Christians in the marital fellowship. The repetition of the article is emphatic, containing a caution to consider this on account of the consequence for the copy, marriage. It is incorrect to take λέγω=I apply it (Stier), or, I cite it (Meyer; Luther, too, is wrong: of Christ and the Church, and the Vulgate: in Christo et in ecclesia. On the Romanist error, which regards marriage as a Sacrament, to which the Vulgate gives occasion, see Doctr. Note 7.Ephesians 5:33. Nevertheless ye also.—Πλήν (from πλέον) precisely: further, beyond this, that is beyond the saying on my part, καὶ ὑμεῖς. There is, therefore, no digression to be accepted, from which he now returns to the subject, Ephesians 5:28 (Bengel: quasi oblitus propositζ rei nunc ad rem revertitur; Harless, Bleek), nor is it: in order to enter no further upon this mystery (Meyer).Severally, let each one, οἱ καθʼ ? ἔναἕκαστος, vos singuli, each one without exception; the masculine and the context point to husbands.—So love his own wife as himself, τὴνἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκαοὕτωςἀγαπάτωὡςἑαυτόν.—Loving as one’s self is a conception, which is compared (οὕτως) with the love of Christ to the Church. [Not so love his wife as he loves himself, but: in this manner (like Christ) love his own wife as being himself; comp. Ephesians 5:28—R.] And let the wife see that she reverence her husband.—The construction: ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵναφοβῆταιτὸνἄνδρα, presupposes something to be supplied: volo aut simile quid piam (Galatians 2:10; Galatians 5:13; 1 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Corinthians 7:29; 2 Corinthians 8:7). Bengel, and answers to an imperative, as indeed one precedes (Winer, pp. 295, 537). It is stronger, however, than an imperative; ἠ δὲ γυνή stands first emphatically. [See Ellicott, who accepts a nominative absolute, reaching the same conclusion as Braune. “Let the wife see,” brings out the emphasis quite well.—R.] Particula vim habet, vim temperat ellipsis morata (Bengel). Thus a special weight for house and husband is laid upon this, that she does her duty, which is summed up in φοβῆται and traced to its inmost ground in Ephesians 5:22-24. �cumenius: ὡςτρέπειγυναῖκαφοβεῖσθαιμὴ. δουλοτρεπὼς. See Doctr. Note 1, 3, 4. Optime cohζrebit concordia, si utrimque constabunt officia (Erasmus). [Eadie well remarks: “What is instinctive on either side is not enforced, but what is necessary to direct and hallow such an instinct is inculcated.”—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The fundamental features of the moral conduct of man and wife towards each other are the principal points in this section. The Apostle refers the subject, with wholesome words and grand freedom from all casuistry, back to the main point, to its briefest expression: As regards the wife, to be subordinate to the husband (Ephesians 5:22; Ephesians 5:24), to reverence him (Ephesians 5:33); as regards the wife, to love the husband (Ephesians 5:25; Ephesians 5:28; Ephesians 5:33). The former is in force since Genesis 3:15 : “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee;” it is not, however, merely a consequence of the fall and a punishment, but inheres in the position of the woman and her corresponding endowment and nature, since she was to be a help-meet for the man, that he should not be alone (Genesis 2:18). In this is at once implied that there is here meant no servile subjection, no forced, legal obedience, no loveless, joyless fear, by indicating that the man as the head of the wife, in his mind, character and activity is placed as the representative and provider for his own in circles outside that of the house, the context defines the subordination and fear to this extent, that, as soul, heart, disposition and honor of the household, she submits herself to the regulations established by the husband in virtue of his office, and in tender thought avoids disturbing, injuring or destroying his work. Above the house stands the man’s avocation, which is from God, for which God has appointed him; hence it stands higher than the house, the character and life of which should subserve his avocation in the house alone. It is therefore in substance commanded that the wife should be subject, and in tender solicitude should fear to oppose the husband, to undervalue his arrangements, to make him discontented or angry while tarrying in the house to strengthen himself for his avocation.The wife who refuses this subordination and considerate respect, who does not see and seek her mission in the house, in the service of her husband, becomes an offensive caricature: from discontent there is bad progress to growling, managing, seeking the mastery, scolding, and finally to “emancipation.” Thus is stripped off and destroyed, not only what is Christian, but what is germanic, even what is womanly, especially what is peculiar and individual, the special gift of the Creator. Jezebel and Herodias are examples of this kind. The true character shines in Sarah (1 Peter 3:1-6).—To the husband one command is given, and in this one three requirements: Love even unto self-sacrifice, with the consequence and purpose of sanctification (Ephesians 5:25-27), and this with such energy, purity and constancy, that more is required of the husband than of the wife. The wife should love the husband, as the Church loves Christ, in entire, exclusive, indissoluble and ministering love, and the husband should love the wife, as Christ the Church, in entire, exclusive, indissoluble and protecting love. It is more difficult to love the wife, without egotism, without tyranny and despotism, without any severity to be the master in the house in true affection, than to be subject to the man in tender respect for his dignity as husband, and his avocation as man. 2. The combination of marriage and Church (Kirche), which appears as the main thought in this section, has a twofold reference. a. The two are to be compared with each other: As the wife should conduct herself to her husband, so should the Church to Christ; as the husband should conduct himself to the wife, so does Christ to the Church. Marriage, like the Church (Kirche), is a life-fellowship between a head and its body; the former Christ is for the Church (Gemeinde) and the man for the wife; the latter, the Church, is for Christ, and the wife for the husband. From the relation and the demeanor between Christ and the Church light falls upon the relation and demeanor of married people to each other, just as from the latter upon the former. Thus marriage and Church serve each other for the rendering clear of that which is normal in the two. But we must guard against descending in this parallelism to small and belittling particulars: such as conjoining winning the bride, baptism, and time of betrothal and the temporal period of the Church, leading home the bride and the Second Advent of the Lord as Bridegroom, sexual fellowship and unio mystica. But we may with right speak of the religion of marriage and of the marriage of religion; on this is based, too, the position in the canon of the Song of Solomon, which is a hymn of holy love. The Church should not keep at a distance what appertains to the creature, what is natural, or even turn a disapproving countenance upon it; that would be a wrinkle in the face of the Church, thus despising her Lord’s work and so growing old on one side, instead of being glorified. From the wife, who in her husband’s house is never to be regarded lightly, but must manage and mould, the Church may and ought to learn how to become at once deiformis and mundeformis.b. The two, however, stand in such close relation to each other, that from the Church proceeds the power for the proper direction of marriage, the proper conduct of married people. The wife should belong to the Church in order to receive from Christ His gifts, that thus she may be to her husband what the Church is to Christ, and quite as much must the husband be sanctified in the Church, taken hold of by Christ and permeated by His love, in order to treat his wife, as Christ does His Church. Thus the Christian Church is the foundation for a normal marriage, as the natural life becomes in the life of regeneration that which is according to God’s will. 3. Marriage and Nature. Our section points into the sphere of creation. The man is from the beginning made for marriage (Genesis 1:26-28 : “male and female”), and in Paradise the first human pair was brought together for wedlock, were wedded pair by the grace of God, before father and mother, and children existed. Marriage is the first union in point of time. And in point of dignity as well: from it proceeds the dignity of father and mother, through it alone comes family life, the basis of all blessing in human life. As to its nature it is the fellowship of one man and one woman, in which both more and more live together (εἰςσάρκαμίαν), chiefly moral, then however sensuous vital fellowship even to sexual fellowship; it is the fellowship of the body and of the worship of God, of all worldly goods, of all intellectual gifts, and, as far as it is possible with personal reason and conscience, of spiritual gifts also; the religious side of the fellowship should predominate, the moral side operate, the sensuous side may never override and repel the others, would enter only but not be repressed.4. Marriage and Bible are joined together also by our section, since it refers back to the oldest Scripture, deriving thence these thoughts: God has created mankind for marriage; the desire, the initiative, is on the side of man, the being desired is the part of the woman; marriage unites only one man and one woman (Monogamy); is first of all and as to its deepest ground directed to moral fellowship of life, includes in itself sexual fellowship, is directed thus towards the establishment of the family and family life, toward the bringing up and education of children; has such an inwardness and fervor, that devoted conjugal surpasses filial love, even father’s and mother’s love, that the marriage tie is indissoluble, unless sin should rend it asunder. Monogamy is established from the beginning as self-evident. A Cainite, the bold and sensual Lamech, who first took two wives, Ada (=ornament) and Zillah (=shadow of the head of hair), from whom the master of fiddlers and fifers, and the master of workers in brass and iron, made the transition from monogamy to polygamy, and in the progress of civilization forsook the Divine institution (Genesis 4:19-24). The impatience of Sarah for an heir caused her to forsake her position and conduct so far as to lead Hagar to Abraham, and the selfishness of Laban made use of the love of Jacob for Rachel, so that he took Leah first, but the promised blessing came only on the child of the legitimate wife (Isaac, not Ishmael) or of the first one (Judah, not Joseph). See Harless, Ethik., § 52, p. 5, 7 ff. Hence it should not be said, that in the Old Testament marriage only gradually lifted itself to monogamy (Schenkel); on the contrary the latter was recognized as the original institution appointed by God, and the defections from it are referred to sinful tendencies, to the dominion of sin, are not approved. Christianity however has glorified marriage, establishing it firmly and securely in its nature, dignity and blessing. Redemption goes back to the natural institutions established in creation, removing the perversions and degradations introduced by sin into the heathen world and the people of Israel; what is new in Christianity is what is primeval restored. This appears especially prominent in the matter of marriage and family life, so strongly that all which is anti-christian and anti-scriptural is at the same time unnatural and inhuman, just as the impulse of anti-christian Atheism, Materialism, Satanism has led thither. Interest attaches to the view of Melancthon, who, much as he has prized his excellent betrothed, was afraid of married life, lest he might thereby be drawn too much away from his studies, and yet afterwards despite a wife suffering from hypochondria and a numerous family called the marriage state “a kind of philosophy, which required duties the most honorable and most worthy of a noble man.” [So Jeremy Taylor: “Single life makes men in one instance to be like angels, but marriage in very many things makes the chaste pair to be like Christ” (Sermon on the Marriage Ring).—R.] 5. Beside the conduct of married people to each other and the relation between Christ and His church and the husband with his wife, there is also marked, through the purpose of Christ or the aims of the church, the end of marriage, viz., the sanctification of the personality (Ephesians 5:26-27). This is a process of development, ever deepening and extending through the whole life, with two sides: internal, moral perfection, through growth and unfolding of talent and strength granted (ἁγία) and ever wider and clearer emancipation from all evil imposed and entering or clinging from without (ἄμωμος). The former is based upon the internally and correctly established relation of the person to God and His kingdom, the latter upon the conduct of the same, externally corresponding to the given noun, in all the relations of life from work to word and its source in thought and temper. Hence the sanctification of the sexual appetite can be regarded as only a single purpose, for which there is not even a point of resemblance in the parallel with the church and her Head, not as the principal task of Christian family morals (Schenkel), as if marriage were ordained as a safeguard against whoremongery or carnal excess, when this is but a single object, or rather a coincident result, even though the main matter in this work of sanctification. From the very seeking and consummating of the marriage, the morality of the fellowship not its sensuousness, the religiousness of the married pair not the sexual fellowship, should show itself to be the decisive and impelling feature. The proper sexual pleasure to be allowed by man and wife must like every other pleasure within a social relation find its norm in accordance with the moral end of marriage. 6. On the phrase respecting baptism (Ephesians 5:26) rests with full right the explanation of Luther in the smaller catechism, 4 main part, Ephesians 1 : Baptism is not mere water, but it is water taken in God’s command and united with God’s word. For it is a pledge of the power of the atonement efficient through awakening and growing faith, an assurance of the forgiveness of sins, a guarantee of the new relation to God, of sonship with Him (Matthew 28:19 : εἰςτὸ ὄνομα; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Hebrews 10:22) and an assurance of the power, to be received in faith, of the new life in the gift of the Holy Ghost (John 3:5; Titus 3:5); both together, Romans 6:3-11; Colossians 2:12. Chemnitz: Pater salvat, filius emundat, spiritus regenerat (Harless). Mundatio prζcedit donationem gloriζ et nuptias (Bengel).—Thus both the mechanical view of baptism as a mere initiatory rite among the nationalists, and the Baptist sundering of sanctification and cleansing, which makes of baptism merely a seal of entire conversion, are here opposed; it stands at the commencement of sanctification, which begins with it. [The reference to baptism is undeniable, and such a reference seems to contradict at once the very low view of the ordinance which is quite prevalent among many Pedo-baptists, just as the obvious reference to the mystical union of Christ, and His Church in this section implies that the Lord’s supper is more than a mere memorial service. As a specimen of the Reformed or Calvinistic views on this subject (though Calvin himself was more of a Sacramentalist than those who moulded the Reformed confessions), the remarks of Dr. Hodge are presented: When the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin, they do not teach (1) That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects; nor (2) That these effects always attend its right administration; nor, (3) That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which He communicates the benefits of redemption. Positively he remarks: (1) Baptism is a Divine institution. (2) One of the conditions of salvation, not sine qua non, but having the necessity of precept. (3) A means of grace, that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, nor upon all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor designed as the ordinary means of regeneration. (4) Infants are baptized on the faith of their parents; and their baptism secures to them all the benefits of the covenant of grace, provided they ratify that covenant by faith.—R.] 7. Here, as also in Ephesians 1:8; Ephesians 3:3; Ephesians 3:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20, the Vulgate has rendered μυστήριον sacramentum. This translation has been used to support the view of the high dignify of marriage recognized in this section, which exaggerates it to such an extent that the Roman Church, in opposition to her own doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy and the virginity of the saints, proclaims it a sacrament. Comp. Conc, Triden., Less. 24, cap. 1; Si quis dixerit, matrimonium non esse vere et proprie unum ex septem legis evangelicζ sacramentis a Christo domino institutum, sed ab hominibus in ecclesia inventum, neque gratiam conferre: anathema sit.This church (Catech. Rom. ii., 8, 23 sqq.) accepts three gracious gifts [in this so-called sacrament]: proles, fides, fidelitas quζdam und vinculum, quod nunquam dissolvi potest. As respects the matter and form the schoolmen vacillate in consequence of the novelty of the subject. Bonaventura finds the material of the sacrament in the sexual acts, others in the partners themselves, others in their consensus. To regard and treat matrimony as a Sacrament, but only for the laity, who do attain to the perfection of the saints, while celibacy is demanded of the monk and priest, that they may be able to boast of sanctity, of actual renunciation of sexual desire, was only possible, because the antithesis between heaven and the world, from which Paul proceeds in speaking of celibacy as respects his own office, age, and individuality (1 Corinthians 7:25-40), was changed into an antithesis of spirit and flesh in such a way that a false dualism was established between Divine and human, spiritual and carnal, moral and natural. This dualism the church has overcome. Very apt are the remarks of Harless (Ethik, p. 512): “Marriage is the divinely appointed ordinance and form, within which the spirit of Divine love can find on earth according to the nature of the case its most unhampered rule, and in such efficiency can best give a measure of the fulness of the Divine love; but the marriage itself does not bring or become the medium of this Spirit of pure Divine love. It is only the vessel which is prepared for this Spirit; the spirit and the power do not come from the earthly copy of the Divine fellowship of love. The Christian perceives rather, that the institution in itself does not at all protect against violation and desecration through selfishness of every kind—but that [the Spirit and the power] come from the graces of the New Testament, that these graces do not come to him by means of marriage, but through the word, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, repentance and faith, on which account it is impossible for him, under a misunderstanding of Eph 5:32 to call the Divine institution of matrimony a sacrament in the sense, in which Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are thus termed.—Still the evangelical church down to the latest times has not been free from Romish distortions, of a mystical, theosophic tendency; Gottfried Arnold held the marriage state to be incompatible with true wisdom, though he himself afterwards married; with him agreed Michael Hahn, who with his followers remained unmarried, and Pastor Culmann (Ethik, i. p. 42). Luther himself did not regard the sexual propensity and its gratification as in itself God-willed (Koestlin: Luther’s Theologie, III., p. 483). On the other hand Zinzendorf attempted to place the marital obligation under ideal points of view.—If from the Roman I Catholic side attacks are still made upon the convenience of Luther and Melancthon for their approval of the bigamy of Landgrave Philip after the example of Abraham, who had however to suffer severely on this account, it may be replied that the Catholic Church not only permitted Abbe Sieyes and Bishop Talleyrand to marry, and dissolved Napoleon’s first marriage with Josephine, but even helped him to the second marriage with the Austrian Archduchess. 8. In the 13th century the Old Testament age, and the Old Testament Scriptures were often termed the “die alte Ehe” (the old marriage). This points to a mystery of marriage, like that of the communion of Christ and His Church. The former is a mystery on its natural side from the very creation; in it creative powers for soul and body are active; a mystery on the side of redemption: in it wonderful confiding love and consecrated fidelity are manifested; on the side of sanctification: in it operate sanctifying powers for eternity.—Comp. Paul Gerhart: Voller Wunder, voller Kunst, voller Weisheit, voller Kraft, voller Hulde, Gnad’, und Gunst, etc. AND Comp. the foregoing Doctr. Notes and Braune, Die heiligen 10 Gebote, pp. 147, 177.—The husband has a great advantage over his wife: he is the older, more mature part, has the choice of the wife, possesses greater power and culture for civil life, must represent his wife and household in these matters (1 Corinthians 11:7-9). So at least it should be. But he has no advantage as regards the Divine image and moral worth over her, the fellow-heir (1 Peter 3:7). Both must have patience with each other, but no wife should be ever for having the last word without yielding! She who patiently bears puts to shame the despotism of a husband. Nor should they spoil each other by a weak and false silence respecting unpleasantness; they should inure themselves in the draught of truth, should be confiding without inconsiderateness; neither dare cease to be a lover of the other. Even if the husband should be lacking in what is necessary to fill personally his position, the wife should not in boast-fulness despise the social dignity of the husband, but above and beyond him seethe Lord. Have you given your “yes,” then it must be held good to the end; even if it is hard, the difficulty does not dissolve it; life must fulfil it, death alone dissolve it.—You may be married and yet not truly wedded, may have one household and yet no matrimonial fellowship; may be with him or her one flesh, but not one heart and one soul; you live together under one roof, but may have no common foundation, may walk united on earth, but heaven is wanting to your union.—No one ought to rejoice so much in Christ and His church as the wife: she and her children have gained most by Christianity; this is a reason why women and children have and ought to have so strong an attraction to Him in the church; there is gratitude involved. Submission, ministering subordination is no misfortune, but a joy, exercising a triumphing, pacifying power.—In one sense every man must die for his wife: he must die to himself, to his sinful Ego, mortify his selfishness and egotism, not his peculiarity, which he should still exercise without self-will. The man is most apt to do this as betrothed and in the honeymoon, as if once Were enough. But this should occur throughout life: before death no one is entirely done with it.—Wo to him who chooses before he has to choose, when he knows neither why nor wherefore, or before he knows how to choose, when he does not know what it means, or who chooses arbitrarily, before he has bethought himself what his position requires or proved her whom he chooses! Wo to such, especially if they are or become ministers of the church. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ b. Children and parentsEph_6:1-41,2Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and [thy] mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4And, ye fathers, provoke [or fret] not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture [discipline] and admonition of the Lord. AND The precept for children; Ephesians 6:1-3. Ephesians 6:1. Children, τὰ τέκνα.—The next step from the married state is the family. The wedded pair become parents through God’s gift, which may also be denied. The address to children in a letter to the Church presupposes, that the Apostle regards them as belonging to the Church, present at public worship, understanding the word read to and applicable to them; indeed they must be regarded as baptized, since Ephesians 6:1 : “in the Lord,” Ephesians 6:4 : “in the admonition of the Lord,” obliges us to do so (Stier, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II., 2, p. 192.) See Doctr. Note 1. Obey your parents in the Lord [ὑπακούετετοῖςγονεύεινὑμῶνἐνκυρίῳ ?].—The verb coming first has the emphasis: this one precept comprises the main part of filial duty in itself. The word is stronger than ὑποτάσσεσθαι (Bengel: id plus etiam dicit quam subordinamini; obedire est imperitioris: subordinari cujusvis inferioris). To the more mature and experienced persons, who are God’s representatives and the child’s supporters, and guides in fidelity, love and wisdom, obedience is to be rendered, not because they are Christians, or good and rich, or masters over the child, but because they are the parents (“your parents”), with the duty of bringing up (Ephesians 6:4) as they have brought forth. As Christians the children, however, must obey “in the Lord,” in Christ (Ephesians 6:10; Ephesians 6:21; Ephesians 2:21; Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 4:17; Ephesians 5:8; Winer, p. 364); analogous to “in the fear of Christ” (Ephesians 5:21), “as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). Thus the kind of obedience, not immediately and chiefly the kind of parents, is more closely defined, as specifically Christian in ground, measure and limit. It is incorrect to take it as=κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον (Theodoret), or to refer it to God (Calvin), in Deo, or to connect it with “parents,” or to take it as merely a designation of the mode of obedience (Harless).For this is right [τοῦτογάρἐστιδίκαιον.—Quickly, briefly Paul presses the proof (γάρ) forward. “This” refers to the whole: the obedience of children to their parents in Christ. In τέκνα and γονεῖς there is a reminder of the μυστήριον (Ephesians 5:32), which lies in the τόκος and γονεία (Stier). Hence δίκαιον, “right,” refers to the relations both as given in nature and ordained by Divine law. Bengel: etiam natura; Meyer: according to nature and law. This Luther wishes to express with his “it is proper.” It should not be referred to the Divine law alone (Theodoret, Meyer, Schenkel), to which prominence is given in the next verse. [The natural obligation seems to be brought out here, the enforcement through the Divine law is added in the next, verse (so Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, Hodge, following Bengel, Estius and Theophylact).—R.] Ephesians 6:2. Honour thy father and thy mother.—This is the commandment, Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Matthew 15:4. In τίμα there is more included than obedience. Obedientia testimonium est ejus honoris, quem debent parentibus. Sub voce honoris complectitur officia, quibus serio tuam erga parentes observantiam et pietatem sestantur filius (Calvin). In Matthew 15. Jesus deduces from the honor the nourishment, and provision and care. Sir 3:8. Luther: serve, love and esteem. With emphasis the commandment places on an equality over against the children “thy father and thy mother;” in Leviticus 19:3 the latter even comes first. Which is, ἤτιςἐστίν, introduces a reason, as in Ephesians 3:13; it is not=ἥ, quζ, but ut pole quζ.—The first commandment with promise.—Ἐντολη evidently refers to the Mosaic law, the Decalogue, of which what has just been said is one commandment, hence without the article; on the thought that it is a command of God an emphasis rests, which is strengthened by the added phrase: πρώτηἐνἐπαγγελία: at first; it is not the first. According to the context it is as respects the time in which it applies to human beings, a first one: children must first honor God’s representatives, in order to learn how and to be able to keep those which precede and follow (Stier). And it is indeed placed on the promise, conceived in promise, because thus the obedience to parents becomes joyful, and upon this obedience salvation actually rests both internally and externally (1 Timothy 3:1-2). Bengel: Honor parentibus per obedientiam prζsertim prζstitus initio ζtatis omnium prζceptorum obedientiam continet. It is not necessary therefore to say that it is in the series of commandments the first with a promise (Harless and others) [see below], as if there were not a promise annexed to the first or second [the Catholic and Lutheran first, our second] (Exodus 20 Ephesians 6:9-10), or as though it were the first with a promise in the second table (Ambrose and others). It belongs to the first table, and such a distinction is not “a comment of modern theologians, a distinction not founded in the sacred Scriptures “(Erasmus), since it is definitely stated in Deuteronomy 5:22, and the tenor of the commandments are distinguished accordingly. (Matthew 22:37-40; Leviticus 19:18; Leviticus 19:34; Deuteronomy 6:5; Deuteronomy 10:12.) Least of all does πρώτη mean the most important, a chief commandment (Koppe [Hodge] and others). But while it is incorrect to take ἐνἐπαγγελία=annexa, addita promissione, it is quite as much so to understand it as=in point of promise (Winer, p. 366; and others). [The view of Stier, advocated by Braune, is not altogether satisfactory, that of Koppe and Hodge is still less so. Nor is any importance to be attached to the absence of the article with πρώτη. The simplest view, one that usually suggests itself to the children, is that of Harless and Meyer, accepted by Eadie, Alford and Meyer: first in order; in point of, involving a promise, the preposition showing that in which the priority consists. The second commandment has attached simply “a broad declaration of the great principles of the Divine government,” not a specific promise. As regards the difficulty that no commandment follows in the Decalogue with a promise, we may either accept the explanation of Harless that “first” refers only to what precedes in this case, or that of Meyer, which finds the rest of the series in other Mosaic commands (so Ellicott).—R.] Ephesians 6:3. That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.—This is the purport of the promise. Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; LXX.: ἵναεὖ σοιγένηταικαὶ ἵναμακροχρόνιοςγένηἐπὶ τῆςγῆς, ἦςὁ κύριοςὁ θεόςσουδίδωσίσοι. The Apostle only alters: καὶ ἔσημακροχρόνιος, omitting the last relative clause, which as a commandment of God designates, not merely Canaan, but every country appointed by Him as a home, Palestine in the case of the Jews. According to the quotation ἵνα must be retained in the second half with the future, although the conjunctive occurs in the first half. Winer (p. 271) explains the construction with the future as a lapse into a direct discourse, despite similar examples. Meyer finds indicated in the conjunctive the mere actualization, in the future the certain entrance and continuance, hence a logical climax. Undoubtedly ἵνα is to be taken as telic, and on account of the phrase, “thy father and thy mother,” to be applied to individuals, not toti eorum genti (Bengel, who prudently says beforehand: non tantum singulis; Harless and others). The well being is put in the front rank, the long life in the second. Even among the most decayed people it will go well with him who honors his parents in obedience, and his life will be long, at least quoad sufficientiam for eternal salvation (Stier). Godliness has indeed a promise for this life also (1 Timothy 4:8), but certainly for that which is to come. To limit the promise to the spiritual possessions of the heavenly Canaan (Jerome, Olshausen) is incorrect, Tenerior ζtas pro captu suo allicitur promissione longζ, vitζ (Bengel). The attracting promise is chiefly to be taken in the sense and spirit of children, who hope for a long life; the history of nations and families confirm the truth of the promise. Hodie ζque bene vivunt pii in omne terra, atque Israel olim in illa (Bengel). [We must reject both the generalizing and spiritualizing interpretations of the promise, and accept an individual reference of present validity. On this most recent commentators agree. And the promise is fulfilled in the usual course of providence with obedient children. The only question is: Did the Apostle by omitting the latter part of the commandment, which had a special reference to Canaan, himself apply the promise to obedient children in all lands, or did the original commandment imply this (the given land being the home in every case), so that the Apostle omits the last clause as unessential for his present purpose and really implied, τὴςγῆς? The former is the view of Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, and Hodge, the latter of Braune and others. Either is preferable to Meyer’s notion that the Apostle omitted the clause because his readers were familiar with the passage, and understood it in the general sense, though its original reference was only to Palestine.—R.] The precept for fathers; Ephesians 6:4. And ye fathers.—Quickly and closely he connects this with καί. He addresses the “fathers,” because he regards the mothers as “submitting to their own husbands” (Ephesians 5:22; Ephesians 5:24; Ephesians 5:33), who are their responsible representatives. Facilius parentes et heri abutuntur potestate sua, quam mariti (Bengel); that lies in the freer position of the former. We are not to refer this to grown up children (Olshausen), since “bring them up” follows; nor is there any oriental depreciation of the mother (Rueckert), since Ephesians 6:2 commands: “honor thy mother,” and Genesis 24:67; Genesis 37:10; 1 Kings 2:19; Judges 5:7; 2 Samuel 20:19 teach us otherwise.The prohibition: Provoke [or fret] not your children to wrath, μὴ παροργίζετετὰ τέκναὑμῶν.—It is parallel to the παραζηλοῦν, Romans 10:19; it is explained by Colossians 3:21 (ΰ.: παροργίζετε, others: ἐρεθίζετε—ἵναμὴ ἀθυμῶσιν). It is the hasty, rough, moody treatment of children, so that, without childish confidence, without joyful obedience, they are repelled and enticed to opposition, defiance and bitterness. Righteous, wholesome parental anger is not excluded, but painful, arbitrary, grumbling treatment, as well as rough, unjust treatment, without sparing the childish nature. [Alford: “The Apostle seems to allude to provoking by vexatious commands and unreasonable blame, and uncertain temper, in ordinary intercourse.”—R.] The command: But bring them up, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετεαὐτά (Ephesians 5:29).—This points to children who still require care. But it should not be the mere growing up of the proletarians, but spiritual also. Hence: In the discipline and admonition of the Lord, ἐνπαιδείακαὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου. Thus the element is denoted in which the bringing up should be consummated. The former consists in work, the latter in word; the former is discipline (Luther), not merely punishment, also strict ordering of the household, accustoming to self-denial, serviceableness, confession of faults without shuffling. Hebrews 12:6-7. The latter (Luther: admonition) comprises earnest warning (1 Corinthians 10:11) and kind exhortation (Titus 3:10; Romans 15:14; Colossians 3:16; Colossians 1:28; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:15), which evidently predominates over serious rebukes. It is important that the former comes first, and this last. Harum altera occurrit ruditati, altera oblivioni et levitati; utraque et sermonem et reliquiam disciplinam includit (Bengel). [Comp. Trench, Syn. § XXXII, whose views correspond in the main with those suggested here, and are adopted by Eadie, Alford and Ellicott.—R.] Hence the first is not general, the training of children in general, the latter special, the reproof for the purpose of improvement (Harless, Meyer), nor are they indistinguishable synonyms (Koppe). The genitive belongs to both words: the Lord does it through the father as His representative; it is therefore a genitive subjecti. [So Harless, De Wette, Meyer, Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott and others: the discipline and admonition prescribed by the Lord and to be regulated by His Spirit.—R.] It is not then: to the Lord (Luther), nor=well-pleasing to the Lord (Flatt), or=de Christo (Michaelis), nor are we to accept that the Apostle himself scarcely knew how to explain it (Rueckert). AND ETHICAL1. The presupposition for the conduct of children to parents and parents to children is the relation of both to Christ. The children should do their duty “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1), the parents “in the discipline and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4), and that too from infancy (“bring them up”). Baptism, infant baptism, is thus presupposed as the basis for the children as well as for the treatment of children. And all the more so, that there is expressed for the children no termination or cessation of their conduct toward their parents and for the parents no beginning of the influence on the children, nor is any hint given of the baptismal act to be effected or experienced, which could scarcely be wanted after Ephesians 4:5 (“one baptism”), since the fellowship of the Lord is indicated in the case of children as well as parents. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, II., 2, p. 193) properly recalls Acts 16:15. For before mention was made of the household of the jailer, and without any impression of what had occurred having been made upon his household, it was said to him: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” We should therefore with Augustine (De Gen. X., 23, Serm. X) and Origen (ad Rom. vi.) regard infant baptism as an ordinance instituted by the Apostles. It was practised in the days of Tertullian, but no mention is made of its having been introduced. Accordingly our passage refers the nurture of children to the basis of baptism and the family: family education and baptismal education are enjoined. [The relation to Christ rests not on the baptismal act, but on the relation to the believing parents, hence children are to be baptized “as members of Christ’s Church” (Ref. Church, form of baptism), are thus publicly acknowledged and sealed as Christian children, whose personal piety is to be looked for in faith just, as it is prayed for in faith. Despite all abuse of this Christian truth, it is the truth, and holding it fast we may hope for a piety which rests on an educational, not a spasmodic, basis.—In regard to the apostolic origin of the ordinance, the negative proof is overwhelming. Besides the allusion here and in Acts 16, it is inconceivable that the Jews, who attacked Paul on every actual point of difference, could have omitted opposition here, had he failed to perpetuate in some distinct form the Old Testament doctrine of covenant blessings on the household.—But as negative proof it leaves room for honest adherence to that marked individualistic form of Christianity, which is necessary, it would seem, for many minds of that cast.—R.] 2. The Apostle requires obedience on the part of the children to their parents as God’s representatives. This is a manifestation of that honor which God requires. It is established, regulated and limited through Christ, and is the foundation of earthly happiness. While ὑπακούειν denotes obedience as a reverent hearing, listening to the parents’ will, not merely in order to know it, but rather to be directed by it, so the German word: gehorchen [derived from horchen=our English hearken], related to hφrig, gehφrig, zugehφrig [all meaning: belonging to, but strengthened in the longer forms], refers to the internal relation of dependence which finds its answering expression in gehorsam [obedience]. Both refer to the relation of piety [i.e., filial piety, since piety toward God and parents are recognized as identical in the Latin word pius], and include as the innermost motive love, which devotes itself with recognition of the parental dignity, even when parental worthiness is wanting. Over against the will of the parents the will of the child is illegal; but this statement is valid only so far as the parents exercise their will as the representatives of God, and their will is not opposed to God’s will. In this there is a hint that the Fifth Commandment belongs to the first table (Braune, Die heil. 10 Geb. pp. 85–88). This requirement, to agree to the will of parents, does not cease in the course of years, though it receives limitations from the avocation and position of the children, as in the case of our Lord (John 2:4) 3. The blessing of the Fifth Commandment points to this fact, that in God’s world and God’s government His law, which is in accordance with the whole as well as with each individual part, is and must be of validity, and because it is valid for life, is given in correspondence with the ordinances of His Creation and Providence. The blessing is not an arbitrarily placed reward, but a result of obedience, actual and true obedience. One cannot creep into the blessing through constrained or feigned obedience. Obedience, this deeply rooted act of a will, growing morally, is not an affair of selfish calculation, still less can an immoral or demoralizing observance of a natural law be spoken of. Nor is the blessing promised for the life of the earthly family and people to be so lightly esteemed, that it must be transferred to the inheritance of the heavenly Canaan. Welfare and long life will be constantly regarded and used by the Christian as a gift of the gracious God; if something is lacking, he will never murmur nor doubt, as if God did not keep His promise, since our obedience of His commandment is never so perfect that it can be brought into an account with Him; it is rather the case that He has always vouchsafed and still vouchsafes to us more than we deserve. 4. Christian education must be consummated in the family, and if the family, in which children are born, is broken up by death, or destroyed by social, individual or sinful relations, and made incapable of fulfilling the task of education, each child should still be transferred to a family, or every institution which undertakes the task must be formed as a family.—Christian nurture must begin with the earliest childhood, with the beginning of the child’s life (ἐκτρέφετε). On this account ἐνπαιδεία comes first, and νουθεσία follows. Matters pertaining to the ordering of the household, to habitudes, to treatment without speaking, even to punishment, come first. Comp Hebrews 12:6; Proverbs 3:11-12; Proverbs 22:15; Proverbs 23:13.—But it must add to this and pass over into admonition by word, both alike “of Christ,” not in self-will, but under the Lord to whom we are responsible. Hence this education must be Christian.—Further it connects itself with baptism; hence it is Churchly. Comp. Von Zeschwitz, System der Christlich Kirchlichen Katechetik, II. 1, §2. [More Christian than Churchly however. Hence in those lands where the Church as such must needs control education, there is little gain for the Church or for Christ. Were the family instruction what it ought to be, there is no fear of children becoming irreligious from attending common schools (i.e., schools of the State, not of the Church).—The question of Sunday Schools ought to be far oftener studied in the light of this section.—R.]—The mother is not excluded, but only subordinated to the father (Ephesians 6:2; Ephesians 6:4). The mother’s influence on the formation of character is quiet and deep, reaching both to the tenderest germs and the profoundest depths of the heart. 2 Timothy 1:5.—Finally the individuality of the child must be well considered, and one not be treated as another. Such a difficult task can be performed only in the strength of the Lord, by whom we are ourselves educated. AND Comp. Doctr. Notes and Braune, Die heiligen 10 Gebote, pp. 84–106.—True obedience is so difficult, that it becomes possible only to the Christian child in the strength of the developed baptismal grace; not the natural, only the spiritual man is capable of proper obedience and becomes more and more so. On the other hand Christian training is so difficult, that only Christian parents can grant it, and this too without having learned the art, often without being conscious of it.—By the child’s cradle you still humbly look up to God; you cannot boast that you have given the child life; must indeed confess that you have imparted sin to them.—Eve preferred her first-born Cain (==weapon) to Abel (=shadow, nothingness).—Be sparing of words in your discipline; let your children obey without asking why and punish rather before than after five years of age, else they will punish you. Starke: God joins certain promises to His commandments, that we may be the more willing to live in accordance with them. If obedient children have a promise, disobedient ones have a threatening.—The training of children is an art not easily learned. Parents, you must study this, that you may learn it, and implore this grace from God; but especially must you be watchful over all your own conduct, that you give no bad example to your children; and above all implant the true fear of God in their hearts.—If parents bring up their children to the glory of God and the advantage of the world, that is more and better than to leave them great earthly treasures. Rieger: The phrase: in the Lord, leads us to perceive that they must be chiefly guided and impelled therein by God’s commandment, the walk of the Lord Jesus on the earth; the hope of future recompense from the Lord; but also that it sometimes requires courage to be obedient in all things, and for the Lord’s sake to rise above even the parents who stand in the way.—It is often asked how shall we encourage and incite children to their duty? and it is generally thought that the love of honor and the excitement of this feeling are the best means. But he who in accordance with God’s word meets their sense of truth with this thought: for this is right, proceeds far more securely. There is often in children a far purer feeling than we suppose, we frequently corrupt it by presenting so many frivolous motives.—With the power of self-will love, would never suffice for constant obedience, did it not derive support from reverence.—All promises of God must however be treated believingly, i.e., humbly, for they allow nothing to be extorted from them. Provoking to wrath takes place not only through unmerciful beating, but also through other unskilful treatment, even though it often has the appearance of right.—God has Himself given us the best pattern of “bringing up.” At first without the sharp condemnation of sin designed in the law He led men by His eye and kept them walking before Him. After the stricter imputation of sin through the law, He guided them through His grace in Christ. Heubner: The forbearance, the mildness, the fairness towards children, which Paul enjoins, consists in this, that one neither unmercifully punishes them on account of faults and infirmities, nor teases them with their education and conversion, but leads them with love and earnestness, removing hindrances, and for the rest commending them to the care of the Lord, who loves children. The child has not yet a very lively sense of sin, hence you must not overdo this matter of conversion.—Thus much is certain: religious culture should begin early; the child’s heart can be early won and be influenced by love to Jesus. This is the spirit of Christian nurture, which proceeds without constraint and cannot play much with dogmatics. Passavant: How difficult for a child’s heart is child-like obedience! for all are sinners, and in all sin there is self-desire, self-will, opposition.—Ill-bred children rarely become good subjects to the king, good citizens for the State, good brethren, good friends, or good parents to their children. Stier: The obedience of children is due according to natural and revealed right.—The first school of obedience for man is his relation as child.—The mother’s love must compensate when the father’s character inclines to severity; the father’s earnestness and strictness must step in where the mother’s natural tenderness is insufficient. Schleiermacher: The nature of filial obedience: 1. From what it should arise: neither hold out rewards, nor threaten punishments; nor gratify froward asking for reasons; solely out of filial respect. 2. On what grounds it is recommended: citing the old promise. Anacker: To what education must be directed, that it may bear fruit for time and eternity. 1. That the youth learn proper obedience; 2. That they are led through love to obedience; 3. That mildness and strictness be rooted in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Hofmann: The personal work of the parents: anger their greatest hindrance; their surest means: nurture your children into the Lord.—The nurture of the Lord: The fundamental traits and principles of Divine training, presented in the history of salvation from the beginning of our race on and in the conversion of individuals through the training of the Holy Ghost; some applications thence to our training: doing acts of love, blessing (Meyer), preserving from ungodly influences, promising, punishing.—Admonition of the Lord: reminder that Christ should be glorified in the children and that they should become happy men, skilful warriors of God. Zimmermann: From what you seek in your children, measure what you owe to them! 1. You desire obedience from them, show yourselves full of love to them. 2. You desire that they honor you, apply to them the right nurture. 3. You desire that they protect and adorn your old age, so help them to inherit the promise: that it may be well with thee and that thou mayest live long on the earth. [Hodge: Children should obey their parents. This obedience should be in the Lord, determined and regulated by a regard to Christ. The ground of the obligation is: 1. It is in itself right; it is enforced by an express command in the Decalogue, to which a special promise is annexed, Ephesians 6:1-3. Ephesians 6:4. A parent had better sow tares in a field from which he expects to derive food for himself and family, than by his own ill-conduct nurture evil in the heart of a child.—R.] [Eadie: Ephesians 6:1. The love which Jesus showed to children, when He took them in His arms and blessed them, should induce them, in a spirit of filial faith and fondness to obey their parents, and to regard with special sacredness every parental injunction. And that obedience, if prompted, regulated, and bounded by a sense of religious obligation, will be cheerful, and not sullen; prompt, and not dilatory; uniform, and not occasional; universal, and not capricious in its choice of parental precepts.—Filial obedience, under God’s blessing, prolongs life, for it implies the possession of principles of restraint, sobriety, and industry, which secure a lengthened existence. Ephesians 6:4. Such training leads to early piety, and such is ever welcome to Christ and His Church. For the sun shining on a shrub, in its green youth, is a more gladsome spectacle than the evening beam falling dimly on the ivy and ruins of an old and solitary tower.—R.] [While Ephesians 6:4 does not mean (see Exeg. Notes) instruction and admonition concerning Christ, it is still true that a father, who, by proper discipline tempered with love, ever keeps the heart of his children in intimate and trustful allegiance, by his very demeanor teaches lessons concerning Christ and God, that are rarely learned so easily in other ways. Many a son is kept from utter ruin by remembering a mother’s love and piety, but happy is he who has had such a father as Paul here sketches in bold outline, for amid every doubt that assails head and heart alike, the reality of that father is an evidence, in kind though not in degree, of what God is to us, which no speculations can overbear.—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 6:1.—[Lachmann, Rueckert, and Mill omit ἐνκυρίῳ on the authority of B. D.1 F., some fathers. It is bracketted by Alford; but Harless, Meyer, Ellicott accept it on the strong support of ΰ. A. D. 2 3 K. L., nearly all cursives and versions, express statement of Chrysostom; especially since, as Meyer urges, we would have found ὡςτῷ κυρίῶ in case of an insertion from Ephesians 5:22, and if from Colossians 3:20, it would have been placed after δίκαιον. Braune’s note here speaks of the absence of the phrase in Colossians 3:20, a manifest error.—R.] Ephesians 6:2.—[The E. V. omits “thy,” without reason and unfortunately, for the article occurs in the Greek, and the same emphasis rests on thy mother as on thy father.—R.] [To this Meyer objects, but in its stead lays down a principle which approaches the strict Reformed view: “The children of Christians through their vital fellowship with their Christian parents were even without baptism ἅγιοι (see 1 Corinthians 7:14; Acts 16:15) and should render to their parents obedience ἐνκυρίῳ.”—R.] [Hodge seems to follow Harless but Eadie, Ellicott, Alford rightly take ἐνκυρίῳ as indicating the sphere or element of the action. Alford adds, in reference to the common view that the Apostle gives a hint as to commands not according to the will of God: “I should rather believe, that he regards both parents and children as ἐνκυρίῳ, and the commands, as well as the obedience, as having that sphere and element. How children were to regard commands not answering to this description, would be understood from the nature of the case.” Certainly, if the reference be, as is thought by most, to baptized children, then this presupposes the parents ruling “in the Lord.” On the limits of obedience, Ellicott refers to Taylor, Duct. Dub. III. 5, Rule 1 and 4 ff.—R.] [This is the view of Meyer and formerly of Ellicott, but the latter now accepts the explanatory force of the pronoun, since, as Alford intimates, the other view throws “the motive to obedience too much on the fact of the promise accompanying it, whereas the obedience rests on the fact implied in ἐντολή, and the promise comes in to show its special acceptableness to God.”—R.] [Alford’s remark in loco must be taken with caution. He says the reference is to “the Decalogue, which naturally stands at the head of all God’s other commandments; and which, though not formally binding on us as Christians, is quoted, in matters of eternal obligation (not of positive enactment), as an eminent example of God’s holy will.”—R.] [On this Ellicott remarks: “The future undoubtedly often does express the more lasting and certain result (comp. Revelation 22:14, where the single act is expressed by the aorist subj., the lasting act by the future); still as the present formula occurs in substance in Deuteronomy 22:7 (Alexand.), and might have thence become a known form of expression, it seems better not to press the future further than as representing the temporal evolution of the εὖ γενέσθαι.”—R.] [Ellicott suggests that the particle “marks that obligation was not all on one side, but that the superior also had duties which he owed to the inferior.”—R.] [Eadie limits this precept to fathers, urging that mothers are apt to spoil the child by indulgence, while fathers are apt to chastise in a passion. But the other view is preferable.—R.] [Dr. Hodge, whose comments on this verse are very clear and instructive, falls into his usual error, in taking the preposition ἐν as instrumental: “developing all their powers by the instruction and admonition of the Lord.” The thought is rather that the child shall grow up, be trained in an element, sphere, atmosphere, etc.—R.] [Hodge: “As Christianity is the only true religion, and God in Christ the only true God, the only profitable education is the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is, the whole process of instruction and discipline must be that which He prescribes and which He administers, so that His authority should be brought into constant and immediate contact with the mind, heart and conscience of the child. It will not do for the parent to present himself as the ultimate end, the source of knowledge and possessor of authority to determine truth and duty. This would be to give his child a mere human development. Nor will it do for him to urge and communicate everything on the abstract ground of reason; for that would be to merge his child in nature. It is only by making God, God in Christ, the teacher and ruler, on whose authority everything is to be believed, and in obedience to whose will everything is to be done, that the ends of education can possibly be attained.” But it must still be maintained, that the place where this close contact with Christ as Ruler and Teacher and Saviour is to be brought about is not the school, whether parochial school or Sunday School, but as a rule the household, since the command is addressed to “fathers,” who, standing in loco Dei in the family, should not too readily abdicate from their responsible position.—R.] c. Servants and Masters(Ephesians 6:5-9)5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters [to your masters] according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto [to] 6Christ; Not with [or in the way of] eye service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth [each one shall have done], the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond [bondsman] or free. 9And, ye masters, do the same things unto [towards] them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also [their Master and yours] is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. AND The precept for Servants; Ephesians 6:5-8. a. The precept, Ephesians 6:5. b. Closer definition, Ephesians 6:6-7. c. Praise and promise, Ephesians 6:8. Comp. Colossians 3:22-25. Ephesians 6:5. The precept. Servants, οἰ δοῦλοι.—In this context this means the domestics, the serving members of the household, as. Ephesians 6:3 : “as the servants of Christ,” shows, and Ephesians 6:8 : “whether bond or free,” requires; it includes here the free servants also (Bengel, Stier, Bleek), does not refer to slaves alone (Meyer, Schenkel). Thus this section gains its continued validity and importance for all relations of subordination, that of subject and citizen also (Grotius: eadem est ratio in republica et in familia). The passage says nothing for or against slavery. See Doctr. Notes. Be obedient, ὑπακούετε.—Thus the Apostle places the servants on an equality with the children, in the same dependence upon the masters, who are the parents to the children. To your masters according to the flesh, τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰ σάρκα.—Thus the masters are designated as bodily (Luther) according to Romans 1:3; Romans 9:3; Romans 9:5, where the last phrase denotes external, temporal, earthly relations. There is also thereby involved at the same time the δεσποτείαπρόσκαιροςκαὶ βραχεῖα (Chrysostom) and the limitation of freedom in external relations (Calvin).The obedience is more closely defined: with fear and trembling, μετὰ φόβουκαὶ τρόμου.—Comp. Philippians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 7:15; 1 Corinthians 2:3. This is sollicita reverential, which has in mind as regards the masters the copied majesty of God, remembering the judgment and recompense before Him. [So Hodge], It does not refer then to anger and rebuke and punishment (Bengel), nor is it to be weakened into tender, anxious conscientiousness (Olshausen, Meyer, Schenkel). [So Alford, Ellicott. Eadie remarks: “The Apostle in the following clauses hits upon those peculiar vices which slavery induces, and which are almost inseparable from it: indolence and carelessness.”—R.]. To guard against every misunderstanding there is added: in singleness of your heart, ἐνἀπλότητιτῆςκαρδίαςὑμῶν.—This not only consists in considering the one interest of the master (Harless), but like 2 Corinthians 8:2-3; 2 Corinthians 11:3, includes willingness and the opposite of πανουργὶα, excluding all untruth. [This phrase sets forth the element (ἐν) of the obedience, as the last phrase expressed its accompanying features. “Singleness” is an apt rendering of the word, which marks that openness and sincerity of heart which repudiates duplicity in thought or action. On the classical use of the word see Harless; comp. Trench, Syn. II. § 6.—R.] Quoniam pessimos etiam quosque p�nζ timor coge-bat, Christianos servos ab impiis discernit affectu (Calvin). It is all to be done: as to Christ, ὡςτῶ Χριστῶ, tamquam (Erasmus), not sicut (Vulgate) Christo; Ephesians 5:22. [“He being the source and ground of all Christian motives and duties” (Alford). “As common and secular inducements can have but small influence on the mind of a slave, so the Apostle brings a religious motive to bear upon him” (Eadie). It may be added that if this motive could be brought to bear on the class to whom the exhortation of the Apostle most directly applies in these days when “the workingman’s question” is so much discussed, the solution of that question would be less difficult.—R.] Ephesians 6:6-7. Closer definition. Not with [or in the way of] eye-service as men-pleasers, μῆ κατ̓ ὀφθαλμοδουλείανὡςἀνθρωπάρεσκοι.—The first phrase, as the opposite of “in singleness of your hearts,” denotes the mode, method, maxim of the service (Stier). Paul uses the plural in Colossians 3:22 : ἐνὀφθαλμοδουλείαις. Theodoret explains the word as τὴνοὐκεἰλικρινοῦςκαρδίαςπροσφερομένηνθεραπείαν, ἀλλὰ τῶ σχήματικεχρωσμένην. �cumenius also remarks: μὴ ὅτανπάρεισινοἱ δέσποταικαὶ ὁρῶσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπόντωναὐτῶν. The reference is not simply to compulsion, but the appearance of faithful service is designated. They are really “men-pleasers,” they wish to please men alone, who can only see what is before their eyes; thus they use their master’s human weakness to their own advantage. The studium placendi hominibus is expressly rejected from the Christian point of view. The antithesis follows: but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.—The first phrase is opposed to: “as men-pleasers,” the second, which characterizes the servants of Christ, to: “with eye-service.” The servants of Christ naturally do the will of God, which is also the will of Christ (John 10:30; John 5:30), and that too “from the heart,” without discontent with their service or murmuring in their service; this necessarily distinguishes them from others, even from those who may be doing the will of God.Ephesians 6:7. One thing more is added, which completes the last designation: with good-will doing service, as to the Lord.—Μετ̓ εμὐνοίαςδουλεύοντες marks the personal dependence on the masters, in which they serve them (Luther, [E. V.]: “with good-will”), so that they serve them, “as to the Lord,” tanquam domino, i.e., Christo. This is rendered emphatically prominent by the antithesis: and not to men, καὶ οὐκἀνθρώποις.—On this account “from the heart” is not to be separated from “doing” (Ephesians 6:6) and joined to “doing service” (Chrysostom, Jerome, Bengel, Harless, Stier), which in that case would unnecessarily receive two adverbial qualifications. [So Lachmann, De Wette and Alford (who makes a good defence), but the other view is maintained by Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott, Hodge and Eadie. Ellicott, however, defends the view of Harless (against Meyer), that ἐκψυχῆς seems to mark the relation of the servant to his work, μετ̓ εὐνοίας pointing to his relation to his master.—R.] Still less is “with good-will” to be joined with what precedes and this verse rendered: Let yourselves think that you serve the Lord and not men (Luther). Thus the precept of Eph 6:5 has been more closely described and a return made to it. Ephesians 6:8. Basis and promise. Knowing, εἰδότες. [Ellicott: “seeing ye know.”]—Thus Paul refers the servants to their faith, to the certain confidence: that whatsoever good thing each one shall have done, the same shall he receive of the Lord.—Ὅτιὅ ἐάντιε͂καστος is grammatically clear: ἐάν often is=ἄν in relative clauses (Winer, p. 291) and ὅ ?—τι is tmesis (Bengel); ἕκαστος is not to be extended to both masters and servants; the context (“whether bond or free”) limits it to those addressed; each one of you. [This view assumes that “bondman or free,” refers to two classes of servants, but the more commonly received opinion includes the masters under the latter term, thus giving the verse the character of a general proposition. This is the more obvious reference, and has the advantage of giving an easy transition from the exhortation to the bondman to that to the free man (masters, Ephesians 6:9).—R.] In ποιήσηἀγαθόν the verb stands first with emphasis; something depends on the doing; the will of God must be done by you, as well as on you. [The rendering: “shall have done,” brings out best the relation to the time of recompense, i.e., the Second Advent of the Lord.—R.] ‘Ἀγαθόν, “good,” is only what takes place for Christ’s sake, in love and obedience to Him. Τοῦτο is the “good,” which the servant has done, and which παρὰ κυρίουκομίσται, “he shall receive of the Lord.” The verb is joined with μισθός, 2 Peter 2:13; with ἐπογγελίαν, Hebrews 10:36; Hebrews 11:39; and with similar expressions, 1 Peter 1:9; 1 Peter 5:4; it means: sibi auferet, reportabit (Erasmus), recipiet (Vulgate) [E. V.: receive], from the Lord, from Christ in the Judgment. [Alford: “ ‘This in full,’ ‘this exactly,’ he shall then receive in its value as then estimated, changed, so to speak, into the currency of that new and final state.”—R.] Thus the complete recompense is marked (τὴνἀνταπόδοσιντῆςκληρονομίας, Colossians 3:24).—Whether he be bondman or free, added quickly without a verb; it is better to supply: fuerit (Erasmus), than sit (Meyer and others). [Ellicott: “Whatsoever be his social condition here, the future will only regard his moral state.” Comp. the citation from Chrysostom in Alford.—R.] From this it cannot be inferred that Paul had not conceived of the cessation of slavery before the Second Advent. The precept for Masters and its basis, Ephesians 6:9. a. Positively; b. negatively; c. basis. Ephesians 6:9. And ye masters, καὶ οἱ κύριοι, who are thus recognized, just as “and ye fathers” (Ephesians 6:4).—The positive precept: do the same things towards them.—Τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε refers back both to “the will of God from the heart, with good-will” (Rueckert), and to “submitting yourselves to one another” (Ephesians 5:21); as the former should serve (δουλεύειν), so the latter should rule (κυριεύειν). He does not require a δουλεύειν from the masters (Chrysostom). Amor officia servilia et herilia moderatur (Bengel). “Towards them” denotes the equal footing, as was already required in Deuteronomy 15:12; Leviticus 25:42-43; Job 31:13-15, and enlarged in Christ. [Eadie: “The Apostle had stooped to the slave, and he was not afraid to speak with erect attitude to the master. The language is general, and expresses what Calvin well calls jus analogum,—R.] The negative precept: forbearing threatening.—Ἀνίεντες, placed emphatically first, is according to Acts 16:26; Acts 27:40 : to leave off, cease from; τὴνἀπειλήν (Acts 4:17; Acts 4:29; Acts 9:1) they should not only moderate; for the singular docs not mean a single threat, but threatening, minatio (Vulgate). [“Your usual, too habitual threatening” (Meyer, following Erasmus; so Alford and Ellicott). The last named author says: “St. Paul singles out the prevailing vice and most customary exhibition of bad feeling on the part of the master, and in forbidding this naturally includes every similar form of harshness.”—R.] Deposita fere a dominis sζvitia erat, suscepta fide; nunc etiam minζ remittendζ, ne ostentent servis potestatem suam ad terrendum (Bengel). Thus Paul defines the action of the masters according to their disposition; in different forms of action the same disposition. Ζqualitas naturζ, et fidei potior est. quam differentia statuum (Bengel). Basis: Knowing that their Master and yours is in heaven, εἰδότεςὅτικαὶ αὐτῶνκαὶ ὑμῶνκύριόςἐστινἐνοὐρανοῖς. [See Textual Note7].—“Knowing” (as in Ephesians 6:8) “that their Master and yours” conceives of both masters and servants as standing on an equality before Him, who helps the latter to their rights and will and can give the former their due. He “is in heaven,” omnipotens, (Bengel); before Him earthly power does not appear, is of no value; in His time He comes from heaven as Judge (1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7). Hence: neither is there respect of persons with him, καὶ προσωποληψίαοὐκἔστινπαῤ αὐτῶ:—The substantive (Romans 2:11; Colossians 3:25; James 2:1) is used by Paul in every case with reference to the Judgment. This is decidedly excluded, and the phrase suggests what one may expect to receive from Him (παῤ αὐτοῦ, Ephesians 6:8). Comp. Wis 6:5-9; Galatians 2:6. AND ETHICAL1. Paul takes occasion elsewhere also to speak of the relations of service and the state of slavery (1 Corinthians 7:21-24; Colossians 3:22-25 : 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10), as does Peter (1 Peter 1:18-25), without condemning these relations. But sympathizing, in a specially detailed manner, the Gospel instructs those who serve, having for them an affectionate heart, an interesting discourse, a consoling word. It does not without further delay declare the slaves free, but it makes them free from within. Paul sent back to Philemon his escaped slave. In the Church the master remains a master and the slave a slave. The Apostles see in the service of the bondmen, and in the position of servants, though established by wrong and deformed by sin, the fundamental traits of master and servant, as these are established by God. What the ancients already knew, that the slaves participated in the dignity of humanity and had the rights of humanity as well as their masters (Seneca: servi sunt? imo homines; servi sunt? imo contubernales; servi sunt? imo conservi, si cogitaveris tantundem in utrosque licere fortunζ), that was not first taught by Christianity. But it brought to masters and slaves one Redeemer, in whom both are brethren (Galatians 3:28; Philemon 1:16); it wrought upon the disposition from the inner life of faith, so that at once the burden was lightened in Christian families, and in the course of centuries the relations were altered and the state of slavery was done away. Still “it must not be overlooked that Paul’s mode of viewing the already present relation of freedom and slavery cannot be used to justify slavery introduced by Christians, the enslaving of free men, the slave-trade,” etc. (Meyer). The most modern form of slavery, the Helotism of industry, cannot be viewed in the same way as something existing and historical; it remains a disgrace on which Christianity must prove, whether it is antiquated or retains its eternal powers. 2. The care of the Apostle in teaching servants is for every preacher as well as for the Church an earnest exhortation to take up the oppressed. 3. Servants, subordinates, subjects must, irrespective of the example and conduct of their masters, demean themselves according to the commandment and direction of God. Benevolentiam, quζ in servo est, ne asperitas quidem heri exstringuit, ut in catellis (Bengel).—[The general principles underlying this section are applicable to all relations of employer and employee. The latter is warned against eye-service, exhorted to faithful labor “as in God’s sight,” bid look to a higher recompense than the temporal wages, because serving a higher master; the former is reminded of the equality before God, how position does not avail before Him, and of the duty to Him involved in the duties of an employer. How many then may study these words with profit. Comp. Colossians, p. 79.—R.] 4. The following applies to the masters: ut Dominus vos tractavit, ita vos traciate servos; aut ut vos tractatis servos, ita ille vos tractabit (Bengel). 5. The Judgment of God finally awards strict recompense. [“The Christian doctrine of reward is too often lost sight of or kept in abeyance, as if it were not perfectly consistent with the freest bestowment of heavenly glory” (Eadie).—R.] AND God’s service and the master’s service.—Eye-servants and God’s servants.—Those who serve are a necessary evil for the masters, who are unable by themselves alone to take care of their own, rather than the employers for the servants, who often first learn of them something of order, cleanliness and skill.—Ernest the Pious once said: Masters and mistresses can never answer to God, if they keep their domestics away from church-service.—Starke: Those who murmur and growl in the services, as though weary of them, murmur against God Himself.—Servants can lay up for themselves in continued service a blessing or a curse: a blessing if they faithfully serve in the fear of the Lord, a curse, however, if they act falsely and faithlessly.—A pious serving-man, whose fidelity and industry is not perceived by his employers, and whose wages are improperly withheld or cut down, is known by God, who will give him the best reward. Rieger: Compulsory measures, severity and cunning are of no avail. They only make the servants more crafty.—A servant has often nothing in the world but his good name; and anxiety about this can easily lead one into eye-service; but with singleness of heart better progress is made in this direction.—Eye-service spoils the heart, wasting those powers, which would remain united in the fear of the Lord and preserve from weariness also. Heubner: The higher Master frees from slavery. The Lord regards all; servants and slaves are as well-known to Him as masters and princes. Before Him the heart alone gives rank, and even the most trifling services, if rendered with an honest heart, receive their reward. What a transformation the Lord’s Judgment will bring about! How much the serving class has to thank Christianity! It has made a freer feeling in service and better masters, and effected all this without a violent subversion of relations.—The rough and coarse master makes rough and coarse servants, the gentle master makes gentle servants. The master should not have an imperious, despotic feeling, but a ministering one. Passavant: This is true, and those who stand high and rule in the world, cannot bethink themselves of it too earnestly and humbly: Before God we are all alike, all of one origin, one nature, one sin—and all partakers of one grace, one redemption, one glory.—You look for so many virtues and perfections in your maid or man; with such conditions do you think you would be worthy or capable of being man or maid-servant? Gerlach: Obedience to the bodily master should constantly be directed toward Christ. [Eadie: “And with respect to servants of every denomination, equity requires that we treat them with humanity and kindness; that we endeavor to make their service easy, and their condition comfortable; that we forbear rash and passionate language; that we overlook accidental errors, and remit trivial faults; that we impose only such labor as is reasonable in itself and suitable to their capacity; that our reproofs be calm and our counsels well timed; that the restraints we lay upon them be prudent and salutary; that we allow them reasonable time for refreshment, for the culture of their minds, and for attendance on the worship of God; that we set before them a virtuous example, instil into them useful principles, warn them against wickedness of every kind, especially against the sin which most easily besets them; that we afford them opportunity for reading and private devotion, and furnish them with the necessary means of learning the way of salvation; that we attend to the preservation of their health, and have compassion on them in sickness; and, in a word, that we contribute all proper assistance to render them useful, virtuous, and happy” (from Lathrop, Ephesians).—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 6:5.—[Literally “slaves;” but as Braune accepts a reference to free servants, and since in any case the injunction has a wider application, the E. V. need not be altered (against Alford). See Exeg. Notes.—R.] Ephesians 6:5.—[Lachmann (ΰ. A. B., a few cursives and fathers) places κατὰ σάρκα before κυρίοις, but Tischendorf and recent editors regard this as a conformation to Colossians 3:22.—R.] Ephesians 6:6.—[The article before Χριστοῦ (Rec., D.3 K. L) is omitted by recent editors on the authority of ΰ. A. B. D.1 F, etc.—R.] Ephesians 6:7.—[The Rec. (with D.3 K. L.) omits ὡς, but it is well sustained and generally accepted.—R.] Ephesians 6:8.—[The reading of the Rec.: ὅτιὁ ἐάντιἕκαστος, is accepted by Griesbach, Scholz, De Wette, Meyer, Tischendorf, Ellicott and others, not so much on external authority (K. L., most cursives, Syriac versions, fathers), as because the very great number of various readings can be best accounted for by regarding this as the original reading. See Ellicott and Meyer, on this point. The second reading in point of preference is that accepted by Lachmann, Rόckert Wordsworth: ὅτιἕκαστοςὁ ἐὰνποιήσῃ which is found in A. E. (D.1 F. G., ἄν); many cursives, Vulgate. B. has ὅτιἕκαστοςἐάντι, accepted by Alford; ΰ. has the easiest reading: ἐὰνποιήσηἕκατος, while we find in cursives and fathers, ὁ ἐάντις, ἐάντις, ἐάντι, ὁ ἐάν, between ὅτι and ἐκαστος, besides ἅνθρωπος instead of the latter word. The theory of Meyer is simple: The received reading was the original one; but the transcriber passed directly from ὅτι to τι, hence the reading: ὅτιἕκαστοςποιήση; then came the corrections as above, the greater number tending to prove that ἕκαστος should come last, as in the Rec.—The acceptance of the inverted reading of Lachmann or Alford would require this rendering: “that each man if he shall have done any good thing.”—R.] Ephesians 6:8.—[The Rec. has κομιεὶται, with ΰ.1D.3K. L., most cursives, fathers, but κομίσεται is now generally preferred on the authority of ΰ1 A. B. D.1 F. The other reading is regarded by many as taken from Colossians 3:25, where however the same variation occurs.—The article before κυρίου (Rec, K. L., cursives) is generally rejected, not occurring in the best uncials.—R.] Ephesians 6:9.—[The variations are numerous, but καὶ αὐτῶνκαίὑμῶν accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, Harless, because it has good support (A. B. D.,1 versions and fathers) and best accounts for the occurrence of the other readings. ΰ1 has ἑαυτῶν, while six other variations (in position or through omission) occur. The Rec. (ὑμῶναὐτων) is poorly supported, hut probably arose early, as a correction, the reference to the slaves being misunderstood; partial attempts at restoration led to changes in position (see Meyer).—The idea presented, that of a common Master, seems to be better preserved by omitting the word both, which, a literal translation would insert before theirs.—R.] [Nearly all English and American commentators accept the exclusive reference to slaves, bondmen (Conybeare); and with good reason, since the word means “slave” over against a hired servant (Luke 15:17; Luke 15:19), and since the greater proportion of servants in those days were slaves. Ephesians 6:8 may be quite as readily urged in favor of the exclusive reference. Still the passage has, and was designed to have, a continued validity, which is better indicated by retaining the word “servants.”—R.] [On the distinction between κύριος and δεσπότης, which Paul uses in 1 Timothy 6:1; Tit. 2:21, see Trench, Syn. 28; it is neglected here probably because the former word was to be used again (Ephesians 6:7) in a higher sense, as indeed κατὰ σαρκα implies. The deduction from the latter phrase, that spiritual freedom was left intact is generally accepted, though it is doubtful whether the phrase itself implies this.—R.] [The preposition marks the norm of the action; Ellicott: in the way of; Alford: in the spirit of. The substantive is one of Paul’s coining, occurring only here and in Colossians 3:22. Ellicott says: “the more correct form is ὀφθαλμοδουλία. (D. E. F. G. L. ΰ.),” but does not put it in his text.—R.] [Rueckert makes the first phrase subordinate to the second, removing the comma after Χριστοῦ (so Tischendorf, ed. 7; against recent editors generally); but this destroys the obvious antithesis.—R.] [Eadie, Hodge and Alford render: “the slave of Christ,” but this is a harsh expression; Ellicott: “bond-servants.” The idea of purchase and possession is probably implied.—R.] [In Colossians 3:25, the same thought occurs in the former part of the exhortation, with a slightly different reference therefore. See Colossians, pp. 78, 79.—Meyer and Alford cite Seneca, Thyest. Eph 607: “Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrζ jus dedit magnum necis atque vilζ, Ponite inflatos tumidos-que vultus. Quicquid a vobis minor extinescit, major hoc vobis dominus minatur; Omne sub regno graviore regnum est—R.] [The reader is referred to the remarks of Dr. Hackett, Philemon, pp. 29 ff., and the extracts there given on the subject of Christianity and slavery. On the general principles which this section implies most commentators agree; and these principles did abolish slavery in the early Christian centuries. Unfortunately there are times when and places where these principles, while theoretically accepted, do not operate toward the desired result; then God’s Providence does quickly and retributively what men would not let His Gospel do. Still emancipation is not necessarily Christian freedom. The Gospel method begins within; the other lays upon Christ’s Church the responsibility of so teaching the truth that the “truth may make free” those suddenly released from bondage. That is but the beginning of freedom.—R.] 5. Concluding exhortationEph_6:10-2010 Finally, my brethren, be strong [Finally be strengthened] in the Lord, and in the power of his might [in the might of his strength]. 11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we wrestle [our wrestling is] not against flesh and blood, but against [the] principalities, against [the] powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world [the world-rulers of this darkness], against spiritual wickedness [the spiritual hosts of wickedness] in high [heavenly] places. 13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done [accomplished] all, to stand. 14Stand therefore, having your loins girt [girt your loins] about with truth, and having [put] on the breastplate of righteousness. 15And your feet shod [having shod your feet] with the preparation [preparedness] of the gospel 16of peace; Above [In addition to] all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall 17be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked [evil one]. And take [or receive] the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18Praying always with all prayer and supplication [With all prayer and supplication praying at all times] in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with [in] all perseverance and supplication for all [all the] saints; 19And for me [or on my behalf], that utterance may be given unto [to] me, that I may open my mouth boldly, [in the opening of my mouth, in boldness] to make known the mystery of 20the gospel, For [or In behalf of] which I am an ambassador in bonds [literally in a chain]; that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. AND Summary: 1. Internal strengthening, Ephesians 6:10; Ephesians 2. Necessity of armor on account of the enemies, Ephesians 6:11-13; Ephesians 3. The armor itself, Ephesians 6:14-17 (a. the preparation, Ephesians 6:14-15; b. the defensive armor, Ephesians 6:16-17 a; c. the one offensive weapon, Ephesians 6:17 b); 4. The prayer and intercession, Ephesians 6:18-20 (a. prayer in general; b. intercession in general, Ephesians 6:18; c. intercession for the Apostle, Ephesians 6:19-20). Ephesians 6:10. Finally, τὸ λο.ì ?πόν—Particula sive formula concludendi et ut ad rem magnam excitandi, 2 Corinthians 13:11, formula progrediendi (Bengel). Philippians 3:1; Philippians 4:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:1. Luther is good: finally. Τοῦ λοιποῦ [See Textual Note!] would mean: henceforth, in future (Galatians 6:17); here it would be unintelligible. Be strengthened in the Lord, ἐνδυναμουσθεἐνκυρίω—What in the active form is ascribed to the Lord, who strengthens (Philippians 4:13; 1 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 4:17), is expressed by the passive here, without further qualification, Acts 9:22; more closely defined in 2 Timothy 2:1 : “in the grace;” Romans 4:20 : “in faith;” Hebrews 11:34 : “out of weakness” (ex morbo convalescere). It cannot be middle (Piscator), nor can κυρίω refer to God (B-Crusius). The general qualification: in the Lord is then more closely defined: and in the might of his strength, καὶ ἐντῶκράτειτῆςἰσχύοςαύτοῦ.—Καί explicative here. [“This appended clause serves to explain and specify the principle in which our strength was to be sought for, and in which it dwelt” (Ellicott).—R.] On the whole phrase see Exeg. Notes, Ephesians 1:19. This gives prominence to what comes, to us from, Christ (1 Corinthians 12:9): Christ’s strength becomes our strength; only in Him are we strengthened. The necessity of armor (panoply) on account of the enemies; Ephesians 6:11-13. Ephesians 6:11. Put on the whole armour of God [ἐνδύσασθετὴνπανοπλίαντοῦ θεῦ ?].—To those being strengthened in the Lord it is said: “put on;” ἐνδύσασθε has something of a paronomasia between ἐνδυναμοῦσθε and δύνασθαι. The internal strengthening must appropriate the proffered means of assistance, in order to become powerful in conflict. For this the Christian requires τὴνπανοπλίαντοῦ θεοῦ (here, Ephesians 6:13; Luke 11:22). The figure of a conflict is frequently used by the Apostle (2 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7; Romans 6:13; Romans 6:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:8; comp. Isaiah 59:16-19; Wis 5:17-23). The word πανοπλία refers to the entire equipment; it will not suffice to choose, or put on one or another piece of this military equipment; Ambrose: universitas armorum; Luther incorrectly limits it to: Harnesch [old English harness, defensive armor], both here and Ephesians 6:13. But it must also be “the panoply of God,” arma, quζ offeruntur, suppeditantur a Doc (Calvin, Calovius), therefore a Divine armament; the arms should be altogether of a Divine kind, in contrast to the arms of the opponent. The emphasis rests on the whole idea: God’s equipment, neither on πανοπλία alone (Meyer), nor on θεοῦ alone (Harless). It is not a detailed and playful imitation of 1 Thessalonians 5:8 (De Wette), but rather an independent reference to Isaiah 59:16-19, which is used in a different way for the Judgment in (Wis 5:17-23). Whether a Roman or Jewish warrior was in Paul’s mind is in itself an unprofitable question; the former met him constantly, the latter not. That ye may be able to stand, πρὸςτὸ δύνασθαιὑμᾶςστῆαι. The first verb is repeated in Ephesians 6:13 (δυνηθῆτε) and Ephesians 6:16 (δυνήσεσθε). Στῆναιπρόςτίνα is a military phrase, the opposite of φεύγειν, and denotes the acceptance of a conflict with him who attacks. [“To stand one’s ground;” Ellicott remarks on the sense ofπρός in this phrase, that it means adversus, with the implied notion of hostility (‘contra’), which is otherwise less usual unless it is involved in the verb. Comp. Winer, p. 378.—R.] Against the wiles of the devil, πρὸςτὰςμεθοδείαςτοῦ διαβόλου.—Luther very aptly renders it: “against the crafty assaults of the devil.” The plural marks both the multiplicity of the concrete cases, and the obstinacy of the repeated attack (Stier). Craft and strength are both present in the assault, but the latter is concealed under the former, thus becoming dangerous and destructive. “The devil” is mentioned as the precise enemy, even though it be sin that is to be immediately contended against (Hebrews 12:1; Hebrews 12:4). “The panoply of God” and “the wiles of the devil,” are thus opposed to each other. The power of the latter is by no means inconsiderable and the contest is difficult, hence the next statement. Ephesians 6:12. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood [ὅτιοὐκἔστινἡμῖνἡ πάληπρὸςαἱμακαὶ σάρκα.]—“For” (ὅτι) introduces a reason for the proposition: “to stand against the wiles of the devil” is in question. The form οὐκἔστινἡμῖνἡ πάλη is remarkable; ἡμῖν includes with emphasis the Apostle; a proposition valid for all is treated of; ἔστἰνπάλη denotes the present conflict, while πάλη (πάλλειν, to throw, to swing), the wrestling-match, lucta (Erasmus), colluctatio (Augustine, Vulgate), is used in order to characterize the close, personal, struggle. Paul had in view the subject-matter and the readers, not mere rhetorical beauty. The article denotes the contest, which exists and which every one already knows. The Apostle denies the contest “against blood and flesh” because pone homines, qui nos infestant latent spiritus (Bengel). Underneath and behind what is human and sinful, Satan himself is active (Stier). Paul insists on the final ground, the deepest cause of the contest, the guiding principle, the commanding general; flesh and blood is to him only the division of the army which presses forward, occasioning special danger. Comp. Winer, p. 463. Augustine: Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, i.e., homines, quos videtis sζvire in nos. Vasa sunt, alius utitur; organa sunt, alius jungit. We have οὐκ—ἀλλά, hence not=non tam, non tantum—quam (Grotius, Stier and others). [Most commentators now oppose the softening down of the negation (following Winer and Meter). The word πάλη (only here) has been generally considered a change of metaphor or taken in a general sense. It undoubtedly marks the hand to hand conflict, and should therefore be taken literally. Meyer, who formerly accepted a change of metaphor, now maintains that this figure enters only in the negative clause, and that some general word is to be supplied after ἀλλά. This avoids a mixing of metaphors, but the learned author does not seem to notice that it weakens the sense just where it ought to be strongest, in the positive clause. He also takes the article as generic, but Alford suggests that ἡ πάλη refers to “the only conflict which can be described by such a word—our life and death struggle, there being but one such,” which is better.—R.] The contest with flesh and blood is not, however, on this account excluded. The usual order is σὰρξκαὶ αἶμα (Matthew 16:17; 1 Corinthians 15:50; Galatians 1:16), in Hebrews 2:14 we find as a various reading [probably the correct reading, as it is supported by our best uncial authorities.—R.]: αἵματοςκαὶ σαρκός. Since the formation of the flesh proceeds from the blood (Wis 7:1-2), reference is made here to the origin of man and his corrupt nature denoted, according to the context. The position of the two words is not accidental (Meyer). Elsewhere the phrase means human nature in itself (1 Corinthians 15:50), including what is sinful, Matthew 16:19; Genesis 1:16. One’s own flesh and blood is also included here; it is not to be referred only to the human persons about one’s self (Bengel, Harless, Meyer, and others). But, ἀλλά supply ἔστινἡμῖνἡ πάλη.—Against the principalities, πρὸςτὰςἀρχάς.—The repetition of the preposition with each term gives prominence rhetorically to the several notions. Winer, p. 392. Ἀρχάς indicates the organization of the kingdom of the devil, denoting the chiefs and heads of the separate groups,—Against the powers, πρὸςτὰςἐξουσίας marks the efficient, attacking powers, comp. Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 3:10.—Against the world rulers of this darkness, πρὸςτοὺςκοσμοκράτοραςτουσκότουςτούτου.—This term (also in the Hebrew [Rabbinical term] χεֹ ?ζְ ?ξεֹ ?χψָ ?θּ ?εֹ ?ψ) denotes the world-ruling power: for “the whole world lieth in darkness” (1 John 5:19; 1 John 2:14) and Satan is “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), “the prince of this world” (John 16:11; John 14:30); his angels are under him world-rulers, whose sphere is designated by the genitive: “of this darkness.” Κόσμος more closely designates the local extension and region of the dominion, τοῦ σκότους its quality as to origin and corruptness, but it is limited by τούτου, which points to something transient and bounded. On this account we should neither weaken the meaning of κοσμοκράτορες into “rulers” (Harless), nor is it necessary (with Bengel, Stier [E. V. ] and others) to read τοῦ αἰῶνος after τοῦ σκότους. Bengel: Bene quod non sunt omnitenentes: magna tamen non solum ipsius diaboli, sed etiam eorum, quibus prζest, potentia est. Videntur alia esse genera malorum spirituum, quζ magis domi in arce regni tenebrarum manent, imperia, potestates, aliud hoc tertium, quod foris mundanas quasi provincias obtinet munditenentes. The power is made prominent in the first two terms, and in the third the sphere; there follows next a designation which gives prominence to the character: Against the spiritual hosts of wickedness.—Πρὸςτὰ πνευματικὰ (Vulgate: spiritualia) is an abstract term, the concluding antithesis of “flesh and blood,” comprising all the spiritualities, which, in contrast with the kingdom of the Holy Ghost, deserve the characteristic: τῆςπονηρίας, as the spirit of revolution; to such belong moral wickedness and malice, which is directed to the destruction of others. It is incorrect to take πνευματικώ=πνεύματα (Luther: with evil spirits), or collectively as Geisterschaft (Meyer), or to translate the phrase spirituales nequitias (Erasmus). [This view, supported by Braune, is that of Stier, but it is by no means so satisfactory as that of Meyer, accepted by Hodge, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott and others. This takes the term collectively (see Winer, p. 224, and Meyer), as implying something more than “spirits,” rather the bands, hosts, armies, confraternities of spirits, best expressed by the German term: Geisterschaft. See Ellicott against the altogether untenable rendering of the E. V., as well as against the abstract meaning in general.—R.] In heavenly places, ἐυτοῖςἐπουρανίοις.—This is to be connected grammatically with τὰ πνευματικά (omnium doctorum opinio, Jerome), and, as in Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:6; has a local signification, designating a region in antithesis to the earthly, to what is in any manner perceptible to the sense; here, where angels are spoken of, it means the region assigned to these beings who are purely spiritual over against men, and although there are angels who have not remained in their original fellowship with God, yet there still remains to them a region corresponding to their nature, of course not in nearness to God. It does not then mean in statu c�lesti as a moral notion, but only as a physical one, so that it may be taken as parallel to ἀήρ, Ephesians 2:1, though it is not exactly equivalent; ἀήρ is spoken of from the stand-point of man, τὰ ἐπουράνια from the nature of angels, marking the dangerous element of the contest with these spirits and their spiritualities. Hence before all we are to reject the explanation: “for heavenly possessions” (Greek Fathers, Calovius, Morus and others), since the position of the words will not permit this phrase to be joined with πάλη in the beginning of the sentence, passing over ἀλλά, nor is ἐν = ὑπέρ, δὶά, while the signification of the phrase is uniformly local. [Comp. Ephesians 1:3. It does not designate the place of the conflict, the kingdom of heaven (Matthies), nor the place, but in a symbolical sense, out into the fathomless air, in order to show that the contest is unequal Marte iniquo (Rueckert), or in such a way that region and subject meet, as though a conflict was spoken of in our souls, but respecting calling and sanctification, our praying and preaching of God’s grace (Stier); nor yet are we to think of the spiritual world and its affairs (B-Crusius). Finally with the proper view of the connection we should neither interpolate a “formerly” (Semler), as though only the previous condition of the angels was denoted, nor does it suffice to accept the limitation to a locality excluded (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. 455), nor is it admissible to treat the notion of heaven as an elastic one, so that these angels are still relatively in a heaven, the atmospheric one (Meyer). Nor does it at all mean a pretended stay, so that the expression is apt irony in view of the arrogation of equal dignity, power and glory with God. (Schenkel). [The connection with the phrase immediately preceding is accepted by nearly all recent commentators, but there is necessarily difference of opinion about the exact force of the term. Ellicott objects to any precise specification of locality, though referring to Hofmann, whose view is properly rejected by Meyer. Schenkel’s view is a pure invention. Such irony was not befitting the earnestness of Paul’s discourse, and was scarcely so “apt” as Schenkel thinks, if no one else but himself has hitherto appreciated it. Ellicott aptly expresses the sense: “supernal spirits of evil.” The E. V. shows the reluctance to apply the word “heavenly” to evil spirits. See Meyer and Eadie for notice of other shifts.—R.] Ephesians 6:13. Wherefore, διὰ τοῦτο, because we have to contend against such.—Take up the whole armour of God.—Comp. Ephesians 6:11. Ἀναλάβετε is a technical term for taking up the arms.—That ye may be able to withstand.—Instead of πρός (Ephesians 6:11) we here have ἵνα; the goal is denoted there, the purpose here; ἀντιστῆναι is somewhat livelier, indicating the attacks of the spirit, whom he in spirit sees making an assault.—In the evil day, ἐντῇ ἡμέρατῇ πονηρᾶ.—At all events this means a particular day, immediately impending, but quite as certainly is it not the same for every one, since a common contest is not implied, not a battle, but a πάλη, “wrestling,” in which the victory is decisive for “the day of redemption.” Therefore the decisive, imminent day of conflict for each one is marked. Bengel: bellum est perpetuum; pugna alio die minus fervet; dies malus vel ingruente morte, vel in vita; longior, brevior, in se ipso sζpe varius. [So Hodge, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott.] See Doctr. Notes. It is neither the day of death (Schmid), still less the day of Judgment (Jerome), nor in general every day of conflict with its calamity (Theodoret, Pelagius, Harless and others), [nor the present life with the accompanying thought of brevity, Chrysostom, �cumenius, Theophylact,] nor the particular common day [of the last great Satanic outbreak] before the Second Advent (Koppe, Meyer, Stier and others), nor is it merely the evil hours (Luther.) And having accomplished all, to stand [καὶ ἅπαντακατεργασάμενοιστῆναι].—To ἀντιστῆναι, referring to the conflict, the Apostle appends (καί) στῆναι, which designates the victorious keeping the field on the place of contest; it is the opposite of fleeing, yielding, being thrown down. Ἅπαντακατεργασάμενοι, placed first, denotes a performing, effecting, the object of which is more fully designated with ἅπαντα, more comprehensible than πάντα, omnia operati (Jerome), well executing all (Luther); comp. Romans 7:13; Philippians 2:12. The Apostle here treats of the doing of the Divine will in all directions and relations, the ethical activity and efficiency of the Christian, which outs its way through all assaults and conflicts from the side of the demons, without being led astray or weakened. It is neither=παράσκευασάμενοι, omnibus rebus probe comparatis ad pugnam (Bengel and others), nor=debellare, phrasis bellica (Greek Fathers, Grotius, Koppe, Harless and others), nor does it refer to the conflict itself (Meyer and others), nor yet is it: in omnibus perfect (Vulgate). [The participle is never used by Paul in the sense of “having overcome;” it is therefore best to accept the usual meaning: “having accomplished,” especially as we might expect a masculine object instead of the neuter ἅπαντα, were the former sense intended. At the same time the view of Bengel is evidently too restricted for the extended meaning of both participle and object. There remains still another question respecting the scope of the clause. Braune follows Luther in referring the infinitive to keeping the field; in that case the participle necessarily refers to all the antecedent action. Eadie, Alford, and Ellicott however apply the term to standing firm until the end of the combat, which seems preferable in view of the continued reference in context to the conflict itself. The participle, with its object, then means: having done all that the exigencies of the conflict require, “being fully equipped and having bravely fought.”—R.] The armor itself; Ephesians 6:14-17. a. The preparation; Ephesians 6:14-15. b. The defensive armor; Ephesians 6:16-17 a. c. The one offensive weapon; Ephesians 6:17 b. Ephesians 6:14. Stand therefore, στῆτεοὐν, in the conflict, in order after the conflict to stand as victor. [Meyer, Ellicott: “stand ready for the fight;” Alford: “whether ‘ready for the fight’ or ‘in the fight’ matters very little: all the aoristic participles are in time antecedent to the στῆτε—and the fight ever at hand.”—R.]—Having girt your loins about with truth, περιζωσάμενοιτὴνὀσφὺνὑμῶνἐνἀληθεία.—Being girded about their loins, they have on the girdle, or waist-belt (ζωστήρ, ζώνη), which covers the groin and the stomach below the breastplate, the most vulnerable part of the body, the region of the hips and loins; this is the first and a very important piece (Isaiah 5:27; Isaiah 11:5; Luke 12:35; 1 Peter 1:13). [Meyer: “An ungirded soldier would be a contradiction in terms.” The girdle kept the armor in place, formed in itself a part of the cuirass, and was also used to support the sword. The latter notion Alford regards as confusing here, but it hardly seems so, since the sword was objective truth.—R.]—Ἐνἀληθείᾳ that with which the loins are enveloped, like καίεινἐνπυρί, καλύπτεινἐνἱματίῳ (Winer, p. 363); here it means the objective truth revealed in the word, which is appropriated. Veritas adstringit hominem, mendaciorum magna est laxitas (Grotius). On this account we should neither exclude the former (Harless, Meyer), nor understand merely the moral truth of willing (Harless) or the agreement of knowledge with the objective truth given in the gospel (Meyer), or sincerity (Calvin and others), or apply this to ornament (Harless). [“Truth” here is subjective truth, since the article is wanting and the objective truth is mentioned in Ephesians 6:17. Still it is based on the faith and standing of a Christian (Alford); “the assured conviction that you believe” (Eadie). It should be noticed that faith (by implication) enters here and in the mention of the sword, as well as explicitly in the figure of the shield.—R.] And having put on the breastplate of righteousness [καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοιτὸνθώρακατῆςδικαιοσύνης].—Here καί adjoins another piece. Ἑνδυσάμενοι means putting on like a part of the clothes. Τὸνθώρακα is added by the Apostle without a designation of the part of the body (στῆθος) which it covers because that is self-evident. The genitive (τῆςδικαιοσύνης) is appositional; here it means the righteousness of faith and of life, justification and sanctification before God and men (Romans 6:4; Romans 6:13). In pectore sedes est conscientiζ, quζ munitur justitia. Hostis per omnia ipsi contraria vincitur (Bengel). Meyer finds here the ethical rectitude, as in the previous clause the intellectual, which is only so far correct, that here we should find an ethical reference, there an intellectual one, as in Ephesians 5:9; Isaiah 11:5. Harless: The righteousness of faith, with which alone one does not stand on the place of conflict, which also passes over into the life. [So Alford: “The purity and uprightness of Christian character which is the result of the work of the Spirit of Christ; the inwrought righteousness, not merely the imputed righteousness.” The latter reference is defended by Eadie and Hodge; the former pressing the article in support of it, the latter urging that no moral virtue forms part of the armor and then saying that the subjective sense of righteousness was included already in the word “truth.” The wider reference is preferable, for the more restricted one belongs to a view of the word δικαιοσύνη, which is too forensic, sundering in twain an indivisible truth. For the correct meaning of the word, see Romans, pp. 74, 75, 78, etc.—R.] Ephesians 6:15. Having shod your feet, καὶ ὑποδησάμενοιτοὺςπόδας.—This adds the third piece, and the terms are again significant. Here we must think of the war-sandals, προκνημῖδας, ocre� militares, which give firm footing and gait.—With the preparedness of the gospel of peace [ἐνἁτοιμασίατοῦ εὐαγγελίουτῆςεἰρήνης].—That in (ἐν) which the feet stand, is for the warrior of Christ ἑτοιμασία, readiness, promptitudo animi, internal and external, the ready courage and preparedness for conflict, firmitas et constantia, which the gospel gives; hence τοῦ εὐαγγελίου is auctoris, the contents and pledge of which is set forth by τῆςεἰρήνης chiefly with God, (Romans 5:1; Romans 8:31; Romans 8:38 f.), then in one’s self and peaceableness toward men as such. The Christian fights in peace for the sake of peace, viz. the eternal one. That is an oxymoron (Schenkel): the gospel of peace instils readiness for conflict. We should not then, because pedumsζpe (Romans 10:15; Romans 3:16 sqq.; Luke 1:79) conjuncta mentio cum evangelis et cum pace (Bengel), allow ourselves, contrary to the context to think of the proclamation of the gospel (Luther: ready to carry on the gospel, Harless and others). [So Chrysostom and now Conybeare, but the Apostle was addressing the whole church as engaged in an individual conflict, mainly defensive too.—R.] Notwithstanding the frequent use of ἑτοιμασία to translate the Hebrew ξָ ?λεֹ ?κ (LXX. Ezra 2:68; Ezra 3:3; Psalms 89:15; Daniel 9:20-21), it is not to be rendered as=fundamentum (Bengel and Bleek and others), although what is positive is not to be excluded. Εἰρήνη is neither to be limited to peace with God (Harless, Meyer and others), nor referred to peace between Gentile and Gentile (Michaelis). Erasmus is irrelevant: evangelium—non-tumulta, sed tolerantia tranquillitateque defenditur.The defensive armor; Ephesians 6:16-17 a. Ephesians 6:16. In addition to all, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν (Winer, p. 367), as in Luke 3:20 : “Added this above all;” Luke 16:28. Erasmus: super omnia, for a protection over all. Incorrect: before all things (Luther). [Meyer, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott agree with Braune (as does Eadie, who formerly defended the local sense) in taking the preposition as=in addition to rejecting the local (Bengel and others) and ethical references (E. V.). If ἐν be accepted as the correct reading (see Textual Note5) the meaning would be: in all things, i.e., on all occasions.—Having taken up, ἀναλαβόντες, aptly chosen here: the shield of faith.—Τονθυρεόν (from θῦρα, originally that which closes an entrance) is chosen by the Apostle because he has in mind the scutum, which was four feet long and two and a half broad, φִ ?πָּ ?δ (Psalms 35:2; Ezekiel 23:24, LXX.) and not ἀσπίς, clypeus, ξָ ?βֵ ?κ, the smaller, round shield. The concern is that the whole person be covered, as indeed faith (τὴςπίστεως, genitive of apposition as in Ephesians 6:14; Ephesians 6:17) entirely covers and defends the Christian: as God’s gift effecting salvation (Ephesians 2:8) [Meyer: fides salvifica], bringing about forgiveness of sins in the past (Ephesians 1:7), affording for every moment access to God (Ephesians 3:12), assuring in advance of eternal life, by securing to us the gift of the Holy Ghost (Ephesians 1:13-14), rendering holy and without blame (Ephesians 1:4). Comp. Romans 8:14-16; Romans 8:31-39. Man’s own holiness is not a shield for him, as in Wis 5:20; God’s holiness is his shield; God Himself is our shield (Genesis 15:1; Psalms 18:31; Proverbs 30:5; 1 Peter 5:9; 1 John 5:4). It is faith, entirely and constantly giving itself up to God in Christ, on the part of a child and heir, hence not the faith of miracles, nor justifying faith alone (Schenkel). Wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.—Thus the Apostle describes the protection of faith against dangerous attacks. Ἐνᾦ is on which, not with which (Luther and others). [It means either, lighting on it and being quenched in it, or “as protected by and under cover of which” (Ellicott). The former is perhaps preferable.—R.] The figure and the reality are here so much complicated in each other, that we should not think of a shield with wet hides (Olshausen), but of faith on which the destructive fire from Satan is extinguished, without causing damage. The future (δυνήσεσθε) refers to the impending conflict. In this are thrown τὰ βέλητοῦ πονηποῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα; these are malleoli (darts), falaricζ (javelins), tela ignita (made of reeds, with tow and pitch), which are ignited and then hurled (Psalms 7:14; Livy, Psalms 21:8). The evil one, i.e., Satan (Matthew 5:37; Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:38; John 17:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:3) throws temptations of many kinds; hence πάντα comes first and τὰ πεπυρωμένοι is placed last for emphasis (Winer, p. 127). Certainly we are to understand in part dangerous and corrupting words and speeches which come to one’s ears, impart thoughts cast into the heart, the fire of passions, etc. In the σβῆσαι the figure is simply exceeded by the reality. Of course we need not think of poisoned darts (Rueckert and others), which are not burning, but inflict burning wounds. Yet it cannot be said that we should not think of burning desires (Chrysostom), because these are present within man (Schenkel); faith is an affair of the heart, and in the heart the conflict of redemption is fought and won; besides fire and iron could scarcely be two deadly elements, which aptly illustrate the attacks of Satan. [Schenkel]. Ephesians 6:17. And take [or receive] the helmet of salvation [καὶ τῆνπερικεφαλαίαντοῦ σωτηρίουδέξασθε].—This advance is natural. In accordance with the genius of the Greek language a translation is made to the finite construction; it is not simply Paul’s lively method (Meyer), but that of the language. The genitive, τοῦ σωτηρίου, is one of apposition, as in Ephesians 6:14; Ephesians 6:16. The word is entirely general as in Luke 2:30; Luke 3:6; Acts 28:28 (from Isaiah 59:17, LXX. with a reference to the name of Jesus, in which the battle is fought and won, whom faith appropriates) and is used for σωτηρία. The salvation of the Messianic kingdom is represented as a helmet, covering the head. For the warrior does not hide himself behind his shield, but looks over it into the face of his opponent.—Δέξασθε, accipite oblatam a domino. Salute erigitur caput et munitur. 1 Thessalonians 5:8; Psalms 3:3-4 (Bengel). Salvation is the subject of the faith, in which the salvation is apprehended (Harless). [Hodge: “That which adorns and protects the Christian, which enables him to hold up his head with confidence and joy, is the fact that he is saved.” The German has an alliteration here: Den Helm des Heils nehmt, which Wickliffe gives in the Old English of his version: “the helme of helthe.”—R.] The one offensive weapon; Ephesians 6:17 b. And the sword of the Spirit, καὶ τὴνμάχαιραντοῦ πνεύματος.—There is no mention, in addition, as in 1 Samuel 17:47; of the “spear,” or of the “bow” (Genesis 48:22; Joshua 24:12; Psalms 44:7). The Christian has only to contend cominus, personally, not eminus. The sword is “of the Spirit;” τοῦ πνεύματος is a genitive auctoris: He gives it, makes it. It cannot be appositional (Harless and others), as before, since the apposition follows in the relative clause.Which is the word of God.—Ὅ ἐστι which is neuter by attraction of ρῆμαθεοῦ, relates to μάχαιραν, and is not to be construed with πνεύματος (Olshausen), for the Holy Ghost is not the Word of God; the latter is the product, the former is the Producer of what is in the word of God. Concinne subsequitur mentio Spiritus, adeoque coll. Ephesians 6:13 habetur mentio s. trinitatis (Bengel). The Holy Ghost is meant, in antithesis, both to the letter and to the flesh, hence not the human spirit (Morus), which in itself is also σάρξ. “The Word of God” is not to be limited to commandments (Flatt), or threatening against the enemies of the kingdom (Koppe). This completes the equipment. Two things are to be maintained: 1. The difference of the arms and the ethical or supersensuous realities set forth in them should not be arbitrarily weakened. It should not be said: universa potius armorum notio tenenda est. Nor can a proof of this be deduced from 1 Thessalonians 5:8, where we read: “the breastplate of faith and love, and for an helmet the hope of salvation.” From a different stand-point there can be afforded a partially different point of view. 2. The figures are not to be pressed beyond measure and the lively objective metaphor of the Apostle to be dissected in arbitrary subjectivity to practical use.The prayer and the intercession; Ephesians 6:18-20. (a.) Prayer in general, Ephesians 6:18 a. (b.) Intercession in general, Ephesians 6:18 b. (c.) Intercession for the Apostle, Ephesians 6:19-20. Ephesians 6:18. With all prayer and supplication praying.—[The connection of this verse is with στῆτε (Ephesians 6:15), not with δέξασθε, which is a subordinate thought referring to a definite act, hence inconsistent with the “all,” “always” of this verse (Meyer). Meyer is scarcely justifiable in disconnecting διὰ πάσηςπροσευχῆςκαὶ δεήσεως from προσευχόμενοι on the ground of tautology and logical difficulty. Each phrase expresses a proper qualification of the participle, and to pray always with every form of prayer involves no contradiction. Hodge seems to have been led into Meyer’s view. Conybeare improperly takes the participle as an imperative and begins a new paragraph with this verse.—R.] The participle (προσευχόμενοι) is closely connected with the summons to the conflict and the putting on of the armor. The summons to prayer did not appear independently. Prayer is rather to be regarded as attending the taking up of the weapons and the conflict, as the present strongly indicates. The phrase: διὰ πάσηςπροσευχῆςκαὶ δεήσεως, placed first, only requires, that prayer should not be neglected and that constant prayer of every form be earnestly offered up. The first term means prayer in general, the second the special request. [So Harless, Meyer, Fritzsche, Trench (Syn. II., § 1), Ellicott, Alford and most recent commentators.—R.] The opinion [Grotius] is untenable, that the former refers to the bestowment of a blessing, the latter to the averting of an evil (James 5:16-17). At all times in the Spirit.—Ἐνπαντὶ καιρῷ gives prominence to the prayer as persevering, despite all change of relations and circumstances, at every opportunity, ἐνπνεύματι to prayer, as fervent and Christian occurring in the impulse of the Holy Ghost. Bengel: Quoties cunque oratis, orate in Spiritu, quippe qui nullo tempore excluditur.Intercession in general. And watching there unto in all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.—With reference to the already described prayer (εἰςαὐτό) there should also enter (καί), “watching” (ἀγρυπνοῦντες, from ἅϋπνος, Mark 13:33; Luke 21:36), which is elsewhere also joined with prayer (Matthew 26:41; Mark 14:38; Colossians 4:2). [Alford: “continual habits of prayer cannot be kept up without watchfulness to that very end.”—R.] This should take place: “in all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.” The feeling of fellowship in the conflict finds its immediate expression in the supplication for all the fellow-combatants, whose standing fast is strength and assistance to their neighbor. The Christian should have a clear view about him, to the companions in conflict at other positions, in other places, and besides continue constant in such supplication. [“Perseverance and supplication” here amounts to “persevering supplication,” though it is not a grammatical Hendiadys, since the order would be inverted in that case. Ellicott says it is “a virtual or what might be termed a contextual ε͂νδιὰ δυοῖν.” Eadie: “In praying for themselves they were uniformly to blend petitions for all the saints.”—R.] How much depends on this is exemplified in what follows. Intercession for the Apostle, Ephesians 6:19-20. Ephesians 6:19. And for me [or on my behalf], καὶ ὑπὲρἐμοῦ.—[Καί brings into prominence a particular instance: Winer, p. 407.—R.] On the change of prepositions (see Exeg. Notes on Ephesians 5:2) it may be remarked: As regards the saints the figure of encirclement by attacking foes is the one, hence περί, but in the case of the Apostle in prison, that of a fallen combatant, hence ὑπὲρ. Or the former is=on account of, propter, the latter=for, pro (1 Peter 3:18), making known a stronger personal interest.That utterance may be given to me.—Ἵναμοιδοθῇ, that there may be given me from the Lord as His gift. Non nitebatur Paulus habitu suo (Bengel). But. what? Utterance, in the opening of my mouth, λόγοςἐνἀνοίξειτοῦ στόματόςμου.—This is one conception: λόγος without the article, indefinite, is more qualified by the prepositional phrase. Ἄνοιξιςτοῦ στόματος is a pregnant expression (Matthew 5:2; 2 Corinthians 6:11), signifying joyful courage, streaming fulness, as well as granted freedom and fit opportunity (Stier). It is an emphatic designation of the inworking of God upon him who should speak in His name (Harless). Comp. Exodus 4:12; Psalms 51:17; Isa. 51:66; Ezekiel 3:27; Ezekiel 29:31; Ezekiel 32:22; Matthew 10:19; Luke 21:15. Chrysostom: ἡ ἅλυσιςἐπίκειταιτήνπαῤῥησίανἐπιστομίζουσα, ἀλλἡ εὑχὴ ἡ ὑμετέραἀνοίγειμουτὸ στόμα, ἵναἐναὐτῶ παῤῥησιάσωμαι. Calovius: Petit sibi sermonem dari, non catenas solvi; petit apertionem oris, non vinculorum; petit sermonis παῤῥησίαν in ipsis vinculis, non liberationem ab iisdem. A word thus uttered in the opening of the mouth effected by God is God’s word. He therefore wishes a word, not for himself in his heart, but a word in his mouth for others, in furtherance of the conflict which tends to peace. This differs then from Colossians 4:2, where external opportunity is in question, while here the internal life of the Apostle is treated of. Accordingly it is incorrect to render: ut aperiam os meum (Beza [E. V.] and others); in that case εἰς would occur instead of ἐν. So too: when I speak or open my mouth (Meyer and others) [so substantially Eadie, Ellicott, Alford and Hodge]; it is not merely a graphic and solemn expression, that would be too flat. Nor is an improvisation referred to (�cumenius), or an internal moral quality of Paul, the frankness=ἐνπαῤῥησίᾳ (Calvin, Koppe [Bleek, Schenkel] and others), or occasione data (Grotius and others), nor is it to be joined with what follows. [The connection with what precedes (not, as in the E. V., with what follows) is now generally accepted. “The opening of the mouth” most naturally refers neither to the quality nor to the source of the discourse, but to the simple act or fact of speaking, so that the view of Meyer is on the whole preferable. As the phrase occurs here in the purport of a prayer, it may refer to an act of God in opening the mouth, as Braune claims, but in that case another form would have made the sense much clearer.—R.] In boldness to make known the mystery of the gospel [“So that with boldness I may make known,” etc.].—This expresses that for which he wishes that to him “utterance may be given,” “in the opening of my mouth.” He would gladly “make known,” and this was permitted to him in Cesarea (Acts 24:23) and in Rome (Acts 28:30-31; 2 Timothy 1:16) in spite of his bonds. But he wishes to do it ἐνπαῤῥσίᾳ (Ephesians 3:12), hence the phrase stands emphatically in advance. What he will gladly make known is the “mystery” (Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:9), which is the substance “of the gospel.” [Ellicott takes it as a genitive subjecti, “the mystery which the gospel has, involves.”—R.] Ephesians 6:20. For which [or in behalf of which (Ellicott: “in commodum cujus, to preach which”); see below on the exact reference.—R.] I am an ambassador.—He thus expresses the reason why he would so gladly stand up and labor for the gospel [not merely why he was in bonds.—R.] As Christ’s ambassador he holds that office for all nations, and for the gospel; hence ὑπὲροὖ, not ὸὖ. Πρεβεύω is I am an ambassador (2 Corinthians 5:20) and that too in bonds, ἐνἁλύσει.—What a contrast: to be an ambassador in a chain! Bengel: Paradoxon; mundus habet legatos splendidos. Wetstein: Alias legati jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant. The verb does not however indicate that he was accredited to the Roman court (Michaelis), nor does the noun in the singular refer to the single chain with which he was bound to a soldier, to the custodia militaris (Baumgarten and others). Grotius is incorrect: nunc quoque non desino legationem, for we do not read: καὶ ἐνἀλύσειπρεσβεύω. Nor is it=πρεσβεύωνἐνἀλύσειεἰμί (Rueckert). Finally οὖ does not refer to μυστήριον or to τὸ ἐνπαῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι. [Eadie refers it to the whole preceding clause, but this is indistinct; Meyer, Ellicott and Alford (apparently most correctly) refer it to “the mystery of the gospel,” since this was the object of γνωρίσαι, and what he should make known would naturally be that for which he was an ambassador in bonds. R—.] That therein I may speak boldly, ἵναἐναὐτῷ παῤῥησιάσωμαι.—Ἵνα introduces an end, and the final one: “that therein I may speak boldly.” [“His being thus a captive ambassador, was all the more reason why they should pray earnestly that he might have boldness” (Alford). On the grammatical connection see the concluding note.—R.] The gospel is the immediate task of the free discourse, in this, however, there is also a message of Divine power, is the source and ground of the boldness. When there is first vouchsafed to him “an utterance in the opening of his mouth,” then also does he obtain “boldness” in the gospel, and that too: as I ought to speak, ὡςδεῖ μελαλῆσαι.—The emphasis rests on the ὡς as in Luke 12:11 (Stier). Much depends on how it is done, hence “as I ought to speak.” He must indeed testify; that is his “necessity” (1 Corinthians 9:16); but to him belongs also, beyond the εὐαγγελίσασθαι, the manner worthy of the ambassador of Christ. This defines the fulfilling of his task, his duty. Comp. Colossians 4:4; 1 Thessalonians 2:2. Accordingly ἵνα in this verse is not co-ordinate with the first ἵνα in Ephesians 6:19 (Meyer, Bleek and others), since this is the final end of the Church’s supplication, to be attained through the fulfilment of the first ἵνα; nor is it dependent on πρεσβεύω (Bengal), which is inconceivable. [Eadie, Alford, Hodge and Ellicott, all agree with Meyer, in taking this ἵνα as co-ordinate with that in Ephesians 6:19, thus setting forth a second purpose of the watching and the supplication for the Apostle. This involves no tautology, as Harless supposes, since the reference here is to a conditioned boldness, and “therein” indicates not the source or ground, but the sphere of the boldness: “in the matter of, in dealing with the mystery of the gospel;” God is the source. Such a co-ordinate ἵνα occurs in Romans 7:13; Galatians 3:14; 2 Corinthians 9:3. It is true as Braune suggests, that this design is accomplished only through the fulfilment of the previous purpose (Ephesians 6:19), but grammatically the clause must be either co-ordinate or subordinate (the view of Bengel being altogether untenable); if the latter, then it would express the purpose, not of the whole previous context, the supplication and consequent utterance, but simply of the gift of utterance, a view which Braune himself does not accept. We prefer therefore the other construction as more grammatical and not militating against the special point our author would bring out. For convenience a paraphrase of Eph 6:18-20 is appended: In this conflict therefore stand, not only armed thus, but with all (every form of) prayer and supplication, praying at all times (perseveringly and under all circumstances) in the (Holy) Spirit, and watching thereunto (in respect to this varied and constant prayer) in all perseverance and supplication (abiding even as you pray in persevering supplication) for all the saints; and (in particular) on behalf of me, that to me may be given (from God) utterance, in the opening of my mouth (when I am called upon to speak), so that with boldness I may make known the mystery of the gospel (whose contents are the gospel), in behalf of which (gospel mystery) I am an ambassador in bonds (a chained ambassador); (praying for me too in view of my office and condition) that therein (in the matter of the gospel mystery) I may speak boldly, as I ought (as becomes my office) to speak.—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The kingdom of Satan. There is an organized kingdom of evil (Hahn, Theologie des N. T., I., p. 347), opposing the kingdom and people of God. In this there is a head, διάβολος (Ephesians 6:11; Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 4:27); there are different groups, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι (Ephesians 6:12; Ephesians 3:10; comp. Ephesians 1:21), superior and inferior, with dominion over the world, κοσμοκράτορες. The nature of the prince and his dependents is pneumatic (Ephesians 6:12 : τὰ πνευματικά) and super-terrestrial, ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις (Ephesians 6:12); thus prominence is given to their might over against men; they are super-terrestrial, with angelic power. Their character, however, is marked by the terms “wickedness” (Ephesians 6:12 : τῆςπονηρίας), “darkness” (τοῦ σκότους, Ephesians 6:12) and “the evil one” (Ephesians 6:16); at his service are multifarious wiles (Ephesians 6:11 : αἱ μεθοδεῖαι), which perceive the necessities and weakness of the object to be assaulted in all relations, preparing the attacks accordingly. [Eadie: “To rouse up the Christian soldiery, the Apostle brings out into bold relief the terrible foes which they are summoned to encounter. As to their position, they are no subalterns, but foes of mighty rank, the nobility and chieftains of the spirit-world; as to their office, their domain is ‘this darkness’ in which they exercise imperial sway; as to their essence, they are not encumbered with an animal frame, but are ‘spirits;’ and as to their character, they are ‘evil’—their appetite for evil only exceeds their capacity for producing it.”—R.] 2. The contest in its essence is a single-handed struggle in wrestling (Ephesians 6:12 : α̇λλα, sc. ἕστινἡμῖνἡ πάλη), in which each for himself is attacked. The danger lies in the power and character of the enemy and of his wiles (see 1), in which he does not himself openly appear; he casts βέλη, many (πάντα) and fiery ones (Ephesians 6:16), as also in the end of the vanquished one, who belongs to “darkness” (Ephesians 6:12) as a result of the “deceit” (Ephesians 4:14). The means for assault and conflict are afforded to the Evil one by the world, which is at his disposal, and by “flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12), which war against the soul and become allies in the service of Satan, against whom the contest really is waged, standing behind these as he does with his stratagems and artifices. What is natural and created is not the precise antagonist against whom we must contend. The Apostle sketches the conflict as a present one (ἔστιν, Ephesians 6:12), concerning every member of the church, the Apostle and every Christian, having however its history, its various stages up to the day of decision (“in the evil day,” Ephesians 6:13) for which we must be prepared by opposition from the very start, being practiced in the turns and twists of the contest. Hence we are to understand the temptations and antagonisms, which meet every Christian in this world, which are spared to no period of the Church. They appear as contests with flesh and blood, with the world and its influence through its possessions, pleasures and honors, but back of this there stands really and in truth the kingdom of darkness. At certain times and hours they are intensified into specially decisive conflict. The evil day may be either the most fierce persecution and bitter sorrow, or quite as readily prosperity and undisturbed earthly happiness, in which some may fall even deeper and the Church itself be corrupted into unfaithfulness. This is true in particular for every Christian and his Christian life, and also in general for the Christian Church in its groups and its course of development. As the power of the Evil one is a cosmical one, and not merely a human one, humanly individualized, so the conflict itself is a cosmical one also, and not merely an individual one. 3. The panoply. In such a conflict the Christian needs an equipment, given by God and covering the whole man (ἡ πανοπλίατοῦ θεοῦ, Ephesians 6:11; Ephesians 6:13). Man of himself, in his own power and strength, is unable to withstand the attacks; he has assailable and vulnerable points, which he must protect against the assaults of the Evil One, but which he alone cannot protect; only with the Lord Christ and in His power can he do it, even though he stands isolated; without God in Christ never!—The separate pieces of this armor (Ephesians 6:14-17) are: truth, righteousness, zealous but not passionate witness, faith, which concerns the whole personality, hope, which exalts, and God’s Word. The first three pieces betoken the garments, the next two the defensive armor, the last the one only weapon of offence and attack adapted only for single-handed and close combat, which belongs to the Christian warrior, to the Christian assailed by the Evil One and yet courageous and assured of victory. No one piece can be undervalued or neglected: each one requires the other; they together form one whole.—The putting on of this armor presupposes a being strengthened, points to an internal and vital appropriation, and requires faithful fulfilment of duty (ἅπαντακατεργασάμενοι, Ephesians 6:13). Neither a knowledge which is a matter either of the memory merely or of the reflecting understanding, nor an external mechanical skill in the handling of these spiritual pieces of armor, will suffice for the conflict and the victory. Even the standing ready for the combat is not enough; there must be a solicitous regard as to what is to be done, and performance of the immediate task in peaceable walk. But above all must we cling to the Lord, in order to become inwardly strengthened by Him.—Hence Paul adjoins to the lively sketch of the panoply in close connection soberly without a figure. 4. Praying and watching (Ephesians 6:18), just as the Lord enjoined it and practiced it in the struggle in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46); God’s Word to and for us teaches and leads us to open our hearts before Him in our word to Him. There must be at length intercourse between Him and our souls, in order to strengthen us more and more and enable us to do our duty. In prayerful intercourse, that grows ever more fervent, free, joyous and constant, we obtain God’s power. But we must with true open look see about and within ourselves, so that our weakness, the motions of the flesh, the surrounding agitation, the state of the times, the assaults of the enemy, God’s will and word, do not escape us. 5. We must advance to intercession for all saints and for the special warriors of the present. The Christian stands in single-handed combat, but is not isolated; the fall of one may involve the fall of another, perhaps of many. The victory of one preserves many from a fall. The conflict of the Christian is a common concern, the cause of the Church. That is an evidence of watching, when in the supplication for all special thought is given to those who are fighting in the van and most of all exposed to assaults. That is watchfulness, when one sees that the matter is not that the external condition of the assailed one is altered and improved, that the prison should be opened for the prisoner, but rather that he continues internally in joy and boldness to be an unhampered witness of the gospel, especially of the marrow of the gospel, full of life, of the profoundest contents of revelation, thus enabled amid all outward disgrace before the world to preserve the inward dignity of a child and servant of God, of His ambassador. AND About nothing does man have such indistinct views as about his own strength. Every one, be he never so weak, thinks himself strong: this is proved by his resolutions, his plans, which have been mostly frustrated and shattered. It is with strength as with beauty, which no one even the ugliest thinks is far off. Indeed man is often afraid for himself just where there is nothing to fear, as the miser of unnecessary expense, the ambitious man of renouncing something, not knowing their own weakness. That in the Lord alone, the strong and mighty One, strength is to be sought and found, all those do not consider who are unwilling to ground true freedom in the service of God; only the children of God are strong, and he who stands fast on the soil of Divine precepts, eternal principles, has unconquerable might. He who is overcome by God and holds to Him, overcomes himself and the enemies without him.—The conflict is stirred by a powerful enemy without us, who is the more dangerous, the more allies he finds within us in our flesh and blood, in our natural man. Were there no false friends in us, the enemy, Satan, without us would not have so great power.—The Christian alone is assailed; he who is not assailed is no Christian, either no longer, or not yet. Satan does not attack his own, but rather uses them only in assaulting believers.—In the panoply of God all temptations of the devil turn out to be trials from God, in which we become stronger and more invincible.—The girdle of the Christian warrior is a chain of eternal truths, his breastplate is righteousness which avails before God, his war-shoes are skill in Gospel testimony in word and deed without precipitancy in peaceableness; his shield is that faith of the heart which hangs on Christ, securing against seven darts, those of sin, virtue, the world, the cross, despair, calumny and death (H. Mueller); the helmet is the hope of everlasting salvation, and the short sword is the apprehended word from God, which has the edge and point to parry as drawn by the Lord Himself. Only learn how to choose and use such texts as Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10! See thou hast the sword of the Spirit! 1. The sword which is of the Spirit is a word, God’s word, but this word is a sword. 2. The Spirit, whose the sword is, is the Holy Spirit, not theology, not polity, nor confession, neither letter nor man’s reason.—Without God’s word reason and strength were a leaden banner, a lance without a head, a sword without an edge.—To handle the sword Of the Spirit thou needest the strength of God. Hamann says aptly, the breastplate is no bodice but a breast-plate, to which a champion is as much accustomed as patrons to their loose clothes. From supplication we first learn how to pray for ourselves rightly.—More depends on internal than on external freedom. To be free in chains and bonds, to be full of pure joy hr tribulation, to be oppressed and yet freehearted, is the Apostle’s wish and precept. Starke: Do you suppose that Christianity comes off without a conflict or that you will receive a crown of glory without having contended? You deceive yourself. Daily must you be in the combat and show good knighthood in faith. Do you ask: who then are my enemies? look into your own breast and there you will find sinful lusts, warring against you; sloth and sleepiness, clouding thy spirit, unbelief and doubt, wounds of conscience, disturbing you, etc. Without you are Satan and the world, setting their nets. If you are not properly armed in faith against these enemies, you will go to ruin.—Since artifice is so much more dangerous than force, we must specially protect ourselves against this.—He who is well armed can composedly look the devil in the face and stand up to him foot to foot; he will assuredly conquer.—A good conscience is the Christian’s breastwork.—The less sin, the less the power of the devil.—Let a believing Christian take especial care that he guards his heart.—When the enemy is there it is too late to begin to arm; prepare yourself beforehand and be always ready.—Where there is no faith, there is no armor that avails against Satan; all is lost.—The word of God is necessary for all men, even for the overcoming of spiritual adversaries. How can the Romish Church answer for this, that they have refused this to their poor people?—Prating is not praying. He who has not the spirit of prayer, cannot pray aright.—Strong, well-fortified and blessed souls need our intercessions also.—Ye hearers, why is it that your teacher is so dull and that he cannot speak with power to your conscience! The answer is: you do not pray for him! Oh, as often as he enters the pulpit, so often should your mind and your whole heart rise to the Lord, praying earnestly that he may with boldness and great impression speak to your souls.—Oh how much useless stuff is often brought out from the pulpit! Let him who appears before the Lord, see to it that he speaks nothing else than God’s word. Rieger: A good warrior needs inward courage and then outward armor.—The devil has a great advantage when his power is denied or deemed trifling. For there is then the less arming against him.—The magnificent names which the Apostle applies to these powers arranged in the kingdom of darkness, we must never look at in themselves, for then they might appear to be expressed only to increase the fear of our hearts; but when we consider in addition the destruction of all these works which is announced in the Gospel, they serve rather to exalt the name of Christ.—In the entire period of life, during which we find ourselves placed on the field of conflict, there still occurs some one occasion which constitutes the evil day, and upon which it depends whether the purpose of the enemy be repelled, our will for good, taken from God’s word and Spirit, become strengthened and thus God’s will toward us be accomplished.—It is really a principal part of the honorable condition of the children of God, that they cannot only present their own concerns in prayer to Him, but also assume those of others in supplication.—There is here however no approval of an indolent leaning upon the intercessions of others, such as Simon sought with a heart “not right” (Acts 6:24), or of a self-interested application of intercession, such as our Saviour rebuked in the Pharisee (Matthew 13:14), but we are to understand a common contest and mutual help in prayer. Heubner: Weapons of human prudence, the straw-armor of our reason, as Luther says, are not sufficient against the evil, spiritual powers. If God is not with us, with His counsel and His strength, all is in vain.—The Christian must ever stand, ever be armed, because there is always a conflict. A fool does not know what kind of a contest there is going to be! He calls the evil powers the fancies of benighted ones.—As among the Spartans the saying was: “either with this or on this,” so the Christian should either preserve his shield of faith or die on it.—No one is so strong that he can do without the intercession of others. Even a Paul still needed strengthening and stimulus. The word to be preached is given by the Lord; the Lord opens the mouth. From Him must come the impulse to speak; he who preaches according to his own fancies and pleasure accomplishes nothing. The Gospel is to the perverted heart always a mystery. Passavant: Paul was a man of God and as such of varied and great experience in all these conflicts.—The more earnestly Paul contended, the more earnestly did his love for the Christians, the brethren, the churches of the Lord, fear and tremble.—Paul is the ambassador on behalf of the Gospel and on account of the preaching of it in bonds.—This office has its sorrows and dangers; it has heights and also abysses, a destruction, a condemnation, a death. Stier: As certainly as you can count upon God’s help, so necessary is your own activity in the use of means, which God proffers that you may offer resistance.—To withstand the enemy and to stand is already the entire, difficult triumph.—We are not however once for all done with girding, putting on, grasping our arms and armor; in the midst of the conflict we must constantly look after them and keep them in order.—The contest, the enemies, the field of battle, the equipment,—that is all; but the arms, which the Spirit gives, can be managed only with the prayer of our spirit, can be attained, put on and grasped only through prayer.—An ambassador in bonds! But although bound, he can still proclaim unhindered and conduct properly his embassy.—Gerlach: Bound with a chain to a soldier, Paul preached the Gospel and dictated this Epistle, from which the Christian Church in all ages has received so much love and pleasure. On the Epistle for the 21st Sunday after Trinity [Ephesians 6:10-17].—Herberger: The hand-book (Enchiridion) of a Christian knight. 1. What kind of heart and courage such an one must have to appear in the place of review. 2. Who is his chief Captain, to whom he must have regard. 3. What kind of equipment he must have, what is the best armory, the best arsenal. 4. Who are his worst enemies. 5. How he ought and must accustom himself to his armor. 6. What a severe regimen he must carry out. 7. Finally what he has to expect, if he conduct himself in a knightly manner.—Lisco; The sacred combat of the Christian: 1. The cause for which he contends (Ephesians 6:10-11); 2. The enemies against which he contends (Ephesians 6:12-13); 3. The weapons with which he contends (Ephesians 6:14-17).—Rautenberg: Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might! How the equipment with the whole armor of God Isaiah 1) so indispensable, 2) so accessible, 3) so glorious.—Harless: The bond of Christian fellowship consists: 1) in the assurance of the same contest for all; 2) in the possession of the same arms; 3) in the command to accordant love.—Gesetz und Zeugniss [a German periodical]: The secret conflict of the Christian. 1) The secret of his danger, 2) of his strength, 3) of his victory.—Muenkel: The Apostle’s war sermon shows 1) the enemy against whom, 2) the armor in which, 3) the kingdom for which we contend.—Prφhle: The Christian warrior. 1. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ IV. CLOSE OF THE EPISTLE Ephesians 6:21-241. Personal intelligence is brought by the bearer of the letterEph_6:21-2221 But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do [the things concerning me, how I fare], Tychicus, a [the] beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things [shall make all known to you]: 22Whom I have sent unto you for the same [this very] purpose, that ye might [may] know our affairs, and that he might [may] comfort your hearts. AND Eph_6:21. But that ye also may know, ἵναδὲεἰδῆτεκαὶ ὑμεῖς.—Passing over to another subject (δέ) the Apostle hastens from the intercession for himself to a conclusion. He wishes that in order to make proper intercession for him, they might also know his condition more exactly, referring them, however, to oral communications. The καί before ὑμεῖς points to others (Bengel; perinde ut alii). The immediate antithesis is Tychicus and those who are near Paul in his imprisonment. Not merely those about him (Ephesians 6:22 : τὰ περὶ ἠμῶν), even those more remote should know respecting him. It cannot be in antithesis to the Apostle himself (Rueckert and others); this gives no meaning. Even Stier’s view: You also on your part should know what I on my part experience and suffer, does not correctly explain the καί before ὑμεῖς. To think of the Colossians (Harless, Meyer, Bleek) or of Timothy (comp. 2 Timothy 4:12) is not warranted by anything in the passage.The things concerning me, how I fare, set forth a double object of the communication: τὰ κατ̓ ἐμέ (Philippians 1:12; Colossians 4:7) denotes the external circumstances, τίπράσσω the personal demeanor and state in the same.—Tychicus—shall make all known to you.—Πάντα comprises what has already been referred to, pointing to the full and detailed deportment (γνώρίσει) of Tychicus, who is mentioned in Acts 20:4; Colossians 4:7-8; 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12, without imparting any further information than that he was a native of Asia and a serviceable companion of Paul, who here characterizes him as: The beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord.—Ὁ ἀγαπητὸςἀδελφός designates him as a stout-hearted Christian, καὶ πιστὸςδιάκονος as a reliable servant, a servant of the gospel, in accordance with the context, which indicates that Tychicus would come not for personal reasons, but in the interest of the Church (παρακαλέσητὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν), and in agreement with Colossians 4:7 (where “minister and fellow-servant in the Lord “marks him as a servant who with Paul is a δοῦλος of Christ). We should not then think (of the ecclesiastical office of the diaconate (Estius), nor yet of a personal servant to Paul himself (Meyer). The added phrase ἐνκυρίῳ, “in the Lord,” is to be joined with both ἁδελφός and διάκονος since they are connected without the article, thus confirming the reference to the ministry of the Gospel, through which he is a brother; his Christian character he manifests in the service of Christianity. Christ is the sphere of life and effort for Tychicus; hence ἐνκυρίῳ which refers back to ἀδελφός also. Ephesians 6:22. Whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, ὅνἕπεμψαπρὸςὑμᾶςεἰςαὑτὸ τοῦτο, for the very purpose, which has been already mentioned [“I have sent” is on the whole preferable to “I send” (Wordsworth) or “I sent” (Alford).—E.]—That ye may know our affairs.—Ἵ να must be parallel to the first one, as γνῶτε to εἰδῆτε, Τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν merely extends the circle: the situation, not merely of the Apostle, but of his companions also (Colossians 4:10-14; Philemon 1:10; Philemon 1:23-24). Paul does not send there merely in his own interest. And that he may comfort your hearts, καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν.—This denotes the consequence of communication, or the impression which accompanies it. Accordingly it is not necessary to give prominence to ministerial address as the signification here (Stier), Bengel: Ne offenderetis in vinculismeis. [“It is better, however, owing to our ignorance of the exact state of the church, to leave the precise reference undefined, and to extend it generally to all particulars in which they needed it” (Ellicott).—R.] AND ETHICAL1. Personal and Congregational interests stand in close connection. Still the latter are the preponderating ones; the former must fall into the back-ground. 2. Independency. The proposition of Robinson in the beginning of the 17th century: c�tum quemlibet particularem esse totam, integram et perfectam ecclesiam ex suis partibus constantem immediate et independentem [quoad alias ecclesias sub ipso Christo), cannot be justified from the Apostolic age, in which the local churches stood in active intercourse and received suggestions from various quarters. [Every attempt to carry into practice this extreme view of Robinson has resulted either in ecclesiastical anarchy or a quasi-independency, such as exists in Congregational churches.—R.] 3. Our times are successful in spreading intelligence in many ways from one parish to another. This is well both for those who desire such personally imparted communications, and for those who make a sacrifice in this service, in order to receive as well as give refreshing, revival, consolation and strength. It always happens so, where the inner life is in action, even though the organization and polity are still incomplete, as in the early churches. Care however should be taken, that there be not mixed with this a dissipation of the strength required for the immediate task, or the merest of curiosity. It is precisely the fresh, glad taking root in the local churches which bears flower and fruit to be imparted for the edification of other churches. [These remarks, so pertinent to such an event as the sending of Tychicus, have a bearing on the influence of ecclesiastical bodies on the congregations within whose bounds they assemble, but more especially on the labors of I those ministers who travel from place to place as! “evangelists,” “revival preachers.” The good and the evil attendant on their labors are clearly indicated above. Such journeyings find their parallel not in the travel of the Apostles, but in those of Tychicus.—R.] AND Comp. Doctr. Notes.—Starke:—Preachers should behave to each in a friendly, peaceable, affectionate, brotherly manner.—It pleases God very much, when preachers are concerned for their hearers, and hearers for their preachers.—Rieger:—More particular intelligence respecting each other awakens also the more fitting intercession for each other.—[It ought to be the aim of the “religious newspaper,” to do for churches and families what Tychicus was to do for Paul: Communicate such personal intelligence as would comfort the hearts of those who read. Those editors who do this rather than to minister to pride or to provoke angry discussion, well deserve the title “beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord.”—R.] Footnotes: Ephesians 6:21—[The order in B. K. L., great majority of cursives, fathers, is: εἰδῆτεκαὶ ὑμεῖς (so Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford); ΰ. A. D. E. F., Latin fathers:καὶ ὑμεῖςεἰδῆτε (so Lachmann, Ellicott). The former admits of the best explanation of the variation (see Meyer).—R.] Ephesians 6:21.—[ How I fare is less ambiguous than How I do, while the things concerning me is literal and avoids the somewhat uneuphonic juxtaposition: my affairs, how I fare.—R.] Ephesians 6:21—(“The order: ὑμῖνγνωρίδει is accepted by Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott on the authority of A. K. L. nearly all cursives, good versions, fathers, although ΰ. B. D. E. F. (Lachmann) sustain γνωρίσειὑμῖν. The probability of a conformation to Colossians 4:7 leads to this view.—The E. V. deviates from the order of the Greek, which would be best brought out by a change to the passive form: “all shall be made known to you by Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, whom I have sent,” etc. Alford: “Tychicus shall make known all to you, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, whom,” etc.—R.] Ephesians 6:22.—[ May instead of “might,” “in accordance with the law of the succession of the tenses” (Ellicott).—R.] [Alford: “As I have been going at length into the matters concerning you, so if you also on your part, wish to know,” etc. But this is scarcely an obvious antithesis. Hodge explains indefinitely: “You as well as other Christian friends who have manifested solicitude about me in my bonds.” The presence of καί here has been used as an argument in favor of the priority of the Epistle to the Colossians, who are supposed to be referred to (antithetically) in καί, but though its presence would be naturally explained were the priority of that Epistle fully established, it scarcely amounts to an argument in favor of that hypothesis.—R.] [Not “what I do,” for Paul always did one thing (Meyer).—] [Alford and Ellicott follow Meyer, in taking διάκονος in the sense of “servant,” Paul’s servant, not the servant of the Gospel; they also join ἐνκυρίῳ with this term alone, as indicating that his service for Paul was yet in Christ. But Braune’s view is the more natural one—The adjective πιστός here means “trusty,” “trustworthy,” but with no reference to the trustworthiness of his message, as Chrysostom and Bengel imply, since he was probably known to the Ephesians, though not to the Colossians (Meyer).—R.] [Alford, referring to the fact that this verse occurs word for word in Colossians 4:8, except that γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν is substituted there, asks; “Does not this variation bear the mark of genuineness with it?” Braune (Colossians, p. 82) accepts the reading which conforms exactly to this verse, but the other is defended in the additional notes.—R.] 2. Twofold salutation to the Church(Ephesians 6:23-24)23Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord 24Jesus Christ. Grace be with all them that [those who] love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity [incorruption]. Amen, [omit Amen.] AND The form of the greeting is altogether unusual; the third person, not the second, is used in spite of the direct address (Ephesians 6:21-22); instead of ὑμῖν we find in Ephesians 6:23 : τοῖςἁδελφοῖς, in the usual position of ὑμῖν after the first word of the salutation, and in Ephesians 6:24 we read: μετὰ πάντωντῶνἀηαπώντων instead of ὑμῶν. Thus a general application corresponding with the universal Epistle is strongly marked. Further we find here divided into two salutations what is elsewhere comprised in one. This points emphatically from the actual effects of grace within the Christian heart and life to the ultimate real ground of the same. Finally, the first salutation begins with “peace,” which elsewhere forms the close, and the second with “grace,” which is the usual beginning. See on Ephesians 1:2. The explanation must accept the sense of the words as used elsewhere, unless other reasons compel a departure from it. In addition this original form supports the originality of this Epistle, its Pauline origin, against the acceptance of a pseudepigraphic work. Ephesians 6:23. The first salutation. Peace be to the brethren and love with faith.—Εἰρήνηκαὶ ὰγάπημετὰ πίστεως expresses a wish for two things. Grammatically the three substantives stand in different relations to each other: the first two are connected as co-ordinate with καί, the third is joined to them with μετά, which unites more closely than καί and σύν, the latter denoting external connection, while μετά points to an external one, to a belonging together (Winer, p. 353). This has its influence on the explanation of the substantives, which must designate internal, ethical things. The first is “peace,” as the fruit of “grace,” out of which it springs (see all the Pauline salutations) [comp. Romans, p. 57], communicated through “mercy,” as the salutations in Epistles to Timothy conjoin; we must therefore refer it to peace of heart, peace with God, rest of soul. The next, “love,” is something springing out of the “peace,” hence love to the brethren, who with us have become children of Him who is Love; this love too is in the closest union with faith. “Faith is the characteristic of proper love (as Galatians 5:6), love is the characteristic of proper faith “(Harless). “There remains, however, a distinction, inasmuch as faith is the ground and beginning, bringing love with it, not the reverse” (Stier). Bengel: Fides prζsupponitur ut donum Dei. By “the brethren” we are to understand Christians in general, not those in Asia (Grotius), nor Jewish Christians in particular (Wieseler), nor yet the readers merely (Meyer). It is incorrect to take εἰρήνη=concordia (Calvin), ἀγάπη as God’s love (Bengel), or μετά=according to (Meyer). It is arbitrary to introduce here, in accordance with the salutations in the Epistles to Timothy, ἔλεος instead of ἀγάπη (Rueckert), nor is it pertinent either, since “mercy” effects “peace,” and would not occur after the latter. From God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.—Ἀπό denotes the source, as always in the salutations. Paulus conjungit (καί) causam principem (θεοῦ πατρός) cum causa secunda (κυρίουἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Comp. Ephesians 1:2; Ephesians 1:22; Philippians 2:9. Ephesians 6:24. The second salutation. Grace be with all, ἡ χάριςμετὰπὰντων.—Elsewhere (Romans 16:20; Romans 16:24; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:13 : Galatians 6:18; Philippians 4:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; Philemon 1:25) we find ἡ χάριςτοῦ κυρίουἸησοῦ Χριστοῦ; the simple ἡ χαρις only here, Colossians 4:18; 1 Tim. 6:22; 2 Timothy 4:22 (where, however, ὁ κύριοςμετὰ τοῦ πνεύματόςσου precedes); Titus 3:15. Paul, after the wish which is directed to what is subjective and ethical, points to its objective ground. The article (ἡ) marks the grace as that which is well-known to all, of which the Epistle bears testimony. The single limitation to “all” is given by the following characteristic designation: Those who love our Lord Jesus Christ, τῶνἀγαπώντωντὸνκύριονἡμῶνἸησοῦνΧριστόν.—Thus Paul gives prominence to what should be the agens in every called and baptized Christian. The twofold salutation, bordering on a parallelism, is thus to be distinguished; the first part points to the inner life of the Christian, the second to the principle on which this life is based, with its immediate effect, love to Christ. In this we find then both an advance and a justification of the explanation of ἀδελφοί. [Meyer and most find here alone the wider reference to all real Christians, corresponding to the Anathema in 1 Cor.—R.] So 1 Corinthians 16:22. Comp. John 14:21; John 14:23. Hence the first wish is not for all members of the church, and the second for genuine disciples (Stier); as if the effect were to be wished for the former, and the efficient cause only for the latter! Wieseler finds a most remarkable reference, in the first, to the Jewish Christians, as especially “brethren” after the flesh, in the second to the Gentile Christians, as though they were not brethren; no reader would have thought of this. In incorruption, ἐνἀφθαρσίᾳ (from ἄφθαρτος, incorruptus, corruptioni et interitui non obnoxius, 1 Corinthians 9:25; 1 Corinthians 15:52; Romans 1:23; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Peter 1:4; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 3:4), is used here as in 1 Corinthians 15:42; 1 Corinthians 15:50; 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; Romans 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:10, where the resurrection of the body is spoken of, and is not to be applied differently. Bengel: ἀφθαρσία dicit sanitatem labis expertem et inde fluentem perpetuitatem. The phrase is an adverbial qualification of ἀγαπώπτων, as Titus 3:15 : τοὺςφιλοῦνταςἡμᾶςἐνπίστει. [So Meyer, Alford, Hodge, and most recent commentators.] Accordingly it is inadmissible to connect it with χάρις (supplying ἔστω) with the explanation that it is=ἐνἀφθάρτοις, in whom it manifests itself (Harless, Stier and others), still more so, to join it with Χριστόν (Semler), as though the glorified Saviour, and not rather the One in the form of a servant, were the object of the love. It is not=in eternity (Matthies), that would be εἰςαἰῶνα, nor in sincerity [E. V.], either of love (Calvin, Calovius and others) or of life (Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Estius), that would be ἐνἀφθορία (Titus 2:7). Luther renders it well: unverrόcht [immovably]; the phrase denoting that the love is one belonging to incorruption, not succumbing to the fluctuations and changes of the world. Bengel, who joins it with χάρις, remarks aptly, however: Congruit cum tota summa epistolζ: et inde redundat etiam ἀφθαρσία in amorem fidelium erga Jesum Christum. [Comp. the terse and lucid note of Ellicott in loco, who, after defending the view not commonly accepted, on grammatical and lexical grounds, adds: “in incorruption, i.e., in a manner and in an element that knows neither change, diminution nor decay. Thus then this significant clause not only defines what the essence of the ἀγάπη is, but indicates that it ought to be perennial, immutable, incorruptible.” “Not a fleeting earthly love, but a spiritual and eternal one” (Alford).—R.] There inheres a mighty earnestness in these closing words, which however may not be spared even with a child; the smallest child can love its mother. Thus the conclusion returns again to the beginning, and this is the more significant, when one remembers, that Paul, who did not himself write his letters, but always dictated them (Romans 16:22), penned the salutation alone with his own hand, as Colossians 4:18 : 1 Corinthians 16:21; 2 Thessalonians 3:17, probably also Galatians 6:11-18. See Laurent, Neutestamentliche Studien, pp. 4–9. AND ETHICAL1. The Epistle began (Ephesians 1:2) and now it closes with the greeting: “grace be with you!” This grace, God’s condescending love in Christ, is the ground and the goal of all human effort directed toward salvation. 2. From grace there is first brought about in the heart of the Christian, peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, the reconciliation, which drives away the unrest caused by the re-echo in our conscience of the accusing and condemning law, making real rest of soul. Then in and by the side of peace toward God there enters love toward our neighbor; both, peace and love, in the convoy of faith which casts itself upon Christ as Lord. The objective grace works subjectively through faith and peace and love, unfolding and moulding the strength and beauty of the human character in every department of life. Christianity animates and exalts in noble activity the Divine in the human, as a whole and in particular, to a blessed and beatifying permanence. 3. We should not be brethren merely through the external church relation, but prove ourselves such in love to the Lord. This will depend on the healthfulness of our faith, which in spite of external “progress,” hindrances, dangers, influences, proves itself from the beginning to the very close by incorruptible love to the Lord Jesus. [4. The closing benediction (Ephesians 6:24). It differs from all other Pauline benedictions; not in what is wished, but in its definition of those for whom it is wished. This definition makes it a fitting close to our Epistle, the leading idea of which is: “the Church in Christ Jesus.” For we thus have a final definition of those who constitute this Church: “those who love the Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.” Extensively, then, the Church is not bounded by those external limits necessarily established by ecclesiastical organizations, nor by those logical ones as necessarily defined by detailed dogmatic statement, still less by those empirical ones set up by morbid, fanatical or spasmodic religionism. The empire of love is not co-incident with such boundaries. Still this is not the “broad” territory of indifferentism, ignorance, doubt or unbelief, for the definition is intensive also. The love has for its object “the Lord Jesus Christ,” whom Paul loved. And those who love as Paul loved, must apprehend this Object in good measure as Paul apprehended Him. No one can define how far speculative doubt about the Person of Christ leaves scope for a real love to Him as “the Lord Jesus Christ,” but love seeks to know the dear object, and those who seek Him will find Him, here or hereafter, “as He is.” Love is the best preceptor in Christology. Mere sincerity is not enough; the love must, move in a sphere, partake of a character, “perennial, immutable, incorruptible.” That Christ’s grace alone can beget such a love is evident both from the Apostle’s words and human experience. Those who have it are “in Christ,” of His Body, which, in a fuller, higher sense, like the Head, shall live and love “in incorruption,” through the same “grace.”—R.] AND Comp. Doctr. Notes. Rieger: The sum of the whole Epistle was: God in Christ, before the world began in purpose, God in Christ in the accomplishment of our destined Redemption, God in Christ in the saints, appropriation of this salvation provided for us, unto its consummation in glory; hence the benediction at the conclusion concentrates itself upon fellowship with God and His peace and His love. The smallest child in Christ, and he who is the strongest through God’s Spirit in the inner man, can unite on the precious heart-point of love to Jesus. The grace remains immovable, and out of this the love also reaches to something amaranthine, which in the heat of the contest does not fade away. Heubner: The love to Jesus must abide, must be immovable, whatever fortunes meet us, however the spirit of the age may change; else it is not pure. Sans in amore mori. Passavant: Here we have an apostolic conclusion. It is a reminder, first, of that peace, which comes down from God’s heaven alone upon our earth, into our hearts; secondly, of that love, which is pure, holy, Divine; thirdly, Paul reminds the Christians of that faith, which, inseparable from love, living and active through it, born of God, alone is pleasing to God, alone gives to God His glory, alone exalts the soul to Him. Fourthly, we are reminded of that grace, through which first and alone there comes to us all true, eternal, blessed good, continuing ours out of pure mercy and unto eternity.—The whole of vital Christianity is contained in love to Jesus. Those then who love this Jesus with their whole heart, so that in this love they look to Him alone, desire Him alone, follow Him alone, deny themselves for Him, willingly bear His cross and their cross after Him, living to Him and dying to Him—those are Christians, are God’s children, His special, His constant and dear objects of regard. Stier: If any one loves our Lord Jesus Christ, in vain and in wrong would all the churches pronounce the ban against him, nor are formulas of faith valid against him. Gerlach: The grace which is the cause of our love to Christ, becomes at the same time the reward of our love to Him; all may be hoped from Him, if one loves Him, all feared, if one does not love Him. Footnotes: Ephesians 6:24 [The Rec. inserts ἀμήν, with ΰ.3 D. K. L., most versions and fathers, but, as it is not found in ΰ.1 A. B. F. G. 2 cursives and good minor authorities, it is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Ellicott and most recent editors, as a liturgical gloss. In regard to such concluding words, the obvious rule is that good authority is sufficient to warrant a rejection, preponderating external evidence being of itself insufficient to establish the genuineness. The Subscription in the Rec., with K. L., is: πρὸςἘφεσίουςἀπὸ Ῥώμηςδιὰ Τ̔υχικοῦ. B2 has πρὸςἘφεσίὸυςἐγράφηἀποΡώμηςΰ.A. B.1 D.:προςἘφεσίους, to which F. adds ἐτελέσθη. Comp. the subscriptions to the Epistle to the Colossians.—R.] [Two, not three, for the term “brethren” presupposes “faith” there already. The form indicates also, that he wishes for them “peace “and “love” in inseparable connection with the already present “faith.” Of course the increase of “love” necessarily implies the increase of faith, but the wish is strictly a double one.—R.] [Meyer, followed by Eadie, Alford and Ellicott, takes “the brethren “here as=“you,” finding in the second benediction a wider reference; Braune, on the other hand, seems to refer to the same persons, viz., all Christians. The former view is the more obvious one, but the latter accounts for the peculiar form of the salutation, and accords with the universal character of the Epistle. Still it lays a great stress upon a form that may have no special significance.—R.] [Alford, with right, urges that this would make the Epistle end with an anticlimax, “by lowering the high standard which it has lifted up throughout to an apparent indifferentism and admitting to the apostolic blessing all those, however otherwise wrong, who are only not hypocrites in their love of Christ.”—R.] [Comp. Galatians, in loco, where the additional notes defend the view that the whole of that Epistle was penned by Paul himself. This opinion includes the presupposition that he rarely did so, strengthening therefore, not weakening, the point Dr. Braune here introduces.—R.]